Applied Energy 162 (2016) 12591271

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Selection of minimum temperature difference (DTmin) for heat

exchanger network synthesis based on trade-off plot q,qq
Suraya Hanim Abu Bakar, Mohd. Kamaruddin Abd. Hamid , Sharifah Radah Wan Alwi,
Zainuddin Abdul Manan
a
b

Process Systems Engineering Centre (PROSPECT), Research Institute of Sustainable Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia
Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia

h i g h l i g h t s

g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

 Guide on optimal DTmin selection for

exible and operable HEN.

 A trade-off plot based on DTmin that

considers CAPEX, OPEX and steady

state controllability.
 The best DTmin ranges for HEN design
as well as HEN steady state
controllability.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 24 November 2014
Received in revised form 24 June 2015
Accepted 15 July 2015
Available online 28 August 2015
Keywords:
Heat exchanger network synthesis
Design target
DT min
Flexibility
Sensitivity
Operability

a b s t r a c t
This paper presents a systematic technique to select the optimal design target for the heat exchanger
network (HEN) synthesis by using a new trade-off plot which considers aspects of design, controllability
in terms of steady state exibility and sensitivity analysis, and cost. By selecting the HEN design target
according to this guideline, the designer is able to predict the design, operability, and controllability of
the designed HEN at the beginning of the synthesis stage. In this study, the HEN design target that needs
to be optimized is the value of the minimum temperature difference (DT min ). In traditional HEN synthesis,
designers only consider the trade-off between capital and operating costs in selecting the best DT min . As a
result, the HEN design at the selected DT min may not be optimum in terms of steady state controllability.
In addition to considering the capital and operating costs, the proposed new method provides additional
design insights in terms of energy recovery, operability, controllability (steady state) through the exibility and sensitivity. The proposed trade-off plot allows designers to choose the most suitable design target
either for the purpose of improving a networks energy recovery and/or controllability. A case study has

q
This article is based on a short proceedings paper in Energy Procedia Volume 161 (2014). It has been substantially modied and extended, and has been subject to the
normal peer review and revision process of the journal. This paper is included in the Special Issue of ICAE2014 edited by Prof. J. Yan, Prof. D.J. Lee, Prof. S.K. Chou, and Prof. U.
Desideri.
qq
The short version of the paper was presented at 6th International Conference on Applied Energy 2014 (ICAE2014) conference. This paper is the full paper with signicant
revision of the previously presented short version at the Conference.
Corresponding author at: Process Systems Engineering Centre (PROSPECT), Research Institute of Sustainable Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM,
Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia. Tel.: +60 7 5535517; fax: +60 7 5536165.
E-mail address: kamaruddin@cheme.utm.my (Mohd. Kamaruddin Abd. Hamid).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.07.056
0306-2619/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1260

S.H.A. Bakar et al. / Applied Energy 162 (2016) 12591271

been applied to test the capability of the new proposed trade-off plot. The results show that DT min = 40 C
is the optimal design target to synthesize exible and operable HEN.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Heat exchanger network (HEN) is an important element for
enhancing energy efciency via heat recovery in the chemical
process industry. Extensive research has been done to improve
HENs design and synthesis over the past 40 years. Heat integration
based on the Pinch Analysis (PA) has been an established method
to enhance heat recovery in industries since its introduction by
Linnhoff and Flower [1]. PA aims to maximize energy recovery
and reduce external heating and cooling utilities.
Traditionally, a cost-effective HEN design aims to maximise heat
recovery by considering the trade-off between the capital and
operating costs for a given DT min . Sun et al. [2] investigated the
effect of DT min contribution on cost, by considering multiple utilities. Akbarnia et al. [3] applied PA to do supertargeting by considering piping cost, materials of construction and pressure rating.
Kravanja and Glavic [4] performed cost targeting on a heat exchanger network using a combination PA and a complex algorithmic
approach. The authors combined PA with a complex algorithmic
approach to target cost and to reduce feasibility region dened
over sets of discretized decision variables. Wang et al. [5] adapted
the PA technique to propose a graphical method to represent heat
duty versus time for batch streams.
After the HEN design is xed, the HEN controllability is
analyzed. Escobar and Trierweiler [6] simultaneously considered
control and optimization of an existing HEN design. Jschke and
Skogestad [7] have done self-optimizing control for stream split
of heat exchanger system. If the network is too complex, the
dynamic behavior becomes more sensitive and unstable. In such
cases, it may be necessary to apply advance process control in
order to stabilize the dynamic behavior. Iancu et al. [8] and
Giovanini and Balderud [9] proposed a proper MPC controller
approach for HEN retrot. To date, less research has focused on
HEN synthesis that considers the controllability criteria. Operational issues such as controllability have typically been neglected
at the early design stage because HEN design and control problems
have been solved separately as opposed to simultaneously. As a
result, it may not be possible to guarantee a robust performance
for such HEN designs, which may be exposed to controllability
and operability problems due to the xed and tight designs. Severe
propagation of disturbances through such process may render it to
be extremely difcult to operate or control, regardless of the
advanced control techniques used.
Research on integrating process design and process control
(IPDC) has been widely reported. Hamid et al. [10] presented the
model-based IPDC in order to solve reactionseparation system
with recycle by decomposing the problem into several stages.
Sharifzadeh and Thornhill [11] proposed an optimization framework for IPDC using the dynamic inversely controlled process
model to solve two heat-integrated series reactor. Although IPDC
research has been reported to solve chemical process system, there
are still less guidance to solve HEN that consider process design
and process control together.
There is a clear need to develop a new methodology for the
design and synthesis of a exible and operable HEN. The HEN
design can be further improved in terms of cost optimality as well
as controllability if these aspects are considered simultaneously
during the early design stage. Note that the DT min is a key parameter inuencing the HEN design and synthesis. In particular, how

the DT min affects the exibility as well as the operability of the

designed HENs needs to be studied and analyzed in detail.
This paper presents a systematic technique on how to select the
best value of DT min in order to obtain exible and operable HENs by
utilizing the new proposed trade-off plot. In the trade-off plot,
smaller DT min value gives high energy recovery with less external
energy usage (less operating cost), however, it requires larger heat
transfer area (higher capital cost) as compared to larger DT min . If
the value of DT min is bigger, the energy recovery is lower with
higher external energy usage (higher operating cost) and smaller
heat transfer area (smaller capital cost) [12]. The use of the
trade-off plot has a great potential in selecting the optimal value
of DT min to design the HEN that can satisfy process design, control,
and cost criteria. The trade-off plot is embedded into decomposition based solution strategy of the complex integrated process
design and control problem for HEN design, which includes four
sequential hierarchical sub-problems: (i) target selection, (ii) HEN
design analysis, (iii) controllability analysis, and (iv) optimal
selection and verication. The advantage of using this trade-off
plot is that the insights in terms of process design, control, and cost
performance can be obtained in the early design stage of HEN.
2. Methodology
In order to ll in the gap, a new trade-off plot has been proposed. This new trade-off plot takes into consideration ve
elements: the value of DT min , energy recovery, steady state controllability, capital and operating costs. The advantage of this trade-off
plot is that it provides insights on process design (energy
recovery), process control (steady state controllability) as well as
economics (CAPEX and OPEX) for the selected value of DT min at
the early stage of HEN design. The proposed trade-off plot is
embedded within the developed methodology for designing a exible and operable HEN as shown in Fig. 1. Accordingly, the developed methodology for designing a exible and operable HEN
is decomposed into four sequential hierarchical sub-problems:
(1) Target Selection, (2) Heat Exchanger Network Design Analysis,
(3) Controllability Analysis, and (4) Optimal Selection and
Verication.
2.1. Problem denition and formulation
Flexible and operable HENs problem is typically formulated as a
generic optimization problem whereby the multi-objective
function is maximized subject to a set of constraints: process
(dynamics and/or steady state), constitutive (thermodynamics
state), and conditional (process-control specications) constraints
[13].

max J

m X
n
X
wi;j Pi;j

i1 j1

Subjected to:
Process (dynamics and/or steady state) constraints:

dx=dt f u; x; y; d; h; Y; t

Constitutive (thermodynamic) constraints:

0 g 1 u; x; y  h

S.H.A. Bakar et al. / Applied Energy 162 (2016) 12591271

1261

Fig. 1. Methodology for designing a exible and operable heat exchanger network.

Conditional (process-control) constraints:

0 h1 u; x; y

0 6 h2 u; x; y; d

CS y uY

In Eqs. (2)(5), x and y are usually regarded as the set of process

variables in the process design and the set of state and/or
controlled variables in the process control; usually temperature,
pressure and composition. u is the set of design variables (for process design) and/or the set of manipulated variables (for process
control); d is the set of disturbance variables, h is the set of constitutions variables (heat capacities, physical properties); and t is the
independent variable (usually time).
Eq. (2) represents a generic process model from which the
steady state model is obtained by setting dx/dt = 0. Eq. (3) consists
of constitutive equations that relate the constitutive variables of a
process. Examples of constitutive variables are physical properties
and heat capacities. Eqs. (4) and (5) denote sets of equality and
inequality constraints (such as heating utility, cooling utility, heat
recovery and temperature interval) that must be satised for the
feasible operation of HEN. They can be linear or non-linear. In
Eq. (6), Y is the set of binary decision variables for the controller

structure selection (correlates to either a controlled variable is

paired with a particular manipulated variable or not).
2.2. Stage 1: target selection
In Stage 1, the objective is to dene the operational windows
and select the target for design and control solution of HENs design
problem. Operation window is dened as the range between the
shifted supply and target temperatures. Information for supply
temperature T s and target temperature T t can be extracted from
the process ow diagram (PFD). Then, the shifted supply and target
temperatures can be calculated for hot streams by using Eq. (7),
whereas, the shifted supply and target temperatures for cold
streams can be calculated by using Eq. (8). Eqs. (7) and (8) shows
that DT min is needed to calculate the shifted temperatures. Therefore, in order to choose the optimal value of DT min that can satisfy
the multi-objective function in Eq. (1), the trade-off plot is used to
guide the designers/engineers in selecting the optimal value of
DT min that satises process design, process control and economy.
Once the value of DT min has been selected, the design procedure
can be continued. For each HEN design task, the composite curves
(CC) are drawn by using the method suggested in [14]. Then, the
design target is selected and the pinch point is determined based
on the DT min found from the trade-off plot.

1262

S.H.A. Bakar et al. / Applied Energy 162 (2016) 12591271

Ts 

DT min
DT min
hT h hT t 
2
2

Ts

DT min
DT min
hT c hT t
2
2

t1 = Inlet temperature of uid 1

t2 = Outlet temperature of uid 1
T1 = Inlet temperature of uid 2
T2 = Outlet temperature of uid 2
CA = Heat capacity of uid 1
CB = Heat capacity of uid 2

2.3. Stage 2: heat exchanger network design analysis

2.4. Stage 3: heat exchanger network controllability analysis
In this stage, the grid diagram (GD) of HEN is constructed
according to the pinch point selected in Stage 1 by using method
in [15]. The objective of this step is to validate the dened target
selected in Stage 1 by nding the feasible HEN design from the perspective of process operation, with the help of a process simulator.
From process design perspective, all feasible HEN design can easily
be obtained from the GD. However, from the process operation
perspective, several criteria need to be considered such as the ft
correction factor and the temperature cross. The value of ft correction factor depends on the heat exchanger temperature effectiveness P1 , heat capacity rate ratio R1 , and ow arrangement /n
(see Eq. (9)). These problems need to be handled individually in
the heat exchanger through the use of a process simulator.
The feasibility of the HEN design needs to be checked before
proceeding to the next stage. In Stage 2, the feasibility test was
implemented to validate the HEN design obtained in Stage 1.
The information was transferred from the GD in Stage 1 to the
process simulator. The process simulator was used to test the
process feasibility of the HEN design obtained in the previous
stage. If the network is not feasible, a new value of DT min is
selected in Stage 1, and the procedure is repeated until a suitable
match is found.
In the process feasibility test, the ft correction factor for each
heat exchanger is checked. If one of the heat exchangers has a
low ft correction factor, the design can be classied as unfeasible.
A ft correction factor is dened as a ratio of the true mean
temperature difference to the log-mean temperature difference
(see Eq. (10)). In addition, the ft correction factor can also be calculated using Eq. (11) [16]. The ft correction factor value must be
greater than 0.75 in order to be considered feasible [16]. According
rule of thumbs, ft correction factor less than 0.75 form vertical
slope in common ft correction factors charts. Therefore, it is difcult to predict ft correction factor correctly.

(
Ft

ft

/1 P1; R1 /1 P2 ; R2

The objective of this stage is to evaluate the feasible candidates

obtained in the previous stage in terms of steady state controllability. Two types of steady state controllability analyses were evaluated: process exibility P2;1 and process sensitivity P2;2 . The
exibility analysis was evaluated by calculating the percentage
changes of the manipulated variables (feed owrates) that can be
tolerated by the each feasible HENs. The network that results in
the highest percentage changes in all streams of the network is
regarded as the most exible HEN design. Therefore, the exibility
(F) test can be dened as capability of the network to tolerate the
maximum manipulated variables (u) (see Eq. (14)). This test can be
performed by increasing the value of one of the feed streams owrate, and then, observe if there is any operation warning in any
heat exchanger within the network. For example, one of the feed
stream owrates is selected as a manipulated variable (u) is
adjusted and its value is increased until the operation warning
either temperature cross or ft correction factors is low is
observed. Once the operation warning is observed, then the
previous increment value is considered as the maximum value of
owrate, and percentage will then be calculated. This procedure
is repeated for all manipulated variables in the network. Then,
the averages of percentage changes for all feed streams were calculated. The highest average percentage was selected as the most
exible network.

Pin
F

14

Constraints
u = percentage of maximum manipulated variable
n = number of manipulated variable
Heat exchanger temperature crosses
Heat exchanger ft correction factors

/2 P1 ; R1 /2 P2 ; R2

DT M
q

DT LMTD UADT LMTD

10

DTM = True mean temperature difference

DTLMTD = Log mean temperature difference
q = Heat duties
U = Overall heat transfer coefcient
A = Surface area

Next, sensitivity (s) analysis was implemented to measure the

minimum effect of the controlled variables (in this study is the
stream temperature) (y) with respect to the disturbances (in this
study is feed owrate) (d) (see Eq. (15)). When the feed owrate
was increased, the temperature changes in target streams were
observed. The derivative of the controlled variable with respect
to disturbance was then calculated (dy/dd) and the minimum of
dy/dd was considered as the best option.

Pin dyi
s

q h
i
1P1
R21 1 ln 1R
1 P 1

ft
p
1P 1 1R1 P 1 P 1 R21 1
p
R1  1 ln
2
1P 1 1R1 P 1 P 1

i1 u%

11

R1 1

i1 ddi

15

y = disturbances effect
d = disturbances
n = number of streams affected by disturbance
2.5. Stage 4: optimal selection and verication

P1

t2  t1
T 1  t1

12

R1

CB T 1  T 2

CA
t2  t1

13

The objective of this stage is to select the optimal HEN design by

calculating the multi-objective function in Eq. (16) which represents the full version of Eq. (1). Calculations of the capital and operating costs were carried out at this stage. The HEN design that

1263

S.H.A. Bakar et al. / Applied Energy 162 (2016) 12591271

yields the maximum value for the multi-objective function is

considered as the optimal HEN design which satises the process
design, process control, and process economy criteria.

maxJ w1;1 P1;1 w2;1 P2;1 w2;2 1=P2;2 w3;1 1=P3;1

w3;2 1=P3;2

16

Process design objective can be achieved by maximizing P 1;1

which is the performance criteria for the maximum energy recovery. Controllability objectives can be achieved by maximizing the
process exibility P 2;1 and minimizing the process sensitivity of
controlled variables (y) with respect to disturbances (dy/dd)
P2;2 . The process economic objectives can be satised by
minimizing the capital cost term, P 3;1 and the operating cost term,
P 3;2 . wi;ji13;j1;2 are the weight factors assigned to all objective
function terms (Pi;j:i13;j1;2 ). In this case, all the objective function
terms are weighted equally so that the decision maker does not
have any preference for one objective over another.

(see Fig. 2). The trade-off plot allows one to understand the
impacts of process design, process control, and process economics
during the early stage of HEN design.
Firstly, the range of the DT min was determined in Stage 1 based
on the practical operation of heat exchanger, which was set
between 5 C and 40 C [12]. The selection of the different DT min
provides important insights on the process design, process control
and the HEN cost. A smaller DT min (at the left side of Fig. 2) would
result in a HEN with higher energy saving and a lower operating
cost. However, the smaller DT min will result in a larger heat transfer
area and a higher capital cost. In terms of process controllability, a
smaller DT min will lead to a lower controllability performance,
leading to a network that is less exible and very sensitive to
disturbances. Choosing a larger DT min (at the right side of Fig. 2)
is expected to result in the effects opposite to those obtained with
a smaller DT min . A larger DT min will result in lower energy saving,
higher operating cost, and better process controllability.
2.7. Case study application

2.6. Trade-off plot

Index

In this paper, the use of a trade-off plot is proposed in selecting

the optimal DT min for designing the exible and operable HEN. The
trade-off plot is based on ve criteria, which are process design
(maximum energy saving), process control (steady state process
exibility and process sensitivity), capital and operating costs
and DT min . According to the developed trade-off plot, the designer
will only select a suitable DT min , that would provide insights
on process design, process control and process economics

The capability of the trade-off plot is demonstrated by using an

illustrative case study. Table 1 shows the stream data for the case
study that was used to synthesize the heat exchanger network.
One should begin by considering the key goal of the HEN design
before applying the trade-off plot. For example, if the goal is to
have a HEN with a higher exibility and stability, and one that is
less sensitive to disturbances, the controllability criteria should
therefore be made a priority. Note that the need to maximize
energy saving can be fullled after the exible and controllable
HEN design has been accomplished. Therefore, in this case, more
weight factor wn;n should be applied to the process control criteria as compared to the process design criteria. Thus, a bigger DT min
should be selected for the HEN design. On the other hand, if the
goal is to design a HEN with a higher energy saving, more efforts
can be spent in making the system exible and stable after the
maximum energy recovery HEN design has been accomplished.
For this kind of problem, a smaller value of DT min is required in
the early stage of the HEN design.
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Operational window consideration

Tmin

Small T min

Moderate T min

Large T min

Energy Recovery

Controllability

Capital Cost

Operaon cost

Fig. 2. The trade-off plot showing the four important aspects of a exible and
operable HEN.

In the illustrative case study, the operational window is considered based on Eqs. (7) and (8). Eqs. (17)(22) are the operational
window for streams H1, H2, H3, C1, C2, and C3. The operational
window design target (the optimal DT min is between 5 C and
40 C.

300  C  DT min =2 < T H1 < 160  C  DT min =2

17

230  C  DT min =2 < T H2 < 120  C  DT min =2

18

160  C  DT min =2 < T H3 < 60  C  DT min =2

19

Table 1
Stream data for the HEN synthesis [17].
No

Stream

Descriptions

Supply temp. (C)

Target temp. (C)

Heat capacity owrate,

FCp (kW/C)

Enthalpy, DH (kW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

H1
H2
H3
C1
C2
C3

Reactor 1 Product
Reactor 2 Product
Distillate Product
Reactor 2 Feed 1
Reactor 2 Feed 2
Reactor 1 Feed 1

300
230
160
40
100
230

160
120
60
230
230
300

3
7
2
2
4
3

420
770
200
380
520
210

1264

S.H.A. Bakar et al. / Applied Energy 162 (2016) 12591271

40  C DT min =2 < T C1 < 230  C DT min =2

20

100  C DT min =2 < T C2 < 230  C DT min =2

21

230  C DT min =2 < T C3 < 300  C DT min =2

22

3.2. Process design analysis results

Firstly, a small DT min = 5 C was chosen from the lower limit of
the operational window dened previously. All steps of Stage 1
were then implemented. CC and GD were constructed to obtain
the energy recovery for each heat exchanger as well as the HEN
hot and cold utilities. Information from the GD construction was
then transferred to the process simulator (Aspen HYSYS), and the
HEN design feasibility was checked.
In developing the trade-off plot, a DT min range of between 5 C
and 40 C with an increment of 5 C was chosen to provide a reasonable number of HEN design candidates for testing. Altogether,
there are eight HEN design candidates to be tested; i.e. at DT min
of 5 C, 10 C, 15 C, 20 C, 25 C, 30 C, 35 C, and 40 C.
The CCs and GDs for all eight HEN designs were constructed.
Three examples of CCs and GDs are shown in Figs. 3 and 4; i.e. those
at DT min = 5 C, 25 C, and 40 C. From the CCs, the hot and cold
Pinch temperatures, energy recovery as well as the minimum hot
and cold utilities utility (Q h;min and Q c;min can be obtained. It can
be seen that the CC at DT min = 5 C shows the maximum overlap
between the hot and cold composites, and the highest potential
heat recovery (see Fig. 3a). This is expected to yield a tight HEN
design with the highest degree of integration. The CC at
DT min = 25 C shows a moderate overlap and heat recovery potential between the CCs, and is expected to yield a HEN design that
is less tight as compared to the CC at DT min of 5 C (see Fig. 3b).
The CC at DT min = 40 C shows the least overlap and heat recovery
potential between the CCs and is expected to yield a HEN design
that is less tight and more exible as compared to the CCs at
DT min = 5 C and 25 C (see Fig. 3c).
The GD was constructed by using information obtained from the
CC, and heat capacity owrate, FCp by using the method from [14].
This method can be applied even to complex and highly integrated
networks. However in this study, stream splitting is not considered. Fig. 4(a)(c) show GDs for HEN designed at DT min 5 C,
25 C, and 40 C. GDs for HEN designed at DT min 5 C (Fig. 4(a))
and 25 C (Fig. 4(b)) show the same network structure. GDs for
HEN designed at DTmin 40 C (Fig. 4(c)) shows different network
structure. The numbers of unit operations (heat exchangers, coolers, heaters) involved in the designed network can also be obtained
from the GD.
Table 2 shows the summary of results for all HEN design candidates. It can be seen that as the value of DT min increases, the energy
recovery becomes less, and total utilities duty requirement
becomes large. The aforementioned results have veried the
criteria of the rst part of the DT min trade-off plot with respect to
energy recovery (process design criteria). Note that, in addition
to the variations in energy recovery and utility duties, changes in
DT min , also give rise to different network structures. From the
process design aspect, the increase in DT min changes the pinch
temperature and results in less heat integration and higher utility
duties (refer to Fig. 3(a)(c)). Therefore, three important ndings
can be observed: (i) utility duties are increased, (ii) extra coolers
or heaters maybe needed to fulll the increment in utility duties,
and (iii) hot and cold stream matches may need to be rearranged
based on the new set of pinch temperatures. As a summary for
the Stage 2 results, the design targets at DT min = 530 C resulted
in the same network structure, but with different amounts of heat
recovery and utility duties. At DT min = 35 and 40 C however,

different HEN structures have been observed. Details of the HEN

designs at different DT min are shown in Table 2.
Table 2 shows that a lower DT min leads to higher energy recovery as compared to a larger DT min . This is because, lower DT min
results in a bigger overlap between the CCs, increases the heat
recovery potential, ultimately leading to a high degree of network
integration (see Fig. 3a). As a result, less external utilities are
required to achieve the outlet temperatures T out for hot and cold
streams in the HEN designs with lower DT min as compared to the
HEN design at a higher DT min . T out for HEs can be calculated using
Eq. (23).

Q FCpT in  T out

23

3.3. Operational analysis results

In order to ensure that the HEN design is operable to be implemented, the steady state controllability analyses in terms of
exibility and sensitivity were carried out. All information
obtained in Stage 1 including the calculated target T out of HE
streams and the network structure obtained in Stage 2 were transferred into the Aspen HYSYS process simulator for the process
feasibility analysis. Fig. 5 depicts all design candidates of HEN at
different DT min in the Aspen HYSYS environment. HEN designs at
DT min 5 C, 10 C, 15 C, 20 C, 25 C and 30 C resulted in the same
network structure (see Fig. 5(a)(c) but with different energy
recovery and utility duties. HEN designs at DT min 35 C (Fig. 5(d))
and 40 C (Fig. 5(e)) resulted in the same network structure.
However, HEN design at DT min 40 C has one extra heater.
The feasibilities of the HEN designs were analyzed in the process simulator by checking the warning errors in every single heat
exchanger. If the heat exchanger has an operation problem in the
process simulator, a yellow warning is shown in the heat exchanger interface (see Fig. 5(a) and (b)). There are two common operation warnings in the Aspen HYSYS for heat exchangers, namely, ft
correction factor is low and temperature cross. The ft correction
factor can be calculated manually by using Eqs. (11)(13). In this
feasibility test, the warning sign of temperature cross is not
expected to occur because the HEN has been properly designed
according to the Pinch Design Method in Stage 1. If one of these
warnings appears, the design can be regarded as infeasible. Designers should then select another DT min and return to the design stage
(Stage 1).
Of the eight candidates identied from Stage 1, the rst ve
candidates were considered as infeasible because they resulted in
the process simulator giving the warning of ft correction factor
is low. Fig. 5a shows that HEN designs at DT min 5 C, 10 C, and
15 C resulted in an operation warning in ve heat exchangers. In
addition, HEN designs at DT min 20 C and 25 C resulted in an operation warning for three heat exchangers (see Fig. 5(b)). However,
Fig. 5(c)(e) show that there are no operation warning in any of
the heat exchanger for HEN designs at DT min 30 C, 35 C, and
40 C. Table 2 shows the results summary and the feasibility test
for Stage 1.
Relation between ft correction factors and DT min was investigated by constructing a plot of ft correction factor for four different
heat exchangers (HE1, HE3, HE4, and HE6) in the different HEN
DT min designs versus DT min in Fig. 6. However, only the HEN design
at DT min = 530 C have been investigated because the network
structures are similar and comparable. The ft correction factors
for HE1, HE3, HE4, HE5, and HE6 were calculated only for these ve
heat exchangers since their ft correction factors value were low, as
given by the process simulator. Thus, the heat exchangers need to
be further investigated.
Fig. 6 shows that the ft correction factors for HE1, HE3, and HE6
at DT min = 5 and 10 C are undened because the values are innite.

S.H.A. Bakar et al. / Applied Energy 162 (2016) 12591271

1265

Fig. 3. Composite curves for HEN designs at (a) DT min = 5 C, (b) DT min = 25 C, and (c) DT min = 40 C.

It can be stated that the values of ft correction factors are quite low
at the small DT min for HE3, HE4, and HE6 and gradually increases as
the DT min increases. Therefore, the higher the DT min , the higher the

feasibility becomes, except for HE1. Fig. 6 shows that the curve for
HE1 is quite different because of the temperature supplies for hot
and cold streams of HE1 depend on the outlet of the previous heat

1266

S.H.A. Bakar et al. / Applied Energy 162 (2016) 12591271

Fig. 4. Grid diagrams of two different networks at: (a) DT min = 5 C, (b) DT min = 25 C, and (c) DT min = 40 C.

1267

S.H.A. Bakar et al. / Applied Energy 162 (2016) 12591271

Table 2
Results of HENs designs at different DT min based on the process design aspect.

DT min  C

Energy recovery (kW)

Total utilities duty (kW)

ft correction factor low

warning occur in heat
exchanger (unit)

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

1080
1050
1020
990
960
930
900
870

340
400
460
520
580
640
700
760

5
5
5
2
2

exchanges. Cold feed stream for HE1 is the stream 16, which is also
the outlet stream of HE4. Therefore, the temperature of this stream
depends on the heat duty of HE4. Similarly, the hot feed stream for
HE1 which is stream 20 is also the outlet stream of HE2. The
temperature of this stream also depends on the heat duty of HE2.
These explain why the HE1 curve is quite different from other
curves in Fig. 6.
In addition, ft correction factors for all heat exchangers in the
HEN design at DT min = 30 C were above the minimum requirement. Therefore, the HEN design at DT min = 30 C was found as feasible and further tested together with HEN designs at DT min = 35 C
and 40 C. The other candidates were eliminated from the option.
Based on the information obtained in Stage 1 and Stage 2, the
options were narrowed down to several feasible HENs designs from
among the eight candidates. Only three candidates were
considered as a feasible design, which included HEN designs at
DT min = 30 C, 35 C, and 40 C. These candidates were tested
further in Stage 3 and Stage 4. In Stage 3, the feasible candidates
were veried with the exibility and sensitivity tests. The exibility test procedure is as follows:
(1) Increase the value of the manipulated variable which is the
feed owrate of stream H1 until the operation warning
occurs.
(2) Note down the maximum owrate that the network can tolerate, and then change back the owrate of stream H1 to the
initial value.
(3) Repeat steps 12 for the feed owrates of streams H2; C1
and C2.
(4) Calculate the average maximum of the increment owrate.
(5) Repeat steps 14 for the feed temperature.
The results of the exibility test are summarized in Table 3. It
can be seen that after the exibility test was done, the HEN design
at DT min = 30 C was less exible. Note that, even though the design
at DT min = 30 C was feasible, the network structure cannot tolerate
even the minimum feed owrate changes in the network involving
1 C change in temperature and 1 kg/h change in owrate. As a
result, this candidate was eliminated in the next analysis.
Therefore, the only remaining feasible candidates for the exibility
and sensitivity tests were designs at DT min = 35 C and 40 C.
Results for the exibility test shows that the candidate at
DT min = 40 C is more exible than the other design (see Table 3).
HEN candidates with the higher exibility can be the optimal
candidate for the process control, because they are more robust
and capable in maintaining the controlled variables with higher
owrate.
The next step is to do the sensitivity analysis. In this case, the
sensitivity test only involves the changes of feed stream temperatures since it is considered as the disturbance for the network.
Since only HEN design candidates at DT min = 35 C and 40 C are

Unit operation (unit)

Heat exchanger

Cooler

Heater

6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2

considered as feasible and exible designs, therefore, the sensitivity analysis were done for both designs. The sensitivity test consists of six steps:
(1) Increase the feed temperature for stream H1 to about 2%
from the initial.
(2) Note down the temperature changes in all streams.
(3) Calculate the derivative temperature effect of dy/dd for all
streams after the disturbance changes are applied.
(4) Change the temperature of stream H1 back to the initial
value.
(5) Repeat steps 14 for the temperature of streams H2; C1 and
C2.
(6) Calculate the average derivative value of the controlled
variables (temperatures in all streams except feed streams
temperature) with respect to disturbance dy/dd.
HEN design with higher sensitivity criteria is not a good design
since it will be too sensitive to the smaller changes in disturbances,
hence makes it very difcult to be controlled. The results of the
sensitivity analysis are summarized in Table 3. Note that the
design at DT min = 35 C is more sensitive than the other design.
3.4. Validation of the exible and operable HEN based on cost and
objective function
The remaining candidates were then further tested in Stage 4. In
this stage, the capital and operational costs for both HEN designs
were calculated. The heat exchanger surface area was calculated
by using Eqs. (24) and (25). The capital cost can be estimated from
the purchased cost diagram [18] by using the area obtained from
Eq. (10) and by assuming an ft value of 1. Calculations of the operating cost depend on the external utility obtained from Stage 1. The
calculated capital and operating costs are shown in Table 4. From
the results, it can be conrmed that the total heat exchanger area
for HEN designed at DT min = 35 C is less than the one designed at
DT min = 40 C. However, this observation contradicted with the
trade-off prediction. The reason is that, the number of units for
the HEN designed at DT min = 35 C was 1 unit less than the HEN
designed at DT min = 40 C (see Fig. 5d). Therefore, the total heat
exchanger area for the HEN designed at DT min = 40 C is slightly
larger than the one at DT min = 35 C.
Both candidates were then validated by calculating the
multi-objective function by using Eq. (16). However, before calculating the multi-objective function, the value of the objective
function, Px;x needed to be normalized. Since the range and unit
of each objective function value can be different, each objective
value was normalized with respect to its maximum value, as
shown in Table 5.
In this case, all the objective function terms are weighted
equally so that the decision-maker does not have any preference

1268

S.H.A. Bakar et al. / Applied Energy 162 (2016) 12591271

Fig. 5. HEN designs representation in the Aspen HYSYS process simulator: (a) DT min = 5, 10, 15 C, (b) DT min = 20, 25 C, (c) DT min = 30 C, (d) DT min = 35 C, and
(e) DT min = 40 C.

S.H.A. Bakar et al. / Applied Energy 162 (2016) 12591271

1269

Fig. 5 (continued)

for one objective over another. However, if the designer prefers to

build HEN that favors the design criteria, a higher weight factor can
be assigned to the design side (w1;1 and the network design may
be initiated with a small range of DT min . On the other hand, if the
designer prefers better HEN controllability, a higher weight factor
can be assigned to the controllability instead (w2;1 and w2;2 ).
If we consider the multi-objective function individually, the
HEN at DT min = 35 C is better because the network is able to get
higher energy recovery and less operating cost. On the other hand,
the HEN at DT min = 40 C is better in terms of steady state controllability that includes exibility and sensitivity analyses. However,
according to the calculations that was performed using Eq. (16),
the best candidate was the HENat DT min = 40 C because it resulted
in a bigger J value as compared to the other candidate. The results
of the multi-objective function calculations in Table 5 shows that

the HEN design at DT min = 40 C resulted in the maximum J value

(the number shown in bold in Table 5).
Based on the results from Table 5, a new trade-off plot was constructed using the DT min value as the x-axis and the P x;xs value as
the y-axis (see Fig. 7). Note that the HEN design at smaller DT min
resulted in better energy recovery and less operating cost.
However, from the process control aspect, it has less exibility
and was more sensitive towards disturbances.

Q UADT LMTD
Q = rate of heat transfer
U = mean overall heat transfer coefcient
A = heat transfer surface area
DTLMTD = Log mean temperature different

24

1270

S.H.A. Bakar et al. / Applied Energy 162 (2016) 12591271

1.05

1.05

0.95

Multi Objective Index

 correcon factors

0.95

0.85

0.75

0.65

0.85

0.75

0.65
0.55

0.55
35

0.45
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Tmin

Tmin
HE1

HE3

HE4

HE6

HE5

Fig. 6. Calculated ft correction factors for HEN designs at DT min = 530 C.

Energy Recovery

Sensivity

Flexibility

Capital Cost

Operaon Cost

Fig. 7. Trade-off plot constructed for the two different HEN designs.
Table 3
Controllability analysis results for designed HENs at different DT min .

4. Conclusions

DTmin (C)

Feasibility

Flexibility (f), %

Sensitivity (s), dy/dd

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

Not exible
24.720
42.183

1.580
1.065

Table 4
Capital and operating costs of the HEN designs at DT min = 35 C and 40 C.

DTmin

Capital cost ($)

Operating cost ($/annual)

35
40

10,571
10,714

107,100
118,800

DT LMTD

Dt 1  Dt 2
lnDt 1 =Dt 2

25

The systematic technique in selecting the design target for HEN

synthesis by using the trade-off plot has been successfully developed. The utilization of the trade-off plot in selecting the optimal
DT min to design exible and operable heat exchanger network
has been proposed. The trade-off plot is based on several criteria
that include design (energy recovery), operability (feasibility) and
steady state controllability (exibility and sensitivity), capital and
operating costs, and DT min . One can gain insights on the impacts
of a selected DT min on the design, control, and cost. As DT min
decreases, energy recovery increases thereby reducing the operating cost. However, the operability and controllability decline as
DT min decreases. On the other hand, the capital cost depends on
the unit operation involved in the network. Even though the optimization solution does not consider global optimization; it allows
weight factors to be set to the desired criteria. The advantage of
using the trade-off plot is that it allows designers to assess the
impacts of the design, control, and cost in the early stage of the
HEN design. In addition, the trade-off plot has the capability to
predict the optimal design target, DT min , while considering the
operability and exibility aspects at the early HEN synthesis stage.
Acknowledgements

Dt1 = Thot(uid in)  Tcold(uid out).

Dt2 = Thot(uid out)  Tcold(uid in).

Financial supports from the Malaysian Ministry of Education

(MOE), the Exploratory Research Grant Scheme (ERGS

Table 5
Multi-objective function calculations.
Energy recovery (design)

Flexibility (control)

Sensitivity (control)

Capital cost (design)

Operating cost (design)

Design/control value, Px;x

DT min 35 C
DT min 40 C

P1;1
900.000
870.000

P2;1
24.720
44.183

P2;2
1.580
1.065

P3;1
10,571
10,714

P3;2
107,100
118,800

Normalize value, Px;xs

DT min 35 C
DT min 40 C

P1;1s
1.000
0.967

P2;1s
0.586
1.000

P2;2s
1.000
0.674

P3;1s
0.986
1.000

P3;2s
0.902
1.000

Multi-objective function value

DT min 35 C
DT min 40 C

P1;1s
1.000
0.967

P2;1s
0.586
1.000

1=P2;2s
1.000
1.484

1=P3;1s
1.013
1.000

1=P3;2s
1.109
1.000

4.862
5.451

S.H.A. Bakar et al. / Applied Energy 162 (2016) 12591271

R.J130000.7844.4L036) and the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

(UTM) Research University Grant Scheme (RUGS Flagship
Q.J130000.2444.00G52) are highly acknowledged.

References
[1] Linnhoff B, Flower JR. Synthesis of heat exchanger networks: I. Systematic
generation of energy optimal networks. AIChE J 1978;24:63342.
[2] Sun KN, Wan Alwi SR, Manan ZA. Heat exchanger network cost optimization
considering multiple utilities and different types of heat exchangers. Comput
Chem Eng 2013;49:194204.
[3] Akbarnia M, Amidpour M, Shadaram A. A new approach in pinch technology
considering piping costs in total cost targeting for heat exchanger network.
Chem Eng Res Des 2009;87:35765.
[4] Kravanja Z, Glavic P. Cost targeting for HEN through simultaneous
optimization approach: a unied pinch technology and mathematical
programming design of large HEN. Comput Chem Eng 1997;21:83353.
[5] Wang Y, Wei Ying, Feng Xiao Chu, Khim Hoong. Synthesis of heat exchanger
networks featuring batch streams. Appl Energy 2014;114:3044.
[6] Escobar M, Trierweiler JO. Bypass design for control and optimization of heat
exchanger networks. In: Rita Maria de Brito Alves CAOdN, Evaristo Chalbaud B,
editors. Computer aided chemical engineering. Elsevier; 2009. p. 166570.
[7] Jschke J, Skogestad S. Optimal operation of heat exchanger networks with
stream split: only temperature measurements are required. Comput Chem Eng
2014;70:3549.

1271

[8] Iancu M, Cristea MV, Agachi PS. Retrot design of heat exchanger network of a
uid catalytic cracking plant and control based on MPC. Comput Chem Eng
2013;49:20516.
[9] Giovanini L, Balderud J. Control and operation of heat exchanger networks
using model predictive control. In: 2nd International workshop on networked
control systems. Rende, Italy; 2006. p. 516.
[10] Hamid MKA, Sin G, Gani R. A new model-based methodology for simultaneous
design and control of reaction-separation system with recycle. In: Jacek J, Jan
T, editors. Computer aided chemical engineering. Elsevier; 2009. p. 83945.
[11] Sharifzadeh M, Thornhill NF. Integrated design and control using a dynamic
inversely controlled process model. Comput Chem Eng 2013;48:12134.
[12] Shenoy UV. Heat exchanger network synthesis:: process optimization by
energy and resource analysis. Texas: Gulf Professional Publishing; 1995.
[13] Russel BM, Henriksen JP, Jrgensen SB, Gani R. Integration of design and
control through model analysis. Comput Chem Eng 2002;26:21325.
[14] Klemes J, Friedler F, Bulatov I, Varbanov P. Sustainability in the process
industry: integration and optimization. New York: Integration and
Optimization: McGraw Hill; 2010.
[15] Linnhoff B, Hindmarsh E. The pinch design method for heat exchanger
networks. Chem Eng Sci 1983;38:74563.
[16] Shah RK, Sekulic DP. Frontmatter. Fundamentals of heat exchanger design. San
Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2007.
[17] Wan Alwi SR, Manan ZA. STEPa new graphical tool for simultaneous
targeting and design of a heat exchanger network. Chem Eng J
2010;162:10621.
[18] Peters MS, Timmerhaus KD, West RE. Plan design and economics for chemical
engineers. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2004.