Energy 250 (2022) 123790

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Total site exergy analysis, using a new conceptual method

Fariba Mehdizadeh, Nassim Tahouni*, M. Hassan Panjeshahi
School of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this research, a new graphical tool entitled Omega Total Site Profile (OTSP) is introduced to simply
Received 27 August 2021 calculate the exergy destruction and losses within a total site. This new diagram is obtained by the
Received in revised form development of Omega Composite Curves (OCC) used for exergy destruction and loss calculations within
15 February 2022
an individual process. The OTSP diagram is linear and the enclosed area between process and utility
Accepted 17 March 2022
streams has a rectangular shape and shows the thermal exergy destruction and losses within a total site.
Available online 17 March 2022
Having combined the new diagram with a mathematical optimization like Genetic Algorithm, a method
to a new design or retrofit a total site is presented. Next, two case studies are used to demonstrate the
Keywords:
Total Site Heat Integration
performance of the proposed diagram and the optimization procedure. In the first total site case study by
Combined Pinch and Exergy Analysis considering flexible temperature levels for utilities, the optimum scheme resulted in 14.6% and 24% lower
Energy saving exergy destruction and losses compared to the current design with fixed temperature levels for utilities.
Exergy destruction and loss In the second total site case study, by considering three temperature levels of utilities, the optimum heat
Omega Total Site Profile recovery design resulted in 24% lower exergy destruction and losses compared to the base case.
© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction section is mainly the ammonia synthesis and refrigeration cycles.

Using pinch technology and exergy analysis separately contains
some shortcomings. The main limitation of Pinch Analysis (PA) is
that only temperature is considered as a design variable, and it
cannot deal with processes with changes in pressure or composi-
tions. This drawback was eliminated by using Combined Pinch and
Exergy Analysis (CPEA). In this regard, Linnhoff and Dhole (1992)
replaced the temperature axis of the Composite Curves and Grand
Composite Curve (GCC) by Carnot factor (hC) and presented two
diagrams of Exergy Composite Curves (ECC) and Exergy Grand
Composite Curve (EGCC) for design and optimization of processes
by CPEA. The vertical axis of these diagrams is the Carnot factor and
the horizontal axis is enthalpy. Since the enclosed area between hot
and cold composites in ECC and the enclosed area between EGCC
and utilities show the thermal exergy destruction and losses, the
minimum shaft work and exergy destruction and losses can be
achieved directly by changing the utility levels. Many researchers
have used these curves for energy studies [1].
Panjeshahi et al. (2008) divided an ammonia plant into two
sections of the hot-end and the cold-end and presented some
recommendations to improve energy efficiency. The cold-end
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ntahuni@ut.ac.ir (N. Tahouni).
They used the EGCC diagram to minimize exergy destruction and
losses and compressors' power demands in the cold-section of an
industrial ammonia plant by suggesting new refrigeration levels
[2]. Ataei (2011) used the EGCC diagram to correct the temperature
levels of refrigeration cycles of an olefin plant in order to reduce
exergy destruction and losses and compressors’ power consump-
tion. The results showed that this modification could be performed
with a reasonable investment and payback period [3]. Tahouni et al.
(2013) suggested three levels of modifications for an industrial
olefin plant, which are (1) optimization of operating parameters of
separation columns, (2) optimization of refrigeration cycles, and (3)
simultaneously optimization of columns parameters and refriger-
ation cycles. They determined the optimum levels of refrigeration
by changing the enclosed area between EGCC and refrigeration
levels to reduce exergy destruction and losses [4]. Sardarmehni
et al. (2017) set a benchmark for compressor power consumption in
olefin plant cold-end. They developed a conceptual-mathematical
model to target the potential of energy saving in olefin plants.
Using EGCC, the appropriate refrigeration levels were selected to
minimize exergy destruction and losses [5].
Although by developing the CPEA methods some shortcoming
was eliminated, the ECC and EGCC diagrams are non-linear, and it is
still difficult to calculate the enclosed area. In addition, these curves
show only thermal exergy destruction and losses. The mechanical
and chemical exergy destruction and losses cannot be calculated

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.123790
0360-5442/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Mehdizadeh, N. Tahouni and M.H. Panjeshahi Energy 250 (2022) 123790

Nomenclature CW Cooling Water

ECC Exergy Composite Curves
EGCC Exergy Grand Composite Curve
Symbols Exergy-TSP Exergy Total Site Profile
CP Heat capacity flowrate EX-PTA Exergy Problem Table Algorithm
H Enthalpy GA Genetic Algorithm
T Real temperature GCC Grand Composite Curve
Ts Supply temperature HEN Heat Exchanger Network
Tt Target temperature HPS High-Pressure Steam
T0 Ambient temperature HW Hot Water
T* Shifted temperature LPS Low-Pressure Steam
T** Double shifted temperature MPS Medium-Pressure Steam
TLM1-2 Logarithmic temperature between T1 and T2 OCC Omega Composite Curves
U Energy level OGCC Omega Grand Composite Curve
hC Carnot factor OTSP Omega Total Site Profile
hC,ave Average Carnot factor PA Pinch Analysis
DTmin Minimum temperature approach PTA Problem Table Algorithm
DTmin, PP Process-to-Process minimum temperature approach SCC Site Composite Curves
DTmin, PU Process-to-Utility minimum temperature approach SSSP Site Source Sink Profile
DH Enthalpy change SUCC Site Utility Composite Curves
DEx Exergy change SUGCC Site Utility Grand Composite Curve
TSHI Total Site Heat Integration
Abbreviations TSP Total Site Profile with Real Temperature
CC Composite Curves TSP** Total Site Profile with Double Shifted Temperature
ChExCC Chemical Exergy Composite Curves TS-PTA Total Site Problem Table Algorithm
ChExCT Chemical Exergy Cascade Tables UTSHI Unified Total Site Heat Integration
ChExPA Chemical Exergy Pinch Analysis VHP Very High-Pressure
CPEA Combined Pinch and Exergy Analysis

since the pressure, and composition changes are not considered in
these diagrams.
Later, to calculate the exergy destruction and losses of all tem-
perature, pressure, and composition changes, Feng and Zhu (1997)
introduced the U-H diagram using CPEA. Omega is defined as the
ratio of exergy to enthalpy in which the omega shows the energy
level and the H shows the enthalpy [6]. Sahafzadeh et al. (2013)
investigated the energy/exergy efficiency increase of an ammonia
plant. Using U-H diagram, they identified the proper location of a
gas turbine integrated with an ammonia synthesis loop [7]. Azadi
et al. (2016) evaluated a methanol plant's energy/exergy efficiency
improvement. Using U-H diagram, they considered a gas turbine to
utilize the exergy of outlet stream in methanol synthesis reactor
[8]. In the cases that we have only thermal exergy changes, omega
is equivalent to the Carnot factor and the U-H diagram is the same
as ECC diagram. So, the U-H diagram for a heat exchanger network
(HEN) is non-linear and still difficult to calculate the exergy
destruction and losses simply [6].
To do this, Marmolejo-Correa and Gundersen (2013) presented
linear exergy composite curves. This diagram shows a linear rela-
tionship between the exergetic temperature in the vertical axis and
temperature-based exergy as a horizontal axis. Since these curves
are linear, calculating the exergy destruction and losses is simple
and with less error compared to the previous diagrams. These di-
agrams were analyzed with an assumption that the heat transfer is
vertical similar to composite curves in pinch [9]. Hamsani et al.
(2018) reviewed the exergy targeting with the concept of hori-
zontal heat transfers. They presented a numerical tool for exergy
targeting called Exergy-PTA. It gives more realistic results since this
method uses horizontal heat transfers rather than vertical. Owing
to the linearity of these graphs, it is easy to calculate the loss, but
drawing these curves is so difficult [10].
Most recently, Panjeshahi and Tahouni (2019) introduced new
diagrams with a new definition of omega to simplify calculating the
exergy destruction and losses more accurately. Unlike the ECC and
EGCC, the two new diagrams, Omega Composite Curves (OCC) and
Omega Grand Composite Curve (OGCC) are linear and can calculate
the thermal exergy destruction and losses very simply. They proved
that the enclosed area within the OCC and OGCC is equal to the
enclosed area within the ECC and EGCC. The capability of the new
diagrams was evaluated in a single-stage and a multi-stage refrig-
eration cycle designed to supply the cooling requirements of a
process. The new linear curves can easily be plotted and indicated
the share of inefficiencies occurring in different unit operations
within a refrigeration cycle [11]. Shivaee-Gariz et al. (2020) pre-
sented a comprehensive method for designing and optimizing a
process using the OCC and OGCC diagrams. Thus, the thermal
exergy destruction and losses within a HEN can readily be calcu-
lated and also needed modifications to increase the efficiency of
refrigeration systems, can graphically be recommended. To inves-
tigate the accuracy of the new method, they studied a PRICO pro-
cess and an ammonia refrigeration cycle (Panjeshahi et al., 2008)
[12]. Safder et al. (2020) proposed a novel Chemical Exergy Pinch
Analysis (ChExPA) method to maximize the recovery of chemical
exergy using pressure retarded osmosis technology in a sugar mill
plant. Chemical Exergy Composite Curves (ChExCC) as a graphical

2
F. Mehdizadeh, N. Tahouni and M.H. Panjeshahi
tool and Chemical Exergy Cascade Tables (ChExCT) as a numerical
tool were introduced to achieve maximum waste energy recovery.
Three scenarios were investigated to use all chemical exergy po-
tentials in water discharges, drainages and condensates, and overall
discharges and byproducts [13].
Nowadays, pinch technology has been extended from heat
integration of an individual process to heat integration between
multiple processes called total site. Total Site Heat Integration
(TSHI) is a proven tool for integrating heat indirectly within a set of
processes using a central utility system, which was introduced by
Dhole and Linnhoff (1993). They presented a graphical diagram, site
source sink profile (SSSP), for a total site using the GCCs of all in-
dividual processes [14]. The TSHI method was further developed by
Raissi (1994) for increasing the energy efficiency in total sites. The
maximum heat recovery between utilities was achieved by moving
the Site Composite Curves (SCC) towards each other. The total site
pinch is created when the sink side and source side of the total site
collide with each other and it also is the limitation of this method
[15]. Liew et al. (2012) presented a numerical method called Total
Site-Problem Table Algorithm (TS-PTA) for TSHI that is derived from
the Problem Table Analysis (PTA) for a single process. This method
has more realistic results than the previous graphical methods [16].
The TSHI has different methods for optimizing the numbers and
temperatures of utility levels. Nemet et al. (2014) proposed a new
mathematical model to design a cost-effective HEN for the total site
utility system and obtain optimal temperatures for the intermedi-
ate utilities [17]. Nemet et al. (2015) then further introduced a new
total site optimization model, including pressure levels selection
for intermediate utilities to optimize total site based on fluctuating
utility prices [18]. Tarighaleslami et al. (2017) improved the con-
ventional targeting method for TSHI and presented a new method
called Unified Total Site Heat Integration (UTSHI), which can use for
both isothermal and non-isothermal (hot and cold water, hot oil)
utilities. They stated that targets from the conventional method are
often over-estimates TSHI for non-isothermal utilities. The advan-
tage of the new method was demonstrated in three case studies,
including a Dairy Processing Factory, a Kraft Pulp Mill and a
Petrochemical Complex [19].
Exergy analysis is often used for the optimization of process heat
integration. Hackl and Harvey (2013) obtained the minimum shaft
work for a refrigeration system of a total site by using of exergy
analysis and they proposed Exergy Total Site Profile (Exergy-TSP)
curve. The Exergy-TSP was obtained by using the information about
hot and cold streams and utilities in the total site and also by
converting the temperature axis in Total Site Profile (TSP) to the
Carnot factor in Exergy-TSP. The method used in their research is to
increase heat recovery. They cooled down the sub-ambient hot
process streams by using the sub-ambient cold process streams to
save cold utility and reduce the power demand for refrigeration.
Since the enclosed area between process and utility streams in this
diagram shows the total exergy destruction and losses in the total
site, the minimum shaft work and exergy destruction and losses
can be achieved by changing the utility levels. But as this diagram is
non-linear, it is difficult to calculate the exact amount of total
exergy destruction and losses [20]. Farhat et al. (2015) combined a
mathematical formulation of the total site analysis with exergy
analysis to increase heat recovery between multiple plants. The
heat transfer networks and thermodynamic systems (such as heat
pump, adsorption chiller, Organic Rankine Cycles, …) can simul-
taneously be considered by this method. Having a deep
3
Energy 250 (2022) 123790
understanding of energy integration in thermodynamic systems
using exergy analysis, an advanced optimization procedure for
energy recovery is carried within a total site [21]. Pirmohamadi
et al. (2019) determined an optimal design of total heat and power
cogeneration systems consisting of four different arrangements of
back pressure steam turbines using exergy analysis in total site. Use
of a gas turbine and a condensing turbine to supply more electricity
demand is also investigated. Finally, they presented an optimum
configuration of cogeneration system in total site consisting of back
pressure steam turbines and a condensing turbine [22]. Shokri et al.
(2021) found the optimum configuration of a cogeneration system
in the total site from an exergo-economic perspective. They
investigated two case studies based on minimum exergy destruc-
tion rate, maximum exergy efficiency, minimum total capital cost
rate and minimum exergy destruction cost rate. They realized that
the combined back pressure steam turbines and gas turbines are
the optimal arrangement of the cogeneration system in total site
[23].
Although many works have been done in the area of optimiza-
tion of TSHI, there is still a gap in calculating the optimal exergy
destruction and losses and decreasing shaft power consumption in
total sites through an easier way.
This paper aims to present a new simple diagram for calculating
exergy destruction and losses in total sites. Given the OCC diagram
to calculate exergy destruction and losses of individual processes,
here a new diagram for exergy calculation in a total site, (Omega
Total Site Profile) OTSP, is developed. The enclosed area between
process and utility streams in this diagram that shows the exergy
destruction and losses is rectangular, so calculating the total exergy
destruction and losses is simpler and more accurate. The main
novelty of this research is that OTSP can be combined with a
mathematical optimization like the Genetic Algorithm (GA) to
create a simple framework to design a total site and identify the
possible improvements.
The current paper consists of five major parts. First, all graphical
and numerical methods to calculate exergy destruction and losses
within a HEN are reviewed. Second, OTSP diagram is introduced as
a new linear graphical tool to calculate exergy destruction and loss
within total sites. In this section, it is proved that the area enclosed
in OTSP is the same as Exergy-TSP. Third, a procedure to find
optimal utility levels in a total site using OTSP and GA is presented.
Two total site case studies are demonstrated in the fourth and fifth
sections.
2. Methodology
2.1. Construction of ECC and EGCC
As it was mentioned in the introduction, the ECC and EGCC di-
agrams were first presented by Linnhoff and Dhole (1992). When
Table 1
Stream data of a process.
Stream TS ( C) Tt ( C) DH (MW) CP (MW/ C)
Cold 1 20 180 32 0.2
Cold 2 140 230 27 0.3
Hot 1 250 40 31.5 0.15
Hot 2 200 80 30 0.25
F. Mehdizadeh, N. Tahouni and M.H. Panjeshahi
Fig. 1. CC and ECC for the process.
the temperature axis of Composite Curves and GCC diagrams is
replaced by the Carnot factor (1-T0/T), the straight lines of the hot
and cold composites of the ECC and EGCC diagrams become curved.
Table 1 shows stream data for a process. The corresponding Com-
posite Curves and ECC at DTmin of 10  C are shown in Fig. 1. It in-
dicates that the minimum required hot and cold utilities are 7.5 and
10 MW. The ambient temperature of T0 is considered 298 K. Simi-
larly; the GCC can be converted to EGCC.
2.2. Construction of OCC for calculation of exergy destruction and
losses within a process
The U-H diagram is a graphical representation tool to analyze
thermal, composition change, and mechanical exergy destruction
and losses within the processes. The general definition of U is the
ratio of exergy to enthalpy based on Eq. (1) (Feng and Zhu, 1997).
DEx
U¼
DH
In the case of only temperature changes in a process, like in
HENs, the U is equal to the average Carnot factor according to Eq.
(2).
Fig. 2. A typical T-H, hc-H, and U-H diagrams for a process.
Energy 250 (2022) 123790
T0
U¼1 ¼ hC; ave (2)
TLM;1 2
Fig. 2(a) and (b) show the process-to-process section of
temperature-enthalpy (Composite Curves) and Carnot factor (hC)-
enthalpy curves (ECC) for the stream data shown in Table 1. The
area between the ECC curves represents the exergy destruction and
loss in the HEN. Fig. 2(c) depicts the OCC diagram. The OCC diagram
presented by Panjehshahi and Tahouni (2019) is obtained by
replacing the temperature axis in Composite Curves with the
average Carnot factor. To construct an OCC, the Composite Curves
are divided into enthalpy intervals. There is a hot and cold com-
posite segment in each interval. Using two temperatures at the
ends of each segment, the average Carnot factor is calculated based
(1)
on Eq. (2). Then each interval converts to two horizontal lines in the
U-H diagram. The enclosed area in the OCC, which involves several
rectangles, represents the same area of ECC. It is verified for the
enthalpy interval I, as shown in Table 2.
4
F. Mehdizadeh, N. Tahouni and M.H. Panjeshahi Energy 250 (2022) 123790

Table 2
Calculation of enclosed area on interval I for ECC and U-H diagrams.

ECC Diagram U-H Diagram

T T1 DH ¼ H 2 H1
Hot SegmentT ¼ a1 ðH H1 Þ þ T1 : a1 ¼ 2
H2 H1
To To


H2 1
To a1 DEx TLM:1 2
hC ¼ 1 ¼1 U¼ ¼
T T DH H2
ðH H1 Þ þ 1
a1
T T3 To


Cold SegmentT ¼ a2 ðH H2 Þ þ T3 : a2 ¼ 4 Hot Segment: U1 ¼ 1
H2 H1 TLM:1 2
To To


Cold Segment: U2 ¼ 1
To a2 TLM:3 4
hC ¼ 1 ¼1
T T
ðH H2 Þ þ 3
a2
HR2 Area ¼ DHðU1 U2 Þ
Area ¼ ðhC;hot segment hC;cold segment Þ:dH
H1
To T To T T4 T2 !
   
Area ¼ DH ln 2 DH þ ln 4  ln ln
a1 T1 a2 T3 T3 T1
Area ¼ To DH
T4 T3 T2 T1
T T
 ln 4 ln 2 !
T3 T1
Area ¼ To DH
T4 T3 T2 T1

Table 3
Stream data for process A and B.

Process A

Stream TS ( C) Tt ( C) DH (kW) CP (kW/ C)

Cold 1 50 120 4900 70

Cold 2 50 220 2550 15
Hot 1 200 100 2000 20
Hot 2 150 60 3600 40

Process B

Stream TS ( C) Tt ( C) DH (kW) CP (kW/ C)

Cold 1 30 200 680 4

Cold 2 50 250 400 2
Hot 1 200 50 4500 30
Hot 2 240 100 210 1.5
Hot 3 200 119 1863 23

Fig. 3. GCC for process A and B.

2.3. Construction of new diagram (OTSP) for calculation of exergy
destruction and losses within a total site
A new graphical tool for exergy destruction and loss calculations
in total site, Omega Total Site Profile (OTSP) diagram, is drawn using
the same method used to draw OCC. To demonstrate how an OTSP
is drawn, a total site consisting of two processes of A and B is
considered. Table 3 shows the stream data, and Fig. 3 depicts the
GCCs.
Fig. 4 shows the TSP with a real temperature. The heat pockets
on all individual GCCs are first removed to construct this diagram.
Then for above the pinch regions, heat sink segments from all

5
F. Mehdizadeh, N. Tahouni and M.H. Panjeshahi Energy 250 (2022) 123790

Table 5
Current cold utility demand (Hackl and Harvey, 2013).

Cold utility level temperature ( C) Current cold utility demand DH (kW)

9 4753
21 19,250
40 38,340
62 930
84 7320
100 1060

Fig. 4. TSP for the total site with the real temperatures.

Fig. 6. TSP for a chemical cluster (Hackl and Harvey, 2013) (1)- Site Source Profile (2)-
Cold Utility Profile (3)- Site Sink Profile.

Fig. 5. OTSP for the total site with the real temperatures.

Table 4
Stream data related to hot source profile of a total site (Hackl and Harvey, 2013).

No. TS ( C) Tt ( C) DH (kW)
1 24 14 530
2 27 16 1190
3 27 11 2600
4 27 16 433
5 8 10 10,820
6 10 16 4280
7 14 15 1600
8 15 16 1490
9 32 9 790
10 8 16 270
11 27 28 19,590
12 26 36 4480
13 24 35 2080
14 19 35 2340
15 15 24 9000
16 10 34 850 Fig. 7. OTSP for hot steams of a chemical cluster (1)- Omega Site Source Profile (2)-
17 34 39 610 Cold Utility Profile.
18 27 96 320
19 53 81 1250
20 43 76 6070 Table 6
21 90 97 645 Comparison of exergy destruction and losses calculated by OTSP and Exergy-TSP for
22 90 97 245 source side.
23 57 96 170
Exergy destruction and losses (MW) OTSP Exergy-TSP

Exergy destruction and losses of cold utilities 18.3 18.1

individual GCCs are shifted by a half of minimum temperature Exergy destruction and losses of hot streams 12.7 12.7
Total site exergy destruction and losses 5.6 5.4
approach (þ1/2DTmin) and combined to obtain the sink side profile.
For below the pinch regions, heat source segments from all GCCs

6
F. Mehdizadeh, N. Tahouni and M.H. Panjeshahi
are shifted by 1/2DTmin and combined to obtain the source side
profile.
The vertical enthalpy intervals are determined in this diagram,
and each interval contains a hot and a cold segment with an initial
and final temperature. Each segment is converted to a horizontal
line using the average Carnot factor (Eq. (2)) in the same enthalpy
interval and constructed the OTSP as is shown in Fig. 5.
The amount of steam that can be generated from the heat
sources across the total site as well as the amount of steam that
needs to be consumed on the heat sink side, is targeted using TSP.
Having determined the temperatures and amounts of utilities on
TSP, they can be shown on OTSP, and consequently, the enclosed
area of OTSP, which is the exergy destruction and losses, is
calculated.
2.4. Comparison of the OTSP and Exergy-TSP
In this section, we consider a chemical cluster (Hackl and Har-
vey, 2013) and compare the calculated exergy destruction and
losses in this plant by Exergy-TSP with the result calculated by
OTSP.
The hot stream data for a total site, which is related to the site
source profile, is reported in Table 4. Table 5 shows the temperature
and loads of available hot utilities used in TSP. The DTmin between
process and utility is considered 3  C. Fig. 6 indicates the TSP of this
plant given by stream data (Hackl and Harvey, 2013). As the in-
formation of the hot utilities does not exist in the related reference,
only the left side, the source side, of the TSP will be considered.
Also, Fig. 7 shows the source side of the OTSP for the total site.
Table 6 compares the amount of enclosed area in Exergy-TSP
plotted in the related reference (Hackl and Harvey, 2013) and the
associated OTSP for the source site section introduced in the cur-
rent research.
There is a 3.7% difference between the exergy destruction and
losses of the source side of a total site calculated by the Exergy-TSP
and OTSP. It is related to the calculated amounts of exergy
destruction and losses of cold utilities in the two diagrams. The
difference between EX-TSP and OTSP results may have been due to
some calculation errors in the EX-TSP diagram since the cold util-
ities are horizontal lines at constant temperatures, and the exergy
destruction and losses of the cold utilities can be calculated
manually, and the results are the same as OTSP diagram results. So,
it can be concluded that the OTSP is accurate enough to calculate
the exergy destruction and losses within a total site. As it is shown
in Fig. 7, this diagram is linear, and it is clear that the calculation of
the enclosed area by this graph is so simple compared to that occurs
in EX-TSP diagram.
3. Optimal design of utility levels in a total site using OTSP
GA is a stochastic method used to solve optimization problems.
It uses a population of strands called chromosomes to represent
parameters. A simple GA uses three main operators: reproduction
(selection), crossover, and mutation. The GA starts by selecting a set
of random initial populations evaluated according to the objective
function. The selection operator then randomly generates an in-
termediate population according to the desired value of the
objective function. Crossover and mutation operators are applied to
the intermediate populations to create a new generation of
7
Energy 250 (2022) 123790
populations. The new populations are also evaluated according to
the desired value of the objective function. Searching will continue
using the selection, crossover, and mutation operators until the
populations meet the convergence criteria (such as maximizing the
number of generations or the difference between the mean value
and the desired value of the objective function).
In this research, the OTSP is combined with GA to create a simple
procedure for the design and optimization of a total site and
identifying the possible improvements. Fig. 8 summarizes the new
procedure for the design and optimization of a total site. MATLAB
programming is used for the optimization of total sites. The
enthalpy of the utilities is considered as the variable of the GA and
the minimum exergy destruction and loss of the total site is
considered as an objective function. Equality of the total heat load
of hot and cold utilities with the amount of deficit and surplus heat
in the total site is considered a limitation. Other limitations are the
temperature ranges of the cooling water (CW), generation and use
of the intermediate utilities and high-pressure steam (HPS).
The TSP** and OTSP diagrams are plotted to calculate the
minimum exergy destruction and loss of the total site as the
objective function. Then the levels of the utilities are selected using
TSP**, and the temperature of these utility levels are determined by
using TSP**. After that, the total exergy destruction and loss of the
total site is calculated using OTSP. After the objective function
assessment, new values of the enthalpy levels are chosen for vari-
ables. The loop is automatically repeated to find an optimal solution
so that the total exergy destruction and loss would be minimal.
4. Case study e I
4.1. OTSP versus Exergy-TSP
A total site case study consisting of processes A and B (Nemet
et al., 2012) is used to demonstrate the application of the OTSP to
process improvement. Tables 7e9 show the stream data of the two
processes and available utility data. The DTmin of 10  C is assumed
for process-to-process and utility-to-process heat recovery [24].
Fig. 9 shows the TSP in which the maximum heat recovery via
the intermediate steam level is 1 MW. The energy targeting results
are listed in Table 10.
Figs. 10 and 11 illustrate the Exergy-TSP and OTSP of the total
site. The area between process and utility streams showing the
exergy destruction and loss is compared to each other in Table 11.
It is only a 0.08833% difference between exergy destruction and
losses calculated by the two diagrams. However, the OTSP is easier
to draw, and the calculated exergy destruction and loss is more
accurate than the one achieved using non-linear Exergy-TSP.
4.2. Utility level optimization using OTSP
First, the optimization for the total site, assuming an interme-
diate steam level, is performed using GA. The heat loads of utility
levels are considered variables and the exergy destruction and loss
for the whole industrial complex is defined as the objective func-
tion. The temperature range for CW (15e35  C), generation and
consumption of intermediate utility (MPS, 120e180  C), and con-
sumption of HPS (230  C and above) are determined. Having opti-
mized the temperature levels of the utilities by TSP** shown in
Fig. 12, we can calculate the amount of exergy destruction and
F. Mehdizadeh, N. Tahouni and M.H. Panjeshahi Energy 250 (2022) 123790

Fig. 8. A new optimization procedure for design and optimization of a total site.

Table 7 Table 8
Stream data of process A (Nemet et al., 2012). Stream data of process B (Nemet et al., 2012).

Stream TS ( C) Tt ( C) DH (MW) CP (MW/ C) Stream TS ( C) Tt ( C) DH (MW) CP (MW/ C)

Cold 1 50 110 3 0.05 Hot 1 190 120 4.2 0.06

Cold 2 100 140 0.8 0.02 Hot 2 80 60 0.4 0.02
Hot 1 100 30 4.2 0.06 Cold 1 100 240 5.6 0.04

8
F. Mehdizadeh, N. Tahouni and M.H. Panjeshahi Energy 250 (2022) 123790

Table 9
Available utilities (Nemet et al., 2012).

Utility level Utility temperature ( C)

High-Pressure Steam (HPS) 250

Low-Pressure Steam (LPS) 120
Cooling Water (CW) 20e30

Fig. 11. OTSP for the total site (1)- Omega Site Source Profile (2)- Omega Site Sink
Profile (3)- Hot Utility (HPS 250  C) (4)- Intermediate Utility (LPS 130  C) (5)- Cold
Utility (CW 20e30  C).

Table 11
Comparison of exergy destruction and losses using OTSP and Exergy-TSP.
Fig. 9. TSP** for this case study with the double star temperature showing the heating OTSP Exergy-TSP
and cooling requirements (1)- Site Source Profile (2)- Site Sink Profile (3)- Hot Utility
(HPS 250  C) (4)- Intermediate Utility (LPS 130  C) (5)- Cold Utility (CW 20e30  C). Source side exergy destruction and losses (MW) 0.30370 0.30362
Sink side exergy destruction and losses (MW) 0.307317 0.30794
Total site exergy destruction and losses (MW) 0.61102 0.61156
Table 10
The amount of generation and use of hot and cold utilities.

Utility level Cold utility (MW) Hot utilities (MW)

HPS e 3.2
LPS 1 1
CW 2.6 e

Fig. 12. TSP** indicating two optimal levels of utilities (1)- Site Source Profile (2)- Site
Sink Profile (3)- Hot Utility (HPS 250  C) (4)- Intermediate Utility (LPS 130  C) (5)- Cold
Utility (CW 20e35  C).

Fig. 10. Exergy-TSP for the total site (1)- Exergy Site Source Profile (2)- Exergy Site Sink
Profile (3)- Hot Utility (HPS 250  C) (4)- Intermediate Utility (LPS 130  C) (5)- Cold
Utility (CW 20e30  C).
losses using OTSP shown in Fig. 13. Table 12 shows the results of the
optimization at flexible pressure levels. Total exergy destruction
and loss is reduced by about 0.089 MW, 14.6% lower than the values
reported in Table 11, using fixed steam pressure levels.
Typical GA parameters used in this optimization are population

9
F. Mehdizadeh, N. Tahouni and M.H. Panjeshahi Energy 250 (2022) 123790

Fig. 13. OTSP with two optimal levels of utilities for calculating total exergy destruc- Fig. 15. TSP** indicating three optimal levels of utilities (1)- Site Source Profile (2)- Site
tion and losses (1)- Omega Site Source Profile (2)- Omega Site Sink Profile (3)- Hot Sink Profile (3)- Hot Utility (HPS 250  C) (4)- Hot Utility (MPS 215  C) (5)- Intermediate
Utility (HPS 250  C) (4)- Intermediate Utility (LPS 130  C) (5)- Cold Utility (CW 20e35 Utility (LPS 130  C) (6)- Cold Utility (CW 20e30  C).
 C).

Table 12
Calculating the exergy destruction and losses of the total site with two utility levels.

Temperature ( C) Pressure (kPa) Heat flow rate (MW)

Levels of cold utilities CW (20e35) e 2.6

Steam generation (130) 270.1 1
Levels of hot utilities Steam use (130) 270.1 1.4
HPS (250) 3973.2 1.8
Total site exergy destruction and losses (MW) 0.5218

size of 1000, number of generations of 500, crossover probability of

0.8, and mutation fraction of 0.2.
To calculate the shaft power of the turbine, the Site Utility Grand
Composite Curve (SUGCC) should be plotted. The hot and cold
utility curves move together, and Site Utility Composite Curves
(SUCC) is constructed. Then the SUGCC is plotted using the SUCC as
illustrated in Fig. 14.
The steam turbine inlet is assumed at the saturated condition (@
250  C and 3973.2 kPa), and the isentropic efficiency of the turbine
is considered to be 0.85. The turbine shaft power between 250 and
130  C is obtained as 85.16 kW. The steam quality for the turbine
outlet is 0.855. Table 13 shows the results to compare total exergy
destruction and losses with the optimized temperature levels and
available utilities.
Now, the optimization for the total site, assuming two inter-
mediate steam levels, is performed using GA. The temperature
range of this level as one more limitation is added to GA. Fig. 15
shows the TSP for determining the levels of the utilities, and
Fig. 16 shows the OTSP for calculating the total exergy destruction
and losses. As indicated in Table 14, the total exergy destruction and
losses reduced about 0.1464 MW, 24% lower than the one reported
Fig. 14. SUGCC indicating the potential for shaft power production (1)- HPS 250  C (2)-
in Table 11.
LPS 130  C (3)- CW 20e35  C.
To calculate the turbine shaft power, the SUGCC is plotted. The

Table 13
Comparison of exergy destruction and losses, base case and optimum results with two utility levels.

Available temperature levels Optimized temperature levels

Total site exergy destruction and losses (MW) 0.61102 0.5218

Reduced total exergy destruction and losses (%) e 14.6
Turbine shaft power (kW) e 85.16

10
F. Mehdizadeh, N. Tahouni and M.H. Panjeshahi Energy 250 (2022) 123790

hot and cold utility curves move toward together, and SUCC is
plotted. Then the SUGCC is plotted by the use of the SUCC. Fig. 17
shows this diagram.
Assuming the isentropic efficiency of 0.85, the first turbine
working between 250 and 130  C produces 85.16 kW power, and
the quality of the steam outlet turbine is obtained 0.855. The sec-
ond turbine that works between 250 and 215  C produces 82.13 kW
power, and the quality of the steam outlet turbine is obtained 0.945.
The inlet streams of both turbines are assumed as saturated steam,
and the isentropic efficiency of both turbines is considered to be
0.85. According to these results, the capacity of the boiler should be
3.367 kW. In addition, work is also produced to save both energy
and exergy. Table 15 shows the results of exergy destruction and
loss reduction.

5. Case study II

5.1. OTSP versus Exergy-TSP

In this section, another case study is used to illustrate the

Fig. 16. OTSP with three optimal levels of utilities for calculating total exergy
destruction and losses (1)- Omega Site Source Profile (2)- Omega Site Sink Profile (3)-
methodology presented in section 3. Tables 16e19 show the stream
Hot Utility (HPS 250  C) (4)- Hot Utility (MPS 215  C) (5)- Intermediate Utility (LPS 130 data of four processes within a total site, and Table 20 shows the
 C) (6)- Cold Utility (CW 20e30  C).
available utility data for these processes (Perry et al., 2008). A DTmin

Table 14
Calculating the optimum exergy destruction and losses of the total site with three utility levels.

Temperature ( C) Pressure (kPa) Heat flow rate (MW)

Levels of cold utilities CW (20e35) e 2.6

Steam generation (130) 270.1 1
Levels of hot utilities Steam use (130) 270.1 1.4
MPS (215) 2104.2 1.4
HPS (250) 3973.2 1.4
Total site exergy destruction and losses (MW) 0.4646

of 20  C is assumed for process-to-process and utility-to-process

streams [25].
The amount of hot and cold utility and heat recovery of the
intermediate utility is calculated using TSP. To do this, the amount
of steam generation is maximized from the highest to the lowest
temperatures in the site source profile. Conversely, the use of steam
is maximized from the lowest to highest temperatures on the site
sink profile. Having maximized the heat recovery potentials within
existing processes using TSP in Fig. 18, the amounts of LPS and MPS
generation/use are targeted based on Table 21.
Figs. 19 and 20 show the Exergy-TSP and OTSP of this total site.
Again, it is verified that the enclosed areas are the same according
to Table 22.
It is a 0.001616% difference between the calculated exergy
destruction and losses and it showed that for calculating exergy
destruction and losses, the use of the new simple and linear curve,
OTSP, is easier.

5.2. Utility level optimization using OTSP

Fig. 17. SUGCC indicating the potential shaft power production (1)- HPS 250  C (2)-
MPS 215  C (3)- LPS 130  C (4)- CW 20e35. C The optimization of this total site is carried out by assuming two
intermediate utility levels. The exergy destruction and loss is

11
F. Mehdizadeh, N. Tahouni and M.H. Panjeshahi Energy 250 (2022) 123790

Table 15
Comparison of exergy destruction and losses, base case and optimum results with three utility levels.

Available temperature levels Optimized temperature levels

Total site exergy destruction and losses (MW) 0.61102 0.4646

Reduced total exergy destruction and losses (%) e 24
Turbine shaft power (kW) e 167.29

Table 16
Stream data of process A (Perry et al., 2008).

Stream TS ( C) Tt ( C) DH (MW) CP (kW/ C)

Hot 1 170 80 5 55.56

Hot 2 150 55 6.48 68.18
Cold 1 25 100 1.5 20
Cold 2 70 100 0.75 35
Cold 3 30 65 5.25 150

Table 17
Stream data of process B (Perry et al., 2008).

Stream TS ( C) Tt ( C) DH (MW) CP(kW/ C)

Hot 1 200 80 10 8.33

Hot 2 150 40 8 72.73
Cold 1 20 100 4 50
Cold 2 100 120 10 500
Cold 3 60 110 1 20
Cold 4 75 150 7 93.33

Table 18 Fig. 18. TSP** for case study II with the double star temperature (1)- Site Source Profile
Stream data of process C (Perry et al., 2008). (2)- Site Sink Profile (3)- Hot Utility (MPS 170  C) (4)- Intermediate Utility (LPS 125  C)
(5)- Intermediate Utility (HW 50e60  C) (6)- Cold Utility (CW 15e20  C).
Stream TS ( C) Tt ( C) DH (kW) CP (kW/ C)

Hot 1 85 40 23.85 0.53

Hot 2 80 40 96.4 2.41 Table 21
Cold 1 25 55 17.7 0.59 The amount of generation and use of hot and cold utilities for case study II.
Cold 2 55 85 77.4 2.58
Utility levels Cold utilities (kW) Hot utilities (kW)
Cold 3 33 60 7.2 0.24
Cold 4 25 60 77 2.2 MPS e 3734.79
Cold 5 30 121 12.74 0.14 LPS 1728.7 8349.04
Cold 6 25 28 151.68 50.56 HW 3765.9 5504.97
Cold 7 30 100 59.5 0.85 CW 681.9 e
Cold 8 18 25 100.8 14.4
Cold 9 21 121 5 0.05

Table 19
Stream data of process D (Perry et al., 2008).

Stream TS ( C) Tt ( C) DH (MW) CP (kW/ C)

Hot 1 15 60 6 133.33
Hot 2 15 80 5 76.92

Table 20
Available utilities (Perry et al., 2008).

Utility level Utility temperature ( C)

MPS 170
LPS 125
HW 50e60
CW 15e20

minimized to obtain the optimum loads/temperatures of utility

levels. The temperature range for cooling water (15e35  C), hot
water (HW) (50e80  C), generation and consumption of interme-
diate utility (MPS, 180-120  C) is considered. Having optimized the
temperature levels of the utilities by TSP** shown in Fig. 21, we can
Fig. 19. Exergy-TSP for the total site e case study II (1)- Exergy Site Source Profile (2)-
Exergy Site Sink Profile (3)- Hot Utility (MPS 170  C) (4)- Intermediate Utility (LPS 125
 C) (5)- Intermediate Utility (HW 50e60  C) (6)- Cold Utility (CW 15e20  C).

12
F. Mehdizadeh, N. Tahouni and M.H. Panjeshahi Energy 250 (2022) 123790

Fig. 20. OTSP for the total site e case study II (1)- Omega Site Source Profile (2)-
Omega Site Sink Profile (3)- Hot Utility (MPS 170  C) (4)- Intermediate Utility (LPS 125
 C) (5)- Intermediate Utility (HW 50e60  C) (6)- Cold Utility (CW 15e20  C).
Fig. 22. OTSP with the optimal levels of utilities for calculating total exergy destruction
and losses (1)- Omega Site Source Profile (2)- Omega Site Sink Profile (3)- Hot Utility
(MPS 141  C) (4)- Intermediate Utility (LPS 122.8  C) (5)- Intermediate Utility (HW
50e75  C) (6)- Cold Utility (CW 15e35  C).

calculate the amount of exergy destruction and losses using OTSP

Table 22
Comparison of exergy destruction and losses of OTSP and Exergy-TSP.
Source side exergy destruction and losses (kW)
Sink side exergy destruction and losses (kW)
Total site exergy destruction and losses (kW)
shown in Fig. 22. Table 23 shows the results of the optimization at
flexible pressure levels. Typical GA parameters used in this opti-
mization are population size of 1000, number of generation of 500
OTSP Exergy-TSP crossover probability of 0.8, and mutation fraction of 0.2.
692.876 692.867 As indicated in Table 23, the total exergy destruction and losses
1913.634 1913.601 reduced about 625.5 kW, 24% lower than the values reported in
2606.510 2606.468 Table 22, using flexible steam pressure levels. As shown in Figs. 22
and 3503.121 kW of the required HW is supplied by the source site
in the total site and the rest of it should be supplied from external
utilities. Also, the source site supplies 1991.479 kW of required MPS
in the total site, and the rest should be supplied from external
utilities. The boiler should be designed to produce 4709.18 kW of
HPS and 2211.8712 kW of MPS. Because of the low-temperature
interval of the steam of 141  C and 122.8  C, it is preferred to put
a valve between these levels instead of putting a back pressure
steam.

6. Conclusion

In this study, a new simple diagram of OTSP is presented to

Fig. 21. TSP** indicating the optimal levels of utilities (1)- Site Source Profile (2)- Site
Sink Profile (3)- Hot Utility (MPS 141  C) (4)- Intermediate Utility (LPS 122.8  C) (5)-
Intermediate Utility (HW 50e75  C) (6)- Cold Utility (CW 15e35  C).
calculate the exergy destruction and losses in total sites. It is shown
that the enclosed area between process and utility streams in this
diagram represents the exergy destruction and losses in total sites,
and this enclosed area is the same as in the Exergy-TSP diagram.
Using this diagram, calculating the exergy destruction and losses is
easier and more accurate since this diagram is linear, and all
enclosed areas that show the exergy destruction and losses are
rectangular. Then this diagram can be combined with the mathe-
matical optimization of the GA for optimizing the temperature
levels of utilities in the total site.
Two case studies are demonstrated to show the capability of this
diagram in calculating the exergy destruction and losses in total
sites. In the first case study, the exergy destruction and losses

13
F. Mehdizadeh, N. Tahouni and M.H. Panjeshahi
Table 23
Calculating the exergy destruction and losses for the optimum heat recovery situation in the total site.
Levels of cold utilities
Levels of hot utilities
Total site exergy destruction and losses (kW)
decreased about 14.6% by using two levels of utilities and 24% by
using three levels of utilities. In the second case study, the exergy
destruction and losses were reduced by about 24% by using the
three levels of utilities.
In this paper, the same DTmin, PP is considered for all the pro-
cesses in a total site. There is no limitation to consider different
DTmin, PP for each process within a total site or different DTmin, PU.
Economic calculation related to operational costs and capital costs
of a total site can also be added to MATLAB programming, and a
new objective function as total annualized cost could be optimized.
Credit author statement
Fariba Mehdizadeh: Methodology, Software, Validation, Writing
e original draft, Writing e review & editing. Nassim Tahouni:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Writing e
original draft, Writing e review & editing, Supervision. M. Hassan
Panjeshahi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation,
Supervision
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Linnhoff B, Dhole VR. Shaft work targets for low-temperature process design.
Chem Eng Sci 1992;47(8):2081e91.
[2] Panjeshahi M, Langeroudi EG, Tahouni N. Retrofit of ammonia plant for
improving energy efficiency. Energy 2008;33(1):46e64.
[3] Ataei A. Application of combined pinch and exergy analysis in retrofit of an
olefin plant for energy conservation. Sci Res Essays 2011;6(12):2437e46.
[4] Tahouni N, Bagheri N, Towfighi J, Panjeshahi MH. Improving energy efficiency
of an Olefin planteA new approach. Energy Convers Manag 2013;76:453e62.
[5] Sardarmehni M, Tahouni N, Panjeshahi MH. Benchmarking of olefin plant
cold-end for shaft work consumption, using process integration concepts.
Energy 2017;127:623e33.
[6] Feng X, Zhu X. Combining pinch and exergy analysis for process modifications.
Appl Therm Eng 1997;17(3):249e61.
14
Energy 250 (2022) 123790
Temperature ( C) Heat flow rate (kW)
CW (20e35) 681.90
HW generation (50e75) 3503.12
Steam generation (122.8) 1991.48
HW use (50e75) 8676.27
Steam use (122.8) 4203.35
MPS (141) 4709.18
1981
[7] Sahafzadeh M, Ataei A, Tahouni N, Panjeshahi MH. Integration of a gas turbine
with an ammonia process for improving energy efficiency. Appl Therm Eng
2013;58:594e604.
[8] Azadi M, Tahouni N, Panjeshahi MH. Energy conservation in methanol plant
using CHP system. Appl Therm Eng 2016;107:1324e33.
[9] Marmolejo-Correa D, Gundersen T. A new graphical representation of exergy
applied to low temperature process design, in computer aided chemical en-
gineering. Ind Eng Chem Res 2013;52(22):7145e56.
[10] Hamsani MN, Walmsley TG, Liew PY, Alwi SRW. Combined pinch and exergy
numerical analysis for low temperature heat exchanger network. Energy
2018;153:100e12.
[11] Panjeshahi MH, Tahouni N. Development of a new graphical tool for calcu-
lation of exergy losses in sub-ambient processes. Chemical Engineering
Transactions 2019;76:433e8.
[12] Shivaee-Gariz R, Tahouni N, Panjeshahi MH. Development of a new graphical
tool for calculation of exergy losses to design and optimisation of sub-ambient
processes. J Clean Prod 2020;275:123161.
[13] Safder U, Ifaei P, Yoo C. A novel approach for optimal energy recovery using
pressure retarded osmosis technology: chemical exergy pinch analysiseCase
study in a sugar mill plant. Energy Convers Manag 2020;213:112810.
[14] Dhole VR, Linnhoff B. Total site targets for fuel, co-generation, emissions, and
cooling. Comput Chem Eng 1993;17:S101e9.
[15] Raissi K. Total site integration. Ph.D. Thesis. UK: The University of Manchester;
1994.
[16] Liew PY, Alwi SRW, Varbanov PS, Manan ZA, Klemes JJ. A numerical technique
for Total Site sensitivity analysis. Appl Therm Eng 2012;40:397e408.
[17] Nemet A, Klemes JJ, Kravanja Z. Mathematical programming approach to total
site heat integration. Comput Aided Chem Eng 2014;33:1795e801.
[18] Nemet A, Klemes JJ, Kravanja Z. Designing a Total Site for an entire lifetime
under fluctuating utility prices. Comput Chem Eng 2015;72:159e82.
[19] Tarighaleslami AH, Walmsley TG, Atkins MJ, Walmsley MRW, Liew PY,
Neale JR. Total Site Heat Integration: utility selection and optimisation using
cost and exergy derivative analysis. Energy 2017;141:949e63.
[20] Hackl R, Harvey S. Applying exergy and total site analysis for targeting
refrigeration shaft power in industrial clusters. Energy 2013;55:5e14.
[21] Farhat A, Zoughaib A, El Khoury K. A new methodology combining total site
analysis with exergy analysis. Comput Chem Eng 2015;82:216e27.
[22] Pirmohamadi A, Ghazi M, Nikian M. Optimal design of cogeneration systems
in total site using exergy approach. Energy 2019;166:1291e302.
[23] Shokri Y, Ghazi M, Nikiyan M, Maleki A, Rosen MA. Optimal equipment
arrangement of a total site for cogeneration of thermal and electrical energy
by using exergoeconomic approach. Energy Rep 2021;7:5330e43.
[24] Nemet A, Boldyryev S, Varbanov PS, Kapustenko PO, Klemes JJ. Capital cost
targeting of total site heat recovery. Chemical Engineering Transactions
2012;29:1447e52.
[25] Perry S, Klemes JJ, Bulatov I. Integrating waste and renewable energy to
reduce the carbon footprint of locally integrated energy sectors. Energy
2008;33(10):1489e97.