Energy 90 (2015) 56e67

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

A systematic framework for multi-plants Heat Integration combining

Direct and Indirect Heat Integration methods
Yufei Wang*, Chenglin Chang, Xiao Feng
State Key Laboratory of Heavy Oil Processing, China University of Petroleum, Beijing 102249, China

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

Article history: Heat Integration across plants is an extension of conventional Heat Integration in a single plant for
Received 2 December 2014 further improving energy efficiency. To make good use of surplus heat, Indirect Heat Integration method
Received in revised form using intermediate fluid loops and Direct Heat Integration method using process streams are proposed to
10 April 2015
exchange heat across plants. Up to now, the two integration methods are studied separately. This leads to
Accepted 11 April 2015
an incomprehensive analysis for Heat Integration across plants, because each of the methods fit different
Available online 8 May 2015
practical situations. In this work, Combined Heat Integration method is proposed, which involves the
characteristics of both direct method and indirect method. The performances for Heat Integration across
Keywords:
Heat Integration
plants using direct, indirect and combined methods are analyzed and compared through Composite
Multiple plants Curves. Mathematical models are proposed to determine the optimal operation conditions for direct and
Integration methods indirect method. Based on a heuristic step, the optimal operation conditions for combined method can be
Optimization obtained through the model for indirect method. A case study is used to illustrate the new methodology.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Heat Integration across plants provides a number of heat re-
covery opportunities outside the boundary of single plants. Facing
the increasing demands on sustainable development and envi-
ronmental conservation, Heat Integration across plants is very
necessary for reducing energy consumption.
Heat Integration across plants is initially achieved through
different levels of steam. High-grade heat is used to generate steam,
and then the steam is transported to other plants to supply heat. A
steam system is a conventional utility system widely used in in-
dustries, and the pipelines for different levels of steam are well-
established. For this reason, it is relatively simple to achieve Heat
Integration across plants based on the existing steam system. The
early researches on Heat Integration across plants are almost based
on a steam system. Dhole and Linnhoff [1] described Heat Inte-
gration of multiple plants with a central utility system, and they
introduced the concept of Total Site Heat Integration. Their work
was an extension of Pinch Analysis, and Site SinkeSource Profiles
were proposed to determine different levels of steam that could be
generated to further find the energy target across plants. Hu and
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wangyufei@cup.edu.cn (Y. Wang).
Ahmad [2] defined the Heat Integration method using intermediate
fluid for Indirect Heat Integration. A Total Site Heat Integration
methodology was proposed to determine the heat transfer be-
tween processes by using different levels of steam. Kleme
s et al. [3]
further developed the Total Site Profile and the Site Utility Grand
Composite Curve to evaluate Total Site heat recovery potential.
Although the steam system is the most common form of
recovering heat across plants, because of the physical property of
steam, it cannot be used as an intermediate fluid for low-grade heat
recovery. For utilizing low-grade heat, Hammonda and Norman [4]
explored the opportunities for recovering all levels of surplus heat
based on a large number of data from UK. Many options for heat
recovery have been analyzed, such as on-site Heat Integration, off-
site Heat Integration, heat upgrading by heat pump, using Rankine
cycles to generate electrical energy and using absorption chillers to
fulfill chilling demand. In their work, they pointed out that the
greatest potential for reusing surplus heat was on-site and off-site
Heat Integration. Kapil et al. [5] mentioned that applying low-grade
heat had to be with the aid of simultaneous consideration of site
utility systems optimization. A wide range of low-grade heat re-
covery technologies, including heat pumping, organic Rankine cy-
cles, energy recovery from exhaust gases, absorption refrigeration
and boiler feed water heating are considered. From their results,
boiler feed water heating is the most attractive option which is a
special case of Heat Integration across plants. Some methodologies

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.04.015
0360-5442/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Y. Wang et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 56e67
considering steam and hot water loops simultaneously to recover
heat in both high and low level. Matsuda [6] studied Kashima in-
dustrial area in Japan by using both hot water and steam. The re-
sults show that the consumption of low pressure steam was further
reduced by using hot water loops. Hackl et al. [7] analyzed the
Sweden's largest chemical cluster. Total Site Pinch methodology is
used to explore the opportunities for using hot water as interme-
diate fluid to further reduce energy consumptions.
To recover low-grade heat across plants, there are two basic
methods: direct method and indirect method. The direct method
integrates heat between plants by using process streams directly
and the indirect method integrates heat by applying intermediate
fluid loops. Rodera and Bagajewicz [8] analyzed the difference be-
tween Direct and Indirect Heat Integration methods according to a
economic comparison. They found that the Direct Heat Integration
can achieve more energy saving. They also found that steam cannot
achieve most energy savings compared with an intermediate fluid
loop. A mathematical methodology was proposed [9] to determine
the number and parameters of intermediate-fluid loops to achieve
maximum energy savings.
For some recent development of Heat Integration across plants,
Walmsley et al. [10] consider the trade-off between storage tem-
perature and heat exchanger area in an inter-plant Heat Integration
problem using intermediate fluid. Further on, Walmsley et al. [11]
improve inter-plant Heat Integration methodology by investi-
gating integration of industrial solar into heat recovery loops. Hackl
and Harvey [12] proposed a methodology to target refrigeration
shaft power in an industrial clusters. Varbanov et al. [13] used
different specific minimum temperature difference in Total Site to
obtain energy target.
To compare direct and indirect methods, the number of inter-
mediate fluid loops was a key factor that affects capital cost
significantly. As mentioned by Chew et al. [14], very long distances
between heat sources and sinks are a critical feature of Total Site
Heat Integration. And the number of intermediate fluid loops
directly determines the length of pipeline between plants. Only a
few works have been done to consider distance factor in Heat
Integration. Most works aimed at heat exchanger network [15,16]
or district heating [17,18]. In the work done by Suaysompol and
Wood [15], the pipeline cost is counted in for the optimization of
heat exchanger network. And in the work done by Jiang and Chang,
different pipeline layout in a heat exchanger network is considered.
For district heating, Dalla Rosa et al. [17] considered the length of
pipeline in district heating and related the length of pipeline with
heat loss. Tol and Svendsen [18] developed a district heating opti-
mization methodology to consider pipe dimensioning, substation
types and network layouts simultaneously. For Heat Integration
across plants, Wang et al. [19] considered the distance related cost
in their work, such as pump power, pipe cost et al., but they do not
consider the factor into optimization.
Although many works have been done in the area of Heat
Integration across plants, there are still some important aspects
neglected. Because of long distance between plants, pipeline cost
becomes a major part of the capital cost, and the number of heat
exchange loops directly determines the length of pipeline. Direct
integration normally requires more heat exchange loops, indicating
a higher capital cost compared with indirect integration. However,
Direct Heat Integration can recover more heat, and require less heat
transfer area compared with indirect integration so that when the
number of heat exchange loops is small, Direct Heat Integration is
better from the view of economic. The performance of direct and
indirect Total Site Heat Integration is different under different sit-
uations, and only considering one Heat Integration method is not
enough to find the optimal design. In this work, the practical
relevance of Total Site Heat Integration is explored by considering
57
both Direct and Indirect Heat Integration. Moreover, a combination
Heat Integration method involving the features of both Direct and
Indirect Heat Integration methods is proposed to give more design
options under different integration situations.
2. Combined integration method
As mentioned in above, Direct and Indirect Heat Integration
methods are two different methods that feature different perfor-
mance in Heat Integration across plants. For Direct Heat Integration
method, process streams exchange heat with each other directly, so
that the Heat Integration process only experience heat transfer
once. This feature means that the heat recovery can be larger due to
a smaller temperature difference during heat transfer between two
plants. However, because process streams cannot be mixed with
each other, when the number of process streams participated in
Heat Integration is large, a number of heat transfer loops are
required. Since the large distance between plants, each loop boosts
the investment of pipeline. From the view of economics, if the
number of process streams participated in Heat Integration is large,
it is not beneficial for using direct integration method. Contrarily,
for Indirect Heat Integration method, heat is firstly transferred from
hot streams to hot water in one plant, and then transferred from
hot water to cold streams in the other plant. Because of the multiple
heat transfer, the total temperature difference has to be higher than
direct heat transfer, resulting in a lower energy recovery. Moreover,
the number of heat exchangers is higher. The benefit for using In-
direct Heat Integration method is that hot water can be split and
mixed, so that normally heat can be transported from one plant to
another by one hot water loop. Pipeline investment can be largely
cut down when the number of process streams participated in Heat
Integration is higher.
It has been found in this work that for a given energy target, in
some situations, the number of hot water loops for indirect method
increases, as shown in Fig. 1(a). It is assumed in this work that the
inner heat exchanger network in each plant has been well estab-
lished, so only the streams with surplus heat in heat source plant
and the streams that required heat in heat sink plant are considered
to be integrated process plants. The bold curve in the top is the
Composite Curve of hot streams in the heat source plant, the bold
curve in the bottom is the Composite Curve of cold streams in the
heat sink plant, and the medium thin curve is the Composite Curve
of the hot water. For this problem, it is assumed that all the hot
streams are in the plant with surplus heat and all the cold streams
are in the plant that requires heat. This assumption is valid when
the number of plants is two, but when the number of plants is more
than two, a plant may be a heat sink and a heat source simulta-
neously. From this figure, it is obvious that if it is needed to achieve
the energy target, two hot water loops are required. This situation
occurs in a Near-Pinch problem or Multiple-Pinch problem. If only
one hot water loop is needed, then the energy recovery will be
reduced, as shown in Fig. 1(b). In this situation, Indirect Heat
Integration may not be that beneficial because it requires more hot
water loops or recovers less energy.
To integrate heat in multiple-Pinch problem or near-Pinch
problem and fully utilize the advantage of Direct and Indirect
Heat Integration methods, a Combined Heat Integration method is
proposed in this work. When there is one stream with large duty,
this stream can be considered to transfer heat with direct method,
and the rest process streams exchange heat with indirect method,
as shown in Fig. 2. In Fig. 2(a), the stream with large duty is marked.
When the combined integration method is applied, the marked
stream exchanges heat with cold streams in the direct method, and
the rest exchange heat in the indirect method. By using the com-
bined method, the Pinch problem is divided into two threshold
58 Y. Wang et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 56e67

Fig. 1. Indirect Heat Integration in a near-Pinch problem with a) two intermediate fluid loops b) one intermediate fluid loop.

Fig. 2. Applying combined method to reduce the number of heat exchangers a) indirect method b) combined method.

problems. Compared with the indirect method, energy recovery is
same for the combined method, and the pipeline loops are two for
both methods. However, for direct method, hot stream is trans-
ported to exchange heat with two cold streams, two heat ex-
changers are required. And for Indirect Heat Integration method,
intermediate fluid first exchange heat with hot stream and then
exchange heat with the two cold streams, three heat exchangers are
required in this situation. One heat exchanger is saved for direct
method.
In some situations, the combined method can be also used to
reduce energy consumption, as shown in Fig. 3. It is known that a Pinch
Point is the heat recovery bottleneck of a system. To reduce energy
consumption, the minimum approach temperature (DTmin) can be
reduced. Because Indirect Heat Integration requires a higher DTmin, if
the Heat Integration method at Pinch Point can be changed from in-
direct heat transfer to direct heat transfer, the DTmin can be reduced so
that the total energy consumption can be further reduced. In another
word, in the combined method, if the stream using direct method is
across the Pinch Point, the energy target can be reduced through
changing the indirect method to the combined method. Moreover,
under this situation, the number of heat exchangers also reduces.
From the example shown in Figs. 2 and 3, it can be found that the
stream used for direct method has to be on the one extremity of heat
source/sink Composite Curve. The stream in extremity of heat
source/sink Composite Curve means the hot stream with the highest
supply temperature or lowest target temperature and the cold
stream with the lowest supply temperature and highest target
temperature. If the stream used for direct method is not on one
extremity of Composite Curve, the whole Composite Curve is divided
into 3 parts after applying the combined method. Each part requires
at least one loop to transfer heat, and then the number of loops is
increased so that the investment becomes high again. This means
that the stream used for direct method should better be the stream
close to the hot end or cold end.

Fig. 3. Applying combined methods to recover more heat a) indirect method b) combined method.
 Y. Wang et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 56e67
3. Optimization model for different methods
For the presented three Heat Integration methods, under
different situations, the optimal method can be different. Optimi-
zation models are needed to calculate the optimal performance for
each method so that the three methods can be compared with each
other.
For the Direct Heat Integration method, process streams ex-
change heat without using intermediate fluid. In Section 2, it has
been said that in this work that the inner heat exchanger network
in each plant has been well established, so only the streams with
surplus heat in heat source plant and the streams that required heat
in heat sink plant are considered to be integrated process plants.
Therefore, the problem can be considered as a heat exchanger
network with a distance between hot in one plant and cold streams
in the other. The heat exchanger network superstructure proposed
by Yee et al. [20] is used in this work, as shown in Fig. 4. To
distinguish the difference between heat exchanger network and
Heat Integration between plants, the cost of pipeline is counted in.
Moreover, as the plants are existed, the cost of utility heat
exchanger does not need to be considered. Therefore, the objective
function for direct method can be written as below:
0 possible connections. In the Figures, it can be seen that two inter-
X X X X X
TAC ¼ min@Ccu $ qcui þ Chu $ qhuj þ a
i2HP j2CP i2HP j2CP k2ST
1 loop.
X X X X
þb Acijk þ 2L$ Pipei A
i2HP j2CP k2ST i2HP
In the Equation (1), HP and CP are two sets for hot streams and
cold streams, i and j are two index for hot and cold streams, ST is a
set for stage, k is index for stage, Ccu and Chu are the price of hot and
cold utility, q is heat duty, qcu and qhu are the duty of cold utility heat
exchanger and hot utility heat exchanger, a, b and c are cost con-
stants for heat exchanger area cost, z is a binary variable indicate
the existence of heat exchanger, A is the area for heat exchanger,
stage k=1
H1-C1
H1-C2
C1
C2
H2-C1
H2-C2
New heat exchangers
Fig. 4. The heat exchanger network superstructure proposed by Yee et al. [20].
59
Pipe is the pipe cost per meter including capital cost and installation
cost, and L is the distance between plants.
From Equation (1), it can be seen that the cost of pipeline is
involved, and the cost of pipeline is calculated through the weight
of pipe, which is determined by inner diameter of pipes. The inner
diameter of pipes is calculated by Equation (2). F indicates heat
capacity flow rate, cp is specific heat capacity, r is fluid density, and
u is flow velocity.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4F
Din ¼ (2)
p$r$cp$u
For the Indirect Heat Integration method for Heat Integration
across plants, because of the use of intermediate fluid between
plants, the superstructure for the problem is different, as shown in
Fig. 5. In the figure, H1 and H2 indicate two hot streams, C1 and C2
indicate two cold streams, and N1 and N2 indicate two interme-
diate fluids. In the figure, the stage is further divided into two: kc
and kh. The stage kc indicates the Heat Integration between cold
streams and intermediate streams and stage kh indicates the Heat
Integration between hot streams and intermediate fluid. The
mathematical model for Indirect Heat Integration includes all
mediate fluids exchange heat with each streams in each stage.
zijk Different from normal superstructure for Indirect Heat Integration,
this superstructure can involve more than one intermediate fluid
Based on the superstructure, the overall heat balance shown in
Equations (3) and (4) are used to ensure sufficient heating or
cooling for each process steam to get its target temperature. In the
(1)
equations, STH is the set for stage in the plant providing heat and
STC indicates the set for stage in plant receiving heat, kH and kC are
two index for sets STH and STC, NP is a set for intermediate fluids, n
is the index for the NP, Tiin and Tiout are parameters that indicate
inlet and outlet temperatures of hot stream i, Tjin and Tjout are pa-
rameters that indicate inlet and outlet temperatures of cold stream
j. qH
inkH
means the heat duty between hot stream i and intermediate
fluid n in stage kH.
stage k=2
H1-C1
H1
H1-C2
H2-C1
H2
H2-C2
Existing heatter Existing cooler
60 Y. Wang et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 56e67

Plant A
stage kH=1 stage kH=2

H1

H2

Plant B
stage kC=1 stage kC=2

C1

C2

New heat exchanger Existing heatter Existing cooler

Fig. 5. The superstructure for Indirect Heat Integration method.

  in Equations (9)e(12). In these equations, t is a variable indicates

X X
qH H in out temperature.
inkH þ qcui ¼ Fi $ Ti  Ti i2HP (3)
kH 2STH n2NP  
qH H out
inkH ¼ finkH $ tikH  tinkH i2HP; n2NP; kH 2STH (9)
X X  
qCnjkC þ qhuj ¼ FjC $ Tjout  Tjin j2CP (4)  out 
kC 2STC n2NP qH N
inkH ¼ finkH $ tikH  tkH þ1 i2HP; n2NP; kH 2STH (10)
For each split, mass balances are used to determine the heat  
capacity flow rates of each heat exchanger, as shown in Equations qCnjkC ¼ fnjk
N out
C $ tnkC  tnjkC n2NP; j2CP; kC 2STC (11)
H
(5)e(8). f is a variable indicates the flow capacity, for example, fink H

indicates the flow capacity between hot stream i and intermediate  

fluid n in the stage kH. qCnjkC ¼ fnjk
C out
C $ tnjkC  tnkC þ1 n2NP; j2CP; kC 2STC (12)
X
H H
i2HP; kH 2STH Energy balance around each mixer determines the inlet tem-
finkH ¼ Fi (5)
n2NP peratures of stages, which also leads to equations with bilinear
terms, as shown in Equations (13)e(16).
X X
N
finkH ¼ Fn n2NP; kH 2STH (6) FiH $tikH þ1 ¼ H
fink out
H $tinkH i2HP; kH 2STH (13)
i2HP n2NP
X
X N
Fn $tnk h ¼
N
fink out
H $tinkH n2NP; kH 2STH (14)
N
fnjk C ¼ Fn n2NP; kC 2STC (7)
i2HP
j2CP
X X
N N out
C
fnjk C
C ¼ Fj j2CP; kC 2STC (8) Fn $tnk C þ1 ¼ fnjkC $tnjkc n2NP; kC 2STC (15)
n2NP j2CP

Energy balance around each additional heat exchanger is per- X

formed in order to determine the outlet temperature of the heat FjC $tjkC ¼ C
fnjk out
C $tnjkC j2CP; kC 2STC (16)
exchanger, which leads to equations with bilinear terms, as shown n2NP
 Y. Wang et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 56e67 61

According to the superstructure, the assignment of the inlet  

H out H H
temperatures is as follows: dtink H  tikH  tinkH þ GinkH $ 1  zinkH i2HP; n2NP; kH 2STH
(33)
H in
tik H ¼ Ti i2HP; kH 2Firsth (17)
 
H out H H
dtink h þ1 tinkH tinkH þ1 þGinkH $ 1zinkH i2HP; n2NP; kH 2STH
N H;out
tnk H ¼ Tn n2NP; kH 2Firsth (18) (34)

N
tnk H;in
H ¼ Tn n2NP; kH 2Lasth (19)  
C out C C
dtnjk C  tjkC  tnjkC þ GnjkC $ 1  znjkC n2NP; j2CP; kC 2STC

N C;out (35)
tnk C ¼ Tn n2NP; kC 2Lastc (20)

 
C out C C
N
tnk C;in
C ¼ Tn n2NP; kC 2Firstc (21) dtnjk C þ1  tnjkC  tjkC þ1 þ GnjkC $ 1  znjkC n2NP; j2CP; kC 2STC
(36)

C in The trade-off between investment cost and operating cost are

tjk c ¼ Tj j2CP; kC 2Lastc (22)
considered by adding the following constraints:

where Firsth and Lasth indicate the first and last stage in the plant
H
that provide heat, and Firstc and Lastc indicate the first and last dtink H  DTmin i2HP; n2NP; kH 2STH (37)
stage in the plant that require heat.
Energy balances for final utility units determine the utility loads,
C
and the equations for solving utility heat load are shown below: dtnjk C  DTmin n2NP; j2CP; kC 2STC (38)
  The driving forces are calculated by the LMTD (logarithmic mean
qcuj ¼ FiH $ tik
H out
H  Ti i2NP; kH 2Lasth (23)
temperature difference) for each heat exchanger:

 
" #13
qhuj ¼ FjC $ Tjout  tjk
C
C j2CP; kC 2Firstc (24) H þ dt H
dtijk H ijkH þ1
LMTDH
ijkH ¼ H
dtijk H
H $dtijkH þ1 $
2 (39)
The temperature constrains should ensure feasibility of tem-
H
peratures, they specify monotonic decreases in the temperatures i2HP; n2NP; k 2STH
along the stages:
" C C
#13
tikH þ1  tikH i2HP; kH 2STH (25) dtnjkC þ dtnjkC þ1
LMTDCnjkC ¼ C
dtnjk C
C $dtnjkC þ1 $
2 (40)
C
tnkH þ1  tnkH H
n2NP; k 2STH (26) n2NP; j2CP; k 2STC

The area of process heat exchanges can be calculated by the

tikH  Tiout i2HP; kH 2Lasth (27) following equations:
!,
1 1
tnkC þ1  tnkC C
n2NP; k 2STC (28) AinkH ¼ qH
inkH $ þ LMTDH i2HP; n2NP; kH 2STH
hH
i
hn inkH

(41)
tjkC þ1  tjkC j2CP; kC 2STC (29)
!,
1 1
tjkc  Tjout C
j2CP; k 2Firstc (30) ACnjkC ¼ qCnjkC þ LMTDCnjkC n2NP; j2CP; kC 2STC
hCj hn
Upper bound constrains are needed to relate the heat duty (42)
q with the binary variables z:
where A is the area of a heat exchanger, and h is heat transfer
qH H H
inkH  UinkH $zinkH  0 i2HP; n2NP; kH 2STH (31) coefficient.
Finally, the objective function is the TAC (total annual cost) and
is shown in Equation (43).
qCnjkC  UCnjkC $zCnjkC  0 n2NP; j2CP; kC 2STC (32) The mathematical model for indirect method can be also
applied to optimize combined method by selecting a stream for
where U is the upper bound for heat exchangers duty, z is a binary Direct Heat Integration before calculation. So firstly, the stream
variable that determines the existence of the match. used for Direct Heat Integration must be selected for the optimi-
Logical constrains are needed to ensure that the temperature zation of combined method. As analyzed, the stream used for Direct
difference can be calculated if the heat exchanger exists. The Heat Integration must be with large duty and heat capacity flow
parameter G is an upper bound for the temperature difference, and rate. Also, the stream should better be close to the hot end or cold
dt is temperature difference. end on the Composite Curves. Based on the two conditions, firstly,
62 Y. Wang et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 56e67

0 1
X X X X X X X X
B Ccu $ qcui þ a zH
nk H þ b AH
ink H þ 2L$ Pipen þ C
B C
TAC ¼ minB X
i2HP X n2NP
i2HP X k2STH
X X X k2STH
i2HP n2NP X n2NP C (43)
BC $ qhuj þ a zCjk þ b AcnjkC C
@ hu A
j2CP n2NP j2CP kC 2STC n2NP j2CP kC 2STC

the streams located in the hot end or cold end on the Composite
Curves are selected as candidate streams. In another word, the hot
streams with the highest supply temperature and lowest target
temperature and the cold streams with the lowest supply tem-
perature and highest target temperature are selected as candidate
streams. Then the stream with largest heat duty among the
candidate streams can be selected as the stream for Direct Heat
Integration.
After selecting the stream used for Direct Heat Integration in the
combined method, the problem can be optimized with the super-
structure shown in Fig. 6. The superstructure shown in Fig. 6 is an
extension of superstructure shown in Fig. 5. Based on the super-
structure shown in Fig. 5, not only the intermediate fluid loop (N in
the figure) is involved in the new superstructure, but also the
process stream (M in the figure). The superstructure includes all the
match possibilities between process streams and fluid used for
inter-plant Heat Integration. Because the stream used for Direct
Heat Integration is selected in advance, there are two possibilities
for the Direct Heat Integration: if the stream used for Direct Heat
Integration is a hot stream, then it means the stream is a process
stream within Plant A. There is no heat exchange between the hot
stream and Plant A. The hot stream and intermediate fluid are both
sent to Plant B to exchange heat; if the stream used for Direct Heat
Integration is a cold stream, then it means the stream is a process
stream within Plant B. There is no heat exchange between the cold
stream and Plant B. The cold stream and intermediate fluid are sent
to Plant A to exchange heat. The selected stream used for Direct
Heat Integration is set before optimization, and it is excluded from

Plant A
stage kH=1 stage kH=2

H1

H2

Plant B
stage kC=1 stage kC=2

C1

C2

New heat exchanger Existing heatter Existing cooler

Fig. 6. The superstructure for Combined Heat Integration method.

 Y. Wang et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 56e67 63

Table 1 involved in Heat Integration is large, the biggest challenge is how to

Stream data for the case study. determine the connection between plants, especially when dis-
Streams Tin/ C Tout/ C DH/kW F/(kW  C1) h/(W m2  C1) tance factor is considered. Therefore, currently, it is very difficult to
H1(refinery) 148 122 6000 230.8 969
optimize multi-plant Heat Integration and the detail connection
H2(refinery) 130 100 2300 76.7 599 method simultaneously. When the connection has been deter-
H3(refinery) 105 75 1600 53.3 621 mined, then the optimization can be used to check if combined
H4(refinery) 95 60 1200 34.3 657 method is better.
C1(rubber plant) 112 137 1500 60 667
C2(rubber plant) 111 136 1500 60 665
C3(rubber plant) 110 136 1500 57.7 668
C4(rubber plant) 109 134 1500 60 667 4. Case study
C5(rubber plant) 90 120 2000 66.7 772
C6(rubber plant) 55 98 2100 48.8 651 The case study is a Heat Integration project between a refinery
C7(rubber plant) 50 75 2200 88 598
and a rubber plant. The data of the case is modified a little bit based
on real data to avoid confidentiality problem. Refinery is the plant
exchanging heat with intermediate fluid. By using the superstruc- that supplies heat and rubber plant is the plant that requires heat.
ture, the connection between process streams and intermediate The stream data are shown in Table 1. The distance between two
fluid (and/or process stream used for direct integration) can be plants is 650 m. In this case, the prices for cold and hot utilities are
determined by optimization. Then the optimization used for Indi- 20 $ kW1 y1 and 190 $ kW1 y1 [21]. The equation for calcu-
rect Heat Integration method is used to solve the combined method lating exchanger area cost is shown in Equation (44) [22], the cost
problem. factor in the equation is updated to fit current price of heat
The model is a complex MINLP problem because of some non- exchanger. The pipeline cost is calculated through the weight of 40
convex constraints and nonlinear objection. In addition, energy sch (a type of carbon steel) pipeline, and the equations are shown in
balance around each mixer leads to Equations (5)e(8) with bilinear Equations (45,46) [23]. In Equation (45), Dout and Din are outer
terms. An efficient solution method is showed as below. First, the diameter and inner diameter of pipe, Wtpipe is the weight of pipe
model is simplified by assuming isothermal mixing for each mixer, per meter in Equation (46). In Equation (47), I indicates the
so the nonlinear constraints Equations (5)e(8) can be eliminated. depreciation factor (20%), y is the service life of pipe. In this case, y
Second, if the stream or intermediate-fluid mixing exists, an addi- is 3 years. The intermediate fluid used in this case study is hot
tional NLP model with fixed configuration can be solved to remove water. The density of water is 950 kg/m3. The flow velocity u for hot
the isothermal mixing assumption. water is set to 1.2 m/s. The DTmin in this work is set to be 8  C. The
The optimization proposed in this work is mainly aimed at Heat case study is solved less than 2 min of CPU time on a desktop PC
Integration between two plants. When the number of plants (Inter (R) Core (TM) i5 CPU 3.33 GHz, with 4.00 GB of RAM) using

Fig. 7. The optimal Heat Integration grid diagram for Direct Heat Integration method.
64 Y. Wang et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 56e67

Fig. 8. The optimal Heat Integration grid diagram for Indirect Heat Integration method.

the GAMS24.21. The MINLP solver is Dicopt, while the NLP solver is The optimal Heat Integration designs for the three methods
Conopt. are obtained through the proposed methodology. The optimal
structure for direct, indirect and Combined Heat Integration
  h  i1 between plants is shown in Figs. 7e9. Also, the Composite Curves
Cost of Heat Exchangers $$y1 ¼ 3000 þ 150 Area m2 for direct, indirect and Combined Heat Integration are shown in
(44) Figs. 10e12. From the structure, it can be seen that 4 (H1, H2, C6,
C7) loops and 9 heat exchangers are used to transfer heat in the
Direct Heat Integration method. For the indirect method, only 1
Dout ðmÞ ¼ 1:052Din þ 0:005251 (45) intermediate fluid loop is used and 11 heat exchangers are used
to transfer heat. For the combined method, 1 intermediate fluid
  loop and 1 process stream loop are used, and 13 exchangers are
Wtpipe kg$m1 ¼ 644:3D2in þ 72:5Din þ 0:4611 (46)
required in the design. From the view of investment, the direct
method requires more loops and less heat exchanger, indirect
  I$ð1 þ IÞy 
method requires fewer loops and more heat exchangers, and
Pipe $$m1 ¼ 0:82Wtpipe þ 185D0:48
out þ 6:8 combined method requires medium number of loops and the
ð1 þ IÞy  1 largest number of heat exchangers. Normally, the number of heat

þ 265Dout exchangers for the combined method should be lower than the
indirect method, because the Direct Heat Integration part in the
(47) combined method only experience heat transfer for one time.
In this case study, a stream for Direct Heat Integration should be However in this case, the application of the direct integration in
selected for Combined Heat Integration method. From the data of the combined method complicates the Heat Integration between
Table 1, it can be seen that H1 is the hot stream with the highest the intermediate fluid and process streams, resulting in an in-
inlet temperature, H4 is the hot stream with the lowest outlet crease in the number of heat exchangers. The application of
temperature, C1 is the cold stream with the highest outlet tem- direct integration in the combined method can also simplify the
perature, and C7 is the cold stream with the lowest inlet temper- integration between the intermediate fluid and process streams
ature. Among these streams, H1 is the stream with the largest heat in some situation, which is depended on the detail data of
duty, so it is selected for Direct Heat Integration in combined streams. It is noted that all the process streams have a utility
integration method. heat exchanger even most of the exchangers have no heat duty.
 Y. Wang et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 56e67 65

Fig. 9. The optimal Heat Integration grid diagram for Combined Heat Integration method.

Fig. 10. The Composite Curves for Direct Heat Integration method. Fig. 11. The Composite Curves for Indirect Heat Integration method.
66 Y. Wang et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 56e67
Fig. 12. The Composite Curves for Combined Heat Integration method.
This is because they can be used when one of the plant is shut
down.
From the Composite Curves, it can be found that for the direct
method, the two curves are close to each other, which indicates a
higher energy recovery. Because indirect method is with only
one intermediate fluid loop, in the Composite Curves, interme-
diate fluid loop is illustrated by a straight line. Because a straight
line cannot match the profile of two curves well, the gap be-
tween the two curves is larger, indicating a lower energy re-
covery. By applying the combined method, the gap between the
two curves is significantly reduced compared with the indirect
method. In Fig. 12, C5 has a lower temperature but it is heated by
hot utility, and C1, C2, C3 and C4 are heated by hot stream.
However, C1, C2, C3, and C4 cannot be replaced by C5 because a
part of C5 is heated by intermediate fluid. And for the reason that
the temperatures of C1 to C4 are higher, they cannot be heated
by intermediate fluid. The optimization results are listed in
Table 2.
In the results, each pipeline loop is 1300 m long, which is twice
of the distance between plants. From the results, for the direct
method, because of the number of pipeline loops is high, the
pipeline cost is much higher than the other two methods. For the
indirect method, it can be seen that the energy recovery is much
lower than the other two methods. Although the combined method
does not achieve the lowest energy cost and capital investment, the
total annual cost is the lowest.
Because the distance between plants is a very important factor
that directly affect pipeline cost, a sensitivity analysis between TAC
and the distance is applied. The results of sensitivity analysis are
shown in Fig. 13. From the figure, it can be seen that when the
distance between plants is short, Direct Heat Integration method is
preferred for more energy saving. When the distance between
plants is long, in this case, combined method and indirect method
are more beneficial than direct method when the distance between
plants is longer. If the distance between plants is longer than
1150 m, then indirect method is the most beneficial one for lower
pipeline loops.
Table 2
The economic performance for the three integration methods.
Project items Pipeline loops Additional heat exchangers Heat exchangers area Pipeline cost ($ y1) Heat exchangers cost ($ y1) Heat cost ($ y1) TAC ($ y1)
Direct integration 4 8 2069
Indirect integration 1 11 2132
Combined integration 2 10 2935
Fig. 13. Sensitivity analysis between TAC and the distance.
5. Conclusion
Except Direct and Indirect Heat Integration methods in Heat
Integration across plants, Combined Heat Integration method is
proposed in this work. The three methods are analyzed in details
in this work, and it is found that combined method is suitable for
Near Pinch problem or Multiple Pinch problem. The proposed
new methodology gives a new option in Heat Integration across
plants and can make the Total Site Heat Integration methodology
more comprehensive. An optimization methodology is proposed
to optimize the design of Indirect Heat Integration. Combined
method can be also optimized through the methodology by
setting the stream used for Direct Heat Integration in advance.
The results of case study show that the combined method ach-
ieves the lowest total annual cost, which is 1,099,737 $ y1.
Compared with the total annual cost for direct method
(1,267,901 $ y1) and indirect method (1,174,305 $ y1), combined
method reduces total annual cost by 13.3% and 6.3%. From the
results of sensitivity analysis between TAC and the distance, it is
found that for the case study, if the distance between plants is
shorter than 400 m, then direct method is the most beneficial
method. If the distance is between 400 m and 1150 m, combined
method is the most beneficial method. And if the distance is
larger than 1150 m, the indirect method is the most beneficial
method.
Acknowledgments
Financial support from the National Basic Research Program of
China (973 Program: 2012CB720500), the National Natural Science
Foundation of China under Grant No. 21476256 and Science Founda-
tion of China University of Petroleum, Beijing (No.2462013YJRC010)
are gratefully acknowledged.
632,220 334,465 228,000 1,194,686
166,369 352,920 687,590 1,206,879
346,933 470,260 272,912 1,090,105
 Y. Wang et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 56e67 67

Nomenclature References

[1] Dhole VR, Linnhoff B. Total site targets for fuel, co-generation, emissions, and
cooling. Comput Chem Eng 1993;17(Suppl. 1):S101e9.
Sets [2] Hu CW, Ahmad S. Total site heat integration using the utility system. Comput
HP set of hot process steam Chem Eng 1994;18(8):729e42.
STH set of stage in plant with surplus heat [3] Kleme
s J, Dhole VR, Raissi K, Perry SJ, Puigjaner L. Targeting and design
methodology for reduction of fuel, power and CO2 on total sites. Appl Therm
CP set of cold process stream Eng 1997;17(8e10):993e1003.
STC set of stage in plant required heat [4] Hammond GP, Norman JB. Heat recovery opportunities in UK industry. Appl
NP set of intermediate fluid loops between plants Energy 2014;116(0):387e97.
[5] Kapil A, Bulatov I, Smith R, Kim J-K. Site-wide low-grade heat recovery with a
new cogeneration targeting method. Chem Eng Res Des 2012;90(5):677e89.
Parameters [6] Matsuda K, Hirochi Y, Tatsumi H, Shire T. Applying heat integration total site
a $/y, cost factor for heat exchanger area based pinch technology to a large industrial area in Japan to further improve
performance of highly efficient process plants. Energy 2009;34(10):1687e92.
b cost exponent factor for heat exchanger area
[7] Hackl R, Andersson E, Harvey S. Targeting for energy efficiency and improved
c $/y, fixed charge for heat exchangers energy collaboration between different companies using total site analysis
Ccu $/kW y, utility cost coefficient for cold utility (TSA). Energy 2011;36(8):4609e15.
[8] Rodera H, Bagajewicz MJ. Multipurpose heat-exchanger networks for heat
Chu $/kW y, utility cost coefficient for hot utility
integration across plants. Ind Eng Chem Res 2001;40(23):5585e603.
Din m, inner diameter of pipe [9] Bagajewicz M, Rodera H. Multiple plant heat integration in a total site. AIChE J
Dout m, outer diameter of pipe 2002;48(10):2255e70.
F kW/ C, heat capacity flow rate [10] Walmsley MRW, Walmsley TG, Atkins MJ, Neale JR. Methods for improving
heat exchanger area distribution and storage temperature selection in heat
h kW/m2  C, heat transfer coefficient recovery loops. Energy 2013;55(0):15e22.
L m, distance between plants [11] Walmsley TG, Walmsley MR, Atkins MJ, Neale JR. Integration of industrial
Pipe $/m, pipeline cost per meter solar and gaseous waste heat into heat recovery loops using constant and
 C, extremity temperature of streams variable temperature storage. Energy 2014;75:53e67.
T [12] Hackl R, Harvey S. Applying exergy and total site analysis for targeting
Wtpipe kg/m, weight of pipe per meter refrigeration shaft power in industrial clusters. Energy 2013;55(0):5e14.
U kW, upper bound for heat exchangers loads [13] Varbanov PS, Fodor Z, Kleme
s JJ. Total site targeting with process specific
minimum temperature difference (DTmin). Energy 2012;44(1):20e8.
G  C, upper bound for temperature difference
[14] Chew KH, Kleme
s JJ, Wan Alwi SR, Abdul Manan Z. Industrial implementation
issues of total site heat integration. Appl Therm Eng 2013;61(1):17e25.
Variables [15] Suaysompol K, Wood R. Estimation of the installed cost of heat exchanger
networks. Int J Prod Econ 1993;29(3):303e12.
A m2, heat transfer area of heat exchangers
[16] Jiang D, Chang C-T. A new approach to generate flexible multiperiod heat
dt  C, temperature approach
exchanger network designs with timesharing mechanisms. Ind Eng Chem Res
Fn kW/ C, Heat capacity flow rate of intermediate fluid 2013;52(10):3794e804.
f kW/ C, Heat capacity flow rate for the streams after split [17] Dalla Rosa A, Li H, Svendsen S. Method for optimal design of pipes for low-
 C, Temperature energy district heating, with focus on heat losses. Energy 2011;36(5):
t 2407e18.
LMTD  C, log mean temperature difference [18] Tol HI, _ Svendsen S. Improving the dimensioning of piping networks and
q kW, Heat duty network layouts in low-energy district heating systems connected to low-
energy buildings: a case study in Roskilde, Denmark. Energy 2012;38(1):
Pcul $/m y, pipeline cost 276e90.
z binary variable indicating the existence of the match [19] Wang Y, Feng X, Chu KH. Trade-off between energy and distance related costs
for different connection patterns in heat integration across plants. Appl Therm
Eng 2014;70(1):857e66.
Subscript [20] Yee TF, Grossmann IE. Simultaneous optimization models for heat Integra-
i index for hot process steam tioneII. Heat exchanger network Synthesis. Comput Chem Eng 1990;14(10):
j index for cold process steam 1165e84.
[21] Hipo lito-Valencia BJ, Rubio-Castro E, Ponce-Ortega JM, Serna-Gonza lez M,
n index for intermediate fluid Napoles-Rivera F, El-Halwagi MM. Optimal design of inter-plant waste energy
k index for stage integration. Appl Therm Eng 2014;62(2):633e52.
[22] Kova
c Kralj A, Glavi

c P, Kravanja Z. Heat integration between processes: in-
tegrated structure and MINLP model. Comput Chem Eng 2005;29(8):
Superscript
1699e711.
H plant with surplus heat [23] Stijepovic MZ, Linke P. Optimal waste heat recovery and reuse in industrial
C plant required heat zones. Energy 2011;36(7):4019e31.
in inlet
out outlet