MODELING, SIMULATION AND OPTIMIZATION OF

INTERNAL HEAT RECOVERY USING PROCESS

INTEGRATION TECHNIQUE OF PINCH ANALYSIS

FENWICKS SHOMBE MUSONYE

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

(Energy Technology)

JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF

AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY

2021
 Modeling, Simulation and Optimization of Internal Heat Recovery
Using Process Integration Technique of Pinch Analysis

Fenwicks Shombe Musonye

A Thesis Submitted in Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

of Doctor of Philosophy in Energy Technology of the Jomo Kenyatta
University of Agriculture and Technology

2021
 DECLARATION

This thesis is my original work and has not been submitted for a degree in any other
University.

Signature……………………… Date…………………

Fenwicks Shombe Musonye

This thesis has been submitted with our approval as University Supervisors

Signature…………………………. Date………………………

Dr. Eng. Hiram Ndiritu, P.E, PhD

JKUAT, Kenya

Signature……………………... Date………………

Prof. Robert Kinyua, PhD

JKUAT, Kenya

ii
 DEDICATION

To Musakhulu Musonye wa Nasiali I and Kashiele Shimekha Vukutsa I, for their

extraordinary success in bringing me up to love the search for knowledge.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The work presented in this report has been a success due to moral and intellectual
support received. My supervisors, Dr.Eng. Hiram Ndiritu and Prof. Robert Kinyua,
have been good guides in the entire period of my work. It was once said that a selection
of good doctoral degree supervisors is as good as doing the work halfway. I may as
well believe the maxim. I am also grateful to Dr. Njogu of IEET, for the simple
message he told me when I was conceptualizing the study area, and I quote him,
“please select an area you have passion in, otherwise you will leave the study along
the way”. For the entire IEET community, Dr. Njoka, Dr. Karanja, Dr. Mburu, Prof.
Kamau, Ms. Njeru and Dr. (Ms) Gichohi, I am grateful for your criticism and support
during the seminars.

Peers and workmates in the industry have been helpful to me in this work. Their daily
reminders that I should complete my work on time were sometimes nightmarish, but
they helped me remember that apart from the university, other parties were watching
my progress. I have in mind Dr. Mary Ondiaka, Ms. Caroline Kimathi, Nickson
Bukachi, Robert Chirchir (posthumously), Chris Maitai, Joseph Njuguna, Stephen
Kavoi and Jared Arika. They may not know how instrumental their reminders were,
but this helped me to push my work towards completion. I may not mention all, but it
does not mean their contribution was negligible.

I thank my family members, my father Musonye wa Nasiali I, my mother Shimekha

Vukutsa I, my brothers and sisters, Winnie, Sheila, Xavier (PhD candidate), Olympia
(PhD candidate) and Harry (PhD candidate). It was once said that managing doctoral
work while married is difficult. I reject such a claim. My immediate family, led by my
wife Doreen Tshombe and her army, comprising of my children Musonye wa Nasiali
II and Shimekha Vukutsa II, gave me immense support, that which can never be
procured from elsewhere. I am highly indebted to my wife and my children, for the
success of my work. Any mistakes made in this report however are solely attributed
to me.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION........................................................................................................ ii

DEDICATION...........................................................................................................iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT .......................................................................................... iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... v

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................. xii

LIST OF APPENDICES ........................................................................................ xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................... xv

LIST OF SYMBOLS .............................................................................................. xvi

ABSTRACT ...........................................................................................................xviii

CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................ 1

INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Background ................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Industrial Processing Plants .......................................................................... 2

1.3. Statement of the Problem .............................................................................. 3

1.4 Justification ........................................................................................................ 4

1.5 Main Objective .............................................................................................. 4

1.5.1 Specific Objectives ................................................................................ 4

1.6 Research Questions ............................................................................................ 5

v
 1.7 Limitations of the Study ..................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER TWO ....................................................................................................... 6

LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................... 6

2.1. Overview ........................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Concepts of Pinch Analysis........................................................................... 6

2.2.1 Heat Balance ................................................................................................ 7

2.2.2 Energy Targeting ......................................................................................... 8

2.2.3 Heat Exchange Network Design ................................................................ 12

2.3 Mathematical Modeling and its Application to Pinch Analysis ....................... 15

2.4 Empirical Review ............................................................................................. 18

2.5. A Summary of Gaps ........................................................................................ 24

CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................. 25

MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................................................ 25

3.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 25

3.1.1 Process Description of Plant A .................................................................. 25

3.1.2 Process Description of Plant B .................................................................. 26

3.1.3 Process Description of Plant C .................................................................. 27

3.2. Modeling of Heat Recovery Mechanisms ....................................................... 30

3.2.1 Modeling of Heat Balance and Energy Targets ......................................... 30

vi
 3.2.2 Modeling and Optimization of the Heat Exchanger Areas ........................ 38

3.3 Data Collection ................................................................................................. 55

3.4 Data Analysis and Presentation ........................................................................ 58

3.5 Uncertainty Analysis ........................................................................................ 60

CHAPTER FOUR .................................................................................................... 65

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ............................................................................ 65

4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 65

4.2 Performance Testing of the Heat Balance Model ............................................ 65

4.2.1 Model Validation ....................................................................................... 65

4.2.2 Performance Testing of the Heat Balance Model on Plant A .................... 70

4.2.3 Performance Testing of the Heat Balance Model on Plant B .................... 76

4.2.4 Performance Testing of the Heat Balance Model on Plant C .................... 81

4.3 Comparisons of Heating and Cooling Loads Under the Two Models ............. 87

4.3.1 Heating Loads ............................................................................................ 87

4.3.2 Cooling Loads............................................................................................ 92

4.4 Performance Testing of the Energy Targeting Model ...................................... 96

4.4.1 Validation on Dairy Specialty Plant .......................................................... 96

4.4.2 Performance Testing of the Energy Targeting Model on Plant A ........... 103

4.4.3 Performance Testing of the Energy Targeting Model on Plant B ........... 108

vii
 4.4.4 Performance Testing of the Energy Targeting Model on Plant C ........... 112

4.5 Comparisons of Energy Targets Results and Grand Composite Curves ........ 117

4.5.1 Comparison of the Energy Targets .......................................................... 117

4.5.2 Grand Composite Curves ......................................................................... 120

4.6 Design of Heat Exchange Network ................................................................ 121

4.6.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 121

4.6.2 Heat Exchange Network for Plant A ....................................................... 122

4.6.3 Heat Exchange Network for Plant B ....................................................... 128

4.6.4 Heat Exchange Network for Plant C ....................................................... 132

4.6.5 Determination of Heat Exchanger Areas using the VBA Solver ............ 135

4.6.6 Comparison of Exchanger Areas ............................................................. 143

4.6.7 Effect of Fouling Factor on Heat Recovery ............................................. 145

CHAPTER FIVE ................................................................................................... 149

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 149

5.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................... 149

5.2 Recommendations .......................................................................................... 151

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 152

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 161

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Secondary Data used for Evaluation of the Heat Balancing Model ........ 36

Table 3.2: Comparison of Sanity Check Heat Balance Results with model output .. 36

Table 3.3: Sanity Test Results for Interval Arrangements ........................................ 37

Table 3.4: Description of Stream Properties used for Design of a Heat Exchanger . 42

Table 3.5: Variables used for Heat Exchanger Model Verification .......................... 53

Table 3.6: Comparison of VBA Solver and sanity check results .............................. 54

Table 3.7: Summary of Data Collection Instruments used ....................................... 55

Table 3.8: A summary of the Scenarios used for energy targeting ........................... 59

Table 3.9: Experimental Uncertainty Analysis ......................................................... 62

Table 4.1: Heat Balance Data for Dairy Specialty Plant ........................................... 66

Table 4.2: Heat Balance for Dairy Specialty Plant using Scenario One ................... 67

Table 4.3: Heat Balance for Dairy Specialty Plant using Scenario Two .................. 69

Table 4.4: Data Extracted from Plant A .................................................................... 71

Table 4.5: Scenario One Heat Balance for Plant A ................................................... 73

Table 4.6: Scenario Two Heat Balance of Plant A ................................................... 75

Table 4.7: Data Extracted from Plant B .................................................................... 77

Table 4.8: Scenario One Heat Balance for Plant B ................................................... 79

Table 4.9: Scenario Two Heat Balance of Plant B.................................................... 80

Table 4.10: Data Extracted from Plant C .................................................................. 82

Table 4.11: Scenario One Heat Balance for Plant C ................................................. 84

ix
Table 4.12: Scenario Two Heat Balance of Plant C ................................................. 86

Table 4. 13: Comparison of Heating Loads per Stream ............................................ 88

Table 4.14: Comparison of Cooling Loads per Stream ............................................ 93

Table 4.15: Dairy Specialty Plant Scenario One Energy Targets ............................. 97

Table 4.16: Dairy Specialty Plant Scenario Two Energy Targets ............................ 99

Table 4.17: Dairy Specialty Plant Scenario Three Energy Targets ........................ 100

Table 4.18: Dairy Specialty Plant Scenario Two Energy Targets .......................... 102

Table 4.19: Plant A Scenario One Energy Targets ................................................. 103

Table 4.20: Plant A Scenario Two Energy Targets ................................................ 104

Table 4.21: Plant A Scenario Three Energy Targets............................................... 105

Table 4.22: Plant A Scenario Four Energy Targets ................................................ 107

Table 4.23: Plant B Scenario One Energy Targets ................................................. 108

Table 4.24: Plant B Scenario Two Energy Targets ................................................. 109

Table 4.25: Plant B Scenario Three Energy Targets ............................................... 110

Table 4.26: Plant B Scenario Four Energy Targets ................................................ 111

Table 4.27: Plant C Scenario One Energy Targets ................................................. 112

Table 4.28: Plant C Scenario Two Energy Targets ................................................. 114

Table 4.29: Plant C Scenario Three Energy Targets ............................................... 115

Table 4.30: Plant C Scenario Four Energy Targets ................................................ 116

Table 4.31: Percentage Differences of Energy Targets for the Scenarios .............. 118

Table 4.32: External Utilities and Internal Recovery Targets for Scenario Two.... 122

x
Table 4.33: Temperature Limits for Heat Recovery for Plant A ............................ 123

Table 4.34: Heat Recovery between Streams for Plant A ....................................... 125

Table 4.35: Utility Requirements for Plant A ......................................................... 126

Table 4.36: Temperature Limits for Heat Recovery for Plant B ............................ 129

Table 4.37: Heat Recovery between Streams for Plant B ....................................... 130

Table 4.38: Utility Requirements for Plant B ......................................................... 131

Table 4.39: Temperature Limits for Heat Recovery for Plant B ............................ 133

Table 4.40: Internal Heat Recovery between Streams for Plant C ......................... 134

Table 4.41: Utility Requirements for Plant C ......................................................... 134

Table 4.42: Plant A Fluid Properties used for Heat Exchanger Design .................. 137

Table 4.43: Plant A Designed Heat Exchanger Specifications ............................... 138

Table 4.44: Plant B Fluid Properties used for Design of Heat Exchangers ............ 140

Table 4.45: Plant B Designed Heat Exchanger Specifications ............................... 141

Table 4.46: Plant C Fluid Properties used for Design of Heat Exchangers ............ 142

Table 4.47: Plant C Designed Heat Exchanger Specifications ............................... 143

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. 1: Example of Manufacturing Process ........................................................... 2

Figure 2. 1 Description of the Steps followed in Pinch Analysis .................................. 7

Figure 2. 2: Illustration of Energy Targeting Steps ....................................................... 9

Figure 2. 3: Graphical Concept of the Minimum Temperature Difference ................. 10

Figure 2. 4: Relationship between minimum temperature difference and costs .......... 11

Figure 2. 5: An illustration of a hypothetical typical Grand Composite Curve ........... 13

Figure 2. 6: An Example of a Heat Exchange Network .............................................. 14

Figure 3. 1: Process flow for Manufacture of LABSA ................................................ 26

Figure 3. 2: Milk Processing Flow Chart ..................................................................... 27

Figure 3. 3: Process Flow for Distillery Plant ............................................................. 28

Figure 3. 4: Algorithm for the Proposed Heat Balance and Energy Targeting Model 34

Figure 3. 5: Illustration of a Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger ..................................... 39

Figure 3. 6: Illustration of Variables of the Heat Exchanger ....................................... 43

Figure 3. 7: Sizing and Optimization Algorithm for Heat Exchanger Design............. 52

Figure 4. 1: A Comparison of Total Heating Loads for Scenario One and Two ......... 90

Figure 4. 2: Behavior of Heating Loads Simulated for two Scenarios ........................ 91

Figure 4. 3: A Comparison of Total Heating Loads for Scenario One and Two ......... 94

Figure 4. 4: Behavior of Cooling Loads Simulated for two Scenarios ........................ 95

Figure 4. 5: Comparison of Maximum Internally Recoverable Heat ........................ 117

xii
Figure 4. 6: Grand Composite Curves ......................................................................... 120

Figure 4. 7: A network diagram guide to design of internal heat recovery for Plant A.
.......................................................................................................................... 123

Figure 4. 8: Graphical Guide to Heat Exchange Network for Plant A ...................... 127

Figure 4. 9: A network diagram guide to design of internal heat recovery for Plant B.
............................................................................................................................. 128

Figure 4. 10: Graphical Guide to Heat Exchange Network for Plant B .................... 132

Figure 4. 11: A network diagram guide to design of internal heat recovery for Plant C.
............................................................................................................................. 133

Figure 4. 12: Graphical Guide to Heat Exchange Network for Plant C .................... 135

Figure 4. 13: Comparison of Heat Exchanger Areas ................................................. 144

Figure 4. 14: Effects of Fouling Factors on Heat Transfer ........................................ 145

Figure 4. 15: Effects of Tube Side Fouling Factor Changes on Heat Exchange ....... 147

xiii
 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix I Heat Balance and Energy Targeting Tool’s Source Code ................. 161

Appendix II VBA Optimization Source Code........................................................ 168

Appendix III Dairy Specialty Plant Scenario One Energy Targets ........................ 169

Appendix IV Scenario Two Dairy Specialty Plant Energy Targets ..................... 186

Appendix V Scenario Three, Dairy Specialty Plant Energy Targets...................... 197

Appendix VI Scenario Four, Dairy Specialty Plant Energy Targets .................... 204

Appendix VII Scenario One, Plant A Energy Targets ........................................... 215

Appendix VIII Scenario Two, Plant A Energy Targets .......................................... 220

Appendix IX Scenario Three, Plant A Energy Targets ........................................ 225

Appendix X Scenario Four, Plant A Energy Targets ............................................. 230

Appendix XI Scenario One Plant B Energy Targets ............................................ 235

Appendix XII Scenario Two, Plant B Energy Targets .......................................... 238

Appendix XIII Scenario Three, Plant B Energy Targets ........................................ 240

Appendix XIV Scenario Four, Plant B Energy Targets .......................................... 243

Appendix XV Scenario One, Plant C Energy Targets ........................................... 247

Appendix XVI Scenario Two, Plant C Energy Targeting ....................................... 251

Appendix XVII Scenario Three, Plant C Energy Targeting ................................... 254

Appendix XVIII Scenario Four, Plant C Energy Targeting ................................... 257

Appendix XIX Simulation Results for Fouling Factors Effect ............................... 261

xiv
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

GCC Grand Composite Curve

HEN Heat Exchange Network
LABSA Linear Alkyl Benzene Sulphonic Acid
LMTD Logarithmic Mean Temperature Difference
MATLAB Matrix Laboratory
PHP Hypertext Preprocessor
TEMA Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association
VBA Visual Basic for Applications

xv
 LIST OF SYMBOLS

∆Tmin Minimum temperature difference °C

∆P Pressure Drop MPa
∆H Rate of Change of Enthalpy Kw
F LMTD Correction Factor Dimensionless
Dto Outer diameter of heat exchanger tube M
Dti Inner diameter of heat exchanger tube M
A Area of the heat exchanger material m2
Tci Initial temperature of cold stream °C
Tco Target temperature of cold stream °C
Thi Initial temperature of hot stream °C
Tho Target temperature of hot stream °C
ṁc Mass flow rate of the cold stream kg/s
ṁh Mass flow rate of the hot stream kg/s
Ρc Density of the cold stream kg/m3
Ρh Density of the hot stream kg/m3
Cpc Specific heat capacity of the cold stream kJ/kg·K
ht Tube side heat transfer coefficient kW/m2K
hs Shell side heat transfer coefficient kW/m2K
f Darcy friction factor Dimensionless
Cph Specific heat capacity of the hot stream kJ/kg·K
Sc Specific gravity of cold stream Dimensionless
Sh Specific gravity of hot stream Dimensionless
µc Dynamic viscosity of cold stream kg/m.s
µh Dynamic viscosity of hot stream kg/m.s
Re Reynold’s number Dimensionless
Nu Nusselt number Dimensionless
U Overall coefficient of heat transfer kW/m2K
Pr Prandtl number Dimensionless
R Friction factor Dimensionless
Gs Mass velocity kg.m/s
De Shell equivalent diameter M
Ks Thermal conductivity of shell side fluid W/m⋅K
Kt Thermal conductivity of tube side fluid W/m⋅K

xvi
Kw Thermal conductivity of tube material W/m⋅K
Rt Tube side fouling factor m2.K/kW
Rs Shell side fouling factor m2.K/Kw

xvii
 ABSTRACT

Efficient use of energy in processing plants is one of the ways of reducing production
costs. Among the existing tools, pinch analysis presents opportunities for process design
engineers to have an integrative approach to reducing energy consumption through
internal heat recovery. Even though pinch analysis has been used before to guide
computation of energy targets and design of heat exchangers to meet the targets, the tool
has not been enhanced to take into consideration stream specific temperature dependent
properties of process materials and heat exchanger geometry. In order to improve the
tool, it is important to incorporate these design considerations into a model that can be
used for design of internal heat recovery systems. The objective of this study was to
design, validate and test internal heat recovery models based on pinch analysis
technique. Three models were developed to obtain an optimum model based on heat
balance, energy targeting and heat exchanger sizing. The heat balance and energy
targeting models were coded and integrated into a single hypertext preprocessor (PHP)
platform. This is a general-purpose server-based coding language. The model for design
and optimization of heat exchanger size used mathematical programming method. The
method used equations from Kern design guidelines and was used using visual basic for
analysis (VBA) Solver. The models were validated using secondary data from a Dairy
Specialty Plant. Performance of the proposed heat balance and energy targeting models
were tested using data from Plant A, B, C and a Dairy Specialty Plant. Plants A, B and
C produced linear alkyl benzanoic acid, dairy products and alcohol compounds,
respectively. Optimization of heat exchanger size was tested on 19 heat exchangers from
Plants A, B and C. Simulations were performed on some streams and some heat
exchanger for energy balance and thermal performance, respectively. The results from
the proposed models were compared with results from the traditional models. A
comparison of the performance of the proposed model to the traditional model revealed
mixed results for heating and cooling. The heating loads computed using the proposed
model for Plants A, B and C were higher by an average of 0.58%. The heating load
computed for the Dairy Specialty Plant were lesser by 2.77%. For cooling loads, there
was no observed difference in Plant C. The loads for Dairy Specialty Plant and Plant A
were less an average of 17.38%. Plant B’s cooling computed under this model were
more 0.64 %. What-if simulation results further explained these findings. The results
revealed that gaseous streams had low heating duties while liquid and steam streams had
high duties. The proposed model targeted internally recoverable heat savings of 2.2%,
10.56% and 20.88% for Plants A, B and C respectively. The conventional model
computed savings of 1.5%, 4.5% and 2.2%, in a similar order. The proposed heat
exchanger model came up with area requirements that cost less by average of 13%. A
simulation of the effects of tube side fouling factors on thermal performance of heat
exchangers for internal heat recovery revealed varied ranges of effects for the 19 heat
exchangers tested. Average drop of 0.3% in performance of the exchangers was noted.
These deviations are attributed to increase in fouling, which increases resistance to heat
transfer. The findings of this study are applicable in the design of heating and cooling
systems in thermo-chemical processing plants. The accuracy of estimation of required
sizes of heating utilities (furnaces, heat pumps and boilers) and cooling utilities (chillers
and cooling towers), through heat balance, can be improved if the proposed model is
used. The amount of heat that can be recovered internally in a process plant can be
predicted accurately using the proposed heat targeting model.

xviii
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

There have been rising costs of production in industrial set-ups in the world.
Processing plants are some of the set-ups that have been affected. Bunse , Vodicka,
,Schönsleben, Brülhart, & Ernst (2011) attribute this to the rising costs of the cooling
and heating utilities used in industries. Heating is partly generated through combustion
of fossil fuels. Cooling is powered by electric power, and such power is partly
generated by combustion of fossil fuels. Astrup, Møller & Fruergaard (2009) state that
such combustion leads to increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide gases in the
atmosphere, which is the driving force behind global warming.

The energy consumption costs affect the financial performance of thermo-chemical

processing industry. Law, Harvey & Reey (2013), for example, cites the rising costs
of fossil fuel and electricity as the contributing factors to the rise in cost of production.
The processing industry is characterized with many processes that use energy. They
include direct heating, production of steam, separation, distillation, furnace heating,
air-cooling process, chilling, and refrigeration, powering of prime movers such
pumps, compressors among other process machines. All these processes use thermal
and electrical energy.

Efforts to reduce the financial and environmental costs of process heating and cooling
in the processing industries have been going on. Various methods of reducing these
costs, through energy efficiency, have been developed. These tools include the exergy
analysis, learning curves, pinch analysis, fuel substitution and emergy analyses
(Kahouli-Brahmi, 2008; Brau, Morandin & Berntson, 2013; Cihan, Hacihafizoglu &
Kahveci, 2006). Researchers have attempted to pursue these options with aims of
reducing the cooling and heating duty demands in industrial applications.

The use of the energy efficiency tools has been proven to assist in energy efficiency
and cost optimization in process plants, although weaknesses have been reported.
Pinch analysis, for example, has been in use for more than 35 years, and there have

1
been attempts to improve the tool, for better performance. The tool uses three stages,
that is, heat balance, energy targeting and design of a heat exchange network. The
present research seeks to design internal heat recovery model based on pinch analysis.

1.2. Industrial Processing Plants

An industrial processing plant is made up of a system of equipment that converts raw

materials into products. The products could be in a ready form for consumption or can
be used as raw materials for another process. Such plants are associated with
manufacturing, which is common with production of beverage, food, consumer
packaged goods, chemical, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. Production
of these goods requires the inputs of resources like heat, cooling duty, pressure and
time. These inputs are incorporated at various stages during the manufacturing.
Toluene Recovery System Process Flow Diagram shown in Figure 1.1 is a typical
example of a processing plant.

Figure 1.1: Example of Manufacturing Process (IPP, 2017)

As illustrated in Figure 1.1, the manufacturing process of toluene involves heating,

cooling and pumping. Heating is in the vaporizer, the columns and the re-boilers.
Cooling is in the condenser sections of the plant. There is also a pumping system,
which circulates the product as it undergoes the manufacturing process. These
processes require external supply of heating and cooling duties. Improvement of the
efficiency in such processes thus calls for the reduction in the cooling and heating duty
demands.

2
1.3. Statement of the Problem

The cost of production of goods has been increasing in the world because of the rise
in price of energy. Fossil fuels like industrial diesel oil, coal, diesel, gasoline and
petroleum are used as some of energy sources. These sources are nonrenewable with
time and their prices are on the increase, thus increasing the production costs. The high
costs of production result in high commodity prices. This has in effect increased the
cost of living. As well, the continued use of fossil fuels has led to increase in the
emission of gases that are harmful to the environment.

In thermo-chemical industrial processes, the heating losses have led to increase in the
demand of external supply of heating duty. In the same processes, there are losses
associated with cooling. An increase in demand for the external cooling duties has also
led to the increase in the energy costs because most cooling utilities use electricity.
Cumulative losses during the cooling and the heating processes increase the costs of
production in these industries. Similarly, this increase in the energy demand further
contributes directly to environmental degradation.

Some industries have tried to deal with the problem of the costs of energy by
introducing the use of renewable energy technologies. However, these technologies
have had inherent challenges, which include difficulties in fuel switching, bulk
handling problems and unsustainable supply of the fuel feedstock. Energy efficiency
methods like emergy, learning curves and exergy analyses have proved to be untenable
because they fail to offer integrated and objective solutions to the energy consumption
problem.

Attempts have been made to use pinch technology to improve the energy efficiency in
industrial applications. However, the results of this intervention have not been
conclusive. There is therefore need to carry out more studies to improve the
performance of this tool.

3
1.4 Justification

The increasing energy demand to meet industrial development has caused increase in
financial and environmental costs. International, national and private sector actors
have to come up with ways of mitigating this increase in costs, while maintaining
quality and quantity of the products and services. According to the National Economic
Survey (2015) report, the oil sector accounts for 28.57% of the total final energy
consumption in the energy matrix, the electricity sector accounts for 3.11% whereas
the combustible renewable account for 67.65%. The total consumption is 14,353.8
thousand tons of oil equivalent. The business activities that use oil in Kenya contribute
to 8.4% of the GDP, electricity contributes to 0.6 % while wood fuel contributes to
0.4%. Oil demand in Kenya has been on the increase in the last one decade. It is
necessary to focus on ways of prudent use of the oil resources. This will help to reduce
the energy and environmental costs.

1.5 Main Objective

The main objective of this research was to design and model performance
improvement of a process plant based on process integration that utilizes pinch
analysis

1.5.1 Specific Objectives

The general objective was achieved via the following specific objectives:

i. To model and simulate energy reduction mechanisms in a process plant

ii. To validate the energy reduction model using data measured from a thermo-
chemical plant
iii. To test the performance of the model based on temperature, mass flow rate,
specific heat coefficient, distance between exchangers and pressure.
iv. Optimize design of heat exchange network areas using mixed integer linear
programming

4
1.6 Research Questions

The study will answer the following research questions:

i. How much energy consumption does use of pinch analysis method reduce in
thermos-chemical plants?
ii. How does the selection of isobaric values of specific heat capacity affect heat
balancing in design of heat exchange systems?
iii. How does selection of value of minimum temperature difference affect the
internal heat recovery targets in pinch analysis?
iv. How does the approach used to determine overall coefficient of heat transfer
affect the resultant heat exchanger areas?

1.7 Limitations of the Study

This study sought to model improved ways of carrying out pinch analysis, then test
and simulate the model performance. Data was collected from the plants for only five
days, which was found to be sufficient to give overall performance of the plant. Some
thermal variables like cooling and heating degree days may change over the year,
changing room temperature of process materials, and this was not accounted for in the
analysis. The study however assumed that the differences were negligible. Non-
uniformity of secondary data used for determining heating and cooling loads and for
design of heat exchangers was also a limitation. Data for variables like polynomial
temperature coefficients of specific heat capacity, fouling factors and coefficient of
heat transfer and coefficient of thermal conductivity was not uniform across all
secondary sources. Variations, mostly in the decimal values, were observed. This
model may therefore yield different results if such data was obtained from secondary
sources different from the ones cited in this work.

5
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Overview

Discussed in this chapter are the theories, concepts and empirical studies about pinch
technology in industrial processes. The first section provides the concept of pinch
analysis in which heat balancing, energy targeting and design of heat exchange
network are presented. In the second section of this chapter, concepts of modeling and
simulation have been explained. The third section presents the concept of
mathematical programing, and its application to pinch analysis. Critical review of
empirical studies in internal heat recovery and identification of the study gaps have
been carried out in the last section.

2.2 Concepts of Pinch Analysis

Pinch Analysis is a process integration technique used for design of internal heat
recovery systems in processing plants. This tool helps process designers come up with
maximum thermodynamically possible energy targets that can be recovered internally.
To compute such targets using this approach, a heat balance and internal heat recovery
targeting is carried out. The heat recovery targeting is also referred to as energy
recovery targeting, where internal heat recovery targets are set. The heat balance
consists of the total external required heating load and cooling load. The energy
targets, on the other hand, consist of the minimum total required external heating and
cooling load. From the heat balance and energy targeting results, the maximum
internally recoverable heat can be computed. The internal heat recovery targets are
achieved through a heat exchange system in the plant. This is achieved through the
design of a heat exchange network. Figure 2.1 illustrates the steps used in carrying out
pinch analysis.

6
 • This determines the
amount of heating and
Heat balance cooling required, without
any internal heat
recovery
• Energy targets consist of
the minimum externally
Energy required cooling and
recovery heating load. This
targetting considers recovery of
heat internally • This exercise
comes up with a
Design of heat exchange
network. The
Heat network helps in
Exchanger recovery of the
Network energy targets
computed

Figure 2.1: Description of the Steps followed in Pinch Analysis

From Figure 2.1, it is shown that the processes used in the analysis are sequential.

2.2.1 Heat Balance

In heat balance, streams are analyzed in terms of heating and cooling load
requirements. A stream consists of a substance that undergoes heating or cooling, with
a definite initial and final temperature, without undergoing phase change (Kemp,
2007). A case in point is the heating of water for use in a process plant. Here, the hot
water is heated from an initial temperature, to a final desired temperature. In Pinch
Analysis, this is considered a stream. If this water is heated into steam, then these will
be considered two streams, because of phase change. The parameters used for
computation of heating required will have changed. If a stream requires cooling, it is
called a hot stream. If it requires heating, it is called a cold stream.

Cooling loads are denoted by positive signs and heating loads by a positive sign
(Kemp,2007). Cooling and heating loads per stream are determined using the
temperature difference, the specific heat capacity of the substance undergoing
processing and the mass flow rate (Eriksson & Hermansson, 2010). The temperature
variables and the mass flow rates can be measured from the factory. However, these
can also be determined from the process design. The specific heat capacity is often
determined from published literature. In cases where there is a mixture of substances,

7
then the effective specific heat capacity for mixed substances is used. This is usually
computed using relative atomic mass of the mixed substances (Podolski , Schimalzer
& Conrad, 2000). In the available literature on industrial heat balancing, the specific
heat capacity value is obtained by interpolation, to cater for the variation in
temperature along the stream. This averaging does not account for the influence of
temperature on specific heat capacity. It is therefore necessary that other functions are
obtained that account for this influence.

The total cooling and heating loads are determined by summing up the individual
stream loads. Summation of all the cooling loads of each stream determines the total
required external cooling load. The same treatment is applied to the heating loads.
Determination of cooling and heating loads is important, for it reveals the total external
required energy, in the absence of any internal heat recovery (Kemp, 2007).

2.2.2 Energy Targeting

In this step of pinch analysis, the process designer comes up with the minimum
externally required cooling and heating loads. The steps in this process are shown in
Figure 2.2.

8
 Shifting Steam Temperatures
Increase or decrease of stream temperatures by a minimum temperature difference value.

Arrangement of shifted temperature intervals

The shifted temperatures are used to create intervals, from the highest to the lowest

Computing of heat deficit and surplus in each shifted temperature interval

Heating and cooling loads in each interval are computed, and the net balance computed. In each interval, there are streams
whose temperature profile pass through it. Computing of heat deficit and surplus in each shifted temperature interval

Cascading of heat deficit and surplus in the shifted temperature intervals

Heat surplus is cascaded into another surplus or a deficit. Heat deficit is only cascaded into another deficit. Where a deficit is to be cascaded
into a surplus, external heat is added. This is the minimum external heating load. This is done at the pinch point

Arrangement of shifted temperature intervals

The net heat load cascaded below the pinch point

Figure 2.2: Illustration of Energy Targeting Steps

The energy targeting process, as illustrated in Figure 2.2, is important for setting heat
recovery targets. In this stage, the selection of mean temperature difference is vital.
The rigorousness of this process partly depends on how well the mean temperature
difference between processes and utilities has been selected. According to the First
Law of Thermodynamics, heat will flow into or out of any system as a response to the
temperature difference (Raju, 2011). This difference restricts the types of streams that
can exchange heat. This concept is illustrated in Figure 2.3.

9
 Cold Stream Hot Stream

450
400
Temperature Profile ( °C)

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Point A Point B

Figure 2.3: Graphical Concept of the Minimum Temperature Difference

Figure 2.3 shows a hot and a cold stream. These streams illustrate a typical heat
exchanger model, where the hot stream exchanges heat with the cold stream. During
shifting of temperature, selection of the minimum temperature difference restricts the
temperature driving force that can be allowed between the streams. The heat
transferred between bodies is also determined by the surface area of the heat
exchangers and the heat transfer coefficient (DeLancey, 2013). The temperature
difference at point A is bigger compared to point B. These two points are determined
by process requirements. It is worth noting that the difference cannot be zero, for such
a condition will require a heat exchanger with an infinite area. As well, there is a limit
to the maximum temperature difference. These affect the cost of heat exchangers and
the cost of energy in the process plant. Figure 2.4 shows the relationship between the
minimum temperature difference and the costs associated with heat exchangers and
energy.

10
 Energy Costs Heat Exchanger Costs
12000

10000

8000
Cost (US$)

6000

4000

2000

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Minimum Temperature Difference (°C)

Figure 2.4: Illustration of the Relationship between minimum temperature

difference and costs

The cost of energy used in the factory after the design using pinch analysis, as shown
in Figure 2.4, increases with increase in the value of minimum temperature difference.
Smaller values of minimum temperature difference lead to increase in heat exchanger
cost. The use of a very large value of minimum temperature difference limits the heat
exchanged between bodies whereas the use of a very small value of minimum
temperature difference permits heat exchange between bodies. However, it should be
noted that a very small value of minimum temperature difference requires a large
surface area of heat exchangers. This leads to a conclusion that whereas a very small
value of minimum temperature difference in heat exchange leads to recovery of more
heat between processes, it leads to an increase in the cost of designing the heat
exchanger. Likewise, if a very large value of minimum temperature difference is used,
there will be less heat recovered internally (Serth & Lestina, 2014). This situation
therefore calls for optimal selection of the minimum temperature difference when
calculating energy targets for the internal recovery of heat in thermo-chemical

11
processes. The intersection point in the illustration is an example of optimal minimum
temperature difference.

In pinch analysis, conventionally, during the energy targeting procedure, a single

value for minimum temperature difference between processes is selected. This
practice limits the optimization between the cost of the heat exchangers and the heat
recovered between the internal processes. Kemp (2011) suggested that the use of
different values of minimum temperature difference, depending on the processes
exchanging heat, would improve the energy targeting exercise and the amount of
internal heat recovered. Up to now, little has been published about the efforts to use
the process specific minimum temperature difference to calculate energy targets.
Varbanov, Fodor & Klemes attempted to use this process using a simplified
hypothetical industrial process and came up with results that suggested that this
procedure could improve the recovery of internal heat in thermos-chemical processes.

2.2.3 Heat Exchange Network Design

A heat exchange network (HEN) is used to recover heat from hot streams to cold
streams. In pinch analysis, this network is used to meet the computed maximum
internally recoverable heat. During HEN design, the following pinch analysis
conditions should be followed:

i. There should be no external cooling above the pinch point

ii. There should be no external heat addition below the pinch point
iii. There should be no exchange of heat across the pinch point

The pinch point is a design temperature constraint, determined during the energy
targeting process. Heat deficit should be cascaded into heat surplus, in the shifted
temperature interval, at this temperature. According to the Second Law of
Thermodynamics though, this is not possible. It is not possible to transfer heat
spontaneously from a cold region to a hot region. At this point, external heat is
required. Addition of cooling load above the pinch point means that external heating
must be added to compensate for the cooling. Below this point, heat cannot be added

12
to any process, for the heat will have to be removed using external cooling source
(Kemp, 2007).

Heat exchanged across the pinch point will eventually have to be dumped, using an
external cooling load. Violation of these constraints leads to a pinch penalty, where
more external cooling and heating duties will be required. During design however,
these rules can be violated, in design tradeoffs, especially in areas where heat
exchange may not be permissible, due to safety or maintenance considerations. The
concept of pinch point is well illustrated using a grand composite curve, shown in
Figure 2.5.

500

450 The shifted pinch temperature is

Shifted Temperature (K)

that the pinch point

400

350

300
The heat recovery region is bound
by the re-entrant elbow
250
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Cumulative rate of change of enthalpy (kW)

Figure 2.5: An Illustration of the Grand Composite Curve

The grand composite curve, as the one shown in Figure 2.5, is plotted using the shifted
temperature intervals against the cumulative heat cascaded therein. From the curve, it
is easy to identify the pinch point, which divides the design problem into two. The
pinch point, in Figure 2.5, is at the temperature where the curve touches the y-axis. In
this example, the curve touches the axis at 330.45 K. During design of the process,
external cooling cannot be provided to any process above 330.45 K. As well, external
heating cannot be provided to any process stream below 330.45 K. Heat cannot be

13
recovered in such a way that the temperature of the stream will change from a value
above 330.45 K to a value below 330.45 K. That is considered cross pinch transfer. In
this particular example of a grand composite curve (GCC), heat recovery is only
possible below the pinch point. Heat recovery is only permissible in a region where
the curve falls unto itself, that is, where there is a reentrant (Varbanov et al., 2012).
The reentrant elbow is only seen below the pinch point.

Apart from observing the pinch rules, selection of streams that can exchange heat
should also consider the value used as the minimum temperature difference during
energy targeting. This value is a design constraint. If the difference between the entry
temperature of the cold stream and the exit temperature of the hot stream is less than
the minimum temperature difference used during targeting, then heat exchange should
not be allowed (Kemp, 2007).

The product of a HEN design is a network of heat exchangers, external cooling and
heating utilities, all of which help meet the computed energy targets. The design offers
a guide on the heat exchange between streams and the locations where cooling and
heating utilities should be placed. Figure 2.6 shows an example of a heat exchange
network design.

Figure 2.6: An Example of a Heat Exchange Network

14
Figure 2.6 shows the cooling and heating utilities and the heat exchangers. Hot streams
are presented in red arrows while cold streams are presented in blue arrows. Stream 2
is heated by exchanging heat with stream 9. There is no external heating utility on this
stream. Stream 12, likewise, has no external cooling utility. It cools solely by
exchanging heat with stream 3. Stream 11 is cooled by an external cooling utility,
labelled j. There is no heat exchanger on this stream. Stream 4 has two heating utilities,
b and c, and a heat exchanger where heat is exchanged with stream 9.

Cooling utilities could be chillers, cooling towers, cooling oil and cooling fans. All
these utilize electrical power. A limit to the cooling duty required therefore directly
puts a limit to the amount of electrical energy used in the process. Heating utilities
include steam, hot water, furnaces and direct heating. These utilities use electricity
and fuel. As such, optimization of the heating loads translates to having a minimum
possible external energy required in the process plant (Svensson & Harvey, 2011).
Maximization of internally recoverable heat is therefore essential. However, this
comes with the cost of heat exchanger area.

Design of a heat exchanger aims to come up with an area that will enable exchange of
targeted heat between two streams. Published literature, for example in Fenwicks,
Kinyua & Aganda (2014), in pinch analysis shows that the design of exchangers
obviates design constraints like shell side and tube side pressure drops, velocity of the
fluid, fouling factors, viscosity and over surface design. To reflect practical aspects of
heat recovery, it is important that multi-objective design criteria be used.
Mathematical programming is such a tool that can optimize design of heat exchanger
area.

2.3 Mathematical Modeling and its Application to Pinch Analysis

Mathematical models are important for scientific and non-scientific study of

situations. The models allow mimicry of the situation under study, by use of
mathematical language. In modeling, problems are translated from the area of
application into mathematical formulas. These formulas are analyzed using inputs and
outputs to provide guidance, insights and answers that are useful to the area of
application (Bender, 2012). Mathematical models can either be deterministic or
15
stochastic. Models consisting of a mixture of deterministic and stochastic behaviors
also exist. Selection of the model to use for solving problems depends on the nature
of the problem.

Deterministic models are based on hypothesized or known laws of physics or

mathematics, in a way that a given input of values will always have the same output
as a result. The models result in the same exact output for fixed set of conditions,
irrespective of the number of times the model is re-run (Sun, 2012). These models
involve state variables, for example, mass flow rate of materials, which describe a
system at given discrete points and time. They also involve equations and relationships
which describe the change of state dependent variables as responses to changes in
independent variables.

Deterministic models have no representation of randomness or uncertainty and thus

do not rely on statistics. Values of the dependent variables are completely determined
by the parameters of the model. As such, uncertainty of outcome in these models is
equal to zero, the variables have no autonomy, the behavior is predictable and the
output is organized. More details on behavior of deterministic models have been
discussed in Rzevski & Brebbia, (2016). To determine how good a deterministic
model is, it has to be tested. This is known as verification, accreditation or validation.
Sanity tests can be used for this purpose (Parnell, Driscoll & Henderson, 2011). In
sanity checks, back-of-the-envelope calculations are carried out then the check result
compared with the output of the model (Kossiakoff, Sweet & Seymore, 2011).

The advantage of deterministic models is that they are amenable to mathematical

analysis. This makes it possible to simulate them through input and parameter
adjustment. Deterministic simulations are carried out using what-if analysis, where
the model is rerun to determine the effect of the changes in input variable to an output
variable. The value of the input variable used for the simulation is as per the best guess
of the modeler. Such a simulation is run and the output, a single value, or a single set
of values, is observed, helping the modeler to make a decision (Sokolowski & Banks,
2010). To have a sense of the system behavior in this what-if simulation, the modeler
must use more than one set of inputs.

16
In stochastic modeling, there is probability distribution that is associated with the
inputs and the processes within the model. This implies that the same inputs can yield
different results. These models have to be well based in statistical theories. These
models have superiority over deterministic models if the input variables are random
(Sun, 2012). In this modeling technique, during stochastic sensitivity analysis, there
is input of probability distributions of variables. The output of this analysis is
probabilistic (Borrego & Renner, 2011).

Process integration problems can be solved by either of the two modeling techniques,
depending on the nature of the problem. For heat exchange network design for
example, the two approaches can be used for optimization. The use of sequential
synthesis method relies on deterministic modeling. In this method, concepts of pinch
and graphical illustrations are utilized to break down the heat integration problem into
sub problems, for example the heat balancing, energy targeting and sizing of heat
exchangers. Deterministic modeling for this problem uses heuristics and
thermodynamics laws (Ahmad, Zhang, Jobson & Chen, 2012). Stochastic modeling is
applied during simultaneously synthesis of the heat exchange network, without
breaking it into sub problems. It incorporates tradeoffs between capital costs and
operating costs in energy use (Kang & Liu, 2018).

In pinch analysis, the laws governing heat balancing, energy targeting and heat
exchange network are guided by mathematical equations that describe the
fundamental principles of heat exchange. These principles are understood and well
established. In cases where solutions are required for some parts of the pinch analysis,
which obviates use of simultaneous methods, then deterministic what-if simulation
technique is appropriate (Lewis, 2008). This model enables the modeler to predict
outputs using single factor simulation.

Multi-objective optimization can also be achieved using deterministic modeling,

through heuristics and metaheuristics (Lorente, 2017). An example of such
optimization problem is described by Dimian, Bildea & Kiss, (2014). The author
identifies design constraints in optimization of internal heat recovery and design of
heat exchanger area. These limitations are imposed by the laws of thermodynamics

17
and fluid mechanics, the Pinch Analysis rules and the operation effectiveness of the
plant. All these objectives are conflicting and it is necessary to come up with an
optimal solution to the problem. Elimination by aspect heuristic approach can be used
in this model to optimize the design. This approach has been discussed in detail by
Eapen (2009). Here, potential choices are eliminated if they do not satisfy certain
design criteria. The approach is based on intuitive strategies, mostly informed by
expert knowledge.

2.4 Empirical Review

The application of pinch analysis for internal heat recovery in coal fired power plants
was documented by Harkin, Hoadley & Hooper (2010). Two plants, A and B, were
studied. The study was aimed at integrating carbon dioxide gas capture and storage in
a coal-fired power station. A combination of pinch analysis and linear programming
was used to come up with a design that would help recover heat internally for capture
and storage of carbon dioxide. In the design, heat would be extracted from the turbines
and used for the separation of carbon dioxide. The steam would then exit from the
process as condensed hot water. The hot water would then rejoin the feed water for
preheating purposes. The design results showed that if a minimum temperature
difference value of 3°C was used, the plants’ energy penalty could be changed from
39% to 23.5% and from 28% to 14% for plants A and B respectively.

The findings of the study by Harkin et al (2010) are evidential proofs that pinch
analysis can be used in combination with mathematical programming to come up with
a heat recovery network that can help reduce production costs. In circumstances where
conventional pinch analysis cannot be used effectively, a combination of the tool with
mathematical programming can help. However, the study is not conclusive in terms
of the use of the minimum temperature difference value. The authors used a global
value of 3°C and they point this out as a possible source of design flaws which can
misrepresent the practical situation. For a robust design, each stream should have its
own value of mean temperature difference when computing the energy targets. The
solutions proposed in this study through the use of linear programming tool may not
be universally applicable in situations with multi objective design criteria. Multi

18
objective mathematical programming methods should be used in complex processes.
Modeling and simulation of the solutions in the study would make it better to test any
process changes in terms of temperature, pressure and steam velocities. The study did
not focus on this area.

The use of pinch analysis has been suggested as one of the solutions to the energy cost
problem in dryers. Kemp (2005) carried out a review of energy efficiency measures
that can be used to reduce the energy consumed in dryers. Internal heat recovery
between the dryer system streams, through pinch analysis, was suggested as one of the
ways of reducing the heating and cooling duty demands. During investigation of the
suitability of pinch analysis to help reduce the external energy demand, the author
used a theoretical example of a dryer system. A minimum temperature difference of
20°C was used for energy targeting. The internal heat recovery network designed
could help reduce the energy demand from 186 kW to 124 kW, improving the dryer
efficiency from less than 50% to a possible maximum efficiency of 75%.

The work by Kemp (2005) gives useful insights into the process of recovering heat
from hot and cold streams in a thermo-chemical process. It gives a clear step by step
procedure that can be used to carry out pinch analysis in a plant. The work however
needs to be improved in order to reflect realistic situations in the industrial processes.
The use of theoretical cases to prove the workability of pinch analysis oversimplifies
the whole situation. The applicability of the pinch analysis tool can be demonstrated
better if the process is put to use into a real drying process. Further, during the heat
targeting, optimization can be improved if the stream specific minimum temperature
difference is used. In the discussion of the process, the author agrees to this flaw by
suggesting that a wide range of minimum temperature difference values could be used
to make economic sense. The design of the heat recovery network does not take into
consideration multiple factors that can affect the drying process. The use of alternative
utility systems like heat pumps, solar heating and combined heat and power has not
been incorporated into the designed network. This would be possible if mathematical
programming tool was used. It is also easy to implement this solution on problems
with different variables if it was modeled, simulated and validated.

19
Yoon, Lee & Park (2007) studied effects of retrofitting of heat exchange network using
pinch analysis on an industrial ethylbenzene plant. In this study, there was a proposal
for a retrofit of the existing heat exchanger network. The authors used pinch analysis
methods to come up with an optimum heat exchange network. A new network was
designed and suggestions for change of the pressure and temperature operating
conditions were made. It was found that there would be 5.6% energy saving and that
investment cost would be less than the annual savings that would be recovered after
the retrofitting of the plant. Although this study gave some insights into areas of
improvement of existing heat exchange networks, it did not particularly size the heat
exchangers based on discrete dimensions and thermo-fluid flow limitations. Absence
of these considerations affect the performance of the conventional pinch analysis tool.
It did not come up with any modification to the tool. It only proved that pinch analysis
tool can be used to improve existing heat exchange networks.

The design of heat exchange networks can be modified during pinch analysis to cater
for process constraints where pinch rules may not apply. Fujimoto, Ynangita,
Nyakaiwa, Tatsumi & Minowa (2011) study illustrated the possibility of such
solutions during a study to improve energy efficiency of bioethanol production plant.
The study realized energy saving of 38% even though within the temperature ranges
of 95 to 100 °C, there was no effective utilization of energy demand and supply. In
this range, a heat pump was introduced. Such a design decision falls outside the scope
of the traditional pinch analysis tool. The study thus shows that it is possible to modify
the pinch analysis process to include other utilities. It is vital for such possibilities to
be modeled and simulated in order to allow room for variation of design options. The
design adopted by the authors also fell short of optimizing on other sections like the
energy targeting where the use of stream specific minimum temperature difference
would have been used.

Pinch analysis has been applied in gasification processes to evaluate the possibility of
reduction of carbon dioxide gas emission and improvement of process efficiency.
Emun,Gadalla, Machozi & Boer (2010) studied the performance of an integrated
gasification combined cycle process using pinch analysis. This involved making
topological changes that would improve efficiency and reduce the costs of operation.

20
The cycle process generated power from coal with low effects on the environment
when compared to the conventional coal plants. However, pinch analysis was
proposed to further improve its efficiency and achieve a more sustainable electricity
production system. The simulation tool was meant to improve the process efficiency
and the environmental performance through analysis of the conditions of operation.
Process data was obtained from Texco gasifier and Aspen Plus was used as the
simulation tool. In the simulated results, it was found that the plant could have an
operation efficiency of up to 45%. The use of pinch analysis in the simulation helped
in computation of heat targets. The minimum external heat utility was determined to
be 225 megawatts while the minimum external cooling utility was determined to be
450 MW. A minimum temperature difference value of 15°C was used.

The results of Emun et al’s (2010) study helps scientists and technologists reckon that
pinch analysis tool can be used in simulated environment. It also shows that it is
possible to combine pinch analysis with other tools to improve efficiency of industrial
processes. Areas of improvement are however salient in the results of the study. Given
that the process has different streams with different properties, the employment of
stream specific minimum temperature differences would help improve the energy
targeting procedure. Still, the simulation process fell short of designing the internal
heat recovery network. An improved solution where the energy targets and the
network design are modeled and simulated would be a better solution than the one
provided in the study.

Jabbari, Tahouni, Ataei & Panjeshahi (2013) also investigated the possibility of using
pinch analysis to improve a simulated and optimized process. A combined cooling,
heating and power cogeneration system technology was proposed to retrofit a kraft
process with an aim of internally recovering heat to reduce operation costs. The
process was simulated and optimized using Aspen Plus software. Pinch analysis was
used in the integration of the system in the overall process. A global minimum
temperature difference value of 5°C was used. PILOT, optimization software, was
used to determine the minimum temperature difference value. The minimum cooling
and heating duty demands were determined to be 15.2 MW and 17.2 MW respectively.
In the internal heat recovery network, the researchers considered the effects of

21
pressure drop due to the introduction of other utilities. The simulated results showed
that the technique would help save 35 megawatts of electricity, steam duty demand of
155 tons per hour and cooling water demand of 450 tons per hour. Implementation of
the proposal would have a simple payback period of 3.2 years.

Jabbari et al’s (2013) study introduces a number of lessons in the pinch analysis. First,
they have demonstrated that it is possible to determine the minimum temperature
difference value using optimization software. Conventionally, the minimum
temperature difference values are obtained from predetermined tables, guided by the
physical and chemical properties of the fluids where the heat exchange is taking place.
Second, the issue of multi objective design is introduced in the study. This study has
considered the effects of pressure drops on the overall performance of the heat
recovery network. The solutions provided in the study still have some shortcomings
that could be improved upon. The multi-objective design criterion was not exhaustive.
A better design would have considered using other criteria such as heat losses between
the exchangers, distances between the streams exchanging heat and mathematical
programming tools. Given that pinch analysis was only used to augment other
recovery processes, there was a limitation in optimizing the recovery through use of
stream specific temperature differences and mathematical programming.

Attempts have been made to combine pinch analysis and mathematical programming
tools in order to reduce the cost of energy use in industries. Becker (2012) studied the
reduction of energy costs by combining pinch analysis and multi-objective
optimization mathematical programming methods. It integrated heat pumps into
industrial processes, by use of Pinch analysis, mixed integer linear programming
(MILP) and multi-objective optimization. The study computed energy targets and
found the appropriate placements on the heat pumps in the heat recovery network
design, through modeling and simulation, using MATLAB Software. The results
showed that this method had a great potential for incorporation of heat pumps in
industrial processes for energy savings.

22
Becker’s (2012) work provides important information on the new research frontier in
the development of robust process integration tools. The combination of pinch
analysis, MILP and multi-objective programming methods to improve the energy
efficiency of an industrial process has helped deal with the design constrains issues,
which are mainly ignored when the conventional pinch analysis methods are used. The
results of the work are however not adequate to give a wholesale solution to problems
of process integration design. For instance, the work does not deal with a heat
exchange network and instead only concentrates on the integration of heat pumps in
industries. Practical industrial energy saving options should go well beyond the use of
heat pumps. The use of global minimum temperature difference also limits the
robustness of the proposed tool. The approach could not be applied to complex process
streams as it did not test influence of geometric parameters. Still, the heat load
distribution was not dealt with in the study. This means that the distances between the
pipes were not considered. The suggested design approach needs to be improved to
include all constraints.

Studies carried out by Varbanov et al (2012) indicate that if the model of using stream
specific minimum temperature difference is adopted, more realistic energy targets can
be achieved and a network designed for heat recovery would be near optimal. In a case
study of the proposed solution, where cases A and B had been used, it was found that
the traditional method had overestimated possible heat recovery by 37.2 MW in the
former case and had underestimated process heat recovery by 13.3 MW in the latter.
This was attributed to the differences in overall coefficient of heat transfer per stream.

The use of the stream specific minimum temperature difference thus helps design
engineers avoid such cases of overestimation and underestimation of the energy
targets. This study nonetheless did not offer conclusive solutions with the use of the
stream specific temperature difference. The application of the solution was over
simplified because the researchers used a theoretical example which is more obvious
than the real process problems. Modeling and simulation would have helped in the
testing and validation of the solution in many industrial process environments.

23
2.5. A Summary of Gaps

In the analyzed studies, it has been illustrated that pinch analysis is indeed a viable
tool for improvement of energy efficiency in industrial processes. As well, the analysis
of the literature has shown that there is still room for improvement of the pinch
analysis process. It has come out that the studies carried out did not optimize the
efficiency of the processes. All the studies have not attempted to combine
improvements on the heat targeting process and the design of the heat exchanger areas.
The studies that have attempted to improve the energy targeting process through the
use of stream specific minimum temperature difference have only gone as far as using
theoretical cases, which are over simplified. The following are the study gaps:

i. Although pinch analysis can help optimize the performance of process plants,
it is evident that optimum values of minimum temperature difference that can
act as a guide when designing complex networks are yet to be obtained
ii. Even though it has been demonstrated that use of the stream specific minimum
temperature difference helps design engineers avoid cases of overestimation
and underestimation of the energy targets, comparison studies have not been
carried out to demonstrate the difference between the targets computed using
this method and targets obtained using the global minimum temperature
difference values
iii. Although it has been demonstrated that design of heat exchangers in pinch
analysis can be improved with consideration of pressure drops, there have been
no studies that consider other design constraints like Reynold’s number
limitations, velocity limitations and the geometrical discrete variables
iv. Even though it is theoretically evident that linear programming can be used in
combination with pinch analysis to improve internal heat recovery, studies
have not been carried out on practical problems in processing plants to show
the magnitude of the improvement

The present study therefore capitalizes on some of the gaps of presented here and
employs improved approaches of pinch analysis to solve energy efficiency problems
in thermos-chemical plants.

24
 CHAPTER THREE

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Introduction

In this chapter, the steps and methods used to meet the study objectives have been
presented. The first section describes the four process plants that were evaluated and
modeled to improve their process performance based on pinch analysis. The second
section of the chapter describes the modeling process for heat balancing, energy
targeting and heat exchanger design. This section also presents all the governing
equations, the model algorithms, execution codes, model validation and the
optimization method used. The third section discusses the data collection procedure
that was used. This includes a discussion of the data collection tools and a description
of the process flow of the thermochemical plants where the data was collected. The
last section elaborates the data analysis and presentation methods used. Here, the
section discusses the what-if simulation techniques used to present different scenarios
of heat recovery models.

3.1.1 Process Description of Plant A

Plant A is a sulphonation factory, used for production of Linear Alkyl Benzanoic

Sulphonic Acid (LABSA), an ingredient for production of powder detergent. The plant
is located in Machakos County. It is produced in a sulphonation process. In this
process, both heating and cooling duties are required at different stages. Figure 3.1
shows the process flow for manufacturing of LABSA.

25
 Regenerati Two stage Cooling of
Steam Cooling of
Melting of on of air cooling of
lagging of sulfur
sulfur coolant sulfur oleum
molten sulfur
dioxide trioxide

Figure 3.1: Process flow for Manufacture of LABSA

The process in the sulphonation plant consists of three heating stages and four cooling
stages. All the stages use thermal energy. A furnace supplies the heat for melting of
sulfur. The steam lagging of molten sulfur and the regeneration of the air coolant are
achieved using steam, from a boiler. Cooling of sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide is
achieved using shell and tube heat exchangers. Oleum is cooled using a cold water
lagged jacket.

3.1.2 Process Description of Plant B

Plant B processes different dairy products. It is located in Kiambu County. These

products include powder milk, yoghurt, ultra-heat treated milk, butter and fresh milk.
These products are processed in different production lines, with each line having its
own separate heating and cooling utility lines, save for the fresh and ultra-heat treated
milk, which share a line. The fresh milk is a raw material to the ultra-heat treated milk.
This study focused on the fresh milk and ultra-heat treated milk products. Figure 3.2
shows the process flow that involves heating and cooling.

26
 Generation
Cooling of of steam to Cooling of
Chilling of Ultra heat
Pastuerization the lag the milk the ultra
milk from treatment of
of milk Pastuerized before ultra heat teated
the farm heat the milk
milk milk
treatment

Figure 3.2: Milk Processing Flow Chart

The process flow, as shown in Figure 3.2, indicates that the combined pasteurization
and ultra-heating processes have six heat exchange points. Cooling is achieved using
chilled water while heating is achieved using steam, supplied from a steam boiler. The
first point of heat exchange is where the milk from the farms is cooled, using chilled
water. The second process is where the milk is heated to mild temperatures, for
pasteurization.

3.1.3 Process Description of Plant C

Plant C is an alcohol distillery, producing ethanol, industrial methylated spirit,

acetaldehyde and fusel oil. It is located in Nairobi County. The plant consists of four
processing lines, all operating under similar production parameters of mass flow rate,
temperature and pressure. In this study, one production line was used to analyze the
effects of the proposed pinch analysis method on the projected savings and the actual
heat exchange network parameters. Figure 3.3 shows the process flow of alcohol
production at the plant.

27
 Cooling of the First stage First stage Second wash First stage
fermentation wash heating wash boiling heating condensing of
processes process process process alcohol vapor

Third stage Second stage Second stage Third stage Third stage
condensing of condensing of wash boiling wash heating wash boiling
alcohol vapor alcohol vapor process process process

Chilling of Chilling of Chilling of

methanol fusel alcohol acetaldehyde

Figure 3.3: Process Flow for Distillery Plant

28
The processes in Figure 3.3 show both the distillery section and the cooling sections of
the plant. The heating and boiling sections are all in the distillery, each consisting of a
different product of fractional distillation. A steam boiler is used to provide steam, the
heating medium in the distillery. Condensation and chilling sections of the plant are
supplied by chilled water, from a centralized chilling system.

The process streams are:

i. The cooling of the fermentation processes

ii. First stage wash heating process
iii. First stage wash boiling process
iv. Second wash heating process
v. Second stage wash boiling process
vi. Third stage wash heating process
vii. Third stage wash boiling process
viii. First stage condensing of alcohol vapor
ix. Second stage condensing of alcohol vapor
x. Third stage condensing of alcohol vapor
xi. Chilling of methanol
xii. Chilling of fusel alcohol
xiii. Chilling of acetaldehyde

The thirteen streams were derived from the four processes at the plant. Process stream i
is associated with maintaining the fermentation temperature. Process streams ii-vii take
place in the distillation column. Due to the change of phases, each distillation stage is split
into two streams. The first stream involves addition of sensible heat, to raise the
temperature of the wash to a boiling temperature. The second stream involves addition of
latent heat of vaporization, to vaporize alcohol from the wash. Streams viii-x represent
the condensation process, while xi-xiii represents the chilling process.

29
3.2. Modeling of Heat Recovery Mechanisms

This study used three deterministic models for heat balancing, energy targeting and heat
exchanger area design. The first two models were integrated into one platform while the
third model was standalone. The models relied on existing thermodynamics and heat
transfer equations. Algorithms for the coding of the equations were developed. The coded
equations were then executed using hypertext preprocessor (PHP) and Visual Basic for
Applications (VBA) Solver. PHP is a server-side open-source scripting language used for
general purpose programming. It borrows its syntax from Java, C and C++. VBA Solver
is an analysis tool used for optimization and simulation of engineering models.

The outputs of the three models were subjected to sanity tests using secondary data and
back-of-the-envelope calculations. The latter is a form of quick calculation meant for
accuracy comparison with an output from a deterministic model.

3.2.1 Modeling of Heat Balance and Energy Targets

This section is presented in two parts. The first part deals with computation of heat
balance. In this computation, an approach suggested by Hayes & Mmbaga (2012) was
used. In the heat balance modeling, the specific heat capacities of substances were
determined using the third order polynomial functions of temperature. The second part
presents the design of energy targeting model. The design used stream specific minimum
temperature differences. The use of this method was suggested by Kemp (2007). This
study was limited to pinch analysis and therefore did not take into account the thermal
losses associated with heat transfer.

3.2.1.1 Heat Balance Model Equations

The proposed model was developed basing on the recommendations of Hayes & Mmbaga
(2012). The authors recommended that the specific heat capacities of liquid and gaseous
materials must take into account the temperature variations, in order to represent heat
balances as accurately as possible. As opposed to the conventional model where the

30
specific heat capacity of materials is obtained through interpolation, a model that uses a
polynomial relationship between temperature and specific heat capacity was considered.

3.2.1.1.1 Governing Equations

In an industrial process, the rate of external heating or cooling duty required in a process
stream is referred to as the rate of enthalpy change, ΔH (kW), and is determined by the
following three governing equations, as guided by Hayes & Mmbaga (2012):

ΔH = ṁ(𝑇𝑠 − 𝑇𝑡 )𝐶𝑝 3.1

where

ṁ (kg/s) is the mass flow rate

Cp (J/g.°C) is the constant pressure specific heat capacity of the material

Ts is the source temperature

Tt is the target temperature

The current approach used for carrying out heat balance in pinch analysis for different
streams in an industrial process uses equation 3.1, where a value of Cp is obtained through
interpolation of Cp of Ts and Tt.

𝐶𝑝 = A + BT + CT2 + DT3 3.2

The modeling of heat balance in pinch analysis can be improved to be more realistic,
through incorporation of a function that takes care of the dependence of C p on the
changing temperature profile of materials during the heating or cooling processes. This
study has proposed a modified approach to heat balance modeling. Equation 3.2
demonstrates the relationship between temperature and Cp, where A,B,C and D are
predetermined coefficients of different materials. These coefficients have been published

31
in Doran (1995) and Saleh (2002). This approach takes into account the entire
temperature profile when determining the values of Cp. This modification is drawn from
the suggestion of Hayes & Mmbaga (2012). The suggestion stipulates that the Cp of gases
and liquids should be determined using fourth order polynomial functions of temperature.

Taking the entire temperature profile of each stream, from Ts to Tt, and substituting Cp
with expression in equation 3.2, ΔH was expressed as follows:

𝑇𝑠 𝑇𝑠
ΔH= ṁ ∫ 𝐶𝑝 dT = ṁ ∫ (A+BT+ CT2+ DT3) ……………………… 3.3
𝑇𝑡 𝑇𝑡

3.2.1.1.2 Solution to the governing equations

Integrating equation 3.3, the following relationship was obtained:

B 2 2 C 𝐷 4 4
ΔH= ṁ [A (Ts -Tt ) + (T s -T t ) + (T 3 s -T 3 t ) + (T s -T t )]………3.4
2 3 4

The value of D, in most materials, ranges from 0 to 0.0001, thus making the fourth order
of the equation to have a negligible effect on ΔH. Equation 3.4 was modified to equation
3.5 and used in modeling of heat balance for streams in thermo-chemical processes:

B 2 2 C
ΔH= ṁ [A (Ts -Tt ) + (T s -T t ) + (T 3 s -T 3 t )] ………………………….3.5
2 3

Even though it is possible to analytically calculate the rate of change of enthalpy using
the proposed method in equation 3.5, the exercise involved computing enthalpies for more
than 200 streams which was quite large hence need for a convenient approach. A PHP
based computer program was developed to help solve the equations based on data from
all the process streams. Equation 3.5 was incorporated into the algorithm that was used as
a guide to code the computer aided heat balance and energy targeting tool, presented in
the following section.

32
3.2.1.2 Heat Balance and Energy Targeting Model Algorithm and Code

The heat balance and energy targeting algorithm was informed by the steps used in pinch
analysis. This analysis involves design of a process to minimize the external required
cooling and heating duty as much as possible, and to maximize the amount of heat that
can be recovered internally as much as possible. The pinch analysis steps used, as guided
in Kemp (2011), were as follows:

i. Selection of a single (global) value of minimum temperature difference, ΔTmin

ii. Shifting the temperatures of each process stream using 0.5 ΔTmin
iii. Arranging the shifted temperatures in intervals, from the highest to the lowest
shifted temperature
iv. Computing the net rate of enthalpies in each shifted temperature interval using
temperature independent values of Cp.
v. Cumulative adding of the calculated net enthalpy rates for each interval
vi. Determining the pinch point, the minimum heating and cooling duties at points
of constraints, where a net heat deficit cannot be added to a net heat surplus

In this study, the criteria proposed by Klemeš (2013) and Hayes & Mmbaga (2012) was
used to model and test energy targeting tool. The former proposed that step i and ii should
be modified in order to come up with more realistic energy targets. Hayes & Mmbaga
(2012) on the other hand proposed the use of temperature dependent values of Cp. This
work combined the suggestions and modified steps i, ii and iii and built them into a
computer aided model. Heat balancing and energy targeting using the modified
approaches was carried out using the model. An algorithm was developed and
implemented through a computer program. Figure 3.4 shows the algorithm used to
develop the model for heat balance and energy targeting.

33
Figure 3.4: Algorithm for the Proposed Heat Balance and Energy Targeting Model

There are three stages in the algorithm shown in Figure 3.4. The model works with
temperature in Celsius scale. The first input is the name of the stream, which specifies the
material undergoing heating or cooling in an industrial process. This helps in the selection
of the constants A, B and C for the polynomial function of temperature. The user has thus
to get right the materials being processed in a given stream in a thermal chemical
industrial setup.

After defining the material in the stream, the user has to input the source temperature Ts
and the target temperature Tt. This variable is also obtained from data extracted from
industrial process. A user can measure these values, from the initial to the final stage of a
stream. Alternatively, for design problems where the factory is not yet operational, the
user can obtain the values from process design data sheets. The definition of Ts and Tt
34
should also be accompanied by definition of the mass flow rate of the materials in each
stream.

The user enters the value of ΔTmin, related to the stream under investigation. Different
materials require different values of ΔTmin. These values are obtained from published
literature. In the conventional models of energy targeting-which this study aims to
improve- a single value of ΔTmin is used, for all the streams. For comparison purposes
however, this algorithm has provisions for use of either global or stream specific values
of ΔTmin. The A, B and C were stored in a database of the proposed software. Each
material has different constants of A, B and C and these were obtained from Doran (1995)
and Saleh (2002).

Coding and verification of the functioning of the model was carried out. The open source
code used to develop this model is shown in Appendix I. The code was developed using
PHP programming language. Resource controller of the program was carried out using
Laravel 5.2. This controller was used to create a function that handles all the requests
stored in the program. The configuration of the code allowed it to run on Linux Ubuntu
16.4 operating system as the local host, with hardware requirements of 2 GHz processor,
2 GB random access memory and 300 GB hard disk space. This program can also be
hosted and accessed through a web server. Any internet accessing device can use the
program.

3.2.1.3 Evaluation of Functionality of the Heat Balancing Part of the Model

Sanity check was carried out to check the model accuracy. Data from three streams from
the Dairy Specialty Plant, published by Varbanov et al (2012), was used as input variables
in the developed software. The data was from the Raw Milk Evaporation Feed, Effect 1
Cow Water and Effect 3 Cow Water streams. The data is as shown in Table 3.1.

35
Table 3.1: Secondary Data used for Evaluation of the Heat Balancing Model

Compound/Stream Ts Tt Mass Flow Rate A B C

Raw Milk Evaporation Feed 10.5 80 22.3 4.02 0.00058 0
Effect 1 Cow Water 81.3 20 4 4.02 0.00058 0
Effect 3 Cow Water 68.3 20 2.8 4.02 0.00058 0

As presented in Table 3.1, the input data into the model is the compound contained in a
stream, the initial temperature, the final temperature, the minimum temperature difference
and the mass flow rate. The model output includes the computed values of enthalpy,
shifted initial temperature, shifted final temperature and the polynomial temperature
coefficients of specific heat capacity, A, B and C. These coefficients were in the model
database. The sanity check results were compared with the model results and are shown
in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Comparison of Sanity Check Heat Balance Results with model output

Enthalpy (kW) Shifted Temperature

Compound/Stream Sanity Model Sanity Check Model
Check Output Result Output
Result Ts Tt Ts Tt
Raw Milk Evaporation -6271.07 -6271.07 8 77.5 8 77.5
Feed
Effect 1 Cow Water 992.9 992.9 83.8 22.5 83.8 22.5
Effect 3 Cow Water 547.13 547.13 70.8 22.5 70.8 22.5

A comparison of the calculated results and the software output shows that the two are in
agreement. It was thus verified that the software could accurately compute the shifted
temperature and the rate of change of enthalpy per stream. The software was thus
ascertained to accurately compute heat balance both for cooling and heating loads.

36
3.2.1.4 Sanity Test for Temperature Interval Arrangement and Computation of
Net Interval Enthalpies

This software was designed to arrange the shifted temperature intervals, thus enabling
computation of net enthalpies per interval. The shifted temperature intervals generated by
the modeling tool were compared with the intervals generated using sanity checks. This
is shown in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Sanity Test Results for Interval Arrangements

Interval Number Sanity Check Software Output

1 8-22.5 8-22.5

2 22.5-70.8 22.5-70.8

3 70.8-77.5 70.8-77.5

4 77.5-83.8 77.5-83.8

This demonstrated that the modeling tool could arrange the shifted temperatures into
intervals from the stream shifted initial and final temperature. In this study, the net interval
enthalpy for the 70.8-77.5 was also put to sanity check. The computed enthalpy was
498.166 kW and this was the same as the one from the model output.

3.2.1.5 Heat Exchanger Network Design

To meet the set targets for the plants, a network designed, following the pinch analysis
rules, as detailed in Kemp (2007). The design for each plant was split into two, guided by
the pinch point. The cold and hot streams were matched both at the upper side of the pinch
point and the lower side. The grand composite curve reentrants guided the temperature
limits where recovery could take place. Through this, for every plant, the hot and cold
stream minimum recovery temperature and the cold stream and hot stream maximum

37
recovery temperatures were determined. No process with temperature outside these
boundaries was matched for recovery.

The matching of cold streams to hot streams, for heat recovery, was also bound by the
relationship between the heat capacity rate for the cold stream and the heat capacity rate
for the hot stream. For any two streams to be matched, the cold stream value of the heat
capacity rate was to be higher than the hot stream value. Again, for two streams to be
matched, the differences of their entrance and exit temperature were to be higher than the
value of ∆Tmin, for two matching streams. Streams with the highest differences of exit
temperature and heat capacity rate were given priority in matching. After matching the
streams for heat exchangers and utilities, the exchanger areas were optimized.

3.2.2 Modeling and Optimization of the Heat Exchanger Areas

3.2.2.1 Introduction

In this research, the heat exchangers for Plants A, B and C, were sized. A multi objective
criteria for determining the areas was adopted. In this section, the governing equations,
the model creation and the development of VBA Solver optimization software is
presented. In this study, modifications were done on the existing design methods for heat
recovery network in pinch analysis. This section presents an analysis of the existing
methods, the modifications carried out and a comparison of results. In the proposed
design, a model based on multi objective programming was developed. In pinch analysis,
a network has to be designed to meet the computed energy targets. The design of the heat
exchange network used the heat targets obtained using the Scenario One model as a guide.
In this work, the design was centered on a shell and tube counter current flow heat
exchanger. This is the common type of exchanger in thermochemical processes.

3.2.2.2 Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger Design Equations

In pinch analysis, heat exchangers are designed to facilitate transfer of heat between cold
and hots streams. Figure 3.5 shows an illustration of a heat exchanger.

38
Figure 3.5: Illustration of a Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger

As illustrated in Figure 3.5, heat exchange occurs between the fluid in the shell and the
fluid in the tubes. One stream passes through the shell while the other passes through the
tubes. The baffles help in increasing the turbulence of the shell side fluid, which increases
the heat exchange. Heat exchangers are designed after identification of streams that can
exchange heat. This identification adheres to the pinch point rules, and in some
circumstances, where recovery area is close to pinch point; it adheres to the rules of
specific heat capacity flow rate. The current approach to design of heat recovery network
in pinch analysis uses an estimation approach to determine the total area of heat
exchangers required to achieve the targets. Such approaches were obtained from Kemp
(2005), Eriksson & Hermansson (2010) and Varbanov et al (2012).

39
3.2.2.2.1 Governing Equation

Published studies in heat exchanger design for pinch analysis, for example in Kemp
(2005), Eriksson & Hermansson (2010) and Varbanov et al (2012), use the following
formula to determine the heat exchanger area:

𝛥𝐻 = 𝑈𝑎𝑠𝑠 . 𝐴. 𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷. 𝐹𝑡 3.6

where

∆H (kW) (kW) is the rate of heat to be exchanged between a cold and a hot stream
A (m2) is the area of the heat exchanger
LMTD is the logarithmic mean temperature difference
Ft is the temperature correction factor, to cover for deviations from true counter
current flow
Uass (kW/m2. °C) is the overall heat transfer coefficient

3.2.2.2.2 Solutions to the Governing Equation

Equation 3.6 does not capture multi-objective variables of heat recovery network. In this
study, the multiple objectives were incorporated in pinch analysis, using the Kern design
method. Shell and tube heat exchangers should be designed and optimized by taking into
consideration multiple objectives (in this case the minimization of area and maximization
of overall heat transfer coefficient), discrete geometrical dimensions, process material
properties and fluid flow limitations, for example minimum allowed velocities and
minimum Reynold’s number. In this model, these considerations have been adopted to
improve the pinch analysis process. This section mathematically describes these
relationships.

40
Design of heat exchangers uses an iterative approach to accommodate the many design
objectives. This follows sequential steps and equations, as guided by the Kern design
method (Serth & Lestina, 2014), to come up with realistic heat exchange area. Iteration
leads to a final design that fits within acceptable design criteria. Use of computer based
mathematical programing can help in the process of iteration.

Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association (TEMA) has discrete design variables

related to the geometry of the heat exchangers (TEMA, 2007). Design of a heat recovery
network should incorporate all the TEMA discrete variables and the four decision points.
This research proposed adoption of all the practical constraints during design of heat
recovery network in pinch analysis. All the steps were based on the Kern heat exchange
design equations.

The thermal and physical properties were derived from the streams supposed to exchange
heat, as dictated by Step One. Table 3.4 shows the properties that were of importance in
this research.

41
Table 3.4: Description of Stream Properties used for Design of a Heat Exchanger

Property Symbol Units

Initial temperature of cold stream Tci °C
Target temperature of cold stream Tco °C
Initial temperature of hot stream Thi °C
Target temperature of hot stream Tho °C
Mass flow rate of the cold stream ṁc kg/s
Mass flow rate of the hot stream ṁh kg/s
Density of the cold stream Ρc kg/m3
Density of the hot stream Ρh kg/m3
Specific heat capacity of the cold stream Cpc kj/kg. °C
Specific heat capacity of the hot stream Cph kj/kg. °C
Specific gravity of cold stream Sc Dimensionless
Specific gravity of hot stream Sh Dimensionless
Dynamic viscosity of cold stream µc kg·m−1·s−1
Dynamic viscosity of hot stream µh kg·m−1·s−1
Assumed overall coefficient of heat Uass kW/m2. °C
transfer
Thermal conductivity of shell side fluid Ks kW/m⋅°C
Thermal conductivity of tube side fluid Kt kW/m⋅°C
Thermal conductivity of tube material Kw kW/m⋅°C

The variables in Table 3.4 were assigned to the shell and tube sides of a heat exchanger,
as shown in Figure 3.6. The cold stream was assigned to the tube side of the heat
exchanger and the hot stream was assigned to the shell side of the exchanger. The hot
stream consisted of steam, hot liquid and gases. Steam and gases are susceptible to high
pressure drop if contained in the tube side part of the exchanger. The cold streams
consisted only of liquids.

42
Figure 3.6: Illustration of variables of the Heat Exchanger

The values obtained from the process streams, as shown in Table 3.1, are used to compute
the required area of heat exchange, using the Kern equations. Details of these equations
can be found in Serth & Lestina (2014), Raju (2011) and Thulukkanam (2013). In step
one, the quantity of heat to be transferred in the exchanger shown in Figure 3.6 is
computed using the energy balance equation:

𝛥𝐻 = ṁ𝑐 . 𝐶𝑝𝑐 . (𝑇𝑐𝑜 − 𝑇𝑐𝑖 ) = ṁℎ . 𝐶𝑝ℎ . (𝑇ℎ𝑜 − 𝑇ℎ𝑖 ) 3.7

The assumed value of overall heat transfer coefficient in equation 3.6 is selected based on
guidelines provided in published literature (Edwards, 2008). This coefficient, combined
with the quantity of heat to be transferred, the LMTD and Ft, are used to estimate the area
of heat exchanger.

(𝑇ℎ𝑖 − 𝑇𝑐𝑜 ) − (𝑇ℎ𝑜 − 𝑇𝑐𝑖 )

𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷 = 𝑇 −𝑇
3.8
𝑙𝑛 {𝑇 ℎ𝑖 −𝑇𝑐𝑜 }
ℎ𝑜 𝑐𝑖

43
The value of Ft is determined by two ratios, S and R, of the cold and hot stream
temperatures.

𝑇ℎ𝑖 − 𝑇ℎ𝑜
𝑅= 3.9
𝑇𝑐𝑜 − 𝑇𝑐𝑖

𝑇𝑐𝑜 − 𝑇𝑐𝑖
𝑆= 3.10
𝑇ℎ𝑖 − 𝑇𝑐𝑖

𝐹𝑡
(𝑅 2 + 1)⁰˙⁵ 𝑙𝑛 [(1 − 𝑆)/(1 − 𝑅𝑆)]
= 3.11
(𝑅 − 1)𝑙𝑛 [(2 − 𝑆(𝑅 + 1 − (𝑅 2 + 1)0 ˙5 )/(2 − 𝑆(𝑅 + 1 − √(2 + 1))]

Ft can also be graphically determined, from a chart developed by Kern (Edwards, 2008),
guided by the S and R curves.

From equation 3.6, the heat exchanger area A is estimated as:

𝛥𝐻
𝐴 = 3.12
𝑈𝑎𝑠𝑠 . 𝐹𝑡 . 𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷

The value of A estimated using 3.12 ignores design constraints like the fixed geometrical
variables of heat exchangers, pressure drops and velocity limitations. This research sought
to incorporate these design constraints in pinch analysis, using both iteration and
mathematical programming methods.

To use the iteration and mathematical programming approaches, steps 6 to 14, on Figure
4.5, should be followed. In Step 6, the number of tubes, nt, of the heat exchanger is
calculated using the following formula:

𝐴
𝑛𝑡 = 3.13
𝜋. 𝑑𝑡𝑜 . 𝐿

44
The number of tubes is discrete, dictated by TEMA standards. The value computed in
equation 3.13 is used to select the nearest value on the TEMA standards. The tube length
L, the tube external diameter, dto, the internal diameter, dti and the number of passes np,
are also fixed by the standards. The selected number of tubes, nt, is used to determine the
tube side Reynold’s Number, Ret.

𝑛𝑝
4ṁ𝑐 ( 𝑛 )
𝑡
𝑅𝑒𝑡 = 3.14
𝜋𝑑𝑡𝑖 µ𝑐

The value of Ret is a design constrain, and should be more than 10000. A higher value of
Re ensures turbulence, as it signifies a higher ratio of fluid inertial resistance to viscous
resistance.

𝑅𝑒𝑡 > 10000 3.15

In case the condition set by inequality expression 3.15 is not fulfilled, another value of
nt should be selected. This is guided by use of equation 3.13 and reselection of tube
length, L, and tube external diameter, do. The Re is used to compute the tube side fluid
velocity, using the formula:

𝑅𝑒𝑡 . µ𝑐
𝑢= 3.16
𝑑𝑡𝑖 . 𝜌𝑐

The value of u should be more than 1 m/s

Again, this is a design constrain that should be met. For design to go ahead,

𝑚
𝑢>1 3.17
𝑠

If the calculated velocity falls within the design criterion, Ret, tube side Nusselt number
(Nut) and tube side Prandtl number (Prt) are used to determine the tube side heat transfer
coefficient (ht).

45
Nut is determined using the Dittus-Boelter correlation for cooling:

𝑁𝑢𝑡 = 0.023𝑅𝑒𝑡0.8 . 𝑃𝑟𝑡0.3 3.18

Prt number, the ratio of momentum to thermal diffusivity, is computed using the
relationship:

𝐶𝑝𝑐 . µ𝑐
𝑃𝑟𝑡 = 3.19
𝑘𝑡

Where kt is thermal conductivity of the tube side fluid

The tube side heat transfer coefficient is determined by:

𝑁𝑢𝑡 . 𝑘𝑡
ℎ𝑡 = 3.20
𝑑𝑡𝑖

As well as the tube side heat transfer coefficient, the shell side heat transfer coefficient
hs is also required for computation of the overall heat transfer coefficient. This value is
determined using the Kern Method for shell-side film coefficient methods for turbulent
sensible heat flow, where Nusselt number on shell side Nus for hot fluids is:

0.5 0.33
µℎ 0.14
𝑁𝑢𝑠 = 0.36𝑅𝑒𝑠 . 𝑃𝑟𝑠 . ( ) 3.21
µ𝑤

where

µw is the dynamic viscosity of the shell side fluid, at the wall temperature. It is assumed
µ 0.14
that the ratio of( ℎ ) is 1 in shell side fluid relationships.
µ𝑤

Res is determined using equivalent diameter of the Shell, De, mass velocity Gs and
dynamic viscosity µh by the relationship;

46
 𝐷𝑒 . 𝐺𝑠
𝑅𝑒𝑠 = 3.22
µℎ

Gs is the ratio of mass flow rate of shell side fluid, ṁh and the cross-sectional flow area of
the shell side of the exchanger, as.

ṁℎ
𝐺𝑠 = 3.23
𝑎𝑠

Cross sectional area as is a function of tube pitch PT, baffle spacing B, tube clearance C
and shell diameter Ds. Baffle spacing is a fraction of Ds. In this research, B was 0.5 of Ds.

𝐶. 𝐵. 𝐷𝑠
𝑎𝑠 = 3.24
𝑃𝑇

𝐶 = 𝑃𝑇 − 𝑑𝑡𝑜 3.25

Here, dto is the external diameter of the exchanger tubes.

𝐵 = 0.5𝐷𝑠 3.26

The equivalent shell diameter De, for square pitch, is calculated using:

𝜋
4(𝑃𝑇 2 − ( 4 ) 𝑑𝑡𝑜
2
)
𝐷𝑒 = 3.27
𝜋𝑑𝑡𝑜

Prs, the shell side ratio of momentum diffusivity to thermal diffusivity, is computed by:

𝐶𝑝ℎ µℎ
𝑃𝑟𝑠 = 3.28
𝑘𝑠

where ks is the thermal conductivity of the shell side fluid

The shell side heat transfer coefficient is thus computed using the formula:

47
 𝑁𝑢𝑠 . 𝑘𝑠
ℎ𝑠 = 3.29
𝑑𝑡𝑜

The calculated overall heat transfer coefficient Ucalc is a function of hs,ht,dto,dti, shell side
fouling factor Rs, tube side fouling factor Rt, thermal conductivity of the tube material km,
tube outer area Ao and tube inner area Ai. This relationship is presented by:

1 𝐴𝑜 𝑑𝑡𝑜 − 𝑑𝑡𝑖 𝐴𝑜 1 𝐴𝑜
𝑈𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐 = 1 ÷ [( ) + 𝑅𝑠 + ( ) { } + ( ) + 𝑅𝑡 ] 3.30
ℎ𝑠 𝐴𝑖 2𝑘𝑚 𝐴𝑖 ℎ𝑡 𝐴𝑖

The value of Ucalc is only accepted if:

𝑈𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐 − 𝑈𝑎𝑠𝑠
× 100 < 30% 3.31
𝑈𝑎𝑠𝑠

If this condition is satisfied, then the required heat transfer area can be determined, subject
to pressure drop considerations.

The required area Areq, is calculated using the Ucalc as:

ΔH
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑞 = 3.32
𝑈𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐 × LMTD

The number of tube passes, shell passes and baffles increase the fluid pressure drops and
this may lead to need for more power to pump it through the heat exchanger. During
design of the exchanger therefore, there is a limit to the magnitude of pressure drops
allowed. This limit depends on the process under consideration and the experience of the
engineer. However, the rule of the thumb practice is to vary this between 3500 and 7000
Pascal (Thakore & Bhatt, 2007). The tube-side pressure drop consists of the frictional
pressure drop and drop due to change of direction of the fluid in the tubes. The shell side
pressure, on the other hand, comprises of the shell side frictional pressure drop and drop
due to change in direction of the fluid in the shell. In this research, the design neglected
the effect of nozzle losses.

48
Tube side pressure drop due to friction, ∆Ptf is:

𝑓𝑡 𝐺𝑡2 . L. 𝑛𝑝
∆𝑃𝑡𝑓 = 3.33
7.5 × 1012 × 𝑑𝑡𝑖 . 𝑆𝑐

where ft is the tube side Darcy friction factor. In a turbulent flow, it is given by:

1.056
𝑓𝑡 = 0.014 + 3.34
𝑅𝑒𝑡0.42

and Gt is the tube side ratio of mass flow rate of shell side fluid, Sc is the specific gravity
of the cold stream, ṁc to the cross-sectional flow area of the shell side of the exchanger,
at.

ṁ𝑐
𝐺𝑡 = 3.35
𝑎𝑡

Cross sectional area, at is a function of the number of tubes, nt, flow area per tube and the
number of tube passes np.

2
𝑛𝑡 . π. 𝑑𝑡𝑖
𝑎𝑡 = 3.36
4. 𝑛𝑝

Tube side pressure drop due to fluid change in direction, ∆Ptr is:

13
𝐺𝑡2
∆𝑃𝑡𝑟 = 1.334 × 10ˉ (2𝑛𝑝 − 1.5) ( ) 3.37
𝑆𝑐

The total tube side pressure should be less than 68947 Pascal (Thakore & Bhatt, 2007)
and this is presented by the inequality;

∆PT = ∆𝑃𝑡𝑟 + ∆𝑃𝑡𝑓 < 68947 3.38

The shell side pressure drop is:

49
 𝑓𝑠 𝐺𝑠2 (𝑛𝑏 + 1)
∆𝑃𝑠 = 3.39
7.5 × 1012 × 𝐷𝑒 . 𝑆𝑠

where

De and Gsare determined in equations 3.23 and 3.27 respectively

nb is the number of baffles, given by:

L
𝑛𝑏 = 3.40
B

and fs is the shell side Darcy friction factor in turbulent flow, calculated as:

𝑓𝑠 = 1.728𝑅𝑒𝑠−0.188 3.41

and Sh is the specific gravity of the hot side of the exchanger. The return loss is assumed
to be zero in a single shell heat exchanger.

The shell-side pressure drop should be less than 48263 Pascal (Thakore & Bhatt, 2007).
The inequality is presented as:

∆𝑃𝑠 < 48263 3.42

As well as pressure drop limitations, the design parameters are subjected to an overdesign
and over surface test. Over surface test involves comparison of Ucalc and Uc, the clean
overall coefficient of heat transfer.

ℎ𝑖𝑜 × ℎ𝑡
𝑈𝑐 = 3.43
ℎ𝑖𝑜 + ℎ𝑡

The resulting value of the relationship between Uc and Ucalc, as shown, should be less than
30%.

50
 𝑈𝑐 − 𝑈𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐
× 100 < 30% 3.44
𝑈𝑐

Area overdesign test is determined by the inequality;

A − 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑞
× 100 < 30% 3.45
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑞

where assumed area A is determined using equation 3.7 and Areq by equation 3.32.

3.2.2.3 Coding, Validation and Optimization of Heat Exchanger Model

Coding for the design of the shell and tube heat exchanger was guided by an algorithm
shown in Figure 3.6.

51
Figure 3.6: Sizing and Optimization Algorithm for Heat Exchanger Design

52
From Figure 3.6, it is shown that optimization of the area of heat exchanger required for
heat recovery can be determined using four decision points. The points are guided by
certain design parameters.

The Kern design equations were coded for calculation of required heat transfer area. The
code was executed by the VBA Solver, for optimization of the exchanger areas. The
optimization used mixed integer programming approach. The code is shown in Appendix
II. Sanity check was carried out on the program to check for any inherent errors in
computing the areas using a hypothetical heat exchanger data. In the test, two streams
exchange heat using a heat exchanger. The cold stream was allocated to the tube side
while the hot stream was allocated to the shell side of the exchanger. The variables used
in this validation are shown in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5: Variables used for Heat Exchanger Model Verification

Variable Tube Side Shell Side

Inlet Temperature 297.15 344.15
Outlet Temperature 322.15 322.15
Fouling Factor 0.001 0.005
Mass Flow Rate 18.9 17.9
Inlet Pressure 344738 344738
Fluid Viscosity 0.0016 0.0002
Fluid Density 800 685
Fluid Thermal Conductivity 0.144 0.13
Fluid Specific Heat Capacity 2.009 2.386
Fluid Specific Gravity 0.8 0.69

The cold stream in Table 3.2 was assigned to the tube side and hot stream was allocated
to the shell side. The design optimization was executed using the program, in VBA Solver.
The solver code statements used are shown in Appendix II. The results of the comparisons
are as presented in Table 3.6.

53
 Table 3.6: Comparison of VBA Solver and sanity check results

Variable VBA Based Sanity Check Percentage

Computation Results difference
Rate of change of Enthalpy (kW) 939.61 939.61 0
S value 0.53 0.53 0
R value 0.88 0.88 0
Log Mean Temperature Difference (K) 23.47 23.47 0
Estimated Area (m2) 186.92 186.92 0
Flow area per tube (m2) 0.00035 0.00035 0
Calculated number of tubes 320.38 320.38 0
Tube side Reynold’s Number 11572.83 11572.83 0
Tube side velocity 1.092 1.092 0
Tube side Prandtl Number 22.17 22.17 0
Tube side coefficient of heat transfer 709.96 709.82 0.02
(W/m2.K)
Baffle spacing 0.38 0.38 0
Shell side equivalent diameter (m) 0.023 0.023 0
Mass velocity, Gs (kg/s.m2) 341.31 341.34 0.01
Shell side Re 38904.02 38907.92 0
Shell side Prandtl number 3.18 3.18 0
Coefficient of heat transfer, shell side 1165.15 1161.5 0.31
(W/m2.K)
Calculated overall coefficient of heat 228.25 228.26 0
transfer (W/m2.K)
Tube side pressure drop (Mpa) 1.19×10-5 1.19 × 10-5 0
Shell side pressure drop (Mpa) 3.78×10-6 3.58×10-6 0
Assumed area (m) 186.92 186.92 0
Calculated area (m) 175.41 175.41 0
Percentage overdesign -6.15 -6.15 0
Percentage over surface 29.33 29.33 0

Comparison on Table 3.6 shows that the sanity check computation agrees with the VBA
Solver results, with small differences to the hundredths and thousandths decimal places
for pressure drops, coefficients of heat transfer and mass velocity. These differences can
be explained by the rounding off some intermediate variables which affected the final
results. However, the VBA Solver results are valid enough to represent the design of heat
exchangers. This model was used to design exchangers for the exchange network for
Plants A, B and C.

54
3.3 Data Collection

Primary data was collected from three plants. Secondary data from Dairy Specialty Plant
was also used. These plants were selected purposively, basing on the ease of access to
data and the thermochemical nature of their operations. Data was collected from the three
plants using different instruments. Plants A and B had centralized digital process display
meters. Data from Plant C was collected using different equipment for the variables of
interest. Table 3.7 shows a summary of the instruments that were used in collection of
data from the three process plants.

Table 3.7: Summary of Data Collection Instruments used

Process Instrument Type Model Measurement Last

Plant Error Calibration
Date
Plant A One Digital SIMATIC Mass flow 3rd February
Display Meter IPC647E rates: ±1% to 2017 for all
±2% meters
Temperature:
±1% to ±2%
Plant B One Digital Magelis Modular Mass flow 20th January
Display Meter iPC HMIDMA521 rates: ±1% to 2018 for all
±2% meters
Temperature:
±1% to ±2%
Plant C One Ultrasonic Panametrics ±1% to ±2% 24th July 2017
Gas Flow meter CTF878 Clamp on
Gas Meter
One Thermal FLIR T1020 ±1% to ±2% 12th October
imaging camera 2017
One Ultrasonic Panametrics ±1% to ±2% 12th October
Steam Flow meter GS868 Steam Flow 2017
Meter

One Ultrasonic Panametrics ±1% to ±2% 12th October

Liquid Flow meter PT878 Portable 2017
Ultrasonic
Flowmeter

55
The metering devices shown in Table 3.7 were used to collect temperature and mass flow
rates of streams in the three plants. Data collection for the three plants was for five
continuous days. Data was collected from 5th to 6th October, 16th to 20th October and 23rd
to 27th October 2017, for Plants A, B and C respectively. Five days were considered
enough to cater for variations of operation conditions. In all the plants, general
maintenance was done every Sunday. Data collected between two maintenance schedules,
that is from Monday to Friday, was considered to be representative of all the operating
conditions of the plants. In each day, three data sets were collected, in the morning, at
midday and in the evening. For example, the initial and target temperature for one process
stream was collected three times in a day, for the five days. This was then averaged to
come up with the value used for the pinch analysis.

Physical properties of the process streams were obtained from secondary data ( Srivatsan,
2015; Speight, 2005; Podolski et al., 2000; Elliott & Lira, 1999). The stream specific
∆Tmin values were obtained from Canmet Energy (2012). Literature for polynomial
temperature coefficients of specific heat capacities for mixed substances was not
available. In this study, the guide by Meredith (1998) on determination of effective
specific heat capacities for mixed substances was used. From the mass flow rates recorded
in the factory, fractional composition of the distillates per kilogram of wash were
computed and used to determine the coefficients of effective heat capacity. The following
formula was used to compute the polynomial coefficients of mixed substances, say,
w,x,y,z.

First, the total mass flow rate of the stream was divided into the flow rates of individual
components, taking into effect their densities

Ṁ = ṁw + ṁ 𝑥 + ṁ𝑦 + ṁ𝑧 3.46

where

Ṁ is the mass flow rate of the stream

56
ṁw is the mass flow rate due to component w

ṁx is the mass flow rate due to component x

ṁy is the mass flow rate due to component y

ṁz is the mass flow rate due to component z

The polynomial temperature coefficient of specific heat capacity for the known compound
used on a weighted basis as the value for the mixed stream, as follows:

𝐴𝑚𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑 = (ṁ𝑤 ÷ Ṁ) × A 3.47

where Amixed is the polynomial temperature coefficient of the mixed stream

A is the polynomial temperature coefficient of the constituent w of the mixture

In most mixtures, water was the main constituent in terms of composition. The value for
water was thus used. This assumed that molecular interaction of water and the alcoholic
compounds does not affect the specific heat capacity values of the pure substances. This
was assumed a case of ideal mixing. This approach of computing effective specific heat
capacities was applied on Plant C, which had wash as one of the materials. There is no
published literature on the coefficients of wash from molasses. To get the binomial
coefficients of specific heat capacity for wash, individual mass composition of water,
ethanol, fusel oil and acetaldehyde were considered. From the mass flow rates recorded
in the factory, fractional composition of the distillates per kilogram of wash were
computed and used to determine the coefficients of effective heat capacity. In this study,
these coefficients for water were scaled down to represent its mass flow ratio in wash,
using equation 3.47.

This computation assumed that molecular interaction of water and the alcoholic
compounds does not affect the specific heat capacity values of the pure substances. This
was assumed as a case of ideal mixing. To avoid stream splitting, wash stream was treated

57
as containing water alone, with a scaled down polynomial coefficients of specific heat
capacity. Stream splitting at the stage of heating the wash would complicate the model,
especially during design of heat exchange network. Again, in this study, it was assumed
that the mixture did not affect the latent heats of vaporization for the distillates (Meredith,
1998). The study therefore used the latent values of the distillates as they occur in their
pure and unmixed forms.

The computation of effective polynomial temperature coefficients of specific heat

capacities for Wash is illustrated as follows:

Mass flow rate of wash= sum of flow rates of fusel alcohol, acetaldehyde, ethanol and
water

= (0.0016+0.153+0.766+4.86)kg/s =5.7806 kg/s

The polynomial coefficients A and B of specific heat capacity for water in unmixed form
are 4.02 j/g.K and 0.00058 j/g.K respectively.

Coefficient A for water = (4.86÷5.7806) × 4.02= 3.38 j/g.K

Coefficient B for water = (4.86÷5.7806) × 0.00058=0.000488 j/g.K

3.4 Data Analysis and Presentation

The developed models used the data collected to redesign heat exchange network in the
plants. This included computation of energy recovery targets and design of the heat
exchangers to meet them. The designs were carried out and analyzed using four scenarios.
The proposed model was coded as Scenario One and the base case model was called
Scenario Two. Scenarios Three and Four were variations of the first two models. Table
3.8 summarizes the approaches used in the four scenarios.

58
Table 3.8: A summary of the Scenarios used for energy targeting

Scenario ∆Tmin Approach Cp Approach used Comments

used
One Stream specific value Polynomial This is the model proposed
temperature for adoption
coefficients
Two Global value Interpolated values This is the base model. It is
the commonly used model
for targeting
Three Global value Polynomial This is a variation to the
temperature proposed model
coefficients
Four Stream specific value Interpolated values This is a variation to the
proposed model

From Table 3.8, it is shown that Scenario One and Scenario Four use the same approach
of ∆Tmin. Scenario Two and Scenario Three use the same approach of selecting ∆Tmin. In
terms of Cp selection, Scenario One and Scenario Three use the same approach, and
Scenario Two and Scenario Four use the same approach.

Scenario One involved determining the heat balance and energy targets using the novel
approach developed by this study, where the polynomial temperature coefficients of Cp
and stream specific values of ∆Tmin were used. Scenario Two is the one currently applied
in heat balance and energy targeting, where global values of ∆Tmin and interpolated values
of Cp are used. In Scenario Three, polynomial temperature functions of Cp and global
values of ∆Tmin were used. In Scenario Four, stream specific values of ∆Tmin and
interpolated values of Cp were used.The heat balance and energy targeting outputs from
the four scenarios were compared for each process plant, using bar graphs and tables.

Computation of the heating and cooling loads was carried out on each plant and presented
in tabular formats. Each table per plant had all the streams and the required data. This
consisted of the source temperature, the target temperature, the mass flow rate, the
polynomial temperature coefficients of specific heat capacity and the rate of enthalpy
change. Equations 3.5 and 3.1 were used to compute the stream rates of change of

59
enthalpy for Scenario One and Scenario Two, respectively. The required heating and
cooling loads for each plant were determined through the summation of the cold and hot
stream loads, respectively. The initial and final temperature were shifted as described in
Figure 3.4.

What-if simulation was carried out on the models. For heat balancing model, terminal
temperatures of the streams were varied, holding other variables constant, and the heating
and cooling loads determined, under Scenario One and Scenario Two. The resulting
percentage difference in loads computed under the two scenarios was plotted. This
showed a trend of percentage of design errors likely to be incurred in design if the base
case model is used for heat balancing, over a range of stream temperatures.

The simulation on the heat exchanger design model was carried out using various fouling
factors. The determined optimal fouling factor for each exchanger was varied, in
incremental portions of 5 % to 100 %, and their effects on the changes in heat exchanged
were recorded. The LMTD for the exchanger, the overall heat transfer coefficient and the
areas were used to calculate the change in heat transferred due to the changes in the
fouling factors. Five exchangers were used for the simulations. Five were selected out the
19 exchangers for the three plants because they represented tube and shell side fluid types
replicated in the entire set. This was executed using the what-if function VBA program.
This simulation was meant to determine the effect of fouling factors on heat exchange
resistance. The results of this were presented on a line graph.

3.5 Uncertainty Analysis

During data collection, several data points were collected and their averages used for
heat balancing and energy targeting. The points were spread about their means. It was
essential to test the reproducibility of the data, through uncertainty analysis. In this
study, there were two possible sources of uncertainties: instrumental uncertainty and
experimental uncertainty.

60
The experimental uncertainty was due to the standard error of measurement during the
repeated collection of temperature and mass flow rate. Ary, Jacobs, Irvine &Walker
(2018) guided that in repeated measurements, the standard deviation, σ, should be used
as the standard error of measurement, and this was determined using the following:

Σ(𝑥𝑖 −μ)2
𝜎=√ 3.48
𝑁

where

σ is the standard deviation of the measured data points

N is the number of data points taken

μ is the mean

xi is the measured value from each data point

The number of data points collected for 5 days for each temperature and mass flow rate
value per stream was 15.

To determine the experimental uncertainty, for each of the 15 data points, the rate of
change of enthalpy ∆H, was determined, using equation 3.1. The 15 values of ∆H were
then used to determine the standard error of measurement, using equation 3.48. This
uncertainty analysis used the data from the Plant A, the stream for cooling of Sulfur
Dioxide. Table 3.9 shows the input and output values used for the uncertainty analysis.

61
Table 3.9: Experimental Uncertainty Analysis

Specific Rate of
Initial Final
Mass flow Heat Enthalpy
Data Point Number temperature temperature
rate (kg/s) Capacity Change
(K) (K)
(kJ/kg.K) (kW)

1 839.15 800.2 0.99 0.82 31.62

2 839.3 801.5 0.99 0.82 30.69
3 838 801.15 0.995 0.82 30.07
4 839.18 801.8 0.994 0.82 30.47
5 839.5 800.4 0.992 0.82 31.81
6 839.8 800.7 0.996 0.82 31.93
7 839 801.4 0.9934 0.82 30.63
8 839.13 800.7 0.9932 0.82 31.30
9 838.6 801.3 0.991 0.82 30.31
10 839.2 801.6 0.996 0.82 30.71
11 839.6 801.3 0.991 0.82 31.12
12 839 801.5 0.993 0.82 30.53
13 839.4 801.15 0.992 0.82 31.11
14 839.2 801.15 0.996 0.82 31.08
15 839.19 801.4 0.997 0.82 30.89
Average 839.15 801.15 0.9933 0.82 31
Standard Deviation (kW) 0.527

For this standard deviation of 0.527kW to be applied during interpretation of results for
other streams and plants, it was expressed as a coefficient of variation. Lee, Lee & Lee
(2000) recommend the use of this coefficient when variability of data sets is compared
across different populations. The coefficient of variation due to experimental error was
computed using the following formula:

σ
𝐶𝑜𝑉𝑒 = × 100 3.49
μ

σ, the standard deviation, was 0.527 kW

μ, the mean, was 31 kW

62
CoVe is the coefficient of variation due to experimental uncertainty

Substituting the values into equation 3.49, the experimental uncertainty, expressed as the
coefficient of variation, was ±1.7 %.

Average error for mass flow rate and temperature measurements were 1.5 % each. These
errors affected the accuracy of the temperature and mass flow rate values, which in turn
affected the rate of change of enthalpy. To account for these effects, the errors were
propagated into a single value, using the guidelines for error propagation illustrated in
Cacuci, Bujor & Navon, (2005). The equation in this study used the three variables, as
shown in the following equation:

𝜑 2 2
= 100 × √𝑒𝑡𝑠 + 𝑒𝑡𝑡 + 𝑒 2ṁ 3.50
∆𝐻

𝜑is the uncertainty of the rate of change of enthalpy

etis the uncertainty contribution due to temperature measurement instruments

eṁis the uncertainty contribution due to mass flow rate measurement instruments

𝜑𝑡𝑡 𝜑𝑡𝑠 𝜑ṁ
The uncertainty values are given by 𝑒𝑡𝑡 = , 𝑒𝑡𝑠 = and 𝑒𝑚 = where Ts, Tt and
𝑇𝑡 𝑇𝑠 ṁ

m were stream source and target temperatures and mass flow rates, respectively.
Uncertainties ψtt, ψts and ψṁ are due to measurements of target temperature, source
temperature and mass flow rates. They were obtained from 3.4 and averaged for each
instrument. The averaged uncertainty for each instrument was 1.5 %. Values from the
Raw Milk Evaporation Feed stream from the Dairy Specialty Plant were used to determine
𝜑. In this stream, the input values of Tt, Ts and ṁ were 839.15 K, 801.15K and 0.9933
kg/s. The dependent value, ∆H was 31 kW.

63
These values were substituted in equation 3.50 and the independent value uncertainty was
determined to be 0.099 kW. The coefficient of variation due to instrument uncertainty
contribution to the dependent variable was therefore 0.32 %.

64
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents performance testing results for the developed models. The chapter
is organized into three sections. The first section presents the results of heat balancing,
the second section presents energy targeting while the third section presents design of heat
exchanger network. The heat balancing model performance was tested using data from
three plants, Plant A, Plant B and Plant C. A comparison of the model with other modeling
scenarios was also carried out on the heating and cooling loads for the specialty plant,
Plant A, Plant B and Plant C. Simulation of the model performance over various process
properties of the plants has also been presented and discussed in this section.

4.2 Performance Testing of the Heat Balance Model

The proposed and the conventional models were validated and their performance tested.
This section presents the results for validation and performance testing for the Dairy
Specialty Plant on one hand and Plants A, B and C on the other hand.

4.2.1 Model Validation

For model validation, the heat balance and energy targeting model was first tested using
secondary data from a high-end dairy product plant, obtained from Fodor, Klemes,
Varbanov & Wamsley (2012). The data is shown in Table 4.1.

65
Table 4.1: Heat Balance Data for Dairy Specialty Plant (Source: Fodor et al., 2012)

Mass Specific
Initial Final flow Heat
Stream temperature temperature rate Capacity
Number Compound (K) (K) (kg/s) (kJ/kg.K)
1 Raw Milk Evaporation Feed 282.5 352 22.3 4
2 Effect 1 Cow Water 353.3 292 4 4.18
3 Effect 3 Cow Water 340.3 292 2.8 4.18
4 Effect 4 Cow Water 336.8 292 2.4 4.18
5 Effect 5 Cow Water 329.5 292 2 4.18
6 Effect 6 Cow Water 330.8 292 1.6 4.18
7 Effect 7 Cow Vapor 327.8 326.8 1.3 2368.05
8 Effect 7 Cow Water 327.8 292 1.3 4.18
9 Concentrate Heater 320.8 355.5 4.6 3.1
10 Main Air Heater Inlet 312 481.5 39.6 1.02
11 SFB Air Heater Inlet 312 370.5 16.3 1.02
12 VF1 Air Inlet 312 331.3 3.1 1.02
13 VF2 Inlet Air 312 339 3.8 1.02
14 VF3 Air Inlet 312 292.3 3 1.02
VF3 Air Inlet
15 (Dehumidification) 292.3 318 3 1.02
16 Cyclone Recovery Air Inlet 332 362 6 1.02
17 Main Air Exhaust 340 297 58.5 1.02
18 VF Air Exhaust 340 297 9.9 1.02

4.2.1.1 Scenario One Heat Balance

The data obtained from Fodor et al (2012) included source and target temperature of each
process stream, the mass flow rate, stream specific values of ΔTmin and temperature
independent values of Cp. Heat balance was simulated using Scenario One as described
in Table 3.5, using the developed PHP energy targeting software. The results of energy
balancing for Scenario One are shown in Table 4.2.

66
Table 4.2: Heat Balance for Dairy Specialty Plant using Scenario One

Shifted
Stream Ts ṁ ΔTmin Temperature (K)
Number Compound (K) Tf (K) (kg/s) A, B, C (J/g.K) (K) Initial Final ΔH (kW)
Raw Milk Evaporation
1 Feed 282.5 352 22.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 -2.5 280 349.5 -6515.58
2 Effect 1 Cow Water 353.3 292 4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 2.5 355.8 294.5 1031.59
3 Effect 3 Cow Water 340.3 292 2.8 4.02, 0.00058, 0 2.5 342.8 294.5 568.46
4 Effect 4 Cow Water 336.8 292 2.4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 2.5 339.3 294.5 451.84
5 Effect 5 Cow Water 329.5 292 2 4.02, 0.00058, 0 2.5 332 294.5 315.02
6 Effect 6 Cow Water 330.8 292 1.6 4.02, 0.00058, 0 2.5 333.3 294.5 260.77
7 Effect 7 Cow Vapor 327.8 326.8 1.3 2368.05, 0, 0 1 328.8 327.8 3078.47
8 Effect 7 Cow Water 327.8 292 1.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 2.5 330.3 294.5 195.46
9 Concentrate Heater 320.8 355.5 4.6 3.1, 0, 0 -2.5 318.3 353 -494.82
10 Main Air Heater Inlet 312 481.5 39.6 1.03409, -0.00027, 0 -12.5 299.5 469 -6221.99
11 SFB Air Heater Inlet 312 370.5 16.3 1.03409, -0.00027, 0 -12.5 299.5 358 -898.2
12 VF1 Air Inlet 312 331.3 3.1 1.03409, -0.00027, 0 -12.5 299.5 318.8 -56.67
13 VF2 Inlet Air 312 339 3.8 1.03409, -0.00027, 0 -12.5 299.5 326.5 -97.08
14 VF3 Air Inlet 312 292.3 3 1.03409, -0.00027, 0 12.5 324.5 304.8 56.29
VF3 Air Inlet
15 (Dehumidification) 292.3 318 3 1.03409, -0.00027, 0 -12.5 279.8 305.5 -73.38
Cyclone Recovery Air
16 Inlet 332 362 6 1.03409, -0.00027, 0 -12.5 319.5 349.5 -169.27
17 Main Air Exhaust 340 297 58.5 1.03409, -0.00027, 0 12.5 352.5 309.5 2384.93
18 VF Air Exhaust 340 297 9.9 1.03409, -0.00027, 0 12.5 352.5 309.5 403.6

67
The total required heating and cooling loads for the Dairy Specialty Plant, computed
using Scenario One, as shown in Table 4.2, are 14527 kW and 8746.43 kW. Refer to
equation 3.5 for the model equation. By use of the proposed model, it is illustrated that
without internal heat recovery, this plant needs to supply these computed cooling and
heating loads. The Raw Milk Evaporation Feed stream has the highest utility demand,
at -6515 kW, and this is attributed to its high polynomial coefficients of specific heat
capacity and the high mass flow rate.

4.2.1.2 Scenario Two Heat Balance

The same data from Fodor et al (2012) was used to validate the model, by determining
the heating and cooling loads in the plant, using Scenario Two, as presented in Table
3.5. Equation 3.1 guided this model. Table 4.3 shows the output from the software.

68
Table 4.3: Heat Balance for Dairy Specialty Plant using Scenario Two

Stream ṁ Cp
Numbe (kg/s (Interpolated ΔH
r Compound Ts (K) Tt(K) ) ) (J/g.°K) (kW)
1 -
Raw Milk 282.6 352.1 6199.4
Evaporation Feed 5 5 22.3 4.00 0
2 Effect 1 Cow 353.4 292.1 1024.9
Water 5 5 4.0 4.18 3
3 Effect 3 Cow 340.4 292.1
Water 5 5 2.8 4.18 565.30
4 Effect 4 Cow 336.9 292.1
Water 5 5 2.4 4.18 449.43
5 Effect 5 Cow 329.6 292.1
Water 5 5 2.0 4.18 313.50
6 Effect 6 Cow 330.9 292.1
Water 5 5 1.6 4.18 259.49
7 Effect 7 Cow 327.9 326.9 3078.4
Vapor 5 5 1.3 2368.05 7
8 Effect 7 Cow 327.9 292.1
Water 5 5 1.3 4.18 194.54
9 320.9 355.6
Concentrate 5 5 4.6 3.10 -494.82
10 -
Main Air Heater 312.1 481.6 6846.4
Inlet 5 5 39.6 1.02 4
11 SFB Air Heater 312.1 370.6
Inlet 5 5 16.3 1.02 -972.62
12 312.1 331.4
VF1 Air Inlet 5 5 3.1 1.02 -61.03
13 312.1 339.1
VF2 Air Inlet 5 5 3.8 1.02 -104.65
14 VF3 Air Inlet
(Dehumidification 312.1 292.4
) 5 5 3 1.02 60.28
15 292.4 318.1
VF3 Air Inlet 5 5 3 1.02 -78.64
16 Cyclone Recovery 332.1 362.1
Air Inlet 5 5 6 1.02 -183.6
17 340.1 297.1 2565.8
Main Air Exhaust 5 5 58.5 1.02 1
18 340.1 297.1
VF Air Exhaust 5 5 9.9 1.02 434.21

69
The total external required heating and cooling duties for the Dairy Specialty Plant,
when Scenario Two was used for modelling, were 14941.2 kW and 8946.0 kW,
respectively. Without internal recovery of heat, the cooling and heating utilities should
meet these loads. The Main Air Heater Inlet stream has the highest rate of change of
enthalpy requirement, under this Scenario, at -6846.4 kW. This differs from the
Scenario One target, where the Raw Milk Evaporation Feed stream had the highest
rate of change of enthalpy requirement. With interpolated values of the specific heat
capacity, holding the mass flow rates constant, this stream’s modeled enthalpy
requirements reduced.

4.2.2 Performance Testing of the Heat Balance Model on Plant A

4.2.2.1 Data Extracted from Plant A

This study collected data from the sulphonation process and used it to test performance
of the developed model. The primary data collected included the terminal
temperatures of each process stream and the mass flow rates. Table 4.4 shows the
process stream data collected.

70
Table 4.4: Data Extracted from Plant A

Polynomial Temperature Coefficients

of Specific Heat Capacity

Stream Ts Tt ∆Tmin A (j/g.K) B (j/g.K2) C j/g.K3)

Number Process Name (K) (K) ṁ(kg/s) (K)
1. Heating of Sulfur 306.15 388.15 1.302778 15 0.73 0 0
2. Melting of Sulfur 388.15 389.15 1.302778 15 54 0 0
3. Further heating of molten 389.15 433.15 1.302778 15 0.73 0 0
sulfur
4. Heating Regeneration water 309.15 373.15 0.417 5 4.02 0.00058 0
5. Boiling Regeneration Water 373.15 374.15 0. 417 5 2260 0 0
6. Further heating of 374.15 436.15 0. 417 5 1.7883 0.001067 0
Regeneration steam
7. Heating Sulfur lagging water 309.15 373.15 0.417 5 4.02 0.00058 0
8. Boiling Sulfur lagging water 373.15 374.15 0.417 5 2260 0 0
9. Further heating of Sulfur 374.15 436.15 0.417 5 1.7883 0.001067 0
lagging steam
10. Process air cooling 474.15 274.15 1.2348 5 1.03409 -0.00027 0
11. Sulfur dioxide cooling 839.15 801.15 0.9933 10 0.373 0.001 -0.00000077
12. Reactor Stage One Cooling 807.15 726.15 0.863889 10 0.24 0.002 -0.0000022
13. Reactor Stage Two Cooling 858.15 723.15 0.78889 10 0.24 0.002 -0.0000022
14. Reactor Stage Three 758.15 729.15 0.686700 10 0.24 0.002 -0.0000022
Cooling
15. First Stage Cooling of Sulfur 729.15 476.15 0.445698 10 0.24 0.002 -0.0000022
Trioxide
16. Second Stage Cooling of 476.15 292.15 0.434509 10 0.24 0.002 -0.0000022
Sulfur Trioxide
17. Removal of Heat of 303.15 290.15 0.6678 5 4.02 0.00058 0
Neutralization

71
Streams 2, 5 and 8 represent phase changes. A phase change is when a substance changes
either from a solid to a liquid, or from a liquid to a gas. Sulfur, for instance, is melted
from a solid to a liquid. For purposes of pinch analysis, a process involving phase changes
is split into three streams. The first 3 streams consist an initial sensible heating, followed
by a phase change and a final sensible heating. This is repeated in subsequent streams
with phase changes (during a phase change, temperature does not change). In Table 4.4
and subsequent heat balancing tables, these processes are allocated a 1 OC temperature
change, for latent heat of fusion during melting and latent heat of vaporization during
boiling.

4.2.2.3 Scenario One Heat Balance for Plant A

The data collected from Plant A and recorded in Table 4.4 was entered into the proposed
model. The model output was the shifted temperatures, the heating and the cooling loads
for each stream. The heating and cooling loads in the model were determined using
Equation 3.5. The shifting of temperatures was carried out as described in the algorithm
in Figure 3.4. In this model, polynomial temperature coefficients of Cp for the streams
and stream specific values of ∆Tmin were used to compute total heating and cooling loads
and the shifted temperatures, as described by Table 3.5. The results for the heat balancing
as presented in Table 4.5.

72
 Table 4.5: Scenario One Heat Balance for Plant A

Stream Process Name Ts Tt ṁ (kg/s) A (j/g.K), ∆Tmin Shifted ∆H (kW)

Number (K) (K) B (j/g.K2) (K) Temperature (K)
C (j/g.K3) Initial Final
1. Heating of Sulfur 306.15 388.15 1.302778 0.73, 0, 0 -15 291.15 373.15 -77.98
2. Melting of Sulfur 388.15 389.15 1.302778 54, 0, 0 -15 373.15 374.15 -70.35
3. Further heating of molten sulfur 389.15 433.15 1.302778 0.73, 0, 0 -15 374.15 418.15 -41.85
4. Heating Regeneration water 309.15 373.15 0.417 4.02, 0.00058, 0 -5 304.15 368.15 -112.57
5. Boiling Regeneration Water 373.15 374.15 0. 417 2260, 0, 0 -5 368.15 369.15 -942.42
6. Further heating of Regeneration
steam 374.15 436.15 0.417 1.7883, 0.001067, 0 -5 369.15 431.15 -57.40
7. Heating Sulfur lagging water 309.15 373.15 0.417 4.02, 0.00058, 0 -5 304.15 368.15 -112.57
8. Boiling Sulfur lagging water 373.15 374.15 0.417 2260, 0, 0 -5 368.15 369.15 -942.42
9. Further heating of Sulfur
lagging steam 374.15 436.15 0.417 1.7883, 0.001067, 0 -5 369.15 431.15 -57.40
10. Process air cooling 474.15 274.15 1.2348 1.03409, -0.00027, 0 5 479.15 279.15 230.43
11. Sulfur dioxide cooling 0.373, 0.001, -
839.15 801.15 0.9933 0.00000077 10 849.15 811.15 25.50
12. Reactor Stage One Cooling 0.24, 0.002, -
807.15 726.15 0.8638 .0000022 10 817.15 736.15 33.61
13. Reactor Stage Two Cooling 0.24, 0.002, -
858.15 723.15 0.7888 .0000022 10 868.15 733.15 47.29
14. Reactor Stage Three Cooling 0.24, 0.002, -
758.15 729.15 0.6867 .0000022 10 768.15 739.15 10.19
15. First Stage Cooling of Sulfur 0.24, 0.002, -
Trioxide 729.15 476.15 0.4456 .0000022 10 739.15 486.15 71.63
16. Second Stage Cooling of Sulfur 0.24, 0.002, -
Trioxide 476.15 292.15 0.4345 .0000022 10 486.15 302.15 54.19
17. Removal of Heat of
Neutralization 303.15 290.15 0.6678 4.02, 0.00058, 0 5 308.15 295.15 36.39

73
The total required heating and cooling loads for Plant A when determined using Scenario
One are 2414 kW and 509 kW, in that order. Latent heat of vaporization has the highest
heating load requirement, at 942 kW, for streams 5 and 8 and this is because of the phase
changes from liquid to steam. Even though there is phase change of sulfur, the heating
requirements are low, at 70 kW, because sulfur has a lower specific heat capacity
compared to water.

4.2.2.3 Scenario Two Heat Balance for Plant A

Scenario Two was also used to compute total heating and cooling loads for Plant A. Table
4.6 shows the data that was used for heat balance.

74
Table 4.6: Scenario Two Heat Balance of Plant A

Stream Process Name Ts Tt ṁ (kg/s) Interpolated ∆H

Number (K) (K) Values of Cp (kW)
(j/g.K)
1 Heating of Sulfur 306.15 388.15 1.302778 0.73 -78.00
2 Melting of Sulfur 388.15 389.15 1.302778 54 -70.00
3 Further heating of 389.15 433.15 1.302778 0.73 -42.00
molten sulfur
4 Heating 309.15 373.15 0.417 4.18 -
Regeneration 112.00
water
5 Boiling 373.15 374.15 0. 417 2260 -
Regeneration 942.16
Water
6 Further heating of 374.15 436.15 0.417 2.09 -54.00
Regeneration
steam
7 Heating Sulfur 309.15 373.15 0.417 4.18 -
lagging water 112.00
8 Boiling Sulfur 373.15 374.15 0.417 2260 -
lagging water 942.00
9 Further heating of 374.15 436.15 0.417 2.09 -54.00
Sulfur lagging
steam
10 Process air 474.15 274.15 1.2348 1.013 250.00
cooling
11 Sulfur dioxide 839.15 801.15 0.9933 0.82 31.00
cooling
12 Reactor Stage 807.15 726.15 0.8638 0.9 63.00
One Cooling
13 Reactor Stage 858.15 723.15 0.7888 0.9 95.80
Two Cooling
14 Reactor Stage 758.15 729.15 0.6867 0.9 17.90
Three Cooling
15 First Stage 729.15 476.15 0.4456 0.841 94.80
Cooling of Sulfur
Trioxide
16 Second Stage 476.15 292.15 0.4345 0.71 56.80
Cooling of Sulfur
Trioxide
17 Removal of Heat 303.15 290.15 0.6678 4.18 36.30
of Neutralization

75
The heat balance using Scenario Two was computed using Equation 3.1. The total heating
and cooling loads, using Scenario Two, were 2406.00 kW and 645.00 kW, respectively.
The highest heating requirement is on the steam generation streams, at 942.16 kW and
942.00 kW, respectively. The latent heat of vaporization is high and this contributes to
the high heating requirements.

4.2.3 Performance Testing of the Heat Balance Model on Plant B

4.2.3.2 Data Extracted from Plant B

In this study, data was also collected from Plant B and used to test the performance of the
model using the four scenarios. The data collected is presented in Table 4.7, and it consists
of both primary and secondary data. As presented earlier in Table 4.6, processes 6,7 and
8 involve phase changes. In heat balancing, such processes should be split in order to cater
for differences in specific heat capacities in solid, liquid and gaseous states.

76
Table 4.7: Data Extracted from Plant B

∆Tmin Polynomial Temperature

Coefficients of Specific Heat
(K) Capacity
Stream Ts Tt A B (j/g.K2) C j/g.K3)
Number Process Name (K) (K) ṁ (kg/s) (j/g.K)
1. Fresh milk cooling
293.15 276.15 8.61 10 4.02 0.00058 0
2. Pasteurization of milk
276.15 358.15 8.61 -10 4.02 0.00058 0
3. Cooling of pasteurized
milk 358.15 278.15 8.61 10 4.02 0.00058 0
4. Ultra-Heating of Milk
278.15 420.15 1.87 -10 4.02 0.00058 0
5. Cooling of Ultra-Heated
Milk 420.15 298.15 1.87 10 4.02 0.00058 0
6. Heating of Sterilization
Water 298.15 373.15 0. 194 -5 4.02 0.00058 0
7. Boiling of Sterilization
Water 373.15 374.15 0.194 -5 2260 0 0
8. Further Heating of
Sterilization Steam 374.15 418.15 0.194 -5 1.7883 0.001067 0

77
Processes 1 to 4 have milk as the stream material. There is no published data for
polynomial temperature coefficients of specific heat capacity for milk. As such, this study
used the values for water. Water was used as a reference point for the coefficients because
it makes up 88 % of milk content (Jarvis, McBean & Mille, 2002). In this study, it was
assumed that the other substances that make up the 12 % content of milk do not have a
significant impact on its specific heat capacity. The stream specific minimum approach
temperatures were based on recommendations of Canmet Energy (2012), but took into
account the fouling nature of milk in heat exchangers. As such, even though milk was
treated to have thermal properties similar to water, the stream specific temperature
differences for milk streams were taken to be 10K, as opposed to water’s 5K.

4.3.3.3 Scenario One Heat Balance

The Plant B process data, recorded in Table 4.7 was used in the proposed model for
performance testing of heat balancing. The data was computed using Scenario One
approach, as described in Table 3.5. The heating and cooling loads in the model were
determined using Equation 3.5. The shifting of temperatures was carried out as described
in the algorithm in Figure 3.4. In this model, polynomial temperature coefficients of
specific heat capacities for the streams and stream specific values of minimum
temperature difference were used to compute total heating and cooling loads and the
shifted temperatures, as described by Table 3.5. The results are presented in Table 4.8.

78
Table 4.8: Scenario One Heat Balance for Plant B
Stream Process Name Ts Tt ṁ Coefficients ∆Tmin Shifted Shifted Final ∆H (kW)
Number (K) (K) (kg/s) A(j/g.K), (K) Initial Temperature
B(j/g.K2), Temperature (K)
C ((j/g.K3) (K)
1. Fresh Milk 293.15 276.15 8.61 4.02, 10 303.15 286.15 612.57
Cooling 0.00058, 0
2. Pasteurization of 276.15 358.15 8.61 4.02, -10 266.15 348.15 -2968.07
Milk 0.00058, 0
3. Cooling of 358.15 278.15 8.61 4.02, 10 368.15 288.15 2896.08
pasteurized milk 0.00058, 0
4. Ultra Heating of 278.15 420.15 1.87 4.02, -10 268.15 410.15 -1121.24
Milk 0.00058, 0
5. Cooling of Ultra- 420.15 298.15 1.87 4.02, 10 430.15 308.15 964.65
Heated Milk 0.00058, 0
6. Heating of 298.15 373.15 0.194 4.02, -5 293.15 368.15 -61.32
Sterilization 0.00058, 0
Water
7. Boiling of 373.15 374.15 0.194 2260, 0, 0 -5 368.15 369.15 -438.44
Sterilization
Water
8. Further heating 374.15 418.15 0.194 1.7883, -5 369.15 413.15 -18.88
of Sterilization 0.00107, 0
Steam

79
The external required cooling and heating duties for Plant B, under Scenario One were
4463.297 kW and 4607.96 kW, respectively. Heating and cooling requirements for
pasteurization are the highest, at 2968.07 kW and 2896.08 kW. This stream processes the
highest product output, as evidenced by the mass flow rate of 8.61 kg/s. Ultra heated milk,
which is processed from pasteurized milk, has low duty requirements compared to the
former, with cooling duty of 964.65 kW and heating duty of 1121.24 kW. This stream has
low output.

4.3.3.4 Scenario Two Heat Balance for Plant B

The data from the dairy processing plant was also used to compute the external required
heating and cooling loads using the Scenario Two model. In this scenario, the specific
heat capacities of the process streams were assumed independent of temperature changes.
Table 4.9 presents the rates of change of enthalpies for each process stream.

Table 4.9: Scenario Two Heat Balance of Plant B

Stream Process Name Ti Tt ṁ(kg/s) Cp ∆H

Number (K) (K) (j/g.K) (kW)
1 Fresh Milk Cooling 293.15 276.15 8.61 4.18 611.83
2 Pasteurization of 276.15 358.15 8.61 4.18 -
Milk 2951.16
3 Cooling of 358.15 278.15 8.61 4.18 2879.18
pasteurized milk
4 Ultra-Heating of 278.15 420.15 1.87 4.18 -
Milk 1109.96
5 Cooling of Ultra- 420.15 298.15 1.87 4.18 953.63
Heated Milk
6 Heating of 298.15 373.15 0.194 4.18 -60.82
Sterilization Water
7 Boiling of 373.15 374.15 0.194 2260 -438.44
Sterilization Water
8 Further heating of 374.15 418.15 0.194 2.09 -17.84
Sterilization Steam

80
The Scenario Two model used Equation 3.1. The total heating and cooling loads for Plant
B, using Scenario Two, were 4578.22 kW and 4444.64 kW. The cooling load is almost
equal to the heating load, with a difference of 2.9 %. This is attributed to the fact that in
milk processing, temperature is raised to kill microbes and after this the same product has
to be cooled to its original temperature, or below in case of chilling needs. In this Scenario,
the pasteurization process has the highest cooling and heating requirements.

4.2.4 Performance Testing of the Heat Balance Model on Plant C

The model performance was tested on an alcohol distillation plant. The plant is located in
Kenya, and was coded as Plant C. Physical properties of the process streams were
obtained from secondary data (Srivatsan, 2015; Speight, 2005; Podolski et al., 2000;
Elliott & Lira, 1999). The stream specific ∆Tmin values were obtained from Canmet
Energy (2012).

4.3.4.2 Data Extracted from Plant C

Plant C processes were used to test the performance of the model. The polynomial
temperature coefficients of specific heat capacity for the wash were determined using
equation 3.47. The same equation was used to determine the specific heat capacities of
fusel alcohol, acetaldehyde and ethanol. The stream parameters are presented in Table 4.10.

81
Table 4.10: Data Extracted from Plant C

Stream Process Name Ts Tt ṁ ∆Tmin Polynomial Temperature

Number (K) (K) (kg/s) Coefficients of Specific
(K) Heat Capacity
A B C
(j/g.K2) (j/g.K3)
(j/g.K)
1. Fermentation
process cooling 323.15 303.15 2.08 5 4.02 0.00058 0
2. First stage wash
heating process 301.15 333.15 4.86 -5 3.38 0.000488 0
3. First stage wash
boiling process 333.15 334.15 0.153 -5 586.69 0 0
4. Second stage
wash heating
process 333.15 383.15 4.703 -5 3.38 0.000488 0
5. Second stage
wash boiling
process 383.15 384.15 0.766 -5 837.85 0 0
6. Third stage wash
heating process 383.15 400.15 3.937 -5 3.38 0.000488 0
7. Third stage wash
boiling process 400.15 401.15 0.0016 -5 911.9 0 0
8. First stage
condensation of
alcohol vapor
(acetaldehyde) 334.15 333.15 0.153 2.5 586.69 0 0
9. Second stage
condensation of
alcohol vapor
(ethanol) 384.15 383.15 0.766 2.5 837.85 0 0
10. Third stage
condensation of
alcohol vapor
(fusel alcohol) 401.15 400.15 0.0016 2.5 911.9 0 0
11. Chilling of
acetaldehyde 333.15 285.15 0.153 2.5 2.031 0 0
12. Chilling of
ethanol 383.15 284.15 0.766 2.5 2.43 0 0
13. Chilling of fusel
alcohol 400.15 281.15 0.0016 2.5 2.63 0 0

82
From the data in Table 4.10, it is shown that water is the only compound that has
polynomial coefficients of specific heat capacity. The data available for the three
distillates only shows the first order coefficient, that is, for A. Coefficients B and C
assume zero values. The minimum temperature differences, ∆Tmin (K) are stream specific.
Processes 3,5,7,8,9 and 10 undergo phase changes. The recorded data was input into the
developed energy-targeting model and analyzed.

4.3.4.3 Scenario One Heat Balance for Plant C

The Plant C process data, recorded in Table 4.10 was entered into the proposed model
and heat balancing carried out. The proposed model outputted the shifted temperatures,
the heating and the cooling loads for each process stream. For Scenario One, in this model,
polynomial temperature coefficients of Cp for the streams and stream specific values of
∆Tmin were used for computation of the heating and cooling loads and the shifted
temperatures. The heat balancing results are presented in Table 4.11.

83
 Table 4.11: Scenario One Heat Balance for Plant C

Stream Compound Ts (K) Tt (K) ṁ(kg/s) Constant ∆Tmin Shifted initial Shifted final ∆H(kW)
Number A (j/g.K) (K) temperature temperature
B(j/g.K2), (K) (K)
C(j/g.K3)
1. Fermentation Process Cooling 323.15 303.15 2.08 4.02, 0.00058, 0 5 328.15 308.15 174.79
2. First Stage Wash Heating 301.15 333.15 4.86 3.38, 0.00049, 0 -5 296.15 328.15 -549.83
3. First Stage Wash Boiling 333.15 334.15 0.153 586.69, 0, 0 -5 328.15 329.15 -89.76
4. Second Stage Wash Heating 333.15 383.15 4.703 3.38, 0.00049, 0 -5 328.15 378.15 -836.07
5. Second Stage Wash Boiling 383.15 384.15 0.766 837.85, 0, 0 -5 378.15 379.15 -641.79
6. Third Stage Wash Heating 383.15 400.15 3.937 3.38, 0.00049, 0 -5 378.15 395.15 -239.06
7. Third Stage Wash Boiling 400.15 401.15 0.0016 911.9, 0, 0 -5 395.15 396.15 -1.46
8. First Stage Condensation of 334.15 333.15 0.153 586.69, 0, 0 2.5 336.65 335.65 89.76
Alcohol vapor (acetaldehyde)
9. Second Stage Condensation of 384.15 383.15 0.766 837.85, 0, 0 2.5 386.65 385.65 641.79
Alcohol Vapor (ethanol)
10. Third Stage Condensation of 401.15 400.15 0.0016 911.9, 0, 0 2.5 403.65 402.65 1.46
Alcohol Vapor (fusel alcohol)
11. Chilling of acetaldehyde 333.15 285.15 0.153 2.031, 0, 0 2.5 335.65 287.65 14.92
12. Chilling of Ethanol 383.15 284.15 0.766 2.43, 0, 0 2.5 385.65 286.65 184.27
13. Chilling of fusel alcohol 400.15 281.15 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 2.5 402.65 283.65 0.500

84
The rates of enthalpy changes for cold and hot stream in the plant were summed up to
compute the external heating and cooling load requirements. The required heating and
cooling duties for the plant, when determined using Scenario One, were 2357.98 kW and
1106.99 kW, respectively. Second Stage Wash boiling stream has the highest duty
requirement, at 836.07 kW. This stage requires latent heat of vaporization, which is useful
for separation of ethanol from wash. Ethanol is the highest constituent compound in wash,
at 0.766 kg/s and more heat is required for its separation compared to acetaldehyde and
fusel alcohol, which have mass flow rates of 0.153 kg/s and 0.0016 kg/s. This difference
is also manifested in the cooling load required for chilling where ethanol requires 184.27
kW, fuel alcohol 0.5 kW and acetaldehyde 14.92 kW.

4.3.4.4 Scenario Two Heat Balance for Plant C

In this work, data extracted from the distillation plan was also used for energy balancing
using Scenario Two. The value of effective heating capacity was determined using
equation 3.47.

Table 4.12 presents the rates of change of enthalpies for each process stream.

85
Table 4.12: Scenario Two Heat Balance of Plant C

Interpolated
Stream Ts Tt ṁ Values of Cp ∆H
Number Process Name (K) (K) (kg/s) (j/g.K) (kW)
Fermentation 323.15 303.15 2.08 3.514 146.18
1 process cooling
First stage wash 301.15 333.15 4.86 3.514 -546.50
2 heating process
First stage wash 333.15 334.15 0.153 586.69 -89.76
3 boiling process
Second stage wash 333.15 383.15 4.703 3.514 -826.32
4 heating process
Second stage wash 383.15 384.15 0.766 837.85 -641.79
5 boiling process
Third stage wash 383.15 400.15 3.937 3.514 -235.19
6 heating process
Third stage wash 400.15 401.15 0.0016 911.9 -1.46
7 boiling process
First stage 334.15 333.15 0.153 586.69 89.76
condensation of
alcohol vapor
8 (acetaldehyde)
Second stage 384.15 383.15 0.766 837.85 641.79
condensation of
alcohol vapor
9 (ethanol)
Third stage 401.15 400.15 0.0016 911.9 1.46
condensation of
alcohol vapor
10 (fusel alcohol)
Chilling of 333.15 285.15 0.153 2.031 14.92
11 acetaldehyde
12 Chilling of ethanol 383.15 284.15 0.766 2.43 184.28
Chilling of fusel 400.15 281.15 0.0016 2.63 0.50
13 alcohol

The total external required heating and cooling loads for Plant C, when Scenario Two is
used, was computed by summing up the enthalpy changes for the cold streams and hot
streams, respectively. The heating load for the plant is 2341.02 kW and the cooling load

86
is 1078.89 kW. These are the loads that would be required from external utilities if there
was no internal heat recovery.

4.3 Comparisons of Heating and Cooling Loads Under the Two Models

The cooling and heating loads computed for the four plants, using Scenario One and
Scenario Two were compared in this section.

4.3.1 Heating Loads

This section presents a comparison and discussion of heating loads computed using the
two Scenarios. It compares and discusses the differences in total heating loads for the
plants and for each stream. The stream comparison is as shown in Table 4.13.

87
 Table 4. 13: Comparison of Heating Loads per Stream
DAIRY SPECIALTY PLANT PLANT A
Heating Load (kW) Heating Load (kW)
Percentage Percentage
Scenario Scenario Difference Scenario Scenario Difference
Process Name One Two (%) Process Name One Two (%)
Raw Milk Evaporation Feed 6515.58 6199.40 -5.1 Heating of Sulfur 77.98 78.00 0.02
Concentrate 494.82 494.82 0 Melting of Sulfur 70.00 70.00 0
Main Air Heater Inlet 6221.99 6846.44 9.12 Further heating of molten sulfur 41.85 42.00 0.37
SFB Air Heater Inlet 898.20 972.62 7.65 Heating Regeneration water 112.57 112.00 -0.51
VF1 Air Inlet 56.67 61.03 7.13 Boiling Regeneration Water 942.16 942.16 0
VF2 Air Inlet 97.08 104.65 7.23 Further heating of Regeneration steam 57.40 54.00 -6.3
VF3 Air Inlet 73.38 78.64 6.7 Heating Sulfur lagging water 112.57 112.00 -0.51
Cyclone Recovery Air Inlet 169.27 183.60 7.80 Boiling Sulfur lagging water 942.00 942.00 0
Further heating of Sulfur lagging steam 57.40 54.00 -6.3
Total 14527 14941.2 2414 2406
PLANT B PLANT C
Pasteurization of Milk 2968.07 2951.16 -0.57 First stage wash heating process 549.83 546.50 -0.61
Ultra Heating of Milk 1121.24 1109.96 -1.02 First stage wash boiling process 89.76 89.76 0
Heating of Sterilization Water 61.32 60.82 -0.83 Second stage wash heating process 836.07 826.32 -1.18
Boiling of Sterilization Water 438.44 438.44 0 Second stage wash boiling process 641.79 641.79 0
Further heating of 18.88 17.84 -5.85 239.06 235.19 -1.64
Sterilization Steam Third stage wash heating process
Third stage wash boiling process 1.46 1.46 0

Total 4607.96 4578.22 Total 2357.98 2341.02

88
From Table 4.13, heating requirements for streams containing solid materials are lower
when determined using Scenario One, compared to Scenario Two, by an average of 0.2
%. The smaller differences can be explained by the Dulong-Petit Law (Barron & White,
2012), which states that specific heats of solids are temperature independent, at high
temperature values. In this law, the heat capacities of solids will tend to approach an
asymptotic limit at high temperature. Temperature dependence on specific heat capacity
is therefore small.

The heating requirements, in Table 4.13, for streams containing water and steam are more
when computed using Scenario One, compared to Scenario Two, by an average of 1.9%.
This observation can be explained by literature in Bundschuh (2010), which states that
specific heat capacities of liquids are affected by temperature in different ranges. In this
relationship, between 0 °C and 30 °C, the specific heat capacities of liquids reduce, and
then they increase from 30 °C to 300 °C. Use of constant values of isobaric specific heat
capacity therefore means that the heating loads will be underestimated, especially in
processes that require heating done above 30 °C.

In the analysis of data in Table 4.13, it was also observed that the heating requirements
for all the streams containing gaseous compounds required less heating duties when
determined using Scenario One, compared to Scenario Two, by an average of 7.6 %. This
finding can be well explained by Abu-Nada, Al-Hindi, Al-Sarkhi & Akash (2006) and Al-
Sarkhi, Al-Hindi, Abu-Nada & Akash (2007), who demonstrated that specific heat
capacities of gases depend on temperature. Abu-Nada et al’s., (2006) simulation of
performance of internal combustion engine pressure using temperature dependent and
temperature independent specific heat capacities revealed performance differences.
Likewise, Al-Sarkhi et al’s., (2007) study of simulation of performance of an irreversible
Miller engine demonstrated that use of temperature independent specific heat capacities
of combustion air to determine engine output led to overestimation of the actual
efficiency.

89
A comparison of total heating loads for the four plants was carried out and the results are
shown in Figure 4.1.

Scenario One Scenario Two

16000

14000
TOTAL HEATING LOAD (KW)

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
Specialty Plant Plant A Plant B Plant C

Figure 4.1: A Comparison of Total Heating Loads for Scenario One and Two

As demonstrated in Figure 4.1, for Dairy Specialty Plant, the heating loads computed
under Scenario One are lower than Scenario Two loads, by 2.77 %. In Plants A, B and C,
the Scenario One heating loads are higher than Scenario Two, by 0.37%, 0.65 % and
0.72%, respectively. The observation of the difference in heat loads for Dairy Specialty
Plant agrees with literature in Gupta (2012), which states that modelling of heating load
for gases should consider temperature dependent values of specific heat capacity in order
to avoid errors. The observed differences in Plants A, B and C corroborate literature in
Harper (2004) which indicates that rates of change of enthalpies in liquids exhibit
differences when temperature dependent and independent values of specific heat
capacities are used for modeling.

90
In this study, the behavior of computed heating loads for Scenario One and Two, over a
range of different target temperatures, for selected streams, was investigated. The Main
Air Heater inlet, Heating of Sulfur Lagging Steam, Heating of Sterilization Steam and
Third Stage Wash Heating Process were selected for the investigation. The streams are
from the four plants that were studied. What-if simulations were carried out using various
temperature ranges for the two scenarios. Figures 4.2 shows the simulation results.

Figure 4.2: Behavior of Heating Loads Simulated for two Scenarios

The simulation results shown in sub figure (a) of Figure 4.2 show that as temperature
changes from 313 K to 480 K, the percentage heating load difference between Scenario
One and Two changes from 7.5 % to 10.48 %. The change in (a) is the highest, followed
by (b), (c) and (d) by temperature ranges of 4.32 % to 5.24 %, 4.38 % to 6.04 % and 1.48
% to 1.56 %, respectively. The high difference exhibited in (a), the gaseous stream, is

91
corroborated by literature in Reger, Goode & Paul, (2009), which states that gases have
higher vibration degrees, thus higher dependence of specific heat capacity on temperature
changes. Sub figure (d), has water and it has the lowest heating load percentage difference
and this agrees with Khachan (2018) who states that specific heat capacity of water is less
sensitive to changes in temperature compared to air and steam.

4.3.2 Cooling Loads

This section presents and discusses the differences in the cooling loads computed using
Scenario One and Scenario Two. The presentation is in two parts: the individual stream
cooling load requirement comparison and the plant total cooling load requirement
comparison. Percentage differences were used for these comparisons. Table 4.14 shows
the differences per stream in each plant.

The streams containing gaseous compounds, as show in Table 4.14, have less cooling
load requirements when computed using Scenario One, at an average difference of
21.57%, compared to Scenario Two. The behavior can be explained using the vibration
degrees’ theory as articulated in Reger et al (2009). Specific heat capacities of substances
with higher degrees, like gases, have high response to temperature variations.

92
Table 4.14: Comparison of Cooling Loads per Stream

DAIRY SPECIALTY PLANT PLANT A

Heating Load (kW) Heating Load (kW)

Percentage Percentage
Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario
Difference Difference
One Two One Two
Process Name (%) Process Name (%)
Effect 1 Cow Water 1031.59 1024.94 -0.65 Process air cooling 230.43 250.17 7.89
Effect 3 Cow Water 568.46 565.30 -0.56 Sulfur dioxide cooling 25.50 31.00 17.74
Effect 4 Cow Water 451.84 449.43 -0.54 Reactor Stage One Cooling 33.61 63.00 46.65
Reactor Stage Two
Effect 5 Cow Water 315.02 313.50 -0.48 47.29 95.80 50.63
Cooling
Reactor Stage Three
Effect 6 Cow Water 260.77 259.49 -0.49 10.19 17.90 43.067
Cooling
Effect 7 Cow Vapor 3078.47 3078.47 0 First Stage SO3Cooling 71.63 94.80 24.44
Effect 7 Cow Water 195.46 194.54 -0.47 Second Stage SO3Cooling 54.19 56.80 4.6
Removal of Heat of
VF3 Air Inlet 56.29 60.28 6.62 36.39 36.03 -0.26
Neutralization
Main Air Exhaust 2384.93 2565.81 7.05
VF Air Exhaust 403.60 434.21 7.05
Total 8746.43 8945.98 Total 509.227 645.7705
PLANT B PLANT C
Fresh Milk Cooling 2968.07 2951.16 -0.12 First stage condensation 89.76 89.76 0
Cooling of pasteurized milk 1121.24 1109.96 -0.59 Second stage condensation 641.79 641.79 0
Cooling of Ultra-Heated
61.32 60.82 -1.16 Third stage condensation 1.46 1.46 0
Milk
Total 4463.3 4444.64 Chilling of acetaldehyde 14.92 14.92 0
Chilling of ethanol 184.27 184.28 0
Chilling of fusel alcohol 0.50 0.50 0
Total 932.7 932.7 0

93
Under Scenario One modeling, streams containing liquid, as illustrated in Table 4.14,
have more cooling load requirement compared to loads modelled under Scenario Two, by
average difference of 0.34 %. This difference is low compared to the streams containing
gases and this behavior corroborates the explanation in Kaviany (2011), which states the
specific heat capacities of liquids have low sensitivity to temperature changes and that at
room temperature, they remain constant because the liquids are at a ground vibrational
state.

The cooling load requirement comparison for plants was presented in Figure 4.3.

Scenario One Scenario Two

10000
9000
Cooling loads (kW)

8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Specialty Plant A Plant B Plant C
Plant

Figure 4.3: A Comparison of Total Heating Loads for Scenario One and Two

Plant C, as shown in Figure 4.3, did not show any difference of cooling load requirements
under the two scenarios. Most of the cooling is for chilling, meaning they are in a ground
vibrational state (Kaviany, 2011), where temperature changes do not affect specific heat
capacities. Cooling loads for Scenario One for Dairy Specialty Plant and Plant A are low
than those for Scenario Two, by a difference of 21.14% and 2.23 %, respectively. The
two plants have gaseous streams and this behavior is same as the one observed in the
heating loads. Plant B’s cooling loads under Scenario One are higher than Scenario Two,
by an average difference of 0.64%. This difference is small compared to the one noted for

94
Dairy Specialty Plant and Plant A because all the streams have liquid compounds, whose
specific heat capacities have low response to changes in temperature.

This study sought to explore the behavior of modeled cooling loads of some of the streams
over a range of target temperatures. The streams selected for this assessment were Main
Air Exhaust, Reactor Stage Two Cooling and Cooling of Ultra Heated Milk. This
selection ensured that all plants and streams with different states were considered.
However, Plant C was not considered, having had no difference in the computed cooling
loads under the two different scenarios. Figure 4.4 shows the simulation results.

Figure 4.4: Behavior of Cooling Loads Simulated for two Scenarios

The difference between Scenario One and Scenario Two required cooling loads simulated
over a range of temperature was higher in (b), ranging from 26.37 % to 41.26 %, for a
temperature range of 854 K to 733 K. This is followed by (a), whose difference ranged
from 7.39 % to 7.9 %, for a temperature range of 309.65K to 352.66 K. The lowest

95
percentage difference was recorded in (c), which ranged from 410 K to 300 K, at a range
of 1.19 % to 1.95 %. The streams in (a) and (b) contain gaseous compounds and the high
difference reinforces the explanation in Abu-Nada et al’s (2006) study that was discussed
under the heating load section. Similarly, the low difference for liquid compound cooling
requirements computed under the two scenarios corroborates the literature in Khachan
(2018), which states that specific heat capacities of liquids have low response to changes
in temperature.

4.4 Performance Testing of the Energy Targeting Model

Energy targets were computed using the algorithm presented in Figure 3.4 (in the
methodology section). The developed energy-targeting model was tested using data from
the four plants. Selection of ∆Tmin values was guided by Canmet Energy (2012),
throughout the design for the four processing plants. This section presents net energy
flows per shifted temperature intervals and the energy targets for the four plants, per each
scenario.

4.4.1 Validation on Dairy Specialty Plant

Data collected from the Dairy Specialty Plant was used for computation of energy targets
under four scenarios.

4.4.1.1 Scenario One Energy Targets for Dairy Specialty Plant

Detailed results for energy targets computed under Scenario One, using the developed
software, were presented in Appendix III. Table 4.15, on the other hand, presents a
summary of the shifted temperature interval net enthalpy changes.

96
Table 4.15: Dairy Specialty Plant Scenario One Energy Targets

Shifted Total Rate of Change Cumulative Rate of

Interval Temperature of Enthalpy per Change of Enthalpies
Number Interval (K) Interval (kW) (kW)
1 358.15-469.15 -4371.29 -4371.29
2 355.95-358.15 -124.25 -4495.54
3 353.15-355.95 -112.69 -4608.23
4 352.65-353.15 -27.27 -4635.49
Pinch Point
5 349.65-352.65 43.96 43.96
6 342.95-349.65 -549.58 -505.62
7 339.45-342.95 -247.08 -752.70
8 333.45-339.45 -364.84 -1117.54
9 332.15-333.45 -217.94 -1335.48
10 330.45-332.15 -78.48 -1413.96
11 328.95-330.45 -61.32 -1475.28
Pinch Point
12 327.95-328.95 3037.59 3037.59
13 326.65-327.95 -53.13 2984.47
14 324.65-326.65 -89.45 2895.01
15 319.65-324.65 -208.24 2686.78
16 318.95-319.65 -24.85 2661.93
17 318.45 - 318.95 -19.33 2642.60
18 309.65-318.45 -214.46 2428.13
19 305.65-309.65 -377.51 2050.62
20 304.95-305.65 -68.24 1982.38
21 299.65-304.95 -533.15 1449.23
22 294.15-299.65 -180.82 1268.41
23 280.15-294.15 -1347.52 -79.11.00
24 279.15-280.15 -0.62 -79.73.00

Table 4.15 shows that heat integration for the Dairy Specialist Plant has a threshold
problem, where there is no external cooling load required, and double pinch points. The
design only requires external heating utility and no cooling load. The lack of a single
pinch point means that there will be pinch violations during the network design. Pinch
violations increase utility requirements. According to the Scenario One heat recovery
modeling, with internal heat recovery, the dairy process needs a minimum external supply

97
of 6110.77 kW heating load. The required external minimum supply of cooling load will
be zero.

The maximum internally recoverable heat was computed using the total required heating
duty for Scenario One, 14527 kW, as shown in Table 4.13. From this, the maximum
thermodynamically possible recoverable heat that can be realized in the Dairy Specialty
Plant, when modelled using Scenario One, is 8416.23 kW. From Table 4.15, it was
observed that some intervals had low feasibility for internal heat exchange, because of the
low net enthalpies. The intervals in this case were 4,5,16,17 and 24. The loads are low
compared to the other intervals and in case the plant is being retrofitted, then the external
utilities for processes with temperatures represented by these intervals should be
maintained.

4.4.1.2 Scenario Two Energy Targets for Dairy Specialty Plant

Energy targets were computed using Scenario Two. Appendix IV shows a detailed
calculation of energy targets and pinch point for the Dairy Processing Plant, using this
scenario. The summarized net heating load and cooling load cascades per shifted
temperature intervals and the pinch points have been illustrated in Table 4.16.

98
Table 4.16: Dairy Specialty Plant Scenario Two Energy Targets

Interval Interval Net Cumulative Enthalpy

Number Temperature Intervals (K) Enthalpy (kW) (kW)
1 368.15 479.15 -4483.51 -4483.51
2 359.65 368.15 -484.65 -4968.17
3 355.95 359.65 -233.61 -5201.78
4 353.15 355.95 -129.97 -5331.75
5 349.65 353.15 -212.37 -5544.12
6 342.95 349.65 -1004.18 -6548.30
7 342.65 342.95 -41.45 -6589.75
8 339.45 342.65 -218.9 -6808.65
9 336.65 339.45 -163.44 -6972.10
10 333.45 336.65 -199.2 -7171.30
11 332.15 333.45 -80.93 -7252.23
12 330.45 332.15 -94.46 -7346.68
Pinch Point
13 329.65 330.45 2429.36 2429.36
14 329.45 329.65 608.56 3037.92
15 328.95 329.45 -17.82 3020.10
16 318.45 328.95 -407.51 2612.59
17 315.65 318.45 -68.74 2543.85
18 314.65 315.65 -27.61 2516.24
19 309.65 314.65 -122.75 2393.49
20 299.65 309.65 395.06 2788.55
21 294.95 299.65 -142.23 2646.32
22 294.65 294.95 -9.10 2636.32
23 289.95 294.65 -433.62 2202.70
24 280.15 289.95 -874.16 1328.54

When Scenario Two is used to model the targets, as shown in Table 4.16, the design
problem has one pinch point, a hot and a cold utility. The hot utility, which is the minimum
required external heating load is 7346.68 kW. The cold utility, which is the minimum
required external cooling load is 1328.54 kW. The total required heating load for the plant,
presented in the previous section, was 14941.20 kW. The maximum internally
recoverable heat was determined to be 7594.52 kW. The less feasible temperature
processes for internal heat recovery are presented by shifted temperature intervals 7,15
and 22. Their net enthalpies are low compared to the rest. The maximum

99
thermodynamically possible internal recoverable heat for the Dairy Specialty Plant, if
Scenario Two is used, is 7594.52 kW.

4.4.1.3 Scenario Three Energy Targets for Dairy Specialty Plant

Energy targets and interval net enthalpies determined using Scenario Three were
presented in Table 4.17. Detailed results are shown in Appendix V.

Table 4.17: Dairy Specialty Plant Scenario Three Energy Targets

Interval Net Rate of Cumulative

Number Change of Rate of
Enthalpy per Change of
Shifted Temperature Intervals (K) Interval (kW) Enthalpy (kW)
1 368.15 479.15 -4459.69 -4459.69
2 359.65 368.15 -490.03 -4949.71
3 355.95 359.65 -236.59 -5186.31
4 353.15 355.95 -133.64 -5319.95
5 349.65 353.15 -217.18 -5537.13
6 342.95 349.65 -1023.47 -6560.59
7 342.65 342.95 -42.42 -6603.01
8 339.45 342.65 -225.42 -6828.44
9 336.65 339.45 -169.88 -6998.32
10 333.45 336.65 -206.70 -7205.02
11 332.15 333.45 -83.95 -7288.96
12 330.45 332.15 -98.73 -7387.69
Pinch Point
13 329.65 330.45 2427.02 2427.02
14 329.45 329.65 608.00 3035.03
15 328.95 329.45 -19.22 3015.81
16 318.45 328.95 -437.12 2578.68
17 315.65 318.45 -76.52 2502.16
18 314.65 315.65 -30.45 2471.71
19 309.65 314.65 -136.49 2335.22
20 299.65 309.65 385.58 2720.80
21 294.95 299.65 -155.49 2565.31
22 294.65 294.95 -10.87 2554.44
23 289.95 294.65 -437.38 2117.06
24 280.15 289.95 -880.17 1236.89

100
Scenario Three energy targeting model shows a single pinch point, at shifted temperature
of 330.45 K. The minimum required heating and cooling loads is 7387.90 kW and 1236.90
kW respectively. Therefore, out of the total required 14941.20 kW of heating for the plant,
7553.30 kW can be recovered internally. Intervals 15, 17 and 22 have less feasible process
temperatures that can support a case for internal heat recovery. The net enthalpies here
are less and may not justify the cost of a heat exchanger.

4.4.1.4 Scenario Four Energy Targeting for Dairy Specialty Plant

The energy targets modelled using Scenario Four for the Dairy Specialty Plant were
presented. Detailed data for the targets was presented in Appendix VI. The summarized
net enthalpies for each shifted temperature interval are shown in Table 4.18.

101
Table 4.18: Dairy Specialty Plant Scenario Two Energy Targets

Heating and
Cooling
Duty
Stream Surplus Cumulative
Number Shifted Temperature Interval (K) (kW) Duty (kW)
1 358.15-469.15 -4483.51 -4483.51
2 355.95-358.15 -125.44 -4608.95
3 353.15-355.95 -112.83 -4721.79
4 352.65-353.15 -27.28 -4749.07
Pinch Point
5 349.65-352.65 45.63 45.63
6 342.95-349.65 -536.74 -491.11
7 339.45-342.95 -239.42 -730.53
8 333.45-339.45 -375.64 -1106.16
9 332.15-333.45 -216.58 -1322.74
10 330.45-332.15 -73.65 -1396.40
11 328.95-330.45 -56.84 -1453.23
Pinch Point
12 327.95-328.95 3040.57 3040.57
13 326.65-327.95 -49.26 2991.31
14 324.65-326.65 -106.34 2884.98
15 319.65-324.65 -250.54 2634.43
16 318.95-319.65 -30.79 2603.64
17 318.45 - 318.95 -6.23 2597.41
18 309.65-318.45 -371.27 2226.14
19 305.65-309.65 -447.83 1778.31
20 304.95-305.65 -80.51 1697.80
21 299.65-304.95 -625.81 1071.98
22 294.15-299.65 -166.61 905.37
23 280.15-294.15 -1337.77 -432.40
24 279.15-280.15 -0.61 -433.01

Table 4.18 shows that when Scenario Four is used, the heat recovery design becomes a
threshold problem. The minimum required external cooling load is 0 kW. Intervals 4, 17
and 22 have low net enthalpies and may not have justifiable cases for the cost of heat
exchanger. The minimum required external heating duty was 6635.3 kW. Out of 14941.2
kW, the total required heating load, 8305.9 kW can be recovered internally.

102
4.4.2 Performance Testing of the Energy Targeting Model on Plant A
The data collected from Plant A was used for computation of energy targets under four
scenarios.
4.4.2.1 Scenario One Energy Targets for Plant A
Recoverable energy targets were computed using Scenario One. Detailed computation of
this is presented in Appendix VII. A summary of the targets is shown in Table 4.19.

Table 4.19: Plant A Scenario One Energy Targets

Shifted Cumulative
Interval Shifted Temperature Heat Deficit/Surplus Rate of Heat
Number Intervals (K) Per Interval (kW) (kW)
1 868.15 849.15 2.97 2.97
2 849.15 817.15 31 33.97
3 817.15 811.15 8.12 42.09
4 811.15 768.15 61.04 103.13
5 768.15 739.15 23.9 127.03
6 739.15 736.15 3.65 130.67
7 736.15 733.15 3.29 133.96
8 733.15 486.15 192.47 326.44
9 486.15 479.15 2.16 328.60
10 479.15 472.15 2.11 330.71
11 472.15 431.15 58.55 389.26
12 431.15 418.15 -5.63 383.63
13 418.15 374.15 -59.47 324.16
14 374.15 373.15 -70.73 253.43
15 373.15 369.15 -5.30 248.13
16 369.15 368.15 -1884.34 -1636.21
17 368.15 308.15 -180.87 -1817.08
18 308.15 304.15 -0.77 -1817.85
Pinch Point
19 304.15 302.15 6.61 6.61
20 302.15 295.15 21.79 28.40
21 295.15 291.15 15.9 44.30
22 291.15 279.15 14.18 58.48

The results in Table 4.19 show that the minimum required rate of heating and cooling
enthalpies for Plant A, when Scenario One is used, is 1817.852 kW and 58.48 kW

103
respectively. This implies that for the total required external heating at 2414 kW, 596.15
can be recovered through internal exchange of heat between the cold and the hot streams.
4.4.2.2 Scenario Two Energy Targets for Plant A
Targets were computed using Scenario Two, for Plant A. The data used for this
computation is presented in Appendix VIII. A summary of the targeting results is
presented in Table 4.20.

Table 4.20: Plant A Scenario Two Energy Targets

Interval
Cumulative
Number
Shifted Temperature Enthalpy Rate Enthalpy Rate
Interval (K) Deficit/Surplus (kW) (kW)
1 863.15 844.15 13.49 13.49
2 844.15 812.15 48.78 62.27
3 812.15 806.15 13.81 76.08
4 806.15 763.15 63.96 140.04
5 763.15 734.15 61.06 201.09
6 734.15 731.15 5.59 206.68
7 731.15 728.15 3.25 209.93
8 728.15 481.15 92.56 302.50
9 481.15 479.15 0.62 303.11
10 479.15 431.15 74.85 377.96
11 431.15 428.15 -0.55 377.41
12 428.15 384.15 -49.93 327.48
13 384.15 383.15 -70.53 256.95
14 383.15 369.15 -15.89 241.06
15 369.15 368.15 -1884.23 -1643.17
16 368.15 308.15 -172.67 -1815.84
17 308.15 304.15 -0.35 -1816.18
Pinch Point
18 304.15 301.15 10.20 10.20
19 301.15 297.15 17.40 27.60
20 297.15 295.15 8.08 35.69
21 295.15 279.15 20.01 55.70

As presented in Table 4.20, the minimum required external heating duty for Plant A is
1816 kW, the pinch point is at the shifted temperature value of 304.15 K and the minimum
required external cooling duty is 55.7 kW. From the total required heating load of 2406

104
kW, 590 kW can be achieved through internal heat recovery. Even though intervals
1,3,6,7,9,11,17 to 21 represent thermodynamic feasibility of heat exchange, the net
enthalpies are less and may not justify the costs of heat exchangers.

4.4.2.3 Scenario Three Energy Targets for Plant A

Energy targets for Plant A were determined using Scenario Three. Appendix IX shows
details of the energy targeting process using the Scenario Three. Table 4.21 presents the
results of heat targeting using the Scenario Three.

Table 4.21: Plant A Scenario Three Energy Targets

Shifted
Interval Temperature Heat Deficit/Surplus Per Cumulative Rate of
Number Intervals (K) Interval (kW) Heat (kW)
1 863.15 844.15 3.11 3.11
2 844.15 812.15 31.22 34.34
3 812.15 806.15 8.20 42.54
4 806.15 763.15 61.60 104.14
5 763.15 734.15 34.28 138.42
6 734.15 731.15 3.31 141.73
7 731.15 728.15 1.96 143.69
8 728.15 481.15 69.85 213.54
9 481.15 479.15 0.60 214.14
10 479.15 431.15 68.49 282.63
11 431.15 428.15 -1.32 281.32
12 428.15 384.15 -59.97 221.35
13 384.15 383.15 -70.74 150.61
14 383.15 369.15 -18.62 131.99
15 369.15 368.15 -1884.34 -1752.34
16 368.15 308.15 -180.87 -1933.21
17 308.15 304.15 -0.77 -1933.98
Pinch Point
18 304.15 301.15 9.92 9.92
19 301.15 297.15 17.03 26.95
20 297.15 295.15 7.95 34.90
21 295.15 279.15 18.90 53.80

105
From Table 4.21, it is shown that under Scenario Three, minimum external required
cooling load was 53.799 kW, the pinch point was 304K and the minimum required
external heating load was 1933.98 kW. From the total required external heating load of
2414 kW for the plant, 480.02 kW can be recovered internally. As was for Scenario Two,
Scenario Three had areas which presented less case for internal recovery. In addition to
the intervals identified in Scenario Two, interval 14 in Scenario also little justifiable cost
case for a heat exchanger.

4.4.2.4 Scenario Four Energy Targets for Plant A

The energy targets for Plant A, using Scenario Four, were presented in Appendix X and
Table 4.22. Appendix X presented detailed data used for determination of the energy
targets and pinch points. Table 4.22 presented the net enthalpy in each interval, the pinch
point and the energy targets.

106
Table 4.22: Plant A Scenario Four Energy Targets

Interval
Number Net Enthalpy Rate Cumulative Net
Shifted Temperature Intervals (K) Enthalpy Rate
of Change (kW)
of Change (kW)
1 849.15 868.15 13.49 13.49
2 817.15 849.15 48.78 62.27
3 811.15 817.15 13.81 76.09
4 768.15 811.15 63.96 140.05
5 739.15 768.15 61.06 201.11
6 736.15 739.15 5.59 206.70
7 733.15 736.15 3.25 209.95
8 486.15 733.15 92.58 302.53
9 479.15 486.15 2.16 304.69
10 472.15 479.15 10.92 315.61
11 431.15 472.15 63.93 379.54
12 418.15 431.15 -2.39 377.15
13 374.15 418.15 -127.89 249.27
14 373.15 374.15 -70.53 178.73
15 369.15 373.15 -4.54 174.20
16 368.15 369.15 -1884.23 -1710.04
17 308.15 368.15 -172.67 -1882.70
18 304.15 308.15 -0.35 -1883.05
Pinch Point
19 302.15 304.15 6.80 6.80
29 295.15 302.15 21.64 28.44
21 291.15 295.15 1.20 29.64
22 279.15 291.15 15.01 44.65

Results in Table 4.22 show that the minimum required external heating load for Plant A,
using Scenario Four, is 1883.05 kW while the required minimum external cooling load is
44.64 kW. The pinch point for this scenario is at the shifted temperature of 304.15 K. The
external required heating loads for this Plant was 2412 kW. This implies that out of this,
530.95 kW can be supplied internally, through heat exchange networks. Some processes,
even though with thermodynamic feasibility of internal heat recovery, may not have a
justifiable economic cost of using heat exchangers. The temperature for these processes
are represented in intervals 1,7,9,10,11,15 and 18 to 22.

107
4.4.3 Performance Testing of the Energy Targeting Model on Plant B

Presented in this section are the results of energy targets for Plant B, using the four
Scenarios for energy targeting.
4.4.3.1 Scenario One Energy Targets for Plant B

The net energy enthalpies per shifted temperature interval and the energy targets
determined using Scenario One were presented in Table 4.23. Detailed data for this
targeting is presented in Appendix XI.

Table 4.23: Plant B Scenario One Energy Targets

Shifted
Interval Temperature Cumulative
Number Interval (K) Total Interval Enthalpy (kW) Enthalpy (kW)
1 413.15 - 430.15 135.57 135.57
2 410.15 - 413.15 22.59 158.16
3 369.15 - 410.15 -17.54 140.62
4 368.15 - 369.15 -438.44 -297.82
Pinch Point
5 348.15 - 368.15 711.61 711.61
6 308.15 - 348.15 -32.67 678.94
7 303.15 - 308.15 -43.32 635.62
8 293.15 - 303.15 274.47 910.09
9 288.15 - 293.15 141.16 1051.25
10 286.15 - 288.15 -15.66 1035.59
11 268.15 - 286.15 -788.66 246.93
12 266.15-268.15 -71.89 175.04

The heat targets modelled in Table 4.23 show that the minimum required rate of heating
and cooling enthalpies for Plant B, when Scenario One is used, is 297.815 kW and
175.040 kW respectively. The total required heating load for this plant was determined to
be 4310.15 kW. The maximum possible internally recoverable heat is 4012.34 kW.
Feasibility of internal heat recovery is less pronounced in processes that have temperature
represented by intervals 3,6,7,10 and 12. These intervals have less heating and cooling
duty deficits, represented by the net enthalpies. During design, tradeoffs have to be made

108
between using a heat exchanger for such small duties or using the utilities. This thus calls
for a mixture of external utility and internal recovery.

4.4.3.2 Scenario Two Energy Targets for Plant B

Net enthalpies for shifted temperature intervals and the heat recovery targets for Plant B,
using Scenario Two, were presented in Table 4.24. Detailed results of the modeled targets
are shown in Appendix XII.

Table 4.24: Plant B Scenario Two Energy Targets

Interval Shifted Temperature Enthalpy Cumulative

Number Interval (K) (kW) Enthalpy (kW)
1 422.65 417.65 39.08 39.08
2 417.65 415.65 0 39.08
3 415.65 371.15 -18.04 21.04
4 371.65 370.65 -438.44 -417.4
5 370.65 360.65 -8.11 -425.51
Pinch Point
6 360.65 355.65 175.89 175.89
7 355.65 300.65 -44.60 131.29
8 300.65 295.65 -43.14 88.16
9 295.65 280.65 422.60 510.75
10 280.65 278.65 15.63 526.39
11 278.65 275.65 0 526.39
12 275.65 273.65 -71.98 454.41

The modelling results show that the minimum required external cooling load is 454.4078
kW while the minimum required external cooling load is 425.509 kW. The pinch point is
at the shifted temperature of 360.65 K. The total required heating load for this plant, when
computed using Scenario Two, was determined to be 4578.22 kW. This therefore means
that 4123.82 kW can be recovered internally. In this Scenario, as shown in Table 4.24,
internal recovery of heat is less achievable in processes that have temperature ranges in
interval numbers 3,5 and 10. Their net interval enthalpies are low compared to the others,

109
at 18.04 kW deficit, 8.11 kW deficit and 15.63 kW surplus. This indicates that an option
of external utility could be explored than heat exchangers, as a balance between cost of
energy and cost of a heat exchanger.

4.4.3.3 Scenario Three Energy Targets for Plant B

The energy targets and interval net enthalpies for Plant B, determined using Scenario
Three, were presented in this section. Details of the results are presented in Appendix
XIII. A summary of the targeting results is presented in Table 4.25.

Table 4.25: Plant B Scenario Three Energy Targets

Interval Shifted Temperature Interval Enthalpy Cumulative

Number (K) (kW) Enthalpy (kW)
1 422.65 417.65 39.87 39.87
2 417.65 415.65 0 39.87
3 415.65 371.15 -18.86 21.01
4 371.65 370.65 -438.44 -417.43
5 370.65 360.65 -8.21 -425.65
Pinch Point
6 360.65 355.65 177.90 177.90
7 355.65 300.65 -44.92 132.98
8 300.65 295.65 -43.27 89.71
9 295.65 280.65 423.32 513.03
10 280.65 278.65 -15.64 497.38
11 278.65 275.65 -131.44 365.95
12 275.65 273.65 -71.97 293.97

If Scenario Three is used for energy targeting, the pinch point, as shown in Table 4.25,
was at 360.65K. The minimum required external heating load was 425.645 kW. The
minimum required cooling load for the plant was 293.97 kW. The maximum internally
recoverable heat from the processes of the plant was 4182.31 kW. Out of the total required
external heating load of 4607.96 kW, it is thermodynamically possible to recover 4182.31
kW internally. Internal recovery feasibility is however lower in some of the processes.

110
For example, processes undergoing temperature changes represented by intervals 3,5 and
10 have low duties. In cases of retrofit, there may be no cost motivation to use a heat
exchanger in such regions.

4.4.3.4 Scenario Four Energy Targets for Plant B

The energy targets and the enthalpies per shifted temperature intervals were presented in
this section. The summary of the findings was as shown in Table 4.26. Detailed findings
are in Appendix XIV.

Table 4.26: Plant B Scenario Four Energy Targets

Interval Shifted Temperature Net Enthalpy Cumulative

Number Interval (K) (kW) Enthalpy (kW)
1 430.15 413.15 132.88 132.88
2 413.15 410.15 22.23 155.12
3 410.15 369.15 -16.62 138.49
4 369.15 368.15 -438.44 -299.95
Pinch Point
5 368.15 348.15 703.58 703.58
6 348.15 308.15 -32.44 671.14
7 308.15 303.15 -43.14 628.00
8 303.15 293.15 273.62 901.63
9 293.15 288.15 140.87 1042.49
10 288.15 286.15 -15.63 1026.86
11 286.15 268.15 -788.66 238.20
12 268.15 266.15 -71.89 166.31

The pinch point, as presented in Table 4.26, is at shifted temperature of 368.15K. The
maximum required heating load is 299.948 kW while the maximum required external
cooling load is 166.31 kW. With the total required heating load of 4607.96 kW as
determined in the last section for heat balancing, the possible internally recoverable heat
is 4308.01 kW. High recovery potential is revealed in processes whose temperatures are
represented in intervals 4, 5 and 11. Intervals 4 and 11 have net heating duty requirements

111
of 438.44 kW and 788.66 kW respectively, while interval 5 has a net cooling duty
requirement of 703.58 kW.

4.4.4 Performance Testing of the Energy Targeting Model on Plant C

The data collected from Plant C was used for computation of energy targets under four
scenarios.

4.4.4.1 Scenario One Energy Targets for Plant C

Energy targets determined using data from Plant C, by application of Scenario One model,
were presented in Table 4.27. The detailed data obtained from the model is shown in
Appendix XV.

Table 4.27: Plant C Scenario One Energy Targets

Stream Shifted Temperature Total Interval Cumulative

Number Interval (K) Enthalpy (kW) Enthalpy (kW)
1 402.65 - 403.65 1.46 1.46
2 396.15 - 402.65 0.03 1.49
3 395.15 - 396.15 -1.45 0.03
4 386.65 - 395.15 -119.48 -119.45
Pinch Point
5 385.65 - 386.65 627.74 627.75
6 379.15 - 385.65 -79.16 548.58
7 378.15 - 379.15 -653.97 -105.38
8 336.65 - 378.15 -616.45 -721.83
Pinch Point
9 335.65 - 336.65 74.96 74.96
10 329.15 - 335.65 -94.16 -19.20
11 328.15 - 329.15 -104.24 -123.44
12 308.15 - 328.15 -125.25 -248.69
13 296.15 - 308.15 -179.64 -428.33
Pinch Point
14 287.65 - 296.15 18.50 18.50
15 286.65 - 287.65 1.87 20.36
16 283.65 - 286.65 0.01 20.38

112
The modelling results from Table 4.27 show that the minimum external required cooling
load for Plant C when Scenario One is used is 20.377 kW. The minimum required external
heating load was found to be 1269.62 kW. The total required heating load for Plant A in
Scenario One, as determined in the previous section of heat balancing, was 2357.98 kW.
With the minimum heating utility, the maximum internally recoverable heat in this plant,
under Scenario One, was determined to be 1088.36 kW. Intervals such as 1,2,3,15 and 16
present less potential for energy recovery, even though the exchange is
thermodynamically feasible. The net enthalpies in processes with temperatures
represented in these intervals may not justify use of heat exchangers. Interval 15 and 16
for example have surpluses of 1.87 kW and 0.01 kW, respectively, and such duties could
best be met using an external cooling duty.

4.4.4.2 Scenario Two Energy Targets for Plant C

Energy Targets and the net enthalpies for shifted temperature intervals for Plant C, when
modelled under Scenario Two, and the net interval enthalpies, were presented in Table
4.28. The detailed results of the model are in Appendix XVI.

113
Table 4.28: Plant C Scenario Two Energy Targets

Interval Shifted Temperature Total Interval Cumulative

Number Interval (K) Enthalpy (kW) Enthalpy (kW)
1 406.15-405.15 1.46 1.44
2 405.15-396.15 0.04 1.5
3 396.15-395.15 -1.45 0.04
4 395.15-389.15 -82.98 -82.94
Pinch Point
5 389.15-388.15 627.96 627.96
6 388.15-379.15 -107.72 520.24
7 379.15-378.15 -653.76 -133.52
8 378.15-339.15 -571.77 -705.29
Pinch Point
9 339.15-338.15 75.10 75.10
10 338.15-329.15 -129.15 -54.05
11 329.15-328.15 -104.11 -158.16
12 328.15-308.15 -151.85 -310.01
13 308.15-296.15 -178.82 -488.83
Pinch Point
14 296.15-290.15 13.06 13.06
15 290.15-289.15 1.87 14.92
16 289.15-286.15 5.58 20.51

The minimum external cooling load is 20.50772 kW while the minimum external heating
load required is 1277.06 kW. The total required heating load for this plant, computed
using Scenario Two, as reported in the previous section, was 2341.02 kW. The maximum
possible recoverable energy was determined to be 1063.96 kW. Six intervals represent
temperature points that may not be profitable for internal heat recovery. Intervals
1,2,3,14,15 and 16 have low net enthalpies and during design, processes with
temperatures represented in these intervals may not be feasible regions for heat exchange
processes.

114
4.4.4.3 Scenario Three Energy Targets for Plant C

The energy targets and the shifted temperature interval net enthalpies were presented in
this section. Table 4.29 shows these results. Detailed data of the same was presented in
Appendix XVII.

Table 4.29: Plant C Scenario Three Energy Targets

Interval Shifted Temperature Total Interval Cumulative

Number Interval (K) Enthalpy (kW) Enthalpy (kW)
1 406.15-405.15 1.46 1.46
2 405.15-396.15 0.04 1.50
3 396.15-395.15 -1.45 0.04
4 395.15-389.15 -84.34 -84.30
Pinch Point
5 389.15-388.15 627.74 627.74
6 388.15-379.15 -109.61 518.14
7 379.15-378.15 -653.96 -135.83
8 378.15-339.15 -579.29 -715.12
Pinch Point
9 339.15-338.15 74.96 74.96
10 338.15-329.15 -130.37 -55.41
11 329.15-328.15 -104.24 -159.65
12 328.15-308.15 -125.19 -284.84
13 308.15-296.15 -179.60 -464.45
Pinch Point
14 296.15-290.15 13.06 13.06
15 290.15-289.15 1.87 14.92
16 289.15-286.15 5.58 20.51

The minimum required external cooling duty for Plant C, under Scenario Three, is 20.506
kW. The minimum required external heating load is 1263.86 kW. The total required
heating load for this plant, modelled under Scenario Three, was 2357.98 kW. Out of this
required duty, 1094.12 kW can be recovered internally. It is worth noting from Table 4.29
that processes with the highest temperature present fewer opportunities for recovery, as
demonstrated by the net enthalpies in intervals 1,2 and 3.

115
4.4.4.4 Scenario Four Energy Targets for Plant C

The energy targets and the shifted temperature interval net enthalpies modelled using
Scenario Four were presented in Table 4.30. Detailed data was presented in Appendix
XVIII.

Table 4.30: Plant C Scenario Four Energy Targets

Interval Shifted Temperature Interval Total Interval Cumulative Enthalpy

Number (K) Enthalpy (kW) (kW)
1 402.65 - 403.65 1.46 1.46
2 396.15 - 402.65 0.03 1.49
3 395.15 - 396.15 -1.45 0.03
4 386.65 - 395.15 -117.56 -117.53
Pinch Point
5 385.65 - 386.65 627.96 627.96
6 379.15 - 385.65 -77.80 550.16
7 378.15 - 379.15 -653.76 -103.60
8 336.65 - 378.15 -608.42 -712.02
Pinch Point
9 335.65 - 336.65 75.10 75.10
10 329.15 - 335.65 -93.28 -18.17
11 328.15 - 329.15 -104.11 -122.29
12 308.15 - 328.15 -151.85 -274.14
13 296.15 - 308.15 -178.82 -452.96
Pinch Point
14 287.65 - 296.15 18.50 18.50
15 286.65 - 287.65 1.87 20.36
16 283.65 - 286.65 5.58 25.95

The modelling results from Table 4.30 show that the minimum external required cooling
load for Plant C when Scenario Four was used was 25.948 kW. The minimum required
external heating load was 1282.5 kW. From the previous section of heat balance, the total
required heating load for the plant modelled using Scenario Four was 2341.02 kW.
Considering the minimum required heating load, the maximum internal recoverable heat

116
was 1058.52 kW. Intervals 1,2,3 and 15 have low net enthalpies, thus lowering prospects
of recovery feasibility in processes that have temperatures represented by these intervals.

4.5 Comparisons of Energy Targets Results and Grand Composite Curves

In this section, the study compares and discusses the internally recoverable heat, the pinch
points and the grand composite curves obtained using Scenarios One, Two, Three and
Four. Presented too in this section are the percentage differences of internal recoverable
heat amongst the four scenarios, for each of the plant.

4.5.1 Comparison of the Energy Targets

Figure 4.5 show the computed energy targets for the four plants, under the four scenarios.

Scenario One Scenario Two Scenario Three Scenario Four

9000
8000
Energy Recovery Targets

7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Dairy Specialty Plant Plant A Plant B Plant C

Figure 4.5: Comparison of Maximum Internally Recoverable Heat

For the Dairy Specialty Plant, Scenario One recoverable heat is more than Scenario
Two’s, by 10.8%. In Plant A, it is more by 1.05 %, in Plant B, by 4.5 % and in Plant C, it
is more by 2.29 %. From this observation, it is deduced that use of Scenario One, the
model which was developed in this study, and which is proposed to be used in pinch
analysis, leads to high energy targets. Even though Kemp (2007) postulated that use of

117
stream specific temperature differences and polynomial temperature coefficients of
specific heat capacity could result in more realistic targets, it was not ascertained if the
targets could be lower or higher.

Further analysis of percentage differences of energy targets in plants among scenarios was
carried out and presented, as shown in Table 4.31.

Table 4.31: Percentage Differences of Energy Targets for the Scenarios

DAIRY SPECIALTY PLANT

Scenario One (%) Scenario Two (%) Scenario Three Scenario Four (%)
(%)
Scenario One 0 10.8 11.4 1.32
Scenario Two -9.76 0 0.55 -8.6
Scenario Three -10.25 0.54 0 9.06
Scenario Four -1.31 9.36 9.96 0
PLANT A
Scenario One (%) Scenario Two (%) Scenario Three Scenario Four (%)
(%)
Scenario One 0 1.04 24.19 12.28
Scenario Two -1.03 0 22.91 11.12
Scenario Three -19.48 -18.64 0 9.59
Scenario Four -10.93 -10 10.61 0
PLANT B
Scenario One (%) Scenario Two (%) Scenario Three Scenario Four (%)
(%)
Scenario One 0 4.5 3.05 0.04
Scenario Two -4.3 0 1.4 -4.28
Scenario Three -2.97 1.42 0 -2.9
Scenario Four -0.05 4.47 3 0
PLANT C
Scenario One (%) Scenario Two (%) Scenario Three Scenario Four (%)
(%)
Scenario One 0 2.29 -0.53 2.8
Scenario Two -2.24 0 -2.8 0.5
Scenario Three 0.53 2.83 0 3.36
Scenario Four -2.74 -0.5 -3.25 0

118
In the Dairy Specialty Plant and Plant B, Scenario Two targets are more than Scenario
Four targets, by 9.36 % and 4.47 %, respectively. These percentage differences can be
compared with the results of the study carried out by Fodor et al (2012) which compared
utility targets, modelled using methods similar to Scenario Two and Scenario Four. In this
study, the Scenario Two targets for the plants were higher than those computed using
Scenario Four.

A comparison of target percentage differences for Plant A between Scenario One, Three
and Four reveal that in facilities with liquid streams, selection of ΔTmin has a higher effect
on energy targets compared to the selection of specific heat capacity. Scenario Four
targets are 12.28 % more than Scenario One targets. Scenario Three targets are 24.19 %
more than Scenario One. Scenario One and Scenario Four use the same approach to ΔTmin
but a different values of specific heat capacities. These findings agree with theoretical
predictions, for example in Sarofim (2001), which state that large temperature variations
change the Cp of non-ideal gases and fluids. In this simulation, the processes involve
heating and cooling of gases and liquids. This affected the variation of C p with
temperature changes.

The Dairy Specialty Plant and Plant A have demonstrated that there is a 9 % difference in
contribution of ΔTmin and specific heat capacities to energy targets. This has been shown
by the differences in Scenarios Three and Four, in comparison to Scenario One, for both
plants. This shows that even in plants that have gaseous streams, selection of ΔTmin has a
higher effect compared to selection of specific heat capacities. These results are supported
by results of a study conducted by Walmsley, Artkins & Walmsley (2012) on a heat
recovery loop, where the researchers used a global value of ΔTmin to model maximum
internal heat recovery targets. Here, the research varied a single value of ΔTmin, from 5°C
tending towards 0 °C, and this resulted in changes to the maximum internally recoverable
heat, from 366 kW to 543 kW, a 48.3 % difference.

119
4.5.2 Grand Composite Curves

Grand composite curves were plotted to help in the design of a heat exchange network
diagram for the plants. For each plant, four curves were plotted, as presented in Figure
4.6.

Figure 4.6: Grand Composite Curves

The grand composite curves for the Dairy Specialty Plant and Plant B, for all the
Scenarios, have one pinch point, although with different temperature. Scenario One and
Scenario Four curves have the same pinch point, at 349.65 K and 368.15 K, for the Dairy
Specialty Plant and Plant B, respectively. The pinch temperature for Scenario Two and
Scenario Three for the same plants, have the same point, at 330.45 K and 360.65,

120
respectively. Plant C has three pinch points, with Scenario One and Four sharing pinch
points, at 296.15 K, 336.65 K and 386. 65 K, and Scenarios Two and Three sharing the
other points, at 296.15 K, 339.65 K and 389.15 K. These results are consistent with the
literature in Waldron (2009), Eriksson & Hermansson (2010) and Aloui & Dincer (2018),
who state that selection of ΔTmin value determines the pinch point.

The pinch point for Plant A is the same, for all the scenarios, at 308.15 K. This is as
opposed to other plants, where pinch points are varied across the scenarios and it can be
attributed to the high process temperatures in this plant. The exothermic processes of Plant
A have temperatures as high as 863.15K whereas the values of ΔTmin used were all below
298.15K. Kemp (2011) pointed out that the value of ΔTmin has little influence on heat
recovery, especially in processes with heat exchange located away from the pinch point.

Apart from sharing the pinch points, Scenarios One and Four, and Scenarios Two and
Three, have defined heat recovery areas on the grand composite curves. Scenarios with a
similar approach to selection of specific heat capacity (Scenario One and Three on one
hand, and Scenarios Two and Four on the other hand) define different regions for heat
recovery. This implies that the use of temperature dependent values of specific heat
capacity does not influence the pinch point and the areas of heat recovery in a plant during
pinch analysis.

4.6 Design of Heat Exchange Network

4.6.1 Introduction

This section presents the design of internal heat recovery networks that can realize the
computed energy targets for Plants A, B and C. This was guided by the methodology
section 3.2.1.4, on network design in pinch analysis. The Dairy Specialty Plant, which
was obtained from secondary sources, was not used in this section. This was omitted
because the available information was only adequate for energy balance and targeting.

121
For the purpose of objectives of this section of research-which is to focus on the
differences in approach to design of heat exchanger networks, notwithstanding the
targeting approach used- the heat exchanger network was designed to meet the energy
targets computed under Scenario Two, the conventional approach. The network design
used here followed the guidelines of pinch analysis. Table 4.32 shows a consolidated data
for heating load, cooling load and internal recovery targets for the three plants, as
modelled under Scenario Two.

Table 4.32: External Utilities and Internal Recovery Targets for Scenario Two

Plant Minimum Minimum Maximum Pinch 0.5*∆Tmin

Required Required Internally Point (K) (K)
External External Recoverable
Heating Cooling Heat (kW)
Load (kW) Load (kW)
A 1816 55.7 590 304.15 5
B 454.41 425.51 4123.8 360.65 2.5
C 1277.06 20.51 1063.96 339.15 5

In this section, the design for internal heat recovery network aims to realize the targets
presented in Table 4.32. The external heating utilities supply the minimum required
external heating load while the cooling utilities meet the minimum required external
cooling load. The results of the network are presented and discussed.

4.6.2 Heat Exchange Network for Plant A

The design for heat exchange network relied on the grand composite curve in Figure 4.10.
The shifted pinch temperature for Plant A was 304.15 K. The hot stream and cold stream
pinch points for design were thus 299.14 K and 309.14 K, respectively. These points took
into account the 0.5*∆Tmin value in Table 4.28. These pinch points were the constraints
for the exchanger designed for Plant A. A grid diagram, as presented in Figure 4.7, was
used to guide the matching of the streams.

122
Figure 4.7: A network diagram guide to design of internal heat recovery for Plant
A.

According to the grand composite curve on Figure 4.6, internal recovery is only possible
in shifted temperature regions lying between 368.15 K and 863.15 K. To translate these
into actual stream temperatures, the minimum and maximum temperature boundaries for
internal heat recovery were used and are presented in Table 4.33.

Table 4.33: Temperature Limits for Heat Recovery for Plant A

Type Shifted Value *∆Tmin value (K) Actual Value (K)

(K)
Hot Stream minimum
recovery temperature 368.15 -5 363.15
Cold Stream minimum
recovery temperature 368.15 +5 373.15
Hot Stream maximum
recovery temperature 863.15 -5 858.15
Cold Stream maximum
recovery temperature 863.15 +5 868.15

123
Using the constraints in Table 4.33 and the pinch analysis stream matching rules, the hot
streams and cold streams were matched and the matching data presented in Table 4.34.

The heat exchange network, as demonstrated in Table 4.34, had 13 heat exchangers.
Streams 8 and 5 are matched to 4 and 3 heat exchangers, respectively. They facilitate
phase change of the process material. The heat exchange network recovers 2.2 % of the
total required heating and cooling loads.

124
 Table 4.34: Heat Recovery between Streams for Plant A

Matched Hot Stream Hot Stream Hot Cold Stream Cold Stream Cold
Heat Hot to Cold Initial Final Stream Initial Final Stream Heat
Exchanger Stream Stream Temperature Temperature ṁ.Cp Temperature Temperature ṁ.Cp Recovered
Number Number Number (K) (K) (kW/K) (K) (K) (kW/K) (kW)
1 16 3 476.15 399.15 0.308495 389.15 414.13 0.951028 23.75
2 15 9 729.15 584.96 0.37475 374.15 436.15 0.87153 54.03
3 13 6 858.15 782.03 0.70992 374.15 436.15 0.87153 54.03
4 12 1 807.15 788.8 0.77742 373.15 388.15 0.951028 14.27
5 11 3 839.15 815.82 0.814506 414.127 433.15 0.951028 19
6 10 2 474.15 418.18 1.250852 388.15 389.15 70 70
7 10 5 418.18 383.15 1.250852 373.15 374.15 942.16 43.82
8 12 5 788.15 726.15 0.77742 373.15 374.15 942.16 48.20
9 13 5 782.04 723.15 0.70992 373.15 374.15 942.16 41.81
10 11 8 815.8 801.15 0.814506 373.15 374.15 942.16 11.93
11 15 8 585 476.15 0.37475 373.15 374.15 942.16 94.8
12 16 8 476.15 414.15 0.308495 373.15 374.15 942.16 33.05
13 14 8 758.15 729.15 0.61803 373.15 374.15 942.16 17.9
Possible total internal heat to be recovered 526.6

125
The external heating and cooling utilities for Plant A heat recovery are shown on Table
4.35.

Table 4.35: Utility Requirements for Plant A

Initial Final
Stream Temperature Temperature Enthalpy of
Utility Number (K) (K) Utility Type Utility (kW)
A 1 306.15 373.15 Heating 64
B 4 309.15 373.15 Heating 112
C 5 373.15 374.15 Heating 808.33
D 7 309.15 373.15 Heating 112
E 8 373.15 374.15 Heating 784.47
Total heating utility load 1880.8
F 10 383.15 274.15 Cooling 136.34
G 17 303.15 290.15 Cooling 36.3
Total cooling utility load 172.64

The heat exchange network has 7 utilities, 2 of which are cooling duties and 5 of which
are heating duties. The cooling duties were designed to supply 172.64 kW cooling while
the heating duties were to supply 1880.8 kW heating. During the network design, there
were pinch violations, which included heating below the pinch point and cooling above
the pinch point. These led to pinch violation penalties, which include additional
requirement for external utilities, by 64 kW of cooling utilities and 64 kW of heating
utilities. The violations were however allowed, to accommodate design flexibility. The
heat exchange network is presented in Figure 4.8.

126
Figure 4.8: Graphical Guide to Heat Exchange Network for Plant A

Figure 4.8 shows a graphical presentation of the optimized heat exchange network for
Plant A. The utilities are represented by letters A to G in circles while the heat exchangers
are represented by rectangle connecting once stream to another. Utilities on the red arrows
cooling duty while those on the blue arrows provide cooling duty. Some streams, for
example 4, 7 and 17 only get their duties from utilities. There is no exchange of heat
between them and the other streams. Other streams, for example number 2, get heated
solely by exchanging heat with other streams. Detailed computation of heat exchanger
areas was carried out in the subsequent optimization section of this report.

127
4.6.3 Heat Exchange Network for Plant B

The design for heat exchange network used the grand composite curve in Figure 4.6 for
guidance. The shifted pinch temperature for Plant B was 360.65 K. The hot stream and
cold stream pinch points for design were thus 358.15 K and 363.15 K, respectively and
they took into consideration the 0.5*∆Tmin value in Table 4.21. These pinch points were
the constraints for the exchanger designed for Plant B. A grid diagram, as shown in Figure
4.9, was used to guide the matching of the streams.

Enthalpy ṁ.Cp
Stream T (K) T (K) (kW) (kW/K)
2 276.15 358.15 2951.14 35.98
4 278.15 420.15 1109.96 7.81
6 298.15 373.15 60.819 0.81
7 373.15 374.15 438.44 438.44
8 374.15 418.15 17.84 0.405
1 276.15 293.15 611.83 35.98
3 278.15 358.15 2879.184 35.98
5 298.15 420.15 953.61 7.81

Figure 4.9: A network diagram guide to design of internal heat recovery for Plant
B.

According to the grand composite curve on Figure 4.6, internal recovery is only possible
in shifted temperature regions lying between 422.65 K and 371.65 K, for first region, and
between 355.65 K and 295.65 K, for the second region. To translate these into actual
stream temperatures, the minimum and maximum temperature boundaries for internal
heat recovery were used and are presented in Table 4.36.

128
Table 4.36: Temperature Limits for Heat Recovery for Plant B

Type Shifted Value *∆Tmin value (K) Actual Value (K)

(K)
Above Pinch Region
Hot Stream minimum
recovery temperature 371.65 -2.5 369.15
Cold Stream minimum
recovery temperature 371.65 +2.5 374.15
Hot Stream maximum
recovery temperature 422.65 -2.5 420.15
Cold Stream maximum
recovery temperature 422.65 +2.5 425.15
Below Pinch Region
Hot Stream minimum
recovery temperature 295.65 -2.5 293.15
Cold Stream minimum
recovery temperature 295.65 +2.5 298.15
Hot Stream maximum
recovery temperature 355.65 -2.5 353.15
Cold Stream maximum
recovery temperature 355.65 +2.5 358.15

Any heating and cooling requirements above or below the maximum and minimum
temperatures presented in Table 4.36 should be supplied by an external utility. Using these
temperature constraints and the pinch analysis stream matching rules, the hot streams and
cold streams were matched and the matching data presented in Table 4.37.

129
Table 4.37: Heat Recovery between Streams for Plant B

Matched Hot Stream Hot Stream Hot Cold Stream Cold Stream
Heat Hot to Cold Initial Final Stream Initial Final Heat
Exchanger Stream Stream Temperature Temperature ṁ.Cp Temperature Temperature Recovered
Number Number Number (K) (K) (kW/K) (K) (K) Cold Stream ṁ.Cp (kW/K) (kW)
1 3 4 358.15 349.1 35.98 298.15 340.00 7.81 326.85
2 3 6 349.1 348.16 35.98 298.15 340.00 0.81 33.9
3 5 8 420.15 418.02 7.81 374.15 415.15 0.405 16.61
4 5 7 418.02 376.15 7.81 373.15 374.15 438.44 327.21
Total possible recoverable heat 953.02

130
The internal heat exchange network had 4 heat exchangers and these could internally recover 953.02 kW. This accounts for
10.56 % of the total required heating and cooling utilities. The external heating and cooling utilities are presented in Table 4.38.

Table 4.38: Utility Requirements for Plant B

Stream Initial Temperature Final Temperature Enthalpy of Utility

Utility Number (K) (K) Utility Type (kW)
A 2 276.15 358.15 Heating 2951.14
B 4 278.15 298.15 Heating 156.2
C 4 340.00 420.15 Heating 625.97
D 6 340.00 373.15 Heating 26.85
E 7 373.15 374.15 Heating 125.23
F 8 415.15 418.15 Heating 1.235
Total heating utility load 3886.625
G 1 293.15 276.15 Cooling 611.83
H 3 348.16 278.15 Cooling 2518.96
I 5 376.15 298.15 Cooling 609.18
Total cooling utility load 3739.97

131
The heat exchange network has 8 utilities, 3 of which are cooling duties and 5 of which
are heating duties. The cooling utilities in the network supply 3739.97 kW cooling duty
while the heating utilities supply 3886.625 kW heating duty. The heat exchange network
is presented in Figure 4.10.

Figure 4.10: Graphical Guide to Heat Exchange Network for Plant B

Figure 4.10 graphically illustrates the heat exchange network for Plant B, which meets
the internal heat recovery of 953.02 kW. The utilities are market by letters A to I, and
they supply external heating and cooling duties. Utilities on red arrows supply cooling
duties while those on blue arrows supply heating duties.

4.6.4 Heat Exchange Network for Plant C

The design for heat exchange network for Plant C used the grand composite curve in
Figure 4.18 for guidance. The shifted pinch temperatures were three, 389.15 K, 339.15K
and 296.15 K. For the simplicity of the design of the network, 339.15 K was selected as
the shifted pinch temperature. The other two pinch points were neglected in concession
for pinch violation penalties. The two pinch points constrain smaller regions for internal
heat recovery.

132
 A grid diagram, as shown in Figure 4.11, was used to guide the matching of the streams.

Stream T (K) T (K) Enthalpy (kW) ṁ.Cp (kW/K)

2 301.15 333.15 546.45 17.08
3 333.15 334.15 89.76 89.76
4 333.15 383.15 826.32 16.53
5 383.15 384.15 641.8 641.8
6 383.15 400.15 235.2 13.83
7 400.15 401.15 1.46 1.46
1 303.15 323.15 146.18 7.31
8 333.15 334.15 89.76 89.76
9 383.15 384.15 641.79 641.79
10 400.15 401.15 1.46 1.46
11 285.15 333.15 14.91 0.312
12 284.15 383.15 184.28 1.86
13 281.15 400.15 0.5 0.004

Figure 4.11: A network diagram guide to design of internal heat recovery for Plant
C.

According to the grand composite curve on Figure 4.18, internal recovery is only possible
in shifted temperature regions lying between 308.15 K and 388.15 K. To translate these
into actual stream temperatures, the minimum and maximum temperature boundaries for
internal heat recovery were used and are presented in Table 4.39.

Table 4.39: Temperature Limits for Heat Recovery for Plant B

Type Shifted Value *∆Tmin value (K) Actual Value (K)

(K)
Hot Stream minimum
recovery temperature 308.15 -5 303.15 K
Cold Stream minimum
recovery temperature 308.15 +5 313.15 K
Hot Stream maximum
recovery temperature 388.15 -5 383.15 K
Cold Stream maximum
recovery temperature 388.15 +5 393.15 K

Using the constraints in Table 4.39 and the pinch analysis stream matching rules, the hot
streams and cold streams were matched and the matching data presented in Table 4.40.

133
Table 4.40: Internal Heat Recovery between Streams for Plant C

Matched Hot Stream Hot Stream Hot Cold Stream Cold Stream
Heat Hot to Cold Initial Final Stream Initial Final Heat
Exchanger Stream Stream Temperature Temperature ṁ.Cp Temperature Temperature Recovered
Number Number Number (K) (K) (kW/K) (K) (K) Cold Stream ṁ.Cp (kW/K) (kW)
1 12 3 383.15 344.15 1.86 333.15 334.15 89.76 72.54
2 9 2 384.15 383.15 641.79 301.15 333.15 17.08 546.45
3 9 4 384.15 383.15 95.34 334.15 339.9 16.53 95.34
Possible total internal heat to be recovered 714.33

The heat exchange network, as shown in Table 4.40, will have 2 heat exchangers. This network recovers 20.88 % of the required
heating and cooling loads. The external heating and cooling utilities are shown on Table 4.41.

Table 4.41: Utility Requirements for Plant C

Utility Stream Number Initial Temperature (K) Final Temperature (K) Utility Type Enthalpy of Utility (kW)
A 3 333.15 334.15 Heating 17.22
B 4 339.9 374.15 Heating 582.68
C 4 374.15 383.15 Heating 148.77
D 5 383.15 384.15 Heating 641.8
E 6 383.15 400.15 Heating 235.2
F 7 400.15 401.15 Heating 1.46
Total heating utility load 1627.13
G 1 323.15 303.15 Cooling 146.18
H 8 334.15 333.15 Cooling 89.76
I 10 401.15 400.15 Cooling 1.46
J 11 333.15 285.15 Cooling 14.91
K 13 400.15 281.15 Cooling 0.5
Total cooling utility load 252.81

134
The heat exchange network has 11 utilities, 5 of them are for cooling and 6 for heating.
The cooling duties were designed to supply 252.81 kW cooling while the heating duties
were to supply 1627.13 kW heating. During the network design, there were pinch
violations, which included heating below the pinch point and cooling above the pinch
point, to allow for design flexibility. These led to pinch violation penalties of 232 kW.
The heat exchange network is presented in Figure 4.12.

Figure 4.12: Graphical Guide to Heat Exchange Network for Plant C

Figure 4.12 shows a graphical presentation of the heat exchange network for Plant C. The
heating and cooling in this network is facilitated by external utilities and internal heat
exchange. The utilities are from A to K. Detailed computation of heat exchanger areas
was carried out in the subsequent optimization section of this report.

4.6.5 Determination of Heat Exchanger Areas using the VBA Solver

The heat exchanger areas were determined through mixed integer linear programming
optimization as guided by the algorithm in Figure 3.6. The discrete variables used in the
model were obtained from the TEMA (2007). These variables cannot be changed as they

135
are manufactured to standards, although the standards give a range, which can be selected
for the design. The other variables, as stipulated in design equations 3.6 to 3.45, were
obtained from (Granet & Bluestein, 2014; Sinnott & Towler, 2019). The fluid flow
properties used and the designed optimal values for heat exchangers for Plant A, B and C
are presented in Tables 4.42, 4.43, 4.44, 4.45, 4.46 and 4.47.

136
Table 4.42: Plant A Fluid Properties used for Heat Exchanger Design

Heat Exchanger Number

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Hot stream substance (shell side) SO3 SO3 SO3 SO3 SO2 Air Air SO3 SO3 SO2 SO3 SO3 SO3
H20 H20
Cold stream substance (tube side) Air (g) H20 (g) Air Air Air H20 (l) H20 (l) H20 (l) H20 (l) (l) H20 (l) H20 (l)
414.1 388.1
Initial temperature of cold stream Tci K 389.15 374.15 374.15 373.15 3 5 373.15 373.15 373.15 373.15 373.15 373.15 373.15
433.1 389.1
Target temperature of cold stream Tco K 414.12 436.15 436.15 388.15 5 5 374.15 374.15 374.15 374.15 374.15 374.15 374.15
839.1 474.1
Initial temperature of hot stream Thi K 476.15 729.15 858.15 807.15 5 5 418.18 788.15 782.04 815.8 585 476.15 758.15
815.8 418.1
Target temperature of hot stream Tho K 399.15 584.96 782.03 788.8 2 8 383.15 726.15 723.15 801.15 476.15 414.15 729.15
Mass flow rate of the cold stream ṁc kg/s 1.303 0.417 0.417 1.303 1.303 1.303 0. 417 0. 417 0. 417 0. 417 0. 417 0. 417 0. 417
Mass flow rate of the hot stream ṁh kg/s 0.435 0.446 0.789 0.864 0.993 1.235 1.235 0.864 0.789 0.993 0.446 0.435 0.687
Density of the cold stream Ρc kg/m 3
1.274 0.6 0.6 1.274 1.274 1.274 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
Density of the hot stream Ρh kg/m 3
3.37 3.37 3.37 3.37 2.63 1.225 1.225 3.37 3.37 2.63 3.37 3.37 3.37
Specific heat capacity of the cold kj/kg.
stream Cpc °C 1.013 2.09 2.09 1.013 1.013 1.013 2260 2260 2260 2260 2260 2260 2260
kj/kg.
Specific heat capacity of the hot stream Cph °C 0.9 0.841 0.9 0.9 0.82 1.013 1.013 0.9 0.9 0.82 0.841 0.71 0.9
Specific gravity of cold stream Sc 2 0.49 0.49 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Specific gravity of hot stream Sh 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.285 1 1 2.75 2.75 2.285 2.75 2.75 2.75
1.62E- 2.26E- 2.26E 2.61E
Dynamic viscosity of cold stream µc Pa.s 2.26E-5 5 1.62E-5 5 -5 -5 89E-5 89E-5 89E-5 89E-5 89E-5 89E-5 89E-5
3.26E- 3.26E- 3.26E 2.61E 2.61E- 3.26E- 3.26E- 3.26E- 3.26E-
Dynamic viscosity of hot stream µh Pa.s 3.26E-5 5 3.26E-5 5 -5 -5 5 5 5 5 5 3.26E-5 3.26E-5
Assumed overall coefficient of heat kW/m2
transfer Uass . °C 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015
W/m⋅° 0.026
Thermal conductivity of shell side fluid Ks C 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.177 2 0.0262 0.75 0.75 0.177 0.75 0.75 0.75
W/m⋅° 0.026 0.026
Thermal conductivity of tube side fluid Kt C 0.0262 0.0288 0.0288 0.0262 2 2 0.677 0.677 0.677 0.677 0.677 0.677 0.677
Thermal conductivity of tube material kW/m⋅
(Admiralty brass) Kw °C 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111

137
Table 4.43: Plant A Designed Heat Exchanger Specifications

Design Variable Plant A Heat Exchanger Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Quantity of Heat 30.145 48.211 41.817 19.148 17.930
(kW) 5 54.08 54.052 16.06 18.996 70.02 70.02 2 789 11.928 40.828 7 7
Tube length (m) 4.877 4.877 4.877 4.877 4.877 4.877 4.877 4.877 4.877 4.877 4.877 4.877 4.877
Tube outer 0.0063 0.0095 0.0095 0.0158 0.0190
diameter (m) 5 25 25 75 5 0.0127 0.0127 0.0127 0.0127 0.0127 0.0127 0.0127 0.0127
Tube inner 0.0021 0.0035 0.0027 0.0037 0.0046 0.0035 0.0011 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015
diameter (m) 33 56 178 85 23 56 43 24 24 24 24 24 24
Birmingham Wire
Gauge 7 11 10 4 2 7 1 5 5 5 5 5 5
Tube thickness 0.0045 0.0030 0.0034 0.0060 0.0072 0.0045 0.0076 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055
(m) 72 48 036 452 136 72 2 88 88 88 88 88 88
Selected number
of tubes 886 82 68 20 20 308 480 40 40 20 82 82 20
Number of tube
passes 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Shell inside 0.3365 0.5905 0.3365 0.3365
diameter (m) 0.9398 5 0.3048 0.2032 0.2032 5 0.7366 0.254 0.254 0.2032 5 5 0.2032
Tube pitch (m) 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254
Number of baffles 20 15 15 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Estimated Area 72.330 12.107 6.7945 2.2796 3.1375 88.427 88.427 8.3994 7.3719 1.8292 18.082 19.075 3.2326
(m) 5 8 12 72 68 0 0 9 74 5 4 2 2
Multi objective
criteria-based 66.539 10.285 6.2851 1.9567 2.5965 84.024 73.228 6.8705 6.0362 1.5236 15.118 16.107 2.6354
Area (m) 2 8 91 57 92 8 5 2 72 4 0 0 9
Percentage (%)
difference in
Areas computed -8 -15.04 -7.5 -14.17 -17.24 -4.98 -17.19 -18.2 -18.12 -16.71 -16.4 -15.56 -18.47

138
Table 4.43 shows the optimized design parameters of the heat exchangers required to meet
the internal heat recovery targets. For all the exchangers, the number of tube passes, tube
pitch and tube length are the same, at 4, 0.0254 m and 4.877 m. Out of the 13 exchangers,
only two have 15 baffles, with 11 exchangers having 20 baffles each. These are discrete
variables defined by the TEMA standards.

Table 4.44 shows the fluid properties used for design of exchangers for Plant B while
Table 4.40 shows the optimized parameters of heat exchangers.

139
Table 4.44: Plant B Fluid Properties used for Design of Heat Exchangers

Heat Exchanger Number

Variables 1 2 3 4
Hot stream substance (shell side) Milk Milk Milk Milk
Cold stream substance (tube side) Milk Water Steam Water
298. 298.1 373.1
Initial temperature of cold stream Tci K 15 5 374.15 5
Tc 340. 374.1
Target temperature of cold stream o K 0 340.0 415.15 5
358. 418.0
Initial temperature of hot stream Thi K 15 349.1 420.15 2
Th 349. 348.1 376.1
Target temperature of hot stream o K 1 6 418.02 5
Mass flow rate of the cold stream ṁc kg/s 1.87 0.194 0.194 0.194
Mass flow rate of the hot stream ṁh kg/s 8.61 8.61 1.87 1.87
Density of the cold stream Ρc kg/m3 1026 1000 0.6 1000
Density of the hot stream Ρh kg/m3 1026 1026 1026 1026
Cp kj/kg.
Specific heat capacity of the cold stream c °C 4.18 4.18 2.09 2260
Cp kj/kg.
Specific heat capacity of the hot stream h °C 4.18 4.18 4.18 4.18
1.02
Specific gravity of cold stream Sc 6 1 0.49 1
1.02
Specific gravity of hot stream Sh 6 1.026 1.026 1.026
0.00 0.000 0.0000 0.000
Dynamic viscosity of cold stream µc Pa.s 3 89 162 89
0.00
Dynamic viscosity of hot stream µh Pa.s 3 0.003 0.003 0.003
Assumed overall coefficient of heat Ua kW/m2. 0.01
transfer ss °C 5 0.015 0.015 0.015
W/m⋅° 0.63
Thermal conductivity of shell side fluid Ks C 7 0.637 0.637 0.637
W/m⋅° 0.63
Thermal conductivity of tube side fluid Kt C 7 0.677 0.0288 0.677
Thermal conductivity of tube material K W/m⋅°
(Admiralty Brass) w C 111 111 111 111

140
Table 4.45: Plant B Designed Heat Exchanger Specifications

Design Variable Plant B Heat Exchanger Number

1 2 3 4
Quantity of Heat (kW) 33.830412 325.70769 16.649358 1506.893
Tube length (m) 4.877 15.24 15.24 40
Tube outer diameter (m) 0.015875 0.015875 0.015875 0.0127
Tube inner diameter (m) 0.000635 0.000635 0.000635 0.0006096
Birmingham Wire Gauge 1 10 10 4
Tube thickness (m) 0.00762 0.0034036 0.0034036 0.0060452
Selected number of tubes 346 948 116 948
Number of tube passes 8 8 8 8
Shell inside diameter (m) 0.635 0.9906 0.38735 0.9906
Tube pitch (m) 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254
Number of baffles 20 15 15 20
Estimated Area (m) 95.20459 685.5007 62.216 1499.932
Multi objective criteria based Area
(m) 90.24414 659.8252 59.38413 1288.354
Percentage difference in Areas
computed -5.21031 -3.7455 -4.55167 -14.1058

The tube lengths for the heat exchangers 1,2,3 and 4 for Plant B vary, at 4.877m, 15.24m,
15.24m and 40 m respectively. This is as opposed to the 13 heat exchangers for Plant A
whose tube lengths were the same. Longer tube lengths increase the surface area of
exchange, although they increase the cost of the exchanger.

Table 4.46 shows the fluid and material properties used for optimization of a heat
exchanger for Plant C while Table 4.47 shows the optimized heat exchanger
specifications.

141
Table 4.46: Plant C Fluid Properties used for Design of Heat Exchangers

Heat Exchanger Number

Variables 1 2 3
Ethanol Ethanol Ethanol
Hot stream substance (shell side) Liquid Vapor Vapor
Cold stream substance (tube side) Wash Wash Wash
Initial temperature of cold stream Tci K 333.15 301.15 334.15
Target temperature of cold stream Tco K 334.15 333.15 339.9
Initial temperature of hot stream Thi K 383.15 384.15 384.15
Target temperature of hot stream Tho K 344.15 383.15 383.15
Mass flow rate of the cold stream ṁc kg/s 0.766 0.766 0.766
Mass flow rate of the hot stream ṁh kg/s 0.766 0.0986 0.766
kg/m
Density of the cold stream Ρc 3
1000 1000 1000
kg/m
Density of the hot stream Ρh 3
789 3.181 3.181
kj/kg.
Specific heat capacity of the cold stream Cpc °C 586.69 3.514 3.514
kj/kg.
Specific heat capacity of the hot stream Cph °C 2.43 837.85 837.85
Specific gravity of cold stream Sc 1 1 1
Specific gravity of hot stream Sh 0.789 2.49 2.49
Dynamic viscosity of cold stream µc Pa.s 0.00089 0.00089 0.00089
0.000012 0.000012
Dynamic viscosity of hot stream µh Pa.s 0.001095 4 4
kW/
Assumed overall coefficient of heat m2.
transfer Uass °C 0.015 0.015 0.015
W/m⋅
Thermal conductivity of shell side fluid Ks °C 0.171 0.0144 0.0144
W/m⋅
Thermal conductivity of tube side fluid Kt °C 0.677 0.677 0.677
Thermal conductivity of tube material W/m⋅
(Admiralty Brass) Kw °C 111 111 111

142
Table 4.47: Plant C Designed Heat Exchanger Specifications

Design Variable Plant B Heat Exchanger Number

1 2 3
Quantity of Heat (kW) 72.5938 86.135168 15.477413
Tube length (m) 6.096 6.096 6.096
Tube outer diameter (m) 0.012875 0.012875 0.012875
Tube inner diameter (m) 0.000635 0.000635 0.000635
Birmingham Wire Gauge 1 1 1
Tube thickness (m) 0.00762 0.00762 0.00762
Selected number of tubes 838 408 108
Number of tube passes 8 8 8
Shell inside diameter (m) 0.9398 0.38735 0.38735
Tube pitch (m) 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254
Number of baffles 20 20 20
Estimated Area (m) 192.37862 88.9822281 22.15838309
Multi objective criteria based Area (m) 174.45668 71.0243374 18.82476495
Percentage difference in Areas computed -9.3933157 -20.1814352 -15.0445009

Heat exchanger inner and outer tube diameters, number of baffles, tube pitch, number of
tube passes and tube length are the same, at 0.000635 m, 0.012875 m, 20, 0.0254 m, 8 m
and 6.96 m. The same values for discrete variables for all the exchangers are as a result
of the same fluid materials exchanging heat.

4.6.6 Comparison of Exchanger Areas

Optimization of heat exchange network in the three plants sought to increase the internally
recoverable heat using minimized areas for heat exchangers. This study compared the
optimized areas for heat exchangers with areas of exchangers designed using a single
objective. Figure 4.13 shows these differences.

143
Figure 4.13: Comparison of Heat Exchanger Areas

As presented in the graphs, the heat exchanger areas computed using multi-objective
design considerations are less than those computed using single design considerations.
For plant A, the average difference between the optimized areas and the assumed areas
for the 12 heat exchangers is 14.43 %. The average differences for Plant B and C are 6.9
% and 14.9 % respectively. These differences are attributed to the approach of design,
where in the multi-objective design, all design variables were considered. In the
conventional design used in pinch analysis, only the assumed overall coefficient of heat
transfer is considered. Other design variables are not factored in. Cost of heat exchangers
is directly related to the area. Overestimation of the same during heat exchange network
design may lead to uninformed decisions by plant owners.

These results compare well to the findings of a study carried out by Rao & Patel (2013),
who carried out studies to compare various optimization techniques in plate and fin heat
exchangers. The authors used an optimization based on teaching-learning method, known

144
at TBO, which is heuristic in nature. The results of the optimization showed that the cost
of the designed exchangers were less by a range of 0.34 % to 21.65 % when compared to
single objective methods like general algorithm optimization.

4.6.7 Effect of Fouling Factor on Heat Recovery

This section presents the what-if simulation results showing the effects of fouling factor
selection on heat recovery in the modeled heat exchange networks. Detailed computations
used for this what-if simulation are in Appendix XIX. Figures 4.14 graphically show the
results of the analysis.

Figure 4.14: Effects of Fouling Factors on Heat Transfer

As demonstrated by Figures 4.14 a,b,c,d and e, the relationship between heat transfer and
changes in fouling factors is polynomial. The curves in all the figures have a polynomial
shape. This relationship is influenced by the coefficient [A1/A0], as defined in the equation
of computing the overall heat transfer coefficient, equation 3.30. In Figure 4.14 (a), for a

145
heat exchanger with a potential fouling factor of 0.003 m2.K/w, an elimination of this
factor during design causes a drop of 0.7 % in actual recovered heat. The drop in Figure
4.14 (c) is higher, at 1.52 %, even though the fouling factor potential was similar to that
of Figure 4.14 (a). The Air-Air exchanger in Figure 4.14 (c) has higher losses because of
the higher specific heat capacity of the tube side fluid. In Figure 4.14 (a), the tube side
fluid is SO3 and it has a less specific heat capacity compared to air.

Figure 4.14 (b) shows that if fouling factor is neglected during design of an exchanger
with potential fouling of 0.00018 m2.K/w, there will be 0.67 % drop in the recovery of
what was the design target. In Figures 4.14 (d) and (e), the fouling potential of heat
exchangers is 0.00003 m2.K/w. If this potential is not factored into the design, then the
drop in recovered heat will be 0.46 % and 0.25 %, for the milk-milk exchanger and liquid
ethanol-wash exchanger, in that order. These differences, despite the same fouling
potential, are also attributed to the different specific heat capacities of the tube side fluids.
Specific heat capacity of milk is higher than specific heat capacity of liquid ethanol.

The results of the simulation agree with the results of an experimental modeling that was
carried out by Love, Szybist & Sluder (2012). In this modeling, the authors sought to
investigate the effects of fouling on a thermoelectric exhaust heat recovery device.
Conditions of a car exhaust system were simulated in a laboratory and four radiators were
used to test effects of fouling. The radiators were made up of aluminum and stainless, two
of which were fouled and two were un-fouled. The overall recovery system efficiency
was observed to decrease from 0.9 % to 0.65 %. This led to reduction of electric output
in the range of 5% to 10%, when compared to un-fouled radiators.

This research also compared the effects fouling factors on heat transfer across the heat
exchangers. The comparison was carried out by plotting the percentage changes of
optimal fouling factors for each exchanger against the percentage change in the heat
transferred. The differences in the heat transferred were demonstrated, as shown in Figure
4.15.

146
 SO3 - Air Exchanger, LMTD 27.79K Air-Air Exchanger, LMTD 52.79k
Air-Water Exchanger, LMTD 52.79K Milk-Milk Exchanger, LTMD 31.68K
Liquid Ethanol-Wash Exchanger, LMTD 25.15K
1.6

1.4

1.2
Untransferred Heat (%)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Percentage change in the optimal fouling factor

Figure 4.15: Effects of Tube Side Fouling Factors Changes on Heat Exchange

From Figure 4.15 comparisons, different exchangers, depending on the nature of the
fluids, vary differently with percentage of unrealized heat recovery targets. For instance,
SO3-Air and Air-Air heat exchangers have the same optimal fouling factor (0.003
m2.K/w) but they do not yield the same variation in percentage of heat transferred. The
two exchangers also have the same BWG of 7. This difference is attributed to the different
internal and outside tube diameters. The SO3-Air exchanger has an internal tube diameter
of 0.002133 m while the Air-Air exchanger has a tube diameter of 0.003556 m. A reduced
tube diameter, like the one for SO3-Air exchanger, leads to reduced overall coefficient of
heat transfer and exchanger area. Lower exchange area leads to less heat transfer
resistance. The change for the SO3-Air exchanger should therefore be lower, as observed
in these two graphs.

The comparisons on the graph also show that exchangers that have gases in the tube side
have the highest changes to the percentage changes in heat transferred, at 1.52 %. The
lowest change is recorded with the exchanger that has wash as the tube side fluid, with

147
the maximum difference in heat transferred at 0.25 %. This is attributed to the fact that
during design selection of fouling factors, it is possible to allocate lower fouling factor
levels to liquids, basing on the pre-processing treatment. Water treated to different levels
will have lower fouling factors. However, it is worth noting that the velocity of liquids in
tube side of the exchangers is low compared to gases, and this affects the magnitudes of
differences in heat transferred.

It is worth noting however that this observation and the explanation differ from the
published literature of Awad (2011), who states that gases generally have low fouling
factors and that higher velocities reduce the propensity of fluids to foul. The observations
are still valid though, because the optimal fouling factors for the exchangers were fixed,
and the study did not focus on the growth of the fouling layer, where the liquids could
result in higher fouling growth rates compared to gases, and where low velocity fluids
could build the layers faster than the high velocity fluids.

148
 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions

This study set out to model, simulate and validate energy reduction mechanisms in
thermochemical processing plants. These were achieved through: modeling the heating
and cooling requirements and internally recoverable energy targets for Dairy Specialty
Plant, Plant A, Plant B and Plant C, using Scenario One, Scenario Two, Scenario Three
and Scenario Four; analyzing the behavior of the models over a range of process target
temperatures; designing and optimizing heat exchanger network to meet the energy
recovery targets for Plants A, B and C; analyzing the heat recovery behavior of the
optimized design over a range of fouling factors. This section presents the summary and
conclusion of the study findings.

i. The heating loads requirements for Plants A, B and C, modeled using the approach
proposed by this study were higher than the base model, by 0.37%, 0.65 % and
0.73 %, respectively, while the loads for the Dairy Specialty Plant was lower by
2.77 %. For cooling loads, the duties under the proposed model were lower than
the base case model, for the Specialty Plant and Plant A, by 2.23 % and 32.52 %,
respectively. Plant B had higher cooling loads computed under the proposed
model, by a difference of 0.64 %. It can therefore be concluded that the proposed
model improves heat balancing results because it takes care of the change in
temperature of process materials and eliminates under-designing problems.
ii. Assessment of the behavior of the proposed model compared to the conventional
model revealed that gaseous streams had low heating duties while liquid and steam
streams had high duties. This behavior was observed in all the four plants. It can
therefore be concluded that the use of interpolated values of specific heat
capacities in heat balancing leads to overestimation of the actual loads in gaseous
streams and underestimation of the same in liquids and steam streams.

149
iii. The difference between heating and cooling loads determined by the proposed
model compared to the conventional model was more pronounced in processes
with high temperature requirements. The highest change was observed in a sulfur
trioxide stream, where a change in target temperature from 733.15 K to 854.65 K
revealed a change in percentage difference from 26.37 % to 41.26 %. A change in
a milk heating stream was the lowest, with changes in target temperature from
300.65 K to 410.41 K leading to a percentage difference from 1.19 % to 1.95 %.
The findings reveal that high temperature processes are therefore more sensitive
to the choice of specific heat capacity and the use of interpolation during pinch
analysis can lead to high heat load deviations.
iv. The model came up with optimized energy targets and heat exchange network
which could reduce energy consumption for Plants A, B and C by 2.2 %, 10.56 %
and 20.88 %. These savings realized by the proposed model were higher than the
savings modelled by the conventional method by 1.5 %, 4.5 % and 2.2 % for Plants
A, B and C, in that order. It can therefore be concluded that the use of the proposed
model improves the estimates of internally recoverable energy targets in process
plants.
v. Assessment of the grand composite curves resulting from the proposed heat
recovery model and that for Scenarios Two, Three and Four showed that the
number of pinch points per plant was the same. The findings reveal that the choice
of the temperature shifting method-between stream specific and global values of
∆Tmin and the choice of the specific heat capacity-between the interpolated value
and the temperature dependent value- does not affect the number of pinch points
in a targeting problem.
vi. The heat exchangers in the heat recovery network were also optimized. The
objective function was minimization of the heat exchanger areas, using the
proposed model. The total heat exchanger areas optimized using the proposed
model were less for Plants A, B and C, at 4.43 %, 6.9 % and 14.9 %, respectively.
This led to the conclusion that the use of an estimated overall coefficient of heat

150
 transfer during pinch analysis leads to an overestimation of required heat
exchanger area.
vii. In the simulation of the effects of changes in the tube side fouling factors selected
during heat exchanger design, a polynomial relationship was observed. A high
change to heat transfer resistance was observed in liquids as opposed to gases. The
polynomial curves for liquids in the tube side were steep, compared to the curves
for gases. It was concluded that tube side fouling affects heat transfer efficiency
more in liquids compared to gases.

5.2 Recommendations

The following are the recommendations for areas related to this study that need further
investigation;

i. In the heat balancing and energy targeting exercise, polynomial temperature

coefficients of specific heat capacities were used. Some of the coefficients are
published in literature while the study had to rely on averaging to assign
coefficients to some materials like milk, wash and sulfur trioxide. Future work
should involve empirical determination of these variables.
ii. This study focused on the temperature dependence of specific heat capacities and
heating loads, and assumed that processes were isobaric. There is need to
investigate the combined influence of temperature and pressure dependent specific
heat capacities on computed heating and cooling duties and energy targets.
iii. The literature for stream specific ∆Tmin values for process fluids encountered in
the four plants was more generalized, and was not specific to overall coefficients
of heat transfer. Future studies can be carried out to determine ∆Tmin values for
various substances, using their overall coefficient of heat transfer values.
iv. The energy savings and heat exchanger areas computed in this work did not
consider financial modeling. Future work should consider these models.

151
 REFERENCES

Abu-Nada, E., Al-Hinti, I., Al-Sarkhi, A., & Akash, B. (2006). Thermodynamic modeling
of spark-ignition engine: Effect of temperature dependent specific
heats. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, 33(10), 1264-
1272.

Ahmad, M. I., Zhang, N., Jobson, M., & Chen, L. (2012). Multi-period design of heat
exchanger networks. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 90(11), 1883-
1895.

Aljundi, I. H. (2009). Energy and exergy analysis of a steam power plant in

Jordan. Applied Thermal Engineering, 29(2), 324-328.

Aloui, F., & Dincer, I. (Eds.). (2018). Exergy for A Better Environment and Improved
Sustainability 2: Applications. Springer, New York.

Al-Sarkhi, A., Al-Hinti, I., Abu-Nada, E., & Akash, B. (2007). Performance evaluation
of irreversible Miller engine under various specific heat models. International
Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, 34(7), 897-906.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Irvine, C. K. S., & Walker, D. (2018). Introduction to research in
education. Cengage Learning, Boston.

Aspelund, A., Berstad, D. O., & Gundersen, T. (2007). An Extended Pinch Analysis and
Designprocedure utilizing pressure-based exergy for sub ambient
cooling. Applied Thermal Engineering, 27(16), 2633-2649.

Astrup, T., Møller, J., & Fruergaard, T. (2009). Incineration and co-combustion of waste:
accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste
Management & Research, 27(8), 789-799.

Awad, M. M. (2011). Fouling of heat transfer surfaces. In Heat transfer-theoretical

analysis,experimental investigations and industrial systems. IntechOpen, London.

152
 Barron, T. H. K., & White, G. K. (2012). Heat capacity and thermal expansion at low
temperatures. Springer Science & Business Media, New York.

Becker, H. C. (2012). Methodology and thermo-economic optimization for integration of

industrial heat pumps. A PhD Thesis at Federal Polytechnic College of Lausanne

Bender, E. A. (2012). An introduction to mathematical modeling. Courier Corporation,

Chelmsford, MA.

Borrego, C., & Renner, E. E. (Eds.). (2011). Air pollution modeling and its application
XVIII.Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Brau, J. F., Morandin, M., & Berntsson, T. (2013). Hydrogen for oil refining via biomass indirect
steam gasification: energy and environmental targets. Clean Technologies and
Environmental Policy, 15(3), 501-512.

Bundschuh, J. (2010). Introduction to the numerical modeling of groundwater and geothermal

systems: fundamentals of mass, energy and solute transport in poroelastic rocks. CRC
Press, Florida.

Bunse, K., Vodicka, M., Schönsleben, P., Brülhart, M., & Ernst, F. O. (2011). Integrating energy
efficiency performance in production management–gap analysis between industrial needs
and scientific literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(6), 667-679.

Cacuci, D. G., Ionescu-Bujor, M., & Navon, I. M. (2005). Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis,
volume II: applications to large-scale systems (Vol. 2). CRC press, Florida.

Canmet Energy (2012). Pinch Analysis, for the Efficient Use of Energy, Water & Hydrogen: Oil
Refining Industry, Energy Recovery at a Fluid Catalytic Cracking (FCC) Unit. Natural
Resources Canada.

Cihan, A., Hacıhafızoglu, O., & Kahveci, K. (2006). Energy–exergy analysis and modernization
suggestions for a combined‐cycle power plant. International journal of energy
research, 30(2), 115-126.

153
Coker, A. K. (2014). Ludwig's applied process design for chemical and petrochemical
plants. Gulf professional publishing, Texas.

Delarue, E., & D’haeseleer, W. (2008). Greenhouse gas emission reduction by means of
fuel switching in electricity generation: Addressing the potentials. Energy
Conversion and Management, 49(4), 843-853.

Dimian, A. C., Bildea, C. S., & Kiss, A. A. (2014). Integrated design and simulation of
chemical processes. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Doran, P. M. (1995). Bioprocess engineering principles. Academic press, Cambridge.

Eapen, G. (2009). Decision Options: The Art and Science of Making Decisions. CRC
Press, Florida.

Edwards, J. E. (2008). Design and rating shell and tube heat exchangers. P&ID Design
Ltd.,Teesside, UK.

Elliott, J. R., & Lira, C. T.(1999). Introductory chemical engineering

thermodynamics (Vol.184). Prentice Hall PTR, New Jersey.

Emun, F., Gadalla, M., Majozi, T., & Boer, D. (2010). Integrated gasification combined
cycle (IGCC) process simulation and optimization. Computers & chemical
engineering, 34(3), 331-338.

Eriksson, E., Gillespie, A. R., Gustavsson, L., Langvall, O., Olsson, M., Sathre, R., &
Stendahl, J. (2007). Integrated carbon analysis of forest management practices and
wood substitution. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 37(3), 671-681.

Eriksson, L., & Hermansson, S. (2010). Pinch analysis of Billerud Karlsborg, a partly
integrated pulp and paper mill. AMasters Thesisat Chlamers University.

Fenwicks, M., Kinyua, R., & Aganda, A. (2014). Energy Efficiency Analysis Using
PinchTechnology: A Case Study of Orbit Chemicals Industry. IOSR-
JMCE, 11(3), 44-53.

154
Festin, M & Mora, V (2009). Pinch analysis of the Norske Skog Skogn TMP mill.
Master’s Thesis within the Sustainable Energy Systems and Innovative and
Sustainable Chemical Engineering programmes. Chalmers University Of Technology,
Göteborg, Sweden 2009 (Unpublished).

Fodor, Z., Klemeš, J. J., Varbanov, P., Walmsley, M. R., Atkins, M. J., & Walmsley, T. G. (2012).
Total site targeting with stream specific minimum temperature difference. Chemical
Engineering Transactions,29(1), 2012

Fujimoto, S., Yanagida, T., Nakaiwa, M., Tatsumi, H., & Minowa, T. (2011). Pinch analysis for
bioethanol production process from lignocellulosic biomass. Applied Thermal
Engineering, 31(16), 3332-3336.

Granet, I., & Bluestein, M. (2014). Thermodynamics and heat power. CRC Press, Florida.

Gupta, H. N. (2012). Fundamentals of internal combustion engines. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd, New
Delhi.

Harkin, T., Hoadley, A., & Hooper, B. (2010). Reducing the energy penalty of CO 2 capture and
compression using pinch analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(9), 857-866.

Harper, C. A. (2004). Handbook of building materials for fire protection (pp. 384-385). McGraw-
Hill, New York.

Hayes, R. E., & Mmbaga, J. P. (2012). Introduction to Chemical Reactor Analysis. CRC Press,
Florida.

IPP (2017). Industrial Process Plants. Retrieved from http://www.ippe.com/Plants/

StockDetails/221670 on 23th July 2017.

Jabbari, B., Tahouni, N., Ataei, A., & Panjeshahi, M. H. (2013). Design and optimization of
CCHP system incorporated into kraft process, using Pinch Analysis with pressure drop
consideration. Applied Thermal Engineering, 61(1), 88-97.

155
Jarvis, J. K., McBean, L. D., & Miller, G. D. (2002). Handbook of dairy foods and
nutrition. CRC press, Florida.

Kahouli-Brahmi, S. (2008). Technological learning in energy–environment–economy

modelling: A survey. Energy Policy, 36(1), 138-162.

Kang, L., & Liu, Y. (2018). Synthesis of flexible heat exchanger networks: A
review. Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering.

Kaviany, M. (2011). Essentials of heat transfer: principles, materials, and applications.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kemp, I. C. (2005). Reducing dryer energy use by process integration and pinch
analysis. Drying Technology, 23(9-11), 2089-2104.

Kemp, I. C., (2007). Pinch analysis and process integration. A user guide on process
integration for the efficient use of energy. IchemE, London

KNBS, (2015), ‘Economic Survey’, Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, Government

Printers, Nairobi.

Khachan, J. (2018). Thermal Properties of Matter. Morgan & Claypool Publishers,

California.

Klemeš, J. J., & Kravanja, Z. (2013). Forty years of heat integration: pinch analysis (PA)
and mathematical programming (MP). Current Opinion in Chemical
Engineering, 2(4), 461- 474.

Klemeš, J. J. (Ed.). (2013). Handbook of process integration (PI): minimization of energy

and water use, waste and emissions. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Kossiakoff, A., Sweet, W. N., Seymour, S. J., & Biemer, S. M. (2011). Systems
engineering principles and practice (Vol. 83). John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.

156
Kravanja Z. and Varbanov P., (2010), Software tools overview: process integration, modelling
and optimization for energy saving and pollution reduction., Chemical Engineering
Transactions, 21, 487-492

Lambert, N. (1993). Chemistry for CXC. Heinemann, New Hampshire.

Law, R., Harvey, A., & Reay, D. (2013). Opportunities for low-grade heat recovery in the UK
food processing industry. Applied thermal engineering, 53(2), 188-196.

Lee, C. F., Lee, J. C., & Lee, A. C. (2000). Statistics for business and financial economics (Vol.
1, p. 712). Singapore: World Scientific.

Lewis, M. (2008). Thermal Food Processing, New Technologies and Quality Issues‐Edited by
Da‐Wen Sun. International Journal of Dairy Technology, 61(1), 114-114.

Lorente, J. D. S. (Ed.). (2017). Heuristics and Hyper-Heuristics: Principles and Applications.

BoD–Books on Demand.

Love, N. D., Szybist, J. P., & Sluder, C. S. (2012). Effect of heat exchanger material and fouling
on thermoelectric exhaust heat recovery. Applied energy, 89(1), 322-328.

Meredith, R. J. (1998). Engineers' handbook of industrial microwave heating (No. 25). IET.

Oka, Y., Koshizuka, S., Ishiwatari, Y., & Yamaji, A. (2010). Super light water reactors and
super-fast reactors: supercritical-pressure light water cooled reactors. Springer Science
& Business Media, New York.

Ozgener, O., & Hepbasli, A. (2007). A review on the energy and exergy analysis of solar assisted
heat pump systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(3), 482-496.

Pan, H., & Köhler, J. (2007). Technological change in energy systems: Learning curves, logistic
curves and input–output coefficients. Ecological Economics, 63(4), 749-758.

Parnell, G. S., Driscoll, P. J., & Henderson, D. L. (Eds.). (2011). Decision making in systems
engineering and management (Vol. 81). John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.

157
Podolski, W. F., Schmalzer, D. K., & Conrad, V. (2000). Perry's Chemical Engineers
Handbook. McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing, New York.

Raju, K. S. (2011). Fluid mechanics, heat transfer, and mass transfer: chemical
engineering practice. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.

Rao, R. V., & Patel, V. (2013). Multi-objective optimization of heat exchangers using a
modified teachinglearningbasedoptimizationalgorithm. Applied Mathematical
Modeling, 37(3), 1147-1162.

Rao, A. (2015). Sustainable energy conversion for electricity and coproducts: principles,
technologies, and equipment. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.

Reay, D., Ramshaw, C., & Harvey, A. (2013). Process Intensification: Engineering for
efficiency, sustainability and flexibility. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Reger, D. L., Goode, S. R., & Ball, D. W. (2009). Chemistry: principles and practice.
Cengage Learning, Boston.

Ren, J., Manzardo, A., Mazzi, A., Fedele, A., & Scipioni, A. (2013). Emergy analysis and
sustainability efficiency analysis of different crop-based biodiesel in life cycle
perspective. The Scientific World Journal, 2013.

Rugani, B., & Benetto, E. (2012). Improvements to emergy evaluations by using life cycle
assessment. Environmental science & technology, 46(9), 4701-4712.

Rzevski, G., & Brebbia, C. A. (Eds.). (2016). Complex Systems: Fundamentals

&Applications (Vol. 90). WIT Press, Wessex.

Saidur, R., Ahamed, J. U., & Masjuki, H. H. (2010). Energy, exergy and economic
analysis of industrial boilers. Energy Policy, 38(5), 2188-2197.

Sarofim, A. F. (2001). The John zink combustion handbook. Chemical

Engineering, 108(7), 10-10.

Saleh, J. (2002). Fluid flow handbook. McGraw-Hill Professional, New York.

158
Sathre, R., & O’Connor, J. (2010). Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood
product substitution. Environmental science & policy, 13(2), 104-114.

Serth, R. W., & Lestina, T. (2014). Process heat transfer: Principles, applications and rules of
thumb. Academic Press, Cambridge.

Shah, R. K., & Sekulic, D. P. (2003). Fundamentals of heat exchanger design. John Wiley &
Sons, New Jersey.

Sinnott, R., & Towler, G. (2019). Chemical engineering design: SI Edition. Butterworth-
Heinemann, Oxford.

Söderholm, P., & Sundqvist, T. (2007). Empirical challenges in the use of learning curves for
assessing the economic prospects of renewable energy technologies. Renewable
energy, 32(15), 2559-2578.

Sokolowski, J. A., & Banks, C. M. (2010). Modeling and simulation fundamentals: theoretical
underpinnings and practical domains. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.

Speight, J. G. (2005). Lange's handbook of chemistry (Vol. 1, p. 242). McGraw-Hill, New York.

Srivatsan, T. S. (2015). Physical Properties of Materials: Mary Anne White, CRC Press (Taylor
& Francis Group), Florida.

Sun, D. W. (2012). Thermal food processing: new technologies and quality issues. CRC
Press,Florida.

Svensson, E& Harvey, S (2011). Pinch Analysis of a Partly Integrated Pulp and Paper Mill
World Renewable Energy Congress, 2011- Linkopin, Sweden, 8-13.

Tan, R. R., Ng, D. K. S., & Foo, D. C. Y. (2009). Pinch analysis approach to carbon-constrained
planning for sustainable power generation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(10), 940-
944.

Taylor, M., Tam, C., & Gielen, D. (2006). Energy efficiency and CO2 emissions from the global
cement industry. Korea, 50(2.2), 61-7.
159
TEMA (2007). Standards of the tubular heat exchanger manufacturers
association(9th ed.). New York: Tubular Heat Exchanger Manufacturers
Association.
Thakore, S. B., & Bhatt, B. I. (2007). Introduction to process engineering and design.
McGraw-Hill Education, New York.
Thulukkanam, K. (2013). Heat exchanger design handbook. CRC Press, Florida.
Tsatsaronis, G. (2007). Definitions and nomenclature in exergy analysis and exergoecon
omics. Energy, 32(4), 249-253.
Todd, B., & Young, J. B. (2002). Thermodynamic and transport properties of gases for
use in solid oxide fuel cell modelling. Journal of power Sources, 110(1), 186-200.
Tyagi, S. K., Wang, S., Singhal, M. K., Kaushik, S. C., & Park, S. R. (2007). Exergy
analysis and parametric study of concentrating type solar collectors.International
Journal of Thermal Sciences, 46(12), 1304-1310.
Varbanov, P. S., Fodor, Z., & Klemeš, J. J. (2012). Total Site targeting with process
specific minimum temperature difference (ΔT min). Energy, 44(1), 20-28.
Walmsley, M. R., Walmsley, T. G., Atkins, M. J., & Neale, J. R. (2012). Area targeting
and storage temperature selection for heat recovery loops.
Waldron, K. W. (Ed.). (2009). Handbook of waste management and co-product recovery
in food processing. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Yoon, S. G., Lee, J., & Park, S. (2007). Heat integration analysis for an industrial
ethylbenzene plant using pinch analysis. Applied thermal engineering, 27(5), 886-
893.
Zainal, I., Aras, M. S. M., Kamarudin, M. N., Harun, M. H., Zambri, M. K. M., Khamis,
A., & Kassim, A. M. (2016). Design Process and Hydrodynamic Analysis of
Underwater Remotely Operated Crawler. Journal of Telecommunication,
Electronic and Computer Engineering (JTEC), 8(7), 35-39.

160
 Appendices

Heat Balance and Energy Targeting Tool’s Source Code

<?php namespace App\Http\Controllers;

use Illuminate\Http\Request;

use App\AntoineConstant;

class AntoineConstantsController extends Controller

public function index()

return(AntoineConstant::all());

public function calculateAlpha(Request $request) {

$initialT = $request->input('initial');

$finalT = $request->input('final');

$constA = $request->input('compound')['constantA'];

$constB = $request->input('compound')['constantB'];

$constC = $request->input('compound')['constantC'];

$massflowrate = $request->input('massflowrate');

161
 $shiftedInitialTemperature = $request->input('minimumtemperaturedifference') +
$initialT;

$shiftedFinalTemperature = $request->input('minimumtemperaturedifference') +
$finalT;

$inputs = $request->input();

//1st term

$term1 = $constA * ($initialT - $finalT);

//2nd term

if ($initialT < 0) {

$initialTempSqr = pow($initialT, 2) * -1;

} else {

$initialTempSqr = pow($initialT, 2);

if ($finalT < 0) {

$finalTempSqr = pow($finalT, 2) * -1;

} else {

$finalTempSqr = pow($finalT, 2);

162
 $term2 = ($constB / 2) * ($initialTempSqr - $finalTempSqr);

//3rd term

$term3 = ($constC / 3) * (pow($initialT, 3) - pow($finalT, 3));

$enthalpy = $massflowrate * ($term1 + $term2 + $term3);

return compact('inputs', 'enthalpy', 'shiftedInitialTemperature',

'shiftedFinalTemperature');

public function group(Request $request) {

$result = array();

$numbers = $request->input();

sort($numbers);

$newarray = array_chunk($numbers, 2);

foreach ($newarray as $No => $created_array)

foreach ($created_array as $key => $value)

if($key != 0)

163
 array_push($result, array($created_array[$key-1], $value));

$lastNo = $value;

else

if($No != 0)

array_push($result, array($lastNo, $value));

return $result;

public function calculateBeta(Request $request) {

$initial = $request->input('initial');

$final = $request->input('final');

164
$constA = $request->input('compound')['inputs']['compound']['constantA'];

$constB = $request->input('compound')['inputs']['compound']['constantB'];

$constC = $request->input('compound')['inputs']['compound']['constantC'];

$massflowrate = $request->input('compound')['inputs']['massflowrate'];

$select = $request->input('compound')['inputs'];

$temperatureInterval = $request->input('temperatureIntervalBeta');

//1st term

$term1 = $constA * ($initial - $final);

//2nd term

if ($initial < 0) {

$initialTempSqr = pow($initial, 2) * -1;

} else {

$initialTempSqr = pow($initial, 2);

if ($final < 0) {

$finalTempSqr = pow($final, 2) * -1;

} else {

$finalTempSqr = pow($final, 2);

165
 }

$term2 = ($constB / 2) * ($initialTempSqr - $finalTempSqr);

//3rd term

$term3 = ($constC / 3) * (pow($initial, 3) - pow($final, 3));

$enthalpy = $massflowrate * ($term1 + $term2 + $term3);

return compact('temperatureInterval', 'select', 'enthalpy', 'initial', 'final');

public function generateTheta(Request $request) {

$intervalIndices = array_unique( array_pluck($request->all(),

'temperatureInterval') );

$intervalEnthalpies = array();

foreach ($intervalIndices as $intervalIndex) {

$intervalIndexEnthalpies = array();

$intervalIndexEnthalpies['interval'] = $intervalIndex;

$intervalIndexEnthalpies['enthalpies'] = array();

foreach ($request->all() as $betaOutput) {

if ($intervalIndex == $betaOutput['temperatureInterval']) {

array_push($intervalIndexEnthalpies['enthalpies'], $betaOutput['enthalpy']);

166
 }

};

$intervalIndexEnthalpies['total'] =
array_sum($intervalIndexEnthalpies['enthalpies']);

array_push($intervalEnthalpies, $intervalIndexEnthalpies);

$intervalTotals = array_pluck($intervalEnthalpies, 'total');

$i = -1; $cummulative = 0;

foreach ($intervalTotals as $total) {

if($total < 0) {

$intervalEnthalpies[$i+=1]['cummulative'] = $cummulative+=$total;

} else {

$intervalEnthalpies[$i+=1]['cummulative'] = $cummulative+=0;

return json_encode($intervalEnthalpies);

167
 VBA Optimization Source Code

SolverMacro Macro

‘Reset Solver

Solver ResetAdd CellRef:=’’$F$4:$F$5’’,Relation:=1, Formula Text:=’’$G3:$G6”

Solver ResetAdd CellRef:=’’$F$4:$G$6’’,Relation:=3, Formula Text:=’’$G3:$G6”

Solver ResetAdd CellRef:=’’$F$8:$F$5’’,Relation:=1, Formula Text:=’’$B:$10”

SolverOk SetCell:=’’$G$7”,MaxMinVal:=1,ValueOf:=0,ByChange:= “$F$4:$F$5’’,_

Engine:=2,EngineDesc=”GRG Nonlinear”

Solver Solve

168
 : Dairy Specialty Plant Scenario One Energy Targets

Shifted Mass
Interval temperature Initial Final flow Computed
Number interval Compound temperature temperature rate Constant A, B, C Enthalpy

VF3 Air Inlet 1.03409, -

1 7.8 – 8 (Dehumid) 7.8 8 3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -0.6191268
Raw Milk
Evaporation
2 8 - 22.5 Feed 8 22.5 22.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 -1302.72703

VF3 Air Inlet 1.03409, -

3 8 - 22.5 (Dehumid) 8 22.5 3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -44.79717
Raw Milk
Evaporation
4 22.5 - 27.5 Feed 22.5 27.5 22.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 -449.84675

VF3 Air Inlet 1.03409, -

5 22.5 - 27.5 (Dehumid) 22.5 27.5 3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -15.40635
Effect 1 Cow
6 22.5 - 27.5 Water 27.5 22.5 4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 80.69
Effect 3 Cow
7 22.5 - 27.5 Water 27.5 22.5 2.8 4.02, 0.00058, 0 56.483
Effect 4 Cow
8 22.5 - 27.5 Water 27.5 22.5 2.4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 48.414
Effect 5 Cow
9 22.5 - 27.5 Water 27.5 22.5 2 4.02, 0.00058, 0 40.345
Effect 6 Cow
10 22.5 - 27.5 Water 27.5 22.5 1.6 4.02, 0.00058, 0 32.276
Effect 7 Cow
11 22.5 - 27.5 Water 27.5 22.5 1.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 26.22425

169
 Raw Milk
Evaporation
12 27.5 - 32.8 Feed 27.5 32.8 22.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 -477.190589

Main Air 1.03409, -

13 27.5 - 32.8 Heater Inlet 27.5 32.8 39.6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -215.263002

SFB Air 1.03409, -

14 27.5 - 32.8 Heater Inlet 27.5 32.8 16.3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -88.6057307

1.03409, -
15 27.5 - 32.8 VF1 Air Inlet 27.5 32.8 3.1 0.00027999999999995, 0 -16.8513966

1.03409, -
16 27.5 - 32.8 VF2 Inlet Air 27.5 32.8 3.8 0.00027999999999995, 0 -20.6565507

VF3 Air Inlet 1.03409, -

17 27.5 - 32.8 (Dehumid) 27.5 32.8 3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -16.3078032

VF3 Air Inlet 1.03409, -

18 27.5 - 32.8 (Dehumid) 32.8 27.5 3 0.00027999999999995, 0 16.3078032

VF3 Air Inlet 1.03409, -

19 27.5 - 32.8 (Dehumid) 27.5 32.8 3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -16.3078032
Effect 1 Cow
20 27.5 - 32.8 Water 32.8 27.5 4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 85.5947244
Effect 3 Cow
21 27.5 - 32.8 Water 32.8 27.5 2.8 4.02, 0.00058, 0 59.91630708
Effect 4 Cow
22 27.5 - 32.8 Water 32.8 27.5 2.4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 51.35683464
Effect 5 Cow
23 27.5 - 32.8 Water 32.8 27.5 2 4.02, 0.00058, 0 42.7973622

170
 Effect 6 Cow
24 27.5 - 32.8 Water 32.8 27.5 1.6 4.02, 0.00058, 0 34.23788976
Effect 7 Cow
25 27.5 - 32.8 Water 32.8 27.5 1.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 27.81828543
Raw Milk
Evaporation
26 32.8 - 33.5 Feed 32.8 33.5 22.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 -63.0523335

Main Air 1.03409, -

27 32.8 - 33.5 Heater Inlet 32.8 33.5 39.6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -28.4076778

SFB Air 1.03409, -

28 32.8 - 33.5 Heater Inlet 32.8 33.5 16.3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -11.6930593

1.03409, -
29 32.8 - 33.5 VF1 Air Inlet 32.8 33.5 3.1 0.00027999999999995, 0 -2.22383336

1.03409, -
30 32.8 - 33.5 VF2 Inlet Air 32.8 33.5 3.8 0.00027999999999995, 0 -2.72598928

VF3 Air Inlet 1.03409, -

31 32.8 - 33.5 (Dehumid) 32.8 33.5 3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -2.1520968
Effect 1 Cow
32 32.8 - 33.5 Water 33.5 32.8 4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 11.3098356
Effect 3 Cow
33 32.8 - 33.5 Water 33.5 32.8 2.8 4.02, 0.00058, 0 7.91688492
Effect 4 Cow
34 32.8 - 33.5 Water 33.5 32.8 2.4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 6.78590136
Effect 5 Cow
35 32.8 - 33.5 Water 33.5 32.8 2 4.02, 0.00058, 0 5.6549178
Effect 6 Cow
36 32.8 - 33.5 Water 33.5 32.8 1.6 4.02, 0.00058, 0 4.52393424

171
 Effect 7 Cow
37 32.8 - 33.5 Water 33.5 32.8 1.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 3.67569657

1.03409, -
38 32.8 - 33.5 VF3 Air Inlet 33.5 32.8 3 0.00027999999999995, 0 2.1520968
Raw Milk
Evaporation
39 33.5 - 37.5 Feed 33.5 37.5 22.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 -360.420628

Main Air 1.03409, -

40 33.5 - 37.5 Heater Inlet 33.5 37.5 39.6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -162.22536

SFB Air 1.03409, -

41 33.5 - 37.5 Heater Inlet 33.5 37.5 16.3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -66.77458

1.03409, -
42 33.5 - 37.5 VF1 Air Inlet 33.5 37.5 3.1 0.00027999999999995, 0 -12.69946

1.03409, -
43 33.5 - 37.5 VF2 Inlet Air 33.5 37.5 3.8 0.00027999999999995, 0 -15.56708
Effect 1 Cow
44 33.5 - 37.5 Water 37.5 33.5 4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 64.64944
Effect 3 Cow
45 33.5 - 37.5 Water 37.5 33.5 2.8 4.02, 0.00058, 0 45.254608
Effect 4 Cow
46 33.5 - 37.5 Water 37.5 33.5 2.4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 38.789664
Effect 5 Cow
47 33.5 - 37.5 Water 37.5 33.5 2 4.02, 0.00058, 0 32.32472
Effect 6 Cow
48 33.5 - 37.5 Water 37.5 33.5 1.6 4.02, 0.00058, 0 25.859776
Effect 7 Cow
49 33.5 - 37.5 Water 37.5 33.5 1.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 21.011068

172
 1.03409, -
50 33.5 - 37.5 VF3 Air Inlet 37.5 33.5 3 0.00027999999999995, 0 12.2898
Raw Milk
Evaporation
51 37.5 - 46.3 Feed 37.5 46.3 22.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 -793.653824

Main Air 1.03409, -

52 37.5 - 46.3 Heater Inlet 37.5 46.3 39.6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -356.271316

SFB Air 1.03409, -

53 37.5 - 46.3 Heater Inlet 37.5 46.3 16.3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -146.647032

1.03409, -
54 37.5 - 46.3 VF1 Air Inlet 37.5 46.3 3.1 0.00027999999999995, 0 -27.8899262

1.03409, -
55 37.5 - 46.3 VF2 Inlet Air 37.5 46.3 3.8 0.00027999999999995, 0 -34.1876515
Effect 1 Cow
56 37.5 - 46.3 Water 46.3 37.5 4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 142.3594304
Effect 3 Cow
57 37.5 - 46.3 Water 46.3 37.5 2.8 4.02, 0.00058, 0 99.65160128
Effect 4 Cow
58 37.5 - 46.3 Water 46.3 37.5 2.4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 85.41565824
Effect 5 Cow
59 37.5 - 46.3 Water 46.3 37.5 2 4.02, 0.00058, 0 71.1797152
Effect 6 Cow
60 37.5 - 46.3 Water 46.3 37.5 1.6 4.02, 0.00058, 0 56.94377216
Effect 7 Cow
61 37.5 - 46.3 Water 46.3 37.5 1.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 46.26681488

1.03409, -
62 37.5 - 46.3 VF3 Air Inlet 46.3 37.5 3 0.00027999999999995, 0 26.9902512

173
 Main Air 1.03409, -
63 37.5 - 46.3 Exhaust 46.3 37.5 58.5 0.00027999999999995, 0 526.3098984
VF Air 1.03409, -
64 37.5 - 46.3 Exhaust 46.3 37.5 9.9 0.00027999999999995, 0 89.06782896
Raw Milk
Evaporation
65 46.3 - 46.8 Feed 46.3 46.8 22.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 -45.1240389
Concentrate
66 46.3 - 46.8 Heater 46.3 46.8 4.6 3.1, 0, 0 -7.13

Main Air 1.03409, -

67 46.3 - 46.8 Heater Inlet 46.3 46.8 39.6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -20.2169088
SFB Air 1.03409, -
68 46.3 - 46.8 Heater Inlet 46.3 46.8 16.3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -8.3216064
1.03409, -
69 46.3 - 46.8 VF1 Air Inlet 46.3 46.8 3.1 0.00027999999999995, 0 -1.5826368
1.03409, -
70 46.3 - 46.8 VF2 Inlet Air 46.3 46.8 3.8 0.00027999999999995, 0 -1.9400064
Effect 1 Cow
71 46.3 - 46.8 Water 46.8 46.3 4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 8.093998
Effect 3 Cow
72 46.3 - 46.8 Water 46.8 46.3 2.8 4.02, 0.00058, 0 5.6657986
Effect 4 Cow
73 46.3 - 46.8 Water 46.8 46.3 2.4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 4.8563988
Effect 5 Cow
74 46.3 - 46.8 Water 46.8 46.3 2 4.02, 0.00058, 0 4.046999
Effect 6 Cow
75 46.3 - 46.8 Water 46.8 46.3 1.6 4.02, 0.00058, 0 3.2375992
Effect 7 Cow
76 46.3 - 46.8 Water 46.8 46.3 1.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 2.63054935

174
 1.03409, -
77 46.3 - 46.8 VF3 Air Inlet 46.8 46.3 3 0.00027999999999995, 0 1.531584

Main Air 1.03409, -

78 46.3 - 46.8 Exhaust 46.8 46.3 58.5 0.00027999999999995, 0 29.865888
VF Air 1.03409, -
79 46.3 - 46.8 Exhaust 46.8 46.3 9.9 0.00027999999999995, 0 5.0542272
Raw Milk
Evaporation
80 46.8 - 47.5 Feed 46.8 47.5 22.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 -63.1790867
Concentrate
81 46.8 - 47.5 Heater 46.8 47.5 4.6 3.1, 0, 0 -9.982
Main Air 1.03409, -
82 46.8 - 47.5 Heater Inlet 46.8 47.5 39.6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -28.2990154
SFB Air 1.03409, -
83 46.8 - 47.5 Heater Inlet 46.8 47.5 16.3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -11.6483321
1.03409, -
84 46.8 - 47.5 VF2 Inlet Air 46.8 47.5 3.8 0.00027999999999995, 0 -2.71556208
Effect 1 Cow
85 46.8 - 47.5 Water 47.5 46.8 4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 11.3325716
Effect 3 Cow
86 46.8 - 47.5 Water 47.5 46.8 2.8 4.02, 0.00058, 0 7.93280012
Effect 4 Cow
87 46.8 - 47.5 Water 47.5 46.8 2.4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 6.79954296
Effect 5 Cow
88 46.8 - 47.5 Water 47.5 46.8 2 4.02, 0.00058, 0 5.6662858
Effect 6 Cow
89 46.8 - 47.5 Water 47.5 46.8 1.6 4.02, 0.00058, 0 4.53302864
Effect 7 Cow
90 46.8 - 47.5 Water 47.5 46.8 1.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 3.68308577

1.03409, -
91 46.8 - 47.5 VF3 Air Inlet 47.5 46.8 3 0.00027999999999995, 0 2.1438648

175
 Main Air 1.03409, -
92 46.8 - 47.5 Exhaust 47.5 46.8 58.5 0.00027999999999995, 0 41.8053636
VF Air 1.03409, -
93 46.8 - 47.5 Exhaust 47.5 46.8 9.9 0.00027999999999995, 0 7.07475384
Raw Milk
Evaporation
94 47.5 - 52.5 Feed 47.5 52.5 22.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 -451.4635
Concentrate
95 47.5 - 52.5 Heater 47.5 52.5 4.6 3.1, 0, 0 -71.3
Main Air 1.03409, -
96 47.5 - 52.5 Heater Inlet 47.5 52.5 39.6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -201.97782
SFB Air 1.03409, -
97 47.5 - 52.5 Heater Inlet 47.5 52.5 16.3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -83.137335
1.03409, -
98 47.5 - 52.5 VF2 Inlet Air 47.5 52.5 3.8 0.00027999999999995, 0 -19.38171
Cyclone
Recovery Air 1.03409, -
99 47.5 - 52.5 Inlet 47.5 52.5 6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -30.6027
Effect 1 Cow
100 47.5 - 52.5 Water 52.5 47.5 4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 80.98
Effect 3 Cow
101 47.5 - 52.5 Water 52.5 47.5 2.8 4.02, 0.00058, 0 56.686
Effect 4 Cow
102 47.5 - 52.5 Water 52.5 47.5 2.4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 48.588
Effect 5 Cow
103 47.5 - 52.5 Water 52.5 47.5 2 4.02, 0.00058, 0 40.49
Effect 6 Cow
104 47.5 - 52.5 Water 52.5 47.5 1.6 4.02, 0.00058, 0 32.392
Effect 7 Cow
105 47.5 - 52.5 Water 52.5 47.5 1.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 26.3185

176
 1.03409, -
106 47.5 - 52.5 VF3 Air Inlet 52.5 47.5 3 0.00027999999999995, 0 15.30135

Main Air 1.03409, -

107 47.5 - 52.5 Exhaust 52.5 47.5 58.5 0.00027999999999995, 0 298.376325
VF Air 1.03409, -
108 47.5 - 52.5 Exhaust 52.5 47.5 9.9 0.00027999999999995, 0 50.494455
Raw Milk
Evaporation
109 52.5 - 54.5 Feed 52.5 54.5 22.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 -180.675938
Concentrate
110 52.5 - 54.5 Heater 52.5 54.5 4.6 3.1, 0, 0 -28.52
Main Air 1.03409, -
111 52.5 - 54.5 Heater Inlet 52.5 54.5 39.6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -80.713512
SFB Air 1.03409, -
112 52.5 - 54.5 Heater Inlet 52.5 54.5 16.3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -33.222986
1.03409, -
113 52.5 - 54.5 VF2 Inlet Air 52.5 54.5 3.8 0.00027999999999995, 0 -7.745236
Cyclone
Recovery Air 1.03409, -
114 52.5 - 54.5 Inlet 52.5 54.5 6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -12.22932
Effect 1 Cow
115 52.5 - 54.5 Water 54.5 52.5 4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 32.40824
Effect 3 Cow
116 52.5 - 54.5 Water 54.5 52.5 2.8 4.02, 0.00058, 0 22.685768
Effect 4 Cow
117 52.5 - 54.5 Water 54.5 52.5 2.4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 19.444944
Effect 5 Cow
118 52.5 - 54.5 Water 54.5 52.5 2 4.02, 0.00058, 0 16.20412
Effect 6 Cow
119 52.5 - 54.5 Water 54.5 52.5 1.6 4.02, 0.00058, 0 12.963296
Effect 7 Cow
120 52.5 - 54.5 Water 54.5 52.5 1.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 10.532678

177
 Main Air 1.03409, -
121 52.5 - 54.5 Exhaust 54.5 52.5 58.5 0.00027999999999995, 0 119.23587
VF Air 1.03409, -
122 52.5 - 54.5 Exhaust 54.5 52.5 9.9 0.00027999999999995, 0 20.178378
Raw Milk
Evaporation
123 54.5 - 55.8 Feed 54.5 55.8 22.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 -117.467103
Concentrate
124 54.5 - 55.8 Heater 54.5 55.8 4.6 3.1, 0, 0 -18.538
Main Air 1.03409, -
125 54.5 - 55.8 Heater Inlet 54.5 55.8 39.6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -52.439999
SFB Air 1.03409, -
126 54.5 - 55.8 Heater Inlet 54.5 55.8 16.3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -21.5851511
Cyclone
Recovery Air 1.03409, -
127 54.5 - 55.8 Inlet 54.5 55.8 6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -7.9454544
Effect 1 Cow
128 54.5 - 55.8 Water 55.8 54.5 4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 21.0703324
Effect 3 Cow
129 54.5 - 55.8 Water 55.8 54.5 2.8 4.02, 0.00058, 0 14.74923268
Effect 4 Cow
130 54.5 - 55.8 Water 55.8 54.5 2.4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 12.64219944
Effect 5 Cow
131 54.5 - 55.8 Water 55.8 54.5 2 4.02, 0.00058, 0 10.5351662
Effect 6 Cow
132 54.5 - 55.8 Water 55.8 54.5 1.6 4.02, 0.00058, 0 8.42813296
Effect 7 Cow
133 54.5 - 55.8 Water 55.8 54.5 1.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 6.84785803

Main Air 1.03409, -

134 54.5 - 55.8 Exhaust 55.8 54.5 58.5 0.00027999999999995, 0 77.4681804

178
 VF Air 1.03409, -
135 54.5 - 55.8 Exhaust 55.8 54.5 9.9 0.00027999999999995, 0 13.10999976
Raw Milk
Evaporation
136 55.8 - 56.8 Feed 55.8 56.8 22.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 -90.3741842
Concentrate
137 55.8 - 56.8 Heater 55.8 56.8 4.6 3.1, 0, 0 -14.26

Main Air 1.03409, -

138 55.8 - 56.8 Heater Inlet 55.8 56.8 39.6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -40.3257096

SFB Air 1.03409, -

139 55.8 - 56.8 Heater Inlet 55.8 56.8 16.3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -16.5987138
Cyclone
Recovery Air 1.03409, -
140 55.8 - 56.8 Inlet 55.8 56.8 6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -6.109956
Effect 1 Cow
141 55.8 - 56.8 Water 56.8 55.8 4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 16.210616
Effect 3 Cow
142 55.8 - 56.8 Water 56.8 55.8 2.8 4.02, 0.00058, 0 11.3474312
Effect 4 Cow
143 55.8 - 56.8 Water 56.8 55.8 2.4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 9.7263696
Effect 5 Cow
144 55.8 - 56.8 Water 56.8 55.8 2 4.02, 0.00058, 0 8.105308
Effect 6 Cow
145 55.8 - 56.8 Water 56.8 55.8 1.6 4.02, 0.00058, 0 6.4842464
Effect 7 Cow
146 55.8 - 56.8 Vapour 56.8 55.8 1.3 2368.05, 0, 0 3078.465
Effect 7 Cow
147 55.8 - 56.8 Water 56.8 55.8 1.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 5.2684502

179
 Main Air 1.03409, -
148 55.8 - 56.8 Exhaust 56.8 55.8 58.5 0.00027999999999995, 0 59.572071

VF Air 1.03409, -
149 55.8 - 56.8 Exhaust 56.8 55.8 9.9 0.00027999999999995, 0 10.0814274
Raw Milk
Evaporation
150 56.8 - 58.3 Feed 56.8 58.3 22.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 -135.585528
Concentrate
151 56.8 - 58.3 Heater 56.8 58.3 4.6 3.1, 0, 0 -21.39

Main Air 1.03409, -

152 56.8 - 58.3 Heater Inlet 56.8 58.3 39.6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -60.4677744

SFB Air 1.03409, -

153 56.8 - 58.3 Heater Inlet 56.8 58.3 16.3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -24.8895132
Cyclone
Recovery Air 1.03409, -
154 56.8 - 58.3 Inlet 56.8 58.3 6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -9.161784
Effect 1 Cow
155 56.8 - 58.3 Water 58.3 56.8 4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 24.320274
Effect 3 Cow
156 56.8 - 58.3 Water 58.3 56.8 2.8 4.02, 0.00058, 0 17.0241918
Effect 4 Cow
157 56.8 - 58.3 Water 58.3 56.8 2.4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 14.5921644
Effect 5 Cow
158 56.8 - 58.3 Water 58.3 56.8 2 4.02, 0.00058, 0 12.160137
Effect 6 Cow
159 56.8 - 58.3 Water 58.3 56.8 1.6 4.02, 0.00058, 0 9.7281096
Effect 7 Cow
160 56.8 - 58.3 Water 58.3 56.8 1.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 7.90408905

180
 Main Air 1.03409, -
161 56.8 - 58.3 Exhaust 58.3 56.8 58.5 0.00027999999999995, 0 89.327394

VF Air 1.03409, -
162 56.8 - 58.3 Exhaust 58.3 56.8 9.9 0.00027999999999995, 0 15.1169436
Raw Milk
Evaporation
163 58.3 – 60 Feed 58.3 60 22.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 -153.698778
Concentrate
164 58.3 – 60 Heater 58.3 60 4.6 3.1, 0, 0 -24.242

Main Air 1.03409, -

165 58.3 – 60 Heater Inlet 58.3 60 39.6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -68.499985

SFB Air 1.03409, -

166 58.3 – 60 Heater Inlet 58.3 60 16.3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -28.1957009
Cyclone
Recovery Air 1.03409, -
167 58.3 – 60 Inlet 58.3 60 6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -10.3787856
Effect 1 Cow
168 58.3 – 60 Water 60 58.3 4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 27.5692876
Effect 3 Cow
169 58.3 – 60 Water 60 58.3 2.8 4.02, 0.00058, 0 19.29850132
Effect 4 Cow
170 58.3 – 60 Water 60 58.3 2.4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 16.54157256
Effect 5 Cow
171 58.3 – 60 Water 60 58.3 2 4.02, 0.00058, 0 13.7846438
Effect 6 Cow
172 58.3 – 60 Water 60 58.3 1.6 4.02, 0.00058, 0 11.02771504

Main Air 1.03409, -

173 58.3 – 60 Exhaust 60 58.3 58.5 0.00027999999999995, 0 101.1931596

181
 VF Air 1.03409, -
174 58.3 – 60 Exhaust 60 58.3 9.9 0.00027999999999995, 0 17.12499624
Raw Milk
Evaporation
175 60 - 61.3 Feed 60 61.3 22.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 -117.559581
Concentrate
176 60 - 61.3 Heater 60 61.3 4.6 3.1, 0, 0 -18.538

Main Air 1.03409, -

177 60 - 61.3 Heater Inlet 60 61.3 39.6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -52.3607198

SFB Air 1.03409, -

178 60 - 61.3 Heater Inlet 60 61.3 16.3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -21.5525185
Cyclone
Recovery Air 1.03409, -
179 60 - 61.3 Inlet 60 61.3 6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -7.9334424
Raw Milk
Evaporation
180 61.3 - 67.3 Feed 61.3 67.3 22.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 -542.865937
Concentrate
181 61.3 - 67.3 Heater 61.3 67.3 4.6 3.1, 0, 0 -85.56

Main Air 1.03409, -

182 61.3 - 67.3 Heater Inlet 61.3 67.3 39.6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -241.422034

SFB Air 1.03409, -

183 61.3 - 67.3 Heater Inlet 61.3 67.3 16.3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -99.3732108
Cyclone
Recovery Air 1.03409, -
184 61.3 - 67.3 Inlet 61.3 67.3 6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -36.579096
Effect 1 Cow
185 61.3 - 67.3 Water 67.3 61.3 4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 97.375056

182
 Effect 3 Cow
186 61.3 - 67.3 Water 67.3 61.3 2.8 4.02, 0.00058, 0 68.1625392
Effect 4 Cow
187 61.3 - 67.3 Water 67.3 61.3 2.4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 58.4250336

Main Air 1.03409, -

188 61.3 - 67.3 Exhaust 67.3 61.3 58.5 0.00027999999999995, 0 356.646186

VF Air 1.03409, -
189 61.3 - 67.3 Exhaust 67.3 61.3 9.9 0.00027999999999995, 0 60.3555084
Raw Milk
Evaporation
190 67.3 - 70.8 Feed 67.3 70.8 22.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 -316.886824
Concentrate
191 67.3 - 70.8 Heater 67.3 70.8 4.6 3.1, 0, 0 -49.91

Main Air 1.03409, -

192 67.3 - 70.8 Heater Inlet 67.3 70.8 39.6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -140.645182

SFB Air 1.03409, -

193 67.3 - 70.8 Heater Inlet 67.3 70.8 16.3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -57.8918298
Cyclone
Recovery Air 1.03409, -
194 67.3 - 70.8 Inlet 67.3 70.8 6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -21.309876
Effect 1 Cow
195 67.3 - 70.8 Water 70.8 67.3 4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 56.840686
Effect 3 Cow
196 67.3 - 70.8 Water 70.8 67.3 2.8 4.02, 0.00058, 0 39.7884802

Main Air 1.03409, -

197 67.3 - 70.8 Exhaust 70.8 67.3 58.5 0.00027999999999995, 0 207.771291

183
 VF Air 1.03409, -
198 67.3 - 70.8 Exhaust 70.8 67.3 9.9 0.00027999999999995, 0 35.1612954
Raw Milk
Evaporation
199 70.8 - 77.5 Feed 70.8 77.5 22.3 4.02, 0.00058, 0 -607.053876
Concentrate
200 70.8 - 77.5 Heater 70.8 77.5 4.6 3.1, 0, 0 -95.542

Main Air 1.03409, -

201 70.8 - 77.5 Heater Inlet 70.8 77.5 39.6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -268.856185

SFB Air 1.03409, -

202 70.8 - 77.5 Heater Inlet 70.8 77.5 16.3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -110.665551
Cyclone
Recovery Air 1.03409, -
203 70.8 - 77.5 Inlet 70.8 77.5 6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -40.7357856
Effect 1 Cow
204 70.8 - 77.5 Water 77.5 70.8 4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 108.8885876

Main Air 1.03409, -

205 70.8 - 77.5 Exhaust 77.5 70.8 58.5 0.00027999999999995, 0 397.1739096

VF Air 1.03409, -
206 70.8 - 77.5 Exhaust 77.5 70.8 9.9 0.00027999999999995, 0 67.21404624
Concentrate
207 77.5 - 80.5 Heater 77.5 80.5 4.6 3.1, 0, 0 -42.78

Main Air 1.03409, -

208 77.5 - 80.5 Heater Inlet 77.5 80.5 39.6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -120.222036

SFB Air 1.03409, -

209 77.5 - 80.5 Heater Inlet 77.5 80.5 16.3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -49.485333

184
 Effect 1 Cow
210 77.5 - 80.5 Water 80.5 77.5 4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 48.78984
Main Air 1.03409, -
211 77.5 - 80.5 Exhaust 80.5 77.5 58.5 0.00027999999999995, 0 177.600735
VF Air 1.03409, -
212 77.5 - 80.5 Exhaust 80.5 77.5 9.9 0.00027999999999995, 0 30.055509
Concentrate
213 80.5 – 81 Heater 80.5 81 4.6 3.1, 0, 0 -7.13

Main Air 1.03409, -

214 80.5 – 81 Heater Inlet 80.5 81 39.6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -20.027304
SFB Air 1.03409, -
215 80.5 – 81 Heater Inlet 80.5 81 16.3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -8.243562
Effect 1 Cow
216 80.5 – 81 Water 81 80.5 4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 8.13367
Main Air 1.03409, -
217 81 - 83.8 Heater Inlet 81 83.8 39.6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -112.101676
SFB Air 1.03409, -
218 81 - 83.8 Heater Inlet 81 83.8 16.3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -46.1428615
Effect 1 Cow
219 81 - 83.8 Water 83.8 81 4 4.02, 0.00058, 0 45.5592704
Main Air 1.03409, -
220 83.8 – 86 Heater Inlet 83.8 86 39.6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -88.0189042
SFB Air 1.03409, -
221 83.8 – 86 Heater Inlet 83.8 86 16.3 0.00027999999999995, 0 -36.2300035
Main Air 1.03409, -
222 86 – 197 Heater Inlet 86 197 39.6 0.00027999999999995, 0 -4371.29233

185
 : Scenario Two Dairy Specialty Plant Energy Targets

Mass Specific heat

Interval Flow capacity Heat Rate
Temperature Difference Rate (Temperature Deficit/Surplus
Interval (°C) (°C) Compound (kG/s) Independent) (kW)
Raw Milk
8 17.8 9.8 Evaporation Feed 22.3 -4 -874.16
Interval Net Enthalpy -874.16
Raw Milk
17.8 22.5 4.7 Evaporation Feed 22.3 -4 -419.24
4.7 VF3 Air Inlet 3 -1.02 -14.382
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -433.622
Raw Milk
22.5 22.8 0.3 Evaporation Feed 22.3 -4 -26.76
Effect 1 Cow
0.3 Water 4 4.18 5.016
Effect 3 Cow
0.3 Water 2.8 4.18 3.5112
Effect 4 Cow
0.3 Water 2.4 4.18 3.0096
Effect 5 Cow
0.3 Water 2 4.18 2.508
Effect 6 Cow
0.3 Water 1.6 4.18 2.0064
Effect 7 Cow
0.3 Water 1.3 4.18 1.6302
0.3 VF3 Air Inlet 3 -1.02 -0.918
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -9.9966
Raw Milk
22.8 27.5 4.7 Evaporation Feed 22.3 -4 -419.24
Effect 1 Cow
4.7 Water 4 4.18 78.584
Effect 3 Cow
4.7 Water 2.8 4.18 55.0088
Effect 4 Cow
4.7 Water 2.4 4.18 47.1504
Effect 5 Cow
4.7 Water 2 4.18 39.292

186
 Effect 6 Cow
4.7 Water 1.6 4.18 31.4336
Effect 7 Cow
4.7 Water 1.3 4.18 25.5398
VF3 Air Inlet
4.7 (Dehumidification) 3 1.02 14.382
4.7 VF3 Air Inlet 3 -1.02 -14.382
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -142.2314
Raw Milk
27.5 37.5 10 Evaporation Feed 22.3 -4 -892
Effect 1 Cow
10 Water 4 4.18 167.2
Effect 3 Cow
10 Water 2.8 4.18 117.04
Effect 4 Cow
10 Water 2.4 4.18 100.32
Effect 5 Cow
10 Water 2 4.18 83.6
Effect 6 Cow
10 Water 1.6 4.18 66.88
Effect 7 Cow
10 Water 1.3 4.18 54.34
VF3 Air Inlet
10 (Dehumidification) 3 1.02 30.6
10 VF3 Air Inlet 3 -1.02 -30.6
10 Main Air Exhaust 58.5 1.02 596.7
10 VF Air Exhaust 9.9 1.02 100.98
Interval
Net
Enthalpy 395.06
Raw Milk
37.5 42.5 5 Evaporation Feed 22.3 -4 -446
Effect 1 Cow
5 Water 4 4.18 83.6
Effect 3 Cow
5 Water 2.8 4.18 58.52
Effect 4 Cow
5 Water 2.4 4.18 50.16
Effect 5 Cow
5 Water 2 4.18 41.8

187
 Effect 6 Cow
5 Water 1.6 4.18 33.44
Effect 7 Cow
5 Water 1.3 4.18 27.17
Main Air Heater
5 Inlet 39.6 -1.02 -201.96
SFB Air Heater
5 Inlet 16.3 -1.02 -83.13
5 VF1 Air Inlet 3.1 -1.02 -15.81
5 VF2 Air Inlet 3.8 -1.02 -19.38
VF3 Air Inlet
5 (Dehumidification) 3 1.02 15.3
5 VF3 Air Inlet 3 -1.02 -15.3
5 Main Air Exhaust 58.5 1.02 298.35
5 VF Air Exhaust 9.9 1.02 50.49
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -122.75
Raw Milk
42.5 43.5 1 Evaporation Feed 22.3 -4 -89.2
Effect 1 Cow
1 Water 4 4.18 16.72
Effect 3 Cow
1 Water 2.8 4.18 11.704
Effect 4 Cow
1 Water 2.4 4.18 10.032
Effect 5 Cow
1 Water 2 4.18 8.36
Effect 6 Cow
1 Water 1.6 4.18 6.688
Effect 7 Cow
1 Water 1.3 4.18 5.434
Main Air Heater
1 Inlet 39.6 -1.02 -40.392
SFB Air Heater
1 Inlet 16.3 -1.02 -16.626
1 VF1 Air Inlet 3.1 -1.02 -3.162
1 VF2 Air Inlet 3.8 -1.02 -3.876
1 VF3 Air Inlet 3 -1.02 -3.06
1 Main Air Exhaust 58.5 1.02 59.67
1 VF Air Exhaust 9.9 1.02 10.098

188
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -27.61
Raw Milk
43.5 46.3 2.8 Evaporation Feed 22.3 -4 -249.76
Effect 1 Cow
2.8 Water 4 4.18 46.816
Effect 3 Cow
2.8 Water 2.8 4.18 32.7712
Effect 4 Cow
2.8 Water 2.4 4.18 28.0896
Effect 5 Cow
2.8 Water 2 4.18 23.408
Effect 6 Cow
2.8 Water 1.6 4.18 18.7264
Effect 7 Cow
2.8 Water 1.3 4.18 15.2152
Main Air Heater
2.8 Inlet 39.6 -1.02 -113.0976
SFB Air Heater
2.8 Inlet 16.3 -1.02 -46.5528
2.8 VF1 Air Inlet 3.1 -1.02 -8.8536
2.8 VF2 Air Inlet 3.8 -1.02 -10.8528
2.8 Main Air Exhaust 58.5 1.02 167.076
2.8 VF Air Exhaust 9.9 1.02 28.2744
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -68.74
Raw Milk
46.3 56.8 10.5 Evaporation Feed 22.3 -4 -936.6
Effect 1 Cow
10.5 Water 4 4.18 175.56
Effect 3 Cow
10.5 Water 2.8 4.18 122.892
Effect 4 Cow
10.5 Water 2.4 4.18 105.336
Effect 5 Cow
10.5 Water 2 4.18 87.78
Effect 6 Cow
10.5 Water 1.6 4.18 70.224
Effect 7 Cow
10.5 Water 1.3 4.18 57.057

189
 Concentrate
10.5 Heater 4.6 -3.1 -149.73
Main Air Heater
10.5 Inlet 39.6 -1.02 -424.116
SFB Air Heater
10.5 Inlet 16.3 -1.02 -174.573
10.5 VF1 Air Inlet 3.1 -1.02 -33.201
10.5 VF2 Air Inlet 3.8 -1.02 -40.698
10.5 Main Air Exhaust 58.5 1.02 626.535
10.5 VF Air Exhaust 9.9 1.02 106.029
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -407.505
Raw Milk
56.8 57.3 0.5 Evaporation Feed 22.3 -4 -44.6
Effect 1 Cow
0.5 Water 4 4.18 8.36
Effect 3 Cow
0.5 Water 2.8 4.18 5.852
Effect 4 Cow
0.5 Water 2.4 4.18 5.016
Effect 5 Cow
0.5 Water 2 4.18 4.18
Effect 6 Cow
0.5 Water 1.6 4.18 3.344
Effect 7 Cow
0.5 Water 1.3 4.18 2.717
Concentrate
0.5 Heater 4.6 -3.1 -7.13
Main Air Heater
0.5 Inlet 39.6 -1.02 -20.196
SFB Air Heater
0.5 Inlet 16.3 -1.02 -8.313
0.5 VF2 Air Inlet 3.8 -1.02 -1.938
0.5 Main Air Exhaust 58.5 1.02 29.835
0.5 VF Air Exhaust 9.9 1.02 5.049
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -17.824
Raw Milk
57.3 57.5 0.2 Evaporation Feed 22.3 -4 -17.84

190
 Effect 1 Cow
0.2 Water 4 4.18 3.344
Effect 3 Cow
0.2 Water 2.8 4.18 2.3408
Effect 4 Cow
0.2 Water 2.4 4.18 2.0064
Effect 5 Cow
0.2 Water 2 4.18 1.672
Effect 6 Cow
0.2 Water 1.6 4.18 1.3376
Effect 7 Cow
0.2 Vapor 1.3 2368.05 615.693
Effect 7 Cow
0.2 Water 1.3 4.18 1.0868
Concentrate
0.2 Heater 4.6 -3.1 -2.852
Main Air Heater
0.2 Inlet 39.6 -1.02 -8.0784
SFB Air Heater
0.2 Inlet 16.3 -1.02 -3.3252
0.2 VF2 Air Inlet 3.8 -1.02 -0.7752
0.2 Main Air Exhaust 58.5 1.02 11.934
0.2 VF Air Exhaust 9.9 1.02 2.0196
Interval
Net
Enthalpy 608.5634
Raw Milk
57.5 58.3 0.8 Evaporation Feed 22.3 -4 -71.36
Effect 1 Cow
0.8 Water 4 4.18 13.376
Effect 3 Cow
0.8 Water 2.8 4.18 9.3632
Effect 4 Cow
0.8 Water 2.4 4.18 8.0256
Effect 5 Cow
0.8 Water 2 4.18 6.688
Effect 6 Cow
0.8 Water 1.6 4.18 5.3504
Effect 7 Cow
0.8 Vapor 1.3 2368.05 2462.772
Effect 7 Cow
0.8 Water 1.3 4.18 4.3472

191
 Concentrate
0.8 Heater 4.6 -3.1 -11.408
Main Air Heater
0.8 Inlet 39.6 -1.02 -32.3136
SFB Air Heater
0.8 Inlet 16.3 -1.02 -13.3008
0.8 VF2 Air Inlet 3.8 -1.02 -3.1008
Cyclone Recovery
0.8 Air Inlet 6 -1.02 -4.896
0.8 Main Air Exhaust 58.5 1.02 47.736
0.8 VF Air Exhaust 9.9 1.02 8.0784
Interval
Net
Enthalpy 2429.3576
Raw Milk
58.3 60 1.7 Evaporation Feed 22.3 -4 -151.64
Effect 1 Cow
1.7 Water 4 4.18 28.424
Effect 3 Cow
1.7 Water 2.8 4.18 19.8968
Effect 4 Cow
1.7 Water 2.4 4.18 17.0544
Effect 6 Cow
1.7 Water 1.6 4.18 11.3696
Concentrate
1.7 Heater 4.6 -3.1 -24.242
Main Air Heater
1.7 Inlet 39.6 -1.02 -68.6664
SFB Air Heater
1.7 Inlet 16.3 -1.02 -28.2642
1.7 VF2 Air Inlet 3.8 -1.02 -6.5892
Cyclone Recovery
1.7 Air Inlet 6 -1.02 -10.404
1.7 Main Air Exhaust 58.5 1.02 101.439
1.7 VF Air Exhaust 9.9 1.02 17.1666
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -94.4554
Raw Milk
60 61.3 1.3 Evaporation Feed 22.3 -4 -115.96
Effect 1 Cow
1.3 Water 4 4.18 21.736

192
 Effect 3 Cow
1.3 Water 2.8 4.18 15.2152
Effect 4 Cow
1.3 Water 2.4 4.18 13.0416
Concentrate
1.3 Heater 4.6 -3.1 -18.538
Main Air Heater
1.3 Inlet 39.6 -1.02 -52.5096
SFB Air Heater
1.3 Inlet 16.3 -1.02 -21.6138
1.3 VF2 Air Inlet 3.8 -1.02 -5.0388
Cyclone Recovery
1.3 Air Inlet 6 -1.02 -7.956
1.3 Main Air Exhaust 58.5 1.02 77.571
1.3 VF Air Exhaust 9.9 1.02 13.1274
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -80.925
Raw Milk
61.3 64.5 3.2 Evaporation Feed 22.3 -4 -285.44
Effect 1 Cow
3.2 Water 4 4.18 53.504
Effect 3 Cow
3.2 Water 2.8 4.18 37.4528
Effect 4 Cow
3.2 Water 2.4 4.18 32.1024
Concentrate
3.2 Heater 4.6 -3.1 -45.632
Main Air Heater
3.2 Inlet 39.6 -1.02 -129.2544
SFB Air Heater
3.2 Inlet 16.3 -1.02 -53.2032
3.2 VF2 Air Inlet 3.8 -1.02 -12.4032
Cyclone Recovery
3.2 Air Inlet 6 -1.02 -19.584
3.2 Main Air Exhaust 58.5 1.02 190.944
3.2 VF Air Exhaust 9.9 1.02 32.3136
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -199.2
Raw Milk
64.5 67.3 2.8 Evaporation Feed 22.3 -4 -249.76

193
 Effect 1 Cow
2.8 Water 4 4.18 46.816
Effect 3 Cow
2.8 Water 2.8 4.18 32.7712
Effect 4 Cow
2.8 Water 2.4 4.18 28.0896
Concentrate
2.8 Heater 4.6 -3.1 -39.928
Main Air Heater
2.8 Inlet 39.6 -1.02 -113.0976
SFB Air Heater
2.8 Inlet 16.3 -1.02 -46.5528
Cyclone Recovery
2.8 Air Inlet 6 -1.02 -17.136
2.8 Main Air Exhaust 58.5 1.02 167.076
2.8 VF Air Exhaust 9.9 1.02 28.2744
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -163.4472
Raw Milk
67.3 70.5 3.2 Evaporation Feed 22.3 -4 -285.44
Effect 1 Cow
3.2 Water 4 4.18 53.504
Effect 3 Cow
3.2 Water 2.8 4.18 37.4528
Concentrate
3.2 Heater 4.6 -3.1 -45.632
Main Air Heater
3.2 Inlet 39.6 -1.02 -129.2544
SFB Air Heater
3.2 Inlet 16.3 -1.02 -53.2032
Cyclone Recovery
3.2 Air Inlet 6 -1.02 -19.584
3.2 Main Air Exhaust 58.5 1.02 190.944
3.2 VF Air Exhaust 9.9 1.02 32.3136
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -218.8992
Raw Milk
70.5 70.8 0.3 Evaporation Feed 22.3 -4 -26.76
Effect 1 Cow
0.3 Water 4 4.18 5.016

194
 Effect 3 Cow
0.3 Water 2.8 4.18 3.5112
Concentrate
0.3 Heater 4.6 -3.1 -4.278
Main Air Heater
0.3 Inlet 39.6 -1.02 -12.1176
SFB Air Heater
0.3 Inlet 16.3 -1.02 -4.9878
Cyclone Recovery
0.3 Air Inlet 6 -1.02 -1.836
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -41.4522
Raw Milk
70.8 77.5 6.7 Evaporation Feed 22.3 -4 -597.64
Effect 1 Cow
6.7 Water 4 4.18 112.024
Concentrate
6.7 Heater 4.6 -3.1 -95.542
Main Air Heater
6.7 Inlet 39.6 -1.02 -270.6264
SFB Air Heater
6.7 Inlet 16.3 -1.02 -111.3942
Cyclone Recovery
6.7 Air Inlet 6 -1.02 -41.004
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -1004.1826
Effect 1 Cow
77.5 81 3.5 Water 4 4.18 58.52
Concentrate
3.5 Heater 4.6 -3.1 -49.91
Main Air Heater
3.5 Inlet 39.6 -1.02 -141.372
SFB Air Heater
3.5 Inlet 16.3 -1.02 -58.191
Cyclone Recovery
3.5 Air Inlet 6 -1.02 -21.42
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -212.373
Effect 1 Cow
81 83.8 2.8 Water 4 4.18 46.816

195
 Main Air Heater
2.8 Inlet 39.6 -1.02 -113.0976
SFB Air Heater
2.8 Inlet 16.3 -1.02 -46.5528
Cyclone Recovery
2.8 Air Inlet 6 -1.02 -17.136
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -129.9704
Main Air Heater
83.8 87.5 3.7 Inlet 39.6 -1.02 -149.4504
SFB Air Heater
3.7 Inlet 16.3 -1.02 -61.5162
Cyclone Recovery
3.7 Air Inlet 6 -1.02 -22.644
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -233.6106
SFB Air Heater
87.5 96 8.5 Inlet 16.3 -1.02 -141.321
Main Air Heater
8.5 Inlet 39.6 -1.02 -343.332
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -484.653
Main Air Heater
96 207 111 Inlet 39.6 -1.02 -4483.512
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -4483.512

196
 : Scenario Three, Dairy Specialty Plant Energy
Targets

Mass
Shifted Flow Net Rate of Change of
Temperature Rates Polynomial Coefficients A,B and C Enthalpy Per Interval
Intervals (°C) (kg/s) (j/g. °C). (kW)
Ts Tt ṁ A B C Del H
8 17.8 22.3 4.02 0.00058 0 -880.1659
Total -880.1659
17.8 22.5 22.3 4.02 0.00058 0 -422.5611
17.8 22.5 3 1.057 -0.00028 0 -14.82415
Total -437.3853
22.5 22.8 22.3 4.02 0.00058 0 -26.98169
22.5 22.8 -4 4.02 0.00058 0 4.8397644
22.5 22.8 -2.8 4.02 0.00058 0 3.3878351
22.5 22.8 -2.4 4.02 0.00058 0 2.9038586
22.5 22.8 -2 4.02 0.00058 0 2.4198822
22.5 22.8 -1.6 4.02 0.00058 0 1.9359058
22.5 22.8 -1.3 4.02 0.00058 0 1.5729234
22.5 22.8 3 1.057 -0.00028 0 -0.945592
Total -10.86711
22.8 27.5 22.3 4.02 0.00058 0 -422.8651
22.8 27.5 -4 4.02 0.00058 0 75.850236
22.8 27.5 -2.8 4.02 0.00058 0 53.095165
22.8 27.5 -2.4 4.02 0.00058 0 45.510141
22.8 27.5 -2 4.02 0.00058 0 37.925118
22.8 27.5 -1.6 4.02 0.00058 0 30.340094
22.8 27.5 -1.3 4.02 0.00058 0 24.651327
22.8 27.5 -3 1.057 -0.00028 0 14.804408
22.8 27.5 3 1.057 -0.00028 0 -14.80441
Total -155.493
27.5 37.5 22.3 4.02 0.00058 0 -900.6636
27.5 37.5 -4 4.02 0.00058 0 161.554
27.5 37.5 -2.8 4.02 0.00058 0 113.0878
27.5 37.5 -2.4 4.02 0.00058 0 96.9324
27.5 37.5 -2 4.02 0.00058 0 80.777
27.5 37.5 -1.6 4.02 0.00058 0 64.6216
27.5 37.5 -1.3 4.02 0.00058 0 52.50505
27.5 37.5 -3 1.057 -0.00028 0 31.437

197
 27.5 37.5 3 1.057 -0.00028 0 -31.437
27.5 37.5 -58.5 1.057 -0.00028 0 613.0215
27.5 37.5 -9.9 1.057 -0.00028 0 103.7421
Total 385.5779
37.5 42.5 22.3 4.02 0.00058 0 -450.8168
37.5 42.5 -4 4.02 0.00058 0 80.864
37.5 42.5 -2.8 4.02 0.00058 0 56.6048
37.5 42.5 -2.4 4.02 0.00058 0 48.5184
37.5 42.5 -2 4.02 0.00058 0 40.432
37.5 42.5 -1.6 4.02 0.00058 0 32.3456
37.5 42.5 -1.3 4.02 0.00058 0 26.2808
37.5 42.5 39.6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -207.0684
37.5 42.5 16.3 1.057 -0.00028 0 -85.2327
37.5 42.5 3.1 1.057 -0.00028 0 -16.2099
37.5 42.5 3.8 1.057 -0.00028 0 -19.8702
37.5 42.5 -3 1.057 -0.00028 0 15.687
37.5 42.5 3 1.057 -0.00028 0 -15.687
37.5 42.5 -58.5 1.057 -0.00028 0 305.8965
37.5 42.5 -9.9 1.057 -0.00028 0 51.7671
Total -136.4888
42.5 43.5 22.3 4.02 0.00058 0 -90.20216
42.5 43.5 -4 4.02 0.00058 0 16.17976
42.5 43.5 -2.8 4.02 0.00058 0 11.325832
42.5 43.5 -2.4 4.02 0.00058 0 9.707856
42.5 43.5 -2 4.02 0.00058 0 8.08988
42.5 43.5 -1.6 4.02 0.00058 0 6.471904
42.5 43.5 -1.3 4.02 0.00058 0 5.258422
42.5 43.5 39.6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -41.38042
42.5 43.5 16.3 1.057 -0.00028 0 -17.03285
42.5 43.5 3.1 1.057 -0.00028 0 -3.239376
42.5 43.5 3.8 1.057 -0.00028 0 -3.970848
42.5 43.5 3 1.057 -0.00028 0 -3.13488
42.5 43.5 -58.5 1.057 -0.00028 0 61.13016
42.5 43.5 -9.9 1.057 -0.00028 0 10.345104
Total -30.45161
43.5 46.3 22.3 4.02 0.00058 0 -252.6349
43.5 46.3 -4 4.02 0.00058 0 45.31567
43.5 46.3 -2.8 4.02 0.00058 0 31.720969
43.5 46.3 -2.4 4.02 0.00058 0 27.189402

198
 43.5 46.3 -2 4.02 0.00058 0 22.657835
43.5 46.3 -1.6 4.02 0.00058 0 18.126268
43.5 46.3 -1.3 4.02 0.00058 0 14.727593
43.5 46.3 39.6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -115.8062
43.5 46.3 16.3 1.057 -0.00028 0 -47.66769
43.5 46.3 3.1 1.057 -0.00028 0 -9.065635
43.5 46.3 3.8 1.057 -0.00028 0 -11.11271
43.5 46.3 -58.5 1.057 -0.00028 0 171.07731
43.5 46.3 -9.9 1.057 -0.00028 0 28.951544
Total -76.52049
46.3 56.8 22.3 4.02 0.00058 0 -948.2839
46.3 56.8 -4 4.02 0.00058 0 170.09576
46.3 56.8 -2.8 4.02 0.00058 0 119.06703
46.3 56.8 -2.4 4.02 0.00058 0 102.05745
46.3 56.8 -2 4.02 0.00058 0 85.047879
46.3 56.8 -1.6 4.02 0.00058 0 68.038303
46.3 56.8 -1.3 4.02 0.00058 0 55.281121
46.3 56.8 4.6 3.1 0 0 -149.73
46.3 56.8 39.6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -433.4989
46.3 56.8 16.3 1.057 -0.00028 0 -178.4352
46.3 56.8 3.1 1.057 -0.00028 0 -33.93552
46.3 56.8 3.8 1.057 -0.00028 0 -41.59838
46.3 56.8 -58.5 1.057 -0.00028 0 640.39617
46.3 56.8 -9.9 1.057 -0.00028 0 108.37474
Total -437.1234
56.8 57.3 22.3 4.02 0.00058 0 -45.19194
56.8 57.3 -4 4.02 0.00058 0 8.106178
56.8 57.3 -2.8 4.02 0.00058 0 5.6743246
56.8 57.3 -2.4 4.02 0.00058 0 4.8637068
56.8 57.3 -2 4.02 0.00058 0 4.053089
56.8 57.3 -1.6 4.02 0.00058 0 3.2424712
56.8 57.3 -1.3 4.02 0.00058 0 2.6345079
56.8 57.3 4.6 3.1 0 0 -7.13
56.8 57.3 39.6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -20.61231
56.8 57.3 16.3 1.057 -0.00028 0 -8.484362
56.8 57.3 3.8 1.057 -0.00028 0 -1.977949
56.8 57.3 -58.5 1.057 -0.00028 0 30.450011
56.8 57.3 -9.9 1.057 -0.00028 0 5.1530787
Total -19.2192

199
 57.3 57.5 22.3 4.02 0.00058 0 -18.07768
57.3 57.5 -4 4.02 0.00058 0 3.2426336
57.3 57.5 -2.8 4.02 0.00058 0 2.2698435
57.3 57.5 -2.4 4.02 0.00058 0 1.9455802
57.3 57.5 -2 4.02 0.00058 0 1.6213168
57.3 57.5 -1.6 4.02 0.00058 0 1.2970534
57.3 57.5 -1.3 4.02 0.00058 0 1.0538559
57.3 57.5 -1.3 2368.05 0 0 615.693
57.3 57.5 4.6 3.1 0 0 -2.852
57.3 57.5 39.6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -8.24415
57.3 57.5 16.3 1.057 -0.00028 0 -3.393425
57.3 57.5 3.8 1.057 -0.00028 0 -0.791105
57.3 57.5 -58.5 1.057 -0.00028 0 12.178858
57.3 57.5 -9.9 1.057 -0.00028 0 2.0610374
Total 608.00482
57.5 58.3 22.3 4.02 0.00058 0 -72.3159
57.5 58.3 -4 4.02 0.00058 0 12.971462
57.5 58.3 -2.8 4.02 0.00058 0 9.0800237
57.5 58.3 -2.4 4.02 0.00058 0 7.7828774
57.5 58.3 -2 4.02 0.00058 0 6.4857312
57.5 58.3 -1.6 4.02 0.00058 0 5.188585
57.5 58.3 -1.3 4.02 0.00058 0 4.2157253
57.5 58.3 -1.3 2368.05 0 0 2462.772
57.5 58.3 4.6 3.1 0 0 -11.408
57.5 58.3 39.6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -32.97216
57.5 58.3 16.3 1.057 -0.00028 0 -13.57188
57.5 58.3 3.8 1.057 -0.00028 0 -3.163996
57.5 58.3 6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -4.995782
57.5 58.3 -58.5 1.057 -0.00028 0 48.708878
57.5 58.3 -9.9 1.057 -0.00028 0 8.243041
Total 2427.0206
58.3 60 22.3 4.02 0.00058 0 -153.6988
58.3 60 -4 4.02 0.00058 0 27.569288
58.3 60 -2.8 4.02 0.00058 0 19.298501
58.3 60 -2.4 4.02 0.00058 0 16.541573
58.3 60 -1.6 4.02 0.00058 0 11.027715
58.3 60 4.6 3.1 0 0 -24.242
58.3 60 39.6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -70.04229
58.3 60 16.3 1.057 -0.00028 0 -28.83054

200
 58.3 60 3.8 1.057 -0.00028 0 -6.721229
58.3 60 6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -10.61247
58.3 60 -58.5 1.057 -0.00028 0 103.47156
58.3 60 -9.9 1.057 -0.00028 0 17.510572
Total -98.72809
60 61.3 22.3 4.02 0.00058 0 -117.5596
60 61.3 -4 4.02 0.00058 0 21.08692
60 61.3 -2.8 4.02 0.00058 0 14.760844
60 61.3 -2.4 4.02 0.00058 0 12.652152
60 61.3 4.6 3.1 0 0 -18.538
60 61.3 39.6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -53.54013
60 61.3 16.3 1.057 -0.00028 0 -22.03798
60 61.3 3.8 1.057 -0.00028 0 -5.137689
60 61.3 6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -8.11214
60 61.3 -58.5 1.057 -0.00028 0 79.093369
60 61.3 -9.9 1.057 -0.00028 0 13.385032
Total -83.9472
61.3 64.5 22.3 4.02 0.00058 0 -289.4706
61.3 64.5 -4 4.02 0.00058 0 51.92297
61.3 64.5 -2.8 4.02 0.00058 0 36.346079
61.3 64.5 -2.4 4.02 0.00058 0 31.153782
61.3 64.5 4.6 3.1 0 0 -45.632
61.3 64.5 39.6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -131.7112
61.3 64.5 16.3 1.057 -0.00028 0 -54.21448
61.3 64.5 3.8 1.057 -0.00028 0 -12.63896
61.3 64.5 6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -19.95625
61.3 64.5 -58.5 1.057 -0.00028 0 194.57343
61.3 64.5 -9.9 1.057 -0.00028 0 32.927812
Total -206.6994
64.5 67.3 22.3 4.02 0.00058 0 -253.3954
64.5 67.3 -4 4.02 0.00058 0 45.452086
64.5 67.3 -2.8 4.02 0.00058 0 31.81646
64.5 67.3 -2.4 4.02 0.00058 0 27.271252
64.5 67.3 4.6 3.1 0 0 -39.928
64.5 67.3 39.6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -115.1542
64.5 67.3 16.3 1.057 -0.00028 0 -47.39933
64.5 67.3 6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -17.44761
64.5 67.3 -58.5 1.057 -0.00028 0 170.11416
64.5 67.3 -9.9 1.057 -0.00028 0 28.788551

201
Total -169.882
67.3 70.5 22.3 4.02 0.00058 0 -289.7189
67.3 70.5 -4 4.02 0.00058 0 51.967514
67.3 70.5 -2.8 4.02 0.00058 0 36.37726
67.3 70.5 4.6 3.1 0 0 -45.632
67.3 70.5 39.6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -131.4984
67.3 70.5 16.3 1.057 -0.00028 0 -54.12685
67.3 70.5 6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -19.92399
67.3 70.5 -58.5 1.057 -0.00028 0 194.25894
67.3 70.5 -9.9 1.057 -0.00028 0 32.874589
Total -225.4218
70.5 70.8 22.3 4.02 0.00058 0 -27.16794
70.5 70.8 -4 4.02 0.00058 0 4.8731724
70.5 70.8 -2.8 4.02 0.00058 0 3.4112207
70.5 70.8 4.6 3.1 0 0 -4.278
70.5 70.8 39.6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -12.32215
70.5 70.8 16.3 1.057 -0.00028 0 -5.071996
70.5 70.8 6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -1.866992
Total -42.42268
70.8 77.5 22.3 4.02 0.00058 0 -607.0539
70.8 77.5 -4 4.02 0.00058 0 108.88859
70.8 77.5 4.6 3.1 0 0 -95.542
70.8 77.5 39.6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -274.9347
70.8 77.5 16.3 1.057 -0.00028 0 -113.1676
70.8 77.5 6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -41.65677
Total -1023.466
77.5 81 -4 4.02 0.00058 0 56.92351
77.5 81 4.6 3.1 0 0 -49.91
77.5 81 39.6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -143.4247
77.5 81 16.3 1.057 -0.00028 0 -59.03591
77.5 81 6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -21.73101
Total -217.1781
81 83.8 -4 4.02 0.00058 0 45.55927
81 83.8 39.6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -114.6419
81 83.8 16.3 1.057 -0.00028 0 -47.18847
81 83.8 6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -17.36999
Total -133.6411
83.8 87.5 39.6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -151.3578
83.8 87.5 16.3 1.057 -0.00028 0 -62.30132

202
 83.8 87.5 6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -22.933
Total -236.5921
87.5 96 16.3 1.057 -0.00028 0 -142.888
87.5 96 39.6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -347.1389
Total -490.0269
96 207 39.6 1.057 -0.00028 0 -4459.688
Total -4459.688

203
 : Scenario Four, Dairy Specialty Plant Energy Targets

Shifted
Interval temperature Initial Final Mass Computed
Number interval Compound temperature temperature flow rate A B C Enthalpy
VF3 Air Inlet
1 279.15-280.15 279.95 280.15 3
(Dehumid) 1.02 0 0 -0.612
Raw Milk
2 280.15-294.15 280.15 294.65 22.3
Evaporation Feed 4 0 -1293.4
VF3 Air Inlet
3 280.15-294.15 280.15 294.65 3
(Dehumid) 1.02 0 0 -44.37
Raw Milk
4 294.15-299.65 294.65 299.65 22.3
Evaporation Feed 4 0 0 -446
VF3 Air Inlet
5 294.15-299.65 294.65 299.65 3
(Dehumid) 1.02 0 0 -15.3

6 294.15-299.65 Effect 1 Cow Water 299.65 294.65 4

4.18 0 0 83.6

7 294.15-299.65 Effect 3 Cow Water 299.65 294.65 2.8

4.18 0 0 58.52

8 294.15-299.65 Effect 4 Cow Water 299.65 294.65 2.4

4.18 0 0 50.16

9 294.15-299.65 Effect 5 Cow Water 299.65 294.65 2

4.18 0 0 41.8

10 294.15-299.65 Effect 6 Cow Water 299.65 294.65 1.6

4.18 0 0 33.44

11 294.15-299.65 Effect 7 Cow Water 299.65 294.65 1.3

4.18 0 0 27.17
Raw Milk
12 299.65-304.95 299.65 304.95 22.3
Evaporation Feed 4 0 0 -472.76

13 299.65-304.95 Main Air Heater Inlet 299.65 304.95 39.6

1.02 0 0 -214.0776

204
14 299.65-304.95 SFB Air Heater Inlet 299.65 304.95 16.3
1.02 0 0 -88.1178

15 299.65-304.95 VF1 Air Inlet 299.65 304.95 3.1

0 0

16 299.65-304.95 VF2 Inlet Air 299.65 304.95 3.8

4.02 0 0 -80.9628
VF3 Air Inlet
17 299.65-304.95 299.65 304.95 3
(Dehumid) 1.02 0 0 -16.218
VF3 Air Inlet
18 299.65-304.95 304.95 299.65 3
(Dehumid) 1.02 0 0 16.218

VF3 Air Inlet

19 299.65-304.95 299.65 304.95 3
(Dehumid)
1.02 0 0 -16.218

20 299.65-304.95 Effect 1 Cow Water 304.95 299.65 4

4.18 0 0 88.616

21 299.65-304.95 Effect 3 Cow Water 304.95 299.65 2.8

4.18 0 0 62.0312

22 299.65-304.95 Effect 4 Cow Water 304.95 299.65 2.4

4.18 0 0 53.1696

23 299.65-304.95 Effect 5 Cow Water 304.95 299.65 2

4.18 0 0 44.308

24 299.65-304.95 Effect 6 Cow Water 304.95 299.65 1.6

4.18 0 0 35.4464

25 299.65-304.95 Effect 7 Cow Water 304.95 299.65 1.3

4.18 0 0 28.8002
Raw Milk
26 304.95-305.65 304.95 305.65 22.3
Evaporation Feed 4 0 0 -62.44

27 304.95-305.65 Main Air Heater Inlet 304.95 305.65 39.6

1.02 0 0 -28.2744

28 304.95-305.65 SFB Air Heater Inlet 304.95 305.65 16.3

1.02 0 0 -11.6382

205
29 304.95-305.65 VF1 Air Inlet 304.95 305.65 3.1
4.02 0 0 -8.7234

30 304.95-305.65 VF2 Inlet Air 304.95 305.65 3.8

4.02 0 0 -10.6932
VF3 Air Inlet
31 304.95-305.65 304.95 305.65 3
(Dehumid) 1.02 0 0 -2.142

32 304.95-305.65 Effect 1 Cow Water 305.65 304.95 4

4.18 0 0 11.704

33 304.95-305.65 Effect 3 Cow Water 305.65 304.95 2.8

4.18 0 0 8.1928

34 304.95-305.65 Effect 4 Cow Water 305.65 304.95 2.4

4.18 0 0 7.0224

35 304.95-305.65 Effect 5 Cow Water 305.65 304.95 2

4.18 0 0 5.852

36 304.95-305.65 Effect 6 Cow Water 305.65 304.95 1.6

4.18 0 0 4.6816

37 304.95-305.65 Effect 7 Cow Water 305.65 304.95 1.3

4.18 0 0 3.8038

38 304.95-305.65 VF3 Air Inlet 305.65 304.95 3

1.02 0 0 2.142
Raw Milk
39 305.65-309.65 305.65 309.65 22.3
Evaporation Feed 4 0 0 -356.8

40 305.65-309.65 Main Air Heater Inlet 305.65 309.65 39.6

1.02 0 0 -161.568

41 305.65-309.65 SFB Air Heater Inlet 305.65 309.65 16.3

1.02 0 0 -66.504

42 305.65-309.65 VF1 Air Inlet 305.65 309.65 3.1

4.02 0 0 -49.848

43 305.65-309.65 VF2 Inlet Air 305.65 309.65 3.8

4.02 0 0 -61.104

44 305.65-309.65 Effect 1 Cow Water 309.65 305.65 4

4.18 0 0 66.88

206
45 305.65-309.65 Effect 3 Cow Water 309.65 305.65 2.8
4.18 0 0 46.816

46 305.65-309.65 Effect 4 Cow Water 309.65 305.65 2.4

4.18 0 0 40.128

47 305.65-309.65 Effect 5 Cow Water 309.65 305.65 2

4.18 0 0 33.44

48 305.65-309.65 Effect 6 Cow Water 309.65 305.65 1.6

4.18 0 0 26.752

49 305.65-309.65 Effect 7 Cow Water 309.65 305.65 1.3

4.18 0 0 21.736

50 305.65-309.65 VF3 Air Inlet 309.65 305.65 3

1.02 0 0 12.24
Raw Milk
51 309.65-318.45 309.65 318.45 22.3
Evaporation Feed 4 0 0 -784.96

52 309.65-318.45 Main Air Heater Inlet 309.65 318.45 39.6

1.02 0 0 -355.4496

53 309.65-318.45 SFB Air Heater Inlet 309.65 318.45 16.3

1.02 0 0 -146.3088

54 309.65-318.45 VF1 Air Inlet 309.65 318.45 3.1

4.02 0 0 -109.6656

55 309.65-318.45 VF2 Inlet Air 309.65 318.45 3.8

4.02 0 0 -134.4288

56 309.65-318.45 Effect 1 Cow Water 318.45 309.65 4

4.18 0 0 147.136

57 309.65-318.45 Effect 3 Cow Water 318.45 309.65 2.8

4.18 0 0 102.9952

58 309.65-318.45 Effect 4 Cow Water 318.45 309.65 2.4

4.18 0 0 88.2816

59 309.65-318.45 Effect 5 Cow Water 318.45 309.65 2

4.18 0 0 73.568

60 309.65-318.45 Effect 6 Cow Water 318.45 309.65 1.6

4.18 0 0 58.8544

207
61 309.65-318.45 Effect 7 Cow Water 318.45 309.65 1.3
4.18 0 0 47.8192

62 309.65-318.45 VF3 Air Inlet 318.45 309.65 3

1.02 0 0 26.928

63 309.65-318.45 Main Air Exhaust 318.45 309.65 58.5

1.02 0 0 525.096
64 309.65-318.45 VF Air Exhaust 318.45 309.65 9.9 1.02 0 0 88.8624
Raw Milk
65 318.45 - 318.95 318.45 318.95 22.3
Evaporation Feed 4 0 0 -44.6
66 318.45 - 318.95 Concentrate Heater 318.45 318.95 4.6 3.1 0 0 -7.13
67 318.45 - 318.95 Main Air Heater Inlet 318.45 318.95 39.6 1.02 0 0 -20.196
68 318.45 - 318.95 SFB Air Heater Inlet 318.45 318.95 16.3 1.02 0 0 -8.313
69 318.45 - 318.95 VF1 Air Inlet 318.45 318.95 3.1 4.02 0 0 -6.231
70 318.45 - 318.95 VF2 Inlet Air 318.45 318.95 3.8 4.02 0 0 -7.638
71 318.45 - 318.95 Effect 1 Cow Water 318.95 318.45 4 4.18 0 0 8.36
72 318.45 - 318.95 Effect 3 Cow Water 318.95 318.45 2.8 4.18 0 0 5.852
73 318.45 - 318.95 Effect 4 Cow Water 318.95 318.45 2.4 4.18 0 0 5.016
74 318.45 - 318.95 Effect 5 Cow Water 318.95 318.45 2 4.18 0 0 4.18
75 318.45 - 318.95 Effect 6 Cow Water 318.95 318.45 1.6 4.18 0 0 3.344
76 318.45 - 318.95 Effect 7 Cow Water 318.95 318.45 1.3 4.18 0 0 2.717
77 318.45 - 318.95 VF3 Air Inlet 318.95 318.45 3 1.02 0 0 1.53
78 318.45 - 318.95 Main Air Exhaust 318.95 318.45 58.5 1.02 0 0 29.835
79 318.45 - 318.95 VF Air Exhaust 318.95 318.45 9.9 1.02 0 0 5.049
Raw Milk
80 318.95-319.65 318.95 319.65 22.3
Evaporation Feed 4 0 0 -62.44
81 318.95-319.65 Concentrate Heater 318.95 319.65 4.6 3.1 0 0 -9.982
82 318.95-319.65 Main Air Heater Inlet 318.95 319.65 39.6 1.02 0 0 -28.2744
83 318.95-319.65 SFB Air Heater Inlet 318.95 319.65 16.3 1.02 0 0 -11.6382

208
 84 318.95-319.65 VF2 Inlet Air 318.95 319.65 3.8 4.02 0 0 -10.6932
85 318.95-319.65 Effect 1 Cow Water 319.65 318.95 4 4.18 0 0 11.704
86 318.95-319.65 Effect 3 Cow Water 319.65 318.95 2.8 4.18 0 0 8.1928
87 318.95-319.65 Effect 4 Cow Water 319.65 318.95 2.4 4.18 0 0 7.0224
88 318.95-319.65 Effect 5 Cow Water 319.65 318.95 2 4.18 0 0 5.852
89 318.95-319.65 Effect 6 Cow Water 319.65 318.95 1.6 4.18 0 0 4.6816
90 318.95-319.65 Effect 7 Cow Water 319.65 318.95 1.3 4.18 0 0 3.8038
91 318.95-319.65 VF3 Air Inlet 319.65 318.95 3 1.02 0 0 2.142
92 318.95-319.65 Main Air Exhaust 319.65 318.95 58.5 1.02 0 0 41.769
93 318.95-319.65 VF Air Exhaust 319.65 318.95 9.9 1.02 0 0 7.0686
Raw Milk
94 319.65-324.65 319.65 324.65 22.3
Evaporation Feed 4 0 0 -446
95 319.65-324.65 Concentrate Heater 319.65 324.65 4.6 3.1 0 0 -71.3
96 319.65-324.65 Main Air Heater Inlet 319.65 324.65 39.6 1.02 0 0 -201.96
97 319.65-324.65 SFB Air Heater Inlet 319.65 324.65 16.3 1.02 0 0 -83.13
98 319.65-324.65 VF2 Inlet Air 319.65 324.65 3.8 4.02 0 0 -76.38
Cyclone Recovery Air
99 319.65-324.65 319.65 324.65 6
Inlet 1.02 0 0 -30.6
100 319.65-324.65 Effect 1 Cow Water 324.65 319.65 4 4.18 0 0 83.6
101 319.65-324.65 Effect 3 Cow Water 324.65 319.65 2.8 4.18 0 0 58.52
102 319.65-324.65 Effect 4 Cow Water 324.65 319.65 2.4 4.18 0 0 50.16
103 319.65-324.65 Effect 5 Cow Water 324.65 319.65 2 4.18 0 0 41.8
104 319.65-324.65 Effect 6 Cow Water 324.65 319.65 1.6 4.18 0 0 33.44
105 319.65-324.65 Effect 7 Cow Water 324.65 319.65 1.3 4.18 0 0 27.17
106 319.65-324.65 VF3 Air Inlet 324.65 319.65 3 1.02 0 0 15.3
107 319.65-324.65 Main Air Exhaust 324.65 319.65 58.5 1.02 0 0 298.35
108 319.65-324.65 VF Air Exhaust 324.65 319.65 9.9 1.02 0 0 50.49

209
 Raw Milk
109 324.65-326.65 324.65 326.65 22.3
Evaporation Feed 4 0 0 -178.4
110 324.65-326.65 Concentrate Heater 324.65 326.65 4.6 3.1 0 0 -28.52
111 324.65-326.65 Main Air Heater Inlet 324.65 326.65 39.6 1.02 0 0 -80.784
112 324.65-326.65 SFB Air Heater Inlet 324.65 326.65 16.3 1.02 0 0 -33.252
113 324.65-326.65 VF2 Inlet Air 324.65 326.65 3.8 4.02 0 0 -30.552
Cyclone Recovery Air
114 324.65-326.65 324.65 326.65 6
Inlet 1.02 0 0 -12.24
115 324.65-326.65 Effect 1 Cow Water 326.65 324.65 4 4.18 0 0 33.44
116 324.65-326.65 Effect 3 Cow Water 326.65 324.65 2.8 4.18 0 0 23.408
117 324.65-326.65 Effect 4 Cow Water 326.65 324.65 2.4 4.18 0 0 20.064
118 324.65-326.65 Effect 5 Cow Water 326.65 324.65 2 4.18 0 0 16.72
119 324.65-326.65 Effect 6 Cow Water 326.65 324.65 1.6 4.18 0 0 13.376
120 324.65-326.65 Effect 7 Cow Water 326.65 324.65 1.3 4.18 0 0 10.868
121 324.65-326.65 Main Air Exhaust 326.65 324.65 58.5 1.02 0 0 119.34
122 324.65-326.65 VF Air Exhaust 326.65 324.65 9.9 1.02 0 0 20.196
Raw Milk
123 326.65-327.95 326.65 327.95 22.3
Evaporation Feed 4 0 0 -115.96
124 326.65-327.95 Concentrate Heater 326.65 327.95 4.6 3.1 0 0 -18.538
125 326.65-327.95 Main Air Heater Inlet 326.65 327.95 39.6 1.02 0 0 -52.5096
126 326.65-327.95 SFB Air Heater Inlet 326.65 327.95 16.3 1.02 0 0 -21.6138
Cyclone Recovery Air
127 326.65-327.95 326.65 327.95 6
Inlet 1.02 0 0 -7.956
128 326.65-327.95 Effect 1 Cow Water 327.95 326.65 4 4.18 0 0 21.736
129 326.65-327.95 Effect 3 Cow Water 327.95 326.65 2.8 4.18 0 0 15.2152
130 326.65-327.95 Effect 4 Cow Water 327.95 326.65 2.4 4.18 0 0 13.0416
131 326.65-327.95 Effect 5 Cow Water 327.95 326.65 2 4.18 0 0 10.868
132 326.65-327.95 Effect 6 Cow Water 327.95 326.65 1.6 4.18 0 0 8.6944

210
133 326.65-327.95 Effect 7 Cow Water 327.95 326.65 1.3 4.18 0 0 7.0642
134 326.65-327.95 Main Air Exhaust 327.95 326.65 58.5 1.02 0 0 77.571
135 326.65-327.95 VF Air Exhaust 327.95 326.65 9.9 1.02 0 0 13.1274
Raw Milk
136 327.95-328.95 327.95 328.95 22.3
Evaporation Feed 4 0 0 -89.2
137 327.95-328.95 Concentrate Heater 327.95 328.95 4.6 3.1 0 0 -14.26
138 327.95-328.95 Main Air Heater Inlet 327.95 328.95 39.6 1.02 0 0 -40.392
139 327.95-328.95 SFB Air Heater Inlet 327.95 328.95 16.3 1.02 0 0 -16.626
Cyclone Recovery Air
140 327.95-328.95 327.95 328.95 6
Inlet 1.02 0 0 -6.12
141 327.95-328.95 Effect 1 Cow Water 328.95 327.95 4 4.18 0 0 16.72
142 327.95-328.95 Effect 3 Cow Water 328.95 327.95 2.8 4.18 0 0 11.704
143 327.95-328.95 Effect 4 Cow Water 328.95 327.95 2.4 4.18 0 0 10.032
144 327.95-328.95 Effect 5 Cow Water 328.95 327.95 2 4.18 0 0 8.36
145 327.95-328.95 Effect 6 Cow Water 328.95 327.95 1.6 4.18 0 0 6.688
2368.
146 327.95-328.95 Effect 7 Cow Vapour 328.95 327.95 1.3
05 0 0 3078.465
147 327.95-328.95 Effect 7 Cow Water 328.95 327.95 1.3 4.18 0 0 5.434
148 327.95-328.95 Main Air Exhaust 328.95 327.95 58.5 1.02 0 0 59.67
149 327.95-328.95 VF Air Exhaust 328.95 327.95 9.9 1.02 0 0 10.098
Raw Milk
150 328.95-330.45 328.95 330.45 22.3
Evaporation Feed 4 0 0 -133.8
151 328.95-330.45 Concentrate Heater 328.95 330.45 4.6 3.1 0 0 -21.39
152 328.95-330.45 Main Air Heater Inlet 328.95 330.45 39.6 1.02 0 0 -60.588
153 328.95-330.45 SFB Air Heater Inlet 328.95 330.45 16.3 1.02 0 0 -24.939
Cyclone Recovery Air
154 328.95-330.45 328.95 330.45 6
Inlet 1.02 0 0 -9.18
155 328.95-330.45 Effect 1 Cow Water 330.45 328.95 4 4.18 0 0 25.08

211
156 328.95-330.45 Effect 3 Cow Water 330.45 328.95 2.8 4.18 0 0 17.556
157 328.95-330.45 Effect 4 Cow Water 330.45 328.95 2.4 4.18 0 0 15.048
158 328.95-330.45 Effect 5 Cow Water 330.45 328.95 2 4.18 0 0 12.54
159 328.95-330.45 Effect 6 Cow Water 330.45 328.95 1.6 4.18 0 0 10.032
160 328.95-330.45 Effect 7 Cow Water 330.45 328.95 1.3 4.18 0 0 8.151
161 328.95-330.45 Main Air Exhaust 330.45 328.95 58.5 1.02 0 0 89.505
162 328.95-330.45 VF Air Exhaust 330.45 328.95 9.9 1.02 0 0 15.147
Raw Milk
163 330.45-332.15 330.45 332.15 22.3
Evaporation Feed 4 0 0 -151.64
164 330.45-332.15 Concentrate Heater 330.45 332.15 4.6 3.1 0 0 -24.242
165 330.45-332.15 Main Air Heater Inlet 330.45 332.15 39.6 1.02 0 0 -68.6664
166 330.45-332.15 SFB Air Heater Inlet 330.45 332.15 16.3 1.02 0 0 -28.2642
Cyclone Recovery Air
167 330.45-332.15 330.45 332.15 6
Inlet 1.02 0 0 -10.404
168 330.45-332.15 Effect 1 Cow Water 332.15 330.45 4 4.18 0 0 28.424
169 330.45-332.15 Effect 3 Cow Water 332.15 330.45 2.8 4.18 0 0 19.8968
170 330.45-332.15 Effect 4 Cow Water 332.15 330.45 2.4 4.18 0 0 17.0544
171 330.45-332.15 Effect 5 Cow Water 332.15 330.45 2 4.18 0 0 14.212
172 330.45-332.15 Effect 6 Cow Water 332.15 330.45 1.6 4.18 0 0 11.3696
173 330.45-332.15 Main Air Exhaust 332.15 330.45 58.5 1.02 0 0 101.439
174 330.45-332.15 VF Air Exhaust 332.15 330.45 9.9 1.02 0 0 17.1666
Raw Milk
175 332.15-333.45 332.15 333.45 22.3
Evaporation Feed 4 0 0 -115.96
176 332.15-333.45 Concentrate Heater 332.15 333.45 4.6 3.1 0 0 -18.538
177 332.15-333.45 Main Air Heater Inlet 332.15 333.45 39.6 1.02 0 0 -52.5096
178 332.15-333.45 SFB Air Heater Inlet 332.15 333.45 16.3 1.02 0 0 -21.6138
Cyclone Recovery Air
179 332.15-333.45 332.15 333.45 6
Inlet 1.02 0 -7.956

212
 Raw Milk
180 333.45-339.45 333.45 339.45 22.3
Evaporation Feed 4 0 0 -535.2
181 333.45-339.45 Concentrate Heater 333.45 339.45 4.6 4.02 0 0 -110.952
182 333.45-339.45 Main Air Heater Inlet 333.45 339.45 39.6 1.02 0 0 -242.352
183 333.45-339.45 SFB Air Heater Inlet 333.45 339.45 16.3 1.02 0 0 -99.756
Cyclone Recovery Air
184 333.45-339.45 333.45 339.45 6
Inlet 1.02 0 0 -36.72
185 333.45-339.45 Effect 1 Cow Water 339.45 333.45 4 4.18 0 0 100.32
186 333.45-339.45 Effect 3 Cow Water 339.45 333.45 2.8 4.18 0 0 70.224
187 333.45-339.45 Effect 4 Cow Water 339.45 333.45 2.4 4.18 0 0 60.192
188 333.45-339.45 Main Air Exhaust 339.45 333.45 58.5 1.02 0 0 358.02
189 333.45-339.45 VF Air Exhaust 339.45 333.45 9.9 1.02 0 0 60.588
Raw Milk
190 339.45-342.95 339.45 342.95 22.3
Evaporation Feed 4 0 0 -312.2
191 339.45-342.95 Concentrate Heater 339.45 342.95 4.6 3.1 0 0 -49.91
192 339.45-342.95 Main Air Heater Inlet 339.45 342.95 39.6 1.02 0 0 -141.372
193 339.45-342.95 SFB Air Heater Inlet 339.45 342.95 16.3 1.02 0 0 -58.191
Cyclone Recovery Air
194 339.45-342.95 339.45 342.95 6
Inlet 1.02 0 0 -21.42
195 339.45-342.95 Effect 1 Cow Water 342.95 339.45 4 4.18 0 0 58.52
196 339.45-342.95 Effect 3 Cow Water 342.95 339.45 2.8 4.18 0 0 40.964
197 339.45-342.95 Main Air Exhaust 342.95 339.45 58.5 1.02 0 0 208.845
198 339.45-342.95 VF Air Exhaust 342.95 339.45 9.9 1.02 0 0 35.343
Raw Milk
199 342.95-349.65 342.95 349.65 22.3
Evaporation Feed 4 0 0 -597.64
200 342.95-349.65 Concentrate Heater 342.95 349.65 4.6 3.1 0 0 -95.542
201 342.95-349.65 Main Air Heater Inlet 342.95 349.65 39.6 1.02 0 0 -270.6264
202 342.95-349.65 SFB Air Heater Inlet 342.95 349.65 16.3 1.02 0 0 -111.3942

213
 Cyclone Recovery Air
203 342.95-349.65 342.95 349.65 6
Inlet 1.02 0 0 -41.004
204 342.95-349.65 Effect 1 Cow Water 349.65 342.95 4 4.18 0 0 112.024
205 342.95-349.65 Main Air Exhaust 349.65 342.95 58.5 1.02 0 0 399.789
206 342.95-349.65 VF Air Exhaust 349.65 342.95 9.9 1.02 0 0 67.6566
207 349.65-352.65 Concentrate Heater 349.65 352.65 4.6 3.1 0 0 -42.78
208 349.65-352.65 Main Air Heater Inlet 349.65 352.65 39.6 1.02 0 0 -121.176
209 349.65-352.65 SFB Air Heater Inlet 349.65 352.65 16.3 1.02 0 0 -49.878
210 349.65-352.65 Effect 1 Cow Water 352.65 349.65 4 4.18 0 0 50.16
211 349.65-352.65 Main Air Exhaust 352.65 349.65 58.5 1.02 0 0 179.01
212 349.65-352.65 VF Air Exhaust 352.65 349.65 9.9 1.02 0 0 30.294
213 352.65-353.15 Concentrate Heater 352.65 353.15 4.6 3.1 0 0 -7.13
214 352.65-353.15 Main Air Heater Inlet 352.65 353.15 39.6 1.02 0 0 -20.196
215 352.65-353.15 SFB Air Heater Inlet 352.65 353.15 16.3 1.02 0 0 -8.313
216 352.65-353.15 Effect 1 Cow Water 353.15 352.65 4 4.18 0 0 8.36
217 353.15-355.95 Main Air Heater Inlet 353.15 355.95 39.6 1.02 0 0 -113.0976
218 353.15-355.95 SFB Air Heater Inlet 353.15 355.95 16.3 1.02 0 0 -46.5528
219 353.15-355.95 Effect 1 Cow Water 355.95 353.15 4 4.18 0 0 46.816
220 355.95-358.15 Main Air Heater Inlet 355.95 358.15 39.6 1.02 0 0 -88.8624
221 355.95-358.15 SFB Air Heater Inlet 355.95 358.15 16.3 1.02 0 0 -36.5772
222 358.15-469.15 Main Air Heater Inlet 358.15 469.15 39.6 1.02 0 0 -4483.512

214
 :Scenario One, Plant A Energy Targets

Shifted
Temperature Mass Flow Polynomial Temperature Coefficients of Heat Deficit/Surplus
Interval Rates Cp Product Per Interval (kW)
Ts Tt ṁ Stream A b C S Del H
Reactor Stage Two
868.15 849.15 0.7888 0.24 0.0018 -2.155E-06
Cooling 3.767416 2.971737772
2.971737772
Sulfur dioxide
849.15 817.15 0.9933 0.373 0.001 -7.7E-07
cooling 21.50822 21.36411495
Reactor Stage Two
849.15 817.15 0.7888 0.24 0.002
Cooling -0.0000022 12.17709 9.605285261
30.96940021
Sulfur dioxide
0.9933 0.373 0.001 -7.7E-07
817.15 811.15 cooling 4.063627 4.036400349
Reactor Stage One
0.8638 0.24 0.002
817.15 811.15 Cooling -0.0000022 2.469019 2.132738607
Reactor Stage Two
0.7888 0.24 0.002
817.15 811.15 Cooling -0.0000022 2.469019 1.947562182
8.116701138
Sulfur dioxide
811.15 768.15 0.9933 0.373 0.001 -7.7E-07
cooling 29.36385 29.167116
Reactor Stage One
811.15 768.15 0.8638 0.24 0.002
Cooling -0.0000022 19.28677 16.65991025
Reactor Stage Two
811.15 768.15 0.7888 0.24 0.002
Cooling -0.0000022 19.28677 15.21340265
61.0404289
Reactor Stage Two
768.15 739.15 0.8638 0.24 0.002
Cooling -0.0000022 14.46582 12.49557172
Reactor Stage Two
768.15 739.15 0.7888 0.24 0.002
Cooling -0.0000022 14.46582 11.41063553
23.90620725

215
 Reactor Stage Two
739.15 736.15 0.7888 0.24 0.002
Cooling -0.0000022 1.558245 1.229143378
Reactor Stage One
739.15 736.15 0.8638 0.24 0.002
Cooling -0.0000022 1.558245 1.346011727
Reactor Stage
739.15 736.15 0.6867 0.24 0.002
Three Cooling -0.0000022 1.558245 1.0700466
3.645201705
First Stage Cooling
736.15 733.15 0.4456 0.24 0.002
of Sulfur Trioxide -0.0000022 1.569367 0.699309951
Reactor Stage One
736.15 733.15 0.8638 0.24 0.002
Cooling -0.0000022 1.569367 1.355619246
Reactor Stage Two
736.15 733.15 0.7888 0.24 0.002
Cooling -0.0000022 1.569367 1.237916718
3.292845916
First Stage Cooling
733.15 486.15 0.4456 0.24 0.002
of Sulfur Trioxide -0.0000022 155.922 69.47882725
Reactor Stage Two
733.15 486.15 0.7888 0.24 0.002
Cooling -0.0000022 155.922 122.9912454
192.4700726
First Stage Cooling
486.15 479.15 0.24 0.002
0.4456 of Sulfur Trioxide -0.0000022 4.853179 2.162576508
2.162576508
Second Stage
479.15 472.15 Cooling of Sulfur 0.24 0.002
0.4345 Trioxide -0.0000022 4.85838 2.110966246
2.110966246
Second Stage
472.15 431.15 0.4345 Cooling of Sulfur 0.24 0.002
Trioxide -0.0000022 28.48138 12.37516145
472.15 431.15 1.2348 Process air cooling 1.03409 -0.00027 0 37.39792 46.17895717
58.55411863
Second Stage
431.15 418.15 0.4345 Cooling of Sulfur 0.24 0.002
Trioxide -0.0000022 9.008285 3.914099826

216
431.15 418.15 1.2348 Process air cooling 1.03409 -0.00027 0 11.95265 14.75913037
Further heating of
431.15 418.15 -0.417 1.7883 0.001067 0
Regeneration steam 29.13822 -12.1506378
Further heating of
431.15 418.15 -0.417 Sulfur lagging 1.7883 0.001067 0
steam 29.13822 -12.1506378
-5.628045411
Further heating of
418.15 374.15 -1.302778 0.73 0 0
molten sulfur 32.12 -41.84522936
Second Stage
418.15 374.15 0.4345 Cooling of Sulfur 0.24 0.002
Trioxide -0.0000022 30.2295 13.13471733
418.15 374.15 1.2348 Process air cooling 1.03409 -0.00027 0 40.7937 50.37205829
Further heating of
418.15 374.15 -0.417 1.7883 0.001067 0
Regeneration steam 97.28365 -40.56728213
Further heating of
418.15 374.15 -0.417 Sulfur lagging 1.7883 0.001067 0
steam 97.28365 -40.56728213
-59.47301801
374.15 373.15 -1.302778 Melting of Sulfur 54 0 0 54 -70.350012
Second Stage
374.15 373.15 0.4345 Cooling of Sulfur 0.24 0.002
Trioxide -0.0000022 0.680455 0.295657897
374.15 373.15 1.2348 Process air cooling 1.03409 -0.00027 0 0.933205 1.152320917
Further heating of
374.15 373.15 -0.417 1.7883 0.001067 0
Regeneration steam 2.186985 -0.911972557
Further heating of
374.15 373.15 -0.417 Sulfur lagging 1.7883 0.001067 0
steam 2.186985 -0.911972557
-70.7259783
Second Stage
373.15 369.15 0.4345 Cooling of Sulfur 0.24 0.002
Trioxide -0.0000022 2.71818 1.181049236

217
373.15 369.15 1.2348 Process air cooling 1.03409 -0.00027 0 3.735518 4.612617626
Further heating of
373.15 369.15 -0.417 1.7883 0.001067 0
Regeneration steam 8.737268 -3.643440839
Further heating of
373.15 369.15 -0.417 Sulfur lagging 1.7883 0.001067 0
steam 8.737268 -3.643440839
373.15 369.15 -1.302778 Heating of Sulfur 0.73 0 0 2.92 -3.80411176
-5.297326576
Second Stage
369.15 368.15 0.4345 Cooling of Sulfur 0.24 0.002
Trioxide -0.0000022 0.678613 0.294857172
369.15 368.15 1.2348 Process air cooling 1.03409 -0.00027 0 0.934555 1.153987897
369.15 368.15 -1.302778 Heating of Sulfur 0.73 0 0 0.73 -0.95102794
Boiling
369.15 368.15 -0.417 Regeneration 2260 0 0
Water 2260 -942.42
Boiling Sulfur
369.15 368.15 -0.417 2260 0 0
lagging water 2260 -942.42
-1884.342183
368.15 308.15 -1.302778 Heating of Sulfur 0.73 0 0 43.8 -57.0616764
Second Stage
368.15 308.15 0.4345 Cooling of Sulfur 0.24 0.002
Trioxide -0.0000022 39.85994 17.31914281
368.15 308.15 1.2348 Process air cooling 1.03409 -0.00027 0 56.56737 69.84938848
Heating
368.15 308.15 -0.417 4.02 0.00058 0
Regeneration water 252.9676 -105.4874975
Heating Sulfur
368.15 308.15 -0.417 4.02 0.00058 0
lagging water 252.9676 -105.4874975
-180.8681402
308.15 304.15 -1.302778 Heating of Sulfur 0.73 0 0 2.92 -3.80411176

218
 Second Stage
308.15 304.15 0.4345 Cooling of Sulfur 0.24 0.002
Trioxide -0.0000022 2.585208 1.123272983
308.15 304.15 1.2348 Process air cooling 1.03409 -0.00027 0 3.805718 4.699300586
Heating
308.15 304.15 -0.417 4.02 0.00058 0
Regeneration water 16.79027 -7.001541756
Heating Sulfur
308.15 304.15 -0.417 4.02 0.00058 0
lagging water 16.79027 -7.001541756
Removal of Heat of
308.15 304.15 0.6678 4.02 0.00058 0
Neutralization 16.79027 11.21254097
-0.772080733
304.15 302.15 -1.302778 Heating of Sulfur 0.73 0 0 1.46 -1.90205588
Second Stage
304.15 302.15 0.4345 Cooling of Sulfur 0.24 0.002
Trioxide -0.0000022 1.288643 0.559915486
304.15 302.15 1.2348 Process air cooling 1.03409 -0.00027 0 1.904479 2.351650669
Removal of Heat of
304.15 302.15 0.6678 4.02 0.00058 0
Neutralization 8.391654 5.603946541
6.613456816
Second Stage
302.15 295.15 0.4345 Cooling of Sulfur 0.24 0.002
Trioxide -0.0000022 4.488857 1.950408222
302.15 295.15 1.2348 Process air cooling 1.03409 -0.00027 0 6.674182 8.241279316
Removal of Heat of
302.15 295.15 0.6678 4.02 0.00058 0
Neutralization 29.35252 19.60161219
29.79329973
295.15 291.15 1.2348 Process air cooling 1.03409 -0.00027 0 3.819758 4.716637178
Removal of Heat of
295.15 291.15 0.6678 4.02 0.00058 0
Neutralization 16.76011 11.19240012
15.9090373
291.15 279.15 1.2348 Process air cooling 1.03409 -0.00027 0 11.48519 14.18191755
14.18191755

219
 :Scenario Two, Plant A Energy Targets

Mass Specific heat

Interval Flow capacity Heat Rate
Temperature Difference Rate (Temperature Deficit/Surplus
Interval (K) (K) Compound (kG/s) Independent) (kW)
Reactor Stage
863.15 844.15 -19 Two Cooling 0.7888 -0.9 13.48848
Interval Net Enthalpy 13.48848
Sulfur dioxide
0.9933
844.15 812.15 -32 cooling -0.82 26.064192
Reactor Stage
844.15 812.15 -32 Two Cooling 0.7888 -0.9 22.71744
Interval
Net
Enthalpy 48.781632
Sulfur dioxide
0.9933
812.15 806.15 -6 cooling -0.82 4.887036
Reactor Stage
812.15 806.15 -6 One Cooling 0.8638 -0.9 4.66452
Reactor Stage
812.15 806.15 -6 Two Cooling 0.7888 -0.9 4.25952
Interval
Net
Enthalpy 13.811076
Reactor Stage
806.15 763.15 -43 One Cooling 0.8638 -0.9 33.42906
Reactor Stage
806.15 763.15 -43 Two Cooling 0.7888 -0.9 30.52656
Interval
Net
Enthalpy 63.95562
Reactor Stage
763.15 734.15 -29 Two Cooling 0.7888 -0.9 20.58768
Reactor Stage
763.15 734.15 -29 One Cooling 0.8638 -0.9 22.54518
Reactor Stage
763.15 734.15 -29 Three Cooling 0.6867 -0.9 17.92287
Interval
Net
Enthalpy 61.05573
First Stage
Cooling of
Sulfur
734.15 731.15 -3 Trioxide 0.4456 -0.841 1.1242488
Reactor Stage
734.15 731.15 -3 One Cooling 0.8638 -0.9 2.33226
Reactor Stage
734.15 731.15 -3 Two Cooling 0.7888 -0.9 2.12976

220
Interval
Net
Enthalpy 5.5862688
First Stage
Cooling of
Sulfur
731.15 728.15 -3 Trioxide 0.4456 -0.841 1.1242488
Reactor Stage
731.15 728.15 -3 Two Cooling 0.7888 -0.9 2.12976
Interval
Net
Enthalpy 3.2540088
First Stage
Cooling of
Sulfur
728.15 481.15 -247 Trioxide 0.4456 -0.841 92.5631512
Interval
Net
Enthalpy 92.5631512
Second Stage
Cooling of
Sulfur
481.15 479.15 -2 Trioxide 0.4345 -0.71 0.61699
Interval
Net
Enthalpy 0.61699
Second Stage
Cooling of
Sulfur
479.15 431.15 -48 Trioxide 0.4345 -0.71 14.80776
Process air
479.15 431.15 -48 cooling 1.2348 -1.013 60.0409152
Interval
Net
Enthalpy 74.8486752
Second Stage
Cooling of
Sulfur
431.15 428.15 -3 Trioxide 0.4345 -0.71 0.925485
Process air
431.15 428.15 -3 cooling 1.2348 -1.013 3.7525572
Further heating
of
Regeneration
431.15 428.15 -3 steam 0.417 2.09 -2.61459
Further heating
of Sulfur
431.15 428.15 -3 lagging steam 0.417 2.09 -2.61459
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -0.5511378

221
 Further heating
of molten
428.15 384.15 -44 sulfur 1.302778 0.73 -41.84522936
Second Stage
Cooling of
Sulfur
428.15 384.15 -44 Trioxide 0.4345 -0.71 13.57378
Process air
428.15 384.15 -44 cooling 1.2348 -1.013 55.0375056
Further heating
of
Regeneration
428.15 384.15 -44 steam 0.417 2.09 -38.34732
Further heating
of Sulfur
428.15 384.15 -44 lagging steam 0.417 2.09 -38.34732
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -49.92858376
Melting of
384.15 383.15 -1 Sulfur 1.302778 54 -70.350012
Second Stage
Cooling of
Sulfur
384.15 383.15 -1 Trioxide 0.4345 -0.71 0.308495
Process air
384.15 383.15 -1 cooling 1.2348 -1.013 1.2508524
Further heating
of
Regeneration
384.15 383.15 -1 steam 0.417 2.09 -0.87153
Further heating
of Sulfur
384.15 383.15 -1 lagging steam 0.417 2.09 -0.87153
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -70.5337246
Second Stage
Cooling of
Sulfur
383.15 369.15 -14 Trioxide 0.4345 -0.71 4.31893
Process air
383.15 369.15 -14 cooling 1.2348 -1.013 17.5119336
Further heating
of
Regeneration
383.15 369.15 -14 steam 0.417 2.09 -12.20142
Further heating
of Sulfur
383.15 369.15 -14 lagging steam 0.417 2.09 -12.20142
Heating of
383.15 369.15 -14 Sulfur 1.302778 0.73 -13.31439116

222
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -15.88636756
Second Stage
Cooling of
Sulfur
369.15 368.15 -1 Trioxide 0.4345 -0.71 0.308495
Process air
369.15 368.15 -1 cooling 1.2348 -1.013 1.2508524
Heating of
369.15 368.15 -1 Sulfur 1.302778 0.73 -0.95102794
Boiling
Regeneration 0. 417
369.15 368.15 -1 Water 2260 -942.42
Boiling Sulfur
0. 417
369.15 368.15 -1 lagging water 2260 -942.42
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -1884.231681
Heating of
368.15 308.15 -60 Sulfur 1.302778 0.73 -57.0616764
Second Stage
Cooling of
Sulfur
368.15 308.15 -60 Trioxide 0.4345 -0.71 18.5097
Process air
368.15 308.15 -60 cooling 1.2348 -1.013 75.051144
Heating
Regeneration
368.15 308.15 -60 water 0.417 4.18 -104.5836
Heating Sulfur
368.15 308.15 -60 lagging water 0.417 4.18 -104.5836
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -172.6680324
Heating of
308.15 304.15 -4 Sulfur 1.302778 0.73 -3.80411176
Second Stage
Cooling of
Sulfur
308.15 304.15 -4 Trioxide 0.4345 -0.71 1.23398
Process air
308.15 304.15 -4 cooling 1.2348 -1.013 5.0034096
Heating
Regeneration
308.15 304.15 -4 water 0.417 4.18 -6.97224
Heating Sulfur
308.15 304.15 -4 lagging water 0.417 4.18 -6.97224
Removal of
Heat of
308.15 304.15 -4 Neutralization 0.6678 -4.18 11.165616

223
Interval
Net
Enthalpy -0.34558616
Heating of
304.15 301.15 -3 Sulfur 1.302778 0.73 -2.85308382
Second Stage
Cooling of
Sulfur
304.15 301.15 -3 Trioxide 0.4345 -0.71 0.925485
Process air
304.15 301.15 -3 cooling 1.2348 -1.013 3.7525572
Removal of
Heat of
304.15 301.15 -3 Neutralization 0.6678 -4.18 8.374212
Interval
Net
Enthalpy 10.19917038
Second Stage
Cooling of
Sulfur
301.15 297.15 -4 Trioxide 0.4345 -0.71 1.23398
Process air
301.15 297.15 -4 cooling 1.2348 -1.013 5.0034096
Removal of
Heat of
301.15 297.15 -4 Neutralization 0.6678 -4.18 11.165616
Interval
Net
Enthalpy 17.4030056
Process air
297.15 295.15 -2 cooling 1.2348 -1.013 2.5017048
Removal of
Heat of
297.15 295.15 -2 Neutralization 0.6678 -4.18 5.582808
Interval
Net
Enthalpy 8.0845128
Process air
295.15 279.15 -16 cooling 1.2348 -1.013 20.0136384
Interval
Net
Enthalpy 20.0136384

224
 :Scenario Three, Plant A Energy Targets

Shifted Temperature Mass Flow Polynomial Temperature Coefficients Heat Deficit/Surplus

Interval Rate of Cp Product Per Interval (kW)
Ts Tt ṁ Stream A B C S Del H
Reactor Stage Two
863.15 844.15 0.7888 0.24 0.0018 -2.2E-06
Cooling 3.94661 3.113086
3.113086
Sulfur dioxide
844.15 812.15 0.9933 0.373 0.001 -7.7E-07
cooling 21.55269 21.40828
Reactor Stage Two
844.15 812.15 0.7888 0.24 0.002
Cooling -2.2E-06 12.44128 9.813681
31.22197
Sulfur dioxide
812.15 806.15 0.9933 0.373 0.001 -7.7E-07
cooling 4.071087 4.043811
Reactor Stage One
812.15 806.15 0.8638 0.24 0.002
Cooling -2.2E-06 2.51605 2.173364
Reactor Stage Two
812.15 806.15 0.7888 0.24 0.002
Cooling -2.2E-06 2.51605 1.98466
8.201835
Sulfur dioxide
806.15 763.15 0.9933 0.373 0.001 -7.7E-07
cooling 29.40922 29.21218
Reactor Stage One
806.15 763.15 0.8638 0.24 0.002
Cooling -2.2E-06 19.60067 16.93106
Reactor Stage Two
806.15 763.15 0.7888 0.24 0.002
Cooling -2.2E-06 19.60067 15.46101
61.60424
Reactor Stage One
763.15 734.15 0.8638 0.24 0.002
Cooling -2.2E-06 14.65457 12.65862
Reactor Stage Three
763.15 734.15 0.6867 0.24 0.002
Cooling -2.2E-06 14.65457 10.06329

225
 Reactor Stage Two
763.15 734.15 0.7888 0.24 0.002
Cooling -2.2E-06 14.65457 11.55953
34.28144
Reactor Stage Two
734.15 731.15 0.7888 0.24 0.002
Cooling -2.2E-06 1.576716 1.243714
Reactor Stage One
734.15 731.15 0.8638 0.24 0.002
Cooling -2.2E-06 1.576716 1.361967
First Stage Cooling
734.15 731.15 0.4456 0.24 0.002
of Sulfur Trioxide -2.2E-06 1.576716 0.702585
3.308266
First Stage Cooling
731.15 728.15 0.4456 0.24 0.002
of Sulfur Trioxide -2.2E-06 1.587641 0.707453
Reactor Stage Two
731.15 728.15 0.7888 0.24 0.002
Cooling -2.2E-06 1.587641 1.252331
1.959784
First Stage Cooling
728.15 481.15 0.24 0.002
0.4456 of Sulfur Trioxide -2.2E-06 156.7479 69.84687
69.84687
Second Stage
481.15 479.15 Cooling of Sulfur 0.24 0.002
0.4345 Trioxide -2.2E-06 1.387219 0.602747
0.602747
Second Stage
479.15 431.15 0.4345 Cooling of Sulfur 0.24 0.002
Trioxide -2.2E-06 33.33976 14.48613
479.15 431.15 1.2348 Process air cooling 1.03409 -0.00027 0 43.73758 54.00716
68.49329
Second Stage
431.15 428.15 0.4345 Cooling of Sulfur 0.24 0.002
Trioxide -2.2E-06 2.080759 0.90409
431.15 428.15 1.2348 Process air cooling 1.03409 -0.00027 0 2.754254 3.400952
Further heating of
431.15 428.15 -0.417 1.7883 0.001067 0
Regeneration steam 6.74021 -2.81067

226
 Further heating of
431.15 428.15 -0.417 Sulfur lagging 1.7883 0.001067 0
steam 6.74021 -2.81067
-1.31629
Further heating of
428.15 384.15 -1.302778 0.73 0 0
molten sulfur 32.12 -41.8452
Second Stage
428.15 384.15 0.4345 Cooling of Sulfur 0.24 0.002
Trioxide -2.2E-06 30.33365 13.17997
428.15 384.15 1.2348 Process air cooling 1.03409 -0.00027 0 40.6749 50.22536
Further heating of
428.15 384.15 -0.417 1.7883 0.001067 0
Regeneration steam 97.75313 -40.7631
Further heating of
428.15 384.15 -0.417 Sulfur lagging 1.7883 0.001067 0
steam 97.75313 -40.7631
-59.966
384.15 383.15 -1.302778 Melting of Sulfur 54 0 0 54 -70.35
Second Stage
384.15 383.15 0.4345 Cooling of Sulfur 0.24 0.002
Trioxide -2.2E-06 0.683812 0.297116
384.15 383.15 1.2348 Process air cooling 1.03409 -0.00027 0 0.930505 1.148987
Further heating of
384.15 383.15 -0.417 1.7883 0.001067 0
Regeneration steam 2.197655 -0.91642
Further heating of
384.15 383.15 -0.417 Sulfur lagging 1.7883 0.001067 0
steam 2.197655 -0.91642
-70.7368
Second Stage
383.15 369.15 0.4345 Cooling of Sulfur 0.24 0.002
Trioxide -2.2E-06 9.5382 4.144348
383.15 369.15 1.2348 Process air cooling 1.03409 -0.00027 0 13.05541 16.12082
Further heating of
383.15 369.15 -0.417 1.7883 0.001067 0
Regeneration steam 30.65513 -12.7832

227
 Further heating of
383.15 369.15 -0.417 Sulfur lagging 1.7883 0.001067 0
steam 30.65513 -12.7832
383.15 369.15 -1.302778 Heating of Sulfur 0.73 0 0 10.22 -13.3144
-18.6156
Second Stage
369.15 368.15 0.4345 Cooling of Sulfur 0.24 0.002
Trioxide -2.2E-06 0.678613 0.294857
369.15 368.15 1.2348 Process air cooling 1.03409 -0.00027 0 0.934555 1.153988
369.15 368.15 -1.302778 Heating of Sulfur 0.73 0 0 0.73 -0.95103
Boiling
369.15 368.15 -0.417 2260 0 0
Regeneration Water 2260 -942.42
Boiling Sulfur
369.15 368.15 -0.417 2260 0 0
lagging water 2260 -942.42
-1884.34
368.15 308.15 -1.302778 Heating of Sulfur 0.73 0 0 43.8 -57.0617
Second Stage
368.15 308.15 0.4345 Cooling of Sulfur 0.24 0.002
Trioxide -2.2E-06 39.85994 17.31914
368.15 308.15 1.2348 Process air cooling 1.03409 -0.00027 0 56.56737 69.84939
Heating
368.15 308.15 -0.417 4.02 0.00058 0
Regeneration water 252.9676 -105.487
Heating Sulfur
368.15 308.15 -0.417 4.02 0.00058 0
lagging water 252.9676 -105.487
-180.868
308.15 304.15 -1.302778 Heating of Sulfur 0.73 0 0 2.92 -3.80411
Second Stage
308.15 304.15 0.4345 Cooling of Sulfur 0.24 0.002
Trioxide -2.2E-06 2.585208 1.123273
308.15 304.15 1.2348 Process air cooling 1.03409 -0.00027 0 3.805718 4.699301
Heating
308.15 304.15 -0.417 4.02 0.00058 0
Regeneration water 16.79027 -7.00154

228
 Heating Sulfur
308.15 304.15 -0.417 4.02 0.00058 0
lagging water 16.79027 -7.00154
Removal of Heat of
308.15 304.15 0.6678 4.02 0.00058 0
Neutralization 16.79027 11.21254
-0.77208
304.15 301.15 -1.302778 Heating of Sulfur 0.73 0 0 2.19 -2.85308
Second Stage
304.15 301.15 0.4345 Cooling of Sulfur 0.24 0.002
Trioxide -2.2E-06 1.931959 0.839436
304.15 301.15 1.2348 Process air cooling 1.03409 -0.00027 0 2.857124 3.527976
Removal of Heat of
304.15 301.15 0.6678 4.02 0.00058 0
Neutralization 12.58661 8.405339
9.919667
Second Stage
301.15 297.15 0.4345 Cooling of Sulfur 0.24 0.002
Trioxide -2.2E-06 2.566457 1.115126
301.15 297.15 1.2348 Process air cooling 1.03409 -0.00027 0 3.813278 4.708636
Removal of Heat of
301.15 297.15 0.6678 4.02 0.00058 0
Neutralization 16.77403 11.2017
17.02546
297.15 295.15 1.2348 Process air cooling 1.03409 -0.00027 0 1.908259 2.356318
Removal of Heat of
297.15 295.15 0.6678 4.02 0.00058 0
Neutralization 8.383534 5.598524
7.954842
295.15 279.15 1.2348 Process air cooling 1.03409 -0.00027 0 15.30495 18.89855
18.89855

229
 :Scenario Four, Plant A Energy Targets

Polynomial
Temperature Rate of
Shifted Coefficients Change of
Temperature Initial Final Mass flow (j/g.K) Enthalpy
Interval Interval (K) Compound temperature temperature rate A B C (kW)
Reactor Stage
1
849.15 - 868.15 Two Cooling 868.15 849.15 0.78889 -0.9 0 0 13.49002
Reactor Stage
2
817.15 - 849.15 Two Cooling 849.15 817.15 0.78889 -0.9 0 0 22.72003
Sulfur dioxide
3
817.15 - 849.15 cooling 849.15 817.15 0.9933 -0.82 0 0 26.06419
Sulfur dioxide
4
811.15 - 817.15 cooling 817.15 811.15 0.9933 -0.82 0 0 4.887036
Reactor Stage One
5
811.15 - 817.15 Cooling 817.15 811.15 0.863889 -0.9 0 0 4.665001
Reactor Stage
6
811.15 - 817.15 Two Cooling 817.15 811.15 0.78889 -0.9 0 0 4.260006
Reactor Stage
7
768.15 - 811.15 Two Cooling 811.15 768.15 0.78889 -0.9 0 0 30.53004
Reactor Stage One
8
768.15 - 811.15 Cooling 811.15 768.15 0.863889 -0.9 0 0 33.4325
Reactor Stage One
9
739.15 - 768.15 Cooling 768.15 739.15 0.863889 -0.9 0 0 22.5475
Reactor Stage
10
739.15 - 768.15 Two Cooling 768.15 739.15 0.78889 -0.9 0 0 20.59003
Reactor Stage
11
739.15 - 768.15 Three Cooling 768.15 739.15 0.6867 -0.9 0 0 17.92287
Sulfur Trioxide
12 -0.841
736.15 - 739.15 Stage One Cooling 739.15 736.15 0.445698 0 0 1.124496
Reactor Stage One
13
736.15 - 739.15 Cooling 739.15 736.15 0.863889 -0.9 0 0 2.3325
Reactor Stage
14
736.15 - 739.15 Two Cooling 739.15 736.15 0.78889 -0.9 0 0 2.130003

230
 Sulfur Trioxide
15 -0.841
733.15 - 736.15 Stage One Cooling 736.15 733.15 0.445698 0 0 1.124496
Reactor Stage
16
733.15 - 736.15 Two Cooling 736.15 733.15 0.78889 -0.9 0 0 2.130003
Sulfur Trioxide
17 -0.841
486.15 - 733.15 Stage One Cooling 733.15 486.15 0.445698 0 0 92.58351
Sulfur Trioxide
18 Stage Two
479.15 - 486.15 Cooling 486.15 479.15 0.434509 -0.71 0 0 2.15951
Sulfur Trioxide
19 Stage Two
472.15 - 479.15 Cooling 479.15 472.15 0.434509 -0.71 0 0 2.15951
Process Air
20
472.15 - 479.15 Cooling 479.15 472.15 1.2348 -1.013 0 0 8.755967
Process Air
21
431.15 - 472.15 Cooling 472.15 431.15 1.2348 -1.013 0 0 51.28495
Sulfur Trioxide
22 Stage Two
431.15 - 472.15 Cooling 472.15 431.15 0.434509 -0.71 0 0 12.64856
Sulfur Trioxide
23 Stage Two
418.15 - 431.15 Cooling 431.15 418.15 0.434509 -0.71 0 0 4.010518
Process Air
24
418.15 - 431.15 Cooling 431.15 418.15 1.2348 -1.013 0 0 16.26108
Further Heating of
25 Regeneration
418.15 - 431.15 Steam 418.15 431.15 0.417 2.09 0 0 -11.3299
Further Heating of
26 Sulfur Lagging
418.15 - 431.15 Steam 418.15 431.15 0.417 2.09 0 0 -11.3299
Further Heating of
27
374.15 - 418.15 Molten Sulfur 374.15 418.15 1.302778 2.09 0 0 -119.803
Further Heating of
28 Regeneration
374.15 - 418.15 Steam 374.15 418.15 0.417 2.09 0 0 -38.3473

231
 Further Heating of
29 Sulfur Lagging
374.15 - 418.15 Steam 374.15 418.15 0.417 2.09 0 0 -38.3473
Process Air
30
374.15 - 418.15 Cooling 418.15 374.15 1.2348 -1.013 0 0 55.03751
Sulfur Trioxide
31 Stage Two
374.15 - 418.15 Cooling 418.15 374.15 0.434509 -0.71 0 0 13.57406
32 373.15 - 374.15 Melting of Sulfur 373.15 374.15 1.302778 54 0 0 -70.35
Further Heating of
33 Regeneration
373.15 - 374.15 Steam 373.15 374.15 0.417 2.09 0 0 -0.87153
Further Heating of
34 Sulfur Lagging
373.15 - 374.15 Steam 373.15 374.15 0.417 2.09 0 0 -0.87153
Process Air
35
373.15 - 374.15 Cooling 374.15 373.15 1.2348 -1.013 0 0 1.250852
Sulfur Trioxide
36 Stage Two
373.15 - 374.15 Cooling 374.15 373.15 0.434509 -0.71 0 0 0.308501
37 369.15 - 373.15 Heating of Sulfur 369.15 373.15 1.302778 0.73 0 0 -3.80411
Further Heating of
38 Regeneration
369.15 - 373.15 Steam 369.15 373.15 0.417 2.09 0 0 -3.48612
Further Heating of
39 Sulfur Lagging
369.15 - 373.15 Steam 369.15 373.15 0.417 2.09 0 0 -3.48612
Process Air
40
369.15 - 373.15 Cooling 373.15 369.15 1.2348 -1.013 0 0 5.00341
Sulfur Trioxide
41 Stage Two
369.15 - 373.15 Cooling 373.15 369.15 0.434509 -0.71 0 0 1.234006
42 368.15 - 369.15 Heating of Sulfur 368.15 369.15 1.302778 0.73 0 0 -0.95103
Boiling
43 Regeneration
368.15 - 369.15 Water 368.15 369.15 0.417 2260 0 0 -942.42

232
 Boiling of Sulfur
44
368.15 - 369.15 Lagging Water 368.15 369.15 0.417 2260 0 0 -942.42
Process Air
45
368.15 - 369.15 Cooling 369.15 368.15 1.2348 -1.013 0 0 1.250852
Sulfur Trioxide
46 Stage Two
368.15 - 369.15 Cooling 369.15 368.15 0.434509 -0.71 0 0 0.308501
47 308.15 - 368.15 Heating of Sulfur 308.15 368.15 1.302778 0.73 0 0 -57.0617
Heating
48 Regeneration
308.15 - 368.15 Water 308.15 368.15 0.417 4.18 0 0 -104.584
Heating of Sulfur
49
308.15 - 368.15 Lagging Water 308.15 368.15 0.417 4.18 0 0 -104.584
Process Air
50
308.15 - 368.15 Cooling 368.15 308.15 1.2348 -1.013 0 0 75.05114
Sulfur Trioxide
51 Stage Two
308.15 - 368.15 Cooling 368.15 308.15 0.434509 -0.71 0 0 18.51008
52 304.15 - 308.15 Heating of Sulfur 304.15 308.15 1.302778 0.73 0 0 -3.80411
Heating
53 Regeneration
304.15 - 308.15 Water 304.15 308.15 0.417 4.18 0 0 -6.97224
Heating of Sulfur
54
304.15 - 308.15 Lagging Water 304.15 308.15 0.417 4.18 0 0 -6.97224
Removal of Heat
55
304.15 - 308.15 of Neutralization 308.15 304.15 0.6678 -4.18 0 0 11.16562
Process Air
56
304.15 - 308.15 Cooling 308.15 304.15 1.2348 -1.013 0 0 5.00341
Sulfur Trioxide
57 Stage Two
304.15 - 308.15 Cooling 308.15 304.15 0.434509 -0.71 0 0 1.234006
58 302.15 - 304.15 Heating of Sulfur 302.15 304.15 1.302778 0.73 0 0 -1.90206
Removal of Heat
59
302.15 - 304.15 of Neutralization 304.15 302.15 0.6678 -4.18 0 0 5.582808

233
 Sulfur Trioxide
60 Stage Two
302.15 - 304.15 Cooling 304.15 302.15 0.434509 -0.71 0 0 0.617003
Process Air
61
302.15 - 304.15 Cooling 304.15 302.15 1.2348 -1.013 0 0 2.501705
62 295.15 - 302.15 Heating of Sulfur 295.15 302.15 1.302778 0.73 0 0 -6.6572
Removal of Heat
63
295.15 - 302.15 of Neutralization 302.15 295.15 0.6678 -4.18 0 0 19.53983
Process Air
64
295.15 - 302.15 Cooling 302.15 295.15 1.2348 -1.013 0 0 8.755967
65 291.15 - 295.15 Heating of Sulfur 291.15 295.15 1.302778 0.73 0 0 -3.80411
Process Air
66
291.15 - 295.15 Cooling 295.15 291.15 1.2348 -1.013 0 0 5.00341
Process Air
67
279.15 - 291.15 Cooling 291.15 279.15 1.2348 -1.013 0 0 15.01023

234
 :Scenario One Plant B Energy Targets

Shifted
temperature Mass Constant A, B, Computed
Number interval Compound Initial temperature Final temperature flow rate C Enthalpy
4.02, 0.00058,
1 266.15 - 268.15 Pasteurization of Milk 266.15 268.15 8.61 0 -71.8925873
4.02, 0.00058,
2 268.15 - 286.15 Pasteurization of Milk 268.15 286.15 8.61 0 -647.93217
4.02, 0.00058,
3 268.15 - 286.15 Ultra Heating of Milk 268.15 286.15 1.87 0 -140.723944
4.02, 0.00058,
4 286.15 - 288.15 Fresh Milk Cooling 288.15 286.15 8.61 0 72.09233934
4.02, 0.00058,
5 286.15 - 288.15 Pasteurization of Milk 286.15 288.15 8.61 0 -72.0923393
4.02, 0.00058,
6 286.15 - 288.15 Ultra Heating of Milk 286.15 288.15 1.87 0 -15.6576858
4.02, 0.00058,
7 288.15 - 293.15 Ultra Heating of Milk 293.15 288.15 1.87 0 39.16319495
4.02, 0.00058,
8 288.15 - 293.15 Ultra Heating of Milk 288.15 293.15 1.87 0 -39.163195
4.02, 0.00058,
9 288.15 - 293.15 Fresh Milk Cooling 293.15 288.15 8.61 0 180.3182399
4.02, 0.00058,
10 288.15 - 293.15 Pasteurization of Milk 288.15 293.15 8.61 0 -180.31824

Cooling of pasteurized 4.02, 0.00058,

11 288.15 - 293.15 milk 293.15 288.15 8.61 0 180.3182399
4.02, 0.00058,
12 288.15 - 293.15 Ultra Heating of Milk 288.15 293.15 1.87 0 -39.163195
4.02, 0.00058,
13 293.15 - 303.15 Fresh Milk Cooling 303.15 293.15 8.61 0 361.0110147

235
 4.02, 0.00058,
14 293.15 - 303.15 Pasteurization of Milk 293.15 303.15 8.61 0 -361.011015

Cooling of pasteurized 4.02, 0.00058,

15 293.15 - 303.15 milk 303.15 293.15 8.61 0 361.0110147
4.02, 0.00058,
16 293.15 - 303.15 Ultra Heating of Milk 293.15 303.15 1.87 0 -78.4077349

Heating of 4.02, 0.00058,

17 293.15 - 303.15 Sterilization Water 293.15 303.15 0.194 0 -8.13427838
4.02, 0.00058,
18 303.15 - 308.15 Pasteurization of Milk 303.15 308.15 8.61 0 -180.692775
4.02, 0.00058,
19 303.15 - 308.15 Ultra Heating of Milk 303.15 308.15 1.87 0 -39.24454

Heating of 4.02, 0.00058,

20 303.15 - 308.15 Sterilization Water 303.15 308.15 0.194 0 -4.07135869

Cooling of pasteurized 4.02, 0.00058,

21 303.15 - 308.15 milk 308.15 303.15 8.61 0 180.6927749
4.02, 0.00058,
22 308.15 - 348.15 Pasteurization of Milk 308.15 348.15 8.61 0 -1450.03662
4.02, 0.00058,
23 308.15 - 348.15 Ultra Heating of Milk 308.15 348.15 1.87 0 -314.93246

Heating of 4.02, 0.00058,

24 308.15 - 348.15 Sterilization Water 308.15 348.15 0.194 0 -32.6721375

Cooling of pasteurized 4.02, 0.00058,

25 308.15 - 348.15 milk 348.15 308.15 8.61 0 1450.036619

Cooling of Ultra- 4.02, 0.00058,

26 308.15 - 348.15 Heated Milk 348.15 308.15 1.87 0 314.9324596

236
 Cooling of pasteurized 4.02, 0.00058,
27 348.15 - 368.15 milk 368.15 348.15 8.61 0 728.0145894

Cooling of Ultra- 4.02, 0.00058,

28 348.15 - 368.15 Heated Milk 368.15 348.15 1.87 0 158.1169898
4.02, 0.00058,
29 348.15 - 368.15 Ultra Heating of Milk 348.15 368.15 1.87 0 -158.11699

Heating of 4.02, 0.00058,

30 348.15 - 368.15 Sterilization Water 348.15 368.15 0.194 0 -16.4035808
4.02, 0.00058,
31 368.15 - 369.15 Ultra Heating of Milk 368.15 369.15 1.87 0 -7.91723779
Boiling of
32 368.15 - 369.15 Sterilization Water 368.15 369.15 0.194 2260, 0, 0 -438.44
Boiling of
33 368.15 - 369.15 Sterilization Water 369.15 368.15 0.194 2260, 0, 0 438.44
Boiling of
34 368.15 - 369.15 Sterilization Water 368.15 369.15 0.194 2260, 0, 0 -438.44
Cooling of Ultra- 4.02, 0.00058,
35 368.15 - 369.15 Heated Milk 369.15 368.15 1.87 0 7.91723779
4.02, 0.00058,
36 369.15 - 410.15 Ultra Heating of Milk 369.15 410.15 1.87 0 -325.54059
Further heating of 1.7883,
37 369.15 - 410.15 Sterilization Steam 369.15 410.15 0.194 0.00107, 0 -17.5403636
Cooling of Ultra- 4.02, 0.00058,
38 369.15 - 410.15 Heated Milk 410.15 369.15 1.87 0 325.54059
Cooling of Ultra- 4.02, 0.00058,
39 410.15 - 413.15 Heated Milk 413.15 410.15 1.87 0 23.89162677
Further heating of 1.7883,
40 410.15 - 413.15 Sterilization Steam 410.15 413.15 0.194 0.00107, 0 -1.29714152
Cooling of Ultra- 4.02, 0.00058,
41 413.15 - 430.15 Heated Milk 430.15 413.15 1.87 0 135.570267

237
 : Scenario Two, Plant B Energy Targets

Polynomial Temperature Heat Deficit/Surplus

Shifted Temperature Interval Coefficients of Cp Per Interval (kW)
Ts Tt ṁ Stream a b c S Del H
Cooling of Ultra-Heated
1.87 4.18 0 0
422.65 417.65 Milk 20.9 39.083
39.083
Cooling of Ultra-Heated
1.87 4.18 0 0
417.65 415.65 Milk 8.36 15.6332
415.65 417.65 1.87 Ultra Heating of Milk 4.18 0 0 -8.36 -15.6332
0
Cooling of Ultra-Heated
1.87 4.18 0 0
415.65 371.15 Milk 186.01 347.8387
371.15 415.65 1.87 Ultra Heating of Milk 4.18 0 0 -186.01 -347.8387
Further heating of
415.65 0.194 2.09 0 0
371.15 Sterilization Steam -93.005 -18.04297
-18.04297
Cooling of Ultra-Heated
371.65 370.65 1.87 4.18 0 0
Milk 4.18 7.8166
Boiling of Sterilization
370.65 371.65 0.194 2260 0 0
Water -2260 -438.44
370.65 371.65 1.87 Ultra Heating of Milk 4.18 0 0 -4.18 -7.8166
-438.44
Cooling of Ultra-Heated
370.65 360.65 1.87 4.18 0 0
Milk 41.8 78.166
360.65 370.65 1.87 Ultra Heating of Milk 4.18 0 0 -41.8 -78.166
Heating of Sterilization
360.65 370.65 0.194 4.18 0 0
Water -41.8 -8.1092
-8.1092
360.65 355.65 8.61 Cooling of pasteurized milk 4.18 0 0 20.9 179.949
Cooling of Ultra-Heated
360.65 355.65 1.87 4.18 0 0
Milk 20.9 39.083

238
 Heating of Sterilization
355.65 360.65 0.194 4.18 0 0
Water -20.9 -4.0546
355.65 360.65 1.87 Ultra Heating of Milk 4.18 0 0 -20.9 -39.083
175.8944
355.65 300.65 8.61 Cooling of pasteurized milk 4.18 0 0 229.9 1979.439
300.65 355.65 1.87 Ultra Heating of Milk 4.18 0 0 -229.9 -429.913
Cooling of Ultra-Heated
355.65 300.65 1.87 4.18 0 0
Milk 229.9 429.913
300.65 355.65 8.61 Pasteurization of Milk 4.18 0 0 -229.9 -1979.439
Heating of Sterilization
300.65 355.65 0.194 4.18 0 0
Water -229.9 -44.6006
-44.6006
300.65 295.65 8.61 Cooling of pasteurized milk 4.18 0 0 20.9 179.949
295.65 300.65 8.61 Pasteurization of Milk 4.18 0 0 -20.9 -179.949
295.65 300.65 1.87 Ultra Heating of Milk 4.18 0 0 -20.9 -39.083
Heating of Sterilization
295.65 300.65 0.194 4.18 0 0
Water -20.9 -4.0546
-43.1376
295.65 280.65 8.61 Fresh Milk Cooling 4.18 0 0 62.7 539.847
280.65 295.65 8.61 Pasteurization of Milk 4.18 0 0 -62.7 -539.847
295.65 280.65 8.61 Cooling of pasteurized milk 4.18 0 0 62.7 539.847
280.65 295.65 1.87 Ultra Heating of Milk 4.18 0 0 -62.7 -117.249
422.598
280.65 278.65 8.61 Pasteurization of Milk 4.18 0 0 8.36 71.9796
280.65 278.65 1.87 Ultra Heating of Milk 4.18 0 0 8.36 15.6332
278.65 280.65 8.61 Fresh Milk Cooling 4.18 0 0 -8.36 -71.9796
15.6332
280.65 275.65 8.61 Pasteurization of Milk 4.18 0 0 20.9 179.949
275.65 280.65 8.61 Ultra Heating of Milk 4.18 0 0 -20.9 -179.949
0
273.65 275.65 8.61 Pasteurization of Milk 4.18 0 0 -8.36 -71.9796
-71.9796

239
 :Scenario Three, Plant B Energy Targets

Shifted
temperature Initial Final Mass Constant A, Computed
Number interval Compound temperature temperature flow rate B, C Enthalpy
Pasteurization of 4.02, 0.00058,
1 273.65 - 275.65 Milk 273.65 275.65 8.61 0 -71.9674943
Pasteurization of 4.02, 0.00058,
2 275.65 - 278.65 Milk 275.65 278.65 8.61 0 -107.988695
Ultra Heating of 4.02, 0.00058,
3 275.65 - 278.65 Milk 275.65 278.65 1.87 0 -23.4539907
Ultra Heating of 4.02, 0.00058,
4 278.65 - 280.65 Milk 278.65 280.65 1.87 0 -15.6414168
Pasteurization of 4.02, 0.00058,
5 278.65 - 280.65 Milk 278.65 280.65 8.61 0 -72.0174323
4.02, 0.00058,
6 278.65 - 280.65 Fresh Milk Cooling 280.65 278.65 8.61 0 72.01743234
4.02, 0.00058,
7 280.65 - 295.65 Fresh Milk Cooling 295.65 280.65 8.61 0 540.7674521

Cooling of 4.02, 0.00058,

8 280.65 - 295.65 pasteurized milk 295.65 280.65 8.61 0 540.7674521
Pasteurization of 4.02, 0.00058,
9 280.65 - 295.65 Milk 280.65 295.65 8.61 0 -540.767452
Ultra Heating of 4.02, 0.00058,
10 280.65 - 295.65 Milk 280.65 295.65 1.87 0 -117.448912
Ultra Heating of 4.02, 0.00058,
11 295.65 - 300.65 Milk 295.65 300.65 1.87 0 -39.2038675
Pasteurization of 4.02, 0.00058,
12 295.65 - 300.65 Milk 295.65 300.65 8.61 0 -180.505507

Heating of 4.02, 0.00058,

13 295.65 - 300.65 Sterilization Water 295.65 300.65 0.194 0 -4.06713919

240
 Cooling of 4.02, 0.00058,
14 295.65 - 300.65 pasteurized milk 300.65 295.65 8.61 0 180.5055074
Cooling of 4.02, 0.00058,
15 300.65 - 355.65 pasteurized milk 355.65 300.65 8.61 0 1993.800351
Cooling of Ultra- 4.02, 0.00058,
16 300.65 - 355.65 Heated Milk 355.65 300.65 1.87 0 433.032132
Pasteurization of 4.02, 0.00058,
17 300.65 - 355.65 Milk 300.65 355.65 8.61 0 -1993.80035
Ultra Heating of 4.02, 0.00058,
18 300.65 - 355.65 Milk 300.65 355.65 1.87 0 -433.032132
Heating of 4.02, 0.00058,
19 300.65 - 355.65 Sterilization Water 300.65 355.65 0.194 0 -44.9241891
Cooling of 4.02, 0.00058,
20 355.65 - 360.65 pasteurized milk 360.65 355.65 8.61 0 182.0036474

Cooling of Ultra- 4.02, 0.00058,

21 355.65 - 360.65 Heated Milk 360.65 355.65 1.87 0 39.52924745
Ultra Heating of 4.02, 0.00058,
22 355.65 - 360.65 Milk 355.65 360.65 1.87 0 -39.5292475

Heating of 4.02, 0.00058,

23 355.65 - 360.65 Sterilization Water 355.65 360.65 0.194 0 -4.10089519
Heating of 4.02, 0.00058,
24 360.65 - 370.65 Sterilization Water 360.65 370.65 0.194 0 -8.21022938
Ultra Heating of 4.02, 0.00058,
25 360.65 - 370.65 Milk 360.65 370.65 1.87 0 -79.1398399

Cooling of Ultra- 4.02, 0.00058,

26 360.65 - 370.65 Heated Milk 370.65 360.65 1.87 0 79.1398399
Ultra Heating of 4.02, 0.00058,
27 370.65 - 371.65 Milk 370.65 371.65 1.87 0 -7.91994929
Boiling of
28 370.65 - 371.65 Sterilization Water 370.65 371.65 0.194 2260, 0, 0 -438.44

241
 Cooling of Ultra- 4.02, 0.00058,
29 370.65 - 371.65 Heated Milk 371.65 370.65 1.87 0 7.91994929
Further heating of 1.7883,
30 371.65 - 415.65 Sterilization Steam 371.65 415.65 0.194 0.00107, 0 -18.8603389
Ultra Heating of 4.02, 0.00058,
31 371.65 - 415.65 Milk 371.65 415.65 1.87 0 -349.551523

Cooling of Ultra- 4.02, 0.00058,

32 371.65 - 415.65 Heated Milk 415.65 371.65 1.87 0 349.5515228

Cooling of Ultra- 4.02, 0.00058,

33 415.65 - 417.65 Heated Milk 417.65 415.65 1.87 0 15.93859718
Ultra Heating of 4.02, 0.00058,
34 415.65 - 417.65 Milk 415.65 417.65 1.87 0 -15.9385972

Cooling of Ultra- 4.02, 0.00058,

35 417.65 - 422.65 Heated Milk 422.65 417.65 1.87 0 39.86547345

242
 Appendix XIV: Scenario Four, Plant B Energy Targets

Shifted Initial Shifted Final Shifted

Temperature Temperature Temperature Mass flow rate Specific heat Interval Rate of
Interval (K) Process stream (K) (K) (kg/s) capacity (j/g.K) Enthalpy Change (kW)
266.15 - Pasteurization of
268.15 Milk 266.15 268.15 8.61 4.18 -71.9796
268.15 - Pasteurization of
286.15 Milk 268.15 286.15 8.61 4.18 -647.816
268.15 - Ultra Heating of
286.15 Milk 268.15 286.15 1.87 4.18 -140.699
286.15 - Fresh Milk
288.15 Cooling 288.15 286.15 8.61 4.18 71.9796
286.15 - Pasteurization of
288.15 Milk 286.15 288.15 8.61 4.18 -71.9796

286.15 - Ultra Heating of

288.15 Milk 286.15 288.15 1.87 4.18 -15.6332

288.15 - Ultra Heating of

293.15 Milk 293.15 288.15 1.87 4.18 39.083

288.15 - Ultra Heating of

293.15 Milk 288.15 293.15 1.87 4.18 -39.083
288.15 - Fresh Milk
293.15 Cooling 293.15 288.15 8.61 4.18 179.949

288.15 - Pasteurization of
293.15 Milk 288.15 293.15 8.61 4.18 -179.949

288.15 - Cooling of
293.15 pasteurized milk 293.15 288.15 8.61 4.18 179.949

243
288.15 - Ultra Heating of
293.15 Milk 288.15 293.15 1.87 4.18 -39.083

293.15 - Fresh Milk

303.15 Cooling 303.15 293.15 8.61 4.18 359.898

293.15 - Pasteurization of
303.15 Milk 293.15 303.15 8.61 4.18 -359.898

293.15 - Cooling of
303.15 pasteurized milk 303.15 293.15 8.61 4.18 359.898

293.15 - Ultra Heating of

303.15 Milk 293.15 303.15 1.87 4.18 -78.166
Heating of
293.15 - Sterilization
303.15 Water 293.15 303.15 0.194 4.18 -8.1092

303.15 - Pasteurization of
308.15 Milk 303.15 308.15 8.61 4.18 -179.949
303.15 - Ultra Heating of
308.15 Milk 303.15 308.15 1.87 4.18 -39.083
Heating of
303.15 - Sterilization
308.15 Water 303.15 308.15 0.194 4.18 -4.0546

303.15 - Cooling of
308.15 pasteurized milk 308.15 303.15 8.61 4.18 179.949
308.15 - Pasteurization of
348.15 Milk 308.15 348.15 8.61 4.18 -1439.59

308.15 - Ultra Heating of

348.15 Milk 308.15 348.15 1.87 4.18 -312.664

244
 Heating of
308.15 - Sterilization
348.15 Water 308.15 348.15 0.194 4.18 -32.4368

308.15 - Cooling of
348.15 pasteurized milk 348.15 308.15 8.61 4.18 1439.592
Cooling of
308.15 - Ultra-Heated
348.15 Milk 348.15 308.15 1.87 4.18 312.664

348.15 - Cooling of
368.15 pasteurized milk 368.15 348.15 8.61 4.18 719.796

Cooling of
348.15 - Ultra-Heated
368.15 Milk 368.15 348.15 1.87 4.18 156.332

348.15 - Ultra Heating of

368.15 Milk 348.15 368.15 1.87 4.18 -156.332
Heating of
348.15 - Sterilization
368.15 Water 348.15 368.15 0.194 4.18 -16.2184

368.15 - Ultra Heating of

369.15 Milk 368.15 369.15 1.87 4.18 -7.8166
Boiling of
368.15 - Sterilization
369.15 Water 368.15 369.15 0.194 2260 -438.44
Cooling of
368.15 - Ultra-Heated
369.15 Milk 369.15 368.15 1.87 4.18 7.8166
369.15 - Ultra Heating of
410.15 Milk 369.15 410.15 1.87 4.18 -320.481

245
 Further heating
369.15 - of Sterilization
410.15 Steam 369.15 410.15 0.194 2.09 -16.6239
Cooling of
369.15 - Ultra-Heated
410.15 Milk 410.15 369.15 1.87 4.18 320.4806

Cooling of
410.15 - Ultra-Heated
413.15 Milk 413.15 410.15 1.87 4.18 23.4498
Further heating
410.15 - of Sterilization
413.15 Steam 410.15 413.15 0.194 2.09 -1.21638
Cooling of
413.15 - Ultra-Heated
430.15 Milk 430.15 413.15 1.87 4.18 132.8822

246
 Scenario One, Plant C Energy Targets

Shifted
temperature Initial Final Mass Constant Computed
Number interval Compound temperature temperature flow rate A, B, C Enthalpy
Chilling of fusel
1 283.65 - 286.65 alcohol 286.65 283.65 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 0.012624
Chilling of fusel
2 286.65 - 287.65 alcohol 287.65 286.65 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 0.004208
Chilling of
3 286.65 - 287.65 Ethanol 287.65 286.65 0.766 2.43, 0, 0 1.86138
Chilling of fusel
4 287.65 - 296.15 alcohol 296.15 287.65 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 0.035768
Chilling of
5 287.65 - 296.15 Ethanol 296.15 287.65 0.766 2.43, 0, 0 15.82173
Chilling of 2.031, 0,
6 287.65 - 296.15 acetaldehyde 296.15 287.65 0.153 0 2.6413155
Chilling of fusel
7 296.15 - 308.15 alcohol 308.15 296.15 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 0.050496
Chilling of
8 296.15 - 308.15 Ethanol 308.15 296.15 0.766 2.43, 0, 0 22.33656
Chilling of 2.031, 0,
9 296.15 - 308.15 acetaldehyde 308.15 296.15 0.153 0 3.728916
3.38,
First Stage Wash 0.00049,
10 296.15 - 308.15 Heating Process 296.15 308.15 4.86 0 -205.75608
Chilling of fusel
11 308.15 - 328.15 alcohol 328.15 308.15 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 0.08416
Chilling of
12 308.15 - 328.15 Ethanol 328.15 308.15 0.766 2.43, 0, 0 37.2276
Chilling of 2.031, 0,
13 308.15 - 328.15 acetaldehyde 328.15 308.15 0.153 0 6.21486

247
 3.38,
First Stage Wash 0.00049,
14 308.15 - 328.15 Heating Process 308.15 328.15 4.86 0 -343.688848
4.02,
Fermentation 0.00058,
15 308.15 - 328.15 Process Cooling 328.15 308.15 2.08 0 174.9083232
Chilling of fusel
16 328.15 - 329.15 alcohol 329.15 328.15 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 0.004208
Chilling of
17 328.15 - 329.15 Ethanol 329.15 328.15 0.766 2.43, 0, 0 1.86138
Chilling of 2.031, 0,
18 328.15 - 329.15 acetaldehyde 329.15 328.15 0.153 0 0.310743

First Stage Wash 586.69, 0,

19 328.15 - 329.15 Boiling Process 328.15 329.15 0.153 0 -89.76357
Second Stage 3.38,
Wash Heating 0.00049,
20 328.15 - 329.15 Process 328.15 329.15 4.703 0 -16.6535041
Chilling of fusel
21 329.15 - 335.65 alcohol 335.65 329.15 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 0.027352
Chilling of
22 329.15 - 335.65 Ethanol 335.65 329.15 0.766 2.43, 0, 0 12.09897
Chilling of 2.031, 0,
23 329.15 - 335.65 acetaldehyde 335.65 329.15 0.153 0 2.0198295
Second Stage 3.38,
Wash Heating 0.00049,
24 329.15 - 335.65 Process 329.15 335.65 4.703 0 -108.303948
Chilling of fusel
25 335.65 - 336.65 alcohol 336.65 335.65 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 0.004208
Chilling of
26 335.65 - 336.65 Ethanol 336.65 335.65 0.766 2.43, 0, 0 1.86138

248
 First Stage
Condensation of
Alcohol vapor 586.69, 0,
27 335.65 - 336.65 (acetaldehyde) 336.65 335.65 0.153 0 89.76357

Second Stage 3.38,

Wash Heating 0.00049,
28 335.65 - 336.65 Process 335.65 336.65 4.703 0 -16.6707876
Chilling of fusel
29 336.65 - 378.15 alcohol 378.15 336.65 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 0.174632
Chilling of
30 336.65 - 378.15 Ethanol 378.15 336.65 0.766 2.43, 0, 0 77.24727
Second Stage 3.38,
Wash Heating 0.00049,
31 336.65 - 378.15 Process 336.65 378.15 4.703 0 -693.869939
Chilling of fusel
32 378.15 - 379.15 alcohol 379.15 378.15 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 0.004208
Chilling of
33 378.15 - 379.15 Ethanol 379.15 378.15 0.766 2.43, 0, 0 1.86138
3.38,
Third Stage Wash 0.00049,
34 378.15 - 379.15 Heating Process 378.15 379.15 3.937 0 -14.0375251

Second Stage
Wash Boiling 837.85, 0,
35 378.15 - 379.15 Process 378.15 379.15 0.766 0 -641.7931
Chilling of fusel
36 379.15 - 385.65 alcohol 385.65 379.15 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 0.027352
Chilling of
37 379.15 - 385.65 Ethanol 385.65 379.15 0.766 2.43, 0, 0 12.09897

249
 3.38,
Third Stage Wash 0.00049,
38 379.15 - 385.65 Heating Process 379.15 385.65 3.937 0 -91.2909355
Chilling of fusel
39 385.65 - 386.65 alcohol 386.65 385.65 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 0.004208
Second Stage
Condensation of
Alcohol Vapor 837.85, 0,
40 385.65 - 386.65 (ethanol) 386.65 385.65 0.766 0 641.7931
3.38,
Third Stage Wash 0.00049,
41 385.65 - 386.65 Heating Process 385.65 386.65 3.937 0 -14.0519935
Chilling of fusel
42 386.65 - 395.15 alcohol 395.15 386.65 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 0.035768
3.38,
Third Stage Wash 0.00049,
43 386.65 - 395.15 Heating Process 386.65 395.15 3.937 0 -119.519834
Chilling of fusel
44 395.15 - 396.15 alcohol 396.15 395.15 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 0.004208
Third Stage Wash 911.9, 0,
45 395.15 - 396.15 Boiling Process 395.15 396.15 0.0016 0 -1.45904
Chilling of fusel
46 396.15 - 402.65 alcohol 402.65 396.15 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 0.027352
Third Stage
Condensation of
Alcohol Vapor 911.9, 0,
47 402.65 - 403.65 (fusel alcohol) 403.65 402.65 0.0016 0 1.45904

250
 :Scenario Two, Plant C Energy Targeting

Polynomial Heat
Shifted Temperature Deficit/Surplus
Temperature Coefficients of Per Interval
Interval Cp (kW)
Ts Tt ṁ Stream a b c S Del H
Third stage
condensation of
alcohol vapor (fusel
406.15 405.15 0.0016 alcohol) 911.9 0 0 911.9 1.45904
1.45904
Chilling of fusel
405.15 396.15 0 0
0.0016 alcohol 2.63 23.67 0.037872
0.037872
Third stage wash
395.15 0 0
396.15 0.0016 boiling process 911.9 -911.9 -1.45904
Chilling of fusel
395.15 0 0
396.15 0.0016 alcohol 2.63 2.63 0.004208
-1.45483
Chilling of fusel
395.15 389.15 0 0
0.0016 alcohol 2.63 15.78 0.025248
Third stage wash
389.15 395.15 0 0
3.937 heating process 4.18 -25.08 -98.74
-98.7147
Chilling of fusel
389.15 388.15 0 0
0.0016 alcohol 2.63 2.63 0.004208
Second stage
condensation of
389.15 388.15 0 0
alcohol vapor
0.766 (ethanol) 837.85 837.85 641.7931
Third stage wash
388.15 389.15 0 0
3.937 heating process 4.18 -4.18 -16.4567
625.3406
Chilling of fusel
388.15 379.15 0 0
0.0016 alcohol 2.63 23.67 0.037872
388.15 379.15 0.766 Chilling of ethanol 2.43 0 0 21.87 16.75242
Third stage wash
379.15 388.15 0 0
3.937 heating process 4.18 -37.62 -148.11
-131.32
Chilling of fusel
379.15 378.15 0 0
0.0016 alcohol 2.63 2.63 0.004208
Third stage wash
378.15 379.15 0 0
3.937 heating process 4.18 -4.18 -16.4567
379.15 378.15 0.766 Chilling of ethanol 2.43 0 0 2.43 1.86138

251
 Second stage wash -
378.15 379.15 0 0
0.766 boiling process 837.85 837.85 -641.793
-656.384
Chilling of fusel
378.15 339.15 0 0
0.0016 alcohol 2.63 102.57 0.164112
378.15 339.15 0.766 Chilling of ethanol 2.43 0 0 94.77 72.59382
Second stage wash -
339.15 378.15 4.18 0 0
4.703 heating process 163.02 -766.683
-693.925
Chilling of fusel
339.15 338.15 0 0
0.0016 alcohol 2.63 2.63 0.004208
First stage
condensation of
339.15 338.15 0 0
alcohol vapor
0.153 (acetaldehyde) 586.69 586.69 89.76357
339.15 338.15 0.766 Chilling of ethanol 2.43 0 0 2.43 1.86138
Second stage wash
338.15 339.15 4.18 0 0
4.703 heating process -4.18 -19.6585
71.97062
Chilling of fusel
338.15 329.15 0 0
0.0016 alcohol 2.63 23.67 0.037872
Chilling of
338.15 329.15 0 0
0.153 acetaldehyde 2.031 18.279 2.796687
338.15 329.15 0.766 Chilling of ethanol 2.43 0 0 21.87 16.75242
Second stage wash
329.15 338.15 4.18 0 0
4.703 heating process -37.62 -176.927
-157.34
Chilling of fusel
329.15 328.15 0 0
0.0016 alcohol 2.63 2.63 0.004208
Chilling of
329.15 328.15 0 0
0.153 acetaldehyde 2.031 2.031 0.310743
First stage wash -
328.15 329.15 0.153 0 0
boiling process 586.69 586.69 -89.7636
329.15 328.15 0.766 Chilling of ethanol 2.43 0 0 2.43 1.86138
Second stage wash
328.15 329.15 4.18 0 0
4.703 heating process -4.18 -19.6585
-107.246
Chilling of fusel
328.15
308.15 0.0016 alcohol 2.63 0 0 52.6 0.08416
Fermentation process
308.15
328.15 2.08 cooling 4.18 0 0 83.6 173.888
First stage wash
328.15
308.15 4.86 heating process 4.18 0 0 -83.6 -406.296
Chilling of
328.15 0 0
308.15 0.153 acetaldehyde 2.031 40.62 6.21486

252
328.15 308.15 0.766 Chilling of ethanol 2.43 0 0 48.6 37.2276
-188.881
Chilling of fusel
308.15 296.15 0.0016 alcohol 2.63 0 0 31.56 0.050496
First stage wash
296.15 308.15 4.86 heating process 4.18 0 0 -50.16 -243.778
Chilling of
308.15 296.15 0.153 acetaldehyde 2.031 0 0 24.372 3.728916
308.15 296.15 0.766 Chilling of ethanol 2.43 0 0 29.16 22.33656
-217.662
Chilling of fusel
296.15 290.15 0.0016 alcohol 2.63 0 0 15.78 0.025248
Chilling of
296.15 290.15 0.153 acetaldehyde 2.031 0 0 12.186 1.864458
296.15 290.15 0.766 Chilling of ethanol 2.43 0 0 14.58 11.16828
13.05799
Chilling of fusel
290.15 289.15 0.0016 alcohol 2.63 0 0 2.63 0.004208
290.15 289.15 0.766 Chilling of ethanol 2.43 0 0 2.43 1.86138
1.865588
289.15 286.15 0.766 Chilling of ethanol 2.43 0 0 7.29 5.58414
5.58414

253
 :Scenario Three, Plant C Energy Targeting
Heat
Shifted Polynomial Deficit/Surplus
Temperature Temperature Per Interval
Interval Coefficients of Cp (kW)
Ts Tt ṁ Stream A B C S Del H
Third stage
condensation of
alcohol vapor
406.15 405.15 0.0016 (fusel alcohol) 911.9 0 0 911.9 1.45904
1.45904
Chilling of fusel
405.15 396.15
0.0016 alcohol 2.63 0 0 23.67 0.037872
0.037872
Third stage wash
395.15
396.15 0.0016 boiling process 911.9 0 0 -911.9 -1.45904
Chilling of fusel
395.15
396.15 0.0016 alcohol 2.63 0 0 2.63 0.004208
-1.454832
Chilling of fusel
395.15 389.15
0.0016 alcohol 2.63 0 0 15.78 0.025248
Third stage wash
389.15 395.15
3.937 heating process 3.38 0.000488 0 -21.4282 -84.36288324
-84.33763524
Chilling of fusel
389.15 388.15
0.0016 alcohol 2.63 0 0 2.63 0.004208
Second stage
condensation of
389.15 388.15
alcohol vapor
0.766 (ethanol) 837.85 0 0 837.85 641.7931
Third stage wash
388.15 389.15
3.937 heating process 3.38 0.000488 0 -3.56966 -14.05375614
627.7435519
Chilling of fusel
388.15 379.15
0.0016 alcohol 2.63 0 0 23.67 0.037872
Chilling of
388.15 379.15
0.766 ethanol 2.43 0 0 21.87 16.75242
Third stage wash
379.15 388.15
3.937 heating process 3.38 0.000488 0 -32.105 -126.3973488
-109.6070568
Chilling of fusel
379.15 378.15
0.0016 alcohol 2.63 0 0 2.63 0.004208
Third stage wash
378.15 379.15
3.937 heating process 3.38 0.000488 0 -3.56478 -14.03454358
Chilling of
379.15 378.15
0.766 ethanol 2.43 0 0 2.43 1.86138
Second stage
378.15 379.15 wash boiling
0.766 process 837.85 0 0 -837.85 -641.7931

254
 -653.9620556
Chilling of fusel
378.15 339.15
0.0016 alcohol 2.63 0 0 102.57 0.164112
Chilling of
378.15 339.15
0.766 ethanol 2.43 0 0 94.77 72.59382
4.703 Second stage
339.15 378.15 wash heating
process 3.38 0.000488 0 -138.646 -652.0513234
-579.2933914
Chilling of fusel
339.15 338.15
0.0016 alcohol 2.63 0 0 2.63 0.004208
First stage
condensation of
339.15 338.15
alcohol vapor
0.153 (acetaldehyde) 586.69 0 0 586.69 89.76357
Chilling of
339.15 338.15
0.766 ethanol 2.43 0 0 2.43 1.86138
4.703 Second stage
338.15 339.15 wash heating
process 3.38 0.000488 0 -3.54526 -16.67336342
74.95579458
Chilling of fusel
338.15 329.15
0.0016 alcohol 2.63 0 0 23.67 0.037872
Chilling of
338.15 329.15
0.153 acetaldehyde 2.031 0 0 18.279 2.796687
Chilling of
338.15 329.15
0.766 ethanol 2.43 0 0 21.87 16.75242
4.703 Second stage
329.15 338.15 wash heating
process 3.38 0.000488 0 -31.8854 -149.9569929
-130.3700139
Chilling of fusel
329.15 328.15
0.0016 alcohol 2.63 0 0 2.63 0.004208
Chilling of
329.15 328.15
0.153 acetaldehyde 2.031 0 0 2.031 0.310743
First stage wash
328.15 329.15 0.153
boiling process 586.69 0 0 -586.69 -89.76357
Chilling of
329.15 328.15
0.766 ethanol 2.43 0 0 2.43 1.86138
4.703 Second stage
328.15 329.15 wash heating
process 3.38 0.000488 0 -3.54038 -16.65041278
-104.2376518
Chilling of fusel
328.15
308.15 0.0016 alcohol 2.63 0 0 52.6 0.08416
Fermentation
308.15
328.15 2.08 process cooling 4.02 0.00058 0 84.09054 174.9083232
First stage wash
328.15
308.15 4.86 heating process 3.38 0.000488 0 -70.7051 -343.6269998

255
 Chilling of
328.15
308.15 0.153 acetaldehyde 2.031 0 0 40.62 6.21486
Chilling of
328.15
308.15 0.766 ethanol 2.43 0 0 48.6 37.2276
-125.1920566
Chilling of fusel
308.15 296.15 0.0016 alcohol 2.63 0 0 31.56 0.050496
First stage wash
296.15 308.15 4.86 heating process 3.38 0.000488 0 -42.3294 -205.7208373
Chilling of
308.15 296.15 0.153 acetaldehyde 2.031 0 0 24.372 3.728916
Chilling of
308.15 296.15 0.766 ethanol 2.43 0 0 29.16 22.33656
-179.6048653
Chilling of fusel
296.15 290.15 0.0016 alcohol 2.63 0 0 15.78 0.025248
Chilling of
296.15 290.15 0.153 acetaldehyde 2.031 0 0 12.186 1.864458
Chilling of
296.15 290.15 0.766 ethanol 2.43 0 0 14.58 11.16828
13.057986
Chilling of fusel
290.15 289.15 0.0016 alcohol 2.63 0 0 2.63 0.004208
Chilling of
290.15 289.15 0.766 ethanol 2.43 0 0 2.43 1.86138
1.865588
Chilling of
289.15 286.15 0.766 ethanol 2.43 0 0 7.29 5.58414
5.58414

256
 : Scenario Four, Plant C Energy Targeting

Shifted temperature Initial Final Mass flow Constant A, B, Computed

Number interval Compound temperature temperature rate C Enthalpy
Chilling of fusel
1 283.65 - 286.65 alcohol 286.65 283.65 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 1.45904
Chilling of fusel
2 286.65 - 287.65 alcohol 287.65 286.65 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 0.027352
Chilling of
3 286.65 - 287.65 Ethanol 287.65 286.65 0.766 2.43, 0, 0 -1.45904
Chilling of fusel
4 287.65 - 296.15 alcohol 296.15 287.65 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 0.004208
Chilling of
5 287.65 - 296.15 Ethanol 296.15 287.65 0.766 2.43, 0, 0 0.035768
Chilling of
6 287.65 - 296.15 acetaldehyde 296.15 287.65 0.153 2.031, 0, 0 -139.88161
Chilling of fusel
7 296.15 - 308.15 alcohol 308.15 296.15 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 0.004208
Chilling of
8 296.15 - 308.15 Ethanol 308.15 296.15 0.766 2.43, 0, 0 641.7931
Chilling of
9 296.15 - 308.15 acetaldehyde 308.15 296.15 0.153 2.031, 0, 0 -16.45666
First Stage Wash
10 296.15 - 308.15 Heating Process 296.15 308.15 4.86 4.18, 0, 0 0.027352
Chilling of fusel
11 308.15 - 328.15 alcohol 328.15 308.15 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 12.09897
Chilling of
12 308.15 - 328.15 Ethanol 328.15 308.15 0.766 2.43, 0, 0 -106.96829
Chilling of
13 308.15 - 328.15 acetaldehyde 328.15 308.15 0.153 2.031, 0, 0 0.004208
First Stage Wash
14 308.15 - 328.15 Heating Process 308.15 328.15 4.86 4.18,0, 0 -16.45666

257
 Fermentation
15 308.15 - 328.15 Process Cooling 328.15 308.15 2.08 4.18, 0, 0 1.86138
Chilling of fusel
16 328.15 - 329.15 alcohol 329.15 328.15 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 -641.7931
Chilling of
17 328.15 - 329.15 Ethanol 329.15 328.15 0.766 2.43, 0, 0 0.174632
Chilling of
18 328.15 - 329.15 acetaldehyde 329.15 328.15 0.153 2.031, 0, 0 77.24727
First Stage Wash
19 328.15 - 329.15 Boiling Process 328.15 329.15 0.153 586.69, 0, 0 -815.82941
Second Stage
Wash Heating
20 328.15 - 329.15 Process 328.15 329.15 4.703 4.18, 0, 0 0.004208
Chilling of fusel
21 329.15 - 335.65 alcohol 335.65 329.15 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 89.76357
Chilling of
22 329.15 - 335.65 Ethanol 335.65 329.15 0.766 2.43, 0, 0 1.86138
Chilling of
23 329.15 - 335.65 acetaldehyde 335.65 329.15 0.153 2.031, 0, 0 -19.65854
Second Stage
Wash Heating
24 329.15 - 335.65 Process 329.15 335.65 4.703 4.18, 0, 0 0.027352
Chilling of fusel
25 335.65 - 336.65 alcohol 336.65 335.65 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 2.0198295
Chilling of
26 335.65 - 336.65 Ethanol 336.65 335.65 0.766 2.43, 0, 0 12.09897
First Stage
Condensation of
Alcohol vapor
27 335.65 - 336.65 (acetaldehyde) 336.65 335.65 0.153 586.69, 0, 0 -127.78051
Second Stage
Wash Heating
28 335.65 - 336.65 Process 335.65 336.65 4.703 4.18, 0, 0 0.004208

258
 Chilling of fusel
29 336.65 - 378.15 alcohol 378.15 336.65 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 0.310743
Chilling of
30 336.65 - 378.15 Ethanol 378.15 336.65 0.766 2.43, 0, 0 -89.76357
Second Stage
Wash Heating
31 336.65 - 378.15 Process 336.65 378.15 4.703 4.18, 0, 0 1.86138
Chilling of fusel
32 378.15 - 379.15 alcohol 379.15 378.15 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 -19.65854
Chilling of
33 378.15 - 379.15 Ethanol 379.15 378.15 0.766 2.43, 0, 0 0.08416
Third Stage
Wash Heating
34 378.15 - 379.15 Process 378.15 379.15 3.937 4.18, 0, 0 173.888
Second Stage
Wash Boiling
35 378.15 - 379.15 Process 378.15 379.15 0.766 837.85, 0, 0 -406.296
Chilling of fusel
36 379.15 - 385.65 alcohol 385.65 379.15 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 6.21486
Chilling of
37 379.15 - 385.65 Ethanol 385.65 379.15 0.766 2.43, 0, 0 37.2276
Third Stage
Wash Heating
38 379.15 - 385.65 Process 379.15 385.65 3.937 4.18, 0, 0 0.050496
Chilling of fusel
39 385.65 - 386.65 alcohol 386.65 385.65 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 -243.7776
Second Stage
Condensation of
Alcohol Vapor
40 385.65 - 386.65 (ethanol) 386.65 385.65 0.766 837.85, 0, 0 3.728916
Third Stage
Wash Heating
41 385.65 - 386.65 Process 385.65 386.65 3.937 4.18, 0, 0 22.33656

259
 Chilling of fusel
42 386.65 - 395.15 alcohol 395.15 386.65 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 0.035768
Third Stage
Wash Heating
43 386.65 - 395.15 Process 386.65 395.15 3.937 4.18, 0, 0 2.6413155
Chilling of fusel
44 395.15 - 396.15 alcohol 396.15 395.15 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 15.82173
Third Stage
Wash Boiling
45 395.15 - 396.15 Process 395.15 396.15 0.0016 911.9, 0, 0 0.004208
Chilling of fusel
46 396.15 - 402.65 alcohol 402.65 396.15 0.0016 2.63, 0, 0 1.86138
Third Stage
Condensation of
Alcohol Vapor
47 402.65 - 403.65 (fusel alcohol) 403.65 402.65 0.0016 911.9, 0, 0 5.58414

260
 :Simulation Results for Fouling Factors` Effe

Plant A, Exchanger 1 (SO3-Air)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
Fouling Factor 0 015 03 045 06 075 09 105 12 135 15 165 18 195 21 225 24 255 27 285 03

Percentage of
0.71 0.59 0.54 0.49 0.45 0.40 0.36 0.33 0.29 0.26 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.02
untransferred 308 801 617 764 211 931 900 098 504 104 0.22 821 913 146 510 0.08 594 299 103
heat 1 8 6 3 2 3 6 1 9 2 881 6 9 9 6 996 8 6 4 0
Plant A, Exchanger 6 (Air-Air)
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
Fouling Factor 0 015 03 045 06 075 09 105 12 135 15 165 18 195 21 225 24 255 27 285 03
Percentage of
1.52 1.34 1.18 1.05 0.93 0.82 0.73 0.56 0.49 0.43 0.37 0.31 0.26 0.22 0.17 0.13 0.09 0.06 0.03
untransferred 127 297 823 267 293 640 100 0.64 728 652 187 258 800 761 092 756 717 946 418 109
heat 4 6 7 7 9 4 5 508 6 1 3 2 8 1 8 3 5 7 2 2 0
Plant A, Exchanger 7 (Air-Water)
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
000 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 0.00 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 001
Fouling Factor 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 009 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 8
Percentage of
0.67 0.61 0.56 0.51 0.47 0.43 0.39 0.35 0.31 0.28 0.25 0.22 0.19 0.16 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02
untransferred 224 784 687 902 401 158 154 367 781 380 151 080 156 369 710 169 740 415 187 050
heat 1 5 8 6 2 9 2 5 6 9 3 4 7 8 4 9 5 1 1 6 0
Plant B, Exchanger 1 (Milk-Milk)
1.5 0.00 4.5 0.00 7.5 0.00 1.05 0.00 1.35 0.00 1.65 0.00 1.95 0.00 2.25 0.00 2.55 0.00 2.85 0.0
E- 000 E- 000 E- 000 E- 001 E- 001 E- 001 E- 002 E- 002 E- 002 E- 000
Fouling Factor 0 06 3 06 6 06 9 05 2 05 5 05 8 05 1 05 4 05 7 05 3
Percentage of
0.46 0.43 0.37 0.35 0.32 0.30 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.05
untransferred 436 494 0.40 952 339 823 399 0.28 808 632 530 499 534 0.15 793 011 284 609 985 409
heat 7 8 669 6 4 5 7 063 7 6 7 3 8 634 9 6 5 9 6 2 0
Plant C, Exchanger 1 (Liquid Ethanol-Wash)
1.5 0.00 4.5 0.00 7.5 0.00 1.05 0.00 1.35 0.00 1.65 0.00 1.95 0.00 2.25 0.00 2.55 0.00 2.85 0.0
E- 000 E- 000 E- 000 E- 001 E- 001 E- 001 E- 002 E- 002 E- 002 E- 000
Fouling Factor 0 06 3 06 6 06 9 05 2 05 5 05 8 05 1 05 4 05 7 05 3
Percentage of
0.25 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01
untransferred 000 453 945 473 037 635 266 928 622 345 0.11 876 682 514 372 253 158 086 036 007
heat 4 8 4 7 5 4 2 9 3 3 097 5 7 9 1 7 7 6 5 9 0

261
262