Qatar University
College of Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering
Fall 2023
Senior Design Project I
CHME 421 (L04)
Heat Exchange Network (HEN) and Optimization Task
Submitted By:
Mutaman Abdelrahim 201903574
Abdulrhman Faisal 202005445
Elhassen Chiekh Elhadrami 201808151
To: Prof. Hazim Qiblawey & Eng. Mohamed Abou Nada
I|Page
Table of Contents:
Introduction: _________________________________________________________________ 1
Pinch Technology: ___________________________________________________________ 2
Cascade method (Problem table algorithm): _______________________________________ 4
Methodology: ________________________________________________________________ 5
Results and discussion: _________________________________________________________ 8
Scenario #1: _______________________________________________________________ 12
Scenario #2: _______________________________________________________________ 13
Scenario #3: _______________________________________________________________ 14
Waste heat recovery: ________________________________________________________ 16
Waste heat reboilers: ______________________________________________________ 16
Calculations: ____________________________________________________________ 16
Low grade fuel: __________________________________________________________ 18
Environmental and Social impact: _______________________________________________ 18
Environmental Impact: ______________________________________________________ 19
Societal Impact: ____________________________________________________________ 19
Conclusion: _________________________________________________________________ 20
References: _________________________________________________________________ 21
II | P a g e
List of Figures:
Figure 1: A grid representation of a Heat Exchange Network (HEN). [2] ..................................... 2
Figure 3: Example of a composite curve showing temperature vs. heat load. [5] .......................... 3
Figure 4: The shifted and grand composite curves (Adjusted Temperature vs. Residual Enthalpy).
[5] .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 5: Problem Table Algorithm (PTA). [7] .............................................................................. 5
Figure 6: Carbon emission taxes around the world [Source: World Bank] .................................... 6
Figure 7: Energy saving ribbon....................................................................................................... 8
Figure 8: Energy savings from utilities and carbon emissions. ...................................................... 8
Figure 9: Cost savings from utilities ............................................................................................... 9
Figure 10: Suggested solutions from AEA ................................................................................... 11
Figure 11: CAPEX & OPEX versus minimum approach temperature ......................................... 11
Figure 12: Composite curve .......................................................................................................... 12
Figure 13: Scenario 1 HEN ........................................................................................................... 12
Figure 14: Scenario 2 HEN ........................................................................................................... 13
Figure 15: Scenario 3 HEN ........................................................................................................... 14
Figure 16: Illustration of Fired Heater Utilization in Energy Recovery Process .......................... 16
Figure 17: Simulation for the fired heater in Aspen Hysys after implementing the boilers ......... 17
List of Tables:
Table 1: Energy consumption details (Base vs Target) ................................................................ 10
Table 2: Carbon emissions details (Base vs. Target) .................................................................... 10
Table 3: Comparison table for scenario 1 ..................................................................................... 13
Table 4: Comparison table for scenario 2 ..................................................................................... 14
Table 5: Comparison table for scenario 3 ..................................................................................... 15
Table 6: Shows steam specifications ............................................................................................ 17
Table 7: Amount of Steam generation in WHB............................................................................ 17
Table 8: shows another source of heat generation from the combustion of rich hydrocarbon
byproducts and off gases. .............................................................................................................. 18
III | P a g e
Introduction:
In essence, process integration refers to the systematic holistic approach employed in process
engineering and industrial operations optimization to enhance and streamline various processes
within a system or across multiple systems in a plant. The primary goal is to increase overall
efficiency, reduce energy consumption, minimize waste, and improve the performance of the
integrated processes. One of the key aspects of process integration is the identification and
utilization of waste heat between units. While an analytical approach that individually optimizes
each unit is a viable way, a more effective strategy involves considering the whole unit
operations interconnected system as well. Process integration techniques are typically applied at
the project's inception, such as during the design of a new plant. By applying fundamental
chemical engineering principles and implementing computer methods tools, engineers can
systematically identify opportunities for process integration costs ensuring that resources, such as
raw materials and energy, are utilized in the most effective manner, resulting in reduced capital,
and operating. Process integration encompasses a range of methodologies, including heat
integration, mass integration, and utility system optimization. Heat integration, for instance,
focuses on the efficient exchange and utilization of heat within a system, often through the
design of heat exchanger networks. Energy integration is concerned when dealing with power
generation or consumption, heating, cooling, fuel, and pressurization or depressurization in
addition to harnessing the substantial thermal energy contained in byproducts like hot exhaust
gases. In a VCM production plant, various sources contribute to waste heat, such as gaseous and
liquid discharges, as well as heat released from pumps and compressors, presenting an opportune
reservoir for repurposing [1]. However, our primary focus will be on heating and cooling heat
integration, as well as waste heat recovery in subsequent which can be applied for diverse
purposes, serving to preheat boiler feed water, condition combustion air, facilitate steam
generation, contribute to power generation, or integrate into other process streams. In this report,
the optimization objective is basically minimizing utility targets via using heat exchange
networks.
1|Page
Figure 1: A grid representation of a Heat Exchange Network (HEN). [2]
Figure 2: Schematic diagram of a Waste heat recovery system. [3]
Pinch Technology:
Pinch analysis is used to achieve the least energy usage possible via obtaining minimum energy
targets (thermodynamically feasible) through optimizing process operating conditions, heat
recovery and energy supply systems. The technique, known as pinch technology, is applied to all
heat transfers within the plant in order to minimize external heat transfers to or from the site, The
2|Page
methodology involves generating composite curves. It presents a visual depiction of energy
flows in relation to temperature for all streams in a given plant. Typically, two composite curves
are generated: one for hot streams, which release heat, and another for cold streams, which
require heat. The point where the hot and cold composite curves approach most closely of these
composite curves is known as the pinch point. This critical point defines the minimum
temperature difference necessary for optimal heat transfer rates within the system (∆Tmin), that is,
the same amount of heat is transferred between the hot and cold streams [4].
Figure 2: Example of a composite curve showing temperature vs. heat load. [5]
The pinch point divides the section in between into two areas, additional heating utilities (extra)
are required above the pinch point and vice versa. In case there are multiple hot/cold streams the
term utility pinches are used, and the issue can be addressed but it is a bit more complicated than
having one pinch point. Moreover, the composite curves functionality is limited. In scenarios
where factors such as utility costs, availability, or target temperatures necessitate the utilization
of multiple heating or cooling utilities, commonly referred to as multiple utilities, these curves
reach their informational constraints and cannot provide additional insights.
3|Page
Figure 3: The shifted and grand composite curves (Adjusted Temperature vs. Residual Enthalpy). [5]
Unlike individual composite curves for hot and cold streams, the grand composite curve
combines and depicts the overall energy flows against temperature for all streams in a plant. This
unified representation enables a holistic view of the entire system's energy requirements and
helps identify opportunities for heat recovery and optimization. The formulation of the Grand
Composite Curve (GCC) is done directly from the cascade diagram where each residual
corresponds to hot temperature and cold temperature, the representation of utilities considering
both enthalpy and temperature levels. This curve is constructed by modifying interval
temperatures with ½ ∆Tmin and plotting the result against cumulative enthalpy, as illustrated in
the above figure.
Cascade method (Problem table algorithm):
The Cascade method, also known as the Problem Table Algorithm, is a numerical technique used
in process integration and pinch analysis to determine the minimum energy requirements and the
pinch point in a system. It is employed when analyzing the composite curve and identifying the
minimum heating and cooling demands requires a more detailed numerical approach. This
method involves creating a table, known as the problem table, that systematically breaks down
the heat exchange interactions between hot and cold streams. The table represents temperature
intervals and the corresponding heating or cooling duties required within each interval. The
algorithm proceeds by cascading through the table, iteratively adjusting the temperatures and
updating the duties until convergence is achieved. The goal is to reach a point where the heating
4|Page
and cooling duties match, identifying the pinch point and the minimum energy requirements of
the system. While it provides a sufficient numerical solution, it is considered more
computationally intensive compared to other techniques like the graphical pinch point analysis.
However, it becomes particularly useful in situations where the graphical methods may not be
adequate to capture the intricacies of the heat exchange network, and a more detailed numerical
approach is required for accurate results.
Figure 4: Problem Table Algorithm (PTA). [7]
Methodology:
This section lays out the assumptions and the steps that will be followed in this report to find a
better option/scenario for optimizing the process.
starting with the assumptions:
1. The simulation operates under fixed conditions.
2. Utilities assumed by the Aspen Hysys simulation will be utilized.
3. All operating units fall within the scope of the energy analyzer.
4. The optimization process will study and take into consideration the cost efficiency,
energy saving and safety (including the workplace, environment, and society).
5. There won't be any consideration for carbon emissions tax since no policies in the state of
Qatar impose fees or taxes on carbon emissions, and there are no imminent plans for such
implementations. However, it is essential to account for the environmental impact in
decision-making for upcoming scenarios. The figure below provides evidence supporting
this statement.
5|Page
Figure 5: Carbon emission taxes around the world [Source: World Bank]
The HEN procedure will be executed using Aspen Energy Analyzer (AEA). In cases where AEA
does not propose a solution, the cascade method will be employed. The following outlines the
fundamental steps for implementing the cascade method:
1. Identify and list all process streams in the system, specifying heat capacity rates and
temperatures for each.
2. Create a table with hot streams as rows and cold streams as columns, filling in the table
with heat transfer rates between each pair of streams.
3. Identify potential matches for heat transfer between hot and cold streams.
4. Determine the pinch point, representing the minimum temperature difference between
any pair of hot and cold streams.
5. Plot the process streams around the pinch point, identifying regions above and below the
curve.
6. Identify and match heat exchangers within the pinch region based on heat capacity
between hot and cold streams.
7. Integrate heating utility above the pinch region and cooling utility below the pinch region
after matching heat exchangers.
6|Page
The waste heat recovery procedure involves leveraging various resources within the process,
such as high-temperature flue gas exceeding 900°C, combustible waste hydrocarbons, and high-
pressure streams, to generate energy. This energy can then be employed to enhance the operation
and optimization of the overall process.
In the case of the high-temperature flue gas exiting the fired heater, its heat can be harnessed to
produce low-pressure steam (LPS) using boiler feed water (BFW). This is particularly valuable
as there is a shortage of LPS in the plant. The following equation provides an estimate of the
amount required from the boiler feed water.
𝑄
𝑚𝐵𝐹𝑊 =
𝜂(𝐶𝑝 ∆𝑇 + ∆𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝 )
Where:
Q is the heat provided by the flue gas.
Cp specific heat capacity of the BFW.
∆T difference between the temperature of the saturated low-pressure liquid and the temperature
of the supplied BFW.
∆Hvap is the latent heat of the LPS.
η for the efficiency of the boiler (90%).
The combustible waste hydrocarbons will undergo combustion in the incinerator (flare) to
produce heat. The quantity of heat generated can be determined using the following equation for
all combustible wastes.
𝑛
𝑄 = 𝜂 ∑(𝑚 × 𝐿𝐻𝑉)𝑖
𝑖=0
Where:
Q is heat generated.
n is the number of combustible streams.
m mass flowrate of the combustible stream.
LHV stands for the low heating value (the specific generated heat obtained from Aspen Hysys).
η for the efficiency of the incinerator (90%).
For the high-pressure streams, a turbine will be used to generate electricity. The generated
electricity will be generated from Aspen Hysys with an efficiency of 75%.
7|Page
Results and discussion:
This section aims to find the optimum heat exchange network that minimizes the need for
external utilities. In this section, findings from Aspen Energy Analyzer (AEA) will be shown and
discussed including the potential energy saving, utility and carbon emissions targets, optimum
minimum approach temperature (∆Topt), composite curve at ∆Topt, and finally the best solution
that can be obtained from AEA.
Figure 6: Energy saving ribbon.
Figure 7: Energy savings from utilities and carbon emissions.
The potential savings from the VCM simulation represent 36.48% of the actual total energy
consumption. This suggests that there's potential for optimizing the overall energy usage in the
system. For heating utilities, available savings represent 44.08% of the actual heating energy
consumption, indicating a significant opportunity for improvement in the efficiency of the
heating process. For cooling Utilities, the available savings are 31.11% of the actual cooling
8|Page
energy consumption. Exploring ways to enhance the efficiency of the cooling process could lead
to substantial energy savings. And for carbon emissions, the available savings in terms of
reduced carbon emissions are 36.48% of the actual emissions. This indicates that the simulation
has the potential to save energy and contribute to environmental sustainability through lower
carbon emissions.
Figure 8: Cost savings from utilities
The simulation of the VCM plant has the capability to realize substantial cost reductions, as the
identified savings amount to approximately 52.86% of the current total utility expenditures.
Notably, heating utilities exhibit considerable potential for savings, accounting for 45.44% of the
existing costs. Cooling utilities show the most significant relative change in potential savings,
reaching 256.07% of the current costs. The negative sign denotes that there is energy generation
during the cooling process.
9|Page
Table 1: Energy consumption details (Base vs Target)
The table above illustrates the present consumption levels and potential savings for all employed
direct utilities. There is a substantial potential saving of 45.44% for hot utilities. Likewise, a
significant amount of 256.08% in potential savings is observed for cold utilities.
Table 2: Carbon emissions details (Base vs. Target)
In the context of carbon emission savings, the provided data reveals substantial opportunities for
reduction. Specifically, the "Total Hot Utilities" exhibit significant potential in LP Steam, HP
Steam, and Very High Temperature processes. Conversely, the "Total Cold Utilities" highlight
noteworthy savings in Cooling Water and MP Steam Generation. The "Saving Potential" values
represent the difference between current and target carbon emissions, indicating the scope for
10 | P a g e
environmental improvement in each utility. Overall, the data emphasizes key areas for targeted
optimization, reinforcing the potential for considerable carbon emission reductions in both hot
and cold utilities within the plant.
Figure 9: Suggested solutions from AEA
The figure above presents three recommended solutions from AEA. The second solution
demonstrates the highest percentage of energy savings, albeit requiring a greater initial
investment compared to the other options. Conversely, the third solution has the lowest energy
savings percentage but comes with a relatively lower additional capital cost.
Figure 10: CAPEX & OPEX versus minimum approach temperature
The depicted graph illustrates the relationship between Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) and
Operational Expenditure (OPEX) concerning the minimum approach temperature (∆T). This
graph is employed to derive the optimal minimum approach temperature (∆Topt), identified at
the intersection point between the two curves.
11 | P a g e
Figure 11: Composite curve
Figure #12 displays the composite curve alongside the potential optimization region (the area
between the two green lines) at the optimal approach temperature. Beyond the pinch point on the
right side (above the pinch), there is a need for a heating utility, whereas on the left side (below
the pinch), a cooling utility is necessary. However, the figure is not ideal as it indicates limited
opportunities for integration.
Scenario #1:
Figure 12: Scenario 1 HEN
The depicted figure illustrates a heat exchange network recommended by AEA for a minimum
temperature difference (∆Tmin) of 10°C. It proposes the inclusion of 14 process-to-process heat
exchangers (white dots), with red dots denoting heating utilities and blue dots representing
12 | P a g e
cooling utilities. Noteworthy is the substantial reduction in the number of cooling and heating
utilities. The table below compares this specific scenario with the base case.
Table 3: Comparison table for scenario 1
Table #3 presents a summary comparing the proposed scenario to the base case, along with their
respective ratios (base case to target). The outcomes reveal a 44.08% relative difference in
savings from heating utilities and 31.11% from cooling utilities (see figure #). Notably, operating
costs were nearly halved compared to the base scenario. However, the implementation of
additional heat exchange network units, one more than the base case, necessitates an extra initial
investment of 13.47%.
Scenario #2:
Figure 13: Scenario 2 HEN
for a ∆Topt= 14.7°C, AEA suggests 15 process-to-process heat exchangers. The table below
compares this case scenario to the base case.
13 | P a g e
Table 4: Comparison table for scenario 2
In a similar vein, Table #4 outlines the comparison between the suggested scenario and the base
case, providing ratios and insights. The results indicate a 37.27% relative difference in savings
from heating utilities and 26.32% from cooling utilities (refer to figure #8). Operating costs were
also significantly reduced to nearly half of the base scenario. Nevertheless, the introduction of
two more heat exchange network units than the base case requires an additional initial
investment of 7.67%.
Scenario #3:
Figure 14: Scenario 3 HEN
for a ∆Tmin= 20°C, AEA suggests 15 process-to-process heat exchangers (white dots). The table
below compares this case scenario to the base case:
14 | P a g e
Table 5: Comparison table for scenario 3
Examining Table #5, it summarizes the contrast between the proposed scenario and the base
case, offering their ratios and respective details. The findings showcase a 33.65% relative
difference in savings from heating utilities and 23.75% from cooling utilities (refer to figure #8).
Operating costs were slashed to less than half of the base scenario. However, the incorporation of
two extra heat exchange network units compared to the base case involves an additional initial
investment of 2.98%.
Upon comparing the various scenarios outlined in Tables #3, #4, and #5, it becomes evident that
each scenario involves trade-offs between savings, operating costs, and initial investments. In
Scenario #1, there is a substantial 44.08% relative difference in savings from heating utilities and
31.11% from cooling utilities, with a corresponding higher initial investment of 13.47%.
Scenario #2 presents a slightly reduced relative difference in savings, standing at 37.27% for
heating utilities and 26.32% for cooling utilities, along with a moderately lower initial
investment of 7.67%. Finally, Scenario #3 exhibits the smallest relative difference in savings
(33.65% for heating utilities and 23.75% for cooling utilities) but involves the least additional
initial investment, totaling 2.98%.
Considering these factors collectively, Scenario #1 emerges as the most economical option.
Although it involves a high initial investment, but on the long run it saves a large amount of
direct utilities from being used. Therefore, Scenario #1 stands out as a better choice, offering a
well-balanced compromise between savings and initial investment.
15 | P a g e
Waste heat recovery:
Waste heat recovery is a process centered on capturing and repurposing thermal energy generated
as a byproduct in industrial operations, rather than letting it go to waste. This recovery can take
place through various methods, including the utilization of heat from high-temperature processes,
the extraction of energy from high-pressure systems, or the reclamation of thermal energy
contained within combustion materials. In industrial settings, waste heat recovery assumes a
significant role in optimizing energy utilization. High-temperature processes are harnessed to
generate steam, effectively converting heat into a valuable resource. Furthermore, the approach
extends to capturing energy from combustible materials, ensuring that the thermal potential within
combustion byproducts is recovered and utilized efficiently.
Waste heat reboilers:
In the plant, a focus on energy optimization involves capturing heat from the outlet stream of the
fired heater, reaching a high temperature of 936.8 degrees. Through a tailored waste heat recovery
system, the outlet stream is directed into a specialized heat exchanger. This process efficiently
captures thermal energy to generate various steam types—High-Pressure (HP), Low-Pressure
(LP), and Medium-Pressure (MP). This strategic approach contributes to maximizing energy use
and minimizing waste in the industrial processes.
Figure 15: Illustration of Fired Heater Utilization in Energy Recovery Process
Calculations:
• Initial temperature of the outlet stream from the fired heater: 936°C.
16 | P a g e
• Multi-stage temperature reduction:
First stage: Reduced to 260°C for High-Pressure (HP) steam.
Second stage: Further reduced to 222°C for Medium-Pressure (MP) steam.
Third stage: Further reduced to 140°C for Low-Pressure (LP) steam.
Figure 16: Simulation for the fired heater in Aspen Hysys after implementing the boilers
Steam specifications
Type P Tsat (°C) 𝛥𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝 (kJ/kg)
HPS 39.76 250 1713.47
MPS 19.85 212 1889.76
LPS 2.70 130 2163.44
Table 6: Shows steam specifications
So, to calculate amount of steam that can be generated can be expressed as:
𝑄
𝑚𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚 =
𝛥𝐻𝑣𝑎𝑝
Steam Generated (Kg//h)
HPS 14438.54
MPS 679.98
LPS 1263.73
Table 7: Amount of Steam generation in WHB
17 | P a g e
Low grade fuel:
Low-grade fuels refer to materials or process streams within industrial operations that contain
significant amounts of combustible material. Instead of discarding these materials as waste, they
are strategically utilized to raise steam or provide direct process heating.
Fuel LHV/HHV Mass Flow Eff Duty (KJ/hr)
S-13 20435.61 950.82 0.6 11658388.82
S-17 4061.188 3826.03 0.6 9322935.996
S-41 13303.95 586.46 0.6 4681360.13
S-47 12590.65 1861.40 0.6 14061770.98
S-54 8807.674 891.24 0.6 4709845.928
Total heat from incinerator or furnace 44434301.86
Table 8: shows another source of heat generation from the combustion of rich hydrocarbon byproducts and off gases.
In this waste heat recovery study, high-temperature flue gas streams with an initial temperature of
936.8°C were effectively harnessed for energy generation through a series of coolers, resulting in
the production of High-Pressure (HP), Medium-Pressure (MP), and Low-Pressure (LP) steam at
rates of 14,438.54 kg/h, 679.98 kg/h, and 1,263.73 kg/h, respectively. This process exemplified
the successful conversion of waste heat into valuable steam resources, optimizing energy
utilization in the plant. Additionally, streams containing combustible material and off gases were
identified, with a cumulative energy content of 44,434,301.86 kJ/h. These findings highlight the
considerable potential for recovering energy from diverse plant streams, emphasizing the
economic and environmental benefits of waste heat recovery initiatives. The results underscore the
importance of integrating such strategies to enhance energy efficiency, reduce environmental
impact, and contribute to sustainable industrial practices.
Environmental and Social impact:
Constructing a VCM (Vinyl Chloride Monomer) plant in the state of Qatar has implications for
the environment, including marine life, wildlife, ecosystems, plants, and the broader Qatari
society. They are listed as follow:
18 | P a g e
Environmental Impact:
1. Marine Life:
The construction and operation of a VCM plant might create risks to marine ecosystems,
especially if it involves waste discharge into nearby water sink from wastewater treatment
facilities or hot streams from heating utilities. Which eventually creates unsuitable environment
for marine life, including fish, coral reefs, and other aquatic organisms.
2. Wildlife and Ecosystems:
Wildlife habitats in the vicinity of the VCM plant site may be endangered from Airborne
pollutants, soil composition change or potential chemical releases that can impact the balance of
plant and animal species.
3.Climate change and Greenhouse effect:
The VCM plant's operations may contribute to climate change through the release of greenhouse
gases including methane, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, etc. Vinyl chloride production is
associated with greenhouse gas emissions, primarily in the form of chlorinated hydrocarbons or
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). A thorough assessment of the plant's carbon footprint and
implementation of measures to reduce emissions are essential (optimization).
Societal Impact:
1. Employment Opportunities:
The construction and operation of a VCM plant could provide employment opportunities for the
local workforce and reduce the percentage of the Unemployment rate.
2. Economic Contributions:
The establishment of the VCM plant may contribute to the local economy. This can potentially
fund community development projects and infrastructure improvements.
3. Social Responsibility:
The VCM plant project should uphold principles of social responsibility. This includes actively
engaging with local communities, promoting ethical business practices, and investing in
initiatives that contribute to community well-being through education and health programs.
4. Endangering nearby local communities.
Overall, the decision to construct a VCM plant in Qatar demands a comprehensive
environmental impact assessment (EIA) that considers potential risks and benefits. Mitigation
19 | P a g e
measures, adherence to environmental regulations, and engagement with local communities are
vital components of responsible and sustainable industrial development. Environmental and
societal impacts should be continuously monitored, and adjustments to operational practices
should be made as needed to minimize negative consequences. The ultimate goal should be to
strike a balance between industrial growth and preserving the unique environmental and cultural
aspects of the state of Qatar.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the optimization task for the VCM plant process revealed significant potential
savings of 36.48% in total energy consumption. AEA's recommended solutions, particularly the
second one, demonstrated notable energy savings of 15.29%. The optimum minimum approach
temperature was identified at 14.7 degrees Celsius. Additionally, AEA proposed three scenarios,
with the first showcasing the highest savings in hot and cooling utilities at 44.08% and 31.11%,
respectively. Waste heat recovery generated High-Pressure, Medium-Pressure, and Low-Pressure
steam, along with combustible hydrocarbons contributing 44,434,301.86 kJ/h. However, the
process's environmental impact on marine and wildlife, climate change, and social concerns,
including employment opportunities and community well-being, must be carefully considered in
implementing these optimizations.
20 | P a g e
References:
[1] Klemeš, J. J. (Ed.). (2022). Handbook of process integration (PI): minimisation of energy and
water use, waste and emissions. Woodhead Publishing.
[2] Panjeshahi, M. & Latifi, Mohammad & Tahouni, Nassim. (2006). De-bottlenecking of Heat
Exchanger Networks, Already Designed by Pinch Design Method.
[3] https://www.tmeic.com/industry-solution/waste-heat-recovery-system
[4] Winterbone, D. E., & Turan, A. (2015). Pinch Technology. In D. E. Winterbone & A. Turan
(Eds.), Advanced Thermodynamics for Engineers (Second Edition) (pp. 447-465). Butterworth-
Heinemann. ISBN 9780444633736. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63373-6.00019-8
[5] https://archive.conscientiabeam.com/index.php/63/article/download/2378/5440?inline=1
[6] Jamaluddin, K., Wan Alwi, S. R., Hamzah, K., & Klemeš, J. (2020). A Numerical Pinch
Analysis Methodology for Optimal Sizing of a Centralized Trigeneration System with Variable
Energy Demands. Energies, 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13082038
[7] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Problem-Table-Algorithm-PTA_fig3_339233527
[8] Carbon Pricing Dashboard | Up-to-date overview of carbon pricing initiatives. (n.d.).
https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/
21 | P a g e
