Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
.
A set of fresh source NFRESH is also provided at a cost of Cost
r
to supplement the process source in
the formation of an optimal network. The subscript
r
indicates the fresh source. The fresh sources are
designated by their Temperature T
r
, composition C
r
, and properties
.
A set of utilities designated NUTILITY are provided which are streams that are required in order to
cool or heat streams. The subscript
k
indicates the type of utility. Each utility is then characterized by their
temperature T
k
, and composition C
k
. The utility is purchased at a cost; COST
k
to supplement the heating and
cooling needs of the network.
A set of sinks henceforth referred to as NSINKS are process units that can accept the flowrate of the
sources. The sinks are then further categorized into three types of sinks. NSINKpro which represents the
process sinks, NSINKutil which represents the utility sinks and NSINKenv which represents the
environment sinks.
For NSINKpro, each is required to fulfill either a fixed or ranged flowrate F
j
, composition C
j
,
temperature T
j,
or property
(1)
) and
and stream
.
The subscript
p
refers to the type of property while
, flowrate.
As for temperature, mixing rules are also required in order to define the splitting and mixing of each
stream. The mixing rule for temperature is as shown in Equation 2.
(2)
F, denotes flowrate while Cp denotes the specific heat capacity, T denotes the temperature and T
0
denotes the reference temperature. The subscript indicates the stream in which the variable represents.
Equation 2 shows that temperature of the mixture stream is determined based on the contribution of heat
energy from each stream.
In the event that the use of fresh and process sources are unable to meet the temperature demands of
the sinks, heat exchange equipments would thus be required. The formula that governs the energy exchange
between the hot stream and the cold stream is shown in Equation 3.
)
The subscript
Hot
refers to the hot stream while the subscript
Cold
refers to the cold stream. Subscript
a
represents after heat exchange and subscript
b
represents before heat exchange.
The objective is thus to synthesize a network that provides the optimal allocation of resources while
satisfying the flowrate, composition, temperature, and property constraints of the sinks at minimum TAC.
III. OUTLINE OF THE MODEL
NSINK, NSOURCE, NUTILITY, NFRESH, NMIX represent the sets for sinks, process sources,
utilities, fresh sources and mixers. To denote each process source, sink, utilities, fresh sources and mixers,
the following indices i, j, k, r, and m are used respectively. As for sinks, they are further categorized into
three types of sinks which are process sinks j
Pro
designated as the set NSINKpro, environmental sinks, j
Env
as
set NSINKenv and utilities sinks, j
Util
as set NSINKutil. Each type of sink is given an additional subscript
behind the j indices as specified in the nomenclature section. As for the mixers they are further categorized
into two types which are process mixers m
Pro
designated as set NMIXpro, and energy integration mixers
m
Ener
designated as set NMIXener.
It can be noted that each process sink is designated an energy integration node (EIN) for which the
proposed model would determine it to be a heat exchanger, heater, cooler or disabled. Upstream each EINs
are two mixers. Ones to the left of each EIN are the mixers designated NMIXpro and function to meet the
sinks mass and property demands while mixers on the top of each EIN are for the energy exchange streams
used to meet the temperature constraints (if required) of each sink named NMIXener. Each fresh source is
connected to individual splitters and then each split stream connected to the NMIXpro and NMIXener. The
same is done to process sources. Each process source is connected to individual splitters but the only
difference is that split streams from process sources splitters are connected not only to the NMIXpro and
NMIXener but also to NSINKenv. For utility streams, they are connected to their designated splitters and
the split streams connected only to the NMIXener and NSINKener.
From each EIN, there are now two outputs, one from the NMIXpro and the other from the
NMIXener. The streams from the NMIXener are then sent to their respective environmental sinks
NSINKenv or utility sinks NSINKutil based on their compositions. As for the streams from the NMIXpro,
they are then connected to their respective process sinks, NSINKpro and must meet the mass, property and
thermal constraints to be deemed feasible.
To model the temperatures of each stream, the specific heat capacity of each stream are required.
The molar fractions of components in each stream are then tracked and the specific heat capacity determined
based on the molar fraction of components within the stream. With the specific heat capacity, input
flowrates and initial temperatures of the fresh source and process source known, the temperature of any
stream after mixing can then be determined by tracking the heat energy in each stream.
As for energy exchange at the EIN, the stream that exits the NMIXpro into the EIN would undergo
energy exchange with the stream that exits the NMIXener into the EIN. To identify correct match of
temperatures to ensure no temperature cross occur, constraints are set based on the inlet and the outlet
temperatures of the streams entering and exiting the EIN.
To determine the cost of individual heaters, coolers and heat exchangers for the TAC optimization
objective function, sizing of the equipment was required. To calculate for area, the duty, log mean
temperature difference and overall heat transfer coefficient are required. To obtain the duty Equation 4 was
used. The mass flowrates, specific heat capacities, inlet outlet temperatures, and overall heat transfer
coefficients of the streams going into each EIN are evaluated using the proposed model.
(4)
Q denotes the heat duty, Cp denotes the specific heat capacity and denotes temperature
difference.
IV. MODEL FORMULATION
A. Fresh Feed Overall Mass Balance NFRESH.
Fresh sources are split and sent to process mixers and environmental sinks as shown in Equation 5.
F
r
denotes the total fresh source flowrate,
F
i
denotes the total flowrate of process source while
F
k
denotes the total flowrate of utility,
.
E. Overall Mass Balance at NMI Xener.
The total flowrates to the inlet of any NMIXener mixers are from the process source and utility as
shown in Equation 10.
denotes
the flowrate out from NMIXener entering NSINKutil.
F. Overall Mass Balance at NSI NKpro.
Since each process sink is designated an EIN, the flowrates to the EINs NMIXpro must equal the
flowrates into each designated NSINKpro. The balance is shown in Equation 12.
For Equation 12,
.
G. Overall Mass Balance at NSI NKutil.
The total flowrate for the utility sink,
, and the
EIN output from the NMIXeners,
.
J . Composition Balance at NSI NKpro.
The composition balance of NSINKpro is shown in Equation 17.
For Equation 17,
.
K. Composition Balance at NSI NKenv.
The composition balance at NSINKenv is shown in Equation 18.
The composition balance of the output of NMIXener that passes through the EIN and enters either
the environmental sink or the utility sink is shown in Equation 21.
N. Property Balance at NMI Xpro.
For property balance, unlike composition balance, not all properties mix and split linearly. Thus
properties have to be converted into a linear form in order for it to be tracked for all streams within the
system. This is achieved through the use of different property operators for different properties as. The
symbol
denotes the property operators and the type of property is denoted by the subscript.
The property balance of the NMIXpro input is shown in Equation 22.
.
O. Property Balance at NSI NKpro.
The output from the NMIXpro passes through the EIN and enters the NSINKpro without any
subsequent mixing or splitting. Thus the property of the stream that exits the NSINKpro must equal to the
property that enters the NSINKpro as shown in Equation24.
From Equation 24,
.
P. Energy Balance for NMI Xpro.
As for the energy balance, stream temperatures are tracked based on the amount of heat energy in
each stream using Equation 5. To evaluate the heat of a stream, the specific heat capacity is denoted using
Cp. As for temperature, all streams are evaluated based on the difference from T
0
which equals 273.15
Kelvin. The streams temperatures are denoted by the symbol T. As for the subscripts, a dictates the
temperature of the stream AFTER heat exchange and b as BEFORE heat exchange.
The energy balance for the input into NMIXpro is then defined in Equation 25.
and
denotes the specific heat capacity and temperature of the stream entering
NMIXpro.
and
denotes the specific heat capacity and temperature of the fresh source entering
NMIXpro.
and
denotes the specific heat capacity and temperature of the process source entering
NMIXpro.
As for the output temperature from NMIXpro, it is dependent on the energy exchange (if any) that
occurs at the EIN. Further explanation on the mathematical model of the energy exchange would be
described in section S.
Q. Energy Balance for NSI NKenv.
The energy balance input for the environmental sink is modeled as Equation 26.
and
denotes the specific heat capacity and temperature of the stream entering
NSINKenv.
and
denotes the specific heat capacity and temperature of the stream entering
the NMIXener.
R. Energy Balance for NMI Xener.
The energy balance input for NMIXener mixers as shown in Equation 27.
and
denotes the specific heat capacity and temperature of the NUTILITY streams.
The output temperature from NMIXene is also dependent on the energy exchange (if any) that
occurs at the EIN. Further explanation on the mathematical model of the energy exchange would be
described in section S.
S. Energy Exchange at the EI N.
To determine the output temperature of the stream from the EIN, an energy balance between the
outputs of the NMIXpro and NMIXener is required. Equation 28 shows the mathematical model of the
balance.
denotes the temperature of the stream from NMIXener entering the EIN while
denotes the temperature of the stream from NMIXener exiting the EIN after energy exchange (if any).
denotes the temperature of the stream from the NMIXpro exiting the EIN after energy
exchange (if any) while
denotes the temperature of the stream from the NMIXpro entering the
EIN.
Since the stream from NMIXpro is the same as the stream that enters NSINKpro as stated in
Equation 12, Equation 29 must then hold true as the temperature of the stream from NMIXpro AFTER heat
exchange must equal to the temperature of the stream entering the process sinks.
, then
must equal 0 as
and
and
are used. If
,
the stream undergoes cooling thus it must be a hot stream and the stream from NMIXener must be a cold
stream. In order to prevent temperature crosses, the inlet and outlet temperatures for the hot stream must
always be higher than the inlet and outlet temperatures for the cold stream. This is where the use of the
logical function IF is used as shown in Equation 30 and 31. Assuming within the energy exchange unit, the
flow is counter current, Equation 30 evaluates the temperature match between the streams from NMIXpro
entering the EIN with the streams from the NMIXener exiting the EIN. Equation 31 evaluates the
temperature match between the streams NMIXener entering the EIN with the streams from the NMIXpro
exciting the EIN. The evaluated variable is then given the symbols B
1
and B
2
as shown in Equation 30 and
31.
@IF
then
]
else
@IF
then
]
else
= 0 as subtraction between
with
and
with
or
to be 0. When
= 1, Equation 26 and 27 ensures that for the EIN, the hot streams
input and output is always higher than the cold streams input and output.
T. Heater, Cooler, Heat Exchanger Sizing.
To optimize the network based on TAC, any heaters, coolers and heat exchangers have to be sized to
determine their costs. Through sizing, the area required to achieve the desired energy exchange is obtained
and using area, the cost of the unit can be determined. Equation 32 is used to obtain the area of each heater,
cooler or heat exchanger.
|
|
)
|
|
denotes the area of the heat exchange equipment for a particular NSINKpro while U denotes
the overall heat transfer coefficient.
(
denotes the overall heat transfer coefficient if process source is being used to heat or cool while
denotes the overall heat transfer coefficient if a particular utility is being used to heat of cool.
From Equation 32 a situation arises where when B
1
= B
2
, then the term (
) in Equation 33 would
equal 0 thus a division by 0 error is present. Thus Equation 34 is used to prevent cases where B
1
= B
2
.
|
| ( (
))
Equation 34 ensures that when the EIN is enabled, B
1
can never equal B
2
as the absolute value
obtained by subtraction between the two would yield a number greater than 0.
U. Cooler, Heater, Heat Exchanger Cost Estimation
To estimate the Cost of each heater, cooler and heat exchanger, the area is multiplied by the cost per
unit area (CPUA) of a heat exchange
[16]
. The total cost is then converted to the Equivalent Annual Cost
(EAC) based on a cost of capital (COC) of 5% and an expected lifetime of 20 years. The formula is shown
in Equation 35.
(
EAC denotes the equivalent annual cost while COC denotes the cost of capital, CPUA denotes cost
per unit area and y denotes the expected lifetime.
V. Specific Heat Capacity Calculation.
Unless the specific heat capacity of each stream is given, it needs to be evaluated. The specific heat
capacity of each stream is tracked based on the mole fraction of components in the stream. Equation 36
represents the Cp model for NFRESH, NSOURCE, NMIXpro, NSINKenv, and NSINKpro streams.
Equation 37 represents the Cp model for NMIXener streams.
denotes the specific heat capacity of NFRESH, NSOURCE, NMIXpro, NSINKenv, and
NSINKpro streams while
denotes the mole fraction of the contributing utility component to the NMIXener streams
while
(39)
The subscript
s
indicates that the value is set by the user base on data obtained from case studies
X. Component Balance Constraints
Component constraints are set for the fresh source, process source and the sink. The sink constraints
are set for two main purposes. One reason is to ensure that the input into each process sink meets the
component constraints set and the other reason is to ensure that the different utilities and process source do
not mix. Since the component flow going into NSINKpro is the same as the component flow entering
NMIXpro as shown in Equation 17, the constraint is set at NMIXpro. The fresh source, utilities, and process
source sinks are set by Equation 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45. Equation 46 and 47 governs the component
constraints for streams entering NSINKpro while Equation 48, 49, 50, and 51 ensures that the different
utilities and process source do not mix and enters the correct environmental or utility sink.
The subscript
Util
refers to the utility components being tracked from NUTILITY.
denotes the
concentration of component
Util
in fresh source.
denotes the
concentration of component q of NMIXpro streams.
Z. Energy Balance Constraints
The energy constraints are set as temperature constraints for NSOURCE, NFRESH, NUTILITY, and
NSINKpro. Based on Equation 29, the temperature of the stream from NMIXpro that exits the EIN equals
the temperature of the process sink NSINKpro. Thus the temperature constraints for NSINKpro can be set
as the temperature of the stream from NMIXpro which exits the EIN. Equation 55 depicts the temperature
constraints for NSOURCE, NFRESH, and NUTILITY while Equation 56 depicts the temperature
constraints for NSINKpro.
)
The symbol Cost denotes the material cost while the subscript denotes which stream to cost is
referring to. Tcost however symbolizes the treatment cost while the subscript denotes the stream in
reference. As for piping costs, the symbol used is Pcost while the subscript indicates at which point in the
system does the pipeline starts and the ends at.
V. CASE STUDIES
In order to illustrate the applicability of the proposed model, the proposed model was applied to two
case studies. The first case study was based on a vinyl acetate monomer plant modified by Tan et al. (2012)
[19]
. This case study was selected as the simplicity of the system allows for an easy understanding of the
application of the proposed model. The TAC and the OC were evaluated and the results compared to those
obtained by Tan et al. (2012).
The second case study was adopted from Kheireddine Houssein, et al, (2011) which is a phenol
production plant utilizing the decomposition of cumene hydroperoxide (CHP) that forms phenol and acetone
in the presence of sulphuric acid
[14]
. This case study was selected to demonstrate that the proposed model is
applicable for larger systems as well as non-component based property constrains. The TAC and OC+PCost
were evaluated and the results compared to those obtained by Kheireddine Houssein, et al, (2011).
A. Case Study 1
A case study based on a vinyl acetate monomer plant modified by Tan et al. (2012) is adopted and
the model implemented to illustrate the approach proposed
[19]
. The data for the fresh and process source are
tabulated in Table 2 while the sinks data are tabulated in Table 3.
This case study consists of 84 variables with 120 constraints and is solved within 3 minute using a
notebook (2.3 GHz, 4GB RAM). A total of 650837 iterations were required before the global optimum was
obtained. The optimal solution is shown in Figure 2.
Based on the results, with mass, property and energy integration, the solution presents a minimum
TAC of $48.08 million/yr. $47.92 million/yr comes from the fresh feed costs while $161,640/yr from utility
and $2,700/yr from the equipment costs. Compared to the $62.7 million/yr obtained through Tan et al.
(2012) method, there seems to be a large difference, but this is due to the method in which they calculated
utility cost which is different. In their paper, utility cost was calculated based on the duty. But in this model,
the utility cost is calculated using flowrate of the utility itself. If Tan et al.s (2012) utility cost was
calculated with the same method used in this model, their TAC would add up to only $48.21 million/yr.
$48.165 million/yr from fresh feed costs and $48,900/yr for utility costs. The fresh feed flow obtained using
this model is 9584 kg/h while from the original case study was 9633 kg/h.
The lower TAC obtained through implementation of this model is due to the 0.51 % lower fresh feed
usage as compared to the case study. Another thing to note is that due to the lower fresh feed usage, less
waste is also generated, 4784 kg/h compared with 4833.5 kg/h. Although the utility cost based on this model
is 3.3 times higher than the original case study, the increase in utility costs is small as compared to the
savings from the reduction of fresh feed. The cost of coolers, heaters and heat exchangers is also minor
compared to the fresh feed costs as the lifetime of the coolers, heaters and heat exchangers were set to 20
years
[14]
. The results for TAC along with the results by Tan et al. (2012) with modified utility costs are
tabulated in Table 4.
The solution from implementing the model yields the same number of heaters, coolers and heat
exchangers as the original case study. Both solutions showed 1 cooler and 1 heat exchanger but with the
model, sizing of the heat exchangers showed that the cooler requires a total area of 16 m
2
while the heat
exchanger required an area of 35.1 m
2
.
For comparison, the objective function for this case study was switched to OC and the changes to the
optimum network observed. The results are shown in Table 4 and the network shown in Figure 3.
There is notable change to the network after modifying the objective function to OC. Although the
operating costs are the same as compared to the TAC objective function case, the size of the heat exchanger
and cooler are much larger in the OC case which makes sense as they have yet to be optimized. The
difference in size is due to the different temperature of the streams entering the EIN. The size of the heat
exchanger is 43.65m
2
and the cooler is 49.9m
2
. This equates to a higher TAC cost by about $2240/yr.
B. Case Study 2
This case study is to show that the model is capable of integrating larger systems as well as
incorporate non component based property constraints. The case study consists of phenol production from
the decomposition of cumene hydroperoxide (CHP) that forms phenol and acetone in the presence of
sulfuric acid. Figure 4 shows a simplified process diagram that depicts the streams present in the system.
From Figure 4, it is found that this case study contains 2 fresh sources, 3 process sinks which are
Wash101, R104, and Wash102, and 3 process sources which are from Wash101, D101, and Wash102. The
property being tracked in this case study is vapor pressure. The data for this case study was obtained from
work by Kheireddine Houssein, et al, (2011) with the lower limit temperature requirements of the Wash102
sink modified from 60 to 7 and tabulated in Table 5 and 6
[14]
. Piping costs
are also available from their work and is tabulated in Table 7. In this case study however, the heat of mixing
is omitted as well as the varying Cp of the streams in an effort to simplify the case study.
This case study consists of 166 variables with 215 constraints and is solved within 2.50 minutes
using a notebook (2.3 GHz, 4GB RAM). A total of 288631 iterations were required before the global
optimum was obtained. The optimal solution is shown in Figure 5.
Based on the results, using process source alone to achieve the modified temperature constraint for
Wash101 is not possible, thus the need for the use of utilities to heat the stream. And since heat exchange is
not required to meet the temperature requirements of Wash102 and Neutralizer R104, no heat exchange
equipment is needed for those two sinks. The solution presents a minimum TAC of $98,200/yr compared to
the $93,825/yr obtained by Kheireddine Houssein, et al, (2011). The higher TAC is expected as the
minimum temperature constraint for Wash101 was increased causing it to require the use of utilities and a
heater. As for the size of the heater, 3.04 m
2
is required. Table 8 summarizes the results for case study 2
TAC.
To compare, the OC plus piping cost for case study 2 was generated as well and shown in Figure 6.
The data is then tabulated in Table 8. The optimal value was found to be $98,007/yr. The change to the
network after modifying the objective function to OC plus piping cost is a 1.25 kg/hr drop in hot oil feed. As
the objective function was meant to optimize only the operating cost and piping cost, LINGO would
conclude that this network with a lower flowrate of hot utility is more optimal. But through a drop in the hot
oil flowrate, the temperature profile of the heater has now changed causing the size of the heat exchanger to
increase from the initial 3.04 m
2
to 10.4 m
2
. This is due to a smaller temperature driving force which leads
to the need of a larger heat transfer area to achieve the desired final temperature. The increase in area
correlates to a higher TAC by $350/yr.
VI. CONCLUSION
Through this research, a new mathematical model for the simultaneous mass, energy and property
integration has been introduced with the capabilities of more accurately optimizing the total annual cost as
heat integration has been included. Sizing becomes possible for the heaters coolers and heat exchangers
involved in the network thus their costs can be determined using the model. In addition, the proposed
approach is capable of determining the best utility or process stream to be used for heat integration thus
aiding in utility selection for a network design. The number of heaters, coolers or heat exchangers would
also be evaluated through the use of this model. An optimization based on the total annual cost and the
operating cost by formulating an Integer Non Linear Problem (INLP) has been conducted on two case
studies and the results illustrates the usefulness of the new model.
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
After thorough analysis of the data from the two case studies, the following recommendations are
made.
Currently, the model is capable of only exchanging heat from either process sources or from utilities
as only one EIN is provided for each sink. Further research should be done in order to increase the number
of EIN for each sink in order for more possible network designs to be available for evaluation using
optimization software.
Another recommendation would be to develop the model further as to include heat of mixing as well
as varying specific heat capacities based on temperature thus allowing for further refinement on the
accuracy of the model.
Further work should also be conducted in order to recycle the utilities and process streams used for
heat exchange back into other EIN or process sinks as to further improve the number of feasible networks
for the model.
REFERENCES
[1] Asimov, and Isaac. Thermodynamics. 1996. http://mysite.pratt.edu/~arch543p/readings/thermodynamics.html#1
(accessed October 7, 2012).
[2] Chen, Cheng-Liang, Jui-Yean Lee, and Danny Sum Ng Kok. "Property Integration for Resource Conservation Via Network
Synthesis in Palm Oil Mills." Chemical Engineering Journal, 2011: 207-215.
[3] Chwan, Dominic Yee Foo, Denny Sum Ng Kok, and Raymond R. "Automated Targeting Technique for Concentration and
Property Based Total Resouce Conservation Network." Computers and Chemical Engineers, 2010: 835-840.
[4] Cos., McGrawHill. Platts: September Petrochemical Prices up 7.5% on Higher Raw Material Costs. August 10, 2012.
http://www.stockhouse.com/news/usreleasesdetail.aspx?n=8634361 (accessed October 4, 2012).
[5] Deng-Chun, and Xiao-Feng. "Targeting for Conventional and Property-Based Water Network with Multiple Resources."
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2011.
[6] Denny Kok Sum Ng, Dominic Chwan Yee Foo, Arwa Rabie, Mahmoud M. El-Halwagi. "Simultaneous Synthesis of
Property-Based Water Resuse/Recycle and Interception Networks for Batch Process." AIChE, 2008.
[7] El-Halwagi, M. M., and Manousiothakis. "Automatic Synthesis of Mass-exchange Networks with Single Component
Targets." Chemical Engineering Science, 1990: 2813-2831.
[8] El-Halwagi, Mahmoud, M. Pollition Prevention Through Process Integration Systematic Design Tools. United States:
Academic Press, 1997.
[9] European Commission. Energy price statistics. November 2011.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Energy_price_statistics#Industrial_consumers
(accessed October 1, 2012).
[10] Fadwa, Tahra Eljack, Charles Conrad Solvason, Nishanth Chemmangattvalappil, and Mario Richard Eden. "A Property
Based Approach for Simultaneous Process and Molecular Design." Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2008: 424-
434.
[11] Global Sources. "China Supplier Survey." Expect higher China prices in months ahead. January 2011.
http://www.globalsources.com/SITE/CHINA-SURVEY-HIGH-RAW-MATERIAL-COST.HTM (accessed October 5, 2012).
[12] Global Water Intelligence. "Tariff rises outstripped by inflation." Global Water Intel. September 2012.
http://www.globalwaterintel.com/archive/13/9/market-analysis/tariff-rises-outstripped-inflation.html (accessed
October 3, 2012).
[13] Grooms, Daniel, Vasiliki Kanzatzi, and Mahmoud El-Halwagi. "Optimal Synthesis and Scheduling of Hybrid
Dynamic/Steady State Property Integration Networks." Computers and Chemical Engineering, 2005: 2318-2325.
[14] Kheirddine, Houssein,, Younas Dadmohammadi, Deng Chun, Xiao Feng, and El-Halwagi Mahmoud. "Optimization of
Direct Recycle Networks with Simultaneous Consideration of Property, Mass, and Thermal Effects." Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.,
2011: 3754-3762.
[15] McGinley, Shane. Dubai water and electricity costs to rise around 15% in 2011. December 9, 2010.
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/dubai-water-electricity-costs-rise-around-15-in-2011-366557.html (accessed October
2, 2012).
[16] Peter, Max S., Klaus D. Timmerhaous, and Ronald E. West. Plant Design and Economics For Chemical Engineers.
Singapore: McGraw Hill, 2004.
[17] Qin, X., F. Gabriel, D. Harell, and M. M. El-Halwagi. "Algebraic Techniques for Property Integration Via Componentless
Design." Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2011: 3792-3798.
[18] Shelly, M. D., and M. El-Halwagi. "Componentless Design of Recovery and Allocation Systems: A Functionality Based
Clustering Approach." Computer Chemical Engineers, 2000: 2081-2091.
[19] Tan, Y. L., D.K.S Ng, M.M. El-Halwagi, D.C.Y. Foo, and Y. Samyudia. "Synthesis of Heat Integrated Resource Conservation
Networks." 11th International Symposium on Process Systems Engineering (Editors: I.A. Karimi and R. Srinivasan),
Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, 2012: 985-989.
[20] Tenaga Nasional Berhad. Pricing and Tariff. 2012. http://www.tnb.com.my/residential/pricing-and-tariff.html (accessed
October 1, 2012).
[21] U.S. Energy Information Administration. "Annual Energy Outlook 2012." U.S. Energy Information Administration
Independant Statics and Analysis. June 25, 2012. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ (accessed Oct 4, 2012)