Cost-Effective Bypass Design of Highly

Controllable Heat-Exchanger Networks

Q. Z. Yan, Y. H. Yang, and Y. L. Huang
Dept. of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202

Design of a cost-effectie and highly controllable heat-exchanger network (HEN) has

drawn a great deal of attention for years. One of the key issues in such a design is how
to effectiely minimize undesirable disturbance propagation in a network with minimum
cost increment. Design options in this regard include the deriation of a superior net-
work structure and the selection of bypasses associated with heat exchangers. A unique
system modeling approach is deeloped to predict disturbance propagation and to reject
disturbances using bypasses. A noel mathematical representation scheme for a HEN is
introduced to facilitate system analysis and design. A relatie gain-array approach is
extended to the analysis of nonsquared systems. In addition, an iteratie design proce-
dure is introduced to determine optimal bypass locations and nominal fractions for
complete disturbance rejection, while economic penalty reaches the minimum. The effi-
cacy of the model-based approach is demonstrated by designing three HENs where
bypasses are optimally placed, and the control schemes are simultaneously deeloped.

Introduction
A heat-exchanger network HEN. always experiences vari-
ous disturbances of temperatures and heat-capacity flow rates
in operation. These disturbances propagate through the net-
work that may make the control of stream output tempera-
tures extremely difficult, if the network is improperly de-
signed. Consequently, how to effectively reject disturbances
through developing a superior HEN with optimally placed
bypasses becomes a challenging task.
Over the past decade, disturbance propagation DP. and
disturbance rejection DR. in processes have been exten-
sively studied. A great deal of effort has been made to con-
trol DP for improving flexibility Morari, 1983; Floudas and
Grossmann, 1986; Calandranis and Stephanopoulos, 1986;
Galli and Cerda, 1991.. Flexibility is a systems capability of
absorbing long-term variations appearing at the inlets of the
process Kotjabasakis and Linnhoff, 1986; Colberg and
Morari, 1988; Yee and Grossmann, 1990; Papalexandri and
Pistikopoulos, 1994b.. In contrast, controllability is referred
to the systems capability of withstanding short-term dis-
turbances. Morari 1992. pointed out that HEN controllabil-
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Y. L. Huang.
ity is largely dependent upon its network structure. Clearly,
controllability analysis should be an integral part of process
design. More appropriately, it should be referred to the anal-
ysis of structural controllability that focuses on the structural
property of a process.
To ensure structural controllability, Calandranis and
Stephanopoulos 1988. proposed an approach to the design
of control loops for a HEN and to sequence the control ac-
tions of the loops in order to accommodate setpoint changes
and to reject load disturbances. From the process design point
of view, Fisher et al. 1988a,b,c. introduced a systematic pro-
cedure for assessing process controllability, where control-re-
lated economic penalties could be imposed in process screen-
ing. Mathisen et al. 1991. considered the dynamic resilience
of a HEN based on the notion of static resilience that was
introduced by Saboo et al. 1985.. Later on, Mathisen et al.
1992. provided a heuristic method for bypass placement. The
resultant HEN is supposedly satisfactory in rejecting distur-
bances over a moderate range of operating conditions. Pa-
palexandi and Pistikopoulos 1994a,b. introduced a system-
atic framework for the synthesis or retrofit of a flexible and
structurally controllable HEN. Dynamic controllability of a
HEN was considered using a hyperstructure network repre-

AIChE Journal October 2001 Vol. 47, No. 10 2253

sentation scheme. A cost-effective network with favorable
control scheme could be derived using MINLP. Uzturk and
Akman 1997. described an MINLP method for optimal
retrofit design of a HEN with bypasses. Aguilera and
Marchetti 1998. developed a procedure for on-line optimiza-
tion and control system design of a HEN also using MINLP.
More recently, Yang et al. 1996, 1999, 2000. introduced a
unique modeling approach to quantify DP in a HEN, a MEN,
and a distillation column network DCN. at the steady-state
level. By that approach, a system DP model can be developed
based on the first principles. The model can be used to quickly
estimate the maximum deviation of system outputs when it
experiences the worst combination of various types of dis-
turbances. The estimation precision is satisfactory enough in
industrial applications. The model is linear and applicable to
a network of any complexity. The modeling approach shows
its great potential in being embedded into a process synthesis
procedure Yang et al., 1999.. However, the DP models do
not contain the term representing feasible, necessary control
actions for DR. This can lead to a conservative network de-
sign.
This article is the first to extend Yangs DP model to a
disturbance propagation and control DP&C. model. The new
system model will characterize the system behavior under
control. The model is then embedded into a design proce-
dure for optimally selecting bypasses that includes their loca-
tions and nominal fractions, with the minimum penalty on
capital cost. Furthermore, the design procedure will suggest
the most desirable control schemes for complete DR in the
network.
Ths yTht
h s 5.
2 Mc Ph
Tct yTcs
c s . 6.
2 Mc Pc
The preceding model can be used to provide a quick and
accurate quantification of DP through a HEX. This greatly
facilitates the analysis of DP-focused structural controllabil-
ity in the early stages of HEN design Yang, 1999..
Disturbance Propagation and Control Model
In operation, a HEN is always controlled through regulat-
ing bypass flow rates associated with HEXs. This requires the
extension of the DP model by Yang et al. 1996. to a DP&C
model where control actions are taken into account.
Unit-based model
A HEX with bypass options is sketched in Figure 1. The
energy balance and heat-transfer equations can be readily
derived, as below. Here, an arithmetic mean-temperature dif-
ference is used. This approximation will not introduce any
calculation error for stream target temperatures when input
temperature disturbances exist, but will cause some predic-
tion errors when mass flow rate disturbances enter the sys-
tem. Practically, bypass fractions will not be very significant,
as shown in various practical examples; otherwise, a cost in-
crement of relevant HEXs must be considerable.

Simplified Disturbance Propagation Model Without Mc p hTht s Mc pbhThs q Mc pe hTho 7.

Bypass
Mc pcTct s Mc pbcTcs q Mc pe cTco 8.
Yang et al. 1996. developed a first-principles-based DP
model for a heat exchanger HEX. without bypass. By ne- Thi yTco . q Tho yTci .
glecting high-order differentiation terms and replacing a log- QsUA s Mc pe h Thi yTho .
arithmic mean temperature difference by an arithmetic mean 2
term, the model can be simplified to a linear one as follows: s Mc pe c Tco yTci . 9.

T t s Dt T s H Dm Mc P 1.

or

Tht 1y Ths
/
Tct
s
1y / / Tcs

h 2y . y c Mc Ph
q
h y c 2y . / /
Mc Pc
, 2.

where

Ths yTht
s 3.
Ths yTcs

Tct yTcs
s 4. Figure 1. General structure of a heat exchanger with
Ths yTcs bypasses.

2254 October 2001 Vol. 47, No. 10 AIChE Journal

 Since stream splitting does not change stream tempera- On the other hand, according to Eq. 7, we have
tures, Thi and Tci are equal to Ths and Tcs, respectively. The
mass flow rates in the two bypasses, Mc pbh and Mc pbc, are equal Tht s f hThs q 1y f h . Tho . 18.
to f h Mc p h and f c Mc pc, respectively, where f h are f c are by-
pass fractions. When the model in Eq. 1 is applied to the Its differentiation gives
inner part of the HEX see the dotted box in Figure 1., the
terms , , h , and c , in Eqs. 3 through 6 should be modi- Tht sThs f h q f h Ths yTho f h q 1y f h . Tho . 19.
fied and are renamed below:
From Eqs. 18 and 19, we can have
Tht y f hThs
Ths y
Thi yTho 1y f h 1 Ths yTht fh
Xs s Tho s Tht y 2
fh y Ths . 20.
Thi yTci Ths yTcs 1y f h 1y f h . 1y f h

Ths yTht Similarly,

s s 10.
1y f h . Ths yTcs . 1y f h
1 Tct yTcs fc
Tct y f cTcs Tco s Tct y fc y Tcs . 21 .
yTcs 1y f c q 1y f c .
2
1y f c
Tco yTci 1y f c Tct yTcs
Xs i s s s
Th yTci Ths yTcs f c Ths yTcs
1y . . 1y f c In matrix form, Eqs. 20 and 21 can be written as
11.
1
Thi yTho Thi yTho Ths yTht h 0
hX s Tho 1y f h Tht

cX s
2 Mc pe h

Tco yTci
s

s
2 1y f h . Mc p h

Tco yTci
s

s
2
2
1y f h Mc p h
.

Tct yTcs
s
s
1y f h .

c
12.
2

.
/
Tco
s
 0

Ths yTht
1
1y f c
0 Tct /
2 Mc pe c 2 1y f c . Mc pc 2
2 1y f c . Mc pc 1y f c . 2 0
1y f h . 2

Correspondingly, the model in Eq. 2 is modified as

Tho 1y X X Ths
13. y
 0
Tct yTcs
1y f c

fh
2
.
00
fh
/
fc

/ o s X 1y X / / 1y f h Ths
Tc

q
hX 2y X .
hX X
Tcs

y cX X
y cX 2y X . / / Mc pe h
Mc pe c
. 14.
y
 0

Substituting Eqs. 17 and 22 into Eq. 14 and simplifying it

fc
1y f c
0 Tcs /
. 22 .

Vectors Tho Tco .T and Mc pe h Mc pe c .T in the preceding by using the relationships in Eqs. 10 through 13, we can ob-
model should be converted to Tht Tct .T and Mc p h tain the following model:
Mc pc .T, respectively. Note that
T t s B f H Dt T s H Dm Mc P , 23.
Mc pe hs 1y f h . Mc ph . sy Mc ph f h q 1y f h . Mc ph .
15. where
T
Similarly, T t s Tht Tct . 24.
T
Mc pe csy Mc pc f c q 1y f c . Mc pc . 16. f s fh fc . 25.
T
T ss Ths Tcs . 26.
These two equations can be written in the following matrix
form. T
Mc P s Mc P h Mc Pc . 27.
Mc pe h y Mc p h 0 fh Ths yTht . Ths yTht .
/
Mc pe c
s
0 y Mc Pc / / fc 2 2

AIChE Journal
q
1y f h
0 0
1y f c / / Mc Ph
Mc Pc
. 17.

October 2001 Vol. 47, No. 10

Bs
 y
2 1y f h .
Tct yTcs .
2 1y f h .
2
y
2 1y f c .
Tct yTcs .
2 1y f c .
2 0 28.

2255
 1y preceding vectors can be reorganized in the following man-
Dt s
1y / 29. ner.

c T
h 2y T in s Ths1 ThsN Tcs1 TcsN T1m TNmm .
1y f h / y
1y f c
Dm s
 h
1y f h

The model in Eq. 23, named the unit-based DP&C model,

y c 2y
1y f c

/0
. 30.
h

s
c

T s . T T m. T .
T out s Tht1 Tht N Tct1 TctN T1m TNmm
h c
/
T
T
41.

T
t T
is more general than the DP model in Eq. 1. In fact, if no s T . T m. T / . 42.
bypass is involved that is, f h and f c are equal to zero and
thus f h and f c are zero., then the two models are identi-
In McUP , there are Nm redundant heat-capacity flow rates
cal.
that should be eliminated. This reduces McUP to Mc P w2 Ne
y Nm .=1x. Correspondingly, BU U U
E , D t e , and Dm E should be
System DP&C model changed in the following way:
The unit-based DP&C model in Eq. 23 is applicable to any
HEX in a HEN. That is, the model for the ith HEX, named Dt 11 Dt 12
DU sVI DU
Ei , in a network can be rewritten as t s
/ Dt 21 Dt 22 t E V2 43.

TEout
i
s B Ei f Ei q Dt E TEin q Dm E Mc PE . 31. Dm1
i i i i
U U

If a HEN contains Ne heat exchangers, a system model

Dm s
/ Dm 2
sV1 Dm V
E 3
44.

can be obtained directly by lumping all unit-based models in B1

U
sV1 BUE V4 ,
the sequence of exchanger numbers. This yields B s
/ B2
45.

T U out s BU U U
E f H Dt E T
U in U
H Dm E
McUp , 32.
where V1 through V4 are the conversion matrices determined
by a HEN structure and bypass locations. Their derivations
where
are discussed in the succeeding section. With these reorgani-
T zations, an equivalent model to Eq. 32 is
T T T
T U in s TEin . TEin .
1 2
TEinN
/ / 33.
e
T t B1 Dt 11 Dt 12 T s
T U out s
T . T . out
E1
T
out
E2
T
TEout
N e
/
T
/
T
34. / /
T m
s
B 2
fH
D t 21 Dt 22 / / Tm

T T T
T Dm1
U
Mc s Mc . Mc
p pE1 pE2 . Mc p E Ne
. / 35. / q
Dm 2
Mc P . 46.

T T T
fUs
T
f E1 . fE . 2
f EN
2
. / 36. The preceding model contains two equations:

BU
E s diag  B E1 , B E 2 , , B EN 4 37. T t s B1 fH Dt 11 T s H Dt 12 T m H Dm 1 Mc P
e 47.
DU
t E s diag  D t E , D L E , . . . , D t E 4 38.
1 2 Ne and
U
Dm s diag Dm E , Dm E , . . . , Dm E
 4 . 39.
E 1 2 Ne T m s B2 fH Dt 21 T s H Dt 22 T m H Dm 2 Mc P . 48.
The dimensions of vectors T U in , T U out , f U , and McUP
Equivalently, Eq. 48 can be written as
are all 2 Ne =1, and those of matrices BU U U
E , D t E , and Dm E are
U in U out
all 2 Ne =2 Ne . Note that T and T contain a total of m I1 I1
Nm intermediate temperatures. An intermediate temperature T s I I Dt 22 . B 2 fq I I Dt 22 . Dt 21 T s
is that of a stream between two adjacent HEXs. The term, I1
Nm , can be evaluated as q I I Dt 22 . Dm 2 Mc p . 49.

Nm s 2 Ne y Ns y Nsplit , 40. Substituting Eq. 49 into Eq. 47 yields the following system
DP&C model:
where Ne is the number of heat exchangers; Ns is the total
number of hot streams Nh . and cold streams Nc .; and Nsplit T t s B fHDt T s HDmMc p , 50.
is the total number of stream branches after splitting. The

2256 October 2001 Vol. 47, No. 10 AIChE Journal

where nated for the intermediate stream between two adjacent
HEXs. The definition of columns is the same as that for sub-
I1
B s B 1 H Dt 12 I I Dt 22 . B2 51. matrix S1. Each element of S2 represents one of the three
T
connection modes of an intermediate stream with a HEX.
I1
Dts Dt 11 q Dt 12 I I Dt 22 . Dt 21 s DthT TtTc / 52. We assign w1x, 14, or 0 to an element to represent an inter-
mediate stream entering, leaving, or not going through a
I1 T HEX, respectively.
Dms Dm1 H Dt 12 I I Dt 22 . Dm 2 s DmhT DmcT / . 53 .
Deriation of V1 . Matrix V1 has the same dimension as
matrix S w2 Ne y Nsplit .=2 Ne x. Each column j in V1 is gener-
In more detail, if the vectors of stream temperatures and
ated based on the same column in S. If element sk, j w Ns F k
heat-capacity flow rates are written based on the classifica-
F 2 Ne y Nsplit .x is 14, then let 1 k, j equal 1, and 1 i, j equal 0
tion of stream types, the model in Eq. 50 can be written as w1F iF 2 Ne y Nsplit .; i/ k x. If sk, j is w1x, then let 1 , equal
k j
0, and 1 i, j equal si, j w1F iF 2 Ne y Nsplit .; i/ k x. If the jth
T ht T hs column in S does not contain 14 or w1x, then let 1 i, j be si, j
/
T ct
s B fq Dth Dtc
/ / T cs w1F iF 2 Ne y Nsplit .x.
Deriation of V2 . Matrix V2 has the dimension of w2 Ne =
Mc Ph 2 Ne y Nsplit .x. Each row in V2 is also obtained based on the
q Dmh Dmc .
/ Mc Pc
, 54. corresponding column in S.
If sk, j w Ns F k F 2 Ne y Nsplit .x is 14, then let 2 j, k be 0, and
all the other elements in the jth row of 2 can be either 1 or
where
0; 2 j, i can be 1 if si, j is greater than 0, or be 0 if si, j equals to
T 0 i/ k ..
T ht s Tht1 Tht 2 Tht N
/ 55. If sk, j is w1x, then let 2 j, k be 1, and 2 j, i be 0.
h

T If the jth column in S does not contain 14 or w1x, then let
T sT
t
c
t
c1 Tct2 TctN / 56. 2 j, i be 0 if si, j equals to 0, or 1 if si, j is greater than 0.
c
Deriation of V3 . Matrix V3 has the dimension of 2 Ne =
T T T
Ns . If the jth of matrix S contains at most one of 14 and w1x,
fs f EI . f E . T fE .
2 N2 / 57.
then let 3 j, i equal si, j is1, 2, , Ns .. If the jth column of
T S contains both 14 in the lth row. and w1x in the mth row.,
T hs s Ths1 Ths2 ThsN . 58.
h then the elements of the jth row of V3 can be determined in
T two ways. In the lth row, if sl, k is w1x, and the kth column
T cs s Tcs1 Tcs2 TcsN . 59. contains only one w1x and no 14, or in the row, sm, k is 14 and
c

T the kth column contains only one 14 and no w1x, then let 3 j, i
Mc Ph s Mc P h Mc P h Mc P h . 60. equal si, k w1F iF Ns ; Ns F k F 2 Ne y Nsplit .x.
1 2 Nh

T
Deriation of V4 . Matrix V4 is determined by bypass selec-
Mc Pc s Mc Pc Mc Pc Mc Pc . . 61. tion in a HEN. Mathematically,
1 2 Nc

fsV4 f X , 62.
Network Structural Representation
As stated in the preceding section, conversion matrices V1 where f consists of all 2 Ne bypass candidates of Ne HEXs;
through V4 in Eqs. 43 through 45 are structure dependent. f X has the bypasses selected from the 2 Ne candidates.
To derive these matrices, we first define a structural matrix,
namely Sw2 Ne y Nsplit .=2 Ne x. Matrix S can be decomposed Model-Based Optimal Bypass Selection
into two submatrices, S1 Ns =2 Ne . and S2 Nm =2 Ne .. Their Utility units that is, heaters and coolers. are commonly
definitions are given below; a detailed example of construct- placed to heat or cool the streams just before leaving a HEN,
ing these matrices for a given HEN is presented in Appendix although some industrial practices show that they can be
A. placed in other locations. This has been widely used for ef-
Construction of S1 . In submatrix S1 , each row is desig- fective control of stream target temperatures. The number of
nated for a hot or a cold stream. Note that a stream can be utility units is always much less than that of process streams
split into a number of branches, which enter different HEXs in the network for the sake of energy savings. In addition to
and then mix together. In this case, the splitting ratios are utility units, a bypass acts as a control mechanism for distur-
reflected in the elements of the row for that stream. The bance rejection Linnhoff and Kotjabasakis, 1986; Calandra-
columns are divided into Ne pairs; each pair is assigned for a nis and Stephanopoulos, 1988; Mathisen et al., 1991; Uzturk
specific HEX. In each pair, the left column and the right and Akman, 1997; Yan and Huang, 1998, 1999..
column are, respectively, designated to a hot stream and a Another important assumption is the worst-case design.
cold stream going through the HEX. Each element has a value That is, the maximum positive and negative deviations of the
between 0 and 1, where 0 represents the stream not going HEN target temperatures occur at the extreme disturbance
through the HEX; a fraction represents the splitting portion values of the supply temperatures and mass-capacity flow
going through the HEX; and 1 means the stream going rates. This is, in fact, commonly adopted such as Yee and
through the HEX with no splitting involved. Grossmann, 1990; Uzturk and Akman, 1997., although there
Construction of S2 . In submatrix S2 , each row is desig- are exceptions.

AIChE Journal October 2001 Vol. 47, No. 10 2257

Theoretical basis
In the system DP&C model in Eq. 50, each bypass option
is a potential manipulated variable. Note that splitting frac-
tion ratios and multiple bypasses contribute degree of free-
dom, and can be used for control design Calandranis and
Stephanopoulos, 1988; Mathisen et al., 1991, 1992, 1994..
These options are not considered here. However, the
methodology can be used to deal with a network involving
stream splitting. The number of bypass options in a network
is always more than necessary. Thus, a bypass selection must
be made in design. To do so, we can rewrite Eq. 50 in the
following way:
B fI d s 0. 63.
where
d s Tmax
t
I Dt T s HDm Mc P . . 64.
Vectors T max
t Ns =1. contains the information of the maxi-
mum permissible deviations of stream target temperatures.
These deviations can be positive and negative, which are des-
ignated by vectors Tmax
t(H )
and Tmax
ty .
, respectively. Vector d
reflects the magnitude of control corrections needed to elimi-
nated the influence of disturbances. Similarly, there will be
vectors d q. and d y..
Substituting Eq. 62 into Eq. 63 yields
BV4 f XI d s 0. 65.
Practically, we can only perform the following optimization
through selecting a subset of bypasses, f X, and the nominal
value of each bypass,
Min
X
I BV4 f X I d I 2 . 66.
f
This is subject to the system model in Eq. 50.
In this task, two difficulties need be resolved. First, we need
to know how to identify the inverse of nonsquared matrix
B Ns =2 Ne .. Second, we need to have a way to determine
the values of the elements in f X. Nobel and Daniel 1977.
conducted an extensive study on the solution identification of
similar mathematical problems. Two related theorems are
adopted in this work Appendix B., with necessary modifica-
tions in order to fit the scope of this work.
Bypass placement selection
X scribed, a design procedure is developed below to determine
The selected bypasses, f Nf X =1., is a subset of f, where
Nf X s Ns y Nu . 67.
In design, we need to pair Nf X bypasses with Nf X streams
whose output temperatures should be controlled, and where
no heaters andror coolers are involved. The pairing is based
on the analysis of interactions between a set of manipulated
variables bypasses . and a set of controlled variables target
temperatures .. RGA has been successfully used to measure
system interaction and to identity the most favorable pairings
of controlled variables and manipulated variables for a
squared system McAvoy, 1987.. For the system in Eq. 50,
however, the gain matrix, B, is nonsquared. Thus, the regular
2258 October 2001 Vol. 47, No. 10
RGA cannot be used directly. Theorem 1 Nobel and Daniel,
1977, Appendix B. can be used to identify the pseudoinverse
Bq. The regular RGA is then extended to measure network
interaction Chang and Yu, 1992; Cao, 1996; Skogestad and
Postlethwaite, 1996..
Let R be the transpose of the pseudoinverse of B that is,
Rs Bq .T .. The extended RGA will be
s BmR. 68.
The operator, m, is defined the same as that in a regular
RGA, that is,
i , j s bi , j ri , j is1, 2, . . . , Ns ; js1, 2, . . . , 2 Ne . . 69.
The basic pairing rule is the same as that in the regular
RGA. That is, each controlled variable is paired to a manipu-
lated variable such that the corresponding relative gain is
positive and as close to 1 as possible. The implementation of
this rule will lead to the generation of f X from f .
Disturbance rejection with minimum economic penalty
While a bypass of a HEX provides an opportunity to reject
disturbances, its installation must cause an increment of
heat-transfer area of the HEX, if the same heat load needs
to be maintained. The capital cost is evaluated based on the
traditional cost function such as Yee and Grossmann, 1990..
A trade-off between the DR and cost must be made in the
bypass selection process. Figure 2 illustrates qualitatively how
the stream target temperature fluctuation Tit . and the in-
crement of HEX area A EjrA Ej . are related to the nominal
fraction of a bypass f Ej .. The nominal fraction of a bypass,
f Ej , can be selected from 0 equivalent to no bypass. to the
upper limit, f Elim.
j
to be discussed in the succeeding subsec-
tion.. As shown in the figure, when f Ej increases, Tit de-
creases, but A EjrA Ej increases. If a complete rejection of
disturbances at the steady state is preferred, then the optimal
nominal fraction of the bypass should be f Eopt . Note that any
j
nominal fraction below this value will not realize complete
DR, although the HEX area increment is smaller. If any se-
lection is beyond this value, the HEX area increment will be
more, while the DR is at the same level. Certainly, this is not
desirable.
Iteratie design procedure
Based on the DP&C model and methodology just de-
the optimal locations and nominal fractions of bypasses for a
HEN.
Step 1. For a given HEN with all design data and disturb-
ance information, form the following vectors for all streams:
1. T s, T t, and Mc P ; 2. T sq ., T sy ., Mc Pq ., and Mc Py . ;
and 3. Tmax tq .
and Tmax
ty .
.
Step 2. Construct structural matrix S and then derive
conversion matrices V1 through V3 based on S.
Step 3. Form bypass candidate vector f according to Eq.
57, set all initial bypass nominal fractions to zero, and let
conversion matrix V4 be an identity. In addition, set elements
f h . old and fc . old
Ei Ei
is1, 2, . . . , Ne . to zero.
AIChE Journal
Figure 2. Qualitative relationship between a stream-target temperature fluctuation and a heat-transfer area change
as a bypass fraction increases.
a . Complete disturbance rejection when f E is equal to or greater than f Eopt ; b . Incomplete disturbance rejection with any bypass fraction.

Step 4. Construct the DP&C model for each HEX, ac-

cording to Eq. 23. Note that the model coefficient matrices,
0, Tdty
i
.
G Tmax
ty .
i
;

B, Dt , and Dm , depend on the nominal values of the bypasses d iy. s~ is1, 2, . . . , Ns . 73.
in vector f X, which are updated in each iteration. T max i y Td i
ty . ty .
, otherwise
Step 5. Lump all the unit models to form a unit-based
system DP&C model, as shown in Eq. 32. Step 9. Calculate the extended RGA, according to Eq. 68.
Step 6. Convert the lumped system model to the system Step 10. Identify a subset of manipulated variables in f ,
model in Eq. 50 or 54. pair each element in this vector with a controlled variable in
Step 7. Calculate the maximum positive and negative de- T t according to the paring rules in the section titled Bypass
viations of system target temperatures based on the known Placement. The pairing generates f X, where only preferred
source disturbances as follows: bypasses are included. Then derive conversion matrix V4
through checking the locations of the selected elements in
(H )
sDth T hs(H ) HDtc Tcs(H ) HDmh Mc PhH IDmc Mc PcI the extended RGA, . If i, j is selected, then 4 j, i is set to 1;
( ) ( )
Tdt
otherwise, 4 j, i is set to zero.
70.
Step 11. Calculate the nominal fraction of each bypass in
Xq .
f X, based on d q. and d y. derived in Step 8. Here f
and X
and f y . are calculated using Theorem 2 in Appendix B.
(I ) Step 12. For each selected bypass, check to see if its frac-
sDth T hs(I ) qDtc Tc s(I ) HDmh Mc PhI IDmc Mc PcH
( ) ( )
Tdt
tion violates the upper permissible value in the following way:
71.
< f hXq . <q < f hXy . < F f hlim. ;
Ei Ei Ei
where vectors Dth , Dtc , Dmh , and Dmc are defined in Eqs. 52
if the hot-stream-side bypass is placed on Ei , 74.
and 53.
Step 8. Compare vectors Tdtq . and Tdt , on the ele-
y .
or
ment-by-element basis, with the maximum permissible target
temperature vectors, Tmaxtq .
and Tmax
t y.
, respectively, and < f cXq . <q < f cXy . < F f clim. ;
Ei Ei Ei
then determine the necessary control correction vectors, d q.
and d y., where if the cold-stream-side bypass is placed on Ei , 75.

0, Tdtq
i
.
F Tmax
tq .
i
; where

d iq. s~ is1, 2, . . . , Ns 72. Tht E yTcsE y Tmin

T max i y Td i
tq . tq .
, otherwise f hlim.
Ei
s i i

ThsE yTcsE y Tmin

76.
i i

AIChE Journal October 2001 Vol. 47, No. 10 2259

 ThsE yTctE y Tmin
i i
f clim.
s . 77.
E
i ThsE yTcsE y Tmin
i i

The two preceding equations are derived based on the re-

quirement of minimum-temperature driving force for each
HEX; Appendix C gives the details.
If the criteria in Eqs. 74 and 75 hold for each HEX, go on
to the next step. Otherwise, stop the iteration. In this case,
the resultant design is not satisfactory, since a complete re-
jection of disturbances cannot be realized. The process de-
signer needs to make a decision on the acceptance of the
design based on the calculated output deviations of stream
temperatures.
If some inequality constrains are not satisfied for some se-
lected bypasses, this indicates that the HEN system cannot
reject completely the disturbances under the target tempera-
ture constraints. A trade-off should be then made to either
relax relevant target temperature constraints or permit par-
tial disturbance rejection.
Figure 3. Four-stream HEN (Yee and Grossmann, 1990).
Step 13. Update the nominal value of each selected by-
pass based on the following formulas:
work, the optimal solution is defined as the one realizing
f h . new symin f hXq . , f hXy . 5
Ei Ei Ei complete disturbance rejection at the steady state, while the
increment of heat-transfer areas of HEXs reaches the mini-
if the hot-stream-side bypass is placed on Ei , 78. mum. It should be pointed out that a global solution cannot
or be guaranteed.

fc . new symin fcXq . , fcXy . 5

Ei Ei Ei
Case Studies
In this section, three HEN bypass design synthesis prob-
if the cold-stream-side bypass is placed on Ei . 79. lems are studied. The resultant HENs are compared with
known solutions in terms of DR and cost.
Step 14. Check whether or not the iteration process should
be terminated using the following criteria:
Case 1: Design of bypasses and control loops for a four-
< fh <F stream HEN
Ei
. new y f h . old
Ei
80.
A HEN problem is shown in Figure 3, which was studied
and by Yee and Grossmann 1990.. Table 1 lists the steady-state
design data as well as disturbance information and control
< fc . new y fc . old < F , 81. requirements.
Ei Ei

Solution Deriation. The main steps in implementing the

where f h E . old andror f c E . old are the bypass nominal frac- design procedure in the proceeding section are delineated
i i
tions of exchanger Ei calculated in the preceding iteration; below. The structural matrix, S, derived in Step 2 is
constant is a small nonnegative number representing a per-
missible computational error. Alternatively, the stopping cri- 1 0 0 0 0 0
terion can also be counted in the relative change of the by- 0 0 1 0 1 0
pass nominal fractions. Note that every selected bypass should
pass this checking. If any one of them fails, then let f h E . old
i i i
nominal fractions of those not selected bypasses at zero, and
let conversion matrix V4 be an identity. After this, go to Step
4 for a new iteration; otherwise, go to the next step.
Step 15. Develop the final HEN retrofit design with the
i
equal f h E . new and f c E . old equal f c E . new , and keep all other
0
Ss 0
0
0
 1
0
0
 14
0
0
 14
0
1
0
0
w1x
0
0
w1x
0
1
0
0
0
0 82.

Table 1. Design Data for the Four-Stream HEN Synthesis

selected bypasses. Meanwhile, estimate the cost increment for Problem
each HEX where a bypass is placed. In addition, use the sys-
tem model to calculate stream output deviations. Stream Ts Tt Mc P T sq . T sy . Tmax
tq .
Tmax
ty .

Note that in running the design procedure, matrices B, Dt , No. K. K. kWrK. K. K. K. K.

and Dm are all updated in each iteration. This is essentially a H1 620.0 385.0 10.0 5 0 0 0
piecewise linearization approach that greatly reduces any sig- H2 720.0 400.0 15.0 0 0 5.5 y5.5
C1 300.0 560.0 20.0 0 y5 0 0
nificant errors caused by one-step linearization. Therefore, C2 280.0 340.0 30.0 0 y5 4.0 y4.0
the final solution is always excellent, if not optimal. In this

2260 October 2001 Vol. 47, No. 10 AIChE Journal

 For clarity, Table 2 provides the detail definitions of the 1 0 0 0
rows and columns of the matrix. According this matrix, con- 0 0 1 0
version matrices V1 through V3 are obtained below:

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
V3 s
0
0
0
0
 0 1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
. 85.

V1 s
0
0
0
0

1
 0
0
0
1

0
0
0
1
0

0
1
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
1
0
0

0
0 83.
In Step 3, the bypass candidates for the three HEXs are
identified below:

fs f h E f cE f h E f cE f h E f cE .
T
. 86.
1 1 2 2 3 3
0 0 1 0 0 0
V2 s
0
0
0
0
 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0 84.
At this stage, matrix V4 6=6. is an identity.
In Steps 4 and 5, the following unit-based system model
can be obtained:

T
t
h1 86.3 43.1 0 0 0 0 f 0.266 hE1 0.734 0 0 0 0
T2m y43.1 y21.6 0 0 0 0 fcE 0.367 0.633 0 0 0 0
1

T1m 0 0 59.7 44.8 0 0 fh E 0 0 0.372 0.628 0 0

2
s q
Tct1 0 0 y44.8 y33.6 0 0 f cE 0 0 0.471 0.529 0 0
2

Tht 2 0 0 0 0 28.8 14.4 fhE 0 0 0 0 0.52 0.48

3

T
t
c2 0 0 0 0 y14.4 y7.2 f 0 cE 3 0 0 0 0.24 0.76
T 14.9
s
h1 y2.16 0 0 0 0 Mc Ph 1

Tcs1 4.31 y4.80 0 0 0 0 Mc Pc

1

Ths2 0 0 8.69 y2.24 0 0 Mc Ph

2
= q 87.
T2m 0 0 2.98 y5.45 0 0 Mc Pc
1

T1m 0 0 0 0 6.08 y0.48 Mc P h

2

0
Tcs2 0 0 0 0.96 y1.76 Mc Pc 2

After eliminating all intermediate temperatures in Step 6, the system model is

f
hE1

Tht1 f cE
86.3 43.1 0 0 0 0 1
X
Tht 2 fhE

 0
Tc1t
Tct2
s
y14.1
y22.8
y6.50
y7.05
y11.4
y3.25
y44.8
31.0

14.3
23.3
y33.6
10.7
28.8
0
y14.4
14.4

y7.2
0
0 f cE
fhE
f
cE 3
2

Ths1 Mc Ph
0.266 0 0.734 0 14.9 0 y2.16 0 1

Ths2 Mc Ph
q
 0.12
0.194
0.055
0.193
0.471
0.089
0.207
0.335
0.095
0.48
0
0.76
0 0 
Tcs1
Tcs2
q
1.41
2.28
0.65
10.6
2.98
3.05
y2.73
y7.98
y1.26
y0.48
0
y1.76
0 Mc Pc
Mc Pc
2

2
0 88.

AIChE Journal October 2001 Vol. 47, No. 10 2261

 In Step 7, Tdq. and Tdy. can be calculated based on Correspondingly,
the system model and disturbance information listed in Table
1. They are T
1 0 0 0 0 0

Tdq . s 1.33 0.600 0.971 0.277 .

Tdy . s y3.67 y3.43 y1.67 y4.28 . .

T

T
89.

90.
V4 s
0
0
0
 0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0 . 97.

X
Note that the paring, Tht 2 with f cE , is related to the target
3
temperature that is to be controlled by a utility unit. Hence,
On the other hand, we can form the vectors, Tmax
q.
and Tmax
y.
it is not to be considered further; we only discuss the other
from Table 1: three pairs. The reduced output and control vectors are TRt
s Tht1 Tct Tct2 .T and f RX s f h1 f h 2 f h .T, respec-
1 3
tively. Correspondingly, the reduced process gain matrix be-
T
Tmax
q .
s 0 5.5 0 4.0 . 91. comes

T
Tmax
y .
s 0 y5.5 0 y4.0 . . 92. 86.3 0 0

Thus, in Step 8, we can obtain d

Eqs. 72 and 73:
q.
and d y.
according to
BR s y22.8
 y6.50
y44.8
14.3
0
y14.4
0 . 98.

The required control corrections are

T
d q . s y1.33 0 y0.97 0. 93. T
d Rq . s y1.33 y0.97 0 . 99.
y . T
d s 3.67 0 1.67 0.277 . . 94. T
d Ry . s 3.67 1.67 0.277 . . 100.

In Step 9 the pseudoinverse of matrix B is calculated, and Hence, the required maneuverability of the bypasses is calcu-
the extended RGA is obtained below, where the detailed steps lated in Step 11:
are shown in Appendix D:

f XRq s y0.015 0.03 0.036 .

. T
101.
0.751 0.188 0 0 0 0
f XRy s 0.043 y0.059 y0.097 . .
. T
102.
s
 0.012
0.026
0.011
0.003
0.007
0.003
0.093
0.462
0.086
0.052
0.260
0.048
0.561
0
0.239
0.14
0
0.06
0 . 95 .
It is identified in Step 12 that the upper permissible values
of the bypasses for f h Elim., f hlim.
1 E2
, and f hlim.
E3
are 0.242, 0.35, and
0.5, respectively. In this first iterative procedure, Eq. 74 is
In Step 10, the manipulated and controlled variables are satisfied for all three hot-stream side bypasses.
paired as: X1. Tht1 with f h E , 2. Tct2 with f h E , 3. Tct2 with f h E , In Step 13, the new nominal fraction of each selected by-
1 2 3
t
and 4. Th2. with f c E , according to the paring rule. pass is calculated using Eq. 78. They are 0.015, 0.059, and
3
Thus, the selected bypass vector is 0.097 for f h E . new , f h E . new , and f h E . new , respectively. Note
1 2 3
that f h E . old is1, 2, 3. are all equal to zero in the first
i
iteration.
T In Step 14, let the permissible computational error, , be
f Xs f h E f c E f h E f h E . . 96.
1 2 2 3 10y3. It is found that the inequality in Eq. 80 doesnt hold.

Table 2. Structural Matrix Development

Heat Exchanger
E1 E2 E3
Matrix Hot Cold Hot Cold Hot Cold
Streams S Stream Stream Stream Stream Stream Stream Streams
Process stream H1in 1 0 0 0 0 0 H1out
H2in 0 0 1 0 1 0 M2
C1out 0 1 0 1 0 1 C1in
C1out 0 0 0 0 0 0 C2in
Intermediate M1 0 0 14 0 w1x 0
stream M3 0 14 0 w1x 0 0

2262 October 2001 Vol. 47, No. 10 AIChE Journal

AIChE Journal October 2001 Vol. 47, No. 10 2263
 branches; and Nscr the number of streams across the pinch
point. In our example,

Nd f s1q4q2=3q0y0s11. 106.

To demonstrate the superiority of the bypass placement,

the relationships among the nominal fractions of bypasses,
disturbance rejection quality, and economic penalty for all
three HEXs used in the network are plotted in Figure 6. It is
evident that the selected nominal fractions of bypasses are
optimal, which realize the complete DR with the minimum
economic penalty.
A further study shows that under the worst disturbances
shown in Table 1, the stream target temperature fluctuations
are
T
T t s 0 4.04 0 3.50 . . 107.

Note that the design requirement listed in Table 1 is

" . T
Figure 5. Optimal bypass design with control loops for Tmax s 0 "5.5 0 "4.0 . . 108.
the HEN by the DP&C approach.
This shows that the design is very satisfactory. When the worst
disturbances enter the network, the bypass fractions, f h E , f h E ,
1 2
Thus, let f h E . old equal f h E . new is1, 2, 3., and keep all and f h E , are adjusted to 0.007, 0.106, and 0.08, respectively.
i i 3
other not selected bypass nominal fractions as zero, let con- Comparison. Uzturk and Akman 1997. studied the same
version matrix V4 be an identity matrix, and then return to problem. Table 3 provides the comparison of their bypass de-
Step 4 for a new iteration. Figure 4 depicts the iterative se- sign Figure 7. with ours Figure 5.. Our solution is 6%
lection processes for all three bypasses associated with ex- cheaper than that by Uzturk and Akman. This can be justi-
changers E1 and E3. The finally selected bypass fractions are fied by examining the bypass nominal fractions Table 4.. Our
f h E , f h E , and f h E , with the nominal fractions of 0.015, 0.053, design has much smaller values than Uzturk and Akmans. In
1 2 3
and 0.082, respectively. addition, our design needs one control loop less than Uzturk
In Step 15, three bypasses are placed in the network, as and Akmans; this reduces the cost for the control system.
shown in Figure 5, where the related control schemes are More importantly, the RGA analysis reveals that our design
also indicated. For this process, the system gain matrix, B R , has no system interaction among the three loops at the steady
is state. By contrast, the design in Figure 7 has considerable
interactions among loops.
88.9 0 0 Discussion. It is very difficult to analyze quantitatively the
rate of convergence in running the iterative design proce-

BR s y2.35
y6.70
y49.9
15.9
0
y17.1
0 . 103. dure. In solution identification, an initial bypass fraction that
is, initial point for search. for each bypass candidate equal to
zero is preferred. This is physically more meaningful, as an
According to Eq. 68, the RGA for this case is initial HEN has no bypass on any HEX. It is suggested to try
other starting points if the convergence is slow. In this exam-
1 0 0 ple, however, the same bypass design can always be obtained
s 0
0 1
0 1 /
0 . 104. for different initial points. For instance, initial bypass frac-
tions of 0.5 are illustrated in Figure 8 to compare with the
initial bypass fractions of 0 shown in Figure 4. After four
Note that in this example four manipulated variables three iterations, the same optimal bypass fractions as those in Fig-
bypasses and one cooler flow rate. are selected to control the ure 4 are all obtained in Figure 8. Certainly, this does not
four stream target temperatures. This is inconsistent with the mean true for all other cases.
study on the degree of freedom. According to Calandranis A trade-off between DR and cost is always a concern in
and Stephanopoulos 1988., degree of freedom Nd f . for a design. The design procedure provides complete profiles of
HEN can be evaluated as DR and the increment of heat-transfer areas for a HEN, such
as those in Figure 6. In this example, a complete DR with
minimum economic penalty is preferred. Certainly, one can
Nd f s Nu q Ns q Nb,HEX q Nsplit y Nscr , 105. have different preference.
Further Study. The design just studied is under the tem-
where Nu is the number of utility units; Nb,HEX the total perature disturbances only. A more complicated situation is
number of bypass candidates; Nsplit the total number of when the network experiences both temperature and heat-

2264 October 2001 Vol. 47, No. 10 AIChE Journal

 T
capacity flow-rate disturbances. In this case, the temperature Mc P y s y0.5 0 0 y1.5 . .
.
110.
disturbances, T sq . and T sy ., are the same as those listed
in Table 1. The disturbances of heat-capacity flow rates are

With these disturbances, the bypass locations are the same as

Mc P
q .
s 0.5 0 0 1.5 .
T
109. that in Figure 5. However, the nominal bypass fractions, f h E ,
1
f h E , and f h E , are equal to 0.082, 0.103, and 0.238, respec-
2 3

AIChE Journal October 2001 Vol. 47, No. 10 2265

 Table 3. Comparison of Heat-Transfer Areas of
Different Designs
Original Design Our Design Uzturk and Akman
Heat No Bypass., with Bypass., Design with Bypass.,
Exchanger Area m2 . Area m2 . Area m2 .
E1 34.7 35.4 39.1
E2 42.3 44.3 49.2
E3 22.8 23.7 25.8
Ei 99.8 103.4 114.1
Cost $24 386 $24 905 $26 408

tively, after nine iterations of calculation Figure 9.. In this

case, the total increment of heat transfer area is 12.5% for
complete disturbance rejection. This is equivalent to 7.49%
of cost increment.

Case 2: Improement of a heat-integrated reaction-

separation system
An industrial heat-integrated reaction separation system is
depicted in Figure 10. A recycle stream from another process
is heated from 98.9C to 123.9C and fed to column D 1. Feed Figure 7. Bypass design for the same HEN (Uzturk and
A is preheated in a series of heat exchangers and then enters Arkam, 1997).
reactor R1, where a slight endothermic reaction takes place.
The product stream of reactor R1 and the column overhead
stream, after cooling, are mixed with feed B. This mixture follows:
stream is fed to reactor R 2 in which catalyst is very sensitive
to its operating temperature; its performance will be seri-
ously degraded if the temperature is unstable and above Tht1 fhE
10.9 7.5 0 0 1
110C. This requires that the feed-stream temperature of re-
Tht 2 f cE
actor R 2 be strictly controlled between 96.1C and 98.9C.
However, this process faces many disturbances including: a.
10% of mass flow-rate change in the recycle stream; b. 8.3%
of mass flow-rate change in the column overhead stream; c.
column overhead temperature change from 132.2C to
165.6C; d. feed A temperature change between 37.8C and
 0
Tct2
X
Tct3
s
y9.1
0

0.4
y6.25

0
0

0
40.9

y46.7

0.6
0

0
46.7
0
y53.3
0
Ths1
fhE
f cE
1

2
0
65.6C; and e. feed B temperature change between 32.2C
Ths2
and 48.9C. These make the process inoperable, especially
for reactor R 2 . The process design data, source disturbances,
and control requirements are listed in Table 5.
Yang et al. 1996. used the system DP model to modify a
HEN associated with the process. Their solution is depicted
q
 0
0.5
0
0.199
0
0.913
0
0.5
0
0.801
0
0.087
0 0 Tcs2
Tcs3

in Figure 11, where all disturbance information is included. Mc Ph

0.774 0 y0.23 0 1
The location and nominal fraction of the bypass is heuristi- Mc Ph
cally placed to adjust the mass flow rate of the recycle stream
going through exchanger E1,
The design procedure developed in this work is used to
identify the optimal bypass design. The system model is as
q
 0
0.304
0
3.38
0
2.58
y0.576
0

0
y2.95

y3.4
0
0 0 Mc Pc
Mc Pc
2

3
. 111.

Table 4. Comparison of the System Interactions of Different Designs

Our Design Uzturk and Akman Design 1977.
Bypass fractions f h E s 0.015; f h E s 0.053; f h E s 0.082 f h E s 0.0821; fC E s 0.2222; f h E s 0.0532; f c E s 0.35
1 2 3 1 2 3 3

No. of control loops 3 4

0.938 0 0 0
1 0 0
RGA analysis RGA BR . s 0
0 1
0
0
1 / RGA B. s
 0.015
0.033
0.014
0.33
0
0.14
0.145
0.721
0.134
0.371
0
0.158
0
Note: Matrix B is singular.

2266 October 2001 Vol. 47, No. 10 AIChE Journal

 Note that stream C1 is not included in the model, since
this stream mixed with streams H1 and H2 is not involved in
heat exchange with any stream through a HEX. Its target
temperature can be readily controlled by the heater placed at
its end. Likewise, the target temperature of stream C3 can be
easily controlled by another heater Figure 11.. The remain-
ing issue is how to reject disturbances for stream C2 that
experiences the disturbances from stream H1 and itself.
Based on the system model in Eq. 111, the RGA is obtained
below:

AIChE Journal October 2001 Vol. 47, No. 10 2267

 0.401 0.189 0 0 elements in the third row of the RGA. The first element
0.278. in the row corresponds to the bypass on the hot-stream
s
 0
0.278
0
0
0.131
0
0.189
0
0.246
0.246
0
0.32
0 . 112. side of exchanger E1, while the second one 0.131. is to the
bypass on the cold-stream side of the same exchanger. Ap-
parently, the placement of a bypass on the hot-stream side is
a better choice than that on the cold-stream side of the ex-
For stream C2 to be controlled, we need to examine the ample in controlling target temperature Tct2 by bypass f h E
1

2268 October 2001 Vol. 47, No. 10 AIChE Journal

 Figure 12. Heat-integrated reactor-separation process
Figure 10. Heat-integrated reactor-separation process. with the modified bypass and control loop by
the DP&C approach.

pass is depicted in Figure 12. Due to the bypass placement,

the heat-transfer area of exchanger E1 is increased from 72.7
m2 to 78.6 m2 for complete DR. With these changes, the
original operational problems are completely eliminated.

Case 3: Synthesis of a fairly complicated pinched HEN:

Figure 11. Modified HEN for the heat-integrated reac-
tor-separation process (Yang et al., 1996).
Yang et al., 1996.. The nominal fraction of the bypass calcu-
lated by the design procedure is 0.092, which is below the
upper limit 0.286.. The process flowsheet with the new by-
7SP4
The 7SP4 synthesis problem that has been extensively used
with the assumption of constant temperatures and heat ca-
pacity flow rates is fairly complicated Papotilias and Gross-
mann, 1983; Dolan et al., 1989.. Huang and Fan 1994. im-
posed various disturbances and levels of control precision to
it in order to study the controllability improvement through
process synthesis. In this study, the solutions by Huang and
Fan 1994. and Papotilias and Grossmann 1983. are selected
for studying the bypass design and structural comparison. All
pertinent design data of the problem are listed in Table 6.
The pinch point of the network corresponds to 420F assur-
ing that the minimum tolerable temperature difference,
Tmin , is 20F.
Figure 13 depicts the network structure designed by Huang
and Fan 1994. and the bypasses derived by the DP&C
methodology. The system DP&C model is

Table 5. Design Data for the Heat-Integrated Reactor-Separator System Synthesis

Stream Ts Tt Mc P T sq . T sy . Mc q
P
.
Mc y
P
.
Tmax
tq .
Tmax
ty .

No. C. C. kWrC. C. C. kWrC. kWrC. C. C.

H1 148.9 118.9 27.14 0 y16.7 2.25 0 0 y6.7
H2 176.7 74.4 18.14 0 0 0 0 13.3 y8.9
C1 35.0 98.9 8.68 13.9 y2.8 0 0 0 0
C2 98.9 123.9 32.56 0 0 3.25 0 7.1 y8.3
C3 48.9 176.7 15.86 16.7 y11.1 0 0 0 0

AIChE Journal October 2001 Vol. 47, No. 10 2269

 Table 6. Stream Data of Heat-Exchanger Network Synthesis Problem 7SP4
Stream Ts Tt Mc P T sq . T sy . Mc q
P
.
Mc y
P
.
Tmax
tq .
Tmax
ty .

No. F. F. kBturh F. F. F. kBturh F. kBturh F. F. F.

H1 675 150 15.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 0.5 1.5 y1.5
H2 590 450 11.0 2.0 1.0 0.3 0.3 3.0 y3.0
H3 540 115 4.5 6.0 8.0 0.1 0.1 2.0 y2.0
H4 430 345 60.0 3.0 4.0 0.8 0.8 4.0 y4.0
H5 400 100 12.0 3.0 5.0 0.1 0.1 1.0 y1.0
H6 300 230 125.0 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 6.0 y6.0
C1 60 710 47.0 3.0 6.0 1.2 1.2 4.0 y4.0

X
T t
h1
95.1 47.2 0 0 0 0 y28.9 y36.5 6.3 28 y2.6 y7.5
Tht
2
6.4 3.2 58.5 47.3 0 0 y30.8 y39 y2.2 y9.9 y2.7 y8
Tht
Tht
Tht
T
4

t
c1
3

X
s

 y35.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
y17.7 y15
0
0
0
y12.1
0
0
0
209.4

y20
0
0
208.7

y20
0
0
0
29.1
0
y18.9 y23.9
0
36.8
0
0
0
0
y1.4
0
0
0
y6.1
y16.7
11
y1.7
0
y48.9

y4.9
32.2
0

0
HE 1

f cE
1

fhE
2

f cE
2
0.06 0 0 0.57 0.07 0.22 T s
h1 12.2 0 0 0.4 0 y3.2
Mc Ph 1

fhE Ths2 Mc Ph
3 0 0.22 0 0.6 0.07 0.01 0.6 7.6 0 0.5 0 y2.6 2

=
f cE
fhE
f cE
fhE
f cE
3

5
q

 0
0
0
0.33
0
0
0
0.2
0.11
0
0
0.08
0
0.43
0
0.37
0
0.44
0.71
0.04
0.89
0.04
0.29
0.01
0 
Ths3
Ths4
Ths6

Tcs1
q
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
1.3
50.3
0
0
4.2
0
1
0
0.3
0
0.1
0.5
0
y4.4
y2
y0.7
y3.3
0 Mc Ph
Mc Ph
Mc Ph
Mc Pc 1
3

6
113.

fhE
6

f cE 6
The upper limits for all the potential pass fractions are
calculated using Eqs. 76 and 77:
Note that stream H5 is not included in the model, since
this stream has no interaction with the rest of the network. f Elim.
i
s 0 0.504 0.125 0.241 0.076 0 0.341
Its target temperature can be readily controlled by the cooler
placed at its end. Likewise, the target temperatures of stream 0 0.775 0 0.682 0 . . 115.
H1 and C1 can be controlled by the utility units. What needs
to be considered is to reject disturbances for streams H1, H5 ,
For the DR of stream H2 , the second row of RGA needs
and C1. Based on the system DP&C model, the RGA is ob-
to be examined. The element 2,3 0.482. is greater than other
tained below.
elements. This corresponds to the bypass on the hot-stream

0.547 0.134 0 0 0 0 0.08 0.129 0.003 0.067 0.002 0.021

y0.007 y0.002 0.482 0.315 0 0 0.063 0.101 0.001 0.02 0.002 0.017
s
0
0
0
0.213
 0
0
0
0.052
0
0
0
0.107
0
0
0
0.07
0.501
0
0
0.001
0.498
0
0
0.001
0
0.092
0
0.149
0
0.147
0
0.238
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
y0.001
0
0.058
0.038
0.005
0
0.495
0.323
0.039
.
0 114.

2270 October 2001 Vol. 47, No. 10 AIChE Journal

Figure 13. Solution A of the 7SP4 HEN synthesis prob- Figure 14. Solution B of the 7SP4 HEN synthesis prob-
lem (Huang and Fan, 1994) with the by- lem (Papoulias and Grossmann, 1983) with
passes design by the DP&C approach. the bypasses design by the DP&C approach.

side of exchanger E2 . For the same reason, after examining The upper limits for the potential pass fractions are
the third row of elements, the bypass on the hot-stream side
of the exchanger E3 is selected to control the target tempera- f E ilim . s 0 0.318 0.125 0.358 0 0.55 0.217 0
ture of stream H3. For stream H4 , the bypass on the cold- 0.426 0.79 0.1 0.31 0.682 0.033 . 117.
stream side of exchangers E6 or E4 should be selected, since
4,12 0.495. and 4,8 0.147. are closer to 1. They cannot be
A complete process flowsheet with bypasses is depicted in
selected because f E6,c
lim.
and f Elim. equal 0. The next choice of
4, c Figure 14.
bypass is on the hot-stream side of exchanger E 4 . For the
The bypass design for the two HEN solutions are com-
same reason, the bypass on the hot-stream side of exchanger
pared to each other. As summarized in Table 7, these two
E6 needs to be selected to control the target temperature in
solutions all need four bypasses on four HEXs. The total cost
stream H6 Figure 13..
for Solution A is 4.18% cheaper than that for solution B.
For the network by Papotilias and Grossmarm 1983., the
However, the system interaction analysis based on -values
system DP&C model and the RGA can be derived in the
shows that Solution B is somehow a little better than Solu-
same way. For simplicity, only the RGA is given below:
tion A. A process designer can make a choice based on this
information.
0.079 0.037 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.78 0.104 0 0 0 0
0 0 0.65 0.35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
s
0
0
0 
0.597
0
0
0
0.277
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.001
0
0
0.105
0
0
0
0.021
0
0.38
0
0
0
0.62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.629
0
0
0
0.37
0
0
0
0
0
0.098
0
0
0
0.902
0
0. 116.

AIChE Journal October 2001 Vol. 47, No. 10 2271

 Table 7. Comparison of the Solutions for HEN Synthesis Problem 7SP4
Solution A
Items Huang and Fan 1994.
Bypass fractions f h E s 0.035; f h E s 0.082;
2 4
f h E s 0.053; f h E s 0.035
3 6
A1 s 29.32; A 4 s67.48;
Areas of the HEXs before adding bypasses m2 . A 2 s15.78; A 5 s 5.84;
A 3 s 39.57; A6 s63.6
Areas of the HEXs after adding bypasses m2 . A 2 s16.81; A 4 s 72.71;
A 3 s 56.65; A6 s64.24
Total areas of all HEXs not including utility units, since 221.6
they are the same. Solution A and B m2 .
Total areas of all HEXs after adding bypasses m2 . 245.6
Cost of the HEXs before adding bypasses not including utility units. $49 393
Cost of the HEXs after adding bypasses not including utility units. $52 424
Interaction analysis 2,3 s 0.482; 4,7 s 0.092;
3,5 s 0.501; 5,11 s 0.038
Solution B
Papotilias and Grossmann 1983.
f h E s 0.106; f h E s 0.07;
2 2
f h E s 0.078; f h E s 0.047
4 7
A1 s 37.44; A 4 s84.33;
A 2 s13.6; A 5 s 25.36;
A 3 s 5.7; A 6 s8.19;
A 7 s 56.08
A 2 s17.07; A 6 s10.30;
A 4 s93.24; A 7 s 56.82
230.7
245.9
$52 419
$54 617
2,3 s 0.65; 4,7 s 0.38;
3,11 s 0.629; 5,13 s 0.098

Conclusion Usoverall heat-transfer coefficient

Usmatrix obtained from singular-value decomposition
Design of a cost-effective and high controllable heat-ex- V smatrix obtained from singular-value decomposition
changer network HEN. has both economical and opera- V1 sconversion matrix related to output temperatures
tional significance. The major difficulty involved is how to V2 sconversion matrix related to input temperatures
choose the fewest bypasses and to determine their nominal V3 sconversion matrix related to input heat-capacity flow rates
V4 sconversion matrix related to bypass selections
fractions for complete disturbance rejection with minimum
economic penalty. In this article, a unique system disturbance Greek letters
propagation and control DP&C. model is developed to
spermissible computational error
quantify disturbance propagation throughout a HEN and dis- smatrix obtained from singular-value decomposition
turbance rejection by choosing bypasses. A model-based de- srelative gain array
sign procedure is also introduced for the development of a
HEN with optimal bypass determination. The applications Superscripts and subscripts
demonstrate its robustness and effectiveness. The modeling bsbypass
and design principles embedded in the methodology are gen- esheat exchanger
eral. They can be extended to the design of an optimal mass isinput to a heat exchanger
in sinput vector to a heat exchanger in a HEN
exchanger network with recycles for maximum disturbance
msintermediate stream
rejection in a cost-effective way. osoutput from a heat exchanger
out soutput vector from a heat exchanger in a HEN
sssource
Acknowledgment t starget
Financial support from the National Science Foundation CTS- cscold stream
9414494. is gratefully acknowledged. dsdisturbance
Esheat exchangers in the system
hshot stream
Notation max scontrol precision requirement
Rsreduced vector or matrix for a system model
Asheat-transfer area split sstream branches after splitting
B sprocess-gain matrix
d scontrol-correction vector Symbols
Dm sheat-capacity flow-rate related disturbance-propagation ma-
trix mselement multiplication operator
Dt stemperature-related disturbance-propagation matrix w1x selement value in S for an intermediate stream leaving a heat
Esheat exchanger exchanger
f sbypass nominal fraction 14 selement value in S for an intermediate stream entering a
f smaximum fluctuation of bypass nominal fraction heat exchanger
f svector of maximum fluctuations of bypass nominal fractions X sselected bypass
I sunit matrix lim. supper limit of a bypass nominal fraction
Mc P sheat-capacity flow rate q spseudo inverse of a matrix
Mc P smaximum disturbance of heat-capacity flow rates q. smaximum positive fluctuation
Mc P svector of maximum disturbances of heat-capacity flow rates y. smaximum negative fluctuation
Nsnumber of streams, heat exchangers, or utilities U slumped system model
Qsheat duty of a heat exchanger
Rstranspose of inversion of a process-gain matrix
Ssstructural matrix of a heat-exchanger network Literature Cited
T stemperature Aguilera, N., and J. L. Marchetti, Optimizing and Controlling the
T smaximum temperature deviation of a stream Operation of Heat-Exchanger Networks, AIChE J., 44, 1090
T svector of maximum temperature deviations of streams 1998..
T stemperature difference Calandranis, J., and G. Stephanopoulos, Structural Operability

2272 October 2001 Vol. 47, No. 10 AIChE Journal

 Analysis of Heat Exchanger Networks, Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 64, Skogestad, S., and I. Postlethwaite, Multivariable Feedback Control
347 1986.. Analysis and Design, Wiley, Chichester, UK 1996..
Calandranis, J., and G. Stephanopoulos, A Structural Approach to Uzturk, D., and U. Akman, Centralized and Decentralized Control
the Design of Control Systems in Heat Exchanger Networks, of Retrofit Heat-Exchanger Networks, Comput. Chem. Eng., 21,
Comput. Chem. Eng., 12, 651 1988.. S373 1997..
Cao, Y., Control Structure Selection for Chemical Processes Using Yan, Q. Z., and Y. L. Huang, Extended Disturbance Propagation
Input-Output Controllability Analysis, PhD Thesis, Univ. of Ex- Model for Designing an Optimal Heat Exchanger Network with
eter, Exeter, UK 1996.. Bypass Under Uncertainty, AIChE Meeting, Miami, FL 1998..
Chang, J. W., and C. C. Yu, Relative Disturbance Gain Array, Yan, Q. Z., and Y. L. Huang, Cost-Effective Disturbance Rejec-
AIChE J., 38, 521 1992.. tion: Design of a Heat Exchanger Network with Bypasses Using a
Colberg, R. D., and M. Morari, Analysis and Synthesis of Resilient Disturbance Propagation and Control Model, AIChE Meeting,
Heat Exchanger Networks, Adances in Chemical Engineering, Vol. Dallas, TX 1999..
14, Academic Press, New York 1988.. Yang, Y. H., Mode-Based Integration of Process Design and Con-
Dolan, W. B., P. T. Cummings, and M. D. LeVan, Heat Exchanger trol via Process Synthesis: Application to the Development of
Network Design by Simulated Annealing, Proc. First Int. Conf. on Highly Controllable and Environmentally Benign Processes, PhD
Foundation of Computer Aided Process Operation, Park City, UT Diss., Wayne State Univ., Detroit, MI 1999..
1987.. Yang, Y. H., J. P. Gong, and Y. L. Huang, A Simplified System
Fisher, W. R., M. F. Doherty, and J. M. Douglas, The Interface Model for Rapid Evaluation of Disturbance Propagation through a
Between Design and Control. 1. Process Controllability, Ind. Eng. Heat Exchanger Network, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 35, 4550 1996..
Chem. Res., 27, 597 1988a.. Yang, Y. H., H. H. Lou, and Y. L. Huang, Steady-State Distur-
Fisher, W. R., M. F. Doherty, and J. M. Douglas, The Interface bance Propagation Modeling of Heat Integrated Distillation Pro-
Between Design and Control. 2. Process Operability, Ind. Eng. cesses, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., Part A, 78, 245 2000..
Chem. Res., 27, 606 1988b.. Yang, Y. H., Q. Z. Yan, and Y. L. Huang, A Unified Model for the
Fisher, W. R., M. F. Doherty, and J. M. Douglas, The Interface Prediction of Structural Disturbance Propagation in Mass Ex-
Between Design and Control. 3. Selecting a Set of Controlled changer Networks, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., Part A, 77, 253 1999..
Variables, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 27, 611 1988c.. Yee, T. F., and I. E. Grossmann, Simultaneous Optimization Mod-
Floudas, C. A., and I. E. Grossmann, Synthesis of Flexible Heat els for Heat IntegrationII, Heat Exchanger Networks Synthesis,
Exchanger Networks for Multiperiod Operation, Comput. Chem. Comput. Chem. Eng., 10, 1165 1990..
Eng., 10, 153 1986..
Galli, M. R., and J. Cerda, Synthesis of Flexible Heat Exchanger
NetworksIII: Temperature and Flowrate Variations, Comput.
Chem. Eng., 15, 7 1991.. Appendix A: HEN Structural Representation
Huang, Y. L., and L. T. Fan, HIDEN: A Hybrid Intelligent System The construction of structural matrix S and the derivation
for Synthesizing Highly Controllable Exchanger Networks: Imple-
mentation of Distributed Strategy for Integration of Process De- of conversion matrices V1 through V3 are demonstrated using
sign and Control, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 33, 1174 1994.. the example in Figure A1. In this example, the HEN has a
Kotjabasakis, E., and B. Linnhoff, Sensitivity Tables for the Design hot stream and two cold streams connected by two heat ex-
of Flexible Processes 1. How Much Contingency in Heat Ex- changers HEXs.. Matrix S has a dimension of 4=4 that is,
changer Network is Cost-Effective? Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 64, 197
1986.. 2 Ne =2 Ne .. It is decomposed into two submatrices, S1 3=4.
Linnhoff, B., and E. Kotjabasakis, Downstream Paths for Operable and S2 1=4., respectively.
Process Design, Chem. Eng. Prog., 825., 23 1986.. Construction of S1 . In submatrix S1 , three rows are desig-
Mathisen, K. W., S. Skogestad, and E. A. Wolff, Controllability of
Heat Exchanger Networks, AIChE Meeting, Los Angeles, CA
nated to streams H1, C1, and C2 in sequence. The four
1991.. columns are divided into two pairs: the left pair is for ex-
Mathisen, K. W., S. Skogestad, and T. Gundersen, Optimal Bypass changer E1, and the right is for exchanger E2 . This submatrix
Placement in Heat Exchanger Networks, AIChE Meeting, New
Orleans, LA 1992..
Mathisen, K. W., M. Morari, and S. Skogestad, Optimal Operation
of Heat Exchanger Networks, Proc. PSE 94, E. S. Yoon, ed., Ko-
rean Inst. of Chemical Engineers, Korea, p. 315 1994..
McAvoy, T. J., Integration of Process Design and Process Control,
Recent Deelopment in Chemical Process and Plant Design, Y. A.
Liu, H. A. McGee, Jr., and W. R. Epperly, eds., Wiley, New York,
p. 289 1987..
Morari, M., Flexibility and Resilience of Process Systems, Comput.
Chem. Eng., 7, 423 1983..
Morari, M., Effect of Design on the Controllability of Chemical
Plants, Proc. IFAC Workshop on Interactions Between Process De-
sign and Process Control, London, p. 3 1992..
Nobel, B., and J. W. Daniel, Applied Linear Algebra, 2nd ed., Pren-
tice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1977..
Papalexandri, K. P., and E. N. Pistikopoulos, A Multiperiod MINLP
Model for the Synthesis of Flexible Heat and Mass Exchange Net-
work, Comput. Chem. Eng., 18, 1125 1994a..
Papalexandri, K. P., and E. N. Pistikopoulos, Synthesis and Retrofit
Design of Operable Heat Exchanger Network: 1. Flexibility and
Structural Controllability Aspects, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 33, 1718
1994b..
Papoulias, S. A., and I. E. Grossmann, A Structural Optimization
Approach in Process Synthesis-II. Heat Recovery Networks,
Comp. Chem. Eng., 7 1983..
Saboo, A. K., M. Morari, and D. C. Woodcock, Design of Resilient
Figure A1. HEN structure with bypasses as manipu-
Processing PlantsIII: A Resilience Index for Heat Exchanger lated variables to control target tempera-
Networks, Chem. Eng. Sci., 40, 1553 1985.. tures.

AIChE Journal October 2001 Vol. 47, No. 10 2273

is developed as follows: Deriation of V2 . Matrix V2 also has the dimension of 4=4.
Each row j is generated based on the same column in matrix
E1
!# E2
" !# " S. As s4,1 in S is 14, 2 1,4 needs to be 0, and 2 1,4 to be si,1
h c h c is1, 2, 3.. Since s4,3 in S is w1x, 2 should be 1 and 2
3,4 3, i
should be 0 is1, 2, 3.. The other two columns js 2, 4. in
H1in 1 0 1
out
0 H1 S dont contain 14 or w1x, so 2 j, i should be si, j is1, 2, . . . ,
S1 s C1out 0
C2out
 0
1
0
0
0 1
0
0 C1in .
C2in
A1. 4.. Therefore, the resultant V2 is

1 0 0 0
In the submatrix, each row from the left to the right stands
for the stream temperature from the hot end to the cold end.
For instance, the left side of the first row is for the inlet of
hot stream H1 that is, H1in . and the right side is for the
V2 s
0
0
0
 1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
.
0 A5.

outlet of the same stream that is, H1out .. In each pair of Deriation of V3 . Matrix V3 has the dimension of 4=3.
columns, the left and the right column are assigned to the Since each column of matrix S contains at most one 14 or
hot stream and the cold stream going through the HEX, re- one w1x, we can let 3 j, i equal si, j is1, 2, 3; js1, 2, . . . , 4..
spectively. An element having a value of 1 or 0 means the Thus, the resultant V3 is
stream going through or not going through the HEX. For
example, the first row is the vector of 1 0 1 0.. This indicates 1 0 0
that hot stream H1 enters E1 and E2 . The second row has
the vector of 0 1 0 0.. This means that stream C1 enters E1.
Construction of S2 . In submatrix S2 , each row is desig-
nated to an intermediate stream. For this example there is
V3 s
0
1
0
 0 1
0
0
0
0
1
A6.

only one intermediate stream, M1, which is between exchang-

ers E1 and E2 . The definition of columns is the same as that Appendix B: Two Key Theorems from Nobel and
in submatrix S1. Figure A1 shows that the intermediate
Daniel (1977)
stream leaves E1 and enters E2 . Thus, the first and third Theorem 1: Identification of the Pseudoinerse of a Non-
elements of S2 are set to 14 and w1x, respectively. The subma- squared Matrix. Let matrix B Ns =2 Ne . of rank k have the
trix is following singular value decomposition:

E1 E2
!# " !# " B sU V T , B1 .
h c h c
S 2 s M1  1 4 0 w1x 0. . A2. where

Note that an element having a value of 0 means that the E 0

intermediate stream does not go through the HEX at the
s 0 0 / B2 .
side specified. Esdiag  1 , 2 , . . . , k 4 , B3 .
By combining submatrices S1 and S2 , the following struc-
tural matrix S can be obtained: and

1 0 1 0 1 G 2 G G k ) 0, B4 .
S1 0 1 0 0
Ss
S2 /
s
 0
 14
0
0
0
w1x
1 .
0 0 A3.
where U, , and V have dimensions of Ns = Ns , Ns =2 Ne ,
and 2 Ne =2 Ne , respectively. The pseudoinverse, Bq, of B can
be calculated as
Deriation of V1 . Matrix V1 has the same dimension as
matrix S 4=4.. Each column j js1, 2, . . . , 4. in V1 is B HsV H U T , B5 .
generated based on the same column in S. For the first col-
umn in S, since s4,1, is 14, then 1 4,1 should be equal to 1 and where
all three other elements in the same column be 0. As s4,3 in
I1
S is w1x, then 1 4,3 needs to be equal to 0 and 1 i,3 is equal to qs E 0 .
/ B6 .
si,3 is1, 2, 3.. Since the other two columns js 2, 4. in S 0 0
dont contain 14 and w1x, 1 i, j should be equal to si, j is1, 2,
. . . , 4.. Hence, the resultant V1 is Theorem 2: Identification of the Optimal Solution of Eq. 66.
For matrix B Ns =2 Ne , and 2 Ne . of rank k with the singu-
0 0 1 0 lar-value decomposition shown in Eq. B1, the solution f X
( Nf X =1. that minimizes I BV4 f Xy d I 2 can be expressed as
V1 s
0
0
1
 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
.
0 A4.
V4 f X sVW, B7 .

2274 October 2001 Vol. 47, No. 10 AIChE Journal

where V4 2 Ne = Nf X . is defined in Eq. 62, V 2 Ne = Ns . is Following the same approach, we can obtain the following
defined in Eq. B1, and the elements of W Ns =1. are de- upper limit of the nominal fraction of the bypass placed on
fined as the cold-stream side of a HEX:

X
b i
is1, 2, . . . , k f c lim . s
Ths yTct y Tmin
~
ws
i i B8 . Ths yTcs y Tmin
. C10.
0 is k q1, k q2, . . . , Ns ,

where bXi is an element in the following matrix:

Appendix D: Calculation of an Extended RGA
An extended RGA can be derived using the Nobel and
X T Daniel theorems cited in Appendix B. In this work, an opti-
b sU d, B9 .
mal solution for nominal values of selected bypass f X is
sought, that is,
and i is defined in Eqs. B2 through B4.

Min
X
IBV4 f Xy d I 2 . D1 .
Appendix C: Derivation of the Upper Limits of f
Bypass Fractions
Equations 77 and 78 are derived based on the requirement According to their theorems, the matrix in Eq. 88, that is, the
of minimum temperature driving force Tmin . for a HEX. control matrix B is
Referring to Figure 1, the following relationships must hold:
86.3 43.1 0 0 0 0
Thi yTco G Tmin C1.

Note that
Tho yTci G Tmin . C2.
Bs

y14.1
y22.8
y6.5
y7.05
y11.4
y3.25
31.0
y44.8
14.3
23.3
y33.6
10.7
28.8
0
y14.4
14.4
0
y7.2
0.

D2 .

Thi yTco sThs yTco C3.

The singular decomposition analysis is
Tho yTci sTho yTcs . C4.
0.941 y0.148 0.179 y0.248
According to Eq. 18, we have the following relationship for
the bypass placed on the hot-stream side of the HEX:

Tht s f hThs q 1y f h . Tho . C5.

Us

y0.117

y0.045

101.7
0.658
y0.315 y0.713
0.644
0.384
0.194 y0.637

0 0 0 0
y0.372
y0.495
y0.745

0
0 D3 .

Similarly, the relationship for the bypass placed on the cold-

stream side of the HEX is

Tct s f cTcs q 1y f c . Tco C6.

s
0
0
0
71.6 0
0 32.0
0
0
0
0 0.011
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 D4 .

0.888 y0.098 0.053 y0.447 0 0

0.443 y0.049 0.026 0.895 0 0
Substituting Eqs. C4 and C6 into Eq. C2 and rearranging the
resultant equation yield,

Tht yTcs y Tmin G f h Ths yTcs y Tmin . .

Since the term Ths yTcs y Tmin is definitely positive, it be-

C7.
Vs


0.097
0.073
y0.027
y0.013
0.769 y0.198
0.577 y0.147
0.225
0.113
0.865
0.433
0
0
0
0
y0.6
0.8
0
0
y0.001 y0.447
y0.001 0.894
0
D5 .
comes
Because the fourth singular value, 4 0.011., is much
Tht yTcs y Tmin smaller compared with the first three, it is regarded as zero
fh F . C8. according to the Nobel and Daniel theorem and condition.
Ths yTcs y Tmin

In other words, the upper limit of the nominal fraction of the For the first example,
bypass placed on the hot-stream side of a HEX, f h lim., is
0.0098 0 0 0 0 0

f h lim . s
Tht yTcs y Tmin
Ths yTcs y Tmin
. C9.
q
s
0
0
0
 0.014
0
0
0
0.0312
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0. D6 .

AIChE Journal October 2001 Vol. 47, No. 10 2275

The pseudoinverse of B can be calculated according to Eq. Then, RGA can be calculated using the formula in Eq. 68:
B5
s BmBq
B HsV H U T 0.7512 0.1873 0 0 0 0
0.0087 y0.0009 y0.0011 y0.0017
0.0043 y0.0004 y0.0006 y0.0009
s

0.0120
0.0259
0.0030
0.0065
0.0920
0.04625
0.0526
0.2597
0.5613
0
0.1403
0
.
0
s


y0.0018
y0.0013
0.0041
0.0021
0.0030 y0.0103
0.0023 y0.0077
0.0195
0.0097
0.0060
0.0045
0.0082 y0.0166
0.0041 y0.0083
.

0 D7 .
0.0111 0.0028 0.0855 0.0477 0.2387 0.0597

Manuscript receied May 3, 1999, and reision receied Feb. 14, 2000.
D8 .

2276 October 2001 Vol. 47, No. 10 AIChE Journal