pinch in operation

8/16/2019 Pinch in Operation

1/13

Using pinch technology in operations?

Pinch Technology is a well estab-lished concept, and a tool used tooptimise waste heat recovery and

design ef cient heat integrationschemes in a wide range of applica-tions, throughout the processindustries. What is less obvious isthat Pinch Technology can assist anoperating engineer in his daily work.The paper discusses the basic pinchprinciples and how the knowledge ofthem helps in understanding theoperation and behaviour of heatexchanger networks, nding the oper -ational improvements, calculating theeffects of exchanger fouling, bench-marking the energy performance ofexisting process units, and identifyingtheir improvement potential.

IntroductionPinch Technology is arguably the most rigorous,systematic and best documented methodology inall process design. 1,2,3 Virtually, no design involv-ing the optimisation of process heat recovery iscarried out without applying some form of pinchanalysis. Pinch Technology is particularly useful when designing very complex processes, such asre neries and petrochemical plants, aiming atand achieving high energy ef ciency of the indi - vidual processes, as well as of the whole site. Itdeserves its special place in the hierarchy of

design methodologies because of the exactnessof the fundamental principles that it uses, itssimplicity, the magnitude of design improve-ments/bene ts that it brings about, and its wideapplicability.

However, the fact that Pinch Technologyprovides a “ nal” methodology, in the point intime when not many new processing facilitiesare being built, or are expected to be built in thenear future, led to occasional remark that “pinchtechnology may be obsolete”. 4 Proponents of this

Zoran Milosevic, Allan Rudman and Richard Brown KBC Process Technology, UK

view feel that since any recently built petro-chemical plants have been designed close tooptimum, while new ones are unlikely to beconstructed in the current global energy climate,practically all major pinch work had already been “done”.

While the underlying logic of such viewpointcan be understood, it is nevertheless incorrectfor two main reasons, apart from the obviousstatement that thermodynamic principles canhardly be described as outdated.

Firstly, the optimum in design is a movingtarget. Process plants that have been optimised

today may not operate in an optimal fashion inthe future. Many “pinch” revamps in existingre neries and petrochemicals have been carriedout not because the original design was subopti-mal at the time, but because the optimum hasmoved since the plant was commissioned. What was not economical to install 30 years ago may be economical now. Even the pinch and/orenergy projects that have been carried out only10 years ago should be reviewed against thechanging economics, because the cost of energy

www.digitalrening.com/article/1000837 September 2013 1

Figure 1 Projected energy versus plant cost trendSource: KBC Process Technology

http://www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000837http://www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000837


2/13

grows faster than the plant construction cost(Figure 1). This renders viable those projectsthat have previously been considered uneconom-ical. Pinch Technology is a design tool thatguides optimum retro ts. In fact, its retro ttheory is more complex than the theory ofdesigning new units and it is still developing.

Secondly, Pinch Technology helps the operat-ing engineer to understand and manage a rangeof process issues that are related to day-to-dayoperation of their process units.

The present paper focuses on this last area ofapplicability of Pinch Technology, i.e. its use inthe daily work of the operating engineer, butalso aims to provide useful revamp guidelines.

Pinch Technology – A Brief DescriptionThe Pinch principles have been described exten-sively in chemical engineering literature. 1,2,3 Essentially, Pinch Technology is a technique thatis used to analyse heat availability in process’hot streams and to match it against the heatdemand of suitable cold streams, in an optimum

fashion. This optimises the preheating of thecold streams by using hot streams’ waste heat,and saves fuel in furnaces and other heaters. Thetechnique owes its name to the discovery andthe conceptual importance of the thermody-namic “pinch point” – the point of the closesttemperature approach between the combinedhot and cold heat availability curves. This ther-modynamic bottleneck limits the recoverabilityof the hot stream’s energy.

Pinch Technology has four principal functions:

2 September 2013 www.digitalrening.com/article/1000837

• Energy versus capital targeting andoptimisation.• Design of optimum heat exchange networks.• Optimisation of the use of utilities.• Revamping of existing networks.

These functions are brie y described below.

Energy and capital targeting and optimisationThe energy targets for the optimum use ofenergy are determined ahead of designing a unit.The methodology is based on the use of heatavailability curves (the Composite Curves –Figure 2), and the optimisation of capital cost(exchanger area) versus energy cost (fuel), tocalculate energy “targets” – the optimum achiev -able heat recovery, and hence the optimumenergy consumption of a process. Compositecurves represent heat availability and heatdemand pro les. When superimposed, theyshow the recoverable energy (where curves over-lap), and the external heating and coolingrequirements (the uncovered parts of thecurves). Moving the curves apart illustrates the

effect of increasing the temperature approach between the composites: this reduces therequired exchanger area, but also reduces heatrecovery between hot and cold composite, thusincreasing the consumption of both heating andcooling energy (case B in Figure 2).

Heat Exchanger Network DesignPinch Technology further provides the designmethodology which ensures that the “pinch”targets are met in the actual design. An intro-

Figure 2 Different Positioning of the Composite Curves



3/13

duction and the explanation of the designmethodology can be found in. 2 Today, this is to alarge extent a computer-led process.

Optimisation of the use of utilities(utility placement)The utility-placement function is based on theuse of Grand Composite Curves (GCC), wherebythe cost of the targeted energy is minimised byutilising a cheaper utility – for example by usinglow pressure steam instead of high pressuresteam or fuel, where possible. While CompositeCurves show the total demand of the heatingand cooling utilities, the GCC shows the distri- bution of this demand in various temperatureintervals of the heat transfer region, andare used to determine how much of thelower temperature utility can be optimally used.The Grand Composite curve in Figure 3shows how the heating target can be met byusing HP (high pressure) steam (left), but alsoillustrates the option of partly using LP (lowpressure) steam and reduce the use of HP steam(right).

Heat Exchanger Network RevampThe network revamp algorithm is a complex andan ever developing feature of Pinch Technology.


Its complexity is due to numerous constraintsthat the existing design poses. Today, therevamp algorithm is based on the “Path Pinch”concept. 1,2 The methodology guides the processof adding new area strategically and economi-cally, with minimum network modi cations.

Using Pinch Technology in OperationsThe above several functions of Pinch Technologycan be applied to a number of situations thatmay be of interest to an operating engineer.These situations are brie y described below.

Figure 3 The Use of Grand Composite Curve



4/13

Understanding Heat Exchanger NetworksOperators do observe the peculiar behaviour ofheat exchange networks, and they often under-stand them fully. In complex con gurationshowever, such as preheat trains of re nery distil -lation units or catalytic crackers, not alleccentricities are readily explained, andimproved understanding of the system’s “misbe-haviour” may lead to operational improvements.

For example, operators observe that cleaningdifferent exchangers produces different effects -

some seem to be more important than others.Similarly, adding surface area to one shell provesto be more cost effective than to another.However, neither of these two observations leadsto a straightforward and intuitive conclusionthat the improvement action should be centredon the exchangers at the hot end of the network.Consider the example preheat train shown inFigure 4. The effect of adding heat exchangerarea on furnace coil inlet temperature (CIT) isexamined.

Adding area to exchanger E-7 is more costeffective than adding it to other exchangers.Especially ineffective is addition to E-10,although this exchanger is located at the hot endof the preheat train. A careful reader will observethat E-10 operates at a tight temperatureapproach already.

Stream splits represent another example. Thesplits are incorporated in the network design with a purpose, which may not just be the pres-sure drop reduction. Consequently, it isimportant how the stream splits are balanced.Consider the vacuum distillation unit preheattrain shown in Figure 5.

The optimum stream split is not at 50/50. Byreducing the ow through exchanger E-3 to 42%of the total ow, the preheat temperatureincreases by 1.3 C, saving $72,000/year in that


Figure 5 A Stream Split

Figure 6 Effect of Stream Split Ratio



5/13


6/13

replacing column trays with more ef cient ones,enabling higher P/A heat removal rates withoutadversely affecting fractionation.

Fouling Management: Cleaning CycleOptimisationExchanger fouling may cause large energy lossesin complex preheat trains. Much improvementand cost saving can be achieved by understand-ing the fouling mechanism and how it affectsheat transfer - not only in individual exchangers, but of the whole network. Just as adding area toone exchanger can be more effective than toanother, so can be exchanger cleaning. Becausethe two processes are governed by the sameprinciples, it is important to implement somekind of fouling monitoring and carry outexchanger cleaning before embarking on pinchanalysis or a revamp study.

Using Pinch Targeting for Energy Benchmarking

and Gap Analysis of the Existing UnitsBenchmarking the energy performance of anexisting unit is a typical “Pinch” task for the siteenergy manager. The exercise is largely based onPinch analysis and the use of Composite Curves,particularly when benchmarking crude oil distil-lation units, hydrocrackers, hydrotreaters, andFCC units, where the ef ciency gaps associated with suboptimal heat integration tend to bedominant when compared with other energygaps (such as furnace ef ciency, process charac -

teristics, or power generation ef ciency).Consider Figure 8. The composite curves for

an existing process unit are drawn and posi-tioned relative to each other so that the actual(observed) feed preheat temperature is matched.The resulting ΔT at the pinch indicates the ΔT min with which a well designed preheat train wouldmatch the performance of the existing train.Now consider again Figure 2 (b) showing adistillation unit Composite Curves. Suppose thatthe actual preheat temperature is 265 °C. Thecurves in Fig. 2 are positioned so that thediagram predicts this observed preheat tempera-ture. The resulting ΔT min is 50 °C, meaning thatthe performance of the actual preheat train isequivalent to the performance of a “pinch-de-signed” train with a ΔT min of 50° C at the pinch.Let us now assume that we found that the opti-mum design ΔT min would in this case be 30 °C. Ifthe train were designed with this ΔT min in mind,the preheat temperature would be 280 °C -Figure 2 (a). With the help of this knowledge,the new, reduced, furnace duty, and thereforethe energy consumption “gap” associated withthe suboptimal design of the preheat train canthen be calculated.

It is normally not feasible (technically oreconomically) to revamp an existing train tomatch the performance of the optimum grass-roots train, but nevertheless, a substantial partof the gap can normally be closed by economi-cally feasible projects. The next section describeshow to realistically estimate the potential gapclosure.

Finding Scope for Improvement:Revamp Targeting The inef ciencies that are typically found inexisting preheat trains are:• High design ΔT min at the pinch – mainly aresult of insuf cient exchanger area installed in

the rst place.• Cross-pinch heat transfer – resulting frompoor exchanger positioning.• Poor exchanger area utilisation – resultingfrom poor exchanger positioning, criss-crossing,and perhaps too much area employed in a wrongplace.

The benchmarking procedure described abovends the ef ciency gap between the actual andthe optimally design preheat train. The use ofrevamp targeting methodology establishes how


Figure 8 Composites Positioned to Match the Observedpreheat T



7/13

much of this gap can be closed via economicalprojects, and forms the basis for capital expendi-ture plan for cost-effective retro t.

The retro t projects fall broadly into threemain categories:• Projects aimed at increasing heat recoveryfrom hot streams by recovering heat currently wasted to air/water coolers.• Projects aimed at maximising the use of lowcost utility – for example replacing high pressuresteam with low pressure steam, or replacing partof furnace duty with steam heating, wherepossible.• Projects that address other energy-relatedprocess issues such as unit debottleneckng,capacity or processing severity increase, pressuredrop reduction, etc.

The development of the methodology forrevamp targeting has a long history, and theresearch efforts continue. This is because ndingthe optimum solution, technically and economi-cally, in a multiple-constraint problem such asthe revamp of an existing preheat train is a verycomplex task. The main issues are:• What is the correct ΔT min for revamps?• How to best use the existing exchanger area?• How to minimise area addition?• How to remove the constraints imposed by theexisting heat exchanger network con guration?

In a grassroots design the capital/energytrade-off is found by optimising the ΔT min at thepinch. The “grassroots curve” (Figure 9) showsthe area versus energy function, along which liesthe grassroots optimum – its position is deter -mined by optimising ΔT min in the “area versusenergy” trade-off.

An existing design, shown by the red dot inFigure 9, will lie above the grassroots curve, because it will not perform better than a grass-roots pinch design. The grassroots optimum case would have lower surface area than the existing

design. However, in a revamp situation, there isusually no bene t from not using the existingarea, and the objective is therefore to make the best use of what is already installed. Ideally, thedesigner would want to proceed horizontally,maintaining the same area, but using it better, inorder to reduce energy consumption. This would be possible if the existing network were ‘elastic’,i.e. if the network structure could be easilychanged and the surface area could be easilyre-distributed among exchangers. This is rarely

possible. A realistic revamp project will follow acurve that represents increased area require-ments and reduced energy requirement, asshown in Figure 9. A curve with better econom-ics is closer to the grassroots curve.

The designer’s objective in setting a retro ttarget is to develop a targeting curve thatprovides best economics after accounting for anypractical issues and constraints. This can beaccomplished by using the “area ef ciency”concept. 2, 3 Area ef ciency measures the effec -tiveness of the surface area employed in anetwork, taking the grassroots case as the basis. Area ef ciency is de ned as the ratio of thegrassroots area target (at the existing energyconsumption) and the existing network area. Todevelop a retro t targeting curve, an assumptionis made that a good retro t will at least maintainthe existing surface area ef ciency, i.e. α =constant. Based on the α=constant assumption,a retro t targeting curve is developed, whichmaintains the same area ef ciency as the exist -ing design. Today, this is largely a software-ledprocess.

Identifying Effective Improvement ProjectsIn simple heat exchanger systems, involving oneor two exchangers, the improvement options areintuitive, and may be found by inspection. Theymay involve adding area to a single exchanger,using some form of heat transfer enhancements(e.g. twisted tubes), or moving exchanger shellsaround and re-piping.

However, in complex networks a systematicapproach is needed to maximise the improve-


Figure 9 Grassroots Design Area Utilisation Curve



8/13

ment potential. This implies application ofcomputer based revamp techniques involving theconcepts of Path Pinch, utilising the network’sloops and paths and introducing “enabling”projects when the network is found constrained.

Very often, the design inef ciencies resultfrom cross-pinch heat exchange. There is asimpli ed procedure that a plant engineer mayemploy to nd potential improvements in

simpler networks.

DIY Cross-Pinch Elimination ProcedureMany cross-pinch inef ciencies arise fromexchanger matches such as that shown in Figure10. This exchanger recovers heat from the hotstream (being cooled from A to B) into the coldstream (being heated from C to D). While theexchanger has a tight temperature approach atits cold end, the driving forces increase as thestream temperatures increase. Because of this

the hot end approach temperature issigni cantly greater than the cold endΔT.

Depending on the location of theexchanger in the system, this canresult in a large proportion of theexchanger duty being cross-pinch.

The way to correct the cross-pinchtransfer is shown in Figure 11. Theoriginal exchanger now only carriesout the duty from E to B on the hotside, and C to J on the cold side(exchanger 1). The remaining cold sideduty (J to D) is now carried out by anew, lower temperature hot stream(H to I) in exchanger 3, while theremaining hot side duty (A to E) isused to heat a higher temperaturecold stream (F to G) in exchanger 2.The new stream F to G could be steamgeneration or stream H to I could besteam use.

Clearly, correcting exchangers whichshow this kind of cross-pinch involvesinvestment.

Systematic Revamp Approach A full study of a network revampinvolves software application. Modernapproaches to network improvementseek to squeeze the best possibleperformance out of the existing units

and minimise the need for new exchangers.Typical retro ts may involve surface areaenhancing equipment, such as tube inserts andtwisted tube exchangers, and often one newexchanger or exchanger shell, but will avoidextensive changes to the network.

These techniques include the use of “loops”and “paths” within a network. Paths are the heatow trails within the network that connect the

cold and the hot utilities. Because of this anyimprovement in the heat recovery along a pathcan reduce the consumption of both utilities. Aloop is a closed energy path within the network.In a retro t design, paths form the basis of “PathPinch”, which addresses the additionalconstraints imposed by a speci c con gurationof the existing facility. The methodology is aimedspeci cally at nding the best energy savings forthe least investment cost.

Existing networks can usually be improved by


Figure 10 Exchanger showing Cross-Pinch Heat Transfer

Figure 11 Correction of Cross Pinch Heat Transfer



9/13


10/13

undoubtedly a good project. A skilled engineer will however immediately notice that if area isadded to E6, exchanger E7 will lose temperaturedriving force, and will have to be enlarged too,in order to maintain constant bottom pumpa-round duty (BPA). After some consideration,and “area balancing” between E6 and E7, theengineer will nd that the size of E6 needs to beincreased by 1,700 m 2, and that of E7 by 930 m 2

(area of E6 is increased until E7 becomes“pinched”). The two intuitive projects, combined, would increase feed preheat to 272°C, and save11.6 MW of furnace fuel. The investment cost isestimated at $5.1 million, offering a simplepayback of 1.3 years. The resulting preheat trainis shown in Figure 13.

This is about how far intuition can take us.One may observe that as E6 becomes pinched, itseems logical to add area to E8 as well. This may“de-pinch” E6, and allow adding more areaeconomically to E6 (shifting area between E6and E8). This optimisation however is notentirely intuitive. Using the column overheadsheat may be considered another “obvious”opportunity, but this is a low-grade, below-pinchheat, which in theory does not improve heatrecovery. There is no obvious place for it.

The 11.6 MW of improvement is pretty good, but it will be shown that in this particular case17.3 MW savings are possible. So, there are,obviously, some non-obvious projects, and thisis a typical situation in which “Path Pinch”proves powerful.

Path Pinch ProjectsKBC’s SuperTarget TM was used to identify PathPinch projects. Path Pinch achieves energysavings by adding area strategically and makinglimited structural changes to the network. PathPinch algorithm assesses the network to ndheat-recovery paths. These connect hot and cold

utilities via exchangers, so that any additionalheat recovery along a path reduces the use of both utilities.

SuperTarget nds and analyses all paths inturn, to identify the most economical ones toexploit, and to maximise heat recovery with mini-mum investment. One such path is shown in agrid diagram1 in Figure 14. Increasing heat recov-ery along a path can be continued until the path becomes “pinched”, and no further improvementcan be made. This is when “enabling changes” are

A Pinch targeting exercise would reveal thatthe actual preheat train performs as if designedfor ΔT min of 85°C, while the economic optimum would be 37°C. The actual feed preheat tempera-ture is 255°C, while it could be 290°C in apreheat train designed in accordance with pinchprinciples. The ef ciency gap between the actualand the “pinch designed” cases is 22.7 MW, worth $7.9 million/year at the assumed fuel costof $40/MWh. Can this gap be closed, and if so,how tight?

•Some of the built-in inef ciencies of theexample exchanger network are obvious:• The residue stream is sent hot to water coolerC1. This stream could be used to preheat feed• The overheads heat is lost to air-cooledcondenser C3. This may be recoverable.• There is a suspect cross-pinch exchange E2,

where hot heavy gasoil stream is used against very cold feed.

Intuitive ProjectsIt seems logical to add area to exchanger E6 andrecover more of the reside heat. Aiming for ΔT min of 35°C in this enlarged exchanger, 1967 m 2 ofnew area can be installed, saving 7.5 MW offurnace fuel, worth $2.6 million/year. Theinvestment cost is estimated at $3.9 million,offering a simple payback of 1.5 years. This is

Figure 13 Intuitive Revamp




11/13

of the enabling project will save additional 2.7MW of furnace fuel, reaching total savings of15.1 MW, with 1,100 m 2 of new area.

Path Pinch 2The optimised enabling project allows a newiteration, which now nds it economical to addmore area to debottleneck the downstreamexchangers, particularly E3, E5 and E7. With thetotal new area of 1,522 m 2 over Path Pinch 1, thesavings increase to 16.1 MW.

Path Pinch 3Finally, in another iteration, the Path Pinchalgorithm nds its last economically viableproject, which is the addition of a new residueexchanger (430 m 2) downstream of E6. Withthis, the cumulative savings reach 17.3 MW.

Of the total identi ed ef ciency gap of 22.7MW, the combined Path Pinch projects thereforeclose about 80%. Although there seems to bestill room for improvement left, further improve-ments beyond Path Pinch 3 are small anduneconomical.

It is appropriate to comment here that theperformance gap can almost never be completelyclosed - the constraints imposed by the existingcon guration normally make it impossible toreach Pinch targets in revamp situation. This isthe usual price to be paid for a suboptimal initialdesign.

The nal revamp is shown in Figure 15. Thesummary of all projects is presented in tableoverleaf.

In summary, the actual saving potential of the

proposed to remove bottle-necks and allow the algorithmto exploit new paths to achievefurther energy reductions.

Path Pinch 1The rst Path Pinch projectidenti ed exploits the pathshown in Figure 14. Theproject is similar to the intui-tive project shown in Figure13 above, and consists ofadding area to E6 (+1,862m 2), E7 (+785 m 2) and E8(+195 m 2), until E7 becomespinched. The fuel savingsamount to 12.4 MW. Therequired investment is $5.5 million, offering asimple payback of 1.3 years – slightly higherenergy savings (by 0.8 MW), with a similarreturn on investment as the intuitive project.

After the project is considered for technical viability, available space, pressure drop, safetyetc., and accepted by the engineer, the method-ology can be re-applied to identify the next bestproject. In the example case, however, the algo-rithm nds that after Path Pinch 1 project isimplemented, a limit is reached, and no furtherimprovement can be made by simply addingarea to existing exchangers, although the inef -ciencies remain, such as cross-pinching, and wasting of the Overheads heat and a part of theResidue heat.

Enabling ProjectThe bottleneck can be removed by installing aheat exchanger below the pinch, to recover theOverheads heat upstream of exchanger E3. It will need to have an area of 200 m 2 and a dutyof 4.3 MW, but on its own it only saves 1 MW infurnace duty. It is a so-called “enabling” project.

The engineer will notice that in order to main-tain a constant top pumparound (TPA) duty inE3, this exchanger will require additional areatoo. Therefore, some projects will have to imme-diate follow the enabling project, but Path Pinch will attempt to extract the maximum bene tfrom the enabling project. In our particular casethis optimisation will include adding area to E3,and slightly increasing the areas of E6, E7 andE8 relative to the above Path Pinch 1 project.Compared to Path Pinch 1, the optimised version

Figure 14 Illustration of a Path




12/13

An experienced engineer can venture intodesigning preheat train revamps, by inspection,using intuition and simulation. There is nodoubt that some, effective energy improvementprojects can be identi ed by such procedure.They close 65% of the ef ciency gap in thepresented example case, but the remaining 35%of the gap can only be identi ed by using thesystematic Path Pinch method.

A de nite advantage of a systematic approachis that it leaves no doubt, and no room for spec-ulation if the selected projects are the best

available. The uncertainty and non-systematicityof the intuitive approach is often quoted as oneof the reasons for projects not nding their wayinto corporate nancial plans.

The nal 35% of gap closure that results fromthe systematic approach may not look over- whelmingly important, but it may beindispensible when the last 35% of ef ciencyimprovement can be the differentiator in today’s world of competitive re ning, where re neriesand petrochemicals try to squeeze out every

example network is 17.3 MW. The savingprojects identi able by intuition can reach 11.6MW, and further savings are only enabled bysystematic approach and Path Pinch. Theyamount to 5.7 MW.

ConclusionThe authors’ ambition was to provide evidencethat Pinch Technology should continue to beregarded as indispensible tool in optimisingprocess units with respect to energy ef ciency, at both engineer’s and operator’s levels. It is useful

that the operators understand the Pinch principlesand how they can be used to improve the perfor-mance of existing process units, and not justpertain to new designs and large revamp work. When applied to existing heat exchangernetworks, the knowledge of Pinch Technology canassist an operator in nding operational improve -ments, understanding and calculating the effectsof exchanger fouling, benchmarking the energyperformance of their processes, and perhaps iden-tifying improvements from simple modi cations.

Figure 15 Final Revamp

Summary of all projects

Project Savings, MW Investment, million $ Payback, years1 Intuitive 2 11.6 5.13 1.32 Path Pinch 1 (Alternative to Intuitive 2) 12.4 5.50 1.33 Enabling and Path Pinch 2 (Incremental) 3.7 3.51 2.74 Path Pinch 3 1.2 1.17 2.8 Total (items 2,3, and 4) 17.3 10.2 1.7




13/13

energy optimisation, Pinch Technology, and sustainability andefcient use of resources. Allan Rudman is Vice President of Energy Services with KBC theintegrated business resulting from the acquisition of LinnhoffMarch in 2002. During his 20-year career with KBC, he has advisedrening and petrochemical clients in a number of European,Russian, Asian, South American and US countries on improvingenergy efciency. Utilising his engineering background, Allanhas played a leading role in the development of energy servicestechnology, including training, development and methodologyguidelines. Allan holds a First Class Honours degree in ChemicalEngineering from Bradford University in the UK & is a Fellow of theInstitute of Chemical Engineers.Richard Brown Richard Brown is a consultant with KBC ProcessTechnology Ltd, working in the Energy Optimisation group. Heis managing energy and heat integration studies in rening andpetrochemical industries. Brown holds BS degree in ChemicalEngineering from the University of Bradford.

percentage of their resource ef ciency, be itenergy, environmental or other.

References1 For a brief description of Pinch Technology see: Managing CO 2Emissions in the Chemical Industry (edited by y Hans-JoachimLeimkühler) - Chapter 6: Milosevic Z, Eastwood A, Heat Integrationand Pinch Analysis, Wiley-VCH, 2010.

2 For a comprehensive description of Pinch Technology see: I CKemp, Pinch Analysis and Process Integration – A User Guide onProcess Integration for the Efcient Use of Energy , Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007.3 For an all-encompassing account of Pinch Technology for expertusers see: U V Shennoy, Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis, GulfPublishing Co., 1995.4 The actual remark was made by a speaker at the 2010 ENI EnergyConference in Rome. The authors witnessed similar statementshaving been made on several other occasions.

Dr Zoran Milosevic is a principal consultant with KBC ProcessTechnology and an internationally renewed authority on energyoptimization and prot improvement of oil reneries andpetrochemical plants. He has over 40 published papers andarticles on energy efciency, renery/petrochemicals protabilityimprovement, and energy economics. He teaches at variousinstitutions and has given courses in energy economics, renery

LINKS

More articles from: KBC Advanced TechnologiesMore articles from the following categories:Energy Efciency/Energy ManagementProcess Modelling & SimulationRevamps, Shutdowns and Turnarounds

http://www.digitalrefining.com/85?action=articles#.UiDpM-A9Bc8http://www.digitalrefining.com/articles.html?categoryId=14http://www.digitalrefining.com/articles.html?categoryId=35http://www.digitalrefining.com/articles.html?categoryId=34http://www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000837http://www.digitalrefining.com/article/1000837http://www.digitalrefining.com/articles.html?categoryId=34http://www.digitalrefining.com/articles.html?categoryId=35http://www.digitalrefining.com/articles.html?categoryId=14http://www.digitalrefining.com/85?action=articles#.UiDpM-A9Bc8

pinch in operation

Documents