Applied Thermal Engineering 43 (2012) 118e127

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Heat pump integration in a cheese factory

Helen Becker a, *, Aurélie Vuillermoz b, François Maréchal a
a
Industrial Energy Systems Laboratory, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
b
EDF R&D, Eco-efficiency and Industrial Process Department, Centre des Renardières, F - 77818 Moret sur Loing Cedex, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The aim of process integration is to increase the efficiency and to reduce the energy consumption, operating
Received 15 August 2011 costs and CO2 emissions of an industrial process. The proposed methodology is applied to a real case study
Accepted 23 November 2011 of a cheese factory with non-simultaneous process operations and uses the time average approach
Available online 10 December 2011
combined with restricted matches. This work focuses on appropriate heat pump integration and two
different integration strategies are proposed. In the first option, process modifications and direct heat
Keywords:
exchange between the process and heat pump streams are not allowed, which means that the integration of
Pinch analysis
heat pumps has to be realized through intermediate heat transfer networks. On the contrary, in the second
Utility integration
Industrial heat pumps
option, direct heat exchange and process modifications are possible. The results of both options are
Total site analyzed and compared for the French and German context. Depending on the industrial constraints and
Restricted matches the location, it is shown that the final choice of new heat pump installations may be different. Saving
Time average approach potential in operating costs is higher for option 2 where the cost savings can be higher than 40% for both
countries. Furthermore the potential CO2 emissions and primary energy savings are compared.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction proposed a methodology for low grade heat recovery, by

When studying the energy efficiency of an industrial process,
the analysis of heat pump integration has to be considered as part
of a complete methodology, beginning from the data collection and
modeling of all process unit operations up to the final utility inte-
gration. The use of pinch analysis techniques allows identification
of heat recovery potential in the process. Opportunities to integrate
heat pumps and other utility systems can be identified by analyzing
the grand composite curve. The curve shows the enthalpy
temperature profile of the heat to be supplied to the process and of
the heat excess to be evacuated by a cold utility. Heat pump inte-
gration became interesting in the late 80s and the early 90s due to
increasing fuel prices. For example, the rules for optimal place-
ments of a heat pump in an industrial process have been introduced
by Linnhoff and Townsend [8] in 1983. Later, Wallin and Berntsson
[13] demonstrated that, characteristics of both, industrial process
and heat pumps, must be taken into account. Kapustenko et al. [5]
analyzed heat pump integration based on selected streams of
a cheese factory. Also Pavlas et al. [11] analyzed heat pump inte-
gration for a gasification process. However, both approaches are
limited to ammonia refrigeration cycles. Recently Kapil et al. [4]
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: helen.becker@epfl.ch (H. Becker).
combining the total site approach with heat recovery models such
as heat pumps, ORCeORC or absorption refrigeration. The main
disadvantage of their method is that self-sufficient pockets are not
considered and as result not all heat pump opportunities may be
identified. More generally, the potential of industrial heat pump
integration was demonstrated by Becker et al. [3]: a mixed integer
linear programming (MILP) formulation of the heat cascade is used
to optimize simultaneously the flow rates in heat pumps and other
utility systems.
Two process integration options will be analyzed in this paper:
first, process modifications are not allowed and a newly integrated
heat pump cannot exchange directly with the process. In the
second option, process modifications and direct heat pump process
integration are possible. Saving potential becomes higher, but also
the complexity of process configurations increases. When utilities
(e.g. heat pump in the first option or co-generation unit) cannot
exchange heat directly with the process, heat exchange restrictions
have to be included and the method proposed by Becker and
Maréchal [2] can be applied.
In the food industry, most of the process operations are per-
formed in batch mode. However, consideration of different
temperature levels and assumption of heat storage through avail-
able hot water tanks, makes the heat recovery between periods
possible. The time average approach ([6,7],) can be applied to
realize the process integration analysis, where heat loads will be

1359-4311/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2011.11.050
 H. Becker et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 43 (2012) 118e127 119

Nomenclature Subscripts
c Cold streams
DTmin=2 Minimum delta T/2 [K] cog Co-generation engine
Q_ Heat load [kW] h Hot streams
Q_ * Instant Heat load [kW] hp Heat pump
A Heat exchanger area [m2] ref Reference value
B Annual benefit [V/year] u Index for unit
COP Coefficient of performance [-]
du Yearly operating hours of unit u [h/year] Superscripts
dtot Yearly operating hours of the process [h/year] þ Entering the system
ep Primary energy [MJ/t]  Leaving the system
f Installation factor for estimating investment costs [-] max Maximum value
InvC Investment costs [V] min Minimum value
M Yearly tons of product [t/year]
mCO2 CO2 emissions [kg/t] Acronyms and convention
OpC Operating costs [V/t] MILP Mixed integer linear programming
PR Payback time [year] MVR Mechanical vapour compression
T Temperature [K] TVR Thermal vapour compression
U Heat transfer coefficient [kW/m2] bold characters Optimization variables
eel Specific electricity consumption [kW h/t] small letters Specific quantities
ef Specific fuel consumption [kWh/t]

expressed by a constant mean value during the operating time over
all periods. The concept of restricted matches between sub-
systems, introduced by Becker and Maréchal [2] can also be used
to restrict the direct heat exchange between non-simultaneous
process operations. The final purpose of this paper is to realize
a process integration analysis for the previously described options
in a cheese factory and to integrate heat exchange restrictions at
different levels (e.g heat exchange restrictions between process
units not working at the same time and heat exchange restrictions
between all process units and the heat pump).
2. Process integration methodology
2.1. Introduction to the case study
The industrial process that is used for this analysis is a cheese
factory. The main process operation steps are summarized on Fig. 1.
The current energy bill corresponds to the energy consumption of
2895 kWh of natural gas and 194 kWh of electricity for one ton of
produced cheese.
2.2. Process operation units
The first step is to identify the most significant energy
consumers. Starting from the global energy bill given in the
previous section, first the relevant process operations for the
energy integration are identified. It is important to concentrate only
on significant process operation units, in order to keep the problem
as simple as possible and not to waste time for modeling non
significant heat exchange requirements [10]. The overall process
including auxiliary units (e.g. hot water production, space heating,
cleaning in place,..) are considered. Several pasteurization units are
used to remove bacteria from milk, cream or water. The evaporation
unit, one of the main consumers, consists of 5 effects and one
thermal vapour re-compression. Before entering the evaporation in
the first effect, the whey is first preheated to reach predefined
operating conditions that leads to a first evaporation. Then, the
remaining liquid is sent to the second effect at a lower pressure, and
the vapour boiled off in the first effect is recovered to provide heat
to the second effect. The same operation is repeated in the
following effects. A part of the steam from the third effect is reused
in the thermal vapour re-compression (TVR) driven by high pres-
sure steam. The remaining heating and cooling requirements
concern process units like forming, product refining, packaging or
cold stores.
2.2.1. Process requirements and their representations
The applied approach includes the process analysis method-
ology of Muller et al. [10]. Once the process operation units are
identified, they can be modeled in order to define process heat
requirements and the corresponding hot and cold streams for the
process integration. Furthermore, all process and waste streams

Fig. 1. Process description. Fig. 2. Triple representation of a process requirement [9].

120 H. Becker et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 43 (2012) 118e127

leaving the system are systematically cooled down to the ambient
temperature, in order to maximize the heat recovery potential.
Fig. 2 summarizes the possible representations to define heat
requirements of process operation units.
 The thermodynamic representation corresponds to the process
heat requirements where the hot streams have the highest
possible temperature and the cold streams the lowest possible
temperature. The enthalpy temperature profile results from the
thermodynamic analysis of the process operation unit. This
representation is chosen when the process and heat supply can
be modified.
 The technology representation defines hot and cold streams, as
they are realized in the process. The unit is modeled as a black-
box and only heat supply through heat exchangers can be
modified, but not the process unit itself.
 The utility representation corresponds to the process heat
requirements by defining their hot and cold utility streams. In
this case neither the process nor the utility supply can be
modified.
a mean value related to the energy consumption of 1 ton of cheese
(kWh/t). To make batch processes continuous and easier to solve,
Linnhoff et al. [7] introduced the time average approach.
Heat exchange becomes more difficult for multi-period process
and it has to be indirect through heat transfer units and storage
tanks. For this, all units of different periods are defined as inde-
pendent sub-systems. The heat transfer between those sub-
systems can only be realized by intermediate heat transfer
networks. For the cheese factory, following process units are not
always working simultaneously and are therefore defined in sub-
systems with no possibility of direct heat exchange (evapo, pasto
1e5 and proc6).
Furthermore, the DTmin=2 has to be adapted to include the fact
that the real instant heat load will be higher than the mean heat
load. Thus, a higher heat exchange area and investment costs for
the same heat amount will be required. The instant heat load
*
ðQ_ h=c Þ of a hot or cold stream belonging to unit u can be expressed
by Eq. (1). Q_ h;c is the mean heat load over all periods, dtot is
the total operating time and du is the effective operating time of
unit u.

* dtot
With the assumption of no heat losses, the representations are Q_ h=c ¼ Q_ h=c (1)
characterized by the same amount of heat, but with different du
temperature profiles. The exergy losses can be visualized in Fig. 2
* *
Q_ h=c Q_ h=c
on the right, using the Carnot composite curves [12].
The streams of the evaporation units are first modeled regarding DTmin=2u ¼ ¼ DTmin=2ref (2)
the existing technology (5 effects with thermal vapour re- UA Q_h=c
compression). This means that the evaporator will not be modi-
Combining Eqs. (1) and (2), the DTmin=2u for each unit and their
fied. For the second heat pump integration option, the process can
streams can be deduced. The DTmin=2ref is considered to be 2  C and
be modified and the evaporation unit is modeled in the thermo-
is used for all permanently working units. For all other units, the
dynamic representation without thermal vapour re-compression. It
DTmin=2u value is calculated with Eq. (3).
becomes also possible to modify the layout of the evaporation unit
and to integrate a mechanical vapour re-compression (MVR). A dtot
flow-sheet of the evaporation unit is given in Fig. 3. DTmin=2u x DTmin=2ref ; (3)
du
All other units are defined if possible in the thermodynamic
representation. As given in Eq. (4), the heat loads are expressed in kWh/t.

2.3. Streams definition Q_ h=c $dtot

qh=c ¼ (4)
M
The process operations are not simultaneous. In order to avoid Finally, the complete list of streams with corresponding heat
multi-period problems, the energy consumption is expressed by loads and DTmin=2 values is reported in Table 1.

PH PH PH PH Milk inlet

Effect 1 Effect 2 Effect 3

To thermal vapour compression
T1 T2 T3 ....
P1 P2 P3

steam

To effect 4 and 5 ...

product
steam
condensates

Fig. 3. Flow-sheet of evaporation unit.

 H. Becker et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 43 (2012) 118e127 121

Table 1 Energy Support

Process streams. Electricity Fuel Water Air Inert Gas

Unit Name Tin Tout Heat load DTmin=2u dtot =du [-] Sub-system "all"
[ C] [ C] [kWh/t] [ C]
Global Heat transfer system (GHTS) Energy
other other_c1 100 190 367.8 2.0 1
other_h1 5 0.5 307 2.0 Common Heat transfer services
Raw
units (CU) units (HTU) Products
other_h2 0.3 2.5 56.9 2.0 materials Byproducts
evapo tech evapo_c1 100 190 993.7 3.1 1.7
evapo_h1 44 5 32.9 3.1 Sub-system 1n Sub-system
evapo_h2 44 25 198.1 3.1 2n
Heat transfer system (HTS) of
evapo_h3 44 44 627.8 3.1 parent sub-system 1n
pasto1 pasto1_c1 6 48 568.2 3.6 1.8
pasto1_c2 48 75 344 3.6
Sub-system 1nn Sub-system
pasto1_h1 75 4 904.6 3.6
Heat transfer system 2nn
pasto2 pasto2_c1 79 85 5 6.8 3.4
(HTS) of parent
pasto2_h1 54 4 41.9 6.8 sub-system 1nn
pasto3 pasto3_c1 74 80 84.1 2.9 1.5
pasto3_c2 6 28 308.2 2.9
Sub-system Sub-system
pasto4 pasto4_c1 69 75 32.1 4.5 2.3 1nnn 2nnn
pasto4_c2 8.5 26 83.3 4.5
pasto5 pasto5_c1 66 76 54.2 2.9 1.4
proc6 proc6_c1 105 105 131 2.8 1.4
proc6_c2 78 78 49.6 2.8 Heat losses Solids Water Gas
Waste
proc6_c3 95 95 49.6 2.8
proc7 proc7_c1 15 55 40.4 2.0 1 No direct heat exchange possible
proc8 proc8_c1 70 70 62.6 2.0 1 Direct heat exchange possible
proc9 proc9_c1 35 35 33.8 2.0 1
proc10 proc10_c1 32 25 175.5 2.0 1 Fig. 4. Definition of sub-systems with several levels.
heat heat_c1 35 35 153 2.0 1
CIP clean_c1 85 85 238 2.0 1
systems to minimize the operating costs of a cheese factory. As the
fuel and electricity prices vary significantly from one country to
another, the optimal utility integration may be different. For this
2.4. Process integration
work, the process integration has been performed with the energy
prices for Germany and France. Once the targeting phase is finished,
Having well defined the process and its thermal streams, the
complementary global results, such as CO2 emissions, primary
maximum heat recovery and the minimum energy requirement is
energy consumption and also a first evaluation of investment costs
calculated. Suitable utilities can be integrated and particular
can be evaluated and compared. Specific heat pump results and their
attention has been given to the heat pump integration. Two options
coefficient of performance (COP) are also analyzed and presented.
are considered. In the first option, the heat pump cannot exchange
heat directly with process, while in the second option process
modifications and direct heat exchange between the heat pump
and the process are allowed. Direct heat transfer between non- 3. Case study
simultaneous process operations is not possible, but indirect heat
transfer can be realized trough heat transfer units and storage First, the maximum heat recovery is computed. Exergy losses
systems. Atkins et al. [1] pointed out the importance of heat can be visualized on Fig. 5a, which shows the hot and cold Carnot
recovery loops for the feasibility, especially in large processes and composite curves. The process grand composite curve, presented in
when process operations do not occur at the same time. Time Fig. 5b, is used to define optimal temperature levels for the energy
average approach is very useful, but it requires the application of conversion system (utilities).
restricted matches between non-simultaneous streams. The Considering the self-sufficient pockets of Fig. 5b, it can be
concept of restricted matches between sub-systems, introduced deduced that the heat recovery between process streams concerns
Becker and Maréchal [2] can be applied. By definition, one sub- process streams below the pinch point. As process streams without
system cannot exchange heat directly with another sub-system heat exchange restrictions are mainly involved, the heat recovery
and an additional heat demand can only be satisfied by the heat penalty of restricted matches due to non-simultaneously process
transfer system. operations is rather small. The penalty can be evaluated by
The problem is formulated as a MILP problem and considers comparing the case with heat exchange restrictions and no indirect
simultaneously the integration of heat recovery loops, energy heat recovery to the case without any heat exchange restrictions.
conversion units and heat pumping systems. Since the method is The use of intermediate heat transfer networks could only recover
also valid for several levels of restrictions, the method can be a small amount of heat. The exact penalty due to non-simultaneous
applied for our case study with both, normal heat exchange operations can be evaluated using the methodology presented in
restrictions and restrictions due to non continuous process opera- Becker and Maréchal [2]. In fact, the penalty of 27 kW h/t corre-
tions. Fig. 4 explains the concept. The problem formulation is an sponding to 1% of the hot utility and 3% of cold utility, is quite small
extension of the formulation introduced by Becker and Maréchal and can be neglected in the following. This means that no supple-
[2]. The detailed problem formulation and explanations are given in mentary heat transfer units will be integrated to reduce this penalty.
Appendix A. Regarding the necessary temperature levels for heat supply on
Fig. 5b, following utility types are proposed to the process:
2.5. Results analysis
 Conventional steam boiler, refrigeration cycle and cooling
The main goal of this work is to demonstrate the application of water are available on-site and no supplementary investment
the optimal integration of utility and especially heat pumping costs are necessary.
122 H. Becker et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 43 (2012) 118e127
a b
Fig. 5. Minimum energy requirements. (a) Hot and cold composite curves using the Carnot scale, (b) Grand composite curve.
 A co-generation engine providing heat and electricity can be
interesting because of rather low temperature levels for
a significant part of the hot utility (<120  C). Corresponding
investment costs are considered for the results analysis.
 Heat pump units are integrated for two options; The first
option is described in 3.1 when process modifications are not
allowed and the second option is shown in 3.2 where the
process can be modified. Investment costs for new installations
are included in the results analysis.
All utilities will be integrated simultaneously and heat sources
for the refrigeration cycle and heat pumps are considered in the
optimization. For example, the cooling water will satisfy a part of
the condensation heat of the refrigeration cycle and heat pumps
ideally satisfy hot and cold heat demands at the same time. The
final overall electricity balance contains the electricity consump-
tion (e.g. from the process or heat pumps) and the electricity
production (e.g. co-generation units).
The closed cycle heat pump and the co-generation engine are
integrated through an intermediate heat transfer network which
means that they cannot exchange heat directly with the process.
The results are compared for the French and German context. The
cost, CO2 emissions and primary energy for the French and German
electricity mix are given in Table 2.
Results of analyzed scenarios will be summarized in Table 3.
Several cases are compared to the current case (Case 0). First (for
cases 1a-d) the current evaporation unit including its thermal
vapour re-compression is modeled in the technology representa-
tion. Three scenarios with different hot utilities have been
Saving potentials higher than 200% are not displayed on this graph
200
Cost
Fuel
Electricity
CO2 emissions
150
Primary energy
Savings [%]
100
50
0
−50
1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 3a 3b
Case
Fig. 6. Saving potentials in France.
evaluated: boiler (Case 1a), boiler and heat pump (Case 1b), boiler
and engine (Case 1c) and boiler, heat pump and engine (Case 1d).
For heat pump integration option 2 (Cases 2,3 and 4) the evapo-
ration units are modeled in the thermodynamic representation:
MVR and boiler (Case 2a) and MVR, boiler and engine(Case 2b). For
Cases 3a/b and Cases 4a/b the evaporation unit is first modified.
For all cases, the on-site available utilities (boiler, refrigeration
and cooling water) are integrated. The first lines of Table 3 indicates
the selected option and additional proposed utilities.
3.1. Option 1 - No process modifications allowed
In the first approach, the process can not be modified. Thus, the
direct heat exchange between a potential heat pump and the
process is not allowed. The approach presented in appendix is
applied. In the higher level two sub-systems (in this case the
process and the heat pump) cannot exchange heat directly. More-
over, heat cannot be exchanged directly between different periods
and hence the process operation units of different periods are
defined in independent sub-systems (e.g. evaporation unit,
pasteurization units) of the sub-system process. The evaporation
unit can therefore not directly exchange heat with the pasteuriza-
tion units or the heat pump, but it is possible to exchange heat with
the other process units. Satisfying the required temperature levels,
a closed cycle heat pump using the refrigerant R245fa has been
chosen. By analyzing the shape of the grand composite curve,
appropriate operating conditions for the heat pump and the
intermediate heat transfer units can be estimated. Simultaneously,
Saving potentials higher than 200% are not displayed on this graph
200
Cost
Fuel
Electricity
CO2 emissions
150 Primary energy
Savings [%]
100
50
0
−50
4a 4b 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b
Case
Fig. 7. Saving potentials in Germany.
 H. Becker et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 43 (2012) 118e127 123

Table 2
Cost, CO2 emission and primary energy for given electricity mix in France (FR) and
Germany (DE).
cþ
fuel
Euro/ cþ
el
Euro/ c
el
Euro/ CO2el kg/
kWh kWhel kWhel kWhel
FR 0.0392 0.0620 0.0496 0.092
DE 0.0500 0.1080 0.0864 0.631
utility, heat pump and heat transfer units are considered in the
MILP model to define the corresponding optimal flow rates that
minimize the operating costs. The potential of a closed cycle heat
pump without direct heat exchange is illustrated in Fig. 8a. The
saving potential can be increased by minimizing the minimum
temperature difference in the heat exchangers between the heat
pump and the intermediate heat transfer fluids. The advantage of
this approach is that only the investment costs related to the heat
pump, heat exchangers and pipes have to be accounted. The
process itself remains unchanged. Thus, the safety and product
quality aspects are also maintained.
3.2. Option 2 - process modifications allowed
In the second option, process modifications are allowed. This
leads to more heat pump integration opportunities. For example,
operating pressures of the process can be modified to improve heat
recovery, and mechanical vapour re-compression (MVR) units can
replace the thermal vapour re-compression unit. Case 2 replaces
the thermal vapour re-compression with a mechanical vapour re-
compression. The layout and the pressure levels of the evapora-
tion effects are kept. The steam leaving the third effect at about
60  C is compressed mechanically to 74  C. As the DT is less than
18  C, a dynamic compressor is suitable and therefore selected
(Fig. 8b). In Case 3, all effects are realized in parallel and mechanical
vapour re-compression is integrated. The temperature difference
for a mechanical vapour re-compression in Fig. 8c is small (<10  C).
The pressure levels of the five effects are adapted, so that all effects
evaporate at about 70  C. In Case 4, the pressure of effects are
modified and mechanical vapour re-compressions are included:
first the new temperature levels have to be defined. Assuming that
the heat exchange area in the effects will not be changed, the
temperature levels of effects 4 and 5 are reduced (see Eq. (5)). The
new temperature levels are 48  C (effect 4) and 32  C (effect5).
Eprel MJ/ Theoretically, it could be possible to raise waste heat at 32  C with
kWhel a heat pump to satisfy a part of the heat demand in effect 1.
11.788 However, high temperature lifts make such heat pump integration
10.945
not optimal. The use of successive mechanical vapour re-
compressions between the different effects have therefore been
preferred (Fig. 8d). The temperature of effect 5 is quite low. If these
operating conditions can not be reached in the unit, it could also be
possible to raise the temperature levels of all effects.


Q_ ¼ U*A* Tvap  Tprod (5)
4. Results & discussion
As mentioned above, the applied MILP formulation minimizes
the operating costs (including fuel and electricity costs). Further-
more, the utility integration is optimized to satisfy the process
demand and the product quality. Keeping the process operations as
they are, this paper focuses on the rational conversion of energy. To
study the impact of different fuel and electricity prices and the
corresponding electricity mix, the results of the case study have
been compared for France and Germany.
4.1. Global saving results
All cases are compared to the current case before heat recovery
(Case 0). The results are presented in Table 3. Beside the operating
costs, the global electricity and fuel consumption, CO2 emissions
and primary energy consumption are presented in this table. Bold
values show the best option for each criterion.
It is interesting to remark that the proposed utilities in most of
the cases (Cases 2a/b,3a/b and 4a/b) are integrated in the same way
for France and Germany. A difference can be recognized in Cases 1c/
1d, where co-generation engines are favored in Germany.
Compared to the French case, the optimal size of a co-generation
engine in Germany would be more than twice as high in Case 1c.
In Case 1d, the co-generation is not integrated at all in France. A

Table 3
Process integration results for France (FR) and Germany (DE).

Case 0 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b

Option e 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2

Utilities e e hp cog hp cog mvr mvr cog mvr mvr cog 3mvr 3mvr cog
OpC [e/t] FR 126.0 97.8 87.6 95.9 87.6 88.9 85.5 86.2 81.3 69.4 65.5
DE 166.0 127.3 117.4 117.7 114.6 117.9 93.3 117.7 94.0 95.3 79.6
ef [kWh/t] FR 2895.0 2358.5 1921.7 2527.1 1921.7 2023.7 3041.6 1770.5 2605.3 1394.9 1893.0
DE 2895.0 2358.5 1921.7 2758.6 2293.0 2023.7 3041.6 1770.5 2605.3 1394.9 1893.0
eel [kWh/t] FR 194.0 86.6 197.1 63.2 197.1 154.8 L680.3 270.2 419.9 237.0 174.6
DE 194.0 86.6 197.1 234.2 0.0 154.8 L680.3 270.2 419.9 237.0 174.6
Cooling [kWh/t] FR e 955.3 672.7 945.2 672.7 1003.6 1017.1 464.1 469.8 512.9 516.3
DE e 955.3 672.7 968.9 798.0 1003.6 1017.1 464.1 469.8 512.9 516.3
mCO2 [kg/t] FR 602.6 484.4 406.3 504.6 406.3 423.0 551.8 382.5 487.6 303.6 366.3
DE 707.2 531.0 512.6 409.5 463.2 506.5 185.1 528.2 261.3 431.3 272.2
ep [MJ/t] FR 15314.4 11.6 11.0 10.6 11.0 10.9 5.7 11.2 6.8 9.1 6.5
DE 15150.8 11.6 10.8 9.9 10.3 10.8 6.2 10.9 7.1 8.9 6.6
E_ hp ½kW FR e 0.0 246.8 0.0 246.8 239.1 264.5 641.9 651.7 525.9 539.1
DE e 0.0 246.8 0.0 133.4 239.1 264.5 641.9 651.7 525.9 539.1
InvChp [ke] FR e 0.0 794.6 0.0 794.6 516.7 565.9 1256.9 1274.2 1160.3 1185.4
DE e 0.0 794.6 0.0 456.9 516.7 565.9 1256.9 1274.2 1160.3 1185.4
E_ cog ½kW FR e 0.0 0.0 334.4 0.0 0.0 1880.4 0.0 1546.9 0.0 927.2
DE e 0.0 0.0 716.0 326.7 0.0 1880.4 0.0 1546.9 0.0 927.2
InvCcog [ke] FR e 0.0 0.0 413.4 0.0 0.0 961.7 0.0 846.9 0.0 628.6
DE e 0.0 0.0 552.7 410.5 0.0 961.7 0.0 846.9 0.0 628.6
PR [years] FR e 0.0 4.0 11.2 4.0 3.0 6.4 5.5 6.6 2.1 2.9
DE e 0.0 4.1 3.0 3.5 2.8 2.3 6.7 3.3 1.9 1.9
124 H. Becker et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 43 (2012) 118e127
Fig. 8. Comparison of Carnot composite curves. (a) Integrated composite curves Case 1d, (b) Integrated composite curves Case 2b, (c) Integrated composite curves Case 3b, (d)
Integrated composite curves Case 4b.
sensitivity analysis of the fuel to electricity ratio could identify
different integration zones for the heat pump and the co-
generation engine. A major difference between the two countries
concerns the CO2 emissions. Taking the current case (Case 0), the
CO2 emissions in Germany are higher, however the possibility of
integrating heat pumps and in particularly co-generation engines
leads to a higher saving potential in CO2 emissions. As the elec-
tricity in France is mainly produced by nuclear and hydro power
plants, the interest of co-generation engines is smaller. Whereas in
Germany, the CO2 content in electricity (mainly produced by coal) is
relatively high, and thus efficient co-generation engines reduce not
only the energy consumption of the process but also the CO2
emissions. Another advantage of co-generation engines is the
possibility to sell the surplus of produced electricity to the grid (e.g.
Cases 2b, 3b and 4b in France and Germany). However, this depends
strongly on the given selling prices. Figs. 6 and 7 show the saving
potential in France and Germany respectively. The saving potential
of a well integrated process without any supplementary heat pump
(closed cycle heat pump or MVR) or co-generation unit is about 22%
in France and 23% in Germany. This means that the heat recovery is
fully exploited and for this, new heat exchangers are necessary, but
no further utility units are considered. It is important to remark,
that the optimal integration of heat pump units has to be compared
to the case with optimal heat recovery of the process. The inte-
gration of heat pumps and co-generation units will reduce the
operating costs. Either option 1 (up to 30%) or option 2 where the
maximum saving potential reaches up to 50% of operating costs for
the German case and up to 45% for the French case, can be chosen.
The electricity consumption in some cases is higher than in the
current case, this is due to the integration of heat pumps.
An example of integrated composite curves is given for France for
the Cases 1d, 2b, 3b and 4b in Fig. 8. In Case 1d, the evaporation unit is
modeled in the technology representation including the thermal
vapour re-compression. A heat pump, a co-generation unit and
intermediate heat transfer networks are integrated to ensure the
indirect heat transfer between the process and the new utility units.
The temperature difference for the heat sink and heat source of the
heat pump is relatively high. Nevertheless the overall operating costs
and especially the fuel consumption can be reduced. In the following
cases, the evaporator is modeled in the thermodynamic representa-
tion and more saving opportunities can be pointed out. The necessary
temperature difference is smaller in case 2b, where the thermal
vapour re-compression is replaced by the mechanical vapour re-
compression. By modifying the layout of the evaporation effects,
temperatures differences of a mechanical vapour re-compression can
be reduced and the saving potential becomes higher. Fig. 8 shows the
Carnot composite curves. The surface between the utility and and
process composite curves represents the exergy losses.
4.2. Evaluation of heat pump performance
Table 4 elucidates the characteristics of each heat pump. The

COP of a heat pump is defined as shown in Eq. (6). Q_ H is the optimal
þ
heat delivered by the heat pump and E_ hp is the necessary electricity
consumed by the compressor. For this, the isentropic efficiency of
the compressor is assumed to be 0.76.

Q_ H
COP ¼ þ (6)
E_hp
 H. Becker et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 43 (2012) 118e127 125

Table 4 a co-generation unit are proposed to the process; In Germany a heat

Specific heat pump results. pump and a co-generation engine are integrated and satisfy a part of
Case Type Fluid [kW] Teva [ C] Tcond [ C] E_ hp=mvr [kV] COP [-] the hot utility. The engine also satisfies the electricity consumption of
1b FR/DE HP R245fa 30 90 386 3.6 the process. As the temperature levels of the co-generation engine is
1d FR HP R245fa 30 90 386 3.6 similar to the condensation level of the heat pump, both utility are in
1d DE HP R245fa 30 90 209 3.6 direct competition. In France, only a heat pump is integrated.
2a FR/DE MVR water 57 74 239 14.8
Compared to the German case, this heat pump is bigger and satisfies
2b FR/DE MVR water 57 74 264 14.8
3a FR/DE MVR water 66 74 642 32.3 more of the hot utility than the heat pump in France.
3b FR/DE MVR water 66 74 652 32.3
4a FR/DE MVR1 water 28 36 141 28.5 5. Conclusion
4a FR/DE MVR2 water 46 52 92 40.4
4a FR/DE MVR3 water 57 74 294 14.8
4b FR/DE MVR1 water 28 36 141 28.5
A method for the optimal integration of energy conversion and in
4a FR/DE MVR2 water 46 52 92 40.4 particular heat pump units has been presented. In all cases, the
4a FR/DE MVR3 water 57 74 307 14.8 installation of a closed cycle heat pump or a mechanical vapour re-
compression reduces the operating costs by more than 50% (in
Germany). The potential CO2 emissions savings are more than 50%
Although these definitions are widely used in industry, theo-
(in France). Generally speaking, the analysis can be valid for any type
retically they are only correct for a heat pump having its heat source
of process. Specific process characteristics can easily be integrated,
at ambient temperature. It is important to note that a heat pump
since the method allows consideration of heat exchange restrictions
with a high COP can even be counterproductive when it is not
due to industrial constraints and/or non-simultaneous process
appropriately integrated. In order to be compatible with the well
operations. The principal results presented above can also be valid
known conventions, the COP will be related to a performance of the
for other processes with evaporation units (e.g. dairy, pulp&paper).
heat pump machine by using this definition. But to be rigorous
The interest of heat pumps is slightly higher in France, but also in
when comparing heat pump cycles, global results and the exergy
countries with higher fuel and electricity prices, heat pumps can
efficiency is preferably used.
have a high saving potential. On the other side co-generation
engines are particularly interesting in the German context.
4.3. Estimation of investment costs and payback time The advantages and disadvantages are briefly summed up in the
following. Indirect heat pump integration (option 1) needs no
All cases are compared regarding their estimated investment process modifications and no supplementary investment costs. The
costs and related payback time (Table 3). To estimate the instan- safety and product quality is ensured, since the heat pump has no
taneous power of heat pump or MVRs, the mean value (heat load direct contact with the process. But the main disadvantage is that
per tons of product) is multiplied by number of tons of products per the COP is relatively low. Moreover, when process operations are
week divided by the weekly total operating time of the evaporation not simultaneous, the storage problem has to be considered, which
unit. From selected quotations, the investment costs [V] can be may lead to supplementary costs. The advantage of direct heat
estimated with Eq. (7) as a function the compressor power (E_ hp in pump integration (option 2) is mainly the better energy efficiency.
[kW]). The installation factor f is supposed to be 1.5. Investment Furthermore no storage has to be considered, since the mechanical
costs for co-generation units [V] can be estimated from Eq. (8). In vapour re-compression will be integrated directly with the evap-
Cases 1a-1d, the process streams connected to the heat pump are oration unit. On the other hand, process modifications could
not simultaneous. Thus, the investment can not be calculated become necessary and this may give higher investment costs. The
without considering heat storage. It could be possible to evaluate MVR is in direct contact with the product.
two extreme cases: the maximum value corresponds to the peak Finally, the investment costs are estimated and payback time
power required by the heat source, while the minimum value is can be roughly evaluated. However, consideration should be given
estimated by assuming that the heat source is stored and to the fact that the real investment costs depend strongly on a given
progressively upgraded leading to a more constant operation of the case. Therefore, the final decision has to be taken with concrete
heat pump. However, storage is necessary in both cases and further heat pump offers corresponding to the existing facilities and
calculations will be necessary. Finally without considering the installations of the company.
discount rate, the payback rate is estimated by Eq. (9).
Acknowledgements
0:9
InvC ¼ f $1500$1600:1 $E_ hp (7)

The authors wish to thank ECLEER for supporting this research
2
InvC ¼ 0:68*  0:0391$E_ cog þ 850:89$E_ cog þ 306016 and collaborating in its realization.
0:8

þ 125$E_ cog $1477:7=1068:3 (8) Appendix A. Process integration with the concept of multi-
level sub-systems
PR ¼ InvCtot =B (9)
Extended nomenclature:
Also the economic analysis shows clearly that the integration of
a co-generation engine is not profitable in France. Considering case 1c
where only a co-generation unit is proposed in the process, it can be Q_ htsðsÞ;s;k Heat provided by the heat transfer system () to sub-
seen that the operating costs in Germany would significantly be system s or heat removed by the heat transfer system (þ)
reduced. Thus, the payback time of 3 years is obtained. On the from sub-system s in interval k [kW]
contrary in France, the co-generation engine reduces the operating Q_ htsþ1;k Heat provided by the higher heat transfer system () or
costs only by a small amount. Regarding the high payback time of 11 heat removed by the higher heat transfer system (þ) [kW]
years, it is improbable that a company would invest in a co-generation E_ el Total electricity demand (þ) or excess () [kW]
unit. Considering in a second step case 1d where a heat pump and R_ k Cascaded heat to lower interval k [kW]
126 H. Becker et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 43 (2012) 118e127

fu Multiplication factor of unit u [-] A unit can be a process ðf u ¼ 1Þ or a utility (f u variable) unit.
q Specific heat load [kWh/t] The flow rates of streams belonging to utility units are proportional
rk Specific cascaded heat to lower interval k [kWh/t] to the multiplication factor, which is limited by a minimum and
yu Integer variable representing the existence (1) or not (0) a maximum value. The associated integer variable yu defines if the
of unit u [-] utility unit u is added to process ðyu ¼ 1Þ or not ðyu ¼ 0Þ.
E_ el;u Consumed (þ)/produced () nominal electricity by unit u
[kW]
E_ f ;u Consumed (þ) nominal fuel by unit u [kW] yu $fumin  f u  yu $fumax (A.5)
~cu Nominal utility operating cost (excluding fuel and
The concept of restricted matches between sub-systems can be
electricity costs) per tons of products [V/t]
extended to multi-level sub-systems (Fig. 4). The definition of sub-
cel Electricity price buying price (þ) selling price () [V/kWhel ]
systems inside sub-systems become possible. For each level a heat
cf Fuel price [V/kWh]
transfer system is necessary. It consists in units which can exchange
cu Nominal utility operating cost (excluding fuel and
heat with all sub-systems of the corresponding level. The global
electricity costs) per hours [V/h]
problem is represented by the last sub-system which contains all
nf Number of different fuels [-]
sub-systems and the global heat transfer system with no heat
nk Number of temperature intervals [-]
exchange restrictions. For each sub-system s the heat cascade is
nps Number of parent sub-systems [-]
given by Eq. (A.6)e(A.8).
ns Number of streams [-]
nsub Number of sub-systems [-]
nu Number of units [-] X
ns h;s;k X
ns c;s;k
 þ
f u Q_ h;s;k;u  f u Q_ c;s;k;u þ Q_ htsðsÞ;s;k  Q_ htsðsÞ;s;k þ R_ s;kþ1
hs;k ¼ 1 cs;k ¼ 1
Subscripts  R_ s;k ¼ 0 ck ¼ 1:::; nk cs ¼ 1:::; nsub ðA:6Þ
hts Index for heat transfer system
k Temperature interval
s Index for sub-system R_ s;1 ¼ 0 R_ s;nkþ1 ¼ 0 R_ s;k  0 ck ¼ 2:::;nk cs ¼ 1:::;nsub
(A.7)
Appendix A.1 MILP formulation [2]
þ 
The corresponding equations are given below. Bold letters are Q_ htsðsÞ;s;k  0 Q_ htsðsÞ;s;k  0 ck ¼ 1:::;nk cs ¼ 1:::;nsub
used to highlight the decision variables. Like for the conventional (A.8)
heat cascade the objective is to minimize the operating costs
(Eq. (A.1)). Q_ h;s;k;u is the nominal heat load of hot stream h in sub-system s
0 0 ! and interval k and belonging to unit u. The real heat load is calcu-
X
nf X
nu
þ þ lated with the multiplication factor f u. When a sub-system has
Fobj ¼ min@dtot $@ cþ
f
f u E_ f ;u þ cþ E_
el el a deficit or a surplus of heat in the temperature interval k, the heat
f ¼1 u¼1
11 (A.1) is supplied from the heat transfer system of its sub-system

X
nu ðQ_ htsðsÞ;s;k Þ or respectively removed by the same heat transfer
 c _ f u cu AA
el E el þ þ
system ðQ_ htsðsÞ;s;k Þ. R_ s;k is the cascaded heat to the lower tempera-
u¼1
ture interval k in sub-system s.
Eq. (A.2) states that the total electricity import and the produced The heat cascade for the heat transfer system (hts) for each
þ
electricity by the process have to be greater or equal to the process parent sub-system is given by Eqs. (A.9) and (A.10). Q_ htsþ1;k is the
electricity consumption. The overall electricity balance is given by heat supplied from the heat transfer system a level above and

Eq. (A.3). Both equations are necessary to distinguish the price for Q_ htsþ1;k is the heat transferred to the heat transfer system of the
electricity import and export. higher level.

X
nu
þ þ X
nu

f u E_ el;u þ E_ el  f u E_ el;u  0 (A.2) nsX
h;hts;k nsX
c;hts;k
 þ
u¼1 u¼1 f u Q_ h;hts;k;u  f u Q_ c;hts;k;u þ Q_ htsþ1;k  Q_ htsþ1;k
hhts;k ¼1 chts;k ¼1

X
nu
þ þ  X
nu
 X k
nsubðhtsÞ X k
nsubðhtsÞ (A.9)
f u E_ el;u þ E_ el  E_ el  f u E_ el;u ¼ 0 (A.3) 

Q_ htsðsÞ;s;k þ
þ
Q_ htsðsÞ;s;k þ R_ hts;kþ1
u¼1 u¼1 s¼1 s¼1

The corresponding thermodynamical feasibility is guarantied by  R_ hts;k ¼ 0 ck ¼ 1:::;nk chts ¼ 1:::;nps

Eq. (A.4).
þ 
E_ el  0 E_ el  0 (A.4)
R_ hts;1 ¼ 0 R_ hts;nkþ1 ¼ 0 R_ hts;k  0 ck ¼ 2;:::;nk chts ¼ 1:::;nps
For the electricity cost, cþ
is the purchase cost and
el
is the c
el
þ (A.10)
selling price. cþ
f
is the fuel price. E_ f ;u is the nominal energy deliv-
ered to unit u by the fuel (e.g. natural gas) and E_ el;u is the nominal To ensure that heat is cascaded correctly, a second set of Equa-
electricity demand (þ) or excess () of unit u. cu is the nominal tions for the global heat transfer system is necessary. Eq. (A.11)
operating cost per hour of unit u (excluding the fuel and electricity expresses the heat balance of the hot streams and Eq. (A.12)
costs of unit u). expresses the heat balance of the cold streams in the heat
 H. Becker et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 43 (2012) 118e127 127

transfer system. The flow rates of the heat transfer units have to be All heat loads and energy consumptions ðQ_ ; E;
_ RÞ
_ are replaced
optimized in order to satisfy the remaining heat demand of all sub- with their corresponding specific values ðq;eel ;rk Þ. And Eqs.
systems. (A.2)e(A.12) can be solved using the specific values.
nsX
h;hts;k

f u Q_ h;hts;k;u þ Q_ htsþ1;k þ R_ hts;kþ1  R_ hts;k
hhts;k ¼1

X k
nsubðhtsÞ
 References
 Q_ htsðsÞ;s;k  0 ck ¼ 1:::;nk chts ¼ 1:::;nps
s¼1 [1] M. Atkins, M. Walmsley, J. Neale, Application of heat recovery loops for
(A.11) improved process integration between individual plants at a large dairy
nsX
c;hts;k factory, Chemical Engineering Transactions 25 (2011) 183e188.
þ
 f u Q_ c;hts;k;u  Q_ htsþ1;k þ R_ hts;kþ1  R_ hts;k [2] H. Becker, F. Maréchal, Energy integration of industrial sites with heat
exchange restrictions, Computers and Chemical Engineering (2011).
chts;k ¼1
doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2011.09.014.
X k
nsubðhtsÞ
þ
[3] H. Becker, F. Maréchal, A. Vuillermoz, Process integration and opportunity for
þ Q_ htsðsÞ;s;k  0 ck ¼ 1:::;nk chts ¼ 1:::;nps heat pumps in industrial processes, International Journal of Thermodynamics
14 (2) (2011) 59e70.
s¼1
[4] A. Kapil, I. Bulatov, R. Smith, J. Kim, Site-wide process integration for low grade
(A.12) heat recovery, Computer Aided Chemical Engineering 29 (2011) 1859e1863.
[5] P.O. Kapustenko, L.M. Ulyev, S.A. Boldyryev, A.O. Garev, Integration of a heat
pump into the heat supply system of a cheese production plant, Energy 33
Appendix A.2. Adaptation when using time average approach (2008) 882e889.
[6] I.C. Kemp, Pinch Analysis and Process Integration a User Guide on Process
Integration for the Efficient Use of Energy, second ed. Elsevier, Butterworth-
With heat exchange restrictions in different levels, the combi-
Heinemann, UK, Oxford, 2007.
nation of restricted matches due to industrial constraints and [7] B. Linnhoff, G. Ashton, E. Obeng IChemE Symposium Series, Process Integra-
restricted matches due to batch operations become possible. Using tion of Batch Processes, vol. 109 (1988) 221e237.
mean values, heat loads and energy quantities are expressed in [8] B. Linnhoff, D. Townsend, Heat and power networks in process design. part 1:
criteria for placement of heat engines and heat pumps in process networks,
kWh per tons of produced cheese [kWh/t]. By convention, small AIChE Journal 29 (5) (1983) 742e748.
letters are used for specific quantities. The nominal unit operating [9] Muller, D. 2007. Web-based tools for energy management in large companies
cost cu has therefore to be expressed in Euro/t (new: ~cu ) and the applied to food industry. Switzerland: Ph. D. thesis, LENI - Ecole Polytechnique
Fédérale de Lausanne.
previous formulation has to be adapted. The objective function has [10] D. Muller, F. Maréchal, T. Wolewinski, P. Roux, An energy management method
been re-written in Eq. (A.13). for the food industry, Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (2007) 2677e2686.
[11] M. Pavlas, P. Stehlík, J. Oral, J. Klemes, J. Kim, B. Firth, Heat integrated heat
0 ! 1
pumping for biomass gasification processing, Applied Thermal Engineering 30
X
nf X
nu X
nu
Fobj ¼ OpC ¼ min@ f u ~cu A
(2010) 30e35.
cþ
f
f u eþ
f ;u
þcþ eþ c
el el

el eel þ [12] F. Staine, D. Favrat, Energy integration of industrial processes based on the
f ¼1 u¼1 u¼1 pinch analysis method extended to include exergy factors, Applied Thermal
Engineering 16 (1996) 497e507.
(A.13) [13] E. Wallin, T. Berntsson, Integration of heat pumps in industrial processes, Heat
Recovery Systems & CHP 14 (3) (1994) 287e296.