Michigan State University

College of Engineering Department of Chemical Engineering and Material Science

Final Heat Exchanger Project:
Group: Flummoxed by Flux

CHE 311: Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer

December 6th 2013

Executive Summary Here we report the design and optimization process of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger which effectively heats a stream of acetone flowing at 80,000 kg/hr from 10 C to 30 C using a stream of DOWTHERM MX (DMX) flowing at 100,000 kg/hr with an inlet temperature of 100 C as the heating fluid. This report explains the approach used to determine key system parameters, such as the heat load, the outlet temperature of the heating fluid, and the Log-mean Temperature Difference (LMTD), as well as the methods used to design a configuration that satisfies these constraints. We also include several tables comparing the different configurations studied. All exchangers are in the E-HS-2CN form, in TEMA nomenclature (E single shell pass, HS hot fluid shell side, 2CN 2 tube pass countercurrent). Energy balance calculations across the tube and the shell side yielded an outlet temperature of 81.02 C for DMX and an LMTD of 70.51 C. These values were used to design and compare several shell-and-tube heat exchangers. The constraints under which the designs were evaluated were the following: heat tranfer area, fluid velocity (for both sides), pressure drop (for both sides) and LMTD correction factor, FG. Preliminary shortcut calculations using Aspen V8.2 suggested a 2-2 shell-and-tube configuration as the lowest area configuration (15.23 m2). However, specific design constraints and optimization resulted in selection of a 1-2 shell-andtube configuration with an area of 22.60 m2 In the final heat exchanger configuration, the cold fluid (acetone) flows at 1.39 m/s through the tube side. The tube side is composed of 190 2-meter long carbon steel tubes with an outer diameter of and Birmingham Wire number (BWG) 18 arranged in a 0.938 triangular pitch. DMX flows at 1.73 m/s in the 0.440 m diameter steel shell side. The convective heat transfer coefficients for the shell and the tube sides were calculated to be 1440 W/(m2C) and 2510 W/(m2C), respectively. Fouling was also accounted for both fluids, using a value for hdi of 5000 W/(m2C) for (hdi-1 =0.0002 m2C/W). Calculation of the overall heat transfer coefficient (U0) gave a coefficient U0=621 W/(m2C). This value is within 6.5% of the value calculated by Aspen (584.38 W/(m2C)). A short discussion for future recommendations is also included at the end of the document.

Design approach
The heat exchanger design approach required preliminary calculation to estimate the outlet temperature for the hot fluid, DOWTHERM MX (DMX). This temperature was calculated with an energy balance under the assumption that all heat lost by DMX is transferred to the cold fluid (acetone), i.e. no energy is lost to the surroundings. The properties of the fluids at several temperatures were exported from Aspen V8.2 and verified using external sources [1,2]. An Excel spreadsheet containing both fluids properties at different temperatures was used to interpolate to the outlet temperature (Table 1). The outlet temperature was used as an iterative basis to find the temperature for which the average heat capacity of the heating medium and the heat capacity required by the heat balance converged. This temperature was found to be 81.02 C. Obtaining the outlet temperature for the heating fluid allowed calculating the LMTD. The LMTD was equated to the heat load and used to calculate the product of the overall heat transfer coefficient (U 0) and total heat transfer area (A0). After the set of preliminary calculations, the parameters were used as inputs for in Aspen to obtain an estimate of the overall heat transfer coefficient as well as the area. This process was repeated for the following shell-and-tube configurations: 1-2, 2-2, 2-4. Double pipe heat exchanger configurations were not considered as they would require either large areas or very high velocities to meet the large flow rates in the present system. Decreasing heat exchanger area typically results in reducing cost [3]. Therefore, the shelland-tube configurations were preliminarily ranked in terms of their area. Given the importance of reducing cost, the heat exchangers efficiency (from most economical to least economical) ranked as follow: 2-2, 2-4, and then 1-2. The 2-2 shell-and-tube heat exchanger configuration was initially used for the design. However, given the lack of rigorous LMTD correction data for this configuration, the calculations were uncertain. In addition, the pressure drops across both sides of the 2-2 heat exchanger were much larger than the 0.5 bar allowable pressure drop, so the configuration was ultimately discarded. The next tested configuration was a 2-4 shell-and-tube heat exchanger. This type of heat exchanger is typically very effective [4], however, the pressure drop under the design conditions was again too large. The most appropriate configuration was obtained using a1-2 heat exchanger. Despite the relative large area of this configuration (as compared to the previously proposed), the parameters used in this configuration met the specific requirements. This configuration was further optimized to minimize the area and optimize the velocity of the fluids. A comparison of all the different configurations tried can be seen in Table 5 in the Appendix.

The three main constraints that must be maintained within their appropriate ranges are area, velocity, and pressure drop. These constraints are controlled by optimizing parameters such as the tube length. Qualitatively, velocity and pressure drop on the tube side increase with tube length while area decreases. On the shell side, decreasing the baffle spacing or increasing the number of passes increases pressure drop while decreasing area. As a result, all of these factors must be balanced in order to keep the system economically feasible with both a reasonable area and a reasonable pressure drop. A large pressure drop, for example, could require higher inlet pressure or incorporating a pump downstream. Other parameters such as tube diameter, pitch, and bundle spacing (between tube bundle and shell) similarly affect area and pressure. Using iterative calculations in Excel, a set of geometric parameters was determined that fall within optimal ranges (pressure drop less than 0.5 bar, tube velocity within 1-2 m/s, shell velocity within 1-2 m/s, [7]) while minimizing required area. For

the preliminary Excel calculation, an initial guess for U o was selected based on Aspen shortcut calculations. This initial Uo was used to set an initial heat transfer Ao and thereby calculate the number of tubes (with a fixed length and tube diameter). An output Uo was calculated based on film coefficients determined from Nusselt number correlations. For each iteration, the initial guess of Uo was replaced with the calculated value until the two values converged. During these
Excel calculations, it was also determined that pressurizing the acetone stream to 2 bar would be preferred as it would reduce the percent pressure drop. Fouling was selected based on typical values for organic heat transfer fluids [3]. After these parameters were selected, the design was simulated with Aspen Detailed Calculations. Initial values of baffle cut, nozzle diameters, and other geometric parameters were determined using common values [3,4]. Within the detailed simulation, several iterations were made to improve pressure drop and reduce area. These iterations included changes of nozzle diameters (to determine appropriate shell-side pressure drops), length, and Birmingham wire gauge (without changing heat transfer area this results in a of the decrease pressure drop due to the large cross sectional area). After the iterations determined appropriate values, these values were inputted into excel to illustrate the differences between the Aspen and excel calculations. The simulation was then exported to Aspen Exchanger Design and Rating (EDR) for economic optimization. Aspen EDR compared several designs, choosing one that minimized cost to $19,744 (see Appendix C). For specific geometry parameters see Table 6, Appendix D and the Aspen output in Appendix C.

Results Table 1. Component Properties of DMX and Acetone [1,2] Component Properties Evaluated at T (C): kg/m3 k W/mK Cp J/kgK 103 kg/ms MW (g/mol) Pr (Cp/k) 40 948.2 0.121 1675 9.44 --DOWTHERM MX[1] 100 905.2 0.114 1870 2.09 --Interpolated at: 90.51 912.0 0.115 1839.2 3.25 58.08 4.62 Acetone[2] 20 786 0.17 2182 0.36 238 51.97

Table 2. Summary of Key Heat Transfer and Flow Properties Heat Transfer and Flow Properties Excel Aspen % Aspen EDR Calculations Simulation Mismatch Design % Mismatch from simulation

Required Heat 21.33 -4.8 -22.42 -Transfer Ao (m2) Actual Heat Transfer 24.51 7.7 22.64 22.74 0.44% 2 Ao (m ) % Over Design -1.45 -14.5 100 Uo (W/m2C) 621 584 -6.28% 615 5.2 q (kW) 970 919 -5.53% 919 0.0 LMTD (K) 70.51 70.99 0.68% 70.03 1.4 FG 0.98 0.99 0.82% 0.99 0.0 DMX Outlet Tb (C) 81.02 81.99 1.18% 81.99 0.0 hi (W/m2C) 2512 2894* 13.2% 2225.8 -23.1 hdi (W/m2C) 5000 5000[7] -5000[7] -2 ho (W/m C) 1436 901* -59.4% 884 -1.8 hdo (W/m2C) 5000 5000[7] -5000[7] -pt (bar) 0.07 0.05 -30.3% 0.13 132.8 pshell (bar) 0.54 0.13 -324.4% 0.08 -37.3 *Found using Aspen Exchanger Design and Rating (EDR), but we were unable to reproduce exact geometry, explaining the high % errors. Detailed simulations in Aspen Plus did not provide specific film coefficients.

Sources of Error Between the hand calculations and the Aspen outputs, there is consistently an error of approximately 5% for the overall heat transfer coefficient, Uo, and the heat load, q. It is suspected that the material properties are the main source of error. When evaluating the properties of DMX at its arithmetic average temperature (90.1C), a basic interpolation method was used based on two data points at 40C and 100C. With such a wide range, interpolation can become inaccurate, particularly if the properties do not vary linearly in this range. The pressure drop calculation for the shell side also had a consistently high error of about 300% (see Table 2) between Excel calculation and Aspen calculations. It is suspected that the empirical relationships between geometry and pressure drop used in Aspen are more refined then those used in the Excel calculations (See Appendix B). For example, Aspen takes into account the affect of spacing between the baffles and the shell, whereas the relationship used for Excel calculations is only dependent on equivalent diameter, pitch, and baffle spacing. Recommendations for Design and Further Optimization Based upon analysis from Aspen Plus, Aspen EDR, and preliminary Excel calculations, we recommend that the heat exchanger follow the geometry parameters specified in Table 6, Appendix D. This design offers the lowest heat transfer area of 22.6 m2 while still satisfactorily meeting heat load requirements. The economically optimized design suggested by Aspen EDR is a possible option as well, though has a higher heat transfer area of 24.5 m2. If a factor of safety is desired, taking into account leaking and additional fouling that may develop over years of use, then the Aspen EDR design may be preferred as it is overdesigned by 14.5%. However if volume and total sizing is a limiting factor, then the design in Table 6 would be preferred. It should be noted that both designs adequately meet all requirements but are not entirely optimized. A further economic optimization route would involve increasing tube length to 2.44 m to match industry standards and reduce waste in cut materials. Increasing the length would also decrease number of tubes and required shell diameter, also cutting costs. We recommend that more detailed calculations be made in Aspen Plus in combination with Aspen EDR in an effort to decrease total heat transfer area. The current design was more conservative than perhaps necessary due to the high pressure drop calculated by hand for the shell side. Recognizing that the Aspen outputs show a lower pressure drop than the hand calculations, this design could be 6

made more efficient by decreasing the heat transfer area. One potential route for improvement could be an increased number of baffles in order to increase cross flow and the overal heat transfer coefficient. References 1. Dow Chemical. Dowtherm MX Heat Transfer Fluid Product Technical Data. The Dow Chemical Company, 1999. 2. Engineering ToolBox. 5th December 2013 <http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/>. 3. Sinnott, R. K. Chemical Engineering Design. Ed. 4th. Vol. 6. Elsevier, 2005. 4. Macabe, W., J. Smithm and P. Harriott. Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering. McGrawHill, 2001. 5. Briedis, Daina. Course Handouts, CHE 311: Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer. Michigan State University. Fall 2013. 6. Mukherjee, Rajiv. "Effectively Design Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchangers." Chemical Engineering Progress (1998). 7. Than, Su Thet Mon, Khin Aung Li and Mi Sandar Mon. "Heat Exchanger Design." World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (2008): 604-611. 8. Faghari, A. and Y. Zhang. Transport Phenomena in Multiphase Systems. Burlington: Elsevier, 2006.

Appendix A: Design Calculation Examples Table 3. Sample calculations using Excel. B 2 Properties evaluated at T(C) Component Properties kg/m3 k (W/mK) Cp (J/kgK) 7 8 9 10
11

20 Acetone 786 0.17 2181.81818 2 3.60E-04 4.580E-07 4.62E+00 58.08

Values

90.5095 DMX 912.00 0.115 1839.155875 3.25E-03 3.566E-06 5.20E+01 238

Cell references (Heat Load)/(LMTD*D$13*D$14) Initial guess retrieved from Aspen Retrieved from McCabe (Figure 15.6) [4] (Heat Load)/(D$17*LMTD*D$14) (Heat Load)/(D$17*LMTD*D$14)* 10.7639 1/D$60+1/D$61+D$24*LN(D$24/D$25)/(2*D$21)+(D$24/D $25)*(1/D$39)+(D$24/D$25)*(1/D$38) 1/D$16 1/D$16/20248

3 4 5 6

(kg/m*s) (/) (m2/s) Pr (Cp/k) MW (g/mol) Intial: Ao (m ) =q/(U0*LMTD*F G) Initial Guess Uo (W/m2C) Fg Calc: Ao (m2) Cal: Ao (ft2) Calc 1/Uo (W/m2C) Calc Uo (W/m2C) Calc Uo (BTU/ft2F)
2

12

22.60 621 0.98 22.60 243.264 1.61E-03 6.21E+02

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

0.030399337 Values Acetone Cell references Acetone

20 21

Tube Fluid

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Tube Material
kw (W/mC) v (m/s)

Steel 52 1.390 18

Steel Retrieved from Engineering Toolbox [2] mdot/($C$4*D32) Retrieved from McCabe (Appendix)[4] Retrieved from McCabe (Appendix) and converted (0.75in*0.0254m/in) Retrieved from McCabe (Appendix) [4] (D24-D25)/2 2 D12/D30 2 PI()*D24*D27 PI()*D25^2/4 D28*D31/D29 Selected D24*1.25 D34-D24 ($C$4*D25*D22)/$C$7 0.023*D36^0.8*$C$9^0.4 D37*$C$5/D25 D37*$C$5/D25*0.1761 Retrieve from Sinnott (Table 12.2) 5000*0.1761 Retrieved from Table 5.53 (McCabe) ($C$4*D22^2)/(2)*((D40*D27)/D25+4)*D29 4*D29*($C$4*D22^2)/(2) (D41+D42)/10^5 (D41+D42)/10^5*14.5037 1.013*2 D43/D44

BWG do (m) di (m) t (m) L (m) Total Nt Np Heat Atube (m ) Flow Atube (m ) Total Aflow (m2) Pitch Type PT (m) C=PT - do (m) Re Nu hi (W/m C) hi (BTU/ft2F) hdi (W/m C) hdi (BTU/ft F) ft pt (Pa) preturn (Pa) Total pt (bar) Total pt (psi) Pin (bar) %p drop
2 2 2 2 2

0.01905 0.0165608 1.24E-03 2 189 2 1.20E-01 2.15E-04 2.03E-02 TRIANGULAR 2.38E-02 4.76E-03 5.03E+04 2.45E+02 2.51E+03 442 5000 5000 9.00E-03 7.73E+03 6.08E+03 0.14 2.0305 2.026 6.82%

Appendix B: Equations Used*

q = mDH = mC p DT ; m = rVA flow

DTlm = (Thb - Tcb ) - (Tha - Tca ) (T - T ) ln hb cb (Tha - Tca ) Q = -UAFG DTlm

Z=

Tha - Thb T -T ; hH = cb ca ; FG determined from figure 15.6 [5] Tcb - Tca Tha - Tca
A flow rVt Di rV D ; Re shell = sh e ; De = 4 m m LHT perimeter

Heat transfer Reynolds #: Re tube = Flow Reynolds: Re shell

rVsh DH 3.44 PT2 = ; Triangle Pitch: DH = - do m p do

1 1 r0 1 r0 Dr r0 1 1 = + + + + ; hd fouling U 0 hi ri hdi ri k rlm hd 0 h0

Nutube = Nushell = hi di = 0.023Re 0.8 Pr 0.3 kf ho De = 0.36 Re 0.55 Pr1/3 kf

fL rV 2 Dptubes = N p t t + 4 t Dit 2 gc Dpshell Ds rVsh 2 L = fs ( N b + 1); fs = exp(0.576 - 0.19 ln(Re sh )); N b = t - 1; De 2 B Nt For 1-2 HX: Ds = Dbundle + 0.056; Dbundle = do 0.249
1/2.207

Shell Flow Area As =

DsCB ; Pitch PT = 1.25 do ; C = PT - do ; B = Baffle Spacing PT

All equations and variable definitions used in this report are taken from course handouts (e.g. Heat Transfer Help Sheet [8]) or can be found in the course textbook, McCabe [5]. 10

Appendix C: Spreadsheets and Aspen Outputs Table 4. System parameters System Properties (kg/hr) (kg/s) Ta (C) Ta (K) Tb (C) Tb (K) q (MW) LMTD (K) Acetone 80000 22.22 10 283.15 30 303.15 0.9697 70.51 DMX 100000 27.78 100 373.15 81.019 354.17 -0.9697

Table 5. Comparison of Preliminary Shortcut Calculations and Finalized Design Heat Transfer Ao (m2) 18.8 15.2 15.2 22.6 22.7
Stream Temperatures
100

1-2 HX 2-2 HX 2-4 HX Hand Calc 1-2 HX Detailed Calc 1-2 HX Shortcut Calculation

Uo (W/m2C) 730 850 850 620 580

90

TS Bulk Temp. (C) + SS Bulk Temp (C)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Distance f rom End (mm)

TS Bulk Temp.

SS Bulk Temp

Figure 1. Temperature Profile Plot

11

Aspen Simulation Output

*** OVERALL RESULTS ***

DUTY AND AREA: CALCULATED HEAT DUTY WATT SQM SQM 918904.8519 22.4166 22.7420 1.4520

CALCULATED (REQUIRED) AREA ACTUAL EXCHANGER AREA PER CENT OVER-DESIGN

HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT: AVERAGE COEFFICIENT (DIRTY) WATT/SQM-K AVERAGE COEFFICIENT (CLEAN) WATT/SQM-K UA (DIRTY) J/SEC-K 584.3846 584.3881

13099.8882

LOG-MEAN TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE: THERMAL EFFECTIVENESS (XI) NUMBER OF TRANSFER UNITS (NTU) LMTD CORRECTION FACTOR LMTD (CORRECTED) K 0.2221 0.2850 0.9881 70.1460 1 1

NUMBER OF SHELLS IN SERIES NUMBER OF SHELLS IN PARALLEL STREAM VELOCITIES: SHELLSIDE MAX. CROSSFLOW VEL. M/SEC

0.7415

12

SHELLSIDE MAX. CROSSFLOW REYNOLDS NO. SHELLSIDE MAX. WINDOW VEL. M/SEC

5046.7091 0.9854 6706.7435 1.3675 55901.4452

SHELLSIDE MAX. WINDOW REYNOLDS NO. TUBESIDE MAX. VELOCITY M/SEC

TUBESIDE MAX. REYNOLDS NO. PRESSURE DROP: SHELLSIDE, BAFFLED FLOW AREA N/SQM SHELLSIDE, NOZZLE SHELLSIDE, TOTAL TUBESIDE, TUBES TUBESIDE, NOZZLE TUBESIDE, TOTAL N/SQM N/SQM N/SQM N/SQM N/SQM

12041.7048 681.3618 12723.0666 5012.7961 357.5980 5370.3941

13

Appendix D: Mechanical Summary Table 6. Key Geometric and Design Parameters Geometric Parameter vtube (m/s) Tube Material Tube BWG Tube do (m) Tube di (m) Tube Length (m) Tube Number Nt Tube passes Np Dimension 1.4 Carbon Steel 18 0.01905 0.0166 2 190 2 Geometric Parameter Pitch Type Tube Pitch PT (m) Total Tube Aflow (m2) Dbundle (m) Shell diameter DS (m) vshell (m/s) Baffle Number NB Shell passes Np Baffle Spacing B (m) Dimension Triangular 0.0238 0.0203 0.384 0.440 1.7 9 1 0.2

71 19. 05

81 23. 8125

S hel li nsi de di amet er Front head i nsi de di ameter

99. 9 5 mm

mm mm mm

387.35 387.35 374.65 152 152

Outer t ube l mi i t Tube number (cal cs. ) Tube number (l ayout ) Tube l ength Tube O. D . Tube pi t ch Tube pat ter n Tube passes

mm mm mm

2250. 19. 05 23. 8125 30 2 4

120.57 m m

Ti e rod number Ti e rod di amet er S eal ng st ri i ps ( pai r s) B af fl e type C entr e t o out er baf fl e cut C entr e t o i nner baf f l e cut I mpi ngement pr otecti on S hel lS de Inl i et N ozzl e Insi de D amet er i S hel lS de Outl i et N ozzl e Insi de D amet er i mm mm mm mm

9.55 2 S ngl i e segment al 38. 0847

N one 202.7174 202.7174

As p en Shel l & Tub e

D esi gn C odes A S ME C ode S ec V II I D v1 i TE MA R - r ef i ner y ser vi ce C ustomer S peci fi cat i ons R evi si on D at e
12/ 4/ 2013

Tube Layout
D raw ng N i umber

D w g.

A pp.

Figure 2. Tube Layout generated by Aspen EDR

Views on arrow A

A
339 223 T2 220

2969 Overall 1555 S1

T2
379

T1

S1
379 416 379

379

T1
S2

S2 223 461 75 1074 75

Pulling Length

1460

99

Figure 3. Shell and Baffle Layout generated by Aspen EDR

396

150 2 Bolts Fixed

396

150 2 Bolts Sliding

Ref S1 S2 T1 T2

OD Wall 219 mm 8.2 mm 219 mm 8.2 mm 114 mm 6. mm 168 mm 7.1 mm

Nozzl e Data Standard 150 ANSI Sl ip on 150 ANSI Sl ip on 150 ANSI Sl ip on 150 ANSI Sl ip on

Notes

Design Data Design Press ure Design T emperature Ful l Vacuum Corrosion All owance T est Pressure Number of Passes Radiography PWHT Internal Volume

Units bar C mm bar

Shell 3. 135. 0 3.175

14

Channel 3. 65. 0 3.175 2 0 0 0.1361 Design Codes 0 T EMA 0 Customer Specific ations

Asp en She ll & T ub e Exch ang er Settin g Pla n BEM 4 38 - 20 00 Drawi ng Num b er

1 0 0 0.2985

99

Appendix E: Validation of Answer and Check of Realistic Results The specifications of this design are considered to be realistic based upon typical values published in several heat exchanger design guides [3,6,7]: Optimal tube-side velocities for acetone are typically between 1.5 and 3 m/s, as described in Table 8.2 in the course handout [5]. The velocity in this design is 1.4 m/s, which is slightly lower than this suggested range. However, another design guide suggested a reasonable range of 1-2 m/s [7], and it was found in this case that a slightly lower tube-side velocity resulted in a more reasonable pressure drop. Optimal shell-side velocities for benzene are typically between 1.4 and 2.8 m/s [Table 8.2, ref. 5]. As DMX is an alkylated aromatic, it likely has similar behavior and viscosity as benzene, so this range should serve as a good approximation. The shell side velocity for this design is 1.7 m/s, which is taken to be reasonable. As these streams are at relatively low pressure, a reasonable pressure drop for both the shell and tube side should be below 10 psi or about 0.5 bar. In this design, pressure drop is maintained well below 0.5 bar for both streams (see Table 2). This tube uses a nominal outer diameter tube of carbon steel. Carbon steel tubes are inexpensive and the diameter is common and preferred for compact exchanger designs with low-fouling fluids [7]. The optimum ratio of tube length to shell diameter is typically between 5 and 10 [7]. For this design the ratio is 4.5. This is less than optimal, but still reasonable. The Shell diameter is typically about 56 mm larger than the bundle diameter [7], which is determined by the number and size of tubes. This spacing is specified to both reduce shell-side pressure drop and to increase the ease of construction and maintenance of the exchanger [6]. The preferred tube lengths are: 1.83 m, 2.44 m, 3.66 m, 4.88 m and 7.32 m [7]. The tube length selected is 2 m. This is not ideal due to the English basis of many tubes. A future design optimization for economics would likely take this into account and adjust the length to 2.44 m. However, the length is reasonable from a sizing perspective. For the heating requirements of this system, a 1-2 heat exchanger is appropriate. A 2-4 heat exchanger may decrease area requirements, but the complexity of construction and maintenance are likely economically prohibitive and unnecessary for the relatively low heat load.

15