Computers and Chemical Engineering 32 (2008) 31433152

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Chemical Engineering

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

Heat exchanger network area targeting considering stream allocation to shell or tubes
A. Akbari a , M.R. Omidkhah a, , M.R. Hojjati b
a b

Department of Chemical Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, P.O. Box 14115-143, Tehran, Iran Department of Chemical Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz Branch, Shiraz, Iran

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
An optimal heat recovery network requires optimum values of area and energy targets. Current heat exchanger network targeting methods do not consider the optimal allocation of each stream to shell or tube side of the exchanger during the network cost estimation. Some researchers pre-set the allocation of the streams ahead of targeting [Polley, G. T., & Panjeh Shahi, M. H. (1991). Interfacing heat exchanger network synthesis and detailed heat exchanger design. Transactions of the Institute of Chemical Engineers, 69(Part A), 445457]. In real design case however, some practical considerations such as fouling and corrosion constrain the allocation of streams. Apart from those, other streams are allowed to be allocated to either tubes or shell. Appropriate allocation of these streams can considerably affect the network cost estimation. This paper introduces a new area-targeting procedure which utilizes the optimal allocation of streams in all enthalpy intervals. The procedure evaluates two possible options for each stream split passing through each exchanger in the spaghetti network. Thus, two different exchanger area requirements can be estimated and the one with less area requirement will be selected. During this evaluation process, the optimal distribution of each stream pressure drop within enthalpy intervals is fully utilized. The proposed targeting procedure is applied on a case study and comparison of the results with previous method (Polley & Panjeh Shahi, 1991) shows reduction of around 18% in the network area. In another case study, the areaenergy trade offs using the new procedure shows a reduction of 12.4% in minimum network area requirement and 14.5% in total annual cost. Therefore, the new procedure can considerably alter the areaenergy trade offs. 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 20 September 2007 Received in revised form 2 February 2008 Accepted 12 May 2008 Available online 28 May 2008 Keywords: Heat exchanger network Pinch technology Area targeting Shell and tube exchangers Pressure drop Stream allocation

1. Introduction Considerable research efforts have been made in the area of heat exchanger networks synthesis. Pinch Technology and Mathematical Programming are two main schools of thought in this eld. Furthermore, there are some methods with a combination of these two approaches. An excellent review of these methods has been provided by Gundersen and Naess (1988). To obtain an optimal heat recovery network, an efcient targeting method which estimates true targets for both energy and capital costs, is necessary and considerable researches are focused on this stage. Pinch technology allows the minimum utility and capital cost requirements to be calculated directly from the stream data at an assumed minimum approach temperature ( Tmin ) ahead of design (Ahmad & Linnhoff, 1984; Townsend & Linnhoff, 1984). Hall, Ahmad, and Smith (1990) presented a targeting method based on

Corresponding author. E-mail address: omidkhah@modares.ac.ir (M.R. Omidkhah). 0098-1354/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2008.05.009

weighting factor which can account for non-uniform costs due to different materials of construction. Colberg and Morari (1990) proposed a targeting method considering the trade off between the area and number of matches and the effect of forbidden matches upon the minimum area or cost target. All of these targeting methods do not consider streams pressure drops aspects. For more consistency between detailed exchanger design and network synthesis, Polley and Panjeh Shahi (1991) introduced a targeting method considering the streams pressure drops. They pre-set the allocation of each stream to shell or tubes ahead of targeting. However, none of these methods optimize the streams allocation during the estimation of network area. Hojjati, Omidkhah, and Panjeh Shahi (2004) presented a methodology for cost estimation by decomposing the total cost of an exchanger into two elements: cost of the shell and cost of tubes. In a mathematical approach, using binary variables, they considered streams allocation to shells or tubes, incorporating different materials of construction. However, there is no procedure for the streams allocation optimization in pinch technology. This paper presents an efcient

3144

A. Akbari et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 32 (2008) 31433152

Nomenclature A Ac Cp d de h K m Pt P Q TLM V TAC area (m2 ) average contact area (m2 ) heat capacity owrate (W/K) tube diameter (m) tube bundle equivalent diameter (m) lm heat transfer coefcient (W/m2 K) constant (dimensional) exponent on heat transfer coefcient in Eq. (2) tube pitch (m) pressure drop (Pa) heat load (W) log mean temperature difference (K) volumetric owrate (m3 /s) Total Annualized Cost ($/yr)

In the proposed method by Polley and Panjeh Shahi (1991), one should assign each stream to pass either through shell or tube side, before the targeting performance. Clearly this assumption is not justied, as pre-allocation of streams can considerably affect the estimation of network area. This paper presents a new area-targeting algorithm which determines the minimum network area considering the optimal allocation of all streams.

3. Spaghetti network Fig. 1 shows the spaghetti network for an enthalpy interval which involves two hot and two cold streams. In spaghetti network each cold stream (j) can be potentially matched with each hot stream (k) via stream splitting, Ahmad and Linnhoff (1990). Vertical heat transfer between one hot and cold stream split of the spaghetti network is illustrated in Fig. 2. The shell and tube side pressure drops can be evaluated from Eqs. (3) and (4), respectively:
s Ps = Ks Ac hm s t Pt = Kt Ac hm t

Greek symbols thermal conductivity (W/m K) viscosity (N s/m2 ) density (kg/m3 ) Subscripts and superscripts i interval j cold stream ji cold stream j in interval i jki match jk in interval i k hot stream ki hot stream k in interval i kji match kj in interval i s shell side t tube side

(3) (4)

In Eqs. (3) and (4), Ac is the average contact area (between inside and outside diameter of the tube) and K depends on the stream physical properties and volumetric owrate. In a standard exchanger K is calculated from the Eqs. (5) and (6) for shell and tube side, Polley, Panjeh Shahi, and Jegede, (1990), Kern (1950): Ks = k1 k2
5.1 k3

(5)

procedure for energycapital cost trade offs considering this aspect utilizing streams pressure drop. 2. Review on capital cost target procedures In order to estimate the minimum network area requirement, the simplest method is presented by Townsend and Linnhoff (1984), which estimates the network area from enthalpy intervals on the composite curves:
intervals

Amin =
i

Ai =
i

q TLM

1 hj

(1)

where Ai is the area of interval i and hj is the xed heat transfer coefcient of stream j. Since during the heat exchanger design, allowable pressure drops are often the most critical factors, Polley and Panjeh Shahi (1991) suggested that there can be an inconsistency between detailed exchanger design and network synthesis based on assumed h-values. They also developed a relationship between exchanger pressure drop, surface area and lm heat transfer coefcient (using Kerns (1950) method): P = KAc hm (2)

Fig. 1. Spaghetti network.

Ac is the contact area and K is a constant which can be determined from the stream physical properties, owrate and exchanger geometry. For ow through tubes, m is 3.5 and through shell is 4.412. Using this equation, they presented a procedure for the network area targeting based on stream pressure drops.

Fig. 2. Heat transfer between a hot and cold stream split.

A. Akbari et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 32 (2008) 31433152

0.19 0.81 1.19 de

3145

k1 = 0.895

4pt (pt d) k2 = 2 dV k3 = 0.36 K1 K2

3.5 K3

0.8

Cp

1/3

d (6)
Fig. 4. Heat transfer between one hot and one cold stream split.

Kt =

k1 = 0.092 k2 = d 4V d

0.8

0.2

d1.2
0.8 1/3

1 may be signicantly different from Exchanger 2. This is also true for the cold stream. Consequently the area of Exchanger 1 would be different from Exchanger 2, as the area of each exchanger can be obtained using the following equation: A= Q TLM 1 1 + ht hs (7)

k3 = 0.023

Cp

Therefore, shell and tube side corresponding pressure drops are directly proportional to the selection of the stream allocation. The current procedure established by Polley and Panjeh Shahi (1991) assigns all hot streams to pass through shells and all cold streams to pass through tubes. However, in real case, splits of one stream can pass either through shell or tubes in each temperature interval. This will clearly cause different estimated network area. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the minimum network area and energy requirement estimated by the current methods, are optimal. 4. New spaghetti network construction In the spaghetti network (Fig. 1), there are two different options for each stream split: Hot stream through tubes and cold stream through shell side. Hot stream through shell and cold stream through tube side. These two options are taken into account by assigning two different heat exchangers on each stream split (Fig. 3). Fig. 4 indicates two possible options for heat transfer between one hot and one cold stream split considering the stream splits allocation. The hot stream passes through tubes in Exchanger 1, while it passes through the shell in Exchanger 2. Therefore, the hot stream pressure drop in Exchanger 1 is certainly different from its pressure drop in Exchanger 2 (according to Eqs. (3) and (4)). Consequently, the achieved lm heat transfer coefcient (based on allowable stream pressure drop) of the hot stream in Exchanger

The major purpose of the areaenergy targeting is to nd the minimum approach temperature which exhibits the minimum total cost. Thus, from two different options of each stream split, the one with the lower area will be selected. This will determine the optimal allocation of streams. Furthermore, during trade offs between area and energy requirement the optimal distribution of each stream allowable pressure drop within every enthalpy interval will be obtained and utilized. 5. New area-targeting algorithm The algorithm of the new area-targeting procedure is fully outlined in Figs. 57 . The minimum network area is estimated using Eq. (8):
I K J

Amin =
i=1 k=1 j=1

Ac,kji Qkji TLM,i Cpk TLM,i

j

(8)

Ac,kji = Qkji =

1 1 + hkji hjki

(9)

Cpj /

Cpj

(10)

The allowable pressure drop of each stream is assumed to be xed. Individual pressure drop in each enthalpy interval should be set as the maximum pressure drops of all splits: Pji = Max{ Pjki , k = 1, . . . , K } Where: Pjki = kj Ac,jki hm jki (12) (11)

The summation of each stream pressure drops within all enthalpy intervals must be equal to the individual xed allowable pressure drop of that particular stream:
interval interval

Pj =
i

Pji =
i

Max{ Pjki , k = 1, . . . K }

(13)

Pj is the xed allowable pressure drop of stream j. Therefore the stream pressure drop is distributed within enthalpy intervals using Eq. (14) which has been obtained by dividing Eq. (12) by (13): Pjki =
i

kj Ac,jki hm jki Max(kj Ac,jki hm ) jki

Fig. 3. New spaghetti network. ( ) Shell side and () tube side.

Pj

(14)

3146

A. Akbari et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 32 (2008) 31433152

During the network area optimization Eqs. (12), (14) and (9) are applied for each individual exchanger in the new spaghetti network. Solving these equations together with Eq. (8), results in the calculation of minimum network area and streams lm heat transfer coefcients utilizing pressure drops. Film heat transfer coefcients of each stream may vary in each enthalpy interval depending upon passing through shell or tubes. 6. Case studies 6.1. Case study 1 The rst case study (Table 1) illustrates the new targeting proposed procedure. It is originally presented by Sagli, Gundersen, and Yee (1990). The problem consists of two hot streams, two cold streams, one hot utility and one cold utility. Note that in this case study it is assumed that all streams are allowed to be allocated to both sides. If there is any constraint on allocating streams due to practical limitations, the new algorithm is capable to consider those constraints and optimize the allocation of the remaining streams. The new procedure requires the K-values associated with each stream from Eqs. (5) and (6). The streams physical properties and volumetric owrates are presented in Table 2. For each stream, two different K-values based on passing through shell or tubes can be calculated. The result is given in Table 3.

Fig. 5. (Continued).

Appling the new proposed method for this problem at an arbitrary value of Tmin = 10 C, the optimal scheme of spaghetti network is obtained as shown in Fig. 8. (Note that at this Tmin this problem is threshold with no cold utility requirement).

Table 1 Stream data, case study 1 Stream H1 H2 C1 C2 ST CW Ts ( C) 150 90 20 25 180 10 Tt ( C) 60 60 125 100 180 15 MCp (kW/ C) 20 80 25 30

Table 2 Streams physical properties Stream H1 H2 C1 C2 (kg/m3 ) 800 800 800 800 Cp (J/kg C) 2600 2600 2600 2600 (cps) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 k (W/m C) 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 Rf (m2 C/W) 0.00018 0.00018 0.00018 0.00018 P (kPa) 20 30 10 60

Table 3 Shell and tube side stream K-values Stream Shell side K 1010 Tube side K 108 H1 0.2464 0.3618 H2 0.0616 0.0904 C1 0.1971 0.2894 C2 0.1643 0.2413

Fig. 5. New targeting algorithm considering streams allocation to shells or tubes.

A. Akbari et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 32 (2008) 31433152

3147

Fig. 6. Determination of streams allocations.

The optimal scheme exhibits the more protable allocation for each stream split. This scheme produces the minimum network area requirement. Furthermore, the resulted structure employs optimal distribution of each stream available pressure drop throughout the enthalpy intervals. The new network area is 437.8 m2 comparing with 531.6 m2 found by Polley and Panjeh Shahi (1991), exhibiting 18% less area. The actual network area at synthesis stage (Fig. 9) is found to be 473.6 m2 which is within 8% different from targeted value.

6.2. Case study 2 The following case study (Aromatics Plant), was rst introduced by Linnhoff et al. (1982) and then used by Polley and Panjeh Shahi (1991). This problem contains ve hot streams, four cold streams, one hot utility and one cold utility. The stream data and physical properties are given in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. The energycapital cost trade offs has been evaluated for this problem using the new proposed area-targeting algorithm. Fig. 10 shows the estimated capital, energy and total annual cost with

Table 4 Stream data, case study 2 Stream H1 H2 H3 H4 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 Oil CW Ts ( C) 327 220 220 160 100 35 85 60 140 330 10 Tt ( C) 40 160 60 45 300 164 138 170 300 230 30 MCp (kW/ C) 100 160 60 400 100 70 350 60 200 Table 5 Stream physical properties, case study 2 Stream H1 H2 H3 H4 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 (kg/m3 ) 500 55 676 697 464 570 1.0 685 667 Cp (J/kg C) 2,000 2,192 1,877 5,480 2,000 1,590 10,000 1,580 2,740 (cps) 0.25 0.01 0.28 0.31 0.16 0.30 0.01 0.27 0.21 k (W/m C) 0.11 0.026 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.11 0.11 Rf (m2 C/W) 0.00018 0.00014 0.00018 0.00018 0.00018 0.00018 0.00014 0.00018 0.00018 P (kPa) 120 80 90 60 20 20 30 15 80

3148

A. Akbari et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 32 (2008) 31433152

Fig. 7. Area algorithm; determination of streams splits area and

P requirement for optimal allocation of splits.

respect to different Tmin values. The optimum value of Tmin, is found to be 13 C by this new procedure. The results shown in Table 6, exhibit signicant difference from two previous results by Townsend and Linnhoff (1984), based on xed heat transfer coefcients, and Polley and Panjeh Shahi (1991), based on streams allowable pressure drops.

Table 6 shows that comparing with Polley and Panjeh Shahi (1991) results, the new algorithm reduces the area and total annual cost by 12.4% and 14.5%, respectively, while there is 46.3% reduction in area and 29.8% reduction in total annual cost comparing with Townsend and Linnhoff (1984) results. This implies that considering optimum allocation of streams

Fig. 8. Optimal scheme of new spaghetti network, case study 1 (threshold problem).

A. Akbari et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 32 (2008) 31433152

3149

Fig. 9. Network design, case study 1 (threshold problem).

can signicantly affect the accurate targeting of the network cost. 7. Conclusions The area of an exchanger depends upon the allocation of hot and cold streams to shell or tube side. A new area-targeting algorithm has been developed based on considering optimum allocation of streams in each temperature interval. This algorithm is also capable to handle the pre-assumed allocation of streams due to practical constraints (e.g. corrosion, fouling, etc.). The new targeting procedure utilizes the optimal distribution of each stream pressure drop within enthalpy intervals. Application of the new area-targeting method can result in different optimum value of Tmin and in turn considerable reduction in area and total cost of the heat exchanger network. In such situations we may also end up with different design structure. Appendix A Optimal spaghetti grid diagram and network design of case study 2 (Figs. A1 and A2).

Fig. 10. Annual cost target by new targeting method, case study 2. Table 6 Comparison of results Townsend and Linnhoff (1984) Tmin,opt ( C) Energy requirement (kW) Area (m2 ) TAC ($106 /year) 25 24,480 12,889 4.6994 Polley and Panjeh Shahi (1991) 20 21,680 7,893 3.8586 New algorithm 13 18,570 6,915 3.3002

3150

A. Akbari et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 32 (2008) 31433152

Fig. A1. Optimal spaghetti grid diagram of case study 2 at

Tmin = 13 C.

A. Akbari et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 32 (2008) 31433152

3151

Fig. A1. (Continued ).

Fig. A2. Network design of case study 2 (total area requirement: 7746.8 m2 ,

Tmin = 13 C).

3152

A. Akbari et al. / Computers and Chemical Engineering 32 (2008) 31433152 Hojjati, M. R., Omidkhah, M. R., & Panjeh Shahi, M. H. (2004). Cost effective heat exchanger network design with mixed materials of construction. Iranian Journal of Chemistry & Chemical Engineering, 23(2), 89100. Kern, D. Q. (1950). Process heat transfer. McGraw Hill. Linnhoff, B., et al. (1982). User guide on process integration for the efcient use of energy. Rugby: IChem E. Polley, G. T., Panjeh Shahi, M. H., & Jegede, F. O. (1990). Pressure drop considerations in the retrot of heat exchanger networks. Transactions of the Institute of Chemical Engineers, 68 (Part A), 211220. Polley, G. T., & Panjeh Shahi, M. H. (1991). Interfacing heat exchanger network synthesis and detailed heat exchanger design. Transactions of the Institute of Chemical Engineers, 69 (Part A), 445457. Sagli, B., Gundersen, T., & Yee, T. (1990). Topology traps in evolutionary strategies for heat exchanger network synthesis. Computer Applications in Chemical Engineering, 27, 11431152. Townsend, D. W., & Linnhoff, B. (1984). Surface area targets for heat exchanger networks. In Proceedings of the 11th IChem E annual research meeting on heat transfer.

References
Ahmad, S., & Linnhoff, B. (1990). Cost optimum heat exchanger network-2. Targets and design for detailed capital cost models. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 14(7), 67751. Ahmad, S., & Linnhoff, B. (1984). Overall cost targets for heat exchanger networks. In Proceedings of the 11th IChem E annual research meeting on heat transfer. Colberg, R. D., & Morari, M. (1990). Area and capital cost targets for heat exchanger network synthesis with constrained matches and unequal heat transfer coefcients. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 14(1), 122. Gundersen, T., & Naess, L. (1988). The synthesis of cost optimal heat exchanger networks: An industrial review of the state of the art. Compters & Chemical Engineering, 12, 503. Hall, S. G., Ahmad, S., & Smith, R. (1990). Capital cost targets for heat exchanger networks comprising mixed materials of construction, pressure ratings and exchanger types. Compters & Chemical Engineering, 14, 319.