BENOIT ALLEN

CONDENSEUR CALANDRE, RSEAU D'ECHANGEURS DE CHALEUR ET PRODUCTION D'EAU FROIDE

OPTIMISATION D'ECHANGEURS DE CHALEUR :

Mmoire prsent la Facult des tudes suprieures de l'Universit Laval dans le cadre du programme de matrise en gnie mcanique pour l'obtention du grade de matre es science (M.Se.)

DEPARTEMENT DE GENIE MECANIQUE FACULT DES SCIENCES ET GNIE UNIVERSIT LAVAL QUBEC

2010

Benoit Allen, 2010

Rsum
La prsente tude porte sur l'optimisation de systmes thermiques servant soit rcuprer de la chaleur ou produire de la chaleur ou du froid. Essentiellement, le travail portera sur les condenseurs de type tubes et calandre, sur les rseaux d'changeurs de chaleur ainsi que sur les systmes de production d'eau froide. L'objectif ultime est de dvelopper une mthode permettant de dterminer le design minimisant les cots relis l'achat et l'opration de ces systmes thermiques. Pour atteindre cet objectif, on doit d'abord crer un modle mathmatique permettant de calculer les surfaces d'changes requises et les puissances de pompage requises pour faire fonctionner un changeur de chaleur. Bas sur des relations analytiques et empiriques, le modle doit tenir compte des variables design considres dans le problme, soit une dizaine de paramtres gomtriques et le rgime d'opration. Il s'agit d'identifier les valeurs accorder chacune de ces variables de design afin de faire le meilleur compromis entre la minimisation des surfaces d'change de chaleur requises et la quantit d'nergie requise pour faire fonctionner les systmes. Autrement dit, on cherche minimiser le cot total, constitu du cot d'achat du matriel et des cots d'opration. Une fois cette dmarche ralise pour le condenseur tubes et calandre, on applique une mthode similaire pour optimiser une srie d'changeurs de chaleur dans le cas des rseaux d'changeurs de chaleur et finalement pour un cycle de rfrigration compos de deux changeurs, un condenseur et un vaporateur, ainsi qu'un compresseur. tant donn le nombre important de variables de design considr pour chacun de ces problmes, le nombre total de design possible est trop lev pour calculer le cot de chacun d'entre eux et choisir le meilleur. Cela serait trop coteux en temps de calcul. C'est pourquoi nous ferons appel l'utilisation d'algorithmes gntiques. Ces derniers nous permettront d'identifier avec une excellente probabilit le design optimal et ce, dans un laps de temps acceptable en pratique. La mthode est finalement valide grce des exemples d'application.

Ill

Abstract
In this study, we work on three types of thermal systems: shell-and-tube condensers, heat exchanger networks and refrigeration systems. These systems all have the common characteristics to imply shell-and-tube heat exchangers. Our goal is to develop a method to optimize the design of these systems. The optimal configuration must satisfy a given task at a minimum cost, including purchase costs and energy costs. The development of this work is separated under three scientific papers. In order to reach our main objective, we first create a mathematical model to compute required heat transfer surface areas and pumping power required for a given process for a condenser. This model accounts for the geometry characteristics of the exchanger and the steady-state operating conditions. The condenser model will be used in the two other parts of the work: heat exchanger networks optimization and refrigeration systems optimization. For this last part, an evaporator model is also created to complete the vapour-compression cycle. In each case, the performance of the economic optimization is made using a genetic algorithm. These algorithms will enable the determination of the best heat exchanger geometries and the best operating conditions. The procedure developed in this work is validated with some test cases.

IV

Avant-propos
Je tiens tout d'abord remercier mon directeur de recherche Louis Gosselin. Louis m'a non seulement aid raliser ce mmoire, mais tous les conseils qu'il m'a donn m'ont permis de dvelopper des mthodes de travail et une rigueur qui me seront utiles tout au long de ma vie et de ma carrire d'ingnieur. Il a fait preuve d'une patience remarquable et il a t un excellent guide dans tous les travaux auxquels j'ai particip avec lui. Je suis galement reconnaissant envers Myriam Savard-Goguen, dont les travaux ont permis la publication d'un des articles utiliss dans ce mmoire. Sans la contribution de Myriam, la ralisation de cette tude n'aurait pu se concrtiser. Je remercie aussi tous les tudiants du Laboratoire de Transfert Thermique et d'nergtique que j'ai eu la chance de ctoyer au cours de mes travaux. Ces personnes ont rendu mon sjour au LTTE plus qu'agrable et je conserve pour eux, un sentiment de grande amiti. Je garderai toujours un excellent souvenir de mes journes au LTTE grce ces personnes: Yohann Chataigner, Franois Mathieu-Potvin, John Niederreiter, MarieAndre Julien, Maxime Tye-Gingras, Jonathan Dallaire, Jean-Michel Leblanc, Mai Thi Do, Simon Blanger, Axel Arnaud et Cassandre Nowicki. Je ne pourrais continuer sans remercier ma conjointe, Anne-Marie. Tout au long de ma matrise, elle a t mes cts pour m'encourager et me supporter. Je suis galement trs reconnaissant envers mes parents qui m'ont toujours support dans mes tudes et particulirement pour mes travaux de recherche la matrise. Ils ont toujours t prs de moi et ils ont toujours su me supporter et m'accompagner dans mes tudes. Ces personnes ont toutes jou un rle important dans l'atteinte de mes objectifs. Finalement, la ralisation de ce travail a t rendu possible grce au support financier des Fonds Qubcois pour la Recherche en Nature et en Technologies (FQRNT).

Table des matires

Rsum Abstract Avant-propos Table des matires Liste des figures Liste des tableaux Nomenclature Chapitre 1 Introduction Problmatique Objectifs Mthodologie Chapitre 2 Article # 1 Abstract 2.1. Introduction 2.2. Objective function 2.3. Heat transfer calculations 2.3.1 Heat transfer coefficients with in-tube condensation 2.3.2 Heat transfer coefficients with shell-side condensation 2.4. Pressure drop calculations 2.4.1 Pressure drop with in-tube condensation 2.4.2 Pressure drop with shell-side condensation 2.5. Design variables and procedure for determining the cost of a design 2.6. Optimization procedure with genetic algorithms 2.7. Test cases 2.8. Conclusion Chapitre 3 Article # 2 Abstract 3.1. Introduction 3.2. HEN Problem formulation and design procedure 3.3. Description of the HE design problem and genetic algorithms 3.3.1 Objective function 3.3.2 HEs design variables 3.3.3 Optimization of HEs using genetic algorithms 3.4. Extension of Ref. [53] to HEs with partial condensation 3.5. Test cases 3.6. Conclusions Chapitre 4 Article # 3 Abstract ii iii iv v vii viii 1 4 4 4 6 7 10 10 11 12 12 13 17 20 20 21 23 24 27 27 31 33 33 34 35 36 40 40 41 45 46 49 60 62 62 63

VI

4.1. Introduction 4.2. Objective function and design variables 4.3. Condenser model 4.4. Evaporator model 4.4.1 Heat transfer calculations 4.4.2 Pressure drop calculations 4.5. Compressor model 4.6. Optimization approach 4.7. Test cases and results 4.8. Conclusions Chapitre 5 Discussion et conclusions Bibliographie Annexe A Calcul du cot d'un condenseur Annexe B Calcul du cot d'un vaporateur Annexe C Calcul du cot d'un compresseur Annexe D Optimisation d'un systme de rfrigration D.l Script d'optimisation D.2 Calcul des cots d'opration et d'achat du systme Annexe E Optimisation d'un rseau d'changeurs de chaleur

64 65 74 74 75 78 80 81 82 90 91 91 94 99 99 108 108 115 115 117 117 117 119 123 123

Vil

Liste des figures

Figure 2.1 The schematic representation of a straight-tube heat exchanger with one pass on tube shell and condensation on tube side 15 Figure 2.2 Schematic representation of a vertical heat exchanger when condensation occurs on shell side 16 Figure 2.3 Thermal circuits to determine for Twj and Twj 19 Figure 2.4 Geometrical design variables 26 Figure 3.1 Pinch analysis for heat exchanger network optimization 38 Figure 3.2 Overall procedure for total cost estimation 39 Figure 3.3a Temperature of cold and hot fluids in shell-and-tube heat exchanger without condensation 43 Figure 3.3b Temperature of cold and hot fluids in shell-and-tube heat exchanger with condensation of the hot fluid 44 Figure 3.4 Minimum heat exchanger network total cost as a function of minimum temperature difference for test case #1 51 Figure 3.5 Optimal heat exchanger network design for test case #1 52 Figure 3.6 Minimum heat exchanger network total cost as a function of minimum temperature difference for test case #2 56 Figure 3.7 Optimal heat exchanger network design for test case #2 57 Figure 4.1 Schematic representation of the vapor compression refrigeration cycle 66 Figure 4.2 Temperature-entropy diagram of an ideal vapor compression cycle 67 Figure 4.3 Schematic representation of total cost calculation procedure 73 Figure 4.4 Nucleate and convective boiling in evaporating two-phase flow 76 Figure 4.5 Constant quality separation of the evaporating refrigerant flow 77 Figure 4.6 Optimal cost distribution for test case #1 85 Figure 4.7 Optimal cost distribution for test case #2 86

vin

Liste des tableaux

Table 2.1 Process requirements for case study #1 (// = 5000 h year 1 , e = 0.1 SkW^If', n = 20 years, / = 0.05, Tjpump = 0.85) 28 Table 2.2 Process requirements for case study #2 (H = 5000 h year-1, e = 0.1 $kW~'lf \ n = 20 years, / = 0.05, rjpump = 0.85) 29 Table 2.3 Minimal cost heat exchanger geometries as found by the GA 30 Table 3.1 Process requirements for test case #1 50 Table 3.2 Stream data for shell-and-tube heat exchangers of the optimal heat exchanger network for test case #1 53 Table 3.3 Optimal HE geometries as found by the GA for test case #1 optimal HEN 54 Table 3.4 Process requirements for test case #2 55 Table 3.5 Stream data for shell-and-tube heat exchangers of the optimal heat exchanger network for test case #1 58 Table 3.6 Optimal HE geometries as found by the GA for test case #2 optimal HEN 59 Table 4.1 Design variables and their limit values for the two heat exchangers of the problem 69 Table 4.2 Main features of the GA considered in this paper 82 Table 4.3 System requirements details for test case #1 and test case #2 84 Table 4.4 Optimal refrigeration cycle for test case #1 and test case #2 87 Table 4.5 Optimal refrigeration system characteristics for test case #1 88 Table 4.6 Optimal refrigeration system characteristics for test case #2 89

Nomenclature
A B CCU CHU Co COST CP cp D d E e F Fr / g H h HEAT I i k L m N n np OC P p PC Q q" R Re .s T t TC U V surface, m2 coupe des chicanes, % cot annuel du fluide de refroidissement (cold utility), $/an cot annuel du fluide de chauffage (hot utility), $/an nombre de convection cot nergtique des fluides de refroidissement/chauffage, $/(kW-h) dbit capacitif, W/K capacit calorifique pression constante, J/(kg-K) diamtre de calandre, m diamtre de tube, m puissance de pompage, W cot de l'lectricit, $/(kW-h) facteur de diffrence de temprature effective nombre de Froude coefficient de friction acclration gravitationnelle, m/s priode d'opration annuelle, h coefficient de convection, W/(m2-K) chaleur, W taux d'intrt annuel, % enthalpie spcifique, J/kg conductivit thermique, WV(m-K) longueur, m dbit massique, kg/s nombre de tubes dure de vie, an nombre de passes de tubes cot d'opration annuel, $/an pression, Pa distance entre les tubes cot d'achat annualis, $ taux de transfert de chaleur, W flux de chaleur, W/m rsistance d'encrassement, (m -K)/W nombre de Reynolds entropie spcifique, J/(kg-K) temprature, C, K temps, h cot total annualis, $/an coefficient de transfert de chaleur global, W/(m2-K) vitesse, m/s

We x

puissance, W nombre de Weber qualit

Symboles grecs

S < P

M p a W Indices b c,h C center CU comp cn ev

facteur de cot facteur d'annualisation, an"1 efficacit viscosit dynamique, P a s densit, kg/m 3 tension de surface N/m rapport de pertes de pression

cf

fg

GO GP H HU i, o L

hg
lin

LP LO M max min otl P pump ref s, t S,T

chicane (baffle) froid, chaud condensation centre zone d'coulement perpendiculaire liquide de refroidissement (cold utility) compresseur condenseur vaporateur latent phase gazeuse seule vapeur surchauffe lev liquide de chauffage (hot utility) entre, sortie; intrieur, extrieur liquide, gazeux bas logarithmique moyen liquide sous-refroidi phase liquide seule matriel maximum minimum faisceau de tubes pressure pompage rfrigrant calandre (shell), tubes initial (supply), objectif (target)

sat T TP w wf

saturation temperature biphasique mur zone d'coulement parallle (window flow zone)

Chapitre 1 Introduction Problmatique

De nos jours, la valeur de l'nergie est en constante augmentation. Les besoins en nergie se multiplient, consquence de l'industrialisation et de l'augmentation de la population mondiale. Les ressources nergtiques, quant elles, ne se multiplient pas un rythme aussi important. Plusieurs sources d'nergie ne sont pas renouvelables et leur exploitation engendre souvent pollution et rejets de gaz effet de serre dans l'atmosphre. Depuis maintenant quelques annes, la population humaine prend justement conscience que cette pollution est responsable de graves consquences l'chelle plantaire et que nous finirons par puiser les rserves de certaines ressources nergtiques. Plusieurs tudes scientifiques ont d'ailleurs dmontr que si l'humain continue polluer comme il le fait actuellement, les consquences seront catastrophiques et irrversibles pour l'cosystme terrestre. Bien sr, plusieurs sources d'nergies renouvelables sont disponibles: l'nergie solaire, l'hydrolectricit, l'nergie olienne et la gothermie en sont quelques exemples. Toutefois, ces sources d'nergies ont un potentiel limit et leur exploitation ncessite l'tablissement d'infrastructures particulires. Actuellement, l'nergie obtenue partir de ressources renouvelables ne peut rpondre tous nos besoins nergtiques. conomiquement parlant, l'augmentation de la demande en nergie engendre directement une plus grande raret et donc une augmentation de ses cots. Dans un tel contexte, il s'avre impratif de trouver des solutions ralistes et efficaces afin d'utiliser l'nergie de manire intelligente. Il en va de l'avenir de notre plante et de la survie de l'espce humaine. Une grande portion de l'nergie est utilise dans l'industrie pour la production de chaleur et la production de froid. Selon l'Institut International du Froid, il y aurait dans le monde plus de 300 millions de mtres cubes d'espace rfrigr et la production de froid

elle seule est responsable de plus de 15% de la consommation d'lectricit dans le monde [1,2]. D'autre part, selon les tudes d'Hydro-Qubec, le cot d'lectricit des systmes thermiques utiliss dans les secteurs de l'alimentation, du plastique, de l'imprimerie et de l'entreposage frigorifique peut atteindre 60% de la facture nergtique totale de ces entreprises [3]. De plus, une grande partie de l'nergie utilise par ces systmes thermiques est rejete sous forme de chaleur dans l'atmosphre. On peut mettre en place des solutions pour rcuprer une partie de la chaleur perdue et on peut concevoir les systmes de manire ce qu'ils rpondent un besoin en utilisant un minimum d'nergie dans le but d'conomiser cette dernire. Valoriser des solutions permettant un meilleur usage de l'nergie fait d'ailleurs partie des priorits que s'est donne l'Agence de l'efficacit nergtique du Qubec [4]. Pour tre ralistes, les solutions envisages doivent toutefois tre conues pour produire ou rcuprer un maximum d'nergie un cot minimal. Pour une entreprise, rcuprer un maximum de chaleur ou avoir des systmes thermiques consommant un minimum d'lectricit sont avantageux au niveau des cots d'exploitation mais on doit galement tenir compte que plus les systmes sont nergtiquement efficaces, plus leur cot d'achat tend augmenter. C'est un aspect du problme considrable car les entreprises choisissent la plupart du temps leurs systmes en fonction du cot total et non en fonction de la consommation nergtique seulement. La ralit conomique fait donc en sorte que dans le choix d'un systme, il faudra faire un compromis entre l'conomie d'nergie et le cot d'achat des systmes afin d'avoir un cot global minimal. Dans ce mmoire, nous allons nous intresser des systmes thermiques consommant beaucoup d'nergie. L'tude, divise en trois articles scientifiques, portera dans un premier temps sur la modlisation de condenseurs tubes et calandre, (prenez note que les chapitres subsquents seront donc prsents en anglais, soit la langue dans laquelle les articles ont t publis. De plus, quelques lments ont t insrs dans les articles afin de clarifier certains aspects de la dmarche.) Comme on le verra plus loin, on utilisera dans les deux autres articles ce modle. Dans un deuxime temps, nous tudierons le design des rseaux d'changeurs de chaleur. Ces systmes sont utiliss pour rchauffer plusieurs coulements de fluides froids partir d'coulement plus chauds dont on doit

vacuer la chaleur. Finalement, nous nous intresserons aux cycles de rfrigration. Tous les systmes tudis ont la caractristique commune d'utiliser des changeurs de type tubes et calandre. Nous tenterons dans chaque cas de minimiser le cot total des systmes incluant les cots d'achat et d'opration. Un grand nombre de variables gomtriques caractrisent ces changeurs et pour une application donne, il est important de choisir les valeurs accordes ces variables de manire minimiser les puissances de pompage requises et maximiser le transfert de chaleur entre les fluides.

Objectifs
L'objectif principal de ce mmoire consiste dvelopper une mthode pour maximiser les performances et minimiser les cots des rseaux d'changeurs de chaleur et des cycles de rfrigration en optimisant la gomtrie des changeurs de chaleur utiliss et le rgime d'opration (pressions, dbits, tempratures, carts de temprature minimum). Pour atteindre l'objectif principal de ce mmoire, nous devrons d'abord, dans le deuxime chapitre, dvelopper un modle permettant de calculer les cots relis l'achat et l'opration d'un changeur de chaleur avec condensation d'un fluide. D faudra alors trouver une faon de quantifier le transfert de chaleur dans un coulement changement de phase. Ce modle sera utilis pour accomplir la tche des chapitres trois et quatre. Par la suite, nous devrons identifier les mthodes de design des rseaux d'changeurs de chaleur et implanter ces mthodes numriquement. L'objectif est d'obtenir un modle permettant l'optimisation des changeurs et des condenseurs du rseau d'changeurs. Nous pourrons alors dterminer pour une application donne, la diffrence de temprature au point de pincement offrant une combinaison d'changeurs prsentant un cot total minimal. Le point de pincement est le point o la diffrence de temprature est minimale entre deux coulements. Dans le cas des rseaux d'changeurs de chaleur, le point de pincement se situe l o la diffrence de temprature est minimale entre la courbe composite des coulements de fluides froids et la courbe composite des coulements de fluides chauds. Une courbe composite reprsente la somme de plusieurs coulements individuels avec en abscisses l'enthalpie et en ordonnes la temprature. Pour un intervalle de temprature

donn, la courbe composite a un dbit capacitif gal la somme des dbits capacitifs des coulements individuels dans cet intervalle [5]. La dernire partie du travail consistera modliser un cycle de rfrigration de compression de vapeur. Pour ce faire, nous devrons d'abord dvelopper un modle d'vaporateur puis avec le modle de condenseur obtenu prcdemment, nous combinerons les deux changeurs un modle de compresseur pour modliser un cycle complet. Ultimement, le but sera d'utiliser ce modle afin de dterminer le cycle optimal pour une application donne.

Mthodologie
Le principal outil de travail utilis pour atteindre les objectifs de ce mmoire est Matlab. Tous les modles permettant de calculer les cots d'achat et d'opration des systmes seront implants dans ce logiciel. Afin d'atteindre les objectifs mentionns prcdemment, nous devrons d'abord dterminer toutes les variables gomtriques en jeu et tablir les valeurs limites que nous accorderons ces variables. Pour l'tude du condenseur, les seules informations de dpart dont nous disposons sont les conditions d'opration. On identifiera donc les relations permettant d'exprimer les valeurs des coefficients de transfert de chaleur et les puissances de pompage par unit de longueur dans les changeurs en fonction des variables gomtriques et des conditions d'opration qui varient selon le cas tudi. Les relations empiriques disponibles dans la littrature seront utilises. Les valeurs des coefficients de transfert de chaleur et des puissances de pompage sont requises pour dimensionner l'changeur de chaleur et dterminer les cots d'achat du matriel. Nous serons alors en mesure d'implanter un modle dans Matlab. Ce modle pourra nous donner les cots du systme pour une gomtrie donne. tant donn que notre but consiste optimiser cette gomtrie, nous couplerons le modle obtenu un algorithme gntique. Ainsi, partir du rgime d'opration (dbits massiques des fluides, tempratures d'entre et de sortie, pressions d'opration) associ un cas spcifique, nous serons en mesure d'obtenir la gomtrie de l'changeur de chaleur offrant un cot total minimal dans cette situation.

L'algorithme gntique sera ici utilis puisqu'il offre l'avantage d'identifier la solution optimale en ne calculant qu'une petite fraction de tous les designs possibles. Pour l'tude des rseaux d'changeurs, il faudra d'abord dterminer de quelle faon nous couplerons les fluides dans les changeurs de chaleur. Pour y parvenir, nous utiliserons une mthode base sur l'analyse de pincement. Cette mthode permet de rcuprer un maximum de chaleur tout en respectant un cart de temprature minimal entre les fluides chaud et froid dans les changeurs de chaleur. Nous implmenterons cette mthode dans Matlab de telle sorte qu' partir des tempratures d'entre, des tempratures cibles et des dbits des diffrents fluides impliqus dans le systme, notre code sera en mesure de dterminer le nombre d'changeurs de chaleur utiliser ainsi que les fluides utiliser dans chacun de ces changeurs. On pourra alors dterminer le design optimal de chaque changeur et de chaque condenseur avec un algorithme gntique et cumuler les cots des changeurs pour un cot global minimal. Encore une fois, l'algorithme gntique sera utilis pour l'optimisation. Pour un cas donn, on dterminera partir de cet algorithme la combinaison d'changeurs optimale, c'est dire la gomtrie et la dimension optimale de chaque changeur et ce pour chaque diffrence de temprature minimale considre. On pourra utiliser les rsultats obtenus pour dire avec quel cart de temprature on obtient un cot minimal. Le dernier objectif consiste optimiser un cycle de compression de vapeur. Ce type de cycle thermodynamique sert rpondre des besoins en rfrigration et utilise un condenseur. Les trois composantes principales de ce systme sont les deux changeurs de chaleur, un condenseur et un vaporateur ainsi qu'un compresseur. Nous dbuterons d'abord par crer un modle pour l'vaporateur. En utilisant, une dmarche semblable celle utilise dans le chapitre 2, consacr la modlisation du condenseur, nous devrons utiliser des relations mathmatiques permettant de calculer les taux de transfert de chaleur et les puissances de pompage requises. Ces relations devront tre exprimes en fonction de la gomtrie de l'changeur et de son rgime d'opration. partir de ce modle, du modle obtenu au chapitre 2 et d'un modle de compresseur simplifi, nous aurons tous les lments ncessaires pour modliser le circuit thermique. El s'agira alors de coupler les trois lments de faon respecter le rgime du cycle. En combinant une fois de plus notre

modle un algorithme gntique, nous obtiendrons un outil d'optimisation permettant d'optimiser la gomtrie des deux changeurs du cycle, les pressions d'opration et les dbits des fluides afin d'atteindre un cot total minimal pour une application particulire.

10

Chapitre 2

Article # 1

Titre: Optimal geometry and flow arrangement for minimizing the cost of shell-andtube condensers Co-auteurs: Benot Allen, Louis Gosselin Journal: International Journal of Energy Research, Volume 32, Pages 958 969

11

Abstract
This paper presents a model for estimating the total cost of shell-and-tube heat exchangers with condensation in tubes or in the shell, as well as a designing strategy for minimizing this cost. The optimization process is based on a genetic algorithm (GA). The global cost includes the energy cost (i.e., pumping power) and the initial purchase cost of the exchanger. The choice of the best exchanger is based on its annualized total cost. Eleven design variables are optimized. Ten are associated with the heat exchanger geometry: tube pitch, tube layout patterns, baffle spacing at the center, baffle spacing at the inlet and outlet, baffle cut, tube-to-baffle diametrical clearance, shell-to-baffle diametrical clearance, tube bundle outer diameter, shell diameter and tube outer diameter. The last design variable indicates whether the condensing fluid should flow in the tubes or in the shell. Two case studies are presented and the results obtained show that the procedure can rapidly identify the best design for a given heat transfer process between two fluids, one of which is condensing.

12

2.1. Introduction
Shell-and-tube heat exchangers are widely used in industry, seizing as much as 65% of the market [5]. Therefore heat transfer and fluid flow within these heat exchangers (HEs) have been studied extensively [6-13], and many empirical relations are available to estimate their performance [5,14,15]. With these models, the geometry of shell-and-tube HEs have been optimized, mainly for minimizing their cost for a given process [16], either by testing all possibilities or with other procedures, including genetic algorithms [6,17-23]. Most of the times, the geometry optimization of shell-and-tube HEs is made for single phase flows. Despite their importance in several applications (e.g., vapor heating systems, refrigeration, heat pumps, and power cycles), the modeling, design, and optimization of shell-and-tube HEs in the presence of phase change (i.e., ebullition or condensation) has received far less attention. Botsch and Stephan developed a model to predict pressure drop and vapor temperatures in a shell-and-tube condenser [24]. This model was developed from the experimental studies of Alcock and Webb [25]. Browne and Bansal showed the influence of tube surface geometry and coolant velocity on the overall heat transfer coefficient [26]. Nevertheless, an integrated modeling of the effects of detailed geometrical features on heat transfer and fluid flow in condensers, and the cost minimization of condensers by optimizing their geometry is yet to be addressed. In this paper, we develop a model for estimating the cost of shell-and-tube condensers with one tube pass, based on empirical correlations. We proposed an optimization procedure that determines whether condensation should occur in the tubes or in the shell for minimal cost. The procedure is adapted from a genetic algorithm which was initially developed for optimizing single phase HEs [16].

2.2. Objective function

The purchase cost of a HE is mostly governed by its total heat transfer surface area A. Different empirical relations are available to associate a cost with a given surface area. In this paper, we used the following relation to evaluate the purchase cost PC [5]:

13

PC = 3.28xl0 4 | I 80

SMSPT

(2.1)

where PC is expressed in $, and the heat transfer area A in m . The dimensionless correction factors S p , ST and JM account respectively for the pressures and temperatures of operation, and the materials considered. Their values could be found in Ref. [5]. In addition to the initial cost, the operating cost of the HE should be considered in a life-cycle assessment of the device. The main contribution to the operation cost OC comes from the pumping power required to drive the fluids [27]:
oc=(E, +

E,)xHxe 1000

where Es and E, are the pumping powers for the shell and tube sides respectively, H, the annual operating period and e, the electricity cost. Finally, combining (2.1) and (2.2), the total cost of the HE is expressed in terms of annuities: /(l + /)" TC = PC + OC (l + / ) " - l

(2.3)

Our objective is to minimize the total cost, TC, by varying the condenser geometry. The problem is similar to that reported in [16] for single phase HEs, but the very fact that one of the fluids condense in the HE requires a new model for estimating the overall heat transfer coefficients and pressure drops, as well as an adapted set of design variables.

2.3. Heat transfer calculations

In a design procedure, the heat transfer area A is unknown a priori, but it must satisfy the process requirements in terms of heat transfer rate [14]: A= - U*TlmF (2.4)

14

where Q is the specified heat transfer rate to exchange between the shell and tube fluids. The correction factor F is used to account for the reduction of the effective temperature difference for heat exchange when the number of tube pass is larger than 1. In this paper, we consider HE with only one tube pass and one shell pass and consequently, F = \ . In the present work, we are interested in two configurations of shell-and-tube HEs: i) with horizontal in-tube condensation, as shown in Fig. 2.1 and ii) with condensation in a vertical shell as shown in Fig. 2.2. Such HEs are commonly found in different installations such as power plants [15].

15

Tc,i Th.o

h
Figure 2.1

LGP

-+-

Lc

"LP

Tube length

The schematic representation of a straighttube heat exchanger with one pass on tube shell and condensation on tube side.

16

T
c,o

>1

Tu

v 7A,O

Figure 2.2

Schematic representation of a vertical heat exchanger when condensation occurs on shell side.

As we consider straight-tube HE s with one pass on tube shell, the HE can be separated into three sub-sections (see Fig. 2.1) according to the hot fluid phase: i) segment with vapor phase (GP); ii) segment with condensation (C); and iii) segment with liquid phase (LP). The area of each zone is given by

AJP

CP

U G P ' * * Im.GP

A, o *i.p ^LPAT,m.LP

Q,

(2.5)

and the total area A required in Eq. (2.1) for estimating the cost is simply the summation of the surface area of each zone, hence A = AGP + A c + AwIn reality, heat loss will occur between condenser and its environment. Since information about environment is specific for a given case, here we assume no heat loss to the environment. Moreover, it is a common assumption in literature to neglect heat loss to

17

the environment [14]. The heat transfer rate in each sub-section is thus easily computable, either from the condensing (hot) fluid point-of-view
QCP =
m

^ p h C P (T h i - T h5al )

Q c = m h i fg

Qu, = m h c p h L P (T h s a t - T h o )

(2.6)

or the cold fluid standpoint

QGP = K c p x (Tc,0 - T c a ) Q c = m c c p c (Tc<2 - TcA ) Q LP = m c c p c [TcX - 7 \ ) (2.7)

The overall heat transfer coefficients (UGP, UC, and Uw) in Eq. (2.5) depend on the HE geometry and on the fluids phase (i.e., liquid, vapor, mixture). The general expression for the overall heat transfer coefficient based on tube outer diameter is given by [14]: 1 h. _ ' d0 H d j d r ) 2k. d d 1 d h. d.

U=

(2.8)

where hs and h, are respectively the heat transfer coefficients on the shell side and tube side, Rs and R, are fouling resistances for both sides. The calculation of Eq. (2.8) requires the knowledge of both the shell-side and tube-side heat transfer coefficients. These depend on whether the condensing fluid flows in tubes or in the shell. Therefore, the determination of hs and h, in each case is presented in the following two sub-sections.

2.3.1 Heat transfer coefficients with in-tube condensation

Consider that the cold fluid flows in the shell. We assume that the shell-side heat transfer coefficient (hs) is fairly uniform throughout the HE, i.e. that hs is the same in each subsections of the exchanger. In other words, in Eq. (2.8) only the tube internal heat transfer coefficient h, varies depending on the phase (superheated vapor, condensing fluid, subcooled liquid) of the in-tube fluid. The calculation of hs is based on the Bell-Delaware method [14]. For the sake of concision, we do not repeat here the entire procedure for calculating the heat transfer coefficient in the shell with this well documented method. Details can be found elsewhere (e.g., Refs. [16] and [14]). The procedure relies on the calculation of an ideal heat transfer

18

coefficient for perfect cross-flow on tube bank, corrected for taking into account the various bypasses and inherent imperfections. We considered that the in-tube flow was turbulent (Re values are typically well above the critical value for laminar-turbulent transition). The calculation of the tube-side heat transfer coefficients for single phase flow (i.e., hucp, h,w) is straightforward as several correlations for turbulent pipe flow are available [14,16]. We used that recommended by Sieder and Tate [28]. For calculating the heat transfer coefficient in the condensation zone of the tube (huc), we considered the correlation developed by Chato [29]:
1/4

l.C

0.555 S P h J ( p h J - p K g ) k l . i hh M hJ {T h , sal -T w )d i

(2.9)

with (2.10)

'/

fg + g Cp.h.l Vh.sal

T J

The calculation of the condensation internal heat transfer coefficient ht,c requires the knowledge of the internal wall temperature Tw, which is unknown a priori. Furthermore, the tube internal wall temperature Tw is a function of the position in the HE. Therefore, we replaced Th,sat- Tw in Eqs. (2.9) and (2.10) by the logarithmic mean temperature difference:
\* h.sat *wt\)
1

ATh,sat-w

\*
1

h,sat w,\

*w,2)

(2.11)

In
V

h.sat h.sat

-T
* w,2 )

where Twj and Twj are evaluated at the inlet and outlet of the condensation sub-section of the HE (see Fig. 2.1). Eq. (2.11) provides an estimate of the wall-to-fluid temperature difference in the condensation sub-section [28]. An iterative procedure allows to overcome the difficulty introduced by the fact that wall temperatures are required to estimate ht,c, and vice versa. Because we do not know initially the wall temperatures Twj and T w j, they are first guessed. These guesses are used to make a first estimate of Thsal_w, Eq. (2.11). The

19

obtained value is inserted in Eqs. (2.9) and (2.10) to calculate huC- The overall heat transfer coefficient Uc is then estimated, Eq. (2.8). Next, the wall temperatures are calculated from the equivalent thermal circuits shown in Fig. 2.3.

T,

IT**-

R +

' K

Figure 2.3

Thermal circuits to determine for Twj and Tw,2-

A simple thermal circuit analysis reveals that

1
\ * h.sat *cj j

T
1

=T
* h.sat

d-.
(

w.\

d M d p / d , ) , d0 +R.+ 2k

(2.12)

with Tcj given by the right-hand side of Eq. (2.7). TWi2 is obtained similarly. The updated Twj and Twj are used as new guesses in Eqs. (2.9) and (2.11). The procedure is repeated until convergence, yielding an approximate value for Uc-

20

2.3.2 Heat transfer coefficients with shell-side condensation

Now, consider the case where the cold fluid flows in the tubes. We will assume that the tube-side heat transfer coefficient (h,) is fairly uniform throughout the HE, i.e. that h, is the same in each sub-sections of the HE. It is determined as in Section 2.3.1 for single phase flow, i.e. with the correlation of Sieder and Tate [28]. It is now the shell-side heat transfer coefficient hs that varies depending on the phase of the hot fluid. The calculation of the shell side heat transfer coefficients for single phase flow (i.e. hs,w, hSiGp) is determined using once again the Bell-Delaware method. For calculating the heat transfer coefficient in the condensation zone of the shell, hs,c, we consider film-wise condensation as recommended by Ref. [5]. The condensing vapor wets the surface of the tubes forming a continuous film. Therefore, the heat transfer coefficient on shell side hSiC corresponds to that of a condensing film. Following the procedure recommended by [5], we combined Nusselt correlation for condensation
r ^=0.943 k i P h . i \ 8 ^ kM h ,AT

(2.13)

(where AT is the temperature difference across the condensate film on the surface) to the energy balance mhif =h sC xd 0 L c NAT, where N is the number of tubes in the bundle yielding the following expression for the heat transfer coefficient:
(

h s , c =l.35k h.l

PhldogN^

(2.14)

2.4. Pressure drop calculations

The pressure drops on tube and shell sides are required to evaluate the pumping power requirement. This information is needed to calculate the operating cost of HEs, Eq. (2.2). Again, we perform the analysis separately for the case with in-tube condensation and the case with condensation in the shell.

21

2.4.1 Pressure drop with in-tube condensation

For the case where the hot fluid flows in the tubes, shell side pressure drop (APS) is computed using the Bell-Delaware method [14,16]. The total in-tube pressure drop is the summation of three contributions (i.e., power dissipated by the vapor, liquid and mixture phases), AP, = APt GP + APt c + APt LP . In-tube pressure drops APt Gp and APt LP are due to single phase flows, and thus are straightforward to evaluate [5]:
( A C

^Pt.GP =

^JGP^i GP'-GP

+ 0.5

y 2 p r J h , G P y t.GP
^t.LP =
S

( A S

4fvk
di

\
. 1

LP'-'LP

Ph LpV,LP

(2.15)

where/G/> and/z./> are the friction factors for the single phase sub-sections (GP, LP) and are calculated for turbulent flows b y / = (0.7901n(Re)-1.64) 2 [28]. The factor 0.5 in the expression of APt c p stands for the sudden contraction of the fluid at the tubes inlet and the factor 1 in the expression of APt LP stands for the sudden expansion of the fluid at the tubes outlet [30]. The pressure drop during condensation will be evaluated assuming an equivalent homogeneous flow [15]. The two-phase density and two-phase viscosity are defined respectively as [15].

SMEM
0-*)/V f +*/>*.!

J_=_^L+!z
Mh.C Ph. g Ph.,

(2.16)

where x is the quality (i.e., local fraction of the flow that is in the vapor phase). Introducing the two-phase in-tube Reynolds number, Re c = Amhl\JCdlflhjC), it is possible to estimate the local pressure gradient with [15]. dP
dz

32 frhhh2 X2Ph.c<li

(2.17)

where the friction factor is approximated by / = 0.046(Rec )"2 for fully developed turbulent flow inside smooth tubes. Eq. (2.17) can be integrated from the inlet of the

22

condensation zone to its outlet [15]. For simplicity, we assume that x varies linearly in tube direction (x = z/Lc). Combining Eqs. (2.16) and (2.17) and changing the integration variable dz for dx, the intube pressure drop in the condensation zone is approximated by: 32m9/5 ( p h M h , ) " 5 Lc \ (\x)p.+xph.
(2 18)

4 6

/ W , 4 x d, p K % P h ,

ft / V* l[(lx)Mh,g+xfihJ]
v I >

The result of the integral / is

>"*,, 2Ph.gMh,,+Phj

(2.19)

+W A,// M

/S

-W X .

-4//w9/vM}

The pumping power for the shell side is:

j^P/n

5 =

^^
r e I pump

(2.20)

The total power dissipated on the tube side has three contributions (one contribution for each segment of the flow), Et = E tGP + E lC + E l L P . E,,GP and EuLp being attributed to single phase flow are calculated similarly to Eq. (2.20). Euc is due to condensing flow. As shown in Eq. (2.16), the density / \ c is a function of the quality x. Integrating between the entrance and the exit of the condensing zone assuming that the quality varies linearly with position, an average density is achieved, p h C = 1p h g p h J \P h g + p h l ) Then, the power required for driving the two phase flow is
_ ^..C^Ph^+Ph.,) c= ' ~~yn rV~n
LJ

lpumpPh, g Ph,l

23

2.4.2 Pressure drop with shell-side condensation

When condensation occurs in the shell, the total in-tube pressure drop is easily determined with the following formula [5]:

AP t =np

'^ + l. 5 l
4

(2.22)

where the factor 1.5 stands for the fluid contraction and expansion at the inlet and outlet of the tube bundle. The total shell side pressure drop is the summation of three contributions (i.e., power dissipated by the vapor, liquid and mixture phases): AP s =AP sGP + AP sC +AP sLP Single phase sub-section pressure drops
(APS,GP

(2.23) and APs,w) are calculated using

Bell-Delaware method [14]. Details can be found elsewhere [16]. This method cannot be directly applied for the pressure drop in the condensing flow sub-section (APs,c)- Therefore, we used the separated-flow model proposed by G.F. Hewitt et al. [15]. The condensation sub-section pressure drop (APSyC) has two contributions: the cross-flow zone pressure drop (APSyc,Cf) and the window-flow zone pressure drop (APs,c,wf) [5]: *P,,c=P,XM+P,^ (2.24)

For the cross flow sub-section, the pressure drop is obtained using the correlation developed by Chisholm for turbulent flow in shell-and-tube heat exchanger [15,31]: y r j =l + (Y 2 -l)(x-x 2 ) 0 M S +x U 3 1 (2.25)

where yrLo 2 represents the two-phase multiplier and Y 2 is the Chisholm parameter. They are defined by the following expressions:

24

=A VT

(%L

(%)

, -/, t r^ = f%)x

" (%),

(2-26)

The subscripts L0 and GO refer, respectively, to the total flow having liquid phase properties and the total flow having the gas phase properties. (d/ > /3z) to and {dP/dz)G0 can be determined by using directly the Bell-Delaware method because single phase flows are considered. We performed an integral on JC between 0 and 1 and combining Eqs. (2.25) and (2.26), we finally obtained the following expression for the cross-flow zone pressure drop: ^ W = ( T ] V "z Lc\[l + (Y2-l)(x-x2)+xl*}lx )LO 0 (2.27)

For the window-flow zone pressure drop, we used Grant correlation for turbulent flow in shell-and-tube heat exchanger [15,31]: = l + (K 2 -l)x (2.28)

"to

We applied the same procedure than for the cross-flow zone pressure drop and we obtained the following expression:

^P,.c^=[]
V oZ ) L O

L c \[l + (Y 2 -\)x}tx
o

(2.29)

Considering all these pressure drops contributions, the shell and the tube side pumping powers were calculated in a way akin to that described in Section 2.4.1.

2.5. Design variables and procedure for determining the cost of a design
The geometry of the HE has a strong effect on the overall heat transfer coefficient and pressure drops, and thus on its total cost (purchase and operation). For a given process, the geometry leading to the lowest cost is difficult to determine. Complex optimal tradeoffs

25

have to be found. Moreover, the side where the condensing fluid flows (tube or shell) also influences the result. Here, we considered 11 design variables to optimize the geometry of the shell-and-tube HE: 1) the tube pitch (p) can take four values: l.2d0, \.3d0, \Ad 0 or \.5d0; 2) the tube layout patterns can take three values: triangular (30), rotated square (45) or square (90); 3) the baffle spacing at the center (Lh,Cemer) can take eight values ranking from 0.2D to 0.55D; 4) the baffle spacing at the inlet and outlet (Lt,,0 = Lbj) can also take eight values ranging from lLh,Cenur to \.6Lb,cemer', 5) the baffle cut (B) can take eight values: 25, 30, 40 or 45 %; 6) the tube-to-baffle diametrical clearance (A-b) can take four values: Q.0\do, 0.04do, 0.07do or Q.\0do; 7) the shell-to-baffle diametrical clearance (As.b) can take four values: 0.01D, 0.04D, 0.07D or 0.10D; 8) the tube bundle outer diameter (D0,i) can take four values: 0.8, 0.85, 0.9 or 0.95 times the baffle diameter (D - As.b); 9) the shell diameter (D) can take sixteen values ranging from 300 to 1050 mm, 10) the tube outer diameter (d0) can take eight values ranging from 15.87 mm (5/8 po) to 63.5 mm (2.5 po). A tube thickness is associated with each diameter value in accordance with the standards of the Tubular Exchanger Manufacturer Associations (TEMA, 1988). Here, we considered tubes with thickest walls, and 11) the HE side where condensation takes place: tubes or shell. The first 10 design variables are as in Ref. [16], but it is important to remember that the HE model (i.e., how the performance is affected by the geometry) used here is different, as described in the previous sections. Furthermore, the last design variable (i.e., side of condensation) is specific to this problem. Figure below is taken from a previous paper [16] and shows geometrical design variables considered in this work.

26

K S r
,
\ @

VL

M
b,i

^b.center

M M 1V
^b.o

30e

\@ 7
@ ^

-47d

90e

60e

OO G-O
P
Geometrical design variables.

%e

Figure 2.4

An iterative procedure is required to determine the tubes length L and the heat exchange surface A. For this problem, the tubes length is divided in three sections (two single phase flow sections and one condensing flow section). These three lengths are determined through the following expressions [14]:
_
~J \I
C

l-T:v

I
"LP

-_ALP_

7tdN

ndN

ndN

(2.30)

AGP, AC and Aw are unavailable initially. Consequently, tubes length values are determined through an iterative procedure. The values of AGP, AC and Aw are first guessed, corresponding tube length of each zone (LGp, L c and Lw) is calculated. With these values, we can calculate the overall heat transfer coefficient of each sub-section. Values of AGP, AC and Aw are finally updated with E q. (2.5). These surface area values are used as new

27

guesses and the operation is repeated. After each iteration, the updated surface areas of each sub-section are compared with those computed at the previous iteration. The procedure is stopped when the relative difference between two successive iterations is less than 1% for each section. We finally obtain values for AGp, A c , Aw, LGP, LC and Lw- The total heat transfer area A can now be calculated along with the purchase cost PC, Eq. (2.1).

2.6. Optimization procedure with genetic algorithms

With the eleven design variables considered, more than 134 million different HEs designs can be considered. The time required to evaluate every possible combination is quite large (see Section 2.7). Here, we used genetic algorithms (GA) to optimize the HEs for a given heat transfer process. Genetic algorithms tend to converge to a global minimum solution by evaluating only a small fraction of the design space so that the time of calculation required to find the best design is decreased. The detailed GA optimization procedure is available elsewhere [16-17].

2.7. Test cases

In this section, we consider two application cases. The specifications of the first test case are presented in Table 2.1. A mass flow rate of 3 kg/s of hot water vapor at a pressure of 9.5 bars has to be cooled down from 182C to 157C. The fluid is under liquid state at the outlet. The saturation temperature of water at this pressure is 177.66C [32] so there is condensation. We suppose that the condensing side pressure drop for this process is small enough compared to the average pressure to neglect the effect of the pressure variations on the condensing temperature. The validity of this approximation is verified later in this section. This process is achieved with 16 kg/s of cold water entering the HE at a temperature of 4C to cool down the hot water. The outlet temperature of the cooling fluid is not known a priori. There is no phase change on the cold fluid side. Stainless steel is used as material of construction. For the considered materials, operating pressure and temperature of operation, the capital cost correction factors in Eq. (2.1) take respective

28

values of M = 2.9, p = 1.9, b r - 1.6 [5]. Processes similar to that of case study #1 are used in chemical engineering and in HVAC (i.e., vapor heating systems). Table 2.1 Process requirements for case study #1 (H = 5000 h year-1, e = 0.1 $kW~'lf', n = 20 years, / = 0.05, npump = 0.85). Condensing fluid Fluid -2, Pressure (N m~ ) Flow (kg s_1) Fouling resistance (m -2 K W -1 ) Inlet Temperature (C) Phase Density (kg m~3) Heat capacity (J kg -1 K"1) Dynamic viscosity (N s nf ) Thermal conductivity (W m -1 K"1) Outlet Temperature (C) Phase Density (kg m ) Heat capacity (J kg"1 K"1) Dynamic viscosity (N s m -2 ) Thermal conductivity (W nf ' K_1) Condensation zone Saturation temperature (C) Latent heat (J kg"1) Water 9.5 x 105 3 0.000275 Cold fluid Water 1.013xl0 5 16 0.000275

182 Vapor 4.8353 2592.9 1.51 x 10"5 0.036182

4 Liquid 1000 4207.5 0.0015672 0.56867

157 Liquid 910.58 4325.1 0.00017383 0.68093

Liquid 1000 4207.5 0.0015672 0.56867

177.66 2 022 360

Table 2.2 contains the specifications for the second example. 6 kg/s of water enters the HE at 4C to cool down 1.5 kg/s of refrigerant R-134a entering at a pressure of 10.164 bars. The refrigerant enters the HE under vapor phase at 50C and exits under liquid phase at a temperature of 30C. There is thus condensation of the refrigerant in the HE as the phase change temperature at that pressure is 40C [32]. Here again we consider constant condensing temperature for the same reason as in case study #1 and the validity of this

29

approximation will be verified later. Stainless steel is once again used as material of construction. The capital cost factors used in Eq. (2.1) for this example are \t = 2.9, 6p = 1.9, or = 1.6 [5]. Such process is typical of those encountered in refrigeration cycles [33,34]. Table 2.2 Process requirements for case study #2 (H = 5000 h year"1, e = 0.1 SkW'h - 1 , n = 20 years, / = 0.05, npump = 0.85). Condensing fluid Fluid -2-, Pressure (N m~ ) Flow (kg s_1) Fouling resistance (m~2 K W_1) Inlet Temperature (C) Phase Density (kg m -3 ) Heat capacity (J kg-1 K_1) Dynamic viscosity (N s m -2 ) Thermal conductivity (W nf ' K_1) Outlet Temperature (C) Phase Density (kg nf 3 ) Heat capacity (J kg-1 K"1) Dynamic viscosity (N s ra" ) Thermal conductivity (W m _l K_1) Condensation zone Saturation temperature (C) Latent heat (J kg"1) R-134a 1.064 xlO 6 1.5 0.000175 Cold fluid Water 1.013 xlO 5 6 0.000275 4 Liquid 1000 4207.5 0.0015672 0.56867

50 Vapor 46.825 1084.9 1.28 xlO' 5 0.016075

30 Liquid 1155.6 1486 0.00016581 0.075623

Liquid 1000 4207.5 0.0015672 0.56867

40 163 030

The minimal cost designs found by the GA for the two case studies considered are presented in Table 2.3. This table presents the optimal design parameters of the HEs and the side where the condensing fluid must flow to obtain this optimal design. Five runs of

30

the program have been performed for each case study, and the algorithm found the designs shown in Table 2.3 every time.

Table 2.3

Minimal cost heat exchanger geometries as found by the GA. Case study #1 Case study #2 1.54, 90 0.3D 0.33D 25 0.01^ 0.01D 0.80(D - As.b) 300 50.8 12 tubes 14.56 26.32 2.89 x 104 1.11 xlO 4 213.59 6 810.30 7 023 .89 2100 15

1. Tube pitch, p (mm) 2. Tube layout pattern (deg.) 3. Baffle spacing at centre, Lb_cenler (mm) 4. Baffle spacing at inlet/outlet, Lb,, = Lb,0 (mm) 5. Baffle cut, B (%) 6. Tube-to-baffle diametrical clearance, A,.b (mm) 7. Shell-to-baffle diametrical clearance, As.b (mm) 8. Tube bundle outer diameter, Doti (mm) 9. Shell diameter, D (mm) 10. Tube outer diameter, d0 (mm) 11. Number of tubes, N 12. HE side where condensation occurs Tube length, L (m) Total surface area, A (m2) Pressure drop on shell side, APS (Pa) Pressure drop on tube side, AP, (Pa) Operating cost, OC ($ year-1) Initial cost including interest, IC ($ year-1) Total cost, TC ($ year-1) Number of evaluations Calculation time (s)

\-5d0 90 0.55D 0.55D 28 0.01rfo 0.1D 0.80(D-A,. fr ) 450 15.9 261 shell 6.96 90.55 9.56 xlO 3 2.84 x 104 2371.10 25 241.98 27 613.08 3120 16

There is an important difference between the two test case solutions. The total cost of the first design (27 613 $) is much higher than that of test case #2 (6 968 $). This is due to the mass flow rates considered that are more important for the first case. Furthermore, condensation occurs in the shell for test case #1 and in the tubes in case #2, which demonstrates the optimization opportunity related to the flow arrangement.

31

Table 2.3 also contains the pressure drops of the optimal design for each case study (AP,). For case #1, we have condensation in the shell. We obtain a value of 9.56 x 103 Pa, which represents 1 % of the shell operating pressure. For case #2, the condensation occurs in tubes and the pressure drop value is 1.11 x 104 Pa and it represents 11% of the operating pressure. In each case, the pressure drop is considered small enough to approximate a constant condensing temperature, validating the approximation described above. As we said in Section 6, more than 134 million different HEs are possible with the different values that can take the eleven design variables. In order to show the advantage of the GA in this application, all the possible designs have been tested in order to find the best one for a given process. The calculation time and design evaluations for test case #1 and test case #2 are respectively 27 and 31 hours. These global tests led exactly to the optimal designs found by the G A for cases #1 and #2 reported in Table III. Such conclusions were also achieved in [16] for single phase HE. However, here the global testing of all possible designs was much longer because the heat transfer and fluid flow calculations (Sections 2.3 and 2.4) are more complex, and require more iterative processes (e.g., for evaluating the tube wall temperature or the length occupied by segments G,C,L, etc.). These results allow us to conclude that the geometry found by the GA is the global minimum. The main difference between the two optimization approaches is the calculation time needed to find the best HE. It took 16 seconds to the GA versus about thirty hours for the global test. The GA only had to test 3120 models to find the optimal design among the 134 217 728 possible. This represents only 0.0023% of all possible designs, which demonstrate the usefulness of the GA for the resolution of condenser design problem.

2.8. Conclusion
In this paper, we presented an integrated model to evaluate the pressure drops and the heat transfer surface area required for a shell-and-tube HE with condensation, either in the tube or in the shell. These quantities allow us to calculate the initial cost and the operating cost of the condenser. We considered eleven design variables regarding the geometry of the HE and the side where condensation occurs (i.e., shell or tube). We studied two test cases

32

where we had to identify the optimal condenser architecture for a given process with condensation. Our purpose was to find the HE with the lowest total cost in terms of annuities. Optimization was performed using a genetic algorithm (GA). We compared the solution found by the GA with the one found with a global test of every possible HE. The comparison proved that the GA identified the global minimum in each of the cases studied, and determine on what side the condensation should take place. Here we only considered condensation of a fluid on one side of a HE with one tube pass. Further research could focus on HE with ebullition or on more refined modeling of the condensation. The study of multiple tube passes shell-and-tube HE with condensation could also be of interest.

33

Chapitre 3

Article # 2

Titre: Optimizing heat exchanger networks with genetic algorithms for designing each heat exchanger including condensers Co-auteurs: Benot Allen, Myriam Savard Goguen, Louis Gosselin Journal: Applied Thermal Engineering, Volume 29, Pages 3437 3444

34

Abstract
The paper communication presents a procedure for the optimization of heat exchanger network. The procedure first uses pinch analysis to maximize the heat recovery for a given minimum temperature difference. Using a genetic algorithm (GA), each exchanger of the network is designed in order to minimize its annual cost. Eleven design variables related to the exchanger geometry are considered. For exchanger involving hot or cold utilities, mass flow rate of the utility fluid is also considered as a design variable because there is no restriction on utility outlet temperature. Partial or complete condensation of hot utility fluid (i.e, water and vapor) is allowed. Purchase cost and operational cost are considered in the optimization of each exchanger. Combining every exchanger minimized cost with the cost of hot utility and cold utility gives the total cost of the HEN for a particular ATmin. The minimum temperature difference giving the more economical heat exchanger network is chosen as the optimal solution. Two test cases are studied, for which we show the minimized total cost as a function of the minimum temperature difference. A comparison is also made between the optimal solution with the cost of utilities and without it. Myriam Savard-Goguen contributed significantly to the realization of this paper. She made a first version of the heat exchanger network design model in Matlab. This model established a strong base to the realization of the final model. Redaction of the paper and creation of the final model has been made by Benoit Allen and Louis Gosselin.

35

3.1. Introduction
Heat exchanger networks (HEN) are required in applications that involve heat exchange between two or more fluids [5]. They are found in many industries such as crude oil distillation [35,36], furnace systems [37], multipurpose batch plants [38], cooling water systems [39,40] and chemical plants [41]. These industries generally consume a large amount of energy. In some batch plants, energy consumption can reach 10% of total expenses of a company [38]. Well-designed HENs can significantly contribute to decrease energy consumption. When designing a HEN, fluid match possibilities and design options for each exchanger of the network are tremendously numerous. Therefore, an efficient method must be used to design the best network in regards to the purchase and operating costs as well as to the heat recovery, the primary purpose of a HEN. Many optimization techniques have been developed in the past for the heat exchanger network problem. A review on the topic is available [42]. Pinch analysis is one of the most prominent approaches to maximize heat recovery, even though other methods exist (e.g., tree searching algorithm method [43], neural networks [44], mixed integer nonlinear programming that allows any fluid match [45], etc.). Once the HEN is designed, for example with the pinch analysis, its cost is often calculated based on the required surface area for each heat exchanger with assumed heat transfer coefficients. This approach has several limitations. For example, it does not include the pumping power cost and provide no information relative to the design of the heat exchangers (HEs) themselves. Nevertheless, some authors have improved the approach. For example, FraustoHernandez et al. [46], Polley et al. [47], Silva and Zemp [48] included a pressure drop analysis to assess the pumping power cost. Optimization methods involving the design of the heat exchangers of the HEN have been studied by Ravagnani et al. [49], Polley and Panjeh Shahi [50], Markowski [35], Roque and Lona [51], and Ravagnani and Caballero [52]. However, the number of design variables considered for these

36

exchangers are often fairly limited. Furthermore, boiling and condensation are not considered. In the present paper, we use pinch analysis with splitting to optimize HENs. As the hot utility was assumed to produce water vapor, the HENs generated in this paper include condensers. Then, a genetic algorithm (GA) designs in details each heat exchanger for minimizing its cost (purchase and operation costs). The mass flow rates of the utility fluids are also optimized. In the end, the optimal minimal temperature difference, HEN and HEs are determined. Among the innovative aspects of this work are the use of GAs, the level of details for HE optimization, and the consideration of condensers in the HEN, and the optimization of utility fluid mass flow rates.

3.2. HEN Problem formulation and design procedure

The heat exchanger network (HEN) optimization problem is well documented in the literature [5,35-52]. Therefore, we do not repeat here all the details related to this problem. This paper relies on pinch analysis to determine the best fluid matches. Each fluid involved must reach a target temperature (7V,/,, 7V,C) and is provided at a supply temperature (TSih, TStC). The mass flow rates are also assumed to be known. The network design is based on a minimum temperature difference (ATmin) such that the temperature differences between hot and cold fluids in any HE of the network is equal or greater than this value. Given a value of ATmin and the properties of the fluids, we can match hot and cold fluids in order to maximize heat recovery. Matches are allowed only between hot and cold fluids. The streams considered are divided into temperature intervals constructed from supply and target temperatures of every fluid [5]. Hot and cold pinch temperatures are then calculated using the problem table algorithm. Essentially, this algorithm consists in achieving an energy balance considering all streams present in each temperature interval. From the temperature difference across each interval (AT), the heat balance (AHEAT,) is computed A//A7;=[ICP C -ICP W ]A7; (3.1)

37

A negative AHEAT indicates a net surplus of heat and a positive AHEAT indicates a deficit of heat. The excess heat is transferred from interval to interval, down the temperature scale. Since a negative heat flow is infeasible, the minimum heat added to ensure that heat flows are all positives is provided by the hot utility (HU), while the remaining heat in the last interval is taken by the cold utility (CU) [5]. Starting from the pinch, which is the most constrained point of the HEN, the appropriate matches are made between the cold and hot fluids. Each match corresponds to a heat exchanger which will have to be designed. Here, we considered shell-and-tube HEs. For the fluids that could not reach their target temperature only by heat recovery, the cold and hot utilities are used. Cold utility must not be used above the pinch nor the hot utility below the pinch. This means that hot and cold streams must be cooled and heated to pinch temperature only by heat recovery. Moreover, no heat exchange is allowed between a fluid below the pinch and a fluid above the pinch. Stream splitting is allowed in order to increase match possibilities. For example, a cold fluid with a relatively high heat capacity rate can be split to be heat up by two hot streams with low heat capacity rates. This increases match possibilities and consequently heat recovery. The whole design process is illustrated in Fig. 3.1.

38

ABOVE PINCH

Calculate

BELOW PINCH

YES

Split HOT stream

Split COLD stream

YES

NO

NO

YES

Split COLD stream

Split HOT stream

YES

NO

NO

Place matches

Place matches

Recombine splited fluids

Recombine splited fluids

1 c,o

I c,target

^ ^

NO

Use HOT utility

Use COLD utility

NO

^ ^

lh,o ^

'h,target

YES

YES
t
CXTTV

\
cxrr

Figure 3.1

Pinch analysis for heat exchanger network optimization.

A list of required heat exchangers with their corresponding duty (i.e., heat transfer rate, fluids and mass flow rates involved) is established from that procedure. Each of these HEs has to be designed so as to minimize the total global cost of the network. The total cost of a HE includes its purchase cost and its operation cost (pumping power). The total cost is expressed in this paper as an annualized cost. The

39

total cost minimization and the design of HEs is performed with a genetic algorithm as described in the next section. The cost estimation procedure is summarized in Fig. 3.2.

Choose ATi

i f

Pinch analysis

i r

Design each HE with GAs Cold-HU HEs (condensation)

Cold-hot HEs

Hot-CU HEs

'

Calculate total cost

Figure 3.2

Overall procedure for total cost estimation.

Furthermore, since ATmin of the HEN is usually not prescribed, we can vary its value in order to minimize the global cost of the network. The optimal value of ATmj was found by designing networks with their HEs for several values of ATmin. We are thus able to compute an annualized cost (i.e., cost of the HEs and cost of the utilities) for each network and the more economical ATmin is identified by comparing each network total annualized cost.

40

3.3. Description of the HE design problem and genetic algorithms

3.3.1 Objective function
Our objective is to minimize the heat exchanger network total cost. For a network with n exchangers, the total cost is defined by
m

TC = Y\_PCj + 0 C j ] + C H U + C C U

<3-2)

where PCj and OCj stand respectively for the annualized purchase and operational costs of the HE of the HEN. PC is related to the required surface area of the HE which in turn depends on the HE geometry. Details relative to its calculation are given in [14,16,53]. OC accounts for the shell side and the tube side pumping powers (pressure drops) and its calculation can also be found elsewhere [14]. CHU corresponds to the total annual cost of the hot utility used in the process (water vapor): CHU=txCOST H U x 1
m

HU,j{ C p,HU,Gp(*HU,i
X

*HU,sat)~*~

(3.3)

fg,Hlj(*~

o,j'

+ C

p,HU,Lp(* HU.sat ~ * H U , o , j ' \

where a stands for the number of exchangers involving hot utility and t is the annual operating period. We assumed that vapor was used as HU, and therefore, Eq. (3.3) accounts for the possible condensation (partial or total). The three terms in the summation in Eq. (3.3) represents the power given by the vapor to the HEs involving HU, and the power given by the condensing mixture and the sub-cooled liquid if applicable. Similarly, CCU stands for the total annual cost of the cold utility:
m

CCU=txCOSTcuxYJ
y=i

cU,j( C p,CuVcU,i

*CU,o,j))

1000

(3.4)

41

where b stands for the number of exchangers involving cold utility. Utility costs (i.e, COSTcu and COSTHU) are expressed in $/kW-h. We used a cost of 0.015 $/kW-h for hot utility and 0.010 $/kW-h for cold utility [5].

3.3.2 HEs design variables

Heat exchangers that make part of the HEN are separated in three categories: 1) cold fluid to hot fluid heat exchangers, 2) heat exchangers with cold utility and 3) heat exchangers with hot utility. Eleven design variables are common to every exchanger. They are related to the shell-and-tube heat exchanger geometry [14]. For the HEN problem considered, they can take the following values: 1) Tube pitch 0^) : L2J0, \3d 0 , \Ad 0 or \5d 0 2) Tube layout pattern : triangle (30), rotated square (45) or square (90) 3) Baffle spacing at center (LbiCenter) : eight values from 0.207) to 0.557? 4) Inlet / Outlet baffle spacing (Lb/Lb,0) : eight values from LbjCenter to 1.6LbiCenler 5) Baffle cut (B) : eight values from 25% to 45% 6) Tube-to-baffle diametrical clearance (A,.b) : 0.0ID, 0.047), 0.07D or 0.10D 7) Shell-to-baffle diametrical clearance (As.b) : 0.0ID, 0.04D, 0.07D or 0.10D 8) Tube bundle outer diameter (D,/) : four values from 0.8(D - As.b) to 0.95(D - As.b) 9) Shell diameter (D) : 32 values from 0.300 m to 1.850 m 10) Tube outer diameter (d0) : eight values from 5/g in to 2.5 in 11) Number of tube passes : 1, 2 or 4 (for the heat exchanger with the HU only 1 pass is considered) [53]. A twelfth design variable is added for the side (shell or tubes) where each fluid flows. Since the outlet temperature of the cold utility stream in HEs of the second category is not predetermined, its mass flow rate in each HE with CU can vary in order to obtain a minimum annualized cost. Therefore, an additional design variable is added to heat exchangers with CU: the mass flow rate of the cold utility fluid. The flow rate must respect a minimum value ( m cu aiB ) in order to respect a minimum temperature

42

difference (ATmin) between the inlet temperature of the hot fluid (T hj ) and the outlet temperature of the cold utility ( Tcu o ). The maximum value of TCu.<? can be expressed by
T

cu,o.=Th.l-ATmn

(3-5)

With no heat loss to the environment, the heat transfer rate between the hot fluid and the cold utility is determined by
Q = m h c P ,h( T h.i -T h ,o) = ncijCp.cu( T cu.o -Tcu,i) ( 3 -6)

The minimum flow rate of cold utility is calculated by combining Eqs. (3.5) and (3.6)
c P .h m

h(. T h,- T hJ

mrm-=

,. (3.7)

p , C U " h , . ~ ^ m i n ~ * CU j >

There is no physical restriction on the maximum CU mass flow rate ( m c l / m a ). However, a mass flow rate interval had to be specified, so a maximum available value was chosen and 128 possible values between (rhcu min) and (m CUnwi ) were considered. We verified that optimal mass flow rate lied within the specified interval. For cold fluids that did not reach their target temperatures, a hot stream of vapor is used as hot utility. It enters under overheated vapor and condensates inside the HE. Since the modeling of heat exchanger with condensation has been developed in a previous article entirely devoted to the subject [53], procedure to determine heat transfer coefficients and pressure drop calculations for shell-and-tube condensers is not repeated. However, we present later in section 4, an extension of [53] for the case of partial condensation which was not considered in [53]. The advantage of using vapor as HU is the high heat transfer coefficients that characterize a process involving phase change [28]. As for the cold utility, the supply temperature (THu,s) of the hot utility is known but there is no restriction on the vapor outlet temperature (THU.o)- Consequently, hot utility mass flow rate (m HU ) is also considered as a design variable. Limit values of this parameter are established in order to ensure that condensation takes place. However, hot utility fluid is not required to completely condensate. Fig. 3.3a and 3.3b illustrate

43

extreme situations from which mass flow rate limits are established. It must be greater than a minimum value obtained when there is a difference ATmi between the outlet temperature of the hot utility and the inlet temperature of the cold fluid as illustrated in Fig. 3.3b.

Temperature

Vapor phase

' HU.s

HU.sat

T
1

C ,l

Heat exchanger length

Figure 3.3a

Temperature of cold and hot fluids in shellandtube heat exchanger without condensation.

44

Temperature

Vapor phase Condensation

' HU.s

Liquid phase

'HU.sat

THU.O c,o

Heat exchanger length Figure 3.3b Temperature of cold and hot fluids in shell-and-tube heat exchanger with condensation of the hot fluid.
T

HU^=TcJ+ATnm,

(3.8)

From the energy balance between hot utility and cold fluid, we have:
m

cCp,c(*c,o

* ej)

H U , m i n ( C p.HU,Gp(*HU,i

* HU ,sat >' "*"' fg ,HU "* C p,HUU>(*HU .sat

*HU\o'>

(3.9) Combining Eqs. (3.8) and (3.9), the minimum mass flow rate can then be expressed as a function of known parameters:
m

mHU. min

cCp.ATc.o-Tcj) f g ,HU
+C

(3.10)
( * c j """ * " n i i i ) )

p.HU,Gp(* HU.i

*HU,sat'

+ l

p . H U . L p ( * HU.sat

45

Maximum value occurs when the hot utility reaches its saturation temperature and just starts to condensate. This is represented in Fig. 3.3a. An energy balance leads to:
m c

c p,ATc,o ~ T c,) = m Hu.^ T Hu.i T H U M )

(3.11)

.
m

_^pATc,Tci)
~ *HU,i *HU,sal (*l 2 >

HU.max ~ ~

3.3.3 Optimization of HEs using genetic algorithms

Genetic algorithms (GAs) are an optimization tool inspired by the Darwinian natural selection. The procedure used in this paper has been well explained in previous articles [16,53]. It has been proved that using genetic algorithms is a quick way to find the best HE design among a large number of possibilities [16,53] and can also be used when designing HENs [54]. Only a fraction of all possible designs needs to be calculated. This results in an important economy of computational time. The GA is used for the purpose of designing lowcost heat exchangers that respect the heat duties imposed from the pinch analysis (section 3.2) minimizing the global cost of the HEN. A priori the geometry leading to the lowest cost is not easy to determine. An increase of the heat transfer area leads to a lower operating cost. On the other hand, it leads to an increase of the purchase cost. Moreover, millions of possible designs are feasible (see paragraph below). Hence, the GA significantly helps to identify the optimal solution quickly. Considering the design variables listed above (Section 3.2), the number of possible heat exchanger designs are: 1) Hot to cold fluid heat exchanger : 301 989 888 2) C U heat exchanger : 38 654 705 660 3) HU heat exchanger : 25 769 803 780 The main parameters of the binary GA used were as follows: Number of individuals in the population = 30 Number of elites that propagate to the next generation = 5

46

Mutation rate = 4% Number of crossover points = 3 Convergence criterion = 300 generations without improvement of the objective function GAs are probabilistic, and therefore 2 runs of the GA with the exact same setting could lead to two different results. Therefore, for each HE the GA optimization was performed 7 times. Then the best result is taken as the best solution for this specific HE .

3.4. Extension of Ref. [53] to HEs with partial condensation

Calculation of the cost of a shell-and-tube condenser as a function of the design variables listed in section 3.3.2 for a given heat duty was described in Ref. [53]. However, complete condensation was assumed. Therefore, we extend in this section the procedure to HEs with partial condensation. Hot utility mass flow rate can take 128 possible values equally distributed between mHU nn a n d m H U max. We determine if condensation of the hot utility occurs completely or partially by comparing the total heat transfer rate that is expressed by Q = rh c c p ,(T co -T ci ) Two cases are possible. If
m

(3.13)

HU C p.HU.Gp( T HUJ - T H U . s a , ) +

HU i fg.HU ^ Q

(314)

Then condensation is complete. Otherwise, when

m

HUCp.HU.GP^HU.i~^HU.sat)

HU l f g .HU

>

&

(3.15)

The condensation is partial. For the first case, hot utility vapor will come out of the exchanger as sub-cooled fluid. Then

47

rr

7Wf/.0

=I

HU.sa,

rw,

HU C p,HU.Gp(*HU.i

*HU,sat)

,_ . , .

(3.16)

Method developed for optimization of shell-and-tube condensers [16] is directly applied to design the corresponding heat exchanger. For case #2, hot utility at the outlet of the exchanger will be a mix of gas and liquid at saturation temperature (THu.o = Tmj.sat)- Heat transfer coefficient will be calculated using correlation developed by Chato [29] if condensation occurs in tubes and Nusselt correlation if condensation occurs on the shell side. In order to be able to calculate pressure drop on the side where condensation occurs, mix quality (x0) at the heat exchanger outlet has to be determined. Isolating the quality from the energy balance on the HU side, we obtain:
y~~ m HU C p,HU,GP\*HU,i~*HU,o> . l fg,HU ,~ , ~ (3-17)

o=

If condensation occurs in the tubes, total pressure drop can be separated in two terms AP,=AP lGP +AP lC where
AP,GP

(3.18)

and AP,c stand respectively for the pressure drop in the vapor section and

for the pressure drop in the condensation section. We used the expression previously developed [16] for the first term. For the condensation zone, it has been shown [53] that pressure drop can be expressed by the following formula:

AP,C ^ M 6 3 2 f ^ Z f m - ' r L c )

(l

~X)PHUS
/

+XPHUJ

(3-19)

The analytic resolution of the integral 1 yields to

4S

/ =

(PnU.g X oPHU.g+ X oPHU.l) -\f,l_l, i. \2

JO

H-HU.g + P H U . I >

[(4 L^

9 ) 0 y)

+(-4^+4)^ u PnUg'UHU.l^y^A-o^^iPHU.gPHU.g -^ X PHU.IPHUJ]

+(4xo +5)p H U J H m . t

(3.20) Pumping power is then calculated using following equation for tubes
p ^t.GP^HU , ^ . C % (XoPHU.g + fl ~ * g ) / W / ) ., 1 2 VpumpPnU.GP VpumpXo U X 0 )PHU,gPHU.l ,.. (A^U

The shell side pumping power is calculated as in [53]. If partial condensation occurs on the shell-side, total pressure drop is once again separated in two parts APs=APsjGP+AP1<c The pressure drop for superheated gas
(APSIGP)

(3.22)

is calculated using Bell-Delaware method

[11]. The entire procedure is explained elsewhere [14]. It has been shown in [15] that condensation sub-section pressure drop has two contributions AP s ,c=AP J , c , c/ +AP^ M/ (3.23)

where subscripts cf and wf respectively stand for the cross flow zone and the windowflow zone pressure drop. From the Chisholm correlation [50], we obtained the following expression to calculate the cross flow zone pressure drop = [ ] ^ J [ l + ( y2 - 1 X*-* 2 ) a8,5 + * U7 >* s.ccf
H

AP
2

(3-24)

V dz ) LO

where Y is the Chisholm parameter and LO refers to the total flow having the liquid properties. No analytical solution is found for the integral in Eq. (3.23). Consequently, a numerical integral is performed to solve the problem. Window-flow pressure drop is calculated with the following expression:

49

APs.C.vtf and the integration gives

ap dz

L c \[\ + (Y2-\)x]lx
LO
0

(3.25)

,.C,

3z

I
'1.0

Y2-l

(3.26)

Total pumping power for shell-side and tube-side is calculated as follows

AP s C P m H U
^IpumpPHU.GP

b, =

APsCmHU(x0pHUGP + ( l - x 0 ) p H U L P ) h27

(3.27)

lpumpXo^

O>PHU,GPPHU.LP

ATX
l pump r e

(3.28)

3.5. Test cases

We considered two different test cases to show the ability and the versatility of the proposed optimization procedure. Every heat exchanger designed for the two test cases are assumed to operate 5000 hours per year. Electricity cost is 0.10 $/kWh and pump efficiency is 85%. Moreover, each HE has a lifetime of 20 years and the annual interest rate is 5%. Thermophysical properties (e.g., density, heat capacity, thermal conductivity and viscosity) of the fluids used in the following examples are considered constant, except water for which properties function of the average temperature of the fluid in the exchanger. We first considered a simple example that involves two hot streams and two cold streams. Process requirements for test case #1 are shown in Table 3.1. A hot stream of water (3 kg/s) and a hot stream of crude oil (7.2 kg/s) are available to heat up streams of kerosene (3.6 kg/s) and of water (10 kg/s). Water vapor at 200C is used as hot utility and cold water at 20C is used as cold utility. Similar case can be found in refinery to preheat petroleum products. Optimization of the heat exchanger network has been

50

performed for 20 different values of the minimum temperature difference (ATmin) from lCto20C. Table 3.1 Stream HI H2 CI C2 HU CU Process requirements for test case #1. Stream fluid Crude oil Water Water Kerosene Steam Water Supply temp. (C) 150 130 100 50 200 20 Target temp. (C) 30 50 140 140 Flow (kg/s) 7.2 3 10 3.6

For each minimum temperature difference considered, a HEN has been designed to recover as much heat as possible as explained in Section 3.2. Then, using the GA, we found the optimal design for each exchanger of the network, and computed afterwards the total annualized cost for the complete HEN. Costs of hot utility and cold utility are also considered. Fig. 3.4 shows the annualized total cost, utility cost and HEs cost as a function of ATmin.

51

220 000 200 000 180 000160 000 140 000 ?,120 000 t5 100 000 o

Utility cost

80 000 60 000 Cost of HEs 40 000 20 000 0 .

_l L

10 12 AT .(C)

14

16

18

20

Figure 3.4

Minimum heat exchanger network total cost as a function of minimum temperature difference for test case #1.

Utility costs are a way to gage heat recovery. The more hot and cold utilities are solicited, the less heat is recovered. As mentioned above, 7 runs of the GA were performed for each ATmin to identify the absolute minimal total cost. Considering the cost of utilities, our results show that the optimal ATmin is 3C for this test case. Not considering utilities cost, the optimal solution is found at ATmin = 20C. It is clear thus that the cost of the utilities has an influence on the optimal solution. Figure 3.5 shows a schematic representation of the optimal heat exchanger network with the matches between cold and hot fluids as well as the points from which utilities are used for each stream.

52

' Cold / Hot Sream Heat changer Pinch CU/HU Exchanger with cold / hot utility

H2E

cu. cu.
/ * - * *V / / / / > * / /
* I

|HI 55
C2

, HU

C1

HU

20

40

60

80 100 Temperature (gC)

120

140

160

Figure 3.5

Optimal heat exchanger network design for test case #1.

Details about each heat exchanger inlet and outlet temperatures are given in Table 3.2. Optimal design geometries of the eight HEs are listed in Table 3.3

53

Table 3.2

Stream data for shell-and-tube heat exchangers of the optimal heat

exchanger network for test case #1. HE

#

COLD stream CI CI C2 C2 CI C2 CU CU

(C) 100 100 100 50 114.3 109.7 20 20

Tc,

' c.o

(C) 120.8 106 109.7 100 140 140

mc (kg/s) 5.6 4.4 3.6 3.6 10 3.6

HOT stream HI H2 H2 HI HU HU HI H2

Th.i

Th,0

rh h

(C) 150 130 130 102 200 200 78 103

(C) 103 103 103 78

(kg/s) 7.2 2.2 0.8 7.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

30 50

7.2 3

ri

,, u y; r3 ^ S u. u s
t/3

m es

sC

sC

o d

'J J-.
s:

1
a

3 ed

-S

-st

TT

c
C c^ O 3

'3

E
-9

"o c

2 2
o

U u
u c o
X

g a
J=
u
Ja
u

S S
u

ja

c u u

c o

n _) J

en NO
1 1
00 ua

^~ Z

-~
00 in tn 00 n oo
OC

D. O

a.S

O O n

en

c<-

C c c c

e"

o o

en

O in

m
X)

o o

m cn
XI X

X3

X>
S.

X>
J

XI
J

ed
U

<

< <
1 1
vi

< <
1 1
tsi
1

<
1

<
1

I 1
tn

1 1
vi

1
s-,

a
<D

<

Q Q Q Q Q Q Q o m m o oo c m o o oo ON c oo d o c ON 0 0 O C as o d d d
o T3 O O o "O O O o "d O C o "O O C o 73 O o "O O O o c o O

.c

-o
C
o O O

>->
C 3
Xl

c
o "O O

o
o "O O

d d d
o o o O O

2
cfl

<l P Q

c
(S

d
(S

CS

(N

es es

m n es es

0.3D 0.2D

aj W)

PJ

E i
\1

(S C

Q m Q m d d d o
ON

Cu

g'Si
H

os o>

C ON

st

o
ON

O
rn

8
o "O
T

o "O m

o "X3 <o

o T3 w-i

-o

o T3

>n es n

3 s

(N

cn

Tl-

VO

r-

0.4D 0.55D
o
ON Q Q

25.20 19.23
"sf

>> o

u c q
X)

'
OO

OO

<
1

1
(Z)

1
IA

d
o O

oo

55

A second test case involving more streams is studied. This example also involves largest flow rates. Data is presented in Table 3.4. We need to heat up 4 streams: crude oil (81 kg/s), water (35 kg/s), BPA (41 kg/s), LGO (26 kg/s). Three hot fluid need to be cooled: kerosene (77 kg/s), water (47 kg/s), HGO (53 kg/s). Such processes are typically found in petroleum industries. Table 3.4 Stream HI H2 H3 CI C2 C3 C4 HU CU Process requirements for test case #2. Stream Kerosene Water HGO Crude oil Water BPA LGO Steam Water fluid Supply temp. (C) 393 160 354 72 62 120 147 372 10 Target temp. (C) 60 40 60 356 210 370 284 Flow (kg/s) 77 47 53 81 35 41 26

The minimal cost as a function of ATmjn is shown in Fig. 3.6. Once again, results show a difference between the solution with and without the cost of utilities. The global optimal solution is when ATmin = 4C. Fig. 3.7 shows a representation of the optimal network.

56

2 500 000

10 12 AT . (C)

14

16

18

20

Figure 3.6

Minimum heat exchanger network total cost as a function of minimum temperature difference for test case #2.

57

H3 H2
CU CU

/ Cold / Hot stream - Heat exchanger Pinch CU/HU Exchanger with cold / hot utility o
n rn i

o
I 1

IHI
0)

Cu

o
t
II II Il

A,
i
/ ^ /

'

co

C4 C3 C2
1 1

1 1

t . , '

'

" "" "

,' " / ' : y

,'*f ' --* *

/ :/
1

; i

HU

C1
1 1 1

*'
i

50

100

150

200 250 Temperature (5C)

300

350

400

Figure 3.7

Optimal heat exchanger network design for test case #2.

Heat exchangers temperature and optimal design geometries are respectively listed in Tables 3.5 and 3.6.

58

Table 3.5

Stream data for shell-and-tube heat exchangers of the optimal heat exchanger network for test case #1.

HE #
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

COLD stream
C3 C3 C4 C2 CI C4 C4 CI C3 C2 CI C3 C4 CU CU

Tc,i (C)
156 201.4 156 156 156 147 147 72 120 62 72 300.5 274.4 10 10 10

Tc,0 (C)
201.4 300.5 274.4 210 356 157 156 156 156 156 156 370 284

mc (kg/s)
41 41 26 35 81 19.6 6.4 4 41 35 77 41 26

HOT stream
HI H3 H3 H3 HI H2 H3 H3 H3 H2 HI HU HU HI H2 H3

Thji (C)
393 354 277.4 219.8 369.3 160 160 160 160 160 160
Xll XII

Th,0 (C)
369.3 277.4 219.8 160 160 150.1 150 99.2 123 65.2 75

mh ( kg/ s )
77 53 53 53 77 12 6.4 5.6 41 35 77

75 86.8 123.8

60 40 60

77 47 53

cu

>> ^Efl ^ -J S o V r^3 r C rrl bi) JM D U c: 0 o r,

-C

oo m oo -st rO ^ C u-i ~ oo ON o d d i m
O

Tt Tt m

U
y.

Z -r)
_3

41

. T t

es

Tt

Tt

I T t T t

Cfl

< > JO

U.

O ' O ' o o ' ' C 7 ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 ^ c o

o i

2 2 "o "o o o U

H s
. e J3

e S e n N O c n ^ ^ T t e s c n j e s - H

XI

_) _)
NO NO

XI

X)

-1 J
oo >n

NO

-o.S
Z U X
O

O O O o o o o o o i/-) V) D O o o ^ o o v O N m t ^ ~ N O N ir>T O e O e n ND O o t n

o m
o

>n m

c o es *
tfl

XI en

X tfj

< l

I
's:

< I
W)

< I
CA

< < I I
CO

<J I

< I

< I

O I
(0

< I
09

< I

< I

s: OJ

Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q O i n o i n i n i n o o o o o o o o O O O N O N O N O N O N O O O O O O O O O O oo oo oo o d>d>d>cid>d>d>d>d><d>d>

Q Q o o oo oo d o"

< O
<u
4J

^3 "Q " ^ *Q 'O "Q *Q ^3 *0 "O "O T3 T3 "O "O "O

o o o o o o o o o o o d d d d d d d d d d d o o o o o o o o o o o d d d d d d d d d d d
PQ ^

O -H J O

O o

d o

d
o

d
c

C 3 O

*Q *0 " O *0 *0 * 3 " 3 'O *0 " O *0 -a -o "O "O "O " T ^ " o o O O O d o" o d d ifiinininiYiiniinminiriir) e s e s e s e s e s e s e s e s e s e s e s v) m >n es es es es

ed
OJ

es

c
eu

Q
f-l

<u

S;J

o
<u W )

- s t ^ m m m " ! o o o o o

m e s in o o

</-, i n i n m m -st

S
*>

o o o o o o o o o o o 3
a.
ON O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N ON ON

</-> O o T t ON ON

o
ON

o
ON

Q,

C
NC

o o o o o o o o o o o "O "O *0 "O "O " O "O "O *0 "O "O " u-,/-,eS"stio>n>n>n>/-.>/-iU-, m

Tt

o o o "O "O T3

es i n

in

m' W h ^ e s c n T t i o s D r ^ o o o N
O

i es en T t

U", NO

60

Figures 3.4 and 3.6 present the curves obtained from our simulations. When ATmin increases, less heat is recovered and therefore, HU and CU are more solicited. This explains why the utility costs increase with ATmin. We clearly see that utilities cost increase linearly with ATmi. On the other hand, the cost of the HEs themselves decreases when ATmin increases. For the two cases considered, this decrease is greater for low values of ATmi. As a result, combination of HEs cost and utility costs presents an optimum. For test case #1, a total of eight heat exchangers were optimized for each value of ATmin. Hence, it is no surprise that the curves in Fig. 3.4 are smooth. On the other hand, for the second example, the total number of exchangers in the network varies between 13 and 16 depending on ATmin. However, we did not notice any considerable step on the curves in Figures 3.4 and 3.6. Nevertheless, curves in Fig. 3.6 are also smooth. It is worth to recall that the optimization of each HE was performed 7 times (see Section 3.3.3). The maximal variation of the HE cost between two runs of the GA was 5% for the first test case and 1% for the second test case. Even though these variations were relatively small, they were sufficient to disrupt the curves of Figs. 3.4 and 3.6 and create "artificial" local minima, when only one run of the GA was performed for each HE. The procedure proposed here with 7 runs of the GA per HE was found to be robust and reproducible. An interesting observation is the small number of HEs that were calculated to find the best solution. For the combined optimization of case #1, 0.0000198% of every possible design has been calculated to converge and this proportion is 0.0000193% for case #2. This proves that using GA for the problem studied in this paper results in an important saving of computational time.

3.6. Conclusions
A procedure is proposed for designing in details a HEN. For a given ATmin, an optimal HEN was determined based on pinch analysis. Then, each HE (including condensers) of the network was optimized with a GA. The optimal flow rates of the HU and CU fluids were

61

also optimized. The minimized total cost of the HEN was calculated. The procedure was repeated for different ATmj in order to find the optimal value of ATmin. The procedure was validated with 2 test cases. We found that the GA can rapidly identify the best design for each HE, including for the condensers of the network. This yields a better estimate of the total HEN cost, by including the pumping power in the total cost, and by providing a detailed design for each HE. Further research could include other types of HEs, such as plate heat exchangers, and let the GA decide for each HE of which type it should be. The determination of the optimal ATmi could also be performed by a GA or another optimization approach to speed up convergence.

62

Chapitre 4

Article # 3

Titre: Thermoeconomic optimization of components and operation of vapourcompression refrigeration cycle with genetic algorithms

63

Abstract
This paper proposes a model for calculating the total cost of a refrigeration cycle including a compressor and two heat exchangers. An optimization procedure based on a genetic algorithm is used to minimize the annualized total cost of the system. The global cost includes the energy cost (pumping and compression) as well as the initial cost of the compressor, the evaporator and the condenser. A total of 24 design variables are considered for this problem. Ten are related to the geometry of each heat exchanger. Two additional design variables characterize the condenser (i.e., side (shell or tubes) of the refrigerant flow and mass flow rate of water in which heat is rejected in the condenser). Finally, the compressor inlet and outlet pressures represent two more design variables. Two case studies are presented to show the potential of the approach to find the best solution for different situations and the ability of the genetic algorithm to identify the best design for this specific problem.

64

4.1. Introduction
Cold water is widely used to provide air-conditioning in large buildings [55] and many industrial processes requiring refrigeration. Air conditioning is responsible for about 30% of energy consumption in commercial buildings and this proportion reaches 50% in warm climate regions [56]. With growing costs of energy and needs for more efficient systems, the optimization of refrigeration systems represents potential savings in terms of money and a potential for reducing energy consumption and green-house gas (GHG) emissions. However, a lot of parameters must be considered for designing refrigeration systems. Numerous designs are possible which makes the identification of the best system (i.e., optimal) a difficult task. Modeling of the different parts of a refrigeration system has been extensively studied and numerous thermodynamic modes have been developed. Gordon et al. developed a relation between the coefficient of performance and the cooling rate of a chiller [57]. Khan and Zubair developed a method to quantify irreversibilities in a vaporcompression chiller [58]. Chua et al. led experimental study in order to show the impact of different parameters on the COP of chillers [59] and Gordon et al. propose a diagnostic model to predict chiller performance from few measurements [60] as well as a thermodynamic model with adjustable parameter for a particular chiller [61]. Browne and Bansal proposed a NTU based model [62]. In the last years, numeric tools allowed the elaboration of vapor-compression chillers models with neural networks [63,64]. Methods to calculate different parameters (heat transfer coefficients and pressure drops) required to predict the performance of a chiller have been the subject of many works in particular for the prediction of two-phase flow heat transfer. Chen developed a correlation from 600 data points for in-tube convective boiling [65]. Webb and Gupte reviewed different correlations to predict convective heat transfer in tubes and in tubes banks [66]. All these developments led to the development of methods to determine performance and costs of refrigeration systems in order to optimize their design. Ng et al. developed a diagnostic method to

65

establish optimal operating conditions for reciprocating chillers [67]. Selbas et al. worked on an exergy-based thermodynamic optimization procedure [68]. Gordon et al. proposed an optimization approach based on finite time thermodynamics model [69]. Finally, Yu and Chan optimized the number and size of chillers to satisfy a refrigeration demand at a minimized cost [70]. These studies show the optimization opportunities of refrigeration systems, but did not optimize the complete geometry of the components of the systems. In this paper, we develop a thermoeconomic model for estimating the total cost of a complete chiller including a shell-and-tube condenser, a shell-and-tube evaporator as well as a reciprocating compressor. The model accounts for the geometry of the two heat exchangers. In order to identify the system with the minimal cost, we propose an optimization procedure that determines the best geometry for each heat exchanger and the best operating conditions of the vapor compression refrigeration cycle.

4.2. Objective function and design variables

We consider a classical vapor compression refrigeration cycle, see Fig. 4.1. The refrigerant pressure and temperature are increased by a compressor (point 1 to 2). The vapor refrigerant is cooled down in a condenser (point 2 to 3) before going through a valve in which its pressure and temperature are decreased (point 3 to 4). Then, it absorbs heat from a heat source (point 4 to 1) in an evaporator, and so on. The combination of these components (i.e., compressor, evaporator, and condenser) forms a "chiller". The corresponding temperature-entropy diagram of the cycle is given in Fig. 4.2.

66

comp

Figure 4.1

Schematic representation of the vapor compression refrigeration cycle.

67

Figure 4.2

Temperature-entropy diagram of an ideal vapor compression cycle.

For a given design heat load ( QL ), we want to design the best components of the refrigeration cycle. The objective function to minimize is the overall cost of the project. This cost is dominated by the purchase costs of the condenser, of the evaporator and of the compressor, the cost for pumping the fluid through the heat exchangers, and the cost related to the compression of the refrigerant. The purchase costs are initial costs while pumping and compressing costs are recurrent costs. Therefore, we annualize the purchase costs by considering an interest rate I and a number of years n for the project, in such a way that the total cost (TC) can be written as TC = (PC + P C + P C
\ cn ev

)d>, +(OC
comp ) T I,n \ pump

+OC

)
comp)

(4.1)

with:

tl,n =

(l + 7 ) n - l

(4.2)

68

PC values represent purchase costs (i.e., initial costs) and OC, annual recurrent costs. Details about their calculations are given in the following sections. Equation (4.1) will be minimized by varying a certain number of design variables that characterize each component of the chiller system. The list of design variables and their possible values for the geometry of the two shell-and-tube heat exchangers (condenser and evaporator) are available in Table 4.1. Ten design variables characterize the condenser geometry, plus one more design variable for the side where the condensing refrigerant fluid flows. Ten design variables characterize the evaporator geometry.

69

Table 4.1

Design variables and their limit values for the two heat exchangers of the problem. Possibilities Condenser 300 to 1050 mm 15.87 to 63.5 mm 90, 30, 45 1.24, to L 5 4 0.014, to 0.14, Evaporator 300 to 1050 mm 15.87 to 63.5 mm 90, 30, 45 1.24, to 1.54 0.014, to 0.14, 0.014 to 0.14 25 to 45 % 0.27) to 0.55D

Shell diameter (D) Tube diameter (d0) Tube bundle configuration Tube pitch (p) Shell-to-baffle spacing (As.b) Tube-to-baffle spacing (A,.b) Baffle cut (B) Center baffle spacing
yj-ib.center)

16 8 3 4 4 4 25 8 8 4 2 256 256

0.014, to 0.14 25 to 45 % 0.2D to 0.55D

Inlet/outlet baffle spacing (LbJLb,0) Tube bundle diameter (Doll) Refrigerant flowing side Refrigerant operating pressure Condenser water mass flow rate

l-ib.center tO Y.OL, b c e n ter

'-'b.cemer tO 1 . O L , b c e n t e r

0.8(7)-ZU) to 0.95(D -A-b) Tubes, shell Depends on heat sink temperatures Minimum to maximum available

0.8(D - A-b) to 0.95(D - A-b)

Depends on chilled water temperatures

70

Furthermore, we consider 3 operating parameters: the mass flow rate of the heat sink fluid in the condenser ( mc ), and the refrigerant operating pressures in the condenser (Pad and in the evaporator (Pev). The possible values of these parameters are chosen in order to avoid temperature crossing in the heat exchangers. In a counter-flow condenser, temperature crossing occurs when we calculate a cold fluid temperature that would be higher than hot fluid temperature at any point in the heat exchanger. Such condenser is physically impossible to realize. The maximum and minimum possible values of the operating pressures as well as the water flow rate (heat sink) are established from the system requirements. The minimum refrigerant operating pressure in the evaporator is chosen in order to avoid the freezing of water inside the exchanger. For this reason, we choose the minimum operating pressure for which the corresponding saturation temperature is 0C (P@T =,(.) With the same reasoning, the maximum value is the pressure for which the saturation temperature of the refrigerant corresponds to the supply temperature of the chilled water (P@T
=r

). For the

condenser, the minimal operating pressure is the pressure for which the saturation temperature corresponds to the water outlet temperature when the maximum water mass flow rate (rh c m a ) is used:
ref = m. v(zh - h ) + T ^. f.max p.c

T
1

ref.sat.min

^1c,i

(4 3)
V*V

The maximum operating pressure is the maximum pressure at which the compressor and the heat exchanger can operate. Finally, the minimum water mass flow rate circulating in the condenser will depend of the refrigerant operating pressure in the condenser. It is calculated independently for each design considered. It is chosen in order to have a water outlet temperature equal to the saturation temperature of the refrigerant: ref{h'h) r - ref,sat -r p,c \ c,i )
m

m rc ,min = min

.... (4.4)

71

The maximum value is simply the maximum mass flow rate available. The operating pressures will influence the compressor size and therefore, its purchase and operating costs that are taken into account in our optimization. Note that the refrigerant mass flow rate ( mref ) follows from the knowledge of QL, P n , Pcn and that of the cycle (See Fig. 4.2), and therefore it is not considered as a design variable here, but rather as an optimization result . Hence, a total of 24 design variables are taken into account. All of these variables will have an effect on the overall heat transfer coefficients, the pressure drops and on the power input to the system, and consequently on its total annualized cost. Figure 4.3 shows the methodology that we use to determine the total cost for a specific set of design variables. The grey upper boxes represent the chilled water mass flow rate ( mh ) and its inlet and outlet temperatures (7/,,,, Tn,o) as well as the values given to the 24 design variables for the specific design considered (geometry, condenser mass flow rate and operating pressures). The first step consists in determining the refrigerant thermodynamic properties at different point of the cycle. These values depend on pressure and temperature. A Matlab function has been created in order to interpolate thermodynamic properties from a database containing values of required properties for many temperatures and pressures. Thermodynamic properties of refrigerant used in this paper are taken from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) [32]. Since operating pressures are taken as design variables, refrigerant thermodynamic specific properties at the four points in the cycle are computed using our interpolation functions. Hence, for each specific design, the following properties are interpolated: specific entropy (s), specific enthalpy (/), specific heat capacity (cp), density (p), thermal conductivity (k), dynamic viscosity (//). This procedure is required since heat transfer coefficients, pressure drops, compression work and heat transfer rates are calculated from these specific properties. Next, the refrigerant mass flow rate (mref ) is computed. Then the required power input (Wcomp), the heat load (Q L ) and the rate of heat rejected (Q H ) are calculated. These first steps are

72

represented inside the bold square in Fig. 4.3. From there, the problem is separated in three parts (condenser, evaporator, and compressor). The next steps consist in calculating heat transfer coefficients and pressure drops in order to determine the length of the two heat exchangers as well as the compressor size. The left part of the diagram in Fig. 4.3 accounts for condenser calculations while the right part accounts for the evaporator calculations. Compressor costs can be computed directly from refrigerant mass flow rate and refrigerant specific enthalpies at point 1 and 2 (Fig. 4.2). The following sections provide more details about the models used to calculate the required parameters, i.e. how to relate Eq. (4.1) to the design variables via an appropriate modeling of the system and of its components. Given the 24 design variables, the refrigerant mass flow rate and its specific thermodynamic properties, the three main components of the system (i.e. compressor, condenser and evaporator) are considered as three independent design problems.

73

Operating Pressures | Condenser Geometry Condenser water mass flow rate Cond. / Evap. Sat. Temperatures

Chilled fluid properties

nti, T*,, Tu c^,

Evaporator Geometry

R152a Saturation Specific properties Condenser water temperatures s2 = s,

t4 = t s 1. _

A )

Evap. Separation
X, = T .

Ar

=1

* Qi =<,(', 0
Condenser sub sections heat transfer area first guesses
QH='"r.f(>2-',) *

C>,,=/iooo
Evap. heat transfer area first guess Ao

Wcaup " V ( ' J ' I ) 1000

ATLJ

A7x

Condenser sub sections: desuperheating (d) condensing (c)

Shellside heat transfer coefficient

C f o r i =1.1000;
&../= V ('2 ~ ' s )

Qtr,='",A''h)

1 .,=&., IA
Intube heat transfer coefficient

T
A=Q^^T^,/u,
Tube/shell side pressure drop calculation

Pumping power

1000

Tube/shell side pressure drop calculation

Pumping power

Figure 4.3

Schematic representation of total cost calculation procedure.

74

4.3. Condenser model

In a precedent paper [71], we developed a model of condenser relating its geometrical features to its purchase cost and its pumping power cost. Therefore, we will only summarize this approach here as details are available elsewhere. First, the shell-and tube heat exchanger is separated in two sections: (1) the desuperheating region where the refrigerant passes from superheated vapor to saturated vapor and (2) The condensing region where condensation brings refrigerant to saturated liquid state. The desuperheating section corresponds to the line between points 2 and 5 in Fig. 4.2 while the condensing section is represented by the line between points 5 and 3 in the same figure. Heat transfer coefficients and pressure drops are calculated separately for each sub-section. On the shell-side, we rely on Bell-Delaware method to calculate those parameters [14]. Heat transfer coefficient of the two-phase condensing flow is given by an empirical correlation proposed by Chato [29] for the case where the refrigerant flows in tubes. It is given by the Nusselt correlation [5] if the refrigerant flows in the shell side. Pressure drops are calculated using a homogeneous two-phase flow model proposed in [14]. Heat transfer coefficients and pressure drops calculation requires the value of the heat exchanger surface area. Since heat transfer coefficients are needed to determine the surface area, an iterative procedure is needed. Hence, we first suppose a heat transfer surface area value for each sub-section, a global heat transfer coefficient is then computed and from the heat transfer rate of each sub section as well as the logarithmic mean temperature difference established from known heat sink properties, new heat transfer surface areas are computed. This procedure is repeated until convergence. The procedure is once again schematically represented on the left side of Fig. 4.3.

4.4. Evaporator model

The approach that we developed for modeling the evaporator is similar to that used for the condenser. This sub-section presents calculation of the heat transfer coefficients in the

75

evaporator as well as the pressure drop required to maintain the mass flow rate of refrigerant in the heat exchanger.

4.4.1 Heat transfer calculations

In our analysis, the water (heat source) is forced to flow on the shell-side and the evaporating refrigerant flows on the tube side. A previous article [16] demonstrates the approach used to calculate the heat transfer coefficient on the shell side for a single phase flow. Here, we only explain the method that we built to predict heat transfer coefficient in the evaporating refrigerant that flows in tubes. Since the model must be able to predict the heat exchange surface area of numerous different designs, a general correlation is required to predict the heat transfer coefficient in different conditions. Correlations used for the single phase flow cannot be used here because the refrigerant is evaporating and the flow structure is characterized by complex physic phenomenon [28]. In this paper, we use an empirical correlation proposed by Kandlikar [72]:
l-x\0*fn\
X

0.5

fc = C ,

400</ >

\ri J

+c

nd2^
V
m

ref l f g

fl )

(4.5)

Coefficients Ci to C5 depend on the dimensionless convection number defined as:

Co = \

l-*

\0*'

PA
'i J

\0-5

(4.6)

Heat transfer coefficient can be calculated for any given conditions by changing the constants values [72]. Evaporation can be convective, i.e. for Co < 0.65, or nucleate, i.e. for Co > 0.65. Nucleate boiling occurs in first stages of the evaporation process, for small values of quality (x). For higher quality values, nuclation disappears, which is why Eq. (4.5) considers nucleate boiling and convective boiling zones separately as illustrated in Fig. 4.4. Ffl is a correction factor that depends on the refrigerant fluid used in the cycle. Fjj

76

is defined for nine different refrigerants in [72]. Many of these refrigerants have been phased out due to their high ozone depletion factor. R-152a being the only refrigerant still accepted from those proposed by [72], we only consider the utilization of this refrigerant in our analysis. Further work could focus on other refrigerants provided that a correlation such as Eq. (4.5) is available for them.

!
" V J NUCLEATE .r = 0 Figure 4.4

QL

Nucleate and convective boiling in evaporating two-phase flow.

It can be seen from Eq. (4.5) that the value of the heat transfer coefficient hev depends on x, the quality of the two-phase flow. Here we cannot consider the quality as constant. In fact, refrigerant comes out of the evaporator with a 100% quality ( x - \ ) whereas it enters the heat exchanger with a low quality. To solve this problem, tubes are virtually separated in n small sections and inside each of these sections, quality is considered as constant. Hence, the correlation of Eq. (4.5) can be applied to each section separately. This idea is shown in Fig. 4.5 in which one tube of the evaporator tube bundle is represented. Taking a higher number of sub-sections will bring more accuracy but longer calculations.

77

QL

S- L.

mref V A
1

i
A A
X,-.Y4 3(Y,-.Y4) in 5(.Y,-.Y4)

\
m, c i

r\\

-v

(2/7l)(.r 1 .x 4 )
2/7

Figure 4.5 C onstant quality separation of the evaporating refrigerant flow. Equation (4.5) shows that the heat transfer coefficient also depends on the heat flux ( q n ) . Since q"ev depends on the heat transfer coefficient, here again, an iterative approach is used to determine the heat transfer coefficient. The tubes subsections in Fig. 4.5 are such that the heat transfer rate is equal in every subsection (Fig. 4.5). Therefore, the heat transfer surface area of each subsection is different. C onsidering m sections, calculation of the heat transfer rate is given by:
lX: Qev = m
v

/gp

(4.7)

For a given section of constant quality, we suppose a heat transfer surface area Ao, that is our first guess. The heat flux based on our first guess is determined using the following relation:

"

ev

(4.8)

A,

Quality and heat flux being now fixed in a given subsection, the heat transfer coefficient in the evaporating zone (hev) is calculated using Eq. (4.5). Knowing the heat

78

transfer coefficient on shell-side of the evaporator (hs) and the tubes thermal conductivity (kw), a global heat transfer coefficient is calculated: U = (4 9)
hs d 0

"

1 d, / 0 l n K / 4 ) , 1
2k w

'

and an updated heat transfer surface area (Aj) is obtained from the following relation: A= ^"
ev Im

(4.10)

The new surface value is taken as the new guess and back to Eq. (4.7), the procedure is repeated until convergence of the heat transfer coefficient. Calculation of the log mean temperature difference is required for each section:
IT
\
l m

_T

\-(T
ref .sat ) \ s.o

-T

)
ref .sal )

5.1

(4111

^[(Ts.,-Tref,sa,)l(Ts,o-Tref,sat)]

TSfi and TSi0 account for the shell temperature associated with the section considered. These temperatures can easily be computed from the value of the heat transfer rate Qev. The procedure is summarized in the right hand side of Fig. 4.3 and is repeated for each section of constant quality. The required evaporator heat transfer surface area is obtained by summing the area calculated for each of the m sub-section.

4.4.2 Pressure drop calculations

It has been mentioned that the refrigerant is forced to flow inside the tubes. Pressure drop in the two-phase flow has to be calculated in order to determine the pumping power input to the system. For a given mass flow rate and a given tube diameter, Friedel correlation is used [14]:

79

VLO2 = R +

3.24ZJ Fr >We
0.045ii/ 0.035 um

(4.12)

Friedel correlation is considered as an accurate correlation when (//, / / O < 1000 [73]. y/iLO is the ratio between the pressure drop of the two-phase flow and the pressure drop of the same mass flow rate of the same refrigerant at a saturated liquid state:

V,LO

jdp/dz) {dpldz)L0

(4.13)

where R = ( \ - x ) 2 + x 7 Pifg Z = x 0 7 8 (l-;c)

J =
0.24

( ~ t

(4.14)
.0.7

V " ( ,M, \019 ( , 1-^

\pg J

Ui

Pi J

The two dimensionless numbers Fr et We are the Froude number and the Weber number of the flow:

' gdiPTP rh r }d We^^y^

PTP
a

Fr =

(4.15)

The two-phase density of the flow is defined by: (

PTP

IP

. V x l-x +
J

(4.16)

The first step consists in calculating the pressure drop of the refrigerant mass flow rate as a saturated liquid:

80

dp^ dz JLO

d.

(4.17)

We make the assumption that the flow is turbulent since we wish to have a turbulent flow in order to increase heat transfer coefficients. Hence, the friction coefficient can be calculated by the following correlation for turbulent fully developed flow inside smooth tubes: / =0.046(1^)
-0.2

(4.18)

Then combining Eqs. (4.12) and (4.13), the two-phase flow pressure drop is found: dP dz fdP dz R+
LO

3.24ZJ

Fr^W

0.045ti/ 0.035

(4.19)

And from the heat exchanger length (Lev) obtained from heat transfer surface calculation, we obtain the pressure inside the tubes: t 3.24Z/ R + ^0.045^0.035

AP =

s dz )

(4.20)

Once again, pressure drop depends on the quality of the liquid-vapour refrigerant mixture. For this reason, tubes are separated in sections of constant quality. Hence, pressure drop is calculated for each of these sections and the total pressure drop is obtained by summing pressure drop of every section.

4.5. Compressor model

The most expensive component of a refrigeration (purchase and operation) system is the compressor. The compressor capacity required is determined by the pressure ratio of the refrigerant between the condenser and the evaporator as well as the mass flow rate of refrigerant circulating through the cycle. The operation cost is thus

81

OCcomp = comp

mr^ (i,i) H e refK2 x ) "*

i comp

(4.21)

where /, and i2 are the refrigerant specific enthalpies at the compressor inlet and outlet respectively. 77 is the annual operating time of the system, e is the electricity cost and ncomp is the compressor efficiency. Determination of compressor purchase cost is made using the following relation proposed by Smith [5]:
/
comp

s 0.46

PCcomp =98400

v 250000,

(4.22)

where W

is the required power of the compressor:

Wcomp =

refKl
" f comp c,

l}

(4.23)

4.6. Optimization approach

Again, our objective is to identify the set of design variables (see Table 5.1) that will lead to the cheapest system and yet respect the problem specifications. In order to accomplish this task, we use genetic algorithms (GAs). GAs are a probabilistic method that relies on the principles of natural selection to improve a population of designs over generations. We will not repeat here all the details on this procedure that is becoming more widely used and that is well documented in literature. A recent review on the use of GAs in heat transfer problems is available [74]. In this paper, the GA that we used is binary and elitist. Each population is made of 150 individuals. Each individual is represented by a 79 bits vector. Mutation probability is 4 %. Four crossover points are considered and crossover occurs at a 90% probability for

82

each of these points. Table 4.2 summarizes the main features of the GA. Considering all the design variables, this gives 6.045xlO23 possible designs. Computing each of these designs would take too much time to be efficient. Table 4.2 Main features of the GA considered in this paper. Number of individuals Vector length ( 1 design) Mutation probability Crossover points Crossover probability Convergence 150/generation 79 bits 4% 4 90% 300 generations without evolution

For every generation in the process, the cost of each design of the population is calculated following the procedure illustrated in Fig. 4.3 and explained in the previous sections. The optimal solution (lowest total cost design) is considered to be identified when the best solution remains the same for 300 consecutive generations of the GA. GAs are probabilistic processes and the optimal solution found by the algorithm can vary from one run to another. That is why for each test case considered, 5 runs of the GA are performed with the same settings and we considered the optimal solution to be the best design among the 5 runs. The following section shows the results obtained.

4.7. Test cases and results

We consider in this section two test cases to show the ability of the methodology developed in this paper to find the optimal solution for different systems. For the first case, we consider a large capacity water chiller. The system must be designed to cool down 26.5 kg/s of water from 13C to 4C in steady state. This represents a cooling load of 1 MW.

83

The complete data of the problem as well as the economical parameters are given in Table 4.3. The example is taken from the refrigeration requirements of a gold mine [75]. For the second case, we consider a typical water chiller designed to supply cold water for air-conditioning systems [76]. The mass flow rate of water to cool down is 72 kg/s. Its discharge temperature is 12.5C and its supply temperature is 7C. This represents a cooling load of 1.66 MW. Once again, the problem is summarized in Table 4.3. Here again we choose the operation pressure for which the corresponding saturation temperature is 0C as the minimum accepted pressure in the evaporator to avoid icing of the chilled water.

84

Table 4.3

System requirements details for test case #1 and test case #2. Test case#l Test case #2

Condenser Available water mass flow rate Inlet water temperature Fouling Resistance 56.4 kg/s 24C 87 kg/s 33C

0.000275 (K-m2)/W 0.000275 (K-m2)/W

Evaporator Chilled water mass flow rate Chilled water supply temperature Chilled water return temperature Fouling resistance 26.5 kg/s 13C 4C 72 kg/s 12.5C 7C

0.000275 (K-m2)/W 0.000275 (K-m2)/W

Economic considerations Lifetime Operation period Electricity cost Interest rate 20 years 5000 h/year 0.10$/(kW-h) 5% 20 years 5000 h/year 0.10$/(kW-h) 5%

Compressor efficiency

85%

85%

Refrigerant

R152a

R152a

Refrigeration load

1MW

1.66 MW

85

For the first test case, the annualized minimal cost obtained by the genetic algorithm is 152 526 $. Purchase accounts for 43.8 % of the cost while energy consumption accounts for 56.2 %. More details about cost distribution are available in Fig. 4.6. This distribution is comparable to a typical industrial refrigeration system cost distribution [3]. The characteristics of the optimal vapor-compression cycle and the geometry of the two heat exchangers are presented in Tables 4.4 and 4.5. It is interesting to see that only 2 of the 5 GA runs gave the exact same solution. However, variations between the solutions achieved by the five runs are very small. In fact, the relative difference between the highest cost and the lowest cost obtained is only 0.04 %. The entire procedure took more than 61 hours in calculation time and an average number of 822 generations was required for each run of the GA on a Intel Pentium 4 3.2 Ghz. A total of 616 200 systems have been modeled. This represents only 1.02xl0~16 % of every possible system design.

IPC
1

* ' " comp

noccomp
61%

Figure 4.6

Optimal cost distribution for test case # 1.

86

The minimal annualized cost obtained for test case #2 is 277 627 $. 35.6 % accounts for the purchase of the system while 64.4 % accounts for the energy consumption. Here again, details about cost distribution is available in Fig. 4.7. Again, this distribution is comparable to a typical industrial refrigeration system cost distribution [3]. The characteristics of the optimal cycle and the geometry of the two heat exchangers are presented in Tables 4.4 and 4.6. Unlike test case #1, the genetic algorithm was able to identify the same optimal solution (i.e. geometry, operating pressures, and mass flow rates) for the 5 runs of the GA. An average of 1 159 generations, representing 173 850 system designs, was required by the GA to identify the best system. 70 hours of calculation time was needed to proceed this example.

IPC comp 4%

uoc comp
53%

uoc pump
4%

Figure 4.7

Optimal cost distribution for test case #2.

87

Table 4.4

Optimal refrigeration cycle for test case #1 and test case #2. Test case #1 Operating pressures Evaporator Condenser Refrigerant mass flow rate Condenser water mass flow rate System capacity Work input COP Costs Purchase Energy Total 98 964$ 178 663 $ 277 627 $ 67 444$ 85 083 $ 152 527 $ 264 kPa 773 kPa 4.05 kg/s 56.4 kg/s 998.4 kW 158.6 kW 6.3 282 kPa 975 kPa 7.16 kg/s 87 kg/s 1657.7 kW 335 kW 4.9 Test case #2

88

Table 4.5

Optimal refrigeration system characteristics for test case #1. Condenser Length B D do di P Tube configuration
t-ib.center

Evaporator 5.66 m 25% 850 mm 22.2 mm 15.4 mm 27 mm 90 468 mm 608 mm 0.2 mm 8.5 mm 799 mm tubes 2 352 4 780

6.20 m 25% 550 mm 15.9 mm 10.3 mm 19 mm 90 303 mm 303 mm 0.2 mm 5.5 mm 517 mm tubes 6 238 28 220

L b ,ilL b _ 0

A-b A-b
Dotl

Refrigerant side Tube side Reynolds Shell side Reynolds

89

Table 4.6

Optimal refrigeration system characteristics for test case #2. Condenser Length B D
do di

Evaporator 5.03 m 25% 850 mm 15.9 mm 10.3 mm 21 mm 90 468 mm 514 mm 0.2 mm 8.5 mm 799 mm tubes 3 783 7 733

6.88 m 25% 1050 mm 22.2 mm 15.4 mm 27 mm 90 578 mm 751 mm 0.2 mm 10.5 mm 988 mm tubes 4 427 19 032

P Tube configuration
L-ibxenler Lb,j/Lbo

A-b A-b
Dol,

Refrigerant side Tube side Reynolds Shell side Reynolds

For test cases #1 and #2, Reynolds numbers show that flow is turbulent in each heat exchanger. This confirms the turbulence assumption we made earlier. Coefficients of performance of the optimal solutions for test cases #1 and #2 are respectively 6.3 and 4.9. These values are large even if the optimization has not been performed on the criteria of the best COP. However, these COP values are comparable to those presented in papers from which test cases data has been taken. COP is 7% higher than COP obtained in [75] for test case #1 and 14% lower than value obtained in [76] for test case #2. The results obtained show that the utilization of GA represents an effective solution to identify the best refrigeration system. The strong advantage of this method is the rapidity

90

and robustness with which the optimal solution is found. In fact, 60 and 70 hours represent acceptable amount of time for an optimization problem. Considering every possible solution would be an impracticable approach. It has been shown that the GA did not always converge on the same solution. However, differences between solutions are relatively small, hence we can conclude that GA is able to identify nearly optimal solutions but not always the absolute minimal cost system.

4.8. Conclusions
In this paper, we presented a complete model to evaluate the performance and the cost of a refrigeration system. 24 design variables were considered regarding geometry of the heat exchangers, compressor size (operating pressures) and fluid mass flow rates. A model from a previous article was used for the condenser. A model to evaluate heat transfer coefficients and pressure drop in the evaporator was built and a complete method to evaluate performance of the complete refrigeration cycle including the compressor was developed. Genetic algorithm was used to perform optimization of two different test cases. The results proved that the GA was able to identify an optimal solution with satisfying repeatability. Here, optimization of an ideal vapor compression cycle and a constant refrigeration load were considered. Further research could allow the addition of an HE for regeneration or consider the utilization of phase change materials to store energy when refrigeration load is not constant in time. Optimization was performed on the criteria of the minimum total annualized cost in this paper. The optimization in regard of the COP and a comparison with the results obtained here would be of interest for future work.

91

Chapitre 5 Discussion et conclusions

Le cur de ce travail a port sur l'optimisation de trois types de systmes thermiques : condenseur, rseau d'changeurs de chaleur et systmes de rfrigration. Dans un premier temps, il a fallu crer un modle mathmatique permettant de calculer la surface d'change et les puissances de pompages requises pour faire fonctionner un condenseur de type tubes et calandre pour satisfaire un change thermique entre deux fluides dont un se condensant. Le modle a montr sa capacit dterminer les valeurs recherches partir d'une gomtrie d'changeurs donne et des conditions d'opration donnes. Ce modle a ensuite t combin un algorithme gntique. Le rsultat de cette combinaison nous offre une mthode capable d'identifier avec une excellente probabilit et dans un dlai de temps raisonnable la gomtrie minimisant le cot total de l'changeur. Effectivement, l'excution rpte du code a men chaque fois au mme design optimal. De plus, les rsultats obtenus avec l'AG ont t compars avec les rsultats lorsque tous les designs ont t calculs. Dans les deux cas et pour deux situations diffrentes, les rsultats taient concordants. Les rsultats obtenus ont pu tre appliqus dans un deuxime temps pour l'optimisation de rseaux d'changeurs de chaleur incluant des condenseurs. Une procdure base sur l'analyse de pincement a d'abord t implante afin d'automatiser la distribution des fluides dans les changeurs de manire a respecter un cart minimum de temprature. Ensuite, un algorithme gntique permet une fois encore d'optimiser la gomtrie de chaque changeur. La procdure a t rpte pour diffrents carts de temprature. On est donc en mesure de dterminer pour quel cart le systme obtenu est le moins coteux. Pour les deux cas considrs dans cette tude, on obtient un systme dont le cot est minimal pour un cart de temprature minimal de 2 degrs et 4 degrs Celsius. Il serait intressant

92

d'explorer la possibilit d'utiliser d'autres types d'changeur. Ainsi, nous pourrions largir le domaine d'application de notre modle mathmatique et de faire un choix d'changeur judicieux. Dans le quatrime chapitre, nous nous sommes concentrs sur les systmes de rfrigration. Nous nous sommes bass sur un cycle de compression de vapeur idalis pour raliser notre modle. Une fois de plus, nous avons utilis les algorithmes gntiques pour optimiser la gomtrie des deux changeurs de chaleur dans le systme. Il a fallu implanter une mthode afin de modliser le transfert de chaleur pour un rfrigrant s'vaporant dans les tubes. En plus de la gomtrie, le rgime d'opration a t optimis de manire obtenir un systme offrant un cot minimal. Cette mthode nous a permis de quantifier la rpartition des cots pour un systme optimal. La mthode dveloppe prend en compte la variation des proprits en fonction de la pression et de la temprature des fluides. Afin de considrer cet aspect, la cration de fonctions d'interpolation a t ncessaire. Nous disposons donc, la suite de ces travaux, d'un outil d'optimisation efficace permettant d'optimiser dans un dlai de temps raliste, un systme de rfrigration idalis. Les valeurs de coefficient de performance obtenues partir de notre modle sont relativement leves. Il est noter que nous avons considr un cycle thermodynamique idal et que plusieurs irrversibilits ont t ngliges. Un systme rel aura donc un coefficient de performance plus faible que celui prdit par notre modle. De plus, nous avons nglig toutes pertes thermiques vers l'environnement dans les changeurs de chaleurs. Quoiqu'il s'agisse d'une approximation gnralement accepte, il existe des corrlations pour quantifier ces pertes. Nos travaux futurs nous permettront d'intgrer plus de phnomnes notre modle afin d'obtenir des valeurs de COP s'approchant plus des valeurs obtenues pour des systmes rels. Les rsultats obtenus dans ce mmoire sont trs concluants et offrent une bonne base et plusieurs ouvertures pour de futurs travaux. E sera ventuellement intressant de pousser nos travaux, particulirement au niveau du systme de rfrigration. Jusqu' maintenant,

93

nous avons dvelopp un modle et nous avons perform une optimisation pour un rgime permanent et une demande de refroidissement constante. Les systmes utiliss dans la pratique doivent fournir une demande en refroidissement variable et les solutions pratiques doivent contenir un systme de contrle adquat pour prvoir ces variations. Les variations de la demande peuvent galement avoir une influence sur la gomtrie optimale. D sera donc intressant d'intgrer la modlisation d'un systme de contrle au systme afin de performer ventuellement une nouvelle optimisation. Le stockage de chaleur dans des matriaux changement de phase serait galement un aspect considrer pour niveler la consommation nergtique des systmes, ce qui peut engendrer d'importantes conomies. De plus, certaines des corrlations utilises nous permettent d'obtenir un modle valide seulement pour un seul type de rfrigrant. Il serait intressant d'laborer un montage exprimental afin d'acqurir les mesures requises pour tablir une corrlation pour d'autres types de rfrigrants. Finalement, il sera aussi intressant d'explorer l'utilisation des rseaux de neurones. Cette option pourrait nous permettre d'acclrer la dmarche et de rduire les temps de calcul. En somme, toutes ces amliorations permettront de dvelopper une mthode nous permettant d'obtenir des solutions qui se rapprochent plus d'une solution pratique optimale et ce dans un dlai de temps rentable. Les travaux raliss dans le cadre de cette tude offre une excellente base pour l'atteinte de cet objectif.

94

Bibliographie
[I] Communiqu prsent par Didier Coulomb, Directeur de l'Institut International du Froid. Institut International du Froid. Confrences des Nations Unies sur les changements climatiques. Poznan, Pologne, 1-12 dcembre 2008. Dveloppement durable : progrs et dfis du secteur du froid. Institut International du Froid. 2003. Hydro-Qubec. Pourquoi investir dans un systme de rfrigration efficace. http://hydroquebec.com/affaires/appui_pmi/mesures/pop_refrigeration.html. 20janvier2010. L'nergie pour construire le Qubec de demain : La stratgie nergtique du Qubec. Ministre des Ressources Naturelles et de la Faune. 2008-2015. R. Smith. Chemical Process Design and Integration, Wiley. New York. 2005. A. Karno, S. Ajib. Effect of tube pitch on heat transfer in shell-and-tube heat exchangers - new simulation software. Heat and Mass Transfer 2006; 42: 263-270. U.C. Kapale, S. Chand. Modeling for shell-side pressure drop for liquid flow in shell-and-tube heat exchanger. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 2006; 49: 601-610. Z.-Z. Xie, J-.F. Zhang, XL. Luo, Y.K. Chen, D.W. Ji. Modelbase of tube-and-shell heat exchangers and its application to simulation of heat exchanger networks. Journal of Systems Simulation 2005; 17: 2882-2887. ZH. Ayub. A new chart method for evaluating single-phase shell side heat transfer coefficient in a single segmental shell and tube heat exchanger. Applied Thermal Engineering 2005; 25: 2412-2420. R. Yahyaabadi. Fluid flow: analysing F-shell heat exchangers. Petroleum Technology Quarterly 2005; 10: 99-108. M. Serna, A. Jimenez. A compact formulation of the Bell-Delaware method for heat exchanger design and optimization. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 2005; 83: 539-550. D. Gulley. More accurate exchanger shell-side pressure drop calculations. Hydrocarbon Processing 2004; 83: 71-76. SA. Mandavgane, MA. Siddiqui, A. Dubey, SL. Pandharipande. Modeling of heat exchangers : using artificial neural network. Chemical Engineering World 2004; 39: 75-77. RK. Shah, DP. Sekulic. Fundamentals of Heat Exchanger Design. Wiley. New Jersey. 2003. GF. Hewitt, GL. Shires, TR. Bott. Process Heat Transfer. CRC Press: Boca Raton. 1994.

[2] [3]

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

[9]

[10] [II]

[12] [13]

[14] [15]

95 [16] P. Wildi-Tremblay, L. Gosselin. Minimizing shell-and-tube heat exchanger cost with genetic algorithms and considering maintenance. International Journal of Energy Research 2007; 31: 867-885, DOI: 10.1002/er.l272. CR. Houck, J A. Joines, MG. Kay. A genetic algorithm for function optimization: a Matlab implementation. NCSU-IC Technical Report 1995. D. Eryener. Thermoeconomic optimization of baffle spacing for shell and tube heat exchangers. Energy Conversion and Management 2006; 47: 1478-1489. BK. Soltan, M. Saffar-Avval, E. Damangir. Minimizing capital and operating costs of shall and tube condensers using optimum baffle spacing. Applied Thermal Engineering 2004; 24: 2801-2810. M. Serna M, A. Jimenez. An efficient method for the design of shell and tube heat exchangers. Heat Transfer Engineering 2004; 25: 5-16. YA. Kara, O. Graras. A computer program for designing of shell-and-tube heat exchangers. Applied Thermal Engineering 2004; 24: 1797-1805. RD. Moita, C. Fernandes, HA. Matos, CP. Nunes. A cost-based strategy to design multiple shell and tube heat exchangers. J. of Heat Transfer 2004; 126: 119-130. R. Selbas, O. Kizilkan, M. Reppich. A new design approach for shell-and-tube heat exchangers using genetic algorithms from economic point of view. Chemical Engineering and Processing 2006; 45: 268-275. TW. Botsch, K. Stephan. Modelling and simulation of the dynamic behavior of shell-and-tube condenser. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 1997; 40: 4137-4149. JL. Alcock, DR Webb. An experimental investigation of the dynamic behavior of a shell-and-tube condenser. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 1997; 40: 4129-4135. MW.Browne, PK. Bansal. An overview of condensation heat transfer on horizontal tube bundles. Applied Thermal Engineering 1999; 19: 565-594. RK. Sinnot. Coulson and Richardson's Chemical Engineering, ButterworthHeinemann: Stoneham, 1996. FP. Incropera, DP. Dewitt, TL. Bergman, AS. Lavine. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, Wiley: Hoboken, 2007. J.C. Chato. Laminar condensation inside horizontal and inclined tubes. ASHRAE J. 1962; 4: 52-60. BR. Munson. Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics, Wiley: New York, 2005. IDR. Grant, D. Chisholm. Two-phase flow on the shell side of a segmentally baffled shell and tube heat exchanger. Int. J. Heat Transfer 1979; 101: 38-42. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Thermophysical properties of fluid systems, http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/fluid/, 2007. I. Diner. Refrigeration Systems and Applications, Wiley: New York, 2003.

[17] [18] [19]

[20] [21] [22] [23]

[24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]

96 [34] RK. Green, SA. Tassou. A mathematical model of the heat transfer process in a shell and tube condenser for use in refrigeration applications. Applied Mathematic Modeling 1981;5:29-33. M. Markowski. Reconstruction of a heat exchanger network under industrial constraints - the case of a crude distillation unit. Applied Thermal Engineering 20 (15-16) (2000) 1535-1544. V. Briones, A.C. Kokossis. Hypertargets: a Conceptual Programming approach for the optimisation of industrial heat exchanger networks - Part III. Industrial applications. Chemical Engineering Science 54 (5) (1999) 685-706. G. Hall Stephen, B. Linnhoff. Targeting for furnace systems using pinch analysis. Industrial Engineering Chemical Research 33 (12) (1994) 3187-3195. N. Vaklieva-Bancheva, B.B. Ivanov, N. Shah, C.C. Pantelides. Heat exchanger network design for multipurpose batch plants. Computers Chemical Engineering 20 (8) (1996) 989-1001. J.-K. Kim, R. Smith. Cooling water system design. Chemical Engineering Science 56 (12) (2001) 3641-3658. L.E. Savulescu, M. Sorin, R. Smith. Direct and indirect heat transfer in water network systems. Applied Thermal Enineering 22 (8) (2002) 981-988. M. Ebrahim, A. Kawari. Pinch technology: an efficient tool for chemical-plant energy and capital-cost saving. Aplied Energy 65 (1-4) (2000) 45-49. K.C. Furman, N.V. Sahinidis. A critical review and annotated bibliography for heat exchanger network synthesis in the 20th century. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 41(10) (2002) 2335-2370. T.K. Pho, L. Lapidus. Topics in Computer-Aided Design: Part II. Synthesis of Optimal Heat Exchanger Networks by Tree Searching Algorithms. AlChE Journal 19 (6)(1973)1182-1189. S. Bittanti, L. Piroddi. Nonlinear Identification and Control of a Heat Exchanger: A Neural Network Approach. Journal of Franklin Institute 334B (1) (1997) 135-153. T.F. Yee, I.E. Grossmann, Z. Kravanja. Simultaneous optimization models for heat integration-I. Area and energy targeting and modeling of multi-stream exchangers. Computers Chemical Engineering 14 (10) (1990) 1151-1164. S. Frausto-Hernandez, V. Rico-Ramirez, A. Jimenez-Gutierrez, S. HernndezCastro. MINLP synthesis of heat exchanger networks considering pressure drop effects. Computers & Chemical Engineering 27 (8-9) (2003) 1143-1152. G.T. Polley, M.H. Panjeh Shahi and F.O. Jegede. Pressure drop considerations in the retrofit of heat exchanger networks. Transactions of the IChemE 68 (3) (1990) 211220. M.L. Silva and R.J. Zemp. Retrofit of pressure drop constrained heat exchanger networks. Applied Thermal Engineering 20 (15) (2000) 1469-1480.

[35]

[36]

[37] [38]

[39] [40] [41] [42]

[43]

[44] [45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

97 [49] MASS. Ravagnani, A.P. da Silva, A.L. Andrade. Detailed equipment design in heat exchanger networks synthesis and optimization. Applied Thermal Engineering 23 (2)(2003) 141-151. G.T. Polley and M.H. Panjeh Shahi. Interfacing heat exchanger network synthesis and detailed heat exchanger design. Transactions of the IChemE 69A (1991) 445457. M.C. Roque and L.M.F. Lona. Synthesis of heat exchanger networks considering stream splitting, loop breaking and the rigorous calculation of the heat transfer coefficient according to the Bell-Dellaware method. Computers and Chemical Engineering 24 (2) (2000) 1349-1354. MASS. Ravagnani, J.A. Caballero. Optimal heat exchanger network synthesis with the detailed heat transfer equipment design. Computers & Chemical Engineering 31 (11) (2007) 1432-1448. B. Allen, L. Gosselin. Optimal geometry and flow arrangement for minimizing the cost of shell-and-tube condensers. International Journal of Energy Research 32 (10) (2008) 958-969. MASS. Ravagnani, A.P. Silva, P.A. Arroyo, Constantino AA. Heat exchanger network synthesis and optimisation using genetic algorithm. Applied Thermal Engineering 25 (7) (2005) 1003-1017. F.C. McQuiston, J.D. Parker, J.D. Spitler. Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning. Wiley. New York. 2005. Y.-C. Chang. Optimal chiller loading by evolution strategy for saving energy. Energy & Buildings 39 (4) (2007) 437-444. J.M. Gordon, K.C. Ng. Predictive and diagnostic aspects of a universal thermodynamic model for chillers. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 38(5)(1995)807-818. J.R. Khan, S.M. Zubair. Design and performance evaluation of reciprocating refrigeration systems. International Journal of Refrigeration 22 (3) (1999) 235-243. H.T. Chua, K.C. Ng, J.M. Gordon. Experimental study of the fundamental properties of reciprocating chillers and their relation to thermodynamic modeling and system design. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 39 (11) (1996) 2195-2204. J.M. Gordon, K.C. Ng, H.T. Chua. Centrifugal chillers: thermodynamic modelling and a case study. International Journal of Refrigeration 18 (4) (1995) 253-257. J.M. Gordon, K.C. Ng. Thermodynamic modeling of reciprocating chillers. Journal of Applied Physics 75 (6) (1994) 2769-2774. M.W. Browne, P.K. Bansal. An elemental NTU-6" for vapor-compression liquid chillers. International Journal of Refrigeration 24 (7) (2001) 612-627.

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55] [56] [57]

[58] [59]

[60] [61] [62]

98 [63] H. Bechtler, M.W. Browne, P.K. Bansal, V. Kecman. New approach to dynamic modeling of vapor-compression liquid chillers: artificial neural networks. Applied Thermal Engineering 21 (9) (2001) 941-953. D.J. Swider, M.W. Browne, P.K. Bansal, V. Kecman. Modelling of vapourcompression liquid chillers with neural networks. Applied Thermal Engineering 21 (3)(2001) 311-329. J.C. Chen. Correlation for boiling heat transfer to saturated fluids in convective flow. l&EC Process and Design Development 5 (3) (1996) 322-329. R.L. Webb, N.S. Gupte. A critical review of correlations for convective vaporization in tubes and tube banks. Heat Transfer Engineering 13 (3) (1992) 5881. N.G. Ng, H.T. Chua, W. Ong, S.S. Lee, J.M. Gordon. Diagnostics and optimization of reciprocating chillers: Theory and experiment. Applied Thermal Engineering 17 (3) (1997) 263-276. R. Selbas, O. Kizilkan, A. Sencan. Thermoeconomic optimization of subcooled and superheated compression refrigeration cycle. Energy 31 (12) (2006) 2108-2128. J.M. Gordon, K.C. Ng, H.T. Chua. Optimizing chiller operation based on finite-time thermodynamics: universal modeling and experimental confirmation. International Journal of Refrigeration 20 (3) (1997) 191-200. F.W. Yu, K.T. Chan. Strategy for designing more energy efficient chiller plants serving air-conditioned buildings. Building and Environment 42 (10) (2007) 37373746. B. Allen, L. Gosselin. Optimal geometry and flow arrangement for minimizing the cost of shell-and-tube condensers. International Journal of Energy Research 32 (10) (2008) 958-969. S.G. Kandlikar. A general correlation for saturated two-phase flow boiling heat transfer inside horizontal and vertical tubes. Journal of Heat Transfer 112 (1) (1990) 219-228. P.B. Whalley, J.G. Collier, J.R. Thome. Convective Boiling and Condensation, third ed., Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1996. L. Gosselin, M. Tye-Gingras, F. Mathieu-Potvin. Review of genetic algorithms utilization in heat transfer problems, International. Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 52 (9-10) (2009) 2169-2188. H. Grollius, C. Meyer, M. Rautenberg, M. Bailey McEwan. Computer modeling of the performance of centrifugal water chillers in mine refrigeration installations. International Journal of Refrigeration 10(1) (1997) 49-52. F.W. Yu, K.Y. Chan. Optimization of water-cooled chiller system with load-based speed control. Applied Energy 85 (10) (2008) 931-950.

[64]

[65] [66]

[67]

[68] [69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73] [74]

[75]

[76]

99

Annexe A Calcul du cot d'un condenseur

condenseur.m Ce programme permet de calculer les cots d'achat du matriel et les cots d'opration pour l'utilisation des conditions donnes. La fonction prend en entre les paramtres suivants :
cp_2 cp_3 cp_5 enthalpie_3 enthalpie_5 individu k_3 k_5 k_w kc m_ref mc_max mu_3 mu_5 mu_c mucw muw_3 muw_5 Pr_3 Pr_5 Pre Rc R_ref rho_3 rho_5 rhoc T_2 T_5 Tci Tsat ref cn Heat capacity of refrigerant at point 2 (J/kgK) Heat capacity of refrigerant at point 3 (J/kgK) Heat capacity of refrigerant at point 5 (J/kgK) Specific enthalpy of refrigerant at point 3 (J/kg) Specific enthalpy of refrigerant at point 3 (J/kg) Vector containing design variables Thermal conductivity of refrigerant at point 3 (W/mK) Thermal conductivity of refrigerant at point 5 (W/mK) Thermal conductivity of tubes material (W/mK) Thermal conductivity of cold fluid (W/mK) Mass flow rate of refrigerant (kg/s) Maximum mass flow rate of cold fluid (kg/s) Dynamic viscosity of refrigerant at point 3 (Pa*s) Dynamic viscosity of refrigerant at point 5 (Pa*s) Dynamic viscosity of cold fluid (Pa*s) Wall dynamic viscosity of cold fluid (Pa*s) Wall dynamic viscosity of refrigerant at point 3 (Pa*s) Wall dynamic viscosity of refrigerant at point 5 (Pa*s) Prandtl number of rfrigrant au point 3 Prandtl number of rfrigrant au point 5 Prandtl number of cold fluid Cold fluid fouling resistance (m/v2*K/W) Refrigerant fouling resistance (mA2*K/W) Density of refrigerant at point 3 (J/kgK) Density of refrigerant at point 5 (J/kgK) Cold fluid density (J/kgK) Temperature of refrigerant at point 2 (K) Temperature of refrigerant at point 2 (K) Temperature of cold fluid at exchanger inlet (K) Saturation temperature of refrigerant (K)

Les arguments de sorties sont les suivants :

ATC_cn L Be Ds do di Total condenser annualized cost ($/an) Tubes length (m) Baffle cut ( ) % Shell diameter (m) Outiside tubes diameter (m) Inside tubes diameter (m)

100
pt
bundleangle Lbc deltatb deltasb Dbaffle Dotl Lbi Lbo Cond_side mc Tco APE_cn OC_cn Tube pitch (m) Bundle angle (degrs) Baffle spacing at center (m) Tube to baffle spacing (m) Shell to baffle spacing (m) Baffle diameter (m) Tube bundle diameter (m) Inlet baffle spacing (m) Outlet baffle spacing (m) Condensing fluide flowing side (tubes or shell) Cold fluid mass flow rate (kg/s) Cold fluid outlet temperature (K) Annualized purchase cost ($/an) Annualized operating cost ($/an)

Par: Benot Allen Date: 10 dcembre 2009 Universit Laval, Qubec, Canada
function [ATC_cn,L,Be,Ds,do,di,pt,bundleangle,Lbc,deltatb, deltasb, ... Dbaffle,Dotl,Lbi,Lbo,Cond_side, mc, Tco,APE_cn,OC_cn]... = condenseur(cp_2,cp_3,cp_5,epe,enthalpie_3,enthalpie_5, individu, k_3,k_5,k_w,kc,m_ref,mc_max,mu_3,mu_5,muc,mucw,muw_3,muw_5, Pr_3, . Pr_5,Pre, Re, R_ref,rho_3,rho_5,rhoc,T_2,T_5,Tci,Tsat_ref_cn)

Economic data
n = 20; H = 5000; fe = 0.10; intrt = 0.05; eta = 0.85; factorm = 2.9; factorp - 1.9; % % % % % % % Lifetime (year) Annual operating period (hour) Energy cost ($/Kwh) Annual interst rate ( ) % Pump efficiency Material capital cost factor Pressure capital cost factor

% Temperature capital cost factor if T_2 < 373 factort = 1; elseif T_2 > 373 && T_2 < 773 factort = 1.6; elseif T_2 > 773 factort = 2.1; end

Heat transfer rates in heat exchanger sub-sections

Qg = m_ref*((cp_5+cp_2)/2)*(T_2-Tsat_ref_cn);% Vapor s u b - s e c t i o n (W) % Condensing sub-section(W) Qc = m _ r e f * ( e n t h a l p i e _ 5 - e n t h a l p i e _ 3 ) ; % Total (W) Q_cn = Qg+Qc;

Minimum cold fluid mass flow rate

mc_min_l = Q_cn/((T_2-1)-Tci)/epe; mc_min_2 = Qc/cpc/((T_5-l)-Tci); mc_min = max(mc_min_l,mc_min_2);

101

Decoding design variables

[Be, D s , d o , d i , p t , bundleangle,Xt, X I , C L , L b c , d e l t a t b , d e l t a s b , D b a f f l e , . . . Dotl, Lbi, Lbo,Cond_side,mc] = design_condenseur(individu,mc_max,mc_min);

Cold fluid temperatures

Tco Tci+Q_cn/mc/cpc; Tc2 = Tci+Qc/(mc*cpc); % Outlet (K) % Between vapor and condensing sub-sections (K)

Logarithmic mean temperature differences

% Vapor sub-secion (K) dtlmg = ((T_2-Tco)-(Tsat_ref_cn-Tc2))/log((T_2-Tco)/(Tsat_ref_cn-Tc2)); % Condensing sub-section (K) dtlmc = ((Tsat_ref_cn-Tci)-(Tsat_ref_cn-Tc2))/log((Tsat_ref_cn-Tci)/... (Tsat_ref_cn-Tc2));

Geometric parameters Given parameters

wp = 0.05*Ds; Nss = 2 ; CTP = 0 . 9 3 ; Np = 0 ; s = 1; % % % % % Width of the bypass lane (m) Number of sealing strip pairs Tube layout factor Number of pass divider lanes parallel to the crossflow Number of tube pass

Calculated geometric parameters

[Aocr,Aot,Aow,F,Fc,Nrcc,Nrcw,Nssplus,Nt,rb,rim,rs] = gomtrie(Be,... bundleangle,CL,CTP,deltasb,deltatb,di,do,Dotl,Ds,Lbc,Np,Nss,pt,s,Xl,... Xt,wp);

Required heat transfer surface areas for SHE LL-side condensation

i f Cond_side == 1

In tube heat transfer coefficient

% Flow velocity (m/s) Vt = mc/(Aot*rhoc); % Reynolds number Ret = mc*di/(Aot*muc); % Heat transfer coefficient (W/mA2K) ht = 0.024/di*kc*PrcA0.3*Ret~0.8*(muc/mucw); % Friction factor cfrict = (0.790*log(Ret)-1.64)A-2;

Shell side ideal heat transfer coefficient (vapor sub-section)

102
% Fluid mass velocity based on the minimum free area (kg/mA2s) Gs = m_ref/Aocr; % Reynolds number Resg = m_ref*do/(mu_5*Aocr); % Colburn factor coefficients [big,b2g,-,~,bg,alg,a2g, ~,~, ag] = coeffab(bundleangle,Resg); % Colburn factor jg = alg*(1.33/(pt/do) )Aag*(Resg) A a2g; % Ideal heat transfer coefficient (W/mA2K) hidg = (jg*m_ref*cp_5*Pr_5A-(2/3) )/Aocr; % Ideal friction factor fidg = blg*(1.33/(pt/do))Abg*(Resg)Ab2g; % Ideal pressure drop in crossflow section between two baffles (Pa) dpwidg = (2+0.6*Nrcw)*m_refA2/(2*rho_5*Aocr*Aow); % Ideal pressure drop associated with ideal one-window section (Pa) dpbidg = 4*fidg*GsA2*Nrcc/(2*rho_5)*(muw_5/mu_5)A0.25;

Shell side heat transfer coefficient (condensing sub-section)

% Liquid Reynolds number Resl = m_ref*do/(mu_3*Aocr); % Liquid Colburn factor coefficients [bll,b21,-,~,bl, -, -, -, -, ~] = coeffab(bundleangle,Resl); % Liquid ideal friction factor fidl = bll* (1.33/(pt/do))Abl*(Resl)Ab21; % Pressure drop in crossflow section between two baffles (Pa) dpwidl = (2+0.6*Nrcw)*m_refA2/(2*rho_3*Aocr*Aow); % Pressure drop associated with an ideal one-window section (Pa) dpbidl = 4*fidl*GsA2*Nrcc/(2*rho_3)*(muw_3/mu_3)A0.25; % Condensing heat transfer coefficient (W/mA2K) hsc = 1.35*k_3*(rho_3A2*do*9.807*Nt/mu_3/m_ref)A(1/3); % Correction factors for heat transfer coefficient [Jcg, -, J ig, -, J bg, ~,J rg,~,ksibg,~,ksilg,~,ksisg,~,ksibcg,ksilcg,... ksiscg,ksibcl,ksilcl,ksiscl] corrections_condenseur(Fc,Lbc,.. Lbi,Lbo,Nssplus,Resg,Resl,rb,rim,rs);

Iterative loop on heat transfer surface areas

flag = 1 Ags = 20 Acs = 20 % While loop interruptor % vapor sub-section transfer area first guess (mA2) % condensing sub-section transfer area first guess (mA2)

while flag > 0

103
Lg = Ags/(pi*do*Nt); Lc = Acs/(pi*do*Nt); L = Lg+Lc; Nb = (L-Lbi-Lbo)/Lbc+1; Nbg = (Lg-Lbi)/Lbc; Nbc = Nb-Nbg; % Vapor sub-section length (m) % Condensing sub-section length (m) % Total tubes length (m) % Total number of baffles % Baffles in vapor sub-section % Baffles in condensing sub-section

% Correction factors on heat transfer coeff (number of baffles) if Resg > 100 Jsg = (Nbg-l+(Lbi/Lbc)A(1-0.6)+(Lbo/Lbc)A(l-0.6))/... (Nbg-l+(Lbi/Lbc)+(Lbo/Lbc)); else Jsg m (Nbg-l+(Lbi/Lbc)A(1-0.333)+(Lbo/Lbc)A(l-0.333))/... (Nbg-1+(Lbi/Lbc)+(Lbo/Lbc)); end % Vapor sub-section effective heat transfer coefficient (W/mA2K) if Nbg >= 1 hsg = hidg*J cg*J lg*J rg*J bg*J sg; else hsg = hidg*Jcg*Jlg*Jrg*Jbg; end % Tube-side pressure drop (Pa) dpt = s*(4*cfrict*L/di+1.5)*rhoc*VtA2/2; % Shell-side pressure drop for vapor sub-section (Pa) dpsg = ((Nbg-1)*dpbidg*ksibg+Nbg*dpwidg)*ksilg+2*dpbidg*... (1+Nrcw/Nrcc)*ksibg*ksisg; % Shell-side condensing sub-section gas phase pressure drop (Pa) dpscg = ((Nbc-1)*dpbidg*ksibcg+Nbc*dpwidg)*ksilcg+2*dpbidg*... (1+Nrcw/Nrcc)*ksibcg*ksiscg; % By unit tube length (Pa/m) dpfdzGO dpscg/Lc; % Shell-side condensing sub-section liq. phase pressure drop (Pa) dpscl = ((Nbc-1)*dpbidl*ksibcl+Nbc*dpwidl)*ksilcl+2*dpbidl*... (1+Nrcw/Nrcc)*ksibcl*ksiscl; % By unit tube length (Pa/m) dpfdzLO = dpscl/Lc; % Chisholm parameter Y2 = dpfdzGO/dpfdzLO; % Shell-side condensing sub-section cross-flow pressure drop (Pa) dpbc = dpfdzLO*(l.1527246+0.2275*Y2)*Lc; % Shell-side condensing sub-section window pressure drop (Pa) dpwc = dpfdzLO*(0.625+0.375*Y2)*Lc;

104
% Shell-side condensing sub-section total pressure drop (Pa) dpsc = dpbc+dpwc;

Global heat transfer coefficients

% Vapor sub-cesction (W/mA2K) Ufg = l/(l/hsg+R_ref+(do*log(do/di))/2/k_w+Rc*do/di+do/ht/di); % Condensing sub-cesction (W/mA2K) Ufc = l/(l/hsc+R_ref+(do*log(do/di))/2/k_w+Rc*do/di+do/ht/di);

Required heat transfer areas

Afg = Qg/(Ufg*dtlmg*F); Afc = Qc/(Ufc*dtlmc*F); Aft = Afg+Afc; % Vapor sub-cesction (mA2) % Condensing sub-cesction (mA2) % Total (mA2)

Pumping power equirements

% Tube side (W) Et = dpt*mc/rhoc/eta; % Shell side (W) Es = dpsg*m_ref/rho_5/eta+dpsc*m_ref*(rho_5+rho_3)/... (2*eta*rho_5*rho_3);

Convergence
if max(abs(Ags-Afg),abs(Acs-Afc)) < 0.01 flag - 0; else flag = 1; Ags = Afg; % Heat transfer area new guess (mA2) Acs = Afc; % Heat transfer area new guess (mA2) end

end

end

Required heat transfer surface areas for TUBE-side condensation

i f Cond_side == 2

Shell-side heat transfer coefficient

% Fluid mass velocity based on the minimum free area (kg/mA2s) Gs = mc/Aocr; % Reynolds number Res = mc*do/(muc*Aocr); % Colburn factor coefficients [bl,b2,-,~,b,al,a2,-,-, a] = coeffab(bundleangle,Res); % Colburn factor j = al*(1.33/(pt/do))Aa*(Res)Aa2; % Ideal heat transfer coefficicient (W/mA2K) hid = (j*mc*cpc*PrcA-(2/3))/Aocr;

105
% Ideal fricition factor fid = bl*(1-33/(pt/do))Ab*(Res)Ab2; % Pressure drop in crossflow section between two baffles (Pa) dpwid = (2+0.6*Nrcw)*mcA2/(2*rhoc*Aocr*Aow); % Pressure drop associated with an ideal one-window section (Pa) dpbid = 4*fid*GsA2*Nrcc/(2*rhoc)*(mucw/muc)A0.25; % Correction factors for heat transfer coefficient [Jc,Jl,Jr,Jb,ksib,ksil] = corrections(Fc,Nssplus,Res,rb,rim,rs);

Tube-side vapor sub-section heat transfer coefficient

% Flow velocity (m/s) Vtg = m_ref/(Aot*rho_5); % Reynolds number Retg = m_ref*di/(Aot*mu_5); % Heat transfer coefficient (W/mA2K) htg = 0.024/di*k_5*Pr_5A0.3*RetgA0.8*(mu_5/muw_5); % Friction factor cfrictg = (0.790*log(Retg)-1.64)A-2; % Condensing sub-section average massic volume (mA3/kg) amv = l/rho_5/rho_3*(-rho_5+rho_3)/2+l/rho_3;

Iterative loop on heat transfer surface areas

Ags = 20 Acs = 20 flag = 1 % vapor sub-section transfer area first guess (mA2) % condensing sub-section transfer area first guess (mA2) % While loop interruptor % Vapor sub-section length (m) % Condensing sub-section length (m) % Total sub-section length % Total number of baffles

while flag > 0 Lg = Ags/(pi*do*Nt); Lc = Acs/(pi*do*Nt); L = Lg+Lc; Nb = (L-Lbi-Lbo)/Lbc+l;

% Correction factors on heat transfer coeff (number of baffles) if Res > 100 Js = (Nb-l+(Lbi/Lbc)A(l-0.6)+(Lbo/Lbc)A(l-0.6))/... (Nb-1+(Lbi/Lbc)+(Lbo/Lbc)); else Js = (Nb-1+(Lbi/Lbc)A(1-0.333) + (Lbo/Lbc)A(l-0.333) ) / . . . (Nb-1+(Lbi/Lbc)+(Lbo/Lbc)); end % Shell side effective heat transfer coefficient (W/mA2K) if Nb >= 1 hs = hid*Jc*Jl*Jb*Js*Jr; else hs = hid*Jc*Jl*Jb*Jr;

106
end

Iterative loop on condensing sub-section heat transfer coeff

Twls = (Tci+T_5)/2; Tw2s = (Tc2+T_5)/2; flagl = 1; % Wall temperature first guess % Wall temperature first guess % While loop interruptor

while flagl == 1 % Log mean temperature difference (K) DeltaTsatw = ((T_5-Twls)-(T_5-Tw2s))/log((T_5-Twls)... /(T_5Tw2s)) ; % Moadified latent heat (kJ/kg) iifg_ref_cn = (enthalpie_5-enthalpie_3)+... (3/8)*cp_3*DeltaTsatw; % Condensing sub-section heat transfer coefficient (W/mA2K) htc = 0.555*((9.8065*rho_3*(rho_3-rho_5)*(k_3A3)*... iifg_ref_cn)/(mu_3*DeltaTsatw*di))A0.25; % Total thermal resistance (mA2K/W) Rtot = 1/hs+Rc+do*(log(do/di))/(2*k_w)+R_ref*do/di+... (l/htc)/(do/di); % Calculated wall temperatures (K) Tw2 = -(1/htc/Rtot)*(T_5-Tc2)+T_5; Twl = -(1/htc/Rtot)*(T_5-Tci)+T_5; % Converge (While loop stop verification) if abs((Twls-Twl)) < 0.01 flagl = 0; end Twls = Twl; Tw2s = Tw2; % Wall temperature new guess (K) % Wall temperature new guess (K)

end

% Correction factor on cross flow pressure drop (baffle spacing) if Res <= 100 ksis = (Lbc/Lbo)A(2-1)+(Lbc/Lbi)A(2-l); else ksis = (Lbc/Lbo)A(2-0.2)+(Lbc/Lbi)A(2-0.2); end % Shell side pressure drop (Pa) dps = ((Nb-l)*dpbid*ksib+Nb*dpwid)*ksil+2*dpbid*... (1+Nrcw/Nrcc)*ksib*ksis; % Tube side vapor sub-section pressure drop (Pa) dptg = s*(4*cfrictg*Lg/di+0.5)*rho_5*(VtgA2)/2; % Tube side condensing sub-section pressure drop (Pa) dptc = ((0.046*(32*m_refA(9/5)*(mu_5*mu_3)A(1/5)*Lc)/(4A0.2*... piA(9/5)*diA(24/5)*rho_5*rho_3)))*(-0.1388888889*(-4* . ..

107
mu_5A(9/5)*rho_5-5*mu_5A(9/5)*rho_3+9*mu_5A(4/5)*... rho_5*mu_3+9*mu_3A(4/5)*rho_3*mu_5-5*mu_3A(9/5)*rho_5-4*... mu_3A(9/5)*rho_3)/(mu_5A2-2*mu_5*mu_3+mu_3A2));

Global heat transfer coefficients

% Vapor sub-section (W/mA2K) Ufg = l/(l/hs+Rc+(do*log(do/di))/2/k_w+R_ref*do/di+do/htg/di) ; % Condensing sub-section (W/mA2K) Ufc = l/(l/hs+Rc+(do*log(do/di))/2/k_w+R_ref*do/di+do/htc/di) ;

Required heat transfer areas

Afg - Qg/(Ufg*dtlmg*F); Afc = Qc/(Ufc*dtlmc*F); Aft = Afg+Afc; % Vapor sub-section (mA2) % Condensing sub-section (mA2) % Total (mA2)

Pumping power equirements (W)

Et = ( d p t g * m _ r e f / r h o _ 5 / e t a ) + ( d p t c * m _ r e f * a m v / e t a ) ;
(W)

% Tube s i d e

Es = d p s * m c / r h o c / e t a ;

% S h e l l s i d e (W)

Convergence
if max(abs(Ags-Afg),abs(Acs-Afc)) < 0.01 flag = 0; else flag = 1; Ags = Afg; % Heat transfer area new guess (mA2) Acs = Afc; % Heat transfer area new guess (mA2) end

end

end

Costs computation Purchase cost ($)

PE_foul_cn m 3.28*10A4*(Aft/80)A0.68*factorm*factorp*factort;

Annualized purchase cost ($/year)

APE_cn = (PE_foul_cn)*interet*(1+interet)An/((1+interet)An-1);

Annual operating costs ($/year)

OC_cn = (Et+Es)*H*fe/1000;

Total annual cost ($/year)

ATC_cn = APE_cn+OC_cn ;
Published with MATLAB

108

Annexe B Calcul du cot d'un vaporateur

Evaporateur.m Ce programme permet de calculer les cots d'achat du matriel et les cots d'opration pour l'utilisation des conditions donnes. La fonction prend en entre les paramtres suivants :
cph enthalpie_l enthalpie_4 enthalpie_6 individu k_l k_6 k_w m_ref mh mu_l mu_6 mu h Pr_l Pr_6 Prh R_ref Rh rho_l rho_6 rhoh T_4 tension_6 Thi Tho Heat capacity of refrigerated (hot) fluid (J/kgK) Specific enthalpy of refrigerant at point 1 (J/kg) Specific enthalpy of refrigerant at point 4 (J/kg) Specific enthalpy of refrigerant at point 6 (J/kg) Vector containing design variables Thermal conductivity of refrigerant at point 1 (W/mK) Thermal conductivity of refrigerant at point 6 (W/mK) Thermal conductivity of tubes material (W/mK) Mass flow rate of refrigerant (kg/s) Mass flow rate of refrigerated (hot) fluid (kg/s) Dynamic viscosity of refrigerant at point 1 (Pa*s) Dynamic viscosity of refrigerant at point 6 (Pa*s) Dynamic viscosity of refrigerated (hot) fluid (Pa*s) Prandtl number of rfrigrant au point 1 Prandtl number of rfrigrant au point 6 Prandtl number of refrigerated (hot) fluid Refrigerant fouling resistance (mA2*K/W) Refrigerated (hot) fluid fouling resistance (mA2*K/W) Density of refrigerant at point 1 (J/kgK) Density of refrigerant at point 6 (J/kgK) Refrigerated (hot) fluid density (J/kgK) Temperature of refrigerant at point 4 (K) Refrigerant surface tension at point 6 (N/m) Refrigerated (hot) fluid inlet temperature (K) Refrigerated (hot) fluid outlet temperature (K)

Les arguments de sorties sont les suivants

ATC_ev L Be Ds do di Pt bundleangle Lbc deltatb deltasb Dbaffle Dotl Total evaporator annualized cost ($/an) Tubes length (m) Baffle cut ( ) % Shell diameter (m) Outiside tubes diameter (m) Inside tubes diameter (m) Tube pitch (m) Bundle angle (degrs) Baffle spacing at center (m) Tube to baffle spacing (m) Shell to baffle spacing (m) Baffle diameter (m) Tube bundle diameter (m)

109
Lbi Lbo APE_ev OC_ev Inlet baffle spacing (m) Outlet baffle spacing (m) Annualized purchase cost ($/an) Annualized operating cost ($/an)

Par: Benot Allen Date: 10 dcembre 2009 Universit Laval, Qubec, Canada
function [ATC_ev,L,Bc,Ds,do,di,pt,bundleangle, Lbc, deltatb, deltasb, . . . Dbaffle, Dotl,Lbi,Lbo,APE_ev,OC_ev] =... vaporateur(cph,enthalpie_l,enthalpie_4,enthalpie_6,individu,k_l, . k_6,k_w,m_ref,mh,mu_l,mu_6,muh,Pr_l,Pr_6,Prh,R_ref,Rh,rho_l,rho_6, rhoh,T_4,tension_6,Thi,Tho)

Economic data
n = 20; H = 5000; fe = 0.10; intrt = 0.05; eta = 0.85; factorm = 2.9; factorp = 1.9; % % % % % % % Lifetime (year) Annual operating period (hour) Energy cost ($/Kwh) Annual interst rate ( ) % Pump efficiency Material capital cost factor Pressure capital cost factor

% Temperature capital cost factor if Thi < 373 factort=l; elseif Thi > 373 && Thi < 773 factort=l.6; elseif Thi > 773 factort=2.1; end

Refrigerant quality
x_inlet =(enthalpie_4-enthalpie_6)/(enthalpie_l-enthalpie_6); x = linspace(x_inlet,0.95,100); % Sub-section Inlet

Pre-allocating vectors (to speed up calculations)

Thx = NaN((length(x)-l),1); dtlm = NaN(length(x),1); Q_ev = NaN(length(x),1); h_TP = NaN(length(x),1); Co = NaN(length(x),1); Uf = NaN(length(x),1); Ac = NaN(length(x),1); rho_TP = NaN(length(x),l); EE = NaN(length(x),1); FF = NaN(length(x),1) ; HH = NaN(length(x),1); Fr_TP = NaN(length(x),1) We_TP = NaN(length(x),l) dp_TP = NaN(length(x),1)

110
E_TP = N a N ( l e n g t h ( x ) , 1 ) ;

Total heat transfer rate (W)

Q = m_ref*(enthalpie_l-enthalpie_4);

Refrigerated fluid temperatures at sub-sections boundaries

Thx(l) = Tho + Q/(mh*cph)/length(x); for section = 2 : (length(x)-1) Thx(section) = Thx(section-1) + Q/(mh*cph)/length(x); end

Logarithmic mean temperature differences for each sub-section

dtlm(l) = ((Thx(l) - T_4) - (Thi - T_4))/log((Thx(1) - T_4)/(Thi - T_4)); for section = 2 :(length(x)-1) dtlm(section) = ((Thx(section) - T_4) - (Thx(section-1) -... T_4))/log((Thx(section) - T_4)/(Thx(section-1) - T_4)); end dtlmdength(x) ) = ((Tho - T_4) - (Thx (length (x)-1 ) - T_4) ) /log ( (Tho T_4)/(Thx(length(x)-l) - T_4));

Decoding design variables

[Be,Ds,do,di,pt,bundleangle,Xt,XI,CL,Lbc,deltatb,deltasb,Dbaffle,Dotl,... Lbi,Lbo] = design_evaporateur(individu);

Geometric and physic parameters Given parameters

wp = 0.05*Ds; Nss = 2 ; CTP = 0 . 9 3 ; Np = 0 ; s = 1; f = 1.10; g = 9.81; % Width of the bypass lane (m) % Number of sealing strip pairs % Tube layout factor % Number of pass divider lanes parallel to the crossflow % Number of tube pass % Kandlikar parameter depending on refrigerant % Gravitationnal acceleration (m/sA2)

Calculated geometric parameters

[Aocr,Aot,Aow,-,Fc,Nrcc,Nrcw,Nssplus,Nt,rb,rlm,rs] = gomtrie(Be,... bundleangle,CL,CTP,deltasb,deltatb,di,do,Dotl,Ds,Lbc,Np,Nss,pt,s,Xl,... Xt,wp);

Required heat transfer area calculation

G_ref = m_ref/Aot; G_h = mh/Aocr; V_ref_L = m_ref/(Aot*rho_6); Re_ref_L = (m_ref*di)/(Aot*mu_6); Re_ref_V = (m_ref*di)/(Aot*mu_l); Re_h = (mh*do)/(muh*Aocr); Fr_ref_L = (G_refA2)/(rho_6*g*di); % % % % % % % Refrigerant mass velocity (kg/mA2s) Hot fluid mass velocity (kg/mA2s) In-tube velocity (m/s) Refrigerant liquid Reynolds number Refrigerant vapor Reynolds number Refrigerated fluid Reynolds number Refrigerant Froude number

% Colburn factor coefficients [bl,b2,-,-,b,al,a2,-,-, a] = coeffab(bundleangle,Re_h);

Ill
% Colburn factor j = al*(1.33/(pt/do))Aa*(Re_h)Aa2; %facteurs de correction J [Jc,Jl,Jr,Jb,ksib,ksil] = corrections(Fc,Nssplus,Re_h,rb,rim,rs);

Iterative loop on heat transfer surface areas

flag = 1; As = 0.05*ones(length(x),1); % While loop interruptor % Heat transfer areas first guess (mA2)

while flag == 1 L = sum(As)/(pi*do*Nt); % Tubes length (m) Nb = (L-Lbi-Lbo)/Lbc+1; % Number of baffles

Shell side heat transfer coefficient

% Ideal heat transfer coefficient (W/mA2K) hid = (j*mh*cph*PrhA-(2/3))/Aocr; % Correction factors (for number of baffles) if Re_h > 100 Js = (Nb-1+(Lbi/Lbc)A(l-0.6)+(Lbo/Lbc)A(l-0.6))/(Nb1+(Lbi/Lbc)+... (Lbo/Lbc)); else Js = (Nb-1+(Lbi/Lbc)A(1-0.333)+(Lbo/Lbc)A(l-0.333))/(Nb-l+... (Lbi/Lbc)+(Lbo/Lbc)); end % Effective heat transfer coefficient (W/mA2K) if Nb >= 1 h_s = hid*Jc*Jl*Jb*Js*Jr; else h_s = hid*Jc*Jl*Jb*Jr; end

Loop for tube side sub-sections heat transfer coefficient

for i=l: length(x) % Heat flux on each tube sub-section (W/mA2) Q_ev(i) = (Q)/(length(x)*As(i)); % Convection number on each tube sub-section Co(i) - ((l-x(i))/x(i))A0.8*(rho_l/rho_6)A0.5; if Fr_ref_L <=0.0 4 if Co(i) > 0.65 % Nucleate boiling (N) heat transfer coeff (W/mA2K) h_TP(i) = 0.023*(Re_ref_LA0.8)*(Pr_6A0.4)*(k_6/di)*... (0.6683*(((l-x(i))/x(i))A0.8*(rho_l/rho_6)A0.5)A... (-0.2)*(25*Fr_ref_L)A0.3+1058*(Q_ev(i)*pi*diA2/4/... m_ref/(enthalpie_l-enthalpie_6))A0.7*f); else % Convective boiling (C) heat transfer coeff (W/mA2K)

112
h_TP(i) = 0.023*(Re_ref_LA0.8)*(Pr_6A0.4)*(k_6/di)*... (1.136M((l-x(i))/x(i))A0.8*(rho_l/rho_6)A0.5)A... (-0.9)*(25*Fr_ref_L)A0.3+667.2*(Q_ev(i)*pi*diA2/4/... m_ref/(enthalpie_l-enthalpie_6))A0.7*f);

else

end

end

end

if Co(i) > 0.65 % Nucleate boiling (N) heat transfer coefficient (W/mA2K) h_TP(i) = 0.023*(Re_ref_LA0.8)*(Pr_6A0.4)*(k_6/di)*... (0.6683*(((l-x(i))/x(i))A0.8*(rho_l/rho_6)A0.5)A... (-0.2)+1058*(Q_ev(i)*pi*diA2/4/m_ref/(enthalpie_l-... enthalpie_6))A0.7*f); else % Convective boiling (C) heat transfer coeff (W/mA2K) h_TP(i) = 0.023*(Re_ref_LA0.8)*(Pr_6A0.4)*(k_6/di)*... (1.136*(((l-x(i))/x(i))A0.8*(rho_l/rho_6)A0.5)A... (-0.9)+667.2*(Q_ev(i)*pi*diA2/4/m_ref/(enthalpie_l... -enthalpie_6))A0.7*f); end

Global heat transfer coefficient for each sub-section (W/mA2K)

Uf = Ac = if l./(l/h_s+Rh+do*log(do/di)/2/k_w+R_ref*do/di+do./di./h_TP); (Q_ev.*As)./dtlm./Uf;

Calculated heat transfer area for each sub section (mA2) Convergence
(max(abs(Ac-As)./As)) > 0.01 f l a g = 1;
As = As+0.1*(Ac-As); flag = 0; % Heat transfer area new guess (mA2)

else end end

Required final heat transfer area (mA2)

Atot = sum(Ac);

Shell side pressure drop

% Ideal friction coefficient fid = bl*(1.33/(pt/do))Ab*(Re_h)Ab2;
% Ideal pressure drop in crossflow section between two baffles (Pa) dpwid = (2+0.6*Nrcw)*mhA2/(2*rhoh*Aocr*Aow); % Ideal pressure drop associated with an ideal one-window section (Pa) dpbid = 4*fid*G_hA2*Nrcc/(2*rhoh); % Correction factor on cross flow pressure drop for baffle spacing if Re_h > 100 ksis = (Lbc/Lbo)A(2-1)+(Lbc/Lbi)A(2-1);

113
else end ksis = (Lbc/Lbo)A(2-0.2)+(Lbc/Lbi)A(2-0.2);

% Shell side pressure drop (Pa) dps = ((Nb-1)*dpbid*ksib+Nb*dpwid)*ksil+2*dpbid*(1+Nrcw/Nrcc)*ksib*ksis;

Tube side pressure drop

% Vapor friction coefficients cf_ref_V = (0.790*log(Re_ref_V)-1.64)A(-2); % Liquid friction coefficients cf_ref_L = (0.790*log(Re_ref_L)-1.64)A(-2); % Tube side pressure drop with liquid phase properties (Pa/m) deltap_L0 = s*(4*cf_ref_L/di)*rho_6*(V_ref_LA2)/2; for k = 1:length(x) % Sub section two-phase density (kg/mA3) rho_TP(k) = (x(k)/rho_l+(l-x(k))/rho_6)A-l; % Friedel correleation parameters EE(k) = (l-x(k))A2+x(k)A2*(rho_6*cf_ref_V)/(rho_l*cf_ref_L); FF(k) = x(k)A0.78*(l-x(k))A0.24; HH(k) = (rho_6/rho_l)A0.91*(mu_l/mu_6)A0.19*(l-mu_l/mu_6)A0.7; % Sub section two-phase Froude number Fr_TP(k) = G_refA2/(g*di*rho_TP(k)A2); % Sub section two-phase Weber number We_TP(k) = G_refA2*di/(rho_TP(k)*tension_6); % Sub-section two-phase pressure drop (Pa) dp_TP(k) = (EE(k)+3.24*FF(k)*HH(k)/(Fr_TP(k)A0.045*We_TP(k)A0.035))*deltap_LO*Ac(k)/ (pi*do*Nt); % Sub-section pumping power requirements (W) E_TP(k) = dp_TP(k)*m_ref/rho_TP(k)/eta;

end

Total pumping power equirements

E_t = sum(E_TP); E_s - dps*mh/rhoh/eta; % Tube side (W) % Shell side (W)

Costs computation Purchase cost ($)

PE_foul_ev = 3.28*10A4*(Atot/80)A0.68*factorm*factorp*factort;

Annualized purchase cost ($/year)

APE_ev = (PE_foul_ev)*interet*(1+interet)An/((1+interet)An-1);

114 Annual operating costs ($/year)

OC_ev (E_t+E_s)*H*fe/1000;

Total annual cost ($/year)

ATC_ev = A P E _ e v + O C _ e v ;
Published with MATLAB

115

Annexe C Calcul du cot d'un compresseur

Comp_iso_s.m Ce programme permet de calculer les cots d'achat et les cots d'opration pour l'utilisation d'un compresseur des conditions donnes. La fonction prend en entre les paramtres suivants :
m_ref enthalpie_l enthalpie_2 eff_comp : : : : Mass flow rate of refrigerant (kg/s) Specific enthalpy of refrigerant at point 1 (J/kg) Specific enthalpy of refrigerant at point 2 (J/kg) Efficacit du compresseur

Les arguments de sorties sont les suivants :

TC_comp_A CE_comp_A OC_comp_A : Total annual cost ($/an) : Annual purchase cost ($/an) : Annual operating costs ($/an)

Par: Benot Allen Date: 11 dcembre 2009 Universit Laval, Qubec, Canada
function [TC_comp_A,CE_comp_A, OC_comp_A] = comp_iso_s(m_ref,enthalpie_l, . . . enthalpie_2,eff_comp)

Economic data
n = 20; H = 5000; fe = 0.10; intrt = 0.05; % % % % Lifetime (year) Annual operating period (hour) Energy cost ($/Kwh) Annual interst rate (%)

Required work input (W)

W_comp = m_ref*(enthalpie_2 - enthalpie_l)/eff_comp;

Costs computation Purchase cost ($)

CE_comp = 98400*(W_comp/250000)A0.46;

Annualized purchase cost ($/year)

CE_comp_A = (CE_comp)*interet*(1+interet)An/((1+interet)An-1);

Annual operating costs ($/year)

116
OC_comp_A = (W_comp)*H*fe/1000;

Total annual cost ($/year)

TC_comp_A = CE_comp_A +OC_comp_A;
Published with MATLAB

117

Annexe D Optimisation d'un systme de rfrigration

D.l Script d'optimisation
REF.m Ce script permet d'optimser un systme de rfrigration pour une demande en rfrigration donne. Par: Benot Allen Date: 30 septembre 2009 Universit Laval, Qubec, Canada Initialisation
clear clc tic;

Data for interpolation of specific properties of refrigerant at point 2

load data; Pressions = data(:,l); entropies = data(:,2); Temperatures = data(:,3); Capacits = data(:,4); Enthal = data(:,5); PPPP = linspace(min(Pressions),max(Pressions),100); ssss = linspace(min(entropies),max(entropies), 100); [PPPP,ssss]=meshgrid(PPPP,ssss) ; TTTT = griddata(Pressions,entropies,Temperatures, PPPP, ssss); CCCC = griddata(Pressions,entropies,Capacits, PPPP, ssss) ; HHHH = griddata(Pressions,entropies,Enthal,PPPP,ssss);

Fluid properties Cold fluid in the condenser (HEAT SINK)

mc_max = 25; Re = 0.000275; Tci = 297; rhoc = 982.3; epe = 4186; % % % % % Maximum mass flow rate (kg/s) Fouling resistance (mA2K/W) Inlet temperature (K) Density (kg/mA3) Heat capacity (J/kgK)

118
mue = 0.000453; mucw = 0.000453; kc = 0.656; Pre = cpc*muc/kc; % % % % Dynamic viscosity (Pa*s) Wall dynamic viscosity (Pa*s) Thermal conductivity (W/mK) Prandtl number

Refrigerated fluid (HEAT SOURCE)

mh = 10; Rh = 0.000275; Thi = 295; Tho = 275; rhoh = 982.3; cph = 4186; muh = 0.000453; muhw = 0.000453; kh = 0.656; Prh = cph*muh/kh; % % % % % % % % % % Mass flow rate (kg/s) Fouling resistance (mA2K/W) Inlet temperature (K) Outlet temperature (K) Density (kg/mA3) Heat capacity (J/kgK) Dynamic viscosity (Pa*s) Wall dynamic viscosity (Pa*s) Thermal conductivity (W/mK) Prandtl number

Refrigerant (R152a)
R_ref = 0 . 0 0 0 2 7 5 ; T_ref_lim = 273.15; % Fouling resistance (mA2K/W) % Minimum temperature (K)

Material properties
k_w = 6 0 . 5 ;

% Thermal conductivity (W/mK)

Optimization
ag_systerne; % Genetic algorithm execution

% Optimal system design values (stocked in gagnant.txt) gagnant(phen_final,CCCC,epe, cph, H H , k_w,kc,mc_max,mh,muc,mucw,muh,PPPP, . HH Prc,Prh,R_ref,Re, Rh, rhoc, rhoh, ssss,T_ref_lim,Tci,Thi,Tho,TTTT);

Calculation time
t=toc; display(t);
:

Published with MATLAB

119

D.2 Calcul des cots d'opration et d'achat du systme

System.m Ce programme est la fonction objectif de l'alorithme gntique. Elle permet de calculer le cot total annualis de chaque systme de rfrigration d'une population fourni par l'algorithme gntique. La fonction prend entre les paramtres suivantes :
phen CCCC cpc cph HHHH k_w kc mc_max mh mue mucw muh PPPP Pre Prh R_ref Rc Rh rhoc rhoh ssss T_ref lim Tci Thi Tho TTTT Population Refrigerant heat capacity data vector Condenser cold fluid heat capacity (J/kgK) Heat capacity of refrigerated (hot) fluid (J/kgK) Refrigerant specific enthalpy data vector Thermal conductivity of tubes material (W/mK) Thermal conductivity of condenser cold fluid (W/mK) Maximum mass flow rate of condenser cold fluid (kg/s) Mass flow rate of refrigerated (hot) fluid (kg/s) Dynamic viscosity of condenser cold fluid (Pa*s) Wall dynamic viscosity of condenser cold fluid (Pa*s) Dynamic viscosity of refrigerated (hot) fluid (Pa*s) Refrigerant pressure data vector Prandtl number of cold fluid Prandtl number of refrigerated (hot) fluid Refrigerant fouling resistance (mA2*K/W) Cold fluid fouling resistance (mA2*K/W) Refrigerated (hot) fluid fouling resistance (mA2*K/W) Cold fluid density (J/kgK) Refrigerated (hot) fluid density (J/kgK) Refrigerant specific entropy data vector Minimum refrigerant temperature (K) Temperature of cold fluid at exchanger inlet (K) Refrigerated (hot) fluid inlet temperature (K) Refrigerated (hot) fluid outlet temperature (K) Refrigerant temperature data vector

L'argument de sortie est le suivant :

OBJECTIVE : Vector containing annualized cost of each design

Les points 1,2,3,4,5 et 6 correspondent aux tats suivants du rfrigrant dans le cycle
2 / / CN

EV point 1 : sortie de 1'vaporateur point 2 : entre du condenseur

120
point point point point 3 4 5 6 : : : : sortie du condenseur entre de 1'vaporateur tat de vapeur sature la pression du condenseur tat de liquide sature la pression de l'vaporateur

Par: Benot Allen Date: 30 septembre 2009 Universit Laval, Qubec, Canada
function [OBJECTIVE] =systeme(phen,CCCC,cpc,cph,HHHH,k_w,kc,mc_max,mh... ,muc,mucw,muh,PPPP,Prc,Prh,R_ref,Rc,Rh,rhoc, rhoh, ssss. . . ,T_ref_lim,Tci,Thi, Tho, TTTT) %Efficacit du compresseur eff_comp = 0.85; % dcodaqe des variables de design [nind,~] = size(phen); % vecteur contenant la valeur objectif (cot total) pour chaque individu OBJECTIVE = NaN(nind,1);

Calculation loop for the population

for iter = l:nind

Design vector
individu = phen(iter,:);

Refrigerant evaporator properties

% Saturation temperature (K) Tsat_ref_ev = T_ref_lim+((individu(24)-l)/256)*(Tho-T_ref_lim); % Saturation pressure (Pa) P_ev = P_vs_Tsat(Tsat_ref_ev); % Thermodynamic properties at points 1 and 6 [rho_l,rho_6,enthalpie_l,enthalpie_6,cp_l,cp_6,mu_l,mu_6,k_l,... k_6,s_l,s_6,tension_6] = proprietes_sat(P_ev); Pr_l = cp_l*mu_l/k_l; Pr_6 = cp_6*mu_6/k_6;

Refrigerant condenser properties

% Saturation temperature (K) Tsat_ref_.cn = Tci+( (individu(23)-1 )/256) * (380-Tci) ; T_5 = Tsat_ref_cn; % Saturation pressure (Pa) P_cn = P_vs_Tsat(Tsat_ref_cn); % Thermodynamics properties at point 2 [T_2,cp_2,enthalpie_2] = point2(CCCC,HHHH,P_cn,PPPP,s_l,ssss, TTTT); cp_2 = cp_2*1000;

121
enthalpie_2 = enthalpie_2*1000; % Thermodynamic properties at points 3 and 5 [rho_5,rho_3,enthalpie_5,enthalpie_3,cp_5,cp_3,mu_5,mu_3,k_5,k_3,... s_5,s_3, tension_3] = proprietes_sat(P_cn); muw_3 = mu_3; Pr_3 = cp_3*mu_3/k_3; muw_5 = mu_5; Pr_5 = cp_5*mu_5/k_5; % Thermodynamic properties at point 4 enthalpie_4 = enthalpie_3; T_4 = Tsat_ref_ev;

Required refrigerant mass flow rate (kg/s)

m_ref = mh*cph*(Thi-Tho)/(enthalpie_l-enthalpie_4);

Condenser heat transfer rates

% Condensation (W) Q_53 - m_ref*(enthalpie_5-enthalpie_3); % Total (W) Q_23 = m_ref*((cp_2+cp_5)/2)*(T_2-T_5)+Q_53;

Condenser cold fluid minimum temperatures

Tc5_min = Q_53/cpc/mc_max+Tci; Tco_min = Q_23/cpc/mc_max+Tci;

Annualized cost calculations

% Temperature limits if T_5 > Tc5_min if T_2 > Tco_min [ATC_ev,L_ev] = vaporateur(cph,enthalpie_l,enthalpie_4,... enthalpie_6,individu, k_l,k_6,k_w,m__ref,mh,mu_l,mu_6,muh... ,Pr_l,Pr_6,Prh,R_ref,Rh,rho_l,rho_6, rhoh,T_4... ,tension_6,Thi,Tho); [ATC_cn,L_cn] = condenseur(cp_2,cp_3,cp_5,cpc,enthalpie_3, ... enthalpie_5,individu,k_3,k_5,k_w,kc,m_ref,mc_max,mu_3, ... mu_5,muc,mucw,muw_3,muw_5,Pr_3,Pr_5,Prc,Rc,R_ref, ... rho_3,rho_5,rhoc,T_2,T_5,Tci,Tsat_ref_cn); [ATC_comp] = comp_iso_s(m_ref,enthalpie_l,enthalpie_2, ... eff_comp); % Exchanger length limits if max(L_ev,L_cn) > 7 ATC_ev = Inf; ATC_cn = Inf; end ATC_ev = Inf; ATC_cn = Inf; ATC_comp = Inf;

else

end

122
else ATC_ev = Inf; ATC_cn = Inf; ATC_comp = Inf;

end

Refrigeration system design total cost ($/year)

end OBJECTIVE(iter) = ATC_ev+ATC_cn+ATC_comp;
Published with MATLAB

123

Annexe E Optimisation d'un rseau d'changeurs de chaleur

Optimisation_reseau.m Ce programme permet l'optimisation d'un rseau d'changeur de chaleurs. Le cot total de chaque rseau est calcul pour chaque incrment d'cart de temprature minimal. La fonction prend en entre la variable "table", un tableau contenant les donnes de dpart du problme. Chaque range reprsente un fluide. Premire colonne : Temprature initiale du fluide (degrs C) Deuxime colonne : Temprature objectif du fluide (degrs C) Troisime colonne : Dbit massique total du fluide (kg/s) Quatrime colonne : Identification du fluide
1 : air 2: vapeur d'eau 3: huile 4: rl34a 5: eau 6: krosne 7: LGO 8: HGO 9: Naphta 10 : BPA 11 : Crude oil

Les deux dernires ranges de la table doivent correspondre la vapeur d'eau et l'eau froide. Leurs valeurs de dbit massique et leurs tempratures finales sont priori inconnues. On inscrit donc 0 aux colonnes 3 et 4. Le nombre de ranges de la matrice correspond au nombre de fluides dans le rseau. L'argument de sortie est "tcost", le cot total du rseau d'changeur. Cela inclue les cots d'achat et d'opration de TOUS les changeurs de chaleur. Afin de vrifier la validit de la mthode, ce script permet d'ajuster le nombre de simulations conscutives effectues et le nombre de fois que TAG est excut pour l'optimisation de chaque changeur. Par: Benot Allen Date: 28 fvrier 2010 Universit Laval, Qubec, Canada

124
function [tcost] = optimisation_reseau(table)

Initialisation de l'affichage
clc; tic-

Informations conomiques
H = 5000; tarif_HU = 0.015; tarif_CU = 0.005; DT = 20; simulations = 1; % % % % Priode annuelle d'opration Cot du hot utility HU ($/kWh) Cot du cold utility CU ($/kWh) Limite suprieure du deltaTmin (degrs C)

Nombre de simulations Nombre d'excution de l'AG pour chaque changeur

iterations = 7;

Optimisation
for simul = 1 : s i m u l a t i o n s

Pr-allocation des vecteurs

tmin_vector = NaN(DT,l); n_HE = NaN(DT,1) , n_HU = NaN(DT,l) n_CU = NaN(DT,1) n_TOT = NaN(DT,l); tcost_vector = NaN(DT,l); Ucost_vector = NaN(DT,l); tcost_vector_sansU = NaN(DT,l); % % % % % % % % Vecteur des deltaTmin Nombre d'changeurs fluide-fluide Nombre d'changeurs fluide-HU Nombre d'changeurs fluide-CU Nombre total d'changeurs Cots totaux Cot de CU et HU Cots totaux sans HU et CU

Optimisation du rseau pour chaque DT minimum

for 1 = 1:DT tmin_vector(1,1) = 1*1; % Diffrence de temprature minimale Tmin = tmin_vector(1);

Distribution des fluides

% % % % % La fonction design3 permet de distribuer les fluides dans les changeurs. partir de la matrice "table" contenant l'information relative aux fluides et Tmin, la diffrence de temprature minimale respecter, on obtient l'information relative tous les changeurs requis dans TF, THU et TCU de

mme

% que les tempratures au pincement (THmin et TCmin) et les % quantits d'nergie requises pour rchauffer/refroidir les % fluides [TF,THU,TCU, N,QHmin,QCmin, THmin, TCmin] = design3(table, Tmin);

Nombre d'changeur fluide chaud-fluide-froid

n_HE(l,l) = l e n g t h ( T F ( : , 1 ) ) ;

125 Nombre d'changeurs avec "Hot utility"

n_HU(l,l) = length(THU(:, 1 ) ) ;

Nombre d'changeurs avec "Cold utility"

n_CU(l,l) = length(TCU(:,1));

Nombre total d'changeurs

n_TOT(l,l) = n_HE(l,l)+n_CU(l,l)+n_HU(l,1);

Initialisation des vecteurs Valeur objectif

ObjVSelEX = NaN(n_HE(l,1), 1) ObjVSelHU = NaN(n_HU(l, 1),1) ObjVSelCU = NaN(n_CU(l, 1), 1) % HE fluide froid - fluide chaud % HE avec "Hot utility" % HE avec "Cold utility"

Initialisation des matrices valeus objectif

% Chaque colonne correspond une itration ITER_EX = NaN(n_HE(l,l) , 7) % HE fluide froid - fluide chaud ITER_HU = NaN(n_HU(l,l),7) % HE avec "Hot utility" ITER_CU = NaN(n_CU(l,l),7) % HE avec "Cold utility"

Calcul des cots Aucun changeur : impossible rsoudre, on impose un cot infini
( i s e m p t y ( T F ) == 1 & isempty(TCU) & t c o s t _ v e c t o r ( 1 , 1 ) = Inf; Ucost_vector(1,1) = Inf; t c o s t _ v e c t o r _ s a n s U ( l , 1) = I n f ; else if == 1 & isempty(THU) & == 1)

HE fluide froid - fluide chaud

if isempty(TF) == 0 for k = l:n_HE(l,l) for iter = 1:iterations aghex; % excution de l'AG ITER_EX(k,iter) = ObjVSelEX(k, 1); end % On pend la valeur minimum des itrations ObjVSelEX(k,1) - min(ITER_EX(k,:)); end sumEX = sum(ObjVSelEX); else sumEX = 0; end

HE avec "Cold utility"

if sempty(TCU) 0 generationCU = NaN(n_CU(1,1),1); for k - l:n_CU(l,l) for iter = 1:iterations aghex_CU2; % excution de l'AG ITER_CU(k,iter) = ObjVSelCU(k,1); end

126
% On pend la valeur minimum des itrations ObjVSelCU(k,l) = min(ITER_CU(k, :)) ; % Cold utility en W (m*cp*deltaT) generationCU(k,l) = TCU(k,5)*calculcpCU(TCU(k,:))*... (TCU(k,l)-TCU(k,2));

else end

end sumCU = sum(ObjVSelCU)+sum(generationCU)*H/1000*tarif_CU; sumCU_sansU = sum(ObjVSelCU); sumCU = 0;

HE avec "Hot utility"

if isempty(THU) == 0 generationHU = NaN(n_HU(l,1),1); for k = l:n_HU(l,l) for iter = 1:iterations aghex_HU2; % excution de l'AG ITER_HU(k,iter) = ObjVSelHU(k, 1); end % On pend la valeur minimum des itrations ObjVSelHU(k,l) = min(ITER_HU(k,:)); % Hot utility en W (m*cp*deltaT) generationHU(k) = THU(k,6)*calculcpHU(THU(k, : ) ) * . . . (THU(k,4)-THU(k,3)); end sumHU = sum(0bjVSelHU)+sum(generationHU)*H/1000*tarif_HU; sumHU_sansU = sum(ObjVSelHU); else sumHU = 0; end

Cots totaux des changeurs avec "utility"

tcost_vector(1,1) = sumEX+sumCU+sumHU;

Cots totaux des changeurs sans "utility"

tcost_vector_sansU(l,1) = sumEX+sumCU_sansU+sumHU_sansU;

Cot total du "utility"

Ucost_vector(1,1) = t c o s t _ v e c t o r ( 1 , 1 ) tcost_vector_sansU(1,1);

Graphique des cots en fonction du deltaTmin

figure((2+simul)) plot(tmin_vector, tcost_vector,'MarkerFaceColor', [0 0 ,'Marker','square','Color',[0 0 0] ) ; xlabel({'\DeltaT_m_i_n (C)'},'FontSize'... ,12,'FontName','Arial'); ylabel(['',sprintf('\n'),'TC ($)'],'FontSize'... ,11,'FontName','Arial');; ,11, 'FontName', 'Anal' ) title('Total HEN cost (TC) vs. deltaTmin (\DeltaT_m_i. e('Total (\DeltaT_m_i_n)', 'FontWeight','bold','FontSize',12,'FontName','Arial'); hold on

127
plot(tmin_vector,tcost_vector_sansU,'Color','blue'); end end

Cot minimum obtenu

tcost min(tcost_vector);

Affichage
display(n_T0T); display(tcost_vector); display(tcost_vector_sansU); % Nombre total d'changeurs % Cots minimaux % Cots minimaux sans "utility"

if tcost == Inf dispC ' ) ; dispC ' ) ; disp('RSOLUTION IMPOSSIBLE'); dispC ' ) ; end end toc;
Published with MATLAB 7.9