Scribd
Upload
214 views4 pages

Using PHEs in HENs

This document discusses using plate-and-frame heat exchangers in heat recovery networks. It provides an example problem comparing designs using shell-and-tube exchangers versus plate-and-frame exchangers. For the example problem, a shell-and-tube design requires 18 exchangers across 13 matches, while a plate-and-frame design requires only 7 exchangers across 9 matches. Plate-and-frame exchangers allow for closer temperature approaches and pure countercurrent flow, reducing the number of exchangers needed. The document compares the designs and discusses how plate-and-frame exchangers can improve heat recovery network design.

Uploaded by

cymy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
214 views4 pages

Using PHEs in HENs

This document discusses using plate-and-frame heat exchangers in heat recovery networks. It provides an example problem comparing designs using shell-and-tube exchangers versus plate-and-frame exchangers. For the example problem, a shell-and-tube design requires 18 exchangers across 13 matches, while a plate-and-frame design requires only 7 exchangers across 9 matches. Plate-and-frame exchangers allow for closer temperature approaches and pure countercurrent flow, reducing the number of exchangers needed. The document compares the designs and discusses how plate-and-frame exchangers can improve heat recovery network design.

Uploaded by

cymy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Heat Exchangers

COMPACT HEAT EXCHANGERS PART 2:

Using Plate Exchangers


in Heat Recovery Networks
Heres how to incorporate plate-and-frame
exchangers into new plant design using
pinch analysis.

Graham Polley,
www.pinchtechnology.com
Christopher Haslego,
Alfa Laval

art 1 of this series (September, pp. 3237) discussed the benefits offered by plate-and-frame
heat exchangers. Since much of their benefit is
associated with reduction in plant complexity and
space saving within the plant, it is important to consider their
use from the outset of a project if the benefits are to be fully
exploited. The graphs presented in that article can be used to
estimate the size and cost of individual exchangers.
This article examines the effect of using plate-andframe exchangers on heat-recovery-system design. This is
illustrated through the following example.

Example problem
The data for this example are presented in Table 1. The following cost equations apply (where C is cost in dollars and A
is area in ft2). For carbon steel shell-and-tube exchangers:
C = 7,600 + 285A0.6

(1)

For Type 316 stainless steel plate-and-frame heat exchangers with areas less than 200 ft2:
C = 401A0.4887

(2)

And for Type 316 stainless steel plate-and-frame heat


exchangers with areas greater than 200 ft2:
C = 136A0.6907

(3)

An installation factor of 3.5 is assumed for the shelland-tube heat exchanger, and a value of 2.0 is assumed for
plate-and-frame exchangers.

The shell-and-tube heat exchanger design


As is common industrial practice, assume that multi-pass
units are to be used. Range targeting (i.e., the determination of total annual cost as a function of minimum tempera48

www.cepmagazine.org

October 2002

CEP

ture approach) yields the relationship between cost and


temperature approach shown in Figure 1. The economic
heat-recovery level occurs at a minimum temperature approach of 23F. The point targets at this temperature approach are shown in Table 2.
Both hot and cold utilities are used. Thirteen heat-recovery matches are indicated, and 18 individual exchangers are required. This is because multiple shells-in-series
are required for some of the matches in order to avoid
temperature crosses.
Heat recovery increases as the minimum temperature
approach between the process composite curves decreases.
However, this can be accompanied by a marked increase in
the number individual heat exchanger shells required for
the network (Figure 2).
Because the problem involves seven process streams
and two utility streams, the minimum number of heatrecovery matches required is actually eight the total
number of streams in the system minus one. The value
of 13 arises because a pinch division is assumed (i.e.,
the problem is divided into two parts at the pinch) and
the equation for determining the number of units is applied to both systems (even though some streams appear in both). This is a conservative assumption, and
the final number can be expected to lie between eight
and thirteen. However, the number of shells used will
exceed the number of matches by at least five (the minimum number of shells exceeds the minimum number
of units by five). Refinement of the initial pinch design
(which will have 13 matches) usually involves closing
up temperature differences, which will add to the need
for additional shells to avoid temperature crosses.
These results were obtained using ESDUs INTEGRITY computer program. The network area was determined
from the specified allowable pressure drops. The cold
streams were assigned to the shellside of each shell-andtube unit. The predicted clean film heat-transfer coeffi-

Table 1. Data for example problem.


Hot Streams

Cold Streams

Stream 1

Stream 2

Stream 3

Stream 4

Stream 5

Stream 6

Stream 7

76,190

15,080

15,870

15,870

20,640

65,870

132,500

176

248

284

140

104

68

95

Target Temperature, F

86

104

86

113

176

131

167

Allowable Pressure Drop, psi

7.5

7.5

7.5

7.5

7.5

7.5

7.5

Heat Capacity, Btu/lb-F

0.6055

0.9984

0.5756

0.9984

0.9315

0.9984

0.5517

Thermal Conductivity,
Btu/h-ft-F

Mass Flowrate, lb/h


Supply Temperature, F

0.05778

0.38713

0.052

0.38713

0.11

0.387

0.069

Density, lb/ft3

37.4

62.4

46.5

62.4

59.3

62.4

39.3

Viscosity, cP

0.12

0.8

0.2

0.8

0.5

0.8

0.2

0.0017

0.0017

0.0017

0.0017

0.0017

0.0017

0.0017

Fouling Resistance,
h-ft2-F/Btu

$3/MBtu

Cold Utility Cost

$0.5/MBtu

Hours of Operation

8,000 h/yr

Plant Life

5 yr

Interest Rate

10%

cients, stream velocities and predicted contact areas are


given in Table 3.
Using the pinch design method to develop a network
design produces the structure shown in Figure 3. As expected, the design uses 13 matches (nine heat recovery
matches, three matches between the process and cold
utility, and one match between process and hot utility).
The design procedure would now move to network optimization using this structure as a starting point. The result would be a slightly simpler design using fewer
matches but more area or a higher energy input. The results of this optimization depend on the starting structure, and the development of the initial structure has crucial bearing on final design.

The plate-and-frame design


The use of plate-and-frame exchangers for this system
results in three direct advantages. First, there is a significant saving in the cost of the individual exchangers. Second, pure countercurrent flow can be used. Third, closer
temperature approaches in individual heat-recovery matches are possible because the practical limit is smaller.
The charts presented in the first article indicate that at the
specified pressure drops, film heat-transfer coefficients for
plate-and-frame heat exchangers would typically be 1,750
Btu/h-ft2-F for the aqueous streams and 380 Btu/h-ft2-F
for the hydrocarbon streams. Range targeting using these
heat-transfer coefficients and the plate-and-frame exchanger
cost equations indicates a minimum temperature approach
of just 15F with no use of hot utility. The point targets at
this temperature approach are listed in Table 4.
A network design for this system is shown in Figure 4.
Again, no attempt has been made to optimize this design (so

Total Annual Cost, $/yr

Cost Data
Hot Utility Cost

$300,000
$290,000
$280,000
$270,000
$260,000
$250,000
$240,000
$230,000
$220,000
$210,000
$200,000
$190,000
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Minimum Temperature Difference, F

Figure 1. Determination of economic heat recovery for multi-pass


shell-and-tube heat exchangers.
Table 2. Point targets for the shell-and-tube design
(minimum temperature approach = 23F).
Hot Pinch Temperature

140F

Cold Pinch Temperature

117F

Hot Utility Consumption

1.11 MBtu

Cold Utility Consumption

2.72 MBtu

Annual Utility Cost

$36,000

Network Surface Area

2,541 ft2

Number of Heat-Recovery Matches

13

Number of Heat Exchangers

18

Network Capital Cost

$563,000

Annualized Capital Cost

$149,000

Total Annual Cost

$185,000

it is not necessarily the best solution to the problem). The


exchanger numbering is the same as used in the shell-andtube exchanger design (Figure 3) to more clearly illustrate
the structural changes. The use of plate-and-frame exchangers results in the removal of units 2, 3 and 6.

CEP

October 2002

www.cepmagazine.org

49

Heat Exchangers

Table 4. Point targets for the plate-and-frame design


(minimum temperature approach = 15F).

Number of Shells Needed

30
25

Hot Pinch Temperature

140F

20

Cold Pinch Temperature

125F

15

Hot Utility Consumption

10

Cold Utility Consumption

1.62 MBtu

Annual Utility Cost

5
0

20

40

60

80

Minimum Temperature Approach, F

Figure 2. Effect of heat recovery on number of shells needed.


Table 3. Stream data for shell-and-tube design.
Stream

Clean Film
Stream
Heat-Transfer Velocity,
Coefficient,
ft/s
Btu/ft2-F
245

6.7

974

297

3.4

358

189

4.6

353

348

5.8

816

277

1.85

220

373

1.69

833

250

2.71

1,027

Steam

700

n/a

38

Cooling Water

500

n/a

460

C2

Number of Heat-Recovery Matches

Number of Heat Exchangers

Network Capital Cost

$14,000

Annualized Capital Cost

$3,800

Total Annual Cost

$9,800

Contact
Area, ft2

C1

Table 5. Comparison of potential designs.


Plate-and-Frame Exchanger

9 exchangers

Plate-and-Frame Exchanger,
Multi-streamed

1 two-stream unit plus


4 three-stream units

Low Energy Cost


Shell-and-Tube Exchanger

Between 8 and 13 matches,


13 to 18 exchangers

High Energy Cost


Shell-and-Tube Exchanger

9 matches,
25 exchangers

This design uses nine matches (compared to the target of seven). However, by using the multi-stream capability of this type of exchanger, the design requires
only five units (four of which each handle three
streams). This structure is shown in Figure 5.
Stream 1

Stream 2

C3

Stream 3

Stream 4

9
8

Stream 5

Stream 6

H1

Stream 7

Figure 3. Network design using shell-and-tube heat exchangers.

50

$6,000
1,400 ft2

Network Surface Area

www.cepmagazine.org

October 2002

CEP

Discussion
The cost of the hot utility in this
example was set at a very low value
($3/MBtu). This favors the expenditure of energy rather than capital and
leads to a higher-than-normal minimum temperature approach. This
should have favored the shell-andtube heat exchanger.
If a higher energy cost had been
used, the design would have been the
network structure shown in Figure 4
(the same as for plate-and-frame units).
However, a design using only nine individual exchangers (one per heat-recovery match) could only be achieved if
single-pass units were used. If multipletube-pass units were employed, the design would need at least 25 exchangers.
Four designs, each of differing
complexity, are possible, as summarized in Table 5.

94.5
140

86
C

176
1

1
157.1

104
C

248
2

5
132.6

86
C
113

284
3

140
9

8
100

104

176

5
68

131

6
125.6

95
95

148

The example shows that the use of


plate-and-frame exchangers has the
following advantages:
improved energy efficiency
reduced capital expenditure
reduced plant complexity
improved plant safety.
While this discussion focuses on the
use of plate-and-frame exchangers, the
arguments apply to other types of compact units as well (several of which can
be used in multi-stream configuration).

Up next
This article has concentrated on
the use of alternative exchanger technologies in the design of heat-recovery
networks for new plants. Part 3, the
final installment in this series, will appear in November and will show how
they can be used to reduce the cost of
CEP
plant revamps.

167

Figure 4. Plate-and-frame heat exchanger network.

Stream 1

4/C1

Stream 2

5/C2
7/C3

Stream 4

Stream 5

Stream 6

Stream 7

1/8

Figure 5. Using multi-stream units further reduces the number of exchangers.

Stream 3

GRAHAM T. POLLEY (Phone: +44-1229-585-330;


Fax: +44-1229-585-708; E-mail:
[email protected]) is retired
from the Univ. of Manchester Institute of
Science and Technology, Manchester, U.K.,
where he was the director of the Centre
for Process Integration. To promote the
application of process integration
technology, he has developed the website
www.pinchtechnology.com. His research
activities have involved condensation heat
transfer, boiling heat transfer, heat-recoverysystem design and the development of process
and equipment design methodologies. He is
the current president of the U.K. Heat Transfer
Society. In 1990, he was awarded the Moulton
Medal by the Institution of Chemical Engineers
for his work on oil refinery revamping, and in
1992, he and Dr. Nasr were awarded the Ackrill
Trophy by the U.K. Heat Transfer Society for
their work on heat-transfer enhancement. He
holds BTech, MSc and PhD degrees in chemical
engineering from Loughborough Univ. of
Technology, and is a member of AIChE.
CHRISTOPHER HASLEGO is a design engineer with
the Process Technology Div. of Alfa Laval (5400
International Trade Dr., Richmond, VA 23236;
Phone: (804) 236-1318; Fax: (804) 236-1360;
E-mail: [email protected]). His focus
is heat transfer in the inorganic base chemicals
industry. He received a BS in chemical
engineering from West Virginia Univ. A member
of AIChE, he also maintains a website dedicated
to chemical engineering entitled The Chemical
Engineers Resource Page at
www.cheresources.com.

CEP

October 2002 www.cepmagazine.org

51

You might also like