Back to Basics

Incorporate Rigorous
Heat Exchanger Models
in Simulation
Ron Beck
Tom Ralston
Shelby Hegy
Aspen Technology, Inc.

Embedding a rigorous heat exchanger model

within an established simulation environment
can help engineers increase process yields,
while minimizing heat exchanger energy
consumption and capital expenditures.

eat exchangers both their design and operational

performance play a major role in the energy
use, product yield, and profitability of most process
plants. For example, heat exchangers that perform heating,
reboiling, and condensation are intrinsic to the separation
performance of distillation columns and hence the overall
performance of the process.
Most projects that use heat exchangers follow a sequential workflow the process engineer models the process,
a thermal specialist designs the heat exchanger from a heat
transfer viewpoint, and a mechanical designer determines
the manufacturability and maintainability of the design. In
addition, a specialist in pinch analysis may look at the overall heat exchanger network from a heat integration point of
view. With this many players involved in the design process,
optimization is often not possible on a time-limited project.
Consequently, the process engineer is often tasked with
the overall process optimization, assuming a feasible heat
exchanger design. One major challenge faced by the process
engineer responsible for designing a new process or optimizing the operation of an existing one is managing the inter
actions among several different software applications.
Traditionally, separate software tools are used to
simulate the overall process, integrate the heat exchanger
network, and simulate the heat exchangers. However, a
unified environment that enables process flowsheet analysis,
heat exchanger network optimization, and rigorous heat
exchanger design and simulation enables the process engineer to examine the tradeoffs among achieving the optimal
process yield, reducing energy consumption, and minimizing

Copyright 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

heat exchanger capital expenditures. These tradeoffs play a

key role in maximizing operational profitability and increasing reliability.
Rigorous heat exchanger models can significantly
increase the fidelity and accuracy of the process model,
which benefits both design and operations. In design, more
alternatives can be considered more quickly. In operations,
operational risks and maintenance issues can be identified
and addressed.
Having rigorous heat exchanger models in simulation software can significantly streamline the workflow
of conceptual engineering resulting in better designs.
While heat exchanger design tools have been connected
with process simulators at an elementary level for at least
five years, recent advances in software architecture and
methods have enabled much closer and more fundamental
integration between rigorous heat exchanger models and
process simulators. This enhanced and fundamentally new
level of integration and visualization is the subject of this
article.

What is a rigorous model?

When using rigorous heat exchanger models, the process
engineer is employing the same heat exchanger software
tools that the thermal designer uses. The main difference is
that the process engineer is presented with an interface that
enables him or her to complete a rigorous model without considering all of the design details, which a thermal
designer typically evaluates comprehensively later.
Process engineering training generally incorporates basic
CEP July 2014 www.aiche.org/cep

21

Back to Basics

education in heat exchanger design, and many computerbased, online training resources are also readily available.
These tools enable the process engineer to create a design
that is sufficient for the conceptual design phase. A thermal
specialist should be consulted as necessary to ensure that the
design choices being made are feasible.
A rigorous exchanger model is based on an exchanger
whose geometry has been fully specified. Table 1 lists some
of the geometric parameters required for specifying the
geometry of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger. In addition, the
rigorous model employs a complete thermal and hydraulic
representation of exchanger behavior based on the defined
geometry and the process conditions within the device. This
requires a sophisticated model with the ability to handle
single-phase and multiphase applications.
If you are optimizing the performance of an existing
process, a complete geometric specification of the existing
exchangers will be available. If you are designing a process, you will need to define a suitable design to meet each
exchangers process requirements.
By allowing process engineers to develop preliminary
heat exchanger designs in the context of the process (without
leaving the process simulator), the process modeler will be
able to explore the initial heat exchanger design decisions,
understand the best design(s), and then update the process
parameters for that heat exchanger in order to more accurately conduct the process modeling. This can identify:
areas where finding a feasible exchanger design
is difficult and may necessitate changes in the process
configuration
situations where proposed heat exchangers could
introduce operational risks, such as tube vibration or rapid
fouling
situations where alternative exchanger types could
improve yields and/or reduce capital cost.
Table 1. These details are typically specified to define
the geometry of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger
in a rigorous model.

These explorations can be performed before the process

flow diagram and the heat and material balances have been
finalized. This reduces the number of iterations between the
process engineering group and the thermal designer, thereby
enabling consideration of more design options within a tight
project schedule.
However, what is described here is more than simply
accessing a second model. It is the integration of the two
models at a level such that the rigorous heat exchanger
model is embedded within the simulator, and the models are
solved simultaneously. Sensitivity analysis studies can be
run to examine changes in both the heat exchanger and other
related aspects of the process.

Initial modeling in the process flowsheet

When an exchanger is added in a process simulation
during conceptual design, the user typically specifies the
required inlet and outlet conditions for the streams that
exchange heat. Alternatively, the process engineer may
specify the heat exchangers inlet conditions and required
thermal duty (Table 2). In addition to the thermal requirements, the maximum allowable pressure drop is usually
specified for each process stream.
This simple, so-called shortcut, method provides enough
information for the simulator to calculate overall heat and
material balances. It does not, however, provide sufficient
information to predict how an exchanger will respond to
changes in process stream conditions or stream compositions.
And, it cannot indicate how large an exchanger will need
to be, how much it will cost, how much plot space it will
require, or what impact it will have on piping or foundations.
All of these details require a rigorous exchanger model.
Table 2. These specifications can be used to define a
heat exchanger unit operation in a process simulation.
Hot stream pressure drop allowance
Cold stream pressure drop allowance
Hot stream outlet temperature

Number of shells in series

Hot stream outlet temperature decrease

Number of shells in parallel

Hot outlet cold inlet temperature difference

Shell configuration (e.g., TEMA Type E, F, G, etc.)

Hot stream outlet subcooling

Shell diameter (ID and OD)

Hot stream outlet vapor fraction

Tube length

Hot inlet cold outlet temperature difference

Number of tubes and tube passes

Cold stream outlet temperature

Tubesheet layout

Cold stream outlet temperature increase

Number of baffles

Cold stream outlet superheat

Baffle pitch and cut

Cold stream outlet vapor fraction

Shell and tube materials of construction

Exchanger duty

Setting plan

Hot/cold outlet temperature approach

22

www.aiche.org/cep July 2014 CEP

Copyright 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

Embedding a rigorous heat exchanger model

Follow these steps to employ rigorous heat exchanger
models within the process simulator. (Some of the details
may change depending on the software used, but the fundamental workflow will be similar.)
1. Build the process flowsheet (or model), and place heat
exchanger unit operations as needed to achieve the desired
process conditions for key synthesis and separation operations within the simulation.
2. Converge the process model using the shortcut
method.
3. Identify the key heat exchangers those that will
have the biggest impact on the design in terms of process
heat and costs and convert one or more of them to a
rigorous model (Figure 1). Although a thermal specialist will
still need to finalize the design, a process engineer can quite
easily especially with experience create a preliminary
design using the rigorous heat exchanger software.
4. Use the softwares optimization capabilities to identify
the designs with the lowest capital costs. This optimization
mode enables the process engineer to home in on a design
close to what the thermal specialist will arrive at later.
5. Re-solve the process model that now incorporates the
selected rigorous heat exchanger model(s) and explore a
range of operating scenarios, including turndown and excess
throughput. These can be run as sensitivity analyses within
the simulation environment.

6. If necessary to improve modeling efficiency, convert

the rigorous models back to basic shortcut models based on
the process specifications that resulted from the rigorous
heat exchanger models.
7. After reviewing the process schema and completing
process modeling, provide the heat exchanger files to the
thermal designer, who then will verify and complete the
design to ensure that it meets cost and operability objectives. If necessary, the thermal designer will also further tune
individual exchanger designs.

Developing the rigorous models geometry

Rigorous heat exchanger models are typically created
using heat exchanger design and rating software, which
is available from a small number of recognized process
engineering software vendors. The most critical concern for
accurate design or simulation is the validity of that softwares models and correlations. This can often be judged
by assessing the research on which these models are based
and the models industrial acceptance. Other important
considerations are the quality of the integration between the
exchanger design software and process simulator, the ability
to produce exchanger designs optimized for capital expense
(rather than simply heat-transfer area), and the ability to
undertake a comprehensive automated search of possible
designs. The following steps outline how to optimize a rigorous exchanger model in simulation:

p Figure 1. This rigorous shell-and-tube heat exchanger model is being specified within the process simulation environment.

Copyright 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

CEP July 2014 www.aiche.org/cep

23

Back to Basics

Step 1. Define streams, temperatures, and pressures.

First, define the stream flowrates, inlet and outlet temperatures, and operating pressures. When the simulator and the
exchanger design model are integrated and running simultaneously, the process simulation run will automatically
populate the relevant fields with these data. The designer
should review the stream data, and can override parameters
if necessary.
Step 2. Specify properties and property-estimation
methods. Next, define the physical properties characterizing the various streams. The process simulator and the
exchanger design and rating software should use the same
physical property data and estimation methods to ensure
that the heat exchanger design meets the duty requirements. In the integrated, concurrent modeling approach,
all required physical properties are provided by the process
simulator to the rigorous heat exchanger model, which
ensures consistency.

Step 3. Specify the exchanger geometry. Once physical

property data have been entered, the next step is to define
the exchanger geometry, starting with the exchangers
configuration. For a shell-and-tube exchanger, this entails
specifying the shell type and whether the hot stream will
be on the shellside or the tubeside. Default values for the
tube outer diameter, tube pitch, tube pattern, baffle type,
exchanger material of construction, etc., provided by the
software are generally sufficient. Users commonly specify
preferred head configurations and stream fouling resistances,
as well as recommendations to avoid certain design options
like shell expansion bellows, based on in-house engineering
standards or an industry standard such as that of the Tubular
Exchanger Manufacturers Association.
Step 4. Simulate performance in the rigorous model
mode. This will provide insight into the exchangers suitability for the process requirements. More importantly,
the engineer can switch between heat exchanger types, for
example from shell-and-tube to air-cooled. This allows multiple design alternatives to be considered quickly. An overdesigned exchanger requires additional capital expenditures
and may suffer excessive fouling or be difficult to control.
A process with an under-designed exchanger will fall short
of its required yields and/or consume excess energy, with
consequent effects on profitability.
One recent innovation displays the fouling susceptibility and vibration risk information for each rigorously
modeled heat exchanger on a type of dashboard. This
information can be used to explore design alternatives that
reduce these operational issues. Some of the available software programs used for heat exchanger design can perform
more advanced optimization studies based on the initially
selected design.

Improvements in process simulators bring

heat exchanger operation risks and warnings
to the attention of the process engineer.

p Figure 2. A simple heat exchanger model (top) requires less specification than a rigorous heat exchanger model (bottom). Use rigorous models
when more insight into the process is required.

24

www.aiche.org/cep July 2014 CEP

p Figure 3. The operational risks of a heat exchanger can be displayed

on a dashboard. The display can help process engineers understand how
design decisions will impact maintenance problems, cost, frequency, and
equipment lifetime.

Copyright 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

 Step 5. Re-solve the process model. Once a rigorous exchanger design has been optimized for the process,
the optimum design is automatically incorporated into the
flowsheet. The overall simulation can be run again with the
more-accurate representation of exchanger behavior. This
may reveal issues in exchanger performance or in inter
actions between unit operations that the process modeler can
identify and address.
Step 6. Move from thermal to mechanical design. The
other important element in ensuring a practical exchanger
design is to confirm with the mechanical design group that
the proposed thermal design is feasible from a fabrication
standpoint. Traditionally, this involves passing the entire
proposed thermal design to the mechanical designer. The
mechanical design group can ensure, for example, that
the proposed arrangement of the baffles within the shell is
consistent with the nozzle locations and the shell flange and
tubesheet thicknesses, as well as whether the tubes can be
successfully welded. Often, the mechanical designer suggests changes to the design.
The most advanced approaches to heat exchanger design
offer a close integration between the thermal and mechanical design, making it faster and easier for the thermal and
mechanical teams to collaborate and arrive at the final
design. In some organizations, the thermal team works
directly with the mechanical team throughout the entire
process. Alternatively, it can be very effective for the thermal
designer to undertake preliminary mechanical design before
the mechanical team gets involved.

When to use rigorous vs. shortcut models

Rigorous exchanger models provide insight into
exchanger performance in the context of the process,
whether for verifying the design for operability issues such
as excessive temperature, pressure, or vibration risks, or for
troubleshooting plant operation (Figure 2). This is because

the rigorous model provides a highly detailed representation

of exchanger performance, including prediction of operational risk conditions like flow-induced vibration and critical
heat flux.
The rigorous exchanger model can simulate off-design
conditions so that the engineer can evaluate whether serious
issues might result from changes in process flows, temperatures, pressures, or stream compositions. (Figure 3 provides
an example of one way operational risks can be visualized.)
However, shortcut models may provide an adequate first
approximation in some cases, such as when there is a need to
reduce simulator convergence time or achieve convergence
of large complex flowsheets.
Table 3 compares the types of process simulation
applications for which shortcut methods and rigorous heat
exchanger models are generally preferred.

Rigorous exchanger modeling in practice

Process simulators have been helping manufacturers
as well as engineering and construction firms design and
operate plants and refineries across many industries for over
30 years. Similarly, exchanger design and rating software
has been available since the late 1970s. However, only
the recent integration of process simulation and rigorous
exchanger modeling tools has allowed for higher-fidelity
process simulations. Many companies have been able to
reap the benefits of this integrated technology to increase
process yield, throughput, and energy efficiency, and to
reduce downtime.
A gas plant revamp. A large engineering and construction (E&C) company serving the oil and gas industry uses
rigorous exchanger models (of shell-and-tube, air-cooled,
and multistream plate-fin exchangers) integrated within
the Aspen HYSYS oil-and-gas process simulator to perform debottlenecking and revamp studies. A revamp study
of a gas plant had a goal of increasing plant capacity by

Table 3. Shortcut methods and rigorous heat exchanger models

are typically preferred in these process simulation applications.
Shortcut

Rigorous

Conceptual process modeling

Evaluating process behavior at off-design conditions

Trying to converge large complex models

Troubleshooting operations

Precursor to rigorous exchanger modeling

Verifying and validating exchanger design

Sensitivity studies where exchanger performance has minimal impact

Comprehensive sensitivity analysis

Comparing different exchanger types
Revamp studies to estimate cost, weight, and plot requirements
Troubleshooting and debottlenecking studies
Energy optimization studies
Fouling studies
Optimization of cleaning schedules
Article continues on next page

Copyright 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

CEP July 2014 www.aiche.org/cep

25

Back to Basics

Increasing the collaboration between

process engineers and thermal experts
helps create process designs that are
optimized for exchanger performance.
20%. The E&C engineers believed that replacing some of
the shell-and-tube heat exchangers in the existing installation with plate-fin units should be considered. Because
of the scale and complexity of the facility, evaluating the
options was very challenging.
The engineers first developed a complete model of the
process. Then, they introduced rigorous heat exchanger
models and evaluated process scenarios in which both
shell-and-tube and plate-fin exchangers were used, in various combinations and with various ratings. The alternative
scenarios were run with the design objective of increasing gas yield by 20%. The rigorous models helped them
understand how different configurations would influence the
overall process yields, energy consumption, and other key
specifications.
Using rigorous models, the engineers determined that
only two of the three critical exchangers in the process
required replacement a capital expenditure savings over
replacing all three exchangers and that the plant revamp
had a one-month payback period. Additionally, through
integration of the rigorous heat exchanger models within the
simulation model, they were able to identify better design
alternatives for the portion of the process being studied
that would not otherwise have been visible, and were able
to communicate this to the facility owner and achieve the
desired yield improvement at a low capital cost.

Ron Beck is the Director of Product Marketing for aspenONE Engineering at

Aspen Technology, Inc. (Email: Ron.Beck@aspentech.com). His experience includes 10 years as a project manager in an engineering and
technology consultancy and over 15 years of experience implementing
engineering solutions for the process industries. For the past seven
years he has marketed process modeling, heat exchanger, and economic evaluation products at AspenTech. He graduated from Princeton
Univ. with a degree in biology.
Tom Ralston is the Product Director for the Aspen Exchanger Design
and Rating suite of software at Aspen Technology, Inc. (Email:
Tom.Ralston@aspentech.com). He has over 20 years of experience
working with software for the design and optimization of heat exchangers. His involvement in the heat exchanger arena includes a key role
at HTFS prior to and after its acquisition by Aspen Tech. In that role,
he has had a long-time relationship with heat transfer groups at many
engineering and construction companies and with owner-operators
globally. He has been a driving force in improving the technical scope,
ease of use, and integration of the software suite.
Shelby Hegy is the Product Marketing Manager for the Aspen Exchanger
Design and Rating suite of tools at Aspen Technology, Inc. (Email:
Shelby.Hegy@aspentech.com), where she supports the sales group
selling to fabricators. She holds a BS in chemical engineering from the
Univ. of Minnesota and has been with AspenTech for just over one year.

26

www.aiche.org/cep July 2014 CEP

Planning and performing preventive maintenance in a

refinery. A major oil producer and refinery operator developed a monitoring and cleaning scheduling tool for a refinery preheat train using the methods described in this article.
Its engineers used rigorous shell-and-tube exchanger models
embedded within the Aspen HYSYS process simulator to
create a model of existing refineries, calibrated the models
against historical operating data, and then used this validated
model as a predictive tool to calculate fouling resistances
and assess the impact of the fouling resistances on the process performance.
The model was constructed with a spreadsheet-style
interface that could be used by the plant operators. This
allowed the operators to optimize cleaning schedules, avoid
over-cleaning, and ultimately increase process uptime,
which improved plant profitability.
The use of rigorous heat exchanger models that are
tuned to accurately represent the operating conditions of an
existing exchanger is a common application of the combined
modeling tools, and typically achieves concrete and measurable results.

Closing thoughts
Incorporating rigorous exchanger models into process
simulation is a recent technological advance that has had
a significant impact on the process industries. Increasing
the collaboration between process engineers and thermal
experts helps create process designs that are optimized for
exchanger performance and generates significant capital and
operating expenditure savings.
Rigorous exchanger models provide accurate information about the thermal and hydraulic performance of an
exchanger through sophisticated incremental calculations
that incorporate full exchanger geometry specifications,
rather than just stream conditions or an exchanger duty,
in the simulator. This allows process-engineering contractors to produce more fully optimized process designs with
a very effective means of assuring that serious operational
risks are avoided. For the process operator, the integration
of exchanger models into process simulation supports better optimization of operations, while avoiding operational
risks that may otherwise be hidden. For the heat exchanger
manufacturer, rigorous process models are a better means
of predicting situations in which the heat exchanger will fall
short of user requirements, and provide a sound framework
for exploring remedial measures.
The chemical and refining industries can look forward
to further innovations in this area as companies continue to
search for opportunities to expose key performance indicators to the process designers, heat exchanger fabricators,
and plant operators, as well as better ways to enable fully
CEP
optimized designs.
Copyright 2014 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)