Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

This article was downloaded by: [Australian National University]

On: 26 January 2015, At: 17:36


Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Heat Transfer Engineering


Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhte20

Retrofit Optimization Framework for Compact Heat


Exchangers
IGOR BULATOV

Centre for Process Integration, SCEAS University of Manchester Institute of Science and
Technology
Published online: 23 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: IGOR BULATOV (2005) Retrofit Optimization Framework for Compact Heat Exchangers, Heat Transfer
Engineering, 26:5, 4-14, DOI: 10.1080/01457630590927273
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01457630590927273

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE


Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Heat Transfer Engineering, 26(5):414, 2005


C Taylor & Francis Inc.
Copyright 
ISSN: 0145-7632 print / 1521-0537 online
DOI: 10.1080/01457630590927273

Retrofit Optimization Framework


for Compact Heat Exchangers
IGOR BULATOV
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 17:36 26 January 2015

Centre for Process Integration, SCEAS University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, Manchester, UK

A lack of published retrofit methods that account for specifics of plate fin heat exchangers is a serious problem for industrial
projects in which the modernization of such heat exchanger networks is carried out. The author proposes an overall framework
for the retrofit of a plate fin heat exchanger network that has been developed and applied for the debottlenecking of a liquefied
petroleum gas cold box. The framework covers both levels: single exchanger unit and the exchanger network. This retrofit
framework builds on a grassroots design method that has recently been developed and applies a retrofit matrix approach
to obtain volume distribution for new operating conditions. Two sets of heat transfer coefficients, those for existing and
additional volumes, are used. New volume heat transfer conditions are optimized during the procedure; thus, no pre-assumed
coefficients are used, as is the case with previous design and retrofit methods. Pressure drop parameters crucially important
for this sort of equipment are also incorporated into the optimization framework.

INTRODUCTION

problems and a lack of a broader scope in the industry towards


this type of exchangers among them. In this paper, the author
addresses one more significant problem: the lack of systematic retrofit methods for heat exchanger networks (HENs) consisting of CHEs that hinders the wider application of plate fin
exchangers.
Industry and academia have gained significant experience in
the design and maintenance of these units. The Energy Efficiency Best Practice program [2], launched by the UK Department, is a very good example of intensive efforts to disseminate
the best practice concerning compact exchangers. Works covering the overall problem as well as various parts of it have been
published by prominent researchers (e.g., Hesselgreaves [3, 4];
Polley et al. [5]). A considerable amount of research on heat
transfer and friction characteristics of various fin geometries
have been published in recent years (e.g., [69]). Very interesting systematic grassroots design procedures were published in
recent years as well [1013]. However, no reliable methods of
retrofit of plate fin heat exchanger networks have been published
so far. The complexity of this problem equals its significance,
as, the majority of projects carried out in modern process industries in industrialized countries deal with retrofit problems. In
this paper, such a retrofit method for plate-fin heat exchanger
networks will be described.
Our retrofit methodology builds on the plate-fin HEN grassroots design approach developed in [12], who adopted parameter correlations from [14], and a retrofit area matrix proposed
in [15] and further updated by [16]. Detailed descriptions of

Compact heat exchangers (CHEs) have been successfully applied by industries for many decades, and recent trends indicate
expansion of the range of their application and blurring sector
divisions. Plate fin heat exchangers proved to be a very efficient
type of compact heat exchangers. They allow the significant
intensification of the heat transfer process due to their construction features, namely, high area density, usage of secondary
surface, counter-current flow arrangement, small temperature
difference, and multistream configurations. Though generally
more expensive in terms of individual manufacturing than conventional shell-and-tube units, compact heat exchangers prove
to be cost effective in terms of weight, space, and their lower
installation costs. Lower utility consumption, less flue gas emission, and reduced compressor power for refrigeration systems
contribute to operating cost savings. Lower quantities of holdup provide improved safety. This said, process industry overall still regards conventional shell-and tube exchangers as the
work horse for heat transfer processes and plate fin exchangers
as suitable for certain applications. There are several obstacles
to the wider spread of plate fin exchangers [1], with fouling
The work has been carried out in the framework of the Royal Society/NATO
Postdoctoral Fellowship Programme. The author would like to thank the Royal
Society/NATO Postdoctoral Fellowship Programme for granting the award.
Address correspondence to Igor Bulatov, Centre for Process Integration,
SCEAS University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, P.O.
Box 88, Manchester, M60 1QD, UK. E-mail: igor.bulatov@manchester.ac.uk

I. BULATOV

the approaches are given in the reference sources; a very brief


overview of the two methods will be given here.
PFHE Network Design Method

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 17:36 26 January 2015

The four-step plate-fin HEN design method proposed in [12]


includes:
1. Temperature optimization in entrance and exit points. Strictly
following an identical entrance-exit temperature arrangement in multistream heat exchangers leads to a considerable amount of unutilized space, extra headers for redistribution of streams, and additional volume and pressure drop.
To overcome this, an extension of streams to other intervals (see Figure 1) has been proposed. However, reduced
unutilized empty space has to be traded off against the reduced temperature driving force (which requires an increase
in heat transfer area). Hence, an optimization procedure is
required to maximize temperature driving forces and
minimize the number of intermediate headers. This will also
minimize the heat transfer area even if the heat transfer conditions in the exchanger to be designed are not yet known.
2. Unit targeting. With entrance and exit point temperatures
for each stream in intervals already determined, the targets
for network volume, frontal area, and pressure drop and the
minimum number of units are calculated.
3. Distribution optimization. This procedure analyzes different stream distributions, because for equal volumes, an exchanger having a smaller number of streams is cheaper than
a unit with more streams. The variables optimized are the
volume of each targeted exchanger and the number of streams
in each exchanger.
4. Fin optimization. Heat transfer conditions for each stream
are revised in an attempt to make lengths of streams in each
exchanger similar.

Figure 2 Existing (a) and target (b) area matrixes.

arrangement that provides the maximum number of heat exchanger units (see Figure 2b). The target area matrix is assumed
to be flexible.
So far, the two networks are hardly compatible, as the existing
area has already been distributed among stream matches and the
target area matrix neglects this fact. An optimization procedure
is applied to maximize compatibility between the two networks
by shifting heat within each enthalpy interval of the spaghetti
arrangement of the target network (see Figure 3). In the resulting
deviation matrix, an excess area emerges when the difference
between the corresponding element of the retrofit and existing
matrix is negative while the additional area required when the
difference between the corresponding element of the retrofit and
existing matrix is positive.

Retrofit Area Matrix Method


The retrofit area matrix approach was proposed by [15] and
further extended by [16]. The existing area matrix parameters
are considered to be fixed (see Figure 2a). New operating conditions lead to a target network designed using a spaghetti

Figure 1 Stream extension and the trade-off.

heat transfer engineering

Figure 3 Increase in compatibility between existing and target matrixes.

vol. 26 no. 5 2005

I. BULATOV

PFHE RETROFIT OPTIMIZATION FRAMEWORK

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 17:36 26 January 2015

The conventional shell-and tube HEN retrofit has been addressed in a number of works, and quite efficient retrofit procedures exist today. A number of optionsresequencing, repiping, additional area, and stream splittingare applied to overcome the network pinch [17, 18]. However, the specifics of
plate fin heat exchangers do not allow to directly apply those
means to overcome the network pinch. Since plate fin exchangers are brazed or welded units, severe constraints on topology
changes and existing unit design changes can be imposed during
retrofit:

fin types of the existing unit remain unchanged


dimensions of the existing unit remain unchanged
stacking pattern of the existing unit remains unchanged
match volume of the existing unit remains constant
no additional intermediate headers can be inserted.
As a result, the conventional means of overcoming the network pinch for this type of exchangers may prove highly constrained or even impossible in some cases. All this makes the
development of a plate fin exchanger retrofit methodology quite
a complex task.
Though the proposed retrofit method builds on the four-step
grassroot design approach discussed earlier, significant differences are required to take into account the existing topology in
the first two steps.
Temperature Difference Maximization
The aim of this stage is to determine temperature difference
profiles in intervals. Thus, partition temperatures in intervals are
regarded as optimization variables.
New operating conditions lead to new temperature intervals
for the retrofitted HEN. But for some cases, new operating conditions will not change temperature intervals, and the temperature
intervals will remain as in the initial HEN (debottlenecking with

all streams increased proportionally may be an example of such


a case). This driving force optimization procedure considers it
as a separate branch. Thus, only a new unit with optimal temperature profiles will have to be optimized, which simplifies the
retrofit design task.
The optimal profile search path for new operating conditions
and new temperature intervals is shown in Figure 4. The optimal
profile search path for new operating conditions with same temperature intervals is shown in Figure 5. A target stream structure
that follows vertical heat transfer shows how temperature intervals have changed under the new operating conditions. We can
also see whether the target structure retains the initial temperature intervals or whether they have changed. For a grassroot
design case, the driving force optimization procedure described
in [12] is enough; however, it might be better to retain the existing stream matches. Overall, the final retrofit stream structure
will include two parts: streams in the existing volume and those
in additional volume.
Minimization of unutilized volume may require stream extension to other intervals, which implies a violation of the vertical
heat transfer arrangement. For existing units, a stream extension
may be a solution that leads to full utilization of the existing
volume. For additional units, stream extensions to other intervals will result in a reduction of the number of intermediate
headers and unutilized space, thus reducing the length and the
volume of a new unit (see Figure 1). However, lower driving
forces will result in a volume penalty. The optimization procedure analyzes and avoids temperature cross and transverse heat
conduction by imposing constraints. The procedure also checks
that the temperature driving force should exceed 1 C and that a
reasonable number of intermediate headers are in the heat exchanger. All these constraints can be expressed by Eqs. (16) in
the Appendix.
As [19] shows, the critical ratio of temperature difference,
rcrit , depends on heat conductivity of the fin, k; fin thickness, ;
fin height, ; and heat transfer coefficient, h. This means that the
value of rcrit strongly depends on the exchanger itself. Another
author [12] suggested a range of values assuming standard fin

Figure 4 Retrofit stream structures for different temperature intervals under new operating conditions and temperature intervals.

heat transfer engineering

vol. 26 no. 5 2005

I. BULATOV

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 17:36 26 January 2015

Figure 5 Retrofit stream structures for different temperature intervals under new operating conditions but the same temperature intervals.

geometry. For a liquid or close to liquid stream with a heat


transfer coefficient greater than 200 W/m2 K, the value of 0.21
can be assumed as an estimate, and for a gas stream with a heat
transfer coefficient greater than 200 W/m2 K, the value can be
assumed in the ballpark of 0.65. The values can be fine-tuned
later during the design process.
If new temperature intervals appear in the driving force optimization procedure, it means that the existing stream beginning/end needs to be extended or reduced. The range of interval
changes may include:

stream beginning extension


stream end extension
stream beginning reduction
stream end reduction

Combinations of those options can also be possible (e.g., the new


operating conditions result in a stream reduced at the beginning
and extended at the end, or vice versa).
The arrangements of temperature interval extensions or
reductions for existing and additional streams can be different. For a set of existing and additional stream structures and
vertical/non-vertical heat transfer conditions, four general combinations can be considered (see Table 1). Hence, the overall
selection of the optimal retrofitted stream structure requires all
four combinations.
As has been pointed out earlier, vertically arranged streams
in plate fin heat exchangers usually require more unutilized
space and extra headers for the redistribution of streams. This
is why only two options are considered here. The first option
is when existing streams remain vertically arranged while ad-

ditional streams are optimized, and the second option is when


both existing and additional streams are optimized. Thus, in this
procedure, the new volume temperature differences are always
maximized, and the existing volume driving forces can either
follow vertical heat transfer or also be subjected to maximization, as shown in Figure 6.
In practical terms, if the new operating conditions require
an extension of the stream beginning or end, the mass flowrate
should be reduced in the existing stream structure. If, on the
other hand, the stream beginning or end reduction is required,
the mass flowrate should be increased in the existing structure
in compliance with the heat balance. To illustrate this, a cold
stream j beginning extension option is shown in Figure 7. Thus,
in the driving force optimization procedure, we should explicitly
specify or prohibit possible stream splits/mixes in the intermediate intervals of existing and additional structures. As can be
seen from Figure 7, the driving force optimization procedure
needs to choose between the two possible cases.
The objective function of the procedure includes maximization of the temperature driving force profiles in each interval,
minimization of the transverse heat conduction, and a number
of extra intermediate headers (see Figure 8, Appendix Eqs. 7
10).

Table 1 Stream structure options

Existing
Additional

Existing
Additional

Vertical

Non-vertical

Vertical

Non-vertical

Vertical

Non-vertical

Vertical

Non-vertical

Existing
Additional

Existing
Additional

heat transfer engineering

Figure 6 Driving force maximization procedure.

vol. 26 no. 5 2005

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 17:36 26 January 2015

I. BULATOV

Figure 7 Example of cold stream extension options.

In this work, the driving force profile optimization was modelled using General Algebraic Modelling System (GAMS) [20]
and solved using BDMLP, a linear programming and mixed integer programming solver supplied with GAMS, because this is
a typical mixed integer linear programming problem.

First, the approach described in the literature [15, 16] applies constant heat transfer coefficients for both existing and
additional areas. This makes feasible the same basis for area
comparison. Constant conditions may be possible (arguably)
for conventional shell-and-tube exchangers, but this is not the
case with plate fin heat exchangers. The big difference in the
heat transfer coefficient pattern between the plate fin exchanger
Unit, Volume, and Frontal Area Targeting
and a shell-and-tube exchanger is that in a PFHE, heat transfer
This stage determines the minimum number of additional coefficients can vary across different intervals due to changing
units, overall volume, frontal area, and interval pressure drop fin types, frontal area, condensation, and evaporation.
Therefore, the procedure introduces two sets of heat transfer
targets of the network. The insights of the grassroots design
coefficients
that account for the differences between existing and
targeting procedure are used as the basics in this stage of the
new
units.
The
existing volume is calculated via existing heat
retrofit procedure by taking into account the existing structure
transfer
coefficients,
and a set of new coefficients is applied to
and applying the retrofit area matrix methodology. But there are
the
new
volume.
If
new
coefficients were applied to the targeted
two major features that distinguish the current procedure from
area,
they
would
effect
a whole network volume based on new
the retrofit area matrix approach used previously.
coefficients, and no existing matches with different conditions
would be taken into account. Because volume has a different
comparison basis in this case, the optimization of differences
between existing and new volumes will not be correct.
We apply a spaghetti arrangement for each interval and
place an additional match in parallel with the existing match (see
Figure 9) so that the temperature differences of the existing and
new matches will be the same. Theoretically, a feasible, serial
spaghetti arrangement can be implemented only for end intervals
of plate fin HEN because it is impossible to insert additional
matches into the core of the existing unit.
Secondly, the procedure optimizes new volume heat transfer
conditions at the targeting stage, building on the methodology
reviewed earlier in this paper. This is an important difference
between the current procedure and previous methods that used
pre-assumed fin types (hence, pre-assumed heat transfer conditions) at the initial stages of the design.
Figure 8 Entrance and exit points in T-K diagram.
heat transfer engineering
vol. 26 no. 5 2005

I. BULATOV

Table 2 Original process data

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 17:36 26 January 2015

Figure 9 Modified spaghetti arrangement.

A brief description of the model is given below, and the equations are presented in the Appendix.
The model keeps energy balances in each interval. The energy balance for hot streams in an interval equals the sum of
heat loads transferred by cold streams of existing and additional
matches (Appendix, Eq. 11) and the energy balance for cold
streams equals the sum of heat loads transferred by hot streams
of existing and additional matches (Appendix, Eq. 12).
Assuming identical fins on hot and cold sides (i.e., applying the identical fin concept developed by [13]), the additional
volume can be explicitly expressed (Appendix, Eq. 13) as a function of two independent parameters: the fin related property, Y,
and combined stacking pattern and process related property, wv
[12]. New heat transfer conditions (rather than conventional heat
transfer coefficients) embedded in the fin properties parameter,
Y, are incorporated within the equation of the additional volume of the match in the interval. This makes redundant any initial specification of fin types and subsequent iteration between
fin selection and network design. Fin types and stacking pattern of an additional unit are unknown prior to design, which
is why both fin related property and stacking pattern/process
related property are subject to optimization during the retrofit
procedure.
As follows from an analysis of the matrix structure, if the additional heat load is negative (Appendix, Eq. 20), no additional
area is required and zero load will be applied, whereas the positive value of the additional heat load indicates additional area
requirements.
As to the existing part of the heat exchanger network, its heat
transfer coefficients, fin efficiency, and geometry of the existing
units are known prior to the retrofit, so these can be incorpo-

Streams

Flow rate (kg/s)

Ts ( C)

TT ( C)

A
B
C
D
E
F

76.09
15.11
5.87
55.11
10.29
13.43

32
33
62.8
40.4
38.2
42.3

33
27
27
14.2
24
42.1

16,398
3,838
2,966
6,862
1,279
1,454

Pall (kPa)
60
100
50
50
30
10

rated in a conventional form for the existing volume (Appendix,


Eq. 21).
The pressure drop is addressed the similar way as the new
volume (Appendix, Eqs. 2228), in that identical fins on both
sides are assumed, and two independent parameters constitute
the equations: fin related properties, which are lumped into Z,
and combined stacking pattern and process related properties,
which are lumped into wPH (wPC ). The number of additional
units (Appendix, Eq. 29) can be determined as the difference
between the total frontal area and existing area less 1, which
means that we assume the maximum possible frontal area for
the new unit to be 1 m2 .
The objective function of the targeting procedure minimizes
the sum of the match additional volumes (Appendix, Eq. 30).
The volume and additional unit targeting stage is a mixed integer non-linear programming problem, with non-linearity coming from Z-Y graph correlation. In this work, the targeting stage
was modelled using GAMS and solved by applying a non-linear
solverin this case, CONOPT2 of ARKI Consulting and Development [22].
The last two stages of the retrofit procedure, aimed at optimization of stream distribution and fin optimization, remain
basically the same as for grassroot design. However, only additional volume should be considered, as the existing units cannot
be modified due to the nature of PFHE.
PFHE RETROFIT CASE STUDY
The proposed retrofit procedure has been applied to a case
study of LPG plant coldbox, which was first introduced in [12]
to demonstrate the PFHE network design method. The original
design and the process data are shown in Figure 10 and Table 2.

Figure 10 Original coldbox design.

heat transfer engineering

Q (kJ/s)

vol. 26 no. 5 2005

10

Table 3 Stream interval temperatures and the network overall structure

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 17:36 26 January 2015

I. BULATOV

11

Table 4 Retrofit volume distribution

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 17:36 26 January 2015

A.B
A.C
A.D
A.E
A.F

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

B10

B11

0.003
0.001
0.021
0.001

0.003
0.001
0.016
0.001

0.003
0.001
0.081
0.001

0.111
0.001
0.004
0.004

0.003
0.134
0.003
0.003

0.003
0.112
0.003
0.001

0.003
0.010
0.001
0.001

0.003
0.007
0.001
0.001

0.003
0.013
0.003
0.001

0.003
0.012
0.003
0.001

0.003
0.001
0.003
0.001
0.052

B12

B13

B14

B15

0.001

0.001

0.009

0.001

0.013

0.026

0.026

0.026

distribution optimization. Thus the final stagethe detailed fin


type selection for the additional unitcan be carried out. The
fins required for the additional unit are shown in Table 5.
The summary data of the performance of the modified network are shown in Table 6. For comparison, two other options,
a conventionally designed additional unit and a new grassroots
design network, are also given. The figures show that for the
conventional design, the additional volume (hence capital costs)
is considerably higher than in the proposed approach, namely
3.16 m3 vs. 0.74 m3 . The reason for this is the vertical heat transfer arrangement of streams leading to a high number of intermediate headers and unutilized volume. If the old network is to be
scrapped and Puas approach to new grassroots design applied
for our debottlenecking case, another viable option (2.75 m3 )
can be suggested, especially when radical plant modernization
is under consideration. But as can be seen from the figures above,
the proposed retrofit approach gives considerable gains in terms
of smaller volume.

The petroleum gaseous feed is cooled down before entering separation stages.
The existing coldbox was designed following the conventional approach, according to which streams are arranged in a
vertical heat transfer manner. Streams D and E exit at the intermediate points of the exchanger, leaving a considerable amount
of unutilized space (see Figure 10). Each unit has the same configuration and same volume of 3.95 m3 .
Our debottlenecking problem was the increase of throughput
by 20% and proportional change in all stream mass flowrates.
Overall there are three options:
1. to add an extra, similar unit to the existing one
2. to add an extra unit designed using the proposed approach
3. to install a newly designed network, having scrapped the
existing one
Economic considerations as well as the overall targets of the
retrofit should dictate the option.
At the first stage, we obtain the optimized driving force profiles (see Table 3). As a result, the general stream structure is
clear from this table.
The maximized temperature difference profile implies minimal volume for the network. At the next stage, the network
volume, frontal area, pressure drops, and number of additional
units are targeted. For this debottlenecking case (see Table 4),
the required targeted additional volume is relatively small, and
only one additional unit is needed. The pressure drops are below
the allowable values due to the Reynolds number limitations for
each stream. Because the units are arranged in parallel and the
additional unit is small, the overall pressure drop for the network
will not change.
According to the results of the unit targeting stage, only one
additional unit is required, so there is no need to carry out

CONCLUSIONS
The aim of this work was to develop a plate fin heat exchanger
network retrofit procedure. Such a procedure has been developed
building on the retrofit area matrix method and recently published grassroot synthesis method. The volume distribution for
the new operating conditions is obtained using the retrofit area
matrix approach, whereas the fin selection and physical insights
are shared with the grassroot design method.
The major difference with the previous retrofit matrix procedures is that it uses two sets of heat transfer coefficients: for
existing and additional volume. Whats more important is that
the new volume heat transfer conditions are optimal ones, obtained during the targeting stage, and not pre-assumed ones, as
it is often the case with previous design and retrofit methods.

Table 5 Fins for each interval

A
B
C
D
E
F

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

B10

B11

B12

B13

B14

B15

SF1
SF2
PF
SF1
PF

SF1
SF2
PF
SF1
PF

SF1
SF2
PF
SF1
SF3

SF1
SF2
PF
SF1
SF1

SF1
SF2
SF1
SF1
SF1

SF1
SF2
SF1
SF1
SF3

SF1
SF1
PF
SF1
SF1

SF1
SF1
SF1
SF1
SF1

SF1
SF1
SF1
SF1
SF2

SF1
SF1
SF1
SF1
SF2

SF1
SF1
SF3
SF1
SF1
LF1

SF1

SF1

SF1

SF1

SF1

SF3

SF3

SF1

LF2

LF1

LF1

SF2

SF1 = SF1/1027.03; SF2 = SF1/925.01; SF3 = 1/813.95; PF = PF12.0T; LF1 = 3/8(a)6.06; LF2 = LF1/26.06.

heat transfer engineering

vol. 26 no. 5 2005

12

I. BULATOV

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 17:36 26 January 2015

Table 6 Comparison of three possible options

Units
(existing + new)
Volume, m2
(existing + new)
Number of headers
(existing + new)
Pressure drops, kPa
A
B
C
D
E
F

Traditional retrofit
approach

New retrofit
approach

Grassroot design
method

4+1

4+1

0+2

15.8 + 3.16

15.8 + 0.74

48 + 12
(6 intermediate)

48 + 12
(4 intermediate)

Fins

48
83
45
45
27

Louvered

0 + 2.75
0 + 18
(6 intermediate)

48
13.45
83
11.4
45
7.5
45
25.1
27
25.6
0.05
2.2
Serrated + Plain Serrated + Plain
+ Louvered
+ Louvered

As pressure drop considerations are of utmost importance for


plate fin heat exchanger design, the procedure meets pressure
drop constraints.
The procedure has been tested with case study data published
in literature. The results of the case study prove its ability to
find better solutions in comparison with new design approaches.
However, more hardware considerations in the retrofit procedure
still need to be included, especially that the greater number of
fin types might make the procedure more comprehensive and
flexible.
NOMENCLATURE
a
A
a
Afr
b
B
b
Bg
c
C
d
D
dh
DTRS
DTS
E
FT
h
H

coefficient in heat transfer correlation


coefficient in Y -Re relationship, m2
coefficient in fin effectiveness correlation
frontal area, m2
exponent in heat transfer correlation
exponent in Y -Re relationship
exponent in fin effectiveness correlation
ratio of primary heat transfer area between cold and hot
sides
coefficient in friction factor correlation
coefficient in Z -Re relationship, m1
exponent in friction factor correlation
exponent in Z -Re relationship
hydraulic diameter, m
sum of temperature differences between same streams
in MHE, K
sum of temperature differences in MHE, K
enhancement factor, ratio of the total heat transfer area
to plate area
correction factor to the log-mean-temperaturedifference
heat transfer coefficient, W/m2 K
enthalpy change, J
heat transfer engineering

HD
m
P
Q
r
rcrit
Rf
Re
SP
T
T lm
V
w
Y
Y
Ycorr
Z
Z corr

header
mass flowrate, kg/s
pressure drop, Pa
heat transfer rate, W
ratio of temperature difference between hot and cold
streams in MHE
critical r -value where transverse heat conduction will
not occur
fouling resistance, m2 K/W
Reynolds number
stream property (Cp/ Pr2/3 ), kg.m/s3 K
temperature, K
logarithmic temperature difference, K
volume
stacking pattern and process related property in the new
formulation
heat transfer related fin properties, m2
heat transfer related fin properties, m1
correction factor for Y for different basic units
pressure drop related fin properties, m1
correction factor for Z for different basic units

Greek Symbols

V
P

ratio of total transfer area of one side of exchanger to


total exchanger volume, m2 /m3
compactness, ratio of total heat transfer area to total
volume of the fin surface, m1
plate spacing, m
fin effectiveness
two-phase correction factor for heat transfer coefficient
two-phase correction factor for pressure drop
viscosity, kg/ms
density, kg/m3

Superscripts
add
ex
init
pos
Retr
Supply
Targ

volume or heat duty of an additional exchanger


volume or heat duty of an existing exchanger
relating to initial temperature of the stream
positive heat duty of an exchanger
retrofitted network related
relating to supply temperature of the stream
targeting values from unit targeting

Subscripts
B
i
i1
i2
j
j1

Blok related
hot stream
hot stream 1
hot stream 2
cold stream
cold stream 1
vol. 26 no. 5 2005

I. BULATOV

j2
P
V

cold stream 2
pressure drop relating
volume relating

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 17:36 26 January 2015

REFERENCES
[1] Thonon, B., Compact Heat Exchanger: Technology and Application, Proc International Conference on Compact Heat Exchangers
and Enhancement Technology for the Process Industries, pp. 17.
Banff, Canada, 1823 July, 1999.
[2] Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme, www.energyefficiency.gov.uk
[3] Hesselgreaves, J. E., Compact Heat Exchangers Selection, Design
and Operation, Pergamon, London, 2001.
[4] Hesselgreaves, J. E., An Approach to Fouling Allowances in the
Design of Compact Heat Exchangers, Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 755762, 2002.
[5] Polley, G. T., Wilson, D. I., Yeap, B. L., and Pugh, S. J., Use
of Crude Oil Fouling Threshold Data in Heat Exchanger Design, Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 763776,
2002.
[6] Manglik, R. M., and Bergles, A. E., Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Correlations for the Rectangular Offset Strip Fin Compact Heat Exchanger, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science,
vol. 10, pp. 171180, 1995.
[7] Wang, C.-C., Chi, K.-Y., and Chang, Y.-J., An Experimental
Study of Heat Transfer and Friction Characteristics of Typical Louver Fin-and-Tube Heat Exchangers, International Journal of Heat & Mass Transfer, vol. 41, no. 45, pp. 817822,
1998.
[8] Wang, C.-C., Lin, Y.-T., and Lee, C.-J., An Airside Correlation for
Plain Fin-and-Tube Heat Exchangers in Wet Conditions, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 43, pp. 18691872,
2000.
[9] Sunden, B., and Svantesson, J., Correlations of j- and f-Factors
for Multilouvered Heat Transfer Surfaces, Heat Transfer, I. Chem.
Symp. Series No. 129, vol. 2, pp. 805811, 1992.
[10] Picon-Nunez, M., Polley, G. T., Torres-Reyes, A., and GallegosMunoz, A., Surface Selection and Design of Plate-Fin Heat Exchangers, Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 19, pp. 917931,
1999.
[11] Picon-Nunez, M., Polley, G. T., and Medina-Flores, M., Thermal
Design of Multi-Stream Heat Exchangers, Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 22, pp. 16431660, 2002.
[12] Pua, L.-M., Overall Optimisation Framework for Multi-stream
Plate-Fin Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis, Ph.D. Thesis,
UMIST, Manchester, UK, 2001.
[13] Pua, L.-M., and Zhu, (Frank) X. X., Integrate Heat Exchanger
Network and Equipment Design Using Compact Heat Exchangers, Heat Transfer Engineering, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1835,
2002.
[14] Picon-Nunez, M., Use of Compact Heat Exchangers in Integrated
Plants, Ph.D. Thesis, UMIST, Manchester, UK, 1995.
[15] Shokoya, C. B., Retrofit of Heat Exchanger Networks for Debottlenecking and Energy Savings, Ph.D. Thesis, UMIST, Manchester,
UK, 1992.
[16] Silva, M. L., and Zemp, R. J., Retrofit of Pressure Drop Constrained Heat Exchanger Networks, Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 20, pp. 14691480, 2000.

heat transfer engineering

13

[17] Asante, N. D. K., Automated and Interactive Retrofit Design


of Practical Heat Exchanger Networks, Ph.D. Thesis, UMIST,
Manchester, UK, 1996.
[18] Nie, X. R., and Zhu, X. X., Heat Exchanger Network Considering
Pressure Drop and Heat Transfer Enhancement, AIChE Journal,
vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 12391254, 1999.
[19] Prasad, B. S. V., Fin Efficiency and Mechanisms of Heat Exchange
through Fins in Multi-stream Plate-fin Heat Exchanger: Formulation, International Journal of Heat Mass Transfer, vol. 39, no. 2,
pp. 419428, 1996.
[20] The General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS), www.gams.
com
[21] Kays, M. W., and London, A. L., Compact Heat Exchangers, 3rd
ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1984.
[22] Drud, A. S., CONOPT: A System for Large Scale Nonlinear Optimization, Reference Manual for CONOPT Subroutine Library,
ARKI Consulting and Development A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark,
1996.

APPENDIX
Driving Force Optimization Stage Equations
ri,Hj1, j2,k =

Ti,k T j1,k
;
Ti,k T j2,k

Ti,k > T j1,k T j2,k

(1)

H
ri1,i2,
j,k =

Ti2,k T j,k
;
Ti1,k T j,k

Ti1,k > Ti2,k T j,k

(2)

ri,Hj1, j2,k rcrit,i

(3)

C
ri1,i2,
j,k r crit, j

(4)

DTSi, j,k 1 C

(5)

HD B 5

(6)


Maximize


(c1 DTS B c2 DTRS B c3 HD B )

(7)

where
DTS B =

(Ti,k T j,k )

for interval B

(8)

i, j,k

DTRS B =

(Ti1,k Ti2,k )+

i1,i2,k

(T j1,k T j2,k )

j1, j2,k

for interval B
HD B =

(xi + x j )

(9)
for interval B

(10)

i, j

c1, c2, and c3 are scaling factors. Weight factors, c1 = 1, c2 =


0.5, c3 = 100, are assigned to ensure the priority of the driving
vol. 26 no. 5 2005

14

I. BULATOV

force, expressed by DTS, and the same order of magnitude for


the header parameter, HD.

Existing volume:
Vi,exj,B = {(1/F TL M,i, j,B ) [(1/i,B i,B ) (1/ h i,B + R f i,B )
+ (1/ j,B j,B ) (1/ h j,B + R f j,B )]} Q i,exj,B

Targeting Stage Model Equations

(21)

Pressure drop:
Energy balance for hot streams in each interval:


Hi,B =
Q i,exj,B + Q i,add
j,B

(11)

j=1

Energy balance for cold streams in each interval:




H j,B =
Q i,exj,B + Q i,add
j,B

(22)

Z = CRe D

(23)

P j = wP j Z j

(24)

where

(12)

i=1

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 17:36 26 January 2015

Pi = wPi Z i

Additional volume:
Vi,add
=
j,B

wv,i, j,B
pos
Q i, j,B
Yi,B

C=

(13)

where

c
a a  dh2

D = 3d B
Y = ARe

(Y is a fin related property)

(14)

Re =

4m
(Afr )

(15)

A=

a a E
dh

(16)

B = 1 b + b

(17)

wv iP

2 (1 + Bg)


wP j =

3
m


(27)
i

3d
  3  

1 (m/)

(28)

2 (1 + Bg)
m j Bg (m/)
i

Bg wV P
j

Number of additional units:


Unitadd = Afr AExist
1
fr

(29)

The objective function:


obj = min

where

B V

j

(a  E) j
1 (m/)
1
j
hR = 
Bg
V
(19)

(a E)i
Bg (m/)
i SP R
i

Vi,add
j

(30)

I. Bulatov is a Research Associate at the Centre for Process Integration SCEAS, the University of Manchester, UK. The described research
was done in the framework Royal Society/NATO
Post-Doctoral Fellowship Programme at DPI. He
has an Engineering degree (M.Sc.) and a Ph.D.
in Chemical Engineering. His research interests
include heat recovery process design, heat exchanger network retrofit, and cost optimization
aspects of process design.

The effect of the stacking pattern on heat transfer coefficient, enhanced area, fin effectiveness, and friction factor (for the latter,
see also Eqs. 2226) can be accounted for by applying correction factors, Bg, (a AE) j /(a AE)i , Yi,corr , and Z i,corr , which the
retrofit procedure also incorporates.
Negative additional load:


pos
Q i, j,B = max 0, Q i,add
(20)
j,B

heat transfer engineering

(26)

where a, a  , and c are correlation coefficients, and d is a correlation exponent adopted from [14], which in turn was derived
from the original data published in [21].
The stacking pattern and process-related property are described by Eqs. (2728):
wPi =

where a, b, a  , and b are correlation coefficients adopted from


[14], which in turn were derived from the original data published
in [21].
wv is a stacking pattern and process-related property. The
stacking pattern and process-related property can be found from
Eqs. 1819:




1
1
Q
wv = (1 + Bg)
1+
(18)
FT Tlm
h R iV S Pi Yi,corr

(25)

vol. 26 no. 5 2005