Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.

2011, 50, 965–973 965

Heat-Exchanger Bypass Control

William L. Luyben*
Department of Chemical Engineering, Lehigh UniVersity, Bethlehem, PennsylVania 18015, United States

Many methods are used for controlling temperatures in heat exchanger systems. Direct manipulation of the
flow rate of either the hot or the cold stream is most often used when that stream is a utility (cooling water,
steam, hot oil, or refrigerant). When the flow rates of both streams are set by process requirements, heat-
exchanger bypassing is widely used. A portion of one of the streams (either hot or cold) is sent through the
heat exchanger, and the remainder is bypassed around the exchanger. The temperature of the mixed steam is
controlled by valves in each path. This system provides very tight temperature control, since the dynamics of
blending a hot stream and a cold stream are very fast. This paper explores the design and control issues when
heat-exchanger bypassing is used. The design optimization variables include the fraction of bypassing, the
area of the heat exchanger, and the design pressure drops over the control valves. Dynamic rangeability
requires heat-transfer rates to be adjustable over a wide range. As expected, results demonstrate that a larger
area and more bypassing improve the ratio of maximum-to-design heat transfer rates, which is important for
dynamic controllability. An unexpected, counterintuitive result is that control valve design pressure drops
have little effect on rangeability in heat-exchanger bypass systems in which variable-speed pumps are used
to maintain total flow rates.

1. Introduction
Heat exchangers are undoubtedly the most numerous indus-
trial unit operation. The temperatures or phases of process
streams must be changed to achieve process objectives. Hot
sources of heat (steam, hot oil, or molten salt) and cold sinks
of heat (cooling water, air, or refrigeration) are sent through a
variety of different types of heat exchangers to heat, cool,
vaporize, or condense a process stream. Process-to-process heat
exchangers are widely used to reduce utility consumption, which
lowers energy costs.
Most heat exchangers require some type of control system
to achieve process objectives. When a utility stream is involved,
its flow rate is usually manipulated to control a process
temperature. If phase changes are occurring in the heat
exchanger (vaporization or condensation), the control objective
may be to maintain vessel pressure or liquid level instead of
temperature.
Bypassing is sometimes used in heat exchangers in which
low velocities of cooling water can result in fouling. The cooling
water flow can be set at a fixed high flow rate, and the hot stream
can be bypassed.
When the heat exchanger involves a hot process stream and
a cold process stream, manipulation of either for control
purposes is usually not possible, since their flow rates are set
by upstream or downstream process objectives. In this situation,
heat-exchanger bypassing is frequently employed.
Sometimes a portion of the hot stream is bypassed around
the heat exchanger. In other situations, a portion of the cold
stream is bypassed. The common heat-transfer heuristics is to
bypass the stream whose outlet temperature is to be controlled.
The blending of the portion of the process stream going through
the heat exchanger with the portion being bypassed affects the
mixed temperature almost instantaneously, so tight temperature
control of the blended stream can be achieved. There are
secondary, slower changes that occur as the flow rate through
the heat exchanger affects the outlet temperature, but the fast
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: 610-758-4256.
Fax: 610-758-5057. E-mail: WLL0@Lehigh.edu.
10.1021/ie1020574  2011 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 12/16/2010
blending of hot and cold streams quickly compensates for these
slow disturbances.
Like most design situations, the design of heat-exchanger
bypassing systems involves trade-offs. Increasing the fraction
of the stream that is bypassed permits larger changes in the
heat-transfer rates, which means wider dynamic rangeability to
handle changing process requirements, but increasing bypassing
requires a larger heat exchanger (more area) because the
differential temperature driving forces are smaller than they
would be if all the stream were sent through the heat exchanger.
This situation is good example of the interaction (conflict)
between design and control.
Another example that also comes into play in bypass heat-
exchanger design is the issue of pressure drop. The design
pressure drop through the heat exchanger is usually established
by heuristics to give reasonable heat-transfer coefficients. The
higher the pressure drop, the higher the velocity, the larger the
film coefficients, the smaller the required heat-transfer area and
the lower the capital investment. But higher pressure drops mean
higher-head pumps or compressors and higher energy require-
ments in motors or turbines.
This issue is important in heat-exchanger bypass systems because
sometimes these systems are designed with a control valve in the
bypass line but with no valve in the line going through the heat
exchanger (see the top flowsheet in Figure 1A). The pressure drop
over the bypass valve must be equal to the pressure drop through
the heat exchanger. Rangeability is usually very limited in this
situation, particularly when the bypass valve is opened wide
because there is still flow through the heat exchanger.
Much wider rangeability is achieved by having two control
valves, one in the bypass line and one in the line through the
heat exchangers (see the bottom flowsheet in Figure 1A). The
flow rates through the two paths can be much more widely
adjusted, which provides a larger ratio of maximum-to-minimum
heat transfer rates. Remember, however, that in most situations,
the total process flow rate is set by other process requirements.
An upstream variable-speed pump is used in some liquid systems
to maintain the total required flow rate. Alternatively, one of
the two valves can control the total flow rate while the other
966 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 50, No. 2, 2011
Figure 1. (A) Heat-exchanger bypass with and without valve in heat-
exchanger line. (B) Heat-exchanger bypass with fixed-speed pump.
controls the temperature, as shown in Figure 1B. We will return
to this system later in the paper to see the effect of valve design
pressure drop on rangeability.
The action of the two valves is different. As shown in Figure
1A, if sending all the flow through the heat exchanger is the
fail-safe situation (cooling of this stream being done in the heat
exchanger), the valve in the heat-exchanger line should fail wide
open (air-to-close, reverse action) and the bypass valve should
fail closed (air-to-open, direct action). Of course, putting a valve
in the heat-exchanger circuit produces more pressure drop and
increases motor work requirements.
These issues are all fairly obvious, but little quantitative
analysis has appeared in the literature of the several design
factors involved. Little guidance is available in setting up a heat-
exchanger bypass system. That is the purpose of this paper. The
specific application is one in which a circulating coolant stream
is used to cool a chemical reactor. The coolant stream is itself
cooled in a heat exchanger that has a bypass.
Most control textbooks show various heat exchanger con-
figurations and control structure alternatives, but little quantita-
tive analysis is provided. McMillam and Toarmina1 and Riggs
and Karim2 discuss a number of piping and control configura-
tions, including bypassing, and point out some of the control
advantages of the bypass configuration. Bequette3 shows the
simple bypass structure with only a valve in the heat exchanger
line (see the top graph in Figure 1A). Balchen and Mumme4
discuss the bypass system shown in Figure 2A. The example
uses a cold utility stream to control the exit temperature of a
process stream. They show only a valve in the bypass line, which
is used to control the outlet temperature of the blended stream
and provides tight temperature control. On top of this basic
control structure, they add a “parallel” controller whose input
signal is the signal sent to the bypass valve and whose output
signal manipulates the position of a valve in the cold utility
stream. The idea is to keep the bypass valve at ∼50% open
under steady-state conditions so that tight temperature control
can always be achieved by the blending of hot and cold streams.
This type of structure is more descriptively termed “valve-
Figure 2. (A) Valve position control. (B) Three-heat-exchanger system with
bypassing.
position control” by Shinskey,5 who demonstrated its application
to minimum pressure operation of distillation columns.
A quantitative study of a bypass system is given in Seider et
al.,6 who examined the three-heat-exchanger system shown in
Figure 2B. A bypass was added to permit the control of all
three temperatures. Resiliency analysis was applied to guide in
the pairing of controlled and manipulated variables in the three
temperature loops. The effects of two design parameters (heat-
exchanger area and percent bypassing) were explored. Increasing
either parameter was shown to improve rangeability (handle
larger disturbances while maintaining temperature set points).
Dynamic simulations were presented to demonstrate control
performance. Seider et al. did not study the effect of valve design
pressure drop on rangeability.
In this paper, a reactor/exchanger process is considered in
which heat-exchanger bypassing is used in a circulating coolant
system.
2. Process Studied
Figure 3 shows the flowsheet of the process considered in
this paper as a numerical example. The conditions and param-
eters shown correspond to one particular case and will vary for
different design choices. The exothermic liquid-phase reaction
of aniline with hydrogen to form cyclohexyl amine (CHA) is
carried out in a jacketed CSTR reactor.
C6H7N + 3H2 f C6H13N
R ) VRkCACH (1)
where R is the overall reaction rate (kmol/s), VR is the reactor
liquid volume (m3), k is the specific reaction rate (m3 kmol-1
s-1), CA is the concentration of aniline in liquid phase (kmol/
m3), and CH is the concentration of hydrogen in liquid phase
(kmol/m3).
k ) 2 × 104e-11,111 (cal/mol)/RT (2)

Figure 3. Circulating water system with heat-exchanger bypassing.
The volume of the reactor is 34 m3, the operating temperature
TRX is 400 K and the pressure is 20 atm. The fresh feed of
aniline is 50 kmol/h. An excess of hydrogen is fed (200 kmol/
h) to maintain a high conversion of aniline.
The exothermic reaction requires that 516.2 kcal/s of heat
be removed by the circulating treated-water system flowing
through the jacket at a temperature TJ of 350 K. The circulation
rate, FJ, is high enough so that a uniform jacket temperature
can be assumed. The vessel aspect ratio is 2, so the diameter is
2.8 m and the jacket heat-transfer area is 50.9 m2. An overall
heat-transfer coefficient of 0.885 kW K-1 m-2 is assumed. Jacket
volume is 10 m3.
The circulating water is pumped through two parallel paths.
One flow, FHX, is fed to a water-cooled heat exchanger. The
other flow, FBY, flows around the heat exchanger. The two
streams are combined and circulate back to the jacket. There
are two control valves, one in each line. The valve in the heat-
exchanger line is air-to-close (fails open for maximum cooling).
The bypass valve is air-to-open. The total circulation flow rate
is 6000 kmol/h with 3714 kmol/h bypassing the heat exchanger,
so the fraction bypassed is 62%. As we demonstrate in the
following sections, the fraction bypassed is uniquely set in this
system by the total circulation flow rate and the heat-transfer
area in the heat exchanger.
The flow rate of the cooling-tower water on the cold side of
the heat exchanger is set so that the cooling water exit
temperature is 315 K with a 305 K inlet cooling water
temperature. The required water flow rate to remove 522.0 kcal/s
in the heat exchanger is 9670 kmol/h (770 gpm). The heat duty
in the heat exchanger is slightly larger than in the reactor because
of the pump work. Pump motor work is 22 kW in this case
with a 5 atm pump head. With a 1 atm pressure drop over the
heat exchanger, the design pressure drop over the bypass valve
is 5 atm and over the heat-exchanger valve is 4 atm.
The case shown in Figure 3 has a heat exchanger area of
200 m2, a total coolant circulation of 6000 kmol/h, and a bypass
control valve design pressure drop of 5 atm. Other cases are
explored in the following sections to see their effects on
rangeability.
3. Advantages of Bypass Configuration
The circulating water system has several advantages in chemical
reactors over the alternative of adding cooling-tower water directly
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 50, No. 2, 2011 967
into the jacket for once-through operation. First, the fairly high
reactor temperature (400 K) would result in high water exit
temperatures even at normal loads, which could result in corrosion
problems. At low loads with small cooling water flow rates, the
water could even boil. Second, the dynamics of the once-through
system are much slower than the circulating system. The water in
the jacket must be displaced by the incoming water before jacket
temperatures change. In the circulating system, the hot bypass flow
and the cold heat-exchanger flow are mixed and immediately
change the blended temperature. The high circulation rate changes
the jacket temperature very quickly. So reactor temperature control
is much tighter in the circulating system.
However, the downsides of the circulating system are that a
pump is required, a larger heat exchanger is needed, and more
cooling-tower water is consumed. These make the circulating
system more expensive. In addition, the maximum heat-removal
rate is smaller, since there are two heat-transfer resistances (one
through the reactor jacket and one through the tubes in the heat
exchanger) between the high-temperature source and low-
temperature sink.
Is the improvement in dynamic control worth the added
expense? In many reactor systems, the answer is a definite yes.
Reactor temperature control is usually critically important to
maintain both stability and selectivity. Temperature deviations
can lead to runaways. Not maintaining optimum reactor tem-
perature can lower yields, produce undesirable byproducts or
degrade catalyst. Potential corrosion or environmental problems
can also become issues.
The reactor example considered in this paper is just one of
many types of applications of heat-exchanger bypassing. Feed-
effluent heat exchanges with bypassing are widely used.
Condensers and pumparounds on distillation columns sometimes
use bypassing to adjust heat removal. Heat-integrated systems
frequently use heat-exchanger bypassing.
4. Bypass Design Issues
Now that the process has been established, there are several
decisions that must be made to complete the design: (1) What
fraction of the total circulation should be bypassed at design
conditions? (2) How large should the heat exchanger be? (3) How
much pressure drop should be taken over the control valves at
design conditions? Thus, there are three design optimization
variables.
968 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 50, No. 2, 2011
Figure 4. Control structure with heat-exchanger bypassing.
If we considered only steady-state economics, these decisions
would be easy. Nothing should be bypassed. This would give
the smallest circulation rate, smallest pump, and least heat-
exchanger area. However, good dynamic control and range-
ability are vital in this reactor system, so we must consider how
the selection of the three design optimization variables impact
control. The approach is to select a range of values of these
three variables and see what rangeability in heat removal they
provide. Rangeability is judged by the maximum possible feed
flow rate to the reactor while still maintaining the desired 400
K reactor temperature. Of course this maximum heat-removal
occurs when the bypass valve is completely shut (no bypass
flow, everything going through the heat exchanger for maximum
cooling).
5. Simulation
Setting up this process for dynamic simulation is not a trivial
job. Aspen simulation software is used. The steady-state process
is configured in Aspen Plus and then exported into Aspen
Dynamics to evaluate dynamic performance.
5.1. Steady-State Simulation. The RCSTR model is used
in Aspen Plus with the Direct heat-transfer option selected. The
liquid level in the reactor is set at 80% by selecting the setup
option of reactor. Reactor temperature is 400 K at design. The
reactor jacket is simulated using a Flash2 model with a heat
stream input coming from the reactor. Jacket temperature is 350
K at design conditions with an aniline feed flow rate of 50 kmol/
h. At higher throughputs, the jacket temperature must decrease
to increase heat removal from the reactor. The valve on the
vapor line in the Flash2 model used for the jacket is completely
closed.
The heat exchanger uses a HeatX model with counter-current
flow of cooling-tower water and circulating water. An overall
heat-transfer coefficient of 0.85 kW K-1 m-2 is used in the heat
exchanger.
5.2. Dynamic Simulation. The Aspen Plus file is exported
into Aspen Dynamics as a pressure-driven simulation. The heat-
transfer rate between the reactor and the jacket is calculated
using the relationships given in eq 3.
QJ ) UAJ(TRX - TJ)
QRX ) -QJ (3)
The Aspen Dynamics Flowsheet Equations capability is used
to set up these relationships during the dynamic simulations.
Both reactor temperature, TRX, and jacket temperature, TJ, are
changing with time.
5.3. Control Structure. The control scheme used in this
system is shown in Figure 4. The following loops are set up
using conventional PI controllers:
1. Aniline feed is flow-controlled.
2. Hydrogen feed is flow-controlled with the flow controller
set point ratioed to the aniline feed flow rate.
3. Reactor level is controlled by manipulating liquid product
using a proportional controller with KC ) 4.
4. Reactor pressure is controlled by manipulating vapor
product.
5. Jacket temperature is controlled in a cascade control
structure by manipulating both the bypass and the heat-
exchanger valves. The jacket temperature controller is reverse
acting. A 1-min deadtime is inserted in the temperature
measurement. With the jacket temperature controller on auto-
matic (not cascade), relay-feedback tests and Tyreus-Luyben
tuning are used to find the gain and integral time. These
controller settings change from case to case as process param-
eters (heat-exchanger area and circulation rate) are varied.
6. Reactor temperature is controlled by manipulating the set
point of the jacket temperature controller in this cascade
structure. The reactor controller is reverse-acting. A 1-min
deadtime is inserted in the temperature measurement. With the
jacket temperature controller on cascade and the reactor tem-
perature controller on automatic, relay-feedback tests and
Tyreus-Luyben tuning are used to find the gain and integral
time of the reactor temperature controller. These controller
settings change from case to case as process parameters (heat-
exchanger area and circulation rate) are varied.
7. The total circulation flow rate is flow controlled by
manipulating pump speed. Note that a variable-speed pump is
assumed in the simulation.
8. The flow rate of cooling-tower water fed to the heat-
exchanger is fixed.
Note that the two valves in the circulation loop have opposite
action. All valves in Aspen Plus are direct (AO). In Aspen
Dynamics the action can be selected, so the valve in the heat-
exchanger line is specified to be reverse (AC). Their size
depends on their design flow rates, pressure drops, and fraction
open. All valves are assumed to be 50% open at design. Valve
pressure drop depends on the pump head specified at design.
Aspen default pump characteristics are used. Flow rates depend

Figure 5. Effect of area on maximum heat removal.
on the total circulation rate and heat exchanger area specified
in a given case.
6. Effect of Design Parameters
A range of circulation rates, heat-exchanger areas, and valve
design pressure drops are explored. We are interested in finding
the maximum heat removal in each case or, equivalently, the
maximum feed flow rate to the reactor while still maintaining
the 400 K reactor temperature.
The maximum heat removal is obtained when the bypass
valve is completely shut and the heat-exchanger valve is wide
open. The total circulation goes through the heat exchanger.
The dynamic simulation is used to find the maximum. The jacket
temperature controller is placed on manual, and its output signal
is set to zero percent, which shuts the bypass valve completely
and opens the heat-exchanger valve completely. Then the control
structure is changed so that the reactor temperature controller’s
output signal changes the set point of the aniline flow controller.
The aniline flow controller is put on cascade. The final steady
state when reactor temperature is driven to 400 K gives the
maximum feed flow rate and heat removal.
6.1. Heat-Exchanger Area. Figure 5 shows the effect of
using heat exchangers of different sizes for two different
circulation flow rates (4000 and 6000 kmol/h). As the area
increases, the maximum heat removal and maximum feed flow
rate increase, as we would expect. Higher circulation rates give
higher heat removal and maximum feed flow rates. However,
the curves flatten out for areas above about 200-300 m2. The
point of diminishing returns is somewhere in this range.
Heat-transfer area represents capital investment. Investing
capital can usually be justified to save energy and, particularly,
to improve product yield. The 200 m2 heat exchanger shown in
Figure 3 costs about $ 230 000 (Douglass7). Increasing to 300
m2 raises the price to about $300 000. The dynamic rangeability
required of the process has to be considered to decide the
appropriate size.
6.2. Coolant Circulation Flow Rate. Figure 6 shows the
effect of designing with different circulation flow rates. Heat-
exchanger area is fixed at 200 m2 for these results. The top graph
shows that increasing circulation increases the maximum heat-
removal rate.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 50, No. 2, 2011 969
The design heat-removal rate is 516.2 kcal/s. Designing for
a circulation flow rate of 6000 kmol/h gives a maximum heat-
removal rate of 643.6 kcal/s. Thus, the ratio of maximum-to-
design heat removal rates is 1.25 for this design case. The ability
to remove at least 25% more heat in reactor systems is often
required, so this design is not overly conservative.
Setting the total circulation flow rate establishes the fraction
of bypassing for fixed heat exchanger area and exit temperature.
The flow rate through the heat exchanger is the same for all
circulation rates, since the inlet and exit temperatures to the
heat exchanger and the heat duty are the same in all cases.
Therefore, the bypass flow rate changes directly with the total
circulation flow rate. The lower graph in Figure 6 shows that
the fraction of the total circulation that is bypassed (FBY/FJ)
over the range of total circulation flow rates.
Notice that for a 6000 kmol/h circulation flow rate, the
fraction bypassed at design is 62%. More circulating coolant is
bypassed than goes through the heat exchanger under design
conditions. Trying to convince a project engineer that this much
bypassing is required can take a lot of quantitative arguments.
The role of dynamic simulation in this type of analysis is
invaluable.
6.3. Control Valve Design Pressure Drop. A. Circulating
Water System. The third design optimization variable is valve
pressure drop at design conditions, which is established by the
pump head specified. In all the results shown so far, the pressure
drop over the control valve in the heat exchanger line has been
4 atm. The pressure drop over the heat exchanger is assumed
to be 1 atm, so the pressure drop over the bypass valve is 5
atm. A pump head of 5 atm is therefore required, which gives
a motor work of 22 kW with a circulation rate of 6000 kmol/h.
At design conditions, only a portion of the circulation flows
through the heat exchanger. This portion decreases as total
circulation flow rate is increased, as discussed in the previous
section. For all circulation flow rates, 2289 kmol/h go through
the heat exchanger with an assumed pressure drop of 1 atm.
When the process is at maximum heat-removal conditions, the
entire circulation goes through the heat exchanger with nothing
flowing through the bypass. The pressure drop through the heat
exchanger increases as the square of the flow rate, since turbulent
flow exists in this unit. The result is a very large increase in
970 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 50, No. 2, 2011
Figure 6. Effect of circulation rate.
Table 1. Control Valve Design Pressure Drop Circulating Coolant
design pressure drop in HX line (atm) 1 2
pump head (atm) 2 3
motor work (kW) 9.08 13.6
valve size coefficient (m3)1.5 g0.5 s-1 atm-0.5 32 920 23 250
design QHX (kcal/s) 518.6 519.1
maximum FA (kmol/s) 61.5 61.5
heat exchanger pressure drop from 1 atm up to 6.9 atm. The
pressure drop over the control valve in the heat exchanger line
also increases, even though the valve is wide open. The control
valve that has been designed for a 4 atm pressure drop at design
conditions (2289 kmol/h and 50% open) gives a pressure drop
of 6.9 atm at maximum conditions (6000 kmol/h and 100%
open).The pump head must increase to provide these increased
pressure drops, increasing from 5 to 13.8 atm by increasing
motor speed. Pump work increases linearly with head since flow
rate is constant.
Designs with control valve pressure drops of 2 and 1 atm
were evaluated to see if rangeability was affected. In conven-
tional piping systems, increasing valve design pressure drop
permits more flow to pass through the valve when wide open,
so rangeability is increased; however, results showed that there
was almost no effect on rangeability. Control valve size
increases and pump work requirements decrease as valve
pressure drop is decreased. Table 1 gives results for three designs
with different valve design pressure drops.
B. Simple Heat-Exchanger Bypass System. The result
found in the circulating-coolant bypass system is unexpected
and counterintuitive. To see if this result applies only to the
circulating-coolant bypass system or is a general result for
other bypass system, a simple heat-exchanger bypass system
is simulated. Figure 7 gives the flowsheet conditions. A hot
process stream at a flow rate of 100 kmol/h and a temperature
of 400 K is cooled to a mixed temperature of 340 K by
sending 76.68% through a 11.52 m2 heat exchanger and
bypassing 23.32%. The exit temperature of the hot stream
out of the heat exchanger is 320 K. Cooling water at a flow
rate of 643.9 kmol/h is needed to remove the 60 960 kcal/s
of heat with cooling water inlet and outlet temperatures of
4
5
22.7
16 410
522.0
61.5
Figure 7. Simple heat-exchanger bypass system.
Table 2. Simple Bypass System
pump discharge pressure (atm) 7 10
bypass valve pressure drop (atm) 6 3
bypass valve COmax (m3)1.5 g0.5 s-1 atm-0.5 953.5 670.3
heat-exchanger valve pressure drop (atm) 5.5 2.5
heat-exchanger valve COmax (m3)1.5 g0.5 s-1 atm-0.5 3408 2302
maximum throughput (kmol/h) 134.8 134.8
305 and 320 K, respectively. An overall heat-transfer
coefficient of 0.57 kW K-1 m-2 is assumed.
Pressure drop through the heat exchanger is assumed to be
0.5 atm. The pressure of the mixed process stream is 4 atm.
The pressure drops of the two valves depend on the pump head.
The valves are 50% open at design. A flow controller maintains
constant total process flow through the system by manipulating
motor speed.
Table 2 gives results for two designs with different pump
heads. As design pump head is increased, valve pressure drops
increase and valve sizes (COmax) decrease. The maximum
throughput while still achieving the 340 K process exit
temperature is found when the bypass valve is closed completely
and the heat-exchanger valve is opened completely. For both
the large and small control valve pressure drop designs, the set
point of the process flow controller can be increased from 100
to 134.8 kmol/h and still hold the outlet process temperature at
the 340 K set point. Thus, the effect of valve design pressure
drop in bypass systems in general appears to be negligible.

Figure 8. 20% increase with and without flow control of circulation.
Figure 9. Circulation 4000 and 6000 kmol/h; 20% increase; 200 m2.
It is important to remember that the flow rate of the total
stream is controlled in both of these systems. The set point of
the total flow controller would be set to achieve some upstream
or downstream process objective. For example, the liquid level
in an upstream vessel could by controlled by manipulating this
flow rate.
C. Bypass System with Fixed-Speed Pump. As briefly
discussed earlier and shown in Figure 1B, there are many liquid
systems that do not use variable-speed pumps. In this situation,
the upstream liquid level must be controlled by one of the valves.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 50, No. 2, 2011 971
If we consider the same system shown in Figure 7, more flow goes
through the heat-exchanger than through the bypass, so process
control wisdom (Richardson’s Rule)8 says that the valve in the
heat-exchanger line should be used to control level. An air-to-open
valve would be used so that the level in the upstream vessel is not
pumped dry in the event of instrument failure. The bypass valve
must be used to control the mixed temperature. It would also be
air-to-open so that the hot material is not bypassed around the cooler
in an emergency. In the simulation of this example, a fixed-speed
pump is used with Aspen default pump characteristics.
972 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 50, No. 2, 2011
Figure 10. Circulation 4000 and 6000 kmol/h; 20% decrease; 200 m2.
Figure 11. Circulation 4000 and 6000 kmol/h; 20% increase; 300 m2.
The effect of valve design pressure drop in this type of system
is exactly what we would expect. The higher the design pressure
drop, the larger the rangeability. For example, if the pressure
drop over the valve in the heat-exchanger line is designed to
be 3 atm, the flow rate through the system can be increased
from 100 to 120 kmol/h. The valve in the heat-exchanger line
is wide open. The bypass valve is 35.8% open, and the 340 K
mix temperature is maintained.
If the pressure drop over the valve in the heat-exchanger line
is designed to be 2 atm, the flow rate through the system can
be increased from 100 to 119.3 kmol/h. The valve in the heat-
exchanger line is wide open. The bypass valve is 40.06% open,
and the 340 K mix temperature is maintained. If the pressure
drop over the valve in the heat-exchanger line is reduced to 1
atm, the flow rate through the system can only be increased
from 100 to 114.5 kmol/h with the valve in the heat-exchanger
line wide open. The bypass valve is 45.18% open to maintain
the 340 K mix temperature. These results demonstrate that in
this type of bypass system with a fixed-speed pump, more
pressure drop over control valves at design conditions provides
a modest increase in rangeability.
7. Dynamic Results
Dynamic simulations are run to test the performance of the
process and the control structure for the reactor/circulating
coolant process.
7.1. Circulation Flow Control. First, let us see what the
rangeability is when the circulation flow rate is not controlled.
The Aspen default pump characteristics are used, which assume
a fixed-speed pump. Therefore, as the opening of the control
valve in the bypass line is reduced by the jacket temperature
controller, pump discharge pressure increases, and the flow rate
decreases (following the pump curve). If a circulation flow
controller is used, the pump speed can be adjusted to maintain
a constant circulation, despite changes in the required pump
head.

Figure 8 compares the performances of the two cases. A 20%
increase in aniline feed flow rate is the disturbance (top left
graph). The solid lines are for circulation flow control with a
variable-speed pump. The dashed lines are with a fixed-speed
pump so flow is not maintained. The design circulation flow
rate is 6000 kmol/h, 3714 kmol/h through the bypass and 2286
kmol/h through the heat exchanger.
The bottom right graph shows that the bypass flow goes to
zero when there is no circulation flow control (dashed lines).
Everything is going through the heat exchanger, but the flow
rate has dropped to ∼4000 kmol/h because we have backed up
on the pump curve. Reactor temperature (top right graph in
Figure 8) is not maintained at its set point.
When the circulation flow controller is in service (solid lines),
the total circulation flow is maintained at 6000 kmol/h, 4500
kmol/h through the heat exchanger and 1500 kmol/h through
the bypass. Reactor temperature is maintained at the desired
400 K.
7.2. Effect of Design Circulation Flow Rate on Perfor-
mance. Figure 9 gives responses for a 20% increase in the set
point of the aniline flow controller at time equal 0.5 h for the
two designs based on circulation rates of 4000 and 6000 kmol/
h. Heat exchanger area is 200 m2, and valve design pressure
drop is 4 atm in these results.
The 4000 kmol/h design is not able to maintain the reactor
temperature at its 400 K set point. The bypass valve goes
completely shut, and the entire 4000 kmol/h is sent through the
heat exchanger. Reactor temperature lines out at 402 K. The
6000 kmol/h design handles the 20% increase well, returning
the reactor temperature to 400 K in about 2 h.
Figure 10 shows that both designs can successfully handle a
20% decrease in throughput. Notice that both the initial and
the final flow rates through the heat exchanger, FHX, are identical
in both designs, since the same amount of heat must be
transfered in the heat exchanger. Only the bypass flow rates
differ.
7.3. Effect of Heat-Exchanger Area on Performance.
Figure 11 gives results for two designs with 4000 and 6000
kmol/h but with larger heat exchangers (300 m2 instead of 200
m2 used in the previous section). The disturbance is the same
20% increase in throughput. Both systems can handle the
disturbance and return the reactor temperature to 400 K. Notice
that the bypass flow rate, FBY (lower right graph in Figure 11),
in the 4000 kmol/h design goes to zero for a period until
eventually lining out at ∼400 kmol/h.
8. Conclusion
The results of this study illustrate that dynamic controllability
and rangeability are improved in heat-exchanger bypass systems
by using more heat-transfer area and higher circulation flow
rates. Control valve design pressure drop has essentially no effect
in bypass systems when variable-speed pumps are used to
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 50, No. 2, 2011 973
maintain total flow rates, which is an unexpected and counter-
intuitive result.
Nomenclature
AC ) air-to-close
AJ ) heat-transfer area of reactor jacket (m2)
AO ) air-to-open
CA ) concentration of aniline (kmol/m3)
CH ) concentration of hydrogen (kmol/m3)
CHA ) cyclohexyl amine
COmax ) control valve size coefficient ((m3)1.5 g0.5 s-1 atm-0.5)
CSTR ) continuous stirred-tank reactor
CW ) cooling water
FA ) flow rate of aniline (kmol/h)
FBY ) flow rate around bypass (kmol/h)
FHX ) flow rate through heat exchanger (kmol/h)
FJ ) flow rate of circulating coolant through jacket (kmol/h)
FT ) flow transmitter
k ) specific reaction rate (m3 kmol-1 s-1)
KC ) controller gain (dimensionless)
LC ) level controller
PC ) pressure controller
PDis ) pump discharge pressure (atm)
QJ ) heat-transfer rate into jacket (kcal/s)
QRX ) heat-transfer rate from reactor (kcal/s)
TC ) temperature controller
TJ ) jacket temperature (K)
TRX ) reactor temperature (K)
U ) overall heat transfer coefficient (kW K-1 m-2)
VPC ) valve-position controller
VR ) reactor volume (m3)
Literature Cited
(1) McMillam, G. K.; Toarmina, C. M. AdVanced Temperature Mea-
surement and Control; Instrument Society for Measurement and Control:
Research Triangle Park, N.C., 1995.
(2) Riggs, J. B.; Karim, M. N. Chemical and Bio-Process Control; Ferret
Publishing: Austin, TX, 2007.
(3) Bequette, B. W. Process Control: Modeling, Design and Simulation;
Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, N.J., 2003, p465.
(4) Balchen, J. G.; Mumme, K. I. Process Control Structures and
Applications; Van Nostrand Rheinhold: New York, 1988, p 33.
(5) Shinskey, F. G. Process Control Systems: Application, Design and
Applications; McGraw-Hill: New York, 1988.
(6) Seider, W. D.; Seader, J. D.; Lewin, D. R. Product and Process
Design Principles, 2nd Ed.; Wiley: New York, 2003, p 741.
(7) Douglas, J. M. Conceptual Design of Chemical Processes; McGraw-
Hill: New York, 1988.
(8) Luyben, W. L.; Tyreus, B. D.; Luyben, M. L. Plantwide Process
Control; McGraw-Hill: New York, 1999, p 58.
ReceiVed for reView October 10, 2010
ReVised manuscript receiVed November 26, 2010
Accepted December 2, 2010
IE1020574