chemical engineering research and design 9 3 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 185193

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Research and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cherd

Synthesis of multipass heat exchanger network

with the optimal number of shells and tubes based
on pinch technology
Lin Sun , Xionglin Luo, Ye Zhao
Research Institute of Automation, China University of Petroleum, Beijing 102249, China

a b s t r a c t
Many methods have been proposed for the synthesis of multipass heat exchanger network (HEN). Considering that
both parallel and countercurrent ows are involved in the multipass HEN, temperature difference correction factor
FT is commonly used. However, the correction factor FT is always obtained by trial and error iterations, which are
difcult to compute. On the other hand, the threshold value for multipass heat exchanger design and multipass
HEN synthesis may change with the operating conditions although a rule of thumb for correction factor FT is given
to avoid temperature cross. This paper introduces a new approach for optimal heat exchanger network synthesis
based on pinch technology considering multipass heat exchangers. For this purpose, the relationships between the
number of passes for shells and tubes, and pinch character are analyzed by using modied composite curves. Then,
the minimum temperature difference (Tmin ) and the number of shells and tubes are optimized based on pinch
technology. The proposed methodology allows for proper handling of the trade-offs involving energy consumption,
number of units and passes for shells and tubes, and network area to provide a network with the minimum total
annual cost. To show the reliability of this approach it is used to synthesis two heat exchanger network problems
taken from open literature and results are compared to that predicted from published methods.
2014 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Heat exchanger networks; Synthesis; Pinch technology; Multipass; Optimization

1.

Introduction

In process plants such as petrochemical plants and reneries which are the major energy consumers, heat recovery of
heat exchanger network (HEN) is an important subject. The
shell and tube heat exchanger (SHE) is the most common
type of heat transfer equipment used in HENs by the chemical process industries (Vengateson, 2010). Generally multipass
SHE is employed in order to meet space constraints and
save investments (Ponce-Ortega et al., 2006). Multipass SHE
involves part countercurrent and part co-current ow, and
each match within a network with multipass exchangers may
require more than one shell (Ponce-Ortega et al., 2008a). Yin
et al. (1999) and Gulyani et al. (2009) pointed out that single
shell is rarely used in industry as multipass construction of
SHE is used to reduce the temperature cross.

Most of methods published for the HEN synthesis problem consider the use of single pass SHE, such as Colberg and
Morari (1990), Furman and Sahinidis (2002), Gundersen and
Grossmann (1990), Linnhoff (1993), Linnhoff and Flower (1978),
as well as Yee et al. (1990). Recently, these have been summarized in detail in literature (Klemes et al., 2013). Among
these methods, the pinch design method is one of the most
widely known and applied (Morar and Agachi, 2010; Oliva
et al., 2011). Sun et al. (2013) introduced a new numerical tool for simultaneous targeting and design of a HEN
based on pinch technology. Tan et al. (2013) presented a
revised oating pinch method which uses binary variables to
parameterize the stream locations on the composite curves
considering the stream conditions. Bakhtiari and Bedard
(2013) proposed a modied network pinch approach for HEN
retrot.

Corresponding author at: China University of Petroleum, 260 mailbox, Changping Distinct, Beijing 102249, China. Tel.: +86 010 89733457.
E-mail addresses: sunlinlb@gmail.com (L. Sun), luoxl@cup.edu.cn (X. Luo).

Available online 10 June 2014

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2014.06.005
0263-8762/ 2014 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

186

chemical engineering research and design 9 3 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 185193

Considering the application of multipass SHE, a correction

factor FT is introduced to account countercurrent and parallel
ows in SHE (Galli and Cerda, 2000), and it can be calculated by
the method proposed by Blackwell and Haydu (1981). The FT
factor is represented as the ratio of actual mean temperature
difference in multipass SHE to countercurrent ow log mean
temperature difference (LMTD) Tln for the same terminal
temperatures, but the FT factor may be difcult to compute,
particularly in the steep regions of the FT charts (Fakheri, 2003).
A rule of thumb, i.e., FT > 0.75 or 0.8 is used to avoid temperature cross, but can lead to poor designs if not used with caution
(Ahmad et al., 1990). Then, Ahmad et al. (1990) introduced a
new parameter, Xp , and derived simple equations to consider
the non-countercurrent exchangers such as the 12 design
(1 shell pass2 tube passes). These equations are useful for
targeting the number of shells in series and synthesis of multipass heat exchanger networks. However, a designer is unlikely
to be aware of the value of Xp for a given application because
there are three different relationships for its calculation. Moreover, the cost of the resulting design may be highly dependent
on the chosen value for Xp . Although Moita et al. (2004) and
Ponce-Ortega et al. (2008a) proposed approaches to solve this
problem, the algorithm can sometimes lead to suboptimal
deigns and is difcult to use for optimum HEN synthesis.
Recently, some investigators proposed methods to design
the multipass heat exchangers by using FT factor and Xp , such
as Mizutani et al. (2003), Onishi et al. (2013), Ravagnani et al.
(2009), Ravagnani and Caballero (2007), Serna and Jimnez
(2004), and Vengateson (2010). For the synthesis of multipass
HEN, by using the correction factor FT , the superstructure
model of a HEN is established, and the corresponding number of shell passes is minimized as can be seen in Galli and
Cerda (2000) and Li et al. (2000), Li and Yao (2001). Gulyani et al.
(2009) developed a new approach for targeting number of shell
passes of a HEN to avoid temperature cross. In the works of
Ponce-Ortega et al. (2008b), a multipass HEN is also synthesized by using genetic algorithms, and the correction factor FT
is optimized simultaneously. Nevertheless, in these published
papers in HEN synthesis the correction factor FT or its relative
parameters are calculated to account countercurrent and parallel ows in SHE. As noted, FT factor is difcult to calculate
and each design with unacceptably low FT value is discarded as
when FT decreases from 0.8 temperature cross increases. However, the minimum acceptable value of FT is always dened by
experience and experimental data, the effects of shell passes
number targeting on heat transfer and area are unknown.
Therefore to save total cost and avoid temperature cross, it
is necessary to study on the number targeting of shell and tube
passes for the cost optimum HEN. Based on pinch technology,
Sun and Luo (2011) proposed a methodology to analysis the
number of tube passes and the minimum temperature difference (Tmin ) by using the composite curves and problem table,
but in this paper the shell passes number targeting and HEN
synthesis was not discussed.
In this paper, based on pinch technology we present an
optimization method for the design of multipass HEN. The
method focuses on the number targeting of shell and tube
passes for cost optimum HEN. Firstly, the composite curves
of HEN with multipass SHE are modied considering the ow
direction on tube and shell side. Then, the number of shell
and tube passes, and pinch characters are analyzed. To lower
total annual cost, the number of shell and tube passes is
optimized and the minimum temperature difference (Tmin )
is calculated by balancing the equipment investments and

operation costs. Finally, based on pinch technology multipass

HEN is synthesized with the optimal number of shell and
tube passes.

2.

Number targeting and pinch technology

For multipass SHE both countercurrent ow and co-current

ow are involved. To avoid the temperature cross, the number
of shell passes is always increased which may inuence the
minimum temperature difference and pinch location. There
are several SHE congurations designated by the Tubular
Exchanger Manufactures Association Inc. These are described
in detail in literature (Perry and Green, 1997). E shell is a singlepass shell, and the number of tube passes may be one or
multiples of two, as Fig. 1(a) shows. The tube uid in the rst
tube pass is in parallel with the shell uid, and in the second
tube pass the tube uid is in the countercurrent ow with the
shell uid. Similarly for multipass shell and tube SHE, the ow
direction is varied as shown in Fig. 1(b).
In order to analysis the thermodynamic performance of
HEN with multipass SHE, the corresponding composite curves
are studied rstly. An example presented in the published
paper (Sun and Luo, 2011) is used to demonstrate the tube and
shell passes number targeting, and the basic data are given in
Table 1.
If only countercurrent SHE is applied, the corresponding
minimum temperature difference Tmin, count is selected to
be 20 C, and at the pinch location hot stream temperature
is 100 C the cold one is 80 C. In this case, the minimum hot
utility requirement, QH,min = 5.5 MW, and the minimum cold
utility requirement, QC,min = 4 MW.
As noted in the published paper (Sun and Luo, 2011), once
the co-current ow is considered the corresponding composite curves should be reversed, since the composite curves are
drawn according to the practical sequence of the co-current
and countercurrent. Based on the classical pinch technology,
the boundaries of temperature intervals are rstly dened by
using the supply and target temperatures of the hot stream
(H1) and cold streams (C1 and C2), as well as the minimum
temperature difference, as shown in Fig. 2. For each initial
temperature interval, it is divided to increase the number of
tube passes and the number of shell passes by trial and error
iterations to avoid temperature cross.
Assuming the shell number is ns , and the corresponding
number of tube passes nt can be ns , 2 ns or more even tube side
passes. Generally, the shell number ns is not larger than 4, and
the number of tube passes is also limited to 8. If the shell side
is a cold stream and tube side is a hot stream, the composite
curves for the HEN with multi-tube and single shell SHE are
rstly obtained and shown in Fig. 2(a). In Fig. 2(a), the temperature intervals are dened according to the input and output

Table 1 Basic data of streams.

Stream
Hot1 (H1)
Cold1 (C1)
Cold2 (C2)

Tin / C

TR / C

190
80
20

30
160
130

Cp/MW C1
0.10
0.15
0.05

*K = 1000 W. ( m2 C)1 .
*Cost data: installed heat exchanger cost (103 $) = 0.9026 + 0.5087A0.6 ,
where A = heat exchanger area (m2 ); plant lifetime = 3 years; rate of
interest = 10% per annum; cost of hot utility = 2.5435 106 $/kJ; cost
of cold utility = 1.92 107 $/kJ.

chemical engineering research and design 9 3 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 185193

187

Tin

Countercurrent

tout

tin
Cocurrent

Tout
(a) 1-2 heat exchanger

Tin

Countercurrent

tout

Cocurrent

Cocurrent

tin

Countercurrent

Tout

(b) 2-4 heat exchanger

Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of multipass SHE.

temperatures for each stream, and in each interval the hot

composite curves are reversed according to the ow direction.
Considering the multiple shells SHE, the cold composite curve
in Fig. 2(a) is modied. As shown in Fig. 2(b), in the temperature interval A and B assuming ns = 2 the corresponding cold
composite curve is reversed according to the ow direction
between shell and tube side streams. Once one shell number
is added, the composite curve should be reversed. Considering the multi-tube and multi-shell SHE, the cold composite
curves are reversed according to the ow direction, and the
corresponding ow directions are noted, as shown in Fig. 2(b).
In Fig. 2(a), by increasing the number of tube passes, temperature intervals are divided and the corresponding hot
composite curves are reversed. The minimum temperature
difference Tmin is chosen by using the modied composite
curves. Since the boundaries of temperature intervals are the
supply and target temperatures of the hot stream (H1) and
cold streams (C1 and C2), and the heat capacity ow rate
is given, the Tmin can be chosen by giving different number of passes for shells and tubes. For HEN with multiple
tubes and single shell SHE the minimum temperature difference can be obtained as Tmin,count = 12.5 C by using the
modied composite curves as shown in Fig. 2(a). In Fig. 2(b),
for the cold composite curves two temperature intervals are
dened and named as the interval A and B, and cold composite
curves are reversed. In this case, the minimum temperature
difference Tmin is increased to 13.5 C, and the minimum utility cost equals the HEN with single pass SHE of which the
minimum hot utility requirement, QH,min = 5.5 MW, and the
minimum cold utility requirement, QC,min = 4 MW. The pinch
location is the same as the case of single shell SHE shown in
Fig. 2(a). As we known the capital cost will be decreased with

the increment of minimum temperature difference. As shown

in Table 2, in this case the total cost is higher for HEN with
multi-shell SHE than it with single shell. On the other hand,
if decrease the minimum temperature difference Tmin , the
total cost will be changed, which means the cold composite
curves are shifted horizontally, as shown in Fig. 3. To lower the
total cost, it is necessary to optimize the minimum temperature difference Tmin and utility cost with the consideration
of tube and shell number.

3.
Synthesis of multipass heat exchanger
network
3.1.
Number targeting and minimum temperature
difference
The optimization of minimum temperature difference Tmin
is a trade-off between the capital and energy (capital and
operating cost) (Varghese and Bandyopadhyay, 2012). For multipass SHE, the equipment investment and the minimum
temperature difference Tmin should be optimized with the
consideration of tube and shell number. The SHE is divided
into several segments to calculate the total heat load, and each
tube corresponds to one segment. Assuming the number of
tube passes is nt , and ns is the number of shell passes. Then
the heat load is calculated by
Q = Cpc mc (TcR Tcin ) = Cph mh (Thin ThR )

Q=

ns

k=1

Qk =

ns nt


k=1 j=1

Qj

(1)

(2)

188

chemical engineering research and design 9 3 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 185193

Table 2 Results comparison of HENs.

Type

HEN with
countercurrent
(Tmin = 20 C)

Area/m2
Number of shell passes
Hot utility/MW
Cold utility/MW
Capital cost/103 $ a1
Operating cost/103 $ a1
Total annual cost/103 $ a1

300
5
5.5
4
7.47
465.39
472.85

HEN with
single-shell SHE
(Tmin = 12.5 C)

HEN with
multi-shell SHE
(Tmin = 13.5 C)

447.24
6
5.5
4
10.91
465.39
476.30

327.16
9
5.5
4
12.73
465.39
478.12

HEN with
multi-shell SHE
(Tmin = 12.5 C)
348.43
9
5.4
3.9
17.92
456.77
474.69

The above results demonstrate that, for HENs with multipass SHE.
(1) The hot and cold composite curves are modied, and the pinch location is same as the case of HEN with single pass SHE.
(2) The composite curves are divided into several temperature intervals and each interval functions as a tube or shell in a multipass HEN.
(3) By modifying the hot and cold composite curves, the co-current and countercurrent portions in the diagram are established.
(4) The minimum temperature difference and total cost will be varied with the changing of the shell number of SHE, and it is necessary to
optimize the minimum temperature difference Tmin and utility cost with the consideration of tube and shell number.

Qk = Cpc mc (Tck,o Tck,i )

(3)

Qj = Cph mh (Thj,i Thj,o )

(4)

Qj = KAj TLM,j

(5)

If the jth segment tube side with coutercurrent ow

TLM,j =

(Thj,i Tck,o ) (Thj,o Tck,i )

ln((Thj,i Tck,o )/(Thj,o Tck,i ))

(6)

If the jth segment tube side with co-current ow

TLM,j =

(Thj,i Tck,i ) (Thj,o Tck,o )

ln((Thj,i Tck,i )/(Thj,o Tck,o ))

(7)

where Q is the heat load, Qk is the heat load on kth segment

shell side, Qj is the heat load on jth segment tube side, and the
input temperature to each tube is Thj,i , the corresponding output temperature is Thj,o , Tck,i is the input temperature to each

Fig. 2 Hot and cold composite curves of HEN.

Fig. 3 Shifted composite curves of HEN.

189

chemical engineering research and design 9 3 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 185193

100

100

60

Cocurrent

80
T /C

T /C

Countercurrent

40

Cocurrent

Cocurrent

80

60

Cocurrent
Countercurrent

40

Countercurrent

Countercurrent

20

20
4

6
H /MW
Hot composite curve
Cold composite curve

(a) Number of shell passes in sub-network B is 1

6
H /MW
Hot composite curve
Cold composite curve

(b) Number of shell passes in sub-network B is 2

Fig. 4 Number of shells and tubes in sub-network B.

shell side and Tck,o is the corresponding output temperature, Aj
represents the heat transfer area on jth segment tube, and the
TLM,j is the corresponding log mean temperature difference.
Based on the above Eqs. (1)(7), if given the number of shell
and tube passes, heat load and heat transfer area is obtained
by using these temperature data. However, this number is
related with the minimum temperature difference Tmin ,
which effects total cost of HEN directly. To save total consumption, the relationship among the number of tube and
shell passes, Tmin and heat transfer area A is discussed. Fig. 3
shows the temperature interval B given in Fig. 1, and this temperature interval will be used as a simple example.
In Fig. 4(a), the number of shell passes is 1, the number of tube passes is 4, and the corresponding minimum
temperature difference Tmin = 12.5 C. If the shell number
is added to 2, the minimum temperature difference Tmin
will be increased to 13.5 C, and the heat transfer area will
be decreased 21% calculated from Eqs. (1)(7), as shown in
Fig. 4(b). Similarly, based on Eqs. (1)(7) the minimum temperature difference Tmin and heat transfer area A can be
calculated for the different number of shells and tubes. When
the number of shell passes in the temperature interval B is 3
and the number of tube passes is also 4, the Tmin is calculated as 15 C, and the area is decreased about 26%, when the
Tmin is selected to 16.5 C, the area is decreased about 32%,
and the corresponding number of shell passes is increased to
4. The results demonstrate the more shell and tube number
targeting, the Tmin is more closed to the case of countercurrent ones, and the corresponding heat transfer area Am
will be decreased. If the minimum temperature difference
Tmin is selected smaller, the corresponding number of shell
passes will become less, vice versa. In order to minimize the
equipments investments and utility cost, balancing the number of units and the heat exchange area, the shell number is
optimized with the consideration of minimum temperature
difference Tmin .

3.2.

which will be an initial point to design the heat exchanger

network. Based on pinch technology and the pinch characters,
minimum temperature difference Tmin is rstly optimized to
synthesis the multipass HEN. The minimum temperature difference Tmin is calculated by using the optimal number of
shells and tubes. Thus, to obtain the Tmin , the number of
shells and tubes is rstly optimized, and then by using Eqs.
(1)(7), it can be calculated directly.
The objective of this optimization problem is to save total
consumption C, and the objective function has been dened
as:
C = Cr + Ce = (QH CH + QC CC ) + Ce

(8)

where, the total cost C involves operation cost Cr and equipment investment Ce , QH presents the heat utility loads and
QC shows the cold utility loads, CH denotes the heat utility cost and CC means the cold utility cost. Here considering
the addition cost for increasing shell number, the equipment
investment Ce is dened as


Ce = ns

 A c 

a+b

ns

(9)

Where, n is the number of SHE, ns is the shell number, and

a, b and c are constants of equipment investment getting from
the published paper (Ponce-Ortega et al., 2008b).
In practice, the shell number is commonly not greater than
4, and the tube number is not greater than 8.
ns 4

(10)

nt 8

(11)

To maintain the heat recovery and avoid temperature cross,

the minimum temperature difference required not less than
the exchanger minimum approach temperature (EMAT),

Synthesis of multipass HEN

Tmin EMAT

In the current pinch analysis method, it is necessary to specify a target point prior to the design of the heat exchanger
network (Akbarnia et al., 2009). Targeting of both capital and
energy costs is required. This is done over a range of minimum temperature difference, Tmin values. Fig. 4 locates the
value of Tmin and the number of passes for shell and tube

(12)

Considering the practice, the heat transfer area for each

shell is also constrained,
Ai
Amax
ns

(13)

190

chemical engineering research and design 9 3 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 185193

Fig. 5 Optimization of shells and tubes number for multipass HEN.

Based on the above analysis, to minimum the total consumption, the number of shell and tube passes and minimum
temperature difference Tmin are obtained. The algorithm of
this optimal procedure is fully outlined in Fig. 5.
Base on the above optimization, pinch match rules are
used to synthesis the multipass HEN as proposed by Linnhoff
and Hindmarsh (1983). Once the number of shell and tube
passes is optimized, the heat loads and heat transfer area for
each heat exchanger are also calculated by using Eqs. (2)(7).
Consequently, the HEN with multiple shells and tubes SHE is
synthesized.
As shown in Fig. 5, basic data are dened rstly, and then
the initial intervals are obtained based on pinch technology.
For each initial temperature interval, assuming single shell
SHE used, the type of ow pattern can be dened as shown
in Fig. 2(a) and the initial composite curves are established.
To avoid temperature cross, the number of tubes is increased
rstly. However, the increment of tubes number is also related
to the total cost. To minimum total cost and avoid temperature
cost the number of shell passes may be increased, as shown
in Fig. 5. By programming in MATLAB, the optimal number
of tubes and shells can be obtained and the corresponding
minimum temperature difference Tmin is calculated by using
Eqs. (1)(7).

4.

Case studies

In case studies, two examples are carried out to evaluate the

proposed optimization method. The rst example is a simple
benchmark example reported in the literature. Based on this,
the new method can be compared with the existing designs

(Galli and Cerda, 2000; Sun and Luo, 2011). In the second
example, the new method is used to solve an industrial HEN
synthesis problem, which is taken from the paper published
by Gao et al. (1999).

4.1.

Case study 1

The rst case study is originally presented by Galli and Cerda

(2000). The problem consists of 2 hot streams, 2 cold streams,
and the basic data are shown in Table 3.
Applying the new proposed method for this problem, the
composite curves are obtained as shown in Fig. 6. By using
Eqs. (1)(7) and composite curves, the corresponding minimum temperature Tmin is optimized as 13.2 C, and the hot
utility is 1060 kW, the cold utility is 385 kW. The results showed
at the pinch point, the hot stream temperature is 83.7 C, and
the cold stream temperature is 70.5 C.

Table 3 Basic data of streams.

Stream
Hot1 (H1)
Hot1 (H2)
Cold1 (C1)
Cold2 (C2)

Tin / C

TR / C

Cp/kW C1

150
90
20
25

60
60
125
100

20
80
25
30

*K = 0.05 KW. ( m2 C)1 .

*Cost data: installed heat exchanger cost ($) = 8600 + 670A0.83 , where
A = heat transfer area (m2 ); plant lifetime = 3 years; rate of interest = 10% per annum; cost of hot utility = 2.5435 106 $/kJ; cost of
cold utility = 1.92 107 $/kJ.

191

chemical engineering research and design 9 3 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 185193

Table 4 Details for each exchanger in case study 1.

Heat exchanger No.

No. shell passes

I
II
III
IV
V
Total

No. tube passes for each shell side

No. tube passes

Area/m2

2
2
2
2
2

1
1
2
2
1

2
2
4
4
2

270
395
595
1132
230

10

14

2622

Table 5 Comparison of the characters for HEN in case study 1.

Item

Tmin / C
Area/m2
Hot utility/kW
Cold utility/kW
Capital cost/104 $ a1
Operating cost/104 $ a1
Total annual cost/104 a1

HEN with single pass SHE

HEN with single shell SHE

Proposed method multi-shell HEN

20
2504.8
1075
400
21.66
8.86
30.52

13.8
2653.2
1075
400
22.86
8.86
31.72

13.2
2622
1060
385
22.52
8.73
31.25

According to pinch technology and the optimal results, the

HEN is synthesized, and shown in Fig. 7. This HEN consists of
5 SHE. In Fig. 7 SHE I, II, V are 2 shell passes and 1 tube pass for
each side exchangers, and SHE III and IV are 2 shell passes and
2 tube passes for each side heat exchangers. Table 4 presents
the details for each exchanger, and Table 5 shows exchanger
details from the original HEN and retrot solutions given by
the new method and the existing designs (Sun and Luo, 2011).
From Table 5, it is noted that the proposed method can
achieve higher prots with the reduction of total annual cost,
and the total utility cost is reduced obviously. The results

Fig. 6 Composite curves for case study 1.

demonstrate that after the consideration of the shell number, the new method can provide more realistic and better
solutions than the existing methods.

4.2.

Case study 2

Case study 2 is an industrial preheat train for a crude oil distillation column in a renery plant. It includes 6 hot streams
and 1 cold stream, and this example has been addressed by
Gao et al. (1999). In this section, the solution based on the new
approach is compared with the solution proposed by Gao et al.
(1999) to demonstrate the efciency of the new method for
solving industrial HEN problems. Table 6 shows the basic data
of hot and cold streams.
Fig. 8(a) presents the HEN structure of case study 2 synthesized by Gao et al. (1999). HEN original exchanger data can be
found in Table 8. By using proposed method, the HEN structure
is also obtained and shown in Fig. 8(b). It consists of 4 SHE with
2 shells-2 tubes (E101, E102, E106, E107), for each shell side 1
tube pass included; and 3 SHE with 2 shells-4 tubes, for each
shell side 2 tube passes included as shown in Table 7. The cold
utility cost is 4809.69 kW and hot utility cost is 2773.14 kW, as
shown in Table 8.
The comparisons of exchanger data and relative cost
achieved with the two methods are shown in Table 6. Although
the shell number is added and the heat transfer area is
increased compared with the method proposed by Gao et al.
(1999), the utility costs are reduced by using this new method
and the total annual cost is lowered.

Fig. 7 Multipass HEN for case study 1.

192

chemical engineering research and design 9 3 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 185193

Table 6 Basic data of streams in case 2.

Name

Input temperature/ C

Title

Crude oil
Light atmospheric gas oil
Medium atmospheric gas oil
Heavy atmospheric gas oil
Medium vacuum gas oil
Heavy vacuum gas oil
Vacuum residual (2)

CRUDE
LAGO
MAGO
HAGO
MVGO
HVGO
VR(2)

Output temperature/ C

52.5
108
150
183
188.5
180.5
199

Heat ow rate/kW C1

124.5
71
110
136.5
120
140
126.5

201.39
58.78
55.57
87.79
25.06
33.50
89.74

Enthalpy/kW
14,500
2174.93
2222.97
4082.12
1716.32
1356.8175
6506.09

Table 7 Details for each exchanger in case study 2.

Heat exchanger No.

No. tube passes for each shell side

E101
E102
E103
E104
E105
E106
E107

2
2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
2
2
2
1
1

2
2
4
4
4
2
2

392
465
408
301
392
314
390

Total

14

10

20

2662

5.

No. tube passes

Area/m2

No. shell passes

Conclusions

A new algorithm for optimizing the number of shell and

tube passes in multipass heat exchanger networks has been
presented, and the heat exchanger networks with multipass
exchangers have been synthesized. The algorithm considers simultaneously the optimization of the number of passes
and the synthesis of HEN. Considering multiple shells and
tubes heat exchangers, the composite curves are modied.
In addition, the number of shell and tube passes, and pinch
characters are analyzed, and indicate that it is necessary
to optimize the minimum temperature difference and shells
number simultaneously. To save total consumption, the relationship among minimum temperature difference, total costs,
and the shells and tubes number are studied. Consequently,
balancing the equipment investment and operation costs
the minimum temperature difference and HEN synthesis is
obtained.
The proposed HEN algorithm avoids the iterative calculations by using the temperature difference correction factor FT ,
and its application to the examples presented here has shown
better results than the ones previously reported using other
methodologies.

Acknowledgements
Fig. 8 Crude oil HEN for case study 2.

This work was supported by the National Basic Research Program of China (2012CB720500) and Science Foundation of
China University of Petroleum, Beijing (YJRC-2011-11).

Table 8 Comparison of the characters for HEN in case

study 2.
Item

Reference
[20]

Proposed
method

References

Area/m2
Hot utility/kW
Cold utility/kW
Capital cost/104 $ a1
Operating cost/104 $ a1
Total annual cost/104 $ a1

2310
3121.55
5135.09
25.86
50.99
76.85

2662
2773.14
4809.69
28.35
45.72
74.07

Akbarnia, M., Amidpour, M., Shadaram, A., 2009. A new approach

in pinch technology considering piping costs in total cost
targeting for heat exchanger network. Chem. Eng. Res. Des.
87, 357365.
Ahmad, S., Linnhoff, B., Smith, R., 1990. Cost optimum heat
exchanger networks-2. Targets and design for detailed capital
cost models. Comput. Chem. Eng. 14, 751767.

chemical engineering research and design 9 3 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 185193

Bakhtiari, B., Bedard, S., 2013. Retrotting heat exchanger

networks using a modied network pinch approach. Appl.
Therm. Eng. 51, 973979.
Blackwell, W.W., Haydu, L., 1981. Calculating the corrected LMTD
in shell-and-tube heat exchangers. Chem. Eng. 8, 101106.
Colberg, R.D., Morari, M., 1990. Area and capital cost targets for
heat exchanger network synthesis with constrained matches
and unequal heat transfer for coefcients. Comput. Chem.
Eng. 14, 122.
Fakheri, A., 2003. An alternative approach for determining the
correction factor and the number of shells in shell and tube
heat exchangers. J. Enhanc. Heat Transf. 10, 407420.
Furman, K.C., Sahinidis, N.V., 2002. A critical review and
annotated bibliography for heat exchanger network synthesis
in the 20th century. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 41, 23352370.
Gulyani, B.B., Khanam, S., Mohanty, B., 2009. A new approach for
shell targeting of a heat exchanger network. Comput. Chem.
Eng. 33, 14601467.
Galli, M.R., Cerda, J., 2000. Synthesis of heat exchanger networks
featuring a minimum number of constrained size shells of 1-2
type. Appl. Therm. Eng. 20, 14431467.
Gao, W.P., Liu, Q., Zheng, X.G., Zhao, J.C., 1999. Study on energy
saving for heat exchanger networks of atmosphere-vacuum
plant. Sci. Technol. Chem. Ind. 7, 4954.
Gundersen, T., Grossmann, I.E., 1990. Improved optimization
strategies for automated heat exchanger network synthesis
through physical insights. Comput. Chem. Eng. 14, 925944.
Klemes, J.J., Varbanov, P.S., Kravanja, Z., 2013. Recent
developments in process integration. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 91,
20372053.
Linnhoff, B., 1993. Pinch analysis: a state-of-the-art overview.
Chem. Eng. Des. 71, 503522.
Linnhoff, B., Hindmarsh, E., 1983. The pinch design methods for
heat exchanger networks. Chem. Eng. Sci. 38, 745763.
Linnhoff, B., Flower, J.R., 1978. Synthesis of heat exchanger
networks. AIchE J. 24, 633642.
Li, S.J., Yao, P.J., 2001. Synthesis of heat exchanger network
considering multipass heat exchangers. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 9,
242246.
Li, S.J., Xiu, N.Y., Yao, P.J., 2000. Study on the synthesis rules of
minimizing annual cost heat exchanger network on the basis
of shell number. J. Dalian Univ. Technol. 40, 4953.
Morar, M., Agachi, P.S., 2010. Review: important contributions in
development and improvement of the heat integration
techniques. Comput. Chem. Eng. 34, 11711179.
Moita, R.D., Fernandes, C., Matos, H.A., Nunes, C.P., 2004. A
cost-based strategy to design multiple shell and tube heat
exchangers. ASME J. Heat Trans. 126, 119130.
Mizutani, F.T., Pessoa, F.L.P., Queiroz, E.M., Hauan, S., Grossmann,
I.E., 2003. Mathematical programming model for heat
exchanger network synthesis including detailed heat
eschanger designs. 1. Shell-and-tube heat exchanger design.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 42, 40094018.
Onishi, V.C., Ravagnani, M.A.S.S., Caballero, J.A., 2013.
Mathematical programming model for heat exchanger design

193

through optimization of partial objectives. Energy Convers.

Manage. 74, 6069.
Oliva, D.G., Francesconi, J.A., Mussati, M.C., Aguirre, P.A., 2011.
Modeling, synthesis and optimization of heat exchanger
networks. Application to fuel processing systems for PEM fuel
cells. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 36, 90989114.
Ponce-Ortega, J.M., Sema-Gonzalez, M., Salcedo-Estrada, L.I.,
Jimenez-Gutierrez, A., 2008a. Design and optimization of
multipass heat exchangers. Chem. Eng. Res. Process. 47,
906913.
Ponce-Ortega, J.M., Serna-Gonzlez, M., Jimnez-Gutirrez, A.,
2008b. Synthesis of multipass heat exchanger networks
using genetic algorithms. Comput. Chem. Eng. 32,
23202332.
Ponce-Ortega, J.M., Sema-Gonzalez, M., Salcedo-Estrada, L.I.,
Jimenez-Gutierrez, A., 2006. Minimum-investment design of
multiple shell and tube heat exchangers using a MINLP
formulation. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 84, 905910.
Perry, R.H., Green, D.W., 1997. Perrys Chemical Engineers
Handbook: Section 11, Heat Transfer Equipment, 7th ed.
McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 3335.
Ravagnani, M.A.S.S., Silva, A.P., Biscaia Jr., E.C., Caballero, J.A.,
2009. Optimal design of shell-and-tube heat exchangers using
particle swarm optimization. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48,
29272935.
Ravagnani, M.A.S.S., Caballero, J.A., 2007. A MINLP model for the
rigorous design of shell and tube heat exchangers using the
TEMA standards. Trans. IChemE A Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 85,
113.
Sun, K.N., Alwi, S.R.W., Manan, Z.A., 2013. Heat exchanger
network cost optimization considering multiple utilities and
different types of heat exchangers. Comput. Chem. Eng. 49,
194204.
Sun, L., Luo, X.L., 2011. Synthesis of multipass heat exchanger
networks based on pinch technology. Comput. Chem. Eng. 35,
12571264.
Serna, M., Jimnez, A., 2004. An efcient method for the design of
shell and tube heat exchangers. Heat Transf. Eng. 25,
516.
Tan, Y.L., Ng, D.K.S., El-Halwagi, M.M., Foo, D.C.Y., Samyudia, Y.,
2014. Floating pinch method for utility targeting in heat
exchanger network (HEN). Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 92, 119126.
Varghese, J., Bandyopadhyay, S., 2012. Improved area-energy
targeting for red heater integrated heat exchanger networks.
Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 90, 213219.
Vengateson, U., 2010. Design of multiple shell and tube heat
exchangers in series: E shell and F shell. Chem. Eng. Res. Des.
88, 725736.
Yin, Q.H., Wang, W.J., Hua, B., 1999. Promoting the optimization of
heat exchanger network in process industries in using
multiple-shell heat exchanger. Chem. Ind. Eng. Process. 2, 57.
Yee, T.F., Grossmann, I.E., Kravanja, Z., 1990. Simultaneous
optimization and models for heat integration-I. Area and
energy targeting and modeling of multi-stream exchangers.
Comput. Chem. Eng. 14, 11511164.