Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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).
186
2.
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.
187
Tin
Countercurrent
tout
tin
Cocurrent
Tout
(a) 1-2 heat exchanger
Tin
Countercurrent
tout
Cocurrent
Cocurrent
tin
Countercurrent
Tout
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
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.
(3)
(4)
Qj = KAj TLM,j
(5)
(6)
(7)
189
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
6
H /MW
Hot composite curve
Cold composite curve
3.2.
(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)
(10)
nt 8
(11)
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)
(13)
190
4.
Case studies
(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
Tin / C
TR / C
Cp/kW C1
150
90
20
25
60
60
125
100
20
80
25
30
191
I
II
III
IV
V
Total
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
Tmin / C
Area/m2
Hot utility/kW
Cold utility/kW
Capital cost/104 $ a1
Operating cost/104 $ a1
Total annual cost/104 a1
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
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.
192
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
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.
Area/m2
Conclusions
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).
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
193