18 views

Uploaded by Andres

Heat Exchanger

- ME-2
- advances_in_heat.pdf
- KONGSBERG Fleet Performance
- Parameter Heat Transfer - Erdoug 2008
- Review Paper on Investigation of Perfomance for Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger -45688
- HEATXS1A
- Project File No (6)
- Network Design Workshop_V2
- ME212-EXP3_ozkapici
- Chapter 11 HX
- Section 8.6.2 Counter-Flow Configuration
- Tech Description
- COMPARISON OF DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF TUBE SHEET THICKNESS BY USING UHX CODE-2%5CCOMPARISON OF DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF TUBE SHEET THICKNESS BY USING UHX CODE-2.pdf
- 1-s2.0-S2214157X16301939-main
- Enhancement of Efficiency of Water Heater by providing fins-A Review
- part_c
- IJRET20140323065.pdf
- The Dynamics of Three-dimensional Underwater Explosion Bubble
- so2000
- chap1

You are on page 1of 13

USING THE TEMA STANDARDS

M. A. S. S. Ravagnani1, and J. A. Caballero2

1

Chemical Engineering Department, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain.

Abstract: In this paper a mixed integer non-linear programming (MINLP) model is proposed for

the design of shell and tube heat exchangers. The model rigorously follows the TEMA (Tubular

Exchanger Manufacturers Association) Standards and Bell-Delaware Method is used to the shell

side calculations. Mechanical design features (shell and tube bundle diameters, internal and

external tube diameters, tubes length, pitch and tube arrangement, number of tubes and tube

passes) and thermal-hydraulic variables (heat, area, individual and overall heat transfer coefcients, shell and tube pressure drops and fouling) are variables to be optimized. The equipment

is designed under pressure drop and fouling limits. Three cases from the literature are studied,

with two different objective functions, considering just the heat transfer area minimization or the

annual cost minimization, including area and pumping expenses. More realistic values are

obtained when compared with the literature, considering fouling and pressure drop effects

according to TEMA Standards.

Keywords: TEMA standards; optimization; heat exchanger design; mixed integer non linear

programming; generalized disjunctive programming; mathematical programming.

INTRODUCTION

Correspondence to:

Dr M.A.S.S. Ravagnani,

DEQ/PEQ, CTC/UEMState University of Maringa,

Av. Colombo 5790CEP

87030 900, Maringa,

PR, Brazil.

E-mail: ravag@deq.uem.br

DOI: 10.1205/cherd06231

02638762/07/

$30.00 0.00

Chemical Engineering

Research and Design

Trans IChemE,

Part A, October 2007

# 2007 Institution

of Chemical Engineers

shell side lm heat transfer coefcient and

pressure drop. The ow Bell model considers

ve different streams, not considered in the

method proposed by Kern (1950). Leakages

between tubes and bafes, bypass of the

tube bundle without cross ow, leakages

between shell and bafes, leakages due to

more than one tube passes and the main

stream and tube bundle cross ow.

These streams do not occur in so well

dened regions, but interacts ones to others,

needing a complex mathematical treatment

to represent the real shell side ow.

Both, Kern and Bell-Delaware methods are

used in practice. However, in the majority of

published papers and in industrial applications, heat transfer coefcients are estimated, based, generally on literature tables.

These values have a large degree of uncertainty, and more realistic values can be

obtained if these coefcients are not estimated, but calculated during the design task.

A very few number of papers present shell

and tube heat exchanger design including

overall heat transfer coefcient calculations.

Polley et al. (1990), Polley and Panjeh

Shah (1991), Jegede and Polley (1992) and

Panjeh Shah (1992), using both, the Kern

used heat transfer equipment in industrial processes due to their resistant manufacturing

features and design exibility. They are also

easy adaptable to operational conditions.

Because of this, the design of shell and tube

heat exchangers is a much known subject.

Nevertheless, some difculties are found,

especially in the shell-side design, because

of the complex characteristics of heat transfer

and pressure drop.

Some methods were proposed to determine

thermal-hydraulic parameters, like heat

exchange area, individual and overall heat

transfer coefcients and pressure drop

(Taborek, 1983). Kern (1950) published the

rst and most known method. Kerns method

was proposed to design heat exchangers, or

to rate existent equipment with respect to

pressure drop and fouling. For the shell side,

correlations were proposed based on the equivalent diameter, overestimating the parameters

design. It is, to this day, the most used method.

Bell-Delaware is a more recent shell and

tube heat exchanger design method based

on mechanical shell side details. According

to Taborek (1983), this method presents

1423

1424

shell and tube heat exchangers design to be incorporated

into a heat exchanger network synthesis algorithm. The

method consists of solving simultaneously three equations.

In these equations, the authors proposed three constants,

one that depends on the mass owrate and the tube side

uid physical properties. The other two are complex functions

involving shell side uid physical properties, shell geometry

and the Fanning and Colburn ideal factors to the Bell-Delaware method. With the simultaneous solution of these

equations, lm coefcients and pressure drops can be

obtained. The TEMA (1988) Standards were not always

used by the authors, and as result some variables like the

shell diameter and the number of tubes are not always in

accordance with TEMA recommendations.

In Ravagnani (1994), a systematic procedure was proposed for the design of shell and tube heat exchangers

using the Bell-Delaware method. Overall and individual

heat transfer coefcients are calculated based on a TEMA

tube counting table, beginning with the smallest heat exchanger with the biggest number of tube passes, to prot from all

the pressure drop and fouling limits, xed before the design

and that must be respected. If pressure drops or fouling

factor are not satised, a new heat exchanger is tested,

with lower tube passes number or larger shell diameter,

until the pressure drops and fouling are under the xed

limits. This equipment is, inside a trial and error systematic,

the one that presents the minimum heat exchanger area for

xed tube length and bafe cut, for a counting tube TEMA

table including 21 types of shell and tube bundle diameter,

two types of external tube diameter, three types of tube

pitch, two types of tube arrangement and ve types of

number of tube passes. This systematic was also incorporated in a heat exchanger network synthesis method, as it is

shown in Ravagnani et al. (2003).

In a recent paper, Mizutani et al. (2003) presented a mathematical programming model for heat exchangers design.

The optimisation model uses the Bell-Delaware correlations

to calculate the heat transfer coefcient and pressure drop

in the shell-side ow. The model is based on GDP (generalized disjunctive programming) and is optimized with a MINLP

reformulation to determine the heat exchanger design that

minimizes the total annual cost accounting for area and

pumping expenses. The model follows TEMA standards,

but some features, such as the shell diameter and the

number of tubes, that are calculated and optimized, are not

always in accordance with the standards. The model will

nd the best value to optimise the objective function. So,

the number of tubes can be very different from the tube

counting TEMA standards. Also, tube length must be xed

before the design.

More recently in Serna and Jimenez (2005) an analytical

expression that relates the pressure drop, the exchanger

area and the lm heat transfer coefcient for the shell side

of a shell and tube heat exchanger was reported. The

equation was based on the Bell-Delaware method and the

use of the compact formulation within design and optimization algorithms was illustrated.

In the present paper, Bell-Delaware method will be used

to formulate the mathematical model that involves discrete

and continuous variables for the selection of the conguration and operating levels, respectively. A tube counting

table, similar to the one used by Ravagnani et al. (2003)

nd the shell diameter, the tube bundle diameter, the external tube diameter, the tube pitch, the tube arrangement pattern, the number of tube passes and the number of tubes.

By using a GDP formulation, these optimization variables

are easy and rapidly obtained. Other variables are obtained

by using some of the Mizutani et al. (2003) GDP model.

Furthermore, some complementing features are proposed.

Besides the table counting, shell and tube side pressure

drops and fouling factor are calculated and the model has

as constraints operational limits, previously xed, as in

industrial applications. The objective function can be considered as the minimization of area and pumping expenses

or just heat exchange area minimization, depending on data

availability.

MODEL FORMULATION

The problem to be formulated as an optimization problem

is the design of the optimum shell and tube equipment to

exchange heat between a cold and a hot stream. The objective is to nd the heat exchanger that presents the minimum

cost including exchange area cost and/or pumping cost,

rigorously following the Standards of TEMA constrained to

allowable pressure drops and fouling limits. Inlet data for

both uids are: Tin (inlet temperature), Tout (outlet temperature), m (mass owrate), r (density), Cp (heat capacity),

m (viscosity), k (thermal conductivity), allowable DPdesign

(pressure drop), rddesign (fouling factor) and area cost data.

The indexh is used for the hot uid and the indexc for the

cold uid. The mechanical variables to be optimized are

tube inside diameter (din), tube outside diameter (dex), tube

arrangement (arr), tube pitch ( pt), tube length (L), number

of tube passes (Ntp) and number of tubes (Nt), for the tubeside. To the shell-side, the desired variables are the external

diameter (Ds), the tube bundle diameter (Dotl), bafes number

(Nb), number of shells (NS), bafes cut (lc) and bafe spacing

(ls). Finally, thermal-hydraulic variables to be calculated are

heat duty (Q), heat exchange area (A), tube-side and shellside lm coefcients (ht and hs), dirty and clean overall heat

transfer coefcient (Ud and Uc), pressure drops (DPt and

DPs), fouling factor (rd), log mean temperature difference

(LMTD), the correction factor of LMTD (Ft) and the uids

location inside the heat exchanger.

The model is formulated as a GDP Problem and reformulated to a MINLP problem.

The uids allocation in shell and tube heat exchangers

must consider some important issues like the materials of

construction, fouling, operating pressures, pressure drops,

uids viscosity, owrates and temperatures. Therefore,

usually the decision of uids allocation in the tubes side or

in the shell side is taken a priori. However, if the designer

have all this information and is not sure in which side must

be allocated the uids, a mathematical approach can be

used to dene it. Obviously, this decision belongs to the

designer. In the present paper, the formulation proposed by

Mizutani et al. (2003) can be used to dene the hot uids

allocation. There are two possibilities, considering the cold

uid in the shell side or in the tube side. So, two binary variables must be dened, y1f and y2f . If the cold uid is owing in

Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2007, 85(A10): 14231435

the shell side, or if the hot uid is on the tube side, y1f 1. It

implies that the physical properties and hot uid mass owrate will be in the tube side, and the cold uid physical properties and mass owrate will be directed to the shell side. If

y1f 0, the reverse occurs.

The physical properties (density, viscosity, heat capacity

and thermal conductivity) are assumed to be constant (temperature invariant).

This is formulated as:

2

y1f

y2f

6 mt mh 7 6 mt mc 7

6 s

7 6

7

6 m mc 7 6 ms mh 7

6 t

6

7

7

6 Cp Cph 7 6 Cpt Cpc 7

6 s

7 6 s

7

c

h

6 Cp Cp 7 6 Cp Cp 7

6

7 6

7

6 mt mh

7 _ 6 mt mc

7

6

7 6

7

6 ms mc 7 6 ms mh 7

6

7 6

7

6 kt kh

7 6 kt kc

7

6

7 6

7

6 ks kc

7 6 ks kh

7

6

7 6

7

4 rt rh

5 4 rt rc

5

rs rc

rs rh

y1f y2f 1

h

m mh1 mh2

mc mc1 mc2

mt mh1 mc1

ms mh2 mc2

mh1 mupper y1f

mc1 mupper y2f

mh2 mupper y2f

mc2 mupper y1f

mt y1f mh y2f mc

ms y2f mh y1f mc

Cpt y1f Cph y2f Cpc

Cps y2f Cph y1f Cpc

k t y1f k h y2f k c

k s y2f k h y1f k c

rt y1f rh y2f rc

rs y2f rh y1f rc

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

Dotl

dex

arr

pt

Ntp

0.20500

0.20500

0.20500

0.20500

0.20500

0.20500

0.20500

0.20500

0.20500

..

.

0.17325

0.17325

0.17325

0.17325

0.17325

0.17325

0.17325

0.17325

0.17325

..

.

0.01905

0.01905

0.01905

0.01905

0.01905

0.01905

0.01905

0.01905

0.01905

..

.

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

..

.

0.02379

0.02379

0.02379

0.02379

0.02379

0.02540

0.02540

0.02540

0.02540

..

.

1

2

4

6

8

1

2 30

4

6

..

.

24

16

..

.

1.52400

1.52400

1.52400

1.52400

1.52400

1.52400

1.52400

1.47300

1.47300

1.47300

1.47300

1.47300

1.47300

1.47300

0.02540

0.02540

0.02540

0.02540

0.02540

0.02540

0.02540

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

0.03175

0.03175

0.03175

0.03175

0.03175

0.03175

0.03175

6

8

1

2

4

6

8

1761

1726

1639

1615

1587

1553

1522

Ds

Nt

38

32

26

24

18

37

with 565 rows. Obviously, other values of external tube diameters as well as tube arrangement can be easily aggregated

to the table, if necessary. The number of tubes for various

bundle sizes and tube passes is estimated only, using the

correlations presented in Perry and Green (1997). According

to the authors, exact tube counts are part of the design package of most reputable exchanger design software and are

normally used for the nal design. To nd Ds, Dotl, dex, arr,

pt, ntp and Nt, the following equations are used:

2

3

Ds D565

3 2

3

s

Ds D1s

Ds D2s

6

7

6 Dotl D565 7

6

7 6

7

otl

6

7

6 Dotl D1otl 7 6 Dotl D2otl 7

6

7

6

7 6

7

6 dex d 565 7

6 dex d 1 7 6 dex d 2 7

ex

6

7

ex 7 6

ex 7

6

6

7

6

7 6

7

565 7

arr

arr

6 arr arr 1 7 _ 6 arr arr 2 7 _ _ 6

6

7

6

7 6

7

6

7

6 pt pt 1 7 6 pt pt 2 7

6 pt pt 565 7

6

7 6

7

6

7

6

7 6

7

6

7

4 ntp ntp1 5 4 ntp ntp2 5

6 ntp ntp565 7

4

5

Nt Nt 1

Nt Nt 2

565

Nt Nt

2

565

X

Ds

(16)

(17)

1425

dsi ynt(i)

(18)

i1

Dotl

565

X

dotli ynt(i)

(19)

dexi ynt(i)

(20)

arri:ynt(i)

(21)

i1

neglected if the designer has information enough to a priori

decide where the uids must be allocated. So, the next

step is the denition of the TEMA parameters.

For the denition of the shell diameter (Ds), tube bundle

diameter (Dotl), tube external diameter (dex), tube arrangement (arr), tube pitch ( pt), number of tube passes (Ntp) and

the number of tubes (Nt), a table containing this values

according to TEMA Standards is constructed, as presented

in Table 1. It contains two types of tube external diameter,

19.05 and 25.4 mm, two types of arrangement, triangular

and square, three types of tube pitch, 23.79, 25.4 and

31.75 mm, ve types of number of tube passes, 1, 2, 4, 6

and 8, and 21 different types of shell and tube bundle

diameter, beginning on 205 mm and 173.25 mm, respectively, and nishing in 1524 mm and 1473 mm, respectively,

dex

565

X

i1

arr

565

X

i1

pt

565

X

pti:ynt(i)

(22)

i1

ntp

565

X

ntpi:ynt(i)

(23)

i1

nt

565

X

nti:ynt(i)

(24)

i1

565

X

ynt(i) 1

i1

Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2007, 85(A10): 14231435

(25)

1426

Arrangement ( pn and pp) Variables

2

arr tri

arr cua

4 pn 0:5pt 5 _ 4 pn pt 5

pp 0:866pt

pp pt

pn pn1 pn2

1

(27)

pt pt 1 pt 2

(28)

pn1 0:5pt 1

(29)

pn2 pt 2

(30)

pp1 0:866pt 1

(31)

pp pt

1

pt

din (m)

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

0.0122

0.0129

0.0135

0.0142

0.0148

0.0154

0.0157

0.0161

0.0166

y1dex

_j y1jbwg

or 1

y1dex

(46)

y1jbwg

1

(47)

y2jbwg 1

(48)

X

j

(32)

arr

0:02379ytri

(33)

arr

pt 2 0:02379ycua

(34)

arr

pt 1 0:03175ytri

(35)

arr

pt 0:03175ycua

arr

arr

ytri

ycua

1

(36)

y1dex y2dex 1

(38)

(49)

y2jbwg

(50)

y1jbwg BWG1j

y2dex

or 1

y2jbwg

y2dex

1

Five kinds of tube length are considered, according with

TEMA (1988):

NL {2:438; 3:658; 4:877; 6:096; 6:706}

(din) can be found for different values of dex and BWG

(Birmingham Wire Gage), used to dene the tube thickness.

In the present paper, just two tube external diameters will be

considered, which implies just two set of possibilities of din, as

can be seen on Tables 2 and 3. However, other values of

tube external diameter can be aggregated.

BWG determination can be formulated as: for

dex 0.01905 m, BWG f10, 11, 12, . . . , 18g; for

dex 0.0254 m, BWG f8, 9, 10, 11, 12, . . . , 18g

9

X

(37)

BWG1

BWG

(26)

pp pp pp

(39)

y1l

6:096y4l 6:706y5l

(51)

y2l

(52)

y3l

y4l

y5l

According to TEMA (1988), bafe spacing must be

between Ds and Ds/5. In this case, the following values will

be considered:

j1

9

X

y1jbwg 1

(40)

j1

BWG2

11

X

y2jbwg BWG2j

(53)

(54)

ls Ds

ls Ds =5

(41)

j1

11

X

y2jbwg 1

(42)

BWG

din (m)

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

0.0170

0.0179

0.0186

0.0193

0.0199

0.0206

0.0212

0.0217

0.0221

0.0225

0.0229

j1

(43)

din1

9

X

y1jbwg :din1

(44)

y2jbwg :din2

(45)

j1

din2

11

X

j1

Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2007, 85(A10): 14231435

Cross-Flow at or Near Centreline for One

Cross-Flow Section (Sm)

neglected, and Reynolds number, in this work, will be

considered just for values greater than 100. The following

disjunction can be used:

"

#

arr tri

_

otl dex )

Sm ls: Ds Dotl (ptdex ):(D

pt

"

#

arr sq

otl dex )

Sm ls: Ds Dotl (ptdex ):(D

pn

2

3 2 res

3

y3

y2res

y1res

45

35

4

4

_ Res 10

_ Res 10

Res . 104

Res . 103

Res 102

or

(pt dex ):(Dotl d ex )

Sm ls: Ds Dotl

pt

(62)

(63)

103 y2res

103 y2res

102 y3res

(64)

Res2

arr

ytri

)

M(1

(pt dex ):(Dotl dex )

Sm ls: Ds Dotl

pt

(55)

arr

M(1 ytri

)

(pt dex ):(Dotl dex )

Sm ls: Ds Dotl

pn

(56)

arr

M(1 ysq

)

(pt dex ):(Dotl dex )

Sm ls: Ds Dotl

pn

(57)

Res3

(65)

Res3

X

yrres 1

r

Res

(66)

(67)

Resr

(68)

arr

)

M(1 ysq

(58)

bound in equations (55) (58).

Shell Side

Reynolds number is given by

Res

1427

ms :dex

ms :Sm

(59)

Determination

Both, Colburn and Fanning factor are functions of

Reynolds number and the tube arrangement, as shown on

Table 4, extracted from Mizutani et al. (2003). Because of

rearr

this it is necessary to introduce a binary set of variables yr,s

,

which represents both the Reynolds number and the tube

arrangement. This set of binary variables is related to the

sets y res and y arr with the following DGP proposition:

rearr

(yrres ^ ysarr ) ) yr;s

ms =rs

vs

(Ds =pt):(pt dex )ls

(60)

vs in m s1

0:5 vs 2;

rearr

1 yrres ysarr yr;s

0

XX

rearr

yr;s 1

(69)

(70)

( s) are given by the empirical correlations

(61)

number. Considering that in real heat exchangers the

(71)

(72)

Table 4. Empirical coefcients for equations (69) (80) as function of Reynolds number and tube arrangement.

arr

Res

tri

tri

tri

tri

tri

sq

sq

sq

sq

sq

10 10

104 103

103 102

102 10

,10

105 104

4

10 103

103 102

102 10

,10

a1

a2

a3

a4

b1

b2

b3

b4

0.321

0.321

0.593

1.360

1.400

0.370

0.107

0.408

0.900

0.970

20.388

20.388

20.477

20.657

20.657

20.395

20.266

20.460

20.631

20.667

1.450

1.450

1.450

1.450

1.450

1.187

1.187

1.187

1.187

1.187

0.519

0.519

0.519

0.519

0.519

0.370

0.370

0.370

0.370

0.370

0.372

0.486

4.570

45.100

48.000

0.391

0.082

6.090

32.100

35.000

20.123

20.152

20.476

20.973

21.000

20.148

0.022

20.602

20.963

21.000

7.00

7.00

7.00

7.00

7.00

6.30

6.30

6.30

6.30

6.30

0.500

0.500

0.500

0.500

0.500

0.378

0.378

0.378

0.378

0.378

Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2007, 85(A10): 14231435

1428

a

b

a3

in Each Windows (Ncw)

(73)

1 0:14(Res )a4

b3

(74)

1 0:14(Res )b4

Ncw

The coefcients a1, a2, a3, a4, b1, b2, b3 and b4 can be

obtained on Table 4 and are related to the Reynolds

number on the shell side and to the tube arrangement. The

coefcients a1, a2, b1 and b2 assume different values

depending on the Reynolds number as well as the tube

arrangement. The coefcients a3, a4, b3 and b4 assume

different values depending on the tube arrangement. This

can be expressed as

XX

r

(75)

rearr a2

yr;s

Ar;s a2

(76)

ls Ds Dotl

Fsbp

(77)

Ssb

yrarr Aar 4

a4

dsb

(78)

XX

r

(79)

earr b2

yr;s

Ar;s b2

(80)

(90)

31 0004(Ds 1000)

1000

Bafflese (Stb)

yrarr Abr 3

b3

(81)

Ds dsb

2lc

p arccos 1

2

Ds

XX

X

rearr b1

yr;s

Ar;s b1

(89)

where

Sm

Bafflese (Ssb)

yrarr Aar 3 a3

(88)

Bypass Flow (Fsbp)

XX

X

rearr a1

yr;s

Ar;s a1

0:8lc

pp

yrarr Abr 4

b4

(91)

(82)

It is given by the difference between the gross window area

(Swg) and the window area occupied by tubes (Swt):

Nb

L

1

ls

(83)

Sw Swg Swt

(92)

where

Cross Flow (Nc)

Nc

Ds 1 2(lc =Ds )

pp

Swg

(Ds )2

24

s 3

l

l

lc 2 5

c

c

1 12

4arccos 12

12

Ds

Ds

Ds

(84)

(93)

lc 0:25Ds

(85)

and

Swt (Nt =8)(1Fc)p(Ds )2

"

Fc

1

p 2l sinarccos (l ) 2 arccos (l )

p

(86)

Tube Bank (hoi)

where

Ds 2lc

l

Dotl

(94)

(87)

hoi

2=3

ji Cps ms

ks

Sm

Cps ms

(95)

Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2007, 85(A10): 14231435

Correction Factor for Baffle Configuration

Effects (Jc)

Jc Fc 0:54(1 Fc)

0:345

(96)

Ncw

:Rb

DPs 2:DPbi : 1

Nc

(Nb 1):DPbi :Rb :Rl Nb:DPwi :Rl

Ssb Stb

Jl a (1 a) exp 2:2

Sm

where

a 0:44 1

Ssb

Ssb Stb

1429

(97)

(106)

This value must respect the pressure drop limit, xed before

the design:

DPs DPs design

(107)

(98)

Ret

Effects (Jb)

4:mt :Ntp

p:din:mt :Nt

(108)

Jb exp (0:3833Fsbp)

(99)

is not necessary to use the correction factor for adverse

temperature gradient build up at low Reynolds number.

1

0:271

0:9

p 4 log

(7=Ret )

dex

flt

(109)

Prt

hs hoi JcJlJb

(100)

Section (DPbi)

DPbi

2:fls :Nc:(ms )2

rs :Sm2

m t :Cpt

kt

(110)

the Turbulent Flow (Ret > 104)

Nut 0:027:(Ret )0;8 :(Prt )1=3

(101)

(111)

ht

:

din dex

(112)

DPwi (2 0:6Ncw)

(ms )2

2:Sw:rs :Sm

vt

on Pressure Drop (Rl )

"

Rl exp 1:33 1

Ssb

Ssb Stb

Stb Ssb

Sm

k #

where

Ssb

0:8

Ssb Stb

(104)

Rb exp1:3456Fsbp

Ret :mt

rt :din

(105)

(113)

1 vt 3;

(103)

k 0:15 1

(102)

vt in m s1

(114)

Pressure Drop)

!

2:flt :Ntp :L:(vt )2

2

DPt rt :

1:25:Ntp :(vt ) :NS

din

(115)

This value must respect the pressure drop limit, xed before

the design:

DPt DPt design

Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2007, 85(A10): 14231435

(116)

1430

Heat Exchanged

where

temperatures, heat capacities and ow rates are known. If

one of these parameters is unknown, the heat duty is an

optimization variable and can be written as

Q ms :Cps (Tenh Tsaih )s or

Q ms :Cps (Tsaic Tenc )s

Q mt :Cpt (Tenh Tsaih )t or

Q mt :Cpt (Tsaic Tenc )t

(2003) is used:

(117:a)

3 2

3 2

3

R 0:99

R 1:01

R 0:99

6

7 6

7 6

7

4 R1 R

5 _ 4 R 1:01 5 _ 4 R2 R

5

Ft f2 (R; S)

Ft f1 (R1 ; S)

Ft f1 (R2 ; S)

(117:b)

That is introduced in the MINLP problem by using the big-M

constraints:

(118)

LMTD:

t1 Touth Tinc

t2 Tinh Toutc

(119)

(120)

LMTD t1 t2 (t1 t2 )=21=3

(121)

For the Ft determination, the Blackwell and Haydu (1981)

proposition is used:

Tinh Touth

Toutc Tinc

(122)

Toutc Tinc

S

Tinh Tinc

(123)

p!

R2 1

Ft f1 (R; S)

R1

h

i

ln (1 Px1 )=(1 R:Px1 )

"

p #

2=Px1 1 R R2 1

p

ln

2=Px1 1 R R2 1

(124)

where

(127)

R1 R M(1 yft1 )

(128)

yft1 )

(129)

R1 R M(1

(130)

(131)

(132)

(133)

(134)

(135)

yft2 )

(136)

Ft f2 (R; S) M(1

R 1:01 M(1 yft3 )

(137)

R2 R M(1 yft3 )

(138)

R2 R M(1 yft3 )

(139)

(140)

(141)

(142)

greater than 0.75. This constraint must be aggregated to

the model:

Ft 0:75

1=NS

R:S 1

S1

R:S 1 1=NS

R

S1

(143)

1

Px1

(125)

Ud

Q

Area:LMTD

Ft f2 (R; S)

p

R2 1=(1 Px )

p #

2=Px1 1 R R2 1

p

ln

2=Px1 1 R R2 1

"

Px2

(144)

(126)

Uc

1

dex

rin :dex dex : ln (dex =di n)

1

rout

din :ht

din

2:ktube

hs

(145)

Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2007, 85(A10): 14231435

1431

Stream

Tin (K)

Tout (K)

m (kg s21)

m (kg ms21)

r (kg m23)

Cp (J kg21K)

K (W mK21)

rd (W mK21)

Kerosene

Crude oil

371.15

288.15

338.15

298.15

14.9

31.58

.00023

.00100

777

998

2684

4180

0.11

0.60

1.5e-4

1.5e-4

rd

Uc Ud

Uc :Ud

(146)

xed before the design:

rd rd design

(147)

the wall viscosity corrections could be included in the

model, both on the tube and the shell sides, for heat transfer

coefcients as well as friction factors and pressure drops calculations, since the viscosity as temperature dependence is

available. If available, the tubes temperature could be calculated and the viscosity estimated in term of these temperatures. For non-viscous uids, however, these correction

factors can be neglected.

The constraints coming from the Bell-Delaware Method

(Details can be seen in Taborek (1983).

COMPUTATIONAL ASPECTS

It is worth mentioning some important computational

aspects related with the solution of the previous MINLP

model. The proposed model is a non-linear non-convex problem. For solving this kind of problems there are available

different algorithms. The most important are decomposition

algorithms (Outer ApproximationDuran and Grossmann,

1986; Generalized Benders DecompositionGeoffrion,

1972) that iterate between a NLP problem, with a xed conguration of integer variables and a Master (MILP) problem

that predicts a new combination of integer variables, and

Branch and Bound (Leyffer, 2001).

Usually the decomposition algorithms performs better in

problems in which the combinatorial part of the model is

important and the branch and bound algorithms tends to be

less sensitive to non-convexities, although, of course these

are general trends and the particular behaviour is problem

dependent.

Another weakness of the decomposition algorithms

appears in MINLP problems in which there are an important

number of infeasible combinations of integer solutions. In

these cases, the Master problem could predict infeasible

combinations of integer variables and then the corresponding NLP problem is infeasible. This problem can be solved

by different strategies: (1) add a binary cut that avoid the

infeasible combination, and continue with the search. However, if the number of potential infeasible solutions is large

the performance use to be very poor with a large number

of iterations. (2) Adding slack variables and a penalty in

the objective function, in order to force feasibility. However,

in our case the performance is again very poor. The

algorithm usually stops in a solution in which the slacks

are activea local optima of the modied problem, but an

feasibility problem each time a non-feasible solution is

obtained in order to get valid linearizations for the

Master, but once again the performance in the problem is

very poor.

Fortunately, the weakness of the decomposition algorithms

is the strengthens of branch and bound algorithms. The large

number of potential infeasible solutions helps to prune the tree

search and the important combinatorial nature of the problem

is in someway mitigated. Using SBB under GAMS the model

can be solved in some seconds of CPU time. This model is

a clear example of how selecting the correct tool is important

in order to get a reliable solution in an efcient way.

EXAMPLES

Three examples were chosen to apply the developed

model, in designing optimal heat exchangers.

Example 1

The rst example was extracted from Shenoy (1995). In this

case, there is no available area and pumping cost data, and

the objective function will consist in the heat exchange area

minimization. Temperature and ow rate data as well as

Present paper

Present paper (xing hot uid

(not xing uids

on the shell

Shenoy (1995)

allocation)

side)

Area (m2)

Q (kW)

Ds (m)

Dotl (m)

Nt

Nb

ls (m)

Ntp

dex (mm)

din (mm)

L (m)

pt (mm)

ht (W m22K)

hs (W m22K)

Ud (W m22K)

Uc (W m22K)

DPt (kPa)

DPs (kPa)

rd (m28C W21)

NS

Ft

DTML (K)

arr

vt (ms21)

vs (ms21)

Hot uid

allocation

28.40

1320

0.549

0.516

368

6

0.192

6

19.10

15.40

1.286

25.40

8649.6

1364.5

776

1000.7

42.00

3.60

4.1e-3

1

0.9

88.60

Square

Shell

Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2007, 85(A10): 14231435

28.31

1320

0.438

0.406

194

6

0.105

4

19.05

17.00

2.438

25.40

2759.840

3831.382

779.068

1017.877

26.915

7.00

3.01e-4

1

0.9

88.56

Triangular

1.827

0.935

Tube

38.52

1320

0.533

0.489

264

19

0.122

2

19.05

17.00

2.438

25.40

4087.058

1308.363

572.510

712.422

7.706

7.00

3.43e-4

1

0.9

88.56

Square

1.108

1.162

Shell

1432

Table 7. Example 2 data.

Stream

Tin (K)

Tout (K)

m (kg s21)

m (kg ms21)

r (kg m23)

Cp (J kg21K)

k (W mK21)

DP (kPa)

rd (W mK21)

1

2

368.15

298.15

313.75

313.15

27.78

68.88

3.4e-4

8.0e-4

750

995

2840

4200

0.19

0.59

68.95

68.95

1.7e-4

1.7e-4

uids physical properties and limits for pressure drop and fouling are in Table 5. It is assumed also that the tube thermal conductivity is 50 W mK21 and the roughness factor is 0.0000457.

Pressure drop limits are 42 kPa for the tube-side and 7 kPa for

the shell-side. A dirt resistance factor of 0.00015 m2 K W21

should be provided on each side.

With these uids temperatures the LMTD correction factor

will be greater than 0.75 and one shell is necessary to satisfy

the thermal balance.

Table 6 presents the heat exchanger conguration of

Shenoy (1995) and the designed equipment, by using the

proposed MINLP model. In Shenoy (1995) the author uses

three different methods for the heat exchanger design; the

method of Kern (1950), the method of Bell Delaware

(Taborek, 1983) and the rapid design algorithm developed

in the papers of Polley et al. (1990), Polley and Panjeh

Shah (1991), Jegede and Polley (1992) and Panjeh Shah

(1992) that xes the pressure drop in both, tube-side and

shell-side before the design. The author xed the cold uid

allocation on the tube-side because of its fouling tendency,

greater than the hot uid. Also some mechanical parameters

as the tube outlet and inlet diameters and the tube pitch are

xed. The heat transfer area obtained is 28.4 m2. The other

heat exchanger parameters are presented in Table 6 as

well as the results obtained in present paper with the proposed MINLP model, where two situations were studied,

xing and not xing the uids allocation. It is necessary to

say that Shenoy (1995) does not take in account the standards of TEMA. According to Smith (2005), this type of

approach provides just a preliminary specication for the

equipment. The nal heat exchanger will be constrained to

standard parameters, as tube lengths, tube layouts and

shell size. This preliminary design must be adjusted to

meet the standard specications. For example, the tube

length used is 1.286 m and the minimum tube length recommended by TEMA is 8 ft or 2.438 m. If the TEMA recommended value were used, the heat transfer area would

be at least 53 m2.

If the uids allocation is not previously dened, as commented before, the MINLP formulation will nd an optimum

for the area value in 28.31 m2, with the hot uid in the tube

side and in a triangular arrangement. The shell diameter

would be 0.438 m and the number of tubes 194. Although

with a higher tube length, the heat exchanger would have a

smaller diameter. Fouling and shell side pressure drops are

very close to the xed limits.

If the hot uid is previously allocated on the shell side,

because of the cold uid fouling tendency, the MINLP formulation following the TEMA standards will nd the minimum

area equal to 38.52 m2. It must be taken into account that

when compared with the Shenoy (1995) value that would

be obtained with the same tube length of 2.438 m (approximately 53 m2), the area would be smaller, as well as the

shell diameter and the number of tubes.

Example 2

As previously commented, the objective function in the

model can be the area minimization or a cost function.

Some rigorous parameters (usually constants) can be aggregated to the cost equation, considering mixed materials of

construction, pressure ratings and different types of exchangers, as proposed in Hall et al. (1990).

The second example studied in the present paper was

extracted from Mizutani et al. (2003). In this case, the authors

proposed an objective function composed by the sum of area

and pumping cost. The pumping cost is given by the

equation:

Pcos t

DPt :mt DPs :ms

ccos t :

rt

rs

(148)

cost, given by the equation:

Min total annual cost acos t (Area)bcos t Pcos t

(149)

Mizutani et al.

(2003)

Total annual

cost ($/year)

Area cost ($/

year)

Pumping cost

($/year)

Area (m2)

Q (kW)

Ds (m)

Dotl (m)

Nt

Nb

ls (m)

Ntp

dex (mm)

din (mm)

L (m)

ht (W m228C)

hs (W m228C)

Ud (W m228C)

Uc (W m228C)

DPt (kPa)

DPs (kPa)

rd (m228C W21)

vt (m s21)

vs (m s21)

NS

arr

Hot uid

allocation

Present paper

Present paper (xing hot uid

(not xing uids

on the shell

allocation)

side)

5250.00

5028.29

5191.47

2826.00

3495.36

3663.23

2424.00

1532.93

1528.24

202.00

4339

0.687

0.672

832

8

0.542

2

15.90

12.60

4.88

6480.00

1829.00

860

22.676

7.494

Square

Shell

264.634

4339

1.067

1.022

680

7

0.610

8

25.04

23.00

4.88

1986.49

3240.48

655.298

826.687

23.312

4.431

3.16e-4

1.058

0.500

1

Square

Tube

286.15

4339

0.838

0.796

713

18

0.353

2

19.05

16.00

6.71

4186.21

1516.52

606.019

758.664

13.404

6.445

3.32e-4

1.003

0.500

1

Square

Shell

Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2007, 85(A10): 14231435

1433

Stream

Tin (K)

Tout (K)

m (kg s21)

m (kg ms21)

r (kg m23)

Cp (J kg21K)

K (W mK21)

rd (W mK21)

Hot

Cold

483.15

324.81

377.59

355.37

19.15

75.22

0.00012

0.00029

789.72

820.12

2428.34

2135.3

0.106

0.123

3.5e-4

3.5e-4

well as uids physical properties. Also known is the tube thermal conductivity, 50 W mK21. As both uids are in the liquid

phase, pressure drop limits are xed to 68.95 kPa, as

suggested by Kern (1950). As in Example 1, a dirt resistance

factor of 0.00015 m2 K W21 should be provided on each side.

Table 8 presents a comparison between the problem

solved with the Mizutani et al. (2003) model and the proposed

model in this paper. Again, two situations were studied, xing

and not xing the uids allocation. In both cases, the annual

cost is smaller than the value obtained in Mizutani et al.

(2003), even with greater heat transfer area. It is because

of the use of non-standard parameters, as the tube external

diameter and number of tubes. If the nal results were

adjusted to the TEMA standards (the number of tubes

would be 902, with dex 19.05 mm and Ntp 2 for square

arrangement) the area should be approximately 264 m2.

However, the pressure drops would increase the annual

cost. Using the MINLP proposed in the present paper, even

xing the hot uid in the shell side, the value of the objective

function is smaller.

Analysing the cost function sensibility for the objective

function studied, two signicant aspects must be considered,

the area cost and the pumping cost. In the case studied the

proposed MINLP model presents an area value greater

(264.15 and 286.15 m2 versus 202.00 m2) but the global

cost is lower than the value obtained by the Mizutani et al.

(2003) model (5250.00 $/year versus 5028.29 $/year and

5191.49 $/year, respectively). It is because of the pumping

Area (m )

Q (kW)

Ds (m)

Dotl (m)

Nt

Nb

ls (m)

Ntp

dex (mm)

din (mm)

L (m)

ht (W m228C)

hs (W m228C)

U (W m228C)

DPt (kPa)

DPs (kPa)

NS

arr

Hot uid

allocation

Serna and

Jimenez

Method of Bell

algorithm

(Serna and

(Serna and

Jimenez, 2004) Jimenez, 2004)

Present paper

167.6

4909.1

0.762

0.715

546

15

0.406

6

19.05

14.83

5.28

1266.22

1260.54

375.3

78.805

83.631

1

Triangular

Tube

148.56

4909.1

0.737

0.659

509

15

0.305

6

19.05

17.00

4.88

1174.36

928.61

425.1

76.738

43.690

1

Triangular

Tube

163.97

4909.1

0.770

0.715

528

18

0.406

6

19.05

14.83

5.28

1270.14

1372.80

385.1

78.805

83.630

1

Triangular

Tube

$/year, respectively).

Obviously, if the results obtained by Mizutani et al. (2003)

for the heat exchanger conguration (number of tubes, tube

length, outlet and inlet tube diameters, shell diameter, tube

bundle diameter, number of tube passes, number of shells

and bafe spacing) are xed the model will nd the same

values for the annual cost (area and pumping costs), area,

individual and overall heat transfer coefcients and pressure

drops as the authors found. It means that it represents a local

optimum because of the other better solutions, even when

the uids allocation is previously xed.

Example 3

The third example was extracted from Serna and Jimenez

(2004). The authors presented an efcient and robust algorithm for the rigorous design of shell and tube heat exchangers based on the Bell-Delaware method. The algorithm

makes complete use of the maximum allowable pressure

drops of both streams, relating exchanger area to the lm

coefcients and allowable pressure drops.

In the case studied the objective function will consist in the

heat exchange area minimization. Temperature and ow rate

data as well as uids physical properties and limits for

pressure drop and fouling are in Table 9. It is assumed also

that the tube thermal conductivity is 45 W mK21. Pressure

drop limits are 78.805 kPa for the tube-side and 83.631 kPa

for the shell-side. A dirt resistance factor of

0.00035 m2 K W21 should be provided on each side.

With these uids temperatures the LMTD correction factor

will be 0.9165 (greater than 0.75) and one shell is necessary

to satisfy the thermal balance.

Table 10 shows three heat exchanger congurations. The

rst column presents a pure Bell-Delaware method application with a bafe cut of 22%. The second one presented

the Serna and Jimenez (2004) algorithm, and the third

column present the designed equipment by using the proposed MINLP model. The heat transfer areas obtained are

172.62 m2, 163.97 m2 and 148.46 m2.

The other heat exchanger parameters are also presented

in Table 10. It is interesting to note that the two rst columns

in the table do not take in account the standards of TEMA.

Example 1

Equations

Continuous

variables

Discrete

variables

CPU time a

Pentium IV

1 GHz (s)

Example 2

Example 3

166

713

157

706

166

713

53

602

53

0.251

Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2007, 85(A10): 14231435

0.561

0.275

1434

As the nal heat exchanger will be restricted to standard parameters, as tube lengths, tube layouts and shell size, this

preliminary design must be adjusted to meet the standard

specications. The tube length used is 5.283 m and it is not

a value recommended by TEMA, according to equations

(51) and (52).

The smaller heat transfer area can be explained by the

use of the different tube length as well as the shell diameter,

smaller than the used by the authors (0.762, 0.770 and

0.737 m, respectively), that affects the number of tubes

(546, 528 and 509, respectively) and in the tube bundle diameters (0.715, 0.725 and 0.659 m, respectively).

The three examples were solved with GAMS, using the

solver SBB, and Table 11 shows a summary of the solver

results. As can be seen, CPU time is not high. As pointed

in the Computational Aspects section, rstly it is necessary

to choose the correct tool to solve the problem. For this

type of problem studied in the present paper, the solver

SBB under GAMS was the better tool to solve the problem.

To set a good starting point it is necessary to give all the

possible exibility in the lower and upper variables limits,

prior to solve the model, i.e., it is important to x very

lower low bounds and very higher upper limits to the

most inuenced variables, as the Reynolds number, for

example.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present paper a model for the optimal design of heat

exchangers based on GDP was proposed. The optimisation

model is a MINLP, following rigorously the Standards of

TEMA. Bell-Delaware method was used to calculate the

shell-side variables. The model was developed for turbulent

ow on the shell side using a bafe cut of 25% but the

model can consider other values of bafe cuts.

The model calculates the best shell and tube heat exchanger to a given set of temperatures, ow rates and uids physical properties. The major contribution of this paper is that all

the calculated heat exchanger variables are in accordance

with TEMA standards, shell diameter, outlet tube bundle

diameter, tube arrangement, tube length, tube pitch, internal

and external tube diameters, number of bafes, bafe spacing, number of tube passes, number of shells and number

of tubes. It avoids heat exchanger parameters adjustment

after the design task. A tube counting table was proposed

and the use of DGP makes the optimisation task not too

hard, avoiding non linearities in the model. The problem

was solved with GAMS, using the solver SBB. During the

solution of the model, the major problems were found in the

variables limits initialisation. Two examples were solved to

test the model applicability. In the rst example the objective

was the heat exchange area minimization and in the second

one the objective function considered area and pumping

expenses in the annual cost minimization.

In the studied examples comparisons were done to

Shenoy (1995), Mizutani et al. (2003) and Serna and Jimenez

(2003). Having a larger eld of TEMA heat exchanger possibilities, the present model achieved more realistic results

than the results obtained in the literature. Besides, the task

of heat exchanger parameters adjustment to the standard

TEMA values is avoided with the proposed MINLP formulation proposition.

NOMENCLATURE

A

acost

arr

a1, a2, a3

and a4

BWG

b1, b2, b3

and b4

ccost

Cp

dex

din

Dotl

Ds

Fc

Fsbp

s

t

Ft

GDP

hoi

hs

ht

Jb

Jc

ji

Jl

L

lc

LMTD

ls

m

Nb

Nc

Ncw

NS

Nt

Ntp

Nu

Pcost

pn

pp

Pr

pt

Q

Re

Rb

rd

Rl

Sm

Ssb

Stb

Sw

Swg

Swt

T

Uc

Ud

vt

y arr

y bwg

y dex

yf

yl

y ls

ynt

rea cost constant

tube arrangement

empirical coefcients

Birmingham Wire Gauge

empirical coefcients

pumping cost constant

heat capacity

tube outside diameter

tube inside diameter

tube bundle diameter

shell external diameter

fraction of total tubes in cross-ow

fraction of cross-ow area available for bypass ow

shell-side Fanning factor

tube-side Fanning factor

correction factor of LMTD

generalized disjunctive programming

shell-side heat transfer coefcient for an ideal tube

bank

shell-side lm coefcient

tube-side lm coefcient

correction factor for bundle-bypassing effects

correction factor for bafe conguration effects

Colburn factor

correction factor for bafe-leakage effects

tube length

bafes cut

log mean temperature difference

bafe spacing

mass ow rate

number of bafes

number of tube rows crossed in one cross-ow

section

number of tube columns effectively crossed in each

window

number of shells

number of tubes

number of tube passes

number of Nusselt

pumping cost

tube pitch normal to ow

tube pitch parallel to ow

number of Prandtl

tube pitch

heat duty

number of Reynolds

pressure drop correction factor for bundlebypassing effects

fouling factor

pressure drop correction factor for bafe-leakage

effects

reference normal area for shell-side ow

shell-to-bafe leakage area

tube-to-bafe leakage area for one bafe

area ow thought the window

gross window area

window area occupied by tubes

temperature

clean overall heat transfer coefcient

dirty overall heat transfer coefcient

tube-side uid velocity

binary variable which denes tube pattern

arrangement

binary variable which denes internal tube

diameter

binary variable which denes external tube

diameter

binary variable which denes the uid allocation

binary variable which denes the tube length

binary variable which denes the bafe spacing

binary variable which denes the variables of

Table 1

Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2007, 85(A10): 14231435

y res

y rearr

e

DP

DPbi

DPwi

k

m

r

Reynolds number

binary variable which represents y res and y arr

roughness

pressure drop

shell-side pressure drop for ideal cross-ow

pressure drop for the window

thermal conductivity

viscosity

density

Index

h

c

s

t

hot uid

cold uid

shell-side

tube-side

REFERENCES

Blackwell, W.W. and Haydu, L., 1981, Calculating the correct LMDT

in shell-and-tube heat exchangers, Chemical Engineering, October;

101106.

Chen, J.J., 1987, Letter to the editor: Comments on improvement on

a replacement for the logarithmic mean, Chem Eng Sci, 42: 2488

2489.

Duran, M.A. and Grossmann, I.E., 1986, An outer approximation

algorithm for a class of mixed-integer nonlinear programs, Math

Prog, 36: 307 339.

Geoffrion, A.M., 1972, Generalized benders decomposition, J Optim

Theory and Appl, 10(4): 237 260.

Hall, S.G., Ahmad, S. and Smith, R., 1990, Capital cost targets for

heat exchanger networks comprising mixed materials of construction, pressure ratings and exchanger types, Computers and

Chemical Engineering, 14(3): pp. 319 335.

Jegede, F.O. and Polley, G.T., 1992, Optimum heat exchanger

design, Trans Inst Chem Eng, 70(A2): 133141.

Kern, D.Q., 1950, Process Heat Transfer (McGraw Hill, New York,

USA).

Leyffer, S., 2001, Integrating SQP and branch-and-bound for mixed

integer nonlinear programming, Comp Optim Appl, 18: 295309.

Mizutani, F.T., Pessoa, F.L.P., Queiroz, E.M., Hauan, S. and

Grossmann, I.E., 2003, Mathematical programming model for

1435

heat exchanger network synthesis including detailed heat eschanger designs. 1. Shell-and-tube heat exchanger design, Ind Eng

Chem Res, 42: 40094018.

Panjeh Shahi, M.H., 1992, Pressure drop consideration in process

integration, PhD thesis, UMIST, UK.

Perry, R.H. and Green, D.W., 1997, Perrys Chemical Engineering

Handbook, 7th edition (McGraw Hill, USA).

Polley, G.T. and Panjeh Shah, M.H.M., 1991, Interfacing heat

exchanger network synthesis and detailed heat exchanger

design, Trans Inst Chem Eng, 69: 445 447.

Polley, G.T., Panjeh Shah, M.H.M. and Jegede, F.O., 1990, Pressure

drop considerations in the retrot of heat exchanger networks,

Trans Inst Chem Eng, 68: 211 220.

Ravagnani, M.A.S.S., 1994, Projeto e otimizacao de redes de trocadores de calor, PhD thesis, FEQ-UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil.

Ravagnani, M.A.S.S., Silva, A.P. and Andrade, A.L., 2003, Detailed

equipment design in heat exchanger networks synthesis and

optimization, Applied Thermal Analysis, 23: 141151.

Serna, M. and Jimenez, A., 2004, An efcient method for the design

of shell and tube heat exchangers, Heat Transfer Engineering,

25(2): 5 16.

Serna, M. and Jimenez, A., 2005, A compact formulation of the

Bell-Delaware method for heat exchanger design and optimization,

Chem Eng Res Des, 83 (A5): 539550.

Shenoy, U.V., 1995, Heat Exchanger Network SynthesisProcess

Optimization by Energy and Resource Analysis (Gulf Publishing

Company, USA).

Smith, R., 2005, Chemical Process Design and Integration (Wiley,

UK).

Taborek, J., 1983, Shell-and-tube heat exchangers, Section 3.3, Heat

Exchanger Design Handbook (Hemisphere, USA).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors acknowledge nancial support provided by CNPq

(National Council of Science and Technological Development) and

to the Spanish Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia under project

CTQ2005-05456.

The manuscript was received 22 November 2006 and accepted for

publication after revision 25 May 2007.

Trans IChemE, Part A, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2007, 85(A10): 14231435

- ME-2Uploaded byaliscribd46
- advances_in_heat.pdfUploaded bymacpepito
- KONGSBERG Fleet PerformanceUploaded byc108
- Parameter Heat Transfer - Erdoug 2008Uploaded byJOSE DAVID TORRES GONZALEZ
- Review Paper on Investigation of Perfomance for Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger -45688Uploaded bylvmengke1994
- HEATXS1AUploaded bycjc0706
- Project File No (6)Uploaded byAbdullahAmjad
- Network Design Workshop_V2Uploaded byAnsar Ali
- ME212-EXP3_ozkapiciUploaded bydamlaaa
- Chapter 11 HXUploaded byBilalQamar
- Section 8.6.2 Counter-Flow ConfigurationUploaded bydrdoak123
- Tech DescriptionUploaded byanp5043
- COMPARISON OF DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF TUBE SHEET THICKNESS BY USING UHX CODE-2%5CCOMPARISON OF DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF TUBE SHEET THICKNESS BY USING UHX CODE-2.pdfUploaded byruponline1
- 1-s2.0-S2214157X16301939-mainUploaded bysnehal
- Enhancement of Efficiency of Water Heater by providing fins-A ReviewUploaded byAnonymous vQrJlEN
- part_cUploaded byTushar Kadiya
- IJRET20140323065.pdfUploaded byhenok
- The Dynamics of Three-dimensional Underwater Explosion BubbleUploaded bypaulocouceiro
- so2000Uploaded byrock
- chap1Uploaded bysankalpakash
- Gams Tips and TricksUploaded byTheDarkSoldierCL
- Solar Heat Exchanger ArticleUploaded byjimfansler
- Lec11Uploaded byOrlando Fernandez
- AMM.789-790.455Uploaded bynaim
- Scraped Surface Heat ExchangerUploaded byPedro Angeles
- 1. Formulation- LPPUploaded byriya pradhan
- optimization project 2Uploaded byapi-320259366
- Faq_en Fives CryoUploaded byAmit Patel
- HTandPI_Problem2Uploaded byHansraj Rahul
- Differential evolutionUploaded byRahul Mayank

- 1982 Dec Re to 02Uploaded byAlexSora
- Termodinamica Del Cambio de Fase e InterfasesUploaded byJuan Uiuy
- Design Rating Shell Tube Heat Ex ChangersUploaded byjazzmin100
- Tipos de Intercambiadores de CalorUploaded byAuner Garcia
- resolucion_3673_2008Uploaded byMauricio Moreno Bacca
- Resolución 736 de 2009Uploaded byAntonio
- EIQ 303 2012 18 Intercambiadores de Calor de Tubo y CarcasaUploaded bypeluza2000
- FLS Specific Heat Capacities of GasesUploaded byDamir986
- Termodinamica de Las MezclasUploaded byJazmín Ramírez
- Flujo Bifasico Gas Liquido Resumen 100421 V1Uploaded byijptheanswer
- Conversiones de UnidadesUploaded byVictor Marquez Cu
- XP Flare Article ReprintUploaded byAnonymous cuOIjrLI
- 5artUploaded byJesus Larios Viloria
- Efficient Industrial Heat ExchangersUploaded byJoao Paulo Vissotto
- c1Uploaded byKlitos Petrukio Mastropiero Melgar
- Artificial Lift Systems ManagementUploaded byAndres
- Insulating Kit Product BrochureUploaded byAndres
- Flare Line SizingUploaded bySri Krishna Kanth
- Design Rating Shell Tube Heat Ex ChangersUploaded byjazzmin100
- Process Plant Piping OverviewUploaded byskdalalsin
- Data Sheet XistUploaded byAndres
- Artificial LiftUploaded byAndres
- Artificial Lift Systems WeatherfordUploaded byAndres
- API RP 1110 Pressure TestingUploaded byAndres
- Heat exchangerUploaded byjetsadaporn
- Pipe 1400Uploaded byPaul Pepple
- Catalogo O'Rings ParkerUploaded byeduardo1h8650
- Confirm Complex Heat Exchanger PerformanceUploaded bymich0p
- A Minlp Model for the Rigorous Design of Shell and TubeUploaded byAndres

- Design and Optimization of Thermally Coupled Distillation Schemes for the Separation of Multicomponent MixturesUploaded byMassimilianø Erricø
- CONDUCTION.docxUploaded byHesty HeshesFebrianticitoyus
- Vedic Physics.docxUploaded byKamalakarAthalye
- Integrasi panas pada evaporator dan dryer.pdfUploaded byKhairatun Nisa
- Wiley Acing the Gate - Mechanical Engineering - Text BookUploaded bySaurabh Thakur
- NuFoam_SAFIR2010 (1)Uploaded byNajim Monssif
- Jee Main 2014 Analysis by Resonance RevisedUploaded bycutebene
- Intro to AcousticsUploaded byGopuShiva
- Nitc Mechanical Btech Syllabus and CurriculumUploaded bypikasoc1
- Flare Radiation AnalysisUploaded bypolaris44
- LectureNotesEngineeringUploaded byJanakiraman Mohan
- Temperature Measurement & Control_James Ron LeighUploaded byjhon jairo
- CH03_WorkedSolutionsUploaded byJeff
- Unit 1 Ee2355 Machine DesignUploaded byRamesh Babu
- Modeling and Optimization of Condensing Heat Exchangers for Cooling Boiler Flue GasUploaded byUmut Arslan
- Hydrodynamics and Heat Transfer Characteristics of a Novel Heat Exchanger With Delta-winglet Vortex Generators_2010Uploaded byImam Syarifudin
- anu prephd syllabusUploaded byAR-T
- Aircon Notes (2)Uploaded byprado01
- Electronic Cooling Using Synthetic Jet ImpingementUploaded byEKKACHAI PRABNAKORN
- 04-basicGeohistoryUploaded byArie Awaluddin Achmad
- ME-2000Uploaded byRam Sakal
- Metallurgical Plant Optimization Through the Use OfUploaded byquark_kuark
- Hydrological Investigation of Swat River BasinUploaded byZakir Dahri
- Experimental Analysis of Temperature Variation in an Air Medium Radiation FieldUploaded byIASTER Journals
- ILI Stone HandbookUploaded byJohn Johnson
- analysis of a refrigeration cycle with coolprop.pdfUploaded byDario Mendez
- Cooking PotatoUploaded bynovi_wijaya_2
- HydrotherapyUploaded byMegha Patani
- Etheric Formative Forces in Earth Cosmos and ManUploaded byFrater Zarkos
- AIChE _ PE Refresher Course Offered Spring 2014 _ Serving Chemical Engineers in the Greater Houston AreaUploaded bySathish Kumar Pt