Heat Transfer
COMPACT HEAT EXCHANGERS PART 3:
Retrofit Heat
Recovery Networks
With Plate Exchangers
Graham Polley,
www.pinchtechnology.com
Pinch analysis retrofit procedures can be
Christopher Haslego, extended to handle compact exchangers.
Alfa Laval
T he first two articles in this series demonstrated
the benefits of including alternative heat ex-
changer technologies at the very outset of the
design of new plants. This article looks at how
such a consideration can be made in revamp projects.
The recommended approach for the revamping of heat-
recovery networks (1) consists of three stages:
1. The application of economic analysis to the overall
heat-recovery problem, to individual component parts of
the plant, and to combinations of those parts in order to
identify the potential benefits of linking the component
parts and the linkage (if any) having the best economics.
2. The determination of the best means for making the
identified linkage (i.e., the actual change to be made to the
plant structure).
3. The combination of equipment design and economic
analysis to identify the detailed design that achieves the de-
sired economics.
This article will review how the procedure was applied
to an example using shell-and-tube heat exchangers (1) and
then repeat the analysis using plate-and-frame exchangers.
Traditional retrofit economics
The traditional approach to retrofit economic analysis
was developed by Tjoe and Linnhoff (2). It starts with
comparing the performance of the existing plant with what
is theoretically possible. This is done by superimposing
plant performance (in terms of hot utility consumed and
heat-recovery area used) on a plot of the relationship be-
tween hot utility consumption and the theoretical minimum
heat-recovery area (Figure 1).
46 www.cepmagazine.org November 2002 CEP
Such a plot usually shows that the energy consumption
of the plant is high for the amount of heat recovery surface
area being used. For instance, in the example shown in Fig-
ure 1, the minimum amount of hot utility required by the
plant is that associated with point A rather than point X.
To obtain energy savings, it is necessary to invest. The
investment comes in the form of additional heat-recovery
surface strategically positioned in order to improve the
manner in which the existing surface is used. Consequent-
ly, the retrofit follows a relationship similar to that shown
in Figure 1.
It is not possible to determine this relationship without
undertaking a very large amount of detailed design investi-
gation, but it is possible to put a bound on its location. Tjoe
and Linnhoff suggested that the way in which the existing
plant used heat-recovery area could be characterized by an
area efficiency, defined as the ratio of the ideal heat-re-
covery area needed for the current hot utility consumption
divided by the actual amount of heat-recovery surface
used. They then suggested that the bound on the location of
the relationship would be a curve involving the installation
of new area such that the retrofit projects had the same area
efficiency as the existing plant (Figure 2).
Given this bound, it becomes possible to relate ex-
pected hot utility saving with additional heat-recovery
area (Figure 3). This, in turn, can be converted to a plot
of monetary saving against financial investment (Figure
4). By comparing the economic criteria (simple or differ-
ential payback, and investment ceiling) with this plot, the
scope (i.e., utility saving) of the retrofit project could be
identified.
 Energy Saved Saving

Area Added
Path of Retrofit Investment
A A
X
A X

Ideal Area B

E E

Figure 1. Comparison of actual and possible performance and Figure 3. Relating savings and investment based on the retrofit path.
typical retrofit path.

Project consistent with required

differential payback

Constant Area Slope = 1/differential

Efficiency payback Project
consistent
with
Saving

Economic maximum
Projects X investment
A
Project consistent with
Actual A required payback

Ideal A Slope = 1/payback Investment

Ceiling

E Investment

Figure 2. Division of area/energy space.

Figure 4. Relating project scope with the economic criteria.

The extension of this approach to encompass the use of

a new exchanger type (e.g., plate-and-frame exchangers) in tacting pattern is equivalent to making heat recovery
a plant using shell-and-tube exchangers has two problems. matches that are vertically aligned between the compos-
First, since the performance of the new exchangers will ite curves. The composite curves can then be divided into
differ substantially from that of the existing units, how is enthalpy intervals and the heat-recovery area (A) for
the area vs. energy plot developed? Second, what basis is each interval (Aint) estimated by:
there for using the concept of area efficiency?
1 Q
Why heat-recovery area is used inefficiently Aint =
LMTD
hi (1)
i
The estimation of the heat-recovery area used in the
area vs. energy plot (Figure 1) assumes that the best use of where LMTD is the log-mean temperature difference, Qi is
temperature driving force is achieved if hot and cold the heat load on stream i in the interval j, and hi is the heat-
streams are in pure countercurrent flow. This thermal con- transfer coefficient for stream i.

CEP November 2002 www.cepmagazine.org 47

Heat Transfer
If the hot streams and the cold streams exhibit uniform
heat-transfer coefficients (i.e., all the hot streams have the
same coefficient and all the cold streams have the same
coefficient [which may differ from that of the hot
streams]), the estimate of heat-recovery area for the inter-
val is rigorous.
The heat-recovery area for the network (Anetwork) can be
determined by summing Eq. 1 over the enthalpy intervals:
Anetwork =
1 Q
LMTD j h i
(2 )
Where the heat-transfer coefficients for the individual
streams differ from each other (which occurs in most real
cases), Eq. 2 provides an approximation of the required
area. Consequently, a small deviation between actual
area and predicted minimum area can be due to differ-
ences in individual stream coefficients. However, major
deviations are due to poor use of the temperature driving
force i.e., deviation from the pure countercurrent
flow. This situation occurs if the heat-recovery matches
are not ideally placed i.e., they are not vertically
aligned. Tjoe (3) recognized that one objective of a
retrofit should be to improve the use of the temperature
driving force by improving the alignment of matches be-
tween the composite curves.
It should be recognized that there are situations in
which non-vertical alignment is very beneficial and
should be retained. One example is where expensive ma-
terials are required for the contacting of a small number
of hot and cold streams but not for the bulk of the pro-
cess. It is often cheaper to match these particular
streams than to try to integrate them into the rest of the
process. Similarly, where pressure drop is of particular
importance (e.g., refrigeration systems, compressed
gases, etc.), power costs can outweigh exchanger costs
and the use of abnormally large temperature driving
forces is justified.
An alternative approach to retrofit economics
Silangwa (4) found that the assumption of constant area
efficiency tended to be conservative. He suggested that a
better relationship could be obtained by assuming that the
new area is added ideally. This results in a curve that is
parallel with the area vs. energy plot.
The questions now are: Can we justify this ap-
proach? Does this open up the way to handling alter-
native technologies?
Consider the simple heat-recovery system illustrated in
Figure 5. If the performance of this system was positioned
on an area vs. energy plot, it would fall on the plot itself.
This is because the heat recovery matches are vertically
aligned and recovery is achieved in a pure countercurrent
manner. If additional heat-recovery surface was added to
this system, the resulting performance would also fall on
48 www.cepmagazine.org November 2002 CEP
Hot Stream
Cooler
Cold Stream
Heat Recovery Heater
Unit
Figure 5. Simple network components ideally aligned.
174
E5
Zone D
E1
160
4
E3
New Match
100
5
Zone A
Figure 6. Position of new match automatically aligns.
the plot itself, for the new area is being added ideally. The
retrofit curve would follow the plot.
Now consider how two components of a plant are
linked through a new heat-recovery match. Figure 6 shows
how two components (A and D, which are part of the ex-
ample discussed below and depicted in Figure 7) would be
linked. The position of the new match is dictated by the
temperature field. The new match pairs hot stream 4 from
component D, which has a supply temperature of 160C,
with stream 5 from component A. The objective is to re-
duce the load on the heater on stream 5, which has a sup-
ply temperature of 100C and is currently heated using ex-
changer E1. The outlet temperature of the hot stream leav-
ing exchanger E1 is 174C (which is above the supply
temperature of hot stream 4). It is obvious that the new
match must be positioned prior to E1, at the cold end of
stream 5. Since the temperature field dictates the match
position, the match will be close to being an ideal match.
So, we can expect the retrofit economics to again follow
the area vs. energy plot.
The use of the assumption of ideal placement is a valid
approximation, and the concept of area efficiency is not
necessary. The targeting curve is given by the area vs. ener-
gy plot starting at the current energy consumption.
Most significantly, in the retrofit the focus is on the new
exchangers. Consequently, an area vs. energy plot derived
 Component D Component Component Component A
second part is only economically justi-
C B fied if plate-and-frame units are used.
30 84 174 327
C E5 E1 1 The hot utility saving resulting from
these projects would be 7.3 MW. How-
45 121 160 160 220 ever, we see that by integrating all of the
C E3 4 E2 2 components, a saving of 10.6 MW with
15.13 a 0.6-yr payback may be possible.
60 110 220 100 253 300 The identification of structural
C E4 3 5 H
H changes involving two independent
3.0 components is usually easily achieved
35 164 through inspection. The situation in
6
which four components are to be
9.03 linked is harder to resolve it could
80 125 140 188 300 be done by inspection, or the stream
7 9 H
cascade tables introduced by Amidpour
7.88 9.6 22.4
(5) could be used to systematically de-
60 170
8 velop a solution. Here we will identify
6.6 structural changes by inspection, guid-
ed by the process composite curves or
Figure 7. Example problem decomposed into four components.
(perhaps more clearly) by the driving-
force plot (Figure 8). The driving-force
plot displays the temperature separa-
on the basis of the new exchanger technology can be used tion of two composites as a function of temperature. Both
to develop the relationship for the retrofit economics. representations indicate that the available temperature
driving forces are small over the entire process. This ob-
Example viously strongly influences the plant structure.
This example was originally developed by Tjoe and The first step in deriving the new structure is to identify
Linnhoff (2) and subsequently used by Polley and Amid- the sources and sinks of heat that are to be matched. In-
pour (1) to demonstrate retrofit design technique. Here it is spection of Table 2 leads to the following conclusions:
updated to current energy costs ($3/MBtu) and capital
costs (using the equations in the previous articles). The
changes in utility and capital costs do not change the result Table 1. Projects yielding a 2-yr payback
of the retrofit for the shell-and-tube design. The existing (shell-and-tube design).
network is shown in Figure 7. The projects with a 2-yr pay- Component or Combination Energy Savings, MW
back (1) are listed in Table 1. A 2.22
Based on the new economics, the amount of energy AB 1.92
saved (by the 2-yr-payback projects) remains at around
4.7 MW, and the redesign required a new match between AC 3.52
stream 4 and stream 5. Increased heat recovery and AD 4.70
changes in the temperature driving force also required BC 0.48
modifications to exchangers E1, E5 and E3. The capital BD 0.10
cost of the heat-recovery equipment was estimated to be
ABCD 4.88
$0.7M. By undertaking two projects, one involving the
linkage of components A and D and one involving the Source: (1).
linkage of components B and C, it is possible to save 5.18
MW with a 2-yr payback, whereas the traditional analysis Table 2. Identified projects for a plate-and-frame design.
indicated that it was only possible to save 4.88 MW.
Combination Utility Saving, Payback, Temperature
When plate-and-frame exchangers are considered, other MW yr Approach, C
options emerge (Table 2).
ABCD 10.6 0.6 6
One choice is a project involving a structural change (Full System)
linking zones A and D, which would save 4.7 MW with a
0.2-yr payback, plus a change involving linking zones B ABD 7.9 0.4 6
and C, which would save an additional 2.6 MW with pay- AD 4.7 0.2 14
back of 0.4 yr. The first part of this project is identical with BC 2.6 0.4 6
the solution derived for the shell-and-tube exchangers. The

CEP November 2002 www.cepmagazine.org 49

Heat Transfer

with stream 5 (zone A) would be made at the supply end

500 of this cold stream (temperature 100C). A match with
stream 9 would also be made at the supply end (tempera-
400 ture 140C). Given these temperatures, working from the
supply end of stream 4, the match with stream 9 should
Hot Temperatures, C

come before the match with stream 5.

300 Now lets consider the transfer between stream 3 (zone
C) and stream 9 (zone B). This match must be made at the
Hot vs. Cold x=y supply end of stream 3. The temperature span of the match
200
is similar to that of the existing match between stream 2
and stream 9. Given the close temperature driving forces
100 throughout the process, this indicates that the match must
be made by splitting stream 9.
The match between streams 4 and 9 will also have to in-
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 volve splitting stream 9.
Finally, lets consider linkage between zones A
Cold Temperatures, C
Minimum Temperature Difference = 5C (stream 1) and B (stream 9). Because of the close tem-
perature approaches, this should be made at the hot end
Figure 8. Driving force plot for example problem. of the streams.
The new structure for the plant is shown in Figure 9.
Existing matches are shown in green. New matches are
shown in orange.
Stream 1 With the structure determined, the next step is to size
Stream 6 the new exchangers incorporated in that structure. Ref. 1
Stream 4 outlines the procedure for doing this. In heat-balance
terms, the additional heat-recovery equals the reductions
Stream
in the amount of heat rejected in the coolers (which can
7 be considered the heat source) and the amount consumed
in the heaters (which can be considered the sink). It can
Stream 5 only be achieved where there is a path between source
and sink. The paths available in the new network are
Stream 2 shown in Figure 10.
Stream The changes to the network are:
Stream 9 3 new heat-recovery match between streams 1 and 9
Stream
8 enhancement of heat-recovery unit E1 (due to in-
creased recovery and/or reduced temperature driving force)
enhancement of heat recovery unit E5 (due to reduced
temperature driving force)
Figure 9. Structure for retrofitted plant. new heat-recovery match between streams 4 and 5
new heat-recovery match between streams 4 and 9
enhancement of heat-recovery unit E3 (due to reduced
temperature driving force)
A new match between stream 4 (zone D) and stream 5 new heat-recovery match between streams 3 and 9
(zone A) would significantly reduce the load on the heater enhancement of heat-recovery unit E4 (due to reduced
on stream 5. temperature driving force).
A match between stream 3 (zone C) and stream 9 The enhancement of existing units can, depending on
(zone B) would reduce the load on the heater on stream 9 the changes, be achieved in a variety of ways:
by around 2.6 MW. the use of heat-transfer devices
The load on the heater on stream 9 needs to be reduced replacement of tube bundles
further; around 3 MW must be transferred from either zone replacement of exchangers
A or zone D. Given the small temperature driving forces, it installation of supplementary units next to existing ones.
is probable that both transfers will be needed. At first glance, these changes look quite complex. How-
Lets now consider the transfers from stream 4 (zone ever, the complexity can be substantially reduced by using
D). Any new matches must be made at the supply end of 3-stream plate-and-frame exchangers. One possible solu-
the stream (the supply temperature is 160C). A match tion is shown in Figure 11. Multi-stream units are shown

50 www.cepmagazine.org November 2002 CEP

 full benefits of compact heat exchanger technology, it is
E5 E1 essential that the application of that technology is consid-
ered from the very outset of design. This is why the
Stream 1 incorporation of that technology into process integra-
Stream 6 tion/synthesis techniques is important. CEP
E3 Stream 4

Stream In Part 1, (September, pp 3237) there was an error in the

7 sample calculation illustrating how to determine the overall
heat-transfer coefficient (U). In Step 5 (p. 34), the value of x/k
Stream 5
for 5-mm thick stainless steel should be 0.000189 h-ft2-F/Btu
E2 and not the 0.00189 h-ft2-F/Btu reported. Otherwise the calcu-
E4
Stream 2 lation is correct, giving an overall coefficient of 49 Btu/h-ft2-
Stream F. Fortunately, the typo has no bearing the U-values calculated
Stream 9 3 in the examples given. The online version of the article is cor-
Stream
8 rect and can be downloaded from www.cepmagazine.org.

Figure 10. Network paths used for increasing energy recovery. Literature Cited
1. Polley, G. T., and M. Amidpour, Dont Let the Retrofit Pinch
Pinch You, Chem. Eng. Progress, 96 (11), pp. 4348 (Nov. 2000).
2. Tjoe, T. N., and B. Linnhoff, Using Pinch Technology for Process
Retrofit, Chem. Eng., 93 (8), pp. 4760 (Apr. 28, 1986).
Stream 1 3. Tjoe, T. N., Retrofit of Heat Exchanger Networks, PhD Thesis,
Stream 6 Univ. of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, Manch-
ester, U.K. (1986).
Stream
4 4. Silangwa, M., Evaluation of Various Surface Area Efficiency Crite-
ria in Heat Exchanger Network Retrofits, MSc Dissertation, Univ.
Stream
of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, Manchester,
7
U.K. (1986).
Stream 5 5. Amidpour, M., Applications of Problem Decomposition in Process
Integration, PhD Thesis, Univ. of Manchester Institute of Science
and Technology, Manchester, U.K. (1997).
Stream 2

Stream 3
Stream 9 GRAHAM T. POLLEY (Phone: +44-1229-585-330; Fax: +44-1229-585-708;
Stream
8 E-mail: gtpolley@compuserve.com) is retired from the Univ. of Manchester
Institute of Science and Technology, Manchester, U.K., where he was the
director of the Centre for Process Integration. To promote the application of
process integration technology, he has developed the website
www.pinchtechnology.com. His research activities have involved
Figure 11. Retrofit using multi-stream exchangers.
condensation heat transfer, boiling heat transfer, heat-recovery-system
design and the development of process and equipment design
methodologies. He is the current president of the U.K. Heat Transfer
by touching matches; enhanced units are shown in green. Society. In 1990, he was awarded the Moulton Medal by the Institution of
Chemical Engineers for his work on oil refinery revamping, and in 1992, he
Note how the use of multi-streaming has reduced the com- and Dr. Nasr were awarded the Ackrill Trophy by the U.K. Heat Transfer
plexity of the stream split on stream 9. Society for their work on heat-transfer enhancement. He holds BTech, MSc
and PhD degrees in chemical engineering from Loughborough Univ. of
Concluding thoughts Technology, and is a member of AIChE.

By understanding exchanger technology and knowing
how to properly specify and size compact exchangers,
one can realize significant energy savings. However, the
benefits of the technology are not restricted to energy
savings or to savings in equipment capital cost. They ex-
tend to reduced pipe complexity, smaller footprints and
potentially large savings in installation cost. So, we will
end as we started, by stressing that in order to exploit the
CHRISTOPHER HASLEGO is a design engineer with the Process Technology
Div. of Alfa Laval (5400 International Trade Dr., Richmond, VA 23236;
Phone: (804) 236-1318; Fax: (804) 236-1360; E-mail:
chris.haslego@alfalaval.com). His focus is heat transfer in the inorganic
base chemicals industry. He received a BS in chemical engineering from
West Virginia Univ. A member of AIChE, he also maintains a website
dedicated to chemical engineering entitled The Chemical Engineers
Resource Page at www.cheresources.com.

CEP November 2002 www.cepmagazine.org 51