Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Over Design PDF
Over Design PDF
Over Design PDF
net/publication/206200980
CITATIONS READS
17 906
4 authors, including:
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Christopher Allen Bennett on 31 December 2015.
Heat Transfer
Improving
Heat Exchanger
Designs
Christopher A. Bennett
This article defines and explains the
R. Stanley Kistler factors that affect heat exchanger
Thomas G. Lestina
Heat Transfer Research, Inc.
design margins. With the proper
David C. King application of design margins,
BP p.l.c. capital costs can be lowered and
plant operation improved.
R
ecognizing the need for a more effective procedure In order of magnitude: Uclean ≥ Uactual ≥ Urequired.
for designing heat exchangers, Heat Transfer Modern heat exchanger design software calculates the
Research, Inc. (HTRI), a global research and clean overall heat-transfer coefficient incrementally by:
development consortium, organized the Exchanger Design 1 n
Margins Task Force (EDMTF) in 2005. Twenty-five com- U clean = ∑ Uclean, j Ao, j (4)
Ao, total j =1
panies — engineering contractors, heat exchanger fabrica-
tors and processors (box, p. TK) — are currently repre- where the subscript j denotes the variable value at a spe-
sented on the EDMTF. Its goal is to establish a consensus cific increment, and Uclean,j, based on the clean outside
for the definition and application of design margins. This area, excluding fouling resistances, is given by:
consensus is needed because design margins have tradi- 1 1 Ao, j xw, j Ao, j 1
tionally been concealed in fouling factors instead of being = + + (5)
U clean, j ho, j Alm, j km, j Ai, j hi, j
explicitly designated, thereby resulting in inconsistent
margin application and ambiguous design comparisons. The logarithmic mean area for increment j is:
Example
To illustrate the significant
impact that excess margin can have
on heat exchanger design, consider a
gas compression process of an off-
shore facility as depicted schemati- Figure 2. One-shell-pass, four-tube-pass (1-4) CEU heat exchanger in service at the example
cally in Figure 1. Production gas first offshore facility.
enters a partial condenser, where the
heavy ends are condensed and the light Table 3. Salient details of the heat exchanger designs.
ends cooled. The condensate is subsequent-
ly removed in a separator. Then the gas is BFU with
compressed and enters another partial con- In-service Fouling
Parameter CEU Factors BFU
denser, where the remaining heavy ends are
condensed. Effluent from the second partial Heat-Transfer Area, m2 187 154 93.5
condenser enters another separator and then Tube Material Titanium Titanium Titanium
proceeds through a triethylene glycol (TEG)
Relative Cost 1.5 1.3 1
contactor to strip water from the process
stream. The process stream proceeds Estimated Weight, kg 5,700 5,350 5,000
through the final separator, is compressed Estimated Footprint, m × m 0.81 × 7.0 0.78 × 5.9 0.78 × 4.6
again, and is cooled in a final heat exchang- 2
Total Fouling Resistance, m -K/W 0.000429 0.000429 0
er before being metered and exported. 2
Uclean, W/m -K 1,540 1,510 1,510
The final heat exchanger in the train is
Uactual, W/m2-K 928 917 1,510
the focus of this discussion because experi-
ence has revealed that neither stream fouls Urequired, W/m2-K 748 757 1,250
under normal operating conditions. The Overdesign, % 24.1 21.1 21.0
shellside fluid is chlorine-treated once- Excess Area From Fouling, % 65.9 64.9 0
through seawater and the tubeside fluid was
Total Excess Area, % 106 99.8 21.0
modeled as supercritical methane.
Qspecified, MW 4.29 4.29 4.29
Three configurations for this final heat
exchanger were analyzed, and the salient EMTD, °C 30.7 36.8 36.8
details are presented in Table 3. The base B-Stream (6) Fraction 0.382 0.685 0.691
case is the one-shell-pass, four-tube-pass Tube-Side Velocity, m/s 2.95 2.88 2.89
(1-4) CEU TEMA type that is currently in
B-Stream (6) Velocity, m/s 0.86 1.10 1.05
service (illustrated in Figure 2). The cen-
Literature Cited
1. Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association,
“Standards of the Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers
Association,” 8th ed., TEMA, New York (1999).
2. Reid, R. C., J. M. Prausnitz and B. E. Poling, “The
Properties of Gases and Liquids,” 4th ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York (1987).
3. Lestina, T., and K. Bell, “Thermal Performance Testing of
Industrial Heat Exchangers,” Advances in Heat Transfer, 35,
pp. 1–55 (2001).
4. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, “Single-Phase
Heat Exchangers,” ASME Performance Test Code 12.5,
ASME, New York (2001).
5. Nesta, J., and C. A. Bennett, “Reduce Fouling in Shell-and-
Figure 3. Two-shell-pass, four-tube-pass (2-4) BFU heat Tube Heat Exchangers,” Hydrocarbon Processing, 83 (7),
exchanger studied in the example. pp. 77–82 (2004).
6. Palen, J. W., and J. Taborek, “Solution of Shellside Flow
Pressure Drop and Heat Transfer by Stream Analysis
tral baffle spacing was 22.6% of the shell inside diameter,
Method,” Chem. Eng. Progress Symposium Series, 65 (92),
resulting in a low B-stream (6) fraction and inefficient pp. 53–63 (1969).
heat transfer. Individual fouling factors of 0.000176 m2-
K/W were used for both streams (which combined via Eq.
11 to yield a total fouling resistance of 0.000429 m2- adjusting heat transfer area. Uclean, duty, EMTD, and the
K/W). These specifications resulted in a heat-transfer area velocities were effectively the same between the two BFU
requirement of 187 m2 and a total excess area of 106%. designs, confirming the comparability of this approach.
The second heat exchanger design investigated was a Comparing the BFU design with no fouling factors
two-shell-pass, four-tube-pass (2-4) BFU TEMA type with the other two designs reveals striking differences. For
(Figure 3), with the same fouling factors (0.000176 m2- example, the heat transfer area is reduced to only 93.5 m2,
K/W) for both streams as in the CEU exchanger. A lower- resulting in an exchanger that is 23% less expensive than
cost front head (TEMA Type B) was used because fouling the BFU with fouling factors and 33% less expensive than
will not be a problem, thereby negating the need for easy the in-service CEU. Because no fouling factors were used,
access to the tubesheet. An F-shell was selected to reduce the overdesign and total excess area are identical at 21%, a
the exchanger footprint and weight via increased EMTD reasonable value that gives flexibility to the process. The
across the exchanger. U-tubes were chosen to prevent ther- weight and footprint of this exchanger are also less than
mal expansion problems resulting from the large terminal the other designs, which is an important consideration for
temperature difference of this exchanger. Titanium was this offshore application. Because the in-service exchanger
utilized to avoid corrosion problems. does not foul and this design has similar temperatures,
This BFU configuration reduced the heat-transfer area velocities, and metallurgy, we are confident in the
requirement by 18%, with the exchanger cost dropping con- viability of this low-cost design. CEP