PARAMETRIC AND NONPARAMETRIC IDENTIFICATION OF SHELL

AND TUBE HEAT EXCHANGER MATHEMATICAL MODEL

TATANG MULYANA

A Thesis submitted in
Fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the Degree of
Philosophy of Doctoral in Electrical Engineering

Faculty of Electrical and Electronic Engineering

Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia

AUGUST 2014
 v

ABSTRACT

Parametric and nonparametric models of a shell and tube heat exchanger are studied.
Such models are very important because they provide information about controlling a
system operation. Without the model, the control task would be difficult for tuning of
controller. For many years, researchers have studied these models; however, their
models are still less satisfactory since they are not in general form. This problem is
caused by two key issues, namely, multiple unknown parameters and highly
nonlinear structures. Energy balances have been set-up for condition of unknown
parameters which involved, among others, temperature, flow rate, density and heat
capacity. The identification process produces a dynamic model of the heat exchanger
which is developed based on a lumped parameter system. The model developed is
single input single output whereas input signal is hot water flow rate and the output is
cold water temperature. The general form of the model obtained could have
parametric model structures such as auto regressive with external input, average auto
regressive moves with external input, output error or box-jenkins. The study in this
thesis aims to solve the general form through parametric and nonparametric models
which has been proposed as candidate models. Both candidate models have been
implemented and tested by applying several data sets constructed in lab experiments.
The first finding is the derivation of the dynamic model in the general form of the
transfer function in s domain, and it has been proven that it has parametric model
structure. The second finding is the first order without delay time transfer function of
the nonparametric model where they have gain is 35.20C and time constant 7200s.
These have proven to fulfill that the measured experimental data contains calculated
error that is no than more 2%. The third finding is the parametric model obtained has
proven that the measured experimental data contains calculated error level that is
very satisfactory, i.e. less than 1%. This error has been determined based on the final
prediction error for each model structure used. The best model has been chosen, i.e.
bj31131. It has the smallest values of the loss function and final prediction error of
0.0023, and it has high values of the best fits, i.e. 96.84%. Parameter optimization
has been calculated to determine minimization or maximization of functions which
involved the parameter studied. It is used to find a set of design parameters that can
in some way be defined as optimal. The first until the third findings are minor
contribution while the parameter optimization has been a major contribution.
 vi

ABSTRAK

Model parametrik dan bukan parametrik sebuah penukar haba sel dan tiub telah dikaji.
Model seperti ini amatlah sangat penting kerana ia menyediakan maklumat berkenaan
dengan kawalan sebuah operasi system. Tanpa model ini, tugas kawalan akan menjadi sukar
bagi penalaan pengawal. Selama bertahun-tahun, ramai penyelidik telah membuat kajian
kepada model-model ini; walau bagaimanapun, model-model yang mereka perolehi masih
kurang memuaskan kerana ianya tidak dalam bentuk am. Masalah ini wujud disebabkan oleh
dua isu utama, iaitu pelbagai parameter tidak diketahui dan struktur yang sangat tak linear.
Kesetimbangan tenaga telah ditubuhkan bagi keadaan pelbagai parameter tidak diketahui
yang melibatkan, antara lain, seperti suhu, kadar aliran jisim, ketumpatan dan kapasiti haba.
Proses pengenalpastian telah menghasilkan sebuah model dinamik penukar haba yang
dibangunkan berdasarkan kepada sistem parameter tergumpal. Model yang telah
dibangunkan ini mempunyai masukan dan keluaran tunggal dimana sebagai isyarat masukan
adalah kadar aliran air panas dan sebagai isyarat keluaran adalah suhu air sejuk. Bentuk am
daripada model yang diperolehi ternyata dapat dijadikan sehingga ianya mempunyai struktur
model parametrik seperti auto regresif dengan masukan luar, purata auto bergerak regresif
dengan masukan luar, ralat keluaran atau box-jenkins. Kajian didalam tesis ini bertujuan
untuk menyelesaikan bentuk am tersebut melalui model parametrik dan bukan parametrik
yang telah dicadangkan sebagai model calon. Kedua-dua model calon ini telah dilaksana dan
diuji dengan menggunakan tiga buah set data dalam percubaan makmal. Sebagai dapatan
pertama adalah model dinamik terhasil dalam bentuk am fungsi pindah dalam domain s, dan
ianya telah terbukti mempunyai struktur model parametrik. Sebagai dapatan kedua adalah
model nonparametrik dalam bentuk fungsi rangkap pindah perintah pertama tanpa kelewatan
masa dimana ianya mempunyai gain sebesar 35.20C dan konstanta masa sebesar 7200 detik.
Model ini telah terbukti memenuhi data percubaan dan mengandungi ralat kiraan yang
besarnya tidak melebihi daripada 2%. Sebagai dapatan ketiga adalah model parametrik yang
mana ianya telah terbukti memenuhi data percubaan dengan ralat yang mempunyai tahap
yang sangat memuaskan, iaitu kurang daripada 1%. Ralat ini telah ditentukan berdasarkan
ralat ramalan akhir bagi setiap struktur model yang digunakan. Model terbaik yang terpilih,
iaitu bj31131, yang mana ianya mempunyai nilai bahagian kerugian dan ralat ramalan akhir
yang paling kecil, iaitu 0.0023, dan juga mempunyai nilai sawan terbaik yang paling tinggi,
iaitu 96.84%. Pengoptimuman parameter telah dikira untuk menentukan minimum atau
maksimum fungsi-fungsi yang melibatkan parameter yang dikaji. Ianya digunakan untuk
mencari satu set parameter rekabentuk yang dalam beberapa cara boleh ditakrifkan sebagai
optimum. Penemuan yang pertama sehingga yang ketiga merupakan sumbangan kecil
manakala pengoptimuman parameter merupakan sumbangan yang besar.
 vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE i
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES ix
LILST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS xiii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Research Background 1

1.2 Problem Statement 2
1.3 Benefit of the Study 3
1.4 Objectives 4
1.5 Scope of the Study 4
1.6 Research Methodology 6

1.7 The Contributions of the Study 6

1.8 Thesis Outline 9

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 11

2.1 Introduction 11
2.2 Mathemtical Modeling Approach 11
2.3 Nonparametric Identification 13
2.4 Parametric Identification 15
2.5 Summary 16
 viii

CHAPTER 3 PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND CANDIDATE MODEL 18

3.1 Introduction 18
3.2 Classification of Heat Exchanger 19
3.3 Process Description 23
3.4 Dynamic Model 25
3.5 Nonparametric Model 39
3.6 Parametric Model 44
3.7 Summary 48

CHAPTER 4 SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION AND VALIDATION THEORY 49

4.1 Introduction 49
4.2 Parametric System Identification 50
4.3 Nonarametric System Identification 53
4.4 Validation Theory 58
4.5 Parameter Optimization 87
4.5 Summary 104

CHAPTER 5 DATA COLLECTION AND PROCESSING 106

5.1 Introduction 106

5.2 Plant Description 106
5.3 Data Collection and Processing 113
5.4 Summary 117

CHAPTER 6 RESUL AND ANALYSIS 118

6.1 Introduction 118

6.2 Nonparametric Model 118
6.3 Parametric Model 125
6.4 Parameter Optimization 139
6.4 Summary 142

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 144

7.1 Introduction 144

7.2 Significance of Findings 145
7.3 Recommendation 147
REFERENCES 148
 ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: The nonparametric models of shell and tube heat exchanger 13
Table 3.1: Coefficients of Pade-approximations of order and 41
Table 3.2: Type of step response for various value of zeta 43
Table 3.3: Some common parametric models 47
Table 4.1: PEM model structures most frequently used 99
Table 5.1: The condition of data experimental shell and tube heat exchanger 119
Table 6.1: Error calculation nonparametric model and data measured dataexp1 123
Table 6.2: Error calculation nonparametric model and data measured dataexp2 125
Table 6.3: Error calculation nonparametric model and data measured dataexp3 127
Table 6.4: The comparison results of nonparametric models 128
Table 6.5: Estimation model and validation criteria dataexp1 130
Table 6.6: Estimation model and equation dataexp1 131
Table 6.7: Estimation model and validation criteria dataexp2 136
Table 6.8: Estimation model and equation dataexp2 137
Table 6.9: Estimation model and validation criteria dataexp3 140
Table 6.10: Estimation model and equation dataexp3 141
Table 6.11: The comparison results of parametric best model 143
Table 6.12: The results of assessment measure as parameter optimization 144
Table 6.13: The dataexp2 of assessment measure as parameter optimization 145
Table 6.14: The dataexp3 of assessment measure as parameter optimization 145
Table 6.15: The result of assessment measure as parameter optimization 146
Table 6.16: The heat and disturnace transfer function data experimental 146
Table 6.17: Results of parameter optimization data experimental 147
 x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Classification heat exchanger according to process function 20

Figure 3.2 Classification heat exchanger 21
Figure 3.3 Classification heat exchanger according to construction 22
Figure 3.4 Relationships input and output shell and tube heat exchanger 24
Figure 3.5 Shell and tube heat exchanger construction 24
Figure 3.6 Countercurrent shell and tube heat exchanger schematics 28
Figure 3.7 Divided the length heat exchanger into N equal size regions 28
Figure 3.8 Shell and tube temperature are constant at the center region n 29
Figure 3.9 Step response first order transfer function without time delay 39
Figure 3.10 Step response first order transfer function with time delay 40
Figure 3.11 Step and phases responses first order Pade-approximation 42
Figure 3.12 Step and phases responses second order Pade-approximation 42
Figure 3.13 Block diagram parametric model structure 44
Figure 3.14 Linear time invariant (LTI) system subject to disturbance 46
Figure 3.15 Generalized model structure LTI systems 47
Figure 4.1 Block dynamic system schematic 50
Figure 4.2 Schematic flowcharts parametric system identification 52
Figure 4.3 Step response first order system with time delay 54
Figure 4.4 Step response damped oscillator 55
Figure 4.5 Overshoot versus relative damping ζ damped oscillator 56
Figure 4.6 Determination parameter damped oscillator from the tep response 57
Figure 4.7 Assessment criterion 66
Figure 4.8 Block diagram prediction error method 75
Figure 4.9 Schematic representation of the assumed system structure 90
Figure 4.10 Schematic representation of the prediction error 95
Figure 5.1 the real plant of the Heat Exchanger QAD Model BDT 921 110
 xi

Figure 5.2 the boiler drum Tank T11 filled with the hot water 111
Figure 5.3 the Tank T12 filled with the preheat water 111
Figure 5.4 the Tank T13 filled with the cold water 112
Figure 5.5 the power supply controller 112
Figure 5.6 the transmitter displayed of TIC11 and LIC/FIC11 113
Figure 5.7 the recorder LFTR11 that used to record data experiments 113
Figure 5.8 the pump P11 and P14 respectively 114
Figure 5.9 the gauge TG11 and TG12 respectively 114
Figure 5.10 the schematic of the Heat Exchanger QAD Model BDT 921 115
Figure 5.11 the paper data sample from the recorder 117
Figure 5.12 the data transferred in the form excel 118
Figure 5.13 the input and output signals dataexp1 119
Figure 5.14 the input and output signals dataexp2 119
Figure 5.15 the input and output signals dataexp3 120
Figure 6.1 Nonparametric model output and data measured dataexp1 122
Figure 6.2 Error calculation nonparametric model dataexp1 123
Figure 6.3 Nonparametric model output and data measured dataexp2 124
Figure 6.4 Error calculation nonparametric model dataexp2 125
Figure 6.5 Nonparametric model output and data measured dataexp3 126
Figure 6.6 Error calculation nonparametric model dataexp3 127
Figure 6.7 Measured and simulated parametric model output cold water
temperature outlet dataexp1 estimation 129
Figure 6.8 Measured and simulated parametric model output cold water
temperature outlet dataexp1 validation 130
Figure 6.9 Measured and simulated parametric models output cold water
temperature outlet dataexp1 measured 131
Figure 6.10 Autocorrelation and cross correlation parametric models dataexp1 134
Figure 6.11 Measured and simulated parametric model output cold water
temperature outlet dataexp2 estimation 135
Figure 6.12 Measured and simulated parametric model output cold water
temperature outlet dataexp2 validation 136
Figure 6.13 Measured and simulated parametric model output cold water
temperature outlet dataexp2 137
Figure 6.14 Autocorrelation and cross correlation parametric models dataexp2 138
 xii

Figure 6.15 Measured and simulated parametric model output cold water
temperature outlet dataexp3 estimation 139
Figure 6.16 Measured and simulated parametric model output cold water
temperature outlet dataexp3 validation 140
Figure 6.17 Measured and simulated parametric model output cold water
temperature outlet dataexp3 141
Figure 6.18 Autocorrelation and cross correlation parametric models dataexp3 142
 xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ARMAX - auto regressive moving average with exogenous input

ARX - auto regressive with exogenous input
BIBO - bounded input bounded output
BJ - box-jenkins
CFD - computational fluid dynamics
CUSUM - cumulative sum
D - drain
DAE - differential and algebraic equations
EE - equation error
FE - flow emitter
FOPDT - first order plus dead time
FPDD - first-principle data-driven
FPE - final prediction error
FT - flow transducer
HTC - heat transfer coefficients
I - integral
IMC - internal model control
LCV - level control valve
LF - loss function
LHP - left half plane
LT - level transmitter
MCHE - main cryogenic heat exchanger
MDF - matrix fraction description
MIMO - multi input multi output
MINLP - mixed integer non-linear programming
 xiv

MSE - mean square error

ODE - ordinary differential equations
OE - output error
OELS - output error least square
P - proportional
P&ID - piping and instrumentation drawing
PB - proportional band
PDE - partial differential equations
PEM - prediction error method
PG - pressure gauge
PIA - pressure indicating alarm
PID - proportional-integral-derivative
PRBS - pseudo random binary sequence
PT - pressure transmitter
RTD - resistance temperature detector
SRIVM - simplified refined instrumental variable method
T - tank
TE - thermocouple element
TEMA - tubular exchanger manufacturers association
TG - temperature gauge
TIC - temperature indicating controller
TS - temperature sensor
TT - temperature transducer
TIT - temperature indicating transducer
 1

CHAPTER 1 Introduction

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Research Background

Introducing a mathematical model related to represent the actual system dynamics is very
important to science and technology. Such models can be useful e.g. for simulation and
prediction or for designation of digital control systems. Many industrial processes must be
controlled in order to be run safely and efficiently. To design regulators, some type of model
for the process is needed. The models can be of various types and degrees of sophistication.
Sometimes it is sufficient to know the crossover frequency and the phase margin in a Bode
plot. In other cases, such as the designation of an optimal controller, the designer will need a
much more detailed model that can also describe the properties of the disturbances acting on
the process.
In most application of signal processing in forecasting, the recorded data are filtered
in some ways. In addition, a good design of the filter should reflect the properties of the
signal. To describe such spectral properties, a model of the signal is needed. In many cases,
the primary aim of modeling is to assist in the designing process. In other cases, the
knowledge of a model can be the purpose itself. If the models can explain measured data
satisfactorily then they might also be used to explain and understand the observed
phenomena. However, sometimes this model is not easy to get especially when global
representation system is required. Therefore, in order to solve the difficulties to get the
dynamics model of process system, one can use system identification. The system
 2

identification is a technique to estimate the mathematical models of system dynamics based

on data observed from the system (Knudsen, 2004; Ljung, 2011).
There are many usage of system identification. Some of those are for simulations and
predictions for control and diagnosis in many fields such as engineering, economics,
medicine, physiology, and geophysics. Therefore, it is rational to ask questions of where the
model came from. There are currently three methods of system identification: white-box,
gray-box, and black box (Aarts, 2012; Ljung, 2011). White box is an identification performed
without the use of test data, based on the main principles only. Gray box is used both of prior
knowledge process and experimental data for identification. Black box is an identification
made exclusively from test data (Soderstrom, 2001).
Many researchers such as Nithya (2007), Sharma (2011), and Sivakumar (2013) are
interested in identifying the dynamic model of heat exchanger. Modeling and control
designing are not an easy task to do but very important because they are used in many
industrial processes. Heat exchangers are used in the process of heating, cooling, and
economizing processes. Heat exchanger is commonly in shell and tube type.
In this thesis, a parametric and nonparametric identification approach has been
implemented to the shell and tube heat exchanger to produce the parametric and
nonparametric models based on the few set of experimental data. In general, a parametric
method can be characterized as a mapping from the recorded data to the estimated parameter
vector while the nonparametric method is characterized by the property that the resulting
model is a curve or function, which is not necessarily parameterized by a finite dimensional
parameter vector (Soderstrom, 2001).

1.2 Problem Statement

The need for models of dynamic systems frequently arises in several engineering disciplines,
for example in communication and control systems design. The emphasis in this work will be
on parametric and nonparametric identification methods. For many years, researchers have
studied about models of shell and tube heat exchanger. Their models have various
coefficients. These facts can be seen in the Table 2.1. The models shown in this table are the
models in which they are classified as the nonparametric model in first order system with
time delay.
 3

The disadvantage of this nonparametric model is the fact that it is not including offset.
The offset means time needed to reach a heat exchanger temperature operation where the
starting of the real heat exchanger operation is room temperature water at approximately
. While the starting of the nonparametric model equals to . Alternatively, one can
handle the offset problem by determining the parametric model. The main problem is, to
determine the parametric model; there is a need to prove that the dynamic model has certain
structure such as auto regressive with external input (ARX), average auto regressive moves
with external input (ARMAX), output error (OE) or box-jenkins (BJ) structures. Therefore,
the next step is to find a model that has best fits above 90% with the smallest values of loss
function and final prediction error (FPE).
The best model of the parametric model depends on the order of polynomial equation.
By choosing high order, it will result in highly nonlinear structure and increase possibility of
best fits. But the resulted model is not practical because it will make the control task difficult.
Therefore one must find a model that has the highest best fits; however, at the same time, it
should not have highly nonlinear structure. In this case, the third order system is sufficiently
high for the model system which is applied in the control design.

1.3 Benefit of the Study

In industrial process, heat exchanger is designed to transfer heat from one fluid to another. It
has many different applications, especially in chemical process, air conditioning, and
refrigeration. Since heat exchanger has a wide variety of applications and is commonly used
in industry, control of the system is essential. A dynamic model may be created to allow the
chemical engineer to optimize and control the heat exchanger.

By utilizing this model, predictions can be made to analyze how altering the
independent variables of the system can change the outputs. There are many independent
variables and considerations to account for in the model. If it is done correctly, accurate
predictions can be made. Today, process engineers are responsible for many project
activities, including conceptual design, revamp studies, and operational troubleshooting.
Increasingly, the process simulator is an essential tool and become the central to these
activities.
 4

Process simulators are some very powerful tools for modeling all or parts of a
process. While they are excellent for general purpose process modeling, it is the process
engineer’s responsibility to understand to what extent these tools can be applied, and how
combining their application with more specialized tools might be appropriate. This choice is
ultimately based on the business and technical objectives that want to be achieved. The heat
exchanger models can enhance value derived from process simulation and provide more
accurate results. These applications include conceptual designs of new plants, revamps of
existing facilities, and operations support.

1.4 Objectives

These research objectives consist of:

1. To apply a parametric and nonparametric identification methods of shell and tube heat
exchanger;
2. To collect and process a set data of the shell and tube heat exchanger;
3. To identify the parametric and nonparametric models of the shell and tube heat
exchanger;
4. To validate the parametric and nonparametric models of the shell and tube heat
exchanger.

1.5 Scope of the Study

The scopes of this study are:

1. A series of input-output datasets of the shell and tube heat exchanger are collected in
experimental way. Three experimental datasets will be collected. The input signal is
hot water flow rate inlet from tube side and the output signal is cold water
temperature from shell side. These signals was measured using flow indicator to
measure the hot water flow rate in and temperature indicating transmitter in
. The data was recorded in a graph paper at sampling time used of . The
number of samples is 1000, so the duration times of each experimental data equals to
 5

7200s. The real plant to get the data is Heat Exchanger QAD Model BDT 921 which
has been installed in the Control Laboratory at the Universiti Tun Hussein Onn
Malaysia. The data in the graph paper was then imported to workspace in MATLAB
software and then displayed in the graph form. The details about plant description and
how to undertake the data collection and processing can be seen in the Chapter 5.
2. The nonparametric identified method is applied to all data sampling collection to
generate a nonparametric model. This method is determined based on the first-order
plus dead time (FOPDT). Two models can be chosen namely, the first order transfer
function without or with time delay, and the first or second order Pade-approximation.
The best nonparametric model is chosen based on percentage of the error calculation
between the model output and the data measured. The detailed about the candidate of
the nonparametric model can be seen in the Chapter 3, especially in the Section 3.5.
Furthermore, how the nonparametric identified method is applied can be seen in the
Chapter 4, especially in the Section 4.3. The m-file program in the MATLAB
software can be used to obtain the best nonparametric model.
3. The parametric identified method is applied based on a linear structure such as ARX,
ARMAX, BJ, or OE. Before this method is implemented, one important thing is a
need to prove that the dynamic model has parametric model structure. The dynamic
model is formulated in an equation which has highly nonlinear structure and has many
unknown parameters involved. This equation is generated from a description of the
shell and tube heat exchanger process where it is assumed as a lumped parameter
system. In this case, it is difficult to find a solution of the equation using numerical
methods since many parameters involved are unknown values. The details to prove
that the dynamic model has a linear structure can be seen in the Chapter 3, especially
in the Section 3.4. The flowchart of the parametric identified method can be seen in
the Chapter 4 (in the Section 4.2). The data applied in this method is required to be
divided into two parts. The first half part is used to obtain the parameter estimation
and the second half part is used to obtain the model validation.
4. The parameter estimation is determined through the order of polynomial equation in
the parametric model structure. The polynomial equation of each parametric model
structure includes ARX, ARMAX, BJ, or OE model structures can be seen in the
Chapter 3 (Section 3.6). The validation parametric model is determined based on the
loss of function (loss function), a final prediction error (FPE), and the appropriate
percentage of fitting (best fits). The details about the validation theory can be seen in
 6

the Chapter 4, especially in the Section 4.4. The m-file program or the toolbox in the
MATLAB software can be used to produce the parameter estimation and the
validation parametric model.

1.6 Research Methodology

The main goal in this thesis is to obtain parametric and nonparametric of shell and tube heat
exchanger mathematical model. The model is produced by solving the dynamic model
equations that has used parametric and nonparametric identification methods. One way to
determine this model is based on the experimental data with implemented parametric and
nonparametric identification methods. Based on the experimental data, it can be concluded
that the nonparametric model is first order with time delay. In using parametric identification
method, one needs to prove that the equations have a certain structure such as ARX,
ARMAX, OE or BJ. In this thesis, it will be proven that the equation can have a parametric
model structure.

The study in this thesis is aiming to solve the problem by proposing the parametric
and nonparametric identification. Of especial importance, the thesis mainly conducts
experiments to find the parametric and nonparametric models of the shell and tube heat
exchanger. The nonparametric model has been found through first-order and second-order
systems. Whilst the parametric model is developed with model structure, and it must be
ARX, ARMAX, BJ, or OE. Based on these structures, one then needs to find the best model.
The criteria to find the best model is based on the corresponding loss functions, final
prediction error (FPE), and a percentage of fitting the model error (best fits) using MATLAB.

1.7 The Contributions of the Study

Thesis contributions are grouped into two parts, i.e. minor and major contributions as
described herewith:

1. First contribution of the minor contribution is the derivation of dynamic model of

shell and tube heat exchanger. The model is derived based on a lumped parameter
 7

system where it could be more desirable and structured. The heat exchangers are
divided into five regions of equal size in length with an assumption that, inside each
element, shell and tube temperatures are uniform. For each section, energy balances
can be set-up for shell and tube sides where the sides for inlet and outlet conditions
involving temperature, mass flow rate, density and heat capacity. For each section, the
set equations are given by Flores (2002). These equations can be seen in the Section
3.4 Chapter 3 equations (3.1) through (3.32). In this thesis, the set equations are
developed to obtain a general form of a counter current shell and tube heat exchanger
model in s domain. The general form is a single input single output (SISO) where the
input variable is hot water flow rate inlet in tube side heat exchanger and the output
variable is cold water temperature outlet in shell side heat exchanger. The general
form obtained has been proven that it has a parametric model structure. These
equations can be seen in equations (3.49) through (3.61). The finding of general form
obtained to complete the study of the heat exchanger dynamic model. Therefore, this
finding is the first contribution of this thesis.
2. Second contribution of the minor contribution is the nonparametric model obtained to
solve the complicated equation of the dynamic model that has been derived. It has
been previously verified that the equation is a nonparametric model. The verification
can be seen in the equations (3.42) up to (3.48). The first order transfer function in the
s domain is proposed as candidate model as it is proven to fulfill temperature output
response of the heat exchanger experimental data, which has given satisfactory
tolerable error. The candidate of the nonparametric model is shown in equations
(3.62) up to (3.73) based on the experimental data. They are called dataexp1,
dataexp2 and dataexp3 which have nonparametric model characteristics. These results
can be seen in equation (6.3) for dataexp1, equation (6.4) for dataexp2, and equation
(6.5) for dataexp3 in Chapter 6. The first order transfer function of the nonparametric
model has proven to fulfill the measured experimental data, whilst its estimated error
is decreasing to a zero level after 2600s. This result is the second contribution of this
thesis to complete the study of the heat exchanger dynamic model. It is substantially
different from the results obtained by many researchers as demonstrated in Table 2.1
in the Literature Review in Chapter 2.
3. The third contribution of the minor contribution is the parametric model obtained to
solve for the complicated equation of the dynamic model. It is derived to be simpler
and more structured as shown in equations (3.49) through (3.61) in Section 3.4 of
 8

Chapter 3. Equation (3.49) is ARX model structure, equation (3.53) is ARMAX

model structure, whilst equation (3.57) has OE model structure. Furthermore,
equation (3.60) is BJ model structure. The candidate of the parametric model such as
ARX, ARMAX, OE, and BJ, has been proven to fulfill the measured experimental
data, and it has satisfactorily met certain criterion for parameter estimation and model
validation. This criterion has been determined based on the best fits, loss function and
FPE values for each model structure used. The best fits of all experimental data is
more than 90%, the loss function and FPE are less than 0.0400. The resulted
parametric model produces residuals that are within the confidence interval. The best
model chosen is bj31131, it has the smallest value of loss function and FPE, i.e.
0.0023 and high best fits of 96.84%. Lastly, it has also been proven by parameter
optimization through the calculation of an assessment of .
4. Parameter optimization which has been as major contribution is determined to use
minimization or maximization of functions which involved the parameter studied. It is
used to find a set of design parameters that can in some way be defined as optimal. In
a simple case this may be the minimization or maximization of some system
characteristic that is dependent on its parameters. In a more advanced formulation the
objective function to be minimized or maximized, may be subject to constraints in the
form of equality constraints, inequality constraints and/or parameter bounds. An
efficient and accurate solution to this problem is not only dependent on the size of the
problem in terms of the number of constraints and design variables but also on
characteristics of the objective function and constraints. This optimization is used to
find the best or optimal solution to a problem. Steps involved in formulating an
optimization problem: conversion of the problem into a mathematical model that
abstracts all the essential elements, choosing a suitable optimization method for the
problem, and obtaining the optimum solution. Unconstrained optimization has been
used in this thesis. It finds a vector that is a local maximum or minimum to a scalar
function. The term unconstrained means that no restriction is placed on the range of
the vector. Good algorithms exist for solving this optimization problem; such
algorithms typically involve the computation of a Full Eigen System and a Newton
process applied to the secular equation. Such algorithms provide an accurate solution.
However, it requires time proportional to several factorizations. Therefore, for large-
scale problems a different approach is needed. Several approximation and heuristic
strategies have been proposed in the literature. The maximum of percentages of fitting
 9

and minimum of a final prediction error have indicated the best model for the
previous models. It gives consistent parameter estimates only under rather
restrictive conditions. Two different ways are given by modifying the method so that
a consistent estimate could be obtained under less restrictive conditions. The
modifications are minimization of the prediction error for other more detailed model
structures and modification of the normal equations associated with the least squares
estimate. A scalar measure has been used to assess the goodness of the model
associated with the true parameter. It is denoted by assessment measure, where the
dependence on the number of data is emphasized. The assessment measure must be
minimized by this parameter. To determine it, Equations (4.96) and (4.98) in the
Chapter 4 could be used. Both equations constitute the relationship between the loss
function and the FPE through the assessment measure. Its simplified form is given as
AIC is Akaike’s information criterion. The result of the best parametric model could
be used to calculate this assessment, and it is given in Table 6.15. It can be seen from
this table that the minimum AIC is -2630.2722. Based on this result, it can be
concluded that the best model which has parameter optimization is bj31131. This
model has the smallest loss function value of 0.0023 and FPE of 0.0023. In addition to
that, it has the highest best fits value of 96.84%. The other method to determine the
parameter optimization of the heat and disturbance transfer functions data
experimental which it is shown in Table 6.16 used the Equation (4.174) and (4.175) as
introduced in the Chapter 4. The results are presented in Table 6.17. From these
results could be observed that the best heat transfer function which it is reached is
237.5094 by dataexp3 bj31131. While the disturbance transfer function for all data
experimental is very satisfying, i.e. zero.

1.8 Thesis Outline

Chapter 1 consists of research background and problem statement in which the reflection of
heat exchanger model is introduced. This model is very important; it provides information
about the nature and the characteristics of the heat exchanger system that is crucial for the
investigation and forecast operational system. The objectives, scopes, benefit and
contribution of this study are also elaborated here.
 10

Chapter 2 consists of introduction, mathematical modeling and system identification,

nonparametric identification, parametric identification, and summary. The difference between
mathematical modeling and system identification will be reviewed related to this study. The
system identification method includes parametric and nonparametric are reviewed from many
papers to provide information and to gain the knowledge related to this study.
Chapter 3 consists of process description and candidate model of shell and tube heat
exchanger. It includes the introduction, classification of heat exchangers, process description,
dynamic model, nonparametric model, parametric model, and summary.
Chapter 4 consists of system identification and validation theory. It includes the
introduction, system identification, validation theory, and summary.
Chapter 5 consists of data collection and processing data of heat exchanger. It
includes the introduction, plant description, data collection, processing data, and summary.
The counter current shell and tube used in this study is heat exchanger of QAD Model BDT
921.
Chapter 6 is system identification result and analysis. It includes the introduction,
result, analysis and summary.
The last chapter is the conclusion and recommendation.
 11

CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter consists of literature review related to mathematical modeling and system
identification. The difference between the mathematical modeling approaches will be
presented in Section 2.2. The system identification method, including the parametric and
nonparametric models, is reviewed from many papers to provide information and to gain the
knowledge related to this study. The nonparametric identification and parametric
identification methods as the implementation to shell and tube heat exchanger from many
researchers on journals and proceedings papers can be found in Sections 2.3 and 2.4. The last
section is the summary of this chapter.

2.2 Mathematical Modeling Approach

Basically, there exist two types of applied knowledge or information in describing a system
in terms of a mathematical model. The first information is the experience that experts have
built, including the literature on the topic, and also the laws of physics. The other type of
information is the system itself. Observations from the system and experiments on the system
are the foundation for the description of the system and its properties. In principle, there are
also two different approaches in constructing a mathematical model of a system. The first is
 12

to use the well-established relationships, e.g. physical laws that can be applied to the system.
The second approach is to apply observations from the system, and further adjust the
properties of the model to the system. The first approach is often referred to as a deterministic
approach or white box; while the second is often referred to as a stochastic or black box.
When the two approaches are used in a complimentary way, the approach is often referred to
as a grey box. According to Bohlin (1995) the following distinction can be made for different
types of models:
 White box: The system identification is performed without the use of experimental
data, e.g. based only on first principles.
 Grey box: Both, a priori process knowledge and experimental data are used for
identification, e.g. only a subset of parameters is estimated from experimental data.
 Black box: The system identification is performed exclusively from experimental
data.

In the general sense, modeling is used in many branches of science as an aid to

describe and understand the reality. Sometimes it is interesting to model a technical system
that actually is not in existence, but it might be constructed at some time in the future.
Essentially, therefore, the purpose of modeling is to gain insight knowledge of the dynamic
behavior of the system. Mathematical models of dynamic systems are useful in many areas
and applications. Basically, there are two ways of constructing mathematical models i.e.
mathematical modeling and system identification (Soderstrom, 2001).
A mathematical modeling is an analytical approach. Basic laws from physics (such as
Newton’s laws and balance equations) are used to describe the dynamic behavior of a
phenomenon or a process. On the other hand, a system identification is an experimental
approach. Some experiments are performed on the system; a model is then fitted to the
recorded data by assigning suitable numerical values to its parameters. A comparison can be
made of the two modeling approaches: mathematical modeling and system identification. In
many cases the plant processes are so complex that it is not possible to obtain reasonable
models using only physical insight (using first principles, e.g. balance equations). In such
cases one is forced to use system identification techniques. It often happens that a model that
is based on physical insight contains a number of known parameters even if the structure is
derived from physical laws. Identification methods can be applied to estimate the unknown
parameters.
 13

Based on Soderstrom (2001), techniques used in a system identification can divided

into two distinct methods, i.e. parametric and nonparametric methods. The parametric method
is built through a model structure determination which is described by a set of parameters
while the nonparametric method is determined based on an output system response in a
function or a graph forms. In general, a parametric method can be characterized as a mapping
from the recorded data to the estimated parameter vector. A typical example of the
nonparametric method is transient analysis where the input can be a recorded step signal and
step response. This response will by itself give certain characteristics (dominating time
constant, damping factor, static gain, etc.) of a process. Nonparametric techniques are often
sensitive to noise and do not give very accurate results. However, as they are easy to apply
they often become useful means of deriving preliminary or crude models.

2.3 Nonparametric Identification

A nonparametric system identification of shell and tube heat exchanger has been developed
by Belinda (2010). The model is taken from some literatures and the plant transfer function of
this model was determined by using first-order plus dead time (FOPDT) model by assuming
that the heat exchanger is well insulated.
Several papers in journals and conferences have undertaken corresponding study
relating to nonparametric identification of shell and tube heat exchanger. Among others are
Dougherty (2003), Nachtwey (2006), Nithya (2007), Srinivasan (2008), Erkan (2009),
Kokate (2009), Ding (2010), Habobi (2010), Khare (2010), Rajasekaran (2010), Pandhee
(2011), Sharma (2011), Venkatesan (2012), Dhakad (2013), Kishore (2013), Saranya (2013),
and Vasickaninova (2013). The dynamics of the shell and tube heat exchanger process in the
nonparametric identification are described by first order plus dead time (FOPDT) model.
Table 2.1 shows the results of nonparametric models of shell and tube heat exchanger based
on FOPDT model.
The FOPDT model parameters are found from the experimental data. The data is used
to identify the three parameters of the models namely, process gain, dead time, and time
constant. Therefore FOPDT model approximation actually does not capture all the features of
higher order processes. Specifically, process gain indicates the size and direction of the
process variable response to a control direction, time constant describes the speed of the
response, and dead time indicates the delay prior to the response begins.
 14

Table 2.1: The nonparametric models of shell and tube heat exchanger

No. Researcher Result

1 Dougherty (2003)

2 Nachtwey (2006)

3 Nithya (2007)

4 Srinivasan (2008)

5 Erkan (2009)

6 Kokate (2009)

7 Kokate (2010)

8 Belinda (2010)

9 Ding (2010)

10 Habobi (2010)

11 Khare (2010)

12 Rajasekaran (2010)

13 Pandhee (2011)

14 Sharma (2011)

15 Venkatesan (2012)

16 Dhakad (2013)

17 Kishore (2013)

18 Rajasekaran (2013)
 15

2.4 Parametric Identification

Many scientists have also studied extensive research related to parametric identification of
shell and tube heat exchanger to produce its model. Among others are Qingchang (1990), Xia
(1991), Andersen (2001), Bendapudi (2004), Piotrowska (2012), Dostal (2013), Amlashi
(2013), and Sivaram (2013). Qingchang (1990) has applied the experimental system
identification with Pseudo Random Binary Sequence (PRBS) test signals. The result has
shown that it is possible to describe the dynamic behavior of the shell and tube heat
exchanger as a nonlinear distributed parameter system using a linear lumped parametric
model. Both auto regressive with external input model (ARX model) and output error model
(OE model) structures based on the prediction error method (PEM) were used in order to do
this. The identification results were compared with each other.
Xia (1991), on the other hand, studied two models for two different control schemes
that were developed for a parallel flow heat exchanger. Firstly, a spatially lumped heat
exchanger model was developed as a good approximate model which has produced a high
system order. Model reduction techniques were then applied to obtain low order models that
were suitable for dynamic analysis and control design. The simulation method was discussed
to ensure a valid simulation result.
Anderson (2001) later studied a grey box modeling method as a counter-flow heat
exchanger arrangement. This method was characterized by using information from
measurements in conjunction with physical knowledge. The combination of statistical
methods and physical interpretation was exploited in the modeling procedure, from the
design of experiments to parameter estimation and model validation. The presented models
were mainly formulated as state space models in continuous time with discrete time
observation equations. The state equations were expressed in terms of stochastic differential
equations. From a theoretical viewpoint the techniques for experimental design, the
parameter estimation and model validation were considered. From the practical viewpoint,
emphasis was put on how these methods can be used to construct models adequate for
heating system simulations.
Bendapudi (2004) presented in details the formulation of shell and tube evaporators
and condensers using the moving-boundary approach and comparative results of model
execution with a finite-volume approach. Both formulations are developed to capture start-up
and load change transients. The moving-boundary formulation has the ability to handle the
 16

discontinuities associated with the exiting phase-boundaries and entering the heat-exchanger
during transient operation. A significant saving in execution time is shown over the finite-
volume approach with comparable accuracy.
Piotrowska (2012) analyzed the dynamics of the shell and tube heat exchanger using
the parametric system identification methods and their implementation in MATLAB. The
character of observed phenomenon is not unique. In some of the cases it shows inertial
character, in the others oscillatory character. It might indicate an appearing of the kind of a
thermal oscillation during the non-stationary states of the heat exchanger.
Dostal (2013) studied the shell and tube heat exchanger which is based on the
approximation of a nonlinear model. The parameter model is determined by continuous-time
external linear models with parameters recursively estimated via corresponding external delta
models. The approximating linear model structures were chosen on the basis of primary
steady-state and the process dynamic analysis.
Amlashi (2013) studied a nonlinear system identification of liquid saturated steam
heat exchanger using artificial neural network model. Heat exchanger is a highly nonlinear
and non-minimum phase process and often its working conditions are variable. Experimental
data obtained from fluid outlet temperature measurement in laboratory environment was used
as the output variable and the rate of change of fluid flow was taken into the system to be the
input. The neural network system identification results and conventional nonlinear models
were compared where neural network model is more accurate and faster, and then
conventional nonlinear models for a time series data. This is because of the independence of
the model assignment.
Sivaram (2013) scrutinized the process parameter estimation of a counter flow shell
and tube heat exchanger. Different flow rates of cold flow for specific time intervals and
corresponding tube outlet temperature were measured. Least square estimation algorithm was
used for parameter estimation based on the experiments.

2.5 Summary

Based on the literature review, there are two ways of constructing mathematical models i.e.
physical modeling (dynamic modeling) and system identification. The physical modeling is
an analytical approach while the system identification is an experimental approach. The
 17

system identification can be implemented i.e. white box, black box and gray box. The black
box is parametric and nonparametric system identification. The parametric method is built
through a model structure determination while the nonparametric method is determined based
on an output response system in the function or a graph forms.
 18

CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 3

PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND CANDIDATE MODEL

3.1 Introduction

To develop a candidate model, firstly, it is necessary to describe the classification, process

description, and dynamic model of the system. Therefore, this chapter includes introduction,
classification of heat exchangers, process description, dynamic model, nonparametric model,
parametric model and the summary. Heat exchanger is an important and expensive item of
equipment that is used almost in every industry (oil and petrochemical, sugar, food,
pharmaceutical and power industry).
They are generally designed to meet certain performance requirements under steady
operating conditions. However, transient response of heat exchangers needs to be known for
designing the control strategy of industrial processes. Problems such as start-up, shutdown,
failure and accidents have motivated investigations of transient thermal response in heat
exchangers. It also helps the designer to find a solution of the time dependent temperature
problems, which is essential for its performance requirements.
The heat exchangers are classified according to transfer processes, number of fluids,
heat transfer mechanisms, construction type, flow arrangements, process function,
condensers, and liquid-to-vapor phase-change exchangers. Perhaps, the most common type of
heat exchanger in industrial applications is the shell and tube heat exchanger. Shell and tube
heat exchangers contain a large number of tubes (sometimes several hundred) packed in a
shell with their axes parallel to the shell. Heat transfer takes place as one fluid flows inside
the tubes while the other fluid flows outside the tubes through the shell.
 19

Baffles are commonly placed in the shell to force the shell-side fluid to flow across
the shell to enhance heat transfer and to maintain uniform spacing between the tubes. Despite
their widespread use, shell and tube heat exchangers are not suitable for use in automotive
and aircraft applications because of their relatively large size and weight. Note that the tubes
in a shell and tube heat exchanger open to some large flow areas called headers at both ends
of the shell, where the tube-side fluid accumulates before entering the tubes and after leaving
them.
Process description needed to give a heat exchanger model is expressed as a
mathematical equation in the form of a plant transfer function linking output to the input
signal. The system identification is referred to in this study is to solve this equation. There are
two identification methods that will be used for this system which are firstly is the parametric
identification methods and secondly is nonparametric identification methods. These methods
will generate parametric and nonparametric models and these models become candidate
models.

3.2 Classification of Heat Exchanger

A variety of heat exchangers are used in industry and in their products. Starting with a
definition, heat exchangers are classified according to transfer processes, number of fluids,
and degree of surface compactness, construction features, flow arrangements, and heat
transfer mechanisms. A heat exchanger is a device that is used to transfer thermal energy
(enthalpy) between two or more fluids, between a solid surface and a fluid, or between solid
particulates and a fluid, at different temperatures and in thermal contact. In heat exchangers,
there are usually no external heat and work interactions. Typical applications involve heating
or cooling of a fluid stream of concern and evaporation or condensation of single or multi
component fluid streams. In other applications, the objective may be to recover or reject heat,
or sterilize, pasteurize, fractionate, distill, concentrate, crystallize, or control a process fluid.
In a few heat exchangers, the fluids exchanging heat are in direct contact. In most heat
exchangers, heat transfer between fluids takes place through a separating wall or into and out
of a wall in a transient manner. In many heat exchangers, the fluids are separated by a heat
transfer surface, and ideally they do not mix or leak. Such exchangers are referred to as direct
transfer type, or simply recuperators. In contrast, exchangers in which there is intermittent
heat exchange between the hot and cold fluids via thermal energy storage and release through
 20

the exchanger surface or matrix are referred to as indirect transfer type, or simply
regenerators. Such exchangers usually have fluid leakage from one fluid stream to the other,
due to pressure differences and matrix rotation/valve switching.
Common examples of heat exchangers are shell and tube exchangers, automobile
radiators, condensers, evaporators, air pre-heaters, and cooling towers. If no phase change
occurs in any of the fluids in the exchanger, it is sometimes referred to as a sensible heat
exchanger. The internal thermal energy sources in the exchangers, such as in electric heaters
and nuclear fuel elements. Combustion and chemical reaction may take place within the
exchanger, such as in boilers, fired heaters, and fluidized-bed exchangers. Mechanical
devices have used in some exchangers such as in scraped surface exchangers, agitated
vessels, and stirred tank reactors. Heat transfer in the separating wall of a recuperator
generally takes place by conduction. However, in a heat pipe heat exchanger, the heat pipe
not only acts as a separating wall, but also facilitates the transfer of heat by condensation,
evaporation, and conduction of the working fluid inside the heat pipe. In general, if the fluids
are immiscible, the separating wall has eliminated, and the interface between the fluids
replaces a heat transfer surface, as in a direct-contact heat exchanger.
Not only heat exchangers are often used in the process, power, petroleum,
transportation, air-conditioning, refrigeration, cryogenic, heat recovery, alternative fuel, and
manufacturing industries, they also serve as key components of many industrial products
available in the marketplace. These exchangers are classified in many different ways. The
classification is conducted according to transfer processes, number of fluids, and heat transfer
mechanisms. Conventional heat exchangers are further classified according to construction
type and flow arrangements. Another arbitrary classification is conducted based on the heat
transfer surface area/volume ratio, into compact and non-compact heat exchangers. This
classification is made because the type of equipment, fields of applications, and design
techniques generally differ. Heat exchangers are classified according to the process function,
as outlined in Figure 3.1. Additional ways to classify heat exchangers are by fluid type (gas–
gas, gas–liquid, liquid–liquid, gas two-phase, liquid two-phase, and so forth) and industrial
application. All these classifications are summarized in Figure 3.2.
 21

Figure 3.1 (a) Classification according to process function; (b) Classification of condensers;(c)
Classification of liquid-to-vapor phase-change exchangers (Shah, 2003)
 22

Figure 3.2 Classification of heat exchangers (Shah, 2003)

According to Rao (2007), classification of heat exchanger according to its

construction is shown in Figure 3.3. In the simplest exchangers, the hot and cold fluids mix
directly; common are those in which the fluids are separated by a wall. This type which is
 23

called a recuperator, it ranges from a simple plane wall between two flowing fluids to
complex confirmations involving multiple passes, fins or baffles. In this case, conduction,
convection and sometimes radiation principles are required to describe the energy exchange
process. Many factors enter into design of heat exchangers, including thermal analysis, size,
weight, structural strength, pressure drop and cost.

Figure 3.3 Classification of heat exchanger according to construction

3.3 Process Description

A very common type of heat exchanger is a shell and tube heat exchanger. It occurs in many
forms, as a separate unit in the form of pre-heaters, coolers and condensers, as an integral part
of some other units. This research addresses a shell and tube counter flow water-water heat
exchanger. Heat exchanger is a device in which energy in the form of heat is transferred into
 24

what is usually realized by the confinement of both fluids in some geometry in which they are
separated by a conductive material. The properties of heat exchanger are strongly dependent
on geometry and material as well as on properties of both fluids. It is known that such devices
usually have nonlinear behavior (Kupran, 2000).
The dynamics of a heat exchanger process are complex because of various
nonlinearities introduced into the system. Furthermore, the installed valve characteristic of
the steam may not be linear either. Dead-time, on the other hands, depends on the steam and
water flow rates, the location and the method of installation of the temperature-measuring
devices. To take into account the non-linearity and the dead-time, gain scheduling features
and dead-time compensators have to be added. Also, the process is subjected to various
external disturbances such as pressure fluctuations in the steam header, disturbances in the
water line, and changes in the inlet steam enthalpy and so forth.
In line with the different applications, its mathematical model can be described in
different ways: linear (or nonlinear) partial differential equations, and linear (or nonlinear)
ordinary differential equations. In the case of a heat exchanger, there are four variables to be
considered: hot stream flow-rate, cold stream flow-rate, hot stream temperature, and cold
stream temperature. There are only two output variables, i.e. the temperatures of each stream,
since the mass flow rate cannot change by passing through the exchanger (Davidson, 1995).
Each input will affect the corresponding output; therefore, there will be eight possible
combinations of input-output relationships. These relationships are illustrated in Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4 Relationships input and output shell and tube heat exchanger

The shell-and-tube heat exchangers are still the most common type of exchanger in
use today. They have larger heat transfer surface area-to-volume ratios than the most of
common types of heat exchangers, and they are easily manufactured for a large variety of
 148

REFERENCES

Aarts, R.G.K.M. (2012).System Identification and Parameter Estimation, Faculty of

Engineering Technology, University Twente.
Agashe S., Ghatol A., and Agashe S. (2006). Automation of Heat Exchanger using Neural
Network.International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Sciences
Volume 3 Number 4.
Aghareed, M.T., M.A. El-Rifai, Y.A. El-Tawil and R.M. Abdel-Monen. (1991). A New
Dynamic Model for Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers. Energy Conservat. Manage.,
32: pp. 439-446.
Amlashi N. J. S., Shahsavari A., Vahidifar A., Nasirian M. (2013). Nonlinear System
Identification of Laboratory Heat Exchanger.International Journal of Electrical and
Computer Engineering (IJECE), Vol.3, No.1, pp. 118~128.
Andersen, K. K. (2001).Stochastic Modelling of Energy Systems, Technical University of
Denmark: PhD Thesis.
Babu B.V. (2004).Process Plant Simulation, Oxford University Press.
Balan R.(2007). Applications of a Model Based Predictive Control to Heat Exchangers,
Proceedings of Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation, June 27-29,
Athens – Greece.
Belinda, C.C.M. (2002).Modeling of a hot water system drum and heat exchanger process
control training system, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: Master Thesis.
Belinda, C.C.M. (2010). Modelling of a Hot Water Drum and Heat Exchanger Process
Control Training System, 11th International Conference Control, Automation,
Robotics and Vision, Singapore.
Bendapudi, S., Braun, J. E., and Groll, E. A. (2004). Dynamic Modeling of Shell-and-Tube
Heat-Exchangers: Moving Boundary vs. Finite Volume, International Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning Conference. Paper 649.
Bittanti S. and Piroddi L. (1997). Nonlinear Identification and Control of a Heat Exchanger:
A Neural Network Approach, J. Franklin Inst. Vol. 334B, No. 1.
Bohlin, T. (1995). Editorial: Special Issue on Grey Box Modelling, International Journal of
Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, Vol. 9, pp. 461-464.
Bonivento C., et al. (2001). Predictive Control vs. PID Control of an Industrial Heat
Exchanger, Proceedings of 9th Mediterranean Conference on Control and
Automation, Dubrovnik – Croatia.
Carlos A. S. (2002).Automated Continuous Process Control, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
pp137-161.
Cheng T and Asada H.H. (2006). Nonlinear Observer Design for a Varying-Order Switched
System with Application to Heat Exchangers.American Control Conference,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Czop P., Kost G., Sławik D., Wszołek G. (2011). Formulation and identification of First-
Principle Data-Driven models, Journal of Achievements in Materials and
Manufacturing Engineering 44/2,pp. 179-186.
Davidson A. G., Jachuck R. J., Tham M. T. and Ramshaw C. (1995). On the Dynamics and
Control of a Polymer Film Compact Heat Exchanger, Heat Recovery Systems & CHP,
Vol. 15, No. 7, pp. 609-617.
 149

David, B. (2002). Design of Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers When the Fouling Depends on
Local Temperature and Velocity, Applied Thermal Eng., 22, pp. 789-801.
De Nicolao G. (1997).System Identification: Problems and perspectives, Dipartimento di
Informatica e Sistemistica, Universiti di Pavia, Via Ferrata 1, 27100 Pavia, Italy.
Dhakad, S. et al. (2013).An Intelligent Control Strategies Implemented on Heat Exchanger
System: A Case Study, International Journal of Emerging Technologies in
Computational and Aplied Sciences (IJETCAS), pp. 195-200, 2013
Diaz G., Sen M., Yang K.T., McClain R.L.(2010). Dynamic prediction and control of heat
exchanger using artificial neural networks, International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer 44.
Ding, Z. (2010). Design and Simulation of Fuzzy Control System for Water Temperature of
Heat Exchanger, Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference on Computer and
Automation Engineering (ICCAE), Vol. 4.
Dirman H. and Abdulrahman A.A. (2011). Control Modes Comparison Results Focused on
Real Heat Exchanger System Response, International Journal of Integrated
Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 3.
Dostal P., Vojtesek J., and Bobal V. (2013). Adaptive LQ Control of a Shell and Tube Heat
Exchanger, International Journal of Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, Issue
5, Volume 7.
Dougherty, D. and Cooper, D. (2003). A Practical Multiple Model Adaptive Strategy for
Single-loop MPC, Control Engineering Practice 11, pp. 141-159.
Ekadewi,A.H. (2001). Pengaruh Penggunaan Baffle pada Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger,
Jurnal Teknik Mesin Volume 3 Nomor 2, Fakultas Teknologi Industri, Universitas
Kristen Petra.
Erkan, I. (2009). CDM Based Controller Design for Nonlinear Heat Exchanger Process, Turk
J Elec Eng & Comp Sci, Vol. 17, No. 2.
Fazlur Rahman M.H.R. and Devanathan, R. (1994).Modelling a Dynamic Feedback
Linearisation of a Heat Exchanger Model, Proceedingsof IEEE International
Conference on Control and applications, Vol. 3, pp. 1801-1806.
Gewitz, A. (2005).EKF-based parameter estimation for a lumped, single plate heat
exchanger, www.cespr.fsu.edu/people/myh/reu_ppt05.
Habobi, N. A. (2010). PC-Based Controller for Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger, Iraqi
Journal of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 47-53.
Halvorsen, H. P. (2012).Control Theory with MathScript Examples, Telemark University
College, Norway.
Hasan M.M.F. et al. (2007).Modeling and simulation of main cryogenic heatexchanger in a
base-load liquefied natural gas plant, 17th European Symposium on Computer Aided
Process Engineering – ESCAPE17, Elsevier B.V.
Hosseini R., Ghaffar A.H. and Soltani M. (2007). Experimental determination of shell side
heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop for an oil cooler shell-and-tube heat
exchanger with three different tube bundles, Applied Thermal Engineering, Volume
27, Issues 5-6.
Ingham J., Dunn I.J., Heinzle E., Prenosil J.E., Snape J.B. (2007).Chemical Engineering
Dynamics: An Introduction to Modeling and Computer Simulation, Third,
Completely.
Islamoglu Y. (2003). A new approach for the prediction of the heat transfer rate of the wire-
on-tube type heat exchanger-use of an artificial neural network model, Applied
Thermal Engineering 23.
 150

Janczak A. (1993). Identification of Nonlinear Systems Using Neural Networks and

Polynomial Models: A Block-Oriented Approach, LNCIS, Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg, 2005
Johansson, Rofl, System Modeling and Identification, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey.
Jorgensen, S. B. and Hangos, K. M. (1995). Grey-box modeling for identification and
control, SySID ’94, volume 3, pp. 231-236, IFAC.
Kang S.W. and Tseng S.C. (2007). Analysis of effectiveness and pressure drop in micro
cross-flow heat exchanger, Applied Thermal Engineering, Volume 27, Issues 5-6.
Khare, Y. B. (2010). PID Control of Heat Exchanger System, International Journal of
Computer Applications, Vol. 8, No. 6.
Kishore, D., Rao, S., Nityanandam, J. (2013). Experimental Studies and Controller Design of
Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger using with and without Insert, International Journal
of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA), Vol. 3, Issue 4, pp.1126-1132.
Kokate, R. D. and Waghmare L. M. (2009). IMC-PID and Predictive Controller Design for a
Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger, Second International Conference on Emerging
Trends in Engineering and Technology, ICETET09.
Kokate, R. D. and Waghmare L. M. (2010).An IMC-DMC Control for Heat Exchanger,
International Journal of Computer Applications, Vol. 1, No. 26.
Knudsen, M. (2004).Experimental Modelling of Dynamics Systems, Department of Control
Engineering, Aalborg University.
Landau, I. D. (1990).System Identification and Control Design using P.I.M. + Software,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Leong K.C. and Toh K.C. (1998). Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger Design Software for
Educational Applications,Int. J. Engng Ed. Vol.14, No.3.
Ljung, L. (1995).System Identification, Sweden, Department of electrical Engineering,
Linkoping University.
Ljung, L. (1997).Nonlinear Black-Box Modelling on System Identification, Sweden,
Department of electrical Engineering, Linkoping University.
Ljung, L. (1999).System Identification: Theory for the User, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River NJ.
Ljung, L. (2002). Prediction Error Estimation Methods, Circuits Systems Signal Processing,
Vol. 21, No. I. pp. 11 - 21.
Ljung, L. (2008).Perspectives on System Identification, Division of Automatic Control,
Linköping University Sweden.
Ljung, L. (2009).Perspectives on System Identification. Sweden, Report no.: LiTH-ISY-R-
2900, Division of Automatic Control.
Ljung, L. (2010).Approaches to Identification of Nonlinear Systems, Division of Automatic
Control, Linköping University Sweden.
Ljung, L.,Hjalmarsson H., Ohlsson H. (2011).Four Encounters with System Identification,
Sweden, Division of Automatic Control, Linkoping University.
Ljung, L. (2011).Approaches to Identification of Nonlinear System, Sweden, Division of
Automatic Control, Linkoping University.
Liu G. et al. (2005).Study on the Web Based Remote Monitoring and Controlling System for
Heat Exchanger, Proceedings of ISCIT2005.
Luckow P.W. (2009).Minimum Energy Design of Sea Water Heat Exchangers, University of
Maryland, College Park, Thesis: Master of Science.
Mahdi J.K. and Babak N.A. (2003).NeuroPredictive Control of a Heat Exchanger:
Comparison with Generalized Predictive Control, IEEE.
 151

Mahdi J.K. and Babak N.A. (2004). Neural Network Based Predictive Control of a Heat
Exchanger Nonlinear Process, Journal of Electrical & Electronics Engineering, Vol.4,
No.2, Istanbul University.
Markovska L., et al. (1995). Optimum Design of Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger, Bulletin of
the Chemists and Technologists of Macedonia, Vol.15, No.1.
Mei Li, Chen Chen, and Wenlin Liu. (2009). Identification Based on MATLAB, Proceedings
of the 2009 International Workshop on Information Security and Application (IWISA
2009)Qingdao, China.
Michael, C.G., Rotstein G.E., and Miccheietto S. (1998). Modeling and simulation of shell
and tube heat exchangers under milk fouling. AIChE J., 44, pp. 959-971.
Mishra M. (2006). Transient behavior of crossflow heat exchangers due to perturbations in
temperature and flow, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 49,pp. 1083–
1089.
Mishra M. (2008). Effect of temperature and flow nonuniformity on transient behavior of
crossflow heat exchanger, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 51,pp.
2583–2592.
Mukherjee R. (1998).Effectively Design Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers, Chemical
Engineering Progress.
Navarro H.A and Gomez L.C.C. (2007). Effectiveness-NTU Computation with a
Mathematical Model for Cross-Flow Heat Exchangers, Brazilian Journal of Chemical
Engineering Vol. 24, No. 04, pp. 509 - 521.
Navarro H.A and Luben C.G. (2005). Technical Note: A new approach for thermal
performance calculation of cross-flow heat exchangers, International Journal of Heat
and Mass Transfer 48,pp. 3880–3888, 2005
Nithya, S., et al. (2007). Model Based Controller Design for Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger,
Sensors & Transducers Journal, Vol.84, Issue 10, pp. 1677-1686.
Padhee, S. (2011).Performance Evaluation of Different Conventional and Intelligent
Controllers for Temperature Control of Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger, Thapar
University, India, Thesis: Master of Engineering.
Piotrowska E. and Chochowski C. (2012). Application of parametric identification methods
for the analysis of the heatexchanger dynamics, International Journal of Heat and
Mass Transfer 55,pp. 7109–7118.
Pongracz B., Szederkenyi G., Hangos K.M. (2002). The effect of algebraic equations on the
stability of process systems modeled by differential algebraic equations, Research
Report SCL-003.
Qiang X., Arthur Jutan A. (2002). Grey-box modeling and control of chemical processes,
Pergamon, Journal of Chemical Engineering Science 57,pp. 1027 – 1039.
Qingchang, R. (1990).Prediction Error Method for Identification of a Heat Exchanger,
Eindhoven University of Technology Research Reports, 1990
Radojkovic N., et al. (2003). Experimental Study on Thermal and Flow Process in Shell and
Tube Heat Exchangers: influence of baffle cut on heat exchanger efficiency, Facta
Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering Vol.1, No.10.
Rajasekaran S. and Kannadasan T. (2010). A Simplified Predictive Control for a Shell and
Tube Heat Exchanger, International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology,
Vol. 2 (12), pp. 7245-7251.
Rao K. S. (2007).Analysis of Flow Maldistribution in Tubular Heat Exchangers by Fluent,
National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, Thesis: Master of Technology.
Ravagnani, M. A. S. S. and J. A. Caballero J.A. (2007). A MINLP Model for Rigorous
Design of Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers using the TEMA Standards, Chemical
Engineering Research and Design, Trans IChemE, Part A.
 152

Raymond Chong and Shao Fen. (1995).Manual Book of QAD Model BDT 921/M3; Boiler
Drum and Heat Exchanger Process Control Training System, Unpublished.
Renovfe, C. A., Vande W., Remy M. (2000). Neural Modeling and Control of a Heat
Exchanger Based on SPSA Techniques, Proceedings of the American Control
Conference, Chicago, Illinois.
Roetzel W. and Xuan Y. (1999).Dynamic Behaviour of Heat Exchangers, Witt Press,
Computational Mechanics Publications.
Roffel B. and Betlem B. (2006).Process Dynamic and Control: Modeling for Control and
Prediction, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Saranya E. and Arulselvi S. (2013). Design and Simulation of Conventional and Intelligent
Controllers for Temperature Control of Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger System,
International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE), Vol. 2, Issue 3
Shah R. K. and Sekulic D. P. (2003).Fundamentals of Heat Exchanger Design, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Sharma C., Gupta S., Kumar V. (2011). Modeling and Simulation of Heat Exchanger used in
Soda Recovery, Proceeding of the World Congress on Engineering (WCE), Vo. II.
Singh V. (2009). Development of an Advanced Heat Exchanger Model for Steady State and
Frosting Condition, University of Maryland, College Park, Thesis: Ph.D.
Sivakumar P., Prabhakaran D., Kannadasan T. (2012).Temperature Control of Shell and Tube
Heat Exchanger by using Intelligent Controllers, International Journal of Computer
Applications, Vol. 59, No. 9.
Sivakumar P., Prabhakaran D., Kannadasan T. (2013). Comaparative Analysis of Advanced
Controllers in a Heat Exchanger, American journal of Engineering Research (AJER),
Vol.02, Issue 01, pp. 01-06.
Sivaram A., Sainabha M., Ramkumar K. (2013).Parameter Identification and Control of a
Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger, International Journal of Engineering and
Technology (IJET), Vol. 5, No 2, pp. 1589-1593.
Soderstrom, T. and Stoica, P. (2001).System Identification, New York, Prentice Hall.
Sjöberg J.,Zhang Q., Ljung L. (1995).Nonlinear black-box modeling in system identification:
a unified overview, Journal of Automatica: Trends in System Identification, Volume
31, Issue 12, pp. 1691–1724.
Smith C.A and Corripio A.B. (1985).Principles and Practice of Automatic Process Control,
United-state: John Wiley & Sons.
Srinivasan A. and Lakshmi P. (2007). Wiener Model based Real-Time Identification and
Control of Heat Exchanger Process, J. Automation & Systems Engineering.
Stenman, A. (1999).Model on Demand: Algorithm, Analysis and Applications, Linkoping
University: Dissertations.
Szederkenyi G. (1998).Model Based Fault Detection of Heat Exchangers, Department of
Applied Computer Science, University of Veszprem.
Tan K.C., Li Y. (2002). Grey-box model identification via evolutionary computing. Control
Engineering Practice 10/7,pp. 673-684.
Thirumarimurugan M., Kannadasan T. and Ramasamy E. (2008).Performance Analysis of
Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger Using Miscible System, American Journal of Applied
Sciences 5 (5), pp. 548-552.
Tomasz B., Piotr C. (2011). Estimation of feedwater heater parameters based on a grey-box
approach, Int. J. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci., Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 703–715.
Varshney K., Panigrahi P.K. (2005). Artificial neural network control of a heat exchanger in
a closed flow air circuit, Applied Soft Computing 5.
 153

Van den Hof P.M.J and Douma S.G. (2008).An IV-based iterative linear regression
algorithm with optimal output error properties: Technical report 09-018,Delft Center
for Systems and Control, Delft University of Technology.
Van den Hof P.M.J. (1989).Criterion Based Equivalence for Equation Error Models, IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol.34, No.2.
Vanden Hof P.M.J. (1994).Model Sets and Parameterizations for Identification of
Multivariable Equation Error Models, Automatica, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 433-446.
Van Doren J.F.M, Douma S.G, Van den Hof P.M.J, Jansen J.D, Bosgra O.H. (2009).
Identifiability: from qualitative analysis to model structure approximation, 15th IFAC
Symposium on System Identification, Saint-Malo, France.
Van Doren J.F.M, Douma S.G, Van den Hof P.M.J, Jansen J.D, Bosgra O.H.
(2009).Identification of parameters in large scale physical model structures:
Technical report 10-022, Delft Center for Systems and Control, Delft University of
Technology.
Vasickaninova A. and Bakosova M. (2013). Application of H2 and H∞ Approaches to the
Robust Controller Design for a Heat Exchanger, Chemical Engineering Transactions,
vol. 35.
Venkatesan N., Sivakumaran N., Sivashanmuguham P. (2012). Experimental Study of
Temperature Control using Soft Computing, International Journal of Computer
Applications, Vol. 52, No. 9.
Vega A.P., Diaz G., Sen M., Yang K.T., McClain R.L. (2001). Heat Rate Predictions in
Humid Air-Water Heat Exchangers using Correlations and Neural Networks,
Transaction of the ASME, Journal of Heat Transfer.
Vega A.P., Sen M., Yang K.T., (2003). Simultaneous determination of in- and over-tube heat
transfer correlations in heat exchangers by global regression, International Journal of
Heat and Mass Transfer 46.
Vijaysai P. (2006).Predictive Performance Assessment of Heat exchangers for Proactive
Remediation, IEEE.
Walter, D. (2000).Controlling Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger, First published in
Hydrocarbon
Weyer E., Szederkenyi G., Hangos K. (2000). Grey box fault detection of heat exchangers,
Journal of Control Engineering Practice 8, pp. 121-131.
Xia L, De Abreu-Garcia J. A., and Hartley T. (1991).Modeling and Simulation of a Heat
Exchanger, IEEE.
Xie G.N, Wang Q.W., Zeng M. and Luo L.Q. (2007). Heat transfer analysis for shell-and-
tube heat exchangers with experimental data by artificial neural networks approach,
Applied Thermal Engineering.
Yutaka T. (1992). Equation error versus output error methods, Ergonomics Journal, Vol. 35,
pp. 555 -564.
Yu Y.H and Sosna M.H. (2001). Modeling for Industrial Heat Exchanger Type Steam
Reformer, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 18(1), pp. 127-132.
Yu Zhao, Biao Huang, Hongye Sua, Jian Chua (2012). Prediction error method for
identification of LPV models, Journal of Process Control 22,pp. 180-193.