Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Practical Thermal Design of Air Cooled Heat Exchangers PDF
Practical Thermal Design of Air Cooled Heat Exchangers PDF
Practical Thermal Design of Air Cooled Heat Exchangers PDF
https://boilersinfo.com
About the Author
Rajiv Mukherjee is a consultant in unfired heat transfer based in New Delhi, India. He
has 36 years of experience in the thermal design, revamping, and troubleshooting of air-
cooled and shell-and-tube heat exchangers, and considerable experience in the design of
heat exchanger networks. He has written several articles in reputed journals and pre-
sented many papers at technical symposia. Rajiv has also served as faculty for numerous
courses on heat exchanger design and operation, energy conservation, and heat exchanger
networks, and presently teaches an intensive in-house refresher course on the design and
operation of heat exchangers that can be offered at any plant site or office location around
the world. He is an honors graduate in chemical engineering from Jadavpur University,
Kolkata, India.
In his spare time, Rajiv enjoys reading (Swami Vivekananda and Kahlil Gibran are big
favorites), writing, and listening to music. He lives in New Delhi with his wife, Kalpana.
Their daughter, Shilpi, and her husband, Bappa, presently live with their sons, Sohum and
Shivum, in Tokyo, Japan.
Rajiv may be contacted by e-mail at rajiv.mukherjee@vsnl.com or by telephone at
0091-11-2551 8281 or 0091-98711-20126.
R. Mukherjee
My desire to write this book was precipitated by the absence of such a “practical” book.
Recent heat exchanger design literature has been predominantly occupied by proceedings
of conferences. There is no book in the market that explains the logic of heat exchanger
thermal design and gives practical suggestions and recommendations for actually design-
ing industrial heat exchangers. So, having written my earlier book, Practical Thermal
Design of Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchangers, which received a fairly good response, I de-
cided to write a sequel—one on air-cooled heat exchangers.
The theoretical aspects of single-phase heat transfer and condensation have been very
well presented in several books. So, what was really required was a practical “how-to-
design” book with numerous worked-out examples or case studies to embellish or illustrate a
particular technique, facet, or style of design. The thousands of air-cooled heat exchanger
designs that I have been associated with over the last three decades have provided numerous
examples. They say that one picture is more eloquent than a thousand words. If you extend
this logic, one appropriate illustration by a case study is eminently more didactic than a long
dissertation on a particular subject.
This book has been written in the same style, language, and format as the one on shell-
and-tube heat exchangers. For the sake of convenience, both English and metric units have
been used throughout the book. There are 26 case studies, all aimed at embellishing,
illustrating, reinforcing, or demonstrating a feature, rationale, or methodology of design
elaborated or advocated in the text. Not only are the case studies based on the HTRI
software, the entire book is founded on the platform of HTRI know-how, which has become
a way of life for me for almost three decades.
Being a “practical” book, theory is limited to a bare minimum, and the accent is on
fundamentals, on design logic, on the interplay of parameters, on cause and effect, on
understanding why things happen the way they do. For example, why does a light
hydrocarbon condenser tend to have only four rows of tubes, whereas a heavy hydrocarbon
liquid cooler tends to have more rows of tubes? Or why do we choose 1/2 in. (12.7 mm)
high fins in certain situations but 5/8 in. (15.875 mm) high fins in others? Or why is the
process fluid “break point” between an air-cooled heat exchanger and its downstream trim
cooler related to the design ambient temperature? And many, many others.
This book has been written primarily for the heat exchanger thermal designer. However,
I think it will also be useful to process engineers, a significant part of whose routine job is to
specify heat exchangers. This book has not been written in an esoteric style for this very
reason. Since operating aspects are also often discussed, I trust it will be of interest to plant
operation specialists as well.
It is my fond hope that even B.S. and M.S. chemical and mechanical engineering
xi
R. Mukherjee
Heat Transfer Consultant
New Delhi, India
xii
This book is dedicated to my parents, who would have been proud to see
this work. And that is an understatement. To my dear wife, Kalpana, who
has been supporting and inspiring me for over three decades now; to our
daughter, Shilpi, our son (-in-law), Bappa, and their sons Sohum and
Shivum; but most importantly, it is dedicated to the reader, whose ap-
probation and appreciation would make all the toil worthwhile.
iii
I am indebted to Almighty God for having given me the education, intelligence, opportunity,
strength, and fervor to write this book.
I am also indebted to all those from whom I learned the design of air-cooled heat
exchangers over the years, especially to Wim Bos and Peter van der Broek of Lummus
Nederland B.V., who in 1971, initiated me on the path of air cooler design.
I will always be grateful to Cindy Mascone, ex-technical editor at Chemical Engineering
Progress, and her one-time compatriot, Gail Nalven, who led me to believe that I could write
a book. I will never forget Gail’s words, “You do not know how prolific you are!” As for
Cindy, she is the finest editor I have ever worked with.
This book might not have been possible without the wonderful exposition of air-cooled
heat exchanger technology by Heat Transfer Research, Inc. (HTRI). My long experience in
the field of air-cooled heat exchangers has been very largely honed on the platform of HTRI,
whose software I have been using since 1974.
I am grateful to HTRI, Begell House, Hudson Products Corp., Moore Fans Ltd., TEMA
(Tubular Heat Exchanger Manufacturers Association), and Cal Gavin Ltd. for permission to
use some of their diagrams and photographs in this book. These have been duly
acknowledged where they appear.
I am indebted to Bill Begell who decided to publish this book, and to all the people at
Begell House who were responsible for its production. Special thanks go to Donna
Thompson who did a splendid job of copyediting this book, as she did with the previous one
on shell-and-tube heat exchangers. Donna, I have enjoyed working with you again.
How can I forget my good friend Graham Polley in the UK? It was he who led me to
Bill in the first place.
I am thankful to Geoff Hewitt, who is the editor of the present series of books, for
having readily accepted this book into his fold.
Thanks are also due to my wonderful friend Sam Chapple of Edmonton, Canada, who
guided me on some important issues in the text.
I must also express my gratitude to another good friend, Lalit Shingal, who helped me
with the reproduction of many diagrams that appear in the book.
What we are able to accomplish in our lives, whether professionally or otherwise, is the
result of the Lord’s grace and the encouragement and support we receive from myriad
sources. This book is therefore truly a collaborative effort, and the credit belongs to the
human fraternity at large, rather than to any individual.
iv
Introduction
Although air is much more freely available than water and costs nothing, process cooling
has historically been accomplished by cooling water. This is attributable to the much
lower cost of cooling by water, thanks to its substantially higher thermal conductivity and
lower temperature. However, with increasing shortages of cooling water and a conse-
quent increase in its cost, air cooling has become more and more popular. Today, air-
cooled heat exchangers (ACHEs) are a common sight in the chemical process industries
(CPIs).
The first cost of an ACHE is much greater than that of a water-cooled heat exchanger
for the same heat duty, but its operating cost is usually much less. The operating cost with
water cooling comprises the cost of the initial raw water itself, makeup water, treatment
chemicals, apportioned cost of the cooling tower, and of course the pumping cost. For air-
cooled heat exchangers, the operating cost is only the cost of the power required to make the
air flow across the tube bundles. Thus, on an overall cost basis, ACHEs often compare quite
favorably with water-cooled heat exchangers.
The design of ACHEs comprises two distinct activities, namely, thermal design and
mechanical design. In thermal design the basic sizing of the heat exchanger is accomplished,
whereas in mechanical design the thicknesses and precise dimensions of the various
components are determined and a bill of materials is produced. Detailed engineering
drawings are then prepared based on which actual fabrication drawings are made. In this
book, as the title suggests, we shall talk principally about thermal design.
With the availability of sophisticated software, there has been an undue dependence on
them as “black boxes,” without the designer being truly in control of the design process and
understanding the nuances of design. A proper and sound understanding of the fundamental
principles and interplay of parameters is essential in order to produce an optimum design.
The principal purpose of writing this book is to help the heat exchanger thermal designer
attain such an understanding.
Presently, there is no book available on “practical” ACHE thermal design. This book is
based on the author’s experience of over 36 years in the thermal design of ACHEs for the
chemical process industry, and reflects many real-life situations that were far from
straightforward. This book has been written in a structured, logical, and didactic manner, and
special effort has been made at bringing out the interplay of parameters for a thorough
understanding of basic issues.
As “Example is better than precept,” several case studies are presented in this book in
order to vividly bring out a particular methodology, principle, or practice that has been
advocated. The reader is invited to run these examples with further variations in the
parameters being examined, in order to develop a comprehensive understanding.
Let us take a look at the advantages and disadvantages of air cooling as compared to water
cooling
Table 2.1b: Effect of variation in air flow rate on performance of air-cooled hot water cooler
7,700,000 6,900,000 6,100,000
Total air flow rate, lb/h (kg/h)
(3,492,700) (3,130,000) (2,767,000)
Air outlet temperature, °F (°C) 138.1 (58.9) 141.7 (60.9) 146.3 (63.5)
Static pressure, in. WC (mm WC) 0.43 (10.9) 0.35 (8.9) 0.3 (7.6)
Tubeside pressure drop, psi (kg/cm2) 2.1 (0.15) 2.1 (0.15) 2.1 (0.15)
Heat transfer coefficient, Tubeside 838 (4092) 838 (4092) 838 (4092)
Btu/h ft2°F (kcal/h m2°C) Airside (bare tube) 178.8 (873) 171.1 (835) 163.2 (797)
Overall 114.9 (561) 111.7 (545) 108.3 (529)
MTD, °F (°C) 33.2 (18.4) 31.2 (17.3) 28.6 (15.9)
Overdesign, % 6.2 –2.9 –13.7
Absorbed power, HP (kW) 26.5 (19.7) 19.7 (14.7) 14.2 (10.6)
case, and finally to 0.1% in the third case. This is because although there is a similar
reduction in the overall heat transfer coefficient as in the case of the air-cooled heat
exchanger, the drop in the MTD is far less.
Costly winterization
In cold climates, extensive winterization arrangements have to be incorporated to negoti-
ate subzero temperatures, thereby increasing the first cost even further. Winterizing an
air-cooled heat exchanger means rendering it operable even under winter conditions; that
is, the process stream will not freeze or congeal. These arrangements include heating by
steam coils, incorporating louvers to reduce air flow rate, reversing air flow, and even an
elaborate recirculation system that will be discussed in detail in Chapter 13.
Fan noise
Due to the low specific heat and density of air, air-cooled heat exchangers have to force
large quantities of air across the tube bundles, resulting in a high noise level. However,
with the improvement in fan technology, including the development of low-noise fans,
the noise level can usually be restricted to permissible levels.
In applications where the process outlet temperature is relatively low, cooling by only air
may not be feasible. For example, cooling a light hydrocarbon liquid to 113°F (45°C) by
air may not be feasible at a site where the design ambient temperature is 107.6°F (42°C).
In such cases, a combination of cooling by air followed by trim cooling (cooling by wa-
ter) has to be adopted.
Occasionally there are services where cooling by air may not be economically viable.
Thus, at a site where the design ambient temperature is 107.6°F (42°C), cooling by air may
not be viable for a naphtha stabilizer condenser service wherein the inlet/outlet temperatures
are 122/113°F (50/45°C), due to the very low temperature difference between the process
stream and the air. Here, only cooling by water should be employed.
In other services, where both the inlet and the outlet temperatures of the process stream
are relatively high, e.g., 248°F (120°C) and 140°F (60°C), only air cooling can be employed.
However, such services as described above are quite rare and invariably the process inlet
temperature will be fairly high, such as 212°F (100°C), whereas the process outlet
temperature will be rather low, such as 113°F (45°C). In such services, the most optimum
arrangement is to have an air-cooled heat exchanger, followed by a trim cooler employing
cooling water in a shell-and-tube heat exchanger.
Thus, for some services, only air cooling should be employed; for some others, a
combination of air and water cooling should be employed; while for the balance, only water
cooling should be employed. The vast majority of services in the chemical services fall in
the middle category where both air and water cooling should be used.
The optimum temperature break point between air and water cooling (that is, the
temperature at which a process fluid should leave an air-cooled heat exchanger and enter a
water-cooled heat exchanger) should be established by overall economics for every project,
because it will depend on equipment cost (air-cooled and water-cooled heat exchangers),
cost of water (total cost, as discussed in Chapter 1), and the cost of power. Generally
speaking, this optimum temperature is about 27–32°F (15–18°C) greater than the design
ambient temperature.
It is important to realize here that for a combination of air and water cooling, the air-
cooled heat exchanger will handle the major heat duty (75% or more of the total heat duty),
thereby resulting in a considerable reduction in the cooling water flow rate.
When using a combination of air and water cooling, it is usually best to design the air-
cooled heat exchanger for a somewhat lower ambient temperature (than what would be used
if there were no trim cooling), and then to design the trim cooler for the process fluid
temperature, which would be discharged by the air-cooled heat exchanger at the higher
ambient temperature. This is because with the higher ambient temperature, the decrease in
the cost of the trim cooler will be less than the increase in the cost of the air-cooled heat
exchanger, thereby resulting in a higher overall cost. This is illustrated by the following case
study.
Consider the stabilizer condensing duty specified in Table 3.1a. The allowable pressure
drop of 8.5 psi (0.6 kg/cm2) is for both the air-cooled heat exchanger and the trim cooler.
The maximum and minimum ambient temperatures at the site were 100.4°F (38°C) and
64.4°F (18°C), respectively. The inlet temperature of the cooling water was 89.6°F
(32°C), its fouling resistance was 0.002 h ft2°F/ Btu (0.0004 h m2oC/kcal), and its permit-
ted pressure drop was 10.7 psi (0.75 kg/cm2). The optimum break temperature between
air and water was established as 131°F (55°C). Thus, an air-cooled heat exchanger was to
be designed for condensing the stabilizer overhead from 153.3°F (67.4°C) to 131°F
(55°C) and a trim cooler (using water) was to be designed to condense the balance vapor
from 131°F (55°C) to 116.6°F (47°C). Since there had to be a trim cooler, it was decided
to consider the design ambient temperature as 95°F (35°C).
An air-cooled heat exchanger was designed, its principal construction and performance
parameters being as per Table 3.1b.
By carrying a performance run, it was established that if the ambient temperature were
100.4°F (38°C), the stabilizer overhead outlet temperature would be 133.3°F (56.3°C).
Therefore, the trim cooler was designed for this heat duty; that is, for condensing the
uncondensed vapor from 133.3°F (56.3°C) to 116.6°F (47°C). A single TEMA (Tubular
Heat Exchanger Manufacturers Association) type AES shell having a heat transfer area of
2233 ft2 (207.5 m2) was found to be adequate. The principal construction and performance
parameters of this design are indicated in Table 3.1c.
Now, let us consider what would happen if the air-cooled heat exchanger were to be
designed for an ambient temperature of 100.4°F (38°C) and the trim cooler for condensing
the stabilizer overhead from 131°F (55°C) to 116.6°F (47°C). The bare tube area of the air-
9
cooled heat exchanger increases from 4714 ft2 (438.1 m2) to 5459 ft2 (507.3 m2). The
principal construction and performance parameters of this design are shown in Table 3.1b.
Notice that the fan diameter also goes up from 14 ft (4.267 m) to 15 ft (4.57 m) in order to
provide the minimum 40% bundle coverage. However, since its heat duty is lower, the trim
cooler heat transfer area decreases from 2233 ft2 (207.5 m2) to 1891 ft2 (175.7 m2).
The above results are summarized in Table 3.1d. It will be seen that when the air-cooled
heat exchanger is designed for 100.4°F (38°C), (a) the total heat transfer area of the air-
cooled heat exchanger and the trim cooler is significantly higher and (b) the heat transfer
area of the air-cooled heat exchanger too is higher. Therefore, since air-cooled heat
exchangers cost significantly more than shell-and-tube heat exchangers for the same bare
tube heat transfer area, the installed cost of this option is considerably higher. Consequently,
it will be more economical to design the air-cooled heat exchanger for an ambient
temperature of 95°F (35°C) and the trim cooler for a stabilizer overhead temperature that
would be the outlet from the air-cooled heat exchanger when the ambient temperature is the
maximum (100.4°F or 38°C).
From the above example, we see that is more economical to design an air-cooled heat
exchanger for an ambient temperature that is somewhat lower than the maximum ambient
temperature, and to pass on the shortfall in the heat duty of the air-cooled heat exchanger to
the trim cooler when the ambient temperature is the maximum expected.
Evidently, the above approach is possible only for air-cooled heat exchangers that are
followed by a trim cooler. If an air-cooled heat exchanger is not followed by a trim cooler, it
will obviously have to be designed for the maximum expected ambient temperature.
10
Table 3.1d: Overall comparison of the two cases for Case Study 3.1
Air-cooled heat exchanger designed for Air-cooled heat exchanger
95°F (35°C), trim cooler designed for duty designed for 100.4°F
corresponding to air-cooled heat (38°C), trim cooler designed
exchanger performance at 100.4°F (38°C) for corresponding duty
1. Bare tube area of
air-cooled heat 4714 (438.1) 5459 (507.3)
exchanger, ft2 (m2)
2. Bare tube area of
2233 (207.5) 1891 (175.7)
trim cooler, ft2 (m2)
3. Total bare tube
6947 (645.6) 7350 (683)
area, ft2 (m2)
Further Reading
1. Maze, R.W., 1975, “Air Cooler or Water Tower: Which for Heat Disposal,” Chem. Eng.,
Jan. 6.
11
Construction Features of
Air-Cooled Heat Exchangers
4.1 Introduction
Before we start discussing the thermal design of air-cooled heat exchangers, it will be
necessary to have a detailed look at the constructional features.
The principal components of an air-cooled heat exchanger are:
Tube bundle
Fans and drive
Plenum chamber
Structure
Before discussing these principal components, let us first consider some important terms
in air-cooled heat exchanger parlance.
Tube bundle: A tube bundle is an assembly of headers, tubes, tube supports, and
frames (Fig. 4.1).
Bay or section: A bay or a section is composed of one or more tube bundles served by
two or more fans, complete with structure, plenum, and other attendant equipment
(Fig. 4.2). Thus, a bay is the smallest independent part of an air-cooled heat ex-
changer that is repeated for multibay or multisection units.
Unit: A unit is composed of one or more tube bundles in one or more sections for an in-
dividual service (Fig. 4.3).
Bank: A bank or battery of air-cooled heat exchangers comprises one or more sections
or units arranged on a continuous structure (Fig. 4.4).
13
Plan view
Bundle
Fan
Unit A Unit B
Bank
Front elevation
14
15
4.2.1.3 Grooved or embedded or “G” type finned tubes
In these tubes, the fin is embedded in the tube by first plowing a groove in the tube wall,
and then stretching the fin material into the groove under sufficient tension to achieve
specified bond strength (Fig. 4.5c). Evidently, “G”-finned tubes require a thicker tube
wall than L-footed tubes. As per clause 4.1.11.3 of API (American Petroleum Institute)
661, the minimum tube wall thickness is 0.083 in. (2.1 mm) for carbon steel and low-
alloy steel, and 0.065 in (1.65 mm) for stainless steel. For embedded fin tubes, however,
this thickness is reckoned from the bottom of the groove. Hence, embedded fin tubes
have to be thicker than L-footed fin tubes by the groove depth (which is usually the
equivalent of one gauge).
Grooved finned tubes can tolerate process fluid temperatures of up to 752°F (400°C)
due to their strong fin bond (usually no fin-bond resistance penalty is applied because it is
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e)
Fig. 4.5 Various types of finned tubes: (a) single L-footed; (b) double L-footed; (c) grooved (“G”-
type); (d) bimetallic; (e) extruded
16
considered negligible) and they are a very commonly used type of finned tubes. They can
also withstand cyclic operation without any loss of fin-tube contact. The disadvantage of
these tubes is that their base tube material is exposed to the atmosphere and, therefore, their
use in aggressive atmospheres (such as marine applications) is not recommended.
4.2.2 Headers
Headers serve to introduce the hot fluid into the tubes and collect the cooled fluid at the
end of the flow passage. They carry the inlet and the outlet nozzles and other connections
(such as vents and drains), as well as the pass partition plates required for multipass ex-
changers.
Headers are so arranged that movement within the side frame is possible to contain
thermal expansion. As per API 661, clause 6.1.6.1.2, if the temperature difference between
the inlet to one pass and the outlet from the adjacent pass is greater than 200°F (111°C), split
headers (Fig. 4.6.) or other means of restraint relief are to be employed. This condition also
applies when the maximum operating temperature is greater than 350°F (177°C).
There are various types of header
construction, each having specific
advantages and disadvantages. The
most common header types are as
follows.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Fig. 4.7 Various types of headers: (a) plug; (b) cover plate; (c) manifold; (d) bonnet
18
one or two. Thus, the choice in the number of tube passes becomes restricted. For example,
if a manifold has a single row of tubes, the number of tube passes has to be equal to the
number of rows. If a manifold has two rows of tubes, the number of tube passes has
necessarily to be half the number of tube rows.
Since cleaning of the inside of tubes can only be carried out either chemically or by
cutting of the U-bends, this type of construction is not recommended for dirty services.
However, for pressures above 3000 psig (211 bar g), it usually becomes advantageous to use
manifold type headers rather than plug type headers.
4.3.1 Fans
Axial fans (Fig. 4.10)
employed in air-cooled Side frame
19
Before expansion After expansion
fan manufacturer. Hence, the designer should have access to fan curves giving informa-
tion regarding volume (or mass) of air, static pressure, absorbed power, and noise. Some
fan manufacturers even furnish computer software to aid the designer in proper fan selec-
tion. Also, some contemporary software packages incorporate fan performance curves of
the leading fan manufacturers in their software.
The fan diameter for air-cooled heat exchangers usually varies between 6 ft (1.83 m)
and 18 ft (5.49 m), although fans having smaller and larger diameters are employed in
special circumstances. A fan consists of two basic components: the hub and the blades.
4.3.1.2 Blades
Blades (Fig. 4.10) can either be of metal
(usually aluminum) or FRP (fibreglass
reinforced plastic). Plastic blades are
suitable only for temperatures of up to
158°F (70°C); thereby representing a
limitation for induced-draft air-cooled
heat exchangers.
Fan performance (air flow rate and
Fig. 4.10 Axial fan (Courtesy Moore Fans Limited) static pressure) is determined by the
20
number of blades, tip speed, blade angle, and blade width. The effect of a change in the tip
speed of a fan on its performance is dramatic. The volume of air flow varies directly with the
tip speed; the pressure varies as the square of the tip speed and the horsepower varies as the
cube of the tip speed. The tip speed is normally limited to 200 ft/s (61 m/s) since noise
becomes excessive at higher values.
An increase in the number of blades of a fan increases its ability to work under pressure.
Thus, the tip speed of a six-blade fan can be reduced to deliver the same volume of air, as
compared to that of a four-blade fan. However, this can be carried too far in that as the
number of blades increases beyond six, multiblade interference may actually reduce the
efficiency of the fan, since each blade works in the disturbed wake of the preceding blade.
Therefore, the number of blades has to be selected carefully by the fan vendor.
All the blades of a fan should be set at the same angle for smooth operation. Usually, the
blade angle is set between 12° and 27°. This is because performance deteriorates at low
angles and becomes unstable at high angles. The volumetric flow rate varies as the blade
angle tangent ratio (BART) to the 1/3 power and pressure to the 2/3 power. Therefore, HP
varies directly with BART. The blade angle should also be carefully selected by the fan
vendor.
A fan with a wider blade width can be operated at a lower tip speed to achieve the same
performance. Consequently, fans with wider blades operate less noisily. This feature is
exploited by fan vendors who offer special low-noise fans.
21
one autovariable fan and one manually adjustable fan can achieve the necessary
control.
2) Fans should be of the axial-flow type and each fan should occupy at least 40% of
the tube bundle face area served by it. This is to ensure a reasonably good distri-
bution of air across the face of the tube bundles.
It may be added here that when the width of a bay is about one-half of the
tube length, it represents an ideal situation because the fans then see a square
cross section of the bay since there are two fans in a bay. For example, if the
width of a bay is 20 ft (6.095 m) and the tube length 40 ft (12.191 m), each of the
two fans will deliver air across a 20 ft (6.095 m) × 20 ft (6.095 m) cross section.
A 14 ft (4.27 m) diameter fan with a cross-sectional area of 153.9 sq. ft (14.3 sq.
m) will just fall short of the 40% requirement specified above, so that the use of a
15 ft (4.57 m) diameter fan will be necessary. The reader should note that a tube
length-to-bay width ratio of 2:1 is not a must, but it is desirable that it does not
exceed this ratio substantially. Furthermore, when this ratio tends toward 3:1, a
design with three fans per section will perform much better than one with two
fans.
3) The fan dispersion angle (see Fig. 4.11) should not exceed 45° at the centerline of
the tube bundle. This requirement is also based on proper air distribution.
4) The radial clearance between the fan ring and the fan tip should not exceed 0.5%
of the fan diameter or 0.75 in. (19 mm), whichever is less; fan stalling may occur
at larger clearances. Compliance with this requirement is strongly recommended
since it yields significantly better fan performance but is not expensive to imple-
ment. Table 4.1 gives a clearer picture of the effect of tip clearance on the per-
formance of a 5 ft diameter fan. Notice that until a 0.5% tip clearance, the fans
4
ma5°
x.
45°
Max.
dispersion
angle
22
Table 4.1: Effect of fan tip clearance on its performance
Tip clearance Tip clearance as % Fan performance
in. (mm) of fan diameter efficiency (%)
0.074 (1.9) 0.12 99.5
0.15 (3.8) 0.25 98.5
0.2 (5.1) 0.33 97.4
0.3 (7.6) 0.5 95.0
0.4 (10.2) 0.67 91.0
0.464 (11.8) 0.77 88.0
23
HTD systems have unusually high mechanical efficiency. Further, transmission
efficiency is not lost with use. The belt construction ensures very little heat buildup since
friction is not required to pull the load. Since belt tension is reduced, significant power
savings are thus achievable, especially on larger HP installations.
Maintenance is simple. No adjustments are required due to stretch or wear. HTD belts
are ideal where proper maintenance is difficult or where downtime could prove to be
extremely expensive.
For electric motors rated above 50 HP (37 kW), right-angle gear drives (Fig. 4.12c)
must be used (API 661 clause 4.2.8.3.1). All steam turbine drivers must employ right-angle
gear drives (API 661 clause 4.2.8.3.3)
4.4 Configuration
of ACHEs
Horizontal configuration
Air-cooled heat exchangers
(ACHEs) are usually configured
(c) Right-angle gear drive with fan support in the horizontal disposition
since maintenance becomes eas-
Fig. 4.12 Fan drives: (a) direct drive; (b) V-belt drive; (c)
right-angle gear drive ier (see Fig. 4.15).
24
A-frame configuration
This design is almost exclusively employed in power plants for condensing turbine ex-
haust steam (see Fig. 4.16). The tube bundles are mounted on a triangular frame with the
fans located below. The incli-
nation from the horizontal is Bundle
usually between 45° and 60°.
The A-frame configura-
tions permit a 30–40% reduc-
tion in the plot area as
compared to a horizontal con-
figuration. Additionally, and no Plenum
less importantly, the A-frame is
ideally adapted for condensing
since it facilitates condensate
Fan ring
drainage. The common header
at the top of the unit allows
uniform steam distribution with
minimum pressure loss, which Fig. 4.13 Box type plenum (redrawn with permission from
HTRI)
is important for the efficient
operation of vacuum steam
Bundle
condensers. The A-frame con-
figuration is in fact the basis of
several patented “freeze-proof”
designs.
27
2) Higher air pressure drop and thereby motor power because of handling hotter air,
which is lighter.
3) In order to prevent damage to fan blades, V-belts, bearings, and other mechanical
components, the exit air temperature has to be limited to about 194°F (90°C). Fi-
ber-reinforced plastic blades (which give superior performance) cannot be used at
an air temperature higher than 158°F (70°C).
References
[1] Taborek, J., 1987, “Bond Resistance and Design Temperatures for High-Finned Tubes - A
Reappraisal,” Heat Transfer Eng., 8(7), pp. 26–34.
[2] McHugh, S., and Chappell, S.E. 1999, “Specify the right fin type for air-cooled heat exchang-
ers,” Hydrocarbon Process., Sept., pp. 67–72.
[3] API, 1992, Air-cooled Heat Exchangers for General Refinery Services, API Standard 661, 3rd
Ed., April, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.
Further Reading
1. Monroe, R.C., 1979, “Improving Cooling Tower Fan System Efficiencies,” Combustion, May,
pp. 20–26.
2. Gardner, K.A., 1945, “Fin Efficiency of Several Types of Straight Fins,” Trans. ASME, 67, pp.
621–631.
28
CHAPTER 5
5.1 Introduction
The design of air-cooled heat exchangers comprises two distinct activities: thermal de-
sign and mechanical design. In thermal design, the heat exchanger is sized, which means
that all the principal construction parameters such as number of bays, number of bun-
dles/bay, number of tube rows, number of tubes per row, tube OD and thickness, fin OD
and density, tube length, tube pitch, number of tube passes, and nozzle sizes are deter-
mined. In mechanical design, detailed calculations are carried out to determine the di-
mensions of various components such as tubesheets or plugsheets, header boxes, flanges,
etc. and a complete bill of materials and set of engineering drawings are generated. In this
book, we shall talk predominantly about thermal design.
The basic equations for tubeside and airside heat transfer and pressure drop are well
known and are presented in several books (see references). This chapter will dwell on the
application of these and other correlations for the optimum thermal design of air-cooled heat
exchangers. Before we proceed any further, let us see what the broad objectives of a thermal
designer are when he or she sets out to produce a thermal design.
An air-cooled heat exchanger, like any other heat exchanger, must satisfy the following
basic equation:
Q
A= (5.1)
U (MTD)
where
A = heat transfer area
U = overall heat transfer coefficient
MTD = mean temperature difference
The overall heat transfer coefficient is determined as follows:
I l 1
= + + r f (tubeside) + r f (air) + rw (5.2)
U hair ht
where
30
transfer coefficient will be a high pressure drop. So, while the former (high heat
transfer coefficient) will tend to reduce the first cost of the heat exchanger, the
latter (high pressure drop) will tend to increase the operating cost of the heat ex-
changer. Thus, a very important goal for a good thermal design is the best utiliza-
tion of the allowable pressure drop. This is discussed in more detail later in this
chapter.
It sometimes so happens that the permitted pressure drop is unnecessarily
high to produce a good design and if, in such cases, the pump specifications have
not been frozen, they can be revised to take advantage of the lower (than antici-
pated) pressure drop. However, if the pump specifications have already been fro-
zen, the possible saving in pumping power cannot be realized and the differential
pressure drop will just have be let down (typically) across a control valve.
c) Maintain adequate tubeside velocity to minimize fouling.
This has just been discussed above, and is treated in much more detail in Chapter 10.
Flow rate
The complete requirements of vapor, liquid, steam, water, and noncondensable flow rates
must be furnished, as applicable, at both the inlet and outlet of the heat exchanger.
Heat duty
It is a good idea for the thermal engineer to corroborate the heat duty since licensors oc-
casionally slip in this aspect. For sensible cooling services, the heat duty is simply the
product of the mass flow rate, the average specific heat, and the difference between the
inlet and the outlet temperatures. For condensing services, the total heat duty is the sum
of the sensible vapor cooling duty, the sensible liquid cooling duty, and the condensing
duty, which is the product of the amount of vapor condensed per hour and the latent heat
of condensation.
Operating pressure
This is not really required for liquids since their properties do not vary with pressure to
any significant extent. However, it is required for gases and vapors since their properties,
particularly gas density, vary with pressure. However, if the physical properties are fur-
nished, the operating pressure is no longer required for single-phase gas and condensing
vapor streams.
Fouling resistance
This is another extremely important parameter and one that is unfortunately based more
on experience than fundamental understanding, thanks to the complexity of the phe-
nomenon. If the fouling resistance of a particular stream is not furnished, the heat ex-
changer designer should adopt the same from TEMA standards or from past operating
experience. This subject is discussed in far greater detail in Chapter 10.
Physical properties
Principally viscosity, thermal conductivity, density, and specific heat, preferably at both
inlet and outlet temperatures. Viscosity data must be supplied at inlet and outlet tempera-
tures, especially for liquids, since the variation with temperature is considerable and ir-
regular (neither linear nor semilog nor log-log). Additional properties required are latent
32
heat and surface tension for condensing services. Physical properties are discussed at
length in Chapter 8.
Line sizes
It is desirable to match nozzle sizes with line sizes since no expander or reducer will then
be required. However, criteria for nozzle sizing (velocity and ρv2) are usually more strin-
gent for heat exchanger nozzles than for lines. Nozzle sizing is based on pressure drop,
which in turn is based on expansion and contraction losses, whereas line sizing is based
on line pressure drop, which is dependent on velocity and the length of the line. Conse-
quently, nozzle sizes are sometimes required to be one size (or even more in exceptional
circumstances) larger than the corresponding line sizes. This is especially true for small
line sizes where the change in flow area from one pipe size to the next is quite consider-
able.
Tube size
By tube size is meant tube OD, thickness, and length. As per the API 661 Standards, 1 in.
(25.4 mm) is the smallest OD of tubes to be used in air-cooled heat exchangers. This is
somewhat surprising, considering that shell-and-tube heat exchangers in the same chemi-
cal process industries can be designed and built with 0.75 in (19.05 mm) tubes. This is
one of the mysteries that the author has never been able to unravel!
Since air-cooled heat exchangers are rather large and occupy large plot areas, they are
invariably located over pipe racks. In such situations, the tube length is usually 1.64 ft (0.5
m) greater than the pipe-rack width for reasons of mechanical convenience. Thus, the tube
length of an air-cooled heat exchanger gets fixed by the pipe-rack width of the unit in which
it is going to be located.
Occasionally, an air-cooled heat exchanger is located on a “technological platform” and
in such situations its tube length can be optimized so as to yield the most cost-effective
design.
The selection of the tube length of an air-cooled heat exchanger is discussed in more
detail in Section 7.1.
33
Corrosion allowance
Corrosion allowance for the various pressure parts have to be specified by the process
licensor. No discrete corrosion allowance is applied on tubes since the standard tube
thicknesses recommended by TEMA already incorporate a corrosion allowance.
Special considerations
All pertinent requirements, such as cycling, upset conditions, alternate cases of operation,
and whether operation is continuous or intermittent, should all be specified so that all
demands made on a heat exchanger during its expected lifetime can be taken into account
for design.
DG
,
μ
where
D = tube ID
G = mass velocity
μ = viscosity
The Prandtl number is given as
35
cμ
,
k
where
c = specific heat
μ = viscosity
k = thermal conductivity
If these are broken down into the fundamental parameters, they are the physical proper-
ties (namely, viscosity, thermal conductivity, and specific heat), tube diameter, and, very
importantly, mass velocity.
The variation in liquid viscosity being quite considerable, this physical property has the
most dramatic effect on the heat transfer coefficient.
Let us take a look at the fundamental equation for turbulent heat transfer inside tubes:
Nu = 0.027 (Re)0.8 (Pr)0.33 (5.3)
or
0.8 0.33
hD ⎛ DG ⎞ ⎛ cμ ⎞
= 0.027 ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (5.4)
k ⎝ μ ⎠ ⎝ k ⎠
or
0.8 0.33
hD ⎛ DG ⎞ ⎛ cμ ⎞ ⎛k⎞
= 0.027 ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (5.5)
k ⎝ μ ⎠ ⎝ k ⎠ ⎝ D⎠
Thus, the heat transfer coefficient varies to the 0.8 power of mass velocity. It also varies
to the -0.2 power of tube ID, mass velocity remaining constant. That is to say, for the
same total tubeside flow area per pass (which will yield the same mass velocity), a
smaller tube size will yield a higher heat transfer coefficient.
As regards the variation of heat transfer coefficient with fluid viscosity, it will be seen
that there are two opposing tendencies; one in which viscosity is a parameter of the
Reynolds number, and the other in which it is a parameter of Prandtl number.
Thus,
h = α (μ)0.33−0.8
α(μ) −0.47
which is to say the heat transfer coefficient is inversely proportional to the 0.47 power of
viscosity.
An interesting aspect to observe here is that even for the same Reynolds number, two
liquids of fairly different viscosities will yield fairly different heat transfer coefficients due to
their different Prandtl numbers—the liquid having the higher viscosity will have the higher
Prandtl number and thereby the higher heat transfer coefficient. The Reynolds numbers can
be the same if the higher viscosity stream has a correspondingly higher mass flow rate.
It will also be seen that the heat transfer coefficient is directly proportional to the 0.67
exponent of the thermal conductivity.
Curiously, it appears that the heat transfer coefficient is proportional to the 0.33
36
exponent of the specific heat. While this is true, it should also be realized that the heat duty
will increase directly with specific heat so that all other things remaining the same, a higher
specific heat will result in a considerably higher heat duty than heat transfer coefficient!
The above leads to some very interesting generalities of heat transfer. A high thermal
conductivity promotes a high heat transfer coefficient. Thus, water has an extremely high
heat transfer coefficient [thermal conductivity around 0.37 Btu/h ft oF (0.55 kcal/h m oC)],
followed by hydrocarbon liquids [thermal conductivity between 0.12 and 0.18 Btu/h ft oF
(0.08 and 0.12 kcal/h m oC)], and then followed by hydrocarbon gases [thermal conductivity
between 0.03 and 0.045 Btu/h ft oF (0.02 and 0.03 kcal/h m oC)]. Liquid ammonia has a
thermal conductivity in between that of water and hydrocarbon liquids.
Hydrogen is an unusual gas because it has an exceptionally high thermal conductivity
(same as or even greater than that of hydrocarbon liquids), as well as an exceptionally high
specific heat; hence, its heat transfer coefficient is in the range of hydrocarbon liquids.
Typical heat transfer coefficients of various fluids are as follows:
Cooling water: 1200 Btu/h ft2 oF (6000 kcal/h m2 oC)
Hydrocarbon liquids: 50–260 Btu/h ft2 oF (250–1300 kcal/h m2 oC)
Hydrocarbon gases: 10–50 Btu/h ft2 oF (50–500 kcal/h m2 oC)
The rather large variation in the heat transfer coefficient of hydrocarbon liquids is due to
the rather large variation in their viscosity, from less than 0.1 cp for ethylene and propylene
to greater than 500 cp and even more for heavy hydrocarbon liquids such as vacuum residue
and bitumen.
The large variation in the heat transfer coefficient of hydrocarbon gases is attributable to
the large variation in operating pressure. With increase in operating pressure, gas density
increases. Since pressure drop is (a) directly proportional to the square of the mass velocity
and (b) inversely proportional to the density, a higher mass velocity can be maintained when
the density is greater, for the same pressure drop. This higher mass velocity translates into a
higher heat transfer coefficient. Let us demonstrate this with the help of two case studies,
one for a gas at a high pressure and the other for a gas at a low pressure.
A more elaborate list of typical overall heat transfer coefficients is sourced from Ref. [1]
and presented toward the end of this chapter in Tables 5.6 a–c.
37
Table 5.1a: Principal process parameters of air-cooled heat exchanger for Case Study 5.1
1. Process stream Hydrocarbon gas mixture
2. Flow rate, lb/h (kg/h) 440,900 (200,000)
3. Temperature in/out, °F (°C) 199.4 (93)/149 (65)
4.Operating pressure, psia (kg/cm2 a) 886 (62.3)
5. Allowable pressure drop, psi (kg/cm2) 3.6 (0.25)
6. Heat duty, MM Btu/h (MM kcal/h) 13.1 (3.3)
7. Density in/out, lb/ft3 (kg/m3) 3.06 (49.1)/3.38 (54.2)
8. Viscosity in/out, cp 0.0132/0.012
9.Thermal conductivity in/out, Btu/h ft °F (kcal/h m °C) 0.0238 (0.0354)/0.0214 (0.0318)
10. Fouling resistance, h ft2 °F/Btu (h m2 °C/kcal) 0.00098(0.0002)
11. Design air temperature, °F (°C) 104 (40)
Table 5.1b: Principal construction and performance parameters of air-cooled heat exchanger for
Case Study 5.1
1. No. of bays 1
2. No. of bundles per bay 2
3. Tube OD × thk × length, in. (mm) 0.984 (25) × 0.098 (2.5) × 413 (10500)
4. Fin height, in. (mm) × fin density, fins/in. (fins/m) 0.63 (16) × 11 (433)
5. No. of tubes per row × no. of rows × tube pitch, in. (mm) 46 × 8 × 2.36 (60)
6. No. of tube passes 1
7. Total bare tube area, ft2 (m2) 3363 (312.5)
8. Fans per section × fan diameter, ft (m) 2 × 13 (3.963)
9. Total air flow rate, lb/h (kg/h) 1,543,000 (700,000)
10. Air outlet temperature, °F (°C) 139.3 (59.6)
11. Airside midpoint velocity, ft/s (m/s) 19.5 (5.93)
12. Airside pressure drop, in. WC (mm WC) 0.37 (9.37)
13. Individual fan power, HP (kW) 17.3 (12.9)
14. Total fan power, HP (kW) 34.6 (25.8)
15. Connections per bundle, in. (mm) In: 2 × 10 (250)
Out: 1 × 10 (250)
16. Tubeside mass velocity, lbf/s ft2 (kg/s m2) 92.7 (451.9)
17. Tubeside Reynolds no., inlet/midpoint/outlet 686,756 / 724,953 / 755,431
18. Heat transfer coefficient, Btu/h ft2 °F/ Tubeside 265.4 (1296)
(kcal/h m2 °C) Airside 181.9 (888)
Overall 92.6 (452.3)
19. Thermal resistance, % Airside 50.97
Tubeside 34.91
Fouling 11.31
19. Tubeside pressure drop, psi (kg/cm2) 3.3 (0.23)
20. Overdesign, % 15.3
tain a high tubeside mass velocity. We have just seen that a typical tubeside heat
transfer coefficient for hydrocarbon gases is in the range of 10–50 Btu/h ft2 oF
(50–500 kcal/h m2 oC).
3) There is another reason why the tubeside heat transfer coefficient is so high, and
that is the high tubeside flow rate, as a result of which only one tube pass is re-
quired to obtain a very high tubeside velocity. With a single tube pass, it is evi-
dently possible to obtain a much higher tubeside velocity than with two tube
38
Table 5.2a: Principal process parameters of air-cooled heat exchanger for Case Study
5.2
1. Process stream Nitrogen gas
2. Flow rate, lb/h (kg/h) 518,100 (235,000)
3. Temperature in/out, °F (°C) 248 (120)/131 (55)
4.Operating pressure, psia (kg/cm2 a) 142 (10)
5. Allowable pressure drop, psi (kg/cm2) 1.4 (0.1)
6. Heat duty, MM Btu/h (MM kcal/h) 15.32 (3.86)
7. Density in/out, lb/ft3 (kg/m3) 0.525 (8.42)/0.624 (10.0)
8. Viscosity in/out, cp 0.0217/0.0191
9. Thermal conductivity in/out, Btu/h ft °F (kcal/h m °C) 0.018(0.027)/0.0157(0.0234)
10. Fouling resistance, h ft2 °F/Btu (h m2 °C/kcal) 0.00098 (0.0002)
11. Design air temperature, °F (°C) 104 (40)
passes. This is because with two tube passes, the length of travel is double that
with a single tube passing. Since the tubeside pressure drop varies directly with
the length of travel and to the 0.8 power of mass velocity, a lower number of tube
passes will translate into a higher mass velocity for the same pressure drop. The
higher mass velocity will in turn translate into a higher tubeside heat transfer co-
efficient.
4) The thermal resistance on the tubeside is 34.91% while that on the airside is
about 51%. As we will see later in Chapter 7, a higher fin height is usually favor-
able for cases where the airside thermal resistance is controlling.
5) The fan power consumption is only 17.3 HP (12.9 kW). This is because in the
present design, the tubeside pressure drop is very close to the permissible value
and, hence, any reduction in the number of tubes by virtue of a higher airside
heat transfer coefficient is not possible since we have to employ a fixed tube
length of 34.5 ft (10.5 m). Therefore, it is prudent to minimize fan power con-
sumption so as to minimize the operating cost.
(10.0 lb/ft3) at the outlet, as against 3.06 kg/m3 (49.1 lb/ft3) at the inlet and 3.38 kg/m3 (54.2
lb/ft3) in Case Study 5.1.
As a result of the much lower gas density, the tubeside mass velocity that could be
sustained is just 24.9 lb/s ft2 (121.3 kg/s m2), as compared to 92.7 lb/s ft2 (451.9 lb/s ft2) in
the earlier case study. Hence, the tubeside Reynolds number and thereby the tubeside heat
transfer coefficients were much lower in the present example.
(11.91 + 11.19 – 12.86) or 10.24 × 106 Btu/h [(3.0 + 2.82 – 3.24) or 2.58 × 106 kcal/h], the
trim cooler needs to be designed only for this heat duty and not for 11.19 × 106 Btu/h (2.82 ×
106 kcal/h). Of course, the desired oversurfacing can be incorporated in both the air-cooled
heat exchanger and trim cooler.
In this context, it is important to realize that the total pressure drop for a given stream
has to be met. The distribution of pressure drop in the various heat exchangers for a given
stream in a particular circuit may be varied as found best to obtain good heat transfer in all
the heat exchangers.
For example, consider the total allowable pressure drop for a distillation column
overhead stream to be 4.2 psi (0.3 kg/cm2). This overhead stream has to flow through an air-
cooled condenser and subsequently through a water-cooled condenser. If a proper air-cooler
design can be made with a tubeside pressure drop of 1.7 psi (0.12 kg/cm2), the balance
pressure drop of (4.2–1.7) or 2.5 psi [(0.3–0.12) or 0.18 kg/cm2] is available for the trim
condenser.
42
Table 5.3b: Principal construction and performance parameters of air-cooled heat exchanger for Case
Study 5.3
Allowable tubeside pressure drop
7.1 psi (0.5 g/cm2) 20.8 (1.46 g/cm2)
1. No. of bays 3 2
2. No. of bundles per bay 2 2
3. Tube OD × thick × length, in. (mm) 0.984 (25) × 0.098 (2.5) × 492 (12500)
4. Fin height, in. (mm) × fin density, fins/in. (fins/m) 0.49 (12.5) × 9 (354)
5. No. of tubes per row × no. of rows × tube pitch, in. (mm) 46 × 8 × 2.36 (60) 50 × 8 × 2.36 (60)
6. No. of tube passes 8 12
7. Total bare tube area, ft2 (m2) 22,8000 (2119) 16,527 (1536)
8. Fans per section × fan diameter, ft (m) 2 × 14 (4.27) 2 × 14 (4.27)
9. Total air flow rate, lb/h (kg/h) 5,081,300 (2,304,850) 2,822,300 (1,280,200)
10. Air outlet temperature, °F (°C) 125.6 (52) 140 (60)
11. Airside velocity, ft/s (m/s) 17.32 (5.28) 13.5 (4.11)
12. Airside pressure drop, in. WC (mm WC) 0.45 (11.3) 0.3 (7.6)
13. Individual fan power, HP (kW) 21.6 (16.1) 12.2 (9.1)
14. Total fan power, HP (kW) 129.6 (96.6) 48.8 (36.4)
15. Connections per bundle, in. (mm) In: 1 × 2 (50) In: 1 × 3 (75)
Out 1 × 2 (50) Out 1 × 3 (75)
16. Tubeside velocity, ft/s (m/s) 1.08 (0.33) 2.3 (0.7)
17. Tubeside Reynolds no., inlet/mmidpoint/outlet 1372/596/412 2559/1497/861
18. Heat transfer coefficient, Tubeside 11.0 (53.6) 14.1 (69)
Btu/h ft2 °F/ (kcal/h m2 °C) Airside 124.5 (608) 112.2 (548)
Overall 9.7 (47.3) 12.0 (58.4)
19. Tubeside pressure drop, psi (kg/cm2) 6.54 (0.46) 20.8 (1.46)
20. Overdesign, % 20.2 22.7
kg/cm2) was inordinately low. However, this condition was accepted and a thermal design
was prepared, as shown in Table 5.3b.
Due to the low allowable tubeside pressure drop, the tubeside heat transfer coefficient is
only 11 Btu/h ft2°F (53.6 kcal/h m2°C), which represents 88.4% of the total heat transfer
resistance. The tubeside velocity is only 1.08 ft/s (0.33 m/s), which will result in heavy
fouling. Also, it may be noted that since the airside heat transfer coefficient is not
controlling, a fin density of 9 fins per in. (354 fins per m) has been used, and not the
common density of 11 fins per in. (433 fins per m).
In an attempt to produce a more economical design with a higher tubeside velocity and
thereby lower fouling, an allowable tubeside pressure drop of 42.7 psi (3.0 kg/cm2) was
sought from the process licensor. However, only 21.3 psi (1.5 kg/cm2) was granted. The
revised design with this increased tubeside pressure drop is also elaborated in Table 5.3b.
It will be noted that in the revised design, the tubeside velocity increased from 1.08 fps
(0.33 m/s) to 2.3 fps (0.7 m/s). This results in less fouling inside the tubes. As a result of the
increase in tubeside velocity, the tubeside heat transfer coefficient increased from 11 Btu/h
ft2°F (53.6 kcal/h m2°C) to 14.1 Btu/h ft2°F (69.0 kcal/h m2°C), and the overall heat transfer
coefficient from 9.7 Btu/h ft2°F (47.4 kcal/h m2°C) to 12.0 Btu/h ft2°F (58.4 kcal/h m2°C).
Consequently, the number of sections could be reduced from three to two and the overall
bare tube heat transfer area from 22,800 ft2 (2119 m2) to 16,527 ft2 (1536 m2), thus resulting
in a considerable reduction in the initial cost and the plot area of the unit.
Also, the power consumption of each fan decreased from 21.6 HP (16.1 kW) to 12.2 HP
43
Table 5.4a: Principal process parameters of air-cooled heat exchanger for
Case Study 5.4
1. Process stream Heavy hydrocarbon liquid
2. Flow rate, lb/h (kg/h) 652,300 (295,900)
3. Temperature in/out, °F (°C) 255.7 (124.3)/194 (90)
4. Allowable tubeside pressure drop, psi (kg/cm2) 10.7 (0.75)
5. Heat duty, MM Btu/h (MM kcal/h) 21.5 (5.422)
6. Viscosity in/out, cp 11.3/15.0
7. Density in/out, lb/ft3 (kg/m3) 51.8 (830)/52.4 (840)
8. Thermal conductivity in/out, Btu/h ft °F (kcal/h m °C) 0.05(0.075)/0.053(0.079)
9. Fouling resistance, h ft2 °F/Btu (h m2 °C/kcal) 0.0039 (0.0008)
10. Design air temperature, °F (°C) 107.6 (42)
(9.1 kW) and since there were fewer fans, the total power consumption decreased
substantially from 129.6 HP (96.6 kW) to 48.8 HP (36.4 kW). Therefore, while the pumping
power required for the process stream increased, the total fan power came down
significantly.
It will be noticed that with the use of a higher tubeside velocity, the inlet, midpoint, and
outlet Reynolds number went up from 1372, 596, and 412 to 2559, 1497, and 861,
respectively. Since a Reynolds number of 2100 is the upper limit of laminar flow, we have
not been able to get out of laminar flow except for in only a small region at the inlet of the
air-cooled heat exchanger. Consequently, the tubeside heat transfer coefficient has not really
increased as much as we would have desired. This is because the higher tubeside pressure
drop sought was not granted.
Comment
If a sufficiently high tubeside pressure drop can be permitted, it is possible to move to-
tally out of laminar flow and derive a substantial improvement in the tubeside heat trans-
fer coefficient as well as a substantial reduction in tubeside fouling. The following case
study will demonstrate this.
44
Table 5.4b: Principal construction and performance parameters of air-cooled heat exchanger for
Case Study 5.4
Allowable pressure drop
10.7psi (0.75g/cm2) 65.4 (4.6 kg/cm2)
1. No. of bays 4 2
2. No. of bundles per bay 2 2
3. Tube OD × thick × length, in. (mm) 0.984 (25) × 0.098 (2.5) × 413 (10500)
4. Fin height, in. (mm) × fin density, fins/in. (fins/m) 0.49 (12.5) × 5 (197)
5. No. of tubes per row × no. of rows × tube pitch, 46 × 8 × 2.36 (60) 45 × 7 × 2.36(60)
in. (mm)
6. No. of tube passes 6 8
7. Total bare tube area, ft2 (m2) 25,555 (2375) 10,943 (1017)
8. Fans per bay × fan diameter, ft (m) 2 × 13 (3.96) 2 × 13 (3.96)
9. Total air flow rate, lb/h (kg/h) 5,952,400 (2,700,000) 3,615,500 (1,640,000)
10. Air outlet temperature, °F (°C) 122.7 (50.4) 132.3 (55.7)
11. Airside velocity, ft/s (m/s) 17.45 (5.32) 21.8 (6.64)
12. Airside pressure drop, in. WC (mm WC) 0.36 (9.11) 0.47 (12.0)
13. Individual fan power, HP (kW) 16.1 (12.0) 26.4 (19.7)
14. Total fan power, HP (kW) 128.8 (96.0) 105.6 (78.8)
15. Tubeside velocity, ft/s (m/s) 2.1 (0.64) 6.56 (2.0)
16. Tubeside Reynolds no., inlet/midpoint/outlet 918/795/715 2755/2480/2235
17. Heat transfer coefficient, Tubeside 9.7 (47.1) 27.7 (135.4)
Btu/h ft2 °F/ (kcal/h m2 °C) Airside 78.2 (381.9) 85.6 (418)
Overall 8.2 (40.2) 18.9 (92.3)
18. Tubeside pressure drop, psi (kg/cm2) 10.4 (0.73) 65.4 (4.6)
19. Overdesign, % 6.5 0.01
thereby lower fouling, an allowable tubeside pressure drop of 66.8 psi (4.7 kg/cm2) was
sought from the process licensor and it was granted. The revised design with this increased
tubeside pressure drop is also elaborated in Table 5.4b.
It will be noted that in the revised design, the tubeside velocity increased from 2.1 fps
(0.64 m/s) to 6.56 fps (2.0 m/s). This results in considerably less fouling inside the tubes. As
a result of the increase in tubeside velocity, the tubeside heat transfer coefficient increased
from 9.7 Btu/h ft2°F (47.1 kcal/h m2°C) to 27.7 Btu/h ft2°F (135.4 kcal/h m2°C), and the
overall heat transfer coefficient from 8.2 Btu/h ft2°F (40.2 kcal/h m2°C) to 18.9 Btu/h ft2°F
(92.3 kcal/h m2°C). Consequently, the number of sections could be reduced from four to two
and the overall bare tube heat transfer area from 25,555 ft2 (2375 m2) to 10,943 ft2 (1017
m2), thus resulting in a considerable reduction in the initial cost and the plot area of the unit.
Although the power consumption of each fan increased from 16.1 HP (12.0 kW) to 26.4 HP
(19.7 kW), the total power consumption reduced from 128.8 HP (96.0 kW) to 105.6 HP
(78.8 kW) due to the reduction of the number of fans. Thus, while the pumping power
required for the process stream increased substantially, the total fan power came down,
albeit to a lesser extent. Thus, the total operating cost due to pumping will be higher, but the
operating cost due to fouling will be significantly lower. The fixed cost of the second design
is less than half that of the former design since there are two bays instead of four, and seven
rows of tubes instead of eight. Thus, the total (fixed plus operating) cost of the latter design
will be less.
It will be noticed that with the use of a higher tubeside velocity, the inlet, midpoint, and
outlet Reynolds number went up from 918, 795, and 715 to 2755, 2480, and 2235,
45
respectively. Since a Reynolds number of 2100 is the upper limit of laminar flow, we have
been able to get totally out of laminar flow. Consequently, the tubeside heat transfer
coefficient has increased considerably.
Comment
It must be stated here that the tubeside is fundamentally not well suited to handling vis-
cous fluids because of the deleterious effect of the boundary layer separation. Conse-
quently, air-cooled heat exchangers are not recommended for cooling viscous liquids, and
cooling by closed-circuit “tempered water” on the shellside of shell-and-tube heat ex-
changers is far more efficient and economical. For the same pressure drop, the heat trans-
fer coefficient for a viscous liquid on the shellside will be higher by an order of magni-
tude. However, if an air-cooled heat exchanger has to be used for cooling a viscous
liquid, the use of wire-fin tube inserts should be considered. By promoting radial mixing
from the wall of the tube to the center, such inserts improve the thermal performance
considerably and yield a much higher heat transfer coefficient for the same pressure drop.
This is discussed in detail in Section 13.4.
46
t1 = airside outlet temperature, oF
d = tube OD, in.
Pt = transverse tube pitch, in.
Pl = longitudinal tube pitch, in.
Fig. 5.1 MTD correction factors for 1-pass cross-flow (Courtesy Hudson Products Corporation,
USA)
47
When the air mass flow rate is lowered, its outlet temperature increases, thereby reducing the
MTD (mean temperature difference). Furthermore, the airside heat transfer coefficient
reduces due to the lower mass velocity, thereby reducing the overall heat transfer coefficient.
Both these effects increase the required heat transfer area. The saving is in the power
consumption, since both the lower air flow rate and consequently the airside pressure drop
are lower. The optimum thermal design is the one that will best balance these opposing
tendencies. This balance will depend on the extent to which the airside heat transfer
coefficient is controlling. Optimization of thermal design is discussed in detail in Chapter 7.
Fig. 5.2 MTD correction factors for two-pass cross-flow (Courtesy Hudson Products Corporation,
USA)
48
Table 5.5a: Principal process parameters of air-cooled heat exchanger
for Case Study 5.5
1. Overhead flow rate, lb/h (kg/h) 451,943 (205,000)
2. Temperature in/out, °F (°C) 192 (88.9)/149 (65)
3. Operating pressure, psia (kg/cm2 a) 25.6 (1.8)
4. Allowable pressure drop, psi (kg/cm2) 3.0 (0.21)
5. Weight fraction vapor, in/out 1.0/0.23
6. Heat duty, MM Btu/h (MM kcal/h) 100.94 (25.44)
7. Fouling resistance, h ft2 °F/Btu (h m2 °C/kcal) 0.001 (0.000205)
8. Design air temperature, °F (°C) 104 (40)
Table 5.5b: Principal construction and performance parameters of air-cooled heat exchanger
for Case Study 5.5
1. No. of bays 4
2. No. of bundles per bay 2
3. Tube OD × thk × length, in. (mm) 1.26 (32) × 0.098 (2.5) × 492 (12500)
4. Fin height, in. (mm) × fin density, fins/in. (fins/m) 0.63 (16) × 11 (433)
5. No. of tubes per row × no. of rows 40 × 8
6. No. of tube passes 2
7. Total bare tube area, ft2 (m2) 33,786 (3140)
8. Fans per bay × fan diameter, ft (m) 2 × 15 (4.57)
9. Total air flow rate, lb/h (kg/h) 6,500,000 (2,948,350)
10. Air outlet temperature, °F (°C) 168.5 (75.8)
11. Airside velocity, ft/s (m/s) 17.45 (5.32)
12. Airside pressure drop, in. WC (mm WC) 0.55 (14)
13. Fan power, HP (kW) 23.4 (17.4)
14. Connections per bundle, in. (mm) In: 2 × 8 (200)
Out 2 × 6 (150)
15. Heat transfer coefficient, Btu/h ft2 °F/ Tubeside 282.6 (1380)
(kcal/h m2 °C) Airside 149.5 (730)
Overall 85.4 (417)
16. Tubeside pressure drop, psi (kg/cm2) 2.84 (0.2)
the total yearly hours of operation. Thus, a temperature variation chart at sufficiently
short intervals throughout the year is needed for a proper estimate of the design ambient
temperature. Such data are available from meteorological offices.
The sensitivity of the performance of an air-cooled heat exchanger with the design
ambient temperature is borne out by the following case study.
5.8 Noise
With the present concern over the environment, noise pollution often represents a con-
straint in the design of air-cooled heat exchangers. Fans and drives have to be designed
and/or selected to comply with local laws for noise limitation.
Sound power level is an objective quantity and is the total sound emitted by a system to
the environment. Sound pressure level is a subjective quantity and is the measured sound
pressure related to a fixed value, largely depending on the distance from the source of the
noise.
The sound power level emitted by air-cooled heat exchangers to the environment is
produced almost entirely by the fans and drives, with the fan drive often accounting for as
much as 50% of the total. Typical sound power levels are 60–80 dBA for electric motors, 60–
B
51
Table 5.6a: Typical overall heat transfer coefficients for air-cooled liquid coolers [1]
Overall heat transfer coefficient Overall heat transfer coefficient
Service Btu/h ft2 °F kcal/h m2 °C Service Btu/h ft2 °F kcal/h m2 °C
Oils, 20 API Heavy oils 8–14 API
200°F (93.3°C) 10–16 50–80 300°F (148.9°C) 6–10 30–50
300°F (148.9°C) 13–22 65–110 400°F (204.4°C) 10–16 50–80
400°F (204.4°C) 30–40 150–200 Diesel oil 45–55 225–275
Kerosene 55–60 275–300
Oils, 30 API Heavy naphtha 60–65 300–325
150°F (65.6°C) 12–23 60–115 Light naphtha 65–70 325–350
200°F (93.3°C) 25–35 125–175 Gasoline 70–75 350–375
300°F (148.9°C) 45–55 225–275 Light hydrocarbons 75–80 375–400
400°F (204.4°C) 50–60 250–300 Alcohols and most
organic solvents 70–75 350–375
Oils, 40 API
150°F (65.6°C) 25–35 125–175 Ammonia 100–120 500–600
200°F (93.3°C) 50–60 250–300 Brine, 75% water 90–110 450–550
200°F (148.9°C) 55–65 275–325 Water 120–140 600–700
200°F (204.4°C) 60–70 300–350 50% Ethylene glycol 100–120 500–600
and water
52
Table 5.6c: Typical overall heat transfer coefficients for air-cooled vapor coolers (Ref. [1])
Overall heat transfer coefficient, Btu/h ft2 °F (kcal/h m2 °C)
10 psig 50 psig 100 psig 300 psig 500 psig
Service (0.7 kg/cm2 g) (3.5 kg/cm2 g) (7.0 kg/cm2 g) (21.1 kg/cm2 g) (35.2 kg/cm2 g)
Light hydrocarbons 15–20 (75–100) 30–35 (150–175) 45–50 (225–250) 65–70 (325–350) 70–75 (350–375)
Medium hydrocarbons
and organic solvents 15–20 (75–100) 35–40 (175–200) 45–50 (225–250) 65–70 (325–350) 70–75 (350–375)
Light inorganic vapors 10–15 (50–75) 15–20 (75–100) 30–35 (150–175) 45–50 (225–250) 50–55 (250–275)
Air 8–10 (40–50) 15–20 (75–100) 25–30 (125–150) 40–45 (200–225) 40–45 (200–225)
Ammonia 10–15 (50–75) 15–20 (75–100) 30–35 (150–175) 45–50 (225–250) 50–55 (250–275)
Steam 10–15 (50–75) 15–20 (75–100) 25–30 (125–150) 45–50 (225–250) 55–60 (275–300)
Hydrogen, 100% 20–30 (100–150) 45–50 (225–250) 65–70 (325–350) 85–95 (425–475) 95–100 (475–500)
- 75% vol. 17–28 (85–140) 40–45 (200–225) 60–65 (300–325) 80–85 (400–425) 85–90 (425–450)
- 50% vol. 15–25 (75–125) 35–40 (175–200) 55–60 (275–300) 75–80 (375–400) 85–90 (425–450)
- 25% vol. 12–23 (60–115) 30–35 (150–175) 45–50 (225–250) 65–70 (325–350) 80–85 (400–425)
References
[1] Brown, R., 1978, “A Procedure for Preliminary Estimate,” Chem. Eng., 85(8), pp. 108–111.
[2] Briggs, D.E., and Young, E.H., 1965, "Convection Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop of Air
Flowing across Triangular Banks of Finned Tubes", Chemical Engineering Progress Symp.,
Series 41, No. 59.
[3] Robinson, K.K., and Briggs, D.E., 1965, “Pressure Drop of Air Flowing across Triangular
Pitch Banks of Finned Tubes,” 8th Natl. Heat Transfer Conf., AIChE, Preprint 20.
[4] McDermott Inc., 1994, The Basics of Air-cooled Heat Exchangers, Hudson Products Bro-
chure McDermott Inc., Houston.
Further Reading
1. Zukauskas, A., 1981, “Air-cooled Heat Exchangers,” Heat Exchangers: Thermal – Hydraulic
Fundamentals and Design, Kakac, S., Bergles, A.E., and Mayinger, F., eds., Hemisphere,
Washington, DC.
2. Kern, D.Q., and Kraus, A.D., 1972, Extended Surface Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill.
3. Mcketta, J.J., ed., 1992, Heat Transfer Design Methods, Marcel Dekker, New York.
4. Farrant, P.E., 1983, “Noise and its Influence on Air Cooled Heat Exchanger Design,” Heat
Exchangers—Theory and Practice, Hemisphere, Washington, DC.
5. Paikert, P., and Ruff, K., 1983, “State of Art for Design of Air Cooled Heat Exchangers with
Noise Level Limitation,” Heat Exchangers—Theory and Practice, Hemisphere, Washington,
DC.
6. API, 1981, Measurement of Noise from Air-cooled Heat Exchangers, API Recommended Prac-
tice 631M, 1st Ed., June 1981 (Reaffirmed Oct. 1985), American Petroleum Institute, Wash-
ington, DC.
53
54
CHAPTER 6
6.1 Introduction
Thus far, we have been looking at single-phase air-cooled heat exchangers, namely, gas
and liquid coolers. In this chapter, we will look at air-cooled condensers.
The thermal design of condensers is a fascinating subject since there is considerable
variation in service, operating pressure, and condensing range. Due to large-scale research
carried out in recent years, the phenomenon of condensing is now quite well understood, and
this sophisticated knowledge is embodied in several proprietary software packages.
As with any complex subject, it is important to grasp the fundamentals and the interplay
of parameters in order to not only enjoy the activity, but to produce efficient and optimized
designs as well. The accent in the following sections will not be on a plethora of equations—
of which there is a preponderance in the published literature—but rather on their application
for optimum design of air-cooled heat exchangers.
55
Quite a different situation is encountered in an air compressor intercooler, where a very
small percentage of atmospheric water vapor enters the condenser along with bulk air which
has to be cooled—as the air is cooled, some associated water vapor condenses. Vapor shear
is very high in such cases due to the extremely high vapor weight fraction.
Evidently, the determination of the heat transfer coefficient is much easier for pure-
component isothermal condensation than for condensation of a mixture through a
temperature range. In the latter case, sensible vapor cooling and diffusion enter the picture
and complicate matters considerably. This is discussed at length in Section 6.3.3. Pure-
component condensation yields a much higher heat transfer coefficient than condensation of
a mixture of different components over a temperature range, since (a) no sensible vapor
cooling is involved and (b) there is no mass transfer resistance or diffusion.
56
ling in air-cooled condensers, so that the increase in the overall heat transfer coefficient
due to a large increase in the tubeside condensing heat transfer coefficient is not consid-
erable. Consequently, we shall only look at filmwise condensation in this book.
When condensation occurs, a film of liquid covers the heat transfer surface. The
thickness of the film depends on the rate of condensation and the rate of removal of the
condensate. The latter depends on the actions of shear and gravity. Therefore, it is very
important for condenser calculations to determine the flow regime, shear controlled or
gravity controlled, since different correlations have to be employed in the two regimes.
When the shear force is much greater than the force of gravity, the regime is shear
controlled. However, when the force of gravity is predominant, the regime is gravity
controlled.
When the condensing stream is a mixture of various components, with or without
noncondensables, the condensation process becomes far more complex than for a pure vapor
since it then involves mass transfer effects, which create additional thermal resistances,
thereby reducing the heat transfer coefficient considerably.
Let us look at some of the possible modes of condensation to have a better
understanding of the phenomenon.
Laminar Wavy
clined or even vertical.) Figure 6.1 represents the
situation, wherein it will be seen that the condensate
film flows under the influence of both the shear
force and the force of gravity, and is restrained by
the shear force (friction) at the wall. Based on the
balance of these forces and the liquid and vapor
flow rates and their physical properties, the film
thickness can be determined.
Gravity-controlled condensation
Here, the force of gravity is considerably greater
Condensate
Turbulent
Fig. 6.2 Typical variation of gravity-controlled condensate film heat transfer coef-
ficient with liquid Reynolds number (redrawn with permission from HTRI)
behavior, whether the condensation is inside vertical tubes or horizontal tubes and, in fact,
even when it is outside tubes.
Shear-controlled condensation
In this regime, the vapor velocity is very high and, therefore, the gravity component be-
comes negligible. The flow pattern is annular and is shown in Fig. 6.3a. The variation of
the condensate film heat transfer coefficient with vapor Reynolds number is essentially
linear and is represented graphically in Fig. 6.3b. Evidently, for the same Reynolds num-
ber, the heat transfer coefficient will be higher when the Prandtl number of the conden-
sate is higher.
The main flow pattern of vertical in-tube down flow is the existence of annular flow for
a wide range of flow
conditions. In fact, for
Fs a low flow rate case,
annular flow persists
throughout the entire
tube.
58
Condensate film heat transfer coefficient
Prandtl no.
Fig. 6.3b Typical variation of ahear-controlled condensate film heat transfer coefficient with
vapor Reynolds number (redrawn with permission from HTRI)
High Flow
Low Flow
Fig. 6.4a Stratified and annular flow in horizontal in-tube condensation (redrawn with permission
from HTRI)
59
(a) (b)
Fig. 6.4b Stratified and annular flow in horizontal in-tube condensation (re-
drawn from the Heat Exchanger Design Handbook 2002, with permission of
Begell House, Inc.)
60
Pressure drop
The determination of pressure drop in a condenser is a very complex task since the velo-
city and flow pattern change constantly along the flow path. The various components of
pressure drop in an air-cooled condenser are as follows:
a) inlet and exit losses (contraction and expansion) in nozzles and headers
b) two-phase friction loss
c) static head
d) momentum change
The static head is usually insignificant in condensers.
The momentum change results in a pressure gain since there is deceleration of the vapor
as its flow rate decreases with the progress of condensation. However, this is insignificant
unless the condenser operates under vacuum, in which case the pressure gain could be
substantial.
The two-phase friction is usually the largest component of the overall pressure drop and
is determined stepwise along the length of the condenser, using Martinelli’s or other
correlations. The Martinelli correlation is particularly accurate for condensing inside
horizontal tubes.
62
Note also in Table 6.1b that the permitted tubeside pressure drop of 2.84 psi (0.2 kg/cm2)
has been fully utilized, which means that the tubeside heat transfer coefficient is the highest
that can be achieved.
Just to give the reader an idea of the extent of change in performance with increased
tubeside mass velocity, let us assume that the allowable tubeside pressure drop is 10 psi, and
increase the number of tube passes from the present two to three. While the tubeside heat
transfer coefficient increases from 413.7 Btu/h ft2 °F (2020 kcal/h m2 °C/kcal) to 459.4 Btu/h
ft2 °F (2243 kcal/h m2 °C/kcal), an increase of only 11%, the tubeside pressure drop increases
sharply from 2.84 psi (0.2 kg/cm2) to 9.23 psi (0.65 kg/cm2), an increase of 225%. This is
typical of isothermal condensers. Even with a relatively low tubeside mass velocity, the
tubeside heat transfer coefficient is quite high, and an attempt to increase the mass velocity
does not yield an appreciable increase in the heat transfer coefficient, while the pressure drop
increases to the square of the mass velocity, just as in the flow of single-phase fluids.
It was stated in Chapter 5 that for sensible cooling of gases and liquids in the turbulent
regime, the heat transfer coefficient varies to the 0.8 power of mass velocity while the
pressure drop varies to the power 2. In the preceding analysis, we see that while the pressure
drop does increase to the power 2 of the mass velocity, the heat transfer coefficient increases
only to the power 0.26.
In the present condenser, the regime is shear controlled from the inlet (full vapor) until a
vapor weight fraction of about 0.4, and the tubeside heat transfer coefficient varies from 756
Btu/h ft2 °F (3690 kcal/h m2 °C/kcal) to 444 Btu/h ft2 °F (2168 kcal/h m2 °C/kcal). Thereafter,
the condenser is in the transition region until a vapor weight fraction of about 0.08, and the
tubeside heat transfer coefficient varies from 385 Btu/h ft2 °F (1879 kcal/h m2 °C/kcal) to
278 Btu/h ft2 °F (1357 kcal/h m2 °C/kcal). Finally, the condenser is in the gravity-controlled
region only in the last increment of the condenser with a tubeside heat transfer coefficient of
217 Btu/h ft2 °F (1061 kcal/h m2 °C/kcal). This large variation clearly demonstrates the
influence of vapor shear on the tubeside heat transfer coefficient.
63
Table 6.2a: Principal process parameters for air-cooled condenser for Case Study 6.2
1. Fluid Butane + Pentane
2. Flow rate, lb/h (kg/h) 262,350 (119,000)
3. Temperature in/out, °F (°C) 159.8 (71)/141.8 (61)
4. Operating pressure, psia (kg/cm2a) 49.77 (3.5)
5. Weight fraction vapor, in/out 1/0
6. Total allowable pressure drop, psi (kg/cm2) 2.84 (0.2)
7. Fouling resistance, h ft2 °F/Btu (h m2 °C/kcal) 0.00146 (0.0003)
8. Heat duty, MM Btu/h (MM kcal/h) 39.0 (9.83)
9. Vapor properties Density, lb/ft3 (kg/m3) 36.2 (580)
(average) Viscosity, cp 0.17
Specific heat, Btu/lb °F (kcal/kg °C) 0.6
Thermal conductivity, Btu/h ft °F (kcal/h m °C) 0.053 (0.079)
10. Liquid properties Density, lb/ft3 (kg/m3) 0.58 (9.3)
(average) Viscosity, cp 0.01
Specific heat, Btu/lb °F (kcal/kg °C) 0.462
Thermal conductivity, Btu/h ft °F (kcal/h m °C) 0.0116 (0.0173)
Table 6.2b: Principal construction and performance parameters of air-cooled condenser for
Case Study 6.2
1. No. of bays 4
2. No. of bundles per bay 2
3. Tube OD × thickness × length, in. (mm) 0.984 (25) × 0.098 (2.5) × 492 (12500)
4. Fin density, fins/in. (fins/m) × fin height, in. (mm) 11 (433) × 0.63 (16)
5. No. of tubes per row × no. of rows × tube pitch, in. (mm) 44 × 6 × 2.64 (67)
6. No. of tube passes 2
7. Total bare tube area, ft2 (m2) 15,720 (1461)
8. Total extended area, ft2 (m2) 76,963 (34,910)
9. Fans per bay × fan diameter, ft (m) 2 × 12 (3.658)
10. Total air flow rate, MM lb/h (MM kg/h) 6.504 (2.95)
11. Air outlet temperature, °F (°C) 134.4 (56.9)
12. Airside face velocity, ft/s (m/s) 11.2 (3.41)
13. Airside pressure drop, in. WC (mm WC) 0.48 (12.1)
14. Individual fan power, HP (kW) 24.8 (18.5)
15. Total fan power, HP (kW) 198.4 (148)
16. Heat transfer coefficient, Tubeside 257.9 (1259)
Btu/h ft2 °F/ (kcal/h m2 °C/kcal)
Airside 187.3 (914.5)
Overall 88.1 (430)
17. Tubeside pressure drop, allowable/calc., psi (kg/cm2) 2.84 (0.2)/1.6 (0.11)
18. Thermal resistance, % Airside 47.04
Tubeside 34.18
Fouling 16.13
Tube wall 2.65
19. MTD, °F (°C) 28.8 (16.0)
20. Overdesign, % 2.15
64
The airside thermal resistance is still controlling, at 47.04%. Thus, the use of a higher fin
height of 0.63 in. (16 mm) is judicious.
Note that the tubeside pressure drop has been utilized only a little more than 50%.
However, an increase in the number of tube passes from two to three is not possible since
the pressure drop will increase by approximately (1.5)2.8 or 3 times, which will push the
pressure drop to well beyond the permissible limit.
One will also discern that the fan power consumption (24.8 HP or 18.5 kW) is
somewhat on the low side. Thus, since the airside is controlling, one could be tempted to
consider reducing the number of tubes per row and increasing the airside heat transfer
coefficient at the expense of a higher power consumption, to make up for the reduction in
heat transfer area. Unfortunately, as has been propounded in Chapter 5, the increase in
airside power consumption with increased velocity is far, far greater than the increase in heat
transfer coefficient. Thus, it is unlikely that a better design can be produced at the expense of
higher fan power consumption.
Coming to the breakup of the tubeside heat transfer coefficient, the condenser is in the
shear-controlled regime from the inlet down to a vapor weight fraction of about 0.55, with a
tubeside heat transfer coefficient of 386 Btu/h ft2 °F (1884 kcal/h m2 °C/kcal) to 282 Btu/h ft2
°F (1376 kcal/h m2 °C/kcal). Thereafter, it is in the transition region down to a vapor weight
fraction of about 16%, with a tubeside heat transfer coefficient of 277 Btu/h ft2 °F (1352
kcal/h m2 °C/kcal) to 223 Btu/h ft2 °F (1088 kcal/h m2 °C/kcal). Finally, the condenser is in
the gravity-controlled regime thereafter, with a tubeside heat transfer coefficient of 209
Btu/h ft2 °F (1021 kcal/h m2 °C/kcal) to 110 Btu/h ft2 °F (537 kcal/h m2 °C/kcal). Notice the
sharp reduction in the tubeside heat transfer coefficient, from 386 Btu/h ft2 °F (1884 kcal/h
m2 °C/kcal) at the beginning of the condenser to a mere110 Btu/h ft2 °F (537 kcal/h m2
°C/kcal) at the end. Once again, this vividly demonstrates the effect of shear on the
condensing heat transfer coefficient.
It may also be seen that as compared to isothermal condensation (in Case Study 6.1),
condensation of even a narrow-range condensing application yields a significantly lower
heat transfer coefficient.
We will now take a look at a wide-range condenser as specified in Table 6.3a. Saturated
vapor enters the condenser at 235.4°F (113°C). At the exit of the condenser, 52% vapor is
left uncondensed, so this is a partial condenser with a very wide condensing range. Thus,
we would expect a much lower tubeside heat transfer coefficient than what we saw in the
previous examples. To make matters worse, the operating pressure of the process stream
is very low. The consequent low vapor density will penalize the tubeside heat transfer
coefficient even further.
Tubes were to be of carbon steel, 0.984 in. (25 mm) OD, 0.118 in. (3.0 mm) thick, and
34.5 ft (10.5 m) long and the fins were to of aluminum.
Since the tubeside heat transfer coefficient is expected to be rather low and therefore
controlling, a smaller fin height of 0.49 in. (12.5 mm) was employed. The principal
construction and performance parameters of the thermal design that emerged are indicated in
Table 6.3b.
This is yet another large condenser having four bays, two bundles per bay, and a total
bare tube heat transfer area of 24,447 ft2 (2272 m2).
65
Table 6.3a: Principal process parameters for air-cooled condenser for Case Study 6.3
1. Fluid Hydrocarbon mixture
2. Flow rate, lb/h (kg/h) 348,300 (158,000)
3. Temperature in/out, °F (°C) 235.4 (113)/147.2 (64)
4. Operating pressure, psia (kg/cm2a) 28.4 (2.0)
5. Weight fraction vapor, in/out 1/0.52
6. Total allowable pressure drop, psi (kg/cm2) 1.4 (0.1)
7. Fouling resistance, h ft2 °F/Btu (h m2 °C/kcal) 0.00195 (0.0004)
8. Heat duty, MM Btu/h (MM kcal/h) 60.2 (15.17)
9. Vapor properties Density in/out, lb/ft3 (kg/m3) 0.2 (3.12)/0.17 (2.7)
Viscosity in/out, cp 0.012/0.01
Specific heat in/out, Btu/lb °F (kcal/kg °C) 0.46/0.44
Thermal conductivity in/out, Btu/h ft °F 0.016 (0.0238)/0.014 (0.021)
(kcal/h m °C)
10. Liquid properties Density in/out, lb/ft3 (kg/m3) 44.9 (720)/46.55 (746))
Viscosity in/out, cp 0.26/0.42
Specific heat in/out, Btu/lb °F (kcal/kg °C) 0.61/0.582
Thermal conductivity in/out, Btu/h ft °F 0.063 (0.094)/0.071 (0.106)
(kcal/h m °C)
Table 6.3b: Principal construction and performance parameters of air-cooled condenser for Case
Study 6.3
1. No. of bays 4
2. No. of bundles per bay 2
3. Tube OD × thickness × length, in. (mm) 0.984 (25) × 0.118 (3.0) × 413 (10500)
4. Fin density, fins/in. (fins/m) × fin height, in. (mm) 11 (433) × 0.49 (12.5)
5. No. of tubes per row × no. of rows × tube pitch, in. (mm) 44 × 8 × 2.36 (60)
6. No. of tube passes One
7. Total bare tube area, ft2 (m2) 24,447 (2272)
8. Total extended area, ft2 (m2) 424,245 (39,428)
9. Fans per bay × fan diameter, ft (m) 2 × 13 (3.962)
10. Total air flow rate, MM lb/h (MM kg/h) 6.06 (2.75)
11. Air outlet temperature, °F (°C) 147 (63.9)
12. Airside face velocity, ft/s (m/s) 10.0 (3.04)
13. Airside pressure drop, in. WC (mm WC) 0.62 (15.77)
14. Individual fan power, HP (kW) 25.5 (19.05)
15. Total fan power, HP (kW) 204 (152.4)
16. Heat transfer coefficient, Btu/h Tubeside 123.8 (604.4)
ft2 °F/ (kcal/h m2 °C/kcal)
Airside 152.8 (746)
Overall 56.9 (278)
17. Tubeside pressure drop, allowable/calc., psi (kg/cm2) 1.4 (0.1)/1.4 (0.1)
18. Thermal resistance, % Airside 37.2
Tubeside 46.02
Fouling 14.61
Tube wall 2.16
19. MTD, °F (°C) 48.2 (26.8)
20. Overdesign, % 11.5
66
Table 6.4a: Principal process parameters for air-cooled condenser for Case Study 6.4
1. Fluid Hydrocarbon mixture
2. Flow rate, lb/h (kg/h) 348,300 (158,000)
3. Temperature in/out, °F (°C) 235.4 (113)/147.2 (64)
4. Operating pressure, psia (kg/cm2a) 199 (14.0)
5. Weight fraction vapor, in/out 1/0.52
6. Total allowable pressure drop, psi (kg/cm2) 2.5 (0.18)
7. Fouling resistance, h ft2 °F/Btu (h m2 °C/kcal) 0.00195 (0.0004)
8. Heat duty, MM Btu/h (MM kcal/h) 60.2 (15.17)
9. Vapor properties Density in/out, lb/ft3 (kg/m3) 1.4 (21.84)/1.19 (18.9)
Viscosity in/out, cp 0.012/0.01
Specific heat in/out, Btu/lb °F (kcal/kg °C) 0.46/0.44
Thermal conductivity in/out, 0.016 (0.0238)/0.014 (0.021)
Btu/h ft °F (kcal/h m °C)
10. Liquid properties Density in/out, lb/ft3 (kg/m3) 44.9 (720)/46.55 (746))
Viscosity in/out, cp 0.26/0.42
Specific heat in/out, Btu/lb °F (kcal/kg °C) 0.61/0.582
Thermal conductivity in/out, 0.063 (0.094)/0.071 (0.106)
Btu/h ft °F (kcal/h m °C)
The most crucial feature to notice here is that the tubeside heat transfer coefficient has
come down considerably from the previous case—from 257.9 Btu/h ft2 °F (1259 kcal/h m2
°C/kcal) to 123.8 Btu/h ft2 °F (604.4 kcal/h m2 °C/kcal). This is only to be expected since we
are now looking at condensation through a much wider temperature range, involving a much
larger vapor cooling load and much higher diffusion resistance. The tubeside thermal
resistance is 46.02%, while the airside thermal resistance is 37.2%. Thus, the tubeside
thermal resistance is controlling.
From this and the earlier two case studies, we see clearly that the wider the condensing
range of a condenser, the lower the tubeside heat transfer coefficient we can expect.
67
Note the significantly higher tubeside mass velocity in the second design (17.03 lb/s ft2
or 83.14 kg/s m2) than in the first (8.48 lb/s ft2 or 41.4 kg/s m2). This results in a much higher
tubeside heat transfer coefficient, 171.7 Btu/h ft2 °F (838.3kcal/h m2 °C), and the consequent
lower heat transfer area.
Since the number of sections was reduced from four to three, the total face area came
down by 25%. Thus, for a meaningful comparison, the air flow rate had to be reduced so that
the fan power consumption remained the same. Notice that in the second design, the air
pressure drop was lower (0.57 in. or 14.4 mm WC versus 0.62 in. or 15.77 mm WC) but
since the volumetric flow rate per fan was higher (192,140 cfm or 5440 m3/min versus
180,960 cfm or 5124 m3/min), the fan power consumption was the same. Also, due to the
lower air flow rate in the second design, there was a small reduction in the MTD, from
48.2°F (26.8°C) to 46.1°F (25.6°C).
It will therefore be seen that even for a wide-range condenser, the tubeside heat transfer
coefficient need not be very low, provided the operating pressure is sufficiently high. Put in
other words, the tubeside heat transfer coefficient in a condenser can be expected to be
higher with an increase in the operating pressure of the system.
In terms of both the operating pressure and the condensing range of a condenser, we can
state that the higher the operating pressure and the lower the condensing range, the higher
will be the tubeside heat transfer coefficient.
6.5.1 Desuperheating
The tube wall temperature will always be lower than the bulk vapor temperature, since
coolant flows on the other side. True desuperheating will exist only as long as the tube
68
wall temperature is greater than the vapor saturation temperature. If the tube wall tem-
perature is less than the dew point of the vapor, it is said to be a “wet wall condition.”
However, if the tube wall temperature is greater than the dew point, it is said to be “dry
wall condition.”
The tube wall temperature will depend on both the heat transfer coefficient of the
desuperheating vapor and that of the air. Since the former will invariably be lower than the
latter, the tube wall temperature will tend to be closer to the air bulk temperature.
Consequently, only a part of the desuperheating heat duty will be transferred as gas cooling,
while the rest will be transferred as condensing. Evidently, how much of the heat duty will
be transferred as gas cooling (dry wall) and how much as condensing (wet wall) will depend
on the extent of superheating and the desuperheating and the air heat transfer coefficients.
This will be observed in the case study presented later in this section.
In actual practice, the phenomenon is somewhat complicated since, even with wet-wall
desuperheating, the bulk vapor is still superheated. Thus, although condensate forms at the
tube wall, the uncondensed superheated vapor reflashes some of the condensate. This
process continues until the bulk vapor cools down to the dew point when true condensation
begins. For all practical purposes, however, the heat transfer coefficient in the wet-wall
condition is virtually the same as in the true condensing mode; in reality, it is somewhat
lower.
All sophisticated heat exchanger thermal design software can handle desuperheating in
both the dry-wall and wet-wall modes described above.
The penalty (in the form of additional heat transfer area) associated with desuperheating
is usually rather small since the loss in the overall heat transfer coefficient is largely
compensated by the increase in the MTD. The greater the degree of superheating, the greater
is the decrease in the heat transfer coefficient; but then, the greater is the increase in the
MTD. Consequently, for the same total heat duty, the difference in the heat transfer area
between only condensing and condensing preceded by desuperheating is usually not
appreciable. However, the pressure drop may increase appreciably, especially if the
operating pressure is low.
Let us consider the propane condenser presented in case Study 6.1. In that example, the
propane entering the condenser was saturated. In order to demonstrate the effect of su-
perheat on the performance of a condenser, we shall consider an arbitrary case of propane
superheating: 248°F (120°C). The saturation temperature is 165.2°F (74°C).
The principal process parameters for this new condition are shown in the second column
of Table 6.5a. For the sake of comparison, the corresponding parameters for Case Study 6.1
are shown in the first column of the same table. Note that the heat duty has gone up from
37.5 M Btu/h (9.44 M kcal/h) to 46.7 M Btu/h (11.77 M kcal/h), an increase of 24.7%.
A new design was generated and the principal construction and performance parameters
of the same are indicated in the second column of Table 6.5b. Once again, for the sake of
comparison, the corresponding values for Case Study 6.1 are shown in the first column of
the same table. The new design has a few more tubes per row (48 versus 43) and an
increased tube length (32.8 ft or 10 m versus 29.5 ft or 9.0 m). Since both the number of
tubes per row and the tube length were higher, the fan diameter was increased from 12 ft
(3.657 m) to 14 ft (4.267 m) to incorporate the minimum 40% area coverage.
69
Table 6.5a: Principal process parameters for air-cooled condenser for Case Study 6.5
Original design for New design for
Case Study 6.1 Case Study 6.5
1. Fluid Pentane
2. Flow rate, lb/h (kg/h) 264,600 (120,000)
3. Temperature in/out, °F (°C) 169.2 (76.2)/165.2 (74) 239 (115)/165.2 (74)
4. Operating pressure, psia (kg/cm2 a) 49.8 (3.5)
5. Weight fraction vapor, in/out 1.0/0.01
6. Total allowable pressure drop, psi (kg/cm2) 2.84 (0.2)
7. Fouling resistance, h ft2 °F/Btu (h m2 °C/kcal) 0.00146 (0.0003)
8. Heat duty, MM Btu/h (MM kcal/h) 37.5 (9.44) 46.7 (11.77)
9. Vapor properties Density in/out, lb/ft3 (kg/m3) 0.6 (9.609)/0.57 (9.1) 0.53 (8.43)/0.57 (9.1)
Viscosity in/out, cp 0.0085/0.0085 0.0094/0.0085
Specific heat in/out,
0.484/0.481 0.518/0.481
Btu/lb °F (kcal/kg °C)
Thermal conductivity in/out, 0.0114 (0.017)/ 0.014 (0.021)/
Btu/h ft °F (kcal/h m °C) 0.0113 (0.0168) 0.0113 (0.0168)
10. Liquid properties Density out, lb/ft3 (kg/m3) 35.3 (566)
Viscosity out, cp 0.144
Specific heat out,
0.632
Btu/lb °F (kcal/kg °C)
Thermal conductivity out,
0.0554 (0.0824)
Btu/h ft °F (kcal/h m °C)
For the sake of a meaningful comparison, the overdesign in the new design was kept the
same as the earlier one, and the fan power consumption was only marginally higher.
Note how the tubeside heat transfer coefficient has come down from 413.7 Btu/h ft2 °F
(2020 kcal/h m2 °C) to 300.3 Btu/h ft2 °F (1466 kcal/h m2 °C), a reduction of 27.4%. This is
because in the desuperheating zone, especially in the dry-wall desuperheating zone, the
tubeside heat transfer coefficient is much lower than that in the condensing zone. The
variation in the tubeside heat transfer coefficient in Btu/h ft2 °F (kcal/h m2 °C) in the various
zones is as follows:
Dry-wall desuperheating zone: 73.4 (358) to 97.5 (476)
Wet-wall desuperheating: 122.2 (597) to 411.4 (2009)
Condensing: 555.3 (2711) to 720.9 (3520)
However, the overall heat transfer coefficient has changed far less, from 99.3 Btu/h ft2 °F
(485 kcal/h m2 °C) to 90.1 Btu/h ft2 °F (440 kcal/h m2 °C), which is a reduction of only
9.2%. This is because the airside thermal resistance is controlling far more than the tube-
side thermal resistance (which is only to be expected in a condenser) and this value has
gone down by only about 2%.
Looking at the MTD, we notice that it has increased from 37.1°F (20.6°C) to 41.2°F
(22.9°C), an increase of 11.2%.
Thus, the net result is that for case Study 6.5, which is a heat duty 24.7% higher, the heat
transfer area is 24% higher. This corroborates what had been stated earlier in this section,
that the penalty (in the form of additional heat transfer area) associated with desuperheating
is usually rather small since the loss in the overall heat transfer coefficient is largely
compensated by the increase in the MTD. In fact, in the present instance, the increase in the
heat transfer area is slightly less than the increase in the heat duty! Note that for a
70
Table 6.5b: Principal construction and performance parameters of air-cooled condenser for
Case Study 6.5
Original design for New design for
Case Study 6.1 Case Study 6.5
1. No. of bays × no. of bundles per bay 3×2
2. Tube OD × thickness, in. (mm) 0.984 (25) × 0.098 (2.5)
3. Tube length, ft (m) 29.5 (9.0) 32.8 (10.0)
4. Fin density, fins/in. (fins/m) 11 (433)
5. No. of tubes per row × no. of rows 43 × 6 48 × 6
6. No. of tube passes × tube pitch, in. (mm) 2 × 2.64 (67)
7. Total bare tube area, ft2 (m2) 11,524 (1071) 14,289 (1328)
8. Total extended area, ft2 (m2) 275,316 (25,587) 341,329 (31,722)
9. Fans per bay × fan diameter, ft (m) 2 × 3.758 2 × 14 (4.267)
10. Total air flow rate, MM lb/h (MM kg/h) 4.41 (2.0) 5.236 (2.375)
11. Air outlet temperature, °F (°C) 144.7 (62.6) 146.5 (63.6)
12. Airside face velocity, ft/s (m/s) 10.3 (3.15) 9.91 (3.02)
13. Airside pressure drop, in. WC (mm WC) 0.43 (10.9) 0.4 (10.2)
14. Individual fan power, HP (kW) 19.6 (14.6) 20.8 (15.5)
15. Total fan power, HP (kW) 117.6 (87.6) 124.8 ((93))
16. Heat transfer coefficient, Tubeside 413.7 (2020) 300.3 (1466)
Btu/h ft2 °F/ (kcal/h m2 °C/kcal)
Airside 181.5 (886) 178 (869)
Overall 99.3 (485) 90.1 (440)
17. Thermal resistance, % Airside 54.78 50.67
Tubeside 24.02 30.03
Fouling 18.19 16.51
Tube wall 3.01 2.78
18. Tubeside pressure drop, allow/calc., psi (kg/cm2) 2.84 (0.2)/ 2.84 (0.2) 2.84 (0.2)/2.7 (0.19)
19. MTD, °F (°C) 37.1 (20.6) 41.2 (22.9)
20. Overdesign, % 13.6 13.6
meaningful comparison, both the overdesign and the fan power consumption have been kept
virtually identical.
6.5.2 Subcooling
Subcooling is a rare phenomenon in air-cooled heat exchangers. More often than not, air-
cooled condensers are followed by shell-and-tube water-cooled trim condensers, so that
even if subcooling were required, it would be in the trim condenser and not in the air-
cooled condenser.
Subcooling in horizontal tubeside condensers (such as in air-cooled condensers) will be
efficient if the total mass velocity is high, when the condensation will progress from annular
to slug and finally to the full tube of liquid. However, if the total mass velocity is low, so that
the condensation progresses from annular to wavy and then to stratified, subcooling is
ineffective and difficult to predict accurately.
The usual problem of low velocity for subcooling that is found in horizontal shell-and-
tube condensers, however, can be addressed very effectively in air-cooled condensers by
dividing the subcooling zone into several passes, so as to yield a high tubeside liquid
velocity. Thus, if there are six tube rows in an air-cooled condenser, the first pass can have
three tube rows, the second pass two tube rows, and the final tube row can be divided into
71
two, three, or even four passes such as to achieve a decent liquid velocity and thereby a
satisfactory heat transfer coefficient. This is eminently feasible since the pressure drop in the
subcooling zone is far, far less than that in the condensing zone.
72
70
Temperature, OC
60
50
40
Length of Condenser
Fig. 6.5b Condensing profile of a pure component
A
B AB: Desuperheating, BC:
Condensing, CD: Subcooling
Temperature, OC
C
D
Length of Condenser
Fig. 6.5c Desuperheating, condensing, and subcooling profile
is particularly true when the condensing stream is a multicomponent mixture. Due to the
effect of partial pressures, the less volatile components will condense first, and the more
volatile components later. Thus, since more heat duty will be transferred per unit of
temperature difference at the hotter end of the condenser than at the colder end, the slope of
the curve will be steeper at the hotter end than at the colder end, as shown in Fig. 6.5a.
However, a pure component condenser will have an isothermal heat release profile, as
shown in Fig. 6.5b.
The situation is further complicated when desuperheating and/or subcooling zones are
also present. A typical desuperheating, condensing, and subcooling situation is shown in
Fig.6.5c. Evidently, if the condensing stream is a pure component, the profile in the
condensing zone will be linear.
It is extremely important to feed the condenser heat release profile to the thermal design
73
software. The entire profile will have to be divided into a sufficiently large number of
virtually straight-line segments, and the calculations performed segmentwise. This is
important because not only the MTD, but even the tubeside condensing heat transfer
coefficient, will vary significantly from inlet to outlet. The higher condensing duty at the
inlet end will produce a correspondingly higher heat transfer coefficient.
Besides heat duty, the vapor weight fraction will also have to be fed against temperature.
This can be easily understood, since the relative amounts of vapor and liquid in the
condensing stream will determine the heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop in various
segments (increments of tube length).
74
CHAPTER 7
Optimization of thermal design is a much more challenging and rewarding task for air-
cooled heat exchangers than for shell-and-tube heat exchangers. In shell-and-tube heat
exchangers, the cooling water flow rate is virtually fixed by the cooling water inlet tem-
perature and the maximum cooling water outlet temperature, usually a temperature dif-
ference of 18–21.6°F (10–12°C). However, in the case of air-cooled heat exchangers, the
air flow rate is much more flexible and has to be optimized carefully.
Besides the air flow rate itself, the other variables are tube length, tube OD, fin height,
fin spacing, number of tube rows, fan power consumption, tube pitch, and number of tube
passes that have to be optimized in terms of the lowest total cost (fixed cost plus operating
cost). Another complication is that the fan size is linked to the tube length and section width,
thereby making the total optimization rather difficult. Finally, the number of tube bundles
has to be an even number so that we have a whole number of bays. The use of a
sophisticated computer program thus becomes essential for this task. Let us consider the
individual variables in more detail.
75
Table 7.1a: Principal process parameters for air-cooled condenser for Case Study 7.1
1. Fluid Distillation column overhead
2. Flow rate, lb/h (kg/h) 1,025,100 (465,000)
3. Temperature in/out, °F (°C) 255 (124)/131 (55)
4. Operating pressure, psia (kg/cm2a) 55.5 (3.9)
5. Total allowable pressure drop, psi (kg/cm2) 2.0 (0.14)
6. Fouling resistance, h ft2 °F/Btu (h m2 °C/kcal) 0.001 (0.0002)
7. Heat duty, MM Btu/h (MM kcal/h) 251.2 (63.3)
8. Vapor properties Density in/out, lb/ft3 (kg/m3) 0.52 (8.25)/0.41 (6.53)
Viscosity in/out, cp 0.009/0.0088
Specific heat in/out, Btu/lb °F (kcal/kg °C) 0.46/0.43
Thermal conductivity in/out,
0.0134(0.02)/0.0119 (0.0178)
Btu/h ft °F (kcal/h m °C)
9. Liquid properties Density in/out, lb/ft3 (kg/m3) 40.65 (651)/ 42.3 (678)
Viscosity in/out, cp 0.36/0.58
Specific heat in/out, Btu/lb °F (kcal/kg °C) 0.54/0.51
Thermal conductivity in/out, Btu/h ft °F
0.053 (0.079)/0.07 (0.105)
(kcal/h m °C)
much smaller and the pipe rack width is only 19.7 ft (6 m), a tube length of 21.3 ft (6.5 m)
will be adopted. Evidently, smaller fans of, say, 8.2 ft (2.5 m) will have to be employed in
this case.
Sometimes, air-cooled heat exchangers are grade mounted. In such cases, the above
limitation will not apply and a better optimization of the tube length can be realized. It is
evident that the number of tube bundles will have to be an even number since two of them
are combined to form one section.
7.2 Tube OD
Just as in shell-and-tube heat exchangers, an air-cooled heat exchanger will also be
cheaper the smaller the tube diameter. However, the smaller the tube diameter, the more
difficult is the cleaning of the tubes. A 1 in. (25 mm) OD is the smallest tube diameter
recommended by API 661 (Section 4.1.11.1) and most air-cooled heat exchangers are
constructed with tubes of this size. However, in pressure drop limiting cases, a larger tube
diameter may yield a better design. For example, with 0.984 in. (25 mm) OD tubes, a par-
ticular design may give a pressure drop exceeding the permitted value with two tube
passes. If the number of tube passes is reduced to one, the pressure drop will reduce to
approximately one-seventh the earlier value and therefore become okay. However, the
tubeside heat transfer coefficient will reduce appreciably, thus requiring a higher heat
transfer area. In this situation, 1.26 in. (32 mm) OD tubes with two tube passes may give
a much more economical design.
with eight bays having two tube bundles each was made. The other construction and
performance details are given in Table 7.1b. With two tube passes, the tubeside pressure
drop of 4.7 psi (0.33 kg/cm2) far exceeded the allowable limit of 2.0 psi (0.14 kg/cm2), and
was therefore not acceptable.
In an attempt to reduce the tubeside pressure drop, the number of tube passes was
decreased from two to one. As expected, there was a sharp fall in the tubeside pressure drop
from 4.7 psi (0.33 kg/cm2) to 0.85 psi (0.06 kg/cm2), which was well within the permitted
value. However, since the tubeside heat transfer coefficient also fell sharply from 191 Btu/h
ft2 °F (933 kcal/h m2 °C/kcal) to 124 Btu/h ft2 °F (606 kcal/h m2 °C/kcal), the condenser
became 18% undersurfaced.
The number of tube rows had to be increased from six to eight to make the condenser
design adequately surfaced. Construction details of this and the earlier design are also shown
in Table 7.1b.
Evidently, this design with 0.984 in. (25 mm) OD tubes and a single tube pass is
uneconomical since the permitted tubeside pressure drop is very poorly utilized, thereby
resulting in a rather low tubeside heat transfer coefficient and consequently a large heat
exchanger. Therefore, a design was attempted with 1.22 in. (31 mm) OD and 0.098 in. (2.5
mm) thick tubes, using two tube passes. The design was found to be far more economical
since the heat transfer area reduced appreciably, from 63,452 ft2 (5897 m2) to 55,349 ft2
(5144 m2). This is because the permitted tubeside pressure drop was almost fully utilized so
that the tubeside and thereby the overall heat transfer coefficient were much higher.
Construction details of the revised design are also given in Table 7.1b. Needless to say, this
design was selected as the final one.
77
Table 7.2a: Principal process parameters for air-cooled tempered
water cooler for Case Study 7.2
1. Fluid Tempered (hot) water
2. Flow rate, lb/h (kg/h) 485,000 (220,000)
3. Temperature in/out, °F (°C) 249.8 (121)/140 (60)
4. Operating pressure, psia (kg/cm2a) 78.2 (5.5)
5. Total allowable pressure drop, psi (kg/cm2) 7.1 (0.5)
6. Fouling resistance, h ft2 °F/Btu (h m2 °C/kcal) 0.00098 (0.0002)
7. Heat duty, MM Btu/h (MM kcal/h) 53.34 (13.44)
78
Table 7.2b: Principal construction and performance parameters of air-cooled heat
exchanger for Case Study 7.2
Fin height, in. (mm)
0.5 (12.7) 0.625 (15.875)
1. No. of bays 2 2
2. No. of bundles per bay 2 2
3. Tube OD × thickness × length, in. (mm) 0.984 (25) × 0.098 (2.5) × 492 (12500)
4. Fin density, fins/in. (fins/m) 11 (433)
5. No. of tubes per row × no. of rows × tube pitch, Alternately 42 and
48 × 4 × 2.36 (60)
in. (mm) 43 × 4 × 2.64 (67)
6. No. of tube passes 4 4
7. Total bare tube area, ft2 (m2) 8283 (739) 7037 (654)
8. Total extended area, ft2 (m2) 140,890 (13,094) 166,380 (15,463)
9. Fans per bay × fan diameter, ft (m) 2 × 15 (4.572) 2 × 15 (4.57)
10. Total air flow rate, MM lb/h (MM kg/h) 5.093 (2.31) 5.24 (2.376)
11. Air outlet temperature, °F (°C) 151 (66.1) 149.7 (65.4)
12. Airside face velocity, ft/s (m/s) 12.86 (3.92) 13.4 (4.08)
13. Airside pressure drop, in. WC (mm WC) 0.5 (12.65) 0.47 (11.86)
14. Individual fan power, HP (kW) 40 (29.8) 39.8 (29.7)
15. Total fan power, HP (kW) 160 (119.2) 159.2 (118.8)
16. Tubeside velocity, ft/s (m/s) 3.4 (1.04) 3.9 (1.19)
17. Heat transfer coefficient, Tubeside 939.9 (4589) 1038 (5070)
Btu/h ft2 °F/ (kcal/h m2 °C/kcal) Airside 174.4 (851.4) 199.9 (976)
Overall 120 (586) 133.3 (651)
2
18. Tubeside pressure drop, psi (kg/cm ) 5.75 (0.404) 0.5
19. MTD, °F (°C) 58.9 (32.7) 60.1 (33.4)
19. Overdesign, % 5.4 6.2
increase in cost than the saving due to the lower tube cost. (The fabrication cost, which
represents a major component of the cost of a finned tube, depends on the length of tubing to
be finned and does not vary significantly with fin height.) Since in the 5/8 in. (15.875 mm)
fin height design there will be 11.5% less tubes to fins, the overall cost of this design will be
less since both the tube cost and the cost of finning will be lower.
Table 7.3b: Principal construction and performance parameters for Case Study 7.3
Fin height, in. (mm)
0.5 (12.7) 0.625 (15.875)
1. No. of bays 2 2
2. No. of bundles per bay 2 2
3. Tube OD × thk × length, in. (mm) 0.984 (25) × 0.098 (2.5) × 492 (12500)
4. Fin density, fins/in. (fins/m) 7 (276)
5. No. of tubes per row × no. of rows × tube
50 × 8 × 2.36 (60) 45 × 9 × 2.64 (67)
pitch, in. (mm)
6. No. of tube passes 10 (2 each in the first 2 10 (2 each in the first
rows, one each in the other 2 rows, one each in
6 rows) the other 7 rows)
7. Total bare tube area, ft2 (m2) 16,527 (1536) 16,720 (1554)
8. Total extended surface area, ft2 (m2) 193,056 (17,942) 53,000 (24,040)
9. Fans per bay × fan diameter, ft (m) 2 × 15 (4.572) 2 × 15 (4.572)
10. Total air flow rate, lb/h (kg/h) 3,530,000 (1,600,00)
11. Air outlet temperature, °F (°C) 134.4 (56.9)
12. Fan power consumption, HP (kW) 4 × 19.3 = 77.2
13. Tubeside pressure drop, psi (kg/cm2) 21.9 (1.54) 19.8 (1.39)
14. Overdesign, % 5.7 5.7
retained the same as in the base design, since the tube pitch was now 2.64 in. (67 mm) as
against the earlier 2.36 in. (60 mm). The airside flow rate was adjusted to 1660,000 kg/h so
as to yield the same power consumption. However, the tubeside pressure drop became
excessive at 1.85 kg/cm2. Reducing the number of tube passes to nine resulted in the design
becoming undersurfaced by 3.84%. Unfortunately, the number of tubes per row could not be
increased since the bundle width was already the permitted maximum of 3.2 m. As can only
be expected since the airside is not controlling, increasing the air flow rate made no
significant improvement in the performance. Therefore, the only alternative was to increase
the number of tube rows from eight to nine. The number of tube passes was retained as nine
(two in the first row and one each in the subsequent seven rows) and the air flow rate
reduced from 1,660,000 to 1,600,000 kg/h to have the same airside power consumption.
This design is elaborated in the second column of Table 7.3b. It is acceptable since it is
5.7% oversurfaced and the tubeside pressure drop 1.39 kg/cm2. However, while the bare
tube area was only marginally higher than that of the original design (1554 m2 versus 1532
m2), the finned area was considerably higher (24,037 m2 versus 17504 m2). Consequently,
the first design is lower in first cost and was therefore accepted.
80
Table 7.4: Variation in airside heat transfer coefficient, pressure drop and fan
power with fin density for Case Study 7.4
1. No. of fins/in. (fins/m) 11 (433) 10 (394) 9 (354) 8 (315) 7 (276)
2. Air pr. drop, in. (mm) WC 0.47 0.44 0.42 0.4 0.38
(11.86) (11.29) (10.73) (10.19) (9.66)
3. Stepwise reduction - 4.8 5.0 5.0 5.2
4. Air heat transfer coefficient, 199.9 183.9 167.5 151.6 135.4
Btu/h ft2 °F/ (kcal/h m2 °C/kcal) (976) (898) (818) (740) (661)
5. Stepwise reduction - 8.0 8.9 9.5 10.7
6. Fan power, HP (kW) 39.8 38.5 37.1 35.7 34.5
(29.7) (28.7) (27.64) (26.7) (25.7)
7. Stepwise reduction - 3.4 3.69 3.4 3.75
8. Overall heat transfer coefficient, 133.3 126.2 118.2 110 101.2
(kcal/h m2 °C/kcal) (651) (616) (577) (537) (494)
9. Air heat transfer coefficient/Air 82.29 79.54 76.23 72.59 68.45
pr. drop (metric)
10. Overall heat transfer 54.92 54.53 53.77 52.68 51.14
coefficient/Air pr. drop (metric)
An unusual situation
An unusual situation arises sometimes where, although the tubeside heat transfer coeffi-
cient is controlling, design with a higher fin height proves to be more economical. This
happens when for a given design with 1/2 in. (12.7 mm) high fins, the tubeside pressure
drop is not fully utilized and therefore the tubeside heat transfer coefficient is not maxi-
mized. Any increase in the number of tube passes results in the tubeside pressure drop
exceeding the allowable limit. Here, by switching over to 5/8 in. (15.875 mm) high fins,
the number of tubes can be reduced by about 10%, thereby leading to an approximately
8% increase in the tubeside heat transfer coefficient. Thus, the use of tubes with 5/8 in.
(15.875 mm) high fins results in a more economical design.
For the second design of the tempered water cooler [with 5/8 in. (15.875 mm) high fins]
presented above (Case study 7.2), the variation in the airside heat transfer coefficient and
pressure drop with fin density are shown in Table 7.4.
It is seen that for a typical air mass velocity, the reduction in the air heat transfer
coefficient is significantly greater than that in the air pressure drop and power consumption.
81
The ratio of air heat transfer coefficient to air pressure drop, which is a measure of the
efficiency of heat transfer, drops significantly as the fin density is reduced from 82.29 for 11
fins/in. (433 fins/m) to 68.45 for 7 fins/in. (276 fins/m).The ratio of the overall heat transfer
coefficient to the airside pressure drop also reduces, although at a much slower rate, as the
fin density is reduced from 11 fins/in. to 7 fins/in.
A higher fin density is always more efficient at converting pressure drop to heat transfer.
Therefore, whenever the airside heat transfer coefficient is controlling, a higher fin density
should be employed. However, where the airside heat transfer coefficient is not controlling,
it may be sensible to use a lower fin density to reduce power consumption. This is because a
higher airside heat transfer coefficient will not result in a significant increase in the overall
heat transfer coefficient, so that the increased power consumption will not be justified.
10
9
8
7
t
ien
o effic
2 r C
an sfe
t Tr
Hea
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
83
Table 7.5a: Effect of increased air flow rate in an airside controlling design
With 25% increase % in-
Base case in air flow rate crease
Heat transfer coefficient, Airside 163.9 (800) 183.2 (894.4) 11.8
Btu/h ft2 °F (kcal/h m2
°C/kcal) Tubeside 819.3 (4000) 819.3 (4000)
Airside pressure drop, in. (mm) WC 0.47 (12) 0.7 (17.74) 47.8
Fan power consumption, HP (kW) 24.1 (18) 44.6 (33.25) 84.7
Table 7.5b: Effect of increased air flow rate in a tubeside controlling design
With 25% increase % in-
Base case in air flow rate crease
Heat transfer coefficient, Airside 163.9 (800) 183.2 (894.4) 11.8
Btu/h ft2 °F (kcal/h m2 °C/kcal) Tubeside 819.3 (4000) 819.3 (4000)
Overall 39.0 (190.5) 40.0 (195.4) 2.6
Airside pressure drop, in. (mm) WC 0.47 (12) 0.7 (17.74) 47.8
Fan power consumption, HP (kW) 24.1 (18) 44.6 (33.25) 84.7
84
increase in the overall heat transfer coefficient is 9.6% in Case 1 but only 2.6% in Case 2.
Therefore, while this increase in air flow may be justifiable in Case 1 (depending on the
actual situation of heat transfer area and air pressure drop/fan power consumption), it is
certainly unlikely to be justifiable in Case 2.
A study was carried out for a typical air-cooled heat exchanger having 1 in. (25.4 mm)
OD tubes and 1/2 in. (12.7 mm) high fins for the following values of tube pitch:
2.125 in. (54 mm)
2.25 in. (57.2 mm)
2.375 in. (60.3 mm)
2.5 in. (63.5 mm)
The fin density was varied as follows: 7 fins/in., 9 fins/in., and 11 fins/in.
The results of the study are shown in Table 7.6. Since it is a very commonly used
configuration, the combination employing 2.375 in. (60.3 mm) pitch and 11 fins/in. (433
fins/m) was considered to be the base case, and 100 units were assigned for the values of
both airside heat transfer coefficient and airside pressure drop. The performance of the other
combinations (in terms of heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop) is expressed in
comparison to these datum values. Finally, a ratio of the airside heat transfer coefficient to
the airside pressure drop, which is a measure of the efficiency of heat transfer, has also been
indicated.
As expected, it was found that the reduction in pressure drop was much sharper than that
in the heat transfer coefficient. Typically, for a step change in tube pitch, the pressure drop
85
Table 7.6: Effect of tube pitch and fin density on the heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop
for Case Study 7.6
Tube 7 fins/in. (276 fins/m) 9 fins/in. (354 fins/m) 11 fins/in. (433 fins/m)
pitch, in. Ratio Ratio Ratio
(mm) HTC PD HTC/PD HTC PD HTC/PD HTC PD HTC/PD
2.125
76.4 91.7 0.833 90.6 109.8 0.825 104.7 129.5 0.808
(54)
2.25
74.5 81.1 0.919 88.7 96.2 0.922 101.9 112.9 0.903
(57.2)
2.375
73.1 72.7 1.006 86.8 86.4 1.005 100.0 100.0 1.0
(60.3)
2.5 (63.5) 72.2 65.9 1.096 85.4 77.3 1.105 98.1 89.4 1.097
HTC = Airside heat transfer coefficient
PD = Airside pressure drop
reduced by about 10% whereas the heat transfer coefficient reduced by only about 2%. This
variation was largely the same for the various fin densities. The designer may therefore feel
that the higher the tube pitch, the better the performance of an air-cooled heat exchanger.
While this is essentially true, there is another extremely important factor that should not be
overlooked. Since the tube pitch is increased for a given number of tubes, the tube bundle
width will increase (even the fan diameter will increase at a certain stage), thus pushing up
the cost of the air-cooled heat exchanger. Consequently, the tube pitch should be optimized
in the overall context.
Although the optimum tube pitch may vary from situation to situation, designers
generally prefer to use 2.375 in. (60 mm) tube pitch for a 1 in. tube OD/ 2 in. fin OD (25 mm
tube OD/50 mm fin OD) combination since it generally represents an optimum between the
two opposing tendencies of performance efficiency and cost. For a 1 in. tube OD/ 2.25 in.
fin OD (25 mm tube OD/57 mm fin OD) combination, the following tube pitch values may
be used: 2.375 in. (60 mm), 2.5 in.(64 mm), 2.625 in. (67 mm), and 2.75 in. (70 mm). Here,
the tube pitch most commonly used is 2.625 in. (67 mm).
It is important to realize that tube pitch is a powerful variable in the design of air-cooled
heat exchangers and can be varied in steps of even .04 in. (1 mm) and not necessarily 1/8 in.
(3.18 mm). It can be fine tuned, depending on the situation at hand. For example, it can be
reduced in order to accommodate the required number of tubes per row within the maximum
permitted tube bundle width (which is determined by the convenience of transportation) at
the expense of a somewhat higher power consumption. Similarly, it can be reduced or
increased in order to employ a certain standard fan diameter so as to meet the API 661
stipulation of a minimum fan coverage of 40%.
86
Table 7.7a: Principal process parameters for air-cooled condenser for Case Study 7.7
1. Fluid Atmospheric column overhead
2. Flow rate, lb/h (kg/h) 1,1106,700 (502,000)
3. Temperature in/out, °F (°C) 293 (145)/149 (65)
4. Operating pressure, psia (kg/cm2a) 54.0 (3.8)
5. Weight fraction vapor, in/out 1.0/0.01
6. Total allowable pressure drop, psi (kg/cm2) 7.1 (0.5)
7. Fouling resistance, h ft2 °F/Btu (h m2 °C/kcal) 0.00098 (0.0002)
8. Heat duty, MM Btu/h (MM kcal/h) 270.0 (68.0)
Table 7.7b: Variation of performance of air-cooled condenser with tube pass distribution for
Case Study 7.7
1st pass,
1st pass, 1st pass, 2.5 rows; 1st pass,
4 rows; 2nd 3 rows; 2nd 2nd pass, 2.5 2 rows; 2nd
pass, 1 row pass, 2 rows rows pass, 3 rows
1. Tubeside heat transfer coefficient,
Btu/h ft2 °F/(kcal/h m2 °C/kcal) 473.1 (2310) 527.6 (2576) 547.5 (2673) 559.6 (2732)
pressure drop-to-heat transfer conversion, thereby resulting in a lower heat transfer area.
This can be better understood as follows: If the number of tubes per pass were to be iden-
tical in all the passes, the initial passes (where there is more vapor and consequently the
density is lower) will give a much higher pressure drop while not giving a correspond-
ingly higher heat transfer coefficient. The subsequent tube passes will give a much lower
pressure drop. The design will therefore not be optimum as regards best utilization of
available pressure drop.
An atmospheric column overhead condenser was to be designed for the crude distillation
unit of a refinery, using air as the cooling medium. The salient process parameters of the
same are detailed in Table 7.7a.
A design was made having eight bays and two tube bundles per bay. Each tube bundle
had 48 tubes per row and 5 tube rows. Tubes were of carbon steel, 0.984 in. (25 mm) OD,
0.098 in. (2.5 mm) thick, and 41 ft (12.5 m) long, having aluminum fins 0.49 in. (12.5 mm)
high and a fin density of 11 per in. (433 per meter). The number of tube passes was two.
However, it is not necessary to distribute the tubes 50:50 in the two passes. Hence, four
different pass distributions were tried in order to see which would be optimum and the
findings are shown in Table 7.7b.
87
Since the allowable tubeside pressure drop is exceeded in the last two runs, those
designs are evidently not acceptable and we have to select either of the first two designs. If
we look at the ratio of the tubeside heat transfer coefficient to the tubeside pressure drop, we
notice that it is higher for the second run than for the first. Thus, run 2 is the best design of
the four, affording an overdesign of 6.88% while run 1 has an overdesign of just 0.88%.
It should be noted that between the various designs, the variation in the tubeside
pressure drop is far greater than the variation in the tubeside heat transfer coefficient. This is
consistent with what we have been saying throughout this book; namely, with variation in
mass velocity, the pressure drop varies far more profoundly than the heat transfer coefficient
It should also be noted that for a condenser, having a full row in one pass usually gives a
better tubeside performance than having a fractional rows/pass arrangement. This means a
higher tubeside heat transfer coefficient for the same pressure drop or a lower pressure drop
for the same heat transfer coefficient. Thus, for a six row/four pass design, it is better to have
two passes of two rows each and two passes of one row each than to have four passes of 1.5
rows each.
Further Reading
1. Baker, W.J., 1980, “Selecting and Specifying Air-cooled Heat Exchangers,” Hydrocarbon
Process., (May).
2. Monroe, R.C., 1985, “Minimizing Fan Energy Costs: Part 1,” Chem. Eng., May 27, pp. 141–
142
3. Monroe, R.C., 1985, “Minimizing Fan Energy Costs: Part 2,” Chem. Eng., June 24, pp. 141–
142
88
CHAPTER 8
Physical Properties
and Heat Release Profiles
89
fed, the results will be unrealistic because a constant heat transfer coefficient will be applied.
It is the responsibility of the process licensor to furnish authentic physical properties.
This usually does not represent a problem since the output of any standard process simulator
includes all relevant physical properties. Even in cases where comprehensive physical
property data is not furnished, it is not difficult to obtain specific heat, density, and thermal
conductivity data of hydrocarbons, since these are very well documented [1–3].
The specific heat, viscosity, and thermal conductivity data of hydrocarbon vapors are a
function of molecular weight and temperature. The values of all these properties increase
linearly with temperature. Hydrogen has a considerably higher specific and thermal
conductivity than hydrocarbon vapors.
The density of a hydrocarbon vapors is expressed as (pM)/(zRT), where
P = operating pressure
M = molecular weight
Z = compressibility factor
R = universal gas constant
T = absolute temperature
At moderate temperatures and pressures, the compressibility factor may be considered to
be 1.0 without entailing any serious error.
The specific heat, density, and thermal conductivity of a hydrocarbon liquid vary with
temperature and API gravity. While density and thermal conductivity decrease with
temperature, specific heat increases with temperature. The viscosity of hydrocarbon liquids
varies irregularly with temperature and the same cannot be represented on any conventional
scale (linear, semilog, or log-log). This variation of various hydrocarbon liquid viscosities is
represented in special plots by ASME (Fig. 8.1) which are available in the TEMA standards.
It will be seen that the variation becomes extremely large for heavy liquids at low
temperatures.
Although all other physical properties may be obtained from various sources if they are
not furnished in the process data sheet, it will be prudent to insist on the liquid viscosity
values from the process licensor. Of course, this excludes standard pure components for
which data is available in [1–3].
It should also be stated here that, except for liquid viscosity, all other physical properties
vary linearly with temperature for all practical purposes and, hence, they need be furnished
to the heat exchanger software only at the inlet and outlet temperatures. However, as already
mentioned, the variation of viscosity with temperature is highly nonlinear and, consequently,
if the variation in liquid viscosity between the inlet temperature and the outlet temperature is
high, it is advisable to feed the viscosity values at intermediate temperatures as well.
While the HTRI (Heat Transfer Research, Inc.) software has the capability of evaluating
the intermediate values of viscosity accurately, not all software packages do. Evidently, the
number of intermediate viscosity values that should be fed will depend on the variation in
the viscosity. The important thing to do is to furnish a sufficiently high number of values so
that if a straight-line interpolation is implemented between any two points fed, the
representation will be quite authentic.
Thus, if the inlet viscosity is 2.0 centipoise at 248°F (120°C) and the outlet viscosity is
5.0 cp at 140°F (60°C), furnishing an intermediate viscosity value of 3.5 cp, say, at the mean
temperature may not be unreasonable. However, if the inlet and outlet viscosities at these
same temperatures are 10.0 cp and 54.0 cp, more points will have to be fed for a proper
90
representation. Evidently, the greater the number of points fed, the more accurate will be the
results. Most simulators permit the entry of values at a maximum of ten temperature points.
It is suggested that the intermediate points be so fed that the ratio between any two viscosity
values is more or less the same. Many designers feel tempted to feed the intermediate points
along roughly equal temperature increments. Thus, in the above case, the temperature
variation between inlet and outlet is (248 – 140) or 108°F [(120 – 60) or 60°C]. Thus, the
designer may feed intermediate viscosity values at two 36°F (20°C) intervals, i.e., at 212°F
(100°C) and 176°F (80°C). However, since the variation of liquid viscosity is not linear but
exponential, this will not result in a proper representation. The variation is much steeper at
the lower temperature range, so there should be more points at the lower temperature end.
In the case of a condenser where there is no liquid at the inlet, and condensation begins
at a slightly lower temperature (that is, the inlet vapor is somewhat superheated), a licensor’s
data sheet often indicates liquid physical properties only at the outlet temperature. This is
because, in the data sheet, there is provision for specifying physical properties only at the
inlet and outlet temperatures. For example, if the inlet temperature is 212°F (100°C) and the
outlet temperature is 104°F (40°C), liquid physical properties are furnished only at 104°F
(40°C). A common mistake in such cases is to feed the liquid physical properties only at the
outlet temperature. What most heat exchange thermal design software packages do in such
situations is to assume that the liquid physical properties at the inlet temperature are identical
to those at the outlet temperature. As already explained, this may result in error. What should
be done in such situations is to obtain the liquid physical properties at the inlet temperature
from the process licensor, standard physical property charts, or by sensible extrapolation,
and feed these data to the thermal design software. Often, detailed physical properties are
Fig. 8.1 ASTM plot of variation of hydrocarbon liquid viscosity with temperature (Reprinted with
permission from Standards of TEMA, 8th edition, 1999)
91
furnished by the licensor in the later data sheets (and not in the top data sheets), in which
case there is no problem at all.
Fig. 8.2 Variation of vapor-specific heat with temperature in a hydrogen plant condenser
92
significantly higher than that at the inlet. In such cases, therefore, the variation of vapor
specific heat with temperature must be furnished to the thermal design software as well.
It should be understood that, besides accurately determining the heat transfer coefficient
zonewise, the vapor specific heat profile is also required in the above case for reconciling the
heat duty in each zone. An actual case study for a hydrogen plant condenser is shown in Fig.
8.2. A mixture of naphtha and hydrogen at 78.2 psia (5.5 kg/cm2 abs.) is condensed from
680°F (360°C) to 104°F (40°C). The variation in the total vapor specific heat is represented
by the curve ABCD. It will be seen that the specific heat decreases from 0.698 at 680°F
(360°C) to 0.51 at the dew point of 320°F (160°C), after which it increases sharply to 1.29 at
104°F (40°C). If this curve were not fed, a linear variation (shown by the straight line AD)
would be considered by the software. As a consequence, it would fail hopelessly to reconcile
the heat duty of each zone specified in the heat duty versus temperature profile, because it
would consider much higher values of mixture specific heat!
The above phenomenon is true of the thermal conductivity of hydrogen-hydrocarbon
mixtures as well. Thus, at 212°F (100°C), the thermal conductivity of hydrogen is 0.121
Btu/h ft °F (0.18 kcal/h m °C), whereas a typical hydrocarbon thermal conductivity at the
same temperature is 0.0148 Btu/h ft °F (0.022 kcal/h m °C). If the intermediate values of the
thermal conductivity of the vapor mixture are not fed, a linear interpolation would be
employed between the values fed at the inlet and outlet temperatures. Consequently, much
higher values of thermal conductivity would be considered, thereby leading to an
unrealistically optimistic design.
Points B, C, and D need not be fed because they lie on the straight line AE. Additionally,
it is recommended that one intermediate point may be fed in sector EF and another in
sector FG for extra accuracy, since these sectors have some curvature. However, points E
and F are absolutely essential because, if not fed, the profile will be altered considerably.
No extra accuracy is achieved by feeding several points on the straight portion of a
curve. On the other hand, by feeding unnecessary points, the probability of a mismatch in
heat duty and consequent negative latent heat increases, especially if the temperature
increments and/or the amount condensed is small. It is therefore recommended that only the
minimum number of points required to represent the data authentically be fed.
When the divisions on the axes are quite large, it is sometimes difficult to read some
intermediate points from plots. In such cases, it is helpful to construct intermediate lines or
plot the same data on graph paper having more intermediate divisions.
The temperature points to be fed to the thermal design software should be so chosen that
the heat release curve is represented authentically. The values of weight fraction vapor
should be fed at these temperatures.
References
[1] Gallant, R.W., and Railey, J.M., 1984, Physical Properties of Hydrocarbons, Vols. 1 and 2,
2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
[2] Dean, J.A., ed., 1999, Lange's Handbook of Chemistry, 15th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
[3] Perry, R.H., and Green. D.W., eds., 1997, Perry's Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 7th Ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
95
96
CHAPTER 9
Overdesign
9.1 Introduction
An overdesign factor (or margin) is often specified for the design of heat exchangers for
one or more of the following reasons:
a) future increase in capacity
b) plant control flexibility
c) upset conditions
d) handling alternate feedstocks
e) uncertainty in results of process simulation
97
Table 9.1a: Principal process parameters for Case Study 9.1, high
overdesign case
1. Kerosene flow rate, lb/h (kg/h) 396,830 (180,000)
2. Temperature in/out, °F (°C) 205.2 (96.2)/140 (60)
3. Heat duty, MM Btu/h (MM kcal/h) 12.82 (3.23)
4. Allowable pressure drop, psi (kg/cm2) 7.1 (0.5)
5. Inlet/outlet viscosity, cp 0.48/0.72
6. Inlet/outlet density, lb/ft3 (kg/m3) 46.8 (750)/48.6 (778)
7. Fouling resistance, h ft2 °F/Btu (h m2 °C/kcal) 0.00195 (0.0004)
8. Design air temperature, °F (°C) 95 (35)
the hot stream will get cooled more. For the final conditions of terminal temperatures and
heat duty, the overdesign will obviously have to be nil.
The increased heat duty that an overdesigned heat exchanger can perform, expressed as
a percentage of the design heat duty, is called overdesign on performance. Thus, if a stream
has to be cooled through 90°F (50°C) but actually gets cooled through 99°F (55°C), it has a
10% overdesign on performance.
The value of overdesign on performance is always less than the value of overdesign on
surface. This is because an increase in the heat duty of an overdesigned heat exchanger is
always accompanied by a decrease in the MTD. Therefore, the larger the reduction in the
MTD, the smaller will be the difference between overdesign on surface area and overdesign
on performance.
While overdesign on surface simply indicates the excess area available to cater to
uncertainties, or more pragmatically, the percentage of tubes that can be plugged in case of
leakage (provided, of course, there is a corresponding margin in the tubeside pressure drop),
overdesign on performance indicates how much better an exchanger may be expected to
perform in terms of heat duty. Heat exchanger services are usually analyzed and interpreted
in the fouled condition. However, when a heat exchanger is new and thereby clean—or after
it has been cleaned when used for some length of time—its overall heat transfer coefficient
is much higher than that in the fouled condition, so that it is oversurfaced, over and above
the overdesign the designer has incorporated in the original design. Evidently, the extent of
overperformance will depend on the extent to which the total fouling resistance is
controlling the heat transfer process. Consequently, a new or cleaned heat exchanger will
deliver a heat duty higher than the design value.
We will now take a look at a case study to illustrate some of the points that have just
been discussed.
Table 9.1c: Comparative statement of design and expected performance duties for Case Study 9.1,
high overdesign case
Expected
For design duty performance Percent change
1. Kerosene stream Inlet temperature, °F (°C) 205.2 (96.2) 205.2 (96.2)
Outlet temperature, °F (°C) 140 (60) 130.3 (54.6)
2. Air Inlet temperature, °F (°C) 95 (35) 95 (35)
expected operating performance. Table 9.1c gives a comparative statement of the design and
the expected duties.
It is seen that the exchanger will actually deliver a heat duty of 14.64 M Btu/h (3.69 M
kcal/h) instead of the design value of 12.82 M Btu/h (3.23 M kcal/h). Therefore, the
overdesign on performance is 3.69/3.23 or 1.142, or 14.2%. What has happened is that while
the heat duty has increased, the MTD has decreased from 63.4°F (35.2°C) to 55.4°F
(30.8°C), so that the heat transfer area required is equal to that provided. The overall heat
transfer coefficient has virtually remained the same, but this may change as well, depending
principally on the change in temperature and thereby the physical properties, principally
viscosity.
99
Table 9.2a: Principal process parameters for Case Study 9.2, low overdesign case
1. Distillation column overhead flow rate, lb/h (kg/h) 474,000 (215,000)
2. Temperature in/out, °F (°C) 269.6(132)/131 (55)
3. Heat duty, MM Btu/h (MM kcal/h) 59.65 (15.03)
4. Allowable pressure drop, psi (kg/cm2) 3.56 (0.25)
5. Fouling resistance, h ft2 °F/Btu (h m2 °C/kcal) 0.00195 (0.0004)
6. Design air temperature, °F (°C) 105.8 (41)
7. Vapor properties 0.45 (7.2)/
Density in/out, lb/ft3 (kg/m3)
0.4 (6.45)
Viscosity in/out, cp 0.013/0.011
Specific heat in/out, Btu/lb °F (kcal/kg °C) 1.28/1.64
Thermal conductivity in/out, Btu/h ft °F 0.094 (0.14)/
(kcal/h m °C) 0.086 (0.128)
8. Liquid properties 47.4 (760)/
Density in/out, lb/ft3 (kg/m3)
51.17 (820)
Viscosity in/out, cp 0.75/2.13
Specific heat in/out, Btu/lb °F (kcal/kg °C) 0.54/0.45
Thermal conductivity in/out, Btu/h ft °F 0.065 (0.097)/
(kcal/h m °C) 0.0706 (0.105)
In this example, it is seen that while the overdesign on surface is quite high (31.1%), the
overdesign on performance is much lower (14.2%).
Table 9.2c: Comparative statement of design and expected performance duties for Case Study 9.2,
low overdesign case
For design Expected Percent
duty performance change
1. Overhead stream Inlet temperature, °F (°C) 269.6 (132) 269.6 (132)
Outlet temperature, °F (°C) 131 (55) 127.9 (53.3)
2. Air Inlet temperature, °F (°C) 105.8 (41) 105.8 (41)
set of parameters, this overdesign factor should be the same for the shellside flow rate,
the tubeside flow rate, and the heat duty.
Sometimes, a process data sheet specifies different overdesign factors for flow rate and
heat duty. For example, the shellside flow factor may be 120%, the tubeside flow factor
110%, and the heat duty 115%. In such cases, the matter should be reconciled with the
process licensor so that the same factor is specified for all three parameters. If necessary, the
licensor may specify an additional multiplier for flow rates for the purpose of determination
of pressure drop only, if the same is expected to increase under certain conditions.
In some instances, the process licensor may specify different factors for the shellside and
tubeside flow rates for an alternate case of operation, and request that for the thermal design
(geometry) finalized, the heat exchanger designer indicate the outlet temperatures of both
streams for certain specified inlet temperatures. This situation is acceptable since it is
realistic and there is no inconsistency. An alternate simulation run need only be taken to
indicate the desired data.
101
If the process licensor specifies overdesign on flow and duty, and also specifies excess
area, both should be complied with. The excess area required can be applied toward
uncertainties in simulation, whereas the margin on flow rates can be applied toward future
increase in plant capacity.
In order to limit the tubeside pressure drop to within the allowable limit, the overdesign
of a heat exchanger may sometimes be inordinately high, since any reduction in the number
of tubes (to reduce overdesign) may increase the tubeside pressure drop beyond the
allowable limit. This is called a “pressure drop limiting design” and is an acceptable
situation. Evidently, this will occur when the tube length is standardized and cannot be
reduced.
However, in such situations, it will make eminent sense to take advantage of the
inordinate overdesign while designing the corresponding trim cooler, if one is present. To
clarify, consider an air-cooled heat exchanger having a heat duty of 10.5 M Btu/h (2.65 M
kcal/h) and a subsequent trim cooler having a heat duty of 2.5 M Btu/h (0.63 M kcal/h). If,
by virtue of the higher overdesign in the air-cooled heat exchanger, as explained above, it is
able to deliver a heat duty of 11.3 M Btu/h (2.85 M kcal/h) after catering to a normal
overdesign margin, the trim cooler need be designed only for a heat duty of 2.5 – (11.3 –
10.5) or 1.7 M Btu/h [0.63 – (2.85 – 2.65) or 0.43 M kcal/h].
102
CHAPTER 10
Fouling may be defined as the deposition of undesirable matter on a heat transfer surface
and is an inevitable consequence of the process of heat transfer between two streams
across a metal wall. Taborek called fouling the “major unresolved problem in heat trans-
fer” way back in 1972 [1], and the situation does not appear to have changed signifi-
cantly. Since fouling has a strong impact on the energy efficiency of a heat exchanger, on
both heat transfer and pressure drop, it is essential for the designer to be fully aware of
the phenomenon, its consequences, and its mitigation.
Evidently, fouling can take place both inside and outside tubes. The deposition of the
foulant results in the following:
1) a reduction in the overall heat transfer coefficient due to the extra resistance to
heat transfer, thereby resulting in a larger heat transfer area
2) a reduction in the area of the flow passages, resulting in increased pressure drop
of the flowing streams
The extent of fouling varies markedly with the nature of the fluids being handled.
Consequently, exchangers that handle clean fluids may remain largely free of fouling,
whereas exchangers that handle dirty streams may be constantly afflicted by it.
A fact that is usually not recognized is that the increase in pressure drop is usually a
much more serious consequence of fouling than the increase in the thermal resistance and,
thereby, the reduction in the heat transfer coefficient. When a heat exchanger is taken out of
service for cleaning, it is invariably due to the reduced throughput as a result of partial
blockage of flow areas, rather than reduced thermal performance.
The adverse effects of fouling are as follows:
1) Increased capital cost due to the reduced overall heat transfer coefficient
2) Additional energy requirements to make up for the loss in performance. For ex-
ample, when a given air-cooled heat exchanger underperforms, the cooling water
flow rate in the subsequent trim cooler has to be increased to make up for this
loss in performance, thereby increasing the cooling water pumping cost.
3) Maintenance costs for antifoulant, chemical treatment, and cleaning of fouled
surfaces
4) Downtime costs associated with the outage of the air-cooled heat exchanger for
cleaning
5) Reduction in throughput
103
In an air-cooled heat exchanger, there are five resistances to heat transfer, namely, airside
film, airside fouling, tubeside film, tubeside fouling, and tube wall. By virtue of being of
extended surface, airside fouling resistance is usually not very significant. A typical air-
side fouling resistance of 0.002 h ft2 °F/Btu (0.00041 h m2°C/kcal) on the extended sur-
face translates into 0.000114 h ft2 °F/Btu (0.000023 h m2 °C/kcal) on the bare tube sur-
face, considering a typical surface ratio (ratio of total extended surface to outside bare
tube surface) of 17.6. This value is so low as to be virtually insignificant. However, the
reduction of the airside flow passage due to external deposition often causes a significant
reduction in the air flow rate, which reduces both the airside heat transfer coefficient as
well as the MTD, thereby impairing the thermal performance significantly. In this chap-
ter, we will first take a look at tubeside fouling; and later, at airside fouling.
104
c) Period 2–3, where the rate of increase of fouling resistance decreases from that in
period 1–2, and the curve attains a plateau or the asymptotic fouling resistance
value.
In real life, however, a fouling curve may vary considerably from this idealized curve, so
that in some cases there may be no initiation period, and in others, the increase in fouling
resistance may be virtually linear. Whatever the nature of a fouling curve, there will come
a time, with most fluids, when the thermal and hydraulic performance of a given heat ex-
changer will deteriorate to such an extent that the heat transfer surface will have to be
cleaned to restore the original (or close to original) performance.
Evidently, the higher the fouling resistance considered for a particular stream, the longer
will a heat exchanger be able to operate before being subjected to a shutdown. However, the
higher fouling resistance will also mean a costlier heat exchanger. Therefore, the selection of
a design fouling resistance will have to be made on the basis of optimization of the total cost
(fixed cost plus operating cost).
Another factor that should be considered in this context is the normal turnaround of a
plant. All plants have to be shut down periodically for inspection and overhauling of
equipment, piping, instrumentation, etc. The run length usually varies from 12 to 36 months.
Thus, it is a desirable practice to consider this run length for the selection of design fouling
resistances of all flowing streams, so that the heat exchangers can be cleaned in the same
period.
0 1 2 3
Time
105
uum gas oils, foul readily and cause considerable deterioration in performance in
heat exchangers.
2) Flow velocity and temperature are perhaps the most crucial variables that control
the fouling process. A high velocity minimizes virtually all types of fouling.
Fouling is a dynamic process wherein deposition and removal of foulant occur
simultaneously. The net fouling at any given instance represents the equilibrium
balance between these two opposing phenomena, a deposition phenomenon and a
removal phenomenon.
With increase in velocity, the viscous sublayer close to the tube wall be-
comes thinner, thereby resulting in a reduction in the resistance to diffusion from
the bulk to the wall. This permits a comparatively higher rate of deposition for a
diffusion-controlled fouling process. However, at the same time, the higher ve-
locity increases the shearing forces that tend to remove the fouled deposit. The
net rate of fouling will therefore depend on these two opposing effects of veloc-
ity. Usually, the rate of decrease of fouling due to the increase in the shear force
is greater than the rate of increase of deposition due to the reduction of the vis-
cous sublayer. Consequently, higher velocities invariably result in less fouling.
The general nature of the degree of fouling versus flow velocity is represented in
Fig. 10.2.
3) The temperature of the fluid-foulant interface strongly influences the extent of vari-
ous modes of fouling. Bulk fluid temperatures and their heat transfer coefficients, as
well as the fouling and tube wall resistances, will determine this interface tempera-
ture. When normal-solubility salt solutions are cooled, they exhibit fouling since the
solubility decreases at lower temperatures.
The rates of chemical reaction are a strong function of temperature. Thus, if a
fouling process involves a chemical reaction, the extent of fouling will depend on
temperature. The rate of increase or decrease of fouling with time will be related to
the rate constant of the chemical reaction itself.
Corrosion is basically a chemical reaction. Consequently, the fouling of sur-
faces by the products of corrosion will be dependent on temperature.
4) Material of construction and surface finish including the roughness, size, and den-
Fouling resistance
Flow velocity
106
sity of cavities affect crystalline nucleation, sedimentation, and the sticking ten-
dency of deposits. It is generally believed that very smooth surfaces are less likely to
receive and retain dirt than are rough surfaces. However, it may be argued that this
will be true only for the initial fouling because thereafter the surface will no longer
be smooth. However, the practical experience is that polished or smooth surfaces
foul less than rough ones.
In such a complicated scenario where there are various modes of fouling, as well as
several factors that determine the degree of the various modes of fouling, it is evident that
the prediction of the extent of fouling is extremely difficult. Consequently, it becomes
unavoidable to adopt a qualitative approach and rely on past experience for the selection of
fouling resistances for various services. TEMA (Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers
Association) specifies point and range values of various streams encountered in the chemical
processing industries [2]. Although the TEMA guidelines specifically apply to shell-and-
tube heat exchangers, the fouling resistances specified therein apply to air-cooled heat
exchangers as well, since these are also tubular heat exchangers. (Fouling resistances are
much lower than these TEMA values for nontubular heat exchangers such as plate heat
exchangers, which generate far more turbulence.)
The TEMA values are for guidance only, and should be modified based on actual
operating feedback wherever available. If no actual data is available, the TEMA values
should be adopted. The selection of appropriate fouling resistances contributes significantly
in ensuring satisfactory operation of air-cooled heat exchangers.
107
ing the “overall” margin that is applied on the heat transfer surface than there would be
by applying a single “overdesign” factor based on an “overall” feel of the situation, to
cater to all the uncertainties and/or requirements.
108
values are given, selection must be made on the basis of specifics.
For example, the fouling resistance of kerosene has been specified in the TEMA
standards as 0.002–0.003 h ft2 °F/Btu (0.00041–0.000614 h m2 °C/kcal). This can be
interpreted in the following manner. For kerosene produced in the crude distillation unit of
an oil refinery processing a light crude, the fouling resistance may be considered to be 0.002
h ft2 °F/Btu (0.00041 h m2 °C/kcal), whereas for kerosene produced in the delayed coking
unit of a refinery processing a heavy crude, the fouling resistance may be considered to be
0.003 h ft2 °F/Btu (0.000614 h m2 °C/kcal). The final selection should also depend on the
velocity of the kerosene in the given heat exchanger, as well as the temperature level of the
kerosene.
It is interesting to note that in the 1999 edition of the TEMA standards, the values of
fouling resistance of certain fluids have been increased, while those of certain other fluids
have been decreased from the values in the previous edition. Thus, the fouling resistance of
compressed air has been reduced from 0.002 to 0.001 h ft2 °F/Btu (from 0.00041 to
0.000205 h m2 °C/kcal) while that of reduced crude oil (long residue) has been increased
from 0.005 to 0.007 h ft2 °F/Btu (from 0.00102 to 0.00143 h m2 °C/kcal). Evidently, these
revisions have been incorporated on the basis of feedback received from plant operators, as
well as from a better understanding of the phenomenon of fouling.
To summarize, the selection of fouling resistance has to be done carefully, and should be
based on past experience. Values specified in the TEMA standards are for guidance only,
and should be tempered with operating feedback and engineering judgment. A proper
selection of fouling resistance will go a long way toward ensuring the satisfactory operation
of heat exchangers.
110
Table 10.1b: Principal construction and performance parameters for Case Study 10.1
Design 1 Design 2
1. No. of bays 4 2
2. No. of bundles per bay 2 2
3. Tube OD × thk × length, in. (mm) 1.0 (25.4) × 0.109 (2.769) × 408 (10360)
4. Fin height, in. (mm) × fin density, fins/in. (fins/m) 0.5 (12.7) × 9 (354)
5. No. of tubes per row × no. of rows 43 × 7 43 × 8
Table 10.2: Suggested values of fouling layer thickness for various values of
fouling resistance
Fouling resistance, h ft2 °F/Btu (h m2 °C/kcal) Fouling layer thickness, in. (mm)
0.0049 (0.001) 0.02 (0.5)
0.0059 (0.0012) 0.024 (0.6)
0.0068 (0.0014) 0.028 (0.7)
0.0078 (0.0016) 0.0315 (0.8)
0.0088 (0.0018) 0.0354 (0.9)
0.0098 (0.002) 0.0394 (1.0)
for a stream flowing inside tubes. The permitted pressure drop is 15 psi (1.055 kg/cm2),
which appears to be quite low, considering the high viscosity values.
Corresponding to the specified fouling resistance of 0.0039 h ft2°F/Btu (0.0008 h
2
m °C/kcal), a fouling layer thickness of 0.016 in. (0.4 mm) was applied, as per Table 10.2.
This will be discussed in the next section and a case study will be presented.
A thermal design was prepared with the specified pressure drop, and the principal
construction and performance parameters are elaborated in the first column of Table 10.1b.
This is a very large air-cooled heat exchanger with four bays, and a total bare tube heat
transfer area of 20,960 ft2 (1948 m2). The principal reason for this is the very low tubeside
heat transfer coefficient and, thereby, the very low overall heat transfer coefficient. Thanks
to the low tubeside allowable pressure drop, the tubeside velocity is only 2.76 ft/s (0.84 m/s),
which for such a viscous liquid translates into a very low tubeside heat transfer coefficient of
111
12.3 Btu/h ft2 °F/ (60.1 kcal/h m2 °C). Since the tubeside is highly controlling (85.5%), there
is no merit in having a high airside heat transfer coefficient, and wasting fan power. Hence,
the air flow rate was kept quite low, so that the power consumption is only 10.3 HP (7.68
kW) per fan. This would at least minimize the operating cost on the airside!
Now, let us see what would happen if a higher tubeside pressure drop is permitted.
Consider a tubeside pressure drop of 68.3 psi (4.8 kg/cm2). The new thermal design is
detailed in the second column of Table 10.1b. Note the huge reduction in the bare tube heat
transfer area, from 20,960 ft2 (1948 m2) to 11,965 ft2 (1112 m2). The number of bays has
been reduced from four to two. The key to this stark change is the much higher tubeside
velocity, 6.43 ft/s (1.96 m/s) compared to 2.76 ft/s (0.84 m/s) in the earlier design. As a
consequence, the Reynolds number at the inlet/midpoint/outlet of the exchanger has
increased from 1166/992/896 to 2766/2299/2084, thereby pushing up the tubeside heat
transfer coefficient from 12.3 Btu/h ft2 °F/ (60.1 kcal/h m2 °C) to 26.8 Btu/h ft2 °F/ (130.7
kcal/h m2 °C). Despite such a significant increase in the tubeside heat transfer coefficient, the
latter is still largely controlling the overall heat transfer process (74%). This is because the
flow is still in the laminar region on the tubeside, where it is simply not possible to achieve
the high heat transfer coefficients that are prevalent in the turbulent regime.
With the increase in the tubeside velocity, as one would expect, the tubeside pressure
drop has jumped up from 15 psi (1.053 kg/cm2) to 68.3 psi (4.8 kg/cm2). As for fan power,
while it has increased per fan from 10.3 HP (7.68 kW) to 20 HP (14.9 kW), the total power
consumption has actually reduced from 82.4 HP (61.4 kW) to 80 HP (59.6 kW). This is
because the number of bays has been reduced from four to two and thereby the number of
fans has reduced from eight to four!
Thus, while the operating cost (due to tubeside pumping power) of the second design is
significantly higher than that of the first design, the first cost and the operating cost (due to
fouling) of the second design are far lower. Therefore, an overall cost assessment of the two
designs will have to be carried out to determine which design has the lower total cost.
crude (long residue), short residue, and asphalt, let us consider a somewhat lower value of
0.34 Btu/h ft °F (0.5 kcal/h m °C) for the deposits from heavy and dirty hydrocarbon liquids
other than asphalt.
Let us also bear in mind that since fouling layer thickness is directly proportional to
thermal conductivity, the higher the thermal conductivity considered, the higher will be the
fouling layer thickness.
Considering a uniform thermal conductivity of 0.34 Btu/h ft °F (0.5 kcal/h m °C) yields
the results shown in Table 10.2. These values do not look unreasonable since physical
inspection of fouled tube bundles handling such services will tend to corroborate them.
Most sophisticated thermal design software packages have a provision for incorporating
a fouling layer thickness. The following case study is now presented to demonstrate the
effect of applying a tubeside fouling layer thickness on the performance of an air-cooled heat
exchanger.
which is beyond the permissible limit of 35.6 psi (2.5 kg/cm2). Thus, if the specified value of
fouling layer thickness is considered realistic, the present design is not acceptable and the
number of tubes per row will have to be increased from 45 to 48 in order to contain the
tubeside pressure drop to within 35.6 psi (2.5 kg/cm2).
The tubeside heat transfer coefficient based on the tube ID has increased from 35.6
Btu/hft2°F (173.9 kcal/h m2°C) to 38.1 Btu/hft2°F (186.2 kcal/h m2°C), which is an increase
of 7%. However, the tubeside heat transfer coefficient based on the tube OD has increased
from 28.5 Btu/hft2°F (139.1 kcal/h m2°C) to 29.3 Btu/hft2°F (143 kcal/h m2°C), which is an
increase of only 2.8%. This is because, with the addition of the fouling layer thickness of
0.0157 in. (0.4 mm), the tube ID has reduced from 0.787 in. (20 mm) to 0.756 in. (19.2 mm),
so that the ratio of tube OD/tube ID has increased from 1.25 to 1.302. Therefore, when the
tubeside heat transfer coefficient based on the tube ID is converted to the heat transfer
coefficient based on the tube OD, the extent of the change is less. As for the overall heat
transfer coefficient, it has increased only by 1.46%. Thus, while the tubeside pressure drop
has gone up significantly with the application of the fouling layer thickness, the overdesign
margin has increased marginally.
the tube, and (b) the lack of turbulence is the root cause for both inefficient heat transfer
and heavy fouling. The churning action not only increases the heat transfer coefficient by
increased convection, but also minimizes the deposition of foulants due to the increased
turbulence. Wire-fin inserts have been demonstrated to reduce tubeside fouling to a dra-
matic level for many dirty services in the chemical process industries, and this appears to
be an excellent application. However, for reasons unknown to this author, their use has
not really lived up to their potential. For a detailed discussion on wire-fin tube inserts in-
cluding a case study, see Section 13.4.
115
Table 10.4b: Principal construction and performance parameters for Case Study 10.3
1. No. of bays × no. of bundles per bay 4×2
2. Fin height × tube pitch, in. (mm) 0.49 (12.4) × 2.36 (60)
3. Fin density, fins/in. (fins/m) 11 (433)
4. Number of tubes per row 35
5. Number of rows × no. of tube passes 6×2
6. Total bare heat transfer area, ft2 (m2) 14,320 (1331)
7. Approximate bundle width, ft (m) 7.06 (2.15)
8. Air flow rate, lb/h (kg/h) 5,511,500 (2,500,000)
9. Airside outlet temperature, °F (°C) 143.1 (61.7)
pressure drop, in. (mm) WC 0.59 (15.0)
heat transfer coefficient, Btu/h 162.4 (793)
ft2 °F (kcal/h m2 °C)
10. Tubeside pressure drop, psi (kg/cm2) 2.9 (0.204)
It may be a very good idea to limit the fin density to 7 or 8 fins/in. (276 or 315
fins/m) instead of the usual 11 fins/in. (433 fins/m).
c) Restricting the number of tube rows
By restricting the number of tube rows to four, it will be possible to obtain a
higher air velocity inside the tube bundle, which will minimize the extent of foul-
ing.
d) Using a fouling layer thickness
In order to ensure that reduced flow of air (due to airside fouling) does not be-
come a serious constraint in the performance of an air-cooled heat exchanger, the
effect of fouling can be simulated by incorporating a fouling layer thickness on
the airside. Some software packages have the facility of accepting a fouling layer
thickness on the airside. If a given software package does not have this feature,
the fin thickness may be fed correspondingly higher, e.g., 0.02 in. (0.5 mm) in-
stead of 0.016 in. (0.4 mm), to simulate the effect.
Thus, satisfactory operation of an air-cooled heat exchanger can be ensured by anticipat-
ing and catering to the adverse effect of airside fouling.
116
Table 10.4c: Analysis of fouling layer thickness for Case Study 10.3
FLT = 0.008 in. (0.2
mm) and air flow rate
FLT = 0.004 in. FLT = 0.008 in. = 5.07 MM lb/h (2.3
FLT = 0 (0.1 mm) (0.2 mm) MM kg/h)
Air mmidpoint velocity,
22.8 (6.95) 24.6 (7.5) 26.7 (8.15) 24.6 (7.51)
ft/s (m/s)
Air pressure drop, in. WC
0.59 (15.0) 0.67 (17.0) 0.77 (19.45) 0.67 (17.0)
(mm WC)
Power consumption per
22.9 (17.1) 25.5 (19.0) 28.7 (21.4) 22.9 (17.1)
fan, HP (kW)
Airside heat transfer
coefficient, Btu/h ft2 °F 162.4 (793) 168.5 (822.5) 175.5 (856.7) 168.6 (823.1)
(kcal/h m2 °C)
Overall heat transfer
coefficient, Btu/h ft2 °F 59.3 (289.7) 60.1 (293.4) 60.9 (297.4) 60.2 (293.7)
(kcal/h m2 °C)
MTD, °F (°C) 61.7 (34.3) 61.7 (34.3) 61.7 (34.3) 60.5 (33.6)
Overdesign, % 10 11.4 12.9 9.3
FLT -> Fouling layer thickness
b) Most of the vapor has already condensed prior to entering this condenser. The
vapor weight fraction is 0.12 at the inlet (262.4°F or 128°C) and 0.085 at the out-
let (131°F or 55°C), which makes it a very wide condensing-range mixture.
c) Although the operating pressure is fairly high, the vapor density is quite low,
thanks to the presence of a significant proportion of hydrogen.
d) Due to (b) and (c) above, the tubeside heat transfer coefficient may be expected
to be quite low, as discussed earlier in Chapter 6.
Coming to the thermal design, tubes were to be of carbon steel, 0.984 in. (25 mm) OD ×
0.098 in. (2.5 mm) thickness × 34 ft (10.36 m) long. Fins were to be of aluminum. The
design ambient temperature was 107°F (41.7°C).
A thermal design was prepared and the principal construction and performance
parameters are detailed in Table 10.4b. Now, in order to demonstrate the effect of airside
fouling, this design was checked with fouling layer thicknesses of 0.004 in. (0.1 mm) and
0.008 in. (0.2 mm). The results are shown in Table 10.4c. It will be noticed that with the
application of a fouling layer thickness, there is a marked increase in the airside midpoint
velocity, pressure drop, and fan power consumption. However, the airside heat transfer
coefficient increases marginally.
Does this mean that the fan power consumption will be considerably higher if we are to
cater to a fouling layer thickness of, say, .01 in. (0.2 mm); that is, 28.7 HP (21.4 kW) instead
of 22.9 HP (17.1 kW)? Not necessarily. We can simulate the performance of this air-cooled
condenser by lowering the air flow rate by simple trial and error until we obtain the same fan
power consumption (22.9 HP or 17.1 kW). In the present instance, by lowering the air flow
rate from 5,511,500 lb/h (2,500,000 kg/h) to 5,070,058 lb/h (2,300,000 kg/h), we obtain a
fan power consumption of 22.9 HP (17.1 kW). Due to the lower air flow rate, there is a
small reduction in both the MTD and the airside heat transfer coefficient, so that the
overdesign reduces marginally from 10% to 9.3%. Thus, an airside fouling layer thickness of
0.004 in. (0.1 mm) or 0.008 in. (0.2 mm) does not have any serious repercussions on the
performance of an air-cooled heat exchanger.
117
However, if the fouling layer thickness is likely to be higher [for example, 0.016 in. (0.4
mm)], then the performance could deteriorate significantly. The important thing to realize is
that we should address all realistic operating conditions that an air-cooled heat exchanger
can be subjected to, so that it operates satisfactorily even under these conditions.
References
[1] Taborek, J., Aoku, T., Ritter, R.B., Palen, J.W., and Knudsen, J.G., 1972, “Fouling – The Ma-
jor Unresolved Problem in Heat Transfer,” Parts I and II, Chem. Eng. Prog., 68(2), pp. 59–67
and 68(7), pp. 69–78.
[2] Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers’ Association, 1999, Standards of the Tubular Exchanger
Manufacturers Association, 8th Edition, TEMA, New York.
[3] Gough, M.J., and Rogers, J.V., 1987, “Reduced Fouling by Enhanced Heat Transfer Using
Wire-Matrix Radial Mixing Elements,” AIChE Symp. Series, 83(257), pp. 16–21.
[4] Gough, M.J., and Rogers, J.V., 1991, “Getting More Performance from Heat Exchangers,”
Processing, July, pp. 15–16
Further Reading
1. Epstein, N., 1978, “Fouling in Heat Exchangers,” Proc. Sixth International Heat Transfer
Conf., Toronto, Hemisphere, New York, Vol. 6, pp. 235–253.
2. Garret-Price, B.A., Smith, S.A., Watts, R.L., Knudsen, J.G., Marner, W.J., and Suitor, J.W.,
1985, Fouling of Heat Exchangers, Characteristics, Costs, Prevention, Control and Removal,
Noyes, Park Ridge, NJ.
3. Hewitt, G.F., ed., 2002, Heat Exchanger Design Handbook 2002 (HEDH2002), Begell
House, Inc., New York, Redding, CT.
4. Knudsen, J.G., 1984, “Fouling of Heat Exchangers: Are We Solving the Problem?” Chem.
Eng. Prog., Feb., pp. 63–69.
5. Melo, L.F., Bott, T.R., and Bernardo, C.A., eds. 1988, Fouling Science and Technology, Klu-
wer, Dordrecht.
6. Somerscales, E.F.C., and Knudsen, J.G., eds., 1981, Fouling of Heat Transfer Equipment,
Hemisphere, New York.
7. Kakac, S., Bergles, A., and Mayinger, F., 1981, Heat Exchangers: Thermal-Hydraulic Fun-
damentals and Design, Hemisphere, New York.
8. Mukherjee, R., 1996, “Conquer Heat Exchanger Fouling,” Hydrocarbon Process., 75(1), pp.
121–127.
118
CHAPTER 11
Control of
Air-Cooled Heat Exchangers
11.1 Introduction
The control of air-cooled heat exchangers is required to accomplish various goals as fol-
lows:
1) Control of distillation column operating pressure
2) Prevention of excessive cooling of liquid products (winterization) in order to
• Prevent congealing (pour point)
• Prevent solidification fouling
• Incorporate a safe margin of subcooling for volatile streams
3) Control of reflux temperature (for total or partial condensers)
4) Energy conservation
5) Protection from adverse atmospheric effects such as hot air recirculation, exces-
sive solar radiation, and heavy rainfall.
Fig. 11.1 Partial bypassing of process fluid around an air-cooled heat exchanger
119
vate fouling. Hot-vapor bypassing is a very popular method of control of the top pressure
of a distillation column.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 11.2 Opposed-action louver in the (a) closed position and (b) half-open position
120
Louvers placed at the top of the tube bundles for forced draft applications can be used to
control the air flow rate as desired. The control may be manual or automatic. An added
advantage of the use of louvers is that they afford protection to the tube bundles (finned
tubes) against hail. Yet another advantage is that for a combined section (a section having
two or more tube bundles handling different services), louvers can provide control of air
flow rate across individual tube bundles.
However, if the air flow rate through one tube bundle is reduced by partially closing its
louvers, the air flow rate through the other tube bundle(s) will increase to a certain extent.
Therefore, if fine control is required for a combined section, the fans will have to be
autovariable as well. It should be noted that only the use of autovariable fans can vary the air
flow rate uniformly through all the tube bundles served by them—individual control is not
possible. Due to the complex nature of control of air flow through individual tube bundles of
combined services, many licensors prefer not to combine services requiring precise control,
such as condensers.
Louvers are often used in conjunction with steam coils for cold start-up and protection
against freezing. A distinct disadvantage of the use of louvers is that it does not result in
power savings.
121
The use of autovariable fans is a very common method of air-cooled heat exchanger control.
Further reading
1. Monroe, R.C., 1980, “Consider Variable Pitch Fans,” Hydrocarbon Process., Dec., pp. 122–128.
122
CHAPTER 12
Operating Problems
in Air-Cooled Heat Exchangers
12.1 Introduction
In this chapter, we will take a look at some of the more common operating problems that
occur in air-cooled heat exchangers. First, we will discuss the problems that occur on the
tubeside and the problems that occur on the airside.
123
cooling is employed, steam coils are usually incorporated, and sometimes a sophisticated
recirculation system as well.
Manifold
Flow maldistribution is practically inevitable with two-phase flow entering an air-cooled
heat exchanger. Although it can be minimized by employing a carefully designed mani-
fold system as shown in Fig. 12.1b, it can never be totally eliminated. When flow maldis-
tribution occurs between the various tube bundles of an air-cooled heat exchanger but is
limited to only flow rate and not the vapor quality, the effect will be precisely the same as
described above for single-phase streams. However, if the manifold is not designed care-
fully, separation of vapor and liquid may occur and thereby lead to a severe deterioration
in performance. Since specific heat is much lower than latent heat, the tube bundles that
receive predominantly liquid have a much lower heat duty to perform and therefore over-
perform; the tube bundles that receive predominantly vapor will have a considerably
higher heat duty to remove, and will naturally underperform.
Liquid(L) + Vapour/Gas(V)
126
(FD) fans, the extent of hot air recirculation is less for ID fans than for FD fans. Thus, for
services where the process fluid is cooled and/or condensed to a relatively low temperature
(difference between the process fluid outlet temperature and the inlet air temperature) that is
less than 9–14°F (5–8 °C), ID fans are preferred.
Specific causes of hot air recirculation are as follows:
a) Adjacent units located at different elevations, so that the exit air from the unit lo-
cated at a lower elevation can mix with the air entering another the unit located at
a higher elevation (Fig. 12.3a). A good practice is to locate all adjacent units
(having the same type of draft) at the same elevation.
b) Induced draft units located adjacent to forced draft units—the exit air from the
forced draft unit is more likely to partially mix with the air entering the adjacent
induced draft unit since it has no plenum at the bottom (Fig. 12.3b). Thus, adja-
cent units should have the same type of draft.
c) Units located in front of a downward obstruction such as a building (e.g., compres-
sor house) (Fig. 12.3c). Units should be located clear of obstructions that are close
enough to result in hot air recirculation.
d) Adjacent units located with small-to-medium gaps between one another. Evidently,
the exit from one unit has a much greater probability of recirculating to the other,
depending on the wind direction (Fig. 12.3d). Therefore, adjacent units should be
located contiguously.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Prevailing Hot Wind
Compressor Building
(d)
Fig. 12.3 Hot air recirculation: (a) adjacent units at different elevations, (b) induced draft units
located adjacent to forced draft units, and (c) units located in front of an obstruction (d) adjacent
units located at a small gap
127
By applying good engineering judgment in plant layout, it is possible to restrict hot air
recirculation to a very minimum.
References
[1] API, 1992, Air-cooled Heat Exchangers for General Refinery Services, API Standard 661, 3rd
Ed., April, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.
[2] AIChE, 1978, AIChE Equipment Testing Procedure—Air Cooled Heat Exchangers: A Guide
to Performance Evaluation, AIChE, New York.
[3] API, 1981, Measurement of Noise from Air-cooled Heat Exchangers, API Recommended
Practice 631M, 1st Ed., June (Reaffirmed Oct. 1985), American Petroleum Institute, Wash-
ington, DC.
Further reading
1. Hewitt, G.F., ed.., 2002, “Air-cooled Heat Exchangers,” Vol. 3, Section 3.8, Heat Exchanger
Design Handbook 2002 (HEDH 2002), Begell House, Inc., New York, Redding, CT..
2. Larinoff, M.W., Moles W.E., and Reichhelm, R., 1978, “Design and Specification of Air-
cooled Steam Condensers,” Chem. Eng., May 22.
3. Berryman, R., and Russell, C., 1986, “Assessing Airside Performance of Air-cooled Heat
Exchangers,” Process Eng., April, pp. 59–64.
4. AIChE, 1978, AIChE Equipment Testing Procedure—Air Cooled Heat Exchangers: A Guide
to Performance Evaluation
5. Shastri, S.S. et al., 2001, “Enhance Air-cooled Heat Exchanger Performance,” Hydrocarbon
Process., Dec., pp. 49–55.
6. Berryman, R. and Russell, C., 1985, “Troubleshooting air-cooled heat exchangers,” Process
Eng., Apr., pp. 25–28.
7. Mukherjee, R., 1996, “Conquer Heat Exchanger Fouling,” Hydrocarbon Process., 74(1)., pp.
121–127.
130
CHAPTER 13
Special Applications
In this chapter, we will take a look at some special applications in air-cooled heat ex-
changers for addressing either special requirements or special services.
difference (between the inlet and the outlet temperatures of the process fluid) as well.
Looking at the overdesign values, we see that they are 36.8%, 19.6%, and 24.6% for
ACHE #1, ACHE #2, and ACHE #3, respectively. The latter two values are somewhat on
the higher side, but considering the small sizes of these bundles, they are acceptable.
However, the overdesign value for ACHE #1 is rather high, at 36.8%. This is really a
pressure drop limiting case, since with a lower number of tubes and the same number of tube
passes, the tubeside pressure drop will exceed the permitted value of 10 psi (0.7 kg/cm2). If
the number of tube passes is reduced from six to four (not five, since an odd number of
passes is not preferred for reasons of piping inconvenience), the overdesign value falls to a
mere 6.2%, due to a steep reduction in the tubeside heat transfer coefficient from 123.7
Btu/hft2°F (604 kcal/h m2°C/kcal) to 77.8 Btu/hft2°F (379.9 kcal/h m2°C/kcal). Thus, since
the number of tubes cannot be reduced, it is better to retain six tube passes and maintain a
decent tubeside velocity.
Table 13.1b: Principal construction and performance parameters for Case Study 13.1
ACHE # 1 ACHE # 2 ACHE # 3
132
It may be noted that while the tubeside velocities for ACHE #1 and for ACHE #2 are
acceptable, that for ACHE #3 [7.94 ft/s (2.42 m/s)] is so high that it will reduce tubeside
fouling to a minimum. It is not often that a designer is able to achieve such a high velocity.
It may also be noted that the air outlet temperature from ACHE #3 is rather high, at
243.7°F (117.6 °C). This was a direct consequence of the high MTD that required a
relatively small heat transfer area and therefore a rather small face area, through which only
a relatively low flow rate of air can be passed.
133
be warmed up to the design ambient temperature by passing an LP steam through the steam
coils, and having total air recirculation until the air temperature builds up to the design
ambient temperature. The steam supply can then be stopped, since the air-cooled heat
exchanger is then able to take care of itself.
Fig. 13.2 Humidified air-cooled heat exchanger (Courtesy Hudson Products Corporation, USA)
134
Hudson Products Corp. in Houston, Texas, USA, design, manufacture, and supply
patented humidified air-cooled heat exchangers by the trade name of Combin-Aire® air-
cooled heat exchangers.
Fig. 13.3 Wire-matrix type insert (hiTRAN System) (© Cal Gavin Ltd., reprinted with permission)
135
Table 13.2a: Principal process parameters for Case Study 13.2
ACHE # 1 ACHE # 2 ACHE # 3
1. Flow rate, lb/h (kg/h) 4564 (2070) 16,400 (7440) 78,300 (35,500)
2. Inlet temperature, °F (°C) 165.2 (74) 150.8 (66) 167 (75)
3. Outlet temperature, °F (°C) 129.2 (54) 129.2 (54) 129.2 (54)
4. Heat duty, MM Btu/h (MM kcal/h) 0.075 (0.019) 0.179 (0.045) 1.484 (0.374)
5. Operating pressure, psig (kg/cm2 abs) 88 (6.2) 654 (46.0) 99.5 (7.0)
6. Allowable pr. drop, psi (kg/cm2) 10 (0.7) 14.2 (1.0) 14.2 (1.0)
7. Fouling resistance, h ft2 °F/Btu (h m2 0.00195 (0.0004) 0.00195 (0.0004) 0.00195 (0.0004)
°C/kcal)
8. Inlet/outlet viscosity, cp 8.3/14.0 10/21 9.2/21
9. Inlet/outlet density, lb/ft3 (kg/m3) 52.3 (838)/ 52.4 (840)/ 52.2 (836)/
53.0 (850) 53.0 (850) 53.0 (850)
thereby reducing the fouling propensity appreciably, especially for thermally dependent
applications.
136
Table 13.2b: Principal construction and performance parameters for Case Study 13.2
ACHE # 1 ACHE # 2 ACHE # 3
1. Number of tubes per row 2 4 23
2. Number of rows 7 7 7
3. Number of tube passes 2 1 1
4. Approximate bundle width, ft (m) 0.66 (0.2) 1.1 (0.34) 4.8 (1.47)
5. Air flow rate, lb/h (kg/h) 28,700 (13,000) 57,300 (26,000) 329,600 (149,500)
6. Air inlet temperature, °F (°C) 104 (40) 104 (40) 104 (40)
7. Air outlet temperature, °F (°C) 115 (46.1) 116.8 (47.1) 122.7 (50.4)
8. Tubeside pr. drop, psi (kg/cm2) 10 (0.7) 13.0 (0.91) 14.2 (1.0)
9. MTD, °F (°C) 35.8 (19.9) 27.0 (15.0) 31.3 (17.4)
10. Overall heat transfer coefficient, 27.2 (133) 42.4 (207) 53.5 (261)
Btu/h ft2 °F/ (kcal/h m2°C/kcal)
11. Heat transfer area (bare), ft2 (m2) 78 (7.2) 154 (14.3) 886 (82.3)
12. No. of fans × fan dia., ft (m) 3 × 5 (1.524)
137
Table 13.4a: Principal process parameters for Case Study 13.4
1. Stream Vacuum residue
2. Flow rate, lb/h (kg/h) 37,500 (17,000)
3. Inlet temperature, °F (°C) 514.4 (268)
4. Outlet temperature, °F (°C) 428 (220)
5. Heat duty, MM Btu/h (MM kcal/h) 1.8 (0.454)
6. Operating pressure, psig (kg/cm2 abs) 113.8 (8.0)
7. Allowable pr. drop, psi (kg/cm2) 24 (1.7)
8. Fouling resistance, h ft2 °F/Btu (h m2 °C/kcal) 0.0098 (0.002)
9. Fouling layer thickness, in. (mm) 0.04 (1.0)
10. Inlet/outlet viscosity, cp 16/20.9
11. Inlet/outlet density, lb/ft3 (kg/m3) 872/881
12. Design ambient temperature, °F (°C) 107.6 (42)
finning density in the lower rows. The overdesign may reduce insignificantly, whereas
there is an appreciable saving in power consumption. Evidently, the greater the variation
in viscosity of the tubeside liquid, the greater is the scope for employing alternative fin-
ning.
this service appear to be, at first glance, unsuitable for cooling by air. However, for reasons
of convenience, an air-cooled heat exchanger was specified and 0.984 in. (25 mm) OD ×
0.0984 in. (2.5 mm) thick × 19.68 ft (6.0 m) long carbon steel tubes were to be used.
A natural draft air-cooled heat exchanger was designed, the principal construction and
performance parameters of which are detailed in the first column of Table 13.4b. It will be
seen that there is only a single bay having a single tube bundle with 40 tubes per row, four
tube rows, and eight tube passes. In order to provide a suitable natural draft, a 9.84 ft (3 m)
high stack was incorporated.
Note the extremely low airside pressure drop [0.026 in. (0.67 mm) WC] and heat
transfer coefficient [11.1 Btu/h ft2 °F (54.3 kcal/h m2 °C/kcal)], typical of air-cooled heat
exchangers operating under natural draft. Despite a tubeside velocity of 3.15 ft/s (0.96 m/s),
the tubeside heat transfer coefficient is also very low, since the liquid viscosity is very high.
The airside thermal resistance is 53.73% and the tubeside thermal resistance 37.86% of the
total.
As would be expected for natural draft, the air flow rate is very low and thereby the
airside outlet temperature is very high at 214.2°F (101.2°C). Nevertheless, because of the
high process temperatures, the MTD is still unusually high.
In order to demonstrate the significance of the chimney height, two additional runs were
taken for the same air-cooled heat exchanger construction, one with a chimney height of 6.6
ft (2 m) and the other with a chimney height of 3.3 ft (1 m). The results are shown in the
second and third columns of Table 13.4b. It will be seen that with a reduction in the chimney
height, there is a sharp fall in the air flow rate and thereby its heat transfer coefficient.
139
Consequently, the heat duty that can be handled reduces profoundly, from 1.8 M Btu/h
(0.454 M kcal/h) to 1.16 M Btu/h (0.292 M kcal/h), and finally to just 0.68 M Btu/h (0.171
M kcal/h).
Louvers were provided to cut off even the small air flow when the unit was not to be in
use, so as to prevent congealing of the vacuum residue under cold weather conditions.
It should be noted that since the tubeside heat transfer coefficient is rather low, the use
of fans would have resulted in a negligible increase in the overall heat transfer coefficient.
Therefore, the first cost would be significantly higher due to the fans, drives, plenums, etc.,
and the operating cost would also be higher due to the fan power. Thus, the use of natural
draft is optimal under such circumstances.
Fig. 13.4 A-frame air-cooled vacuum steam condenser exchanger (redrawn with permission from
HTRI)
140
The main problem with the air-cooled vacuum steam condenser is not the condensation
of the steam but the evacuation of the noncondensables. Failure to eliminate the
noncondensables can cause the following:
1) freezing of condensate in winter
2) loss of performance due to blanketing of the heat transfer surface
3) absorption of noncondensables by the condensate and subsequent corrosion of
the tube metal
Thus, a successful air-cooled vacuum steam condenser must continuously and totally col-
lect and eliminate all noncondensables from the system. The noncondensables are the
gases that enter the vacuum section of the power cycle from the atmosphere, as well as
from the chemicals used for the treatment of boiler feed water.
The trapping of noncondensables inside the condenser tubes is a direct consequence of
the variation of coolant air temperature across the tube bundle. Consider a single-pass
condenser having two or more tube rows. The tubes of the lowermost row are exposed to the
coldest air, while the tubes of the upper rows are exposed to progressively hotter air.
Therefore, the tubes in the lowermost row condense more steam (due to the higher MTD)
while those in the upper rows condense less and less steam. Consequently, the pressure drop
will be the highest in the tubes of the lowermost row, and progressively lower in the tubes of
the upper rows. This will cause a backflow of noncondensables from the tubes of the upper
rows to the tubes of the lowermost row. Figure 13.5 shows the simplest situation where there
are only two tube rows.
This backflow of noncondensables can eventually lead to gas blanketing of a substantial
fraction of the heat transfer surface. This problem will be less acute but not absent in a four-
row two-pass construction. In order to address this situation, a correction factor has been
proposed by Rozenman et al. [5], wherein extra heat transfer area has to be incorporated as
per the penalty factor evaluated.
Special patented designs have been developed by some air-cooled heat exchanger
vendors to address this situation. For a detailed presentation of the problem caused by
incomplete evacuation of noncondensables, the reader is referred to [5,6].
Fig. 13.5 Back-flow of noncondensables from the tubes of the upper row to the tubes of the lower row
in a 1-pass 2-row construction
141
References
[1] Gough, M.J., and Rogers, J.V., 1987, “Reducing Fouling by Enhanced Heat Transfer Using
Wire-Matrix Radial Mixing Elements,” 24th National Heat Transfer Conf., Pittsburgh, Au-
gust, AIChE Symp. Series No. 83, pp. 16-21
[2] Mascone, C.F., 1986, “CPI Strives to Improve Heat Transfer in Tubes,” editorial survey,
Chem. Eng., Feb 3, pp. 22–25.
[3] Bergles, A.E., 1978, “Enhancement of Heat Transfer,” 6th Int. Heat Transfer Conf., Aug. 7–
11, Toronto, Paper No. KS-9.
[4] Marner, W.J., and Bergles, A.E., 1978, “Augmentation of Tubeside Laminar Flow Heat
Transfer by Means of Twisted-Tape Inserts, Static Mixer Inserts and Internally-Finned
Tubes,” 6th Int. Heat Transfer Conf., Aug. 7–11, Toronto, Paper No. FC(a)-17.
[5] Rozenman, J., Pundyk, J., and Fenoglio, F., 1973, “The Effect of Unequal Heat Loads on the
Performance of Air-cooled Condensers,” 14th National. Heat Transfer Conference, Atlanta,
Aug. 5–8.
[6] Larinoff, M.W., Moles, W.E., and Reichhelm, R., 1978, “Design and Specification of Air-
cooled Steam Condensers,” Chem. Eng., May 22.
Further reading
1. Rubin, F.L., 1980, “Winterizing Air-cooled Heat Exchangers,” Hydrocarbon Process., Oct., pp.
147–149.
142
INDEX
143
economical design, 43, 44, 76, 81 115, 126, 133, 136, 138
fan fouling layer thickness, viii, 111–113, 114,
autovariable, 21, 108, 121, 122 116–118
blade, 28 fouling resistance, viii, 2, 4, 9, 18, 30, 32,
blade angle, 20, 21, 121, 128, 129 98, 104, 105, 107–109, 111–113
blade width, 21 unduly large, 108
dispersion angle, 22 headers
hub, 21 cover-plate type, 18
low noise, 7, 21, 24, 51 manifold type, 18
manually adjustable, 22 plug type, 18
power consumption, 26, 34, 39, 65, 68, heat release profile, 2, 31, 34, 72, 73, 89, 93,
70, 71, 75, 84, 117 95
ring, 22, 23, 128 heat release profiles
shaft, 20, 23 tabular, 95
tip, 22, 51, 128 heat transfer coefficient
tip clearance, 22 airside, 4, 29, 30, 39, 43, 46, 48, 50, 65,
tip speed, 51 78, 81–85, 104, 112, 113, 117, 137
vendor, 21 overall, 4, 5, 6, 29, 34, 40, 43, 45, 48, 50,
fan blades 57, 60, 61, 69, 70, 77, 78, 82, 84, 85,
FRP, 20 98–100, 103, 107, 108, 111, 114, 135,
fan drive 137, 140
direct, 23 tubeside, 7, 30, 35, 37–41, 43, 44, 45, 46,
gear, 23, 24 50, 61, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 76–79, 81,
V-belt, 23 83, 84, 88, 111, 112, 114, 117, 132,
fin density, 15, 30, 43, 79, 81, 82, 85, 87, 135–140
115, 116, 138 heat transfer coefficients
fin height, 2, 15, 30, 39, 46, 61, 63, 65, 75, typical overall, 37
78, 81 high pour point, 7, 123, 126, 133
fin spacing, 2, 46, 75, 81 high velocity, 106, 108, 109, 133
fin thickness, 46, 116 hot air recirculation, 27, 119, 125–128
finned tube humidified air-cooled heat exchanger, 134,
bimetallic, 17 135
flooding, 72 hydrogen, 92, 93, 116, 117
flow hydrogen-hydrocarbon mixtures, 93
annular, 58, 59 interface temperature, 106
cross, 47 laminar flow, 7, 44, 46, 114, 135, 136
laminar, 7, 44, 46, 114, 135, 136 line size, 33
stratified, 59 materials of construction, 30, 33, 108
turbulent, 40 mean temperature difference, 29, 31, 34, 48,
flow maldistribution, 123, 124 126, 128, 129
flow regimes mechanical design, 1, 2, 29
annular, 58, 59 MTD, 4–6, 27, 29, 34, 46–48, 50, 61, 63,
slug, 59 68–70, 72, 74, 83, 89, 93, 98–100, 104,
flow velocity, 106, 119 117, 126, 128, 129, 133, 139, 141
fouling multiple operating cases, 34
adverse effects of, 103 natural convection, 2, 3, 25, 27
airside, 15, 40, 83, 104, 116, 117 negative latent heat, 94
categories of, 2, 104 noise, 7, 20, 21, 23, 50, 129, 130
corrosion, 104 noise level, 7, 23, 129, 130
excessive, 126, 136 nozzle sizing, 2, 33
particulate, 104 nozzles, 17, 33, 61, 72, 124
sedimentation, 104 condensate, 72
solidification, 119, 133 Nusselt number, 46
tubeside, viii, 40, 44, 83, 104, 109, 113, operating pressure, 32, 37, 42, 55, 56, 61,
144
65, 67–69, 90, 117, 119, 125 44, 48, 49, 55, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69, 73, 75,
operating problems, 2, 123 91–95, 98, 100, 101, 107, 111–113, 117,
overdesign, 2, 4, 41, 70, 71, 78, 82, 88, 97– 137
102, 108, 114, 117, 123, 132, 138 optimum, 29, 48
on performance, 98–100 trim cooler, 8–10, 41, 102, 103, 128, 129
on surface, 98, 100 tube bundle, 1, 7, 13, 14, 19, 22–27, 35, 51,
reasons for providing, 97 75–77, 83, 85–87, 113, 115, 116, 120,
overdesign factor, 97, 100, 101 121, 123, 124, 126, 128, 131, 133, 134,
pass partition plates, 17, 35 137–139, 141
physical properties, 2, 32, 34, 36, 40, 57, 60, tube diameter, 35, 36, 41, 56, 76, 109, 110
89–91, 97, 99, 107 tube inserts, 2, 114, 135, 136
physical property profiles, 2 wire fin, 7, 46, 114, 115, 135–137
pipe rack, 7, 33, 42, 44, 75, 131 tube length, 17, 21, 22, 29, 33, 39, 41, 42,
pipe-rack width, 33, 49, 75, 76 44, 49, 50, 56, 69, 74–76, 102, 137
plenum chamber, 23, 24, 27, 75, 126 tube passes
Prandtl number, 35, 36, 46, 58 number of, 2, 19, 29, 35, 39, 41, 47, 50,
pressure drop 56, 63, 65, 75–77, 80, 81, 83, 87, 108,
allowable, 4, 9, 30–32, 35, 41, 42, 50, 56, 110, 113, 132, 135, 136
72, 108, 110, 111 tube pitch, 2, 29, 75, 78, 80, 85, 86
allowable tubeside, 41–45, 50, 63, 88 longitudinal, 47
in nozzles, 72 transverse, 47
total, 42, 72 tube plugging, 102
tubeside, 15, 32, 34, 39–45, 50, 63, 65, tube rows
67, 77, 80, 81, 88, 98, 102, 109, 110, number of, 2, 18, 29, 35, 75, 77, 80, 82,
112–114, 132, 135, 136 83, 116
utilization of, 77 tube size, 33, 36, 39, 41, 49, 79
pressure drop limiting design, 41, 102 tube supports, 13, 14
process licensor, 26, 31–34, 42, 43, 45, 90, tubes
91, 101, 102 bare, 30, 135, 137
radial mixing, 46, 114, 136 finned, 15–17, 19, 26, 27, 30, 46, 115,
recirculation air-cooled heat exchanger, 26, 121, 131, 134
126, 133 tubesheet, 18, 19
residence time, 135, 136 tubeside heat transfer coefficient controlling,
run length, 105, 108 78, 81, 137
sound power level, 50, 51 tubeside velocity, 31, 35, 38, 41, 43–45,
sound pressure level, 51 108, 110–113, 126, 132, 139
specific heat, 6, 7, 31, 32, 36, 37, 72, 89, 90, tube-to-tubesheet joint, 120
92, 93, 116, 124 U-tubes, 18, 35
subcooling, 2, 61, 68, 71, 73, 100, 119 variation of viscosity with temperature, 90
technological platform, 33 viscosity, 32, 35–37, 42, 44, 60, 79, 89, 90,
TEMA standards, 32, 47, 90, 108, 109 92, 99, 110, 136–139
thermal conductivity, 1, 6, 14, 15, 32, 33, winterization, 6, 119
36, 37, 89, 90, 92, 93, 112, 113, 116
thermal design, 1, 2, 13, 29–32, 37, 39, 43,
145