Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Heat Exchanger Networks: (Continued) Slide-2
Heat Exchanger Networks: (Continued) Slide-2
Heat Exchanger Networks: (Continued) Slide-2
Networks
(Continued) Slide-2
Minimum No of Exchangers
Previous analysis allowed us to determine
the minimum heating and cooling
requirements for a heat exchanger
network.
We use these results as a starting point
to determine the minimum number of
exchangers required.
Minimum No of Exchangers
First Law Analysis
Consider the heating and cooling loads
for each of the process streams as well as
the minimum utility requirements that
correspond to the second law analysis
(figure on next slide).
Ignore
the
minimum
approach
temperature and just consider how many
paths (exchangers) are required to
transfer the heat from the sources to
sinks.
Minimum No of Exchangers
Minimum No of Exchangers
We find that there are five paths, or that
five heat exchangers are required.
We note that the heat loads just balance,
which must always be the case because
our minimum and cooling loads satisfy
the first law requirements.
We can Generalize the result and state
that normally
(No of exchangers) = (No of streams ) + (No of
utilities ) -1
------(1)
Minimum No of Exchangers
Independent Problems
Eq 1 is not always correct, as we can
see by examining fig on next slide.
In this example, we have merely
increased the utility requirements, but
the first law analysis is still satisfied.
If we transfer the heat between the
sources and the sinks , then we require
only 4 exchangers.
Minimum No of Exchangers
Independent Problems
------(2)
Minimum No of Exchangers
Loops
Consider the arrangement shown in next
slide, we see that we can still satisfy the
heat transfer requirements between the
sources and the sinks for any value of QE
However for this configuration we need
six exchangers.
There is a loop in the network.
Loops
Loop:
we can trace a path through the network
that starts at the hot utility, goes to
stream 3, goes to stream 1, goes to
stream 4, and then goes back to the hot
utility.
Loops
Feasible Matches:
If we attempt to match stream 1 above pinch (QH = 110), with stream 3
(QC = 60), max amount of heat transfer possible is 60.
Thus if we calculate temp of hot stream that would be inlet temperature
to exchanger, we get:
Q = 60 X 103 = F Cp T = 1000(TH-140); TH = 200
On matching stream 2 with 3 gives, the limiting heat load is Qc = 60. If
we calculate the inlet temp of hot stream, we obtain
Q = 60 X 103 = F Cp T = 4000(TH-140); TH = 155
Since temperature of cold stream is 150, we have violated our
criterion of minimum approach temperature.
Thus the design heuristic for feasible matches at pinch condition:
Above the pinch: FHCpH <= FCCpC
Below the pinch: FHCpH >= FCCpC
Pinch Matches:
Fig.8.4-12a (Loops)
Fig.8.4-12b (Loops)
Fig.8.4-12c
Breaking loops
In below fig. 8.5-3, the energy requirements are
satisfied for any value of QE. However if QE = 20,
one of the heat exchangers in the network
disappears.
We always satisfy the heat loads of each stream
by subtracting an amount QE from one exchanger
but adding it to another exchanger on the same
stream.
Heuristics
Break the loop that includes the exchanger
with the smallest possible heat load.
Always remove the smallest heat load from a
loop
It we break a loop that crosses the pinch;
normally we violate the minimum approach
temp in the revised network.
If we violate the minimum approval temp, we
must find some way of restoring it.
Note that:
When we add heat to a heater and shift it along a path, we
must remove the same amount of heat in a cooler.
We often shift heat along a path to restore a minimum
approach temperature
This procedure always increases the energy consumption of
the process.
Can shift heat along a path.
Transfer heat along a pinch more heat in, more heat out.
Use to restore minimum T.
Restoring Tmin
We can restore Tmin by shifting heat along a path.
FINAL DESIGN:
The final design is shown in Fig. 8.6-6.
Now there are five exchangers but the
heating and cooling requirements have
increased.
Thus, it is essential to consider the capital
and operating costs of the alternative
networks.