ShellTargeting

Module04

Lecture16

Module04:Targeting
Lecture16:SHELLTARGETING2stPart
Keywords:ShellandTubeHeatExchanger,SHE,HEN,ShellTargeting,
Theshellandtubeheatexchanger(SHE)isthemostcommontypeofheattransferequipment
used in heat exchanger networks (HENs) by Chemical Process Industries. Generally, multipass
SHEisemployedintheseindustriesbecauseofthefollowingadvantages:
(1)Theconfigurationgiveslargesurfaceareainasmallvolume,
(2)Goodmechanicallayoutwhichcansustainlargevariationofpressuredrop,
(3)Useswellestablisheddesignproceduresandfabricationtechniques,
(4)Canbeconstructedfromawiderangeofmaterialsand
(5)Canbeeasilycleaned.
WhyShellTargeting?
Many HEN design methods described in the literature make the simplifying assumption of
counter current exchange. However, Kardos and Strelow (1983) pointed out that an optimal
solutionoftheHENproblembasedonpurelycountercurrentheatexchangerwillonlyremain
optimalinpracticeifeachexchangerconsistsofasingleshell.Thisrarelyoccursinindustrydue
tothemultipassshell&tubeconstructionofSHE.Therefore,itisnecessarytotargetnumber
ofshellsratherthanunitsatthesynthesisstageofHENwhichwillprovidearealistictarget.
IncaseofthesimplestmultipassSHE,the12type,asshowninFig.4.33theliquidinonetube
pass flows in counter flow while in the other pass flows in parallel relative to shell fluid. To
account both counter and parallel flows in 12 SHE, following analytical expression has been
developedbyUnderwood(1934)andlatermodifiedbyBowman,MuellerandNagle(1940):

ShellTargeting

Module04

Temp.

Q=UA(Tln)FT
T1

Lecture16

(4.25)

Counterflow

T2

t2

Parallelflow

t1

length

(b)
(a)

Fig.4.33(a)12shell&TubeHeatexchanger(b)Temperatureprofileof12SHE

Where,FTfactoristheratiooftheactualmeantemperaturedifferenceina12SHEtocounter
flowTlnforthesameterminaltemperatures.FTisafunctionofdimensionlessratios,RandS,
anditsvaluesvarybetweenzeroandone.

HeatcapacityRatio,R=(T1T2)/(t2t1).(4.26)
ThermalEffectiveness,S=(t2t1)/(T1t1)..(4.27)

Based on the value of FT, feasible design of a heat exchanger is selected amongst different
alternative designs. For this purpose, as a rule of thumb designs with FT > 0.8 is selected
whereas design with unacceptably low FT value is discarded. The genesis of the logic is that
whenFTdecreasesbelow0.8temperaturecrossincreases.Asaconsequenceofit,heattransfer
areaincreasessignificantly,whichisundesirable.

AhmadandSmith,1989haveproposedananalyticalexpressionforcalculatingnumberofshells
directly,basedonthefactthatforanyvalueofR,amaximumasymptoticvalueofSexists:

.(4.28)

ShellTargeting

Module04

Lecture16

Where,Sisaparameterofphysicalsignificanceandisameasureofthetemperatureefficiency
oftheexchangerwhichdirectlyaffectstheFTfactor.TherelationshipbetweenFTandScanbe
seenfromFig.4.34below:

Tplot
Fig.4.34ThestandardF

A12exchangerdesignedforS=SmaxwillnotbefeasiblesinceitcorrespondstoFT=.Thus
theydefinedapracticaldesignvalueofStobelimitedtosomefractionXPoftheSmaxasgiven
below:
S=Smax*XPwhere,0<XP<1.(4.29)
Thustheexpressionforthenumberofshellsinthiscaseisgivenby:

.(4.30)

Where,
.(4.31)

ShellTargeting

Module04

Lecture16

TheEq.4.30returnsavalueofNthatsatisfiespreciselythechosenvalueofXP.Theproblemis,
what should be the design value of XP when the temperature cross is considered? Though
AhmadandSmith(1989)emphasizetheimportanceoftemperaturecrossinexchangerdesign,
theydidnotexplainhowXPaccountsfortemperaturecross.TheirchoiceofvalueofXPequals
to0.9isbasedonFT=0.8atR=1,whichisagainarbitrary.Whatifadesignerwantstousethe
lower value of XP? How much improvement in temperature cross and FT will be achieved by
this? The algorithm given below addresses these questions and provides an alternative
formulation,whichdirectlyaccountsfortemperaturecross.
NewApproachfortargetingminimumnumberofshellsaccountingfortemperaturecross:
It is a known fact that at large temperature cross, local reversal of heat flow may be
encountered,whichiswastefulinheattransferarea.Hence,onlyalimitedtemperaturecross
shouldbeaccommodated.Toaccommodatethetemperaturecross,adimensionlessgroup,G,
wasproposedbyWales(1981):
G=(T2t2)/(T1t1)

(4.32)

Wales(1981)observedthatthetemperaturedifference(T2t2)hasapronouncedeffectonFT
and consequently on actual mean temperature difference. FT decreases moderately with
decreasingtemperatureapproach[(T2>t2)andpositiveGvalues].However,itfallssharplyat
zerotemperaturedifference[(T2=t2)andG=0]andcontinuesthisbehaviorattemperature
cross [(T2 < t2) and negative G values]. The behavior of FT with change in G and R can be
observedfromFig.4.35.
For this purpose the standard FT charts were modified to account for temperature cross
directly.ItwasobtainedbycreatingdesignchartsofFT(R,S)andFT(R,G)andsuperimposing
these to develop a single chart for each flow configuration. The charts are illustrated in Figs.
4.34&4.35.ThefinaldesignchartispresentedasFig.4.35for12SHE.Similarchartscanalso
becreatedfor24SHEandhighershellpassexchangers.Inthesecharts,theknowledgeofany
twoofthefourparameters(R,S,G,FT)yieldthevalueoftheothertwo.IfvalueofRandSare
knownthenGandFT canbefounddirectlyfromFig.2.Forexample,ifR=1andS=0.5thenG
=0 and FT = 0.8 as can be seen through Fig. 4.35(b). Similarly, one can select any two values
amongstR,S,GandFTandfindtheresttwo.Theadvantagesofthesechartsaresummarized
below:
a) AsthesechartsretainstandardFTRScurves,thedesignerfindsthesefamiliar.
b) IsoGcurvescuttingacrosstheseplotshorizontallyprovideinformationontheeffectof
temperaturecrossonFTforanyvalueofR(orS).
c) Itcanalsobeseenfromthechartthatincertainregions(0.25<R<4.0;0.03<G<0.0)
FT is almost independent of R and S and thus only depends on G. This is the region

ShellTargeting

Module04

Lecture16

where temperature cross exerts controlling influence of FT which is directly related to

thefeasibilityofheatexchanger.
(a)

(b)

Fig4.35(a)FTvs.SplotwithGasaparameter,(b)ModifiedFTplotwithG&Rasparameters

TheexpressionforGinEq.4.32canberearrangedtogive:
G=1S(1+R)

(4.33)

Also, the behavior of G with respect to S can be illustrated using the temperature profile shown in
Fig.4.33(b) for the simplest multipass exchanger i.e. 12 shell and tube. For Fig. 4.33(b) S and G are
definedby:

(4.34)

S=(t2t1)/(T1t1)

G=(T2t2)/(T1t1)

(4.35)

InthisFigure,ift2increases,SincreasesandGdecreasesassumingfixedT1andt1.Ift2further
increases,itmaygiveeitherG=0orG<0whichisaconditionoftemperaturecross.
Plants(1992)pointedoutthatatG=0,S=1/(1+R).ThevalueofGequalstozeroisbasedon
FT=0.8.Hence,reliablemultipasspredictionshouldnotbeexpectedforindustrialapplications
when the thermal effectiveness of exchangers (S) exceeds this value, which corresponds to
negativevalueofG.Theoretically,GisrelatedtoSbyEq.4.33whichshowsthatforfixedvalue
ofR,GdecreasesasSincreases.Thus,whenSachievesitsmaximumvalue,Eq.4.33givesthe
minimumvalueofGforfixedR.Hence,

ShellTargeting

Module04

Gmin=1Smax(1+R)

Lecture16

.(4.36)

FromEqs.4.36&4.28onegetGminas:

..(4.37)

Thisvaluerepresentsalimitoftemperaturecrossfeasiblein12exchangerdesignforagiven
valueofR.Eq.4.37eliminatestherequirementofS.A12exchangerdesignedforG=Gminwill
notbefeasibleasitwillreturnFT<0.8whichisinfeasible.AnyincrementinGfromGminwill
make the exchanger feasible and improve the exchanger effectiveness, S, and FT. Let the
desiredincrementbeY.Then,practicalfeasiblevalueofGis:
G=Gmin+Y

.(4.38)

Where, Y is a constant set by the designer. Here Y clearly reflects the designers attempt to
reduce the temperature cross. Now the expression for number of shells can be derived by
eliminatingSfromEq.4.30andusingEq.4.33.

(4.39)

Where,

(4.40)

YcanbecorrelatedwithXPasgivenbelow:

(4.41)

(4.42)

Alternatively,

IfNisroundedofftonextintegervalue,sayM,thenimprovedvalueofY,sayY,isgivenas:

Where,

(4.43)

ShellTargeting

Module04

Lecture16

(4.44)

Where,GNisthevalueofGforaheatexchangerinwhichNnumberofshellsisincorporated.It
iscomputedusingEq.4.32.Eq.4.43givesimprovedY(i.e.Y)forintegernumberofshellsM
(>N).Infact,Yshouldbecalculatedatboth(M1)andMshells;insomecases,thedesigner
mayfindYat(M1)shellsacceptablewhereaheatexchangercanbeoperatedeffectivelywith
tighter design (Gulyani, 1998). This might essentially be the case while targeting for shells in
heatexchangernetworks,whererounding,say3.1shellsto4mayescalatethetotalcosttarget.
It must be noted here that the number of shells computed using expression of Ahmad and
Smith(1989),Eq.4.30,aswellastheexpressiondevelopedinthispaper,Eq.4.39,areinfact
the real number of shells. However, in actual practice, the design can have only an integer
number of shells. Hence, the number of shells is rounded off to next higher integer. The
designermaywanttooptimizebetween3shellswithabitlowervalueofYand4shellswith
ahighervalueofYonthebasisoftotalcosttargets.
Basedonaboveanalysisalesscumbersomemethodforshelltargetingisproposedas:
Realnumberofshells,

(4.45)

Where,

(4.46)

ForG=0,

(4.47)

Now, the designer would like to know that if N is rounded off to integer M, how much G is
improved.Thiscanbecalculatedfromthefollowingexpression:

.(4.48)

TheLMTDcorrectionfactor,FT,canalsoberepresentedintermsofRandG.

ShellTargeting

Module04

ln 1

1/ 1

ln

Lecture16

(4.49)

Example
TargetingofnumberofshellforaHENproblemisillustratedthroughthestreamdatashownin
TableE4.1whereTminis10C.Forthisproblemsteamandcoldwaterareusedashotandcold
utility,respectively.
TableE4.1Streamdatafornumberofshelltargeting
Stream
No.

Stream
Type

1
2
3
4
5
6

Hot
Hot
Cold
Cold
Steam
Coldwater

Heatcapacity
flowrate
(MW/oC)
0.2
0.4
0.15
0.3

Supply
Target
Temperature Temperature
(oC)
(oC)
240
70
180
95
50
190
100
220
230
229
20
35

Solution
The hot and cold utility requirements for the process are predicted as 6MW and 17MW,
respectively, using problem table algorithm. The heat capacity flowrates of steam and cold
water are 6 MW/C and 1.33 MW/C, respectively. For this problem hot and cold pinch
temperaturesare180Cand170C,respectively.
Usingstreamandutilitydatabalancedhotandcoldcompositecurvedataaredeteminedand
showninTableE4.2andE4.3.
TableE4.2Dataforbalancedhotcompositecurve
Interval, i
0
1
2
3
4
5

Th,i
70
95
180
229
230
240

CPh,i
0
0.2
0.6
0.2
6.2
0.2

Qh,i
0
5
51
9.8
6.2
2

Cumulative Qh,i
0
5
56
65.8
72
74

ShellTargeting

Module04

Lecture16

TableE4.3Dataforbalancedcoldcompositecurve
Interval, i
0
1
2
3
4
5

Tc,i
20
35
50
100
190
220

CPc,i
0
1.1333
0
0.15
0.45
0.3

Qc,i
0
17
0
7.5
40.5
9

Cumulative Qc,i
0
17
17
24.5
65
74

Oncedataforbalancedhotandbalancedcoldcompositecurvesareknown,enthalpyintervals
aredetermined.Foreachenthalpyintervaltemperaturesofhotandcoldstreamsarecomputed
inamannersimilartothatiscarriedoutforareatargeting.Thesecalculationsaresummarized
inTableE4.4.

TableE4.4Temperaturesofhotandcoldstreamsforeachenthalpyinterval
Interval, i
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Cumulative Qi
0
5
17
17
24.5
56
65
65.8
72
74

Th,i
70
95
115
115
127.5
180
225
229
230
240

Tc,i
20
24.412
35
50
100
170
190
192.67
210.82
220

ForeachintervalcomputationofR,GandNarecarriedoutthrough Eq.4.26, 4.32and 4.47,

respectivelyandvaluesaresummarizedinTableE4.5.

ShellTargeting

Module04

Lecture16

TableE4.5ValuesofR,GandN
Interval, i
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Th,i
70
95
115
115
127.5
180
225
229
230
240

Tc,i
20
24.412
35
50
100
170
190
192.67
210.82
220

0.1765
0.5294
4
1.3333
0.4444
0.6675
18.15
0.918

0.6078
0.6623
0.1935
-0.5313
-0.1818
0.8289
0.4870
0.3427

0.1988
0.1968
0.6205
3.5164
1.5448
0.0923
0.2204
0.4893

Number of shells, N, shown in Table E4.5 is applicable if single heat exchangers is present in
each interval. The actual numberof shells is computed based on total numberof exchangers
present in each interval which depends on number of streams available in that interval. If
numberofstreamspresentinanintervalisSthentheactualnumberofshells,Ns,iscomputed
usingfollowingequation:
Ns=(N[S1])
Thecalculationofactualnumberofshells,Ns,isshowninTableE4.6.Forthepresentproblem
ashotandcoldpinchtemperaturesare180Cand170Cthepinchpointliesininterval5.Thus,
numberofshellsataboveandbelowthepinchare12.38and4.11,respectively.
Therefore, total number of shells targeted is 18 in which 13 are above the pinch and 5 are
belowthepinch.
TableE4.6Targetingofnumberofshellsforeachinterval
Interval, i
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Stream population
6

3
4

5
1

Th,i
70
95
115
115
127.5
180
225
229
230
240

Tc,i
20
24.412
35
50
100
170
190
192.67
210.82
220

Ns

0.1988
0.1968
0.6205
3.5164
1.5448
0.0923
0.2204
0.4893

2
3
2
3
4
3
2
3
2

0.199
0.394
1.241
10.549
3.090
0.092
0.441
0.489

ShellTargeting

Module04

Lecture16

References
1. B.B.Gulyani,S.KhanamandB.Mohanty,Anewapproachforshelltargetingofaheat
exchangernetwork,ComputersandChemicalEngineering33(2009)14601467
2. Kardos, J., & Strelow, O. (1983). Structural synthesis of heat exchanger networks with
standardized exchangers. In Proc. 4th Conf. Appl. Chem., Unit Ope. Proc. Hungary,(pp.
6570).
3. Underwood, A. J. V. (1934). The calculation of the mean temperature difference in
multipass heat exchangers. Journal of the Institute of Petroleum Technology, 20, 145
158.
4. Bowman,R.A.,Mueller,A.C.,&Nagle,W.M.(1940).Meantemperaturedifferencein
design.TransactionsoftheASME,62,283.
5. Ahmad,S.,&Smith,R.(1989).Targetsanddesignforminimumnumberofshellsinheat
exchangernetworks.ChemicalEngineeringResearchandDesign,67.
6. Wales, R. E. (1981). Mean temperature difference in heat exchangers. Chemical
Engineering,88,7781.
7. Plants, C. A. (1992). Evaluate heat exchanger performance. Chemical Engineering, 99,
100110.
8. Gulyani, B. B. (1998). Strategies for design and simulation of heat exchanger
networks.Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of
Roorkee,India