S.

Ahmad
B. Linnhoff
B. Smith
Department of Chemical Engineering,
UMIST,
Manchester, England

Design of Multipass Heat

Exchangers: an Alternative
Approach
Multipass heat exchangers are often designed according to the rule of thumb
F T >0.75. This criterion can give rise to poor designs. It is the slope (dF T /9P) R that
is important, not just the absolute value of F T . Furthermore, in multishell arrangements, the number of shells required is usually evaluated by trial and error.
This paper introduces an approach based on a new parameter that is an alternative
to F T factors. The method is fully compatible with established design practice, takes
account of the F T slope, and evaluates the number of shells explicitly in multishell
cases.

Introduction

One of the most common types of shell-and-tube exchanger

is the 1-2 design (1 shell pass-2 tube passes). Because the flow
arrangement involves part countercurrent and part cocurrent
flow, the effective temperature difference for heat exchange is
reduced compared with a purely countercurrent device. This is
accounted for in design by the introduction of the FT factor
into the basic heat exchanger design equation, as discussed by
Bowman et al. (1940)

R = CPH/CPC = (TCo - Tc,)/{Tm - TH0)

and

F T Correction Factors

Graphical and analytical correlations exist for FT based on a

number of assumptions concerning the heat transfer in a 1-2
exchanger (see Bowman et al., 1940). Important among these
are that the streams assume constant heat capacity flow rates
and that the overall heat transfer coefficients remains fixed.
The correlations are then normally expressed in the form
FT=f{R,

P)

(2)

where
Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division for publication in the JOURNAL OF
HEAT TRANSFER. Manuscript received by the Heat Transfer Division February
23, 1987. Keywords: Heat Exchangers, Modeling and Scaling.

(4)

P- (7/fi ~ THo)/(THi - Ta)

Some designers use the alternative definitions
R' = CPC/CPH = {Tm - THo)/(TCo - Tci)

(3a)

and
P'=(TCo-Ta)/(THi-Ta)

Q=UAATLMFT

(1)
The FT correction factor is usually correlated in terms of two
dimensionless ratios, the thermal effectiveness of the exchanger (P) and the ratio of the two heat capacity flow rates
(R).
At the early stages of design, engineers need to be able to
screen alternative designs before going forward to more detailed calculations. These alternatives include not only different types of exchanger, but also in the case of 1-2 designs,
multiple shell arrangements forced by unacceptably low values
of FT. If multiple shells are required then the most common
practice is to adopt a trial-and-error approach in which the
number of shells in series is progressively increased until a
satisfactory value of FT is obtained for each shell.
This paper describes an alternative approach to the design
of 1-2 exchangers, particularly useful in the early stages of
design, which does not rely directly on FT factors. The approach is fully compatible with established design procedures
and offers two distinct advantages:
(0 It generates better designs than those based on traditional rules of thumb for specifying minimum permissible FT
be avoiding uncertain areas of the FT chart more effectively.
(H) For multishell arrangements, the number of shells does
not need to be evaluated by trial and error but can by
evaluated explicitly.

(3)

(4a)

instead of R and P. Whichever of the two conventions is

adopted is immaterial in determining the value of FT for given
exchanger profiles. This results because
R' = l/R,

P'=RP

RP) = FT(R',

P') = FT(\/R',

and
FT{R, P)=FT(l/R,

R'P')

Three basic situations can be encountered when using 1-2

exchangers (Fig. 1):
(a) We have a temperature approach. This situation is
straightforward to design for using a single 1-2 shell.
(b) We have a small temperature cross. This situation is
usually straightforward to design for and again can probably
be accommodated in a single shell.
(c) We have a large temperature cross. Local reversal of
heat flow may be encountered, which is wasteful in heat
transfer area. The design might even become infeasible.
One basic question therefore remains: How much
temperature cross can we tolerate before encountering reversal
of heat flow or infeasibility? Clearly, infeasible exchanger
designs returnF T <0, but havingF T >0 is not enough to make
a design practical. A commonly used rule of thumb requires
FT-> 0.75 for the design to be considered practical as discussed
by Kern (1950).
However, the use of the criterion FT>0.15 for 1-2 exchangers is only a rule of thumb and can lead to poor designs
if not used with caution.
The fact that designs using values of FT less than 0.75 are
unacceptable is not solely due to the inefficiency of the chosen
configuration. Bell (1984) has pointed out that the whole
method is only approximate since it is based on certain simplifying assumptions. Any violation of the simplifying assumptions will tend to have a particularly significant effect in areas
of the FT chart where slopes are particularly steep. For example, in an exchanger with a close temperature approach, bundle and baffle bypassing not accounted for in the approach
can result in an exchanger that is not just inefficient but is
thermodynamically infeasible. Any uncertainties or inac-

304/Vol. 110, MAY 1988

Transactions of the ASME

Copyright 1988 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/14/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

1 Shell Pass- 2 Tube Passes

Temperature

Temperature

FT

0-1

02

0-3

0-4

0-5 0-6 0-7

0-8

0-9

10

Fig. 2 A line of constant slope can be defined to separate regions of

preferred design from regions of unacceptable design

been acknowledged previously in qualitative form by Taborek

(1979, 1983b) and Liu et al. (1985), but they do not appear to
be widely practiced. This is probably because no easily interpreted rules of thumb are available.
These arguments can be made quantitative by introducing a
line of constant slope, that is
(dFr/dP)R = const
The expression for (dFr/dP)R
byMitson(1984)as
(dFT/dP)R =
0

0-1 0-2 0-3 0-4 05 0-6 0-7 0-8 0-9

1-0

Fig. 1 Three basic temperature situations can be encountered when

using 1-2 exchangers

curacies in design data also have a more significant effect

when slopes are steep.
Consequently, if we are,to be confident in a design, we
should avoid those parts of the FT chart where slopes are
steep, irrespective of F r > 0 . 7 5 . These considerations have

for 1-2 design has been derived

[FT/P(l-P)]

- [(1 - P)F2T/^2P] [13/(2 - P/3) - a/(2 - Pa)]

(5)

where a = 2 - V2 and 0 = 2 + V2.

A line of constant slope that follows the same slope as the
point FT = 0.75 at R=\ has (3FT/dP)R = - 2 . 8 , and is illustrated in Fig. 2. Design can be carried out with far greater
confidence above the line of constant slope irrespective of
FT>Q.15. The line of constant slope shown in Fig. 2 was
chosen simply to be in line with current acceptable design
practice. More conservative design would require a line of less
steep slope, say for example (dFT/dP)R = - 1. The value of the
slope to be tolerated is at the discretion of the designer, similar
to the lowest value of the FT correction factor in the tradi-

Nomenclature
A = heat exchange area,
trr

CPr = heat capacity flow rate

of cold stream,
kW/C
CP = heat capacity flow rate
of hot stream, kW/C
FT = logarithmic mean
temperature difference
correction factor
iV = number of 1-2 shells
in series
P = heat exchanger thermal
effectiveness, equation
(4)
maximum (asymptotic)
value of P, equation
(7)
1,2
thermal effectiveness
for a single 1-2 shell
l,2max
maximum (asymptotic)
value of Pi 2 , equation
(7)
Journal of Heat Transfer

PN,2N - overall thermal effectiveness for N 1-2

shells in series
Q = exchanger heat duty,
kW
R = heat capacity flow-rate
ratio, equation (3)
T 's = inlet and outlet
temperatures to an exchanger, C
Ta = cold stream inlet
temperature, C
TCo = cold stream outlet
temperature, C
THj = hot stream inlet
temperature, C
THo = hot stream outlet
temperature, C
ATt = temperature difference
at exchanger hot end,
C

AT C = cold stream
temperature change,
C
ATH - hot stream
temperature change,
C
ATLM = logarithmic mean
temperature difference, C
U = overall exchanger heat
transfer coefficient,
kW//i22C
XP = Ratio of actual to
maximum thermal effectiveness in a single
1-2 exchanger, equation (7)
{dFT/dP)R = slope of FT line
against P for a given
value of R on the FT
chart
MAY 1988, Vol. 110/305

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/14/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

tional approach. The slope becomes a particularly important

consideration when 1-2 exchangers are to be used in situations
in which the overall heat transfer coefficient varies appreciably over the length of the exchanger (see Bannerot and
Mahajan, 1978).
3

A Simple Design Criterion

Although the constant slope criterion outlined in the

previous section is an effective means of avoiding undesirable
areas of the FT chart, it is rather complex to evaluate and use.
A simpler approach, which retains the essential advantages of
the constant slope approach, is possible and will now be
developed.
This alternative approach is based upon the observation
that for any value of R there is a maximum asymptotic value
for P, say Pm3X, which is given as FT tends to -<. This
represents the limit of thermal effectiveness in feasible 1-2 exchanger design for given heat capacity flow rates. An expression for P m a x has been stated by Taborek (1983a) and also
derived by Mitson (1984); it takes the form

or the FT slope too large. If this happens, they may be forced

to consider either different types of shell or multipe shell arrangements (Fig. 5). The present paper will concentrate on
multiple shell arrangements of the 1-2 type. The profiles
shown in Fig. 5 could in principle be achieved either by two
1-2 shells in series or a single 2-4 shell. These two arrangements will be considered equivalent in design terms,
displaying the same temperature profiles. Various ways of
evaluating design situation that require multiple 1-2 shells in
series will now be explored.
(a) Traditional Design Practice. Traditionally, the
designer would approach a problem requiring multiple shells
by trail and error. The design begins by assuming a number of
shells, usually one in the first instance, and the FT is
evaluated. If the FT is not acceptable then the number of shells
in series is progressively increased until a satisfactory value for
FT is obtained for each shell. The task is simplified by having
subcharts that evaluate the performance of the overall unit for
arrangements of 2, 3, 4, etc., shells in series (see Bowman et

= 2/(i? + l+Vtf 2 + l)
(6)
P,
A 1-2 exchanger designed for P=Pmax will not be feasible.
However, exchangers with P<Pmax will be feasible. We can
define a practical design to be limited to some fraction of Jmax
according to
P=XPPmm,

where 0 < A > < 1

(7)

and XP is a constant defined by the designer.

A typical profile for equation (7) with XP = 0.9 is shown in
Fig. 3 and compared with the line of constant slope for
(dFT/dP)R= - 2 . 8 . It can be seen that the line XP = const
follows the same basic profile as the line of constant slope.
In fact, the relationship between the slope (dFT/dP)R and
the parameter XP can be expressed concisely (Fig. 4). To obtain the simple mapping between the constant slope and constant XP criteria, P = XPPmax = 2XP/(R + 1 + Vfl2 + 1) is substituted into the expression for (dFT/dP)R. In practice, the
slope of the line R=\ on FT charts can be taken as a
reasonable median from which to obtain XP values against
(dFT/dP)R. In summary, two competing criteria have been
developed for exchanger design that are equally good. The
constant XP approach is simpler to use than the constant slope
approach. However, we have only considered designs that require single 1-2 shells. Once designs that require multiple
shells are considered, the constant XP approach shows even
more significant advantages over the constant slope approach.
4

Design with Multiple 1-2 Shells

Designers often encounter situations where the FT is too low
0 0-1 0-2 0-3 0-4 0-5 0-6 0-7 0-8 09 1-0

XP
1 Shell Pass - 2 Tube Passes

Fig. A The relationship between lines of constant slope and parameter

Xp can be determined knowing the value of ft

Temperature

Temperature
FT

+- temperature
' crosses
smaller
0

0-1

0-2 0-3 0-4

0-5 0-6 07

08

09

<c=>

10

i>

Fig. 3 A line of constant slope can be closely approximated by a line of

constant X p

306/Vol. 110, MAY 1988

Enthalpy
Fig. 5

*1>

Length

Two 1-2 shells in series or a single 2-4 shell

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/14/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

al., 1940). We emphasize again that achieving minimum FT

may not be sufficient to achieve a satisfactory slope.
The traditional approach can be demonstrated using a simple example. A hot stream is to be cooled from 410C to
110C by exchange with a cold stream being heated from 0C
to 360C, using 1-2 shells. For the problem overall /? = 1.2
and P=0.73. Try one shell initially and the problem is
infeasible.
Adding another shell in series does not solve the problem
since FT is still infeasible. Three shells return a feasible
F r = 0.65 against the appropriate chart for three shells. This
FT is too low and yet another shell is required. For four shells
F r = 0.8 against the corresponding chart. This looks to be a
reasonable solution to the problem as far as F r >0.75 is concerned, leaving for the moment FT slope considerations.
Although this basic approach is the one most commonly
used to determine the minimum number of 1-2 shells in series,
trial and error is in fact not needed. Various ways of tackling
this will now be explored.
(b) Simple Stepping-Off. The simplest method for
multishell design is "stepping-off" as discussed by Bell (1983)
and Liu et al. (1985). The method is illustrated in Fig. 6.
Starting at the final cold stream temperature we project across
horizontally to the hot stream, then vertically down to the cold
stream and so on. Each step then corresponds to one shell.
The basis of this method is to terminate each shell such that
the outlet temperature of the hot stream equals the outlet
temperature of the cold stream, giving zero temperature cross.
This is often conservative in design because, in practice, some
degree of temperature cross in each shell can usually be
tolerated. Therefore, fewer shells are often required than suggested by this method.
One important point that should be understood about simple stepping-off is that each shell will have the same FT. This
results from:
(1) R being constant as a result of heat capacity flow rates
being constant.

(2) P being constant for all shells as a result of each step

being geometrically similar.
Since both R and P are constant for each step then FT must
also be constant.
Recognizing that this method gives constant FT in each shell
and is conservative in not allowing any temperature cross, a
simple modification to the technique can allow us to step-off
for any prespecified FT.
(c) Stepping-Off With Prespecified FT. Rather than
stepping-off as shown in Fig. 6, we could step-off with a
temperature cross as shown in Fig. 7. Providing the same
geometry is maintained for each step, then FT must remain

Stepping-off for FT >0-75

Temperature

410
360

FT >

0-75
FT =

0-75

110

Enthalpy

Stepping - off

4 Shells suggested
Fig. 7 Stepping-off can also be performed for temperature cross to
achieve a prespecified value of FT in each 1-2 shell

Temperature
i Temperature
410
360

110c

110
Enthalpy

5 Shells suggested
Fig. 6 The simplest method for multishell design is "stepping-off"
(with no temperature cross allowed)

Journal of Heat Transfer

Enthalpy
Fig. 8 The slope of the first step is given by AT.,, fi, and P 1 2 (which
depends on X p ). Continuing to step-off with the same slope will determine the number of shells required to satisfy a given value of X p

MAY 1988, Vol. 110/307

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/14/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

constant in each shell. The designer can then step-off with a

specified FT as follows.
The unknown temperatures for the first step, THo and Tci,
can be calculated from R, FT, THh and TCo using equations
(2), (3), and (4). This then establishes the step slope and the remainder of the problem can be stepped-off with the same
slope as shown in Fig. 7. (Note that the slope referred to here
in stepping-off is fundamentally different from the slope of
(dFT/dP)R discussed earlier.)
It makes no difference whether the FT for stepping-off is
chosen on the basis of traditional rules of thumb, such as
FT>0.15, or a chosen value for (dFT/dP)R, becauseF T is constant for each step in either case. However, we have yet
another possibility for a stepping-off criterion, that is, a
chosen value for XP. As we will see, this offers definite advantages over (dFT/dP)R = const.
(d) Stepping-Off With Specified X P . The temperature
span covered by a single 1-2 shell will determine its value of P.
Next, we know that P m a x for each shell is determined fully by
the ratio of heat capacity flow rates, R, in equation (6).
Introducing XP, say XP = Q.9, will fix P through equation
(7). The value of P so chosen in each shell, P 1 2 , is sufficient
information to place the steps. The size of the first step is easily deduced by reference to Fig. 8.
P , 2 for a given step-size is defined by
Pli2 =

ATH/(ATl+ATc)

(8)

An Analytical Procedure

It is possible to transform the graphical stepping-off procedure into a more convenient analytical equivalent by making
use of the expression of Bowman (1936). This relates the
overall P for TV shells in series of 1-2 design, PNi2N, w r t n the
individual P for each shell, P l i 2 , and is of the form:
=f{R, P, 2 , TV)

(11)
If we apply equation (7), the definition of XP, to this unit
overall then
N.2N

=f(R, XP P ,
,2max

TV)

(12)

Recognizing from equation (6) that Pi, 2max is only a function

of R,then
= / ( * , XP, TV)
(13)
If we invert this function we can evaluate TV directly
N=f-^R,PN,2N,XP)
(14)
Details of the derivation have been given by Ahmad (1985)
and the final expression is
R*l:
N=ln[(l-RPNi2N)/(l~PNi2N)]/\n
W
(15)
where
W= (R + 1 + -JR2 + 1 ~2RXP)/(R

+ 1 + Vi?2 + 1 -2XP)

(16)

R = l:

Since R = ATC/ATH, then equation (8) gives

Pia =

ATH/ATl+RATH)

(9)

which can be rearranged to

ATH = ATl[Plt2/(\-RPl.2)]

(10)

Since P12 is determined fully from R and XP, equations (6)

and (7), the step slope given by ATH ultimately depends only
on the designer's choice of XP.
To complete the design we carry on stepping-off with the
same step slope. Keeping the same step slope ensures the same
Xp, the same (dFT/dP)R, and the same FT in each shell.
Figure 9 shows the example introduced earlier with the steps
completed for XP = 0.9. This corresponds to FT>0.75 in each
shell and the problem requires four shells, but now ensuring
that uncertain areas of the FT chart according to XP = 0.9 have
been avoided. If a more conservative value of XP is chosen,
say XP = 0.8, then the step slope will be different, resulting in
a different number of shells to solve the problem.

N= (PN,2N/1 - P, 2 N)(1 + (V2/2) - XP)/XP

(17)
Equations (15)-(17)
return a value of TV that satisfies precisely
a chosen value of XP throughout the series of 1-2 shells. Taking the number of shells to be the next largest integer above TV
will result in XP becoming marginally improved (decreased)
over the originally specified value. These expressions evaluate
explicitly the minimum number of 1-2 shells required and, at
the same time, ensure that each shell in the design satisfies the

Temperature

410
360

310J/t5V^
!

<^y?k"

210

! 160>^

,, Temperature
110

/t60

410

Enthalpy

360
overall
899
N

110

Xp = 09(ie.F T = 0-75]
N = 4 Shells

Enthalpy

Fig. 9 Stepping-off to meet a given value of Xp is consistent with

achieving the corresponding value of FT

308/Vol. 110, MAY 1988

crf

^% =

990

= 1

660

N, ffi

= 1 239

N,n
Nm,

= 0 520
= 0 470

Fig. 10 No matter how we divide the problem into sections, there is

complete additivity among the parts in determining the overall number
of shells

Transactions of the AS ME

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/14/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

required FT slope criterion given by the specification for XP.

Applying this analytical approach to the problem in Fig. 9
with XP = 0.9 we obtain the answer that 3.9 shells are required
(four shells in practice).
The expressions given above for the number of shells are
simple and straightforward to use. FT slope requirements for
each individual shell are observed through the definition of the
XP parameter. The reason the method is so straightforward is
that we no longer include FT explicitly in the analysis. For a
given problem R is fixed and, XP having been specified, FT
has also been specified implicitly but is not used directly.
The authors believe that the introduction of the XP
parameter both simplifies and improves procedures for the
design of heat exchangers:
(i) Better designs are generated than those based on traditional rules of thumb, such as F r > 0 . 7 5 , because uncertain
areas of the FT chart are avoided more effectively.
(;7 ) For multishell arrangements the number of shells can
be evaluated explicitly, requiring neither trial and error nor
graphic constructions.
(HI ) For evaluating the number of 1-2 shells in series,
recourse to FT charts is no longer necessary.

Additivityan Important Property

Now that we have the inversion
N=f~l(T's,

desirable i > )

=f-\T's,XP)

(18)

one further most important property can be demonstrated.

Consider again the example introduced earlier. If, instead of
solving the overall problem for the number of shells, we solve
the problem in parts and add up the parts, will we always get
the same result?
This is demonstrated in Fig. 10. The problem overall requires 3.889 shells. If we divide the problem arbitrarily into
two parts, S, and T as shown, then part S requires 2.899 and
part T requires 0.990 giving a total of precisely 3.889. It does
not matter how many sections we divide the problem into and
how big the sections are, we always get identically the same
result provided we work in fractional shells. When the
problem is divided into four arbitrary parts A, B, C, and D,
adding up the individual shell requirements gives precisely
3.889 again.
Concerning consistency between FT charts and the Bowman
equations we have now established the theoretical link between the number of shells N and FT via the parameter XP.
We are told that for a given FT (as specified by R and XP) the
number of shells is additive over any arbitrary number of sections over the exchanger profile so long as we maintain the
same FT in each section. Additivity in these charts has always
existed but probably gone unnoticed because: (i) FT charts
could not be constructed for fractional values of TV and (ii)
The inversion N=f~x{T's,
FT) has not been expressed
previously.
The additive property takes on fundamental practical
significance when complex problems are addressed where heat
capacity flow rates and overall heat transfer coefficients are
not constant. In this context, there exists no additivity in the
traditional approach that would allow the overall problem to
be decomposed into meaningful subproblems. Faced with a
complex problem the designer has no recourse at present by to
resort to the use of detailed computer models. Development of
the current approach may lead either to a reduction in the need
for detailed computer models or at least to better initialization

Journal of Heat Transfer

for the computer models. This is being explored in current

research.
On a different subject, additivity also allows the prediction
of the minimum number of shells required for the heat exchanger network of an entire process ahead of design, allowing predesign optimization to be carried out (Linnhoff and
Ahmad, 1986).
7

Conclusions

The following points can be made concerning the XP

parameter approach as introduced in this paper. For 1-2 shells
in general:
8
significantly better exchanger designs than those based on
rules of thumb for minimum FT, such as F r > 0 . 7 5 ;
similarly good designs as those based directly on constant
FT slope.
A new criterion for 1-2 exchanger feasibility has been proposed that does not relate to FT. Instead it is based on the
limiting 1-2 exchanger effectiveness, that is, Pmax.
In the case of multishell arrangements we have shown that
different FT criteria can be interpreted as variations of
stepping-off. The XP parameter approach is also represented
as a modification of stepping-off. Next, it has been shown that
the XP parameter is ideally suited to obtaining a simple expression determining explicitly the minimum number of 1-2 shells
in series for multishell designs. This alters the traditional
design approach for multishell arrangements.
It should be borne in mind, however, that any results at this
level of exchanger design based on minimum FT, FT slope, or
XP are still subject to detailed evaluation. Given that any of
these F T -based results are really initializations, we do not need
to be absolutely precise. More importantly, design practice requires speed and simplicity at this stage of design. The XP
parameter approach achieves fast evaluation at remarkable
reliability.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank their colleague, Dr. G. T.
Polley, for useful criticism and help in the preparation of this
paper, and the Journal referees for their useful comments.
References
Ahmad, S., 1985, "Heat Exchanger Networks: Cost Tradeoffs in Energy and
Capital," Ph.D. Thesis, University of Manchester Institute of Science and
Technology, United Kingdom.
Bannerot, R. B., and Mahajan, K. K., 1978, "The Caloric Temperature Factor for a 1-2 Heat Exchanger With an Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient Varying Linearly With Tube Side Temperature," AIChE Symp. Series, Vol. 74, No.
171, p. 61.
Bell, K. J., 1983, Heat Exchanger Design Handbook, Vol. 3, Hemisphere
Publishing Corporation, Washington, D. C.
Bowman, R. A., 1936, "Mean Temperature Difference Correction in
Multipass Exchangers," lnd. Eng. Chem., Vol. 28, p. 541.
Bowman, R. A., Mueller, A. C , and Nagle, W. M., 1940, "Mean
Temperature Difference in Design," Trans. ASME, Vol. 62, p. 283.
Kern, D. Q., 1950, Process Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Linnhoff, B., and Ahmad, S 1986, "SUPERTARGETING, or the Optimisation of Heat Exchanger Networks Prior to Design," World Congress III
of Chemical Engineering, Tokyo, Japan.
Liu, Y. A., Pehler, F. A., and Cahela, D. R., 1985, "Studies in Chemical
Process Design and Synthesis. Part VII: Systematic Synthesis of Multipass Heat
Exchanger Networks," AIChE Journal, Vol. 31, p. 487.
Mitson, R. J., 1984, "Number of Shells Versus Number of Units in Heat Exchanger Network Design," M.Sc. Dissertation, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, United Kingdom.
Taborek, J., 1979, "Evolution of Heat Exchanger Design Techniques," Heat
Transfer Eng., Vol. 1, p. 15.
Taborek, J., 1983a, Heat Exchanger Design Handbook, Vol. 1, Hemisphere
Publishing Corporation, Washington, D. C.
Taborek, J., 1983b, Heat Exchanger Design Handbook, Vol. 3, Hemisphere
Publishing Corporation, Washington, D. C.

MAY 1988, Vol. 110/309

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/14/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use