16th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering

and 9th International Symposium on Process Systems Engineering

W. Marquardt, C. Pantelides (Editors) 925
© 2006 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Flexible Heat Exchanger Network Design for

Chemical Processes with Operation Mode Changes

Masaru Noda and Hirokazu Nishitani

Graduate School of Information Science, Nara Institute of Science and Technology

8916-5 Takayama-cho, Ikoma, NARA 630-0192 JAPAN

Abstract
A new synthesis approach is proposed for a flexible heat exchanger network (HEN)
design for chemical processes with operation mode changes. The proposed approach
derives an optimal HEN, including heat transfer areas and operation patterns for process
streams, which minimizes the total utility cost required for transferring the state of the
system’s main devices during operation mode changes. The effectiveness of the
proposed approach is demonstrated through a case study.

Keywords: heat exchanger network (HEN), dynamic transshipment model, non-steady

state operation, optimal design

1. INTRODUCTION
At an early stage of chemical process design, much less concern is given to non-
steady state operations, such as start-up, shutdown, and load change, than to steady state
operations. However, the recent increase in the number of chemical processes operated
on a demand basis, such as a fuel cell system, has led to a new design problem; both
steady state and non-steady state operations need to be considered simultaneously in the
optimal design problems.
Since the 1980s, many authors have investigated HEN with regard to flexibility and
controllability [1-5]. These studies, however, only focus on the flexibility and
controllability of HEN around certain steady state conditions. The synthesis problem
discussed in this paper focuses not only on the design of an optimal HEN but also
operation patterns during an operation mode change. The objective function of this
problem is to minimize the total utility cost required for dynamically transferring the
state of process streams and main devices in a process from an initial condition to the
specified final condition. Here, a main device is defined as the dominant facility that
must be installed for the process function to perform properly. Heat exchangers, heaters,
and coolers are not included in the main devices.
This paper is organized as follows: First, we propose a new HEN model that can
handle the dynamic operation of a process by extending the conventional HEN model
used in pinch technology. Second, we apply the proposed method to a case study and
draw some conclusions in the last section.
926 M. Noda and H. Nishitani

2. OPTIMIZATION APPROACH FOR FLEXIBLE HEN DESIGN

The transshipment model is an algorithmic optimization model that can automatically
synthesize an optimal HEN [6]. This model includes all the possibilities of heat transfer
between streams. One of the key features of the transshipment model is temperature
intervals that are introduced so that each temperature interval has a different set of
process streams crossing it. However, this model does not take into account any of the
transitional behaviors of a process, which are very important when addressing the
optimal design problem in non-steady state operations.
We developed a new multi-period mode called a dynamic transshipment model by
extending the transshipment model in the following way. Figure 1 shows a schematic
diagram of a heat balance model at interval k in sub-period t. First, the whole non-
steady state operation period is divided into a set of sub-periods, and in each sub-period,
the process is assumed to be in a pseudo-steady state. By introducing this assumption,
the non-steady state operation is represented by a discrete model. Second, for each main
device q, the ideal temperature profile T*q(t) is defined as a sub-period function that
calculates the amount of heat accumulated in the main device during each sub-period.
T*q(t) is usually obtained at the preliminary process design stage, where a HEN structure
is not considered. Third, interval temperatures Tk(t) are defined for each sub-period
based on the inlet and outlet temperatures of the process streams and the temperatures
of available utilities. Here, the interval temperature is a boundary temperature between
two connected temperature intervals. Below is some additional information necessary
for formulating a dynamical design problem:

1. A set of hot process streams and a set of cold process streams that can be used as the
heating and cooling mediums
2. Inlet and outlet temperatures of all process streams
3. Initial and final temperatures of the main devices in the process
4. Heat transfer areas and heat capacities of the main process devices
5. Available utilities and their temperatures

In this example, as the main device’s temperature T*q(t) is between Tk(t) and Tk+1(t),
the amount of heat transfer into main device q is located at interval k so as to minimize
the temperature difference between the process streams and the main device.

Ri ,k - 1 ( t ) Rm , k - 1 ( t )
Tk ( t ) + 'Tmin Tk ( t )
S
Cold stream
Hot utility Q (t )
m Qmjk ( t )
Q Cjk ( t )
H Qijk ( t ) Main device
Hot stream Qik (t ) Qmqk ( t ) Qqk (t )
Qiqk ( t )
Qink ( t ) Cold utility
W
Tk +1 ( t ) + 'Tmin Tk 1 (t ) Qn ( t )
Ri , k ( t ) Rm , k ( t )

Fig. 1 Heat transfer model at interval k in sub-period t

Flexible Heat Exchanger Network Design for Chemical Processes 927

The dynamical HEN design problem using dynamic transshipment model is

formulated as the LP problem given in Eq.(1-a)-Eq.(1-f). Here, Eq.(1-a) is the objective
function, and Eq.(1-b)-Eq.(1-f) denotes the heat balance models. As this model is an LP
model, the optimal solution can be obtained relatively easily.
Tf
§ ·
Min ¦ ¨© ¦ c
t 0 mS
m QmS (t )  ¦ cnQnW (t ) ¸
nW ¹
(1-a)

s.t. Rik (t )  ¦Q
jCk
ijk (t )  ¦Q
nWk
ink (t )  ¦Q
qEk
iqk (t ) Ri ,k 1 (t )  QikH (t ), i  H k (1-b)

Rmk (t )  ¦Q
jCk
mjk (t )  ¦Q
qEk
mqk (t ) Rm ,k 1 (t )  QmS (t ), m  S k (1-c)

¦Q
mSk
mjk (t )  ¦ Qijk (t ) Q Cjk (t ),
iH k
j  Ck (1-d)

¦Q
iH k
ink (t ) QnW (t ), n  Wk , Qqk (t ) ¦Q
mS k
mqk (t )  ¦Q
iH k
iqk (t ) (1-e)

Ri1 (t ) RiK (t ) 0 , Rik (t ), Rmk (t ), Qijk (t ), Qmjk (t ) t 0 , Qink (t ), QnS (t ), QnW (t ) t 0 (1-f)

Given parameters:
QHik : Available heat amount of hot stream i at interval k
QCjk : Available heat amount of cold stream j at interval k
Qqk : Amount of heat accumulated in main device q at interval k
cm : Utility cost of hot utility m
cn : Utility cost of cold utility n
Tk : Interval temperature between interval k-1 and interval k
'Tmin : Minimum temperature difference between hot stream and cold stream
Tf : Total operation time

Unknown variables:
QSm : Heat amount of hot utility m
QWn : Heat amount of cold utility n
Qmjk : Heat amount transferred from hot utility m to cold stream j at interval k
Qijk : Heat amount transferred from hot stream i to cold stream j at interval k
Qink : Heat amount transferred from hot stream i to cold utility n at interval k
Qiqk : Heat amount transferred from hot stream i to main device q at interval k
Qmqk : Heat amount transferred from hot utility m to main device q at interval k
Rik : Amount of heat residual of hot stream i exiting interval k
Rmk : Amount of heat residual of hot utility m exiting interval k

Index sets:
Sk = {m | hot utility m is present at or above interval k}
Wk = {n | cold utility n extracts heat from interval k}
Hk = {i | hot process stream i is present at or above interval k}
Ck = {j | cold process stream j demands heat from interval k}
Ek = {q | main device q existing at interval k}
928 M. Noda and H. Nishitani

The heat transfer area Aijk(t) of a heat exchanger in sub-period t is calculated by Eq.(2).
Aijk (t ) Qijk (t ) / U'Tijklm (t ) (2)

Here, ǻTlm represents the logarithmic mean temperature difference. In this model, heat
transfer areas of every match are allowed to change independently in each sub-period.
Therefore, in the case of sub-periods with a smaller heat transfer area Aijk(t) than the
maximum heat transfer area Amaxijk, Amaxijk is used instead of Aijk(t).
In this study, we take a two-step optimization approach to solve a HEN synthesis
problem under non-steady state operations. In the 1st step, an optimal HEN is derived
using the dynamic transshipment model. In the 2nd step, the operation patterns of the
process streams and utilities are optimized so as to minimize the error between the ideal
and calculated temperature patterns of the main device using gPROMSTM, where the
structure of HEN and Amaxijk are fixed. The dynamic optimization problem in the 2nd
step is formulated as shown in Eq.(3).
Tf

¦ T 
* 2
Min q (t )  Tq (t )
u (t )
t 0
s.t. f ( x, x , u )
0 (3)
xL d x d xU , uL d u d uU
Here, Tq(t) is the simulated temperature pattern of the main device q, f = 0 is a physical
process model, x and u are state and control variables respectively. Subscripts L and U
denotes the minimum and maximum values.

3. CASE STUDY
We apply the proposed approach to an optimal HEN design problem of a chemical
process with operation mode changes in this process, here is one hot stream H to be
cooled, one cold stream C to be heated, and one main device q. Table 1 shows the inlet
and outlet temperatures of streams H and C, and T*q(t) in three operation modes. The
flow rates of streams H and C, which are optimized in the 2nd step, are assumed to be
1.0 kmol/h. The specific heats of streams H and C is 1.0 kJ/kmol, and the heat capacity
of the main device q is 2.0 kJ/ ºC/h in this case study.
Table 1 Dynamical HEN design conditions
Mode 1 (t = 0h) Mode 2 (t = 4h) Mode 3 (t = 7h)
Stream Tin [ºC] Tout [ºC] Tin [ºC] Tout [ºC] Tin [ºC] Tout [ºC]
H 300 120 380 120 320 120
C 160 300 160 380 160 320
Device T*q(0) [ºC] T*q(4) [ºC] T*q(7) [ºC]
q 280 360 300
In this case study, the state of the process gradually changes from mode 1 to mode 2
in 4 hours, and then from mode 2 to mode 3 in 3 hours by changing operation variables
in the process. During these mode changes, the inlet temperatures of streams H and C
are assumed to be kept at the exact values outlined in Table 1. The 1st step is to derive
an optimal HEN with the heat transfer areas, and the heating duties of burners and
coolers so as to minimize the total utility cost during the entire operation. The objective
function, which is given by Eq.(4), is the weighted total utility cost during the whole
operation period (Tf = 7h).
Flexible Heat Exchanger Network Design for Chemical Processes 929

Tf
§ ·
Min ¦ ¨© ¦ 8Q
t 0 mS
S
m (t )  ¦ 2QnW (t ) ¸
nW ¹
(4)

According to the proposed two-step approach, we first define T*q(t) as a function of

time to calculate the amount of the heat accumulated into the main device q in each sub-
period. In this case study, the linear temperature profile given by Eq.(5) is assumed as
T*q(t) .

­280  20t (t 0  4h )
Tq* (t ) ® (5)
¯440  20t (t 4  7 h)
Figure 2 shows the four temperature intervals defined for this case study. The interval
temperatures of the process streams T1 – T7 are defined for each mode as shown in Table
2. A heat sink of the main device q is located in the temperature interval 2 because T*q(t)
exists there. The minimum temperature difference is set to 20ºC.
Table 2 Interval temperature settings
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
t = 0-4h 160 220+20t 280+20t 300+20t 240+20t 180 120
t = 4-7h 160 380-20t 440-20t 460-20t 400-20t 180 120
Figure 3 shows the optimal design result obtained in the 1st step, where there are two
burners B1 and B2 and two heat exchangers Hx1 and Hx2. The maximum heat
exchanger areas of Hx1 and Hx2 are 6.0 m2 and 3.0 m2, respectively. In the optimal
design, the cold stream C is heated by Hx1 and B1 and fed to the main device to heat it
up. After being heated up by B2, stream C is discharged. The hot stream H is fed into
the main device and is cooled by Hx1 and Hx2.
In the dynamic transshipment model, we don’t consider the heat transfer rate model in
relation to the size of the heat exchagers. Therefore, when the operation patterns
obtained in the 1st step are applied to the detailed physical process model, including the
heat transfer rate model, the simulated temperature pattern Tq(t) doesn’t follow T*q(t) as
shown in Fig. 4.
T4 = Tout
㬍 T4 (t ) Q = 20 kJ/h Q = 0䌾40 kJ/h
T3 T2
Hot stream H Interval 1 B2 B1
T3 (t ) Main Device
T4 ( t ) 㬍
Main
㬍
device Interval 2 Hot stream H T4 Tq(t) T5
q A = 6.0 m 2 Hx1
T5 (t ) 㬍 㬍 T2 (t )
Interval 3 T7 (120 ºC) T6
Hx2 T1 (160 ºC)
T6 180 㬍 㬍 T1 160
Cold stream C
(T1 = Tin) A = 3.0 m2
T7 120 Interval 4
㬍
(T7 = Tout) Air Cold stream C
Fig. 2 Defined Temperature Intervals Fig. 3 Optimal HEN in 1st Step
In the 2nd step, the flow rates of process streams and heat duties of the burners are
optimized as functions of time using heat transfer rate equations, where the HEN
structure and heat transfer areas obtained in the 1st step are fixed. The left graph in
Fig.5 shows the optimal operation patterns obtained in the 2nd step. When the flow
rates of process streams are optimized in the 2nd step, Tq(t) follows T*q(t) exactly as
shown in the right graph of Fig. 5.
930 M. Noda and H. Nishitani

2.0 50 380
360
Flow rate [kmol/h]

Temperature [oC]
40
1.5

Heat duty [kJ/h]

340
30
1.0 320
20
300
0.5 Heat duty of B1 Ideal temperature pattern
Flow rate of H&C 10 280 Simulated temperature pattern
0 260
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time [h] Time [h]
Fig. 4 Operation patterns (left) and Tq(t) (right) in the 1st Step

2.0 50 380
360
Flow rate [kmol/h]

40

Temperature [ C]
Heat duty [kJ/h]
1.5

o
Heat duty of B1 340
30
1.0 Flow rate of H&C 320
20
300
0.5 10 Ideal temperature pattern
280 Simulated temperature pattern
0 260
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time [h] Time [h]
Fig. 5 Operation patterns (left) and Tq(t) (right) in the 2nd Step

4. CONCLUSION
We proposed a process synthesis method, which considers a non-steady state
operation for chemical processes. For this purpose, we developed a dynamic
transshipment model that describes heat accumulation in the main devices during the
transitional operation, and which is not included in the conventional transshipment
model. The proposed method only requires information related to the temperature
profiles of process streams and heat capacities and heat transfer areas of main devices to
derive an optimal HEN when considering non-steady state operations. Those design
specifications can usually be obtained at an early stage of the process design. The
obtained design result can be used as the initial design for a more precise optimization
step. The proposed two-step optimization method, which considers non-steady state
operations, can also be applied to other chemical processes where the transitional
operation is essential.

[REFERENCES]
[1] Aaltolra, J.; “Simultaneous Synthesis of Flexible Heat Exchanger Network,” Applied thermal
engineering, 22, 907-918 (2002)
[2] Biegler, L. T., I. E. Grossmann, and A. W. Westerberg; “Systematic Methods of Chemical
Process Design,” Prentice Hall PTR (1997)
[3] Furman, K. C. and N. V. Sahinidis; “A Critical Review and Annotated Bibliography for Heat
Exchanger Network Synthesis in the 20th Century,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 41, 2335-2370
(2002)
[4] Glemmenstad, B., S. Skogestad, and T. Gundersen; “Optimal Operation of Heat Exchanger
Networks,” Comp. and Chem. Eng., 23, 509-522 (1999)
[5] Kotjabasakis, E., and B. Linnhoff; “Sensitivity Tables for the Design of Flexible Processes (1)
– How much contingency in heat exchanger networks is cost-effective,” Chem. Eng. Res.,
64, 199-211 (1986)
[6] Papoulias, S. A., and I. E. Grossmann; “A Structural Optimization Approach to Process
Synthesis-II. Heat Recovery Networks,” Comp. and Chem. Eng., 7, 707 (1983)