Heat Transfer

Optimize
Heat Exchanger
Cleaning Schedules

Brendan R. O’Donnell
and Bruce A. Barna,
Michigan Technological University
Chris D. Gosling,
UOP LLC

Evaluate the trade-offs between a one-time

expenditure and reduced operating expenses,
increased income, and/or longer operating life span.

C lassically, process optimization evalu-

ates the trade-off of capital expendi-
ture against reduced operating ex-
penses. The standard approach in-
volves an incremental analysis using
a discounted cash-flow technique, such as net
present value (NPV) or discounted cash-flow
cle explains how to use the this technique to
determine the optimum heat exchanger clean-
ing schedule.

rate of return (DCFROR). However, this
method is not applicable in all situations.
For example, when determining an opti-
mum cleaning schedule for heat exchangers,
one must factor in that a one-time expendi-
ture can lead to both a reduction in expenses
and a change in the life of the project. This is
also a good example of an optimization where
expenses vary with time (unsteady state). In
this case, incremental analysis is still re-
quired, but the discounted cash flow analyses
will require the use of the equivalent uniform
annual worth (EUAW) technique. This arti-
The theory
Consider a single bank of process exchang-
ers, as shown in Figure 1. Assume that the tar-
get temperatures for both the hot and cold
streams are such that any degradation in ex-
changer performance results in incremental
utility consumption on trim heaters and cool-
ers elsewhere in the plant.
The equations associated with this system are:
QE–100 = mcCpc(t2 – t1) (1)
QE–100 = mhCph(T2 – T1) (2)
QE–100 = UA∆Tlm (3)

56 www.aiche.org/cep/ June 2001 CEP

 Trim Cooler Nomenclature
(E-102)
Tf A =process exchanger area, ft2
Process Exchanger Cpc =heat capacity of cold stream, Btu/lb•ºF
(E-100) Cph =heat capacity of hot stream, Btu/lb•ºF
T2 T1 k =fouling rate constant for degradation of U, yr–1
t1 mh , Cph
mc =mass-flow rate of cold process stream, lb/h
mh , Cpc mh =mass-flow rate of hot process stream, lb/h
t2 Q =exchanger duty, Btu/h
tf t =time, yr (or mo)
t0 =initial time (year 0)
Trim Heater
t1 =entering cold stream temperature, ºF
(E-101)
t2 =cold stream temperature exiting process exchanger, ºF
tf =target temperature of cold stream, ºF
■ Figure 1. Model heat exchanger system. T1 =entering hot stream temperature, ºF
T2 =hot stream temperature exiting process exchanger, ºF
Tf =target temperature of hot stream, ºF
QE–101 = mhCph(Tf – T2) (4) ∆Tlm =log mean temperature difference
=[(T2 – t1) – (T1 – t2)]/ln[(T2 – t1)/ (T1 – t2)], ºF
QE–102 = mcCpc(tf – t2) (5) U =overall heat-transfer coefficient, Btu/ft2•h•ºF

Note that any change in process duty due to fouling or

cleaning results in a similar change in the duty for both
trim exchangers. Thus:
∆QE-100 = –∆QE-101 = –∆QE-102
Economic parameters
The analysis requires an understanding of the loss in
performance vs. time for the process exchanger due to
fouling and of the incremental utility rates for the plant.
The overall heat-transfer coefficient, U, can be tracked
vs. time to indicate the loss in process exchanger perfor-
mance as the heat exchanger fouls. Given the change in
U, Eqs. 1–5 can be solved to arrive at the new process
and trim duties.
Although not required, it can be useful to model the
degradation in U with time. A first-order degradation
equation works quite well for many fouling situations:
• minimum acceptable return (MAR);
• marginal hot utility cost;
(6) • marginal cold utility cost; and
• direct and indirect cost of cleaning process exchanger.
Finding an optimum schedule
Using the decline of U over time, one can calculate
the duty of the process exchanger from the end of year 0
to the end of years 1, 2, 3, and so on, by solving Eqs. 1–3
simultaneously. Because energy not recovered in the pro-
cess exchanger must be made up in the trim exchangers,
incremental increases in utility costs that result for each
year of the analysis can also be calculated.
Cleaning is a one-time expense, which is assumed to
return U to its original (i.e., clean exchanger) value. Fig-
ure 2 plots U vs. time for various cleaning schedules.

dU/dt = –kU (7)

or the integrated form: 100

90
ln(U/U0) = –k(t – t0) (8) 80 Every 2 yr
U, Btu/ft2 •hr •˚F

70
Every 5 yr
or: 60
50
U = U0e–kt (9)
40 Every 10 yr
By fitting a limited amount of operating data to this 30
equation, the required time vs. cost information can be 20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
calculated. This approach can also be used to integrate
the performance over the year to more correctly deter- Time, yr
mine annual costs. In addition to heat-transfer informa-
tion, the following cost data are also needed: ■ Figure 2. U vs. time for various cleaning schedules.

CEP June 2001 www.aiche.org/cep/ 57

Heat Transfer

Table 1. Data for model heat ■ Figure 3.

exchanger system. The fouling 100
rate constant
Hot Fluid: can be calculated
mh = 50,000 lb/h from a U vs.

U , Btu/ft2 •hr •˚F

Cph = 0.5 Btu/lb•˚F time plot.
T1 = 600˚F
T2(Clean) = 200˚F

Cold Fluid:
mc = 40,000 lb/h
Cpc = 0.5 Btu/lb•˚F
t1 = 50˚F
t2(Clean) = 550˚F 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Exchanger:
UClean = 100 Btu/ft2•h•˚F Time, yr
A = 1,098 ft2

Economics:
MAR = 20% DCF
Tax Rate = 34%
Hot utility cost = $5.00/MMBtu Table 2. Incremental utility increase for k = 0.1 yr–1.
Cold utility cost = $0.50/MMBtu
Operation time = 8,760 stream•h/yr Process Duty, Trim Duty, Incremental Incremental
(100% service factor) QE–100, QE–101, QE–102 Hot Utility, Cold Utility,
Year MM Btu/h MM Btu/h $/yr $/yr

0 10.00 0.00 0 0
Cleaning changes the project life, or 1 9.93 0.07 3,269 327
analysis period, to the number of 2 9.76 0.24 10,415 1,042
years between cleanings. A cash 3 9.59 0.41 18,156 1,816
flow analysis is used to find incre- 4 9.40 0.60 26,489 2,649
mental increases in operating ex- 5 9.19 0.81 35,408 3,541
penses until the year of cleaning. 6 8.97 1.03 44,902 4,490
Cleaning is treated as a year zero 7 8.75 1.25 54,951 5,495
cost for a new analysis period. Dis- 8 8.50 1.50 65,532 6,553
counted cash flow is used to calcu- 9 8.25 1.75 76,615 7,661
late a net present value for the 10 7.99 2.01 88,161 8,816
cleaning and subsequent incremen-
tal operating costs. From the net
present value, an EUAW can be calculated based upon Using this model, we can readily find discrete U val-
the life of the project between cleanings. ues at the end of each year. The degradation of U is con-
Using EUAW allows a direct comparison of results tinuous over time, and the first-order model could be in-
between projects with varying life spans. Plotting EUAW tegrated to determine incremental trim duties and costs
vs. cleaning schedule reveals the maximum annual worth for each year. However, the slow change in U in this ex-
or optimum cleaning schedule. ample indicates that linearizing the curve over a one-year
period is reasonable and that the average value can be
Using the technique used to represent each year. Table 2 presents the solution
We can illustrate the application of this technique by of Eqs. 1–3 and the resulting required duties and energy
looking at a model heat exchanger system. Table 1 summa- costs for a degradation constant of k equal to 0.1 yr–1.
rizes the initial conditions and requirements for this system. To evaluate different cleaning options, we assume that
A sensitivity analysis was conducted to investigate the a cleaning occurs in year zero for all cases and starts a
effect of the fouling rate, represented by the degradation new project life for the analysis. For example, a two-year
constant (k), and the effect of the total cleaning cost over cleaning schedule would have the following cash flows:
the following ranges: k = 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2; total clean- • Year 0 expenses = 0 + cleaning cost.
ing costs = $5,000, $10,000, $15,000, $20,000. • Year 1 expenses = hot utility + cold utility for aver-
The fouling rate constant is easily calculated from U age decrease in U from Year 0 to Year 1.
vs. time historical operating data (Figure 3). The first- • Year 2 expenses = hot utility + cold utility for aver-
order fouling model fits the data with a slope, which is age decrease in U from Year 1 to Year 2.
the value of k, equal to 0.1 yr–1. A cash flow table, incorporating the marginal tax rate,

58 www.aiche.org/cep/ June 2001 CEP

 0 0
Total Cleaning Costs
Total Cleaning Costs
-5
-4
$5,000 $5,000
EUAW, $1,000

-10

EUAW, $1,000
$10,000
-8
$10,000 -15 $15,000

-12 -20 $20,000

$15,000
$20,000
-16 -25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cleaning Interval, yr Cleaning Interval, yr

■ Figure 4. EUAW vs. cleaning interval for k = 0.01 yr–1. ■ Figure 6. EUAW vs. cleaning interval for k = 0.1 yr–1.

0
0 Total Cleaning Costs
Total Cleaning Costs -10 $5,000 $10,000
-4 $5,000
-20 $20,000
EUAW, $1,000
EUAW, $1,000

-8 $10,000 $15,000
-30
$15,000 -40
-12

$20,000 -50
-16
-60
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Cleaning Interval, yr Cleaning Interval, yr

■ Figure 5. EUAW vs. cleaning interval for k = 0.05 yr–1. ■ Figure 7. EUAW vs. cleaning interval for k = 0.2 yr–1.

is developed for each cleaning case, and the NPV and
EUAW are calculated. This is repeated for cleaning inter-
vals of one to ten years and all combinations of the two
sensitivity variables (total cleaning cost and degradation
constant). The results are presented in Figures 4–7. (The
EUAW results are all negative, as expected for a cash
flow analysis that has only costs and taxes involved.)
The optimum occurs at the maximum EUAW (mini-
mum cost). As we would anticipate, higher fouling rates
(degradation constant) lead to shorter optimum cleaning
cycles, and higher total cleaning costs (direct cost plus
downtime) lead to longer optimum cleaning cycles.
It is interesting that the optimum cleaning schedules
are all relatively short for the range of parameters used in
this model system. For example, only at the very low k
values or high cleaning costs are the optimum cleaning
cycles three or more years. This may suggest that current
practices deserve review.
The plots in Figures 4–7 can also be used to estimate
the incremental cost of using a nonoptimal cleaning
cycle. This is done by comparing annual worth at the op-
timum cleaning cycle to annual worth at the actual clean-
ing cycle. For example, consider a process where the
degradation constant is k = 0.05 yr–1, incremental utility
costs are similar to the model system, and total cost of
cleaning is $5,000 (the upper cleaning cost curve in Fig-
ure 5). If the exchanger is cleaned every eight years, the
incremental losses due to not cleaning at the optimum
are approximately $5,000/yr.
Example
This example illustrates the application of this opti-
mization technique to a commercial problem where the
solution lies outside the boundaries of the previous
model system. The data (Table 3) are representative of
actual performance results for a combined feed exchang-

CEP June 2001 www.aiche.org/cep/ 59

Heat Transfer

Table 3. Gas-oil hydrotreater combined

■ Figure 8.
feed exchanger data. EUAW vs.
cleaning interval 0
Hot Fluid: for gas-oil
mh = 160,000 lb/h hydrotreater
Cph = 0.56 Btu/lb•˚F example (k = 0.35 -4

EUMW, $1,000
T1 = 700˚F yr–1 and total
T2(Clean) = 312˚F cleaning costs =
-8
$22,000).
Cold Fluid:
mc = 160,000 lb/h
Cpc = 0.53 Btu/lb•˚F -12
t1 = 250˚F
t2(Clean) = 660˚F
-16
0 5 10 15 20
Exchanger:
UClean = 45 Btu/ft2•h•˚F
Month
U1 = 38 Btu/ft2•h•˚F (6 mo)
U2 = 32 Btu/ft2•h•˚F (12 mo)
U3 = 27 Btu/ft2•h•˚F (18 mo)
U4 = 22 Btu/ft2•h•˚F (24 mo)
A = 15,412 ft2 (4 shells)

Economics:
MAR = 10%
Hot utility cost = $4.25/MMBtu
Cold utility cost = $0.40/MMBtu Closing thoughts
Cleaning costs = $22,000 The optimization techniques illustrated here permit
(labor and materials)
Operation time = 8,760 stream•h/yr
prediction of the optimum cleaning schedule from the
(100% service factor) fouling rate data, incremental utility costs, and cleaning
costs for a given situation. The same optimization tech-
niques could also be applied to a wide variety of opti-
mization problems dealing with expense trade-offs, such
er in a gas-oil hydrotreater. The unit is a 12 million bbl/d as those often found in optimization related to mainte-
hydrotreater processing a 30º API gas-oil. As in the nance and repairs. CEP

model system, trim units must supply energy not recov-

ered in the process exchanger. The heated reactor feed is
sent to a fired charge heater and the cooled reactor efflu-
B. R. O’DONNELL is an MS candidate at Michigan Technological Univ.,
ent is sent to a water-cooled condenser. Houghton, MI in the field of process design and optimization. His
Results. Based on the overall heat-transfer coeffi- primary research focus is developing software to automate
cient data, k = 0.35 yr–1. Rapid fouling requires the anal- opportunities for process improvement. He obtained a BS in chemical
ysis to be performed on a monthly basis (rather than the engineering from Michigan Tech in 1999 and is a member of AIChE.

yearly basis used previously), so the input parameters,
operation time, MAR, and k are adjusted to reflect a
monthly analysis.
Equations 1–3 are solved and cash flow tables gener-
ated for cleaning intervals of 1 to 24 months. The results
are presented graphically in Figure 8. The optimum
cleaning schedule is found to be 10 months.
As before, we can use the results to examine the im-
pact of cleaning at a less-than-the optimum point. Stan-
dard practice in this service is to clean in conjunction
with normal turnarounds at 24 months. The incremental
cost for a 24-month cleaning interval over the 10-month
optimum is (from Figure 8) approximately $15,000/yr.
No downtime has been built into the cleaning cost. If
downtime were a component, then the incremental cost
for cleaning at a turnaround would have to be corrected
B. A. BARNA is a professor of chemical engineering at Michigan
Technological Univ., Houghton, MI (Phone: (906) 487-2569; Fax: (906)
487-3213; E-mail: bbarna@mtu.edu). He holds BS and MS degrees in
chemical engineering from Michigan Tech and a PhD in chemical
engineering from New Mexico State Univ. Prior to joining the faculty at
MTU, he worked as a process engineer for Reynold’s Metals and Exxon,
and as a plant engineer and plant manager for Kalsec, Inc. He is a
registered professional engineer in Michigan. He is a member of AIChE.
C. D. GOSLING is the alkylation, oxygenates, and treating technologies
manager in UOP’s FCC, Alkylation, Oxygenates, and Treating Business
Group, Des Plains, IL (Phone: (847) 375-7759; Fax: (847) 391-2253;
E-mail: cdgoslin@uop.com). He joined UOP after graduating from
Michigan Technological Univ. in 1980 with a BS and MS in chemical
engineering. He has had assignments in UOP’s technical service and
R&D departments, involving development and commercialization of a
number of new technologies and products. Since 1996, he has been
responsible for new alkylation technology developments. He is a
registered professional engineer in Michigan.

to reflect the fact that downtime costs should not be as-

signed to the cleaning operation at a normal turnaround.

60 www.aiche.org/cep/ June 2001 CEP