Sei sulla pagina 1di 6

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, NIRMA UNIVERSITY, AHMEDABAD – 382 481, 8-10 DECEMBER, 2011

1

Steam Surface Condenser Design based on Cost Optimization using Genetic Algorithm

A. Nirmalkumar P.Bhatt, B. A. M. Lakdawala, C. V. J. Lakhera 3

A, B & C. Mechanical Engg. Department, Institute of Technology, Nirma University, Ahmedabad

Abstract--The present study explores the use of a non-traditional optimization technique; Genetic Algorithm (GA), for optimization of steam surface condenser. The code for GA is developed and successfully applied for the optimization of same by varying the design variables such as shell internal diameter, tube outer diameter, tube thickness and tube material. The objective function for capital cost is derived and same is used for optimization. The optimized results obtained using GA are found to be superior to the earlier obtained results. Index terms—Surface condenser, Optimization, Genetic algorithm

I.

INTRODUCTION

S team surface condenser is one type of shell-and-tube heat exchangers (STHEs) used in power plant to condense the

steam coming from the turbine exhaust. Many researchers have investigated how to optimize the single phase STHEs using different optimization techniques such as simulated annealing, global sensitivity analysis, harmony search algorithm, particle swarm optimization method, differential evolution strategies, and genetic algorithm considering different objective functions. The optimization of two phase steam surface condenser is not studied extensively and thus there is enough scope for research. Babu B. V. et al. [1] used differential evolution (DE) optimization method and its various strategies for the optimal design of STHEs. The authors had analyzed the problem considering the main objective as the estimation of minimum heat transfer area required for a given heat duty. Selbas et al. [2] used GA for optimum design of STHEs, in which pressure drop was applied as a constraint for achieving optimum design parameters. The authors had considered minimization of total cost as an objective function for STHEs. Fesanghary et al. [3] used global sensitivity analysis to identify the most influential geometrical parameters that affect the total cost of STHE in order to reduce the size of optimization problem and carried out the optimization of influential parameter of STHE from economic point of view by applying the harmony search algorithm. Patel V. K. et al. [4] used particle swarm optimization (PSO), for design optimization of STHEs from an economic view point. Minimization of total annual cost was considered as an objective function of heat exchanger. The authors had

selected three design variables such as shell internal diameter, outer tube diameter and baffle spacing for optimization.

I. DESIGN OPTIMIZATION METHOD

Steam surface condenser is designed using a number of design variables i.e. shell inner diameter, tube outer diameter, tube thickness, tube pitch, tube layout angle, tube material and so on. The present study explores the use of Genetic Algorithm (GA) to optimize the cost of steam surface condenser using four variables for optimization of design i.e. shell inner diameter, tube outer diameter, tube thickness, and tube material. In GA, these four variables are coded to evaluate the design of condenser and hence find out the optimum solution.

Genetic Algorithm:

The basic principle of genetic algorithm was first proposed in the 1970s by John Holland. The genetic algorithm is based on the natural selection, which was found in biological evolution process. In the optimization design application, before a genetic algorithm can be put to work, a method is needed to encode potential solutions to the optimization problem in a form that a computer can process. One common approach is to encode solutions as binary strings: sequences of 1’s and 0’s, where the digit at each position represents the value of some aspect of the solution. A metric called a fitness function that allows each potential solution (individual) to be quantitatively evaluated. After a random initial population in the ranges of design variables is generated, the algorithm creates a sequence of new generations iteratively until the stopping criterion is met. In this process, the selection of parents is based on their fitness; children (next generation or population) are produced by making random changes to a single parent (mutation) or by combining the vector entries of a pair of parents (crossover), and then replace the current population with the children to form the next generation. The algorithm selects individuals with better fitness values as parents, and eliminates the inferior. This guarantees the algorithm converges to a best individual, which probably represents the best solution of the given problem [5].

2

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CURRENT TRENDS IN TECHNOLOGY, ‘NUiCONE – 2011’

II. MATHEMATICAL MODEL

where, N t is the number of tubes and n is the number of tube passes which can be found approximately from the following correlation [7],

N

t

=

0.875   CTP

D

s

2

CL

(

PR

)

2

d

o

2

.… (7)

1) Heat transfer:

Generally in steam surface condenser, steam expands from turbine exhaust on shell side and it condenses by cooling water in tube side. Therefore, Thermal analysis is done on both tube side and shell side for heat transfer and its area. According to flow regime with low Reynolds number, the tube side heat transfer coefficient is computed from the following correlation,

where, D s is shell diameter, which would contain right number of tubes, N t of tube diameter d o . CTP is the tube

count calculation constant and CL is the tube layout constant.

For two-tube pass and 30 tube layout angle, CTP and CL

k

t

i

+

0.0667 Re Pr

t

t

(

d

i

/

L

) 1.33

1

+

0.1Re Pr

t

t

(

d

i

/

L

)

0.3

h

=

t d

3.657

.… (1)

values are suggested,

(If Re t <2300 [6])

CTP=0.9

Where, d i is the tube inner diameter and L is the length of tube.

According to flow regime with transition flow, the tube side heat transfer coefficient is computed from Gnielinski correlation,

h

t

d (

f / 2

)(

Re

t

)

1000 Pr

t

k t

= (Pr

1

+

12.7(

f

/ 2)

1/ 2

t

2 /3

1)

.… (2)

CL=0.87

Using Nusselt correlation [8], heat transfer coefficient for a single horizontal tube with assume laminar film condensation is computed from the following correlation,

h

s

= 0.728


o  

k

l

d

ρ

l

(

ρ

l

ρ

g

)

gi

fg

d

o

3

l

T k

w

l

µ

.… (8)

(If 2300<Re t <10,000 [7]

where,

f =

(

1.58 ln Re

t

3.28

)

2

According to flow regime with higher Reynolds number, the tube side heat transfer coefficient is computed from Petukhov and Kirillov correlation,

h

t

d

=

(

f

/ 2

)

Re

t

Pr

t

k

 

1.07

+

12.7(

f

/ 2)

1/ 2

(Pr

t

2/3

1)

t

 

(For Re t >10,000 [7])

where,

f =

(

1.58 ln Re

t

3.28

)

2

.… (3)

Re t is the tube side Reynolds number and given by,

Re

t

=

ρ t

v d

t

i

µ

t

.… (4)

Pr t is the tube side Prandlt number and given by,

Pr

t

=

µ

t

cp

l

k

t

.… (5)

Flow velocity for tube side is found by,

v

t

=

n

m

t

(

π

)

/ 4 d

t

2

ρ

t

N

t

.… (6)

The temperature difference T w is given by,

T

w

=

T

sat

T

w

= ∆

T

R q"

t

where, T is the local temperature difference between the streams; and R t is the sum of all other resistance (based on the tube outer diameter); and q" is the local heat flux, which are given by,

R

t

=

q

"=

d

o

d

i

1

h

t

U

o

T

+

d

o

d

i

R

fi

+

t

w

k

w

d

o

D

m

+ R

fo

and

where, D m is approximated as:

D

m

=

d

=

d

o

ln

(

d

o

/

i

d

i

)

1 (
2

d

o

+

d

i

)

and t w is the wall thickness; and U o is the overall heat transfer coefficient based on the tube outer diameter.

Considering splashing effect on horizontal tube bundle, the average heat transfer coefficient of tube bundle is computed from the following Kern correlation [9],

h s N

,

= h N

s

1/ 6

.… (9)

The overall heat transfer coefficient based on the tube outer diameter (U o ) depends on both the shell side and tube side heat transfer coefficients and fouling resistances is given [7],

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, NIRMA UNIVERSITY, AHMEDABAD – 382 481, 8-10 DECEMBER, 2011

3

U

o

=

1

R

t

+

1

h

s N

,

.… (10)

Considering for a condensation, the logarithmic mean temperature difference LMTD is computed from the following formula [10],

LMTD

=

T

c out

,

T

c in

,

ln

[(

T

sat

T

c in

,

) (

/

T

sat

T

c out

,

)]

Considering

overall

heat

transfer

coefficient,

.… (11)

the

heat

exchanger surface area A is computed by,

A

=

Q

U

o

F

LMTD

.… (12)

where, the LMTD correction factor F is found as one for condensation and the heat capacity ratio R is zero [7].

Correlation of the heat transfer rate is given either by condensation or by sensible heat transfer which is computed from following formula,

Q

= m h

s

fg

=

m C

c

pc

(

T

c out

,

T

c in

,

)

.… (13)

where, m s is the mass flow rate of steam; and h fg is the enthalpy of vaporization which is the difference between enthalpy of saturated steam h v and enthalpy of water m c is the mass flow rate of cooling water. T c,out and T c,in are the temperature of cooling water at inlet and outlet respectively.

Based on the heat exchanger surface area A, the necessary tube length L is,

L

=

π d

N

A

o

t

.… (14)

2) Pressure drop:

In the heat exchanger there is a close physical and economical affinity between pressure drop and heat transfer. This pressure drop is the static fluid pressure which may be expanded to drive the fluid through heat exchanger. Increasing the flow velocity will cause a rise of heat transfer coefficient which results in compact heat exchanger design and lower investment cost. However increase of flow velocity will cause more pressure drop in exchanger which results in additional running cost. For this reason when designing a heat exchanger pressure drop must be considered with heat transfer. Tube side pressure drop P t is computed from the following correlation [4],

P

c

=

ρ

c

v

c

2

L

2

d

i

f

+

p

n

.… (15)

where, ρ c is the density of cooling water, n is the tube pass, p is a constant and its different values are considered by different authors, kern assumed p=4, while Sinnot et al. assumed p=2.5. [4]

For steam surface condenser, only tube side is a running cost of condenser, while shell side steam expands in a condenser from turbine exhaust directly. That’s why total pumping power is computed from tube side pressure drop only. This power is computed by following formula,

E

P

1 m

c

=

η

ρ

c

P

c

.… (16)

where, η is the efficiency of pump and m c is the mass flow rate of cooling water.

i. Objective function:

Total cost C tot is taken as the objective function, which includes capital cost C c and operating cost C o .

C tot

= C

i

+ C

o

.… (17)

The capital cost of the exchanger C i is computed as a function of heat exchanger surface area A using following formula [3],

C

c

= aA

b

.… (18)

where, a and b are the cost coefficient constants. For Admiralty the value of a and b are shown in Table I.

Thus,

C C

i

=

c

i

R

(

1 +

i

R

)

TL

(1

+

i

R

)

TL

1

.… (19)

The operating cost of exchanger is computed using following formula,

C

op

=

TP ec

E

P

Thus,

C

o

=

C

op

i

R

(

1 +

i

R

)

TL

(1

+

i

R

)

TL

1

.… (20)

.… (21)

TP is the period of the time of operation per year; i R is the interest rate; ec is the unit cost of the energy; and TL is the technical life of condenser.

4

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CURRENT TRENDS IN TECHNOLOGY, ‘NUiCONE – 2011’

The cost of exchanger using materials other than Admiralty is computed using proper material-cost ratio of the materials (cost of material/Cost of Admiralty). The current cost of the materials can be finding from London Metal Exchange [11].

TABLE II. GA RESULTS COMPARED WITH DESIGN MADE BY SIEMENS LTD. USING SIEMENS DESIGN VARIABLES RANGE FOR CASE 1

 

Parameter obtained when minimization of capital cost as an objective function

By Siemens Ltd,

This work

 

TABLE I COST COEFFICIENT OF CONDENSER

Doc No:

(GA)

1CYJ185288

Range

a

b

D

s (mm)

2500

2280.25

A

< 9 m 2

3135

0.463

d o (mm)

19.05

20.80

9 m 2 < A < 90 m 2

1957

0.679

Tube thickness (mm)

0.7

0.72

A

< 9 m 2

1042

0.810

Tube material

SS304

SS304

 

Number of Tubes

4246

3178

v t (m/s)

2.25

2.24

L

(mm)

5.05

6.03

P t (kPa)

-

19.90

E

P (kW)

-

25.54

U (w/m 2 k)

-

2854.66

A (m 2 )

1263

1252.82

C

i (Rs/yr)

1 91 507

1 90 256

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The steam surface condenser design is optimized using GA in the C program code. The results are compared with Siemens design considering different design variables range (design variables range used by Siemens) which are given as for shell inner diameter (mm): 4900.0-900.0; tube outer diameter (mm): 24.0-19.0; Tube thickness (mm): 1.245- 0.559; and Tube materials: Admiralty brass, Titanium, Cu- Nickel, SS304.

The effectiveness of the present approach using GA is assessed by analyzing three case studies.

Case 1: 18 MW Coal Based Captive Cogeneration Power Plant, Doc No: 1CYJ185288, by Siemens Ltd, Baroda

Case 2: 9.9 MW Bua Sommai, Suwannaphum, Doc No:

1CYJ185182 by Siemens Ltd, Baroda

Case 3: 24 MW KPR Sugar Plant, Doc No: 1CYJ185162 by Siemens Ltd, Baroda

The specifications of above three cases are analyzed by considering two-tube pass with 30° tube layout using 1.85 to 2.2 pitch ratio. Cleanliness factor for condenser is considered as 0.85. For pumping power, the pump efficiency is taken as 0.85. For economic calculation, the operating time of condenser is taken 8000 hour/yr, electric cost 5 Rs/yr, Technical life 10 yr, and interest rate of condenser and pumping cost is considered as 20%. For GA operation, the population size per iteration is taken 40, the one site crossover probability is taken 0.9 and mutation probability is taken 0.04.

i. Case 1: 18 MW Coal Based Captive Cogeneration Power Plant, Doc No: 1CYJ185288, by Siemens Ltd, Baroda

The process specification of Case 1 for condenser is given that the steam with 20.641 kg having dryness fraction 0.88 from the turbine is condensed in condenser at pressure 0.111 bar. The cooling water is available at temperature of 32°C

this enters in condenser inlet and comes out at temperature of

41.56°C.

The results of in-house GA code are compared with Siemens data. The design is optimized by considering capital cost of the condenser as an objective function and results are found that the cost of design found by GA is 0.80% less than the Siemens work. And at the same time the velocity will be less by 0.44% using GA than Siemens Design, so the operating cost found by this work is also less than the Siemens design. The almost same results are found for heat transfer area and so the capital cost within 98 iteration of GA.

ii. Case 2: 9.9 MW Bua Sommai, Suwannaphum, Doc No:

1CYJ185182 by Siemens Ltd, Baroda

The process specification of Case 2 for condenser is given that the steam with 9.12 kg/s having dryness fraction 0.88 from the turbine is condensed in condenser at pressure 0.103 bar. The cooling water is available at temperature of 32°C which enters in condenser inlet and comes out at temperature of 41.01°C.

For Case 2, the capital cost of design found by GA is 2.59% less than the Siemens work. And at the same time the velocity is also less by 21.53% using GA than Siemens Design, so the operating cost found by this work will be less than the Siemens design. The almost same results are found for heat transfer area and so the capital cost within 24 iteration of GA.

iii. Case

3:

24

MW

KPR

Sugar

Plant,

Doc

No:

1CYJ185162 by Siemens Ltd, Baroda

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, NIRMA UNIVERSITY, AHMEDABAD – 382 481, 8-10 DECEMBER, 2011

5

TABLE III. GA RESULTS COMPARED WITH DESIGN MADE BY SIEMENS LTD. USING SIEMENS DESIGN VARIABLES RANGE FOR CASE 2

Parameter obtained when minimization of capital cost as an objective function

By Siemens Ltd,

This work

Doc No:

(GA)

1CYJ185182

D

s (mm)

2100

1900.98

d o (mm)

19

20.47

Tube thickness (mm)

0.7

0.60

Tube material

SS304

SS304

Number of Tubes

2458

2282

v t (m/s)

1.95

1.53

L

(mm)

5.5

5.28

P t (kPa)

-

9.18

E

P (kW)

-

5.50

U (w/m 2 k)

-

2709.12

A (m 2 )

801

775.43

C

i (Rs/yr)

1 32 431

1 28 996

TABLE IV. GA RESULTS COMPARED WITH DESIGN MADE BY SIEMENS LTD. USING SIEMENS DESIGN VARIABLES RANGE FOR CASE 3

Parameter obtained when minimization of capital cost as an objective function

By Siemens Ltd,

This work

Doc No:

(GA)

1CYJ185162

D

s (mm)

2300

2389.74

d o (mm)

23

20.47

Tube thickness (mm)

0.7

0.64

Tube material

SS304

SS304

Number of Tubes

3136

3606

v t (m/s)

2.22

2.08

L

(mm)

7.0

6.34

P t (kPa)

-

17.72

E

P (kW)

-

27.06

U (w/m 2 k)

-

2709.12

A (m 2 )

1572

2842.08

C

i (Rs/yr)

2 28 652

2 16 610

The process specification of Case 3 for condenser is given that the steam with 20.641 kg having dryness fraction 0.88 from the turbine is condensed in condenser at pressure 0.111 bar. The cooling water is available at temperature of 32°C which enters in condenser inlet and comes out at temperature of 41.56°C.

For Case 3, the capital cost of design found by GA is 5.27% less than the Siemens work. And at the same time the velocity is also less by 6.31% using GA than Siemens Design, so the operating cost found by this work will be less than the Siemens design. The almost same results are found for heat transfer area and so the capital cost within 118 iteration of GA.

The cost found by GA is compared with Siemens result which shown in Fig. 1. From analyzing above three case studies, the results found better for this work than the Siemens design. Siemens got the design using experimental results of Heat Exchanger Institute (HEI) standard for overall heat transfer coefficient. In present work overall heat transfer coefficient is calculated using empirical correlation (Nusselt correlation and Kern relation for multiple tubes) which gives less overall heat transfer coefficient than the experimental result. Even though using this correlation, the results of GA is better than the Siemens design. Therefore, GA can be successfully employed for optimization of steam surface condenser considering different design variables.

surface condenser considering different design variables. Fig.1 Capital cost comparison IV. CONCLUSIONS An algorithm

Fig.1 Capital cost comparison

IV.

CONCLUSIONS

An algorithm for the optimum design of steam surface condensers based on genetic algorithm has been presented.

The model uses the Nusselt’s correlation with Kern Method for calculation of heat transfer coefficients in the shell side. The objective function can include any kind of function which is non linear and influence the cost of condenser can be

6

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CURRENT TRENDS IN TECHNOLOGY, ‘NUiCONE – 2011’

handled in mathematical programming techniques using genetic algorithm. The Genetic algorithm provides better solution to detect global optimum results while reducing the number of evolution for the objective function. The solution to case studies taken from the Siemens data sheet show how previously reported designs can be improved through the use of the new approach presented in the present work.

V REFERENCES

[1]

B.V. Babu, S.A. Munawar, “Differential evolution strategies for optimal design of shell-and-tube heat exchangers”, Chemical

[2]

Engineering Science 62 (2007) 3720 –-3739 Resat Selbas, Onder Kızılkan, Marcus Reppich, “A new design

1026-1031

[3]

approach for shell-and-tube heat exchangers using genetic algorithms from economic point of view”, Chemical Engineering and Processing, 45 (2006) 268-275 M. Fesanghary, E. Damangir, I. Soleimani, “Design optimization of

shell and tube heat exchangers using global sensitivity analysis and harmony search algorithm”, Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009)

[4]

V.K. Patel, R.V. Rao, “Design optimization of shell-and- tube heat exchanger using particle swarm optimization technique”, Applied Thermal Engineering 30 (2010) 1417-1425

[5] Jiangfeng Guo, Lin Cheng, Mingtian Xu, “Optimization design of

shell-and-tube heat exchanger by entropy generation minimization and genetic algorithm”, Applied Thermal Engineering 29, 2009,

p.p.2954-2960

[6]

Antonio C. Caputo, Pacifico M. Pelagagge, Paolo Salini, “Heat

[7]

exchanger design based on economic optimization”, Applied Thermal Engineering, 28 (2008) 1151-1159 Sadik Kakac, Hongtan Liu, Heat Exchangers Selection, Rating, and

[8]

Thermal Design. Second Edition, 1998 Robert W. Serth, Process Heat Transfer. Second Edition, 2007

[9]

G. F.Hewitt, G.L. Shires, T.R. Bott, Process Heat Transfer. Second

[10]

Edition, 1994 Heat Exchanger Institute, Inc. Standards for Steam Surface

[11]

Condensers, Heat Exchanger Institute, 10th Edition, 2006 London Metal Exchange, URL: http://www.lme.com/