Plate heat exchangers – preliminary design

A Quick Look at the Basics

Plate heat exchangers consist of pressed, corrugated metal plates fitted between a thick, carbon steel frame. Each
plate flow channel is sealed with a gasket, a weld, or an alternating combination of the two. It is not uncommon for
plate and frame heat exchangers to have overall heat transfer coefficient that are 3-4 times those found in shell and
tube heat exchangers.

Eq. (1)

Specifying a Plate and Frame Heat Exchanger

Figure 1: Parts Structure for a

Plate Heat Exchanger

Engineers often fail to realize the differences between heat transfer technologies when preparing a specification. This
specification is then sent to vendors of different types of heat exchangers. Consider the following example:

A process stream requires C276 material to guard against corrosion. The stream needs to be cooled with cooling
water before being sent to storage. The metallurgy makes the process stream an immediate candidate for the
tubeside of a shell and tube heat exchanger. The cooling water is available at 80 °F and must be returned at a
temperature no higher than 115 °F. The process engineer realizes that with the water flow being placed on the
shellside, larger flowrates will enhance the heat transfer coefficient. The basis for the heat exchanger quotation was
specified as follows:

Table 1: Data for Example Illustration

Tubeside Shellside

Flow Rate (GPM) 500 1800

Temperature In (°F) 280 80

Temperature Out (°F) 150 92

Allowable Pressure
15 15
Drop (psig)

According to the engineer's calculations, these basic parameters should provide a good shell and tube design with a
minimum amount of C276 material (an expensive alloy). The completed specification sheet is forwarded to many
manufacturers, including those that could easily quote plate and frame or another compact technology. A typical plate
 and frame unit designed to meet this specification would have about 650 ft 2 of area compared to about 420 ft 2 for a
shell and tube exchanger. A plate and frame unit designed to the above specification is limited by the allowable
pressure drop on the cooling water. If the cooling water flow is reduced to 655 GPM and the outlet water temperature
allowed to rise to 115 °F, the plate and frame heat exchanger would contain about 185 ft2 of area. The unit is
smaller, less expensive, and uses less water. The load being transferred to the cooling tower is the same.

The theory that applied to the shell and tube heat exchanger (increasing water flow will minimize heat transfer area),
works in exactly the opposite direction for compact technologies. The larger water flow actually drives the cost of the
unit upward. Rather than supplying a rigid specification to all heat exchanger manufacturers, the engineer should have
explained his goal in regards to the process stream. Then he could have stated the following:

The process stream is to be cooled with cooling water. Up to 2000 GPM of water is available at 80 °F. The maximum
return temperature is 115 °F.

This simple statement could result in vastly different configurations when compared with the designs that would result
from the original specification.

Chemical and Process Engineering Resources

Plate Heat Exchangers: Preliminary Design

Nov 08 2010 12:50 PM | Chris Haslego in Heat Transfer

Design Charts for Plate and Frame Heat

Exchangers
Often, in compact heat transfer technology, engineers find themselves at
the mercy of the manufacturers of the equipment. For example, limited
literature correlations are available to help in the preliminary design of plate
and frame heat exchangers. We will introduce a series of charts that can be
used for performing preliminary sizing of plate and frame exchangers. After introducing the charts, we will follow with
examples to help clarify the use of the charts. The following should be noted regarding the use of the charts:

1. These charts are valid for single pass units with 0.50 mm thick plates. The accuracy of the charts will not be
compromised for most materials of construction.
2. Wetted material thermal conductivity is taken as 8.67 Btu/h ft °F (value for SS)
3. Heat transfer correlations are valid for single phase, liquid-liquid designs
4. The following physical properties were used for the basis:

Table 2: Physical Property Data Used for Chart Construction

Hydrocarbon- Water-
Based Fluids Based Fluids

Thermal Conductivity
0.06 0.33
(Btu/h ft2 °F)

Density (lb/ft3) 55 62

Heat Capacity
0.85 0.85
(Btu/lb °F)
5. Degree of accuracy should be within ± 15% of the service value for the overall heat transfer coefficient, assuming a
nominal 10% excess heat transfer area.
6. For fluids with viscosities between 100 and 500 cP, used the 100 cP line of the graphs. For fluids in excess of 500 cP,
consult with manufacturers.
 Download these design charts in MS Excel format from our File Repository.

Figure 2: Heat Transfer Figure 3: Heat Transfer Figure 4: Heat Transfer

Data for 0.25 < NTU < 2.0 Data for 2.0 < NTU < 4.0 Data for 4.0 < NTU < 5.0
for Plate and Frame for Plate and Frame for Plate and Frame
Heat Exchangers, Heat Exchangers, Heat Exchangers,
Water Based Properties Water Based Properties Water Based Properties

Figure 5: Heat Transfer Figure 6: Heat Transfer Figure 7: Heat Transfer

Data for 0.25 < NTU < 2.0 Data for 2.0 < NTU < 4.0 Data for 4.0 < NTU < 5.0
for Plate and Frame for Plate and Frame for Plate and Frame
Heat Exchangers, Heat Exchangers, Heat Exchangers,
Hydrocarbon Based Properties Hydrocarbon Based Properties Hydrocarbon Based Properties

Example Problem
Consider the following example:

150,000 lb/h of SAE 30 oil is being cooled from 200 °F to 175 °F by
75,000 lb/h of water. The water enters the exchanger at 60 °F and leaves at 168 °F. The average viscosity of the
water passing through the unit is 0.33 cP and the average viscosity of the oil in the unit is 215 cP. The maximum
allowable pressure drop through the plate heat exchanger is 15 psig on the hot and cold sides.

Step 1: Calculate the LMTD

 Eq. (2)

Step 2: Calculate NTUHOT and NTUCOLD

Eq. (3)

Step 3: Read hHot from 0.25 < NTU < 2.0 chart for hydrocarbons

Although is there not a viscosity line for 215 cP, the line representing "100 cP" can be or viscosities up to about 400-
500 cP. The heat exchanger will be pressure drop limited and the heat transfer coefficient will not change appreciably
over this viscosity range for plate and frame exchangers. Reading from the chart, a pressure drop of 15 psig
corresponds to hHot @ 50 Btu/h ft2 °F.

Step 4: Read hCold from 0.25 < NTU < 2.0 chart for water based liquids

Again, you will note that the exact viscosity line needed for pure water (0.33 cP) in this case is not available. However,
the "1.0 cP" line on the chart will provide a very good estimate of the heat transfer coefficient that pure water will
exhibit. Reading from the chart, a pressure drop of 15 psig corresponds to h Cold @ 3000 Btu/h ft2 °F.

Step 5: Calculate the Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient (OHTC)

Assume a stainless steel plate with a thickness of 0.50 mm is being used. 316 stainless steel has a thermal
conductivity of 8.67 Btu/h ft °F.

Eq. (4)

Another Example
 150,000 lb/h of water is being cooled from 200 °°F by
150,000 lb/h of NaCl brine. The brine enters the exchanger at 50 °F and leaves at 171 °F. The average viscosity of
the water passing through the unit is 0.46 cP and the average viscosity of the brine in the unit is 1.10 cP. The
maximum allowable pressure drop through the plate heat exchanger is 10 psig on the hot (water) side and 20 psig on
the cold (brine) side.
As before, the LMTD is calculated to be 38.5 °F. NTUHot and NTUCold are calculated as 2.59 and 3.14 respectively.
Reading hHot and hCold from the chart for 2.0 < NTU < 4.0 (water based), gives about 2000 Btu/h ft 2 °F and 2500
Btu/h ft2 °F respectively. Although the material of choice may be Titanium or Palladium stabilized Titanium, we will
use the properties for stainless steel for our preliminary sizing. Calculating the OHTC as before yields 918 Btu/h
ft2 °F.

Implications for Size Reduction

We have seen that alternative technologies have significant size advantage over shell-and-tube heat exchangers.
Now let's consider the implications of this. The first advantage is smaller plot plan for the process plant. The spacing
between process equipment can be reduced. So, if the plant is to be housed in a building, the size of the building can
be reduced. In any event, the amount of structural steel used to support the plant can be reduced and given the
weight saving, the load on that structure is also reduced. The weight advantage extends to the design of the
foundations used to support the plant.

Since, the spacing between individual equipment items is reduced, expenditure on piping is reduced. Once more we
stress the savings associated with size and weight reduction can only be achieved if these advantages are recognized
at the earliest stages of the plant design.

As we will briefly show, the use of alternative exchanger technologies can result in significant reduction in plant
complexity. This not only enforces the savings associated with reduced size and weight (reduced plot space,
structural cost savings, piping cost reduction etc.) but also has safety implications. The simpler the plant structure the
easier it is for the process operator to understand the plant. The simpler the plant structure, the safer, easier and more
straight forward the plant maintenance (the fewer the pipe branches that must be blanked etc.).

The alternative technologies result in reduced complexity by reducing the number of heat exchangers. This is
achieved through:

 improved 'thermal contacting'

 multi-streaming.
Mechanical constraints play a significant role in the design of shell-and-tube heat exchangers. For instance, it is
common to find that some users place restrictions on the length of the tubes used in such a unit. Such a restriction
can have important implications for the design. In the case of exchangers requiring large surface areas the restriction
drives the design towards large tube counts. If such tube counts then lead to low tube side velocity, the designer is
tempted to increase the number of tube side passes in order to maintain a reasonable tube-side heat transfer
coefficient.

Thermal expansion considerations can also lead the designer to opt for multiple tube passes for the cost of a floating
head is generally lower than the cost of installing an expansion bellows in the exchanger shell.
The use of multiple tube passes has four detrimental effects. First, it leads to a reduction in the number of tubes that
can be accommodated in a given size of shell (so it leads to increased shell diameter and cost). Second, for bundles
having more than four tube passes, the pass partition lanes introduced into the bundle give rise to an increase in the
quantity of shell-side fluid bypassing the tube bundle and a reduction in tube-side heat transfer coefficient. Thirdly, it
gives rise to wasted tube side pressure drop in the return headers. Finally, and most significantly, the use of multiple
tube passes results in the thermal contacting of the streams not being pure counter-flow. This has two effects. The
first is that the Effective Mean Temperature Driving Force is reduced. The second, and more serious effect, is that a
'temperature cross' can occur.

If a 'temperature cross' occurs, the designer must split the duty between a number of individual heat exchangers
arranged in series. Figures 8 and 9 below illustrate the difference between temperatures that are said to be 'crossing'
and those that are not.

Many of the alternative heat exchanger technologies allow the application of pure counter-flow across all size and flow
ranges. The results are better use of available temperature driving force and the use of single heat exchangers.

Figure 8: No Temerature Figure 9: Deep Temperature

Cross Cross
Let's now consider multi-streaming. The traditional shell-and-tube heat exchanger only handles one hot and one cold
stream. Some heat exchanger technologies (most notably plate-fin and printed circuit exchangers) can handle many
streams. It is not uncommon to find plate-fin heat exchangers transferring heat between ten individual process. Such
units can be considered to contain a whole heat exchanger network within the body of a single exchanger. Distribution
and recombination of process flows is undertaken inside the exchanger. The result is a major saving in piping cost.

Engineers often over-look the opportunities of using a plate and frame unit as a multi-stream unit. (Again, this will be a
regular oversight if exchanger selection is not made until after the flow sheet has been developed).

A good example of multi-streaming is the use of a plate heat exchanger serving as a process interchanger on one
side and a trim cooler on the other. This arrangement is particularly useful for product streams that are exiting a
process and must be cooled for storage. Another popular function of multi-streaming is in lowering material costs.
Often times, once streams are cooled to a certain temperature, they pose much less of a corrosion risk. Half of the
exchanger can contain a higher alloy, while the other side can utilize stainless steel or a lower alloy.

In Figure 10 we show how a plate and frame unit has been applied to a problem involving three process streams. The
heat transfer properties used for styrene are given in Table 3. Just one unit is used and this unit has 1,335 sq.ft. of
effective surface area.

In Figure 11 we show the equivalent shell-and-tube solution. In order to avoid temperature crosses we need six
individual exchangers: the cooler having two shells in series (each having 1,440 sq.ft of effective surface); the heat
recovery unit having four shells in series (each having 2,116 sq.ft. of surface).

So, our plate-and-frame design involves the use of 1,335 sq.ft. of surface in a single unit. The equivalent shell-and-
tube design has 11,344 sq.ft. of surface distributed across four separate exchangers.
 Figure 10: A Multi-Stream
Figure 11: Equivalent Shell and
Plate Exchanger Serving as an
Tube Design
Interchanger and a Trim Cooler

Table 3: Heat Transfer Properties Used for Styrene in the Multi-Stream Example

100 °F 150 °F 200 °F

Density (lb/ft3) 55.5 53.9 52.3

Specific Heat
0.427 0.447 0.471
(Btu/lb °F)

Viscosity (cP) 0.590 0.428 0.329

Thermal
Conductivity 0.077 0.074 0.070
(Btu/h ft °F)

Data from PhysProps© by G.P. Engineering, Version 1.5.0