0263±8762/96/$07.00+ 0.

00
€ Institution of Chemical Engineers

HEAT EXCHANGER DESIGN THROUGH PARAMETER

PLOTTING
T. K. PODDAR* and G. T. POLLEY²
*Department of Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, USA
²
Department of Chemical Engineering, UMIST, Manchester, UK

A new heat exchanger design procedure is presented. It can be used with any
existing state-of-the-art exchanger rating program. Rather than systematically
exploring the whole of the available range of exchanger sizes (diameters and tube
lengths), it determines the relationships between duty and tube length, pressure drop and
tube length, etc. for a range of diameters. This information is then used to clearly indicate
the full range of geometries that are suitable for a given duty and given constraints. As the
example presented in the paper shows, this can be achieved by undertaking very few rating
calculations (typically four to six). Conventional design procedures can involve hundreds
of such calculations. The graphical representation provides the designer with clear
guidance regarding the in¯ uence of allowable pressure drop on required geometry. It can
also be used to appraise rapidly the amount of thermal overdesign introduced through the
selection of a speci® c geometry.
Keywords: heat exchanger design; CAD; overdesign

INTRODUCTION This paper presents a graphical technique that over-

Heat exchanger design generally proceeds through the
examination of the performance of a range of potential
geometries. This is usually undertaken by computer. A
typical program would systematically explore a range of
shell diameters, tube lengths, tube pass arrangements
and number of units in series and/or parallel. It is usually
left to the designer to specify the range of geometries to
be covered. Obviously, the larger the range speci® ed, the
longer the program takes to execute but the larger the
number of potential designs generated.
The objective in such procedures is to identify those
geometries which satisfy the following constraints:
1. the exchanger is capable of transferring the speci® ed
load;
2. the tubeside pressure drop is less than or equal to a
speci® ed maximum value;
3. the shellside pressure drop is less than or equal to a
speci® ed maximum value;
4. the tubeside velocity is less than a maximum speci® ed
value and greater than a minimum value;
5. the tube length is less than a maximum speci® ed value;
6. the shell diameter is less than a maximum speci® ed
value.
The procedure su ers from at least three signi® cant
drawbacks. First, the designs generated are often `over-
designs’ and, despite conventional wisdom, overdesign is
not always safe design. Second, the designer must
undertake a number of runs in order to establish the
in¯ uence of what may be termed the `secondary’
constraints (pressure drop, velocity and tube length) on
design and third, the designer may not necessarily cover
the best range of potential geometries.
849
comes these drawbacks and lays bare the in¯ uence of the
`secondary constraints’ on design.
The procedure was ® rst developed by one of the
authors whilst working in the Dharamsi Morarji
Chemical Co. in 1990. That version was based on the
use of analytical equations derived from those presented
by Kern1 for the prediction of exchanger performance.
Unfortunately, the use of Kern’s equations has a number
of drawbacks. First, the shellside equation is restricted to
exchangers that have a 25% ba‚ e cut and a ba‚ e
spacing equal to the shell diameter. To apply the
equation to other geometries is to move outside the
bounds of its application. Secondly, Kern’s equations
have not proved to be very accurate and are no longer
used by designers. Far more accurate `stream analysis’
methods2 are now available to the designer in standard
exchanger design programs. What is needed is a
methodology that yields results that are consistent with
these methods.
In this paper the authors present a procedure that can
be applied with any available heat exchanger rating or
simulation program.
INITIAL GEOMETRICAL DESIGN SPACE
The principal geometrical constraints are shell
diameter and tube length. The design space is initially
de® ned in terms of the maximum values for these two
parameters (shown in Figure 1). The `space’ starts as the
box ABCD.
VELOCITY CONSTRAINTS
The velocity is dependent on tube count which, in turn
850 PODDAR and POLLEY
Figure 1. Geometrical space.
is directly dependent on the shell diameter. The
maximum allowable tube velocity can easily be con-
verted into the minimum acceptable tube count. Then, by
referring to tube count tables (such as those presented by
Kern1 and by Saunders3 , the shell diameter coinciding
with the maximum velocity can be determined. The
approach can be repeated to yield the shell diameter that
coincides with the minimum acceptable velocity (or, if
appropriate, minimum permitted tubeside Reynolds
Number).
Multiple tube passes are easily catered for by
calculating both the pass and overall tubecounts and
again referring to the relevant tube count table. Thus,
velocity constraints can now be incorporated into the
geometrical space (see Figure 2). The result could well be
the reduction of the search space to box EFGH.
INFORMATION GENERATED FROM
EXCHANGER RATING
Most state-of-the-art programs for the rating of shell-
and-tube heat exchangers present a wealth of informa-
tion on exchanger performance. Virtually all of these
programs will inform the user of the E ective Mean
Temperature Di erence, the Overall Heat Transfer
Coe cient, the straight tube pressure drop and the
shellside pressure drop for a single ba‚ e space. By
running a rating program for a series of shell diameters
with a selected ba‚ e con® guration all of the perfor-
mance information can be related to shell diameter.
The importance of the maximum allowable pressure
drop can be determined as follows. First, allowance is
made for the exchanger nozzles. Normal design practice
is to design the exchanger nozzles such that they absorb
Figure 2. Velocity constraints.
Figure 3. P.D. constraints.
just a small percentage (usually 10%) of the total
allowable value. The aim is to absorb the rest of the
pressure drop in surface friction inside the exchanger in
order to promote heat transfer. So, for each shell
diameter studied, the straight tube pressure drop per
unit length is determined. By dividing the allowable
straight tube pressure drop by this value, the length of
exchanger that coincides with the absorption of the
allowable pressure drop is determined.
The relationship between shell diameter and the tube
length for maximum pressure drop can now be
incorporated into the plot. The result could be that
shown in Figure 3. Acceptable designs lie above and to
the left of this line; the design space has now been
reduced to EFIJH.
The data generated on shellside pressure drop per unit
length of exchanger can be treated in exactly the same
way. The result is also incorporated in Figure 3. For this
problem it is the shellside pressure drop that is
controlling and the design space is now reduced to
EFKLH.
Finally, the information on overall heat transfer
coe cients and e ective mean temperature di erence
can be used to determine the area needed for the given
duty as a function of shell diameter. For each diameter
this can then be related to tube length necessary for the
heat transfer duty. This relationship can now be placed
on the plot. The result could be that shown in Figure 4.
Acceptable designs are those which are above and to the
right of this line; the design space is ® nally reduced to
MFKN.
Any exchanger having the chosen ba‚ e con® guration
and length and diameter values falling within this space
will transfer (at least) the required heat load whilst
obeying all of the speci® ed constraints.
Figure 4. Area requirement.
Trans IChemE, Vol 74, Part A, November 1996
 HEAT EXCHANGER DESIGN THROUGH PARAMETER PLOTTING 851

Figure 5. Design margin. Figure 6. Relaxed shellside pressure drop constraint.

DESIGN MARGINS of the minimum and maximum shell diameters. The

The space MFKN may well contain designs that have maximum tube velocity has been set at 2m s- 1. This
considerably better performance than requested. The occurs at a tube count of 62 which is equivalent to a shell
quantity of over surface involved is very easily estab- diameter of 0.34 m. The minimum Reynolds Number is
lished. A 10% shift of the duty line to the right (see set at 10,000. A quick calculation shows that (with tubes
Figure 5) gives designs having 10% oversurface. The of 25.4 mm O.D. and 2 mm wall thickness) this occurs at
e ect of pressure drop on the design `envelope’ is also a velocity of 0.35 m s- 1. This, in turn, is found to occur at
easily determined. Since, pressure drop is also linearly a tube count of 355 which is equivalent to a shell
dependent on tube length, a 10% shift of the pressure diameter of 0.76 m. A state-of-the-art commercial
drop line to the right shows the e ect of increasing computer program is then used to rate exchangers of
allowable pressure drop by 10% (Figure 6). the following diameters: 0.34 m (minimum) 0.44m
0.54 m 0.64 m 0.76m (maximum).
In each case the ba‚ e cut was set at 25% and the ba‚ e
EXAMPLE PROBLEM spacing was set equal to the shell diameter. The results
A shell-and-tube heat exchanger is required for the obtained are presented in Table 1.
following duty. Naphtha, ¯ owing at a rate of This information was then transformed into the length
116,000kg h- 1 (32.22 kg s- 1 ), is to be heated from 90ÊC limits associated with the maximum use of available
to 110ÊC by means of a light oil, ¯ owing at 70,000 kg h- 1 pressure drops and into lengths required for the
(19.44 kg s- 1) which has an initial temperature of 180ÊC. necessary heat transfer. The results give the identi® ed
The allowable pressure drops for each of the streams is range of exchanger geometries that satisfy the required
5 kPa.
Assuming 10% of this pressure drop to be taken up by
Table 1. Results of rating calculations.
the exchanger nozzles, the straight tube and the bundle
allowable pressure drop are both 4.5 kPa. Shellside Tubeside Heat
The physical properties of the two streams are as Overall pressure pressure transfer
follows: heat drop per drop per area per
transfer unit tube unit tube unit tube
Diameter coe cient length length length
m Wm2 K- 1 kPa m- 1 kPa m- 1 m
Property Naphtha Light Oil
0.34 569 2.06 6.37 4.7
-3
Density (kgm ) 720 760 0.44 437 0.77 2.08 8.5
Heat Capacity (kJ kg- 1 K- 1) 2.345 2.43 0.54 336 0.36 0.85 13.5
Viscosity (cps) 0.54 1.5 0.64 285 0.20 0.56 20.7
Th. Conductivity (W m- 1 K- 1) 0.143 0.127 0.76 230 0.14 0.28 28.3

A fouling resistance of 0.007 m2 K W- 1 is to be used. A

heat balance on the Naphtha stream indicates that the
load on the exchanger is 1.511MW. A heat balance on
the light oil stream then indicates that the oil outlet
temperature will be 148ÊC. A single tube pass exchanger
is to be used. Thus, the E ective Mean Temperature
Di erence for the unit is 63.7ÊC.
Following convention, the higher viscosity liquid will
be placed on the shellside of the exchanger. This provides
better overall heat transfer when plain tubed units are
being used4 .
The ® rst step in ® nding solutions is the identi® cation Figure 7. Solution to example problem.

Trans IChemE, Vol 74, Part A, November 1996

852 PODDAR and POLLEY

Table 2. Identi® ed geometrical space. and duties and the principle design variables (in this case
Length to Length to Length
shell diameter and tube length) to identify clearly the
tubeside shellside required space within which successful designs are to be found.
Diameter pressure pressure for heat Since, the relationships between design margin and tube
m drop limit drop limit Area duty length is linear, the level of overdesign presented by any
geometry within the design space can be established
0.34 2.18 0.71 41.7 8.87
0.44 5.84 2.16 54.3 6.39 quickly and easily. Similarly, since the relationship
0.54 12.50 5.29 70.6 5.23 between pressure drop and tube length is linear, the
0.64 22.50 8.03 83.2 4.00 in¯ uence of allowable pressure drop on the design space
0.76 32.1 16.07 103.1 3.64 is also easily established. The results of the exercise are
best displayed graphically.
The procedure can be used manually with any existing
exchanger rating program. By interfacing it with state-
duty, given the speci® ed constraints. They are presented of-the-art exchanger rating programs, it will be possible
in Table 2 and plotted in Figure 7. to produce design programs that are more suitable for
use on desktop computers than are conventional design
CONCLUSIONS algorithms.
Conventional shell-and-tube heat exchanger design
algorithms proceed by systematically rating a large REFERENCES
number of possible exchanger geometries (termed the
1. Kern, D. Q., 1951, Process Heat Transfer (McGraw-Hill, New
design space) and subsequently identifying those which York).
successfully transfer (at least) the required heat load 2. Palen, J. W. and Taborek, J., 1969, Chem Eng Prog Symp Ser,
whilst providing tubeside and shellside pressure drops 65(92): 53±63.
that are less than maximum allowed values. This 3. Saunders, E. A. D., Heat Exchangers (Longmans Scienti® c,
approach can require a large amount of computation. London).
4. Polley, G. T. and Gibbard, I., 1995, Proc Eng, August.
Despite this, the approach does not necessarily provide
the best designs, nor does it give the designer a great deal
of insight into the design problem.
In this paper, a new approach to design is presented. ADDRESS
The philosophy is ® rst to use the constraints placed upon Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Dr
the design to reduce the possible design space quickly G. T. Polley, Department of Chemical Engineering, UMIST, PO Box
88, Manchester M60 1QD, UK.
and systematically. Then, by undertaking just a few
rating calculations (typically six) within this space, to The manuscript was received 22 December 1995 and accepted for
derive relationships between the remaining constraints publicationafter revision 1 July 1996.

Trans IChemE, Vol 74, Part A, November 1996