Heat and Mass Transfer Lab

Research Paper
Topic:
Detailed description of compact heat
exchanger with practical application

Mechanical Engineering
Department
(2014-2018)
Jagdeep Singh 101408061
Jaskaran Singh 101408062
Jaskirat Singh 101408063
Jaspreet Singh 101408064

Review
Detailed description of compact heat exchanger with practical
application
Abstract
Compact heat exchangers -The dominant type of heat exchanger in process
plants today is the shell and tube. In many cases, it is an appropriate selection
for the service required. However, because engineers are familiar with shell-andtube varieties, they tend to select them by default, without considering
alternatives. If engineers minds were opened to alternative technologies, such
as compact heat exchangers, many heat-exchanger specifications might look
different. There are many different kinds of compact heat exchangers. The most
common is the gasketed plate-and frame heat exchanger. All CHEs These units
offer distinct advantages over shell-andtube heat exchangers, as quantified by
the example presented here use corrugated plates between the heating and
cooling media. The design provides the advantages of high turbulence, high
heat-transfer coefficients and high fouling resistance. High heat-transfer
coefficients allow smaller heat-transfer areas compared to traditional shell-andtube heat exchangers used for the same duty. This ultimately results in
significant size reductions and weight savings as less material is needed to
construct the unit. This is especially important when working with expensive
corrosionresistant metals such as titanium and Hastelloys, for example. The
gasketed plate heat exchanger is often the most efficient solution. In
petrochemical and petroleum-refinery applications, however, gaskets frequently
cannot be used because aggressive media result in a short lifetime for the
gaskets or because a potential risk of leakage is unacceptable. In these cases,
all-welded compact heat exchangers without inter-plate gaskets should be
considered. There are several different kinds available in the market today. In the
case presented in this article, a unit with overall fully counter-current flow is used
to enable the required heat recovery, while also allowing mechanical cleaning. In
addition, all welds are accessible for repair purposes if this type of maintenance
becomes necessary during the life of the exchanger.

Contents
Introduction
Compact Heat exchangers
Practical Uses
Table of experiments
Results

References

Introduction
When to use CHEs?
CHEs can be used in most
industrial applications as long as
design temperature and pressure
are within the accepted range,
which normally is up to 450C and
40 barg. CHEs are often the best
alternative when the application
allows gasketed or fully welded
plate heat exchangers, when a
highgrade, expensive
construction material is required
for the heat exchanger, when plot
space is a problem or when
enhanced energy recovery is
important. When the application
allows shell-andtube heat
exchangers to be manufactured
completely of carbon steel, such
design normally provides the
most cost-efficient solution.
However, even in those cases,
CHEs can have advantages, such
as space savings, superior heat
recovery and a higher resistance
to fouling, which make them well
worth considering. If you do not
know if your application can be
handled by compact heat
exchangers, ask a vendor.

Suppliers are normally willing to

give you a quick budget quote
when their equipment is
appropriate for your application
so that you can compare solutions
and determine which would be
best for you. As part of the vendor
enquiry, design options for
enhanced heat recovery can be
quantified and additional energy
saving benefits and capital cost
changes can be defined. At this
stage, in some circumstances, it
may be favorable to respecify the
heat-exchanger performance
requirements to take advantage
of the improved heat recovery
that can be achieved with a CHE.
Direct-Transfer Type Exchangers.
In this type, heat transfers
continuously from the hot fluid to
the cold fluid through a dividing
wall. Although a simultaneous
flow of two (or more) fluids is
required in the exchanger, there
is no direct mixing of the two (or
more) fluids because each fluid
flows in separate fluid passages.
In general, there are no moving
parts in most such heat
exchangers. This type of

exchanger is designated as a
recuperative heat exchanger or
simply as a recuperator.{ Some
examples of directtransfer type
heat exchangers are tubular,
plate-type, and extended surface
exchangers. Note that the term
recuperator is not commonly used
in the process industry for shelland-tube and plate heat
exchangers, although they are
also considered as recuperators.
Recuperators are further
subclassified as prime surface
exchangers and extended-surface
exchangers. Prime surface
exchangers do not employ fins or
extended surfaces on any fluid
side. Plain tubular exchangers,
shell-and-tube exchangers with
plain tubes, and plate exchangers
are good examples of prime
surface exchangers. Recuperators
constitute a vast majority of all
heat exchangers.

CHE versus shell-and-tube

All-welded CHEs consist of plates

that are welded together (Figure
3). Among the many models
available on the market today, all
have one thing in common: they
do not have inter-plate gaskets.
This feature is what makes them
suitable for processes involving
aggressive media or high
temperatures where gaskets
cannot be used.

On the other hand, some of these

allwelded heat exchangers are
sealed and cannot be opened for
inspection and mechanical
cleaning. Others can be opened,
allowing the entire heat-transfer
area and all welds to be reached,
cleaned and repaired if necessary.

Because all-welded heatexchanger plates cannot be

pressed in carbon steel, plate
packs are available only in
stainless steel or higher-grade
metals. The cost of an all-welded
compact heat exchanger is higher
than that of a gasketed plate heat
exchanger. Nevertheless, in cases
where gaskets cannot be used,
all-welded compact

plate heat exchangers are still

often a strong alternative to shelland-tube heat exchangers. The
most-efficient, compact, plate
heat exchanger designs have
countercurrent flows or an
overall countercurrent flow
created by multi-pass
arrangements on both the hot and
cold sides. Such units can be
designed to work with crossing
temperatures and with
temperature approaches (the
difference between the outlet
temperature of one stream and
the inlet temperature of the other
stream) as close as 3C. As
mentioned before, all-welded

CHEs are very compact in

comparison to shell-and-tube heat
exchangers. CHEs have this
advantage due to their higher
heat-transfer coefficient and the
resulting much smaller heattransfer area. The units typically
occupy only a fraction of the
space needed for a shell-and-tube
exchanger. Space savings are
accompanied by savings on
foundations and constructional
steel work, and so on. The space
needed for maintenance is also
much smaller as no tube-bundle
access and withdrawal space is
required. Due to the short path
through the heat exchanger, the
pressure drop can be kept
relatively low, although this
depends on the number of passes
and the phase of the fluid.
For most liquid to-liquid duties, a
70100 kPa pressure drop is
normal, while for a two-phase
flow, the pressure drop can be as
low as 25 kPa. Regarding heat
recovery, the main advantage of
the CHE is that it operates
efficiently with crossing
temperatures and close
temperature approaches. This
makes it possible to transfer more
heat from one stream to another
or to use a heating medium that
is just a few degrees warmer than
the cold medium. There are two
main reasons why all-welded
CHEs are more thermally efficient
than shell-and-tube heat
exchangers:
All-welded CHEs have high
heattransfer coefficients. This is
due to the high turbulence
created in the corrugated plate

channels. The high turbulence

results in thin laminar films on the
surface of the heat-transfer area.
These have a much lower
resistance to heat transfer
compared to the thicker film
found in a shell-and-tube heat
exchanger
Counter-current flows (or overall
counter-current flows) can be
achieved in all-welded compact
heat exchangers. This means that
a single heat exchanger,
operating with crossing
temperatures and a close
temperature approach can
replace several shell-and-tube
heat exchangers placed in a serial
one-pass arrangement, to
emulate the counter-current flow
of the compact heat exchanger
design As a result, CHEs may be
more cost-effective and may
present a more practical
alternative to shelland-tube heat
exchangers. In addition to the
financial benefits, space savings
can also be an important factor
for upgrading existing plants as
well as for new plant designs. The
advantages of CHEs over
shelland-tube heat exchangers
will become clear with the
following example taken from an
actual application.
A real application example In a
recent feasibility study for
improving the energy efficiency of
a European ethylene plant, a
number of opportunities to
increase the export of highpressure (HP) steam to the sites
utility system were identified. The
changes included unloading the
refrigerant compressors and

increasing heat recovery from the

quench water loop. One such
opportunity was the replacement
of an existing quench water/
polished water shell-and-tube
heat exchanger that was limiting
heat recovery. From an energy
point of view, it was desirable to
maximize heat trans fer between
these streams. This would reduce
both the low-pressure (LP) steam
required for boiler feed water
(BFW) deaeration (due to an
increase in de-aerator BFW feed
temperature) and would also
reduce the heat-duty load on the
cooling water tower (a site
bottleneck), due to a reduction in
quench water cooling against
cooling water.
The required minimum
performance of the replacement
heat exchanger is detailed in
Table 1. A preliminary assessment
of the suitability of a shell-andtube heat exchanger indicated
that two shells in series (468 m2)
would be an economical
compromise, achieving a heat
recovery of 10 MW with an 11.6C
temperature approach at the hot
end. At this stage, a compact heat
exchanger was compared with the
shell-andtube alternative. An allwelded rather than a gasketed
plate heat exchanger was chosen
because of limited gasket lifetime
when there is contact with quench
water. Additionally, because of
potential quench-water side
fouling, an all-welded heat
exchanger that could be
mechanically cleaned was
preferred.

As mentioned previously,
selecting an all-welded CHE
instead of a shell-andtube heat
exchanger makes it possible to
further increase energy savings,
by reducing temperature
approach. In this case, the hotend temperature approach
determines the duty and thus the
size and design of the heat
exchanger. For a compact heat
exchanger with counter-current
flows it is normally possible (and
economical) to decrease the
temperature approach to 35C.
To take advantage of this
potential, various improved heat
recovery designs were
investigated. A summary of
alternative heat-exchanger
designs is shown in Table 2.
There, it can be seen that the
heattransfer coefficient for the
compact heat exchanger is much
higher than for the shell-and-tube
heat exchanger. This is due to the
highly turbulent flow created by
the corrugated plates in the CHE.
As a result, a much smaller heattransfer area is required. When
comparing the cost of the allwelded CHE and the shell-andtube heat exchanger, it should be
remembered that the plate
material in the CHE is stainless
steel (ANSI 316L), while carbon
steel is used in the shell-and-tube
heat exchanger.
It should also be noted that the
pressure drop is higher for the
compact heat exchanger than for
the shell and-tube heat
exchanger. This will, of course,
increase the fluid-pumping cost. A
true comparison must take these

costs into account. However,

since the pumping costs are
usually small when compared to
the overall energy savings
achieved, the financial outcome
for this example is unlikely to
change. The installation cost of
shell-and tube heat exchangers
will be higher, especially for a
multi-shell design. In this case,
the total installed cost
comparison would therefore be
significantly more favorable for
compact heat exchangers than
the purchase cost comparison
given above. For the heat
exchangers considered in this
example, Table 3 shows how
energy and emissions reductions
improve as the cold-side outlet
temperature is increased to
reduce the hot-end temperature
approach from 11.6C to 3.9C. To
achieve this, 50% more compact
heat exchanger surface area is
required. This increases the cost
of the unit by only 26%; however,
on the other hand, two shell-andtube heat exchangers in series
would be required to achieve the
same performance, which would
require 85% more heat transfer
area, at a 69% higher cost.
All design options offer
reasonable monetary savings.
Heat exchanger selection is
therefore primarily driven by
capital cost.
A compact heat exchanger design
allows improved heat recovery
with only a marginally longer
payback time, and therefore, is a
strong candidate for selection.

The all-welded compact heat

exchanger in Case 3a provides
maximum energy savings and
CO2 credits at a lower size, cost
and payback time than the
corresponding shell-and-tube heat
exchanger in Case 3b.
With 17% additional monetary
saving, the payback time for the
compact heat exchanger is only
8% longer, whilst the payback
time for the shell-andtube heat
exchanger design is 44% longer.
The following two points should
also be noted:

for companies to respond to this

pressure. Reducing energy use
lowers costs for primary energy
supply and thus reduces
operating costs. Also if primary
energy supply is reduced,heat
rejection must also reduce.
Overall, the capital investment
cost for all heat transfer
equipment is often lower.

The installation cost of the allwelded CHE should be lower than

for a shell-and-tube, especially
when the shell-and-tube design is
a multi-shell arrangement, as in
this comparison
All-welded CHEs often provide
better lifecycle performance and
lower maintenance costs than
shelland-tube designs, because
there is less fouling. Less fouling
means less-frequent cleaning,
which in turn reduces downtime
(or at least the maintenance
work). Compact all-welded heat
exchangers are also very easy to
clean.
Their panels can simply be
removed to allow mechanical
cleaning with high-pressure water.
Shell-and-tube heat exchangers,
on the other hand, take longer to
clean.
Final remarks There is increasing
pressure on industry today to
reduce CO2 emissions. Reducing
energy use by improving process
heat recovery, is an effective way

It is our experience that

opportunities for improved heat
recovery and reduced CO2
emissions exist in most chemical
process industries (CPI) plants,
and that some of these
opportunities can be realized with
short payback times. This allows
companies to contribute to CO2
reduction initiatives and to reap
financial benefits. Effective
feasibility studies for reducing
energy use should follow a
systematic approach and involve
equipment vendors, to ensure
that all potential opportunities are
fully exploited. Finally, all-welded
compact heat exchangers can
often improve heat recovery,
while achieving greater savings
with a better payback rate than
more conventional alternatives

such as shell- and-tube heat

exchangers.

REFERENCES
[1] Patankar S. V. and Prakash C.
1981 An Analysis of Plate Thickness
on Laminar Flow and Heat transfer in
Interrupted Plate passages.
International Journal of Heat and
Mass Transfer 24: 1801-1810.
[2] Joshi H. M. and Webb R. L. 1987.
Heat Transfer and Friction in Offset
Strip Fin Heat Exchanger,
International Journal of Heat and
Mass Transfer. 30(1): 69-80
[3] Suzuki, K., Hiral, E., Miyake, T.,
Numerical and Experimental studies

on a two Dimensional Model of an

Offset-Strip-Fin type Compact Heat
Exchanger used at low Reynolds
Number. International Journal of Heat
and Mass Transfer 1985 28(4) 823836.
[4] Tinaut F. V., Melgar A. and
Rehman Ali A. A. 1992 Correlations
for Heat Transfer and Flow Friction
Characteristics of Compact Plate
Type Heat Exchangers. International
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer.
35(7):1659:1665
[5] Manglik and Bergles A. E. 1995
Heat Transfer and Pressure drop
Correlations for Rectangular Offset
Strip Finn Compact Heat Exchangers.
Experimental Fluid Science 10:171180