CHEMICAL PROCESS

EQUIPMENT DESIGN LAB

ASSIGNMENT – 3
GROUP 8

21BCM0063 – ISHAAN RAJESH CHHATLANI

21BCM0195 – CHAITANYARAM VARSALE
21BCM0134 – SAKSHI KUMARI
21BCM0024 – SREEJITA BISWAS
21BCM0204 – VISHNU V
21BCM0098 – TANISHA SAHA

FACULTY – SHANKAR RAMAN DHANUSHKODI

Pressure Vessel and Distillation Column – 1

ASPEN IN PLANT COST ESTIMATOR [9]

The successful operation of a chemical plant relies on securing sufficient capital for both equipment
purchases and installation. The funds required to establish plant facilities are referred to as fixed
capital investment, while the capital needed for day-to-day plant operations is known as working
capital. Together, these two components make up the total capital investment. In the design of a
distillation column, it is crucial to ensure that the process can be operated under conditions that will
generate a profit. Profitability is determined by calculating the net profit, which is the difference
between total income and all related expenses. Chemical engineers must account for a range of costs,
including direct expenses such as raw materials, labour, and equipment. Moreover, indirect costs, such
as administrative overhead, distribution expenses, and communication costs, must also be included in
a comprehensive cost analysis.

In the given problem, we are using stainless stell of grade 304 L to design the pressure vessel. This
material is used due to its ability to withstand high temperature and pressure. As the report is
generated, we can see that labor cost is $22,009, material cost is $432600 and the total cost is $454609.
Pressure Vessel and Distillation Column – 2

1. (0.45/0.55) 101.3kPa

2. 0.45/0.55 202.65kPa
3. (0.45/0.55) 303.975kPa
4. (0.45/0.55) 405.3kPa
5 . ( 0.6 / 0.4 ) 101.3 kPa
6 . ( 0.55 / 0.45 ) 101.3 kPa
Heat Exchanger - 1

Screenshot of the Aspen Hysys:

Q1) Determine the outlet temperature of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger with ethanol on the shell side
and water on the tube side. Use the following specifications:

Hot Stream (Shell Side): Ethanol

Flow Rate: 100 kg/h

Inlet Temperature: 160°C

Inlet Pressure: 300 kPa

Pressure Drop: 10 kPa

Outlet Temperature: ?

Cold Stream (Tube Side): Water

Flow Rate: 1000 kg/h

Inlet Temperature: 30°C

Inlet Pressure: 200 kPa

Pressure Drop: 20 kPa

Outlet Temperature: 50°C

Perform the calculations using Aspen HYSYS and validate the results with manual calculations.

Ans:

Required Outlet temperature at Hot side: 107.4°C

Sample manual calculation:

The manual computation result of roughly 125.7°C is higher than the Aspen HYSYS result of 107°C. Aspen
HYSYS provides a more accurate simulation of heat exchangers by taking into consideration several real-
world inefficiencies that were overlooked during the manual calculation process, including poor heat
transfer, heat losses, and fouling effects. These inefficiencies may be reflected in the lower exit
temperature. We made the manual calculation assuming that there would be perfect heat exchange, no
fouling, and no heat losses to the environment.
The ethanol would not transfer as much heat to the water as predicted since heat exchangers are inefficient
in practice.

Q2) You are tasked with simulating a shell-and-tube heat exchanger in Aspen HYSYS. The heat exchanger
has ethanol flowing through the shell side and water through the tube side. The following specifications are
provided:

• Hot Stream (Shell Side) - Ethanol:

o Flow Rate: 100 kg/h

o Inlet Temperature: 140°C

o Inlet Pressure: 300 kPa

o Pressure Drop: 10 kPa

• Cold Stream (Tube Side) - Water:

o Flow Rate: 1000 kg/h

o Inlet Temperature: 30°C

o Inlet Pressure: 200 kPa

o Pressure Drop: 20 kPa

o Outlet Temperature: 40°C

Ans:
Required Outlet temperature at Hot side: 107.4°C
Ans:
Required Heat transfer rate: 25328.76 kJ/h

Sample manual calculation:

For a variety of reasons, the Aspen HYSYS result of 55°C is typically lower than the manual computation.
Firstly, Aspen HYSYS takes into consideration many real-world inefficiencies that were overlooked in the
manual calculation, such as poor heat transfer, fouling, and heat losses. Second, real heat exchangers are
less efficient than manual calculations, which assume ideal heat exchange without losses. Thirdly, Aspen
HYSYS makes use of comprehensive thermodynamic data, taking into consideration how fluid characteristics
vary with temperature and pressure, whereas manual computations frequently use averages for certain
heat capacity. Lastly, Aspen HYSYS provides a more realistic representation of how pressure drops affect the
heat transfer process. You might utilize more accurate temperature-dependent specific heat capacity,
account for pressure drops, and factor in efficiency losses to make adjustments to the manual calculation.
VIVA Questions:

Question 1: What is the primary function of a heat exchanger?

Ans: A heat exchanger's primary function is to efficiently transfer heat between two fluids at different
temperatures. This can be achieved through various mechanisms, such as conduction, convection, or
radiation.

Question 2: Explain the difference between counterflow and co-current flow arrangements in heat
exchangers.

Ans: In counterflow heat exchangers, fluids move in opposite directions, allowing greater heat transfer
efficiency, while in co-current flow, fluids move in the same direction, resulting in less efficient heat
exchange.

Question 3: What is the Log Mean Temperature Difference (LMTD) and why is it important?

Ans: The Log Mean Temperature Difference (LMTD) represents the average temperature difference
between the two fluids throughout the heat exchanger. It is essential for calculating the heat transfer rate
using the equation:

Q = U * A * LMTD

o Q: Heat transfer rate

o U: Overall heat transfer coefficient

o A: Heat transfer surface area

where as LMTD=( ∆TA - ∆TB ) / ( ln ∆TA- ln ∆TB )

ΔTA is the temperature difference between the two streams at end A, and ΔTB is the temperature difference
between the two streams at end B

Question 4: What factors affect the choice of heat-transfer fluid in a heat exchanger?

Ans: Factors include the fluid's thermal conductivity, heat capacity, viscosity, corrosiveness, operating
temperature range, and compatibility with materials used in the exchanger.

Question 5: How does fouling affect the performance of a heat exchanger?

Ans: Fouling deposits act as insulating layers, reducing the heat transfer coefficient. As a result, heat
exchangers require higher energy inputs to achieve the desired heat exchange. The additional energy
demand translates into increased operating costs and reduced energy efficiency.

i. Fouling leads to increased pressure drop across heat exchanger surfaces due to restricted
fluid flow. To maintain the required flow rates, additional pumping power is necessary,
resulting in elevated energy consumption.

ii. With fouling present, heat exchangers experience decreased overall efficiency. This
necessitates compensatory measures such as higher temperature differentials or extended
operation times to achieve the desired heat transfer.

Question 6: How do you determine the number of tubes and their arrangement in a shell-and-tube heat
exchanger?

Ans: The number of tubes and arrangement depend on factors like desired heat transfer rate, fluid velocity,
available space, and allowable pressure drop. This is usually one or an even number (not normally greater
than 16). Increasing the number of passes increases the heat transfer coefficient but care must be taken to
ensure that the tube side ρv2 is not greater than about 10,000 kg/m·s2.

Question 7: What are the typical materials used for constructing shell-and-tube heat exchangers?

Ans: Common materials for shell-and-tube heat exchangers include:

• Shell: Carbon steel, stainless steel, or alloys.

• Tubes: Copper, brass, stainless steel, or alloys.

• Tube sheets: Carbon steel or stainless steel.

Question 8: Explain how you would select the tube diameter and length for a shell-and-tube heat
exchanger.

Ans: Tube diameter and length are selected based on required heat transfer surface area, fluid velocity,
pressure drop, and space constraints to optimize performance. It depends on the shell ID, the heat load, the
tube pitch, tube length, number of baffles, the liquid properties and flow rate on the shell side, etc.

Tube outside diameter

For the process industry, 19.05 mm (3/4") tends to be the most common.
Tube wall thickness

Reference must be made to a recognized pressure vessel code to decide this.

Tube length

For a given surface area, the longer the tube length the cheaper the exchanger, although a long thin
exchanger may not be feasible.
Question 9: What is the significance of the overall heat transfer coefficient (U) in the design of a
shell- and-tube heat exchanger?

Ans: The overall heat transfer coefficient (U) represents the exchanger's efficiency in transferring
heat between fluids, influencing the required surface area and overall design.

Question 10: How do you calculate the required heat exchanger surface area?

Ans: The required surface area is calculated using the equation

A=Q/(U*LMTD)

Where as,

Q is the heat transfer rate,

U is the overall heat transfer coefficient

Question 11: What are the typical pressure drop considerations in a shell-and-tube heat exchanger
design?

Ans: Pressure drop must be minimized to avoid excessive energy consumption while ensuring
adequate fluid flow and heat transfer, balancing system efficiency and operational cost.

Question 12: Describe how baffles affect the performance of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger.

Ans: Baffles serve two functions: Most importantly, they support the tubes in the proper position
during assembly and operation and prevent vibration of the tubes caused by flow-induced eddies,
and secondly, they guide the shell-side flow back and forth across the tube field, increasing the
velocity and the heat transfer coefficient. Also result in increased pressure drop which in turn
increase the pumping power needed.

Question 13: How would you validate your heat exchanger design?

Ans: Validation involves comparing design predictions with performance data, conducting thermal
and mechanical simulations, and verifying against industry standards such as TEMA or ASME
codes.

Question 14: Discuss the impact of temperature and pressure changes on the performance of a
heat exchanger.
Ans: Temperature- As the temperature difference increases, the heat transfer rate also increases.
Conversely, if the temperature difference is small, the heat exchanger’s performance declines.

Pressure- A small pressure drop is necessary to enable the fluids inside heat exchangers to move,
but large pressure drops reduce efficiency and can cause premature equipment failure.
Heat Exchanger – 2

Aim:
To design and simulate a shell-and-tube heat exchanger with pump using Aspen HYSYS and
compare the performance of the simulated heat exchanger system to real-world data to analyze
discrepancies and optimize system efficiency. The primary fluids involved are hot water (flowing
through the tubes) and a mixture of benzene and toluene (flowing through the shell side).

Key parameters include:

• Inlet water at 25°C, 100 kPa, pumped at 500 kPa with a flow rate of 2000 kg/h.
• Equimolar benzene-toluene mixture, pumped at 500 kPa with a flow rate of 1000 kg/h.

Simulation Screenshots:
Pressure vs Temperature Performance Analysis:

The pressure versus temperature performance plot demonstrates how changes in pressure affect
the temperature in the system. Below is an analysis of the plot and its implications for
thermodynamic and heat transfer performance:

a. Pressure-Temperature Correlation:

As pressure increases, temperature typically increases due to fluid behavior in the heat
exchanger. Pressure drops indicate areas where heat transfer is occurring or where
inefficiencies exist, such as due to friction or fouling.

b. Heat Transfer Efficiency:

Significant pressure drops may signal inefficiencies in heat transfer. These could arise from
suboptimal flow distribution, fouling, or scaling, which reduce the overall heat transfer
coefficient.

c. First Law of Thermodynamics (Energy Balance):

The energy balance indicates that the heat gained by one fluid should equal the heat lost by the
other. Discrepancies between pressure and temperature could indicate imbalances in heat transfer.

d. Pressure Drop and Flow Distribution:

Significant pressure drops suggest high friction losses, likely due to inefficient flow distribution,
fouling, or scaling. Optimizing flow patterns can reduce these losses.
In conclusion, the pressure-temperature plot reveals that although the system operates within
acceptable limits, improvements can be made to optimize heat transfer performance.

Comparison:

The simulation results (from Aspen HYSYS) are compared with real-time operational data. The
following aspects should be considered:

a. Temperature Discrepancies:

Inlet and Outlet Temperatures:

Simulated Outlet Temperatures (Hot Stream): 90°C

Simulated Outlet Temperatures (Cold Stream): 30°C

The simulated hot stream outlet temperature is 5°C higher than the real-world data, indicating
that the simulation is overestimating heat transfer efficiency. This could be due to idealized
assumptions in the model that don’t account for real-world heat losses.

The simulated cold stream outlet is 2°C lower, which might suggest that the simulation
underestimated the energy absorbed by the cold fluid. This could point to factors such as fouling or
inefficient heat transfer in real-world conditions.

Reason for discrepancies: The model often underestimates real-world heat losses (such as those
due to conduction, convection, or radiation) and may assume ideal heat transfer conditions that
aren't achievable practically.

b. Heat Transfer Rate:

Simulated Heat Transfer Rate: 1500 kW

The simulation predicted a higher heat transfer rate, which might be due to an overestimation of
the heat transfer coefficient. In real-world conditions, the presence of fouling or flow
maldistribution could reduce the actual heat transfer efficiency by approximately 100 kW. The
heat transfer rate calculated from the simulation differs from the one determined through real-
time temperature and flow rate measurements.

Higher simulated heat transfer rates suggest an overestimation of the heat transfer coefficient or
idealized flow conditions (such as laminar vs. turbulent flow). Lower simulated rates may
indicate the model underestimates the effect of real-world factors like fouling, scaling, or fluid
maldistribution.

c. Pressure Drops:
Simulated Pressure Drop (Tube Side): 25 kPa

Simulated Pressure Drop (Shell Side): 20 kPa

The pressure drop on the tube side is 5 kPa lower in simulation, while on the shell side, the real-
world pressure drop exceeds the simulation by 15 kPa. This discrepancy indicates potential
fouling or blockages that increase flow resistance in the real system, resulting in higher pressure
losses than those predicted by the simulation.

Higher pressure drops in simulation may point to overestimated friction losses, while lower
pressure drops in simulation may fail to account for fouling, which increases flow resistance.

d. Model Assumptions:

The model assumes steady-state operation, with constant heat transfer coefficients and ideal flow
conditions. In contrast, real-world operations involve fouling, turbulence, and unsteady
conditions, leading to discrepancies.

Improving the model: Incorporating factors like fouling or considering non-ideal flow conditions
can bring the simulation closer to reality.

Analysis:

From the results, we can make several important observations:

The simulated heat exchanger efficiency was found to be over- or under-performing compared to
real-world operations based on discrepancies in outlet temperatures, heat transfer rates, and
pressure drops. Operational changes, like fouling, were likely not accounted for in the simulation,
which explains why the actual performance (especially with regard to pressure drops and heat
transfer rate) deviates from the simulated predictions. Inlet and outlet temperature comparisons
showed a pattern that suggests the simulation model’s simplifications (like ideal heat transfer
conditions) might not fully reflect real-world complexities.

Temperature Discrepancies: There is a consistent deviation between simulated and real-world

outlet temperatures, suggesting that the simulation does not adequately account for heat losses and
other inefficiencies. This indicates the need for better model calibration or additional heat
exchanger surface area in the design.

Heat Transfer Rate: The actual heat transfer rate may be lower than predicted due to real-world
inefficiencies (such as fouling and non-ideal fluid flow). Adjusting the heat transfer coefficient in
the model could improve accuracy.
 Pressure Drops: The real-world pressure drop is higher, likely due to fouling, scaling, or less-
than-ideal flow patterns. Regular cleaning of the heat exchanger or improved flow distribution
can address this issue.

Recommendations: To optimize the performance of the heat exchanger, adjustments in both the
simulation model and real-world operations are necessary. This could include refining the model to
account for real-world heat transfer coefficients and pressure losses, and in operation, addressing
issues like fouling through regular maintenance.

Conclusion:
The pressure vs temperature plot provides insight into operational inefficiencies, particularly in
terms of pressure drops, which suggest that frictional losses, fouling, and scaling are affecting the
system's thermodynamic performance.

To optimize the performance of the heat exchanger, regular maintenance (cleaning fouling), adjusting
flow patterns, and improving system design (heat transfer area, pressure drop management) are
necessary.

The simulated system predicts a higher heat transfer rate and more efficient temperature control
than what is achieved in real-world conditions.

Pressure drops in the real system exceed those predicted by the simulation, indicating fouling and
flow resistance as key inefficiencies.

To optimize the system, it is recommended to:

• Perform regular cleaning to minimize fouling.

Refine the simulation model to better account for real-world inefficiencies by adjusting heat transfer
coefficients and pressure drop correlations