Comjm~erschem. Engng. Vol. 14,No. 7, pp. 751-767,1990 009% 1354/90 $3.00 + 0.

00
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved Copyright 0 1990 Pergamon Press plc

COST OPTIMUM HEAT EXCHANGER NETWORKS-2.

TARGETS AND DESIGN FOR DETAILED CAPITAL COST
MODELS
S. AHMAD~, B. LINNHCWF and R. SMITH
Centre for Process Integration, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Manchester Institute
of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 88, Manchester M60 lQD, U.K.

(Received 7 February 1989; final revision received 12 December 1989; receivedfor publication 1 Murch 1990)

Abstract-Part I of this paper presented a procedure for the design of near-optimum cost heat exchanger
networks. The procedure is based on setting targets for capital and energy costs and optimizing these
targets prior to design.
The procedure in Part 1, however, uses a simple model of capital cost. The present paper extends the
model of capital cost to allow for:
--exploiting differences in heat transfer coefficients for reduced network area;
-a non-linear exchanger cost law;
-non-countercurrent heat exchangers;
-non-uniform materials of construction, pressure ratings and exchanger types in the network.
Using these extensions both targeting and design for minimum capital cost are considered.

1. INTRODUCTION system has minimum network area if everywhere the

temperature difference on each stream is related to its
Part 1 of this paper describes a quick and effective
overall heat transfer coefficient as follows:
procedure for the design of near optimum cost heat
exchanger networks (Linnhoff and Ahmad, 1990). fi(T, - I) = Jul(T* - t) =. .
However, the capital cost model was kept simple to
. ..=&(T.-tt) (1)
demonstrate the more important mechanisms govern-
ing energy and capital cost optimization. where
This part of the paper extends the capital cost
t = temperature of the single stream of one type (hot
model. Both targeting and design for minimum cap-
or cold),
ital cost are considered in the context of locating
Tj = temperature of stream j from the several (n)
near-optimum cost networks.
streams of the other type (cold or hot),
U, = overall heat transfer coefficient between Ti
2. EXPLOITING DIFFERENCES IN HEAT TRANSFER
COEFFICENTS FOR REDUCED NETWORK AREA
and t.
Townsend (1989) has suggested that Nishimuras
The model for minimum network area introduced
result can usefully be extended to the case of many
in Part 1 is based on vertical heat exchange between
hot and cold streams by using stream individual
the composite curves. However, the vertical model
AT-contributions. These allow the temperature
does not rigorously predict minimum area if there
difference between any two streams in heat exchange
are significant differences between heat transfer co-
to be expressed as the sum of two contributions, one
efficients for reasons discussed in Part 1. This section
from each stream. The suggestion is that the AT-con-
examines some possible improvements to the area
tribution from steam j, say ATj, is evaluated accord-
target and compares the results on a test example.
ing to its individual heat transfer coefficient II, as
2.1. Area target which use Nishimuras result follows:
Nishimura (1980) presents a rigorous method for AT,& = constant = a. (2)
the calculation of minimum area for networks in
Equation (2) should apply at every stream temper-
which heat transfer coefficients vary. However, the
ature in the heat exchange. This result from
result is restricted to the case of a single hot stream
Townsend is approximate but offers the basis of a
in enthalpy balance with many cold streams or the
method to account for differences in heat transfer
case of a single cold stream in enthalpy balance with
coefficients.
many hot streams. According to Nishimura, such a
Equation (2) can be applied at the edge of each
enthalpy interval of the composite curves. However,
tNew address: Aspen Technology Inc., 251 Vassar St, c( is not correctly defined unless the AT-contributions
Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A. maintain the interval enthalpy balance. This can be

751
752 S. AHMAD et al.
done by solving the following set of simultaneous
linear equations for the AT-contributions:
Aq.~$=x, j= l,...,$ (3a)
and
f CP,(AT, - AT,) = 0, (3b)
1-1
where
S, = number of streams at enthalpy interval edge i,
CP, = heat capacity flowrate of stream j,
k = stream which causes the interval edge i.
The temperature T: at which each stream j now
crosses interval edge i is then given as follows:
T,? = Tk + AT, f AT, (4)
where T, is the temperature at which stream k, the
interval generator, crosses the interval edge i. -AT,
is used if k is a hot stream and + AT, is used if k is
a hot stream. Hence T,? = Tk if j = k.
The result of applying AT-contributions to the
streams at each interval edge is thus to shift in
temperature the stream population in each interval
(Fig. 1). In other words, streams with different h-
values cross the interval edge with different tempera-
tures. Equation (3b) simply ensures the interval
remains in enthalpy balance after these AT-contribu-
tions have been applied to each stream. The minimum
area within each shifted interval can then be calcu-
lated by the simple area targeting formula discussed
in Part 1. Ahmad (1985) has shown that this approach
does lead to a lower prediction of the area target.
2.2. Area targets which use linear programming
Rather than use the simple area targeting formula
in each interval. the minimum area within each
pJ I 1
I D
pJ
r-w
I i
-
D
(3
Fig. I. Different stream AT-contributions cause streams to
have different temperatures at an enthalpy interval edge.
shifted interval can be calculated by linear program-
ming. Ahmad (1985) has applied this technique to
shifted enthalpy intervals and found that in general
it does predict a somewhat lower arca than the simple
area formula applied to shifted intervals.
However, there is no reason why consideration
should be restricted to only those intervals dictated
by the composite curves. The composite curves can be
divided into successively smaller enthalpy intervals to
generate large numbers of stream segments as heat
sources and sinks. If these are then solved as a single
linear programming exercise, an even lower area
target can be predicted (Saboo et al., 1986). AT-shifts
become unnecessary in this procedure if a large
enough number of intervals is used.
2.3. Design ro exploit differences in heat transfer-
coeficients
Although the simple area target used with
Townsends result does not predict as low a target as
linear programming it can be used as the basis of a
design procedure for exploitation of h-values.
Temperature differences are smallest in the region
of the pinch. Hence the temperature shift according
to Townsends result [equation (3)] will usually have
the greatest effect in the region of the pinch. Because
each stream j has a different pinch temperature
depending on the contribution Al;, the steam
population at the pinch also becomes shifted as in
Fig. 1. Thereafter, the Pinch Design Method
(Linnhoff and Hindmarsh, 1983) can be used, but
now to satisfy the shifted pinch temperatures.
2.4. A suggested procedure
Ahmad (1985) and Townsend (1989) have shown
that providing heat transfer coefficients differ by less
than one order of magnitude, the area targeting
calculations which exploit differences in the co-
efficients usually predict an area within 10% of the
simple formula described in Part 1. Moreover, the
design will often not achieve the area target since this
would normally require an extremely complex net-
work structure which is seldom practical. The simple
formula will therefore be good enough for most
purposes.
Situations with larger variations in heat transfer
coefficients call for their exploitation to reduce area.
It is suggested to first compare the simple target
with one of the complex targets described above,
linear programming being the most reliable. If the .
two targets predict similar areas, then we should
design for verticality as described in Part 1.
If, however, there is a significant difference between
the simple and complex area targets, the design
procedure should take account of the differences in
heat transfer coefficients. The simplest design method
to account for such differences is by shifting streams
at the pinch according to equation (3) and then
following the design procedures described in Part 1.
If a problem has particularly small temperature
 Cost optimum heat exchanger networks-2 753

differences at points other than the pinch,
AT-shifts can also be applied there. The procedure is
summarized in Fig. 2. Ahmad (1985) has further sug-
gested that because heat transfer resistances combine
in parallel, a useful heuristic at the design stage is to
match streams with low h-values after the AT-shift-
ing of streams in order to isolate area deterioration.
Example 1 forming linear programming for minimum area in each
The stream data in Fig. 3a is shown in enthalpy
balance with its utilities at AT,, = 30C. The prob-
lem is an extreme case in which heat transfer co-
efficients differ by up to a factor of 50. A simple area
target based on vertical heat transfer between the
composites predicts minimum network area to be
3000 m2.
A design based upon vertical heat transfer is shown
in Fig. 3b. It has an area of 3510 m* and is 17% above
the simple target. The design after continuous opti-
mization to reduce area for fixed energy consumption
is shown in Fig. 3c. This has an area of 2740 m2 which
is 9% below the simple target.
then the NOW consider the deliberate exploitation of differ-
ences in heat transfer coefficients to reduce area. After
using the method of AT-shifting on each of the en-
thalpy intervals on the composite curves for this
example, the resulting temperature at which the
streams cross each interval are shown in Figure 4a.
Using the simple area target formula in each such
interval the total area is predicted to be 2700 m*. Per-
shifted interval predicts a total network area of 2480 m2.
By successively dividing the composites into yet more
(but smaller) enthalpy intervals and applying linear
programming the area target converges to 2330 m2.
In this case the difference between simple and
complex area targets (30%) is too large to ignore. An
improved design such as that shown in Fig. 4b starts
by using the shifted temperatures around the pinch.
Its area is 2650 m, being 14% higher than the linear
programming area target. After continuous optimiza-
tion to reduce area for fixed energy consumption the
design is shown in Fig. 4c. The area is now 2570 m2,
or 10% above the linear programming area target.

simple and complex area targets ?

Use AT- Contributions Use AT- Contributions

at the pinch interval at the enthdpy intervals with
small temperature differences.

Perform Design
I
I
I

l-----
1 Optimise
1 -----
Design
1
I
L---_------_J

Fig. 2. General procedure for selecting which area target method to apply.
 754 s. hibUD el al.

rkW/41rkW/&C1
Al,,,i : 300( 1 SimpleAre0 lcrget = 3000m2 CP h
(a)
u&m 0.50
.?2*85 1.00
@2 670 AH=220.32 1~~~161.16 800D z-04 0.40
0343 AH= 989.92 !AH=31122 900b
I 5.36 5.00

lb) Areo = 3S10m2 1390

170 22.65
267O
@ 2.04

5.36

9.33
26
19.61

Areo = 2?40m2
(cl

Fig. 3. Example l---stream set with significantlydiffering heat transfer coefficients: (a) simple area target
is 3OOOm* at AT,,,,, = 30C; (b) design using pinch gives 3510 m*; and (c) after continuous optimization
design achieves 2740 m2.

If the network area is to be reduced even further
towards the target, then design can be performed
around more intervals with shifted temperatures.
This is done in Fig. 5 for the example by using one
more interval with small temperature differences as
well as the pinch. The initial network has an area of
2520 m* (8% above target), which after optimization
reduces to 2450 m2 (5% above target). Clearly, this
requires several more exchangers and the network
simplicity is adversely compromised for a small re-
duction in area. If we wished we could carry this
procedure further by shifting temperatures at more
 Cost optimum heat exchanger networks-2 755

(I IA&

1
1ET2 TG
770 22.85 l-00

500 2.04 0.40

5.38 S-00

9-33 0 -10

1IV61 5.00

3 3 2.00

LP Area Target = 2400 mz

Simple Area Tot-get = 2700 t-d

(b)

22-85

2.06

9.33

19-61

Fig. 4. Example I: (a) AT-shifted streams in enthalpy intervals and corresponding area targets; (b) using
AT-shifts at the pinch, a minimum number of units design initially has a total area of 2650m2; and (c)
and 2570mz after continuous optimization.

intervals which would steer the design to a lower area
but increased complexity.
The results so far of this example are summarized
in Fig. 6. The basis of comparison is the target of
2330 m* predicted by linear programming. The target
based on the simple area formula applied to shifted
streams in enthalpy intervals is 16% higher. The area
target based on no stream shifting and the simple area
formula (that is, the vertical model) is 29% higher.
Consider now the energy-apital tradeoff for this
example using the cost data in Table 1. How does the
optimum value of ATmi, differ between the area
 756 S. AHtao et al.

(a Area = 2520m2 1

168-3

17' 22.85

2.01
I I I --_
270.1
0
1310!
I
I o_Dw 5.31
I

9.33

27-6 1130

(b Area= 2k50m2

2.04

5.38

9.33

19.61

Fig. 5. Example 1: (a) using AT-shifts at two interval edges, a resulting initial design has a total area of
2520 m2; and (b) which is reduced to 2450 m2 after continuous optimization.

predicted from the vertical model and that from examples with a steeper optimum are more likely to
linear programming? The two area targets are tabu- show this behaviour.
lated for some values of AT,,,, in Fig. 7 and the cost Delaby (1989) has reported several more examples
target profiles generated from these are also shown. with large and small differences in h-values and for
As expected, there are noticeable differences in cost various types of composite curves which show the
between the two models. Remarkably, however, the same behaviour, whether the optimum is steep or
slopes of the cost profiles are similar and the optimum shallow. There is little variation in the difference
value of AT,, is hardly changed between thetwo between the two total cost profiles. As discussed
methods. This occurs despite a shallow optimum in earlier, the linear programming model simply selects
both total cost profiles (only a 10% variation in total the correct c&s-crossing to perform between different
cost over the entire AT,, range examined), whereas h-values to minimize the area achievable at a given
 Cost optimum heat exchanger networks-2 757

L % Area

151% Design acound pinch I Figure 3b)

IWO AT-shifts)

Simple area target (Figure Sal

(Vsrticol heat tmnrfer model I

118 % ( Optimired design wound pinch INo AT- shifts) LFigure3c)

116%' 1 Few AT- shifted intervals 8 simnle area toroet (Fiaure Loi

114%. 1 1Oesion around AT- shifts at Dinch (Fiaurc Lb 1 1

110% . [Optimiscd design around AT-shifts at pinch lFigure &cl1

108%- /Design around AT-shifts at pinch & another intervol IFigure 501

106% - Few shifted interqplc A L.l? Area target (Figure 40)

105%-
Optinised design around AT- shifts at pinch & another
interval (Figure 5b I I

100% ,,,,,,,, /-, 4Ver y many intervolr a L.P Area torget

Fig. 6. Example Iemparison between the different area targets and designs obtained.

energy recorvery. Consider the possible mechanisms difference. There is a large incentive for area
governing this: reduction by selective criss-crossing to exploit
h-value differences. However, the very fact that
1. At small values of AT,,, any criss-crossing will
temperature differences are small means that the
have a large effect on area because most of the
degree ofcriss-crossingpossible is significantly re-
area occurs in regions of small temperature
stricted. In other words, there is a limited scope to
Table 1 move away from verticality when AT,, is small.
Instalkd exchanger cost law 2. For large values of AT,, the reverse becomes
Cost (9 = 45,400 + 20 I A true. There is sufficient room in temperature
where A -heat exchanger area (m) difference for plenty of criss-crossing. The prob-
Plant life = 6 yr, capital interest = 10% per mnzm
lem is now that driving forces are large, criss-
Utility cost data crossing becomes less effective as a means for
Cost of hot utility = 110 (0 kW yr-) reducing area. In other words, there is now less
Cost of cold utility = 10 (S kW yr-) incentive to do criss-crossing.
758

(a>
0.6,
ATrni Energy. Vertical Area LP Area
[VI tkWl [mzl [m*l

lo 86803 6334 5740

5O 96647 4873 4230
0.5,
10 1064.52 4154 3550
15O 1162.57 3720 3150
2o 1260.62 3415 2900
25O 1358-67 3186 2500
3o 145672 3000 2330
0.6

o-3

0.2

Fig. 7. Example I--comparison between the vertical and linear programming area targets for predicting
the energy-capital tradeoff. The optimum value of AT,,,i, is hardly changed between the two methods.

3. The arguments above need not only apply at
small and large values of AT,, for the com-
posite curve setting, but also in regions of small
and large temperature difference for a given
setting of the composite curves.
In summary, the greater the room for selective
criss-crossing, the less the incentive for area reduc-
tion, and vice versa. The net result is that the possible
reduction in area changes little over the range of
AT,,. Hence the difference in capital cost between
the two models changes little and the slopes of these
two cost profiles turn out to be similar.
The observation that both area target models lead
to similar values of optimum AT,,,, can now be
usefully exploited. The total cost target profile can be
quickly found using the vertical model and, at the
energy recovery for optimum AT,,, the linear pro-
gramming area target should also be evaluated.
Thereafter, a comparison between the two area
targets establishes which route to follow in the design
procedure of Fig. 2.
Summary-The following appraisal of area targeting
is based on the results of Parts 1 and 2 of this
paper.
When heat transfer coefficients differ by less than
one order of magnitude, the minimum area of practi-
cd designs is often closely represented by the predic-
tion of the simple area formula. Although the simple
formula slightly overpredicts the true minimum area
in such cases, practical designs will usually not
achieve true minimum area for reasons of number of
units, network complexity, etc.
If heat transfer coefficients differ by more than one
order of magnitude, then the simple area target
should be compared with the lineqr programming
target to quantify the incentive fok exploiting the
differing coefficients in design. If there is a large
incentive then design should use AT-shifting of
streams at the pinch and other regions of small
temperature difference. The AT-shifts according to
equation (3) have been shown in this section to be
particularly useful for design purposes. They provide
a good approximation from which to rapidly and
interactively develop practical networks with near
minimum area. This can be done using the design
procedures of Part 1, but now with the AT-shifted
stream data. A further useful heuristic at the design
stage is to match together streams with low h-values
in order to isolate area deterioration.
For predicting the energy-capital tradeoff using the
vertical and linear programming area targets, it is
found that both methods return essentially the same
value of optimum AT,,. Hence the optimum design
initialization is more quickly found using the vertical
model. Thereafter, the linear programming area
target is also evaluated at the optimum AT,, to
decide in the procedure of Fig. 2 whether design
should follow the vertical model or AT-shifts.
3. NON-LINEAR EXCHANGER COST LAWS
In Part 1 a simple linear cost law for individual
exchangers is used:
CC,=a+bA,. (5)
 Cost optimum heat exchanger networks-2 159

The capital cost of a network can then be predicted

on the basis of targets for the number of units for
maximum energy recovery ( Urnin.MER)and minimum Cost
network area (A_). Thus:

CCccwork
=
Ul,,i..
MER
T CCk=aU+,E,+b
Gli.~MER
T 4
I
= aUminMER+ b&t,. (6)
As a result the network capital cost prediction does
not depend on the distribution of area between
exchangers. Figure 8a illustrates this for the case of
a network with only two exchangers. More often, the
cost law for individual exchangers takes the form:

CC,,=a+bA; (7)

The resulting network capital cost can then be evalu-

ated from:
unu.MER hn, MER

CCe,work
= c CC, = c (a + bA;). (8)
k k

The consequence of equation (8) is that we now not Fig. 9. Correct initialization for design depends more on the
only need to predict the number of matches U,, MER slope of the capital cost profile rather than the absolute
but also the individual exchanger area for each match value of capital cost targets.
At. Figure 8b demonstrates this graphically for the
case of a network with two exchangers. The capital law in targeting we must make some assumption
cost of the network now depends on how the network regarding this distribution. The simplest assumption
area A,, is distributed between the two exchangers. is that the areas of individual units are all identical:
At the targeting stage, before design, the distribu-
tion of network area amongst the units in the network Ami*
A,=-. (9)
is not known. Hence, if we are to use a non-linear cost ~mm MER
This leads to the network capital cost given by:

ccn,NO* = umin MER

[a + @&,]- (lo)

The assumption of equal area per unit might

appear to be an oversimplification. However, it
_--___ should be recognized that:

1. Although the predicted capital cost is approxi-

mate, it is the rate of change of capital relative
to energy which is important for design intial-
ization. In other words, the slope predicted by
equation (10) is more important than the abs&
(CCk-
.. a I (b) 1 lute value. This point is illustrated in Fig. 9.
When using a non-linear cost law, such as in
Fig. 8b, the slope varies with exchanger size.

LLSX
However, because the exponenent c in equation
-_---__--_ (CC{- O.I 5 bAi (7) is usually between 0.7 and 1, there is only a
-_---- small change in slope. Also, the variation in
ICC,- a
ICC,- a --- exchanger size in a network around the mean
I size is usually not large. Thus the exchangers are
l
I typically distributed over a moderate range on
Ak
a graph which only has a small overall change
A, A2 (4+&J in slope. Consequently, equation (10) turns out
_I in practice to give a surprisingly good estimate
Fig. 8. Installed capital cost law for heat exchangers: (a) for the rate of change of network cost with
linear; and (b) non-linear. area.
760 S. Axxw et al.

Table 2 Table 3
Heat Installed shell/tuba heat exchanger cost law
Temperature (C) capacity Cost (S) = 30,800 + 750As.s (A < 550 m)
_ flowrate h-value where A = shell/tube exchanger area (m)
Stream SUPPlY Target (kW C-l) (kW m-* C-) Plant life = 6 yr. capital interest = 10% per ~mua
I hot 120 65 25 0.50
2 hot 80 50 150 0.25 Utility cost data
3 hot 135 110 145 0.30 Cost of hot utility = I IO (S LW yr-)
4 hot 220 95 IO 0.18 Cost of cold utility = IO($ kW yr-)
5 hot 135 105 130 0.25
6 cold 65 90 75 0.27
7 cold 75 200 70 0.25 for 200 m2 < A < 500 m2, which comfortably accom-
8 cold 30 210 50 0.15
9 cold 60 140 25 0.45 modates the mean area of exchangers in networks
steam 250 249 - 0.35 that can be developed for this problem.
Cooling water I5 I6 - 0.20
The predictions for total annual cost and optimum
design location are compared for the linear and
2. The equal area assumption overestimates capi- non-linear cost laws in Fig. 10. There is less than 1%
tal cost for a given network area. However, the difference in total cost between the two profiles over
area target for the network will tend to be an a wide range of AT,,,,, values (5-35C) and both
under-prediction to the final design. Thus some predict an optimum design location at AT,, = 10C.
cancellation of errors will occur. A network designed at AT,, = 10C is shown in Fig.
11, using the design methods for minimum energy
The following example demonstrates these points and and near-minimum capital from Part 1 of this paper.
the quality of the assumptions made above.
The targets at AT,, = 10C agree well with the design
Example 2 as shown in Table 4.
Summary-The assumption of equal area per ex-
The stream and utility data in Table 2 will be used
changer for capital targeting with a non-linear cost
to evaluate capital cost targets and optimum design law is often remarkably reliable for predicting the
location. The cost data are given in Table 3. In
network cost and locating near-optimum designs.
addition to exploring the errors involved in the
However, the use of an appropriately linearized
capital cost target given by equation (lo), we can also
capital cost law is usually just as reliable.
see how close to linear the cost law is by actually
comparing against its linearized form. This is impor-
tant for emphasizing point (1) above.
4. NON-COUNTERCURRENT EXCHANGERS
A reasonable linearization of the cost law in Table
3 is obtained by fitting the exchanger cost at 200 and A single match in a heat exchanger network can in
500m*. The resulting linear cost law is: practice require more than one shell for two main
cost(%) = 45,400 + 201 A (m2) reasons:

which is accurate to within +5% of the non-linear (i ) restriction on the maximum size of the shell;
cost law for 100 m* < A < 550 m2. Also, its slope is (ii) use of non-countercurrent exchangers such as
within + 10% of the slope of the non-linear cost law the l-2 design (1 shell pass-2 tube passes).

Total Cost Target [$lYrl

2000000

1800000

1600000

1400000

1200000

t
0415 9225 9975 10475 11200 11925 12650 EnergyfkWl
I I I I I
1000000 '
5 IO 15 20 25 30 35
' PTmin I'CI

Fig. 10. Example Z-comparison of total cost predictions based on a non-linear and linearized exchanger
capital cost law.
 Cost optimum heat exchanger networks-2 761

h sh-am CPS-KY/Y
Sham h-v&n,- KW&C

3.50

0.25

0.30

0.18

0.25

0.27 75

0.25 70

0.15 SO

0.45 25

Fig. 11. Example 2Gdesign for optimum AT,,, = 10C.

The first case is normally straightforward to deal
with in design and will be discussed later. The second
case, however, is more involved and requires further
consideration in networks.
The flow arrangement of 1-2 exchangers is such
that the effective temperature difference for heat
exchange is reduced compared with a pure counter-
current device. This is accounted for in design by the
introduction of the FT factor into basic heat ex-
changer design equation (Bowman et al., 1940);
Q = UA AT,,F,.
The use of such non-countercurrent exchangers can
thus both increase the number of exchangers and the
heat transfer area. Both effects increase the network
capital cost.
The FT correction factor is usually correlated in
terms of two dimensionaless ratios, the thermal effec-
tiveness of the exchanger (P) and the ratio of the two
heat-capacity flowrates (R):
lead to poor designs if not used with caution
(Taborek, 1979). If a design is to be insensitive to
uncertainties in design data we should take account
of the slope of the Fr line for a given value of R. We
should therefore avoid those parts of the FT chart
where slopes are steep, irrespective of FT 2 0.75.
Ahmad et al. (1988) have introduced a simple
method to account for design sensitivity. This is
based upon the fact that for any value of R there is
a maximum asymptotic value for P, say P_, which
is given as FT tends to -00, and is evaluated by:
(11)
P mar=2/(R + 1 +,/RT). (13)
Practical designs will be limited by some fraction of
P mairthat is:
P=XpP_, OtX,< 1, (14)
where X, is a constant defined by the designer.
A line of constant X,. is compared with a line of
constant FT in Fig. 12. It can be seen that the line of
constant X, avoids the regions of steep slope. X, is

R = CP,/CP, = (T,,- Tci)/(THi-

T",,). Wb)
1 Shell Pass - 2 Tube Passes
The criterion F, 2 0.75 or 0.8 is often used as a
rule-of-thumb for l-2 exchangers (Fig. 12) but can

FT
Target at AT,,,, = 10C

Non-linear Linear Design

capital cost capital cost (Fig. IO)
Total 6.57 I 7167
area (m)
Annual capital 0.564 0.565 0.594
cost (106$yr-) Fig. 12. FT chart for a 1-2 exchanger. The rule-of-thumb
Annual total I.601 I .602 I.631 FT 2 0.75 can sometimes lead to poor exchanger designs. An
cost (106s vrr)
improved method is to use X, = 0.9.
762 S. Anu.tD et al.
chosen to satisfy the minimum allowable FT (for
example, for FT 3 0.75, X, = 0.9 is used). The appli-
cation of X, is valid under the same assumptions as
those of FT.
A simple argorithm can be developed (Ahmad and
Smith, 1989) which predicts the target for the total
real (non-integer) number of shells for a stream set
from the composite curves. The resulting number of
shells is:
intervds
N shells= F Ni(Si - I), (1%
where
N, = real (non-integer) number of shells resulting
from the temperatures of enthalpy interval i,
S, = number of streams in enthalpy interval i.
It can be further shown that:
(l6a)
where
N(j) = f Ni, (I6b)
i-z,
a, is the interval where stream j starts and /Ij is the
interval where stream j ends.
Equation (16) shows that each individual stream j
makes an identifiable contribution N(j) to the
number of shells target. Based on this observation,
Ahmad and Smith (1989) point out that it is possible
in some cases for a stream to have a shells contribu-
tion N(j) < 1, whereas in practice the stream must
have at least one integer shell. To allow for this in the
target, it is suggested that each stream having
N(j) c 1 should have N(j) reset to 1.
In practice, the integer number of shells target is
evaluated from equation (16) for stream sections each
side of the pinch. This maintains consistency with
achieving maximum energy recovery and the corre-
sponding minimum number of units target U,,,,, MBR.
The FT correction factor for each enthalpy interval
will depend both on the assumed value of X, and the
temperatures of each interval on the composite
curves. It is possible to modify the simple area target
formula to obtain the resulting increased overall area
Amin.,_*for a network of l-2 exchangers (Ahmad and
Smith, 1989). Furthermore, the average area per shell
(A,i,. ,_2/Nshd,) can also he considered at the targeting
stage. If this is greater than the maximum allowable
area per shell ashell.MAX,then the shells target will need
to be increased to the next largest integer above
Amin.,_>/a,,,,, MAX.Again, this can be applied to each
side of the pinch.
The above method for obtaining a minimum num-
ber of shells target relies on satisfying the vertical
temperature differences between the composite
curves. The shells target can thus be approached if a
design follows the composite curve driving forces in
near-minimum number of matches (Ahmad and
Smith, 1989). This can he done using the Driving
Force Plot described in Part 1. Furthermore, this
design method is consistent with approaching mini-
mum network area and minimum energy.
Other work on l-2 shell requirements in heat
exchanger networks has been presented by Liu et al.
(1985) and Trivedi et al. (1987). The technique of
Ahmad and Smith (1989), however, obtains both the
number of shells target and corresponding area target
closer to the achievable minimum than any method
previously published.
Example 3
The example data shown earlier in Tables 2 and 3
is now reconsidered assuming exchangers to be l-2
shell-and-tube rather than pure countercurrent. The
shells target is shown at AT,,,,, = 10C in Fig. 13. The
problem is divided into its enthalpy intervals and the
real number of shells, Ni, is calculated in each interval
with X, = 0.9 (that is, FT > 0.75) using the equations
from Ahmad et al. (1988). Each value of Ni is based
on the temperatures defining each interval i. The
number of streams in each interval is also shown in
Fig. 13. The shells target at AT,,,i,= 10C is then
obtained as follows:
iatcrvals
ebowpinch
(Nsi,e,,s)abovepinch= 1 Ni(Si - 1) = 15.54 shells.
Above the pinch, stream has N(j) = 0.49, so this is
reset to 1. WMA~~ pinch now becomes 16.05 shells,
or 17 shells to the next largest integer.
inteN*
Mowpinch
c Ni(Si - 1) = 4.11 shells.
(Nsms )he,awpint,,=
Below the pinch, cooling water has N(j) = 0.17,
stream 6 has N(j) = 0.4 and stream 9 has N(j) = 0.67,
so all these are reset to 1. (Nshclls)be,,,w
pinchnow becomes
5.87 shells, or 6 shells to the next largest integer:
=.N shella - 17 + 6 = 23 shells.
lDLBl
The number of shells target is similarly calculated
over a range of AT,, values as shown in Fig. 14a.
This is compared against the number of units target
on the same diagram. There are significant differences
between the two targets.
These results can be used with the exchanger cost
law in Table 3 to predict capital cost targets [equation
(lo)]. It should be noted that the constant a = 30,800
in the exchanger cost law reflects the mobilization
cost of a new exchanger and is applied to each unit
and not each shell. The capital cost target for an
overall area Atin, ,_*, number of units Unun.MER.and
integer number of shells Nshelais therefore evaluated
as:
Anun.I-2 c
CC&V,,, = a&m. MER+ bNshe,,s N (lo)
( shells
>
Total cost predictions based on the number of units
method [equation (lo)] and number of shells method
[equation (lo)] are compared in Fig. 14b. The units
 Cost optimum heat exchanger networks-2 763

Fig. 13. Example 3 at AT,, = IOC: for each enthalpy interval i, the number of streams S, and real number
of shells N, are evaluated.

based profile gives optimum AT,, = lOC, while the

1-2 zjholls Target/Units Target
shells-based profile gives optimum AT, = 17C.
A network at AT,, = 17C is shown in Fig. 15.
It is designed to approach the area target in near-
minimum number of units. It also has near-minimum
number of shells. The network performance is com-
pared with the targets at AT,, = 17C in Table 5 and
shows good agreement.
Summary-For many designs, the number of shells
and increased area due to 1-2 exchangers often means
----_--m-e r____--_-----_---_ a small increase in the overall capital cost. Despite
L---a
I this, there are some cases (example above) where the
I I I I I I
Xl
1S lo 15 20 2s network capital cost can become appreciably larger
*TfshPC:5 and this affects the optimum design location.
Whether the effects of l-2 exchangers are significant
TOM CostTargetI$&rl can be assessed using targets and accounted for in
2oooooo design using the techniques described in this section.
1 Ib) 1
Shells
WCC00 5. MIXED MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION, PRESSURE
t-i/ RATINGS AND EXCHANGER TYPES
16ooooo J-_+_ __-._ _A---
The network capital cost target resulting from
1 uniis
f equations (6) or (10) assumes no variation in ex-
14mxm -
i changer specification. In other words, all exchangers
are made from the same materials of construction
with the same pressure rating and are the same type.
'5
5
I lo475
iu 2s
EnerwIkWl
IlpJ IQ25
30
1
lip
35
This limits the practica1 application of such cost
targets.
Al&ICl Ahmad (1985) proposes a method for handling
such variations in exchanger specification when
Fig. 14. Example 3: (a) the number of units and number of
targeting for networks. The simple area target equa-
shells targets are significantlydifferent in the AT,, range
below 20C; and (b) the optimum design location is a&cted tion described in Part 1 of this paper sums the area
by incorporation of the number of shells target. contributions from each enthalpy interval. This
764 S. tlnmn el al.

Fig. 15 Example 3-design for optimum AT,, = 17C. This network achieves the energy target and
approaches closely the area target in near-minimum number of matches.

equation can be rearranged to an equivalent ex- where

pression which sums the area contribution of each +)(&J-1.
stream:
w4
In equation (19) the cost law of an exchanger
of area A constructed in the reference material is
assumed to be II + b, AC1 and if constructed in the
special material it is assumed to be a + b2AcZ. Nm,,
is taken as CJmin,Me,,or Nshells(integer), whichever is
applicable.
where Once the +-factor has been evaluated for each
stream, a weighted network area target Atin* can be
A, = contribution to area target from stream j, calculated. This weighted area Amin*when applied in
equation (10) returns an essentially correct capital
(q,tr; enthalpy change of stream j in enthalpy inter-
cost for a network of exchangers involving mixed
specifications.
Equation (17) is based on the assumption of verti- It should be noted that when significant differences
cal heat transfer on the composite curves and the occur among the stream h-values the degree of
resulting approximation in the area target when the approximation offered by the vertical model used
h-values differ considerably has been discussed in here may be further exaggerated by the effects of
Section 2. Within the vertical model however, equa- differences in exchanger specification. In cases where
tion (17) does show that each stream makes a contri- the (4/r)-values of the streams differ by more than one
bution to total heat transfer area defined only by its order of magnitude the linear programming method
position in the composite curves and its heat transfer in Section 2 for area targeting is recommended for
coefficient. This contribution to area means also a evaluating A,,,*. If the resulting reduction in area
contribution to capital cost. If, for example, a corro- target is less than 10% compared with equation (18)
sive stream requires special materials of construction, then the vertical model and the methods of Part 1 can
it will have a greater contribution to capital cost than be used with reasonable accuracy for design. Other-
a similar non-corrosive stream. If only one cost law wise the AT-shifting of streams is used to design for
is to be used for a network comprising mixed materi- A,i,* by following the design procedure in Fig. 2.
als of construction, the area contributions of streams
requiring special materials must somehow increase. Table 5
One way this may be done is by weighting the heat Target at AZ,,i,= 17C Design (Fig. 14)
transfer coefficients (Ahmad, 1985; Hall et al., 1990) Units 12 I5
to reflect the cost of the materials of construction the Shells I8 19
streams require: Total area (in*) 5370 5862
Annual capital
cost (IOSyr-) 0.508 0.517
Annual total cost
(1063yr-) 1.653 1.663
766 S. AkmAD et al.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
For the design of heat exchanger networks, Part 1
of this paper presents a procedure for identifying
designs close to the optimum total cost if a simple
model of capital cost is applicable. The procedure is
based on setting targets and optimizing these targets
prior to design. The limitations of this procedure are
due largely to the use of a simple model of capital cost.
Part 2 of this paper extends the model of capital
cost that can be used in the procedure. The degree of
sophistication required in a capital cost model is often
problem dependent. Certain cases are envisaged
where guidance is appropriate:
1. Check the sensitivity of the optimum location
for design if uncertainties exist in the assumed
values for heat transfer coefficients, exchanger
cost laws or energy costs. This can often estab-
lish the reliability of the optimum location
under data uncertainty, or whether more reli-
able data are required.
2. Heat exchanger network problems requiring
mixed materials of construction, pressure rat-
ings or exchanger types should have such effects
allowed for in the capital cost targets. Usually,
it is these factors which cause most significant
departure from a simple model of capital cost.
3. Problems displaying small temperature differ-
ences over a large part of the composite curves
usually have total cost dominated by capital.
The number of shells target should also be
evaluated for such cases as it will often signifi-
cantly exceed the units target. Also, the area
target may prove difficult to achieve in design
because tight driving forces are to be correctly
observed. The use of the Driving Force Plot and
Remaining Problem Analysis as described in
Part 1 is likely to be necessary.
4. Exploitation of differences between heat trans-
fer coefficients usually provides little improve-
ment to the overall area if the coefficients differ
by less than one order of magnitude.
It is found that detailed capital cost targets can
predict an optimum design location significantly
different from those using a simple model. The use of
simple models can result in a non-optimal design
because the network structure is inherently wrong. To
avoid this, the location of the optimum design is more
correctly found using a detailed model of capital
cost.
NOMENCLATURE
A (A,) = Heat exchanger area (for exchanger k)
A, = Contribution to overall area target for stream
j [equation (17))
Ami, = Minimum overall area target for a heat ex-
changer network [equation (17)]
A,, ,_*= Minimum overall area target for a heat ex-
changer network of l-2 shell-and-tube ex-
changers
A,,*
= Modified (cost-weighted) overall area target
for heat exchanger network [equation (IS)]
CC, = Installed capital cost for heat exchanger k
[equation (7)l
CCWar, = Installed capital cost for heat exchanger net-
work leauation 18)l
CP,(CP,) = Heat-&a&y &&ate of hot (cold) stream
FT = LMTD correction factor for a 1-2 exchanger
[equation (I I)]
Ni = Number of l-2 shells target contribution
from a stream in enthalpy interval i of the
composite curves
N(j) = Number of 1-2 shells target contribution
from stream j [equation (16b)]
N rhcss= Number of l-2 shells target for a heat ex-
changer network [equation (13)J
P = Heat exchange thermal effectiveness [equation
UWI
P_= Maximum thermal effectivess for heat ex-
change [equation (I 1)]
Q = Heat exchanger duty
R = Ratio of heat-capacity flowrates [equation
WGI
Si = Number of streams in enthalpy interval i of
the composite curves
T, = Cold stream inlet temperature
TcO= Cold stream outlet temperature
T,, = Hot stream inlet temperature
THa= Hot stream outlet temperature
AT, = Contribution to temperature difference for
heat exchange from stream j
ATLM= Logarithmic mean temperature difference
(LMTD) for a heat exchanger
ATLM,,-LMTD for enthalpy interval i of the com-
posite curves
AT_ = Minimum temperature difference on the com-
posite curves
U = Overall heat transfer coefficient for a heat
exchanger
Kin, MER= Minimum number of units (matches) in a heat
exchanger network with maximum energy re-
covery
X, = Ratio of actual to maximum thermal effec-
tiveness in a heat exchanger [equation (14)]
a, b, c = Installed capital cost law coefficients [equa-
tion (7))
a,,,*,,.MAX= Maximum allowable area per heat exchanger
shell
h, = Heat transfer coefficient of stream j
(qj),= Enthalpy change of stream j in enthalpy
interval i of the composite curves
G(= Constant relating AT, and hi [equation (2)]
a, = Enthalpy interval where stream j starts
b, = Enthalpy interval where stream j ends
b, = Ratio of modified (cost-weighted) to actual
heat transfer coefficient for stream j [equation
(19)l
REFERENCES
Ahmad S., Heat exchanger networks: cost tradeoffs in
energy and capital. Ph.D Thesis, University of
Manchester Insitute of Science and Technology, U.K.
(1985).
Ahmad S. and R. Smith, Targets and design for minimum
number of shells in heat exchanger networks. Chem.
Engng Res. Des. 67, 481-494 (1989).
Ahmad S., B. Linnhoff and R. Smith, Design of multipass
heat exchangers: an alternative approach. J. Hear
Transfer (ASME) 110, 304-309 (1988).
Bowman R. A., A. C. Mueller and W. M. Nagle, Mean
temperature difference in design. Trans. ASME 62,
283-294 (1940).
 Cost optimum heat exchanger networks-2
Delaby O., Minimum area in heat exchanger networks.
M.Sc. Thesis, University of Manchester Institute of
Science and Technology, U.K. (1989).
Hall S. G., S. Ahmad and R. Smith, Capital cost targets for
heat exchanger networks comprising mixed materials
of construction, pressure ratings, and exchanger types.
Comput. them. Engng 14, 319-335 (1989).
Linnhoff B. and S. Ahmad. Cost ontimum heat exchanger
networks-l. Minimum energy and capital using simile
models for capital cost. Comput. them. Engng. 14,
7299750 (1990)
Linnhoff B. and E. Hindmarsh. The oinch de&n method
for heat exchanger networks. Chim. Engni Sri. 38,
745-763 (1983).
Liu Y. A.. F. A. Pehler and D. R. Cahela. Studies in
chemical process design and synthesis. Part VII: system-
atic synthesis of multipass heat exchanger networks.
AIChE Jf 31, 487-491 (1985).
Nishimura H., A theory for the optimum synthesis of heat
767
exchange systems. J. Optimization Theory Applic. 30,
423-450 (1980).
Saboo A. K., M. Morari and R. D. Colberg, RESHEX-an
interactive software package for the synthesis and analysis
of resilient heat exchanger networks-II. Discussion of
area targeting and network synthesis algorithms. Comput.
&em. Engng IO, 591-599 (1986).
Taborek J.. Evolution of heat exchanger desian teehniaues.
Heat T&t&r Engng 1, I5 (1979).- - *
Townsend D. W., Surface area and capital cost targets for
heat exchanger networks. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Manchester Institute of Science and Technoloev. ._.d, U.K.
(1989).
Townsend D. W. and B. Linnhoff, Surface area targets for
heat exchanger networks. IChemE. 11th Annual Res.
Meeting, Bag, U.K. (1984).
Trivedi K. K., J. R. Roach and B. K. GNeill, Shell targeting
in heat exchanger networks, AIChE JI 33, 2087-2090
(1987).