Design and Off-Design Performance Evaluation of Heat Exchanger in An Offshore Process Configuration
Design and Off-Design Performance Evaluation of Heat Exchanger in An Offshore Process Configuration
Design and Off-Design Performance Evaluation of Heat Exchanger in An Offshore Process Configuration
Abstract
This research evaluates the thermal performance of an industrial heat exchanger for process in
the offshore industry. Steady state monitoring and performance data were collected from 3-E-401
heat exchanger in an offshore environment. Design and off-design evaluation was carried out us-
ing capacity ratio, effectiveness, Log Mean Temperature Difference (LMTD), heat duty, and overall
heat transfer coefficient as performance indicators. Three scenarios were presented and Hysys®
V8.7 software was used to model the process. The results showed that the best thermal perform-
ance of the heat exchanger in terms of capacity ratio, effectiveness, heat duty, LMTD, and overall
heat transfer coefficient is 94%, 85.5%, 88%, 88.7% and 71% respectively, of the design values.
This best performance was reached at 9.9% fouling and heat loss reduction in the heat exchange
process. An increase in fouling and heat loss gradually reduced the thermal performance of the
heat exchanger. Therefore a proactive maintenance action and condition monitoring in every
eight weeks is required to sustain and improve the performance as evaluated.
Keywords
Heat Exchanger, Effectiveness, Heat Duty, Fouling Factor, Performance, LMTD
1. Introduction
A heat exchanger transfers the energy from a hot fluid to a cold fluid; with maximum rate and minimum invest-
ment and running cost [1]. It is a device in which energy is transferred from one fluid to another across a solid
surface. It is applied where high temperature and pressure demands are significant and can be employed for a
How to cite this paper: Adumene, S., Nwaoha, T.C., Ombor, G.P. and Abam, J.T. (2016) Design and Off-Design Performance
Evaluation of Heat Exchanger in an Offshore Process Configuration. Open Access Library Journal, 3: e2748.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1102748
S. Adumene et al.
process requiring large quantities of fluid to be heated or cooled. Due to the design of the shell and tube heat
exchanger, it offers a large heat transfer area and provides high heat transfer efficiency in comparison with oth-
ers [2]. Most materials are exposed to adverse environmental condition while in service. This results in the dete-
rioration of the surface, mechanical properties, physical properties, and appearance of the materials [3]. Deteri-
oration processes for metals and alloys are called corrosion. Their deterioration occurs at elevated temperature.
When a material is under stress, cracks are formed. These cracks propagate through the material as the stress is
increased and the material fails by breaking into two or more parts. Condition monitoring performance evalua-
tion is then the process of monitoring operating parameters in equipment such that any significant change is an
indication of a developed failure [4]. It is typically more cost effective than allowing the equipment to fail. Ac-
cording to [1], the temperature of each fluid changes as it passes through the exchangers, and hence the temper-
ature of the dividing wall between the fluid also changes along the length of the exchanger in which a liquid or
gas is required to be either cooled or heated.
The most important heat exchanger type is the recuperator in which the flowing fluids exchanging heat are on
either side of a dividing wall [1]. The second type is a regenerator in which the hot and cold fluids pass alterna-
tively through a space containing a matrix of material that provides alternative means for heat flow. The third
type is the evaporative type in which a liquid is cooled evaporatively and continuously in the same space as the
coolant. It was evident in [5] that in a direct compact or open heat exchanger, the exchange of heat takes place
by direct mixing of hot and cold fluids and transfer of heat and mass takes place simultaneously. The use of such
units is done under conditions where mixing of two fluids is either harmless or desirable such as cooling towers,
jet condensers and direct contact feed heater. In the indirect contact, heat is transfered between two fluids by
transmission through walls which separates the two fluids. In parallel flow heat exchanger, the two fluid streams
(hot and cold) travel in the same direction. While in counter flow, the two fluids flow in opposite direction. This
flow pattern gives maximum rate of heat transfer for a given surface area, although fouling is a limiting factor in
this case. Hence such heat exchangers are most favoured for heating and cooling of fluid [5].
In the work of [6], it was reported that due to fouling the overall heat transfer coefficient of three co-current
heat exchanger in a polyethylene plant show 51.60%, 80.71% and 57.73% less than the design value respective-
ly. An experimental determination of fouling factor on plate heat exchangers was presented in [7]. The work
describes the influence of water velocity on fouling factor in plate heat exchanger for four district heating subs-
tation. It was observed that the heat duty reduced greatly due to fouling. Also [8] used augmentation techniques
to enhance the heat transfer in the annulus of the heat exchanger design systems. These techniques greatly im-
proved the performance of the heat exchanger. Heat transfer enhancements devices are commonly employed to
improve the performance of an existing heat exchanger or to reduce the size and cost of a proposed heat ex-
changer.
This paper presents a design and off-design thermal performance evaluation based on steady state monitoring
and process simulation. The data are used to evaluate the state of performance based on key performance indi-
cators and to predict the best performance index from the three scenarios. The comparative analysis was also
taken into consideration. This enables a maintenance predicted period to sustain the thermal performance of the
system in order to eliminate fouling and heat losses.
from the low pressure (LP) side. This process occurs at maximum pressure in the LP side of the heat exchanger
and is characterized by a pseudo-steady-state process that depends on the flow resistance.
b. Low tube velocity
For most fluids in most applications, a lower tube velocity means a lower inside heat transfer coefficient,
therefore the heat transfer is less effective, so thermal designers will maintain performance by keeping the ve-
locity as high as the tube material and pressure drop is not compromised. Other performance mitigating factors
are excessive transfer rates, lack of effective control system, unequal heating.
transfer efficiency obtainable by inserting an impermeable tube into a laminar counter flow concentric circular
heat exchanger with external recycle under uniform wall fluxes.
The performance optimization of the heat exchanger through condition monitoring takes the following into
consideration:
Determine whether the exchanger is operating correctly;
Estimate how much pressure drop is available;
Utilization of enhancers or intensifier such as firing, tube inserts, modified tubes or modified baffle.
LMTD 57.689
Table 3. Result of off-design performance simulation at higher temperature gradient on the hot stream.
Heat Transfer
⧍th ˚C ⧍tc ˚C Capacity Ratio (CR) Effectiveness (ε) LMTD U (kW/m2K) Rf (m2K/kW)
Rate Q (KW)
156.8 7.90 19.88 0.55 57.59 4688.01 0.11 2.77
76.50 3.30 25.51 0.62 43.88 1841.91 0.21 4.97
80.90 2.90 89.89 0.11 48.11 1680.81 0.18 5.17
84.90 1.50 56.01 0.18 57.60 1960.24 0.32 3.96
41.70 2.60 41.71 0.24 48.52 1017.93 0.14 6.63
Table 4. Result of off-design performance simulation at higher temperature gradient on the cold stream.
Heat Transfer
⧍th ˚C ⧍tc ˚C Capacity Ratio (CR) Effectiveness (ε) LMTD U (kW/m2K) Rf (m2K/kW)
Rate Q (KW)
35.44 294.60 0.12 8.32 63.21 5382.50 0.47 5.70
37.04 292.53 0.13 7.91 77.16 6070.00 0.99 6.79
37.62 298.5 0.13 7.82 89.24 6325.27 0.79 4.57
10.10 308.70 0.14 8.47 66.55 1368.43 0.98 3.81
32.00 314.00 0.11 9.71 99.90 1862.43 0.69 5.39
Table 5. Percentage (%) performance of the heating elements at design point: scenario one.
Capacity Ratio (CR) Effectiveness (ε) LMTD Heat Transfer Rate Q (KW) U (kW/m2K) Rf (m2K/kW)
Table 6. Percentage (%) performance of the heating elements at off-design point: scenario two.
Capacity Ratio (CR) Effectiveness (ε) LMTD Heat Transfer Rate Q (KW) U (kW/m2K) Rf (m2K/kW)
Table 7. Percentage (%) performance of the heating element at off-design: scenario three.
Capacity Ratio (CR) Effectiveness (ε) LMTD Heat Transfer Rate Q (KW) U (kW/m2K) Rf (m2K/kW)
performance of the system at the three scenarios. The values of the capacity ratio, effectiveness, LMTD, heat
duty and overall heat transfer coefficient at difference temperature gradient across the stream are presented.
Table 5 shows the result of a percentage performance of the indicators. The capacity ratio represents an av-
erage of 83.06% of the design value. This represents a deviation of about 16.94% which is practically negligible
due to the specific heat capacity deviation and heat losses across the heating elements. The effectiveness gave an
average of 45% which is quite below expectation. This is basically expressed in the increase in fouling by about
55%. Fouling and heat loss are major elements that deteriorate the performance trend of heat exchanging sys-
tems. The LMTD shows an 84.8% performance on average, while the heat transfer rate shows 57.8% perfor-
mance. The overall heat transfer coefficient gave an average of 68.06% performance on the design value. The
performance based on the heat transfer coefficient is traceable to the temperature gradient and heat transfer area.
Increase in the fouling as earlier explained minimized the active area for heat to be transferred.
Table 6 shows the off-design performance results. The analysis is aimed at theoretically minimizes the energy
losses. The Table shows that the capacity ratio has improved to about 94% of the design value and the effec-
tiveness to 85.5%, while the heat duty performance is 88% of the design value. This represents a good im-
provement on the system performance. It also revealed that the overall heat transfer performance has improved
to 71%. The improvement is reflected in the drop of the fouling factor to about 38.9%. Table 7 indicated a fur-
ther drop in the fouling factor by an average of 9.9%. This reflected on the overall heat transfer performance to
76.4% of the design value.
A Comparative analysis of the three performance scenarios shows that the best performance in capacity ratio,
effectiveness and LMTD occurs at the off-design analysis at lower temperature on the hot stream. Although in
the third scenario, the overall heat transfer shows its best performance.
4. Conclusion
This research evaluates three performance scenario of the heat exchanger, and revealed its performance trend
and deviation from the design values. The elements of fouling and heat loss degrade the system performance
such as expressed in the capacity ratio, effectiveness and the overall heat transfer coefficient. The overall system
performance depends greatly on the temperature difference across the stream which is a function of the heat
transfer area and material. The LMTD is a performance indicator that expresses the heat transfer based on its
value, which is temperature dependent. This evaluation therefore provides the information on the efficiency and
help to check deterioration that may result over time if maintenance measures are not sustained. The deviation
may gradually increase over time, and proactive measure and condition monitoring is paramount to maintain or
minimize these deviations to negligible percentage. The off-design scenarios predict the performance of the heat
exchanger when certain parameters are optimized as well as minimization of fouling and energy losses. The op-
timized parameters serve as the objective function that is dependable on the minimized variables and other en-
vironmental constraints. This research provides a good technical approach to evaluate the thermal performance of
the heat exchanger used in process engineering.
References
[1] Rajput, R.K. (2006) Heat and Mass Transfer. 3rd Edition, S.Chand and Company Limited, Ram Nagar, New Delhi,
569-648.
[2] Aghareed, M.T., El-Rifai, M.A., Tawil, Y.A. and Abdel-Monen, R.M. (1991) A New Dynamic Model for Shell and
Tube Heat Exchanger. Energy Conversation Management, 32, 439-446.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0196-8904(91)90005-4
[3] Rao, B.P., Kumar, P.K. and Das, S.K. (2002) Effect of Flow Distribution to the Channels on the Thermal Performance
of a Plate Heat Exchanger. Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification, 41, 49-58.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0255-2701(01)00105-2
[4] Pussey, H.C. (2007) Turbo Machinery Condition Monitoring and Failure Prognosis, Shock and Vibration Information
Analysis, Centre/Hi-Test Laboratories. Proceedings of Institute of Vibration, Winchester, VA, 210.
[5] Kakac, S. and Liu, H. (2002) Heat Exchanger Selection Rating and Thermal Design. 2nd Edition, CRC Press, Boca
Raton.
[6] Lebele-Alawa, B.T. and Innocent, A.O. (2014) Influence of Fouling on Heat Exchanger Effectiveness in a Polyethyl-
ene Plant. Energy and Power, 4, 29-34.
[7] Genic, S.B., Jacimovic, B.M., Mandic, D. and Petrovic, D. (2012) Experimental Determination of Fouling Factor on
Plate Heat Exchangers in District Heating Systems. Energy and Building, 50, 204-211.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.03.039
[8] Zimparov, D. (2006) Performance Evaluation of Tube-in-Tube Heat Exchanger with Heat Transfer Enhancement in the
Annulus. Original Scientific Paper UDC:66.045.1:519.876.5. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/tsci0601045z
[9] Hewitt, G.H., Shires, G.L. and Bott, T.R. (1994) Process Heat Transfer. CRC Press Inc, Florida.
[10] Bell, D.R. (2003) The Hidden Cost of Downtime: Strategies for Improving Return Assets. Smant Signal Co., Illinois,
1-4.
[11] Lunsford, K.M. (2006) Increasing Heat Exchanger Performance. Proceedings of Bryon Research and Engineering In-
corporated, Bryan, TX, 1-13.
[12] Gulley, D. (1996) Trouble Shooting Shell-Tube Heat Exchanger: Hydrocarbon Processing. Journal of Heat Transfer,
75, 91-98.
[13] Ogbonnaya, E.A. (2010) Maintenance Optimization of a Marine Heat Exchanger Subject to Fouling. Journal of Energy
Trend in Engineering and Applied Science, 1, 161-168.
[14] Coreneliseen, R.L. (1997) Thermodynamic and Sustainable Development: The Use of Exergy Analysis and the Reduc-
tion of Irreversibility. Technical Paper, International Energy, Life Cycle Assessment and Sustainability.
[15] Chii, D.H. (2009) Performance Improvement in a Concentric Circular Heat Exchanger with External Recycled under
Uniform Wall Fluxes. Journal of Science and Engineering, 12, 231-238.
Nomenclature
A Heat Transfer Area (m2)
Cph Specific Heat Capacity of Hot Fluid
Cpc Specific Heat Capacity of Cold Fluid
Rf Fouling Factor
mc Mass Flow Rate of Cold Fluid (kg/h)
mh Mass Flow Rate of Hot Fluid (kg/h)
Qh Heat Duty of Hot Fluid (kW)
Qc Heat Duty of Cold Fluid (kW)
CR Capacity Ratio
ε Effectiveness
t1 & t2 Wall Temperatures ˚C
th1 Inlet Temperature of Hot Fluid ˚C
th2 Outlet Temperature of hot Fluid ˚C
tc1 Inlet Temperature of Cold Fluid ˚C
tc Out Temperature of Cold Fluid ˚C
∆tc Change in Cold Fluid Temperature
∆th Change in Hot Fluid Temperature
U Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient
Uclean Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient from Design (kW/m2K)
Udirty Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient from Operation (kW/m2K)
LMTD Log Mean Temperature Difference
∆Pt Pressure Loss Coefficient
Rsi Thermal Resistance to Scale Formation on the Inside Surface
Rso Thermal Resistance to Scale Formation on the Outside Surface