Chapter Nine

Heat Exchangers
9.1 Introduction
The implementation of heat exchanger models is different than most Aspen
Plus models in that some are capable of detailed design using very-high-
quality industrial programs that are integrated into Aspen Plus. These are
combined under the name Exchanger Design and Rating (EDR) and include
shell and tube heat exchangers, kettle reboilers, thermosyphon reboilers, air
cooled exchangers, and plate exchanger programs. These are documented in
Aspen Plus Help, EDR. Most can be used for design and to rate existing
exchangers and in that sense they can be used as sequential modular models.
In order to model a simple heat exchanger, one must solve a variation of the
primary Equations 9.4. Details of the implementation in Aspen Plus are not
available since the computer programs are proprietary.

9.1

9.2

9.3

9.4

Here q is the exchanger duty, m is the flow rate, cp is the heat capacity, and T
is temperature. U is an overall heat transfer coefficient, which depends on
temperature, transport properties, and exchanger geometry, and F is a
correction factor for multiple tube-side and/or shell-side passes. The factor, F,
derived through the work of Nagle (1933) and Underwood (1934), can be
calculated by Equation 9.5:

9.5

where

9.6
 9.7

In Equation 9.4, ΔT represents the temperature difference at the end of an

exchanger. The simple model is the stepping stone to the rigorous models
available in EDR.
When working in simulation mode, the state of the exchanger feeds must be
specified. Depending upon the type of the model chosen, the heat transfer
area, A, is either specified or calculated from the heat exchanger physical
layout. Heat transfer coefficients may be calculated from correlations, such as
the Hewitt Correlation (Hewitt, 1992) prepared by Gnielinski, which involves
the Nusselt Number NNU = hD/k, Reynolds Number NRE = DG/μ, and
Prandtl NPR = cpμ/k Number, and the Darcy friction factor given by
Equations 9.8 and 9.9.

9.8

9.9
Here, hi is the inside pipe heat transfer coefficient, Di inside pipe diameter, k
thermal conductivity, G mass flow rate, μ viscosity, and cp the heat capacity
and fD, the Darcy friction factor. Complete documentation of all correlations
used in Aspen Plus can be found in Help, by searching for Heatx correlations.
Depending on the model chosen, U is either specified or calculated iteratively
during the convergence process. The four heat exchanger models can be found
in the model library, under the tab Heat Exchangers.

9.2 The Heater Block

An example of the primary input form of the Heater block is given in Figure
9.1. The Heater block offers a variety of ways to specify the output stream
state, all of which result in the calculation of the energy required to heat (or
cool) a stream. Alternately, one may specify the energy added or removed to
or from a heater, which is used by the block to establish the state of the output
stream. Various possibilities are shown in Figure 9.2.
Figure 9.1 The Heater block primary input.

Figure 9.2 The Heater block's specifications.

An important capability of the block is the use of two heaters to model a heat
exchanger bypassing the use of Equations 9.3 and 9.4 as shown in Figure 9.3.
Note the use of a heat stream to connect the two heaters. The heat stream
should be aligned in the correct direction, which depends on which heater will
receive the heat transferred. Care must be taken with the sign the heat
transferred. Heat added is positive. In this example, the outlet temperature of
heater H2 is specified and the heat, stream 5, flows to heater H1. This
example can be found in Chapter Nine/Examples/Heaters.

Figure 9.3 Two heaters modeling a heat exchanger.

An example of a process in which heat exchangers are replaced with heaters is
shown in Figure 9.4. The heat exchangers here are used to conserve energy by
extracting heat from the bottoms of the columns and transferring part of the
available energy to the column feeds. An important aspect of using heaters
rather than heat exchangers is that the calculations can be performed once
through, and no tear streams are required. This is illustrated by Aspen Plus's
analysis of the process, given in Figure 9.5. In most cases, whenever a heat
exchanger is placed on a flowsheet, a tear stream is introduced. The flowsheet
in which the heaters from the Figure 9.4 process are replaced by heat
exchangers is illustrated in Figure 9.6. Aspen Plus's analysis, in Figure 9.7,
shows that one tear stream has been generated for each heat exchanger
inserted. Details of the solution to the process with four heaters can be found
in Examples/fourheatersflowsheet. Similarly, the two heat exchanger process
can be found in Examples/twoheatxflowsheets.
Figure 9.4 A process with two heaters as heat exchangers.

Figure 9.5 Computation sequence for process with heaters.

Figure 9.6 Process with two heat exchangers.

Figure 9.7 Tear streams for process with heat exchangers.

9.3 The Heatx Block

The primary input form of the Heatx block, which shows the possible
specifications, is shown in Figure 9.8. The Heatx block offers a variety of
possibilities to specify an exchanger depending on the type of calculation
required as follows:
1. Rating: Determines whether exchanger is over/under surfaced
2. Design: Determines exchanger geometry
3. Maximum Fouling: Determines maximum fouling
4. Simulation: Program determines stream outlet conditions.
Figure 9.8 The Heatx block primary input form.
The first three modes require a specification selected from the drop–down list
under Exchanger specification shown in Figure 9.9.
Figure 9.9 The second Heatx block U methods.
The Heatx block, depending on its usage, requires additional specifications.
An example of the secondary input forms, which are related to each of the
primary specifications, is U Methods shown in Figure 9.10. The use of the
Next key assures that secondary input possibilities such as exchanger
geometry are not overlooked. Note that the simulation mode requires that the
inputs to the exchanger be either specified or calculated from a previous
block, because the block is expected to behave as a sequential modular model.
The design mode requires the specification of a block output with all
necessary options, such as Figure 9.10, implemented and behaves as if it were
a sequential modular model with a design specification imposed upon an
output.

Figure 9.10 The Heatx block's design specifications options.

The simplest approach for using the block for design is to select shortcut
design, in which case an output of an exchanger is specified. The available
specifications for design are shown in Figures 9.8 and 9.9. The solution to the
design problem, using the shortcut method, yields a value for the UA product,
which can be employed as part of the specifications when setting up a
simulation problem. An example of this approach is given in the solution to
the flowsheet shown in Figure 9.6, which incorporates exchanger design. The
specification used for design, that is, the outlet temperature of the cold
stream, which was used for both exchangers, was transferred from the four
heater flowsheet to the two exchanger flowsheet. The UAs calculated for the
shortcut design, available in the .rep of two exchangers, were transferred to
the simulation flowsheet to produce the completed process simulation.
Details can be found in Examples, by comparing twoheatxflowsheetd (design)
and twoheatxflowsheets (simulation). When using rating or simulation
calculations, both the shortcut and detailed options permit the user to enter
estimates of the overall heat transfer coefficients from sources such as Perry
and Green (1999). In addition to an overall heat transfer coefficient, the heat
transfer area must also be provided.
The rigorous calculations permit design, rating, simulation, and maximum
fouling modes. The rating and simulation modes can be used as part of a
sequential modular simulation. In both cases, the definition of exchanger
geometry, that is, a detailed layout of a shell and tube heat exchanger, is
required. To accomplish this, a rigorous EDR design must be completed.
As can be seen from the initial Heatx form, Figure 9.1, Aspen Plus provides a
rich selection of detailed design calculation methods. These are referred to as
Aspen EDR. An example of the use of shell and tube is given by redesigning
the first exchanger in the Examples/twoheatxflowsheetd. The input is
virtually identical to the aforementioned one; however, several steps are
illustrated with the use of the file, Examples/twoheatxflowsheetdEDR.bkp.
The procedure always requires an initially acceptable Shortcut
run. Following this, the Model Fidelity is changed to a choice of the rigorous
options, for example, Shell & Tube. When the option is selected a form
entitled “Convert to Rigorous Exchanger” appears as shown in Figure 9.11 and
the user may select Convert. The EDR Sizing Console appears and the user
may review the content found under the various tabs. It is possible to save the
current status. If Size is chosen, a sizing optimization takes place, and upon
selecting Accept Design, the optimization of the design, based on Aspen Plus's
Cost software, shown in Figure 9.12, becomes the final design, which is shown
in the EDR console in Figure 9.13. Under the Navigation menu within a Heatx
block, there is an entry EDR Browser, which can be used to look at details of
the design.
Figure 9.11 Shell and tube EDR input file specification.
Figure 9.12 The EDR browser in report mode.
Figure 9.13 The Mheatx primary input form.

9.4 The Mheatx Block

The Mheatx block is unique in that it is able to handle multiple hot and cold
streams. The block is internally reorganized into a collection of Heater blocks
connected by heat streams. An example is given in Chapter
Examples/mheatxexample. Here there is one Mheatx block with two hot and
two cold feeds. The primary input form is shown in Figure 9.14. Note that a
specification on all but one output stream is required. Selection of the tab
Zone Analysis permits the assignment of zones within the heat exchanger.
Results are shown in Figure 9.15. The analysis summary gives a breakdown of
the important heat exchange factors including the identification of the
locations where streams should enter and leave the exchanger.
Figure 9.14 The Mheatx zone profile output.

Figure 9.15 The Mheatx zone profile output.

9.5 Workshops
Workshop
9.1 Use the shortcut feature of the Heatx block to calculate the state of the
cold stream and the required heat transfer area when the streams given
below are passed through a counter current heat exchanger with overall
heat transfer coefficient of 100 BTU/h ft2 R. The desired outlet
temperature of the hot stream is 70 °F. The temperatures of the hot and
cold feeds are 140 and 40 °F, respectively. Both streams are at 14.696 psi.
Feeds are given in Table 9.1. Use the Wilson property method.
Table 9.1 Feed for Workshop 9.1
Component Hot Feed (lb/h) Cold Feed (lb/h)
 Methanol 200
Water 1800
Ethylene glycol 4000
Workshop
9.2 Use two HEATER blocks with a heat stream transferring the heat
between the blocks for the specifications given in Workshop 9.1.
Workshop
9.3 Create an input file duplicating the input of Workshop 9.1. Change the
problem type to simulation. Remove the exchanger specification, that is,
the outlet temperature of the hot stream. Insert the UA calculated in
Workshop 9.1 and insert the overall heat transfer coefficient of 100 BTU/h
ft2 R in the U Methods form. Run and compare the design to the
simulation.
Workshop
9.4 Repeat Workshop 9.3 using a cocurrent heat exchanger. Compare the
results to Workshop 9.3. How do the results compare? What is the
primary source of the differences?
Workshop
9.5 An existing heat exchanger is to be used to cool 145,000 lb/h of
benzene at 390 °F and 400 psia. The coolant is 490,000 lb/h n-dodecane
at 100 °F and 200 psia. Aspen Plus's Heatx block is to be used with the
detailed option type simulation. Search Aspen Plus's Help for exchanger
configuration for general information on exchanger geometry.
Details of the exchanger design are as follows:
TEMA type E one shell pass – two tube passes
Countercurrent flow
Horizontal alignment
Hot fluid in the shell
2.75 ft inside shell diameter
0.5 in. shell to bundle clearance
No sealing strips
U calculated from film coefficients
No fouling
200 tubes. Length 32 ft, pitch 1.25 in. Square layout. Carbon steel.
Inside diameter 0.875 in. Outside diameter 1 in.
24 segmental baffles. Baffle cut 0.2
 Tubesheet to baffle spacing and baffle to baffle spacing 1.25 ft
Tubes in baffle window
Shell-side nozzles 6 in.
Tube-side nozzles 8 in.
Use Aspen Plus's defaults when necessary.
Workshop
9.6 Repeat Workshop 9.5 using the rating option.
Workshop
9.7 Repeat Workshop 9.5 using the simulation option.

9.6 Workshop Notes

Workshop
9.1
This is a design problem using shortcut methods. After providing an
exchanger specification, that is, hot stream outlet temperature and an
overall heat transfer coefficient, both defined in the workshop description,
the design is straightforward.
Workshop
9.2
The results of Workshop 9.1 are duplicated.
Workshop
9.3
As this is a simulation workshop, it is necessary to change the specification
of Workshop 9.1 to simulation and to insert the value of UA calculated by
Workshop 9.1. The hot stream specification must also be removed. The
simulation duplicates the results of Workshop 9.1.
Workshop
9.4
The use of the exchanger design from Workshop 9.1 but with cocurrent
flows results in poorer performance. The heat transferred in Workshop 9.3
is about 131,000 BTU/h compared to 99,000 BTU/h in Workshop 9.4. The
log mean temperature differences for the two cases are 35.1 and 26.6 °F,
which explains the poorer performance of Workshop 9.4.
Workshop
9.5
 The solution is straightforward.
Workshop
9.6
The hot stream specification is taken from the solution of Workshop 9.5.
The results are virtually identical to Workshop 9.5.

References
Aspen Plus ver 8.5, Documentation, Heaters.
Aspen Plus ver 8.5, Help, EDR.
Aspen Plus ver 8.5, Help, Exchanger Configuration.
Aspen Plus ver 8.5, Help, Heatx Reference, Model Reference.
Hewitt G. F., Ed., “Handbook of Heat Exchanger Design”, Begell House, New
York (1992).
Nagle, W. M., Mean Temperature Differences in Multipass Heat Exchangers,
Ind. Eng. Chem., Vol 25, pp. 604–609 (1933).
Perry, R. H. and Green, D. W., “Perry's Chemical Engineers Handbook on
CD-ROM”, Table 11.2, McGraw-Hill (1999).
Underwood, A. J. V., The Calculation of the Mean Temperature Differences in
Multipass Heat Exchangers, J. Inst. Petrol. Technol., Vol 20, pp. 145–158
(1934).