See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/244386605

Rating Calculation for Plate Heat Exchanger Effectiveness and Pressure Drop
Using Existing Performance Data

Article  in  Chemical Engineering Research and Design · April 2002

DOI: 10.1205/026387602753582105

CITATIONS READS

11 8,291

2 authors:

Andrew Wright Peter Heggs

Independent Reseacher University of Leeds
40 PUBLICATIONS   255 CITATIONS    195 PUBLICATIONS   2,001 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Simulation of PV/T airflow for thermal optimisation and electricity generation View project

Air Pre-Purification using Adsorption View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew Wright on 15 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

CALCULATION OF NEW PLATE HEAT EXCHANGER EFFECTIVENESS

AND PRESSURE DROP USING EXISTING PERFORMANCE DATA

A.D. Wright and P.J. Heggs

Department of Chemical Engineering
UMIST, PO Box 88, Manchester, M60 1QD

© UMIST, 2001

ABSTRACT
One of the most versatile types of heat exchanger used on process plants is the plate heat
exchanger (PHE). It has principle advantages over other heat exchangers in that plates
can be added and/or removed easily in order to change the area available for heat transfer
and therefore its overall performance. The reason for changing the amount of heat
transfer area may be down to a new duty requirement or non-replacement of damaged
plates after maintenance. The following paper shows how the operation of a two stream
PHE can be predicted after the plate rearrangement has been made, using the existing
PHE performance data. This calculation is therefore one purely of rating with the
assumption that the overall mass flow rates do not change with the new configuration.
 2

INTRODUCTION
It is well known that plate heat exchangers (PHEs) are flexible pieces of equipment in
that they can be set internally with a wide range in the number of passes and channels.
Each arrangement results in different thermal and pressure drop performances and the
most suitable one is chosen at the design stage for a given specification. However, during
the working life of the PHE, the arrangement can and and may need to be changed and
new performance calculations carried out. The reasons for changing the arrangment may
include new duty specifications or not replacing damaged plates after maintenance. It is
found that in order to predict the performance of the new PHE arrangement a full rating
calculation may not be required. Instead, the calculations can be simplified by using the
existing performance of the PHE.
In the following paper it will be shown how the existing thermal and pressure drop
performance of the PHE can be used to predict how it will perform under different
channel and pass arrangements. The PHE for which this analysis is to be applied is
shown in Figure 1 and is assumed to have a starting arrangement of n of m versus n of m
(where n of m is to be read as n passes of m channels).

Th,in
(M& c )
p h

(M& c )
p c
PLATE
Tc ,in HEAT Tc ,out
EXCHANGER

Th ,out
Figure 1. A Schematic of a Plate Heat Exchanger with Two Input and Two Output
Streams Unmixed.

HEAT TRANSFER (EFFECTIVENESS) CALCULATION

The flow down each channel per pass assuming no maldistribution is given by

M&
M& ch = (1)
m

Assuming that heat transfer coefficients for both sides of the PHE can be calculated from
correlations of the form

Nu = aRe b Pr c (2)

(see [1] and [2]), then the overall heat transfer coefficient can be found from the
following equation
 3

1 K1 + K 2 b t
= m + Rf + (3)
U K1 K 2 λp

where

b c
 λ  M& De   ηc p 
K 1 = a     (4)
 De  Axη   λ 

and this term is evaluated at the mean temperature of one of the streams in the PHE. K2 is
found in a similar fashion for the other stream. The number of transfer units, NTU, for this
PHE arrangement can now be found from

UA A p n(2m − 1)
N TU = = (5)
(
M& c p min )  K + K2 b t 
( )
M& c p min  1
 KK
m + Rf +
λ p 
 1 2

The effectiveness of the PHE, as defined by equation (6),

(M& c ) (T
p c c ,out − Tc ,in ) (M& c ) (T p h h ,in − Th ,out )
ε= = (6)
(M& c ) (Tp min h ,in − Tc ,in ) (M& c ) (T p min h ,in − Tc ,in )

can be found from the NTU, under the assumption of truly counter-current flow using
equation (7)

ε=
(
1 − exp − N TU 1 − C * [ ]) (7)
(
1 − C * exp − N TU 1 − C * [ ])
The assumption of truly counter-current flow can be assumed to be applicable if the
number of channels per pass is large (>10). Rearrangement of equation (7) gives the NTU
is terms of the heat exchanger effectiveness

1
N TU ,old = − ln Ω (8)
( 1− C* )
where

 1 − ε old 
Ω =  
* 
(9)
 1 − ε old C 
 4

The subscript old is used in equations (8) and (9) to show those terms that are determined
using the existing performance data of the PHE.
If the heat exchanger arrangement is now changed to q of p versus q of p, the wall and
fouling resistances are assumed to be negligible and K1 and K2 do not vary much due to
the new mean temperatures, then

N TU ,new = ΨN TU ,old (10)

where

q(2 p − 1)m b
Ψ= (11)
n(2m − 1) p b

The subscript new is used in equation (10) to show that this is the NTU after the plate
rearrangement has been made.
It is now possible to calculate the new PHE effectiveness in terms of the old
effectiveness by substituting equation (8) into equation (10) and using this as the new NTU
in equation (7).

1− ΩΨ
ε new = (12)
1 − C *Ω Ψ

For the case of C * = 1, equation (12) cannot be used because it gives an indeterminate
result for ε new . Instead, for this special case the equation that should be used is found to
be

Ψ
ε new = (13)
 1 − ε old 
  + Ψ
 ε old 

The effectiveness of the new PHE can now be calculated using knowledge of the change
in arrangement, the existing PHE effectiveness and the exponent on the Reynolds number
in the heat transfer coefficient correlation.

PRESSURE DROP CALCULATION

A similar procedure as shown above for predicting heat transfer performance using
existing data, can also be carried out for calculating the pressure drop in the new PHE.
Using a channel friction factor correlation of the form

f = d (Re )
−e
(14)

the pressure prop along a single channel in one pass can be calculated from
 5

ρu 2 4 fl
∆Pch = (15)
2 De

Using this information, the overall pressure drop in a PHE can then be found from

∆P = K 3 nm e− 2 + K 4 n (16)

where

2 −e
2ld  M&   M& De 
K3 =     (17)
ρDe  Ax  A η
 x 

and K4 is an end effect parameter taking into account effects due to fluid entering and
exiting the channels and pressure drop in the manifolds. Using equation (15) for the
pressure drop in both the old and new PHE arrangements and substituting for K3 gives

e−2
o p
∆Pnew = (∆Pold − K 4 n )   + K 4o (18)
nm

or if end effects are negligible

e−2
o p
∆Pnew = ∆Pold   (19)
nm

SAMPLE CALCULATION FOR PREDICTING THE EFFECTIVENESS AND

PRESSURE DROP OF A PHE UNDER A NEW ARRANGEMENT
In order to show how these equations work, a sample calculation is presented below
based on the PHE shown in Figure 1 which an arrangement of 2 of 80 versus 2 of 80.
The question is, what will be the effect of adding/removing 20 plates to/from the ends of
the PHE on the heat transfer and pressure drop? In other words, for PHEs with
arrangements 2 of 60 versus 2 of 60 and 2 of 100 versus 2 of 100.

Required Data from the Existing System

b = 2/3
e = 0.206
M& c = 59.71 kg s-1
M& h
= 42.77 kg s-1
c p ,c = c p , h = 4187 J kg-1 K-1
Tc ,in = 10.0°C
Th,in = 60.0°C
 6

Tc ,out in existing operation = 38.65°C

Th ,out in existing operation = 20.0°C
∆Pc in existing operation = 100000 Pa
∆Ph in existing operation = 55000 Pa

Calculations
The first step is to calculate the existing effectiveness of the PHE using equation (6).

59.71 38.65 − 10 42.77 60 − 20

ε old = ε 80 = = = 0.8
42.77 60 − 10 42.77 60 − 10

Using equation (9) with the calculated value of C * = 0.7163 gives

 1 − 0.8 
Ω=  = 0.4684
 1 − 0.8 × 0.7163 

Then from equation (11) it can be obtained that for an arrangement of 2 of 60 versus 2 of
60

2(2 × 60 − 1)80 3
2

Ψ= = 0.9067
2(2 × 80 − 1)60 3
2

Using all these results it is possible to calculate the new effectiveness of the PHE from
equation (12).

1 − 0.4684 0.9067
ε new = ε 60 = = 0.7771
1 − 0.7163 × 0.4684 0.9067

For this arrangement the pressure drops now become, using equation (19)

0.206− 2
2  60 
∆Pnew,c = ∆P60,c = 100000   = 167548.3 Pa
2  80 

0.206− 2
2  60 
∆Pnew,h = ∆P60,h = 55000   = 92151.6 Pa
2  80 

Similarly for an arrangement of 2 of 100 versus 2 of 100

2(2 × 100 − 1)80 3

2

Ψ= = 1.0786
2(2 × 80 − 1)100 3
2
 7

1 − 0.46841.0786
ε new = ε 100 = = 0.8169
1 − 0.7163 × 0.46841.0786

0.206− 2
2  100 
∆Pnew,c = ∆P100,c = 100000   = 67010.6 Pa
2  80 

0.206− 2
2  100 
∆Pnew,h = ∆P100,h = 55000   = 36855.8 Pa
2  80 

From these calculations it can be seen that changing the number of channels per pass
has a limited effect on the effectiveness of the PHE but a dramatic one on the pressure
drop. Reducing the number of plates by 25% reduces the effectiveness of the PHE by
approximately 2%, whilst the pressure drop increases by about two thirds. Alternatively,
increasing the number of plates by 25% increases the effectiveness by just over 1.5% and
reduces the pressure drop by one third. It therefore appears that for the case study in
question, the ratio of pressure drop to thermal effectiveness is very high and only small
thermal performance gains can be made from increasing the available pumping power.
One reason for this is probably the high value of effectiveness used in the problem.
Another is that for the thermal performance, as the number of plates and therefore the
heat transfer area decreases, a stabilising effect occurs through the increased channel
velocity improving the overall heat transfer coefficient. This means that UA remains
relatively constant and therefore so does the NTU. A similar result is found to occur when
the number of plates is increased. With pressure drop on the other hand, the number of
velocity heads changes by the square of the velocity, whilst the friction factor is
influenced only slightly by it. Therefore, this means a much more pronounced effect on
pressure drop due to changes in the number of plates and from this the channel velocity.
This information may be used in explaining why PHEs can perform adequately even
when damaged plates are removed from the pack and not replaced. As long as the pump
can provide sufficient head to overcome the increased pressure drop, then the PHE can
still be operated with a relatively small decrease in thermal performance.

CONCLUSIONS
A method has been developed for calculating the effectiveness and pressure drop of a two
stream PHE after plate rearrangement, based on its existing performance. This therefore
means that complete knowledge of the friction factor and heat transfer correlations is not
needed and a full rating calculation unnecessary. The methodology in its present form
however, only works for systems in which true counter-currency can be assumed and the
number of channels per pass is the same on both sides. There is also a major constraint in
that the mass flow rates of both streams cannot change after the PHE rearrangement.

REFERENCES
1. Alfa Laval (1990). Alfa Laval Manual, Alfa Laval.
2. APV Baker Ltd (1988). APV Plate Heat Exchangers User Handbook, APV Baker
Ltd. Derby.
 8

NOMENCLATURE
Roman
a Constant in heat transfer coefficient correlation
A Total area in PHE, m2
Ap Area of a plate, m2
Ax Cross sectional area of a channel, m2
b Exponent on the Reynolds number in the heat transfer coefficient correlation
c Exponent on the Prandtl number in the heat transfer coefficient correlation
*
C Ratio of minimum to maximum flowing heat capacities of the two streams
cp Specific heat capacity of the fluid, J kg-1K-1
d Constant in friction factor correlation
De Effective diameter of a channel, m
e Exponent on the Reynolds number in the friction factor correlation
f Friction factor
l Effective length of a channel, m
m Number of channels per pass in original PHE
M& Total mass flow rate of stream, kg s-1
n Number of passes in original PHE
Nu Nusselt number
NTU Number of transfer units
p Number of channels per pass in new PHE
Pr Prandtl number
q Number of passes in new PHE
Re Reynolds number
Rf Fouling resistance, W-1 m2 K
t Thickness of a plate, m
T Temperature, K
u Velocity in a channel, m s-1
U Overall heat transfer coefficient, W m-2 K-1

Greek
∆P Pressure drop over the PHE
ε Effectiveness of the PHE
η Viscosity of the fluid, kg m-1 s-1
λ Thermal conductivity of the fluid, W m-1 K-1
λp Thermal conductivity of the plate, W m-1 K-1
ρ Density of the fluid, kg m-3

Subscript
c Cold stream
ch Channel
h Hot stream
in Inlet
min Minimum
new New PHE arrangement
 9

old Old PHE arrangement

out Outlet

View publication stats