Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 37 (2022) 102163

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/csite

Shell and tube heat exchanger flexible design strategy for

process operability
Liang-Yu Chen , Vincentius Surya Kurnia Adi *, Rosalia Laxmidewi 1
Department of Chemical Engineering, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, 40227, Taiwan

G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Traditionally, the shell and tube heat exchanger (STHE) design minimizes the total annual cost
Shell and tube heat exchanger subject to allowable pressure drop. However, it is often insufficient when considering equipment
Flexibility index limitations and uncertain disturbance factors. Design inefficiency or improper operation of
Genetic algorithm overall process systems could potentially occur. A rigorous design strategy of STHE based on the
Simultaneous optimization flexibility index analysis method is proposed to address the above issues. The genetic algorithm
with rigorous constraints is considered for the STHE design optimization. Simultaneously, the
flexibility index (FI) is incorporated to quantify the uncertain factors of the STHE operation. The
STHE load capacity and the corresponding uncertain disturbance factors affecting the STHE
operability are evaluated. In addition, design workflows incorporating flexibility index are also
discussed. Simultaneous consideration of the flexibility index in the optimization procedure can
improve the STHE design operability under the expected range of disturbance factors and lower
the total cost.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: vska@nchu.edu.tw (V.S.K. Adi).
1
Independent Scholar, Taichung, 40249, Taiwan

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2022.102163
Received 30 January 2022; Received in revised form 27 May 2022; Accepted 28 May 2022
Available online 5 June 2022
2214-157X/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
L.-Y. Chen et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 37 (2022) 102163

1. Introduction
Shell and tube heat exchanger (STHE) is widely used in many industries, i.e., industrial power plants as condensers, chemical and
petrochemical plants as preheating systems, or cooling systems. Shell and tube heat exchanger consists mainly of tubes, shell, front
head, rear head, baffles, and other components. Traditionally, [1,2] incorporate geometric features to design the shell and tube heat
exchanger, the so-called Kern, and the Bell-Delaware method. These approaches establish the foundation of the current shell and tube
heat exchanger structure.
In recent years, many studies have analyzed STHE design from different angles and used various optimization techniques to achieve
better design improvements. [3] consider minimizing the entropy as an objective function to estimate the optimal heat exchanger
conditions in multiple aspects. [4] indicate that the STHE should be connected in series to increase the temperature correction factor
(Ft) by more than 0.8 to avoid infeasible situations and temperature cross. [5] believe that the objective function should minimize the
heat transfer surface area or the equipment capital cost.
The optimization method in designing STHE has recently received widespread attention. Various stochastic algorithms have been
developed that involve particle swarm optimization [6–8], falcon optimization algorithm [9] and other related algorithms. The
metaheuristic algorithm can provide a better or satisfactory solution in the case of incomplete information. Many successful meta­
heuristic algorithms are based on biological phenomena and run by simulating different processes in a computer. Some of which are
well-known, for example, genetic algorithm (GA) [10], differential evolution (DE) [11], particle swarm optimization (PSO) [12]. New
alternative algorithms perform beyond the previous optimization methods. Models with nonlinearity and multimodality are also
addressed [13]. [14] optimized the structure of the STHE with 11 discrete variables through a binary coded genetic algorithm. The
heat load is optimized while minimizing the cost function. Later, [15] used the statistical software MATLAB genetic algorithm toolbox
to minimize STHE costs. Using three optimization variables, the study selects equipment construction cost and operating cost as the
cost targets. The results show that compared with the traditional design method, it can save up to 7.4% of the construction cost and
93% of the operating cost. The total cost is reduced by 52%. In addition, the design problem can be solved quickly. The results show
that the genetic algorithm is promising in achieving optimal results. In later studies, multi-objective optimization of shell and tube heat
exchangers is addressed [7,16], with concerns on effectiveness and minimization of total cost, pressure drop, and other objectives.
Although this study addresses the STHE design, there are studies on the optimization of different types of heat exchangers based on
metaheuristic algorithms, i.e., plate-fin heat exchanger [7], air-fin cooler [17], and many more. Most of the above approaches are
based on user-given process requirements without considering any process uncertainties.
In fact, uncertain issues always exist in various chemical processes and need to be addressed. These uncertainties may come from
random external interference, such as raw material quality, product composition, environmental factors, or internal interference, such
as overall heat transfer coefficient, chemical reaction rate constant, and other physical properties [18]. Because the traditional design
does not consider these factors, the resulting configuration may not achieve the required target or reduce economic efficiency when
operating in actual conditions. Therefore, the ability of a given system to maintain operation without deviating from normal condi­
tions, called operational flexibility [19], is obviously a crucial factor. Any working process or design should take operational flexibility
into consideration. This way, additional operating costs from an inoperable design due to process uncertainty can be reduced. [20,21]
first defined the steady-state flexibility index (FIs), which is used as a parameter measurement of feasible regions in the parameter
space. Under the assumption of convexity, the feasible operating critical point must meet the apex of the uncertain parameter and
inequality limit space to determine the operating limit or load of the system. This method is called the vertex method. [22] also
developed the active constraints method in the form of mixed-integer nonlinear programming (MINLP). Similar approaches are also
carried out in subsequent studies to improve the design [23,24].
In this study, the issues of STHE design under process uncertainty are addressed. The rigorous operating constraints are taken into
account to establish the structural design of the STHE while simultaneously incorporating the flexibility index. This study can be
divided into the following three steps:

1. Establish a set of STHE design model

For the complex structure of the STHE, this study will use the common design methods, Bell-Delaware method [2]. The geometric
structure of the STHE is organized and combined with the conditional constraints of the actual operation to avoid structural defects.
The design model is developed using MINLP approach.
2. Use genetic algorithm to optimize the STHE structure
Genetic algorithm (GA) is used to perform more systematic and time-saving optimization method by adopting continuous and
discrete codes for the optimization variables.
3. Embed steady-state flexibility index to the objective function and observe the degree of influence and make improvements from the
results.

Specifically, for the accurate and smooth operation of STHE, the process uncertainty is considered. Therefore, a steady-state
flexibility index with vertex method is implemented to evaluate the impact and load of STHE design under uncertainties. In-depth
analysis is then conducted for improvement and optimization.
This work is organized as follows: Section 2 is dedicated to the STHE mathematical models. Section 3 describes the optimization
strategy of STHE. The case study and optimization results are discussed in Section 4. Finally, conclusions are given in the last section.

2
L.-Y. Chen et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 37 (2022) 102163

2. Shell and tube heat exchanger model

There are several aspects of STHE that should be modeled accordingly. Based on the previous literature on STHE geometric
structure, the heat transfer, pressure drop, and costs are described in this section. Moreover, the flexibility index model is also
elaborated for clarity.

2.1. Estimation for heat transfer area of STHE

The factors that affect the overall heat transfer coefficient (Uo) of the STHE can be described by the thermal resistance circuit
diagram [25]. The Uo is mainly affected by the cold and heat fluid, tube wall, and scaling or fouling deposit.
The overall heat transfer coefficient (Uo ) [26] can be expressed by the following equation:
1
Uo = ( ) (1)
do
do ln di
1
hs
+ Rs + 2kw
+ Rt ddoi + 1 do
ht di

where, do and di are outside diameter and inside diameter of the tube, hs and ht are the heat transfer coefficient for the fluid flowing in
the shell side and tube side, Rs and Rt are the scaling or fouling resistance of the shell side and the tube side.
The energy balance equation of the heat exchanger can be expressed by the following equation:
( )
Q = ṁh Cp,h Th,i − Th,o (2)
( )
Q = ṁc Cp,c Tc,o − Tc,i (3)

where Q is the heat duty between two workflows, ṁh and ṁc are the hot stream and the cold stream mass flow rate, Cp,h and Cp,c are the
hot stream and cold stream heat capacity, Th,i and Tc,i are the inlet hot and cold stream temperatures, Th,o and Tc,o are outlet hot and
cold stream temperatures.
The logarithmic mean temperature difference (ΔTlm ) of the heat exchanger expressed as follows:
( ) ( )
Th,i − Tc,o − Th,o − Tc,i
ΔTlm = ( ) (4)
(Th,i − Tc,o )
ln T − T
( h,o c,i )

The heat exchanger design equation is generally used to estimate the required heat transfer surface area as follows:
Q = Uo AFt ΔTlm (5)

where A is the required heat exchanger area, Ft is the correction factor. In multiple flow heat exchangers, Ft is generally required to be
above 0.8. Note that this study is limited to 1-1 and 1–2 STHE pass configurations.
The following is the relevant equation for the correction factor Ft of the 1–2 shell and tube heat exchanger in this study:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ [( )/( )]
R2 + 1ln 1 − P1,2 1 − RP1,2
Ft = {[ ( √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ )]} for R ∕
=1 (6)
2− P1,2 R+1− R2 +1
(R − 1)ln [ ( √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ )]
2
2− P1,2 R+1+ R +1

√̅̅̅
2P
Ft = { 1,2 √̅̅ } for R = 1 (7)
( ) [2− P1,2 (2− 2 )]
1 − P1,2 ln 2− P 2+√̅̅2
[ 1,2 ( )]

where P1,2 is the thermal effectiveness of each 1–2 shell in the series, which can be expressed by the following equations (8) and (9). R
is the heat capacity ratio, as expressed by the following equation (10).
( 1−RP
)N1
1− s

P1,2 = 1− P
( 1− ) 1 for R ∕
=1 (8)
RP N
R− 1− P
s

P
P1,2 = for R = 1 (9)
P − Ns P + Ns

where Ns is the number of heat exchangers, P is the thermal effectiveness. The equation for heat capacity ratio (R) and thermal
effectiveness (P) mentioned above are as follows:
Cpc Thi − Tho
R= = (10)
Cph Tco − Tci

3
L.-Y. Chen et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 37 (2022) 102163

Table 1
Colburn factor j coefficient [14].

Tube Layout Res a1 a2 a3 a4 b1 b2 b3 b4

4 5
30 ◦
10 –10 0.321 − 0.388 1.45 0.519 0.372 − 0.123 7.0 0.5
103–104 0.321 − 0.388 0.486 − 0.152
102–103 0.593 − 0.477 4.57 − 0.476
101–102 1.36 − 0.657 45.1 − 0.973
<10 1.4 − 0.667 48.0 − 1.0
45◦ 104–105 0.37 − 0.396 1.93 0.5 0.303 − 0.126 6.59 0.52
103–104 0.37 − 0.396 0.333 − 0.136
102–103 0.73 − 0.5 3.50 − 0.476
101–102 0.498 − 0.656 26.2 − 0.913
<10 1.55 − 0.667 32.0 − 1.0
90◦ 104–105 0.37 − 0.395 1.187 0.37 0.391 − 0.148 6.3 0.378
103–104 0.107 − 0.266 0.0815 0.022
102–103 0.408 − 0.46 6.09 − 0.602
101–102 0.9 − 0.631 32.1 − 0.963
<10 0.97 − 0.667 35.0 − 1.0

Tco − Tci
P= (11)
Thi − Tci

2.2. Mathematical design method of heat exchanger

The method [2] is based on the stream analysis method used by [27,28]. [2] uses the data obtained from a series of experiments to
consider both bypass and leakage. According to [29]; the segmental baffle is used in STHE. Therefore, the factors affecting the flow
field, such as the size of the baffle cut, the baffle spacing, and other various factors, are integrated and added to the correction factor.
Finally, a method for measuring the heat transfer coefficient and the pressure drop in the shell side is explicitly designed for the
Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Associaation (TEMA), generally called the Bell-Delaware method.

2.2.1. Shell side heat transfer calculation

By knowing the corresponding flow area and flow resistance, the flow fraction of each stream can be obtained. Then the ideal heat
transfer coefficient can be modified for the existence of every stream through the correction factor Ft . [30] proposed the shell side heat
transfer coefficient hs for the E type STHE, as follows:
hs = hid Jc Jl Jb Js Jr (12)

where hid is the ideal heat transfer coefficient of pure cross-flow (stream B) at the center of the shell. Jc is the correction coefficient for
the distance between the baffle cut and the baffle and considers heat transfer into the window zone. Jl is the baffle leakage correction
coefficient and considers the shell-to-baffle leakage (stream E) and the tube-to-baffle hole leakage (stream A). Jb is the correction
coefficient of the split flow between the tube bundle and the shell (stream C) and the split flow between the tube and the cross-flow
placed baffle (stream F), and consider the number of side sealing strips in the split flow. Js is the correction coefficient for the distance
between the entrance and the exit baffle. Jr is the correction coefficient of the adverse temperature gradient at low Reynolds number
laminar flow.
The ideal heat transfer coefficient hid of the pure cross-flow (stream B) in the center of the shell side is as follows:

(13)
− 2
hid = jGs Cps Prs 3

where j is the Colburn factor, Cps is the shell-side heat capacity, Gs is the shell-side mass velocity, Prs is the shell side Prandtl number.
The relation expression of j, Gs is as follows:
( )a
1.33
j = a1 *
Res a2 (14)
Pt

ṁs
Gs = (15)
Ao,cr

where Res is the shell side Reynolds number, Pt * is the tube pitch ratio, ṁs is the shell-side mass flowrate, Ao,cr is the cross-flow section
at or near the shell centerline for one cross-flow section. a1 , a2 , a3 , and a4 can be obtained in Table 1, and the related expressions of Res ,
a and Ao,cr are as follows:
a3
a= (16)
1 + 0.14Res a4

ṁs do Gs do
Res = = (17)
μs Ao,cr μs

4
L.-Y. Chen et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 37 (2022) 102163

[ ]
Dctl
Ao,cr = Lb,c (Ds − Dotl ) + (Xt − do ) (18)
Xt

where Lb,c is the baffle spacing at the center, Ds is the shell diameter, Dotl is the tube bundle outer diameter, Dctl is a specified diameter
of the circle through the centers of the outermost tubes, Xt is the transverse tube pitch. The details of baffle geometry can be found in
the literature [26,31].
The relation between the correction coefficient Jc of the baffle cut and the baffle spacing is as follows:
Jc = 0.55 + 0.72Fc (19)

where Fc defined as the fraction of all the tube bundles in the cross-flow section.
The relation between the correction coefficient Jl of the shell-to-baffle leakage (stream E) and the tube-to-baffle hole leakage
(stream A) is as follows:
Jl = 0.44(1 − rs ) + [1 − 0.44(1 − rs )]exp( − 2.2rlm ) (20)

where rs and rlm are formulated as follows:

Ao,sb
rs = (21)
Ao,sb + Ao,tb

Ao,sb + Ao,tb
rlm = (22)
Ao,cr

where Ao,sb is the shell-to-baffle leakage area, Ao,tb is the tube-to-baffle leakage area.
The relation between the correction coefficient Jb of the tube bundle-to-shell bypass (stream C) and tube pass partition bypass
(stream F) is as follows:
⎧
⎪ + 1
⎪
⎨ 1 for Nss ≥
2
Jb = ( [ ]) (23)
⎪
⎩ exp − Cbp Fbp 1 − (2Nss + )1/3 for Nss + < 1
⎪
2

where Fbp is for a fraction of cross-flow area available for flow bypass and the relation between Cbp , Fbp , and Nss + is as follows:
{
1.35 for Res ≤ 100
Cbp = (24)
1.25 for Res > 100
( )
Lbc Ds − Dotl + 0.5Np wp
Fbp = (25)
Ao,cr

Nss
Nss + = (26)
Nr,cc

Ds (1 − 2lc )
Nr,cc = (27)
Xl

where Np is the number of pass divider lanes, wp is the width of the pass divider lane, Nss is the number of sealing strip pairs, Nr,cc is the
number of tube rows crossed during flow through one cross-flow section, Xl is the longitudinal tube pitch as described by [26].
The following will describe the relationship between the correction coefficient Js for the baffle spacing in the outlet region as
follows:

Nb − 1 + (Li + )(1− n) + (Lo + )(1− n)

Js = (28)
N b − 1 + Li + + Lo +

where Nb is the number of baffles calculated for all the number of cross-flow and window zone, which should be determined from
drawing or direct counting. Otherwise Nb can be expressed by the following equation:
L − Lb,i − Lb,o
Nb = +1 (29)
Lb,c

where L is the tube length, Lb,i is the baffle spacing in the inlet region, Lb,o is the baffle spacing in the outlet region.
Finally, the following will depict the relation equation for the correction coefficient Jr of the adverse temperature gradient at low
Reynolds number laminar flow as follows:

5
L.-Y. Chen et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 37 (2022) 102163

( )0.18
10
Jr = for Res ≤ 20 (30)
Nr,c

( )0.18 ( )[( )0.18 ]

10 20 − Res 10
Jr = + − 1 for20 < Res ≤ 100 (31)
Nr,c 80 Nr,c

Jr = 1for Res > 100 (32)

where Nr,c is the number of effective tube rows crossed during flow through one baffle section. The relation of Nr,c is as follows:
Nr,c = Nr,cc + Nr,cw (33)

where Nr,cw is the number of effective tube rows crossed during flow through one window zone.

2.2.2. Tube side heat transfer calculation

The shell side considers the complex geometric structure and uses many correction factors to correct the shell side heat transfer
coefficient hs . But on the tube side, the structure is much simpler. The following will show the relation of the tube side heat transfer
coefficient ht [32]:
( )0.14
kt μ
ht = 0.023 Prt 1/3 Ret 0.8 (34)
di μw

where kt is the tube-side thermal conductivity, di is the tube inner diameter, Prt is Prandtl number, Ret is the tube-side Reynolds
number, μ is the fluid viscosity at the bulk fluid temperature, μw is the fluid viscosity at the wall. The relation between Prt and Ret is as
follows:
ρt Vt di
Ret = (35)
μt

Cpt μt
Prt = (36)
kt

where ρt is tube-side density, Vt is tube-side velocity, μt is tube-side viscosity, Cpt is tube-side heat capacity. The relation Vt is as
follows:
ntp ṁ
Vt = ( /t ) (37)
Nt π di 2 4 ρt

where ṁt is the tube-side mass flowrate, ntp is number of tube pass.

2.2.3. Shell side pressure drop calculation

The calculation method of the shell side pressure drop is similar to the shell side heat transfer calculation. The Bell-Delaware
method is also used for computation, and a series of correction factors are used for correction. In this method, the pressure drop on
the shell side can be divided into three areas. According to [26]; the relation between the pressure drop on the shell side ΔPs is shown
below:
ΔPs = ΔPio + ΔPcr + ΔPw (38)

where ΔPio is the pressure drop in the inlet and outlet sections, ΔPcr is the pressure drop in the cross-flow section, ΔPw is the pressure
drop in the window area. The relation between ΔPio , ΔPcr , and ΔPw are as follow:
( )
Nr,cw
ΔPio = 2ΔPb,id 1 + ζζ (39)
Nr,cc b s

ΔPcr = (Nb − 1)ΔPb,id ζb ζl (40)

ΔPw = Nb ΔPw,id ζl (41)

where ΔPb,id is the ideal pressure drop in the cross-flow section, ζb is the correction factor for stream C and stream F, ζs is the correction
factor of the baffle spacing in the inlet and outlet region and in the central region. ζl is the correction factor of the tube-to-baffle and
shell-to-baffle leakage (stream A and stream E). ΔPw,id is the ideal pressure drop in the window area. The relations of ΔPb,id , ζb , ζs , ζl ,
and ΔPw,id are in the following order:

6
L.-Y. Chen et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 37 (2022) 102163

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of STHE operation.

4f id Gs 2 Nr,cc
ΔPb,id = (42)
2ρs
⎧
⎪ + 1
⎪
⎨ 1 for Nss ≥
2
ζb = ( [ ]) (43)
⎪
⎩ exp − Dbp Fbp 1 − (2Nss + )1/3 for Nss + < 1
⎪
2
( )2− n
′ ( )2− n
′
Lb,c Lb,c
ζs = + (44)
Lb,o Lb,i

ζl = exp[ − 1.33(1 + rs )rlm z ] (45)

where f id is the ideal Fanning friction factor, ρs is shell-side density.

2.2.4. Tube side pressure drop calculation

The tube side pressure drop is similar to the tube side heat transfer calculation, and the structure is more straightforward than the
shell side. The following will show the relationship between the tube side pressure drop coefficient ΔPt [32]:
( )
4fL ρt Vt
ΔPt = ntp + 2.5 (46)
di 2

where f is the friction factor. As the preferred Ret is in turbulent region, f is defined as follows [32]:

f = 0.046Ret − 0.2
for Ret > 4000 (47)

2.3. Cost estimation

The economic analysis and evaluation of the STHE depend on the structure, different heat exchanger area (size), and various direct
and indirect costs. Fig. 1 shows the schematic diagram of STHE operation with two pumps to feed fluid on both sides. In this study, the
total annual cost is minimized. The cost estimations are detailed below.

2.3.1. STHE cost estimation

According to [33]; the purchased cost of the equipment Cp 0 is expressed using the general equation as follows:

log 10 Cp 0 = K1 + K2 log 10 (A) + K3 [log 10 (A)]2 (48)

where A is the equipment capacity or size. K1 , K2 , and K3 are equipment constants to be calculated.
According to different operating pressure, the equipment designed in this study will have different pressure factors to be
considered. According to [33]; the equipment pressure factor Fp is expressed with the general equation as follows:

log 10 Fp = C1 + C2 log 10 (P) + C3 [log 10 (P)]2 (49)

where P is operating pressure for equipment and the unit is gauge or barg. C1 , C2 , and C3 are the equipment pressure constants to be
calculated.
The material and bare module cost CBM is defined according to the restrictions on the types of materials used in the equipment. The
general equation is expressed as follows:

CBM = Cp 0 FBM = Cp 0 (B1 + B2 FM FP ) (50)

7
L.-Y. Chen et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 37 (2022) 102163

Table 2
STHE bare module cost constant.

K1 K2 K3 C1 C2 C3

4.327 − 0.3030 0.1634 0.03881 − 0.11272 0.08183

B1 B2 FM
1.63 1.66 1 (carbon steel)

Table 3
Centrifugal pump bare module cost constant.

K1 K2 K3 C1 C2 C3

3.3892 0.0536 0.1538 0 0 0

B1 B2 FM
1.89 1.35 1 (carbon steel)

where FBM is the material and bare module factor, FM is the material factor, B1 and B2 is the bare module factor consists of direct and
indirect cost factors.
The heat exchanger design in this study involves a single tube pass and a double tube pass. The fixed tube sheet heat exchanger is
selected to facilitate broader utilization. It is commonly applicable to high temperature and high pressure, simple in structure, and
relatively cheap. According to [33], the constant factor corresponding to equations (48)–(50) are listed and summarized as shown in
Table 2.
K1 , K2 , and K3 are suitable for fixed tube sheet heat exchanger areas in the range of 10–1000 m2 C1 , C2 , and C3 are suitable for an
operating pressure range of 5–140 barg.

2.3.2. Pump cost estimation

The pump type used in this study is the centrifugal pump to transport the working fluid on the shell and tube side of the STHE. The
centrifugal pump has the characteristic of a significant delivery rate and low price. Because the operating fluid viscosity in the case
study is not high, these conditions are within the applicable range. The cost estimate of this equipment is roughly the same as that of
the heat exchanger. Still, equation (48) is slightly rewritten due to the different operating units, and the other related equations are
listed as follows:
( ) [ ( )]2
log 10 Cp 0 = K1 + K2 log 10 Wpump + K3 log 10 Wpump (51)

9.8 × Q × H × ρ P×Q P × ṁ
Wpump = = = (52)
η η η×ρ

where Wpump is the pump power, Q is the volume flow rate, H is the head， η is the pump efficiency. In this study, η is set to 0.8.
Similarly, according to [33], the constant factors correspond to the centrifugal pump required by equation (50)–(52) are listed in
Table 3.
K1 , K2 , and K3 are suitable for centrifugal pump operating power in the range 1–300 kW, C1 , C2 , and C3 are suitable for operating
pressure range of <10 barg.

2.3.3. Operating cost estimation

In this study, the operating cost considered is the electricity cost to drive the centrifugal pump. According to the official website of
Taiwan Power Company [34], the average price of industrial electricity in Taiwan is 2.4492 NTD/kWh, where 1 unit = 1000 Wh, or
2449.2 NTD/Wh. The exchange rate of U.S. Dollar to Taiwan Dollar is assumed to be 1:30.156 in a day of 2020. The fluid cost is not
considered in this study. The mathematical expression of energy cost ec and operating cost OC are as follows:
2.4492 NTD 1$ $
ec = × ≅ 0.00008128 (53)
1000 Wh 30.156 NTD Wh

OC = (Ws + Wt ) × op × ec (54)

where Ws and Wt are the work done by the centrifugal pump for the shell and tube side, op is the operating time of the whole year. In
this study, 365 days a year is deducted with 11 days of Taiwan national holidays, and the equipment is operated 24 h a day, so it is
(365 − 11) × 24 = 8496 hr.

2.3.4. Total annual cost estimation

The total annual cost (TAC), including equipment cost CBM and operating cost OC, is expressed as:

i(1 + i)n
(55)
′
IC = CBM
(1 + i)n − 1

8
 L.-Y. Chen et al.
9

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 37 (2022) 102163

Fig. 2. (a) Schematic diagram of steady-state flexibility index [6]; (b) Schematic diagram of vertex method.
L.-Y. Chen et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 37 (2022) 102163

TAC = IC + OC (56)

where CBM includes the heat exchanger in section 2.3.1 and two centrifugal pumps in section 2.3.2, namely CBM = CBM,HE +
′ ′ ′

2CBM,pump . i is the annual interest rate set to 5%. n is the service life set to 20 years. IC is the equipment cost including interest in
′

$/year.

2.4. Steady-state flexibility index model

[20,21] first define the steady-state flexibility index. Then [35] proposed the basic framework of the flexibility index model. To
clearly understand the steady-state flexibility index, it is important to first introduce the definition of the following two sets:
I = {i| i is the label of an equality constraint} (57)

J = {j| j is the label of an inequality constraint} (58)

The general design model can be expressed according to the following equation:
hi (d, z, x, θ) = 0, ∀i ∈ I (59)

gj (d, z, x, θ) ≤ 0, ∀j ∈ J (60)

where hi is the ith equality constraint in the design model, such as the mass or energy balance equation in the steady-state process unit.
gj is the jth inequality constraint in the design model, such as the upper and lower constraint of operating flow or temperature.
Equations 59 and 60 can represent all of the equations as mentioned previously (1)–(56). d is the design variable for all design
specifications, which is the fixed-parameter vector given by design. z is expressed as a vector parameter of the adjustable control
variable. x is the vector parameter of the passively affected state variable. θ is defined as the vector parameter of the uncertain
parameter.
The following mathematical formula can be used to determine the so-called feasibility function ψ(d, θ) expressed as follows:
ψ(d, θ) = minmaxgj (d, z, x, θ) (61)
x,z j∈J

Subject to the constraint of equation (60), it can be noted that the above mathematical formula is intended for a fixed design parameter
(d) and a fixed value of the uncertain parameter (θ). The maximum gj (∀j ∈ J) is achieved by adjusting the control variable (z) and
maintaining hi = 0(∀i ∈ I). For ψ(d, θ) = 0, the system model needs to touch one of the inequalities, that is gj = 0(∃j ∈ J). Any region
with ψ(d, θ) ≤ 0 is a feasible operating region and ψ(d, θ) > 0 is an infeasible operating region.
Because the feasibility function ψ(d, θ) is evaluated based on the fixed range of uncertain parameter θ, it is necessary to
comprehensively consider all of the possible values of all uncertain parameters. Here, the hypercube T in the parameter space is
defined as follows:
{ ⃒ }
T = θ⃒θN − Δθ− ≤ θN ≤ θN + Δθ+ (62)

where θN represent as a vector value of the nominal parameter. Δθ− and Δθ+ are the expected deviation in the negative and positive
directions. Therefore, an additional optimization problem is rigorously formulated as follows:
χ(d) = maxψ(d, θ) (63)
θ∈T

where χ(d) is expressed as the feasibility function on the fixed design variable d in the hypercube T. If χ(d) ≤ 0, the given system is
feasible, otherwise it is not feasible, as shown in Fig. 2(a).
[20,21] introduce the measurement of the maximum tolerance under each uncertain parameter by expanding or contracting the
hypercube T through the scalar variable δ described as follows:
{ ⃒ }
T(δ) = θ⃒θN − δΔθ− ≤ θN ≤ θN + δΔθ+ (64)

where δ is the steady-state flexibility index FIs which is maximized to expand the hypercube T so that χ(d) = 0. The mathematical
formula is expressed:
FIs = maxδ (65)

subject to
χ(d) ≤ 0 (66)

Note that the steady-state flexibility index FIs is maximized to determine the maximum value of δ, ensuring gj ≤ 0(∀j ∈ J) and χ(d) ≤ 0.
A δ ≥ 1 actually implies that the system design is feasible under the constraint of the original equation (62).
There have been several developments [35] for the optimization problem in equations 65 and 66. The model can be significantly

10
L.-Y. Chen et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 37 (2022) 102163

Table 4
STHE design variables.

Traditional design 11 variables Modified design 14 variables

Tube outer diameter, do (m)
Tube wall thickness, Twt(m)
Shell inner diameter, Ds (m)
Baffle cut, Bc (%)
Tube pitch, Pt (m) × (do)
Baffle spacing at the center, Lbc
(m) × (Ds)
Baffle spacing at the inlet and
outlet, Lboi (m) × (Lbc)
Tube-to-baffle diametrical
clearance, δtb (m) × (do)
Shell-to-baffle diametrical
clearance, δsb (m) × (Ds)
Tube bundle outer diameter, Dotl
(m) × (Ds-δsb)
Tube layout pattern (deg)
Tube pass, ntp
Tube length, L or Lass (m)
Number of seal strip pairs, Nss
width of the pass divider lane, wp
(m) × (Ds)
8 values: 0.01587, 0.01905, 0.02222,
0.0254,0.03175, 0.0381, 0.0508, 0.0635
fix value: 0.120 (BWG = 11)
8 values: 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1
4 values: 25, 30, 40, 45
2 values: 1.25, 1.5
8 values: 0.2, 0.25, 0.3, 0.35,0.4, 0.45, 0.5, 0.55
4 values: 1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6
4 values: 0.01, 0.04, 0.07, 0.1
4 values: 0.01, 0.04, 0.07, 0.1
4 values: 0.8, 0.85, 0.9, 0.95
3 values: 30, 45, 90
2 values: 1, 2
Length change with exchanger area
Lass = Areal ÷ (πdo Nt )
fix value: 2
fix value: 0.05
8 values: 0.01587, 0.01905, 0.02222, 0.0254, 0.03175, 0.0381,
0.0508, 0.0635
8 values: 0.0030, 0.0028, 0.0024, 0.0021, 0.0018, 0.0017, 0.0015,
0.0012, 0.0011, 0.0009 (BWG ¼ 11–20)
21 values: 0.3, 0.35, 0.4, 0.45, 0.5, 0.55, 0.6, 0.65, 0.7, 0.75, 0.8,
0.85, 0.9, 0.95, 1, 1.05, 1.1, 1.15, 1.2, 1.25, 1.3
4 values: 25, 30, 40, 45
2 values: 1.25, 1.5
Continuous variables: 0.2–0.55
Continuous variables: 1–1.6
4 values: 0.01, 0.04, 0.07, 0.1
4 values: 0.01, 0.04, 0.07, 0.01
4 values: 0.8, 0.85, 0.9, 0.95
3 values: 30, 45, 90
2 values: 1, 2
5 values: 2.438, 3.048, 3.658, 4.877, 6.096
3 values: 0, 1, 2
fix value: 0.05

s.t.

minTAC Allowed pressure drop ΔP ≤ ΔPmax ΔP ≤ ΔPmax

Percentage increase area Is ≤ 25% Is ≤ 25%
Correction factor X Ft ≥ 0.8
Length to diameter ratio X 5 ≤ L/Ds ≤ 10
Shell side velocity X 0.3 ≤ Vs ≤ 1.0
Tube side velocity X 0.9 ≤ Vt ≤ 2.0

simplified by assuming that the optimal solution is always related to one of the vertices in the hypercube parameter space [19].
Suppose Δθk (∀k ∈ V) is defined as a vector from the nominal point θN to the kth vertex and V is the set of all vertices, then there are
maximum values of δk from θN to all directions of the vertices (Δθk ). The smallest δk from all sets can be deemed as the steady-state
flexibility index FIs , as shown in Fig. 2(b).
The following will introduce the detailed mathematical programming model of the vertex method:

δk = maxδ (67)
x, z,δ

subject to equations 59 and 60, and

θ = θN + δΔθk (68)

From the resulting hypercube space, namely T(θk ) for k ∈ V, it is clear that only the smallest T(θk ) which corresponds to the smallest δk
can be fully described in the feasible region by equations 59 and 60, so:
{ }
FIs = min θk (69)
k∈V

The following are the simple optimization steps of the vertex method:
Step 1: Set the nominal point θN for the system and determine the type of uncertain parameter θ. Consider the coordinate dimension
then set the expected upper and lower constraint of the uncertain parameter Δθk . Determine the control variable of the system and
analyze the system’s feasibility under the available constraints by adjusting the control variable.
Step 2: Solve the optimization problem described by equations 59 and 60 and equations 67 and 68 for each vertex k ∈ V.
Step 3: Use equation (69) to determine FIs of the particular system design parameter d.

3. Optimization strategy of STHE

Traditionally, STHE designs can generally be divided into two types. The first one is heat exchanger size estimation (sizing). Heat
exchanger sizing is implemented under given feed conditions and targets or heat duty conditions to determine the internal geometry of
the heat exchanger that meets the requirements. On the other hand, there is the heat transfer efficiency evaluation (rating). This

11
L.-Y. Chen et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 37 (2022) 102163

approach estimates the state of the operating fluid outlet under the given conditions of the internal geometry, heat exchange area, and
heat load of the STHE. In this study, the optimization approach in the traditional literature is improved significantly.

3.1. STHE design consideration

According to [14], STHE design often minimizes the total annual cost (TAC) as the objective function. Although this approach can
achieve the lowest TAC, caveats exist where some operational conditions and constraints are omitted. Consequently, the resulting
STHE design may be too idealistic, far from reality, and with reduced design operability. This study improves the original design
considerations proposed in [14]; as shown in Table 4.
The traditional design variables have covered almost everything for STHE design. Unfortunately, poor STHE design could
potentially occur due to insufficient considerations. Therefore, further considerations at the initial stage of the design are proposed in
this study to improve the traditional design variables shortcomings above. The proposed modifications are marked bold fonts in the
modified design 14 variables column, as shown in Table 4. The reasoning details are elaborated as follows:
1. According to the specifications of [36]; the most common industry standard lengths are 2.438, 3.048, 3.658, 4.877, 6.096 (m), and
96, 120, 144, 192, 240 (inch). The tube standard lengths are considered in the optimization algorithm as discrete design variables
accordingly.
2. Note that for the shell and tube sides of the STHE, the operating fluid flow rate should not be is too fast. Otherwise, it may cause the
internal tubes or other parts to vibrate, which will easily cause friction damage and reduce the service life for a long time. Fouling
will be easier to build up if the flow rate is too slow. Hence the heat transfer coefficient is reduced. Therefore, according to [37]; this
study adds shell-side and tube-side flow rate limiting constraints with the range as: Vs = 0.3–1.0 m/s and Vt = 0.9–2.0 m/s.
3. STHEs generally have a certain ratio in tube length and shell diameter design. A small L/Ds ratio may cause the operating fluid on
the tube side to pass through the short tube too fast. Consequently, the fluid molecules in the tube continuously hit the tube wall,
resulting in uneven fluid distribution and reducing the heat transfer coefficient. A high L/Ds ratio may result in a large deflection
that causes shell deformation due to manufacturing tolerances. Further maintenance may be required, such as lifting operations for
strapping, and will cost more additional materials to assist operations due to structural defects. Therefore, according to [37]; the
operational constraints for L/Ds ratio should be in the range of 5–10.

3.2. Genetic algorithm

In the STHE design, genetic algorithms have been applied for optimization in recent years. [14] use binary-coded genetic algo­
rithms to perform 11 discrete variables to optimize the structure of the STHE. [15] used the statistical software MATLAB genetic
algorithm toolbox to minimize the cost of STHE. These related studies show that the genetic algorithm has the advantages of fast
calculation and good optimization performance. The genetic algorithm simulates the mechanism of competition, survival, elimination,
and reproduction in the natural environment. It can be roughly divided into four steps: initial population, selection, mating, and
mutation, and the new generation will be born. The iteration is repeated until the better candidate with the best trait can be found in
terms of candidate’s fitness value. The details of implementing genetic algorithm for STHE optimization are omitted for brevity as it
can be found easily in literature [14,15].

3.3. Objective function with flexibility analysis

On top of the TAC definition, as shown in equation (56), the fitness function for the genetic algorithm can be modified to incor­
porate the flexibility index term. To achieve consistent evaluation at the same time, the feasibility FIs of the system is integrated with
the total annual cost TAC expressed as follows:

(70)
′
TAC = IC + OC + [10(1 − FIs )OC]

where TAC is the total annual cost with the penalty. IC is the average annual equipment cost with an annual interest rate, as shown in
′

equation (55). OC is the operating cost in equation (54). FIs is the steady-state flexibility index from the vertex method as shown in
equation (69).
The reasoning for equation (70) formulation is that the TAC is defined as equipment cost + operation cost + failed operation cost.
′

Suppose STHE’s FIs are equal to 1. In that case, that means the STHE can meet all the required operating conditions under the given
uncertainty range. No additional cost is necessary to trade off any unexpected offset. On the other hand, if STHE’s FIs is lower than 1,
that means the STHE may fail at some range of uncertainty range to meet the required operating conditions. (1 − FIs ) represents the
degree of failure, and the costs associated with the inability to return to normal would require 10 times the OC price, which is the
penalty function.

3.4. Optimization strategy with flexibility index integration

For comparison purposes, there are several optimization method carried out in this study. The first method is the traditional STHE
TAC optimization based on the improved design variables. The design result is compared with the traditional design strategy [14].
Furthermore, the relevant uncertainty parameters can be introduced into the design strategy, and the flexibility index of the optimal
design can be evaluated.
The following is the detailed design procedure of the first method, which is expressed as follows:
【Step 1】: Establish design variables according to Table 4.

12
L.-Y. Chen et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 37 (2022) 102163

【Step 2】: Set genetic algorithm parameters

【Step 3】: Calculate the heat transfer coefficient on the shell and tube side, hs and ht , respectively
【Step 4】: Calculate the overall heat transfer coefficient Uo
【Step 5】: Calculate the heat duty Q, the logarithmic mean temperature difference ΔTlm , the correction factor Ft
【Step 6】: Calculate the ideal heat transfer area Aideal
【Step 7】: Calculate the actual heat transfer area Areal
【Step 8】: Calculate the pressure drop on the shell side ΔPs and the pressure drop on the tube side ΔPt

Fig. 3. (a) Flexibility analysis computational procedure using vertex method; (b) The computational procedure for optimal STHE design with inherent flexibility.

13
L.-Y. Chen et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 37 (2022) 102163

Table 5
Two case studies for STHE design.

CASE I CASE II

Tube side (Cold fluid) Shell side (Hot fluid) Tube side (Cold fluid) Shell side (Hot fluid)

Fluid Crude oil Heavy gas oil Cooling water Naphtha

Viscosity, N-s/m2 0.00049 0.00032 0.00071 0.00037
Heat capacity, J/kg-K 2679.55 3161.03 4186.8 2646.06
Thermal conductivity, W/m-K 0.1 0.089 0.63 0.11
Density, kg/m3 723 678 1000 656
Flow rate, kg/s 40.85 11.75 67.1 17.5
Temperature, oC 209/- 319/269 25/- 114/40
Fouling resistance, m2- K/W 0.0005 0.0004 0.0002 0.0004
Operating pressure, Pa 8× 105 6× 105 8× 105 7 × 105
Allowable pressure drop, Pa 2 × 104 2 ×1 04 4 × 104 4 ×1 04
Material of construction Carbon steel Carbon steel Carbon steel Carbon steel
Material thermal conductivity, W/m-K 54 54

【Step 9】: Check the design constraints

In this step, design constraints are added to the fitness function of the genetic algorithm. There are mainly the following:
1. Determine whether the ideal heat transfer area Aideal and the actual heat transfer area Areal have converged
Check step 6 and step 7, the tolerance error of ideal heat transfer area Aideal and actual heat transfer area Areal is expressed as
follows:
|Areal − Aideal |
≤ 10− 2
(71)
Aideal

2. Appropriately enlarge the heat exchange area

This consideration follows the same approach by [14].
3. Check pressure drop on the shell side ΔPs and the pressure drop on the tube side ΔPt .
Respectively check whether the pressure drop on the shell side ΔPs and the pressure drop on the tube side ΔPt are below the
maximum tolerance pressure drop ΔPmax, expressed as follows:
ΔP ≤ ΔPmax (72)

4. Determine the L/Ds ratio

As stated previously, to avoid the defects of the equipment structure, the constraint equation of L/Ds ratio is added, and the
constraint is as follows:
L
5≤ ≤ 10 (73)
Ds

5. Ensure the shell side velocity Vs and tube side velocity Vt

The flow velocity on both sides should not be too fast or too slow. Therefore, the flowrate constraints are added, which is expressed
as follows:
(m)
0.3 ≤ Vs ≤ 1.0 (74)
s
(m)
0.9 ≤ Vt ≤ 2.0 (75)
s

【Step 10】: Penalty function for not satisfying the constraints

The fitness value is overridden with an enormous value if the above constraints are not satisfied.
【Step 11】: After optimizing with the genetic algorithm based on TAC (equation (56)) as the fitness function, flexibility analysis is
subsequently implemented for the optimal heat exchanger structure that meets the constraints. The nominal point, control vari­
ables, and expected uncertain variables are set accordingly.
【Step 12】: Compute FIs using vertex method
By adjusting the control variables and utilizing the bisection method, find the value of FIs from the nominal point on all vertices of
the STHE design parameters produced from the genetic algorithm. The operating range is defined with the expected uncertain
parameters range that the STHE can handle under specific ranges of control variables.

14
L.-Y. Chen et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 37 (2022) 102163

Table 6
Optimal STHE design based on TAC objective function.

Design variables CASE I CASE II

Old New Old New

Tube outer diameter, do (m) 0.0635 0.022 0.051 0.022

Tube wall thickness, Twt (m) 0.003 0.001 0.003 0.001
Shell inner diameter, Ds (m) 0.9 0.65 0.9 0.8
Baffle cut, Bc (%) 25 40 45 30
Tube pitch, Pt (m) × (Ds) 1.5 1.25 1.25 1.25
Baffle spacing at the centre, Lbc (m) × (Ds) 0.2 0.2545 0.2 0.3189
Baffle spacing at the inlet and outlet, Lboi (m) × (Lbc) 1.0 1.2917 1.4 1.4117
Tube-to-baffle diametrical clearance, δtb (m) × (do) 0.1 0.04 0.01 0.1
Shell-to-baffle diametrical clearance, δsb (m) × (Ds) 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01
Tube bundle outer diameter, Dotl (m) × (Ds-δsb) 0.8 0.9 0.95 0.85
Tube layout pattern (deg) 30 45 45 30
Tube pass, ntp 2 2 2 2
Tube length, L or Lass (m) 15.90 6.096 10.70 6.096
Number of seal strip pairs, Nss 2 1 2 1

Table 7
Cost breakdown for optimal STHE design based on TAC objective function.

Results CASE I CASE II

Old New Old New

Overall heat transfer coefficient, Uo (W/m2-K) 197.49 209.26 328.20 327.40

Correction factor, Ft 0.97 0.97 0.94 0.94
Total surface area, A (m2) 126.87 120.43 346.30 203.83
Pressure drop on shell side, ΔPs (Pa) 1304.14 1143.21 1969.84 1326.60
Pressure drop on tube side, ΔPt (Pa) 6058.65 8873.34 5503.32 9713.46
Operating cost, OC ($/year) 47,955.71 47,955.71 58,920.80 58,920.80
Equipment cost including interest for shell side pump, ICs,pump ($/year) 1722.95 1722.95 2371.36 2371.36
Equipment cost including interest for tube side pump, ICt,pump ($/year) 3562.69 3562.69 3645.04 3645.04
Equipment cost including interest for shall and tube heat exchanger, ICHE ($/year) 10,339.35 10,136.16 12,566.71 12,585.97
Total equipment cost including interest, IC ($/year) 15,624.98 15,421.79 23,255.45 18,602.37
Percentage increase area, Is (%) 21.96 24.70 24.75 24.97
Shell side velocity, Vs (m/s) 0.24 0.43 0.53 0.41
Tube side velocity, Vt (m/s) 1.09 1.30 0.72 0.96
L/Ds 17.67 9.37 11.89 7.62
Total annual cost, TAC ($/year) 63,580.69 63,377.50 77,503.90 77,523.17

The first method is implemented for sequential optimization with genetic algorithm and flexibility analysis. Similarly, as the second
method, simultaneous optimization using genetic algorithm with embedded flexibility analysis can be formulated accordingly.
The modified steps for the second method are as follows:
【Step 13】: Replace Step 11 and use equation (70) as the fitness function to find penalized TAC for each design candidate.
′

Fig. 3(a) is a schematic diagram of the operation flow of flexibility analysis using the vertex method.
【Step 14】: Find the maximum annual total cost with penalized TAC for a given structure of STHE
′

By using the vertex method and adjusting the control variable, the FIs from each vertex can be measured from equation (70) to
obtain the total annual cost with penalized TAC . The maximum TAC among all vertices is considered from the most conservative
′ ′

point of view, representing the worst state condition, as the final result of this step.
【Step 15】: Return TAC to the genetic algorithm
′

Since the design calculation process has two layers, the outer genetic algorithm is to find the minimum value of TAC for STHE with
′

the minimum cost among various geometric structures generated from the genetic algorithm. The inner layer uses flexibility
analysis to find the maximum TAC from all the vertices of the STHE structure design by using the vertex method. Finally, the results
′

are sent to the outer genetic algorithm for fitness value evaluation. In other words, different structure of STHE is compared in term
of conservative TAC s for to find the best solution with minimum cost.
′

【Step 16】: When the genetic algorithm termination condition is met, the overall computational procedure of STHE design is
completed.
The complete design procedure is depicted in Fig. 3(b) for clarity.

4. Case study
Two design strategies are elaborated in the case study to highlight the advantages of the proposed design method. The traditional
design strategy is compared in the first part of the case study. The flexibility index’s consideration is included in the design strategy and

15
 L.-Y. Chen et al.
16

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 37 (2022) 102163

Fig. 4. Optimization profiles for New Case 1 (a) Objective function value and (b) 14 variables of interest.
 L.-Y. Chen et al.
17

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 37 (2022) 102163

Fig. 5. Objective function profiles for New Case 2 (a) Objective function value and (b) 14 variables of interest.
L.-Y. Chen et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 37 (2022) 102163

Table 8
Relevant parameters for the flexibility analysis of STHE design.

Setting parameters CASE I CASE II

Upper bound Lower bound Upper bound Lower bound

Uncertain parameter for Tci, θTci 209 + 2 ◦ C 209-4 ◦ C 25 + 5 ◦ C 25-2 ◦ C

Uncertain parameter for Thi, θThi 319 + 8 ◦ C 319-5 ◦ C 114 + 10 ◦ C 114-10 ◦ C
Control variable for mc, zmc 150 kg/s X 150 kg/s x
Control variable for Vt, zVt Vt = 2.0 m/s Vt = 0.9 m/s Vt = 2.0 m/s Vt = 0.9 m/s

Table 9
The physical upper and lower bound of cold and hot fluid inlet temperatures.

CASE I CASE II

Tube side (Cold fluid) Shell side (Hot fluid) Tube side (Cold fluid) Shell side (Hot fluid)

Fluid Crude oil Heavy gas oil Cooling water Naphtha

Temperature range, oC 180 ≤ Tci ≤ 230 300 ≤ Thi ≤ 350 15 ≤ Tci ≤ 30 90 ≤ Thi ≤ 140

discussed in the latter part of the case study. In addition, the computer resources used for the computational works in this study is
Intel® Core™ i7-8700 CPU @ 4.60 GHz, 64 GB RAM, Windows 10 64 bit, and MATLAB version 2018a. The MATLAB’s built-in GA
Toolbox is used for genetic algorithm. The source codes for the case studies are available upon request.

4.1. STHE TAC optimization

In this study, there are two cases for comparison of TAC optimization. The parameter properties of the were taken from [38]; as
shown in Table 5. The design goal of the two cases is to achieve the heat outlet temperature marked in red in Table 5. It is necessary to
design a low-cost STHE structure based on the remaining parameters in Table 5. Accordingly, by following Steps 1 to 11, the optimal
STHE design can be summarized in Table 6. The costs breakdown is shown in Table 7. The optimization profiles are shown in Figs. 4
and 5.
Note that the old results correspond to the traditional design parameters proposed in [14]. On the other hand, the new results
correspond to the modified design parameters described in Table 4. It can be observed from Table 5 that in the two cases, the operating
fluid flow and operating pressure are fixed. Therefore the operating cost OC and the annual cost of pump equipment ICpump are the
same for both old and new results. The only difference in cost is on the STHE annual cost ICHE. In Case 1, the total annual cost of the
traditional design TAC = 63,580.69 $/year and the total annual cost with the modified design parameters TAC = 63,377.50 $/year
with the difference is about 0.32%. in Case 2, the annual total cost of traditional design TAC = 77,503.90 $/year, and TAC = 77,523.17
$/year for the modified one with 0.025% difference. However, in the traditional approach, since there are no restrictions on the fluid
flow rate V and L/Ds as described previously, design defects are identified and shown in red in Table 7. For Case 1, the shell side flow
rate Vs = 0.24 m/s is lower than the acceptable range Vs = 0.3–1.0 m/s [37], which will cause fouling to be easily generated and reduce
heat transfer efficiency. Moreover, the L/Ds = 17.67 is greater than the range proposed by [37]; L/Ds = 5–10. The old STHE design will
be easy to deform due to manufacturing tolerances. Potentially, additional auxiliary operation costs may be required with the old STHE
design. The same issues are also found in Case 2, as shown in red in Table 7. The tube side flow velocity Vt = 0.72 m/s is less than the
acceptable range Vt = 0.9–2.0 m/s [37]. Note that the total annual cost (TAC) is not much different. Moreover, optimality of the results
are validated through Figs. 4 and 5 for both cases with the new 14 design variables, where the objective function profiles are flat at the
end of the optimization run (i.e., no better solution found after several generations). The optimization campaign is carried out several
times sequentially to increase the randomness of GA procedure and to avoid locality of the optimal results. Still, the optimization
results of the new modified parameters are more tractable and operable than the ones from the traditional design approach. With more
rigorous operational constraints, the resulting STHE designs can avoid some structural problems and improve the STHE design quality
as required in the actual industry.
Based on the optimal STHE designs from the old and new approaches, Steps 11 and 12 can be implemented by considering the
following parameters shown in Table 8, where θTci and θThi are the uncertain cold fluid inlet temperature and the uncertain hot fluid
inlet temperature. The uncertainty deviation values of the two cases are shown in Table 9. Note that zmc is the controllable cold fluid
mass flowrate to achieve the control objective with the assumed flowrate limit. The zVt velocity is also constrained with Vt = 0.9–2.0
m/s to protect the equipment lifetime. Furthermore, because the STHE will have external limitations in addition to the expected range
of uncertainty, it is expressed as follows:

θmin ≤ θN − δΔθ− ≤ θN ≤ θN + δΔθ+ ≤ θmax (76)

where θmin and θmax are the minimum and the maximum limits of the tolerance values. It can be noted that θ− and θ+ indicate the range
of uncertain parameters, and θmin and θmax are the corresponding physical upper and the lower bounds.
The flexibility analysis results of both old and new designs are shown in Fig. 6. According to equation (76), this study assumes that
the cold and the hot fluid inlet temperatures can be changed through the additional heating network, but the minimum temperature
θmin and the maximum θmax are constrained based on the following Table 9.

18
L.-Y. Chen et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 37 (2022) 102163
Fig. 6. Flexibility analysis results of (a) Case 1 and (b) Case 2.
19
L.-Y. Chen et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 37 (2022) 102163

Table 10
Cost breakdown for Case 1 and Case 2 with flexibility analysis.

Results CASE I CASE II

NO FIs Add FIs NO FIs Add FIs

Overall heat transfer coefficient, Uo (W/m2-K) 209.26 209.26 327.40 327.40

Correction factor, Ft 0.97 0.97 0.94 0.94
Total surface area, A (m2) 120.43 120.43 203.83 203.83
Pressure drop on shell side, ΔPs (Pa) 1143.21 1143.21 1326.60 1326.60
Pressure drop on tube side, ΔPt (Pa) 8873.34 8873.34 9713.46 9713.46
The most conservative operating cost, OC ($/year) 47,955.71 68,676.52 58,920.80 102,784.62
OC + OCpenalty X 581,446.13 x 818,533.28
Equipment cost including interest for shell side pump, ICs,pump ($/year) 1722.95 1722.95 2371.36 2371.36
Equipment cost including interest for tube side pump, ICt,pump ($/year) 3562.69 4642.29 3645.04 5857.98
Equipment cost including interest for shall and tube heat exchanger, ICHE ($/year) 10,136.16 10,136.16 12,585.97 12,585.97
Total equipment cost including interest, IC ($/year) 15,421.79 16,501.40 18,602.37 20,815.31
Percentage increase area, Is (%) 24.70 24.70 24.97 24.97
Shell side velocity, Vs (m/s) 0.43 0.43 0.41 0.41
Tube side velocity, Vt (m/s) 1.30 1.30 0.96 0.96
L/Ds 9.37 9.37 7.62 7.62
Total annual cost, TAC ($/year) 63,377.50 x 77,523.17 x
Including penalty total annual cost, TAC’ ($/year) X 597,947.52 x 839,348.93

Table 11
Optimal STHE design based on TAC objective function.
′

Design variables CASE I CASE II

Tube outer diameter, do (m) 0.0159 0.0159

Tube wall thickness, Twt (m) 0.0015 0.0030
Shell inner diameter, Ds (m) 0.65 0.75
Baffle cut, Bc (%) 40 45
Tube pitch, Pt (m) × (Ds) 1.25 1.25
Baffle spacing at the centre, Lbc (m) × (Ds) 0.2725 0.5470
Baffle spacing at the inlet and outlet, Lboi (m) × (Lbc) 1.1122 1.0056
Tube-to-baffle diametrical clearance, δtb (m) × (do) 0.01 0.04
Shell-to-baffle diametrical clearance, δsb (m) × (Ds) 0.07 0.07
Tube bundle outer diameter, Dotl (m) × (Ds-δsb) 0.8 0.95
Tube layout pattern (deg) 30 30
Tube pass, ntp 2 2
Tube length, L or Lass (m) 6.096 6.096
Number of seal strip pairs, Nss 2 2

Table 12
Cost breakdown for optimal STHE design based on TAC objective function.
′

Results CASE I CASE II

2
Overall heat transfer coefficient, Uo (W/m -K) 175.58 240.54
Correction factor, Ft 0.97 0.94
Total surface area, A (m2) 145.58 282.05
Pressure drop on shell side, ΔPs (Pa) 1190.44 1177.89
Pressure drop on tube side, ΔPt (Pa) 17,229.30 33,659.04
The most conservative operating cost, OC ($/year) 52,325.62 60,446.99
OC + OCpenalty 501,192.86 630,508.75
Equipment cost including interest for shell side pump, ICs,pump ($/year) 1722.95 2371.36
Equipment cost including interest for tube side pump, ICt,pump ($/year) 3797.03 3726.83
Equipment cost including interest for shall and tube heat exchanger, ICHE ($/year) 10,915.38 14,683.97
Total equipment cost including interest, IC ($/year) 16,435.35 20,782.16
Percentage increase area, Is (%) 22.88 22.10
Shell side velocity, Vs (m/s) 0.38 0.30
Tube side velocity, Vt (m/s) 1.80 1.93
L/Ds 9.38 8.16
Including penalty total annual cost, TAC’ ($/year) 517,628.22 651,290.93

In Fig. 6, FIsk is the value of the flexibility index of the corresponding vertex k. TAC k is the value of the total annual cost with
′

penalty in equation (70). Nominal is the original design nominal point located at the coordinate points (Tci, Thi). zmck is the mass flow
rate of cold fluid at each vertex k and the value is indicated for the required cold fluid mass flow rate to achieve the temperature target
shown in Table 8. Consequently, there are a total of four vertices in FIs and TAC represented by numbers.
′

20
 L.-Y. Chen et al.
21

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 37 (2022) 102163

Fig. 7. Simultaneous optimization with flexibility analysis results of (a) Case 1 and (b) Case 2.
L.-Y. Chen et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 37 (2022) 102163

In addition, the TAC evaluation concept of the four vertices is decribed as follows:
′

Due to the influence of the uncertain parameters of the XY axis, the STHE will adjust the control parameters shown in Table 8 on
four vertices. At the same time the control range is limited as shown in Table 9 to achieve the target Tho. The FIs of the STHE design will
be determined based on the given uncertainty range. The changes of control parameters will be computed into operating cost OC, i.e.,
cooling costs. The four vertices of TAC can be calculated through equation (70).
′

As observed from Fig. 6(a), the third vertex in Case 1 is the worst case, represented in red. Increasing the cold fluid mass flow rate
mc or velocity Vt is necessary when the cold fluid feed temperature Tci and the hot fluid feed temperature Thi both rise. Due to the
constraints shown in Table 8, the control parameters have been adjusted to the upper limit Vt = 2 m/s, that is, mc = 62.56 kg/s, which
renders the flexibility index FIs unable to increase. Showing that FIs < 1 is partially feasible, to make up the failed part of the operation
to succeed, an additional penalty cost of 10 times is required. Therefore the TAC is affected by the penalty value and increased rapidly.
′

A similar explanation applies to the remaining vertices 1, 2, and 4. Note that on the fourth vertex, the STHE can handle such extreme
condition. Therefore FIs > 1 is entirely feasible, and there is no need to spend another 10 times the penalty cost. Hence TAC is not
′

subjected to the penalized condition.

From Fig. 6(b), it can be observed that the third vertex in Case 2 is the worst case. Similar to the situation in Case 1, this is due to the
upper limit of Vt = 2 m/s, that is, mc = 139.75 kg/s. As for Vertices 2 and 4, both have FIs>1, which means that at the two vertices, the
STHE is able to handle the corresponding conditions. The corresponding costs breakdown of both Case 1 and Case 2 is shown in
Table 10. Although modified design variables have been introduced into the optimization strategy, the STHE may not be operable for
all of the given uncertainty range, i.e., FIs = 0.25 and 0,3 for Case 1 and Case 2, respectively. Therefore, a simultaneous design method
with embedded flexibility index to achieve a more flexible design is discussed below.

4.2. STHE TAC’ optimization

Following Steps 13–16, a simultaneous optimization strategy can be implemented according to Fig. 3. In the previous sequential
approach, the STHE structure is optimized before the flexibility analysis to obtain the most conservative TAC . Instead, in the sub­
′

sequent approach, the simultaneous optimization strategy is carried out by directly embedding equation (70) for the genetic algo­
rithm’s fitness function. Each individual generated from the genetic algorithm are evaluated based on equation (70) to find the lowest
conservative TAC among the candidates. Accordingly, the optimal STHE design can be summarized in Table 11. The costs breakdown
′

is shown in Table 12. The simultaneous optimization results with flexibility analysis are shown in Fig. 5.
From Fig. 7, the third vertices in Case 1 and Case 2 are the worst case. Note that the control variable mc ranges are now different
since the corresponding optimal STHE designs are significantly different from the previous sequential approach (see Tables 6 and 11).
Based on the results of Fig. 7, the third vertices are the most conservative point of view. With the simultaneous optimization strategy,
the corresponding TAC of Case 1 and Case 2 are significantly lower than the one with sequential approach (see Tables 10 and 12). In
′

Table 12, the most conservative operating cost OC of the latter method is significantly lower due to the difference in STHE structure.
With such different values of OC, the OC + OCpenalty is consequently affected as part of the total annual cost TAC . Note that the STHE
′

equipment cost ICHE for Case 1 and Case 2 under different approaches are pretty similar. However, the second approach simultaneously
considers the influence of uncertain parameters to determine STHE structure. Consequently, the simultaneous approach can reduce the
corresponding OC + OCpenalty and the tube-side pumping equipment cost ICt, pump, thereby reducing The TAC significantly for the
′

simultaneous method. Depending on the design approach, it can be inferred that with more design parameters optimized at one time,
the better the results of the STHE structure can be obtained. Due to the simultaneous optimization, all possible combinations can be
explored at the most comprehensive level, instead of the sequential approach. Moreover, by considering rigorous operational con­
straints, the operational feasibility is ensured for any STHE designs from the optimization procedure.

5. Conclusions
This study has successfully implemented a set of shell and tube heat exchanger design strategies with a flexibility index to evaluate
the design’s operability from a given uncertainty range. The sequential design approach may result in low TAC. Still, when process
uncertainty is considered, the overall operational costs may tell otherwise. By introducing multilevel optimization with flexibility
analysis, the STHE design and operability issues can be simultaneously addressed to obtain the lowest overall costs. The simultaneous
approach is expected to be adapted further on a larger scale, i.e., heat exchanger network, so that the overall plant performance can be
improved accordingly.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Liang-Yu Chen: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original
draft. Vincentius Surya Kurnia Adi: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Super­
vision, Validation, Writing – review & editing. Rosalia Laxmidewi: Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

22
L.-Y. Chen et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 37 (2022) 102163

Acknowledgments
This work was partially supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under contract no. MOST 106-2221-E-005-
095-, MOST 107-2221-E-005-034-, the 105科技部補助大專校院延攬特殊優秀人才award, and a grant from National Chung-Hsing
University 10617003G 新進教師經費補助.

References
[1] D.Q. Kern, Process Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1950.
[2] K.J. Bell, Final Report of the Cooperative Research Program on Shell-And-Tube Heat Exchangers. University of Delaware Engineering Experiment Station
Bulletin No. 5, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, 1963.
[3] E. Johannessen, L. Nummedal, S. Kjelstrup, Minimizing the entropy production in heat exchange, Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 45 (2002) 2649–2654.
[4] J.M. Ponce-Ortega, M. Serna-González, A. Jiménez-Gutiérrez, Design and optimization of multipass heat exchangers, Chem. Eng. Process: Process Intensif. 47
(2008) 906–913.
[5] A.L.H. Costa, M. Queiroz, Design optimization of shell-and-tube heat exchangers, Appl. Therm. Eng. 28 (2008) 1798–1805.
[6] R.V. Rao, V.K. Patel, Design optimization of shell and tube heat exchangers using swarm optimization algorithms, Proc. IME J. Power Energy 225 (2010)
619–634.
[7] R.V. Rao, V.K. Patel, Multi-objective optimization of heat exchangers using a modified teaching-learning-based optimization algorithm, Appl. Math. Model. 37
(2013) 1147–1162.
[8] V.K. Patel, R.V. Rao, Design optimization of shell-and-tube heat exchanger using particle swarm optimization technique, Appl. Therm. Eng. 30 (2010)
1417–1425.
[9] E.H. de Vasconcelos Segundo, V.C. Mariani, L. dos Santos Coelho, Design of heat exchangers using falcon optimization algorithm, Appl. Therm. Eng. 156 (2019)
119–144.
[10] J.H. Holland, Genetic algorithms, Sci. Am. 267 (1992) 66–72.
[11] R. Eberhart, J. Kennedy, A new optimizer using particle swarm theory, in: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Micro Machine and Human
Science, 1995, pp. 39–43.
[12] R. Storn, K. Price, Differential evolution – a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces, J. Global Optim. 11 (1997) 341–359.
[13] S. Salcedo-Sanz, Modern meta-heuristics based on nonlinear physics processes: a review of models and design procedures, Phys. Rep. 655 (2016) 1–70.
[14] P. Wildi-Tremblay, L. Gosselin, Minimizing shell-and-tube heat exchanger cost with genetic algorithms and considering maintenance, Int. J. Energy Res. 31
(2007) 867–885.
[15] A.C. Caputo, P.M. Pelagagge, P. Salini, Heat exchanger design based on economic optimization, Appl. Therm. Eng. 25 (2008) 1151–1159.
[16] B.D. Raja, R.L. Jhala, V.K. Patel, Many-objective optimization of shell and tube heat exchanger, Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 2 (2017) 87–101.
[17] O.E. Turgut, A novel chaotic manta-ray foraging optimization algorithm for thermo-economic design optimization of an air-fin cooler, SN Appl. Sci. 3 (2021) 3.
[18] F.V. Lima, C. Georgakis, J.F. Smith, P.D. Schnelle, D.R. Vinson, Operability-based Determination of Feasible Control Constraints for Several High-dimensional
Nonsquare Industrial Processes, vol. 56, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2010, pp. 1249–1261.
[19] K.P. Halemane, I.E. Grossmann, Optimal Process Design under Uncertainty, vol. 29, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1983, pp. 425–433.
[20] R.E. Swaney, I.E. Grossmann, An index for operational flexibility in chemical process design, Part I: Formulation and theory. American Institute of Chemical
Engineers 31 (1985) 621–630.
[21] R.E. Swaney, I.E. Grossmann, An index for operational flexibility in chemical process design, Part II: Computational algorithms. American Institute of Chemical
Engineers 31 (1985) 631–641.
[22] I.E. Grossmann, C.A. Floudas, Active constraint strategy for flexibility analysis in chemical processes, Comput. Chem. Eng. 11 (1987) 675–693.
[23] C.T. Chang, B.H. Li, C.W. Liou, Development of a generalized mixed integer nonlinear programming model for assessing and improving the operational
flexibility of water network designs, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48 (2009) 3496–3504.
[24] E. Riyanto, C.T. Chang, A heuristic revamp strategy to improve operational flexibility of water networks based on active constraints, Chem. Eng. Sci. 65 (2010)
2758–2770.
[25] R.K. Shah, Heat exchanger basic design methods, in: S. Kakaç, R.K. Shah, A.E. Bergles (Eds.), Low Reynolds Number Flow Heat Exchangers, Hemisphere,
Washington, DC, 1983, pp. 21–72.
[26] R.K. Shah, D.P. Sekulić, Fundamentals of Heat Exchanger Design, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2003.
[27] T. Tinker, Shell Side Characteristics of Segmentally Baffled Shell-And-Tube Heat Exchangers, Parts I, II, III, General Discussion On Heat Transfer, Institute of
Mechanical Engineers, London, UK, 1951, pp. 89–116.
[28] T. Tinker, Shell side characteristics of shell-and-tube heat exchangers–– a simplified rating system for commercial heat exchangers, Trans. ASME (1958) 36–52.
[29] J.W. Palen, J. Taborek, Solution of shell side flow, pressure drop and heat transfer by stream analysis method, Chem. Eng. Prog. Symp. Ser. 65 (1969) 53–63.
[30] K.J. Bell, Delaware method for shell-side design, in: R.K. Shah, E.C. Subbarao, R.A. Mashelkar (Eds.), Heat Transfer Equipment Design, Hemisphere,
Washington, DC, 1988, pp. 145–166.
[31] J. Taborek, Shell-and-tube heat exchangers: single phase flow, in: G.F. Hewitt (Ed.), Handbook of Heat Exchanger Design, Begell House, NY, 1998.
[32] R. Smith, Chemical Process Design and Integration, John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, UK, 2005.
[33] R. Turton, R.C. Bailie, W.B. Whiting, J.A. Shaeiwitz, D. Bhattacharyya, in: Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes, fourth ed., Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ, 2012.
[34] Taiwan Power Company, 2018年各國平均電價比較, 2019. Retrieved from, https://www.taipower.com.tw/tc/page.aspx?mid=213&cid=351&cchk=1b3221ee-
37c3-4811-9d4d-a1bb215f33c8.
[35] L.T. Biegler, I.E. Grossmann, A.W. Westerberg, Systematic Methods for Chemical Process Design, Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997.
[36] TEMA, in: Standards of the Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association, ninth ed., Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association, Tarrytown, NY, 2007.
[37] J.E. Edwards, Design and Rating of Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers, P&I Design, Teesside, UK, 2008.
[38] R. Mukherjee, Effectively design shell-and-tube heat exchangers, Chem. Eng. Prog. 94 (1998) 21–37.

23