CHE 482

HW 2

Problem 2

The stream data used in the HEN configurations was collected and summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Stream parameters

Streams Cp Tin [C] Tout [C] Q [kW]

H1 17 250 120 2210
H2 13 205 65 1820
C1 10 40 200 -1600
C2 13 65 180 -1495
C3 13 90 200 -1430

The heat supplied by each stream was calculated as follows:

Q=C p∗(T ¿¿ Out−T ¿ )¿

The problem is solved using Microsoft excel by implementing the same algorithm for all 4 HEN
configurations. The following algorithm was implemented in all 4 HEN configurations:

1. The inlet and outlet temperatures of the streams were configured and unknown stream
temperatures were calculated as follows:
Cp c
H out =H ¿− ∗(C out −C ¿ )
Cp h

Cp h
C out =C ¿− ∗(H ¿−H out )
Cp c
2. The LMTD of the streams was then calculated as follows:

DT 1=H out −C ¿

DT 2=H ¿ −C out

(DT ¿ ¿ 1−DT 2 )
LMTD= ¿
DT 1
ln ( )
DT 2

NB: if DT 1 ≅ DT 2 take LMTD = DT 1

 3. The heat duty of the heat exchanger was then calculated with the corresponding heat exchanger
using the following equations:

Q=Cp c∗(C ¿¿ Out−C ¿ )¿

Q
A=
U∗LMTD∗1000

4. The cost of each heat exchanger was calculated and summed to obtain the total capital cost.

Capital Cost =1456.3∗Area 0.6

5. The operating cost of the heat exchanger using steam as a utility stream was then calculated
assuming an annual of 8400 operational hours.

Utility Cost =ṁsteam∗Cost of Steam∗Operating hours

where ṁ steam was calculated using the following equation:

Q= ṁsteam Cp ∆ T

6. The EAOC was finally calculated and the corresponding EAOC vs DTmin curve was plotted to
determine the optimum configuration.

EAOC=( Utility Cost )+ 0.2∗(Capital Cost of Heat Exchangers )

Calculations and Results for all 4 HEN Configurations obtained using excel are represented in
the appendix below.
I. Configuration 1

Figure 1: HEN Configuration 1

The results obtained for configuration 1 are represented in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Heat Exchanger Calculations for Configuration 1

Table 3: HEN Costs vs variation of Tout for Configuration 1

Figure 2: EAOC vs DTmin for configuration 1

II. Configuration 2

Figure 3: HEN Configuration 2

The results obtained for configuration 2 are represented in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Heat Exchanger Calculations for Configuration 2

Table 5: HEN Costs vs variation of Tout for Configuration 2

Figure 4: EAOC vs DTmin for configuration 2

III. Configuration 3

Figure 5: HEN Configuration 3

The results obtained for configuration 3 are represented in Table 6 below.

Table 6: Heat Exchanger Calculations for Configuration 3

There was a temperature cross in heat exchanger 4 where the outlet temperature of cold stream (Cout =
176.5C) is greater than the inlet temperature of the hot stream (Hin = 170C). This is not allowed in a
heat exchanger and thus no results were obtained. Therefore configuration 3 is not feasible.
IV. Configuration 4

Figure 6: HEN Configuration 4

The results obtained for configuration 4 are represented in Table 7 below.

Table 7: Heat Exchanger Calculations for Configuration 4

There was a temperature cross in heat exchanger 4 where the inlet and outlet temperatures of cold
stream (Cin = 90C, Cout = 161.9C) are greater than that of the hot stream (Hout = 65C, Hin = 1136.9C)
respectively. This is not allowed in a heat exchanger and thus no results were obtained. Therefore
configuration 4 is not feasible.

V. Conclusion

By comparing the results obtained from the 4 HEN configurations, it can be seen that configuration 2 is
the most feasible configuration among the others since it has the lowest EAOC of $ 55730.99

Thus configuration 2 is the most reasonable configuration to proceed with.