This article was downloaded by: [Dipartmento di Studi E Reicerche]

On: 06 March 2015, At: 07:38

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Heat Transfer Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhte20

Approximate Design and Costing Methods for Heat

Exchangers
a

Geoff F. Hewitt & Simon J. Pugh

Department of Chemical Engineering & Chemical Technology, Imperial College of Science,

Technology & Medicine , London, UK
b

ESDU International plc , London, UK

Published online: 05 Oct 2011.

To cite this article: Geoff F. Hewitt & Simon J. Pugh (2007) Approximate Design and Costing Methods for Heat Exchangers,
Heat Transfer Engineering, 28:2, 76-86, DOI: 10.1080/01457630601023229
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01457630601023229

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Downloaded from http://www.elearnica.ir

Heat Transfer Engineering, 28(2):7686, 2007

C Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
Copyright 
ISSN: 0145-7632 print / 1521-0537 online
DOI: 10.1080/01457630601023229

Approximate Design and Costing

Methods for Heat Exchangers

Downloaded by [Dipartmento di Studi E Reicerche] at 07:38 06 March 2015

GEOFF F. HEWITT
Department of Chemical Engineering & Chemical Technology, Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine,
London, UK

SIMON J. PUGH
ESDU International plc, London, UK

Methodologies for the rapid sizing and costing of heat exchangers have been developed under the aegis of ESDU International
plc, London. This paper is a summary of a group of design guides (referred to as data items) that cover a wide range of heat
exchanger configurations. These data items are aimed at providing rapid selection, sizing, and costing at the process design
stage. For two-stream exchangers, the C value method has been adopted in which the costs are expressed per unit (Q/Tm ),
is the heat load and Tm the mean temperature difference. The development and applications of this method are
where Q
reviewed, with an emphasis on comparisons between various types of exchanger. The nature of variations from the standard
cases considered are also discussed. Though the C value method can be applied to two-stream plate-fin exchangers, such
exchangers often operate with multiple streams. Approximate calculations for the design of such multistream exchangers
can be made using the concept of the volumetric heat transfer coefficient. This methodology can be combined with standard
curves of the cost per unit volume as a function of volume to obtain an approximate costing of such exchangers.

general background that ESDU International plc, in collaboration with heat exchanger manufacturers and under the guidance
of independent committees, embarked upon a series of their data
items on the topic of selection and costing of heat exchangers in
1992.
The first data item in the series [1] presented data allowing
the selection between feasible types and also gave approximate
cost data for the majority of the types considered. Starting in
1994, further data items were issued developing the methodology further for specific heat exchanger types. These further data
items include ones dealing with shell-and-tube exchangers [2],
air-cooled heat exchangers [3], plate-and-frame heat exchangers [4], and plate-fin heat exchangers [5]. Work on the series
is ongoing [6, 7], and ESDU is incorporating the methods into
computer codes for rapid access by process designers.
The objective of the present article is to briefly survey some of
the work that has been done. The data items are quite extensive
and cover more than 200 pages of detailed information. Clearly,
it is impossible to present any more than a brief summary in the
present article, but it is hoped that this will give a feel for the
kind of work being done.
In what follows, a description is given of the initial selection
procedure, and the bases of the methods used for costing to allow

BACKGROUND
The conservation of thermal energy by the use of heat exchangers is of vital importance in any scenario for sustainable
development. The most important step in the design process for
heat exchangers within a process plant occurs at the initial process design stage. At this stage, the fundamental decisions are
made about the incorporation of heat recovery networks within
the process leading to the placement and specification of heat
exchangers. There are many types of heat exchanger available
and, depending on the process, a range of heat exchanger types is
feasible to meet the physical conditions (pressure, temperature,
corrosion resistance, size, etc.) imposed by the process. The designer then has to choose between feasible types; ideally, this
would be done on the basis of cost, but there is often a great deal
of conservatism in industry in choosing heat exchanger types
outside the normal range of experience. However, if approximate cost data are available for all the feasible types, then this
makes the selection process much more focused. It was with this

Address correspondence to Mr. Simon J. Pugh, ESDU International plc, 27

Corsham Street, London, N1 6UA, UK. E-mail: sjpugh@esdu.com

76

G. F. HEWITT AND S. J. PUGH

decisions between feasible types are described. Comparisons in

costs between various forms of heat exchangers are presented,
these cost comparisons being derived from the data obtained.
The effect of variations (e.g., changes in tube material, heat exchanger geometry, etc.) from the standard types used in the initial
selection are discussed. The development of methodologies for
multistream exchangers, which are of increasing importance in
promoting economic heat recovery, are described. Finally, some
brief conclusions are drawn.

Downloaded by [Dipartmento di Studi E Reicerche] at 07:38 06 March 2015

SELECTING FEASIBLE DESIGNS

In any given process, the streams between which heat is to
be exchanged will have specific properties (temperature, pressure, compatibility with construction materials), and a feasible
heat exchanger is one that can meet the requirements to contain the respective streams. In consultation with manufacturers,
the specifications of the capability of various heat exchangers
were collected together and presented in tabular form [1]. A total of 19 alternative heat exchanger types were considered, and
Table 1 is a small section of the table appearing for these various types in ESDU [1]. In this same reference, more detailed
descriptions of the construction, capability, and limitations of
each type were presented. Although this tabulation cannot be
claimed to be totally complete, it certainly covered the most important types. Sometimes, there are no feasible standard types
of heat exchangers that can meet the process requirement; in
this case, special heat exchanger designs must be developed for
the application. However, in most cases, several alternative designs are feasible, and the final selection has to be made between
them. The obvious basis for choice is cost but, far too often, the
selection is made on the basis of tradition within the particular

77

industry. Shell-and-tube type heat exchangers have a reputation

for reliability and flexibility and are the most usual choice. However, other forms of heat exchangers can often be more suitable
for particular applications: for very small duties, the double-pipe
exchanger, which is manufactured from standard components,
may be cheaper, and where sealing gaskets do not give rise
to difficulties, plate-and-frame heat exchangers are often less
expensive.
In many applications, the physical size of a heat exchanger is
important. For a given heat exchanger surface area, shell-andtube exchangers have an order of magnitude larger volume than
do compact exchangers, such as plate-fin exchangers and printed
circuit exchangers. Using more compact exchangers, it is possible, for instance, to use internal reboilers in many distillation
applications. Compact exchangers are also important in cases
where space is at a premium (e.g., in offshore platforms in the
petroleum industry).
Thus, it is important to have cost and geometry data available
in making the all-important initial selection.
COSTING FOR SELECTION BETWEEN
FEASIBLE TYPES
The C Value Method
Conventionally, the approximate costing of heat exchangers
has been done in terms of the cost per unit area. If the overall
and
heat transfer coefficient (U ), heat load of the exchanger ( Q),
mean temperature difference (Tm ) are known, then the area (A)
is calculated simply from:
A=

Q
U Tm

(1)

Table 1 Sample from ESDU [1] tables summarizing characteristics of heat exchanger types (construction material: carbon steel)
Heat exchanger
type

Maximum pressure
(bar, absolute)

Temperature
range ( C)

Fluid
limitation

Normal size ranges

for individual units

Rotary regenerators Near atmospheric

Up to 980

Low-pressure gases

Scraped-surface

10

Up to 300

510 m height, 0.5 m

diameter

Shell-and-tube

300 (shell)

Spiral

18

25 to 600 (lower and

higher with special
materials).
Up to 400

Liquids subject only to

materials of
construction.
Subject only to material
of construction.

Welded-plate

60 (higher in shells)

In excess of 650

Subject only to material

of construction. Often
used for fouling duties.

Subject only to material

of construction. Not
suitable for fouling
duties.

heat transfer engineering

10 to 1000 m2 (per
shellmultiple shells
can be used).
Up to 200 m2

>1000 m2

vol. 28 no. 2 2007

Special features
Inter-stream leakage must
be tolerated
Suitable for viscous and
crystallization systems.
Very adaptable and can be
used for nearly all
applications.
High heat transfer
efficiency. Cylindrical
geometry useful as
integral part of
distillation tower.
Differential pressure
should be less than
30 bar. Differential
expansion should be
borne in mind.

78

G. F. HEWITT AND S. J. PUGH

Downloaded by [Dipartmento di Studi E Reicerche] at 07:38 06 March 2015

However, for various forms of heat exchangers, the definition of area is often complex and, of course, the definition of U
is linked to this. In the Cvalue method (first suggested by He
witt et al. [8]), C is defined as the cost per unit ( Q/T
m ). This
avoids difficulties in defining area and overall coefficient and
allows a direct comparison between heat exchangers in terms
and the available temperature driving force
of the duty ( Q)
(Tm ), which are related to the process specification. In both approaches, care has to be exercised in specifying Tm because this
may depart significantly from its value for pure counter-current
flow.
Figure 1 Relationship between E and NTU with R as a parameter. Shell-andtube heat exchangers with E-type shells and an even number of tube-side passes
[11].

/ Tm
Determination of Q
is readily determined from the enthalpy
The heat load Q
change of either of the streams. For pure counter-flow exchangers with single phase streams of constant specific heat capacity,
the mean temperature difference Tm is equal to the logarithmic
mean temperature difference TL M given by:
Tm = TL M =

(Th,in Tc,out ) (Th,out Tc,in )

h,in Tc,out )
ln (T
(Th,out Tc,in )

(2)

where Th,in and Th,out are the inlet and outlet temperatures of the
hot stream and Tc,in and Tc,out are the inlet and outlet temperatures of the cold stream.
Where there is significant departure from pure countercurrent flow operation, then the mean temperature difference
is given by:
Tm = FTL M

(3)

where F is a correction factor. Extensive information on values

of F for various heat exchanger configurations is given, for instance, by Taborek [9] and Hewitt et al. [10]. Thus, it is possible
to use this information to obtain values of F and hence, calculate

Tm and determine Q/T

m.

An alternative approach to calculating Q/T

m is to use the
relationship between heat exchanger effectiveness (E) and the
number of transfer units (NTU). Effectiveness is defined as
and the maximum feasible
the ratio between the heat load Q
max , the latter being defined as the maximum heat
heat load Q
transfer achieved if the outlet temperature of one of the streams
reaches the inlet temperature of the other stream. The stream
reaching the inlet temperature of the other stream is that with
p , and it follows that
the lowest value of Mc
E=

|Tin Tout |larger

(Th,in Tc,in )

(4)

where |Tin Tout |larger is the larger of the temperature changes

occurring either on the hot side or cold side of the exchanger.
The number of transfer units N T U is defined as:
NTU =

UA
p )smaller
( Mc

(5)

heat transfer engineering

p )smaller is the product of the flow rate ( M)

and the
where ( Mc
specific heat capacity (c p ) of the stream having the lower product
and c p . Defining a parameter R as:
of M
R=

p )smaller
( Mc
,
p )larger
( Mc

(6)

it is possible (for given heat exchanger configuration) to relate E

to NTU and R. ESDU has published extensive plots of this type
[11], and the results are exemplified by those for shell-and-tube
heat exchangers with an E-type shell and an even number of
tube side passes, as shown in Figure 1. Calculating R from Eq.
(6) and E from Eq. (4), the NTU value can be established by the

interpolation of such charts and the value of Q/T

m established
directly from the result as follows:

Q
p )smaller NTU
= UA = ( Mc
Tm

(7)

Basic Information on Heat Transfer Coefficients and Costs

In developing approximate design and costing methods,
ESDU has had the benefit of a large amount of industrial ad
vice and data. Recognizing that Q/T
m is equal to UA, data
are required on overall heat transfer coefficients and costs per
unit area that can be converted to the required form. There is a
long tradition of ascribing standard values to film and overall heat transfer coefficients in heat exchangers, and the ESDU
approach has continued this tradition. At first sight, the tradition seems somewhat illogical, as the heat transfer coefficient
will obviously be strongly related to the available pressure drop.
However, in process specifications, the pressure drop tends to
lie within a restricted range (typically around 1 bar for liquids
and around 1% of the gas pressure for gases), which means that
the coefficients encountered are often also in a restricted range.
Thus, from the point of view of approximate design, it is legitimate to take standard values for the coefficients. For tubular
exchangers, the overall film coefficients shown in Table 2 represent the collective judgment of a committee of experts with
long experience in heat exchanger design.
vol. 28 no. 2 2007

G. F. HEWITT AND S. J. PUGH

79

Table 2 Film coefficients, fouling factors and overall film coefficient for tubular exchangers [8]

Downloaded by [Dipartmento di Studi E Reicerche] at 07:38 06 March 2015

Cold side

Low pressure gas, 1 bar

High pressure gas, 20 bar
Process water
Treated cooling water
Low viscosity organic liquid
High viscosity liquid
Condensing steam
Condensing hydrocarbon
Condensing hydrocarbon, 1 bar
Boiling treated water
Boiling organic liquid

Hot side

Film coefficient
W/m2 K (clean)

Fouling factor
Km2 /W

Overall film
coefficient W/m2 K

Film coefficient
W/m2 K (clean)

Fouling factor
Km2 /W

Overall film
coefficient W/m2 K

112
682

5000
1667
210

5676
1667

0.0002
0.0002

0.0002
0.0004
0.0008

0.0003
0.0004

110
600

2500
1000
180

2100
1000

112
682
6000

1667
170
8182
1410
435

0.0002
0.0002
0.0005

0.0004
0.0008
0.0001
0.0002
0.0002

110
600
1500

1000
150
4500
1100
400

For such exchangers, the sum of the reciprocals of the overall

film coefficients is equal to 1/U , allowing U to be determined. A
similar approach has been pursued for the other heat exchanger
geometries covered in the in ESDU studies.
The other constituent information required in establishing C
values is the cost per unit area; the data for this is typified by that
shown in Figures 2 and 3 for shell-and-tube and plate-and-frame
exchangers, respectively.
Again, these data were obtained with the assistance of exchanger manufacturers and are based on actual cost data for a
variety of exchangers.
Using data such as those shown in Table 2 and Figures 2 and
3, it is possible to construct tables of C values for two-stream
exchangers, and these are exemplified by the results shown in
Table 3. Though the values of U that are also tabulated are not
necessary from the point of view of costing, such values are
helpful from the point of view of approximate sizing. The heat

exchanger surface area can be calculated as Q/U

Tm and the
volume of the exchanger estimated if the area per unit volume
is known. Thus, for shell-and-tube exchangers, the surface area
per unit volume is of the order of 50100 m2 /m3 , whereas for
compact exchangers such as plate-fin exchangers, the value is
around 500 m2 /m3 .

COST COMPARISONS USING C VALUE METHOD

Figure 2 Cost per unit area as a function of area for BEM-type shell-and-tube
heat exchangers [2].

Figure 3 Cost per unit area as a function of area for plate-and-frame heat
exchangers [4].

heat transfer engineering

The tables of C values (exemplified by Table 3) can be interpolated logarithmically. Thus, the value of C is given by:



ln(C1 /C2 ) ln[( Q/T

m )/( Q/Tm )1 ]
C = exp ln C1 +
(8)

ln[( Q/T
m )1 /( Q/Tm )2 ]
where C1 and C2 are the C values of the particular hot-side/cold

side fluid pairing at ( Q/T

m )1 and ( Q/Tm )2 , respectively. The
relative cost of one exchanger type against another varies with

( Q/T
m ), as is exemplified by the following values taken for
the case of treated cooling water on the cold-side and a low
viscosity organic fluid on the hot-side.
For small duties, the double-pipe heat exchanger is more economical than the shell-and-tube heat exchanger, reflecting the
ability to mass-produce its components. The reverse is true for
large duties. Over the range shown, the plate-and-frame heat exchanger is notably more economical than the other types, though,
of course, there are potential problems with sealing. A fully
welded plate exchanger, on the other hand, is more expensive
than the tubular types for small duties but less expensive for large
duties. The printed circuit heat exchanger is highly compact and

vol. 28 no. 2 2007

80

G. F. HEWITT AND S. J. PUGH

Table 3 Table of C values and U values for double-pipe exchangers [1]

Hot-side fluid

Q/T
(W/K) Fluid

Downloaded by [Dipartmento di Studi E Reicerche] at 07:38 06 March 2015

1000

5000

Low-pressure
gas (<1 bar)
Medium-pressure
gas (20 bar)
High-pressure
gas (150 bar)
Treated
cooling water
Low-viscosity
hydrocarbon
High-viscosity
hydrocarbon
Boiling
water
Boiling
organic liquid
Low-pressure
gas (<1 bar)
Medium-pressure
gas (20 bar)
High-pressure
gas (150 bar)
Treated cooling
water
Low-viscosity
hydrocarbon
High-viscosity
hydrocarbon
Boiling
water
Boiling organic
liquid

Parameter
U (W/m2 K)
C (/(W/K))
U (W/m2 K)
C (/(W/K))
U (W/m2 K)
C (/(W/K))
U (W/m2 K)
C (/(W/K))
U (W/m2 K)
C (/(W/K))
U (W/m2 K)
C (/(W/K))
U (W/m2 K)
C (/(W/K))
U (W/m2 K)
C (/(W/K))
U (W/m2 K)
C (/(W/K))
U (W/m2 K)
C (/(W/K))
U (W/m2 K)
C (/(W/K))
U (W/m2 K)
C (/(W/K))
U (W/m2 K)
C (/(W/K))
U (W/m2 K)
C (/(W/K))
U (W/m2 K)
C (/(W/K))
U (W/m2 K)
C (/(W/K))

Lowpressure
gas
(<1 bar)

Mediumpressure
gas
(20 bar)

55
4.8
95
3.4
120
2.9
105
2.8
100
2.7
70
4.7
105
3.9
100
4
55
2.16
95
1.5
120
2.05
105
1.4
100
1.45
70
2.4
105
1.4
100
1.45

95
3.8
300
2.5
350
2.9
484
2.5
375
2.5
140
2.5
470
2.5
375
2.5
95
1.26
300
0.86
350
1.1
484
0.75
375
0.8
140
1.66
470
0.9
375
0.8

HighLow
pressure
viscosity
gas
Process hydrocarbon
(150 bar) water
liquid
125
2.9
350
2.9
400
2.9
500
2.9
425
2.9
175
2.9
550
2.9
430
2.9
125
1.1
350
1
400
1.1
500
1
425
1.05
175
1.2
550
1
430
1.05

105
3.8
430
2.5
500
2.9
940
2.5
600
2.5
160
2.5
875
2.5
600
2.5
105
1.23
430
0.76
500
1
940
0.5
600
0.8
160
0.95
875
0.5
600
0.8

becomes relatively more economic at the larger duties; this type

of exchanger can be used effectively where space is at a premium.
In the comparisons shown in Table 4, it is seen that the ratio of
costs for plate-and-frame exchangers to those for shell-and-tube

exchangers has increased with an increasing ( Q/T

m ). This effect is also seen in Figure 4, where comparisons for various duties

100
3.8
375
5
400
2.9
715
2.5
500
2.5
155
2.5
670
2.5
500
2.5
100
1.22
375
0.8
400
1.1
715
0.72
500
0.9
155
1
670
0.6
500
0.9

High
viscosity
Condensing
hydrocarbon Condensing Condensing hydrocarbon
liquid
steam
hydrocarbon with inert gas
65
4.7
120
2.6
150
2.9
145
2.5
130
2.5
85
3.9
140
2.5
130
2.5
65
1.84
120
1.16
150
1.3
145
1
130
1.1
85
2.7
140
1.1
130
1.28

110
2.8
530
2.5
600
2.9
1610
2.5
820
2.5
175
2.5
1435
2.5
820
2.5
110
1.23
530
0.6
600
1
1610
0.4
820
0.5
175
0.82
1435
0.4
820
0.7

100
3.8
390
2.5
420
2.9
765
3.9
525
2.5
155
2.5
725
2.5
525
2.5
100
1.22
390
0.8
420
1.1
765
0.72
525
0.9
155
1.6
725
0.73
525
1

85
3.9
240
2.5
350
2.9
345
2.5
290
2.5
125
2.5
340
2.5
285
2.5
85
3.5
240
0.94
350
1.2
345
0.9
290
1.2
125
1.95
340
0.9
285
1.1

are plotted as a function of plate exchanger surface area. These

comparisons are for stainless steel plate-and-frame exchangers and carbon steel shell-and-tube exchangers. The advantage
of the plate-and-frame exchanger is reduced (particularly for

Table 4 Comparison of various heat exchangers cooling

low-viscosity organic liquid with treated cooling water [1]
C values (/(W/K))
Heat exchanger type

Q/T
m
= 5000 W/K

Q/T
m
= 100,000 W/K

Shell-and-tube
Double-pipe
Plate-and-frame
Printed circuit
Welded plate

0.91
0.72
0.140
2.4
1.0

0.134
0.140
0.045
0.400
0.108

heat transfer engineering

Figure 4 Comparison of costs of stainless steel plate-and-frame heat exchangers and carbon steel shell-and-tube exchangers [2].

vol. 28 no. 2 2007

Downloaded by [Dipartmento di Studi E Reicerche] at 07:38 06 March 2015

G. F. HEWITT AND S. J. PUGH

81

Figure 5 Comparison of costs of stainless steel shell-and-tube exchangers

and stainless steel plate-and-frame exchangers [2, 4].

boiling/condensing duties) at larger surface areas. If, on the other

hand, comparisons are made between stainless steel shell-andtube exchangers and stainless steel plate-and-frame exchangers,
then the latter have a considerable cost advantage over the full
range of sizes, as is shown in Figure 5.

COST VARIATIONS
The numbers given in C value tables exemplified by Table 3
are for standard designs. For example, in the case of the table
for shell-and-tube exchangers, the standard is a fixed tube sheet,
two-pass carbon steel exchanger with a E-type shell (designated BEM in the TEMA [12] standards). Real designs depart,
of course, from these standard configurations, and allowance
must be made for these variations in assessing costs. A simplistic way of doing this is to use fixed multipliers, and this has
been adopted in the ESDU studies where appropriate. Table 5
shows the effect of various changes from the standard design for
plate-and-frame exchangers.
The cost-factor approach leads to serious errors where manufacturing costs are a significant proportion of the total cost. In
this case, the effect of the variation increases with an increasing
surface area. Examples of such variations are shown in Figures
6 and 7, both for the case of shell-and-tube heat exchangers.
In Figure 6, the effect of tube material is shown. For low
surface areas, manufacturing costs represent a bigger proportion
of the total costs, and the cost ratio is lower than the relative cost

Figure 6 Effect of tube material on costs of shell-and-tube heat exchangers

[2]: (a) stainless steel to carbon steel, (b) Monel to carbon steel.

of the tube materials. As the surface area increases, however,

the ratio of costs increases, ultimately asymptoting to a constant
value corresponding to the ratio of tube costs.
The opposite trend is observed when comparing floating head
(AES) and fixed tube sheet (BEM) designs. For small surface
areas, the increased manufacturing costs of a floating head give
a high cost ratio, as shown in Figure 7. However, as the surface
area increases, the additional cost has less of an effect, and the
cost ratio decreases.
The advantage of the now-extensive cost data available in
the ESDU data item series is that cost variation issues can be
quantified more accurately.
MULTISTREAM EXCHANGERS
The use of pinch technology (process integration) techniques
for the optimization of heat exchanger networks has given
an increased emphasis on techniques such as stream splitting
to achieve maximum heat recovery. Making connections between a multiplicity of heat exchangers can be expensive, and
there is a considerable premium on the use of multistream heat
exchangers. Such exchangers are traditionally typified by brazed

Table 5 Effect of various factors on costs of plate-and-frame

exchangers [4]

Change

Factor on
C value

Design pressure increased from 10 to 16 bar

Design pressure increased from 10 to 25 bar
Material changed from AISI 316 stainless steel to titanium
Material changed from AISI 316 to AISI 304 stainless
Gaskets changed from EPDMTM to VitonTM
Plates changed to semi-welded design

1.1
1.4
1.7
0.9
1.5
1.6

heat transfer engineering

Figure 7 Rates of costs of floating head (AES) and fixed tube sheet (BEM)
shell-and-tube exchangers as a function of surface area [2].

vol. 28 no. 2 2007

82

G. F. HEWITT AND S. J. PUGH

methods is an active and advancing field. In the present context,

the objective has been to use the techniques at a rather elementary level to give a structure for approximate process design. For
instance, it has been assumed that single phase streams have a
constant specific heat capacity, and that phase change occurs at
constant temperature. These assumptions can be relaxed in more
advanced methods (see [14, 15]) but simplicity was the order of
the day in the present work.

Downloaded by [Dipartmento di Studi E Reicerche] at 07:38 06 March 2015

Volumetric Heat Transfer Coefficients

If one considers the schematic diagram of a plate-fin heat
exchanger geometry, as illustrated in Figure 9, a volumetric heat
transfer coefficient B may formally be defined such that:
= BV (T1 T2 )
dQ

(8)

is the amount of heat transferred between adjacent

where d Q
streams at temperatures T1 and T2 , respectively, in a volume
V . Volume is defined as:
V = s yz

Figure 8 Typical multistream plate-fin heat exchanger (Courtesy of

ALPEMA, [13]).

aluminum plate-fin exchangers, the type commonly used in the

cryogenic industry in applications such as gas-liquifaction. A
typical plate-fin unit is shown in Figure 8.
A useful source of information on such exchangers is the
standards of the Aluminum Plate Exchangers Manufacturers Association (ALPEMA) [13], from which Figure 8 is taken.
Though multistream exchangers can simplify the problems
of implementing heat exchanger networks and achieve an economy of scale relative to having a number of separate two-stream
exchangers, they do present a challenge in design. There are a
number of commercial computer codes for the design of such
exchangers, such as the MUSE code developed by the Heat
Transfer and Fluid Flow Service (HTFS). These are based on
the detailed integration of local transport equations. However,
there seems to be a dearth of quick design methods for the application at the process design stage. As part of the ESDU development work on selection and costing of heat exchangers, a new
methodology for rapid design evolved. The key feature in the
development of the methodology was the definition of volumetric heat transfer coefficients. These coefficients could be used in
conjunction with the methodology of process integration (pinch
technology) to obtain an estimate of the heat exchanger volume.
Using manufacturers curve of costs per unit volume as a function of volume [5], it is possible to obtain estimates of costs directly. The derivation of volumetric heat transfer coefficients and
the application in the design methodology is described below.
It should be stressed that the use of pinch technology techniques and the associated heat exchanger network optimization
heat transfer engineering

(9)

where s is the distance between the centers of the passages (see

Figure 9), y is the distance along the width of the plate (also
see Figure 9), and z is a distance into the plate parallel with
the streams (i.e., perpendicular to the plane of Figure 9). The
can also be written conventionally in terms of local
value of d Q
area-based heat transfer coefficients as:
= zy
dQ
= zy
dQ

au f 1 + f 1 a f 1 
2
au f 2 + f 2 a f 2 
2

(T1 TW 1 )1

(10)

(TW 2 T2 )2

(11)

= (TW 1 TW 2 )yz/(t p + t f )
dQ
W

(12)

where au f and a f are the unfinned and finned surface areas

per unit area of plate in a given passage, is the conventional
area-based heat transfer coefficient, f the fin efficiency, W the
construction material thermal conductivity, TW the wall temperature, t p the plate thickness (see Figure 9), and t f the mean fin
thickness. Subscripts 1 and 2 refer to the channel carrying the
hot fluid and the channel carrying the cold fluid, respectively
(see Figure 9).

Figure 9 Plate-fin exchanger geometry [5].

vol. 28 no. 2 2007

G. F. HEWITT AND S. J. PUGH

Combining Eqs. (812), the overall volumetric coefficient is

given by:
1
2s
2s
+
=
B
(au f 1 + f 1 a f 1 )1
(au f 2 + f 2 a f 2 )2
+

s(t p + t f )
W

(13)

Downloaded by [Dipartmento di Studi E Reicerche] at 07:38 06 March 2015

It is convenient to define local volumetric coefficients i where

i = 1 or 2 for the respective streams. Thus, 1 and 2 are defined
such that:
s(t p + t f )
1
2s
=
+
(14)
1
(au f 1 + f 1 a f 1 )1
2 W
s(t p + tp )
1
2s
=
+
2
(au f 2 + f 2 a f 2 )2
2 W

(15)

1
1
1
+
=
B
1
2

(16)

and

Although a wide range of fin geometries are possible with platefin heat exchangers, the most common type is the serrated fin, and
a suitable reference geometry would be one with a fin frequency
( f n ) of 708.7 fins/m (18 fins per inch), a fin thickness of 2.032
104 m (0.008 in), a plate gap/fin height (b) of 0.00635 m
(0.25 inches), and a parting sheet thickness (t p ) of 1.5 mm. The
procedure used in ESDU [5] was to estimate typical values of
i for various streams for this reference design (analogous to
the values given for area-based film coefficients in Table 2 for
shell-and-tube heat exchangers). In order to calculate guideline
coefficients, pressure drops of 0.1 bars were assumed for liquid and two-phase streams and 1% of the gas pressure for gas
streams. The fin efficiency was calculated from the equation:
=

tanh m
m

(17)

where m is given by:

m=b


2t f W

(18)

The local film coefficients (1 and 2 ) were calculated using

j factor data given by Taylor [16]; the same source was used
for friction factor data for the calculation of pressure drop. A
standard exchanger length of 6 m was assumed, and W was
taken as 130 W/m K. Using this procedure, the typical values of
shown in Table 6 were obtained.
These can then be used in approximate calculations for twostream exchangers, combining the values for the hot and cold
streams using Eq. (16) to give the relevant value of B. The active
volume (Va ) of the heat exchanger can then be calculated from
the expression:

Q
Va =
BTm

(19)
heat transfer engineering

83

Table 6 Typical values of local volumetric coefficients [5]

(kW/m3 K)
Fluid
Hydrocarbons liquid
Boiling and condensing
Gaseous: low pressure (2 bar)
Gaseous: medium pressure (20 bar)
Air-type (O2 , N2 , etc.)
Liquid
Boiling and condensing
Gaseous: low pressure (2 bar)
Gaseous: medium pressure (20 bar)

1100
1400
80
400
1000
1200
60
300

where Tm can be calculated from Eq. (2) for counter-current

flow or Eq. (3) for exchangers that do not have pure countercurrent flow. The total volume of the exchanger V is then calculated by allowing a nominal 15% extra volume to account for
the headers (i.e., V = 1.15Va ).
Having established the volume, the approximate cost of the
heat exchanger can be determined using manufacturers data for
cost per unit volume as a function of volume. In the specific work
reported by ESDU [5], curves provided by IMI Marston Ltd
were presented that show a decreasing cost per unit volume as
function of volume, with costs for multistream exchangers being
typically 3040% higher than those for two-stream exchangers.
Data can be represented in terms of C values for given values

of Q/T
m , and tables of C values obtained in this way are
presented in ESDU [5].
Method For Multistream Exchangers
The volumetric heat transfer coefficient methodology can be
extended to cover multistream plate-fin exchangers using the
following steps:
1. The stream data are represented in terms of hot and cold composite curves using the pinch analysis method (see Linhoff
and Smith [17] for a detailed description of the methodology).
A typical pair of composite curves is shown in Figure 10 for
the six stream example, which will be presented in more detail below. As will be seen, there is a pinch at which the
minimum temperature difference Tmin is 6 K.
2. The composite curve is divided into zones corresponding to
regions where the hot and cold composite curves are linear, as
exemplified by Figure 10. Each of these zones is then treated
separately.
3. A mean volumetric coefficient for a zone containing n
streams can be estimated from the expression:
n

z
i
Q
Q
=
Bz
i
i =1

(20)

z is the total heat transferred in zone z, Bz the mean

where Q
i the heat lost or gained
volumetric coefficient for the zone, Q
by the ith stream in the zone and i the local volumetric heat
vol. 28 no. 2 2007

84

G. F. HEWITT AND S. J. PUGH

Table 7 Six-stream example: low pressure hydrocarbon gases with
= 80 kW/m3 K
Stream
number

Hot
or cold

p (kW/K)
Mc

Inlet
temperature (K)

Outlet
temperature (K)

H1
H2
H3
C1
C2
C3

Hot
Hot
Hot
Cold
Cold
Cold

10
5
8
15
5
20

300
250
200
90
120
170

150
100
150
130
210
250

Downloaded by [Dipartmento di Studi E Reicerche] at 07:38 06 March 2015

5. The heat exchanger volume corresponding to the zone can

then be calculated using the expression:
Vz =

Figure 10 Composite curves for six-stream example.

transfer coefficient for the ith stream. Obviously, Eq. (20)

reduces to Eq. (16) for the case of a two-stream exchanger.
4. Calculate Tm,z for the zone. Often, multi-stream exchangers operate close to counter-current flow, and Tm,z can be
calculated from Eq. (2) (i.e., as a logarithmic mean temperature difference) using the appropriate end temperatures of
the zone.

z /Tm,z
Q
z

(21)

The total volume V is then calculated (allowing 15% again

for headers) from the expression:
n

V = 1.15
Vz
(22)
i=1

Example of Multistream Calculation

As an example of the methodology described in the previous
section, one may consider the case shown in Table 7.

Figure 11 Network of two-stream exchangers for heat recovery between the hot and cold streams for the six-stream example shown in Table 7. Note: Numbers
in the diagram that are not assigned units are temperatures in C.

heat transfer engineering

vol. 28 no. 2 2007

Downloaded by [Dipartmento di Studi E Reicerche] at 07:38 06 March 2015

G. F. HEWITT AND S. J. PUGH

Here, there are six hydrocarbon gas streams (three hot and
three cold). The composite curves for this example are as shown
in Figure 10. Applying the procedure described above, a total
exchanger volume (V ) of 4.97 m3 is obtained, and using the
manufacturers curves for cost per unit volume as function of
volume, the cost of the multistream exchanger for this duty is
calculated as 95 k. It is interesting to compare the cost of a multistream exchanger with the costs of solving the same problem
using a network of two-stream exchangers. The network can be
developed using the methods of pinch analysis (see Linhoff and
Smith [17]) and is shown using the conventional grid diagram
in Figure 11.
As can be seen, ten two-stream heat exchangers are required.
The estimated cost of the exchangers is around 195 k, more
than double the cost of meeting the required duties in a single
multi-stream exchanger.
CONCLUSIONS
The following main conclusions can be drawn from the studies forming the basis of this article: the provision of information
for selection and budget costing is important for the process designer at the initial stage of design of the process. This is the
crucial stage in achieving the most economic solutions.
The C value method has proved an invaluable tool in the
selection and preliminary costing of heat exchangers, and is
already built into several proprietary computer codes.
The approximate design of multistream exchangers is aided
by using volumetric heat transfer coefficients, and a new methodology for estimating these is presented.
Considerable cost savings can be achieved by using multistream exchangers rather than a multiplicity of two-stream exchangers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Heat Transfer Steering Group of ESDU in advising
on the work described in this present article. They are also extremely grateful for the assistance of various working parties
(drawn mainly from industry) who advised on the work on the
specific heat exchanger types.
NOMENCLATURE
A
a
B
b
C
cp
E

heat transfer projected surface area of heat exchanger,

m2
surface areas between plates per unit area, m2
overall volumetric heat transfer coefficient, W/m3 K
plate gap or fin height, m

cost per unit Q/T

m , /(W/K)
specific heat capacity, J/kgK
thermal effectiveness
heat transfer engineering

F
fn
H
m

M
n
NTU

Q
R
s
T
t f , t p
T
U
V
Va
V
y
z

85

heat transfer correction factor in LMTD method

fin frequency, fins/length
enthalpy, kW
parameter given by Eq. (18)
mass rate of flow, kg/s
number of streams within a zone
number of heat transfer units
rate of heat transfer (heat load) of heat exchanger, W
thermal capacity ratio
element volume depth, m
fluid temperature, C
mean fin and plate thickness, respectively, m
temperature difference, K or C
overall heat transfer coefficient, W/m2 K
total heat exchanger volume, m3
total active heat transfer volume of plate-fin exchanger,
m3
element volume, m3
element width, m
element length, m

Greek Symbols
stream heat transfer coefficient, W/m2 K
film volumetric heat transfer coefficient, W/m3 K
thermal conductivity, W/mK
fin efficiency

Subscripts
c, h
f, u f
in, out
LM
m
max
W
z
1, 2

cold and hot streams, respectively

finned and unfinned surfaces, respectively
inlet and outlet conditions, respectively
logarithmic mean
mean
maximum value
conditions at wall
zone
cold and hot streams, respectively

REFERENCES
[1] ESDU, Selection and Costing of Heat Exchangers, ESDU data
item No. 92013, ESDU International plc, London, UK, 1992.
[2] ESDU, Selection and Costing of Heat Exchangers, Shell-and-Tube
Type, ESDU data item No. 94042, ESDU International plc, London, UK, 1994.
[3] ESDU, Selection and Costing of Heat Exchangers, Air-Cooled
Type, ESDU data item No. 94043, ESDU International plc,
London, UK, 1994.
[4] ESDU, Selection and Costing of Heat Exchangers, Plate-andFrame Type, ESDU data item No. 95007, ESDU International
plc, London, UK, 1995.

vol. 28 no. 2 2007

Downloaded by [Dipartmento di Studi E Reicerche] at 07:38 06 March 2015

86

G. F. HEWITT AND S. J. PUGH

[5] ESDU, Selection and Costing of Heat Exchangers, Plate-Fin Type,

ESDU data item No. 97006, ESDU International plc, London, UK,
1997.
[6] ESDU, Selection and Costing of Heat Exchangers, Spiral-Plate
Type, data item in Preparation, ESDU International plc, London,
UK, 2005.
[7] ESDU, Selection and Costing of Heat Exchangers, Helixchangers,
data item in Preparation, ESDU International plc, London, UK,
2005.
[8] Hewitt, G. F., Guy, A. R., and Marsland, R. H., Heat Transfer
Equipment, in User Guide on Process Integration for the Efficient
Use of Energy, eds. B. Linnhoff, D. W. Townsend, D. Boland, G. F.
Hewitt, B. E. A. Thomas, A. R. Guy, and R. H. Marsland, 1st ed.
rev., IChemE, Rugby, UK, 1982.
[9] Taborek, J., Charts for Mean Temperature Difference in Industrial Heat Exchanger Configurations, in Heat Exchanger Design Handbook, ed. G. F. Hewitt, Begell House, New York,
1994.
[10] Hewitt, G. F., Shires, G. L., and Bott, T. R., Process Heat Transfer,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1994.
[11] ESDU, Design and Performance Evaluation of Heat Exchangers: The EffectivenessNTU Method, Parts 15, ESDU data
item Nos. 98003-98007, ESDU International plc, London, UK,
1998.
[12] TEMA, Standard of Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association, 7th ed. and 8th ed., TEMA, New York, 1988 and
1999.
[13] ALPEMA, The Standards of the Brazed Aluminum Plate-Fin
Heat Exchanger Manufacturers Association, 2nd ed., Available
at: http://www.alpema.org, 2000.
[14] Zhu, X. X., ONeill, B. K., Roach, J. R., and Wood, R.
M., A Method for Automated Heat Exchanger Network Synthesis Using Block Decomposition and Non-Linear Optimization, Trans. IChemE, vol. 73A, pp. 919930, November
1995.
[15] Asante, N. D. K., and Zhu, X. X., An Automated and Interactive
Approach for Heat Exchanger Network Retrofit, Trans. IChemE,
vol. 75A, pp. 349360, March 1997.

heat transfer engineering

[16] Taylor, M. A., Plate-Fin Heat Exchangers: Guide to Their Specification and Use, 1st ed., HTFS, Harwell Laboratory, England,
1987.
[17] Linnhoff, B., and Smith, R., Pinch Analysis for Network Design, Heat Exchanger Design Handbook, ed. G. F. Hewitt, Begell
House, New York, 1994.

Geoff Hewitt is Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering at Imperial College, London. He was formerly the head of the Thermal Hydraulics Division
and founder of the Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow
Service (HTFS) at the Harwell Laboratory of the
UKAEA. He moved to Imperial College (part-time
in 1985 and full-time in 1990) and has continued
to work there on multiphase flow and heat transfer.
He has authored and edited many books (including
Process Heat Transfer in 1994 and Encyclopedia of Heat and Mass Transfer in 1997) and published more than 400 papers and reports, mainly on gasliquid flow and evaporative heat transfer. He is the editor of Multiphase Science and Technology, executive editor of the Heat Exchanger Design Handbook, and one of the founding editors of Heat Transfer Engineering. He is
the recipient of the AIChE Donald Q. Kern Award, ASME Max Jakob Award,
the Nusselt Reynolds Prize, the Luikov Medal, and the IChemE Council and
Armstrong Medals. He has received honorary doctorates at Louvain, UMIST,
and Heriot Watt. He is a fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, fellow
of the Royal Society, and Foreign Associate of the US National Academy of
Engineering.
Simon Pugh is the head of thermofluids at ESDU
International plc of London, UK. His current role includes the management of all ESDUs heat transfer
work, which is undertaken under the guidance of international independent committees of experts from
industry and the universities. He is currently leading
the group of engineers working on the development
of a range of design guides to oil industry fouling
problems and computer programs for better selection,
design, and operation of heat exchangers. He holds a mechanical engineering
degree from Brunel University in UK.

vol. 28 no. 2 2007