A Novel Sequential Approach for the Design of Heat Exchanger Networks

Frontiers in Chemical Engineering

Caliane B. B. Costa¹  Leandro V. Pavão¹  Mauro A. S. S. Ravagnani¹  Jose A. Caballero² 

[1] Department of Chemical Engineering, Universidade Estadual de Maringa, Maringá, Brazil;Institute of Chemical Process Engineering, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain;

关键词: superstructure;    temperature intervals;    optimization;    MILP-MINLP;    sequential approach;    heat exchanger networks;   

DOI  :  10.3389/fceng.2021.733186

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

This paper presents a new algorithm for the design of heat exchanger networks (HEN) that tries to take advantage of the strengths of the sequential and simultaneous approaches. It is divided into two sequential parts. The first one is an adaptation of the transportation model (TransHEN). It maintains the concept of temperature intervals and considers the possibility of heat transfer between all the hot and cold streams inside those intervals, and at the same time it allows the a priori calculation of the logarithmic mean temperature difference between all possible heat exchanges, and therefore it maintains the area estimation linear in the model. The second step (HENDesign model), uses a superstructure that contains all the possible alternatives in which the matches predicted by the first stage model can exchange heat to design the final heat exchanger network. Unlike the sequential approach, in this model, all heat flows, temperatures, areas, etc. are reoptimized maintaining the set of matches predicted in the first stage. The model is highly nonlinear and nonconvex, however, it is relatively easy to get good results, because the model starts with the values predicted by the TransHEN model. The algorithm has been tested using fifteen benchmark problems commonly used in literature to compare the performance of heat exchanger network algorithms. In eleven out of the fifteen cases present better or equal results than the best ones reported in the open literature. In three the results presented only marginal differences in total annualized cost (lower than 0.5%) and only a difference of 2.4% in the largest one.

【 授权许可】

Unknown