Jump to content



Featured Articles

Check out the latest featured articles.

File Library

Check out the latest downloads available in the File Library.

New Article

Product Viscosity vs. Shear

Featured File

Vertical Tank Selection

New Blog Entry

Low Flow in Pipes- posted in Ankur's blog

- - - - -

Comparison Between Aspen Exchanger Design And Rating (Aspen Edr) And H

aspen edr htri exchanger design rating

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
10 replies to this topic
Share this topic:
| More

#1 vijaykale

vijaykale

    Brand New Member

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 04:07 AM

Hi,

 

My employer organisation has recently added Aspen Exchanger Design and Rating (Aspen EDR) ver. 7.3 as new engineering tool for exchanger design. The management claim is that it's an alterative to HTRI and Aspen EDR suffices to produce reliable TEMA datasheets - the ones are good to proceed for 3D modelling.

 

Anybody in the forum having experience of working with HTRI and Aspen EDR both? Please if you can throw some light on comparison between the two and any limitations the programs have. I found integration of Hysys Simulation and Aspen EDR particularly interesting.

 

Looking forward to your expert comments

 

 



#2 Pilesar

Pilesar

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 1,347 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:16 PM

   I use both Aspen EDR and HTRI when designing a shell and tube exchanger in a new service. I currently use AspenPlus to develop my flowsheet and material balances. Aspen EDR has easy-to-use optimization tools which makes quick work to get a design. After I select the TEMA type, diameter, length using EDR, I then use that configuration as a starting point for HTRI. I send the AspenPlus thermodynamic matrix to HTRI by exporting the Cape-Open package.  In HTRI, I tweak baffle spacing and cut, tube size and layout, diameter and length, etc, until I am satisfied that the final design is robust and near optimal.

   I believe and trust HTRI results. I have toured the HTRI working lab and read some of their extensive research work. Since I have both tools available to me and would never believe EDR results over HTRI, I do not normally bother to try to understand the differences between the exact answers from the two packages. Whether there are differences between the results or not, I will side with HTRI.

   For replacement equipment where I have an exchanger already in service, I usually use the existing exchanger as my starting design, I skip the Aspen EDR step and proceed from my AspenPlus results to HTRI for manual optimization.



#3 chinbas

chinbas

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 10 January 2014 - 06:22 AM

Pileser that is also my procedure. But I think I amgoing to use some spreadsheet to calm myself regarding key parameter like film coefficient, overall heat transfer coefficient etc.

EDR has good economic analysis which help me optimize but I trust HTRI then EDR.

Regards

#4 Jiten_process

Jiten_process

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 183 posts

Posted 19 January 2014 - 11:35 PM

couple of more difference as I have recently come across whiling rating oil field steam heat exchanger. 

 

In oil field, steam heat exchanger is typically used to heat crude oil or natural gas. In such application pressures are in range of 10,000 Psig to 15000 Psig. Moreover this are not TEMA type exchanger but a coil type exchanger where process fluid runs through a single coil having 10 to 15 nos. run inside. 

 

I tried to model this particular on EDR. And i got two errors, i am not sure whether its only me who got this error or its  a typical error. but EDR was not taking pressure more than 130barg. It clearly gave me error mentioning this pressure as higher limit which can be calculated. Moreover, tube pass is limited to 8 nos. I know normally TEMA type shell and tube does not need this many passes but HTRI has a capability to take passes upto 16nos.

 

Moreover, tube thickness also has a limitations. I cannot use higher tube thickness in EDR where as in HTRI you can put manually any thickness value and the same will be taken in calculation. 

 

I certainly give more points to HTRI over EDR as I personally could not see any advantage of EDR over HTRI. 

 

This is purely my opinion. 



#5 jcazenave

jcazenave

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • 44 posts

Posted 20 January 2014 - 04:08 AM

Hi

 

I normally stay out of this type of post, but I believe that I can answer when misleading information is posted  ^_^

 

EDR has a maximum pressure  "expected"of 210bar, but can be used for higher pressure

EDR can model more than 16 passes. Some specific designs (modelled with EDR) have more than 24 passes

EDR offers usual tube thickness but you can enter any other values.

 

Kind Regards 



#6 Jiten_process

Jiten_process

    Gold Member

  • ChE Plus Subscriber
  • 183 posts

Posted 22 January 2014 - 04:27 AM

Attached is a snap shot of couple of warnings and error msgs. I got while rating the exchanger with process conditions. To me, warnings create questions on accuracy. The same process conditions when I input in HTRI I got results with no errors. Note that, I was rating an exchanger that means exchanger with specified process conditions and geometry is already existing.

 

I am not here to market any product or spreading negative information either. I just shared my opinion based on my experience.

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • EDR-error-1.jpg
  • EDR-error-2.jpg


#7 jcazenave

jcazenave

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • 44 posts

Posted 24 January 2014 - 03:29 PM

Sorry if you felt that my post wasn't fair. 

 

IMHO, warnings are not there to question accuracy but to ask the user to check their input / results. 

 

In your screen shot the tube OD of 125mm and the pressure of 700 psi are out what I think are "normal" shell & tube configuration. So I dont find it strange to have a warning to ask the user to check their input, but still calculate the results. 

 

I can not comment on the number of passes without the case, but I would advice to contact Aspentech Support because unless it is a "special" configuration you should be able to model more than 16 passes. 

 

Kind Regards



#8 processengbd

processengbd

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 128 posts

Posted 20 April 2014 - 02:14 AM

Dear 

 

   I use both Aspen EDR and HTRI when designing a shell and tube exchanger in a new service. I currently use AspenPlus to develop my flowsheet and material balances. Aspen EDR has easy-to-use optimization tools which makes quick work to get a design. After I select the TEMA type, diameter, length using EDR, I then use that configuration as a starting point for HTRI. I send the AspenPlus thermodynamic matrix to HTRI by exporting the Cape-Open package.  In HTRI, I tweak baffle spacing and cut, tube size and layout, diameter and length, etc, until I am satisfied that the final design is robust and near optimal.

   I believe and trust HTRI results. I have toured the HTRI working lab and read some of their extensive research work. Since I have both tools available to me and would never believe EDR results over HTRI, I do not normally bother to try to understand the differences between the exact answers from the two packages. Whether there are differences between the results or not, I will side with HTRI.

   For replacement equipment where I have an exchanger already in service, I usually use the existing exchanger as my starting design, I skip the Aspen EDR step and proceed from my AspenPlus results to HTRI for manual optimization.

 

Dear  Pilesar

 

Can you please elaborate on the following? 

 

"I select the TEMA type, diameter, length using EDR, I then use that configuration as a starting point for HTRI. I send the AspenPlus thermodynamic matrix to HTRI by exporting the Cape-Open package.  In HTRI, I tweak baffle spacing and cut, tube size and layout, diameter and length, etc, until I am satisfied that the final design is robust and near optimal."

 

Were you able to transfer the geometry of the exchanger from EDR to HTRI? up until now I have been doing this manually. Would you please help me learn the way?

 

Best Regards

processengbd


Edited by processengbd, 20 April 2014 - 02:16 AM.


#9 Pilesar

Pilesar

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 1,347 posts

Posted 20 April 2014 - 08:51 PM

My work process is to electronically transfer only the thermodynamics from AspenPlus to HTRI. Using the EDR geometry results as a go-by is a help to me. I may start by considering the EDR results, but I build the exchanger geometry in HTRI manually step by step. I do not view the need to build the geometry manually as a drawback -- thinking through each HTRI input screen is an important part of my being satisfied with the final design. HTRI is good at calculation, but it is not an experienced engineer to tell me things like "use finned tubes in this application" or "the inlet baffle spacing is not where you think it is". I still tend to spend much more time thinking about and trying to understand the exchanger than performing calculations.



#10 processengbd

processengbd

    Gold Member

  • Members
  • 128 posts

Posted 20 April 2014 - 10:16 PM

May I have the privilege to ask for some guidance or tips or reference you think will be instrumental in designing heat exchanger.

 

Thank you

Best Regards

processengbd



#11 pedrajuan

pedrajuan

    Brand New Member

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 02 May 2014 - 11:30 AM

what is the maximum viscosity edr admits? is it larger than the limit of HTRI?
Thanks






Similar Topics