Design and Performance Analyses of Condensing Heat Exchangers For Recovering Water and Waste Heat From Flue Gas

Lehigh University
Lehigh Preserve
Theses and Dissertations
2012
Design and Performance Analyses of Condensing

Heat Exchangers for Recovering Water and Waste
Heat from Flue Gas
Nipun Goel
Lehigh University
Follow this and additional works at: http://preserve.lehigh.edu/etd
Recommended Citation
Goel, Nipun, "Design and Performance Analyses of Condensing Heat Exchangers for Recovering Water and Waste Heat from Flue
Gas" (2012). Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1164.
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Lehigh Preserve. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an
authorized administrator of Lehigh Preserve. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Design and Performance Analyses of Condensing Heat Exchangers for Recovering
Water and Waste Heat from Flue Gas
by
Nipun Goel
A Thesis
Presented to the Graduate and Research Committee
Of
Lehigh University
in Candidacy for the Degree of
Master of Science
in
Mechanical Engineering
Lehigh University
May 2012
Copyright
Nipun Goel
II
Approval Sheet
Thesis is accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science
in Mechanical Engineering.
Design and Performance Analyses of Condensing Heat Exchangers for Recovering Water
and Waste Heat from Flue Gas
Nipun Goel
__________________________
Date Approved
________________________
Dr. Edward K. Levy
Thesis Advisor
_______________________
Dr. Gary Harlow
Department Chair Person
III
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Edward Levy and the Energy Research
Center for all the support and encouragement during my graduate studies. Dr. Levy has been
forever inspiring and I look forward to future opportunities of working with him.
I would like to thank Dr. Harun Bilirgen, Mr. Zheng Yao and Mr Joshua Charles of the
Energy Research Center for all their help and guidance. I would like the thank Michael Kessen,
Daniel Hazell and Gordon Jonas for their unlimited help and support in my research. I would like to
extend my thanks to Jodie Johnson and Ursla Levy of the Energy Research Center for their
commitment to make the experience of working at Energy Research Center last for a lifetime.
I would also like to thank Namrata Maski, my family and my friends for believing in me and
their unconditional support throughout the course of my study at Lehigh University.
IV
Table of Contents
Approval Sheet ................................................................................................................................ III

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... IV
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. V
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. VI
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... IX
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 1
Nomenclature .................................................................................................................................. 2
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5
2. Theory ...................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1. Condensing Flue Gas Heat exchanger ................................................................................ 7
2.2. Water‐to‐Water Heat Exchanger ..................................................................................... 15
2.3. Estimation of Cost ............................................................................................................ 21
2.3.1. Capital Cost .............................................................................................................. 21
2.3.2. Operating Cost ......................................................................................................... 22
3. Effects of Operating Conditions ............................................................................................. 24
4. Effect of Tube Diameter on Performance and Cost ............................................................... 27
5. Heat Exchanger Arrangements .............................................................................................. 34
5.1. Heat Exchanger placed Upstream of Wet FGD, Flue gas at 303°F ................................... 34
5.2. Heat Exchanger placed Downstream of Wet FGD, Flue Gas at 135°F .............................45
5.3. Precooled Flue Gas using Water Spray, Flue Gas at 155°F .............................................. 48
5.4. Coupled Heat Exchanger, Flue gas at 135°F..................................................................... 52
5.5. Cascaded Heat Exchanger, Flue Gas at 300°F ‐135°F ....................................................... 62
6. Discussion of Results & Conclusion........................................................................................ 84
7. Assumptions ........................................................................................................................... 87
References ..................................................................................................................................... 89
Appendix A ..................................................................................................................................... 91
Vita ................................................................................................................................................. 96
V
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Typical temperature distributions inside a heat exchanger ............................................. 8
Figure 2 - Thermal resistances between flue gas and cooling water in the absence of condensation
....................................................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 3 - Water-to-Water Heat Exchanger Model ........................................................................ 15
Figure 4 - Shell Side Leakage Streams and Eddy Formation due to Baffles ................................ 20
Figure 5 - Change in Gross Unit Power output with Boiler Feed Water Temperature at exit of Heat
Exchanger (14)............................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 6 - Change in Cycle Heat Rate with Boiler Feed Water Temperature at exit of Heat
Exchanger (14)............................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 7 - Change in Boiler Feed Water Flow Rate with Boiler Feed Water Temperature at exit of
Heat Exchanger ............................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 8 - Impact of Tube Diameter on Total Heat Transfer .......................................................... 29
Figure 9 - Impact of Tube Diameter on Rate of Condensation ...................................................... 29
Figure 10 - Impact of Tube Diameter on Cooling Water Temperature at exit of Heat Exchanger. 30
Figure 11 - Impact of Tube Diameter on Total Annual Cost of Heat Exchanger ........................... 30
Figure 12 - Impact of Diameter on Power Requirements for 20ft long Heat Exchanger ............... 32
Figure 13 - Impact of Diameter on Total Annual cost for 20ft long Heat Exchanger ..................... 33
Figure 14 - Impact of using high temperature BFW on Condensation Efficiency of Heat Exchanger
placed Upstream of Wet FGD ........................................................................................................ 37
Figure 15 - Impact of high temperature BFW on temperature of BFW at the exit of Heat
Exchanger, placed Upstream of Wet FGD..................................................................................... 37
Figure 16 - Impact of high Temperature BFW on Total Annual Cost of Heat Exchanger Placed
Upstream of Wet FGD.................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 17 - Temperature Profiles for subcases with variable BFW inlet temperatures for heat
exchanger upstream of wet FGD ................................................................................................... 40
Figure 18 - Temperature Profiles for Subcases 1-4, Model 1, System without FGD .................... 43
VI
Figure 19 - Cost Benefit Analysis of Heat Exchanger placed before Wet FGD and Boiler
Feedwater extracted before FWH1 (14) ........................................................................................ 44
Figure 20 - Change in Net Power for Heat Exchanger placed before Wet FGD and Boiler
Feedwater extracted before FWH1 (14) ........................................................................................ 44
Figure 21 - Impact of Transverse Pitch on Condensation Efficiency of Heat Exchanger placed
Downstream of Wet FGD ............................................................................................................... 46
Figure 22 - Impact of Transverse Pitch on Temperature of Cooling Water at the Exit of Heat
Exchanger placed Downstream of Wet FGD ................................................................................. 47
Figure 23 - Impact of Transverse Pitch on Total Annual cost of Heat Exchanger placed
Downstream of Wet FGD ............................................................................................................... 47
Figure 24 - Condensation Efficiency for Heat Exchanger with Precooled Flue Gas compared to
UHX and DHX ................................................................................................................................ 50
Figure 25 - Boiler Feedwater Exit Temperature for Heat Exchanger with Precooled Flue Gas
compared to UHX and DHX ........................................................................................................... 51
Figure 26 - Total Annual Cost for Heat Exchanger with Precooled Flue Gas compared to UHX and
DHX ................................................................................................................................................ 51
Figure 27 - Flow diagram for Coupled Heat Exchanger Arrangement .......................................... 53
Figure 28 - Trend for Temperature of Feedwater at the exit of Coupled Heat Exchanger assembly
compared to system using only Boiler Feedwater or only Cooling Water for various Cooling Water
to Flue Gas Mass Flow Rate Ratios .............................................................................................. 57
Figure 29 - Condensation Efficiency for Coupled Heat Exchanger assembly compared to system
using only Boiler Feedwater or only Cooling Water for various Cooling Water to Flue Gas Mass
Flow Rate Ratios ............................................................................................................................ 58
Figure 30 - Total power required for Coupled Heat Exchanger assembly compared to system using
only Boiler Feedwater or only Cooling Water for various Cooling Water to Flue Gas Mass Flow
Rate Ratios .................................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 31 - Impact of cooling water to flue gas mass flow rate ratio on effectiveness of HX2 of
Coupled Heat Exchanger Assembly .............................................................................................. 59
VII
Figure 32 - Impact of Cooling Water to Flue Gas Mass Flow Rate Ratio on Temperature of Cooling
Water at the inlet of HX1 of Coupled Heat Exchanger Assembly .................................................. 60
Figure 33 - Process Flow Diagram for Coupled Heat Exchanger with Cooling Water to Flue Gas
Mass Flow Rate Ratio of 1.0 .......................................................................................................... 61
Figure 34 - Process Flow Diagram for Coupled Heat Exchanger with Cooling Water to Flue Gas
Mass Flow Rate Ratio of 1.5 .......................................................................................................... 61
Figure 35 - Flow Diagram for Cascaded Heat Exchanger Arrangement ....................................... 62
Figure 36 - Trend for Temperature of Boiler Feedwater at the Exit of DHX for various Target
Feedwater Temperatures at the Exit of UHX-DHX Assembly. ...................................................... 64
Figure 37 - Trend for Rate of Condensation in DHX for various Target Boiler Feedwater
Temperatures at the Exit of UHX-DHX Assembly. ........................................................................ 65
Figure 38 - Total Capital Cost associated with DHX for various Target Boiler Feedwater
Temperatures at the Exit of UHX-DHX Assembly. ........................................................................ 66
Figure 39 - Annual Operating Cost associated with DHX for various Target Boiler Feedwater
Temperatures at the Exit of UHX-DHX Assembly ......................................................................... 66
Figure 40 - Trend for Total Annual Cost associated with DHX for various Target Boiler Feedwater
Temperatures at the Exit of UHX-DHX Assembly ......................................................................... 67
Figure 41 - Temperature Profiles in UHX of UHX-DHX assembly for various target Temperatures
of Boiler Feedwater at the Exit of UHX .......................................................................................... 74
Figure 42 - Condensation Efficiency and Total Annual Cost for UHX of UHX-DHX Assembly for
various target boiler feedwater temperatures at the exit of UHX ................................................... 75
Figure 43 - Rate of Condensation for UHX-DHX assembly compared to UHX only and DHX only
cases for different Target Boiler Feedwater Temperatures ........................................................... 79
Figure 44 - Total Annual Cost for UHX-DHX assembly compared to UHX only and DHX only cases
for different Target Boiler Feedwater Temperatures ...................................................................... 79
Figure 45 - Change in Turbine Power with Target Boiler Feedwater Exit Temperature ................ 82
Figure 46 - Net Profit from using UHX-DHX assembly compared to system with Only UHX and
Only DHX ....................................................................................................................................... 82
VIII
List of Tables
Table 1 - Coefficients, ci, for calculating Euler’s constant for in-line square banks (11). .............. 19
Table 2 - Fixed Process Conditions for studying the impact of Tube Diameter............................. 28
Table 3 - Fixed Heat Exchanger Geometry for studying the impact of Tube Diameter ................. 28
Table 4 - Variable Parameters for studying the impact of Tube Diameter..................................... 28
Table 5 - Impact of Tube Diameter on Pressure Drop for 20ft Heat Exchanger Length ............... 31
Table 6 - Impact of Tube Diameter on Total Annual Cost for 20ft Heat Exchanger Length .......... 32
Table 7 - Fixed Process Conditions for Heat Exchanger Placed Upstream of Wet FGD .............. 35
Table 8 - Fixed Heat Exchanger Geometry for Heat Exchanger Placed Upstream of Wet FGD .. 36
Table 9 - Various Process Conditions for Heat Exchanger Placed Upstream of Wet FGD .......... 36
Table 10 - Simulation results for the sub-cases A-F for Heat Exchanger placed upstream of the
Wet FGD Unit ................................................................................................................................. 41
Table 11 - Simulation results for the sub-cases 1 – 4 for Heat Exchanger placed upstream of the
Wet FGD Unit ................................................................................................................................. 42
Table 12 - Fixed Process Conditions for Heat Exchanger placed Downstream of Wet FGD........ 45
Table 13 - Fixed Heat Exchanger Geometry for Heat Exchanger placed Downstream of Wet FGD
....................................................................................................................................................... 46
Table 14 - Variable Parameter for Heat Exchanger placed Downstream of Wet FGD ................. 46
Table 15 - Fixed Process Conditions for Precooled Flue Gas using Water Spray ........................ 49
Table 16 - Fixed Heat Exchanger Geometry for Precooled Flue Gas using Water Spray ............ 49
Table 17 - Variable Parameter for Heat Exchanger for Precooled Flue Gas using Water Spray.. 49
Table 18 - Fixed Process Conditions for UHX without using Water Spray for Precooling Flue Gas
....................................................................................................................................................... 49
Table 19 - Fixed Process Conditions for DHX without using Water Spray for Precooling Flue Gas
....................................................................................................................................................... 50
Table 20 - Fixed Process Conditions for system using Boiler Feedwater for comparison with
Coupled Heat Exchanger ............................................................................................................... 55
IX
Table 21 - Fixed Heat Exchanger Geometry for system using Boiler Feedwater for comparison
with Coupled Heat Exchanger ....................................................................................................... 55
Table 22 - Fixed Process Conditions for system using Cooling Water for comparison with Coupled
Heat Exchanger ............................................................................................................................. 55
Table 23 - Fixed Heat Exchanger Geometry for system using Cooling Water for comparison with
Coupled Heat Exchanger ............................................................................................................... 55
Table 24 - Fixed Process Conditions for Coupled Heat Exchanger Assembly.............................. 56
Table 25 - Fixed Geometry for HX1 of Coupled Heat Exchanger Assembly ................................. 56
Table 26 - Fixed Geometry for HX2 of Coupled Heat Exchanger Assembly ................................. 56
Table 27 - Variable Process Condition for system using Cooling Water and Coupled Heat
Exchanger ...................................................................................................................................... 57
Table 28 - Fixed Process Conditions for DHX of Cascaded Heat Exchangers Assembly ............ 63
Table 29 - Fixed Heat Exchanger Geometry for DHX of Cascaded Heat Exchangers Assembly. 63
Table 30 - Variable mass flow rate of boiler feedwater for DHX and UHX of Cascaded Heat
Exchangers Assembly (14) ............................................................................................................ 64
Table 31 - Simulation results for DHX of Duct Length 12ft and various Boiler Feedwater Target
Temperatures at the Exit of Cascaded Heat Exchanger Assembly ............................................... 69
Table 32 - Fixed Process Conditions for UHX of Cascaded Heat Exchanger Assembly .............. 70
Table 33 - Fixed Heat Exchanger Geometry for UHX of Cascaded Heat Exchangers Assembly. 70
Table 34 - Simulation results for UHX of UHX-DHX Assembly for various Boiler Feedwater Target
Temperatures at the Exit of Cascaded Heat Exchanger Assembly ............................................... 71
Table 35 - Results from Simulations for various Boiler Feedwater Target Temperatures at the Exit
of UHX-DHX Assembly .................................................................................................................. 77
Table 36 - Results from Simulations for various Boiler Feedwater Target Temperatures at the Exit
of System with Only UHX ............................................................................................................... 78
Table 37 - Results of Cost Benefit Analysis for system with Only DHX ........................................ 81
Table 38 - Results of Cost Benefit Analysis for system with Only UHX ........................................ 81
Table 39 - Results of Cost Benefit Analysis for system with UHX-DHX Assembly ....................... 81
X
Abstract
There has been an increasing interest in new technologies to improve the efficiency of
coal based thermal power plants and to reduce the consumption of cooling water for cooling
towers. This report discusses the opportunities of recovering heat and water from flue gas using
condensing heat exchangers.
Simluations were performed to develop heat exchanger designs for one or more heat
exchangers used upstream and/or downstream of the wet FGD. The impact on water
condensation efficiency, total heat transfer and total annual cost were analyzed for five different
arrangements. The impact of heat exchanger design parameters such as heat exchanger tube
diameter and tube transverse pitch was analyzed. Additionally, the prospects of precooling the flue
gas using water spray and its impact on performance of heat exchanger was also studied.
1
Nomenclature
Symbol Meaning Units

2
Aeff Tube effective surface area ft
2
Ai Tube inner surface area ft
2
Aic Tube inner surface area for one cell ft
2
Ao Tube outer surface area ft
2
Aoc Tube outer surface area for one cell ft
C Empirical coefficient depending on tube arrangement -
Cbfw Heat capacity rate of boiler feedwater BTU/hr·°F
ci Tube geometry constant for calculation of Euler's constant -
Cmax Maximum heat capacity rate of cooling water BTU/hr·°F
Cmin Minimum heat capacity rate of cooling water BTU/hr·°F
Cp,cw Specific heat of cooling water BTU/lbm·°F
Cp,fg Specific heat of flue gas BTU/lbm·°F
di Tube inner diameter in
do Tube outer diameter in
Eu Euler's constant -
f Friction factor -
2
hbfw Convective heat transfer coefficient for boiler feedwater BTU/hr·ft ·°F
2
hcw Convective heat transfer coefficient for cooling water BTU/hr·ft ·°F
2
hf Convective heat transfer coefficient for condensate film BTU/hr·ft ·°F
2
hfg Convective heat transfer coefficient for wet flue gas BTU/hr·ft ·°F
hl Latent heat of water vapor BTU/lb
k Specific heat ratio -
kbfw Thermal conductivity of boiler feedwater BTU/hr·°F·ft
kcw Thermal conductivity of cooling water BTU/hr·°F·ft
kfg Thermal conductivity of flue gas BTU/hr·°F·ft
KL Pressure loss coefficient -
2
km Mass transfer coefficient lb/mol·hr·ft
kw Thermal conductivity of tube material BTU/hr·°F·ft
L Length of tube ft
m Empirical coefficient depending on tube arrangement -
m Mass flow rate of cooling water lb/hr
2
m Mass flow rate of flue gas lb/hr
N Total number of tubes in Heat Exchanger -
Nb Number of baffle plates -
NL Total number of tube rows -
Ntu Number of transfer units -
Nubfw Nusselt number for boiler feedwater -
Nucw Nusselt number for cooling water -
Nufg Nusselt number for flue gas -
Patm Atmospheric Pressure psi
pbfw Pressure of boiler feedwater psi
pcw Pressure of cooling water psi
pfg Pressure of flue gas psi
Pin Pressure of flue gas at the exit of exchanger psi
Pout Pressure of flue gas at the inlet of exchanger psi
Pr Prandtl number -
Prs Surface Prandtl number -
Ptot Total pressure of flue gas psi
q Rate of heat transfer BTU/hr
3
Q Total volume flow rate of cooling water ft /s
Rboiler feedwater Thermal resistance of boiler feedwater hr·°F/BTU
Rcooling water Thermal resistance of cooling water hr·°F/BTU
Rebfw Reynolds number of boiler feedwater -
Recw Reynolds number of cooling water -
Recw,max Maximum Reynolds number of cooling water -
Refg,max Maximum Reynolds number of flue gas -
Rfl Thermal resistance due to fouling on tube inner wall hr·°F/BTU
Rflue gas Thermal resistance of flue gas hr·°F/BTU
ri Tube inner radius in
ro Tube outer radius in
Rtotal Total thermal resistance of control volume hr·°F/BTU
Rwall Thermal resistance of tube wall hr·°F/BTU
Sl Longitudinal Pitch in
St Transverse pitch in
3
Tbfw Temperature of boiler feedwater °F
Tcw Bulk mean temperature of cooling water °F
Tfg Bulk mean temperature of flue gas °F
Ti Gas-condensate film interfacial temperature °F
Tow Tube outer wall temperature °F
U0 Overall heat transfer coefficient BTU/hr·ft2·°F
Vavg Aaverage velocity of cooling water ft/s
Vcw Velocity of cooling water ft/s
Vcw,max Maximum velocity of cooling water ft/s
Vbfw,avg Average velocity of boiler feedwater ft/s
Vmax Maximum velocity of flue gas ft/s
Wpump Pump power hp
yH2O Mole fraction of water vapor in the flue gas vol%wet
yi Mole fraction of water vapor at the wall interface vol%wet
Greek Symbols:
∆ Difference or change -
η Efficiency -
ε Heat exchanger effectiveness -
ρ Density lb/ft3
Pressure drop correction factor -
4
1. Introduction
Power plants are a larger consumer of water than any other industry. Water is used for
generating steam, cooling and other process requirements. The demand for electricity is ever-
growing and thus the demand of water for power generation. As a result, water availability issues
are becoming more and more important. A lot of emphasis is laid on recovering and re-using as
much water as possible. This study will concentrate on recovering water from flue gas.
A coal based power plant burning lignite coal releases roughly 16% moisture by volume
(wet basis) in the flue gas as lignite coal contains 40% moisture by mass. Employing a wet
scrubber after the ESP further increases the moisture content in flue gas. For example, consider a
600 MW power plant unit using PRB coal. The flue gas flow rate is of the order of 6.33 million lb/hr.
Of this nearly 12% by volume (0.76 million lb/hr) is moisture. If the unit has a wet FGD to remove
SO2 from flue gas stream, the flue gas coming out of the FGD will be saturated with water.
Furthermore, typical evaporation rate of cooling tower for 600MW unit is 1.6 million lb/hr. All this
water in flue gas and the cooling tower is simply lost to the atmosphere.
Recovering water from the flue gas using condensing flue gas heat exchangers can help
reduce the water intake requirements and also recover waste heat from the flue gas which can be
used for other processes like supplying sensible heat to feed water or pre-drying the coal. Besides
this, with moisture taken out from the flue gas, the load on the Induced Draft fan is also reduced
thus reducing the unit auxiliary power.
In this study, five different heat exchanger arrangements were investigated.
1. Heat exchanger placed upstream of the FGD unit, also referred to as UHX in the
study.
2. Heat exchanger placed downstream of the FGD unit, also referred to as DHX in
the study.
3. Heat exchanger with pre-cooled flue gas using water spray.
4. DHX coupled with a water-to-water shell and tube heat exchanger to obtain space
flexibility.
5. Combined use of UHX and DHX (cascaded arrangement).
5
All the heat exchangers are counter cross flow type with bare tube banks in inline
arrangement. Hot flue gas flows outside the heat exchanger tubes and cooling water flows inside
the tubes. The flue gas will be cooled down as it travels through the heat exchangers and the
cooling water will absorb this heat. When the tube wall temperature goes below the water vapor
dew point temperature, water vapor in the flue gas will start condensing out.
The total cost associated with the use of the heat exchanger can be divided into two parts:
1) manufacturing and installation cost, & 2) operating cost. The manufacturing cost comprises
primarily the cost of tube material and the labor cost. The operating cost will be from the additional
fan power required due to the pressure drop in flue gas across the tube bank and the pump power
required due to the pressure drop in the cooling water as in passes through heat exchanger tubes.
The effects of changing the tube diameter, keeping the tube thickness at schedule 40, on the cost
and performance of the heat exchanger were investigated.
Lastly the advantages and disadvantages associated with different heat exchanger
models were evaluated.
6
2. Theory
In this study, we have used heat exchangers for two different purposes. The first heat
exchanger (at times referred to as HX1) is also called a condensing flue gas heat exchanger
having flue gas and water as the two fluid streams. The other exchanger is a water-to-water shell
and tube heat exchanger and is at times referred to as HX2 in this report. As the name indicates,
HX2 has water flowing inside as well as outside the heat exchanger tubes. Both HX1 and HX2 are
counter-cross flow heat exchangers with inline tube arrangement.
For the condensing flue gas heat exchanger, a MATLAB code was developed by Jeong
(1) to simulate the heat and mass transfer processes occurring inside the exchanger. The results
from the code were verified with data obtained from a lab scale model of the exchanger. The
results are available in Jeong’s Ph.D. dissertation report. The code was modified by Lavigne (2)
and then further by Hazell (3) to calculate the pressure drop in flue gas and cooling water streams
as they pass through the heat exchanger.
A separate MATLAB code was developed for the water-to-water heat exchanger. This
code only approximately determines the heat transfer between the fluids and the pressure drop
for both the fluid streams as they pass through the exchanger.
The governing equations for both the condensing heat exchanger and the water-to-water
heat exchanger are described in the following sections.
2.1.Condensing Flue Gas Heat Exchanger
Flue gas can be described as a mixture of water vapor and non-condensable gases.
Typically for a counter flow heat exchanger, the temperature profile of flue gas and the cooling
water along the length of the heat exchanger will be as indicated in the Figure (1). Further, the
temperature of the tube wall in contact with the flue gas will also decrease along the length as
indicated. When the tube wall temperature goes below the dew point temperature of water vapor in
flue gas at any given location, (For example in Figure (1) the wall temperature goes below the dew
point temperature at approximately 50% down the length of the exchanger), the water vapor in the
flue gas stream will start condensing.
7
Temp
perature Prrofile insid
de Heat Exc
changer
350
Tcw
Tfg
300 Tdew
Twall
250
Temperature (F)
200
150
100
50 This is only an
a example case. The X
axis indicates
s the percentag ge travel
down the lengtth of the heat exc
changer.
0
0 10 2
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10
00
Le
ength of Ex
xchanger (%
%)
Figure 1 - Typical
T temperrature distribu
utions inside a heat exchanger
As a result of the
e vapor condensation ph
henomenon, both sensible and laten
nt heat
transfers are observed

o in the
t system. In 1934, Colburn and Ho oped a fundamental
ougen develo
transport equa
ation for conde
ensation in th
he presence of nsable gases (4):
o non-conden
In the above equattion, on the left hand side

e, the first terrm represents the sensiblle heat
transfer from fllue gas to tub

be and the se epresents the latent heat trransfer due to
econd term re o vapor
co
ondensation. hfg is the con
nvective heat transfer coeffficient on wett flue gas side
e; Tfg and Ti are
a the
bu
ulk temperatu
ure of flue ga
as and gas-ccondensate fiilm interfacial temperature
e, respectively. The
pa
arameters km and hl are th
he mass transsfer coefficien
nt and latent heat
h of water vapor, respecctively.
yH2O and yi are

e the mole fra
action of wate
er vapor in bu
ulk and at the gas-condenssate interface of flue
ga
as, respectiv
vely, and Tcw
w is the temp
perature of co
ooling water. U0 is the overall heat trransfer
co
oefficient exp
pressed as shown below:
8
1 1 1 1
where, Aeff is the effective area and is assumed to be the same as tube outer surface Area Ao,
and, Ai is the tube inner surface area. Rfl is the thermal resistance due to fouling on the inside of
the tube. hcw and hf are the convective heat transfer coefficient for cooling water and the
condensate film formed on the outer surface of the tube. Rwall is the thermal resistance of the tube
wall and depends on the tube material as well as the inner and outer diameters.
where, do and di are the outer and inner diameters of the tube, kw is the thermal conductivity of the
tube material and L is the overall length of the tube.
In most cases, when using a clean source of cooling water, very little or no fouling is
observed inside the tubes and hence thermal resistance due to tube fouling can be neglected.
Further, the thickness of the condensate film on the tube outer surface is negligible and thus the
thermal resistance due to the condensate film can also be neglected. Substituting the surface area
as the product of the circumference and the overall length of the tube, L, and solving for U0, the
equation reduces to:
Substituting the value of U0 from above in the Colburn-Hougen equation and rearranging,
the expression for Ti can be deduced as follows:
9
In the absence of condensation, the interfacial temperature Ti is replaced by the outer tube
wall temperature Tow and the mass transfer term can be dropped from the Colburn-Hougen
equation. The rate of heat transfer reduces to a simple equation:
where, Rtotal is the total thermal resistance of the control volume and is the sum of the individual
thermal resistance of flue gas, tube wall and cooling water.
and,
1 1
2
1 1
2
Figure 2 - Thermal resistances between flue gas and cooling water in the absence of condensation
10
The heat is first transferred from flue gas to the tube wall and then from the wall to the
cooling water. It is necessary to discretize the heat exchanger and calculate the tube inner and
outer wall temperature for each discrete cell as the flue gas and cooling water temperatures
change through the length of the heat exchanger as indicated in Figure (1). Consider that the tube
section shown in Figure (2) represents a discretized cell, for the first iteration, the total thermal
resistance and the inlet conditions for flue gas and cooling water are known. Assuming no
condensation at the beginning of the heat exchanger (the first cell), the heat transferred to the tube
wall from flue gas is given by:
where, Aoc is the tube outer wall surface area for the cell and Tow is the temperature of the tube
outer wall. The equation can be rearranged to obtain an expression for initial tube outer wall
temperature as:
The wall temperatures thus calculated for the first cell and the flue gas and cooling water
th
temperatures can be used as the inlet conditions to the next successive cell. At any i cell along
the length of the tube, the law of conservation of energy between the change in enthalpy of the
flue gas and the heat transferred to the tube wall can be applied to calculate the flue gas
th
temperature at the exit of the new cell by using the Tfg,2, Tcw,2, Tow,2, Tiw,2 from the (i-1) cell as
th
the inlet conditions to the i cell.
, , , ,
where, Tfg is the mean of the flue gas inlet and exit temperature for the cell. Rearranging,
, 0.5 ∗ ∗ , ,
,
, 0.5 ∗
Similarly, from energy balance, the total change in enthalpy of the cooling water should be
th
equal to the total heat transferred to the wall from the flue gas. Thus for the same i cell:
, , , ,
11
rearranging, , , , ,
In the presence of condensation, it is necessary to modify the above equation using
Colburn-Hougen relation and the wall temperature Tow,1 is replaced by the temperature of the gas-
condensate interface, Ti,1. The temperatures Tfg,2 and Tcw,2 can be rewritten as:
, 0.5 ∗ ∗ , ,
,
, 0.5 ∗
,
, ,
,
The enthalpy change in cooling water can then be used to calculate the temperature of the
tube inner wall. From the law of conservation of energy, the convective heat transfer from the wall
to the cooling water should be equal to the change in enthalpy of the cooling water as expressed
below:
, , , , ,
rearranging,
, , ,
, ,
Lastly, the outer wall temperature at the exit of the cell can be obtained from energy
balance between the enthalpy change in cooling water and rate of heat transfer between the tube
outer and inner wall.
, ,
, , ,
Substituting the expression for Rwall in the above expression and rearranging,
, , , ln
, ,
2
It must be noted here that the temperature of both the inner and the outer wall depend
only on the change in temperature of the cooling water. Thus, these equations apply irrespective
of water condensation outside the tube.
12
For the calculation of all the temperatures described in the equations above, it is
necessary to calculate the water vapor mole fraction at the interface as well as the convective heat
transfer coefficients for flue gas and cooling water. All the thermodynamic properties described
below are calculated at each discrete cell and then averaged over the entire tube length. For
exchanger with bank to bare tubes in inline arrangement, an empirical relation to calculate the
Nusselt number was proposed by Zukauskas (5).
.
,
where, Pr is the Prandtl number and Prs is the Surface Prandtl number. All variables except Prs
are calculated at the bulk of flue gas. The variables C and m depend on the Reynold’s number.
For the range 10 , 2 10 , C is typically 0.27 and m is evaluated graphically based
on experimental data from Zukauskas (5). The convective heat transfer coefficient for flue gas can
be calculated as:
On the cooling water side, the Nusselt number is obtained from the expression by
Gnielinski (6)
⁄8 1000
1 12.7 ⁄8 1
where, the friction factor f is calculated for 3 10 5 10 from the Moody Diagram by
using the relationship (7),
0.79 1.64
The convective heat transfer coefficient for cooling water is calculated using the Nusselt
number for cooling water as:
The water vapor mole fraction yi at the interface is calculated and the beginning of each
cell using the Antoine equation (8)
13
where, a = 16.262, b = 3799.89 and c = 226.35 and Ptot is the total pressure of flue gas.
As the two fluids, flue gas and cooling water, travel through the heat exchanger, they
experience pressure drops. The drop in pressure on the flue gas side and the cooling water side
determines the additional power required by the ID fan and cooling water circulation pump. It is
assumed that the flow both inside and outside the tubes is fully developed and remains turbulent
throughout the length of the heat exchanger.
Zukauskas developed a relationship to determine Pressure drop on the flue gas side for
an exchanger with tubes in inline arrangement as a function of the Longitudinal and Transverse
Pitch, number of tube rows and the maximum Reynold’s number of the flue gas flow (5) as:
∆
2
where, NL is the total number of rows, is the correction factor, is the density of flue gas,
Vmax is the maximum velocity between the tubes and f is the friction factor. The correction factor
depends on the tube longitudinal and transverse pitch while the density velocity and friction factor
are calculated for each cell and then averaged for the entire heat exchanger. Assuming that the
fan works as an isentropic compressor, the additional power required is obtained from the
pressure drop by using simple thermodynamic equation:
, 1
∆
where, Pin is atmospheric pressure, Patm and Pout is the sum of Patm and the pressure drop
calculated above, k is the ratio of specific heat at constant pressure and constant volume, is
the efficiency of the fan.
On the cooling water side, a large proportion of the pressure drop is observed through the
length of the tube and can be calculated using the Darcy-Weisbach equation (9):
14
∆
2
where, ∆ is the pressure loss along the length of the tube, f is the friction factor and can be
obtained from the Moody Diagram (7), L is the total length of the tube, is the density of cooling
water and di is the inner diameter of the tube.
. Besides this, minor pressure losses are also observed in the inlet and the outlet header,
in the 180° elbows and due to sudden contraction and expansion of the cooling water. The details
of the pressure loss calculations are available in Hazell’s thesis (3). Given the total volume flow
rate of cooling water, Q, and the pump efficiency, , the total pump power required to pump
the cooling water through the tubes can then be calculated from the total pressure drop as:
2.2.Water‐to‐Water Heat Exchanger
HX1 described above is essentially a bank of tubes placed directly in the existing flue gas
duct. The tubes move up and down through the height of the exchanger with 180° bends at each
end till they reach the other end of the exchanger. In contrast to HX1, the water-to-water heat
exchanger, or HX2, is modeled as a typical shell and tube heat exchanger with two tube passes
and one shell. Cooling water enters HX2 from the top, as illustrated in Figure (3), and Boiler Feed
Water flows inside the tubes such that the two fluids move in a counter cross flow fashion.
Figure 3 - Water-to-Water Heat Exchanger Model
15
For HX2, we know the inlet and exit temperature of cooling water and the inlet
temperature of boiler feed water. We use the NTU method for calculating the effectiveness of the
heat exchanger. The exit temperature of boiler feed water is then calculated from the heat
exchanger effectiveness. The heat exchanger effectiveness is defined as a function of the number
of transfer units as (10):
where, Cmin and Cmax are the minimum and maximum of the heat capacity of cooling water and
the boiler feed water, and, Ntu is the number of transfer units and is given as:
In the above equation, N is the total number of tubes, U0 is the overall heat transfer coefficient and
Aeff is the effective surface area of each tube. For the ease of calculation, it is assumed the Aeff is
the same as the outer surface area Ao of the tube.
Similar to the thermal resistances in condensing heat exchanger as shown in Figure (2),
the rate of heat transfer equation for the water-to-water heat exchanger can also be represented
as the sum of thermal resistances:
where Rcooling water, Rwall and Rboiler feedwater are the thermal resistance of the cooling water, the
tube wall and the boiler feed water, respectively, and are given as:
1 1
2
1 1
2
16
here, hcw and hbfw are the convective heat transfer coefficient for cooling water and boiler feed
water, ro and ri are the outer and inner radii of the water-to-water heat exchanger tube, and L is the
total length of the tube.
For the calculation of the convective heat transfer coefficients for the cooling water and the
boiler feed water, it is necessary to calculate the Nusselt number first. Nusselt number for the
cooling water can be obtained by using the relation given by Zukauskas (5) for heat transfer
across a tube bank:
.
,
where Re is the Reynold’s number, Pr is the Prandtl number, Prs is the surface Prandtl number. It
must be noted here that, although the equation is the same as that used for calculation of
convective heat transfer for flue gas in HX1, but, unlike HX1 all the physical variables are
calculated at the mean of the inlet and exit temperatures of cooling water. Also, Prs is assumed to
be the same as Pr to simplify the calculations. The constants C and m depend on the maximum
Reynold’s number for the cooling water and are obtained graphically from the experimental data
by Zukauskas (5). The maximum velocity in a flow across tube bank occurs between two
successive tubes and is given as:
, ∗
here, Vcw is the velocity of the fluid before it approaches the tube bank, St is the transverse pitch
between the tubes, and do is the tube outer diameter.
The convective heat transfer coefficient for cooling water can be calculated as:
The calculations for heat transfer coefficient for boiler feed water flowing inside the heat
exchanger tubes are similar to those for cooling water for the condensing heat exchanger with
Nusselt number obtained from equation given by Gnielinski (6) as:
17
⁄8 1000
1 12.7 ⁄8 1
Where f is the friction factor and is calculated from the Moody diagram. All the physical
variables for boiler feed water are calculated at the inlet temperature of boiler feed water since the
exit temperature is unknown.
The convective heat transfer coefficient for boiler feed water can be calculated as:
The effectiveness of a heat exchanger is defined as the ratio of actual heat transfer to the
maximum possible heat transfer and can be represented as:
, ,
, ,
where, Cbfw is the heat capacity rate of boiler feed water and effectiveness is calculated from the
Ntu relationship given above.
The expression can then be rearranged to obtain Tbfw,out as:
∗ , ,
, ,
Similar to the condensing heat exchanger, cooling water and boiler feed water fluid
streams experience pressure drop as they flow through the heat exchanger. The calculation of
these pressure drops is important in estimating the pump power required to circulate the two fluids
through the exchanger. The pressure drop on the shell side or the drop in pressure of the cooling
water as it flows across the tube bank depends on the type of tube arrangement-inline/staggered,
tube spacing, number of rows of tube in the bank, and flow velocity and is given as:
,
∆
2
Here, Eu is the Euler’s constant. It depends on the tube transverse and longitudinal pitch
and is obtained from the experimental correlations given by Zukauskas and Ulinskas (11) in the
power law form as:
18
where, ci depends on the tube geometry and the Reynolds number of flow and is provided in the
table below. Here, a and b are the ratio of Transverse and longitudinal pitch w.r.t. the tube outer
diameter. a=St/do, b=Sl/do.
Table 1 - Coefficients, ci, for calculating Euler’s constant for in-line square banks (11).
a=b Re Range C0 C1 C2 C3 C4
1.25 3-2 X 103 0.272 0.207 X 103 0.102 X 103 0.286 X 103 -
1.25 2 X 103 - 2 X 106 0.267 0.249 X 104 -0.927 X 107 0.10 X 1011 -
1.5 3-2 X 103 0.263 0.867 X 102 -0.202 X 101 - -
3 6 4 8 11
1.5 2 X 10 - 2 X 10 0.235 0.197 X 10 -0.124 X 10 0.312 X 10 -0.274 X 1014
2 7 - 800 0.188 0.566 X 102 -0.646 X 103 0.601 X 104 -0.183 X 105
2 800 - 2 X 106 0.247 -0.595 0.15 -0.137 0.396
The pressure drop on the shell side is directly proportional to the number of baffle plates
provided in the shell. The pressure drop calculated from the above relations is the drop observed
in a heat exchanger without baffles. Therefore, for a heat exchanger shell with Nb number of
baffles the total pressure drop is given by:
∆ , ∆ ∗ 1
The flow losses due to leakage across the baffle plates, as indicated in Figure (4a.), were
neglected. Here the stream B is the main cross flow stream while the streams A, C and E are tube
to baffle hole leakage stream, bundle bypass stream and baffle to shell leakage stream,
respectively. The number of baffle plates, their size and spacing between the plates has not been
optimized at this stage and the pressure loss due to formation of eddies, Refer Figure (4b, 4c), is
also neglected. Also, the losses at the inlet and exit and any other minor losses were neglected.
19
Figure 4 - Shell Side Leakage Streams and Eddy Formation due to Baffles
The tube side pressure drop for boiler feed water is obtained from Darcy Weisbach
equation (9):
,
∆
2
where, ∆ is the pressure loss along the length of the tube, f is the friction factor and can be
obtained from the Moody Diagram (7), L is the total length of the tube, is the density of boiler
feed water and di is the inner diameter of the tube.
Beside the pressure drop along the tube length, some minor pressure losses are observed
in the inlet and outlet manifolds as the fluid suddenly contracts and expands, respectively, and the
pressure drop in the inlet manifold is given as (9):
∆
2
where, KL is the loss coefficient and for the case of sudden contraction at sharp edges, KL is
usually assumed to be 0.5.
At the outlet header, sudden expansion is observed and the pressure drop can be
calculated as (9):
∆ 1
2
here, the term 1 is the loss coefficient and depends on the ratio of the area of cross-
section of the tube to the manifold. The minor losses are added to the pressure drop in the tube to
obtain the overall pressure drop for boiler feed water.
20
Minor losses in the 180° tube bends and any other leakage losses were neglected. The
total addition power required for the pump can then be calculated from the total pressure drop as:
here, Q is the total flow rate of boiler feed water or cooling water and ∆ is the total pressure
drop in the fluid.
2.3. Estimation of Cost
The heat exchangers can be used in variety of configurations. A few of them will be
discussed in detail in Section 5. Each of these configurations has its own set of advantages and
the size of these heat exchangers can quickly grow very large if we try to recover maximum
possible heat or water from the flue gas stream. As such, it becomes necessary to take into
account the economics of the heat exchanger. Heat exchangers have two types of costs
associated with them, the capital cost and the operating cost.
2.3.1. Capital Cost
The capital cost, also referred to as fixed cost, consists of the cost of material and the
manufacturing and installation cost for the shell and the tubes. Since a condensing heat exchanger
is essentially a tube bundle placed in the flue gas duct, this exchanger does not require a shell.
Therefore, the capital cost of condensing heat exchangers is primarily the cost of the tube material
and their production/installation. In studies done on cost estimation of shell and tube heat
exchangers (12), it was observed that with the increase in size of the heat exchangers, the cost of
manufacturing/labor cost remained more than the cost of material even though the cost of material
starts increasing with size while the fabrication costs decreases steadily with increase in size.
The type of tube material used for the tubes also plays a key role. Assuming that the same
technology and labor skills are required to manufacture tubes irrespective of the tube material, the
use of expensive materials like Nickel alloy 22 results in higher material cost than the fabrication
cost. For condensing heat exchangers, Nickel alloy 22 is used as tube material up-to the point
where water starts condensing out to save the tubes from acid corrosion and stainless steel
SS304 is used thereafter. The choice of materials is based on the detailed study done by Hazell
21
(3). Hazell also obtained quotations from suppliers of stainless steel and Nickel alloy 22 tubes.
Assuming negligible hike in the pricing since his study, the same pricing of $14.89/ft for
manufacturing and installation cost for both SS304 and nickel alloy 22 tubes of 2” diameter NPS
and 0.195” thickness has been used. The cost of material was assumed to be $10.69/ft for SS304
tubes and $110.71/ft for Nickel alloy 22 tubes of 2” diameter NPS and 0.195” thickness.
Assuming the life expectancy of 20 years for the heat exchanger, over which a loan would
be raised to build the heat exchanger, and an annual rate of interest of 5% be levied on the loan, a
monthly payment factor was calculated using the equation (13):
1
1 1
where, PF is the monthly payment factor, i is the monthly rate of interest and n is the period of loan
in months. The annual fixed cost of the heat exchanger can then be calculated from the total fixed
cost as:
12 ∗ ∗
where, AFC is the annual fixed cost and TIF is the taxes and insurance factor and has been
assumed to be 0.015 in this study.
Unlike the condensing heat exchanger, for the water-to-water heat exchanger, we will
need a shell and the tube material has been assumed to be Seamless Low alloy 213 T11 for
higher thermal conductivity. The cost analysis for the shell and the tubing has not been done at
this stage.
2.3.2. Operating Cost
The operating cost is the annual expenses that would be observed upon bringing the heat
exchanger into operation. As explained in Section 2.1 and Section 2.2 of this report, there is
pressure drop observed in both the streams on either side of the tubes. To assist flow, pumps are
employed to run the cooling water through the tubes and additional power is required by the ID fan
to blow the flue gas out into the stack. The additional power requirements can be calculated from
the pressure drop (also explained in above sections). Assuming that the heat exchanger will
22
remain in service for 7000 hours per year and the cost of electricity is $60/MWhr, the annual
operating cost is given as:
7000
∗ ∗ $60
Here, AOC is the Annual Operating Cost and Power is the total power required to operate
the heat exchanger.
23
3. Effects of Operating Conditions
The use of boiler feed water instead of a secondary cooling water loop comes with an
added advantage. Not only is it possible to recover water from the flue gas stream but the heat
absorbed from the flue gas can be used to improve the unit heat rate. In a previous study by
Hazell (3), the impacts of varying mass flow rate ratio of cooling water and flue gas and the cooling
water inlet temperature were studied. These results show that the size of the exchanger increases
rapidly for higher heat transfer rates.
The mass flow rate of boiler feed water is typically less than that of flue gas. In other parts
of this study, the ratio of the mass flow rate of boiler feed water and flue gas was assumed to be
constant at 0.443. But, in a study conducted by Jonas (14), it was shown that the mass flow rate of
boiler feed water is proportional to the targeted temperature of the boiler feed water as it exits the
heat exchanger.
For the 600MW power plant analyzed here, the temperature of boiler feedwater flowing
from the condenser hot well is at a temperature of 87°F, as obtained from the supercritical steam
cycle used by Jonas (15) provided in Appendix‐A Figure (A.1), and, the temperature of feed water
is raised to ~500°F before it enters the economizer. The boiler feed water is passed through a
series of feed water heaters where it is heated using steam extracted from various stages of the
turbine. As a result of using the condensing heat exchanger to preheat the feed water, the duty on
the feed water heaters is reduced. As a result, steam, which would have otherwise been extracted
for the heaters, now passes through the turbine and adds to the total turbine power output. If more
steam passes through the LP turbine into the condenser, the boiler feed water flow rate will
increase accordingly.
Jonas developed an ASPEN model to determine the relationship between turbine cycle
heat rate, change in net power output and mass flow rate of boiler feed water with respect to the
temperature of the boiler feed water at the exit of the condensing heat exchangers. See Figure (5),
Figure (6) and Figure (7) below.
24
Power Increase
14
Change in Gross Unit Power (MW)
12
10
0
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Boiler Feedwater Outlet Temperature (°F)
Figure 5 - Change in Gross Unit Power output with Boiler Feed Water Temperature at exit of Heat
Exchanger (14)
Change in Cycle Heat Rate
0.0%
-0.5%
Change in Cycle Heat Rate
-1.0%
-1.5%
-2.0%
-2.5%
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Figure 6 - Change in Cycle Heat Rate with Boiler Feed Water Temperature at exit of Heat Exchanger
(14)
25
BFW Flow Rate
3.10
Boiler Feedwater flow rate ( million lb/hr) 3.05
3.00
2.95
2.90
2.85
2.80
2.75
2.70
2.65
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Figure 7 - Change in Boiler Feed Water Flow Rate with Boiler Feed Water Temperature at exit of Heat
Exchanger
From the Figures (5) and (6), it is clear that with the increase in temperature of boiler
feedwater at the exit of the heat exchanger, the change in net power increases steadily and the
heat rate improves. Further in Figure (5), we can identify two knee points on the curve at 150°F
and 190°F at which the slope of the curve increases slightly indicating higher change in net power
for the same increase in boiler feedwater exit temperature. This can be explained by looking at the
supercritical cycle used by Jonas (14), refer Appendix A Figure A.1, which indicates that at a
temperature of 153°F, the FWH1 can be completely taken off and similarly FWH2 can be
completely taken off at feedwater temperature of 193°F. Also, from Figure (7), it is observed that
the curve for mass flow rate of boiler feedwater with respect to feedwater temperature is a straight
line indicating that the mass flow rate of boiler feed water is directly proportional to the feedwater
exit temperature.
Unless stated otherwise, the above observations were taken into account in this study and
the feed water flow rate was changed with respect to the temperature of feed water coming out of
the condensing heat exchanger.
26
4. Effect of Tube Diameter on Performance and Cost
The choice of tube diameter is an important issue. The Reynold’s number of the flow is
inversely proportional to tube diameter and the pressure drop observed as the fluid passes though
the tube or the across the tube bank is directly proportional to the tube inner and outer diameter,
respectively. For the condensing flue gas heat exchanger, the density of flue gas is much lower
than the cooling water circulating inside the tubes. As a result, the pressure drop observed in flue
gas stream is much less than in cooling water. Analyses were performed to determine how the
increase in tube diameter would influence the total heat transferred to the cooling water from flue
gas and also the cost impact of it.
A set of simulations were run for different tube diameters and for various ratios of mass
flow rate of cooling water and flue gas. In each case it was assumed that the tubes will have
standard dimensions as per ASME B36.19 and the tube thickness will match Schedule 40S.
Through a series of experiments, Zukauskas (5) established that the heat transfer in bank
of tubes depends on the tube spacing parameters defined as:
&
where, St and Sl are the transverse and longitudinal pitch, respectively. The possible range of ‘a’
and ‘b’ is obtained from empirical formulas as:
1.20 2.70 & 1.25 2.60
Since the diameter of the tube is varied for different simulations, the tube wall thickness
was also varied. Further, the cross-sectional dimensions of the duct were kept constant at 40’ X
40’. As a result, the number of rows and columns for a given length of the duct also changed. The
transverse pitch (St) was kept constant at 6.17” while the values of ‘b’ were kept at minimum in the
above range and the longitudinal pitch (Sl) was calculated for each tube diameter. Refer to the
Tables below for details of the fixed and variable process conditions and heat exchanger
geometry.
27
Table 2 - Fixed Process Conditions for studying the impact of Tube Diameter
Fixed Inlet Conditions

Mfg (lbm/hr) Tfg (°F) Tbfw (°F) yH2O (%)
6.31E+06 135 87 17.4
Table 3 - Fixed Heat Exchanger Geometry for studying the impact of Tube Diameter
Fixed Heat Exchanger Geometry

Tube Wall
St (in) Sl (in) Duct Depth (ft) Duct Height (ft)
Thickness
Schedule 40S 6.17 1.25 X Tube OD 40 40
Table 4 - Variable Parameters for studying the impact of Tube Diameter
Variable Parameter
Duct Length Tube Diameter
Flow Ratio
(ft) NPS (in)
5 0.443 2
7 1 2.5
10 1.5 3
12 3.5
15
20
For the mass flow rate ratio of 0.443, the tube diameter was not increased, as increasing
the tube diameter beyond 2” NPS resulted in a decrease in Reynold’s number with the flow
becoming laminar, which is undesirable. But, still it was interesting to compare the results from
exchangers with larger diameter tubes and higher flow ratio with those for flow ratio of 0.443 and
tube diameter 2” NPS.
28
Total Hea
at Transfer Rate vs. Length
L of Heat
H Excha
anger
400
Total Heat Transfer (million BTU/Hr) 350
300
250
flow=0.443
3 dia=2in
200
flow=1.0 diia=2in
flow=1.0 diia=2.5in
150 flow=1.0 diia=3in
flow=1.0 diia=3.5in
flow=1.5 diia=2.5in
flow=1.5 diia=3.5in
0
0 5 10 15 20
0 25
5 3
30
Leng
gth of Heat Exchanger
E (ft
ft)
Figure
e 8 - Impact off Tube Diamete
er on Total He
eat Transfer
Rate of Condensation vs. Le

ength of He
eat Exchan
nger
350
300
Rate of condensation (10^3 lb/Hr)
250
200
flow=0
0.443 dia=2in
flow=1
1.0 dia=2in
150 flow=1
1.0 dia=2.5in
flow=1
1.0 dia=3in
100 flow=1
1.0 dia=3.5in
flow=1
1.5 dia=2in
flow=1
1.5 dia=2.5in
50
flow=1
1.5 dia=3in
flow=1
1.5 dia=3.5
0
0 5 10 15
5 20 2
25 30
Len
ngth of Heat Exchanger (fft)
Figure 9 - Impact of Tube

T Diameterr on Rate of Condensation
C
29
Tcw out vs
s. Length of
o Heat Exc
changer
140
135
130
125
Tcw out(F)
120
flow=
=0.443 dia=2inn
115
flow=
=1.0 dia=2in
110 flow=
=1.0 dia=2.5in
flow=
=1.0 dia=3 in
105 flow=
=1.0 dia=3.5in
flow=
=1.5 dia=2in
100
flow=
=1.5 dia=2.5in
95 flow=
=1.5 dia=3in
flow=
=1.5 dia=3.5in
90
0 5 10 15
5 20 2
25 30
Len
ngth of Heat Exchanger (ft)
(
Figure 10 - Impact of Tube Diameter on

o Cooling Wa
ater Temperatture at exit of Heat
H Exchang
ger
Total A
Annual Co
ost vs. Leng
gth of Hea
at Exchang
ger
10
flow=0.4
443 dia=2in
9 flow=1.0
0 dia=2in
flow=1.0
0 dia=2.5in
Total Annual Cost (million $)
8
flow=1.0
0 dia=3in
7 flow=1.0
0 dia=3.5in
flow=1.5
5 dia=2in
6
flow=1.5
5 dia=2.5in
5 flow=1.5
5 dia=3in
flow=1.5
5 dia=3.5in
4
0
0 5 10 15
5 20 2
25 30
Len
Fig
gure 11 - Impa
act of Tube Diameter on Tottal Annual Cost of Heat Exc
changer
From the
t Figures (8
8), (9), and (1
10), it is evide
ent that for a given flow ra
ate ratio and size of
th
he heat exch e total heat transfer rate, rate of con
hanger (Duct Length), the ndensation and the
30
temperature of the cooling water at the exit of the heat exchanger remain nearly the same with
increase in tube diameter. The reason for this observation is that the overall surface area of the
tubes for each diameter is nearly the same. Even though the number of tubes decreases due to
the fixed cross-section of the duct, the likely reduction in surface area is compensated by the
increase in diameter of the tubes. But, from Figure (11), it can be observed that the total annual
cost is greatly reduced for a given mass flow rate with the increase in tube diameter. This
observation can be attributed to the reduction in pressure drop in the cooling water, as it passes
through the heat exchanger tubes, with increase in tube diameter.
The total annual cost of the heat exchanger comprises of fixed cost and annual operating
cost as explained in Section 2.3. The details of the annual operating costs and total fixed costs as
well as the pressure drop in flue gas and cooling water streams are available in Tables (5) and (6)
below, respectively. It must be noted that the Tables (5) and (6) are provided only for heat
exchangers of Duct Length 20ft as from the above figures it is reasonable to assume that the
curves for rate of condensation, total heat transfer and Temperature of cooling water at the exit of
heat exchanger become nearly flat.
Table 5 - Impact of Tube Diameter on Pressure Drop for 20ft Heat Exchanger Length
Cooling Water to Flue Gas Mass Flow Rate Ratio = 1.0

Tube Diameter Cooling Flue Gas ID Fan Cooling Water Total
(NPS) Water ∆p ∆p Power Pump Power Power
(in) (psi) (psi) KW KW KW
2 696.897 0.046 25.21 4774.40 4799.61
2.5 203.078 0.057 34.72 1391.28 1425.99
3 66.201 0.081 55.25 453.54 508.79
3.5 36.173 0.117 86.18 247.82 334.01
Cooling Water to Flue Gas Mass Flow Rate Ratio = 1.5

Tube Diameter Cooling Flue Gas ID Fan Cooling Water Total
(NPS) Water ∆p ∆p Power Pump Power Power
(in) (psi) (psi) KW KW KW
2 1540.297 0.045 24.32 15828.74 15853.06
2.5 447.017 0.056 33.48 4593.74 4627.22
3 145.504 0.079 53.35 1495.26 1548.61
3.5 79.671 0.114 82.81 818.73 901.54
31
Table 6 - Impact of Tu
ube Diameter on Total Annu
ual Cost for 20
0ft Heat Excha
anger Length
Coolin
ng Water to Flue
F Gas Mas
ss Flow Rate
e Ratio = 1.0
Tube Diamete
T er Total Annual Annua al To
otal
e
Cond. Rate Total HT
(NPS) Capital Co
ost Fixed Cosst Operating Cost Annua
al Cost
(in) [10^3 lb/hr]] [10^6 BTU/h
hr] $ million $ million $ millio
on $ milllion
2 240.34 272.29 5.98 0.56 2.02 2.5
58
2.5 236.10 267.40 4.9 0.46 0.6 1.0
06
3 235.98 266.38 3.98 0.38 0.21 0.5
59
3.5 235.50 265.41 3.52 0.33 0.14 0.4
47
Coolin
ng Water to Flue
F Gas Mas
ss Flow Rate
e Ratio = 1.5
Tube Diamete
T er Total Annual Annua al To
otal
e
Cond. Rate Total HT
(NPS) Capital Co
ost Fixed Cosst Operating Cost Annua
al Cost
(in) [10^3 lb/hr]] [10^6 BTU/h
hr] $ million $ million $ millio
on $ milllion
2 291.31 331.55 5.98 0.56 6.66 7.2
22
2.5 287.49 327.22 4.9 0.46 1.94 2.4
41
3 286.58 326.21 3.98 0.38 0.65 1.0
03
3.5 291.00 330.79 3.52 0.33 0.38 0.7
71
From the
t above tab
bles, assumin
ng a 20ft long heat exchang
ger, the total power require
ed and
th
he total annual cost were plotted for different
d ass flow rate ratios.
tube diameters att different ma
R
Refer Figure (1
12) and Figurre (13) below..
P
Power Req
quired
18
dia=2in
n
16 dia=2.5
5in
Total Power Required (in MW)
14 dia=3in
n
dia=3.5
5in
12
10
0
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7
Co
ooling Waterr to Flue Gas Mass Flow Rate
R Ratio
Figure
e 12 - Impact of
o Diameter on
n Power Requirements for 20ft
2 long Heat Exchanger
32
To
otal Annual Cost
8
dia=2iin
7 dia=2..5in
dia=3iin
6
dia=3..5in
0
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7
Cooling Water to Flue Gas Mass flow Rate
R Ratio
Figu
ure 13 - Impactt of Diameter on
o Total Annu
ual cost for 20
0ft long Heat Exchanger
E
Assum
ming that the pricing of tub
be per lbm is same for diffe
erent diamete
er tubes conssidered
he
ere, it is obse e (6) that the fixed cost de
erved in Table ecreases with
h increase in tube diamete
er. This
an be attributted to lesser material requirement for larger diameter tubes kee

ca eping same surface
s
arrea. Further, it is also ob

bserved that the total pow
wer consume
ed by the syystem reduce
es with
in
ncrease in dia
ameter of tube
es due to reduction in overrall pressure drop. Thus, the total annu
ual cost
h the heat exchanger also decreases as can be seen in Figure (13).

asssociated with
33
5. Heat Exchanger Arrangements
Flue gas entering the condensing heat exchanger can be cooled down using air or water.
A detailed study on condensing water from flue gas using air is described by Kessen in his
dissertation (15). The present study concentrates on water cooled condensing heat exchangers
with flue gas flowing outside the exchanger tubes and water flowing inside the tubes. For the
cooling water, we have the option of using boiler feedwater from the steam circuit or cooling water
from another external source. For the 600 MW unit described here, the boiler feedwater extracted
before the first feedwater heater is at a temperature of nearly 87°F. The use of boiler feedwater
serves in recovering water from the flue gas and also improves the power plant heat rate by using
the recovered heat to preheat boiler feedwater. If a separate source of cooling water is used, the
condensed flue gas moisture can be routed through the cooling tower. As a third possibility, a
combination of boiler feed water and cooling water can be used such that the cooling water flows
through the tubes of the condensing heat exchanger and then transfers the heat absorbed from
the flue gas to the boiler feedwater in a separate shell and tube heat exchanger. The details of
these models are provided in the subsequent sections.
For all the models discussed, the inlet conditions of flue gas were based on a 600MW
conventional coal-fired power plant unit burning PRB coal with flue gas flow rate of 6.3 million lb/hr
after the ESP. If the system has a wet FGD unit, the flue gas will be saturated with water, thus
increasing the mass flow rate to 6.716 million lb/hr. The increased mass flow rate of flue gas for a
system with FGD has been taken into account in all heat exchanger arrangements discussed in
this study, unless otherwise noted. Further details of the process conditions are provided in
subsequent sections.
5.1.Heat Exchanger placed Upstream of Wet FGD, Flue gas at 303°F
It is not an uncommon practice for power plants to use a low sulfur coal and avoid
altogether wet FGD unit while still abiding by the emission limits issued by EPA. For a coal fired
power plant, flue gas after the ESP is usually at temperatures close to 300°F. The mass flow rate
34
of flue gas is around 6.3 million lb/hr with a moisture content of roughly 12%. The heat exchangers
placed in flue gas stream, upstream of the wet FGD unit, are exposed to corrosive environment
due to the presence of H2SO4 in flue gas. As a result, it becomes necessary to use corrosion
resistant Nickel alloy 22 material for the heat exchanger tubes until the tube wall temperature
reaches below the dew point temperature of moisture in the gas stream. The choice of material
and its impact on cost and total heat transfer were studied in detail by Hazell (3). Hazell also
discussed the effect of temperature of cooling water at the inlet of the heat exchanger and the
effect of ratio of mass flow rate of cooling water to flue gas on rate of condensation, total heat
transfer and the total annual cost associated with the system. In this study, we looked at the
impact of using high temperature boiler feed water coming out of different feed water heaters by
assuming that the heat exchanger is placed before low pressure feedwater heater 1,2 or 3.
The temperature and flow rate ratio of boiler feedwater to flue gas depends on where, in
the steam circuit, the feed water is extracted from and how much heat is intended to be recovered
from the flue gas as explained in Section 3. Different process conditions were analyzed based on
mass flow rate of boiler feedwater as obtained from Jonas’ ASPEN model (14).
For these analyses of heat exchangers upstream of the FGD unit, pipe size was kept
constant at 2” diameter and tube wall thickness of 0.195” was assumed. Larger diameter, which
was identified as advantageous in Section 4, was not used for tubes in these analyses since the
effects of tube ID were investigated only for heat exchangers downstream of the FGD unit. The
tube spacing of St = 6.17” and Sl = 2.97” were used based on the optimization analysis done by
Hazell (3). The fixed process conditions and heat exchanger geometry are summarized in Table
(7) and Table (8), respectively. The variable parameters are provided in Table (9).
Table 7 - Fixed Process Conditions for Heat Exchanger Placed Upstream of Wet FGD
Inlet Conditions
Mfg (lb/hr) yH2O (%) Tfg (°F)
6.31E+06 11.6 303
35
Table 8 - Fixed Heat Exchanger Geometry for Heat Exchanger Placed Upstream of Wet FGD

Tube Diameter Tube Wall
St (in) Sl (in) Duct Depth (ft) Duct Height (ft)
NPS (in) Thickness (in)
2 0.195 6.17 2.97 40 40
Table 9 - Various Process Conditions for Heat Exchanger Placed Upstream of Wet FGD
Variable Process Conditions

BFW Inlet
Sub-Case Flow ratio
Temp (°F)
A 98 0.462
B 87 0.437
C 87 0.45
D&E 152 0.503
F 194 0.503
Six different subcases were studied. Each case had a distinct inlet temperature of boiler
feedwater and boiler feedwater to flue gas mass flow rate ratio. A summary of the input
parameters of these subcases is provided in Table (9) above. It must be noted here that case ‘D’
and ‘E’ have same inlet process conditions but they have different target temperature of boiler
feedwater at the exit of heat exchanger which can be attained by increasing the heat exchanger
duct length, or equivalently, the surface area. The detailed process conditions of each case are
provided in Appendix-A Table (A.1). For these subcases, trends for rate of condensation, the
temperature of boiler feedwater at the exit of the heat exchanger and the total annual cost are
analyzed for different heat exchanger lengths are provided below in Figure (14), Figure (15) and
Figure (16), respectively.
36
Conde
ensation Effficiency vs.. Length of Heat Excha
anger
10
8
Efficiency
7
ti Effi i
6
Condensation
4
T
Tbfw=87, flow ratio 0.437
C d
3
T
2 T
T
Tbfw=152, flow
w ratio 0.503
1
T
Tbfw=194, flow
w ratio 0.503
0
5 10 15 20 25 3
30
Length of Heat Ex
xchanger (ft))
Figure 14 - Im
mpact of using
g high temperrature BFW on
n Condensatio
on Efficiency of
o Heat Exchanger
place
ed Upstream of
o Wet FGD
BFW Ex
xit Tempera
ature vs. Length
L of Heat
H Excha
anger
260
240
220
Temperature (°F)
200
180
160 Tbfw=87, flow

w ratio 0.437
Tbfw=87, flow
w ratio 0.45
Tbfw=98, flow
w ratio 0.462
140
Tbfw=152, flo
ow ratio 0.503
3
Tbfw=194, flo
ow ratio 0.503
3
120
5 10
0 15 20 25 3
30
Leng
E (ftt)
Figure 15 - Im
mpact of high temperature BFW
B on tempeerature of BFW
W at the exit of
o Heat Exchan
nger,
place
ed Upstream of
o Wet FGD
37
Total Annual Co
ost vs. Len
ngth of Hea
at Exchang
ger
4.50
Total Annual Cost (million $) 4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
Tbfw=87, flow
w ratio 0.437
1.50 Tbfw=87, flow
w ratio 0.45
Tbfw=98, flow
w ratio 0.462
1.00
Tbfw=152, flo
ow ratio 0.503
0.50 Tbfw=194, flo
ow ratio 0.503
0.00
5 1
10 15 20 25 30
Len
Figure 16 - Impact of hig

gh Temperature BFW on Tootal Annual Co
ost of Heat Exchanger Place
ed
Upstream of Wet
W FGD
From the
t above plo
ots, it can be
e observed th
hat for a give
en length of th
he heat exch
hanger,
co
ondensation efficiency
e deccreases with increase in temperature of water at the inlet of
o boiler feedw
he
eat exchange
er and for the
e boiler feedw o 152°F and 192°F, there
water inlet temperatures of e is no
co
ondensation observed at all. g a 20ft long heat exchanger, the temp
a Assuming perature profiles for
th
hese subcase ed below in Figures (17 a-e
es are provide e) below:
38
Temp
perature Pro
ofile Subcasse A Tempe
erature Profiile Subcase B
HX Lengthh = 20.5 ft HX Length = 10 ft
350 350
Tfgg Tfg
300 Tddew 300 Tdeww
Tccw Tcw
(°F)
(°F)
( )
250 Twwall 250 Twall
Temperature
Temperature
t
200 200
p
150 150
T
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 2
20 40 60 80 100
Length
L of Ex
xchanger (%)) Le
ength of Exchanger (%)
17(a) - Tbfw
w_in = 98°F 17(b) - Tbfw_in
n = 87°F
Temp
perature Pro
ofile Subcas
se C Tempe
erature Proffile Subcase
eD
HX Length = 4 ft HX Lengthh = 22 ft
350 350
Tffg Tfgg
300 Tddew 300 Tddew
Tccw Tccw
Temperature (°F)
(°F)
( )
Twwall Twwall
250 250
Temperature
200 200
p
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 2
20 40 60 80 100
Length
L of Ex
xchanger (%) Le
ength of Exch
hanger (%)
w_in = 87°F
17(c) - Tbfw 17(d) - Tbfw_in
n = 152°F
39
Tem
mperature Prrofile Subcas
se F
HX Length = 12 ft
350
Tfg
Tdew
300 Tcw
(°F)
Twall
250
Temperature
200
150
T
100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Length
L of Exchanger (%)
17(e) - Tbfw
w_in = 194°F
Figure 17 - Temperature
e Profiles for subcases
s with
h variable BFW
W inlet temperratures for heat
exchannger upstream
m of wet FGD
From the
t above plo
ots of temperrature profiless, it is eviden
nt that the po
oint of conden
nsation
m
moves further down the le
ength of the heat
h exchang e in temperature of
ger duct with the increase
oiler feedwatter at the inlet of the heat exchanger resulting in

bo n lower condensation efficciency.
ment of condensation poin

Further, movem nt away from the upstream
m end of the heat
h exchange
er also
m
means that the
e length of tu om Nickel alloy 22 material will increasse to ensure higher
ubes made fro
co stance which results in an increase in to

orrosion resis ost of the heatt exchanger, as can
otal annual co
be
e seen in Figu
ure (16).
Furthe
er, the resultss obtained fro
om Jonas (14) indicate tha
at the flow ratte ratio depen
nds on
th xit temperature of the boiler feedwa

he target ex ater. Simulations were ru
un to design
n heat
exxchangers to edwater exit temperaturess for ratios off mass flow rate of
o obtain speccific boiler fee
bo
oiler feedwate
er to flue gas as provided in Appendix‐A
A Table (A.1). Results from
m the simulatio
ons for
th
hese exchang
gers are given
n below in Tab
ble (10).
40
Table 10 - Simulation results for the sub-cases A-F for Heat Exchanger placed upstream of the Wet
FGD Unit
Sub- Sub- Sub- Sub- Sub- Sub-

Case A Case B Case C Case D Case E Case F
Length of
ft 20.5 10 4 22 7.5 12
HX
m° FG [10^6 lb/hr] 6.309 6.309 6.309 6.309 6.309 6.309
m° BFW [10^6 lb/hr] 2.914 2.839 2.757 3.173 3.173 3.173
Ratio BFW/FG 0.462 0.45 0.437 0.503 0.503 0.503
% length
Cond. from
79.01 60.38 21.18 100.00 100.00 100.00
Point upstream
end of HX
Cond.
lb/hr 20892.34 27029.65 18965.83 0.00 0.00 0.00
Rate
Capture
% 4.67 6.04 4.24 0.00 0.00 0.00
Efficiency
Tfg in (°F) 303 303 303 303 303 303
Tfg out (°F) 182.09 221.71 265.53 206.24 254.55 253.68
Tbfw In (°F) 97.66 86.89 87.36 152.00 151.97 194.02
Tbfw Out (°F) 177.22 146.89 118.46 205.14 178.86 221.23
BFW ∆p (psi) 159.40 74.21 27.93 199.63 67.68 108.62
FG ∆p (psi) 0.058 0.029 0.011 0.064 0.022 0.035
Total
Installed $ Million 25.08 9.79 1.96 32.37 10.54 17.32
Cost
Total
Power kW 540.55 247.58 91.25 729.04 248.20 398.84
Req.
Annual
Operating $ Million 0.23 0.10 0.04 0.31 0.10 0.17
Cost
Total
Annual $ Million 2.59 1.03 0.22 3.36 1.10 1.80
Cost
From the above table, it was observed that the total annual cost associated with heat
exchangers placed before the FWH1 were lowest. It was also apparent that, for boiler feedwater at
a given temperature at the inlet of the heat exchanger, the total annual cost depends on the
temperature to which boiler feedwater is heated in the heat exchanger. In order to identify the most
appropriate target temperature to which boiler feedwater should be heated in the condensing heat
exchangers, four more heat exchangers with duct length 20ft, 15ft, 7ft and 3ft, and, process
41
conditions similar to those for the heat exchangers placed before the FWH1, detailed in Table (10)
above, were simulated. More detailed process conditions for these additional sub-cases numbered
1-4, as obtained from Jonas (14) are provided in Appendix-A Table (A.2). The results from these
subcases including the ones with least total annual cost are provided in Table (11).
Table 11 - Simulation results for the sub-cases 1 – 4 for Heat Exchanger placed upstream of the Wet
FGD Unit
Sub- Sub- Sub- Sub- Sub- Sub-

Case 1 Case 2 Case B Case 3 Case C Case 4
Length of
ft 20 15 10 7 4 3
HX
m° FG [10^6 lb/hr] 6.309 6.309 6.309 6.309 6.309 6.309
m° BFW [10^6 lb/hr] 2.922 2.894 2.839 2.801 2.757 2.732
Ratio BFW/FG 0.463 0.459 0.45 0.44 0.437 0.433
Cond.
lb/hr 36595.46 31677.44 27029.65 21954.34 18965.83 18313.9
Rate
% length
Cond. from
73.27 69.62 60.38 51.45 21.18 0.75
Point upstream
end of HX
Capture
% 8.18 7.08 6.04 4.91 4.24 4.09
Efficiency
Tfg in (°F) 303 303 303 303 303 303
Tfg out (°F) 181.02 198.43 221.71 240.97 265.53 275.28
Tbfw In (°F) 87.03 86.59 86.89 87.70 87.36 86.88
Tbfw Out (°F) 175.09 164.64 146.89 135.47 118.46 111.53
BFW ∆p (psi) 148.16 105.12 74.21 49.08 27.93 20.84
FG ∆p (psi) 0.056 0.043 0.029 0.020 0.011 0.008
Total
Installed $ Million 23.11 16.55 9.79 6.00 1.96 0.79
Cost
Total
Power kW 491.74 341.89 247.58 160.37 91.25 67.95
Req.
Annual
Operating $ Million 0.21 0.14 0.10 0.07 0.04 0.03
Cost
Total
Annual $ Million 2.38 1.70 1.03 0.63 0.22 0.10
Cost
42
From the
t above sim
mulation resu
ults, it is obse
erved that the
e cost of matterial plays a major
ro
ole in variatio
on of the totall annual cost. The temperrature distribu
ution for each
h heat exchan
nger is
prrovided in Fig
gure (18 a-d), respectively..
Temperature Pro
ofile Subcas
se 1 Tempe
erature Profiile Subcase 2
HX Lengtth = 20 ft HX Length = 15 ft
350 350
Tcw
w Tcw
w
300 Tfg
g 300 Tfg
Tdew Tde
ew
(°F)
(°F)
( )
250 Tw
wall 250 Twaall
Temperature
Temperature
200 200
t
150 150
p
100 100
T
50 50
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 2
20 40 60 80 100
L
Length of Ex
xchanger (%)) Le
ength of Exchanger (%)
18(a) 18(b)
Tempe
erature Profiile Subcase 3 Tempe
erature Profile Subcase 4
HX Lengthh = 7 ft HX Lengthh = 3 ft
350 Tcw 350
Tfg
300 Tdew 300
Twall
(°F)
( )
(°F)
250 250 Tcw

Tfg
Temperature
Temperature
200 200
Tdeww
t
Twalll
150 150
p
100 100
T
50 50
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 2
20 40 60 80 100
Length of Ex
xchanger (%)) Le
ength of Exc
changer (%)
18(c) 18(d)
Figu
ure 18 - Tempe
erature Profile
es for Subcase
es 1-4, Model 1, System without FGD
From the Table (11), it can be noticed that the total len
ngth of the he
eat exchange
er duct
re
educes with decrease
d in te
emperature of
o boiler feedw
water at the exit
e of the heat exchangerr. Also,
th
he point of co
ondensation moves
m closer to the beginn
ning of the he
eat exchange
er. This reducces the
43
quantity of expensive Nickel alloy 22 material for tubes. The overall Cost-benefit analysis for these
sub-cases was done by Jonas (14) as illustrated in Figure (19) and Figure (20) below.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
3.0
Total Costs
2.5 Total Benefit
Benefit minus Cost
2.0
Savings (million $)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0
BFW Temperature at Exit of Heat Exchanger (°F)
Figure 19 - Cost Benefit Analysis of Heat Exchanger placed before Wet FGD and Boiler Feedwater
extracted before FWH1 (14)
7.0
Change in Net Power (kW)
6.0
Changine in Net Power (MW)
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0
BFW Temperature at Exit of Heat Exchanger (°F)
Figure 20 - Change in Net Power for Heat Exchanger placed before Wet FGD and Boiler Feedwater
extracted before FWH1 (14)
44
From the Figure (19), it can be inferred that the total profits associated with heat
exchangers increases steadily with increase in the temperature of boiler feedwater at the exit
reaching a maximum at approx. 135° F and then declines.
5.2.Heat Exchanger placed Downstream of Wet FGD, Flue Gas at 135°F
Wet FGD units are used after the ESP to remove SO2 from the flue gas stream. The flue
gas stream coming out of the FGD is at a temperature of approximately 135°F and is saturated
with water, i.e., the mole fraction of water vapor is 17.4%. For a 600MW plant, the mass flow rate
of flue gas leaving the wet FGD was assumed to be around 6.3 million lb/hr,
The impact of increase in the ratio of mass flow rate of cooling water to flue gas as well as
the temperature of the cooling water at the inlet of the heat exchanger on rate of condensation and
the rate of heat transfer were studied by Hazell (3). In this study, we looked at the impact of
changing the transverse pitch between the tubes.
Although the ratio of mass flow rate boiler feedwater to flue gas is typically in the range of
0.4 - 0.5, for these analyses it was assumed to be 1.5 with cooling water entering the heat
exchanger at a temperature of 87°F. The tubes were assumed to be 2” diameter NPS with wall
thickness of 0.195”. The fixed process conditions and heat exchanger geometry for this analysis
are summarized in Table (12) and Table (13), respectively. The variable parameters are provided
in Table (14) below. It must be noted here that there is only a relatively small window of
opportunity to recover heat from the flue gas, since the flue gas is at a temperature of 135°F as
compared to 300°F upstream of FGD unit.
Table 12 - Fixed Process Conditions for Heat Exchanger placed Downstream of Wet FGD
Inlet Conditions
Mfg (lbm/hr) Mbfw (lbm/hr) yH2O (%) Tfg (°F) Tbfw (°F)
6.31E+06 9.46E+06 17.4 135 87
45
Table 13 - Fixed
F Heat Exc
changer Geom
metry for Heat Exchanger pllaced Downstrream of Wet FGD
F
Fixed Heaat Exchangerr Geometry

Tube Diameter Tube Wa all Duct Deepth Ductt Height
Sl (in
n)
NPPS (in) Thickness (in) (ft) (ft)
2 0.195 2.977 40 40
Table
e 14 - Variable
e Parameter fo
or Heat Exchanger placed Downstream
D of Wet FGD
Va
ariable Param
meters
Tra
ansverse Pitcch St (in)
4.88
5.14
6.17
While choosing the

e values of Transverse Pittch as mentio
oned in Table
e (14), it wass made
su
ure that the tu
ube spacing parameter
p ‘a’ as determine
ed by Zukausskas (5) , give
en by, , is
w
within the spec o values established empirrically as 1.20
cified range of 0 2.7
70
The co
ondensation efficiency, temperature off cooling wate
er at the exitt of heat exch
hanger
nd the total annual cost were analyzzed for differe

an ent heat exchanger lengtths as illustra
ated in
Figure (21), Fig

gure (22) and
d Figure (23) below:
b
Con
ndensation
n Efficiency
y vs. Duct Length
45
40
35
Condensation Efficiency
30
25
20
15
St = 4.88in
10 St = 5.14in
St = 6.17in
5
0
0 5 10 15 20
Length of Heat Exchanger
E (fft)
Figure 21 - Impact of Tra

ansverse Pitch on Condenssation Efficien
ncy of Heat Ex
xchanger place
ed
Dowwnstream of Wet
W FGD
46
Cooling
g Water Exit Tempera
ature vs. Duct Length
h
125
120
115
110
Temperature (°F)
105
100
95
90 Stt = 4.88in
Stt = 5.14in
85 Stt = 6.17in
80
0 5 10
0 15 20
Len
ngth of Heat Exchanger (ft)
(
Figure 22 - Imp
pact of Transverse Pitch on Temperature of Cooling Water at the Exiit of Heat Exch
hanger
placed Downstream of Wet FGD
T
Total Annu
ual Cost vs
s. Duct Len
ngth
2.50
Total Annual Cost ( million $)
2.00
1.50
1.00
Stt = 4.88in
0.50 Stt = 5.14in
Stt = 6.17in
0.00
0 5 10
0 15 20
Le
ength of Heatt Exchanger (ft)
Figure 23 - Imp verse Pitch on Total Annual cost of Heat Exchanger

pact of Transv E pla
aced Downstrream of
Wet FGDD
47
From the Figure (21) and (22), it can be noticed that the rate of condensation and the
temperature of cooling water at the exit of the heat exchanger increase with decrease in
transverse pitch. This can be attributed to the increase in total surface area of the tubes as the
total number of tubes in the bank increases, for a given size duct, due to reduction in the spacing
between the tubes. This also means that the total cost of material and the manufacturing and
installation cost will increase. Further, due to a more packed geometry for lower transverse pitch,
there is some increase in the pressure drop in flue gas stream. But, due to the increase in number
of tubes, the total mass flow rate of cooling water per tube is reduced, resulting in decrease in
pressure drop on cooling water side. This decrease in pressure drop for cooling water dominates
the annual operating cost, thus bringing the total annual cost down, as can be seen in the Figure
(23).
5.3.Precooled Flue Gas using Water Spray, Flue Gas at 155°F
Flue gas always contains some mole fractions of SO2 and SO3. Although SO3 reacts with
moisture in flue gas to form vapors of sulfuric acid and condenses out with moisture in flue gas,
FGD unit are required to remove SO2. In this section, we analyzed the impact of spraying low
temperature water in the flue gas stream to precool it to a temperature of 155°F on condensation
efficiency and total annual cost in comparison to that of a heat exchanger placed upstream or
downstream of a wet FGD without spraying.
For a 600MW plant, the mass flow rate of flue gas increases from 6.31 million lb/hr to 6.54
million lb/hr as a result of spraying additional water into the gas stream and the mole fraction of
water vapor in flue gas increased from 11.6% to 16.4%. The mass flow rate of feedwater was 2.83
million lb/hr for this model resulting in a flue gas to feedwater mass flow rate ratio of 0.443. It was
assumed that the mass flow rate of feedwater remains constant for all heat exchanger geometries
analyzed, irrespective of the temperature of boiler feedwater at the exit of the heat exchanger. The
tubes were assumed to be 2” diameter NPS with wall thickness of 0.195”. The fixed process
48
conditions and heat exchanger geometry for this configuration are summarized in Table (15) and
Table (16), respectively. The variable parameters are provided in Table (17). The detailed process
conditions as obtained from Jonas (14) are provided in Appendix-A Table (A.3).
Table 15 - Fixed Process Conditions for Precooled Flue Gas using Water Spray
Inlet Conditions
6.54E+06 2.839E+06 16.4 155 87
Table 16 - Fixed Heat Exchanger Geometry for Precooled Flue Gas using Water Spray

Tube Diameter Tube Wall Duct Depth Duct Height
St (in) Sl (in)
NPS (in) Thickness (in) (ft) (ft)
2 0.195 6.17 2.97 40 40
Table 17 - Variable Parameter for Heat Exchanger for Precooled Flue Gas using Water Spray
Variable Parameter
Duct Length (ft) Surface Area (ft^2)
5 3.35E+04
10 7.08E+04
15 1.08E+05
20 1.45E+05
The results obtained for this configuration were compared with those for heat exchangers
with same geometry and mass flow rate of boiler feedwater, but, without precooling the flue gas
stream using water spray and placed upstream of FGD (UHX) as well as downstream of FGD
(DHX). The fixed process conditions for these systems are provided below in Table (18) and Table
(19), respectively.
Table 18 - Fixed Process Conditions for UHX without using Water Spray for Precooling Flue Gas
Inlet Conditions
6.309E+06 2.838E+06 11.6 303 87
49
Table 19 - Fiixed Process Conditions fo
or DHX without using Water Spray for Pre
ecooling Flue Gas
Inlet Condittions
Mfg (lbm/hr) Mbfw (lb
bm/hr) yH2O (%) Tfg (°F) Tbfw (°F)
6.76E+06 2.848E
E+06 17.4 135 87
Conde
ensation efficiency, temperrature of boile
er feedwater at
a the exit of heat
h exchang
ger and
to
otal annual co
ost for heat exchanger
e witth precooled flue gas werre compared with those fo
or UHX
nd DHX with regular flue gas. The plots for the sam
an ded below in Figure (24), Figure
me are provid
(2
25) and Figure
e (26), respecctively.
Condens
sation Efficiency vs. Le
ength of Heat Exchang
ger
18
16
14
12
10
6
Tfg_in = 155°F with
h water spray
4 Tfg_in = 303°F with
hout water spray
hout water spray
Tfg_in = 135°F with
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Length of Heat Exchanger
E (fft)
Figure 24 - Co
ondensation Efficiency
E for Heat
H Exchang
ger with Preco
ooled Flue Gas
s compared to
o UHX
and DHX
X
50
Boiler Fee
edwater Ex
xit Tempera
ature vs. Length
L of Heat
H
Exchang
ger
180
170
160
Temperature (°F)
150
140
130
Tfg_in = 155°F with water
w spray
120 Tfg_in = 303°F withou
ut water spray
y
Tfg_in = 135°F withou
ut water spray
y
110
0 5 10 15 20
0 25
Len
ngth of Heat Exchanger
E (fft)
Figure 25 - Boiler Feedwaterr Exit Tempera

ature for Heat Exchanger with Precooled Flue Gas com
mpared
to UHX and DHX
D
Total Annual Cos

st vs. Lengtth of Heat Exchange
er
3.00
Tfg_in = 155°F with water

w spray
2.50 Tfg_in = 303°F without water spray

y
Tfg_in = 135°F without water spray
y
Total Annual Cost (Million $)
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
0 25
Le
ength of Heatt Exchangerr (ft)
al Annual Cos
Figure 26 - Tota st for Heat Exc
changer with Precooled
P Flu
ue Gas compared to UHX an
nd DHX
51
From Figure (24) it is noticed that the condensation efficiency for precooled flue gas
remains lower than that for DHX. This can be explained by the fact that the flue gas downstream of
FGD is saturated with water at 135 °F with water vapor mole fraction of 17.4% while the precooled
flue gas at 155°F has water vapor mole fraction of 16.4% only, which indicated that the flue gas is
not saturated. As a result more water condensation will be observed in DHX, thus, higher
condensation efficiency. It is interesting to note from Figure (25) that the rise in temperature and
thus total heat transfer for heat exchanger with precooled flue gas and DHX are nearly equal while
that for UHX without water spraying is much higher. This can be attributed to higher temperature of
flue gas for UHX. On the contrary, though the precooled flue gas has higher temperature than that
for DHX, the nearly same heat transfer can be explained by the difference in mass flow rate of flue
gas for precooled flue gas and DHX. The higher temperature of flue gas compensates for the
lower mass flow rate of precooled flue gas.
This is also the reason for nearly same total annual cost for heat exchangers up-to a size
of 10ft as indicated in Figure (26). Up-to a size of 10ft, even though the heat exchanger for
precooled flue gas utilizes Nickel alloy 22 for tube material for some tube length, the higher cost
for material is compensated by the lower operating cost of the heat exchanger due to lesser
pressure drop. Beyond the size of 10ft, the cost of material becomes substantial and the heat
exchangers for precooled flue gas tend to have higher total annual cost.
It is also possible that the spraying of water into flue gas stream might have an impact on
the duty associated with FGD unit. This aspect has not been looked into at this stage.
5.4.Coupled Heat Exchanger, Flue gas at 135°F
Sometimes a thermal power plant is spread over a large area of land and the boiler unit is
at some distance from the turbine floor resulting in a large distance between the flue gas duct after
the ESPs and the boiler feedwater line after the condenser. Thus, the possibility of using boiler
feedwater as the cooling fluid for the condensing heat exchanger becomes questionable due to the
distance, space and arrangement inconvenience. In this model, we looked at the option of using
two sets of heat exchangers coupled together using cooling water as intermediate fluid which
52
absorbs heat from the flue gas in condensing heat exchanger (HX1) and afterwards rejects the
heat to boiler feedwater in the second heat exchanger (HX2). Since both the hot and the cold fluid
for HX2 are water, namely cooling water and boiler feedwater, in this study, HX2 is also referred to
as water-to-water heat exchanger. The basic system arrangement is provided below in Figure
(27). It must be noted here that the temperatures of cooling water in the Figure (27) are for cooling
water to boiler feedwater mass flow rate ratio of 0.75 only.
Figure 27 - Flow diagram for Coupled Heat Exchanger Arrangement
The detailed design of the water-to- water heat exchanger has been described in Section
2.2. There exists a limit on the maximum mass flow rate ratio of boiler feedwater that can be
obtained by altering the duty on low pressure FWHs. All the extractions from the low pressure
turbine eventually combine and this water is then pumped back into the steam circuit after the first
feedwater heater (FWH1) using the drain pump. The detailed steam cycle ASPEN Model as used
by Jonas (16) is available in Appendix-A, Figure (A.1). For a 600MW plant with FGD unit, the
maximum mass flow rate ratio of boiler feedwater to flue gas is limited to 0.503 after FWH1, as
observed from results obtained from Jonas (14). Assuming that the mass flow rate of flue gas after
the FGD is 6.31 million lb/hr, and HX2 is placed before FWH1, the mass flow rate of boiler
53
feedwater available is nearly 2.79 million lb/hr. The boiler feedwater enters HX2 at a temperature
of 87°F and the flue gas enters HX1 at 135°F and is saturated with water vapor. i.e, the mole
fraction of water is 17.4%. Cooling water is continuously circulated between the two heat
exchangers and energy and mass balance equations are used to calculate cooling water
temperatures at the inlet and exit of HX1.
To simplify the calculations, HX2 is assumed to be a shell and tube heat exchanger with a
shell of rectangular cross-section 10’X4’ with a horizontal separating plate at a height of 5’ dividing
the exchanger into two passes for cooling water flowing outside the heat exchanger tubes. Boiler
feed water flows inside the tubes. The tubes are assumed to be 1” NPS diameter with a wall
thickness 0.133” matching Schedule 40S as per ASME B36.19.
For HX1, the length of the duct was kept constant at 20’. The tube diameter was assumed
to be 3.5” with a wall thickness of 0.226” matching Schedule 40S as per ASME B36.19. The
choice of tube diameter was based on the results obtained from the study of impacts of tube
diameter as explained in Section 4 of this report.
Three different cases were evaluated with mass flow rate ratios of 0.75, 1.0 and 1.5
between cooling water and flue gas. Separate calculations were also done for condensing heat
exchangers with boiler feedwater and cooling water as cooling fluids and the results were
compared to those obtained for coupled heat exchangers. There are three possibilities compared
in this section:
1. Using boiler feedwater at water to flue gas mass flow rate ratio of 0.443.
For the possibility of using only the boiler feedwater as cooling fluid, the mass flow rate of
boiler feedwater is kept constant at 2.79 million lb/hr. For a 600MW unit, flue gas is at a
temperature of 135°F downstream of the FGD unit. As a result, there is a limitation on the
maximum amount of heat that can be recovered from the flue gas. A heat exchanger in 15ft long
duct was found to be appropriately long to heat boiler feedwater to nearly 134°F. The fixed
process conditions and heat exchanger geometry for the system using boiler feedwater are
summarized in below in Table (20) and Table (21), respectively.
54
Table 20 - Fixed Process Conditions for system using Boiler Feedwater for comparison with Coupled
Heat Exchanger
Inlet Conditions for system using Boiler Feedwater

6.31E+06 2.79E+06 17.4 135 87
Table 21 - Fixed Heat Exchanger Geometry for system using Boiler Feedwater for comparison with
Coupled Heat Exchanger
Fixed Heat Exchanger Geometry for system using Boiler Feedwater

Tube Diameter Tube Wall Duct Depth Duct Height Duct Length
St (in) Sl (in)
NPS (in) Thickness (in) (ft) (ft) (ft)
2 0.195 6.17 2.97 40 40 15
2. Using cooling water at water to flue gas mass flow rate ratios of 0.75,1.0 and 1.5.
For the system using cooling water instead of boiler feedwater, a heat exchanger of length
2
23ft was identified to have a total surface area of 163052.00 ft which is nearly the same as the
combined surface area of HX1 and HX2 for coupled heat exchanger assembly as detailed in third
possibility in this section. The mass flow rate ratio of cooling water to flue gas was varied. The
fixed process conditions and heat exchanger geometry for the system using cooling water are
summarized below in Table (22) and Table (23), respectively.
Table 22 - Fixed Process Conditions for system using Cooling Water for comparison with Coupled
Heat Exchanger
Inlet Conditions for system using Cooling Water

6.31E+06 135 87 17.4
Table 23 - Fixed Heat Exchanger Geometry for system using Cooling Water for comparison with
Coupled Heat Exchanger
Fixed Heat Exchanger Geometry for Cooling Water

Tube Diameter Tube Wall Duct Depth Duct Height Duct Length
St (in) Sl (in)
NPS (in) Thickness (in) (ft) (ft) (ft)
3.5 0.226 6.17 2.97 40 40 23
55
3. Using coupled heat exchanger with cooling water to flue gas mass flow rate ratios of 0.75,
1.0 and 1.5.
For coupled heat exchanger arrangement, the geometry of HX2 was chosen from multiple
trial and error combinations of duct height, depth and length and the tube diameter to obtain
maximum heat transfer. Also, the tube material chosen for HX2 was low alloy carbon steel as it
has a higher thermal conductivity compared to stainless steel and nickel alloy 22. The impact of
the new tube material on the total annual cost has not been assessed at this stage. The surface
2 2
areas of both the heat exchangers were kept constant i.e. 144,242.24 ft for HX1 and 17,065.96 ft
2
for HX2 resulting in an overall total surface area of 161308.2 ft . The fixed process conditions and
heat exchanger geometry for the coupled heat exchanger are summarized below in Table (24),
Table (25) and Table (26), respectively.
Table 24 - Fixed Process Conditions for Coupled Heat Exchanger Assembly
Inlet Conditions for Coupled Heat Exchanger Assembly

6.31E+06 2.79E+06 17.4 155 87
Table 25 - Fixed Geometry for HX1 of Coupled Heat Exchanger Assembly
Fixed Heat Exchanger Geometry for HX1 of Coupled Heat Exchanger Assembly
Tube Diameter Tube Thickness St Sl Duct Depth Duct Height Duct Length
NPS (in) (in) (in) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft)
3.5 0.226 6.17 2.97 40 40 20
Table 26 - Fixed Geometry for HX2 of Coupled Heat Exchanger Assembly
Fixed Heat Exchanger Geometry for HX2 of Coupled Heat Exchanger Assembly
Tube Diameter Tube wall St Sl Duct Depth Duct Height Duct Length
NPS (in) Thickness (in) (in) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1 0.133 1.7 1.7 4 5 27
The only variable parameter for a heat exchanger system using only cooling water and
system using coupled heat exchangers is the mass flow rate ratio of cooling water to flue gas as
provided in Table (27). The heat exchanger using only boiler feedwater, on the other hand, has
fixed geometry and inlet process conditions.
56
T
Table 27 - Varriable Process
s Condition forr system using Cooling Water and Couplled Heat Exchanger
V
Variable Para
ameter
Mcw/Mfgg Mcw (m
million lb/hr)
0.75 4.73
1.00 6.31
1.50 9.47
The co
ondensation efficiency,
e tem
mperature of boiler feedwa
ater at the exit of heat exch
hanger
an
nd total press
sure drop forr the heat exxchanger asse
embly were analyzed
a and
d compared to
o what
w observed from analysiss of heat exch

was hangers with boiler feedwa
ater and cooling water for cooling
c
flu e (28), Figure (29) and Figure (30)). It must be noted herre that
uids. Refer below Figure
co
e for the assemblyy is actually th
he condensattion efficiencyy of HX1 (sincce HX2
water heat excchanger) and the temperatture of boiler feedwater, ass depicted in Figure
iss a water-to-w
(2
28), is the tem
mperature of boiler
b feedwatter at the exit of HX2.
Tbfw
w or Tcw at
a the exit of
o Heat Exc
changer
136
Using BF
FW
134 Using CW
W
Coupled HX
132
Temperature (°F)
130
128
126
124
122
0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7
Cooling Water to Flue Gas

G Mass Flo
ow Rate Ratio
o
Figure 28 - Trend
T for Tem
mperature of Fe
eedwater at th
he exit of Coup
pled Heat Excchanger assemmbly
compared to system
c s using only
o Boiler Fe
eedwater or on
nly Cooling Water
W for variou
us Cooling Wa
ater to
Flue Ga as Mass Flow
w Rate Ratios
57
Cond
densation Efficiency
E
50
Condensation Efficiency 45
40
35 U
Using BFW
U
Using CW
30
C
Coupled HX
25
20
15
10
0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7
C
Cooling Wate
er to Flue Ga
as Mass Flow
w Rate Ratio
Figure 29 - Condensation
C Efficiency forr Coupled Heaat Exchanger assembly com mpared to sys
stem
using only Boiler Feedwater or only Coolling Water for various Cooling Water to Flue
u F Gas Mass
s Flow
Rate Ratio
os
Tottal Power Requireme

R ent
1210
1010
Power Required (kW)
810
610
410
Usin
ng BFW
Usin
ng CW
210
Coupled HX
10
0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7
Cooling Watter to Flue Gas Mass Flow
w Rate Ratio
o
Figure 30 - To
otal power req
quired for Cou
upled Heat Excchanger assem
mbly compare ed to system using
u
only Boiler Fe
eedwater or on
nly Cooling Water
W for various Cooling Water to Flue Gas
G Mass Flow w Rate
Ratios
58
From the Figure (28), it is observed that the temperature of feedwater at the exit of HX2 of
coupled heat exchangers assembly increases with the increase in cooling water to flue gas mass
flow rate ratio. This can be explained as the effectiveness of HX2 increases with increase in mass
flow rate of cooling water. The trend for effectiveness is provided in Figure (31) below.
HX2 Effectiveness
1.00
0.95
Effectiveness
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7
Cooling Water to Flue Gas Mass Flow Rate Ratio
Figure 31 - Impact of cooling water to flue gas mass flow rate ratio on effectiveness of HX2 of
Coupled Heat Exchanger Assembly
Further, it must be noted here that it gets harder to improve the effectiveness of HX2
above 0.95, and thus, increase the exit temperature of feedwater above 130°F. In contrast to the
trends observed for coupled heat exchanger arrangement, for heat exchanger using cooling water,
the temperature of cooling water at the exit of the heat exchanger decreases with increase in mass
flow rate of cooling water. Moreover, even though the total rate of heat transfer increases with
increase in mass flow rate of cooling water, the exit temperature of cooling water drops for the
heat exchanger using only cooling water as can be seen in Figure (28).
If the aim of the heat exchanger is to condense out as much water from the flue gas as
possible, clearly the best option is using only cooling water. The condensation efficiency for
59
coupled heat exchanger assembly is found to be lower compared to that of heat exchanger using
either boiler feedwater or cooling water only as can be observed from Figure (29). This is due to
the fact that in couplde heat exchangers, cooling water is at higher temperature at the inlet of HX1,
and, the temperature further increases with increase in the cooling water to flue gas mass flow rate
ratio. The trend for the temperature of cooling water at the inlet of HX1 is provided in Figure (32)
below.
Temperature of cooling water at inlet of HX1

122
120
118
Temperature (°F)
116
114
112
110
108
0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7
Cooling Water to Flue Gas Mass Flow Rate Ratio
Figure 32 - Impact of Cooling Water to Flue Gas Mass Flow Rate Ratio on Temperature of Cooling
Water at the inlet of HX1 of Coupled Heat Exchanger Assembly
The reason for increase in temperature of cooling water at the inlet of HX1 is that the
cooling water is not routed through cooling tower to bring down its temperature; rather it is
circulated continuously between HX1 and HX2. Any heat loss to the environment in the process of
circulation has been neglected at this stage. Figure (33) and Figure (34) below depict the process
flow diagram for coupled heat exchangers with cooling water to flue gas mass flow rate ratio of 1.0
and 1.5, respectively.
60
Figure 33 - Process Flow Diagram for Coupled Heat Exchanger with Cooling Water to Flue Gas Mass
Flow Rate Ratio of 1.0
Figure 34 - Process Flow Diagram for Coupled Heat Exchanger with Cooling Water to Flue Gas Mass
Flow Rate Ratio of 1.5
From the Figure (30), it can be noticed that the total power requirements for coupled heat
exchanger assembly remains more than that for heat exchanger using only cooling water. The
61
increased power requirements can be attributed to the additional pressure drop due to usage of an
additional heat exchanger in coupled heat exchangers assembly.
Overall, the use of feedwater directly with flue gas in condensing heat exchanger proves
to be the ideal choice if the main aim of the system is to recover heat with reasonable power
requirements, but, it is better to use cooling water at higher mass flow rates if we intend to
condense out as much water as possible. The choice of coupled heat exchanger assembly is
appropriate only, at higher mass flow rate ratios, when we have space constraints or the feed
water line is at a distance from the flue gas duct after the ESP.
5.5.Cascaded Heat Exchanger, Flue Gas at 300°F ‐135°F
In this case, two heat exchangers are arranged in cascading across the FGD. The first
heat exchanger, referred to as UHX, is placed upstream of the FGD and the second heat
exchanger, referred to as DHX is placed downstream of the FGD. After the ESP, flue gas passes
through the UHX and then enters the FGD where it is desulfurized. Saturated flue gas after the
FGD enters the DHX. Boiler feedwater enters from downstream of the DHX, bypasses the FGD,
and then re-enters the UHX such that an overall counter flow arrangement is obtained for both
DHX and UHX. Refer Figure (35) below for the detailed process diagram.
Figure 35 - Flow Diagram for Cascaded Heat Exchanger Arrangement
The analysis of this configuration was done in two stages. First, the DHX was optimized
separately. It is possible to optimize DHX separately because irrespective of the temperature of
flue gas at the exit of UHX, the inlet conditions of flue gas at the inlet of DHX will always remain
62
constant due to the presence of FGD. For a coal fired power plant, flue gas downstream of the
FGD is saturated at a temperature of about 135°F. Keeping the temperature of boiler feedwater at
the inlet of DHX fixed at 87°F, the only variable parameter is the mass flow rate of boiler
feedwater. The mass flow rate of boiler feedwater depends only on the final temperature of boiler
feedwater as it comes out of the UHX-DHX assembly, which decides the FWH duty required as
explained in Section 3 of this report.
The flow rate of flue gas is 6.329 million lb/hr before it enters FGD, where it gets saturated
and the flue gas flow rate increases to 6.716 million lb/hr due to the addition of water in FGD. The
diameter of the tubes for DHX and UHX was kept constant at 2” NPS and wall thickness of 0.218”.
Setting a target temperature of boiler feedwater at the exit of UHX-DHX assembly, the mass flow
rate of boiler feedwater was obtained from Jonas (14). Simulations were run by the author for
multiple target temperatures of boiler feedwater and variable DHX duct lengths, and, the rate of
condensation in DHX and total annual cost associated with DHX were obtained. A summary of the
fixed process conditions and heat exchanger geometry for DHX is provided in Table (28) and
Table (29) below:
Table 28 - Fixed Process Conditions for DHX of Cascaded Heat Exchangers Assembly
Inlet Conditions for DHX

6.72E+06 135 87 17.4
Table 29 - Fixed Heat Exchanger Geometry for DHX of Cascaded Heat Exchangers Assembly
Fixed Heat Exchanger Geometry for DHX

St (in) Sl (in)
2 0.195 6.17 2.97 40 40
The variable boiler feedwater mass flow rates and the corresponding boiler feedwater
temperature at the exit of the assembly are summarized below in Table (30).
63
T
Table 30 - Varia
able mass flow
w rate of boile
er feedwater fo
or DHX and UH
HX of Cascaded Heat Excha
angers
Assembly (14)
(
Variab
ble Process Conditions
C
Tbfw at exit of
Mbfw (lb/hr)
UHX-DH HX (°F)
14
40 2.82E+06
15
50 2.85E+06
16
60 2.88E+06
17
70 2.91E+06
18
80 2.93E+06
19
90 2.97E+06
20
00 2.99E+06
The plots for tempe

erature of feed
dwater at the exit of DHX and
a rate of co
ondensation in DHX
ass observed for

f variable fe
eedwater ma able (30) are available be
ass flow ratess listed in Ta elow in
Figure (36) and

d Figure (37), respectivelyy.
Temp
perature off Boiler Fe
eedwater att exit of DH
HX
136
134
132
130
Temperature (°F)
128
126
124
Tbfw
w=200
122 Tbfw
w=190
Tbfw
w=180
120 Tbfw
w=160
Tbfw
w=150
118 Tbfw
w=140
116
114
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Le
Figure 36 - Trend for Temperrature of Boile

er Feedwater at
a the Exit of DHX
D for variou
us Target Feedwater
Teemperatures ata the Exit of UHX-DHX
U Asssembly.
64
Conden
nsation Effficiency off DHX
19
17
15
13
11 Tbfw=
=200
Tbfw=
=190
Tbfw=
=180
9
Tbfw=
=160
Tbfw=
=150
7 Tbfw=
=140
5
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Le
F
Figure 37 - Tre
end for Rate off Condensatio
on in DHX for various
v Targe
et Boiler Feedw
water Temperratures
at the Exit of UHX-DH
HX Assembly.
From Figure (36), it can be noticed that the temperature of boiler feed
dwater at the exit of
D
DHX is nearly the same for all boiler feed
dwater mass flow rates sim
mulated. The inlet tempera
ature of
flu
ue gas and boiler
b feed wa
ater being con
nstant for all the tests, the
e impact of sllight changess in the
m
mass flow rate
e of boiler fee
edwater is neg
gligible on the
e total heat trransferred fro
om flue gas to
o boiler
fe
eedwater resu
ulting in identtical temperattures of boiler feedwater at
a the exit of DHX. Althoug
gh, the
ch
hange in ma
ass flow rate of boiler fee
edwater results in conden
nsation efficie
ency variation
n from
6.1% to 17.1% between the lowest and highest ta

16 arget tempera
ature cases but the incre
ease in
co
e betw
ween two succcessive case
es is negligiblle as can be seen
s in Figure
e (37).
Plots were
w also ge
enerated to id
dentify the im
mpact of varia
ation in masss flow rate off boiler
fe
eedwater with
h target temp
perature of bo er at the exitt of UHX-DHX assembly on the
oiler feedwate
to
otal capital co
ost as well ass the annual operating cost. These plo ded below in Figure
ots are provid
(3
38) and Figure
e (39), respecctively.
65
Total Capital Cost asso
ociated witth DHX
5.00
4.50
4.00
Total Capital Cost (Million $)
$
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
Tbfw
w=200
1.50 Tbfw
w=190
Tbfw
w=180
1.00 Tbfw
w=160
Tbfw
w=150
0.50 Tbfw
w=140
0.00
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Len
ngth of Heat Exchanger
E (fft)
Figure 38 - Tottal Capital Cos

F st associated with DHX for various
v Targe
et Boiler Feedw
water Temperratures
at the Exit of UHX-DH
HX Assembly.
Ann
nual Opera
ating Cost associated with DHX
X
0.30
Tbfw
w=200
0.25 Tbfw
w=190
Annual Operating Cost (Million $)
Tbfw
w=180
Tbfw
w=160
0.20 Tbfw
w=150
Tbfw
w=140
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Len
ngth of Heatt Exchanger (ft)
Figure 39 - Annual Ope

erating Cost as
ssociated withh DHX for various Target Bo
oiler Feedwate
er
T
Temperatures at the Exit of UHX-DHX Ass sembly
66
From Figure
F (38), itt is observed that for a givven duct leng
gth, the total capital
c cost re
emains
th
he same irres
spective of th
he target boiler feedwater temperature. This is exp
pected becausse flue
ga
as entering the DHX is sa
aturated and therefore wa
ater vapor sta
arts condenssing as the flu
ue gas
en
nters the hea
at exchanger.. Therefore, Nickel
N alloy 22
2 tubing is not
n required here.
h Thus, iff we fix
th
he length of the duct off the heat exchanger, th ociated with manufacturin
he cost asso ng and
in
nstallation an
nd the tubing
g will remain
n constant irrespective off the mass flow rate of boiler
fe
eedwater. Furrther, the diffe
erence betwe
een the masss flow rates of
o boiler feedw
water is quite
e small
fo
or different tarrget temperattures of boilerr feedwater at
a the exit of UHX-DHX
U asssembly. As a result,
th
he annual ope
erating cost fo e same as can be seen in Figure
or all the cases simulated is nearly the
(3
39) above.
Since, the total capital cost and

d operating cost
c associatted with the DHX,
D of give
en duct
le
ength, were nearly
n the sam
me, the resultting total ann
nual cost for the hat duct length was
t DHX of th
fo
ound to be ap
pproximately the
t same for all target tem
mperatures att the exit of UHX-DHX
U asssembly
ass can be seen

n below in Fig
gure (40).
Tottal Annual Cost asso

ociated witth DHX
0.7
0.6
(Milli $)
0.5
C t (Million
0.4
l Cost
T t l Annual
0.3 Tbfw
w=200
Tbfw
w=190
A
Tbfw
w=180
0.2
Total
Tbfw
w=160
Tbfw
w=150
Tbfw
w=140
0.1
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Leng
E (ftt)
Figure 40 - Trend
T for Tota
al Annual Costt associated with
w DHX for various Target Boiler Feedw
water
T
Temperatures at the Exit of UHX-DHX Asssembly
67
Since the temperature of boiler feedwater at the exit of DHX, condensation efficiency in
DHX and the total annual cost associated with DHX are nearly the same for different target
temperatures of boiler feedwater at the exit of UHX-DHX assembly; it is acceptable to choose a
fixed geometry of DHX in the UHX-DHX assembly.
Following the results analyzed above, DHX with a duct length of 12ft was selected. The
total heat transfer, total annual cost, pressure drop etc associated with DHX of duct length 12 ft
and various target temperatures of boiler feedwater at the exit of UHX-DHX assembly are provided
below in Table (31).
68
Table 31 - Simulation results for DHX of Duct Length 12ft and various Boiler Feedwater Target Temperatures at the Exit of Cascaded Heat Exchanger
Assembly
Tbfw_Target at the exit of UHX (°F) 200 190 180 170 160 150 140
Length of DHX ft 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
m° Boiler Feedwater UHX-DHX [10^6 lb/hr] 2.994 2.960 2.930 2.905 2.876 2.848 2.819
m° Flue Gas for DHX [10^6 lb/hr] 6.720 6.720 6.720 6.720 6.720 6.720 6.720
Total Cond. Rate in DHX [10^3 lb/hr] 124.35 125.7 123.29 122.14 121.01 118.22 120.11
Total Heat Transfer in DHX [10^6 BTU/hr] 138.7624 140.3588 137.5914 136.2948 135.0164 131.7309 133.9525
DHX Tfg in (°F) 135 135 135 135 135 135 135
DHX Tfg out (°F) 129.06 128.96 129.11 129.17 129.23 129.4 129.27
DHX Tbfw In (°F) 87 87 87 87 87 87 87
DHX Tbfw Out (°F) 133.9 133.9 133.97 134.02 134.07 134.11 134.11
Boiler Feedwater ∆p in DHX (psi) 110.228 108.212 106.031 104.024 102.036 100.115 98.198
69
Flue Gas ∆p in DHX (psi) 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031
Total Surface Area of DHX 2
ft 85720.06 85720.06 85720.06 85720.06 85720.06 85720.06 85720.06
% distance from
Cond. Point in DHX the upstream end 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
of HX
yH2O-EXIT of DHX 0.1489 0.1486 0.1491 0.1493 0.1496 0.1502 0.1498
Total Installed Cost for DHX Million $ 3.53 3.53 3.53 3.53 3.53 3.53 3.53
Annual Fixed Cost for DHX Million $ 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33
ID Fan Power for DHX kW 18.95 18.94 18.96 18.98 18.99 19.01 19
BFW Pump Power for DHX kW 358.37 348.41 337.82 328.15 318.66 309.62 300.6
Total Power Req. for DHX kW 377.33 367.35 356.78 347.12 337.65 328.63 319.6
Annual Operating Cost for DHX Million $ 0.1585 0.1543 0.1498 0.1458 0.1418 0.138 0.1342
Total Annual Cost for DHX Million $ 0.4906 0.4864 0.482 0.4779 0.474 0.4702 0.4664
Once the length of DHX was selected, simulations were performed for UHX to attain the
target temperatures for boiler feedwater. It must be noted here that the target temperature of boiler
feed water at the exit of UHX-DHX assembly is the temperature of boiler feedwater at the exit of
UHX. The mass flow rate of flue gas upstream of the FGD is 6.329 million lb/hr with 12% moisture
by mole fraction. The flue gas is at a temperature of 300°F upstream of the UHX. Assuming, no
heat loss in pumping boiler feedwater around the FGD from DHX to UHX, boiler feedwater will
enter the UHX at a temperature of 134°F which is the same temperature at which boiler feedwater
exits DHX. A summary of the fixed process conditions and heat exchanger geometry for UHX is
provided in Table (32) and Table (33) below. The mass flow rate of boiler feedwater for UHX will
be the same as that for the DHX. Therefore the variable parameters for UHX will be the same as
that for DHX as provided in Table (30).
Table 32 - Fixed Process Conditions for UHX of Cascaded Heat Exchanger Assembly
Inlet Conditions
6.33E+06 300 134 12
Table 33 - Fixed Heat Exchanger Geometry for UHX of Cascaded Heat Exchangers Assembly

St (in) Sl (in)
2 0.195 6.17 2.97 40 40
Simulations were run to identify the length of duct required for UHX so that the boiler feed
water coming out of the UHX is heated to specific target temperatures. The changes in
condensation efficiency and total annual cost, associated with UHX, with increase in target
temperature of boiler feedwater at the exit of UHX were recorded. Table (34) below provides the
details of total installed capital cost and annual operating cost as well as the fan and pump power
requirements associated with UHX for various target temperatures of boiler feedwater at the exit of
UHX.
70
Table 34 - Simulation results for UHX of UHX-DHX Assembly for various Boiler Feedwater Target Temperatures at the Exit of Cascaded Heat Exchanger
Assembly
Tbfw_Target at the exit of UHX (°F) 200 190 180 170 160 150 140
Length of UHX ft 26 18 13 9 6 3.5 1.9
m° Boiler Feedwater UHX-DHX [10^6 lb/hr] 2.994 2.960 2.930 2.905 2.876 2.848 2.819
m° Flue Gas for UHX [10^6 lb/hr] 6.329 6.329 6.329 6.329 6.329 6.329 6.329
Total Cond. Rate in UHX [10^3 lb/hr] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Heat Transfer in UHX [10^6 BTU/hr] 198.6517 166.1798 137.3053 106.7773 77.5051 46.1311 23.785
UHX Tfg in (°F) 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
UHX Tfg out (°F) 186.65 205.46 222.11 239.63 256.32 274.1 286.68
UHX Tbfw In (°F) 133.89 133.88 133.9 133.89 133.71 133.72 133.46
UHX Tbfw Out (°F) 200.16 189.89 180.68 170.65 160.67 149.92 141.91
Boiler Feedwater ∆p in UHX (psi) 236.728 160.579 113.423 76.789 49.936 28.214 15.407
71
Flue Gas ∆p in UHX (psi) 0.074 0.052 0.038 0.026 0.017 0.009 0.005
Total Surface Area of UHX 2
ft 190060.27 130437.29 93172.93 63361.44 41002.83 22370.65 11191.34
% distance from
Cond. Point in UHX the upstream end 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
of HX
yH2O-EXIT of UHX 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
Total Installed Cost for UHX Million $ 38.39 26.35 18.82 12.8 8.28 4.52 2.26
Annual Fixed Cost for UHX Million $ 3.62 2.48 1.77 1.21 0.78 0.43 0.21
ID Fan Power for UHX kW 46.93 33.77 25.09 17.75 11.92 6.75 3.46
BFW Pump Power for UHX kW 769.65 517.01 361.37 242.23 155.95 87.26 47.16
Total Power Req. for UHX kW 816.57 550.78 386.46 259.99 167.87 94.01 50.63
Annual Operating Cost for UHX Million $ 0.34 0.23 0.16 0.11 0.07 0.04 0.02
Total Annual Cost for UHX Million $ 3.96 2.71 1.94 1.31 0.85 0.47 0.23
From Table
T (34), It can be notice
ed that total rate
r of conden
nsation within
n UHX remain
ns zero
fo
or all target te
emperatures of
o boiler feedw
water at the exit
e of UHX. This can be attributed
a to the fact
th
hat the tempe
erature of the
e tube wall always
a remain an the dew point temperature of
ns higher tha
m
moisture in flu m as can be observed from the temperature distribution plots fo
ue gas stream or UHX
prrovided below
w in Figure (4 ach target temperature off boiler feedw
41 a-g) for ea water as provided in
Table (30).
Tem
mperature Prrofile in UHX
X Tempe
erature Proffile in UHX
Tbfw_exit = 200°F T
Tbfw_exit = 190°F
1
350 350
Tfg Tfg
g
Tde
ew Tde
ew
300 Tcw
w 300 Tcw
w
Twaall Tw
wall
250 250
(°F)
(°F)
( )
Temperature
Temperature
200 200
t
150 150
p
T
100 100
50 Le
ength of Exchan
nger = 26 ft Len
ngth of Exchan
nger = 18 ft
50
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 2
20 40 60 80 100
Length of Exc
changer (%) Le
ength of Exch
hanger (%)
41(a) - Tbfw_Ta
arget = 200°F 41(b) - Tbfw_Tarrget = 190°F
72
Tem
X Temperature Proffile in UHX
Tbfw_exit = 170°F
1
350 350
Tfg Tfg
Tde
ew Tde
ew
300 Tcw
w 300 Tcw
w
Twaall Twaall
250 250
(°F)
( )
(°F)
Temperature
Temperature
200 200
t
150 150
p
T
100 100
50 Le
ength of Exchan
nger = 13 ft 50 Leng
gth of Exchang
ger = 9 ft
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 2
20 40 60 80 100
Length
L of Ex
xchanger (%)) Length of Exc
changer (%)
41(c) - Tbfw_Ta
arget = 180°F 41(d) - Tbfw_Tarrget = 170°F
Temp
perature Pro
ofile in UHX Temp
perature Proffile in UHX
T
Tbfw_exit = 150°F
350 350 Tffg
Tfg
Tdew Tddew
300 Tcw 300 Tccw
Twall Twwall
250 250
Temperature (°F)
Temperature (°F)
( )
200 200
150 150
p
100 100
50 Length
L of Excha
anger = 6 ft 50
Leng
gth of Exchang
ger = 3.5 ft
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 2
20 40 60 80 100
Length of Ex
xchanger (%) Le
ength of Exc
changer (%)
41(e) - Tbfw_Ta
arget = 160°F 41(f) - Tbfw_Targ
get = 150°F
73
Tem
X
Tbfw_exit = 140°F
350
300
250
(°F)
Tfg
T
T
Tdew
Temperature
T
Tcw
200
T
Twall
t
150
T
100
50 Le
ength of Exchanger = 1.9 ft
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Length
L of Exc
changer (%)
41(g) - Tbfw_Ta
arget = 140°F
Figure 41 - Te
emperature Profiles in UHX
X of UHX-DHX assembly for various targe
et Temperature
es of
Boiler Fe
eedwater at th
he Exit of UHX
X
Since there is no condensation observed in the UHX as conclude

ed above, the
e heat
exxchanger tubes will be req

quired to be made
m entirelyy from Nickel alloy 22 mate
erial to protecct from
co
orrosion whic osts. Also, it must be note
ch leads to hiigher fixed co ed here that the
t size of th
he heat
creases with increase in target temperrature of boile

exxchanger inc er feedwater at the exit of
o heat
exxchanger which would ressult in higher fixed costs and

a operating he total annual cost
g costs. So, th
asssociated with UHX increa

ases with incrrease in temp
perature of bo
oiler feedwate
er at the exit of
o UHX
ass can be se
een in Figurre (42) below
w. Figure (42) also show densation efficiency
ws the cond
asssociated with
h the UHX forr various target temperatures of boiler feedwater
f at the
t exit of UH
HX.
74
Co
ondensatio
on Efficien
ncy and To
otal Annual Cost for UHX
U of
UHHX-DHX Assembly
100 5
90 4..5
80 Con
nd. Eff. 4

70 Tottal Annual Cos

st 3..5
60 3
50 2..5
40 2
30 1..5
20 1
10 0..5
0 0
130 140 150 16
60 170 180 190 20
00 210
Temperature (°F)
Figure 42 - Con
ndensation Effficiency and Total
T Annual Cost
C for UHX ofo UHX-DHX Assembly
A for various
v
targe
et boiler feedw
water temperaatures at the ex
xit of UHX
To obttain the overrall performan

nce of the asssembly; the total rate of condensation
n, total
po
ower requirements and to
otal annual cost
c of the assembly werre obtained by
b summing up the
in
ndividual quan HX and DHX. The results are provided below in Table (35). It must
ntities for UH m be
no
oted here tha
at the informa
ation provided e (35) is for the entire asssembly, i.e., th
d in the Table he flue
ga
as and boilerr feed water temperature
t a at the inle
are et as well as exit of the UHX-DHX assembly.
Similarly, the overall size of duct, the

e total heat transfer,
t tota
al cost, presssure drop etcc., are
su
ummation of individual
i ressults for UHX and DHX.
Also, the
t case with
h boiler feedw
water target te o 134°F is a limiting case as the
emperature of
bo
oiler feedwatter gets heate
ed to this tem
mperature at the exit of DHX
D us, UHX will not be
and thu
re
equired for this case. The limiting case
e has been included to com
mpare the pe
erformance off UHX-
D
DHX assembly
y with system with only UH
HX and system
m with only DHX.
75
For Comparative study, simulations were also run for a system where only the UHX is
used in the flue gas stream, similar to the arrangement discussed in Section 5.1 in this study, and
the length of heat exchanger was determined to heat boiler feedwater, entering UHX at 87°F, to
target temperatures same as that for UHX-DHX assembly. These cases have been referred to as
UHX only for differentiation and the results are available in Table (36). Among these simulations
the case with target temperature 134°F was run for UHX i.e, for flue gas conditions upstream of
FGD.
76
Table 35 - Results from Simulations for various Boiler Feedwater Target Temperatures at the Exit of UHX-DHX Assembly
UHX-DHX Assembly
Tbfw Target (°F) 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 134
Total Length UHX+DHX ft 38 30 25 21 18 15.5 13.9 12
m° Boiler Feedwater [10^6 lb/hr] 2.994 2.960 2.930 2.905 2.876 2.848 2.819 2.800
m° Flue Gas for UHX [10^6 lb/hr] 6.329 6.329 6.329 6.329 6.329 6.329 6.329 6.72
Total Cond. Rate
[10^3 lb/hr] 124.35 125.70 123.29 122.14 121.01 118.22 120.11 119.19
UHX+DHX
Total Heat Transfer [10^6
337.41 306.54 274.90 243.07 212.52 177.86 157.74 132.86
UHX+DHX BTU/hr]
UHX Tfg in (°F) 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 135
DHX Tfg out (°F) 129.06 128.96 129.11 129.17 129.23 129.4 129.27 129.32
DHX Tbfw In (°F) 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87
UHX Tbfw Out (°F) 200.16 189.89 180.68 170.65 160.67 149.92 141.91 134.13
77
Boiler Feedwater ∆p
(psi) 346.96 268.79 219.45 180.81 151.97 128.33 113.61 97.06
UHX+DHX
Flue Gas ∆p UHX+DHX (psi) 0.105 0.083 0.069 0.057 0.048 0.04 0.036 0.031
Total Surface Area 2
ft 275780.33 216157.35 178892.99 149081.50 126722.89 108090.71 96911.40 85720.06
UHX+DHX
yH2O at Exit of DHX 0.1489 0.1486 0.1491 0.1493 0.1496 0.1502 0.1498 0.15
Installed Capital Cost
Million $ 41.92 29.88 22.35 16.33 11.81 8.05 5.79 3.53
UHX+DHX
Annual Fixed Cost
Million $ 3.95 2.81 2.1 1.54 1.11 0.76 0.54 0.33
UHX+DHX
Total Power Req.
kW 1193.90 918.13 743.24 607.11 505.52 422.64 370.23 314.33
UHX+DHX
Annual Operating Cost
Million $ 0.50 0.38 0.31 0.26 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.13
UHX+DHX
Total Annual Cost
Million $ 4.45 3.20 2.42 1.79 1.32 0.94 0.70 0.46
UHX+DHX
Table 36 - Results from Simulations for various Boiler Feedwater Target Temperatures at the Exit of System with Only UHX
UHX Only
Tbfw_Target (°F) 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 134
Length of UHX alone ft 43 32 24 18.5 14.5 11 8.5 7
m° Boiler Feedwater [10^6 lb/hr] 2.990 2.960 2.930 2.905 2.880 2.848 2.819 2.802
m° Flue Gas [10^6 lb/hr] 6.329 6.329 6.329 6.329 6.329 6.329 6.329 6.329
% distance
Cond. Point from upstream 78.99 76.98 74.14 70.94 66.80 61.54 54.90 48.40
end of UHX
Total Cond. Rate [10^3 lb/hr] 57.76 48.80 43.03 37.99 34.66 29.90 26.54 24.52
Total Heat Transfer [10^6 BTU/hr] 336.92 303.50 271.51 240.62 212.68 179.90 151.89 132.67
Tfg in (°F) 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
Tfg out (°F) 140.54 154.74 169.97 184.95 199.18 215.28 229.4 239.23
78
Tbfw In (°F) 87.31 87.79 87.25 87.05 86.37 86.77 86.9 86.94
Tbfw Out (°F) 199.8 190.15 179.83 169.93 160.37 149.99 140.83 134.33
Boiler Feedwater ∆p (psi) 399.41 288.34 211.96 160.32 123.28 91.74 69.44 56.45
Flue Gas ∆p (psi) 0.119 0.089 0.068 0.053 0.041 0.032 0.024 0.02
2
Total Surface Area ft 320485.53 234777.5 175154.52 134163.73 104352.24 78267.19 59635.01 48455.7
yH2O-EXIT 0.1067 0.1088 0.1101 0.1113 0.1121 0.1132 0.1139 0.1144
Installed Capital
Million $ 53.9 38.73 28.1 20.83 15.51 10.97 7.72 5.77
Cost
Annual Installed
Million $ 5.08 3.65 2.65 1.96 1.46 1.03 0.73 0.54
Cost
Total Power kW 1367.83 981.38 716.58 538.59 411.48 304.35 228.82 185.27
Annual Operating
Million $ 0.57 0.41 0.30 0.23 0.17 0.13 0.10 0.08
Cost
Total Annual Cost Million $ 5.65 4.06 2.95 2.19 1.63 1.16 0.82 0.62
The plots for rate of
o condensatio
on and total annual
a cost were
w develope
ed and compa
ared to
th
he results for the UHX on
nly and DHX only cases. These
T a available in Figure (43) and
plots are
Figure (44) bellow:
Rate of Condensat
C tion vs. Tem
mperature of BFW a
at exit of
Heat Excchanger
140
Rate of Condensation (10^3 lb/hr)
120
100
80
60
40
DHX Only
O
20 UHX Only
O
UHX-D
DHX Assembly
0
130 140 150 160 17
70 180 190 200 210
Tempera
ature (°F)
F
Figure 43 - Ratte of Condens
sation for UHX X-DHX assemb bly compared to UHX only and
a DHX only cases
forr different Targ
get Boiler Fee
edwater Tempe
eratures
Total Annual Cost vs. Tempe

erature of BFW at exit of Heat
Exchanger
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
DHX Only
O
1.00 UHX Only
O
UHX-D
DHX Assembly
y
0.00
130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
Temperrature (°F)
F
Figure 44 - Tottal Annual Cost for UHX-DHHX assembly compared
c to UHX
U only and DHX only cas
ses for
d
different Targe
et Boiler Feedw
water Temperratures
79
From Figure (43), it is clear that the total rate of condensation for the UHX-DHX assembly
remains higher than that observed for system with only UHX. It is also noticed that the rate of
condensation is comparable to that observed for only DHX case. This can be attributed to the fact
that there is no condensation observed in the UHX of the assembly and the variation in the rate of
condensation is minimal in DHX for small change in mass flow rate of boiler feedwater as
observed in Figure (37). It must be noted here that the flue gas entering DHX is saturated, while
for the UHX only case, flue gas has only 12% moisture by mole fraction. The percentage of
moisture in flue gas at the exit of the heat exchanger is provided in Table (35) for UHX-DHX
assembly and Table (36) for the UHX only case.
It is also observed that the total annual cost for the UHX-DHX assembly is less than that
associated with usage of only UHX as indicated in Figure (44). It can be explained by looking at
the heat exchanger geometry and material employed. For the UHX-DHX assembly, 12ft of the
duct serves as the DHX for which the tubes will be made of stainless steel (SS304) as the flue gas
entering DHX is saturated with water. The remaining duct length serves as UHX which is entirely
made from Nickel Alloy 22 material, as explained earlier in this section. On the contrary, for the
UHX only case, Nickel alloy 22 material is used for tube material up-to the point where
condensation begins and SS304 is used thereafter. The point of condensation for UHX only case
is also provided in Table (36). It was observed that for any given target temperature of boiler
feedwater, the total tube length of nickel alloy 22 material required for UHX only case was more
than that for UHX-DHX assembly for the same target temperature of boiler feedwater. This results
in lower total installed cost for UHX-DHX assembly as compared to a system using only UHX for a
given target exit temperature of boiler feedwater. Further, even though the UHX-DHX assembly
tends to have a longer overall duct length compared to system using only UHX to attain the given
target exit temperature of boiler feedwater, the annual operating cost which depends only on the
overall length of the duct, is overshadowed by the annual installed cost in estimation of total
annual cost
To assess the cost benefits associated with UHX-DHX assembly, cost associated with the
treatment of condensed water (16), monetary savings from using this condensed water as make
80
up water in cooling tower (16) and benefits from selling the additional power generated due to
improvement in plant heat rate (14), were done by Dr. Levy. The cost benefits calculated for DHX
only, UHX only and UHX-DHX assembly are available provided below in Table (37), Table (38)
and Table (39), respectively.
Table 37 - Results of Cost Benefit Analysis for system with Only DHX
DHX Only
Annual Income Annual Expenses
Tbfw
Heat Water Total Net Profit
Target Power Water Total
Exchanger Treatment Annual Cost
(°F) $ (million) $ (million) $ (million) $ (million) $ (million) $ (million) $ (million)
134 1.24 0.147 1.387 0.462 0.1014 0.5634 +0.8236
Table 38 - Results of Cost Benefit Analysis for system with Only UHX
UHX Only
Tbfw
200 4.22 0.0716 4.2916 5.65 0.0598 5.7098 -1.4182
190 3.58 0.0605 3.6405 4.06 0.0541 4.1141 -0.4736
180 3.08 0.0531 3.1331 2.95 0.0444 2.9944 +0.1387
170 2.52 0.0469 2.5669 2.19 0.0397 2.2297 +0.3372
160 2.11 0.0432 2.1532 1.63 0.0363 1.6663 +0.4869
150 1.68 0.0371 1.7171 1.16 0.0312 1.1912 +0.5259
140 1.4 0.0334 1.4334 0.83 0.0273 0.8573 +0.5761
Table 39 - Results of Cost Benefit Analysis for system with UHX-DHX Assembly
UHX-DHX Assembly
Tbfw
200 4.22 0.147 4.367 4.4485 0.1018 4.5503 -0.1833
190 3.58 0.147 3.727 3.1943 0.1018 3.2961 +0.4309
180 3.08 0.147 3.227 2.4098 0.1018 2.5116 +0.7154
170 2.52 0.147 2.667 1.7958 0.1018 1.8976 +0.7694
160 2.11 0.147 2.257 1.3218 0.1018 1.4236 +0.8334
150 1.68 0.147 1.827 0.9380 0.1018 1.0398 +0.7872
140 1.4 0.147 1.547 0.6942 0.1018 0.7960 +0.7510
81
Plots were
w developed for the cha
ange in Turbine power and
d net profit asssociated with
h using
on
nly DHX or only
o UHX or UHX-DHX assembly
a in the
t system as
a illustrated in Figure (45
5) and
Figure (46) bellow:
∆Turbin
ne Power vs
v Target Boiler
B Feed
dwater Exit
Temperature
12
Change in turbine Power (MW)
10
4 ∆Turbine Pow
wer
∆Turbine Pow
wer DHX only
2
0
130 140 150 1
160 170
0 180 190 200 210
Temperatture (°F)
Figure
e 45 - Change in Turbine Po
ower with Targ
get Boiler Feedwater Exit Te
emperature
Net Profit vs.

v Target Boiler Fee
edwater Ex
xit Tempera
ature
1.2
0.8
0.4
Amount (million $)
0.0
-0.4
-0.8
DHX Only
y
UHX Only
y
-1.2
UHX-DHX
X Assembly
-1.6
130 140 150 1
160 170
0 180 190 200 210
Tempera
ature (°F)
Figure 46 - Ne
et Profit from using UHX-DH
HX assembly compared to system
s with Only
O UHX and Only
DHX
82
In Figure (45), it must be noted that change in net turbine power would be same for both
UHX-DHX assembly and UHX Only cases as turbine power is a function of only the temperature of
boiler feedwater at the exit of heat exchanger as explained in Section 3 of this report. From Figure
(46), it is noted that the usage of UHX-DHX assembly proves beneficial for boiler feedwater
temperatures up to ~197°F compared to ~183°F for system with only UHX. Also, it is noted that
using UHX-DHX assembly to heat boiler feedwater to a temperature of around 160°F returns
maximum benefits which are slightly more than a system employing only DHX.
83
6. Discussion of Results & Conclusion
A previously validated Matlab code was used to analyze the performance of condensing
heat exchangers placed upstream and/or downstream of the wet FGD unit. Five different heat
exchanger arrangements were evaluated to identify the heat exchanger design that will return high
rate of condensation and rate of heat transfer and also generate revenue if possible.
The use of boiler feedwater as the cooling fluid in condensing heat exchangers offers the
benefit of recovering both heat and water from flue gas. The study, done in conjunction with Jonas
(16), indicated that the mass flow rate of boiler feedwater available at the inlet of FWH1 depends
on the temperature to which it is heated in the condensing heat exchanger. For the specific
600MW power plant analyzed here, the mass flow rate of boiler feedwater would vary between
2.673 million lb/hr for a boiler feedwater temperature of 87°F at the exit of the heat exchanger (of
infinitesimally small surface area) to 3.054 million lb/hr for an exit temperature of 220°F.
Both the flue gas and cooling water streams experience pressure drops as they pass
through the heat exchanger. Of these two, cooling water experiences higher pressure drops and
thus contributes a substantial part of the operating costs. As a result, for a heat exchanger with
tubes of 2” NPS diameter and duct length of 20 ft, the total annual cost can vary from $1.43 million
to $7.22 million for cooling water to flue gas mass flow rate ratio ranging between 0.75 and 1.5.
Increasing the tube diameter to 3.5” NPS brings down the total annual cost to between $0.41
million to $0.71 million for the same range of cooling water to flue gas mass flow rate ratio. Also, it
was observed that keeping surface area or length of heat exchanger constant, the change in tube
diameter had negligible impact on total heat transfer and condensation efficiency.
The condensing heat exchanger can be placed upstream or downstream of different low
pressure FWHs. Depending on the location of the heat exchanger, the temperature of boiler
feedwater can be as high as 194°F. It was observed that use of low temperature boiler feedwater
before FWH1 resulted in higher rate of heat transfer and condensation efficiency of the heat
exchanger. Also, the total installed cost of the heat exchanger was reduced since the point of
condensation moved closer to the upstream inlet end of the heat exchanger, thus reducing the
requirement of Nickel alloy 22 material for tubes. Taking into account the change in mass flow rate
84
of boiler feedwater with temperature to which feedwater is heated in the heat exchanger, a cost
benefit analysis indicated that increasing the temperature of boiler feedwater to a maximum of
~135°F would return maximum profit.
Keeping the area of cross-section of the heat exchanger constant, the transverse pitch St
was varied from 4.88” to 6.17” but the longitudinal pitch Sl was kept constant at 2.97”. It was
observed that the total rate of heat transfer and condensation efficiency increased with decrease
in transverse pitch. The decrease in transverse pitch helped accommodate more tubes in the
same duct cross-section thus increasing the total surface area of the tubes. It was observed that
for the heat exchanger placed downstream of wet FGD, the total annual cost associated with the
heat exchangers was dominated by the annual operating cost as expensive Nickel alloy 22
material was not required. Therefore, when the pressure drop for cooling water flowing inside the
tubes was reduced with increased number of tubes due to smaller transverse pitch, the annual
operating cost was reduced. Thus, the total annual cost also reduced.
Using water spray to precool flue gas to a temperature of 155°F upstream of the wet FGD
offered similar rate of heat transfer and condensation efficiency compared to a heat exchanger
placed downstream of the wet FGD unit. The total annual cost for this system was also
comparable to that observed for heat exchanger placed downstream of wet FGD unit up-to a heat
exchanger duct length of 10ft, beyond which the total annual cost started increasing rapidly. For
the system using precooled flue gas using water spray, the Nickel 22 alloy material requirements
for tube materials increased significantly with increase in duct length, thus, increasing the installed
capital cost for the heat exchangers.
The use of coupled heat exchangers provides space flexibility but appears beneficial only
at higher mass flow rates of cooling water. The combined fan and pump power required for
coupled heat exchanger is only marginally more than that required by a heat exchanger that uses
cooling water at higher cooling water to flue gas mass flow rate ratios. Although the rate of
condensation remains lower than that for a heat exchanger using cooling water at higher mass
flow rate ratios, the rate of heat transfer is higher for coupled heat exchanger assembly. It is also
85
observed that the use of boiler feedwater directly is more beneficial if the main aim of the system
is to recover maximum heat from flue gas.
The use of two cascaded heat exchangers offers the benefits of a heat exchanger both
upstream and downstream of the wet FGD unit. From the overall performance evaluation of the
cascaded heat exchanger assembly and its comparison with system using only UHX or only DHX,
it was observed that if the systems were designed to obtain the same rate of total heat transfer,
the cascaded heat exchanger offered higher condensation efficiency comparable to that of the
DHX but at lower total annual cost. The system designed to heat boiler feedwater to a temperature
of ~160°F was most beneficial. It is also observed that if we raise the temperature of boiler
feedwater to a temperature of 160°F, FWH1 can be completely taken off. The additional savings
on installed cost associated with FWH1 and the pressure drop that would have been otherwise
observed across FWH1 have not been accounted in this study.
86
7. Assumptions
 All the heat exchangers were assumed to have inline tube arrangement.
 All heat exchanger ducts are assumed to be perfectly insulated and any heat loss to the
environment is neglected.
 The cooling water to flue gas mass flow rate ratios are based on Jonas’s Aspen Model.
 Unlike the condensing heat exchanger, the calculations for water-to-water heat exchanger
are done at average of the inlet and exit temperatures.
 A detailed design analysis of baffle plates for the water-to-water heat exchanger HX2 was
not done at this stage. The possibilities to improve HX2 design by modifying baffle
arrangement and spacing has not been done at this stage.
 Any flow leakage across the baffle plate weld joints with the heat exchanger shell or along
the holes on baffle plates for tube support have been neglected.
 The possibility of fouling on tube surfaces has not been taken into account at this stage.
 Any changes in the price of tube material or manufacturing and installation cost since the
study done Hazell have been neglected.
 The cost of heat exchanger tubes is calculated as a function of the total weight of tube
material required. Also, the manufacturing and installation cost is assumed to be same for
all tube diameters.
 The pump power requirement to remove the condensed water from condensing heat
exchanger and transferring it to the treatment plant has not been accounted for.
 The pumping requirements for water spray to precool the flue gas have been neglected at
this stage.
 The pump power requirements to circulate cooling water from HX2 to HX1 and then return
from HX1 to HX2 have not been taken into account.
 The pump power requirements for transferring boiler feedwater from exit of DHX to the
inlet of UHX have been neglected.
87
 It is assumed that there is no heat loss while cooling water is circulated between HX1 and
HX2 or when boiler feedwater is pumped from DHX to UH.
88
References
1. Jeong, Dr. Kwangkook. Condensation of Water Vapor and Sulfuric Acid in Boiler Flue Gas. s.l. :
Lehigh University, 2008. Ph.D. Dissertation.
2. Lavigne, Michael A. Numerical Simulations of Condensing Heat Exchangers with Oxyfuel Flue
Gas. Bethlehem, PA : Lehigh University, 2010.
3. Hazell, Daniel. Modeling and Optimization of Condensing Heat Exchangers for Cooling Boiler
Flue Gas. Bethlehem, PA : Lehigh University, 2011.
4. Design of cooler condensers for Mixtures of Vapors with Noncondensing Gases. Colburn, A P
and Hougen, O A. s.l. : Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 1934, Vol. 26.
5. Zukauskas, A. Heat Transfer from Tubes in Cross Flow. [book auth.] J P Hartnett, T F Irvine and
Eds. Jr. Advances in Heat Transfer. New York : Academic Press, 1972.
6. Gnielinski, V. s.l. : Int. Chem. Eng., 1976, Vol. 16.
7. Petukhov, B.S. [book auth.] J P Hartnett, T F Irvine and Eds. Jr. Advances in Heat and Mass
Transfer Vol. 6. New York : Academic Press, 1970.
8. Thermodynamique ‐ Tensions des vapeurs: nouvelle relation entre les tensions et les
temperature. Antoine, Ch. M. s.l. : Comptes Rendus des Seances de l'Academie des Sciences,
1888, Vol. 104.
9. Munson, Bruce R., Young, Donald F. and Okiishi, Theodore H. Fundamentals of Fluid
Mechanics. s.l. : John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998. ISBN 0‐471‐35502‐X.
10. Kays, W. M. and London, A. L. Compact Heat Exchangers. s.l. : Krieger Publishing Company,
1998. ISBN: 1‐57524‐060‐2.
11. Zukauskas, A. and Ulinskas, R. Bank of plain ans finned tubes. Heat Exchanger Design
Handbook Vol.1‐4. New York : Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 1983.
12. Estimating Costs of Shell‐and‐Tube Heat Exchangers. Purohit, G. P. s.l. : Chemical Engineering,
1983, Vol. 90.
13. Chemical Process Design and Integration. Smith, Robin. Hoboken : Wiley, 2005.
14. Jonas, Gordon. Using flue Gas cooler to improve Unit Heat Rate. Bethlehem : Energy Research
center Internal Report, 2011.
15. Kessen, Michael. Optimal Design of an Air‐Cooled Condenser for Flue Gas from a Power Plant.
Bethlehem, PA : Lehigh University, 2011.
89
16. Levy, Edward K., Bilirgen, Harun and DuPont, John. Recovery of Water from Boiler Flue Gas
using Condensing Heat Exchangers. s.l. : Department of Energy, 2011.
17. Jonas, Gordon. Thermal Integration of an MEA Post Combustion Carbon Capture System With
a Supercritical Coal Fired Power Plant. Bethlehem : Lehigh University, 2010.
18. Mukherjee, Rajiv. Effectively Design Shell‐and‐Tube Heat Exchangers. s.l. : American Institute
of Chemical Engineers, 1998.
90
Appendix A
Table Page.
A.1 Process Conditions for Subcases A - F as obtained from Jonas (14)………………….92
A.2 Process Conditions for Subcases 1 - 4 as obtained from Jonas (14)…………………..93
A.3 Process Conditions for Precooled Flue gas using Water Spray as obtained from Jonas
(14) ………………….………………….………………….………………….……………...94
Figure Page.
A.1 Supercritical Steam Turbine kit diagram used by Jonas (17)………………….………..95
91
Table A. 1 - Process Conditions for Subcases A - F as obtained from Jonas (14)
Process Conditions for Subcases A - F

Sub-case H G F E D C B A
Place Before This FWH N/A w/FGD FWH1 FWH3 FWH2 FWH2 FWH1 FWH1 FWH1
Flue Gas T in (°F) N/A 135 303 303 303 303 303 303 303
Net Power (kW) 591,857 594,539 603,156 596,137 594,175 598,246 593,782 595,605 597,622
∆ Net Power (kW) 0 2,682 11,300 4,281 2,318 6,389 1,925 3,748 5,765
Unit Heat Rate 9,133 9,092 8,962 9,067 9,097 9,036 9,103 9,076 9,045
∆ Unit Heat Rate % 0.00 -0.45 -1.87 -0.72 -0.39 -1.07 -0.32 -0.63 -0.96
Efficiency % 37.36 37.36 37.36 37.36 37.36 37.36 37.36 37.36 37.36
Duty FWH1 (kBtu/hr) 173,265 61,075 0 178,184 178,672 183,173 92,019 15,906 19,292
Duty FWH2 (kBtu/hr) 130,650 131,241 0 131,930 0 0 132,582 131,477 0
Duty FWH3 (kBtu/hr) 120,224 120,224 66,354 33,541 166,866 83,747 120,224 120,224 173,798
92
Duty FWH5 (kBtu/hr) 215,945 215,945 215,945 215,945 215,945 215,945 215,945 215,945 215,945
Duty FWH6 (kBtu/hr) 228,583 228,583 228,583 228,583 228,583 228,583 228,583 228,583 228,583
Duty FWH7 (kBtu/hr) 368,976 368,976 368,976 368,976 368,976 368,976 368,976 368,976 368,976
Duty Flue Gas
(kBtu/hr) 0 119,764 371,334 86,682 86,682 167,914 86,682 167,914 248,666
Cooler
m° Condensation (lb/hr) 0 108,601 64,568 0 0 0 0 0 0
m° Flue Gas (lb/hr) 6,309,391 6,309,391 6,309,391 6,309,391 6,309,391 6,309,391 6,309,391 6,309,391 6,309,391
m° BFW (lb/hr) 2,792,411 3,018,950 3,175,031 3,175,032 3,175,033 2,759,411 2,838,911 2,915,950
m°bfw / m°fg 0.443 0.478 0.503 0.503 0.503 0.437 0.450 0.462
BFW T in (°F) 87.1 193.8 151.9 152.5 87.1 87.1 98.6
BFW T out (°F) 210 220.9 179.2 205.2 118.5 146.4 177
Table A. 2 - Process Conditions for Subcases 1 - 4 as obtained from Jonas (14)
Process Conditions for Subcases 1 - 4

Sub-case 4 C 3 B 2 1
Place Before This FWH N/A SSR Chg FWH1 FWH1 FWH1 FWH1 FWH1 FWH1
Flue Gas T in (°F) N/A 303 303 303 303 303 303 303
Net Power (kW) 591,857 591,603 593,097 593,535 594,631 595,392 596,498 597,975
∆ Net Power (kW) 0 1,494 1,932 3,028 3,790 4,896 6,372
Unit Heat Rate 9,133 9,137 9,114 9,107 9,090 9,079 9,062 9,040
∆ Unit Heat Rate % 0.00 -0.25 -0.33 -0.51 -0.64 -0.82 -1.07
Efficiency % 37.36 37.34 37.44 37.46 37.53 37.58 37.65 37.74
Duty FWH1 (kBtu/hr) 173,265 172,847 110,305 91,746 45,807 14,152 0 0
Duty FWH2 (kBtu/hr) 130,650 130,388 130,717 130,814 131,055 131,223 0 0
Duty FWH3 (kBtu/hr) 120,224 119,988 119,988 119,988 119,988 119,988 196,422 167,342
93
Duty Flue Gas Cooler (kBtu/hr) 0 0 66,761 86,471 135,518 169,396 224,244 257,084
m° Flue Gas (lb/hr) 6,309,391 6,309,391 6,309,391 6,309,391 6,309,391 6,309,391 6,309,391 6,309,391
m° BFW (lb/hr) 2,668,999 2,734,146 2,753,246 2,801,046 2,834,246 2,894,950 2,922,450
m°bfw / m°fg 0.423 0.433 0.436 0.444 0.449 0.459 0.463
BFW T in (°F) 87.1 87.1 87.1 87.1 87.1 87.1 87.1
BFW T out (°F) 87.1 111.5 118.5 135.5 146.9 164.6 175.1
LMTD (°F) 215.9543 183.2101 173.5686 149.5469 132.8506 105.3905 88.2051
Cost Benefit ($) 0 0 627,479 811,449 1,271,862 1,591,655 2,056,179 2,676,363
Table A. 3 - Process Conditions for Precooled Flue gas using Water Spray as obtained from Jonas (14)
Process Conditions for Precooled Flue gas using Water Spray

Flue Gas T in 87 135 155 165 175 200 250 300
Net Power (kW) 591,857 594,539 595,524 596,375 596,820 600,257 608,250 620,697
Unit Heat Rate 9,133 9,092 9,077 9,064 9,057 9,005 8,887 8,709
∆ Unit Heat Rate % 0.00 -0.45 -0.62 -0.76 -0.83 -1.40 -2.70 -4.65
Efficiency % 37.36 37.53 37.59 37.64 37.67 37.89 38.39 39.18
Duty FWH1 (kBtu/hr) 173,265 61,075 19,508 0 0 0 0 0
Duty FWH2 (kBtu/hr) 130,650 131,241 130,579 120,961 0 0 0 0
Duty FWH3 (kBtu/hr) 120,224 120,224 120,224 120,224 195,678 125,197 0 0
Duty FWH5 (kBtu/hr) 215,945 215,945 215,945 215,945 215,945 215,945 215,945 215,945
Duty FWH6 (kBtu/hr) 228,583 228,583 228,583 228,583 228,583 228,583 228,583 228,583
Duty FWH7 (kBtu/hr) 368,976 368,976 368,976 368,976 368,976 368,976 368,976 368,976
94
Duty Flue Gas Cooler (kBtu/hr) 0 119,764 164,123 194,419 225,869 305,105 475,346 663,759
m° Condensation (lb/hr) 0 108,601 118,342 128,809 140,270 169,314 235,422 307,291
Water Injected (lb/hr) 0 0 224,728 208,810 192,986 153,924 77,857 4,397
yH2O 17.4% 17.4% 16.4% 16.1% 15.7% 14.9% 13.3% 11.7%
m° Flue Gas (lb/hr) 6,309,391 6,309,391 6,534,119 6,518,201 6,502,377 6,463,315 6,387,248 6,313,788
m° BFW (lb/hr) 2,792,411 2,835,411 2,864,946 2,900,950 2,964,950 3,100,985 3,249,985
m°bfw / m°fg 0.443 0.434 0.440 0.446 0.459 0.485 0.515
95
Figure A. 1 - Supercritical Steam Turbine kit diagram used by Jonas (17)

Vita
Nipun Goel was born on July 4th, 1986 in Delhi, India. He received a Bachelor’s in
Technology in Power Engineering (with Mechanical Specialization) from National Power Training
Institute (NR), Delhi, India in 2008. After completing his undergrad, he worked with Bechtel India
Private Limited, Haryana, India, for two years where he gained industrial exposure. In the Fall of
2010, he joined Lehigh University to pursue M.S. in Mechanical Engineering.
96

Design and Performance Analyses of Condensing Heat Exchangers For Recovering Water and Waste Heat From Flue Gas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design and Performance Analyses of Condensing Heat Exchangers For Recovering Water and Waste Heat From Flue Gas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lehigh University

Design and Performance Analyses of Condensing

Follow this and additional works at: http://preserve.lehigh.edu/etd

Water and Waste Heat from Flue Gas

Presented to the Graduate and Research Committee

in Candidacy for the Degree of

Dr. Edward K. Levy

Dr. Gary Harlow

Department Chair Person

their unconditional support throughout the course of my study at Lehigh University.

Approval Sheet ................................................................................................................................ III

Figure 1 - Typical temperature distributions inside a heat exchanger ............................................. 8

Figure 3 - Water-to-Water Heat Exchanger Model ........................................................................ 15

Heat Exchanger ............................................................................................................................. 26

Figure 8 - Impact of Tube Diameter on Total Heat Transfer .......................................................... 29

Figure 9 - Impact of Tube Diameter on Rate of Condensation ...................................................... 29

placed Upstream of Wet FGD ........................................................................................................ 37

Exchanger, placed Upstream of Wet FGD..................................................................................... 37

Upstream of Wet FGD.................................................................................................................... 38

exchanger upstream of wet FGD ................................................................................................... 40

Feedwater extracted before FWH1 (14) ........................................................................................ 44

Feedwater extracted before FWH1 (14) ........................................................................................ 44

Figure 21 - Impact of Transverse Pitch on Condensation Efficiency of Heat Exchanger placed

Downstream of Wet FGD ............................................................................................................... 46

Exchanger placed Downstream of Wet FGD ................................................................................. 47

Downstream of Wet FGD ............................................................................................................... 47

UHX and DHX ................................................................................................................................ 50

compared to UHX and DHX ........................................................................................................... 51

Figure 27 - Flow diagram for Coupled Heat Exchanger Arrangement .......................................... 53

to Flue Gas Mass Flow Rate Ratios .............................................................................................. 57

Flow Rate Ratios ............................................................................................................................ 58

Rate Ratios .................................................................................................................................... 58

Coupled Heat Exchanger Assembly .............................................................................................. 59

Water at the inlet of HX1 of Coupled Heat Exchanger Assembly .................................................. 60

Mass Flow Rate Ratio of 1.0 .......................................................................................................... 61

Mass Flow Rate Ratio of 1.5 .......................................................................................................... 61

Figure 35 - Flow Diagram for Cascaded Heat Exchanger Arrangement ....................................... 62

Feedwater Temperatures at the Exit of UHX-DHX Assembly. ...................................................... 64

Temperatures at the Exit of UHX-DHX Assembly. ........................................................................ 65

Temperatures at the Exit of UHX-DHX Assembly. ........................................................................ 66

Temperatures at the Exit of UHX-DHX Assembly ......................................................................... 66

Temperatures at the Exit of UHX-DHX Assembly ......................................................................... 67

of Boiler Feedwater at the Exit of UHX .......................................................................................... 74

various target boiler feedwater temperatures at the exit of UHX ................................................... 75

cases for different Target Boiler Feedwater Temperatures ........................................................... 79

for different Target Boiler Feedwater Temperatures ...................................................................... 79

Only DHX ....................................................................................................................................... 82

Table 4 - Variable Parameters for studying the impact of Tube Diameter..................................... 28

Wet FGD Unit ................................................................................................................................. 41

Wet FGD Unit ................................................................................................................................. 42

Coupled Heat Exchanger ............................................................................................................... 55

with Coupled Heat Exchanger ....................................................................................................... 55

Heat Exchanger ............................................................................................................................. 55

Coupled Heat Exchanger ............................................................................................................... 55

Table 24 - Fixed Process Conditions for Coupled Heat Exchanger Assembly.............................. 56

Exchangers Assembly (14) ............................................................................................................ 64

Temperatures at the Exit of Cascaded Heat Exchanger Assembly ............................................... 69

Temperatures at the Exit of Cascaded Heat Exchanger Assembly ............................................... 71

of UHX-DHX Assembly .................................................................................................................. 77

of System with Only UHX ............................................................................................................... 78

condensing heat exchangers.

Symbol Meaning Units