Design of multi-pass heat exchangers

Just find a book on heat exchanger design; it usually contains examples of shell-and-tube heat exchanger design. First, use software to calculate the designed heat exchanger. It is recommended to use proII for simulating standard shell-and-tube components, and then link them to HTRI for calculations. Aspen isn’t as convenient for this as ProII

Use HTRI? I’m interested in ASPEN because it contains more substances; some components that are present in Pro are missing. I’m quite frustrated about this. Thank you to the person who posted above

HTRI should be the best; personally, I feel that EDR falls short in terms of details.

I’ll give HIRI a try. Thank you! ! !

Reply to 4# lsrwan: It seems that you have a good understanding of EDR and HTRI. May I ask which version of EDR you are using? Are you interested in creating a discussion thread to compare EDR and HTRI?

Back upstairs, I’m not a professional designer. I use HTRI very rarely, but this software is indeed the one recommended in the \"Chemical Process Design Manual\" for the final design stage. From what I’ve seen, others follow the same approach mentioned by the person in post 2: they first perform calculations using Pro, and then import the results into HTRI. For formal design institutes, they generally do this as well, but I have hardly ever done it myself (because at my stage precise design isn’t necessary; an estimate is sufficient). I usually use ASPEN and CHEMCAD, so I can’t really say I’m familiar with HTRI – I just know about it, that’s all. Still learning, haha! Since many of our material-related items are not available in PRO (PRO focuses on petrochemicals, and its database is not as powerful as ASPEN’s). So we use ASPEN the most. Now, ASPEN’s EDR solutions are all integrated into ASPEN ONE, making them quite convenient to use. Another software I use frequently is CHEMCAD. Its database is smaller, but I have been using it since my school days, so it feels more intuitive to work with. In my opinion, CHEMCAD offers the highest level of integration between process design and equipment design, and its algorithms converge more effectively. It would be great if the database size could be increased. It can be calculated using CC first, and then processed by ASPEN. I’m not very clear about the detailed issues regarding the comparison between EDR and HRTI mentioned on the fourth floor. It would be best if the colleagues on the fourth floor could compare them. Using these software tools, some examples of heat exchangers were designed and analyzed; for heat exchangers for which property data were comprehensive, the results were not very different from each other. For those heat exchangers that were too complex or whose property values were estimated, no further in-depth analysis was conducted, and significant differences were observed in the results. In actual work, heat exchangers have also been designed; according to the experienced colleagues, it was all based on Soviet concepts – the designs were solid and reliable. There are advantages as well as disadvantages to such an approach. In fact, when it comes to the design of heat exchangers, it is the engineers from the design firms who have the most say; I guess they’re all so used to using these software tools that it’s become a hassle for them. I’m like wielding a big sword in front of Guan Gong – please give me some advice!