HEAT TRANSFER

Design and select a gasketed plate-type

heat exchanger for gas processing
R. PRAMANIK, Fluor Daniel India, Gurgaon, Haryana, India

In recent years, plate-type heat ex-
changers (PHEs) have emerged as a vi-
able alternative to shell-and-tube heat ex-
changers (S&THEs). The PHE, with its
ability to optimize thermal performance,
has made close approach and temperature
cross-applications economically feasible
where they are not economical or practi-
cal with S&THE designs.
However, unlike their S&THE coun-
terparts, the design and engineering
of PHEs is generally carried out by the
supplier, and not by the front-end en-
gineering design (FEED) and detailed
engineering companies. This scenario
sometimes makes it difficult for the engi-
neering companies to optimally specify
the requirements of the PHEs, leading
to long deliberation at the detailed en-
gineering stage and resulting in missed
project deadlines.
The basic design and selection issues
for gasketed PHEs, the most common
type of plate exchanger, are discussed
here. If addressed carefully by the engi-
neering contractors in the early stage of
development of the specifications for
gasketed PHEs, proper design can go a
long way in minimizing changes during
the detailed engineering stage.
Issues related to PHE specification.
Several issues must be addressed while
developing PHE specifications.
Design pressure. The design pres-
sure is governed by the material of the
gasket being used and is generally lim-
ited to approximately 16 barg. However,
in some cases it can be as high as 25 barg.
Design temperature. Like design
pressure, design temperature is also lim-
ited by gasket material. It varies from ap-
proximately 135°C with nitrile butyl rub-
ber (NBR) to approximately 180°C with
ethylene propylene terpolymer (EPT)
rubber, the two most common forms of
gaskets. However, the use of special gas-
ket material (compressed asbestos fiber)
can increase the design temperature to
approximately 260°C.1
Type of fluid. A PHE can handle
low-density vapors, but it should not
be coupled with high flow. The com-
bination will either result in very large
plate spacing, thereby making the heat
transfer ineffective, or it will require a
very high pressure drop with standard
plate spacing.
Plate material. Other than the duc-
tility, the plates in PHEs are not limited
by the material of the plate (which is
primarily governed by the type of ser-
vice) and can be fabricated from many
different materials (e.g., stainless steel,
titanium, hastelloy, incoloy 825, nick-
el 200, monel 400, aluminum brass,
tantalum, etc.).
One of the most common uses of
PHEs is in seawater service. A number
of alloys have been successfully used
as plate material in seawater service.
Copper-nickel alloys and the 300-series
austenitic stainless steels are normally
considered minimum starting points
for materials selection in seawater, with
super austenitic stainless steels, nickel-
based alloys, and titanium specified for
the more severe services.
Crevice corrosion is a major consid-
eration in component design and alloy
selection for seawater service, and will

TABLE 1. Comparison between glued and mechanical methods of gasket connection

Parameter Glued method
Sealing quality The glue was often applied unevenly, greatly increasing
the chance of process fluid leaking through the gasket
groove of the plate, and either intermingling with other
fluids or escaping to the atmosphere.
Fouling For high-fouling applications where plates must be
opened, removed and frequently cleaned, the glued
gasket system may be a better choice.
Operating temperature This method is not the best option for this service,
which has an operating temperature of 115°C.
Type of service For services where swelling of the gasket can be expected
(e.g., hydrocarbon service), glued gaskets are preferred
for maintenance considerations.2
Mechanical method
In this method, the plate construction uses clips and studs
to secure gaskets to the plates. This eliminates irregularities
in the gasket groove and results in better sealing of the
plate pack.
The glue-less gasket system makes it possible to re-
gasket the plate pack without removing plates from the
frame, making this method more suitable for low-fouling
applications where plates do not require frequent cleaning.
The gasket groove is based on a large cross-sectional
gasket area (gasket volume). This area provides the ability
to contain the gasket within the gasket groove under
high-pressure operating conditions.
Adequate room is provided for gasket compression,
which allows for longer gasket life and reusability.

36 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 | GasProcessingNews.com
 HEAT TRANSFER

often dictate materials selection when
crevices cannot be avoided. Grade 1 ti-
tanium, being the purest and most mal-
leable, is widely used in PHEs.
Gasket material. For PHEs, the stan-
dard gasket materials are EPT and NBR.
EPT is normally used for non-fatty/oily
applications, and NBR is used for oil/fat
applications. However, an oil/fat applica-
tion may have a low fat content, making the
application more suitable for EPT rather
than NBR. Other rubbers used for PHEs
are hydrogenated nitrile rubber (HNBR)
and fluorocarbon rubber (FKM).
At high temperatures, the rubber will
be attacked faster by the chemicals in use,
as well as by the surrounding oxygen.
The oxidation process will either make
the rubber harder (most common) or
make it softer (less common), or both at
the same time. Either way, the change in
properties will reduce the performance.
All rubber materials have a maximum
continuous temperature. To maintain
good performance and to achieve a rea-
sonable lifetime, this temperature should
not be exceeded.
At low temperatures, stiffness in-
creases and elasticity decreases. This
fluctuation influences the sealing force
of the gaskets. All rubber materials have
a certain lowest temperature that must be
exceeded for the material to perform well
enough as a gasket.
Method of gasket connection. The
gaskets are secured to the plates either
by glue or by mechanical means. TABLE 1
shows a comparison between the two
methods of connection.
Gasket testing. If the vendor lacks
experience in the use of the proposed
gaskets for an application, then the gas-
ket should be subjected to an immersion
test to measure gasket swelling, hardness
and susceptibility to chemical attack.
The test should be conducted at the op-
erating temperature, using a piece of the
specified gasket material with a maxi-
mum thickness of 8 mm. The minimum
duration of the test is 15 days. The gasket
hardness change should not exceed 15
international rubber hardness degrees
(IRHDs) for fluoropolymers and 10
IRHDs for others. The volume change
should not be more than 15%.2
Glue testing. If the vendor lacks ex-
perience in the use of the proposed glue
for an application, then the glue should
be subjected to an immersion test to mea-
sure the glue strength and susceptibility to
chemical attack. The test should be con-
ducted using a 100-mm piece of the speci-
fied gasket, at operating temperature, for a
duration of 15 days. Half (50 mm) of the
gasket should be glued to a surface that is
equivalent to the gasket-groove surface of
the proposed plate—i.e., a smooth surface
should be used if the proposed plate’s gas-
ket-groove surface is smooth, and a corru-
gated surface if the proposed plate’s gasket-
groove surface is corrugated. The final peel
strength, in newtons, should be five times
the gasket width in mm (or in lb-force, 28
times the gasket width in inches).2
Fouling margin. In PHEs, as in other
compact heat exchangers, it is common
practice to provide a fouling margin,
which is the amount by which the sur-
face area must be increased to account for
fouling. One issue that is hotly debated
during the preparation of PHE specifica-
tions is the fouling margin. In most cases,
the fouling margin tends to be overspeci-
fied for PHEs, as the underlying differ-
ences in the flow patterns between PHEs
and S&THEs are ignored.
Several issues should be kept in mind
when specifying the fouling factors of
PHEs:
1. Turbulence and wall shear stress
are the two most important
parameters affecting fouling. The
wall shear stress, which is directly
proportional to the friction
factor,1 is much higher in PHEs.
Turbulence is also much higher
in PHEs compared to S&THEs.
Both of these factors result in a
lower propensity to fouling in
PHEs as compared to S&THEs.
Effective heat transfer area Port diameter
Plate width
180 1

TABLE 2. Comparison of methods to accommodate higher heat exchanger fouling margin

2
Option 1: Increased Option 2: Increased
number of flow channels plate length
Fouling margin, % 0 25
1
Heat duty, KW 2,300 2,300
SCW flowrate, tpd 9,504 9,504
Seawater flowrate, tpd 4,752 4,752
SCW in/out temperature, °C 45/40 45/40
SW in/out temperature, °C 30/40 30/40
MTD, °C 7.2 7.2
Seawater velocity, m/sec. 0.75 0.78
Surface area, m2 43.24 60.52
Plate length, in. 43 65
FIG. 1. The heat transfer and pressure drop
Plate width, mm 615 615 capabilities of a plate are governed by its
Number of plates 96 91 Chevron angle (β).

Gas Processing | NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 37

HEAT TRANSFER
2. PHEs are made from corrosion-
resistant materials. Therefore,
the chances of fouling due to
corrosion are much lower than
those of conventional S&THEs.
3. A higher fouling margin requires
a larger surface area, which can
be provided either by increasing
the surface area of each plate (by
selecting plates with higher length
Weld
Gasket
Distance piece Standard flange
FIG. 2. Typical detail of distance piece.
FIG. 3. Diagonal vs. vertical port arrangement.
P1
P2
P1
Flow
Flow
P2
FIG. 4. U-arrangement vs. Z-arrangement.
38 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 | GasProcessingNews.com
and width) or by increasing the
number of flow channels, or both.
TABLE 2 shows a comparison of
how additional fouling margin can
be accommodated by increasing
plate length instead of the number
of flow channels. An increase
in either the number of flow
channels or the plate width will
result in lower velocity, leading
to an infringement of minimum
velocity constraints. This
increases the chances of fouling
and defeats the purpose of the
additional margin.3
The required fouling factors to be
specified for PHEs are always lower than
the corresponding values for S&THEs
(e.g., as recommended in TEMA4), and
the fouling margin in a typical PHE nev-
er exceeds 20%–25%.
Several recommendations for foul-
ing margins are available in API-6612 and
HTRI.1 In the absence of field data, the fol-
lowing guidelines may be referred to when
specifying a reasonable fouling margin for
the PHE:
1. API-662, appendix A:2
A minimum of 10% fouling
margin should be included. For
crude oil service, this margin
may need to be increased to
25%. Over and above the fouling
factor, wall shear must also be
specified since wall shear stress
provides a good indication of
fouling tendency in a PHE. A
minimum wall shear stress of 50
Pa is recommended.
2. HTRI:1 Consider a fouling factor
that is approximately 25% of the
corresponding value for S&THEs
P1
P2
P1
P2
(given in TEMA4), or use fouling
factors as recommended in HTRI
report PHE-1.
Sparing philosophy. In the case of a
PHE having multiple units in parallel to
cater to a large heat duty and requiring
frequent maintenance (e.g., seawater vs.
closed-water service), keeping a greater
number of units in operation with higher
fouling margin, and a lower number of
units in spare to avoid downtime, may
sometimes be counterproductive since
more fouling margin may actually result
in higher propensity to fouling, there-
fore leading to greater-than-expected
downtime. Use of sparing philosophy in
this type of service should be selected
carefully to minimize the capital and
operating costs.
Plate thickness. Plate materials
in PHEs are selected to resist corro-
sion. For this reason, it is not intended
to include a corrosion allowance. The
thickness of the plate is entirely depen-
dent on the differential pressure across
the plate, the nature of plate corruga-
tion and the ductility of the plate mate-
rial. It generally varies from 0.5 mm to 1
mm, with the minimum being specified
by API-662.
Plate gap. The typical gap between
adjacent plates varies from 2.5 mm to 5
mm, depending on the design pressure
and the limitation of the plate fabrica-
tion technology. In applications where
process media contain particulate mat-
ter, or when large amounts of scaling can
occur, careful consideration should be
given to the free channel space between
adjacent plates.
Plate corrugation. Corrugation is
quantified by the plate’s Chevron angle
(β). The heat transfer and pressure drop
capabilities of a plate are governed by
β. Nomenclature of β varies—β1 or β2,
as shown in FIG 1. Note: β2 = 180 – β1.
Plate corrugation (as defined by β1) gen-
erally varies from 25°–65°, with the cor-
responding values for β2 being 130°–50°.
NTU range of the plate. The number
of transfer units (NTU) range is one of
the two most important parameters for
specifying PHE plates.5 NTU is defined
as the ratio of the temperature change of
one fluid to the log mean temperature
difference across the plates. NTU is re-
lated to the overall heat transfer coef-
ficient (U) and pressure drop (ΔP), as
shown in Eqs. 1 and 2:5
 HEAT TRANSFER

(NTU ÷ L)∝(U ÷v) (1) tion of available pressure drop in PHEs Design issues. Several design constraints
is better than in S&THEs; therefore, the must be considered when designing for
(NTU ÷ L)∝(ΔP÷v)−0.25 (2) overall pressure drop in PHEs will be heat transfer effectiveness and efficiency,
less than in S&THEs. as detailed in the following sections.
where: Velocity through plate channel. Flow distribution. Proper flow dis-
L = Plate length The typical velocity, v, varies from 0.1 tribution through a PHE is required
v = velocity through the plate channel. m/s to 1 m/s, with the minimum being for optimum conversion of available
The actual indices and proportionality governed by the wall shear stress of 50 Pa pressure drop to heat transfer and must
constants of the above relations are de- (since a value lower than 50 Pa may lead be subdivided into flow distribution
pendent on β. Depending on the value of to frequent fouling of the PHE2), and the through individual plates, and distribu-
β, two types of NTU plates are possible: maximum being dependent on the avail- tion through the entire PHE, to be prop-
1. Low-NTU plates: NTU < 1 and able pressure drop. erly understood.
β approaches 65° (plate with low Flow ratio. The typical geometry of a Distribution through an individual
obliquity). The friction factor PHE does not allow for much difference plate. The flow distribution inside a
and Nussalt number decrease, between the flowrates of fluids in adja- plate is dependent on three factors:
resulting in low heat transfer and cent passages without affecting the heat 1. Port arrangement: The inlet
pressure drop. NTU can be as transfer effectiveness. A typical single- and outlet ports can be diagonal
low as 0.3 for a single-pass PHE pass PHE with maximum heat transfer or vertical, as shown in FIG. 3,
handling aqueous liquids. effectiveness can accommodate a flow with the diagonal providing a
2. High-NTU plates: NTU > 1 and ratio between two heat transfer fluids of better distribution.
β approaches 25° (plate with high 0.7 to 1.4. Outside this range, an unequal 2. Aspect ratio: A higher aspect
obliquity). The friction factor pass must be adopted requiring a signifi- ratio (length to width) results
and Nussalt number increase, cant LMTD correction factor. in better distribution.
resulting in high heat transfer and
pressure drop. NTU can be as
high as six for a single-pass PHE
handling aqueous liquids.
Maximum flow capacity. This
second-most-important parameter for
specifying PHE plates5 is governed by
the size of the port at the four corners
of the plate and determines the overall
plate dimension, as shown in FIG. 1. The
higher the flow, the larger the port diam-
eter and the lower the net heat transfer
area available for a plate of a particular
geometry. The larger port diameter not
only requires a greater number of plates
in parallel to cater to a given duty, but it
also forces the designer to adopt a plate
that is wider than required from a ther-
mal design point of view. These two re- 
quirements result in lower velocity and H channel M channel L channel
(high + high) (high + low) (Low + low)
increased chance of fouling.
One way to accommodate ports of FIG. 5. Schematic representation of three types of mixed-plates combination.
large diameter (with the maximum be-
ing limited to approximately 450 mm)
and cater to a very high flowrate (with
the maximum being limited to approxi-
mately 3,000 m3/hr) without increasing
the width of the plate is to use a “distance
piece” to stagger the flanged connection
directly perpendicular to the plate. A typi-
cal distance piece detail is shown in FIG. 2.
Allowable pressure drop. Since the
friction factor of PHEs is much higher
than in S&THEs, a greater pressure drop
must be specified across a PHE than
FIG. 6. Single-pass arrangement.
across a S&THE. However, the utiliza-
Gas Processing | NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 39
HEAT TRANSFER
FIG. 7. Multipass with equal number of passes on both sides.
FIG. 8. Multipass with unequal number of passes.
3. Plate entry loss: Since port areas
are the weakest portion of the
plate, they require strengthening
by restricting or reducing the port
area, which increases the losses
at the entry and is calculated1
approximately as shown in Eq. 3:
⎡ G 2p ⎤
ΔPP =1.4N P ⋅ ⎢⎢ ⎥
⎥
(3)
⎣ 2⋅ p⋅g c ⎦
where:
Np = Number of passes
Gp = Port mass velocity.
The port pressure drop should be
approximately 10% of the total pressure
drop in a well-designed exchanger.1 This
pressure drop can be as high as 25% for
single-pass exchangers, but high pressure
drop in a multi-pass exchanger will affect
the heat transfer.
Distribution through PHE. Two
types of distribution—U-arrangement and
Z-arrangement—are possible, as shown
in FIG. 4. Each of these arrangements is
characterized by pros and cons. While U-
arrangement results in unequal flow distri-
bution in the channel, it requires inlet and
outlet ports in the fixed head plate, thereby
simplifying piping and maintenance.
A Z-arrangement, on the other hand,
ensures equal velocity throughout the
channels, but makes piping and mainte-
nance more complicated with inlet and
outlet ports in fixed-head and movable
plates, respectively.
40 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016 | GasProcessingNews.com
When proper distribution becomes as
important as the piping and maintenance
issues, different types of channels in a
U-arrangement are used in parallel for
the same flow. The flow across channels
is distributed depending on the channel
geometries, since the flow across all of
the plates remains the same. L-type chan-
nels near the movable plate will result in
lower pressure drop and allow more flow
to pass through these channels, thereby
alleviating some of the effects of the im-
proper distribution of a U-arrangement.
This arrangement of plates is provided
by the PHE supplier as a “plate hanging
list,” and the same should be requested
during the detailed engineering stage to
ensure proper flow distribution through
the PHE.
Thermal mixing. This type of mix-
ing combines high-NTU plates with
low-NTU plates in correct proportion to
optimize the utilization of available pres-
sure drop in heat transfer, thereby avoid-
ing multipass. Three combinations are
possible (as represented schematically
in FIG. 5):
1. HH (H channel): A channel
formed with high-NTU plates on
both sides.
2. HL (M channel): A channel
formed with a high-NTU plate
on one side and a low-NTU
plate on another. This channel
is used when the flowrates of
the two fluids are very different.
The channel β is taken as the
arithmetic mean of βhigh and βlow.
3. LL (L channel): A channel
formed with low-NTU plates on
both sides.
The Heat Transfer Design Handbook4
provides the typical plot of an NTU
plate vs. Δp of mixed plates.
Types of pass arrangement. Some-
times, a pass arrangement is different
than the ideal 1–1 pass (FIG. 6) and is
adopted to cater to a large variation in
flowrates of the two heat exchanging flu-
ids. Two types of multipass are possible,
namely multipass with equal passes and
multipass with unequal passes, as shown
in FIG. 7 and FIG. 8.
No LMTD correction is required for
single-pass and multipass with equal
passes since the flows are a perfect
countercurrent. However, a correction
factor is required for multipass when
the passes are unequal, as in cases with
large, unequal flows that cannot be ad-
dressed with thermal mixing. However,
this correction is not as significant as
that in S&THEs due to lack of leakage or
bypass streams.1
Finally, continuous advances in man-
ufacturing technology should be kept
in mind when specifying design details.
Vendor and user recommendations
should be given due consideration be-
fore finalizing the selection of gasketed
plate heat exchangers. GP
LITERATURE CITED
1
“A review of the present method of predicting heat
transfer and pressure drop in PHEs,” Report PHE-
1, Heat Transfer and Research Inc., March 1990.
2
“Plate heat exchangers for general refinery ser-
vices,” American Petroleum Institute, API-662,
1st Ed., December 1995; and International
Organization for Standardization, ISO-15547,
November 2005.
3
Pramanik, R., “Fouling margin in plate heat exchang-
er,” Chemical Engineering World, March 2014.
4
Tubular Exchanger Manufacturer Association Inc.,
“Standards of the Tubular Exchanger Manufacturer
Association,” 8th Ed., 1999, Tarrytown, New York.
5
Thulukkanam, K., Heat Exchanger Design Handbook,
CRC Press, 2nd Ed., 2013, Boca Raton, Florida.
RITABRATA PRAMANIK has more
than 29 years of experience in
the design and engineering of
heat equipment in the oil and gas,
petrochemical, LNG, fertilizer,
chemicals and power sectors.
His experience includes project
management, consultancy for both FEED and
EPC, supply and lump-sum turnkey work.
He has worked with Fluor Daniel India in
New Delhi since July 2013.