Sensitivity study on the variation of a shell side heat transfer coefficient with the longitudinal pitch variation in a staggered

tube bank
ASHRAF ALFANDI1, Young In Kim2, Hyungi Yoon2, Namgyun Jeong2 and Juhyeon Yoon2,a
1

University of Science and Technology, Advanced Nuclear System Engineering Department, 217 Gajeong-Ro YuseongGu, Daejeon, 305-350, Republic of Korea 2 Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 989-111 Daedeok-Daero, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon, 305-353, Republic of Korea

Abstract. In designing compact heat exchangers, tube bank arrangement are of high importance since the variation of the longitudinal and transverse pitches affects the heat transfer and pressure drop in a heat exchanger. Smaller pitches allow a high performance compact heat exchanger at the expense of a high pressure drop. Normally the transverse tube pitch is determined by a given requirement on the pressure drop limit through the heat exchanger. The longitudinal pitch has a quiet different effect on heat transfer and pressure drop depending on the in-line and staggered tube banks, respectively. In this study, the effect on a shell-side heat transfer coefficient is investigated using the CFD code FLUENT with variation of a longitudinal pitch to diameter ratio, SL, in the range from 1.15 to 2.6 with a fixed transverse pitch to diameter ratio. For the benchmark purpose with the available empirical correlation, typical thermal-hydraulic conditions for the Zukauskas correlation are assumed. Many sensitivity calculations for different mesh sizes and turbulent models are performed to check the accuracy of the numerical solution. Realizable - turbulence model is found to be in good agreement with results of the Zukauskas correlation among the other turbulence models, at least for the staggered tube bank. It was found that the average heat transfer coefficient of a crossflow over a staggered tube bank calculated by using the FLUENT is in good agreement with the Zukauskas correlation-calculated heat transfer coefficient in the range of 1.15 2.6. For the staggered tube bank, using the Zukauskas correlation seems to be valid down to SL = 1.15.

Keywords: Heat transfer coefficient, staggered tube bank, longitudinal pitch, crossflow, turbulence model.

Nomenclatures
D PT PL ST SL Umax Re Nu Pr Prw Greek diameter of tube transverse pitch longitudinal pitch transverse pitch to diameter ratio longitudinal pitch to diameter ratio maximum velocity Reynolds number Nusselt number Prandtl number Prandtl number at the wall condition

exchanger, longitudinal and transvers pitches are the most important parameters in the thermal performance optimization point of view. Normally, using the smaller longitudinal pitch enables to utilize more heat transfer area density and to design more compact heat exchanger whereas the transverse pitch is determined mainly for meeting a specified pressure drop requirement of the heat exchanger. In this study, investigated is the effect on a variation of a shell side heat transfer coefficient with the longitudinal pitch variation in a staggered tube bank. 1.1 Literature Review Many researchers have investigated the heat transfer characteristics in tube banks. Pierson [1] and Huge [2] have carried out many experiments on the heat transfer in in-line and staggered tube arrangements. Colburn [3] has proposed an empirical correlation for the calculation of heat transfer in a staggered tube bank with number of rows more than ten. Grimison [4] has correlated the experimental data done by Pierson [1] and Huge [2]. Zukauskas [5] has suggested empirical correlations to estimate the average Nusselt number for a tube bank, as a function of Reynolds number and Prandtl number. Khan [6] has developed an analytical model to investigate the heat transfer from tube banks in crossflow for both in-line and staggered arrangements. Bassiouny and Wilson [7]

dynamic viscosity density turbulence kinetic energy turbulence dissipation rate specific dissipation rate

1 Introduction
The tube banks within heat exchanger can be arranged in either staggered or in-line configurations according to the heat transfer and pressure drop design optimization analysis. For a compact design of a shell and tube heat
a

Corresponding author: yoonj@kaeri.com

Experimental Fluid Dynamics 2013

have developed a mathematical model to simulate the laminar and turbulent flow fields in in-line and staggered tube banks. Kim [8] has investigated numerically the effect of the longitudinal pitch on the heat transfer characteristics of crossflow over in-line tube banks. Lee [9] has identified the effect of an uneven horizontal pitch in a tube bank heat exchanger and derived a general correlation that can predict the individual heat transfer coefficient of each row for an arbitrary longitudinal pitch distribution. But none of the researchers has conducted a numerical investigation to study the effect of the longitudinal pitch variation on the heat transfer of crossflow over staggered tube banks. In the present study, the effect of the longitudinal pitch variation on the heat transfer coefficient of cross flow over staggered tube banks while fixing the transverse pitch is investigated numerically using the CFD code FLUENT [10]. The calculation is modelled as a conjugate heat transfer problem to impose non constant wall temperature boundary condition on the tube surface.

Figure 2. Computational domain and Boundary conditions

In this study, typical thermal hydraulic parameters are taken from a typical once-through steam generator design data [11]. These numerical values just represent a physically meaningful set of data. All numerical calculations are performed at a Reynolds number equals 8.9104. Having known the ReD, the maximum velocity can be calculated by (3) In the range of 1.15 2.6 of SL, The flow will have the maximum velocity of 1.09 m/s at the transverse cross section [12] because ( ) ( )
( )

2 Numerical modelling
2.1 Geometry and boundary conditions Figure 1 shows a staggered tube bank that has transverse and longitudinal pitches. The transverse and longitudinal pitch to tube diameter ratios, ST and SL, respectively, are defined as (1) (2) To study the effect of the longitudinal pitch variation, the longitudinal pitch to diameter ratio SL is changed in the range of 1.15 2.6, but the transverse pitch to diameter ratio ST is kept constant at 1.4. Tube diameter, D, is set to 1.0 cm (see figure 1 below.)
D = 10-2 m

(4)

At the inlet boundary, the hot water flow rate is set to 1.59 kg/s and the upstream bulk temperature is assumed to be constant at 297.4C. Considering the repeated pattern of the flow at the inlet and outlet boundaries, a periodic boundary condition is prescribed. Because of the symmetry in the upper and lower part of the computational domain, symmetric boundary conditions are applied as shown in figure 2. The working fluid in the tube side is assumed to have a constant saturation temperature of 255.27C. 2.2 Mesh generation

PT = 1.4 10-2 m

PL

Figure 3. Computational grid

Figure 1. Cross-sectional view of the tube bundle with the definition of geometrical parameters

The red-dotted box shown in figure 1 represents a two dimensional computational domain used in this study. To solve as a conjugate heat transfer problem, the three solid regions shown in figure 2 are modelled to describe the tube metal thickness of 1.510-5 m.

An unstructured, Quadrilateral dominant method is used to generate a grid for the entire computational domain. Two examples of the meshes are shown in the figure 3 (a) and (b) for the two extreme cases at S L = 1.15 and 2.6, having a total number of elements 58040 and 109615, respectively. A two-layer model is adapted to treat the wall boundary layer near the wall. Along the fluid solid interface boundary, a maximum 25 inflation layers, as

Experimental Fluid Dynamics 2013 seen in figure 4, are used to have maximum y = 2.510-6 m at the first grid so that y+ ~ 0.5.
Shellside

Inflation layers

Solid

Tubeside

Figure 4. Fluid solid interface boundary fine grid resolution

Mesh sensitivity study was conducted by investigating several cases of different grid numbers, as shown in the figure 5. The mesh was continually refined until the variation in the heat transfer coefficient is small enough to be 0.15 %.
2.05E+04 2.00E+04 Heat transfer coefficient (W/m-K) 1.95E+04 1.90E+04 1.85E+04 1.80E+04 1.75E+04 1.70E+04 SL = 1.15 SL = 2.6

where the subscript w means that the fluid property is to be evaluated at the tube wall temperature/ Other fluid properties are to be evaluated at the bulk fluid temperature . Figure 6 shows results of the sensitivity study on the variation of the average heat transfer coefficient for different turbulence models including the standard - [13], Realizable - [14], Re-Normalization Group (RNG) - [15], and SST -. The results of the sensitivity study demonstrate that the Realizable - turbulence model gives the same variation trend of the average heat transfer coefficient with that of the Zukauskas correlation. In the staggered tube banks, the adverse pressure gradient field is not dominant, and the SST - turbulence model over-predicts the heat transfer coefficient values compared with the values of the Zukauskas correlation [12]. The results also demonstrate that, as the longitudinal pitch to diameter ratio, SL, decreases, the flow speed becomes larger and thus the heat transfer coefficient increases, as shown in the figure 6.
Zukausckas

22000 21000 Heat transfer coefficient Wm-K 20000 19000 18000 17000 16000 15000 14000

Realizable K-epsilon SST k-omega RNG k-epsilon Standard k-epsilon

1.65E+04 1.60E+04 0 20000 40000 60000 Grid number 80000 100000 120000

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

Longitudinal pitch to diameter ratio variation

Figure 6. FLUENT calculated heat transfer coefficient at

Figure 5. Mesh sensitivity study

different turbulence models 3.2 local heat transfer coefficient The velocity contour in figure 7 shows that, for tube banks with smaller longitudinal pitch, the fluid velocity impinging on the tube surface is higher compared to that of widely spaced tube bank case. This high speed impinging fluid velocity makes the boundary layer thickness on the head-on spot thinner in the smaller longitudinal pitch case. The thinner laminar boundary layer manifests the higher local heat transfer coefficient at the head-on spot as shown in figure 8.

For pressure-velocity coupling, the SIMPLE algorithm has been utilized. A second order upwind scheme has been applied for convection terms of mass, momentum and energy conservation equations. All the calculations are considered to be converged when the heat transfer coefficient and mass flow rate reach a steady state value.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Average heat transfer turbulence model effect coefficient and

For the purpose of benchmarking, the Zukauskas correlation [5] has been used to estimate the heat transfer coefficient at different longitudinal pitch to diameter ratios in the range of 1.15 2.6. The Zukauskas correlation is as follow for a staggered tube bank: ( ) ( ) (5)

Experimental Fluid Dynamics 2013

290 SL = 1.15 288 286 Temperature (C) 284 282 280 278 276 0 30 60 90 Angle () 120 150 180 SL = 2.6

Figure 7. Flow velocity contour for different pitches

Figure 9. Wall temperature profile for different pitches

Figure 8 shows that the calculated local heat transfer coefficient around the tube surface is largest at the stagnation point located at the upstream region, and decreases with distance along the tube surface as the boundary layer thickness increases. The heat transfer coefficient reaches its minimum value after the separation point. Beyond the separation point the local heat transfer coefficient decreases. But at the rear portion of the tube, the heat transfer coefficient increases again because of the considerable fluid sweeping phenomena by alternative periodic vortex shedding eddies over the rear. [16]
3.5E+04 Heat transfer coefficient (W/m2-K) 3.0E+04 2.5E+04 2.0E+04 1.5E+04 1.0E+04 5.0E+03 0.0E+00 0 30 60 90 Angle () 120 150 180 SL = 1.15 SL = 2.6

4. Conclusion
In the present study, a numerical model has been developed to study the effect of longitudinal pitch variation on the shell-side heat transfer coefficient of a crossflow over a staggered tube bank. Many sensitivity studies are performed including different number of meshes and turbulence models to minimize the numerical simulation uncertainties. Realizable - turbulence model is found to be in good agreement with results of the Zukauskas correlation among the other turbulence models for a staggered tube bank case. The conjugate heat transfer principle is applied where the wall thickness is modelled as a separate tube metal zone. Heat transfer coefficient increases as the longitudinal pitch decreases due to the increased fluid velocity and turbulence. The profile of the calculated heat transfer coefficient is found to be in a good agreement with the Zukauskas correlation heat transfer coefficient in the longitudinal pitch to diameter ratio range of 1.15 2.6. For the staggered tube bank, using the Zukauskas correlation seems to be valid down to SL = 1.15.

Figure 8. Local heat transfer coefficient

4 Acknowledgement
This work has been carried out under the auspices of the Jordan Research and Training Reactor Project being operated by Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute.

As seen in the figure 8 above, the heat transfer to the tube is not uniform around the tube surface which means that it is physically not correct to assume the constant wall temperature boundary condition for the shell-side surface. In order to take this issue into account, all the calculations are performed as a conjugate heat transfer problem. Figure 9 shows that the shell-side surface temperature is changing around the tube surface rather than being constant. It is noticeable that the local temperature profile around the tube has the same trend as the heat transfer coefficient shown in the figure 8.

5 References
1. O. L. Pierson, Experimental investigation of the influence of tube arrangement on convective heat transfer and flow resistance in cross flow of gases over tube banks, ASME 59, 563-572 (1937). E.C. Huge, Experimental investigation of effects of equipment size on convection heat transfer and flow resistance in cross flow of gases over tube banks, ASME, 59, 573-581 (1937). A.P. Colburn, A method of correlating forced convection heat transfer data and a comparison with fluid friction, Trans. Am. Inst. Chem. Eng. 29, 174210 (1933).

2.

3.

Experimental Fluid Dynamics 2013

4.

5. 6.

7.

8.

9.

10. 11.

12. 13.

14.

15.

16.

E.D. Grimison, Correlation and utilization of new data on flow resistance and heat transferfor cross flow of gases over tube banks, ASME 59, 583-594 (1933). A.A. Zukauskas, Heat Transfer from Tubes in Crossflow, Adv. Heat Transfer 8, 93-160 (1972). W.A. Khan, J.R. Culham, M.M. Yovanovich, Convection heat transfer from tube banks in cross flow: Analytical approach, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 49, 4831-4838 (2006). M. Khalil Bassiouny, A. Safwat Wilson, Modeling of heat transfer for flow across tube banks, Chem. Eng. Process 39, 1-14 (2000). T. Kim, Effect of longitudinal pitch on convective heat transfer in crossflow over in-line tube banks, Ann. Nucl. Energy 57, 209-215 (2013). D. Lee, A. Joon, S. Shin, Uneven longitudinal pitch effect on tube bank heat transfer in cross flow, Appl. Them. Eng 51, 937-947 (2013). Inc. Fluent, Fluent Users Guide (2006). J. Yoon, J.-P. Kim, H.-Y. Kim, D. J. Lee, M. H. Chang, Development of a computer code, ONCESG, for thermal-hydraulic design of a once-through steam generator, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol 37, 445-454 (2000) F. Kreth, M.S. Bohn, Principles of heat transfer (Books/Cole, Thomas Learning, 2001). B.E. Launder, D.B. Spalding, Lectures in mathematical models of turbulence. (Academic Press, 1982). T.-H. Shih, W.W. liou, A. Shibber, Z. Yang, J. Zhu, A new - eddy-viscosity model for high reynolds number turbulent flows-Model development and validation, Computer Fluids 24, 227-238 (1995). V. Yakhot, S.A. Orszag, S. Thangma, T.B. Gatski, S.G. Speziale, Development of turbulent models for shear flows by a double expansion technique, phys. Fluids A 4, 1510-1520 (1992). J.E. Bardina, P.G. Huang, T.J. Coakley, Turbulence modelling validation, testing, and development. NASA TM 110446, (1997).