Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE
MECH3700 HEAT
EXCHANGER LABORATORY
EXPERIMENT
SHELL & TUBE HEAT EXCHANGER,
AND
PLATE HEAT EXCHANGER
2015
GROUP 17
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE
Abstract
This report is on the experimental study of the effectiveness of the heat transfer
and efficiency of shell and tube heat exchangers compared to an equivalently sized
plate heat exchanger. Also while conducting the experiment we aimed to calculate the
effect parallel and concurrent flow has on the efficiency of the system. This was
conducted by calculating the total heat transfer from one fluid to another with water
being the working fluid.
The Results show that plate heat exchangers have a far greater efficiency then an
equivalent shell and tube exchanger having up to a four times greater efficiency.
Concurrent flow also proved to help increase the efficiency of the heat transfer across
the exchanger in both the plate and shell and tube exchanger but had a greater effect
on the plate exchanger.
GROUP 17
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT.......................................................................................I
TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................II
FIGURES........................................................................................III
TABLES..........................................................................................III
1.0 - INTRODUCTION.......................................................................1
2.0 EXPERIMENTAL SET UP............................................................2
2.1 EQUIPMENT................................................................................................ 2
2.2 PROCEDURE............................................................................................... 3
3.0 - RESULTS.................................................................................5
3.1 PLATE HEAT EXCHANGER..............................................................................5
3.2 SHELL AND TUBE HEAT EXCHANGER...............................................................5
3.3 ERRORS.................................................................................................... 6
3.4 DATA ANALYSIS........................................................................................... 6
4.0 - CONCLUSION.........................................................................11
5.0 - BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................12
6.0 - APPENDIX...............................................................................A
6.1 MATLAB CODE........................................................................................... A
6.2 IMAGES..................................................................................................... E
GROUP 17
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE
Figures
Figure 1: Comparison of Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient............................8
Figure 2: Comparison of Heat Power Lost......................................................8
Figure 3: Comparison of Overall Heat Power Efficiency.................................9
Figure 4: Comparison of Temperature Efficiency for Cold Fluid......................9
Figure 5: Comparison of Temperature Efficiency for Hot Fluid.....................10
Figure 6: HT33 Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger.............................................E
Figure 7: HT30XC Heat Exchanger Service Unit.............................................E
Figure 8: HT32 Plate Heat Exchanger............................................................E
Tables
Table 1: Average Values for Different Heat Exchangers Types and Setups. . ..6
GROUP 17
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE
1.0 - Introduction
Calculating efficiency and heat transfer coefficients is an important part of
engineer design. By understanding the parameters affecting the heat transfer
rate and in turn the advantages and restrictions of various heat exchangers it
is possible to engineer systems best suited for each situation.
By utilising smaller systems in a laboratory setting it is possible to take
readings on different types of systems such a Plate and Shell & Tube heat
exchangers with low costs and under the same conditions to directly compare
the two systems.
For the first part of the experiment a HT33 Shell and Tube heat exchanger will
be connected to a HT30XC heat exchanger service unit with the flows running
co-currently. With this setup it is possible to measure the temperature of the
two fluid streams and by using the temperature differences of the input and
output of each stream calculate the heat energy transferred and temperature
efficiencies.
Second we will repeat the experiment after changing the flow to counter
current to see what effect this will have of cooling rates and efficiency.
After completing both counter and co current flows with the HT33 heat
exchanger we will redo the experiment except with a Plate style heat
exchanger and use the same process to calculate the heat energy transferred
and temperature efficiencies.
This experiment will allow for the heat energy transferred and temperature
efficiencies to be calculated as well as the effect co-current and counter
current has on cooling rates. However they will not show the effect of the
different heat exchangers on the other variables such as pressure drop over
them.
GROUP 17
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE
2.1 Equipment
HT33Shell & Tube Heat Exchanger
The heat exchanger used in the shell and tube method was a HT33 Shell &
Tube Heat Exchanger (figure 6). This heat exchanger comprises of a single
main housing with several stainless steel tubes running in parallel within it
allowing for a total heat transfer area of 0.02 m^2. Heat is transferred from
one fluid from the tubes to another fluid running in the main housing. In this
particular unit hot fluid is run through the stainless steel stubbing while the
cold fluids is run through the main housing, this is done to minimise thermal
losses. Generally to deviate the flow of the two fluids to change from cocurrent to counter-current or vice versa all that has to be done is reverse the
pump flow of one of the fluids. However the sensors that logged the data for
counter current where broken so differentiate between co-current and countercurrent all that had to be done was change a single fluids inlet and outlet.
GROUP 17
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE
For the plate heat exchanger a HT32 Plate Heat Exchanger (figure 8) was
used. This particular heat exchanger is commonly used for modelling in lab
conditions the thermal efficiencies of plate heat exchangers. This particular
plate heat exchanger has a combined total of 7 plates, 5 of which are effective
heat transfer plates, all made from 316 stainless steel. This gives the HT32 a
combined total heat transfer area of 0.04m^2, double that of the HT33 Shell &
Tube Heat Exchanger. The combinations of plates and gaskets make it a very
versatile piece of equipment to be used in a wide range of applications. Much
like the HT33 the HT32 has two inlets and two outlets for the two fluids to run
through and can be run in heating, cooling, co-current and counter-current
configurations.
2.2 Procedure
Experimental Set up
The experiment is set up in the same way for both heat exchanger units.
Cold water supply is connected and the pressure regulator is checked. The
HT30XC Heat Exchanger Service Unit is connected to a suitable Pc running the
supplied software. Both hot and cold-water streams are primed with cold water
as per the manual. The hot water reservoir is just the hot tap of a sink while
3
GROUP 17
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE
the cold is the cold tap. Both outlets run back to the drainage of the sink.
When this particular experiment was performed, one of the temperature
sensors of the HT30XC was malfunctioning. To work around this error instead
of reversing the flow of the fluids via the pump control to achieve co and
counter current flow all that had to be done was reverse the inlet and outlet of
one of the fluids to gain the correct data.
Method
Once the system was set up for the plate heat exchanger, fluid was pumped
through the heat exchangers in co-current flow, once the fluid had reached an
equilibrium several data samples were taken (between 20 and 30 samples) via
the software on the computer to achieve an accurate range of data to work
off. This data was then automatically outputted to an excel spread-sheet for
further analysis. This was then repeated for counter-current flow. Once the
data was gathered for the plate heat exchanger the system was then changed
for the Shell & Tube heat exchanger and the process was repeated to gain all
the raw data for this heat exchanger.
GROUP 17
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE
3.0 - Results
3.1 Plate Heat Exchanger
The plate heat exchanger has a high efficiency and a good heat transfer,
though these values vary noticeably with parallel and counter flow.
There is little to no change in the temperature rise across the cold inlet and
outlet (T cold) between parallel and counter flow and the same can be seen
with temperature drop across the hot inlet and outlet (T hot) with only one
degree more with counter flow. The temperature at the hot outlet is noticeably
lower for counter flow but the hot inlet temperature is almost equally lower
than parallel flow causing the T hot to have almost no change.
Both the hot fluid temperature efficiency ( hot) and cold fluid temperature
efficiency ( cold) for parallel flow are lower than counter flow. There is a
better cold for counter flow because even though T cold is almost the same
for counter and parallel flow with a lower hot inlet temperature, the maximum
temperature difference between hot and cold fluids is lower. Counter flow
hot increases for this reason also.
When calculating the logarithmic mean temperature difference (LMTD) for
each type of flow, the difference between the inlet temperatures (t1) remains
almost the same with only a small variation. However the difference between
outlet temperatures (t2) is much lower for counter current flow causing LMTD
to be much lower also. The value of LMTD is the key variable to determining a
high or low overall heat transfer coefficient (U) due to area (A) and correction
factor (F) remain constant for each flow type and there only a small difference
in heat emitted (Qe) of about 30 watts. Therefore a lower value of LMTD gives
a better/higher value for U, and vice versa.
To calculate U the use of a correction factor is needed. This is to gain a more
accurate value of U because the flow through the plate exchanger is not
consistently counter current or concurrent a correction factor F must be
applied to the LMTD when calculating the overall heat transfer coefficient.
(Blackboard Learn)
GROUP 17
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE
3.3 Errors
Errors were calculated using Differential Uncertainty Propagation.
This was used to determine the size of errors made during calculations that
could possibly become large through further calculations. All the error values
in the table are + or the given value.
AVERAGE HOT
Parallel Current
Counter Current
Parallel Current
Plate
Counter Current
Plate
48.5621504350
48.0836995443
46.0200059679
44.2444045608
22.4608709162
22.3308241102
28.6847093370
28.8186266100
3.0950483842
2.9572392216
8.9619140625
10.0360800253
5.6853249290
5.3793131510
17.7100626628
18.3950921136
988.4509681031
988.6378368863
989.4451397490
990.1413864494
997.8824263903
997.9083061971
996.2809246541
996.2277836699
4.1806848602
4.1804934798
4.1798340012
4.1794788809
4.1807556516
4.1808076704
4.1786330581
4.1786062747
0.0356632204
0.0351409331
0.0369920278
0.0323099815
HOT FLUID
DENSITY
(kg/m^3)
COLD FLUID
DENSITY
(kg/m^3)
HOT FLUID
SPECIFIC HEAT
(kj/kg.K)
COLD FLUID
SPECIFIC HEAT
(kj/kg.K)
HOT MASS FLOW
RATE (kg/s)
GROUP 17
COLD MASS
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE
0.0173985754
0.0172079282
0.0165675490
0.0167332462
10.1501281040
9.8794991739
29.2136390345
33.8510097807
18.6457529471
17.9792550418
57.7480241909
62.0638594797
14.3979405255
13.9293771078
43.4808316127
47.9574346302
461.5971317237
434.1860352639
1385.7735705557
1355.3201210395
413.5617187400
386.9403603679
1226.0416118191
1286.3318113076
48.0354129837
47.2456748960
159.7319587366
68.9883097319
89.8723467133
89.5725569495
88.7303922929
95.1812860530
25.8531858860
25.7336356537
13.0920352275
8.8868452129
980.6166957687
926.4088068993
2785.4589718651
4013.6024649067
FLOW RATE
(kg/s)
TEMPERATURE
EFFICIENCY HOT
FLUID (%)
TEMPERATURE
EFFICIENCY
COLD FLUID (%)
MEAN
TEMPERATURE
EFFICIENCY (%)
HEAT POWER
EMITTED BY HOT
FLUID (W)
HEAT POWER
ABSORBED BY
COLD FLUID (W)
HEAT POWER
LOST (W)
OVERALL HEAT
POWER
EFFICIENCY (%)
LOG MEAN
TEMPERATURE
DIFFERENCE
OVERALL HEAT
TRANSFER
COEFFICIENT
ERRORS
OVERALL HEAT
ERRORS
ERRORS
ERRORS
ERRORS
2.1919551277
2.0707851990
2.8344926540
4.0842557464
0.0001051068
0.0000986192
0.0003137882
0.0003173886
0.0000002159
0.0000002152
0.0000002132
0.0000002287
0.0000032798
0.0000033423
0.0000032608
0.0000033743
0.0000039614
0.0000040092
0.0000064330
0.0000071852
0.0000036206
0.0000036758
0.0000048469
0.0000052797
TRANSFER
COEFFICIENT
HEAT POWER
LOST
OVERALL HEAT
POWER
EFFICIENCY
TEMPERATURE
EFFICIENCY HOT
FLUID
TEMPERATURE
EFFICIENCY
COLD FLUID
MEAN
TEMPERATURE
EFFICIENCY
GROUP 17
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE
Parallel Current
Tube and Shell
Counter Current
Tube and Shell
Parallel Current
Plate
Counter Current
Plate
159.73
150
100
50
0
48.04
68.99
47.25
Counter Current
Tube and Shell
Parallel Current
Plate
Counter Current
Plate
GROUP 17
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE
96
94
92
90
88
86
84
89.87
89.57
88.73
Counter Current
Tube and Shell
Parallel Current
Plate
Counter Current
Plate
60
62.06
40
20
0
18.65
17.98
Counter Current
Tube and Shell
Parallel Current
Plate
Counter Current
Plate
GROUP 17
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE
30
20
10
0
$10.15
33.85
9.88
Counter Current
Tube and Shell
Parallel Current
Plate
Counter Current
Plate
10
GROUP 17
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE
4.0 - Conclusion
When comparing the overall heat transfer coefficient of the two types of
heat exchangers used in this experiment, it is clear that the plate type heat
exchanger is more effective than the shell and tube. Even when we compare
the plate type in parallel current, which is the less capable of the two plate
setups, to the parallel current tube and shell, which is the more capable of
those two setups, the plate type still transfers 284% of the heat that the tube
and shell does. This is an expected result due to the large increase in surface
area available for heat transfer in the plate type heat exchanger.
While plate heat exchangers may be able to transfer more energy between
the fluids they have negatives which we did not cover with this experiment. If
we completed this experiment again we would use a pressure sensor at the
inlet and outlet of the all the pipes to measure the pressure drop across the
heat exchanger. As the shell and tube exchanger has very little resistance the
pressure drop across it should be far less than that of the plate exchanger.
This greater pressure drop in the plate type heat exchanger could also be
heard through the increased workload of the pump. This means that a greater
pump and possibly power supply would need to be utilised for a plate type
heat exchanger.
The shell and tube type heat exchanger also has the advantage of easy
cleaning when a fluid with contaminants is to be used. Build-up of these
contaminants or fouling of the system can be controlled more easily than the
plate type.
In conclusion if the study is merely considering the efficiency of the plate
type and tube and shell types to decide on the better heat exchanger than the
plate type is a more effective option. However as with most engineering
situations the context and environment that the heat exchanger is to be used
in will impact on the decision of heat exchanger type, and may in fact cause
the tube and shell heat exchanger to be used.
11
GROUP 17
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE
5.0 - Bibliography
armfield. (n.d.). Heat Transfer Series. Retrieved from discover with armfield:
http://discoverarmfield.com/en/products/index
Bergman, T. L. (2011). Fundamentals of heat and mass transfer. John Wiley &
Sons.
Blackboard Learn. (2015). MECH 3700- Heat Exchangers. Retrieved from
UONline:
https://uonline.newcastle.edu.au/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.j
sp?course_id=_1380851_1&content_id=_2587495_1
Blackboard Learn. (2015). UONline. Retrieved from MECH 3700- Heat Transfer.
Blackboard Learn. (n.d.). MECH 3700- Laboratory. Retrieved from UONline:
https://uonline.newcastle.edu.au/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.j
sp?course_id=_1380851_1&content_id=_2560882_1
Water- Thermal Properties. (n.d.). Retrieved from The Engineering Toolbox:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-thermal-properties-d_162.html
12
GROUP 17
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE
6.0 - Appendix
6.1 Matlab Code
%START OF READ FROM EXCEL SPREADSHEET WITH RAW DATA
FILE_READ = 'COUNTER_CURRENT_PLATE.xls'; %READ FILE NAME
THO
THI
TCI
TCO
HFR
CFR
=
=
=
=
=
=
xlsread(FILE_READ,
xlsread(FILE_READ,
xlsread(FILE_READ,
xlsread(FILE_READ,
xlsread(FILE_READ,
xlsread(FILE_READ,
'C2:C38');
'D2:D38');
'E2:E38');
'F2:F38');
'N2:N38');
'P2:P38');
GROUP 17
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
0.0005;
0.0005;
0.00005;
0.00005;
0.00005;
0.00005;
5*10^-15;
5*10^-15;
0.0005;
0.0005;
DELTA_QMH = DELTA_HFR*abs(1.667*(10^-5)*HFD)+DELTA_HFD*abs(HFR*1.667*10^-5);
DELTA_QMC = DELTA_CFR*abs(1.667*(10^-5)*CFD)+DELTA_CFD*abs(CFR*1.667*10^-5);
DELTA_QE = DELTA_QMH.*abs(CPH.*THI-CPH.*THO)+DELTA_CPH.*abs(QMH.*THI-QMH.*THO)
+DELTA_THI.*abs(QMH.*CPH)+DELTA_THO.*(-QMH.*CPH);
DELTA_QA = DELTA_QMC.*abs(CPC.*TCO-CPC.*TCI)+DELTA_CPC.*abs(QMC.*TCO-QMC.*TCI)
+DELTA_TCO.*abs(QMC.*CPC)+DELTA_TCI.*(-QMC.*CPC);
DELTA_DI = 0.000005;
DELTA_DO = 0.000005;
DELTA_L = 0.0005;
DELTA_A = (DELTA_DI+DELTA_DO)*abs(pi*L)+DELTA_L*abs(pi*DM);
DELTA_DELTA_T_LN = DELTA_THO*(THO-TCI)+DELTA_THI*(TCO-THI)+DELTA_TCO*(THI-TCO)+DELTA_TCI*(TCITHO);
%ERROR CALCULATION FOR OVERALL HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT
DELTA_U = DELTA_QE.*abs(1./(A*F.*DELTA_T_LN))+DELTA_A*abs(-QE./(A*A*F.*DELTA_T_LN))
+DELTA_DELTA_T_LN.*abs(-QE./(A*F.*DELTA_T_LN.*DELTA_T_LN));
%ERROR CALCULATION FOR HEAT POWER LOST
DELTA_QF = DELTA_QA + DELTA_QE;
%ERROR CALCULATION FOR HEAT POWER OVERALL EFFICIENCY
DELTA_QX = DELTA_QA.*abs(1./QE) + DELTA_QE.*abs(-QA./(QE.^2));
%ERROR CALCULATION FOR THERMAL EFFICIENCY OF THE HOT FLUID
DELTA_TEHF = DELTA_THI.*abs((THO-TCI)./((THI-TCI).^2)) + DELTA_THO.*abs(1./(THI-TCI)) +
DELTA_THI.*abs((THI-THO)./((THI-TCI).^2));
%ERROR CALCULATION FOR THERMAL EFFICIENCY OF THE COLD FLUID
DELTA_TECF = DELTA_TCO.*abs(1./(THI-TCI)) + DELTA_TCI.*abs((TCO-THI)./((THI-TCO).^2)) +
DELTA_TCI.*abs((TCI-TCO)./((THI-TCI).^2));
%ERROR CALCULATION FOR MEAN THERMAL EFFICIENCY
GROUP 17
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE
GROUP 17
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
xlswrite(FILE_WRITE,
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE
TITLES)
SAMPLE, 'A2:A38')
AHFT, 'B2:B38')
ACFT, 'C2:C38')
DELTA_T_HOT, 'D2:D38')
DELTA_T_COLD, 'E2:E38')
HFD, 'F2:F38')
CFD, 'G2:G38')
CPH, 'H2:H38')
CPC, 'I2:I38')
QMH, 'J2:J38')
QMC, 'K2:K38')
TEHF, 'L2:L38')
TECF, 'M2:M38')
MTE, 'N2:N38')
QE, 'O2:O38')
QA, 'P2:P38')
QF, 'Q2:Q38')
QX, 'R2:R38')
DELTA_T_LN, 'S2:S38')
U, 'T2:T38')
DELTA_U, 'V2:V38')
DELTA_QF, 'W2:W38')
DELTA_QX, 'X2:X38')
DELTA_TEHF, 'Y2:Y38')
DELTA_TECF, 'Z2:Z38')
DELTA_MTE, 'AA2:AA38')
(The code used to calculate results for the other heat exchangers is almost that
same as this but has small variations to accommodate the small differences in
calculation values. All equations used are shown in matlab code.)
GROUP 17
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE
6.2 Images
GROUP 17
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE