Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

# 183

## Analytical Studies on the Temperature Distribution in

Spiral Plate Heat Exchangers: Straightforward Design
Formulae for Effkiency and Mean Temperature
Difference
Analytische Studien zum Temperaturverlauf in SpiralwGxneaustauschern :
Einfache Auslegungsformeln Kir Wrkungsgrad und mittlere Temperaturdifferenz

## KANCHAN CHOWDHURY*, HELMUT LINKMEYER, M. KHALIL BASSIOUNY** and

HOLGER MARTIN
Institutfiir Thermische Verfahrenstechnik der Universitat Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe (F.R.G.)

Abstract

The temperature distribution in spiral plate heat exchangers has been calculated numerically to obtain the efficiency
and the logarithmic mean temperature difference (LMTD) correction factors F as a function of the number of transfer
units N, the number of turns n, and the heat capacity rate ratio C. It has been found that the LMTD correction factors,
when plotted against the number of transfer units per turn N/n, fall approximately on a single curve. That curve for
balanced countercurrent operation (C = -1) can be very closely represented by the simple formula F = (n/N) tanh(N/n).
From that simple analytic representation of our numerical results it was concluded that a simpler physical model might
exist to represent the overall behaviour of a spiral plate heat exchanger equally well. In fact, a countercurrent cascade
of n cocurrent heat exchangers does result exactly in the above-mentioned formula for the LMTD correction factor.
From that model the F-factors for other heat capacity rate ratios C (-1 < C< 0) can also be calculated and they are
in sufficient agreement with the numerical results.

Kurzfassung

Der Temperaturverlauf in Spiralwarmeaustauschem wurde numerisch berechnet, urn den Wirkungsgrad unc! den Korrek-
turfaktor F fur die logarithmische mittlere Temperaturdifferenz (LMTD) in Abhangigkeit der Anzahl der Ubertragungs-
einheiten N, der Zahl der Windungen n und des Kapazititsstromverhiiltnisses C zu erhalten. Es hat sich gezeigt, dass die
LMTD-Korrekturfaktoren iiber der Anzahl der ijbertragungseinheiten pro Windung N/n aufgetragen nahezu auf eine
einzige Kurve zusammenfallen. Diese Kurve konnte fur den Fall C = -1 (gleiche KapazitHtsstrome im Gegenstrom) mit
sehr guter Anniihernng durch die einfache Formel F= (n/N) tanh(N/n) beschrieben werden. Aus dieser einfachen analy-
tischen Darstellung unserer numerischen Ergebnisse wurde geschlossen, dass es wohl em einfacheres physikalisches
Model1 geben miisse, das das Verhalten eines Spiralwlrmeaustauschers insgesamt ebensogut beschreibt. Tats%hlich
liefert eine Gegenstromkaskade von n Glei.chstromw&rmeaustauschem genau die oben genannte Formel fur den LMTD-
Korrekturfaktor F. Mit diesem Model1 kann man such die F-Faktoren fur andere Kapazititsstromverhaltnisse C (-1 <
C < 0) in befriedigender ijbereinstimmung mit den numerischen Ergebnissen berechnen.

## Synopse koeffizienten und ihre relative Unempfindlichkeit gegen

den Ansat. von Schmutzschichten in vieien Fallen wirt-
EinfiZuung schaftlich einzusetzen.
Spira&iimeaustauscher sind durch ihre kompakte Einige j%here Arbeiten / l-5/ zum W&n&bergang
Bau weise, die hohen erreichbaren Wtirmeiibergangs- in Spiralapparaten haben gezeigt, dass man bei turbulen-
- ter Str&nung die iiblichen Korrelationen j2r durch-
*On leave from I.I.T. Kharagpur, India (May 1983 to July stromte Rohre such auf die Rechteck-Kancile der Spiral-
1984). apparate anwenden kann. Die mittlere treibende
**On leave from The University of Monofia, Faculty of Engineer- Temperaturdifferenz ist jedoch im allgemeinen nicht
ing, Shibii El-Kom, Egypt. einfach gleich dem logarithmischen Mittelwert zwischen

02552701/85/\$3.30 Chem Eng. Process., 19 (1985) 183-190 0 Elsevier Sequoia/Printed in The Netherlands
184

Eintritts- und Austrittsdifferenz, d.h. der Spirakzpparat Ein vereinfachtes Model1 des Spiralw&meaustauschers
ist kein idealer Gegenstromer. Wegen des Wriimeflusses
von jedem warmen Fluidelement zu zwei voneinander Die einfache analytische Darstellung der numerisch
urn eine Windungentfernten kalten FluideIementen ergibt erhaltenen Ergebnisse (Cl. (2)-(4)) liess vennuten, dass
es wohl ein vereinfachtes Model1 des Spiralwriimeaus-
sich fir den Temperaturverlauf tings des Strtimungs-
tauschers geben m&se, das dieses analytische Resultat
weges nicht einfach eine exponentielle Funktion.
liefert. Tats&hlich wurde nach einigem Probieren gefun-
(siehe Bild 7) genau den Zusammenhang nach Gl. (2)
Baufonnen befolgt.
Im Bild 8 wurde versucht, in zwei Schnuten vom
Drei unterschiedliche Baufonnen von Gegenstrom-
Spiralwhimeaustauschern wurden analysiert (Bild 1). Sie
stromem zu gelangen. Beim gedanklichen iibergang von
unterscheiden sich durch die relative Lage der Ein- und
(b) nach (c) wurde dabeider W&neaustausch von Kanal I
Austrittsoffnungen am inneren und liicsseren Ende der
mit den Kamilen 0’ und 2’ miherungsweise durch einen
Spiralen.
Austausch mit dem dazwischen liegenden Kanal I’ ersetzt
fund sinngem&s ebenso fur die anderen Kamile).
Im Bild 9 ist das Verhdltnis des numerisch berechneten
Berechnung des Temperaturverlaufs LMTDKorrekturfaktors F(numerica1) zu dem nach dem
Model1 (d.h. aus Gl. (2)) berechneten F(model) iiber der
Zur Berechnung des Temperaturverlaufs wurde ein
Anzahl der Windungen n fir den grossten untersuchten
SystemgekoppeltergewiihnlicherDifferentialgleichungen
NTU-Wert N= 10 und C= -I aufgetragen. Man sieht,
(Cl. (I)) mit konstanten Warmedurchgangskoeffuienten
dass die Abweichungen fir Windungszahlen n > 6
U numerisch gel&t. Temperaturverlauf Wirkungsgrad E kleiner als +5% bleiben. Das Model1 scheint eine
und LMTDKorrekturfaktor F wurden fiir Bauform Iund asymptotische Naherung fiir grosse Windungszahlen zu
N (Bild 1 (a), (b)) mit n = 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16 Windungen liefern.
bei Kapazitdtsstromverhahnissen von -C = 0, 0.2, 0,4,
0,6, 0,8, 0,9, 1,O und NTU- Werten im Bereich 0 < N Q
10 berechnet. Fiir Bauform HI (Bild I(c)) mit n = l/1,5, Verallgemeinerung der Modellgleichungen fiir andere
1,512, 212.5, 2,5/3, 3/3,5, 4/4,5. 6/6,5, \$185, 12/12,5, Kapazitatsverhdltnisse (C f -1)
16/16,5 wurden Kapazitatsstromverh&nisse von -C=
0, 0,5 und 1 und NTU-Werte zwischen 0 und 10 behan- Fur eine Gegenstromkaskade von n Gleichstromem
delt. Die Rechnungen fur C= 0 (Temperatur eines kisst sich im allgemeineren Fall (-1 < C< 0) fur den
Stromeskonstant, Verdampfm, Kondensator) wurden nur LMTDKorrektut\$aktor die GI. (5) mit (6) ableiten, ei
zur Kontrolle des numerischen Verfahrens durchgefihrt. nach Gl. (6) ist dabei der individuelle Wirkungsgrad eines
In diesem Fall erhalt man analytisch eine einfache Expo- Gleichstrom- W&neaustauschers.
nentialfunktion fur den Temperaturverlauf, und die Die Zusammenhhizge zwischen dens Gesamtwirkungs
gleich eins. len Wirkungsgrad, ei, sind in den Gln. (7)-(9)fiir C + -1
und in den Gln. (7a)-(9a)flr C = -1 zusammengestellt.
Gleichung (10) mit (9) oder (9a) erkzubt die Berechnung
des NTU- Wertes (d.h. der erforderlichen Austauschfiche
Darstellung der Ergebnisse bei bekanntem Warmedurchgangskoeffuient), wenn
Urn alle berechneten Ergebnisse tabellarisch darzu- Gesamtwirkungsgrad, Kapazitatsverhaltnis und Windungs-
stellen, waren viele Seitert allein fir die LMTD-Kon-ektur- zahl gegeben sind.
faktoren erforderlich. In den Biidem 2, 3 und 4 sind Im Btld 10 sind einige numerisch berechnete LMTD
daher nur als Beispiele die berechneten Temperaturver- Korrekturfaktoren iiber dem Kapazitatsstromverhaltnis
lriife fir die drei Bauformen bei n = 4 Windungen (bzw. -C mit NTU pro Windungszahl N/n als Parameter
4/4,5 ft+ Typ II..) und N = IO, C= -1 in den Tabellen (Symbole) mit den aus den Modellgeichungen (5) und
A-l und A-2 im Anhang aufgelistet. (6) berechneten Kurven verglichen. Auch hier zeigt sich
Urn eine kompaktere Brstellung unserer numerischen eine praktisch ausreichende iibereinstimmung.
Ergebnisse zu finden, haben wir den Korrekturfaktor F
(zumichst nur fir C= -I) tiber der Anzahl der tier- Schiussfolgerung
tragungseinheiten pro Windung N)n aufgetragen (Bilder
5 und 6). Es hat sich gezeigt, dass die numerisch berech- Es wurde gezeigt, dass die Wirkungsgrade E und
neten Werte in dieser Darstellung praktisch auf eine LMTDKorrekturfaktoren F fir Spiralwriimeaustauscher
Kurve zusammenfallen. Diese Kurve liess sich, wie man im Gegenstrombetrieb durch ein vereinfachtes Model1
aus den Bikiem 5 und 6 sieht, sehr gut durch eine mit sehr guter Nahemng berechenbar sind. Die Modell-
etifache Funktion (GL (2)) darstellen. Auch die analy- gleichungen lassen sich nach allen gesuchten Grtissen
tisch /6f (mit unendlichen Reihen von Hermite’schen explizit auf&en. Es wird daher empfohlen, das Model1
stimmen recht gut mit der aus Gl. (2) und (3) folgenden fiir die thermische Auslegung von S@Yralw&neaus-
Gl. (4) tiberein, wie in Tabelle 1 gezeigt wird. tauschem mit n Windungen zu verwenden.
185

Introduction
Type 1
After its first appearance in Sweden in the 193Os, ln.2J
a great number of applications have been found for the
spiral plate heat exchanger in various fields of chemical
processing. Its compactness, high heat transfer coeffl-
(a)
cients, low maintenance cost and resistance to fouling
make it an economic choice in many cases.
Type II
Several earlier studies show that the usual tube flow In =21
correlations for heat transfer coefficients in the turbulent
flow regime may also be applied-with a reasonable
degree of approximation-to the rectangular ducts of
spiral plate heat exchangers [l-5]. In order to use these Cb)
correlations for design purposes, or to compare experi-
mental data with the existing correlations, it is necessary Type III
to know the mean temperature difference of a spiral n,. 2.5
plate heat exchanger. This mean temperature difference n h-2.0
is not in general equal to the logarithmic mean, since the in.2251
spiral plate heat exchanger is not an ideal countercurrent cold =
Q___
heat exchanger. Because of the flow of heat from any hot fluid
one hot fluid element to two cold fluid elements which Fig. 1. Types of spiral plate heat exchangers (schematic).
are exactly one turn of the spiral apart from each other,
the temperature distribution is not a simple exponential except for the innermost and outermost turns or half-
function of the flow length. The problem has been turns, one obtains:
treated numerically by Buonopane and Troupe [4] but
the results were only presented for a few special cases (&fcn)j dl;; = *Ur dAr(lj - q-1) f lJedAa(Zj - Tj+r)
as a graph of temperature against flowpath. Recently (1)
Cieslinski and Bes [6] have presented an analytical In eqn. (l), tic, is the heat capacity rate, U the overall
solution in terms of series expansions of Hermite poly heat transfer coefficient, 61 the differential surface
nomials. They have provided charts of reduced effective- area of the element considered, T the fluid temperature,
ness Ac versus number of transfer units N for 0 <N < 6; and the subscripts I and 0 refer to the inner and outer
-CEO, 0.2, 0.4,0.6,0.8, l.O;n =2,4,6,8, 12, 16;and wall of the channel respectively. The positive sign is used
the type I design. Their analytical solution seems to be if the fluid ln channel j is the cold stream, and the
rather tedious to evaluate (owing to the infinite series of negative sign if it is the hot stream. For the innermost
Hermite polynomials involved) so that we decided to use and outermost half-turns (for type I) or for the inner-
a numerical (Runge-Kutta) method to calculate the most and outermost turns (for type II) Ur or U,,
temperature distributions and LMTD correction factors. respectively, has to be taken equal to zero (adiabatic
walls). The problem may be stated in six coupled differ-
ential equations (two for the coxe, two for the inner
Types of design end, two for the outer end), as has been shown ty
Cieslinski and Bes [6], but for ease of numerical calcula-
Three types of spiral plate heat exchangers operating tion it is more convenient to subdivide the spiral into
in counterflow arrangement have been analysed. They single channels of one turn (for type II) or one half-turn
are shown in Fig. 1. In type I the inlet of one fluid and (for types I and III).
the outlet of the other are 1 80° offset from each other at
both ends of the spiral. In type II the inlet and outlet at
each end are at the same angular position. Type III is a Numerical solution
mixture of type I and type II: at the inner end of the
spiral it is the same as type I, at the outer end it is like Gill’s modified Runge-Kutta method [7] has been
type II. The number of turns (one turn is equivalent to used (by KC) to solve the equations for type I and
3604 is equal for both fluids in type I and type II heat type II, while a so-called Kutta-Simpson method [8]
exchangers, while it differs by one half-turn in type III. was used (by HL within the frame of his Diplomarbeit
at the Institut filr Thermische Verfahrenstechnik) for
the type III heat exchangers. Temperature profiles,
effectiveness and logarithmic mean temperature differ-
Governing equations ence (LMTD) correction factors have been calculated for
OQN< 10; -C= 0,0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8,0.9, l.O;n = 3,4,
The formulation of the set of ordinary differential 6, 8, 12,16;fortypeIandII;andforO~N~10;-C=
equations describing the temperature distribution over 0, 0.5, l.O;n =(1/1.5), (1.5/2),(2/2.5),(2.5/3). (3/3.5).
the length (or the angular position) has been given in (4/4.5), (616.5); (8/8.5), (12/12.5), (lkil6.5):‘fbr’ ty&
detail by Buonopane and Troupe [4]. For any differ- III. The calculations for C= 0 (temnerature constant in
ential volume d5 = s ddj in a turn (or a half-turn) j, one stream) were carried out to test the accuracy of the
186

## numerical procedures. In that case a simpie exponential

function is obtained analytically for the temperature
distribution, and F becomes unity by definition. For
type III only the case of the fluid with the lower
capacity rate streaming in the shorter channel was
treated (not vice versa).

N = 10
Presentation of results
n i 4.25
c i -1
To present only the LMTD correction factors calcu- Type III
lated for the three types, various capacity rate ratios,
numbers of turns and numbers of transfer units in
-116 0 0.5
tabular form would cover several pages. To show all Dimensionless Length
the temperature distributions would have required 920 Fig. 4. Temperature distribution in a type III spiral plate heat
figures. As an example we show one distribution for exchanger with four turns on the hot side and four and a half
each of the three types (Figs. 2-4) with a relatively turns on the cold side.
small number of turns n = 4 (or 4/4.5 for type III), C=
--I, and a large number of transfer units N = 10. In such
a case the deviations from the ideal countercurrent heat
plate heat exchangers the numerical solution gives
exchanger are relatively large. The efficiency E can be
efficiencies of cI = 0.786, cII = 0.803 and cIII = 0.807,
read from these Figures as the dimensionless outlet
respectively. In spite of the rather different individual
temperature of the cold stream. For an ideal counter-
temperature profiles the outlet temperatures-or effi-
current heat exchanger with C = -1 and N = 10, eid =
ciencies-of the three types do not differ very much
10/l 1 = 0.909 is obtained. For the three types of spiral
from each other. To find a comprehensive representation
of our numerical results, we plotted the LMTD correction
factors F for C = -1 against the number of transfer units
-1,,6 V16
1.0-l n',
per turn N/n (see Fig. 5 (for types 1 and II) and Fig. 6
I II
Temperature Profite (for type III)). The function tanh(x)/x with x =N/n
-Real obviously provides a very reasonable approximation to
--- ldeol these results with larger deviations only for very small
numbers of turns and high numbers of transfer units.
In most practical applications the number of transfer
0.5 units per turn will be less than two, so that the equation
2 I
Z E
N =lO
.\$ n=l Fs~ tanhE (C= -1)
c =-1 \_ n
E
6 Type I
\
1.0
0 0.5 1.0
Dimensionless Length F
Fig. 2. Temperature distribution in a type I spiral plate heat
exchanger with four turns. 0.6

1.0
0.6
- Real

c = -1
Type II

0 0.5 1.0
Dimensionless Length Fig. 5. LMTD correction factor F vs. the number of transfer
Fig. 3. Temperature distribution in a type II spiral plate heat units per turn N/n = CrA/ih+n for type I and type II spiral plate
exchanger with four turns. heat exchangers.
187

(schematic).

## Fig. 6. LMTD correction factor F vs. the number of transfer

units per turn N/n = UA/h?cpn for type III spiral plate heat
exchangers.

## gives a very simple design formula which is always

slightly on the ‘safe side’ for the range N/n < 2, n > 3
(being of practical interest).
To compare this result (eqn. (2)) with the AE values (a)
obtained analytically from the infinite series solution
(in terms of Hermite polynomials) by Cieslinski and Bes
[6], the Ac for their largest number of transfer units
(N= 6) was read from a graph (Fig. 4 in ref. 6), sub-
tracted from Eid = N/(1 +N) = 6/7, and compared with
the efficiency resulting from eqn. (2) and
1 1
F= - - (C= -1) (3) 0-Q
l/e-l N

## e s (1 + [n tanh(N/n)] -’ }-’ (4)

in Table 1. The agreement is within the reading accuracy
of the graph for n > 2.
(cl
Fig. 8. Development of a simplified model for a spiral plate heat
TABLE 1. Comparison of efficiencies calculated by Cieslinski exchanger.
and Bes [ 61, ECB, with those calculated from eqn. (4), cannr.,
forC=-l,N=6
of the two arrangements may be seen, however, from
Fig. 8 where a spiral exchanger is cut off into single
?I 2 4 6 8 12 16
channels with a number 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for each half-
0.167 0.067 0.036 0.022 0.011 0.006 turn on the hot side and 5’, 4’, 3’, 2’, I’, 0’ on the cold
&
ECB 0.690 0.790 0.821 0.835 0.846 0.851 side (Fig. 8(a)).
fappr. 0.666 0.784 0.820 0.836 0.847 0.851 Fig. 8(b) shows the same arrangement with the spiral
-3.5% -0.8% -0.1% +o.l% +0.1% *o channels symbolized by a rectangular shape. From any
one internal channel of the hot side (1, 2, 3, 4) heat is
transferred to two cold streams with different temper-
atures. If we replace these two cold streams, e.g. in
A simplified model of the spiral plate heat channels 0’ and 2’ by the one having a temperature
exchanger intermediate between them (I ‘), we obtain the simplified
model shown in Fig. 8(c).
Encouraged by the successful approximation of our Since the simplified model does not account for the
numerical results (and those obtained by Cieslinski and end effects and for the different types, it is only valid
Bes [6]) by a simple analytical expression (eqn. (2)) we for a sufficiently large number of turns. This can be
concluded that there might be a simpler physical model seen from Fig. 9 where the ratio of F(numerica1) to
-leading to eqn. (2)-that would represent the overall F(model) is plotted against the number of turns n for
behaviour of a spiral plate heat exchanger equally well. the largest number of transfer units (N= 10) and the
In fact, after some algebraic manipulation, it was found type of design as parameter. The deviations of the
(by HM) that a countercurrent cascade of n equal cocur- numerical results from the model predictions (eqn. (2))
rent heat exchangers resulted exactly in what we were lie between 0 and 5% for II > 6. Equation (2) seems to
looking for. Figure 7 shows such a cascade. At first be an asymptotic solution of the problem for large
glance there seems to be no apparent similarity between values of n. For smaller numbers of turns the end effects
that arrangement of cocurrent heat exchangers and a become more and more important. In the limiting case
countercurrent spiral plate exchanger, The equivalence of IZ= 1 (a spiral with a single turn), type II becomes an
188

## C = -1, eqn. (5) is an undetermined expression, which

can be shown to give eqn. (2) by using the series
expansion of the logarithm.
The relationship between the efficiency e of the
cascade (in Fig. 7) and the individual efficiencies ei of
each single heat exchanger can be written:

## 1+ 1+c jl+_E) (C# -1) (7)

l/e- 1
0 5 10 fS 20
"
From eqn. (7) one may solve for e(ei, n, C) or for
l-3& 9. Comparison of LMTD correction factors F calculated
Er(E*?Z,C):
numerically for types I, II and III spiral plate heat exchangers
with those obtained from the cascade model (eqn. (2)). Ratio of
F(numcrica1) to F(mode1) vs. the number of turns.

## ideal countercurrent exchanger (F = l), whereas type I

becomes a cocurrent cascade of two countercurrent
exchangers (F = [ 1 + (JV/~)~] -I).
Therefore type 11 is always better than type I, and
type Ill-as would be expected-gives values of F
between the two others. For heat exchangers with more
than ten turns, the differences between the three types
of design are practically negligeable. and from (6) a formula for the number of transfer units
The problem contains another parameter, which may in terms of E, n, and Cis obtained with eqn. (9):
also have a certain influence on the efficiencies and
correction factors. This is the ratio of the spiral pitch N(E, n, C) = s In[l -- (1 + ICI)ei] (10)
AR (gap width plus wall thickness) to the internal radius
Ri (see Fig. 1). In our calculations for types I and II These last relations ((10) with (9)) are useful to deter-
(by KC) this parameter was chosen to be AR/Ri = (7.5/ mine the surface area required for a certain outlet
123.3) z 0.06 (values taken from an industrial spiral temperature (E efficiency E), heat capacity rate ratio C
plate heat exchanger). Sample calculations for values of and number of turns n.
AR/Ri very close to zero (the model implicitly assumes For C = -1, eqns. (7) (8) and (9) become
AR/Ri = 0) gave practically the same values. The F-factors 1 1
were found to be up to 2.5% lower, however, if AR/Ri -- =n----- (C= -1) (7a)
was chosen to be larger (0.1, 0.25,O.SO). In the calcula- l/e- 1 l/ei - 1
tions for type III (by HL) the outer radius of the spiral
EC [I +(l/Er- 1)/n]-’ (C= -1) @a)
was kept constant, so that AR/Ri increased with the
number of turns from 0.03 1 (for II = 1.25) to 0.469 (for Er = [I + (l/E - l)n]_r (C= -1) (9a)
n = 16.25). The values calculated for 12.5 and 16.5 turns
(with AR/Ri = 0.099 and 0.469) are therefore somewhat A comparison of F from eqns. (5) and (6) with some
too low when compared with those for types I and II. numerical results is shown in Fig. 10. Again we can find
In Fig. 9 these points have been omitted for type III. sufficient agreement of the correction factors calculated
The numerical values for F are given in Tables A-l and from the cascade model (see Figs. 7 and 8) with the
A-2 of the Appendix. values calculated numerically for the spiral plate
exchanger.

## Generalization of the model equations for other

capacity rate ratios (C # -1)

## For a countercurrent cascade of n cocurrent heat

exchangers (see Fig. 7) the following formula for the
correction factor is obtained for -1 < C< 0:

n! 1
FN,C =(1 + C)N/n
l l”(1+
ii,t_‘ii (5)

1~ exp[-(1 + ICl)fV/rz]
Ei = (6)
1+ ICI
Fii. 10. LMTD correction factor F vs. heat capacity rate ratio
Here ei is the individual efficiency of each cocurrent -C with number of transfer units per turn N/n as a parameter.
heat exchanger (note that the absolute value of C, ICI, Curves calculated from model equations (5) and (6) in com-
has to be taken in eqn. (6) but not in eqn. (5)). For parison with some numerically obtained results.
189
-
Conclusions F = AT/AT,,, LMTD correction factor
ni mass flowrate, kg s-l
LMTD correction factors F obtained numerically number-of turns (one turn = 360”) of a spiral
for spiral plate heat exchangers were found to correlate ; = UA/(ilf~,),~~, number of transfer units
very well (for C= -1) with a simple analytic function R radius, m
(eqn. (2)). A physical model could be found, leading s gap width, m
exactly to equation (2), that represents the overall T temperature, K
behaviour of a spiral plate heat exchanger for large u overall heat transfer coefficient, W rn-’ K-’
numbers of turns very well. From that model all the
relations necessary for the thermal design of spiral plate E = (7’1. out - TI. in )/(Tz, in -. 7’1,in), efficiency (TI =
heat exchangers can be obtained explicitly (see eqns. (2)- temperature of fluid with (MCp),i,)
(10)). It is therefore recommended that the counter-
current cascade of n cocurrent heat exchangers be used
in general for the design of spiral plate heat exchangers.
References
Equation (10) should also be used with (9) or (9a) to K. W. Coons, A. M. Hargis, P. Q. Hewes and F. T. Weems,
calculate overall heat transfer coefficients from experi- Spiral heat exchanger-heat transfer characteristics, Chem.
mental data obtained with spiral plate heat exchangers Eng. Prog., 43 (1947) 405-414.
(if only inlet and outlet temperatures and flowrates are N. N. Tangri and R. Jayaraman, Heat transfer studies on a
measured). spiral plate heat exchanger, Trans. Ins?. C&m. Eng., 40
(1962) 161-168.
A. M. War&, A. T. Beckmann and J. J. Loiacono, Applica-
Acknowledgement tions of spiral plate heat exchangers, Chem. Eng. Prog., 63
(1967) 62-67.
A fellowship to KC by DAAD (German Academic R. A. Buonopane and R. A. Troupe, Analytical and experi-
Exchange Service) to attend the 19th International mental heat transfer studies in a spiral plate heat exchanger,
Seminar for Research and Education in Chemical PToc. 4th Int. Heat Transfer Con\$, Paris, 1970, Paper No.
HE 2.5.
Engineering, Physical and Technical Chemistry at the
P. F. Minton, Designing spiral plate heat exchangers, in
University of Karlsruhe (May 1983-July 1984) is
V. Caraseno (ed.), Process Heat Exchange, McGraw-Hill,
gratefully acknowledged. New York, 1979.
P. J. Cieslinski and T. Bes, Analytical heat transfer studies in
a spiral plate heat exchanger, Reprints of XVI Int. Congr. of
Nomenclature Refrigeration, Institut International du Froid (I.I.F.), Paris,
1983, pp. 67-72.
A total surface area, m2 J. Becker, H. Dreyer, W. Haacke and R. Nabert, Numerische
cp spe\$ic heat cspacity, J kg-’ K-l Mathematikfir Ingenieure, Teubner, Stuttgart, 1971.
c = WcphdWpLx9 heat capacity rate ratio (with F. Ayres, Schaum’s Outline of Theory and Problems of
negative sign for countercurrent flow) Differential Equations, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1912.

Appendix

TABLE A-l. LMTD correction factor F(N, n), C= -1, for types I and II

ARIRi = 0.06.
-
n Nz0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

TYPOJ
3 0.9916 0.9674 0.8820 0.7702 0.6560 0.5529 0.4655 0.3936 0.3352 0.2878 0.2494
4 0.9954 0.9819 0.9317 0.8591 0.7753 0.6900 0.6092 0.5360 0:4716 0.4157 0.3677
6 0.9980 0.9920 0.9689 0.9328 0.8869 0.8345 0.7787 0.7222 0.6669 0.6142 0.5647
8 0.9989 0.9955 0.9821 0.9607 0.9324 0.8986 0.8607 0.8202 0.7783 0.7360 0.6942
12 0.9994 0.9979 0.9916 0.9814 0.9675 0.9503 0.9301 0.9076 0.8830 0.8570 0.8298
16 0.9997 0.9988 0.9951 0.9890 0.9806 0.9701 0.9576 0.9433 0.9275 0.9102 0.8919

Type II
3 0.9927 0.9714 0.8959 0.7962 0.6931 0.5987 0.5176 0.4500 0.3944 0.3487 0.3110
4 0.9958 0.9835 0.9375 0.8706 0.7932 0.7137 0.6380 0.5690 0.5079 0.4546 0.4084
6 0.9981 0.9925 0.9707 0.9366 0.8931 0.8434 0.7903 0.7363 0.6833 0.6325 0.5848
a 0.9989 0.9957 0.9830 0.9626 0.9355 0.9032 0.8668 0.8279 0.7874 0.7466 0.7061
12 0.9995 0.9980 0.9920 0.9822 0.9688 0.9522 0.9328 0.9110 0.8873 0.8620 0.8356
16 0.9997 0.9988 0.9953 0.9894 0.9813 0.9712 0.9591 0.9453 0.9300 0.9133 0.8954
190

TABLE A-2. LMTD correction factors F(N, n), C = -1, for type III

N n = 1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75 3.25 4.25 6.25 8.25 12.25 16.25
AR/RI= 0.031 0.032 0.033 0.034 0.036 0.038 0.045 0.055 0.099 0.469
.-__- -__ .-- - -- _
1.0 0.8833 0.9188 0.9417 0.9644 0.9144 0.9851 0.9931 0.9959 (0.9978) (0.9983)
2.0 0.6630 0.7452 0.8221 0.8727 0.9057 0.9430 0.9728 0.9838 (0.9914) (0.9932)
3.0 0.4811 0.5778 0.6795 0.7564 0.8120 0.8810 0.9410 0.9643 (0.9808) (0.9848)
4.0 0.3591 0.4511 0.5540 0.6414 0.7116 0.8076 0.9001 0.9385 (0.9665) (0.9733)
5.0 0.2796 0.3619 0.4542 0.5407 0.6166 0.7306 0.8528 0.9074 (0.9488) (0.9591)
6.0 0.2262 0.2994 0.3777 0.4574 0.5327 0.6556 0.8018 0.8724 (0.9283) (0.9425)
7.0 0.1889 0.2547 0.3191 0.3900 0.4613 0.5860 0.7494 0.8346 (0.9053) (0.9237)
8.0 0.1616 0.2217 0.2738 0.3359 0.4015 0.5233 0 6974 0.7953 (0.8805) (0.9033)
9.0 0.1410 0.1968 0.2382 0.2924 0.3519 0.4678 0.6470 0.7554 (0.8542) (0.8815)
10.0 0.1249 0.1774 0.2097 0.2572 0.3107 0.4192 0.5993 0.7157 (0.8270) (0.8587)