Heat and Mass assignment 7

Heat Exchanger Optimization design

project

Abdallah Alshantaf (214999007)

Contents
Problem statement: ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Case A:....................................................................................................................................................... 3
Case B: ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
Methodology: ............................................................................................................................................... 4
Assumptions:............................................................................................................................................. 4
Equations: ................................................................................................................................................. 4
Case A .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Case B: ................................................................................................................................................... 8
Case A:........................................................................................................................................................... 9
Case B: ..................................................................................................................................................... 10
Discussion: .............................................................................................................................................. 10
Discussion: ..................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Conclusion: .................................................................................................................................................. 11
Problem statement:
Engineers have been using heat exchangers in all types of technology and systems. Heat
exchangers are used to transport heat from one fluid to another by convection of heat. Heat
exchangers are used in cars, refrigerators, power plants, they are even found in some
computers. Designing heat exchangers depend on various parameters. The purpose of the
exchanger and the location can dictate the type of exchanger that we use. The type of flow,
pipe sizes, pipes’ material, fluid transported, etc. all affect the design. Knowing the parameters,
engineers alter and iterate to find best fit design for a given application. Other things to
consider when designing exchangers, are the costs of manufacturing, durability, reliability,
corrosion, safety. Heat exchangers can be used to enhance engineering cycles (i.e. cascade
refrigeration cycle), by allowing us to reuse waste heat into the cycle again to raise
temperatures.
We were designing a counter flow double pipe heat exchanger that uses water to heat
benzene. We were constrained by a Reynold’s number of more than 13,000 for both fluids to
ensure turbulent flow. Another design constraint was that the pressure loss must be less than
2kPa. The pipe is to be made from schedule 40 brass. Length of each pass is to be 3m.

Case A:
Achieve outlet temperature of Water equal to 85oC [Use LMTD method]

Case B:
Achieve max heat transfer rate while keeping the number of passes less than 5. [Use
Effectiveness-NTU method]
Methodology:
Assumptions:
• Steady flow system.
• Uniform material properties.
• Neglect radiation.
• Uniform heat convection coefficient across fluid.
• Flow fully developed.
• No heat loss to surroundings. (insulated pipes)

Equations:

Case A
Sample calculations for inner pipe of 1” and an outer pipe of 2”.

Energy balance and missing exit temperatures:

𝑄̇ = 𝐴𝑈∆𝑇𝑙𝑚
̇
𝑄̇𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 𝑚̇𝑐𝑝∆𝑇 = 𝑄̇𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑧𝑒𝑛𝑒

𝑄̇ = 0.5(4190)(93 − 85) = 16760𝑊 == 0.3(1740)(Tb, out − 160)

0.3 × 1740 × (𝑇𝑏, 𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 160) = 𝟏𝟔𝟕𝟓𝟔. 𝟐 𝑾 (Overall Heat Transfer)

𝑻𝒃, 𝒐𝒖𝒕 = 𝟒𝟖. 𝟏°𝑪

Logarithmic mean temperature:

∆𝑇1 = 𝑇𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟, 𝑖𝑛 − 𝑇𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑧𝑒𝑛𝑒, 𝑜𝑢𝑡 = 93 − 48.1 = 44.9°C

∆𝑇2 = 𝑇𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟, 𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝑇𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑧𝑒𝑛𝑒, 𝑖𝑛 = 85 − 16 = 69°C
∆𝑇1 − ∆𝑇2 44.9 − 69
∆𝑇𝐿𝑀 = →=
∆𝑇1 44.9
ln (∆𝑇2) ln ( 69 )
∆𝑻𝑳𝑴 = 𝟓𝟔. 𝟏°𝑪
Hydraulic diameter and thickness:

𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 𝐷𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑖𝑝𝑒 − 𝐷𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑟,𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑖𝑝𝑒

𝑡 = 0.02667 − 0.0208788
𝒕 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟓𝟕𝟗𝟏 𝒎
𝐻𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝐷𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 𝐷𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑟,𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑖𝑝𝑒 − 𝐷𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑖𝑝𝑒

𝐷ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑖𝑐 = 0.04064 − 0.02667

𝑫𝒉𝒚𝒅𝒓𝒂𝒖𝒍𝒊𝒄 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟏𝟑𝟗𝟕 𝒎

Inner pipe areas (1”):

𝜋𝐷𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑟 2 𝜋0.02087882
𝐴𝑐𝑠 = = = 𝟑. 𝟒𝟐𝟒𝑬 − 𝟒 𝒎𝟐
4 4
𝐴𝑠𝑖 = 𝜋𝐷𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑟,𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑖𝑝𝑒 × 𝐿𝑒𝑚𝑔𝑡ℎ

𝑨𝒔𝒊 = 𝝅 × 𝟎. 𝟎𝟐𝟎𝟖𝟕𝟖𝟖 × 𝑳𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒕𝒉

Outer pipe areas (2”-1”):

2
𝜋(𝐷2𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑟,𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑖𝑝𝑒 − 𝐷 ) 𝜋(0.040642 − 0.026672 )
𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑖𝑝𝑒
𝐴𝑐𝑠 = = = 𝟕. 𝟑𝟖𝟓𝑬 − 𝟒𝒎𝟐
4 4
𝐴𝑠,𝑜 = 𝜋𝐷ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑖𝑐 × 𝐿𝑒𝑚𝑔𝑡ℎ
𝑨𝒔,𝒐 = 𝝅 × 𝟎. 𝟎𝟏𝟑𝟗𝟕 × 𝑳

Velocity:

Benzene:
𝑚̇ 0.3
𝑉= =
𝜌𝐴𝑐𝑠 878 × 𝟑. 𝟒𝟐𝟒 × 𝟏𝟎−𝟒
𝒎
𝑽 = 𝟎. 𝟗𝟗𝟖
𝒔
Water:
𝑚̇ 0.5
𝑉= =
𝜌𝐴𝑐𝑠 963 × 7.385E − 4
𝒎
𝑽 = 𝟎. 𝟕𝟎𝟒
𝒔
Reynolds number

Benzene:
𝜌𝑉𝐷𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑟 878 × 0.998 × 0.0208788
𝑅𝑒𝐷 = =
𝜇 5.51 × 10−4
𝑹𝒆𝒅 = 𝟑𝟑𝟐𝟎𝟑. 𝟏𝟑

Water:
𝜌𝑉𝐷ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑖𝑐 963 × 0.704 × 0.01397
𝑅𝑒𝐷 = =
𝜇 3.05E − 4
𝑹𝒆𝒅 = 𝟑𝟏𝟎𝟓𝟐. 𝟒
Reynold’s in both cases is more than 13,000 fulfilling our design constraint.

Friction Factor

Benzene:
2

1 1 2
𝑓= →→ 𝑓 = ( )
1 6.63
( √𝑓 )
𝒇 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟐𝟐𝟖
Water:
2

1 1 2
𝑓= →→ 𝑓 = ( )
1 6.54
( √𝑓 )
𝒇 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟐𝟑𝟑

Nusselt and Prandtl

 Benzene:

𝜇𝑐𝑝 5.51 × 10−5 × 1740

Pr = → = 𝟔. 𝟎𝟑
𝑘 0.159
𝑁𝑢𝐷 =215

Water:

𝜇𝑐𝑝 3.05 × 10−5 × 4190

Pr = → = 𝟏. 𝟖𝟖
𝑘 0.678
𝑁𝑢𝐷 = 94.3

Heat Transfer Coefficient

Benzene:

𝑁𝑢𝐷 𝑘 215 × 0.159

ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑟 = →→
𝐷𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑟 0.0208788
𝑊
𝒉𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑟 = 1637.3
𝑚2 𝐾
Water:

𝑁𝑢𝐷 𝑘 158 × 0.678

ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑟 = →→
𝐷ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑖𝑐 0.014
𝑊
𝒉𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 7651.7
𝑚2 𝐾
Overall heat transfer coefficient
−1
1 1
𝑈𝑖 = =( )
𝐴𝑖 𝑅 1 𝐴𝑖 𝑅𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐴𝑖
+ 𝐿 +
ℎ𝑖 𝐴𝑜 ℎ𝑜
−1

1 1
𝑈𝑖 = =( )
𝐴𝑖 𝑅 1 𝜋𝐷𝑖
+ (𝜋𝐷𝑖 × 𝑅𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛) +
ℎ𝑖 𝜋𝐷𝑜 ℎ𝑜
−1
1 1
𝑈𝑖 = =( )
𝐴𝑖 𝑅 1 𝜋 × 0.0208788
+
1637.3 𝜋 × 0.02667 × 7651.7

𝑈𝑖 = 1402.38 W/K
Overall Surface Area:

𝑄̇ 16756.2
𝐴𝑠 = →→
𝐹 × 𝑈𝑖 × ∆𝑇𝐿𝑀 1 × 1402.38 × 56.090

𝑨𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟏𝟑 𝒎𝟐

Length:
𝐴𝑠 0.213
𝐿 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = →→
𝜋𝐷𝑖 0.0208788 𝜋

𝑳𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 = 𝟑. 𝟐𝟒𝟕𝒎
Number of passes:
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 3.247
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠 = →→ ≅1
𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠 3

Pressure Drop:

Benzene:
3.247 878 × 0.9982
∆𝑃 = 0.0228 × ×
0.0208788 2
∆𝑃 = 1958.4 Pa
Water:

3.247 963 × 0.7042

∆𝑃 = 0.0233 × ×
0.014 2
∆𝑃 = 1289 Pa

Pressure drop is less than 2kPa for both cases.

Case B:
Use the NTU method to find Q max real. We use NTU method because we do not know the exit
temperatures of the fluids.
Capacity and Qmax :

𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛 = (𝑚̇𝑐𝑝 )𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑧𝑒𝑛𝑒 = 0.3 × 1740

𝑪𝒎𝒊𝒏 = 𝟓𝟐𝟐
𝐶𝑚𝑎𝑥 = (𝑚̇𝑐𝑝 )𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 0.5 × 4190
𝑪𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝟐𝟎𝟗𝟓
 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛 /𝐶𝑚𝑎𝑥
522
𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟒𝟗𝟏𝟔𝟒𝟔𝟕𝟖
2095
𝑄̇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛 (𝑇𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟, 𝑖𝑛 − 𝑇𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑧, 𝑖𝑛)

𝑸̇𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝟒𝟎𝟏𝟗𝟒 𝑾

NTU 3-pass length of 9m:

𝐴𝑠 𝑈 3.14(0.02667)(9) × 1402.38
𝑁𝑇𝑈 = →→
𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛 522

𝑵𝑻𝑼 = 𝟐. 𝟎𝟐𝟓
Effectiveness:

𝜀 = 0.833
Qmax Actual:

𝑄̇𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 = 𝜀 × 𝑄̇𝑚𝑎𝑥 → → 0.833 × 40194

𝑄̇𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 = 33481.6W

Case A:
inner pipe outer pipe inner inner pipe outer Nusselt no. of
specs diameter(m) diameter(m) Reynold's no. U L(m) ΔP passes
0.04064 0.02667 3.10E+04 1.58E+02 1.44E+03 2.479964 9.90E+02 1
0.0524002 0.02667 2.64E+04 1.36E+02 1.33E+03 2.681903 1.28E+02 1
1" 0.0777748 0.02667 2.00E+04 1.05E+02 1.17E+03 3.053684 1.14E+01 2
0.0889 0.02667 1.81E+04 9.54E+01 1.11E+03 3.203735 5.54E+00 2
1.25" 0.0524002 0.033401 2.43E+04 1.26E+02 8.84E+02 3.222978 3.32E+02 2
0.0777748 0.033401 1.88E+04 9.90E+01 7.85E+02 3.628286 1.85E+01 2
1.5" 0.0524002 0.042164 2.21E+04 1.16E+02 6.35E+02 3.554552 1.99E+03 2
The table above lists the values that suffice the constraints of our design. The inner pipe’s diameter would
impact the Reynold’s number of benzene, the more we increase the diameter the lower our Reynold’s
would be making the flow laminar, instead of turbulent. The length of the pipe, surface finish, material
used, Reynolds would change our pressure difference. The longer the pipe the larger our pressure
difference is. We neglect the conduction caused by the thickness of the pipes because it is negligible
compared to the overall heat transfer coefficient. So in the design selection process, after eliminating all
the values and dimensions that do not meet the constraints, we are left with several options that meet
the requirements. Other parameters designers consider are the cost of materials and machining costs.
Choosing dimensions that would give same result but with lower mass for material consumption is a better
option. We try to keep the number of passes to the minimum because it allows us to conserve geometry
as well as save up on costs

Case B:
no. of passes 1 pass 2pass 3pass 4 pass 5 pass
QMAX 2.81E+04 3.60E+04 3.87E+04 3.97E+04 4.00E+04
effectiveness 69.80% 89.60% 97.20% 98.70% 99.10%
NTU 1.34 2.68 4.03 5.37 6.71
For case B, using the NTU method we find the ideal maximum Q that can be transferred between the
two fluids. The NTU depends on the surface area of contact fluids, the overall heat transfer coefficient,
and minimum capacity. The NTU allows us to determine the effectiveness, which we use to get our Q.
Note that the relation between effectiveness and NTU varies significantly before NTU of 1.5.
effectiveness increase greatly with the increase of NTU until it reaches a point and it increases slowly.
Because NTU increases when we increase our area we look for a point which would give us an optimal
operating point at lower costs. Look at the tables above and notice the effectiveness difference from 1
pass to 2 passes, our effectiveness increased from 69% to 89% which justifies us using more pipes.
However, from 3 passes to 4 passes our effectiveness changes by almost 1%, so the reasoning does not
satisfy the cost. Effectiveness is maximum when c =0 and minimum when c=1. Effectiveness can not be 1
except when you are experiencing phase change in the fluid which means there is no temperature
difference.

Parallel vs Counter flow

For parallel and counter flow pipe systems comparison we look at the effectiveness of both heat
exchanger designs. Under the same circumstances and constraints, Counter flow heat exchanger would
give us a higher effectiveness than a parallel flow. The higher the effectiveness the higher the Q that we
can get. For example if we said our capacity is 0.25 at an NTU of 3, we can see the effectiveness of
counter of 90%, as for the parallel, it would be around 78% which would result in a lower Q.
Stainless Steel vs Brass
Stainless steel is less conductive than brass which means it has a higher thermal resistance,
which impacts our overall heat transfer coefficient, resulting in lower effectiveness than when brass is
used as our pipe material. However, brass is more expensive and heavier than stainless steel, so
depending on mounting locations, and actual application of the heat exchanger, we choose our pipe
material.

Conclusion:
- Assuring flow is turbulent allows for better heat convection.
- Decreasing pressure losses allows us to have lower head loss across our pipes.
- Counter flow heat exchangers are more effective than parallel flow.
- The more conductive the material used for pipes the better the overall heat transfer coefficient,
thus the shorter the pipe lengths.
- NTU affects effectiveness, pick an NTU that is justified economically compared to other NTUs.
- Use LMTD method when you know all the temperatures.
- Use NTU method when knowing inlet temperatures, and number of passes.