Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 322 – 330

International Conference on Recent Advancement in Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, RAAR

2016, 10-12 November 2016, Bhubaneswar, India

Performance analysis of three fluid heat exchanger used in solar flat

plate collector system
Taraprasad Mohapatraa*, Biranchi N Padhib, Sudhansu S Sahooc, Rudra N Pramanika
a,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVRCE, Bhubaneswar, 752054, India
b,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, IIIT, Bhubaneswar,751003, India.
c,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, CET, Bhubaneswar, 751003, India.

Abstract

In the present study, the thermal performance of a three fluid heat exchanger (TFHE) used in solar flat plate collector system is
studied. The TFHE is an improved version of double pipe heat exchanger, where a helical tube is inserted between two
concentric straight tubes for better performance. This paper presents a new technique of simultaneous air and water heating in
TFHE using solar energy. The heating cost can be minimised considerably by supplying the hot water or thermal fluid from a
solar flat plate collector through the helical tube of TFHE to heat incoming cold air and water in the inner most pipe and outer
annulus. The TFHE is investigated experimentally and validated by comparing the result of experimental approach with
literature. Decent agreements between the experimental and literature values are observed. The purpose of this study is to
determine the effect of Reynolds number and Dean number on performance of the TFHE in steady-state for both flow
configurations. The overall heat transfer coefficients, Uo,h-n varies directly and effectiveness, ɛh-n varies inversely with hot water
volume flow rate, however hot water flow rate have least or no effect on coil side Nusselt number, Nuh. The effect of inner Dean
Numbers on overall heat transfer coefficients,Uo,h-n and effectiveness, ɛh-n is negligible in parallel flow configuration, however is
appreciable in counter flow configuration.
ommittee of RAAR 2016.

©©2017
2017TheTheAuthors. Published
Authors. by Elsevier
Published Ltd. This
by Elsevier Ltd. is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of RAAR 2016.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of RAAR 2016.
Keywords: Three Fluid Heat Exchanger, Helical tube, Heat transfer, Overall heat transfer coefficient, Effectiveness

1. Introduction
The heating and cooling of air and water are essential parts of our everyday lives, supporting our comfort,
safety, and productivity. However, these services come at a cost, with approximately (30 – 45) % of energy

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-9437101642; fax: +0-000-000-0000 .

E-mail address:taraprasad1980@gmail.com

1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of RAAR 2016.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.075
 Taraprasad Mohapatra et al. / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 322 – 330 323

consumption of any country attributable to heating and cooling. Solar heating and cooling can play a significant role
in providing an economically viable and environmentally sustainable long-term solution to these essential needs. In
this paper a new technique is imposed for simultaneous space heating and water heating by a three fluid heat
exchanger (TFHE) using solar energy. TFHE is an improved version of double pipe heat exchanger, where a helical
tube is inserted between two concentric straight tubes for better performance. The cost of air heating and water
heating can be reduced considerably by supplying the hot water or thermal fluid (nanofluids) from a solar flat plate
collector through the TFHE in a closed loop to heat incoming cold air and water without using any immersion
heater, geyser, room heaters or A/C. TFHE with solar flat plate collector system draws from an inexhaustible energy
source while displacing fossil fuels and electricity otherwise needed for heating. This reduces emissions of CO2 and
air pollutants while stimulating local job and economic growth. As an efficient and low-risk technology, the
proposed work may be deployable throughout the India during winter for space and water heating.
Heat exchangers constitute the most important components of many industrial processes with a wide range
of engineering applications. Recently numbers of heat transfer enhancement techniques are employed to produce
more efficient heat exchangers. These techniques are dependent upon types of flow (parallel-flow, counter-flow, and
cross-flow), type of construction (such as tubular or plate heat exchangers), way of contact between the fluids (direct
or indirect), product specifications, various physical characteristics of the fluid and the material. Many researchers
have designed and performed theoretical as well as experimental analysis of double pipe (straight/helical) and triple
pipe (straight) heat exchanger. But the information available for helical tube inserted type three fluid heat exchanger
is still least or nil, which will divert researchers and scholars to do analysis on TFHE. In this paper for the
experimental analysis of TFHE, some literatures of helical coil and triple concentric pipe heat exchanger are
referred. Rennie and Raghavan [1] and [2] studied a double-pipe helical heat exchanger experimentally and
numerically for both flow configurations. They investigated experimentally the performance of the heat exchanger
and the heat transfer coefficients are calculated using Wilson plot technique for different flow rates in the inner tube
and annulus. They determined numerically the heat transfer characteristics of the heat exchanger for different flow
rates, tube sizes, temperature dependent viscosity and residence timing using a CFD package (PHOENICS 3.3). An
improved simulation model of a diary heat exchanger (helical triple tube heat exchanger) is suggested by Nema and
Dutta [3] for the accurate estimation of fouling thickness and milk outlet temperature. They noted that fouling is
controlled by surface temperature and shear stress. Vimal Kumar et al. [4] investigated experimentally the
hydrodynamics and heat transfer characteristics of tube-in-tube helical heat exchanger and reported that the friction
factor value in the inner-coiled tube was in agreement with literature. The experimental study carried out by
Thongwik et al. [5], indicated that, ice fraction, coil diameter and mass flow rate of circulating water affect heat
transfer coefficient between slurry ice and helical coil surface. Shokouhmand et al. [6] in their experimental
investigation calculated overall heat transfer coefficients of a shell and helically coiled tube heat exchangers using
Wilson plots and compared coil side Nusselt number with literature. Their empirical correlations for constant
temperature boundary condition were quite in agreement with the present data in low Dean number region in
counter-flow. Jayakumar et al. [7] studied experimentally heat transfer characteristics of a helically coiled heat
exchanger for various boundary conditions. They found that the specification of a constant temperature or constant
heat flux boundary condition for an actual heat exchanger does not yield proper modeling. The mixed convection
heat transfer in a coil-in-shell heat exchanger was studied by Nasser Ghorbani et al. [8] for various Reynolds
numbers, various tube-to-coil diameter ratios and with different dimensionless coil pitch. The results revealed that
the equivalent diameter of shell was the best characteristic length and tube diameter influenced negligibly the shell-
side heat transfer coefficient.
This paper proposes one of the optimized techniques i.e. inserting a helical tube in a double pipe heat
exchanger for improved performance, because internal insertions of tubes (straight tube or helical tube) are found to
be more efficient for convective heat transfer enhancement. Helical tube heat exchangers are considered to yield
more uniform heat transfer as compared to straight tubes, because the centrifugal force causes secondary flow within
324 Taraprasad Mohapatra et al. / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 322 – 330

the helical tubes which increases the associated rate of heat transfer between fluids. TFHE can be efficiently used
for simultaneous solar space and water heating, heat recovery processes, air conditioning and refrigeration systems,
food and dairy processes etc.

Nomenclature

C inner diameter of outer pipe, m Greek symbols

t thickness of pipe, m
B diameter of inner pipe, m ρ density, kg/m3
dc diameter of helical tube, m ɛ effectiveness
p pitch of helical tube, m
Lc length of the helical coil, m Subscripts
L length of the heat exchanger, m e velocity exponent
Dc coil diameter, m c coil
N number of turns i inner
k thermal conductivity, w/m-k o outer
cp specific heat, kj/kg-k h hot water
Pr prandtl number n normal water
Ṽ volume flow rate, m3/sec a air
Re reynolds number h-n hot water to normal water
De dean number n-a normal water to air
Nu nusselt number 1 inlet
U overall heat transfer co-efficient, w/m2-k 2 outlet

2. Experimental apparatus and method

2.1. Setup

A schematic diagram of the experimental setup is shown in Fig. 1. Total length of the test section of the TFHE is
1.8m. Hot water is passing through the helical tube 21.261 m length, which is made up of copper. Inner diameter of
the helical tube is 0.0045 m and thickness 0.001 m. Pitch of the helical coil is 0.013 m, coil diameter 0.0494 m,
number of turns are 137. Table 1 can be referred for complete specification of the TFHE. Hot water will be supplied
from solar flat plate collector through helical tube in a closed loop by a 0.5 HP, centrifugal pump. The dimension of
the solar flat plate collector will be (2120 mm x 1040 mm x 100 mm), temperature range will be up to 850C and test
pressure will be 5 kg/cm2. The flow rate of centrifugal pump is 17 LPM and total head is 26 m. A flow control valve
and a rotameter are arranged in series with the pump to vary and measure the hot water flow rate respectively.
Normal water is passing through the outer annulus of the helical tube, which is the space available between two
concentric straight tubes subtracting the volume of helical tube. Outermost tube is made up of mild steel insulated
externally. The inner diameter of outermost tube is 0.07 m, thickness 0.0025 m. Innermost tube is made up of
copper, inner diameter 0.0268 m and thickness 0.001 m. Normal water is supplied from an overhead tank in an open
loop through a flow control valve and rotameter to vary and measure the normal water flow rate respectively. Air is
passing through the inner most tube through a flow control valve, which is supplied from a small blower in an open
loop as shown in Fig.2. Air velocity is measured by an Anemometer. The inlet, intermediate and outlet temperatures
of hot water, normal water and air were recorded manually using 4 K-type thermocouples are attached at four
different locations of the heat exchanger for each fluid as shown in Fig.1.
 Taraprasad Mohapatra et al. / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 322 – 330 325

Table1. Specifications of TFHE test section

Sl.No. Items Dimensions

1 Inner diameter of outer pipe 0.07m
2 Thickness of outer pipe 0.0025m
3 Outer diameter of inner pipe 0.0288m

4 Thickness of inner pipe 0.001m

5 Inner diameter of inner pipe 0.0268m

6 Outer diameter of helical tube 0.0065m

7 Thickness of helical tube 0.001m

8 Inner diameter of helical tube 0.0045m

9 Pitch of helical tube 0.013m

10 Length of the Helical coil 21.26166634m
11 Length of the Heat Exchanger 1.8m
12 Coil diameter 0.0494m
13 Number of turn 137
14 Shell side equivalent diameter 0.04595748m

2.2. Uncertainty in experimental data

During experiment, it is reported that the error in measurement of different parameters such as volume flow rate and
temperature results uncertainty of experimental data. For the performance analysis of TFHE, heat transfer co-
efficient, h is calculated from readings of the rotameters and thermocouples. The precision of the thermocouples are
± 2.2°C and rotameters are ± 0.804 litre/min.

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of TFHE used in solar flat plate collector system
326 Taraprasad Mohapatra et al. / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 322 – 330

3. Performance analysis

The effects of variation in volume flow rate on performance of TFHE are assessed for both parallel flow and counter
flow configurations. For the performance analysis overall heat transfer coefficient (Uh-n) and effectiveness (ɛh-n) of
the heat exchanger are calculated as follows.

3.1. Overall heat transfer coefficient

During the experiment, three fluids i.e hot water, normal water and air are allowed to pass through the TFHE, where
simultaneous heat transfer takes place from hot water to normal water and normal water to air. Depending upon the
heat transfer between fluids, overall heat transfer co-efficient, Uh-n is calculated from the temperature data and flow
rates using following equations.
d
Aco .ln( co )
1 dco dci 1
  (1)
U h  n hh .dci 2S kcu Lc hn
Where dco, dci are outer and inner diameter of the helical tube respectively. Lc is the length of the helical coil and kcu
is the thermal conductivity of copper. hh, hn and ha are convective heat transfer coefficients of hot water, normal
water and air.
Convective heat transfer coefficients of normal water, hn, and hot water, hh, flowing outside and inside the helical
tube are calculated by traditional “Wilson plots” techniques. Wilson plots allow the heat transfer coefficients to be
calculated based on the overall temperature difference and the rate of heat transfer, neglecting the magnitude of wall
temperatures. Wilson plots are generated by calculating the overall thermal resistance, Rov against 1/Vf e for a number
of trials where volume flow rate of one fluid is kept constant and the other is varied. Overall thermal resistance, Rov
can be represented
Rov 1 Ui o . Ai o 1 C2 . Ai .(1 V fe )  C1 (2)
In this work, heat transfer coefficients of hot water, hh is calculated by varying the hot water flow rate inside the
helical tube and keeping the flow rate of normal water in the outer annulus constant. The helical tube side heat
transfer coefficient is assumed to behave in the following manner with the fluid velocity in the helical tube, Vh:
hh C2 .Vhe (3)
Where C2 is a constant, Vh is the velocity of hot water inside the helical tube and e is velocity exponent can be taken
as 0.8 for turbulent flow.
Similarly, heat transfer coefficients of normal water, hn is calculated by following equation:
hn 1  C1  Rw  . Aco (4)
Where C1 is the intercept, 1 C2 . Ai is the slope of the straight line plotted by Wilson plot method and Rw is the tube
wall resistance.
Critical Reynolds number [10] in helical tubes is different from straight tube and can be calculated by the following
equation:
2 u104 (dci Dc )
0.32
R ecritical (5)

3.2. Effectiveness

Effectiveness of the heat exchange process between hot water and normal water can be calculated by
H Qact Qmax (6)
.
Where, Qact C ph Th1  Th 2  (7)
 Taraprasad Mohapatra et al. / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 322 – 330 327

.
Qmax Cmin (Th1  Tn1 ) (8)
. . .
Cmin mh .c ph , if m h .c ph < m n .c pn (9)
. . .
Cmin m n .c pn , if m n .c pn < m h .c ph (10)

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Validation

350 300
Seban & McLaughlin (11) Seban & McLaughlin (11)
Rogers & Mayhew (4) Rogers & Mayhew (4)
Kalb and Seader (4) Kalb and Seader (4)
300 250
Present Experimental study Present Experimental study

250
200

200
Nuh

Nuh
150

150
100

100

50

50
15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000 60000 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000
Reh Reh

Fig. 2. Effect of hot water flow rate on coil side Nusselt number (a). parallel flow configuration; (b). counter flow configuration

The coil side Nusselt numbers for both parallel flow and counter flow configurations are presented in Fig.2. Result
indicates that coil side Nusselt numbers increases with increase in volume flow rate or Reynolds numbers of hot
water inside the helical tube. It is observed from figures that the rate of rise in coil side Nusselt numbers in counter
flow configuration is more compared to parallel flow configuration. For validation, the result of experimental
approach is compared to the correlations of Rogers and Mayhew, Seban and McLaughlin, and Kalb et al presented
in Table 2. Decent agreement between the experimental and literature values is observed and it is indicated that the
use of existing correlations for heat transfer in helical coils could be used to estimate inner heat transfer rate in a
TFHE. However the experimental Nusselt numbers determined by Wilson plots method slightly varied and laid
between the results obtained from the correlations provided by Rogers and Mayhew and Kalb et al., because Wilson
plots technique does not work so well with the small helical coils, as there was more variance in the results.

Table 2. Empirical correlations for helical tubes

Authors Corelations
Seban & McLaughlin, 1963 Nuh 0.023.Re 0.85 .Pr 0.4 .( d ci Dc ) 0.1

Rogers & Mayhew, 1964 Nuh 0.021.Re 0.85 .Pr 0.4 .( d ci Dc ) 0.1

Kalb and Seader, 1972 Nuh 0.913.De0.476 .Pr 0.2 , for 10 < Dc/dci <100, 80 < De <1200 and 0.7 < Pr < 5
Nuh 0.836.De .Pr0.5 0.1
, for 10 < Dc/dci <100, De >1200 and 0.7 < Pr < 5
328 Taraprasad Mohapatra et al. / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 322 – 330

4.2. Coil side Nusselt Number

Fig.3 shows the variation of the coil side Nusselt number, Nuh with hot water volume flow rate for helical coiled
tube used in TFHE. It is noted that, there is a negligible effect of hot water volume flow rate on coil side Nusselt
number, Nuh. It is observed that the coil side Nusselt number, Nuh is directly proportional to inner Dean Numbers of
the helical coil for both flow configurations.

Dc=0.0494m, pc=0.013m Dc=0.0494m, pc=0.013m

120 120

100 100

80 80
Nu h

Nu h
60 . 60
.
V h =1.992 LPM V. h =1.992 LPM
.
V h=2.998 LPM V h =2.998 LPM
. .
40 V h=3.984 LPM 40
.
V h=3.984 LPM
.
V h =4.98 LPM V. h=4.98 LPM
.
V h=5.976 LPM V h=5.976 LPM
20 20
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Dei Dei

Fig. 3. Effect of inner Dean numbers on coil side Nusselt number (a) parallel flow configuration (b) counter flow configuration

4.3. Overall heat transfer coefficients

505
504
Dc=0.0494m, pc=0.013m 520 Dc=0.0494m, pc=0.013m

503
510
502
501 500
500
490
K)

499
K)
2
U o,h - n(W/m

498 480
U h - n(W/m

497
470
496
495 . .
460 Vh
494
V h =1.992 LPM .
=1.992 LPM
.
V h =2.998 LPM Vh =2.998 LPM
493 . 450 .
V. h =3.984 LPM Vh =3.984 LPM
492 .
V. h =4.98 LPM 440 Vh =4.98 LPM
491 .
V h =5.976 LPM Vh =5.976 LPM
490 430
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Dei Dei

Fig. 4. Effect of inner Dean Numbers on Overall heat transfer coefficients (a) parallel flow configuration (b) counter flow configuration

Fig.4 shows the variation of the overall heat transfer coefficients, Uo,h-n with hot water volume flow rate for helical
coiled tube used in TFHE. It is noted that the overall heat transfer coefficients, Uo,h-n is directly proportional to the
hot water volume flow rate. The overall heat transfer coefficients, Uo,h-n increases rapidly in the low hot water
 Taraprasad Mohapatra et al. / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 322 – 330 329

volume flow rate region and then increases moderately as the hot water volume flow rate increases. For different hot
water volume flow rate the variation of overall heat transfer coefficients, Uo,h-n is higher in counter flow
configuration compared to parallel flow configuration. It is observed that for a specific hot water volume flow rate
the effect of inner Dean Numbers on overall heat transfer coefficients, Uo,h-n of the heat exchanger is negligible in
parallel flow configuration, however is appreciable in counter flow configuration for lower Dean Numbers.

4.4. Effectiveness

Fig.5 shows the variation of the effectiveness, ɛh-n with hot water volume flow rate for helical coiled tube used in
TFHE. It is noted that the effectiveness, ɛh-n of heat transfer transfer between hot and normal water is inversely
proportional to the hot water mass flow rate. The effectiveness, ɛh-n decreases rapidly in the low hot water volume
flow rate region and then decreases moderately as the hot water volume flow rate increases. For a specific hot water
volume flow rate at constant hot and normal water inlet temperatures, the effectiveness, ɛh-n of the heat exchanger is
higher in counter flow configuration compared to parallel flow configuration. It is observed that for a specific hot
water volume flow rate the effect of inner Dean Numbers on effectiveness, ɛh-n is negligible in parallel flow
configuration, however is considerable in counter flow configuration for lower Dean Numbers.

0.18 1.0
Dc=0.0494m, pc=0.013m Dc=0.0494m, pc=0.013m

0.16 0.9

0.14 0.8

0.12 0.7

0.10 0.6
Hh - n

Hh - n

0.08 0.5

0.06 . 0.4 .
V h =1.992 LPM V h =1.992 LPM
.
.
0.04 V h=2.998 LPM 0.3 V h =2.998 LPM
.
.
V. h =3.984 LPM V h =3.984 LPM
.
0.02 V. h =4.98 LPM 0.2
V. h =4.98 LPM
V h =5.976 LPM V h =5.976 LPM
0.00 0.1
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Dei Dei

Fig. 5. Effect of inner Dean Numbers on effectiveness of heat transfer between hot and normal water (a) parallel flow configuration (b) counter
flow configuration

5. Conclusions

An experimental investigation of a three fluid heat exchanger (TFHE) was performed. The tests were conducted in
TFHE within the range of Reynolds number from 9000 to 54000 for curvature ratio, δ = 0.509, pitch to inside
diameter, p/dci =2.88 of the helical tube. Experimental procedure was validated by comparing coil side Nusselt
numbers with the Nusselt numbers reported from literature. Decent agreement between the experimental and
literature values was observed. The effect of variation in volume flow rate on performance of the TFHE was
assessed. The overall heat transfer coefficients, Uo,h-n varies directly and effectiveness, ɛh-n varies inversely with hot
water volume flow rate, however hot water flow rate have no effect on coil side Nusselt number, Nuh. The effect of
330 Taraprasad Mohapatra et al. / Energy Procedia 109 (2017) 322 – 330

inner Dean Numbers on overall heat transfer coefficients, Uo,h-n and effectiveness, ɛh-n was negligible in parallel flow
configuration, however was appreciable in counter flow configuration.

References

[1] Timothy J. Rennie, Vijaya G.S. Raghavan. Experimental studies of a double-pipe helical heat exchanger, Experimental Thermal and Fluid
Science 29 (2005) 919–924.
[2] Timothy J. Rennie, Vijaya G.S. Raghavan, Numerical studies of a double-pipe helical heat exchanger, Applied Thermal Engineering 26
(2006) 1266–1273.
[3] P.K. Nema, A.K. Datta, Improved milk fouling simulation in a helical triple tube heat exchanger, International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer 49 (2006) 3360–3370.
[4] Vimal Kumar, Supreet Saini, Manish Sharma, K.D.P. Nigam, Pressure drop and heat transfer study in tube-in-tube helical heat exchanger,
Chemical Engineering Science 61 (2006) 4403 – 4416.
[5] Sathaporn Thongwik, Tanongkiat Kiatsiriroat and Atipoang Nuntaphan, Heat transfer model of slurry ice melting on external surface of
helical coil, International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 35 (2008) 1335–1339.
[6] H. Shokouhmand, M.R. Salimpour and M.A. Akhavan-Behabadi, Experimental investigation of shell and coiled tube heat exchangers using
wilson plots, International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 35 (2008) 84–92.
[7] J.S. Jayakumar, S.M. Mahajania, J.C. Mandala, P.K. Vijayan and Rohidas Bhoi, Experimental and CFD estimation of heat transfer in
helically coiled heat exchangers, chemical engineering research and design 8 6 (2008) 221–232.
[8] Nasser Ghorbani, Hessam Taherian, Mofid Gorji and Hessam Mirgolbabaei, Experimental study of mixed convection heat transfer in vertical
helically coiled tube heat exchangers, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 34 (2010) 900–905.
[9] Gabriela Huminic and Angel Huminic, Heat transfer characteristics in double tube helical heat exchangers using nanofluids, International
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) 4280–4287.
[10] N. Jamshidi, M. Farhadi, D.D. Ganji, K. Sedighi, Experimental analysis of heat transfer enhancement in shell and helical tube heat
exchangers, Applied Thermal Engineering 51 (2013) 644e652.
[11] T.A. Pimenta, J.B.L.M. Campos, Heat transfer coefficients from Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids flowing in laminar regime in a helical
coil, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 58 (2013) 676–690.