Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Final Report
By: Aaron Guche, Caleb Hefright, Farhan Ahmed, Patrick Flaherty, Jean Fiore, Luke Barone,
Tanner Boyle
12/5/2016
1
Table of Contents
Page
Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.0 Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . 3
2.0 Experimental Methodology . . . . . . . . 6
2.1 Experiment and Apparatus
2.2 Experimental Procedures
3.0 Results . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.0 Analysis and Discussion of Results . . . . . . . 12
5.0 Summary and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . 14
6.0 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1 Steady State Data for All Trials
6.2 Sample Calculations
7.0 References. . . . . . . . . . . 29
2
Nomenclature
is easily varied, making them very adaptable. The number of tubes and different types of baffles
needed can be designed and implemented based off of specific operation conditions [4].
One of the main concerns with shell and tube heat exchangers is they are susceptible to
vibration problems caused from the fluid flowing throughout the pipes. Although the baffles
within the system help hold these tubes in place to reduce vibrations, problems can still arise [3].
Another concern is the maintenance of the tubes, which can be difficult. Because of this, fouling
can occur. Buildup can greatly affect the overall heat transfer coefficient and efficiency of the unit
[3]. When assessing these issues, observations of the heat energy gained or lost by the system must
be accomplished. For this experiment the equation used to determine this energy is
Q=MCpΔT.
(1)
M is the mass flow rate of the water, and is a measure of the flow of water into the system. In order
for proper calculations, data must be collected when the system is at steady state. Cp is the specific
heat capacity of the material, which is the amount of energy per unit mass required to raise the
temperature of a substance by one degree. ΔT is the change in temperature of the fluid throughout
the system.
This calculation is done for the cold and hot side of the heat exchanger to obtain Qcold and
Qhot. To determine the efficiency of the unit, the equation
Q = UAΔTlmF.
(3)
5
U is the overall heat transfer coefficient. This heat transfer coefficient is a function of the fluid
properties and material composition of the heat exchanger. U varies based on the design of the
heat exchanger. Q in this equation is calculated from Equation 1, and is the energy gained or lost
by the system. F is a correction factor that must be used for this heat exchanger to accommodate
for concurrent or parallel flow in the heat exchanger. In opposition, counter current flow occurs
when the streams are flowing in opposite directions. This leads to a constant flow of heat at each
point of contact and a higher rate of heat transfer. For this heat exchanger F is 0.96. A is the heat
transfer surface area for the tubes which is 50 square inches. ∆T lm is the log mean temperature
difference and can be calculated by using the equation
(∆T2-∆T1)/ln(∆T2/∆T1)
(4)
where ∆T1 and ∆T2 are
∆T2 = T(hot, in) - T(cold,out),
(5)
and
In Figure 1, the arrows labeled hot flow in/out denote the direction the hot side fluid flowed
throughout the shell of the apparatus. A baffle within the system influenced the flow of the
fluid through the shell to ensure that proper mixing occurred to maximize heat transfer.
The arrows labeled cold flow in/out depict the flow of the cold side fluid through a bundle
of tubes that travels in an s-shaped pattern before exiting the heat exchanger. Additionally,
not depicted in Figure 1 but essential to the experiment is a pump for both the hot and cold
fluids, valves to control the flow rate of the fluid, a heater to heat the hot side fluid, and a
chiller to cool the cold side fluid. Hot side flow
control valve Pump for
hot side
fluid
50% 10% 20
50% 30% 20
50% 60% 20
50% 100% 20
10% 50% 20
30% 50% 20
50% 50% 20
70% 50% 20
8
3.0 Results
Two separate trials were conducted in this experiment, one varying the tube-side (cold side)
flow rate, and the other varying the shell-side (hot side) flow rate. In the first trial, the tube-side
flow rate was gradually increased, and the results have been presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Tabulated heat duties, log mean temperature differences, and heat transfer coefficients
when varying the tube-side valve opening.
% Valve Qc (W) Qh (W) QL (W) ΔTlm U (W/m^2*°C)
open (°C)
10% 905 1653 748 18.98 1542.7
30% 926 1685 759 15.80 1895.3
60% 925 1668 743 14.12 2119.6
100% 929 1669 739 13.63 2206.5
One important observation made from the data in Table 2 was that the amount of heat lost
from the system (QL) was roughly constant no matter how much the flow rate was increased on
the tube-side. Each time the valve opening was increased, the amount of heat lost per minute stayed
constant at about 745 W. Another interesting result can be found by examining the log-mean
temperature difference, which represents the temperature differential between the two fluids in the
system. As the valve opening on the tube-side increased, the temperature difference decreased
representing an inverse relationship. This means that as the cold side flow rate increased, the two
fluids became closer in temperature. Finally, it was also noticed that as the tube-side flow rate was
increased the overall heat transfer coefficient (U) increased significantly. This was because the
surface area of the tubes and the correction factor were constant during each trial. Additionally,
the heat duty of the cold side (Qc) was also relatively constant. Therefore, the only varying quantity
in the calculation of the heat transfer coefficient was the log-mean temperature difference. In order
to evaluate the effect of the tube-side flow rate on the heat transfer coefficient, these values were
plotted against each other in Figure 3. From Figure 3 it can be seen that a power curve is a very
good fit for the data with an R2 value of 0.9988.
9
2500.0
2000.0
U (kW/m2*°C)
1500.0 y = 220.77x0.271
R² = 0.9988
1000.0
500.0
0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
ṁc (g/min)
In the second trial, the tube-side flow rate (cold side) was held steady while the shell-side
(hot side) flow rate was varied. This trial yielded some results very similar to those found when
varying the tube-side flow rate but also produced some new trends. The data for the shell-side trial
is presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Tabulated heat duties, log mean temperature differences, and heat transfer coefficients
when varying the shell-side valve opening.
% Valve Qc (W) Qh (W) QL (W) ΔTlm U (W/m^2*C)
Open (°C)
10% 829 1452 624 18.27 1467.4
30% 894 1574 681 15.67 1844.8
50% 897 1640 744 14.25 2035.2
70% 902 1660 758 13.52 2157.6
After examining the data in Table 3 it was found that the heat duties for both the cold side
and hot side were not similar as in the first trial. Instead the heat duties for both sides increased as
the shell-side flow rate increase. In particular, the heat duty for the hot side increased more than
10
that for the cold side. However, when looking at the log-mean temperature difference, very similar
results were observed in both trials. After comparing the data in Table 2 and Table 3, it was noticed
that the ΔTlm values varied only within a few tenths of a degree Celsius between the two trials.
This means that the temperature difference between the two fluids in each trial was about the same
no matter whether the tube-side or shell-side flow was altered. Finally, the trend that the heat
transfer coefficient increased as the shell-side flow rate increased was also seen in Table 3. This
matches the trend found in the first trial. The interesting part of this result was that the overall heat
transfer coefficients were slightly lower when increasing the shell-side flow rate rather than the
tube-side flow rate. Figure 4 plots the heat transfer coefficient dependent on the shell-side flow
rate. The data for this trial was best represented using a logarithmic relationship resulting in an R2
value of 0.988.
2500.0
2000.0
U (W/m2*°C)
1500.0
y = 29.509ln(x) - 121.26
1000.0
R² = 0.988
500.0
0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
ṁh (g/min)
A third and final trial was conducted, varying the shell-side flow rate again while keeping
the tube-side flow rate steady, to see if the data could be repeated for accuracy. This trial
produced very similar results to those found in trial two which was encouraging. The data for
trial three has been presented in Table 4.
11
Table 4. Tabulated heat duties, log mean temperature differences, and heat transfer coefficients
when varying the shell-side valve opening for the second time.
% Valve Qc (W) Qh (W) QL (W) ΔTlm U (W/m^2*C)
Open (°C)
10% 870 1511 641 18.90 1489.1
30% 874 1542 667 15.44 1831.8
50% 887 1607 721 14.02 2045.9
70% 904 1670 766 13.56 2157.1
After comparing the data in Table 3 and Table 4, it can be seen that the values are extremely
close for each trial. The heat duties for the cold side were a little bit closer in value, only varying
within about ±20 W of each other. The hot side heat duties were about the same as well, but with
a slightly larger variance of ±40 W of each other. It makes sense that the hot side heat duties were
a little more skewed because that is the flow rate that was varied in these trials. On the other hand,
the log mean temperature differences between trials two and three were almost identical. Only a
couple tenths of a degree Celsius separated the two trials which demonstrates the accuracy of the
experiment. Finally, because the heat duties and log mean temperature differences were so similar,
it follows suit that the overall heat transfer coefficients between these trials resembled each other
as well. The variance here was about ±15 W/(m^2*C) except for the when the valve was 70%
open. When the valve was 70% open, the log mean temperature differences were only separated
by 0.03 degrees Celsius and the heat duties by 10 W. This is why the overall heat transfer
coefficients for this run were only 0.5 W/(m^2*C) away from each other. Figure 4 plots the heat
transfer coefficient versus the shell side flow rate for trial three. After examining Figure 4, it was
noticed that the data more strongly resembled a logarithmic relationship in trial three than in trial
two because the R2 value here was 0.9913. By comparison of trials two and three, it can clearly be
seen that the data had a very good accuracy.
12
2500.0
2000.0
U (W/m2*°C)
1500.0
y = 482.21ln(x) - 1939.1
R² = 0.9913
1000.0
500.0
0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
ṁh (g/min)
Figure 5. Overall heat transfer coefficient vs. shell-side flow rate for trial 3.
the movement of fluids. In natural convection, heat transfer and the movement of fluid is caused
by differences in densities. The system in the experiment used pumps to create the flow of water
through the heat exchanger. Since the pumps are forcing the fluids to flow, a heat exchanger
utilizes forced convection to transfer the heat between the two fluids. The following will describe
the different trends that the provided theories support.
Between the trials, various trends can be noted. The primary trend deals with the log mean
temperature difference. In each trial, the log mean temperature difference decreased. In trial one,
it went from 18.98 ºC with a 10% tube-side valve opening to 13.36 ºC with a 100% tube-side valve
opening. Similarly in trial two, the log mean temperature difference decreased from 18.27 ºC with
a 10% shell-side valve opening to 13.52 ºC with a 70% shell-side valve opening. A third trial, that
mimicked trial two found similar results. When trial three was performed it was found that the log
mean temperature difference decreased from 18.90 ºC with a 10% shell-side valve opening to
13.56 ºC with a 70% shell-side valve opening. The reason for this decrease was because as the
volumetric flow rate of the hot and cold sides approached each other, the temperature differential
balanced equally. This trend was able to be observed in all trials because each trial was given
enough time for the heat transfer to reach equilibrium.
A second trend to be noted was with QL. In trial one, the QL remained constant at about
745 W. In trial two, the QL continued to increase from 624 W to 758 W. Likewise, in trial three,
the QL continued to increase from 641 W to 766 W. The major reason for the difference in QL was
due to the surroundings. In trial one, the cold side valve opening was increasing variably from 10%
to 100% as the hot side remained constant at 50% valve opening. As more cold water entered the
system, there was more cold fluid to absorb the constant flow of heat, allowing less heat to escape
to the environment. The reason for the variation of QL in trial two was due to the changing ratio of
cold to hot water in the heat exchanger. The cold side opening in trial two was fixed at 50% while
the hot side opening increased from 10% to 70%. Because of this, the cold side had roughly five
times more water flowing through the system than the hot side initially. This resulted in more heat
being transferred to the cold water and less being lost into the environment. However, as the hot
side valve opening increased, the ratio of cold to hot water decreased. This resulted in more heat
within the system, with a fixed amount of cold water. As a result, more heat escaped into the
environment, resulting in the rise of QL. This heat loss can also be observed in the hot side heat
duty of trials two and three. The hot side heat duty increased from 1452 W to 1660 W for trial two
14
and 1511 W to 1670 W for trial three. The more hot water added to the system, the more heat lost
to the environment.
The final trend that can be noted in the experiment was with the heat transfer coefficient
(U). The heat transfer coefficient is a quantitative characteristic of convective heat transfer
between a fluid medium and the surface the fluid flows over. U represents how well heat is
conducted by a medium. In theory, these U values should be equal to each other because the system
remained the same. According to the equation of the heat transfer coefficient, the heat duty for the
cold side, correction factor, surface area, and log mean temperature difference were the factors
that affected the coefficient. Since correction factor and surface area were constant in this
experiment, the heat duty for the cold side and log mean temperature difference were the only
factors influencing the coefficient. In trial one, there was little variation in the heat duty for the
cold side, meaning the log mean temperature significantly influenced U. However, in trials two
and three, U was affected by both the heat duty and log mean temperature difference, since the
heat duty for the cold side was observed changing. That is why the U observed throughout the
trials were slightly different. For example, U was 1542.7 W/m^2*°C*min when the tube-side valve
was opened 10% in trial one, 1467.4 W/m^2*°C*min when the shell-side valve was opened 10%
in trial two, and 1489.1 W/m^2*°C*min when the shell-side valve was opened 10% in trial three.
In finding that the data in trials one and two were adequate, trial three was performed just
as an extra run to “back up” the existing data. This, “back-up,” correctly showed that the data taken
was precise and accurate throughout the lab.
incremented, both the heat duties of the cold side and hot side again increased, but the heat duty
of the hot side increased at a faster rate. This resulted in more energy lost. These results were
confirmed when trial three was run. Although, the slight increase of Qloss in trials two and three
did not have a noticeable effect on the log mean temperature difference and the heat transfer
coefficient trends. All three of the trials noticed a decrease of the log mean temperature
difference and an increase of the heat transfer coefficient as the flow rate for the heat exchanger
increased. This means that increasing flow allows for more heat to be transferred between the
two fluids.
These results can be very important when it comes to maximizing the efficiency of a shell
and tube heat exchanger. In order to achieve maximum efficiency, an engineer can take a
desired temperature needed and design the heat exchanger. By taking into account the size and
flow rate, the desired temperature can be reached while maximizing efficiency and reducing
costs. Since altering the flow rate effects the heat transfer as proven by this experiment, flow
rate is a vital part of the design in a shell and tube heat exchanger. Consequently, it is possible to
increase efficiency of a heat exchanger by increasing flow rate while decreasing the temperature
of the heating fluid in a case where a heat exchanger is used to increase the temperature of a
cooler fluid. This means that less energy would be needed to reach the necessary temperature of
the fluid being heated.
Therefore, the results from this experiment lead to information that will help to optimize
the shell and tube heat exchanger. Since heat exchangers are very common in industry,
designing a maximum efficiency heat exchanger at minimal costs will have a vast impact in
furthering the development of the industrial world.
16
6.0 Appendix
6.1 Steady State Data for All Trials
Table 5. Cold side flow variable 10%
Hot in (ºC) Hot out Cold in Cold Out
(ºC) (ºC) (ºC)
47.66 41.633 20.601 30.65
47.746 41.671 20.599 30.636
47.76 41.717 20.569 30.649
47.623 41.644 20.546 30.639
47.685 41.653 20.585 30.671
47.657 41.627 20.554 30.618
47.599 41.657 20.579 30.659
47.561 41.606 20.552 30.622
47.679 41.565 20.558 30.621
47.691 41.634 20.588 30.637
47.622 41.611 20.55 30.595
47.618 41.549 20.538 30.586
47.71 41.578 20.556 30.601
47.793 41.655 20.553 30.652
47.734 41.747 20.591 30.685
47.64 41.621 20.577 30.624
47.6 41.626 20.571 30.621
47.608 41.603 20.587 30.606
47.647 41.549 20.576 30.589
47.684 41.625 20.572 30.591
47.689 41.631 20.583 30.62
Table 5 shows the steady state temperature data for varying the cold side flow rate at 10% of its
max flow rate. The incoming and exiting temperatures for the hot and cold side fluids are
reported.
17
Table 6 shows the steady state temperature data for varying the cold side flow rate at 30% of its
max flow rate. The incoming and exiting temperatures for the hot and cold side fluids are
reported.
18
Table 7 shows the steady state temperature data for varying the cold side flow rate at 60% of its
max flow rate. The incoming and exiting temperatures for the hot and cold side fluids are
reported.
19
Table 8 shows the steady state temperature data for varying the cold side flow rate at 100% of its
max flow rate. The incoming and exiting temperatures for the hot and cold side fluids are
reported.
20
Table 9 shows the steady state temperature data for varying the hot side flow rate at 10% of its
max flow rate. The incoming and exiting temperatures for the hot and cold side fluids are
reported.
21
Table 10 shows the steady state temperature data for varying the hot side flow rate at 30% of its
max flow rate. The incoming and exiting temperatures for the hot and cold side fluids are
reported.
22
Table 11 shows the steady state temperature data for varying the hot side flow rate at 50% of its
max flow rate. The incoming and exiting temperatures for the hot and cold side fluids are
reported.
23
Table 12 shows the steady state temperature data for varying the hot side flow rate at 70% of its
max flow rate. The incoming and exiting temperatures for the hot and cold side fluids are
reported.
24
Table 13 shows the steady state temperature data for varying the hot side flow rate at 10% of its
max flow rate. The incoming and exiting temperatures for the hot and cold side fluids are
reported. This is the data from a re-run of technical objective 2 and mimics that of Table 8.
25
Table 14 shows the steady state temperature data for varying the hot side flow rate at 30% of its
max flow rate. The incoming and exiting temperatures for the hot and cold side fluids are
reported. This is the data from a re-run of technical objective 2 and mimics that of Table 9.
26
Table 15 shows the steady state temperature data for varying the hot side flow rate at 50% of its
max flow rate. The incoming and exiting temperatures for the hot and cold side fluids are
reported. This is a data from a re-run of technical objective 2 and mimics that of Table 10.
27
Table 16 shows the steady state temperature data for varying the hot side flow rate at 70% of its
max flow rate. The incoming and exiting temperatures for the hot and cold side fluids are
reported. This is the data from a re-run of technical objective 2 and mimics that of Table 11.
28
ΔT2 = T Hot, In, AVG. - T Cold, Out, AVG. *AVG’s from S.S. Data
= (49.3538 ºC) – (23.5879 ºC)
= 25.7660 ºC
ΔT1 = T Hot, Out, AVG. - T Cold, In, AVG. *AVG’s from S.S. Data
= (32.9210ºC) – (20.5323 ºC)
= 12.3888 ºC
U = (QCold) / [ΔTlm*A*F]
= (49720 J/min) / [(18.27 ºC)*(0.0322 m2)*(0.96)]
= 88045.7 J/(m2*ºC*min) => 88.05 KJ/(m2*ºC*min)
29
7.0 References
[1]Lytron Total Thermal Solutions. (2016). “What is a heat exchanger?”. Lytron Total Thermal
Solutions.(online article)
http://www.lytron.com/Tools-and-Technical-Reference/Application-Notes/What-is-a-Heat-
Exchanger
[2] Thomasnet.com. (2016). “Types of Heat Exchangers”. Thomas Publishing Company. (online
article)
http://www.thomasnet.com/articles/process-equipment/heat-exchanger-types
[3]Mahans Thermal Products. (2015). “Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers: Pros and Cons.” Mahns
Thermal Products. (online article).
https://heatexchangerswthdougleschan.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/types-of-heat-exchangers-
and-their-pros-and-cons/.
[4] H&C Heat Transfer Solutions. (2015). “Heat Exchanger Types and Selection.” H&C Heat
Transfer Solutions. (online Article). http://www.hcheattransfer.com/selection.html.