UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF SCOTLAND

Aerodynamic and Thermal Management

3rd Assessment: CFD Heat Exchanger Analysis
Jonathan Constable 3/19/2012

Learning Outcome: Work through a multi-heat source underbonnet thermal analysis to identify critical temperature areas and advise on design action to be taken.

Aerodynamic and Thermal Management

3rd Assessment: CFD Heat Exchanger Analysis Jonathan Constable

Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Brief ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 Outcomes ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Notes ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Geometry ................................................................................................................................................ 3 Designs ................................................................................................................................................ 3 Meshing................................................................................................................................................... 3 Initial Setup ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Fluent ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Initial Setup ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Graph Showing Converged Residuals ................................................................................................. 5 Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 Standard (Top Exit) ............................................................................................................................. 6 Bottom Exit ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Side Exit ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Discussion............................................................................................................................................ 7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 9

University of the West of Scotland | Stuart MacIlwain

Aerodynamic and Thermal Management

3rd Assessment: CFD Heat Exchanger Analysis Jonathan Constable

Introduction
A simple exhaust heat exchanger is to be fitted to a vehicle and is an oval design which encloses a section of the exhaust pipe.

Brief
Three possible water outlet configurations are to be examined The standard layout (shown below), a layout where the outlet is in the same dimensions, but underneath the shell, and a third layout where the outlet exits from the side.

Tube in exchanger shell end elevation

Elevation Outlets on left, inlets on right

Outcomes
A short MS Word report detailing the meshing routine and factors such as: Maximum skewness CFD solver setup of the model relative to the standard class-issue mesh A section that details the changes to the inlet and outlet temperatures at the three outlet positions The pressure drop over the shell side of the heat exchanger and the overall HTCs of the unit The key data should be shown in table Screen shots and other visualizations are welcomed.

Notes
The inside if the pipe is heated with a heat transferring oil at 200oC. The water enters at 17oC. The turbulence intensity of the inlet water is 3%. All walls of the exchanger are steel. It is assumed that the FLUENT default fixed specific heat values for the fluids. The heat transferring oil has such a low thermal conductivity to specific heat capacity balance that it can be assumed that the inside of the whole steel tube can be set to the oils temperature and it will not cool significantly, removing the need to simulate the flowing oil. The assumed inlet and outlet temperatures for an LMTD calculation involving the oil pipe will be the same number. University of the West of Scotland | Stuart MacIlwain

Aerodynamic and Thermal Management

3rd Assessment: CFD Heat Exchanger Analysis Jonathan Constable

Geometry
Designs
The geometry modelling for the three designs were very similar. Modelling consisted of creating the necessary planes to sketch the design specifications given in the brief. These sketches were then extruded creating the exhaust pipe and the shell that would contain the heat exchanger fluid. The shell inlet and outlet would also be created using this method, the outlet placement being the feature that varies from design to design. A Boolean was then created to connect the shell, inlet and outlet making it seem as a separate body from the rest model. Another Boolean would then be created to separate the exhaust pipe from the space (fluid) inside the shell, and another one to separate it from the fluid in the pipe. A final reference plane was then added at the exhaust inlet side of the model.

Meshing
Initial Setup
Different surfaces were named so it would be easier to determine the necessary parts of the model in FLUENT when it comes to assigning the CFD characteristics. A list of the named parts can be seen below. Shell Inlet Shell Outlet Shell Walls Pipe Inner Pipe Outer Pipe Inlet Wall Pipe Outlet Wall

The next step was Body Sizing the shell of the model, which involves given a specific part of the model (preferably a section that will be a key part in measuring the results) a finer mesh. This improves the accuracy of simulation, however it is not possible to verify any accuracies made because there is no comparison experimental model. A Sweep Method was then added to improve the accuracy of the head transfer from the exhaust and its effect on the fluid within in the shell. This will allow the simulation to be more accurate on vital results such as: the pressure change; the change in temperature; and the heat transfer coefficient. The mesh was then generated and saved, ready to be used in the FLUENT stage of the CFD process. 3

University of the West of Scotland | Stuart MacIlwain

Aerodynamic and Thermal Management

3rd Assessment: CFD Heat Exchanger Analysis Jonathan Constable

Fluent
Initial Setup
Many settings in the FLUENT setup were left on the Default setting, so if it is not stated in this section it can be assumed that it wasnt changed. Models Energy- On Viscous- Realizable k-e, Standard Wall Fn Materials Water-liquid and Steel properties added to the Fluid and Solid sections respectively Cell Zone Conditions part-exhaust_gas_pipe: change Operating Conditions - Operating Pressure = 101325 Reference Pressure Location (Z) = 0.68 Boundary Conditions pipe_inner_wall: change Temperature to 200oC (573oK) shell_inlet: change to mass-flow-inlet Change mass flow rate Gauge pressure = 40Pa Specification Method = Intensity and Length scale Turbulent Intensity = 3% Turbulent Length Scale = 0.03m Temperature = 17oC (290oK) shell_outlet: change Type to outflow

Reference Values Compute from shell_inlet Solution Controls Change Limits: Minimum Absolute Pressure = 70000Pa Maximum Absolute Pressure = 300000Pa Minimum Static Pressure= 250K Maximum Static Pressure= 1500K Monitors Residuals: All Absolute Criteria = 1e-06 Create Surface Monitor to measure the Mass-Weighted Average, Static Temperature of the shell_outlet. Solution Initialization Compute from shell_inlet Run Calculation Change Number of Iterations to 9000 Click Calculate and cancel when simulation has converged. 4

University of the West of Scotland | Stuart MacIlwain

Aerodynamic and Thermal Management

3rd Assessment: CFD Heat Exchanger Analysis Jonathan Constable

Graph Showing Converged Residuals

A convergence of results simply means that the functions and sequences of the simulation approach a limit under the conditions created in the FLUENT Setup. Even though the graph doesnt finish with a straight line, it has still converged because profile line is straight. A way of confirming that the simulation has converged is done by adding that Surface Monitor to measure the Mass-Weighted Average, Static Temperature of the shell_outlet, and seeing the graph (shown below) straighten out at a specific value. In this Surface Monitors case, the value sought after is the temperature of the shell_outlet when the heat exchanger is operating in the desired conditions of the brief.

More surface monitors could be added to determine the other sought after values, such as the pressure at the shell_outlet. However, these values can still be accessed through FLUENT after the simulation has converged and been stopped. The process is outlined on the next page.

University of the West of Scotland | Stuart MacIlwain

Aerodynamic and Thermal Management

3rd Assessment: CFD Heat Exchanger Analysis Jonathan Constable Results (in FLUENT) Create a Surface Integrals Report Select the Mass-Weighted Average as the Report Type The Field Variable should be changed to the Static Pressure Under surfaces, select the shell_outlet and then click Compute, a value will then be shown

Results
Standard (Top Exit)
Mass Flow Rate (kg/s) 0.1 0.18 0.215 Outlet Temperature LMTD (K) (K) 328.93 10.63 315.16 7.80 312.32 7.19 Top Exit Heat HTC Transferred U (W) (W/m^2 K) 16280.5 13103.3 18939.4 20774.4 20068.6 23892.3 Gauge Pressure In Out Drop (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) 15.92 -44.16 60.08 47.87 -140.88 188.75 67.23 -200.53 267.76

Bottom Exit
Mass Flow Rate (kg/s) 0.1 0.18 0.215 Outlet Temperature LMTD (K) (K) 331.51 11.14 316.16 8.01 313.45 7.43 Bottom Exit Heat HTC Transferred U (W) (W/m^2 K) 17359.5 13333.0 19692.2 21025.4 21084.6 24272.3 Gauge Pressure In Out Drop (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) 16.87 -49.35 66.22 50.81 -157.14 207.95 71.53 -223.36 294.89

Side Exit
Mass Flow Rate (kg/s) 0.1 0.18 0.215 Outlet Temperature LMTD (K) (K) 331.98 11.23 316.47 8.08 313.2 7.38 Side Exit Heat HTC Transferred U (W) (W/m^2 K) 17556.0 13373.2 19925.6 21101.3 20859.8 24189.9 Gauge Pressure In Out Drop (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) 16.64 -40.35 56.99 49.96 -128.43 178.39 70.33 -182.66 252.99 6

University of the West of Scotland | Stuart MacIlwain

Aerodynamic and Thermal Management

3rd Assessment: CFD Heat Exchanger Analysis Jonathan Constable

Discussion
Which configuration gives the highest water outlet temperature across the three MFRs? The outlet water temperature is an important characteristic, and in the case of this kind of heat exchanger, the higher the temperature the better it is. It can be seen in the bar chart below, that the Side Exit design is better across the 0.1 and 0.18 mass flow rates. This is due to the increased space between the outlet port and the exhaust pipe. There will be more turbulence the more space there is, which encourages the fluid to increase in temperature because a fluid particle is, effectively, travelling across a longer distance. This, in turn, gives the fluid more of a chance to increase its heat. Its this turbulent flow that settles when it goes out the Side Exit rather than the more turbulent flow going through the Top and Bottom Exits. However, in the simulation with the higher MFR (0.215kg/s), it is the Bottom Exit design that produces the higher outlet temperature. The higher mass flow rate has increased the size of the boundary layer acting on the shell walls of the heat exchanger, leaving less room for turbulence. Due to the fact the Bottom Exit design has the inlet and the outlet the furthest apart, this is the reason the outlet temperature of the design is larger than the other 2 designs. The outlet temperature variance of the designs is so small (less than 1%) it was decided that the outlet temperature (on its own) should not be a characteristic that should be taken into account when making a decision on the final design choice.

Temp vs. MFR

0.215 Mass Flow Rate (kg/s) 313.2 313.45 312.32 316.47 316.16 315.16 331.98 331.51 328.93 300 310 320 330 340

0.18

Side Exit Bottom Exit Top Exit

0.1

Temperature (K)

University of the West of Scotland | Stuart MacIlwain

Aerodynamic and Thermal Management

3rd Assessment: CFD Heat Exchanger Analysis Jonathan Constable What are the HTCs of the three arrangements across their three MFRs? Remember that the prime criterion is the product of the overall heat-transfer coefficient That quote was taken from an article called The Fundamentals of Heat Exchangers by Dean A. Bartlett, and was in reference to his conclusions of the article discussing the design of heat exchangers. The heat transfer coefficient was calculated using the following equation:

The area (A) chosen was the outer surface area of the exhaust pipe, which was done by using the equation below. l is the length of the pipe

Q stands for the heat transfer and was calculated using the equation below.

The symbol is the mass flow rate, Cp is the specific heat capacity of the fluid (for water it is 4182 J/kg K). This is where the temperatures of the inlet and outlet become more significant, because the difference between them determines the heat transfer coefficient of each design. It can be seen in the chart below that it is the same outcome as the chart above. This is due to outlet temperature, and therefore the change in temperature, being the only variable across the three designs.

HTC vs. MFR

0.215 Mass Flow Rate (kg/s) 24189.9 24272.3 23892.3 21101.3 21025.4 20774.4 13373.2 13333.0 13103.3 0.0 10000.0 20000.0 30000.0

0.18

Side Exit Bottom Exit Top Exit

0.1

Heat Transfer Coefficient (W/m^2 K)

University of the West of Scotland | Stuart MacIlwain

Aerodynamic and Thermal Management

3rd Assessment: CFD Heat Exchanger Analysis Jonathan Constable Which configuration has the lowest shell-side pressure drop across the three MFRs? The Pressure drop was calculated simply by finding the difference between the pressures acting on the inlet and the outlet. The key thing to note is that the outlet pressure is a negative gauge pressure. The pressure drop is a key feature in the design of a heat exchanger as it determines the pumping force of the fluid (the mass flow rate). The increase in the pressure drop is a sign that the turbulence has increased within the model, which will improve the heat transfer coefficient. It can be seen from the results below that the Side Exit design produces the lowest pressure drop across all mass flow rates. This was due to the fact that the outlet pressure was more than the other two designs, which confirms that increased space between the outlet and the exhaust encourages more turbulent and warmer fluid. This fluid is given a chance to settle around the Side Exit because of that space but it does not lose any heat, this is why the pressure drop is not as large but the heat transfer coefficient remains high.

PD vs. MFR
0.215 Mass Flow Rate (kg/s) 252.99 294.89 267.76 178.39 207.95 188.75 56.99 66.22 60.08 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 Pressure Drop (Pa)

0.18

Side Exit Bottom Exit Top Exit

0.1

Conclusion
The Side Exit design is the best design for this supercharger mainly because of the low pressure drop which allows a bigger mass-flow rate to be used if necessary. The heat transfer coefficient of this design is smaller in one mass flow rate by only 0.33% so that should not reduce the strength of this design. 9

University of the West of Scotland | Stuart MacIlwain