Paper Number 13081989

Theoretical analysis of a Plate Heat Exchanger based on the Dittus-Boelter correlation and comparison with experimental results.
Christos Kalavrytinos
Birmingham City University

ABSTRACT
A Plate Heat Exchanger (PHE) is analysed in order to determine its performance in terms of heat transfer. A theoretical approach is used at first, taking into account as many external factors as possible. In the second section, the data collected from an experiment that was carried out are analysed in order to determine the actual performance of the PHE. The two sets of results are compared and the resulting error (142%) is justified. Recommendations for future analysis and experimental procedures are made including the possibility of a Finite Element Analysis (FEA) using a multiphysics package such as COMSOL.

operation. Nevertheless, it is convenient to have a methodology in order to estimate U or the size according to requirements and helps in HE selection.

Fig. 1, Plate Heat exchanger in counterflow

INTRODUCTION
Heat exchangers (HE) are widely used in industrial processes as well as in many devices and engines. The design of a HE usually starts with the need to heat or cool a fluid using another fluid. Therefore, there are always some known data or requirements and some unknowns to be solved. In this paper, an existing PHE, (Fig. 1) was used to carry out an experiment with a hot and cold fluid in counter flow arrangement. The readings taken are used to calculate the Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient (U) and are compared with an analytical approach based on the Dittus-Boelter correlation.

ASSUMPTIONS - It is assumed that U is constant throughout the HE and that there is no friction from the surface of the plates. Most studies neglect the conduction resistance between the hot and cold fluid and the resistance due to fouling. However, in this analysis these factors are included in order to achieve a more accurate result. In order to determine U, the following parameters must be calculated: heat exchanging area (A), number of hot and cold channels (N), cross sectional area of flow per channel (A_flow/channel), channel circumference (C_fch), hydraulic diameter (D_hyd), flow area per fluid (A_flow), fluid mass velocity (G), water viscosity (u_w), water conductivity (k_w), Reynolds number (Re), Prandtl number (Pr). Table 1: PHE Specifications (from the TD360 Manuals)
Number of plates Plate Length Plate Width Plate Thickness Hot and Cold gap Hot water temperature Cold water temperature 4 0.1 0.05 0.001 0.004 330.1 290.5 [-] [m] [m] [m] [m] [K] [K]

1) THEORETICAL ANALYSIS
In HE design analytical methods are used in order to approximate the ideal size of the HE and are not very accurate mainly due to the assumptions made. More specifically, it is assumed that U is constant along the whole length of the HE and that it can be calculated using the Dittus-Boelter convection correlations which are derived experimentally. However, there are various factors that affect U, for instance the influence of bubbles, corrosion, etc. Thus, a difference between the experimental results and the theoretical values is almost certain. This is the reason why experimental results are of great importance since they reflect real conditions of

Hot and Cold fluid mass flow Fouling resistance Plate metal conductivity (SS304)

0.5 0.00005 16.2

[kg/s] [m2W/K] [W/m/K]

Table 3: Calculation of the overall U with plate and fouling resistance. R_plate = thickness/cond = 0.001 / 16.2 = =0.00006 [W/m2/K] R_tot = 2/U+ 2 x R_foul + R_plate = R_tot = 2/6994 + 2 x 0.00005 + 0.00006= =0.00044595939 [m2W/K] U_tot = 1 / R_tot = 2242.4 [W/m2/K]

DITTUS-BOELTER CORRELATION - This is a common correlation used to determine the Nusselt number (Nu) for various values of Reynolds and Prandtl numbers for a convective heat transfer mode. In this case, the Reynolds number is found to be high due to turbulent flow and therefore the Dittus-Boelter correlation can be used. Nu=0.023 x Re
4/5

2) EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE - In order to carry out the experiment, a small scale PHE rig, illustrated in Figures 2 and 3, was configured in a counterflow arrangement and tested in various fluid flow rates to collect temperature data.

x Pr

Where n is 0.4 for heating and 0.3 for cooling. These equations are valid for 0.7<Pr<160; Re>10,000; L/D > 10. Since the fluids flow in a rectangular channel the Hydraulic diameter is used instead of a tube diameter.

Nu =

hD 4 Ac Where, Dh = k P

Where Ac and P are the cross-sectional area and the wetted perimeter, respectively.

Fig. 2, Small scale PHE (Birmingham City University)

The following sequence (Table 2) is used to determine the heat transfer coefficients of the two fluids (i.e. hot and cold water). Water properties are taken at average temperatures. The film correction for the heat transfer coefficient is neglected for the hand calculation. It is small and of opposite influence at each process side. The second sequence (Table 3) takes plate and fouling resistance into account in order to increase the accuracy of the result. Table 2: Calculation sequence for U for the fluids A = 0.1 x 0.05 x 4 = 0.02 [m2] N=2 A_fch = 0.004 x 0.05 = 0.0002 [m2] C_fch = 2 x (0.004 + 0.05) = 0.108 [m] D_hyd = 4 x A_fch / C_fch = 0.0074072 [m] A_flow = N x A_fch = 0.0004 [m2] G = Mass_flow / A_flow = 0.5 / 0.0004 = 1250 [m2] u_w = 0.0007255 [Pa.s] @35 deg C k_w = 0.62 [W/m/K] @35 deg C Re = G x D / u_w = 12762 Pr = 4.885 U= 0.023 x k_w/D_hyd x Re^0.8 x Pr^0.4=6994 [W/m2/K]

Fig.3, HE control unit (Birmingham City University)

Table 4: Experimental data (Temperatures in deg C and mass flow rates in kg/s).

Hot Flow Rate 0.51 1 1.51

Cold Flow rate 0.49 0.49 0.53

THin 57.1 57.7 58.5

THout 51.5 54.3 55.8

TCin 17.5 17.5 17.5

TCout 23.2 24.1 25

2

2.02 2.52 3.04

0.54 0.47 0.49

58.9 59 58.9

56.8 57.2 57.5

17.5 17.6 17.6

26.2 26.6 27.1

Percentage of losses or gains : P =

Qa Qe

100

Solving for this specific PHE configuration for a mass flow rate of 0.5 kg/s for both fluids yields:

OVERALL EFFICIENCY - In order to design and predict the performance of HE it is essential to determine the heat lost to the surroundings. Overall energy balance equations can be applied for the hot and cold fluids to aid in the analysis of the system. In this case, Qe is the heat emitted from the hot fluid and Qa is the heat absorbed by the cold fluid (neglecting potential and kinetic energy change). In an ideally insulated HE, Qe and Qa should be equal. However, in practice these differ due to heat losses or gains to or from the environment. If the average cold fluid temperature is above the ambient air temperature then heat will be lost to the surroundings resulting in P<100%. If the average cold fluid temperature is below the ambient temperature, heat will be gained resulting in P>100%.

Qe = mh (hh,i hh,o ) = mh Cph (Th,i Th,o ) Qe = 0.5 x 4183x(57.1 51.5) Qe = 11712.4 J Qa = mc (hc ,i hc ,o ) = mc Cpc (Tc ,i Tc,o ) Qa = 0.5 x 4184.5 x(5.7) Qa = 11925.8 J

Heat _ Gained = Qe Qa = 213.4 J

P= Qa Qe 100 = 101 .82%

Qe = mh ( hh ,i hh ,o ) = mh Cp h (Th ,i Th ,o )
Qa = mc ( hc ,i hc ,o ) = mc Cpc (Tc ,i Tc ,o )
Where,

Note: Heat is gained since the average cold fluid temperature is bellow the ambient temperature in the experimental conditions and the resulting percentage is higher than 100. TEMPERATURE EFFICIENCIES - The temperature change in each fluid stream can be compared with the maximum temperature difference between the two fluids to give a measure of HE performance.

m h , m c : mass flow rate of hot and cold fluid,

respectively. inlet and outlet enthalpies of hot fluid, respectively. inlet and outlet enthalpies of cold fluid, respectively. inlet and outlet temperatures of hot fluid, respectively. inlet and outlet temperatures of cold fluid, respectively.

h h ,i , h h , o :

Temperature

efficiency

for

hot

fluid:

h =

Th ,inlet Th ,outlet Th ,inlet Tc ,inlet Tc ,outlet Tc ,inlet Th ,inlet Tc ,inlet

100
for cold fluid:

h c ,i , h c ,o :

Temperature

efficiency

c =

100

Th , i , Th , o :

Tc ,i , Tc ,o :

m =
Mean temperature efficiency:

h + c 2

Cp h , Cp c : specific heats of hot and cold fluid,

respectively.

Note: Subscripts h and c stand for hot and cold, respectively.

Heat power lost(or gained):

Qe Qa
3

Solving for this specific configuration yields:

Solving for this specific PHE configuration yields:

h = h =

Th ,inlet Th ,outlet Th ,inlet Tc ,inlet

100

57.1 51.5 100 = 14.1% 57.1 17.5

U=

11712.4 W = 924.6 2 m K 0.02 x633.4

c = c =

Tc ,outlet Tc ,inlet Th,inlet Tc,inlet

100

23.2 17.5 100 = 14.4% 57.1 17.5

m =

h + c

2 14.1 + 14.4 m = = 14.2% 2

OVERALL HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT - Since the temperature difference between the hot and cold fluid streams differs along the length of the HE, the Logarithmic Mean Temperature Difference (LMTD, tm) can be used to perform the heat transfer calculations as an average.

LMTD tlm =

t1 t 2 Where, ln( t1 / t 2 )

Fig. 4, Counterflow arrangement.

t1 = T1-T4, t2 = T2-T3 from Fig. 4

3) COMPARISON
Solving yields: The experimental data (Actual) and the theoretical values (Estimated) can be compared to evaluate the accuracy of the calculations:

(Th, in Tc, out) (Th, out Tc, in) ln(Th, in Tc, out / Th, out Tc, in) 35.9 34 1.9 LMTDtlm = = ln(33.9 / 34) ln(0.997) LMTDtlm = 633.4 LMTDtlm =
Thus, an overall heat transfer coefficient (U) can be defined as:

Error =

Estimated Actual x100 Estimated 2242.4 924.6 Error = x100 = 142% 924.6

U=

Qe W Where, At lm m 2 K

Qe = Heat power emitted from hot fluid A = Heat transmission area

This might seem as a high error but there are many factors that could have affected the experimental results that were not taken into consideration when calculating. First and foremost, the HE rig and peripheral equipment (e.g. water tanks, pipes, etc.) were not insulated at all during the test. Moreover, the thermometers and flow meters have a standard error that increase exponentially according to the Kline-McClintock second power relation. Another factor that could have contributed to an increase in error are the friction losses within the tubes and the variation in potential and kinetic energy. Furthermore, 4

the properties of the fluids and materials at the specific temperatures were interpolated and could result in error especially since the actual properties of the water used during the experiment (e.g. grid water) are not known.

4) DESIGN FOR PERFORMANCE

From the analysis it is clear that there are many design variables that greatly affect the performance of a HE. These variables must be taken into consideration during the design process or during the selection process of a HE for a certain application. Generally, the heat transfer area, mass flow rate, flow arrangement and materials used affect the performance the most. More specifically, for a PHE, the shape and configuration of the plates plays a major role in creating turbulence which, generally, results to higher transfer rates. A corrugated plate can be seen in Fig. 5 along with the gasket. However, increasing turbulence inside a HE will cause added friction and result in a pressure drop in the system. This pressure loss is illustrated in Fig. 6.

with flue gasses lower than their dew point (i.e. condensation and particle deposits such as sulfur). Other types of fouling include crystallisation, sedimentation, polymerisation and organic material growth. However, the PHE is easier to disassemble and maintain than other types of HE. A fouling factor can be taken into consideration when calculating performance.

5) RECCOMENDATIONS
After the comparison of the predicted and actual results it is obvious that the error in calculating the Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient is high. Nevertheless, certain procedures can be followed in order to reduce the error and produce more accurate results. First of all, the theoretical analysis suggests that the system is insulated, that the potential and kinetic energy are constant while in the experimental procedure the device was not insulated. The creation of a model for a FE analysis is possible with the use of the multiphysics package COMSOL. The fluid channel can be simulated using surface approximation for the corrugated plates of the HE as shown in Fig. 7.

Fig. 5 Corrugated plate with gaskets. (http://waterheatingsystem.co.uk/)

Fig. 7, FEA model of HE plate in COMSOL (Papalazarou A., 2010)

This FEA model can produce more accurate results since heat lost to the environment as well as friction factors are taken into account during the calculations in the software. The results of such an analysis can be seen in Fig. 8.
Fig. 6, Pressure loss in HE. (Ahmed M. & Lamb B.)

The gaskets that seal the plates are the weak point of the PHE in terms of pressure resistance. A brazed plate type HE can be used where high pressure fluids need to be circulated. Fouling of the plates due to corrosion or particle build-up is also an issue especially with corrosive materials or

However, COMSOL is a very complicated piece of software and requires a lot of experience in determining which solver to use as well as which external factors should be considered.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to thank Professor A. Cole and Mr. R. Cornish for their guidance in the theoretical analysis, as well as, Mr. I. Pater for his help in performing the laboratory experiments.

REFERENCES
1. www.smu.edu (http://lyle.smu.edu/me/2142/uncert/uncert.htm) 2. http://waterheatingsystem.co.uk/ 3. I. E. De La Paz et al, Heat Exchanger Analysis. University of Puerto Rico. 4. Incropera, Dewitt, & D.P. (6th Edition). Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer. New York: John Wiley and Sons 5. Taylor, R. P. (1999). Analysis and Design of Energy Systems. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc. 6. Ahmed M. & Lamb B, Plant Engineer's Reference Book, Second Edition 7. Papalazarou A. (2010). Modeling of a Plate Heat Exchanger and Finite Element Analysis (Final Year Project). Democritus University of Thrace.

Fig. 8, FEA results (Papalazarou A.,2010)

CONCLUSION
Both the predicted values and the actual results of the analysis are within reasonable limits with the error being high (142%) mainly due to heat losses to the environment during the experimental procedure. The water properties might also vary slightly from the water used in the test. This error proves the importance of practical tests and the effect of the operating conditions of a device such as a HE. The use of a FEA software package such as COMSOL is less time consuming and will definitely be more accurate than the simple calculations used in this specific theoretical approach. Moreover, once the geometry is modeled various tests can be run in short periods of time without the need for re calculating everything by hand.

CONTACT
Christos Kalavrytinos Engineering BEng (Hons) Mechanical

Birmingham City University christos.kalavrytinos2@mail.bcu.ac.uk