Chapter 22

Heat-Transfer Equipment

A device whose primary purpose is the transfer of energy between two fluids is called
a heat exchanger. Heat exchangers are usually classified into three categories:
1. regenerators;
2. open-type exchangers; and
3. closed-type exchangers or recuperators.
Regenerators are exchangers in which the hot and cold fluids flow alternately
through the same space with as little physical mixing between the two streams as
possible. The amount of energy transfer is dependent upon the fluid and flow properties
of the fluid stream as well as the geometry and thermal properties of the surface. The
required analytical tools for handling this type of heat exchanger have been developed
in the preceding chapters.
Open-type heat exchangers are, as implied in their designation, devices wherein
physical mixing of the two fluid streams actually occurs. Hot and cold fluids enter
open-type heat exchangers and leave as a single stream. The nature of the exit stream is
predicted by continuity and the first law of thermodynamics. No rate equations are
necessary for the analysis of this type of exchanger.
The third type of heat exchanger, the recuperator, is the one of primary importance
and the one to which we shall direct most of our attention. In the recuperator, the hot
and cold fluid streams do not come into direct contact with each other but are separated
by a tube wall or a surface that may be flat or curved in some manner. Energy exchange
is thus accomplished from one fluid to an intermediate surface by convection, through
the wall or plate by conduction, and then by convection from the surface to the second
fluid. Each of these energy-transfer processes has been considered separately in the
preceding chapters. We shall, in the following sections, investigate the conditions under
which these three energy-transfer processes act in series with one another, resulting in a
continuous change in the temperature of at least one of the fluid streams involved.
We shall be concerned with a thermal analysis of these exchangers. A complete
design of such equipment involves an analysis of pressure drop, using techniques from
Chapter 13, as well as material and structural considerations that are not within the
scope of this text.

22.1 TYPES OF HEAT EXCHANGERS

In addition to being considered a closed-type exchanger, a recuperator is classified
according to its configuration and the number of passes made by each fluid stream as it
traverses the heat exchanger.

336
 22.1 Types of Heat Exchangers 337

A single-pass heat exchanger is one in which each fluid flows through the exchanger
only once. An additional descriptive term identifies the relative directions of the two
streams, the terms used being parallel flow or cocurrent flow if the fluids flow in the same
direction, countercurrent flow or simply counterflow if the fluids flow in opposite directions,
and crossflow if the two fluids flow at right angles to one another. A common single-pass
configuration is the double-pipe arrangement shown in Figure 22.1. A crossflow arrange-
ment is shown in Figure 22.2.

TH in

Tc in Tc out

TH out
Figure 22.1 A double-pipe heat exchanger.

Figure 22.2 A crossflow heat exchanger.

Variations on the crossflow configuration occur when one or the other, or both fluids are
mixed. The arrangement shown in Figure 22.2 is one in which neither fluid is mixed. If the
baffles or corrugations were not present, the fluid streams would be unseparated or mixed. In
a condition such as that depicted in the figure, the fluid leaving at one end of the sandwich
arrangement will have a nonuniform temperature variation from one side to the other, as
each section contacts an adjacent fluid stream at a different temperature. It is normally
desirable to have one or both fluids unmixed.
In order to accomplish as much transfer of energy in as little space as possible, it is
desirable to utilize multiple passes of one or both fluids. A popular configuration is the shell-
and-tube arrangement shown in Figure 22.3. In this figure, the tube-side fluid makes two
passes, whereas the shell-side fluid makes one pass. Good mixing of the shell-side fluid is
accomplished with the baffles shown. Without these baffles the fluid becomes stagnant in
certain parts of the shell, the flow is partially channeled past these stagnant or ‘‘dead’’
regions, and less-than-optimum performance is achieved. Variations on the number of tube-
and-shell passes are encountered in numerous applications; seldom are more than two shell-
side passes used.
338 Chapter 22 Heat-Transfer Equipment

Figure 22.3 Shell-and-tube heat exchanger.

A number of more recent heat-transfer applications require more compact configura-

tions than that afforded by the shell-and-tube arrangement. The subject of ‘‘compact heat
exchangers’’ has been investigated and reported both carefully and quite thoroughly by
Kays and London.1 Typical compact arrangements are shown in Figure 22.4.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 22.4 Compact heat-exchanger configurations.

The analysis of shell-and-tube, compact, or any multiple-pass heat exchanger is quite

involved. As each is a composite of several single-pass arrangements, we shall initially
focus our attention on the single-pass heat exchanger.

1
W. M. Kays and A. L. London, Compact Heat Exchangers, 2nd edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1964.
 22.2 Single-Pass Heat-Exchanger Analysis: The Log-Mean Temperature Difference 339

22.2 SINGLE-PASS HEAT-EXCHANGER ANALYSIS: THE LOG-MEAN

TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE
It is useful, when considering parallel or counterflow single-pass heat exchangers, to draw
a simple sketch depicting the general temperature variation experienced by each fluid
stream. There are four such profiles in this category, all of which are shown and labeled in
Figure 22.5. Each of these may be found in a double-pipe arrangement.

TH in TH in
TH out
TH out
Tc in Tc out
Tc out
Tc in
(a) Parallel flow (b) Counterflow

TH in
TH TH
TH out
Tc out
Tc Tc Tc in
(c) Evaporator (d) Condenser
Figure 22.5 Temperature profiles for single-pass, double-pipe heat exchangers.

In Figure 22.5(c) and (d), one of the two fluids remains at constant temperature while
exchanging heat with the other fluid whose temperature is changing. This situation occurs
when energy transfer results in a change of phase rather than of temperature as in the cases of
evaporation and condensation shown. The direction of flow of the fluid undergoing a change
in phase is not depicted in the figure, as it is of no consequence to the analysis. If the situation
occurs where the complete phase change such as condensation occurs within the exchanger
along with some subcooling, then the diagram will appear as in Figure 22.6. In such a case,
the direction of flow of the condensate stream is important. For purposes of analysis, this
process may be considered the superposition of a condenser and a counterflow exchanger, as
depicted in the diagram.

TH in TH in TH TH out
TH out

Tc out Tc out
Tc Tc in
Tc in
Composite = Condenser + Counterflow
exchanger
Figure 22.6 Temperature profile in a condenser with subcooling.

Also quite noticeable from Figure 22.5(a) and (b) is the significant difference in
temperature profile exhibited by the parallel and counterflow arrangements. It is apparent
that the exit temperatures of the hot and cold fluids in the parallel-flow case approach the
same value. It is a simple exercise to show that this temperature is the one resulting if the two
fluids are mixed in an open-type heat exchanger.
In the counterflow arrangement, it is possible for the hot fluid to leave the exchanger at a
temperature below that at which the cold fluid leaves. This situation obviously corresponds
340 Chapter 22 Heat-Transfer Equipment

to a case of greater total energy transfer per unit area of heat exchanger surface than would be
obtained if the same fluids entered a parallel-flow configuration. The obvious conclusion to
this discussion is that the counterflow configuration is the most desirable of the single-pass
arrangements. It is thus the single-pass counterflow arrangement to which we shall direct our
primary attention.
The detailed analysis of a single-pass counterflow heat exchanger that follows is
referred to the diagram and nomenclature of Figure 22.7.

1 2
TH 2
∆T2
Tc 2

TH 1

∆T1
∆A
Tc 1

A
Figure 22.7 Diagram of temperature vs. contact area for single-pass counterflow analysis.

The abscissa of this figure is area. For a double-pipe arrangement, the heat-transfer area
varies linearly with distance from one end of the exchanger; in the case shown, the zero
reference is the end of the exchanger at which the cold fluid enters.
With reference to a general increment of area, DA, between the ends of this unit, a first-
law-of-thermodynamics analysis of the two fluid streams will yield
_ p )c DTc
Dq ¼ (mc
and
_ p )H DTH
Dq ¼ (mc
As the incremental area approaches differential size, we may write
_ p )c dTc ¼ Cc dTc
dq ¼ (mc (22-1)
and
_ p )H dTH ¼ CH dTH
dq ¼ (mc (22-2)
where the capacity coefficient, C, is introduced in place of the more cumbersome product,
_ p.
mc
Writing equation (15-17) for the energy transfer between the two fluids at this location,
we have
dq ¼ U dA(TH  Tc ) (22-3)
which utilizes the overall heat-transfer coefficient, U, introduced in Chapter 15.
Designating TH  Tc as DT, we have
d(DT) ¼ dTH  dTc (22-4)
 22.2 Single-Pass Heat-Exchanger Analysis: The Log-Mean Temperature Difference 341

and substituting for dTH and dTc from equations (22-1) and (22-2), we obtain
   
1 1 dq CH
d(DT ) ¼ dq  ¼ 1 (22-5)
CH Cc CH Cc

We should also note that dq is the same in each of these expressions; thus, equations
(22-1) and (22-2) may be equated and integrated from one end of the exchanger to the
other, yielding, for the ratio CH/Cc
CH Tc2  Tc1
¼ (22-6)
Cc TH2  TH1
which may be substituted into equation (22-5) and rearranged as follows:
   
dq Tc2  Tc1 dq TH2  TH1  Tc2 þ Tc1
d(DTÞ ¼ 1 ¼
CH TH2  TH1 CH TH2  TH1
  (22-7)
dq DT2  DT1
¼
CH TH2  TH1

Combining equations (22-3) and (22-7), and noting that CH (TH2  TH1 ) ¼ q, we have,
for constant U,
Z DT2 Z A
d(DT ) U
¼ (DT2  DT1 ) dA (22-8)
DT1 DT q 0

which, upon integration, becomes

DT2 UA
ln ¼ (DT2  DT1 )
DT1 q
This result is normally written as
DT2  DT1
q ¼ UA (22-9)
DT2
ln
DT1

The driving force, on the right-hand side of equation (22-9), is seen to be a particular
sort of mean temperature difference between the two fluid streams. This ratio,
(DT2  DT1 )/ln (DT2 /DT1 ), is designated DTlm , the logarithmic-mean temperature
difference, and the expression for q is written simply as
q ¼ UA DTlm (22-10)

Even though equation (22-10) was developed for the specific case of counterflow, it
is equally valid for any of the single-pass operations depicted in Figure 22.5.
It was mentioned earlier, but bears repeating, that equation (22-10) is based upon a
constant value of the overall heat-transfer coefficient, U. This coefficient will not, in general,
remain constant; however, calculations based upon a value of U taken midway between the
ends of the exchanger are usually accurate enough. If there is considerable variation in U
from one end of the exchanger to the other, then a step-by-step numerical integration is
necessary, equations (22-1)–(22-3) being evaluated repeatedly over a number of small-area
increments.
342 Chapter 22 Heat-Transfer Equipment

It is also possible that the temperature differences in equation (22-9), evaluated at either
end of a counterflow exchanger, are equal. In such a case, the log-mean temperature
difference is indeterminate; that is,

DT2  DT1 0
¼ , if DT1 ¼ DT2
ln(DT2 /DT1 ) 0

In such a case, L’Hôpital’s rule may be applied as follows:


DT2  DT1 DT1 f(DT2 /DT1 )  1g
lim ¼ lim
DT2 !DT1 ln(DT2 /DT1 ) DT2 /DT1 !1 ln (DT2 /DT1 )

when the ratio DT2 /DT1 is designated by the symbol F, we may write
 
F1
¼ lim DT
F!1 ln F
Differentiating numerator and denominator with respect to F yields the result that
DT2  DT1
lim ¼ DT
DT2 !DT1 ln(DT2 /DT1 )

or that equation (22-10) may be used in the simple form

q ¼ UA DT (22-11)
From the foregoing simple analysis, it should be apparent that equation (22-11) may
be used and achieve reasonable accuracy so long as DT1 and DT2 are not vastly different.
It turns out that a simple arithmetic mean is within 1% of the logarithmic-mean
temperature difference for values of (DT2 /DT1 ) < 1:5.

EXAMPLE 1 Light lubricating oil (cp ¼ 2090 J/kg  K) is cooled by allowing it to exchange energy with water in a
small heat exchanger. The oil enters and leaves the heat exchanger at 375 and 350 K, respectively, and
flows at a rate of 0.5 kg/s. Water at 280 K is available in sufficient quantity to allow 0.201 kg/s to be
used for cooling purposes. Determine the required heat-transfer area for (a) counterflow and
(b) parallel-flow operations (see Figure 22.8). The overall heat-transfer coefficient may be taken
as 250 W/m2  K.
The outlet water temperature is determined by applying equations (22-1) and (22-2)
q ¼ (0:5 kg/s)(2090 J/kg  K)(25 K) ¼ 26 125 W
¼ (0:201 kg/s)(4177 J/kg  K)(Tw out  280 K)

375 K 375 K
350 K
350 K
Tw out
280 K Tw out
280 K
(a) Counterflow (b) Parallel flow
Figure 22.8 Single-pass temperature profiles for counterflow and parallel flow.
 22.3 Crossflow and Shell-and-Tube Heat-Exchanger Analysis 343

from which we obtain

(0:5)(2090)(25)
Tw out ¼ 280 þ ¼ 311:1 K (100 F)
(0:201)(4177)
This result applies to both parallel flow and counterflow. For the counterflow configuration, DTlm is
calculated as
70  63:9
DTlm ¼ ¼ 66:9 K (120:4 F)
70
ln
63:9
and applying equation (22-10), we see that the area required to accomplish this energy transfer is
26 125 W
A¼ ¼ 1:562 m2 (16:81 ft2 )
(250 W/m2  K)(66:9 K)

Performing similar calculations for the parallel-flow situation, we obtain

95  38:9
DTlm ¼ ¼ 62:8 K (113 F)
95
ln
38:9
26 125 W
A¼ ¼ 1:66 m2 (17:9 ft2 )
(250 W/m2  K)(62:8 K)
The area required to transfer 26,125 W is seen to be lower for the counterflow arrangement by
approximately 7%.

22.3 CROSSFLOW AND SHELL-AND-TUBE HEAT-EXCHANGER ANALYSIS

More complicated flow arrangements than the ones considered in the previous sections are
much more difficult to treat analytically. Correction factors to be used with equation (22-10)
have been presented in chart form by Bowman, Mueller, and Nagle2 and by the Tubular
Exchanger Manufacturers Association.3 Figures 22.9 and 22.10 present correction factors
for six types of heat-exchanger configurations. The first three are for different shell-and-tube
configurations and the latter three are for different crossflow conditions.
The parameters in Figures 22.9 and 22.10 are evaluated as follows:

Tt out  Tt in
Y¼ (22-12)
Ts in  Tt in
_ p )tube Ct Ts in  Ts out
(mc
Z¼ ¼ ¼ (22-13)
_ p )shell Cs Tt out  Tt in
(mc

where the subscripts s and t refer to the shell-side and tube-side fluids, respectively. The
quantity read on the ordinate of each plot, for given values of Y and Z, is F, the correction
factor to be applied to equation (22-10), and thus these more complicated configurations

2
R. A. Bowman, A. C. Mueller, and W. M. Nagle, Trans. A.S.M.E. 62, 283 (1940).
3
Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association, Standards, 3rd edition, TEMA, New York, 1952.
 1.0
A
0.9

Correction factor F
0.8
z = 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
0.7

0.6 TH1 – TH2

z=
Tc 2 – Tc1
0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Y
TH1
Tc 2 Correction factor plot for exchanger
with one shell pass and two, four,
Tc1 or any multiple of tube passes
TH 2
(a)

1.0
B
Correction factor F

z = 4.0 2.0 1.0 0.6 0.2

0.8
3.0 1.5 0.8 0.4

TH 1 – TH 2
0.6
Tc 2 – Tc1

Shell fluid

Tube fluid

(b)

1.0
Figure 22.9 Correction
factors for three shell-and-
Correction factor, F

0.9
tube heat-exchanger
0.8 configurations. (a) One shell
z = 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 pass and two or a multiple of
0.7 two tube passes. (b) One
TH1 – TH2 shell pass and three or a
0.6 z = multiple of three tube passes.
T c – Tc
2 1
(c) Two shell passes and two
0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 or a multiple of two tube
Y passes.
TH1
(From R. A. Bowman, A. C.
Mueller, and W. M. Nagle,
Tc2
Correction factor plot for exchanger with Trans. A.S.M.E.,62, 284, 285
two shell passes and four, eight, or (1940). By permission of the
Tc1 any multiple of four tube passes publishers.) Correction
factors, F, based on
TH2
(c) counterflow LMTD.
 22.3 Crossflow and Shell-and-Tube Heat-Exchanger Analysis 345

1.0

0.9

Correction factor, F
0.8
z = 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
0.7
TH – TH
1 2
0.6 z =
Tc – Tc
2 1

0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Tc2 – Tc1
Y=
TH1 – Tc1
TH1

Tc1 Tc2

TH2

(a)
1.0

0.9
Correction factor, F

0.8
z = 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
0.7
TH1 – TH2
0.6 z =
Tc2 – Tc1
0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Tc2 – Tc1
Y=
TH1 – Tc1
TH1

Tc1 Tc2

TH2

(b)
Figure 22.10 Correction factors for three crossflow heat-exchanger configurations. (a) Crossflow,
single-pass, both fluids unmixed. (b) Crossflow, single-pass, one fluid unmixed. (c) Crossflow,
tube passes mixed; fluid flows over first and second passes in series.
(From R. A. Bowman, A. C. Mueller, and W. M. Nagle, Trans. A.S.M.E., 62, 288–289 (1940). By
permission of the publishers.)
346 Chapter 22 Heat-Transfer Equipment

1.0

Correction factor, F
0.9
z = 4.0 2.0 1.0 0.6 0.2
0.8
3.0 1.5 0.8 0.4
0.7
TH1 – TH2
0.6
Tc2 – Tc1
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Y

TH1

Tc2

Tc1

TH2
(c)
Figure 22.10 Continued

may be treated in much the same way as the single-pass double-pipe case. The reader is
cautioned to apply equation (22-10), using the factor F as in equation (22-14).

q ¼ UA(F DTlm ) (22-14)

with the logarithmic-mean temperature difference calculated on the basis of counterflow.

The manner of using Figures 22.9 and 22.10 may be illustrated by referring to the
following example.

EXAMPLE 2 In the oil–water energy transfer described in Example 1, compare the result obtained with the result
that would be obtained if the heat exchanger were

(a) crossflow, water-mixed;

(b) shell-and-tube with four tube-side passes, oil being the tube-side fluid.

For part (a), Figure 22.10(b) must be used. The parameters needed to use this figure are

Tt out  Tt in 25
Y¼ ¼ ¼ 0:263
Ts in  Tt in 95
 22.4 The Number-of-Transfer-Units (NTU) Method of Heat-Exchanger Analysis and Design 347

and
Ts in  Ts out 31:1
Z¼ ¼ ¼ 1:244
Tt out  Tt in 25
and from the figure we read F ¼ 0:96. The required area for part (a) is thus equal to
(1:562)/(0:96) ¼ 1:63 m2 .
The values of Y and Z determined above are the same in part (b), yielding a value of F equal to
0.97. The area for part (b) becomes (1:562)/(0:97) ¼ 1:61 m2 .

22.4 THE NUMBER-OF-TRANSFER-UNITS (NTU) METHOD

OF HEAT-EXCHANGER ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
Earlier mention was made of the work of Kays and London1 with particular reference to
compact heat exchangers. The book ‘‘Compact Heat Exchangers,’’ by Kays and London,
also presents charts useful for heat-exchanger design on a different basis than discussed thus
far.
Nusselt,4 in 1930, proposed the method of analysis based upon the heat-exchanger
effectiveness E. This term is defined as the ratio of the actual heat transfer in a heat
exchanger to the maximum possible heat transfer that would take place if infinite surface
area were available. By referring to a temperature profile diagram for counterflow operation,
as in Figure 22.11, it is seen that, in general, one fluid undergoes a greater total temperature
change than the other. It is apparent that the fluid experiencing the larger change in
temperature is the one having the smaller capacity coefficient, which we designate Cmin. If
Cc ¼ Cmin , as in Figure 22.11(a), and if there is infinite area available for energy transfer, the
exit temperature of the cold fluid will equal the inlet temperature of the hot fluid.

TH in TH in
TH out
TC out
TC out
TH out
TC in

TC in
(a) CH > CC, CC = Cmin (b) CC > CH, CH = Cmin
Figure 22.11 Temperature profiles for counterflow heat exchangers.

According to the definition of effectiveness, we may write

CH (TH in  TH out ) Cmax (TH in  TH out )
E¼ ¼ (22-15)
Cc (Tc out  Tc in )max Cmin (TH in  Tc in )
If the hot fluid is the minimum fluid, as in Figure 22.11(b), the expression for E
becomes
Cc (Tc out  Tc in ) Cmax (Tc out  Tc in )
E¼ ¼ (22-16)
CH (TH in  TH out )max Cmin (TH in  Tc in )

4
W. Nusselt, Tech. Mechan. Thermodyn., 12 (1930).
348 Chapter 22 Heat-Transfer Equipment

Notice that the denominators in both equations (22-15) and (22-16) are the same and that,
in each case, the numerator represents the actual heat transfer. It is thus possible to write a
fifth expression for q as
q ¼ ECmin (TH in  Tc in ) (22-17)

which, along with the integrated forms of equations (22-1) and (22-2), as well as equa-
tions (22-10) and (22-14), expresses q, the rate of heat transfer, in all of its useful forms as
far as heat-exchanger analysis and design are concerned. Equation (22-17) is conspicuous
among these others, as the temperature difference appearing is that between the inlet
streams alone. This is a definite advantage when a given heat exchanger is to be used
under conditions other than those for which it was designed. The exit temperatures of the
two streams are then needed quantities, and equation (22-17) is obviously the easiest
means of attaining this knowledge if one can determine the value of E.
To determine E for a single-pass case, we initially write equation (22-17) in the
form
CH (TH in  TH out ) Cc (Tc out  Tc in )
E¼ ¼ (22-18)
Cmin (TH in  Tc in ) Cmin (TH in  Tc in )

The appropriate form for equation (22-18) depends on which of the two fluids has the
smaller value of C. We shall consider the cold fluid to be the minimum fluid and consider
the case of counterflow. For these conditions, equation (22-10) may be written as follows
(numerical subscripts correspond to the situation shown in Figure 22.7):
(TH1  Tc1 )  (TH2  Tc2 )
q ¼ Cc (Tc2  Tc1 ) ¼ UA (22-19)
ln½(TH1  Tc1 )/(TH2  Tc2 )

The entering temperature of the hot fluid, TH2, may be written in terms of E by use of
equation (22-18), yielding
1
TH2 ¼ Tc1 þ (Tc2  Tc1 ) (22-20)
E
and also
1
TH2  Tc2 ¼ Tc1  Tc2 þ (Tc2  Tc1 )
  E
(22-21)
1
¼ 1 (Tc2  Tc1 )
E

From the integrated forms of equations (22-1) and (22-2), we have

Cc TH2  TH1
¼
CH Tc2  Tc1

which may be rearranged to the form

Cmin
TH1 ¼ TH2  (Tc2  Tc1 )
Cmax
or
Cmin
TH1  Tc1 ¼ TH2  Tc1  (Tc2  Tc1 ) (22-22)
Cmax
22.4 The Number-of-Transfer-Units (NTU) Method of Heat-Exchanger Analysis and Design 349

Combining this expression with equation (22-20), we obtain

1 Cmin
TH1  Tc1 ¼ (Tc2  Tc1 )  (Tc2  Tc1 )
E Cmax
 
1 Cmin
¼  ðTc2  Tc1 ) (22-23)
E Cmax

Now substituting equations (22-21) and (22-23) into equation (22-19) and rearranging, we
have
 
1/E  Cmin /Cmax UA Cmin
ln ¼ 1
1/E  1 Cmin Cmax

Taking the antilog of both sides of this expression and solving for j, we have, finally,

 
UA Cmin
1  exp  1
Cmin Cmax
E¼
  (22-24)
UA Cmin
1  ðCmin /Cmax Þ exp  1
Cmin Cmax

The ratio UA/Cmin is designated the number of transfer units, abbreviated NTU.
Equation (22-24) was derived on the basis that Cc ¼ Cmin ; if we had initially considered
the hot fluid to be minimum, the same result would have been achieved. Thus, equation
(22-25)

 
Cmin
1  exp NTU 1 
Cmax
E¼
  (22-25)
Cmin
1  (Cmin /Cmax )exp NTU 1 
Cmax

is valid for counterflow operation in general. For parallel flow, an analogous development
to the preceding will yield

 
Cmin
1  exp NTU 1 þ
Cmax
E¼ (22-26)
1 þ Cmin /Cmax

Kays and London1 have put equations (22-25) and (22-26) into chart form, along with
comparable expressions for the effectiveness of several shell-and-tube and crossflow
arrangements. Figures 22.12 and 22.13 are charts for E as functions of NTU for various
values of the parameter Cmin /Cmax.
With the aid of these figures, equation (22-17) may be used both as an original design
equation and as a means of evaluating existing equipment when it operates at other than
design conditions.
The utility of the NTU approach is illustrated in the following example.
350 Chapter 22 Heat-Transfer Equipment

Heat-transfer
surface

100
Cmin/Cmax = 0
0.25
80 0.50
0.75
Effectiveness E , in %

1.00

60

40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of transfer units, NTU = AU/C min
(a)

Heat-transfer
surface

100

Cmin/Cmax = 0
80
0.25
Effectiveness E , in %

0.50
60
0.75
1.00

40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of transfer units, NTU = AU/C min
(b)
Figure 22.12 Heat-exchanger effectiveness for three shell-and-tube configurations.
(a) Counterflow. (b) Parallel flow. (c) One shell pass and two or a multiple of two tube passes.
22.4 The Number-of-Transfer-Units (NTU) Method of Heat-Exchanger Analysis and Design 351

Shell fluid

Tube fluid

100

Cmin/Cmax = 0

80 0.25

0.50
Effectiveness E , in %

0.75
60
1.00

40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of transfer units, NTU = AU/C min
(c)
Figure 22.12 Continued

100
Cmin/Cmax = 0

0.25
80
0.50
Effectiveness E , in %

0.75
1.00
60

40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of transfer units, NTU = AU/C min
(a)
Figure 22.13 Heat-exchanger effectiveness for three crossflow configurations. (a) Crossflow, both
fluids unmixed. (b) Crossflow, one fluid mixed. (c) Crossflow, multiple pass.
352 Chapter 22 Heat-Transfer Equipment

100
0.25
Cmixed 4
= 0,00 0.5
Cunmixed
80 2
0.75
1.33

Effectiveness E , in %
60
Mixed fluid Cmixed
=1
Cunmixed

40
Unmixed fluid

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of transfer units, NTU = AU/C min

(b)

Two-pass
arrangement

100

Four pass
80
Counterflow
(n = ∞)
Effectiveness E , in %

Three pass
70
Two pass

One pass
60

50

40
0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of transfer units, NTU = AU/C min
(c)
Figure 22.13 Continued
 22.4 The Number-of-Transfer-Units (NTU) Method of Heat-Exchanger Analysis and Design 353

EXAMPLE 3 Repeat the calculations for Examples 1 and 2 to determine the required heat-transfer area for the
specified conditions if the configurations are
(a) counterflow;
(b) parallel flow;
(c) crossflow, water-mixed; and
(d) shell-and-tube with four tube-side passes.

It is first necessary to determine the capacity coefficients for the oil and water

_ p )oil ¼ (0:5 kg/s)(2090 J/kg  K) ¼ 1045 J/s  K

Coil ¼ (mc

and
_ p )w ¼ (0:201 kg/s)(4177 J/kg  K) ¼ 841:2 J/s  K
Cwater ¼ (mc

thus the water is the minimum fluid. From equation (22-16), the effectiveness is evaluated as

26 125 W
E¼ ¼ 0:327
(841:2 J/kg  s)(95 K)

By using the appropriate chart in Figures 22.12 and 22.13, the appropriate NTU values and, in turn,
the required area may be evaluated for each heat-exchanger configuration.
(a) Counterflow
NTU ¼ 0:47
(0:47)(841:2)
A¼ ¼ 1:581 m2
250

(b) Parallel flow

NTU ¼ 0:50
(0:50)(841:2)
A¼ ¼ 1:682 m2
250

(c) Crossflow, water-mixed

NTU ¼ 0:48
(0:48)(841:2)
A¼ ¼ 1:615 m2
250

(d) Shell-and-tube, four tube-side passes

NTU ¼ 0:49
(0:49)(841:2)
A¼ ¼ 1:649 m2
250

These results are comparable to those obtained earlier, with some possible inaccuracies
involved in reading the chart.
354 Chapter 22 Heat-Transfer Equipment

The NTU method offers no distinct advantage over the procedure introduced earlier,
using the log-mean temperature difference, when performing calculations of the type
involved in the preceding examples. In Example 4, however, the NTU approach is clearly
superior.

EXAMPLE 4 In the energy exchange between water and lubricating oil as considered in the preceding examples, a
crossflow heat exchanger with the shell-side fluid (water) mixed is constructed with a heat-transfer
area of 1:53 m2 . A new pump is attached to the water supply line enabling the water flow rate to be
increased to 1000 kg/h. What will be the exit temperatures of the water and oil for the new operating
conditions?

If the DTlm method were used in this problem, a trial-and-error method would be necessary as
DTlm , Y, and F are all dependent on one or both exit stream temperatures. The NTU method is, thus, a
bit simpler. Using the NTU method, it is first necessary to calculate the capacity coefficients
Coil ¼ (0:5 kg/s)(2090 J/kg  K) ¼ 1045 J/s  K
Cw ¼ (1000 kg/h)(h/3600 s)(4177 J/kg  K)
¼ 1160 J/kg  K

Oil is now the ‘‘minimum’’ fluid. With Coil ¼ Cmin we have

UA (250 W/m2  K)(1:53 m2 )
NTU ¼ ¼
Cmin 1045 J/s  K
¼ 0:366

and, from Figure 22.13, the effectiveness is

E ffi 0:29

Using equation (22-17) we may evaluate the heat-transfer rate as

q ¼ (0:29)(1045 J/s  K)(95 K)
¼ 28:8 K

an increase of over 10%. This value may now be used in equations (22-1) and (22-2) to yield the
required answers.
Toil out ¼ 375  28:8 kW/(1045 W/K)
¼ 347:4 K
Tw out ¼ 280 þ 28:8 kW/(1160 W/K)
¼ 304:8 K

22.5 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS IN HEAT-EXCHANGER DESIGN

After a heat exchanger has been in service for some time, its performance may change as a
result of the buildup of scale on a heat-transfer surface or of the deterioration of the surface
by a corrosive fluid. When the nature of the surface is altered in some way as to affect the
heat-transfer capability, the surface is said to be ‘‘fouled.’’
When a fouling resistance exists, the thermal resistance is increased and a heat
exchanger will transfer less energy than the design value. It is extremely difficult to predict
the rate of scale buildup or the effect such buildup will have upon heat transfer. Some
 22.5 Additional Considerations in Heat-Exchanger Design 355

evaluation can be done after a heat exchanger has been in service for some time by
comparing its performance with that when the surfaces were clean. The thermal resistance
of the scale is determined by
1 1
Rsc ¼  (22-27)
Uf U0

where U0 is the overall heat-transfer coefficient of the clean exchanger, Uf is the overall heat-
transfer coefficient of the fouled exchanger, and Rsc is the thermal resistance of the scale.
Fouling resistances that have been obtained from experiments may be used to roughly
predict the overall heat-transfer coefficient by incorporation into an expression similar to
equation (15-19). The following equation includes the fouling resistances, Ri on the inside
tube surface and Ro on the outside tube surface:

1
U0 ¼ (22-28)
A0 /Ai hi þ Ri þ ½A0 ln(ro /ri )=2pk=L þ Ro þ 1=ho

Fouling resistances to be used in equation (22-28) have been compiled by the Tubular
Exchanger Manufacturers Association.5 Some useful values are given in Table 22.1.

Table 22.1 Heat-exchanger fouling resistances

Fluid Fouling resistances
(m2  K / W  105 )

Distilled water 8.8

Sea water, below 325 K 8.8
above 325 K 17.6
Boiler feed water, treated 17.6
City or well water, below 325 K 17.6
above 325 K 35.2
Refrigerating liquids 17.6
Refrigerating vapors 35.2
Liquid gasoline, organic vapors 8.8
Fuel oil 88.1
Quenching oil 70.5
Steam, non-oil-bearing 8.8
Industrial air 35.2

It is often useful to have ‘‘ball-park’’ figures on heat-exchanger size, flow rates, and the
like. The most difficult quantity to estimate quickly is the overall heat-transfer coefficient,
U. Mueller6 has prepared the very useful table of approximate U values which is reproduced
here as Table 22.2.

5
Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association, TEMA Standards, 3rd edition, New York, 1952.
6
A. C. Mueller, Purdue Univ. Eng. Exp. Sta. Eng. Bull. Res. Ser. 121 (1954).
356 Chapter 22 Heat-Transfer Equipment

Table 22.2 Approximate values for overall heat-transfer

coefficients
Fluid combination U(W/m2 K)

Water to compressed air 55–165

Water to water, jacket water coolers 850–1560
Water to brine 570–1140
Water to gasoline 340–480
Water to gas oil or distillate 200–340
Water to organic solvents, alcohol 280–850
Water to condensing alcohol 250–680
Water to lubricating oil 110–340
Water to condensing oil vapors 220–570
Water to condensing or boiling Freon-12 280–850
Water to condensing ammonia 850–1350
Steam to water, instantaneous heater 2280–3400
storage-tank heater 990–1700
Steam to oil, heavy fuel 55–165
light fuel 165–340
light petroleum distillate 280–1140
Steam to aqueous solutions 570–3400
Steam to gases 28–280
Light organics to light organics 220–425
Medium organics to medium organics 110–340
Heavy organics to heavy organics 55–220
Heavy organics to light organics 55–340
Crude oil to gas oil 165–310

22.6 CLOSURE
The basic equations and procedures for heat-exchanger design are presented and developed
in this chapter. All heat-exchanger design and analysis involve one or more of the following
equations:
dq ¼ Cc dTc (22-1)

dq ¼ CH dTH (22-2)

dq ¼ U dAðTH  Tc ) (22-3)

q ¼ UA DTlm (22-10)
and
q ¼ ECmin (TH in  Tc in ) (22-17)
Charts were presented by which single-pass techniques could be extended to include the
design and analysis of crossflow and shell-and-tube configurations.
The two methods for heat-exchanger design utilize either equation (22-10) or (22-17).
Either is reasonably rapid and straightforward for designing an exchanger. Equation (22-17)
is a simpler and more direct approach when analyzing an exchanger that operates at other
than design conditions.