ENCH3HE: ASSIGNMENT

CATEGORY C

STUDENT NAME STUDENT NUMBER

Arkaj Maharaj 221002269
Tristan Divasan Moodley 221001713
Mpendulo Ndlovu 222078161
Mazwi Mnikathi 222047695

23 April 2024

1
Declaration
The following students,

STUDENT NAME STUDENT NUMBER SIGNATURE INDIVIDUAL

CONTRIBUTION
Arkaj Maharaj 221002269 Introduction,
Methodology
Tristan Divasan 221001713 TDM Discussion,
Moodley Conclusion
Mpendulo Ndlovu 222078161 MS Ndlovu Calculations
Mazwi Mnikathi 222047695 M Mnikathi Results

declare that:
(i) The information reported in this report, except where otherwise indicated, are their original work.
(ii) This report has not been submitted for any degree or examination at any other university.
(iii) This report does not contain other persons’ data, pictures, graphs or other information, unless
specifically acknowledged as being sourced from other persons.
(iv) This report does not contain other persons’ writing, unless specifically acknowledged as being
sourced from other researchers. Where other written sources have been quoted, then: a. Their words
have been re-written but the general information attributed to them has been referenced; b. Where
their exact words have been used, their writing has been placed inside quotation marks, and
referenced.
(v) This report does not contain text, graphics or tables copied and pasted from the internet, unless
specifically acknowledged, and the source being detailed in the report and in the references sections.

2
Contents
List of Tables.........................................................................................................................................3
List of Figures.......................................................................................................................................4
Introduction...........................................................................................................................................4
Method..................................................................................................................................................5
Part 1 & 2..........................................................................................................................................5
Part 4 & 5..........................................................................................................................................6
Results...................................................................................................................................................6
Discussion of Results............................................................................................................................7
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................7
References.............................................................................................................................................8
Appendix...............................................................................................................................................8
Appendix A: Calculations..................................................................................................................8
Appendix B: Nomenclature.............................................................................................................19
Appendix C: Category C Specifications..........................................................................................20
Appendix D: ASME Pipe Sizes.......................................................................................................20

List of Tables

3
Table 1: Results......................................................................................................................................7
Table 2: Nomenclature........................................................................................................................19
Table 3: Subscripts...............................................................................................................................19
Table 4: Category C Specifications.......................................................................................................19
Table 5: ASME Pipe Sizes......................................................................................................................20

List of Figures
Figure 1: Schematic for Part 1................................................................................................................9
Figure 2: Temperature Graph...............................................................................................................10
Figure 3: Schematic for Part 2..............................................................................................................10
Figure 4: Schematic for Part 4..............................................................................................................13
Figure 5: Schematic for Part 5..............................................................................................................16

Introduction
Shell and tube heat exchangers (STHE) are utilised in a variety of industrial processes, power
generation and chemical processes to ensure efficient heat transfer between two fluids. The shell and
tube heat exchanger are widely used due to its ability to suit high pressure and harsh environments

4
(Raghulkumar CHANDRASEKARAN, 2021). In order to optimize the design and operation of these
heat exchangers, it is important to understand the performance under different operation conditions.
This assignment focuses on the comparative analysis of a 1-1 shell and tube heat exchanger based on
provided specifications of “Category C”. There are various factors that contribute to shell and tube
heat exchanger performance; thus, this assignment aims to give an in-depth look into these factors and
provide recommendations for the best design and operation of this type of equipment in industrial
uses. The performance of this heat exchanger was explored under parallel and counterflow
configurations, considering various factors such as fluid properties, flowrates, temperatures, and
fouling effects.

Method
Part 1 & 2
The calculations will be done as per ASME standard and considering the thermophysical properties of
the fluid and the heat transfer coefficients which are specified. Initially, the calculations were done on
a setup in which the assumption of no fouling was made for baselining parallel and counterflow
configuration to establish a basis for comparison.
Assumptions made: no fouling, uniform surface heat transfer flux, Negligible heat loss to the
surroundings, Constant properties, Fully developed conditions for water and ethylene glycol.

Qh=mh Cph (T h ,i−T h , o)

The mass flowrate of the cold fluid was established:

Qh=Q c
Qc =mc Cpc ( T c , o−T c, i)

Reynolds number was determined:

ρ um Dh
Re =
d
μ
Dh=D 0−Di

ρ ( Do −Di ) mh
Re = ×
∴ d
μ ρπ ( D2o−Di2)
4

Determining the convection coefficient:

h Do
Nu = d
k
Nu k
∴ h= d

Do

5
Deriving an expression for UA:

1
=
1
+ln +
( )
Do
Di 1
UA hi Ai 2 πkL h o A o

1
=
1
+ln +
( )
Do
Di 1
UA hi π Di L 2 πkL h o π Do L

Log mean temperature:

∆ T 1−∆ T 2
∆ T lm=
ln
( )
∆T1
∆T2

Where, ∆ T 1=T h ,i−T c ,o and ∆ T 2=T h ,o −T c, i

Finally, length of tube is given by:

Q=UA T lm

∴ LT =N T × L

Part 4 & 5
In this sequel, fouling will be considered as the factor which will be used to assess the effect that it
has on heat exchanger performance. In the final stage, Multitherm OG-1™ thermal fluid feasibility
will be considered by recalculating the required tube length taking into account changed fluid
properties.
Assumptions made: uniform surface heat transfer flux, assuming that water is a treated make-up
cooling tower water, Negligible heat loss to the surrounding, Constant properties, Fully developed
conditions for water and ethylene glycol, Negligible kinetic energy and potential energy.
Method is the same as that mentioned in part 1 and 2 however, a fouling factor is taken into
consideration in the equation used to develop an expression for UA (water and Multitherm OG-1™):

1 1 R } rsub {f,i}} over {{A} rsub {i}} + ln {{left ({{D} rsub {o}} over {{D} rsub {i}} right )} ove
= +
UA hi Ai Ao

1 1 R } rsub {f,i}} over {π {D} rsub {i} L} + ln {{left ({{D} rsub {o}} over {{D} rsub {i}} righ
= +
UA hi π Di L π Do L

6
Results

Table 1: Results

No. Flow Fouling T1,in(℃ ) T1,out (℃ ) ∆ T lm (k ) Length

(m)
1. Parallel NO 90 52 error -
2. NO 33.5 18.80
3. Counter - 18 57 - -
4. YES 33.5 21.00
5. YES 33.5 20.49

Discussion of Results
In this study, the heat transfer rate (q) and overall heat transfer coefficient (U) were maintained
constant across various configurations to investigate the impact of flow type, fouling, and tube count
on the heat exchanger performance.
In question 1 the parallel flow heat exchanger exhibited unfeasible temperature preventing calculation
of the heat exchanger design parameters. This suggests that such operating conditions are unattainable
in practice. Evidence to this may be seen in figure 2 in appendix A. In theory counter flow offers
better thermal efficiency compared to parallel flow for the same heat exchanger size and heat transfer
area as well as a reduced temperature cross-over, enhancing overall performance.
Generally, in counter flow, the temperature difference is most pronounced at the inlet and gradually
diminishes along the tube length the consistent temperature gradient facilitates uniform heat transfer
across the entire tube length, resulting in an increased heat transfer rate. Consequently, counter flow
requires a larger tube area and length compared to parallel flow, although the data in table1
contradicts the theory as well as in the calculations showing that for counter flow Δ T 1=90−57=33
Δ T 2=52−18=34 . This discrepancy arises from the constant heat transfer rate and overall heat
transfer coefficient assumed.
1. Effect of Log-Mean Temperature Difference on Area:
The heat transfer equation, 𝑞=𝑈𝐴Δ𝑇𝑙𝑚, illustrates that, constant heat transfer rate (q) and overall heat
transfer coefficient (U), while varying the log-mean temperature difference, impacts the required area.
The counter current flow exhibits a log-mean temperature difference of 33.5K, thus providing us with
a tube length of 18.80m
2. Impact of Fouling on Tube Length and Heat Transfer Coefficient:
As seen in table 1 fouling influences tube length and the heat transfer coefficient. Generally, in a 1-1
shell tube heat exchanger, fouling on the inner tube wall reduces the cross-sectional area, further
limiting the already modest heat transfer area. This reduction in area SHOULD be reflected in the heat
transfer coefficient as well as the thermal conductivity. As a result, a longer tube length is necessary to
offset the decline in the heat transfer coefficient and this is displayed in table 1. The use of Multitherm
OG-1™ instead of water provided a tube length of 20.49m along with the effects of fouling compared
to 21m in the configuration with water, this results in a cost reduction as the heat flux is maintained
with a shorter pipe although Multitherm OG-1™ may cost more it is non-corrosive and oxidation
resistant which may reduce costs in maintenance of the heat exchanger.

7
Conclusion
This study aimed to evaluate the impact of flow type, fouling on the performance of a heat exchanger
with constant heat transfer rate (q) and overall heat transfer coefficient (U). The findings offer
valuable insights into the design considerations and operational parameters affecting heat exchanger
efficiency and effectiveness.
The parallel flow configuration exhibited unfeasible temperature readings, suggesting impractical
operating conditions. In contrast, counter flow demonstrated better thermal efficiency and reduced
temperature cross-over, aligning with theoretical expectations. However, the observed temperature
differences in counter flow contradicted the expected values, likely due to the assumptions made
regarding constant heat transfer rate and overall heat transfer coefficient.
The log-mean temperature difference in counter current flow influenced the required heat transfer
area, resulting in a tube length of 18.80m, highlighting the importance of considering temperature
gradients in heat exchanger design and analysis.
Fouling affected tube length and heat transfer coefficient as well as the thermal conductivity k, with a
reduction in cross-sectional area due to inner tube wall deposits. Fouling effects can change the design
of a heat exchanger significantly which is why it is critical to take into account the effects of fouling.
In conclusion, the findings emphasize the critical role of flow configuration, fouling, and fluid
selection in influencing heat exchanger performance and design requirements. Future research should
further investigate these factors and explore strategies to optimize heat exchanger design, operation,
and maintenance to enhance efficiency, reliability, and cost-effectiveness across various industrial
applications.

References
Raghulkumar CHANDRASEKARAN, Xuejun QIAN, and Seong W. LEE. (2021). THERMAL
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE EFFICIENT and SUSTAINABILITY
SHELL AND TUBE HEAT EXCHANGER SYSTEM.
https://journals.uj.ac.za/index.php/JCPMI/article/download/567/364
Theodore L. Bergman, A. S. L. F. P. I. J. W. &. S., 2011. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass
Transfer, 7th Edition.. s.l.:s.n.
Multitherm LLC .(2018). MultiTherm 660® Heat Transfer Fluid.
https://www.multitherm.com/multitherm-660.html

8
Appendix
Appendix A: Calculations

1. Known: Hot fluid flow rate, inlet and outlet temperatures for both hot and cold
fluids, convective heat transfer coefficient and number of tubes.

Find: Entire tube length to achieve the desired criteria.

Schematic:

Water

Di = 26.645 mm Do = 33.401 mm
Ethylene Glycol

Figure 1: Schematic for Part 1

Assumptions:
 Negligible heat loss to the surroundings.
 Constant properties.
 Fully developed conditions for water and ethylene glycol.

Properties: Table A.5, Ethylene glycol at (T ave=71°C): ρ=1083.8 kg/m3, C p=2.592

kJ/kg.K , μ=0.00431 Pa . s, k =0.261 W/m.K, Pr =42.8 . Table A.6, Water at (T ave
=37.5°C): ρ=993.05 kg/m3, C p=4.178 kJ/kg.K, μ=0.000695 Pa . s , k =0.628 W/m.K,
Pr =4.62

Analysis: We can first verify log mean temperature difference for parallel

9
Figure 2: Temperature Graph

Since temperatures of our fluids cross resulting in T c ,o >T h ,o it’ll be impossible for us to
compute the heat transfer design calculations because the fluids are traveling together in the
same direction and there will be discontinuity of heat transfer if their temperatures could ever
be the same.

2. Known: Hot fluid flow rate, inlet and outlet temperatures for both hot and cold fluids,
convective heat transfer coefficient and number of tubes.

Find: Entire tube length to achieve the desired criteria.

Schematic:

Water

Di = 26.645 mm Do = 33.401 mm
Ethylene Glycol

Figure 3: Schematic for Part 2

C
Analysis: The overall energy balance for the heated fluid can be used to determine the
necessary heat transfer rate.

10
Qh= ṁh C p ,h (T h ,i−T h , o)

Qh=(1.5)(2.592)(363−325)
Qh=147.74 k W

Qh=Q c =ṁc C p ,c (T c ,o−T c ,i )

147.74=ṁc (4.178)(330−291)
∴ ṁc =0.9067 kg/s

Ethylene glycol flowing through inside the tube.

ρu m D h
Re =
D
μ
4 ṁh
Re =
D
π Di μ

Re =
4 (1.5 ) ( 151 )
D
π ( 0.026645 )( 0.00431 )
Re =1108.71
D

Flow inside the tube is therefore laminar. Assuming uniform surface heat transfer flux,
inside heat transfer convection coefficient can be calculated as follows:

N u =4.36
D

hi D i
Nu =
D
k
k
hi =N u ×
D
Di

hi =( 4.36 ) ( 0.0.261
026645 )

∴ hi =42.71 W /mK

Overall heat transfer coefficient can be assumed as follows:

11
1 1 1
= +
U hi ho

1 1 1
= +
U 42.71 4500
U =42.31 W/m2 . K

1
=
1
+ +
1
ln
( )
Do
Di
UA hi Ai 2 πkL hi A i

1
=
1
+ +
ln
1 ( )
Do
Di
UA hi π Di L 2 πkL ho π Do L

1 1
= [ 1
UA L π ( 4 2.71 )( 0.026645 )
+
ln ( 0.033401
0.026645 )
2 π ( 16.2 )
+
1
π ( 4500 ) ( 0.033401 ) ]
1 0.28405
=
UA L
L
UA=
0.28405

Δ T 1 −Δ T 2
Δ T lm=
ln ( Δ T 1−Δ T 2 )

Δ T 1=90−57=33

Δ T 2=52−18=34

33−34
Δ T lm=
ln ( )
33
34
Δ T lm=33.5 K

The required heat exchanger length per pass can be computed using the following
equation:

Q=UAΔ T lm

147.74= ( 0.28405
L
) (33.5 )
12
 ∴ L=1 .253 m
Length of the entire tube is given by N T × L
LT =15 ×1 .253=18.80 m

3. Parallel flow heat exchangers had impossible temperatures so we couldn’t compute

the heat exchanger design problem, meaning that we can never have a heat exchanger
operating under those conditions. But for the counter flow heat exchanger, heat
exchanger does exist, and it can give a maximum possible heat transfer rate (Qmax ) of
272.74 kW indicating an effectiveness of 0.542 and with an NTU of 1.166 helping us
to analyze our heat exchanger better.
4. Known: Hot fluid flow rate, inlet and outlet temperatures for both hot and cold fluids,
convective heat transfer coefficient and number of tubes.

Find: Entire tube length to achieve the desired criteria.

Schematic:

Water

Di = 26.645 mm Do = 33.401 mm
Ethylene Glycol

Figure 4: Schematic for Part 4

Assumptions:
 Negligible heat loss to the surrounding.
 Constant properties.
 Fully developed conditions for water and ethylene glycol.
 Negligible kinetic energy and potential energy.

Properties: Table A.5, Ethylene glycol at (T ave=71 °C): ρ=1083.8 kg/m3, C p=2.592
kJ/kg.K, μ=0.00431 Pa . s , k =0.261 W/m.K, Pr =42.8 . Table A.6, Water at (T ave=37.5
°C): ρ=993.05 kg/m3, C p=4.178 kJ/kg.K, μ=0.000695 Pa . s , k =0.628 W/m.K,
Pr =4.62

13
Analysis: The overall energy balance for the heated fluid can be used to determine the
necessary heat transfer rate.

Qh= ṁh C p ,h (T h ,i−T h , o)

Qh=(1.5)(2.592)(363−325)
Qh=147.74 kW

Qh=Q c =ṁc C p ,c (T c ,o−T c ,i )

147.74=ṁc (4.178)(330−291)

∴ ṁc =0.9067 kg . s−1

Ethylene glycol flowing through inside the tube.
ρu m D h
Re =
D
μ
4 ṁh
Re =
D
π Di μ

Re =
4 (1.5 ) ( 151 )
D
π ( 0.026645 )( 0.00431 )
Re =1108.71
D

Flow inside the tube is therefore laminar. Assuming uniform surface heat transfer flux,
inside heat transfer convection coefficient can be calculated as follows:

N u =4.36
D

hi D i
Nu =
D
k
k
hi =N u ×
D
Di

hi =( 4.36 ) ( 0.0.261
026645 )

∴ hi =42.71 W /mK

14
Overall heat transfer coefficient can be assumed as follows:

1 1 1
= +
U hi ho

1 1 1
= +
U 42.71 4500
U =42.31 W/m2 . K

Assuming that the cold fluid is city water with fouling resistance of 0.001 m2 . K /W.

1 1 R f , i } over {{A} rsub {i}} + + {ln left ({{D} rsub {o}} over {{D} rsub {i}} right )} ove
= +
UA hi Ai Ao

1 1 R f , i } over {π {D} rsub {i} L} + {ln left ({{D} rsub {o}} over {{D} rsub {i}} right )}
= +
UA hi π Di L π Do L

1
=
1
[ 1
+
0.002
UA L π ( 4 2.71 )( 0.026645 ) π (0.026645)
+
ln ( 0.033401
0.026645 )
2 π (16.2 )
+
0.001
+
1
π (0.033401) π ( 4500 ) ( 0.033401 ) ]
1 0.31747
=
UA L
L
UA=
0.31747

Δ T 1 −Δ T 2
Δ T lm=
ln ( Δ T 1−Δ T 2 )

Δ T 1=90−57=33

Δ T 2=52−18=34

33−34
Δ T lm=
ln ( )
33
34
Δ T lm=33.5 K

15
 The required heat exchanger length per pass can be computed using the following
equation:

Q=UAΔ T lm

147.74= ( 0.31747
L
) ( 33.5)
∴ L=1 .400 m
Length of the entire tube is given by N T × L
LT =15 ×1 .400=21.00 m

Under the assumptions of constant surface heat transfer flux, as fouling build up we
going to need a longer pipe to maintain the required heat transfer rate resulting in a
decreased diameter.

5. Known: Hot fluid flow rate, inlet and outlet temperatures for both hot and cold fluids,
convective heat transfer coefficient and number of tubes.

Find: Entire tube length to achieve the desired criteria.

Schematic:

Multitherm OG-1

Di = 26.645 mm Do = 33.401 mm
Ethylene Glycol

Figure 5: Schematic for Part 5

Assumptions:
 Negligible heat loss to the surrounding.
 Constant properties.
 More viscous fluid is on the shell side.
 Fully developed conditions for water and ethylene glycol.

16
  Negligible kinetic energy and potential energy.

Properties: Table A.5, Ethylene glycol at (T ave=71 °C): ρ=1083.8 kg/m3, C p=2.592
kJ/kg.K, μ=0.00431 Pa . s , k =0.261 W/m.K, Pr =42.8 . Table A.6, Multitherm OG-
1™ at (T ave=37.5 °C): ρ=850 kg/m3, C p=1.993 kJ/kg.K, μ=28.5 m Pa. s, k =0.1367
W/m.K.

Analysis: The overall energy balance for the heated fluid can be used to determine the
necessary heat transfer rate.

Qh= ṁh C p ,h (T h ,i−T h , o)

Qh=(1.5)(2.592)(363−325)
Qh=147.74 kW

Qh=Q c =ṁc C p ,c (T c ,o−T c ,i )

147.74=ṁc (1.993)(330−291)

∴ ṁc =1.901 kg . s−1

Ethylene glycol flowing through inside the tube.

ρu m D h
Re =
D
μ
4 ṁh
Re =
D
π Di μ

Re =
4 (1.5 ) ( 151 )
D
π ( 0.026645 )( 0.00431 )
Re =1108.71
D

Flow inside the tube is therefore laminar. Assuming uniform surface heat transfer flux,
inside heat transfer convection coefficient can be calculated as follows:

N u =4.36
D

17
 hi D i
Nu =
D
k
k
hi =N u ×
D
Di

hi =( 4.36 ) ( 0.026645
0.261
)
∴ hi =42.71 W /mK

Overall heat transfer coefficient can be assumed as follows:

1 1 1
= +
U hi ho

1 1 1
= +
U 42.71 4500
U =42.31 W/m2 . K

Assuming that the cold fluid is a hydrocracking mineral oil product with API greater
than 50, so it’ll have a fouling resistance of 0.00018 m2 . K /W.

1 1 R f , i } over {{A} rsub {i}} + + {ln left ({{D} rsub {o}} over {{D} rsub {i}} right )} ove
= +
UA hi Ai Ao

1 1 R f , i } over {π {D} rsub {i} L} + {ln left ({{D} rsub {o}} over {{D} rsub {i}} right )}
= +
UA hi π Di L π Do L

1
=
1
[ 1
+
0.002
UA L π ( 42.71 ) ( 0.026645 ) π (0.026645)
+
ln ( 0.033401
0.026645 )
2 π (16.2)
+
0.00018
+
1
π (0.033401) π ( 4500 ) ( 0.033401 ) ]
1 0.30965
=
UA L
L
UA=
0.30965

Δ T 1 −Δ T 2
Δ T lm=
ln ( Δ T 1−Δ T 2 )

18
 Δ T 1=90−57=33

Δ T 2=52−18=34

33−34
Δ T lm=
ln
33
34( )
Δ T lm=33.5 K

The required heat exchanger length per pass can be computed using the following
equation:

Q=UAΔ T lm

147.74= ( 0.30965
L
) (33.5 )
∴ L=1.366 m
Length of the entire tube is given by N T × L
LT =15× 1.366=20.45 m

We do recommend this configuration since we’ll only need a shorter pipe to maintain
a constant surface heat flux for a fixed area. This configuration will result in a greater
diameter than the ethylene glycol/water configuration as fouling increases, meaning
that it’ll have more fluid flowing inside the tube.

Appendix B: Nomenclature
Table 2: Nomenclature

PROPERTY SYMBOL UNIT

Heat Flux q W
Mass flow rate ṁ kg/s
Log mean temperature ΔTlm K
difference

19
 Reynold’s number ReD -
Nusselt’s number NuD -
Convective heat transfer h W/m2K
coefficient

Kinematic viscosity m Pa.s

Thermal conductivity k W/m.K

Table 3: Subscripts

SUBSCRIPT MEANING
Hot h
Cold c
Inner i
Outer o
Diameter D
Log mean lm

Appendix C: Category C
Specifications
Table 4: Category C Specifications

20
Appendix D: ASME Pipe Sizes
Table 5: ASME Pipe Sizes

21