Heat Exchanger Final Report

The Ohio State University
Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering
Experiment No. 2
SHELL AND TUBE HEAT EXCHANGER
Authors:
Group Leader – Conor Hughes
Operations Engineer – Kyle Hofacre
Design Engineer – Drew Short
Development Engineer – Scott Reinhart
Quality Engineer – Hussein Alkhatib
Date Due: Date Submitted:

February 16, 2015 February 16, 2015
Submitted To:
Dr. John Clay – Instructor
Michael Denney – Teaching Assistant
Abstract
The objective of the shell and tube heat exchanger experiment and research is to
determine the effect of flow rate and flow configuration on the performance characteristics of a
forced convection shell and tube heat exchanger. Three analytical approaches are taken to
analyze the data. These approaches include the effectiveness/NTU method, heat and
momentum transfer correlations, and the Wilson plot and modified Wilson plot methods.
The effectiveness/NTU method determines the effectiveness and efficiency of the shell
and tube heat exchanger at varying flow rates. The counter-current flow configuration (the most
effective) has a maximum effectiveness of 0.47 with a shell side flow rate of 9.46 gpm and tube
side flow rate of 2.97 gpm.
The heat and momentum method uses relationships between Re, Pr, and Nu to calculate
convective heat transfer coefficients, which are in turn used to calculate the average overall heat
transfer coefficient. The average overall heat transfer coefficient for co-current and counter-
current flow are 1268.47 and 836.76 W/m2K respectively.
The Wilson and modified Wilson Plot method correlates the overall thermal resistance
and Re in order to calculate the average overall heat transfer coefficient. Through the Wilson plot
method, overall heat transfer coefficients for co-current and counter-current are calculated to
be 1386.26 and 1085.37 W/m2K respectively. The overall heat transfer coefficient using the
modified Wilson method is 1387.89 and 1317.97 W/m2K for co-current and counter-current
respectively.
The shell and tube heat exchanger data and analysis methods are used in the design
extension to determine which combination of tube bundle, diameter, and length of the heat
exchanger will meet the specifications. The approach is to iteratively solve for the combination
of dimension specifications that will have a pressure drop of less than 200 Pa, and minimize steam
flow rate and surface area of the heat exchanger. The results conclude that the most optimal
heat exchanger for this design has 400 tubes, a diameter of 0.3 inches, and a length of 0.75m.
The flow configuration is counter-current with a surface area of 7.182 m2, steam flow rate of
0.321 kg/s and overall heat transfer coefficient of 3.417 kW/m2K.
Table of Contents
Purpose .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 2
Experiment Description .................................................................................................................. 5
Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................... 9
Temperature Profiles ................................................................................................................ 10
Effectiveness-NTU Method ....................................................................................................... 14
Heat and Momentum Transfer Correlation .............................................................................. 18
Wilson Plot Method .................................................................................................................. 20
Modified Wilson Plot Method .................................................................................................. 24
Error Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 29
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 31
Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 33
Design Extension .......................................................................................................................... 34
Notation ....................................................................................................................................... 41
Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................ 43
Appendix A - Preliminary Preperation Assignment ..................................................................... 44
Appendix B – Experimental Summary Report .............................................................................. 48
Appendix C – Report Formulas ..................................................................................................... 55
Wilson/Modified Wilson Plot Method...................................................................................... 55
Experiment Design Extension ................................................................................................... 56
Error Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 56

Appendix D – Sample Calculations ............................................................................................... 57
Wilson/Modified Wilson Plot Method...................................................................................... 58
Experiment Design Extension ................................................................................................... 60
Error Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 61
Appendix E – MATLAB Code ......................................................................................................... 62
Co-Current Operation (Wilson Plot) ......................................................................................... 62
Counter-Current Operation (Wilson Plot) ................................................................................ 64
NTU 3D Scatter Plot .................................................................................................................. 66
Co/Counter-Current Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient vs. Flow Rates .................................... 68
Appendix F – Calibration Curves .................................................................................................. 71
Appendix G – Additional Data ...................................................................................................... 72
Co-Current and Counter-Current Operation Temperature Profiles ......................................... 72
Table of Parameters and Constants.......................................................................................... 78
Experiment Time Log ................................................................................................................ 79

List of Figures
Figure 1. Experiment 2 System Flowchart .............................................................................................. 5
Figure 2. Co-Current Operation Temperature Profile (Run 10) ......................................................... 11
Figure 3. Counter-Current Operation Temperature Profile (Run 8) ................................................. 12
Figure 4. Co-Current Non-Steady State Temperature Profile ............................................................ 13
Figure 5. Counter-Current Non-Steady State Temperature Profile .................................................. 13
Figure 6. Effectiveness vs. NTU for Co/Counter-Current Operation ................................................. 14
Figure 7. Effectiveness of Co-Current Operation (3D Scatter) ........................................................... 17
Figure 8. Effectiveness of Counter-Current Operation (3D Scatter) ................................................. 17
Figure 9. Co/Counter-Current Flow Rates vs. Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient ............................ 20
Figure 10. Original Wilson Plot Method Applied to Co-Current ........................................................ 23
Figure 11. Original Wilson Plot Method Applied to Counter-Current .............................................. 23
Figure 12. Difference in m Values vs. Guessed m Values for Counter-Current ............................... 25
Figure 13. Difference in m Values vs. Guessed m Values for Co-Current ........................................ 26
Figure 14. Modified Wilson Plot for Counter-Current Operations.................................................... 26
Figure 15. Modified Wilson Plot for Co-Current Operations ............................................................. 27
Figure 16. Shell Side Flowrate Calibration Curve................................................................................. 71
Figure 17. Tube Side Flowrate Calibration Curve ................................................................................ 71

List of Tables
Table 1. Co-Current Operation Design Space ........................................................................................ 6
Table 2. Counter-Current Operation Design Space ............................................................................... 7
Table 3. Co-Current Experimental Data .................................................................................................. 9
Table 4. Counter-Current Experimental Data ...................................................................................... 10
Table 5. Calculated Data for NTU Analysis Method ............................................................................ 16
Table 6. Calculated Correlation Data – Co-Current Operation .......................................................... 19
Table 7. Calculated Correlation Data – Counter-Current Operation ................................................ 19
Table 8. Counter-Current values for Rov and 1/Rem for Wilson Plot ................................................. 22
Table 9. Co-Current values for Rov and 1/Rem for Wilson Plot ........................................................... 22
Table 10. Original Wilson Plot Local and Overall Heat Transfer Coefficients .................................. 24
Table 11. Local and Overall Heat Transfer Coefficients for Modified Wilson Method................... 27
Table 12. Confidence Interval Calculations .......................................................................................... 30
Table 13. Design Extension Iterations and Conclusions ..................................................................... 38
Table 14. Calculation Constants and Properties .................................................................................. 78
Table 15. Design Extension Constants .................................................................................................. 78
Table 16. Operation Time Log ................................................................................................................ 79

Purpose
Experiment No. 2 uses a shell and tube heat exchanger to analyze the effect of flow rate
and flow configuration changes on the performance of the apparatus. This is evaluated by
calculating several variables related to performance. The heat exchanger is run in both co-
current and counter-current configurations in order to compare and contrast the performance
results. In order to do this, the effectiveness, overall heat transfer coefficients, and the inner and
outer convective heat transfer coefficients are calculated. After these calculations are
performed, the data is analyzed using the five different methods listed on page 2 of the Shell and
Tube Heat Exchanger Operating Procedure (Denney, 2015). These methods have different
assumptions and procedures, which may or may not lead to similar results. The results culminate
into conclusions and error analysis, which pave the way for the design extension. The design
extension requires use of calculation methods learned in the lab in order to determine specifics
for a new heat exchanger to be purchased by Buckeye Foods Inc. They also would like to know
the pressure drop through the tube side of the heat exchanger, the flow rate of superheated
steam needed, and the overall heat transfer coefficient.
1
Introduction
The importance of this report is to perform calculations, make conclusions, and evaluate
sources of error with regard to the shell and tube heat exchanger. This information along with
the methods of analysis are applied to the design extension in order to solve the supplied
problem.
The experiment being performed involves a forced convection shell and tube heat
exchanger. This heat exchanger can be operated in different flow configurations and at different
flow rates to achieve certain output temperatures. A shell and tube heat exchanger runs a cold
fluid through the tubes of the apparatus and a hotter liquid through the shell side of the
apparatus. The heat exchanger being used in this experiment is a Hampden Model H-6850-40
Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger which contains 112 copper tubes along with 3 equally spaced
baffles in the shell. In this experiment, the two fluids being used are water. The hotter fluid
comes into contact with the tube pipes as it flows and heat transfer occurs between the two
fluids. The colder fluid gains heat and the hotter fluid loses heat.
Operation can occur in co-current or counter-current flow patterns. In co-current flow,
the tube and shell liquids flow in the same direction, however in counter-current flow, the tube
and shell liquids flow in opposite directions. These configurations lead to different output
temperatures and therefore different experimental results. All of the fluid temperatures in the
system are measured by ten thermocouples placed at various points throughout the apparatus.
The flow rates also vary throughout the experiment reaching a maximum of 10 gpm and 6.6 gpm
for the shell and tube sides respectively. These parameters change over the course of the
experiment in order to evaluate the shell and tube heat exchanger performance. The heat
exchanger is allowed to reach steady state for about seven minutes after each change in flow
rates. Before seven minutes is allowed to elapse, the system is considered to be in unsteady
state. In unsteady state, the temperatures of both the shell and tube fluids are fluctuating. A
design space is used to find random combinations of shell and tube flow rates in order to produce
the most representative results possible. About 11 data points for each co-current and counter
current flow are collected along with one trial for each configuration at unsteady state.
2
The experimental variables include the shell and tube side flow rates, all thermocouple
readings as temperatures, and the tube and shell side pressure readings. These variables are
studied because they are used in calculations in order to evaluate the performance of the heat
exchanger. The effectiveness, overall heat transfer coefficient, and inner and outer convective
heat transfer coefficients are calculated for both co-current and counter-current configurations.
Enough data is collected in order to accurately evaluate the performance indicators mentioned
above. The data is then analyzed using five different methods. These methods include Wilson
plot method, modified Wilson plot method, heat and momentum transfer correlations,
effectiveness-NTU method, and producing temperature profile plots. Each method has different
theories, assumptions, and analytical procedures that are examined and used effectively by
referring to the referenced literature. The Wilson plot method is used to find relationships
between the temperature difference and heat flux on either the shell or tube side of the heat
exchanger. This method uses measurements of the temperature difference between the fluids
and heat-transfer rates. Constants are found using the Wilson plot method and these constants
are used to calculate heat transfer coefficients. Factors that affect the accuracy of this method
include, accuracy of data, amount of data points, as well as the scope of the data (Rose, 2004).
The modified Wilson plot method builds off of the Wilson plot method by utilizing theoretically
“better” values to find new constants and then finally new and more accurate values for heat
transfer coefficients (Fernandez-Seara, 2005). The NTU method of analysis can be used if the
inlet and outlet temperatures are known. It uses collected data to calculate NTU or “Number of
Transfer Units” from efficiency. NTU can then be used to calculate the effectiveness of the shell
and tube heat exchanger, giving a quantitative measure of performance (Incropera, 2007). This
method operates under the assumptions that the process is steady state, the properties are
constant, and there are negligible losses to the surroundings. These assumptions can be analyzed
to determine the accuracy and validity of this method. The next method is heat and momentum
transfer correlations. This uses relationships between Reynolds number (Re), Prandtl number
(Pr), and the Nusselt number (Nu) to calculate the heat transfer coefficients along with the heat
flux. This method uses different equations and correlations based upon whether the flow is
laminar or turbulent as determined by the value of the Reynolds number. Newton’s Law of
3
Cooling is used in this method so some assumptions are made. The no-slip condition is used,
which states that the velocity of the fluid at the walls of the tubes equals zero. Drag force and
friction effects are also ignored in the use of this method. Finally, it is assumed that the flow is
either laminar or turbulent, not somewhere in between. The last method for analyzing the data
is the plotting of temperature profiles along the heat exchanger. This method is rather simple
and only requires plotting temperature vs. distance along the tubes. Theoretically, these graphs
should match their corresponding graphs that appear in Figure 1 of the Shell and Tube Heat
Exchanger Operating Procedure (Denney, 2015). The temperature changes as the fluid moves
down the tubes are conveyed by the graph. A more in depth look at the graphs can show trends
in comparison with each other as well as with the reference graphs. Although this is a simple
method for analyzing the data, there are still a couple assumptions that are made. It is assumed
that the thermocouples are reading and reporting accurate temperatures. In addition, it is
assumed that the thermocouples are not touching the walls of the tubes in any way. This would
cause them to report the tube wall temperature instead of the temperature of the fluid.
Many references, manuals, and data sheets are used in this experiment. The Shell and
Tube Heat Exchanger Operating Procedure (Denney, 2015) is referenced frequently. A prepared
data sheet is used for calculation, graphing, and creating table of data used in this report.
Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer (Incropera, 2007) is used frequently in many portions
of the report. A general Review of the Wilson Plot Method and It’s Modifications to Determine
Convection Coefficients in Heat Exchange Devices (Fernandez-Seara, 2006) is used for Wilson and
Modified Wilson Plot analyses. Finally, the NIST Chemistry Webbook is used in the design
extension portion in order to obtain thermophysical properties of saturated steam.
4
Experiment Description
The experiment was designed to observe the effects of flow rates and flow configurations
on the performance of the forced convection shell and tube heat exchanger. There were little
materials needed for this experiment. The Hampden Model H-6850-40 shell and tube heat
exchanger was comprised of 112 copper tubes with an inner tube diameter of .21 inches, a
thickness of .02 inches and a tube length of 14 inches. A city water line was connected to the
system providing a medium through which heat transfer took place. Water was allowed to run
for about seven minutes to ensure the system filled with water. A screwdriver was needed to
open and close the needle valve to allow an excess air in the system to escape. Thermal gloves
were used to turn valves as a safety precaution from the hot pipes. Seen below is a flow chart
schematic of the heat exchanger system taken from the Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger Operating
Procedure (Denney, 2015).
Figure 1. Experiment 2 System Flowchart

5
As shown in Figure 1, tube and shell side water was supplied from the city water
lines located in the "CITY" portion. Water on the tube side flowed through valve 10 and 1, the
rotometer, and then the heat exchanger. Finally tube side water flowed through valve 7 and
then drained. Tube side operations were completed in an open loop system. The shell side was
first purged of air through the use of valves 12, 13, and 14. Valve 11 was then closed, placing the
shell side in a closed looped system. Water flowed from the surge tank through the pump and
into the rotometer. During co-current operations, water flowed through valve 4, the heat
exchanger, and then back through valve 6. During counter-current operations, water flowed
through valve 5, the heat exchanger, and then out valve 2. Afterward shell side water went
through the heater and then back into the pump to continue to cycle through.
Starting the heat exchanger required a two-step process. First, the tube side of the heat
exchanger was filled and then shell side. The purpose of the two separate filling steps was to
remove air from the system. After the heat exchanger was filled, the system was allowed to run
for a minimum of seven minutes to check that everything was working properly. After startup
was completed, trials were conducted to test different variables. There were several variables
that were manipulated to provide data for analysis. Operation of the heat exchanger was
observed in both the co-current and counter-current configurations. Also, tube and shell flow
rates were varied randomly within operational limits. The random selection of flow rates insured
unpredictable data so that correlations could be concluded only after analysis. The selection was
created using the design spaces observed below.
Table 1. Co-Current Operation Design Space
6
Table 2. Counter-Current Operation Design Space
Variables ranged from 1 gpm to 10 gpm in the shell side and from 2.5 gpm to 6.5 gpm in the tube
side. However, the design space was constructed for steady state operation so the lower limit of
the design space was adjusted to a minimum of 2 gpm for the shell side and 2.5 gpm for the tube
side. 11 trials were conducted for both the co-current and counter-current configurations. Each
trial had varied flow rates that were randomly selected within the design space. Flow rates would
be adjusted using valves 3 and 7. Once flow rates were adjusted, the system would continuously
run for at least seven minutes to ensure steady state was achieved. The same process was
repeated for each trial.
Non-steady state operation was also observed for co-current and counter-current.
Predetermined flow rates were selected for the shell and tube so that there would be non-steady
state heat exchange. Only one trial for both configurations was conducted for non-steady state
operation by recording the exiting temperatures of the flows from the shell and tube every 20
seconds for 400 seconds.
Data collected from the shell and tube heat exchanger was analyzed using several
methods. The effectiveness and efficiency of the heat exchanger was determined by using the
NTU-Effectiveness plot. The overall heat transfer coefficient was calculated using Wilson,
Modified Wilson, and heat and momentum transfer correlation methods. Non-steady state
operation was observed by creating a temperature profile.
Safety was the biggest priority during the experiment. Everyone participating in the
experiment wore hard hats and safety glasses. Pressure gauges and thermocouples were
7
constantly monitored throughout the experiment so that over pressurization would not occur.
However, the shell and tube heat exchanger was neglected once for a period of time resulting in
the heater overheating and shutting down. Thermal gloves were used to turn valves connected
to the shell side because of the hot fluid flowing through the copper pipes made the pipes hot.
All participants in the lab studied the emergency shutdown and evacuation procedures prior to
the experiment in case of an emergency so shutdown and startup ran smoothly. No safety
incidents occurred during the lab.
8
Results and Discussion
During the shell and tube heat exchanger experiment, a sufficient amount of data is
gathered and organized in order to analyze experimental results. Different analyzing techniques
are used including temperature profile plots, effectiveness-NTU method, Wilson and Modified
Wilson plot method, and heat and momentum transfer methods. Approximately five hours
allows for thorough operation of the heat exchanger including startup and shutdown. Execution
of the experiment begins at 8:00 am beginning with filling the system with water from a city line
while keeping sure the system is free of air build up. Trials begin an hour later operating across
the entire design space of two different flow configurations, co-current and counter-current. A
time log is kept in a data spreadsheet recording the time in which a new trial began operation. In
addition, the spreadsheet contains flow rate, pressure, and temperature readings for each trial
listed. Temperature data is read using LabVIEW software displaying the readings from ten
thermocouples, five shell side and five tube side, positioned at various distances along the heat
exchanger. Table 3, shown below, lists all data recorded during co-current operation including
seven trials of supplemental data.
Table 3. Co-Current Experimental Data
9
An identical data table provides the time log, flow rates, pressures, and temperatures for each
counter-current trial. The recorded data is shown below in Table 4.
Table 4. Counter-Current Experimental Data
Temperature Profiles
Graphs of temperature profiles are produced to show how the temperature changes
along the length of the tubes. These are produced by recording the temperature at each
thermocouple after the system has reached steady state and then plotting temperature (K) vs.
position along tube (in). Theoretical temperature profiles are provided in the Shell and Tube Heat
Exchanger Operating Procedure (Denney, 2015). Temperature profiles for 11 co-current runs, 11
counter-current runs, and unsteady state runs are produced. These plots are found in the
appendix and labeled according to the run configuration and number.
10
Figure 2. Co-Current Operation Temperature Profile (Run 10)
When compared to Figure 1 in the Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger Operating Procedure
(Denney, 2015), Figure 2 for the co-current flow operation resembles the reference graph for the
shell side. The shell side curve sweeps slightly downward with a negative slope as the position
along the tube increases. Although, this curve in Figure 2 doesn’t have as much of a negative
slope as the reference graph does. This means that overall the temperature did not decrease on
the shell side as much as is predicted by the reference graph. On the other hand, the shape of
the tube side curve shows some discrepancy. Instead of a smooth increase, the slope of the
Figure 2 tube side curve is semi-parabolic. This parabolic shape shows a temperature decrease
at about the halfway point along the tubes. This causes a depression in the semi-parabolic shape.
According to the reference figure, the tube side curve should show a positive slope along the
entire length of the tube, leveling out towards the end of the tube. Figure 2 shows a positive
slope until about 5 inches, a negative slope until 7 inches, another positive slope until about 10
inches, and then finally a negative slope until the end of the tube is reached. This discrepancy
could be caused by thermocouple error. If any of the thermocouples that read the tube side
temperatures are touching the wall of the tube instead of placed in the center of the tube then
they would read a higher temperature. This is because the copper tubes are surrounded by the
shell side hot water coming from the water heater. In addition, thermocouple 10 is placed at the
tube outlet and is not contained within the insulation of the heat exchanger; the copper piping
11
is exposed to the laboratory temperature air. This causes the outlet temperature of the water to
drop about 20 K as indicated by Figure 2. However, the shell and tube heat exchanger does
increase the overall temperature of the tube side water by about 20 K over the course of the run.
Figure 3. Counter-Current Operation Temperature Profile (Run 8)
Figure 3 shows the temperature profile for counter-current run number 8. This run had
similar flow rates when compared to Figure 2 co-current run number 10. These flow rates were
about 9 gpm and 3 gpm for the shell and tube sides respectively. Figure 3 is very similar to Figure
2 with respect to the tube side curve. The shell side curve has a positive slope, which is expected
because the entering hot water flow is now entering at the 14 in. position along the tube, so the
water will decrease in temperature as the position along the tube decreases from 14 in. to 0 in.
The tube side curve ends with a negative slope just like in Figure 2 for co-current flow, this is
because of the same thermocouple error mentioned in the discussion of Figure 2. Overall, the
tube side water increases about 24 K as indicated by Figure 3. When compared to the 20 K
increase in Figure 2, graphically it can be concluded that counter-current flow produces slightly
higher output water temperatures than co-current flow configuration.
12
Figure 4. Co-Current Non-Steady State Figure 5. Counter-Current Non-Steady State
Temperature Profile Temperature Profile
Figure 4 and 5 shown above are temperature profile curves for co-current and counter-
current configurations in unsteady state. These are produced by setting the flow rates equal to
values outside of the steady state regime as shown in Figure 4 in the Shell and Tube Heat
Exchanger Operating Procedure (Denney, 2015) and recording temperatures every 20 seconds
for 400 seconds. The temperature in Kelvin is then graphed vs. the elapsed time in seconds. Both
graphs have very similar curve shapes. They both have a positive slope from 0 seconds to about
220 seconds, decrease sharply to 280 seconds, increase again to 375 seconds, and then finally
decrease to 400 seconds. The counter-current curve shows a sharper temperature drop from
220 seconds to 280 seconds than the co-current curve. The counter-current curve is at an overall
higher temperature range. This could be because the counter-current graph is recorded at shell
side thermocouple 9 and the co-current graph is recorded at shell side thermocouple 5. The
unsteady state curves show how the temperature fluctuates when the flow rates are either out
of the steady state regime or in the time before the system is allowed to equilibrate, as a result,
the temperatures in the thermocouples are fluctuating. Overall, in the counter-current curve,
the temperature fluctuates about 12 K in the elapsed time period whereas the co-current
temperature only fluctuates about 3.5 K over the elapsed time period. Therefore, there would
be larger error associated with recording unsteady state temperature in the counter-current
configuration.
13
Effectiveness-NTU Method
The NTU-Effectiveness plot is a good way to analyze heat exchanger performance when
little variables are known. The effectiveness of the heat exchanger can be calculated to determine
how well heat is being transfer throughout the system. To calculate effectiveness for the shell
and tube heat exchanger, the following equation is used.
#$ ∗('$,) *'$,+ )
!= (C-1.1)
#-+. ∗('/,+ *'$,+ )
This equation can be simplified because both of the fluids in the shell and tube are water
so heat capacities and densities cancel out and become a ratio of flow rates. Effectiveness ranges
from zero to one with one being the most effective.
Figure 6. Effectiveness vs. NTU for Co/Counter-Current Operation
Figure 6 shows a plot of NTU verse effectiveness. The plot shows counter current flow achieves
the highest effectiveness within the heat exchanger. The effectiveness of the heat exchanger
reaches a maximum of 0.47 when running in counter-current with a shell side flow rate of 9.46
gpm and tube side flow rate of 2.97 gpm. However, there are several other factors that can
diminish the effectiveness of the heat exchanger. Fouling of the tubes within the bundle can add
14
thermal resistance and decrease heat exchange. Laminar flow with in the shell or tube also
decreases effectiveness because layers are formed within the flowing fluid reducing heat
exchange.
The plot also shows that as effectiveness increases, so does the number of transfer units
(NTU). NTU is a function of efficiencies and the ratio of heat capacity rates. NTU is a maximum of
0.71 at the greatest effectiveness. It is calculated by the following equation:
9
* =*>
012 = − 1 + 67 8 : ;< (C-1.2)
=?>
The efficiency of the heat exchanger can be also calculated in the NTU method. Efficiency is
governed by the ratio of the minimum and maximum heat capacity rates and effectiveness. The
efficiency of the heat exchanger determines how well energy is transferred throughout the
system. Table 5, shown on the following page, provides the efficiencies for both the counter-
current and co-current trials. The following equation is used to calculate efficiency.
A
*(>?#B)
@= :
(C-1.3)
(>?#B : )9/:
15
Table 5. Calculated Data for NTU Analysis Method
Overall heat transfer for a single tube is calculated by multiplying NTU with Cmin and then dividing
by the outside surface area of the tube. This value tells the overall heat transferred of each tube
in the tube bundle. Table 5 provides the values of Utube for all the trails in the experiment. The
equation below shows that as NTU increases, so does the overall heat transfer.
#-+. ∗H'I
2DEFG = (C-1.4)
JKLMN
The overall heat transfer for the entire bundle is calculated by multiplying Utube by the number of
tubes in the bundle.
Optimal operation of the heat exchanger is determined at the greatest effectiveness
because that is where the most heat transfer is taking place. Co-current operation of the heat
exchanger is optimal when tube side flow rates are high and shell side flow rates are low.
16
Figure 7 illustrates the various flow rates for the different trials and shows the effectiveness of
each trial. A max effectiveness is reached when 2.71 gpm is flowing through the shell side and
10.11 gpm through the tube side.
Figure 7. Effectiveness of Co-Current Operation (3D Scatter)
Counter-current has optimal operation when there is a large difference between the shell and
tube flow rates. Figure 8 provides a visual of the effectiveness for counter-current operation for
each trial preformed in the experiment.
Figure 8. Effectiveness of Counter-Current Operation (3D Scatter)
17
Heat and Momentum Transfer Correlation
The heat and momentum correlation method uses relationships between Re, Pr, and Nu to
calculate convective heat transfer coefficients. The Reynolds and Prandtl numbers were
calculated using the following formulas:
QRS+
OP = (C-2.1)
T
#V,W T
U7 = (C-2.2)
X
For laminar flow regimes (i.e. Re < 2300), the Nusselt number is modeled by the equation
below:
S+ >/_
0Y = 1.953 OPU7 (C-2.3)
^
Each trial was assumed to be laminar in this aspect, and thus used equation (C-2.3). Using the
definition of the Nusselt number in equation (C-2.4), the inner convective heat transfer
coefficient (hi) can be calculated.
b+ S+
0Y = (C-2.4)
X
Once the inner convective heat transfer correlation is calculated, the outer convective heat
transfer coefficient is calculated using equation (C-2.6) below. Rov is calculated using relations
described in the Wilson plot method section.
> >
OcR = + (C-2.6)
b) J) b+ J+
After determining the inner and outer convective heat transfer coefficients, the overall heat
transfer coefficient (U) can be found using the following equation:
>
2d ' = 9 9 (C-2.8)
?
/) e) /+ e+
Sample intermediate calculations are provided in Appendix D. Below, in Table 6 and Table 7 are
the intermediate parameter values for each operational trial, co-current and counter-current
flow.
18
Table 6. Calculated Correlation Data – Co-Current Operation
Table 7. Calculated Correlation Data – Counter-Current Operation
When completing the calculations in the tables, thermocouple 10 is ignored due to significant
temperature drop as a result of poor insulation. Thus, thermocouple 4 is used for temperature
19
output on the tube side. Some of the tube output temperatures read higher than the shell
output temperatures which resulted in the errors seen in the tables. The average overall heat
transfer coefficients for co-current and counter-current flow are 1268.47 and 836.76 W/m2K
respectively. A visual representation of the effects of varying tube side and shell side flow rates
on the overall heat transfer coefficient is shown in Figure 9 below.
Figure 9. Co/Counter-Current Flow Rates vs. Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient
As seen in Figure 9, the co-current trials resulted in a higher overall heat transfer coefficient
than the counter-current trials. This is contrary to research theory that counter-current
operation is the optimal configuration for a heat exchanger. This result could have been
produced by poor thermocouple placement and readings as well as significantly low flow.
Further explanations of this phenomenon can be found in the recommendations section.
Wilson Plot Method

Information regarding Wilson plot method can be found in reference [2]. This method of
analysis creates a linear correlation between thermal resistance (Rov) and a modification of the
Reynolds number (Re). The relationship used is the following:
>
OcR = 6> + 68 (C-3.1)
fG -
The final form of the Wilson relationship, shown above, is after the following assumptions:
20
turbulent flow, the tube wall thermal resistance is constant, the outer and inner fouling
resistance is constant, and thermal resistance due to outside tubes convection is constant. Using
the original Wilson plot method m = 0.8, Rov can also be calculated using the following heat
transfer relations:
∆'hi
OcR = (C-2.6)
j
Where,
'/,+ *'$,+ *('/,+ *'$,+ )
∆1^k = p qp (C-2.5)
mn [ /,+ $,+ ]
p/,+ qp$,)
s = tu 6vu (1c − 1w ) (C-4.5)
Re is calculated using the following equation:

QRS+
OP = (C-2.1)
T
These values are then calculated from temperature profile data for shell and tube side at varying
flow rates. A linear regression is then applied to the first equation. The resulting values for C1
and C2 are used to calculate the convective heat transfer coefficient for inside and outside via
the following equation:
fG -
ℎw = (C-3.3)
#: J+
>
ℎc =
#9 * fy,) ?fK ?fy,+ J)
Assuming that Oz,c + OD + Oz,w = 0 :

>
ℎc = (C-3.2)
#9 ∗J)
The following equation can be used to obtain the overall heat transfer coefficient (U) for the heat
exchanger once h for both outer and inner heat transfer are obtained:
>
2d ' = 9 9 (C-3.4)
?
/+ e+ /) e)
U is the value desired to be obtained from applying the Wilson plot method. It provides an overall
heat transfer coefficient that can be applied to the heat exchanger and further used to determine
the effectiveness thereof.
Both the Re and Rov were calculated for all counter-current and co-current experimental
21
trials. In Appendix D is an example calculation of both Re and Rov from run #1 counter-current
experiment. Below is the resulting table after applying the above calculations to all trials:
Table 8. Counter-Current values for Rov Table 9. Co-Current values for Rov and
and 1/Rem for Wilson Plot 1/Rem for Wilson Plot
Counter-Current Co-Current
1/Rem 1/Re
m
Rov Rov
Run # (m = Run # (m =
(K/W) (K/W)
0.8) 0.8)
1 0.00056 0.0032 1 0.00038 0.0030
2 0.00068 0.0048 2 0.00042 0.0032
3 0.00063 0.0034 3 0.00041 0.0034
4 0.00068 0.0032 4 0.00050 0.0032
5 0.00065 0.0040 5 0.00041 0.0048
6 0.00064 0.0040 6 0.00050 0.0034
7 0.00071 0.0043 7 0.00047 0.0040
8 0.00067 0.0054 8 0.00043 0.0039
S1 error error 9 0.00039 0.0043
S2 error error 10 error error
S3 error error 11 error error
S4 0.00046 0.0020 S1 0.00041 0.0020
S5 0.00050 0.0020 S2 0.00050 0.0025
S6 0.00056 0.0020 S3 0.00049 0.0025
S7 0.00055 0.0025 S4 0.00054 0.0020
S8 0.00057 0.0020 S5 0.00054 0.0020
S9 0.00054 0.0025 S6 0.00048 0.0025
S 10 0.00057 0.0025 S7 0.00048 0.0020
Note that there are several values within the table that read error. That is because in
these trials the tube temperature is hotter than the shell side, disallowing ∆1^k calculation. The
error can be from poor thermocouple placement and/or readings. The assumption that
thermocouple 10 is misreading temperature is applied to this section as previously mentioned in
the heat and momentum transfer correlation section of the results and discussion. Both data sets
shown in Table 8 and 9 were plotted and linearly regressed. The results are shown on the
following page:
22
Figure 10. Original Wilson Plot Method Applied to Co-Current
Figure 11. Original Wilson Plot Method Applied to Counter-Current
For co-current operations a 68 value of -0.0329 K/W and a 6> value of 0.0006 K/W are
achieved. For counter-current operations a 68 value of 0.0545 K/W and a 6> value of 0.0004 K/W
are achieved. Note that 68 for co-current operations achieves a negative number. This may be
due to the lack of turbulent flow within the trial. Also co-current flow is less optimal of a heat
transfer configuration and thus Wilson’s method cannot be as readily applied. The results of the
23
regression are used to calculate convective heat transfer coefficients via equations (C-3.2) and
(C-3.3). Samples calculations can be found in Appendix D. The overall heat transfer (U) is
calculated using both convective heat transfer coefficients. Below is the results of these
calculation for both co-current and counter-current operations:
Table 10. Original Wilson Plot Local and Overall Heat Transfer Coefficients
hi ho Uo
(W/m^2K) (W/m^2K) (W/m^2K)
Counter-Current 8170.52 3146.56 1085.37
Co-Current -11811.44 2497.27 1386.26
ℎw is calculated to be 8170.52 W/m2K for counter-current and -11811.44 W/m2K for co-current.
ℎc is calculated to be 3146.56 W/m2K for counter-current and 2497.27 W/m2K for co-current. 2
is calculated to be 1085.37 W/m2K for counter-current and 1386.26 W/m2K for co-current. The
value of ℎw for co-current operations is a negative value, this is because of the negative value for
68 . The overall heat transfer coefficient for co-current is still similar to the average calculated
value obtained using heat and momentum correlations (1199.98 W/m2K). The overall heat
transfer coefficient for counter-current operations is also similar to those calculated by heat and
momentum correlations (921.97 W/m2K). Showing confidence in the validity of the results via
the Wilson method. 2 is similar for both configurations which contradicts what would be
expected: counter-current to have a significantly larger 2 than co-current. This may be from
factors such as thermocouple placement, and ignoring Oz,c , OD , and Oz,w in some calculations.
During the experiment rust is seen in the drain for both shell and tube side. Making tube
resistance as well as fouling resistance a potential factor.
Modified Wilson Plot Method

This method relies heavily on the Wilson plot method but involves a simple variation. An
adapted version of the original Wilson equation is first manipulated using logarithms to obtain
the following:
> >
ln = ln + t ∗ ;<(OP) (C-3.5)
f)Ä *#9 #:
24
An iterative approach is used to find the optimal value of m. The original Wilson method
is completed for a value of m. The obtained 6> and 68 are then used in equation (C-3.1) and this
equation is linearly regressed to find the new m. If both m values are equal then a solution is
found; this is completed using MATLAB. The original code for both operations can be found in
Appendix E. The program goes through values of m from 0.01 to 1 incrementing by .01 each time
and linearly regresses the original Wilson equation in order to find 6> and 68 . Once these are
found they are placed into equation (C-3.5) and this is linearly regressed to find the new value of
m. A conditional statement is placed to assure that 6> is a positive number. If the value of 6> is
negative there will be negative resistance and may lead to a negative overall heat transfer
coefficient, this physically cannot happen thus only positive 6> values can be used. The optimized
value of m for co-current and counter-current are 0.01 and 0.24 respectively. The lowered values
show that Reynolds number is less significant for this heat exchanger system that those assumed
for the original Wilson plot. Below are plots created in MATLAB showing how the difference
between calculated and input m values change with changing input m values.
Figure 12. Difference in m Values vs. Guessed m Values for Counter-Current
25
Figure 13. Difference in m Values vs. Guessed m Values for Co-Current
The following modified plots were formed using these optimized values:
Figure 14. Modified Wilson Plot for Counter-Current Operations
26
Figure 15. Modified Wilson Plot for Co-Current Operations
Using equations (C-3.2), (C-3.3), and (C-3.4) values for ℎw , ℎc , and 2 are calculated using the
modified m values:
Table 11. Local and Overall Heat Transfer Coefficients for Modified Wilson Method
hi ho Uo
(W/m^2K) (W/m^2K) (W/m^2K)
Counter-Current 2464.64 179803.68 1317.97
Co-Current -159.18 178.38 1387.89
ℎw is calculated to be 2464.64 W/m2K for counter-current and -159.18 W/m2K for co-current. ℎc is
calculated to be 179803.68 W/m2K for counter-current and 178.38 W/m2K for co-current. 2 is
calculated to be 1317.97 W/m2K for counter-current and 1387.89 W/m2K for co-current. Like the
original Wilson plot method, the slope of the co-current line of best fit is negative, thus leading
to a negative inner local heat transfer coefficient. In Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer,
typical values of forced convection heat transfer coefficients for liquids range from 100 to 20,000
W/m2K (Incropera, 2007). This matches the values for ho in the co-current and hi in the counter-
current. After applying the modified Wilson plot method the value of 2 for both configurations
approached a more similar value, however both grew farther away from the 2 calculated through
heat and momentum transfer relations. 2 is similar for both configurations which contradicts
27
what would be expected: counter-current to have a significantly larger 2 than co-current. This
may be from factors such as thermocouple placement, and ignoring Oz,c , OD , and Oz,w in some
calculations. During the experiment rust is seen in the drain for both shell and tube side, making
tube resistance as well as fouling resistance a potential factor.
28
Error Analysis
The shell and tube heat exchanger experiment presents various possible sources of error.
The first glaring source of error can be seen in the analysis of the temperature profile curves.
This error is discussed briefly in the discussion of the temperature profile curve results. A
thermocouple works by producing a voltage between two unlike metals when they are heated
or cooled. This voltage is then correlated to a temperature and this temperature is output. There
isn’t any information available as to the last calibration of the thermocouples. If any of the
thermocouples are not calibrated or have not been calibrated for an extended period of time,
they may read incorrect temperatures. These recorded temperatures are used in every method
of data analysis. If they are incorrectly displayed and recorded, this affects all of the calculations
performed. In addition, the thermocouples may be misplaced. If a tube side thermocouple is
touching the wall of one of the tubes, it will read a higher temperature because of the hot liquid
in the shell surrounding the copper tubes. If a thermocouple outside of the shell is touching a
copper wall, it will read a lower temperature. This is because the copper piping outside of the
shell is exposed to the laboratory air and not contained within the insulation of the heat
exchanger. The assumption that thermocouple 10 is misreading temperature is applied to this
section as previously mentioned in the heat and momentum transfer correlation section of the
results and discussion.
Fouling is another source of error certainly involved in the operation of the shell and tube
heat exchanger. Fouling is the accumulation and deposit of unwanted materials on solid surfaces,
which in this case are the walls of the copper tubing. This deposition causes added resistance to
the transfer of heat, which reduces the heat exchanger effectiveness and efficiency (Bott, 2006).
Fouling calculations can be performed using rates of deposition and removal along with fouling
factors and resistances. However, these fouling calculations are not performed or used in any
method of analysis. Therefore, the calculated values for heat transfer coefficients are larger
because of the disregarded fouling factors.
Confidence interval calculations are performed on the average heat flux and overall heat
transfer coefficient data for both co-current and counter-current configurations.
29
Table 12. Confidence Interval Calculations
A confidence coefficient is chosen as 1.96 for the produced 95% confidence intervals. It is found
that for the co-current data, the overall heat transfer coefficient is between 1187.25 and 1349.69
W/m2K with 95% confidence and the average heat flux is between 28307.77 and 32415.28 W
with 95% confidence. It is found that for the counter-current data, the overall heat transfer
coefficient is between 793.89 W/m2K and 879.62 W/m2K with 95% confidence and the average
heat flux is between 18508.42 and 30897.21 W with 95% confidence. It is noticed that the
counter-current overall heat transfer coefficient has a smaller margin of error while the co-
current average heat flux has a smaller margin of error. It is also interesting that the average of
the overall heat transfer coefficient is larger for the co-current configuration. This is counter-
intuitive because according to theory, the counter-current flow configuration should have larger
values for the overall heat transfer coefficient. This discrepancy could be a result of any of the
sources of error described like the thermocouple error.
30
Conclusion
The purpose of the experiment is to determine the effect of flow rates and flow
configurations on the performance characteristics of a forced convection shell and tube heat
exchanger. There are several limiting factors that hinder the ability to effectively analyze heat
exchanger performance characteristics. The undersized pump and low city water pressure
prevents high flow rates to flow through the shell and tube heat exchanger. The inability to
achieve turbulent flow within the heat exchanger limits effective heat transfer between the shell
and tube bundle. Wilson and modified Wilson plot assume turbulent flow in their calculations.
Generating turbulent flow would allow for more accurate results such as positive slopes for co-
current operations. Thermocouple readings would benefit from turbulent mixing reducing the
axial thermal gradient. Thermocouple 10 shows temperatures cooler than expected due to lack
of insulation. This effects calculations that depend on the results of the thermocouple. The
effectiveness/NTU method determines the effectiveness and efficiency of the shell and tube heat
exchanger at varying flow rates. The counter-current flow configuration has a maximum
effectiveness of 0.47 with a shell side flow rate of 9.46 gpm and tube side flow rate of 2.97 gpm.
Similarly, co-current configuration has the greatest effectiveness when there is a large difference
between the shell and tube flow rates. Co-current configuration reaches a maximum
effectiveness of 0.43 when the shell side flow rate is 2.71 gpm and tube side flow rate is 10.11
gpm. Counter-current shows a higher effectiveness than co-current and should be used for
optimal operation.
The heat and momentum method uses relationships between Re, Pr, and Nu to calculate
convective heat transfer coefficients, which are in turn used to calculate the average overall heat
transfer coefficient. The average overall heat transfer coefficients for co-current and counter-
current flow are 1268.47 and 836.76 W/m2K respectively. According to these averages, the co-
current configuration produces a higher heat transfer coefficient than counter-current. This is
contrary to heat exchanger theory.
The Wilson and modified Wilson plot method correlates the overall thermal resistance
and Re in order to calculate the average overall heat transfer coefficient. Through the Wilson plot
method, an overall heat transfer coefficient for co-current and counter-current are calculated to
31
be 1386.26 and 1085.37 W/m2K respectively. The overall heat transfer coefficient using the
modified Wilson method is 1387.89 and 1317.97 W/m2K for co-current and counter-current
respectively. Similar to the heat and momentum correlation theory results, the Wilson and
modified Wilson method showed higher heat transfer coefficients for co-current flow. This is also
contrary to heat exchanger theory.
Upon analysis of the results, it is concluded that the experiment should be performed
again using recommendations stated above. This includes replacing thermocouples, insulating
the heat exchanger area, turbulent flow within both the shell and tube side, careful monitoring
of the water heater and increase number of experimental trails. This would allow for more
reliable data and analysis.
32
Recommendations
The shell and tube heat exchanger experiment provided hands on experience of a critical
industry process. There were no major incidents when performing the lab but the lab could have
been completed more efficiently. A common problem experienced was the water heater
consistently over heating resulting it to automatically shut off. Cold water then had to be bled
into the water heater so that it would cool down. The cool water in the water heater then had to
be heated up again. This process delayed the lab 25-30 minutes each time and prevented some
of the last trails in counter-current operation to be conducted. However, the problem could have
been avoided if higher flow rates in the shell and tube were use and consistent monitoring of the
temperature gauge on the water heater was done.
Another possible improvement could have been calibrating or replacing the
thermocouples prior to the preforming the experiment. It was discovered that some of the
temperature readings collected did not making logical sense upon analysis. In some of the trials,
the temperature in the shell increased after passing through the tube bundle. Thermocouple
error could be attributed to being in contact with the copper pipes or lack of accuracy to the
thermocouple itself. Replacing and correctly installing new thermocouples would improve the
data collected from the heat exchanger. Insulation should be provided to surround the heat
exchanger area around thermocouple 10. This would eliminate the significant temperature drop
and the need to omit its value during analysis.
Also, one of the pressure gauges was not properly calibrated to zero resulting in an
estimation of pressures and not certain values. The pressure gauge should be properly calibrated
to give more accurate data. In future experiments, data tables and the design space should be
constructed before preforming the lab. Experiment equipment should be calibrated and working
properly before the lab for more accurate results. The above improvements and plans will make
future experiments completed more efficiently and with more accurate data.
33
Design Extension
The objectives of the design extension are to determine which shell and tube heat
exchanger Buckeye Foods Inc. should select for optimum quality as well as minimizing cost. The
input and output temperatures of the heat exchanger are given: 25°C and 85°C for the cold water
input and output temperatures. The input temperature for the steam is 150°C for both co-
current and countercurrent flow. The output temperatures for co-current and counter current
flow are 100°C and 40°C respectively. The input steam pressure is 125 kPa and the maximum
pressure drop in the tube side is 200 Pa while the pressure drop for the shell side is assumed
negligible. The mass flow rate of water is 12,000 kg/hr.
Further objectives for the shell and tube heat exchanger are to determine which
combination of tube bundles, tube diameter, and length of heat exchanger will maximize the
overall heat transfer coefficient while trying to minimize the steam flow rate and area of the heat
exchanger. The possible choices for tube bundles are 400, 450, and 500 tubes. The possible
diameters are 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 inches. Finally, the possibilities for length of the heat
exchanger are 0.75, 1.25, and 1.75 meters.
The approach of this design extension is to iteratively solve for the tube bundle, diameter,
and length of the heat exchanger. In order to do this, an excel document is used that holds two
variables constant while varying the third until all possible combinations are documented. Once
all of the combinations are listed, the cross sectional surface area of each pipe is calculated. The
velocity is then determined using the mass flow rate per tube and dividing by the cross sectional
area of each tube. The velocity of water in a 0.2 inch diameter tube with a mass flow rate of
12,000 kg/hr and 400 tube bundle is 0.414 m/s.
With a known velocity, the Reynolds number is calculated from the density of water,
velocity, diameter, and viscosity.
QRS
Re = (C-2.1)
T
The density and viscosity of water at 25°C are 993 kg/m3and 6.95E-04 kg/m*s respectively (NIST,
2015). The velocities and diameters will vary amongst trials. For a diameter of 0.2 in and velocity
of 0.414 m/s, the Reynolds number is 3010.
34
The qualification of a pressure drop of less than 200 Pa is important to selection. The
pressure drop is found using the Moody friction factor (É). This friction factor is calculated from
the Reynolds number and the corresponding equations for laminar, intermediate, and turbulent
flows. An assumption of fully developed flow is used to access the necessary Moody equations
to calculate friction factor.
ÑÖ
Fully developed laminar flow (Re < 2100) : É = (C-4.1)
fG
Fully developed turbulent flow (2100 < Re < 20,000) : É = 0.316Re*>/Ö (C-4.2)
For the previously calculated Reynolds number of 3010, the fully developed turbulent flow
equation is used and the Moody friction factor is 4.27E-02. This friction factor is used to
determine the change in pressure and in this case the pressure drop across the tube side of the
heat exchanger.
ä: QR : å: QR :
ΔP = − ä9
âv = É å9
âã =É (ã8 − ã> ) (C-4.3)
8S 8S
The pressure drop of the 0.2 in diameter tube with a length of 0.75m and a tube bundle of 400
tubes is 536.34 Pa (Incropera, 2007).
The next step in the approach is to minimize the surface area of the heat exchanger which
will in turn determine the overall heat transfer coefficient. The surface area is the inner tube
surface area multiplied by the number of tubes. For a diameter of 0.2 inches, a length of 0.75 m
and a tube bundle of 400 tubes, the surface area of the heat exchanger is 4.788 m2. The flux of
the heat exchanger is modeled by the equation,
q = UA < ΔT >^k (C-4.4)
The area is known, the temperatures are known so in turn <ΔT>LM can be determined, but
the flux, q, is not known and is necessary to determine the overall heat transfer coefficient, U.
The flux can also be modeled by the equation,
q = t 6vu (1ì,î − 1ï,w ) (C-4.5)
where the mass flow rate t is 12,000 kg/hr, the specific heat capacity of water, Cp,w, at 25°C is
4.184 kJ/kg*K and the temperatures of cold output and input are 85°C and 25°C respectively.
The flux is then calculated to be 836.8 kW.
35
The <ΔT>LM can be calculated for co-current and counter current flows using the known
temperature inputs and outputs.
ñ' ^ *ñ'(ó)
< ΔT >^k = òp h (C-4.6)
mn [ ]
òp ô
For a co-current heat exchanger with cold input and output temperatures of 25°C and 85°C, along
with steam input and output temperatures of 150°C and 100°C, the <ΔT>LMcc is 51.88 K. Using
the <ΔT>LM along with the calculated areas and flux, the overall heat transfer coefficient is able
to be calculated. For a <ΔT>LM of 51.88 K, an area of 4.788 m2, and a flux of 836.8 kW, the overall
heat transfer coefficient Ucc for co-current flow is 3.369 kW/m2K.
The final requirement of choosing the appropriate heat exchanger is to minimize the
steam flow rate.
tö = 6vö (1b,w – 1ïcúù ) + ΔHRüä + 6vu (1ïcúù – 1b,c ) (C-4.7)
The specific heat capacity of steam, Cps, at 150°C is 2.0039 kJ/kg*K. The heat of vaporization,
ΔHvap, is 2257 kJ/kg. The specific heat capacity of water at 25°C is 4.184 kJ/kg*K. The
temperature that steam condenses, Tcond, is 99.6°C (NIST, 2015). The steam input and output
temperatures are used along with the NIST referenced values to determine the amount of steam
required. For co-current flow, using the temperatures of 150°C and 100°C, the steam required is
0.355 kg/s.
With all of the pressure drops calculated for each combination of tube bundle, diameter,
and length, the heat exchangers that do not meet the specifications, the ones with a pressure
drop of more than 200 Pa, are eliminated. Afterwards, the surface area of the heat exchanger
and the steam flow rates are analyzed. The smallest steam flow rate and surface area are the
desired objectives of the heat exchanger and all other combinations are then discarded.
The design extension is based on the experiment Group 13 performed that involves a
forced convection shell and tube heat exchanger. This heat exchanger can be operated in
different flow configurations and with different design specifications to achieve certain output
temperatures. A shell and tube heat exchanger runs a cold fluid through the tubes of the
apparatus and a hotter liquid through the shell side of the apparatus. The particular heat
exchanger being used in this extension varies the number of copper tubes. In this extension, the
36
two fluids being used are water and steam. The hotter fluid comes into contact with the tube
pipes as it flows and heat transfer occurs between the two fluids. The colder fluid gains heat and
the hotter fluid loses heat. Operation can occur in co-current or counter-current flow patterns.
In co-current flow, the tube and shell liquids flow in the same direction, however in counter-
current flow, the tube and shell liquids flow in opposite directions. These configurations lead to
different output temperatures and therefore different experimental results.
The summary of the results can be seen in Table 13 on the following page. These results
include the surface areas, steam requirements, and pressure drops, as well as overall heat
transfer coefficients. The results cover all of the distinct possibilities for tube bundle size,
diameter, and length of the heat exchanger. Calculation constants for the result table can be
found in Appendix G.
37
Table 13. Design Extension Iterations and Conclusions
38
From the results in Table 13, it can be seen that due to the maximum pressure drop of an
allowable 200 Pa, none of the heat exchangers with a diameter of 0.2 inches can be used. The
pressure drops in the 0.2 inch diameter heat exchanger range from 362.95 Pa to 1251.46 Pa
which is extremely high and over the limit. Consequently, all of the heat exchangers with a 0.2
inch diameter have a Reynolds number of over 2100. They range from 2400 to 3010, meaning
that the flow through the tubes is turbulent. For the diameters of 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5, the pressure
drop in the tube ranges from 5.48 Pa to 123.35 Pa. All of these pressure drops in the tube are
acceptable, and the corresponding Reynolds number for these diameters are less than 2100.
They range from 962 to 2000, meaning that the flow for these diameters is laminar. It can be
shown that only laminar flow tubes are acceptable for the maximum allowable pressure drop.
The next thing that is considered is the surface area. While minimizing surface area, it
can be seen that the heat exchanger with a diameter of 0.3 inches, a tube bundle of 400 tubes,
and length of 0.75 meters has the lowest surface area of 7.182 m2. Along with the lowest surface
area, the steam flow rate needs to be minimized. When referencing Table 13, it is seen that the
steam flow rate only changes with the direction of flow. In this case, a lower steam flow rate is
observed for the counter current heat exchanger with 0.321 kg/s as opposed to co-current steam
flow of 0.351 kg/s. Consequently, the counter current heat exchanger for the above specified
dimensions, has the largest overall heat transfer coefficient with 3.417 kW/m2K.
The recommendation for Buckeye Foods Inc. is to purchase the heat exchanger with 400
tubes in the tube bundle, a diameter of 0.3 inches, and a length of 0.75 meters using counter
current flow. This combination meets the specifications for the pressure drop, minimizing
surface area, and minimizing steam flow rate. The flow in the tube will be laminar. The pressure
drop in the tube is 52.86 Pa. The surface area is 7.182 m2 and the steam flow rate is 0.321 kg/s.
It also has the highest overall heat transfer coefficient of 3.417 kW/m2K. The heat flux does not
change throughout heat exchangers, but the overall heat transfer coefficient does. Along with
having the lowest surface area, the corresponding heat transfer coefficient is the largest and
most effective. This specific heat exchanger meets all of the specifications and completes all of
the objectives.
39
The importance of the design extension is to relate the shell and tube heat exchanger
experiment to industry and to scale-up the operation. In this case, determining which
combination of materials is the desired information. By calculating and minimizing the surface
area and steam flow rate, this will reduce the amount of material needed, in this instance copper
and steam. Limiting the amounts of these materials will reduce cost and therefore save Buckeye
Foods Inc. money. Along with these calculations the heat exchanger needs to be the most
effective in order to get the optimal results for the amount of money spent. This will increase
overall profit. In this case, the highest overall heat transfer coefficient is desired which is why
the counter current heat exchanger is chosen.
40
Notation
English Symbols:
A Surface area of tubes m2
Acs Cross sectional area of tube m2
Ai The wetted surface area on the inside of a copper tube m2
Ao The wetted surface area on the outside of the copper tube m2
C1 Wilson method constant K/W
C2 Wilson method constant K/W
Cp,s Specific heat capacity of steam kJ/kg*K
Cp,w Specific heat of water J/kg*K
Cmin Minimum flow rate gal/min
Cr Flow rate ratio (min/max) Dimensionless
D Diameter m
Di Inner tube diameter m
Do Outer tube diameter m
De Did you catch this y/n Dimensionless
E Efficiency of heat exchanger Dimensionless
Fi Tube flow rate gal/min
Fo Shell flow rate gal/min
4 Moody friction factor Dimensionless
ΔHvap Heat of vaporization of water kJ/kg
hi Convective heat transfer coefficient on the inner tube surface W/m2*K
ho Convective heat transfer coefficient on the outer tube surface W/m2*K
k Thermal conductivity of water W/m*K
L Length m
m Wilson constant Dimensionless
mi Tube mass flow rate kg/s
mo Shell mass flow rate kg/s
<w Mass flow rate of water kg/hr
<s,cc Mass flow rate of steam in co-current kg/s
<s,xc Mass flow rate of steam in counter-current kg/s
n Sample size Dimensionless
Nu Nusselt number Dimensionless
NTU Number of Transfer Units Dimensionless
ΔP Pressure drop in tube Pa
Pr Prandtl number Dimensionless
q Heat flux kW/m2
qavg Average heat flux kW/m2
qshell Heat flux (outer tube side) kW/m2
qtube Heat flux (inner tube side) kW/m2
Rf,i Inner fouling resistance K/W
Rf,o Outer fouling resistance K/W
41
Rov Overall thermal resistance K*m2/kW
Rt Tube resistance K/W
Re Reynolds number Dimensionless
Tcond Temperature that steam condenses K
Tc,i Temperature of cold water input K
Tc,o Temperature of cold water output K
Th,i Temperature of hot water input K
Th,o,cc Temperature of hot water output for co-current K
Th,o,xc Temperature of hot water output for counter-current K
Ti Inner tube temperature K
To Outer tube temperature K
TS,i Temperature of water at shell input K
TS,o Temperature of water at shell output K
TT,i Temperature of water at tube input K
TT,o Temperature of water at tube output K
ΔTLM Log mean temperature difference K
<ΔT>LM,cc Log mean temperature difference for co-current K
<ΔT>LM,xc Log mean temperature difference for counter-current K
U Overall heat transfer coefficient W/m2*K
Ucc Overall heat transfer coefficient for co-current kW/m2*K
Uxc Overall heat transfer coefficient for counter-current kW/m2*K
v Fluid velocity in a single tube m/s
O Statisical mean various
zα/2 Confidence coefficient Dimensionless
Greek Symbols:
ρ Density of water kg/m3
µ Viscosity of water kg/m*s
σ Standard deviation various
ϵ Effectiveness of heat exchanger Dimensionless
42
Literature Cited
[1] Fernandez-Seara, Jose. "A General Review of the Wilson Plot Method and Its Modifications
to Determine Convection Coefficients in Heat Exchange Devices." Applied Thermal Engineering
(2006). Science Direct. Web. <http://fafnir.rose-
hulman.edu/~richards/courses/me462/ME462_Spring_2007-2008/Wilson_plot_method.pdf>.
[2] Fernández-Seara, José, Francisco José Uhía, Jaime Sieres, and Antonio Campo. "Experimental
Apparatus for Measuring Heat Transfer Coefficients by the Wilson Plot Method." European
Journal of Physics (2005): N1-N11. Print.
[3] "Correlations for Convective Heat Transfer." Chemical Engineering, The Chemical Engineers'
Resource Page, Distillation, Heat Transfer, Design, Spreadsheet Solutions, Departments,
Chemistry. Web.16 June 2010. <http://www.cheresources.com/convection.shtml>.
[4] Incropera, Frank P. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley,
2007. Print.
[5] E.W. Lemmon, M.O. McLinden and D.G. Friend,"Thermophysical Properties of Fluid
Systems" in NIST Chemistry WebBook, NIST Standard Reference Database Number 69, Eds. P.J.
Linstrom and W.G. Mallard, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg MD,
20899, http://webbook.nist.gov, (retrieved February 13, 2015)
[6] Denney, Michael. Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger Operating Procedure. Ohio State U, 2015.
Print.
[7] "ChBE 521 Heat Exchangers." OSU Carmen. John Clay. Web. 1 Feb. 2015.
[8] Bott, Theodore. "Fouling of Heat Exchangers." Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing. Vol. 10.
Birmingham: Taylor & Francis, 2006. 1043-1052. Print.
43
Appendix A - Preliminary Preperation Assignment
Experiment Introduction
The experiment being performed involves a forced convection shell and tube heat exchanger. This heat
exchanger can be operated in different flow configurations and at different flow rates to achieve certain
output temperatures. Operation can occur in co-current or counter-current flow patterns. These
configurations will lead to different output temperatures and therefore different experimental results.
The flow rates will also be varied throughout the experiment reaching a maximum of 10 GPM and 6.6
GPM for the shell and tube sides respectively. These parameters will be changed over the course of the
experiment in order to evaluate the shell and tube heat exchanger performance. Results obtained will
include the shell and tube side flow rates, all thermocouple readings, and tube and shell side pressure
readings. In order to evaluate this performance, the effectiveness, overall heat transfer coefficient, and
inner and outer convective heat transfer coefficients will be calculated for both co-current and counter-
current configurations. Enough data must be collected in order to accurately evaluate the performance
indicators mentioned above. It is suggested that ten to twenty data points be acquired for each
configuration. The data may then be analyzed using five different methods. These methods include
Wilson Plot Method, Modified Wilson Plot Method, Heat and Momentum Transfer Correlations,
Effectiveness-NTU Method, and producing plots of the temperature profiles. Each method has different
theories, assumptions, and analytical procedures that need to be examined and used effectively by
referring to the referenced literature.
Safety Hazards and Precautions

1) Hot pipes and hot water leaks
- Do not touch apparatus without thermal gloves
2) Falling objects
- Wear hard hat and closed toed shoes
3) Slippery conditions from leaks in equipment
- Wear closed toed shoes with good traction
- Clean up leaks immediately
4) Pressure build up in tubes
- Be familiar with procedure to avoid errors in valve openings and closings that could cause
pressure build up
44
- Wear safety glasses, hard hat, closed toed shoes, long pants and shirt to avoid leaks or pipes
bursting to due pressure
5) Overheating the heater
- Alarm will sound
- Do not run heater for extended period of time without running cold water through cold
tube side
Informative Flow Sheet

See attached carbon paper sheet for experiment flow visual.
Experimental Plan
I. Sequence of Operations
• The document E-2 Shell and Tube HX Operating Procedure 2014 will be frequently
referenced. It is recommended to bring a copy of this document to the laboratory.
• Follow the tube side operation procedure in order to successfully begin water flow through
the tube side of the heat exchanger.
o Initially set the flow rate to 2.0 GPM
o Do not let the flow rate exceed 6.6 GPM
• Follow the shell side operation procedure in order to fill the shell side and remove all air
within the system.
o Assure that there are no bubbles within the flowmeter
o Set shell side pressure to 25 psi by slowly bleeding off pressure with the drain or
purge valve
• Follow the co-current operation procedure to set the HX in the co-current position
o Adjust shell side flow rate to 7 GPM
o Do not let the flow rate exceed 10 GPM
• Complete the following set of adjustments to the tube side flow rate
o Set the flow rate to the following set of points. Wait for steady state to be achieved
and collect consistent shell side flow rates, tube side flow rates, all thermocouple
readings, tube side pressure readings, and hell side pressure readings.
o 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, 6.5 (GPM)
45
• To analyze unsteady state flow change in the co-current configuration the tube side flow
rate to 1 GPM and the shell side flow rate to 3.5 GPM
• Follow the counter-current operation procedure to set the HX in the counter-current
position
o Adjust shell side flow rate to 7 GPM
o Do not let the flow rate exceed 10 GPM
o Keep the flow rate above 2 GPM
• Complete the following set of adjustments to the tube side flow rate
o Set the flow rate to the following set of points. Wait for steady state to be achieved
and collect consistent shell side flow rates, tube side flow rates, all thermocouple
readings, tube side pressure readings, and hell side pressure readings.
o 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, 6.5 (GPM)
• To analyze unsteady state flow change in the counter-current configuration the tube side
flow rate to 1 GPM and the shell side flow rate to 3.5 GPM
• Complete the proper shut-down procedure with draining water in the shell side
II. Responsibility Assignments

Group Leader: Conor Hughes is responsible for managing all aspects of the experiment including
planning, preparation, execution, analysis, design (or other extension of the data), and report
preparation and delivery. He is responsible for mitigating any internal issues.
Design Engineer: Drew Short is responsible for the design extension portion of the laboratory.
He must familiarize himself with the equipment in order to complete this task.
Operations Engineer: Kyle Hofacre is responsible for preparing excel spreadsheets and a
laboratory notebook prior to the lab. He is also responsible for recording all data taken during
the experiment and creating the corresponding graphs.
Development Engineer: Scott Reinhart is responsible for completing data analysis. This includes
statistical comparisons and applying theoretical knowledge to the data set.
46
Quality Engineer: Hussein Alkhatib is a support to Conor Hughes, the group leader. He is
responsible for helping with any assistance needed. Also he is responsible for managing the
transition to a new experiment.
III. Prepared Data Sheets

Data spreadsheets are prepared in an Excel format.
IV. Material Supply Checklist

• Hampden Model H-6850-40 Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger
o 112 Copper Tubes
§ Inner Tube Diameter = 0.21 in
§ Tube Thickness = 0.02 in
§ Tube Length = 14 in
• Flat head screw driver to release air through “bleed air out” valve
• Inlet city water for hot and cold inlets
• Thermal gloves
V. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

• Hard hat
• Safety goggles/glasses
• Closed-toed shoes
• Long pants and shirt
• Thermal gloves when operating valves
Experiment Permission Form

See attached form.
47
Appendix B – Experimental Summary Report
Experiment Summary Report

Experiment No. 2
SHELL & TUBE HEAT EXCHANGER
The Ohio State University Chemical Engineering Unit Operations

Spring 2015
Group 13
Group Leader – Conor Hughes X
Operations Engineer – Kyle Hofacre X
Design Engineer – Drew Short X
Development Engineer – Scott Reinhart X
Quality Engineer – Hussein Alkhatib X
TA: Michael Denney
48
Experimental Observation
Many observations and conclusions can be made from a preliminary assessment of the data
acquired in the shell and tube heat exchanger lab. The temperature profiles were graphed for co-
current and counter-current operation as well as unsteady state operation. It was expected that
these graphs would look like Figure 1 in the lab procedure document, however they deviated from
the expected shape. Both graphs followed expected trends for the shell side, but did not for the
tube side. It can be hypothesized that this is due to the location of the thermocouples and the lack
of insulation on either side of the tubes. The non-steady state temperature profile appeared as
expected with temperatures fluctuating with time. The heat fluxes were also calculated for every
trial. For the most part these appeared as expected with higher values of heat flux for counter-
current flow as compared to co-current flow. However, the last two trials for co-current flow had
heat flux values of zero. This is not possible, as the tube exit temperature of water would have to
be higher than the shell entering temperature of water. It was concluded that this must have been
the result of faulty thermocouple readings. These preliminary observations may or may not be
validated by further exploration into error analysis.
Experiment Difficulties
Several difficulties were experienced when preforming the shell and tube heat exchanger lab. The
most prominent problem was the water heater overheating. When low flow rates were being
tested, the water heater tended to reach higher temperatures causing it to overheat. There were
also periods of time when the group was distracted from the lab and the water heater would over
heat. Restarting the water heater required it to cool down and then heat back up again to perform
the next trail. This series of events took up to a half hour causing the lab to go longer than needed.
Also, valves were noticed leaking but it was determined that the leaks would not have a significant
impact on the lab. Another difficulty in lab was the pressure gauge on the left shell side of the heat
exchanger was not properly calibrated to zero. However, the gauge worked properly after
subtracting approximately three psi off the pressure reading. Trails for the lab were randomly
selected at various flow rates. The target flow rates varied on the meter so an average was
determined and a plus or minus factor were taken into account when recording.
49
Experimental Raw Data
Material'Parameters: Number'of'Tubes 112 tubes Intermediate'Data: Water'Density 1000 kg/m^3 Gallon'>>'m^3 0
Inner'Tube'Diameter 0.21 inches Thermal'Conductivity
0.65 W/m*K in'>>'m 0.03
Thickness'of'Tube 0.02 inches Specific'Heat 4.18 J/g*K min'>>'s 0.02
Tube'Length 14 inches Viscosity 0 kg/m*s
μ b /μ w 1
Co-Current Flow
Thermocouple+Readings+(°C)
Flow+Rate+(GPM) Pressure+(psi) Tube+Side Shell+Side
Tube% Tube% Shell% Shell%
Run%# Time Shell%Side Tube%Side Left Right Left** Right #1 #2 #3 #4 #10 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9
1 9:01 2.16 6.50 40 44 29 30 12.78 41.67 43.33 43.89 23.33 76.11 65.00 52.78 49.44 44.44
2 9:14 3.02 6.00 42 46 29 28 12.78 43.33 45.00 46.11 24.44 70.56 63.33 53.89 51.11 47.22
3 9:21 4.01 5.50 44 48 29 27 12.78 44.44 45.56 47.78 25.56 66.11 61.67 54.44 52.22 48.89
4 9:28 9.54 6.00 42 46 29 28 13.33 42.22 43.89 45.56 25.00 56.67 54.44 52.22 51.11 49.44
5 9:35 8.08 3.52 49.5 52 29 28.5 13.33 48.33 49.44 52.78 32.78 61.67 59.44 56.67 55.56 53.33
6 9:41 8.50 5.53 44 46 29 28 13.33 43.89 45.00 47.22 26.11 58.89 56.67 53.33 52.78 50.56
7 9:47 7.05 4.50 46.5 50 29 28 13.33 45.56 47.22 50.00 28.89 61.11 58.33 55.00 53.89 51.67
8 10:38 5.62 4.59 46 50 28 27.5 14.44 47.22 48.33 51.11 30.00 64.44 61.11 56.67 55.00 52.22
9 10:44 5.53 4.02 48 50 28 27.5 14.44 49.44 50.00 52.78 32.22 67.78 63.89 58.33 56.67 53.33
10 10:50 9.47 3.00 50 52 30 29 15.00 53.33 53.33 57.22 37.78 64.44 62.78 60.00 59.44 57.22
11 11:24 3.30 3.75 48 52 26.5 26.5 15.00 47.78 48.33 51.11 31.67 70.00 64.44 57.78 53.89 50.00
50
Heat) Calibrated*Flow*
Flux) Rate* Tube)
Nu (kW/m^ Shell) Tube) Velocity)
Re Pr ψ (Re)<)2030) h ΔT L ΔT 0 ΔT LM 3) Side Side (m/s)
1408.57 3.22 4.08 9.11 1117.68 0.56 63.33 13.25 14.81 2.43 6.29 0.1331
1301.82 3.22 3.98 8.88 1088.70 1.11 57.78 14.34 15.61 3.31 5.81 0.1230
1195.07 3.22 3.86 8.63 1058.09 1.11 53.33 13.49 14.27 4.32 5.34 0.1129
1301.82 3.22 3.98 8.88 1088.70 3.89 43.33 16.36 17.81 9.99 5.81 0.1230
772.34 3.22 3.34 7.46 914.80 0.56 48.33 10.70 9.79 8.49 3.45 0.0730
1201.48 3.22 3.87 8.64 1059.98 3.33 45.56 16.15 17.11 8.92 5.36 0.1135
981.57 3.22 3.62 8.08 990.91 1.67 47.78 13.74 13.62 7.44 4.38 0.0927
1000.79 3.22 3.64 8.13 997.33 1.11 50.00 12.84 12.81 5.97 4.47 0.0946
879.09 3.22 3.49 7.79 955.15 0.56 53.33 11.56 11.04 5.88 3.92 0.0831
661.32 3.22 3.17 7.08 868.69 0.00 49.44 0.00 0.00 9.91 2.95 0.0625
821.45 3.22 3.41 7.61 933.79 A1.11 55.00 0.00 0.00 3.59 3.67 0.0776
Counter-Current Flow
Thermocouple%Readings%(°C)
Flow%Rate%(GPM) Pressure%(psi) Tube%Side Shell%Side
Run%# Time Shell%Side Tube%Side Tube%LeftTube%RightShell%Left Shell%Right #1 #2 #3 #4 #10 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9

1 11:42 9.08 5.97 42 44 29.5 27.5 15.00 40.56 45.00 47.22 26.67 48.33 51.11 53.89 55.00 56.67
2 11:47 7.08 3.56 49 52 29.5 27 15.00 46.67 50.00 55.00 34.44 52.22 55.56 59.44 60.56 62.78
3 12:24 5.56 5.48 44 46 28 25.5 14.44 40.56 45.00 48.33 27.22 47.22 51.11 55.56 57.22 60.00
4 12:32 3.05 6.01 42 45 28 25 14.44 37.78 44.44 47.78 26.11 43.33 50.00 57.78 62.22 66.67
5 12:38 6.11 4.49 46 50 28.5 25.75 14.44 43.33 47.22 51.67 30.00 49.44 53.33 57.22 58.89 61.67
6 12:44 8.04 4.48 46 48 28.5 26.25 14.44 42.22 46.67 50.00 28.89 49.44 52.78 55.56 56.67 58.89
7 12:50 5.04 4.08 48 50 28 25.5 14.44 43.33 48.33 52.78 31.67 49.44 53.89 58.33 60.56 63.89
8 12:56 9.03 3.02 50 52 29 27 14.44 48.89 52.22 57.22 37.22 54.44 56.67 60.00 60.56 62.78
51
Heat)
Flux) Calibrated*Flow*Rate*
Nu (kW/m^ Shell) Tube) Tube)
Re Pr ψ (Re)<)2030) h ΔT L ΔT 0 ΔT LM 3) Side Side Velocity
1295.42 3.22 3.97 8.86 1086.91 9.44 33.33 18.94 20.59 9.52 5.78 0.1224
780.88 3.22 3.35 7.49 918.16 7.78 37.22 18.81 17.27 7.47 3.49 0.0738
1190.80 3.22 3.86 8.62 1056.83 11.67 32.78 20.44 21.60 5.91 5.32 0.1125
1303.96 3.22 3.98 8.88 1089.30 18.89 28.89 23.54 25.64 3.34 5.82 0.1232
979.44 3.22 3.62 8.07 990.19 10.00 35.00 19.96 19.76 6.47 4.37 0.0925
977.30 3.22 3.61 8.07 989.47 8.89 35.00 19.05 18.85 8.45 4.36 0.0923
891.90 3.22 3.51 7.82 959.76 11.11 35.00 20.82 19.98 5.38 3.98 0.0843
665.59 3.22 3.18 7.10 870.55 5.56 40.00 17.45 15.19 9.46 2.97 0.0629
Non-Steady State
Time Tube Shell
0 121 137
10 127 140
20 130 141
30 132 143
40 133 144
50 135 146
60 138 147
70 139 149
80 140 150
90 142 151
100 143 152
110 144 153
120 145 155
52
Temperature Profiles
Figure 1. Temperature profile for run 3 of co-current operation
Figure 2. Temperature profile for run 3 of countercurrent operation
53
Figure 3. Temperature profile non-steady state operation
54
Appendix C – Report Formulas
#$ ∗('$,) *'$,+ )
!= (C-1.1)
#-+. ∗('/,+ *'$,+ )
9
* =*>
012 = − 1 + 67 8 : ;< (C-1.2)
=?>
A
*(>?#B)
@= :
(C-1.3)
(>?#B : )9/:
#-+. ∗H'I
2DEFG = (C-1.4)
JKLMN
#-+.
67 = (C-1.5)
#-OP

STU+
QR = (C-2.1)
V
#X,Y V
W7 = (C-2.2)
Z
U+ >/a
0[ = 1.953 QRW7 (C-2.3)
`
b+ U+
0[ = (C-2.4)
Z
'e,) *'e,+ *('f,) *'f,+ )

∆1`d = fe,) ife,+
(C-2.5)
gh
(ff,) iff,+ )
∆'kl > >

QjT = = + (C-2.6)
m b) J) b+ J+
p q.a∗>ris S(') *'+ )#X,Y

no = (C-2.7)
(>>8)(>rrr)tU+ `
>
2u ' = 9 9 (C-2.8)
?
/) v) /+ v+
Wilson/Modified Wilson Plot Method

>
QjT = 6> + 68 (C-3.1)
wG -
>
ℎj = (C-3.2)
#9 ∗J)
55
(wGOz{ )-
ℎo = (C-3.3)
#: J+
>
2= 9 9 (C-3.4)
[ ? ]J
/+ v+ /) v) f
> >
ln = ln + Ä ∗ ;<(QR) (C-3.5)
w)z *#9 #:
Experiment Design Extension

qÇ
Fully developed laminar flow (Re < 2100): Å = (C-4.1)
wG
Fully developed turbulent flow (2100 < Re < 20,000): Å = 0.316Re*>/Ç (C-4.2)
ã: ST : ç: ST :
ΔP = − ã9
âä = Å ç9
âå =Å (å8 − å> ) (C-4.3)
8U 8U
q = UA < ΔT >`d (C-4.4)

q = Ä 6äî (1ï,ñ − 1ó,o ) (C-4.5)
ò' ` *ò'(r)
< ΔT >`d = ôf k (C-4.6)
gh [ ]
ôf ö
Äõ = 6äõ (1b,o – 1ójùû ) + ΔHT†ã + 6äî (1ójùû – 1b,j ) (C-4.7)
Error Analysis
ç
å= (C-5.1)
ù
(ç*ç):
°= (C-5.2)
ù*>
¶
6¢ = å ± §•/8 ∗ (C-5.3)
ù
56
Appendix D – Sample Calculations
Calculating Heat Capacity Rates
ß® ¨
Ä = 10 6ã = 4180
© ß® ≠
ß® ¨ Æ
6ó = 10 ∗ 4180 = 41800
© ß® ≠ ≠
ß® ¨
Ä=8 6ã = 4180
© ß® ≠
ß® ¨ Æ
6Øoù = 8 ∗ 4180 = 33440
© ß® ≠ ≠
Calculating Effectiveness:
1ó,j = 296.48≠ 1ó,o = 285.93≠ 1b,o = 349.29≠
Æ
41800 ∗ (296.48≠ − 285.93≠)
!= ≠ = .21
Æ
33440 ∗ (349.29≠ − 285.93≠)
≠
Æ
33440
67 = ≠ = .8
Æ
41800
≠
Calculating Efficiency:
2
− (1 + .21)
@ = . 21 = 8.14
(1 +. 218 )>/8
Calculating Number of Transfer Units (NTU):

*
> 8.14−1
012 = − 1 +. 218 8 ;< = .25
8.14 + 1

Calculated Reynolds number:
989.83 ß® Ä .0254 Ä
∗ .15 ∗ .21 ±< ∗
Ä a © ±<
QR = = 1327.71
ß®
. 00058
Ä∗©
57
Calculated Prandtl number:
¨ ß®
4066 ∗ 0.00058
ß® ∗ ≠ Ä∗©
Pr = = 3.69 ([<±¥;R©©)
Æ
0.63842
Ä∗≠
Calculated Nusselt number:
1327.71 ∗ 3.69 ∗ .21 ±< >
0[ = 1.953 ∗ ( )a = 8.18
14 ±<
Calculated convective heat transfer coefficient (inner):

Æ
8.18 ∗ 0.63842
ℎo = Ä ∗ ≠ = 979.32 Æ
Ä Ä8 ≠
. 21 ±< ∗ .0254
±<
Calculated convective heat transfer coefficient (outer):

> º
ℎj = ö.∏π -:
= −1529.13
r.rrrµq8
∂
* Ø: Ω
∑ π∏π.∫: ∑ ∗ö.ª∏ -:
-: ∂
Wilson/Modified Wilson Plot Method
Physical properties of water at 45 oC:
ß® Æ ¨ ß®
æ = 989.83 ß = .6384 6ã = 4066 ø = .00058
Äa Ä∗≠ ß® ∗ ≠ Ä∗©
Physical properties of tube and shell side:
¿o = .21 ±< ¿j = .25 ±< uo = .67 Äa uj = .79 Äa ¡ = 14 ±<
Collected data from counter-current run #1:
®√; ®√;
¬o = 5.78 ¬j = 9.52
Ä±< Ä±<
1b,o = 329.82 ≠ 1b,j = 321.48 ≠ 1ó,o = 288.15 ≠ 1ó,j = 320.37 ≠
Calculated mass flow rate:
5.78®√; . 0038 Äa . 0167 Ä±< 989.83 ß® ß® ß®

Äo = ∗ ∗ ∗ = .36 Äj = .60
Ä±< ®√; ©Rƒ Äa ©Rƒ ©Rƒ
58
Calculated tube velocity:
5.78 ®√; . 0038 Äa . 0167 Ä±<
∗ ∗ Ä
Ä±< ®√; ©Rƒ
≈= = .15
.0254 Ä ©
. 21 ±< ∗
(∆ ∗ ( ±< )8 ∗ 112 ¥[«R)
2
Calculated tube and shell heat flow:
.36 ß® 4066 ¨
nDEFG = ∗ 320.37≠ − 288.15≠ = 47319.81 Æ nõbG»» = 20133.71 Æ
©Rƒ ß® ∗ ≠
Calculated average heat flow:

12632.31 Æ + 48844.93 Æ
n†T… = = 33726.76 Æ
2
Calculated log mean temperature:
329.82 ≠ − 320.37 ≠ − (321.48 ≠ − 288.15 ≠)

∆1`d = = 18.94 ≠
329.82 ≠ − 320.37 ≠
ln [ ]
321.48 ≠ − 288.15 ≠
Calculated overall resistance:

18.94 ≠ ≠
QjT = = .00062
30738.62 Æ Æ
Calculated Reynolds number:
π π. ∫ À{ - .ö:sÕ -
∗ .>µ ∗ .8> où∗
-∫ Ã +.
QR = À{ = 1327.71
.rrrµŒ
-∗Ã
>
Calculated :
wG -
> >
= = 0.0032
wG - >a8œ.œ>.
Wilson plot constants (linear regression):
Ω Ω
68 = .055 6> = .0004
º º
Calculated local heat transfer coefficient for outer tube:
1 Æ
ℎj = = 3146.56
≠ ≠ ∗ Ä8
. 0004 ∗ .79 Ä8
Æ
59
Calculated local heat transfer coefficient for inner tube:
8.65 Æ
ℎo = = 8170.52
≠ ≠ ∗ Ä8
. 055 ∗ .67 Ä8
Æ
Calculated overall heat transfer coefficient:
> º
2= = 1085.37
Ω∗Ø:
9 9
∑ ? ∑ ∗[.œ– Ø: ?.qœ Ø: ]
9∏ö.s: : ∗.ª∏ -: ∫9Õª.sª ∗.∏π -:
∂∗- ∂∗-:
Experiment Design Extension

Calculating velocity in a single tube:
0.2±< 2.54ƒÄ 1Ä 1
uóõ = π( x x x )8 = 2.03 x 10*µ Ä8
1 1±< 2.54ƒÄ 2
12,000ß® Äa 1 1ℎ7 1
v = x x 8
x x = 0.414 m/s
ℎ7 993ß® (∆/4)(0.00508Ä) 3600© 400 ¥[«R©
Calculating pressure drop in the tube:
0.414Ä
(993ß®/Äa )( )(0.00508Ä)
Re = © = 3.01 x 10a
10*ÇZ…
6.95 å
Ä−©
64
Å = = 3.19 x 10*8
2000
Å = 0.316(3010)*>/Ç = 4.27 x 10*8
0.414Ä 8
ã:
æ≈ 8 ç: (993ß®/Äa )( )
ΔP = − âä = Å âå = 4.27 x 10*8 © (0.75m − 0m)
ã9 2¿ ç9 2(0.00508)
= 536.34 Pa
Calculating overall heat transfer coefficient:

0.2±< 2.54ƒÄ 1Ä
u=∆ x x ) x 0.75m x 400 tubes = 4.788Ä8
1 1±< 2.54ƒÄ
(373.15≠ − 358.15≠) − (423.15≠ − 298.15≠)
< ΔT >`d = = 51.88K
(373.15≠ − 358.15≠)
ln [ ]
(423.15≠ − 298.15≠)
60
12,000ß® 1ℎ7
n= å å (4.184 kJ/kg ∗ K)(358.15K – 298.15K) = 836.8 kW
ℎ7 3600©
836.8 ßÆ
2= = 3.369 kW/Ä8 K
(4.788Ä^2)(51.88≠)
Calculating steam flow rate:

Äõ = 2.0039 kJ/kg ∗ K(423.15K – 372.75K) + 2257 kJ/kg + 4.184 kJ/kg
∗ K(372.75K – 373.15K) = 0.355 kg/s
Error Analysis
Calculating confidence interval:
Æ
Æ 61.85 8
6¢ = 836.36 8 ± 1.96 ∗ Ä ∗≠
Ä ∗≠ 8
Æ Æ
6¢ = 836.36 8 ± 42.86 8
Ä ∗≠ Ä ∗≠
61
Appendix E – MATLAB Code
Co-Current Operation (Wilson Plot)

clear all
clc
%For co-current operations
Rov = [0.0003831
0.0004170
0.0004068
0.0004968
0.0004075
0.0004965
0.0004687
0.0004272
0.0003870
0.0004088
0.0005044
0.0004919
0.0005403
0.0005391
0.0004841
0.0004787]';
%enters Rov data
Re = [1443.69
1334.28
1224.86
1334.28
791.60
1231.43
1006.04
1025.74
901.01
2428.39
1809.12
1809.12
2428.39
2428.39
1809.12
2428.39]';
%Enters Re data
62
j=1; %creates index variable j
for i = 0.01:.01:1
p = polyfit(1./(Re.î),Rov,1); %linearly regresses orginal

Wilson equation
yfit = polyval(p,1./(Re.î)); %applies statistics to find
Rsquared values
ymean = mean(Rov);
SSR = sum((yfit-ymean).^2);
SST = sum((Rov-ymean).^2);
m = polyfit(log(Re),log(1./(Rov-p(2))),1);
%linearly regresses modified wilson equation
if(p(2)>=0) %condition assuring that C1 is positive

diff(j,1) = abs(m(1)-i); %finds the absolute value between the
two m values
diff(j,3) = i; %places the applied m value in an array
diff(j,2) = SSR/SST; %calculates Rsquared and places it in array
j=j+1;
end
end
[a b] = min(diff(:,1)); %finds the minimum difference
figure %plots Difference vs M valuse

hold on
plot(diff(:,3),diff(:,1));
title('Optimization of m for Co-Current Operations')
ylabel('Difference (between m original and calculated)')
xlabel('m values')
hold off
fprintf('Optimized m value: \n m = %2.2f \n RSquared = %2.2f

\n', diff(b,3), diff(b,2))
%reports optimal value
63
Counter-Current Operation (Wilson Plot)
clear all
clc
%For counter current operations
Rov = [0.000562
0.000679
0.000630
0.000682
0.000650
0.000639
0.000712
0.000667
0.000465
0.000496
0.000560
0.000550
0.000566
0.000544
0.000570]';
%enters Rov data
Re = [1327.71
800.35
1220.49
1336.46
1003.85
1001.67
914.14
682.19
2428.39
2428.39
2428.39
1809.12
2428.39
1809.12
1809.12]';
%Enters Re data
j=1; %creates index variable j
for i = 0.01:.01:1
64
p = polyfit(1./(Re.î),Rov,1); %linearly regresses orginal
Wilson equation
yfit = polyval(p,1./(Re.î)); %applies statistics to find
Rsquared values
ymean = mean(Rov);
SSR = sum((yfit-ymean).^2);
SST = sum((Rov-ymean).^2);
m = polyfit(log(Re),log(1./(Rov-p(2))),1);
%linearly regresses modified wilson equation
if(p(2)>=0) %condition assuring that C1 is positive

diff(j,1) = abs(m(1)-i); %finds the absolute value between the
two m values
diff(j,3) = i; %places the applied m value in an array
diff(j,2) = SSR/SST; %calculates Rsquared and places it in array
j=j+1;
end
end
[a b] = min(diff(:,1)); %finds the minimum difference
figure %plots Difference vs M valuse

hold on
plot(diff(:,3),diff(:,1));
title('Optimization of m for Counter-Current Operations')
ylabel('Difference (between m original and calculated)')
xlabel('m values')
hold off
fprintf('Optimized m value: \n m = %2.2f \n RSquared = %2.2f

\n', diff(b,3), diff(b,2))
%reports optimal value
65
NTU 3D Scatter Plot
clear all
clc
X=[9.52
7.47
5.91
3.34
6.47
8.45
5.38
9.46
9.95
10.11
7.54
2.80
5.14
2.84
5.15]' %shellside
Y=[5.78
3.49
5.32
5.82
4.37
4.36
3.98
2.97
10.11
10.11
10.15
7.92
10.14
7.87
7.84]' %tubeside
Z=[0.28
0.406976744
0.280487805
0.223404255
0.329411765
0.325
0.348314607
0.471264368
0.188403908
0.187535285
66
0.237068511
0.434219315
0.312662801
0.428403161
0.288942299]'
figure
scatter3(X,Y,Z)
grid on
xlabel('Shell Side Flow Rates (gpm)')
ylabel('Tube Side Flow Rates (gpm)')
zlabel('Effectiveness')
title('Optimal Flow Rates for Counter-Current Operation')
legend('Trials','Location','ne')
67
Co/Counter-Current Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient vs. Flow Rates
clc
clear all
X1=[2.43
3.31
4.32
9.99
8.49
8.92
7.44
5.97
5.88
5.16
7.55
9.95
2.78
2.78
9.95
7.55]' %shellside
Y1=[6.29
5.81
5.34
5.81
3.45
5.36
4.38
4.47
3.92
10.58
7.88
7.88
10.58
10.58
7.88
10.58]' %tubeside
Z1=[1418.54
1303.45
1335.89
1093.95
1333.57
1094.52
1159.51
1272.28
1404.49
68
1329.33
1077.45
1104.80
1005.85
1008.14
1122.65
1135.26]' %Coefficients
X2=[9.52
7.47
5.91
3.34
6.47
8.45
5.38
9.46
9.95
7.55
2.78
5.16
2.78
5.16
5.16]' %shellside
Y2=[5.78
3.49
5.32
5.82
4.37
4.36
3.98
2.97
10.58
10.58
10.58
7.88
10.58
7.88
7.88]' %tubeside
Z2=[967.66
800.79
863.25
797.29
836.32
850.89
763.27
69
814.57
1169.57
1094.97
970.10
988.68
959.87
999.32
952.95]' %Coefficients
figure
hold on
scatter3(X1,Y1,Z1,'filled')
scatter3(X2,Y2,Z2,'filled','markerfacecolor',[1 0 0])
hold off
grid on
xlabel('Shell Side Flow Rates (gpm)')
ylabel('Tube Side Flow Rates (gpm)')
zlabel('Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient (W/m^2*K)')
title('Optimal Flow Rates for Co/Counter-Current Operation')
legend('Co-Current','Counter-Current','Location','ne')
70
Appendix F – Calibration Curves
Shell Side Calibration Co/Countercurrent
y = 1.0243x + 0.2145
Calibrated Flowrate (GPM)
Measured Flowrate (GPM)

Figure 16. Shell Side Flowrate Calibration Curve
Figure 17. Tube Side Flowrate Calibration Curve
71
Appendix G – Additional Data
Co-Current and Counter-Current Operation Temperature Profiles
72
73
74
75
76
77
Table of Parameters and Constants
Table 14. Calculation Constants and Properties
Table 15. Design Extension Constants
78
Experiment Time Log
Table 16. Operation Time Log
79

Heat Exchanger Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heat Exchanger Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Ohio State University

Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering

Date Due: Date Submitted:

Experiment Description .................................................................................................................. 5

Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................... 9

Temperature Profiles ................................................................................................................ 10

Effectiveness-NTU Method ....................................................................................................... 14

Heat and Momentum Transfer Correlation .............................................................................. 18

Wilson Plot Method .................................................................................................................. 20

Modified Wilson Plot Method .................................................................................................. 24

Error Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 29

Design Extension .......................................................................................................................... 34

Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................ 43

Appendix A - Preliminary Preperation Assignment ..................................................................... 44

Appendix B – Experimental Summary Report .............................................................................. 48

Appendix C – Report Formulas ..................................................................................................... 55

Effectiveness-NTU Method ....................................................................................................... 55

Heat and Momentum Transfer Correlation .............................................................................. 55

Wilson/Modified Wilson Plot Method...................................................................................... 55

Experiment Design Extension ................................................................................................... 56

Error Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 56

Effectiveness-NTU Method ....................................................................................................... 57

Heat and Momentum Transfer Correlation .............................................................................. 57

Wilson/Modified Wilson Plot Method...................................................................................... 58

Experiment Design Extension ................................................................................................... 60

Error Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 61

Appendix E – MATLAB Code ......................................................................................................... 62

Co-Current Operation (Wilson Plot) ......................................................................................... 62

Counter-Current Operation (Wilson Plot) ................................................................................ 64

NTU 3D Scatter Plot .................................................................................................................. 66

Co/Counter-Current Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient vs. Flow Rates .................................... 68

Appendix F – Calibration Curves .................................................................................................. 71

Appendix G – Additional Data ...................................................................................................... 72

Co-Current and Counter-Current Operation Temperature Profiles ......................................... 72

Table of Parameters and Constants.......................................................................................... 78

Experiment Time Log ................................................................................................................ 79

Figure 1. Experiment 2 System Flowchart .............................................................................................. 5

Figure 2. Co-Current Operation Temperature Profile (Run 10) ......................................................... 11

Figure 3. Counter-Current Operation Temperature Profile (Run 8) ................................................. 12

Figure 4. Co-Current Non-Steady State Temperature Profile ............................................................ 13

Figure 5. Counter-Current Non-Steady State Temperature Profile .................................................. 13

Figure 6. Effectiveness vs. NTU for Co/Counter-Current Operation ................................................. 14

Figure 7. Effectiveness of Co-Current Operation (3D Scatter) ........................................................... 17

Figure 8. Effectiveness of Counter-Current Operation (3D Scatter) ................................................. 17

Figure 10. Original Wilson Plot Method Applied to Co-Current ........................................................ 23

Figure 11. Original Wilson Plot Method Applied to Counter-Current .............................................. 23

Figure 14. Modified Wilson Plot for Counter-Current Operations.................................................... 26

Figure 15. Modified Wilson Plot for Co-Current Operations ............................................................. 27

Figure 16. Shell Side Flowrate Calibration Curve................................................................................. 71

Figure 17. Tube Side Flowrate Calibration Curve ................................................................................ 71

Table 1. Co-Current Operation Design Space ........................................................................................ 6

Table 2. Counter-Current Operation Design Space ............................................................................... 7

Table 3. Co-Current Experimental Data .................................................................................................. 9

Table 4. Counter-Current Experimental Data ...................................................................................... 10

Table 5. Calculated Data for NTU Analysis Method ............................................................................ 16

Table 6. Calculated Correlation Data – Co-Current Operation .......................................................... 19

Table 7. Calculated Correlation Data – Counter-Current Operation ................................................ 19

Table 12. Confidence Interval Calculations .......................................................................................... 30

Table 13. Design Extension Iterations and Conclusions ..................................................................... 38

Table 14. Calculation Constants and Properties .................................................................................. 78

Table 15. Design Extension Constants .................................................................................................. 78

Table 16. Operation Time Log ................................................................................................................ 79

Figure 1. Experiment 2 System Flowchart

Table 3. Co-Current Experimental Data

'e,) 'e,+ ('f,) *'f,+ )