ME 414 Design Project

Heat Exchanger Design

Created and Designed by:

Michael Stark Joshua Keith Billy Burdette Brandon Mullen Joseph Listerman

Project Goals
y Design Heat Exchanger
y Create a light weight heat exchanger y Heat exchange must be as efficient as possible y Cost must be kept low as possible y The size of the heat exchanger must be under design constraint

Project Guidelines
y During the process of a liquid chemical product, its temperature needs

to be reduced by 20 degrees Celsius.

y Mass flow rate is 220,000 kg/hr y Fluid enters the heat exchanger at 45 C and should leave at 25 C y Material properties of this chemical product can be approximated as water

y Cooling of the chemical product will be achieved by using treated city

water
y City water is available at 20 C y Mass flow rate is adjustable and one of the design parameters to be selected y Exit temperature of city water from the heat exchanger is a function of the selected mass

flow rate Professor Toksoy

Project Optimization
y Must cool the chemical from 45 C to 25 C y Heat exchanger length can not exceed 7 meters y Heat exchanger shell diameter can not exceed 2 meters y Minimize heat exchanger shell and tube weight hence the cost y Minimize heat exchanger pressure drop

Professor Toksoy

Heat Exchanger Design Inputs for MATLAB

Chemical to be cooled was set as Shell side liquid Mass flow rate of cooling water = 220 kg/sec Shell ID = .889 m Shell thickness = 5 mm Tube OD = 6.35 mm Tube thickness = .457 mm Tube Length = 2.88 m Baffle space = .6 m Helical Baffles Counter flow One shell pass and one tube pass Aluminum was used for both shell and tube materials Gnielinski equation used for tube side Nusselt correlation Square tube pitch

Heat Exchanger Design Inputs for MATLAB Explained

Chemical to be cooled was set as shell side liquid In order to keep

shell side pressure drop to a minimum we needed to keep the mass flow rate in the shell low. The only way we found of doing this and getting the desired Q was to push the chemical to be cooled through the shell. Mass flow rate of cooling water = 220 kg/sec - For these inputs this calculates out to an average tube side fluid velocity of ~1 m/s which falls within the recommended range of .9 2.4 m/s. Tube OD = 6.35 mm - The small OD was needed to increase the surface area for heat transfer for a given shell ID. Tube thickness = .457 mm - The small tube thickness was needed to increase the heat transfer coefficient and also reduced the total material weight and cost.

Heat Exchanger Design Inputs for MATLAB Explained Cont.

Tube Length = 2.88 m - The tube length was increased to increase the

calculated Q. Baffle space = .6 m - Although slightly larger then the recommended value of 40-60% of shell ID, .6 m worked well. Helical Baffles A helical baffle will increase the heat transfer coefficient considerably without dramatically increasing pressure drop due to the nature of the flows. Counter flow - Because of the narrow band of temperatures between the two fluids, a counter flow arrangement was used in order to increase the log mean temperature difference between the two fluids without having to increase the mass flow rate of the water to very high levels.

Heat Exchanger Design Inputs for MATLAB Explained Cont.

One shell pass and one tube pass - One pass was used for both the shell and

tube because currently the program does not calculate pressure drop due to multiple passes correctly. We discovered this late into the project and did not have time to fix the issue. If the pressures were calculated properly the water output temperature for one shell pass and two tube passes must stay below 28.33 deg C in order to keep the log mean temperature difference correction factor valid for the given temperature requirements. Aluminum was used for both shell and tube materials - Aluminum was chosen for its excellent heat transfer properties and its reduced weight. Gnielinskis equation used for tube side Nusselt correlation For the calculated Reynolds number of 5800 this correlation is most applicable. Petuhkov Krillovs correlation is used for Reynolds number larger then 104.

Nusselt Correlation

D.O.E. Run 1
Main Effects Plot for q_Calc
Data Means
mdot Shell 1600000 1400000 1200000 1000000 Tube Length

Main Effects Plot for Weight

Data Means
mdot Shell 5000 4000 3000 2000 Tube Length

Mean

800000 200 Shell 1600000 1400000 1200000 1000000 800000 0.5 1.5 240 2 4

Mean

1000 200 Shell 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0.5 1.5 240 2 4

Main Effects Plot for DP_Shell

Data Means
80000 60000 100000 40000 20000 200 80000 60000 40000 20000 0.5 1.5 100000 Shell 240 2 4 80000 mdot Shell Tube Length 120000

Main Effects Plot for DP_Tube

Data Means
mdot Shell Tube Length

Mean

Mean

200 Shell 120000

240

80000 0.5 1.5

D.O.E. Run 1
y Factors
y Shell mass flow rate y Tube length y Shell internal diameter

y The most significant affect on heat transfer was tube length, a

result of increased surface area. y Shell I.D. and tube length had the greatest affect on weight, the larger the shell the more tubes can fit inside. y Shell side pressure drop increases with tube length and mass flow rate. Dramatic decrease as shell ID increases. y The only factor affecting the tube side pressure drop was tube length.

D.O.E. Run 2
Main Effects Plot for q_Calc
Data Means
5600000 5400000 5200000 5000000 Baffles Space Tube Th 2500 2450 2400 2350 Baffles Space

Main Effects Plot for Weight

Data Means
Tube Th

Mean

0.3 5600000 5400000 5200000 5000000 4800000 0.1 Baffle Cut

0.8

0.000457

0.000711

Mean

4800000

2300 0.3 2500 2450 2400 2350 2300 Baffle Cut 0.8 0.000457 0.000711

0.5

0.1

0.5

Main Effects Plot for DP_Shell

Data Means
10000 8000 6000 4000 Baffles Space Tube Th 20000 18000 16000 14000

Main Effects Plot for DP_Tube

Data Means
Baffles Space Tube Th

Mean

Mean

2000 0.3 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0.1 0.5 Baffle Cut 0.8 0.000457 0.000711

12000 0.3 20000 18000 16000 14000 12000 0.1 0.5 Baffle Cut 0.8 0.000457 0.000711

D.O.E. Run 2
y Factors
y Baffle Space y Tube Thickness y Baffle Cut

y Baffle spacing has a large affect on q and shell side pressure drop. y Tube thickness was the only factor affect HE weight in this DOE. y Baffle cut doesnt seem to have any affect on other parameters. y We fixed baffle spacing because it heavily influenced shell side

pressure drop.

Final D.O.E.
Main Effects Plot for q_Calc
Data Means
Tube Length 8000000 7000000 6000000 5000000 Shell ID

Main Effects Plot for DP_Tube

Data Means
Tube Lengt h 12000 9000 6000 3000 Shell ID

Mean

Mean

4000000 2 8000000 7000000 6000000 5000000 4000000 0.00635 0.01270 Tube OD 4 0.889 1.500

0 2 Tube OD 12000 9000 6000 3000 0 0.00635 0.01270 4 0.889 1.500

Main Effects Plot for DP_Shell

Data Means
Tube Length 2000 1750 1500 1250 1000
4000 3000

Main Effects Plot for Weight

Data Means
Shell ID
6000 5000 Tube Lengt h Shell ID

Mean

Mean

2 Tube OD 2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 0.00635

0.889

1.500

2 Tube OD 6000 5000 4000 3000

0.889

1.500

0.01270

0.00635

0.01270

Final D.O.E.
y Final optimization factors
y y y y

Mass flow rate of the shell fluid fixed to 220 kg/s Tube length Shell internal diameter Tube outer diameter

y We adjusted the ranges of our chosen factors and ran the DOE

again. y The mass flow rate only affected the shell side pressure drop at this stage of the design. We chose the shell side mass flow rate based on what we decided would yield reasonable shell outlet temperature using counter flow.

Factorial Design Analysis Heat Rate

Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects
(response is q_Calc, Alpha = 0.05) 12.7 A
F actor A B C N ame Tube Length Shell ID Tube O D

y Tube length has the largest

C Term AC B AB BC 0 100 200 Standardized Effect 300 400

affect on the heat rate. y Shell ID has the smallest relative affect on heat rate. y Shell ID had a negative affect on heat rate. y This was a result of more tubes decreasing the velocity in the tube. y The result is laminar flow inside the tube.

Normal Plot of the Standardized Effects

(response is q_Calc, Alpha = 0.05)
99 Effect Ty pe Not Significant Significant A C AC
F actor A B C N ame Tube Length S hell ID Tube O D

95 90 80

P ercent

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 B AB

100 200 Standardized Effect

300

400

Factorial Design Analysis - P Tube

y We can see that tube length has the largest affect on tube side pressure

drop. y Shell ID has no affect on tube pressure drop. y We expected tube OD to have a larger affect on tube side pressure drop.
Pareto Chart of the Effects
(response is DP_Tube, Alpha = 0.05)
F actor A B C Name Tube Length S hell ID Tube O D

C A AC B BC AB 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Effect 10000 12000 14000

Term

Factorial Design Analysis - P Shell

y Shell ID had the largest

affect on shell side pressure drop. y The affect of tube OD on the pressure drop was surprising.
the 60 triangular pitch tube arrangement. y As tube OD grows larger there is more pressure drop in the shell.
Term

Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects

(response is DP_Shell, Alpha = 0.05) 12.71 B C A BC AB AC 0 2 4 6 8 10 Standardized Effect 12 14
F actor A B C N ame Tube Length S hell ID Tube O D

y We attribute this affect to

Factorial Design Analysis HE Weight

y The shell inside

diameter has the largest affect on weight.

y The larger the shell
B A AB C AC BC 0 1000

Pareto Chart of the Effects

(response is Weight, Alpha = 0.05)
F actor A B C N ame Tube Length S hell ID Tube O D

diameter the more tubes we could fit inside, thus increasing weight.
y Because tube length

determines the length of the heat exchanger, it too has a large affect on heat exchanger weight.

Term

2000 Effect

3000

4000

Design Optimization - 1
The design optimized to our original design. We expected our final tube diameter to be 6.35 mm with a mass flow rate of 220 kg/s. y Optimal Tube OD was 8.3mm The tube length was longer than our original design called for, which was a result of maximizing the q calculated. We set target values for the shell and tube side pressure drops. We set a target range for total weight between 900-1100 kg.

y y

y y

Design Optimization - 2
New High D Cur 1.0000 Low Composite Desirability 1.0000 Weight Minimum y = 2288.8141 d = 1.0000 DP_Shell Minimum y = 1805.0741 d = 1.0000 DP_Tube Minimum y = 5865.8838 d = 1.0000 q_Calc Maximum y = 5.454E+06 d = 1.0000
y

Tube Len 4.0 [2.6263] 2.0

Shell ID 1.50 [0.8890] 0.8890

Tube OD 0.0127 [0.0096] 0.0063

y y

The design optimized to our original design. We expected our final tube diameter to be 6.35 mm with a mass flow rate of 220 kg/s. y Optimal Tube OD was 8.3mm, adjusted it to 9.525 mm to coincide with standard tube dimensions. The tube length was longer than our original design called for, which was a result of maximizing the q calculated. We set target values for the shell and tube side pressure drops. We set a target range for total weight between 900-1100 kg.

y y

Heat Exchanger Design Output from MATLAB

Heat Exchanger Final Design

y Tube side mass flow rate of 220 kg/sec y Tube OD set to 9.525 mm, thickness 0.889 mm y Shell ID set to .889 meters, thickness 5 mm y Heat exchanger is a one pass counter flow tube arrangement

with helical baffles and optimized tube length of 2.6 m. y The ratio between desired and calculated heat rate is 1.00.

Further Analysis
y We believe that cost could be decreased by over-designing

the HE and reducing the number of tubes until we got the desired heat ratio. y The tube mass flow rate was an important design consideration because the outlet temperature of the shell fluid was completely dependent on it. y After performing a macroscopic heat balance, counter flow was chosen because the cold fluid outlet temp was expected to be higher than the hot fluid outlet temp.

Matlab Program Improvements

y Create program checks in order to eliminate unrealistic

designs.
y If multiple tube passes are used with parallel flow it is possible

to calculate a LMTD_CF that is an imaginary number.

y Provide the operator more detailed information regarding

the Nusselt correlations.

Cost Summary
y Heat Exchanger Dry Weight
y 730 Kg

y Heat Exchanger & Fluid Weight

y 2287 Kg

y Cost
y OnlineMetals.com y $37.00 per 8ft length of aluminum tubing y Total estimated aluminum tubing cost $337,000.00 y $11.00 per 8ft length of mild steel tubing y Total estimated mild steel tubing cost $100,000.00 y Instillation and Manufacturing