Heating Equipment Ltd Prediction of the Performance of Alfa-Laval P01-HBL Heat Exchangers

Summary
An experiment was conducted to investigate the validity and accuracy of working charts to predict the performance of Alfa-Laval P01-HBL Heat Exchangers. A water to water heat transfer was used to compare the performance of the plate and shell & heat exchanger. Hot water was held at constant three flow rates from 5Lmin-1, 10Lmin-1 and 15Lmin-1 in the plate heat exchanger and at 22Lmin-1 in the shell & tube heat exchanger. The cold water flow rates were also varied in the two exchangers; 5Lmin-1 to 20Lmin-1 and from 20Lmin-1 to 60Lmin-1 for the shell & tube heat exchangers. The inlet and outlet temperatures and flow rates for all streams were recorded after steady state was reached. The accuracy of an effectiveness-NTU chart was tested using experimentally calculated effectiveness values. These values agreed at a 95% confidence. The plate heat exchanger was more efficient then the shell and tube heat exchanger at the same cold water flow rates. The shell and tube exchanger has a higher heat transfer due to a larger flow rate. It was found that heat losses in both plate and shell & tube heat exchangers were negligible when compared to the amount of heat transferred at the 95% confidence level. The working chart provides a good guide for predicting the resistance of the heat exchanger. However due to errors in experimental procedure, it is recommended that a more accurate chart for predictions of 1/U be investigated.

Introduction
Heat is defined as the energy that is transferred due to the existence of a temperature difference between two systems or two parts if a system. Heat is transferred from a high thermal energy region to a low thermal energy region. Heat exchangers are used to heat or cool two liquids that enter and exit at different temperatures. Heat exchangers can be classed as parallel flow, counter flow or cross flow, depending on the relative direction of fluid motion. Heating Equipment Ltd would like to be able to predict the performance of one of their heat exchangers: the Alfa-Laval P01-HBL. To do this, two charts are required: one to estimate the heat transfer coefficient as a function of the flow rates of two liquids through the heat exchanger and another to predict the exit temperatures of the fluids from the heat exchanger. The company would also like to know if it is reasonable to assume heat losses from the heat exchanger are negligible. The performances of the plate heat exchanger and the shell & tube heat exchanger are to be prepared. The objectives of the current stage of work are: 1) To test the existing Effectiveness-NTU chart for both plate and shell & tube heat exchangers. 2) To measure the heat losses of the exchangers through heat balances to determine if they are negligible. 3) To compare the two types of heat exchangers, by determining the values of U for each exchanger.

Experimental
The experiment was conducted using a P01-HBL Heat exchanger and a shell & tube heat exchanger located. The experiment was conducted in two stages, in both stages a bucket and stopwatch were used to measure the flow rates. Stage One: Plate Heat Exchanger The cold water was rum through the exchanger at four different flow rates: 5kgmin-1, 10kgmin-1, 15kgmin-1 and 20kgmin-1. The hot water was run at flow rates of 5kgmin-1, 10kgmin-1 and 15kgmin-1. The flow rates were determined manually by collecting the water from each outlet over a set period of time (60 seconds for the lower flow rates [5kgmin-1 and 10kgmin-1] and 20 seconds for flow rates 10kgmin-1 and 15kgmin-1). The temperatures of the inlet cold (T1), cold outlet (T2), hot inlet (T3) and the hot outlet (T4) streams were measured using electronic thermistors. Four replicate sets of readings were taken for the 5kgmin-1 hot and cold water flow rates. Stage Two: Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger The hot water was run through the shell and tube heat exchanger at a constant flow rate of 22kgmin-1. The cold water was run at flow rates of 20kgmin-1, 30kgmin-1, 40kgmin-1 and 60kgmin-1. The temperatures of the inlet cold (A1), cold outlet (A2), hot outlet (B1) and hot inlet (B2) streams were also measured. Four replicate sets of readings were taken for the 60kgmin-1 hot and cold water flow rates.

Details of the full procedure used can be in

Results and Discussion

From Figure 1 of the Appendix, the overall heat transfer coefficient (U) of the Plate Heat exchanger at different hot (mb) and cold (ma) flow rates can be estimated through interpolation. There are several factors which affect U. The following equation can be used to find U in a heat exchanger: (1) The scale of 1/U will be significantly influenced by changes in ha and hb, as the effect of fouling over time will increase the resistance to heat transfer. There are a number of limitations in Figure 1 for predicting U. The plot only applies to fluids that have a similar viscosity to water. By changing the viscosity and density of the fluid, 1/U will also change; high viscosity will result in a high 1/U value and will not agree with the values of 1/U obtained using the models in Figure 1. This is due to variations in viscosity which causes changes in the film coefficient, thus affecting the resistance. A correction factor may be required to adjust for the density and velocity, when a fluid other than water is passed through the heat exchanger. The heat exchangers were run for under three hours overall with water; fouling will increase over time in particular if fluids such as milk are used, this will result in an increased 1/U. There is the possibility that the liquid will change to steam, if the hot inlet is too high, as the temperature range of the hot and cold inlets were approximately 17 to 75C. The possible phase change is not represented in the models in Figure 1, thus temperature will also have a significant impact on 1/U. From Figure 1, it can be seen that the hot water flow rates do not have the exact same models, but they do deviate from the expected decay model. The flow rates are best fitted using a polynomial model; this deviation from the expected model is most likely caused by experimental error or incorrect recording of the experimental data. The heat exchange model is optimised over the range of ma= 0.25kgs-1 and above. This is due to the decrease in the resistance being greater than the rate of increase of the flow rate. This is most clearly seen in the 15Lmin-1 model; resistance is low, which allows for a faster heat exchange. In the appendix, a sample calculation using the Effectiveness-NTU charts is included. The two Effectiveness-NTU charts were able to give reasonably accurate efficiency values for the heat exchangers as shown in Tables A1-A4. Although the values are not exact, they are accurate within a reasonable uncertainty range. The values of calculated for the heat exchanger and those predicted using the Effectiveness-NTU charts were similar. This gives reasonable assurance of the accuracy of the charts. For example, in the plate heat exchanger when the hot water flow rate was 10Lmin-1 (Appendix Table A2), the calculated efficiency for 20Lmin-1 of cold water was 0.71 and the chart efficiency was also 0.70. When the uncertainties are considered the Effectiveness-NTU charts are statistically sound. The chart does give inaccuracies in the results, but whether this is due to faults with the model itself or errors in the laboratory experiment is experiment is unknown. In Figure 1, the hot water flow rates are all best fitted with a polynomial function, indicating that 1/U will increase gradually with ma. This is in disagreement with what was observed in the laboratory

experiment. Thus it is recommended that the investigation into more accurate working charts be carried out. The efficiency ratio of the plate heat exchanger is on average higher than that of the shell & tube. In appendix table 3, for the efficiency of the plate heat exchanger for a cold water flow rate of 20Lmin-1 and a hot flow rate of 15Lmin-1, was 0.58. This is significantly higher than the shell & tube at a cold water flow rate of 20Lmin-1, where the value was 0.22. It is seen in Tables A1-A4 of the appendix, that a and b have similar values. The errors are due to errors in the laboratory procedure, measurement errors and inefficiencies in the heat exchangers. Heat was lost to the environment during the procedure. The heat lost in the plate heat exchanger operating at a flow rate of 5Lmin-1 was 0.17W; this is negligible when compared to the 10.0W of heat transferred. The mean of a and b agree for both the plate and the shell and tube heat exchanger at the 95% confidence interval (see Tables in the appendix). The heat losses in the heat exchangers were negligible. The average transfer of the plate heat exchanger was. The shell and tube heat exchanger is able to produce more heat as it has a larger capacity for mass flow rate. There is a significant difference in the overall heat transfer coefficient for the two heat exchangers, the plate heat exchanger has a much higher value of U, the ha and hb are constant in the exchangers, therefore the difference is most likely due to the wall thickness, wall thermal conductivity and the effects of fouling. The shell and tube has a greater surface area and wall thickness.

Conclusion
An Effectiveness-NTU chart was produced to predict the overall heat transfer co-efficient for two types of heat exchangers using the mass flow rates of the cold and hot streams. This chart allowed the predictions to be statistically valid. The accuracy of this chart was tested using a known model. The calculated values and those obtained from the chart agreed at a 95% Confidence Interval indicating that the charts are accurate and reliable. The charts are recommended for use as a guide in the design method, but due to experimentally induced uncertainties, exact efficiency ratios are not given. It was also determined that the heat losses from the heat exchanger were negligible at the 95% confidence level. Over the charts obtained can be used to predict the heat transfer coefficient, and efficiency ratio.

References

Appendices
Figure 1

1/U vs ma
0.8000 0.7000 0.6000 0.5000 0.4000 0.3000 0.2000 0.1000 0.0000 0.00000 0.05000 0.10000 0.15000 0.20000 0.25000 0.30000 0.35000 0.40000 ma (kg/s) y = 3.216x2 - 1.9493x + 0.5441 R = 0.9978 y = 6.4139x2 - 3.9868x + 0.9645 R = 0.9852 Hot Water Flow 5L/min Hot Flow Water 10L/min Hot Water Flow 15L/min Poly. (Hot Water Flow 5L/min) Poly. (Hot Flow Water 10L/min) Poly. (Hot Water Flow 15L/min)

Figure 1: The resistance of heat transfer (1/U) plotted as a function of the cold water flow rate. Table A1: Plate Heat Exchanger at a Hot Flow of 5kgmin-1

Cold Water Flow kg/min 5

1/U (m2C/W)

y = 2.4079x2 - 1.5599x + 0.5279 R = 0.999

Run

Temperature Readings (C) T1 (cold T2 (cold T3 (hot T4 (hot in) out) in) out) 17.3 17.2 17.3 17.3 17.2 17.2 17.2 48.4 47.8 47.1 46.7 37.1 33.0 28.6 68.5 68.3 68.4 68.3 71.3 73.2 66.5 37.8 38.1 38.8 39.3 27.7 24.7 23.4

Flow Rate (cold) kg 4.87 4.90 4.94 4.98 10.61 13.99 20.38 sec 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

Flow Rate (hot) kg 5.01 4.97 4.98 5.06 4.81 4.56 5.39 sec 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

ma kg/s 0.08108 0.08167 0.08225 0.08292 0.1768 0.2331 0.3397

mb kg/s 0.08342 0.08275 0.08300 0.08433 0.08017 0.07592 0.08983

1 2 3 4

10 15 20

5 6 7

Cold Water Flow kg/min 5

a (mean) C 32.9 32.5 32.2 32.0 10 15 20 27.2 25.1 22.9

Ca (kJ/kgK) 4.180 4.180 4.180 4.180 4.181 4.181 4.183

b (mean) C 53.2 53.2 53.6 53.8 49.5 49.0 45.0

Cb (kJ/kgK) 4.183 4.183 4.183 4.183 4.182 4.182 4.182

1 C 20.1 20.5 21.3 21.6 34.2 40.2 37.9

2 C 20.5 20.9 21.5 22.0 10.5 7.5 6.2

lm C 20.3 20.7 21.4 21.8 20.1 19.5 17.5

Cold Water Flow kg/min 5

a (kJ/s) 10.54 10.45 10.25 10.19

b (kJ/s) 10.71 10.45 10.28 10.23 14.62 15.40 16.19

mean of a & b (kJ/s) 10.63 10.45 10.26 10.21 14.66 15.40 16.19

U (W/m K) 1.6358 1.5775 1.4984 1.4636 2.2828 2.4705 2.8901

2

NTU

CR

Chart

1/U (m K/W) 0.6113

2

0.60 0.59 0.58 0.57 0.81 0.87 0.87

1.51 1.46 1.38 1.33 2.17 2.49 2.46

1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.46 0.33 0.26

0.58 0.6339 0.56 0.6674 0.55 0.6833 0.55 0.4381 0.79 0.4048 0.86 0.3460 0.87

10 15 20

14.71 15.40 16.20

1 2 3 4 5

values a values b mean a mean b mean

Average 10.36 10.41 12.53 12.55 12.54

Std Dev 0.17 0.22 2.75 2.71 2.73

Std Error 0.083 0.11 1.04 1.02 1.03

t stat 3 df 3.182 3.182 2.571 2.571 2.571

95% CI 0.26 0.35 2.54 2.50 2.52

Table A2: Plate Heat Exchanger at a Hot Flow of 10kgmin-1

Cold Water Flow kg/min 5 10 15 20 1 2 3 4 Run T1 (cold in) 17.3 17.3 17.2 17.2 Temperature Readings (C) T2 (cold out) 57.1 45.9 40.3 35.8 T3 (hot in) 67.7 69.2 66.2 67.0 T4 (hot out) 47.0 37.1 34.5 31.4 FA (cold) kg 5.09 10.26 14.59 19.17 sec 60 60 60 60 FB (hot) kg 10.16 9.29 10.76 10.16 sec 60 60 60 60 ma kg/s 0.08483 0.1710 0.2432 0.3195 mb kg/s 0.1693 0.1548 0.1793 0.1693

Cold Water Flow kg/min 5 10 15 20

a (mean) C 37.2 31.6 28.8 26.5

Ca (kJ/kgK) 4.180 4.180 4.181 4.181

b (mean) C 57.4 53.2 50.4 49.2

Cb (kJ/kgK) 4.184 4.183 4.182 4.182

1 C 10.6 23.3 25.9 31.2

2 C 29.7 19.8 17.3 14.2

lm C 18.5 21.5 21.3 21.6

Cold Water Flow kg/min 5 10 15 20

a (kJ/s) 14.11 20.44 23.48 24.85

b (kJ/s) 14.67 20.78 23.77 25.21

mean of a & b (kJ/s) 14.39 20.61 23.63 25.03

U (W/m K) 2.43 3.00 3.46 3.62

2

0.41 0.62 0.65 0.71

NTU 1.12 1.49 1.49 1.65

CR 1.92 0.89 0.73 0.52

Chart 0.41 0.62 0.65 0.70

1/U (m K/W) 0.4123 0.3339 0.2886 0.2761

2

Table A3: Plate Heat Exchanger at a Hot Flow of 15kgmin-1

Cold Water Flow kg/min 5 10 15 20 1 2 3 4 Run T1 (cold in) 17.3 17.4 17.4 17.4 Temperature Readings (C) T2 (cold out) 54.0 45.8 41.3 37.9 T3 (hot in) 60.7 61.6 60.7 61.2 T4 (hot out) 48.6 41.0 38.0 35.6 FA (cold) kg 4.85 10.50 14.35 18.61 sec 60 60 60 60 FB (hot) kg 14.95 14.64 15.30 15.03 sec 60 60 60 60 ma kg/s 0.08083 0.1750 0.2392 0.3102 mb kg/s 0.2492 0.2440 0.2550 0.2505

Cold Water Flow kg/min 5 10 15 20

a (mean) C 35.7 31.6 29.4 27.7

Ca (kJ/kgK) 4.179 4.180 4.180 4.181

b (mean) C 54.7 51.3 49.4 48.4

Cb (kJ/kgK) 4.183 4.182 4.182 4.181

1 C 6.7 15.8 19.4 23.3

2 C 31.3 23.6 20.6 18.2

lm C 16.0 19.4 20.0 20.7

Cold Water Flow kg/min 5 10 15 20

a (kJ/s) 12.40 20.77 23.89 26.58

b (kJ/s) 12.61 21.02 24.21 26.81

mean of a & b (kJ/s) 12.50 20.90 24.05 26.70

U (W/m K) 2.449 3.359 3.759 4.041

2

0.28 0.47 0.52 0.58

NTU 0.7582 1.060 1.135 1.240

CR 3.033 1.379 1.053 0.8008

Chart 0.27 0.46 0.58 0.60

1/U (m K/W) 0.4084 0.2977 0.2660 0.2474

2

Table A4: Shell & Tube Heat Exchanger at a Hot Flow of 22kgmin-1
Cold Flow kg/min 20 40 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 Run A1 (cold in) 17.4 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 Temperature Readings (C) A2 (cold out) 33.7 25.3 26.0 25.8 25.8 25.8 B1 (hot out) 51.7 43.2 45.1 44.6 44.6 44.6 B2 (hot out) 61.3 64.4 65.8 65.9 66.0 65.9 FA (cold) kg 19.40 45.59 53.66 54.90 55.02 55.74 sec 60 60 60 60 60 60 kg 23.21 21.45 21.08 20.66 21.28 21.46 FB (hot) sec 60 60 60 60 60 60 ma kg/s 0.3233 0.7598 0.8943 0.9150 0.9170 0.9290 mb kg/s 0.3868 0.3575 0.3513 0.3443 0.3547 0.3577

Cold Water Flow kg/min 20 40 60

a (mean) C 25.6 21.3 21.6 21.5 21.5 21.5

Ca (kJ/kgK) 4.180 4.180 4.180 4.180 4.181 4.181

b (mean) C 56.5 53.8 55.5 55.3 55.3 55.3

Cb (kJ/kgK) 4.183 4.183 4.183 4.183 4.182 4.182

1 C 18.0 17.9 19.1 18.8 18.8 18.8

2 C 43.9 47.2 48.6 48.7 48.8 48.7

lm C 29.1 30.2 31.6 31.4 31.5 31.4

a (kJ/s) 22.03 25.72 32.90 32.89 32.97 33.40

b (kJ/s) 15.53 31.70 30.42 30.68 31.74 31.86

mean of a & b (kJ/s) 18.78 28.71 31.66 31.79 32.36 32.63

Cold Water Flow kg/min 20 40 60

Uin (W/m K) 0.3138 0.4612 0.4865 0.4912 0.4994 0.5042

2

Uout (W/m K) 0.2836 0.4167 0.4396 0.4438 0.4512 0.4556

2

NTU 0.4006 0.6371 0.6838 0.7043 0.6954 0.6963

CR 1.1971 0.4708 0.3931 0.3766 0.3868 0.3851

0.22 0.45 0.43 0.44 0.44 0.44

R 0.5890 2.617 2.352 2.477 2.488 2.477

S 0.3713 0.1716 0.1811 0.1766 0.1762 0.1766

FT 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98

m C 28.8 29.6 31.0 30.8 30.8 30.8

1 2 3 4 5

values a values b mean a mean b mean

Average 33.04 31.17 29.99 28.65 29.32

Std Dev 0.24 0.73 4.88 6.46 5.35

Std Err 0.12 0.37 1.99 2.64 2.18

t stat 3 df 3.182 3.182 2.571 2.571 2.571

95% CI 0.39 1.16 5.12 6.77 5.62

Sample Calculations

Counter Current Heat Exchanger: Hot in= 80C at 6.8kgmin-1 Cold in= 15C at 11kgmin-1 80C 6.8kgmin-1 HOT

50C

COLD 15C 11kgmin-1

Find the heat transfer area required to cool the hot water to 30C (Hot outlet=30C) 1) Find the mass flow rates in kgs-1

2) Find U from Figure 1.

3) Find heat flux for the hot water flow from: At the mean temperature

At 55C,

(a=b, therefore heat losses are ignored) Ma=0.183kgs-1 =23.62kW =X-15C

4) Find the log mean temperature difference:

5) Find A

The NTU vs. CR is used to find the efficiency of the system

From Figure 5.1 in Edwards et al. (2013), the efficiency ratio for this system was =0.80