Double Pipe Heat Exchanger

Author: Austin Dowell, Joshua Phonpadith

WSU ME406, Pullman, WA
5/10/2019
Summary
The system we were given to analyze is a double pipe heat exchanger with parallel and
counter flow configurations. We were given the task of characterizing the performance of the
heat exchanger using two turbine meters and ten Type T thermocouples attached to the heat
exchanger every 10’. After coming up with a test plan for the specific variations of flow rates and
inlet temperature, we ran a total of 38 trials and recorded the resulting temperatures and
volumetric flow rate data. After exporting the data to Excel and using known heat transfer
equations, we were able to find the resulting rate of heat transfer and effectiveness values for
each trial. This allowed us to characterize the performance of the heat exchanger by creating
easy to understand graphs that related the mass flow rates and inlet temperatures to the
resulting effectiveness in both parallel and counter flow configurations.

Introduction
Our overall goal was to characterize the double pipe heat exchanger system given to us
in the lab. The purpose of a double pipe heat exchanger is to transfer heat via
convection/conduction between two fluids, in parallel or counterflow applications in our system
specifically, from the hot fluid to the cold fluid, as seen in Fig. 1 below. The heat from the hot
fluid is transferred to the cold fluid through the pipe wall separating the two, decreasing the
temperature of the hot fluid and increasing the temperature of the cold fluid. Parallel flow is
where the direction of both moving fluids is the same and counterflow is where the direction of
moving fluids is opposite. The advantage of double pipe heat exchangers in practical
applications are that they are suitable for low flow rates, great for large temperature crossings,
and has a simple, compact design. An example of a physical double pipe heat exchanger is
given in Fig. 2 below. These devices are used in multiple HVAC processes all the way from
cooling oil for machinery and cooling food products to car radiators and air conditioning units.

Fig. 1 A system diagram of both parallel and counter flow in a double pipe heat exchanger and
the graphs of their temperatures of hot and cold fluids vs distance, where the left boundary is
the inlet and the right boundary is the outlet.
 Fig.2 An example of a real life double pipe heat exchanger.

System
In our heat exchanger system, we have 10 thermocouples, labeled T1 through T10 in
the diagram, to measure the temperature of the cold and hot water at 0 feet, 10 feet, 20 feet, 30
feet, and 40 feet. There are also two turbine meters to measure the cold and hot water flow
rates and a power supply for the turbine meters. In the diagram, labeled 1 through 6 enclosed in
circles, are the valves that can be directly opened and closed using handles located near the
heat exchanger. Valve 1 allows the cold water to flow while valve 2 allows the hot water to flow.
The heat exchanger is set up so that the hot water runs through the inner tube and the cold
water runs through the outer tube, being continuously heated by the hot water. In order to make
the system a parallel flow heat exchanger, valves 3 and 5 must be open and valves 4 and 6
must be closed. In order to make the system counterflow, the opposite must be true.

Fig. 3 A schematic of our double pipe heat exchanger system with fluids, valves, and
thermocouples labeled.

The data acquisition system we are using for our system to connect with the
thermocouples and turbine meters is the Agilent 34972A DAS which has 20 separate channels
for various inputs, including measuring DC Volts, frequency, and specific thermocouple
voltages. The turbine flow rate sensor that we are using is the FT-110 Series - TurboFlow which
operates between -20 and 100 ℃. The specific turbine meter that we are using is the Gems
173935C (Omega FTB2005C) turbine meter which measures 3800 Pulses per Gallon and can
be converted to find the flow rate of the hot and cold water. Two rotameters are also included in
the system and are used as a visual to show the percentage flow rate of the hot and cold water.
We are also using 10 Omega model TTSS-14E6 6 inch long type T thermocouples. The cold
water pipes and hot water pipes are insulated and have a 28.575 mm and 15.875 outer
diameter, a 26.035 mm and 13.970 mm inner diameter, and a 1.270 mm and .9525 mm wall
thickness respectively. Pictures of the heat exchanger system can be seen below in Fig. 4 and
Fig. 5 below, showing the insulated pipes and rotameters.

Fig. 4 A picture of the double pipe heat exchanger system showing the insulated pipes and
thermocouples measuring fluid temperatures.

Fig. 5 A picture of the rotameters which showed the % of flow rate for the cold water (on the left)
and hot water (on the right). These were used as a visual check to make sure we were
calculating the correct flow rates of the fluids.

Objectives
From our experiments, our ultimate objective is to characterize our double pipe heat
exchanger system by running both parallel flow and counter flow and determining the
effectiveness of the system with changing mass flow rates and hot water temperature at the
inlet. Effectiveness is defined as the ratio between the actual heat transfer rate and the
theoretical max heat transfer rate of the system (E = Q/Qmax). To be clear, we are defining heat
transfer rate as the rate of energy being transferred over time through the convection of both
fluids and conduction of the metal, in units of Joules/Second or Watts. By calculating this ratio,
we can use it to determine how much more heat transfer the system can output in regards to the
theoretical maximum. Of course you will never be able to reach 100% effectiveness due to the
laws of thermodynamics, but the system can always be improved. As flow rate changes, the
actual rate of heat transfer will change, thus causing the effectiveness to change. We are trying
to accomplish illustrating a relationship between the mass flow rate and effectiveness in order to
improve the system. Another approach we are taking is changing the hot water inlet
temperature in order to change the effectiveness. To do so we would switch between
parallel/counter flow, keep the mass flow rates constant, vary the inlet hot temperature, and
then record the outlet temperatures of the system. If we can increase the effectiveness of the
system by changing the mass flow rate or changing the inlet temperature of the hot water, then
we can define the most effective system for heat exchange and look for ways to improve in the
future.
 Approach
The system input variables are the volumetric flow rate of the hot water, the
volumetric flow rate of the cold water, and the temperature of the hot water at the inlet. The
output variables are the temperatures of both fluids at the outlets of the system which can be
used to calculate the rate of heat transfer and the effectiveness of the system. We plan to solve
for the rate of heat transfer by using Eq. (3) and Eq. (4) for the hot and cold flows and then
taking the average between the two. In order to solve for Q̇, we first had to calculate ṁ using
the measured frequency from the turbine meter. We multiplied the frequency by 3800
because the Gems 173935-C measures 3800 pulses per gallon and then multiplied that
value by 0.003785, which is the conversion factor for gallons to m3 and finally divided by
the density of water to get the correct units of kg/s. The specific heat capacity (C p) is
defined as the amount of heat required to raise one gram of the substance by one
degree Celsius and is 4.18 J/g℃ for water. Finally, all of the temperature values are
measured using the thermocouples at the inlets and exits of the heat exchanger.

ṁ = (1)
Q̇ = ṁCp
(2)
Q̇hot = ṁhotCp,hot(Thot,in – Thot,out)
(3)
Q̇cold = ṁcoldCp,cold(Tcold,in – Tcold,out)
(4)

After finding Q̇ for a trial, the next step is to determine the effectiveness of
the heat exchanger. Effectiveness is a dimensionless quantity between 0 and 1 and is
the ratio of the actual heat transfer rate and the maximum possible heat transfer rate, as
shown in Eq. (5). The maximum possible heat transfer rate can be determined by
multiplying the maximum difference in the heat exchanger by the smaller heat capacity
rate, Cmin. The heat capacity rate is simply the mass flow rate of the liquid multiplied by
the specific heat capacity of the liquid, which is given in Eq. (7) and Eq. (8).
ε = Q̇/ Q̇max
(5)
Q̇max = Cmin(Thot,in – Tcold,in)
(6)
Ccold = ṁcoldCp,cold
(7)
Chot = ṁhotCp,hot
(8)
 where Cmin is the smaller of Chot and Ccold.

For testing our variables, we first varied the flow rates of the two fluids in a parallel flow
system and kept the hot water inlet temperature constant. We set the hot water flow rate to 30%
of the maximum flow rate and then varied the cold water flow rate for trials of 10%, 30%, 50%,
70%, and 90%. We then repeated this experimental setup two more times for hot water flow
rates of 50% and 70% for a total of 15 trials. All 15 trials were then repeated for a counter flow
heat exchanger system simply by closing valves 3 and 5 and opening valves 4 and 6 and
waiting several minutes for the temperature readings from the thermocouples to stabilize. We
also varied the temperature of the hot water at the inlet while keeping both of the flow rates of
the hot and cold water at a constant 50 % of the max to show the effect varying Thot,in has on
the heat transfer rate and effectiveness.

Table 1. The table of all experimental trials that we ran using the double pipe heat
exchanger.
Tri Heat Exchanger Constants Variables
als Flow Type

1-5 Parallel T hot in, 30% hot water flow Cold Water
rate Flow Rate %:
10,30,50,70,90

6- Parallel T hot in, 50% hot water flow Cold Water

10 rate Flow Rate %:
10,30,50,70,90

11- Parallel T hot in, 70% hot water flow Cold Water
15 rate Flow Rate %:
10,30,50,70,90

16- Counter T hot in, 30% hot water flow Cold Water
20 rate Flow Rate %:
10,30,50,70,90

21- Counter T hot in, 50% hot water flow Cold Water
25 rate Flow Rate %:
10,30,50,70,90

26- Counter T hot in, 70% hot water flow Cold Water
30 rate Flow Rate %:
10,30,50,70,90

31- Counter 50% hot water flow rate, 50% T hot in (C): 44,
38 cold water flow rate 40, 36, 32, 28, 24, 20,
16
 The data was collected using the Agilent DAS and exported to an Excel file where it was
easily analyzed using the previously described heat transfer equations. The mass flow rates of
both fluids, the rate of the transfer, the maximum rate of heat transfer, and the effectiveness
were calculated for all 38 trials. From there we can make intuitive graphs of the resulting data,
including: effectiveness vs flow rate, temperature of fluids vs distance, and effectiveness and
rate of heat transfer vs inlet temperature of hot water.

Results
After running the 38 trials described in Table 1 and transferring all of the data from the
turbine meters and thermocouples from the Agilent DAS to Excel, we were able to use the heat
transfer equations to determine the actual rate of heat transfer and effectiveness of each trial.
We were then able to make several plots of the resulting data, as shown in Fig.6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8,
Fig. 9, and Fig. 10 below.

Fig. 6 A graph of Temperature vs Distance for Parallel flow.

Fig. 6 shows the relationship between temperature and distance throughout the whole
heat exchanger. This graph was created using the data obtained during the trial where the flow
rate of hot and cold water were both at 50% and the inlet temperature of the hot water was at
maximum. As the distance increases from 0 feet up to 40 feet, we can see the temperatures of
the hot and cold water approach the same temperature value. This indicates that there is heat
transfer in our system from the hot fluid to the cold fluid and that the heat exchanger is working
properly for a parallel flow. This graph can be compared to the idealized version given from the
textbook in Fig. 1 to compare similarities.
 Fig. 7 A graph of Temperature vs Distance for Counterflow with direction arrows.

For counter flow, the relationship between temperature and distance is displayed above.
The given arrows indicate the direction of the hot/cold water due to opposite flows where the
inlet of the hot water is the left boundary, the outlet of the hot water is the right boundary, the
inlet of the cold water is the right boundary, and the outlet of the cold water is the left boundary.
With the case of fluids flowing in opposite directions, the cold water temperature shows an
increasing trend towards the hot water inlet temperature and the same thing is shown for the hot
water downwards trend. In a counterflow heat exchanger, it is possible for the cold water outlet
temperature to be greater than the hot water outlet temperature, which is impossible for parallel
flow heat exchangers. This graph can be compared to the idealized version given from the
textbook in Fig. 1 to compare similarities.

.
 Fig. 8 A graph of Effectiveness vs Temperature of Hot Water Inlet and Rate of Heat Transfer.

The data for Fig. 8 was taken at hot water and cold water flow rates of 50% and varying
the inlet temperature of the hot water from 16 ℃ to 44 ℃ using increments of 4 ℃. From the
graph, we can identify two key relationships: as the inlet temperature of the hot water increases,
the rate of heat transfer increases and the effectiveness stays relatively constant. The
effectiveness stays relatively constant around .55, with a slight outlier at .63 for a 16 ℃ inlet
temperature. The rate of heat transfer increases from about 2,000 W at 16 ℃ to almost 16,000 W
at 44 ℃.

Fig. 9 A graph of Effectiveness vs change in Cold Water Flow Rates.

After concluding that varying the inlet temperature of the hot water had a negligible effect
on the effectiveness, we continued to experiment with varying mass flow rates. For Fig. 9, we
kept hot water flow rates constant at 30%, 50%, and 70% performance, then we varied cold
water flow rate between 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90% for a total of 5 data points for each
curve. The effectiveness had a relatively similar pattern for each of the three curves graphed
above, it began at its peak 10% cold water flow rate, decreased and then began to level out
near 80% cold water flow rate. The highest effectiveness is achieved by keeping hot water at
50% flow rate and cold water at 10% flow rate with an effectiveness of 0.824.
 Fig. 10 A graph of Effectiveness vs change in Cold Water Flow Rates.

For this final set of data, we decided to keep the flow rate constant at 50% for hot water
and change the cold water flow rate from 10% to 90% to analyze the difference of effectiveness
between parallel and counterflow. Fig. 10 shows a very similar curve for both counterflow and
parallel flow, where the curve starts at its highest point at 10% cold water flow rate, decreases
until it hits a trough at 60%, then increases slightly to the end. At every point on the graph,
counterflow effectiveness is above the parallel flow effectiveness.

Discussion
We decided to graph the relationship between temperature and distance in figures 6 and
7 to show the heat exchanger was working as expected in both parallel flow and counterflow.
Cengel & Ghajar [1] have the same resulting graphs when analysing heat exchangers in chapter
11 of their textbook. Using they’re graphs as reference, our data for temperature vs distance for
parallel/counter flow are very closely related and show the same trends. Since this is true, we
concluded that the heat exchanger was working properly and we could continue through the
next steps of the experiment in testing the flow rates of hot and cold water and the inlet
temperature of the hot water.
We used the Q = m cp Detla T method of calculating

Conclusion
In conclusion, it appears that changing the inlet temperature of the hot water while
keeping the flow rates of the hot water and cold water constant had little effect on the
effectiveness of the double pipe heat exchanger. Of course, this was only done using flow rates
where both were set to 50%, so future experiments could be performed at different flow rates
that are held constant while the inlet temperature is manipulated. We would recommend having
the flow rates of hot and cold not being equal and then graphing the resulting effectiveness to
possible get different results.
It turns out that changing the flow rates and keeping the inlet temperature constant had a
much more dramatic effect on the effectiveness of the heat exchanger. Fig. 9 does a good job of
graphically characterizing the performance of our heat exchanger by showing how effectiveness
varies with varying flow rates, giving a family of curves as a result. In both Fig. 9 and Fig. 10, the
effectiveness was at its peak when the cold water flow rate was at its lowest, and then as the
flow rate increased the effectiveness decreased. Thus, we can conclude that a double pipe heat
exchanger is most effective when the varying mass flow rate is at its lowest. It is still hard to tell
what flow rates specifically were the most effective for our heat exchanger because in Fig. 9,
when hot water was held at 50% flow rate, the effectiveness was higher than 30% and 70% at
10% cold water flow rate, but was less effective than the 30% hot water flow rate by the end.
Finally, from Fig. 10 we can conclude that a counterflow heat exchanger is more
effective than a parallel flow heat exchanger. In every point in the graph, the effectiveness of the
counterflow heat exchanger was higher than the effectiveness of the parallel flow heat
exchanger. The reason for this is that counterflow heat exchangers create a more uniform
temperature difference between the fluids over the length of the fluid path. In parallel flow, the
temperature difference between the fluids decreases along the fluid path, rather than staying
constant as seen in Fig. 1, decreasing the rate of heat transfer along the path.

References
[1] Williams, J. B., Walters, T., and Han, D. H., 2002, “DOUBLE-PIPE HEAT
EXCHANGER - Laboratory Manual,” University Utah Chem. Eng. , pp. 3-5.
[2] Cengel, Y. A. & Ghajar A. J., 2015, “Heat and Mass Transfer Fundamentals and
Applications 5ed,” pp. 650-696.
[3] Zohir, A. E., Habib, M. A., and Nemitallah, M., 2015, “Heat Transfer Characteristics
in a Double-Pipe Heat Exchanger Equipped with Coiled Circular Wires,” ResearchGate
pp. 531-545.
[4] Engineers edge, 2019, “Water - Density Viscosity Specific Weight,” EngineersEdge
pp. 1
[5] IRC, 2019, “Fluid Property Calculator,” IRCWisc
pp. 1

Appendices

Apparatus Dimensions
Material Constants
k = .6492 W/m℃
H20 density = 997 kg/m 3
Flow meter = 3800 Pulse/Gal
Cp = 4182 kJ/kg℃

Nomenclature
As = heat transfer surface area
Cp = specific heat capacity
Cp,hot = specific heat capacity of the hot water
Cp,cold = specific heat capacity of the cold water
Di = inside diameter of pipe
Do = outside diameter of pipe
k = thermal conductivity of tube material
Tcold,in = cold water temperature in
Tcold,out = cold water temperature out
Thot,in = hot water temperature in
Thot,out = hot water temperature out
ε = effectiveness
⃤ T = temperature difference

Sample Data
 Fig. 11 The Excel data of varying the hot water and cold water flow rate % and the resulting
temperatures and frequencies measured by the thermocouples and turbine meters during
parallel flow.

Fig. 12 The Excel data of varying the inlet temperature of the hot water while keeping the cold
and hot water flow rate at 50%.

Fig. 13 The Excel calculations using Fig. 12 to calculate mass flow rates, the rate of heat
transfer, and the effectiveness of each trial.

Sample Calculations
Assumptions
Constant water density
Neglect heat loss from U-turn corners of piping
Neglect Kinetic/Potential Energy

Uncertainties

Device Uncertainty

VA Master Indicating Flowrator Meters ± 2% Flow rate

Thermocouple Transition Junction with High ± 1℃

Temp. Molded Construction

Agilent 34972A LXI Data Acquisition/Switch ± 1℃

Unit