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 (m
b
) and cold (m
a
) 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 h
a
and h
b
, 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 m
a
= 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 m
a
. 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 h
a
and h
b
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

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


y = 6.4139x
2
- 3.9868x + 0.9645
R = 0.9852
y = 2.4079x
2
- 1.5599x + 0.5279
R = 0.999
y = 3.216x
2
- 1.9493x + 0.5441
R = 0.9978
0.0000
0.1000
0.2000
0.3000
0.4000
0.5000
0.6000
0.7000
0.8000
0.00000 0.05000 0.10000 0.15000 0.20000 0.25000 0.30000 0.35000 0.40000
1
/
U

(
m
2
C
/
W
)

ma (kg/s)
1/U vs ma
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)
Cold Water
Flow Run Temperature Readings (C)
Flow Rate
(cold)
Flow Rate
(hot) ma mb
kg/min
T1 (cold
in)
T2 (cold
out)
T3 (hot
in)
T4 (hot
out) kg sec kg sec kg/s kg/s
5
1 17.3 48.4 68.5 37.8 4.87 60 5.01 60 0.08108 0.08342
2 17.2 47.8 68.3 38.1 4.90 60 4.97 60 0.08167 0.08275
3 17.3 47.1 68.4 38.8 4.94 60 4.98 60 0.08225 0.08300
4 17.3 46.7 68.3 39.3 4.98 60 5.06 60 0.08292 0.08433
10 5 17.2 37.1 71.3 27.7 10.61 60 4.81 60 0.1768 0.08017
15 6 17.2 33.0 73.2 24.7 13.99 60 4.56 60 0.2331 0.07592
20 7 17.2 28.6 66.5 23.4 20.38 60 5.39 60 0.3397 0.08983


Cold Water Flow a (mean) Ca b (mean) Cb 1 2 lm
kg/min C (kJ/kgK) C (kJ/kgK) C C C
5
32.9 4.180 53.2 4.183 20.1 20.5 20.3
32.5 4.180 53.2 4.183 20.5 20.9 20.7
32.2 4.180 53.6 4.183 21.3 21.5 21.4
32.0 4.180 53.8 4.183 21.6 22.0 21.8
10 27.2 4.181 49.5 4.182 34.2 10.5 20.1
15 25.1 4.181 49.0 4.182 40.2 7.5 19.5
20 22.9 4.183 45.0 4.182 37.9 6.2 17.5

Average Std Dev Std Error t stat 3 df 95% CI
1 values a 10.36 0.17 0.083 3.182 0.26
2 values b 10.41 0.22 0.11 3.182 0.35
3 mean a 12.53 2.75 1.04 2.571 2.54
4 mean b 12.55 2.71 1.02 2.571 2.50
5 mean 12.54 2.73 1.03 2.571 2.52


Cold Water Flow a b mean of a & b U NTU CR Chart 1/U
kg/min (kJ/s) (kJ/s) (kJ/s) (W/m
2
K)

(m
2
K/W)
5
10.54 10.71 10.63 1.6358 0.60 1.51 1.01 0.58
0.6113
10.45 10.45 10.45 1.5775 0.59 1.46 1.01 0.56
0.6339
10.25 10.28 10.26 1.4984 0.58 1.38 1.01 0.55
0.6674
10.19 10.23 10.21 1.4636 0.57 1.33 1.01 0.55
0.6833
10 14.71 14.62 14.66 2.2828 0.81 2.17 0.46 0.79
0.4381
15 15.40 15.40 15.40 2.4705 0.87 2.49 0.33 0.86
0.4048
20 16.20 16.19 16.19 2.8901 0.87 2.46 0.26 0.87
0.3460


Table A2: Plate Heat Exchanger at a Hot Flow of 10kgmin
-1
Cold Water Flow Run Temperature Readings (C) FA (cold) FB (hot) ma mb
kg/min T1 (cold in) T2 (cold out) T3 (hot in) T4 (hot out) kg sec kg sec kg/s kg/s
5 1 17.3 57.1 67.7 47.0 5.09 60 10.16 60 0.08483 0.1693
10 2 17.3 45.9 69.2 37.1 10.26 60 9.29 60 0.1710 0.1548
15 3 17.2 40.3 66.2 34.5 14.59 60 10.76 60 0.2432 0.1793
20 4 17.2 35.8 67.0 31.4 19.17 60 10.16 60 0.3195 0.1693

Cold Water Flow a (mean) Ca b (mean) Cb 1 2 lm
kg/min C (kJ/kgK) C (kJ/kgK) C C C
5
37.2 4.180 57.4 4.184 10.6 29.7 18.5
10
31.6 4.180 53.2 4.183 23.3 19.8 21.5
15
28.8 4.181 50.4 4.182 25.9 17.3 21.3
20
26.5 4.181 49.2 4.182 31.2 14.2 21.6

Cold Water Flow a b mean of a & b U NTU CR Chart 1/U
kg/min (kJ/s) (kJ/s) (kJ/s) (W/m
2
K)

(m
2
K/W)
5 14.11 14.67 14.39 2.43 0.41 1.12 1.92 0.41 0.4123
10 20.44 20.78 20.61 3.00 0.62 1.49 0.89 0.62 0.3339
15 23.48 23.77 23.63 3.46 0.65 1.49 0.73 0.65 0.2886
20 24.85 25.21 25.03 3.62 0.71 1.65 0.52 0.70 0.2761




Table A3: Plate Heat Exchanger at a Hot Flow of 15kgmin
-1
Cold Water Flow Run Temperature Readings (C) FA (cold) FB (hot) ma mb
kg/min T1 (cold in) T2 (cold out) T3 (hot in) T4 (hot out) kg sec kg sec kg/s kg/s
5 1 17.3 54.0 60.7 48.6 4.85 60 14.95 60 0.08083 0.2492
10 2 17.4 45.8 61.6 41.0 10.50 60 14.64 60 0.1750 0.2440
15 3 17.4 41.3 60.7 38.0 14.35 60 15.30 60 0.2392 0.2550
20 4 17.4 37.9 61.2 35.6 18.61 60 15.03 60 0.3102 0.2505

Cold Water Flow a (mean) Ca b (mean) Cb 1 2 lm
kg/min C (kJ/kgK) C (kJ/kgK) C C C
5 35.7 4.179 54.7 4.183 6.7 31.3 16.0
10 31.6 4.180 51.3 4.182 15.8 23.6 19.4
15 29.4 4.180 49.4 4.182 19.4 20.6 20.0
20 27.7 4.181 48.4 4.181 23.3 18.2 20.7

Cold Water Flow a b mean of a & b U NTU CR Chart 1/U
kg/min (kJ/s) (kJ/s) (kJ/s) (W/m
2
K)

(m
2
K/W)
5 12.40 12.61 12.50 2.449 0.28 0.7582 3.033 0.27 0.4084
10 20.77 21.02 20.90 3.359 0.47 1.060 1.379 0.46 0.2977
15 23.89 24.21 24.05 3.759 0.52 1.135 1.053 0.58 0.2660
20 26.58 26.81 26.70 4.041 0.58 1.240 0.8008 0.60 0.2474




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

Cold Water Flow a (mean) Ca b (mean) Cb 1 2 lm a b mean of a & b
kg/min C (kJ/kgK) C (kJ/kgK) C C C (kJ/s) (kJ/s) (kJ/s)
20 25.6 4.180 56.5 4.183 18.0 43.9 29.1 22.03 15.53 18.78
40 21.3 4.180 53.8 4.183 17.9 47.2 30.2 25.72 31.70 28.71
60 21.6 4.180 55.5 4.183 19.1 48.6 31.6 32.90 30.42 31.66
21.5 4.180 55.3 4.183 18.8 48.7 31.4 32.89 30.68 31.79
21.5 4.181 55.3 4.182 18.8 48.8 31.5 32.97 31.74 32.36
21.5 4.181 55.3 4.182 18.8 48.7 31.4 33.40 31.86 32.63

Cold Water Flow U
in
U
out
NTU CR R S FT m
kg/min (W/m
2
K) (W/m
2
K) C
20
0.3138 0.2836 0.4006 1.1971 0.22 0.5890 0.3713 0.99 28.8
40
0.4612 0.4167 0.6371 0.4708 0.45 2.617 0.1716 0.98 29.6
60
0.4865 0.4396 0.6838 0.3931 0.43 2.352 0.1811 0.98 31.0
0.4912 0.4438 0.7043 0.3766 0.44 2.477 0.1766 0.98 30.8
0.4994 0.4512 0.6954 0.3868 0.44 2.488 0.1762 0.98 30.8
0.5042 0.4556 0.6963 0.3851 0.44 2.477 0.1766 0.98 30.8

Average Std Dev Std Err t stat 3 df 95% CI
1 values a 33.04 0.24 0.12 3.182 0.39
2 values b 31.17 0.73 0.37 3.182 1.16
3 mean a 29.99 4.88 1.99 2.571 5.12
4 mean b 28.65 6.46 2.64 2.571 6.77
5 mean 29.32 5.35 2.18 2.571 5.62



Sample Calculations
Counter Current Heat Exchanger:
Hot in= 80C at 6.8kgmin
-1

Cold in= 15C at 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)

M
a
=0.183kgs
-1
=23.62kW
=X-15C
15C
11kgmin
-1
50C

HOT

80C
6.8kgmin
-1
COLD

4) Find the log mean temperature difference:

5) Find A

The NTU vs. C
R
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