You are on page 1of 6

16/6/2014 MEAN TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE

http://www.thermopedia.com/content/945/?tid=110&sn=17 1/6
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
MJ BOX COMPLEX METHOD
MACH LINES
MACH NUMBER
MACH NUMBER, IN NOZZLES
MACH WAVES
MACH, ERNST 1838-1916
MACH-ZEHNDER INTERFEROMETRY
MACHINELANGUAGE
MACLAURIN SERIES
MACRO-POROUS AND MACRO-
RETICULAR RESINS
MAGNESIUM
MAGNETIC FIELDS
MAGNETIC FUSION REACTORS
MAGNETIC PRANDTL NUMBER
MAGNETIC REYNOLDS NUMBER
MAGNETIC REYNOLDS NUMBER
MAGNETIC REYNOLDS NUMBER
MAGNETIC SEALS
MAGNETICALLY DRIVEN ARC
MAGNETO ACOUSTIC WAVES
MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMIC
ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATORS
MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMIC FLOWS OF
A SECOND GRADEFLUID
MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMIC METHODS
MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMICS
MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMICS AND
RADIATIVEEFFECTS ON FREE
CONVECTION FLOW OF FLUID
MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMICS IN LIQUID
METALS
MAGNOX
MAGNOX POWER STATION
MAGNUS FORCE
MAGNUSSEN AND HJERTAGER MODEL
MAINFRAMECOMPUTERS
MALDISTRIBUTION OF FLOW
MALVERN, SCATTERING, METHOD FOR
MEAN TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE
Ward, John A.
DOI: 10.1615/AtoZ.m.mean_temperature_difference
Figure 1 shows a generalized Heat Exchanger in which heat is transferred between two streams (stream 1 and stream 2).
Figure 1. Generalized two stream heat exchanger.
The rate of heat transfer, , between the streams may be expressed as a function of the area available for the transfer of
heat, A, the overall heat transfer coefficient, U, and a mean temperature difference, ΔT
m
, such that
Estimating the rate of heat transfer for a given design of heat exchanger requires techniques for estimating the Overall
Heat Transfer Coefficient and techniques for estimating the mean temperature difference.
Techniques for estimating mean temperature difference are based upon the following assumptions:
a. the heat exchangers have only two streams;
b. heat exchange with the surroundings is negligible;
c. there is a linear relationship between specific enthalpy and temperature for both streams (i.e., constant specific heat
capacities);
d. the overall heat transfer coefficient between the stream is constant throughout the heat exchanger;
e. where a heat exchanger consists of multiple parallel paths, the flowrates and heat transfer areas in each path are
identical.
The above assumptions are most likely to be met when both streams are single-phase fluids (i.e. all liquid or all gas) and
where the temperature changes are small such that the specific heat capacities and other properties of the fluids stay
constant throughout the heat exchanger. The approach could be applied to heat exchangers involving boiling or
condensing but only under circumstances where there are no significant changes in overall heat transfer coefficient. Heat
exchangers involving the onset of boiling or condensation or the dryout transition are therefore not suitable for
treatment using the traditional mean temperature difference approach. Such heat exchangers will need to be analyzed
using techniques which make allowance for changes in heat transfer coefficient.
With the above assumptions, the rate of heat transfer in any geometry of heat exchanger can, in principle, be calculated.
The simplest case is pure countercurrent flow. Here the mean temperature difference can be expressed in terms of the inlet
and outlet temperatures of each stream.
For a heat exchanger with countercurrent flow, the mean temperature difference is known as the log mean temperature
difference, ΔT
LM
. The log mean temperature difference is the maximum mean temperature difference that can be achieved
in any geometry of heat exchanger for any given set of inlet and outlet temperatures. For any other type of heat
Back to Begell House | Directory | Network | Semantic Globe | Editorial Board | User's Guide
in Commissioned Articles in Written Articles in All Articles
Home A-Z Index Fundamentals Computational Methods Experimental Techniques Applications History Authors Information For Authors
A-to-Z Guide to Thermodynamics, Heat & Mass Transfer, and Fluids Engineering
Interlinking between Articles Visual Navigation
RelatesLinks Full Text Article
16/6/2014 MEAN TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE
http://www.thermopedia.com/content/945/?tid=110&sn=17 2/6
PARTICLESIZING
MANOMETERS
MANOMETRY
MARANGONI CONVECTION
MARANGONI EFFECT
MARGULES EQUATION
MARINEFUEL OILS
MARINEGAS TURBINES
MARIOTTELAW
MASS ACTION LAW
MASS FLOW METERS
MASS MEDIAN DIAMETER, MMD
MASS SPECTROSCOPY
MASS TRANSFER
MASS TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS
MASS TRANSFER UNDER REDUCED
GRAVITY
MASS TRANSFER, ELECTROCHEMICAL,
PROBE
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTEOF
TECHNOLOGY, MIT
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
MATHEMATICAL METHODS
MATHEMATICAL MODELING
MATTE
MAXI-COMPUTERS
MAXIMUMHEAT FLUX
MAXIMUMHYGROSCOPIC MOISTURE
CONTENT
MAXIMUMLIQUID TEMPERATURE
MAXWELL EQUATION
MAXWELL EQUATION FOR
ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY
MAXWELL FLUIDS
MAXWELL MODEL FOR
ACCOMMODATION COEFFICIENT
MAXWELL RELATIONS
MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS
MAXWELL-BOLTZMANN DISTRIBUTION
MAXWELL-STEFAN EQUATIONS
MCCABE- THIELEMETHOD
MCCABE-THLELEMETHOD
MCREYNOLDS CONSTANT
MEAN FREEPATH
MEAN PHASECONTENT
MEAN TEMPERATUREDIFFERENCE
MEAN TEMPERATUREDRIVING FORCE
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
MEASURING ELECTRIC FIELDS WITH
LASER-INDUCED FLUORESCENCE-DIP
STARK SPECTROSCOPY
MECHANICAL DESIGN OF HEAT
EXCHANGERS
MECHANICAL HEART VALVE
MEISSNER EFFECT
MELT FILMS
MELTING
MELTING HEAT
MELTING OF ICE
exchanger, the mean temperature difference can be expressed as
where F is always less than or equal to 1. Estimating the mean temperature difference in a heat exchanger by calculating
the log mean temperature difference and estimating F is known as the F factor method.
F varies with geometry and thermal conditions. The thermal conditions are defined by parameters such as the overall heat
transfer coefficient, U, the area available for heat transfer, A, the mass flow rates of the two steams and , the
specific heat capacities of the two streams c
1
and c
2
, and the temperature change in each stream (T
1,in
- T
1,out
) and (T
2,in
T
2,out
).
For any given geometry, F is often presented as a function of two nondimensional parameters, R, the ratio of the thermal
capacities of the two streams and P (sometimes known as effectiveness, E), the ratio of the achieved heat transfer rate to
the maximum possible heat transfer rate. These parameters are typically defined as
and
where
Unfortunately, there are no standard definitions of R and P. Users of the F method should always check the definitions
used by any supplier of F value information and apply identical definitions when using this information in heat transfer
calculations. This variation of definition can lead to problems when comparing data from different authors.
Values of F are frequently presented as graphs showing the relationship between F and P for a range of values of R.
Figure 2 shows a typical relationship. The figure shows that F always tends to 1 as the amount of heat transferred
reduces to zero. The figure also shows that for any given value of R, there is typically a maximum achievable value of P.
The value of F changes rapidly as P approaches its maximum value. Because of this sensitivity, heat exchanger designs are
rarely developed near the maximum value of P and are typically restricted to conditions which give values of F greater
than 0.8.
Figure 2. Typical relationship between F and P for various values of R (Based on Single E-shell with any even
number of tube passes).
The F factor can be used for both design and rating calculations. For design calculations, the mass flowrates, specific heat
capacities and required temperature changes will be specified. R and P can therefore be calculated directly. The design
16/6/2014 MEAN TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE
http://www.thermopedia.com/content/945/?tid=110&sn=17 3/6
MEMBRANEPOLARIZATION
MEMBRANEPROCESSES
MEMBRANETYPEFILTERS
MEMBRANES, ION EXCHANGE
MENDELEEV-CLAPEYRON EQUATION
MERCURY
MERKEL'S EQUATION
MESOSCOPIC ENERGY SYSTEMS
MESOSPHERE
METAL POWDERS
METAL SURFACES
METAL-COATED POLYMER FIBERS IN
INFRARED AND MICROWAVE
METALLURGICAL PLASMA REACTORS
METALS
METHANE
METHANOL
METHOD OF CHARACTERISTICS
METHODS OF SUPERPOSED GRIDS
AND OF VIRTUAL Z-MESHES
METHYLAMINE
METHYLCHLORIDE
METRE
METZNER-OTTO CONSTANTS FOR
IMPELLERS
MICELLAR CATALYSIS
MICELLES
MICHAELIS-MENTEN RELATIONSHIP
MICHELSON INTERFEROMETRY
MICROBUBBLE
MICROCHANNEL FLOW
MICROCHANNELS
MICROCIRCULATORY CELL OF THE
PLANT LEAF
MICROCOMPUTERS
MICRODAMAGE
MICROELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
MICROFILTRATION
MICROFIN TUBES
MICROGRAVITY CONDITIONS
MICROLEVEL FLOWS
MICROORGANISM
MICROPOLAR FLUID
MICROSCALEPHENOMENA
MICROSTRUCTURAL EVOLUTION
MICROSTRUCTUREOF
HETEROGENEOUS MIXTURE
MICROSYSTEMS
MICROWAVEDRYING
MICROWAVEHEATING
MICROWAVEPLASMA TREATMENT
MICROWAVES
MIESCATTERING
MIESERIES
MIESOLUTION FOR SPHERICAL
PARTICLES
MIETHEORY
MIKIC, ROHSENOW AND GRIFFITH
engineer will need to check that the required value of P is less than the maximum value of P for the specified value of R.
The value of F can then be found from the graph. The combination of the log mean temperature difference and F gives the
mean temperature difference and with an estimate of the overall heat transfer coefficient, the required heat transfer area
can be established. If the required value of P is greater than the maximum value for the specified value of R, a different type
of heat exchanger must be considered until a feasible design is found. A simple countercurrent heat exchanger will always
be able to achieve any design requirement but may be physically impractical.
For rating calculations, the geometry of the heat exchanger and its heat transfer area, the mass flowrates and the specific
heat capacities of the streams and hence the overall heat transfer coefficient and the inlet temperatures will be defined. It
will therefore be possible to calculate R but not P. The rating is estimated using an iteration which may start by guessing
a heat transfer rate and calculating the exit temperatures, the log mean temperature difference and P and then using the
figure to estimate F. The resulting heat transfer rate is then calculated from F, the log mean temperature difference, the
overall heat transfer coefficient and the heat transfer area. The guessed and calculated heat transfer rates are compared and
the guessed value is adjusted until convergence is achieved.
Published relationships for F in graphical form are available for most geometries of shell and tube heat exchanger and a
range of geometries of crossflow heat exchanger (see guide to references at the end of this section). The size of the
graphical presentations rarely allows values of F to be estimated to better than two significant figures. This accuracy of
estimation is consistent with the overall accuracy of the mean temperature difference approach and the lack of compliance
with the underlying assumptions. Attempts to improve the accuracy in the estimation of F values are therefore unlikely to
produce significant benefits for heat exchanger designers.
An alternative method of presenting mean temperature difference information is known as the effectiveness—N
TU
method.
This method is based upon exactly the same initial assumptions. The heat transfer behavior are presented as a relationship
between effectiveness, E (defined in a similar way to P), the ratio of the thermal capacities of the streams, R, and the
number of heat transfer units, N
TU
which as calculated from the expression
where ( )
smaller
is the smaller of ( )
1
and ( )
2
. Unfortunately, the parameters E, R and N
TU
are again not
consistently defined and any user should check the definition used by the supplier of data and apply those definitions
when using the data.
Effectiveness-N
TU
information is typically presented graphically as the relationship of effectiveness against N
TU
for
various values of R. Figure 2 shows a typical relationship. This shows that the effectiveness tends to zero as the N
tends to zero and the effectiveness tends to a maximum value as N
TU
becomes large.
Figure 3. Typical relationship between E and NTU for various values of R (Based on Single E-shell with any even
number of tube passes).
Users of the effectiveness-N
TU
technique are not required to calculate the log mean temperature difference when carrying
out design or rating calculations. For design calculations, E and R can be calculated from the mass flowrates, specific heat
16/6/2014 MEAN TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE
http://www.thermopedia.com/content/945/?tid=110&sn=17 4/6
EQUATION, FOR BUBBLEGROWTH
MINIATUREHEAT PIPES
MINIATUREOSCILLATING HEAT PIPES
MINICOMPUTERS
MINIMUMFILMBOILING TEMPERATURE
MINIMUMFLUIDIZATION VELOCITY
MIROPOLSKII FORMULA, FOR POST
DRYOUT HEAT TRANSFER
MIST COOLING
MIST ELIMINATORS
MISTS
MIT
MIXED (COMBINED) CONVECTION
MIXED SPECTRAL-FINITEDIFFERENCE
TECHNIQUE
MIXER SETTLERS
MIXER-HEAT EXCHANGERS
MIXERS
MIXERS, STATIC
MIXING
MIXING GAS-LIQUID
MIXING IN ROD BUNDLES
MIXING LENGTH
MIXING LENGTH HYPOTHESIS
MIXING LENGTH MODELS
MIXING OF PARTICLES IN FLUIDIZED
BEDS
MIXING REYNOLDS NUMBER
MIXTURECONSERVATION EQUATIONS
MIXTURES
MODEL BANDWIDTH
MODELING SUBSURFACEFLOW
MODELING TECHNIQUES
MODERATING RATIO
MODERATORS
MODIFIED DISCRETEORDINATES AND
FINITEVOLUMEMETHODS
MODIFIED MACH NUMBER (VELOCITY
COEFFICIENT)
MODULUS OF THESOLID
MOIRÉFRINGES
MOISTUREISOTHERM
MOISTUREMEASUREMENT
MOISTUREMETER
MOLALITY OF A SOLUTION
MOLAR MASS
MOLD CONSTANT
MOLE
MOLECULAR DIFFUSION
MOLECULAR DYNAMICS
MOLECULAR FLOW OF GAS
MOLECULAR INTERACTIONS
MOLECULAR MASS
MOLECULAR PARTITION FUNCTION
MOLECULAR PHYSICS
MOLECULAR SCALEVISUALIZATION
OF MICRO-FLOWS
MOLECULAR SCATTERING
capacities and inlet and outlet temperatures. The value of N
TU
can be read from the graph for the chosen design of heat
exchanger and used to calculate the required surface area. In rating calculations, the surface area, mass flowrates and
specific heat capacities can be used to calculate R and N
TU
. The value of E can be read from the graph and used to calculate
the rate of heat transfer in the heat exchanger. It can therefore be argued that the effectiveness-N
TU
method can be used
for rating calculations without the need for an iteration. In reality, since heat transfer coefficient will change with
temperature, it is still likely that an iterative calculation will be required.
Effectiveness-N
TU
relationships are generally presented graphically and may be used to produced estimates to two
significant figures. Again, because of deviations from the underlying assumptions, this level of precision in the
calculations is consistent with the precision of the overall method. An attempt has been made to produce a single algebraic
expression with a number of variable coefficients to represent a range of common heat exchangers, ESDU, 93012
Approximately 90 geometries were represented by an expression with 14 variable coefficients. The curve fitting approach
matches the exact relationships to better than 2%. By incorporating the algebraic expression into a computer program, a
range of geometries and designs can be readily accessed. The accuracy of the computer calculations does not, however,
bring any increase in the accuracy of the overall method.
F values or effectiveness-N
TU
relationships are obtained by making simplifying assumptions about the geometry of a heat
exchanger and then carrying out a process of integration. The integration can either be carried out algebraically (most
designs of shell and tube heat exchanger) or using finite element methods (most designs of crossflow heat exchanger). In
all but the simplest of geometries, the process of integration is complex. For shell and tube exchangers, the resulting
algebraic expressions require care in application to avoid error. For example, for the single E-shell with any even number
of passes, the expression linking N
TU
with E is
where
and
For crossflow heat exchangers, particularly with more than one pass, the finite element integration often involves
iteration as well. Users of mean temperature difference techniques are therefore advised to use the graphical presentations
of these integrations or curve fits to the data.
Table 1 gives references to sources of graphical data for various types of heat exchanger.
Table 1. Sources of graphical data for various types of heat exchanger
16/6/2014 MEAN TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE
http://www.thermopedia.com/content/945/?tid=110&sn=17 5/6
MOLECULAR SIEVES
MOLECULAR SPECTROSCOPY
MOLECULAR SPEEDS
MOLECULAR WEIGHT
MOLECULE
MOLLIER DIAGRAM
MOLTEN DROPLET
MOLYBDENUM
MOMENTUMTHICKNESS
MONOCHROMATIC LIGHT
MONOD MODEL OF CELL GROWTH
MONODISPERSEAEROSOLS
MONTECARLO METHOD
MONTECARLO METHOD
MONTECARLO METHOD FOR
EXCHANGEAMONG DIFFUSE-GRAY
SURFACES
MONTECARLO MODELING, OF
TURBULENCE
MONTREAL PROTOCOL
MOODY CHART
MOODY, OR WEISBACH, FRICTION
FACTOR
MOSSBAUER SPECTROSCOPY
MOTOR GASOLINE
MOULD
MOUNTAIN DRAG
MOVEMENT OF TWO CONSECUTIVE
TAYLOR BUBBLES
MOVING BOUNDARY PROBLEMS
MOVING FRONT OF AN
INSTANTANEOUS IRREVERSIBLE
REACTION
MTBE
MUFFLEFURNACE
MULTI FLUID MODELS
MULTICOMPONENT MIXTURES, BOILING
IN
MULTICOMPONENT MIXTURES,
DIFFUSION IN
MULTICOMPONENT SYSTEMS
THERMODYNAMICS
MULTICOMPONENT VAPOR
CONDENSATION
MULTIGRID SOLUTION OF MODIFIED
REYNOLDS EQUATION
MULTILINGUAL PROGRAMMING
MULTIMODEFIBRE
MULTIPHASEDENSITY
MULTIPHASEFLOW
MULTIPHASEMEDIUM
MULTIPLEBEAMLETS
MULTISCALEANALYSIS
MULTISCALEDIFFUSION
MULTISCALEELECTROMAGNETIC
SIMULATION
MULTISCALEMODELING
MULTISCALESIMULATION
MULTISCALETRANSPORT
MULTISTAGETURBINES
References
1. ESDU, 85042. Effectiveness-N
TU
relationships for the design and performance rating of two-stream heat exchangers,
ESDU, Data Item, 85042, December 1985.
2. ESDU, 86018. Effectiveness-N
TU
relationships for the design and performance rating of two stream heat exchangers,
ESDU, Data Item, 86018, July 1986, Amended July 1991.
3. ESDU, 87020. Effectiveness-N
TU
relationships for the design and performance evaluation of multi-pass crossftow heat
exchangers, ESDU, Data Item 87020, October 1987, Amended November 1991.
4. ESDU, 88021. Effectiveness-N
TU
relationships for the design and performance evaluation of additional shell and tube
heat exchangers, ESDU, Data Item 88021, November 1988, Amended July 1991.
5. ESDU, 91036. Algebraic representations of effectiveness-N
TU
relationships, ESDU, Data Item 91036, November 1991.
6. Kays, W and London, A. L. (1984) Compact Heat Exchangers. Third Edition. McGraw-Hill.
7. Kern, D. Q (1950) Process Heat Transfer, First Edn., McGraw-Hill.
8. Perry (1973) Chemical Engineers' Handbook, McGraw-Hill.
9. Pignotti, A. (1984), Matrix formalism for complex heat exchangers, Trans ASME, Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol. 106, pp.
352-360.
10. Taborek, J. (1983) Heat Exchanger Design Handbook, Section 1.5, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
11. TEMA (1978) Standards of Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association, Sixth edn.
16/6/2014 MEAN TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE
http://www.thermopedia.com/content/945/?tid=110&sn=17 6/6
MULTISTART HELICALLY COILED TUBE
BOILER
MURPHREEEFFICIENCY
MUTUAL DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
Number of views: 13622 Article added: 2 February 2011 Article last modified: 14 February 2011 © Copyright 2010-2014 Back to top
Home

|

Contact Us

|

A-Z Index

|

Subscription Policy