Thermal Systems Design Final Project #6

Nguyen Nguyen

Brock Lauer

Eduardo Trevino

Preston Ogor

Dr. Ping He

Submission Date: November 25th, 2019

1
 Table of Contents

Abstract 3

Introduction 3

Problem Statement 5

Design Methodology 6

Results and Discussion 11

Conclusion 20

References 21

2
Abstract

Since the start of time, people have been searching for new and innovative ways to

generate power for our society to exist. Energy conversion is the main principle for these power

operations, reason being that not many natural occurrences naturally produce the energy in the

form needed for society. Kinetic and Electrical energy are the types of energy most desired in

these systems. In this project, we focused on a closed O TEC system which uses the temperature

difference between deep cold ocean water and warm surface water to produce electricity. OTEC,

or Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion systems, have seen a growth in popularity as electricity

costs and societal demands for environmentally friendly, efficient electricity production have

increased. These systems are attracted to tropical islands that rely heavily on oil-based processes

to provide power. We were challenged to determine the propane flow rate, the evaporator and

condenser surface areas, the warm-water and cold-water mass flow rates, and the overall thermal

efficiency. We obtained propane and water properties used to calculate the values using the

NIST website database. These calculations were then used to design a heat exchanger for the

condenser of the closed OTEC system.

Introduction

The acclaimed novel of historical fiction and adventure, Twenty Thousand Leagues

Under the Sea, written by French writer Jules Verne in 1870, was when the first mention of an

OTEC system. In 1881, Jacques-Arsene d’Arsonval, a French physicist, suggested using the

temperature gradients in tropical oceans to power heat engines. One of d’Arsonval’s students

constructed the first ever OTEC system which produced 22 kW of electricity, this took place on

a small Caribbean island of Cuba in 1930. The introduction of oil and natural gas processes,

3
cheaper energy production systems, slowed the progression of the OTEC system. This lasted

until the oil prices drastically increased due to the Arab Oil Embargo Act of 1973.

While oil & gas was the industry to get into, J. Hilbert Anderson and his son were trying

to find a way to design a more practical, compact, and economic version of the OTEC power

plant. Even though the traditional OTEC systems are open-cycle systems which consist of

warm water from the surface is injected into an almost perfect vacuum, causing it to be partially

vaporized. The steam is then expanded through a low-pressure steam turbo-generator and

produces electric power. Proper system pressure is maintained by using the cold seawater to then

condense the steam. Though this system was effective, the opened cycle proved to be inefficient

and had many opportunities for improvement. Anderson designed a closed OTEC cycle, with the

inspiration from the Rankine Cycle, that pumps warm water from the ocean's surface through

heat exchangers which boils a working fluid into a vapor. The powering of turbines and drives of

generators within the systems are due to the fact of the vapor expanding. Using cold water

pumped from the deep ocean, vapor is condensed back to its liquid state.

In 1980, once the Demonstration Act and amongst others were enacted, coastal regions

and islands the competition for the most efficient OTEC plant began. Japan constructed a 100

kilowatts closed-cycle plant in 1981, which used cold water pumped from the seabed 580 meters

below the surface through a pipe, while Freon is used as the working fluid flowing through the

heat exchanger. An open-cycle OTEC produced 50 kW in Hawaii. To commercialize OTEC

systems and technology, in 2001, the Andersons released the license to the Abell Foundation.

The components that make up an OTEC system include heat exchangers, turbines,

generators, pipes, pumps with key components are condensers and evaporators. All of the

following can be found in the diagram provided in the problem statement. The heat exchanger is

4
the main source of design improvements within an OTEC system. In this project, we are

challenged to design a heat exchanger for the condenser in an OTEC closed cycle while given

specific inlet and outlet temperatures.

Problem Statement

Designing the OTEC Systems

A closed-cycle OTEC system uses propane as the working fluid. Warm surface water enters and

leaves the evaporator (boiler) at Twi and Two. The cold water enters and leaves the condenser at

Tci and Tco. The propane evaporating temperature is Tpe, and the condensing temperature is Tpc.

The plant output is 100 MW, and the turbine efficiency is 0.85. The overall heat transfer

coefficient for both evaporator and condenser are 1400 W/m2 K.

(1) Part 1. Calculate the OTEC closed cycle: Determine the propane flow rate, the evaporator

and condenser surface areas, the warm-water and cold-water mass flow rates, and the overall

thermal efficiency. (50 Points)

(2) Part 2. Design a heat exchanger for the evaporator or condenser using 100 kW per unit (that

means the 100 MW plant includes 1000 parallel units). (50 Points)

Team #6 Assignment:

Table 1: Given data for the project

Team Twi (°C) Two (°C) Tci (°C) Tco (°C) Tpe (°C) Tpc (°C) Type

#6 29 26 5.5 8.5 24.8 13.8 Condenser

5
 2g

2 5

3
6
1 2f
7
4

Figure 1: Diagram of Closed-Cycle OTEC System

Design Methodology

First part

For the first part, enthalpy equations are the main tool to analyze the system and to solve

for this problem. By assuming the system has no energy loss and in steady state, the enthalpy is

conserved for every process.

Table 2: Given and design variables for project

Given Design variable

Twi (°C) 29 𝑚̇𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒 (kg/s)

Two (°C) 26 𝐴𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑝 (m2)

Tci (°C) 5.5 𝐴𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 (m2)

Tco (°C) 8.5 𝑚̇𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑚 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 (kg/s)

Tpe (°C) 24.8 𝑚̇𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 (kg/s)

Tpc (°C) 13.8 𝜂𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 (%)

6
 nturb (%) 0.85

U (W/m2. K) 1400

Pout (MW) 100

In this study, the temperature of the warm water is assumed to be constant at 29oC and

cold water is 5.5oC, which are close to average ocean temperature in tropical areas [1].

In order to find all the values of the propane flow rate, the evaporator and condenser

surface areas, the warm-water and cold-water mass flow rates, and the overall thermal efficiency,

we first obtained the enthalpies and entropies of water and propane at different points and

liquid/vapor phases from NIST [2]. By analyzing enthalpy equilibrium at turbine, evaporator and

condenser with LMTD, we could find all the equations needed for above design variables [3].

Figure 2: T-s diagram of Closed OTEC system

Table 3: Obtained data of propane at saturated temperature from NIST database

7
Temperature Pressure hf hfg hg sf sfg sg
(oC) (MPa) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg. K) (kJ/kg. K) (kJ/kg. K)

13.8 0.70790 135.4 354.57 489.97 0.51919 1.23561 1.7548

24.8 0.94734 164.8 336.24 501.04 0.61808 1.12852 1.7466

Table 4: Obtained data at inlet and outlet temperature of sea water

Temperature (oC) Enthalpy (kJ/kg)

5.5 23.122

8.5 35.726

26 109.01

29 121.55

Second part

For the second part, the design procedure would begin with selection of basic heat

exchanger type, shell and tube heat exchanger is chosen in this problem due the large volume of

flow rate. First, we chose a tube outer diameter of 1 inch, tube length, and triangular pitch with

1-1/4-inch pitch. Since there will be 1000 parallel units of heat exchangers, the surface area and

flow rate of propane and water will be divided equally with 1000 units. To choose the number of

tubes needed, the total surface area will be divided with the tube surface area to fine the number

of tubes. We chose triangular pitch with PT = 1 inch, due to non-fouling service, where frequent

cleaning is not required (M=12) and two passes (Np = 8). From that data, the shell inner diameter

was selected as 35 inches based on the number tubes and triangular pitch. The maximum number

of tubes allow for this shell inner diameter is 532 tubes, but the design only needs 480 tubes.

Therefore, we have to setup some 12 dummy tubes to fill up the dead space and keep the

structure stable. From this information, we could figure out all the required inspections for the

8
condenser such as fluid velocities, Reynold numbers, friction factors, Nusselt numbers,

convective Heat Transfer Coefficients, overall heat transfer coefficient, pressure drop. However,

the overall heat transfer coefficient did not come out close to the required number (1400 W/m2-

K). As an iteration process, we went back and select another shell and tube dimensions to have a

better overall heat transfer coefficient. Unfortunately, the data given for shell and tube dimension

in “Thermal Energy System Design and Analysis” does not have any other dimension that could

give the result close to the problem requirement. With about 5 iterations, the result below is the

best data set we could get for the overall heat transfer coefficient and other inspections.

NIST Fluid properties:

Pressure (MPa) Cv (J/g*K)

1 1.68
0.8 y = 0.0218x + 0.4035 1.67 y = 1E-05x2 + 0.0034x + 1.5809
Density

0.6 1.66
Cp

1.65
0.4 1.64
0.2 1.63
0 1.62
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Temeperature Temeperature

Joule-Thomson (K/MPa) liquid (Pa*s)

0 0.00011
Thermal Conductivity

0 102 + 0.0053x - 0.2086

y = 0.0001x 20 30
0.000105
-0.05
Viscosity

0.0001
-0.1 y = 5E-09x2 - 1E-06x + 0.0001
0.000095
0 10 20 30
-0.15
Temperature Temperature

9
 Density
600
500 y = -0.0049x2 - 1.3177x + 528.43
400

Axis Title 300

200
100
y = 0.0052x2 + 0.2708x + 10.568
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Temperature

liquid (kg/m3) vapor (kg/m3)

Poly. (liquid (kg/m3)) Poly. (vapor (kg/m3))

Cp
3
y = 8E-05x2 + 0.0067x + 2.5078
2.5

2 y = 0.0001x2 + 0.0082x + 1.7463

Cp

1.5

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Temperature

liquid (J/g*K) vapor (J/g*K)

Linear (liquid (J/g*K)) Poly. (liquid (J/g*K))
Poly. (vapor (J/g*K))

10
 Viscosity
0.00012
0.0001 y = 5E-09x2 - 1E-06x + 0.0001
0.00008
Viscosity
0.00006
0.00004
0.00002
y = 2E-10x2 + 3E-08x + 7E-06
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Temperature

liquid (Pa*s) vapor (Pa*s)

Poly. (liquid (Pa*s)) Poly. (vapor (Pa*s))

k
0.12
Thermal conductivity

0.1
y = 1E-06x2 - 0.0005x + 0.106
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02 y = 8E-07x2 + 0.0001x + 0.0158
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Temperature

liquid (W/m*K) vapor (W/m*K)

Poly. (liquid (W/m*K)) Poly. (vapor (W/m*K))

Result and Discussion

PART 1

Step 1: Computing turbine

The process inside turbine is isentropic expansion with temperature at 13.8oC

𝑘𝐽
𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑒 = 1.7466 = 0.51919 + 𝑥 ∗ (1.23561)
𝑘𝑔 ∗ 𝐾

11
The quality at the exit would be:

𝑥 = 0.9934

𝑘𝐽
ℎ𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑐 = ℎ𝑓@13.8𝐶 + 𝑥 ∗ ℎ𝑓𝑔@13.8𝐶 = 135.4 + 0.9934 ∗ 354.57 = 487.63 ( )
𝑘𝑔

𝑘𝐽
𝑊𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙 = ℎ𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 − ℎ𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑐 = ℎ𝑔@24.8𝐶 − ℎ𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑐 = 501.04 − 487.63 = 13.41 ( )
𝑘𝑔

𝑘𝐽
𝑊𝑎𝑐𝑡 = 𝜂𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑏 ∗ 𝑊𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙 = 0.85 ∗ 13.41 = 11.3985( )
𝑘𝑔

𝑘𝐽
ℎ𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑡 = ℎ𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 − 𝑊𝑎𝑐𝑡 = 501.04 − 11.3985 = 489.64 ( )
𝑘𝑔

𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡 100 ∗ 106 𝑘𝑔

𝑚̇𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒 = = = 8773.08 ( )
𝑊𝑎𝑐𝑡 11.3985 ∗ 103 𝑠

Step 2: Computing evaporator

In the evaporator, the warm fluid vaporizes the propane to a saturated phase from 13.8oC to

24.8oC. The energy requires is:

𝑄̇𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑝 = 𝑚̇𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒 ∗ (ℎ𝑔@24.8𝐶 − ℎ𝑓@13.8𝐶 ) = 8773.08 ∗ (501.04 − 135.4)

= 3.207788 ∗ 106 (𝑘𝑊)

𝛿𝑇2 − 𝛿𝑇1 (29 − 24.8) − (26 − 24.8)

𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑝 = = = 2.3947
δT2 29 − 24.8
ln ( ) ln ( )
δT1 26 − 24.8

Also, for a heat exchanger:

𝑄̇𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑝 = 𝑈 ∗ 𝐴𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑝 ∗ 𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑝

12
So:

𝑄̇𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑝 3.207788 ∗ 106 ∗ 103

𝐴𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑝 = = = 9.56811 ∗ 105 (𝑚2 )
𝑈 ∗ 𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑝 1400 ∗ 2.3947

For the mass flow rate of warm water:

𝑄̇𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑝 3.207788 ∗ 106 𝑘𝑔

𝑚̇𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑚 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 = = = 2.558 ∗ 105 ( )
ℎ𝑓@29𝐶 − ℎ𝑓@26𝐶 121.55 − 109.01 𝑠

Step 3: Computing condenser

Similar with the evaporator, the energy requires to condense the vapor is:

𝑄̇𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 = 𝑚̇𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒 ∗ (ℎ𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑡 − ℎ𝑓@13.8𝐶 ) = 8773.08 ∗ (489.64 − 135.4) = 3.10778 ∗ 106 (𝑘𝑊)

𝛿𝑇2 − 𝛿𝑇1 (13.8 − 5.5) − (13.8 − 8.5)

𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 = = = 6.6882
δT 13.8 − 5.5
ln ( 2 ) ln ( )
δT1 13.8 − 8.5

Also, for a heat exchanger:

𝑄̇𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 = 𝑈 ∗ 𝐴𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 ∗ 𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑

So

𝑄̇𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 3.10778 ∗ 106 ∗ 103

𝐴𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 = = = 331904 (𝑚2 )
𝑈 ∗ 𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 1400 ∗ 6.6882

For the mass flow rate for cold water:

𝑄̇𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 3.10778 ∗ 106 𝑘𝑔

𝑚̇𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 = = = 2.4657 ∗ 105 ( )
ℎ𝑓@8.5𝐶 − ℎ𝑓@5.5𝐶 35.726 − 23.122 𝑠

Step 4: Overall Thermal Efficiency

13
 𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡 100 ∗ 106
𝜂𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 = = = 0.0312
𝑄̇𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑝 3.207788 ∗ 106 ∗ 103

The low efficiency of the plant is expected from an OTEC system. Not like opened-cycle OTEC

system, closed-cycle system requires very large heat exchangers with huge area for both

evaporator and condenser.

PART 2

105 𝑘𝑔
𝑚̇𝑐 = 2.4657 ∗ = 246.57 ( )
1000 𝑠

8773.08 𝑘𝑔
𝑚̇ℎ = = 8.773 ( )
1000 𝑠

1. Fluid properties

Data was obtained from NIST Database

Fluid properties are constant and evaluated at the inlet temperatures.

The system is at steady state

Properties of propane will be calculated based off the quality:

𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑦 = 𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑦 ∗ (1 − 𝑥) + 𝑥 ∗ 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑦

𝜇
𝑃𝑟 = 𝑐𝑝 ∗
𝑘

Fluid T r γ cp µ k Pr

(oC) (kg/m3) (N/m3) (kJ/kg K) (kg/m-s) (W/m-K)

Water 5.5 999.8 9808.04 4.2043 0.0014947 0.57147 10.9965

Propane 24.8 23.62 231.71 2.0175 0.0000083 0.01942 0.86227

2. LMTD corrected

14
 F correction factor

P = (Tco-Tci)/(Tpe-Tci) = (8.5-5.5)/(24.8-5.5) = 0.155

R = (Tpc-Tpe)/(Two-Twi) = (11.6-22.6)/(24.9-27.9) = 3.667

For a STHX with 2 shell passes

1−𝑃
√𝑅 2 +1∗ln( )
1−𝑃𝑅
𝐹= = 0.9586
2−𝑃(𝑅+1− 𝑅2 +1)
√
(𝑅−1)∗ln[ ]
2−𝑃(𝑅+1+√𝑅2 +1)

3. Heat transfer area

𝑄𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 3.10778 ∗ 106 ∗ 103

𝐴𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 = = = 346.24 (𝑚2 )
𝑁 ∗ 𝑈 ∗ 𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 ∗ 𝐹 1000 ∗ 1400 ∗ 6.6882 ∗ 0.9586

4. Tubing size

The tube length chosen was 30 ft with diameter of 1-inch.

𝑂𝐷𝑡 = 1 𝑖𝑛 = 1 ∗ 0.0254 = 0.0254 (𝑚)

From the table 9.2 in “Thermal Energy System Design and Analysis” for 1 in-OD, 18

BWG tubes.

𝐼𝐷𝑡 = 0.902 𝑖𝑛 = 0.0229 (𝑚)

𝑇𝑢𝑏𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 4 𝑖𝑛

4
𝐿𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 = 30 − = 29.667 (𝑓𝑡) = 9.043(𝑚)
12

𝑆𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 = 𝜋 ∗ 𝐷 ∗ 𝐿𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 = 𝜋 ∗ (0.0254) ∗ 9.043 = 0.722 (𝑚2 )

𝐴𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 346.24
𝑁𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 = = = 479.56 = 480 (𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒𝑠)
𝑆𝑡 0.722

Using the table 9.3, we choose the number of tubes to be the next closest integer as 480

tubes. The material for tubes is chosen as drawn copper tubing. The absolute roughness

15
 of the tubes can be determined from Table 4.3 in “Thermal Energy System Design and

Analysis”

𝜖𝑡 = 0.0000015 𝑚 (𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑔)

5. Shell dimension

Using table 9.3 to select the Shell ID based on the number of tubes needed and 1-1/4-inch

triangular pitch.

𝐷𝑠 = 35 𝑖𝑛 = 35 ∗ 0.0254 = 0.889 (𝑚)

𝐶 = 𝑃𝑇 − 𝑂𝐷𝑡 = 0.03175 − 0.0254 = 0.00635 (𝑚)

𝑃𝑇2 0.031752
𝐷𝑒 = 2√3 ∗ − 𝑂𝐷𝑡 = 2√3 ∗ − 0.0254 = 0.01836 (𝑚)
𝜋(𝑂𝐷𝑡 ) 𝜋(0.0254)

The optimum baffle spacing is within the range of 0.4 and 0.6 of the shell diameters. We

choose it to be at 0.4 of shell diameter.

𝐵𝑜𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 = 0.4 ∗ 𝐼𝐷𝑠 = 35 ∗ 0.4 = 14 (𝑖𝑛) = 0.3556 (𝑚)

𝐿 29.667 ∗ 12
𝑁𝐵 = −1= − 1 = 24.43 = 25 (𝑏𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑠)
𝐵 14
𝐿 29.667 ∗ 12
𝐵𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 = = (𝑖𝑛) = 0.3478 (𝑚)
𝑁𝐵 + 1 25 + 1

6. Fluid velocity

Cross sectional area of tube and shell:

𝑁𝑡 480
𝐴𝑡 = (𝜋 ∗ 𝐼𝐷𝑡2 ) = (𝜋 ∗ 0.02292 ) = 0.0247 (𝑚2 )
4𝑁𝑝 4∗8

𝐷𝑠 ∗ 𝐶 ∗ 𝐵 35
𝐴𝑠 = = ∗ 0.00635 ∗ 0.3478 = 0.0618 (𝑚2 )
𝑃𝑇 1.25

Fouling factor could be found from table 5.2 in “Thermal Energy System Design and

Analysis” textbook.

16
 ′′
𝑅𝑓ℎ = 0.000352 (𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑙𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐 𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒)

′′
𝑅𝑓𝑐 = 0.000088 (𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟)

Velocity inside tube and shell:

𝑚̇𝑡 246.57 𝑚
𝑉𝑡 = = = 9.985 ( )
𝜌𝑡 ∗ 𝐴𝑡 999.8 ∗ 0.0247 𝑠

𝑚̇𝑠 8.873 𝑚
𝑉𝑠 = = = 6.079 ( )
𝜌𝑠 ∗ 𝐴𝑠 23.62 ∗ 0.0618 𝑠

7. Reynold number

𝐼𝐷𝑡 0.0229
𝑅𝑒𝑡 = 𝜌𝑡 ∗ 𝑉𝑡 ∗ = 999.8 ∗ 9.985 ∗ = 152947.6
𝜇𝑡 0.0014947

𝐷𝑒 0.01836
𝑅𝑒𝑆 = 𝜌𝑠 ∗ 𝑉𝑠 ∗ = 23.62 ∗ 6.079 ∗ = 317619.1
𝜇𝑡 0.0000083

8. Friction factor

0.25 0.25
𝑓𝑡 = = = 0.0119
𝜖 5.74 2 0.0000015 5.74 2
log (𝐼𝐷 ∗ 3.7 + 0.9 ) log (0.0229 ∗ 3.7 + )
𝑡 𝑅𝑒𝑡 3152947.60.9

𝑓𝑠 = exp(0.576 − 0.19 ln(𝑅𝑒𝑠 )) = 𝑒𝑥𝑝(0.576 − 0.19 ln(317619.1 )) = 0.1600

9. Nusselt Numbers

For tube side:

𝑓 0.0119
( 8𝑡 ) (𝑅𝑒𝑡 − 1000)(𝑃𝑟)𝑡 ) (152947.6 − 1000)(10.9965)
(
𝑁𝑢𝑡 = = 8
2
𝑓𝑡 0.5 3 0.0119 0.5 2
1 + 12.7 ( 8 ) [(𝑃𝑟)𝑡 − 1] 1 + 12.7 ( 8 ) (10.99653 − 1)

𝑁𝑢𝑡 = 847.6

For shell side: Using McAdams (Fraas 1989) equation for correlation for the convective

heat transfer coefficient between the shell fluid and the outside surface of the tubes
1 1
0.55 (Pr)3
𝑁𝑢𝑠 = 0.36𝑅𝑒𝑠 s = 0.36 ∗ 317619.10.55 (0.86227)3 = 363.83

17
10. Convective Heat Transfer Coefficients

𝑘𝑡 0.57147 W
ℎ𝑡 = 𝑁𝑢𝑡 ∗ = 847.6 ∗ ( ) = 21151.88 ( 2 )
𝐼𝐷𝑡 0.0229 m −𝐾

𝑘𝑠 0.01942 W
ℎ𝑠 = 𝑁𝑢𝑠 ∗ = 363.83 ∗ ( ) = 384.84 ( 2 )
𝐷𝑒 0.01836 m −𝐾

11. Overall Heat Transfer Coefficients

′′ ′′
1 1 𝑂𝐷𝑡 𝑅𝑓,𝑖 𝑂𝐷𝑡 𝑅𝑓,𝑜 1
= ( )+ ( )+ +
𝑈𝑜,𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑑 ℎ𝑡 𝐼𝐷𝑡 12 𝐼𝐷𝑡 12 ℎ𝑠
𝑀 𝑀

1 1 0.0254 0.0254 1
= ( ) + 0.000352 ( ) + 0.000088 +
𝑈𝑜,𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑑 21151.88 0.0229 0.0229 384.84

= 3.129 ∗ 10−3

𝑊
→ 𝑈𝑜 , 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑑 = 319.6 ( 2 )
𝑚 −𝐾

This overall heat transfer coefficient is not close to 1400 W/m2.K as expected. The

difference might come from errors in obtaining data, especially with fouling factors for

propane and sea water, and inconsistency in choosing value and material for the system.

However, this is the best data set we could obtain from many iterations, so we decided to

keep using this for the design.

𝑈𝐴𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑑 = 𝑈𝑜,𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑑 [𝑁𝑡 𝜋(𝑂𝐷𝑡 )𝐿]

𝑊
𝑈𝐴𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑑 = 319.6 ∗ (480 ∗ 𝜋 ∗ 0.0254 ∗ 29.667 ∗ 12 ∗ 0.0254) = 110693 ( )
𝐾

12. Pressure drops

𝑓𝑡 𝐿𝑡 𝑉𝑡2
𝛿𝑃𝑡 = 𝛿𝑃𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒𝑠 + 𝛿𝑃𝑚 = 𝛾𝑡 ∗ 𝑁𝑝 ( + 4) ( )
𝐼𝐷𝑡 2𝑔

9.043 9.9852
𝛿𝑃𝑡 = 9808.04 ∗ 8 ∗ (0.0119 ∗ + 4) ( ) = 3472095 (𝑃𝑎)
0.0229 2 ∗ 9.8

18
 𝜇 0.14
For shell side, assuming that (𝜇 ) = 1, the pressure drop through shell is given by:
𝑚

𝑉𝑠2 𝐷𝑠
(𝑁
𝛿𝑃𝑠 = 𝛾𝑠 ∗ 𝑓𝑠 ∗ 𝑏 + 1) ( ) ( )
2𝑔 𝐷𝑒

6.079 2 35 ∗ 0.0254
𝛿𝑃𝑠 = 231.71 ∗ 0.1600 ∗ (25 + 1) ( )( ) = 87998.5 (𝑃𝑎)
2 ∗ 9.8 0.01836

Condenser Design:

Parameter Value
Manufacturer’s specifications
Shell ID 35 in
Number of shell pass 8
Tube specification 1-inch 18 BWG
Tube pitch: 1-1/4-inch triangular
Tube sheet thickness 4 in
Number of tubes 480 tubes
Number of dummy tubes 52 tubes
Heat exchanger length: 30 in
Number of segmental baffles: 25
Fluid Placement
Hot fluid – propane In the cell
Cold fluid – water In the tube
Thermal performance
Hot fluid flow rate 8.773 kg/s
Hot fluid inlet temperature 24.8oC
Cold fluid flow rate 246.57 kg/s
Cold fluid inlet temperature 5.5oC
Desired cold fluid temperature 8.5oC
Fouled
Hot fluid outlet temperature 13.8
Cold fluid outlet temperature 8.5

19
 UA product 110690 W/K
LMTD correction factor 0.9586
Hydraulic performance
Shell pressure drop 3.47 MPa
Tube pressure drop 87.99 KPa
Other
Maintenance schedule Every 12 months

Conclusion

In conclusion, the first part of this project gave insight about the closed-cycle OTEC

system while the second part of this project gave insight about designing a heat exchanger for

this system. In this instance, the team was challenged to design a condenser. The main tool to

design the heat exchanger was given in procedure with the lecture. By analyzing the system and

formulating energy equations, students were able to understand the design procedure of a

condenser in a closed-cycle OTEC system under given working conditions. The numerical

design variables obtaining in the first part was the given parameter to help with the second part

of the project. Through many iterations we still come up with a pretty off result with the values

provided. In our research, we learned that it is extremely common for OTEC systems to be very

large due to the size of the components that they are comprised of. This system requires an

extremely large heat exchanger to supply the demand and this can be attributed to the small

temperature differential that the system operates at. Although there are not many systems

currently operating that can give us reference numbers for comparison, the conceptual

understanding we have gained in researching the OTEC systems still give us a valuable

experience in designing a heat exchanger. Nonetheless, this project shows that there are many

aspects to be considered when designing a mechanical component of this sort.

20
Reference

[1] L. Vega, “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Primer,” Marine Technology Society Journal,
vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 25–35, 2002.
[2] NIST Chemistry WebBook, SRD 69, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
[3] Aydin, Hakan. “Performance Analysis of a Closed Cycle Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
System with Solar Preheating and Superheating,” University of Rhode Island. 2013.
[4] K. A. Finney, "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion," Guelph Engineering Journal 1, 17
(2008).
[5] R. Pelc and Rod M. Fujita. "Renewable Energy from the Ocean," Mar. Policy 26, 471 (2002).
[6] K. Galbraith, "Generating Energy from the Deep," New York Times, 29 Apr 09.

21