RESTRICTED – COMMERCIAL RS1069

IMPROVED METHODS FOR CONDENSATE COOLING CALCULATIONS IN TASC

J M McNaught

HTFS/NEL
East Kilbride, Glasgow

ABSTRACT

This report describes methods developed to improve the prediction of condensate cooling in TASC 5.00. The
improvements apply to cooling over the condensing range and to cooling below the bubble point. Particular
attention is focused on horizontal shellside condensation, where the condensate tends to separate from the vapour.
The Silver method is adapted so that the surface area requirement for cooling of the condensate over the condensing
range can be estimated. The implications of the new methods are illustrated with reference to example cases.

NOTATION L Liquid cooling region

l Liquid phase
Roman
out Outlet
A Surface area
Cp Specific heat capacity
1. INTRODUCTION
FC Fraction of incremental heat release due to
condensation and gas cooling This report describes new methods in TASC 5.00 for
FNAT Fraction of tubes submerged by condensate calculation of the surface area requirement in TASC
according to separated flow model for liquid cooling over the condensing range and
h Specific enthalpy below the bubble point.
Q Heat transfer rate
The improvements are particularly aimed at
T Shellside temperature horizontal shellside condensation, where the
t Tubeside temperature condensate tends to separate to a pool at the bottom
U Overall heat transfer coefficient of the shell. It must be recognised that a precise
xg Vapour mass fraction treatment of liquid cooling in this geometry is not
possible within the restrictions imposed by a typical
Greek
shell and tube calculation structure. The main
α Heat transfer coefficient
objective in enhancing the methods is to ensure that
εg Void fraction
condensers with significant amounts of liquid cooling
η Dynamic viscosity
are conservatively designed, and that users are made
ρ Density
aware of the possible need to control the liquid level
Subscripts to achieve the required condensate cooling.

bub Bubble point

A further objective is to ensure that the predictions
C Condensing (+gas cooling) region
for processes with liquid cooling accompanied by
CC Condensate cooling by convective
small amounts of condensation merge smoothly with
mechanism
results for liquid cooling only.
c Condensate
FF Condensate cooling by falling film
2. BACKGROUND
mechanism
f Coolant+wall +fouling The basic equation of Silver’s method is
1 1 1 Z
g Gas phase = + + (1)
U α f αc α g
in Inlet

29
where αf is the combined heat transfer coefficient for An alternative way of expressing equation (7) is
the coolant, tube wall and fouling, αc is the
condensate heat transfer coefficient, αg is the ∆A = ∆ Q U ′(T − t ) (8)
coefficient for the gas phase flowing alone, and Z is where
given by 1 F 1 − FC
= C + (9)
Z = x g C pg
dT
(2) U ′ UC UL
dh
and
FC = (∆Q − ∆QL ) ∆Q (10)
There is no direct account taken anywhere in the
method of the heat transfer coefficient that applies to
The local overall heat transfer coefficient UC is given
the required cooling of the liquid phase along the
by
heat release curve. In effect it is being assumed that
1 1 1 ZC
the controlling resistances are the gas phase and the = + + (11)
UC α f αc α g
condensate, and that the accumulated condensate
remains in good contact with the tube wall.
where ZC is defined by
These assumptions are generally thought to be
dT
reasonable for configurations such as vertical Z C = x g C pg (12)
dh − dhL
tubeside condensation. However the assumptions are
probably not reasonable for configurations in which UL is given by
the condensate tends to separate from the vapour, for
1 1 1
example horizontal shellside condensation. This = + (13)
UL α f αL
situation is considered in Section 3 below.

3. SEPARATED FLOW OF VAPOUR where αL is the liquid heat transfer coefficient for the
AND CONDENSATE condensate cooling region.

In a separated regime the incremental heat transfer

In the calculation of αL it is assumed that there is a
rate ∆Q is given by
uniform level of liquid in the bottom of the shell.
∆Q = U C (T − t )∆AC + U L (T − t )∆AL
The liquid level is estimated using an adaptation of
(3)
the balanced pressure drop method of (Gloyer, 1970)
where
∆AC = (∆Q − ∆QL ) U C (T − t )
(see DR12 (1993) equations 3.24 and 3.28). This
(4)
yields an equation for the fraction FNAT of the tubes
and
∆AL = ∆QL U L (T − t )
that is submerged:
(5)

FNAT =
(1 + B )  1 + Bx g ,in
ln
 1
−
( )
The subscript C refers to the condensing (+gas (14)
B x g ,in − x g ,out
2  1 + Bx g ,out  B
cooling) region, and the subscript L refers to the  
liquid cooling region.
where
0.556
ρ 
0.111
A mean heat transfer coefficient U can be defined by ηg 
B= l  
η

 −1 (15)
 ρg 
   l 
∆A = ∆AC + ∆AL = ∆ Q U (T − t ) (6)

The coefficient αL is then evaluated applying the

From equations (4), (5) and (6)
normal method for the shellside heat transfer
coefficient using the mean liquid mass flow rate in
 ∆Q − ∆QL ∆QL  ∆Q
∆A =  +  (7) the unit, but increased by multiplying by 1/FNAT.
 ∆Q .
U C ∆Q.U L  (T − t )
The final equation for U′ is now

30 RS1069
 Z 1  α L = min( α C ,α L ) (19)
+ (1 − FC )
1 1 1
= + FC  C + (16)
U′ α f  
 α g αc  αL
5. HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT
FOR LIQUID COOLING
There are many approximations and simplifications
inherent in this equation, the principal approximation The methods for the coefficient αL for liquid cooling
being that the temperature differences for the in condensers are described below for the various
condensing and subcooling regions are equal. configurations.
However the equation has the advantage that it is 5.1 Vertical Tubeside Condensation
correct for the two extremes of condensation with no
condensate cooling and liquid cooling with little 5.1.1 Cooling over the condensing range
condensation.
The heat transfer coefficient for liquid cooling in
vertical tubeside condensation is evaluated as
Working equations for FC and ZC are:
follows:

(
FC = 1 − 1 − x g C pl) dT
dh
(17) 1. Calculate the void fraction εg in the channel.
and 2. Calculate the mass flux in the channel for the
dT liquid phase flowing alone
x g C pg
dh 3. Multiply the liquid-alone mass flux by 1/(1 - εg)
ZC = (18)
(
1 − 1 − x g C pl ) dT
dh
4. Calculate the heat transfer coefficient αCC using
the mass flux evaluated at step 3 above
5. Calculate the heat transfer coefficient αFF
4. COMBINED LIQUID COOLING AND assuming gravity-controlled film flow
CONDENSATION
When the vapour and liquid flow in contact with the It is possible for the user to specify that the falling
same surface, it is reasonable to retain the current film coefficient is used throughout. In this case the
assumption that liquid cooling is not the controlling coefficient αL is simply set to αFF.
resistance. However the current implementation of
Silver’s method has the problem that it does not If a falling film coefficient is not specifically
extrapolate correctly to the case where there is very requested by the user, then the two-phase flow
little heat transfer due to condensation, and the liquid pattern map in HTFS Handbook Sheet TM1 is used
cooling dominates. to decide whether or not the flow pattern is annular
(shear-driven or falling film). The larger of αCC and
It is difficult to set up tractable equations that αFF is used if the predicted flow pattern is annular.
describe simultaneous gas cooling, condensation and (Note that in a shear-driven annular flow αCC could
condensate cooling to the same surface. It may be be taken to represent a shear-controlled annular film
adequate to formulate an equation that gives the coefficient). If the predicted flow pattern is plug or
correct results in the limits of zero- and all-liquid bubbly, the coefficient αCC is used. Interpolation
cooling, and gives sensible interpolation between the between the two coefficients is used if the flow
limits. pattern is oscillary.

Equation (16) fulfils this role. However it would not
be expected that the coefficient αL used in equation
(16) would exceed the local condensate heat transfer
coefficient. Therefore the following limit should be
applied before equation (16) is evaluated:
It seems that in common condensation applications
the liquid superficial velocity is relatively low, with
the result that the predicted flow pattern from Sheet
TM1 is almost always annular.

31 RS1069
5.1.2 Cooling below the bubble point
For condensate cooling below the bubble point, it is
also possible in TASC 5.00 for the user to specify a
falling-film calculation. The default calculation,
introduced in TASC 4.10, attempts to allow for the
fact that some of the condensate cooling will actually
take place in parallel with condensation. The method
is as follows:
1. Calculate the void fraction εg at the mean vapour
mass fraction.
2. Calculate a liquid flowrate M& lF that gives the
same velocity in a full tube as would occur in the
liquid flow area (1- εg) at the mean vapour mass
fraction, i.e.
(
M& lF = M& lT 1 − 0.5 x g ,in ) (1 − ε g )
3. Calculate a ratio R given by
0.1
 t −t  consistent results for both liquid cooling over the
R =  bub 
 tbub − t out 
4. Calculate a revised liquid flowrate M& lR from
M& lR = (1 − R )M& lF + RM& lT
where M& lT is the total liquid flowrate.
5. Calculate the usual single-phase heat transfer
coefficient using the liquid flowrate M& LR .
This method gives an enhancement over the value
that would be obtained if the tube were assumed to
run full of liquid (as in previous versions of TASC).
The result is asymptotic to the full tube value as the
outlet temperature is approached.
5.2 Horizontal Tubeside Condensation
Horizontal tubeside condensation has the property
that the condensate remains in contact with the heat
transfer surface on which it forms. However there is
a tendency for the condensate to separate from the
vapour and flow along the bottom of the tube.
The approach taken is to apply the separated flow
equation (11), with the heat transfer coefficient αL set
to the coefficient αCC obtained as in Section 5.1.
5.3 Horizontal Shellside Condensation
In horizontal shellside condensation it will be
assumed that all the liquid cooling occurs in
separated flow. Therefore the methods of Section 3
above apply.
The underlying assumption is that the condensate
reaches the liquid pool at the local equilibrium
temperature. This may be unduly conservative,
because in practice the condensate forms at a
temperature below the equilibrium temperature if a
non-condensing gas is present, and also some further
cooling may take place during flow over the tubes.
(20)
It was hoped to be able to develop a method of taking
this additional cooling into account, but it proved
impractical to implement a method that would give
(21) condensing range and liquid cooling below the
bubble point.
5.4 Vertical Shellside Condensation
Vertical shellside condensation is treated in a similar
(22) way to vertical tubeside condensation.
6. NUMBER OF TUBES SUBMERGED
IN HORIZONTAL SHELLSIDE
CONDENSATION
For horizontal shellside condensation with the
separated flow model described above, the flow area
used in the calculation of the liquid cooling
coefficient is based on an estimate of the mean
natural liquid level in the shell. This will correspond
to a fraction FNAT of the tubes being submerged in the
condensate. It is desirable to check this fraction
against the ratio of the surface area required for
liquid cooling to the total surface area. From
equations (3) and (9) the local ratio ∆AL/∆A is given
by
∆AL 1
= (23)
∆A 1 + FC U L
1 − FC U C
32 RS1069
This variable is summed over the exchanger(s),
added to the corresponding value for cooling below
the bubble point, and its integrated value compared
with FNAT. A warning is printed if the integrated
value is greater than FNAT.
Also, the user can utilise a new input item in TASC
5.00 to specify a fixed fraction of the tubes that are
submerged.
Alternatively there may be more tubes submerged
than is required to achieve the required liquid
cooling. In this event a similar message is printed.
It should be noted that the calculation of the
condensate cooling heat transfer coefficient is based
on the input submergence fraction or the natural
level, and not on the required submergence. For this
reason it is best to iterate on the submergence
fraction until the above message does not appear.
The calculated or input tube submergence has the
further implication that the available flow area for the
vapour is reduced. This reduction is taken into
account when the gas-phase heat transfer coefficient
is calculated, and it therefore leads to a decrease in
the gas-phase resistance to heat transfer.
7. EXAMPLES
7.1 No Non-condensing Gas, Horizontal
Shellside Condensation
This example shows how to use TASC 5.00 to find
out how much surface area is required for condensate
cooling below the bubble point. The example is for
shellside condensation of steam at atmospheric
pressure, with subcooling of 50 K.
A comparison of the TASC 4.11 and TASC 5.00T
predictions for a case with subcooling below the
bubble point is shown below
TASC 4.11
Mean shellside heat transfer coefficient: 5799
W/m2K
Area ratio: 1.37
33
A warning is generated to the effect that only 32% of
the subcooling duty is likely, and that the calculated
number of tubes that are naturally submerged is 10,
but the number of tubes that must be submerged to
achieve the subcooling duty is 33.
There is no facility to re-submit the data with
revisions to the input data to remove the warning
message.
TASC 5.00T
The results of an initial run are:
Mean shellside heat transfer coefficient: 5801
W/m2K
Area ratio: 1.37
A warning message is generated to the effect that
“the required fraction of the surface area for
condensate cooling is approximately 21%. However
the number of naturally submerged tubes, calculated
using a balanced pressure drop model, is 10, which
would mean that only 6% of the surface is submerged
by condensate.”
The case can then be re-run on TASC 5.00 using the
facility to specify an input submergence fraction of
0.35, when the message no longer appears, and the
results are:
Mean shellside heat transfer coefficient: 2890
W/m2K
Area ratio: 1.08
The shellside heat transfer coefficient has decreased
because the velocity in the condensate pool has
decreased.
This extreme example shows that because the liquid
velocity decreases as the liquid level is increased, the
actual surface area required for subcooling is very
large. It shows that the subcooling would be much
more effectively accomplished in a separate
exchanger specifically designed for the purpose.
RS1069
7.2 Condensate Cooling Over the Condensing fraction of tube submergence is specified in the
Range input

The runs in Section 7.1 above were repeated for a

8. CONCLUSIONS
user-supplied case with shellside condensation of a
hydrocarbon mixture with a non-condensing gas in The inclusion of a separated flow model for
which the condensing range was 40K. The results condensate cooling calculations over the condensing
are shown in Table 1. Note that, when there is no range in horizontal shellside condensers is possible
bubble point, TASC 4.11 does not generate any within the structure of TASC, though some
information about the amount of submergence simplifying assumptions are required. The new
required. model allows the user to assess the amount of tube
submergence required to achieve the specified outlet
Version Input Area Hot stream temperature.
submergence ratio heat transfer
fraction coefficient For vertical tubeside condensation, the major
W/m2K improvement is the inclusion of a falling-film model
TASC - 1.15 1281 for heat transfer from the condensate, both above and
4.11 below the bubble point. This gives more physical
TASC 0.0 1.14 1257 realism than the current model.
5.00T
REFERENCE
TASC 0.33 1.10 1170
5.00T GLOYER, W (1970), "Thermal Design of Mixed
Vapor Condensers," Part 1, Hydrocarbon Processing,
Table 1: Comparison of TASC versions for shellside Vol. 49, No. 6, pages 103-108.
condensation with a 40K condensing range
LIST OF TABLES
This shows that the overall effect of the new method 1. Comparison of TASC versions for shellside
for condensate cooling over a moderate temperature condensation with a 40K condensing range
range is relatively small.

7.3 General Test Results

The above methods have been tested against a large

number of data sets including a number of user cases.

The general conclusions from the tests are:

• Tubeside condensation is relatively unaffected

by the changes, except when the option to use a
falling film coefficient for all condensate cooling
calculations is activated. The falling film
calculation produces significantly higher heat
transfer coefficients

• TASC 5.00T tends to give a lower heat transfer

coefficient for horizontal shellside condensation.
The difference can be significant in cases with a
very long temperature range when the required

34 RS1069