University of Manchester

Experiment 16: Shell & Tube Heat Transfer

Sarah Al Binsaad
10743067

Laboratory Projects 2 CHEN20020

27/10/2022
Sarah Al Binsaad Experiment 16: Shell & Tube Heat Transfer 27/10/2022
Group A19
The heat transfer rate in the heat exchanger
1. Introduction can be represented in terms of the heat transfer
area, the overall heat transfer coefficient U
1.1. Learning Outcomes and the logarithmic mean temperature
This experiment aims to construct an E-NTU difference between the two streams Δ T m (eq.
graph for a heat exchanger to analyse its 4&5). The overall heat transfer coefficient is a
performance. It also investigates the effect of factor that depends on the convective
different flow arrangements and flowrate coefficients of the tube-side and the shell-side,
values of the fluids on the performance of the and the heat resistance to conduction as well.
heat exchanger. Q̇=UA ∆ T m (4)
∆ T max −∆ T min
1.2. Theory [1,2] ∆ T m=
Shell and tube heat exchangers are devices that
transfer heat from fluid mass to another,
utilising the temperature gradient between
(
ln ⁡
∆ T max
∆ T min ) (5)

Since the outlet temperatures may not be

them. In this experiment, water was used as always known, an alternative approach called
the fluid in both sides. The heating water was E-NTU is used to assist the process of
in the tube side at around 70℃, and the cold selecting a heat exchanger or analysing an
water was supplied in the shell side at room existing one. The thermal effectiveness of a
temperature. In a shell and tube heat heat exchanger, E, is the ratio of the actual
exchanger, fluids can be arranged in various heat transfer rate over the maximum possible
ways, such as counter-current, where the fluids heat transfer rate.
flow in opposite directions and co-current,
Q̇
where the fluids flow in the same directions. E= (6)
Both arrangements were examined in this Q̇max
experiment. In order to analyse the system in To find the maximum heat transfer rate, the
this experiment, several assumptions were stream with the smaller thermal capacity rate
made: ( ṁ c p ) is assumed to reach the inlet
1- Negligible heat loss to the temperature of the other stream. In this
surroundings. experiment, the stream of the cold water is the
2- Equal and constant heat capacities (c p) one with the smaller thermal capacity rate.
for water in both streams. Therefore:
3- Constant overall heat transfer Q̇max =( ṁ c p )cold ¿ (7)
coefficient (U ) throughout the heat Substituting equations 2&7 in equation 6, the
exchanger. following equation is derived:
4- Uniform water temperature, i.e., even E=( ṁ c p ) cold ¿ ¿ (8)
distribution of heat along the cross- The number of heat transfer units (NTU) is a
section. dimensionless parameter, which is defined as:
5- Identical flowrates and heat transfer
UA
areas at all parallel paths. NTU = (9)
6- The system operates at a steady state. ( ṁ c p ) smaller
Expanding upon the first assumption, the heat NTU can also be defined in terms of change in
lost by hot stream is fully gained by the cold temperature as shown below:
stream, as shown in equation 1: UA T ∙| Δ T |larger
Q̇=( ṁc p ) cold Δ T cold =( ṁ c p ) hot Δ T hot (1) NTU = ∙ m
( ṁ c p ) smaller T m ∙| Δ T |larger
For constant heat transfer rates, the thermal Using equations 2 &4,
capacity rate ( ṁ c p ) is inversely proportional to Q̇∙|Δ T|larger
the change in temperature Δ T . Hence, a NTU =
Q̇∙ T m
relationship relating the heat transfer rate and
the stream properties can be demonstrated in |Δ T |larger
NTU = (10)
equations 2&3 below: Tm
Q̇=( ṁc p ) smaller|Δ T |larger (2)
Q̇=( ṁc p )larger| Δ T|smaller (3)

2
Sarah Al Binsaad Experiment 16: Shell & Tube Heat Transfer 27/10/2022
Group A19
Thermal capacity ratio is another parameter streams were manipulated for many runs.
that was introduced in this experiment, which Once the system was stable, i.e., reached a
is defined as: steady state, the inlet and outlet temperatures
( ṁ c p )smaller
¿
were recorded.
C= (11)
( ṁ c p )larger 2.3. Hazards and Safety
¿ |( ¿
T −T out )|smaller The main source of hazard in this experiment
C= (12) is the hot apparatus that can cause burns when
|( T ¿−T out )|larger they are in contact with human skin.
Therefore, the apparatus should be handled
with care and appropriate gloves and lab coats
must be worn while working. Other hazards
1.3. Relevance can be slips due to water leaks and
Among the different types of heat exchangers, electrocution.
the shell and tube heat exchanger is the most
widely used type in the chemical engineering 3. Results and Discussion
industry [1]. They are used in various industries 3.1. Derived results
since they can be constructed of different
materials and designed to operate under a
broad spectrum of pressures and temperatures.
In the food processing industry, for instance,
shell and tube heat exchangers are used for
heating and cooling dairy products [3]. They are
also used to generate pure stream which is
used to sterilise tanks, filters, and piping
systems. In the pharmaceutical industry, they
are used for processing active pharmaceutical
ingredients [3]. Shell and tube heat exchangers
are also frequently used in the petrochemical
industry. In oil refineries, heat exchanger
networks are used to recover heat from hot oil Figure 1. Thermal effectiveness vs. number of transfer
and gas systems to reduce energy consumption units for a range of flow arrangements and thermal
[4] capacity ratios
.

2. Experimental Work [1]

2.1. Apparatus
A GUNT WL110-SERIES shell and tube heat
exchanger unit was used to conduct the
processes and collect the data in this
experiment.

2.2. Procedure
The heat exchanger was firstly set so that the
hot stream was in the tube-side and the cold
stream was in the shell-side. Depending on the
desired flow arrangement, the streams could
Figure 2. Thermal effectiveness vs. the thermal capacity
be flowing in the same direction (co-current) ratio for counter-current and co-current flow
or in the opposite direction (counter-current). arrangement
The temperature of the hot water was set to
70℃. Then, the pump was switched on, so the
heat was transferred from the hot stream to the
cold one. A range of values for C* was tested
during this experiment (0.1, 0.3, 0.6 &1). To
obtain these values, the flowrates of both

3
Sarah Al Binsaad Experiment 16: Shell & Tube Heat Transfer
Group A19
Figure 3. The overall heat transfer coefficient vs. mass
flowrate of the hot stream
3.2. Discussion
Relationships Between the Thermal
Effectiveness (E), Number of Transfer Units
(NTU), and the Thermal Capacity Ratio (C*):
Figure 1 represents the E-NTU graph of the
shell and tube heat exchanger unit for various
thermal capacity ratios and two different flow
arrangements. It shows a general trend, where
the thermal effectiveness increases as the
number of transfer units increases. Also, there
is an inverse relationship between the thermal
effectiveness and thermal capacity ratio, which
is shown in both figures 1&2. In other words,
systems with the flowrate of the cold stream
being significantly lower than the hot one are
more thermally effective. These trends can be
explained by considering equations 6,7, 9
&11. When lowering the flowrate of the cold
stream, the maximum achievable heat transfer
rate decreases as well (eq. 7). Consequently,
the thermal effectiveness increases for a fixed
value of actual heat transfer rate (eq. 6).
Similarly, it can be seen from equation 9 that
the number of heat transfer unit is inversely
proportional to the flowrate of the cold stream.
Since the thermal effectiveness and the
number of transfer units are both inversely
proportional to the flowrate of the cold stream,
and hence the thermal capacity ratio. It was
predicted that they are directly proportional to
each other, which was proven in figures 1 &2.
Effects of the Flowrates and Thermal Capacity
Ratio (C*) on the Overall Heat Transfer
Coefficient (U):
4
27/10/2022
Figure 3 shows the overall heat transfer
coefficient as a function of the flowrate of the
hot stream for different C* values. The graph
shows a linear relationship between U and
ṁhot , which agrees with equations 1 &4. Also,
it can be seen from the graph that systems with
lower thermal capacity ratios have less overall
heat transfer coefficient. This can be seen at
m˙hot =0.0300 kg s−1, where the systems with
C*=1 have the highest overall heat transfer
coefficient, whilst the system with C*=0.1
have the lowest. This can be explained by the
fact that the overall heat transfer coefficient
also depends on the cold stream. Lowering the
cold stream flowrate decreases the temperature
gradient between the two streams, which slows
the heat transfer rate. As a result, the overall
heat transfer coefficient decreases as well (fig.
3). It is worth noting that higher heat transfer
coefficients do not necessarily indicate a
better-performing heat exchange, which can be
seen by comparing the thermal effectiveness
of each system with its overall heat transfer
coefficients (fig. 1&3).
Effects of Flow Arrangements on the Thermal
Effectiveness (E) and the Overall Heat
Transfer Coefficients (U):
In this experiment, co-current and counter-
current arrangements were compared at the
same thermal capacity ratio (C*=1). In theory,
the counter-current is more efficient than the
co-current flow arrangement. This is due to
the fact that the counter-current flow maintains
a larger temperature difference, hence higher
logarithmic mean temperature along the heat
exchanger since both streams flow in opposite
directions. As a result, the heat transfer rate
resulted from the system should be higher,
leading to higher thermal effectiveness (eq. 6).
Results in figures 1&2 agree with the theory
where they show that the thermal effectiveness
of the counter-current flow is slightly higher
than that of the co-current flow at fixed NTU
and C* values. Figure 3 shows that the overall
heat transfer coefficients of the counter-current
flow are either equal or less than those of the
co-current, which is a result of the inverse
proportionality between the logarithmic mean
temperature and the overall heat transfer
coefficient (eq. 4).
3.3. Error Analysis
The major error in this experiment arises from
fluctuations in the temperature readings,
Sarah Al Binsaad Experiment 16: Shell & Tube Heat Transfer 27/10/2022
Group A19
especially whilst manipulating the flowrates. NTU Number of Dimensionless
Other possible errors can be related to Heat Transfer
measuring the flowrate. Since some of the Units
chosen flowrate values were under the C* Thermal Dimensionless
measuring range of the paddle wheel Capacity Ratio
flowmeter (20−250 Lhr −1) [5], the flowrate
measurements are not necessarily the most 6. References
accurate. The instrumental errors of the
devices used in the GUNT WL110-SERIES [1] School of Chemical Engineering and
shell and tube heat exchanger unit are listed Analytical Science (2022). Experiment:
below in table 1. Shell & Tube Heat Transfer. [online]
Blackboard. Available at:
Table 1. The uncertainty of the devices used in the heat
https://online.manchester.ac.uk/webapps
exchanger unit [5].
/blackboard/execute/content/file?
Device Error Magnitude cmd=view&content_id=_13861383_1&
Paddle Wheel −1 course_id=_72671_1 [Accessed 1 Nov.
± 0.10 L s 2022].
Flowmeter
RTD Thermometer ± 1.5 ℃ [2] Incropera, F.P. and DeWitt, D.P.
(2002). Fundamentals of Heat and Mass
4. Conclusion Transfer. [online] John Wiley & Sons
In conclusion, an E-NTU graph is a useful way Incorporated. Available at:
to choose and analyse a heat exchanger. This https://hyominsite.files.wordpress.com/
experiment proved that the thermal 2015/03/fundamentals-of-heat-and-
effectiveness and the number of heat transfer mass-transfer-6th-edition.pdf
units are directly proportional. Furthermore, it [Accessed 1 Nov. 2022].
was proven that the thermal effectiveness is
inversely proportional to the thermal capacity [3] Southwest Thermal Technology
ratio. For a shell and tube heat exchanger, it (2022). Markets & Applications.
was found that the counter-current [online] www.shell-tube.com. Available
arrangement yields the highest performance. at: https://www.shell-tube.com/Shell-
Therefore, higher thermal effectiveness values Tube-Applications.html [Accessed 1
are achieved by lowering the heat capacity Nov. 2022].
ratio, increasing the NTU value, and operating
under a counter-current flow arrangement.
‌[4] Jer6nimo, M., Melo, L., Sousa Braga, A.,
Ferreira, P. and Martins, C. (1996).
5. Nomenclature Monitoring the Thermal Efficiency of
Symbo Meaning Unit Fouled Heat Exchangers: A Simplified
l Method. [online] Available at:
Q̇ Heat Transfer W https://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/bit
Rate stream/1822/16758/1/3786.pdf
−1
ṁ Mass Flowrate kg s [Accessed 2 Nov. 2022].
cp Heat Capacity −1 −1
Jk g K
ΔT Temperature K [5] G.U.N.T. Gerätebau (2011). Experiment
Difference Instructions WL110-SERIES
∆Tm Log Mean K HeatExchangerwith Service Unit.
Temperature [online] Blackboard. Available at:
U Overall Heat Wm K
−2 −1 https://online.manchester.ac.uk/webapps
Coefficient /blackboard/execute/content/file?
A Heat Transfer m
−2 cmd=view&content_id=_13861287_1&
Area course_id=_72671_1 [Accessed 1 Nov.
E Thermal Dimensionless 2022].
effectiveness
‌

5
Sarah Al Binsaad Experiment 16: Shell & Tube Heat Transfer 27/10/2022
Group A19

6
 Sarah Al Binsaad Experiment 16: Shell & Tube Heat Transfer 27/10/2022
Group A19
Appendix A:
Table 2. Observed data.

C* Runs ṁcold ṁhot T1 T3 T4 T6

−1
(kg s )
−1
(kg s ) (℃) (℃ ) (℃) (℃)

1 0.0300 0.0300 67.30 58.30 19.70 29.50

2 0.0267 0.0267 67.60 58.00 19.80 29.70
1
3 0.0233 0.0233 67.40 57.80 19.90 29.90
4 0.0183 0.0183 67.90 57.90 20.10 30.90
5 0.0300 0.0183 68.00 60.10 20.30 33.80
6 0.0267 0.0167 68.00 59.90 20.60 33.90
counter- current

0.6
7 0.0233 0.0133 68.40 60.20 20.80 35.30
8 0.0200 0.0117 68.50 60.30 21.10 36.00
9 0.0317 0.0100 69.10 63.20 21.60 41.70
10 0.0300 0.0083 69.00 63.60 21.80 43.60
0.3
11 0.0283 0.0083 69.00 63.40 21.90 43.20
12 0.0250 0.0067 68.70 63.00 22.00 43.00
13 0.0300 0.0030 69.60 66.10 23.00 51.40
14 0.0267 0.0027 69.50 65.80 23.30 51.80
0.1
15 0.0233 0.0023 69.50 65.80 23.60 51.80
16 0.0183 0.0018 69.30 65.10 23.80 51.20
17 0.0300 0.0300 67.70 58.80 21.90 31.30
co-current

18 0.0267 0.0267 68.00 58.90 22.00 31.50

1 19 0.0233 0.0233 67.70 58.70 22.20 31.80
20 0.0183 0.0183 68.20 58.50 22.50 32.70

Table 3. Derived results.

Run ∆ T hot ∆ T cold Q̇ ∆T1 ∆T2 ∆Tm U
s −2 −1 E NTU
(℃) (℃) (W ) (℃) (℃) (℃) (W m K )
1 9.00 -9.80 1129 38.60 37.80 38.20 1477.99 0.21 0.257
2 9.60 -9.90 1070 38.20 37.90 38.05 1406.83 0.21 0.260
3 9.60 -10.00 936.77 37.90 37.50 37.70 1242.41 0.21 0.265
4 10.00 -10.80 766.70 37.80 37.00 37.40 1025.04 0.23 0.289
5 7.90 -13.50 991.13 39.80 34.20 36.93 1341.94 0.28 0.366
6 8.10 -13.30 903.31 39.30 34.10 36.64 1232.74 0.28 0.363
7 8.20 -14.50 800.16 39.40 33.10 36.16 1106.45 0.30 0.401
8 8.20 -14.90 685.85 39.20 32.50 35.75 959.35 0.31 0.417
9 5.90 -20.10 781.34 41.60 27.40 34.01 1148.78 0.42 0.591
10 5.40 -21.80 677.48 41.80 25.40 32.92 1028.92 0.46 0.662
11 5.60 -21.30 663.54 41.50 25.80 33.03 1004.44 0.45 0.645
12 5.70 -21.00 595.94 41.00 25.70 32.76 909.64 0.45 0.641
13 3.50 -28.40 439.11 43.10 18.20 28.88 760.16 0.61 0.983
14 3.70 -28.50 412.62 42.50 17.70 28.31 728.70 0.62 1.007
15 3.70 -28.20 361.05 42.20 17.70 28.20 640.20 0.61 1.000
16 4.20 -27.40 322.01 41.30 18.10 28.12 572.51 0.60 0.974
17 8.90 -9.40 1116.59 45.80 27.50 35.87545 1556.21 0.21 0.262
18 9.10 -9.50 1014.83 46.00 27.40 35.90 1413.39 0.21 0.265
19 9.00 -9.60 878.22 45.50 26.90 35.39 1240.81 0.21 0.271
20 743.70 45.70 25.80 34.81 1068.32 0.22 0.293
9.70 -10.20
7
Sarah Al Binsaad Experiment 16: Shell & Tube Heat Transfer 27/10/2022
Group A19
Appendix B:
Table 4. Values used during calculations

Density of Water ( ρ ¿ 1.000 kg L

−1

−1 −1
Specific Heat Capacity of Water(c p ) 4182 J k g K
Heat Transfer Area (A) 2
0.020 m