Heat exchanger report

by
Brendan Carberry
Paul Bergin
Cathal Waldron
Keith Quinn

Mr Cian Bregazzi Nevin, Lecturer

A team report submitted in partial fulfilment

of the requirements for the
Degree of Bachelor of Engineering with Honours
in

Mechanical Engineering

Athlone Institute of Technology

Introduction .............................................................................................. 1

1.1

Aim ................................................................................................................................. 3

1.2

Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 3

1.3

Heat exchanger performance improvement ............................................................ 4

Materials and methods ........................................................................... 6

2.1

Materials ........................................................................................................................ 6

2.2

Methodologies .............................................................................................................. 7

2.2.1
2.3

Finite element analysis methodology ....................................................................... 8

Results and discussion ......................................................................... 10

3.1

Experimental results .................................................................................................. 10

3.1.1

Comparison of cavity layers............................................................................. 10

3.1.2

Comparison of test liquids ................................................................................ 11

3.2

Experimental methodology ................................................................................. 7

Finite Element Analysis Results............................................................................... 12

Conclusion .............................................................................................. 14

List of figures
Figure 1-1 heat exchanger friction rig 3D model ................................................................ 2
Figure 1-2 cross-section view of the heat exchanger.......................................................... 3
Figure 2-1 FEA mesh setup for the chassis and water displacement........................................ 9
Figure 3-1 time taken for various cavity layers to reach 37C ........................................ 10
Figure 3-2 time taken and temperature reached for the test liquids ............................. 11
Figure 3-3 temperature contour plot of full system ................................................................ 12
Figure 3-4 temperature contour cut-plot of system ................................................................ 12
Figure 3-5 temperature contour plot of the heat exchanger base .................................. 13
Figure 3-6 temperature contour plot of the heat exchanger base ............................................ 13

List of tables
Table 1-1 test liquid and properties (30C) .......................................................................... 5
Table 1-2 cavity layer material and properties ................................................................... 5
Table 2-1 Pros and Cons of tested cavity layers and test liquids ..................................... 7
Table 2-2 Test combinations .................................................................................................. 8
Table 2-3 material properties for FEA model ........................................................................... 8
Table 2-4 Boundary conditions for FEA model ........................................................................ 9

ii

Introduction
A heat exchanger is a device that is used to transfer thermal energy (enthalpy)

between two or more fluids, between a solid surface and a fluid, or between a solid
particulates and a fluid, at different temperatures and in thermal contact (Ramesh,
2003).
Heat exchangers can be classified on the basis of the transfer process (direct or
indirect), the number of fluids, the surface compactness (gas-to-fluid or liquid-toliquid), the construction features (tubular, plate, extended surface, etc.), flow
arrangements (single-pass or multi-pass), and also the heat transfer mechanisms
(forced or free convection). It can be appreciated a wide variety of heat exchangers
exist; however, the heat exchanger used for this lab report does not discreetly fall
under any area specifically. The heat exchanger used has characteristics similar to that
of the panel coil heat exchanger, in that it uses a fixed plate and pipe system to transfer
heat energy from the passing fluid inside the pipe to a separate fluid of interest.
The heat exchanger which has been used for this lab consists of an aluminium
chassis with a single serpentine path with an inlet for the hot fluid to enter and an
outlet. The aluminium chassis consists of a cavity open to the atmosphere which
contains the fluid which is to be subject to the heat transfer process. Inside this cavity
various layers of materials are used interchangeably; these materials are specific to the
rig application and are by no means utilised to aid the heat transfer process. The rig
has been designed for friction testing of hydrophilic polymers whilst replicating invivo conditions. It is for these reasons the cavity containing the fluid must be heated
in an indirect fashion. Since the heat exchanger is designed for in-vivo condition
simulation the cavity fluid is to be maintained at approximately 37C; hence the fluid
passing through the serpentine path will be higher. From observations the
temperature of the fluid entering the path will be maintained constant at
approximately 42C at the inlet.

Figure 1-1 illustrates the heat exchanger friction rig; the blue hoses contain the
primary fluid passing through the serpentine path, the open cavity illustrates where
the secondary fluid resides.

Figure 1-1 heat exchanger friction rig 3D model

Figure 1.2 illustrates a cross-section view of the heat exchanger; the path shown is
that in which the primary fluid passes. It can be seen number of various materials are
used in the construction of the rig, from the aluminium chassis, the polymer hoses,
the brass fittings, and the stainless steel jubilee clips. These various materials all have
different heat capacities; therefore it can be expected that the heat conduction rates
will vary accordingly. This will be compensated for in the lab procedure, as mentioned
in the methodologies.

Figure 1-2 cross-section view of the heat exchanger

1.1

Aim

The aim of this project is to analyse and improve the performance of a heat
exchanger.
1.2

Objectives

Analyse the heat exchanger with the four cavity layers using water as the
test liquid and identify the most efficient cavity layer

With the most efficient cavity layer identified analyse the heat exchanger
with the four test liquids, this should yield the best pairing of cavity layer
and liquid

Investigate improvement techniques that may yield further improvements

Conduct FEA to use for comparative analysis relative to the experimental

Compile results and document in report

1.3

Heat exchanger performance improvement

This report is experimental based, which means that certain constraints are in place
such as the circulating laboratory heating water bath used for experimental has a fixed
mass flow. If this was theory based increasing the mass flow may result in less time
taken for the heat exchanger to reach temperature. Another constraint was that the
heat exchanger has fixed area from which to exchange heat, in that the diameter,
length and number of holes cannot be changed, if this was a theory based exercise
then increasing the area of heat exchange would also improve performance. However
with this project just as with any projects in the real world there will be constraints,
this was the rationale for the approach considered in completing this assignment.
There were however two methods chosen which would affect and hopefully improve
the performance of the heat exchanger, they are detailed in the following text which
also puts context to the reasoning behind the importance of the heat exchanges
performance.
The heat exchanger friction rig used in this experiment has particular requirements,
the main one being its ability to reach body temperature [37C] in order for tests to be
carried out on it. After each experiment it has to be emptied of all fluids and dried
thoroughly and then brought back up to body temperature, if a number of tests are to
be carried out a lot of time is lost due to this operation as the operator is idle waiting
for the heat exchanger to reach body temperature. The two aforementioned methods
to improve performance include; the liquid used in the cavity and the material used
as a cavity layer.
This experiment was carried out using three liquids, the names and properties of
which are provided in Table 1-1, and four cavity layers, the name, geometry and
properties of which are provided in Table 1-2.
The intention being to identify the best combination of test liquid and cavity layer
which will allow the heat exchanger heat the liquid to body temperature thus allowing
for the quickest turn around between tests, minimising idle time during testing.
4

Table 1-1 test liquid and properties (30C)

Surface

Test

Density ()

Specific Vol. (v)

Specific heat capacity (cp)

liquid

[kg.m-3]

[m3.kg-1]

(kJ.kg-1K-1)

Water

995.7

4.179

7.12

Glycerine

1259

794.28*10-6

2.43

63.4

Methanol

782

1.28*10-3

2.51

2.18

tension ()
10-2 [N.m-2]

Table 1-2 cavity layer material and properties

Thermal conductivity (k)

Density ()

Specific heat capacity (cp)

Thickness

[W.m-1.K-1]

[kg.m-3]

(kJ.kg-1K-1)

[mm]

Glass

1.05

2800

670

Silicone

1.55

1500

1050-1300

6.5, 13

HIPS

0.18

1050

1400

Material

Materials and methods

The materials and methods utilised for both the experimental and FEA elements of

this project are detailed in this section.

2.1

Materials

It has been previously stated that there are two pragmatic methods of improving
the performance of the friction rig heat exchanger:

Improve the cavity layer

Improve the test fluid

The rig itself has been described in the introduction to this report. For this reason this
section will provide an outline of the cavity layers and test liquids. Tests were
conducted using four different cavity layers; 2[mm] HIPS, 6.5[mm] Glass, 6.5[mm]
Silicone, 13[mm] Silicone. Tests were also conducted empty (i.e. no cavity layer). Tests
were conducted using four different test liquids; water, methanol, glycerol and a 50:50
(by mass) water:glycerol mixture. Tests were also conducted empty (i.e. no test liquid).
A list of the pros and cons of each cavity layer and test liquid is provided in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1 Pros and Cons of tested cavity layers and test liquids
Pros

Cons

No added thermal resistance

Surface roughness and modulus do not

Cavity layers
Empty

mimic physiological conditions

2[mm] HIPS
6.5[mm] Glass
13[mm] Silicone

A thin cavity layer suggests a low

Surface roughness does not mimic

thermal resistance

physiological conditions

High thermal conductivity suggests a

Surface roughness and modulus do not

low thermal resistance

mimic physiological conditions

Mimics physiological conditions in

High thermal resistance

terms of both surface roughness and

modulus
6.5[mm] Silicone

Mimics physiological conditions in

High thermal resistance

terms of both surface roughness and

modulus
Test liquids
Empty

No thermal mass

Does note exploit the hydrophilicity of

the polymer sample

Water

Fully exploits the hydrophilicity of

High specific heat capacity

the polymer sample

Methanol

Low surface tension

Does note exploit the hydrophilicity of

the polymer sample

Glycerol

Low specific heat capacity

Does note exploit the hydrophilicity of

the polymer sample

Water:Glycerol

Exploits the hydrophilicity of the

Requires an additional preparation step

polymer sample and has a similar

viscosity to blood

2.2

Methodologies

The methodologies implemented for both; the experimental and the FEA are
detailed in this section.
2.2.1 Experimental methodology
The Prism heating unit was attached to the heat exchanger and the set point of the
heating unit was set to 42[C]. The heat exchanger, containing no cavity layer, was left
to heat for 2[hrs] so as to ensure that all components of the device reached steady state.
A cavity layer and test liquid, both of which were at ambient temperature, were added
to the cavity of the heat exchanger and the temperature of the test liquid and the inlet
and outlet temperatures of the heating stream were measured using Type K
7

thermocouples and a PA Hilton data logger .. Tests were first conducted to determine
the optimum cavity layer using water as the test fluid. The results of the initial set of
tests suggested that the 6.5[mm] silicone cavity layer was most suitable. Tests were
then conducted using a variety of test liquids and the 6.5[mm] silicon cavity layer in
order to determine the optimum test liquid and cavity layer combination. The full
combination of tests conducted are presented in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2 Test combinations
Test number

Cavity layer

Test liquid

Empty

Empty

Empty

Water

2[mm] HIPS

Water

6.5[mm] Glass

Water

13[mm] Silicone

Water

6.5[mm] Silicone

Water

6.5[mm] Silicone

Methanol

6.5[mm] Silicone

Glycerol

6.5[mm] Silicone

Water:Glycerol 50:50

2.3

Finite element analysis methodology

The finite element analysis (FEA) was designed in order to evaluate the thermal
diffusivity characteristics of the heat exchanger at steady-state when the cavity is filled
with water. SolidWorks Flow Simulator was used with the material properties and
boundary conditions stated in Table 2-3 and Table 2-4 respectively. The mesh control
was of a fine tetrahedral nature with 83,982 elements in total and 127,628 nodes, as
illustrated in Figure 2-1
Table 2-3 material properties for FEA model
Material

Property

Value

Unit

Water

Density ()

1000

Kg.m-3

Water

Thermal conductivity ()

0.61

W.m-1.K-1

Water

Specific heat (cp)

4200

J.kg-1.K-1

Aluminium 6061

Density ()

2700

Kg.m-3

Aluminium 6061

Thermal expansion coefficient ()

2.4e-5

K-1

Aluminium 6061

Thermal conductivity ()

170

W.m-1.K-1

Aluminium 6061

Specific heat (cp)

1300

J.kg-1.K-1

Table 2-4 Boundary conditions for FEA model

Location

Condition

Value

Unit

Outer chassis walls

Convection

10

W.m-2.K-1

Cavity-water interface

Convection

20

W.m-2.K-1

Serpentine path

Initial temperature

42

Figure 2-1 FEA mesh setup for the chassis and water displacement

Results and discussion

Included in this section are results from both the experimental and FEA methods.

3.1

Experimental results

The experimental results include comparisons between the various cavity layers
and also the various test liquids.
3.1.1 Comparison of cavity layers
The initial experiment was conducted in order to determine the optimum cavity
layer for the heat exchanger friction rig. The results of the experiment are presented
in Error! Reference source not found..
40

Temperature (T) [C]

35

30

25
Empty
Glass
20

6.5[mm] Silicone
13[mm] Silicone
HIPS

15
0

10

15

Time (t) [mins]

20

25

30

Figure 3-1 time taken for various cavity layers to reach 37C

As expected the test fluid reaches 37[C] quickest when no cavity layer is used.
However it is not practical to use no cavity layer as this does not replicate in-vivo
conditions. The two cavity layers which are most similar to in-vivo conditions in terms
of both modulus and surface roughness are the 13[mm] and 6.5[mm] silicone layers.
10

It takes the test fluid 12[min] to reach 37[C] when using the 6.5[mm] silicone layer
and over 25[min] to reach 37[C] when using the 13[mm] silicone layer. For this reason
it ca be concluded that 6.5[mm] silicone is the optimum cavity layer.
3.1.2 Comparison of test liquids
It was determined in the initial experiment that 6.5[mm] silicone is the optimum
cavity layer. For this reason the test liquids were evaluated using this cavity layer. The
results of this testing are presented in Error! Reference source not found..
40

Temperature (T) [C]

35

30

25

Water
Glycerol
Methanol

20
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Time (t) [mins]

Figure 3-2 time taken and temperature reached for the test liquids

Methanol did not reach 37[C] over the duration of the test, for this reason it is not
a suitable test liquid. The glycerol and the water glycerol mixture took approximately
the same amount of time to reach 37[C]. As glycerol will not activate the
hydrophilicity of the polymer sample it is deemed unsuitable. Water reaches 37[C] in
a shorter period of time than that required by the water glycerol mixture however it

11

does overshoot the 37[C] set point. The favourable heating characteristic renders the
water glycerol mixture to be the most suitable test liquid.
3.2

Finite Element Analysis Results

Figure 3-3 temperature contour plot of full system

From Figure 3-3 the temperature contour plot illustrates where the maximum
temperatures exist, i.e. at the primary fluid path. Also the lowest temperatures can be
seen at the two ends furthest away from the primary fluid path.

Figure 3-4 temperature contour cut-plot of system

12

Figure 3-4 illustrates the cut-plot; here it can be seen how the thermal energy
diffusion prevails throughout the water (i.e. the secondary fluid).

Figure 3-5 temperature contour plot of the heat exchanger base

Figure 3-5 represents the heat exchanger from the bottom; it can be seen the base of
the heat exchanger raises in temperature significantly. This may be an issue depending
upon the surface the heat exchanger is sitting on. However, since the heat exchanger
is propped by four narrow legs the heat transfer through the base through conduction
is greatly reduced. Figure 4.4 represents a clipped-surface cutting through the primary
fluid serpentine path. Here it can be seen a uniform thermal diffusivity pattern exists
which implies the heat exchanger is well designed.

Figure 3-6 temperature contour plot of the heat exchanger base

13

Conclusion
It is felt that the experimental approach in completing this project was an effective

one. The reasoning behind this statement is that it was a real problem involving a heat
exchanger that is used for the characterisation of polymeric materials. Based on the
findings of this report the idle time has been cut by 50% during testing including time
needed on the machine and operator idle time. The machine on which this test rig has
to be used in conjunction with (tensile tester) is typically booked up and can be hard
to get time so it is important that while getting a time period on the machine that this
time is not wasted standing around waiting for the heat exchanger to get the liquid up
to temperature, and that as many tests can be conducted in the time available.
The experimental approach although it had many advantages also had constraints
that limited the variables, this would not have been a problem if the approach had of
been theoretical based. The mass flow could not be adjusted, nor the heat exchanger
surface area both were fixed. However it is felt that this reflects a real life scenario in
that it may not be always possible to adjust parameters that are possible to adjust
theoretical. It was also felt that adding FEA to the project added another important
engineering dynamic to the project.
In concluding to the FEA, it can be said that when the model when no cavity layer
was utilised and when the secondary fluid was water, illustrated an average
secondary fluid temperature of approximately 39C. This was the case when the
primary fluid was constant at 42C under steady-state conditions. This correlates well
with the experimental procedure which yielded a steady-state secondary fluid
temperature of 38C when the primary fluid temperature was 42C. Therefore, it can
be concluded that the FEA model is an accurate prediction model based on the applied
material properties and boundary conditions applied. With this, repetitive
experimental procedures are not essential since the numerical model can predict the
steady-state temperature of the secondary fluid once the appropriate fluid properties
have been assigned. This is particularly important in the medical device industry
14

where this heat exchanger is used to control the secondary fluid at a temperature with
a close tolerance. Another advantage of the numerical model is the reduction in time
required for various fluid testing; in practice each of the experiments ran for
approximately 1 hour whereas the numerical model ran for less than 1 minute.
As a final year project for engineers with the intention of going into industry it is
felt that during class enough theoretical study and analysis is covered and that it is
important to design and conduct practical experiments logging the variable and
plotting results and analysing and trying in a practical sense to improve the
performance of devices such as heat exchangers. It is felt that this project balances
practical with theoretical knowledge obtained in lectures. It is also felt important that
leaving college as a mechanical engineer that there is a balance between practical and
theoretical knowledge as both will be needed for any mechanical engineer.

15