Effect of Variation of Longitudinal Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient

on F-LMTD Chart and Thermal Efficiency in 1/2+ Shell & Tube Heat
Exchanger
H.SHOKOUHMAND*,M.NIKOO**
Mech. Eng. Group
University of Tehran
Iran
*Prof. of Mech. Eng
**M.S. Student of Mech. Eng
Abstract: - The existing F-LMTD charts have been obtained with assumption that overall heat transfer
coefficient (U) is constant. The limitation of LMTD correction factor (F T) in 1/2+ shell & tube heat exchanger
design, in order to prevent temperature cross, causes to select more surface area or more 1/2 + shell & tube. In the
present study, a numerical model of a 1/2 shell & tube heat exchanger, when heat transfer coefficients and
specific heats various along the heat exchanger, is presented. This model is applied to an example, in order to
find this effect on efficiency. Then the heat recovery problem in this heat exchanger with variable overall heat
transfer coefficient, when the temperature cross occurs, is investigated. It is shown that for fluids with strong
variation in dynamic viscosity, the thermal efficiency and temperature cross phenomena are cosiderably
influenced by variation of overall heat transfer coefficient .
Key-Words: - Heat exchanger, Overall Heat transfer coefficient, Temperature cross, Heat recovery

1 Introduction

the point x, is useless from the thermal design point

of view. In the exchangers this is called reheating.
In order to utilize the surface area optimally from
the heat transfer point of view, FT must be larger than
0.8. The magnitude of FT for a 1/2 heat exchanger is
defined as follow, with constant properties
assumption:

The overall heat transfer coefficient can vary as a

result of variation in local heat transfer coefficient
due to two effects:
Changes in the fluid properties or radiation due to
rise or drop of fluid temperature(temperature
effect).
Developing thermal boundary layer (length effect).
A temperature cross or a temperature pinch is
defined to exist in 1/2+ exchangers when the hot fluid
outlet temperature (Th,o), is lower than the cold fluid
outlet temperature (Tc,o), specially when NTU is
high.
By considering a 1/2 exchanger, two possible shell
fluid direction with respect to the tube fluid direction
are shown in Fig.1 and Fig.2. A crossing of hot and
cold fluid temperature distributions exists in Fig.2. In
region J, the second tube pass transfers heat to the
shell fluid. This is contrary to original design in
which ideally the heat transfer should have taken
place only in one direction. An addition of surface
area (a high value of NTU or low value of FT) is
effective in raising the temperature T12 of the tube
fluid at the end of the first pass. The temperature of
the tube fluid will rise in the second pass up to point
x. Beyond this point, the temperature of the shell
fluid is lower than that of the tube fluid. Thus the
addition of surface area in second tube pass, left of

1 P
R 1
1 RP
FT
.
R 1
2 P ( R 1 R 2 1)
ln
2 P ( R 1 R 2 1)
2

ln

(1)

P and R are defined as thermal effectiveness and

heat capacity ratio,respectively.
One of the basic idealization built into deriving FT
factors or -NTU results are the overall heat transfer
coefficient is constant. However, for process heat
exchangers, the laminar flow is generally developing
in the exchanger and hardly ever reaches fully
developed conditions. Hence, the local and average
heat transfer coefficients are varying, thus
invalidifying the derivation of FT factors. Hence,
most charts for FT factors obtained with constant U,
can not be used when there is significant change in U
along heat exchanger.

 The heat transfer area is distributed uniformly on

each fluid side.
Longitiudinal heat conduction in the fluids and in
the wall are negligible.
Heat losses to surrounding are negligible.
There are no thermal energy sources and phase
change in the exchanger.
The surfaces area of the tubes at both sides are
equal.(the thickness of the tubes are negligible)
The exchanger is clean and no fouling factor is
considered.
Fig.3. illustrates the model with linearly
distributed grid. The unknowns are the metal, tube
fluid(cold side) temperatures at each node and at
each pass. Also the shell fluid(hot side) temperature
at each node is unknown. Five energy balances are
written for any increment in shell side, metal
seperating fluids in each pass and tube side in each
pass. n is the total number of heat exchanger
elements.
Fig.4. illustrates the control volume consisting of
the cold fluid in the ith section in pass . An
energy balance on the cold fluid in pass can be
written as follow:

Fig.1. Temperature profiles in shell & tube, arrangement A

C c T c ,i C c T c ,i 1
hc T c ,i hc T c ,i 1
T c ,i 1
Ai
2
2
T c ,i T c ,i 1 C c T c ,i Cc T c ,i 1

T c ,i
T m ,i

2
2

Fig.2. Temperature profiles in shell & tube, arrangement B

Some results with variable overall heat transfer

coefficient are available for single pass counterflow
and crossflow exchangers. [1]&[2]
The main objective of this paper is to use a
numerical method that allows to be applied variation
of heat capacity and heat transfer coefficient with
temperature in a shell & tube heat exchanger.
This paper consists of two main sections: in the
first section, a numerical model and an example are
presented. In the next section, the numerical results
are presented and the temperature cross phenomena,
when the overall heat transfer coefficient changes
along the heat exchanger, is cosidered.

(2)

i=1...n

where Ai is the surface area per control volume,

Cc is the heat capacity rate of the cold fluid where
the total cold fluid rate is divided by the number of
tubes in any pass. hc is the heat transfer coefficient in
the side of the cold fluid.
Similar sets of equations can be written for cold
fluid in pass , metal seperating fluids in pass &
and for hot fluid in shell. Fig.5. to Fig.8. illustrate
these control volumes. Energy balances for these
control volumes are written as follows:

2 Numerical Model
The main assumptions made in the development of
this model are as follows:
The heat exchenger operates under steady state
conditions.
The velocity and temperature at the entrance of the
heat exchanger on each fluid side and pass are
uniform.
The fluid flow rate is uniformly distributed through
the exchanger on each fluid side.
The temperature of the shell and any pass fluids are
uniform over every cross section.

For cold fluid in pass

C c T c ,i C c T c ,i 1
hc T c ,i hc T c ,i 1
T c ,i
Ai
2
2
T c ,i T c ,i 1 C c T c ,i C c T c ,i 1

T c ,i 1
T m ,i

2
2

(3)

i=1...n

For metal in pass

hc T

c ,i

h T

:
c ,i 1

. T

m ,i

c ,i

T
2

hh Th ,i hh Th ,i 1 Th ,i Th ,i 1

.
Tm ,i
2
2

C h Th ,i C h Th ,i 1

c ,i 1

N.
N.

(4)
i=1...n

For metal in pass

Th ,i 1

2
hh Th ,i hh Th ,i 1

C h Th ,i C h Th ,i 1
Th ,i

Ai

Ai

hh Th ,i hh Th ,i 1

2
Th ,i 1

T m ,i

Th ,i

Th ,i Th ,i 1

T m ,i
2

(6A)

i=1...n

For hot fluid,arrangement B:

hc T c ,i hc T c ,i 1
T c ,i T c ,i 1
. T m ,i

2
2

C h Th ,i C h Th ,i 1

h T hh Th ,i 1 Th ,i Th ,i 1

h h ,i
.
Tm ,i
2
2

N.

(5)

N.

i=1...n

For hot fluid,arrangement A:

Th ,i

2
hh Th ,i hh Th ,i 1

Th ,i

Ai

Ai

hh Th ,i hh Th ,i 1

(6B)

C h Th ,i C h Th ,i 1
2
Th ,i 1

T m ,i

Th ,i Th ,i 1

T m ,i
2

i=1...n

where Ch and hh are heat capacity rate and heat

transfer coefficient of the hot fluid,respectively. N is
number of tubes per pass.The quantities of Ch, Cc, hh
and hc are assumed to be functions of the local fluids
temperature.

Fig.3.Model with linearly ditributed grid

Fig.6.Control volume and energy flows for the metal in pass

Fig.7.Control volume and energy flows for the metal in pass

Fig.4.Control volume and energy flows for the cold fluid in pass

Fig.5.Control volume and energy flows for the cold fluid in pass

Th ,i 1

U m . A
Cm ,min

NTU

(18)

U m . A
NTU
C m ,min

where Cm is defined as follow:

Fig.8.Control volume and energy flows for the hot fluid

The hot and cold fluids enter into the heat

exchanger at specified inlet temperature, providing
two boundary conditions as :
Th,i=0=Th,in
Th,i=n=Th,in
TIc,i=0=Tc,in

Cm

TIc,n= TIIc,n

(20)

(21)

Also the true product of (U.T) defined as [5]:

(9)

(U .T ) true

U i and U i are defined as follows:

1
1
1

Ui
hh ,i hc ,i
1
1
1

Ui
hh ,i hc ,i
The local heat transfer rates according to pass
and are as follows:

Th ,i Th ,i 1 T c ,i T c ,i 1
Q U .Ai (

)
2
2

(22)
(10)

(12)

In order to demonstrate the detailed analysis of the

model, one specific example in different
arrangements, is presented in this section. Table 1
and Table 2 describe this example.
Table 1-Process data in the example
Item
Unit
Tube side
Fluid name
water

(14)

Flow rate

U m 0 U ( x )dx

Kg/s

Inlet temp.

Shell side
oil

244.8

200

25

145

(15)

i 1

3 Example

Table 2-Mechanical design data

The mean overall heat transfer coefficient for any

pass is defined as follow:

U m 0 U ( x)dx

c , in

system is nonlinear.The numerical technique

presented above has been solved by EES.[6]

c , in

Equation (2)-(6) together with boundary conditions

given by Eq.(7)-(8) constitute a set of 5n+3 equations
in an equal number of unknown temperatures. This

The net heat transfer rate is :

Th , in

(23)

(11)

The heat transfer rate in any interval is :

Th , in

Q max min T Ch (T )dT , T Cc (T )dT

(13)

Qtrue Qi

Qtrue
A

The maximum rate of heat transfer used to define

the effectiveness is as follows:

T Th ,i 1 T c ,i T c ,i 1
Qi U i .Ai ( h ,i

)
2
2

Qi Qi Qi

1 L
C p ( x)dx
L 0

Total number of heat transfer unit in this model is

given by:
1
dQ
NTU true
NTU NTU

Cm ,min Q T

(7A)
(7B)
(8)

Another boundary condition in shell & tube heat

exchanger is :

(19)

Item

Unit

TubeID,Pitch,Angle

mm

No. of tubes per

shell

(16)
(17)

The number of heat transfer unit in any pass is

given by:

No. of
passes

25.4x31.75x30
460

Effective tube length

18.208

No. of shell in unit

Shell ID

mm

787

Fig.9. and Fig.10. indicate the variation of hwater

and hoil along the heat exchanger in this example. By
increasing the length of the heat exchanger, the
temperature cross phenomena is considered in
arrangement B.

Fig.11. Temperature profiles in arrangement A

Fig.9. Variation of hwater with temperature

Fig.12. Temperature profiles in arrangement B

These figures represent that the temperature

difference at the entrance of the heat exchanger with
variable overall heat transfer coefficient is more than
the temperature difference with constant overall heat
transfer coefficient assumption.
Fig.13. and Fig.14. illustrate variation of heat
transfer coefficients throughout the exchanger in
oilside and waterside in pass and pass .

Fig.10. Variation of hoil with temperature

4 Results and Discussion

Table 3 presents the efficiency of the 1/2 shell &
tube in the example , with the variable overall heat
transfer coefficient and variable specific heat. It
can be seen that the errors are not negligible .
Table 3-Compare of variable property with constant property
assumption.
Constant
Variable Property
Item
Property
Error %
Condition
Assump.
70
76
7.9
Th,out

Tc,out

57.97

55.51

4.43

62.5

60.37

3.5

Fig.11. and Fig.12. illustrate the temperature

profiles in the shell & tube in arrangement A and B.
It is concluded that the temperatures of cold and hot
fluids with variable overall heat transfer coefficient
are lower than these profiles in constant properties
assumption, except when the hot fluid is going out
of the exchanger.

Fig.13. Variation of h along the heat exchanger in arrangement A

condition for NTU at variable properties and

constant properties.
Fig.19. illustrates -NTU chart, when NTUconstant is
defined as follow:

NTU cons tan t

U cons tan t . A
Cm ,min

(24)

It is shown that the efficiency of the heat

exchanger in variable overall heat transfer
coefficient is lower than that in constant overall heat
transfer coefficient assumption, and this difference
increases in high NTU. It means that with increasing
the surface area, this difference increases.

Fig.14. Variation of h along the heat exchanger in arrangment B

Fig.15. represents the variation of U along the heat

exchanger in pass and in arrangement A. It is
shown that the overall heat transfer coefficient in
pass is larger than that in pass ,specially at the
entrance of the exchanger. Also the slope of the
U and U at the first of the heat exchanger is
high, and this slope decreases at the end of the heat
exchanger. Because the temperature difference at the
first of the heat exchanger is more than that at the
end of the heat exchanger, in arrangement A. This
condition is inverse for arrangement B.(Fig.16.)

Fig.17. effect of increasing length of heat exchanger on difference

between true and constant .

Fig.15. Variation of U along the heat exchanger in arrangement A

Fig.18. effect of increasing length of heat exchanger on difference
between NTUtrue and NTUconstant .

Fig.16. Variation of U along the heat exchanger in arrangement

B

In the nextt stage, the example has been developed

for several different heat transfer area. Fig.17. shows
that the difference between true and in constant
properties assumption increases when length of the
heat exchanger increases. Fig.18. shows this

Fig.19. -NTU chart in constant and variable U.

numerical results are above the curve for a specific

R, true temperature cross may not happen and
specific Pconstant will cross the curve at the left side of
the threshold line.

Fig.20.LMTD correction factor chart in constant and variable U.

Fig.20. illustrates that for a specific Pconstant, the

value of correction factor (FT) in variable overall
heat transfer coefficient condition is higher than that
in general condition. Pconstant is defined as follow:

Pcons tan t

Fig.22. P-NTU chart in variable and constant properties.

T
Tc ,in
c ,out ,cons tan t
Th ,in Tc ,in

Conclusion 5

(25)

This paper presented a numerical model of a 1/2

shell & tube heat exchanger, in which thermal
properties of fluids vary along the heat exchanger.
The numerical model was used to investigate true
performance of a specific 1/2 shell & tube heat
exchanger. By considering F-LMTD chart and PNTU chart, it was concluded that the magnitude of
FT in real condition is larger than that in constant
properties assumption. So temperature cross may
not happen when this phenomena is predicted in 1/2
shell & tube heat exchanger with general charts
which is defined in many text book. This result was
developed by temperature profiles in a specific heat
exchanger.

Thus, when a temperature cross is predicted with

general F-P chart for a specific Pconstant, at constant
properties assumption, the true temperature cross
may not occur throughout the heat exchanger. This
result can be seen in Fig.21.

Fig.21.Temperature cross phenomena in constant and variable

property.

References:
[1] A.P.Colburn,Mean temperature difference and
heat transfer coefficient in liquid heat
exchanger,Ind.Engng.Chem,Vol.25,pp.873-877
(1933).
[2] R.K.Shah,and D.P.Sekulic,Nonuniform overall
heat transfer coefficients in conventional heat
exchanger design theory-revisited, J.of Heat
Transfer. Vol.120, pp.520-525 (1998).
[3] D.Butterworth,A calculation method for shell
and tube heat exchangers in which the overall
coefficient various along the length,Conference
on Advances in Thermal and Mechanical

Also, this result can be illustrated in Fig.22. when

NTU c ,true

A.U true
Cc

(26)

The region where the temperature cross occurs, is

specified in this figure. It can be shown that the
numerical results in this figure are higher than the
results in constant properties and general solution.
From this figure, it can be seen that a specific
Pconstant may cross the curve for specific R at the right
side of the threshold line, Generally. Then in this
region, temperature cross occurs. But because

Design of Shell and tube Heat Exchangers,

No.590,pp.56-71 (1973).
[4] E.A.D.Saunders,Heat exchangers selection,
design and construction,Copublished in the U.S.
with John Wiley & Sons,Inc, Newyork (1988).
[5] Donald Q.Kern,Process heat transfer, McGrawHill International Editions, Chemical
Engineering Series (1965).
[6] Klein SA, Alvarado FL. EES-Engineering
Equatin Software, Avalible: http://fchart.com
[7] W.Roetzel,Heat exchanger design with variable
heat transfer coefficient for crossflow and
mixed flow arrangement, Int.J.Heat Mass
Transfer. Vol.17,pp.1037-1049 (1974).
[8] G.F.Nellis, A heat exchanger model that includes
axial conduction,parasitic heat load and property
variations, Cryogenics. Vol.43, pp.523-538
(2003).
[9] R.K.Shah, and A.C.Muller, Heat exchanger basic
design methods in handbook of heat transfer,
Second edition,Edited by W.M.Rohsenew,
J.P.Hartnett, Chapter 18, Part 1,Mc-GrawHill,
Newyork (1982).
[10]R.K.Shah, Heat exchanger basic design
methods in low Reynolds number flow heat
exchanger, by S.Kakac, R.K.Shah and
A.E.Bergless,pp.22-72 (1983).
[11]S.Kakac,A.G.Bergles & E.O.Fernards,Two
phase flow Heat Exchanger Thermal Hydraulic
Fundumental, Kluwer,Academic Publisher
(1988).
[12]F.P.Incropera,D.P.Dewitt, Introduction to heat
transfer, Second Edition, Vol.2 (1990).
[13]G.F.Hewitt,G.L.Shives,T.R.Bott, Process heat
transfer, First Edition,CRC Press,Newyork
(1994).