Concentric Tube Heat Exchangers

Prepared for Dr. Kunal Karan, Chemical Engineering, Queen’s University

Chee 218: Laboratory Projects I
Friday March 15, 2002

Abstract

Established heat transfer theory can be used to accurately predict heat transfer
coefficients for a concentric tube heat exchanger. Kingston Power Plant alleged Hot and
Cold Engineering did not properly design their heat exchanger and it was found that HCE
estimations on heat transfer coefficient was within 2.31.1% of the observed values. In
this report, the validity of the heat exchangers calculations are verified using an apparatus
consisting of a concentric tube heat exchanger identical to the one used at KPP that was
equipped with flow valves and thermocouples to measure the performance of the heat
exchanger. In conclusion, HCE properly designed the CTHX and KPP should attempt to
diagnosis their problem with their heat exchanger at their site.

Author: John Stephenson, Team K

Lab group members: Jenny Du, Team K

Rebecca McWalters, Team K
 2

Introduction

In nearly every engineering operation there usually exists a large array of heat
exchangers. They are used to change the temperatures of a fluid stream by passing
another fluid close to the desired temperature. The simplest design is a concentric tube
heat exchanger (CTHX). It consists of a small inner tube surrounded by larger outer tube.
The construction of the CTHX allows the rapid exchange of heat by keeping the two
fluids separated by a relatively thin conductive metal tube.

Hot & Cold Engineering Company installed a concentric tube heat exchanger at the
Kingston Power Plant. The plant is currently using this heat exchanger to cool a stream of
hot water to below 95F. Unfortunately their CTHX is not lowering the hot water
temperature sufficiently and the chief engineer at the plant is alleging that our engineers
did not properly design the equipment.

The goal of this report is to determine if the observed overall heat transfer co-efficient is
reasonably close to the co-efficient calculated by our senior design engineers. If this is the
case, then it can be shown that the calculations made by our design engineers were
realistic and the problems encountered at the power plant are not a result of negligence by
HCE. A CTHX that is identical in every respect to the one installed at the power plant
will be used to gather experimental data on the heat exchanger. The Chemical
Engineering department at Queen University’s has graciously allowed our engineering
team to perform required experimental testing on our CTHX using one of their facilities
located in Dupuis Hall, Room 227.

Theory
Heat transfer by conduction or convection, Q, in any system is proportional to the
temperature difference, T, between the two passing streams and slowed by resistive
properties, R, of the materials that the energy must permeate through as shown in
Equation 1.

T
Q Equation 1
R

In a heat exchanger calculations it is convenient to modify this equation to express the

resistive properties as a function of A, the area of the heat exchanger, and U, the overall
heat transfer co-efficient.

Q  UAT Equation 2

In a heat exchanger, heat is transferred between the bulk of the hot fluid and the bulk of
the cold fluid. In the absence of fouling on the tubes present in the heat exchanger there
exist three thermal resistances. There exists a convective thermal resistance through the
boundary layer formed between the outside surface of the inside pipe and the bulk of the
fluid flowing through the outside pipe, 1/hoAo. There is a conductive thermal resistance
through the outside and inside surface of the inside pipe, ln (Do/Di) / 2Lkw. Finally there
 3

is a convective thermal resistance through the boundary layer formed between the inside
surface of the inside pipe and the bulk of the fluid flowing through the inside pipe, 1/hiAi.
kw is the conductivity of the wall, Do is the outside diameter of the inside pipe, Di is the
inside diameter of the inside pipe, L is the length of the pipe, Ao is the outside area of the
inside pipe, Ai is the inside area of the inside pipe, hi is the inside film heat transfer
coefficient, and finally, ho is the outside film heat transfer coefficient. To calculate the
overall resistance, R, it is just the sum of the three individual R values as shown in
Equation 3. (Karan, 2002)

1 1 ln( Do / Di ) 1
R    Equation 3
UA hi Ai 2k w L ho Ao

The values of all the variables are known, except for the film heat transfer coefficients.
To understand how this is calculated, Nusselt numbers must be explained. It is a
dimensionless number that represents temperature gradient at the surface of the pipe. By
finding an empirical method of calculating Nu for the geometries in the heat exchanger
and by rearranging Equation 4 we can solve for h to find R and hence Uest. Many
empirical correlations exist for finding Nusselt numbers. To find the Nusselt number for
flow inside of a pipe Equation 5 is used. For flow inside of the space between two pipes
Equation 6 is used. However, we must pay attention to the diameter we use to calculate
the Reynolds and Nusselt number. No longer is fluid flowing through a circular pipe, it is
flowing through the area between two pipes. Equation 7 illustrates how to calculate the
equivalent diameter, Deq, for that geometry. (Perry et. al, 1963) It should be noted that the
Prandtl number for any fluid can be looked up in a reference such as Perry’s Handbook or
calculated from the fluid properties through its definition, Pr=Cp/kf (Incropera & Dewitt,
2002)

hL
Nu  Equation 4 (Incropera & Dewitt, 2002)
kf

 bulk 0.14
Nu  0.023 Re 0.8 Pr 0.333 ( ) Equation 5 (Perry et. al, 1963)
 wall

Di , shell
Nu  0.02 Re 0.8 Pr 0.333 ( ) 0.53 Equation 6 (Perry et. al, 1963)
Do ,tube

( Di2,shell  Do2,tube )
Deq  Equation 7 (Perry et. al, 1963)
Do ,tube

However, as one moves along the profile of a concentric tube heat exchanger, the T
varies as each fluid changes temperature. The rate that the temperature changes from the
inlet to the outlet of each stream depends on the arrangement of the heat exchanger. Two
different configurations are possible. In one scenario, the cool fluid can run parallel to the
hot fluid in which case the heat exchanger is said to be in a co-current arrangement.
 4

Alternatively the cool fluid can run in an opposite direction to the hot fluid in which case
it is in a counter-current arrangement. A corrected T is calculated for the two
arrangements and is called the log-mean temperature difference, Tlm. (Equation 8) If the
arrangement is co-current Equation 9 is used to calculate T1 and T2, if the arrangement
is counter-current Equation 10 is used. (Incropera & Dewitt, 2002)

T2  T1
Tlm  Equation 8: Calculation Tlm
ln(T2 / T1 )
 T1  Th,i  Tc ,i 
T  T  T  Equation 9: Co-current flow
 2 h ,o c ,o 

 T1  Th ,i  Tc ,o 
T  T  T  Equation 10: Counter-current flow
 2 h ,o c ,i 

To solve for Uexp the approach is very simple. With this corrected temperature difference,
Equation 2 is modified to look like Equation 11. Then we use our first principles to find
the heat transferred through the tube of the heat exchanger, Q, using Equation 11. Finally
use both equations, substitute for what is known and solve for Uexp (Equation 13).

Q  UATlm Equation 11

Qc  mc C p (Tc ,o  Tc ,i ) Equation 12

Vc C p (Tc ,o  Tc ,i )
U exp  Equation 13
Dt ,o LTlm
 5

Experimental Procedure

Figure 1. Photograph of Equipment (courtesy of Steve Hodgson)

The equipment used for this report is located in Dupuis Hall Room 227 (Figure 1). It
consists of three heat exchangers. At the top there is a long, concentric tube heat
exchanger identical to the one installed at the Kingston Power Plant and the same used in
this experiment. On the bottom there are two shell and tube heat exchangers that were not
used for this experiment. The temperatures of the water entering and leaving the heat
exchanger are measured by thermocouples and the flow rates of hot and cold water are
measured by flow meters. All values are shown on the digital control panel shown on the
right of the figure.

Outline of Procedure for Co-Current Flow

1. Turn on the digital control panel
2. Open cold water stream. Close valves V12, V23, V11, V22. Open valves V02
(main water inlet) and V31.
3. Open hot water stream. Close valves V35, V32. Open valves V01 (main water
inlet), V04, V34 and V33.
4. Monitor the temperature of the cold water in and cold water out using
thermocouples 6 and 1. Monitor the temperature of the hot water in and hot water
out using thermocouples 5 and 2. Use the flow meter on the panel to read hot and
cold water flow rates.
5. Select a fixed turbulent hot water flow rate and vary cold water for 4 runs. Select
a fixed turbulent cold water flow rate and vary hot water for 4 runs. Vary both for
4 runs.
6. Close V01 and V02 to stop water flow
 6

Outline of Procedure for Co-Current Flow

1. Open cold water stream. Close valves V12, V23, V11 and V22. Open valves V02
(main water inlet), V31.
2. Open hot water stream. Close valves V34 and V33. Open valves V01 (main water
inlet), V04, V35 and V32.
3. Monitor the temperature of the cold water in and cold water out using
thermocouples 6 and 1. Monitor the temperature of the hot water in and hot water
out using thermocouples 3 and 4. Use the flow meter on the panel to read hot and
cold water flow rates.
4. Select a fixed turbulent hot water flow rate and vary cold water for 4 runs. Select a
fixed turbulent cold water flow rate and vary hot water for 4 runs. Vary both for 4
runs.
5. Close valves V01 and V02 to stop water flow
6. Turn off digital control panel

Safety
 Safety goggles were worn at all times by all members of the team.
 Permission to use the equipment was obtained from the lab supervisor
 All experimental work was supervised
 Fire exits were noted
 No materials (e.g. toxic, flammable, corrosive) or equipment requiring other
safety precautions were handled.

Results & Discussion

All data collected from the experimental procedure was placed into a spreadsheet and
using a spreadsheet that had been designed by R. Crews. This spreadsheet calculates the
tube-side and shell-side film heat transfer co-efficient. Then it uses this data to calculate
Uest. Modifications to this spread sheet were made to allow it to calculate Uemp and to
verify that Cp is not a strong function of T, which if it was could alter the calculation of
Prandtl numbers.and of Q. It was found that Cp remains nearly constant around 1
Btu/lbm°F over the range of temperatures that the data was collected at. Finally using the
outside area of the tube, and calculations of Q as summarized by Equation 13. The
calculations are nearly trivial in nature and outlined in more detail in the spreadsheet.

Figure 2 was made to illustrate how close of a fit the estimated values of the heat
exchanger co-efficient and the experimental values were. As can be seen, the relationship
follows a nice straight line with a slope of 1.0 and an R2 = 0.98. These values, showing a
nice trend, are hard to translate into tangible terms. So, the percentage difference of Uexp
from Uest was calculated for each trial, averaged and the 95% confidence interval taken. It
was found that the average difference of two the quantity was 2.31.1%. Meaning that
this small variation in heat transfer co-efficients could not have led to the poor
performance experienced at the KPP, this variation could have only introduced one or two
degrees Fahrenheit of uncertainty over a cooling range of 50-100F. It is possible that the
poor performance of KPP’s heat exchanger is a result of fouling on the pipes from the
 7

Lake Ontario water that it draws. Lake Ontario water is quite hard and KPP should try to
flush their heat exchanger with dilute acid to remove any calcium build-up.

The slope in Figure 3 is 1.09 and the graph shows that more heat is being transferred
from the hot water than from the cold water. The difference can be easily explained. The
hot water is not only exchanging heat with the cold water as it runs through the shell, but
it is exchanging heat to the atmosphere. As expected, and in every case, Qh is greater than
Qc.

As can be seen in Figure 4 the heat transfer co-efficient drops as the Reynolds number of
the inside and outside area of the heat exchanger increases. This shows that the heat
exchange becomes less efficient as the flow rates increase. Quantitatively more heat may
be exchanged between the fluids, but the temperature change of the two fluids, Tlm, is
lessened in Equation 11.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The logic behind the calculations used by Hot and Cold Engineering to find the heat
transfer co-efficient in the concentric tube heat exchanger installed at KPP is justified.
The average difference of predicted and experimental quantities was quite small for
calculations of this kind, 2.31.1%.

It is possible that the poor performance with the KPP’s concentric tube heat exchanger
may be due to fouling on the pipes. The KPP draws hard water from Lake Ontario and
this could have lead to the fouling. KPP should try to flush their heat exchanger with
dilute acid to remove any calcium build-up.
 8

References

Crews, R, 2000. “Heat Exchanger Excel Spreadsheet”,

http://info.chee.queensu.ca/CHEE218/Labs/Heat%20Exchanger/Student
%20-%20HX.xls

De Nevers, Noel, 1991. “Fluid Mechanics for chemical engineers”, 2nd Edition,
McGraw-Hill, NY

Incropera, F.P. and DeWitt, D.P., 2002. "Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer", John
Wiley & Sons, 5th Edition, Chapter 11

Karan, Kunal, 2002. "Heat Exchanger",

http://info.chee.queensu.ca/CHEE218/Labs/Heat%20Exchanger/heatex.htm

Perry, R.H., C.H. Chilton and S.D. Kirkpatrick, 1963. "Chemical Engineers' Handbook,"
4th Edition, McGraw-Hill, N.Y.