Material Selection for High Pressure, High Efficiency Heat Exchanger Tubes

By: Samyukta Gade

Peter Gonsalves Niti Plangsriskul Jennifer Suiter

Team Mate-asaurus

May 18, 2010

Executive Summary The goal of this project is to address the design of a high pressure, high efficiency heat exchanger tube. Heat exchangers take heat from one fluid and pass it to a second. The primary function of this application is to move heat into or out of our system. A key element in all heat exchangers is the tube wall or membrane that separates the two fluids. It is required to transmit heat, and there is frequently a pressure difference across the tube wall that is sometimes large. Our goal was to select a material for the tubes in the heat exchanger that maximize the transfer of heat across the interface at minimum cost and does not fail due to the pressure difference across the interface.

This report covers the methodology of how the material selection process was carried out for each application. In particular, the functions, objectives and constraints are identified in each application. This led to the selection of appropriate performance indices, which allowed us to select suitable materials using CES software. Finally, we used the Ashby Selection method to limit the number of choices for each application. This list was narrowed to the best choice using a weighted property index selection method.

Figure 1 A simple design to a heat exchanger. In this project, we will be selecting the best material to use for the U-tube bundle.

Introduction
Needs Statement We need a material for the tubes in the heat exchanger that maximizes the transfer of heat across the interface at minimum cost and does not fail due to the pressure difference across the interface. Function Statement The function of the heat exchanger tube is the transfer heat. Objective The objectives are to maximize transfer of heat, while minimizing cost of the tubes of heat exchanger Constraints The heat exchanger tube must transmit heat without failing due to pressure differences across the interface. The tube must not corrode due to steam (hot water), and must be able to operate at temperatures around 150o C. The material must be ductile (~30%), so that it can be manufactured in tube-like form. The material must have a failure constraint that allows it to leak before breaking.

Materials Selection
Model & Performance Indices The Ashby Selection Method was chosen as the model for choosing choice of materials because it selects the materials that maximize a desired performance index. This is accomplished by plotting one property against another and mapping out the fields in property-space occupied by each material class. The performance index for this application is one that achieves the greatest heat transfer with the least amount of cost. The performance index for a heat exchanger (pressure limited) is: (*y) / (*Cm), where is the Thermal Conductivity (W/m*K), y is the yield strength (Pa), is the density (kg/m3), and Cm is the cost of the material ($/kg). Using CES to select material choices based on this performance index results in the graph shown in Figure 2. Our choices range between various types of aluminum and steels.

Figure 2 Using CES, a heat-exchanger performance index reveals an array of various types of aluminum and steel.

Further constraints on our material choice were then done by using CESs limit function. We decided that the material must have ~30% ductility to be able to be bent into heat exchanger, corrosion resistance to water (steam), have a service temperature of around 150o C, and must have the ability to shape into a plain, hollow axisymmetric prism (tube). Finally, we need to consider the failure constraint of the device. There is a pressure difference across the tube, but since there is a non-toxic substance in the tubes (water), and we will not be able to see the tubes bulging under pressure, we consider a leak to

be an acceptable failure mode in lieu of explosion. Thus, the second performance index that we will use is to ensure that our exchanger tubes will leak-before-break. This performance index is: KIC2 / y, where KIC is the fracture toughness, and f is the failure strength of the material.

Figure 3 Applying a second performance index to original heat exchanger list, using a leak-before-break preference, resulted in this select list of 5 different types of low alloyed steel.

Material Properties Used In Selection Process After using our first performance index, (*y) / (*Cm), in addition to the CES limit function, we narrowed our choices to the best 25 materials. This list was further weaned to the top 5 choices by maximizing the second performance index, KIC2 / y. Aside from our two performance indices, we decided to not treat the other constraints as weight-able factors. Specifically, we need a service temperature of around 150o C, so we wanted to include all materials that have a service temperature above this temperature; however, we felt it does not matter how high a materials service temperature compares to another, so long as the service temperature was above the needed 150oC. We also made the same choices for corrosion resistance to steam, ductility around 30%, and the ability to shape into tube-like form. As long as the material passed these constraints, we were satisfied that they are suitable materials for our heat exchanger. After using both performance indices and the used the constraints as limits, our top five choices were: low alloy steel AISI 4037, low alloy steel AISI 4042, low alloy steel AISI 4130, low alloy steel AISI 5046 and low alloy steel AISI 5140. The next step in the

selection process was to take the remaining indices and use the Weighted Property Index Selection Method. Weighted Property Index (WPI) Selection Method We compared the two performance indices to each other to their relative weighted values. We felt that the first performance index, maximum heat flux and strength per unit mass and cost, was more important than the leak before break performance index because the first index relates to our needs statement more directly. The second performance index is primarily a safety factor. Table I shows the breakdown of our WPI, normalized for maximizing our best choices. According to our calculations, the low alloy steel AISI 4042 is the best choice, followed closely by the low alloy steel AISI 4037. The other three low alloyed steels are not too much different than these two, which is to be expected since they are all slight variations of each other.
Table I Weighted Property Index Selection Method of 5 Different Low Alloyed Steels

Sensitivity Analysis After analysis of the W.P.I. chart, it is clear that very little variances exist between each of the low carbon steels. Increases in carbon content, which is indicated by the last two numbers (i.e. AISI 4037 has .37 wt% carbon), typically indicates a higher yield strength. A similar correlation to higher yield strength is higher price. Both attributes are tied into our first performance index. Density is also in this index, but the density of all five low alloy steel is the same, so it essentially does not weigh into our sensitivity analysis. Low allow steels 4037 and 4042 slightly dominate the other three because the thermal conductivity of these two is around 50.5 W/m*K, while the other three are around 45 W/m*K. This slight difference is most likely why these two types of steel were rated better, since thermal conductivity is the main purpose of our heat exchanger. The yield strength of 4037 steel is approximately 655 Mpa, while 4042 steel is around 690 Mpa. This small difference in yield strength is the only reason that 4042 steel is the top choice.

We next reviewed our choice to make the heat exchanger index significantly more important than the leak-before-break performance index. Raising this magnitude of how much more weight this index should get did not change 4042 steel as being the best choice. The only scenario that a different material became the best choice is when the two indices are given equal weight, in which case 5046 steel would get the best choice (94.3) rating, but 4037 & 4042 steels would still have comparable rankings (92.3 and 92.0, respectively).

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions According to our weighted factors, the best choice low alloyed steel 4042. Sensitivity analysis shows that any type of low allow steel will give similar performance based on our heat exchanger needs statement; however, the 4042 steel is the most optimum choice to maximize thermal conductivity, while minimizing cost.