print | close

Predicting the Performance of Heat Exchangers

HPAC Engineering
By JIM BREESE, James Breese & Co., San Francisco, Calif.
Sat, 2005-01-01 12:00
Although heat exchangers usually are selected for unique sets of conditions, sometimes it is of interest to know how
they will respond to changes in inlet temperature. For example, it might be necessary to predict the change in cold-side
outlet temperature resulting from a change in inlet boiler-water temperature or steam pressure. Because when one
terminal temperature is changed, the others become unknowns, it is impractical to predict performance by means of
the standard heat-transfer-rate equation:
q = (UA)(T
lm
)F (1)
where:
q = heat-transfer rate
U = overall heat-transfer coefficient
A = heat-transfer-surface area
T
lm
= log-mean-temperature difference (LMTD) of the two fluids
F is the LMTD correction factor for non-counterflow operation. It also is the ratio of surface area required with pure-
counterflow operation to surface area actually required. It varies from unity (e.g., in plate-type heat exchangers and
steam-water applications) to about 0.75, below which surface requirements tend to be impracticably large. Without a
rate equation not involving LMTD or F, new temperature profiles for rated heat exchangers would be found through
tedious trial of leaving temperatures until the known values of UA were satisfiedthat is, until:
q [(T
lm
)F] = UA (1a)
Fortunately, there is a rate equation not involving LMTD or F. It is based on the concepts of heat-transfer
effectiveness () and number of heat-transfer units (N
tu
) and gives q as a function of the difference between the two
entering temperatures. It is a consequence of the -N
tu
method developed by W.M. Kays and A.L. London
1
for the
design of lightweight heat exchangers with complex geometries for use in aircraft and ships. This article outlines the
method and provides examples illustrating its usefulness to HVAC designers.
THE -N
TU
METHOD
Heat-transfer effectiveness is defined as:
= (q
a
q
t
) = (actual heat transfer theoretical maximum heat transfer) (2)
Actual heat-transfer rate is given by heat balance:
q
a
= C
h
(T
1
- T
2
) = C
c
(t
2
- t
1
) (3)
where:
C
h
, C
c
= flow-stream-capacity rates of hot and cold fluids, respectively, defined as mass rate of flow times specific heat
T
1
, T
2
= hot-side entering and leaving temperatures, respectively
t
1
, t
2
= cold-side entering and leaving temperatures, respectively
The fluid-capacity rates and general temperature profile of all of the heat exchangers discussed in this article are
represented by the following notation:
T
1
T
2
C
h
t
2
t
1
C
c
From the general temperature profile, it is evident that fluid-temperature difference in a heat exchanger can be no
greater than (T
1
- t
1
). Moreover, no more heat can be transferred than can be absorbed at the cold-side capacity
rate, C
c
, and released at the hot-side capacity rate, C
h
. And the maximum theoretical heat transfer cannot exceed the
theoretical value attainable if the fluid with minimum capacity rate, C
min
, could experience the maximum temperature
difference, (T
1
- t
1
). So, regardless of which side has the minimum capacity rate, the theoretical maximum heat-
transfer rate, q
t
, is given by:
q
t
= C
min
(T
1
- t
1
) (4)
From equations 2, 3, and 4:
= [C
h
(T
1
T
2
)] [C
min
(T
1
t
1
)] = [C
c
(t
2
t
1
)] [C
min
(T
1
t
1
)]
When C
h
is C
min
:
= (T
1
T
2
) (T
1
t
1
) (5)
When C
c
is C
min
:
= (t
2
t
1
) (T
1
t
1
) (6)
Thus, given , T
1
, and t
1
and the fluid-capacity rates, T
2
and t
2
always can be found.
Combining equations 2 and 4 results in a rate equation not involving LMTD:
q
a
= C
min
(T
1
t
1
) (7)
Number of heat-transfer units, or heat-exchanger size, is defined as:
N
tu
= UA C
min
(dimensionless) (8)
To show the relationship between N
tu
and , Kays and London
1
introduced capacity-rate ratio (C
min
C
max
) and
plotted -vs.-N
tu
curves for a large number of heat-exchanger types. Figures 1 and 2 show the curves for two
exchanger types commonly used in HVAC design.
In re-rating an
exchanger at new
fluid temperatures,
too little
information is
available to
accurately predict
the new U value. For
moderate changes in
average fluid
temperature,
however, the
variation in U is
unlikely to exceed
the normal range of
error expected in
detailed heat-
transfer calculations
or even
sophisticated
computer programs.
In most cases, the U
value at the
cataloged rating can
be assumed valid for
the new rating
without serious
error.
2
With N
tu
assumed constant, the actual U value does not have to be known because it is implicit in the N
tu
. (See Equation 8.) This
is especially applicable to hydronic systems because of the relatively small change in the heat-transfer properties of
water.
If there is reason to believe that a U value will be significantly different at new conditions, a design value can be used
for a new N
tu
, and a new can be found from curves such as those in figures 1 and 2. Figure 3 is useful for estimating
variations in U over a range of average film temperatures. Changes in flow rates can, of course, affect U values
significantly. Their effect can be calculated by methods found in standard texts. For this article, however, fluid-
capacity rates are assumed to be constant.
EXAMPLES
In the following examples, English engineering units are used. Water is assumed to have a specific heat of 1.0 and a
weight of 8.33 lb per gallon. In most of the examples, a hydronic constant of 500 (8.33 multiplied by 1.0 multiplied
by 60 [minutes per hour]) is used to obtain fluid-capacity rate in British thermal units per hour per degree Fahrenheit
(Btuh/F). The heat-transfer coefficients were chosen for illustrative purposes only and are not necessarily the values
one would calculate using the detailed procedures given by Kern
4
and others.
5
Shell-and-tube heat exchanger, T
1
and T
2
unknown. Consider a shell-and-tube heat exchanger with a catalog
rating of:
Boiler water:
200 gpm 210F 180F C
min
= (200)(500) = 100,000 Btuh/F
Process water:
300 gpm 160F 140F C
max
= (300)(500) = 150,000 Btuh/F
A system-design change requires the leaving temperature, t
2
, to be 180F, with a return temperature, t
1
, of 150F. Find
the new T
1
to satisfy this requirement. The new temperature profile to be completed is:
T
1
T
2
180F 150F
Assuming there will not be a significant change in U, find from the catalog rating, and use it for the new rating.
From Equation 5:
= (210 180) (210 140) = 0.43
From Equation 3:
q
a
= (150,000)(180 150) = 4,500,000 Btuh
and:
(T
1
T
2
) = (q
a
C
h
) = 4,500,000 100,000 = 45F
From Equation 5:
(T
1
t
1
) = [(T
1
T
2
) ] = 45 0.43 = 104.7F
T
1
= 150 + 104.7 = 254.7F
T
2
= 254.7 45 = 209.7F
The new temperature profile is:
255F 210F
180F 150F
Note that while U was assumed constant, its actual value did not have to be known.
Although the heat-transfer rate went from 3,000,000 Btuh ([100,000][210 - 180]) to 4,500,000 Btuh, there was no
increase in heat-transfer-surface area. That followed from the assumption of a constant N
tu
. Thus, from Equation 1a:
UA = q [(T
lm
)F] = constant
For a change in q, there must be a proportional change in LMTD so that UA remains constant.
Semi-instantaneous water heater, new steam pressure. Consider a semi-instantaneous water heater with the
following catalog rating:
25-psig steam in shell 267F 267 F
100 gpm in tubes 120F 50F
The notation indicates isothermal condensation of saturated steam.
If this water heater has 40 sq ft of heat-transfer surface, what steam pressure would be required to produce a cold-side
outlet temperature of 140F at a maximum U value of 450 Btuh per square foot per degree Fahrenheit (Btuh/sq ft/F)?
From Equation 3, noting that C
h
is C
max
:
C
max
= [q
a
(T
1
T
2
)]
But for an isothermal process, T
1
minus T
2
equals 0; thus, C
max
is infinitely large, and C
min
divided by C
max
equals 0.
The temperature profile to be completed is:
T
1
T
2
C
max
=
140F 50F C
min
= (100)(500) = 50,000 Btuh/F
Because the design U value for the new conditions will not necessarily equal the value at the catalog rating, N
tu
must be
calculated.
From Equation 8:
N
tu
= [(UA) C
min
] = [(450)(40) 50,000] = 0.36
From Figure 1, using the curve for C
min
divided by C
max
equals 0, equals 0.32.
From Equation 6:
T
1
t
1
= [(t
2
t
1
) ] = [(140 50) 0.32] = 281.3F
Thus:
T
1
= 50 + 281.3 = 331.3F
From standard steam tables, the steam pressure at 331F is 89 psig. The new temperature profile is:
Steam, 89 psig 331F 331F
Water, 100 gpm 140F 50F
Rating an exchanger for use with a propylene-glycol solution. A shell-and-tube heat exchanger with 80 sq ft
of heat-transfer surface is available for service hot water for a small solar heating system. The design calls for a 50-
percent-by-volume propylene-glycol solution to enter the shell from the solar panels at a rate of 100 gpm and an
average temperature of 150F. Service water in the tubes will enter from a hot-water storage tank at an average
temperature of 110F. The specific heat of the 50-percent glycol solution (taken at 120F) is 0.87. The density is 64.1
lb per cubic foot, or 8.6 lb per gallon. The overall heat-transfer coefficient is an estimated 250 Btuh/sq ft/F. What will
the heat-transfer rate and outlet temperatures be?
The temperature profile to be completed is:
100 gpm, 50-percent PG:
150F T
2
C
max
= (100)(0.87)(8.6)(60) = 44,892 Btuh/F
50 gpm, water:
t
2
110F C
min
= (50)(500) = 25,000 Btuh/F
Capacity ratio = C
min
C
max
= 25,000 44,892 = 0.56
From Equation 8:
N
tu
= UA C
min
= (250)(80) 25,000 = 0.80
From Figure 1:
= 0.50
From Equation 7:
q
a
= 0.50(25,000)(150 110) = 500,000 Btuh
From Equation 3:
t
2
= t
1
+ q C
min
= 110 + 500,000 25,000 = 130F
T
2
= T
1
(q
a
C
max
) = 150 (500,000 44,892) = 139F
Thus, the design temperature profile will be:
150F 139F
130F 110F
Plate-and-frame heat exchanger, new t
1
. A plate-and-frame heat exchanger with 4,600 sq ft of plate surface was
ordered for an indirect free-cooling system designed to provide water to a conditioned space at a rate of 2,400 gpm
and a temperature of 60F when furnished with cooling-tower water at a rate of 1,800 gpm and a temperature of 56F.
An increase in air-conditioning load requires a delivered-water temperature of 58F and a return temperature of 67F,
based on an overall U factor of 650 Btuh/sq ft/F. If the flow rates are to be maintained, what does the temperature of
the cooling-tower water (t
1
) need to be?
The new temperature profile to be completed is:
67F 58F C
max
= (2,400)(500) = 1,200,000 Btuh/F
T
2
t
1
C
min
= (1,800)(500) = 900,000 Btuh/F
The cooling load is:
(1,200,000)(67 58) = 10,800,000 Btuh
Because there is no operating experience to verify the original design temperatures, use Equation 8 to establish
effectiveness:
N
tu
= [(UA) C
min
] = [(650 4,600) 900,000] = 3.3
C
min
C
max
= 900,000 1,200,000 = 0.75
From Figure 2:
= 0.84
From Equation 6:
t
1
= T
1
[(t
2
t
1
) ]
From Equation 3:
(t
2
t
1
) = (q
a
C
min
) = (10,800,000 900,000) = 12F
Thus:
t
1
= 67 (12 0.84) = 52.7F maximum inlet temperature
t
2
= 52.7 + 12.0 = 64.7F
The new temperature profile is:
67F 58F
64.7F 52.7F
Note that a temperature cross (t
2
greater than T
2
) occurs. This is possible only with counterflow exchangers and is
one of the reasons why plate-type exchangers are ideal for close-approach applications, such as free cooling.
Design of a new exchanger. To illustrate the -N
tu
method's value in design, consider the calculation of surface
area for a U-tube exchanger with 10-psig steam condensing in the shell and water at a rate of 450 gpm heated from
165F to 210F in the tubes. Assume a U value of 500 Btuh/sq ft/F.
From standard steam tables, at 10 psig, the saturated-steam temperature is 240F. Thus, the temperature profile to be
satisfied is:
Steam at 10 psig:
240F 240F C
h
= C
max
= (See second example.)
Water, 450 gpm:
210F 165F C
c
= C
min
= (450)(500) = 225,000 Btuh/F
For steam to water:
C
min
C
max
= 0
From Equation 6:
= (t
2
t
1
) (T
1
t
1
) = (210 165) (240 165) = 0.60
From Figure 1:
N
tu
= 0.91
From Equation 8:
(UA) = (N
tu
)(C
min
) = (0.91)(225,000) = 204,750 Btuh/F
Thus:
A = 204,750 500 = 410 sq ft
The duty can be found from Equation 3 or Equation 7. From Equation 7:
q
a
= 0.60(225,000)(240 165) = 10,125,000 Btuh
COMPARISON WITH THE LMTD METHOD
It is interesting to compare the calculation above with the LMTD method. The LMTD of the terminal-temperature
differences, (T
1
- t
2
) and (T
2
- t
1
), is found from:
T
lm
= (T
l
T
s
) ln(T
l
T
s
)
where:
T
l
= the larger terminal-temperature difference
T
S
= the smaller terminal-temperature difference
The terminal-temperature differences are:
(T
2
t
1
) = (240 165) = 75F = T
l
(T
1
t
2
) = (240 210) = 30F = T
s
Thus:
T
lm
= [(75 30) ln(75 30)] = 49.1F
As noted earlier, LMTD correction factor for non-counterflow operation, F, is 1.00 in steam-to-water applications
because one fluid stream is isothermal. Thus, from Equation 1:
A = [10,125,000 (500)(49.1)] = 412 sq ft
If this had been a water-to-water application, several additional steps would have been required to evaluate F. These
are not necessary with the -N
tu
method, which is based on thermodynamic principles requiring no correction factor.
CONCLUSION
The -N
tu
method not only eliminates calculation of LMTD and its correction factor, it can predict a heat exchanger's
performance from one set of conditions to another, even when final temperatures and LMTD are not known. It is
convenient for answering the what-if questions that often accompany heat-exchanger applications. In predicting how
an exchanger in a hydronic system will respond to a change in inlet temperature, the heat-transfer product implicit in
the N
tu
of the cataloged rating usually can be assumed to remain constant over the extrapolation. Although there is a
loss of accuracy, it usually is not significant, thanks to the relative stability of the thermal properties of water.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
While assuming full responsibility for any errors that may be found in this article, the author wishes to acknowledge
the patient reading and constructive criticism volunteered by Kenneth M. Elovitz, PE, Esq.
REFERENCES
1. Kays, W.M., & London, A.L. (1955). Compact heat exchangers. New York: McGraw-Hill.
2. Guyer, E. (Ed.). (1989). Handbook of applied thermal design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
3. Potter, P.J. (1949). Steam power plants. New York: The Ronald Press Co.
4. Kern, D.Q. (1950). Process heat transfer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
5. McAdams, W.H. (1933). Heat transmission. New York: McGraw-Hill.
The president of James Breese & Co., Jim Breese represents manufacturers of heat-transfer equipment and provides
design services to facilities engineers. He has a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from the University of
New Mexico.

Did you find this article useful? Send comments and suggestions to Executive Editor Scott
Arnold at scott.arnold@penton.com.
Source URL: http://hpac.com/heating/predicting-performance-heat-exchangers