Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
September 2014
GROUP PROJECT
Title: CFD Simulation of Heat Exchange Equipment
GROUP 4-16
Name
Matric ID
16026
16112
TABLE OF CONTENT
No.
Title
Page
Governing Equations
Simulation Method
Conclusion
12
References
13
In this simulation project, the objective is to study the relationship between the overall heat transfer
coefficient, and the outlet fluid temperature, 2 . By using COMSOL Multiphysics v4.3, heat exchangers
with different geometry can be constructed and the overall heat transfer coefficient for a particular
outlet fluid temperature can be determined using trial and error method.
1 2
1
2
0 = ( )
Where,
0 = heating flux
= external temperature
For laminar flow ( < 2100)
0 (
2
3 2
1/3
= 1.47 (
4
)
1/3
0 = 0.943 (
3 2
( )
0.25
Where,
= conductivity coefficient
= length of tube
Where,
= maximum velocity (m/s)
= distance from center of the channel (m)
= channel radius (m)
For cold stream,
2
= (1 ( ) )
Where,
= mean density (kg/3 )
= ( + )/2 is the mean fluid temperature
. = 0
Problem Identification
Model Sketching
No
Yes
Contour and capture of relevant 2D plot for surface
and iso-surface velocity and temperature
End
Resolution of curvature=0.3
2. The boundary selected is the entire geometry excluding the 2 circles and 2 semi-circles.
RESULT
1. In the Model Builder window, a cut line 2D is constructed with the following setting:
Point 1
Point 2
0
0.05
1.05
1.05
STUDY
1. In the Model Builder window, Compute button is clicked.
RESULT
1. Back to Result again, Derived Values>Line Average>Evaluate
2. This step is repeated for trial and error in order to get the desired value of heat transfer
coefficient.
Figure
(a1)
Figure
(a2)
X=0.14
X=0.1
Y=0.1
Y=0.14
In both of the graphs above, Figure (a1) and Figure (a2) there are differences in terms of velocity flow
line as the dimensions for both the heat exchanger varies respectively. In figure (a1), the length of y (0.1)
which is much shorter compared to the y length (0.14) in figure (a2) causes the velocity stream of water
in both heat exchanger varies respectively. As observed, there are more dead zones in figure (a1) as the
differences in dimensions causes more dead zones towards the output nozzle as compared to figure (a2).
The reason behind the existence of the dead zones are due to more stagnation of water being formed in
figure (a1) compared to figure (a2). Apart from that, there are also more dead zones in figure (a1)
compared to figure (a2) at the input zones respectively. The heating coils in figure (a1) which is slightly
placed higher in the y axis compared to figure (a2) causes the streamline of the water to be obstructed.
The phenomenon of Vena Contracta actually occurs in the flows of water for both heat exchangers. This
causes more water to be stagnant; forming more dead zones as there will be a pocket or region where it
is protected from the flow of water. In short, the velocity flow of water in heat exchanger, figure (a2) is
much more efficient as there are less dead zones and the function of heat transfer would be more
efficient. This is due to the dimension of y which is shorter allowing more spaces for water to flow more
efficiently.
6
Figure
(b1)
X=0.14
Y=0.1
Figure
(c1)
X=0.1
Y=0.14
In both figure (b1) and figure (c1), the heat flows through the heat exchanger in almost a similar manner.
Undoubtedly, as shown in both the figures, as the water firstly enters the input respectively, the
brightness of the red is dull showing that a low temperature of water is being measured. As it proceeds
towards the output of the heat exchangers respectively, the temperature increases as water will be
heated to carry out heat transfer purposes. This is proven as the brightness of the red color increase in
both the figures when the water travels toward the output of the nozzle in both figures. However, the
difference in dimensions of x and y in figure (c1) and figure (b1) clearly affects the distribution of the
heat flux in a minority. As observed on the mid-section of the heat section in figure (c1), the redness
appears to be brighter indicating more heat are being transferred through from the coil as compared to
figure (b1). This can be explained as we observe the length as shown by the arrow in the picture. The
length in figure (c1) is longer allowing more heated water to flow through towards the output as
compared to figure (b1). Hence, more heat is being transferred.
Figure
(b2)
Figure
(c2)
X=0.14
X=0.1
Y=0.1
Y=0. 14
Figure
(b3)
X=0.14
Y=0.1
In both Iso-surface figures, the distribution of the heat flux is the same as indicated by the intensity of
the blue color increases from the input section towards the output sections in both figures. However,
the highlight here is again emphasized towards the mid-section of the heat exchanger in figure (c2) as
compared to figure (b2). The distribution of heat in the mid-section of figure (c2) projected to be longer
and more concentrated towards the output nozzle. However, in figure (b2) the distribution of heat slims
down towards the output indicating less heat to be transferred through due to the difference in
dimensions.
The explanation is the same for both in contour in the heat exchanger for the two respective dimensions
as shown above. More heat is shown to be distributed in figure (c3) compared to figure (b3).
8
4.3 Heat View from the Top Part of the Heat Exchanger & Line graph
This is the results obtain from both heat exchanger respectively. As observed from the top the middle
or the core of the circle represents the outlet of the heat exchanger from the top view. This is where the
heater water from the coil of the heat exchanger flows out. Therefore, the red color indicated the
highest temperature; as it decreases towards the outer layer of the circle. The outer layer of the circle is
blue in color indicating a lower temperature value. This is because heat is loss to the surrounding
atmosphere from the core of the heat exchanger itself. The graph also shows as the arc length of the
reactor increases the heat decreases with is acceptable as explained as above.
Figure
(d1)
Figure
(e1)
X=0.14
X=0.1
Y=0.1
Y=0. 14
Figure
(d2)
X=0.14
Y=0.1
Figure
(e2)
X=0.1
Y=0. 14
Figure
(b2)
In all the figures shown, it is shown that the velocity of water will increase as it flows from the input
X=0.14
section of the heat exchangers towards the output section of the heat exchanger. However, the debate
Y=0.1
10
Nelson
60
venessa
50
Nelson
X=0.1
Y=0.14
Average
outlet
T2
40
30
20
Vennesa
X=0.14
10
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800Heat 900
Transfer1000
Coefficient
The respective values are plotted according to the axis and compared for both heat exchangers with
different dimensions. As shown in the graph, the heat transfer coefficient is directly proportional to the
average outlet, T2 which indicates the increase in heat transfer coefficient the higher the temperature
we would obtain.
nelson
14
venessa
12
Nelson
X=0.1
Y=0.14
T avg
outlet - T2
10
8
Vennesa
X=0.14
Y=0.1
6
4
2
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
11
Using the trial and error, we have finally found the heat transfer coefficient needed to operate both the
heat exchanger that has its own respective dimensions as stated in the graph. For Nelsons results the
optimum heat transfer coefficient is found to be 540 W/(m2K) for the heat exchanger to operate while
for Vanessas results, the optimum heat transfer coefficient is found to be 647 W/(m2K).
5.0 Conclusion
In this project, we learned that by changing the dimensions of the heat exchanger, the heat transfer
coefficient changes. This shows that the heat transfer coefficient is directly affected by the width of the
slit and the diameter of the tube. The heat transfer coefficient needed for a process can be estimated
when the outlet fluid temperature is given. This can be done by the simulation of Non-Isothermal
Laminar Flow package in COMSOL Multiphysics with trial and error method. The outcome of this project
is that we are able to compare the velocity and temperature profile of heat exchange with different
dimensions (Nelsons x=0.1, y=0.14; Vennesas x=0.14, y=0.1) at an outlet fluid temperature of 58.
In the comparison for velocity field streamline in 2D, it is found that the velocity flow of water in the
heat exchanger is more efficient when the length of y is longer as there are less dead zones which then
allow more spaces for water to flow more. As for the velocity profile in 3D, the phenomena Vena
Contracta is observed to have occurred in both heat exchangers. In this case, smaller diameter of the
heat exchanger will oozes out the water at a higher velocity.
Then, the comparison for temperature profile in revolved 2D and 3D also shows that the longer length
of Y enables more heat to be supplied to the flow through the output. In iso-surface comparison, it can
be seen that the heat flux for both heat exchangers are the same. However, a slight change can be
observed from the middle of the heat exchanger onwards. The distribution of heat is observed to be
longer and more concentrated towards the output nozzle. Here, it is again shown that the width of the
slit y affects the heat distribution in the heat exchanger.
A line graph of temperature plotted using COMSOL Multiphysics enables us to study the heat exchanger
from its top view. It is observed that the outer layer of the heat exchanger is mostly in blue colour while
the inner part towards the core is red in colour. This is due to heat loss to the surrounding atmosphere
from the core of the heat exchanger itself. The graph also shows that as arc length of the reactor
increases, heat decreases.
12
Lastly, the relationship between the heat transfer coefficient and the outlet fluid temperature is studied.
From the graph, we learned that the heat transfer coefficient is directly proportional to the average
outlet temperature which indicates that increase in heat transfer coefficient increases the outlet
temperature. Using the trial and error method, the heat transfer coefficient determined for (x=0.14,
y=0.1) is 540/(2 ) and 647/(2 ) for the dimension (x=0.1, y=0.14).
References
McCabe, Warren L., Julian C. Smith and Peter Harriot, Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering,
5th ed., New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company (1993).
Welty, James R,; Wicks, Charles E.; Wilson, Robert E.; Rorrer, Gregory. (2001). Fundamentals of
Momentum, Heat, and Mass Transfer, John Wiley
William M. (1998), Analysis of Transport Phenomenam Oxford University Press
Blocken, B., Cualtieri, C. 2012. Ten iterative steps for model development and evaluation applied
to Computational Fluid Dynamics for Environmental Fluid Mechanics. Environmental
Modelling & Software 33:1-22.
Joel.L. 9 (2004), Tranport Phenomena Fundamentals, Chemical Industries Series, CRC Press,
pp.1, 2, 3.
Esionwu, C. (2014). Further Aerodynamics and Finite Volume Discretization Basics. Retrieved
from http://www.dicat.uniqe.it/querrero/of2013/fvmpdf
Howes, D.J. & Sanders, B.F. (2013) Velocity Contour Weighting Method. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent/cgi?article=1104&context=bae_fac
13