55

CHAPTER 4

THERMAL EFFECTIVENESS OF A SPIRAL PLATE

HEAT EXCHANGER

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the study of thermal effectiveness of the

spiral plate heat exchanger with liquid-liquid two-phase mixtures. Thermal
effectiveness is a measure of heat transfer efficiency of the exchanger.
It depends on the exchanger geometry, the properties of the hot and cold
fluids used, and on the range of operating conditions. Quantifying thermal
effectiveness of a heat exchanger is critical in designing the exchanger for
different applications. To determine the thermal effectiveness of a heat
exchanger, a geometric model of the exchanger has to be developed and a
model of heat transfer in the exchanger has to be developed. The model
development that follows is that of Bes and Roetzel (1993), which has been
used to study the thermal effectiveness of the spiral plate heat exchanger
involving heat transfer to liquid-liquid mixtures.

4.2 THERMAL EFFECTIVENESS

Thermal effectiveness measures the efficiency of heat transfer in

a heat exchanger. There are different definitions for the thermal
effectiveness, such as the -effectiveness and the P-effectiveness. Both are
 56

usually studied as a function of the mean number of transfer units (NTU).

NTU measures the amount of heat to be transferred from the hot side to the
cold side for unit temperature difference in the fluid. Depending on the
length of the heat exchanger needed to accomplish this temperature
difference, the exchanger may be sized. The basic definition of thermal
effectiveness is the ratio of temperature difference accomplished in one of
the sides to the maximum span that can be accomplished. Thus, for the hot
side and the cold side, thermal effectiveness is defined as:

Th1 Th 2 T Tc1
Ph = ; Pc = c 2 (4.1)
Th1 Tc1 Th1 Tc1

Thermal effectiveness is a function of NTU, heat capacity ratio,

and the flow arrangement (curvature). Further, the flow patterns in
two-phase flows can also significantly affect the thermal effectiveness of the
exchanger. It is of interest to evaluate whether a purely thermal theory for a
spiral plate heat exchanger such as the ones derived by Bes and Roetzel
(1993) and Martin (1992) is sufficient to reasonably capture the thermal
performance of the exchanger. In this chapter the thermal theory of Bes and
Roetzel (1993) is presented first, and expressions are derived for the thermal
effectiveness of the hot side and cold side. Using the experimental data and
the model equations, thermal effectiveness for hot and cold sides are
calculated and the trends analyzed. Thermal effectiveness is also calculated
from the inlet and outlet temperatures using the definition provided in
Equation 4.1. The predictions of the model are compared against
experimental data and the limitations of a purely thermal theory in
predicting the performance of a spiral plate heat exchanger with immiscible
liquid mixtures are examined.
 57

4.3 THERMAL THEORY OF A SPIRAL PLATE HEAT

EXCHANGER

Bes and Roetzel (1993) have developed the thermal theory of

spiral plate heat exchangers wherein they have derived analytical
expressions for the LMTD correction factor and the temperature
effectiveness (P) of the exchanger. In what follows, the derivation of Bes
and Roetzel is presented. Direct mathematical manipulations are eschewed
as the original source is accessible.

4.3.1 Assumptions Involved

The model applies only for the middle part of a spiral plate heat
exchanger, where heat is transferred to cold fluid from both walls.
Therefore the model works better for a spiral heat exchanger with
a large number of turns. In this study, the number of turns n = 60,
large enough for end-effects to be neglected.

Flow is assumed to be countercurrent, and a correction factor F is

introduced for deviation from countercurrent flow.

Flow is assumed to be steady.

The exchanger geometry is assumed to be an Archimedean spiral.

This implies that the radius of the spiral increases, continuously
with the angle as:

b
r= ( m ) + rm, (4.2)

 58

where b - plate spacing, rm - minimum radius, and m - angle at

which the minimum radius is achieved. Therefore, temperatures
may be expressed as a function of either radius or the angle.

Fluids are assumed to be completely mixed in the radial and axial

directions within the flow channel. Thus in a cross-section chosen
at a fixed angle, the temperature changes step by step from
channel to channel.

Hot fluid enters the exchanger in the centre of the apparatus and
cold fluid flows in at the outermost channel.

Overall heat transfer coefficient U is constant throughout the

exchanger.

There are no heat losses to the environment.

Distance studs are not taken into account.

4.3.2 Thermal Theory

In this model, the mean temperature difference between the fluids

on both sides of a partition wall is tracked as a function of position in the
exchanger. To construct an Archimedean spiral plate exchanger, a double
slit is wound in a spiral fashion. Therefore, each radius corresponds to two
channels of rectangular cross sections. The inner spiral is called the main
spiral, and hot fluid flows through it. The second spiral (made from the
outer slit) constitutes the side spiral, and the cold fluid flows
countercurrently through it. Thus, for each radius, two temperature
differences may be defined, as shown for an elementary wedge in
 59

Figure 4.1. Both temperature differences are positive in the spiral plate heat
exchanger. Further, these differences of temperature depend upon each
other; however, for convenience they will be separately derived as two
different quantities and will later be combined with each other.

Figure 4.1 Temperature differences in an elementary wedge

of a spiral plate heat exchanger

4.3.3 Energy Balance Equations

Let the heat capacity of the hot fluid be Ch. For the part of the
channel between the radii r 1 and r, the hot fluid flows in the counter
clockwise direction. Since is also measured counterclockwise, the flow
direction of the hot fluid is the positive direction of . This hot fluid loses
heat to the cold fluids in the channels between r 1 and r 2, and r and
r + 1. Denoting the channel between r 1 and r as j, the above statement
may be rewritten as: the hot fluid in j loses heat to the cold fluid in j 1 and
j + 1. Let the temperature of the hot fluid be denoted Th and that of the cold
fluid be denoted TC. In order to indicate the temperature dependence on the
 60

position of the fluid in the exchanger, the temperature of the hot fluid in j is
denoted as Th (r (1 2)) , and that of the cold fluid in j + 1 is denoted as

Th (r + (1 2)) . Thus, the rate of change of heat transfer from the hot fluid in j
to the cold fluid in j + 1 with respect to the angle is given by:

1 1
q j, j+1 = hA T = hrw Th r Tc r + (4.3)
2 2

Here the heat transfer area is given by A = (height of the

exchanger) (arc length of the curved channel). This arc length is given at a
wedge by: 1 = r Thus, the rate of change of heat transfer with respect to
results in the above expression, as a first approximation. Similar expressions
may be written for rates of heat transfer at other locations in the exchanger.
Performing an energy balance on the hot fluid at j whose temperature is
Th(r ), one obtains the equation

1
d hc r
Ch 2 =q + q (4.4)
j, j1 j, j+1
d

A similar energy balance for the cold fluid in j + 1 gives

1
dTc r +
Cc 2 =q + q (4.5)
j, j+1 j+1, j+ 2
d

It is convenient to change slightly the notation of temperatures.

The function of temperature Th r and Tc r + will be further denoted

1 1
2 2
as Th(r) and Tc(r), respectively. Instead of expressing the rate of change
 61

with respect to the angle , one may convert this into the change with

respect to r. From Equation 4.2, we have d = dr .Thus, in the new
b
notations, Equations 4.4 and 4.5 become:

dTh (r ) r[Th (r ) Tc (r )]
Ch = kWb
dr + (r 1)[Th (r ) Tc (r 2) ]

dTc (r ) r[Th (r ) Tc (r )] +
Cc = kWb (4.6)
dr (r + 1)[Th (r + 2) Tc (r ) ]

The boundary conditions are obtained from the inlet and outlet
temperatures of the hot and cold fluids, respectively in the centre of the
exchanger. These two equations contain two kinds of temperature
differences (see Figure 4.1):

1. Local temperature difference between the fluids flowing on both

sides of the main spiral: (r) = Th (r) Tc (r)

2. Local temperature difference between the fluids flowing on both

sides of the side spirals: (r ) = Th (r + 1) Tc (r 1)

Defining a mean heat capacity of the hot and cold fluids as

C = Ch Cc , cross-sectional mean number of transfer units (NTU) as

Ch
2 A c h / C , the heat capacity ratio as R = , and rearranging, the two
Cc
Equations in 4.6 may be recast as:
 62

dTh ( r )
2 R + r (r ) + ( r 1)(r 1) = 0
dr

dTc ( r )
2 R + r( r ) + (r + 1)( r + 1) = 0 (4.7)
dr

To obtain the energy balance of the main and side spirals in terms
of the above defined local temperature differences, the derivatives have to be
converted to those in (r) and (r). This involves algebraic manipulation of
the two Equations in 4.7, and expanding terms in Taylors series to second
derivative (Bes and Roetzel 1993). It turns out to be convenient to define a
new independent variable x which depends on r, as

R +1
x= r (4.8)
2 R

The simplified final form of the two equations of and as a

function of x is:

d ( x ) d[x(x )]
x [ (x ) + (x )] =0
dx dx

d ( x ) d[x (x )]
x [(x ) + (x )] + =0
dx dx (4.9)

The boundary conditions are: ( x) = i (inlet); (x ) = i .

The Equations 4.9 are rearranged and solved by subtracting both equations
and integrating:

( x ) ( x ) x[( x ) + ( x )]= i i x i ( i + i ) (4.10)

= constant
 63

Since there are two variables and , another equation is needed

to find the final solution. This is obtained for the sum of the two variables.
Adding both Equations in 4.9 and replacing (x ) (x ) using Equation 4.10
gives

(
d (1 + x 2 )[(x ) + (x )] )
2x[(x ) + (x )]
dx

= [ i i x i ( i + i )] (4.11)

Here an additional assumption is made that the radius rmin is small

enough to allow neglect of the term with x i = ri in the last equation. This is
true for large n.

The solution of Equation 4.11 is readily obtainable. The final

function (x ) + (x ) is

Gi
(x ) + (x ) = ( i + i ) (4.12)
(1 + x )
2 1

2
where, G i = (1 + x i )1 is a constant computed for the radius ri at
the inlet to the exchanger.

4.3.4 Effectiveness of Spiral Plate Heat Exchanger

The effectiveness Ph for spiral plate heat exchanger can be

calculated according to the general formula

T h ,i T h , o
Ph = (4.13)
T h ,i T c ,i
 64

This may also expressed as:

1 exp[(R 1) NTU]
Ph = (4.14)
1 R exp[(R 1) NTU]

Recasting the solution Equation 4.12 to obtain an expression for

thermal effectiveness gives

1 + x o 2
1 exp ln
2

Ph = 1 + x i
(4.15)
( )
1 + x o ( R 1) x i 2
1 R exp ln
2

2
+
(
1 + x i ) 1+ xi
2
( )
Here the term is given by

2
=

( R 1 R )( R +1 R )
2

(4.16)
= (R 1) NTU h CN 2

where,

CN = ( R +1 )
R NTU ( A c A)
A c (4.17)
CN (NTU h + NTU c )
A

This number is characteristic for spiral plate heat exchanger and

therefore Bes and Roetzel (1993) recognize CN as the dimensionless
criterion number for the countercurrent spiral heat exchanger.

The second term of exponent with ln function contains an

independent variable which can be expressed as follows:
 65

(1 + x ) (1 + x ) = 1 + (x
o
2
i
2
o
2
xi
2
) (1 + x )
i
2

and

1
2 2
1+
xo xi
= CN 2 n 21
1 + x i2 1 + xi

For realistic heat capacity ratios (R) and small inlet radius, the

last term in the denominator (R 1) xi

2
(1+ x ) is negligible.
i
2

It is easy to notice that Equation 4.15 has the same structure as

Equation 4.14. The LMTD correction factor is obtained as

1 2
ln 1 + 1 + CN
(n 1)
F= 2
(4.18)
CN

Therefore, for the hot side, thermal effectiveness, correcting

for deviation from countercurrent flow, is given by

1 exp[(R 1) NTU F]
Ph = (4.19)
1 R exp[(R 1) NTU F]

Thermal effectiveness of the cold side is obtained from the

expression known in literature (Ramesh, K Shah 2006)

Ch
Pc = Ph = Ph R (4.20)
Cc
 66

4.3.5 Calculation from Experimental Data

From experimental data, the overall heat transfer coefficient may

be calculated as follows

Q = FUA (T )LMTD (4.21)

Calculation of the heat transfer coefficient from Equation 4.19

requires the knowledge of LMTD correction factor whereas Equations 4.17
and 4.18 indicate that calculating F requires the knowledge of heat transfer
coefficient. Therefore an iterative procedure was setup and executed in
Microsoft Excel to estimate the LMTD correction factor F, heat transfer
coefficient U, the number of transfer units NTU, and the temperature
effectiveness P of the exchanger for both the hot and the cold sides.

4.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The log mean temperature difference correction factors are very

close to unity for all octane-water, kerosene-water, dodecane-water,
diesel-water and nitrobenzene-water systems. The calculation data is
presented along with those of heat transfer coefficients in Chapter 5, in
Tables 5.3 to 5.28. The value of F being close to unity indicates that the flow
in the exchanger is predominantly countercurrent. Figures 4.2 through 4.34
show the thermal effectiveness of the spiral plate heat exchanger for the hot
and cold sides. It is seen that, as predicted by the model of Bes and Roetzel
(1993), the thermal effectiveness of both the hot and the cold sides increase
with increase in NTU. A typical plot of P-NTU of a spiral heat exchanger
for constant heat capacity ratio R and LMTD correction factor F is one of
asymptotic increase of P with respect to NTU, with the asymptote depending
 67

on the heat capacity ratio and F. The experiments performed, however, have
been conducted for fixed hot fluid flow rates and varying cold fluid flow
rates. This implies that, as the cold fluid flow rate increases, its heat capacity
increases. Therefore, the heat capacity ratio R decreases continuously, even
as the NTU increases and the effectiveness increases. This preliminary study
has investigated the NTU range of practical relevance and the values of
thermal effectiveness range for the cold fluid, and the hot fluid is listed in
the Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Ranges of NTU, thermal effectiveness of hot and cold fluid

NTU Ph Pc
System
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Octane - Water 1.86 4.31 0.07 0.29 0.83 0.97
Kerosene - Water 0.28 3.93 0.07 0.59 0.23 0.97
Dodecane -Water 0.44 3.93 0.07 0.66 0.34 0.97
Diesel - Water 2.30 6.83 0.07 0.22 0.89 1.00
Nitrobenzene - Water 0.49 3.93 0.07 0.49 0.38 0.97

Thermal effectiveness may also be calculated from experimental

data on the inlet and outlet temperatures. These values, depicted in Figures
4.2 to 4.34 by the subscript exp, are also plotted as a function of NTU.
Further, the predictions of Bes and Roetzel are compared against the
experimental data. The following are the main observations:

For the hot side, effectiveness increases monotonically with

NTU, and the model is able to capture this behavior qualitatively
as well as quantitatively. This is attributed to the turbulent flow
 68

regime in the hot side, where the Reynolds Number is greater

than the critical Reynolds Number of the spiral exchanger.

However, at low NTUs, the model overpredicts the effectiveness,

whereas at high NTUs, the model underpredicts the effectiveness.
The errors in these over/underpredictions are almost similar.
This brings out the limitation in using a purely thermal model to
predict heat transfer in heat exchangers.

The results in the cold side are seemingly counterintuitive and

qualitatively different from experimental predictions. It is seen
that, while the experiments predict a decrease of the efficiency
with NTU, the model predicts the opposite. This is true for pure
cold fluids (water or organics) as well as the immiscible mixtures.
This discrepancy is explained with the water-water system as
follows: For a given quantity of heat transferred from the hot side
to the cold side, the more the heat capacity (i.e., the more the flow
rate), the smaller the temperature difference achieved.
This explains why thermal efficiency is poorer when heat transfer
coefficients are high. This behavior is not captured by the model.
Actually, in the hot side, the model performs admirably. Here, the
heat transfer coefficients (h h) decrease with increasing cold fluid
flow rate, and the thermal efficiency correspondingly increases.
The cold-side thermal efficiency is simply the product of heat
capacity ratio (R) and the hot-side thermal efficiency. As the
cold-side flow rate increases, R decreases, which should pull
down the value of cold-side efficiency. This happens, but
insufficiently, resulting in the preservation of the same trend in
the cold side as seen in hot side. This is best attributed to the fact
 69

that the cold side has laminar flow while the hot side has
turbulent flow. Therefore, the reduction in R is insufficient to
reverse the trend. In other words, this is a limitation on the use of
a purely thermal model in the prediction of heat transfer in
laminar convection processes.

An analysis of the thermal effectiveness in the case of liquid

mixtures reveals further insights. While the mixtures follow the
same trend as described above, the discrepancies fall under two
categories.

In the case of water, octane and diesel, the model consistently

overpredicts the effectiveness. In all these systems, the Prandtl
Number is of the order of 5 to 7, which implies that heat transfer
is through both conduction and convection, though convection is
significant.

In the next chapter, where a linear mixing rule is developed to

predict heat transfer to immiscible liquids, it is shown that
mixtures of these fluids obey what approaches stratified flow
pattern. Whether or not the flow pattern is stratified (or slug or
annular or three-layer), the non-negligible role of conduction
played in the system serves to lessen the importance of flow
patterns in the heat transfer behavior. This observation is further
validated by the results in the next chapter.

In the case of kerosene, dodecane, and nitrobenzene, the model

underpredicts effectiveness in systems with higher organics
concentration, whereas as the amount of water increases, the
 70

behavior tends to overprediction. For these systems, the Prandtl

Numbers are of the order of 17 to 26. In such systems, heat
transfer due to conduction is negligible. Here, the effects of flow
should be very significant in the laminar regime. As expected,
errors are much higher, and using weighted-average properties for
the mixtures tend to underpredict the actual heat transfer
effectiveness.

In the next chapter, mixtures of these fluids are approximated to

flow in a oil-in-water or water-in-oil dispersion, and a linear
mixing rule is applied to predict their heat transfer coefficients.
This is to better capture the effect of flow on the heat transfer.
Even in the absence of a direct dependence on velocity, the heat
transfer coefficient predictions are reasonable, within an order of
magnitude, further validating the above observations.

Bes and Roetzel model is able to predict that the thermal

effectiveness for kerosene, dodecane and nitrobenzene would be
lower than that of water, octane and diesel. However, the
magnitudes are significantly different, as explained above.

The flow arrangement in the exchanger is not stream symmetric.

Hot fluid has much poorer thermal effectiveness than the cold
fluid. This is to be expected, because hot fluid flows much faster
(in turbulent regime) compared to the cold fluid (in laminar
regime).

In the cold side, thermal effectiveness is highest for water, and

lowest for nitrobenzene system. Thermal efficiencies showed no
 71

discernible trend respect to the amount of organic phase present

in the cold fluid. However, thermal effectiveness was higher for
lower-molecular weight organic phases such as octane and
kerosene, than the higher-molecular weight organic phases such
as dodecane and diesel. Polarity in the substance (as in
nitrobenzene) tended to decrease thermal effectiveness. The most
significant effect is that of the Prandtl Number, which effectively
determines whether heat transfer is by convection alone or if
conduction is to play an important role.

Unlike the predictions of Bes and Roetzel (1992) and Burmeister

(2006) in their simulations, no maxima are observed for the
effectiveness for any composition of the two-phase mixture
within the range of Dean Number and Prandtl Number studied.
Burmeister has studied only the case of equal capacitances, and
Bes and Roetzel have examined cases of constant heat capacity
ratios. In the present work, on the one hand, NTU values are
smaller than those for which the maximum effectiveness is
observed by Burmeister. Also, in our measurements, the heat
capacity ratio decreases with increasing NTU.

Further experiments are needed to study the quantitative

dependence of thermal effectiveness on carbon number and
composition of the organic phase, as well as the full functional
form of the dependence of thermal effectiveness on NTU for
liquid-liquid two-phase mixtures.
 72

Pure Water
1.2
Pure Octane
1 Pure Kerosene
Pure Dodecane
0.8 Pure Diesel
Pc,exp

0.6 Pure Nitrobenzene

0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8
NTUc
Figure 4.2 Thermal effectiveness with number of transfer units,
when pure cold fluids are used: From experiments

Pure Water
1.2
Pure Octane
1 Pure Kerosene
Pure Dodecane
0.8 Pure Diesel
Pc,pred

0.6 Pure Nitrobenzene

0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8
NTUc

Figure 4.3 Thermal effectiveness with number of transfer units, when

pure cold fluids are used: From Bes and Roetzel model
 73

1
0.9
0.8
0.7 Pure Water
Pure Octane
0.6
Pure Kerosene
Pc,exp

0.5 Pure Dodecane

0.4 Pure Diesel

Pure Nitrobenzene
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Pc,pred

Figure 4.4 Thermal effectiveness comparison of model

vs. experiments when pure cold fluids are used

0.7 Hot Fluid Pure Water

20% Octane
Temperature effectiveness Ph, exp

0.6 40% Octane

0.5 60% Octane
80% Octane
0.4 Pure Octane
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Number of transfer units NTUh
Figure 4.5 Thermal effectiveness with number of transfer units
in hot fluid for octane-water system: From experiments
 74

Hot Fluid Pure Water

Temperature effectiveness Ph,pred 0.35 20% Octane
40% Octane
0.30 60% Octane
80% Octane
0.25
Pure Octane
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.15 0.65 1.15 1.65
Number of transfer units NTUh

Figure 4.6 Thermal effectiveness with number of transfer units

in hot fluid for octane-water system: From Bes and
Roetzel Model

1.0
Temperature effectiveness Ph, pred

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5 Pure Water
0.4 20% Octane
0.3 40% Octane
60% Octane
0.2
80% Octane
0.1 Pure Octane
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Temperature effectiveness Ph, exp

Figure 4.7 Thermal effectiveness comparison of model

vs. experiments in hot fluid for octane-water system
 75

Pure Water
1.0 Cold Fluid 20% Octane
Temperature effectiveness Pc, exp 40% Octane
0.8 60% Octane
80% Octane
Pure Octane
0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of transfer units NTUc
Figure 4.8 Thermal effectiveness with number of transfer units
in cold fluid for octane-water system: From experiments

1.0 Cold Fluid

Temperature effectiveness Pc, pred

Pure Water
0.9
20% Octane
40% Octane
60% Octane
80% Octane
Pure Octane
0.8
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Number of transfer units NTUc

Figure 4.9 Thermal effectiveness with number of transfer units

in cold fluid for octane-water system: From Bes and
Roetzel Model
 76

1.0
Temperature effectiveness Pc, pred 0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5 Pure Water
0.4 20% Octane
0.3 40% Octane
60% Octane
0.2
80% Octane
0.1 Pure Octane
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Temperature effectiveness Pc, exp

Figure 4.10 Thermal effectiveness comparison of model

vs. experiments in cold fluid for octane-water system
Temperature effectiveness Ph, exp

0.6 Hot Fluid Pure Water

20% Kerosene
0.5 40% Kerosene
60% Kerosene
0.4 80% Kerosene
Pure Kerosene
0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Number of transfer units NTUh

Figure 4.11 Thermal effectiveness with number of transfer units in

hot fluid for kerosene-water system: From experiments
 77

Hot Fluid Pure Water

0.65 20 % Kerosene
Temperature effectiveness Ph, pred 40 % Kerosene
0.55 60 % Kerosene
80 % Kerosene
0.45 Pure Kerosene

0.35
0.25
0.15
0.05
0.15 0.65 1.15 1.65
Number of transfer units NTUh

Figure 4.12 Thermal effectiveness with number of transfer units

in hot fluid for kerosene-water system: From Bes and
Roetzel Model

1.0
Temperature effectiveness Ph, pred

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Pure Water
0.4 20% Kerosene
0.3 40% Kerosene
0.2 60% Kerosene
80% Kerosene
0.1 Pure Kerosene
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Temperature effectiveness Ph, exp
Figure 4.13 Thermal effectiveness comparison of model
vs. experiments in hot fluid for kerosene-water system
 78

Pure Water
Cold Fluid
Temperature effectiveness Pc, exp
1.2
20% Kerosene
40% Kerosene
1.0 60% Kerosene
80% Kerosene
0.8 Pure Kerosene

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 2 4 6
Number of transfer units NTUc
Figure 4.14 Thermal effectiveness with number of transfer units in
cold fluid for kerosene-water system: From experiments

1.0 Cold Fluid

Temperature effectiveness Pc, pred

0.8

0.6 Pure Water

20 % Kerosene
0.4 40 % Kerosene
60 % Kerosene
0.2 80 % Kerosene
Pure Kerosene

0.0
0 1 2 3 4
Number of transfer units NTUc

Figure 4.15 Thermal effectiveness with number of transfer units

in cold fluid for kerosene-water system: From Bes and
Roetzel Model
 79

1.0

Temperature effectiveness Pc, pred

0.9
0.8
0.7 Pure Water
20% Kerosene
0.6 40% Kerosene
0.5 60% Kerosene
0.4 80% Kerosene
Pure Kerosene
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Temperature effectiveness Pc, exp

Figure 4.16 Thermal effectiveness comparison of model

vs. experiments in cold fluid for kerosene-water system

0.7 Hot Fluid Pure Water

Temperature effectiveness Ph, exp

20% Dodecane
0.6 40% Dodecane
0.5 60% Dodecane
80% Dodecane
0.4 Pure Dodecane
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Number of transfer units NTUh

Figure 4.17 Thermal effectiveness with number of transfer units in

hot fluid for dodecane-water system: From experiments
 80

Hot Fluid Pure Water

0.8
20 % Dodecane
Temperature effectiveness Ph, pred 40 % Dodecane
60 % Dodecane
0.6
80 % Dodecane
Pure Dodecane
0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Number of transfer units NTUh

Figure 4.18 Thermal effectiveness with number of transfer units

in hot fluid for dodecane-water system: From Bes and
Roetzel Model

1.0
Temperature effectiveness Ph, pred

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5 Pure Water
0.4 20% Dodecane
40% Dodecane
0.3
60% Dodecane
0.2 80% Dodecane
0.1 Pure Dodecane
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Temperature effectiveness Ph, exp

Figure 4.19 Thermal effectiveness comparison of model

vs. experiments in hot fluid for dodecane-water system
 81

Pure Water
1.0 Cold Fluid
Temperature effectiveness Pc, exp
20% Dodecane
40% Dodecane
0.8 60% Dodecanel
80% Dodecane
Pure Dodecane
0.6

0.4

0.2
0 2 4 6
Number of transfer units NTUc
Figure 4.20 Thermal effectiveness with number of transfer units in
cold fluid for dodecane-water system: From experiments

1.0 Cold Fluid Pure Water

Temperature effectiveness Pc, pred

20 % Dodecane
0.9 40 % Dodecane
60 % Dodecane
0.8
80 % Dodecane
0.7 Pure Dodecane

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
Number of transfer units NTUc

Figure 4.21 Thermal effectiveness with number of transfer units

in cold fluid for dodecane-water system: From Bes
and Roetzel Model
 82

1.0
Temperature effectiveness Pc, pred
Pure Water
0.9
20% Dodecane
0.8
40% Dodecane
0.7 60% Dodecane
0.6 80% Dodecane
0.5 Pure Dodecane
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Temperature effectiveness Pc, exp

Figure 4.22 Thermal effectiveness comparison of model

vs. experiments in cold fluid for dodecane-water system

0.5 Hot Fluid Pure Water

Temperature effectiveness Ph, exp

20% Diesel
40% Diesel
0.4 60% Diesel
80% Diesel
0.3 Pure Diesel

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Number of transfer units NTUh
Figure 4.23 Thermal effectiveness with number of transfer units
in hot fluid for diesel-water system: From experiments
 83

Hot Fluid Pure Water

Temperature effectiveness Ph, pred
0.25
20% Diesel
40% Diesel
60% Diesel
0.20
80% Diesel
Pure Diesel
0.15

0.10

0.05
0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9
Number of transfer units NTUh

Figure 4.24 Thermal effectiveness with number of transfer units

in hot fluid for diesel-water system: From Bes and
Roetzel Model

1.0
Temperature effectiveness Ph, pred

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5 Pure Water
20% Diesel
0.4
40% Diesel
0.3 60% Diesel
0.2 80% Diesel
0.1 Pure Diesel
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Temperature effectiveness Ph, exp

Figure 4.25 Thermal effectiveness comparison of model

vs. experiments in hot fluid for diesel-water system
 84

Pure Water
1.0 Cold Fluid
Temperature effectiveness Pc, exp
20% Diesel
40% Diesel
0.8 60% Diesel
80% Diesel
0.6 Pure Diesel

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 2 4 6 8
Number of transfer units NTUc
Figure 4.26 Thermal effectiveness with number of transfer units
in cold fluid for diesel-water system: From experiments

Cold Fluid Pure Water

1.00 20 % Diesel
Temperature effectiveness Pc, pred

40 % Diesel
60 % Diesel
80% Diesel
0.95 Pure Diesel

0.90

0.85
2 4 6 8
Number of transfer units NTUc
Figure 4.27 Thermal effectiveness with number of transfer units
in cold fluid for diesel-water system: From Bes and
Roetzel Model
 85

1.0
Temperature effectiveness Pc, pred
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5 Pure Water
0.4 20% Diesel
0.3 40% Diesel
60% Diesel
0.2
80% Diesel
0.1 Pure Diesel
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Temperature effectiveness Pc, exp

Figure 4.28 Thermal effectiveness comparison of model vs.

experiments in cold fluid for diesel-water system

0.7 Hot Fluid Pure Water

Temperature effectiveness Ph, exp

20% Nitrobenzene
0.6
40% Nitrobenzene
0.5 60% Nitrobenzene
0.4 80% Nitrobenzene
Pure Nitrobenzene
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Number of transfer units NTUh
Figure 4.29 Thermal effectiveness with number of transfer units
in hot fluid for nitrobenzene-water system: From
experiments
 86

0.6 Hot Fluid Pure Water

Temperature effectiveness Ph, pred

20 % Nitrobenzene
0.5 40 % Nitrobenzene
60 % Nitrobenzene
0.4 80 % Nitrobenzene
Pure Nitrobenzene
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1 0.6 1.1 1.6
Number of transfer units NTUh

Figure 4.30 Thermal effectiveness with number of transfer units

in hot fluid for nitrobenzene-water system: From Bes
and Roetzel Model

1.0
Pure Water
Temperature effectiveness Ph, pred

0.9
20% Nitrobenze
0.8
40% Nitrobenzene
0.7
60% Nitrobenzene
0.6
80% Nitrobenzene
0.5
Pure Nitrobenzene
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Temperature effectiveness Ph, exp
Figure 4.31 Thermal effectiveness comparison of model
vs. experiments in hot fluid for nitrobenzene-water
system
 87

1.0 Cold Fluid Pure Water

Temperature effectiveness Pc, exp

20% Nitrobenzene
0.8 40% Nitrobenzene
60% Nitrobenzene
0.6 80% Nitrobenzene
Pure Nitrobenzene
0.4

0.2

0.0
0 2 4 6
Number of transfer units NTUc
Figure 4.32 Thermal effectiveness with number of transfer units
in cold fluid for nitrobenzene-water system: From
experiments

1.0 Cold Fluid

Temperature effectiveness Pc, pred

0.9
0.8 Pure Water
0.7 20 % Nitrobenzene
40 % Nitrobenzene
0.6
60 % Nitrobenzene
0.5
80 % Nitrobenzene
0.4 Pure Nitrobenzene
0.3
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Number of transfer units NTUc

Figure 4.33 Thermal effectiveness with number of transfer units

in cold fluid for nitrobenzene-water system: From Bes
and Roetzel Model
 88

1.0
0.9
Temperature effectiveness Pc, pred
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Pure Water
0.3 20% Nitrobenze
40% Nitrobenzene
0.2 60% Nitrobenzene
80% Nitrobenzene
0.1 Pure Nitrobenzene
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Temperature effectiveness Pc, exp

Figure 4.34 Thermal effectiveness comparison of model

vs. experiments in cold fluid for nitrobenzene-water
system