Heat Exchanger Design

ME 414- FLUID SYSTEMS DESIGN PROFESSOR: JOHN TOKSOY SPRING 2009 TEAM
Tyler Laughlin Denis Shkurapet Ethan Sneed Matt Tolentino Tyler Turk

Objective
To design a heat exchanger than meets the following

criteria:

Cools liquid from 45 C to 25 C Must be less than 7 meters in length Shell diameter is less than 2 meters Minimize weight of the tube and shell Minimize pressure drop Heat transfer ratio of 1

Design Parameters
# of tubes passed Tube outer diameter Tube inner diameter Material Baffles Shell thickness Shell Material Strength factors

Fluid allocation
Type of flow (parallel or counter)

Analysis
Use Minitab and Matlab Minitab Use to obtain the main effects plots, Pareto charts, and the response optimizer. Matlab Use to run analysis of the DOE files and to give us the outputs of total weight, calculated heat transfer, cost, and pressure drops. DOE allows us to determine the most important variables in this design.

Results
Variable Shell fluid Tube fluid Initial value Water Chemical (water prop) Final Value Water Chemical (water prop) Explanations Given Input Given Input DOE - Optimizer suggested value Given value -tube selected for cleaning Given Input Given Input Given Input

M-dot shell
Mdot tube T shell in T tube in T tube out

3.45 kg/s
61.11 kg/s 20C 45C 25C

3.9117 kg/s
61.11 kg/s 20C 45C 25C

Rf tube in
Rf tube shell side Flow config # tube pass # shell pass

.00018 mK/W
.00018 mK/W Parallel 1 1

.00018 mK/W
.00018 mK/W Parallel 1 1

Reference value for water

Reference value for water DOE - Optimizer suggested using parallel The program only allows one pass For minimal weight

Results
Baffles Shell ID Shell Th No baffles 0.3366 1.00E-03 No baffles 0.3366 1.00E-03 To reduce weight/pressure drop DOE - Optimizer suggested no change DOE - Optimizer suggested no change Corrosion Resistant/ease of cleaning Corrosion Resistant/ease of cleaning Most basic correlation accounts for entrance effects Only option that was applicable Only option that was applicable DOE - Optimizer suggested no change DOE- Optimizer suggested value DOE- Optimizer suggested value DOE - Optimizer suggested no change

Shell Mat'l
Tube Mat'l Nusselt Shell Nusselt Tube Pressure Corr Shell Pressure Corr Tube Tube OD Tube Th Tube Length Tube Layout Angle

Stainless Steel 304

Stainless Steel 304 Dittus Boelter Gnielinski Default from textbook Default from textbook 6.35e-3 m .711e-3 m 2.00 90

Stainless Steel 304

Stainless Steel 304 Dittus Boelter Gnielinski Default from textbook Default from textbook 6.35E-03 4.57E-04 1.85 90

Results

Outputs T shell out # of tubes U (Heat Transfer Coeff.) R value Weight_He DP Shell DP Tube

Initial value 353.59C 1313 828.48 W/m2.C 1.00 411.21 267.89 Pa 45310.96 Pa

Final Value 318.76C 1313 876.97 W/m2.C 0.98 350.88 kg 335.11 Pa 29832.58 Pa

Difference 34.83 0 -48.49 0.02 60.33 -82.99 15478.38

Units C

W/m2.C

kg Pa Pa

Analysis: 1st DOE

ME 414 Main Effects Plot: Weight_HE
F low 700 500 300 P arallel Tube th 700 C ounter 2.5875 S hew ll ID 4.3125 1.5 S hell Th 2.5 M dot Tube Length

ME 414 Main Effects Plot: DP Tube

F low 1000000 500000 M dot Tube Length

0 P arallel Tube th 1000000 C ounter 2.5875 S hew ll ID 4.3125 1.5 S hell Th 2.5

Mean

Mean

500 300 0.000533 Tube O D 700 500 300 0.00476 0.00793 0.001250 0.25245 0.42075 0.0007500 0.0012875

500000

0 0.000533 Tube O D 1000000 0.001250 0.25245 0.42075 0.0007500 0.0012875

500000

0 0.00476 0.00793

ME 414 Main Effects Plot: DP Shell

1000 F low M dot Tube Length

ME 414 Main Effects Plot: Q Calc

10000000 7500000 5000000 F low M dot Tube Length

500

0 P arallel 1000 Tube th C ounter 2.5875 S hew ll ID 4.3125 1.5 S hell Th 2.5

P arallel 10000000 Tube th

C ounter

2.5875 S hew ll ID

4.3125

1.5 S hell Th

2.5

Mean

Mean
0.000533 0.001250 Tube O D 0.25245 0.42075 0.0007500 0.0012875

500

7500000 5000000 0.000533 10000000 7500000 5000000 Tube O D 0.001250 0.25245 0.42075 0.0007500 0.0012875

1000

500

0 0.00476 0.00793

0.00476

0.00793

Analysis: Pareto Charts 1st DOE

Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects
(response is Weight, Alpha = 0.05) 2 A C B AC
F actor A B C D N ame F low M dot Tube Length Tube th

Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects

(response is DP Shell, Alpha = 0.05) 2.0 B A AB C BC AC
F actor A B C N ame F low M dot Tube Length

Term

D AB AD BD ABD
0 200000 400000 600000

Term

Standardized Effect

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000 1600000

50

100 Standardized Effect

150

200

Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects

(response is DP Tube, Alpha = 0.05) 1.98 1.98

Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects

(response is Q Calc, Alpha = 0.05)

F actor B C

N ame M dot T ube Length

C Tube Length

Term

Term
Flow 0 2 4 6 8 Standardized Effect 10 12 14

BC

10

20 30 40 Standardized Effect

50

60

Analysis: 1st Optimization

Minitab solved for a local solution.

The starting values were changed multiple times until Minitab found a new, more optimal solution.

Analysis: 2nd DOE

ME 414 Main Effects Plot Optimization 2: Q Calc
F low 10000000 7500000 5000000 P arallel C ounter Tube Thick 2.5875 S hell ID 4.3125 1.5 S hell Thick 2.5 M dot Tube Length

ME 414 Main Effects Plot Optimization 2: DP Tube

F low 150000 100000 50000 M dot Tube Length

P arallel 150000

C ounter Tube Thick

2.5875 S hell ID

4.3125

1.5 S hell Thick

2.5

Mean

10000000

Mean
0.0003430 0.0005713 Tube O D 0.25245 0.42075 0.0007500 0.0012875

7500000 5000000

100000 50000

0.0003430 150000 100000 50000

0.0005713

0.25245

0.42075

0.0007500

0.0012875

Tube O D

10000000 7500000 5000000 0.00476 0.00793

0.00476

0.00793

ME 414 Main Effects Plot Optimization 2: DP Shell

1000 F low M dot Tube Length 700 500 300 P arallel 1000 Tube Thick C ounter 2.5875 S hell ID 4.3125 1.5 S hell Thick 700 2.5 P arallel

ME 414 Main Effects Plot: Weight_HE

F low M dot Tube Length

500

C ounter Tube th

2.5875 S hew ll ID

4.3125

1.5 S hell Th

2.5

Mean

500

Mean
0.0003430 0.0005713 0.25245 0.42075 0.0007500 0.0012875

500 300 0.000533 Tube O D 700 500 300 0.001250 0.25245 0.42075 0.0007500 0.0012875

0 Tube O D

1000

500

0 0.00476 0.00793

0.00476

0.00793

Analysis: 2nd Optimization

Starting values of the optimization were varied with no improvement in performance.

Conclusions: Damn near perfect!

Heat Transfer Coeff :

R-value:
Number of tubes: Shell Pressure Loss:

Tube Pressure Loss:

Weight of Heat Exchanger:

876.97 W/m2.C 0.98 1313 335.11 Pa 29832.58 Pa 350.88 kg

Conclusions: Recommendations
Could be further optimized if Tube Thickness was

decreased Resulting in:

Lower weight - decrease of 51.93 kg Lower Tube pressure loss - decrease of 6703.1 Pa No significant loss of R-value

A smaller tube is not commercially available Possibly achieve greater performance at a greater

price

Questions