Determination of overall heat transfer coefficients comparing LMTD and ε-NTU methods

Andres Adrian Sánchez Escalona, Ever Góngora Leyva

Article ID: 1511
Vol 4, Issue 1, 2021

VIEWS - 2764 (Abstract) 1133 (pdf)

Abstract


Thermal energy transfer processes are important problems to be solved in the field of engineering. In this field, heat exchangers are one of the most used equipment in the industry. The present investigation was carried out in an operating hydrogen sulfide cooler system, with the objective of determining the overall heat transfer coefficients by two methods, applying the passive experimentation procedure. With the Logarithmic Mean Temperature Difference (LMTD)method, values ranging from 11.1 to 73.3 W/(m2 ·K) were obtained, compared to 11.0 to 58.9 W/(m2 ·K) when applying the Effectiveness-Number of Transfer Units (ε-NTU) method. Although the results obtained were similar, for the thermal evaluation of the chiller system studied, it was recommended to employ the LMTD approach, used by most researchers.

Keywords


Heat Exchanger; Hydrogen Sulfide; Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient; LMTD; ε-NTU

Full Text:

pdf


References


1. Gerami A, Darvishi P. Modeling of the deposit formation on shell and tube heat exchanger of Hasheminejad Gas Refinery Plant. Indian Journal of Science & Reserarch 2014; 5(1): 382–388.

2. Lebele-Alawa BT, Ohia IO. Influence of fouling on heat exchanger effectiveness in a polyethylene plant. Energy and Power 2014; 4(2): 29–34.

3. Igwe JE, Agu CS. Comparative analysis of dif-ferent fluids in shell pass and two tube heat exchanger. American Journal of Engineering Research 2016; 5(8): 81–87.

4. Friebel T, Haber R, Schmitz U. Lifetime estimation of heat exchangers with consideration of online cleaning. In: Fikar M, Kvasnica M (editors). 18th International Conference on Process Control; 2011 Jun 14-17; Tatranská Lomnica, Slovakia. Brati-slava: Institute of Information Engineering, Au-tomation and Mathematics, FCFT STU in Brati-slava; 2011. p. 434–439.

5. Gudmundsson O. Detection of fouling in heat exchangers using model comparison [PhD thesis]. Reykjavik: University of Iceland; 2015.

6. Torres-Tamayo E, Retirado-Mediaceja Y, Góngora-Leyva E. Experimental heat transfer coefficients for the liquor cooling in plate heat exchanger. Mechanical Engineering 2014; 17(1): 68–77.

7. Torres-Tamayo E, Díaz EJ, Cedeño MP, et al. Overall heat transfer coefficients, pressure drop and power demand in plate heat exchangers during the ammonia liquor cooling process. International Journal of Mechanics 2016; 10: 342–348.

8. Jaglarz GA, Taler D. Experimental study of fouling in plate heat exchangers in district heating systems. Journal of Power Technologies 2015; 95(5): 42–46.

9. Gudmunsson O, Palsson OP, Palsson H, et al. Comparison of fouling detection between a physical method and a black box model. In: Malayeri MR, Watkinson AP, Müller-Steinhagen H (editors). Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Heat Exchanger Fouling and Cleaning; 2011 Jun 5-10; Crete Island, Greece. Navasota: Heat Transfer Research, Inc.; 2011. p. 391–398.

10. Kakaç S, Lui H, Pramuanjaroenkij A. Heat ex-changers: Selection, rating and thermal design. 2nd ed. New York: CRC Press; 2002. p. 520.

11. Serth WR. Process heat transfer principles and applications. Oxford, UK: Elseiver Ltd.; 2007. p. 755.

12. Ardsomang T, Hines JW, Upadhyaya BR. Heat exchanger fouling and estimation of remaining useful life. In: Annual Conference of the Prognos-tics and Health Management Society; 2013 Oct 14-17; New Orleans. Knoxville: Prognostics and Health Management Society; 2013. p. 1–9.

13. Jeter SM. Effectiveness and LMTD correction factor of the cross flow exchanger: A simplified and unified treatment. In: Brocato J (editor). ASEE Southeast Section Conference; 2013; Cookeville. Washington DC: American Society for Engineer-ing Education; 2013. p. 1–10.

14. Ramana PV, Sudheerpremkumar B. Development of a practical model to find out effectiveness of heat exchanger and its comparison with standard values. International Journal of Innovative Research and Creative Technology 2015; 1(5): 468–472.

15. Ghiwala TM, Matawala VK. Sizing of triple concentric pipe heat exchanger. International Journal of Engineering Development and Research 2014; 2(2): 1683–1692.

16. Saurabh D, Tamkhade PK, Lele MM. Design de-velopment and heat transfer analysis of a triple concentric tube heat exchanger. International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology 2016; 5(Sep.): 246–251.

17. Kern DQ. Procesos de Transferencia de Calor (Spanish) [Heat Transfer Processes]. 31st reprint. Mexico D.F.: Compañía Editorial Continental S.A. de C.V.; 1999. p. 980.

18. Hernández-Sampieri R, Fernández-Collado C, Baptista-Lucio MP. Metodología de la investigación (Spanish) [Research methodology]. 5th ed. Mexico D.F.: Mcgraw-Hill; 2010. p. 613.

19. Obregon-Quinones LG, Arrieta-Viana LF, Valencia-Ochoa GE. Thermal design and rating of a shell and tube heat exchanger using a Matlab® GUI. Indian Journal of Science and Technology 2017; 10(25): 1–9.

20. Ludwig EE. Applied process design for chemical and petrochemical plants: Volume 3. 2nd ed. Hou-ston, Texas: Gulf Publishing Company; 1993. p. 500.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24294/tse.v4i1.1511

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2021 Andres Adrian Sánchez Escalona, Ever Góngora Leyva

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.