CCB 3033 ADVANCED TRANSPORT PROCESSES

September 2014

GROUP PROJECT
Title: CFD Simulation of Heat Exchange Equipment
GROUP 4-16
Name

Matric ID

Nelson Yang Soon Kit

16026

Vennesa Johnny Ting

16112

Submission date: 12th December 2014

TABLE OF CONTENT
No.

Title

Page

Introduction about Heat Exchange Equipment

Governing Equations

2.1 Governing Equations for Laminar Flow in Fluid

2.2 Governing Equations for Non-Isothermal Heat Transfer in Fluid
3

Simulation Method

3.1 Modeling Procedure

4

Results and Discussions

4.1 Velocity Field Streamline in 2D

4.2 Temperature Profile revolved in 2D & 3D
4.3 Heat View from the Top Part of the Heat Exchanger & Line
graph
4.4 Velocity Profile in 3D
4.5 Relationship between Heat Transfer Coefficient and T2
4.6 Trial and Error Process to determine Heat Transfer Coefficient
5

Conclusion

12

References

13

1.0 Introduction about Heat Exchange Equipment

Heat exchange equipment or more commonly known as heat exchanger is widely used in many large
scale industrial plants and has to be an important part of many processes due to its function of heating
and cooling in safe manner. Not only that it is used in industrial processes, heat exchanger has more
other familiar applications in helping machines and engines to work more efficiently such as car, ship
and airplane engines, air-conditioner and refrigerator. (Woodford, 2014)
The fundamental principle that lies behind is nothing but heat transfer from one medium to another.
Generally, in order for a heat exchanger to work out its principle, there must be the presence of two
fluid streams operating at different temperature, either in direct contact or separated by a solid wall to
prevent mixing. The medium that separates the two fluids will act as the heat exchange surface while
the temperature gradient acts as the driving force in controlling the rate of heat transfer.
As aforementioned, the role of a heat exchanger in process plants is of paramount importance to
achieve minimum waste of heat and energy. According to Putman (2002), condensers recover some of
the heat contained in process discharge streams while heat exchangers recover heat that is recycled
from a late stage in the process and use it to preheat a stream that enters at an earlier stage in the
process. Thus, it is an ingenious solution to reducing heat loss to the surrounding and at the same time
minimizing the cost of utility.
The design of heat exchanger varies with the requirements of a process and thus, it can take many forms,
ranging from a simple pipe surrounded by a larger pipe, to larger exchangers with hundreds of tubes,
multiple pass, floating head etc. Each of these heat exchangers is designed to cope with particular
problems. For instance, shell and tube heat exchangers are used for processes operating at a pressure
greater than 30bar and temperature greater than 260. Plate heat exchangers are designed to give a
larger heat transfer surface area and also to ease the cleaning and inspection work.
Since the efficiency of a heat exchanger is affected by the heat transfer area and resistance, the overall
heat transfer coefficient, plays a vital role in heat exchanger design. By definition, the overall heat
transfer coefficient is a function of the flow geometry, fluid properties and material composition of the
heat exchanger. Hence, different geometry and different fluid will result in different overall heat
transfer coefficient which then affects the outlet fluid temperature.

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.

2.0 Governing Equations

In this project, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Module and Heat Transfer Module are used. CFD
Module includes laminar flow, swirl flow, turbulent flow, non-isothermal flow, high Mach number flow,
two-phase flow and fluid-structure interaction (with Structural Mechanics Module) while Heat Transfer
Modules user interfaces and tools are conduction, convection and radiation. Here, the governing
equations are used to generate two plots from the non-isothermal laminar flow and heat transfer in the
fluid.

2.1 Governing Equations for Laminar Flow in Fluid

=
=
= ()( )|
= ()( )|
Where,
= inside tube area
= overall heat transfer coefficient, based on inside area
= LMTD (Log Mean Temperature Difference) =

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

2.2 Governing Equations for Non-Isothermal Heat Transfer in Fluid

For conductive and convective heat transfer
. () = .
Where,
= specific heat capacity (J/(kg.K))
= thermal conductivity (W/(m.K))
= velocity vector (m/s)
= sink or source term (in which it is set to zero as there is no production or consumption
of heat in the device)
For hot stream,
2
= (1 ( ) )

Where,
= maximum velocity (m/s)
= distance from center of the channel (m)
= channel radius (m)
For cold stream,
2
= (1 ( ) )

For non-isothermal flow interface,

= (1

Where,
= mean density (kg/3 )
= ( + )/2 is the mean fluid temperature

. = 0

3.0 Simulation Method

Start

Problem Identification

Model Sketching

Model Drawing using CFD

Simulation using CFD

Specify Heat Flux

Data Computation for

Outlet Temperature

No

Yes
Contour and capture of relevant 2D plot for surface
and iso-surface velocity and temperature

2D Line graph is plotted for temperature vs. heat

transfer coefficient

End

3.1 Modeling Procedure

MODEL WIZARD
1. In the Space Dimension window, 2D axisymmetric is selected.
2. In the Add Physics window, Non-Isothermal Flow>Laminar Flow is selected
3. Under Study Type, stationary is selected.
GEOMETRY

1. In the Model Builder window>Geometry I, the geometry is built using 2 rectangles, 2

squares and 4 circles. (Take note of the coordinates of each geometry)
MATERIALS
1. In the Material Browser window, Built-In>Water is added to the entire model.
NON-ISOTHERMAL FLOW
1. In the Model Builder window, Model I>Non-Isothermal Flow is expanded.

Inlet 1 assigned to boundary 2 (0 = 0.1/)

Outlet 1 assigned to boundary 9 (0 = 0)

Temperature 1 assigned to boundary 2 (0 = 293.15)

Outflow assigned to boundary 9

Heat flux assigned to boundaries 19 to 30. Inward heat flux is selected

(0 = ( ))

2. The value of heat transfer coefficient is specified.

MESH
1. In the Model Builder window, Model I>Mesh>Free Triangular with the following setting:

Maximum element size = 0.0137m

Minimum element size= 3.3e-4

Maximum element growth rate=1.3

Resolution of curvature=0.3

Resolution of narrow region=1

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.

4.0 Results and Discussions

4.1 Velocity field streamline in 2D

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

4.2 Temperature profile in revolve- 2D & 3D

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.

4.4 Velocity Profile in 3D

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

here focuses on the difference in velocity of water flowing through respective

14 heat exchangers. As
indicated, in figure (d1) and figure (d2) the water flows through faster; resulting in a brighter blue
intensity in color as compared to figure (e1) and figure (e2). This is cause by the opening in figure (d1)
and figure (d2) in the heat exchanger which is smaller, or in other words, the length of y which is shorter
compare to figure (e1) and figure (e2). We can relate this behind the theory of Bernoullis Principle
which states that the flow of a con-conductive fluid, an increase of fluid occurs whenever there is a
sudden decrease in pressure due to the change in amount of space for fluid to flow. As it flows through
a smaller opening it will results in a greater decrease of pressure drop; hence water would flow faster as
shown in figure (d1) and figure (d2). Apart from that, the phenomenon of Vena Contracta also occurs for
both heat exchangers respectively. Vena contracta is the point in a fluid stream where the diameter of
the stream is the least, and fluid velocity is at its maximum, such as in the case of a stream issuing out of
a nozzle, (orifice). (Evangelista Torricelli, 1643). It is a place where the cross section area is minimum.
Therefore, the smaller diameter in figure (d1) and figure (d2) will oozes out the water at a higher
velocity compare to the other heat exchanger. As a result, the velocity profile in heat exchanger (figure d)
will be much faster compared to the other.

10

4.5 Relationship between heat transfer coefficient and T2

80
70

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.

4.6 Trial and error process to determine heat transfer coefficient

18
16

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

Heat Transfer Coefficient

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