Verifying the dynamic model of a heat exchanger configuration

Pierre Kauhanen,
Department of Chemical Engineering
University of Lund, Sweden.
Abstract
With the development in the field of computer technology, modeling and simulation is getting more and
more interesting alternative for pilot plants for companies. Tetra Pak Processing Systems have developed a
model over a heat exchanger in the software Dymola. Dymola is a modeling and simulation tool for multi-
engineering purposes developed by Dynasim. In order to be able to make any valid conclusions the model
has to be verified, this study tries to verify the dynamics over a heat exchanger model. The shell- and tube
heat exchanger used in this study is a Tetra Pak Spiraflo. There exists a static error of about +10% in the
heat transfer coefficient. The analysis shows that it is recommended to use the Quantum database when
simulating a dynamic behavior with large perturbations. Required discretization depends on what type of
perturbation or heat exchanger configuration. Step perturbation requires lower discretization (N=2) than a
pulse discretization (up to N=10). Counter-current configuration demands a lower discretization, especially
if looking on the channel opposite of the perturbation channel. The transport delay parameter gives a better
correlation at lower discretization for the tube side in the co-current configuration; in the counter-current
configuration there is no significant difference between transport delay and no delay. The shell side shows
a different pattern, simulation without transport delay gives a better result.

Introduction 1. Is it necessary to use the Quantum

The traditional way of making studies is by using
real experiments. Scientists, engineers and
companies spend a lot of money and resources
each year by building pilot plants to conduct
these real experiments. The most cost efficient
way, up until now, to evaluate and do research
has been by building a pilot plant. Along with
the development of computer technology,
computer modeling and simulation has become
more and more interesting as a new research
tool. Companies and the academic world have
found that it is more cost efficient to do research
inside a computer instead of building expensive
pilot plants. Tetra Pak Processing Systems have
developed a model over a heat exchanger in the
software Dymola. Dymola is a modeling and
simulation tool for multi-engineering purposes
developed by Dynasim. However, by
substituting real experiments for computer
modeling and simulation a certainty, that the
computer model correctly describes the real
system, has to exist. If a scientist is to draw valid
and reliable conclusions from his research on the
computer model, he has to be certain that the
model give correct data, i.e. he has to be sure
about the validity of his model. Tetra Pak has
constructed a model over a shell- and tube heat
exchanger. This study tries to answer the
question whether this heat exchanger model is a
good description of the real heat exchanger. To
simplify this rather large question the purpose
boils down to the following three questions:
database when simulating?
2. How high discretization is necessary to
the model to get good simulation results?
3. Is the transport delay parameter
contributing to the model?
The Model
The basic model for heat transfer is by
convection and conduction through a wall. The
wall is split in two layers with a homogenous
temperature in each layer. This enables the wall
to have different surface temperatures. The wall
will function either as a part of the overall
system or as a system boundary (insulation).
Energy balance
Channel 1:
d
ρ1mean ⋅ Cp1mean ⋅ V1 ⋅ TOut 2 = Q11 − Q12 + Q1
dt
Channel 2:
d
ρ 2 mean ⋅ Cp 2 mean ⋅ V2 ⋅ TOut 2 = Q21 − Q22 + Q2
dt
Where Qik is the heat flux and QF is the
volumetric flow in the channels:
Qi1 = ρ imean ⋅ Cp imean ⋅ QF ⋅ TIn
Qi 2 = ρ imean ⋅ Cpimean ⋅ QF ⋅ TOut
One problem when discretizing a volume is that
a temperature perturbation can get an instant
impact when discretizing is low. The technique
normally used is a mean value of inlet and outlet
temperature is used as a temperature of the water level between the two tanks, which will
volume element. manifest in a different pressure profile in the
Tx = (T1 + T2 ) / 2 system. These involuntary flow perturbations
cannot be avoided when opening and shutting
The result is that perturbations when entering a the valves but are taken into account in the
volume element will get an instant impact of the simulations as the simulations have the same
temperature used for the driving force. Now flow as the experiments. Flow perturbation is
when we want to portray a transport delay the done by opening or shutting a ball valve that are
following equation is used: situated after the flow transmitter. The flow
perturbation in itself is almost a perfect step,
Tx = (T f + T2 ) / 2 where Tf : which means that the flow change is almost
immediate.
dT f r
V⋅ = Q ⋅ (T1 − T1 ) . Simulation
dt The purpose with the simulations is to make a
comparison with the real experiments. This
Medium 2
comparison can only be made if the model and
the real experiments experience the same
Q22 Q2 T2
Q21 perturbation. By using the same input data in the
model that was sampled from the experiments it
T2W
is somehow secured that the model experience
QW
Wall th
the same disturbance as the real experiments. By
T1W pasting the sampled data into tables that controls
Q1
T1
the temperatures and the flows in the model,
Q11 Q12 almost the same disturbance can be performed.
Medium 1 See figure 2 and 3 below for a comparison
between the simulated perturbation and the
Figure 1 Model of two channels and a wall. experimental perturbation. All simulated
perturbations have the same pattern that is shown
figure 2 and figure 3. All simulated temperatures
When introducing Tf into equation we get:
and flows are the simulated outputs from the
dT2 (T1 − T2 ) NTU ⎡ (T f + T2 ) ⎤ model transmitters.
= + ⎢T3 − ⎥
dt τ τ ⎣ 2 ⎦
r Temperature Pulse Perturbation
Co-Current

(T − T )
Temperature

dT f 25

= 1 1
dt τ
r
20

Tf will increase until T1= T1 .

15

where τ = V/QF and NTU = kA/ρCpQF. Simulations

Experiments

10

The transport delay will get a bigger impact with

lower discretization. The larger discretization, 5

the smaller volume element where the fluid will

pass and thus there will be a smaller transport 0
0 20 40 60 Time 80 100 120 140

delay.
Figure 2 Temperature perturbation, simulation
Experiments and experiment
By opening the valve to the hot-water tank and
closing the valve to the cold-water tank a
temperature perturbation is achieved. It is
important that the opening and closing of the
valves are made in the right order; otherwise the
flow can be shut and thus causing an unwanted
flow perturbation. There is also another flow
perturbation that comes from the difference in
 Flow Pulse Perturbation
Counter-Current
Table 2 Pulse Perturbation linear correlation
Flow (m3/h)
2,5

Configuration Flow Temperature

2 Tube Shell Tube Shell
CoCurrent N=6 N=10
1,5 r=0.994 0.983
CounterCurrent N=4 N=2
Simulation
Experiment N=10 N=10
1 r=0.960 r=0.990 r=0.998 r=0.9693
An acceptable correlation of 0.99 between the
simulations and the experiments is achieved for
0,5

0
temperature perturbation on the tube side and on flow
0 20 40 60 Time 80 100 120
perturbation on the shell side in a counter-current
Figure 3 Flow perturbation, simulation and heat exchanger.
experiment Table 3 Step Perturbation
Result and analysis Configuration Flow Temperature
Table 4 display the difference between the Tube Shell Tube Shell
Quantum database and the real experiments, CoCurrent N=4 N=2 N=2 N=2
Quantum give different pressure drop and ca r=0.997 r=0.998 r=0.9997 r=0.998
10% larger k-values than what the real CounterCurrent N=10 N=4 N=2 N=4
experiments does, see figure 4 for comparison. r=0.9881 0.990 r=0.9997 r=0.994
Table 1 Experimental data for constant k-value
simulations. All simulations show a good correlation with
Simulation Type K DpTube DpShell experiments. This is explained by the step
W/m2/C Pa Pa perturbation do not involve much dynamics;
Co-Current 2850 79000 37500 there is only dynamic at the beginning and at the
Temp1 (3253) (42000) (128000) end of the step perturbation.
Counter-Current 2725 60000 41000 Temperature Pulse Perturbation

Temp2 (3018) (37000) (93000)

Correlation
Co-Current
1
Counter-Current 3000 40500 89000
Flow3 (3319) (43000) (143000) 0,995

(xx) Data from the Quantum database with same 0,99

input as the experiments used to calculate the k- 0,985

value. 0,98

No Delay Tube
0,975 No Delay Shell
Heat transfer Coefficien vs Reynolds number Delay Tube
K (W/m2 C) Co-Current Delay Shell
0,97
6000

0,965

5000

0,96
1 2 3 4 Disctretization 5 6 7

4000

Figure 5 Transport delay Co-current

3000 Experiment Tube
Quantum Tube
Experiment Shell
configuration
Quantum Shell
2000

1000

0
0 20000 40000 60000 Reynolds 80000 100000 120000

Figure 4 K-value from experiments and

Quantum database
 Temperature Pulse Perturbation
Correlation Counter-Current
1
0,99
0,98
0,97
0,96
0,95
0,94
1 2 3 Discretization
4 5
Figure 6 Transport delay, Counter-current
configuration.
By introducing transport delay into the model,
better correlation is achieved at lower
discretization for the tube flow in a co-current
heat exchanger. However, the difference between
the simulation with transport delay and without
transport delay decrease with higher
discretization. No significant difference between
transport delay and no transport delay can be
seen when simulating a tube side in a counter-
current HEX. See figure 6. Transport delays on
the shell side show a different pattern from
transport delays on the tube side. Both co-current
and counter-current configuration show the same
pattern; simulations without transport delay
show better correlation than simulations with
transport delay. See figure 5.
Discussion
The static analysis shows that there is a
stationary error between the Quantum database
and the real experiments. This is explained by
that the heat transfer correlation for the MT
25/16S-6 Pilot is interpolated from correlations
of other heat exchangers that are empirically
derived. The heat transfer coefficient is about 10
% bigger in Quantum than it is when calculated
from the real experiments.
Special precaution should to be taken when
simulating large flow perturbation without the
Quantum database, it is not recommended to do
such simulations. Temperature perturbation
without the Quantum database does not show the
same deviation as the flow perturbation from the
real experiments. Simulation without the
Quantum database is however developed to
function with small perturbations around a
working point. The conclusion to be drawn from
the database analysis is that the Quantum
database is recommended to make dynamic
simulations with large perturbations.
The necessary discretization to make a good
simulation differs very much from what type of
perturbation, i.e. step or pulse perturbation, is
introduced to the model. Also important is what
kind of heat exchanger, i.e. co-current or
No Delay Tube
No Delay Shell
counter-current, and what kind of perturbation is
Delay Tube
Delay Shell simulated, i.e. flow or temperature perturbation.
Step perturbation does not demand very high
discretization, discretization of two or four times
6 7
is usually enough. This is explained by the fact
that step perturbation does not involve much
dynamics.
Pulse perturbation on the other hand demands a
greater discretization, sometimes up too ten
times and that is not always good enough. The
high grade of discretization is because pulse
perturbation involves more dynamics than step
perturbation but there also seems to be a
connection between on what side the
perturbation is on and necessary discretization.
This could be explained by the fact that the
transmitters in the model do not show exactly the
same dynamics as the real transmitters.
The counter-current configuration does not
demand a high discretization, if one is looking
on the opposite side of the perturbation. The
reason for this behavior is that the opposite side
of perturbation in the counter-current
configuration meets the perturbation
immediately as it enter the heat exchanger and
can thus react instantly on any change. The co-
current configuration do not show this
phenomenon, the perturbation will propagate
through the whole heat exchanger until it will be
able to be read at the end of the heat exchanger.
This is the reason why opposite side of the
perturbation in the counter-current configuration
have a better linear correlation.
The transport delay parameter gives a better
correlation at lower discretization for the tube
side in the co-current configuration; in the
counter-current configuration there is no
significant difference between transport delay
and no delay. The shell side shows a different
pattern, simulation without transport delay gives
a better result. This may be explained by the fact
that the temperature perturbation is on the shell
side and the perturbation side shows generally
not as good correlation as the non-perturbation
side.