lnt. Comm. HcnrMas.s Tnm& Vol. 29. No. 2. pp.

185-191, 2OCQ Copyright 8 2OW2 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. AU rights raewai 0735-1933/02&a front matter

PII: so735-1933(@2)00~3

COMPARISON OF HEAT TRANSFER RATES BETWEEN A STRAIGHT TUBE HEAT

EXCHANGER AND A HELICALLY COILED HEAT EXCHANGER

D. G. Prabhanjan, G. S. V. Ragbavanand T. J. Kennic Depamnti of Agricuhural and Biosystans F@inecring Macdurald Catrpus of McGill University Stc. Ame-deBellevue, QC, Canada,H9X 3V9

(Communicated

by J.P. Hartnett and W.J. Minkowycz)

ABSTRACT

The purpose of thii study was to determine the relative advantage of using a helically coiled heat exchsnger versus a stmiglt tube heat exchanger for heating liquids. The pktic~lar diieratce in this study compared to other similar studies was the boundary conditions fbr the helical coil. Most studies focus on constsnt wall tempera&e or constant heat flux, whereas in this study it wrs a fluid-to-fluid heat exchanger. Results showed that the heat transfer coeflicient was eftbcted by the geometry of the heat exchmger and the teqwature of the water bath surrounding the heat exchanger. Ah tests were petfamed in the transitional and ttnbulert regimes. 0 2002Elsevier Science Ltd

Jntroductbn

Helical coiled tubes are used in a variety of applications including food. processing nuclear reactots, compact heat exchangers, heat recovery systems, chemical processing and medical equipment (Abdalla 1994; Bai et al. 1999; Rabin and Korin 1996; Kao 1994). Helical coils offer advantagecus over straigtt tubes due to their compactness and increased heat transfer coe%knts. Ihe increased heat

transfer coeffkients are a consequence of the curvature of the coil, which induces amtrifugal forces to act on the moving fluid, resulting in the development of secondary flow. Fluid torn the insi& of the tube is thmwn through the certer of the tube towards the outer wall and then returns to the inner wall via the wall region. This secondary flow enhances heat transfer and temperature unifcetnity due to increased mix@, especially in huninar flow (Ruthven 1971). However, the required pressure gradient to obtain a given mass flux is increased conpared to a straight tube. Both the increased heat tramfer rates and tanperature unifonnity can be advantageous for food processing. 185

186

D.G. Prabhanjan, G&V. Ragbavan and T.J. Rennie

Vol. 29, No. 2

Though the advantage of helical coils over straight tube heat exchangers has been investigated (Jeschke 1925). and heat transfer relationships have been developed for helical coils (Austin and Sea&r 1973; Seban and McLaughlin 1963). these studies have been limited mostly to constant wall temperature or constant wall htat flux conditions. The condition with a fluid as the heat transfer medium on the outside of the coil has not been studied thoroughly. there is some studies available on the outside heat transfer coefficients, but even these deal with a constant wall temperature or a constant wall heat flux from the coil (Ah 19%; Xin and Ebadian 1996). The material present in this study deal with a fluid-tofluid helical heat exchanger, where neither constant wail temperature nor corstant wall heat flux conditions can be assumed.

The objective of this paper is to canpare the heat transfer coefficients corn a helically coiled heat exchangerimmersed in a wata bath vusus a straigtt tube heat exchanger.

Materials and Methods

Hellcal Heat Rxcha~~es

The setup cortsisted of a helical coil with 10 turns with a 15.7 mm

itma

diiamctcr

(i.d.), wail

thickness of 1.2 mn, and fy1pitch. The coil had a stretched length of 6.35 m. The helical diameter of the coil was 203 nmr. The coil was formed from initially straight tubing of copper. Fine sand filled the tube before bending to preserve the smootlmess of the inner surface and this was washed with hot water after the process. Care was taken to preserve the circularity of the coil cross section &rii the bending

process. The coil was mounted to a rectanguIar mild steel plate with the help of SWBge lock fitting. The fittings were chosen so that the inner diameter of the coil and the inner diameter of the fitting match, so as not to disturb the flow pattern. The plate could then be mounted to a cylinckical mild steel container (450 mm diameter, 600 mm length) that was used to house the coil. A opening was cut in the side of the container so the coil could be inserted into the container and tht plate bolted to the sides of the cotiina. Rubber gaskets were used on both sides of the mounting plate to prevent leakage and the plate was bolted to the wall of the cavity.

The coil was instrummted with chromiumahanirum thermocouples by drillirqgsmall holes into the coil and inserting the thumocouples inside the hole to measure the fluid temperature. fluid ido or out of the coil. The

thamocouples were glued into place using epoxy to keep them fixed in place and to prevert leakage of

Vol. 29, No. 2

HEAT TRANSFER IN HEAT EXCHANGERS

187

A 4.8 kW electrical heati% coil was mounted in the bottom of the cylindrical amtamer to supply heat to the water in the container. A CN90OOAmodel PID miniature auto-turn tcmpaature controller @me@ @ineerirg Inc., Stamford CT) was used to maintain constant water tempemture in the bath. Inmlabon of the water bath was provided by fiber glass wool and surroundedby mild steel sheet.

Stralnht Tube Heat Exchrneer

The s@ai&t tube heat exchanger consisted of a 17 mm inner diameter copper tube of ler#h equivalent to the stretched lengh of the helical coil (6.38 m). The tube was inserted inside a 1287 nxn diameter mild steel pipe with a wall thickness of 6 mm. The aruulus between the pipes was filled with water and heated with two 2 400 W electrical heating coils mounted in the annrlus to heat the water. A CN90OOA model PID miniature auto-tune temperature controlla (Cmeg E3rgiiering Inc., Stamford, CT) was used to maintain the water temperature. The outer pipe was insulated with fiber glass wool and covered with galvanized steel sheetirg

Exnetimental De&t

Ccmpariscns of heat transfer coeBiciarts were made between a helically coiled heat exchanger and a straight tube heat exchanger. For each case, two differert levels of wata bath temperature were used, 40 and 50 Oc, and three levels of flow rates in the exchangers, 5, 15, and 25 I/min. A total of 6 trials were performed for each heat exchanger. The fluid being heated in the heat exchangers was tap water. Heat transfer coefficients were calculated based on the amour&of heat transferred to the target fluid, the inner surface area of the heat exchanger,and the tenqerahue difference betwcen the water bath and the target fluid as:
Y,,k = p + a, + fl, where a, p, + xk + (@>,, + h>,k + (ax>,k + %,k

The experimental model for the parametas measured or calculatedy, was designed

and x are the main effects of coil type, bath temperature, and flow rate.

The E is the

experimental aror.

Irtcradiors between all main treatmed factors were included, with the exception of This model was used to determine the significance for mmpemmre rise and

the three-way ideraction heat transfer coefficients.

188

D.G. Prabhanjan, G.S.V. Raghavan and T.J. Rennie

Vol. 29, No. 2

The helical and &ai&t tube heat exchangers described above were used for conclrctig the experiment. Target fluid from mains stored in a feed tark was pimped into the heat exchanger placed

inside the constant tmperature water bath using positive displacement pumps of three different capacities. Temperature of the water at the inlet, outlet, and at turns 1,4,7, and 10 were measured with thermoccuples and the data logged using a data acquisition system Ibe system was monitored and the temperature data used for calculation purposes was collected after the systan had become steady-state.

&at Transfer Coemclent Calculattons

An energy balance approach was used to calculate the heat transferred to the tatget fluid The total amoud of heat transferred has the difference of the inlet flux of energy and the outlet flux, based on the specific heat, mass flow rate and tenpemture difference of the fluid. The heat tram&r coefficient was based on the total amoud of heat transferred, the inside area of the tube, and the temperature difference between the target fluid and the water bath temperature. The water bath temperaturewas considered ccnstant and the temperature of the target fluid was assumed to have a linear profile behveen the inlet and the outlet. Fluid propertieswere considered to be constant and WKC evaluated at the average temperature of the target fluid.

Results and DIscussIon

Rise In Temperatrue of the Tarpet FluId

The rise in temperature of the target was greater for the higher bath temperature for both the helical and the straight heat exchangers. The rise in the temperature of the target fluid was significandy effected @ < 0.05) by both the coil geometry and the flow rate, however, it was not significantly changed by the water bath temperature (Figure 1). The helical coil had a greater increase of temperature compared to the straight tube and the increase of flow rate resulted in a decrease of the temperatun rise. The larger temperature rise in the helical coil compared to the straight tube would be dre to the secondary flow developed in the coil, as thii is the only difference between the two coils. The decrease in the

tenpemture rise due to increased flow is a result of the decreasedresidence time of the fluid.

Vol. 29, No. 2

HEAT TRANSFER lN HEAT EXCHANGERS

189

10 98g .f 76-

-cHelical, +Helical. +Streigje, +Straight,

bath 40 C bath SO C batb 40 C bath 50 C

0-l 0

10

15 Flowrate (Vmin)

20

25

30

FIG. 1

Rise in tcmpcratureof targetfluid under diimnt conditiu~~.

600 eHelica1,
z

40 C 50 C 40 C SO C

550

+Helical, -Straight, -Straight,

!I 500 : y
450 4 B 1 b 4lio 350 300

200

I
0 5 10 Flowiate 15 (I/m in) 20 25 30

FIG. 2 h as inhnccd by the flow me and shape of the tube at diffcrcri bath temperaturc.s.

190

D.G.Prabhanjan,G.S.V.RaghavanandT.J.Rennie

Vol. 29. No. 2

Heat Transfer Coefflclent

The heat transfer coefkiert was signiicantly et&ted by the coil type and the tempemturc of the
water bath though it was not effected by tk flow rate ofk

water (Figure 2). The increased heat transfer

coefkient due to the coil type would be from the increased mixing of the fluid as the secondary flow would take hotter fluid and pass it through the center of the tube. This would result in a faster trsnsfer of heat from the tube surface to the center of the tube. On average, the helical coil had a heat transfer coefficient 1.16 and 1.43 times lark tkm for the straight pipe heat cxchsng~, for bath tempemtures of 40 and SOY, resPectMy. The increase in the heat transfer coefficient for hi&r water bath temperatures

cwld be ckreto tk increase in buoyancy effects on the outside of the coil and the pipe. In both cases the water bath was not actively mixed, though an increase in the tmperatum diieratce between the tube wall and the water could increase the amount of mixing due to buoyancy, and hence. increase the heat tmnsfer coefficient. the non-si@kant effects of flow rate is mostly like due to the high flow late. Jn all cases the flow was either in the transitional regime or in the tutbulent regime, with Remolds rumbers ranging !ksn ajO to 41 400 snd 7700 to 38 300, for flows in the coil and the &mightpipe, respectively.

conclusions

Use of a helical coil heat exctnnger was seen to increase the heat transfer coefficitrt compared to a similarly dimensioned straight tube heat exchaqer. Roth heat exchqers had hi&her heat transfer

coefficients when the bath temperature was increased, most probably Qe to increased buoyancy effects. Flaw rate did not effect tire heat transfer coeffkient, most likely fran tht fact that the flow was turtnrlnt and increasing the flow rate does not geatly &ange tht wall effects. Temperature rise of the fluid was found to be effected by coil geometry and by the flow rate.

Acknowlednments WthOl3 acbtowledge CORPAQ (Conseil &s Recherches en P&he

The

et en Agroalimentahe du Quebec) for the financial support for this project. The authors would also like to thank Peter Atvo for his assistance in the work.

Vol. 29, No. 2

HEAT TRANSFER IN HEAT EXCHANGERS

191

1.

Abdallah, S., and A. Hamcd 1983. The elliptical solution of the secondary flow problem Transactions of the ASME. Vol. 105:530-535.

2.

Ali, ME. 1994. m invcstigatian of natural cmvcction &an vertical helical coiled tubes. Intemational Journal ofHeat and Mass -cr. Vol. 37(4):665-671.

3.

Austin, L.R. and J.D. Scader. 1973. Fully developed visca~s flow in coiled circular pips. AIChE Journal. Vol. 1x1):85-94.

4.

Bai, B., L. Guo, Z Fag, and X. Chcn. 1999. lbrbulert heat ban&r in a horizontally coiled tube. Heat l'bqfer-Asia1 Vol. 28(5):395-403. Res&~

5.

Jcschkc, D.

1925. Heat

Wansf~

and

~essure loss in coiled pipes. Ergacrrmngshd Z. VK.

Disch. Ing. Vol. 68~24-28.

6.

Rabin, Y. and E. Korin. 1996. Thermal analysis of a helical heat cxhang~ for gramd thamal energy storage in arid ~011~s. Inkrnational journal of heat and nuss &an&r, Vol. 39(5):10511065.

7.

JournolofHeatandFhidFlow,

Rao, B. K. 1994. Turbulent heat tramfer to powa-law fluids in helical passages. Interna&ml Vol. 15(2):142-148.

8.

Ruth~en, D.M. 1971. IIIc rcsidcnce time distribution for ideal lamimr flow in a helical tube. Chxnical Engineering Science, Vol. 26 :1113-1121.

9.

&ban, R A. and E. F. McLaughlin. 1963. Heat transfer in tube coils with laminar and turbulent flow. InterntSionulJotuwalof Heut auiA4x.w hfer, Vol. 61387-395 Xin, R C., and M. A Ebadian. 19%. Natural convection heat transfer from helicoidal pipes. Joumal of Thum~sics and Heat lkansfer. Vol. 10(2):297-302.
Received November 19, 2001

10.