International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)

Volume 44– No.5, April 2012

Spreadsheet Add-in for Heat Exchanger Logarithmic

Mean Temperature Difference Correction Factors

C.O.C. Oko E.O. Diemuodeke M.B. Katsina

Dept. of Mechanical Engng Dept. of Mechanical Engng Dept. of Mechanical Engng
University of Port Harcourt University of Port Harcourt University of Port Harcourt
PMB 5323, Port Harcourt PMB 5323, Port Harcourt PMB 5323, Port Harcourt
Rivers State, Nigeria. Rivers State, Nigeria. Rivers State, Nigeria.

ABSTRACT corrected LMTD (CLMTD) for the given complex heat

This paper presents an MS Excel spreadsheet add-in for heat exchanger flow arrangement [1].
exchanger logarithmic mean temperature difference (LMTD) If algebraic expressions that correlate P, R and Ψ are
correction factors for ten heat exchanger configurations. It is a found, the use of computers in the design and performance
computer tool for determining the LMTD correction factors analysis of heat exchangers with complex flow arrangements
for complex heat exchanger flow arrangements. The charted could be facilitated, and the error associated with reading data
correction factors for various flow arrangements were curve- from the P-R- Ψ chart would be eliminated. In this case, the
fitted using the MS Excel Solver tool. Lagrange interpolation spreadsheet design and performance analysis of heat
scheme was used to formulate the relevant interpolation exchangers becomes relatively simple and straightforward,
formulas for the various flow arrangements considered. The especially when the relevant algebraic expressions are
interpolation scheme was programmed in MS Excel Visual appended to the spreadsheet as add-ins. The MS Excel
Basic for Application as an add-in. Results obtained agree environment allows the appendage of computer programmes
with the values from the correction-factor charts presented in written in Visual Basic for Applications (VBA), called MS
the literature. The add-in is a veritable tool for spreadsheet Excel add-in tools [3].
heat exchanger design and performance analysis for design Therefore, this paper presents polynomial expressions and
engineers as well as for educational purposes. a computer tool (MS Excel add-in) for obtaining the heat
exchanger LMTD correction factor for ten selected heat
exchanger configurations and flow arrangements. The
General Terms approach facilitates computer-aided design analysis of
Spreadsheet add-in engineering problems and would be useful to the design
engineer, and also assist in the training of the student
Keywords engineers [4, 5, 6]. The charted correction factors are
heat exchangers, LMTD correction factors, curve fitting,
interpolated using the Langrage interpolation scheme to
spreadsheet add-in
obtain polynomial expressions for the various heat exchangers
considered. This is then coded in the MS Excel environment
1. INTRODUCTION as an add-in.
The process of heat exchange between two fluids that are at
different temperatures and separated by a solid wall occurs in 2. PROBLEM FORMULATION AND
many engineering applications. The device used to implement SOLUTION
this exchange is called a recuperative heat exchanger. Specific The problem is to devise an automatic scheme for determining
applications may be found in space heating, cooling and air- the LMTD correction factors for the popular complex heat
conditioning, power generation, waste heat recovery, exchangers; thus, eliminating the use of the correction factor
separation processes and other chemical processes. The chart, which is illustrated in Figure 1.
optimal design or selection of heat exchangers is an essential Using the Langrage polynomial interpolation scheme [7,
task of the heat exchanger engineer, especially with increasing 8], one obtains the following numerical schemes for the
demand for effective and efficient heat exchangers deployed correction factor, ψ, as a function of the dimensionless
in engineering systems. This task becomes more involved temperature, P, and the ratio of water equivalents, R:
when complex heat exchangers are to be used. Two of the  n 
n R  Rk , j 
k P, R    k ,i 
crucial steps in the thermal design of heat exchangers are the (1)
determination of the logarithmic mean temperature difference
i 0
 j 0 Rk ,i  Rk , j 
(LMTD) and the overall heat transfer coefficient (the U-  j i 
value), which are required to compute the required heat
transfer surface area [1, 2].
The traditional procedure for determining the corrected
LMTD is as follows: obtain the inlet and exit temperatures of
the hot and cold fluid streams; compute the dimensionless
temperature (P) and the ratio of water equivalents of the two
streams (R); determine the correction factor (Ψ) from the heat
exchanger correction factor charts, which correlates P, R and
Ψ as illustrated in Figure 1; compute the counter-flow LMTD;
and compute the product of Ψ and LMTD to obtain the

24
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 44– No.5, April 2012

1 where Q  [kW] is the heat transfer and U [kW/m2K] is the

overall heat transfer coefficient or the U-value.
The heat exchanger correction factor and CLMTD are
determined using the following computational algorithm:
start
input inlet/exit temperatures;
Ψ if exit temperatures are not given
[- Ri R2 R1 then
Rn
] use the number of transfer units-effectiveness
method to obtain the exit temperatures;
output result into preselected cells;
end_then
compute the dimensionless parameters, P and R;
select k **heat exchanger flow arrangement**
0 P [-] 1 i := 0; ψi := 0;
repeat
Figure 1 P-R-Ψ chart for the determination of the LMTD ψ := ψi;
correction factor (Ψ) j := 0;
repeat
T11  T12 if i  j
P (2) then
T11  T21 ψ := ψ *(R –Rk,j)/(Rk,i – Rk,j);
and end_then
C T  T21 (3) j := j +1;
R   1  22 until j = n
C2 T11  T12
i := i + 1;
where k is an integer value corresponding to the heat until i = n
exchanger configuration type; and n is the number of data output ψ;
points minus one; the first index (i) in the double indexing compute the counter-flow LMTD and corrected
scheme (ij) stands for the hot (i=1) or cold (i=2) stream, while LMTD;
the second index ( j) stands for the heat exchanger inlet ( j=1) carry out thermal design for the heat exchanger
or exit ( j=2) temperature; that is: T11 is the hot stream inlet surface area, if desired;
temperature; T12 is the hot stream exit temperature; T21 is the carry out performance analysis of the heat exchanger,
cold stream inlet temperature; and T22 is the cold stream exit if desired;
temperature; and the water equivalent of the hot (i=1) or cold output final results into the specified cells;
(i=2) stream, C i is defined as stop

Ci  m
The computational algorithm was transformed into the
 i c pi [kW / K ] , i = 1, 2 (4) Visual Basic for Application program in MS Excel as an add-
in tool.
m i [kg/s] and c pi [kJ/kgK] are the mass flow rate and
isobaric specific heat capacity, respectively, for the hot (i=1) 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
or cold (i=2) stream [1]. The MS Excel Solver is a popular computer tool for curve
In determining the corrected logarithmic mean
fitting data points when there is no direct tool of curve fitting
temperature difference (CLMTD), the counter-flow LMTD,
[3, 9]. The MS Excel Solver was used to curve fit the charted
TLMC , is first obtained, which is given as (Oko, 2005) correction factors. The correlations for the correction factor,
1
A
Tb  Ts (5) Ψ, as a function of the dimensionless temperature, P, at a
TLMC 
A0 T ( A)dA 
Tb specified ratio of the water equivalents of the two streams, R,
ln
Ts in the interval R  [0.2, 0.4] are presented in Table 1, where k
For the counter current flow, the temperature differences are is an integer value corresponding to the heat exchanger
given as follows:
configuration type (1 shell pass, 2 or even number of tube
 C
(a) C  : T  T  T and T  T  T (6)
1 2 b 12 21 s 11 22 passes (1-2n), 2 shell passes, 4 or multiple of 4 tube passes (2-
(b) C  : T  T  T and T  T  T
 C (7) 4n), 3 shell passes 6 or multiple of 6 tube passes (3-6n), 4
1 2 b 11 22 s 12 21
where Tb and Ts are the big (b) and small (s) shell passes 8 or multiple of 8 tube passes (4-8n), 5 shell
temperature differences, respectively, at the ends of the heat passes 10 or multiple of 10 tube passes (5-10n), 6 shell passes
exchanger. 12 or multiple of 12 tube passes (6-12n), Split flow shell 2
Therefore, the CLMTD becomes tube passes, 1 Divided flow shell pass even number of tube
TCLM  TLMC (8) passes, Single pass cross flow both fluid unmixed, Single pass
The heat transfer surface area (A) is then determined from the cross flow with one fluid mixed and the other unmixed), see
fundamental equation of heat transfer as the Appendix for schematic diagram of the configurations,
Q and i is the data point corresponding to the correction factor,
A (9)
ψ.
U TCLM

25
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 44– No.5, April 2012

Table 1 Correction Factor as a Function of Dimensionless k i Correction factor, Ψi [-] at Ri [-]

Pressure and Heat Capacity Ratio 1.035
k i Correction factor, Ψi [-] at Ri [-] –2393.321P3 + 937.029P2 – 91.010P +
12 4.000
0.999
0 –4.873P3 +5.150P2 – 1.174P + 1.001 0.200
0 –837.062P3 + 1522.927P2 – 686.254P + 1.0 0.200
1 –4.792P3 + 4.186P2 – 0.847P + 1.001 0.400 –870.687P3 + 1518.984P2 – 649.177P +
2 –5.579P3 + 4.044P2 – 0.685P + 1.001 0.600 1
1.030
0.400
3 –7.579P3 + 4.854P2 – 0.739P + 1.002 0.800 2 –21.880P3 + 34.798P2 – 13.364P + 1.002 0.600
4 –9.750P3 + 5.637P2 – 0.794P +1.002 1.000
3 –13.806P3 + 20.116P2 – 7.024P + 1.000 0.800
5 –12.248P3 – 6.151P2 + 0.748P + 1.002 1.200 4 –16.852P3 + 22.788P2 – 7.438P + 1.000 1.000
0 6 –19.986P3 – 9.962P2 + 1.178P + 1.002 1.400 5 –22.930P3 + 28.363P2 – 8.556P + 1.000 1.200
7 –24.413P3 –11.157P2 – 1.232P + 1.001 1.600 6 –55.218P3 + 62.759P2 – 17.476P + 0.998 1.400
8 –33.365P3 + 14.353P2 – 1.455P + 1.002 1.800 5
7 –87.778P3 + 86.820P2 – 20.812P + 1.001 1.600
9 –35.759P3 + 13.747P2 – 1.240P + 1.002 2.000
8 –196.828P3 + 179.023P2 – 39.479P + 0.999 1.800
10 –54.737P3 + 18.049P2 – 1.429P + 1.002 2.500
9 –207.755P3 + 167.185P2 – 32.382P + 1.000 2.000
11 –113.609P3 +35.269P2 – 2.526P + 1.002 3.000
12 –252.162P3 + 65.926P2 – 4.068P + 1.001 4.000 10 –1353.721P3 + 921.755P2 – 153.134P + 1.0 2.500
0 –14.071P3 +20.697P2 – 7.117P + 1.000 0.200 11 –143.501P3 + 71.178P2 – 8.847P + 1.000 3.000
1 –6.293P3 + 7.941P2 – 2.339P + 1.000 0.400 –7933.555P3 + 3147.121P2 – 307.820P +
12 4.000
2 –5.722P3 + 6.392P2 – 1.687P + 1.000 0.600 1.018
3 –6.771P3 + 6.752P2 – 1.606P + 1.001 0.800 0 –15.989P3 + 23.415P2 – 7.886P + 1.000 0.200
4 –8.231P3 + 7.247P2 – 1.505P + 1.001 1.000 1 –4.929P3 + 6.262P2 – 1.845P + 1.000 0.400
5 –11.979P3 + 9.759P2 – 1.909P + 1.001 1.200 2 –5.127P3 + 5.711P2 – 1.452P + 1.000 0.600
1 6 –15.127P3 + 11.010P2 – 1.882P + 1.001 1.400 3 –5.534P3 + 5.331P2 – 1.187P + 1.001 0.800
7 –22.008P3 + 14.704P2 – 2.285P + 1.001 1.600 4 –7.221P3 + 6.161P2 – 1.239P + 1.001 1.000
8 –35.076P3 + 22.312P2 – 3.327P + 1.000 1.800 5 –12.580P3 + 10.178P2 – 1.924P + 1.001 1.200
9 –34.844P3 + 19.400P2 – 2.426P + 1.001 2.000 6 6 –16.235P3 + 11.849P2 – 2.051P + 1.001 1.400
10 –68.328P3 + 32.857P2 – 3.595P + 1.001 2.500 7 –25.656P3 + 17.450P2 – 2.759P + 1.000 1.600
11 –145.351P3 + 58.871P2 – 5.109P + 1.000 3.000 8 –35.166P3 + 21.721P2 – 3.085P + 1.000 1.800
12 –403.127P3 + 131.391P2 – 9.363P + 1.000 4.000 9 –45.298P3 + 25.728P2 – 3.337P + 1.000 2.000
0 –43.441P3 + 70.811P2 – 27.789P + 1.001 0.200 10 –82.821P3 + 39.542P2 – 4.289P + 1.000 2.500
1 –14.738P3 + 22.121P2 – 7.935P + 1.000 0.400 11 –153.910P3 + 63.335P2 – 5.831P + 1.000 3.000
2 –8.770P3 + 11.459P2 – 3.468P + 1.000 0.600 12 –373.251P3 + 119.218P2 – 8.194P + 1.000 4.000
3 –7.657P3 + 9.153P2 – 2.614P + 1.000 0.800 0 –3.291P3 + 3.276P2 – 0.704P + 1.000 0.200
4 –9.036P3 + 9.599P2 – 2.431P + 1.000 1.000 1 –3.313P3 + 2.644P2 – 0.507P + 1.000 0.400
5 –12.156P3 + 11.775P2 – 2.743P + 1.000 1.200 2 –4.030P3 + 2.643P2 – 0.422P + 1.000 0.600
2 6 –19.838P3 + 17.933P2 – 3.931P + 1.000 1.400 3 –5.049P3 + 2.795P2 – 0.390P + 1.000 0.800
7 –27.599P3 + 22.345P2 – 4.326P + 1.000 1.600 4 –6.567P3 + 3.213P2 – 0.399P + 1.000 1.000
8 –47.145P3 + 35.919P2 – 6.578P + 1.000 1.800 5 –9.019P3 + 4.130P2 – 0.477P + 1.000 1.200
7
9 –67.481P3 + 46.527P2 – 7.601P + 1.000 2.000 6 –14.599P3 + 6.666P2 – 0.752P + 1.000 1.400
10 –143.027P3 + 83.130P2 – 11.490P + 1.000 2.500 7 –18.155P3 + 7.501P2 – 0.760P + 1.000 1.600
11 –552.940P3 + 270.110P2 – 30.175P + 0.999 3.000 8 –25.262P3 + 10.220P2 – 1.003P + 1.000 1.800
12 –869.914P3 + 316.038P2 – 26.012P + 1.000 4.000
9 –26.688P3 + 9.146P2 – 0.734P + 1.000 2.000
0 –71.544P3 + 124.149P2 – 53.014P + 1.050 0.200
1 –32.605P3 + 52.519P2 – 20.426P + 0.997 0.400 10 –46.146P3 + 13.684P2 – 0.857P + 1.001 2.500
2 –14.241P3 + 21.245P2 – 7.642P + 1.000 0.600 11 –68.293P3 + 16.852P2 – 0.791P + 1.001 3.000
12 –180.183P3 + 38.179P2 – 1.398P + 1.001 4.000
3 –9.717P3 + 12.998P2 – 4.200P + 1.000 0.800
0 –4.070P3 + 4.645P2 – 1.025P + 1.001 0.200
4 –11.390P3 + 13.552P2 – 3.854P + 1.000 1.000
1 –2.003P3 + 1.897P2 – 0.407P + 1.002 0.400
5 –22.886P3 + 25.458P2 – 6.756P + 1.000 1.200
2 –1.660P3 + 1.277P2 – 0.261P + 1.002 0.600
3 6 –25.985P3 + 25.754P2 – 6.151P + 1.000 1.400 3 –1.283P3 + 0.583P2 – 0.080P + 1.001 0.800
7 –46.027P3 + 42.168P2 – 9.382P + 1.000 1.600 8
4 –1.611P3 + 0.590P2 – 0.061P + 1.000 1.000
8 –78.195P3 + 66.440P2 – 13.768P + 1.000 1.800 5 –13.493P3 + 5.763P2 – 0.616P + 1.004 2.000
9 –163.035P3 + 128.648P2 – 24.656P + 1.000 2.000 6 –47.436P3 + 15.322P2 – 1.253P + 1.006 3.000
10 –315.336P3 + 194.804P2 – 28.505P + 1.002 2.500 7 –182.697P3 + 47.418P2 – 2.278P + 1.002 4.000
11 –1737.783P3 +941.669P2 – 122.693P + 1.0 3.000 0 –7.799P3 + 9.502P2 – 2.761P + 1.000 0.200
12 –1819.250P3 + 755.072P2 – 76.400P + 1.0 4.000 1 –5.543P3 + 5.247P2 – 1.165P + 1.001 0.400
0 –654.453P3 + 1188.742P2 – 534.943P + 1.0 0.200 2 –5.550P3 + 4.129P2 – 0.678P + 1.001 0.600
1 –53.370P3 + 92.083P2 –39.081P + 0.980 0.400 3 –6.026P3 + 3.759P2 – 0.508P + 1.002 0.800
9
2 –25.602P3 + 41.358P2 – 16.335P + 1.000 0.600 4 –6.512P3 + 3.464P2 – 0.437P + 1.004 1.000
3 –14.871P3 + 21.933P2 – 7.918P + 1.000 0.800 5 –22.710P3 + 8.592P2 – 0.678P + 1.004 2.000
4 –16.143P3 + 21.395P2 – 6.916P + 1.000 1.000 6 –54.417P3 + 15.318P2 – 0.932P + 1.005 3.000
5 –23.106P3 + 27.637P2 – 8.087P + 0.999 1.200
4 7 –259.538P3 + 60.180P2 – 1.633P + 1.003 4.000
6 –37.198P3 + 39.555P2 – 10.191P + 0.999 1.400
7 –83.785P3 + 81.898P2 – 19.395P + 0.999 1.600 To obtain the correction factor (Ψ) one substitutes P into the
8 –131.687P3 + 116.690P2 – 25.046P + 1.000 1.800 correlations in Tables 1 that correspond to the heat exchanger
9 –167.264P3 + 134.884P2 – 26.314P + 0.998 2.000 flow arrangement under consideration and interpolates for Ψ
10 –534.182P3 + 357.030P2 – 58.185P + 0.996 2.500 with R serving as the interpolation point.
11 –2254.758P3 + 1270.159P2 – 175.063P + 3.000

26
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 44– No.5, April 2012

3.1 Examples exchangers because less surface area would be provided,

As illustrations of the use of the developed spreadsheet add-in which would not be able to match the intended heat transfer
to determine the correction factors and other thermal design load. The results show that for the six types of shell and tube
parameters for heat exchangers, the following three examples heat exchangers considered, the CLMTD value increases
are provided: progressively with the number of shell passes, which means
that given the same heat transfer surface area U-value, the
effectiveness of the shell and tube heat exchangers increases
3.1.1 Example 1: Determination of the Correction
with increasing numbers of shell passes. Cengel [10] reported
Factors 0.92 correction factor read from chart for 2 shell passes, 4 or
Use the data tabulated in Table 2 to determine the correction multiple of 4 tube passes with the same input data, which is
factors for the various shell-tube heat exchanger about 1.0 % deviation from that obtained with the spreadsheet
configurations [10]. add-in. Although this deviation is acceptable for most
engineering applications, it cannot be directly traced to the
Table 1 Input Data for Example 2 approach adopted in this study, since reading data from charts
S/No Quantity Symbol Units Value as Cengel [10] is always prone to errors.
o
1 tube side inlet t11 C 80.00
temperature of 3.1.2 Example 2: Determination of the Heat
the hot stream Exchanger Surface Area
2 tube side exit t12 o
C 40.00 45.4 kg/h of water is to be heated from 10 to 77 oC with flue
temperature of gases having an initial temperature of 166 oC. The mass flow
the hot stream rate of the gases is 182 kg/h and their specific heat is
3 shell side inlet t21 o
C 20.00 1.05kJ/kgK. The overall heat transfer coefficient may be taken
temperature of as 114 W/m2K. Calculate the size of the heating surface for a
the cold stream 1 - 2 shell-tube heat exchanger [1].
o
4 shell side exit t22 C 50.00
temperature of Solution
the cold stream Input data:
m w = 0.0126 kg/s; t21 = 10 oC; t22 = 77 oC; t11 = 166 oC; m g
Solution
Key in the developed MS Excel formula, =HCF(k, A, B, C, = 0.0506 kg/s; c pg = 1.05 kJ/kgK; U = 0.114 kW/m2K; cpw =
D), in any desired MS Excel cell; where k, A, B, C and D are
4.18 kJ/kgK; 1-2 shell-tube heat exchanger;
cell references holding numerical values of the integer (k)
The results obtained with the spreadsheet add-in are
that corresponds to the heat exchanger flow arrangement, tube
shown in Table 4. The results indicate that with the use of
side inlet temperature (A), tube side exit temperature (B),
only the counter-flow LMTD for the design would lead to
shell side inlet temperature (C) and shell side outlet
under-designing the heat exchanger surface area by 10.21%.
temperature (D), respectively; holding down ctrl+shift keys,
highlighting the four adjacent cells and pressing the enter key
Table 4 MS Excel Add-in Output Data for Example 2
output the results shown in Table 3, which tabulates, among
S/N Quantity Symbol Units Formula Value
others, the dimensionless parameters P and R, the correction
1 heat capacity ω - 0.995
factor (ψ) and the corrected LMTD (CLMTD).
ratio
 w *cpw/(mg *cpg)
ω= m
o
Table 3 MS Excel Add-in Output Data for Example 1 2 flue gases exit t12 C t12=t11-ω*(t22-t21) 99.31
LMTD CLMTD temperature
Heat Exchanger Class P R Ψ 3 counter flow big Δtb o
C Δtb= t11- t22 89.00
[oC] [oC]
temperature
1 shell pass, 2 or even 0.67 0.75 0.540 24.66 13.31 difference
number of tube passes 4 counter flow Δts o
C Δts= t12- t21 89.31
2 shell passes, 4 or multiple 0.67 0.75 0.911 24.66 22.48 small
of 4 tube passes temperature
3 shell passes, 6 or multiple 0.67 0.75 0.962 24.66 23.73 difference
of 6 tube passes 5 counter flow ΔtLMC o
C =HCF(0,t11,t12,t21,t22) 89.15
4 shell passes, 8 or multiple 0.67 0.75 0.979 24.66 24.15 LMTD, LMTDC
of 8 tube passes. 6 heat exchanger Ψ - =HCF(0,t11,t12,t21,t22) 0.898
5 shell passes, 10 or multiple 0.67 0.75 0.987 24.66 24.34 correction factor
of 10 tube passes 7 corrected ΔtCLM o
C =HCF(0,t11,t12,t21,t22) 80.06
6 shell passes, 12 or multiple 0.67 0.75 0.991 24.66 24.44 LMTD,
of 12 tube passes CLMTD
Split flow shell, 2 tube 0.67 0.75 0.951 24.66 23.45 
8 Heat transfer Q kW =m
Q  w * cpw*(t22-t21) 3.540
passes rate
1 Divided flow shell pass, 0.67 0.75 0.573 24.66 14.13 9 Heat transfer Acf m2  /(U*ΔtLMC) 0.3483
Acf = Q
even number of tube passes surface area
Single pass cross flow both 0.67 0.75 0.629 24.66 15.51 without
fluid unmixed correction factor
Single pass cross flow with 0.67 0.75 0.700 24.66 17.27
one fluid mixed and the
10 Heat transfer A m2  /(U*ΔtCLM)
A=Q 0.3879
surface area
other unmixed with correction
factor
The counter-flow LMTD for the problem is constant, LMTDc= 11 Percentage ε % ε =((A-Acf)/A)*100 10.21
24.66 [oC], which is higher than any of the CLMTD of the change in heat
heat exchanger configurations considered. With the use of the transfer surface
LMTDc value, one would have under-designed the heat area

27
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 44– No.5, April 2012

3.1.3 Example 3: Determination of Exit t, oC

Temperatures, Correction Factors and Heat
11 t11
Transfer Rates
t1(A)
Use the flow and fluid properties of the six heat exchangers,
21 t22 t12
HX1- HX5 [11] and HX6 [10], shown in Table 5 to carry out t2(A)
thermal analysis of the given six heat exchangers. 22’ t22’
22 t2(A)
Table 5 Input Data for the Six Heat Exchangers, Example t21
3 12
A, m2
Heat Exchanger 0 A
Flow and Fluid
HX1 HX2 HX3
Properties
Tube Shell Tube Shell Tube Shell
Figure 2 Sketch/Diagram of any of the Heat Exchangers
heat capacity, 2.05 2.47 2.47 2.05 2.05 2.28 The heat exchanger performance analysis is carried out as
cp, kJ/kgK. follows:
mass flow rate, 116.1 32.3 125.5 232.3 116.1 10.9 (i) obtain the exit temperatures, T12 and T22 by keying in
m , kg/s. the MS Excel user defined function (add-in),
inlet 441 365 457 370.1 581 382
=EFFNTU2(A, B, C, D, E, F, G) in any desired cell,
temperature,
t11,t21, oC. where A, B, C, D, E, F and G stand for error bound, heat
number of 2 1 2 1 2 1 transfer coefficient, inlet temperature of the hot stream;
passes. inlet temperature of the cold stream, water equivalent of
heat transfer the hot stream, water equivalent of the cold stream and
surface area, A, 418 379 327 the flow configuration, respectively;
2
m. (ii) use the function HCF(k, H, I, J, K) to obtain the
heat transfer counter-flow LMTD, correction factor and corrected
coefficient, U, 0.3033 0.3916 0.1737
LMTD; and
kW/m2K.
(iii) with the corrected LMTD obtained, compute the heat
transfer rate.
Table 5 Continues The results of the thermal analysis are shown in Table 6.
Heat Exchanger Cengel [10] provided results for heat exchanger HX6, which
Flow and Fluid are in agreement with results for HX6 as shown in Table 6.
HX4 HX5 HX6
Properties HX4 bears the largest thermal load, and the lowest thermal
Tube Shell Tube Shell Tube Shell load is borne by HX6. The reason is attributed to the largest
heat capacity, 2.05 2.28 2.05 2.47 4.18 2.13 and lowest values of the product of overall heat transfer
cp, kJ/kgK. coefficient and heat transfer surface area for heat exchanger
mass flow rate, 116.1 56.0 232.3 32.2 0.2 0.3 HX4 and HX6, respectively. The exit temperatures for both
m , kg/s. streams are highest in HX3, which is attributed to the mass
inlet 365 480 506 431 20 150
flow rates, heat capacities and inlet temperatures of the fluid
temperature,
t11,t21, oC. streams.
number of 2 1 2 1 8 1
passes. Table 6 MS Excel Add-in Output data for Example 3
heat transfer Heat Exchanger
418 1.76
surface area, A, 418
m. 2 Quantity HX1 HX2 HX3
heat transfer
0.2928 0.310 Tube Shell Tube Shell Tube Shell
coefficient, U, 0.3341
kW/m K. 2 water equivalent, 238.0 79.8 310.0 476.2 238.0 24.9
C , kW/K
Solution
exit 423.3 417.7 429.9 387.7 563.8 547.2
Figure 2 shows the sketch of temperature distribution along
temperatures,
any of the heat exchangers.
T12, T22,K
correction factor 0.85 0.92 0.99
counter-flow 38.20 64.40 87.98
LMTD
corrected LMTD 32.47 59.25 87.1
heat transfer rate, 4116.64 8793.84 4947.36
Q, kW

28
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 44– No.5, April 2012

Table 6 Continues [8] Oko, C.O.C. (2008) Engineering computational method:

Heat Exchanger An algorithmic approach, 1st Edition, University of Port
Harcourt Press, Port Harcourt.
Quantity HX4 HX5 HX6 [9] Mustafa, G. 2000. Correlations for some
Tube Shell Tube Shell Tube Shell Thermophysical Properties of Air, International Drying
water equivalent, 238.0 127.7 476.2 79.54 0.84 0.64
Symposium, NL, Wageningen.
[10] Cengel, Y.A. (2007), Heat and mass transfer, 3rd Ed.,
C , kW/K Tata McGram-Hill, New Delhi.
exit 398.9 416.8 496.9 485.8 66.2 89.6 [11] Ebieto, C.E (2010) Finite element analysis of shell and
temperatures, tube heat exchangers, M.Eng Thesis, Department of
T12, T22,K Mechanical Engineering, University of Port Harcourt,
correction factor 0.98 0.78 0.98 Port Harcourt.
counter-flow 65.32 38.67 [12] Fakheri, A. (2003) Alternative approach for determining
LMTD 76.45 log mean temperature difference correction factor and
corrected LMTD 64.01 30.16 74.92 number of shells of shell and tube heat exchangers,
heat transfer rate, 8939.25 3691.76 Journal of Enhanced Heat Transfer, Vol.10(4), pp. 407-
Q, kW 40.88 420.
[13] Leong, K.C., Toh, K.C. and Leong, Y.C. 1998. Shell
and tube heat exchanger design software for education
application, Int. Journal of Engineering Education, Vol.
4. CONCLUSION 4(3), 217-224.
An MS Excel add-in for heat exchanger LMTD correction
factor has been developed for ten popular heat exchanger
configurations, k = 0, 1,…, 9. It is a tool for direct
computation of the LMTD correction factors, which eliminates APPENDIX
the existing cumbersome graphical and iterative methods [12].
Results obtained are accurate enough for engineering Heat Exchanger Configurations
applications. Several examples have been used to demonstrate
k Heat Exchanger Configuration
the utility of the add-in tool, which is user friendly
(interactive), robust and flexible. Apart from the stand-alone
application of this spreadsheet add-in tool, it can also be
integrated into a larger plant design software for improved
productivity. Of course, the add-in is also a veritable tool for
the effective teaching of the thermal design of heat exchangers 0
in higher institutions of learning [6, 13]. The spreadsheet add-
in if integrated into a larger plant can also be used by
practicing engineers for heat exchanger design, simulation and 1 shell pass, 2 or even number of tube passes
selection. (1-2n)

5. REFERENCES
[1] Oko, C.O.C. 2005. Introductory Heat Transfer: An
algorithmic approach, 2nd Edition, Pam Unique
publishing company limited, Port Harcourt.
1
[2] Bell, J.K. and Mueller, C.A. 2001. Wolverine
engineering data Book II, Wolverine tube Inc.,
www.wlv.com/products/databook/ch2_2.pdf, Retrieved:
28/03/10.
2 shell passes, 4 or multiple of 4 tube passes
[3] Liengme, B.V. (2000) A Guide to Microsoft Excel for
(2-4n)
scientist and engineers, Butterworth-Heinemann,
London.
[4] Oko, C.O.C., Diemuodeke, E.O. and Akinlade, I.S.
2010. Design of hoppers using spreadsheet, Journal of
Research in Agricultural Engineering, Vol. 56(2), pp.
53-58.
[5] Lona, L.M.F., Fernandes, F.A.N., Roque, M.C. and 2
Rodrigues, L. 2000. Developing an educational software
for heat exchangers and heat exchanger networks
projects, Journal of Computer and Chemical
Engineering, Vol. 24(2-7), 1247-1251.
[6] Tan, F.L. and Fok, S.C. 2006. An educational computer- 3 shell passes 6 or multiple of 6 tube passes
aided tool for heat exchanger design, Journal of (3-6n)
Computer Application in Engineering education, Vol.
14(2), 77-89.
[7] Chapra S.C., Canale R.P. (2002) Numerical methods for
engineers, 4th Ed., Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi,

29
 International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887)
Volume 44– No.5, April 2012

k Heat Exchanger Configuration k Heat Exchanger Configuration

7
3

1 Divided flow shell pass even number of tube

passes

4 shell passes 8 or multiple of 8 tube passes

(4-8n)
8

Single pass cross flow both fluid unmixed

5 shell passes 10 or multiple of 10 tube passes Single pass cross flow with one fluid mixed and
(5-10n) the other unmixed

6 shell passes 12 or multiple of 12 tube passes

(6-12n)

Split flow shell 2 tube passes

30