processes

Article
Heat Transfer Coefficient Estimation and Performance
Evaluation of Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger Using Flue Gas
Xuejun Qian 1,2, * , Seong W. Lee 1,2 and Yulai Yang 1,2

1 Industrial and Systems Engineering Department, Morgan State University, 1700 East Cold Spring Lane,
Baltimore, MD 21251, USA; [email protected] (S.W.L.); [email protected] (Y.Y.)
2 Center for Advanced Energy Systems and Environmental Control Technologies, School of Engineering,
Morgan State University, 1700 East Cold Spring Lane, Baltimore, MD 21251, USA
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-443-885-2772

Abstract: In the past few decades, water and air were commonly used as working fluid to evaluate
shell and tube heat exchanger (STHE) performance. This study was undertaken to estimate heat
transfer coefficients and evaluate performance in the pilot-scale twisted tube-based STHE using
the flue gas from biomass co-combustion as working fluid. Theoretical calculation along with
experimental results were used to calculate the specific heat of flue gas. A simplified model was
then developed from the integration of two heat transfer methods to predict the overall heat transfer
coefficient without tedious calculation of individual heat transfer coefficients and fouling factors.
Performance including water and trailer temperature, heat load, effectiveness, and overall heat
transfer coefficient were jointly investigated under variable operating conditions. Results indicated
that the specific heat of flue gas from co-combustion ranging between 1.044 and 1.338 kJ/kg·K
while specific heat was increased by increasing flue gas temperature and decreasing excess air ratio.




The developed mathematical model was validated to have relatively small errors to predict the

 overall heat transfer coefficient. A flue gas mass flow rate of 61.3–98.8 kg/h, a water flow rate of
Citation: Qian, X.; Lee, S.W.; Yang, Y. 13.7–14.1 L/min, and a parallel arrangement of two water-to-air heaters in an empty trailer were
Heat Transfer Coefficient Estimation found to be optimal conditions for space heating purpose. In addition, a lower poultry litter feeding
and Performance Evaluation of Shell rate decreased heat loss of flue gas and increased heat gain of water, while a lower water flow rate
and Tube Heat Exchanger Using Flue also provided a lower maximum possible heat transfer rate with a higher actual heat transfer rate to
Gas. Processes 2021, 9, 939. https:// quickly achieve heat equilibrium that ultimately improves the performance. This study demonstrates
doi.org/10.3390/pr9060939 the possibility of collecting residual heat from the flue gas using the pilot-scale STHE system while
outlining a systematic approach and process for evaluating its performance.
Academic Editor: Alfredo Iranzo

Keywords: shell tube heat exchanger; poultry litter; natural gas co-combustion; flue gas; specific
Received: 13 May 2021
heat; overall heat transfer coefficient; effectiveness
Accepted: 24 May 2021
Published: 26 May 2021

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

1. Introduction
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil- The shell and tube heat exchanger (STHE) is a common type of exchanger appara-
iations. tus widely used in several industrial processes and areas, such as chemical engineering,
petroleum refining, refrigeration system, food processing, and power generation [1]. They
have much lower production costs, robust geometry construction, easy cleaning and main-
tenance, and flexibility in their utility [1–3]. The STHE system mainly consists of a shell
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
(vessel with different sizes) and a bundle of tubes inside a shell. Heat is transferred from
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
one fluid into the other fluid, either from the tube side to the shell side through the tube
This article is an open access article
walls or vice versa, to equalize the temperature. These fluids can either be liquids or gases
distributed under the terms and on either the shell or tube side [4]. The type of tube plays an important role in heat transfer
conditions of the Creative Commons enhancement and can have a great effect on the overall heat transfer process. There are
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// several types of tubes, such as plain, twisted, spiral, and longitudinally finned, that are
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ currently used in the STHE system [4]. Compared to the round tube bundle with the
4.0/). same arrangement as the crossflow, Li et al. [5] found the twisted tube bundle to be better

Processes 2021, 9, 939. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9060939 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/processes

Processes 2021, 9, 939 2 of 19

convection heat transfer. Tan et al. [6] and Tan et al. [7] investigated and compared the heat
transfer performance of the twisted and smooth round tubes. Both results indicated that
the twisted tube was better than the round tube in increasing the heat transfer coefficient
and the efficiency of heat exchangers.
Besides supporting the tube bundles, the baffle is also responsible for maintaining
desirable velocity and creating turbulence for the shell-side working fluid in conjunction
with the shell and tube structure [8]. The baffle also resists vibrations to enhance fluid ve-
locity as well as the heat transfer coefficient [2]. The type and inclination angle of the baffle
are two important characteristics for influencing the overall performance [2,8]. Various
types of baffles, such as segmental, double segmental, helical, disk, and doughnut type,
were studied and implemented in the wider applications of STHE systems [9]. The helical
baffle serves as a promising technology because of less shell-side pressure drop, better heat
transfer performance, and less fluid-induced vibration. However, the helical baffle requires
high capital investments to account for costs associated with manufacturing its complex
shapes. In contrast, the segmental baffle has been widely adopted and remains the most
used baffle in STHE systems because of its ease to fabricate with lower maintenance costs.
The segmental baffle forces the shell-side working fluid to pass through in a zigzag manner,
thereby improving the heat transfer with acceptable pressure drops. The inclination angle
of the baffle is critical for controlling flow velocity and influencing the transfer coefficient.
The inclination angle of 90◦ C may cause a zigzag flow, resulting in a dead zone behind each
baffle. This ultimately increases the fouling resistance and decreases the heat transfer rate.
Zhang et al. [8] compared the performance of heat exchanger systems at inclination angles
of 20◦ C, 30◦ C, 40◦ C, and 50◦ C, respectively. Results showed that the inclination angle of
40◦ C was the best performing angle. Duan et al. [3] analyzed the flow and thermal perfor-
mance of six helical baffle based STHE across three different inclination angels (20◦ C, 30◦ C,
40◦ C) and variable volumetric flow rates. The study indicated that having the inclination
angle at 40◦ C resulted in the highest heat transfer coefficient per unit pressure drop since
a larger angle leads to a lower pressure drop. Based on previous findings, the segmental
baffle with an inclination angle of 40◦ C demonstrates the possibility of generating spiral
flow while increasing the heat transfer coefficient.
The performance of the STHE system was evaluated in the physical experiments
under several operating conditions over the past two decades. Thantharate and Zodpe [10]
compared temperature changes and overall heat transfer coefficient for the twisted and
plain tube based STHE under four different water flow rates to cover both turbulent and
laminar flow ranges. Dubey et al. [4] tested the effectiveness of heat exchangers under
variable flow conditions (e.g., 25% opening closed, 50% opening closed, and 75% opening
closed) and insulation materials. Kasmir and Joshi [11] investigated the effects of mass flow
rate and inlet temperature on the overall heat transfer rate. Emal and Elena [12] studied
heat transfer by measuring temperature profiles and the overall heat transfer coefficient
under a countercurrent and parallel flow arrangement. Abdulmumuni et al. [13] evaluated
heat duty, capacity ratio, general effectiveness, the overall heat transfer coefficient, and the
fouling factor under variable water flow rates. Ehyaei et al. [14] also found that extraction
mass flow rate was critical to optimize heat transfer and performance of the geothermal
power plant. To that end, heat transfer coefficient and its effectiveness are, respectively,
two of the most important characteristics used to physically evaluate the performance of
the STHE system under variable operating conditions, including water flow rates, tube
type, and flow arrangement.
Specific heat of flue gas can be used to calculate enthalpy value, rate of heat flow,
and the required surface, as well as overall heat transfer coefficient and the effectiveness
of the STHE systems [15]. Thermal and gas properties, such as specific heat, thermal
conductivity, density, and viscosity of the common working fluids (e.g., water, air), can be
easily found in the thermodynamics table. However, the specific heat of flue gas during the
combustion process was not available in the thermodynamic table [16]. Coskun et al. [15]
estimated specific heat of flue gas for natural gas, fuel oil, and flame coal, respectively.
Processes 2021, 9, 939 3 of 19

Results indicated that specific heat ranged from 1.02 to 1.32 kJ/kg·K for flame coal, 1.08 to
1.38 kJ/kg·K for fuel oil, and 1.11 to 1.43 kJ/kg·K for natural gas, all under variable flue
gas temperature. Several similar studies investigated the effects of parameters such as
the chemical composition of fuel, excess air (EA) amount, and gas temperature on the
specific heat of flue gas from well-known fossil fuel combustion [15–18]. El-shafie et al. [19]
estimated thermodynamic properties of flue gases from a glass furnace based on chemical
composition analysis measured by the gas analyzer. There has yet to exist a formulation
that can calculate the specific heat of flue gas from biomass combustion and co-combustion
process, especially poultry litter and natural gas co-combustion process.
Fossil fuel depletion, environmental damages, strict regulation, and policies have
collectively shifted energy production from fossil fuels toward using a variety of renewable
energy resources, such as biomass. Biomass has been recognized as a major contributor to
energy generation because it is abundant, cheap, sustainable, and environmentally friendly.
In addition, biomass combustion has a CO2 -neutral effect during the photosynthesis and
combustion process for reducing greenhouse gas emissions [20,21]. Due to the inherent
high moisture content and lower heating value of biomass fuels, the co-combustion of
biomass and natural gas are adopted to increase combustion temperature and maintain
stable combustion conditions [22]. Poultry litter is one type of biomass and animal waste
from the poultry farming process [22,23]. Instead of land application of poultry litter,
co-combustion of poultry litter and natural gas has been a viable alternative for producing
heat and electricity [22,24]. There is the necessity of collecting heat in the hot flue gas using
heat exchangers owing to the rapid development and adoption of biomass co-combustion
technologies. As shown in Table 1, Qian et al. [22] found that there are various common
working fluids, such as air, water, and diesel, used to test the performance of the twisted
tube STHE system over the past few decades.

Table 1. Investigation of twisted tubes with various tube parameters and working fluids.

Tube Parameters (mm) Working Fluid

Reference
Thickness Pitch A B Tube Shell
144, 192,
3.0 21 - Diesel Steam [5]
205
2.5 200 29 19.5 Cold water Hot water [6]
2.5 230 29 19.5 Cold water Hot water [7]
- 90 18.42 12 Water Air [10]
2.0 300 33 16 Water Air [25]

In more recent studies, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and numerical simula-
tion tools were also applied to investigate heat transfer mechanisms using the exhaust
(or flue) gas, non-Newtonian, and helium as working fluid. El-Shafie et al. [19] used
FORTRAN software to compare the overall heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop
changes of the compact and STHE heat exchangers using exhaust gas from natural gas
combustion. Davarpanah et al. [26] used FLUENT software to study heat transfer mech-
anism and chemical reactions during the design and simulation of ethylene dichloride
thermal cracking reactor. Valizadeh et al. [27] applied CFD and performed a parametric
simulation to investigate the influence of non-Newtonian fluids on different parameters,
including friction coefficient, shear stress, velocity profiles, and pressure drop on spiral
tubes. Wang et al. [28] numerically studied heat transfer performance of the five multi-tube
heat exchangers (MTHXs) types, including smooth tubes, identical tube arrangement of
transverse corrugated tubes, staggered tube arrangement of transverse corrugated tubes,
identical tube arrangement of helically corrugated tubes, staggered tube arrangement of
helically corrugated tubes using helium gas. There has been limited research to use flue
gas from biomass co-combustion process as working fluid on heat transfer study and
performance evaluation of the twisted tube based STHE system.
Processes 2021, 9, 939 4 of 19

In the previous study, Qian et al. [29] evaluated the effect of tube shape, flow direc-
tion, and water flow rate in the lab-scale STHE system on water and trailer temperature
changes using flue gas from the poultry litter and natural gas co-combustion process. As
a continuation of the previous study, a pilot-scale STHE system along with the twisted
tubes and 40◦ C segmental baffles were fabricated. The main objectives of this study are
to calculate the specific heat of flue gas, develop a mathematical model and estimate heat
transfer coefficients, and evaluate the performance of the STHE system using flue gas from
the poultry litter and natural gas co-combustion process as working fluid under various
operating conditions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Estimation of Coefficients, Heat Load, and Effectiveness
As shown in Figure 1, theoretical calculations were performed as part of the systematic
approach to estimating specific heat of flue gas, heat load, effectiveness, and overall heat
transfer coefficient. The specific heat of flue gas during poultry litter and natural gas co-
combustion process was calculated based on fuel composition, EA, and flue gas temperature.
Fuel composition was assumed to be constant because the study’s poultry litter samples were
collected from one farm (Bethel Farm, Salisbury, MD, USA), which also maintains a consistent
farming process (e.g., bedding materials, cleaning periods, and farming practices) [30]. Co-
combustion of 5.76 kg/h poultry litter and 0.69 kg/h natural gas process was assumed to be
the ideal case, whereas the complete combustion reaction for carbon, hydrogen, and sulfur in
fuels with air was assumed to produce the flue gas and unburned residual products (i.e., ash).
Nitrogen in poultry litter is not expected to react with oxygen because flue gas temperature
during the co-combustion was less than 1000 ◦ C. It was also generally understood that
nitrogen normally reacts with oxygen over 1200 ◦ C [31]. In addition, particulate matter (PM)
emission and HCl were disregarded because they exist in relatively lower quantities. Thus,
major combustion products of flue gas during the poultry litter and natural gas co-combustion
are CO2 , H2 O, SO2 , N2, and O2 [17]. Based on the chemical compositions and feeding rate of
the collected poultry litter from fuel analysis and natural gas, the required oxygen amount
for the complete combustion of fuels was calculated first [30,31]. Then, the required oxygen
amount was divided by 0.21, and the EA ratio was multiplied in the range of 1.0 to 1.5 to
calculate the required total air amount. Afterward, the total weight and weight ratio of the
major components (in wt.%) in flue gas were calculated. Finally, specific heat was calculated
by multiplying the weight ratio and specific heat of individual combustion products at
temperatures of 0, 50, 100, 150, 200, 300, 400, 500, and 1000 ◦ C, respectively. The effects of EA
and flue gas temperature on the specific heat of flue gas during the co-combustion process
were also investigated.

Figure 1. Approach to estimate specific heat and overall heat transfer coefficient.
Processes 2021, 9, 939 5 of 19

Heat transfer of the pilot-scale STHE system is determined by the heat load (or thermal
energy), also known as heat flow rate, and is calculated as Equation (1):
. .
Q = m × c p × ∆T, (1)
. .
where Q = heat load, in J/s; m = mass flow rate, in kg/s; c p = specific heat, in J/g·◦ C (or
.
kJ/kg·K); and ∆T = change in temperature, in ◦ C. The heat load of water (Qw ) on the tube
side was calculated by multiplying mass flow rates of water, the specific heat of water
at the average water temperature of inlet and outlet, and water temperature difference
between inlet and outlet. The mass flow rate of water was derived from volumetric flow
rates and density, while the specific heat of water at various water temperatures was found
.
from the thermodynamics table [16]. The heat load of flue gas (Q f ) was determined by a
function of flue gas mass flow rate, calculated specific heat at average flue gas temperature
of inlet and outlet, and the difference in flue temperature between the inlet and outlet
of the STHE system. The mass flow rate of flue gas was assumed to be 85% of the total
fuel and air amounts because ash content in poultry litter remained after the combustion
process, while minor air leakage was observed due to the small holes associated with
the combustion chamber’s air injection nozzles and temperature sensor holes during the
physical combustion experiment.
Then, the effectiveness of the heat exchanger was calculated as Equation (2):
.
Qactual
ηefffectiveness = . , (2)
Qmax
. .
where Qactual = actual heat transfer rate, in J/s; Qw = heat load of water, in J/s;
.
Qmax = maximum possible heat transfer rate, in J/s; Cmin = minimum heat capacity rate,
in J/s·◦ C; Th,in = inlet temperature of hot fluid, in ◦ C; Tc,in = inlet temperature of cold fluid,
.
in ◦ C; mf = mass flow rate of flue gas, in g/s; cp,f = specific heat of flue gas, in J/g·◦ C.
. . . .
Qactual = Qw and Qmax = Cmin (Th,in − Tc,in ) = mf cp,f (Th,in − Tc,in ) because heat capacity
. .
rate of hot fluid (hot flue gas: mf cp,f ) is smaller than cold fluid (cold water: mw cp,w ).
In Equation (3), the logarithmic mean temperature difference (LMTD) was determined
from two temperature differences ∆t1 and ∆t2 at each end of the heat exchanger.

∆t1 − ∆t2
LMTD = , where ∆t1 = T1 − t2 and ∆t2 = T2 − t1 , (3)
ln ∆t
∆t2
1

where T1 = flue gas temperature at the inlet (◦ C), T2 = flue gas temperature at the outlet
(◦ C), t1 = water temperature at the inlet (◦ C), and t2 = water temperature at the outlet
(◦ C). In Equation (4), the LMTD is correlated with a temperature efficiency factor (F) to
determine the corrected effective mean temperature difference (CMTD) for multi-pass
heat exchangers. According to standards issued by the Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers
Association (TEMA), the Pz , P, and R were determined to jointly calculate the F, and results
showed that F = 0.95 for the pilot-scale STHE system and the CMTD was calculated as
Equation (4):
CMTD = F × LMTD = 0.95LMTD, (4)
Based on the calculated heat load (heat transfer rate of flue gas), CMTD, and heat
exchanger area of tubes and connections (A = 1.034 m2 ), the overall heat transfer coefficient,
U1 , was calculated using the first method as Equation (5):
. .
Q Q
U1 = = , (5)
A × CMTD 0.9823LMTD
Processes 2021, 9, 939 6 of 19

In this study, heat is transferred from flue gas into the tube wall by convection, through
the tube wall by conduction, and from the tube wall to cold water again by convection. In
addition, deposition of ash deposits (e.g., Na2 SO4 , K2 SO4 ) via flue gas on the outer tube
wall and calcium-based deposit on the inner tube wall by hard water could cause a fouling
effect to increase thermal resistance and deteriorate the heat transfer rate. Thus, the second
method was proposed to calculate the overall heat transfer coefficient, U2 as Equation (6):

1 1 1 S
= + + + fi + fo , (6)
U2 hi ho λ

where hi = convective heat transfer coefficient determined by water on the tube side
(W/m2 K), ho = convective heat transfer coefficient caused by flue gas on the shell side
(W/m2 K), S = tube wall thickness (m), λ = thermal conductivity of the tube material
(W/m K), f i = inner fouling factor by water (m2 K/W), f o = outer fouling factor by
flue gas (m2 K/W). Equations (7)–(9) were used to establish the convective heat transfer
coefficient for both tube and shell side. First, the velocity of medium (i.e., flue gas, water)
was calculated as Equation (7):
. .
4 Pt 2 − πdo 2 /4


m m
V= = , where De = , (7)
ρ ×A ρ × 14 πDe 2 πdo
.
where V = velocity (m/h), m = mass flow rate (kg/h), ρ = density (kg/m3 ), Pt = 29.26 mm
is the distance between centers of two pipes, do = 15.875 mm is the outside diameter of
the tube, and De = 52.832 mm is the equivalent diameter for the square pitch layout of
tubes. Based on the average temperature of the inlet and outlet for both flue gas and
water, Reynolds number (Re) was derived from velocity (V), equivalent diameter (De )
with kinematic viscosity (υ, m2 /s). Herein, kinematic viscosity was also calculated by
dividing dynamic viscosity (kg/m s) by density (kg/m3 ). Based on the calculated Re, flow
conditions of the medium were determined. In the case of laminar flow (Re < 2300) on the
tube side, the Nusselt number on the tube side of the annular space was derived [32].
In the case of turbulent flow (Re > 10,000), the Nusselt number, Nu was derived as
Equation (8):

VDe
Nu = 0.023 × Re0.8 × Pr n = 0.023 × Re0.8 × Pr0.4 , where Re = , (8)
υ
where the exponent of the Prandtl number, Pr is assumed to be n = 0.4 for heating of the
fluid. Pr number and thermal conductivity are derived from the thermodynamic tables [16].
Then, the convective heat transfer coefficient was calculated as Equation (9):

k
h= Nu (9)
D
where k = thermal conductivity (W/mK) and D = diameter (m).
The total fouling factor at the tube and shell side was assumed to be 0.0018 m2 K/W
because the fouling factor of biomass flue gas played such a major role while fouling of
water was relatively small [16]. Conduction through copper tube wall is 4 × 10−6 m2 K/W
where the thickness was 0.00159 m, and heat conductivity was assumed to be 385 W/m
K. Results for overall heat transfer coefficient from the first and second method were
compared. A correlation was found using the first six sets of overall heat transfer coefficient
results. A simplified model was developed to predict the overall heat transfer coefficients.
Additionally, two sets of results were used to calculate estimation error and validate the
accuracy of our simplified model.
Processes 2021, 9, 939 7 of 19

2.2. Fabrication of the Pilot-Scale STHE System

As shown in Figure 2, the pilot-scale STHE system consists of one shell, sixteen twisted
tubes, and six segmental baffles.

Figure 2. Pilot-scale shell and tube heat exchanger (STHE) system, fabrication, and assembly.

In this study, the pilot-scale STHE system integrated the twisted tubes and 40◦ C
inclination angle of the segmental baffle to increase heat transfer coefficient and efficiency.
The shell has a diameter of 304.8 mm and a length of 1016.0 mm. The tube has a diameter
of 12.7 mm and a length of 863.6 mm. The segmental baffle has a diameter of 292.1 mm
and a height of 206.6 mm (about 25% area cut). Raw materials for the tube section include
copper type L pipes, 90◦ C elbow connections, tees, 4-way copper cross fittings, shell
material consisting of schedule 40 carbon steel pipe, and an aluminum plate for the baffle.
Twisted tubes and segmental baffles were fabricated by the study’s research assistants
associated with the Center for Advanced Energy Systems and Environmental Control
Technologies (CAESECT) with assistance from the physical plant staff at Morgan State
University. Baffle fabrication was also performed by first using a cardboard-based model
to then cut the aluminum plate using a 14-gauge swivel head shear (Item 68199, Chicago
Electric Power Tools, Calabasas, CA, USA), as well as bi-metal and hole saw set (Items
68,113 and 68,990, Warrior, Camarillo, CA, USA). Fabricated twisted tubes and segmental
baffles were preassembled with connections for identifying compatibility between the
components. After that, the soldering kit, along with a Bernzomatic Map-Pro gas cylinder
and 15% phos-copper silver brazing alloy rod, was acquired to perform the hard-soldering
process. Several water leakages tests and hard soldering were performed to seal all small
gaps and holes until there was no water leakage in the inner parts of the pilot-scale STHE
prototype without the shell. Then, two flanges were welded, and partially assembled inner
parts were inserted into the shell to complete the pilot-scale STHE system. Thereafter,
the pilot-scale STHE system was installed between the lab-scale swirling fluidized bed
combustion (SFBC) system and cyclone system.
Processes 2021, 9, 939 8 of 19

2.3. Experimental Setup and Evaluation of the STHE System

Figure 3 illustrates the experimental setup for the system analysis and performance
evaluation of the pilot-scale STHE system during the poultry litter and natural gas co-
combustion process. The pilot-scale STHE system was integrated with the SFBC system,
two water-to-air heaters, water circulation pump, heat resistant water rubber hoses, and
empty trailer (2438.4 mm width × 7620.0 mm length × 2590.8 mm height, Mobile Mini
Storage Solutions, Middle River, MD, USA) to simulate the space heating of a typical
poultry house. Natural gas was provided at a height of 120.0 mm for ignition and co-
combustion with poultry litter [29,30]. Poultry litter as combustion fuel was fed into the
SFBC chamber through the fuel feeder. At the same time, the primary and secondary air
blowers, along with a voltage regulator, were responsible for controlling and supplying
the air. In this study, hot flue gas was produced from co-combustion and used as working
fluid in the shell side of the STHE system. Cold water in the twisted tube side served
as another working fluid to absorb heat from the hot flue gas and generate hot water.
Processed hot water from the pilot-scale STHE system was then sent to the two water-to-air
heaters before rejecting heat into the cold air from an empty trailer house to provide space
heating. In this study, two water-to-air heaters and the pilot-scale STHE system became a
closed-loop connection with a water circulation pump and several water rubbers hoses.
Heat gain was achieved from hot flue gas entering cold water by the STHE system. Heat
loss was transferred from hot water into cold air using the water-to-air heaters. Insulation
materials were applied to water pipes to avoid heat loss and ensure that (a) the outlet
temperature of the STHE system was equivalent to the inlet temperature of the heater and
(b) the outlet temperature of the heater was equivalent to the inlet temperature of the STHE
system. Residual flue gas was emitted to the outside environment via the cyclone and
chimney exit of the SFBC system. Vortex flow meters (SV4610, Ifm electronic company,
Essen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany), K-type thermocouples (Omega TJ36-CASS-18U-6,
OMEGA Engineering, Norwalk, CT, USA) along with a data acquisition system (Omega
OMB-DAQ-2416, OMEGA Engineering, Norwalk, CT, USA) were carefully installed to
monitor water flow rate, water inlet/outlet temperature, inlet/outlet flue gas, and chamber
temperatures. Trailer temperatures were calculated according to the average temperatures
across three positions: window side, door side, and middle of the trailer.
Performance indicators, including temperature changes, heat load, effectiveness,
CMTD, and overall heat transfer coefficient, were used to investigate and evaluate the
fabricated pilot-scale STHE system under variable operating conditions, such as the mass
flow rate on the tube side, mass flow rate in the shell side, and the water flow arrangement.
Flue gas mass flow on the shell side is influenced by the feeding rate of poultry litter and
natural gas and the amount of air being injected [29,30]. In this experiment, the mass flow
rate of flue gas was determined by the feeding rate of fuels (including poultry litter and
natural gas) and air. The mass flow rate of poultry litter at 5.76 and 6.81 kg/h, natural gas
at 0.69 and 0.77 kg/h, and air between 66.00 and 121.00 kg/h were used to investigate the
effect of flue gas mass flow rate on the shell side on the performance of the pilot-scale STHE
system under constant water flow rates. Then, poultry litter and natural gas co-combustion
process was conducted to reach the stable condition of SFBC chamber and STHE system
for the first 90 min. Afterward, natural gas was kept at a constant 2.83 × 10−4 m3 /s while
poultry litter was fed at a rate of 5.76 kg/h from 90 to 160 min to study the effects of water
flow rate on the tube side on its performance. Data collection commenced after 90 min into
the co-combustion process, until 160 min in 10-min intervals. The mass flow range on the
tube side was controlled by the volumetric flow rate of water at low (13.7 to 14.1 L/min),
medium (14.5–14.6 L/min), and high (18.2–18.5 L/min) water flow rates, respectively. In
addition, parallel and serial arrangement of the water-to-air heater in the trailer was tested
to identify the effects of arrangement on the changes in water temperature and effectiveness
of the pilot-scale STHE system.
Processes 2021, 9, 939 9 of 19

Figure 3. Experimental setup and operating conditions for the pilot-scale STHE system evaluation.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Estimation of Specific Heat of Flue Gas during Co-Combustion Process
Theoretical co-combustion reaction for carbon, hydrogen, and sulfur in the poultry
litter and natural gas under variable EA was calculated using the mass balance equa-
tion [15,33]. Theoretically, complete co-combustion of 5.76 kg/h of poultry litter and
0.69 kg/h of natural gas is calculated to require 34.88 kg/h to 52.33 kg/h air to achieve
complete combustion and thereby produce 7.74 kg/h carbon dioxide (CO2 ), 3.41 kg/h
water (H2 O), and 0.12 kg/h sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) along with nitrogen (N2 ) in the amount of
27.56 to 41.34 kg/h and oxygen (O2 ) in the amount of 0 to 5.49 kg/h. Figure 4 summarizes
the composition of major combustion products (in wt. %) during the co-combustion process
at EA ratios between 1.0 to 1.5. The composition of H2 O ranged from 5.87% to 8.79%, CO2
from 13.32% to 19.93%, and SO2 from 0.21% to 0.31%, along with unreacted 70.97 to 71.74%
N2 and 0 to 9.46% O2 in the flue gas. Results showed that changes in SO2 and N2 were not
obvious when EA increased from 1.0 to 1.5. However, weightings of CO2 and H2 O were
found to decrease while O2 weightings increased.
Figure 5 shows specific heat of flue gas during a poultry litter and natural gas co-
combustion process range from 1.063 to 1.338 kJ/kg·K, 1.058 to 1.326 kJ/kg·K, 1.054 to
1.315 kJ/kg·K, 1.051 to 1.305 kJ/kg·K, 1.047 to 1.296 kJ/kg·K, and 1.044 to 1.288 kJ/kg·K
for EA ratios of 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5, respectively under constant flue gas temper-
ature. It was found that the specific heat of flue gas during the co-combustion process
of poultry litter and natural gas decreased with increasing EA ratios. Coskun et al. [15]
also investigated the effects of EA ratio between 1.0 to 2.5 on the specific heat of flue gas
during the combustion process of fossil fuels, including natural gas, fuel oil, and flame
coal. Both studies observed that the specific heat of flue gas decreased when EA was
increased across different types of fuel. Combined with the observation from Figure 4,
increasing EA decreased the composition of H2 O and CO2 while the percentage of O2
increased, resulting in lower specific heat values. This is because both H2 O and CO2
Processes 2021, 9, 939 10 of 19

have a higher specific heat than O2 [16]. On the contrary, it was found that the specific
heat of flue gas during the poultry litter co-combustion process increased by increasing
flue gas temperature from 0 to 1000 ◦ C (equivalent to 273.15 to 1273.15 K) at constant EA
ratios. As the flue gas reaches higher temperatures, vibrational and kinetic energy also
increased, thereby requiring more thermal energy, and ultimately raising specific heat
values in the process. It was not surprising that the effect of flue gas temperature and EA
on specific heat were inversely related because EA lowers combustion efficiency and flame
temperature during co-combustion. Many previous research studies concluded that flue
gas temperature and EA had an opposite relationship during the biomass and fossil fuel
combustion processes [22,34]. Moreover, it was found that specific heat of poultry litter and
natural gas co-combustion had a range of 1.044 to 1.338 kJ/kg·K, which is slightly smaller
than the specific heat of natural gas combustion (1.11 to 1.43 kJ/kg·K) due to different
chemical compositions of fuels, such as lower carbon and hydrogen contents of poultry
litter compared to natural gas. It was also known that specific heat of air was 1.006 kJ/kg·K
at 273.15 ◦ K (0 ◦ C) and 1.184 kJ/kg·K at 1,273.15 ◦ K (1000 ◦ C) [16]. This confirmed that
the specific heat of flue gas was slightly higher than the specific heat of air because of
the difference in composition, whereby flue gas had a higher portion of H2 O and CO2
compared to air. These results suggested that one could predict the specific heat of flue gas
based on the fuel compositions, EA, and flue gas temperature.

Figure 4. Gas composition in the flue gas under various EA ratios.

Processes 2021, 9, 939 11 of 19

Figure 5. Specific heat of flue gas under various EA ratios and flue gas temperatures.

3.2. Estimation and Comparison of Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient

In the laboratory experiment, co-combustion of 5.76 kg/h of poultry litter and 0.69 kg/h
of natural gas under variable EA ratios were performed in the lab-scale SFBC chamber.
Table 2 summarizes experimental results of the inlet (entering the SHTE) and outlet (exiting
the STHE) flue gas temperature, inlet and outlet water temperature, mass flow rate of flue
gas, and calculated specific heat of flue gas at average inlet and outlet temperatures of flue
gas during the poultry litter and natural gas co-combustion process. It was found that heat
load was between 31.6 to 39.1 MJ/h, CMTD was between 201.8 to 223.6 ◦ C, and overall
heat transfer coefficient (U1 ) for the pilot-scale STHE was between 42.1 to 46.9 W/m2 K
using the first method (Equations (1)–(5)).

Table 2. Estimation of overall heat transfer coefficients (U1 ) using the first method.

. Cp at Avg.
Flue Gas Temp. (◦ C) mflue gas Water Temp. (◦ C) Heat Load CMTD U1
Temp.
Inlet Outlet kg/h Inlet Outlet kJ/kgK MJ/h ◦C W/m2 K
479.0 126.0 80.1 42.2 46.7 1.118 31.6 201.8 42.1
489.0 130.0 89.5 43.3 47.8 1.122 36.1 207.0 46.8
492.0 135.0 89.5 44.4 48.9 1.125 35.9 210.9 45.8
474.0 136.0 89.5 45.0 49.4 1.119 33.9 205.7 44.2
489.0 144.0 89.5 46.1 50.6 1.127 34.8 215.8 43.3
499.0 150.0 98.8 46.1 51.1 1.132 39.1 223.6 46.9
489.0 150.0 98.8 46.1 50.6 1.129 37.8 220.7 46.0
481.0 151.0 98.8 46.1 51.1 1.127 36.7 218.9 45.1

Table 3 summarizes the estimation results of the overall heat transfer coefficient (U2 )
using the second approach (Equations (6)–(9)). It can be observed that convective heat
transfer coefficient at shell-side (hi ) ranged from 42.7 to 51.0 W/m2 K and is much smaller
than measurements taken at the tube side (h2 , close to 232 W/m2 K). This is because the
flue gas on the shell side had a lower thermal conductivity than the water on the tube side.
It was found that the effects of conduction at the tube wall were 4.13*10−6 m2 K/W, and
fouling was estimated to be 0.0018 m2 K/W. To that end, a combination of these effects
Processes 2021, 9, 939 12 of 19

resulted in the overall heat transfer coefficient that measured between 33.9 to 39.0 W/m2 K
using the second method.

Table 3. Estimation of overall heat transfer coefficients (U2 ) using the second method.

ho U2 U1 Uest.
hi (W/m2 K) Errors (%)
(W/m2 K) (W/m2 K) (W/m2 K) (W/m2 K)
42.73 235.0 33.9 42.1 34.3
46.8 235.57 36.5 46.8 38.1
46.87 236.1 36.5 45.8 37.3
46.73 236.37 36.5 44.2 36 ABE 1 = 0.08 AAE 2 = 2.39
46.92 236.92 36.6 43.3 35.3
51.0 237.0 39.0 46.9 38.2
50.84 236.92 38.9 46 37.5 3.73
50.77 237.0 38.9 45.1 36.7 5.60
1 ABE = average bias error; 2 AAE = absolute bias error.

The values from the second method, U2, were slightly lower than the overall heat
transfer coefficient from the first method, U1 (between 42.1 and 46.9 W/m2 K). Abdul-
mumuni et al. [13] also found that the overall heat transfer coefficient was 201.0 W/m2 K
when using the first method, thereby exceeding the 98.1 W/m2 K heat transfer coefficient
associated with using the second method. A possible reason for this difference between the
two methods is that the first approach makes a rough estimation of the heat transfer area
where it only considers the surface area of tubes and connections between the tubes. Other
possible heat transfer areas, such as the segmental baffles and shell in the STHE system,
were ignored. In addition, heat loss from the shell surface to the environment via radiation
was also ignored. The second method, on the other hand, was more comprehensive and
required more data, such as density, kinetic viscosity, thermal conductivity at different
temperatures for flue gas and water derived from the thermodynamics tables. Therefore,
the second method was widely adopted for our heat transfer studies for optimal accuracy
with tedious calculations.
Based on results from the first six data sets in Tables 2 and 3, we found that there
was a correlation factor of 0.814 between U1 and U2 . Therefore, this study suggests an
approach that uses a simple calculation process using the first method to estimate the
overall heat transfer coefficient, Uets. = 0.814U1 . Absolute average error (AAE) and average
bias error (ABE) were also used to evaluate the accuracy and suitability of regression model
applications [35]. It was found that this simple model had lower estimation errors, ABE of
0.08% and AAE of 2.39%. The last two data sets were used to validate the results, whereby
errors were measured at 3.7% and 5.6%, respectively. This confirms that this simplified
model can be used to estimate the overall heat transfer coefficients for a pilot-scale STHE
system during a poultry litter and natural gas co-combustion process.

3.3. Effect of Flue Gas Mass Flow Rate on the Shell Side
As shown in Figure 6, the overall heat transfer coefficient, heat loss of flue gas, heat
gain of water increased from 31.9 to 37.5 W/m2 K, 18.44 to 37.82 MJ/h, and 11.10 to
20.46 MJ/h, respectively, by increasing the mass flow of flue gas from 61.3 to 98.8 kg/h, for
the case of poultry litter at 5.76 kg/h. Similar results were found when the overall heat
transfer coefficient, the heat loss of flue gas, heat gain of water was increased from 21.3 to
48.9 W/m2 K, 21.27 to 48.91 MJ/h, 12.16 to 25.71 MJ/h, respectively, by increasing the
mass flow of flue gas from 62.4 to 109.0 kg/h, for the case of poultry litter at 6.81 kg/h.
Increments in mass flow rate of flue gas on the shell side increased fluid velocity and
the Reynolds number and convective heat transfer on the shell side, which ultimately
resulted in the increase in the overall heat transfer coefficient associated with the STHE
system. In addition, the heat load of flue gas was increased by increasing the mass flow
rate of flue gas because the increasing feeding rates of poultry litter elevated heating values
Processes 2021, 9, 939 13 of 19

of fuels while releasing more heat into the flue gas during co-combustion. As a result
of heat load increments on the shell side, the heat gain of water from the tube side was
also increased. It was found that effectiveness ranged between 48.7% and 77.8% for the
case of poultry litter at 5.76 kg/h, while effectiveness ranged between 46.7% to 61.7% for
the case of poultry litter at 6.81 kg/h. Effectiveness was slightly lower at higher poultry
litter feeding rates because heat loss of flue gas increased between 2.83 to 9.99 MJ/h by
increasing feeding rate while heat gain of water was relatively small (about 1.06–5.26 MJ/h)
by keeping constant for the water flow rate. It also showed that similar overall heat transfer
(between 30 and 40W/m2 K) with higher efficacy was achieved at a lower feeding rate of
poultry litter (5.76 kg/h). These results support the use of a lower feeding rate of poultry
litter at 5.76 kg/h and further investigating effect of water flow rate on the tube side on the
system performance.

Figure 6. Performance of the STHE under various mass flow rates of flue gas on the shell side.
(a) Feeding rate of poultry litter at 5.76 kg/h. (b) Feeding rate of poultry litter at 6.81 kg/h.
Processes 2021, 9, 939 14 of 19

3.4. Effect of Water Flow Rate in Tube Side

As shown in Figure 7, the overall heat transfer coefficient of the pilot-scale STHE
system was between 17.9 to 27.0 W/m2 K, 27.8 to 35.6 W/m2 K, and 36.9 to 40.1 W/m2 K
for low, medium, and high flow rates, respectively. It was also discovered that higher water
flow rates had relatively higher overall heat transfer coefficients. Results also indicated that
the CMTD increased from 214.8 to 232.8 ◦ C at lower flow rates, 177.8 to 235.8 ◦ C at medium
flow rates, and 161.6 to 218.2 ◦ C at high flow rates, after 160 min of the co-combustion
process. Lower CMTD coincides with higher overall heat transfer at a high flow rate
(18.2–18.5 L/min) within the same combustion time. In the meantime, higher water flow
rates on the tube side generated high velocity and turbulence flow with a high Reynolds
number and convective heat transfer coefficients on the tube side, ultimately leading to a
higher overall heat transfer coefficient. An interesting trend is observed where the overall
heat transfer coefficient was increased at a lower flow rate while overall heat transfer
coefficients were decreased at both medium and high flow rate with increasing combustion
times. Ultimately, the gap became smaller after 160 min poultry litter and natural gas
co-combustion processes.

Figure 7. Overall heat transfer coefficients under various water flow rates on the tube side.

As shown in Figure 8, the effectiveness of the pilot-scale STHE system was further an-
alyzed and ranged from 0.444 and 0.574 for low water flow rate, 0.390 to 0.473 for medium
water flow rate, and 0.373 to 0.461 for high water flow rate. It was found that the effec-
tiveness of the pilot-scale STHE system decreased when water flow rates were increased.
It is postulated that the medium and higher water flow rates reduced the residence time
of water on the tube and passed tube sections without effectively gaining heat from hot
flue gas on the shell side. Experimental results indicated that inlet temperature of cold
water on the tube side increased from 20 to 47.8 ◦ C for low water flow rate, 45.0 ◦ C for
medium flow rate, and 45.0 ◦ C for high flow rate, after 160 min co-combustion process.
Therefore, the low flow rate achieved a high inlet temperature of the cold fluid (about
2.8 ◦ C higher) and thereby caused a lower temperature difference with an inlet temperature
of hot flue gas (around 504 ◦ C), ultimately reducing the maximum possible heat transfer
rate (Qmax ). On the other hand, the actual heat transfer rate (Qactual ) increased by 55.1%
(from 13.62 to 21.12), 37.5% (from 16.04 to 22.06), and 35.1% (from 15.05 to 20.34) for low,
medium, and high flow rate, respectively. Thus, a low flow rate is the optimal water flow
 Processes 2021, 9, 939 15 of 19

rate that enabled appropriate velocity and enough residence time of cold water on the tube
side to gain heat from hot flue gas in the shell. In the meantime, a low flow rate provided
a lower maximum possible heat transfer rate with a higher actual heat transfer rate to
Processes 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW
quickly achieve heat equilibrium between the two mediums and ultimately increase the 15 of 19
effective performance of the pilot-scale STHE system. The current study concluded that the
pilot-scale STHE system had an optimal heating performance under the lowest water flow
rates (13.7–14.1 L/min), while the lab-scale STHE system experienced optimal performance
optimal performance
under different under
water flow different
rates water
(about 6.44 flow rates
L/min) [28]. (about 6.44 results
Thus, these L/min)infer
[28].that
Thus, these
results
optimal water flow rates should be found for different size and capacity STHE systems bycapacity
infer that optimal water flow rates should be found for different size and
STHE systems
controlling massby controlling
flow rates on themass
tubeflow
side. rates on the tube side.

Figure
Figure 8.8.Effectiveness
Effectiveness under
under various
various water
water flowflow
rates rates
on theon theside.
tube tube side.

3.5. Effect of Parallel and Serial Arrangement of Water-to-Air Heaters

3.5. Effect of Parallel and Serial Arrangement of Water-to-Air Heaters
As shown in Figure 9, it was found that the inlet temperature of the water-to-air
heaterAs shown from
increased in Figure 9, it ◦was
20 to 49.4 C underfound that the
a parallel inlet temperature
arrangement, of the water-to-air
while it increased to
heater
◦ increased from 20 to 49.4 ℃ under a parallel arrangement,
45.0 C under serial arrangement after 160 min co-combustion process. In the meantime, while it increased to
45.0 ℃ under serial arrangement after 160 min co-combustion ◦
process.
the parallel arrangement increased trailer temperature from 10.6 to 82.2 C, while the serial In the meantime
the parallel arrangement
arrangement increased trailer increased
temperaturetrailer
to 77.9 ◦ C under similar
temperature from 10.6 to 82.2
outside ℃, while the se
temperature
◦
(between 8.3 and 9.4
rial arrangement C). Results
increased show
trailer that the parallel
temperature ℃ under similar
to 77.9arrangement of the outside
water-to-tempera
ture (between 8.3 and 9.4 ℃). Results show that the parallel arrangement of the water-to
air heaters caused the overall heat transfer coefficient of the STHE to vary from 33.7 to
air W/m2 K,
40.6heaters while the
caused a serial arrangement
overall caused
heat transfer the overallofheat
coefficient thetransfer
STHE to coefficient
vary from of 33.7 to
the STHE 2to range from 28.5 to 34.2 W/m2 K. To that end, these results indicate that
40.6 W/m K, while a serial arrangement caused the overall heat transfer coefficient of the
the parallel arrangement performed better than the serial arrangement in terms of the
STHE to range
increased from 28.5 toof34.2
inlet temperature W/m2K.
the heater To that end,
(equivalent thesetemperature
to outlet results indicateof thethat the paralle
STHE),
arrangement performed better than the serial arrangement in terms
trailer temperature, and the overall heat transfer coefficient. The parallel arrangement of of the increased inle
temperature of the heater
heaters had a slightly (equivalent
faster dynamic to outlet
response and temperature
demonstratedof the STHE),
a higher trailer temper
heat transfer
ature, and the
rate of 0.5% overall
to 1.9% (aboutheat
0.1 transfer coefficient.
to 0.4 MJ/h). The
Therefore, parallelarrangement
a parallel arrangement of heaters
allowed the had a
water-to-air heaters to reject slightly more heat from the hot water into
slightly faster dynamic response and demonstrated a higher heat transfer rate of 0.5% to the cold air in the
empty(about
1.9% trailer and
0.1 increased trailerTherefore,
to 0.4 MJ/h). temperaturea by 4.3 ◦ C. arrangement
parallel Moreover, a parallel
allowedarrangement
the water-to-air
allowed the pilot-scale STHE system to collect more heat from
heaters to reject slightly more heat from the hot water into the cold air in thehot flue gas into theempty
cold trailer
water being returned.
and increased trailer temperature by 4.3 ℃. Moreover, a parallel arrangement allowed the
pilot-scale STHE system to collect more heat from hot flue gas into the cold water being
returned.
Processes 2021, 9, 939 16 of 19

Figure 9. Effect of water-to-air heater arrangement on the system performance.

Limitation of study may include the estimation of flue gas mass flow rate to predict
heat transfer rate and assumption of gas compositions during the poultry litter and natural
gas co-combustion process to calculate the specific heat of flue gas. In the future study,
the mass flow rate of flue gas can be measured using relatively expensive mass flow
meters to compare with estimated flue gas mass flow rates and precisely derive heat
transfer rate. Real-time gas compositions under various operating conditions of the co-
combustion process can also be measured using the emission analyzer and then used to
calculate the more accurate specific heat of flue gas that ultimately assist in estimating
heat transfer coefficients and evaluate the performance of the STHE system. To reduce a
lot of time and vast expenditures on experiment study, CFD and simulation tool can also
be adopted to model the STHE system and investigate the heat transfer, pressure drop,
velocity distribution using flue gas as one of the working fluids under various operating
conditions, such as tube types, tube arrangement, and tube materials.

4. Conclusions
In this study, the pilot-scale shell and tube heat exchanger (STHE) prototype were
specially designed and fabricated for the purpose of heat use in the flue gas from the
poultry litter and natural gas co-combustion. The pilot-scale STHE prototype implemented
twisted tubes and 40-degree segmental baffles to increase the heat transfer coefficient and
maximize system performance. A systematic approach was then used to estimate heat
transfer coefficients and investigate the performance of the STHE system. First, the specific
heat of flue gas was calculated based on fuel properties, EA ratio, and flue gas temperature.
Results indicated that the specific heat of flue gas during biomass co-combustion ranging
between 1.044 and 1.338 kJ/kg·K was slightly lower than the specific heat of flue gas
undergoing fossil fuel combustion. This was because the poultry litter as one of biomass
had lower carbon and hydrogen content compared to fossil fuels. Results also indicated
that the specific heat of flue gas was increased with decreasing excess air and increasing flue
gas temperature. Then, the estimated specific heat was then applied to develop a simplified
mathematical model for overall heat transfer coefficient prediction of the pilot-scale STHE
system by the integration of two different methods. The developed model was found to
have a relatively small average bias error (ABE) of 0.08% and an absolute average error
(AAE) of 2.39% to predict the overall heat transfer coefficients. Afterward, the STHE system
Processes 2021, 9, 939 17 of 19

performance, including water and trailer temperatures, heat load, effectiveness, and overall
heat transfer coefficient, were investigated under the variable operating conditions, such as
water flow rates on the shell side, flue gas flow rates on the tube side, and the arrangement
of the water-to-air heaters in the trailer. Results showed that the increments in flue gas mass
flow rate on the shell side increased fluid velocity and convective heat transfer coefficient,
ultimately improving the overall heat transfer coefficient and effectiveness of the STHE
system. On the contrary, decreasing the mass flow rate of water on the tube side allowed
sufficient residence time and higher actual heat transfer, resulting in a higher overall heat
transfer coefficient and effectiveness. Moreover, it was found that a parallel arrangement of
the water-to-air heater in the trailer contributed toward an increase in inlet temperature of
the heater (equivalent to outlet temperature of the STHE), trailer temperature, and overall
heat transfer coefficient when compared to a serial arrangement.
In a future study, analysis of the energy flow and heat transfer from the poultry litter
co-combustion into the pilot-scale STHE system, water-to-air heaters, and trailer under
variable operating conditions can be performed. In the long-term, hot water production
from the STHE using flue gas during the poultry litter and natural gas co-combustion
process can contribute to energy savings, reduction in disposal costs and environmental
problems, and provide a pathway toward a promising and sustainable waste management
option for poultry farmers.

Author Contributions: S.W.L. and X.Q. coordinated projects and received grants from the Maryland
Industrial Partnerships (MIPS), Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and Office of
Technology Transfer (OTT) at Morgan State University. In conceptualization phase, X.Q. conducted
the literature reviews and found the research gaps. X.Q. and Y.Y. designed the approach to set up the
testing facility. X.Q. and Y.Y. designed, fabricated, and assembled prototype with major components.
X.Q. and Y.Y. collected and performed formal analysis of experimental results. X.Q. wrote the original
draft manuscript. S.W.L. and X.Q. reviewed, edited, and provided his constructive comments and
suggestions to improve the quality of the article. S.W.L. supervised and coordinated project. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported and partially funded by the Maryland Industrial Partnerships
(MIPS), Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and Office of Technology Transfer (OTT)
at Morgan State University on the subject of space heating system development for the poultry house.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: Authors would like to acknowledge the MIPS office and DNR for an opportunity
for the subject research and partial financial support. This research behind it would not have been
possible without an efficient collaboration of our industry partner, CyKloburn Technologies, LLC. We
are also grateful for the insightful comments offered by the Morgan State University OTT. In addition,
the authors would like to appreciate the kind support of the research staff and facilities from the
Center for Advanced Energy Systems and Environmental Control Technologies (CAESECT).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature

A heat exchanger area (m2 )

cp specific heat (J/g·◦ C)
c p, f specific heat of flue gas (J/g·◦ C)
c p,w specific heat of water (J/g·◦ C)
Cmin minimum heat capacity rate (J/s·◦ C)
CMTD corrected effective mean temperature difference (◦ C)
Processes 2021, 9, 939 18 of 19

do outside diameter of tube (mm)

D diameter (mm)
De equivalent diameter (mm)
ηe f f f ectiveness effectiveness (%)
fi inner fouling factor by water (m2 K/W)
fo outer fouling factor by flue gas (m2 K/W)
F temperature efficiency factor
h convective heat transfer coefficient
hi convective heat transfer coefficient determined by water on tube side (W/m2 K)
ho convective heat transfer coefficient caused by flue gas on shell side (W/m2 K)
k thermal conductivity (W/m K)
LMTD logarithmic mean temperature difference (◦ C)
.
m mass flow rate (kg/s)
.
mf mass flow rate of flue gas (kg/s)
.
mw mass flow rate of water (kg/s)
Nu Nusselt number
Pr Prandtl number
Pt distance between centers of two pipes (mm)
.
Q heat load (J/s)
.
Qw heat load of water (J/s)
.
Qf heat load of flue gas (J/s)
.
Qmax maximum possible heat transfer rate (J/s)
.
Q actual actual heat transfer rate (J/s)
Re Reynolds number
ρ density (kg/m3 )
λ thermal conductivity of the tube material (W/m K)
S tube wall thickness (m)
∆T change in temperature (◦ C)
t1 water temperature at inlet (◦ C)
t2 water temperature at outlet (◦ C)
T1 flue gas temperature at inlet (◦ C)
T2 flue gas temperature at outlet (◦ C)
Th,in inlet temperature of hot fluid (◦ C)
Tc,in inlet temperature of cold fluid (◦ C)
U1 overall heat transfer coefficient, first method (W/m2 K)
U2 overall heat transfer coefficient, second method (W/m2 K)
V velocity (m/h)
υ kinematic viscosity (m2 /s)

References
1. Master, B.I.; Chunangad, K.S.; Boxma, A.J.; Karl, D.; Stehlik, P. Most frequently used heat exchangers from pioneering research to
worldwide applications. Heat Transf. Eng. 2006, 27, 4–11. [CrossRef]
2. Salahuddin, U.; Bilal, M.; Ejaz, H. A review of the advancements made in helical baffles used in shell and tube heat exchangers.
Int. Commun. Heat Mass 2015, 67, 104–108. [CrossRef]
3. Duan, Z.; Shen, F.; Cao, X.; Zhang, J. Comprehensive effects of baffle configuration on the performance of heat exchanger with
helical baffles. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2016, 300, 349–357. [CrossRef]
4. Dubey, V.V.P.; Verma, R.R.; Verma, P.S.; Srivastava, A.K. Performance analysis of shell and tube type heat exchanger under the
effect of varied operating condition. IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng. 2014, 11, 8–17. [CrossRef]
5. Li, X.; Zhu, D.; Yin, Y.; Liu, S.; Mo, X. Experimental study on heat transfer and pressure drop of twisted oval tube bundle in cross
flow. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 2009, 99, 251–258. [CrossRef]
6. Tan, X.H.; Zhu, D.S.; Zhou, G.Y.; Zeng, L.D. Experimental and numerical study of convective heat transfer and fluid flow in
twisted oval tubes. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2012, 55, 4701–4710. [CrossRef]
7. Tan, X.H.; Zhu, D.S.; Zhou, G.Y.; Zeng, L.D. Heat transfer and pressure drop performance of twisted oval tube heat exchanger.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 2013, 50, 374–383. [CrossRef]
8. Zhang, J.F.; Li, B.; Huang, W.J.; Lei, Y.G.; He, Y.L.; Tao, W.Q. Experimental performance comparison of shell-side heat transfer for
shell-and-tube heat exchangers with middle-overlapped helical baffles and segmental baffles. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2009, 64, 1643–1653.
[CrossRef]
Processes 2021, 9, 939 19 of 19

9. Bichkar, P.; Dandgaval, O.; Dalvi, P.; Godase, R.; Dey, T. Study of shell and tube heat exchanger with the effect of types of baffles.
Procedia Manuf. 2018, 20, 195–200. [CrossRef]
10. Thantharate, V.; Zodpe, D.B. Experimental and numerical comparison of heat transfer performance of twisted tube and plain
tube heat exchangers. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res 2013, 4, 1107–1113.
11. Kasmir, J.; Joshi, S.M. Experimental study of a shell and tube heat exchanger for performance enhancement. In Proceedings of the
2015 International Conference on Technologies for Sustainable Development (ICTSD), Mumbai, India, 4–6 February 2015; pp. 1–3.
[CrossRef]
12. Emal, Q.M.; Elena, P. Overall energy balance and heat transfer in a shell and tube heat exchanger. In Proceedings of the ISER
109th International Conference, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 27–28 February 2018.
13. Abdulmumuni, B.; Ayoade, A.; Buhari, O.; Olatunde, A.; Olaniyi, F. Design, fabrication and performance evaluation of a shell
and tube heat exchanger for practical application. Eur. J. Eng. Technol. Res. 2020, 5, 835–845. [CrossRef]
14. Ehyaei, M.A.; Ahmadi, A.; Rosen, M.A.; Davarpanah, A. Thermodynamic Optimization of a Geothermal Power Plant with a
Genetic Algorithm in Two Stages. Processes 2020, 8, 1277. [CrossRef]
15. Coskun, C.; Oktay, Z.U.H.A.L.; Ilten, N. A new approach for simplifying the calculation of flue gas specific heat and specific
exergy value depending on fuel composition. Energy 2009, 34, 1898–1902. [CrossRef]
16. Cengel, Y. Heat and Mass Transfer: Fundamentals and Applications; McGraw-Hill Higher Education: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
17. Menghini, D.; Marra, F.S.; Allouis, C.; Beretta, F. Effect of excess air on the optimization of heating appliances for biomass
combustion. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 2008, 32, 1371–1380. [CrossRef]
18. Chandok, J.S.; Kar, I.N.; Tuli, S. Estimation of furnace exit gas temperature (FEGT) using optimized radial basis and back-
propagation neural networks. Energy Convers. Manag. 2008, 49, 1989–1998. [CrossRef]
19. El-Shafie, M.; Bassiouny, M.K.; Kambara, S.; El-Behery, S.M.; Hussien, A.A. Design of a heat recovery unit using exhaust gases for
energy savings in an absorption air conditioning unit. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2021, 117031. [CrossRef]
20. Patel, M.; Zhang, X.; Kumar, A. Techno-economic and life cycle assessment on lignocellulosic biomass thermochemical conversion
technologies: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 53, 1486–1499. [CrossRef]
21. Saidur, R.; Abdelaziz, E.A.; Demirbas, A.; Hossain, M.S.; Mekhilef, S. A review on biomass as a fuel for boilers. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 2262–2289. [CrossRef]
22. Qian, X. Statistical Analysis and Evaluation of the Advanced Biomass and Natural Gas Co-Combustion Performance. Ph.D.
Thesis, Morgan State University, Baltimore, MD, USA, 2019.
23. Lynch, D.; Henihan, A.M.; Bowen, B.; Lynch, D.; McDonnell, K.; Kwapinski, W.; Leahy, J.J. Utilisation of poultry litter as an
energy feedstock. Biomass Bioenergy 2013, 49, 197–204. [CrossRef]
24. Zhu, S.; Lee, S.W. Co-combustion performance of poultry wastes and natural gas in the advanced Swirling Fluidized Bed
Combustor (SFBC). Waste Manag. 2005, 25, 511–518. [CrossRef]
25. Si, Q.; Xia, Q.; Liang, L.H.; Li, D.X. Investigation of heat transfer and flow resistance on twisted tube heat exchanger. J. Chem. Ind.
Eng. (China) 1995, 46, 601–608.
26. Davarpanah, A.; Zarei, M.; Valizadeh, K.; Mirshekari, B. CFD design and simulation of ethylene dichloride (EDC) thermal
cracking reactor. Energ. Sources Part A 2019, 41, 1573–1587. [CrossRef]
27. Valizadeh, K.; Farahbakhsh, S.; Bateni, A.; Zargarian, A.; Davarpanah, A.; Alizadeh, A.; Zarei, M. A parametric study to simulate
the non-Newtonian turbulent flow in spiral tubes. Energy Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 134–149. [CrossRef]
28. Wang, W.; Shuai, Y.; Li, B.; Li, B.; Lee, K.S. Enhanced heat transfer performance for multi-tube heat exchangers with various tube
arrangements. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2021, 168, 120905. [CrossRef]
29. Qian, X.; Yang, Y.; Lee, S.W. Design and Evaluation of the Lab-Scale Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger (STHE) for Poultry Litter to
Energy Production. Processes 2020, 8, 500. [CrossRef]
30. Qian, X.; Lee, S.; Chandrasekaran, R.; Yang, Y.; Caballes, M.; Alamu, O.; Chen, G. Electricity Evaluation and Emission Characteris-
tics of Poultry Litter Co-Combustion Process. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4116. [CrossRef]
31. Katsaros, G.; Sommersacher, P.; Retschitzegger, S.; Kienzl, N.; Tassou, S.A.; Pandey, D.S. Combustion of poultry litter and mixture
of poultry litter with woodchips in a fixed bed lab-scale batch reactor. Fuel 2021, 286, 119310. [CrossRef]
32. Kays, W.M.; Perkins, H.C. Handbook of Heat Transfer; Rohsenow, W.M., Hartnett, J.P., Eds.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1972.
33. Moran, M.J.; Shapiro, H.N.; Boettner, D.D.; Bailey, M.B. Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics; John Wiley & Sons: New
York, NY, USA, 2010.
34. Houshfar, E.; Skreiberg, Ø.; Løvås, T.; Todorović, D.; Sørum, L. Effect of excess air ratio and temperature on NOx emission from
grate combustion of biomass in the staged air combustion scenario. Energy Fuels 2011, 25, 4643–4654. [CrossRef]
35. Qian, X.; Lee, S.; Soto, A.-M.; Chen, G. Regression model to predict the higher heating value of poultry waste from proximate
analysis. Resources 2018, 7, 39. [CrossRef]