Al-Qadisiya Journal For Engineering Sciences Vol. 4 No.

1 Year 2011

PRESSURE DROP CONSTRAINTS IN SLUDGE DOUBLE-PIPE

HEAT EXCHANGER DESIGN
Dr. Amer D. Zmat
College of Engineering, University of Al-Qadisiyah
Email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT:
Recent years have witnessed a rapid development in the understanding of heat exchangers
design. Those developments have justified the use of a global minimum allowable temperature
approach under which the heat transfer area of the heat exchanger is minimized. Values of the
allowable pressure drops of streams of exchangers are specified to calculate film heat-transfer
coefficients of streams and heat-transfer area. By coupling this with the understanding of what
dictates the energy consumption, it is possible to determine the trade-off between the heat
exchanger capital cost and energy cost prior to design work. Pressure drop is an important issue in
the design of a heat exchanger. Pumps and (or) compressors must be installed to overcome pressure
losses when streams flow through heat exchangers. The total cost for a system of pumps and
compressors consists of the purchase cost of equipments and the electricity cost to run these
equipments. This cost could occupy a significant part of the overall cost for a heat exchanger.
Therefore, the pressure drop aspect should be considered together with the costs of heat exchanger
area.
This paper demonstrates how pressure drop is considered in the context of a sludge double-
pipe heat exchanger design. A relationship between heat transfer coefficient and heat exchanger
pressure drop was determined and its capital cost implications were assessed.
Keywords: Heat Exchanger design, Pressure drop constraints, heat exchanger costs.

‫ﻤﺤﺩﺩﺍﺕ ﻓﺭﻕ ﺍﻟﻀﻐﻁ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﻤﺒﺎﺩﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﻤﺄﺓ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺍﺭﻴﺔ ﻨﻭﻉ ﺍﻷﻨﺒﻭﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺯﺩﻭﺝ‬
‫ ﻋﺎﻤﺭ ﺩﺤﺎﻡ ﺯﻤﺎﻁ‬.‫ﺩ‬

‫ ﺠﺎﻤﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﺴﻴﺔ‬-‫ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺩﺴﺔ‬

:‫ﺍﻟﺨﻼﺼﺔ‬

‫ ﺘﻤﻴﺯﺕ ﻤﻌﻅﻤﻬﺎ ﺒﺎﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻤﻬﺎ ﻤﻔﻬﻭﻡ ﺃﺩﻨﻰ ﻓﺭﻕ‬.‫ﺸﻬﺩﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺨﻴﺭﺓ ﺘﻁﻭﺭ ﺴﺭﻴﻊ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺼﺎﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺩﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺍﺭﻴﺔ‬
‫ ﻭﻁﺒﻘﺎ ﻟﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﻁﺭﻴﻘﺔ ﻴﺘﻡ ﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﻗﻴﻡ ﻓﺭﻕ ﺍﻟﻀﻐﻁ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺒﻭل ﻟﺤﺴﺎﺏ‬.‫ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺠﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺍﺭﺓ ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻭل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻗل ﻤﺴﺎﺤﺔ ﺍﻨﺘﻘﺎل ﺤﺭﺍﺭﻱ‬
‫ﻤﻌﺎﻤل ﺍﻨﺘﻘﺎل ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺍﺭﺓ ﻭﻤﺴﺎﺤﺔ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﻘﺎل ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺍﺭﻱ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺭﺒﻁ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻁﺭﻴﻘﺔ ﻤﻊ ﺃﺴﻠﻭﺏ ﺤﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﺴﺘﻬﻼﻙ ﺍﻟﻁﺎﻗﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺩﻻﺕ‬
.‫ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺍﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺇﺠﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻀﻠﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﻜﻠﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺩل ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺍﺭﻱ ﻭﻜﻠﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻁﺎﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﺯﻤﺔ ﻟﺘﺸﻐﻴﻠﻪ ﻗﺒل ﻤﺭﺤﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺎﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺼﻴﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺤﻴﺙ ﺃﻥ ﻓﺭﻕ ﺍﻟﻀﻐﻁ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺩﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺍﺭﻴﺔ ﻴﻨﻌﻜﺱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻜﻠﻑ ﻤﻠﻤﻭﺴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺩﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺍﺭﻴﺔ ﺘﺘﻤﺜل ﺒﻜﻠﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﻀﺨﺎﺕ‬

472
Al-Qadisiya Journal For Engineering Sciences Vol. 4 No. 1 Year 2011

‫ ﻓﺎﻥ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻑ ﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻜﻠﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺩل ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺍﺭﻱ ﺘﻌﺘﺒﺭ‬،‫ﻭﺍﻟﺩﺍﻓﻌﺎﺕ ﻭﻜﻠﻑ ﺍﻟﻁﺎﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﺯﻤﺔ ﻟﺘﺸﻐﻴل ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﻤﻀﺨﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺩﺍﻓﻌﺎﺕ‬
.‫ﺃﻤﺭ ﻀﺭﻭﺭﻱ ﻭﻤﻬﻡ‬

‫ﻴﺴﺘﻌﺭﺽ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺙ ﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺘﻀﻤﻴﻥ ﻓﺭﻕ ﺍﻟﻀﻐﻁ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺒﺎﺩﻻﺕ ﺍﻷﻨﺒﻭﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺯﺩﻭﺝ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺩﻡ ﻟﺘﺴﺨﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺤﻤﺄﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺃﺤﻭﺍﺽ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻬﻀﻡ ﻀﻤﻥ ﻤﺭﺤﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺇﻴﺠﺎﺩ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﻤﻌﺎﻤل ﺍﻨﺘﻘﺎل ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺍﺭﺓ ﻭﻓﺭﻕ ﺍﻟﻀﻐﻁ ﻭﺘﻘﻴﻴﻡ ﺍﻨﻌﻜﺎﺱ ﺫﻟﻙ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻔﺔ‬
.‫ﺍﻟﻤﺜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺒﺎﺩل ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺍﺭﻱ‬

INTRODUCTION:
The heat transfer rate of heat exchanger streams can be improved by generating turbulent
flow (breaking the viscous and thermal boundary layers), but the pumping power may increase
significantly and ultimately the pumping cost becomes high. Swirl flow devices for example, a
twisted-tape [1-3], a wire-coil inserts, and tangential injection devices [4] impart a tangential
velocity component to the fluid that increases the turbulence of the flow and consequently the heat-
transfer coefficient. Double pipe heat exchanger is considered to be most reliable among other
types of heat exchangers. It usually requires minimal maintenance. It is widely used for critical
heating or cooling of slurries and high viscosity liquids. Sludge is one example of those high
viscosity liquids. Sludge heat exchangers are used to heat sludge at inlet of anaerobic digesters.
These exchangers are clog free and easy to wash from sludge encrusting. This is the result of having
pipe completely straight and easy to dismantle. Besides to the previous advantages (suitable for
severe fouling conditions), double pipe heat exchangers suffer a shortcoming of small heat transfer
area (up to 50 m2) and high pressure. The great attempt on utilizing different methods is to increase
the heat transfer rate through compulsory force convection. In general, enhancing the heat transfer
can be divided into two groups. One is the passive method, without stimulation by the external
power such as a surface coating, rough surfaces, extended surfaces, swirl flow devices, the
convoluted (twisted) tube, additives for liquid and gases. The other is the active method, which
requires extra external power sources, for example, mechanical aids, surface-fluid vibration,
injection and suction of the fluid, jet impingement, and use of electrostatic fields. Whitham [5]
published his work on heat transfer enhancement by means of twisted-tape way back at the end of
the nineteenth century. Koch [6] indicated that in turbulent flow, inserting of a twisted-tape
increases the heat transfer, but the pressure drop also increases significantly. Kumar and Bharadwaj
[7] obtained theoretically the heat transfer and pressure drop correlations using the Kreith and Sonju
[8] solution for the velocity vector, which decays along the axis of the tube. Huang and Tsou [9]
studied free swirl flow in a pipe. Aydin [10] investigated heat transfer and pressure drop in a
concentric heat exchanger with turbulent decaying swirl flow. Liao and Xing [11] reported
experimental data on the compound heat transfer enhancement technique and concluded that the
enhancement of heat transfer in a tube with three dimensional internal extended surfaces by
replacing continuous twisted-tape with almost segmented twisted-tape inserts results in a decrease
in the friction factor but with a comparatively small decrease in the Stanton number. The Stanton
number is defined as the ratio of heat transfer rate to the enthalpy difference and is a measure of the
heat transfer coefficient. In the present study, pressure drop across sludge double pipe heat
exchanger has been related to heat transfer coefficient, so its cost implications on capital cost are
readily assessed. Therefore, it is convenient to consider the optimization of pressure drops instead
of specifying fixed allowable pressure drops in the targeting stage. Both inner and outer pipes of the
double pipe heat exchanger were assumed to follow the Dittus- Boelter equation.

473
Al-Qadisiya Journal For Engineering Sciences Vol. 4 No. 1 Year 2011

MATHEMATICAL MODELING:

For allowable pressure drop to be considered in design optimization, a relationship between

heat transfer coefficient and exchanger pressure drop was developed. The film heat transfer
coefficient is given by the Dittus-Boelter equation:

Nu = 0.023 Re 0.8 Pr 3 ………….…………………………………………………. (1)

Where:
Nu : Nusselt number.
Re : Reynolds number.
Pr : Prandtl number.

ρud 0.8 µCp 3

1
hd
= 0.023( ) ( ) ………………………………………………………. (2)
k µ k
Where:
h : Convective heat transfer coefficient.
d : Pipe diameter.
ρ : Fluid density.
µ : Fluid viscosity.
Cp : Specific heat.
k : Conductive heat transfer coefficient.
u : Fluid flow velocity.

ρd 0.8 µCp 3 k 0.8

1

h = 0.023( ) ( ) ( )u ………………………………………….………. (3)

µ k d

1
1
h = 0.023ρ 0.8 (Cp ) 3 k 0.67 u 0.8 ………………………….………………… (4)
µ d
0.47
0.2

For average flow conditions of double pipe heat exchanger, thermal and flow properties can be
assumed constants. Therefore:

h = c1u 0.8 ……….………………………………….……………………………… (5)

Where:

1
1
c1 = 0.023ρ 0.8
(Cp ) 3
k 0.67
µ d
0.47
0.2

Equation (5) clearly shows that heat transfer is directly proportional to fluid velocity raised to (0.8).
C1 is a constant and its value depends on thermal and flow properties.
The pressure drop through the pipe is given by the fanning equation:

474
Al-Qadisiya Journal For Engineering Sciences Vol. 4 No. 1 Year 2011

l
∆p = 2 f ( ) ρu 2 …………………………………………..……………………….. (6)
d
Where:
∆p : Pressure drop.
f : Friction factor.
l : Pipe length.

The friction factor is given by the Blasius equation:

f = 0.046 Re −0.2 ………………………………………...………………………….. (7)

Substituting equation (7) into equation (6):

ρud −0.2 l
∆p = 0.092( ) ( ) ρu 2 …………………………………….………………… (8)
µ d

∆p = 0.092 ρ 0.8 d −1.2 µ 0.2 lu 1.8 ……….………………………………………………. (9)

Again for average flow conditions of double pipe heat exchanger, thermal and flow properties can
be assumed constants. Therefore:

∆p = c 2 lu 1.8 ……………………………………………………………………… (10)

Where:
c 2 = 0.092 ρ 0.8 d −1.2 µ 0.2

Equation (10) clearly shows that pressure drop across double pipe heat exchanger are directly
proportional to the velocity of fluid raised to (1.8). This relation reflects the higher sensitivity of
pressure drop to fluid velocity than the heat transfer coefficient. The velocity of fluid can be
expressed in terms of its volumetric flow rate:

4V
u= …………………………………………………………………………. (11)
πd 2
Where:
V : Volumetric flow rate.

The heat transfer area is given by:

A = πdl ………………………………………………………………………….. (12)

Where:
A: Heat transfer area.

Multiplying equation (11) by equation (12) yields:

4V 4Vl
Au = πdl = ……………………………………………………………. (13)
πd 2 d

475
Al-Qadisiya Journal For Engineering Sciences Vol. 4 No. 1 Year 2011

d
l= Au ………………………………………………………………………. (14)
4V

Substituting for l in equation (10) from equation (14):

d
∆p = c 2 Au 2.8 ………………………………………………………………... (15)
4V

∆p = c 2 c 3 Au 2.8 ………………………………………………………………... (16)

Where:
d
c3 =
4V

Equations (16) and (5) show both pressure drop and heat transfer coefficient are functions of fluid
flow velocity. From equation (5):

h
u 0.8 = ……………………..…………………………………………………… (17)
c1

h1.25
u= 1.25
…………………...………………………………….………………… (18)
c1

Substituting for u from equation (18) into equation (16):

h1.25 2.8 c 2 c3
∆p = c 2 c3 A( ) = 3.5 Ah 3.5 ………...……………………………………… (19)
c11.25 c1

Equation (19) shows that pressure drop across double pipe heat exchanger is related to heat
transfer coefficient, so the augmentation of heat transfer coefficient through turbulence effect is
directly reflected on pressure drop increase and consequently on energy consumption cost. As heat
transfer coefficient increases, heat transfer area decreases and heat exchanger capital cost will be
reduced accordingly. Both heat transfer area and energy consumption costs were estimated using
Aspen correlations. Both costs were directly expressed in terms of heat transfer coefficient.

Q
A= ………………………………………………………………………. (20)
h∆T
Where:
Q : Heat flow rate.
∆T : Temperature difference.
Q 2.5
∆p = c 4 h ………………………….………………………………………. (21)
∆T
Where:
c 2 c3
c4 =
c13.5
Equations (20) and (21) demonstrate the dependence of both heat transfer area and pressure
drop on heat transfer coefficient. It is clearly seen that heat transfer area is inversely proportional to
heat transfer coefficient while pressure drop is directly proportional to it. Therefore, the
476
Al-Qadisiya Journal For Engineering Sciences Vol. 4 No. 1 Year 2011

augmentation of heat transfer coefficient leads to considerable reduction in heat transfer area (heat
exchanger capital cost), at the same time, this augmentation will cause an increase in pressure drop
across the exchanger (energy consumption cost). These costs are expressed using Aspen
Correlations [12] as:

Q 2
CC = k1 A2 = k1 ( ) ………………………………...………………………… (22)
h∆T
Where:
CC : Heat exchanger capital cost.
k1 : Constant depends on material of construction.

Q 2.5 Q 2.5
EC = k2 ∆p = k2 c 4 h = k3 h …………………….……………………. (23)
∆T ∆T
Where:
EC : Energy consumption cost of heat exchanger.
k3 : Constant depends on fluid properties and geometry.

The main characteristics of a double pipe heat exchanger that used to heat a domestic wastewater
sludge in an anaerobic digester is shown in Table (1).
The schematic representation of a sludge double pipe heat exchanger is shown in Figure (1).
A countercurrent scheme is adopted for this investigation study as shown in the figure.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:

Table (2) presents the dependency of heat transfer coefficient (h), heat transfer area (A) and
pressure drop across sludge pipe ( ∆ P) on the sludge stream velocity. It clearly shows that the
increase of heat transfer coefficient is approximately linear function of the sludge stream velocity.
This increase reflects oppositely on heat transfer area and directly on pressure drop. The heat
transfer area decreases linearly while the pressure drop increases in exponent behavior.

Table (3) shows the capital cost (CC) of the double pipe heat exchanger as a function of the
heat transfer area. The cost shown in the table represents the purchase cost of the heat exchanger
only.

Table (4) indicates the yearly pumping energy consumption cost (EC) of the sludge stream
as a function of pressure drop. The table shows the steep increase in energy consumption cost as the
pressure drop increases.

Figures (2-7) schematically demonstrate the behavior of the main parameters of heat
exchanger (heat transfer coefficient, heat transfer area, pressure drop, capital cost, and pump energy
cost) in relation to sludge stream velocity. Figure (1) reflect the linearity of the relationship
between the heat transfer coefficient and the sludge stream velocity.
The little increase in heat transfer coefficient is reflected on heat transfer area as shown in Figure
(2) and on pressure drop in Figure (3). Figures (4-5) explain how capital cost drops and energy
cost escalates as velocity increases. The total cost of the heat exchanger is shown in Figure (6). It
can be seen that the optimum cost happens to be low velocities rather than high velocities.

477
Al-Qadisiya Journal For Engineering Sciences Vol. 4 No. 1 Year 2011

CONCLUSIONS:

Both heat transfer area and pressure drop across double pipe heat exchanger are related to
sludge stream velocity to specify the economic stream pressure drop ahead of design. It was
concluded that the reduction in heat transfer area due to velocity augmentation not necessarily
determines the minimum cost of double pipe heat exchanger. It was seen that stream pressure drop
dominates the cost of the heat exchanger beyond threshold stream velocity. This leads to the use of
the extended heat transfer area rather than the approach of inducing turbulence to augment the heat
transfer coefficient when exceed the threshold stream velocity.

REFERENCES:

[1] Date AW and Saha SK, "Numerical prediction of laminar flow and heat transfer in a tube fitted
with regularly spaced twisted-tape elements", International Journal Heat Fluid Flow, 1990, 11, 346-
354.
[2] Hong SW and Bergles AE, "Augmentation of laminar flow heat transfer in tubes by means of
twisted-tape inserts", International Journal Heat Transfer, 1976, 251-256.
[3] Kumar A and Prasad BN, "Investigation of twisted tape inserted solar water heaters-heat
transfer, friction factor and thermal performance results", Renewable Energy, 2000. 19, 379-398.
[4] Lepina RF and Bergles AE, "Heat transfer and pressure drop in tape-generated swirl flow of
single-phase water", ASME Journal Heat Transfer, 1969, 91, 434-442.
[5] Witham, J.M., "The effects of retarders in fire tubes of steam boilers", Street Railway Journal,
vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 374.
[6] Koch, R. 1958, "Pressure loss and heat transfer for turbulent flow", VDI-Forschungsheft, vol.
24, no. 469, pp. 11-44.
[7] Kumar, R. and Bharadwaj, R.K., 1979, "Heat transfer and pressure drop in decaying swirl flow
of water through a tube containing the twisted tape", Journal Instrument Engineering (India), vol.
60 (Part ME2), pp. 72-77.
[8] Kreith, F. and Sonju, O.K. 1965. The decay of a turbulent swirl flow in a pipe. Journal Fluid
Mechanics, vol. 22 (Part 2), pp. 257-271.
[9] Huang, F. and Tsou, F.K. 1979, "Friction and heat transfer in turbulence free swirl flow in
pipes", Transaction ASME, Journal Heat Transfer, 79-HT-39, pp. 1-9.
[10] Aydin Durmus, Ayla Durmus, M. Esen, "Investigation of heat transfer and pressure drop in a
concentric heat exchanger with snail entrance", Applied Thermal Engineering 22 (2002) 321–332.
[11] Liao, Q. and Xing, M.D., 2000, "Augmentation of convective heat transfer inside tubes with
three dimensional internal extended surfaces and twisted tape inserts", Chemical Engineering
Journal, vol. 78, pp. 95-105.
[12] Gravin P. Towler, R. K. Sinnot, " Aspen ICARUSTM", Chemical Engineering Design:
Principles, Practice and Economics of Plant.

478
Al-Qadisiya Journal For Engineering Sciences Vol. 4 No. 1 Year 2011

Table (1) Main characteristics of a sludge double pipe heat exchanger

Sludge inlet temperature 31 C0

Sludge outlet temperature 39 C0
Sludge flow rate 94 m3/h
Heat transfer rate 1129 KW
Heating fluid inlet temperature 65 C0
Heating fluid outlet temperature 50 C0
Heating fluid flow rate 50 m3/h

Table (2) relationship between sludge stream velocity and heat transfer coefficient,
heat transfer area and pressure drop.

u (m/s) h (w/m2 C) A (m2) ∆ P (N/m2)

0.5 1084.7 103 1398.3
1.0 1888.7 59.3 5608.4
1.5 2612.4 42.8 12615.2
2.0 3288.4 34 22393.8

Table (3) Capital cost of heat exchanger as a function of heat transfer area.

A (m2) CC ($)
103 232337
59.3 77011
42.8 40117
34 25316

Table (4) Sludge stream pumping cost as a function of pressure drop.

∆ P (N/m2) EC ($)
1398.3 75368.4
5608.4 302292.7
12615.2 679948.5
22393.8 1207025.8

Figure (1), Schematic representation of a sludge double pipe heat exchanger

479
Al-Qadisiya Journal For Engineering Sciences Vol. 4 No. 1 Year 2011

3500
3000

2500
h (w/m2 C)

2000
1500
1000

500
0
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1
u (m/s)

Figure (2) Relationship between heat transfer coefficient and sludge stream velocity.

120

100

80
A (m 2)

60

40

20

0
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1
u (m/s)

Figure (3) Relationship between heat transfer area and sludge stream velocity.

480
Al-Qadisiya Journal For Engineering Sciences Vol. 4 No. 1 Year 2011

25000

20000
P (N/m 2)

15000

10000

5000

0
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1
u (m/s)

Figure (4) Relationship between pressure drop and sludge stream velocity.

250000

200000

150000
CC ($)

100000

50000

0
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1
u (m/s)

Figure (5) Capital cost of heat exchanger decline in relation to stream velocity.

481
Al-Qadisiya Journal For Engineering Sciences Vol. 4 No. 1 Year 2011

1400000

1200000

1000000

800000
E C ($)

600000

400000

200000

0
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1
u (m/s)

Figure (6) Pump energy cost as a function of stream velocity.

1400000

1200000

1000000
CC ($)
800000
EC ($)
600000
SUM($)
400000

200000

0
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1
u (m /s)

Figure (7) Total cost of double pipe heat exchanger in relation to sludge stream velocity.

482