CFD ANALYSIS OF HELICAL TUBE HEAT EXCHANGER FOR WASTE HEAT RECOVERY APPLICATIONS

PRESENTED BY: KAPIL JIGDUNG

SCHOLAR NO. 08-2-2-103 M.TECH. THERMAL ENGINEERING

UNDER THE GUIDENCE OF Mr. D.H. DAS

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

BRIEF INTRODUCTION
The recovery of waste heat from exhaust gases has become a necessity due to the dwindling energy resources and production cost.

Heat recovery conserves energy, reduces the overall operating cost and thereby
reduces peak load. The core of a heat recovery system is the heat exchanger. Compact heat exchanger can be used for heat recovery purposes because of its several advantages over conventional type. They are used in applications where space is usually a premium such as in aircraft, steam generations in marine and industrial applications.

HEAT EXCHANGER
Heat exchangers are devices that facilitate heat transfer between two or more fluids at different temperature. Many types of Heat Exchangers have been developed for use at such varied level such as Steam power plant, Building heating, Air conditioning and so on.

CLASSIFICATION OF HEAT EXCHANGER Classification by Transfer process Classification according to compactness

Classification by construction type

Classification by Flow arrangement

TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION IN HEAT EXCHANGER

Condensing

TL Hot fluid TL To Cold fluid To Boiling Cold fluid To TL Hot fluid

Distance from inlet

Distance from inlet

Distance from inlet

(a). Uniform temperature difference or uniform heat flux

(b). Uniform surface temperature (as in a condenser)

(c). Uniform surface temperature (as in boiling)

contd./Hot fluid

Hot fluid

TL

To

TL

Cold fluid

To
Cold fluid

Distance from inlet

Distance from inlet

(d). Parallel flow heat exchanger

(e). Counter flow heat exchanger

Contd./-

Hot fluid in

Cold fluid in

Cold fluid out

Hot fluid out

Fig.1Temperature distribution in a cross-flow heat exchanger

HELICAL COIL TUBE HEAT EXCHANGER

Helical tube heat exchanger comes under the category of compact heat exchanger because of its compact configuration. Helically coiled tubes are superior to straight tubes when employed to heat transfer applications due to their compact structure and high heat transfer coefficient. Helical Coil Tube Heat Exchangers are used in a wide variety of application like Heat

Recovery system, air conditioning and refrigeration, Chemical reactor, food and dairy
process etc. There application is mainly in controlling the temperature of the reactors for exothermic reactions, in cryogenics and also in other heat transfer applications.

FLUID FLOW IN CURVED TUBES

when the fluid flows through a curved tube, the primary velocity profile is distorted by the addition of secondary flow pattern. The secondary flow is generated by centrifugal action and acts in a plane perpendicular to the primary flow. Since the velocity is maximum at the center, the fluid at the center is subjected to the maximum centrifugal action, which pushes the fluid towards the outer wall.

Fig. 2 Schematic of Helically coiled tubes and Secondary flow in enlarged cross-sectional view

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF HELICAL TUBE HEAT EXCHANGER

Advantages

Helical tube heat exchanger are more efficient.

Coils give better heat transfer performance, since they have lower wall resistance. A coil can provide a large surface area in a relatively small reactor volume. Disadvantages For highly reactive material or highly corrosive material coils cannot be used. Cleaning of vessels with coils becomes much difficult . Densely packed coils can create unmixed regions by interfering with fluid flow.

GEOMETRY OF SHELL AND COIL TUBE HEAT EXCHANGER

2Rc

In the figure, d is the diameter of coiled tube, D is the diameter of Shell, b is the coil pitch, Rc is the curvature radius of Coil. The important dimensionless parameter of coiled tube are Reynold number(Re), Nusselt number(Nu) and Dean number(De)

10

CONTD./For flow inside a circular tube, the turbulent flow is usually observed for,

However, this critical value is strongly dependent on the surface roughness, the inlet
condition and the fluctuation in the flow. In general, the transition may occur in the range 2000>Re>4000. The critical Reynold number for the transition from laminar to turbulent flow in helical coils is a function of the coil parameters. The critical Reynolds number may be determined using the correlation developed by Schmidt.

11

LITERATURE REVIEW
Sl. No. 1. Author D.J.Prabhanjan et al. Name of Paper Comparison of heat transfer rate between a straight tube and Helical tube Heat Exchanger.
International communication in heat and mass transfer, vol. 29, pp. 185-191.

2.

M.R. Salimpour

Heat transfer coefficient of Shell and Coil tube heat exchanger. Experimental Thermal and Fluid
Science 33 (2009) 203-207.

3.

M.R. Salimpour

Heat transfer characteristic of temperaturedependent- property fluid in shell and coiled tube heat exchangers. International communication in heat and mass transfer 35 (2008) 1190-1195.

Contd./Sl. No.
4.

Author
W. Witchayanuwat et al.

Name of Paper
Heat transfer coefficient for particulate Airflow in shell and Coiled tube heat exchangers. World academy of science, Engineering and technology 53 2009. Experimental investigation of shell and coiled tube heat exchangers using Wilson plots. International communication in heat and mass transfer 35 (2008), 84-92. A review of flow and heat transfer characteristics in curved tubes. Renewable and sustainable Energy Reviews 10 (2006) 463-490.

5.

H. Shokouhmand et al.

6.

Paisarn Naphon at al.

7.

Paisarn Naphon

Thermal performance and pressure drop of the helically coiled heat exchangers with and without helically crimped fins. (2006).
13

Contd./Sl. No.
8.

Author
Paisarn Naphon et al.

Name of Paper
Effect of curvature ratios on the heat transfer and flow developments in the horizontal spirally coiled tubes. International journal of heat and mass transfer, vol. 50, issues 3-4, Feb. 2007, pp. 444-451. An experimental investigation regarding the laminar to turbulent flow transition in helically coiled pipes. Experimental Thermal and Fluid science 30 (2006) 367-380. Heat transfer in tube coils with laminar and turbulent flow. International journal of heat and mass transfer, vol. 6, pp. 387-395. Pressure drop, Heat transfer and Performance of a helically coiled tabular exchanger. Heat recovery system and CHP vol. 9, pp. 249-256, 1989.
14

9.

Andrea Cioncolini et al.

10.

R.A. Seban et al.

11.

B.V.S.S.S. Prasad et al.

Contd./Sl. No. 12. Author J.S. Jayakumar et al. Name of Paper Experimental and CFD estimation of heat transfer in helically coiled heat exchangers.

13.

J.S. Jayakumar et al.

CFD analysis of single phase flows through helical coils. Computers and chemical engineering (2008).

14.

Rahul Kharat et al.

Development of heat transfer coefficient correlation for concentric helical coil heat exchanger. International journal of Thermal Sciences 48 (2009) 2300-2308.
15

OBJECTIVES OF THE PRESENT WORK

To perform a CFD analysis of Helical tube heat exchanger using FLUENT 6.2.16 and GAMBIT software.

To see the effect on temperature rise and pressure drop along the length of the
helical tube and shell. To develop a correlation for inside tube heat transfer coefficient for turbulent regime. To perform an experimental analysis of Helical Tube Heat Exchanger. Comparison of experimental results with the CFD calculation results.

16

FLUENT 6.2.16
FLUENT is an CFD software which simulates a computational model using Finite Volume Method (FVM).

FLUENT modeling and analysis are done in two steps:

GAMBIT modeling. FLUENT analysis.

BASIC APPROACH TO USING FLUENT

Pre-processor: Establishing the model Solver Post processor: Interpreting the results

17

Set the solution parameter Initialize the solution

Enable the solution monitor of interest Enable the solution monitor ofterest

Calculate the solution Modify solution parameter of grid Check for convergence Yes Check for accuracy No

Yes

No

Stop

Fig.3 Algorithm of Numerical approach used by simulation software

18

Domain geometry and grid display Vector plots Post processing Line and shaded contour plots 2D and 3D surface plots Particle tracking

Fig.4 CFD data visualization tools

19

20

Table 1: Dimensions of helically coiled heat exchanger

1.

Inner diameter of tube

6.25 mm

2.
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Outer diameter of tube

Coil diameter Length of tube Surface area of tube Length of shell Diameter of shell Free length of coil

6.35 mm
165 mm 11.362 m 0.227 m2 1.2 m 0.3 m 0.97 m

9.
10.

Number of turns of coil

Pitch

22
4.57 cm

21

HELICAL TUBE MODELING

Fig.5 Helical tube A 2D circular face has been extended in a particular direction by twisting at an angle of 360 twenty two times in order to form a 3D helical tube.

22

Contd./-

MODELING THE SHELL

Fig.6 shell

23

Contd./-

ASSEMBLYING HELICAL TUBE AND SHELL

Fig.7 3D outline view of helical tube and shell

24

DEFINING BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Inlet condition for tube side fluid Temperature: 26C Velocity: 0.5m/s Turbulent intensity: 5.6% Hydraulic diameter: 0.635cm Inlet condition for shell side fluid Temperature: 120C Velocity: 0.3m/s Turbulent intensity: 5.7% Hydraulic diameter: 1.6 cm

Outlet condition for tube side fluid Temperature: 300K Gauge Pressure: 0 Pa Turbulent intensity: 5.6% Hydraulic diameter: 0.635 cm

Outlet condition for shell side fluid Temperature: 300K Gauge Pressure: 0 Pa Turbulent intensity: 5.7% Hydraulic diameter: 1.6 cm

Wall boundary condition Coupled, wall thickness: 0.01 cm Wall motion: Stationary wall Shear condition: No slip

Wall boundary condition Wall thickness: 0.4 cm Wall motion: Stationary wall Shear condition: No slip

25

CONTD./-

Inlet condition for tube side fluid Temperature: 26C Velocity: 0.75m/s Turbulent intensity: 5.2% Hydraulic diameter: 0.635cm

Inlet condition for tube side fluid Temperature: 26C Velocity: 1m/s Turbulent intensity: 5.1% Hydraulic diameter: 0.635cm

Outlet condition for tube side fluid Temperature: 300K Pressure: 0 Pa Turbulent intensity: 5.2% Hydraulic diameter: 0.635 cm All other conditions remain same as in case I.

Outlet condition for tube side fluid Temperature: 300K Pressure: 0 Pa Turbulent intensity: 5.1% Hydraulic diameter: 0.635 cm All other conditions remain same as in case I.

26

CONTD./-

Inlet condition for tube side fluid Temperature: 26C Velocity: 1.75m/s Turbulent intensity: 4.7% Hydraulic diameter: 0.635cm

Inlet condition for tube side fluid Temperature: 26C Velocity: 2m/s Turbulent intensity: 4.7% Hydraulic diameter: 0.635cm

Outlet condition for tube side fluid Temperature: 300K Pressure: 0 Pa Turbulent intensity: 4.7% Hydraulic diameter: 0.635 cm All other conditions remain same as in case I.

Outlet condition for tube side fluid Temperature: 300K Pressure: 0 Pa Turbulent intensity: 4.7% Hydraulic diameter: 0.635 cm All other conditions remain same as in case I.

27

CONTD./-

Inlet condition for tube side fluid Temperature: 26C Velocity: 2.5m/s Turbulent intensity: 4.5% Hydraulic diameter: 0.635cm

Inlet condition for tube side fluid Temperature: 26C Velocity: 3m/s Turbulent intensity: 4.4% Hydraulic diameter: 0.635cm

Outlet condition for tube side fluid Temperature: 300K Pressure: 0 Pa Turbulent intensity: 4.5% Hydraulic diameter: 0.635 cm All other conditions remain same as in case I.

Outlet condition for tube side fluid Temperature: 300K Pressure: 0 Pa Turbulent intensity: 4.4% Hydraulic diameter: 0.635 cm All other conditions remain same as in case I.

28

SOLUTION SPECIFICATION
Solver : Segregated Gradient option : Cell based Model : Standard k- turbulence Turbulence specification method : Intensity and hydraulic diameter Convergence criteria Continuity : 0.01 X- velocity : 0.001 Y-velocity : 0.001 Z- velocity : 0.001 Energy : 1.0e-05 Turbulent kinetic energy : 0.0001 Turbulent dissipation rate : 0.0001

29

GRID INDEPENDENCE TEST

Sl.no. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

No. of nodes 157848 179010 190038 209686 215050

Nusselt number 4.7 7.1 6.9 8.2 8.2

9 8 209686, 8.2 179010, 7.1 7 6 5 4 3 2 140000 150000 160000 170000 180000 190000 200000 210000 220000 190038, 6.9 215050, 8.2

Inner Nusselt Number

157848, 4.7

No. of Nodes
30

TUBE SIDE FLUID VELOCITY 0.5 m/s

Fig. 8Temperature contour of helical tube

Fig.9 XY plot of total temperature

Fig.10 XY plot of pressure drop

31

SHELL SIDE FLUID VELOCITY 0.3 m/s

Fig.11 Temperature contour of shell

Fig.12 XY plot of total temperature

Fig.13 XY plot of pressure drop

32

TUBE SIDE FLUID VELOCITY 0.75 m/s, SHELL SIDE FLUID VELOCITY 0.3 m/s

Fig.14 Temperature contour of helical tube

Fig.15 Temperature contour of shell

33

TUBE SIDE FLUID VELOCITY 1 m/s, SHELL SIDE FLUID VELOCITY 0.3 m/s

Fig. Temperature contour of helical tube

Fig. Temperature contour of shell

34

TUBE SIDE FLUID VELOCITY 1.75 m/s, SHELL SIDE FLUID VELOCITY 0.3 m/s

Fig. Temperature contour of helical tube

Fig. Temperature contour of shell

35

TUBE SIDE FLUID VELOCITY 2 m/s, SHELL SIDE FLUID VELOCITY 0.3 m/s

Fig. Temperature contour of helical tube

Fig. Temperature contour of shell

36

TUBE SIDE FLUID VELOCITY 2.5 m/s, SHELL SIDE FLUID VELOCITY 0.3 m/s

Fig.16 Temperature contour of helical tube

Fig.17 Temperature contour of shell

37

TUBE SIDE FLUID VELOCITY 3 m/s, SHELL SIDE FLUID VELOCITY 0.3 m/s

Fig.18 Temperature contour of helical tube

Fig.19 Temperature contour of shell

38

39

TUBE SIDE CFD DATA FROM FLUENT ANALYSIS

Inner tube heat transfer coefficient (hi) (W/m2K) Outer tube heat transfer coefficient (ho) (W/m2K) Overall heat transfer coefficient (U) (W/m2K)

Sl. no.

Velocity (m/s)

Inlet Outlet Mean temperature temperature temperature (K) (K) (K)

1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

0.50
0.75 1.00 1.75 2.00 2.50 3.00

299
299 299 299 299 299 299

337
334.4 332.5 328.8 328 326.2 324.8

318.0
316.7 315.8 313.9 313.5 312.6 311.9

832
1059 1106 1412 2187 2353 2943

37.7
38.8 39.3 42.9 51.5 53.2 60.0

36.6
37.4 38.0 41.6 50.3 52.0 58.8

40

SHELL SIDE CFD DATA FROM FLUENT ANALYSIS

Inlet temperature (K) 393 393 393 393 393 Outlet temperature (K) 368 367.6 367.6 366.3 365.9 Mean temperature (K) 380.5 380.3 380.3 379.7 379.5

Sl.no.

Velocity (m/s)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

6.
7.

0.3
0.3

393
393

365.4
365

379.2
379.0

41

TUBE AND SHELL SIDE REYNOLD NUMBER

Tube side Sl.no. Reynold no. 5104 7513 9513 16854 Dean no. 993 1462 1851 3280 Nusselt no. 8.2 10.5 11.0 14.0 Prandtl no. 4.01 4.09 4.16 4.28 Reynold no. 3770 3774 3774 3784

Shell side Nusselt no. 7.6 7.8 7.9 8.7 Prandt l no. 0.7096 0.7097 0.7097 0.7098

1. 2. 3. 4.

5.
6. 7.

19156
23532 29984

3728
4580 5836

21.7
23.4 29.4

4.31
4.39 4.49

3788
3793 3796

10.4
10.8 12.1

0.7099
0.7099 0.7100

42

319 318 Mean Temperature (K) 317 316 315 314 313 312 311 0 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Velocity (m/s) Inner tube heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K)

Fig.20 Mean Temperature (K) V/S Velocity (m/s)

Fig.21 Inner tube heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K)V/S Velocity (m/s)

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Velocity (m/s)

43

3800

3790

Reynold number

3780

3770

3760 378.8

379

379.2

379.4

379.6

379.8

380

380.2

380.4

380.6

Mean temperature (K)

Fig.22 Reynold number V/S Mean temperature (K)

44

Sl.no

Cp of cold Cp of hot flow (J/kgK) flow (J/kgK) 4179.25 4178.93 4178.70 4178.23 4178.13 4178.00 4178.00 1009.75 1009.73 1009.73 1009.67 1009.65 1009.62 1009.60

Heat capacity of cold flow (Cc) (W/K) 63.60 95.40 127.30 223.00 254.90 318.70 382.50

Heat capacity of hot flow (Ch) (W/K) 19.85 19.87 19.87 19.90 19.91 19.92 19.93

Capacity ratio (C) 0.312 0.208 0.156 0.089 0.078 0.063 0.052

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

45

EFFECTIVENESS OF HEAT EXCHANGER

Overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K) 36.6 37.4 38.0 41.6 50.3 52.0 58.8

Sl.no. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

NTU 0.419 0.427 0.434 0.475 0.573 0.593 0.670

Effectiveness (%) 32.5 33.5 34.3 37.2 42.9 44.1 48.2

46

DEVELOPMENT OF CORRELATION FOR INSIDE TUBE HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT Based on the nature of correlation available in the literature, Nusselt number for inside tube heat transfer can be represented in the form,

Nui = CDnimPrin
Where, C and m are unknown which are to be determined and index of the Prandtl number, n = 0.3 for cooling i.e wall temperature less than mean temperature n = 0.4 for heating i.e wall temperature more than mean temperature

Using Regression analysis, the following correlation was developed for estimating the Inside
tube Heat transfer coefficient. Nui = 0.038Dni0.686Pri0.4 993 Dn 5836

47

48

FLOW DIAGRAM OF HELICAL TUBE HEAT EXCHANGER

Cold water inlet Rotameter

Thermometer Pitometer Coiled tube heat exchanger Thermocouple Exhaust gas outlet

Exhaust gas inlet Thermocouple Thermometer

Hot water outlet

49

Fig.24 Experimental set-up showing inlet and outlet section of shell

50

Fig.26 Pitometer

FIG.25 EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP

51

FIG.27 DIESEL ENGINE

52

53

TUBE AND SHELL SIDE EXPERIMENTAL DATA

Sl.no. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Flow meter (LPM) 0.95 1.45 1.80 2.80 3.30 Pitometer reading (mm of H2O) 8 8 8 8 8 Velocity (m/s) 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.50 1.75 Inlet Outlet Mean Pressure temperature temperature temperature drop (cm of (K) (K) (K) Hg) 299 299 299 299 299 329 326 324 320 317 314.0 312.5 311.5 309.5 308.0 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.8 7.0

Sl.no.

Velocity (m/s) 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38

Inlet Outlet Mean temperature temperature temperature (K) (K) (K) 393 393 393 393 393 353 351 348 345 343 373.0 372.0 370.5 369.0 368.0

Pressure drop (mm of H2O) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

54

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

CONTD./-

Tube side

Shell side Prandtl no. 4.274 4.407 4.541 4.809 5.010 Reynol d no. 3903 3921 3948 3975 3993 Nusselt no. 7.25 7.28 7.31 7.34 7.36 Prandtl no. 0.7111 0.7113 0.7116 0.7119 0.7122

Sl.no.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Reynold Dean no. no. 5123 7041 9793 13055 14695 997 1370 1906 2541 2860

Nusselt no. 7.4 9.8 12.4 15.4 17.0

Sl.no. 1. 2. 3.

Inner tube heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K) 1017 1315 1642

Outer tube heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K) 35.36 35.38 35.41

Overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K) 34.17 34.45 34.66

4.
5.

2012
2204

35.44
35.46

34.83
35.00
55

Sl.no.

Cp of cold flow (J/kgK)

Cp of hot flow (J/kgK)

Heat capacity of cold flow (Cc) (W/K)

Heat capacity of hot flow (Ch) (W/K)

Heat capacity (C)

1.

4178.25

1009.0

63.71

20.23

0.318

2.

4178.00

1008.9

95.73

20.28

0.212

3.

4178.00

1008.8

127.67

20.36

0.159

4.

4178.00

1008.6

191.61

20.44

0.107

5.

4178.00

1008.5

223.63

20.49

0.088

56

CONTD./Sl.no. Overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K) 34.17 34.45 34.66 34.83 35.00 NTU Effectiveness (%)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

0.383 0.385 0.386 0.387 0.388

30.3 30.9 31.2 31.6 31.7

57

COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CFD RESULTS

CFD

Experimental

Mean Temperature (K)

75 65

55
45 35 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

Fig.28 Mean temperature (K) V/S Mass flow rate (kg/s)

Mass flow rate (kg/s)

CFD 25

Experimental

Nusselt Number

20 15 10 5 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Fig.29 Comparison of Nusselt number

Dean Number
58

CONTD./CFD Inner tube heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K)

2300

2100
1900 1700 1500 1300

1100
900 700 500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Experimental Inner tube heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K)

Fig.30 CFD and Experimental inner tube heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K)

25 CFD Inner tube nusselt number 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25

Fig.31 CFD and Experimental Nusselt number

Experimental Inner tube nusselt number

59

100 90 80

70
Effectiveness (%) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

0.5

1.5

2
NTU

2.5

3.5

Counter-flow

Experimental

CFD

Fig.32 Effectiveness (%) V/S NTU

60

CONCLUSION
The results from both the analysis (computational and experimental) appear to be in good agreement and as such the correlation so developed for helical tube heat exchanger and the turbulence model used therein can be said to be applicable for helical configurations. There is an augmentation of heat transfer coefficient on helical coil. This happens due to secondary flow thereby causing greater amount of turbulence in the coil. The pressure drop in the coil is very high thereby making the necessity of large pumping

power. It is recommended to use shorter length of coil.

Pressure drop in the shell being very low, there exists no back pressure and hence there is no effect on working in the engine. The NTU value of the helical coil has been reasonably low thereby justifying the name compact. The effectiveness of the helical tube heat exchanger is quite comparable with other conventional heat exchanger design.
61

FUTURE SCOPE
CFD analysis was carried out using standard k- model. Applicability of other k- model in the case of flow through helical coil needs to be investigated. Due to the restriction in the present experimental set-up, the effect of Nusselt number, by varying the pitch of the coil can be observed using CFD. The analysis can also be carried out by varying the tube to coil diameter ratio. The analysis can be further extended by considering the effect of using temperature

dependent thermal and transport properties of the heat medium.

62

REFERENCES
[1] D.G. Prabhanjan, G.S.V. Raghavan and T.J. Rennie, Comparison of heat transfer rates between a straight tube heat exchanger and helically coiled heat exchanger. International communication in heat and mass transfer, vol. 29, pp. 185-191. [2] M.R. Salimpour, Heat transfer coefficient of Shell and coiled tube heat exchangers. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 33 (2009) 203-207. [3] M.R. Salimpour, Heat transfer characteristic of temperature-dependent- property fluid in shell and coiled tube heat exchangers. International communication in heat and mass transfer 35 (2008) 1190-1195. [4] W. Witchayanuwat and S. Kheawhom, Heat transfer coefficient for particulate Airflow in shell and Coiled tube heat exchangers. World academy of science, Engineering and technology 53 2009. [5] H. Shokouhmand, M.R. Salimpour and M.A. Akhavan-Behabadi, Experimental investigation of shell and coiled tube heat exchangers using Wilson plots. International communication in heat and mass transfer 35 (2008), 84-92. [6] Paisarn Naphon, Somchai Wongwises, A review of flow and heat transfer characteristics in curved tubes. Renewable and sustainable Energy Reviews 10 (2006) 463-490. [7] Paisarn Naphon, Thermal performance and pressure drop of the helically coiled heat exchangers with and without helically crimped fins. (2006).

63

CONTD./[8] Paisarn Naphon and Jamnean Suwagrai, Effect of curvature ratios on the heat transfer and flow developments in the horizontal spirally coiled tubes. International journal of heat and mass transfer, vol. 50, issues 3-4, Feb. 2007, pp. 444-451. [9] Andrea Cioncolini, LorenzoSantini, An experimental investigation regarding the laminar to turbulent flow transition in helically coiled pipes. Experimental Thermal and Fluid science 30 (2006) 367-380. [10] R.A. Seban, E.F. Mclaughlin, Heat transfer in tube coils with laminar and turbulent flow. International journal of heat and mass transfer, vol. 6, pp. 387-395. [11] B.V.S.S.S. Prasad, D.H. Das and A.K. Prabhakar, Pressure drop, Heat transfer and Performance of a helically coiled

tabular exchanger. Heat recovery system and CHP vol. 9, pp. 249-256, 1989.
[12] J.S. Jayakumar, S.M. Mahajani, J.C. Mandal, P.K. Vijayan, Rohidas Bhoi, Experimental and CFD estimation of heat transfer in helically coiled heat exchangers. [13] J.S. Jayakumar, S.M. Mahajani, J.C. Mandal, P.K. Vijayan, Kannan N Iyer, CFD analysis of single phase flows through helical coils. Computers and chemical engineering (2008). [14] Rahul Kharat, Nitin Bhardwaj, R.S. Jha, Development of heat transfer coefficient correlation for concentric helical coil heat exchanger. International journal of Thermal Sciences 48 (2009) 2300-2308. [15] Anderson J.D., Computational fluid dynamics, International Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995.

64

CONTD./[16] Fluent User Guide, Fluent Inc. January 11, 2005. [17] Amarvir chilka, Ashish kulkarni, Modeling turbulent flows in Fluent, product version 6.1. [18] http:\\www.en.wikipedia.org\wiki\computational fluid dynamics. [19] M. Necati zisik, Heat Transfer- A basic approach. McGraw-Hill International Editions, pp. 524-566. [20] J.P. Holman, Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill edition. [21] C P Kothandaraman, S Subramanyan, Heat and Mass Transfer data book, Fifth edition. New age international publishers. [22] Fuel economy in furnaces and waste heat recovery-PCRA.

65

NOMENCLATURE
A Am C R h U CFD b k d Rc D dh v Re De Pr Nu area of heat transfer (m2) logarithmic mean area (m2) heat capacity (W/K) total thermal resistance from inside to outside flow (C/W) heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K) overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K) Computational Fluid Dynamics pitch thermal conductivity (W/m2K) tube diameter (m) curvature radius of coil (m) shell diameter (m) hydraulic diameter (m) fluid velocity (m/s) Reynold number Dean number Prandtl number Nusselt number
66

CONTD./Greek letters k Turbulent kinetic energy (m2/s2) Turbulent dissipation rate (m2/s2)

Effectiveness
viscosity (kg/m-s) density (kg/m3)

Subscripts i o min max inside condition outside condition minimum maximum

67

PUBLICATION
Kapil Jigdung and D.H. Das, CFD modeling and heat transfer analysis of helical tube heat exchanger using FLUENT package: Accepted and will be presented in the National Conference on Modeling and Simulation in Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, June 11-12, 2010, NIT Jamshedpur, India.

68

69