International Journal of Food

Engineering
Volume 4, Issue 1 2008 Article 4

Heat Transfer Coefficient in Helical Heat

Exchangers under Turbulent Flow Conditions

Pablo Coronel K.P. Sandeep

North Carolina State University, pcorone@unity.ncsu.edu

North Carolina State University, kp sandeep@ncsu.edu

Copyright 2008
c The Berkeley Electronic Press. All rights reserved.
 Heat Transfer Coefficient in Helical Heat
Exchangers under Turbulent Flow Conditions
Pablo Coronel and K.P. Sandeep

Abstract

This study involved the determination of convective heat transfer coefficient in both helical
and straight tubular heat exchangers under turbulent flow conditions. The experiments were con-
ducted in helical heat exchangers, with coils of two different curvature ratios (d/D = 0.114 and
0.078), and in straight tubular heat exchangers at various flow rates (1.89 x 104 - 6.31 x 104
m3 /s) and for different end-point temperatures (92 - 149 C). The results show that the overall heat
transfer coefficient (U) in the helical heat exchanger is much higher than that in straight tubular
heat exchangers. In addition, U was found to be larger in the coil of larger curvature ratio (d/D =
0.114) than in the coil of smaller curvature ratio (d/D = 0.078). The inside (hi ) and outside (ho )
convective heat transfer coefficients were determined based on the overall heat transfer coefficient
and a correlation to compute the inside convective heat transfer coefficient (hi ) as a function of
NRe , NP r , and d/D was developed.

KEYWORDS: heat transfer, helical heat exchanger

Support for the research undertaken here, resulting in the publication of Paper No. FSR 07-22
of the journal series of the Department of Food Science at NC State, Raleigh, NC 27695, from
VRC Co. and North Carolina Agricultural Research Service is gratefully acknowledged. The use
of trade names in this publication does not imply endorsement by the North Carolina Agricultural
Research Service of the products named nor criticism of similar ones not mentioned.
 Coronel and Sandeep: Heat Transfer in Helical Heat Exchangers

Introduction
Heat transfer in curved and helical circular tubes has been the subject of several
studies due to the relatively high heat transfer coefficients associated with them.
Flow in curved tubes is different from flow in straight tubes because of the
presence of centrifugal forces. The centrifugal forces generate a secondary flow,
normal to the primary direction of flow, with circulatory effects, that increases
both the friction factor and the rate of heat transfer (Berger et al., 1983).
Heat transfer in straight tubes is governed by Reynolds and Prandtl
Numbers, under both laminar and turbulent flow conditions, and is usually
presented in a form such as the one shown below:
a b
N Nu s = c N Re N Pr [1]
where NNu is the Nusselt number, with the subscript 's' used to denote straight
tube and a, b, and c being constants. A commonly used correlation for turbulent
flow is the one derived by Dittus and Boelter (1930) and cited by Kern (1955),
which uses the following values in equation 1: c = 0.023, a = 0.8 , and two values
of b depending on the kind of heat transfer performed. When the fluid is being
heated, b = 0.4 and when the fluid is being cooled, b = 0.3. A modification of this
correlation was presented by Sieder and Tate (1936) to account for the difference
in temperature between the wall of the tube and the core of the fluid. In coiled
tubes, the heat transfer coefficients are higher due to the presence of secondary
flow, which increases the extent of mixing. The difference between the heat
transfer coefficient (h) in coiled tubes and straight tubes is significant, as
demonstrated by Jeschke (1925), who proposed the use of a factor based on
curvature ratio as follows:
N Nu c = N Nu s [1 + 3.5 (r / R )] [2]
where the subscript c is used to denote coiled tube. Further studies showed that
this factor is not accurate and that even greater enhancement in the heat transfer
coefficient is achieved (Seban and McLaughlin, 1963). Mori and Nakayama
(1965) found that in the laminar flow region, the increase in heat transfer
coefficient was proportional to the Reynolds number and they developed a
correlation to determine Nusselt number as a function of the Dean (NDe) and
straight tube Nusselt numbers as shown below:
N Nu c = N Nu s (0.1979 ) N 0De.5 for NDe < 2,000 [3]
Dravid et al. (1971) studied heat transfer under laminar flow conditions using
numerical methods and experiments, and proposed an equation based on the Dean
and Prandtl numbers, as shown below:
0.175
N Nu c = [0.76 + 0.65 N De ] N Pr for 50 < NDe < 2,000 [4]

and 5 < NPr < 175

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008 1

 International Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 4 [2008], Iss. 1, Art. 4

Under turbulent flow conditions, the increase in heat transfer rate is not as
significant as that under laminar flow conditions. The turbulent effects become a
dominant factor over secondary flow at higher Reynolds and Prandtl numbers
(Mori and Nakayama, 1967a, 1967b), thus making the heat transfer coefficient
comparable to those in straight pipes. The Nusselt number in this regime is
calculated as a function of the Reynolds, Dean, and Prandtl numbers, and some of
the correlations that have been developed are listed below:
N Nu c = 0.023 N Re N Pr (d / D )
0.85 0.4 0.1
for NRe (d/D) > 6 [5]
Seban and McLaughlin (1963)
0.061 0.833 0.4
N Nu c = 0.023 1 + (d / D)1 / 12 N Re [6]
[
N Re (d / D) 2.5 ] 1/ 6

N Pr

for NPr > 1 and NRe (d/D) > 0.4 Mori and Nakayama (1967b)

Most of the previous studies have been conducted under isothermal wall
conditions or constant heat flux conditions. These studies show that the heat
transfer coefficient in coiled tubes is higher than that in straight tubes, and that at
higher Reynolds and Prandtl numbers regimes, the difference between the heat
transfer coefficients in helical and straight tubes is smaller than the difference at
low Reynolds and Prandtl numbers. However, little research has been conducted
on heat transfer under non-isothermal conditions where heat flux is not constant.
The design of an industrial helical heat exchanger presents a challenge as the
conditions are non-isothermal and the heat flux is not constant. Thus, the present
study was undertaken in order to study heat transfer in a helical heat exchanger
under turbulent flow conditions with neither the wall temperature nor the wall
heat flux being constant. The main objectives of the research were to determine
the overall heat transfer coefficient in an industrial helical heat exchanger for
several flow rates, process temperatures, and curvature ratios, and to develop a
method to calculate the convective heat transfer coefficients on the inside and
outside of the tubes. The determination of these heat transfer coefficients is a
very important step in the design of helical heat exchangers.

Materials and Methods

The test fluid (city water) was pumped using a positive displacement piston pump
(Model 629A, Marlen Research Corp., Overland Park, KS), and its flow rate
measured by an electronic flowmeter, which is a part of the pump. The flow rate
was verified for each experiment by noting the time taken to fill a bucket of
known volume located at the exit of the system. The fluid was heated to the

http://www.bepress.com/ijfe/vol4/iss1/art4 2
 Coronel and Sandeep: Heat Transfer in Helical Heat Exchangers

desired end-point temperature in a multicoil heat exchanger (VRC Co. Inc., Cedar
Rapids, IA). The fluid was then cooled in four tubular heat exchangers, each 6.38
m long. The inner tube had an I.D. of 0.0229 m and an O.D. of 0.0254 m while
the outer tube had an I.D. of 0.0475 m and an O.D. of 0.0508 m.
The multicoil heat exchanger is a helical heat exchanger with two
concentric coils in a vertical cylindrical enclosure and it has the following
specifications:

Outer Coil Inner Coil

Material SS 316 SS 316
Inside diameter of tube (d) 0.0102 m 0.0102 m
Outside diameter of tube (do) 0.0127 m 0.0127 m
Length of coil (L) 39.63 m 27.44 m
Diameter of coil (D) 0.162 m 0.111 m
d/D ratio 0.078 0.114

Both the coils can be used separately or together, either in a series or parallel
configuration. The heating medium used was pressurized hot water, which was
heated by steam and continuously circulated through the system by means of a
centrifugal pump, which was a part of the multicoil heat exchanger system.
Baffles were present on the shell side of the multicoil heat exchanger to increase
the turbulence of the heating medium. An automated control system was used to
regulate the outlet temperature of the product. The inlet and outlet temperatures of
both the product and heating medium were monitored using RTDs linked to the
control system and a chart recorder. The multicoil heat exchanger was considered
to be a counterflow heat exchanger for calculation purposes since the product
flows from bottom to top and the hot water flows through the shell from top to
bottom.
The temperature of the product was recorded at the inlet and outlet of the
heat exchanger and at each tubular cooler using type T thermocouples connected
to a data acquisition system (Model CR10X, Campbell Scientific Inc., Logan,
UT). The temperature of the hot water at the inlet and outlet of the heat
exchanger and the temperature of the cooling water at the inlet and outlet of each
tubular cooler were also recorded. A schematic representation of the
experimental system is shown in Figure 1.
The thermophysical properties of water were calculated using correlations
developed by Popiel and Wojtowiak (1998). In order to account for the changes in
properties inside the heat exchanger, both Reynolds and Prandtl numbers were

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008 3

 International Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 4 [2008], Iss. 1, Art. 4

Ti + To
calculated at the average temperature of the product ( ). The mass flow
2
rate of the fluid was calculated using the volumetric flow rate and density of the
product at the inlet temperature.
The flow rate of hot water in the shell was measured using a non-invasive
flowmeter (Model 1010P, Controlotron Corp., Hauppauge, NY) at the inlet of the
multicoil heat exchanger. The flow rate was determined to be 1.262 x 10-2 m3/s at
room temperature (20 C). When some of the flow in the shell was diverted to
determine the effect of the shell-side flow rate, the flow rate was determined to be
0.9463 x 10-2 m3/s.
Experiments were conducted for different product flow rates (1.89 x 10-4 -
6.31 x 10-4 m3/s) in the inner and outer coils, different flow rates of hot water in
the shell (by diverting part of the flow of hot water on the shell side), and for
different end-point temperatures (92 149 C).
Once the experiments were conducted and the temperatures of the product,
heating, and cooling media were recorded, the heat transferred to the product was
calculated using the following equation:
Q=m & c p T [7]
The overall heat transfer coefficient was then calculated using the following
equation:
Q = U A lm Tlm [8]

Results

The results of the experiments with different flow rates in the inner and outer coils
are summarized in figures 2, 3, 4, and 5. For all values of Reynolds numbers, the
overall heat transfer coefficient in the helical coils was larger than that in the
straight tubes. Because the internal diameter of the tubular coolers is twice as
large as the internal diameter of the helical heat exchanger, the Reynolds number
values in the tubular heat exchangers are smaller than that in the helical tubes.
The overall heat transfer coefficient (U) in the helical heat exchanger
increased with flow rate and approached a maximum value at higher flow rates.
From figure 2 it appears that U is higher for higher end-points temperatures, yet
this is not seen when U is plotted as a function of Reynolds number (figure 3).
Due to the variation of density and viscosity with temperature, Reynolds number
is larger for a higher end-point temperatures for a given flow rate. It can be seen
that U increases with Reynolds number, and that the values of U follow a similar
trend regardless of the end-point temperature. As the Reynolds number is
calculated using fluid properties at the average temperature between the inlet and
outlet of the heat exchanger, the effects of the temperature changes are taken into

http://www.bepress.com/ijfe/vol4/iss1/art4 4
 Coronel and Sandeep: Heat Transfer in Helical Heat Exchangers

consideration.
To calculate hi, and ho, we start from the definition of U:
1 1 r 1
= + + [9]
U A lm h i A i k A lm h o A o
For a given end-point temperature, the flow rate in the shell-side and the
properties of the heating media remain constant. Hence, we assumed that ho is a
constant for a given end-point temperature. We also assumed that the conductive
r
resistance to heat transfer remained constant for the entire range of
k A lm
temperatures. Based on these assumptions, and considering that
N Nu i = f ( N Re , N Pr , d / D) , equation 9 can be converted to the following form for a
given end point temperature, which gave constant values of NPr and d/D:
1 b
=a+ c [10]
U A lm N Re
r
where the constant 'a' is the sum of the conductive resistance and the
k A lm
1
outside convective resistance , and the constant 'b' encompasses the inside
ho Ao
area of the tubes and the effects of Prandtl number and curvature ratio. From this
analysis, a regression between 1/(U Alm) and 1/NRe , keeping NPr and curvature
ratio constant, was performed. The results of each of these regressions are shown
in Table 1.
Based on the definition of 'a', the outside heat transfer coefficient (ho) can
be calculated using the assumption that the conductive resistance is constant. The
results of the calculation of the external heat transfer coefficient are summarized
in Table 2.

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008 5

 International Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 4 [2008], Iss. 1, Art. 4

Table 1: Correlation constants

Coil End-point NPr d/D a b c r2
temperature
Inner 92 C 3.0 0.114 9.20 x 10- 5 1.38 0.85 0.91
Inner 121 C 2.5 0.114 8.81 x 10- 5 1.55 0.85 0.92
Inner 149 C 2.2 0.114 8.65 x 10- 5 1.72 0.84 0.91
Outer 92 C 3.0 0.078 7.52 x 10- 5 2.18 0.85 0.93
Outer 121 C 2.5 0.078 6.40 x 10- 5 2.38 0.87 0.88
Outer 149 C 2.2 0.078 5.40 x 10- 5 2.60 0.87 0.92

Table 2: Outside heat transfer coefficient (ho)

End-point d/D = 0.078 d/D = 0.114
temperature [W/m2-K] [W/m2-K]
92 C 53,000 65,900
121 C 87,107 91,404
149 C 94,873 109,105

The outside heat transfer coefficient is dependent on end-point temperature as it

affects the temperature of the heating medium, and thus the properties of the fluid.
The differences between ho for the inner and outer coils can be attributed to slight
differences in the flow rate and flow pattern on the shell side.
Since hi is a function of NRe, NPr, and curvature ratio, an equation in the
h d
following form was desired: N Nu i = i = a 2 N cRe N bPr2 (d / D) c2 . The constants
k
developed from the previous correlations (based on equation 10) were used to
calculate each of the parameters required. The exponent of NRe (c) was obtained
directly from the correlation, and is shown in Table 1. The pre-exponential
constant (b) was analyzed in the form b = d /(A i a 2 N bPr2 (d / D) c 2 k ) . The
exponent of the Prandtl number, based on previously published correlations, was
set to be 0.4. Analyzing the values of 'b' for the different curvature ratios and
NPr0.4, the exponent of the curvature ratio was calculated. The final correlation
developed for this system is as follows:
N Nu i = 0.0302 (d / D ) for 5 x 104 < NRe < 3 x 105 [11]
0.099
N 0Re.85 N 0Pr.4
2.0 < NPr < 3.5 and 0.078 < d/D < 0.114

A comparison of the correlation developed in this study with published

values (eq. 5 and eq. 6) was performed using a 2 test. The results show that the
correlation developed in this study is similar to the correlation of Seban and

http://www.bepress.com/ijfe/vol4/iss1/art4 6
 Coronel and Sandeep: Heat Transfer in Helical Heat Exchangers

McLaughlin (1963) with a 99.5% significance, and with the results of Mori and
Nakayama (1967b) within a 95% significance.

Conclusions

A method to determine the overall heat transfer coefficient of an industrial helical

heat exchanger is presented. The method permits the calculation of the inside and
outside convective heat transfer coefficients based on the values of the inlet and
outlet temperatures of product and heating medium, flow rate, and the properties
of the product. The results of this analysis show that previously published
correlations yield similar results to the one obtained by this method.
Under turbulent flow conditions, and non-isothermal, non-constant heat
flux conditions, the arithmetic mean temperature of the product was used to
calculate its properties, and subsequently in computing Reynolds, and Prandtl
numbers. The use of the mean temperature allows the calculation of the
convective heat transfer coefficients in a similar way to the case of isothermal
product. Further experiments for different curvature ratios and other products are
recommended as a follow up to this study.

Nomenclature

A Area of the heat exchanger (m2)

a,b,c Correlation constants
cp Specific heat at constant pressure (J/kg-K)
d Diameter of tube (m)
D Diameter of coil (m)
FR Volumetric flow rate (m3/s)
h Convective heat transfer coefficient (W/m2-K)
k Thermal conductivity (W/m-K)
m & Mass flow rate of product (kg/s)
NDe Dean number
NGz Graetz number
NNu Nusselt number
NPr Prandtl number
NRe Reynolds number
Q Heat transferred to or from the product (W)
r Radius of tube (m)
R Radius of coil (m)
T Temperature (K)
U Overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m2-K)

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008 7

 International Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 4 [2008], Iss. 1, Art. 4

Greek symbols

r Thickness of tube wall (m)

T Temperature difference (K)
Viscosity (kg/m-s)
Density (kg/m3)

Subscripts

c Coiled tube
i Inside of the tubes
lm Logarithmic mean
o Outside of the tubes
s Straight tube
p Product
h Hot water
in Inlet
out Outlet

http://www.bepress.com/ijfe/vol4/iss1/art4 8
 Coronel and Sandeep: Heat Transfer in Helical Heat Exchangers

T T

Tubular
T coolers
T

Product
Bin
Multicoil heat
Exchanger

T Thermocouple location

T T
T
Positive T

displacement
pump
Figure 1: Schematic diagram of the experimental system

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008 9

 International Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 4 [2008], Iss. 1, Art. 4

9,000
Outer, 92 C
Outer, 121 C
8,000
Outer, 149 C
Straight tube
7,000

6,000
U (W/m -K)
2

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000
1.0E-04 2.0E-04 3.0E-04 4.0E-04 5.0E-04 6.0E-04 7.0E-04
Flow Rate (m3/s)

Figure 2: U in straight and helical heat exchangers as a function of flow rate

9,000
Outer, 92 C

Outer, 121 C
8,000
Outer, 149 C

7,000 Straight tube

6,000
U (W/m -K)
2

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000
40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 220,000
NRe

Figure 3: U in straight and helical heat exchangers as a function of NRe

http://www.bepress.com/ijfe/vol4/iss1/art4 10
 Coronel and Sandeep: Heat Transfer in Helical Heat Exchangers

9,000
Outer, 92 C
Inner, 92 C
8,000
Straight tube

7,000

6,000
U (W/m -K)
2

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000
1.0E-04 2.0E-04 3.0E-04 4.0E-04 5.0E-04 6.0E-04 7.0E-04
3
Flow Rate (m /s)
Figure 4: U in helical heat exchangers of different coil diameters as a function of flow rate

9,000
Outer, 92 C

8,000 Inner, 92 C

Straight tube
7,000

6,000
U (W/m 2-K)

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000
40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000
NRe

Figure 5: U in helical heat exchangers of different coil diameters as a function of NRe

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008 11

 International Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 4 [2008], Iss. 1, Art. 4

References

Berger, S.A., Talbot, L., Yao, L.S. (1983). Flow in curved tubes. Annual review
of fluid mechanics. 15: 461-512.

Dittus, P.W., Boelter, L.K.W. (1930). Heat transfer in automobile radiators of

the tubular type. University of California publications in engineering. 2: 443-
461.

Dravid, A.N., Smith, K.A., Merrill, E.W., Brian, P.L.T. (1971). Effect of
secondary fluid motion on laminar flow heat transfer in helically coiled tubes.
AIChE Journal. 17: 1114-1122.

Jeschke, H. (1925). Wrmebergang un Druckverlust in Rohrschlagen. VDI

Zeitschrift VDI. 69: 24-28.

Kern, D.Q. (1950). Process heat transfer. McGraw Hill Inc., NY.

Mori, Y., Nakayama, W. (1965). Study on forced convective heat transfer in

curved tubes (1st report, Laminar region). International journal of heat and mass
transfer. 8: 67-82.

Mori, Y., Nakayama, W. (1967a). Study on forced convective heat transfer in

curved tubes (2nd report, Turbulent region). International journal of heat and
mass transfer. 10: 37-59.

Mori, Y., Nakayama, W. (1967b). Study on forced convective heat transfer in

curved tubes (3rd report, Theoretical analysis under the condition of uniform wall
temperature and practical formulae). International journal of heat and mass
transfer. 10: 681-695.

Popiel, C.O., Wojtowiak, J. (1998). Simple formulas for thermophysical

properties of liquid water for heat transfer calculations (from 0 C to 150 C).
Heat transfer engineering. 19(3): 87-101.

Seban, R.A., McLaughlin, E.F. (1963). Heat transfer in tube coils with laminar
and turbulent flow. International journal of heat and mass transfer. 6: 387-395.

Sieder, E.N., Tate, G.E. (1936). Heat transfer and pressure drop of liquids in
tubes. Industrial and engineering chemistry. 28: 1429-1436.

http://www.bepress.com/ijfe/vol4/iss1/art4 12