3.

Design of the components

3.1 Air–Water Finned-Tube Heat Exchanger within the HVAC Unit
3.1.1 Design Input Data from Part 1 …………………..

3.1.2 Corrected Logarithmic Mean Temperature Difference (LMTD method)

3.1.3 Geometry definition

3.1.4 Heat Transfer Coefficients ( hi & ho )

a) internal flow (hi)

b) external flow (ho )

Wet-Surface Adjustment of the Air-Side Heat Transfer Coefficient

3.1.5 Fin efficiency and Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient (U0)

a) Fin efficiency

b) Overall Surface Efficiency

3.1.6 Required Heat Transfer Area and Coil Tube Length

a) Face area and number of rows

b) Total number of tubes and coil dimensions

3.1.7 ε –NTU Verification

3. Design of the components

Following the preliminary sizing presented in Part 1, this section develops the detailed
thermal design of the two main heat exchangers of the HVAC system: the air–water finned-
tube cooling coil in the air handling unit and the flue gas–water tube bundle heat exchanger
of the boiler. According to the project specifications, the purpose of this part is to define the main
geometric characteristics of these components and verify that they are able to satisfy the thermal
duties previously determined under the assigned operating conditions.
The design procedure includes the estimation of the convective heat transfer coefficients on both
fluid sides, the evaluation of the overall heat transfer coefficient, and the calculation of the heat
transfer area required for each exchanger. In agreement with the assignment, the sizing is
performed using the effectiveness–NTU method, and the final results are reported in terms of
exchanger geometry, total heat transfer area, overall heat transfer coefficient, effectiveness, and
thermal duty verification.
Particular attention is given to the different physical phenomena involved in the two components.
In the cooling coil, the moist air may undergo both sensible cooling and dehumidification,
requiring the consideration of coupled heat and mass transfer effects, including condensation on
the air side. In the boiler heat exchanger, heat is transferred from the flue gases to the water
circuit through a tube bundle, and suitable correlations are adopted to estimate the heat transfer
coefficients for the selected configuration. All assumptions regarding geometry, flow regime,
thermophysical properties, and adopted correlations are explicitly stated and justified.
3.1 Air–Water Finned-Tube Heat Exchanger within the HVAC Unit

Φ [W] 6390
G a [kg/s] 0.4542
G mix [kg/s] 0.328
C p,mix [J/(kg.K)] 3900
μ mix [Pa.s] 0.0038
ρ mix [kg/m3] 1030
air inlet state - m
h a,in = h m [kJ/kg] 56.95
T a,in = T m [C] 27.3
x a,in = x m [kg/kg] 0.012
air outlet state - i
h a,out = h i [kJ/kg] 42.89
T a,out [C] 16
x a,out = x i [kg/kg] 0.01063
chilled water inlet state
T cold,in = T mix,sup [C] 7
chilled water outlet state
T cold,out = T mix,ret [C] 12

Table 1 - Required Data of Part 1

3.1.2 Corrected Logarithmic Mean Temperature Difference (LMTD method)

In order to size the air–water finned-tube heat exchanger, the effective temperature driving
force must be evaluated. Following the standard LMTD design procedure, the Logarithmic
Mean Temperature Difference is first calculated by assuming an ideal counter-flow
arrangement. Once this reference value is obtained, a correction factor is introduced to
account for the actual exchanger configuration. In the present case, both fluids are
considered in cross-flow; therefore, the true mean temperature difference is lower than the
ideal counter-flow value and must be corrected accordingly. This approach is consistent with
the lecture methodology, where the heat duty is expressed as

Q̇=UA Δ T ( lm)

for ideal configurations and as

Q̇=UAFΔ T ( lm)
when a correction factor is required for other flow arrangements.
The first step consists in evaluating the two terminal temperature differences under the
counter-flow assumption:
Δ T 1=T hot ,∈¿−T cold ,out ¿

Δ T 2=T hot , out −T cold ,∈¿¿

where the hot fluid is the moist air and the cold fluid is the chilled water. Using the
operating conditions obtained in Part 1,

T h ,∈¿=T ∘
a,∈¿=27.3 C ¿
¿

∘
T h ,out =T a , out =16 C

T c ,∈ ¿=T ∘
w ,∈¿=7 C¿
¿

∘
T c ,out =T w , out =12 C

the terminal temperature differences become

Δ T 1=27.3−12=15.3 K
Δ T 2=16−7=9 K

Hence, the logarithmic mean temperature difference for an ideal counter-flow exchanger is

Δ T 1−Δ T 2 15.3−9
Δ T lm= ; =11.87 K
ln
( ) ( )
ΔT1
ΔT2
ln
15.3
9

Since the present heat exchanger does not operate as a pure counter-flow unit, but is
modeled as a cross-flow exchanger, a correction factor F must be applied. According to the
lecture material, this factor depends on the temperature ratios P and R , which characterize
the thermal configuration of the exchanger.
 These quantities are defined as

T c ,out −T c ,in 12−7

P= ; P= ≈ 0.25
T h , in −T c, in 27.3−7

T h ,in −T h , out 27.3−16

R= ; R= =2.26
T c ,out −T c ,in 12−7

From the correction-factor chart of corresponding to the selected exchanger arrangement,

the value :

F=0.93

is obtained. Therefore, the corrected mean temperature difference is

Δ T true =FΔ T lm

Thus, the effective temperature driving force to be used in the subsequent sizing of the
cooling coil is

Δ T true =0.93 ×11.87 ; Δ T true ≈ 11.04 K

This corrected value is the appropriate temperature difference for the determination of the
required heat transfer area, since it accounts for the deviation of the real exchanger configuration
from the ideal counter-flow case. In this way, the thermal design remains consistent with the
actual flow arrangement and with the heat-exchanger design approach presented in the course
material.
 3.1.3 Geometry definition

The table below reports the reference geometrical parameters adopted for the detailed
thermal design of the air–water finned-tube cooling coil. In particular, it defines the selected
materials for the tube wall and fins, their corresponding thermal conductivities, the internal and
external tube diameters, the fin thickness and spacing, the transverse and longitudinal tube
pitches, and the number of parallel circuits used for the water/glycol distribution. A staggered
tube-bank configuration is assumed in the present analysis, as it is representative of compact
HVAC coils and provides enhanced air-side heat transfer performance. These geometrical
assumptions constitute the basis for the subsequent calculation of the internal and external flow
characteristics, the fin and overall surface efficiencies, the overall heat transfer coefficient, and
the final sizing of the heat exchanger.

Table 2 - Definition of geometry

K = k tube [W/(m.K)]
Geometry assumptions
wall 400
d o,tube [m] 0.00952
d i,tube [m] 0.0085
kfin [W/(m.K)] 237
δ f [m] 0.00015
s f [m] 0.002
p f [m] 0.00215
P t,tube [m] 0.0254
P l,tube [m] 0.022
Nc 3

 The adopted numerical values are consistent with conventional HVAC finned-tube coil
practice. In particular, the selected 3/8 in. tube diameter lies within the standard tube-
size range commonly used for finned-tube coils, while the adopted fin spacing
s f =0.002 m corresponds to about 12.7 fins/in., which is within the typical range used
for cooling coils and below the upper values referenced in ASHRAE material for cooling-
coil fin spacing.
 Similarly, the selected tube pitches Pt =0.0254 m and Pl=0.022 m
together with the thin-fin assumption δf =0.00015 m , are technically reasonable
compact-coil values, chosen to provide adequate free-flow area for the air stream while
preserving exchanger compactness and acceptable air-side pressure drop.

 By specifying exactly 3 circuits, the total chilled water mass flow rate is divided
perfectly into thirds. This specific division mathematically guarantees two things:

1. Optimal Turbulence: The internal water velocity stays safely in that 1.2 to 2.4 m/s
"Goldilocks zone," ensuring the flow is highly turbulent to maximize heat extraction.
2. Manageable Friction: The total pressure drop across the coil remains low enough
that a standard, energy-efficient HVAC pump can easily handle the load.
3.1.4 Heat Transfer Coefficients ( hi & ho )

a) Internal flow (hi)

After defining the thermal boundary conditions and the reference geometry of the cooling
coil, the next step is the evaluation of the internal convective heat transfer coefficient on the
chilled-water side. Since the exchanger is composed of several parallel tube circuits, the total
water mass flow rate is first distributed among the individual circuits in order to determine the
actual flow rate inside each tube passage. This assumption is necessary to correctly evaluate the
internal velocity, the Reynolds number, and consequently the convective coefficient.

The table reports the reference thermophysical properties of the 30% glycol–water
mixture adopted for the internal-flow analysis. These properties are evaluated at a representative
mean fluid temperature, consistent with the operating range between the inlet and outlet
conditions of the coolant stream. On this basis, they are used to determine the Reynolds and
Prandtl numbers, and therefore to calculate the internal convective heat transfer coefficient
through the selected forced-convection correlation.

Table 3 - Fluid properties of Water/Glycol

1030
0.0038
ρ mix [kg/m3]

0.43
μ mix [Pa.s]

3900
k mix [W/(m.K)]

34.46511628
c p,mix [J/(kg.K)]
Pr mix

 The mass flow rate through each circuit is calculated as

Gmix
Gcircuit =
Nc

 Using the design data of the previous sections,

Gmix ≈ 0.328 kg /s , N c =3

 The flow rate in each circuit becomes

0.328
G circuit = ; G circuit ≈ 0.109 kg/s
3

Once the mass flow rate per circuit is known, the average internal velocity is obtained from the
continuity equation:

4 Gcircuit
v i= 2
ρmix π di
Substituting the fluid properties and tube diameter adopted in the geometry definition,

ρ mix ≈ 1030 kg / m
3
, d i=0.0085 m

gives

v i ≈ 1.871 m / s

The corresponding internal Reynolds number with μmix =0.0038 Pa s is then evaluated as

ρmix v i d i
R e i=
μmix

R e i ≈ 4309.83

This value indicates turbulent internal flow in the tube, therefore the Gnielinski correlation is
adopted for the calculation of the Nusselt number, consistently with the procedure used in the
lecture material for turbulent forced convection in ducts. The correlation requires the friction
factor f , which is evaluated from
−2
f =( 0.79 ln ( R ei ) −1.64 )

Hence,

f =0.04

The internal Nusselt number is then calculated as

( f / 8 ) ( R ei−1000 ) P r mix
N ui =
1+12.7 ( f / 8 )1 / 2 ( P r 2mix
/3
−1 )

where the Prandtl number of the water/glycol mixture is

P r mix ≈ 34.47

Substituting the numerical values gives

N ui ≈59.71

Finally, the internal convective heat transfer coefficient is obtained from the standard definition
of the Nusselt number:

N ui k mix
hi =
di
Using

k mix ≈ 0.43 W/ m.K

Thus, the internal heat transfer coefficient results in

2
hi ≈ 3020.86 W/ m K

The obtained value is physically consistent with forced convection of a liquid mixture inside
small tubes and will be used in the following subsection for the evaluation of the overall heat
transfer coefficient of the finned-tube coil. In particular, this coefficient represents the water-side
thermal performance of the exchanger and must later be combined with the wall conduction
resistance and the air-side resistance, including fin efficiency effects, in order to determine the
global thermal behavior of the component.

b) External flow (ho)

After evaluating the internal convective coefficient on the water/glycol side, the external heat
transfer coefficient is determined on the air side. Since the exchanger consists of a staggered
finned-tube bank, the air does not maintain a uniform velocity through the coil. As it passes
between adjacent tubes, the available flow area decreases and the stream accelerates. For this
reason, the heat transfer analysis must be based on the maximum air velocity, which occurs at
the minimum free-flow section between the tubes.

The table reports the reference thermophysical properties of air adopted for the external-
flow analysis. These properties are evaluated at representative bulk air conditions and are used to
determine the external Reynolds and Prandtl numbers, and consequently the air-side convective
heat transfer coefficient through the selected tube-bank correlation.

Table 3 - Fluid properties of Air

1.2
0.00001823
ρ a [kg/m3]

0.0258
μ a [Pa.s]

1006
k a [W/(m.K)]

0.712
c p,a [J/(kg.K)]
Pr a
 For the sizing of the air-water finned-tube cooling coil, a design face velocity ( V ∞ ) of 2.2 m/s
was assumed. According to ASHRAE standards for cooling and dehumidifying coils, the face
velocity must be strictly limited to prevent moisture carryover (also known as water blow-off).
When face velocities exceed approximately 2.5 to 2.8 m/s (500 to 550 fpm), the aerodynamic
drag forces of the air overcome the surface tension of the condensed water on the fins, stripping
the droplets off the coil and blowing them into the downstream ductwork. Therefore, 2.2 m/s was
selected to establish a conservative safety margin below this critical threshold. This optimal
velocity ensures highly efficient convective heat transfer while guaranteeing proper condensate
drainage and minimizing air-side pressure drop.

For a steady flow where the density ( ρ ¿ of the gas doesn't change significantly in that split
second, the mass flow rate is constant:
ρ ⋅ Afront ⋅ v app=ρ ⋅ Amin ⋅ v max ; V max =( V ∞ )
(
Pt
P t−d o )
Instead of looking at the whole massive boiler, we just look at one single repeating unit (one tube
and its surrounding space):

Afront =Pt ⋅ L

Amin =( Pt −d o ) ; V max =V ∞
( Pt
Pt −d o )
using the selected tube pitch and tube outer diameter, the maximum velocity becomes:

V max ≈ 3.52 m /s

Once the maximum air velocity is known, the external Reynolds number is evaluated by using
the outer tube diameter as characteristic length:

ρa V max d o
R e o=
μa

which gives

R e o ≈2205.15

This Reynolds number is then used to evaluate the external Nusselt number. For cross-flow over
a staggered tube bank, the Zukauskas correlation is adopted, consistently with the standard
treatment of external forced convection across tube bundles:
 ( )
0.25
m 0.36 Pr
N uo=C R e o P r
P r wall

As stated in the adopted procedure, the air bulk temperature and the wall temperature are not
expected to differ significantly; therefore, the Prandtl-number correction term is approximated as
unity:

( )
0.25
Pr
≈1
P r wall

Therefore, the correlation reduces to:

m 0.36
N uo=C R e o P r

For a staggered tube bank in this Reynolds number range [ 1000< ℜ<2 ×105 ] standard heat
transfer textbooks (like Incropera and DeWitt), the constants are defined based on the ratio of the
transverse pitch (Pt) to the longitudinal pitch (Pl)

Pt
≈ 1.15
Pl

and the corresponding coefficients are taken as:

m=0.6 , C=0.36

Hence, the external Nusselt number becomes:

N uo ≈ 32.32

The convective heat transfer coefficient for dry air is then evaluated from the Nusselt definition:

N uo k a
h o ,dry =
do

which yields
2
h o ,dry ≈ 87.60 W/ m K

Wet-Surface Adjustment of the Air-Side Heat Transfer Coefficient

Since the present component operates as a summer cooling coil, condensation takes place on
the external air side. Therefore, the dry-air convective coefficient cannot be used directly in the
final evaluation of the overall heat transfer coefficient. Before proceeding to the fin-efficiency
and Uo calculations, the air-side coefficient must be corrected to account for the combined effect
of sensible and latent heat transfer on the wet surface.
¿
To this end, an equivalent specific heat (∁ p ) is introduced using the enthalpy variation of
moist air between the inlet state and the outlet state previously obtained from the psychrometric
analysis . This quantity is defined as

¿ h m−hi
c p=
T m−T a ,out

Using the values obtained from Part 1, the equivalent specific heat becomes:
¿
c p ≈ 1244.25 J /kg⋅K

This value is approximately 23.68% higher than the specific heat of dry air,c p , a=1006 J / ( kg⋅K ),
since it also accounts for the latent heat contribution associated with condensation.

During summer operation, the coil surface temperature falls below the dew-point temperature
of the incoming air; therefore, cooling and dehumidification occur simultaneously on the air
side. Under these conditions, the dry-air convective coefficient cannot be used directly, since
condensation enhances the overall transfer process. Assuming a Lewis number approximately
equal to unity for the air–water mixture, the Lewis relation is applied to convert the dry
coefficient into an equivalent wet-surface coefficient. Accordingly, the air-side coefficient is
corrected as:

( )
¿
c
h o ,wet =ho p
c p, a

h o ,wet ≈ 108.34 W/ mK

3.1.5 Fin efficiency and Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient (U0)

a) Fin Efficiency

Since the air side of the cooling coil is equipped with aluminum fins, the external heat transfer
surface is extended in order to increase the thermal performance of the exchanger. However, the
temperature is not uniform along the fin surface because heat must be conducted through the fin
material from the tube wall toward the fin tip. For this reason, the real fin heat transfer is lower
than the ideal case of a perfectly isothermal fin, and a fin efficiency must be introduced.

The first step is the evaluation of the fin parameter (m), which relates the external convective
heat transfer to conduction inside the fin material:

m=
√ 2 ho , wet
k fin δ f

Using the previously calculated wet-surface air-side coefficient and the selected fin
properties, the fin parameter results in
-1
m ≈78.07 m

To evaluate the efficiency of a single fin, the Schmidt’s approximation is adopted. This method
is commonly used for continuous plate fins in staggered tube banks and replaces the real fin
geometry around each tube with an equivalent circular fin. The equivalent cell area is first
defined as:

Acell =Pt Pl

which, for the selected geometry, gives

2
Acell =0.0005588 m

The corresponding equivalent radius is then

r eq =
√ A cell
π
≈ 0.0133 m

The outer tube radius is

do
ro = =0.00476 m
2

According to Schmidt’s approximation, the dimensionless fin parameter φ is calculated as

[
φ=m ( r eq −r o ) 1+0.35 ln
( )]r eq
ro

Substituting the numerical values gives

 φ ≈ 0.91

Finally, the single-fin efficiency is evaluated as

tanh ( φ )
ηf= ≈ 0.79
φ

This value indicates that the real thermal performance of each fin is approximately 79.2 % of
the ideal isothermal-fin case. The obtained single-fin efficiency will be used in the next step to
determine the overall surface efficiency and, subsequently, the overall heat transfer coefficient
of the finned-tube coil.

b) Overall Surface Efficiency

Since the external air stream exchanges heat not only with the aluminum fins, but also with the
exposed portions of the copper tube surface, the real air-side performance must be evaluated
through an overall surface efficiency. This quantity represents a weighted average between the
efficiency of the finned area and the fully effective bare-tube area.

The first step is the evaluation of the number of fins per meter of tube:

1
Nf =
pf

Using the adopted fin spacing, the result is

N f ≈ 465.11fins / m

The total fin area per meter of tube is then computed by multiplying the number of fins by the
area of one fin. Since both sides of each fin are exposed to the air stream, the area of one fin is
written as

( )
2
πd
A f ,1=2 A cell − o
4

Hence, the total fin area per meter of tube becomes

2
A f =Nf A f ,1 ≈ 0.45 m / mtube

The exposed tube area per meter is evaluated by considering that part of the tube surface is
covered by the fins. The free tube length is therefore
 Lexp=1 m−N f δ f

and the corresponding bare-tube area is

2
Atube=π d o Lexp ≈ 0.0278 m / mtube

The total external area per meter of tube is then

2
At = A f + Atube ≈ 0.48 m / mtube

A 0 ,total
At =
Ltotal

Finally, the overall surface efficiency is calculated by weighting the fin efficiency over the total
external area:

Af
η o=1−
At
( 1−ηf )

Substituting the previously calculated single-fin efficiency gives

η o ≈ 0.804

This result shows that, once both the finned and unfinned portions of the external surface are
considered, the effective air-side thermal performance is about 80.4 % of the ideal fully effective
external area. This overall efficiency will be used in the next step for the evaluation of the overall
heat transfer coefficient of the finned-tube cooling coil.

b) Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient (U 0 ) :

The overall heat transfer coefficient is determined by combining the thermal resistances
associated with internal convection, conduction through the tube wall, and external wet-
surface convection, the latter being corrected through the overall fin efficiency. In this way, a
single global coefficient is obtained to represent the effective thermal behavior of the finned-
tube cooling coil under the assigned operating conditions. This parameter is then used in the
final sizing of the heat exchanger.

The overall resistance referred to the external area is written as:

1 1 ln ( d o / d i ) 1
= + +
U o A o , total ηo h o ,wet Ao , total 2 π L k wall Ai , total h i
By multiplying both sides by A o ,totalthe equation can be rewritten in a more convenient form:

1 1 At ln ( d o / di ) At
= + +
U o ηo ho , wet 2 πk wall A i ,1 hi

The internal area per meter of tube is

2
Ai , 1=π di ≈ 0.027 m / mtube

Using the previously calculated values of hi , ho , wet , ηo , A o and the tube-wall thermal conductivity,
the overall heat transfer coefficient becomes

U o ≈ 57.24 W /mK

This value represents the global heat-transfer performance of the finned-tube cooling coil,
accounting simultaneously for internal convection in the water/glycol flow, conduction through
the copper tube wall, and external wet-surface convection on the air side corrected by the overall
fin efficiency. It is therefore the coefficient to be used in the final sizing of the exchanger
surface.

3.1.6 Required Heat Transfer Area and Coil Tube Length

Once the overall heat transfer coefficient and the corrected logarithmic mean temperature
difference have been determined, the total external heat transfer area required by the cooling coil
can be calculated from the standard heat-exchanger design equation:

Φ 2
A o ,total= ≈ 10.109 m
U o Δ T true

Since the external area available per meter of tube has already been evaluated as At , the total
tube length required to provide the calculated heat transfer area is obtained as

A o , total
Ltotal= ≈ 20.998 m
At

This value represents the total tube length needed to satisfy the required cooling duty under the
assigned operating conditions.

a) Face Area and Number of Rows

 In order to convert the required tube length into a feasible coil arrangement, the face area of
the heat exchanger must be considered. The required air volumetric flow rate is first evaluated
from the air mass flow rate and air density:

Ga
V˙ a =
ρa

Using the design air-side data, the volumetric flow rate is

V˙ a =0.3785 m /s
3

The required face area is then determined from the adopted approach velocity:

V˙ a 2
A face= ; A ≈ 0.172 m
V app face

The face area may also be related to the coil geometry by expressing it as the product of the
coil height and width. If the height is defined by the number of tubes in a vertical row multiplied
by the transverse pitch, and the width is identified with the straight tube length, then

A face
A face=( N tube Pt ) Ltube N tube Ltube =
Pt

Finally, the total required tube length is related to the number of rows by

Ltotal=N R ( N tube Ltube )

which gives

Ltotal Pt
N R=
A face

Using the calculated values, the required number of rows is N R=3

Therefore, the final coil arrangement is based on three tube rows, which is consistent with the
required thermal surface and the available frontal flow area.

b) Total Number of Tubes and Coil Dimensions

Once the required number of rows has been determined, the geometrical configuration of the
coil can be completed by defining the number of tubes per row. In the present design, a value of
N tube =10 is assumed in order to obtain a compact and physically feasible coil layout.
 On this basis, the coil height is evaluated from the product of the number of tubes in the
vertical direction and the transverse pitch:

H coil =N tube Pt

Substituting the selected values gives H coil =10 × 0.0254=0.254 m

The total number of tubes is obtained as the product of the number of tubes per row and the
number of rows:

N tube ,total =N tube N R

N tube ,total =10× 3=30

Finally, the tube length, which also represents the coil width, is then obtained from the
previously calculated face area:

Ltotal 20.998
Ltube= = ≈ 0.699 m
N tube ,total 30

Therefore, the final coil arrangement consists of 3 rows and 30 tubes overall, corresponding
to a coil height of 0.25 m and a tube length of0.69 m. These dimensions are consistent with the
required frontal flow area and with the total tube length previously determined from the thermal
sizing procedure.

3.1.7 ε –NTU Verification

As a final consistency check, the thermal design of the cooling coil is verified through the
effectiveness–NTU method. This step is useful to confirm that the exchanger geometry
previously determined is capable of delivering a heat transfer rate consistent with the required
thermal duty. The verification is carried out by evaluating the heat-capacity rates of the two
fluids, the maximum possible heat transfer, the number of transfer units, and the exchanger
effectiveness.

The heat-capacity rate of the air side is calculated as

¿
C a=Ga c p

Using the design values, this gives

 C a ≈ 565.14 W /K

On the water/glycol side, the heat-capacity rate is

C mix=G mix c p ,mix=1279.2 W /K

Therefore, the minimum and maximum heat-capacity rates are identified as

C min=Ca , C max=C mix

and the corresponding heat-capacity ratio becomes

C min
cr = =0.44
C max

The maximum possible heat transfer rate is then evaluated as

Φ max=C min ¿

The number of transfer units is calculated from

U o A total
NTU = =1.024
Cmin

Because this is a continuous fin-and-tube coil, the fins prevent the air from mixing
longitudinally, and the tubes keep the water separated. Therefore,we must use the correlation for
a Cross-Flow Heat Exchanger with Both Fluids Unmixed.

[ ]
0.22
NT U
ε =1−exp
cr
( exp (−c r NT U 0.78 )−1 )

Substituting the calculated values gives

ε =0.561

Finally, the actual heat transfer rate predicted by the ε–NTU method is

Φ actual=ε Φ max

which results in

Φ actual=6442.74 W
 The obtained value is very close to the design thermal duty previously imposed, confirming
that the selected exchanger geometry and the calculated overall heat transfer coefficient provide
a consistent thermal design. The ε–NTU verification therefore supports the validity of the sizing
procedure developed for the air–water finned-tube cooling coil.

The detailed thermal design carried out in this section demonstrates that the proposed air–
water finned-tube cooling coil is capable of satisfying the required cooling duty under the
prescribed operating conditions. The sizing procedure combined the corrected LMTD method
with detailed evaluation of convection coefficients, wet-surface correction, fin efficiency, overall
surface efficiency, and global heat transfer coefficient, leading to the determination of the
required exchanger geometry. The subsequent ε–NTU verification provided a final consistency
check, confirming that the selected configuration ensures a heat transfer performance in
agreement with the design target.