Heat Transfer ENGR 346
CFD Simulation of Flow across Tube banks In-line Arrangement
Ahmed Ezzat
202201167
Mustafa Shehata
202200043
Alaa Elshiekh
202200339
ABSTRACT
Using computational fluid dynamics (CFD), this study examines the convective heat
transfer properties of fluid flow over tube banks arranged in an in-line form. The goal is
to examine how the heat transfer coefficient is affected by important variables such fluid
characteristics, tube diameter (D), longitudinal (Sl) and transverse (ST) spacing, number
of tube rows, and flow [Link] accuracy is maintained while the computing cost is
decreased by using a simpler 2D periodic model. To guarantee dependability, the
simulation results are checked against known empirical correlations. The results show
the connection between geometric characteristics and thermal performance and offer
insights into the temperature and velocity fields surrounding the tubes. Understanding
flow behavior in industrial applications and improving heat exchanger designs are made
possible by this effort.
INTRODUCTION
Efficient heat transfer often involves fluid flow across tube bundles, where the tube
arrangement significantly affects performance. This report focuses on the in-line
arrangement. Understanding how changing the mass flow rate, horizontal and vertical
tube spacing, and tube diameter impacts the flow is crucial for design optimization.
While experiments have limitations, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) offers detailed
analysis. This study uses ANSYS Fluent to simulate flow across an in-line tube bank,
systematically varying these key geometric and operational parameters to understand
their influence on the resulting flow fields.
PROBLEM DEFINITION
Increasing mass flow rate will raise velocity and pressure drop. Decreasing tube spacing
will likely increase obstruction and pressure loss. Increasing tube diameter will alter
flow patterns and pressure drop. CFD simulations will quantify these effects on the
in-line arrangement under varied [Link] goal is to improve heat transmission by
altering flow and geometrical parameters.
1
Geometry & physical model
In-line tube bank arrangement (2D periodic model).
DATA
CASE Diameter(cm Vertical Horizontal Mass flow h (W/𝑚 ·k
2
Nusselt
NUMBER ) Distance(cm) Distance (cm) rate (kg/s) )
1 2 2 3.5 0.01 0.05 0.07
2 1.5 2 3.5 0.01 0.01 0.03
3 2 3 3.5 0.01 0.01 0.02
4 2 2 10 0.01 0.04 0.08
5 2 2 3.5 0.1 1.21 2.29
6 1.5 2 3.5 0.1 0.28 0.77
7 2 3 3.5 0.1 0.23 0.50
8 2 2 10 0.1 1.09 2.58
9 1.5 3 10 0.1 0.13 0.44
10 1.5 3 10 0.01 0.01 0.02
11 1.5 2 10 0.1 0.26 0.97
12 1.5 2 10 0.01 0.01 0.05
2
Boundary & operation Conditions
Inlet: 300 k
outlet: the same in inlet ( periodic )
Tubes: 500 k
Fluid: water
Flow Regime: Laminer
mathematical model
The following governing equations were used to convert the in-line tube bank flow
physical system into a mathematical model that could be solved.
.Energy Conservation Equation
T: temperature
K: thermal conductivity
Φ: Viscous dissipation
Tube walls:
T=Ts (constant)
−k∇T=qs (heat flux)
3
.Mass Conservation Equation
∇⋅(ρu)=0
assumptions: steady state flow (∂ρ/∂t=0)
.Momentum conservation Equation
u: Velocity vector
P: pressure
μ: Dynamic viscosity
F: Body forces
. Dimensionless Numbers
Reynolds Number: Nusselt Number:
Heat Transfer correlations
4
The following empirical correlations were utilized to model convective heat transport in
your in-line tube bank CFD simulation and validate the findings:
- Zukauskas correlations (in-ine tube Banks):
takes into consideration the effects of row spacing (S L, S T ) via Vmax
For in-line banks:
-Local Heat Transfer Coefficient (hCFD)
Calculated from simulated temperature and heat flux fields using Newton’s Law of
Cooling:
qs:Surface heat flux (W/m²) from CFD
Ts:Tube surface temperature (K).
T∞:Freestream fluid temperature (K)
Mesh Summary
A 2D mesh was generated for the grooved channel using CFD settings and Fluent
solver. The element size is 0.02005 m, with a Quad Dominant method for flat
regions and Sweep for the full domain. Mesh refinement is applied near the
grooves to capture heat and flow variations accurately. The mesh is suitable for
5
simulating laminar flow with heat transfer.
SIMULATION CASES
Case 1:
Tube diameter (D): 2 cm
Vertical pitch (Pv): 2 cm
Horizontal pitch (Ph): 3.5 cm
Mass flow rate (ṁ): 0.01 kg/s
6
Nusselt number (Nu): 0.05 , Heat transfer coefficient (h): 0.07 W/m²·K
Total heat transfer rate (Q): ~781.6 W (for t1, likely one tube or section).
Net Q for system: 1823 W (sum of t1–t3).
Low Q correlates with low h and Nu → Dominated by conduction, not advection.
Temperature contours reveal hot wake zones behind tubes where stagnant flow traps
heat, while velocity contours confirm weak flow acceleration in gaps. The tight tube
spacing (Pv/D=1.0) worsens recirculation.
Key Issue: Low mass flow rate (0.01 kg/s) causes conduction-dominated heat transfer.
Solution: Increase flow rate or adjust pitch to enhance turbulence and mixing.
7
Case 2:
Tube Diameter (D): 1.5 cm
Vertical Pitch (Pv): 2 cm
Horizontal Pitch (Ph): 3.5 cm
Mass Flow Rate (ṁ): 0.01 kg/s (same as Case 1)
Nusselt Number (Nu): 0.01 (very low)
Heat Transfer Coeff. (h): 0.03 W/m²·K
8
The temperature and velocity contours reveal poor thermal performance due to the
reduced tube diameter (1.5 cm) combined with low flow rate (0.01 kg/s). Temperature
plots show large hot wake zones behind tubes, indicating ineffective heat transfer
(Nu=0.01) as conduction dominates. The velocity field confirms weak flow (~1.86 m/s
peak) with extended stagnant regions and poor gap acceleration.
Case 3:
Tube Diameter (D): 2 cm
Vertical Pitch (Pv): 3 cm
9
Horizontal Pitch (Ph): 3.5 cm
Mass Flow Rate (ṁ): 0.01 kg/s
Total Heat Transfer Rate (Q): 1,131.3 W
Temperature plots show distinct hot stripes between tube rows, with weak gradients
indicating stagnant fluid (Nu~0.01). The velocity field confirms system collapse - 80% of
the domain shows near-zero speeds .This "banded" pattern demonstrates how excessive
vertical spacing at low flow rate (0.01 kg/s) creates perfect thermal isolation.
10
Case 4:
Tube Diameter (D): 2 cm
Vertical Pitch (Pv): 2 cm
Horizontal Pitch (Ph): 10 cm
Mass Flow Rate (ṁ): 0.01 kg/s
Total Heat Transfer Rate (Q): 2,331.4 W
11
Temperature contours show reduced hot zones and sharper gradients near tubes, while
velocity plots reveal slightly accelerated gap flow (~1.37e-3 m/s) and smaller stagnant
regions. This demonstrates how increased Ph/D improves flow distribution and thermal
mixing - though the system remains limited by laminar conditions.
Case 5:
Tube Diameter (D): 2 cm
Vertical Pitch (Pv): 2 cm
Horizontal Pitch (Ph): 3.5 cm
Mass Flow Rate (ṁ): 0.1 kg/s
Total Heat Transfer Rate (Q): 3,421 W
12
Temperature contours show excellent heat removal, with steep gradients (500K→245K)
indicating strong convective cooling. The higher 0.1 kg/s flow rate effectively eliminates
hot spots, maintaining consistent thermal performance across all tubes.
Velocity contours reveal significantly improved flow characteristics, reaching 0.01 m/s
with well-defined channels between tubes. The enhanced flow momentum minimizes
recirculation zones and maintains strong, uniform movement throughout the domain.
13
Case 6:
Tube Diameter (D): 1.5 cm
Vertical Pitch (Pv): 2 cm
Horizontal Pitch (Ph): 3.5 cm
Mass Flow Rate (ṁ): 0.1 kg/s
Total Heat Transfer (Q): 2,169 W
14
The temperature contours reveal moderate thermal performance, showing noticeable
warm wake zones behind the 1.5cm tubes despite the 0.1 kg/s flow rate. While gradients
exist (500K→250K), they're less pronounced than Case 5, indicating partial convective
effectiveness. The velocity field demonstrates improved but still constrained flow - peak
velocities reach ~0.01 m/s in gaps, yet persistent recirculation regions form behind tubes
due to the smaller diameter
Case 7:
- Diameter: 2 cm
- Vertical Distance: 3 cm
15
- Horizontal Distance: 3.5 cm
- Mass Flow Rate: 0.1 kg/s
- Nusselt Number: 0.23
- Heat Transfer Coefficient (h): 0.50 W/m²·K
The thermal boundary layer develops more freely with 3 cm spacing,
allowing for better convection compared to tighter configurations. The
velocity field shows expected acceleration between tubes and recirculation in
wakes, explaining the observed Nusselt number and h value.
16
Case 8:
Diameter: 2 cm
- Vertical Distance: 2 cm
- Horizontal Distance: 10 cm
- Mass Flow Rate: 0.1 kg/s
- Nusselt Number: 1.09
- Heat Transfer Coefficient (h): 2.58 W/m²·K
17
Case 8 shows excellent heat transfer performance due to the large horizontal spacing
between the tubes, allowing strong fluid mixing and reattachment. The high flow rate
(0.1 kg/s) further enhances convection, reflected in the high Nusselt number and heat
transfer coefficient. Temperature gradients are sharp near tube surfaces, and the flow
field is well-distributed without strong interference zones
Case 9:
18
Diameter: 1.5 cm
- Vertical Distance: 3 cm
- Horizontal Distance: 10 cm
- Mass Flow Rate: 0.1 kg/s
- Nusselt Number: 0.13
- Heat Transfer Coefficient (h): 0.44 W/m²·K
Case 9 demonstrates moderate heat transfer with smooth velocity profiles due to the
smaller tube diameter and wide spacing. While the flow is less obstructed and
recirculates gently, the reduction in surface area and turbulence limits the convective
enhancement, resulting in a relatively low Nusselt number and heat transfer coefficient
19
Case 10:
Diameter: 1.5 cm
- Vertical Distance: 3 cm
- Horizontal Distance: 10 cm
- Mass Flow Rate: 0.01 kg/s
- Nusselt Number: 0.01
- Heat Transfer Coefficient (h): 0.02 W/m²·K
20
Case 10 represents one of the worst-performing configurations in terms of heat
transfer. The combination of small diameter and very low flow rate leads to minimal
velocity,poor convection, and stagnant flow zones. This results in an extremely low
Nusselt number and heat transfer coefficient, making it thermally inefficient
Case 11:
Diameter: 1.5 cm
- Vertical Distance: 2 cm
- Horizontal Distance: 10 cm
- Mass Flow Rate: 0.1 kg/s
- Nusselt Number: 0.26
- Heat Transfer Coefficient (h): 0.97
W/m²·K
21
Case 11 achieves good heat transfer due to the combination of moderate diameter (1.5
cm) and high flow rate (0.1 kg/s). The large horizontal gap allows smooth reattachment
and velocity uniformity. This yields a relatively high Nusselt number (0.26) and h = 0.97
W/m²·K, making it a balanced configuration for thermal and hydraulic performance
22
Case 12:
Diameter: 1.5 cm
- Vertical Distance: 2 cm
- Horizontal Distance: 10 cm
- Mass Flow Rate: 0.01 kg/s
- Nusselt Number: 0.01
- Heat Transfer Coefficient (h): 0.05 W/m²·K
23
Case 12 performs poorly in terms of thermal efficiency. The low flow rate and small
diameter cause the flow to move too slowly to disturb the thermal boundary layer
resulting in a very low heat transfer coefficient and Nusselt number. It's one of the least
effective configurations for heat removal in the entire study
24
Comparison
Case 1 vs Case 2:
Parameter Case 1 Case 2
Tube Diameter (cm) 2 1.5
Vertical Distance (cm) 2 2
Horizontal Distance 3.5 3.5
(cm)
Mass Flow Rate (kg/s) 0.01 0.01
Net Heat Transfer 1823.15 1480.82
Rate (W)
Nusselt Number 0.05 0.01
Heat Transfer Coeff. 0.07 0.03
h (W/m²·K)
Case 1 provides superior thermal and flow performance compared to Case
2, purely due to the larger tube diameter. This results in more surface
area for convection and stronger fluid interaction.
In contrast, Case 2's smaller diameter leads to weaker flow
disturbances and significantly lower heat transfer efficiency, making it
less suitable for effective heat exchange in tube banks
25
Case 11 vs Case 12:
Parameter Case 11 Case 12
Tube Diameter (cm) 1.5 1.5
Vertical Distance (cm) 2 2
Horizontal Distance 10 10
(cm)
Mass Flow Rate (kg/s) 0.1 0.01
Net Heat Transfer 5049.74 1920.35
Rate (W)
Nusselt Number 0.26 0.01
Heat Transfer Coeff. 0.97 0.05
h (W/m²·K)
Case 11 is far superior to Case 12 because of the higher mass flow rate,
which results in stronger velocity, better fluid mixing, and more effective
heat removal.
On the other hand, Case 12, although geometrically identical, suffers
from weak flow energy, leading to stagnant boundary layers and very
poor thermal performance. It clearly demonstrates that flow rate is a
critical factor in heat exchanger efficiency, even when geometry is held
constant.
26
Discussion
The CFD simulations conducted in this study provide valuable insights into the complex
interplay of factors affecting convective heat transfer in fluid flow across in-line tube
banks. The following key observations and their implications are noteworthy:
Effect of Flow Rate: The simulations clearly demonstrate the significant impact of flow
rate on heat transfer efficiency. As seen in the comparison between Case 3 (high flow
rate) and Case 5 (low flow rate), increasing the flow rate results in a substantial
enhancement in the total heat transfer rate. This is attributed to the increased convective
effects at higher velocities. Specifically, Case 3 exhibited a heat transfer rate of 3144.38 W,
while Case 5 only achieved 747.35 W. This highlights the importance of optimizing flow
rates in heat exchanger designs to maximize thermal performance.
Influence of Tube Temperature: The effect of tube temperature on heat transfer is also
pronounced. By raising the tube temperature from 350 K (Case 2) to 600 K (Case 4), the
total heat transfer rate increased significantly. This underscores the strong dependence
of convective heat transfer on the temperature difference between the tube surface and
the fluid. In practical applications, this finding suggests that maintaining a
high-temperature differential can substantially improve heat exchanger effectiveness.
Impact of Tube Rows: Increasing the number of tube rows from 4 to 6 (comparing Case
2 and Case 3) led to a notable increase in heat transfer. This improvement can be
attributed to the larger heat exchange surface area available for the fluid to interact
with, as well as the increased residence time of the fluid within the tube bank. The
simulations indicate that adding more tube rows can be an effective strategy for
enhancing heat transfer, albeit with potential implications for pressure drop.
Role of Fluid Type: The choice of fluid plays a critical role in determining the overall
heat transfer performance. Even with similar surface temperatures, switching from one
fluid to another can result in order-of-magnitude changes in heat transfer rates. This is
primarily due to the differences in thermophysical properties, such as thermal
conductivity, specific heat, and density, between different fluids. The report highlights
that fluid properties, in conjunction with flow velocity, significantly influence the
27
temperature distribution and boundary layer formation.
Velocity and Flow Patterns: The velocity contours obtained from the CFD simulations
reveal important flow phenomena, such as wake formation and vortex shedding behind
the tubes. These flow patterns directly affect the local heat transfer characteristics,
influencing both the magnitude and distribution of heat flux at the tube surfaces.
Understanding these flow patterns is crucial for identifying potential areas of enhanced
or diminished heat transfer within the tube bank.
Temperature Fields: The temperature fields generated by the simulations illustrate the
development of thermal boundary layers around the tubes. The steep temperature
gradients observed near the tube walls indicate regions of high local heat flux, which is a
direct measure of the convective heat transfer rate. Analyzing these temperature fields
provides valuable insights into the thermal behavior of the fluid flow and helps in
optimizing the design of heat exchangers for maximum efficiency.
Conclusion
The study emphasizes the effectiveness of CFD in analyzing convective heat transfer in
fluid flow across in-line tube banks. The simulations provide detailed insights into the
impact of flow rate on heat transfer, highlighting the importance of this parameter in
thermal system design. The findings support the use of CFD to optimize heat exchanger
performance across various industrial applications.
28