Thermal / Engineering tools

Heat exchanger case comparison

Compare two operating cases using both stream energy balances, LMTD, UA, and pressure drop.

Case A

Hot inlet °CHot outlet °CCold inlet °CCold outlet °CHot flow kg/sCold flow kg/sHot cp kJ/(kg·K)Cold cp kJ/(kg·K)Hot pressure drop kPaCold pressure drop kPa

Case B

Hot inlet °CHot outlet °CCold inlet °CCold outlet °CHot flow kg/sCold flow kg/sHot cp kJ/(kg·K)Cold cp kJ/(kg·K)Hot pressure drop kPaCold pressure drop kPa

Flow arrangement

Case comparison

Quantity	Case A	Case B
Hot-side heat loss	12.54 kW	13.376 kW
Cold-side heat gain	12.54 kW	13.376 kW
Balance difference	0%	0%
Mean duty (provisional if imbalanced)	12.54 kW	13.376 kW
LMTD	26.472 K	25.567 K
Inferred UA	473.714 W/K	523.182 W/K
Minimum terminal approach	25 K	24 K
Hot-side Δp	15 kPa	22 kPa
Cold-side Δp	12 kPa	18 kPa

Method & limits

Each stream duty uses ṁ cₚ ΔT. The displayed duty averages hot and cold estimates to make an imbalance visible; it is provisional when they disagree. LMTD uses the selected flow arrangement and UA = mean duty / LMTD. Pressure drops are inputs for comparison, not predictions.

Use consistent boundaries and flow rates for a fair comparison. Phase change, heat loss to ambient, variable properties, fouling, and crossflow or multipass correction are outside this first-pass method.

Read the heat exchanger guide →

Build confidence in the result.

Record assumptions and compare against independent evidence using the simulation validation guide.

Explore free engineering guides →