19 views

Uploaded by Heny Martha

- I. Introduction [ENG]
- Analysis of Coiled-Tube Heat Exchangers to Improve Heat Transfer Rate With Spirally Corrugated Wall
- type_ec_table.pdf
- Lab Report Shell n Tube
- 35IJMPERDFEB201935
- EXP4s - heat exchanger
- Evsim Nistir 89 4133
- API-23
- HX Design 02
- Analysis of Segmental and Helical Baffle in Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger
- Temperature Cross Possible and Impossible Scenario
- AI Acoustic Ranger A4
- 84 Picon Nunez
- HE
- Exercise - Optimisation Past Year Exam
- Carbo-47-DB-EN-v2.06-01-2017
- Hot Oil System Design Guide
- 75872167 Copeland Refrigeration Manual Part 2 Refrigeration System Components
- Double Pipe
- Lab_report_year_2_nickel

You are on page 1of 11

Chi-Chuan Wang*, Kuan-Yu Chi

Energy and Resources Laboratories, Industrial Technology Research Institute, Hsinchu, Taiwan

Received 5 November 1998; received in revised form 19 October 1999

Abstract

This study presents the airside performance of n-and-tube heat exchangers with plain n congurations. A total

of 18 samples were tested. The eect of the number of tube rows, n pitch and tube diameter on the thermal-

hydraulic characteristics was examined. Depending on the number of tube rows, it was found that the heat transfer

characteristics were strongly related to the n pitch. For N = 1 or 2, the heat transfer performance increased with

decrease of n pitch. For Nr4 and Re

Dc

>2000, the eect of n pitch on heat transfer performance was negligible.

For the same n pitch, the eect of the number of tube rows on the friction performance was very small. The eect

of tube diameter on heat transfer performance is related to n pitch as well. Pressure drops for D

c

= 10X23 mm

exceed those of D

c

= 8X51 mm by approximately 1015%. 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Augmentation; Heat exchangers; Finned surfaces

1. Introduction

Plate n-and-tube heat exchangers of plain n pat-

tern are employed in a wide variety of engineering ap-

plications such as air-conditioning apparatus, process

gas heaters and coolers. The n-and-tube heat exchan-

gers usually consist of mechanically or hydraulically

expanded round tubes in a block of parallel continuous

ns and, depending on the application, the heat

exchangers can be produced with one or more rows.

There are many variants regarding n patterns of plate

n-and-tube heat exchangers, e.g. plain, wavy, louver

and convex-louver. Among them, plain n congur-

ation is still the most popular n pattern, owing to its

simplicity, durability and versatility in application.

During the past few decades, many eorts have been

devoted to heat transfer and friction characteristics of

plate n-and-tube heat exchangers. Table 1 summarizes

the most inuential investigations of the plate n-and-

tube heat exchangers of plain n geometry since 1971.

The most informative studies were those carried out by

Rich [1,2], who investigated a total of 14 coils, in

which the tube size was 13.34 mm and the longitudinal

and transverse tube pitches were 27.5 and 31.75 mm,

respectively. He examined the eect of n spacing and

the number of tube rows and concluded that the heat

transfer coecient was essentially independent of the

n spacing and the pressure drop per row is indepen-

dent of the number of tube rows.

Based on the test results for ve heat exchangers

(McQuiston, [3], F

p

= 1X816X35 mm, D

o

= 9X96 mm,

P

l

= 22 mm, P

t

= 25X4 mm and N = 4), McQuiston

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 43 (2000) 26812691

0017-9310/00/$ - see front matter 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S0017- 9310( 99) 00332- 4

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhmt

* Corresponding author. D500 ERL/ITRI, Bldg. 64, 195

196, Section 4, Chung Hsing Rd., Chutung 310, Hsinchu, Tai-

wan. Tel.: +886-3-591-6294; fax: +886-3-582-0250.

E-mail address: ccwang@itri.org.tw (C.-C. Wang).

[4] proposed the rst well known correlation by

employing a ``nning factor'', dened as A

o

/A

to

, to

correlate his data along with those of Rich [1,2]. His

correlation shows a strong dependence of heat transfer

performance with the nning factor, i.e.

jH(A

o

aA

to

)

0X15

X For the friction factor correlation,

McQuiston [4] claimed the accuracy is 235%. Kayan-

sayan [5] also correlated his data (10 samples) using

the `nning factor' and showed the j-factor was pro-

portional to (A

o

/A

to

)

0.362

. However, the heat exchan-

gers tested by Kayansayan [5] were all again four-row

coil and no frictional data were reported. Furthermore,

the experimental data of Kayansayan [5] were con-

siderably lower than those reported by Rich [1,2]. The

discrepancies between data of Rich [1,2] and Kayansa-

yan [5] are not clear; however, as pointed out by Wang

et al. [6], some of the test data of Kayansayan [5]

showed a scattering inconsistency, which may imply

some inaccuracies of the test results [5].

Based on the database of ve investigations, Gray

and Webb [7] proposed an updated correlation for

plain n geometry. It should be mentioned here that

the database by Gray and Webb was for Nr4 and the

database was ltered in advance to prevent ``over-

weighting''. The root-mean-square error of the result-

ing correlation was 7.3% for heat transfer coecients

Nomenclature

A area

A

c

minimum ow area, rA

fr

A

fr

frontal area

A

o

total surface area

A

to

external tube surface area

C heat capacity rate

c

p

specic heat at constant press-

ure

D

c

n collar outside diameter,

D

o

+2d

f

D

i

inside tube diameter

D

o

tube outside diameter

D

h

hydraulic diameter, 4A

c

L/A

o

f friction factor

F

p

n pitch

G

c

mass ux of the air based on

the minimum ow area,

= rV

max

h

o

heat transfer coecient

j Nu/RePr

1/3

, the Colburn factor

k thermal conductivity

L depth of the heat exchanger in

airow direction

N number of tube rows

m mass ow rate

NTU UA/C

min

, number of transfer

units

DP pressure drop

P

l

longitudinal tube pitch

Pr Prandtl number

P

t

transverse tube pitch

Q

max

C

min

(T

water,in

T

air,in

), the maxi-

mum possible heat transfer rate

r

c

tube outside radius, including

collar thickness

Re

Dc

rVD

c

/m, Reynolds number

R

eq

equivalent radius for circular

n

r tube inside radius

T temperature

d

f

n thickness

U overall heat transfer coecient

V

fr

frontal velocity

V

max

maximum velocity inside the

heat exchanger, V

max

= V

fr

asX

X

L

(P

t

a2)

2

P

2

l

_

a2 geometric parameter

X

M

P

t

/2, geometric parameter

d

w

thickness of tube wall

e

Q

ave

a

Q

max

, heat exchanger

eectiveness

Z n eciency

Z

o

surface eectiveness

m dynamic viscosity of uid

r density

s contraction ratio of cross-sec-

tional area

Subscripts

1 air side inlet

2 air side outlet

air air side

ave average value

b base surface

i tube side

in inlet

f n surface

m mean value

min minimum value

max maximum value

o total surface

out outlet

water water side

w wall of the tube

C.-C. Wang, K.-Y. Chi / Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 43 (2000) 26812691 2682

and 7.8% for friction factors. Notice that the Gray

and Webb [7] correlation gave reasonably predictive

ability for those having larger tube diameter, larger

longitudinal tube pitch and transverse tube pitch. A

signicant improvement of the Gray and Webb [7] cor-

relation is their friction factor correlation, which is su-

perior to McQuiston's [4] correlation. Seshimo and

Fujii [8] provided test results for a total of 35 samples,

but their test range was limited to 0.5 ms

1

< V

fr

<

2.5 ms

1

. Recently, Wang et al. [6] reported airside

performance for 15 samples of plain n-and-tube heat

exchangers. They examined eects of several geometri-

cal parameters, including the number of tube rows, n

spacing and n thickness. Their test samples were lim-

ited to D

c

= 10X3 mm, P

l

= 22 mm, P

t

= 25X4 mm and

N = 26X Wang et al. [6] argued that the occurrence of

``maximum phenomenon'' for the Colburn j factors at

a large number of tube rows and small n spacing may

not be associated with the experimental uncertainties,

as commented by Rich

1

. They also proposed a heat

transfer and friction correlation to describe their own

data set (P

l

= 22 mm and P

t

= 25X4 mm).

Though numerous studies had been devoted to plain

n-and-tube heat exchangers, however, most of the

previously published data were for large tube diameter

(e.g. D

o

= 9X52, 12X7 and 15X8 mm). In modern

applications of air-cooled heat exchangers, the tube

size is generally less than 10 mm and the correspond-

ing longitudinal and transverse tube pitches are getting

smaller and smaller. Recently, the use of even smaller

tubes (like 7.94- and 7-mm tubes) in residential appli-

cation is becoming popular. This is because possible

higher heat transfer coecients, lower pressure drops

and less refrigerant charge can be achieved by using

smaller tubes, and can eventually lead to much more

compact n-and-tube heat exchanger design. This is es-

pecially helpful in space-limited areas. In a recent in-

vestigation, based on the test results of four plain n-

and-tube exchangers with D

c

= 7X59 mm, P

t

= 21 mm,

P

l

= 12X7 mm and N = 23, Wang et al. [9] reported

that the Gray and Webb correlation may signicantly

underpredict the heat transfer performance.

Table 1

Experimental results for previous investigators

a

Investigators Number of samples D

o

(mm)

Fin pitch

(mm)

P

t

(mm)

P

l

(mm)

Row Test range

(m/s)

Correlation

McQuiston and Tree [28] 2 10.3 1.78, 3.18 20.3 17.6 0.55.9 N

Rich [1] 8 13.3 1.238.7 31.8 27.5 4 0.9521 N

Rich [2] 6 13.2 1.75 31.8 27.5 16 1.4416.3 N

Elmahdy and Biggs [27] 1 9.91 3.14 25.4 22 6 0.84.5 Y

5 13.5 3.811.75 31.8 27.4 4

1 13.5 2.15 38.1 32.8 8

McQuiston [3] 5 9.96 1.816.35 25.4 22 4 0.54 N

McQuiston [4] Y

Kays and London [16] 1 10.21 3.175 25.4 22 N

1 17.17 3.28 38.1 44.45

Gray and Webb [7] Y

Kayansayan [5] 3 9.52 2.343.34 25.4 22 4 0.510 Y

+

3 9.52 2.344.34 30 26 4

1 12.5 2.34 31.8 32 4

3 16.3 2.344.34 40.0 34.7 4

Seshimo and Fujii [8] 5 6.35 1.22.1 20.4 17.7 12 0.52.5 Y

+

8 7.94 1.22.3 20.4 17.7 1

4 9.52 1.5 25.4 32/22/20/18 1

9.52 25.4 20.4 17.7

4 9.52 1.06.0 25.4 22 15

Wang et al. [6] 15 10.06 1.743.2 25.4 22 26 0.36.5 Y

Wang et al. [9] 4 7.2 1.21, 1.71 20.4 12.7 23 0.38.0 Y

+

Present investigation 18 7.3 1.211.78 21 12.7 2, 4 0.36.5 Y

8.28 1.212.06 25.4 19.05 14

10.0 1.212.06 25.4 19.05 14

a

The test samples are all staggered layout. The correlation developed by Seshimo and Fujii [8] is valid for 1 and 2 row. The cor-

relation proposed by Kayansayan [5] is only for heat transfer data. The correlation proposed for Wang et al. [7] is a modication

of Gray and Webb correlation and the modication is only for heat transfer data.

1

D.G. Rich, private discussion with Prof. Webb, 1986,

quoted in Gray and Webb [7] paper.

C.-C. Wang, K.-Y. Chi / Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 43 (2000) 26812691 2683

In this connection, the present authors feel that

further experimental information is needed (especially

about those having smaller D

c

, P

t

and P

l

). Thus, the

objective of the present study is to provide new exper-

imental data for the plain n-and-tube heat exchangers

having D

o

=9X52, 7X94, and 7 mm (before expansion).

2. Experimental apparatus

The sample coils are all plain n conguration.

Their detailed geometric parameters are tabulated in

Table 2. Detailed construction of the circuitry arrange-

ment is identical to those by Seshimo and Fujii [8] and

Wang et al. [10]. All tests were conducted in an open

wind tunnel as shown in Fig. 1. The ambient air ow

was forced across the test section by means of a 5.6-

kW centrifugal fan with an inverter. To avoid and

minimize the eect of ow maldistribution in the ex-

periments, an air straightenerequalizer and a mixer

were provided. The inlet and the exit temperatures

across the sample coil were measured by two T-type

thermocouple meshes. The inlet measuring mesh con-

sists of 12 thermocouples, while the outlet mesh con-

tains 36 thermocouples. The sensor locations inside the

rectangular duct were established following ASHRAE

[11] recommendations. These data signals were indivi-

dually recorded and then averaged. During the isother-

mal test, the variance of these thermocouples was

within 20.28C. In addition, all the thermocouples were

precalibrated by a quartz thermometer with 0.018C

precision.

The pressure drop of the test coil was detected by a

precision dierential pressure transducer, reading to

0.1 Pa. The air ow measuring station was a multiple

nozzle code tester based on the ASHRAE 41.2 stan-

dard [12]. The working medium in the tube side was

hot water. The inlet water temperature was controlled

by a thermostat reservoir having an adjustable capacity

up to 60 kW. Both the inlet and outlet temperatures

were measured by two precalibrated RTDs (resistance

temperature device, Pt100 O). Their accuracy was

within 0.058C. The water volumetric ow rate is

detected by a magnetic ow meter with 0.002 l/s resol-

ution.

All the data signals are collected and converted by a

data acquisition system (a hybrid recorder). The data

acquisition system then transmitted the converted sig-

nals through a GPIB interface to the host computer

for further operation. During the experiments, the

water inlet temperature was held constant at 65.0 2

0.28C and the tube side Reynolds number was approxi-

mately 38,000. Frontal velocities ranged from 0.3 to

6.5 m/s. The energy un-balance between air side and

tube side was within 3%. The water side resistance

(evaluated as 1/h

i

A

i

) was less than 15% of the overall

resistance in all cases. The test n-and-tube heat

exchangers are tension-wrapped, having a ``L'' type n

collar. Thermal contact conductance provided by the

manufacturers ranged from 11,000 to 16,000 Wm

2

K.

Uncertainties in the reported experimental values of

Table 2

Geometric dimensions of the sample plate n-and-tube heat exchangers

a

No. Nominal tube diameter (mm) D

c

(mm) Fin pitch (mm) P

t

(mm) P

l

(mm) Number of tube rows

1 7 7.53 1.22 21 12.7 2

2 7 7.53 1.78 21 12.7 2

3 7 7.53 1.22 21 12.7 4

4 7 7.53 1.78 21 12.7 4

5 7.94 8.51 1.19 25.4 19.05 1

6 7.94 8.51 2.04 25.4 19.05 1

7 7.94 8.51 1.23 25.4 19.05 2

8 7.94 8.51 2.06 25.4 19.05 2

9 7.94 8.51 1.23 25.4 19.05 4

10 7.94 8.51 1.60 25.4 19.05 4

11 7.94 8.51 2.06 25.4 19.05 4

12 9.52 10.23 1.23 25.4 19.05 1

13 9.52 10.23 2.23 25.4 19.05 1

14 9.52 10.23 1.23 25.4 19.05 2

15 9.52 10.23 2.23 25.4 19.05 2

16 9.52 10.23 1.23 25.4 19.05 4

17 9.52 10.23 1.55 25.4 19.05 4

18 9.52 10.23 2.31 25.4 19.05 4

a

The test samples are all staggered layout. Fin thickness of all the test samples are 0.115 mm.

C.-C. Wang, K.-Y. Chi / Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 43 (2000) 26812691 2684

the Colburn j factor and friction factor f were esti-

mated by the method suggested by Moat [13]. The

uncertainties ranged from 3.2 to 15.9% for the j factor

and 3.3 to 22.3% for f. The highest uncertainties were

associated with lowest Reynolds number.

3. Analysis

To obtain the heat transfer and pressure loss charac-

teristics of the test coil from the experimental data, the

eNTU method is applied to determine the UA

product in the analysis. The total heat transfer rate

used in the calculation is the mathematical average of

the air side and the water side heat transfer rates,

namely,

Q

air

= m

air

c

p,air

DT

air

(1)

Q

water

= m

water

c

p,water

DT

water

(2)

Q

ave

= (

Q

water

Q

air

)a2 (3)

In the eNTU method, the number of heat transfer

units (NTU) is dened as

NTU UA

_

C

min

(4)

The UA product was calculated using the eNTU

relationship accounting the eect of the number of

tube rows from ESDU [14] and is depicted in Table 3.

Denitions of C

+

and e are given as follows:

C

+

C

min

C

max

=

m

air

c

p,air

m

water

c

p,water

(6)

e

Q

ave

Q

max

=

Q

ave

C

min

(T

in,water

T

in,air

)

(7)

The overall heat transfer resistance is dened from

the following relationship,

Fig. 1. Schematic of test facility.

C.-C. Wang, K.-Y. Chi / Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 43 (2000) 26812691 2685

1

UA

=

1

Z

o

h

o

A

o

1

2

log

e

_

D

o

D

i

_

D

o

k

w

A

w

1

h

i

A

i

(8)

The tube-side heat transfer coecient, h

i

, is evalu-

ated from the Gnielinski [15] semi-empirical corre-

lation

h

i

=

_

k

D

_

i

(Re

i

1000)Pr ( f

i

a2)

1 12X7

f

i

a2

_

(Pr

2a3

1)

(9)

where

f

i

= (1X58 ln(Re

Di

) 3X28)

2

(10)

where Re

Di

= rVD

i

amX The surface eciency, Z

o

, is

dened as the actual heat transfer for the n and base

divided by the heat transfer for the n and base when

the n is at the same base temperature T

b

. This term

may be written in terms of the n eciency Z, n sur-

face area A

f

and total surface area A

o

, i.e.

Z

o

= 1

A

f

A

o

(1 Z) (11)

where A

o

= A

f

A

b

and A

f

, A

b

are the areas of the n

and base, respectively. Z denotes n eciency and is

calculated by the approximation method described by

Schmidt [16].

Z =

tanh(mrf)

mrf

(12)

where

m =

2h

o

k

f

d

f

_

(13)

f =

_

R

eq

r

1

_

[1 0X35 ln(R

eq

_

r)] (14)

R

eq

r

= 1X27

X

M

r

_

X

L

X

M

0X3

_

1

_

2

(15)

With Eqs. (12)(15), an iterative procedure is needed

Table 3

eNTU relationship for cross-ow conguration

a

Number of tube rows Side of C

min

Formula

air e = [1 e

C

+

(1e

NTU

)

]aC

+

1 tube

e = 1 e

((1e

NTUC

+

)aC

+

)

air

e = [1 e

2KC

+

(1 C

+

K

2

)]aC

+

, K = 1 e

NTU

_

2

2 tube

e = 1 e

2K

_

C

+

(1 (K

2

aC

+

)), K = 1 e

NTUC

+

_

2

air

e = [1 e

3KC

+

(1 C

+

K

2

(3 K ) (3(C

+

)

2

K

4

a2))]aC

+

, K = 1 e

NTU

_

3

3 tube

e = 1 e

3K

_

C

+

(1 (K

2

(3 K )aC

+

) (3K

4

a2(C

+

)

2

))aK = 1 e

NTUC

+

_

3

air e = [1 e

4KC

+

(1 C

+

K

2

(6 4K K

2

) 4(C

+

)

2

K

4

(2 K ) (8(C

+

)

3

K

6

a3))]aC

+

,

K = 1 e

NTU

_

4

4 tube

e = 1 e

4K

_

C

+

(1 (K

2

(6 4K K

2

)aC

+

) (4K

4

(2 K )a(C

+

)

2

) (8K

6

a3(C

+

)

3

)),

K = 1 e

NTUC

+

_

4

o e = 1 exp[NTU

0X22

{exp(C

+

NTU

0X78

) 1]aC

+

]

a

Unmixedunmixed formula.

C.-C. Wang, K.-Y. Chi / Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 43 (2000) 26812691 2686

to obtain the airside heat transfer coecient h

o

and the

surface eciency Z

o

. The airside heat transfer charac-

teristics are presented in terms of the Colburn j factor:

j =

h

o

rV

max

Cp

a

Pr

2a3

(16)

where V

max

= V

fr

asX The term, s, is the ratio of the

minimum ow area to frontal area. All the uid prop-

erties are evaluated at the average values of the inlet

and outlet temperatures under the steady state con-

dition. The friction factors are calculated from the

pressure drop equation proposed by Kays and London

[17]. The relation for the nondimensional friction fac-

tor, f, in terms of pressure drop is shown below:

f =

A

c

A

o

r

m

r

1

_

2DPr

1

G

2

c

(1 s

2

)

_

r

1

r

2

1

_

_

(17)

where A

o

and A

c

stand for the total surface area and

the ow cross-sectional area, respectively.

4. Results and discussion

Fig. 2 depicts the eect of n pitch on the heat

transfer and friction characteristics having 4-row con-

guration. As is seen in the gure, the heat transfer

performance is independent of n pitch for both types

of conguration (D

c

= 10X23 and D

c

= 7X52 mm).

Regarding the eect of n pitch on heat transfer per-

formance, Rich [1] concluded that the heat transfer

coecients were essentially independent of n spacing

having 4-row conguration. The experimental data of

Wang et al. [6] also supported this result for plain n-

and-tube heat exchangers having 4-row conguration.

Analogous to the test results of plain n pattern,

Wang et al. [1822] also conclude that the eect of n

pitch on the heat transfer performances is also negli-

gible for multirow louver and wavy n geometry.

However, for the heat transfer performance of 1-

and 2-row conguration, as illustrated in Fig. 3, the

heat transfer performance shows detectable dependence

on the n pitch. For Re

Dc

b 5000, the eect of n

pitch is negligible. The results can be explained by the

interpretations of previous investigations [23,24]. Based

on the naphthalene sublimating method, Saboya and

Sparrow [23] indicated that boundary development is

the most important factor for the 1-row coil and the

eect of vortex may gain in importance at higher Rey-

nolds number. Therefore, as shown in the present test

results, the eect of n pitch diminished for

Re

Dc

b 5000X For Re

Dc

` 5000, the heat transfer per-

formance increases with decrease of n pitch. This

phenomenon is seen for Nr2 and is especially pro-

nounced for N = 1X The phenomenon can be further

Fig. 3. Eect of n pitch on heat transfer and friction charac-

teristics having N = 1 and N = 2X

Fig. 2. Eect of n pitch on heat transfer and friction charac-

teristics having N = 4X

C.-C. Wang, K.-Y. Chi / Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 43 (2000) 26812691 2687

explained from the numerical results of the eect of n

pitch carried out by Torikoshi et al. [24]. They con-

ducted a 3D numerical investigation of a 1-row plain

n-and-tube heat exchanger. A schematic of their

results is plotted in Fig. 4a and b. Their investigation

shows that the vortex that forms behind the tube can

be suppressed and the entire ow region can be kept

steady and laminar when the n pitch is small enough

(e.g. F

p

aD = 0X17, Fig. 4a). Further increase of F

p

/D to

0.3 would result in a noticeable increase of the cross-

stream width of the vortex region behind the tube

(Fig. 4b). As a result, lower heat transfer performance

is seen for larger F

p

/D for 1-row conguration. For

the numerical results of 2-row conguration by Tori-

koshi and Xi [25], the rst row cylinder is stabilized

due to the existence of the second tube row, rather

than in the wake of the rst row as seen in Fig. 4c.

Therefore, the 2-row coil still reveals similar results as

those of 1-row coils. However, it can be seen that the

eect of n pitch for N = 2 becomes less profound in

comparison with N = 1X

With further increase of the number of tube rows

(N r4), the airow within the heat exchanger may

become periodic and results in the ``vortex-controlled''

regime. Consequently, the eect of n pitch on heat

transfer performance vanishes for N = 4X This

phenomenon can be further substantiated from the test

results of friction factors. In comparison with the test

results of the 4-row coil (vortex dominated) in Fig. 2,

the closing of friction factors vs. the Reynolds number

is apparently lower (Re

Dc

I20003000). Xi [26] also

showed that higher velocity and larger number of tube

rows may result in the occurrence of vortex along the

ns, therefore the eect of n pitch on heat transfer

coecient would be negligible.

Fig. 5 illustrates the eect of the number of tube

rows on the heat transfer and friction characteristics.

The number of tube rows are 1, 2 and 4, respectively.

The n pitch is approximate 1.2 mm. As can be seen,

the Colburn j factors decrease with increase of the

number of tube rows for Re

Dc

` 3000X However, the

eect of the number of tube rows diminishes as the

Reynolds number increase over 3000. This phenom-

enon is very similar to the test results reported by Rich

[2] and Wang et al. [6]. At a higher Reynolds region,

the airow and temperature distribution inside of heat

exchanger may easily become unsteady due to vortex

formation and shedding. Hence, higher heat transfer

performance is seen and eventually the eect of the

number of tube rows on heat transfer coecient

becomes negligible. As the Reynolds number is

decreased, the eect of downstream turbulence tends

to diminish. As a result, signicant degradation of the

heat transfer performance is observed for Re

Dc

` 3000X

Xi [26] also pointed out that in the case of lower Rey-

nolds number, ow and thermal elds inside of heat

exchanger are laminar. Therefore, at any n pitches,

the heat transfer coecient decreases as the row num-

ber increases. Furthermore, the decreasing tendency of

Fig. 5. Eect of the number of tube rows on the heat transfer

and friction characteristics (F

p

= 1X23mm).

Fig. 4. Schematic illustration of 3D computational results for

the eect of n pitch (taken from those by Torikoshi et al.

[24] and Torikoshi and Xi [25]).

C.-C. Wang, K.-Y. Chi / Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 43 (2000) 26812691 2688

heat transfer coecient vs. the number of tube rows is

dierent when n pitch is increased. In the case of lar-

ger n pitch (F

p

I2X2 mm) shown in Fig. 6, one can

clearly see that the eect of the number of tube rows

on the heat transfer performance at low Reynolds

numbers, is almost negligible. Figs. 5 and 6 also indi-

cate that for multiple-row coils, the friction factors are

independent of the number of tube rows.

The eect of tube diameter on the heat transfer and

friction characteristics for 1-row and 2-row is shown in

Fig. 7 (F

p

I1X2 mm). As seen, the heat transfer coef-

cients for D

c

= 8X51 mm are slightly higher than those

of D

c

= 10X23 mm for N = 2X In addition, the pressure

drops for D

c

= 10X23 are 1015% higher than those of

D

c

= 8X51 mmX The results agree with the 3D numerical

simulation carried out by Torikoshi and Xi [24]. The

larger diameter tube may increase the ineective area

behind the tubes. However, for N = 1, the heat trans-

fer coecients for D

c

= 10X23 mm are slightly higher

than those of D

c

= 8X51 mmX A possible explanation

may be due to the ineective area of the 1-row con-

guration is comparatively small.

For a larger n pitch near 2.2 mm, analogous

results are seen in Fig. 8. Notice that the n pitch for

D

c

= 8X51 is about 45% lower than that of

D

c

= 10X23 mmX Hence, a slight dierence in heat

transfer performance is seen for V

fr

< 1.5 ms

1

. The

eect of tube diameter on the heat transfer perform-

Fig. 6. Eect of the number of tube rows on the heat transfer

and friction characteristics (F

p

= 2X232X31mm).

Fig. 7. Eect of the tube diameter row on the heat transfer

and friction characteristics (F

p

= 1X21mm, N=1 and 2).

Fig. 8. Eect of the tube diameter row on the heat transfer

and friction characteristics (F

p

= 2X042X23mm, N=1 and 2).

C.-C. Wang, K.-Y. Chi / Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 43 (2000) 26812691 2689

ance is almost reversed when compared with those of

F

p

I1X2 mm and N = 4 (Fig. 9). Basically, the heat

transfer performance for D

c

= 10X23 mm is higher than

those of D

c

= 8X51 mm, except at very low frontal vel-

ocity. The characteristics of the pressure drops are

similar to those of F

p

I1X2 mmX

5. Conclusions

On the basis of previous discussions, the following

conclusions are made:

. The eect of n pitch on the Colburn j factors

is negligible for Nr4 and Re

Dc

b 2000 owing to

the eect of vortex formation along the n. The

present test data indicate that the heat transfer

coecients increase with decrease n pitch for

300 ` Re

Dc

` 3000 and N = 1, 2X

. The eect of tube row on the heat transfer perform-

ance is especially pronounced at low Reynolds num-

ber where the number of tube rows is large and the

n pitch is small. The eect of the number of tube

rows on friction performance is comparatively small.

. For F

p

I1X2 mm, the eect of tube diameter on the

heat transfer coecients is rather small. However,

the pressure drops for D

c

= 10X23 mm are 515%

higher than those of D

c

= 8X51 mmX Similar results

were observed for F

p

I2X2 mmX

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express gratitude for

nancial support from the Energy R&D foundation of

the Energy Commission of the Ministry of Economic

Aairs, Taiwan.

References

[1] D.G. Rich, The eect of n spacing on the heat transfer

and friction performance of multirow, smooth plate n-

and-tube heat exchangers, ASHARE Trans. 79 (2)

(1973) 135145.

[2] D.G. Rich, The eect of the number of tubes rows on

heat transfer performance of smooth plate n-and-tube

heat exchangers, ASHRAE Trans. 81 (1) (1975) 307

317.

[3] F.C. McQuiston, Heat, mass and momentum transfer

data for ve plate-n-tube heat transfer surfaces,

ASHRAE Trans. 84 (1) (1978) 266293.

[4] F.C. McQuiston, Correlation of heat, mass and momen-

tum transport coecients for plate-n-tube heat transfer

surface, ASHRAE Trans. 84 (1) (1978) 294308.

[5] N. Kayansayan, Heat transfer characterization of at

plain ns and round tube heat exchangers, Exp. Therm.

Fluid Sci. 6 (1993) 263272.

[6] C.C. Wang, Y.C. Hsieh, Y.J. Chang, Y.T. Lin, Sensible

heat and friction characteristics of plate n-and-tube

heat exchangers having plane ns, Int. J. Refrig. 19 (4)

(1996) 223230.

[7] D.L. Gray, R.L. Webb, Heat transfer and friction corre-

lations for plate nned-tube heat exchangers having

plain ns, in: Proc. 8th Heat Transfer Conference, 1986,

pp. 27452750.

[8] Y. Seshimo, M. Fujii, An experimental study of the per-

formance of plate n and tube heat exchangers at low

Reynolds number, in: Proceeding of the 3rd ASME/

JSME Thermal Engineering Joint Conference, vol. 4,

1991, pp. 449454.

[9] C.C. Wang, W.S. Lee, C.T. Chang, Sensible heat trans-

fer characteristics of plate n-and-tube exchangers hav-

ing 7-mm tubes, AIChE Symp. Ser. 93 (314) (1997)

211216.

[10] C.C. Wang, C.J. Lee, C.T. Chang, S.P. Lin, Heat trans-

fer and friction correlation for compact louvered n-

and-tube heat exchangers, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 12

(12) (1999) 19451956.

[11] ASHRAE, in: Handbook Fundamental, SI-Edition,

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-

Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, 1993, pp. 1415 (ch.

13).

[12] ASHRAE Standard 41.2, 1987, Standard Methods for

Laboratory Air-ow Measurement, American Society of

Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers,

Atlanta, 1987.

[13] R.J. Moat, Describing the uncertainties in experimen-

tal results, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 1 (1988) 317.

[14] ESDU 86018, in: Engineering Science Data Unit 86018

Fig. 9. Eect of the tube diameter row on the heat transfer

and friction characteristics (N = 4, F

p

= 1X212X23mm).

C.-C. Wang, K.-Y. Chi / Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 43 (2000) 26812691 2690

with Amendment A, ESDU International plc, London,

1991, pp. 92107.

[15] V. Gnielinsk, New equation for heat and mass transfer

in turbulent pipe and channel ow, Int. Chem. Eng. 16

(1976) 359368.

[16] Th.E. Schmidt, Heat transfer calculations for extended

surfaces, Refrigerating Engineering, April (1949) 351

357.

[17] W.M. Kays, A.L. London, Compact Heat Exchangers,

3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1984.

[18] C.C. Wang, Y.P. Chang, K.U. Chi, Y.J. Chang, An ex-

perimental study of heat transfer and friction character-

istics of typical louver n and tube heat exchangers, Int.

J. Heat Mass Transfer 41 (45) (1998) 817822.

[19] C.C. Wang, Y.P. Chang, K.U. Chi, Y.J. Chang,

A study of nonredirection louver n-and-tube heat

exchangers. Proceeding of Institute of Mechanical

Engineering, Part C, Journal of Mechanical Engineering

Science, 212 (1998) 114.

[20] C.C. Wang, C.J. Lee, C.T. Chang, Some aspects of the

n-and-tube heat exchangers: with and without Louvers,

J. Enhanc. Heat Transfer 6 (1999) 357368.

[21] C.C. Wang, W.L. Fu, C.T. Chang, Heat transfer and

friction characteristics of typical wavy n-and-tube heat

exchangers, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 14 (2) (1997)

174186.

[22] C.C. Wang, Y.M. Tsi, D.C. Lu, Comprehensive

study of convex-louver and wavy n-and-tube heat

exchangers, AIAA J. Thermophys. Heat Transfer 12 (3)

(1998) 423430.

[23] E.M. Saboya, E.M. Sparrow, Transfer characteristics of

two-row plate n and tube heat exchanger congur-

ations, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 19, pp. 4149.

[24] K. Torikoshi, G. Xi, Y. Nakazawa, H. Asano, Flow

and heat transfer performance of a plate-n and tube

heat exchanger (1st report: eect of n pitch), in: 10th

Int. Heat Transfer Conf. 1994, paper 9-HE-16, 1994,

pp. 411416.

[25] K. Torokoshi, G. Xi, A numerical study of ow and

thermal elds in nned tube heat exchangers (eect of

the tube diameter), ASME HTD 317 (1) (1995) 453

458.

[26] G.N. Xi, 1997, Private communication.

[27] P.E. Elmahdy, P.E. Briggs, Finned tube heat ex-

changers: correlation of dry surface data, ASHRAE

Trans. 85 (2) (1979) 262273.

[28] F.C. McQuiston, D.R. Tree, heat transfer and ow fric-

tion data for two n-tube surfaces, ASME J. Heat

Transfer 93 (1971) 249250.

C.-C. Wang, K.-Y. Chi / Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 43 (2000) 26812691 2691

- I. Introduction [ENG]Uploaded byGary M Trajano
- Analysis of Coiled-Tube Heat Exchangers to Improve Heat Transfer Rate With Spirally Corrugated WallUploaded byIJMER
- type_ec_table.pdfUploaded byErin Walker
- Lab Report Shell n TubeUploaded byridzuwan rahimi
- 35IJMPERDFEB201935Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- EXP4s - heat exchangerUploaded bySaniha Aysha Ajith
- Evsim Nistir 89 4133Uploaded byVarun Srinivas Sridharan
- API-23Uploaded bysapu11jagat5855
- HX Design 02Uploaded bybouabre
- Analysis of Segmental and Helical Baffle in Shell and Tube Heat ExchangerUploaded byHai Le
- Temperature Cross Possible and Impossible ScenarioUploaded byAhmad Farooq
- AI Acoustic Ranger A4Uploaded byscribdjn
- 84 Picon NunezUploaded by1940LaSalle
- HEUploaded bymerry rachmawati
- Exercise - Optimisation Past Year ExamUploaded byAmirul Afiq
- Carbo-47-DB-EN-v2.06-01-2017Uploaded bymusajc
- Hot Oil System Design GuideUploaded bygksamy
- 75872167 Copeland Refrigeration Manual Part 2 Refrigeration System ComponentsUploaded byAnand Gupta
- Double PipeUploaded byrudy_423522658
- Lab_report_year_2_nickelUploaded byiamlucy2011
- A-179Uploaded byAdrian Uriel Galvis Arcila
- 1.txtUploaded byPranay Gowda
- Air-Cooled Condenser Coil Leaks Problem_ACHRNEWS_2011!06!06Uploaded bygenas7265
- 145340qghUploaded byHiếu Gà
- 11 Cutting Temperature – Causes, Effects, AssessmentUploaded byPRASAD326
- olefinsUploaded byali
- Example BookUploaded byrgcl
- AspenEnergyAnalTutorialV7_1Uploaded byadlisrod
- Thermocouple CatalogUploaded byZahid Shah
- Series L Rev H.pdfUploaded byRuben Jimenez

- Application Engineer Job Desc_1Uploaded byHeny Martha
- Mass Balances on CO2 AbsorptionUploaded bysahilchem
- Air Cooler 45 Case1.pdfUploaded byHeny Martha
- 8100-series-brochure.pdfUploaded byHeny Martha
- Glycol Dehydrators - Rev 0Uploaded byAkshit Arora
- Catalogue AIR TORQUE n° 4thG.-R-BUploaded bynegrin
- Cng050 RevaUploaded byHeny Martha
- Cng050 RevaUploaded byHeny Martha
- AirTorqueBrochuremetric.pdfUploaded byHeny Martha
- Process Engineer Job Desc_1Uploaded byHeny Martha
- BSPT Thread ChartUploaded byAli Fikar
- UNIT of MEASUREMENT presentation.pptxUploaded byHeny Martha
- JPT2003 09 Gas FocusUploaded byHeny Martha
- Basic Operation and Function of Control Valves. Cashco.pdfUploaded byNeil Carrasco
- PRH-04Uploaded byHeny Martha
- CNG CylindersUploaded byawrche020676
- CoalescerUploaded byHeny Martha
- BTEX EmissionUploaded byHeny Martha
- BKI class.pdfUploaded byArdhika Hermigo
- HMTUploaded byHeny Martha
- ORNL Mark 7 Improvements r1Uploaded byHeny Martha
- BSPT Thread ChartUploaded byAli Fikar
- Pipe Thickness Calculation.pdfUploaded byHeny Martha
- Spec heat Q AUploaded byRony Putera Napitupulu
- CBE 362L 1 Double Pipe (1)Uploaded byDodOng Gwapo
- heat equation.pdfUploaded bynoxleek
- Soq EnergyUploaded byHeny Martha
- OneSteel Piping Systems Data ChartsUploaded byHeny Martha
- OneSteel Piping Systems Data ChartsUploaded byHeny Martha

- Sensiko Brochure 2015 NewUploaded bybidiec
- Course Keeping of High Speed Craft in Stern Quartering SeaUploaded byMichael McDonald
- Six FourUploaded byQuercus Books
- EPA Endangerment TSDUploaded byclyde2400
- Nature's Fury Topic GuideUploaded bytarakan84
- Land Degradation in South Asia Its Severity, Causes and Effeeffects Upon the PeopleUploaded bysatare
- Quiz Science Year 4Uploaded byblue_shylin
- SOPEP TankerUploaded byjohnEnglish
- HOLYGUIDEP2.PDFUploaded byganyesod
- Trial 2Uploaded byReka Niaga
- 3 SixMinSolutnPrLvl Pp259-387Uploaded byPatti Kendrick Whatley
- Hagen Lynn Wild Nights140214 1021 EpubUploaded byDarlaByrne
- climate_change_2008Uploaded byYogesh Kumar
- rock cycle quizUploaded byapi-368213959
- The Solvent Extraction of Some Major MetalsUploaded bySimi Sichula
- Presentation2 -Spoken EnglishUploaded byiramshakoor
- Examination Day - Close Analysis.pptxUploaded byStarr Blue
- Psych Rome TricsUploaded byKarl Attard
- Kham Tibetan LanguageUploaded byTodd Patrick Marek
- A Study on Piled Raft Foundation: a complete reviewingUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Philippine ArchitectureUploaded byMarius Villanueva
- Principi Base Della Liofilizzazione - Carlo VecchioUploaded byYana Cadiatan
- Bayesian NetworksUploaded byJoey SingYee
- AdjectivesUploaded byIoana Mada
- Waste Products & Waste Product ManagementUploaded byAnkush Wawoo
- FORECASTING OF WHEAT PRODUCTION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PAKISTAN AND INDIA.Uploaded byIJAR Journal
- Ncicd Dhi EnglishUploaded byana rojayati
- External+Cladding+Technical+Specification+%28PrimeLine+weatherboard+HardiePlank+weatherboard+PanelClad+sheet+%26+HardieFlex+sheet%29+March+2013Uploaded byalee0007
- RAS60YHA ManualUploaded bysrinath247
- prog 3 ex 3Uploaded byapi-235695748