July 2010, Volume 1, No.

1
International Journal of Chemical and Environmental Engineering

Performance analysis of cross flow plate fin heat

exchanger for Immiscible system using ANN
Dr.M.Thirumarimurugan1* Dr.T.Kannadasan2 Prof.S.Gopalakrishnan3
1*
Selection Grade Lecturer, Department of Chemical Engineering, Coimbatore Institute of Technology,
Coimbatore-
2
Professor in Chemical Engineering, Coimbatore Institute of Technology, Coimbatore and on other duty as
Vice Chancellor i/c, Anna University Coimbatore, Coimbatore
3
Head of the Department, Department of Chemical Engineering, Coimbatore Institute of Technology,
Coimbatore-
*corresponding author email: thirumarimurugan@yahoo.com

Abstract
An experimental investigation on heat transfer study on a solvent and solution were made using cross flow plate fin
heat exchanger. Steam is the hot fluid, whereas Steam and Toluene-Steam immiscible solution serves as cold fluid. A
series of runs were made between steam and water, steam and Toluene solution. In addition to, the volume fraction of
Toluene was varied and the experiment was held. The flow rate of the cold fluid is maintained from 120 to 720 lph and
the volume fraction of Toluene is varied from 10-50%. Experimental results such as exchanger effectiveness, overall heat
transfer coefficients were calculated. Simulation studies were carried out to predict Nusselt number of the cold fluid
(NNu), Fin Effectiveness (ε), Cold Side Efficiency (ηc) and Hot Side Efficiency (ηh) for the heat exchanger using ANN.
General regression is used to train and test the network since the target data was continuous. It is shown that the
predicted results are close to experimental data by ANN approach. The model was compared with the experimental
findings and found to be valid.

Key words: Heat exchanger design, simulated annealing, overall heat transfer coefficient, ANN

of flat plates which is a porous matrix, usually formed

1. I ntr oduction
The compact heat exchanger refers to heat exchanger
design in which large heat transfer surface area are
provided in a small space as possible. The heat transfer
surface area is increased by fins to increase the surface
area per unit volume. Extended surface heat exchangers
are device having appendages on the primary heat transfer
surface (tubular or plate) with the object of increasing
heat transfer area. Because it is well known that the heat
transfer coefficient on the gas side is much lower than
those on the liquid side, therefore, finned heat transfer
surface are used on the gas side to increase the heat
transfer area. Fins are widely used in gas-to-gas and gas-
liquid heat exchangers whenever the heat transfer
coefficient on one or both sides is low and there is a need
for having a compact heat exchanger. The two most
common types of extended surface heat exchangers are
Plate Fin Heat Exchanger and Tube Fin Heat Exchanger.
Plate fin heat exchangers form one of the main categories
of Compact Heat Exchangers designed to pack a high heat
transfer capacity into small volume. They consist a series
from corrugated metals, that provides a large extended
heat transfer surface. This type was first developed for
applications in which weight and volume were at a
premium, such as in aircraft and other automobile units.
For this reason aluminum was used as a material for
construction, and this limited their use to a maximum
temperature of around 250oC (Hewitt et al 1984). Heat
transfer is mainly function of surface area; therefore by
increasing surface area per unit volume high performance
can be obtained with a small size Heat Exchanger.
Performance analysis of cross flow heat exchanger were
carried out by using air as one of the fluid and for low
Reynolds number by Nuntaphan et al (2005).
Performance characteristics correlation for round tube and
plate finned heat exchangers were developed by Abu
Madi et al (1998). An approximate method for transient
behavior of finned tubes cross flow heat exchangers was
discussed by Ercan Ataer (2004). The foresaid research
work mainly caters regarding performance analysis with
miscible and immiscible systems in cross flow plate fin
heat exchanger are minimum. An attempt has been
 Performance analysis of cross flow plate fin heat exchanger for Immiscible system using ANN

successfully made in the research work to improve the plate fin heat exchanger are represented in Figures 4.1 to
study of the performance of heat exchanger with 4.5.
immiscible systems.
3.1. Nusset Number (Cold) Vs Reynolds Number (Cold)
2. M ater ials and M ethod for Toluene-Water System
The Reynolds number (Cold) for different
The schematic diagram of the experimental set up of composition (9%, 10%, 20% and 25% on volume basis)
cross flow plate fin heat exchanger is shown in Figure .1. of immiscible Toluene-Water is plotted against Nusselt
number (Cold) to find the effect of varying flow rate and
composition of cold side on heat transfer coefficient of
5 cold side in the Figure .2
4 6 3.2. Fin Effectiveness(cold) Vs Reynolds Number (Cold)
for Toluene -Water System
The Reynolds number (Cold) for different
composition (9%, 10%, 20% and 25% on volume basis)
8
of immiscible Toluene -Water is plotted against Fin
1
9 Effectiveness(cold)to indicate the effect of varying flow
3
rate and composition of cold side on heat transfer
2
coefficient in the Figure .3
4.3. Fin Effectiveness(Hot) Vs Reynolds Number (Cold)
7 for Toluene -Water System
The Reynolds number (Cold) for different
composition (9%, 10%, 20% and 25% on volume basis)
of immiscible Toluene -Water is plotted against Fin
Effectiveness(Hot) of hot side to find the effect of
varying flow rate and composition of cold side on
1 Cross flow heat exchanger, efficiency of hot side in the Figure .4.
2 Steam generator,
3 Level indicator, 4.4. Surface Effectiveness(cold )Vs Reynolds Number
4 Pressure guage, (Cold) for Toluene -Water System
5 Cold liquid, The effect of mass flow rate of cold fluid in terms of
6 Cold liquid inlet, Reynolds number (Cold) for different composition (9%,
7 Cold liquid outlet, 10%, 20% and 25% on volume basis) of immiscible
8 Steam inlet, Toluene -Water on Surface Effectiveness(cold) of cold
9 Steam outlet side to find the effect of varying flow rate and
composition of cold side on efficiency of cold side is
Fig.1. Exper imental setup of cr oss flow plate fin heat shown in the Figures .5
exchanger 3.5. Surface Effectiveness (Hot )Vs Reynolds Number
(Cold) for Toluene –Water system
The experimental studies involved the determination The variation in Reynolds number (Cold) for
of outlet temperature of both cold and hot fluid for different composition (9%, 10%, 20% and 25% on
various flow rates. The Toluene-Water System at 9%, volume basis) of immiscible Toluene-Water on Surface
10%, 20% and 25% on volume basis were used to Effectiveness(Hot ) to indicate the effect of varying flow
determine the performance of plate type heat exchanger rate and composition of cold side on effectiveness is
i.e. Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient (U0), Effectiveness shown in Figure. 6.
(ε), Cold Side Efficiency (ηc) and Hot Side Efficiency
(ηh). These experimental data were used to develop NN
using general regression. Further, these networks were
tested with a set of testing data and then the simulated
results were compared with the actual results of the
testing data.
3. Results and discussion
The experimental data and results are tabulated in
Table.1. The performance characteristics of the cross flow

73
 Performance analysis of cross flow plate fin heat exchanger for Immiscible system using ANN
Fig .2 Nusselt Number (Cold) Vs Reynolds Number
(Cold) for Toluene-Water System
Fig.3 Fin Effectiveness(cold) Vs Reynolds Number
(Cold) for Toluene -Water System
Fig.4 Fin Effectiveness(Hot) Vs Reynolds Number
(Cold) for Toluene -Water System
74
Fig.5 Surface Effectiveness(cold )Vs Reynolds Number
(Cold) for Toluene -Water System
Fig.6. Surface Effectiveness(Hot )Vs Reynolds
Number (Cold) for Toluene –Water system
3.6. Comparison of simulated and Experimental data:
The simulated data for cross flow plate type heat
exchanger was done using Artificial Neural Networks
(ANN) in MATLAB and the comparison between the
experimental and simulated data are given below in
Table.2.
The graphs shown below (Figures 7-12) indicates the
comparisons of the experimental data with the simulated
values of overall heat transfer coefficient, effectiveness,
for cross flow plate type heat exchanger. It is shown that
the simulation results are very well agreed with the
experimental data.
 Performance analysis of cross flow plate fin heat exchanger for Immiscible system using ANN

Fin Effect Surface

Cold Fluid (Toluene) Hot Fluid (Steam) Heat Transfer Coefficient
-iveness Effectiveness
No. of Exchanger
Capacity
Mass Mass Transf- Effective
Reynolds Nusselt Reynolds Nusselt Hot Cold Rate Hot Cold Hot Cold
Temperature Flow Temperature Flow Overall er -ness
Number Number Number Number Side Side Ratio Side Side Side Side
rate Rate Units

K kg/s K kg/s W/m2K W/m2K W/m2K % % % % %

t1 t2 mc NRe NNu T1 T2 mh NRe NNu ho hi Uo Rc NTU ηf,h ηf,c ηo,h ηo,c ε
9% Toluene – Steam System
300.1 346.1 0.004 14.89 60.4 385.1 371.5 0.01370 1127.60 52.76 5785.60 1169.81 841.87 0.295 32.51 59.66 86.81 70.99 90.51 99.92
300.1 344.3 0.006 20.54 58.5 385.1 371.4 0.01831 1331.68 51.06 5599.60 1174.68 839.91 0.309 23.15 60.35 86.76 71.49 90.48 99.80
300.1 341.1 0.007 23.54 54.2 385.1 371.1 0.01957 1059.55 47.18 5173.25 1183.41 833.01 0.341 19.51 62.02 86.68 72.69 90.42 99.57
300.1 338.5 0.008 27.98 52.0 385.1 370.9 0.02195 1018.32 45.23 4959.35 1190.58 830.33 0.369 16.01 62.90 86.61 73.32 90.37 99.15
300.1 335.9 0.011 36.50 48.7 385.1 370.5 0.02656 962.35 42.23 4629.79 1197.83 823.23 0.407 11.89 64.33 86.54 74.35 90.32 98.12
300.1 333.1 0.012 39.40 48.1 385.1 370.4 0.02689 924.62 41.61 4561.76 1205.73 824.62 0.445 10.77 64.63 86.47 74.57 90.27 97.17
300.1 329.5 0.013 40.31 47.5 385.1 370.3 0.02513 822.59 41.03 4498.12 1216.03 827.18 0.503 10.23 64.92 86.37 74.78 90.20 95.76
10% Toluene – Steam System
300.1 345.3 0.003 12.57 59.0 385.1 371.4 0.01126 819.14 51.06 5599.60 1161.89 833.31 0.303 38.19 60.35 86.88 71.49 90.57 99.93
300.1 343.3 0.005 18.54 54.6 385.1 371.1 0.01581 856.01 47.18 5173.25 1167.27 824.97 0.324 25.20 62.02 86.83 72.69 90.53 99.78
300.1 341.9 0.007 23.72 53.4 385.1 371.0 0.01965 981.89 46.16 5061.01 1171.05 823.65 0.337 19.44 62.48 86.80 73.02 90.51 99.59
300.1 338.5 0.008 27.04 49.0 385.1 370.5 0.02046 741.28 42.23 4629.79 1180.31 814.86 0.380 16.39 64.33 86.71 74.35 90.44 99.08
300.1 334.1 0.009 29.07 44.9 385.1 369.8 0.01930 511.39 38.60 4230.89 1192.48 806.25 0.45 14.53 66.17 86.59 75.68 90.36 97.97
300.1 330.7 0.010 31.92 42.8 385.1 369.3 0.01903 425.93 36.72 4023.57 1202.04 802.21 0.516 12.78 67.19 86.50 76.41 90.29 96.36
300.1 327.3 0.012 35.63 40.0 385.1 368.4 0.01842 326.00 34.15 3741.54 1211.75 793.86 0.613 10.99 68.63 86.41 77.45 90.23 93.33
20% Toluene – Steam System
300.1 341.1 0.003 12.44 61.3 385.1 371.2 0.00945 559.13 48.32 5298.30 1071.98 778.91 0.339 38.03 61.52 87.75 72.33 91.19 99.85
300.1 338.3 0.005 19.77 57.5 385.1 370.9 0.01402 650.58 45.23 4959.35 1078.79 774.01 0.371 23.23 62.90 87.68 73.32 91.14 99.50
300.1 334.9 0.006 21.98 53.0 385.1 370.4 0.01411 485.20 41.61 4561.76 1087.08 766.97 0.422 20.13 64.63 87.60 74.57 91.09 98.91
300.1 331.5 0.008 26.73 51.1 385.1 370.1 0.01561 466.49 39.98 4382.09 1095.44 765.46 0.477 16.06 65.46 87.52 75.16 91.03 97.75
300.1 328.3 0.009 29.16 48.9 385.1 369.7 0.01530 390.89 38.19 4185.48 1103.40 762.64 0.546 14.28 66.39 87.44 75.83 90.97 96.10
300.1 327.9 0.009 30.27 47.9 385.1 369.5 0.01551 370.01 37.42 4100.90 1104.40 760.08 0.561 13.66 66.80 87.44 76.13 90.96 95.60
300.1 324.7 0.010 32.15 45.9 385.1 369.0 0.01452 298.18 35.77 3918.94 1112.48 756.98 0.654 12.46 67.71 87.36 76.79 90.91 92.84
25% Toluene – Steam System
300.1 339.5 0.004 14.86 61.6 385.1 371.0 0.01035 517.39 46.16 5061.01 1025.46 748.47 0.357 31.60 62.48 88.21 73.02 91.52 99.73
300.1 336.9 0.005 18.29 58.3 385.1 370.7 0.01190 483.69 43.61 4781.43 1031.40 744.64 0.391 25.03 63.66 88.15 73.87 91.48 99.41
300.1 333.1 0.006 20.08 54.2 385.1 370.2 0.01167 364.71 40.49 4438.36 1040.10 739.55 0.451 21.96 65.20 88.06 74.98 91.42 98.69
300.1 330.3 0.007 23.32 52.4 385.1 369.9 0.01245 342.66 39.04 4278.63 1046.55 737.89 0.503 18.43 65.95 88.00 75.51 91.37 97.63
300.1 327.7 0.007 24.36 50.8 385.1 369.6 0.01190 293.58 37.80 4142.20 1052.59 736.43 0.561 17.24 66.60 87.94 75.99 91.33 96.35
300.1 324.1 0.009 27.28 48.7 385.1 369.1 0.01157 244.39 36.07 3952.44 1061.07 733.90 0.666 14.88 67.54 87.86 76.66 91.27 93.31
300.1 321.5 0.009 28.92 47.6 385.1 368.8 0.01098 213.94 35.19 3855.59 1067.30 733.26 0.761 13.72 68.04 87.80 77.02 91.22 90.26

Table.2 Exper imental and Simulated Data

Experimental Simulated
Over all heat Over all
Fin Fin Surface Surface Exchanger Fin Fin Surface Surface Exchanger
transfer heat transfer
Effectiveness Effectiveness Effectiveness Effectiveness Effectiveness Effectiveness Effectiveness Effectiveness Effectiveness Effectiveness
coefficient coefficient
(Hot) (cold) (Hot) (Cold) ε (Hot) (cold) (Hot) (Cold) ε
Uo, Uo,
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
W/m2K W/m2K
824.10 64.93 86.43 74.78 90.24 94.29 824.10 64.93 86.43 74.78 90.24 94.29
825.75 65.20 86.36 74.98 90.19 91.65 817.46 64.64 86.61 74.57 90.37 96.08
817.46 64.64 86.61 74.57 90.37 96.08 817.46 64.64 86.62 74.57 90.37 96.08
814.29 65.46 86.55 75.17 90.33 93.81 812.32 64.93 87.85 74.78 91.21 97.00
746.28 66.81 87.71 76.13 91.16 92.43 746.28 66.81 87.71 76.13 91.16 92.43
744.96 67.19 87.68 76.41 91.14 90.90 746.28 66.81 87.71 76.13 91.16 92.43
713.49 67.19 88.32 76.41 91.60 93.13 713.49 67.19 88.32 76.41 91.60 93.13
712.22 67.55 88.29 76.67 91.58 91.76 713.49 67.19 88.32 76.41 91.60 93.13
824.62 64.63 86.47 74.5 90.27 97.17 824.62 64.68 86.47 74.57 90.27 97.17
827.18 64.92 86.37 74.78 90.20 95.76 823.12 63.35 86.12 74.16 8.98 96.56
802.21 67.19 86.50 76.41 90.29 96.36 802.21 67.19 86.50 76.41 90.29 96.36
793.86 68.63 86.41 77.45 90.23 93.33 787.89 65.95 88.00 75.51 91.37 97.63
760.08 66.80 87.44 76.13 90.96 95.60 760.08 66.80 87.44 76.13 90.96 95.60
756.98 67.71 87.36 76.79 90.91 92.84 756.43 66.60 87.94 75.99 91.33 96.35
733.90 67.54 87.86 76.66 91.27 93.31 733.90 67.54 87.86 76.66 91.27 93.31
733.26 68.04 87.80 77.02 91.22 90.26 733.90 67.54 87.86 76.66 91.27 93.31
1115.04 57.94 81.95 69.76 87.02 70.34 1122.07 57.44 81.91 69.40 86.99 71.51
1098.35 59.66 81.92 70.99 87.00 67.06 1100.05 57.63 81.91 69.53 86.99 70.95
1135.98 56.83 81.77 68.96 86.89 71.80 1132.46 56.71 81.86 68.88 86.95 72.61
1127.64 57.94 81.70 69.76 86.84 67.53 1126.72 57.27 81.86 69.20 86.95 71.36
1303.14 47.20 80.52 62.04 85.99 79.08 1304.6 46.86 80.55 61.79 86.02 80.52
1272.51 50.68 80.45 64.54 85.94 75.07 1293.4 47.11 80.53 61.97 86.00 79.54
1225.68 56.83 80.05 68.96 85.65 76.22 1230.81 56.26 80.08 68.55 85.67 77.78
1216.07 57.94 79.97 69.76 85.59 72.26 1217.14 56.67 80.05 68.84 85.66 76.67
877.92 63.29 85.62 73.61 89.66 74.68 877.84 63.27 85.63 73.59 89.67 75.03
874.05 64.01 85.58 74.12 89.63 71.64 877.91 63.29 85.62 73.61 89.66 74.69
866.08 64.01 85.74 74.12 89.75 77.46 870.96 63.50 85.73 73.75 89.74 78.44
863.48 64.63 85.69 74.57 89.71 72.04 876.74 63.34 85.64 73.64 89.67 75.23
833.18 64.63 86.30 74.57 90.11 75.87 833.33 64.60 86.30 74.54 90.15 75.80
830.91 65.20 86.25 74.98 90.12 78.49 833.19 64.63 86.30 74.57 90.15 75.87
801.53 66.39 86.65 75.83 90.40 76.94 801.61 66.37 86.66 75.82 90.40 76.76
800.17 66.80 86.61 76.13 90.37 79.31 801.53 66.39 86.65 75.83 90.40 76.94
824.10 64.93 86.43 74.78 90.24 94.29 824.10 64.93 86.43 74.78 90.24 94.29
825.75 65.20 86.36 74.98 90.19 91.65 817.46 64.64 86.61 74.57 90.37 96.08
817.46 64.64 86.61 74.57 90.37 96.08 817.46 64.64 86.61 74.57 90.37 96.08

75
 Performance analysis of cross flow plate fin heat exchanger for Immiscible system using ANN

Fig.7 Over all Heat Tr ansfer Coefficient (W/m2K ),

Fig.10 Hot Fluid Side Sur face Effectiveness (% ),
Exper imental
Exper imental Vs Hot Fluid Side Sur face Effectiveness
Vs Over all Heat Tr ansfer Coefficient (W/m2K ),
(% ), Simulated
Simulated

Fig.11Cold Fluid Sur face Effectiveness (% ),

Fig.8 Hot Fluid Side Fin Effectiveness (% ),
Exper imental
Exper imental
Vs Cold Fluid Sur face Effectiveness (% ), Simulated
Vs Hot Fluid Side Fin Effectiveness (% ), Simulated

Fig.12 Over all Effectiveness (% ), Exper imental

Fig.9 Cold Fluid Side Fin Effectiveness (% ),
Vs Over all Effectiveness (% ), Simulated
Exper imental
Vs Cold Fluid Side Fin Effectiveness (% ), Simulated

76
 Performance analysis of cross flow plate fin heat exchanger for Immiscible system using ANN
4. Conclusion
Experiments were conducted on a cross flow plate fin
heat exchanger with different mass flow rate of the cold
fluid and different compositions (9%, 10%, 20% and 25%
on volume basis). The effects of these parameters on the
cold outlet temperature, hot outlet temperature, individual
and overall heat transfer coefficients were studied. The
ANN was applied to predict Nusselt number of the cold
fluid (NNu), Effectiveness (ε), Cold Side Efficiency (ηc)
and Hot Side Efficiency (ηh) for the cross flow plate fin
heat exchanger. General regression was used to train and
test the network since the target data was continuous. It is
shown that the predicted results are close to experimental
data by ANN approach.
Refer ences:
[1] Abu Madi M., Johns R.A. and Heikal M.R. (1998),
‘Performance characteristics correlation for round tube and
plate finned heat exchangers’, International Journal of
Refrigeration,Vol.21, No.7, pp. 507- 517.
[2] Beecher D. and Fagan T. (1987), ‘Effects of fin pattern on the
air-side heat transfer coefficient in plate finned-tube heat
exchangers’, ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 93, Part 2, pp.
1961-1985.
[3] Bipan Bansal, Hans Müller-Steinhagen and Xiao Dong Chen
(2000), ‘Performance of plate heat exchangers during
calcium sulphate fouling - investigation with an in-line filter’,
Chemical Engineering and Processing, Vol. 39, pp. 507-519.
[4] Cuffe K.W., Beaten Bough P.K. and PasKavitz H.J. (1978),
‘Plate-Fin Regenerators for Industrial Gas Turbines’, Journal
of Engineering Power, Vol. 100, pp. 576-585.
[5] Diaz G. (2000), ‘Simulation and Control of Heat Exchangers
Using Artificial Neural Networks’, Ph.D. Thesis, Department
of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, University of
Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana.
[6] Ercan Ataer,O. (2004), ‘An Approximate Method for
Transient Behaviour of Finned-Tube Cross Flow Heat
Exchangers’, International Journal of Refrigeration, Vol.27,
pp 529-539.
77
[7] Gut J.A.W., Renato Fernandes, Pinto J.M. and Tadini C.C.
(2004), ‘Thermal Model Validation of Plate Heat Exchangers
with Generalized Configurations’, Chemical Engineering
Science, Vol. 59, pp. 4591-4600.
[8] Hewitt,G.F., Shires,G.L. and Bott,T.R. (1984), ‘Process Heat
Transfer’, Begell House.
[9] Jacobi A.M. and Goldschmidt V.W. (1990), ‘Low Reynolds
number heat and mass transfer measurements of an overall
counter flow, baffled, finned-tube, condensing heat
exchanger’, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer,
Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 755-765.
[10] Kern D.Q. (1950), ‘Process Heat Transfer’, Mc Graw Hill
Company, New York.
[11] Mandavgane S.A., Siddique M.A., Dubey A. and
Pandharipande S.I. (2004), ‘Modeling of Heat Exchangers
using Artificial Neural Networks’, Chemical Engineering
World, pp. 75-80.
[12] Nuntaphan,A, Kiatsiriroat, T and Wang, C.C. (2005), ‘Air
Side Performance at low Reynolds Number of Cross Flow
Heat Exchanger using crimped Spiral Fins’, International
Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol.32, pp 151-
165.
[13] Olaf Strelow (2000), ‘A General Calculation Method for
Plate Heat Exchangers’, International Journal of Thermal
Science, Vol. 39, pp. 645-658.
[14] Perry R.H. and Green D.W. (1997), ‘Perry’s Chemical
Engineering Hand Book’, 7th Edition, Mc Graw Hill
Company, New York.
[15] Pinto J.M. and Gut J.A.W. (2004), ‘Optimal Configuration
Design for Plate Heat Exchangers’, International Journal of
Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol. 47, pp. 4833-4848.
[16] Saman W.Y. and Alizadeh S. (2001), ‘Modelling and
Performance Analysis of a Cross-Flow Type Plate Heat
Exchanger for Dehumidification/Cooling’, Solar Energy,
Vol. 70, No. 4, pp. 361-372.
[17] Tadeusz Zaleski and Krystyna Klepacka (1992), ‘Plate Heat
Exchangers-Method of Calculation, Charts and Guidelines
for Selecting Plate Heat Exchanger Configurations’,
Chemical Engineering and Processing, Vol. 31, pp. 49-56.