Numerical and Experimental Study of Air-to-Air Plate Heat Exchangers with Plain and Offset Strip Fin Shapes

Abstract

This study evaluates the performance of a plate heat exchanger numerically and experimentally. The predictive model for estimating the heat transfer and frictional pressure drop across the plain and offset strip fins is compared with the experimental results with the parameters of Reynolds number and fin pitch. The heat transfer of the offset fin shape is 13.4% higher than that of the plain fin in the experiment in the case of Re = 6112 for the hot airflow and Re = 2257 for the cold airflow. A predictive model uses the effectiveness-Number of Transfer Units (NTU) method with the discretization in the segments divided into small control volumes in the heat exchanger. The difference of heat transfer and pressure drop for the plain fin between the numerical and the experimental results are approximately 1.9% and 5.9%, respectively. Thus, the results indicate that the predictive model for estimating the heat transfer is useful for evaluating the performance of the plate heat exchanger in the laminar-to-transition regions.

Enhancement Of Plate-Fin Heat Exchanger Performance with Aid of Various Types of Fin Configurations: A Review

“…Kim et al, [37] The (PFHE) was determined utilizing computational and experimental analyses for the plain and OSF models. The study findings show that the prediction model correlates the experimental outcomes with the parameters Re number and fin pitch.…”

Rating and performance of plate fin heat exchanger used for cryogenic separation of CO 2

“…The "h" increases by increasing the volume of CO 2 in the gas mixture and with the mass flow rate of the hot fluid. Equation (23) gives the correlation between "h" with " _ m " , "C p ," "j," "Pr," and "A c ." 56…”

“…A comparison was made between the obtained results from the model and the experimental results. The errors of “△ p ” and heat transfer of the plain‐fin were found to be approximately 5.9% and 1.9%, respectively 23 …”

“…The root means square (RMS) errors between the developed model and the results obtained using Aspen software were found to be about ±6.71% 22 . Kim et al 23 conducted numerical and experimental studies of an offset‐strip PFHE. A comparison was made between the obtained results from the model and the experimental results.…”

“…The errors of "4p" and heat transfer of the plain-fin were found to be approximately 5.9% and 1.9%, respectively. 23 Jamil et al 6 designed and optimized a PFHE to be used for energy recovery systems. The study results revealed that the operating cost of PFHE increased as the mass flow rate and plate spacing increased.…”