2020
DOI: 10.30464/jmee.2020.4.2.167
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Thermal performance of corrugated plate heat exchanger using ethylene glycol as test fluid

Abstract: This paper reports an experimental comparative thermal analysis of a flat plate heat exchanger and corrugated plate heat exchanger (CPHE) of different corrugation angles using ethylene glycol as test fluid. The experiments were carried out counter current mode using water as hot fluid at 75°C.  Design of each plate provided with eleven thermocouple sensors to determine the temperatures, in which seven were used to measure the surface temperature of plate and four were used to measure the inlet and outlet bulk … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 9 publications
(25 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In general, the farther the distance measured, the smaller the error. The difference in the distance between the The test is carried out to determine the value of the sensor error and the V-belt object [25], namely by attaching the sensor from the closest (2 cm) to the furthest (30 cm), the closer the sensor is to the test object, the more precise the error value is 33.33% and the lowest is 0%, the conclusion is the closer the object to the sensor the more accurate it is and the farther away the object from the sensor the less accurate it is, as shown in Table 6.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In general, the farther the distance measured, the smaller the error. The difference in the distance between the The test is carried out to determine the value of the sensor error and the V-belt object [25], namely by attaching the sensor from the closest (2 cm) to the furthest (30 cm), the closer the sensor is to the test object, the more precise the error value is 33.33% and the lowest is 0%, the conclusion is the closer the object to the sensor the more accurate it is and the farther away the object from the sensor the less accurate it is, as shown in Table 6.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%