Professional Documents
Culture Documents
h i g h l i g h t s
Airside performances of oval tube heat exchangers investigated under wet condition.
Different from round tube samples, the lowest j factor obtained for one row geometry.
Oval tube samples yield superior performance compared with round tube samples.
Oval geometry is more benecial under wet condition than under dry condition.
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 16 August 2013
Accepted 18 February 2014
Available online 12 March 2014
Experiments were conducted on sine wave n-and-tube heat exchangers having oval tubes under wet
condition. Twelve samples having different n pitches (2.12 mm, 2.54 mm, 3.18 mm) and tube rows (one
to four) were tested. Eight herringbone wave n-and-tube heat exchangers having round tubes were also
tested. Results showed that, for oval tube samples, the effect of n pitch on j and f factor was not signicant. As for the effect of tube row, the lowest j factor was obtained for one row conguration, which is
clear contrast to round tube samples, where the highest j factor was obtained for one row conguration.
Possible reasoning is provided considering the ow and heat transfer characteristics of sine wave channel
combined with connecting oval tubes. Oval tube samples yielded superior airside performance than
round tube samples when both heat transfer and pressure drop were considered. It is also shown that
oval geometry is more benecial under wet condition than under dry condition.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Oval tube
Heat exchanger
Wet surface
Sine wave n
1. Introduction
Fin-and-tube heat exchangers having relatively large diameter
tubes (12.7 mm or 15.9 mm O.D.) are commonly used as chilled
water cooling coils in air handling units of building air conditioning
system. For a n pattern, either plain or wave n is widely used.
Wave n enhances the heat transfer with simultaneous increase of
pressure drop. Depending on the operating condition (inlet air dry
bulb temperature and humidity, cooling water temperature etc.),
cooling coils could be dry, fully wet or partially wet. To analyze the
cooling coil properly for a given operating condition, both dry and
wet surface heat transfer coefcients are needed [1]. Literature
shows many investigations on airside performance of n-and-tube
Nomenclature
A
a
b
C
cp
Dc
f
h
j
k
_
m
N
NTU
p
Pd
Pf
Pt
Pl
Pw
Pr
q
rc
Req
ReDc
t
T
tf
U
V
V_
Wf
x
xf
x*
581
velocity [m s1]
volume [m3]
corrugation depth from peak to valley [m]
distance [m]
projected n pattern length for one-half wave length
[m]
1
non-dimensional distance (xP1
)
f Re
Greek notations
thermal effectiveness
DP
pressure loss [Pa]
h
n efciency
h
surface efciency
r
density [kg m3]
m
dynamic viscosity [kg m1 s1]
s
contraction ratio of the cross-sectional area
Subscripts
a
air
i
tubeside
in
inlet
f
n
m
mean or airesteam mixture
max
maximum
min
minimum or minor
o
airside
out
outlet
r
tubeside
t
tube wall
w
water or wet
wc
wet sensible
heat exchanger. Han et al. [13] also reported a similar trend. They
numerically investigated the thermal performance of two row
herringbone wave or louver n-and-tube heat exchanger having
oval tubes (0.43 aspect ratio), and compared the results with those
of two types of round tube heat exchangers (one having same
perimeter and the other having same hydraulic diameter with the
oval tube). Oval tube heat exchanger yielded the lowest pressure
drop and the highest heat transfer coefcient. Additional numerical
study by Tao et al. [14], revealed that, when round tubes of n-andtube heat exchanger were replaced with oval tubes (0.6 aspect ratio) having the minor tube diameter same as the round tube
diameter, signicant increase of heat transfer coefcient was
possible with marginal increase of pressure drop.
Compared with numerical studies, experimental investigations
are very limited. Matos et al. [15] tested four 4 row plain n-andtube heat exchangers having oval tubes of different aspect ratio
(from 1.0 to 0.4), all with the same minor diameter. Aluminum ns
were attached to oval tubes, although no detailed description on
the attaching method was provided. During the test in a wind
tunnel, heat was supplied to tubes through heaters installed inside
of oval tubes. An optimum conguration was obtained (aspect ratio
of 0.5), which exhibited a heat transfer gain of 19% relative to the
round tube counterpart. Accompanying numerical investigation
also yielded optimum tube and n spacing for an oval tube heat
exchanger. The investigated range of frontal air velocity, however,
was very low (from 0.1 to 0.13 m s1). Kim et al. [16,17] tested sine
wave n-and-tube heat exchangers having oval tubes of 0.6 aspect
ratio. Twelve samples had different n pitches and tube rows.
Comparison with herringbone wave n-and-tube heat exchangers
[16] or plain n-and-tube heat exchangers [17] with round tubes
582
Sine wave
Herringbone
wave
(15.9 mm O.D).
Herringbone
wave
(12.7 mm O.D.)
Pt
(mm)
Pl
(mm)
Pw
(mm)
Wf
(mm)
Dc
(mm)
Pf
(mm)
tf
(mm)
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
38.1
38.1
38.1
38.1
31.8
31.8
31.8
31.8
30.3
30.3
30.3
30.3
30.3
30.3
30.3
30.3
30.3
30.3
30.3
30.3
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
27.5
27.5
27.5
27.5
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.2
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
13.8
13.8
13.8
13.8
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.45
1.45
1.45
1.45
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.60
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5
15.9
15.9
15.9
15.9
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
3.18
3.18
3.18
3.18
2.54
2.54
2.54
2.54
2.12
2.12
2.12
2.12
2.54
2.54
2.54
2.54
2.54
2.54
2.54
2.54
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
583
whose accuracy is 0.0015 L/s. The airside pressure drop across the
heat exchanger is measured using a differential pressure transducer. The air ow rate is measured using a nozzle pressure difference according to ASHRAE Standard 41.2 [19]. The accuracy of
the differential pressure transducers is 1.0 Pa.
During the experiment, the water temperature was held at
10 C. The chamber temperature was maintained at 32 C with 80%
relative humidity. Experiments were conducted varying the frontal
air velocity from 1.0 m s1 to 4.0 m s1. The energy balance between
the airside and the tube-side was within 3%. The discrepancy
increased as the air velocity decreased. All the data signals were
collected and converted by a data acquisition system (a hybrid
recorder). The data were then transmitted to a personal computer
for further manipulation. An uncertainty analysis was conducted
following ASHRAE Standard 41.5 [20], and the results are listed in
Table 2. The major uncertainty on the friction factor was the uncertainty of the differential pressure measurement (1.0 Pa), and
the major uncertainty on the heat transfer coefcient (or j factor)
was that of the tube-side heat transfer coefcient (10%). The uncertainties decreased as the Reynolds number increased.
2.3. Data reduction
installed behind the test sample to mix the outlet air. The waterside
inlet condition is maintained by regulating the ow rate and inlet
temperature of the constant temperature bath situated outside of
the chamber. Both the air and the water temperatures are measured
by pre-calibrated RTDs (Pt-100 U sensors). Their accuracies are
0.1 K. The water ow rate is measured by a mass ow meter,
The data reduction details are provided by Mirth and Ramadhyani [1], Pirompugd et al. [4] and Kim et al. [21] and short
summary is provided here. For the cross-counter conguration of
the present study, appropriate equations for the heat exchanger
analysis are given by ESDU 98005 [22], and are summarized in
Table 3. The UA value is obtained from the following equations.
584
where
Table 2
Experimental uncertainties.
Parameter
Max. Uncertainties
Temperature
Differential pressure
Water ow rate
ReDmin
f
j
0.1 K
1.0 Pa
1.5 106 m3 s1
2.4%
7.6%
11.1%
s
2hw
m
kf tf
(7)
Req
1
rc
Req
1 0:35In
rc
h
i
p
Req
e2:41 0:7 e2q ln0:7 q 3
rc
UA Cmin NTU
(1)
_ min =m
_ max
C m
(2)
bw;m
1
br
bt t
ho hw Ao
UA hi Ai kAt
(3)
hw cpm
ho
bw;m
(4)
A
ho 1 f 1 h
Ao
(5)
tanhmrc f
mrc f
(6)
(8)
1 row
h
i
p
Req
e2:31 0:855 e:215q ln0:72 q 3
rc
(9)
over 2 row
(10)
Req 0:64Pt
0:5
Pl
0:2
Pt
Req 0:635Pt
Pl
0:3
Pt
1 row
(11)
0:5
over 2 row
(12)
h
pi
p 2Req = 1:5a b ab
(13)
q a=b
(14)
here, q is the ratio of major and minor diameter of the oval tube,
and p is the ratio of outer and inner diameter of equivalent annular
n. Min et al. [25] have shown that the n efciency calculated
using above correlation is within 4% error when compared with
that calculated using exact sector method. For round tube samples,
same equations from (6) to (8) are applicable with Req/rc obtained
from the well-known Schmidt equation [26].
0q
10:5
2
2
Req
Pt @ Pt =2 Pl
0:64
0:2A
Pt
rc
rc
1 row
0q
10:5
2
2
Req
Pt @ Pt =2 Pl
0:635
0:3A
Pt
rc
rc
over 2 row
(15)
(16)
Table 3
eNTU relationship for cross-counter conguration with single inlet and outlet.
Row
Cmin (air)
2row
3row
4row
1 K 1K 1exp2KC
2
2
1
C1 1
K
K
K 2
K 1 4 CK 1 2 expKC1 2 exp3CK
3
2
A K2 1 K2 K4 K 1 K2 1 2KC 1 K2 exp2KC 1 K2 exp4KC
1
C
1/C(1 1/A)
Cmin (water)
2row
3row
4row
1 K
1
A
K
2
K 1 exp(NTU/3)
K 1 exp(NTU/4)
K 1 exp(NTU$C/2)
1K2 exp2KC
1
2
K 1K4 KC 1K2 expKC 1K2 exp3K
C
2
1 K2 K4
(1 1/A)
K 1 exp(NTU/2)
K 1 exp(NTU,C/3)
2K
K
K 3 exp 4K
K 1 K2 1 2K
C 1 2 exp C 1 2
C
K 1 exp(NTU,C/4)
ReDmin
ra Vmax Dmin
ma
ho
ra Vmax cpa
Pra
(17)
(18)
"
#
r
Ac rm 2DP rin
in
2
f
1s
1
2
rout
Ao rin rm Vmax
(19)
In Eq. (19), the entrance and the exit loss coefcients are
neglected following the suggestion by Wang et al. [28].
3. Results and discussions
Fig. 3 shows the effect of n pitch for oval tube samples. As
mentioned previously, minor tube diameter (Dmin) was used as a
characteristic dimension of Reynolds number. As a representative
example, error bars on j and f factor are drawn for one row, 2.12 mm
n pitch sample [Fig. 3(a)]. The effect of n pitch on j and f factor is
not signicant. Torikoshi et al. [29] performed a three dimensional
unsteady numerical computation for one row plate n-and-tube
heat exchangers having various n pitches (from 1.7 mm to
3.0 mm for Dc 10 mm). As n pitch increased, downstream ow
eld became more unsteady. However, the ow eld in the region
between ns remained steady even at the largest n pitch. The heat
transfer on the n surface was also unaffected by the n pitch.
Although the numerical study was limited to a plain n conguration, similar arguments may apply to other n geometries. The
independency of j factor with n pitch has also been reported by
other investigators [4,30,31]. The effect of n pitch on f factor from
the literature survey is inconclusive. Rich [30] reported that f factor
increased with the increase of n pitch for a plain n conguration.
Wavy n data of Wang et al. [31] yielded a rather complex trend.
Above a certain Reynolds number, f factor increased with the increase of n pitch. Under that Reynolds number, however, f factor
decreased with the increase of n pitch. Liu et al. [9] reported that
the effect of n pitch on f factor was only marginal for a plain nand-tube heat exchanger under dehumidifying condition, which
is in line with the present results.
The effect of tube row on j and f factor of oval tube samples along
with those of round tube samples are shown in Fig. 4. For all
samples, n pitch is 2.54 mm. For round tube samples, j factor
decreases as number of tube row increases, although the effect is
not prominent for 15.9 mm O.D. samples for the samples having
tube rows larger than two. For n-and-tube heat exchangers, air
ows through channels formed by narrow spaced ns and connecting tubes. For channel ow, the heat transfer is the largest at
inlet of the channel, and decreases along the ow path. Then, j
factor decreases as number of tube row increases [4,30,32]. As
noted earlier, Wang et al. [8,9] investigated the heat transfer and
pressure drop characteristics of herringbone wave n-and-tube
heat exchangers (Dc 16.6 mm) having large number of tube
rows under dry or wet condition. Under dry condition, the effect of
tube row on j factor was not prominent for tube row less than four.
However, for tube row larger than four, noticeable decrease of j
factor was observed. Wang et al. [8] attributed the trend to the
developing characteristics of channel ow. Under wet condition, j
factor decreased as number of tube row increased. However, the
effect of tube row was not prominent, which agrees with the
585
586
Fig. 4. Effect of tube row on j and f factor for oval tube and round tube samples.
Fig. 5. Local Nusselt numbers of sine wave channel for Wf/Pf 0.48 and Pw/Pf 5.4
(Rush et al. [33]).
Fig. 6. ho ho Ao =V_ and DP/L for round and oval tube samples (dry data from Ref. [16]).
587
Fig. 7. Ratios of ho ho Ao =V_ and DP/L between oval and round samples.
Table 4
Heat transfer and pressure drop data of round and oval tube samples at frontal velocity 2.5 m s1.
Row
Oval
1row
2row
3row
4row
1row
2row
3row
4row
1row
2row
3row
4row
ho ho Ao
$
kW m3 K1
21.30(22.14)
26.24(32.07)
24.81(28.59)
25.41(30.21)
20.60(31.17)
22.78(33.20)
22.07(32.33)
21.92(33.35)
23.41(34.31)
25.17(37.69)
24.66(37.96)
22.27(37.67)
ho (W m2 K1)
ho
604.3(533.9)
644.2(440.6)
593.8(372.5)
515.1(358.3)
1279(752.4)
1051(580.02)
964.7(565.2)
936.1(534.4)
1238(793.2)
1099(592.3)
944.3(590.3)
832.3(550.6)
38.26(35.9)
49.01(50.9)
45.29(45.7)
46.96(48.3)
63.11(62.6)
56.55(60.9)
56.10(59.8)
55.38(62.3)
71.39(65.9)
63.94(66.9)
63.32(67.7)
54.74(68.2)
0.71(0.86)
0.69(0.84)
0.70(0.87)
0.69(0.85)
0.46(0.70)
0.56(0.76)
0.56(0.77)
0.56(0.76)
0.44(0.71)
0.53(0.76)
0.52(0.75)
0.56(0.75)
588
Fig. 8. ho and DP/L for round and oval tube samples (2row, Pf 2.54 mm) (dry data
from Ref. [16]).
In this study, experiments were conducted on sine wave nand-tube heat exchangers having oval tubes of 0.6 aspect ratio
(minor diameter 10.0 mm, major diameter 16.5 mm) under wet
condition. Twelve samples having different n pitches (2.12 mm,
2.54 mm, 3.18 mm) and tube rows (one to four) were tested. Eight
herringbone wave n-and-tube heat exchangers having round
tubes of two different diameter (12.7 mm and 15.9 mm) were also
tested. The round tube samples had different tube rows (one to
four) with xed n pitch (2.54 mm). Data are also compared with
those obtained under dry condition [16]. Listed below are major
ndings.
(1) For oval tube samples, the effect of n pitch on j and f factor is
not signicant.
(2) For round tube samples, the highest j factor is obtained for
one row conguration. For oval tube samples, however, the
lowest j factor is obtained for one row conguration. Possible
reasoning is provided considering the ow and heat transfer
characteristics of sine wave channel combined with connecting oval tubes. The friction factor decreases as number of
tube row increases.
(3) Heat transfer coefcients of the oval tube samples are
smaller than those of round tube samples. However, pressure
drops of oval tube samples are even smaller than those of
round tube samples, which (along with higher n efciency
of the oval tube sample) yield superior airside performance
for oval tube samples.
(4) Under wet condition compared with under dry condition,
heat transfer coefcient and n efciency decrease, and
pressure drop increases. The differences in n efciency and
pressure drop are larger for round tube samples than for oval
tube samples. Resultantly, it is shown that oval geometry is
more benecial under wet condition than under dry
condition
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program
through the National Research Foundation of Korea by the Ministry
of Education, Science and Technology in 2011.
References
Fig. 9. Fin efciency of round and oval tube samples (2row, Pf 2.54 mm) (dry data
from Ref. [16]).
589