Abstract Turbine based helium liquefier is under development at VECC.

The process diagram of the liquefier and refrigerator has

been frozen by performing simulation process. The integral part of helium liquefier is plate-fin heat exchanger. Overall design for the
plate-fin heat exchangers qualifying the liquefaction and refrigeration process has been done and their requirements have been
identified. Numerical simulation for the thermal steady state condition for the heat exchangers has been performed. The axial
conduction, fluid property dependence on temperature, parasitic heat transfer etc. have been taken into consideration. Validation for
the same is necessary in a simple test setup, which will be cooled by liquid nitrogen and liquid helium. The overall process and
instrumentation diagram of the test setup has already been designed. The process control should be verified using the computational
model of the heat exchanger.

Objective: PFHEs after procurement has to be tested in a test set-up before placement in the cold
box. It is very difficult to generate the actual conditions to be prevailed inside the cold box of
helium liquefier. Therefore, the HEs are to be tested in a condition which can be easily
demonstrated. We have designed a test setup to simulate the HE performance . A simulation is
done based on the model of PFHE and variable cold inlet temperature. The minimum approach
temperature, LMTD & effectiveness are computed and compared with the experimental results.
The model will be re-evaluated according to that and will be finally used for the conditions
actually prevailed in the liquefier mode of operation.

Proposed Numerical Model

T +T
(T +T )
Uc ( i,c i+1,c ) As,c x (Ti,m i+1,c i,c )
2
2

(Heat transfer
from metal to
cold fluid )

Simulation and testing

q(Ti,m) x

(Parasitic Heat transfer)

mc cpc (

(Axial
conducti
on)

Ti,c +Ti+1,c
mc cpc(
)Ti+1,c
2
(Enthalpy
transfer due to
fluid flow)

q(Ti,c ) x

T +T
(T +T )
Uh ( i,h i+1,h ) As,h x ( i+1,h i,h Ti,m)
2
2

(Axial conduction)

) Ti,c

(Enthalpy
transfer due
to fluid flow)

km
Acm(Ti,m Ti+1,m)
x

km
Acm (Ti1,m Ti,m)
x

Ti,c + Ti+1,c

(Parasitic Heat transfer)

(Heat transfer from

hot fluid to metal)

T +T
(T +T )
Uc ( i,c i+1,c ) As,c x(Ti,m i+1,c i,c )
2
2

(Heat transfer from metal

to cold fluid )

Fig-2 Energy flow in the control volume for

the cold stream in the ith element

Fig-1 Energy flow in the control volume for

metal in the ith element

We have tested our simulation model for louvered fin at

different test points and compared the result with designed HE

Test results obtained from simulation of process of the
liquefier and simulation using described numerical model for
louvered fins are shown in TABLE-1, 2& 3

Model was tested both for offset strip fin(fig-5) and louvered
fin(fig-6). Test results are compared in TABLE-4

We tested our simulation model at different cold fluid input
temperature with hot fluid input temperature constant at 300k

Temperature difference between the two stream at two outlet
and effectiveness change is shown in fig-7 & fig-8.

Temperature distribution for hot and cold fluid, metal across
different node is shown in Fig-4.

From energy flow in ith element of the cold stream,

Ti ,c =

m& c cp c (Ta ,i ,c ) (Ti +1,c Ti ,c ) + U c (Ta ,i ,c ) As ,c x (Ti , m

He (Ta ,i ,c ) cp c (Ta ,i ,c ) Vc

(Ti +1,c + Ti ,c )
) + q (Ti ,c ) x
2

Test data for HE2

flow rate(g/s)
main fin
length(mm)
no of layer

From energy flow in ith element of metal

2
Cold
9.494

3
Cold
43.035

TABLE-3

(3)

km
k
Acm (Ti 1,m Ti,m ) m Acm (Ti,m Ti +1,m ) + q(Ti,m ) x] / m cpm Vm
x
x
i = 1,2,......,n-1

Test data for HE4

Fig-3: PHFE with
louvered fin

chamber

Fig-4: Temperature at different axial point

Value of cp is taken from HEPAK. Heat transfer conductance metal to fluid stream, U for
louver fin is calculated from the formula
1
tm
1
=
+
U A 2 km Aw o h A

1
Hot
45.25

1475
225
1800
15
15
15
In temp. Out temp. In temp. Out temp. In temp. Out temp.
224.05
73.52
73.52
57.8
56.13
218.13
Actual designed result
224.05
93.70
73.52
59.11
56.13
198.60
Simulation result

(2)

i = 2,3,......,n
(Ti +1,c + Ti,c )

1
2
3
Hot
Cold
flow rate
9.494
43.035
0
mail fin length mm
1500
1450
1050
no of layer
26
21
6
In temp.
Out temp. In temp. Out temp. In temp. Out temp.
Actual designed result
298.02K 224.05K 218.13K
295.9K
Simulation result
298.02K 230.27K 218.13K 288.98K

chamber

(T + T )
m& h cph (Ta,i,h ) (Ti +1,h Ti,h ) + U h (Ta,i,h ) As,h x ( i +1,h i,h Ti,m ) + q(Ti,h ) x
2
Ti,h =
He (Ta,i,h ) cph (Ta,i,h ) Vh

Ti,m ) Uc (Ta,i,c ) As,c x (Ti,m

Test data for HE1

chamber

TABLE-2

From energy flow in ith element of the hot stream,

(Ti +1,h + Ti,h )

TABLE-1

(1)

i = 1,2,......,n-1

Ti,m = [Uh (Ta,i,h ) As,h x (

Nomenclature
Acm Cross-sectional area of the metal
As Surface area for heat transfer per unit length
Aw area for transverse heat conduction
km Thermal conductivity of metal
Ta Average temperature at ith volume element
x
Differential length of heat exchanger element
V
volume of the element. With subscript h, c, m for hot,
cold and metal side respectively

flow rate
mail fin length
no of layer

h can be calculated from Stanton number[2], mass velocity and cp

Actual designed result

o Can be calculated from fin dimensions given in fig-3

Simulation result

All the above equations are implemented in Matlab and ODE23t Matlab solver is used finally
to solve initial value problem of first order differential equation for Runga-Kutta method. A
control program also developed to control the cold stream input temperature

Control scheme flow chart

1
2
3
Hot
Cold
Cold
9.494
43.035
7.577
1800
650
1050
6
7
7
In temp. Out temp. In temp. Out temp. In temp. Out temp.
17.11
7.02
11.06
12.57
4.34
11.06
17.11 7.1481
11.06 12.1026
4.34 10.1153

TABLE-4
Fig-6: Corrugated Fin
Geometry (multilouvered)

Fig-5: Corrugated Fin

Geometry (Offset Strip)

Test setup

Define the input

temperature

cold side input Hot side input

temperature
temperature

cold side output Hot side output

temperature
temperature

effectiveness effectiveness
cold side
hot side

simulation result
for louver fin
with input 77K

298.02K

270.2432

115.2835

0.8743

0.8696

simulation result
for strip fin 77K

298.02K

249.0248

132.9657

0.7783

0.7854

ORS

Start with valve 1 full close and valve

2 full open

FT

Calculate the mixing temperature

PT

PT

TT

TT

COLD BOX
Finned Tube HE

LN2 or LHe
Plate-Fin HE

Call simulation program with

mixing temperature as cold side
input

PT

PT

TT

TT

PT

TT

Fig-7: variation of two stream

temperature difference

PT

Valve 1

Calculate the Mixing

temperature

NO

TT

Valve 2

If mixing
temperature is
greater than set
point

Inference

Flow chart of the heat exchanger numerical model

Input parameters

YES

Numerical parameters

Heat exchanger specifications: L, W, N, th , tc , tm

Number of elements: n

Fin specifications: l , L , Fp , f ,
p

Hot and cold side input temperature: Tin,h , Tin,c

Increase the valve 1 opening and

decrease valve 2 opening
maintaining total flow rate constant

Assume temperature variation as

Tin,h Tin,c
Ti ,h =
+ Ti 1,h
n 1

Change the valve 1 and valve 2 opening

according to error between set point
and mixing temperature

Ti ,m = Ti 1,m

Tin ,h Tin ,c
n 1

Ti 1,c = Ti ,c

Tin,h Tin,c
n 1

Boundary Conditions
Ti =1,h = Tin,h

Ti =n,c = Tin,c

Ti = 0, m = Tin, h

Ti = n, m = Tin, c

Calculate the mixing

temperature

Setup the equations using equation (1) , (2) and (3)

If mixing
temperature
equal to set
point

Solve the differential equations using ODE23t solver

Call simulation program with

mixing temperature as cold side
input
END

1.Test results for louver fin are better than that for offset strip fin
2.Result obtained from our simulation program is in close proximity of the actual test result
3.We have used 3/8-6.06 fin [3] in our simulation, other fin parameters will be tried in future.
With the actual fin parameters, that are used in the physical heat exchanger , the simulation
result would have been more close to the desired result of the physical heat exchanger
4.Test results at different temperature shows that minimum approach decreases at high
temperature
5.At higher temperature effectiveness increasing
Future Work
1.Our current numerical model in not valid for multi stream HE. The numerical model is to be
improved to simulate multistream HE [4].
2.We have simulated our numerical model using same flow rate for both the HE stream. With
constant flow at one stream and variable flow in the other stream will be considered in future
work
3.We have not considered flow maldistribution inside HE. With consideration of flow
maldistribution for distributor fins the simulation results would have been more accurate and
close to the experimental result
4.The simulation is also to be performed for different modes of operation like refrigeration,
liquefaction with and without LN2 pre cooling . It may be noted that for liquefaction cold
return flow is different in comparison to the warm stream flow.

NO
References:

Plot the temperature for hot stream, cold stream and metal
wall at different nodes, and calculate the effectiveness

YES

Fig-8: Variation of effectiveness with

different cold side inlet temperature

[1] Nellis GF, A heat exchanger model that includes axial consuction, parasitic heat loads, and property variations, Cryogenics
2003:43, 523-538.
[2]Achaichia, A., and T. A. Cowell. "Heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics of flat tube and louvered plate fin surfaces."
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 1.2 (1988): 147-157
[3] Kays WM, London AL. Compact heat exchangers. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1964.

Return to control
program

[4] Mukesh Goyal, Anindya Chakravarty, M.D. Atrey. Two dimensional model for multistream plate fin heat exchangers,
Cryogenics 2014
[5] Maiti TK, Pal Sandip et al Design and optimization of helium iquefaction system with targeted capacity of 50 lph without
LN2, ICEC 2016 ICMC 26, New Delhi, March 8-11, 2016.