chemical engineering research and design 1 2 0 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 34–46

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Research and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cherd

Experimental investigation of two-phase flow

distribution in plate-fin heat exchangers

Zhe Zhang a,∗ , Sunil Mehendale b , JinJin Tian a , YanZhong Li c

a Tianjin Key Laboratory of Refrigeration Technology, Tianjin University of Commerce, Tianjin 300134, China
b School of Technology, Michigan Technological University, Houghton 49931, USA
c School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Flow maldistribution causes declining plate-fin heat exchanger thermal-hydraulic perfor-
Received 31 August 2016 mance. A first-of-its kind experimental facility and the related data acquisition system were
Received in revised form 3 January constructed for studying liquid–gas flow distribution in a plate-fin heat exchanger. The gas
2017 Reynolds numbers ranged from 1880 to about 2600 and the inlet dryness (i.e., quality) from
Accepted 1 February 2017 12% to 41%. Two-phase flow maldistribution among the heat exchanger passages was more
Available online 13 February 2017 widespread compared to that of single-phase flow. More specifically, the liquid-phase dis-
tribution was more uneven compared to the gas-phase distribution. The inlet flow rate and
Keywords: dryness were identified as the chief factors affecting the distribution of phases in the heat
Plate-fin heat exchanger exchanger. For a given inlet dryness, the two-phase flow distribution became increasingly
Two-phase flow non-uniform with the inlet gas flow rate, consistent with the behavior observed for single-
Flow distribution phase flow. Additionally, the non-uniformity in the gas flow distribution decreased and that
Distributor in the liquid flow non-uniformity increased with increasing inlet dryness fraction. A novel
Effectiveness distributor design, with a complementary fluid cavity was also built and tested. Experi-
mental results show that improving the distributor design is very effective in improving
the two-phase flow distribution in plate-fin heat exchangers. Based on heat transfer stud-
ies conducted at a single Reynolds number of about 1500 and a dryness of 29.2%, the heat
exchanger effectiveness was also correlated as a function of the dryness distribution non-
uniformity parameter Sx . The effectiveness was found to reduce as the flow distribution
became more uneven, highlighting the importance of accounting for and controlling the
flow maldistribution through proper distributor design.
© 2017 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction issue is not intelligently addressed, it can lead to significant loss in

Plate-fin heat exchangers are a type of high performance compact heat
exchanger. They enable significant amount of heat transfer to take
place between two fluid streams at a very small driving temperature
difference between the two fluids. In other words, high heat exchanger
effectiveness is possible with such heat exchangers. In the endeavor to
attain the best possible heat exchanger performance, close attention
needs to be paid to the flow maldistribution of the two fluids within
the header and the heat exchanger passages. If the maldistribution
heat transfer effectiveness for single phase heat exchangers.
In the thermodynamic design and analysis of plate-fin heat
exchangers, it is generally assumed that both fluids are uniformly dis-
tributed among all the parallel passages throughout the exchanger
core. In practice, however, flow maldistribution of one or both fluids
very likely exists. Possible causes of this flow maldistribution include
a general lack of design data related to non-uniform flow distribution
and lack of attention to the design of the distributor or header and the
flow passages (Kays and London, 1984). Maldistribution of flow not only

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zhangzhe@tjcu.edu.cn (Z. Zhang).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2017.02.003
0263-8762/© 2017 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 chemical engineering research and design 1 2 0 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 34–46 35

phases in heat exchangers is one of the principal and least understood

causes behind their poor thermal performance. Because the two-phase
Nomenclature
flow maldistribution has such a far-reaching influence on the heat
A Area of the channel (m2 ) exchanger’s thermal-hydraulic performance, it is essential to under-
d Hydraulic diameter of fin passage (m) stand the factors governing gas–liquid phase distribution in the same.
A study of the relevant published literature reveals that most
J Measured value of flow rate or dryness
authors have studied only the single-phase flow maldistribution in
N Channel number (dimensionless)
plate-fin heat exchangers, either experimentally (Jiao and Baek, 2005;
P Pressure drop (Pa)
Zhang et al., 2004; Wen et al., 2007) or numerically (Zhang and Li, 2003;
Q Flow rate (m3 h−1 )
Wen and Li, 2004; Zhang et al., 2002). Mueller and Chiou (1988) sum-
Re Average Reynolds numbers in heat exchanger marized various types of flow maldistribution in heat exchangers and
(Re = Vave d/), dimensionless discussed the reasons behind such maldistribution. Ranganayakulu
S Degree of non-uniformity (dimensionless) and Seetharamu (1999) carried out an analysis of the effects of inlet
T Temperature (◦ C) fluid flow non-uniformity on the thermal performance and pressure
T Temperature difference between the hot fluid drop of crossflow plate-fin heat exchangers by using a finite element
and the cold fluid (◦ C) method. Shen and Bell (1987) studied the problem of the effect of two-
u Velocity deviation in lateral direction (dimen- phase flow maldistribution on the performance of a feed-effluent heat
exchanger. Wu and Chen (1995) researched the two-phase flow dis-
sionless)
tribution and performance of plate-fin heat exchangers with different
u Velocity deviation in gross flow direction
inlet constructions. Kitto and Robertson (1989) gave the definition of
(dimensionless)
two-phase flow maldistribution and pointed out that it would result in
V Flow velocity (m s−1 ) diminished thermal performance. Experimental results for the effects
vave Average flow velocity for all channels (m s−1 ) of flow maldistribution on the thermal performance of heat exchangers
v Average flow velocities in gross flow direction were presented by Lalot et al. (1999). Bai and Newell (2000) investigated
(m s−1 ) two-phase flow field characteristics in flat plate heat exchangers and
v Average flow velocities in lateral direction published some photographs of the flow distribution in a Chevron-style
(m s−1 ) test section. Wang et al. (2010) investigated the distribution of two-
x Dryness (dimensionless) phase flow in a plate-fin exchanger and concluded that very severe
maldistribution of two-phase flow occurred due to improper inlet
Greek symbols configuration. Muller-Menzel and Hecht (1995) observed various flow
patterns in a plate-fin heat exchanger using a flow visualization test
a Distributor angle
rig. They found that at high gas mass fluxes, the liquid and gas phases
 Error (dimensionless)
flowed uniformly upwards, i.e., the flow distribution improved. In a
 Degree of two-phase flow non-uniformity
related study prior to the present one, Zhang et al. (2015a) found that
(dimensionless) for single-phase flow, the non-uniformity of temperature distribution
 Kinematic viscosity (m2 s−1 ) was more pronounced than that of the flow, and led to varying degrees
 Effectiveness of heat exchanger (dimension- of loss in the heat exchanger effectiveness. They also demonstrated
less) that a new header configuration could effectively enhance the perfor-
mance of plate-fin heat exchangers by controlling the non-uniform
Subscripts distribution of flow. Al-Rawashdeh et al. (2012a) and Al-Rawashdeh
ave Average value et al. (2012b) proposed a design methodology and criteria for the design
c Cold of a flow distributor to achieve even distribution of gas and liquid
G Gas flows among parallel microchannels. The design methodology deter-
mines the required hydraulic resistance in the barrier channels and
h Hot
their dimensions for the barrier-based distributor. The design crite-
i Serial number of flow channels
ria can also be applied to larger numbers of parallel microchannels.
in Inlet
Al-Rawashdeh et al. (2012c) have successfully designed the barrier-
J Variable representing flow rate or dryness based micro/milli reactor with modular flow distributor according to
L Liquid the methodology purposed by Al-Rawashdeh et al. (2012a). With this
out Outlet design, a uniform flow distribution was achieved at varied conditions
Q Flow rate and even at larger fluid viscosity.
x Dryness Lee and Lee (2004) examined the distribution of two-phase annular
flow at header-channel junctions of a compact plate heat exchanger.
They focused on the effect of the intrusion depth of the channels to
improve the liquid phase distribution. Yuan et al. (2013) proposed a
results in a penalty in thermal-hydraulic performance for single-phase
new flow inlet structure, in which the gas and liquid phases enter the
heat exchangers, as described above. It also causes a significant dete-
plate fin heat exchanger separately, and the distributor they designed
rioration of the heat transfer for heat exchangers in which one or both
can mix the two phases and distribute the mixture uniformly in the
fluids undergo a phase change (Shah and London, 1980). In particular, if
subsequent parallel channels. Saad et al. (2011), Saad et al. (2012),
the two phases of either fluid were distributed non-uniformly through
and Saad et al. (2014) utilized a gas–liquid distributor to improve
the heat exchanger core, the following deviations from the ideal case,
the phase distribution performance of air–water flows. Their results
(i.e., perfectly uniform distribution of the phases), would occur:
showed that computational fluid dynamics effectively predicts the
non-uniformity of the gas and liquid distribution across the experi-
a The vapor quality or dryness distribution would be non-uniform. mental heat exchanger. Ha et al. (2006) carried out numerical studies for
b The mass flow or mass flux distribution would be non-uniform, and air–water two-phase flow distributions in multiple channels between
c Condensation and/or boiling heat transfer would potentially take two headers. It was found that with an increase in the liquid flow rate,
place under different vapor–liquid equilibrium conditions. the flow distribution became increasingly non-uniform.
As one can see, there is scarcity of literature about the uneven dis-
Hence, the pressure drop and heat transfer would be very differ- tribution of two-phase flow in plate-fin heat exchangers. Moreover, the
ent from that under “ideal” operation. Thus, maldistribution of the two few previous works available mostly deal with the numerical prediction
36 chemical engineering research and design 1 2 0 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 34–46
Fig. 1 – Schematic flow diagram of experimental system.
liquid
gas gas-liquid mixture
Fig. 2 – Schematic drawing of gas–liquid mixer.
of the thermal performance of such heat exchangers for non-uniform
inlet temperatures. As described above, it is very important to develop
a good understanding of this subject, since the thermal performance
of this type of heat exchanger is very sensitive to flow maldistribution,
particularly for the case of a liquid–gas (or vapor) mixture entering the
heat exchanger. The present study, which is a further development of
the single-phase results of Zhang et al. (2015b), describes the results
of an experimental method to explore the influence of different inlet
constructions on the distribution of two-phase flow in a plate-fin heat
exchanger over a range of inlet dryness (or quality) and flow rates.
Additionally, to achieve improved thermal performance, a novel dis-
tributor design with a complementary fluid cavity has been built and
tested.
2. Experiment
2.1. Test bench and experimental procedure
The test bench (Fig. 1), details of which can be found in Zhang
et al. (2015a), includes an air circuit, a water circuit and a data
acquisition system. The air circuit consists of an air compres-
sor, a chiller, an electric heater, a test section (the plate-fin heat
exchanger), a gas–liquid separator, and a passage-switching
device. The water circuit includes a water tank, a water pump,
filters, a stabilization tank and a gas–liquid mixer (Fig. 2). Addi-
tionally, the test bench also has a data acquisition system, gas
and liquid turbine flow meters, thermocouples, and gage and
differential pressure transducers.
Experiments to measure the two-phase (water and air)
flow distribution within the heat exchanger and its thermal-
hydraulic performance have been conducted on the test bench
described above.
To measure the distribution of the two phases in the heat
exchanger, the flow rate of water pumped to the test sec-
tion is measured by a turbine flowmeter. The water is mixed
with air in the mixing section and the mixture then flows to
the heat exchanger. The mixture at the heat exchanger outlet
then flows first into the passage-switching device and then to
the air–water separator. The flow rate of the separated air is
measured by a second turbine flowmeter. The water separated
from the mixture then flows down into collection vessels and
its flow rate is measured by weighing the water collected in a
known time interval.
To measure the thermal performance of the heat
exchanger, the air pumped by the air compressor is split into
two branches. The portion which is heated by the electric
heater enters the test section and the unheated stream goes
into the air–water mixer. The hot air then exchanges heat with
the cold air–water mixture in a counter flow configuration.
A conventional distributor is used to distribute the hot fluid
among the heat exchanger passages, whereas various distrib-
utor configurations are used for channeling the cold air–water
mixture.
2.2. Instruments and their accuracy
Details of the instrumentation and their accuracy have been
described in detail in Zhang et al. (2015a) and Zhang et al.
(2015b). Here, only a brief summary of the same has been pro-
vided. Turbine flow meters are used to measure the air and
water flow rates in the gross (or header) passage and the var-
ious channel passages. The maximum relative error in the
measured frequency is 1.3%, 0.7%, and 0.4% for the header
and channel gas flow meters, and the gross liquid flow meter
respectively. The digital multi-meter has an uncertainty in
measured frequency of less than 0.1%.
The air and water temperatures in the header and
individual channels were measured by copper-constantan
thermocouples. The uncertainty in temperature measure-
ment has been shown in Zhang et al. (2015a) and Zhang et al.
(2015b) to be no greater than 0.24 ◦ C.
 chemical engineering research and design 1 2 0 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 34–46 37

Fig. 3 – (a) Schematic drawing of plate–fin heat exchanger, (b) photograph of heat exchanger, (c) schematic drawing of test
section, (d) geometry of the fin.

2.3. Plate-fin heat exchanger

5 4 3 2 1
The aluminum plate-fin heat exchanger (see Fig. 3b) used in
this study is similar to that used in a 2000 Nm3 h−1 air sep- 10 9 8 7 6
Lateral direction

aration plant. The surface of the heat exchanger is wrapped

15 14 13 12 11
with insulation to minimize heat losses. Per the schematic (see
Fig. 3a), heated air enters the heat exchanger through the top 20 19 18 17 16
header and leaves through the middle header. The low tem-
perature air–water mixture enters the heat exchanger through 25 24 23 22 21
the bottom header. The heat exchanger has dimensions of
30 29 28 27 26
200 mm × 250 mm × 178 mm. The header passage diameter
and length are 40 mm and 250 mm, respectively. Details of
the heat exchanger appear in Fig. 3c.The heat exchanger has Gross flow direction
6.5 × 2.0 × 0.3 mm (length × width × thickness) plain fins (see Fig. 4 – Channel distribution and direction.
Fig. 3d).
As depicted in Fig. 4, the heat exchanger outlet has been
divided into 30 equal channels (each 41.7 × 40 mm2 ) to mea- 2.4. Improved distributor design
sure the distribution of temperature, flow rate, and pressure.
Each of the 30 channels includes several microscale pas- A new distributor has been designed and tested in this work.
sages, and the flow distribution within any of the channels The new design incorporates a complementary or buffer fluid
is assumed to be uniform. cavity for improving flow distribution in the heat exchanger.
Fig. 5 shows the schematic of the internal configuration of
this new distributor. The geometrical variable h/H of the dis-
38 chemical engineering research and design 1 2 0 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 34–46
fluid complementary
H
cavity
α exacerbate the maldistribution of the two phases compared to
h
Fig. 5 – Schematic drawing of improved distributor
configuration.
tributor, as shown in Fig. 5 took values from 0 to 0.3 in the
experimental investigation. The distributor angle was fixed
at 45◦ , the orifice diameter on the perforated distributor was
2.5 mm, and the orifice opening ratio (i.e., the orifice open area
as a fraction of the total plate area) was 10%.
2.5. Distribution of phases
To evaluate the distribution of the flow, dryness, or temper-
ature for the two-phase mixture in the heat exchanger, the
statistical parameter (SJ ) is employed, which is defined as fol-
lows:
 1⁄2
1 
N
2
1 (1)
SJ = Ji − Jave J = Q, x, T
Jave (N − 1)
i=1
Additionally, the dryness fraction non-uniformity (x ) is
defined as:
x = Sx ⁄x
Two-phase dryness (x) is defined as the ratio of the mass
flow rate of the gas to that of the two-phase mixture. The
dimensionless standard deviation (SJ ) of the measured data
represents the non-uniformity in the flow, dryness, or tem-
perature if J = Q, x, or T, respectively. If J = Q, for example, Ji
and Jave represent the flow rate in any channel i and the aver-
age flow rate, respectively. The degree of flow non-uniformity
(SQ ), and non-uniformity in dryness (Sx ) can be fruitfully
employed to assess the extent of flow or dryness maldistribu-
tion. Using these parameters, the different distributor design
options can be evaluated under various operating conditions.
A small value of SJ means that the fluid is distributed rela-
tively evenly, a large value of SJ implies highly non-uniform
flow/dryness/temperature distribution and an ideal value of
SJ = 0 represents a perfectly uniform flow distribution. The dry-
ness non-uniformity (x ) is a measure of how uniformly the
liquid and gas phases are mixed. The smaller the value of x ,
the better the two phases are mixed.
3. Results and discussion
Fig. 6 shows the influence of the inlet dryness on the distri-
bution of two-phase flow in the plate-fin heat exchanger for
the conventional distributor configuration without the buffer
cavity (h/H = 0). It can be seen from Fig. 6 that in the experi-
mental range, severe non-uniformities exist in the two-phase
flow distribution. The complex interaction between the two
phases makes it much more difficult to comprehend the flow
distribution dynamics of two-phase flow compared to that of
single phase flow.
From the experimental results plotted in Fig. 6, the dis-
tribution of air and water flow in the lateral and the gross
flow directions displays multiple peaks. In Fig. 6, it is seen
that the flow distribution patterns for the gas and liquid show
similar characteristics in that both phases undergo flow mald-
istribution. The interactive forces between the air and water
the situation of either air or water flowing by itself. It is appar-
ent from Fig. 6 that at x = 11.7%, the air is more non-uniformly
distributed than at x = 40.5%; Fig. 6 also shows that the uneven
distribution of water at x = 40.5% is more pronounced than
at x = 11.7%. The reason for this trend is that at greater inlet
dryness, the liquid flow rate decreases, which makes it more
difficult to distribute the liquid phase more uniformly in the
heat exchanger. The data listed in Table 1 reveals that the air
flow distribution becomes more uniform while the water flow
distribution becomes increasingly non-uniform as the inlet
dryness fraction increases. Fig. 6 also shows that, in general,
water flow maldistribution is more pronounced than that of air
and that the two-phase flow distribution in the lateral direc-
tion is more strongly asymmetric compared to the gross flow
direction.
The inlet dryness has a significant influence on the flow dis-
tribution of the two phases. However, it should be noted that
the inlet dryness does not comprehend the actual gas and liq-
uid flow rate, since it only indicates the ratio of the air mass
flow rate to the two-phase mass flow rate. Therefore, it is very
necessary to investigate the effect of dryness as well as the two
flow rates on the distribution patterns in the heat exchanger.
Fig. 7 shows the patterns of air and water distribution at the
heat exchanger outlet for various air Reynolds numbers. It is
evident that the gas Reynolds numbers strongly affects the
(2) air–water distribution in the heat exchanger. For the four gas
Reynolds numbers tested, the degree of non-uniformity in the
dryness distribution (x ) is 1.997 (ReG = 1880), 2.271 (ReG = 2124),
2.524 (ReG = 2358) and 2.777 (ReG = 2593) respectively, as shown
in Table 2. It is therefore clear that for fixed inlet dryness,
the air Reynolds number profoundly influences the air–water
distribution and that the maldistribution is exacerbated with
increasing air Reynolds number. This observation is consistent
with the conclusion obtained from single-phase flow mea-
surements (Zhang et al., 2015b). Thus, increasing the air flow
rate (or Reynolds number) aggravates the maldistribution of
the two-phase flow, and the departure from perfectly homo-
geneously distributed flow becomes more pronounced.
The above conclusions have been quantified in Table 2,
which shows that in the experimental range considered, great
non-uniformities in the air–water distribution exist. The two-
phase flow maldistribution is much more pronounced than
single-phase flow maldistribution, as reported in (Zhang et al.,
2015b). As listed in Table 2, the non-uniformity in dryness
(Sx ) is 0.583 (ReG = 1880), 0.663 (ReG = 2124), 0.737 (ReG = 2358)
and 0.811 (ReG = 2593), respectively. Thus, for a fixed inlet dry-
ness, it is seen that the two-phase flow distribution becomes
increasingly more asymmetric as the inlet gas Reynolds num-
ber increases.
Fig. 8 shows the effect of inlet dryness on the heat
exchanger pressure drop for two different air Reynolds num-
bers. The inlet dryness can only reach a minimum value of
about 11.7% because of limitations on the sensitivity of the
gas-turbine flow meters and differential pressure transduc-
ers. It is evident from Fig. 8 that the pressure drop curve
 chemical engineering research and design 1 2 0 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 34–46 39

Table 1 – Two-phase flow non-uniformity in heat exchanger for different inlet x (ReG = 2593).
x SQ,G SQ,L Sx x

h/H→ 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
11.70% 0.412 0.362 0.315 0.383 0.857 0.829 0.812 0.832 1.484 1.381 1.331 1.401 12.684 11.803 11.376 11.973
17.90% 0.343 0.315 0.276 0.322 0.871 0.841 0.823 0.852 1.330 1.294 1.217 1.320 7.430 7.229 6.799 7.374
23.50% 0.281 0.233 0.203 0.267 0.923 0.896 0.858 0.911 1.184 1.112 1.025 1.151 5.038 4.732 4.362 4.898
29.20% 0.278 0.217 0.181 0.242 0.928 0.901 0.899 0.916 0.811 0.735 0.673 0.773 2.777 2.517 2.305 2.647
34.20% 0.260 0.191 0.157 0.228 0.931 0.917 0.906 0.923 0.508 0.418 0.378 0.457 1.485 1.222 1.105 1.336
40.50% 0.224 0.165 0.109 0.186 0.951 0.925 0.912 0.932 0.476 0.381 0.325 0.423 1.175 0.941 0.802 1.044

Fig. 6 – Gas-phase flow and liquid-phase flow distribution for different values of the inlet dryness (ReG = 2593).
40 chemical engineering research and design 1 2 0 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 34–46

Fig. 6 – (Continued)

Table 2 – Two-phase flow non-uniformity in heat exchanger for different inlet ReG (x = 29.2%).
ReG SQ,G SQ,L Sx x

h/H→ 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
1880 0.194 0.151 0.130 0.173 0.668 0.649 0.647 0.660 0.583 0.526 0.483 0.555 1.997 1.801 1.654 1.901
2124 0.221 0.172 0.147 0.196 0.759 0.737 0.736 0.750 0.663 0.597 0.548 0.630 2.271 2.045 1.877 2.158
2358 0.246 0.191 0.164 0.218 0.844 0.819 0.817 0.833 0.737 0.664 0.609 0.700 2.524 2.274 2.086 2.397
2593 0.278 0.217 0.181 0.242 0.928 0.901 0.899 0.916 0.811 0.735 0.673 0.773 2.777 2.517 2.305 2.647
 chemical engineering research and design 1 2 0 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 34–46 41

Fig. 7 – Gas-phase flow and liquid-phase flow distribution for different values of ReG (x = 29.2%).

clearly follows an upward trend with increasing inlet dry- pressure drop. Based on the experimental data for the various
ness and increases more rapidly after x = 23.5%. The reason gas Reynolds number depicted in Fig. 8, the pressure drop (P)
for this behavior is that as the inlet dryness increases, the has been correlated as a function of the inlet dryness (x) and
mass and volume of gas increase rapidly, causing the liquid gas Reynolds number (ReG ) in Eq. (3).
flow distribution to be progressively more skewed (as also dis-
cussed above). Thus, the two-phase pressure drop across the P = 2.53319 · 10−8 x0.5664 ReG 3.1171 (3)
heat exchanger is more adversely affected at higher dryness
or quality, which is obviously not an issue for the flow of a sin-
All the pressure drop data are predicted within ±25% by Eq.
gle phase. This observation demands that careful attention
(3) with a mean absolute deviation of 12%. This fact indicates
be given to improving the two-phase flow distribution while
that the pressure drop can be adequately described by a sin-
designing two-phase flow heat exchangers. Again, from Fig. 8,
gle scaling relationship in terms of the gas Reynolds number
it is seen that increasing Reynolds number results in larger
and inlet dryness. Again, as pointed out above, this equa-
42 chemical engineering research and design 1 2 0 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 34–46
Fig. 8 – Relationships between pressure drop and inlet
dryness for different ReG.
Fig. 9 – Gas-phase flow distribution in lateral direction and
in gross flow direction (x = 17.9%, ReG = 2593).
tion should be applied with caution outside the experimental
range of gas Reynolds numbers and inlet dryness.
To clearly and systematically study the distribution of the
two phases in the plate-fin heat exchanger, the two-phase flow
is divided into lateral and gross components, according to Eqs.
(4) and (5):
vi = (Q5i−4 + Q5i−3 + Q5i−2 + Q5i−1 + Q5i )/5A (i = 1 − 6)
Fig. 10 – Liquid-phase flow distribution in lateral direction
and in gross flow direction (x = 17.9%, ReG = 2593).
vi = (Qi + Qi+5 + Qi+10 + Qi+15 + Qi+20 + Qi+25 )/6A (i = 1 − 5)
(5)
In the above equations, vi  and v i  are the average lateral
and gross direction flow velocities, respectively, while Qi and A
represent the flow rate and the cross-sectional area of channel
i, respectively.
The flow velocity deviations ui  and ui  which represent
the lateral and gross direction non-uniformities in the heat
exchanger, are defined as:
ui  = (vi  − vave )/vave , ui  = (vi  − vave )/vave (6)
where vave denotes the average flow velocity over all the chan-
nels.
As is clear from the above description, the non-uniform
distribution of two-phase flow in plate-fin heat exchangers is
more severe and thus, more problematic, than single-phase
flow distribution. So a new distributor design, with a buffer
(or complementary) fluid cavity was developed and tested in
this research. Figs. 9–12 illustrate the lateral and gross direc-
tion air and water flow distributions for various values of
inlet dryness. Figs. 9–12 clearly depict that the two-phase flow
(4)
distribution manifests as different patterns at different inlet
dryness. It should be noticed that although two-phase flow
 chemical engineering research and design 1 2 0 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 34–46 43

Fig. 11 – Gas-phase flow distribution in lateral direction and in gross flow direction (x = 29.2%, ReG = 2593).

is an inherently oscillatory and unstable process, the data
reported here are based on time-averaged quantities.
A study of Figs. 9–12 clearly reveals how the dryness, flow
direction, and the cavity parameter h/H influence the gas and
liquid phase distribution among the heat exchanger channels:
a At ReG = 2593 and x = 17.9% (see Fig. 9), ui  for the air ranges
from about −0.17 to 0.15, while ui  varies from about −0.075
to 0.07. Thus, the gas phase is more unevenly distributed
among the channels in the lateral direction than in the gross
flow direction. h/H is also seen to affect the gas flow dis-
tribution, with h/H = 0.2 yielding the most uniform phase
distribution. h/H = 0 is seen to result in the worst gas phase
distribution.
b At ReG = 2593 and x = 17.9% (see Fig. 10), ui  for the water
ranges from about −0.6 to 1.4, while ui  varies from about
−0.3 to 0.32. Thus, the liquid phase is more unevenly dis-
tributed compared to the gas phase. Moreover, like the gas
phase, the liquid phase is more unevenly distributed among
the channels in the lateral direction than in the gross flow
direction. h/H is also seen to affect the liquid flow dis-
tribution, with h/H = 0.2 yielding the most uniform phase
distribution, and h/H = 0 is seen to result in the worst liquid
phase distribution.
44 chemical engineering research and design 1 2 0 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 34–46
Fig. 12 – Liquid-phase flow distribution in lateral direction
and in gross flow direction (x = 29.2%, ReG = 2593).
c At the same ReG (= 2593), as the dryness is increased to 29.2%
(see Fig. 11), ui  for the air ranges from about −0.1 to 0.11,
while ui  varies from about −0.11 to 0.09. In this case, the
uneven distribution of the gas phase is slightly greater in
the lateral flow direction than in the gross flow direction.
As before, the h/H = 0.2 distributor yields the most uniform
gas phase distribution, and h/H = 0 is seen to result in the
worst gas phase distribution.
d At the same ReG (= 2593) and x = 29.2% (see Fig. 12), ui  for
the water ranges from about −0.7 to 1.5, while ui  varies
from about −0.6 to 0.4. Thus, once again, the liquid phase
is more unevenly distributed compared to the gas phase at
this increased dryness. Again, like the gas phase, the liquid
phase is more unevenly distributed among the channels in
the lateral direction than in the gross flow direction. h/H is
also seen to affect the liquid flow distribution, with h/H = 0.2
yielding the most uniform phase distribution, and h/H = 0 is
seen to result in the worst liquid phase distribution.
Based on the above observations, the following general
observations can be made: on the whole, the liquid phase is
much more unevenly distributed among the heat exchanger
channels compared to the gas phase. Again, in general, the
effect of the distributor cavity parameter h/H on the gross flow
direction flow distribution is significantly more pronounced
than on that in the lateral direction. The flow non-uniformity
is the maximum at h/H = 0 (conventional distributor) because,
in this case, there is no buffer or mixing space at all in the
distributor. For h/H = 0.3, the mixing space has sub-optimal
Fig. 13 – Outlet hot fluid temperature under different
distributors.
effect on the flow distribution, because the fluid has more than
the necessary space to undergo the right amount of mixing in
the distributor, before it enters the heat exchanger. However,
even with this non-optimal design, the flow distribution for
h/H = 0.3 is better than for h/H = 0 in most of the cases con-
sidered here. Flow distribution measurements show that the
flow is distributed most uniformly at h/H = 0.2. This obser-
vation is also consistent with the conclusion obtained from
single-phase flow measurements. From Tables 1 and 2, it can
be readily concluded that the most uniform flow distribution
was obtained when the improved distributor configuration
parameter h/H = 0.2 was employed.
From Figs. 9 through 12, it is obvious that the configura-
tion parameter h/H for the distributor is a key design factor
which profoundly influences the two-phase flow distribution
in the plate-fin heat exchanger. This is due to the fact that a
complementary (or buffer) fluid mixing cavity, which mixes
the two phases to different extents before the fluid enters the
heat exchanger, is provided as part of the distributor design
by altering the value of h/H. By appropriately pre-mixing and
channelizing the fluid, this cavity thus allows the gas-phase
and liquid-phase to be redistributed in the distributor due to
the different pressure drops between the fluid passages. The
fluid in the low flow rate and/or high pressure drop passages
can thereby be compensated via the orifice on the perforated
distributor. The flow distribution performance of the plate-fin
heat exchanger can thereby be improved, more so in the gross
flow direction.
Tables 1 and 2 show the two-phase flow non-uniformity
in the heat exchanger for various distributor designs investi-
gated at different x and ReG . It was found that the two-phase
flow distribution varied with distributor design. In Table 1,
x changed from 1.175 to 12.684 (h/H = 0), 0.941 to 11.803
(h/H = 0.1), 0.802 to 11.376 (h/H = 0.2) and 1.044 to 11.973
(h/H = 0.3). In Table 2, Sx changed from 0.583 to 0.811 (h/H = 0),
0.526 to 0.735 (h/H = 0.1), 0.483 to 0.673 (h/H = 0.2) and 0.555 to
0.773 (h/H = 0.3). The data in Table 2 also demonstrate that SQ,G
and SQ,L show a similar trend with increasing ReG . However,
SQ,G and SQ,L show the opposite trend with increasing x in
Table 1. From Tables 1 and 2, one can conclude that among
the distributor designs explored in the present study, the dis-
tributor with h/H = 0.2 provides the most uniform two-phase
flow distribution.
Fig. 13 shows the temperature of the hot outlet fluid for the
distributor configurations investigated here (h/H = 0, 0.1, 0.2,
0.3). It is very clear that distributor design profoundly affects
 chemical engineering research and design 1 2 0 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 34–46
Fig. 14 – Effect of flow distribution on heat exchanger
effectiveness.
the heat transfer. The hot fluid exit temperature is the low-
est for distributor configuration h/H = 0.2 and it is the highest
for distributor h/H = 0, i.e., the baseline distributor without any
pre-mixing zone. This is because the distribution of thermal
energy follows the pattern of the flow distribution. More uni-
form flow and thermal energy distribution results in optimal
utilization of the heat transfer surface area, thus improving
the thermal effectiveness. Fig. 13 also reveals the fact that
the distributor configuration h/H = 0.2 is superior to the design
with no pre-mixing buffer zone, h/H = 0. Thus, the novel dis-
tributor design leads to uniform flow and thermal energy
distribution, which in turn results in better performing plate-
fin heat exchangers.
On the basis of the experimental results at about 1500 gas
Reynolds number and a dryness of 29.2%, the effectiveness of
the heat exchanger was also calculated for different dryness
non-uniformity parameters. The heat exchanger effectiveness
can then be plotted as a function of this parameter. Fig. 14
illustrates the correlation between ␶ and two-phase flow non-
uniformity (Sx ). The curve in Fig. 14 shows a downward trend
with increasing two-phase flow non-uniformity (Sx ), which
implies that the loss in effectiveness  is more probable in sit-
uations with higher flow non-uniformity. The more uniformly
the fluid is distributed, the more uniformly the energy of the
two phases is distributed. Thus, the effective area of the heat
exchanger is optimally used and heat transfer occurs more
efficiently. It is therefore evident that the two-phase flow non-
uniformity (Sx ) is the single most important factor affecting
the heat exchanger effectiveness. Hence, care should be taken
to account for flow non-uniformity and to minimize the same
in the design and operation of heat exchangers.
In order to show the effect of the dryness distribution
non-uniformity (Sx ) on the heat exchanger effectiveness, a
correlation (Eq. (7)) between Sx and  was established by calcu-
lating a least-squares minimized curve-fit to the experimental
data in Fig. 14. The deviation of the data from the prediction
of the correlation is less than ±3.2%:
␶ = 0.272 + 2.737Sx − 4.131Sx2 (7)
All of the above observations and data serve to highlight
the fact that proper attention needs to be devoted to the dis-
tributor design to distribute the two-phase flow as uniformly
as possible. Such a minimization of the flow and thermal
energy maldistribution is essential to achieving optimal heat
exchanger performance.
45
4. Conclusions
Air–water flow maldistribution characteristics were studied
for gas Reynolds numbers ranging from 1880 to about 2600 and
inlet dryness (or quality) of 12% to 41%. Maldistribution of two-
phase flow in plate-fin heat exchangers is found to be much
more severe than the uneven distribution of single-phase flow.
The gas (air) Reynolds number as well as dryness are the key
factors affecting the distribution patterns of the two phases.
For the experiments in this study, the non-uniformity of gas
as well as liquid flow distribution are very large. Increasing
inlet dryness causes the maldistribution in the gas flow to
decrease and that in the liquid flow to increase. The two-
phase flow maldistribution is exacerbated with increasing
gas Reynolds number, which leads to higher pressure drop
in the heat exchanger. The liquid-phase distribution pattern
exhibits greater non-uniformity than that of the gas-phase.
Additionally, the non-uniform distribution of flow in the lat-
eral direction is more severe than that in the gross direction.
A novel distributor with a complementary or buffer cav-
ity to provide pre-mixing and flow channeling was designed,
built, and tested for mitigating the two-phase flow maldistri-
bution in the plate-fin heat exchanger. It was found that the
configuration parameter h/H was the main variable influenc-
ing the flow/phase distribution, particularly in the gross flow
direction. The two-phase flow distribution in heat exchang-
ers was improved by designing the pre-mixing cavity with h/H
equal to about 0.2. This finding is consistent with experimen-
tal single-phase flow distribution results reported in an earlier
work by the present authors.
Heat exchanger effectiveness was also correlated as a func-
tion of the dryness non-uniformity Sx at a single gas Reynolds
number of about 1500 and a dryness of 29.2%. The effective-
ness is seen to drop as the non-uniformity of the dryness
distribution increases, highlighting the necessity of account-
ing for and keeping under control the flow maldistribution
through proper distributor design.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Key project of Tianjin Natural
Science Foundation (No. 15JCZDJC34200) and National Natural
Science Fund of China(No. 11572223).
References
Al-Rawashdeh, M., Nijhuis, T., Rebrov, E., Hessel, V., Schouten, J.,
2012a. Design methodology for barrier-based two phase flow
distributor. AIChE J. 58, 3482–3493.
Al-Rawashdeh, M., Fluitsma, L., Nijhuis, T., Rebrov, E., Hessel, V.,
Schouten, J., 2012b. Design criteria for a barrier-based
gas–liquid flow distributor for parallel microchannels. Chem.
Eng. J. 181, 549–556.
Al-Rawashdeh, M., Yu, F., Nijhuis, T.A., Rebrov, E.V., Hessel, V.,
Schouten, J.C., 2012c. Numbered-up gas–liquid micro/milli
channels reactor with modular flow distributor. Chem. Eng. J.
207, 645–655.
Bai, X., Newell, T.A., 2000. An investigation of two-phase flow
characteristics in chevron-style flat plate heat exchangers. In:
Proc. Eighth Int. Refrig. Conf., Purdue, West Lafayette.
Ha, M.Y., Kim, C.H., Jung, Y.W., Heo, S.G., 2006. Two-phase flow
analysis in multichannel. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 20, 840–848.
Jiao, A.J., Baek, S.W., 2005. Effects of distributor configuration on
flow maldistribution in plate-fin heat exchangers. Heat Trans.
Eng. 26, 19–25.
46 chemical engineering research and design 1 2 0 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 34–46
Kays, W.M., London, A.L., 1984. Compact Heat Exchangers, 1st ed.
McGraw Hill.
Kitto, J.B., Robertson, J.M., 1989. Effects of maldistribution of flow
on heat transfer equipment performance. Heat Transf. Eng.
10, 18–25.
Lalot, S., Florent, P., Lang, S.K., Berglles, A.E., 1999. Flow
maldistribution in heat exchangers. Appl. Therm. Eng. 19,
847–863.
Lee, J.K., Lee, S.Y., 2004. Distribution of two-phase annular flow at
header-channel junctions. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 28, 217–222.
Mueller, A.C., Chiou, J.P., 1988. Review of various types of flow
maldistribution in heat exchangers. Heat Transf. Eng. 9, 36–50.
Muller-Menzel, T., Hecht, T., 1995. Plate-fin heat exchanger
performance reduction in special two-phase flow conditions.
Cryogenics 35 (5), 297–301.
Ranganayakulu, C.H., Seetharamu, K.N., 1999. The combined
effects of wall longitudinal heat conduction, inlet fluid flow
nonuniformity and temperature nonuniformity in compact
tube-fin heat exchangers: a finite element method. Int. J. Heat
Mass Transf. 42, 263–273.
Saad, S.B., Clement, P., Gentric, C., Fourmigue, J., Leclerc, J., 2011.
Experimental distribution of phases and pressure drop in a
two-phase offset strip fin type compact heat exchanger. Int. J.
Multiph. Flow 37 (6), 576–584.
Saad, S.B., Clement, P., Fourmigue, J., Gentric, C., Leclerc, J., 2012.
Single phase pressure drop and two-phase distribution in an
offset strip fin compact heat exchanger. Appl. Therm. Eng. 49,
99–105.
Saad, S.B., Gentric, C., Fourmigue, J., Clement, P., Leclerc, J., 2014.
CFD and experimental investigation of the gas–liquid flow in
the distributor of a compact heat exchanger. Chem. Eng. Res.
Des. 92, 2361–2370.
Shah, R.K., London, A.L., 1980. Effects of nonuniform passage on
compact heat exchanger performance. J. Eng. Power 102,
653–659.
Shen, Z., Bell, K.J., 1987. Analysis of feed-effluent heat exchanger
with maldistributed two-phase inlet flow and
vaporizing/condensing streams. In: Proc. 1987 ASME/JSME
Therm. Eng. Joint Conf., Purdue, West Lafayette.
Wang, S.M., Li, Y.Z., Wen, J., Ma, Y.S., 2010. Experimental
investigation of header configuration on two-phase flow
distribution in plate-fin heat exchanger. Int. Commun. Heat
Mass Transf. 37, 116–120.
Wen, J., Li, Y.Z., 2004. Study of flow distribution and its
improvement on the header of plate-fin heat exchanger.
Cryogenics 44, 823–831.
Wen, J., Li, Y.Z., Wang, S.M., Zhou, A.M., 2007. Experimental
investigation of header configuration improvement in
plate-fin heat exchanger. Appl. Therm. Eng. 27, 1761–1770.
Wu, J.H., Chen, C.Q., 1995. Analysis of two-phase flow distribution
in plate-fin heat exchanger and experimental research. J.
Xi’an Jiaotong Univ. 29, 117–126.
Yuan, P., Jiang, G.B., He, Y.L., Yi, X.L., Tao, W.Q., 2013.
Experimental study on the performance of a novel structure
for two-phase flow distribution in parallel vertical channels.
Int. J. Multiph. Flow 53, 65–74.
Zhang, Z., Li, Y.Z., 2003. CFD simulation on inlet configuration of
plate-fin heat exchangers. Cryogenics 43, 673–678.
Zhang, Z., Li, Y.Z., Tian, J.J., 2002. Numerical simulation on
distributor’s construction of plate-fin heat exchanger. J. Chem.
Ind. Eng. 53, 1311–1314.
Zhang, Z., Li, Y.Z., Xu, Q., 2004. Experimental research on effects
of distributor configuration on flow distribution in plate-fin
heat exchangers. Heat Transf. Asian Res. 33, 402–410.
Zhang, Z., Mehendale, S., Tian, J.J., Li, Y.Z., 2015a. Fluid flow
distribution and heat transfer in plate-fin heat exchangers.
Heat Transf. Eng. 36, 806–819.
Zhang, Z., Mehendale, S., Tian, J.J., Li, Y.Z., 2015b. Experimental
investigation of distributor configuration on flow
maldistribution in plate-fin heat exchangers. Appl. Therm.
Eng. 85, 111–123.