You are on page 1of 8

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 59 (2013) 75–82

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer


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

Effect of fin pitches on the air-side performance of L-footed spiral fin-and-tube


heat exchangers
Parinya Pongsoi a, Patcharapit Promoppatum a, Santi Pikulkajorn b, Somchai Wongwises a,c,⇑
a
Fluid Mechanics, Thermal Engineering and Multiphase Flow Research Lab (FUTURE), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkut’s University
of Technology Thonburi, Bangmod, Bangkok 10140, Thailand
b
Somchai Industry Co., Ltd., Bangkok 10150, Thailand
c
The Academy of Science, The Royal Institute of Thailand, Sanam Suea Pa, Dusit, Bangkok 10300, Thailand

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

Article history: The purpose of this experimental investigation is to investigate the effects of fin pitch (i.e., fp of 2.4, 3.2,
Received 24 August 2012 and 4.2 mm) on the air-side heat transfer performance and frictional characteristics of L-footed spiral fin-
Received in revised form 15 November 2012 and-tube heat exchangers at high Reynolds numbers (Redc) of 4000–15,000. A determinant of the parallel
Accepted 21 November 2012
cross-flow and the counter cross-flow is the flow arrangement of the test heat exchangers. Ambient air
Available online 2 January 2013
and hot water are used as a working fluid on the air- and the tube-side, respectively. The results indicate
that the air-side heat transfer coefficient and Colburn factor are independent of fin pitch. However, fin
Keywords:
pitch does have an influential effect on the average heat transfer rate, pressure drop, and friction factor.
L-footed fin
Heat transfer
In terms of industrial applications, the correlation of the Colburn factor and friction factor are proposed
Heat exchanger for practical applications.
Air–water Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Extended surface

1. Introduction transfer and friction characteristics correlations under wet condi-


tions at low Reynolds numbers. Wongwises and Naphon [2,3] stud-
The heat exchangers are used in two main methods of heat ied the heat transfer characteristics and the performance of a
transfer (convection and conduction modes). Many types of heat spirally coiled finned tube heat exchanger under dry-surface and
exchangers are used in industrial applications, such as intercoolers, wet surface conditions. Moreover, they tested heat exchangers that
boilers, economizers, air and liquid pre-heaters, evaporating and rely on a crimped spiral finned tube. Then, Srisawad and Wongw-
condensing heat exchangers, etc. Fin and tube heat exchangers ises [4] tested the helically coiled crimped spiral finned tube heat
are among the more favored types of heat exchangers. This kind exchanger, aiming on the heat transfer performance in dry-surface
of heat exchanger is designed for enhancing heat transfer perfor- conditions. Pongsoi et al. [5–7] studied the effect of number of tube
mance. This enhancement is very important for thermo-economic rows and fin pitches on the air-side heat transfer characteristics
analysis. Moreover, this heat transfer enhancement is normally and the optimized fin pitch of crimped spiral fin-tube heat
limited by the thermal resistance on the heat exchanger’s air-side. exchangers having multipass parallel and counter cross-flow under
Arguably, fin configuration improvement is one of the most effec- sensible heating conditions and purpose the e-NTU relation equa-
tive ways to augment the heat transfer rate on heat exchangers’ tion for this new water flow arrangement. In addition, the correla-
air-side. tion of Colburn factor (j) and friction factor (f) of crimped spiral fin-
Over the years, the spiral fin has been studied by a number of and-tube heat exchangers at high Reynolds number were proposed
researchers. Some examples related to this subject can be found in this study. Hamakawa et al. [8] investigated the flow around the
in [1–13]. fin and vortex shedding from the fin tube by using smoke wire
Nuntaphan et al. [1] tested crimped spiral fin-and-tube heat technique. According to results, the spiral fin seemed to have more
exchangers to analyze the effect of tube arrangement, transverse heat transfer over the conventional circular fin by the influence of
tube pitch, fin pacing, tube diameter, and they proposed heat downstream rotational vortices. Lee et al. [9,10] studied the air-
side heat transfer characteristics of spiral-type circular fin-tube
⇑ Corresponding author at: Fluid Mechanics, Thermal Engineering and Multi- heat exchangers under frosting and non-frosting conditions. They
phase Flow Research Lab (FUTURE), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty measured these characteristics by varying the fin pitches, the num-
of Engineering, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangmod, ber of tube rows and the fin alignments. Kawaguchi et al. [11] stud-
Bangkok 10140, Thailand. Tel.: +66 24709115. ied the effects of fin pitches on the serrated finned tube bank on
E-mail address: somchai.won@kmutt.ac.th (S. Wongwises).

0017-9310/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2012.11.071
76 P. Pongsoi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 59 (2013) 75–82

Nomenclature

A area, m2 R radius function in terms of the radius ratio, dimension-


Amin minimum free flow area, m2 less
Ao total surface area, m2 Redc Reynolds number based on fin collar outside diameter
Ap cross-sectional or profile area of fin, m2 (dc)
Al aluminum T temperature, °C
cP specific heat at constant pressure, J/(kg K) U overall heat transfer coefficient, W/(m2 K)
dc fin collar outside diameter, m Vfr air frontal velocity, m/s
df fin outside diameter, m Vmax maximum velocity across heat exchanger, m/s
di tube inside diameter, m
do tube outside diameter, m Greek symbols
f Fanning friction factor, dimensionless e heat exchanger effectiveness
fp fin pitch, m g fin efficiency
ft fin thickness, m go overall surface effectiveness
Gc mass flux of the air based on minimum free flow area, q density, kg/m3
kg/m2 s r contraction ratio of cross-sectional area
H height, m l dynamic viscosity of air, Pa s
h heat transfer coefficient, W/(m2 K) / combination of terms, dimensionless;
I0 modified Bessel function solution of the first kind, w radius ratio
order 0 DP pressure drop, Pa
I1 modified Bessel function solution of the first kind,
order 1 Subscripts
j Colburn factor, dimensionless 1 air-side inlet
k thermal conductivity, W/(m K) 2 air-side outlet
K0 modified Bessel function solution of the second kind, a air
order 0 ave average
K1 modified Bessel function solution of the second kind, corr correlation
order 1 c multipass counter cross flow or cold fluid
L length, m exp experiment
m mass flow rate, kg/s f fin
M data point h hot fluid
nt number of tubes in row i tube-side
Nrow number of tube rows m mean value
NTU number of transfer units, dimensionless max maximum
Nu Nusselt number, dimensionless o air-side
PL longitudinal tube pitch, m p multipass parallel cross flow
PT transverse tube pitch, m pc multipass parallel-and-counter cross flow
Pr Prandtl number, dimensionless t tube
Q heat transfer rate, W w water
ro radius of tip fin, m
ri radius of base fin, m

the pressure drop characteristics for higher improvement of heat tions. The effect of fin pitch on the performance of the L-footed
transfer than circular spiral finned tube. Næss [12] investigated spiral fin and tube heat exchangers, which have not yet appeared
the effects of tube layout and fin geometry on the heat transfer in the available literature, are presented.
and pressure drop performance of serrated fin and tube heat
exchangers. Moreover, Lemouedda et al. [13] studied the optimiza-
tion of fin serration, fin twisting and the number of segments by 2. Data reduction
numerical calculations for serrated spiral fin-and-tube heat
exchangers. In this experimental work, air and hot water were used as work-
The L-footed spiral fin is one of several types of fin configura- ing fluids. The main components of the system were the heat ex-
tions. The base of the fin has an L-shape, which provides a large changer, water flow loop, air supply, and the instrumentation
contact area, ensuring a good path for heat transfer from the tube and data acquisition system. In addition, detailed descriptions of
surface to the fin. The spiral fin seems to have a greater heat trans- the essential components are available from Pongsoi et al. [7].
fer coefficient than the conventional circular fin. The L-footed spir- The test samples are a type of fin-and-tube cross-flow heat
al fin-and-tube heat exchanger may be suitable for industrial exchanger. The copper tube is finned with an aluminum fin. Fig. 1
processes that present a high risk of tube corrosion. Despite its details the water-side circuit and the dimensions of the tested
importance in many applications, the air-side performance of L- fin-and-tube heat exchangers. Additionally, the schematic diagram
footed spiral fin-and-tube heat exchangers has received little of the heat exchangers algorithm for multi-pass parallel cross-flow,
attention in the literature. To the best of our knowledge, Pongsoi multi-pass counter cross-flow, and multi-pass parallel and counter
et al. [14] is the only work dealing with this issue. In the present cross-flows (Nrow = 2) are shown in the previous figure. For the
study, the primary concern is to study the heat transfer perfor- present flow configuration, the heat exchanger’s effectiveness lies
mance and frictional characteristics of L-footed spiral fin-and-tube between the multi-pass parallel cross-flow and the counter cross-
heat exchangers at high Reynolds numbers in industrial applica- flow. Finally, the geometric parameters of the heat exchangers are
P. Pongsoi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 59 (2013) 75–82 77

Multipass Parallel and Counter Crossflow

Water outlet

Water inlet
Multipass parallel-and-counter cross flow
(present)

Nrow =2
Air flow
L= 320 mm PL

do
Water inlet

PT
H= 350 mm

Water flow

Water flow
direction
Water outlet

Air flow
PL

Water inlet

Water inlet

PT
Water flow
Air flow
direction

Water outlet
Water outlet
A fr = Frontal area, L × H (mm)
do = Tube outside diameter (mm)
PL = Longitudinal tube pitch (mm)
PT = Transverse tube pitch (mm)

Fig. 1. Geometric details and schematic diagram of the heat exchangers algorithm for multipass parallel cross flow, multipass counter cross flow and multipass parallel-and-
counter cross flow ( and d signs indicate that water flows into or out of the paper, respectively).

Table 1
Detailed geometric parameters of the test samples.

No. Fin type di (mm) dc (mm) df (mm) PL (mm) PT (mm) ft (mm) nt Nrow Fin material fp (mm)
1 L-footed 13.5 16.85 34.8 35 39 0.25 9 2 Al 2.4
2 L-footed 13.5 16.85 34.8 35 39 0.25 9 2 Al 3.2
3 L-footed 13.5 16.85 34.8 35 39 0.25 9 2 Al 4.2

Remarks: df = Outside diameter of fin; di = Tube inside diameter; dc = fin collar outside diameter; fp = Fin pitch; ft = Fin thickness; PL = Longitudinal tube pitch; PT = Transverse
tube pitch; nt = number of tubes in row; Nrow = number of tube rows.
Notes: Tube layouts of all heat exchangers are staggered layout and all test sections have a tube outside diameter (do) of 16.35 mm.

summarized in Table 1, while the photographs and schematic dia- exchanger effectiveness relations shown in Eq. (4). The air-side
gram of L-footed spiral finned tube are shown in Fig. 2. working fluid and the tube-side working fluid (water) are defined
In the experiment, at a specific inlet water temperature, the as fluid A and fluid B, respectively. It should be noted that the min-
water flow rate was fixed while the air flow rate was increased. imum heat capacity rate (Cmin) is on the air-side (Fluid A). Therefore,
The system was allowed to approach a steady state before any data the following relations are applied in the present calculation.
was recorded under the experimental conditions shown in Table 2. Multipass parallel cross-flow
After the system reached a steady state, the inlet and outlet tem- For (Nrow = 2);
peratures of the air passing across the heat exchanger and the  
K   
water flow rates were determined. ep ¼ 1  1  e2K=CA ; K ¼ 1  eNTUA ðC A =2Þ ð2Þ
2
The overall heat transfer coefficient can be written in terms of
the total resistance to heat transfer. This total resistance is the Multipass counter cross-flow
sum of the individual resistance values, as follows: For (Nrow = 2);
   1
1 1 lnðdo =di Þ lnðdc =do Þ 1 K K 2K=C  
¼ þ þ þ ð1Þ ec ¼ 1  þ 1 e A ; K ¼ 1  eNTUA ðCA =2Þ ð3Þ
UA hi Ai 2pkt L 2pkf L go ho Ao 2 2
where
The multipass parallel and counter cross-flow used in this experi-
ment is a combination of multipass parallel cross-flow and counter ep þ ec
eA ¼ ð4Þ
cross-flow. It may be suitable to use the average value of the heat 2
78 P. Pongsoi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 59 (2013) 75–82

df

L- Shape A
L-Shape

fp df dc d o di

ft fp A
fp
Section A-A
d c = Fin collar outside diameter (m) d o = Tube outside diameter (m)
d f = Outside diameter of fin (m) f p = Fin pitch (m)
d i = Tube inside diameter (m) ft = Fin thickness (m)

Fig. 2. Photographs and schematic diagram of L-footed spiral finned tube.

Table 2
Experimental conditions.
and where Ap is the area in the profile of the fin, as shown in Fig. 8:
Inlet-air-dry bulb temperature, °C 31.5 ± 0.5
Inlet-air frontal velocity, m/s 2–8 or Redc (4000–15000)
Ap ¼ ft ðro  ri Þ ð16Þ
Inlet-water temperature, °C 55–70
The parameters Ro, Ri are given in terms of the radius ratio (w):
Water flow rate, LPM 12–14 or (0.2–0.233 kg/s)
1
Ro ¼ ð17Þ
Fluid A is mixed (Cmin); Fluid B is unmixed (Cmax). 1w
eA ¼ eB =C A ð5Þ and

CA 1 w
C A ¼ ¼ ; C 6 1 ð6Þ Ri ¼ ð18Þ
C B C B 1w
where
NTU B
NTU A ¼ ð7Þ ri
C A w¼ ð19Þ
ro

where C = Cmin/Cmax is equal to Cc/Ch or Ch/Cc, depending on the va- The tube-side heat transfer coefficient (hi) is calculated from the
lue of the hot and cold fluid heat capacity rates. semi-empirical correlation of Gnielinski [16]:
C min ¼ C h ; Ch < Cc ð8Þ  
kw ðRedi  1000ÞPr ðfi =2Þ
or
hi ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ð20Þ
di 1 þ 12:7 fi =2 Pr2=3  1
C min ¼ C c ; Cc < Ch ð9Þ
where the friction factor is given by:
as
fi ¼ ð1:58 ln Redi  3:28Þ2 ð21Þ
Q max ¼ ðmcP Þc ðT h1  T c1 Þ if C c < C h ð10Þ
where Redi = qVdi/l.
or
The air-side heat transfer coefficient (ho) can then be calculated
Q max ¼ ðmcP Þh ðT h1  T c1 Þ if C h < C c ð11Þ from Eq. (1).
The heat transfer characteristics of the heat exchanger are pre-
Q av e sented in terms of non-dimensional groups:
e¼ ð12Þ
Q max qa V max dc
The UA term in Eq. (1) is calculated by using Eq. (13): Redc ¼ ð22Þ
l
UA ¼ C min ðNTUÞ ð13Þ
The efficiency of a radial fin with a rectangular profile is determined Nu ho
j¼ ¼ ðPrÞ2=3 ð23Þ
by Gardner’s [15] proposed method: Redc Pr1=3 qa V max cP
2w I1 ð/Ro ÞK 1 ð/Ri Þ  I1 ð/Ri ÞK 1 ð/Ro Þ The flow characteristics determined from the equation proposed by
g¼ ð14Þ
/ð1 þ wÞ I0 ð/Ri ÞK 1 ð/Ro Þ þ I1 ð/Ro ÞK 0 ð/Ri Þ Kays and London [17] are given in terms of the fanning friction fac-
tor. The equation includes the entrance and exit pressure losses:
where
  "  #
 1=2 Amin qm 2DP q1 q1
2ho f ¼  ð1 þ r2 Þ 1 ð24Þ
/ ¼ ðro  ri Þ3=2 ð15Þ Ao q1 G2c q2
kf Ap
P. Pongsoi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 59 (2013) 75–82 79

where r is the ratio of minimum free flow area to frontal area, Ao is systems, which investigated both heat transfer rates. The energy
the total heat transfer area, and Amin is the minimum free flow area. balance between the air and water associated with the L-footed
The uncertainties are calculated from the root mean sum square spiral fin-and-tube heat exchangers had relative errors less than
method. The maximum uncertainties are 11% for the j-factor and 5% (or |Qa  Qw|/Qave < 0.05). In addition, it is found that the ranges
10% for the f-factor. The highest uncertainties were associated with of the fin efficiency (g) and the heat exchanger effectiveness (e) are
the lowest Reynolds numbers. 0.87–0.94 and 0.14–0.36, respectively. The air-side heat transfer
and friction characteristics of all heat exchangers were examined
3. Results and discussion in this experiment, which were presented in terms of the average
heat transfer rate (Qave), air-side heat transfer coefficient (ho), and
The primary analysis of the experimental data involved the en- pressure drop (DP) with air frontal velocity (Vfr). Moreover, the
ergy balance between air and water. The energy balance related to terms of a dimensionless number included the Colburn factor (j)

10 0.100
(a) fp(mm)
(a)

friction factor (f)


2.5
8 3.2
4.2 f

6
Q ave (kW)

0.010

Colburn factor (j)


j
4

fp(mm)
2 2.4
3.2
Tw,in= 55 oC
4.2
mw,in= 0.2 kg/s
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0.001
Vfr (m/s) 2000 10000 18000
Reynolds number (Redc)
180
0.100
(b) fp (mm)
(b)
friction factor (f)

150 2.5
3.2
4.2 f
120
ho(W/m .K)
2

90
0.010
Colburn factor (j)

j
60
fp(mm)
2.5
30 3.2
Tw,in= 60 oC
4.2
mw,in= 0.2 kg/s
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0.001
2000 10000 18000
Vfr(m/s)
Reynolds number (Redc)
250 0.100
(c)
friction factor (f)

fp (mm) (c)
2.5
200 3.2 f
4.2

150
Δ P(Pa)

0.010
Colburn factor (j)

j
100

fp(mm)
2.5
50 3.2
Tw,in= 60 oC
4.2
mw,in= 0.233 kg/s

0 0.001
0 2 4 6 8 10 2000 10000 18000
Vfr(m/s) Reynolds number (Redc)

Fig. 3. Effect of fin pitches on the average heat transfer rate (a), heat transfer Fig. 4. Effect of fin pitches on the Colburn factor and friction factor at Tw,in = 55
coefficient (b) and pressure drop (c) of L-footed spiral fin and tube heat exchangers. °C/mw,i = 0.2 kg/s (a), Tw,in = 60 °C/mw,in = 0.2 kg/s (b) and Tw,in = 60 °C/mw,in =
(Tw,in = 65 °C/mw,in = 0.2 kg/s). 0.233 kg/s (c).
80 P. Pongsoi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 59 (2013) 75–82

0.100 data correspond with Pongsoi et al. [5], who studied the effect of
fin pitch on the air-side performance of the crimped spiral fin. Fur-
frictionfactor (f)

thermore, as illustrated in Fig. 3(c), when fp decreases from 4.2 to


f
2.4 mm, the pressure drop increases by about 18% (for fp = 3.2)
and 38% (for fp = 2.4). The reason for this is increasing pressure
blocking the flow area due to decreasing fin pitch.
The examination on the effect of fin pitch in the dimensionless
j
0.010 terms is shown in Fig. 4. As expected, both the Colburn factor (j)
Colburnfactor(j)

and the friction factor (f) decrease with increasing Reynolds num-
Tube
Fin types Arrangement Nrow fp (mm) ber over the range of operating conditions. The result shows that
L-footed staggered 2 2.50 Present data the fin pitch has a negligible effect on the Colburn factor (j), which
Circular staggered 2 2.50 Briggs and Young [19]
Plain staggered 2 2.50 Wang and Chang [20] is supported by findings in other research [5,6,18]. This phenome-
Plain staggered 2 2.50 Wang et al. [21] non occurs because the high Reynolds number accentuates the
Wavy staggered 2 2.54 Kim et al. [22]
Slit staggered 2 2.50 Wang et al. [23] good mixing, leading to better heat transfer performance, regard-
0.001 less of fin pitch changes.
1000 10000 18000
In terms of the friction factor, it is clear that at Reynolds num-
Reynolds number (Redc)
bers greater than 6000, fin pitch has a significant effect (i.e., the
friction factor is higher for a larger fin pitch than for a smaller fin
Fig. 5. Comparison of Colburn factor and friction factor between present data with
correlational and experimental data of several fin types. pitch). According to Eq. (24), the ratio of minimum free-flow area
and the total heat transfer area (Amin/Ao) and mass flux of air (Gc)
and friction factor (f) plotted against Redc, which was the Reynolds showed that Ao significantly increases as fin pitch is changed from
number based on the fin collar’s outside diameter (do + 2ft). 4.2 to 3.2 or 2.4 mm. Conversely, the reduction of Amin is compar-
Fig. 3 shows the effect of the fin pitches on the average heat atively small. For these reasons, the friction factor signals a detect-
transfer rate, air-side heat transfer coefficient, and pressure drop able rise for greater fin pitch. In summary, a large fin pitch
for an aluminum fin with an outside fin collar diameter of increases the ratio of minimum free-flow area and the total heat
16.85 mm and outside fin diameter of 34.8 mm. This study has ex- transfer area (Amin/Ao), but decreases mass flux of the air (Gc). A
tended the fin pitches of 2.4, 3.2, and 4.2 mm. The results show low value of Gc will make the friction factor higher. It should be
that the average heat transfer rate, air-side heat transfer coeffi- noted that the dynamic effects (Amin/Ao and Gc) have a more pro-
cient, and pressure drop increase with increasing air frontal veloc- nounced effect upon the friction factor than the air-side pressure
ity. Fig. 3(a) depicts the effect of fin pitches on average heat drop (DP). Nevertheless, the effect of fin pitch on the friction factor
transfer rate. It was found that the average heat transfer rate of tends to vanish at Reynolds numbers less than about 6000.
fp = 2.4 and 3.2 mm are higher than that for fp = 4.2 mm by about Initial validation comparison for the air-side heat transfer and
37% and 26%, respectively, over the range of air frontal velocities. flow characteristics of the performance of an L-footed spiral fin con-
This is be because the surface heat transfer area of the smaller trast with the performance of several plate fin types (circular [19],
fin pitch is generally higher than that of larger ones which leads plain [20,21], wavy [22], and slit [23] fin) at high Reynolds numbers,
to the increasing of the average heat transfer rate. as shown in Fig. 5. It was found that the present data and other fin
However, Fig. 3(b) shows that the fin pitches had an insignifi- types produce similar trends and slopes of the Colburn factor,
cant effect on the air-side heat transfer coefficient. The present which decrease with an increasing Reynolds number. However,

(a)
L-footed spiral fin

Air flow

Air flow

(b)
Plain fin

Air flow

Air flow

Fig. 6. Schematic showing the flow distribution (a) L-footed spiral fin (b) plain fin.
P. Pongsoi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 59 (2013) 75–82 81

" #
significant difference existed between an L-footed fin and plain fin 1 XM
jUcorr  Uexp j
on the friction factor. The authors found that the friction factor of L- Mean deviations ¼  100% ð27Þ
M 1 Uexp
footed spiral fins is about 80–90% different from the plain fin (con-
ventional heat exchanger). As demonstrated in Fig. 6, the plain fin Fig. 7 shows the comparison of the proposed correlations with
experiences single flow though channels. Therefore, this phenome- experimental data. The correlation Eqs. (25) and (26) describe
non might occur from the geometry of the plain fin that leads to 100% and 95% of the j and f factors, respectively, to be within
contact surface friction greater than that of L-footed spiral fins. ±10%. The proposed heat transfer and friction correlations have
Finally, empirical correlations for the Colburn factor (j) and the mean deviations in Eq. (27) of 4.29% and 2.12%, respectively. How-
friction factor (f) are proposed in this study which parallel actual ever, these correlations can be used not only for parallel-and-coun-
industrial applications operated at high Reynolds numbers. It must ter cross-flow types of water flow arrangements, but also used for
be noted that fin pitches have a negligible influence on the Colburn parallel cross-flow, counter cross-flow, and pure cross-flow.
factor, as mentioned above. Thus, the fin pitch is not included in
the Colburn factor correlation. The present data is correlated as
4. Conclusions
suggested by Pongsoi et al. [6] in the form of j ¼ aRebdc and

c
f
f ¼ aRebdc dpc , where a, b, and c are the empirical constants ob- This research determined the extent of the probable effect of fin
tained from least-square fitting of the experimental data. Accord- pitch on the heat transfer performance of L-footed spiral fin-
ing to the data analysis, friction factor correlation was also and-tube heat exchangers. Total test sections have a fin thickness
associated with fin pitch. Therefore, the present correlation for f of 0.25 mm, outside fin diameter (df) of 34.8 mm, two tube rows
factor is modified by including the dimensionless fin pitch (fp) nor- (Nrow) and various fin pitches from 2.4, 3.2, and 4.2 mm (i.e., 10,
malized by the tube’s outside diameter (dc). The computable corre- 8, and 6 fpi, respectively), which are the manufacturing limitations
lations for the Colburn and friction factors were suggested for this kind of fin. The test samples were multi-pass parallel-and-
according to the form: counter cross-flows arrangement under sensible heating condi-
tions and examined at a high Reynolds number (4000–15,000)
jcorr ¼ 0:2150Re0:4059
dc ð25Þ based on the fin collar’s outside diameter. In summary, the follow-
ing major conclusions emerged from this study:
 0:4771
fp
fcorr ¼ 0:4852Re0:2156
dc ð26Þ – It was confirmed that the average heat transfer rate, air-side
dc
heat transfer coefficient, and pressure drop increase with
increasing Reynolds numbers. In addition, the effect of fin pitch
0.009 on average heat transfer rate and pressure drop were consid-
(a) +10% +5% ered significant. On the contrary, results suggest that the air-
-5%
jcorr = aRedc
b side heat transfer coefficient is independent of fin pitch.
– Fin pitch has no significant effect on the Colburn factor (j factor)
-10%
at high Reynolds numbers (4000–15,000).
– The effect of fin pitch on the friction factor is negligible at Rey-
0.006
nolds numbers lower than 6000. In other words, a detectable
corr

increment in friction factor is found for greater fin pitch when


j

the Reynolds number is more than 6000.


– A correlation is proposed for the Colburn factor (j) and friction
factor (f) for L-footed spiral fin-and-tube heat exchangers at
a = 0.2150
b = -0.4059
high Reynolds number. The mean deviations of the proposed
0.003
Colburn and friction factors correlations are 4.29% and 2.12%,
respectively.
0.003 0.006 0.009 – The authors hope that future research will use this study as a
j foundation for enhancing our understanding of the effect of
exp
fin pitch on L-footed spiral fin-and-tube heat exchangers.
0.06
(b) c
b ⎛ p ⎞
f +5% Acknowledgments
f corr = aRedc ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ +10% -5%
d
⎝ c⎠
-10% The authors are indebted to the Thailand Research Fund, the Of-
fice of the Higher Education Commission and the National Re-
0.04
search University Project for supporting this study.
corr
f

References

a = 0.4852 [1] A. Nuntaphan, T. Kiatsiriroat, C.C. Wang, Heat transfer and friction
b = -0.2156 characteristics of crimped spiral finned heat exchangers with
0.02
c = 0.4771 dehumidification, Appl. Therm. Eng. 25 (2005) 327–340.
[2] S. Wongwises, P. Naphon, Heat transfer characteristics of a spiral-coil, finned
tube heat exchanger under dry-surface conditions, Heat Transfer Eng. 27 (1)
(2006) 25–34.
0.02 0.04 0.06 [3] S. Wongwises, P. Naphon, Thermal performance of a spiral-coil finned tube
f heat exchanger under wet-surface conditions, J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 20 (2)
exp (2006) 212–226.
[4] K. Srisawad, S. Wongwises, Heat transfer characteristics of a new helically
Fig. 7. Comparison of the proposed correlations with experimental data: (a) coiled crimped spiral finned tube heat exchanger, Heat Mass Transfer 45 (4)
Colburn factor and (b) friction factor. (2009) 381–391.
82 P. Pongsoi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 59 (2013) 75–82

[5] P. Pongsoi, S. Pikulkajorn, C.C. Wang, S. Wongwises, Effect of fin pitches on the [14] P. Pongsoi, S. Pikulkajorn, S. Wongwises, Experimental study on the air-side
air-side performance of crimped spiral fin-and-tube heat exchangers with a performance of a multipass parallel and counter cross-flow L-footed spiral fin-
multipass parallel and counter cross-flow configuration, Int. J. Heat Mass and-tube heat exchanger, Heat Transfer Eng. 33 (15) (2012) 1251–1263.
Transfer 54 (9–10) (2011) 2234–2240. [15] K.A. Gardner, Efficient of extended surface, ASME Trans. 67 (1945) 621.
[6] P. Pongsoi, S. Pikulkajorn, C.C. Wang, S. Wongwises, Effect of number of tube [16] V. Gnielinski, New equation for heat and mass transfer in turbulent pipe and
rows on the air-side performance of crimped spiral fin-and-tube heat channel flow, Int. Chem. Eng. 16 (1976) 359–368.
exchangers with a multipass parallel and counter cross-flow configuration, [17] W.M. Kays, A. London, Compact Heat Exchangers, third ed., Mcgraw-Hill, New
Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 55 (4) (2012) 1403–1411. York, 1984.
[7] P. Pongsoi, S. Pikulkajorn, S. Wongwises, Effect of fin pitches on the optimum [18] S. Wongwises, Y. Chokeman, Effect of fin pitch and number of tube rows on the
heat transfer performance of crimped spiral fin-and-tube heat exchangers, Int. air side performance of herringbone wavy fin and tube heat exchangers,
J. Heat Mass Transfer 55 (23–24) (2012) 6555–6566. Energy Convers. Manage. 46 (2005) 2216–2231.
[8] H. Hamakawa, K. Nakashima, T. Kudo, E. Nishida, T. Fukano, Vortex shedding [19] D.E. Briggs, E.H. Young, Convective heat transfer and pressure drop of air
from a circular cylinder with spiral fin, J. Fluid Sci. Technol. 3 (6) (2008) 787– flowing across triangular pitch banks of finned tubes, Chem. Eng. Prog. Symp.
795. Ser. 59 (41) (1963) 1–10.
[9] M. Lee, T. Kang, Y. Kim, Air-side heat transfer characteristics of spiral-type [20] C.C. Wang, C.-T. Chang, Heat and mass transfer for plate fin-and-tube heat
circular fin-and-tube heat exchangers, Int. J. Refrig. 33 (2) (2010) 313–320. exchangers with and without hydrophilic coating, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 41
[10] M. Lee, T. Kang, Y. Joo, Y. Kim, Heat transfer characteristics of spirally-coiled (1998) 3109–3120.
circular fin-tube heat exchangers operating under frosting conditions, Int. J. [21] C.C. Wang, Y.J. Chang, Y.C. Hsieh, Y.T. Lin, Sensible heat and friction
Refrig. 34 (1) (2011) 328–336. characteristics of plate fin-and-tube heat exchangers having plane fins, Int. J.
[11] K. Kawaguchi, K. Okui, Y. Asai, Y. Hasegawa, Effects of serrated fin and fin pitch Refrig. 19 (4) (1996) 223–230.
on pressure drop of the finned tube banks, Turbomachinery 32 (2004) 551–559. [22] N.H. Kim, J.H. Ham, J.P. Cho, Experimental investigation on the airside
[12] E. Næss, Experimental investigation of heat transfer and pressure drop in performance of fin-and-tube heat exchangers having herringbone wave fins
serrated-fin tube bundles with staggered tube layouts, Appl. Therm. Eng. 30 and proposal of a new heat transfer and pressure drop correlation, J. Mech. Sci.
(2010) 1531–1537. Technol. 22 (2008) 545–555.
[13] A. Lemouedda, A. Schmid, E. Franz, M. Breuer, A. Delgado, Numerical [23] C.C. Wang, W.H. Tao, C.J. Chang, An investigation of the airside performance of
investigations for the optimization of serrated finned-tube heat exchangers, the slit fin-and-tube heat exchangers, Int. J. Refrig. 22 (1999) 595–603.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 31 (2011) 1393–1401.