0
TECHNICAL BRIEFS

Performance Evaluation of a Compartmented Cooling Coil Using the Monte Carlo Simulation Approach

[+] Author and Article Information
Uma Maheswaran, S. C. Sekhar

 Department of Architecture, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117566Department of Building, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117566

J. Heat Transfer 129(9), 1286-1290 (Oct 25, 2006) (5 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2740662 History: Received May 17, 2005; Revised October 25, 2006

A compartmented cooling coil is a single undivided coil section located in an intermediate point between the upstream and downstream sections of the air handling unit. A thermally insulated metal barrier is provided for the separation of two different air streams that are conditioned through the coil. The coolant flow through the heat exchanger is such that both the air streams encounter each pass of the coolant feed. This paper aims to address the performance of a compartmented coil through the concept of fin efficiency. The compartmented coil geometry involves two distinct sets of air-side characteristics coupled with one set of coolant-side characteristics and it is practically difficult to obtain the values of fin efficiency through empirical measurements alone over a wide range of operating conditions. Hence, the conventional methods of evaluation resort to numerical models for predicting fin performance. The paper questions the validity of certain fundamental assumptions based on which conventional models have been formulated to obtain the local heat transfer coefficient values. A simplified numerical model is formulated and evaluated using a Monte Carlo simulation approach. Performance curves across all ranges of input values are presented and empirical results are used to validate these curves at intermediate values. Results show that air face velocity and surface temperature at a given point on the fin has significant impact on the heat transfer coefficient. It is also shown that for a given fin height of 9.5mm, the assumption of an average heat transfer coefficient as calculated from the LMTD method could vary significantly up to 10% from the predicted results.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2007 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Outlet dry bulb temperature versus heat transfer coefficient

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Fin surface temperature at entry versus heat transfer coefficient

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Fin surface temperature at exit versus heat transfer coefficient

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Airflow rate versus heat transfer coefficient

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Heat transfer coefficient versus dry fin efficiency for a fin thickness of 0.6mm

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Layout of the points of surface temperature measurement on the fin

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In