0
Research Papers: Heat Exchangers

Experimental and Theoretical Analysis of Transient Response of Plate Heat Exchangers in Presence of Nonuniform Flow Distribution

[+] Author and Article Information
N. Srihari, Sarit K. Das

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India

J. Heat Transfer 130(5), 051801 (Apr 10, 2008) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2885153 History: Received September 28, 2006; Revised May 11, 2007; Published April 10, 2008

Transient analysis helps us to predict the behavior of heat exchangers subjected to various operational disturbances due to sudden change in temperature or flow rates of the working fluids. The present experimental analysis deals with the effect of flow distribution on the transient temperature response for U-type and Z-type plate heat exchangers. The experiments have been carried out with uniform and nonuniform flow distributions for various flow rates. The temperature responses are analyzed for various transient characteristics, such as initial delay and time constant. It is also possible to observe the steady state characteristics after the responses reach asymptotic values. The experimental observations indicate that the Z-type flow configuration is more strongly affected by flow maldistribution compared to the U-type in both transient and steady state regimes. The comparison of the experimental results with numerical solution indicates that it is necessary to treat the flow maldistribution separately from axial thermal dispersion during modeling of plate heat exchanger dynamics.

Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Geometrical features of the plate

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Schematic diagram of the transient experimental test facility

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Schematic diagram of the mandrel

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

U-type flow configuration of the plate heat exchanger

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Control volume of the fluid inside the channel and control volume of the plate

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Schematic diagram of 1–2 pass arrangement

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Grid structure used in the finite-difference analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Experimental results of temperature response in dimensional form

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Comparison of temperature response with uniform and nonuniform flow distributions (m2=3.8) for U-type at Re=1110, N=31, NTU=1.6, and Rg2=1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Comparison of the slopes response for U-type with uniform and nonuniform flow distributions (m2=3.8) for U-type at Re=1110, N=31, NTU=1.6, and Rg2=1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Comparison of temperature response with uniform and nonuniform flow distributions (m2=3.8) for Z-type at Re=1110, N=31, NTU=1.6, and Rg2=1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Variation in initial delay for U-type and Z-type flow configurations

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Comparison of transient response for U-type and Z-type flow configurations under nonuniform flow distributions (m2=3.8) at the Re=1110

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Hot inlet temperature data fitted to the fifth-order polynomial with R2=0.9995

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Comparison of temperature response with theoretical model for U-type Re=1110, N=31, NTU=1.6, and Rg2=1 for uniform flow distributions (m2=0.05)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Comparison of Experimental temperature response with the theoretical model for U-type Re=1110, N=31, NTU=1.6, and Rg2=1 for flow distribution m2=3.8

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Comparison of experimental temperature response with the theoretical model for Z-type Re=780, N=31, NTU=1.8, and Rg2=1 for uniform distributions (m2=0.05)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Comparison of experimental temperature response with the theoretical model for Z-type Re=780, N=31, NTU=1.8, and Rg2=1 for flow distribution (m2=3.5)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Comparison of experimental temperature response with the theoretical model for 1–2 pass arrangement Re=1110, N=31, NTU=2.0, and Rg2=0.9 for flow distribution m2=3.8

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