Heat Transfer Engineering

ISSN: 0145-7632 (Print) 1521-0537 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhte20

Single-Phase Flow Pressure Drop Analysis in a

Plate Heat Exchanger

Tariq S. Khan, Mohammad S. Khan & Zahid H. Ayub

To cite this article: Tariq S. Khan, Mohammad S. Khan & Zahid H. Ayub (2017) Single-Phase
Flow Pressure Drop Analysis in a Plate Heat Exchanger, Heat Transfer Engineering, 38:2, 256-264,
DOI: 10.1080/01457632.2016.1177430

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01457632.2016.1177430

Accepted author version posted online: 15

Apr 2016.
Published online: 05 Aug 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 205

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uhte20

Download by: [The University of Manchester Library] Date: 04 May 2017, At: 04:04
HEAT TRANSFER ENGINEERING
, VOL. , NO. , –
http://dx.doi.org/./..

Single-Phase Flow Pressure Drop Analysis in a Plate Heat Exchanger

Tariq S. Khana , Mohammad S. Khanb , and Zahid H. Ayubc
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Petroleum Institute, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; b Department of Mechanical Engineering, Abu Dhabi
University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; c ISOTHERM, Inc., Arlington, Texas, USA

ABSTRACT
Pressure drop characteristics of a gasketed commercial plate heat exchanger configured for single-phase
water-to-water flow application are presented. Isothermal pressure drop data are provided for two sym-
metric 30°/30°, 60°/60° and a nonsymmetric 30°/60° (mixed) chevron plate configuration in the plate heat
exchanger. Reynolds number was varied from 500 to 2,500. The experimental data are found to be a strong
function of chevron angle and Reynolds number. Experimental results show that mixed plate configura-
tion can be a choice in optimizing the plate heat exchanger design for improved performance. Based on
experimental data, correlations are presented for estimation of friction factor.

Introduction the correlations are compared in Figure 1. Table 1also includes

reported accuracies of results and Reynolds number definitions
Single-phase pressure drop for the above mentioned studies.
Figure 1 shows comparison of three previous correlations
Plate heat exchangers are widely used in the process, dairy,
presented by three different teams of authors. For comparison,
pulp/paper, heating, ventilating, and air conditioning industry.
all three correlations are plotted for the same area enlargement
The plate heat exchangers (PHEs), being compact in nature,
factor, ϕ = 1.29. The disagreement between the three represen-
were primarily developed to cope with enhancement in heat
tative friction factor correlations is clearly evident. This lack of
transfer demand and operational flexibility. Several features
conformity in previous studies dictates the need for more exper-
of the plate heat exchangers make them more suitable for
imental data for broader use of the plate heat exchangers. Sev-
heat transfer applications compared to the conventional heat
eral previous studies on plate heat exchanger characteristics have
exchangers. They have larger heat transfer area to volume ratio,
shown higher pressure drop penalty compared to heat transfer
design flexibility, and high thermal effectiveness, and hence are
enhancement with chevron angle plates. Thonon et al. [20] have
suitable for energy and space saving. Ease in cleaning is another
used corrugated plates of different chevron angles in their inves-
advantage. In plate heat exchangers where we get better heat
tigations. Compared to the smooth flat plate channel, increase in
transfer characteristics we also need to consider the relatively
pressure drop due to corrugated plates was reported to be sev-
higher pressure drop and hence the pumping power. There-
eral times more than heat transfer improvement. Similarly, the
fore, for wider engineering applications, experimental data are
pressure drop penalty for corrugated plates with chevron angles
required for both pressure drop and heat transfer characteristics
ranging from 30° to 60° has been shown to be 13 to 44 times
of the plate heat exchangers.
more than that of an equivalent flat plate by Muley and Mang-
Corrugated channels in the plate heat exchangers require that
lik [17]. However, they reported Nusselt number enhancement
complex geometries having several parameters be taken into
to be only 2 to 5 times when compared to a flat plate of the
account, such as chevron angle, corrugation depth, overall size
same dimensions. For a fixed mean flow channel spacing, they
of the plate, surface area enhancement factors, and so on. A con-
reported isothermal friction factor to be significantly affected by
siderable number of previous studies [1–10] have been carried
chevron angle, Reynolds number, and area enlargement factor
out, using different types of plate heat exchangers, such as wash-
[17]. Qualitatively similar results have been shown by Hessami
board, herringbone, and chevron plate heat exchangers. Savostin
[21], who used chevron angle plates of 45° and 60° with water as
and Tikhonov [11], Heavner et al. [12], Bond [13], Changal [14],
the working fluid. He reported that the fluid flow between par-
and Amooie-Foomeny [15] have tried to include area enlarge-
allel chevron plates is erratic and random flow even at a very low
ment effects in their investigations on plate heat exchangers.
Reynolds number. Hessami also compared several correlations
Very few studies [16–18] included effects of both chevron angle
and reported numerous contradictions among them.
and area enlargement factor. However, the reported data vary
Recently, Durmus et al. [22] carried out experimental inves-
from each other.
tigation on thermohydraulic characteristics of three different
Table 1 [6, 12, 16–19] presents experimental parameters,
types of plate heat exchangers. Experiments were conducted
conditions, and correlations of selected studies, while some of

CONTACT Tariq S. Khan tkhan@pi.ac.ae Department of Mechanical Engineering, Petroleum Institute, PO Box , Abu Dhabi, UAE.
©  Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 HEAT TRANSFER ENGINEERING 257

Table . Friction factor correlations of selected reported studies on plate heat exchangers.

Investigators Correlations Ranges

 C2

Focke et al. [] fsp = + C3
Rep
 ࣘ Re ࣘ ,
where ° ࣘ β ࣘ °,
uD
Re = ν e
De = 2 × b % standard deviation from experimental data

β Re C p C

∗ Laminar . . −

– . . −
 – . . .
– . . −
 – . . .
– . . −

 – . . .

– . . −
 – . . .
– . . −
 – . . −
 –  . .
– . . −
 3.6
β
Chisholm and Wanniarachchi [] fsp = 0.80Re−0.25 ϕ 1.25 30  < Re <  × 
Where (° ࣘ β ࣘ °)
GDe
Re = μ

De = 2×b Accuracy %

ϕ

Muley and Manglik [] fsp = C (β ) D (ϕ) Re−p(β ) Re ࣙ ,

C (β ) = 2.917 − 0.1277β + 2.016 × 10−3 β 2
D (ϕ) = 5.4742 − 19.0197ϕ ° ࣘ β ࣘ °
+ 18.9338ϕ
2 − 5.3405ϕ 3

π β    ࣘ ϕ ࣘ .
p(β ) = 0.2 + 0.0577 Sin 45 + 2.1 Accuracy ±%
.
mD
Re = NA μe
c
De = 2 × b

Heavner et al. [] fsp = C2 (ϕ)p+1 Re−p  ࣘ Re ࣘ ,

Where ° ࣘ β ࣘ °,
GDe
Re = μ

De = 2×b Accuracy %
ϕ

β C p

/ . .

/ . .
/ . .
/ . .
/ . .
D 
Maslov and Kovalenko [] fsp = 915Re−0.25 L
e
 ࣘ Re ࣘ ,
GDe
Re = μ
Where D = 2 × b β = °
e

 1
Wanniarachchi et al. [] fsp = fl3 + ft3 3  ࣘ Re ࣘ 
fl = 1774 (β ) −1.026
(ϕ)2 Re−1
ft = 46.6 (β ) −1.08
(ϕ)1−p Re−p
p = 0.00423 (β ) + 0.0000223 (β )2
GDe Herringbone plates (° ࣘ β ࣘ °, β < ° =
Re = μ °), accuracy is not mentioned
258 T. S. KHAN ET AL.

Figure . Experimental setup for single-phase experiments.

plates, including two symmetric configurations and a mixed

plate configuration.

Figure . Comparison of friction factors of some of the reported works, Re as defined

in Eq. ().
Experimental facilty
Experiments were performed on a PHE with stainless steel
in single-pass configuration under parallel-flow and counter- chevron plates of chevron angle 30° and 60° configured in two
flow conditions. In addition to energy analysis, they highlighted symmetric arrangements and a nonsymmetric (mixed) arrange-
importance of exergy analysis in designing a PHE. Pressure ment. Three plates were installed, providing two fluid streams
drop is reported to be the maximum for corrugated PHE. The in counterflow configuration shown in the following. The plate
authors claimed that larger pressure drop is compensated by the heat exchanger was configured in a single-pass, U-arrangement,
reduced size of the plate heat exchanger due to its better ther- permitting disassembly of the exchanger, without disturbing the
mal characteristics. They recommended optimization between external piping.
heat transfer and pressure drop while designing a PHE for better Schematic of the experimental facility is shown in Figure 2.
performance. Major components of the experimental setup are an insulated
More recently, Gulenoglu et al. [23] compared the thermo- hot water tank with 200 L capacity, plate heat exchanger, pump,
hydraulic performance of three different gasketed plate heat and instrumentation.
exchangers at steady state. All three PHEs had different plate Water was circulated through the heat exchanger using 2.2-
sizes but the same symmetric chevron angle of 60°. The authors kW pump installed on the experimental rig. The water cir-
reported enhancement of thermohydraulic characteristics with culation was a closed loop so the same water circulated in
decrease in size of plates. Also, port diameter, area enhance- the heat exchanger during the experiments. Volumetric flow
ment factor, and channel flow area have been reported to sig- rate was measured using a 5-L graduated cylinder and a stop
nificantly affect PHE performance. Gulenoglu et al. [23] also watch. Flow measurement was repeated several times and aver-
showed great diversity in various previous correlations. Based aged for higher accuracy. The side walls of the heat exchanger,
on the experimental results, the authors presented plate spe- water tanks, and piping were well insulated with polyurethane
cific correlations for estimation of Nusselt number and friction foam, covered with aluminum foil, to minimize surrounding
factor. effects.
Relatively less work has been reported on nonsymmetric Important geometric characteristics of a chevron plate as
(mixed) plate configurations. Some of the previous experimen- defined in Ayub [25] are shown in Table 2, with parameters
tal studies conducted on mixed plate configurations include defined in Figure 3.
Marriot [8], Chisholm and Wanniarachchi [16], Heavner et al.
[12], Muley and Manglik [17], and Khan et al. [24]. Heavner
et al. [12] in their study on plate heat exchanger characteris- Table . Geometric characteristics of chevron plates used in experiments.
tics varied chevron angles from as low as 23° to 67.5° and have
Geometric characteristic Value
reported that the pressure drop increases with an increase in
the chevron angle. Except for the 45°/45° symmetric configura- Plate width, Lw (mm) 
Vertical distance between centers of ports, Lv (mm) 
tion, they used mixed configurations for all other plate config- Projected plate length, Lp (mm) 
urations. Khan et al. [24] carried out single-phase heat transfer Port diameter, Dp (mm) 
investigations on the same experimental setup used in current Horizontal distance between centers of ports, Lh (mm)
∗ Mean channel spacing, b (mm)

., ., and .
study and provided a Nusselt number correlation generalized for Plate thickness, t (mm) .
chevron angles from 30° to 60°. Effective area of plate, A (m ) .
The main objective of the present experimental study is to Corrugation pitch, λ (mm) .
investigate the pressure drop performance of a gasketed com- Surface enlargement factor, ϕ .
Plate thermal conductivity, k (W/m-K) 
mercially available plate heat exchanger. Isothermal pressure
∗ For °/°, °/°, and °/° plate configurations, respectively.
drop data are provided for three configurations of chevron
 HEAT TRANSFER ENGINEERING 259

Data reduction
Reynolds number, Re, and hydraulic diameter, Dhyd , in the plate
heat exchanger were estimated as follows (Kakac and Liu [26]:
GDhyd
Re = (1)
μ
where G is the mass flux, given as
·

m 2bLw
G= Dhyd = (2)
bLw b + Lw ϕ
Pressure drop across the PHE comprises four components:
pressure drop in ports of the heat exchanger, pressure drop in
connecting pipes, that due to elevation, and that within the core
of the plate heat exchanger, that is,

Pcore = Pm − Pport − Pele − Ppipe (3)

Figure . Basic geometric characteristics of chevron plate (Kakac and Liu []). where Pm is the measured pressure across the plate heat
exchanger, while port pressure drop, Pport , is usually deter-
Experimental procedure mined as (Kays [27], Shah and Focke [28])
Water at ambient temperature is circulated in the experimental 1.5ρu2
loop and isothermal pressure drop was measured. As shown in Pport = (4)
2
Figure 2, the pressure drop is measured in bottom to top config-
uration to include gravitational effects also. The fluid flow rate As the channel spacing between two plates was very small,
was mainly controlled by a variable frequency drive installed on the pressure drop due to elevation changes (Pele ) is ignored in
the pump. However, two manually controlled valves were also this study.
installed on the discharge side of the pump, one each on bypass Pressure drop in connecting pipes at inlet and exit of the heat
piping and main flow stream for maximum control of mass flow exchanger was estimated based on pipe flow velocity. It is calcu-
rate. For each experiment sufficient time was given to the system lated as given here:
to achieve a steady-state condition. The flow rates and tempera- Ppipe = ρz (5)
tures at inlet and exit of the plate heat exchanger were monitored.
Experimental data were obtained for 500 < Re < 2,500 range. where ρ is the density of the fluid and z is the head loss, calcu-
The Reynolds number based on hydraulic diameter of the chan- lated as
nel is defined in the Data Reduction section. Properties of the 
fluid are determined using IAPWS-95 software. All experiments f u2 L
z= (6)
are repeated from high to low and vice versa flow rates and data 2gDc
are averaged out to compensate for the hysteresis, if any.
with f  estimated using either the Darcy–Weisbach friction fac-
tor)Incropera and Dewitt [29]),
Instrumentation  64
f= for Repc ≤ 2,300 (7)
The terminal temperatures were measured by three wire Pt-100 Repc
resistance temperature detectors (RTDs) of mineral-insulated
or
stainless steel sheathed class “A” with measurement uncertainty
 − 1
of ±0.1°C. These RTDs had a sheath diameter of 6 mm and 
f = 0.316 Repc 4 for R epc > 2,300 (8)
length of 100 mm. The RTDs were installed at inlet and exit
ports of the plate heat exchanger, in well-insulated pipe sections, Also, Dc is the diameter of the pipe and L is the length, while
to measure the temperature of flowing fluid. A differential pres- Reynolds number in the connecting pipe, Repc , was estimated
sure transmitter of 0.1% full-scale order accuracy was installed by
between inlet and exit ports of the heat exchanger. The differ-
ρuDc
ential pressure measuring range of the transmitter was 0–69 kPa Repc = (9)
with 4–20 mA output. Wetted parts of the transmitter were made μ
of stainless steel and the diaphragm material of Hastalloy-C. Hence, based on the estimated Pcore , the Fanning friction
The allowed operating temperature was −40 to 85°C and the factor for the plate heat exchanger was calculated as (Kakac and
maximum permitted system pressure was 14,000 kPa. The pres- Liu [26])
sure and temperature data were recorded in a personal com-
puter. Calibration of the instruments was done using standard ρDhyd Pcore
f= (10)
procedures. 2Lp (G)2
260 T. S. KHAN ET AL.

Figure . Experimental core pressure drop data for three configurations. Figure . Variation of Nusp with Re for different plate configurations) Khan et al.
[]), with Re as defined in Eq. ().
Experimental uncertainty
For instance, corrugation depth is measured to be 2.2 mm for
An experimental error analysis was performed according to the
60° plates and is 3.6 mm for 30° plates. This effect, along with
procedure outlined by Moffatt [30]. Although pressure drop
different chevron angle and the cross-sectional channel area,
in connecting piping and heat exchanger ports made up less
results in a larger pressure drop for the 60°/60° plate configu-
than 1% of the total pressure drop, nevertheless, their respective
ration and comparatively lower pressure drop for 30°/30° and
uncertainties are found to be ±1.2% each. Uncertainty in core
30°/60° plate configurations.
pressure drop depends on individual uncertainties of measured,
The friction factor, fsp , data for the three plate configurations
port and piping pressure losses that accumulate to ±1.7%, and
are shown in Figure 6. It is clearly observable from the figure that
uncertainty in mass flow rate measurement (±4.0%). Accord-
the friction factor for chevron corrugated plate configurations is
ingly, the uncertainty in the frictional factor is estimated to be
several times higher than that of an equivalent dimension flat
equal to ±4.0%.
plate channel.
The pressure drop is strongly influenced by chevron angle,
Results and discussion whereas the friction factor is also significantly influenced by cor-
rugation depth. The Fanning friction factor is a strong func-
The core pressure drop data for all three plate configurations tion of hydraulic diameter and the channel cross-section area,
are shown in Figure 4 at different levels of mass flux. As which in turn are strong functions of corrugation depth. There-
mentioned earlier, in the Data Reduction Section, the core pres- fore, the friction factor is greatly influenced by the corrugation
sure drop is determined using Eq. (3) from the measured pres- depth. Most of the previous works [12, 17, 31], in general, have
sure drop across the heat exchanger and calculated values of not reported this effect in their studies. Effect of corrugation
pressure losses. depth on fsp is clearly evident from Figure 6. The 30°/60° plate
For the three configurations considered in this work, the configuration results in a higher pressure drop compared to the
60°/60° (hard) plates configuration presents the maximum hin- 30°/30° plate configuration (Figure 4). However, unlike previ-
drance to the flow. So for a given mass flux rate, pressure drop ously reported studies, the friction factor for the 30°/60° plate
has been found to be maximum for the hard plates and mini- configuration is found to be almost the same as for the 30°/30°
mum for the 30°/30° (soft) plates configuration. While chevron plate configuration (Figure 6). It may also be observed that the
plate corrugations increase heat transfer rates, they also present trend of the friction factor for 30°/30° and 30°/60° plate configu-
a higher flow resistance with increasing chevron angle. The pres- rations is similar. The friction factor for the hard plate configura-
sure drop penalty, therefore, increases with increasing mass flux tion is qualitatively comparable with other plate configurations
rate and chevron angle. It is observed from Figure 4 that the
pressure drop does not increase linearly with an increase in
the chevron angle for the three plate configurations. It is noted
that pressure drop for the 30°/60° (mixed) plate configuration
is close to the pressure drop data of the soft plate configuration.
However, considering the heat transfer results published earlier
in Khan et al. [24] for the same PHE and shown in Figure 5, it
may be observed that the Nusselt number for mixed plate con-
figuration falls almost in the middle of soft and hard plate con-
figurations.
The corrugation depth, chevron angle, and mean channel
spacing between the plates are important factors to be consid-
ered. The swirling fluid flow between plates results in greater
pressure loss, which increases with an increase in chevron angle.
A distinctive feature of these experiments is that the corrugation Figure . Experimental friction factor data for chevron plates all three plate config-
depth is different for the two types of plates used in this study. urations, with Re as defined in Eq. ().

Figure . Comparison of experimental frictional factor data with previous studies
for °/° plate configuration, with Re as defined in Eq. ().
at higher Reynolds number (above 2,000). From the experimen-
tal results it can be deduced that for the 30°/60° plate configura-
tion, the soft plate plays a leading role as far as the pressure drop
characteristics are concerned. However, in order to quantify
these effects, plates of the same chevron angle with different cor-
rugation depths may be considered for experimentation. Muley
[32] has attempted to explore this effect by using plates of two
different corrugation depths with same chevron angle (30°/30°).
He reported insignificant corrugation depth effect; however,
since the difference between the two corrugation depths used
was only 0.33 mm, further investigation may still be required.
Comparison of friction factor with previous studies
There are several geometric, flow and thermodynamic parame-
ters, such as β, ϕ, γ , b, plate width and height, hydraulic diam-
eter, Reynolds and Prandtl numbers, and so on, involved, and
therefore a universal correlation is not easy to develop. There
are several geometric and flow conditions that make each experi-
mental study different from others. It is, therefore, not easily pos-
sible to do an objective comparison between previous research
and present experimental data. For instance, in most of the stud-
ies even if chevron angle and Reynolds number are same, other
parameters may be different.
The present friction factor data are compared with some pre-
vious reported works [6, 12, 16, 17, 19] in Figures 7 to 9. Avail-
able correlations and ranges of parameters considered in these
studies have been tabulated in Table 1.
Figure . Comparison of experimental frictional factor data with previous studies
for °/° plate configuration, with Re as defined in Eq. ().
HEAT TRANSFER ENGINEERING 261
Figure . Comparison of experimental frictional factor data with previous studies
for °/° plate configuration, with Re as defined in Eq. ().
As shown, some of the present data are in fair agreement
with reported investigations; however, disagreement is also
noticed. The comparison is considered fair if current experi-
mental results fall within ±25% of the difference. It is observed
from Figure 7 that the friction factor for 60°/60° plate config-
uration in the present study falls between several previously
conducted works. For instance, studies by Focke et al. [6] and
Chisholm and Wanniarachhi [16] highly overpredict (on aver-
age 57% and 94%, respectively) the friction factor determined
in the current study for the 60°/60° plate configuration. Maslov
and Kovalenko [19] also overpredict the present results, but for
low Re range (up to about 1,500) their correlation predicts the
current results to within 20%. On the other hand, studies by
Heavner et al. [12] and Muley and Manglik [17] underpredict
the experimental results for the 60°/60° plate configuration. The
average percent difference for these two studies is 25% and 32%
only. It is, however, noted that for the higher Reynolds numbers
(beyond 2000), this comparison with present data improves to
well within 20%. Similarly, 30°/60° plate configuration data are
in fair agreement with references 6 and 12] for the same configu-
rations, as shown in Figure 8. To be specific, Focke et al. [6] agree
to within 28%, while Heavner et al. [12] predict present data to
within only 8.5% on average. Figure 9 shows that the present
friction factor for the 30°/30° plate configuration is respec-
tively over- and underpredicted by Muley and Manglik [17] and
Heavner et al. [12] to within only 10%. It is interesting to note
that studies conducted by Focke et al. [6] and Chisholm and
Wanniarachhi [16] for the 60°/60° plate configurations overpre-
dict the present experimental data. However, their investigations
underpredict the present data for the 30°/30° plate configura-
tion. This shows significant variability in experimental results,
due to different plate geometries, and hence restricts generaliza-
tion of results.
It is worth mentioning that, based on the experimental
results, the transition range from laminar to turbulent flow is
reported to be different by various researchers. For instance,
Muley and Manglik [17] have reported 500 < Re < 800 for the
transition Reynolds number, while Hessami [21] has reported
600 < Re < 1,300 as the transition range. It should be noted
that both studies defined Reynolds numbers based on equiva-
lent diameter. Some reports [12, 20] consider flow to be turbu-
lent for Re > 200. Heavner et al. [12] also based the Reynolds
number calculation on equivalent diameter, while Thonon et al.
[20] based their arguments on flow visualization and did not
262 T. S. KHAN ET AL.
Figure . Experimental friction factor versus Reynolds number for the three plate
configurations, with Re as defined in Eq. ().
provide information on Reynolds number. The use of “laminar”
and “turbulent” flow in plate heat exchanger studies may also
be inappropriate, as strictly speaking, there is no true laminar
flow in chevron corrugated plates. Flow structure in plate heat
exchangers could be considered random, irregular, and mixed
with cross-streamline movements even at low Re. Therefore, it
would be more appropriate to call these flows “low Re flows” and
“high Re flows” [21]. In fact, a major change in slope of fric-
tion data from high to low may actually define the transition
region.
Pressure drop correlation
In order to develop a friction factor correlation, a classical power
law type data reduction approach was followed. For a given
chevron plate configuration, the single-phase friction factor is
found to be a strong function of Reynolds number. Therefore, a
correlation of the following form is selected to estimate the fric-
tion factor:
fsp = CRem (11)
Figure 10 is plotted to show the experimental data for
the three chevron angle plate configurations on a log–log
scale to determine the coefficient, C, and exponent, m, in Eq.
(11).
The data for each chevron configuration have been curve fit-
ted. Applying some basic logarithm properties, the curve fitting
provides the lead coefficient, C, and exponent, m, for each plate
Figure . Comparison of experimental friction factor with prediction correlation for
°/° plate configuration (Eq. ()).
Figure . Comparison of experimental friction factor with prediction correlation
for °/° plate configuration (Eq. ()).
Figure . Comparison of experimental friction factor with prediction correlation
for °/° plate configuration (Eq. ()).
configuration. The curve fit equations and their respective mea-
sures of goodness are shown in Figure 10. Using these values the
following correlations are developed:
fsp = 34.43Re−0.5 , for β = 60◦ /60◦ configuration (12)
fsp = 2.07Re−0.27 , for β = 30◦ /60◦ configuration (13)
fsp = 1.76Re−0.26 , for β = 30◦ /30◦ configuration (14)
These correlations are valid for 500 < Re < 2,500 with Re
defined in terms of hydraulic diameter, Eq. (1). Comparison
of the preceding correlations with the experimental data for
respective plate configurations are shown in Figures 11 to 13. It
can be observed that the developed correlations represent exper-
imental data quite well. Error analysis reveals that the preceding
correlations, Eqs. (12) to (14), estimate the experimental friction
factor data for all plate configurations within ±5% of the error
band.
Conclusions
Experiments have been performed in order to investigate
the pressure drop characteristics of a commercial plate heat
exchanger. Isothermal pressure drop data have been presented
for various chevron angles, corrugation depths, and plate con-
figurations. Pressure drop is shown to increase with Reynolds
number and chevron angle. The friction factor decreased with
Reynolds number and is found to be strongly influenced by the
plate geometry. A maximum uncertainty of ±2.6% is found in
 HEAT TRANSFER ENGINEERING 263

the experimental friction factor data. Based on the experimen- Notes on contributors
tal data, friction factor correlations have been proposed for the Tariq S. Khan specializes in the area of
three plate configurations. The presented correlations are valid thermal fluid sciences. He received his
for 500 < Re < 2,500. Ph.D. from Ghulam Ishaq Khan Insti-
Comparison of pressure drop results with heat transfer tute of Engineering Sciences and Tech-
nology, Pakistan, in 2010. His Ph.D.
results published in a previous study conducted on the same heat
research was related to experimental
exchanger show that mixed plate configuration can be a choice study of thermohydraulic characteris-
in optimizing the PHE design for improved thermohydraulic tics of plate heat exchangers in two-
performance. phase flow applications, using ammonia
as refrigerant. He is currently employed
at the Petroleum Institute (PI), Abu
Dhabi, UAE. He is currently involved in
Nomenclature diversified research assignments related
to experimental study in thermofluids,
A area (m2 ) two-phase flow (air–solid particles) in pipes and gas sweetening using
b mean channel spacing (m) microchannels. Prior to joining PI, he worked in Pakistan, Turkey, and
Dc connecting pipe diameter (m) Saudi Arabia in different academic and industrial organizations. He is a
De equivalent diameter (m) member of a number of international technical societies. He also serves as
Dhyd hydraulic diameter (m) a reviewer to several international journals in the thermofluids field.
f Fanning friction factor Mohammad S. Khan is an associate pro-
f friction factor fessor in the department of Mechani-
cal Engineering at Abu Dhabi University,
g gravity (m/s2 ) Abu Dhabi, UAE. He is also a cofounder
G liquid mass flux (kg/m2 -s) of the Natural Fluids Refrigeration Cen-
k thermal conductivity (W/m-K) ter at Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of
L length (m) Engineering and Technology, Pakistan.
ṁ mass flow rate (kg/s) He completed his Ph.D. in mechani-
cal engineering from the University of
Nu Nusselt number British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, in
P pressure (kPa) or plate pitch (m) 2005. He is an active member of ASME
PHE plate heat exchanger and ASHRAE.
Pr Prandtl number
Re Reynolds number
Repc Reynolds number based on connecting pipe diameter
t thickness (m) Zahid H. Ayub holds a Ph.D. in mechan-
u velocity (m/s) ical engineering from Iowa State Univer-
U overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 -K) sity. He is the president of Isotherm, Inc.,
a manufacturer of heat transfer equip-
z head loss (m) ment in Arlington, TX. He has exten-
sive experience in the area of applied heat
transfer and has successfully designed,
fabricated, and installed several thou-
sand heat exchangers, pressure vessels,
Greek symbols and refrigeration/heat transfer systems
β chevron or corrugation angle (deg) worldwide. He is recognized as one of
the pioneers in the field of enhanced heat
γ corrugation profile aspect ratio transfer for ammonia applications and
ϕ area enlargement factor is actively involved in “Green Refrigera-
 change or difference tion.” He holds six U.S. patents with four pending at the USPTO. He is the
μ dynamic viscosity (kg/m-s) author of more than 90 international journal and conference papers. He
ν kinematic viscosity (m2 /s) is in the process of publishing a book, Heat Exchanger Design for Industrial
Refrigeration. He is currently executive editor of the Journal of Heat Transfer
ρ density (kg/m3 ) Engineering and ASME Journal of Thermal Science and Engineering Applica-
tions. He has received numerous awards for his contributions to the field of
engineering. He is a fellow of ASME and ASHRAE. He is regularly invited
to international conferences and institutes of advanced learning to deliver
keynote lectures in his area of expertise. He is a registered professional engi-
Subscripts neer in the states of Michigan and Texas.
ele elevation
m measured
References
p plate
pc connecting pipe [1] Cooper, A., Recover More Heat with Plate Heat Exchangers, Chemical
sp single phase Engineer, pp. 280–285, 1974.
[2] Edwards, M. F., Changal Vaie, A. A., and Parrot, D. L., Heat Transfer
v vertical
and Pressure Drop Characteristics of a Plate Heat Exchanger Using
w width Non-Newtonian Liquids, Chemical Engineer, vol. 285, pp. 286–288
and 293, 1974.
264 T. S. KHAN ET AL.
[3] Emerson, W. H., The Thermal and Hydrodynamic Performance of a
plate heat Exchanger: I. Flat Plates, Report No. 283, National Engi-
neering Laboratories, Ministry of Technology, UK, 1967.
[4] Emerson, W. H., The Thermal and Hydrodynamic Performance of
a plate heat Exchanger: II. A DeLaval Exchanger, Report No. 285,
National Engineering Laboratories, Ministry of Technology, UK,
1967.
[5] Emerson, W. H., The Thermal and Hydrodynamic Performance of
a Plate Heat Exchanger: Ill. A Rosenblad Exchanger, Report No.
286, National Engineering Laboratories, Ministry of Technology, UK,
1967.
[6] Focke, W. W., Zacharides, J., and Oliver, I., The Effect of the Corruga-
tion Inclination Angle on the Thermohydraulic Performance of Plate
Heat Exchangers, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol.
28, pp. 1469–1479, 1985.
[7] Leuliet, J. C., Mangonnat, J. F., and Lalande, M., Etude de la Perte
de Charge dans des Echangeurs de Chaleur a Plaques Traitant des
Produits Non-Newtorüens, Revue Generale de Thermique, vol. 26, pp.
445–450, 1987.
[8] Marriott, J., Performance of an Alfaflex Plate Heat Exchangers, Chem-
ical Engineering Progress, vol. 73, pp. 73–78, 1977.
[9] Talik, A. C., Fletcher, L. S., Anand, N. K., and Swanson, L. W.,
Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Characteristics of a Plate Heat
Exchanger, Proceedings of the ASME/JSME Thermal Engineering Con-
ference, Lahina, Maui, Hawaii, vol. 4, pp. 321–331, 1995.
[10] Talik, A. C., Fletcher, L. S., Anand, N. K., and Swanson, L. W., Heat
Transfer and Pressure Drop Characteristics of a Plate Heat Exchanger
Using a Propylene Glycol–Water Mixture as the Working Fluid, Proc.
National Heat Transfer Conference, Vol. 12, HTD-Vol. 314, ASME,
New York, pp. 83–88, 1995.
[11] Savostin, A. F., and Tikhonov, A. M., Investigation of the Characteris-
tics of Plate Type Heating Surfaces, Thermal Engineering, vol. 17, pp.
113–117, 1970.
[12] Heavner, R. L., Kumar, H., and Wanniarachchi, A. S., Performance of
an Industrial Heat Exchanger: Effect of Chevron Angle, presented at
the AIChE Symposium Series, New York, NY, 1993.
[13] Bond, M. P., Plate Heat Exchangers for Effective Heat Transfer, Chem-
ical Engineer, vol. 367, pp. 162–167, 1981.
[14] Changal Vaie, A. A., The Performance of Plate Heat Exchangers,
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK, 1975.
[15] Amooie-Foomeny, M. M., Flow Distribution in Plate Heat Exchang-
ers, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK, 1977.
[16] Chisholm, D., and Wanniarachchi, A. S., Maldistribution in Single-
Pass Mixed- Channel Plate Heat Exchangers, presented at the Com-
pact Heat Exchangers for Power and Process Industries, HTD, New
York, NY, 1992.
[17] Muley, A., and Manglik, R. M., Experimental Study of Turbulent
Flow Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop in a Plate Heat Exchanger
With Chevron Plates, Journal of Heat Transfer, vol. 121, pp. 110–117,
1999.
[18] Wanniarachchi, A. S., Ratnam, U., Tilton, B. E., and Dutta-Roy, K.,
Approximate Correlations for Chevron-Type Plate heat Exchangers,
Proc. National Heat Transfer Conference, ASME HTD-v. 314, p. 145–
151, New York, NY, 1995.
[19] Maslov, A., and Kovalenko, L., Hydraulic Resistance and Heat Trans-
fer in Plate Heat Exchangers, Molochnaya Promyshlenflost, vol. 10, pp.
20–22 (in Russian), 1972.
[20] Thonon, B., Vidil, R., and Marvillet, C., Recent Research and Devel-
opments in Plate Heat Exchangers, Journal of Enhanced Heat Transfer,
vol. 2, pp. 149–155, 1995.
[21] Hessami, M. A., An Experimental Investigation of the Performance of
Cross-Corrugated Plate Heat Exchangers, Journal of Enhanced Heat
Transfer, vol. 10, pp. 379–393, 2003.
[22] Durmuş, A., Benli, H., Kurtbaş, I., and Gül, H., Investigation of Heat
Transfer and Pressure Drop in Plate Heat Exchangers Having Differ-
ent Surface Profiles, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer,
vol. 52, pp. 1451–1457, 2009.
[23] Gulenoglu, C., Akturk, F., Aradag, S., Sezer Uzol, N., and Kakac, S.,
Experimental Comparison of Performances of Three Different Plates
for Gasketed Plate Heat Exchangers, International Journal of Thermal
Sciences, vol. 75, pp. 249–256, 2014.
[24] Khan, T. S., Khan, M. S., Chyu, M. C., and Ayub, Z. H., Experimen-
tal Investigation of Single Phase Convective Heat Transfer Coeffi-
cient in a Corrugated Plate Heat Exchanger for Multiple Plate Con-
figurations, Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 30, pp. 1058–1065,
2010.
[25] Ayub, Z. H., Plate Heat Exchanger Literature Survey and New Heat
Transfer and Pressure Drop Correlations for Refrigerant Evaporators,
Heat Transfer Engineering, vol. 24, pp. 3–16, 2003.
[26] Kakac, S., and Liu, S., Heat Exchangers Selection, Rating, and Thermal
Design, CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2002.
[27] Kays, W. M., and London, A. L., Compact Heat Exchangers, McGraw-
Hill, New York, NY, 1984.
[28] Shah, R. K., and Focke, W. W., Plate Heat Exchangers and Their Design
Theory, Hemisphere, Washington, DC, 1988.
[29] Incropera, F. P., and De Witt, D. P., Fundamentals of Heat and Mass
Transfer, 3rd ed., John Wiley, New York, NY, 1990.
[30] Moffatt, R. J., Describing the Uncertainties in Experimental Results,
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, vol. 1, pp. 3–17, 1988.
[31] Okada, K., Ono, M., Tomimura, T., Okuma, T., Konno, H., and
Ohtani, S., Design and Heat Transfer Characteristics of a New Plate
Heat Exchanger, Heat Transfer Japanese Research, vol. 1, pp. 90–95,
1972.
[32] Muley, A., Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Plate Heat Exchang-
ers, Ph.D. Thesis, Mechanical Engineering, University of Cincinnati,
Cincinnati, OH, 1997.