energies

Article
Numerical Investigation on the Flow and Heat
Transfer Characteristics of Supercritical Liquefied
Natural Gas in an Airfoil Fin Printed Circuit
Heat Exchanger
Zhongchao Zhao *, Kai Zhao, Dandan Jia, Pengpeng Jiang and Rendong Shen
School of Energy and Power, Jiangsu University of Science and Technology, Zhenjiang 210000, China;
kzhaojust@163.com (K.Z.); 18796083725@163.com (D.J.); jppwork@163.com (P.J.); shenrendong@163.com (R.S.)
* Correspondence: zhongchaozhao@just.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-0511-8449-3050

Received: 25 July 2017; Accepted: 1 November 2017; Published: 10 November 2017

Abstract: As a new kind of highly compact and efficient micro-channel heat exchanger, the printed
circuit heat exchanger (PCHE) is a promising candidate satisfying the heat exchange requirements
of liquefied natural gas (LNG) vaporization at low and high pressure. The effects of airfoil fin
arrangement on heat transfer and flow resistance were numerically investigated using supercritical
liquefied natural gas (LNG) as working fluid. The thermal properties of supercritical LNG were tested
by utilizing the REFPROF software database. Numerical simulations were performed using FLUENT.
The inlet temperature of supercritical LNG was 121 K, and its pressure was 10.5 MPa. The reference
mass flow rate of LNG was set as 1.22 g/s for the vertical pitch Lv = 1.67 mm and the staggered pitch
Ls = 0 mm, with the Reynolds number of about 3750. The SST k-ω model was selected and verified by
comparing with the experimental data using supercritical liquid nitrogen as cold fluid. The airfoil fin
PCHE had better thermal-hydraulic performance than that of the straight channel PCHE. Moreover,
the airfoil fins with staggered arrangement displayed better thermal performance than that of the fins
with parallel arrangement. The thermal-hydraulic performance of airfoil fin PCHE was improved
with increasing Ls and Lv . Moreover, Lv affected the Nusselt number and pressure drop of airfoil
fin PCHE more obviously. In conclusion, a sparser staggered arrangement of fins showed a better
thermal-hydraulic performance in airfoil fin PCHE.

Keywords: printed circuit heat exchanger; airfoil fin; supercritical liquefied natural gas (LNG);
thermal-hydraulic performance

1. Introduction
Owing to its high calorific value and low carbon dioxide emissions, natural gas (NG) has become
the best choice for replacing traditional resources such as coal and petroleum [1,2]. Generally; NG
is cooled to form liquefied natural gas (LNG), allowing it to be stored and transported over long
distances. LNG is then heated and regasified into NG before being transferred into pipelines to meet
the demand of users [3,4]. Efficient and reliable vaporization devices have been highlighted as critical
equipment in the LNG gasification system. Four main kinds of LNG vaporizers are are commercially
available: intermediate fluid vaporizers; open rack vaporizers (ORVs); super ORVs and submerged
combustion vaporizers [5–7].
However, traditional LNG vaporizers cannot meet the requirements of miniaturization and
high compactness in the construction of LNG gasification systems. Therefore, it is urgent to find
an efficient and compact heat exchanger to replace these traditional vaporizers. Because of safety,
high compactness and efficiency, printed circuit heat exchangers (PCHEs) have drawn wide attention

Energies 2017, 10, 1828; doi:10.3390/en10111828 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2017, 10, 1828 2 of 18

in recent years [8–11]. A PCHE is a micro-channel heat exchanger manufactured by photochemical

etching and diffusion bonding [12–15]. As a result, PCHEs show better heat transfer performance than
those of other types of heat exchanger due to their larger heat surface area caused by the presence
of many micro-channels. Nevertheless, PCHEs suffer from enhanced pressure drop. Therefore,
researchers have endeavored to improve the thermal-hydraulic characteristics of PCHEs [16–23].
Four types of PCHE flow channels, i.e., straight, zigzag, S-shape, and airfoil fin have been
developed so far. Mylavarapu et al. [24] experimentally tested PCHEs with straight, circular and
semicircular channels at 2.7 MPa with various Reynolds numbers. The transition from laminar flow to
flow regime occurred much earlier in the semicircular channel than within the circular pipe.
Ma et al. [25] studied the pressure drop mechanism and the local heat transfer of PCHEs
with zigzag channels and the effect of the inclination angle of channels on the thermal-hydraulic
performance of the PCHEs under the operating conditions of a very high temperature reactor.
Figley et al. [26] studied the heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics of PCHEs with zigzag
channels by the aid of three-dimensional numerical simulations. Aneesh et al. [27] studied the
thermal-hydraulic characteristics and properties of 3D straight channel-based PCHEs. Khan et al. [28]
investigated the thermal-hydraulic characteristics and performance of PCHEs for various angles of
bend (θ = 0◦ , 5◦ , 10◦ , and 15◦ ) and different Reynolds numbers (Re = 350, 700, 1400 and 2100). As Re
and θ increased, the thermal hydraulic performance was boosted.
PCHEs with straight and Z-shaped channels were analyzed initially. However, many researchers
have found that PCHEs with distributed fins, such as S-shaped fins and airfoil fins, have better
thermal-hydraulic characteristics. Ngo et al. [29] studied a new PCHE with an S-shaped fin structure
applied to a hot water supplier which uses supercritical CO2 as heat source. The new PCHE had about
3.3 times less volume, but it displayed a 37% lower pressure drop on the CO2 side and by ten times on
the H2 O side than an existing 1.5 MW/m3 hot water supplier.
Kim et al. [30] proposed an airfoil fin, making the pressure drop of the airfoil fin one-twentieth
of that of zigzag channel, but their total heat transfer rates per unit volume were basically the
same, to enhance the thermal hydraulic performance of PCHE. Although PCHEs have better thermal
hydraulic performance than traditional heat exchangers due to the smaller hydraulic diameter of their
flow channels, this also raises the pressure drop. In addition to optimizing the channel shape of PCHEs,
many researchers have focused on the fluid in the flow channels [31]. Compared to traditional fluids,
supercritical fluids have many advantageous characteristics as the working fluid in PCHEs, such as
high density, low viscosity and high thermal conductivity [32–34].
Supercritical carbon dioxide and water have been applied in PCHEs. Kruizenga et al. [35]
performed an experimental study to estimate the pressure drop and heat transfer of PCHEs in which
the supercritical CO2 was selected as the working fluid. The heat transfer significantly increased when
the pseudocritical temperature and critical pressure were approached.
Kim et al. [36] performed numerical investigations to study the performance of airfoil fin PCHEs
in which supercritical carbon dioxide was used as the working fluid. They examined the optimal
arrangement of airfoil fins with an objective function, and the arrangement had a staggered spacing
of 1 mm.
Despite the extensive studies on the thermal hydraulic performance of PCHEs using supercritical
carbon dioxide and water as working fluids, the thermal-hydraulic performance of PCHEs used in
an LNG vaporization system at low temperature and high pressure has rarely been reported hitherto.
In this study, the numerical simulation method was used to analyze the thermal-hydraulic performance
of a PCHE using supercritical LNG as the work fluid. The heat transfer and flow characteristics of
supercritical LNG in a single channel of straight channel PCHE and airfoil fin PCHE were compared
at different mass fluxes. To obtain the correlations between performance factors and configuration
factors, pressure drop and heat transfer were replaced with dimensionless representations (Nusselt
number and Euler number). The effects of airfoil fin arrangements on heat transfer and pressure
drop characteristics were analyzed. Finally, an optimal design for the fin arrangement in an airfoil
Energies 2017, 10, 1828 3 of 18

fin PCHE was suggested. The results in favour of the optimum thermal design and operation of
high-performance airfoil fin PCHE.
Energies 2017, 10, 1828 
Energies 2017, 10, 1828    3 of 18 
3 of 18 
2. Computational Fluid Dynamic Analysis for Thermal-Hydraulic Performance
2. Computational Fluid Dynamic Analysis for Thermal‐Hydraulic Performance 
2. Computational Fluid Dynamic Analysis for Thermal‐Hydraulic Performance 
2.1. Thermal–Physical Properties of Supercritical LNG
2.1. Thermal–Physical Properties of Supercritical LNG 
2.1. Thermal–Physical Properties of Supercritical LNG 
In this study, the LNG pressure was 10.5 MPa, exceeding its critical pressure (P = 4.59 MPa).
In this study, the LNG pressure was 10.5 MPa, exceeding its critical pressure (P = 4.59 MPa). As 
In this study, the LNG pressure was 10.5 MPa, exceeding its critical pressure (P = 4.59 MPa). As 
As a result, LNG in the PCHE channel was in the supercritical state, whereby an obvious liquid
a result, LNG in the PCHE channel was in the supercritical state, whereby an obvious liquid phase 
a result, LNG in the PCHE channel was in the supercritical state, whereby an obvious liquid phase 
phase and gas
and  phase do not exist. Like other supercritical fluids, supercritical LNG also has various
and  gas 
gas  phase 
phase  do 
do  not 
not  exist. 
exist.  Like 
Like  other 
other  supercritical 
supercritical  fluids, 
fluids,  supercritical 
supercritical  LNG 
LNG  also 
also  has 
has  various 
various 
favorable characteristics
favorable  like
favorable  characteristics 
high
characteristics  like 
density,
like  high 
high
high  density, 
thermal
density,  high 
conductivity
high  thermal 
and
thermal  conductivity 
low
conductivity  and 
viscosity.
and  low 
The properties
low  viscosity. 
viscosity.  The 
The 
including density,
properties 
properties  thermal
including 
including  conductivity,
density, 
density,  thermal  specific heatspecific 
thermal conductivity, 
conductivity,  and viscosity
specific heat  were
heat and 
and  calculated
viscosity 
viscosity were  by REFPROP
were calculated 
calculated  by  9.0
by 
software (Figure 1). Meanwhile, the accuracy of the property data in the entire regime computation
REFPROP 9.0 software (Figure 1). Meanwhile, the accuracy of the property data in the entire regime 
REFPROP 9.0 software (Figure 1). Meanwhile, the accuracy of the property data in the entire regime 
validated (Figure 2). The errors were within ±4%, indicating the viability of this computation
wascomputation was validated (Figure 2). The errors were within ±4%, indicating the viability of this 
computation was validated (Figure 2). The errors were within ±4%, indicating the viability of this 
computation method. The thermal properties of supercritical LNG were calculated with the FLUENT 
method. The thermal properties of supercritical LNG were calculated with the FLUENT software by
computation method. The thermal properties of supercritical LNG were calculated with the FLUENT 
software by defining the piecewise‐linear functions of temperature (Table 1). 
software by defining the piecewise‐linear functions of temperature (Table 1). 
defining the piecewise-linear functions of temperature (Table 1).
viscosity

66
conductivity,Dynamicviscosity

Specific
Specific heat(kJ/kgK)
heat(kJ/kgK)
33
Density(kg/m
Density(kg/m )/100
)/100
Thermal
Thermalconductixity
conductixity (W/mK)*10
(W/mK)*10
heat,Density,Thermalconductivity,Dynamic

55
Dynamic
Dynamic viscosity
viscosity (kg/m.s)*10000
(kg/m.s)*10000

44

33
Specificheat,Density,Thermal

22

11
Specific

00
150
150 200
200 250
250 300
300 350
350 400
400
T(K)
T(K)   

Figure 1. Thermal‐physical properties of LNG at 10.5 MPa. 
Figure 1. Thermal-physical properties of LNG at 10.5 MPa.
Figure 1. Thermal‐physical properties of LNG at 10.5 MPa. 

44
Density
Density
33 Viscocity
Viscocity
Thermal
Thermalcondicity
condicity
22 Specific
Specific heat
heat
(100%)
Error (100%)

11

00
Error

-1
-1

-2
-2

-3
-3

100
100 150
150 200
200 250
250 300
300 350
350 400
400
TT (K)
(K)   
Figure 2. Error curve of linear interpolation function. 
Figure 2. Error curve of linear interpolation function. 
Figure 2. Error curve of linear interpolation function.

  
Energies 2017, 10, 1828    4 of 18 

Table 1. Property correlations of LNG at 10.5 Mpa. 

(1) 121–227 K 
Energies 2017, 10, 1828
ρ = 8256.5933 − 285.3922 T + 4.3559 T 2 − 0.035267 T3 + 1.5894 × 10−4 T4 − 3.7784 × 10−7 T5 + 3.6917 × 10−1 T6  4 of 18
Cp = −1.0199 × 106 + 3.8183 × 104 T − 589.1061 T2 + 4.8079 T3 − 0.02189 T4 + 5.28734 × 10−5 T5 − 5.23296 × 10−8 T6 
λ = 1.6663 − 0.051726 T + 7.9379 × 10−4 T2 − 6.6085 × 10−6 T3 + 3.0653 × 10−8 T4 − 7.4993 10−11 T5 + 7.5617 × 10−14 T6 
μ = 4.0977 × 10−3 − 1.2117 × 10−4Table 1. Property
 T + 1.5988 × 10 correlations−8of
−6 T2 − 1.1623 × 10  T3LNG at 10.5−11
 + 4.8332 × 10 Mpa.
 T4 − 1.0811 × 10−13 T5 + 1.01103 × 
10−16 T6 
(2) 227–315 K 
(1) 121–227 K
ρ= −3.89476 + 7.7791 × 10
ρ = 8256.5933 − 285.3922 T + 4.3559
3 T − 63.6984 T
T2 − 0.035267 + 0.273703 T
2 3
T + 1.5894 × 10
3 − 6.4991 × 10
−4 T4 − 3.7784 −4 T4 + 8.06233 × 10
× 10−7 T5 + 3.6917 × T10 − 4.06261 × 10
−7 5 −1 6
T
−10 T6 

Cp =C− 1.0199 × 106 + 3.8183

p = −4.48732 × 10 × 104 T − 589.1061
7 + 9.7441 × 10 T2 + 4.80793T T3 2−
5 T − 8.78917 × 10 0.02189 T4 + 35.28734
 + 42.17166 T × 10−5 4T + 1.62727 × 10
 − 0.011355 T 5 − 5.23296 × 10 −4−
 T8 5T − 9.6971 × 10
6 −8 T6 

λ = 1.6663 − 0.051726 T + 7.9379 × 10−4 T2 − 6.6085

λ = −99.92683 + 2.24495 T − 0.0208241 T × 10−6 T3 + 3.0653
2 + 1.02288 × 10 × 10−8 T4 − 7.4993
−4 T3 − 2.8093 × 10 × 10−11 T5 + 7.5617
−7 T4 + 4.09353 × 10 − 10 T5× 10−14 T6
 − 2.47389 × 10 −13 T6 
µ = 4.0977 × 10−3 − 1.2117 × 10−4 T + 1.5988 × 10−6 T2 − 1.1623 × 10−8 T3 + 4.8332 × 10−11 T4 − 1.0811 × 10−13 T5 + 1.01103 × 10−16 T6
μ = 1.58763 × 10−2 + 3.9445 × 10−4 T − 3.96736 × 10−6 T2 + 2.08564 × 10−8 T3 − 6.07355 × 10−11 T4 + 9.3195    10−14 T5 − 
(2) 227–315
5.8999 K   10−17 T6 
ρ=− 3.89476 + 7.7791 × 103 T − 63.6984 T2 + 0.273703 T3 − 6.4991 × 10−4 T4 + 8.06233 × 10−7 T5 − 4.06261 × 10−10 T6
(3) 315–385 K 
Cp = −4.48732 × 107 + 9.7441 × 105 T − 8.789172 × 103 T2 + 42.17166 T3 − 0.011355 T4 + 1.62727 × 10−4 T5 − 9.6971 × 10−8 T6
ρ = 9403.1676 − 140.8996 T + 0.90485 T  − 3.14226 × 10−3 T3 + 6.19397 × 10−6 T4 − 6.55485 × 10−9 T5 + 2.905 × 10−12 T6 
λ = −99.92683 + 2.24495 T − 0.0208241 T2 + 1.02288 × 10−4 T3 − 2.8093 × 10−7 T4 + 4.09353 × 10− 10 T5 − 2.47389 × 10−13 T6
Cp = −4.28439 × 10
µ = 1.58763
5 − 6.56712 × 10
× 10−2 + 3.9445
3 T + 42.6554 T
× 10−4 T − 3.96736 × 10−6 T2 +
2 − 0.14901 T3 + 2.94672 × 10
2.08564 × 10−8 T3 − 6.07355 × T
−4 4 − 3.12279 × 10 −7 T−
10−11 T4 + 9.3195 × 10
5 + 1.383995 × 10
14 T5 − 5.8999 × 10   17 T6
−10−

T6 
(3) 315–385 K
λ = 2.2909 − 0.03353 T + 2.35313 × 10 −4 T2 − 8.3695 × 10−7 T3 + 1.68679 × 10−9 T4 − 1.8217 × 10−12 T5 + 8.22556 × 10−16 T6 
ρ = 9403.1676 − 140.8996 T + 0.90485 T2 − 3.14226 × 10−3 T3 + 6.19397 × 10−6 T4 − 6.55485 × 10−9 T5 + 2.905 × 10−12 T6
μ = 4.92979 × 10 −3 − 8.37086 × 10−5 T + 5.94466 × 10−7 T2 − 2.25336 × 10−9 T3 + 4.8073 × 10−12 T4 − 5.47099 × 10−15 T5 + 
Cp = −4.28439 × 105 − 6.56712 × 103 T + 42.6554 T2 − 0.14901 T3 + 2.94672 × 10−4 T4 − 3.12279 × 10−7 T5 + 1.383995 × 10−10 T6
2.5942 × 10
λ = 2.2909
−18 T6 
− 0.03353 T + 2.35313 × 10−4 T2 − 8.3695 × 10−7 T3 + 1.68679 × 10−9 T4 − 1.8217 × 10−12 T5 + 8.22556 × 10−16 T6
µ = 4.92979 × 10−3 − 8.37086 × 10−5 T + 5.94466 × 10−7 T2 − 2.25336 × 10−9 T3 + 4.8073 × 10−12 T4 − 5.47099 × 10−15 T5 + 2.5942 × 10−18 T6

2.2. Physical Models and Definition of Airfoil Fin Arrangement Parameters 
2.2. Physical Models and Definition of Airfoil Fin Arrangement Parameters
Generally, an airfoil fin PCHE consists of several micro‐channels, with several airfoil fins in one 
Generally, an airfoil fin PCHE consists of several micro-channels, with several airfoil fins in one
channel. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to simulate the entire heat exchanger geometry because a 
channel. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to simulate the entire heat exchanger geometry because
powerful computer and long computation time are needed. However, as shown in Figure 3, the flow 
achannel 
powerful computer
formed  and long
by  airfoil  computation
fins  is  periodic time are needed.
in  both  However, direction 
the  longitudinal  as shown in Figure
and  3, the flow
the  transverse 
channel formed by airfoil fins is periodic in both the longitudinal direction and the transverse
direction, except for the plate border in a PCHE. Therefore, considering the computing resource, forty  direction,
except for the plate border in a PCHE. Therefore, considering the computing resource, forty periodic
periodic fin structures along the flow direction from the core area of heat exchanger with the length 
fin structures along the flow direction from the core area
of 260 mm were selected firstly. The vertical pitch L of heat exchanger with
v and staggered pitch L the length of 260 mm
s of airfoil fins were 1.67 

were
mm  selected
and  0  mm firstly.
respectively,  pitch Lvto 
The verticalaiming  and staggered
compare  pitch
the  Ls transfer 
heat  of airfoil and 
fins were
flow 1.67 mm and 0 mm
characteristics  of 
respectively,
supercritical aiming to compare
LNG  between  the heat
airfoil  fin transfer and flow
and  straight  characteristics
channel  of same 
with  the  supercritical
channel LNG between
length  and 
airfoil fin and straight channel with the same channel length and hydraulic diameter. The numerical
hydraulic diameter. The numerical models of straight channel and airfoil fin are shown in Figures 4 
models of straight channel and airfoil fin are shown in Figures 4 and 5, respectively.
and 5, respectively. 

 
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Schematic
Schematic diagram
diagram 
of of  internal 
internal corecore  structure 
structure of  airfoil 
of airfoil fin  printed 
fin printed circuit 
circuit heat heat  exchanger 
exchanger (PCHE).
(PCHE). 
Energies 2017, 10, 1828 5 of 18
Energies 2017, 10, 1828    5 of 18 
Energies 2017, 10, 1828    5 of 18 

 
 
 
(a)  (b)  
(a)  (b)
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of (a) Straight channel geometric model and (b) cross‐section of straight 
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of (a) Straight channel geometric model and (b) cross-section of
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of (a) Straight channel geometric model and (b) cross‐section of straight 
channel. 
straight
channel. channel.

(a)  (b)   
(a)  (b)
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of (a) the airfoil fin channel geometric model and (b) cross‐section of 
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of (a) the airfoil fin channel geometric model and (b) cross‐section of 
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of (a) the airfoil fin channel geometric model and (b) cross-section of
airfoil fin channel. 
airfoil fin channel. 
airfoil fin channel.
Then, to study the effects of airfoil fin arrangements on the flow and heat transfer characteristics 
Then, to study the effects of airfoil fin arrangements on the flow and heat transfer characteristics 
Then, to study
of  supercritical  the effects
LNG,  of airfoil
six  periodic  fin finstructures 
arrangements
along onthe 
the flow 
flow and heat transfer
direction  characteristics
and  three  along  the 
of  supercritical  LNG,  six  periodic  fin  structures  along  the  flow  direction  and  three  along  the 
of supercritical LNG, six periodic fin structures along the flow direction and three along the transverse
transverse direction were selected as the simulation domain. The airfoil fin PCHE has three important 
transverse direction were selected as the simulation domain. The airfoil fin PCHE has three important 
direction were selected as the simulation domain. The airfoil fin PCHE has three important geometric
geometric parameters (Figure 3). The separation distance of staggered arrangement is presented by 
geometric parameters (Figure 3). The separation distance of staggered arrangement is presented by 
parameters (Figure 3). The separation distance of staggered arrangement is presented by Ls . There is
Ls. There is a periodicity between an un‐staggered arrangement and a fully staggered arrangement. 
Ls. There is a periodicity between an un‐staggered arrangement and a fully staggered arrangement. 
aLhperiodicity between an un-staggered arrangement and a fully staggered arrangement. Lh indicates
 indicates the separation distance between one airfoil head and adjacent airfoil head in a row. The 
Lh indicates the separation distance between one airfoil head and adjacent airfoil head in a row. The 
the separation distance between one airfoil head and adjacent airfoil head in a row. The separationv. 
separation distance between one row and adjacent row in the vertical direction is indicated by L
separation distance between one row and adjacent row in the vertical direction is indicated by Lv. 
distance
Herein, Lbetween one row
h was 6 mm, L and adjacent row in the vertical
s varied from 0 to 4 mm and L direction is indicated by Lv . Herein, Lh was
v changed from 1.3 mm to 3 mm. According to 
Herein, Lh was 6 mm, Ls varied from 0 to 4 mm and Lv changed from 1.3 mm to 3 mm. According to 
mm, Ls varied from 0 to 4 mm and Lv changed from 1.3 mm to 3 mm. According to the configuration,
6the configuration, the width (W) of the heat transfer region of the entire domain varied from 3.9 mm 
the configuration, the width (W) of the heat transfer region of the entire domain varied from 3.9 mm 
the width (W) of the heat transfer
to 9 mm. The vertical pitch L region of the entire domain varied
v = 1.67 mm and staggered pitch L from 3.9 mm to 9 mm. The vertical
s = 0 mm were selected as the baseline 
to 9 mm. The vertical pitch Lv = 1.67 mm and staggered pitch Ls = 0 mm were selected as the baseline 
pitch
model. L = 1.67 mm and staggered pitch Ls = 0 mm were selected as the baseline model.
model. v
A schematic diagram of the simulation domain (Figure 6) showed that Lv = 1.67
A schematic diagram of the simulation domain (Figure 6) showed that L mm and Ls = 0 mm.
v = 1.67 mm and L s = 0 
A schematic diagram of the simulation domain (Figure 6) showed that L v = 1.67 mm and Ls = 0 
The working fluid was supercritical LNG, and the material of substrate plates and fins was steel.
mm. The working fluid was supercritical LNG, and the material of substrate plates and fins was steel. 
mm. The working fluid was supercritical LNG, and the material of substrate plates and fins was steel. 
The mass flux inlet was applied for the inlet boundary condition of the simulation domain, and the
The mass flux inlet was applied for the inlet boundary condition of the simulation domain, and the 
The mass flux inlet was applied for the inlet boundary condition of the simulation domain, and the 
inlet temperature and reference mass flux were set at 121 K and 325 kg/m22·∙s, respectively. The outlet 
inlet temperature and reference mass flux were set at 121 K and 325 kg/m s, respectively. The outlet
inlet temperature and reference mass flux were set at 121 K and 325 kg/m2∙s, respectively. The outlet 
boundary condition was set as pressure outlet. As shown in Figure 7, a periodic boundary condition
boundary condition was set as pressure outlet. As shown in Figure 7, a periodic boundary condition 
boundary condition was set as pressure outlet. As shown in Figure 7, a periodic boundary condition 
in the left/right positions, as well as a constant heat flux applied to the top and bottom positions is
in the left/right positions, as well as a constant heat flux applied to the top and bottom positions is 
in the left/right positions, as well as a constant heat flux applied to the top and bottom positions is 
58,713.75 W/m22. .
58,713.75 W/m
58,713.75 W/m2. 
Energies 2017, 10, 1828    6 of 18 
Energies 2017, 10, 1828 6 of 18
Energies 2017, 10, 1828    6 of 18 

 
 
Figure 6. 3D view of computational domain for airfoil fin PCHE. 
Figure 6. 3D view of computational domain for airfoil fin PCHE.
Figure 6. 3D view of computational domain for airfoil fin PCHE. 

 
Figure 7. Schematic diagram of airfoil fin PCHE.  
Figure 7. Schematic diagram of airfoil fin PCHE. 
Figure 7. Schematic diagram of airfoil fin PCHE. 
2.3. Numerical Method and Grid Independence
2.3. Numerical Method and Grid Independence 
2.3. Numerical Method and Grid Independence 
ANSYS Fluent 14.5 was used for our numerical evaluation of the airfoil fin PCHE. The set mass
ANSYS Fluent 14.5 was used for our numerical evaluation of the airfoil fin PCHE. The set mass 
flow rate corresponded to turbulent flow regimes in the PCHE cold channels. It is important to select
ANSYS Fluent 14.5 was used for our numerical evaluation of the airfoil fin PCHE. The set mass 
flow rate corresponded to turbulent flow regimes in the PCHE cold channels. It is important to select 
aa proper turbulence model for numerical calculations. Kim and No [10] reported that the shear stress 
proper turbulence model for numerical calculations. Kim and No [10] reported that the shear stress
flow rate corresponded to turbulent flow regimes in the PCHE cold channels. It is important to select 
transport
transport k-ωk‐ω  model
model  (SST
(SST  k-ω) [11] predicted
predicted  aa  fine
fine grid
grid near
near the
the wall
wall in in supercritical
a proper turbulence model for numerical calculations. Kim and No [10] reported that the shear stress 
k‐ω)  [11]  supercritical calculation
calculation 
extremely
transport  well.
k‐ω  Therefore,
model  (SST  the SST
k‐ω)  k-ω
[11]  model
predicted  wasa  used
fine  in
grid  this study.
near  the  A detailed
wall  in 
extremely well. Therefore, the SST k‐ω model was used in this study. A detailed description of the  description
supercritical  of the SST
calculation 
k-ω model can be found in [37]. The semi-implicit method pressure linked equation algorithm was
extremely well. Therefore, the SST k‐ω model was used in this study. A detailed description of the 
SST k‐ω model can be found in [37]. The semi‐implicit method pressure linked equation algorithm 
used to resolve the coupling of velocity and pressure. Before solution convergence, the residual for
SST k‐ω model can be found in [37]. The semi‐implicit method pressure linked equation algorithm 
was used to resolve the coupling of velocity and pressure. Before solution convergence, the residual 
every variable was required to be less than 10−6 .−6Meanwhile, the second order upwind, which has
was used to resolve the coupling of velocity and pressure. Before solution convergence, the residual 
for every variable was required to be less than 10 . Meanwhile, the second order upwind, which has 
aa smaller truncation error than that of the first order upwind, was used in the momentum equation 
smaller truncation error than that of the first order
for every variable was required to be less than 10 upwind, was used in the momentum equation
−6. Meanwhile, the second order upwind, which has 

and energy equation to ensure the accuracy of simulation.

a smaller truncation error than that of the first order upwind, was used in the momentum equation 
and energy equation to ensure the accuracy of simulation. 
The
The  structured
structured  computation
computation  mesh mesh  waswas  generated
and energy equation to ensure the accuracy of simulation.  generated  by by  GAMBIT.
GAMBIT.  The The  number
number  of of meshes
meshes  was
was 
different
The  for all cases
structured  on account
computation  of various
mesh  dimensions
was  generated  of the
by  simulation
GAMBIT.  The domain,
different for all cases on account of various dimensions of the simulation domain, so the model with number so the
of  model with
meshes  was 
staggered number Lss = 0 mm and vertical number L
= 0 mm and vertical number Lvv = 1.67 mm was selected as the baseline model. 
= 1.67 mm was selected as the baseline model.
different for all cases on account of various dimensions of the simulation domain, so the model with 
staggered number L
The mesh dependence
staggered number L test dominated the density ofvmeshes
s = 0 mm and vertical number L (Figure 8). The influence of grid density
 = 1.67 mm was selected as the baseline model. 
The mesh dependence test dominated the density of meshes (Figure 8). The influence of grid density 
on the accuracy of calculated results was studied by comparing six sets of grid numbers: 1302567,
The mesh dependence test dominated the density of meshes (Figure 8). The influence of grid density 
on the accuracy of calculated results was studied by comparing six sets of grid numbers: 1302567, 
1762753,
1762753, 2415689,
2415689, 3269854,
3269854, 3594425
3594425 and and 4196856
4196856 cells.
cells.  By
By  comparing
comparing  the the  outlet
on the accuracy of calculated results was studied by comparing six sets of grid numbers: 1302567,  outlet temperature
temperature and and 
Nusselt
Nusselt  number,  the  optimal  grid  of  3594422  was  selected  considering  the  computational
1762753,  number,
2415689, the optimal
3269854,  grid
3594425 of 3594422
and  was
4196856 selected
cells.  considering
By  comparing  the accuracy
the  outlet and
temperature 
accuracy  and and 
efficiency.
Nusselt  As shown
number,  in Figure
the  optimal  9, the
grid grids
of  are encrypted
3594422  was  near the wall
selected  surfaces ofthe 
considering 
computational efficiency. As shown in Figure 9, the grids are encrypted near the wall surfaces of fins  finsaccuracy 
and substrate
and 
plates to ensure that y + is lower than 1. Six boundary layers were established near the top and bottom
computational efficiency. As shown in Figure 9, the grids are encrypted near the wall surfaces of fins 
and substrate plates to ensure that y  is lower than 1. Six boundary layers were established near the 
+
walls and fin surfaces because of the+ is lower than 1. Six boundary layers were established near the 
and substrate plates to ensure that y strict requirements for boundary grid in the supercritical flow
top and bottom walls and fin surfaces because of the strict requirements for boundary grid in the 
and heat transfer, and the thickness of the first boundary layer was 0.01 mm.
top and bottom walls and fin surfaces because of the strict requirements for boundary grid in the 
supercritical flow and heat transfer, and the thickness of the first boundary layer was 0.01 mm.   
supercritical flow and heat transfer, and the thickness of the first boundary layer was 0.01 mm.   
Energies 2017, 10, 1828    7 of 18 
Energies 2017, 10, 1828
Energies 2017, 10, 1828  7 of 18
Energies 2017, 10, 1828     7 of 18 
7 of 18 
135 29

135 29
135 29
133

133 27
133

Nusselt number
131 Tout 27
27

number
Tout
Nusselt number

Tout(K)
131

Nusseltnumber
131 Tout
129 Nusselt 25
Nusselt number

Tout(K)
number

Tout(K)
129 25
129 25

Nusselt
127
127 23
127
125 23
23
125
125
123 21
1
123 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
21
123 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5621
1 1.5 Number
2 2.5 of meshes
3 3.5 4 4.5
x 10
Number
Number of
of meshes
meshes x 10
6
x 106  
  
Figure 8. Dependency test of number of meshes. 
Figure 8. Dependency test of number of meshes. 
Figure 8. Dependency test of number of meshes.
Figure 8. Dependency test of number of meshes. 

    
Figure 9. Top view of selected grid system.
Figure 9. Top view of selected grid system. 
Figure 9. Top view of selected grid system. 
Figure 9. Top view of selected grid system. 

2.4.2.4. Model Validation 
Model Validation
2.4. Model Validation 
2.4. Model Validation 
In In the present study, the heat transfer and flow characteristics of supercritical LNG in PCHE 
the present study, the heat transfer and flow characteristics of supercritical LNG in PCHE were
In the present study, the heat transfer and flow characteristics of supercritical LNG in PCHE 
In the present study, the heat transfer and flow characteristics of supercritical LNG in PCHE 
were  investigated  numerically.  The  results  of  CFD  analysis 
be should 
were 
investigatedinvestigated  numerically. 
numerically.
were  investigated  The of
The results
numerically.  The  results  of  CFD 
CFD analysis
results  of  CFD should
analysis 
analysis  should be 
should 
compared be  compared 
compared 
be with
compared  with 
with 
with the 
the 
the experimental the 
experimental 
experimental  data 
data  for  validating 
for validating 
validating  analysis 
analysis  methodology. 
methodology.  However, 
due to However,  due 
due  to 
to  the  flammable  and 
data for validating
experimental  data  analysis
for  methodology.
analysis  However,
methodology.  the flammable
However,  due andto the 
the flammable 
explosive and 
properties
flammable  and 
of explosive 
explosive 
LNG when
explosive 
properties 
properties 
the gas of 
properties 
of 
leaksLNG 
of LNG 
LNG  when  the 
when the 
or ventilation
when 
gas 
the gas 
gas 
is leaks 
leaks  or 
or  ventilation 
insufficient
leaks  or  ventilation 
ventilation 
is 
is  insufficient 
is insufficient 
at high pressure, at  high 
at at 
supercritical
insufficient  high  pressure, 
pressure, 
nitrogen
high  was
pressure, 
supercritical nitrogen was selected to substitute LNG as the cold fluid. A crossflow PCHE with airfoil 
supercritical nitrogen was selected to substitute LNG as the cold fluid. A crossflow PCHE with airfoil 
selected to substitute LNG as the cold fluid. A crossflow PCHE with airfoil fin
supercritical nitrogen was selected to substitute LNG as the cold fluid. A crossflow PCHE with airfoil  channels on the cold
fin channels on the cold side and straight channels on the hot side was manufactured using stainless 
fin channels on the cold side and straight channels on the hot side was manufactured using stainless 
side and straight channels on the hot side was manufactured using stainless steel 316L (Figure 10).
fin channels on the cold side and straight channels on the hot side was manufactured using stainless 
steel 316L (Figure 10). The airfoil fin with the chord length of 4 mm and the maximum thickness of 
steel 316L (Figure 10). The airfoil fin with the chord length of 4 mm and the maximum thickness of 
The airfoil fin with the chord length of 4 mm and the maximum thickness of 0.8 mm was selected.
steel 316L (Figure 10). The airfoil fin with the chord length of 4 mm and the maximum thickness of 
0.8 
0.8  mm 
mm  was 
was  selected. 
selected.  A 
A  experimental 
experimental  system 
system  was 
was  established 
established  to to  study 
study  the 
the  thermal‐hydraulic 
thermal‐hydraulic 
A
0.8 experimental system A 
mm  was  selected.  was established to
experimental  studywas 
system  the thermal-hydraulic
established  to  study  performance of airfoil fin
the  thermal‐hydraulic 
performance of airfoil fin PCHE using supercritical nitrogen as the cold fluid and R22 as the hot fluid 
performance of airfoil fin PCHE using supercritical nitrogen as the cold fluid and R22 as the hot fluid 
PCHE using supercritical nitrogen as the cold fluid and R22 as the hot fluid
performance of airfoil fin PCHE using supercritical nitrogen as the cold fluid and R22 as the hot fluid 
(Figure 11). The inlet temperature of nitrogen was 102 K when its pressure was varied from 5.5 MPa 
(Figure 11). The inlet
(Figure 11). The inlet temperature of nitrogen was 102 K when its pressure was varied from 5.5 MPa 
temperature of nitrogen was 102 K when its pressure was varied from 5.5 MPa
(Figure 11). The inlet temperature of nitrogen was 102 K when its pressure was varied from 5.5 MPa 
to 7.5 MPa. The mass flux of nitrogen varied from 233 to 421 kg/m to 7.5 MPa.
2∙s, corresponding to turbulent flow  The mass
to 7.5 MPa. The mass flux of nitrogen varied from 233 to 421 kg/m
2
2∙s, corresponding to turbulent flow 
flux of nitrogen varied from 233 to 421 kg/m ·s, corresponding to2∙s, corresponding to turbulent flow 
to 7.5 MPa. The mass flux of nitrogen varied from 233 to 421 kg/m turbulent flow regimes on the cold
regimes on the cold side of airfoil fin PCHE. In short, this PCHE had a good heat transfer ability at 
regimes on the cold side of airfoil fin PCHE. In short, this PCHE had a good heat transfer ability at 
side of airfoil fin PCHE. In short, this PCHE had a good heat transfer ability at high pressure and
regimes on the cold side of airfoil fin PCHE. In short, this PCHE had a good heat transfer ability at 
high pressure and low temperature. The overall heat transfer coefficient of this PCHE ranged from 
high pressure and low temperature. The overall heat transfer coefficient of this PCHE ranged from 2
low temperature. The overall heat transfer coefficient of this PCHE ranged from 850
high pressure and low temperature. The overall heat transfer coefficient of this PCHE ranged from 
850 to 2600 W/m to 2600 W/m K,
850 to 2600 W/m2K, and the heat transfer efficiency was up to approximately 98%. 
K, and the heat transfer efficiency was up to approximately 98%.    
2

and the heat transfer

850 to 2600 W/m efficiency was up to approximately 98%.
2K, and the heat transfer efficiency was up to approximately 98%.   

  
(a)  
(a) (b)
(b)
 
(a) 
Figure 10. (a) Tested airfoil fin PCHE and (b) cold channel of airfoil fin PCHE. 
(b)
Figure 10. (a) Tested airfoil fin PCHE and (b) cold channel of airfoil fin PCHE. 
Figure 10. (a) Tested airfoil fin PCHE and (b) cold channel of airfoil fin PCHE. 
Figure 10. (a) Tested airfoil fin PCHE and (b) cold channel of airfoil fin PCHE.
Energies 2017, 10, 1828 8 of 18

(a) (b)

Figure 11. Experimental system with airfoil fin PCHE of (a) Schematic diagram of experimental set-up
and (b) Photo of experimental system.

Figure 10 displays the schematic diagram for the internal core structure of airfoil fin PCHE. It is
rather complex to simulate the heat transfer processes of the total tested airfoil fin PCHE, and this
study focused on the heat transfer and flow performance of cold fluid. Therefore, a single airfoil
fin channel of cold side with full length (400 mm) which used supercritical nitrogen as the working
fluid was selected to simulate and to compare with the experimental data (Figure 3). The numerical
model of this section was the same as that in Figure 5, except for the length. The inlet temperature
of nitrogen was 102 K when its pressure was varied from 5.5 MPa to 7.5 MPa. The mass flux of
nitrogen was 421 kg/m2 ·s, corresponding to turbulent flow regimes on the cold side of airfoil fin
PCHE. The differences in the pressure drop and outlet temperature of the cold side between the
numerical solutions and the experimental data were compared using Equation (1):

CFD − Experiment
Error = × 100% (1)
Experiment

The pressure drop differences between the experimental and simulation results were analyzed
when the mass flux was 421 kg/m2 ·s (Table 2). The numerical results differed from the experimental
data by 6.9% on average and by 11.62% at maximum. The deviation may be attributed to the inlet and
outlet header pressure drop, as well as the uncertainty of pressure transmitters. Besides, the difference
between numerical and experimental outlet temperatures on the cold side had an average error of
0.735% and the maximum difference of 1.127%. Therefore, the numerical data were in fairly good
agreement with the experimental data, and the numerical model and method used herein were reliable.

Table 2. Comparisons of simulation and experiment results.

Experiment Simulation Experiment Simulation

Pressure (MPa) Results of Results of Error (%) Results of Results of Error (%)
∆P/L (Pa/m) ∆P/L (Pa/m) Tout (K) Tout (K)
5.5 37,090.61172 35,226.12 5.03% 279.45 278.13 0.472%
6 33,988.7737 32,023.7 5.78% 281.15 281.96 0.288%
6.5 25,650.67624 27,635.15 7.74% 282.55 283.67 1.12%
7 24,175.74669 26,985.37 11.62% 284.35 285.96 0.669%
7.5 23,834.30936 24,865.35 4.33% 285.65 288.87 1.127%

However, Figure 1 shows that the physical properties of supercritical fluid change substantially
with rising temperature during heat transfer. The local heat transfer and flow characteristics of
supercritical fluid cannot be obtained in the experimental apparatus. Therefore, the local parameters
of the airfoil fin PCHE were obtained through numerical simulation.

1
Energies 2017, 10, 1828 9 of 18

3. Objective Function Parameters

As the characteristic length of the channel, hydraulic diameter Dh is an important value in
dimensionless analysis. It is defined as four times the cross-sectional area over a perimeter in the
straight channel. Owing to the continual changes of cross-sectional area and perimeter, the hydraulic
diameter cannot be the same as that of straight channel, as shown in Figure 12. Nevertheless, the airfoil
Energies 2017, 10, 1828 
fin placement in Figure   3 is periodic. Therefore, the hydraulic diameter can be defined by the equations 9 of 18 

below [37].
3. Objective Function Parameters 
V = ( LW − Sa )t (2)
Pa t channel,  hydraulic  diameter  Dh  is  an  important  value  in 
As  the  characteristic  length  of  the 
S = 2( as  four 
dimensionless  analysis.  It  is  defined  ( L − Lthe 
) + 2times  c )t + 2(W L − Sa ) area  over  a  perimeter  in  the 
cross‐sectional  (3)
2
straight channel. Owing to the continual changes of cross‐sectional area and perimeter, the hydraulic 
Dh = 4V/S (4)
diameter  cannot  be  the  same  as  that  of  straight  channel, as  shown  in  Figure  12. Nevertheless,  the 
where Sa is the top area of airfoil fin, and Pa is the perimeter of airfoil fin. V and S indicate the volume
airfoil fin placement in Figure 3 is periodic. Therefore, the hydraulic diameter can be defined by the 
and side surface area of flow channel, respectively.
equations below [37]. 

 
Figure 12. Schematic diagram for the calculation of hydraulic diameter.
Figure 12. Schematic diagram for the calculation of hydraulic diameter. 

The convective heat transfer coefficient can be obtained by the following equation:
V  (LW  Sa )t   (2) 
qw qw
h= = (5)
Twall −
PatTb Twall − ( Tout + Tin )/2
S  2( )  2( L  Lc )t  2(WL  Sa )   (3) 
2 Twall is the area-average wall temperature, and Tin , Tout
where qw is the area-averaged wall heat flux,
and Tb are the inlet, outlet and bulk temperatures of LNG obtained from the Fluent data respectively.
The Nusselt number is defined below: D h  4V / S  
(4) 

where Sa is the top area of airfoil fin, and Pa is the perimeter of airfoil fin. V and S indicate the volume 
hDh
Nu = (6)
and side surface area of flow channel, respectively.  λ
The convective heat transfer coefficient can be obtained by the following equation: 
where Dh is the channel hydraulic diameter, and λ is the thermal conductivity of LNG.
The Reynolds number can be calculated by Equation (7):
qw qw
h     (5) 
Twall  Tb Re =Twall
υρDh(Tout  Tin )/ 2
(7)
µ
where    is the area‐averaged wall heat flux, Twall is the area‐average wall temperature, and Tin, Tout 
Dh is the channel hydraulic diameter, ρ is the density of LNG and µ is the dynamic viscosity
whereb are the inlet, outlet and bulk temperatures of LNG obtained from the Fluent data respectively. 
and T
of LNG.
The Nusselt number is defined below: 
The friction and acceleration effects caused by the density difference between inlet and outlet can
hD h
result in the pressure drop: Nu    (6) 

∆P = ∆Pacc + ∆Pf ric (8)
where Dh is the channel hydraulic diameter, and    is the thermal conductivity of LNG. 
1 1
∆Pacc = G2 ( − ) (9)
The Reynolds number can be calculated by Equation (7): 
ρout ρin

D 2 f Lu ρυ2
 f ric =h Dh
Re∆P (10)
(7) 

where Dh is the channel hydraulic diameter,    is the density of LNG and    is the dynamic viscosity 
of LNG. 
The friction and acceleration effects caused by the density difference between inlet and outlet 
can result in the pressure drop:   
 out in

2fLu 2
Pfric    (10) 
Dh
Energies ∆   10,
where 2017, is the total pressure drop, 
1828 ∆   is the acceleration pressure drop and  ∆   is the friction 
10 of 18
pressure drop.   
The Fanning friction factor f is defined as below: 
where ∆P is the total pressure drop, ∆Pacc is the acceleration pressure drop and ∆Pf ric is the friction
pressure drop. w
f   
1
The Fanning friction factor f is defined as below: (11) 
2
u m
2τw
f = 1 (11)
2
where    is the wall shear stress.    2 ρum
In  terms  of  pressure  drop,  the  Euler  number  was  selected  as  a  representative  pressure  loss 
where τw is the wall shear stress.
coefficient in this study. It reflects the relationship between pressure drop and dynamic velocity head, 
In terms of pressure drop, the Euler number was selected as a representative pressure loss
as well as the relative momentum loss rate: 
coefficient in this study. It reflects the relationship between pressure drop and dynamic velocity head,
as well as the relative momentum loss rate: P
Eu  2 (12) 
u / ∆P2
Eu = (12)
ρu2 /2

4. Results and Discussion 
4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Comparison of Straight Channel PCHE and Airfoil Fin PCHE 
4.1. Comparison of Straight Channel PCHE and Airfoil Fin PCHE
In the present study, the heat transfer and flow characteristics of supercritical LNG in a straight 
In the present study, the heat transfer and flow characteristics of supercritical LNG in a straight
channel  PCHE  and
channel PCHE and  an
an airfoil
airfoil fin
fin PCHE
PCHE with
with the
the same
same hydraulic
hydraulic diameter
diameter (D
(Dhh  =
=  0.917
0.917  mm)
mm)  were
were 
numerically investigated. Figure 13 shows the velocity contours of supercritical LNG in airfoil fin 
numerically investigated. Figure 13 shows the velocity contours of supercritical LNG in airfoil fin and
and  straight 
straight channel 
channel PCHEs PCHEs 
when thewhen  the 
mass mass 
flux flux 
is 325 kg/m 2 ·s. kg/m
is  325  When2∙s.  When  supercritical 
supercritical LNG was LNG  was 
gradually
gradually heated, the bulk velocity significantly increased because of reduced density. However, the 
heated, the bulk velocity significantly increased because of reduced density. However, the velocity
velocity increased rapidly in airfoil fin channel owing to continuous expansion and contraction in the 
increased rapidly in airfoil fin channel owing to continuous expansion and contraction in the sectional
sectional area of flow channel. The maximum velocity in the narrowest flow channel was nearly 3 
area of flow channel. The maximum velocity in the narrowest flow channel was nearly 3 times that in
times that in the inlet. Therefore, airfoil fins evidently disturbed supercritical LNG, which increased 
the inlet. Therefore, airfoil fins evidently disturbed supercritical LNG, which increased heat transfer
heat transfer and flow resistance simultaneously. 
and flow resistance simultaneously.

(a)

(b)
Figure 13. (a) Plots of velocity contours in airfoil fin channel and (b) straight channel when mass flux 
Figure 13. (a) Plots of velocity contours in airfoil fin channel and (b) straight channel when mass flux
is 325 kg/m2∙s. 
is 325 kg/m 2
·s.

To evaluate the effect of mass flux, six different mass fluxes were tested for straight channel and 
To evaluate the effect of mass flux, six different mass fluxes were tested for straight channel and
airfoil fin PCHEs. Figure 14 display the changes of heat transfer coefficient and Nusselt number at 
airfoil fin PCHEs. Figure 14 display the changes of heat transfer coefficient and Nusselt number at
various mass fluxes respectively. Since the turbulence intensity of flow significantly increased with
rising mass flux, the heat transfer coefficient and Nusselt number rapidly increased in both PCHEs.
Also, the Nusselt number of airfoil fin PCHE exceeded that of straight channel PCHE. As we all know,
the heat transfer and flow of a heat exchanger were affected by fins predominantly in two ways: giving
rise to disturbance and enlarging heat transfer area. Therefore, the airfoil fin PCHE showed better
thermal performance than that of the straight channel PCHE at the same mass flux and hydraulic
various mass fluxes respectively. Since the turbulence intensity of flow significantly increased with 
rising mass flux, the heat transfer coefficient and Nusselt number rapidly increased in both PCHEs. 
Also, the Nusselt number of airfoil fin PCHE exceeded that of straight channel PCHE. As we all know, 
the  heat  transfer  and  flow  of  a  heat  exchanger  were  affected  by  fins  predominantly  in  two  ways: 
Energies 2017, 10, 1828 11 of 18
giving rise to disturbance and enlarging heat transfer area. Therefore, the airfoil fin PCHE showed 
better  thermal  performance  than  that  of  the  straight  channel  PCHE  at  the  same  mass  flux  and 
hydraulic diameter. For example, when mass flux G = 425 kg/m
diameter. For example, when mass flux G = 425 kg/m2 ·s and G =22∙s and G = 725 kg/m 22∙s, Nu values of 
725 kg/m2 ·s, Nu values of airfoil fin
airfoil fin PCHE were 1.48 and 1.36 times those of the straight channel PCHE, respectively. 
PCHE were 1.48 and 1.36 times those of the straight channel PCHE, respectively.   

9000
9000 60
60
Airfoil
Airfoil
8000 Straight 55
55 Airfoil
Airfoil
8000 Straight
50 Straight
Straight
50

number
Nusseltnumber
7000
7000
）

45
K）

45
(W/mK
22

6000 40
40
hh(W/m

6000

Nusselt
35
35
5000
5000
30
30
4000
4000 25
25

20
20
3000
3000 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
200
200 300
300 400
400 500
500 600
600 700
700 800
800 2
2 Mass flux
Mass flux （ kg/m2s）
（kg/m s）
Mass Flux
Mass (kg/m2s)
Flux (kg/m s)
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 14. (a) Heat transfer coefficient h and (b) Nusselt number as a function of mass flux. 
Figure 14. (a) Heat transfer coefficient h and (b) Nusselt number as a function of mass flux. 
Figure 14. (a) Heat transfer coefficient h and (b) Nusselt number as a function of mass flux.

The effects of mass flux on the Euler number and Fanning friction factor of the straight channel 
The effects of mass flux on the Euler number and Fanning friction factor of the straight channel
PCHE  and  the  airfoil  fin  PCHE  were  also  assessed  (Figure  15).  The  Euler  number  of  the  straight 
PCHE and the airfoil fin PCHE were also assessed (Figure 15). The Euler number of the straight
channel PCHE surpassed that of the airfoil fin PCHE. For example, when mass flux G = 425 kg/m22∙s, 
channel PCHE surpassed that of the airfoil fin PCHE. For example, when mass flux G = 425 kg/m2 ·s,
the Euler number of the airfoil fin PCHE was 89.7% of that of the straight channel PCHE. Generally, 
the Euler number of the airfoil fin PCHE was 89.7% of that of the straight channel PCHE. Generally,
pressure  drop  increases  with  rising  mass  flux.  However,  Figure  16  shows  that  the  Euler  number 
pressure drop increases with rising mass flux. However, Figure 16 shows that the Euler number
calculated by Equation (12) decreases as the mass flux increases. According to this equation, the Euler 
calculated by Equation (12) decreases as the mass flux increases. According to2 this equation, the Euler
number is proportional to pressure drop  ∆   but inversely proportional to v2 . Obviously, the velocity 
number is proportional to pressure drop ∆P but inversely proportional to v2 . Obviously, the velocity
of  supercritical  LNG  rose  with  increasing  mass  flux,  although  it  also  raised  the  pressure  drop. 
of supercritical 2 LNG rose with increasing mass flux, although it also raised the pressure drop.
Nevertheless, v2 exerted a stronger effect on Eu than on pressure drop, so the increase of mass flux 
Nevertheless, v2 exerted a stronger effect on Eu than on pressure drop, so the increase of mass
led to decrease of the Euler number. 
flux led to decrease of the Euler number.
11
11 0.018
0.018
Airfoil
Airfoil Airfoil
10
10
0.017
0.017 Airfoil
factor
frictionfactor

Straight
Straight
0.016
Straight
Straight
0.016
99
number
Euler number

Fanning friction

0.015
0.015
88
0.014
0.014
Euler

Fanning

77 0.013
0.013

66 0.012
0.012

0.011
0.011
55 200
200 300
300 400
400 500
500 600
600 700
700 800
800
200
200 300
300 400
400 500
500 600
600 700
700 800
800
2 2
Mass flux （ kg/m2 s）
Mass flux （ kg/m s） Mass Flux（
Mass kg/m2s）
Flux（kg/m s）
 
(a) 
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 15. (a) Euler number and (b) Fanning friction factor as a function of mass flux. 
Figure 15. (a) Euler number and (b) Fanning friction factor as a function of mass flux. 
Figure 15. (a) Euler number and (b) Fanning friction factor as a function of mass flux.

The  heat  transfer  quantity  and  pressure  drop,  as  the  main  indices  of  heat  exchanger 
The heat transfer quantity and pressure drop, as the main indices of heat exchanger performance,
performance, were described as the Nusselt number and the Euler number herein, both helping to 
were described as the Nusselt number and the Euler number herein, both helping to optimize the
optimize the arrangement of the airfoil fins. Generally, a specific objective function is used to verify 
arrangement of the airfoil fins. Generally, a specific objective function is used to verify an optimal
an optimal design. The ratio of Nusselt number to Euler number, i.e., Nu/Eu, was employed as the 
design. The ratio of Nusselt number to Euler number, i.e., Nu/Eu, was employed as the objective
function to evaluate the performance of the heat exchanger. Figure 16 describes Nu/Eu as a function of
mass flux. The minimum and maximum differences of Nu/Eu between the straight channel PCHE
and the airfoil fin PCHE were 46.2% and 51.07%, respectively. Evidently, the airfoil fin PCHE had a
better thermal-hydraulic performance, and the difference of Nu/Eu between the airfoil fin and straight
Energies 2017, 10, 1828 
Energies 2017, 10, 1828     12 of 18 
12 of 18 

objective function to evaluate the performance of the heat exchanger. Figure 16 describes Nu/Eu as a 
objective function to evaluate the performance of the heat exchanger. Figure 16 describes Nu/Eu as a 
function 
function of  of mass 
mass flux. 
flux. The 
The minimum 
minimum and 
and maximum 
maximum differences 
differences of of Nu/Eu 
Nu/Eu between 
between the 
the straight 
straight 
channel PCHE and the airfoil fin PCHE were 46.2% and 51.07%, respectively. Evidently, the airfoil 
channel PCHE and the airfoil fin PCHE were 46.2% and 51.07%, respectively. Evidently, the airfoil 
Energies 2017, 10, 1828 12 of 18
fin  PCHE  had  a 
fin  PCHE  had  a  better  thermal‐hydraulic  performance,  and  the  difference  of  Nu/Eu  between the 
better  thermal‐hydraulic  performance,  and  the  difference  of  Nu/Eu  between  the 
airfoil 
airfoil fin 
fin and 
and straight 
straight channel PCHEs 
channel PCHEs increased 
increased with 
with rising 
rising mass 
mass flux. 
flux. Hence, 
Hence, fin arrangement 
fin arrangement is  is 
channel PCHEs increased with rising mass flux. Hence, fin arrangement is recommended for the airfoil
recommended for the airfoil fin PCHE. 
recommended for the airfoil fin PCHE. 
fin PCHE.

10
10
Airfoil
Airfoil
99
Straight
Straight
88

Nu/Eu
Nu/Eu
77

66

55

44

33

22
200
200 300
300 400
400 500
500 600
600 700
700 800
800
22
Mass
Massflux
flux(kg/m
(kg/m·s)·s)
  
Figure 16. Nu/Eu as a function of mass flux. 
Figure 16. Nu/Eu as a function of mass flux.
Figure 16. Nu/Eu as a function of mass flux. 

4.2. Effect of Fin Arrangement: Staggered Pitch (L
4.2. Effect of Fin Arrangement: Staggered Pitch (Ls) ss) )
4.2. Effect of Fin Arrangement: Staggered Pitch (L
Fins affect flow and heat transfer primarily through their shapes and arrangements in a PCHE. 
Fins affect flow and heat transfer primarily through their shapes and arrangements in a PCHE.
Fins affect flow and heat transfer primarily through their shapes and arrangements in a PCHE. 
In this section, airfoil fins were arranged in parallel (L
In this section, airfoil fins were arranged in parallel (Lss = 0 mm) and staggered (L
In this section, airfoil fins were arranged in parallel (L = 0 mm) and staggered (Lss = 1~4 mm) in the 
s = 0 mm) and staggered (L = 1~4 mm) in the
s = 1~4 mm) in the 
transverse direction of the PCHE. 
transverse direction of the PCHE.  
transverse direction of the PCHE.   
In an airfoil fin PCHE, the airfoil fins with wide head and narrow tail favor the formation of a 
In an airfoil fin PCHE, the airfoil fins with wide head and narrow tail favor the formation of
In an airfoil fin PCHE, the airfoil fins with wide head and narrow tail favor the formation of a 
much smoother flow channel when arranged in a staggered manner, and the vortex separation could 
amuch smoother flow channel when arranged in a staggered manner, and the vortex separation could 
much smoother flow channel when arranged in a staggered manner, and the vortex separation
also be prevented by the streamlined fins, which may result in a smaller flow resistance in staggered 
also be prevented by the streamlined fins, which may result in a smaller flow resistance in staggered 
could also be prevented by the streamlined fins, which may result in a smaller flow resistance in
arrangement than that in parallel arrangement. Figure 17 depicts the velocity contour of supercritical 
arrangement than that in parallel arrangement. Figure 17 depicts the velocity contour of supercritical 
staggered arrangement than that in parallel arrangement. Figure 17 depicts the velocity contour of
LNG in airfoil fin PCHE arranged in parallel and staggered manners when the vertical pitch L
LNG in airfoil fin PCHE arranged in parallel and staggered manners when the vertical pitch L
supercritical LNG in airfoil fin PCHE arranged in parallel and staggered manners when the vvertical  = 1.67 
v = 1.67 
mm. In the start of heating, the velocities of fluid were quite uniform and small in both staggered and 
Lv = 1.67 mm. In the start of heating, the velocities of fluid were quite uniform and small in both
mm. In the start of heating, the velocities of fluid were quite uniform and small in both staggered and 
pitch
parallel arrangements. However, owing to continuous expansion and contraction in the sectional area 
parallel arrangements. However, owing to continuous expansion and contraction in the sectional area 
staggered and parallel arrangements. However, owing to continuous expansion and contraction in the
of  flow 
sectional channel, 
of  flow  channel,  the  non‐uniformity 
the channel,
area of flow non‐uniformity of 
of velocity  became 
velocity of
the non-uniformity became  obvious 
velocity becamein 
obvious  parallel 
in  in arrangement 
parallel 
obvious arrangement 
parallel as 
as the 
the 
arrangement
velocity increased in the flow direction. Therefore, a staggered arrangement of airfoil fins benefited 
velocity increased in the flow direction. Therefore, a staggered arrangement of airfoil fins benefited 
as the velocity increased in the flow direction. Therefore, a staggered arrangement of airfoil fins
the formation of smooth flow channel and the improvement of flow field uniformity. 
the formation of smooth flow channel and the improvement of flow field uniformity. 
benefited the formation of smooth flow channel and the improvement of flow field uniformity.

  
Figure 17. Velocity contour in PCHE with airfoil fins arranged at L
Figure 17. Velocity contour in PCHE with airfoil fins arranged at Lvv = 1.67 mm. 
Figure 17. Velocity contour in PCHE with airfoil fins arranged at L = 1.67 mm.
v = 1.67 mm. 

Figure 18a shows the Nusselt numbers of an airfoil fin PCHE in parallel and staggered
arrangements. Clearly, the airfoil fins with staggered arrangement showed better thermal performance
than that of the airfoil fins with parallel arrangement. However, at the same vertical pitch Lv ,
Energies 2017, 10, 1828    13 of 18 

Figure  18a  shows  the  Nusselt  numbers  of  an  airfoil  fin  PCHE  in  parallel  and  staggered 
Energies 2017, 10, 1828 13 of 18
arrangements.  Clearly,  the  airfoil  fins  with  staggered  arrangement  showed  better  thermal 
performance than that of the airfoil fins with parallel arrangement. However, at the same vertical 
pitch 
the Lv,  the numbers
Nusselt Nusselt  numbers 
of parallelof and
parallel  and  staggered 
staggered arrangements 
arrangements were The
were similar. similar.  The number
Nusselt Nusselt 
number at L
at Ls = 0 mms = 0 mm differed from that at L
differed from that at Ls = 4 mms = 4 mm by 6.9% when the vertical number L
by 6.9% when the vertical number Lv = 3 mm. v = 3 mm. 

1100

36 Ls=0mm
1000 Ls=1mm
Ls=2mm
34
900 Ls=3mm

Pressure drop （ Pa）

Ls=4mm
Nusselt number

32 800

700
30

Ls=0mm 600
28 Ls=1mm
Ls=2mm 500

26 Ls=3mm
400
Ls=4mm
24 300
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2

Lv（ mm） Lv(mm)  

(a)  (b)
2.8 35

Ls=0mm
2.6
Ls=1mm
30
2.4 Ls=2mm Nusselt number/Euler number
Ls=3mm
2.2 Ls=4mm 25
Euler number

1.8 20

1.6 Ls=0mm
15 Ls=1mm
1.4
Ls=2mm
Ls=3mm
1.2
10 Ls=4mm
1
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Lv (mm) Lv（ mm）
 
(c)  (d)

Figure 18. Effect of L
Figure 18. Effect of Lvv on (a) Nusselt number, (b) pressure drop, (c) Euler number and (d) Nu/Eu. 
on (a) Nusselt number, (b) pressure drop, (c) Euler number and (d) Nu/Eu.

In  addition,  the  flow  resistance  increased  as  the  staggered  pitch  Ls  decreased.  Figure  18b,c 
In addition, the flow resistance increased as the staggered pitch Ls decreased. Figure 18b,c present
present the pressure drop and Euler number with the staggered pitch (L s) at different Lv in an airfoil 
the pressure drop and Euler number with the staggered pitch (Ls ) at different Lv in an airfoil fin PCHE.
fin  PCHE.  In  Figure  18c,  the  Euler  number  in  staggered  arrangement  (Ls  =  1  mm)  is  smaller  (a 
In Figure 18c, the Euler number in staggered arrangement (Ls = 1 mm) is smaller (a maximum decrease
maximum  decrease  of  9.86%)  than  that  in  parallel  arrangement  (Ls  =  0  mm),  with  the  difference 
of 9.86%) than that in parallel arrangement (Ls = 0 mm), with the difference enlarging as the staggered
enlarging as the staggered pitch (Ls) increases at the same vertical pitch Lv.   
pitch (Ls ) increases at the same vertical pitch Lv .
Figure  18d  presents  the  dependence  of  Nu/Eu  on  Ls.  Nu/Eu  increased  with  rising  staggered 
Figure 18d presents the dependence of Nu/Eu on Ls . Nu/Eu increased with rising staggered
number Ls. Ls = 0 mm had a lower Nu/Eu (about 27%) than that at L s = 4 mm, suggesting that Ls = 4 
number Ls . Ls = 0 mm had a lower Nu/Eu (about 27%) than that at Ls = 4 mm, suggesting
mm had better heat transfer and pressure drop. Probably, pressure drop was more susceptible to Ls 
that Ls = 4 mm had better heat transfer and pressure drop. Probably, pressure drop was more
than  heat  transfer.  Collectively,  staggered  arrangement  was  superior  to  parallel  arrangement  in 
susceptible to Ls than heat transfer. Collectively, staggered arrangement was superior to parallel
airfoil  fin  PCHE,  manifested  as  reduced  flow  resistance  and  improved  total  thermal‐hydraulic 
arrangement in airfoil fin PCHE, manifested as reduced flow resistance and improved total
performance.   
thermal-hydraulic performance.
4.3. Effect of Fin Arrangement: Vertical Pitch (Lv) 
4.3. Effect of Fin Arrangement: Vertical Pitch (Lv )
When Lh (6 mm) is kept constant, Lv directly determines the density of fins and the width of flow 
When Lh (6 mm) is kept constant, Lv directly determines the density of fins and the width of flow
channel.  Therefore,  the  effect  of  vertical  separation  distance  (Lv)  on  the  thermal‐hydraulic 
channel. Therefore, the effect of vertical separation distance (Lv ) on the thermal-hydraulic performance
performance of an airfoil fin PCHE was assessed.   
of an airfoil fin PCHE was assessed.
The velocity contours of supercritical LNG in airfoil fin PCHE arranged at different Lv when the 
The velocity contours of supercritical LNG in airfoil fin PCHE arranged at different Lv when
staggered pitch Ls = 1.67 mm are presented in Figure 19. A smaller vertical pitch Lv resulted in a higher 
the staggered pitch Ls = 1.67 mm are presented in Figure 19. A smaller vertical pitch Lv resulted
velocity, thereby augmenting the flow resistance. In fact, a smaller Lv led to a narrower sectional area 
in a higher velocity, thereby augmenting the flow resistance. In fact, a smaller Lv led to a narrower
of flow channel, so that the flow velocity increased with decreasing Lv at the same mass flux. The 
sectional area of flow channel, so that the flow velocity increased with decreasing Lv at the same mass
flux. The maximum velocities of LNG in the narrowest sectional of flow channel were 1.35 m/s and
 the airfoil fins with Ls = 3 mm and Ls = 1.3 mm, respectively. Therefore, the turbulence intensity of 
fluid and the flow resistance were both enhanced locally.   
Figure  20  shows  the  variations  of  heat  transfer  coefficient  h  and  Nusselt  number  (Nu)  with 
increasing  fin  distance  (Lv)  at  different  Ls  in  an  airfoil  fin  PCHE.  The  convective  heat  transfer 
coefficient  h  decreased  with  rising  Lv  at  the  same  Ls,  which  may  attributed  to  the  decreased  flow 
Energies 2017, 10, 1828 14 of 18
velocity. However, h and Nu changed oppositely with increasing L
Energies 2017, 10, 1828    v, mainly because the hydraulic 
14 of 18 
diameter increased significantly faster than h decreased with rising Lv. For example, the hydraulic 
diameter at L
1.79 m/s in the airfoil fins with Ls = 3 mm and Ls =v = 1.3 mm, and h at L
v = 3 mm was nearly 2.7 times that at L 1.3 mm, respectively. v = 1.3 mm was 1.2 times that 
Therefore, the turbulence
maximum velocities of LNG in the narrowest sectional of flow channel were 1.35 m/s and 1.79 m/s in 
at L  = 1.3 mm when L
intensity of fluid and the = 4 mm. Thus, the Nusselt number increased with rising L
flow resistance were both enhanced locally. v of airfoil fins. 
the airfoil fins with Ls = 3 mm and Ls = 1.3 mm, respectively. Therefore, the turbulence intensity of 
v s

fluid and the flow resistance were both enhanced locally.   
Figure  20  shows  the  variations  of  heat  transfer  coefficient  h  and  Nusselt  number  (Nu)  with 
increasing  fin  distance  (Lv)  at  different  Ls  in  an  airfoil  fin  PCHE.  The  convective  heat  transfer 
coefficient  h  decreased  with  rising  Lv  at  the  same  Ls,  which  may  attributed  to  the  decreased  flow 
velocity. However, h and Nu changed oppositely with increasing Lv, mainly because the hydraulic 
diameter increased significantly faster than h decreased with rising Lv. For example, the hydraulic 
diameter at Lv = 3 mm was nearly 2.7 times that at Lv = 1.3 mm, and h at Lv = 1.3 mm was 1.2 times that 
at Lv = 1.3 mm when Ls = 4 mm. Thus, the Nusselt number increased with rising Lv of airfoil fins. 

 
Figure 19. Velocity contour in PCHE with airfoil fins arranged at Ls s=
Figure 19. Velocity contour in PCHE with airfoil fins arranged at L 4 mm.
 = 4 mm. 

6600 38
Figure 20 shows the variations of Lv=1.3mm h and Nusselt number (Nu) with
heat transfer coefficientLv=1.3mm
6400 Lv=1.67mm
increasing fin distance (Lv ) at different Ls in an
Lv=2mm airfoil fin 36
PCHE. The convective heat transfer coefficient
Lv=1.67mm
6200 Lv=2mm
Lv=3mm
h decreased with rising Lv at the same Ls , which may attributed 34 to the decreased flow velocity. However,
Lv=3mm
Nusselt number

6000
h and Nu changed oppositely with increasing Lv , mainly because the hydraulic diameter increased
h（ W/m K）

5800 32
2

significantly faster than h decreased with rising Lv . For example, the hydraulic diameter at Lv = 3 mm
was nearly 2.7 times that at Lv = 1.3 mm, and h at Lv = 1.330mm was 1.2 times that at Lv  = 1.3 mm when
5600

5400
Ls = 4 mm. Thus, the Nusselt number increased with rising 28 Lv of airfoil fins. s = 4 mm. 
Figure 19. Velocity contour in PCHE with airfoil fins arranged at L
5200
26
6600
5000 38
Lv=1.3mm
6400 24 Lv=1.3mm
4800 Lv=1.67mm
0 1 2 3 4 36 0 1
Lv=1.67mm 2 3 4
Lv=2mm
6200 Ls（ mm） Lv=3mm Lv=2mm Ls （ mm）
34 Lv=3mm
(a) (b)
Nusselt number

6000
h（ W/m K）

5800 Figure 20. Effect of Ls on (a) heat transfer coefficient h and (b) Nusselt number.
32  
2

5600 30
Figure 21a shows the dependence of the Euler number on L
5400
v. The total pressure drop decreased 
28
as Lv increased, so the Euler number dropped more apparently with increasing L
5200
v at the same Ls. The 

Euler number at L
5000
v = 3 mm was only 56% of that at Lv = 1.3 mm. Obviously, at the same L
26 s, reducing 

Lv slightly facilitated heat transfer, though it also considerably elevated pressure drop. 
4800 24
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Ls（ mm） Ls （ mm）
(a) (b)
Figure 20. Effect of Ls on (a) heat transfer coefficient h and (b) Nusselt number. 
Figure 20. Effect of Ls on (a) heat transfer coefficient h and (b) Nusselt number.
Figure 21a shows the dependence of the Euler number on Lv. The total pressure drop decreased 
as LvFigure
 increased, so the Euler number dropped more apparently with increasing L
21a shows the dependence of the Euler number on Lv . The total pressure v at the same L s. The 
drop decreased
Euler number at L
as Lv increased, sov = 3 mm was only 56% of that at L  = 1.3 mm. Obviously, at the same L
the Euler number dropped more vapparently with increasing Lv at the s, reducing 
same Ls .
Lv slightly facilitated heat transfer, though it also considerably elevated pressure drop. 
The Euler number at Lv = 3 mm was only 56% of that at Lv = 1.3 mm. Obviously, at the same Ls ,
reducing Lv slightly facilitated heat transfer, though it also considerably elevated pressure drop.
Energies 2017, 10, 1828 15 of 18
Energies 2017, 10, 1828    15 of 18 

3 35
Lv=1.3mm
Lv=1.3mm
Lv=1.67mm
2.6 Lv=1.67mm 30
Lv=2mm
Lv=2mm Lv=3mm
Eu le r n u m b e r

Lv=3mm 25
2.2

Nu/Eu
20
1.8
15

1.4
10

1
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3 4
Ls（ mm） Ls（ mm）
(a) (b)

Figure 21. Effect of Lss on (a) Euler number and (b) Nu/Eu. 

Figure 21. Effect of L on (a) Euler number and (b) Nu/Eu.

As  described  in  Section  4.1,  a  specific  objective  function  Nu/Eu  was  used  to  indicate  the 
As described in Section 4.1, a specific objective function Nu/Eu was used to indicate the
performance  of  the  airfoil  fin  PCHE.  As  illustrated  in  Figure  21b,  Nu/Eu  noticeably  rises  as  Lv 
performance of the airfoil fin PCHE. As illustrated in Figure 21b, Nu/Eu noticeably rises as Lv increases.
increases. Nu/Eu at Lv = 3 mm is nearly 3 times and 1.7 times those at Lv = 1.3 mm and Lv = 2 mm 
Nu/Eu at Lv = 3 mm is nearly 3 times and 1.7 times those at Lv = 1.3 mm and Lv = 2 mm respectively,
respectively, indicating that a dense fin arrangement was conducive to increasing the heat transfer 
indicating that a dense fin arrangement was conducive to increasing the heat transfer rate. Meanwhile,
rate.  Meanwhile,  it  was  inevitably  more  difficult  to  overcome  flow  resistance.  Accordingly,  fins 
it was inevitably more difficult to overcome flow resistance. Accordingly, fins should be sparsely
should be sparsely arranged in an airfoil fin PCHE. 
arranged in an airfoil fin PCHE.
5. Conclusions 
5. Conclusions
We
We here
here inin 
aimed to to 
aimed  clarify the the 
clarify  thermal-hydraulic characteristics
thermal‐hydraulic  and optimal
characteristics  structure
and  optimal  of a PCHE
structure  of  a 
in which supercritical LNG was used as the working fluid. The effects of channel shape and fin
PCHE in which supercritical LNG was used as the working fluid. The effects of channel shape and 
arrangements on the flow resistance and heat transfer in the airfoil fin PCHE were numerically
fin arrangements on the flow resistance and heat transfer in the airfoil fin PCHE were numerically 
investigated as follows:  
investigated as follows: 

(1) The numerical model and methods were validated with experimental data. Supercritical liquid 
(1) The numerical model and methods were validated with experimental data. Supercritical liquid
nitrogen was used as a cold fluid for simulation and experiment. The SST model followed by 
nitrogen was used as a cold fluid for simulation and experiment. The SST model followed by
the enhanced wall treatment method well predicted the outlet temperature and pressure drop 
the enhanced wall treatment method well predicted the outlet temperature and pressure drop
of a single airfoil fin in the PCHE. The error between the numerical and experimental data was 
of a single airfoil fin in the PCHE. The error between the numerical and experimental data was
within 14%, indicating the heat transfer and flow characteristics of supercritical LNG in airfoil 
within 14%, indicating the heat transfer and flow characteristics of supercritical LNG in airfoil fin
fin PCHE could be reliably simulated by the model and method. 
PCHE could be reliably simulated by the model and method.
(2) As a new type of discontinuous fins, airfoil fins can boost the thermal‐hydraulic performance 
(2) As a new type of discontinuous fins, airfoil fins can boost the thermal-hydraulic performance
compared with that of a straight channel PCHE using supercritical LNG as the working fluid. 
compared with that of a straight channel PCHE using supercritical LNG as the working fluid.
The  minimum
The minimum  and and  maximum
maximum  differences
differences of of Nu/Eu
Nu/Eu  between 
between straight  channel  and
straight channel and  airfoil
airfoil  fin
fin 
PCHEs were
PCHEs  were 46.2%
46.2% and
and 51.07%, respectively.
51.07%,  The convective
respectively.  heat transfer
The  convective  coefficient
heat  transfer  and pressure
coefficient  and 
drop increased in both PCHEs with rising mass flux.
pressure drop increased in both PCHEs with rising mass flux. 
(3) A staggered fin arrangement was more beneficial to the thermal-hydraulic performance of the
(3) A staggered fin arrangement was more beneficial to the thermal‐hydraulic performance of the 
airfoil fin PCHE than a parallel fin arrangement using supercritical LNG as the working fluid.
airfoil fin PCHE than a parallel fin arrangement using supercritical LNG as the working fluid. 
At
At  the same LLvv and
the same and LLhh,,  airfoil
airfoil  fins
fins arranged
arranged at at LLss == 44 mm
mm displayed
displayed better
better thermal-hydraulic
thermal‐hydraulic 
performance than those of the fins at other Lss.. 
performance than those of the fins at other L
(4) The velocity of supercritical LNG in the airfoil fin channels increased along the channel length and
(4) The velocity of supercritical LNG in the airfoil fin channels increased along the channel length 
then then 
and  plummeted
plummeted with increasing Lv . TheLveffect
with  increasing  .  The ofeffect 
vertical vertical  L
of  number v on theLthermal-hydraulic
number  v  on  the  thermal‐
performance of airfoil fin PCHE was more evident than that of staggered
hydraulic  performance  of  airfoil  fin  PCHE  was  more  evident  than  that  of  staggered  pitch Ls . Based
pitch on Ls. 
a comprehensive
Based  analysis ofanalysis 
on  a  comprehensive  heat transfer coefficient
of  heat  and pressure
transfer  coefficient  and drop, a sparser
pressure  drop, staggered
a  sparser 
arrangement of fins can enhance the thermal-hydraulic performance of an airfoil fin PCHE.
staggered arrangement of fins can enhance the thermal‐hydraulic performance of an airfoil fin 
PCHE. 
Energies 2017, 10, 1828 16 of 18

Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully acknowledge that this work was Jiangsu marine and fishery science
and technology innovation and extension project (HY2017-8) and Zhenjiang funds for the key research and
development project (GY2016002-1).
Author Contributions: All authors contributed to the paper. Zhongchao Zhao was the director of the research
project, put forward the study ideas and wrote this paper; The numerical simulation and data analysis was
completed by Kai Zhao and Dandan jia; Pengpeng Jiang and Rendong Shen discussed experimental ideas and
completed a part of the data analysis; the laboratory tests were completed by all authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature
f Fanning factor
v Velocity (m/s)
Re Reynolds number
h Convective heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 ·K)
Nu Nusselt number
Cp Specific heat (kJ/kg·K)
Dh Hydraulic diameter (mm)
qm Mass flow rate (kg/s)
u Velocity (m/s)
q00 Heat flux (W/m2 )
G Mass flux (kg/m2 ·s)
The pitch between one airfoil head and adjacent row
Lv
in the vertical direction (mm)
Ls The pitch of the staggered arrangement (mm)
The pitch between one airfoil head and adjacent
Lh
airfoil head in a row (mm)
∆P Pressure drop (Pa)
∆p f ric Pressure drop due to friction (Pa)
∆p acc Pressure drop due to acceleration (Pa)
ρin Density at the inlet of the channel (kg/m3 )
ρout Density at the outlet of the channel (kg/m3 )
τw Shear stress at the wall (Pa)
Greek symbols
µ Viscosity [Pa·s]
ρ Density [kg/m3 ]
λ Thermal conductivity [W/m2 ·K]
Subscript
w Wall
b Bulk mean
acc Acceleration
fric Friction
v Vertical
s Staggered
h Horizontal
in Inlet
out Outlet

References
1. Yousefi, A.; Birouk, M. Investigation of natural gas energy fraction and injection timing on the performance
and emissions of a dual-fuel engine with pre-combustion chamber under low engine load. Appl. Energy 2017,
189, 492–505. [CrossRef]
Energies 2017, 10, 1828 17 of 18

2. Pham, T.N.; Long, V.N.D.; Lee, S.; Lee, M. Enhancement of single mixed refrigerant natural gas liquefaction
process through process knowledge inspired optimization and modification. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 110,
1230–1239. [CrossRef]
3. Pu, L.; Qu, Z.; Bai, Y.; Qi, D.; Song, K.; Yi, P. Thermal performance analysis of intermediate fluid vaporizer
for liquefied natural gas. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2014, 65, 564–574. [CrossRef]
4. Wang, T.; Lin, B. China’s natural gas consumption peak and factors analysis: A regional perspective.
J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 548–564. [CrossRef]
5. Pan, J.; Li, R.; Lv, T.; Wu, G.; Deng, Z. Thermal performance calculation and analysis of heat transfer tube in
super open rack vaporizer. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2016, 93, 27–35. [CrossRef]
6. Liu, S.; Jiao, W.; Wang, H. Three-dimensional numerical analysis of the coupled heat transfer performance of
LNG ambient air vaporizer. Renew. Energy 2016, 87, 1105–1112. [CrossRef]
7. Han, C.-L.; Ren, J.J.; Wang, Y.Q.; Dong, W.-P.; Bi, M.S. Experimental investigation on fluid flow and heat
transfer characteristics of a submerged combustion vaporizer. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 113, 529–536.
[CrossRef]
8. Yoon, S.-J.; Sabharwall, P.; Kim, E.-S. Numerical study on crossflow printed circuit heat exchanger for
advanced small modular reactors. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2014, 70, 250–263. [CrossRef]
9. Tsuzuki, N.; Kato, Y.; Ishiduka, T. High Performance Printed Circuit Heat Exchanger. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2007,
27, 1702–1707. [CrossRef]
10. Kim, I.H.; No, H.C. Thermal hydraulic performance analysis of a printed circuit heat exchanger using
a helium–water test loop and numerical simulations. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2011, 31, 4064–4073. [CrossRef]
11. Kim, I.H.; No, H.C.; Lee, J.I.; Jeon, B.G. Thermal hydraulic performance analysis of the printed circuit heat
exchanger using a helium test facility and CFD simulations. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2009, 239, 2399–2408. [CrossRef]
12. Kim, I.H.; No, H.C. Physical model development and optimal design of PCHE for intermediate heat
exchangers in HTGRs. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2012, 243, 243–250. [CrossRef]
13. Mylavarapu, S.K.; Sun, X.D.; Christensen, R.N.; Unocic, R.R.; Glosup, R.E.; Patterson, M.W. Fabrication and
design aspects of high-temperature compact diffusion bonded heat exchangers. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2012, 249,
49–56. [CrossRef]
14. Mortean, M.V.V.; Paiva, K.V.; Mantelli, M.B.H. Diffusion bonded cross-flow compact heat exchangers:
Theoretical predictions and experiments. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 2016, 110, 285–298. [CrossRef]
15. Hun, K.I.; Xiaoqin, Z.; Christensen, R.; Sun, X. Disign study and cost assessment of straighe, zigzag, S-shape,
and OSF PCHEs for a FLiNaK-SCO2 Secondary Heat Exchanger in FHRs. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2016, 94,
129–137.
16. Natesan, K.; Moisseytsev, A.; Majumdar, S. Preliminary issues associated with the next generation nuclear
plant intermediate heat exchanger design. J. Nucl. Mater. 2009, 392, 307–315. [CrossRef]
17. Hosseini, S.B.; Khoshkhoo, R.H.; Malabad, S.M.J. Experimental and numerical investigation on particle
deposition in a compact heat exchanger. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 115, 406–417. [CrossRef]
18. Starace, G.; Fiorentino, M.; Longo, M.P.; Carluccio, E. A hybrid method for the cross flow compact heat
exchangers design. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 111, 1129–1142. [CrossRef]
19. Park, M.Y.; Song, M.S.; Kim, E.S. Development of tritium permeation model for Printed Circuit Heat
Exchanger. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2016, 98, 166–177. [CrossRef]
20. Baek, S.; Kim, J.; Jeong, S.; Jung, J. Development of highly effective cryogenic printed circuit heat exchanger
(PCHE) with low axial conduction. Cryogenics 2012, 52, 366–374. [CrossRef]
21. Kim, I.H.; No, H.C. Thermal–hydraulic physical models for a printed circuit heat exchanger covering he,
he–CO2 mixture, and water fluids using experimental data and cfd. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 2013, 48, 213–221.
[CrossRef]
22. Lee, S.-M.; Kim, W.Y. Comparative study on performance of a zigzag printed circuit heat exchanger with
various channel shapes and configurations. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2013, 49, 1021–1028. [CrossRef]
23. Lee, S.-M.; Kim, W.Y. Multi-objective optimization of arc-shaped ribs in the channels of a printed circuit heat
exchanger. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 2015, 94, 1–8. [CrossRef]
24. Mylavarapu, S.K.; Sun, X.D.; Glosup, R.E.; Christensen, R.N.; Patterson, M.W. Thermal hydraulic
performance testing of printed circuit heat exchangers in a high-temperature helium test facility.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 2014, 65, 605–614. [CrossRef]
Energies 2017, 10, 1828 18 of 18

25. Ma, T.; Li, L.; Xu, X.Y.; Chen, Y.T.; Wang, Q.W. Study on local thermal-hydraulic performance and
optimization of zigzag-type printed circuit heat exchanger at high temperature. Energy Convers. Manag.
2015, 104, 55–66. [CrossRef]
26. Figley, J.; Sun, X.; Mylavarapu, S.K.; Hajek, B. Numerical study on thermal hydraulic performance of
a printed circuit heat exchanger. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2013, 68, 89–96. [CrossRef]
27. Aneesh, A.M.; Sharma, A.; Srivastava, A.; Vyas, K.N.; Chaudhuri, P. Thermal-hydraulic characteristics and
performance of 3D straight channel based printed circuit heat exchanger. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2016, 98, 474–482.
[CrossRef]
28. Hamid, H.K.; Aneesh, A.M.; Autl, S.; Chaudhuri, P. Thermal hydraulic characteristics and performance of
3D wavy channel based printed circuit heat exchanger. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2015, 87, 519–528.
29. Ngo, T.L.; Kato, Y.; Nikitin, K.; Tsuzuki, N. New printed circuit heat exchanger with S-shaped fins for hot
water supplier. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 2006, 30, 811–819. [CrossRef]
30. Kim, D.E.; Kim, M.H.; Cha, J.E.; Kim, S.O. Numerical investigation on thermal-hydraulic performance of
new printed circuit heat exchanger model. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2008, 238, 3269–3276. [CrossRef]
31. Xu, X.; Ma, T.; Li, L.; Zeng, M.; Chen, Y.; Huang, Y.; Wang, Q. Optimization of fin arrangement and channel
configuration in an airfoil fin PCHE for supercritical CO2 cycle. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2014, 113, 867–875.
[CrossRef]
32. Han, C.-L.; Ren, J.-J.; Dong, W.-P.; Bi, M.-S. Numerical investigation of supercritical LNG convective heat
transfer in a horizontal serpentine tube. Cryogenics 2016, 78, 1–13. [CrossRef]
33. Bae, Y.Y. A new formulation of variable turbulent prandtl number for heat transfer to supercritical fluids.
Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2016, 92, 792–806. [CrossRef]
34. Jeon, S.; Baik, Y.; Byon, C.; Kim, W. Thermal performance of heterogeneous PCHE for supercritical CO2
energy cycle. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2016, 102, 867–876. [CrossRef]
35. Kruizenga, A.; Anderson, M.; Fatima, R.; Corradini, M.; Towne, A.; Ranjan, D. Heat transfer of supercritical
carbon dioxide in printed circuit heat exchanger geometries. J. Therm. Sci. Eng. Appl. 2011, 3, 1–8. [CrossRef]
36. Kim, T.H.; Kwon, J.G.; Yoon, S.H.; Park, H.S.; Kim, M.H.; Cha, J.E. Numerical analysis of air-foil shaped fin
performance in printed circuit heat exchanger in a supercritical carbon dioxide power cycle. Nucl. Eng. Des.
2015, 288, 110–118. [CrossRef]
37. Zhao, Z.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, K.; Jiang, P.; Chen, Y. Numerical investigation on heat transfer and
flow characteristics of supercritical nitrogen in a straight channel of printed circuit heat exchanger.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 126, 717–729. [CrossRef]

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).