Heat Transfer Engineering

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

Plate Heat Exchangers: Calculation Methods for

Singleand Two-Phase Flow

Björn Palm & Joachim Claesson

To cite this article: Björn Palm & Joachim Claesson (2006) Plate Heat Exchangers: Calculation
Methods for Singleand Two-Phase Flow, Heat Transfer Engineering, 27:4, 88-98, DOI:
10.1080/01457630500523949

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01457630500523949

Published online: 18 Aug 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1719

View related articles

Citing articles: 46 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uhte20
Heat Transfer Engineering, 27(4):88–98, 2006
Copyright

C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0145-7632 print / 1521-0537 online
DOI: 10.1080/01457630500523949

Plate Heat Exchangers:

Calculation Methods for Single-
and Two-Phase Flow

BJÖRN PALM and JOACHIM CLAESSON

Royal institute of Technology, Department of Energy Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

Plate heat exchangers were first developed about 100 years ago but have won increasing interest during the last two decades,
primarily due to the development of methods of manufacturing brazed plate heat exchangers. This type of heat exchanger
offers very good heat transfer performance in single-phase flow as well as in evaporation and condensation. Part of the
reason is the small hydraulic diameters, typically being less than 5 mm. Other advantages of plate heat exchangers are the
extremely compact design and the efficient use of the construction material. In spite of their long use, the calculation methods
for predicting heat transfer and pressure drop are not widely known. It is the purpose of this article to present such calculation
methods for single-phase flow and for flow boiling and to discuss some of the specifics of this type of heat exchangers.

INTRODUCTION the melting temperature of copper. Capillary forces draw the

Plate heat exchangers were initially introduced for use within
the dairy industry as a result of the need to clean the surfaces
regularly for hygienic reasons. Soon, the first crude designs were
exchanged for thin corrugated plates of stainless steel held to-
gether between rigid end plates by tension rods and sealed at the
edges and around inlet and outlet by gaskets. As the pressing
depths of the plates were small, so were the hydraulic diameters
of the channels in between the plates—constituting one of the
very first types of mini-channel heat exchangers.
Although the patterns of the corrugated plates have changed
through the years, the basic idea has always been the same: the
patterns of opposite plates are mismatching, thereby forming
channels with an undulating path. Not only do the channels have
small hydraulic diameters, but also the shape of the channels
disturbs the flow so that fresh boundary layers are developed in
each unit cell of the structure, thereby further enhancing heat
transfer.
Over the past twenty years, it has become possible to manu-
facture brazed plate heat exchangers. These are manufactured by
placing a copper (or nickel) foil in between each of the stainless
steel plates and placing the pile of plates in a furnace just above
copper to the points of contact between adjacent plates, thereby
connecting each couple not only at the edges but at a large
number of points across the heat transfer area. Due to this, the
brazed plate heat exchangers have the advantage of tolerating
high pressures, a typical rating being 30 bar(a). Since their first
introduction, they have become very popular as evaporators and
condensers in liquid chillers and water-to-water heat pumps.
Compared to most other types of heat exchangers, plate heat
exchangers are extremely compact, fitting a large heat transfer
surface area into a small volume. It is also an extremely material-
efficient design, as almost all material used for the construction
is used as heat exchange surface.
In spite of the long history of plate heat exchangers, calcu-
lation methods for the prediction of heat transfer and pressure
drop are not quite well developed, and there are still open ques-
tions concerning the choice of the most appropriate models. The
predictions by different single-phase correlations give similar re-
sults, but among correlations for boiling and condensation, the
differences are larger.
DESCRIPTION OF THE GEOMETRY

The financial support for projects on plate heat exchangers from the Swedish The general design of plate heat exchangers allows for an
Energy Authority is gratefully acknowledged.
Address correspondence to Dr. Björn Palm, Royal Institute of Technology,
almost infinite number of combinations of geometric parameters
Department of Energy Technology, SE 100 44, Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: for the plate pattern, port design, flow paths, etc. In the following,
bjorn.palm@energy.kth.se only the most common geometries will be covered.
88
 B. PALM AND J. CLAESSON
Figure 1 Exploded view of plate heat exchanger.
The plate patterns of almost all plate heat exchangers are
chevron- or “herringbone”-shaped, as shown in Figure 1. Nor-
mally, each plate has an identical pattern, but every second plate
is rotated 180◦ so that the pattern of adjacent plates points in
opposite directions. The geometry of the unit cell within the
structure is determined by the shape and size of the corruga-
tions. The corrugation is usually close to sinusoidal and can be
identified by the following parameters (see Figure 2):
• the chevron angle, ϕ
• the pressing depth, b
• the corrugation pitch,

• the radius of curvature at the tips of the corrugations, R
Of these, most plate heat exchangers on the market have sim-
ilar pressing depths and corrugation pitch, while the chevron an-
gles vary depending on the application. Table 1 gives the ranges
of these parameters typically found in heat exchangers on the
market. The chevron angle is quite important for heat transfer
and pressure drop, both increasing with increasing angle.
For the overall structure, the most important parameters nec-
essary to define the heat exchanger are the height, L (vertical
Figure 2 Definition of chevron angle (ϕ), pitch (
), radius of curvature (R),
length (L), and width (W).
heat transfer engineering
89
distance between the inlet and the outlet), the plate width, W,
and the number of plates, N. Additional parameters are the size
and location of the ports, the plate pattern around the ports, and
the design and location of any constriction to the flow at the inlet
to the channel between two plates. The products on the market
mainly differ by these last parameters, which are not so easily
defined in terms of a limited number of parameters.
Usually, the pressing of the plates is symmetrical, resulting
in identical channel geometries on the two sides of the heat ex-
changer. This puts some limitations to the design as the number
of parallel channels may have to be chosen according to the
limitations in allowable pressure drop for one fluid, which may
result in a lower-than-desired pressure drop on the other side.
A solution to this is to connect the channels in two-pass on one
side and one-pass on the other, in which case half of the heat
exchanger will be co-current and the other half counter-current
(see Figure 3).
One difficulty with the design is that the two channels toward
the front and the back of the heat exchanger will only have one
side heated or cooled. For heat exchangers with few channels,
this may lead to slightly reduced performance compared to the
ideal case.
For the non-dimensional representation of heat transfer and
pressure drop, it is necessary to define a hydraulic diameter of
the channel and a flow length of the channel. Due to the shape of
the channels, the flow is not simply one-dimensional but is more
or less three-dimensional, where the flow may either follow a
spiraling path along the axis of the heat exchanger or follow
Table 1 Typical min and max values for unit cell parameters
Parameter Min Max
Chevron angle, ϕ 30 65 Degrees
Pressing depth, b 1,2 5 mm
Corrugation pitch,
7 15 mm
Radius of curvature 3 4 mm
vol. 27 no. 4 2006
90 B. PALM AND J. CLAESSON
Figure 3 Single-pass/two-pass connection allowing more even pressure drop
in case of large differences in the mass flows.
the furrow of one of the two adjacent plates until it reaches the
side of the heat exchanger, and then cross over to the opposite
furrow and follow that to the center in a zigzagging pattern (see
Figure 4). The actual flow pattern depends on the chevron angle
and the Reynolds number. Because of the complex flow path, it
is not obvious how to define the diameter and flow length. The
simplest and most straightforward definitions are to consider
the flow between two flat plates and (1) use twice the pressing
depth b as the diameter and (2) the height L between the inlet and
outlet ports as the channel length. The alternative is to calculate
the diameter as 4·V/A, where V is the volume of the channel
and A is the cross-section perpendicular to the axis of the heat
exchanger. The difference between the definitions is a constant
factor φ representing the ratio between the actual heat transfer
area and the projected heat transfer area (=W·L). An alternative
definition for the length would be to use the ratio between the
actual heat transfer area and the width of the plate, which would
be equal to L·φ. In the present text, the equivalent diameter will
be calculated as
de = 2 · b
Figure 4 Examples of furrow flow and longitudinal zigzag flow.
heat transfer engineering
and the flow length as the projected length between the inlet and
outlet, L. In the literature, the different definitions of length and
diameter are mixed, and care should be taken when comparing
results from different sources.
The difficulty of defining the area and determining the actual
flow direction is also important for the definition of the mass
flux G and heat flux q. Following the choice above, the mass
flux as used here is defined in terms of the cross-section of the
channel perpendicular to the axis of the heat exchanger, and the
heat flux is determined by calculating the heat transfer area from
the actual area of the plates.
TYPICAL MASS FLUX AND HEAT FLUX CONDITIONS
As noted, plate heat exchangers were initially intended for
applications where access to the heat transfer surfaces for clean-
ing was essential. Even though this possibility is still important
in some applications, the use has been spreading to other fields,
especially since the development of the brazed plate heat ex-
changers. Compared to most other types of heat exchangers,
the mass flux must be kept low to maintain reasonable pressure
drops. For the single-phase flow of water, the typical mass flux
is about 100 kg/(m2 s), while for flow boiling and flow conden-
sation of HFC refrigerants, the mass flux usually is less than
40 kg/(m2 s). This corresponds to Reynolds numbers of up to
a few thousand for single-phase flow (of water) and less than
about 2000 for two-phase flow.
The heat flux in single-phase flow is typically 50–100 kW/m2 ,
and 5–20 kW/m2 in the boiling/condensation of refrigerants.
SINGLE-PHASE FLOW
Several investigators have made substantial contributions to
the understanding of single-phase flow heat transfer and pres-
sure drop in plate heat exchangers. It is not possible to give
credits to more than a few in the limited space of this article. A
(1)
comprehensive reference list is found in a literature survey by
Claesson [3].
Correction factors for the logarithmic mean temperature dif-
ference (LMTD) and correlations for the heat exchanger effec-
tiveness in single-phase flow were investigated by Bounopane
et al. [4] and Kandlikar and Shah [5, 6]. The influence of chevron
angle and other geometric parameters was investigated by Gaiser
and Kottke [7], Focke [8], and Focke et al. [9]. Flow visualiza-
tion studies have been performed by Focke and Knibbe [10] and
Dovic et al [11]. The use of heat transfer/pressure drop analogies
for predicting performance was demonstrated by Crozier et al.
[12], Focke [13, 14] and Martin [15].
Single-phase heat transfer correlations have been proposed
by several investigators. Most correlations are of the form
Nu = C · Ren · Prm , (2)
which is similar to the Dittus Boelter equation for turbulent tube
flow.
vol. 27 no. 4 2006
 B. PALM AND J. CLAESSON 91

Figure 5 Fanning friction factor and j-factor for single phase flow, based on correlations suggested by Wanniarachchi et al. [16]. Note: β = 90◦ − ϕ.

One peculiarity with the flow in plate heat exchangers is that Muley and Manglik [20] investigated experimentally the heat
there is no sudden change from laminar to turbulent flow at a cer- transfer and pressure drop of plate heat exchangers. Based on
tain Reynolds number, as is the case for tube flow or flow across their tests as well as data from the literature, they suggested the
a plate. This is obvious from Figure 5, showing the j-factor and following expression
the friction factor vs. the Reynolds number. This diagram is
0.38
0.14
ϕ µ
based on correlations suggested by Wanniarachchi et al. [16]. Nu = 0.44 · · Re · Pr
0.5 1/3
(3)
Both the friction factor and the j-factor change gradually with 30 µw
the Reynolds number. For the j-factor, the change of slope is to be valid when
small, indicating that the exponent on the Reynolds number  
30◦ ≤ ϕ ≤ 60◦
varies within a limited range. The value is found to be lower
than expected for tube flow and is generally in the range of 0.5– 30 ≤ Re ≤ 400
0.75, slightly increasing with an increasing Reynolds number. and for higher Reynolds numbers,
The exponent for the friction factor changes gradually from one
value at a low Reynolds number to quite a different value at a Nu =
higher Reynolds number.  
This change of the friction factor and the j-factor was recently (0.2668 − 0.006967 · ϕ + 7.244 · 10−5 · ϕ2 )·
 
suggested to be caused by a gradual change from a no-swirl flow  
(20.7803 − 50.9372 · φ + 41.1585 · φ2 − 10.1507 · φ3 )·
at a low Reynolds number to swirl flow [17].  
 
Of the many correlations suggested for single-phase flow, 
0.14 
only a couple will be presented here. (Manglik [18] lists fourteen  µ 
Re0.728+0.0543 sin(2·π·ϕ/90+3.7)
· Pr ·
1/3
correlations presented between 1970 and 1996. Talik et al. [19] µw
also include a comprehensive list of suggested correlations from
the literature.) (4)
heat transfer engineering vol. 27 no. 4 2006
92 B. PALM AND J. CLAESSON

to be valid for the range
 
30◦ ≤ ϕ ≤ 60◦
Re ≥ 1000
No correlation was suggested for the intermediate Reynolds
numbers.
As shown, the geometric parameters included in this corre-
lation are the equivalent diameter de , the chevron angle ϕ, and
the area enlargement factor φ.
Martin [15] developed a semi-empirical equation based on the
analogy between heat transfer and friction. Using the equivalent
diameter de , his correlation for heat transfer takes the form of
Numerical calculations of heat transfer and pressure drop in
single-phase flow in plate heat exchangers has been performed
by several authors [17, 21–25]. These simulations cover only
one (or a few) unit cells but still provide valuable information,
specifically about the variation of heat transfer over the surface of
the unit cell. For single-phase flow, these numerical calculations
could allow the integration and averaging across the surface, re-
sulting in mean heat transfer correlations including the influence
of all geometric parameters.
The variation of heat transfer across the area of the unit cell
has implications for the cases of flow boiling or condensation on
the other side of the heat exchanger, as in these cases, the heat
transfer coefficients are dependent on the heat flux.

1/6 
2 0.374
µ Re
Nu = φ·0, 122 · Pr1/3 · · ξ· · sin(2·ϕ) (5)
µw φ
In this equation, ξ is the Moody friction factor, calculated as FLOW BOILING
1 cos ϕ 1 − cos ϕ
√ =√ +√ Heat transfer in flow boiling is often expressed as a sum of two
ξ 0.18 tan ϕ + 0.36 sin ϕ + ξ0/cos ϕ 3.8 · ξ1.0
contributions, from nucleate boiling and convective evaporation.
(6) In general, the heat transfer coefficient in nucleate boiling is a
strong function of the heat flux, while in convective evaporation,
where heat transfer is mainly dependent on the mass flux and the vapor


 64 · φ quality. As plate heat exchangers are used exclusively for direct
 ξ0 = evaporation, there is a direct connection between heat flux and
Re Re
< 2000 ⇒ mass flux, which could make it difficult to differ between the
φ 
ξ = 597 ·φ
 1,0 + 3.85 two contributions.
Re
Contrary to single-phase flow, we cannot expect the heat

−2 transfer coefficient in flow boiling to be independent of the lo-

 Re

 ξ = 1.8 · log − 1.5 cation. As the temperature of the heat source fluid decreases
Re  0 10
φ from inlet to outlet, the heat flux on the refrigerant side will
≥ 2000 ⇒ 39 (7)
φ 
 ξ =  vary accordingly, thereby influencing the heat transfer coeffi-
 1,0
 Re 0.289
 cient. Second, heat transfer may be influenced by the change in
φ the vapor fraction. In particular, the heat transfer coefficient can
This correlation for the friction factor seems from the source be expected to decrease substantially at high vapor qualities. Fi-
to also include the pressure drops in the ports. For these calcu- nally, as a few degrees of superheat is often required at the outlet
lations, the projected length of the channel should be used. in direct expansion and the heat transfer in the superheating sec-
Like the Muley and Manglik correlation, the equivalent di- tion is much lower than that in the boiling section, the average
ameter, chevron angle, and area enhancement factor are explic- heat transfer coefficient over the surface is strongly dependent
itly included in this correlation. The pressing depth is of course on the superheat at the outlet.
included in the Reynolds and Nusselt numbers through the hy- The study of flow boiling in plate heat exchangers is com-
draulic diameter, and its influence on heat transfer may be ap- plicated by the experimental difficulty in measuring local heat
proximately determined from the exponents on these two num- transfer coefficients. There are at least two reasons for this:
bers. As the exponent on the Reynolds number is smaller than in (1) the difficulty in measuring surface temperatures in the com-
tube flow, this indicates that the gain in heat transfer by reducing pact geometry of the flow channel, and (2) the fact that the heat
the pressing depth is larger than in turbulent tube flow. transfer coefficient on the heat source side varies within each
The influence of other geometric parameters is reported by cell, which influences the local heat flux and thereby the local
only a few authors. Gaiser and Kottke [7] investigated the in- “nucleate” boiling contribution, not only along the length of the
fluence of the ratio of the wavelength
to the amplitude of heat exchanger but also within each individual cell.
the corrugation, a = b/2, and concluded that short relative wave- There are reports in the literature of both nucleate boiling and
length (low
/a) gave higher heat transfer. A functional relation- convective evaporation being the dominant heat transfer mecha-
ship was not given, but it was shown from experiments that the nism. Authors reporting a dominant influence of nucleate boiling
optimum relative wavelength is also a function of the chevron are Panchal et al. [26], Engelhorn and Reinhart [27], Osterberger
angle. For the relative wavelength
/a = 7.45, a maximum in and Slipcevic [28], Kumar [29], Pelletier [30], and Hsieh and
the Nusselt number was found for the chevron angle ϕ = 65◦ . Lin [31], who also found an influence of mass flux but only at
heat transfer engineering vol. 27 no. 4 2006
 B. PALM AND J. CLAESSON
high heat flux. Convective evaporation was found to be domi-
nant by Margat et al. [32] and Han et al. [33]. The difference
in opinion seems not to be explained by differences in the ge-
ometric parameters or in the flow conditions. From their own
studies, the authors of this study have concluded that there is
a dominating influence of heat flux and only a minor influence
of mass flux and vapor fraction [34, 44]. This does not neces-
sarily mean that bubble nucleation is an active process under
all conditions. The current authors believe, however, that thin
film evaporation is an important heat transfer mechanism, as the
bubbles generated at the evaporator inlet rise inside the narrow,
confined, and meandering channel of the heat exchanger. As this
type of evaporation has much in common with the evaporation
during nucleate boiling, one would expect the heat flux to be a
dominating parameter also in this case. The situation is similar
to that of evaporation in other mini-channels, for which case the
heat flux has also been reported to be of prime importance.
Figure 6 shows the results from tests with one specific heat
exchanger plotted both versus the Reynolds number and the heat
flux. Both the heat flux and the heat transfer coefficient are cal-
culated based on the wetted area as determined by the outside
surface temperature of the channel (visualized by temperature
sensitive paint [TLC] on the surface). As shown in Figure 6,
the results were well correlated by the heat flux but not at all
Figure 6 Experimental boiling heat transfer coefficients vs. heat flux (left) and Reynolds number (right).
heat transfer engineering
93
by the mass flux. Furthermore, when the experimental results
were plotted against the predictions of Cooper’s pool boiling
correlation,
0.12−0.2·log10 ·Rp
h = C · 55 · pr · (− log10 ·pr )−0.55 · M−0.5 · q0.67
(8)
the results were as shown in Figure 7. By introducing a constant
factor of 1.5, all data could be well represented by this correla-
tion. In fact, it is our experience that Cooper’s correlation gives
reasonable but slightly conservative heat transfer coefficients
also with other refrigerants and other plate heat exchangers, and
at other pressure levels. (This is under the condition that the ap-
proach temperatures are not too low [>1◦ C] and that the heat
exchanger has distributors in the cannel inlets.) Similar results
are also reported by Longo et al. [35], who found good agree-
ment both with the Cooper correlation and with a pool boiling
correlation by Gorenflo.
The fact that a pool boiling correlation gives reasonable av-
erage heat transfer coefficients in many different tests indicates
that the mass flux does not have a large influence on the per-
formance. It also indicates that the chevron angle does not have
a major influence on heat transfer. Figure 8 shows results from
tests with six different heat exchangers that differ only in the
vol. 27 no. 4 2006
94 B. PALM AND J. CLAESSON
Figure 7 Experimental flow boiling heat transfer coefficient vs. prediction by
Cooper’s pool boiling correlation.
chevron angles, which range from 53 to 65 degrees. Results are
expressed in terms of a normalized UA value, calculated as sug-
gested by Dutto et al. [2]. These tests were performed as a basis
for selecting the optimum chevron angle for evaporators. The
tests show that there is not one angle that is superior at all heat
flux conditions. As a compromise, it was concluded that 61◦
is one of the best choices at all tested heat fluxes. The spread
around the mean values is ±30%.
Figure 8 Overall heat transfer coefficient for six plate heat exchangers with
different chevron angles.
heat transfer engineering
Figure 9 Heat transfer coefficients for five identical plate heat exchangers
and one (V80) with a slightly different pattern, all having different designs of
the distributors. Model B25 has no distributors.
Several other correlations have been suggested in the liter-
ature (e.g., [36, 41]). To our experience, no other correlation
gives substantially better prediction than Cooper’s correlation.
As it is also very simple to use, this correlation for approximate
calculations is recommended. For better predictions, the manu-
facturers’ proprietary calculation procedures have to be used.
An important factor for the performance of a plate heat ex-
changer used as an evaporator is the distribution of the fluid in
between the many parallel channels. This is usually achieved
by introducing a constriction (distributor) at the inlet to each of
the channels. The importance of the distributor is clearly shown
in Figure 9, where test results for five identical plate heat ex-
changers with different distributors are shown. Model B25 has
no distributors and is therefore not intended as an evaporator.
Model V80 has a slightly deviating plate pattern. The odd vari-
ations in the heat transfer coefficients with heat flux for some
of the models could be repeated and are thus not a result of
measurement inaccuracy.
The flow rate on the heat source side also has influence on
the thermal performance [43]. This is shown in Figure 10 for
two different heat exchangers. In each set of tests, the average
heat flux was kept constant at about 4500 W/m2 , while the flow
rate on the heat source side was varied. As shown, increasing the
flow rate (i.e., decreasing the temperature change of the brine) in-
creased the boiling heat transfer coefficient substantially. Similar
results have also been reported by Engelhorn and Reinhart [27].
When the flow direction of the heat source fluid was changed,
the results were almost the same. This indicates that an even
heat flux across the surface is better for heat transfer than hav-
ing an increasing or decreasing heat flux in the refrigerant flow
vol. 27 no. 4 2006
 B. PALM AND J. CLAESSON
Figure 10 Heat transfer coefficients for co-current and countercurrent flow
arrangement. CBE A and CBE B have identical heat transfer surfaces but dif-
ferent designs of the refrigerant inlet flow distributors.
direction. These tests were done with low superheat. With a nor-
mal superheat of 5–7◦ C, the countercurrent flow would be best,
as this ensures a sufficiently large temperature difference in the
superheating section.
The pressure drop in flow boiling was correlated success-
fully by the present authors using the approach by Margat et al.
[32], who found that the void fraction was overpredicted us-
ing the homogeneous model. The pressure drop was correlated
with success using the approach by Lockhart-Martinelli with the
Chisholm parameter, C, equal to 3.
Sterner and Sundén [37] used ammonia in four different com-
mercial plate heat exchangers. The Chisholm parameter in the
Lockhart-Martinelli approach was estimated for the different
heat exchangers. They found the Chisholm parameter to be sig-
nificantly higher than that reported by other investigators and
correlated this parameter with the all-liquid Reynolds number.
In conclusion, the research community seems to agree on the
use of the Lockhart-Martinelli approach to calculate two-phase
pressure drop in plate heat exchangers. However, the value of
the Chisholm parameter is not agreed on, even though most
investigations indicate the value to lie within the classical range,
as originally stated by Chisholm [38] for gas-liquid density ratios
similar to air-water at an atmospheric pressure.
Claesson [39] suggests as a rough estimate a new single value
of C, based on recent measurements of adiabatic flow of R134a.
Once the frictional pressure drop in the flow channel was ob-
tained by the subtraction of the acceleration and elevation pres-
sure drops, the two-phase multiplier was calculated as
(p/L)tp
φ2l = (9)
(p/L)l
heat transfer engineering
95
Figure 11 Two-phase multiplier for adiabatic two-phase flow of R134a in a
compact brazed plate heat exchanger.
The results were correlated using the Lockhart-Martinelli pa-
rameter, XLM , defined as
(p/L)l
X2LM = (10)
(p/L)g
with the single-phase pressure drops calculated using single-
phase pressure drop correlations supplied by the manufacturer
of the tested heat exchanger.
Lockhart and Martinelli [40] presented the relation between
the two-phase multiplier and the Lockhart-Martinelli parameter
graphically. Later, Chisholm [38] curve fitted the data according
to
φ2l = 1 + C/XLM + 1/X2LM (11)
where C has different values depending on the flow regime,
laminar or turbulent, of the two different phases. Chisholm [38]
included the values for the constant C for the four possible com-
binations of flow regimes. According to Claesson [39] a single
value of C (C = 4.67) correlated the data reasonably well (see
Figure 11), even though the value of C for the individual points
varied between 2 and 15.
CONCLUSIONS
This article has described the design of plate heat exchangers
and the connection between the geometric parameters and their
thermal and hydraulic performance, in single phase flow and in
flow boiling.
Correlations in the open literature for single-phase heat trans-
fer and pressure drop are in reasonably good agreement with
experimental results. However, existing correlations do not ex-
plicitly take all geometric parameters into account, and there
is still a need for experimental verification of the correlations
for values of geometric parameters differing from those most
commonly used.
In flow boiling, heat transfer is governed by the heat flux
rather than the mass flux. The channel size is small enough to be
vol. 27 no. 4 2006
96 B. PALM AND J. CLAESSON

considered a mini-channel, with vapor bubbles being confined σq standard deviation in heat flux, W/m2
by the channel walls. Heat transfer performance is surprisingly XLM Lockhart-Martinelli parameter
well correlated by pool boiling correlations. For good perfor- ξ Moody friction factor
mance, it is essential to assure even distribution between parallel
channels by use of inlet distributors to each channel. Overall, the
performance is dependent on low superheat at the exit. Subscripts
Pressure drop in two-phase flow may be calculated according
to the Lockhart-Martinelli model. The value of the Chisholm pa- b bulk
rameter is probably in the same order of magnitude as originally Cooper calculated according to [1]
suggested by Chisholm for tube flow. Dutto calculated according to [2]
e equivalent
exp experimental
NOMENCLATURE g gas
in at inlet
a corrugation amplitude, m l liquid
A area, m2 R refrigerant
b 2·a, pressing depth, m refr refrigerant
C constant in Cooper’s pool boiling correlation or sup superheat
Chisholm parameter tp two-phase
cp specific heat, J/(kg K) w wall
de 2·b, equivalent diameter, m 2 evaporator side
f Fanning friction factor
G mass flux, kg/(m2 s)
h heat transfer coefficient, W/(m2 K) REFERENCES
jNu j-factor = Nu/(Pr1/3 · (µb /µw )0.17 )
k thermal conductivity, W/(m K) [1] Cooper, M. G., Heat Flow Rates in Saturated Nucleate Pool
L projected length between inlet and outlet port, m Boiling—A Wide-Ranging Examination Using Reduced Proper-
M molar mass, kg/kmol ties, Advances in Heat Transfer, vol. 16, pp. 157–239, 1984.
N number of plates [2] Dutto, T., Blaise, J. C., and Benedic, T., Mise en Oeuvre et Per-
Nu Nusselt number = h ·kde formances des Echangeurs a Plaques Brassées dans une Pompe a
p pressure, bar Chaleur (Performance of Brazed Plate Heat Exchanger Set in Heat
pr reduced pressure Pump), Proc. 18th Int. Congr. Refrigeration, Montreal, Quebec,
µ·c Canada, vol. III, pp. 1284–1288, August 10–17, 1991 (in French).
Pr Prandtl number = k p
[3] Claesson, J., Literature Survey, Relevant to Compact Brazed Plate
q heat flux, W/m2 Heat Exchangers as Evaporators in Heat Pump System, Inter-
Q̇ heat flow, W nal Report, Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Energy
R radius of curvature, m Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 2004.
Rp mean asperity height, µm [4] Buonopane, R. A., Troup, R. A., and Morgan, J. C., Heat Transfer
Re Reynolds number = u ·νde Design Method for Plate Heat Exchangers, Chemical Engineering
T temperature, K or ◦ C Progress, vol. 59, no. 7, pp. 57–61, 1963.
u velocity, m/s [5] Kandlikar, S. G., and Shah, R. K., Asymptotic Effectiveness-NTU
U overall heat transfer coefficient, W/(m2 K) Formulas for Multipass Plate Heat Exchangers, ASME Journal of
V volume, m3 Heat Transfer, vol. 111, pp. 314–321, 1989.
[6] Kandlikar, S. G., and Shah, R. K., Multipass Plate Heat
W plate width, m
Exchangers—Effectiveness-NTU Results and Guidelines for Se-
x vapor quality, % lecting Pass Arrangements, ASME Journal of Heat Transfer,
vol. 111, pp. 300–313, 1989.
Greek Symbols [7] Gaiser, G., and Kottke, V., Effects of Wavelength and Inclination
Angle on the Homogeneity of Local Heat Transfer Coefficients
β complementary to chevron angle = 90-ϕ, degrees in Plate Heat Exchangers, Proc. 11th Int. Heat Transfer Conf.,
Kyongju, Korea, vol. 6, pp. 203–208, 1998.
γ corrugation aspect ratio = 4·b/

[8] Focke, W. W., Turbulent Convective Transfer in Plate Heat Ex-
φ area enlargement factor changers, Int. Comm. Heat Mass Transfer, vol. 10, pp. 201–210,
φ2l two-phase multiplier 1983.
ϕ chevron angle, degrees [9] Focke, W. W., Zachariades, J., and Oliver, I., The Effect of the Cor-

corrugation pitch, m rugation Inclination Angle on the Thermohydraulic Performance
µ dynamic viscosity, kg/(m s) of Plate Heat Exchangers, International Journal of Heat and Mass
ν kinematic viscosity, m2 /s Transfer, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 1469–1479, 1985.

heat transfer engineering vol. 27 no. 4 2006

 B. PALM AND J. CLAESSON
[10] Focke, W. W., and Knibbe, P. G., Flow Visualization in Parallel-
Plate Ducts with Corrugated Walls, J. Fluid Mech., vol. 165,
pp. 73–77, 1986. [27]
[11] Dovic, D., Palm, B., and Svaic, S., Basic Single-Phase Flow Phe-
nomena in Chevron-Type Plate Heat Exchangers, Proc. IIR Conf,
Zero Leakage, Minimum Charge, Stockholm, 2002. [28]
[12] Crozier, R. D., Booth, J. R., and Steward, J. E., Heat Trans-
fer in Plate and Frame Heat Exchangers, Chemical Engineering
Progress, vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 43–45, 1964.
[13] Focke, W. W., Selecting Optimum Plate Heat Exchanger Surface [29]
Patterns. ASME Journal of Heat Transfer, vol. 108, pp. 153–160,
1986.
[14] Focke, W. W., Heat Transfer Analogies for Plate Heat Exchangers, [30]
S A J. Chemical Engineering, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–5, 1995.
[15] Martin, H., A Theoretical Approach to Predict the Performance
of Chevron-Type Plate Heat Exchangers, Chemical Engineering
and Processing, vol. 35, pp. 301–310, 1996. [31]
[16] Wanniarachchi, A. S., Ratnam, U., Tilton, B. E., and Dutta-
Roy, K., Approximate Correlations for Chevron-Type Plate Heat
Exchangers, ASME HTD—vol. 314, 1995 National Heat Transfer
Conference, vol. 12, pp. 145–151, 1995. [32]
[17] Metwally, H. M., and Manglik, R. M., Enhanced Heat Transfer
Due to Curvature-Induced Lateral Vortices in Laminar Flows in
Sinusoidal Corrugated-Plate Channels, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer,
vol. 47, no. 10–11, pp. 2283–2292, 2004. [33]
[18] Manglik, R. M., Plate Heat Exchangers for Process Industry Appli-
cations: Enhanced Thermal-Hydraulic Characteristics of Chevron
Plates, in Process, Enhanced and Multiphase Heat Transfer, eds.
R. M. Manglik and A. D. Kraus, pp. 267–276, Begell House,
New York, 1996. [34]
[19] Talik, A. C., Swanson, L. W., Fletcher, L. S., and Anand,
N. K., Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Characteristics of a Plate
Heat Exchanger, ASME/JSME Thermal Engineering Conference,
vol. 4, pp. 321–329, 1995. [35]
[20] Muley, A., and Manglik, R. M., Experimental Study of Turbulent
Flow Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop in a Plate Heat Exchanger
with Chevron Plates, ASME Journal of Heat Transfer, vol. 121,
pp. 110–117, 1999.
[21] Manglik, R. M., and Ding J., Laminar Flow Heat Transfer to Vis- [36]
cous Power-Law Fluids in Double-Sine Ducts, International Jour-
nal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1379–1390,
1997. [37]
[22] Mehrabian, M. A., and Poulter R., Hydrodynamics and Ther-
mal Characteristics of Corrugated Channels: Computational Ap-
proach, Applied Mathematical Modelling, vol. 24, no. 5–6,
pp. 343–364, 2000. [38]
[23] Ciofalo, M., Di Piazza, I., and Stasiek, J. A., Investigation of
Flow and Heat Transfer in Corrugated-Undulated Plate Heat
Exchangers, Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 36, pp. 449–462, [39]
2000.
[24] Ciofalo, M., and Di Piazzo, I., A Computational Approach to Con-
jugate Heat Transfer between Two Fluids in Plate Heat Exchangers
of Arbitrary Geometry, International Journal of Heat Exchangers,
vol. 3, pp. 1–32, 2002.
[25] Croce, G., and D’Agaro, P., Numerical Analysis of Forced [40]
Convection in Plate and Frame Heat Exchangers, International
Journal of Numerical Methods for Heat & Fluid Flow, vol. 12,
no. 6, pp. 756–771, 2002. [41]
[26] Panchal, C. B., Hillis, D. L., and Thomas, A., Convective Boil-
ing of Ammonia and Freon 22 in Plate Heat Exchangers, Proc.
heat transfer engineering
97
ASME/JSME Thermal Engineering Joint Conference, vol. 2,
pp. 26–268, 1983.
Engelhorn, H. R., and Reinhart, A., Investigations in Heat Transfer
at Plate Heat Exchangers, Kälte, no. 7–8, pp. 338–342, 1989 (in
German).
Osterberger, R., and Slipcevic, B., Wärmeübergang beim Blasen-
seiden in Plattenverdampfern (Nucleate Boiling Heat Transfer in
Plate Heat Evaporator), Ki Klima—Kälte Heizung, no. 11, pp. 481–
483, 1990.
Kumar, H., Evaporation in Plate Heat Exchangers, in Proc. Heat
Transfer—Atlanta, ed. Brian G. Volintine, AIChE Symposium Se-
ries 295, vol. 89, pp. 211–228, 1993.
Pelletier, O., Propane as Refrigerant in Residential Heat Pumps,
Licentiate thesis, Dept. of Energy Technology, Div. Applied Ther-
modynamics and Refrigeration, Royal Institute of Technology,
KTH, Trita REFR No 98/24 ISSN 1102-0245, p. 132, 1998.
Hsieh, Y. Y., and Lin, T. F., Saturated Flow Boiling Heat Trans-
fer and Pressure Drop of Refrigerant R-410A in a Vertical Plate
Heat Exchanger, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer,
vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 1033–1044, 2002.
Margat, L., Thonon, B., and Tadrist, L., Heat Transfer and Two-
Phase Flow Characteristics during Convective Boiling in a Cor-
rugated Channel, in Compact Heat Exchangers for the Process
Industry, pp. 323–329, Begell House, 1997.
Han, D.-H., Lee, K.-J., and Kim, Y.-H., Experiments on
the Characteristics of Evaporation of R410A in Brazed Plate
Heat Exchangers with Different Geometric Configurations, Ap-
plied Thermal Engineering, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 1209–1225,
2003.
Claesson, J., Thermal and Hydraulic Characteristics of Brazed
Plate Heat Exchangers—Part II: Current Research on Evapora-
tors at KTH, paper OR-05-10-3 ASHRAE Winter Meeting 2005,
Orlando, Fla.; also published in ASHRAE Trans., vol. 111, part 1.
Longo, G. A., Gasparella, A., and Sartori, R., Experimental Heat
Transfer Coefficients during Refrigerant Vaporization and Con-
densation inside Herringbone-Type Plate Heat Exchangers with
Enhanced Surfaces, International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer, vol. 47, pp. 4125–4136, 2004.
Thonon, B., Plate Heat Exchangers—Rating and Sizing Proce-
dure, Lecture Notes, Refrigeration Heat Transfer: A Three Day
Shortcourse, Grenoble, France, April 9–11, 1997.
Sterner, D., and Sundén, B., Performance of Some Plate-and-
Frame Heat Exchangers as Evaporator in a Refrigerating Sys-
tem, 5th UK National Conf. on Heat Transfer, Imperial College,
London, September 17–18, 1997.
Chisholm, D., A Theoretical Basis for the Lockhart-Martinelli
Correlation for Two-Phase Flow, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer,
vol. 10, pp. 1767–1778, 1967.
Claesson, J., Thermal and Hydraulic Performance of Compact
Brazed Plate Heat Exchangers Operating as Evaporators in Do-
mestic Heat Pumps, Ph.D thesis, Dept. of Energy Technology,
Div. Applied Thermodynamics and Refrigeration, Royal Institute
of Technology, KTH, Trita REFR No 04/44, ISBN 91-7283-931-7,
p. 252, 2004.
Lockhart, R. W., and Martinelli, R. C., Proposed Correlation of
Data for Isothermal Two-Phase, Two-Component Flow in Pipes,
Chemical Engineering Progress, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 39–48, 1949.
Donowski, V. D., and Kandlikar, S. G., Correlating Evapo-
ration Heat Transfer Coefficient of Refrigerant R-134a in a
Plate Heat Exchanger, in Proc. Boiling 2000: Phenomena and
vol. 27 no. 4 2006
98 B. PALM AND J. CLAESSON
Emerging Applications, Paper 154, Engineering Foundation,
Alaska, April 30–May 5, 2000.
[42] Claesson, J., and Palm, B., Boiling Mechanism in a Small Com-
pact Brazed Plate Heat Exchanger (CBE) Determined by Using
Thermochromic Liquid Crystals (TLC), Proc. 20th Int. Congr. of
Refrigeration, paper 117, IIR/IIF, Sydney, 1999.
[43] Claesson, J., The Influence of Brine Flow on the Flow Boiling
Refrigerant Heat Transfer Coefficient in a Compact Brazed Plate
Heat Exchanger, International Journal of Heat Exchangers, 2004.
[44] Claesson, J., Thermal and Hydraulic Characteristics of Brazed
Plate Heat Exchangers—Part I: Review of Single-Phase and Two-
Phase Adiabatic and Flow Boiling Characteristics, Paper OR-05-
10-2, Presented at ASHRAE Winter meeting 2005, Orlando, Fla.;
also published in ASHRAE Trans., vol. 111, part 1.
Björn Palm is associate professor and head of divi-
sion at the Royal Institute of Technology, Department
of Energy Technology, Division of Applied Thermo-
dynamics and Refrigeration, in Stockholm, Sweden.
He received his Master’s degree from Stockholm Uni-
versity in 1982 in chemistry, physics, and mathemat-
ics. Later, he joined the Royal Institute of Technology
as a Ph.D. student investigating methods of enhanc-
ing boiling heat transfer of refrigerants in flow boiling
heat transfer engineering
and pool boiling. He defended his Ph.D. thesis in this area in 1991. Since then, he
has been part of the staff at the Department of Energy Technology and in 1999
he took over the leadership of the Division of Applied Thermodynamics and
Refrigeration, sharing this duty with Dr. Per Lundqvist. His research interests
are in the fields of heat transfer related to refrigeration systems, specifically in
boiling and condensation. He is also heading projects on the cooling of electron-
ics, charge reduction in refrigeration equipment, and use of natural refrigerants.
He was elected national delegate in the International Institute of Refrigeration
as well as in Eurotherm. He is also a member of ASME. He has authored or
co-authored close to a hundred scientific papers in the areas of refrigeration,
heat transfer, and electronics cooling.
Joachim Claesson received his Ph.D. in February
2005 from the Royal Institute of Technology, Depart-
ment of Energy Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. His
Ph.D. dissertation was on plate heat exchangers as
evaporators in domestic heat pumps. He has presented
several papers in international conferences and jour-
nals on plate heat exchangers, focusing mainly on the
overall performance of evaporators.
vol. 27 no. 4 2006