International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 91 (2018) 201–209

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ichmt

Effect of chevron angle and surface roughness on thermal performance of T

single-phase water flow inside a plate heat exchanger
⁎
Kitti Nilpuenga,b, Thawatchai Keawkamropb, Ho Seon Ahnc, Somchai Wongwisesb,
a
Research Centre for Combustion Technology and Alternative Energy (CTAE), Department of Power Engineering Technology, College of Industrial Technology, King
Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok, Bangkok 10800, Thailand
b
Fluid Mechanics, Thermal Engineering and Multiphase Flow Research Lab (FUTURE), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkut's
University of Technology Thonburi, Bangmod, Bangkok 10140, Thailand
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Incheon National University, Incheon, Republic of Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: New experimental data on plate heat exchanger performance including the heat transfer coefficient, pressure
Heat transfer coefficient drop, and thermal performance factor under different chevron angles, surface roughness, and working conditions
Pumping power are presented. Plate surface roughness ranging between 0.95 μm and 2.75 μm with chevron angles of 30° and 60°
Nusselt number are used. The experiments are performed at Reynolds numbers ranging between 1200 and 3500, a hot water
Friction factor
temperature of 40 °C, and a cold water temperature of 25 °C. The experimental results show that the heat transfer
Thermal performance factor
coefficient and pressure drop increase when the chevron angle is decreased and the surface roughness and
Reynolds number are increased. Under the testing conditions, the average thermal performance factors are 1.09
and 1.02 for 30° and 60° chevron angles, respectively. The optimum thermal performance of a plate heat ex-
changer is obtained at a 30° chevron angle, the highest surface roughness, and the lowest Reynolds number. A
correlation of Nusselt number and friction factor for different surface roughness and chevron angles are also
proposed for practical applications.

1. Introduction
Due to the fact that plate heat exchangers are small in size and
weight, flexible and easy to clean compared with other types of heat
exchangers, they are widely used for both single-phase and two-phase
flows in many applications, such as food processing, brewing, chemical
processing, heat pump systems, and cooling systems. The chevron-type
plate heat exchanger, which is mostly used in industrial applications, is
designed for improving the fluid mixing inside the channel and en-
hancing the heat transfer rate by 20–30% [1]. However, it also leads to
an increase of pumping power consumption. Therefore, to obtain the
optimum design for a plate heat exchanger, i.e., a high heat transfer
coefficient and low pressure drop, knowledge about the plate config-
uration and working conditions of a plate heat exchangers' performance
is very important and still needed. Over the last decade, research stu-
dies on the thermal performance of single-phase water flow inside plate
heat exchangers have been continuously carried out by several re-
searchers.
Luan et al. [2] designed and investigated the flow characteristics in
a plate heat exchanger with a compound corrugation surface. Based on
the new design of corrugation, the flow resistance of the working fluid
decreased > 50% and the heat transfer performance decreased by
about 25% compared with the traditional chevron-type plate heat ex-
changer. They reported that the compound corrugation surface reduced
the flow path blockage problem in unclean working fluids application.
Miura et al. [3] investigated the pressure drop of water flow inside the
plate heat exchangers with different flow arrangements. A laboratory
scale PHE with flat plates was experimentally tested. Based on their
experimental data, an empirical correlation for predicting the effect of
the number of passes and number of flow channels per pass on the
pressure drop was proposed. Moreover, the CFD model was developed
to predict the value of the pressure drop. A comparison between the
model and the experimental data showed good agreement.
Durmus et al. [4] studied the heat transfer and pressure drop in
plate heat exchangers with different surface profiles. They reported the
effects of surface geometries (i.e., flat plate heat exchanger, corrugated
plate heat exchanger, and asterisk plate heat exchanger) on heat
transfer, friction factor and exergy loss. The heat transfer rate obtained
from the corrugated-type heat exchanger was higher than that from
other types. They concluded that the pressure drop resulted in an in-
crease of the capital costs, but heat exchanger efficiency caused smaller
dimensions and lower production costs. Kim et al. [5] studied and

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: somchai.won@kmutt.ac.th (S. Wongwises).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2017.12.009

0735-1933/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

K. Nilpueng et al.
Nomenclature
A heat transfer area, m2
bc mean spacing between plates, m
cp,h specific heat of hot stream, J/kg K
cp,c specific heat of cold stream, J/kg K
DH hydraulic diameter of tube, m
ΔPF frictional pressure drop, Pa
ΔPG gravitational pressure drop, Pa
ΔPM pressure loss at the inlet and outlet, Pa
ΔPT total pressure drop, Pa
f friction factor
g gravitational acceleration, m/s2
hc heat transfer coefficient of cold stream, W/m2 K
hh heat transfer coefficient of hot stream, W/m2 K
ks thermal conductivity of plate, W/m K
L vertical length from inlet port to outlet port, m
LMTD logarithmic mean temperature difference, K
ṁ h mass flow rate of hot stream, kg/s
ṁ c mass flow rate of cold stream, kg/s
compared the heat transfer performance of single-wave and double-
wave plate heat exchangers. Air and water flow in a crosswise direction
were used as the working fluid in this testing. It was found that the heat
transfer and pressure drop of the double-wave plate heat exchanger
enhanced by about 50% and 30% when compared with the single-wave
plate heat exchanger.
Khan et al. [6] investigated the effect of chevron angles on the heat
transfer coefficient inside plate heat exchangers. Three different
chevron angles of 30°/30°, 60°/60°, and 30°/60° were used. They stated
that the chevron angle and Reynolds number had a significant effect on
the heat transfer characteristics, and chevron angles of 30°/30° resulted
in the highest heat transfer coefficient. Faizal and Ahmed [7] studied
the heat transfer and pressure drop of water in plate heat exchangers
under different low-temperature conditions. Three values of spacing
between the plates were adjusted to investigate the plate heat ex-
changer performance. It was found that the pressure drop was increased
when spacing between the plates was narrow, and optimum heat
transfer occurred at a spacing of 6 mm.
Gherasim et al. [8] numerically studied the heat transfer coefficient
and friction factor inside the gasket plate heat exchanger under laminar
or turbulent flow conditions. Temperature variation and mass flow rate
per unit area at any position were also presented. Water/water and
water/engine oil were used as working fluids. The thermal field and the
mass flow distribution of water/engine oil were more uniform com-
pared with the water/water. The channel with longitudinal passages
yielded a lower heat transfer rate and friction factor compared with the
original geometry. Thermal and hydraulic characteristics of chevron-
type gasketed plate heat exchangers with three different plate geome-
tries were investigated by Gulenoglu et al. [9]. The experiment was
performed at a 30° chevron angle and Reynolds numbers between 300
and 5000. Corrugation patterns, port diameter, enlargement factor, and
channel flow area strongly affected the thermal and hydraulic perfor-
mance of a heat exchanger. They concluded that thermal and hydraulic
characteristics were enhanced by decreasing the plate size.
Lee and Lee [10] numerically investigated the fluid flow in chevron-
type plate heat exchangers by using large-eddy simulation (LES). The
friction factor (f) and Colburn factor (j) were reported for chevron
angles ranging between 30° and 60° and the ratio of chevron pitch to
chevron height ranging between 2.0 and 4.4. The increase of the
chevron angle and decrease of the ratio of the chevron pitch to the
chevron height resulted in an enhanced friction factor and Colburn
factor. They reported that the chevron angle should be 30° for laminar
flow and 60° for turbulent flow to achieve optimum performance.
202
International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 91 (2018) 201–209
Nu Nusselt number
Pr Prandtl number
Qavg average heat transfer rate, W
Re Reynolds number
Tci cold stream temperature at inlet section, K
Tco cold stream temperature at outlet section, K
Thi hot stream temperature at inlet section, K
Tho hot stream temperature at outlet section, K
U overall heat transfer coefficient, W/m2 K
V velocity, m/s
w plate width inside gasket, m
Δx plate thickness, m
Greek symbols
ε surface roughness, m
μ dynamic viscosity, kg/m s
ρ density, kg/m3
υ specific volume, m3/kg
Nilpueng and Wongwises [11] presented the influence of a rough sur-
face on the thermal performance of water flow inside a plate heat ex-
changer. The roughness of the plate surface was generated by using a
sand blasting machine. Corrugated plates with surface roughness ran-
ging between 0.936 μm and 3.312 μm were investigated. The experi-
mental results showed that the increase of surface roughness resulted in
the enhancement of the exergetic efficiency.
The 3D-flow analysis of single-phase flow in brazed plate heat ex-
changers was numerically investigated and compared with results from
the experiment conducted by Sarraf et al. [12]. The effects of the
chevron angle on the flow behavior and pressure drops were presented.
They stated that the flow behavior depended on the chevron angle and
mass flow rate. The simulation showed that the friction coefficient in-
creased when the chevron angle was increased. Lee and Lee [13] nu-
merically and experimentally investigated the friction factor and Col-
burn factor of single-phase water flow along chevron-type plate heat
exchangers. The effect of the chevron angle, chevron pitch, and chevron
height on thermal performance was reported. It was found that the
numerical result agreed well with the experimental data, with a max-
imum error of 10%. They reported that the optimal points appeared at a
chevron angle of 66.5° and a ratio of chevron pitch to height p/h of
2.73.
Dvorak and Vit [14] simulated the flow and heat transfer of air-to-
air counter flow inside plate heat exchangers. The effect of thickness on
pressure loss and effectiveness was presented. The effect of plate
thickness on the effectiveness depended on the thermal conductivity of
the plate material used. They concluded that a thin material led to high
effectiveness and low pressure loss. Kumar et al. [1] presented the effect
of chevron angles on the comparative energetic and exergetic perfor-
mance of nanofluid-water flow in a plate heat exchanger. The sym-
metric chevron angles of 30°/30° and 60°/60° and the mixed chevron
angle of 30°/60° were tested in the experiment. They reported that
optimum enhancement in the heat transfer rate ratio and heat transfer
coefficient ratio was obtained at 60°/60° for 1.0% particle volume
concentration. Giurgiu et al. [15] numerically studied the heat transfer
of mini channels with angles of 30° and 60° inside plate heat ex-
changers. The distribution of velocity, temperature fields, and dis-
tribution of convection coefficient along the active mini channel were
presented. They reported that the larger inclination angle value led to
higher heat transfer. The results showed the best heat transfer for plate
heat exchangers using mini channels with an inclination angle of 60°.
Satitchaicharoen and Wongwises [16] investigated the effects of gap
size, channel width, and liquid viscosity on the flow patterns of vertical
K. Nilpueng et al.
upward flow in mini-gap rectangular channels. The result showed that
the onset of flow pattern transitions shifted to a higher value of su-
perficial air velocity when the channel width was increased at a given
gap size.
Pipathattakul et al. [17] studied the effects of gap size on the flow
pattern of air–water two-phase flow inside a mini-gap annular channel
with three different inclination angles. It was found that transitions of
flow patterns shifted to a higher value of superficial water velocity
when the channel gap decreased. Lin et al. [18] studied the evaporation
heat transfer of refrigerant R-410A in a plate heat exchanger under the
parallel flow and counter flow arrangement by using Infrared Thermal
Image observation. Under the same conditions, the superheated area in
a plate heat exchanger for parallel flow was bigger than for counter
flow. The early superheated region at the central core of the plate heat
exchanger appeared for the parallel flow arrangement. Nilpueng and
Wongwises [19] investigated the flow pattern and pressure drop of
vertical upward gas–liquid flow in sinusoidal wavy channels. Sinusoidal
wavy channels with different phase shifts between the side walls of 0°,
90°, and 180° were used. The results showed that recirculation flows
were always found in the troughs of the corrugations, and it was higher
when the phase shifts increased. Nilpueng and Wongwises [20] studied
the two-phase gas–liquid flow characteristics inside a commercial plate
heat exchanger. In order to observe flow pattern, a transparent plate
having the same configuration as the stainless steel plates was cast and
used as a cover plate. The results indicated that the velocity of water
and air has a significant effect on the change in pressure drop.
As reviewed above, most previous researchers have investigated the
effect of plate configuration (i.e., chevron angle, chevron pitch, and
chevron height) on the thermal performance of single-phase and two-
phase flow inside smooth surface plate heat exchangers. However, a
few previous researchers have investigated the application of heat
transfer enhancement techniques using enhanced surfaces in plate heat
exchangers. As a result, there remains room for further studies, espe-
cially on the performance of a plate heat exchanger working under the
different plate configurations and enhanced surfaces. Therefore, the
main objective of this paper is to study the effect of chevron angle and
surface roughness on the thermal performance of plate heat exchangers,
i.e., heat transfer coefficient, Nusselt number, pressure drop, friction
factor, and thermal performance factor. The Nusselt number and fric-
tion factor correlation for different chevron angles and surface rough-
ness are also proposed for designing practical applications.
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of experimental apparatus.
203
International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 91 (2018) 201–209
Table 1
Testing conditions.
Parameters Range
1. Hot water temperature 40 °C
2. Cold water temperature 25 °C
3. Hot and cold volume flow rate 3–10LPM
2. Experimental apparatus
The experimental apparatus is designed to study the heat transfer
and pressure drop of water flow inside a plate heat exchanger under
different working conditions and plate configurations, as shown in
Fig. 1. The system consists of three main components: hot water loop,
cold water loop, and test section. Considering the hot and cold water
loops, a centrifugal pump with a needle valve and the rotameter are
connected between the water tank and the plate heat exchanger to
regulate the water flow rate. To control the temperature of water inside
the tank, a 4 kW electrical heater is installed inside a 50-liter stainless
steel hot water tank, and a 5 kW vapor compression refrigeration
system with 4 kW electrical heaters is installed inside a 30-liter stainless
cold water tank. The accuracy of the rotameter within a volumetric flow
rate range of 2–12 LPM is ± 2%. Testing conditions for the experiment
are shown in Table 1.
A commercial gasket plate heat exchanger with chevron angles of
30° and 60° is used in the experiment. Details of the plate configuration
and dimensions are depicted in Fig. 2 and Table 2. Three stainless steel
corrugated plates are arranged to provide the vertical upward flow for
hot water and vertical downward flow for cold water. The surface
roughness of the cold stream plate is made by a sand blasting machine.
Plate surface roughness is measured by a surface roughness-measuring
machine (Taylor Hobson Talysurf series 2). The uncertainty of the
roughness-measuring machine is ± 2%. The plates with surface
roughness of 0.95, 1.63, 2.17, and 2.75 μm are examined. The water
temperature at the inlet and outlet of the hot and cold streams is
measured by T-type thermocouples with temperature measurement
error of ± 0.1 °C. Aeroflex insulation with 6.4 mm thickness covered
the water tank, pipeline, and plate heat exchanger to minimize the heat
loss. A differential pressure transducer (YOKOGAWA, EJA110A) with
accuracy of ± 0.1% of its calibrated span is installed between the inlet
and outlet port of the cold stream to measure the pressure drop inside
the plate heat exchanger. Under steady state conditions, the experi-
mental data (i.e., flow rate of hot and cold stream, inlet and outlet
K. Nilpueng et al. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 91 (2018) 201–209

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of heat exchanger plate.

(a) Chevron angle 60°.
(b) Chevron angle 30°.

Table 2 temperature of hot and cold stream, and pressure drop across plate heat
Geometrical dimensions of a heat exchanger plate. exchanger) are recorded.

Parameters Dimension
3. Data reduction
1. Plate length, m 0.430
2. Plate width, m 0.125
To analyze the plate heat exchanger performance at different
3. Mean spacing between plates (bc), m 0.0025
4. Plate sheet thickness (t), m 0.0005 chevron angles and surface roughness, measured data is calculated
5. Port-to-port length, m 0.355 using the following procedures:
6. Port diameter, m 0.0254
7. Plate width inside gasket (w), m 0.1
8. Chevron angle 30° and 60° 3.1. Cold stream heat transfer coefficient
9. Surface roughness, μm 0.95,1.62, 2.17 and 2.75
Due to the difference in heat transfer rate between hot and cold
water (within ± 6.24% for all data), the average heat transfer rate

204
K. Nilpueng et al. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 91 (2018) 201–209

inside a plate heat exchanger can be calculated from 1000

ṁ h cp, h (Thi − Tho) + ṁ c cp, c (Tco − Tci )

Qavg =
2 (1)

The overall heat transfer coefficient is an important parameter for

Nusselt number (Nu)

100
calculating the heat transfer rate from the hot stream through the heat
exchanger plate to the cold stream. It is also related with thermal re-
sistance, as calculated by the following equation:
−1 o
Qavg 1 Δx 1 Measured data for smooth surface (Chevron angle 30 )
U= =⎛ + + ⎞
⎜ ⎟ o
Measured data for smooth surface (Chevron angle 60 )
(A)(LMTD) ⎝ hh ks hc ⎠ (2) 10
0.703 1/3 0.17 o
Nu = 0.108Re Pr ( w) (Chevron angle 60

According to Eq. (2), the heat transfer coefficient of the cold stream Nu = 0.1368Re
0.7424 0.35
Pr ( w)
0.14
(Chevron angle 60
o

through the rough surface plate (hc) can be expressed by Nu = 0.428Re

0.664 1/3
Pr (Chevron angle 25
o
0.8414 0.35 0.14 o
−1 Nu = 0.1449Re Pr ( w) (Chevron angle 30
1 Δx 1⎞
hc = ⎛ −
⎜ − ⎟ 1
⎝U ks hh ⎠ (3) 1000 1500 2000 3000
Reynolds number (Re)
where U is the overall heat transfer coefficient, A is the heat transfer
area (from the manufacturer), LMTD is the logarithmic mean tem- Fig. 3. Comparison of the experimental data of Nusselt number for smooth surface plate
perature difference, ṁ h is the mass flow rate of the hot stream, ṁ c is the heat exchanger with the calculation result from previous correlation.
mass flow rate of the cold stream, cp, h is the specific heat of the hot
stream, cp, c is the specific heat of the cold stream, hc is the heat transfer 3.4. Thermal performance factor
coefficient of the cold stream, Δx is the thickness of the heat exchanger
plate, ks is thermal conductivity of the heat exchanger plate, and hh is Thermal Performance Factor (TPF) is defined as the ratio of the
the heat transfer coefficient of the hot stream. In this study, the heat Nusselt number and friction factor between the rough surface and
transfer coefficient correlation of the hot stream for the smooth surface smooth surface. It is used to evaluate the heat transfer enhancement for
plate (30° and 60° chevron angle) is generated based on the modified plate heat exchangers with different chevron angles and surface
Wilson plot technique [21]. roughness, as in the following equation
Nu/ Nus
3.2. Friction factor TPF =
(f / fs )1/3 (11)
Frictional pressure drop (ΔPF) is calculated by subtracting the
pressure loss at the inlet and outlet section (ΔPM) [22] and the grav-
4. Results and discussion
itation pressure drop (ΔPG) from the total pressure drop (ΔPT), as shown
in the following equation:
4.1. Validation
ΔPF = ΔPT − ΔPM − ΔPG (5)
The experimental data of the Nusselt number and pressure drop for
The gravitational pressure drop and pressure loss at the inlet and
smooth plates with chevron angles of 30° and 60° are presented and
outlet are determined by
compared with previous exiting correlations in Fig. 3. It is found that
gL the Nusselt number increases in direct proportion with an increasing
ΔPG =
υ (6) Reynolds number. The tendency lines of the predicted data and mea-
sured data are consistent. The mean absolute deviations (MAD) of the
V 2
ΔPM ≅ 1.5 ⎛ ⎞ ⎜ ⎟
30° chevron angle plate are 11.15% and 16.23% for predicting using
⎝ 2υ ⎠ (7) the correlations of Nilpueng and Wonwises [11] and Khan et al. [6],
respectively. The Nusselt number correlations of Khan et al. [6] and
Friction factor (f) can be estimated from the equation:
Kakac [23] for the 60° chevron angle plate yield mean absolute de-
ΔPF viations of 7.97% and 27.23% with the measured data.
f=
V2 L
(
4 ρ 2 DH ) (8)
The comparison of frictional pressure drop in Fig. 4 found that
correlations give acceptable predictions with the measured data. Both
When the calculated and measured pressure drops are proportional to the
square of the water velocity. Calculated data for the 30° chevron angle
2wbc plate obtained from Nilpueng and Wonwises [11] and Kakac [23] yield
DH =
w + bc (9) mean absolute deviations of 10.79% and 24.76% with the measured
where V is the water velocity, L is the vertical length from the inlet port data. The mean absolute deviations between the measured data and
to the outlet port, ρ is the density of the water, υ is the specific volume calculated data of the 60° chevron angle plate are 35.9% and 32.55%
of the water, DH is the hydraulic diameter, w is the plate width inside when compared with the correlations of Muley and Manglik [24] and
the gasket, and bc is the mean spacing between the plates. Talik et al. [25], respectively. According to the comparison result be-
tween the measured data and previous correlations in Figs. 3 and 4, it
can be confirmed that the present results are reasonably accurate.
3.3. Pumping power

Pumping power (Pp) that is used to circulate the water flow inside
the plate heat exchanger can be calculated from
ṁ ΔPT
Pp =
ρ (10)
4.2. Heat transfer characteristics
The influence of water velocity, chevron angle, and surface rough-
ness on the heat transfer coefficient is shown in Fig. 5. Based on the
present data, the average relative uncertainties of the heat transfer

205
K. Nilpueng et al. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 91 (2018) 201–209

100 leads to high disturbance of water inside the plate heat exchanger.
o Therefore, the heat transfer coefficient increases when the surface
Measured data for smooth surface (Chevron angle 30 )
o
Measured data for smooth surface (Chevron angle 60 )
roughness is increased.
80 Under the same surface roughness and water velocity, it is found
Frictional Pressure Drop (kPa)

-0.074 0.138 o
f = 0.88Re ( DH) (Chevron angle 25

f = 2.99Re
-0.183
(Chevron angle 30
o
]
from Fig. 5 that the smaller chevron angle plate yields a higher heat
f = 2.48Re
-0.20
(Chevron angle 60
o
] transfer coefficient. This is because the recirculation flow inside the
60
f = 0.3323Re
-0.042
(Chevron angle 60
o
] plate heat exchanger is mainly related to the corrugation configuration
and chevron pattern. Under a similar corrugation configuration, the
recirculation flow at the trough is higher when the chevron angle plate
40
is smaller [19,20]. An increase of recirculation flow results in higher
turbulence of water flow inside the channel. Therefore, the heat transfer
coefficient is enhanced. Regarding the ratio of the heat transfer coef-
20
ficients of 30° and 60° chevron plates (h30°/h60°) in Fig. 6, it is gradually
decreased as water velocity is increased. The result shows that the
average of the heat transfer coefficient ratio is 2.51, and the highest
0
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 ratio of the heat transfer coefficient occurred at high surface roughness
and low water velocity.
Water Velocity (m/s)

Fig. 4. Comparison of the experimental data of frictional pressure drop for smooth sur- 4.3. Flow characteristics
face plate heat exchanger with the calculation result from previous correlation.

The effect of water velocity, surface roughness, and chevron angle

coefficient are ± 14.8%. It is found that an increase in water velocity on the frictional pressure drop inside a plate heat exchanger is depicted
causes the enhancement of the heat transfer coefficient. That is, the in Fig. 7. As expected, the frictional pressure drop increased when the
heat transfer coefficient is increased about 96.69%–98.62% and water velocity and surface roughness increased. The decrease of the
84.49%–91.50% for chevron angles 60° and 30°, respectively. This is chevron angle cause a higher pressure drop. This can be explained by
because the recirculation flow of water at the troughs of the corrugated the recirculation flow at the trough and friction between water flow and
channel [19,20] is higher when the water velocity is increased. The plate surface. That is, the higher water velocity and smaller chevron
recirculation flow produces the high turbulence of water flow inside the angle cause an increase in the recirculation flow at the trough, while the
plate heat exchanger and leads to an enhancement of the heat transfer higher surface roughness leads to an enhancement of friction between
coefficient. water flow and plate surface. These effects produce an increased pres-
Considering the effect of surface roughness at the same chevron sure drop inside the plate heat exchanger.
angle and water velocity, it is found that the heat transfer coefficient is In terms of the effect of the Reynolds number on the friction factor,
enhanced as the surface roughness is increased. The heat transfer in Fig. 8, it can be seen that the friction factor slightly changed when
coefficient of the 60° chevron angle with a rough surface is higher than the Reynolds number varied. However, the friction factor increased
that of the 60° chevron angle with smooth surface by 4.04%, 7.23%, with an increase in surface roughness and a decrease in the chevron
and 9.56% for surface roughness of 1.63, 2.17, and 2.75 μm, respec- angle. It is also observed that the flow phenomenon at Reynolds number
tively. Similarly, the heat transfer coefficient of the 30° chevron angle higher than 2300 is similar to the fully rough turbulent single-phase
with a rough surface is enhanced by 5.55%, 12.77%, and 21.92% for flow inside the pipe. That is, under this conditions, friction factor is
surface roughness of 1.63, 2.17, and 2.75 μm, comparing to 30° chevron almost constant when Reynolds number is increased. Under the testing
angle with smooth surface. This is due to the fact that the surface conditions, the average relative uncertainty of the friction factor
roughness disturbed the water flow close to the plate surface and main is ± 8.21%.
flow inside the flow channel. That is, a high surface roughness plate The effect of water velocity on the ratio of pumping power between

Fig. 5. Relationship between heat transfer coefficient and water

40000
velocity.
o
Chevron angle 60
= 0.95 m (smooth surface)
= 1.63 m
Heat transfer coefficient (W/m2oC)

= 2.17 m
30000
= 2.75 m
o
Chevron angle 30
= 0.94 m (smooth surface)
= 1.62 m
= 2.18 m
20000 = 2.77 m

10000

0
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7
Water Velocity (m/s)

206
K. Nilpueng et al. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 91 (2018) 201–209

4.0 Fig. 6. Relationship between ratio of heat transfer coefficient and

water velocity.
Surface roughness
Heat transfer coefficient ratio (h 30o / h60o)

= 0.95 m (smooth surface)

3.5 = 1.62 m
= 2.18 m
= 2.77 m

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7
Water Velocity (m/s)

60 the 30° and 60° chevron plates (PP,30o/PP,60o) is presented in Fig. 9. The
o
Chevron angle 60 result shows that the pumping power ratio alternated between 1.5 and
= 0.95 m (smooth surface)
50 = 1.63 m 2. The pumping power ratio increases when the water velocity and
= 2.17 m surface roughness increase. However, at water velocities higher than
Frictional Pressure Drop (kPa)

= 2.75 m
0.4 m/s, the pumping power ratio is almost constant when the water
40 Chevron angle 30
o
velocity change. It can be explained by fully rough turbulent flow
= 0.94 m (smooth surface)
phenomenon at high Reynolds number (V > 0.4 m/s). That is, friction
= 1.62 m
30 = 2.18 m factor of 30° and 60° chevron plates at the same surface roughness is
= 2.77 m almost constant. This lead to the slight change of the pressure drop ratio
and pumping power ratio when increasing the water velocity.
20

4.4. Plate heat exchanger performance

10

To find the optimum performance of a plate heat exchanger, the

0 thermal performance factor, which is the ratio of the Nusselt number
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 and the friction factor of the rough surface plate and smooth surface
Water Velocity (m/s) plate ((Nu/Nus)/(f/fs)1/3), is developed based on the criterion for per-
Fig. 7. Relationship between frictional pressure drop and water velocity.
formance evaluation by Webb [26]. The thermal performance factors of
the 30° and 60° chevron angles are presented in Fig. 10. It is apparent

3.0 Fig. 8. Relationship between friction factor and Reynolds number.

o o
Chevron angle 60 Chevron angle 30
= 0.95 m (smooth surface) = 0.94 m (smooth surface)
2.5 = 1.63 m = 1.62 m
= 2.17 m = 2.18 m
= 2.75 m = 2.77 m

2.0
Friction factor ( f )

1.5

1.0

.5

0.0
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Reynolds number (Re)

207
K. Nilpueng et al. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 91 (2018) 201–209

3.0 250
Surface roughness
= 0.95 m (smooth surface)
Pumping power ratio (P P,30o / PP60o)

= 1.62 m
2.5 = 2.18 m
= 2.77 m 200

Calculated Nusselt number

+ 15 %

2.0
150

- 15 %

1.5
100

1.0
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7
50
Water Velocity (m/s)

Fig. 9. Relationship between pumping power ratio and water velocity.

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
1.6
Measured Nusselt number
o o
Chevron angle 60 Chevron angle 30
1.5 = 1.63 m = 1.62 m Fig. 11. Measured Nusselt number versus calculated Nusselt number.
= 2.17 m = 2.18 m
Thermal Performance Factor

= 2.75 m = 2.77 m
f = 1.98Re−0.237 (ε / DH )0.168 (β /30)−0.903 (13)
1.4

for 1200 < Re < 3500; 5.39 < Pr < 5.65; 0.95 μm < ε < 2.75 μm.
1.3 As shown in Figs. 11 and 12, the measured data of the Nusselt
number and friction factor are plotted against the proposed correla-
tions. The measured data obtained from previous researchers [6,11] are
1.2
also compared. The predicted results show good agreement with the
experimental data. The mean absolute deviations of prediction are
1.1 4.47% and 5.69% for the Nusselt number and friction factor, respec-
tively. It is also found that all the experimental data of the Nusselt
number and friction factor fall within 15% of the proposed correlation.
1.0
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Reynolds number (Re)

Fig. 10. Relationship between thermal performance factor and Reynolds number. 1.4

that the enhancement of the thermal performance factor is caused by an

increase in the surface roughness and a decrease in the chevron angle. 1.2
In terms of the thermal performance factor at Re < 2300, it increased + 15 %
Calculated friction factor

when the Reynolds number decreased. However, the thermal perfor-

1.0
mance factor was almost constant when Re > 2300. This means that
the Reynolds number has an insignificant effect on the thermal per-
formance factor at a high Reynolds number (Re > 2300). Under the - 15 %
.8
testing conditions, the average thermal performance factors are 1.09
and 1.02 for the 30° and 60° chevron angles, respectively. The optimum
thermal performance factor was obtained at the 30° chevron angle, .6
2.77 μm surface roughness, and the lowest Reynolds number.

.4
4.5. Nusselt number and friction factor correlation

Based on the present data, correlation of Nusselt number and fric- .2

tion factor under the different surface roughness and chevron angles are
proposed to be useful in practical applications. The proposed correla-
0.0
tion is generated as a function of the Reynolds number, Prandtl number, 0.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4
relative roughness, and chevron angle, as follows:
Measured friction factor
Nu = 0.343Re0.604Pr 0.33 (ε / DH )0.133 (β /30)−1.327 (12)
Fig. 12. Measured friction factor versus calculated friction factor.

208
K. Nilpueng et al.
5. Conclusions
The effects of the chevron angle and surface roughness under dif-
ferent working conditions on the performance characteristics of single-
phase water flow inside a plate heat exchanger are investigated. A
commercial gasket plate heat exchanger with plate surface roughness
ranging from 0.95 μm to 2.75 μm and different chevron angles of 30°
and 60° are used. The testing conditions are run at Reynolds numbers
ranging from 1200 to 3500. The experimental results indicate that the
chevron angle and surface roughness have a significant effect on the
increase in the heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop. The heat
transfer coefficient and pressure drop of the 30° chevron angle are
higher than those of the 60° chevron angle by about 2.51 times and 1.87
times, respectively. Under the testing conditions, it is also found that
the optimum thermal performance factor occurred with the 30° chevron
angle with the highest surface roughness and lowest Reynolds number.
Based on the experimental data, correlations of the Nusselt number and
friction factor at the different surface roughness and chevron angles are
proposed for practical applications with mean absolute deviations of
prediction of 4.47% and 5.69%.
Acknowledgement
The first, second and fourth authors acknowledge the support pro-
vided by the “Research Chair Grant” National Science and Technology
Development Agency (NSTDA), the Thailand Research Fund (TRF) and
King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi through the
“KMUTT 55th Anniversary Commemorative Fund”. The third and
fourth authors would like to thank National Research Council of
Thailand and National Research Foundation of Korea for providing the
financial support between their research cooperation.
References
[1] V. Kumar, A.K. Tiwari, S.K. Ghosh, Effect of chevron angle on heat transfer per-
formance in plate heat exchanger using ZnO/water nanofluid, Energy Convers.
Manag. 118 (2016) 142–154.
[2] Z.-J. Luan, G.-M. Zhang, M.-C. Tian, M.-X. Fan, Flow resistance and heat transfer
characteristics of a new–type plate heat exchanger, J. Hydrodyn. 20 (4) (2008)
524–529.
[3] R.Y. Miura, F.C. Galeazzo, C.C. Tadini, J.W. Gut, The effect of flow arrangement on
the pressure drop of plate heat exchangers, Chem. Eng. Sci. 63 (2008) 5386–5393.
[4] A. Durmus, H. Benli, I. Kurtbas, H. Gul, Investigation of heat transfer and pressure
drop in plate heat exchangers, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 52 (2009) 1451–1457.
[5] M. Kim, Y.-J. Baik, S.-R. Park, H.-S. Ra, H. Lim, Experimental study on corrugated
cross-flow air-cooled plate heat exchangers, Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 34 (2010)
1265–1272.
209
International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 91 (2018) 201–209
[6] T.S. Khan, M.S. Khan, M.-C. Chyu, Z.H. Ayub, Experimental investigation of single
phase convective heat transfer coefficient in a corrugated plate heat exchanger for
multiple plate configurations, Appl. Therm. Eng. 30 (2010) 1058–1065.
[7] M. Faizal, M.R. Ahmed, Experimental studies on a corrugated plate heat exchanger
for small temperature difference applications, Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 36 (2011)
242–248.
[8] I. Gherasim, M. Taws, N. Galanis, C.T. Nguyen, Effects of smooth longitudinal
passages and port configuration on the flow and thermal fields in a plate heat ex-
changer, Appl. Therm. Eng. 31 (2011) 4113–4124.
[9] C. Gulenoglu, F. Akturk, S. Aradag, N.S. Uzol, S. Kakac, Experimental comparison of
performances of three different plates for gasketed plate heat exchangers, Int. J.
Therm. Sci. 75 (2014) 249–256.
[10] J. Lee, K.-S. Lee, Flow characteristics and thermal performance in chevron type
plate heat exchangers, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 78 (2014) 699–706.
[11] K. Nilpueng, S. Wongwises, Experimental study of single-phase heat transfer and
pressure drop inside a plate heat exchanger with a rough surface, Exp. Thermal
Fluid Sci. 68 (2015) 268–275.
[12] K. Sarraf, S. Launay, L. Tadrist, Complex 3D-flow analysis and corrugation angle
effect in plate heat exchangers, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 94 (2015) 126–138.
[13] J. Lee, K.-S. Lee, Friction and Colburn factor correlations and shape optimization of
chevron-type plate heat exchangers, Appl. Therm. Eng. 89 (2015) 62–69.
[14] V. Dvorak, T. Vit, Numerical investigation of counter flow plate heat exchanger, 7th
international conference on sustainability in energy and buildings, Energy Procedia
83 (2015) 341–349.
[15] O. Giurgiu, A. Pleșa, L. Socaciu, Plate heat exchangers - flow analysis through mini
channels, sustainable solutions for energy and environment, EENVIRO - YRC 2015,
Energy Procedia 85 (2016) 244–251.
[16] P. Satitchaicharoen, S. Wongwises, Two-phase flow pattern maps for vertical up-
ward gas–liquid flow in mini-gap channels, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 30 (2004)
225–236.
[17] M. Pipathattakul, O. Mahian, A. Selim Dalkilic, S. Wongwises, Effects of the gap size
on the flow pattern maps in a mini-gap annular channel, Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 57
(2014) 420–424.
[18] Y.-H. Lin, G.-C. Li, C.-Y. Yang, An experimental observation of the effect of flow
direction for evaporation heat transfer in plate heat exchanger, Appl. Therm. Eng.
88 (2015) 425–432.
[19] K. Nilpueng, S. Wongwises, Flow pattern and pressure drop of vertical upward
gas–liquid flow in sinusoidal wavy channels, Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 30 (2006)
523–534.
[20] K. Nilpueng, S. Wongwises, Two-phase gas–liquid flow characteristics inside a plate
heat exchanger, Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 34 (2010) 1217–1229.
[21] R.K. Shah, Compact heat exchangers, in: W.M. Rohsenow, J.P. Partnett, E.N. Ganic
(Eds.), Handbook of Heat Transfer Applications, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1985, pp.
209–212.
[22] R.K. Shah, W.W. Focke, Plate heat exchangers and their design theory, in:
R.K. Shah, et al. (Ed.), Heat Transfer Equipment Design, Hemisphere, Washington,
1988, pp. 227–254.
[23] S. Kakac, S. Liu, Heat Exchangers Selection, Rating and Thermal Design, CRC, USA,
2002 (Chapter 10).
[24] A. Muley, R.M. Manglik, Experimental investigation of heat transfer enhancement
in a PHE with β = 60° chevron plates, Heat and Mass Transfer, Tata McGraw-Hill,
New Delhi, India, 1995, p. 737.
[25] A.C. Talik, L.W. Swanson, Heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics of a plate
heat exchanger using a propylene-glycol/water mixture as the working fluid, Proc.
30th Natl. Heat Transfer Conf, 12 1995, p. 83.
[26] R.L. Webb, Performance evaluation criteria for use of enhanced heat transfer sur-
faces in heat exchanger design, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 24 (4) (1981) 715–726.