Applied Thermal Engineering 73 (2014) 1510e1518

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

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

Experimental investigation on microchannel condensers with and

without liquidevapor separation headers
T.M. Zhong, Y. Chen*, W.X. Zheng, N. Hua, X.L. Luo, Q.C. Yang, S.P. Mo, L.S. Jia
Guangdong Province Key Laboratory on Functional Soft Matter, Faculty of Materials and Energy, Guangdong University of Technology,
Guangzhou 510006, China

h i g h l i g h t s

A new liquidevapor separation microchannel condenser (LSMC) is presented.

Pressure drop of LSMC is half of parallel flow microchannel condenser (PFMC).

Heat transfer coefficient of LSMC exceeds PFMC at high mass flux and quality.

The LSMC shows an excellent combined thermodynamic performance than the PFMC.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: To enhance heat transfer in microchannels during condensation by improving the refrigerant average
Received 14 January 2014 quality, a new liquidevapor separation microchannel condenser (LSMC) is presented in this paper.
Received in revised form Compared with the common parallel flow microchannel condenser (PFMC), the LSMC has a pair of
13 August 2014
headers that can drain away the condensate after each pass. The in-tube heat transfer coefficient and
Accepted 21 August 2014
pressure drop of the two kinds of microchannel condensers with similar heat transfer areas are
Available online 30 August 2014
compared under mass fluxes that range from 450 kg/(m2s) to 770 kg/(m2s), heat fluxes that range from
1.5 kW/m2 to 2.45 kW/m2, and condensing temperatures that range from 45  C to 50  C. Results show
Keywords:
Liquid-vapor separation
that the average heat transfer coefficient (AHTC) of the LSMC exceeds that of the PFMC when the mass
Microchannel condenser flux is more than 590 kg/(m2s) or the average quality is more than 0.57. The pressure drop of the LSMC
Heat transfer greatly reduces by 30.5%e52.6% of the PFMC. The combined thermodynamic performance of the LSMC is
Thermodynamic performance better than that of the PFMC based on the ranking through the penalty factor and minimum entropy
generation number.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction multiport microchannels. Microchannel condensers are already

Condensers play an important role in refrigeration and air con-
ditioning systems. The air-cooled condensers of domestic air-
conditioning units and heat pumps are the widely prevalent do-
mains of in-tube condensation. Fin-and-tube heat exchanger is the
usual geometry, with the inner tube diameter commonly ranging
from 7 mm to 9.5 mm. Aside from the common fin-and-tube heat
exchangers, another emerging technology for internal condensation
in domestic units is the utilization of flat extruded aluminum
* Corresponding author. Faculty of Materials and Energy, Guangdong University
of Technology, Guangzhou Higher Education Mega Center, No. 100 Wai huan Xi
Road, Panyu District, Guangzhou 510006, Guangdong, China. Tel./fax: þ86 20
39322581.
E-mail address: chenying@gdut.edu.cn (Y. Chen).
used in automobile air conditioning. The advantages of these con-
densers over the traditional fin-and-tube condensers includes
compactness, reduced air side pressure drop, and reduced refrig-
erant charge, which makes them beneficial in terms of environ-
mental effect in case of a leakage [1]. Compared with a plate-type
condenser with a similar heat transfer area, the overall heat transfer
coefficient of the minichannel heat exchanger is 62% higher than
that of the plate-type condenser, even with 23% less refrigerant [2].
In recent decades, many investigations on condensation in
microchannels have reported that the average AHTC is determined
by refrigerant mass flux, local quality, heat flux, and condensation
temperature [3e5]. Yan [6] investigated the AHTC inside a small I.D
2.0 mm tube and found that the AHTC increases by over 1.5 times
when the average vapor quality ranges from 0.16 to 0.94 at a
condensing temperature of 40  C and a mass flux of 200 kg/(m2s).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.08.047
1359-4311/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 T.M. Zhong et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 73 (2014) 1510e1518
Nomenclature
Abbreviation
LSMC liquidevapor separation microchannel condenser
PFMC parallel flow microchannel condenser
PF penalty factor
AHTC average heat transfer coefficient
Ns minimum entropy generation number
Symbols
Ha height of microchannel tube [mm]
L length of microchannel tube [mm]
r density [kg/m3]
cp isobaric heat capacity [J/(kg k)]
m mass flow rate [kg/s]
G mass flux [kg/(m2s)]
A total heat transfer area [m2]
DP pressure drop [kPa]
a heat transfer coefficient [W/(m2k)]
DTdr driving temperature difference [K]
H specific enthalpy (J kg1)
S entropy (J/K)
Subsequently, the investigators compared the data with those in the
smooth I.D 8.0 mm tube, which were obtained by Eckels [7], where
the AHTC inside the small pipe is evidently 10% higher than the I.D
8.0 mm pipe in analogous conditions. Cavallini [8] tested the
condensation of R134a in a smooth I.D 8.0 mm tube, where the ob-
tained AHTC increases by about 85% when the mass flux ranges from
100 kg/(m2s) to 400 kg/(m2s) at a condensing temperature of 40  C.
The AHTC increases by about 92% when the vapor quality increases
from 0.1 to 0.8 at a mass flux of 400 kg/(m2s). Matkovic [9] measured
the condensation of R134a in a 0.96 mm diameter microchannel
under the same experimental conditions. The investigators found
that the AHTC increases by over 1.3 times when the mass flux ranges
from 100 kg/(m2s) to 400 kg/(m2s), and the AHTC rises by about 1.6
times when the vapor quality increases from 0.2 to 0.8. Evidently, the
mass flux and the vapor quality affect the AHTC more in the micro-
channels than that in the conventional tubes. Sakamatapan et al. [10]
studied other factors on the condensation heat transfer in micro-
channels, where the condensation heat transfer coefficient in the
minichannels with hydraulic diameters of 1.2 and 1.1 mm at the heat
flux of 25 kW/m2 is higher than at the 15 and 20 kW/m2. In addition,
the heat transfer coefficient at the condensing temperature of 35  C is
higher than at the 40 and 45  C.
The vapor quality and mass flux also affect the pressure drop in
the microchannels during condensation, which is similar to the ef-
fects in normal-sized tubes. Yang [11] measured the two phase
pressure drop of R-12 in the minichannels of hydraulic diameters of
1.56 and 2.64 mm under mass flux of 400 kg/(m2s) to 1400 kg/(m2s)
and vapor qualities of 0.1e0.9. The results show that the pressure
drops sharply with the increase in vapor quality and mass flux.
Chang [12] tested the pressure drops of R134a in a single circular I.D
1.7 mm microtube. The pressure drops increase by about 1.2 times
when the mass flux changes from 450 kg/(m2s) to 850 kg/(m2s), and
the pressure drops increase by 1.7 times when the vapor quality
increases from 0.22 to 0.85 at the mass flux of 450 kg/(m2s). With
regard to the experimental results by Patil [13], who indicated that
the condensation pressure drop of R134a in a horizontal I.D 8.56 mm
tube increased by about 65% when the mass flux ranged from
450 kg/(m2s) to 850 kg/(m2s), the pressure drops in the micro-
channels seem to be more sensitive to mass fluxes. Compared with
1511
Hb width of microchannel tube [mm]
N tube number
d thickness of tube wall [mm]
x vapor quality
d diameter [m]
T thermodynamic temperature [K]
Q heat load [W]
q00 heat flux [W/m2]
Ai heat transfer area of tube pass [m2]
DTsr condensing temperature drop [K]
dp/dz unit length pressure drop[Pa/m]
Subscripts
v, l vapor, liquid
s saturate
pre, sub pre-cooler, sub-cooler
i tube side
gen generation
r, a refrigerant, air
m, tot average, total
in, out inlet, outlet
w tube wall
the results in the I.D 9.0 mm by Nualboonrueng [14], who indicated
that the pressure drop raised by about 1.5 times when the vapor
quality changed from 0.24 to 0.8 at the condensing temperature of
40  C and mass flux of 400 kg/(m2s), the effects of the average
quality of the pressure drops inside the tubes with either inner sizes
are equal. Sakamatapan [15] found that the mass flux, vapor quality,
and condensing temperature showed significant effects on pressure
drops, but the heat flux has only a slight effect on pressure drops.
Based on the above discussion, improving refrigerant vapor
quality can compensate for heat transfer reduction by lowering the
mass flux, which is helpful in lessening the inside pressure drop in
microchannels. Peng et al. [16] presented a novel method of aug-
menting the condensation heat transfer by improving the quality
through segmental drainage of the condensate. Zhong et al. [17]
successfully realized the enhancement principle in parallel flow
of fin-and-tube heat exchangers with a 7 mm inner diameter and
measured the combined thermal performance of a liquid vapor
separation condenser (LSC), and the advantages over the serpen-
tine coils and traditional parallel flow condensers (PFC) are
acknowledged. However, because of the relatively large inner
diameter of the tested heat transfer tubes, the multi-pass parallel
arrangement that is adopted by the LSC greatly decreases the mass
flux, which makes the AHTCs lower than the PFC at greater mass
fluxes and average qualities. Consequently, we recommend the
enhancement method for microchannel heat exchangers.
In this study, two kinds of multiport microchannel parallel flow
condensers with and without liquidevapor separation are inves-
tigated experimentally under some fixed conditions; the first kind
is the novel liquidevapor separation microchannel condenser
(LSMC) and the second kind is the traditional parallel flow micro-
channel condenser (PFMC), which have identical heat transfer
areas. The LSMC greatly resembles the PFMC in appearance, except
for the baffles in the headers. Some varied round holes are present
on the aluminous baffles in the LSMC, but these holes are inexistent
in the PFMC, as shown in Fig. 1(a) and (b), respectively. When the
refrigerant is cooled after the first pass and enters the header of the
LSMC, the condensate drops and passes through the holes in the
baffle, and then a thin film that covers these holes is formed to
prevent the vapor from passing through the holes. The vapor then
1512 T.M. Zhong et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 73 (2014) 1510e1518

Table 1
Parameters of the microchannel tubes and fins.

Items Size

Length of the microchannel tube (mm) 650

Width of the microchannel tube (mm) 16
Height of the microchannel tube (mm) 1.8
Hydraulic diameter microchannel (mm) 1.0
Pitch of the microchannel tube (mm) 10
Channel number of a tube 12
Thickness of the tube wall (mm) 0.30
Thickness of the channel baffles (mm) 0.20
I.D. of the header (LSMC and PFMC)/mm 18.0
Header length (LSMC and PFMC)/mm 480
Diameter/Number of holes on the second baffle 1 mm/3 and 1.5 mm/5
Diameter/Number of holes on the third baffle 1 mm/3 and 1.5 mm/2
Pitch of the fins (mm) 1.0
Thickness of the fins (mm) 0.12
Width of the fins (mm) 16
Height of the fins (mm) 8
Angle of the louver fins ( ) 20
Slit length of the louver fins (mm) 6.50
Slit pitch of the louver fins (mm) 1.30

and PFMC. The AHTC is calculated through an iteration procedure by

Fig. 1. (a) LSMC and (b) PFMC.
enters the next pass and is cooled further. Unlike in the LSMC, the
increasing condensate would go through each pass in the whole
microchannel together with the vapor refrigerant in the PFMC.
Compared with the two condensers, each tube pass evidently
maintains a high average vapor quality in the LSMC, which helps
enhance the heat transfer coefficient. Obviously, the reduced mass
flux from the condensate drainage weakens the heat transfer;
however, the reduction of the in-tube pressure drop benefits from
the reduced mass flux. The heat transfer and pressure drop need to
be balanced. This study answers the question of how much the
liquidevapor separation method could improve the combined
thermal performance of the microchannel condensers.
2. The structure of the condensers
The pass scheme of a multipass parallel flow microchannel
condenser is often the key factor in determining the thermody-
namic performance of the condenser [18,19]. The pass scheme in-
cludes two geometrical parameters, namely, the tube pass number
and the tube number per pass. Obtaining the optimal tube-pass
scheme first under known conditions is necessary. The given con-
ditions are listed as follows:
adopting the Koyama model [21]. Moreover, the total in-tube pres-
sure drop is the sum of the friction pressure drop, as calculated by
the Zhang model [22], and the partial pressure drop, as calculated by
the Payne model [23]. After obtaining the AHTCs and the pressure
drops of all the tube schemes, the penalty factor (PF) proposed by
Cavallini [24] is applied to rank the AHTCs and the pressure drops.
The 30 results are superior to all the schemes that are listed in
Table 2. The optimum tube scheme is granted to the condenser that
has the smallest PF value. Thus, the optimum scheme is the one with
4 tube passes, that is, tube numbers 19, 12, 9, and 8 in ascending
order of the tube passes for the two condensers.
Notably, the optimized number and diameters of the holes on
the baffles of each pass cannot be obtained by using the current
theoretical method. Forty-five condenser samples with different
baffles are tested, and the detailed parameters of the best
condenser are listed in Table 1, which presents a reasonable tem-
perature distribution along the headers.
3. Experimental investigation
3.1. Experimental apparatus and uncertainty
The experimental system that is proposed by Zhong et al. [17] is
applied in this study. To obtain the diabatic tube wall temperature,
Table 2
PF of 30 advantageous tube pass schemes.
Schemes Results/PF Schemes Results/PF
(LSMC&PFMC) (LSMC&PFMC)

14-10-10-8-6 22.12 & 34.63 19-12-9-8 12.61 & 22.04

1. The heat transfer areas of the two condensers are similar, and 13-10-10-8-7 20.74 & 32.78 19-11-9-9 12.70 & 22.86
the total tube number is set at 48. The dimensions of the 12-11-9-8-8 18.90 & 29.31 18-15-8-7 14.04 & 24.57
11-10-10-9-8 18.28 & 29.97 18-14-8-8 13.54 & 23.53
microchannel are listed in Table 1. 10-10-10-10-8 19.82 & 30.83 18-13-9-8 12.82 & 22.50
2. R134a is employed as a refrigerant, the condensing temperature 21-13-8-6 17.43 & 29.11 18-12-9-9 13.14 & 23.61
is assumed as 45  C, and the inlet mass flux is set at 635 kg/(m2s). 21-12-8-7 17.32 & 27.17 18-11-10-9 13.30 & 23.92
3. The heat load is fixed at 1.9 kW. 21-10-9-8 15.69 & 25.68 12-12-12-12 15.70 & 25.99
20-13-8-7 16.30 & 26.86 26-14-8 16.37 & 26.89
4. The inlet vapor qualities of the two condensers are set at 1.0. For
20-12-8-8 16.10 & 25.41 25-14-9 14.80 & 25.69
the LSMC, the quality at the entrance of each tube pass is 20-11-9-8 14.85 & 24.61 24-14-10 14.02 & 24.38
assumed as 1.0 after the liquidevapor separation. 20-10-9-9 14.94 & 24.92 22-14-12 13.13 & 23.15
19-15-8-6 15.24 & 26.30 20-16-12 14.28 & 24.71
A stepwise iteration method that was presented by Hua et al. [20] 19-14-8-7 14.18 & 24.45 18-16-14 15.58 & 25.88
19-13-8-8 13.22 & 22.82 16-16-16 15.70 & 25.95
is adopted here to calculate the optimal tube pass scheme of LSMC
 T.M. Zhong et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 73 (2014) 1510e1518 1513

96 T-type thermocouples are welded on the surface of both ends of Table 3

the finned tubes, as shown in Fig. 2. The uncertainties of the Uncertainties of the apparatus.

apparatus are shown in Table 3. Items Type Range Accuracy

During the tests, the ambient atmospheric temperature is set as Air flow meters Differential 0 Pae800 Pa ±1.0%
a constant value (dry/wet bulb temperatures are 35  C/23.9  C). pressure gage
Moreover, several experimental conditions such as the condensing Mass flow meter Coriolis effect 0 kg/s to 0.2 kg/s ±0.15%
temperature and mass flow rate can be regulated according to the Pt-100 TR/02010 50  C to 200  C ±0.15 K
Thermocouple Type-T 200  Ce350  C ±0.5 K
operational conditions, as shown in Table 4. Changing the heat load
Volumetric flow meter Magnetic 0 m3/h to 6.361 m3/h ±0.17%
in the precooler ensures that the refrigerant at the inlet of the test Pressure transducer Strain-gage 0 MPae1.6 MPa ±0.5%
section can adjust to the given vapor quality during condensation.
However, adjusting the air volume flow rate through the condenser
can make the test section maintain a series of constant heat fluxes. Table 4
When the heat loads between the refrigerant side and the air side Operational conditions.
approach a balance (the data between both sides are within 5%), the
Items Range
automatic recorder begins to store data every 5 s. The experimental
results would then be obtained from the available data collected Refrigerant R134a
Condensing temperature ( C) 45 and 50
within more than 35 min after achieving the thermal energy Heat flux (kW/m2) 1.5/1.9/2.45
balance. Inlet mass flux (kg/m2s) 450e770
Average vapor quality 0.28e0.72

3.2. Experiment uncertainty

In this study, the tube wall thickness and tube length un- sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2
certainties are determined through Type-A evaluation. The 1
UTw;m ¼ U 2Tw  96: (3)
condenser parameters are measured repeatedly 25 times, and the 96
standard deviation of the whole available data is adopted. More-
over, all the transducer uncertainties are determined through Type- The uncertainty of the mean condensing temperature that is
B evaluation. obtained from the inlet and outlet refrigerant temperatures is.
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3.2.1. Heat transfer area uncertainty of the microchannels UTr ;m ¼ 0:5U 2Tr : (4)
The heat transfer area of the microchannels is calculated as
The relative standard uncertainties of the finned tube wall
follows:
temperature and the condensing temperature are ±0.29% and
Ai ¼ NL½2ðHa  2dÞ þ 2ðHb  2dÞ: (1) ±0.61%, respectively.

Thus, the heat transfer area uncertainty of the inner tube is.
3.2.3. Heat load uncertainty
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2      2 The heat load on the condenser is conducted by using the air
vAi vAi 2 2 vAi 2 2 vAi side, which is calculated through the following:
UAi ¼ U 2L þ U Ha þ U Hb þ U 2d :
vL vHa vHb vd    
(2) Q ¼ Cp m a Ta;out  Ta;in : (5)

The relative standard uncertainty of Ai is ±1.87%. Thus, the heat load uncertainty is expressed as.
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u !2
3.2.2. Temperature uncertainty u vQ 2 
vQ
2
vQ
UQ ¼ t U 2ma þ U 2Ta;out þ U 2Ta;in : (6)
The uncertainty of the average finned tube wall temperature vma vTa;out vTa;in
(diabatic tube wall temperature, which is obtained through 96 test
points) is. The relative standard uncertainty of Q is ±1.43%.

Fig. 2. Installation method of thermocouples.

1514 T.M. Zhong et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 73 (2014) 1510e1518

3.2.4. Condensation heat transfer coefficient uncertainty where tr,m is the mean refrigerant temperature, and tw.m is the mean
The inside wall temperature is considered similar to that of the finned tube wall temperature.
external finned tube wall because of the thin tube wall and the high
conductivity of the aluminum material. The condensation heat 3.3.4. Pressure drop
transfer coefficient can be calculated by. The refrigerant pressure drop is calculated through the
Q following:
ai ¼ : (7)
Ai ðTr  Tw Þ
DP ¼ Pin  Pout : (16)
Thus, the heat transfer coefficient uncertainty is calculated as
follows: 3.3.5. Penalty factor
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi The PF [24] is applied to evaluate the combined thermal per-
 2  2  2  
vai vai vai vai 2 2 formance during condensation in the two condensers. The reduc-
Uai ¼ U 2Q þ U 2Ai þ U 2Tr þ U Tw : (8)
vQ vAi vTr vTw tion form is obtained through the following:
 
Therefore, the maximum relative uncertainty of the condensa- G$dh $Ts 1 1 dP
tion heat transfer coefficient is ±8.9%. PF ¼ DTsr $DTdr ¼  : (17)
4$ai rl rv dz

3.2.5. Pressure drop uncertainty The PF is composed of the condensing temperature drop DTsr,
The pressure drop uncertainty is. which is caused by the total pressure drop, and the differential
temperature between the saturation refrigerant and the in-tube
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
    wall DTdr, which is charged by the heat transfer efficiency and
vDP 2 vDP 2
UDp ¼  U 2Pin þ  U 2Pout : (9) pressure drop. dP/dz is the pressure drop of the unit length inside
vPin vPout
the condenser. A lower PF value means a better thermodynamic
Thus, the maximum refrigerant pressure drop uncertainty is performance for the condenser.
±2.15 kPa.
3.3.6. Minimum entropy generation number
3.3. Data reduction Saechan [25] indicated that the total entropy generation rate of
the air-cooled condenser is the total entropy generation rates of the
3.3.1. Average refrigerant quality refrigerant and the air. Thus, the minimum entropy generation
The entrance quality is calculated through the following: number (Ns) can be expressed as.
       
cin ¼ mr hpre;in  Qpre  mr hl;sat = mr hv;sat  mr hl;sat ; (10) Ns ¼ Sgen;a þ Sgen;r = Cp m a ; (18)

where hpre,in is the enthalpy of the refrigerant at the entrance of the where Sgen,a is the entropy generation rate on the air side, and Sgen,r
precooler, Qpre is the heat load on the precooler, and hv,sat and hl,sat is the entropy generation rate on the refrigerant side. These can be
are the enthalpies of the saturation vapor and saturation liquid, calculated respectively through the following equations:
respectively, according to the average saturation temperature of the        
tested section. Sgen;a ¼ mCp a ln Ta;o Ta;i  ðmRÞa ln Pa;o Pa;i (19)
The outlet quality is calculated through the following:
and
   
cout ¼ mr hsub;out þ Qsub  mr hl;sat = mr hv;sat  mr hl;sat ; (11)
Sgen;r ¼ Sr;out  Sr;in : (20)
where hsub,out is the enthalpy of the refrigerant that leaves the sub-
cooler, and Qsub is the heat load on the subcooler. Hence, the 4. Results and discussion
average refrigerant quality can be obtained through the following:
4.1. Average heat transfer coefficient
cm ¼ ðcin  cout Þ=2: (12)
Fig. 3 shows the in-tube average heat transfer coefficients that
3.3.2. Heat load vary with the inlet refrigerant mass flux of the two condensers at
The heat load at the air side and refrigerant side are calculated condensing temperatures of 45 and 50  C. The experimental results
respectively through the following equations: show that the AHTCs of the PFMC agree with the theoretical pre-
diction by the Koyama model [21], as represented by the solid and
 
Qa ¼ ra Va Cp;in Ta;in  Cp;out Ta;out (13) dashed lines. The theoretical AHTCs provide a maximum prediction
of 31.9% over the experimental results at the condensing temper-
and ature of 45  C and over 35.5% at the condensing temperature of
  50  C. The AHTCs of the two condensers increased significantly
Qr ¼ mr hr;in  hr;out : (14) when the mass flux is 450 kg/(m2s) to 770 kg/(m2s) at both
condensing temperatures. Moreover, the AHTCs of the LSMC are
All the refrigerant properties are according to the REFPROP 7.0
always less than those of the PFMC at lower mass fluxes, but the
software.
AHTCs of the LSMC exceed those of the PFMC at larger mass fluxes.
For example, at the condensing temperature of 45  C, the AHTCs of
3.3.3. Average heat transfer coefficient
the LSMC were less than those of the PFMC when the mass flux was
less than 590 kg/(m2s), but the AHTCs of the LSMC exceeded those
   of the PFMC as the mass flux increased continuously. Finally, the
ai ¼ Q Ai tr;m  tw;m ; (15)
excess of the AHTCs reached more than 6.7% of the PFMC as the
 T.M. Zhong et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 73 (2014) 1510e1518
Fig. 3. Effect of condensing temperature on the in-tube AHTCs.
mass flux reached 770 kg/(m2s). When the inlet mass flux is min-
imal, the mass flux in the microchannel is also minimal. For the
LSMC, the in-tube mass flux would be even less because dis-
charging the condensate will continue, which greatly decreases the
condensation heat transfer ability. In this case, the improvement
quality cannot compensate for this decline to ensure lower AHTCs
in the LSMC. As the inlet mass flux increases, the effect of the liq-
uidevapor separation on the heat transfer becomes more promi-
nent. Thus, the AHTCs of the LSMC can exceed that of the PFMC at
greater inlet mass fluxes.
The average heat transfer coefficients of the two condensers
decrease as the saturation temperature rises. When the condensing
temperature increased from 45  C to 50  C, the AHTCs decrease by
5.4%e9.2% for the LSMC and by 5.2%e10.0% for the PFMC, respec-
tively. The rising condensing temperature inhibits the effect of the
mass flux. Thus, the mass flux corresponds to the equivalent AHTC
of the LMSC and PFMC became greater, that is 612 kg/(m2s) instead.
Fig. 4 shows the in-tube AHTCs of both condensers that vary
with respect to the average vapor quality that ranges from 0.28 to
0.72 and for the heat fluxes that range from 1.5 kW/m2 to 2.45 kW/
m2. The condensation heat transfer coefficients gradually decrease
as the quality also decrease, which resulted from the increasing
annular film thickness as condensation proceeds, and from the
reduced velocity because of the change from vapor to liquid. The
Fig. 4. Effect of heat flux on the in-tube AHTCs.
1515
increasing trend of the condensation heat transfer coefficient with
the heat fluxes is also shown in Fig. 4. The trend is higher by 8.7%e
13.2% for the LSMC when the heat flux rises from 1.5 kW/m2 to
2.45 kW/m2. Likewise, the trend was higher by 5.6%e11.7% for the
PFMC when the heat flux rose from 1.5 kW/m2 to 2.45 kW/m2.
Sakamatapan [10] and Yang [11] also observed this phenomenon,
which was inferred to result from the momentum increase of the
liquid and vapor phases.
Compared with the two condensers, the effect of the liquid-
evapor is clearly exhibited on the in-tube AHTCs. Despite the two
condensers having similar average quality (average of the inlet and
outlet) and inlet mass flux, the actual average quality and mass flux
in each microchannel of the two condensers were different. Obvi-
ously, the quality in the microchannels of LSMC is higher, but the
mass flux was lower after the first pass. Together, the two param-
eters affected the whole heat transfer of the two condensers. The
AHTCs of the LSMC increase faster than those of the PFMC as the
average vapor quality rises. Although the AHTCs of the LSMC are
smaller than those of the PFMC as the average quality is less than
0.62 at the heat flux of 1.5 kW/m2, the AHTCs of the LSMC surpass
those of the PFMC when the average quality rise continuously.
Notably, the heat transfer enhancement of the LSMC is evident at
the smaller average quality of about 0.57 at the heat flux of
2.45 kW/m2. At the maximum vapor quality of 0.72 under the
experimental conditions, the AHTCs of the LSMC are higher by 4.5%
and 4.0% than those of the PFMC at the heat flux of 2.45 and 1.5 kW/
m2, respectively. Thus, the average quality is attained only at a
considerable value, and the greater AHTCs of the LSMC are
obtained.
4.2. Pressure drop
Fig. 5 shows the total pressure drop of the two condensers at the
condensing temperatures of 45 and 50  C when the average vapor
quality is 0.7. The pressure drops of both condensers evidently in-
crease with the rising condensing temperatures. The experimental
results of the PFMC essentially agree with the theoretical calcula-
tion values by the Zhang [22] model and the Payne [23] correlation.
The results have an average deviation of 19.2% at the condensing
temperature of 45  C. The pressure drops in the PFMC increase
rapidly at the high inlet mass flux, but the pressure drops in the
LSMC increase at comparatively small rates. The pressure drops of
the LSMC were lower than those of PFMC, and these pressure drops
were only 48.6%e69.5% of the PFMC at the condensing temperature
Fig. 5. Effect of condensing temperature on the pressure drop.
1516 T.M. Zhong et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 73 (2014) 1510e1518

of 45  C, and 47.4%e61.7% of the PFMC at the condensing temper-

ature of 50  C. The reduction comes from the smaller mass flux in
the microchannels of the LSMC, which resulted from most of the
condensates draining away, thereby weakening the interface shear
force between the vapor and liquid phases. The condensing tem-
perature had obvious effects on the pressure drops in the two
condensers. The pressure drops were reduced by 13.8%e29.1%
when the condensing temperature rose from 45  C to 50  C in the
LSMC, and were reduced by 13.6%e19.9% in the PFMC.
The total pressure drop of the two condensers, which varies
with the average quality, is exhibited in Fig. 6, at the heat flux of 1.5
and 2.45 kW/m2. The pressure drop variations with the average
quality for the two condensers are different. The pressure drops in
the PFMC increase quickly at the greater average quality, but those
of the LSMC increase slowly. This phenomenon should contribute
to the reduction in the mass flux from the liquidevapor separation
in the heat transfer microchannel of the LSMC. Evidently, the total
pressure drops in the LSMC are lower than those of the PFMC at
either heat fluxes. The pressure drops in the LSMC are 16.8%e42.3% Fig. 7. Effect of condensing temperature on the PF.
lower than those of the PFMC at the heat flux of 1.5 kW/m2, and
16.1%e40.9% lower at the heat flux of 2.45 kW/m2. When the heat
flux improved, more condensate was drained out and the mass flux variation tendencies of the PF values are different; one tendency
in the microchannel of the LSMC reduced, which led to less pres- changed smoothly for the LSMC, and the other tendency rises
sure drops. However, the increased quality definitely raised the dramatically for the PFMC. The PF values of the LSMC are lower by
pressure drop because of the escalation in the sheer force between 8.9%e42.8% than those of the PFMC within the range of the average
the vapor and liquid refrigerants. The two opposite effects changed quality variation at the heat flux of 1.5 kW/(m2k), and are lower by
the pressure drop curve smoothly. 13.4%e42.5% at the heat flux of 2.5 kW/(m2k). When the heat flux
changed from 1.5 kW/(m2k) to 2.5 kW/(m2k), the PF of the PFMC
4.3. Penalty factor differed more significantly than that of the LSMC as the vapor
quality increased. Thus, heat flux can affect the PF values of the
Fig. 7 shows the PF variation of both condensers at two PFMC slightly more than the PF values of the LSMC.
condensing temperatures. The PF values of the LSMC are far lower Figs. 7 and 8 show that the LSMC shows a better thermodynamic
than those of the PFMC especially at greater mass fluxes. At the performance over the PFMC. This finding can be attributed to the
mass flux of 770 kg/(m2s), the PF values of the LSMC showed a less pressure drop along the microchannels and to the less tem-
maximum reduction of 52.7% and 55.2% than those of the PFMC at perature difference between the refrigerant and the tube wall of the
the condensing temperature of 45 and 50  C, respectively. In LSMC during condensation. The superiority of the thermodynamic
addition, the PF values of the LSMC at the condensing temperature performance of the LSMC was demonstrated excellently at the
of 50  C are 18.7%e32.0% lower than those at 45  C. However, the PF greater mass fluxes and higher average qualities.
values of the PFMC were only reduced by 17.3%e24.1% as the
condensing temperature rises to an identical variation. By contrast, 4.4. Minimum entropy generation number
the condensing temperature has a relatively larger influence on the
PF of the LSMC. Fig. 9 demonstrates the variation in the minimum entropy
Fig. 8 shows the increasing PF values of the two condensers as generation number (Ns) of both condensers with the mass flux at
the average quality rises at the two heat fluxes. However, the an average vapor quality of 0.7 and condensing temperatures of 45

Fig. 6. Effect of heat flux on the pressure drop. Fig. 8. Effect of heat flux on the PF.
 T.M. Zhong et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 73 (2014) 1510e1518
Fig. 9. Effect of condensing temperature on the Ns.
and 50  C. The Ns of the two condensers increased consistently as
the mass flux increases. The Ns increased gently in the LSMC,
which had only 31.5% and 26.2% increases as the mass flux ex-
pands from 450 kg/(m2s) to 770 kg/(m2s) at condensing temper-
atures of 45 and 50  C, respectively. However, for the PFMC, the Ns
increased to 62.9% and 42.6% under the same conditions. The
greater irreversibility in the PFMC is caused by the larger heat
transfer temperature difference. Compared with the two con-
densers, the Ns of the LSMC was about 13.9%e30.6% less than that
of the PFMC at the condensing temperature of 45  C and is lower
by 17.8%e27.2% at the condensing temperature of 50  C. Therefore,
we can conclude that the thermal performance of the LSMC is
evidently superior to that of the PFMC at higher condensing
temperatures.
Fig. 10 depicts the variation of the Ns with the vapor quality in
the multiport minichannels, at the condensing temperature of
45  C and the mass flux of 650 kg/(m2s) for different heat fluxes of
1.5 and 2.45 kW/m2. The Ns of both LSMC and PFMC increase
evidently as the vapor average quality decreased, and the increase
rate of the two condensers is well matched. In summary, the Ns of
the LSMC is lower than that of the PFMC at both heat fluxes. The Ns
of the LSMC was about 14.9%e18.7% lower than that of the PFMC at
the heat flux of 1.5 kW/m2 and 8.3%e16.1% lower at the heat flux of
2.45 kW/m2.
Fig. 10. Effect of heat flux on the Ns.
1517
5. Conclusions
This study mainly examines the heat transfer and flow charac-
teristics of R134a as this refrigerant flows inside a new liquid-
evapor separation microchannel condenser. Tests are conducted,
which cover several conditions, such as mass fluxes that range from
450 kg/(m2s) to 770 kg/(m2s), heat fluxes that range from 1.5 kW/
m2 to 2.45 kW/m2, and condensing temperatures of 45 and 50  C.
From these experimental results, PF ranking, and minimum entropy
generation number, the following conclusions are made:
1. The AHTC of the LSMC easily surpasses that of the PFMC when
the average vapor quality and mass flux reach considerably great
values. The mass flux that corresponds to the equal AHTC for
both condensers is less at the lower condensing temperature,
and the average quality that corresponds to the equal AHTC is
less at the greater heat flux.
2. The total pressure drop of the LSMC increases more slowly with
the mass flux and average quality than that of the PFMC. In
general, the pressure drops of the LSMC are less than about half
of those of the PFMC. The decreasing condensing temperature
and heat flux increase the pressure drop difference between the
two condensers.
3. The combined thermodynamic performance of the LSMC was
proven to be superior to that of the PFMC through Cavallini PF
and minimum entropy generation number. The maximum
reduction of the PF value between the two condensers is 52.7%
and 55.2%. The Ns of the LSMC is about 13.9%e30.6% less than
that of the PFMC at the condensing temperature of 45  C and
about 17.8%e27.2% less at the condensing temperature of
50  C.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by
the National Natural Science Foundation of China through grant no.
51376050 and by the Guangdong Natural Science Foundation
through grant no. S2013020012817.
References
[1] A. Cavallinia, G. Censia, D. Del Cola, L. Dorettia, G.A. Longob, L. Rossettoa,
C. Zilioa, Condensation inside and outside smooth and enhanced tubesda
review of recent research, Int. J. Refrig. 26 (2003) 373e392.
[2] W. Fernando, B. Palm, E. Granryd, K. Andersson, Mini-channel aluminium heat
exchangers with small inside volumes, in: 21st IIR International Congress of
Refrigeration, Washington DC, August 17e 22, 2003.
[3] W.W. Wang, Condensation and Single-phase Heat Transfer Coefficient and
Flow Regime Visualization in Microchannel Tubes for HFC-134a, Ph.D. thesis,
The Ohio State University, Columbus OH, 1999.
[4] A. Cavallini, G. Censi, D. Del Col, L. Doretti, G.A. Longo, L. Rossetto, C. Zilio,
Experimental investigation on condensation heat transfer coefficient inside
multi-port minichannels, in: 1st International Conference on Microchannels
and Minichannels, 2003, pp. 691e698. Paper No. ICMM2003e1088.
[5] J.R. Baird, D.F. Fletcher, B.S. Haynes, Local condensation heat transfer rates in
fine passages, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 46 (2003) 4453e4466.
[6] Y.Y. Yan, T.F. Lin, Condensation heat transfer and pressure drop of refrigerant
R134a in a small pipe, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 42 (1999) 697e708.
[7] S.J. Eckels, M.B. Pate, An experimental comparison of evaporation and
condensation heat transfer coefficients for HFC-134a and CFC-12, Int. J. Refrig.
14 (1991) 70e77.
[8] A. Cavallini, G. Censi, D. Del Col, L. Doretti, G.A. Longob, L. Rossettoa, Experi-
mental investigation on condensation heat transfer and pressure drop of new
HFC refrigerants(R134a, R125, R32, R410A, R236ea)in a horizontal smooth
tube, Int. J. Refrig. 24 (2001) 73e87.
[9] M. Matkovic, A. Cavallini, D. Del Col, L. Rossetto, Experimental study on
condensation heat transfer inside a single circular minichannel, Int. J. Heat
Mass Transf. 52 (2009) 2311e2323.
[10] K. Sakamatapan, J. Kaew-On, A.S. Dalkilic, M. Omid, W. Somchai, Condensation
heat transfer characteristics of R-134a flowing inside the multiport mini-
channels, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 64 (2013) 976e985.
1518 T.M. Zhong et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 73 (2014) 1510e1518
[11] C.Y. Yang, R.L. Webb, Condensation of R-12 in small hydraulic diameter
extruded aluminium tubes with and without micro-fins, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf. 39 (1996) 791e800.
[12] H.S. Chang, K.O. Hoo, Condensation pressure drop of R22, R134a and R410A in
a single circular microtube, Heat Mass Transf. 48 (2012) 1437e1450.
[13] P.A. Patil a, S.N. Sapali, Condensation pressure drop of HFC-134a and R-404A
in a smooth and micro-fin U-tube, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 35 (2011) 234e242.
[14] T. Nualboonrueng, S. Wongwises, Two-phase flow pressure drop of HFC-134a
during condensation in smooth and micro-fin tubes at high mass flux, Int.
Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 31 (2004) 991e1004.
[15] K. Sakamatapan, S. Wongwises, Pressure drop during condensation of R134a
flowing inside a multiport minichannel, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 75 (2014)
31e39.
[16] X.F. Peng, L. Jia, Z.S. Cheng, Equal Velocity Steam-liquid Heat Exchanger,
Taiwan, China, 2003, p. 188060.
[17] T. Zhong, Y. Chen, N. Hua, W. Zheng, X. Luo, S. Mo, In-tube performance
evaluation of an air-cooled condenser with liquid-vapor separator. Appl. En-
ergy. DOI Info: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.07.032.
[18] J. Pettersent, A. Hafner, G. Skaugen, Development of compact heat exchangers
for CO2 air-conditioning systems, Int. J. Refrig. 21 (1998) 180e193.
[19] C.Y. Park, P. Hrnjak, Experimental and numerical study on microchannel and
round tube condensers in a R410A residential air-conditioning system, Int. J.
Refrig. 31 (2008) 822e831.
[20] N. Hua, Y. Chen, E.X. Chen, L.S. Deng, Prediction and verification of the ther-
modynamic performance of vapor-liquid separation condenser, Energy 58
(2013) 384e397.
[21] S. Koyama, K. Kuwahara, K. Nakashita, K. Yamamoto, An experimental study
on condensation of refrigerantR134a in a multi-port extruded tube, Int. J.
Refrig. 24 (2003) 425e432.
[22] M. Zhang, A New Equivalent Reynolds Number Model for Vapor Shear-
controlled Controlled Condensation inside Smooth and Micro-fin Tubes,
Ph.D. thesis, Pennsylvania State College, PA, 1998.
[23] W.T. Payne, V.G. Nino, P.S. Hrnjak, T.A. Newell, Void Fraction and Pressure
Drop in Microchannels, ACRCTR-178, December 2000.
[24] A. Cavallini, In-tube condensation performance of refrigerants, in: 11th In-
ternational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference at Purdue, July 17
to July 20, 2006.
[25] P. Saechan, S. Wongwises, Optimal configuration of cross flow plate finned
tube condenser based on the second law of thermodynamics, Int. J. Therm. Sci.
47 (2008) 1473e1481.