International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 184 (2022) 122278

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

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

Numerical investigation of the effect of chevron angle on thermofluids

characteristics of non-mixed and mixed brazed plate heat exchangers
with experimental validation
Ali Sadeghianjahromi a,1, Alireza Jafari b,1, Chi-Chuan Wang a,∗
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu 30010, Taiwan
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Central University, Taoyuan City 320317, Taiwan

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

Article history: Effect of chevron angle on thermofluids characteristics of Brazed Plate Heat Exchangers (BPHEs) are stud-
Received 2 October 2021 ied experimentally and numerically. The simulations include the effects of brazing joints and inlet/outlet
Revised 5 November 2021
port distribution that were normally overlooked in the existing literature. Four types of non-mixed BPHEs
Accepted 16 November 2021
are considered with various chevron angles: L (35°), M (50°), H (65°), and LH (35°/65°). These four types
Available online 28 November 2021
of non-mixed BPHEs are combined in order to produce four types of mixed BPHEs: L+M, M+H, L+H, and
Keywords: LH+H. Results show that rise of chevron angle leads to the augmentation of Nusselt number and friction
Chevron angle factor. Hence, type H and type L have the maximum and the minimum Nusselt numbers and friction fac-
Brazed Plate Heat Exchanger tors among all non-mixed and mixed BPHEs. However, type H has the worst performance based on vol-
Correlation ume goodness factor method, while type M has the best performance among all modeled BPHEs followed
Numerical simulation by type L+M. Detailed flow study illustrates that rise of chevron angle leads to change in flow pattern
Friction factor
from chevron angle direction to zig-zag or straight direction, which causes increase in heat transfer rate
Nusselt number
and pressure drop. Correlations are developed for Nusselt number and friction factor of non-mixed and
mixed BPHEs in a wide range of Reynolds number between 50 and 10,0 0 0 with mean deviations of 9%.
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Hence, the development of highly compact plate heat exchang-

Heat exchangers are critical component in applications like heat
recovery, power transmission, petroleum, air conditioning, refriger-
ation, cryogenic, transportation, and process industries. The heat
exchanger is a device to transfer thermal energy from one fluid to
another at dissimilar temperatures and fluids are separated by a
separating wall.
In practice, the heat exchangers may consist of heat transfer
surface, fluid distribution elements, inlet and outlet nozzles and
pipes, etc. According to the configurations, the heat exchanger are
classified into tubular, plate type, extended surface, and regener-
ative exchangers [1]. In the present study, efforts are stressed on
the plate type heat exchangers. The plate type heat exchangers are
gradually replacing the tubular one for offering better heat transfer
performance while containing a much smaller surface area/volume
and lower pumping power. This provide special benefits in the
global market need upon the imminent crisis of climate change.
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ccwang@nycu.edu.tw (C.-C. Wang).
1
These authors contributed equally to this work.
ers (PHEs) are imperative for the industry [2]. PHEs are usually
composed of very thin plates, whose configurations can be ei-
ther corrugated or smooth. PHEs are classified as brazed, gasketed
and welded. Brazed plate Heat Exchangers (BPHEs) are compact
PHEs, which are designed for high temperature and high pres-
sure. BPHEs simply consist of numerous plates, which are usu-
ally stainless-steel, four nozzles, and two end plates. The stainless-
steel plates and nozzles are joined together using copper as braz-
ing material. However, for ammonia and corrosive medias, nickel
is used as brazing material. Brazing eliminates the need of gaskets
and frames, thereby resulting in a very compact heat exchanger.
The BPHEs are widely used heat exchangers, including evaporators
and condensers in refrigeration industry, process water cooling and
heating, oil cooling, etc. BPHEs are quickly penetrating into differ-
ent markets due to high heat transfer performance, smaller ap-
proach temperature, lower refrigerant charge, and more competi-
tive price. BPHEs are used with different working fluids including
liquid, vapor, and two-phase flow.
The thermal and hydraulic performance of BPHEs is strongly af-
fected by the plate surface corrugation patterns. Although a va-
riety of corrugation patterns are commercially available but the
chevron corrugation geometry dominates the current market [3].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2021.122278
0017-9310/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Sadeghianjahromi, A. Jafari and C.-C. Wang International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 184 (2022) 122278

and pressure drop in BPHEs subject to the influence of different

Nomenclature chevron angle received much less attention. Muley and Manglik
[5] investigated heat transfer and pressure drop of GPHEs exper-
Symbol Unit Definition imentally for water in single-phase condition for two non-mixed
A m2 heat transfer surface area cases with chevron angles of 30° and 60° and one mixed case
Ac m2 Maximum cross-sectional area with chevron angle of 30°/60°. Based on results, both chevron an-
cp J•kg−1 •K−1 specific heat capacity gle and enlargement factor have significant effect on heat trans-
Dp m port diameter fer and pressure drop. Savostin and Tikhonov [8] were one of the
Dh m hydraulic diameter earliest researchers who studied the influence of chevron angle,
f - friction factor ranging from 57° ≤ β ≤ 90°, on the heat transfer and pressure
h w•m−2 •K−1 heat transfer coefficient drop of GPHE. The Reynolds number spans from 20 0 0 to 40 0 0.
k w•m−1 •K−1 fluid thermal conductivity The authors reported that the Nusselt number and friction factor
L m plate length increased with the rise of chevron angle, and is especially pro-
Lpp m distance between ports in longitudinal direction nounced at Reynolds number higher than 600, which it is assumed
m˙ kg•s−1 mass flow rate the turbulent flow was established. Focke et al. [9] investigated
Nu - Nusselt number heat transfer and flow friction characteristics of PHEs in different
P Pa pressure chevron angles (0°–90°). The Reynolds number varied from 35 to
Pr - Prandtl number 16,0 0 0. Their results indicated that the chevron angle is the most
p m corrugation pitch important parameter affecting the performance of PHEs due to
Q˙ w heat transfer rate change of flow structure. They claimed that at a specific Reynolds
Q˙  kW•m−2 heat flux on plates number, the rise of chevron angle from 0° to 80° offers signifi-
q m perimeter cant improvement in both heat transfer and pressure drop up to
Re - Reynolds number 10 and 100 times, respectively. Okada et al. [10] examined the ther-
s m channel gap mal and hydraulic performance of symmetric arrangement GPHEs
T k temperature with chevron angle ranging from 30° to 75°. Curve fitted equation
t m plate thickness for Nusselt number for the water data amid 700 ≤ Re ≤ 25,0 0 0
u m•s−1 velocity were proposed. However, the correlation for friction factors was
V m•s−1 average flow velocity in the maximum cross- unavailable. It is shown that chevron angle and Reynolds number
sectional area are the major parameters influencing the Nusselt number. Amalfi
W m plate width and Thome [11] investigated single phase pressure drop of refrig-
Wpp m distance between ports in transversal direction erants R245fa and R236fa in a laser welded plate heat exchanger
subject to upward arrangement with a chevron angle of 65° and
Greek symbols
1 mm channel gap. The Reynolds number ranges from 34 to 1615.
ρ kg•m−3 density
They concluded the major pressure losses were associated with
β ° chevron angle
the frictional term. They also reported that the friction factor is
ϕ - enlargement factor
mainly influenced by the Reynolds number regardless of heat flux
P pa pressure drop between inlet and outlet ports
and Prandtl number. However, the friction factor is reduced with
T k temperature difference between inlet and outlet
increasing Reynolds number. Their subsequent study [12] adopts
ports
high resolution infrared to calculate local heat transfer coefficient
μ kg•m−1 •s−1 dynamic viscosity
for refrigerants R245fa and R236fa. The Reynold number and heat
μw kg•m−1 •s−1 dynamic viscosity at wall temperature
flux varied from 34 to 1615 and 74 to 3478 W/m2 , respectively.
Subscripts They concluded that the average Nusselt number is functions of
a - acceleration Reynolds and Prandtl number. In addition, the local heat transfer
ave - average coefficient increases with rising mass flux but it is insensitive to
b - bulk change of the heat flux. Kim and Park [13] experimentally stud-
c - cold side ied heat transfer and pressure drop of two different BPHEs with
g - gravity various geometrical parameters in single-phase condition. The two
h - hot side BPHEs had the same chevron angle of 65° but with different profile
w - wall and enlargement factor of 1.22 and 1.16, respectively. Results show
that GPHE correlations cannot well predict the Nusselt number and
friction factor in both BPHEs as a result of brazing joints in flow
The chevron angle profile can also contain different shapes such as channels. They showed that the Nusselt number is increased and
triangular, trapezoidal, sinusoidal, and the like. Among them, sinu- friction factor is decreased with increment of the Reynolds num-
soidal is the most commonly used [4]. The corrugation enhances ber. In essence, the Nusselt number is positively correlated with
the effective surface area and also plate rigidity. Yet, the intersec- enlargement factor, the Prandtl number, and the Reynolds number.
tions of the cross corrugations could enhance the heat transfer co- Based on the literature review, most of research on BPHEs are
efficient by consecutive disruption and reattachment of boundary related to two-phase evaporation and condensation heat transfer
layers and promoting swirl or vortex flow [5]. and pressure drop. In order to obtain the two-phase heat trans-
Ayub [6] and Khan et al. [7] reviewed and summarized the fer coefficient, single-phase experimental analysis is essential prior
correlations for single phase heat transfer and pressure drop of to two-phase study. Han et al. [14] explored boiling heat trans-
PHEs. Most of these correlations were developed based on Gas- fer and pressure drop in BPHEs with different chevron angles of
keted Plate Heat Exchangers (GPHE) and a few for BPHEs. There are 45°, 35°, and 20° with R22 and R410A as the working fluids. Sin-
many investigations regarding the influence of geometrical char- gle phase heat transfer coefficient was developed to estimate boil-
acteristic of the pattern of chevron corrugation on the thermoflu- ing heat transfer coefficient. The single-phase heat transfer coef-
ids performance, including chevron angle, plate spacing, and corru- ficient is a function of the Reynolds number, the Prandtl number,
gation pitch. But the single-phase flow distribution, heat transfer, and chevron angle. Kim et al. [15] experimentally studied convec-

2
A. Sadeghianjahromi, A. Jafari and C.-C. Wang
tive boiling heat transfer and pressure drop of R134a in a 10 plates
chevron pattern BPHE having a hydraulic diameter of 3.4 mm and a
corrugation angle of 65°. In this study, single-phase water-ethylene
glycol heat transfer was first investigated and correlated in order
to calculate two-phase refrigerant heat transfer coefficient. They
observed that the correlation is valid at very low Reynolds num-
ber of around 50, due to turbulence induced by corrugated pattern.
Lee et al. [16] investigated evaporation heat transfer coefficient and
pressure drop of R-1233zd(E) in a BPHE. A BPHE with a chevron
angle of 60°, while the corrugation pitch, depth of corrugation, and
enlargement factor were 7.5 mm, 0.97 mm, and 1.15, respectively.
In their preliminary experiments, water to water flow experiment
was conducted subject to different mass fluxes. An empirical cor-
relation was developed based on single phase flow experimental
data. They showed that the Nusselt number is positively correlated
to the Reynolds number and the Prandtl number. Longo and Gas-
parella [17] conducted experimental two-phase heat transfer and
pressure drop inside a BPHE using R134a refrigerant as the work-
ing fluid. The tested BPHE with 10 plates having a chevron angle
of 65° and a corrugation depth of 2 mm. Experiments were carried
out with water to water test and the heat transfer coefficient cor-
relation was developed. The developed empirical equation shows
that heat transfer coefficient is increased with rise of the Reynolds
number and the Prandtl number.
Some researchers adopted computational fluid dynamics to
study heat transfer and pressure drop in chevron plate heat ex-
changers. The plate heat exchanger unitary cell, which is a repeat-
ing part of the heat exchanger with two inlets and outlets, has
been used as fluid domain in most of studies [18,19]. The approach
is simple and easy, and can substantially ease the computational
loading. The unitary cell is just a small part of heat exchanger,
which excludes inlet and outlet port geometry, contact points, and
brazing joints. Hence, the actual performance of BPHEs cannot be
fully obtained from the numerical simulations [20]. Şenkal and Er-
tunç [21] explored the pressure drop and flow structure in a BPHE
numerically and experimentally. They modeled the fluid domain
and considered the effect of brazing. The unstructured tetrahedral
mesh was employed. Results showed that numerical simulations
deviate from the experimental pressure drop, and the difference is
increased with the rise of flowrate. Gullapalli and Sundén [22] nu-
merically and experimentally explored the heat transfer and pres-
sure drop characteristics of a BPHE with Reynolds number ranging
from 300 to 30 0 0. Their simulations are compared with experi-
mental data, showing some 20–30% deviations in heat transfer pre-
dictions and under-predicted the pressure drop by 10–35% against
the experimental data. In addition, this difference between nu-
merical and experimental results becomes more pronounced with
the rise of mass flow rate in the channel. Zhong et al. [23] per-
formed experimental and numerical investigations on BPHEs at
low Reynolds numbers (5–50). The chevron angle was changed be-
tween 55° and 80°. Results show that pressure drop increases with
the rise of chevron angle corrugated spacing, while it declines with
rise of corrugated height.
Based on literature review, a summary can be arrived that most
of previous studies on PHEs were carried out on GPHEs [5,7–10,24–
27], while research on BPHEs was almost in two-phase flow [28–
41] and very few investigations regarding PHEs were reported for
single-phase flow [11–13,42,43]. Furthermore, most of numerical
investigations were executed by modeling of a small portion of
PHEs [18,19,44–50], while inlet and outlet regions including ports
have significant effects on flow pattern and distribution. Unfortu-
nately, barely no studies were available in the literature. The exis-
tence of brazing joints is usually ignored in the simulation of ac-
tual BPHEs, which can impose significant effect on pressure drop
[51]. In this regard, the present numerical simulations lift these ir-
rational constraints that were usually adopted in the CFD simula-
3
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 184 (2022) 122278
Table 1
Geometrical parameters for the type M BPHE used for the ex-
periment.
Geometrical parameter Value
Plate length (L) (mm) 302
Plate width (W) (mm) 102
Plate thickness (t) (mm) 0.4
Port diameter (Dp ) (mm) 27
Longitudinal distance between ports (Lpp ) (mm) 250
Transversal distance between ports (Wpp ) (mm) 50
Chevron angle (β ) (°) 50
Channel gap (s) 2
Corrugation pitch (p) 7
Enlargement factor (ϕ ) 1.14
tions to derive the more rationale physics inside the BPHEs. The
simulations for BPHEs with different chevron angles are performed
in single-phase flow in a wide range of Reynolds numbers between
50 and 10,0 0 0 for better understanding of the effect of chevron
angles on heat transfer and flow friction characteristics of BPHEs.
Then, different chevron angles are mixed in order to study the
thermofluids characteristics of mixed BPHEs. Brazing joints are also
considered in all numerical models and experiments are also exe-
cuted for the validation of numerical simulation results. Flow pat-
terns and heat transfer performances based on volume goodness
factor for all non-mixed and mixed BPHEs are compared. Finally,
generalized correlations for Nusselt number and friction factor of
non-mixed and mixed BPHEs are developed in a wide range of the
Reynolds numbers.
2. Experimental study
2.1. Experimental set-up
The geometrical parameters of the corrugated plate for the ex-
periment are shown in Fig. 1, and the relevant geometrical param-
eters values are tabulated in Table 1. As depicted in the figure, the
plate is divided into 3 sections, a core heat transfer section, an
inlet and an outlet distribution region. The working fluid is dis-
tributed to the core region by inlet distribution region and then is
collected to outlet port through the outlet distribution region. The
flow distribution in a plate heat exchanger is affected by the ge-
ometries around the port and also by the chevron angle.
The experimental set-up is shown in Fig. 2. The experiment
consists of two hot and cold-water loops and a test section. The
test section is a two channel BPHE, which consists of three chevron
plates with a chevron angle of 50°. The plates are made of stainless
steel and joined together with a thin copper foil (t = 0.05 mm) as
the brazing material in a vacuum furnace in symmetric arrange-
ments.
Te hot water loop consists of a test section, a hot water tank,
a flow meter, a ball valve, a differential pressure transmitter, and
a centrifugal pump. The 10 0 0 liter hot water tank, which is insu-
lated, contains immersion electric heaters to supply heat. The cen-
trifugal pump circulates the hot water through the hot water loop.
The ball valve, which is installed after the pump, is used for the
hot water flowrate adjustment.
The cooling water loop is composed of the test section, a ther-
mostatic water bath, a flow meter, a ball valve, a differential pres-
sure transmitter, and a centrifugal pump. The cooling water is cir-
culated by a centrifugal pump through the cold-water loop. The
thermostatic water bath is used for the cooling water inlet tem-
perature adjustment, while its flowrate can be controlled by the
ball valve.
Hot and cold-water flow rates are measured by two Omega pos-
itive displacement volumetric flow meter. Their range of measure-
A. Sadeghianjahromi, A. Jafari and C.-C. Wang International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 184 (2022) 122278

Fig. 1. Geometrical parameters of a BPHE.

Fig. 2. Experimental set-up.

ment is between 0.1 and 75 LPM with the accuracy of ±0.5%. Cold
and hot side pressure drops between inlet and outlet ports of BPHE
are measured by two Yokogawa differential pressure transmitters
with the accuracy of ±0.02% and the measurement range between
1 and 100 kPa.
A PT100 resistance temperature detector (RTD) with an accu-
racy of ±0.1 °C is used for measuring the inlet and outlet temper-
atures of hot and cold side. Data is recorded by using a 16-channel
slot Keysight 34972A data acquisition system and transmitted to a
personal computer for further reduction.
2.2. Data collection
The experiments are carried out in vertical position and coun-
terflow arrangement. The hot water flows upward, while the cold
water flows downward. The cold side flow rate is changed from
low to high values, while the hot side inlet temperature and
flowrate are remained constant at 55 °C and 15 LPM, respec-
tively. When steady state is achieved, flowrates, temperatures,
and pressure drop are measured and recorded for a period of
60 s with 10 ms sampling interval. The calculated uncertain-

4
A. Sadeghianjahromi, A. Jafari and C.-C. Wang International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 184 (2022) 122278

Fig. 3. Temperature difference and pressure drop of BPHE type M obtained from experimental results.

Table 2 heat fluxes from top and bottom stainless steel plates. Insulated
The calculated uncertainties for dif-
wall (zero heat flux) is considered for inlet and outlet pipes and
ferent parameters.
side surfaces. For the validation of numerical simulations, bound-
Parameter Uncertainty ary conditions such as inlet flowrate and temperature as well as
Heat transfer rate 2.07% constant heat flux are in line with the experimental data. Subse-
Pressure drop 0.02% quently, for further examination of the thermofluids characteris-
Flowrate 0.5% tics of non-mixed and mixed BPHEs, simulations are extended to a
Temperature 0.1 K
much wider range with Reynolds numbers (50–10,0 0 0), while heat
flux and inlet temperature are remained constant as 5 kW/m2 and
20 °C, respectively.
ties based on the analysis of uncertainty [52] are tabulated in 3D turbulent numerical simulations are performed subject to
Table 2. steady condition, while the effects of natural convection, radiation,
Fig. 3 illustrates the typical variations in measured temperature and gravity force are neglected, and the simulations are performed
difference and pressure drop between inlet and outlet ports of cold with water having temperature dependent properties. The corre-
channel at different flowrates. As shown in this figure, the pres- sponding governing equations are given as follows.
sure drop increased with the rise of flowrates but the tempera- Continuity:
ture difference showed an opposite trend. Both variations show a
nonlinear behavior in response of flowrate, implying a turbulent ∂ ( ρ ui )
=0 (1)
flow may prevail inside the plate heat exchanger. This judgement ∂ xi
is based on Moody diagram where the pressure drop is linearly re- Momentum:
lated to flowrate in laminar flow regime while non-linear behavior   
occurs at the turbulent regime. ∂   ∂P ∂ ∂ ui
ρ ui u j = − + μ (2)
∂xj ∂ xi ∂ x j ∂xj
3. Numerical analysis
Energy:
  
3.1. Numerical set-up ∂   ∂ ∂T
ρ cP u j T = k + ST (3)
∂xj ∂xj ∂xj
As discussed in literature review, most of researchers model
only one channel or even small portion of PHEs to avoid huge where pressure, velocity, and temperature are denoted by P, u, and
number of meshes which require intensive computational loading T, respectively. The fluid thermal conductivity, specific heat capac-
and high RAM capacity. Hence, for saving the required computa- ity, and density are represented by k, cp , and ρ , respectively. The
tional time while maintaining meaningful representation of a typi- applied heat flux on plates is defined by the source term ST .
cal plate geometry, only one complete channel of BPHEs is mod- Due to simplicity and the capability of circulation modeling, Re-
eled in this study subject to heat flux on surfaces, which also alizable k-ε model [53,54] is employed as the turbulence model
considers the influence of brazing joints and inlet and outlet sec- with standard wall function. The discretization of governing equa-
tions. The fluid flow domain in numerical simulation of BPHEs as tions is done by finite volume method. Furthermore, pressure-
well as boundary conditions are shown in Fig. 4. For having uni- velocity coupling is considered by coupled scheme and second or-
form flow at the inlet and preventing flow reversal at the out- der upwind is used to ensure higher accuracy. The discretized gov-
let, 250 mm inlet and outlet pipes are employed. The influences erning equations are solved until the residuals will be less than
of temperature on the water are taking into account during sim- 10−6 for all equations. In order to better convergence and us-
ulation. A fixed mass flowrate and constant temperature are con- ing smaller number of grids, polyhedral grids are produced in the
sidered at the inlet, while atmospheric pressure is applied at the computational domain by Fluent Meshing software (Fig. 5). Grid
outlet. Water temperature is increased due to the applied constant size in channel is fine, while coarse grid is applied at the inlet

5
A. Sadeghianjahromi, A. Jafari and C.-C. Wang International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 184 (2022) 122278

Fig. 4. Fluid flow domain including boundary conditions for the simulated BPHEs.

pressure drop (࢞P) between inlet and outlet ports compared to the
case with 5,632,842 cells (less than 0.4%).

3.2. Data reduction

Water properties are obtained at bulk temperatures (Tb ) using

REFPROP software (ver. 10) [55]. Bulk temperatures are obtained
for both hot side (Tb,h ) and cold side (Tb,c ) by the following corre-
lations:
 
Ti,h + To,h
Tb,h = (4)
2
T + T
i,c o,c
Fig. 5. Polyhedral grids for numerical simulations. Tb,c = (5)
2

Table 3
where Ti is inlet temperature and To is outlet temperature. The
Results of grid study for the numerical simulation of heat transfer rates for hot side (Q˙ h ) and cold side (Q˙ c ) as well as
BPHE type M. average heat transfer rate (Q˙ ave ) can be obtained as follows.
࢞T ( °C) ࢞P (kPa) Q˙ h = m˙ h c p,h Th (6)
Elements value Error value Error

2,245,168 0.1347 3% 351.42 8%

3,124,874 0.1375 1% 366.70 4% Q˙ c = m˙ c c p,c Tc (7)
4,534,213 0.1384 0.4% 380.84 0.3%
5,632,842 0.1389 – 381.98 –  
Q˙ h + Q˙ c
Q˙ ave = (8)
2

and outlet pipes. Regarding the mesh quality, minimum orthogonal
quality is 5.22 × 10−2 and maximum aspect ratio is 1.637 × 102 .
Yet, the skewness is less than 0.9. Three inflation layers with
growth rate of 1.2 are used in near wall regions in order to capture
the large gradients inside boundary layers. 2,245,168, 3,124,874,
4,534,213, and 5,632,842 cells are selected for grid study in the
maximum velocity and results are summarized in Table 3. Finally,
the case with 4,534,213 cells is selected for numerical simulations
due to the smaller variations of temperature difference (࢞T) and
where m˙ , cp , and ࢞T are mass flow rate, isobaric specific heat, and
temperature difference between the inlet and outlet ports of each
channel, respectively. The hot side heat transfer rate and the cold
side heat transfer rate should be identical in theory. However, be-
cause of measurements uncertainties and heat loss, these two pa-
rameters are not exactly the same. Hence, the average heat transfer
rate is used in data reduction. The average heat transfer rate ob-
tained from experiments can be divided by the heat transfer area
in order to produce heat flux, which is applied on top and bottom

6
A. Sadeghianjahromi, A. Jafari and C.-C. Wang International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 184 (2022) 122278

Fig. 6. Validation of numerical simulations with experimental data (type M).

Fig. 7. Different types of simulated non-mixed BPHEs.

7
A. Sadeghianjahromi, A. Jafari and C.-C. Wang
Fig. 8. Nu and f in various Re for non-mixed BPHEs.
plates in numerical simulations. To double check the validity of the
applied heat flux, after finishing numerical simulations, the exper-
imentally and numerically obtained heat transfer rates are com-
pared.
Nusselt number (Nu) and Reynolds number (Re) are obtained as
follows.
hDh
Nu = (9)
k
ρ V Dh
Re = (10)
μ 4. Results and discussions
where the average flow velocity, which is occurred in the maxi-
mum cross-sectional area is symbolized by V. Fluid thermal con-
ductivity, density, and viscosity are denoted by k, ρ , and μ, respec-
tively. These parameters are obtained at the bulk temperature (Tb )
of water. Hydraulic diameter (Dh ) is calculated from the following
equation.
4Ac
Dh = (11)
q to 15 LPM with the inlet temperature of 20 °C. Fig. 6 illustrates
where the maximum cross-sectional area is denoted by Ac , while
q is its perimeter. With the calculation of heat transfer rate (Q˙ )
from correlations (6) and (7) and bulk temperature (Tb ) from cor-
relations (4) and (5), heat transfer coefficient (h) can be calculated
from the following correlations for both hot side and cold side.
 
Q˙ h = hh A Tw,h − Tb,h (12)
 
Q˙ c = hc A Tw,c − Tb,c (13)
where heat transfer area is symbolized by A and Tw is average wall
temperature obtained from numerical simulation results. The BPHE
total pressure drop (࢞Ptotal ) is defined as follows [2]:
Ptotal = P + Pg + Pa + Pio (14)
where ࢞P is the frictional pressure drop, which is the only element
that is considered in numerical simulations. The gravitational pres-
sure drop (࢞Pg ) is zero in the experimental analysis due to oppo-
site force on the diaphragm of differential pressure transducer by
the head of waters in pipe and channel. The acceleration pressure
drop (࢞Pa ) is neglected due to the incompressible nature of water.
However, the pressure drop in the ports ( ࢞Pio ) is considered in
8
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 184 (2022) 122278
the calculation of pressure drop, although it has small value. The
Fanning friction factor (f) can be obtained from the frictional pres-
sure drop (࢞P) as follows.
L pp ρV 2
P = 2 f (15)
Dh
where Dh and lpp are hydraulic diameter and flow length between
the ports. ρ and V are fluid density and the average flow velocity
in the maximum cross-sectional area.
4.1. Validation of numerical model
The obtained experimental data of BPHE type M is used for the
validation of numerical simulations. Note that all brazing joints are
modeled since they have significant effect on pressure drop, which
was investigated in a recent study by the present authors [51].
The volumetric flowrate of cold side channel is changed from 3
the comparison of ࢞T and ࢞P obtained from numerical simula-
tions with experimental data. The mean deviations of ࢞T and ࢞P
are 2% and 12%, respectively.
Nusselt number (Nu) and friction factor (f) calculated from nu-
merical simulation results are also compared with experimental
data and illustrated in Fig. 6. Heat transfer coefficient and Nus-
selt number are usually obtained from experimental data by either
measuring wall temperature in the experiments or using modified
Wilson plot method. Since the middle plate is not accessible in the
experiments for the temperature measurement, modified Wilson
plot [56] is used for constructing the relation of heat transfer per-
formance (h or and Nusselt number, Nu) vs. Reynolds number. For
numerical simulation, it is fairly easy to obtain wall temperature
directly and Nu accordingly. Mean deviations of the measured Nu
and f are 5% and 9%, respectively.
4.2. Non-mixed BPHEs
Four different types of BPHEs are simulated and compared:
L, M, H, and LH. The chevron angles vary as 35°, 50°, 65°, and
35°/65°, respectively, as shown in Fig. 7. Other geometrical param-
eters are remained unchanged as listed in Table 1 for all types of
A. Sadeghianjahromi, A. Jafari and C.-C. Wang
(1/3)
Fig. 9. Nu/f in various Re for non-mixed BPHEs.
BPHEs. The comparison is performed in the wide range of Reynolds
numbers between 50 and 10,0 0 0.
Nusselt number (Nu) and friction factor (f) for non-mixed
BPHEs are illustrated in Fig. 8. For the same Reynolds number, it
can be seen that raising the chevron angle from 35° to 65° im-
proves the Nusselt number, and the increase become more pro-
nounced in higher Reynolds number regime. Consequently, type H,
which has the largest chevron angle (65°), offers the highest Nus-
selt number, followed by type M (50°), while type L (35°) has the
lowest Nusselt number. However, the difference between type L
and type M is much larger than the difference between type M
and type H. For instance, for Re = 1700, rise of chevron angle from
35° to 50° leads to 38% improvement in Nusselt number, while this
value is 18% by raising the chevron angle from 50° to 65°. The in-
creases in Nusselt numbers in Re = 8500 are 63% and 40%, respec-
tively. The magnitude sequence of friction factor for various plate
Fig. 10. Velocity streamlines for non-mixed BPHEs for mass flow rate of 0.1 kg/s.
9
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 184 (2022) 122278
types are analogous to that of the Nusselt number, meaning that
type H contains the highest friction factor, while type L reveals the
lowest friction factor.
Type M has moderate friction factor, which is much closer to
type L. Hence, type M offers a comparatively large Nusselt number
with an affordable friction factor that is close to type L. The change
in differences between friction factors in various Reynolds numbers
are almost the same for all types of BPHEs. Type LH, which is a
combination of 35° and 65° chevron angles, offers a Nusselt num-
ber between type L and type M, while its friction factor is larger
than that of type M. It seems that the performance of type LH
is not worthwhile in comparison to type M, especially when the
Reynolds number is above 10 0 0.
In order to quantify the performances of different types of non-
mixed BPHEs by considering both heat transfer and friction fac-
tor, volume goodness factor is used as the performance evaluation
criteria, which was firstly proposed by Shah and London [57] and
adopted by many researchers [58–60] which states that heat trans-
fer performance relative to the one-third power of the pressure
drop are compared in different heat exchangers. In a specified
pumping power and constant fluid properties, a higher volume
goodness factor results in smaller heat transfer area and smaller
volume. Hence, Nu/f (1/3) is considered for the performance indi-
cator, and is depicted in Fig. 9. It is obvious that type M out-
performs other non-mixed BPHEs. Yet, the performance of type L
is close to type M, especially in low Reynolds number regions.
Type H and type LH have the worst performance compared to
type M and type L. Type H outperforms type LH when Re exceeds
50 0 0, while it is vice versa in Reynolds numbers smaller than
50 0 0.
Fig. 10 depicts the velocity streamlines for the non-mixed
BPHEs for mass flowrate of 0.1 kg/s. It can be seen that for type
L at a smaller chevron angle, the fluid flows alongside the chevron
angle, while the flow reveals a small zig-zag pattern or straight
direction from the inlet to outlet nozzles for type H at a larger
chevron angle. This phenomenon has been also reported in dif-
ferent literature [43,61,62]. Furthermore, the flow is distributed
uniformly along the H plate, which leads to higher heat transfer
rate and a higher Nusselt number accordingly. On the other hand,
for type L, most fluid proceeds one half of the plate which flows
A. Sadeghianjahromi, A. Jafari and C.-C. Wang
Fig. 11. Vortices generated behind the brazing joints of non-mixed BPHEs for mass flow rate of 0.1 kg/s.
Fig. 12. Temperature contours of plates for non-mixed BPHEs for mass flow rate of 0.1 kg/s.
alongside the inlet and outlet nozzles. In this partial bypass flow
pattern, the chevron angle in type L reduces the pressure drop and
friction factor significantly, while it is vice versa in type H. Some
vortices are also generated behind the brazing joints, which can
slightly improve flow mixing. As illustrated in Fig. 11, these vor-
tices are much stronger in higher chevron angles, thereby resulting
in higher heat transfer rate.
On the other hand, although the inlet mass flowrate is iden-
tical in all types, type H offers much better flow uniformity flow
that leads to a higher heat transfer coefficient and consequently a
larger Nusselt number. Wall temperature contours (Fig. 12) show
that lower wall temperature occurs at the places where the fluid
flow velocity is higher, and a higher Nusselt number accordingly.
However, upon regions with less uniform and lower velocity, lower
heat transfer rate from the walls to the fluid renders some hot
spots with a higher temperature (type L). It is clear that more uni-
form distribution of fluid flow along the plate with higher veloc-
ity produces more uniform wall temperature alongside the plates
with lower average wall temperature, as it can be seen for type H
in Fig. 12. This lower average wall temperature with constant heat
flux results in higher heat transfer coefficient and a higher Nusselt
number consequently.
10
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 184 (2022) 122278
For type M, the flow is comparatively more uniform than that
of type L, and yields a more uniform wall temperature distribution.
This leads to better heat transfer rate and higher Nusselt number
than that of type L. Yet, fluid tends to flow in chevron angle direc-
tion rather than zig-zag flow. Hence, the pressure drop and fric-
tion factor in type M are much lower than type H and it is close
to type L. For type LH, since most parts of the plate are covered
by 35° chevron angle, fluid flows along the chevron angle in most
parts, results in low heat transfer rate and Nusselt number, which
is even lower than type M. However, due to 65° chevron angle in
some parts, fluid tends to flow in a straight line with a high ve-
locity rather than flowing along chevron angle. This can result in
higher pressure drop compared to type L and type M.
4.3. Mixed BPHEs
In order to investigate the fluid flow behavior in mixed BPHEs,
the four types of non-mixed plates with different chevron angles
(Fig. 7) were studied in detail in the previous section. The plates
are mixed to produce four different mixed BPHEs. In fact, top and
bottom plates of mixed BPHEs do not contain similar chevron an-
A. Sadeghianjahromi, A. Jafari and C.-C. Wang International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 184 (2022) 122278

Fig. 13. Nu and f in various Re for mixed and non-mixed BPHEs.

gle patterns. The mixed BPHEs are L+M (35°/50°), M+H (50°/65°),
L+H (35°/65°), and LH+H (35°/65°).
Fig. 13 shows the comparison between the Nusselt numbers
and friction factors for all mixed and non-mixed BPHEs. Type L+M,
which is a combination of type L and type M, has a Nusselt num-
ber between type L and type M, while its friction factor is close to
type L. Type M+H offers a Nusselt number that is close to type
H but its friction factor is somehow a distance away from type
H. This is because the average chevron angle of type L+H is 50°,
which is same as type M, it is expected that type L+H should yield
a similar performance as type M. However, it reveals a similar fric-
tion factor as type M with a lower Nusselt number. Hence, the
performance of type L+H is inferior to type M. The Nusselt num-
ber for type LH+H is almost at the middle of type LH and type
H, while its friction factor is close to type LH. In summary, among
the mixed BPHEs, type M+H provides the maximum Nusselt num-
ber and friction factor, followed by type LH+H, while type L+M
offers the minimum Nusselt number and friction factor. Type L+H
is between type L+M and type LH+H.
In order to take into account the heat transfer and friction fac-
tor simultaneously, the performance index, Nu/f (1/3) , subject to (1/3)
Fig. 14. Nu/f in various Re for mixed and non-mixed BPHEs.
Reynolds numbers for all mixed and non-mixed BPHEs are shown
in Fig. 14. Apparently, type M shows the best performance overall.
However, type L+M is very close to type M, especially when the are alongside the chevron angle direction and the rest is parallel
Reynolds numbers is less than 50 0 0. Type L also offers acceptable to the plate direction.
performance when Re < 50 0 0, while type L+H outperforms type L
when Re > 60 0 0. Type M+H and type LH+H have almost identical 4.4. Development of correlations
performances, especially in Reynolds numbers greater than 50 0 0,
while in Reynolds numbers less than 50 0 0, type LH+H slightly Based on the numerical simulation results for different geome-
outperforms type M+H. Type H and type LH shows the worst per- tries of non-mixed and mixed BPHEs with various chevron angles,
formances among all mixed and non-mixed BPHEs. As aforemen- some general correlations are developed for Nusselt number and
tioned earlier, type H outperforms type LH in Reynolds numbers friction factor applicable in a wide range of Reynolds numbers (50–
more than 50 0 0, while it is vice versa in Reynolds numbers less 10,0 0 0).
than 50 0 0. Nusselt number (Nu):
Fig. 15 depicts velocity streamlines for mixed BPHEs. It can be Re < 10 0 0:
seen that only for type M+H, the flow pattern is the combina-
Nu = 0.0037β 1.247 Re0.9164β
−0.068

tion of the flow along chevron angle and the flow in parallel to P r 0.3 (μ/μw )0.14 (16)
the plate, which leads to higher heat transfer rate and the Nusselt Re > 10 0 0:
number as well as higher pressure drop and friction factor. How-
ever, the flow is completely directed by the chevron angle for type Nu = 0.0 0 0 04β 1.5107 Re + 5.5607β 0.5281 P r 0.3 (μ/μw )0.14 (17)
L+M, which leads to the lower Nusselt number and friction fac- Friction factor (f):
tor, while for type L+H and type LH+H, major part of fluid flow
f = CRem (μ/μw )0.14 (18)

11
A. Sadeghianjahromi, A. Jafari and C.-C. Wang International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 184 (2022) 122278

Fig. 15. Velocity streamlines for mixed BPHEs for mass flow rate of 0.1 kg/s.

Fig. 16. Nu and f predicted by developed correlations vs. values obtained from numerical simulations for non-mixed and mixed BPHEs.

Re < 10 0 0: Table 4
Comparisons of predictions of devel-
C = 0.0062β 2 − 0.4784β + 19.834 (19) oped correlations in different ranges.

Range ±10% ±15% ±20%

m = 0.0 0 0 015β 2 + 0.0 083β − 0.93 (20) Nu 72% 87% 92%

f 66% 84% 89%
Re > 10 0 0:

C = 0.00405β 2 − 0.333β + 7.6
m = −0.0 0 019β 2 + 0.0239β − 0.816
where Pr is Prandtl number, Re is Reynolds number, and μ and μw
are dynamic viscosity at bulk and wall temperatures, respectively.
Note that chevron angle (β ) is in degree and the average chevron
angle shall be used for mixed BPHEs.
Fig. 16 illustrates the comparison between the Nusselt number
(Nu) and friction factor (f) obtained from developed correlations
with numerical simulations for both non-mixed and mixed BPHEs.
(21) It is found that developed correlations for the Nusselt number and
friction factor can predict 87% and 84% of data within the range of
(22) ±15%, respectively. The mean deviations of developed correlations
for both the Nusselt number and friction factor are 9% and the
developed correlations for the Nusselt number and friction factor
have R2 = 0.991 and 0.983, respectively. Comparisons of predic-
tions of developed correlations in different ranges are specified in
Table 4.
Developed correlations are valid for chevron angle from 35° to
65° for both non-mixed and mixed BPHEs in the range of Reynolds
number from 50 to 10,0 0 0.

12
A. Sadeghianjahromi, A. Jafari and C.-C. Wang
Fig. 17. Nu and f predicted by developed correlations in this study vs. other existing correlations for BPHEs and GPHEs.
As discussed in literature review, most of existing correlations
are for GPHEs and correlations for BPHEs are very limited. Hence,
the developed correlations in this study are compared with some
well-known correlations for both BPHEs and GPHEs having the
same geometrical parameters (β = 50°). As illustrated in Fig. 17,
results show acceptable deviation of the present developed corre-
lations with existing correlations. From the comparison, the corre-
lation developed by Yang et al. [42] offers the best agreement with
the present developed correlations. However, other existing corre-
lations have been developed for GPHEs showed considerable devia-
tions against BPHEs. Correlations developed by Muley and Manglik
[5] for GPHEs show the largest deviations when compared to other
correlations.
5. Conclusions
3D numerical simulations of BPHEs with various chevron an-
gles from 35° to 65° are performed in order to examine the effect
of chevron angle on the thermofluids characteristics of BPHEs. Four
BPHEs with chevron angles of 35° (type L), 50° (type M), 65° (type
H), and 35°/65° (type LH) are modelled and the effect of braz-
ing joints are also included in the simulations. Furthermore, these
plates are mixed in order to produce four mixed BPHEs (L+M, L+H,
M+H, and LH+H). All non-mixed and mixed BPHEs are simulated
with a much wider range of Reynolds numbers from 50 to 10,0 0 0.
Thermal performance is termed as Nuseelt number and friction
factor. Nusselt numbers and friction factors are compared for all
BPHEs with detailed investigations of flow patterns. For elaborat-
ing performance by simultaneously considering both Nusselt num-
ber and friction factor, the volume goodness factor is used as an
indicator for the evaluation of all non-mixed and mixed BPHEs. Fi-
nally, based on numerical simulation data, some general correla-
tions are developed for Nusselt number and friction factor. Major
conclusions are as follows.
• Nusselt number and friction factor increase with rise of chevron
angle from 35° to 65°. Consequently, type H and type L have the
highest and lowest Nusselt number and friction factor, respec-
tively, among non-mixed and mixed BPHEs.
• Among non-mixed BPHEs, the Nusselt number and friction fac-
tor of type M and type LH are between type L and type H, while
Nusselt number of type LH is less than type M with higher fric-
tion factor.
13
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 184 (2022) 122278
• Among mixed BPHEs, type M+H and type L+M have the max-
imum and minimum Nusselt numbers and friction factors, re-
spectively.
• Type M shows the highest performance among non-mixed and
mixed BPHEs, followed by type L+M, while type LH and type H
have the lowest performance.
• Fluid flow is along the chevron angle in small chevron angle
BPHEs, while it has a zig-zag or straight pattern from the inlet
nozzle to the outlet nozzle in large chevron angle BPHEs.
• The developed correlations for the Nusselt number (Nu) and
friction factor (f) of the simulated non-mixed and mixed BPHEs
with chevron angles from 35° to 65° in a wide range of the
Reynolds numbers between 50 and 10,0 0 0 can predict 85% of
numerical data within ±15% with mean deviations of 9%.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ali Sadeghianjahromi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writ-
ing – original draft. Alireza Jafari: Methodology, Writing – original
draft. Chi-Chuan Wang: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing –
review & editing.
Acknowledgments
The authors appreciate the Ministry of Science and Technol-
ogy of Taiwan for financing this research, under contract Nos 108-
2622-E-0 09-027-CC2 and 108-2811-E-0 09-539. The authors also
thank KAORI Heat Treatment Company and Lenovo Company for
providing experimental facilities and high-speed simulation com-
puters, respectively.
References
[1] R.K. Shah, D.P. Sekulic, Fundamentals of Heat Exchanger Design, John Wiley &
Sons, 2003.
[2] L. Wang, B. Sundén, R.M. Manglik, Plate Heat exchangers: design, Applications
and Performance, Wit Press, 2007.
A. Sadeghianjahromi, A. Jafari and C.-C. Wang
[3] S. Kakac, H. Liu, A. Pramuanjaroenkij, Heat Exchangers: Selection, Rating, and
Thermal Design, CRC press, 2020.
[4] R. Shah, W.W. Focke, Plate heat exchangers and their design theory, in:
R.K. Shah, E.C. Subbarao, R.A. Mashelkar (Eds.), Heat Transf. Equip. Des., 227,
CRC press, 1988, pp. 227–254.
[5] A. Muley, R.M. Manglik, Experimental study of turbulent flow heat transfer and
pressure drop in a plate heat exchanger with chevron plates, J. Heat Transf. 121
(1) (1999) 110–117.
[6] Z.H. Ayub, Plate heat exchanger literature survey and new heat transfer and
pressure drop correlations for refrigerant evaporators, Heat Transf. Eng. 24 (5)
(2010) 3–16.
[7] T.S. Khan, M.S. Khan, M.C. Chyu, Z.H. Ayub, Experimental investigation of sin-
gle phase convective heat transfer coefficient in a corrugated plate heat ex-
changer for multiple plate configurations, Appl. Therm. Eng. 30 (8–9) (2010)
1058–1065.
[8] A. Savostin, A. Tikhonov, Investigation of the characteristics of plate type heat-
ing surfaces, Therm. Eng. 17 (9) (1970) 113–117.
[9] W. Focke, J. Zachariades, I. Olivier, The effect of the corrugation inclination an-
gle on the thermohydraulic performance of plate heat exchangers, Int. J. Heat
Mass Transf. 28 (8) (1985) 1469–1479.
[10] K. Okada, M. Ono, T. Tomimura, T. Okuma, H. Konno, S. Ohtani, Design and
heat transfer characteristics of new plate heat exchanger, Heat Transf. Jpn. Res.
1 (1) (1972) 90–95.
[11] R.L. Amalfi, J.R. Thome, High resolution infrared measurements of single-phase
flow of R245fa and R236fa within a compact plate heat exchanger, Part 1:
experimental setup and pressure drop results, Appl. Therm. Eng. 101 (2016)
545–554.
[12] R.L. Amalfi, J.R. Thome, High resolution infrared measurements of single-phase
flow of R245fa and R236fa within a compact plate heat exchanger, Part 2: heat
transfer results, Appl. Therm. Eng. 101 (2016) 555–563.
[13] M.B. Kim, C.Y. Park, An experimental study on single phase convection heat
transfer and pressure drop in two Brazed Plate Heat Exchangers with different
chevron shapes and hydraulic diameters, J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 31 (5) (2017)
2559–2571.
[14] D.H. Han, K.J. Lee, Y.H. Kim, Experiments on the characteristics of evaporation
of R410A in Brazed Plate Heat Exchangers with different geometric configura-
tions, Appl. Therm. Eng. 23 (10) (2003) 1209–1225.
[15] H.J. Kim, L. Liebenberg, A.M. Jacobi, Convective boiling of R-134a near the mi-
cro-macroscale transition inside a vertical brazed plate heat exchanger, J. Heat
Transf. 140 (9) (2018) 091501.
[16] D. Lee, D. Kim, S. Park, J. Lim, Y. Kim, Evaporation heat transfer coefficient and
pressure drop of R-1233zd(E) in a brazed plate heat exchanger, Appl. Therm.
Eng. 130 (2018) 1147–1155.
[17] G.A. Longo, A. Gasparella, Refrigerant R134a vaporisation heat transfer and
pressure drop inside a small brazed plate heat exchanger, Int. J. Refrig. 30 (5)
(2007) 821–830.
[18] M. Ciofalo, J. Stasiek, M. Collins, Investigation of flow and heat transfer in cor-
rugated passages—II. Numerical simulations, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 39 (1)
(1996) 165–192.
[19] L.-.Z. Zhang, Numerical study of periodically fully developed flow and heat
transfer in cross-corrugated triangular channels in transitional flow regime,
Numer. Heat Transf. Part A Appl. 48 (4) (2005) 387–405.
[20] W. Han, K. Saleh, V. Aute, G. Ding, Y. Hwang, R. Radermacher, Numerical
simulation and optimization of single-phase turbulent flow in chevron-type
plate heat exchanger with sinusoidal corrugations, HVACR Res. 17 (2) (2011)
186–197.
[21] C. Şenkal, Ö. Ertunç, Flow structures in compact plate heat exchangers: a nu-
merical study with experimental validation, in: Proceedings of the 9th Interna-
tional Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics (ICCFD9), Istanbul, Turkey,
2016.
[22] V.S. Gullapalli, B. Sundén, CFD simulation of heat transfer and pressure drop
in compact Brazed Plate Heat Exchangers, Heat Transf. Eng. 35 (4) (2013)
358–366.
[23] Y. Zhong, K. Deng, S. Zhao, J. Hu, Y. Zhong, Q. Li, Z. Wu, Z. Lu, Q. Wen, Experi-
mental and numerical study on hydraulic performance of chevron brazed plate
heat exchanger at low Reynolds number, Processes 8 (9) (2020) 1076.
[24] R. Heavner, H. Kumar, A. Wanniarachchi, Performance of an industrial plate
heat exchanger: effect of chevron angle, in: Proceedings of the AICHE Sympo-
sium Series, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1993, p. 262.
[25] D. Chisolm, A. Wanniarachchi, Maldistribution in single-pass mixed-channel
plate heat exchangers, ASME 201 (1992) 95–99 NEW YORK, NY(USA).
[26] T.S. Khan, M.S. Khan, Z.H. Ayub, Single-phase flow pressure drop analysis in a
plate heat exchanger, Heat Transf. Eng. 38 (2) (2016) 256–264.
[27] H. Kumar, The plate heat exchanger: construction and design, in: Pro-
ceedings of the Institute of Chemical Engineering Symposium Series, 1984,
pp. 1275–1288.
[28] G.A. Longo, Refrigerant R134a condensation heat transfer and pressure drop in-
side a small brazed plate heat exchanger, Int. J. Refrig. 31 (5) (2008) 780–789.
[29] G.A. Longo, R410A condensation inside a commercial brazed plate heat ex-
changer, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 33 (2) (2009) 284–291.
[30] G.A. Longo, Heat transfer and pressure drop during HFC refrigerant saturated
vapour condensation inside a brazed plate heat exchanger, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf. 53 (5–6) (2010) 1079–1087.
[31] G.A. Longo, Heat transfer and pressure drop during hydrocarbon refrigerant
condensation inside a brazed plate heat exchanger, Int. J. Refrig. 33 (5) (2010)
944–953.
14
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 184 (2022) 122278
[32] G.A. Longo, The effect of vapour super-heating on hydrocarbon refrigerant con-
densation inside a brazed plate heat exchanger, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 35 (6)
(2011) 978–985.
[33] G.A. Longo, S. Mancin, G. Righetti, C. Zilio, HFC404A condensation inside a
small brazed plate heat exchanger: comparison with the low GWP substitutes
propane and propylene, Int. J. Refrig. 81 (2017) 41–49.
[34] G.A. Longo, G. Righetti, C. Zilio, A new computational procedure for refriger-
ant condensation inside herringbone-type Brazed Plate Heat Exchangers, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transf. 82 (2015) 530–536.
[35] G.A. Longo, G. Righetti, C. Zilio, L. Ortombina, M. Zigliotto, J.S. Brown, Appli-
cation of an artificial neural network (ANN) for predicting low-GWP refriger-
ant condensation heat transfer inside herringbone-type Brazed Plate Heat Ex-
changers (BPHE), Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 156 (2020) 119824.
[36] G.A. Longo, C. Zilio, Condensation of the low GWP refrigerant HFC1234yf inside
a brazed plate heat exchanger, Int. J. Refrig. 36 (2) (2013) 612–621.
[37] G.A. Longo, C. Zilio, G. Righetti, Condensation of the low GWP refrigerant
HFC152a inside a Brazed Plate Heat Exchanger, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 68 (2015)
509–515.
[38] G.A. Longo, C. Zilio, G. Righetti, J.S. Brown, Condensation of the low GWP re-
frigerant HFO1234ze(E) inside a Brazed Plate Heat Exchanger, Int. J. Refrig. 38
(2014) 250–259.
[39] S. Mancin, D. Del Col, L. Rossetto, R32 partial condensation inside a brazed
plate heat exchanger, Int. J. Refrig. 36 (2) (2013) 601–611.
[40] B.H. Shon, C.W. Jung, O.J. Kwon, C.K. Choi, Y.Tae Kang, Characteristics on con-
densation heat transfer and pressure drop for a low GWP refrigerant in brazed
plate heat exchanger, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 122 (2018) 1272–1282.
[41] M. Imran, M. Usman, Y. Yang, B.S. Park, Flow boiling of R245fa in the brazed
plate heat exchanger: thermal and hydraulic performance assessment, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transf. 110 (2017) 657–670.
[42] J. Yang, A. Jacobi, W. Liu, Heat transfer correlations for single-phase flow in
plate heat exchangers based on experimental data, Appl. Therm. Eng. 113
(2017) 1547–1557.
[43] 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.
[44] M.A. Mehrabian, R. Poulter, Hydrodynamics and thermal characteristics of
corrugated channels: computational approach, Appl. Math. Model. 24 (5–6)
(20 0 0) 343–364.
[45] X. Zhu, F. Haglind, Relationship between inclination angle and friction factor
of chevron-type plate heat exchangers, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 162 (2020)
120370.
[46] R. Manglik, J. Ding, Laminar flow heat transfer to viscous powerlaw fluids in
double-sine ducts, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 40 (6) (1997) 1379–1390.
[47] 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.
[48] H. Metwally, R.M. Manglik, Enhanced heat transfer due to curvature-induced
lateral vortices in laminar flows in sinusoidal corrugated-plate channels, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transf. 47 (10–11) (2004) 2283–2292.
[49] A. Kanaris, A. Mouza, S. Paras, Flow and heat transfer in narrow channels with
corrugated walls: a CFD code application, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 83 (5) (2005)
460–468.
[50] S. Al zahrani, M.S. Islam, F. Xu, S.C. Saha, Thermal performance investigation in
a novel corrugated plate heat exchanger, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 148 (2020)
119095.
[51] A. Jafari, A. Sadeghianjahromi, C.C. Wang, Experimental and numerical inves-
tigation of Brazed Plate Heat Exchangers–a new approach, Appl. Therm. Eng.
200 (2021) 117694.
[52] R.J. Moffat, Describing the uncertainties in experimental results, Exp. Therm.
Fluid Sci. 1 (1) (1988) 3–17.
[53] T.H. Shih, W.W. Liou, A. Shabbir, Z. Yang, J. Zhu, A new k- eddy viscosity
model for high reynolds number turbulent flows, Comput. Fluids 24 (3) (1995)
227–238.
[54] R. Shaheed, A. Mohammadian, H.K. Gildeh, A comparison of standard k–ε and
realizable k–ε turbulence models in curved and confluent channels, Environ.
Fluid Mech. 19 (2) (2019) 543–568.
[55] E. Lemmon, I.H. Bell, M. Huber, M. McLinden, NIST Standard Reference
Database 23: Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport Properties-
REFPROP, Version 10.0, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Stan-
dard Reference Data Program, Gaithersburg, 2018, doi:10.18434/T4/1502528.
[56] D.E. Briggs, E.H. Young, Modified Wilson plot techniques for obtaining heat
transfer correlations for shell and tube heat exchangers, in: Proceedings of the
Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series, New York, NY, AIChE, 1969,
pp. 35–45.
[57] R. Shah, A. London, Laminar Flow Forced Convection in Ducts, Elsevier, 1978.
[58] N. Sahiti, F. Durst, A. Dewan, Strategy for selection of elements for heat trans-
fer enhancement, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 49 (19–20) (2006) 3392–3400.
[59] J. Doo, H. Yoon, M. Ha, Study on improvement of compactness of a plate heat
exchanger using a newly designed primary surface, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 53
(25–26) (2010) 5733–5746.
[60] J.M. Lee, P.W. Kwan, C.M. Son, M.Y. Ha, Characterizations of aerothermal per-
formance of novel cross-corrugated plate heat exchangers for advanced cycle
aero-engines, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 85 (2015) 166–180.
[61] H. Lee, A. Sadeghianjahromi, P.L. Kuo, C.C. Wang, Experimental investigation of
the thermofluid characteristics of shell-and-plate heat exchangers, Energies 13
(20) (2020) 5304.
[62] W.W. Focke, P.G. Knibbe, Flow visualization in parallel-plate ducts with corru-
gated walls, J. Fluid Mech. 165 (1986) 73–77.