Performance of Pyramidal Fin Arrays

Yannick Cormier April 12th, 2013

Outline
• Background • Objectives • Experimental Procedure and Testing • Calculation Method • Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Results • Conclusion

2

Background – Heat Exchanger
• Important parameters of an heat exchanger – Heat transfer – Pressure drop across the fin array – Dimensions

Global Heat Transfer, “Cooler Design”, http:// www.ghtthx.com/Design.aspx , Consulted March 2013

Background

3

Background – Straight Cut
• Brayton’s Wire Mesh Heat Exchanger (WMHE) with straight cut fins

Background

4

Background – Pyramidal Fins
• Manufactured using cold spray – Pure aluminium – Good thermal conductivity – Melting point at 933 K – Stainless steel 304L – Melting point at 1673 K

Background

5

Background - Nomenclature
The nomenclature used to characterize the fin array tested
Wire diameter in inches Fin per inch (x axis) Fin per inch (z axis) Fin height in millimeters

12x12x0.035x1.3 Al
Fin material

Z

X

Background

6

Background - Nomenclature

Background

7

Objectives
• Characterize the heat transfer and pressure drop performances of the pyramidal fins • Compare these performances with traditional fins (straight cut currently used at Brayton Energy Canada) • Help the design process by providing accurate empirical correlations

Objectives

8

Experimental Procedure
Fin Sample 2" x 2" Sample Pure Aluminium Stainless Steel 304L 2" x 4" Sample Pure Aluminium Stainless Steel 304L

Thermal Conductance & Total Pressure Drop Experimental Procedure and Testing

Fin Pressure Drop Friction Factor
9

Experimental Procedure – Pressure Drop
Total Pressure Drop for a 2" x 2" Sample

Fin Pressure Drop on 2" x 4" Sample

Experimental Procedure and Testing

10

Testing Apparatus

Experimental Procedure and Testing

11

Testing Apparatus – Accuracy
• Comparison with Kays and London experiment for an unfinned surface (flat plate) – Maximum of 20% of error on the Colburn factor
0.018 0.016 0.014 0.012 StPr2/3 0.010 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.000 0 1 2 3 4 ReD 5 6 7 8 9 10 Experimental Results Kays and London Experimental Results

Experimental Procedure and Testing

12

Calculations Method – Heat Transfer
Reynolds Number

Hydraulic Diameter

Heat Transfer Coefficient

Log Mean Temperature Difference

Calculation Method

13

Calculations Method – Heat Transfer
Thermal Conductance

Heat Flux

Nusselt Number

Colburn Factor

Calculation Method

14

Heat Transfer (HT) Results
• Traditional straight cut fins are presently used at Brayton Energy Canada • The theory of bank of tubes is similar to the pyramidal fin tested in the point of view of their discontinuity
Straight Cut Fins Pyramidal Fins Bank of Tubes

Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Results

15

HT Results- Bank of Tubes
• •

Žukauskas separated data in three regimes: – Laminar (0 < < 1000) – Sub-critical ( 500 < < 200 000) – Critical ( > 200 000)
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 ReD 6 7 8 9 10 12x12x0.035x1.35 Al Nu

Sub-critical

Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Results

16

HT Results – Comparison with traditional fin
400

350

300

250 h (W/m2 K)

Laminar regime
24x24x0.014x1.4 Al Straight Cut Al

200

150

100

Sub-critical regime

50

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 ReD 6 7 8 9 10

Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Results

17

HT Results – Comparison with traditional fin
• Higher convective heat transfer coefficient due to the increase in turbulence
Pyramidal Fins Straight Cut Fins

Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Results

18

HT Results – Aluminium Fins
• Fin density effect on the aluminium samples – Higher fin density results in better thermal conductance 2.5
2.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 UA (W/ K) 1.5 UA (W/ K)

Unfinned Surface 12x12x0.035x1.8 Al 16x16x0.028x2.2 Al
1.0

24x24x0.014x1.4 Al

1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0 0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 ReD 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 ReD 6 7 8 9 10

Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Results

19

HT Results – Stainless Steel Fins
• Fin density effect on the stainless steel samples – Same trend as aluminium samples
2.5 2.5

2.0

2.0

1.5 UA (W/ K)

1.5

1.0

1.0

Unfinned Surface 12x12x0.035x2.0 SS 16x16x0.028x1.5 SS 24x24x0.014x1.1 SS

0.5

0.0

UA (W/ K)

0.5

0.0 0

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

ReD 5 ReD 5

6

6

7

7

8 8

9 9

10 10

Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Results

20

HT Results – Aluminium Fins
• Height effect on the aluminium samples
2.5 2.5

2.0

2.0

UA (W/ K)

UA (W/ K)

1.5

1.5

Unfinned Surface 12x12x0.035x1.8 Al 12x12x0.035x2.4 Al

1.0

1.0

12x12x0.035x1.3 Al

0.5

0.5

0.0

0.0 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 ReD 5 ReD 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10

Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Results

21

HT Results – Aluminium Fins
• Compromise between the heat transfer convective coefficient (h) and the total area (Atot)
700 700 600 600

Unfinned Surface
500 500

12x12x0.035x1.8 Al 12x12x0.035x2.4 Al 12x12x0.035x1.3 Al

h (W/m2 K)

h (W/m2 K)

400

400

300

300

200

200

100

100

0 0

0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5ReD ReD 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10

Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Results

22

HT Results – Aluminium Fins
• Compromise between the heat transfer convective coefficient (h) and the total area (Atot)
ReD = 500

ReD = 1500

Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Results

23

HT Results – Stainless Steel Fins
• Height effect on the stainless steel samples
2.0 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.4 UA (W/ K) 1.2 UA (W/ K) 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 0.0 0 1 500 2 1 31000 3 4 1500 5 ReD 4ReD 5 ReD 6 20007 6 7 82500 8 9 9 3000 10 10

Unfinned Surface 12x12x0.035x1.0 SS 12x12x0.035x1.4 SS 12x12x0.035x1.9 SS 12x12x0.035x2.0 SS

0.5

2

Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Results

24

HT Results – Aluminium vs. Stainless Steel
• Aluminium is more efficient in terms of heat transfer for the same fin geometry
2.5

2.0

1.5 UA (W/ K)

Unfinned Surface 12x12x0.035x1.3 Al

1.0

12x12x0.035x1.4 SS

0.5

0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 ReD 6 7 8 9 10

Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Results

25

Pressure Drop (PD) Results – Comparison with traditional fin
• Similar total pressure drop even if the thermal conductance for the pyramidal fin is higher
7000 6000

24X24X0.014X1.4 Al
Differential Pressure (Pa) 5000

Straight Cut Al
4000

3000

2000

1000

0 0 2 4 6 8 ReD 10 12 14 16

Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Results

26

PD Results – Total Aluminium
• Better thermal conductance results in higher pressure drop
6000 6000 5000 5000 Differential Pressure (Pa) Differential Pressure (Pa) 4000 4000 3000 3000 2000 2000 1000 1000 0 0 0 500 500 1000 1000 1500 1500 ReD ReD 2000 2000 2500 2500 3000 3000

Unfinned Surface 12x12x0.035x1.8 Al 16x16x0.028x2.2 Al 24X24X0.014X1.4 Al

0

Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Results

27

PD Results – Total Aluminium
• Height effect on the aluminium samples
7000 7000 6000 6000 5000 Differential Pressure (Pa) 5000 4000 4000 3000 3000 2000 2000 1000 1000 0 0 0 0

Differential Pressure (Pa)

Unfinned Surface 12x12x0.035x1.8 Al 12x12x0.035x2.4 Al 12x12x0.035x1.3 Al

500 500

1000 1000

1500 1500 ReD ReD

2000 2000

2500 2500

3000 3000

Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Results

28

PD Results – Friction Factor
• Useful design tool • Similar to the Moody chart – Laminar drop at low Reynolds number – Close to constant friction factor in the turbulence region
0.8 0.7 Darcy Friction Factor (f) 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0 2 4 6 8 ReD 10 12 14 16 12x12x0.035x1.3 Al 16x16x0.028x1.4 Al 24x24x0.014x1.8 Al

Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Results

29

Conclusion
• The pyramidal fins outperform traditional straight cut fins at the same fin density while having the same pressure drop • For the pyramidal fins, higher thermal conductance results in higher pressure drop, which is expected • Fin density increases the thermal conductance and the pressure drop • Fin height influence depends on the compromise between the total area and the convective heat transfer coefficient

Conclusion

30

Future Work
• Need an efficiency index that includes the thermal performance and the pressure drop effects

• Obtain samples at same height with different fin densities

Conclusion

31

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.