Energy and Buildings 50 (2012) 204211

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ enbui l d
Experimental determination of fouling factor on plate heat exchangers in district
heating system
Srbislav B. Geni c
a,
, Branislav M. Ja cimovi c
a
, Dragan Mandi c
b
, Dragan Petrovi c
a
a
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Belgrade, Kraljice Marije 16, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
b
JKP Beogradske elektrane, Savski nasip 11, 1070 Belgrade, Serbia
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 5 March 2012
Received in revised form14 March 2012
Accepted 17 March 2012
Keywords:
District heating
Domestic hot water
Plate heat exchanger
Fouling factor
a b s t r a c t
This paper presents the results of experimental research on 8 plate heat exchangers. Their purpose is
to heat water for radiator heating system and domestic hot water. Measurements were carried out in 4
substations in district heating system in Belgrade (Serbia). The main achievement of this research was
that the fouling factors were determined experimentally, and the found values can be used further on in
design of plate heat exchangers in district heating systems.
2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Domestic hot water (DHW) system is a part of district heating
system in Belgrade (Serbia). JKP Beogradske elektrane (municipal
company for district heating in Belgrade) continuously improves
the system by incorporating prefabricated compact substations
which serve two purposes: heating of water for radiator heating
systemand heating of DHW.
Basically there are twoways of preparing hot water [1], andboth
have been applied in Belgrade:

the old system that included the accumulation tank in which

hot water is stored.

the new systemwith instantaneous hot water production.

The last option is of particular interest in this paper. DHWheaters,
accompanied by the tap water lters, are the main part of this sys-
tem. Nowadays, inBelgradeDHWsystem, practicallyonlymagnetic
lters and plate heat exchangers are used, since their performances
and prices are signicantly favorable than performances and prices
of tubular heat exchangers in this eld of application.
The total number of substations with DHW is 413 with serve
more than 34,000 individual consumers. Overall heat duty for com-
plete DHW system in Belgrade is 65.2MW, with nominal heat
duties of individual substations in range 4.51070kW.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +381 11 3302360; fax: +381 11 3370364.

E-mail address: sgenic@mas.bg.ac.rs (S.B. Geni c).
This paper will describe the inuence of water velocity on foul-
ing factor in plate heat exchangers, based on measurements on 4
district heating substations (DHS) in the Sector of the Heat Plant
Zemun.
2. Plate heat exchanger fouling
During the operation of a heat exchanger, its heat duty reduces
due to a phenomenon called fouling: the deposit of undesirable
dirt on the heat exchange surfaces increases the resistance to
heat transfer. Heat exchanger fouling is a very signicant problem
in heat exchanger exploitation, because still there is no reliable
theoretical method for predicting the fouling phenomena and all
relevant information are obtained by monitoring the changes in
heat exchanger performance during the exploitation period [2].
Based on these measured data it is possible, to a certain extent,
to predict the behavior of apparatuses of similar design, at approx-
imately the same exploitation conditions (identical working uids,
pressures and temperatures, velocities, etc.). Also, it is possible to
predict the shut off period for cleaning of the heat exchanger. In
general, working regime (uidowrate, temperature, pressure and
concentration of components) as well as the actual plate geometry
(shape of corrugations angle, amplitude and wavelength) affects
the formation of deposits [35].
The overall heat transfer coefcient for plain wall is dened as
1
k
=
1

1
+ R
1
+

pl

pl
+R
2
+
1

2
(1)
where
0378-7788/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.03.039
S.B. Genic et al. / Energy and Buildings 50 (2012) 204211 205
Nomenclature
A channel owarea (owarea between plates), m
2
b mean ow channel gap (distance between plates),
m
CF cleanliness factor
c
p
specic heat capacity at constant pressure, J/(kgK)
CR correlation ratio
DHW domestic hot water
DHS district heating substations
DM design margin
k overall heat transfer coefcient, W/(m
2
K)
LMTD mean logarithmic temperature difference,

C
L length, m
m mass owrate, kg/s
N number
p plate pitch, m

Q heat duty, W
R fouling factor (resistance), m
2
K/W
RMSD root-mean-square deviation
RW radiator water
S heat transfer surface, m
2
t temperature,

C
u uid velocity, m/s
W plate width, m
heat transfer coefcient, m
2
K/W
thickness, m

st
unsteadiness of working regime (dispersion of heat
duty)
p pressure drop due to friction, Pa
thermal conductivity, W/(mK)
(wall) shear stress, Pa
Subscripts
1 hot uid
2 cold uid
av average
c clean (unfouled)
in inlet
m mean
out outlet
pl one plate
tot total

1
and
2
are the heat transfer coefcients for hot and cold uids
respectively in W/(m
2
K);

R
1
and R
2
are the fouling resistances in m
2
K/Wfor hot and cold
uids respectively;

pl
(m) and
pl
(W/(mK)) are the thickness and thermal conduc-
tivity of the plate.
Total fouling factor (for plain wall) is dened as
R
tot
= R
1
+R
2
=
1
k

1
k
c
(2)
where k
c
is the overall heat transfer coefcient for clean (unfouled)
surfaces.
In addition, there are other ways for expressing the fouling phe-
nomena:

cleanliness factor [6]

CF =
k
k
c
=
1
1 +R
tot
k
(3)
Table 1
Recommended fouling resistances for plate and frame heat exchangers.
Water R, m
2
K/kW
Demineralized or distilled water 0.009
River water 0.045
Ocean or coastal sea water 0.0250.045
Treated cooling tower water 0.0350.045
Soft water 0.018
Hard water 0.045

design margin [7] or heat transfer surface area margin (k-value

margin)
DM =
k
c
k
1 = R
tot
k
c
=
1
CF
1 (4)
Regardless on the way the fouling resistance is expressed generally
speaking it depends on heat transfer surface material, owrates or
velocities and fouling afnity of the uids.
The usual approach to heat exchanger design is to include the
fouling factors in (1). Fouling factors can be found in the open lit-
erature [6,812], and selected values for water are presented in
Table 1.
Other open literature sources claimthe following:

most manufacturers of plate and frame heat exchangers recom-

mend that the excess surface should not exceed 25% of the heat
transfer surface area calculated for the clean duty [2];

plate and frame heat exchangers fouling factors are typically 1/10
of TEMA values [13];

safe and proven fouling factors for plate heat exchanger design
are 10% excess surface area, also expressed as 10% safety margin,
equivalent to approximately (but not exactly) a cleanliness factor
of 90% [14];

for a plate heat exchanger in a water/water duty a margin of 0

15% depending on water quality is normally enough [7].
In past fewdecades, wall shear stress became a signicant parame-
ter in fouling factor analysis, since it is a measure of the uid stress
along the face of the corrugated plate. For example in [15] it is said
that Shear stress is the metric to evaluate fouling tendency, rather
than absolute velocity.
Wall shear stress is dened as follows [14]
= p
b
2 L
(5)
where

p, Pa, is the pressure drop due to friction;

b, m, is the distance between plates;

L, m, is the effective plate length.

The following recommendations about the inuence of shear
stress on fouling factor are found in the open literature:

greater shear stress provides the greater resistance to the depo-

sition of particles [16] and this is the main reason that plate heat
exchangers are characterized with smaller fouling factors than
tubular heat exchangers;

according to [17] it is not recommended to size the heat

exchanger with the shear stress below 50Pa, and if there is a
signicant risk of fouling it is recommended that the shear stress
should be increased to at least 100Pa;

in[18] the experiment was conductedonheat exchanger withthe

mixture of water and crushed ice and authors came to the con-
clusion that the smooth operation of apparatus occurred when
206 S.B. Genic et al. / Energy and Buildings 50 (2012) 204211
Fig. 1. Process owdiagramof DHS.
Table 2
Codication of DHS and heat exchangers (typenumber of plates).
Address of DHS (street and number) DHS code DHWheater RWheater
Ba cka no. 9 A A-113 C-222
Zagorska no. 12 B A-89 C-104
Zagorska no. 1846 C A-87 C-152
Prvomajska no. 33 D B-113 C-200
Table 3
Design data of heat exchanger for DHWsystem.
DHS code A B C D
DHWheater A-113 A-89 A-87 B-113
Number of plates, N
pl
113 89 87 113
Number of active plates 111 87 85 111
Plate thickness,
pl
, mm 0.6 0.6
One plate surface, S
pl
, m
2
0.04 0.0940
Mean owchannel gap, b, mm 0.96 1.0
Plate width, W, mm 119 243
Flowarea between plates, A
pl
, m
2
0.000114 0.000243
Heat transfer surface, S, m
2
4.44 3.48 7.92 10.43
>50Pa. The regimes with lesser values of were characterized
with ice choking.
3. Measurements and results
The objective of this research was to obtain accurate results on
fouling resistances inplate heat exchangers for DHWsysteminBel-
grade. Substations discussed in this paper serve for two purposes:
heating of water for radiator heating system as well as heating of
DHW. Substations are located in a heating area of the Heat Plant
Zemun in Belgrade (Serbia). A process owdiagramof DHS is pre-
sented in Fig. 1. Each substation was equipped with necessary
control systems (valves, ow limiters, etc.), two heat exchangers
Table 4
Design data of heat exchanger for RWsystem.
DHS code A B C D
RWheater C-222 C-104 C-152 C-200
Number of plates, N
pl
222 104 200 152
Number of active plates 220 102 198 150
Plate thickness,
pl
, mm 0.6
One plate surface, S
pl
, m
2
0.109
Mean owchannel gap, b, mm 2.44
Plate width, W, mm 243
Flowarea between plates, A
pl
, m
2
0.000593
Heat transfer surface, S, m
2
23.98 11.1 21.5 16.35
(basic data is given in Tables 24) and magnetic lters on the DHW
pipeline.
In all tested DHW heaters cold uid was tap water, all appa-
ratuses had counter-current ow, and each one of them was
thermally insulated.
Our laboratoryholds the AccreditationCerticate for the follow-
ing standards:

BS EN 305:1997 Heat Exchangers: Denitions Of Performance Of

Heat Exchangers AndThe General Test Procedure For Establishing
Performance Of All Heat Exchangers;

BS EN 306:1997 Heat Exchangers: Methods Of Measuring The

Parameters Necessary For Establishing The Performance;

BS EN 307:1999 Heat Exchangers: Guidelines For Preparing

Installation, Operating And Maintenance Instructions Required
To Maintain The Performance Of Each Type Of Heat Exchanger;
so our measurements were performed according to proce-
dures fromthese standards. For each heat exchanger the following
parameters were measured:

m
1
, kg/s, mass owrate of hot uid;

t
1in
,

C, inlet temperature of hot uid;

t
1out
,

C, outlet temperature of hot uid;

m
2
, kg/s, mass owrate of cold uid;

t
2in
,

C, inlet temperature of cold uid;

t
2out
,

C, outlet temperature of cold uid.
Measurements of water ow rate were performed with ultrasonic
ow meters with the relative uncertainty of 3%. Temperatures
were measured using four platinum resistance thermometers (PT
100) with the maximal uncertainty of 0.1

C.
Three heat duties of the heat exchanger could be determined
from each set of test data:

heat duty calculated with measured values for the hot uid

Q
1
= m
1
c
p1
(t
1in
t
1out
) (6)

heat duty calculated with measured values for the cold uid

Q
2
= m
2
c
p2
(t
2out
t
2in
) (7)

mean value of heat duty

Q
m
=

Q
1
+

Q
2
2
(8)
where c
p1
, J/(kgK) and c
p2
, J/(kgK) are specic heat capacities of hot
and cold uids, respectively.
S.B. Genic et al. / Energy and Buildings 50 (2012) 204211 207
The unsteadiness (dispersion of heat duty) of each working
regime is dened by

st
=

(

Q
1

Q
m
)
2
+(

Q
2

Q
m
)
2

Q
m
(9)
In engineering practice it is commonly assumed that the disper-
sion of 37% or even 10% in the heat balance is acceptable [19,20].
Hereby, similarly to [21], further analysis of the fouling resistance
was done only for the working regimes with
st
< 10%.
Since all the heat exchangers operated with the counter-current
ow, the mean logarithmic temperature difference is
LMTD =
(t
1in
t
2out
) (t
1out
t
2in
)
ln
t
1in
t
2out
t
1out
t
2in
(10)
and the overall heat transfer coefcient is
k =

Q
m
S LMTD
(11)
The overall fouling thermal resistance (R
tot
) was calculated using
(2). The overall heat transfer coefcient for the heat exchanger with
clean (unfouled) heat transfer surfaces k
c
was calculated for each
regime using the manufacturers design software.
The experimental work was divided in two parts. First set of
measurements was conductedshortlyafter the substationwas con-
nected to the heating system(about 5 to 15 days). These results are
indicatedusingsubscript Y0. Secondset of measurements was done
a year later (subscript Y1). During this one year period substations
worked in the normal regime dictated by the heat plant, including
a half year pause for RWheaters during the summer period.
Table 5 presents the results of measurements for RW heaters
and Table 6 presents the results of measurements for DHW heat
exchangers. Fluid velocities u
1
and u
2
are based on ow area
between plates, and refer to hot and cold uids, respectively.
4. Discussion
For further discussion it is useful to calculate average values
based on Tables 5 and 6. Tables 7 and 8 contain the average values
of u
1,av
, u
2,av
, R
tot,av
, CF
av
, and DM
av
.
4.1. Fouling of radiator water heaters
Analyzing the data presented in Tables 5 and 7 it can be noticed
that the both uid velocities were very consistent during the test.
Also, in one year period fouling resistances of 4 heat exchang-
ers did not change signicantly (the increase R
tot
is close to the
order of magnitude of measurement uncertainty) and ranged from
R
tot
=0.082 to 0.113m
2
K/kW, i.e. R
tot
= 0.096m
2
K/kWwith maxi-
mal deviation of 17%. This means that in heat exchanger design
process the fouling resistance value of R
tot
=0.096m
2
K/kWcan be
adopted as a statistically proven one.
Average design margin changes over the greater range
DM
av
=0.170.33 and average cleanliness factor over a lesser range
CF
av
=0.750.86, so it can be concluded that despite the conformity
of usage of just one parameter like incase of DMor CF, it is more rec-
ommendable to use fouling resistance R in heat exchanger design,
because it gives a more realistic physical insight into the fouling
process.
In further analysis of the fouling resistance it must be taken into
account that the radiator heating systemis lled with water from
the magisterial pipelines. That means that both hot and cold water
has approximately the same fouling characteristics, so it can be
written
R
1
= R
2
=
R
tot
2
(14)
Fig. 2. DHWheatersfouling factor vs. hot uid velocity.
and the fouling resistances R
1
=R
2
=0.048m
2
K/kWcan be recom-
mended for each uid.
Two more conclusions are of interest:

measured fouling resistances R

1
= R
2
= 0.048m
2
K/kWare a little
greater than the greatest recommended value from the Table 1
that is 0.045m
2
K/kW;

variation of fouling resistances was within the measurement

uncertainties, so the asymptotic fouling model can be applied
in this case. Similar conclusion was derived for shell-and-tube
exchangers (with straight and helical tubes) in a district heating
systemin [3,22,23].
4.2. Fouling of domestic hot water heaters
According to Tables 6 and 8 it can be noticed that the water
velocities (ow rates) for 3 heat exchangers were almost con-
stant during a one year period. For exchanger A-113 (substation
A) average hot water velocity dropped from0.346m/s to 0.214m/s,
whilethecoldwater velocityincreasedfrom0.183m/s to0.267m/s.
In this substation the smallest increase of the fouling factor was
detected over a one year period, while in other 3 substations the
increase was very signicant. Besides the uid velocities (i.e. ow
rates), other working conditions (temperatures, pressures and con-
centrations) varied in pretty small ranges. An important conclusion
from these data is that the uid velocities had shown the signi-
cant inuence on the fouling factor. This observation corresponds
to very similar conclusions from [24,5,25,26]. Figs. 2 and 3 show
the averaged data based on Table 8.
In this specic case, it can be expected that the hot uid fouling
factor must have the same value as in case of radiator water heaters
R
1
= 0.048m
2
K/kW, so the fouling resistance for DHW (cold uid)
after a one year period is
R
2,Y1
= R
tot,Y1
0.048
After the calculation of values R
2,Y1
(data are given in Table 9) we
managed to correlate with cold uid velocity by
R
2,Y1
= 0.51 10
3
exp(8.50 u
2
) (15)
but also to cold uid wall shear stress (
2
, Pa) in the following form
R
2,Y1
= 0.4 10
3
+0.28 10
3
exp(0.060
2
) (16)
Wall shear stress for colduid(DHW) is calculatedfor eachworking
regime using the heat exchanger manufacturers design software.
208 S.B. Genic et al. / Energy and Buildings 50 (2012) 204211
Table 5
RWheatersresults of measurements.
DHS code Heat exchanger Year u
1
(m/s) u
2
(m/s) k (W/(m
2
K)) kc (W/(m
2
K)) Rtot (m
2
K/kW) CF DM
A C-222 0 0.046 0.150 1732 2094 0.0998 0.827 0.209
0.046 0.149 1688 2078 0.1112 0.812 0.231
0.046 0.149 1856 2080 0.0580 0.892 0.121
0.046 0.148 1842 2068 0.0593 0.891 0.123
A C-222 1 0.046 0.150 1758 2062 0.0839 0.853 0.173
0.046 0.150 1766 2061 0.0811 0.857 0.167
0.046 0.150 1634 2063 0.1273 0.792 0.263
0.046 0.150 1634 2063 0.1273 0.792 0.263
0.046 0.150 1634 2063 0.1273 0.792 0.263
0.044 0.150 1606 2034 0.1310 0.790 0.267
0.045 0.150 1785 2048 0.0719 0.872 0.147
0.045 0.150 1924 2058 0.0338 0.935 0.070
B C-104 0 0.055 0.198 2546 3120 0.0723 0.816 0.225
0.056 0.199 2658 3132 0.0569 0.849 0.178
0.055 0.199 2503 3150 0.0821 0.795 0.258
0.055 0.198 2480 3152 0.0860 0.787 0.271
0.056 0.199 2516 3145 0.0795 0.800 0.250
0.054 0.199 2428 3105 0.0898 0.782 0.279
0.054 0.199 2291 3106 0.1145 0.738 0.356
B C-104 1 0.051 0.198 2349 3100 0.1031 0.758 0.320
0.051 0.198 2308 3107 0.1114 0.743 0.346
0.050 0.198 2269 3089 0.1170 0.735 0.361
0.049 0.198 2193 3046 0.1277 0.720 0.389
0.048 0.198 2230 3042 0.1197 0.733 0.364
0.045 0.197 2456 2944 0.0675 0.834 0.199
C C-200 0 0.044 0.165 1605 2078 0.1418 0.772 0.295
0.045 0.165 1922 2091 0.0421 0.919 0.088
0.045 0.165 1972 2088 0.0282 0.944 0.059
0.046 0.165 1738 2121 0.1039 0.819 0.220
0.045 0.165 1665 2106 0.1258 0.791 0.265
0.045 0.165 1720 2108 0.1070 0.816 0.226
0.044 0.165 1895 2090 0.0492 0.907 0.103
0.045 0.165 1805 2104 0.0787 0.858 0.166
C C-200 1 0.040 0.165 1721 2025 0.0872 0.850 0.177
0.040 0.165 1614 2027 0.1262 0.796 0.256
0.040 0.165 1642 2030 0.1164 0.809 0.236
0.040 0.165 1636 2023 0.1169 0.809 0.237
0.041 0.165 1646 2034 0.1159 0.809 0.236
D C-152 0 0.044 0.182 1632 2081 0.1322 0.784 0.275
0.044 0.182 1620 2068 0.1337 0.783 0.277
0.044 0.182 1628 2077 0.1328 0.784 0.276
0.044 0.182 1943 2085 0.0351 0.932 0.073
0.045 0.182 1948 2090 0.0349 0.932 0.073
0.044 0.182 1780 2074 0.0796 0.858 0.165
Fig. 3. DHWheatersfouling factor vs. cold uid velocity.
Statistical parameters (correlation ratio CR and root-mean-
square deviation RMSD) were used for quality check of the
presented correlation (16) and it can be concluded that they are
quitegood: CR=0.965andRMSD=16.04%. Correlation(16) is graph-
ically presented in Fig. 4.
Minimal measured value R
2,Y1
is 0.05m
2
K/kW and it cor-
responds to shear stress value of 50Pa. This is the lowest
recommended value of shear stress in [17,18]. The conclusion is
that the correlation(16) is limitedwiththese values: 50Pa for shear
stress and 0.05m
2
K/kWfor fouling resistance.
Similar experimentally gathered results were published in
[24,26] and elsewhere but they are obtained in the laborato-
ries. This time the dependency of the fouling factor on shear
stress is proven to be useful in an industrial scale experi-
ment.
Maximal measured values of R
2,Y1
are between 0.25 and
0.30 m
2
K/kW, and they are obtained at very small DHW veloci-
ties 0.08m/s. These R
2,Y1
are very similar to the fouling factors
obtained on shell-and-tube heat exchangers [22,23], due to small
shear stress.
Having on mind previously described behavior of DHW heat
exchanger, we assume that measured data and the correlation (16)
S.B. Genic et al. / Energy and Buildings 50 (2012) 204211 209
Table 6
DHWheatersresults of measurements.
DHS code Heat exchanger Year u
1
(m/s) u
2
(m/s) k (W/(m
2
K)) kc (W/(m
2
K)) Rtot (m
2
K/kW) CF DM
A A-113 0 0.347 0.174 4393 6270 0.0681 0.701 0.427
0.349 0.188 4494 6423 0.0668 0.700 0.429
0.345 0.181 4297 6372 0.0758 0.674 0.483
0.345 0.183 4094 6400 0.0880 0.640 0.563
0.344 0.188 4119 6434 0.0874 0.640 0.562
A A-113 1 0.216 0.244 3647 6347 0.1166 0.575 0.740
0.215 0.275 3754 6514 0.1129 0.576 0.735
0.213 0.274 4211 6522 0.0841 0.646 0.549
0.214 0.267 4015 6484 0.0948 0.619 0.615
0.214 0.275 3893 6525 0.1036 0.597 0.676
B A-89 0 0.169 0.169 4352 5426 0.0455 0.802 0.247
0.167 0.180 4126 5493 0.0603 0.751 0.331
0.171 0.185 3696 5546 0.0903 0.666 0.501
0.169 0.178 4538 5438 0.0365 0.834 0.198
0.169 0.180 4566 5457 0.0358 0.837 0.195
0.171 0.165 4014 5405 0.0641 0.743 0.347
0.167 0.167 4265 5398 0.0492 0.790 0.266
B A-89 1 0.156 0.173 3060 5398 0.1415 0.567 0.764
0.160 0.179 2946 5479 0.1569 0.538 0.860
0.152 0.169 2539 5304 0.2053 0.479 1.089
0.148 0.177 2507 5318 0.2108 0.471 1.121
0.105 0.169 2488 4732 0.1906 0.526 0.902
C A-87 0 0.099 0.102 2890 3838 0.0855 0.753 0.328
0.088 0.088 2824 3542 0.0718 0.797 0.254
0.066 0.080 2265 3177 0.1267 0.713 0.403
0.066 0.091 2663 3265 0.0692 0.816 0.226
C A-87 1 0.088 0.112 2019 4093 0.2510 0.493 1.027
0.089 0.109 2023 4076 0.2490 0.496 1.015
0.095 0.107 2107 4132 0.2326 0.510 0.961
0.095 0.107 1939 4123 0.2732 0.470 1.126
0.093 0.105 1908 4078 0.2789 0.468 1.137
0.091 0.108 2110 4092 0.2296 0.516 0.939
D B-113 0 0.066 0.071 1267 1776 0.2262 0.713 0.402
0.063 0.069 1252 1748 0.2266 0.716 0.396
0.063 0.064 1196 1699 0.2475 0.704 0.421
0.063 0.067 1229 1728 0.2350 0.711 0.406
D B-113 1 0.061 0.073 1120 1749 0.3211 0.640 0.562
0.061 0.072 1150 1744 0.2962 0.659 0.517
0.060 0.077 1133 1767 0.3167 0.641 0.560
0.061 0.073 1144 1755 0.3043 0.652 0.534
0.060 0.080 1147 1786 0.3119 0.642 0.557
0.066 0.085 1200 1870 0.2986 0.642 0.558
0.065 0.081 1142 1837 0.3313 0.622 0.609
Table 7
Averaged values for RWheat exchangers.
DHS code Heat exchanger Year u
1,av
(m/s) u
2,av
(m/s) Rtot,av (m
2
K/kW) CFav DMav
A C-222 0 0.046 0.149 0.082 0.86 0.17
A C-222 1 0.046 0.150 0.098 0.84 0.20
B C-104 0 0.055 0.199 0.083 0.80 0.26
B C-104 1 0.049 0.198 0.108 0.75 0.33
C C-200 0 0.045 0.165 0.085 0.85 0.18
C C-200 1 0.040 0.165 0.113 0.81 0.23
D C-152 0 0.044 0.182 0.091 0.85 0.19
Table 8
Averaged values for DHWheat exchangers.
DHS code Heat exchanger Year u
1,av
(m/s) u
2,av
(m/s) Rtot,av (m
2
K/kW) CFav DMav
A A-113 0 0.346 0.183 0.077 0.67 0.49
A A-113 1 0.214 0.267 0.102 0.60 0.66
B A-89 0 0.169 0.175 0.055 0.77 0.30
B A-89 1 0.144 0.173 0.181 0.52 0.95
C A-87 0 0.080 0.090 0.088 0.77 0.30
C A-87 1 0.092 0.108 0.252 0.49 1.03
D B-113 0 0.064 0.068 0.234 0.71 0.41
D B-113 1 0.062 0.077 0.311 0.64 0.56
210 S.B. Genic et al. / Energy and Buildings 50 (2012) 204211
Table 9
Fouling factor vs. wall shear stress for DHW.
DHS code Heat exchanger Year u
2
(m/s) R
tot,Y1
(m
2
K/kW) R
2,Y1
= R
tot,Y1
0.048
(m
2
K/kW)

2
(Pa)
A A-113 1 0.244 0.1166 0.0686 43.52
0.275 0.1129 0.0649 54.36
0.274 0.0841 0.0361 54.00
0.267 0.0948 0.0468 51.46
0.275 0.1036 0.0556 54.36
B A-89 1 0.173 0.1415 0.0935 22.96
0.179 0.1569 0.1089 24.46
0.169 0.2053 0.1573 21.98
0.177 0.2108 0.1628 23.95
0.169 0.1906 0.1426 21.98
C A-87 1 0.112 0.2510 0.2030 10.23
0.109 0.2490 0.2010 9.72
0.107 0.2326 0.1846 9.39
0.107 0.2732 0.2252 9.39
0.105 0.2789 0.2309 9.07
0.108 0.2296 0.1816 9.56
D B-113 1 0.073 0.3211 0.2731 2.91
0.072 0.2962 0.2482 2.83
0.077 0.3167 0.2687 3.22
0.073 0.3043 0.2563 2.91
0.080 0.3119 0.2639 3.47
0.085 0.2986 0.2506 3.90
0.081 0.3313 0.2833 3.55
Fig. 4. DHWheatersfouling factor for DHWvs. shear stress.
have to be included in the sophisticated newmodels in the eld of
district heating, like [27] or [28].
Just a slight look back on CF and DMdata fromTables 6 and 8 is
enoughtoreinforce the impressionthat theycannot be recommend
for the heat exchangers design and analysis.
5. Conclusions
This paper presents the results of the research on 8 plate heat
exchangers indistrict heatingsysteminBelgrade(Sector of theHeat
Plant Zemun). The primary factor of interest was the fouling factor
for radiator water heaters and for domestic hot water heaters. Heat
exchangeparameters weretestedsoonafter thesubstations started
to work and again after one year of service.
It was found that the fouling factor for radiator water heaters is
changing in narrowrange, so the value 0.048m
2
K/kWcan be used
with signicant condence.
In case of domestic hot water heaters it was noticed that the
fouling factor strongly depends on the water velocity, or in other
words on the cold uid wall shear stress. The following correlation
was found to be a good one after the one year exploitation period
R
DHW,Y1
= 0.4 10
3
+ 0.28 10
3
exp(0.06
DHW
)
and it should be used having in mind that the minimal measured
value is 0.05m
2
K/kWthat is equivalent to shear stress 50Pa.
Shear stress value of 50Pa was proven to be a lower limit for
design of plate heat exchangers that are working with uids of high
fouling tendency.
Practical domain of presented research is obvious; obtained
fouling factors can be used for design of plate heat exchangers
in district heating system, or for estimation of the period of heat
exchanger cleaning.
Acknowledgement
We thank the Ministry of Science and Technological Develop-
ment of Serbia for a partial support to this study throughthe Project
of Energy Efciency.
References
[1] I. Bajsi c, M. Bobi c, Modeling and experimental validation of a hot water supply
substation, Energy and Buildings 38 (4) (2006) 327333.
[2] VDI Heat Atlas, Springer, 2010.
[3] B. Ja cimovi c, S. Geni c, Heat exchangers in district heatingselection, arrange-
ment andperformance predictionexperiences fromBelgrade, in: Proceedings
of the 4th National Conference on Heat Engineering, Timisoara, Romania, 1994.
[4] H.U. Zettler, M. Weis, Q. Zhao, H. Muller-Steinhagen, Inuence of surface prop-
erties and characteristics on fouling in plate heat exchangers, Heat Transfer
Engineering 26 (2) (2005) 317.
[5] D.J. Kukulka, M. Devgun, Fluid temperature and velocity effect on fouling,
Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (2007) 27322744.
[6] R.K. Shah, D.P. Sekulic, Fundamentals of Heat Exchanger Design, Wiley, Hobo-
ken, 2003.
[7] Alfa Laval Plate Heat ExchangersThe Theory behind Heat Transfer.
http://local.alfalaval.com/en-gb/about-us/news/Documents/The%20Theory%
20behind%20heat%20transfer.pdf.
[8] J. Marriott, Where and howto use plate heat exchangers, Chemical Engineering
8 (8) (1971) 127134.
[9] M.V. Bhatia, P.N. Cheremisinoff, Heat Transfer Equipment, Technomic Publish-
ing, Lancaster, 1980.
[10] C.B. Panchal, T.J. Rabas, Fouling characteristics of compact heat exchangers
and enhanced tubes, in: Proceedings of the Conference on Compact Heat
S.B. Genic et al. / Energy and Buildings 50 (2012) 204211 211
Exchangers and Enhancement Technology for the Process Industries, Banff,
Canada, July 1116, 1999.
[11] S. Zubair, R. Shah, Fouling of plate-and-frame heat exchangers and cleaning
strategies, International Journal of Heat Exchangers 5 (1) (2004) 129156.
[12] K.D. Rafferty, Geothermal direct use engineering and design guidebook, in:
Chapter 11: Heat Exchangers, Geo-Heat Center, OregonInstitute of Technology,
Klamath Falls, OR, 1998, http://geoheat.oit.edu/pdf/tp54.pdf.
[13] R. Perry, D. Green, Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 2008.
[14] J. Kerner, Plate heat exchangers: avoiding common misconceptions, Chemical
Engineering 116 (2) (2009) 4043.
[15] J. Nesta, C.A. Bennett, Reduce fouling inshell-and-tube heat exchangers, Hydro-
carbon Processing 82 (7) (2004) 7782.
[16] L. Novak, Fouling in plate heat exchangers and its reduction by proper design,
heat exchangers: theory and practice, in: Seminar of the International Centre
for Heat and Mass Transfer, Dubrovnik, 1981.
[17] S. Gavelin, The pressure drop, Hydrocarbon Engineering 14 (2) (2009) 5763,
http://www.tranter.com/europe/applications/the-pressure-drop-article.
[18] E. Norgaard, T.A. Sorensen, T.M. Hansen, M. Kauffeld, Performance of com-
ponents of ice slurry systems: pumps, plate heat exchangers, and ttings,
International Journal of Refrigeration 28 (2005) 8391.
[19] D. Lelea, S. Nishio, K. Takano, The experimental research on microtube heat
transfer and uid owof distilled water, International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer 47 (2004) 28172830.
[20] S. Geni c, B. Ja cimovi c, L.j. Vladi c, Heat transfer rate of direct-contact condensa-
tion on bafe trays, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 51 (25-26)
(2008) 57725776.
[21] P. Naphon, Thermal performance and pressure drop of the helical-coil heat
exchangers with and without helically crimped ns, International Communi-
cations in Heat and Mass Transfer 34 (2007) 321330.
[22] B. Ja cimovi c, S. Geni c, D. Tanasi c, S. Nikodijevi c, N. Avramovi c, A critical review
of the practices in design of heat exchangers for district heating systems (in
Serbian), in: 9th Counseling of Yugoslavian heating plants TOPYU95, Novi Sad,
1995.
[23] B. Ja cimovi c, B. Zivkovi c, S. Geni c, P. Zekonja, Water temperature regulation
problems in district heating network with both direct and indirect connection,
Energy and Buildings 28 (1998) 317322.
[24] A.J. Karabelas, S.G. Yiantsios, B. Thonont, J.M. Grillott, Liquidside foul-
ing of heat exchangersan integrated R & D approach for conven-
tional and novel designs, Applied Thermal Engineering 17 (8-10) (1997)
727737.
[25] B. Bansal, H.M. Mller-Steinhagen, Crystallization fouling in plate heat
exchangers, ASME Journal of Heat Transfer 115 (1993) 584591.
[26] S. Grandgeorge, C. Jallut, B. Thonon, Particulate fouling of corrugated plate
heat exchangersglobal kinetic andequilibriumstudies, Chemical Engineering
Science 53 (17) (1998) 30513071.
[27] M.S. Todorovi c, BPS, energy efciency and renewable energy sources for
buildings greening and zero energy cities planning: harmony and ethics of
sustainability, Energy and Buildings 48 (5) (2011) 180189.
[28] Y.C. Xu, Q. Chen, An entransy dissipation-based method for global opti-
mization of district heating networks, Energy and Buildings 48 (5) (2011)
5060.