Sie sind auf Seite 1von 91

AD-A213 430

GAS TURBINE REGENERATORS:

A METHOD FOR SELECTING THE OPTIMUM PLATE-FINNED SURFACE PAIR FOR MINIMUM CORE VOLUME by

JOSEPH FRANCIS CAMPBELL, JR.

-

B. S. Mech. Eng., University of Pennsylvania

 

(1980)

 

SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF

OCEAN ENGINEERING IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

 

ELECTE

FOR THE

DEGREES OF NAVAL ENGINEER AND

ELE

TEASTER

OF SCIENCE IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

OCT 121989

Ii

at the

W

C4 7

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

June, 1989

--

,

..

© Joseph Francis Campbell, Jr. 1989. All rights reserved.

The author hereby grants to MIT and the United States Government permission to reproduce and to distribute copies of this thesis in whole or in part.

Signature of Author

________________________

 

-.

 

k

f

Certified by

A

!/f

Certified by

-

Accepted by

.

Department of Ocean Engineering

May,

1989

1

M

y

18

Professor Warren M. Rohsenow

Department of Mechanical Thesis

Engineering

Supervisor

Pro

ssor A. Douglas Carmichael

Department of Ocean Engineering Thesis Reader

ProfessorAg-Dnuas Carmichael Chairman, Departmental Graduate Committee Department of Ocean Engineering

DMlTRMhUMON STATEMEn A

Approved for public rele iosg

Distribution

Unih-ted

GAS TURBINE REGENERATORS:

A METIOD FOR SELECTIN(; THE OPTIMUM PLATE-FINNED SURFACE PAIR FOR MINIMUM CORE VOLUME

by

JOSEPH FRANCIS CAMPBELL, JR. Lieutenant, United States Navy

Submitted to the Department of Ocean Engineering on May 12, 1989 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degrees of Naval

Engineer and Master of Science inMechanical Engineering.

ABSTRACT

Based on a power law curve fit for the Soland et al. [2] modification of the Kays-London [ I] way of presenting heat exchanger performance, a closed-form solution for sizing counterflow

regenerators is derived. After applying this method to many Kays-London plate-finned surfaces, the optimum surface pair for minimum heat exchanger core volume is found to be

1/9-24.12 and 1/10-19.35.

In general, the minimum core volume will be obtained by

following a three step process: 1) select a surface for the high pressure side having the

minimum plate spacing commensurate with cleaning constraints;

2) list all other available

surfaces with plate spacings nearly equal to the selected high pressure side plate spacing -i.e.

b 2 /---t.O):-3)

select from this list the surface with the minimum hydraulic diameter for use

on the low pressure side.

.

THESIS SUPERVISOR:

TITLE:

Professor Warren M. Rohsenow Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Emeritus

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE

ABSTRACT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NOMENCLATURE

LIST OF FIGURES

1.

INTRODUCTION

  • 2. BACKGROUND

  • 3. DERIVATION OF SIZING METHOD

  • 4. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

    • 5. CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B

1

2

3

4

5

8

9

10

14

24

36

37

38

65

4

NOMENCLATURE

Symbo

a

At,

DefinitiQn

thickness of plate separating heat exchanger

sides

heat transfer area of base surface which

includes the

effect of fins; equals length tines heated perimeter

minimum free flow area

V_

ft

ft 2

ft 2

AF

AT

b

cp

Dn

flow area ignoring any fins

total

heat transfer area

plate spacing

specific heat nominal diameter; defined by (lb)

ft

ft

ft

Btuflbm-*F

ft

f

fn

g 0

Gc

friction factor based on total area (AT); defined by (4a)

friction

factor based on base area (Ab); defined by (4b)

conversion factor (= 32.174 lb-ft/lbf-sec 2 )

mass flux based on minimum free flow area; defined by (2a)

G,

mass flux

based

on free

flow area (AF);

defined by

(2b)

h

heat transfer coefficient defined by (5a)

based

on total

area

(AT);

h.

heat transfer coefficient defined by (5b)

based

on base area

(A,);

j

Colbum

j-factor based on total area (AT); defined by

(6a)

  • j. Colburn

(6b)

j-factor

based on base area (A . ); defined by

k

thermal conductivity of heat exchanger metal

Kf

K

y-axis intercept of "new defined by (16b)

best-fit" line with slope = -s;

y-axis intercept of "new defined by (16a)

best-fit" line with slope = -s;

Lf

In

P

fin length from root to center (=b/2)

component of fin efficiency component of core volume

(tn); defined by (9)

formula derived

according

lbhr-ft2

lb./hr-ft 2

Btu/hr-ft 2 -'F

Btu/hr-ft-F

Btu/hr-ft-'F

ft

ft ° 2 S)

to pressure drop considerations; defined by (26)

q

q/A

heat transfer rate

heat flux

5

Btu/hr

Btu/hr-ft 2

Q

r

r h

R

s

T

U

V

X

(XY)

Y

Z

component of core volume formula derived according

ft s

"

to heat transfer considerations; defined by (34) correlation coefficient hydraulic radius; defined by (la)

ft

gas constant

ft-lb/lb-'F

average slope of all best-fit lines through j, and f, vs. Re. data points

temperature overall heat transfer coefficient

T Btu/hr-ft 2 -*F

volume

 

ft 3

heat

exchanger width

ft

heat

exchanger

frontal area

ft 2

heat exchanger height

ft

heat exchanger length

ft

DIMENSIONLESS GROUPS

Pr

Prandtl number

Re

Reynolds number based on minimum free flow area

Re,

(1); defined by (3a) Reynolds number based defined by (3b)

on free flow area (A,);

SUBSCRIPTS

n

denotes

a parameter modified according to Soland's

1,2

method [2] indicates different sides of heat exchanger

6

MISCELLANEOUS

  • cc ratio of total area on one side of the heat exchanger to ft*' total volume of the heat exchanger, defined by (17)

 

ratio of total heat transfer area on one side to the

ft.

volume on that side fin thickness

ft

81

temperature

difference;

as shown in Figure 5

 

F

AT

temperature

difference;

as

shown

in Figure

5

F

Ap

friction pressure drop

 

lbf/ft 2

C

heat exchanger effectiveness

 

,If

fin efficiency; defined by (8)

71.

total surface temperature effectiveness; defined by (7)

 

F

ratio of free flow area to frontal area; defined by (19)

p.

viscosity

lbj/hr-ft

p

density

lbm/ft 3

(0

mass flow rate

lbm/hr

7

LIST OF FIGURES

Figur

TL&

1

Sample Calculation of Nominal Diameter and Mass Flux 11 for Rectangular Flow Passage

2

j and fvs. Re; j,, and f, vs.

Re, for Surface

3/16-11.1

13

3a

Histogram of Slopes

for j,

vs. Re,

 

17

3b

Histogram of Slopes for

f. vs. Re,

17

4

Surface 3/16-11.1 "New Best-Fit" Line (slope=-0.46)

18

5

Definition of AT and n" for a counterflow heat exchanger 23

with (oxc)

= (oxp)2

6a

Volume vs. K2/K,,.

Side

One Surface

3/16-11.1:

27

b2b,=1.O

6b

Volume vs. b 2 /b 1 = 1.3

KrJK 1 . Side

One Surface

3/16-11.1:

27

6c

Volume vs. b 2 /bl=1.6

K2/KfI. Side One

Surface 3/16-11.1:

28

6d

Volume vs. Kn/Kf,. Side One b 2 /b,=1.9

Surface 3/16-11.1:

28

6e

Volume vs. b 2 /b,=3.0

Krn/Kf,. Side One Surface 3/16-11.1:

29

7a

Volume vs. Hydraulic Diameter. Side

One Surface

30

3/16-11.1: b 1 =0.0208 ft, 4rhl=0.01012 ft

 

7b

Volume vs. Plate Spacing Ratio. Side

One Surface

31

3/16-11.1: b 1 =0.0208 ft, 4rhl=0.01012

ft

8a

Volume vs. Hydraulic Diameter. Side One 1/9-24.12: b 1 =0.0063 ft, 4rh,--0.00397 ft

Surface

32

8b

Volume vs. Plate Spacing Ratio. Side One Surface 1/9-24.12: b,=0.0063 ft, 4r,,,=0.00397 ft

33

9a

Volume vs. Hydraulic 17.8-3/8W: b 1 =0.0345

Diameter. Side One Surface ft, 4rh,=0.00696 ft

34

9b

Volume vs. Plate Spacing Ratio. Side One Surface 17.8-3/8W: b,=0.0345 ft, 4rh,=0.00696 ft

35

8

I INTRODUCTION

When designing gas turbine regenerators for a given application, often the goal is to

minimize volume. In the past, methods for sizing counterflow plate-finned regenerators were

iterative and methods for selecting the optimal (minimum core volume) surface pair were

complex and iterative in nature [1]. In this paper, an approximate closed-form solution for

the sizing problem is derived and a set of criteria for choosing the optimal surface pair is

presented. After the surfaces on each side have been selected, the final sizing and design

must be re-calculated using the method of Kays-London [1).

9

2 BACKGROUND

Kays

and London [i], hereafter denoted as K-L, present data for many plate-finned

surfaces in terms of heat transfer coefficients, h, and friction factors, f, referred to the

exposed area, AT, as a function of Reynolds number, based on the minimum free-flow area,

A,. Soland et al [2] present a method which converts these h and f magnitudes to the base

plate area, Ab. Table 1 shows Soland's definitions of the various quantities compared with

the definitions used by K-L.

Table 1. Definitions

Quantity

Kays and London [1]

hydraulic

AZ

diameter or radius

T

mass flux

G,

 

G--

Reynolds number

4GCi'

 

Re

Jt

friction factor

(Ap )rh(2pg,,)

ZG

heat transfer

q/"1A

coefficient

h -

AT

Colbumn j-factor

o =

h

(Pr)" 3

(la)

(2

(2a)A

(3a)

(

(

(6a)

Soland [2]

4AFZ

Ab

4V

Ab

)

G,-

Re,

GAD,

a

Ii

(2b)

(3b)

(Ap)D,(2pgo)

4ZG2

(4b)

h/

--

AT

(5b)

j.,

-

/1

/

(Pr) 3

'

(6b)

The efficiencies are defined by (7), (8), and (9).

-.AT-( - 1 f)

tanh(niLf)

-(L9)

(7)

(8)

10

m

-M

(9)

Below is r kertlnent excerpt from Soland's paper:

The effect of the fins is included in the new ki

and f,,based on At.

Further, the new Reynolds number, Re., is based on the open flow,

AF, as though the fins were not present. Thi, requires that the metal

conductivity of the fins be specified in incorporating the effect of the

fins into h.

Note from Figure 1, D, = 2b for a rectangular parallel plate passage.

X

b

 

A, = Xb

D

A,

= 2XZ

G,

V

= XZb

=4

V

-

A,,

= 4- YZb

2Y Z

2b

M)

A,

(1)

Xh

Figure 1. Sample Calculation of Nominal Diameter and Mass Flux for Rectangular Flow Passage

To convert the data of K-L to Soland's basis, the following ratios can be obtained from the

definitions, (1) through (9), and Figure 1,

where

A6

A-

2KZ

3V

2

-3b

11

(10)

 

-y

-=(11) d

[3.

 

~V

(and

 

Pn

b~

The other ratios are:

 

AF

XZb_

 

1

(12)

A,

Arrh

-

3 rh

 
 

=- 1rh

 

(13)

G,

AF

 

Re,

D.G,,

 

b

(14)

Re

4 rh

G,

2

f,

AFAr GZ

   

f

Z

b - Z 3

2

?-A1G

r,

 

(

15 )

j,,

h,,.

 

I,

b

-

-

(

16 )

j

h

G

2r16

 

These ratios are used to convert K-L data to the modified j. and f, vs. Re. curves

obtained by Soland. Two assumptions are necessary to solve for the proper fin efficiency, rif,

required for the conversion. The heat exchanger in this study is constructed from steel (k =_

12 Btu/ft-hr-*F) and the gas properties are evaluated for air at 750°F.

Figure 2 shows the two

pairs of curves on both bases for a typical K-L surface, namely their 3/16-11.1 plate-finned

surface, Figure 10.44 of reference [1].

12

1.OE+00

fn

 

1.OE-O1

 

-%

LL

0

 

1.OE-02

1.OE+02

I .OE+03

1.OE+04

1.OE+O5

Reynolds Number

Figure 2. j and f vs. Re: j, and f, vs. Re,

for Surface 3/16-1 1.1

13

3 DERIVATION OF SIZING METHOD

Several preliminary steps are necessary before deriving the sizing method. First is the

key approximation of fitting straight

lines through the modified K-L data points, j,, and f,, vs.

Re ..

These lines have the functional relationships:

 

j,

= KsRe

and

 

f,

= KfRe -

(1 7a)

(17b)

where K and Kf are

y-axis intercepts and -s is the slope of the line on a log-log plot. The

values for s, Kj, and Kf are determined using a linear regression routine. A "best-fit" line is

found for each surface's jn and f,, vs. Re, data points. Tables 2a and 2b list the slopes of these

best-fit lines with the associated correlation coefficient, r (defined in reference [3]), for each

of the 26 K-L surfaces examined in this study. Generally, the j, and f, vs. Re, data are well

represented by straight lines as evidenced by the fact that all correlation coefficients are

greater than 0.93. Figures 3a and 3b are histograms of the slopes for j, and fn vs. Ren for all

surfaces considered by this paper. By averaging the slopes from Tables 2a and 2b, the valu,-

to be used for s in (17a) and (17b) is found to be 0.46.

14

 

Table 2a.

, vs. Re.

Surface

Name

Plate

Nominal

name from

used in

Spacing,

Plate

slope

r

Ki

K-L [1]

Fig.

b

Spacing

1/10-19.74

S27

0.0042

-0.440

0995

0656

1/10-19.35

S29

0.0063

0.006

-0.484

0.999

1.069

1/9-24.12

S28

0.0063

-0.434

0.993

1.312

3/8(b)- 11.1

L19

0.0208

-0.486

0.999

1.746

3/4-11.1

L21

0.0208

-0.484

0.999

1.396

3/8-11.1

L18

0.0208

-0.506

0.999

1.773

3/16-11.1

L15

0.0208

0.021

-0.497

0.999

1.872

11.1

P04

0.0208

-0.395

0.983

0.932

1/2-11.1

L20

0.0208

-0.473

0.997

1.514

3/4(b)- 1I.1

L22

0.0208

-0.459

0.999

1.380

1/8-16.12T

S31

0.0261

-0.607

0.998

4.440

14.77

P06

0.0275

0.028

-0.503

0.996

1.615

30.33T

PIO

0.0287

-0.790

0.999

4.314

1/6-12.18D

S30

0.0294

-0.641

0.999

2.656

6.2

P02

0.0337

-0.306

0.938

0.686

17.8-3/8W

W27

0.0345

-0.612

0.999

4.046

11.44-3/8W

W26

0.0345

0.034

-0.549

0.999

3.014

1/8-15.2

S25

0.0346

-0.489

0.999

3.575

15.08

P07

0.0348

-0.621

0.986

1.447

5.3

P01

0.0392

-0.403

0.996

0.987

11.11

(a)

P05

0.0400

0.040

-0.396

0.936

2.046

3/32-12.22

S24

0.0404

-0.584

0.999

2.899

3.97

P14

0.0625

-0.331

0.989

1.274

2.0

P12

0.0625

0.064

-0.313

0.997

0.790

P13

  • 3.01 0.0625

-0.339

0.987

1.007

  • 9.03 0.0686

P03

-0.537

0.987

1.625

Note: The intercept K, is determined for the average slope equal to -0.46.

15

 

Table 2b. f

vs. RRe,

Surface

Name

Plate

Nominal

name from

used in

Spacing,

Plate

K-L [1]

Fig. 6

b

1/10-19.74

S27

0.0042

1/10-19.35

S29

0.0063

0.006

1/9-24.12

S28

0.0063

3/8(b)- 11.1

L19

0.0208

3/4-11.1

L21

0.0208

3/8-11.1

L18

0.0208

3/16-11.1

LI5

0.0208

0.021

11.1

P04

0.0208

1/2-11.1

L20

0.0208

3/4(b)- 11.1

L22

0.0208

1/8-16.12T

S31

0.0261

14.77

P06

0.0275

0.028

30.33T

PIO

0.0287

1/6-12.18D

S30

0.0294

6.2

P02

0.0337

17.8-3/8W

W27

0.0345

11.44-3/8W

W26

0.0345

0.034

1/8-15.2

S25

0.0346

15.08

P07

0.0348

5.3

P01

0.0392

11 .11(a)

P05

0.0400

0.040

3/32-12.22

S24

0.0404

3.97

P14

0.0625

2.0

P12

0.0625

0.064

  • 3.01 0.0625

P13

  • 9.03 0.0686

P03

slope

r

Kf

-a-

-0.457

0.977

3.919

-0.522

0.992

5.265

-0.493

0.988

8.737

-0.376

0.980

11.561

-0.454

0.982

8.060

-0.388

0.982

11.806

-0.395

0.995

14.766

-0.441

0.960

4.141

-0.375

0.971

9.436

-0.429

0.982

8.068

-0.378

0.965

52.575

-0.493

0.972

10.369

-0.807

0.991

29.905

-0.498

0.985

18.694

-0.371

0.943

3.092

-0.435

0.999

45.642

-0.391

1.000

34.107

-0.335

0.969

47.617

-0.640

0.969

7.032

-0.458

0.972

3.226

-0.516

0.959

8.833

-0.385

0.980

41.038

-0.260

0.969

5.607

-0.212

0.976

2.648

-0.264

0.968

4.448

-0.418

0.946

12.057

Note: The intercept Kf is detemlined for the average slope equal to -0.46.

16

20-

150 10 , 10 0.16-0.26 0.26-0.36 0.36-0.46 0.46-0.56 0.56-0.66 > 0.66 "Best-f r slopes of in
150
10
,
10
0.16-0.26
0.26-0.36
0.36-0.46
0.46-0.56
0.56-0.66
> 0.66
"Best-f r
slopes of in vs.
Ran
Figure 3a.
Histogram of slopes forj, vs. Re.
20-
155
155

Is

17

With s thus determined, the j,, and f, vs. Re, data for each surface is revisited. This time,

"new best-fit" lines are determined but the slopes of the lines are fixed at s equal to 0.46 for

all surfaces. A plot of this kind is included for the typical surface 3/16-11.1 as Figure 4.

 

1.OE+02

Kf

1.0E+01

1.0E+00j

"".

CE

 

1.05-01

1.0E-02

I

I

l

I

I

II11 I11i

I

1.0E+00

1.0E+01

1.0E+02

slope -0.46

f

In

II

l

I

I

I

ILLL

1.0E+03

1.0E+04

1.OE+05

Reynolds Number (Ren)

Figure 4. Surface 3/16-11.1 "New Best-Fit" Line (slope = -0.46)

The y-axis intercepts, Kj and Kf, for surface 3/16-11.1 are shown graphically on Figure 4.

The intercepts of the new best-fit lines for the other surfaces are listed in Tables 2a and 2b.

For the surface 3/16-11.1, the average error between the new best-fit line (slope equal to

-0.46) and the f, data points is 2% and forj. is 1%. For a discussion of the method used to

calculate the average error and for plots similar to Figure 4 for the other surfaces, see

Appendix A.

Next, define two heat exchanger core geometrical parameters, or, and a ..

"'

Ah,

VT

2

b, +b 2 +2a-

2

b,

+hz

18

OC2--

Ab 2

2

2

-b+b

o

(18b)

Note that in (18a) and (18b) the heat transfer resistance of the plate (thickness = a) separating

the two sides of the heat exchanger is considered negligible and therefore the "2a" term is

dropped. The other geometrical parameter is:

CF.,=-

AFI

(XY)

b,

=1a

= b, +b 2

AF 2

O2 -(XY)

-

b

2

bl+b

2

(19a

(

(19b)

The mass flux, G, and Reynolds number, Ren can be written in terms of these geometrical

parameters as:

G,

-I

-

Re,

GA,,I,

I

I_

-

+b2/b)

o

2bO

X

ot

2b 1

-(1+b

/bl)

2

with similar results for Gn and Ren.

(20)

(21)

The remaining preliminary step is to specify the operating conditions for which the

regenerator will be sized. For this study, side one of the regenerator is the cold, high pressure

side.

The mass flow rates are assumed given and equal on both sides:

e = o = 108.7 lbsec

The other given conditions are:

inlet pressures: p, = 268.14 psi; P2 = 16.04 psi

allowable combined pressure drop:

I(Ap/p) = 0.08

inlet temperatures: T,, = 1012.6"R; T 2 j, = 1434.2"R

effectiveness:

e, = F2= 0.90

19

Note that with the inlet temperatures and the effectiveness specified, it is a simple task to

compute the outlet temperatures and the average temperatures on both sides, T, and T 2 .

Having completed the above preliminary steps, it is now possible to derive the

approximate closed-form formula for sizing a counterflow regenerator. The derivation

consists of three steps. First, the heat exchanger core size (X,Y, and Z) is found as a function

of the allowable pressure drop. Step two finds the core size based on heat transfer

considerations. In step three, the equations resulting from steps one and two are solved

simultaneously to yield the formula for core volume.

STEP I. From (4b), the pressure drop equation can be written as:

Ap

-

4f

.Z G,'

_

(22)

p,

p,(2pjgo)D,

 

Substitute for f,, using (17b), use Z, =Z

= Z for counterflow arrangement and substitute for

2b, = D. from Figure 1:

Ap

P

4K 1 Re

p'p,

Z

G

2b,2go

(

Substitute for G. from (20) and Re, from (21) and rearrange:

Similarly,

_P_

2KZJ4g

s

) (+bb,2

(24a)

Ap_

2KrZi.LxS

0(1

+b,/b 2 ))

(24b)

P2

p 2 p 2 go(2b 2 )sl

-"

(XY)

Combining (24a) and (24b)

and letting g, = p-2 =

g

20

A; _;, A,

yAP =API,+AP2

P

PI

P2

-2Z1±

g=

S(

Ii

(0

(XY)

fp(+b

2 /bI)-

pp,(2b,)'

Kf2(1+bl/b 2 ) 2 -S

_______

+

p 2 P 2 (2b 2 )S+ I

25

Define the heat exchanger size in terms of pressure drop as P:

(Xy) 2 -s

P = ((26)

Z

Substituting p = RT/p from the ideal gas relationship, then from (25) and (26):

2R

A.vgp,2 -s

K(27)

s

+

(2b,)

(1

SP

1-Pl

b2

+-KfIt

-

+/

P2

T,

b2

STEP 2. The heat transfer rate equation from [4] is:

where

q = UA b (AT)

1

UAh

+~(i(29)

)I

+(

) 2

From (6b):

h.,

I

cp iG. i

, (p

(Pro",

1

Substitute for j., using (17a):

=

CPI

Re sG~,

(pr 1 ) 2 1"

(28)

(30)

(31)

Substitute for G. from (20), Re,

from (21), let Pr, = Pr 2 = Pr, cp, = c 2 = cP and rearrange:

hlI

c

!( (x)'

RsK,,b+b 2 ~I-

(2bj)S

(32a)

21

Similarly,

2 CP 0 1.'K2b,

1_

-r/(xjS(

b

2

'

(2b 2 )s'

(32b)

Combining (32a) and (32b) with (28) and (29) and using:

Ab =

2(XYZ)

+b)

aX"(XYZ) = -(b

(b, + b)

from (18), then:

AT

q

=

(b, +b 2 )Pr

2(XY)SZcP0

3

-sjs (

1(

bs_

b+b

2 )

(2b 1

S +

IKib,+b 2 )

(2

2 ))

(33)

Define the heat exchanger size in terms of heat transfer as Q:

Q

- (y)SZ

Then substituting (33) into (34) and rearranging:

=(b, +b 2 )q

N' 3

((

b I 1 Y(2b,)s+

_

(

2AT) c,

o-sps

.b,

+b,_

K, I

b 2

)'-s ( 2 , 2 Y)

K, 2

)(35)

(34)

(35

Make the substitution q = XocpT (where the relationship between AT and 8T is shown in

Figure 5) and rearrange:

Q (T

&SPr

2

3

(

__

+ __

2

jlb

(36)

STEP 3.

The definitions for P (26) and Q (34) provide two equations for the two

unknowns, (XY) and Z. Solving these simultaneously, the closed-form solution for the heat

exchanger core volume is:

I -S

3-S

V = p2

Q

2

22

(37)

Thiln

i

---

--

-

-

- --

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

---

-

-

Tc,out}

 

aT

 

TcIn

 

0

Z

-

6T

Heat Exchanger Length Figure 5. Definition of AT and 6T for a counterflow heat exchanger with (wcx

= (Wcd) 2

23

From the data in Table 3 (and the data in Appendix B for other side one surfaces) a

relationship can be developed between heat exchanger volume, hydraulic diameter, and plate

spacing ratio. Figure 7a is a plot of heat exchanger volume versus hydraulic diameter when

the typical surface 3/16-11.1 is on side one. Six nominal plate spacing ratios are plotted.

From this figure, it is seen that increasing hydraulic diameter results in larger volume.

The same volumes from Table 3 are plotted in Figure 7b but this time as a function of

plate spacing ratio. The relationship between increasing hydraulic diameter and larger

volume is clearly shown in this graph. An additional result that can be seen from this figure

is that for comparable hydraulic diameters and plate spacing ratios, interrupted fin surfaces

generally result in smaller volumes than continuous fi surfaces. Also, although the curves

of volume versus plate spacing ratio are relatively flat for any range of hydraulic diameter,

Figure 7b generally confirms the result from Figure 6 that minimum volume occurs when the

plate spacing ratio is near one. Figures 8a, 8b and 9a, 9b show results similar to Figure 7 for

other surfaces on side one. Figure 8 has surface 1/9-24.12 on side one. This is the side one

surface which results in the minimum heat exchanger volume. Figure 9 has surface

17.8-3/8W on side one.

This is the surface that Soland determined to be "best" [2].

25

Table 3. Side One: 3/16-11.1

  • - -

I

Surface

4r,

Volume

Designation

(ft)

(ft' )

Ka/Kf

1/10-19.74

0.00400

436.7

0.2

0.35

0.27

1/10-19.35

0.00460

356.4

0.3

0.57

0.36

1/9-24.12

0.00397

375.8

0.3

0.70

0.59

3/8(b)-11.1

0.01012

377.9

1.0

0.93

0.78

3/4-11.1

0.01012

400.5

1.0

0.75

0.55

3/8-11.1

0.01012

376.2

1.0

0.95

0.80

3/16-11.1

0.01012

385.8

1.0

1.00

1.00

11.1

0.01012

460.7

1.0

0.50

0.28

1/2-11.1

0.01012

394.1

1.0

0.81

0.64

3/4(b)- 11.1

0.01012

404.0

1.0

0.74

0.55

1/8-16.12T

0.00514

362.4

1.3

2.37

3.56

14.77

0.00848

439.1

1.3

0.86

0.70

30.33T

0.00401

322.1

1.4

2.30

2.03

1/6-12.18D

0.00885

374.4

1.4

1.42

1.27

6.2

0.01820

809.1

1.6

0.37

0.21

17.8-3/8W

0.00696

394.7

1.7

2.16

3.09

11.44-3/8W

0.0106

435.3

1.7

1.61

2.31

1/8-15.2

0.00868

429.0

1.7

1.91

3.22

15.08

0.00876

502.2

1.7

0.77

0.48

5.3

0.02016

648.5

1.9

0.53

0.22

11.1

(a)

0.01153

439.2

1.9

1.09

0.60

3/32-12.22

0.01120

509.3

1.9

1.55

2.78

3.97

0.02820

916.8

3.0

0.68

0.38

2.0

0.04740

1321.9

3.0

0.42

0.18

  • 3.01 1119.3

0.03546

3.0

0.54

0.30

  • 9.03 942.0

0.01522

3.3

0.87

0.82

26

1400

Kj2/KJ1 -0.5

 

1000

E

 

>

600

 

200

1.02-02

1.02-01

 

Figure

6a. Volume vs. Kf,f.

 

2000

 
 

I

 

1500

 

-;1000

(D-

 

500-

 

-

 

1.0E-02

1.02-01

 

Figure

6b. Volume vs. KK,

L22

L18KJ2/KI

1.0E+00

KfZ/Kf 1

1.OE+01

Side One Surface 3/16-11. 1: bAI 1

6--

3

r-~~

1.OE+00

Kf 2 Kf 1

1.02+01

Side One Surface 3/16-11. 1: b,/b,

=

27

Kj2/Kj1 -1.0

Kj2IKjl -2.0

-5.0

 

1.0E+02

.0

Kj2IKjl -0.5

JI110

KJKj1-2.0

KP06~1 -2.

Kj2IKjl-5.0

 

1.02+02

1.3

4000

3000

2000

1000

1.OE-02

1.OE-Oi

0

P02KJ2/Kjl

 

0

P07

26

25KJ2A~jl

1.OE+00

1.OE+01

Kf2/Kfl

Figure 6c. Volume vs. K,,[K,. Side One Surface 3/16-11. 1: bjb 1

3000

2000

E

>

1000

1.OE-02

~JL

i

4

1.OE-0

U~L

P01P05

~

L

L

-LI-

1 .1

-

1.OE+00

Kf2/l1

-L

-lW

f

I 1

111

I

1.OE+01

 

KKJI-10.3

 

KKjl

=0.5

K)2/K~l -1.0

 
 

-2.0

-5.0

 

1.OE+02

1.6

 

Kj2/fl

-0.5

K1/-l.

KJ2/K J1= .

jAl=.0

-5-S4

 

1

1

1

 

1.OE+02