Heat Exchanger - WaterCoil

Liquid Side Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop in
Finned-Tube Cooling-Coils
Caroline Haglund Stignor

September 2002
Thesis for the degree of Licentiate of Engineering

ISRN LUTMDN/TMHP--02/7007--SE
Caroline Haglund Stignor, September 2002
Division of Heat Transfer
Department of Heat and Power Engineering
Lund Institute of Technology
P.O. Box 118, S-221 00 Lund
Sweden
Printed by KFS AB, Lund, October 2002
This work has been carried out at SP Swedish National Testing and Research Institute.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate how the heat transfer performance of conventional
cooling-coils can be improved, primarily in order to reduce the use of electric energy. There
are many applications for cooling-coils. One of particular interest is cooling of the air in display cabinets. The reason is that new regulations regarding use of synthetic refrigerants have
led to an increasing use of indirect cooling by means of liquid secondary refrigerants in supermarkets, especially in the Nordic countries. This means that instead of evaporation taking
place in the cooling-coil tubes, a liquid that is circulated out to the display cabinets from a
central chiller does the cooling. In this case the liquid side heat transfer resistance is much
higher compared to the case of evaporation, especially if the flow is laminar.
In the research work presented in this thesis, different ways to improve the performance of
indirectly cooled cooling-coils have been investigated both experimentally and in theoretical
parameter studies. To start with, full-scale experiments with conventional cooling-coils aimed
for display cabinets were performed. Heat transfer and pressure drop performance on the
liquid side for three different single-phase secondary refrigerants were studied and compared
to predictions by existing correlations. Thereafter, appropriate correlations and assumptions
were used to create a calculation model. This model was then used in a parameter study where
the effect of changing the cooling-coil geometry was investigated. Optimising criteria for a
display cabinet application were stated aiming at reducing the amount of electric energy used
by the chiller, the liquid pumps and the fans of the display cabinet. For such criteria it was
found that the overall efficiency could be improved by increasing the number of parallel loops
(or circuits), by reducing the tube diameter and by reducing the length between the U-bends
of the cooling-coil. The latter is due to the fact that the boundary layers are destroyed and a
new entrance length is formed after each U-bend. In addition it has been shown that optimal
operation regarding liquid flow rate and inlet temperature to the cooling-coil is strongly
dependent on the cooling-coil geometry and choice of secondary refrigerant. However, it was
found that for the most efficient cooling-coils presented in this thesis, optimal operation for
display cabinet applications corresponded to the laminar flow regime.
In the next step of the research work, the calculation model used in the parameter study for
conventional cooling-coils was complemented with correlations for different enhancement
techniques for laminar flow, such as continuous and regularly spaced twisted-tape inserts and
longitudinal internal fins. The model was then used to investigate whether the cooling-coil
performance could be improved further by application of any of these enhancement techniques. The results showed that this was the case if the liquid flow path (total tube) length of
the cooling-coil is sufficiently short, but the improvements are moderate. However, the
moderately better or equal performance is achieved at a lower liquid flow rate, which might
be an advantage for the rest of the cooling-system of the supermarket.
Finally, small-scale experiments on a single-tube including a U-bend were carried out for the
purpose of verification of correlations. One important finding was then that when using correlations developed in small-scale experiments for prediction of the heat transfer performance
of a complete cooling-coil, the effect of free convection must be considered.
Keywords: heat transfer, pressure drop, laminar, cooling-coil, indirect cooling, secondary
refrigerants
ii
Acknowledgements
This work has been carried out at SP Swedish National Testing and Research Institute. Firstly
I would like to express my great appreciation to my supervisor Professor Per Fahln, at
Chalmers University of Technology (at the beginning of the project at SP), for his many ideas
and suggestions and for encouraging advice. Thanks also to my supervisors at the Division of
Heat Transfer, Lund Institute of Technology, Professor Bengt Sundn and Ph.D. Daniel
Eriksson, for helpful advices and discussions. At SP I would like to express my gratitude to
Lic.Eng. Monica Axell for encouragement and fruitful discussions about display cabinets and
cooling systems in supermarkets and M.Sc. Bengt Nordling for many practical advice regarding measurement technique and building of measurement set-ups. I would also like to
thank the engineers Gunilla Andersson and Peter Lidbom and the M.Sc. student Kristoffer
Tyvik, for help with measurements and all other colleagues who have encouraged, guided and
helped me in my work.
The Swedish Energy Agency and the Swedish District Heating Association are gratefully acknowledged for financial support. The work has been carried out in co-operation with a
project group, consisting of a number of industrial partners contributing with material, time
and fruitful advice. Those companies, namely ABB Coiltech, Alfal Laval, Grundfos, Hydro
Alunova, Hydro Gas&Chemicals, Refcon, Temper Technology, Wica Cold and Wilo, are
therefore thankfully acknowledged. Finally thanks to everyone else who have supported my
work!
iii
iv
List of Publications
This thesis is partly based on the following papers:
Haglund, C and Fahln, P, Jmfrelse av metoder fr att frbttra vrmeverfring och
tryckfall i kldbrarkylda kylbatterier med laminra vtskeflden (In Swedish, English title: A
comparison of methods for improvement of heat transfer and pressure drop in cooling-coils
cooled by a liquid in the laminar flow regime), in Proceedings of the Nordic Conference 16.
Nordiske klemde, 9. Nordiske varmepumpedage. 2001. Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 263272.
Haglund, C, Fahln, P, Sundn, B and Eriksson, D, Improvement of conventional indirect
cooling-coils for display cabinets theory and experiments, in Proceedings of the
International Conference New Technologies in Commercial Refrigeration, IIR/IIF
Commission D1/B1. 2002. Urbana, USA: Eds. Hrnjak, P S, pp. 120-129.
Haglund, C, Fahln, P, Sundn, B, and Eriksson, D, Enhancement of the performance of indirect cooling-coils for display cabinets, in Proceedings of the International Conference Zero
Leakage - Minimum Charge, IIR/IIF. 2002. Stockholm, Sweden: Eds. Pridasawas, W and
Palm, B, pp. 263-270.
vi
Table of Contents
1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................1
1.1
Background.................................................................................................................1
1.2
Objectives ...................................................................................................................3
1.3
Methodology...............................................................................................................4
1.4
Literature Survey ........................................................................................................4
1.4.1
Liquid Side Performance of Full-Sized Cooling-Coils ......................................4
1.4.2
Heat Transfer Augmentation Techniques for Laminar Flow .............................4
1.4.3
Performance Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................8
1.4.4
Thermophysical Properties of Liquid Secondary Refrigerants (Brines) ............9
Experiments ....................................................................................................................11
2.1
Description of Tested Objects ..................................................................................11
2.1.1
Conventional Cooling-Coils, B2 and B3 ..........................................................11
2.1.2
Improved Conventional Cooling-Coils, B4 and B5 .........................................12
2.1.3
Single-Tubes with and without Inserts .............................................................12
2.2
Secondary Refrigerants used in the Experiments .....................................................13
2.3
Measurement Set-Up ................................................................................................14
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.4
Measurement Plan ....................................................................................................18
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.5
Uncertainty of Measurements...................................................................................19
Parameter Study .............................................................................................................21

3.1
Conventional Cooling-Coils without Inserts ............................................................21
3.1.1
Correlations ......................................................................................................21
3.1.2
Optimising Criteria ...........................................................................................24
3.2
Cooling-Coils with Continuous Twisted-Tape Inserts .............................................25
3.3
Cooling-Coils with Regularly Spaced Twisted-Tape Inserts ...................................26
3.4
Cooling-Coils with Longitudinal Internal Fins ........................................................28
Results..............................................................................................................................29
4.1
Experiments ..............................................................................................................29
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.2
Parameter Study........................................................................................................46
4.2.1
Conventional Cooling-Coils without Inserts ....................................................47
4.2.2
Cooling-Coils with Inserts or Internal Longitudinal Fins ................................50
4.2.3
Optimal Operation for the Purpose of Minimising the Electric Energy Use....52
vii
Discussion ........................................................................................................................59
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
Experiments with Conventional Cooling-Coils........................................................59

Parameter Study Conventional Cooling-Coils ......................................................59
New Experiments with Improved Conventional Cooling-Coils...............................60
Optimal Reynolds Number Regime .........................................................................60
Saving Potentials ......................................................................................................61
Evaluation of Enhancement Techniques ..................................................................61
Experiments with Single-Tubes................................................................................62
Uncertainty of Measurement ....................................................................................62
Conclusions......................................................................................................................65
Recommendations for Future Work.............................................................................67
References........................................................................................................................69
Appendix A
Correlations.................................................................................................75
Appendix B
Experimental Data......................................................................................83
Appendix C
Uncertainty of Measurements ...................................................................95
viii
Nomenclature
A
A0
Ac
Ac,t
Af
Afin
At
Area; m2
Total air side surface area of coil
Narrowest cross-sectional area
Narrowest cross-sectional area of tube bank without fins
Cross-sectional flow area
Surface area of fins
Outer surface area of tubes without fins
Concentration; %
cp
Specific heat; J/kg/K
D, d
D
Dc
d
dh
Diameter; m or mm
Outside diameter of tubes
Collar diameter Dc=D+2fin
Inner diameter of tubes
Hydraulic diameter dh = 4Af/P (P = perimeter)
f
ff
ft
Darcy friction factor, f = p d 2 Ltube u 2

Friction factor of fins
Friction factor of tube bundle
Gravitational acceleration; m/s2
Gr
Grashof number, Gr =
Gz
Graetz number, Gz =
Pitch for 180 rotation of twisted-tape
Specific enthalpy; J/kg
L
L
Ltube
Ltube,tot
l
Length; m or mm
Length of the coil in the direction of air flow
Heated tube length
Total length of a liquid loop or circuit
Characteristic length (e.g. in the definition of Reynolds number)
m
Mass flux; kg/s
Number of parallel loops or circuits of a cooling-coil
g 2 d 3 Tw
2
u Af cp
Ltube
ix
n
nt
nl
Specific number
Number of tubes orthogonal to the direction of air flow (transversely)
Number of tubes in the direction of air flow (longitudinally)
Nu
Nusselt number, Nu =
Pd
Wave (waffle) height; mm
p
pfin
pl
pt
Pitch; m or mm
Fin pitch
Longitudinal tube pitch
Transverse tube pitch
p
pf
pt
Pressure difference; Pa, kPa or bar

Pressure difference; air side of coil due to the fins
Pressure difference; air side of coil due to the tubes
Pr
Prandtl number, Pr =
Q
Cooling capacity; W
Radius of tube bend; mm
r
re
ri
Radius; mm
Equivalent fin radius
Inner radius of the fin
Ra
Rayleigh number, Ra = Gr Pr
Re
Reynolds number, Re =
Re
Reax
ReD
ReDc
Resw
RePd
Reynolds number based on empty tube diameter

Reynolds number based on axial velocity
Reynolds number based on the outer tube diameter
Reynolds number based on the collar diameter
Reynolds number based on actual swirl velocity at tube wall
Reynolds number based on waffle height
Tape spacing (twisted-tapes); m
Relative tape spacing (twisted-tapes), s = S/d ; m
sfin
Unfrosted fin spacing; m
Sw
Dimensionless swirl parameter, Sw =
dh
cp
u l
Re sw
y
Temperature; C
Temperature; K
T w
Wall-to-bulk fluid temperature difference; K
Expanded (total) uncertainty of measurements
Overall heat transfer coefficient; W/(m2K)
Uncertainty of measurements
Velocity; m/s
V
Volume flow; m3/s or m3/h
W e
Electric power; W
Xf
Projected wavy length; mm
Local distance along the test section from the inlet; m or mm
Twist ratio, i.e. number of tube diameters per 180 tape twist, y = H/d
Greek letters
Heat transfer coefficient; W/(m2K)

a
Heat transfer coefficient on the air side (dry air)
b
Heat transfer coefficient on the liquid (brine) side
Coefficient of isobaric thermal expansion; =
Thickness; m or mm
A
fin
Efficiency
Area efficiency
Fin efficiency
Relative humidity of air; %
Thermal conductivity; W/m/K
Viscosity (dynamic); Pas or mPas
Viscosity (Kinematic); m2/s
Density; kg/m3
Density difference (thermal expansion); kg/m3

xi
T ) p
; K-1
Subscripts
a
b
B
e
f
H
i
in
l
lm
m
m
min
out
p
p
T
t
tot
W
w
w
x
Air
Liquid secondary refrigerant (brine)
Bulk, at bulk temperature
Extra
Fan
Uniform heat flux boundary condition
Based on maximum inside (envelope) diameter
In to cooling-coil, at inlet conditions
Longitudinal
Logarithmic mean
Mean
Compressor motor
Minimal
Out from cooling-coil
Pump
Constant pressure
Uniform temperature boundary condition
Transverse
Total
Water
Wall, at wall temperature
By weight
Local value
xii
Introduction
A short background stating the significance of the present study is given below, followed by
the objectives of the study and the methodology used in the research work. Thereafter there is
a literature survey, where previous work related to this study is presented.
1.1
Background
Refrigeration of merchandise in supermarkets is responsible for a significant amount of the

energy use in the commercial sector. Open vertical display cabinets are commonly used and
despite of their frequent occurrence, they have a large energy requirement. In the display
cabinet the merchandise ought to be kept at a temperature that is lower than the ambience at
the same time as it should be easy for the customers to reach the merchandise. For example
meat should be kept at 0 - 4C and dairy products at 0 - 8C [1]. This is fulfilled by cooling
air in a cooling-coil and then distributing the air partly in a cold air curtain in front of the merchandise and partly through the back of the cabinet and above the merchandise. Thereafter the
air is returned via a fan back to the cooling-coil. The arrows in Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2 show
how the air is circulated in the display cabinet. The cold air curtain is supposed to work as a
cold barrier between the warm ambience outside the cabinet and the cold space within the
cabinet. However, due to infiltration, i.e. mixing with the warm outside air, radiation through
the cabinet opening, heat conduction through the cabinet walls and internal lighting etc. the
circulating air is heated and has to be cooled to its original temperature by the cooling-coil.
The cooling is achieved by electrically driven chillers. A typical key figure for the energy
requirement of modern display cabinets is 4000-8000 kWh electricity per meter and year. In
Sweden today, there are approximately 100 km of display cabinets installed in supermarkets
etc. This results in a total energy use for display cabinets in Sweden that amounts to 0.4 - 0.8
TWh electricity per year [2].
Lately, major changes regarding regulations for the use of synthetic refrigerants have been
taking place, especially in the Nordic countries. This has led to an extended use of indirect
cooling by means of a liquid secondary refrigerant. Indirect cooling means that, instead of
circulating the primary refrigerant through the cooling-coils of the display cabinets and hence
using the cooling-coils as evaporators, a secondary refrigerant is cooled by heat exchange
with a primary refrigerant in a liquid cooler placed close to the chiller. Then the secondary
refrigerant is circulated to the cooling-coils placed in the display cabinets. In Figure 1.1 schematic pictures show the difference between a direct and an indirect refrigeration system. In
reality one chiller often serves several display cabinets and not only one as in the pictures.
Application of indirect cooling for the display cabinets in supermarkets enables minimisation
of the refrigerant charges and thereby also the leakage of the refrigerant. In addition, there are
other advantages associated with indirect cooling, such as for example a more homogeneous
cooling of the merchandise. However, one disadvantage of indirect cooling is that an extra
temperature difference is required in the liquid cooler, which in turn leads to the chiller
working with a lower evaporation temperature compared to the case of direct evaporation.
Besides, additional pumping power is necessary for distributing the secondary refrigerant out
to the display cabinets.
(a)
(b)
Figure 1.1 A display cabinet cooled by (a) a direct chiller and (b) an indirect cooling system
by means of a secondary refrigerant. The cooling-coil is placed in the back of the display
cabinet.
Figure 1.2 A display cabinet cooled by an indirect cooling system by means of a secondary
refrigerant. The cooling-coil is placed in the bottom of the display cabinet
The cooling-coil is one of the key-components in a display cabinet and traditionally, different
kind of tube-coils with aluminium fins on expanded copper tubes are used. An example of
such a coil is presented in Figure 1.3. The cooling-coil is either placed in the bottom of the
display cabinet, as in Figure 1.2, or in the back of the display cabinet as in Figure 1.1. The
tube-coil heat exchanger was originally designed for evaporation of a refrigerant. When
evaporation takes place in the tubes, the heat transfer coefficient on the tube side is very high
and the tube-side heat transfer resistance constitutes a contribution to the total heat transfer
resistance of the heat exchanger, which is almost negligible, since the air side resistance is of
such a high magnitude. Using a liquid secondary refrigerant as heat transfer medium, heat
transfer on the tube-side will be much lower compared to the case of evaporation of a refrigerant. A lower heat transfer coefficient must be compensated by a larger temperature difference in the cooling-coil, i.e. a lower supply temperature of the secondary refrigerant to the
cooling-coil. This in turn leads to a lower evaporation temperature for the chiller and hence to
a higher electric energy requirement. Therefore, it is appropriate to investigate the heat trans-
fer and pressure drop characteristics on the liquid side as well as the air side in this kind of
heat exchanger for the purpose of finding ways for improvement.
Figure 1.3 A traditional cooling-coil consisting of aluminium fins on expanded copper tubes.
Due to the fact that many secondary refrigerants have relatively high viscosity at low temperatures, the flow regime is often laminar. This may lead to poor heat transfer, especially in
tubes having circular cross-section. However, even though good heat transfer often is associated with a turbulent flow regime or a change of phase, such as evaporation or condensation, it is possible to achieve high heat transfer coefficients even for laminar flows if an appropriate design of the heat exchanger is applied. In addition, a single-phase laminar flow
regime offers a better ratio between heat transfer and pressure drop compared to the turbulent
flow regime [3, 4]. Therefore, for the purpose of optimisation, a cooling-coil for secondary
refrigerants could be designed in a totally different manner compared to the traditional tubecoil with aluminium fins on expanded copper tubes.
The heat transfer and pressure drop performance on the air side of finned tube-coils has been
thoroughly analysed by many researchers, see e.g. the reference [5]. On the contrary, there are
not many investigations concerning the heat transfer and pressure drop performance of a
cooling-coil operated in the laminar flow regime. To start with, in order to find out what the
design of a cooling-coil should be like to achieve an improved overall performance, the heat
transfer and pressure drop behaviour of the cooling-coils existing on the market today should
be investigated. Thereafter, an assessment of different enhancement techniques should be
made.
1.2
Objectives
Firstly, the objective of this study is to outline the heat transfer and pressure drop performance
on the liquid side of conventional cooling-coils when operated with liquid secondary refrigerants. Secondly, the study is aiming at using the obtained knowledge when investigating different enhancement techniques in order to find ways for improvement of the cooling-coil performance. Improved performance is in this case first and foremost defined as reduced use of
electric energy. In such a way the limitations regarding the potential for reduction of energy
usage by modifying the cooling-coil design can be estimated. The modifications concern primarily the liquid side of the cooling-coil, but the conditions on the air side must always be
considered as well. This study focuses first and foremost on cooling-coils in a display cabinet
application but the outcome of the study can to be used in many other applications where
liquid cooled finned-tube coils are used as well.
1.3
Methodology
This research project started by performing a literature survey. In this survey correlations for
predicting cooling-coil performance and enhancement techniques were studied. In addition,
previous experimental work concerning the liquid side of cooling-coils was surveyed.
Thereafter, this research project has been performed in several experimental as well as theoretical parts. As a start, introductory full-scale experiments were carried out with conventional
cooling-coils. By using the results from these experiments, essential conclusions were drawn
from comparison between measured data and correlations. A calculation model was then created, containing the appropriate selected correlations. This model was applied in a parameter
study, which resulted in a proposal on how to improve conventional cooling-coils by changing the coil parameters. However, in the parameter study correlations were used outside regions verified in the first part of the experiments. Therefore, verifications were carried out
with improved cooling-coils in new experiments.
Correlations for different enhancement techniques were then added to the calculation model
in order to find out whether such techniques could lead to further performance improvements.
The evaluated enhancement techniques were continuous and regularly spaced twisted-tape
inserts and longitudinal internal fins. The performance of the twisted-tape inserts was then
verified in small-scale experiments with a single-tube including a U-bend.
1.4
Literature Survey
As mentioned in section 1.1, the air side performance of cooling-coils has been investigated
by many researchers. However, this study is mainly focused on the liquid side heat transfer
and pressure drop in the laminar flow regime, even though the air side performance as well as
the turbulent flow regime are taken into consideration when necessary.
1.4.1
Liquid Side Performance of Full-Sized Cooling-Coils
Mao et al [6] and Hrnjak [7] investigated heat transfer in cooling-coils with secondary
refrigerants. They reported unexpectedly high heat transfer coefficients on the secondary refrigerant side at low Reynolds number in a heat exchanger of a display cabinet. This is explained by the fact that the thermally developing regions after the U-bends are longer than
expected and hence, the U-bend effect should be accounted for when designing heat exchangers for the laminar flow regime. Hong and Hrnjak [8] investigated the U-bend effect further
and correlations (i.e. curve fits) for different fluids were developed. The researchers concluded that the thermal development and heat transfer following a U-bend is very similar to
that after the inlet of the tube (see Figure 1.4). In addition to these studies, there are little experimental data regarding heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics for cooling-coils
cooled by secondary refrigerants available in the literature.
1.4.2
Heat Transfer Augmentation Techniques for Laminar Flow
When a secondary refrigerant such as e.g. a glycol is the flowing medium in the tubes of a
cooling-coil, the flow pattern is usually in the laminar or transitional regime. The reason for
this is that to reach a turbulent flow regime, the pressure drop would be too high because of
the high viscosity of the medium. There are several ways to augment the tube-side laminar
Figure 1.4 Elements of heat transfer characteristics in laminar developing flow [7].
heat transfer. The augmentation techniques can be classified as either passive or active augmentation techniques. The former ones require no other additional power input than pumping
power, while the latter ones require external power. Examples of active augmentation techniques are stirring of the fluid, surface vibration, fluid vibration and application of electrostatic or magnetic fields [9]. Hereafter, only passive augmentation techniques will be discussed.
Many of the passive augmentation techniques are reviewed by Bergles and Joshi [10] and
include applications with surface modifications such as different kinds of surface roughness
on the tube inside [11] or internally finned tubes [12]. Another augmentation technique is to
use different kinds of inserts such as displace promoters or twisted-tape inserts [13]. The purpose of most of these configurations is agitation of the fully developed laminar flow to create
secondary flows or swirl flows, in order to disturb the boundary layer near the tube surface
and introduce a heat transfer mechanism complementary to the laminar diffusion heat transfer.
In addition to flow agitation, internally finned tubes and twisted-tape inserts that are in contact
with the tube wall, also enlarge the heat transfer area. Bergles and Joshi [10] conclude that
several of the augmentation techniques, such as twisted-tape inserts, corrugated tubes, internally finned tubes and various mixers offer significant increase in heat transfer. Using these
techniques in the laminar flow regime, the heat transfer augmentation is often accompanied
with an increase in pressure drop of the same order of magnitude compared to the smooth
tube. However, in the case of turbulent flow, the increase in pressure drop is often several
orders of magnitude greater than that of the heat transfer increase. The authors also states that
when pumping power is a limiting factor, twisted-tape inserts, internally finned tubes and a
combination of these techniques are probably the best alternatives for heat transfer augmentation since the pressure drop penalty is less significant for these cases.
Among the objects inserted in the flow passage in order to improve heat transfer for laminar
flow, the twisted-tape (see Figure 1.5) is one of the most extensively used, see e.g. the references [14-26]. Phenomenologically, the heat transfer enhancement achieved with twisted-tape
inserts is ascribed to a variety of effects: (1) the partitioning and blockage of the tube flow
cross section by the tape, which results in higher flow velocities, (2) the hydraulic diameter is
reduced which in effect increases the heat transfer coefficient, (3) the helically twisting fluid
motion has an effectively longer flow path, (4) secondary fluid motion is generated by the
tape twist and (5) the metallic tape, if in good contact with the tube walls, acts as a fin, i.e.
the effective heat transfer area is increased, which allows higher heat fluxes to be sustained
[27]. Compared to a plain tube, increases in heat transfer achieved by means of twisted tapeinserts are often higher or in the same order of magnitude as the increase in friction factor
(pressure drop). For example Hong and Bergles [13] experimentally investigated heat transfer
and pressure drop for water and ethylene glycol in a tube with twisted-tape inserts and reported that the maximum increase of the heat transfer coefficient was ten times the empty tube
constant property value, while the corresponding pressure drop was less than four times the
empty tube pressure drop. Many researchers have presented heat transfer and friction factor
correlations for twisted tape inserts, e.g. Lopina and Bergles [28] and DuPlessis [29]. Later on
Manglik and Bergles [27, 30] have worked further on developing heat transfer and friction
factor correlations for tubes with twisted tape inserts and present correlations for laminar,
transition and turbulent flows. These correlations agree well with experimental data from their
own experiments as well as with data found in the literature.
Figure 1.5 Finned tube with twisted tape insert [31].

Saha et al [18], Saha and Chakraborty [32] and Saha and Dutta [19] performed experimental
studies where they investigated heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics for laminar
flow in a circular tube fitted with regularly spaced twisted-tape inserts (see Figure 1.6). From
the first study they reported that both on the basis of constant pumping power and constant
heat duty, regularly spaced twisted-tape elements are found to perform significantly better
than full-length twisted-tapes. However, the full-length twisted tape is not a limiting case of
the geometry with regularly spaced twisted-tape elements, since for a tube with regularly
spaced twisted-tape elements Nu as well as f can be both higher and lower than the corresponding values for the full-length twisted-tape insert, depending on Re, twist ratio and space
between the inserts. In the following studies different twist geometries were further investigated.
Figure 1.6 Regularly spaced twisted-tape elements connected to each other with a thin rod
[18].
Longitudinal internal fins may in some situations, but not always, lead to improved heat transfer both on the basis of constant diameter (nominal area) and constant pumping power basis.
Watkinson et al [33] made heat transfer and pressure drop measurements on a number of
tubes with different straight and spiral internal fins in laminar oil flow. The researchers report
a heat transfer enhancement over the smooth tube value by 8 to 224 percent depending on
tube geometry. However, the heat transfer enhancement involved an increase in pressure drop.
At constant pumping power, the increase in heat transfer ranged from 1 to 187 percent. Tubes
with few, rather high, spiral fins performed best.
In recent years, many numerical studies have been performed in order to analyse heat transfer
in laminar flows in ducts and annuli with internal longitudinal fins, e.g. by Chai and Patankar
[34], Dong and Ebedian [35], Shome and Jensen [36], Shome [37] and Fabbri [38, 39]. Fabbri
[38, 39] numerically optimised the geometry of symmetrical as well as asymmetrical fins in
order to enhance heat transfer performance in tubes under laminar flow conditions (see Figure
1.7). He found that the heat transfer improvements depend partly on the extension of the fin
surface, but mainly on the alteration of the flow induced by the fin shape.
Figure 1.7 Different symmetrical and asymmetrical fin geometries investigated by Fabbri
[39].
Shome and Jensen [40] also made experimental investigation with internally finned
(longitudinal) tubes and found that the maximum heat transfer enhancement, relative to a
smooth tube, was obtained for tubes with few tall fins with strong free convection effects and
was around 75 % at the expense of a 50 % increase in pressure drop compared to the smooth
tube value. In the subsequent numerical investigations [36, 37], parameter studies were performed and it was found that for tubes with a large number of fins or tubes with tall fins, internal finning results in low heat transfer in the inter-fin regions due to low velocity of the
flow, which in turn leads to a decrease in overall heat transfer compared to the smooth tube.
This coring effect (higher velocity in the tube core as compared to the inter-fin regions) is
exaggerated when the number of fins or the fin height is increased. However, the overall heat
transfer results for finned tubes showed significant enhancement over the smooth tube value
in the near-inlet entrance region, but the enhancement level drops sharply at a large axial distance from the inlet at the expense of fairly large increases in the pressure drop.
For turbulent flows, heat transfer augmentation by means of circumferential fins is well established since the fins act as turbulence promoters and periodically interrupt the formation of
the laminar sub layer on the tube wall. On the contrary, in laminar flows circumferential fins
often lead to decreased heat transfer, which has been shown in a numerical study by Rowley
and Patankar [41]. This is due to the fact that the fins cause the main flow to move away from
the tube wall. However, for high Prandtl number fluids the heat transfer can in some situations be enhanced, but the pressure drop penalty is often severe.
1.4.3
Performance Evaluation Criteria
Whether the overall performance of the cooling-coil is improved by a certain enhancement

technique depends on the application where it is used. When comparing different augmentation techniques it is impossible to establish a generally applicable selection criterion, since
numerous factors influence the ultimate decision. However, in the case of single-phase forced
convection the relationship between thermal and hydraulic performance should be considered.
Depending on if the thermo-hydraulic goal is to reduce the size of a heat exchanger required
for a specified heat duty, increasing the heat duty of an existing heat exchanger, reducing the
temperature difference between the process streams or reducing the pumping power, different
performance evaluation criteria can be used. Such criteria are outlined by Bergles [9] and for
low Reynolds number flow in particular by Webb and Bergles [42]. In the latter study, algebraic relations for twelve different performance evaluation techniques are derived and discussed. An example of an evaluation criterion is that if the aim is to reduce the pumping
power with fixed heat transfer rate, fixed temperature difference and fixed length of the flow
path and fixed number of tubes in the heat exchanger, then the liquid flow rate and Reynolds
number in the enhanced heat exchanger must be lower compared to the one with smooth
tubes. However neither of these criteria is directly applicable on a display cabinet application
since they do not weight pump, fan and compressor power together.
1.4.4
Thermophysical Properties of Liquid Secondary Refrigerants

(Brines)
In display cabinet applications, the liquid secondary refrigerant (or brine according to the
standard EN255 [43]) propylene glycol is widely used, but there are many other secondary
refrigerants available on the market. However, all of them are not applicable for supermarkets
due to reliability and health aspects. In order to predict the performance of a cooling system
operated with a certain secondary refrigerant, reliable thermophysical data are essential.
Melinder [44-46] has made extensive investigations of thermophysical properties, such as
density, specific heat, viscosity and thermal conductivity, of liquid secondary refrigerants. He
presents data for several commonly used liquid secondary refrigerants in the form of charts
and tables in the references [46] (Swedish and English) and [45] (English and French).
Melinder [44] compares the heat transfer and pressure drop properties in freezer applications
for the liquid secondary refrigerants presented in the reference [45] and two additional liquid
secondary refrigerants. The liquids compared are aqueous solutions of ethylene glycol,
propylene glycol, ethanol, methanol, ammonia, calcium chloride, potassium acetate, potassium formate and lithium chloride and a few non-aqueous heat transfer liquids, i. e.
Dowtherm, Syltherm XLTHFE-7100 and d-limone and they all have concentrations giving a
freezing point temperature of -40C. In the comparison of laminar flow heat transfer it is
shown that the aqueous solutions of chlorides perform best followed by the potassium salts
and ammonia. For turbulent flow, aqueous solutions of ammonia, the chlorides and potassium
formate perform best followed by methanol and potassium formate. The non-aqueous
solutions can compete below - 40 C. It is also shown that the pressure drop at laminar flows
for propylene glycol is very high compared to other secondary refrigerants, much higher than
that of ethylene glycol, ethanol and potassium acetate, which in turn have higher pressure
drops than potassium formate and the chlorides. The result of the pressure drop comparison
for turbulent flows is to a large extent similar to that of laminar flows. However, when
determining which secondary refrigerant is to be used in a particular application, there are
several aspects to take into consideration, such as corrosivity, toxicity, environmental
pollution, flammability, handling safety and cost. For example, many of the salts are corrosive
when oxygen is present, ethylene glycol has a high toxicity and ethanol involves a
flammability risk.
The secondary refrigerants investigated by Melinder [44-46] are principally aqueous solutions
without additives. However most of the secondary refrigerants available on the market do
contain additives, e.g. inhibitors. In addition, there are secondary refrigerants consisting of a
mixture of substances. In such situations manufacturers data of thermophysical properties are
necessary.
Bergles [47] has surveyed several analytical solutions for predicting the effect of temperature
dependent fluid properties, such as viscosity and density, on heat transfer in circular tubes. In
a subsequent review by Bergles [48] the author states that the large deviations in heat transfer
coefficients from constant property values, which are predicted by analyses, are confirmed by
experience. Many analytical solutions and correlations take either variable viscosity or density
into account, but only a few consider both properties to be variable. The author concludes that
heat exchangers involving viscous liquids must be designed with heat transfer coefficient
equations that take temperature dependent viscosity and density into account.
10
Applications involving fluids with temperature dependent density may in some situations lead
to the influence of free convection being significant during laminar forced flow in a horizontal
tube, which has been studied by Bandyopadhyay et al [49], Shome and Jensen [50] and
Hishida et al [51] among others. Such a situation could be a suitable combination of a large
diameter, a high wall heat flux or a low mass flow rate. Bandyopadhyay et al [49] found that
the Nusselt number could be three to ten times these obtained under pure forced flow situations. Hishida et al [51] investigated numerically combined forced and free convection in the
entrance region of an isothermally heated horizontal pipe. The results reveal how the
developing flow and heat transfer in the entrance region are affected by the secondary flow
due to buoyancy forces. According to the authors, the solution procedure described in this
paper involved no questionable assumptions or approximations. Hence it is expected to be
applicable to fluids of arbitrary Prandtl number. Shome and Jensen [50] carried out a numerical analysis of thermally developing and simultaneously developing mixed convection flow
and heat transfer with variable viscosity in an isothermally heated tube. A parameter found by
scaling analysis was used to empirically correlate the computed Nusselt number and friction
factor data and the available experimental Nusselt number data for both thermally developing
and simultaneously developing flow. According to the authors these correlations are more
accurate, have wider ranges of applicability than those available in the literature, and should
therefore be of much use to designers.
11
Experiments
Due to lack of or very little experimental data for cooling-coils operated with liquid secondary
refrigerants reported in the literature, full-scale experiments were performed. The objective of
the first introductory experimental part was primarily to get an overview of the cooling-coil
performance. The subsequent part, i.e. the experiments with improved conventional coolingcoils, was aiming at verifying the findings in the first part in a wider range. Finally, the purpose of the last experimental part with a single-tube was to verify correlations for twisted-tape
inserts and to link full-scale experiments with small-scale ones. In the following sections the
tested objects, the properties of liquid secondary refrigerants, the experimental set-ups and the
measurement plans are described.
2.1
Description of Tested Objects
2.1.1
Conventional Cooling-Coils, B2 and B3
The dimensions of the two cooling-coils that were used in the introductory experiments are
presented in Table 2.1 (see Figure 2.1 for description of nomenclature). These two coolingcoils do not represent typical cooling-coils placed in traditional display cabinets, but have
smaller tube diameter, smaller distance between the tubes, more tubes in the transitional
direction and fewer in longitudinal direction. However, the reason for selecting these two
cooling-coils was that according to the manufacturers data the pressure drop on the air as
well as the liquid side was relatively low for a certain cooling demand.
Table 2.1 Dimensions of evaluated conventional cooling-coils.
B2
B3
D
mm
12.5
12.5
d
mm
11.7
11.7
pl
mm
30.0
30.0
pt
mm
26.0
26.0
nl
nt
8
4
8
16
Ltube
mm
2250
2250
pfin
mm
4
4
4
4
fin
mm
0.25
0.25
Pd*
mm
1.5
1.5
*Estimated values
pl
pfin
pt
fin
plain fins
D
Pd
wavy fins
2Xf
D
d
p
n
Ltube
N
pfin
outer diameter of tubes

inner diameter of tubes
pitch
number of tube rows
distance between U-bends
number of parallel loops or circuits
fin pitch
fin
Pd
Xf
fin thickness
wave height
projected wave length
Subscripts
l
t
longitudinal (direction of air flow)

transverse
Figure 2.1 Nomenclature of cooling-coil.
Xf*
mm
6.5
6.5
12
The cooling-coil denoted B3 had the same amounts of tubes compared to B2 but was higher
and had a shorter flow path in the air flow direction. Therefore, this coil was of particular
interest since the relative entrance length on the air side was longer compared to the B2 coil.
The restraints regarding the dimensions of the evaluated cooling-coils were decided in a
project group consisting of representatives from manufacturers of cooling-coils, display cabinets, liquid secondary refrigerants and pumps etc.
2.1.2
Improved Conventional Cooling-Coils, B4 and B5
The dimensions of the two improved conventional cooling-coils that were experimentally
evaluated in this second experimental part are shown in the table below (see Figure 2.1 for
description of nomenclature). The reason for evaluating these cooling-coils was that they had
improved performance compared to B2 and B3 according to the parameter study, see 4.2.1.
However, in the parameter study all the dimensional values could not be varied freely, since
there are today certain limitations regarding production of cooling-coils. As an example, the
relation between the tube diameter and tube pitch could not be further decreased. Hence,
when selecting the cooling-coils for this second experimental part, dimensions resulting in a
cooling-coil that was possible to produce with the technique of today were to be chosen.
Table 2.2 Dimensions of evaluated improved conventional cooling-coils.
D
mm
10.0
10.0
d
mm
9.3
9.3
B4
B5
* Estimated values
2.1.3
pl
mm
25.0
25.0
pt
mm
21.7
21.7
nl
nt
10
10
10
10
Ltube
mm
1075
500
N
10
10
pfin
mm
4
4
fin
mm
0.20
0.20
Pd*
mm
2.1
2.1
Xf*
mm
5.1
5.1
Single-Tubes with and without Inserts
The dimensions of the tested objects in the small-scale experiments with a single-tube containing a U-bend are given below. The diameter was approximately the same as the diameter
of the cooling-coils in the experiments with improved conventional cooling-coils. However,
the tube thickness as well as the tape thickness was selected in order to get a test object that
was robust enough for manual mounting.
1. A plain copper tube (d = 10 mm, D = 12 mm). The U-bend was not a real U-bend, but
consisted of two 90-bends, see Figure 2.2. The length of the tube from inlet/outlet to
the U-bend was 2.185 m, giving a total heat transfer length of 4.37 m.
2. The tube described above with a continuous twisted-tape insert (y = H/d 5, = 1 mm,
width = 9 mm), see Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.2 U-bend of the test tube consisting of two consecutive 90-bends.
13
Figure 2.3 Continuous twisted-tape insert (sketch according to Date [14]).
2.2
Secondary Refrigerants used in the Experiments
In this research project the secondary refrigerants propylene glycol (39 %w), Temper 20 and
Hycool 20 have been used in all the experiments (except B3). Thermophsyical data of these
secondary refrigerants have also been used in the created calculation model. Temper 20 is
the brand name of a mixture of aqueous solutions of potassium formate, potassium acetate and
additives. Hycool 20 consists of an aqueous solution of potassium formate and additives. All
three secondary refrigerants had the same freezing point, -20 C. To be exact, Hyccol 20 had
a freezing point of 21.5 C, but is recommend for applications requiring a freezing point at
-20 C. Thermophysical properties of the secondary refrigerants can be seen in Figure 2.4.
50
Dynamic viscosity (mPas)
Density (kg/m3)
1300
1200
1100
1000
Propylene glycol
Temper
Hycool
Water
900
800
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Temperature (C)
20
10
0
-30
Propylene glycol
Temper
Hycool
Water
4500
4000
Thermal conductivity (W/m/K)
Specific heat (J/kg/K)
20
-20
-10
0
10
Temperature (C)
20
30
20
30
(b)
5000
3500
3000
2500
-30
(c)
30
30
(a)
Propylene glycol
Temper
Hycool
Water
40
-20
-10
0
10
Temperture (C)
20
30
0.7
Propylene glycol
Temper
Hycool
Water
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Temperature (C)
(d)
Figure 2.4 Density, (a), specific heat, cp (b), dynamic viscosity, (c), and thermal conductivity, (d), of propylene glycol (39 %w), Temper 20, Hycool 20 and water as a function of
temperature.
14
Thermophysical data for propylene glycol were taken from Melinder [46] and Fahln [52] and
for Temper 20 and Hycool 20 manufacturers data were used. In the small-scale experiments
with a single-tube, water was also used as secondary refrigerant. Then data from Hellsten [53]
was used. The reason for choosing propylene glycol for the experimental evaluation was that
it is a widely used secondary refrigerant in supermarket applications even though its performance in some situations is poor. Temper 20 and Hycool 20 and other secondary refrigerants
with similar formula have lately become more and more common. Their viscosity is lower
compared to propylene glycol (see Figure 2.4b) and they perform therefore better than propylene glycol in many situations. However, one drawback of these aqueous solutions of organic
salts is that they are corrosive when oxygen is present, which might lead to inconveniences
such as leakage. In order for systems operated with corrosive secondary refrigerants to
achieve a satisfactory function installation aspects such as material compatibility and deaeration of the system are very important.
2.3
Measurement Set-Up
In the section below, the measurement set-ups used in the experiments are described.
2.3.1
A photo of the experimental set-up for B3 can be seen in Figure 2.5 and the set-up for B2 was
similar. The experimental set-up is also shown schematically in Figure 2.6 and the measuring
points can be seen in Figure 2.7. An air conditioning plant controlled temperature, humidity
and flow. The length of the duct sections before and after the cooling-coil was the same as or
longer than the width of the evaluated cooling-coil. In order for the air flow to be homogeneous when reaching the cooling-coil, a perforated plate was mounted at the inlet of the first
duct section.
Figure 2.5 Measurement set-up for experimental evaluation of a full-scale conventional

cooling-coil (B3).
15
Figure 2.6 Schematic drawing of the experimental set-up.

p
t
t
t
RH
t
t
tt
Figure 2.7 Schematic drawing of measuring points.

The air flow was measured by a nozzle (U = +3 %) at air flows lower than 1000 m3/h or a
fluidic device at higher air flows (U = +3 %). In front of the cooling-coil, the air temperature
was measured by one Pt-100 temperature sensor (U = +0.5 K) and five thermocouples were
distributed in the cross-section (U = +1 K). The thermocouples were used in order to make
sure that the temperature variation in the air-flow was negligible. After the cooling-coil two
Pt-100 sensors and fifteen thermocouples measured the air temperature. In the B2 case the
Pt-100 sensors were shielded from radiation. The relative humidity of the air was measured by
a capacitive relative humidity meter (U = +3 %). The pressure drop on the air side of the
cooling-coil as well as the pressure drop of the nozzle was measured by a micro manometer
(U = +0.5 % / 0.3 Pa). The atmospheric pressure was measured by a manometer (U = +0.5
mbar). Temperature and flow of the secondary refrigerant was controlled via a liquid loop.
The liquid flow was measured by an electro magnetic flow meter (U = +1 %). The liquid temperatures in and out of the cooling-coil and in to the flowmeter were measured by Pt-100
temperature sensors (U = +0.1 K). The pressure drop on the liquid side of the cooling-coil was
measured by a differential pressure transmitter (U = +0.005 bar).
16
2.3.2
The set-up for experimental evaluation of B4 and B5 was similar to that of B2 and B3 (see
2.3.1) with a few exceptions. In these experiments the air flow was measured by a vortex
flowmeter (U = +3 %). In front of the cooling-coil, the air temperature was measured by one
shielded Pt-100 temperature sensor of which the uncertainty was estimated to be +0.3 K for
B5 and U = +0.5 K for B4. After the cooling-coil the air temperature was measured by only
one shielded Pt-100 sensor (U = +0.3 / 0.5 K) and only nine thermocouples (U = +1 K). The
relative humidity of the air was measured by measuring the dew point of the air by a chilled
mirror hygrometer (U = +0.5 K) instead of using a capacitive relative humidity meter. A
photo of the experimental set-up for B4 can be seen in Figure 2.8 and the set-up for B5 was
similar.
Figure 2.8 Measurement set-up for experimental evaluation of B4.
2.3.3
Small-scale experiments were performed with a single-tube, including a U-bend, with and
without inserts. A schematic picture of the experimental set-up is shown in Figure 2.9 and
Figure 2.10. The set-up consisted of three different liquid loops; the heating loop, the test loop
and the cooling loop. The heating loop was filled with water, the test loop contained the
secondary refrigerant that was evaluated and ethylene glycol (50 %w) from the central cooling
system of the laboratory at 25 C was circulated through the cooling loop.
The test tube consisted of a coaxial heat exchanger and the tube that was evaluated was placed
within a copper tube with a larger diameter. The inner and outer diameter of the inner tube
was 10 and 12 mm, respectively, and the inner and outer diameter of the external tube was
25.6 and 28 mm, respectively. Outside the outer tube there was a layer of 30 mm Armaflex
insulation. The temperature of the secondary refrigerant in the test loop was controlled by the
cooling loop via a plate heat exchanger. A thyristor controlled electric heater regulated the
temperature of the water in the heating loop. The magnitude of the flow in all the loops was
controlled by adjustable valves.
17
P
R
RV
SV
AV
Pump
Controller
Controlling valve
Adjusting valve
Closing valve
t
p
m
V
W e
Temperature sensor
Pressure sensor
Mass flow meter
Volume flow meter
Electric energy meter
Figure 2.9 Experimental set-up for small-scale experiments with a single-tube, including a Ubend, with and without twisted-tape inserts.
Figure 2.10 Coaxial heat exchanger (test tube) for small-scale experiments with a single-tube,
including a U-bend, with and without twisted-tape inserts. Please not that the dimensions in
the figure are not according to scale.
18
The liquid flow in the test loop was measured by a Coriolis mass flow meter (U = +1 %). The
liquid temperature in and out of the tube was measured by Pt-100 temperature sensors. The
pressure drop on the liquid side of the cooling-coil was measured by a differential pressure
transmitter (U = + 0.5 mbar). The temperature of the water in and out of the coaxial heat exchanger was measured by two Pt-100 temperature sensors (U = + 0.1 K) and an inductive
volume flow meter measured the water flow (U = + 1 %). The wall temperature was measured
on the outside of the inner tube by 18 thermocouples (U = + 1 K). The thermocouples was
mounted in six different positions along the tube length; at 70, 470 and 1470 mm from the
inlet and at the same distances from the U-bend. In each position there were three thermocouples; one on the side of the tube, one on the upper side and one on the under side. The accuracy of these measurements was on sufficient for assessment of the heat transfer coefficient,
but a weighed value of the measured temperatures could be used for prediction of the liquid
properties at the tube wall temperature. The electric power input to the electric heater was
measured by an electric energy meter (U = + 2 %) and the electric power input to the water
pump was measured by an electric power meter (U = + 0.5 %). The reason for measuring the
electric energy input was to enable calculation of the energy balance of the system.
2.4
Measurement Plan
The display cabinet application involves the flow regime on the liquid as well as the air side
being often in the lower Reynolds region and therefore, the laminar and the transitional
regime were of particular interest. In order to obtain an acceptable uncertainty of measurement in the experiments, temperature ranges differing from display cabinet applications were
also used. Where possible, appropriate values of the mean temperature of the liquid were
chosen. However, in some experiments there were limitations regarding the cooling capacity
of the experimental set-up. All the cooling-coils and the single-tubes were tested with propylene glycol (39 %w), Temper 20 and Hycool 20. The single-tubes were also tested with water.
2.4.1
When the heat transfer characteristics on the liquid side were studied the air flow and the
mean temperature of the air were held constant in all the test points and the liquid flow was
varied. When the heat transfer characteristics on the air side were the focus of the investigation, the liquid flow and the mean temperature of the secondary refrigerant were held constant
while varying the air flow. In such a way the heat transfer resistance on the air side was kept
constant when the heat transfer on the liquid side was evaluated and vice versa.
To start with, the cooling-coil was evaluated with turbulent flow on the liquid side. In this
flow regime the heat transfer resistance on the liquid side can be determined by using wellestablished correlations and in such a way, the heat transfer resistance on the air side could be
determined. In this kind of experiments, the heat transfer resistance through the tube wall has
a negligible contribution to the total heat transfer resistance. Then, by keeping the conditions
on the air side constant, as described above, the air side resistance was kept constant and the
heat transfer resistance on the liquid side could be determined for the test points in the laminar
flow regime. In the turbulent flow regime the heat transfer resistance on the liquid side corresponds to a relatively low value compared to the heat transfer resistance on the air side. This
implies that the uncertainty regarding the heat transfer determination in the turbulent flow
regime has a minor influence on the estimation of the air side heat transfer resistance.
19
Thereafter, when the heat transfer resistance on the liquid side had been determined for all the
test points, the air flow was varied at a certain value of the liquid flow with known heat transfer resistance and the heat transfer resistance on the air side could thus be determined for different test points.
2.4.2
The same measuring methodology was used in the experimental evaluation of the improved
conventional cooling-coils (B4 and B5), as was used in the experiments with conventional
cooling-coils (B2 and B3), see 2.4.1.
2.4.3
When the heat transfer characteristics on the inner side of the internal tube were studied, the
mean temperature and liquid flow on the outer side of the internal tube was held constant in
all the test points and the liquid flow inside the tube was varied. Hence, the water flow in the
heating loop was held constant and the secondary refrigerant flow in the test loop was varied.
To start with, the empty internal tube was evaluated with turbulent flow on the inner as well
as the outer side and water was used as heat transfer medium on both sides. In the turbulent
flow regime the heat transfer resistance on the inside can be determined by using wellestablished correlations and in such a way, the sum of heat transfer resistance through the tube
wall and the resistance on the outer side of the internal tube can be determined. By doing as
described above the heat transfer resistance on the outside of the internal tube was kept constant and the heat transfer resistance on the inside could be determined for a number of test
points in the laminar flow regime for different secondary refrigerants. The sum of the heat
transfer resistance through the tube wall and the resistance on the outside of the inner tube
corresponds to a relatively low value of the total heat transfer resistance when the liquid flow
inside the tube is in the laminar regime. This implies that the uncertainty regarding the heat
transfer determination in the turbulent flow regime has a minor influence on the estimation of
heat transfer resistance in the laminar flow regime.
During the pressure drop measurements, the liquid temperature was kept relatively constant
for the purpose of measuring the isothermal pressure drop.
2.5
Uncertainty of Measurements
The uncertainty of measurements has been evaluated according to Guide to the Expression of
Uncertainty in Measurement [54] and EAL-R2 [55], see Appendix C.
Table 2.3 shows the estimated expanded uncertainties for each measurand used in the experiments presented in this thesis. These values are based on long time experience of the different
measurement devices and installations. A complete uncertainty budget for e.g. liquid temperatures and liquid flow is presented by Fahln [52].
20
Table 2.3 Estimated expanded measurement uncertainty of the measurands in the performed
experiments.
Air
Air volume flow
Air temperature
Air temperature difference
Relative humidity
Dew point temperature
Air density2
Specific enthalpy difference2
Pressure difference
Atmospheric pressure
Liquid
Liquid volume flow
Liquid temperature
Liquid temperature difference
Pressure difference
Liquid density
Concentration by weight1
Liquid density2
Specific heat capacity2
Thermal conductivity2
Electric measurands
Electric power (pump)
Electric power (heater)
1
B2&B3
B4&B5
Single
tubes
%
K
K
%(units)
K
%
%
Pa / %
mbar
+3
+0.5
+0.5
+3
+1
+1
+0.5%/+0.3Pa
+0.5
+3
+0.3/0.5 B5/B4
+0.3/0.5 B5/B4
+3
+0.5
+1
+1
+0.5%/+0.3Pa
+0.5
tb
tb
pb
b
cw
b
cpb
b
%
K
K
mbar
%
%
%
%
%
+1
+0.1
+0.1
+5
+2
+3
+2
+3
+3
+1
+0.1
+0.1
+5
+2
+3
+2
+3
+3
+1
+0.1
+0.1
+0.5
+2
+3
+2
+3
+3
W ep
+0.5
W e,heater
+2
Va
ta
ta
a
tda
a
ha
pa
Patm
Vb
Valid for propylene glycol. (Liquids premixed by the manufacturer were used in the experiments with the other
secondary refrigerants.)
2
Uncertainty for tabulated values taking the uncertainty regarding the temperature (and concentration) into
account.
21
Parameter Study
Experiments consume both time and money. As a consequent, only a limited number of
dimensions of the cooling-coil can be evaluated experimentally. By application of appropriate
correlations a calculation model can be created and the performance of the cooling-coil can be
predicted and hence, the number of experiments can be reduced dramatically. Such a model
was therefore created to be used in a parameter study. The objective of this parameter study
was to find out whether and how a conventional cooling-coil could be improved. To start
with, conventional cooling-coils without any kind of insert or tube wall modification was
evaluated in the parameter study. The influence of the values of the cooling-coil dimensions,
such as for example tube diameter and pitch etc., on the performance was the focus of the
investigations. However, since the purpose was to improve conventional cooling-coils,
combinations of parameter values unrealistic for production were to be avoided.
Then the purpose was to find out whether the performance of a cooling-coil in a display
cabinet application could be improved by different enhancement techniques or not. Finally,
optimal operation for different conventional cooling-coil geometries and cooling demands
was investigated by using the model.
In all cases, the calculations were performed for a full-sized cooling-coil. The reason is that
when one parameter of the cooling-coil is changed, e.g. the tube diameter, this results in
changes in heat transfer area and do also affect the heat transfer and pressure drop performance on the air side etc. In addition the optimal operation point will be shifted which in turn
will result in a new liquid flow rate and inlet temperature. Therefore, it is not possible to
optimise just one tube circuit for example.
3.1
Conventional Cooling-Coils without Inserts
The calculation model for conventional cooling-coils was created by using those correlations
whose predicted values were in best agreement with measured data in the experimental part
with the cooling-coil denoted B2, see 4.1.1 and Appendix A. The purpose of this model was
to predict the overall heat transfer and pressure drop performance for different cooling-coil
geometries for coils with plain tubes in a parameter study.
3.1.1
Correlations
For calculation of the heat transfer on the liquid side the Gnielinski (T) correlation, Eq. (A1.1)
and Eq. (A1.2), was applied for Re < 1700. A new entrance length following each U-bend was
assumed. For Re > 3700 the Dittus-Boelter correlation, Eq. (3.2), was used. In the interval
1700 < Re < 3700 the model used a linear combination of these two correlations. When
calculating the pressure drop on the liquid side the pressure drop was calculated by the correlation for laminar flow supplemented with a correlation for the entrance length according to
Eq. (A2.5), for Re up to 2000. For higher Re Gnielinskis correlation for turbulent flows,
Eq. (A2.1) and Eq. (A2.4) was used.
22
Heat transfer on the liquid side

b =
Nu m b
d
(3.1)
3
Nu m,T = 3.66 3 + 0.7 3 + 1.615 (x *)1 3 0.7
x* =
13
d Re b Pr b
0.8
n
Nu m = 0.023 (Re b ) (Prb )
(A1.1)
(A1.2)
(3.2)
n =0.4 if tw > tB
Valid range: Re > 104, 0.7 < Pr < 100. Quoted, e.g. by [56]
Pressure drop on the liquid side
p b = f
Ltube,tot u b 2
ub 2
+ m
+ p hl
d
2
2
(A2.5)
m = 2.28number of U-bends in the flow direction

hl = head loss
f =
64
Re
Ltube,tot u b 2
+ p hl
d
2
hl = head loss
(A2.2)
p b = f
(A2.1)
f = (0.79 ln Re d 1.64) 2
(A2.4)
In the experimental evaluation of conventional cooling-coils, B2 and B3, the waves of the fins
neither seemed to affect the heat transfer nor the pressure drop on the air side of the coolingcoil at Reynolds numbers relevant for display cabinet applications (Re = 500 - 1000), see
4.1.1. Consequently, there was no meaning in optimising the length and height of the fin
waves and correlations for plain fins according to Gray and Webb [57], see Eq. (A3.2),
Eq. (A3.14), Eq. (A4.11) Eq. (A4.14) and Eq. (A4.4), were used in the calculation model.
The fin efficiency was calculated according to Schmidt [58], see Eq. (A3.1) - Eq. (A3.6).
These correlations are valid for applications without condensation of water vapour. The main
purpose of this research project was to investigate the heat transfer performance on the liquid
side of the cooling-coil. Therefore, water vapour condensation has not been included in the
23
calculation model even though condensation takes place in cooling-coils in display cabinets.
This simplification has partly been compensated for by assuming that the cooling capacity on
the liquid side, Q b , is 22 % higher than the cooling capacity on the air side, Q a , for display
cabinet 1 and 2 and 62 % higher for display cabinet 3, see Table 3.1. However, values of the
relative humidity of the air corresponding to the specified cooling demand on the liquid side
are given in the table.
Heat transfer on the air side
(A3.1)
a,eff = a A
a =
Nu d h a
(A3.2)
dh
Nu d h = 0.14 Pra
A =1
fin =
A fin
A0
13
Re 0D.672
c
pt
pl
1 fin
0.502
p fin fin

Dc
0.0312
d
h
Dc
(A3.14)
(A3.3)
tanh(m ri )
m ri
2 a
m=
fin fin
(A3.4)
(A3.5)
r

r
= e 1 1 + 0.35 ln e
ri

ri
(A3.6)
Pressure drop on the air side

(A4.11)
p a = p f + pt
p f = f f
ff =
A f a ua 2
Ac
2
0.508 Re D0.521
c
p t = f t
pt
Dc
At a u a 2
2
A c ,t
(A4.12)
1.318
(A4.13)
(A4.14)
24
p Dc
0.118
Re D0.16 t
f t = 4 0.25 +
D
1.08
c
pt
Dc
3.1.2
(A4.4)
Optimising Criteria
In order to be able to compare the calculated heat transfer and pressure drop performance of
different cooling-coils for a display cabinet application, optimising criteria have been established (see Table 3.1 and below). Calculations were performed for three display cabinets
having different cooling demands. The cooling demand of display cabinet 1 represent a very
energy efficient display cabinet. The cooling demand of display cabinet 2 is 50 % higher on
the air as well as on the liquid side compared to display cabinet 1. However, in reality 50 %
increase of the sensible cooling demand on the air side normally results in a larger increase of
the total cooling demand on the liquid side. This is due to the fact that the demand for dehumidification of the air increases more. Therefore, the figures for display cabinet 2 are not
exactly representative for a real display cabinet. Finally, the cooling demand of display cabinet 3 is representative for a normally performing display cabinet found in supermarkets today.
The objective of the parameter study was defined as finding a cooling-coil geometry, by
which the cooling demand of the display cabinet could be satisfied with lowest possible
electric energy use. This objective means that the sum of the electric energy required by the
compressor of the chiller, the secondary refrigerant (liquid) pump and the fans of the cabinet
are to be minimised. When calculating the electric energy usage the following simplifications
and assumptions have been made:
The coefficient of performance (cooling mode, COP2) of the chiller is 2.7 at the
evaporation/condensation temperature 10 C / 40 C and the difference between the
evaporation temperature and the temperature of the secondary refrigerant leaving the
liquid cooler is 5 K. The electric energy usage of the compressor decreases/increases
2.4 % per K if the evaporation temperature is raised/lowered from 10 C.
The efficiency of the pump is 0.3 (useful work / electric energy input).
The efficiency of the fan is 0.15 (useful work / electric energy input).
25
Table 3.1 Optimising criteria for cooling-coils

Cooling demand of display cabinet
Cooling capacity on liquid side, Q b :
Cooling capacity on air side, Q a :
Air flow, Va :
Air temperature in to cooling-coil, ta,in:
Air temperature out from cooling-coil, ta,out:
Relative humidity of air in to cooling-coil, a,in*:
Relative humidity of air out from cooling-coil. a,out*:
Nr 1
1500 W
1230 W
576 m3/h
6 C
0 C
74 %
100 %
Outer dimensions
Total width:
Height depth:
2.25 m
0.05 m2
Nr 2
2250 W
1850 W
576 m3/h
8 C
-1 C
64 %
100 %
Nr 3
3000 W
1850 W
576 m3/h
8 C
-1 C
86 %
100 %
*Values corresponding to the given cooling demand on the liquid side.
3.2
Cooling-Coils with Continuous Twisted-Tape Inserts
The model was then modified in order to predict the performance of a cooling-coil having
tubes with continuous twisted-tape inserts. Then the correlations for the liquid side in the
calculation model for plain tubes described in the previous section, 3.1, were replaced by the
correlations for the mean Nusselt number and the friction factor presented by Manglik and
Bergles [27] for a tape with a twist ratio of y = 5 and a tape thickness of = 0.4 mm, see Eq.
(3.3) and Eq. (3.4). These correlations are valid for the uniform wall temperature condition for
thermally developing, but hydrodynamically developed laminar flows. The correlations were
developed by combining baseline numerical solutions with experimental data and introducing
correlating parameters that were derived from a theoretical analysis of the phenomenological
attributes of flows with twisted-tape inserts. Depending upon flow rate and tape geometry, the
heat transfer enhancement is due to tube partitioning and tube blockage, longer flow path and
secondary fluid circulation. The correlations presented by Manglik and Bergles [27] take all
these effects into consideration. However, in the calculation model created for cooling-coil
comparison in this study the Nusselt number dependence upon buoyancy-driven free convection, the Rayleigh number, and on the viscosity correction, (B/w)0.14, have been
neglected due to small temperature differences between the bulk and the tube wall in display
cabinet applications. A new thermal entrance length has been assumed to follow each U-bend
in the cooling-coil. The same optimising criteria were used as in 3.1.
2.5
1 + 0.0951 Gz 0.894
+ 6.413 10 9 Sw Prb 0.391
Nu m = 4.612
2.23
14
2.132 10 (Re ax Ra )
3.835
2.0
0.1

B
w
0.14
(3.3)
26

2
( f Re )sw
+ 2 2 tape d
1 + 10 6 Sw 2.55
= 4 15.767
4 tape d
16
(3.4)
Valid range: 300 Sw 1400, uniform wall temperature boundary condition
3.3
Cooling-Coils with Regularly Spaced Twisted-Tape

Inserts
For calculation of the overall heat transfer and pressure drop for cooling-coils equipped with
regularly spaced twisted-tape inserts (RSTT, see Figure 3.1) the correlations for the liquid
side in the calculation model described in 3.1 was replaced by the correlations for the mean
Nusselt number and the friction factor reported by Saha et al [18] for a tube with a twist ratio
of y = 5, a tape thickness of = 0.4 mm, a tape spacing of s = 5 and a rod diameter that was
equal to the tube inner diameter divided by 13, see Eq. (3.5) - Eq. (3.19). These correlations
are valid for the uniform heat flux condition for thermally and hydrodynamically developed
flows. Saha et al [18] studied the performance of tubes with regularly spaced twisted-tape
inserts experimentally. The reported correlations for this kind of inserts were developed from
the least square fitting method on the basis of correlations that are well accepted for fulllength twisted-tapes. Hence, the correlations for friction factor were developed on the basis of
those of Shah and London [59] and the correlations for Nusselt number were developed on the
basis of the Hong and Bergles correlation [13]. The same optimising criteria were used as in
3.1.
Figure 3.1 A tube with regularly spaced twisted-tape inserts, RSTT [18].
K Re i
Nu i = 5.1721 + 6.7482 10 3 Prb 0.7 1
y
1.25 0.5
(1 + C s ) X
(3.5)
27
K1 =
( d
d 2 (y + s )
2
(3.6)
4 d y + d 2 d rod s
C = (0.057 y s + 0.3622) exp[( 0.0296 y 0.305) s ]
(3.7)
X = 1 4.0422 10 2 s , Re i < 700
(3.8)
X = 1 , Re i 700
(3.9)
Valid for 675 Re i 2050 , 4 Pr 5.5 , 3.18 y < 7.5 , 2.5 s 10

f i = 38.4 1 Re i0.95 y 0.05 (1 + C s ) , 6.7 < Re i y 100
f i = 0.5 38.4 1 Re i0.95 y 0.05 + C1 1 Re i0.7 y 0.3 (1 + C s ),
(3.10)
(3.11)
100 < Re i y 155

f i = C1 1 Re i0.7 y 0.3 (1 + C s ) , Re i y > 155
1 =
(d
(d
2
h
2
h
(d h )=0
)
A )
Ac
=0
(3.13)
c 0
2
d i2 y + d i2 d rod
s
( + 2) y d i + (d i + d rod ) s
( d
2
i
(3.14)
4 d i y + d i2 d 2 s
(d h )0
(Ac )=0
2
d i2 y + d i2 d rod
s
=
4 (y + s )
(Ac )0 =
(3.12)
rod
( + 2 2 d i ) y d i + (d i + d rod ) s
(( d
2
i
) )
(3.15)
(3.16)
) )
2
4 d i y + d i2 d rod
s
4 (y + s )
(3.17)
C = 3.97 10 3 y s + 0.01 s + 0.018 y 7.15 10 3
(3.18)
C1 = 8.8201 y 2.1193 y 2 + 0.2108 y 3 0.0069 y 4
(3.19)
Valid for 500 Re i 1550 , 3.46 y < 7.5 , 2.5 < s 5
28
3.4
Cooling-Coils with Longitudinal Internal Fins
When it comes to calculation of the overall heat transfer and pressure drop for cooling-coils
having tubes equipped with longitudinal fins, the correlations for the liquid side in the
calculation model for plain tubes (see 3.1) was replaced by the results for a certain fin profile
(see Figure 3.2) from a numerical study performed by Fabbri [38]. Here, a uniform heat flux
on the external tube wall and fully developed laminar flow were considered and hence the
Nusselt number was represented by a constant. For the cooling-coil comparison in this study
we used the resulting Nusselt number and pressure drop for a fin profile with the following
characteristics:
The angle between two symmetry axes was /4 rad. which leads to a tube with four
longitudinal fins.
The polynomial order of the function describing the fin profile was zero, which gives a
straight fin.
The normalized averaged wall thickness was 0.1, which means that the average tube
wall thickness (including the four fins) was 0.1 times the outer tube radius.
The normalized unfinned wall thickness was 0.05, which means that the average tube
wall thickness (excluding the four fins) was 0.05 times the outer tube radius.
The fin profile angle was 0.0879 rad.
The ratio between the finned tube and coolant thermal conductivities was 500.
Figure 3.2 Cross-sectional geometry of tube with internal longitudinal fins evaluated by the
calculation model [39].
These parameters resulted in an equivalent Nusselt number of 18.16 and a pressure drop scale
factor of 1.56. The equivalent Nusselt number corresponds to the Nusselt number that would
be calculated if the same heat flux was dissipated through a finless tube with a zero wall
thickness and a radius equal to the sum of the inner radius and the tube wall thickness. The
scale factor can be calculated as the fourth root of the ratio between the hydraulic resistance
of the finned tube and the hydraulic resistance of an unfinned tube with the same inner radius.
The same optimising criteria were used as in 3.1.
29
Results
4.1
Experiments
In this section the results from the experiments are presented in the form of graphs. In the
graphs the symbols (dots) representing the measured results for the different test points and
predicted values for the corresponding test points are connected with lines. This has been
done for the purpose of facilitating the comparisons. The experimental uncertainty for the
different test points shown in the graphs are summarized in tables in the following sections.
Test points having a too large experimental uncertainty have been excluded and are not
presented at all. More detailed experimental data can be found in Appendix B.
4.1.1
Data reduction of the measured data for the cooling-coils denoted B2 and B3 was performed
according to Eq. (4.1) - Eq. (4.7). For propylene glycol, thermophysical property data were
taken from Melinder [45] and Fahln [52]. For the other two secondary refrigerants such data
were taken from the manufacturers. Thermophysical data for air were taken from handbooks
etc. [53, 60-64]. The estimated experimental uncertainty for the results presented in the graphs
below is presented in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2.
Q b = Vb b c p ,b (t b,in t b,out )
(4.1)
Q a = Va a (ha,in ha ,out )
(4.2)
t lm =
(t a,in t b,out ) (t a,out t b,in )

ln ((t a ,in t b,out ) (t a ,out t b,in ))
(4.3)
Q m = (Q b + Q a ) 2
(4.4)
U A = Q m t lm
(4.5)
tube
1
1
1
=
+
+
U A b Ab tube Atube,lm a Aa
(4.6)
Nub =
b d h
b
(4.7)
The total heat transfer resistance (1/UA) of the cooling-coil was calculated according to
Eq. (4.1) - Eq. (4.7) for the different test points. As can be seen in Figure 4.1 the resulting heat
transfer resistance is dependent upon which secondary refrigerant being used. However, even
though the heat transfer resistance is plotted versus liquid volume flow or Reynolds number
on the liquid side in these figures the resulting heat transfer resistance is not an unique function of these variables. The reason is that the mean temperature on the liquid side is not the
same in all the test points and thereby the Prandtl number varies (see Appendix B1). As an
example, the humps of the lines in Figure 4.1 illustrate this. In Figure 4.1b it can be seen that
for a certain liquid flow Hycool 20 shows the lowest heat transfer resistance followed by
30
Temper 20 and propylene glycol (39 %w) gets the highest values. This behaviour is
especially distinct in the transition region and reflects the differences concerning the viscosity
of the liquids. In Figure 4.2 the required pumping power (assuming = 1) is plotted versus
liquid volume flow (a) and the Reynolds number on the liquid side (b). As can be seen in
Figure 4.2b far more pumping power is required to achieve the same Reynolds number for
propylene glycol compared to the other two secondary refrigerants.
Table 4.1 The estimated experimental uncertainty ranges for the different variables used in
Eq. (4.1) Eq. (4.7) are as the values stated below or better for the different test points with
B2 and B3 presented in Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.6.
Cooling-coil
Uncertainty
B2
Propylene
glycol

3-4
U( Qb ) %
4-16
U( Q a ) %

3-8
U( Q m ) %
4-18
U( t lm ) %
5-20
U( U A ) %
Capacity balance
(Q a Q b )measured 0.93-0.97
Temper
Hycool
3
4-8
3-4
4-13
5-14
3-4
4-8
3-4
4-17
5-17
B3
Propylene
glycol
3-4
4-10
4-21
3-12
4-16
0.91-0.98
0.95-0.99
0.90-0.95
2
Propylene glycol
Temper
Hycool
1.5
Heat transfer resistance

(K/kW)

(K/kW)
1.5
0.5
0.5
0
0
(a)
Propylene glycol
Temper
Hycool
2
3
Volume flow (m3/h)
5000
10000
Reynolds number
15000
20000
(b)
Figure 4.1 Heat transfer resistance for different secondary refrigerants and B2 plotted versus
liquid volume flow (a) and Reynolds number on the liquid side (b).
31
1000
Pumping power (W)
Pumping power (W)
1000
100
100
10
1
Propylene glycol
Temper
Hycool
0.1
0.01
0
(a)
2
3
Volume flow (m3/h)
10
1
Proylene glycol
Temper
Hycool
0.1
0.01
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
Reynolds number
(b)
Figure 4.2 Required pumping power ( = 1) for different secondary refrigerants and B2 plotted versus liquid volume flow (a) and Reynolds number on the liquid side (b).
The mean Nusselt number over the whole coil was calculated from the measured data according to Eq. (4.1)- Eq. (4.7). As can be seen in Eq. (4.6), the heat transfer resistance on the
air side, 1/(aAa), was needed to calculate the heat transfer coefficient on the liquid side, b.
Therefore, the heat transfer coefficient on the liquid side was calculated by Dittus-Boelters
correlation, see Eq. (3.2), for a test point where the liquid flow was in the fully developed
turbulent regime (Re > 5 000) and heat transfer characteristics well known. By subtracting the
heat transfer resistance on the liquid side from the total heat transfer resistance, 1/(UA), the
sum of the heat transfer resistance on the air side and the resistance through the tube wall,
tube/(tubeAtube,lm), could be determined However, the heat transfer resistance through the tube
wall represents a very small part of the total heat transfer resistance. The same value could
then be subtracted from the total heat transfer resistance in all measuring points. The heat
transfer characteristics on the air side was then evaluated at values of the liquid flow and the
liquid mean temperature for which the heat transfer resistance on the liquid side had been
determined in the first step.
The measured mean Nusselt numbers on the liquid side for different test points in the experimental evaluation of B2 were compared to mean Nusselt numbers predicted by correlations
found in the literature for the uniform wall temperature condition (T) as well as the uniform
heat flux condition (H), see Figure 4.3 and the correlations presented in appendix A1.
Thermophysical data of the secondary refrigerant for the liquid mean temperature was used in
the correlations. Except for the two lowest lines (constant, T or H) it was assumed for the correlations used in these comparisons that the boundary layers were destroyed after each U-bend
giving a new entrance length. Good agreement was found between measured Nusselt numbers
and the Gnielinski (T) correlation for propylene glycol and Temper 20. However, the heat
transfer behaviour for Hycool 20 differed somewhat from the other two evaluated secondary
refrigerants in this experimental part.
32
Eq. (4.1) Eq. (4.7) are as the values stated below or better for the different test points with
B2 presented in Figure 4.3.
Cooling-coil
Uncertainty
B2
Propylene
glycol
3-4
4-7
3-4
4-6
5-7
12-35
12-28
U( Q b ) %
U( Q a ) %
U( Q m ) %
U( t lm ) %
U( U A ) %
U(a) %
U(Nub) % *
Hycool
3
4-8
3-4
4-13
5-14
13-23
5-8
3
3-4
4-17
5-17
13-26
0.96-0.98
0.97-0.99
30
25
25
20
Nusselt number
Nusselt number
Capacity balance
(Q a Q b )measured 0.93-0.97
Temper
20
15
15
10
10
5
0
500
1000
1500
Reynolds number
2000
2500
(a)
500
2500
3000
(b)
20
15
Nusselt number
1000
1500
2000
Reynolds number
10
30
Nu(measured)
25
Nu(Gnielinski, T)
20
Nu(Gnielinski, H)
15
Nu(Sieder&Tate)
Nu(Hong&Hrnjak)
10
Nu(constant, T)
0
0
Nu(constant, H)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
500
1000
1500
Reynolds number
2000
2500
(c)
Figure 4.3 Measured mean Nusselt number on the liquid side of B2 for propylene glycol,
39 %w, (a), Temper -20 (b) and Hycool 20 (c) compared to correlations.
33
The measured pressure drop was compared to the pressure drop predicted by correlations
from the literature, see Figure 4.4 and the correlations in appendix A2. For the laminar regime
the measured data were first compared to pressure drops predicted without accounting for the
entrance length (lam). The measured pressure drop data were also compared to pressured drop
predictions, where a new entrance length following each U-bend was accounted for according
to Langhaar [65] (lam-Langhaar). When predicting the pressure drop the head loss due to the
U-bends was approximated as head loss due to two consecutive 90-bends and the friction
loss factor was taken from Hellsten [53].
0.30
dp(measured)
dp(lam)
dp(lam-Langhaar)
dp(turb-Eckert)
dp(turb-Gnielinski)
2.0
1.5
Pressure drop (bar)
Pressure drop (bar)
2.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Reynolds number
2500
dp(measured)
dp(lam)
dp(lam-Langhaar)
dp(turb-Eckert)
dp(turb-Gnielinski)
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
3000
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Reynolds number
(a)
(b)
Pressure drop (bar)
0.25
dp(measured)
dp(lam)
dp(lam-Langhaar)
dp(turb-Eckert)
dp(turb-Gnielinski)
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Reynolds number
2500
3000
(c)
Figure 4.4 Measured pressure drop (dp = pb) on the liquid side of B2 for propylene glycol,
39 %w, (a), Temper 20 (b) and Hycool 20 (c) compared to correlations.
The measured heat transfer coefficient and pressure drops on the air side for different
measuring points were compared to heat transfer coefficients and pressure drop predicted by
correlations for wavy and plain fins, see Figure 4.5 and the correlations listed in appendices
A3 and A4. When calculating the predicted heat transfer coefficient, the fin efficiency was
determined according to Schmidt [58], see appendix A3. Even though the cooling-coil was
equipped with wavy fins, best agreement was found with a correlation for plain fins in the
Reynolds number region applicable for display cabinets, i.e. 500 < Re < 1000.
34
200
HTC(measured)
HTC(Kim et al 1997 - wavy)
HTC(Wang 2000 - wavy)
HTC(Mirth&Ramadhyani 1994 - wavy)
HTC(Gray&Webb 1986 - plain)
60
50
40
Pressure drop (Pa)
Heat transfer coefficient

(W/m 2/K)
70
30
20
10
0
0
(a)
500
1000
1500
Reynolds number, ReDc
dp(measured)
dp(Kim et al 1997 - wavy)
dp(Wang 2000 - wavy)
dp(Mirth&Ramadhyani, 1994 - wavy)
dp(Gray&Webb 1986 - plain)
150
100
50
0
2000
1000
2000
3000
4000
(b)
Figure 4.5 Measured heat transfer coefficient, HTC=a,(a) and pressure drop, dp = pa , (b)
on the air side of B2 compared to correlations.
The cooling-coil denoted B3 was only operated with propylene glycol in the experimental
evaluation. Therefore, it was not possible to get a test point with fully turbulent flow on the
liquid side. All cooling-coils have a mixture of cross-current and counter-current heat transfer.
However, in the data evaluation B2 could be approximated as a pure counter-current heat exchanger, while such an approximation might be less appropriate for B3. Because of these two
reasons, no Nusselt number comparisons similar to those above were made for B3. In Figure
4.6a the total heat transfer resistance for B2 and B3 is shown versus Reynolds number on the
liquid side. In this case, for B3 the concentration of propylene glycol was 36 %w instead of
39 %w. The same values of the air volume flow and the mean air temperature were applied in
all the test points. As revealed in the figure, the heat transfer resistance is lower for B2, which
is a result of a smaller cross-sectional area on the air side, and thereby a higher air velocity for
that cooling-coil. In Figure 4.6b the heat transfer resistance of B2 and B3 is plotted versus the
Reynolds number on the air side. In this case, the same values of the liquid flow and the mean
liquid temperature were applied in all the test points. As can be seen, the total heat transfer
resistance is almost solely a function of the Reynolds number. The relative entrance length on
the air side was assumed to be longer in B3 compared to B2, which could lead to better heat
transfer performance for B3. This was one the main reasons for evaluating B3. However, according to the results presented in Figure 4.6b the longer relative entrance length did not
affect the heat transfer performance in a positive direction.
The measured pressure drop on the liquid side for different measuring points for B3 is compared to the pressure drop predicted by correlations found in the literature, see Figure 4.7a and
appendix A2. In Figure 4.7b the pressure drop on the air side for different measuring points is
compared to the pressure drop predicted by correlations for wavy and plain fins, see equations
in appendix A4. As can be seen, good agreement was found with the same correlations for B3
as for B2.
35
3.5
(K/kW)

(K/kW)
2.5
B2
B3
2
1.5
1
0.5
B2
B3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
1000
2000
3000
4000
Reynolds number on the air side, ReDc
Reynolds number on the liquid side, Reb
(a)
5000
(b)
Figure 4.6 Total heat transfer resistance of B2 and B3 for (a) constant air flow and variable
Reynolds number on the liquid side and (b) for constant liquid flow and variable Reynolds
number on the air side. Both the cooling-coils were operated with propylene glycol, 39 %w for
B2 and 36 %w for B3.
40
dp(measured)
dp(lam)
dp(lam-Langhaar)
dp(turb-Eckert)
dp(turb-Gnielinski)
4
3
Pressure drop (Pa)
Pressure drop (bar)
2
1
dp
dp
dp
dp
dp
30
20
(measured)
(Kim et al 1997 - wavy)
(Wang 2000 - wavy)
(Mirth&Ramadhyani 1994 - wavy)
(Gray&Webb 1986 - plain)
10
0
0
0
(a)
1000
2000
3000
4000
Reynolds number on the liquid side, Reb
5000
500
1000
1500
2000
Reynolds number on the air side, ReDc
2500
(b)
Figure 4.7 Measured pressure drop (dp = pb or pa) compared to correlations for B3 on (a)
the liquid side and (b) the air side. The cooling-coil was operated with propylene glycol,
36 %w.
4.1.2
The results from the experiments with the improved cooling-coil, B5, were compared in the
same way as the results from the experiments with B2, see Figure 4.8 - Figure 4.9 and
appendices A1 and A2. The estimated experimental uncertainty for the results presented in the
graphs is summarised in Table 4.3. Contrary to the experiments with B2, in the experiments
with B5 the heat transfer behaviour for Hycool in the lower Reynolds number regime was
similar to the other two evaluated secondary refrigerants. Hence, for all the tested liquids
good agreement was found with the same correlation (Gnielinski, T) as for B2 operated with
propylene glycol and Temper. When it comes to the pressure drop, the correlation taking the
entrance length into account, see Eq. (A2.5), described the measured pressure drop well even
for this cooling-coil.
36
Eq. (4.1) Eq. (4.7) are as the values stated below or better for the different test points performed with B4 and B5.
Cooling-coil B4
Cooling-coil B5
Uncertainty
Propylene Temper
Hycool
Propylene Temper
Hycool
glycol
glycol
3-4
3-4
3-4
4
3-7
3-5
U( Q b ) %
4
4
4
3-5
3-4
3-4
U( Q a ) %
2-3
2-3
2-3
3
2-4
2-3
U( Q m ) %
4-11
4-11
4-14
3-11
2-4
2-5
U( t lm ) %
5-11
5-12
5-15
4-11
3-6
3-6
U( U A ) %
14-17
U(a) %
U(Nub) %
42-105*
47-125 *
44-140 *
12-30
14-32
7-23
Capacity balance
(Q a Q b )measured 0.99-1.02 1.01-1.02 1.02-1.03 0.95-0.99 0.99
1.01-1.02
* The high values for the experimental uncertainty are due to a small temperature difference between out com-
30
30
25
25
Nusselt number
Nusselt number
ing air from the cooling-coil and incoming secondary refrigerant into the cooling-coil during the test point where
the heat transfer resistance on the air side was determined.
20
15
10
20
15
10
5
0
0
100
200
300
Reynolds number
400
(a)
200
400
600
800
1000
Reynolds number
1200
1400
(b)
30
Nu(measured)
25
Nusselt number
30
Nu(Gnielinski, T)
25
20
15
10
20
Nu(Gnielinski, H)
15
Nu(Sieder&Tate)
Nu(Hong&Hrnjak)
10
Nu(constant, T)
5
0
0
0
0
500
1000
Reynolds number
Nu(constant, H)
100
200
300
400
1500
(c)
Figure 4.8 Measured mean Nusselt number on the liquid side of B5 for (a) propylene glycol,
39 %w, (b) Temper -20 and (c) Hycool 20 compared to correlations.
37
0.25
dP(measured)
dp(lam)
dp(lam-Langhaar)
0.7
0.6
Pressure drop (bar)
Pressure drop (bar)
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
200
400
600
800 1000
Reynolds number
1200
1400
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
1600
(a)
dP(measured)
dp(lam)
dp(lam-Langhaar)
dp(turb-Eckert)
dP(turb-Gnielinski)
0.20
500
1000
1500
2000
Reynolds number
2500
3000
(b)
Pressured drop (bar)
0.040
dp(measured)
dp(lam)
dp(lam-Langhaar)
0.030
0.020
0.010
0.000
200
400
600
Reynolds number
800
(c)
Figure 4.9 Measured pressure drop on the liquid side (dp = pb) of B5 for (a) propylene
glycol, 39 %w, (b) Temper -20 and (c) Hycool 20 compared to correlations.
Measurements for two test points were performed in order to evaluate the heat transfer and
pressure drop performance on the air side of B5, see Figure 4.10. The applied correlations for
comparison with measured data can be found in appendices A3 and A4. Similar to the case of
B2, at low Reynolds numbers, the heat transfer and pressure drop behaviour on the air side
was best described by the correlations for plain fins, even though the fins of the cooling-coil
B5 were wavy.
16
HTC(measured)
HTC(Gray and Webb 1986 - plain)
HTC(Wang 2000 - wavy)
50
40
30
20
10
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
0
(a)
dp(measured)
dp(Gray&Webb 1986 - plain)
dp(Wang 2000 - wavy)
14
Pressure drop (Pa)
Heat transfer coefficient

HTC (W/m 2/K)
60
200
400
600
800
1000
200
400
600
800
1000
(b)
Figure 4.10 Measured (a) heat transfer coefficient (HTC=) and (b) pressure drop (dp = pa)
on the air side of B5 compared to correlations.
38
25
25
20
20
Nusselt number
Nusselt number
The results from the experiments with the improved cooling-coil, B4, was also compared in
the same way as the results from the experiments with B2, see section 4.1.1. According to the
figures below (Figure 4.11) the mean Nusselt number was somewhat lower than the Nusselt
number predicted by the Gnielinski (T) correlation for the lowest Reynolds number region.
Hence, these results differed from the results for B2 and B5, where good agreement was
found in this Reynolds number region. These differing results were unexpected since the
Ltube/d ratio of B4 lies between the Ltube/d ratio of B2 and B5. Otherwise, except for the tube
length, Ltube, B4 and B5 had the same coil parameters. However, there were certain limitations
regarding the air volume flow capacity of the experimental set-up, which resulted in a small
temperature difference between the out coming air and incoming secondary refrigerant when
evaluating the cooling-coil B4 experimentally. This led to an experimental measurement accuracy for B4 that was inferior to that of B2 and B5 (see Table 4.2, Table 4.3 and
Appendix B) and might be an explanation to the unexpected results.
15
15
10
10
5
0
5
0
100
200
300
Reynolds number
400
500
(a)
200
600
800
1000
Reynolds number
1200
1400
(b)
25
20
Nusselt number
400
15
10
30
Nu(measured)
25
Nu(Gnielinski, T)
20
Nu(Gnielinski, H)
15
Nu(Sieder&Tate)
10
Nu(Hong&Hrnjak)
Nu(constant, T)
0
0
0
0
500
1000
Reynolds number
1500
Nu(constant, H)
100
200
300
400
500
2000
(c)
Figure 4.11 Measured mean Nusselt number on the liquid side of B4 for (a) propylene glycol,
39 %w,(b) Temper -20 and (c) Hycool 20 compared to correlations.
Regarding the pressure drop comparisons presented in Figure 4.12, the agreement is relatively
good with the correlation taking the entrance length into account even for this cooling-coil.
However, it is somewhat under predicted in the case of propylene glycol and Hycool and over
predicted in the case of Temper.
39
0.30
dp(measured)
dp(lam)
dp(lam-Langhaar)
0.5
0.4
Pressure drop (bar)
Pressure drop (bar)
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
200
400
Reynolds number
600
800
(a)
dp(measured)
dp(lam)
dp(lam-Langhaar)
dp(turb-Eckert)
dp(turb-Gnielinski)
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Reynolds number
2500
3000
(b)
Pressure drop (bar)
0.30
dp(measured)
0.25
dp(lam)
dp(lam-Langhaar)
0.20
dp(turb-Eckert)
0.15
dp(turb-Gnielinski)
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Reynolds number
3000
3500
(c)
Figure 4.12 Measured pressure drop on the liquid side (dp = pb) of B4 for (a) propylene
glycol, 39 %w, (b) Temper -20 and (c) Hycool 20 compared to correlations.
4.1.3
The data reduction of the measured data was performed according to Eq. (4.7) - Eq. (4.11) in
order to calculate the measured mean Nusselt number. The estimated experimental uncertainty for the cooling-coils is presented in Table 4.4 and Table 4.5.
In order to be able to calculate the measured heat transfer coefficient on the secondary refrigerant side, b, and the mean Nusselt number, Nub, the sum of heat transfer resistance on
the water side and the resistance through the tube wall, 1/(wAw)+tube/(tubeAtube,lm), was
needed (see Eq. 4.11). Therefore, the heat transfer coefficient on the liquid side was
calculated by Dittus-Boelters correlation, Eq. (3.2), for a test point where the liquid flow was
in the fully developed turbulent regime (Re > 10 000) and the heat transfer characteristics
were well known. By subtracting the heat transfer resistance on the secondary refrigerant side
from the total heat transfer resistance, 1/(UA), the sum of the heat transfer resistance through
the tube wall and the resistance on the water side could be determined. The same value could
then be subtracted from the total heat transfer resistance in all measuring points in the laminar
regime.
Q b = m b c p ,b (t b,out t b,in )
t lm =
(tW ,in t b,out ) (tW ,out t b,in )

ln((tW ,in t b,out ) (tW ,out t b,in ))
(4.8)
(4.9)
40
U A = Q b t lm
(4.10)
tube
1
1
1
=
+
+
U A b Ab tube Atube,lm W AW
(4.11)
Nub =
b d h
b
(4.7)
However, the methodology described above that includes calculating the logarithmic mean
temperature difference, tlm, is based on the fact that heat transfer resistance along the heat
exchanger is constant, i.e. UA is constant. In a plain tube including an original inlet and a Ubend this is not the case, since the heat transfer immediately after the inlet and the U-bend is
much higher compared to the rest of the tube. Therefore, the measuring results were also
evaluated by calculating the total predicted heat power ( Q b,corr ) transferred from the water to
the secondary refrigerant by calculations step by step along the tube length. This predicted
heat power was then compared to the measured heat power ( Q b, measured ). In a full-sized cooling-coil there is certainly also a variation in heat transfer resistance along the tubes due to the
U-bends, but in such a case there is a repeated variation and the total heat transfer resistance
in the direction of the air flow is relatively homogeneous.
Each cell in the stepwise calculations was 10 mm long and hence the tube consisted of 437
cells in total. The starting point in the calculations was the inlet of the secondary refrigerant
and the outlet of the water and the measured liquid temperatures at this location. The same
equations were used as when calculating the measured mean Nusselt number (Eq. 4.7 - Eq.
4.11), but the stepwise calculations of the predicted heat power, started with calculating the
Nusselt number by using a correlation. Thereafter the heat transfer resistance was calculated
and so on. However, instead of using the logarithmic mean temperature difference, t lm , the
arithmetic mean temperature difference in each cell was used in these calculations. In addition, the appropriate thermophysical properties of the secondary refrigerant for the actual predicted temperature in each cell was used in the stepwise calculations, instead of using
property data for the mean temperature. By using an iterative procedure, it was also possible
to include corrections for differing thermophysical data at the bulk and the wall, e.g.
(b/w)0.14. By application of this stepwise method of calculation a comparison of measured
data and data predicted by different correlations could be carried out. However, when the difference between the inlet temperature of the water and the outlet temperature of the secondary
refrigerant is small, this method does not bring any additional information. The reason for the
small temperature difference in such a case is that the secondary refrigerant flow is very small
in comparison to the water flow. Then the agreement between measured and predicted heat
power will be good, even though a faulty Nusselt number is used in the calculations.
In the comparisons with the measured mean Nusselt number, correlations for mean Nusselt
numbers were used. On the other hand, in the comparisons of measured and predicted heat
power, local Nusselt numbers were used in the stepwise calculations. In those cases where
only correlations for mean Nusselt numbers were presented in the references, local Nusselt
numbers were calculated according to Eq. (4.12).
41
Nu x =
d
(Nu m x )
dx
(4.12)
4.1.3.1
Single-Tube without Inserts
In Figure 4.13 - Figure 4.16 the ratios of the predicted and the measured mean Nusselt number (Nu_p/Nu_m) and the ratios of the predicted and measured heat power (Q_p/Q_m) from
the stepwise calculations are shown for the Gnielinski (T) correlation and for the data fit from
similar experiments with a single-tube presented by Hong and Hrnjak [8]. As can be seen in
the figures neither the measured mean Nusselt number nor the measured heat power agree
well with data predicted by the Gnielinski (T) correlation. This was unexpected since such a
good agreement with that correlation had been found in the experiments with full-sized cooling-coils (see 4.1.1 and 4.1.2). However, better agreement was obtained with the data fit presented by Hong and Hrnjak [8], especially when it comes to the measured and predicted heat
power transferred from the water to the secondary refrigerant. On the contrary, this curve fit
over-predicted the measured mean Nusselt number to a large extent in the cooling-coil experiments (see 4.1.1 and 4.1.2). The explanation for this is probably that the wall heat flux is
much higher, for reasons for accuracy, in the experiments with a single-tube compared to the
experiments with full-sized cooling-coils. This leads to a significant influence of free convection in addition to the forced convection, with a resulting higher Nusselt number. Therefore,
comparisons were also made with a Nusselt number correlation for laminar flow in a straight
horizontal circular duct, which takes mixed convection into account and is presented by
Shome and Jensen [50]. In the predictions of mean Nusselt numbers according to this correlation, a weighed value of the temperatures registered by the thermocouples mounted on the
tube wall was used in the correlation for prediction of liquid properties at wall temperature.
However, in the stepwise calculations the wall temperature along the tube wall was calculated
in an iterative procedure.
Comparisons were made with the correlations presented in Appendix A1. When it comes to
the correlation for mixed convection presented by Shome and Jensen [50], the parameter
(see Eq. A1.15) was greater than unity for all test points except for two of the points tested
with propylene glycol. These two test points corresponded to the highest values of the
Reynolds number. In Figure 4.13 predicted values for simultaneously developing flow (see
Eq. A1.8) are presented for these two test points since best agreement was found for that form
of the correlation.
G: Gnielinski (T)
Num according to Eq. (A1.1) (A1.2)
H: Hong&Hrnjak
Num according to Eq. (A1.5)
S: Shome&Jensen
Num according to Eq. (A1.8) (A1.15)
42
Ratio of Nu_p/Nu_m or Q'_p/Q'_m
1.6
Nu_p/Nu_m (G)
Nu_p/Nu_m (H)
Nu_p/Nu_m (S)
Q'_p/Q'_m (G)
Q'_p/Q'_m (H)
Q'_p/Q'_m (S)
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Reynolds number
Figure 4.13 Ratios of the predicted and the measured mean Nusselt number (Nu_p/Nu_m) and
the predicted and measured heat power (Q_c/Q_m) for different correlations (see Eq. 4.12
and equations in appendix A1), when propylene glycol (39 %w) is used as secondary refrigerant in a plain tube without inserts.
1.6
Nu_p/Nu_m (G)
Nu_p/Nu_m (H)
Nu_p/Nu_m (S)
Q'_p/Q'_m (G)
Q'_p/Q'_m (H)
Q'_p/Q'_m (S)
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Reynolds number
the predicted and measured heat power (Q_p/Q_m) for different correlations (see Eq. 4.12
and equations in appendix A1), when Temper -20 is used as secondary refrigerant in a plain
tube without inserts.
43
1.6
Nu_p/Nu_m (G)
Nu_p/Nu_m (H)
Nu_p/Nu_m (S)
Q'_p/Q'_m (G)
Q'_p/Q'_m (H)
Q'_p/Q'_m (S)
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Reynolds number
the predicted and measured heat power (Q_c/Q_m) for different correlations (see Eq. 4.12
and equations in appendix A1), when Hycool 20 is used as secondary refrigerant in a plain
tube without inserts.
1.6
Nu_p/Nu_m (G)
Nu_p/Nu_m (H)
Nu_p/Nu_m (S)
Q'_p/Q'_m (G)
Q'_p/Q'_m (H)
Q'_p/Q'_m (S)
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Reynolds number
the predicted and measured heat power (Q_p/Q_m) for different correlations (see Eq. 4.12
and equations in appendix A1), when water is used as secondary refrigerant in a plain tube
without inserts.
44
Eq. (4.7) - Eq. (4.11) are as the values stated below or better for the different test points performed with the plain tube without inserts.
Plain tube
Uncertainty
U( Q b ) %
U( W e ) %
U( t lm ) %
U( U A ) %
U(Nub) %
Propylene
glycol
3-4
2
0-2
3-4
5
Capacity balance
(Q b W e )measured 0.97-1.03
Temper
Hycool
Water
3
2
0-2
3-4
5
3
2
1
3
5
2
2
1-3
2-3
4-5
0.99-1.00
0.99-1.00
1.00
Figure 4.17 presents the ratio of the predicted and measured isothermal pressure drop over the
tube, including the U-bend and the inlet and the outlet of the tube, for the pressure drop prediction according to Langhaar [65], see Eq. A2.5. For the other liquids the pressure drop was
not measured.
Ratio of dp_p/dp_m
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
dp_p/dp_m (Propylene glycol)
0.8
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Reynolds number
Figure 4.17 Ratios of the predicted and the measured isothermal pressure drop, dp_p/dp_m,
(dp=pb) over a plain tub, including a U-bend, an inlet and an outlet, for pressure drop prediction according to [65], see Eq. A2.5.
4.1.3.2
Single-Tubes with Continuous Twisted-Tape Inserts
In Figure 4.18 the ratios of the predicted and the measured mean Nusselt number
(Nu_p/Nu_m) and the ratios of the predicted and measured heat power (Q_p/Q_m) from the
stepwise calculations are shown for the correlation for continuous twisted-tape inserts presented by Manglik and Bergles [27], which was used in the calculation model (see Eq. 3.2,
Eq. 3.3 and Eq. 3.4). In the predictions of mean Nusselt numbers according to this correlation,
a weighed value of the temperatures registered by the thermocouples mounted on the tube
wall was used in the correlation and for prediction of liquid properties at wall temperature.
45
However, in the stepwise calculations the wall temperature along the tube wall was calculated
in an iterative procedure.The figure shows that measured and predicted data agree well for the
applied correlation, when the stepwise calculation method has been used. The agreement of
measured and correlated mean Nusselt number is better for high Reynolds numbers than for
low numbers. In the lower Reynolds number regime the correlation under-predicts the
measured Nusselt number.
Table 4.5 The expanded experimental uncertainty ranges for the different variables used in
Eq. (4.7) - Eq. (4.11) are as the values stated below or better for the different test points with
the plain tube without inserts.
Tubes with twisted-tape inserts
Uncertainty
Propylene Temper
glycol
1-2
1
U( Q b ) %
2
2
U( W e ) %
1-5
1-6
U( t lm ) %
2-5
2-6
U( U A ) %
U(Nub) %
4-6
5-8
Capacity balance
(Q b W e )measured 1.01-1.04
0.99-1.00
Hycool
Water
1
2
1-5
2-5
6-8
2
2
5-8
6-8
9-12
0.98-0.99
1.00-1.01
1.8
Nu_p/Nu_m (H2O)
Nu_p/Nu_m (Hycool)
Nu_p/Nu_m (Temper)
Nu_p/Nu_m (PG)
Q'_p/Q'_m (H2O)
Q'_p/Q'_m (Hycool)
Q'_p/Q'_m (Temper)
Q'_p/Q'_m (PG)
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Reynolds number
1200
1400
1600
the predicted and measured heat power (Q_p/Q_m) for prediction by the correlation presented by Manglik and Bergles [27] (see Eq. 3.3 and Eq. 3.4), when different secondary refrigerants are used in a tube with continuous twisted-tape inserts (PG = Propylene glycol and
H2O = water).
Figure 4.19 presents ratio of the predicted and measured isothermal pressure drop over a tube
with a continuous twisted-tape insert, including the U-bend and the inlet and the outlet of the
tube. The measured pressure drop prediction is according to Manglik and Bergles [27], see
Eq. (3.4). The values shown represent measurements with propylene glycol. The reason for
not presenting the measured pressure drops for the other liquids is that when these pressure
46
drop measurements were performed corrosives had started to form on the tape surface. This
was due to the fact that the tape was made of galvanized steel and such a material is not long
term compatible with formates and/or acetates (Hycool and Temper).
Ratio of dp_p/dp_m
1.2
dp_p/dp_m (Propylene glycol)
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Reynolds number
Figure 4.19 Ratios of the predicted and the measured isothermal pressure drop (dp_p/dp_m)
over a tube with a continuous twisted-tape insert, including a U-bend, an inlet and an outlet,
for pressure drop prediction according to Manglik and Bergles [27], see Eq. (3.4).
4.2
Parameter Study
In the following sections the results from the parameter study are presented in the form of
graphs. In order to be able to compare the results in a comprehensive way a couple of definitions have to be established. The total electric power requested to satisfy the cooling demand,
Wetot , and the electric power required by the compressor, Wem , are here defined according to
Eq. (4.13) and Eq. (4.14). Wem, min denotes the minimal electric power required by the compressor, which means the electric power that would have been required by the compressor if
the temperature of the secondary refrigerant in to the cooling-coil, tb,in, had equalled the stated
air temperature out from the cooling-coil, ta,out. Consequently, Wem,e is defined as the extra
(additional) electric power required since tb,in must be lower than the stated air temperature
out from the cooling-coil, ta,out, in order to satisfy the cooling demand of the display cabinet.
Contrary to the extra electric power, Wem,e , the magnitude of the minimal electric power,
Wem, min , is not affected by the cooling-coil performance. This is due to the fact that the inlet
temperature of the secondary refrigerant in to the cooling-coil must always be lower than the
stated air temperature out of the cooling-coil, no matter how good the performance of the
cooling-coil is.
Wetot = Wem + Wep + Wef
(4.13)
Wem = Wem, min + Wem,e
(4.14)
47
ta,out
t a,in
tb,in
tb,out
Figure 4.20 A schematic drawing of a counter-current cooling-coil - designation of temperatures.
4.2.1
Conventional Cooling-Coils without Inserts
The cooling-coil named B2 was used as a starting-point in the parameter study and the values
of the varied parameters of the cooling-coils can be seen in Table 4.6. As presented in the
table the tube diameter, the tube pitch, the number of tubes and the number of parallel loops
or circuits were varied. Since the U-bends were found to affect heat transfer and pressure drop
in the experimental part where conventional cooling-coils were investigated (see 4.1.1) the
performance of cooling-coils with shorter distance between the U-bends were investigated by
using the calculation model. As an example, the performance of two cooling-coils with half
the distance between the U-bends, Ltube, connected in parallel were compared to the performance of one full-length cooling-coil and so on. Only cooling-coil geometries for cooling-coils
performing better than B2 according to the stated optimising criteria are presented in Table
4.6, even though calculations for other geometries were performed as well.
Table 4.6 Varied parameters of evaluated cooling-coils

Cooling-coil
definition
B2
B2-8
D212-10
B2-8-L2
D212-10-L2
D212-10-L42
B2-32
D212-50
D
mm
12.5
12.5
10.0
12.5
10.0
10.0
12,5
10.0
d
mm
11.7
11.7
9.2
11.7
9.2
9.2
11.7
9.2
pl
mm
30.0
30.0
24.0
30.0
24.0
24.0
30.0
24.0
pt
mm
26.0
26.0
20.8
26.0
20.8
20.8
26.0
20.8
nl
nt
8
8
10
8
10
10
8
10
8
8
10
8
10
10
8
10
Ltube
mm
2250
2250
2250
1075*
1075*
500*
2250
2250
* The length of the tubes has been reduced to make room for the extra U-bends.
N
4
8
10
8
10
10
32
50
Number of cooling-coils
1
1
1
2
2
4
1
1
48
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.21 Sketches of the cooling-coils (a) B2 and (b) D212-10-L42. Please note that the
sketches are not completely according to scale.
Figure 4.22 shows the required electric power for a number of cooling-coils that require less
electric power compared to B2, according to the calculation model and the optimising criteria
stated in section 3.1. In this case the calculations have been performed for propylene glycol as
the secondary refrigerant and display cabinet 1 (see Table 3.1). For each combination of cooling-coil and cooling demand there is an optimal operating point, involving a certain value of
the liquid flow rate and inlet temperature. The values of electric power that are compared to
each other are related to this optimal volume flow of each cooling-coil. The value of this flow
differs a lot for the different cooling-coil geometries and Figure 4.22b shows the optimal flow
for different cooling-coils placed in display cabinet 1. In cases where one full-length coolingcoil have been assumed to be replaced by several smaller cooling-coils, the total volume flow
to serve all the units is shown in the figure. If the cooling demand of the display cabinet is
increased by 50 % (display cabinet 2, see Table 3.1) the required electric powers are according to Figure 4.23a. The relative magnitudes of the optimal volume flow for the different
cooling-coils are similar to those in Figure 4.22b and can be seen in Figure 4.23b. The predicted electrical power required when Temper is used as secondary refrigerant is shown in
Figure 4.24. Even here the relative magnitudes of the optimal flow was similar to those of
propylene glycol.
40
Wem,e
Wef
Wep
30
20
10
0
B2
B2-8
1.6
Optimal volume flow (m3/h)
Required electric power (W)
49
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
D212- B2-8- D212- D212- B2-32 D21210

L2
10-L2 10-L42
50
(a)
B2
B2-8 D212- B2-8- D212- D212- B2-32 D21210

L2
10-L2 10-L42
50
(b)
70
Wem,e
Wef
Wep
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
B2
B2-8
Figure 4.22 Required electric power (a) and optimal total volume flow (b) for different
cooling-coils in display cabinet 1 operated with propylene glycol, 39 %w ( Wem, min = 489 W).
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
D212- B2-8- D212- D212- B2-32 D21210

L2
10-L2 10-L42
50
(a)
B2
B2-8
D212- B2-8- D212- D212- B2-32 D21210

L2
10-L2 10-L42
50
(b)
30
Wem,e
Wef
Wep
25
20
15
10
5
0
B2
(a)
B2-8
cooling-coils in display cabinet 2 operated with propylene glycol, 39 %w ( Wem, min = 753 W).
D212- B2-8- D212- D112- B2-32 D21210

L2
10-L2 10-L42
50
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
B2
B2-8
D212- B2-8- D212- D112- B2-32 D21210

L2
10-L2 10-L42
50
(b)
cooling-coils in display cabinet 1 operated with Temper -20 ( Wem, min = 489 W).
50
4.2.2
Cooling-Coils with Inserts or Internal Longitudinal Fins
100
60
50
40
In this section the results from the parameter study for enhanced cooling-coils are presented.
In Figure 4.25 the required electric power for the cooling-coil B2 are shown for plain tubes,
for tubes with continuous twisted-tape inserts, for tubes with regularly spaced twisted-tape
inserts (RSTT) and finally for tubes with longitudinal internal fins. In this case the calculations have been made with propylene glycol as secondary refrigerant and for (a) display cabinet 1 as well as for (b) display cabinet 2 (see Table 3.1). As the figures show, none of the enhancement techniques result in lower required electric power compared to the cooling-coil
with plain tubes, instead the performance deteriorates. Figure 4.25b shows that this deterioration gets less distinct when the cooling demand of the display cabinet is increased.
Wem,e
Wef
Wep
30
20
10
0
Plain tube
(a)
80
Wem,e
Wef
Wep
60
40
20
0
Plain tube
Twisted-tape RSTT y=5 s=5 Internal fins

y=5
(4)
Twisted-tape
y=5
RSTT y=5
s=5
Internal fins
(4)
(b)
Figure 4.25 Electric power required by cooling-coil B2 with plain and enhanced tubes in (a)
display cabinet 1 ( W em,min = 489 W) and (b) display cabinet 2 ( W em,min = 756 W) when operated with propylene glycol, 39 %w.
In Figure 4.26a the required electric power for a cooling-coil similar to B2, but with 8 parallel
liquid loops instead of 4, is presented for plain and enhanced tubes. The calculations have
been made with propylene glycol as secondary refrigerant and for display cabinet 1. The
results reveal that if the number of parallel loops or circuits is increased from 4 to 8, i.e. the
total tube length is divided by 2, the cooling-coil having tubes enhanced by regularly spaced
twisted-tapes corresponds to the lowest value of required electric power. If the number of
parallel loops is increased further, to 32, all the enhancement techniques leads to an improved
overall efficiency, see Figure 4.26b. In the calculation model this cooling-coil has been
treated as a pure counter-current coil. This simplification is appropriate for cooling-coils
having 4 to 10 parallel loops but probably not for a cooling-coil having a number of parallel
loops that equals to half the total amount of tubes of the coil. However, in this case the
calculations have been made for the purpose of showing how much the flow path (the total
tube length) must be shortened in order for the enhancement techniques to be effective. According to Figure 4.22 these cooling-coils are more efficient than B2 and as presented in
Figure 4.26b the cooling-coil having 32 parallel loops instead of 4 can be further enhanced by
twisted-tape inserts as well as with internal fins.
45
40
35
30
51
Wem,e
Wef
Wep
25
20
15
10
5
0
Plain tube
Twisted-tape
y=5
RSTT y=5
s=5
30
Wem,e
Wef
Wep
25
20
15
10
5
0
Internal fins
(4)
Plain tube
Twisted-tape RSTT y=5 s=5

y=5
Internal fins
(4)
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.26 Electric power required by cooling-coil (a) B2-8 and (b) cooling-coil B-32 with
plain and enhanced tubes in display cabinet 1 ( W em,min = 489 W) when operated with propylene glycol, 39 %w.
45
40
35
30
Optimal volume flow (m 3/h)
The required electric power for the cooling-coil having the lowest energy consumption in
Figure 4.22 - Figure 4.23, D212-10-L42, is shown for plain and enhanced tubes in Figure
4.27a. Here the calculations have been made with propylene glycol as secondary refrigerant
and for display cabinet 2. The corresponding values of the optimal flow for the cooling-coil
D212-10-L42 with plain and enhanced tubes are shown in Figure 4.27b. These figures show
that the required electric power can not be much further reduced by applying the enhancement
techniques, but the value of the optimal volume flow decreases considerably. Hence, a cooling-coil having shorter distances between the U-bends in combination with for example
twisted-tape inserts can offer a low value of both the required electric power and the optimal
volume flow.
Wem,e
Wef
Wep
25
20
15
10
5
0
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Plain tube
Plain tube
(a)
1.6

y=5
Internal fins
(4)
Twisted-tape RSTT y=5 s=5 Internal fins

y=5
(4)
(b)
Figure 4.27 Required electric power (a) and optimal total volume flow (b) for cooling-coil
D212-10-L42 with plain and enhanced tubes in display cabinet 2 operated with propylene
glycol, 39 %w ( Wem, min = 753 W).
If the secondary refrigerant is changed and Temper -20 is used instead of propylene glycol,
the required electric power for the cooling-coils B2 and D212-10-L42 are as presented in
Figure 4.28. In this case the calculations have been made for display cabinet 2. When this
secondary refrigerant is used, the enhancement techniques lead to somewhat lower required
electric power for the cooling-coil denoted D212-10-L42. But otherwise, the same main conclusions that have been drawn for the different enhancement techniques when propylene
52
70
60
50
glycol is used as secondary refrigerant are valid when a secondary refrigerant such as Temper
is used as well. However, the values of the required electric power are always lower when
Temper is used instead of propylene glycol. This can be seen if the bars in Figure 4.25b are
compared to those in Figure 4.28a (B2) and if the bars in Figure 4.27 are compared to them in
Figure 4.28b (D212-10-L42).
Wem,e
Wef
Wep
40
30
20
10
0
Plain tubes
(a)

y=5
35
30
25
Wem,e
Wef
Wep
20
15
10
Internal fins
(4)
5
0
Plain tubes

y=5
Internal fins
(4)
(b)
Figure 4.28 Electric power required by (a) cooling-coil B2 and (b) cooling-coil D212-10-L42
with plain and enhanced tubes in display cabinet 2 ( W em,min = 753 W) when operated with
Temper -20.
4.2.3
Optimal Operation for the Purpose of Minimising the Electric

Energy Use
Calculations were made for three different cooling-coils (see Table 4.7) in order to outline
optimal operation, e.g. optimal volume flow and temperature in to the cooling-coil. The cooling-coil denoted R is similar to cooling-coils found in traditional display cabinets today. The
cooling-coil B2 is the one evaluated in the introductory experiments and was also used as a
starting point in the parameter study, see 4.2.1, and the last cooling-coil, D212-10-L42, is the
one that according to the calculation model offered the lowest energy requirement (similar to
B5). The same definitions regarding the electric energy requirement and optimising criteria
were used as in 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. The calculations were made for three different display cabinets described in Table 3.1.
Table 4.7 Varied parameters of evaluated cooling-coils
Cooling-coil D
d
pl
pt
pfin nl
nt
Ltube
definition
mm mm mm mm mm
mm
R
15.5 14.7 50
50
6
10 2
2250
B2
12.5 11.7 30.0 26.0 4
8
8
2250
D212-10-L42 10.0 9.2
24.0 20.8 4
10 10 500*
* The length of the tubes has been reduced to make room for the extra U-bends.
N
2
4
10
Number of
cooling-coils
1
1
4
53
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 4.29 Sketches of the cooling-coils (a) R, (b) B2 and (c) D212-10-L42. Please note that
the sketches are not completely according to scale.
70
Wep
Wef
Wem,e
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
R
B2
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
D212-10-L42
(a)
B2
D212-10-L42
B2
D212-10-L42
(b)
1.0
700
600
0.8
Reynolds number
Volume flow (m 3/h)
0.0
Inlet liquid temperature (C)
In Figure 4.30 optimal values for electric power requirement, inlet liquid temperature, liquid
flow and the corresponding Reynolds number on the liquid side are presented for the three
cooling-coils. The values are related to operation with propylene glycol (39 %w) and display
cabinet 1, the one that demanded least cooling. The figures show that a higher inlet temperature is associated with a lower electric power requirement by the compressor. They also reveal
that even though the optimal value of the total liquid flow is highest for the cooling-coil
D212-10-L42, the optimal Reynolds number is lowest for that cooling-coil.
0.6
0.4
0.2
500
400
300
200
100
0.0
R
(c)
B2
D212-10-L42
(d)
Figure 4.30 Required electric power (a), optimal inlet liquid temperature (b), optimal volume
flow(c) and optimal Reynolds number (d) for different cooling-coils in display cabinet 1 when
operated with propylene glycol, 39 %w ( Wem, min = 489 W).
54
120
700
Wep
Wef
Wem,e
100
80
60
40
20
500
400
300
200
100
0
R
(a)
600
Reynolds number
Figure 4.31 shows the optimal values for the electric power requirement and the Reynolds
number on the liquid side for the three cooling-coils. The values are here related to display
cabinet 2, the one that demanded 50 % more cooling compared to display cabinet 1, and
propylene glycol (39 %w) as secondary refrigerant. The same internal relationship between the
cooling-coils as in the previous case can be seen in these figures. Even here, the lowest optimal Reynolds number corresponds to the most energy efficient cooling-coil.
B2
D212-10-L42
B2
D212-10-L42
(b)
Figure 4.31 Required electric power (a) and optimal Reynolds number (b) for different
cooling-coils in display cabinet 2 when operated with propylene glycol, 39 %w
( Wem, min = 753 W).
Optimal values for the three cooling-coils can be seen in Figure 4.32 for the display cabinet
having the highest cooling demand, display cabinet 3, and propylene glycol (39 %w). This
cooling demand corresponds to a traditional display cabinet that is used in supermarkets today. The figures show a similar internal relationship of all the values for the three coolingcoils as in the figures above. Figure 4.32 shows that if the cooling-coil D212-10-L42 is placed
in display cabinet 3 it can still be operated at a liquid inlet temperature that is just below
2 C even though the cooling demand is high, while this temperature must be considerably
lower for the other cooling-coils. If the inlet liquid temperature is not lower than around
2 C, no frosting takes place and hence no defrosting is necessary. Frosting and defrosting is
not included in the calculation model, which means that, in reality, if the inlet liquid
temperature is lower than 2 C the required power input would be even higher than the presented values. In addition, the fin pitch of the cooling-coils B2 and D212-10-L42 is 4 mm and
such a small pitch hardly allows frosting on the fins, since it would result in a large pressure
drop on the air side. Hence, using for example the cooling-coil B2 with propylene glycol in a
display cabinet having a cooling demand of 3000 W is not a realistic application.
All the figures show that when propylene glycol is used as secondary refrigerant a laminar
liquid flow regime in the tubes is optimal for all the cooling-coils and cooling demands presented here.
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Wep
Wef
Wem,e
B2
55
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
D212-10-L42
(a)
B2
D212-10-L42
B2
D212-10-L42
(b)
2.0
900
Reynolds number
Volume flow (m 3/h)
800
1.5
1.0
0.5
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0.0
0
R
(c)
B2
D212-10-L42
(d)
flow (c) and optimal Reynolds number (d) for different cooling-coils in display cabinet 3 when
operated with propylene glycol, 39 %w ( Wem, min = 978 W).
In Figure 4.33 optimal values are presented for the three cooling-coils. The values are here
related to operation with Temper instead of propylene glycol and display cabinet 3, the one
that demanded most cooling. The figures show that when propylene glycol is replaced by
Temper, the required electric power is lower and the inlet liquid temperature is higher compared to the case of propylene glycol. In Figure 4.33d it can be seen that for the cooling-coils
denoted R and B2 the optimal Reynolds number is turbulent or within the transition region,
while it is still in the laminar region for the cooling-coil D212-10-L42. Even here the most
energy efficient cooling-coil corresponds to a laminar optimal flow regime.
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0
Wep
Wef
Wem,e
56
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
B2
D212-10-L42
(a)
B2
D212-10-L42
B2
D212-10-L42
(b)
2.0
4000
Reynolds number
Volume flow (m 3/h)
3500
1.5
1.0
0.5
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0.0
R
(c)
B2
D212-10-L42
(d)
operated with Temper -20 ( Wem, min = 978 W).
In Figure 4.34 the same things are shown as in the figures above, but the cooling-coils are
operated with Hycool in this case. The same trends are seen when comparing these figures
with the figures for propylene glycol (Figure 4.32) as when comparing the figures for
Temper (Figure 4.33) with the ones for propylene glycol. However, the required electric
power is somewhat lower compared to the case of Temper.
The figures presented in this section show that the optimal values of inlet liquid temperature,
the liquid flow and the corresponding Reynolds number depend on the cooling demand,
which secondary refrigerant being used and on the cooling-coil design. The cooling-coil design defines e.g. tube diameter, number of parallel loops, distance between U-bends, number
of tubes in the longitudinal/transverse direction etc. The figures also reveal that the electric
energy use is lower for Temper and Hycool compared to propylene glycol. However, in order
to make use of the better heat transfer performance of these secondary refrigerants, the cooling-coil must be operated at a higher inlet temperature compared to the case of propylene
glycol, since much of the gain is lost otherwise. In addition, it is seen in the figures that for
the most efficient cooling-coil, the optimal flow regime is always laminar.
Of course all the values presented in this section is a result of the assumptions made in the
model regarding e.g. the efficiency of the pump, fan and compressor and the temperature difference in the liquid cooler etc. As an example, a higher efficiency of the pump would result
in a higher optimal liquid flow and Reynolds number and so on.
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0
Wep
Wef
Wem,e
57
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
B2
D212-10-L42
(a)
B2
D212-10-L42
B2
D212-10-L42
(b)
2.0
4000
Reynolds number
Volume flow (m 3/h)
3500
1.5
1.0
0.5
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0.0
R
(c)
B2
D212-10-L42
(d)
operated with Hycool 20 ( Wem, min = 978 W).
58
59
Discussion
The discussion below is mostly about display cabinet applications, but the results of the research work presented in this study can be useful in many other applications where coolingcoils are used as well, such as for example air conditioning, district cooling and heat recovery.
5.1
Experiments with Conventional Cooling-Coils
In the experiments with conventional cooling-coils some of the main results were that good
agreement was found between measured Nusselt numbers and Nusselt numbers predicted by
the Gnielinskis correlation for thermally developing flow and the uniform wall temperature
boundary condition (T). The agreement was good when the cooling-coil was operated with
propylene glycol or Temper 20 as secondary refrigerant for Re < 1700. Thereafter, the
transition to turbulent flow seems to start. However, the deviation from the values predicted
by the correlation might also be an effect of a larger uncertainty of measurement in this
regime. When using the correlations, it has been assumed that the boundary layers are destroyed and a new entrance length formed after each U-bend and this assumption seems to
agree well with reality. These findings are in agreement with results from experiments with a
coaxial heat exchanger presented by Hong and Hrnjak [8]. They found that the heat transfer
behaviour after the U-bend was almost as good as after the original inlet into the tube. However, as can be seen in Figure 4.3, the measured mean Nusselt numbers in the full-scale cooling-coil are not as high as the curve fit from measured data for the coaxial heat exchanger
presented by them. In Figure 4.4 measured pressure drops on the liquid side over the coolingcoil are compared to pressure drops predicted by correlations. Best agreement for Re up to
around 2000 was found when the extra pressure drop caused by the new entrance lengths
following each U-bend was accounted for according to Langhaar [65] in the predictions.
When it comes to the air side the results showed that for such low air flows used in display
cabinet applications (Re 500 - 1000), the waves of the fins do neither affect the heat transfer
nor the pressure drop performance of the cooling-coil much, see Figure 4.7. Therefore, no
effort should be put on optimising the waves of the fins in a display cabinet application and
correlations for plain fins can be used without getting too erroneous results.
5.2
Parameter Study Conventional Cooling-Coils
The knowledge from the experiments with conventional cooling-coils was used to create a
calculation model to be used in a parameter study. The results from the experiments with conventional cooling-coils, B2 and B3, showed that the total heat transfer resistance of B3 was
considerably higher than that of B2, see Figure 4.6a. In addition, the fact that the relative entrance length on the air side was longer for B3 compared to B2 did not affect the heat transfer
performance of B3 in a positive direction, see Figure 4.6b. Therefore, the same outer dimensions as those of B2 were kept in the parameter study. Due to the fact that the U-bends were
found to affect the heat transfer as well as the pressure drop performance of a cooling-coil the
effect of shortening the distance between the U-bends was investigated with successful
results, which can be seen in Figure 4.22 - Figure 4.24. Since the heat transfer coefficient, ,
is proportional to the inverted value of the diameter of the tube, see Eq. (3.1), the effect of
decreasing this diameter was studied. Then it was found that a reduction of the tube diameter
has to be accompanied by an increase in the number of parallel loops of the coil if an im-
60
proved performance is to be obtained. This is due to the pressure drop penalty caused by reducing the diameter and increasing the total flow length.
Compared to B2, cooling-coils usually placed in display cabinets have a larger tube diameter,
fewer parallel loops and larger fin pitch, even though they are contained within the same
volume. According to the results from the parameter study where the calculation model was
used, B2 should therefore be regarded as more efficient than those cooling-coils normally
found in display cabinets. This is also shown in 4.2.3, e.g. Figure 4.32. Most of the other
cooling-coils presented in this study are according to the stated optimising criteria even more
efficient than B2.
In the parameter study, water vapour condensation has not been included in the model even
though condensation takes place in cooling-coils placed in display cabinets. Then the question
arises concerning how reliable the results are for a real application. In the parameter study it
has been assumed that the cooling demand is higher on the liquid side compared to the air
side and according to the references [5, 66] the sensible heat transfer coefficient is not very
much affected by condensation. Hence, the heat transfer performance predicted by using the
model should not differ too much from the real situation. When it comes to the pressure drop,
it is probably underestimated by the model. However, since the same assumptions have been
made for all the evaluated cooling-coil geometries and the changes mainly concerns the liquid
side of the cooling-coil, the internal order of the performance of the cooling-coils should not
be affected by this simplification.
5.3
New Experiments with Improved Conventional CoolingCoils
When calculating the performance for the most efficient cooling-coils in the parameter study,
D212-10-L2 and D212-10-L42, the value of the optimal liquid flow corresponded to rather
low Reynolds numbers, around 100-200 for propylene glycol and 400-500 for Temper -20.
Therefore it was of interest to examine the heat transfer and pressure drop behaviour for such
low Reynolds numbers in a cooling-coil with shorter distance between the U-bends. For that
reason, new experiments were carried out with cooling-coils similar to D212-10-L2 and
D212-10-L42, namely B4 and B5. The results from the experiments with the improved conventional cooling-coil B5 showed good agreement with the correlations used in the calculation model, which can be seen in Figure 4.8. When it comes to the cooling-coil B4 the measured Nusselt number differed somewhat from the Gnielinski (T) correlation in the lowest
Reynolds number region, which is shown in Figure 4.11. These results were unexpected since
the tube length to diameter relation (Ltube/d) of B4 lies between that of B5 and B2. However,
due to air flow capacity limitations in the experiments with B4, the measurement uncertainty
was poor in these experiments and the results for the cooling-coil B5 are therefore more reliable. Hence, the calculation model can be regarded as valid even for low Reynolds numbers
and tube length - diameter relations of sizes down to that of B5.
5.4
Optimal Reynolds Number Regime
In order to reach the lowest possible electric energy requirement for cooling a display cabinet,
the cooling-coil should be operated in an optimal manner. This means that the cooling-coil
should be run with optimal values of the liquid inlet temperature and liquid flow. Even though
61
the heat transfer coefficient is always higher for turbulent flow compared to laminar flow in a
given heat exchanger, the turbulent flow regime does not always offer the most energy
efficient solution. On the contrary, the most energy efficient cooling-coil presented in the
results from the parameter study, D212-10-L42, is associated with a value of the optimal
Reynolds number that is within the laminar flow regime, no matter which secondary refrigerant that is used (see section 4.2.3). This is in agreement with the argument stating that the
most energy efficient solution always involves a laminar flow regime.
5.5
Saving Potentials
By studying the graphs presented in section 4.2.3 the saving potentials for a display cabinet
application can be estimated. As an example, for display cabinet 3 (the one demanding most
cooling) operated with propylene glycol, the electric energy use can be reduced from 1165 W
to 1046 W (10 %) if the reference cooling-coil denoted R is replaced by the coil denoted
D212-10-L42, i.e. the most efficient one according to the results from the parameter study. If
the secondary refrigerant propylene glycol is replaced by for example Hycool instead of replacing the cooling-coil the electric energy use is reduced to 1074 W (8 %). If both the cooling-coil and the secondary refrigerant are replaced the energy used can be reduced to 1038 W
(11 %). However, in the calculations the electric energy usage due to frosting and defrosting
of the cooling-coil has not been taking into consideration. Hence, the savings will be even
greater in reality, since frosting is necessary for the reference cooling-coil R in most cases
while it is probably not for the most efficient coil D212-10-L42. The reason for this is that the
latter coil can be operated at higher liquid inlet temperatures compared to the other one. The
saving potential for the display cabinets having lower cooling demand is of course smaller,
compared to display cabinet 3.
5.6
Evaluation of Enhancement Techniques
The results from the parameter study for cooling-coils with plain tubes reveal that the values
of the optimal flow gets higher when splitting the cooling-coil into several small ones with
shorter distance between the U-bends and when increasing the number of parallel loops. For
example, this can be seen in Figure 4.22 - Figure 4.24. However, in order to reduce the required electric power further while maintaining a low optimal flow for the cooling-coil, other
changes than varying the conventional cooling-coil parameters have to be done. Such changes
might involve enhancements of the tubes and this was investigated by using the calculation
model complemented with correlations for different enhancement techniques, see 3.2 - 3.4. As
can be seen in the results from using this calculation model, section 4.2.2, none of the evaluated enhancement techniques leads to an improved overall performance for a display cabinet
application for all cases. On the contrary, in some situations the overall performance of the
cooling-coil deteriorates, no matter which of the evaluated enhancement techniques that is
used. Nevertheless, it can be concluded that the evaluated enhancement techniques, especially
the twisted-tape inserts, can be used to improve the overall efficiency in some situations.
However, in order to achieve an improvement, the cooling-coil must have a sufficient number
of parallel loops, i.e. a liquid flow path (total tube length) that is short enough. In addition, the
improvement is moderate which makes the most important benefit from the enhancement
techniques, the lower values of the optimal flow.
In the calculation model the uniform wall temperature boundary condition is used for the
cooling-coil with plain tubes and tubes with continuous twisted-tape inserts. In addition, the
62
correlations presume thermally developing laminar flow. For the cooling-coils with regularly
spaced twisted-tape inserts the uniform heat flux boundary condition is used and the correlations are valid for fully developed flow. This makes the comparison of the different enhancement techniques somewhat uncertain. The uniform wall temperature conditions are the most
appropriate ones for a display cabinet application. The reason for using the uniform heat flux
boundary conditions for tubes with regularly spaced twisted-tape inserts or internally finned
tubes is simply lack of known correlations for the uniform wall temperature conditions.
Therefore, the results for the tubes with regularly spaced twisted-tape inserts and the internally finned tubes may be a bit over-predicted. When it comes to the thermally developing
region, this region is probably of minor importance for a tube fitted with continuous as well as
regularly spaced twisted-tape inserts. The same is true for the internally finned tubes due to
small flow passages. The results from Fabbri [38] used in the calculations for internally finned tubes are based on a numerical study and the correlations used for the calculations with
regularly spaced twisted-tape inserts are in this paper sometimes used outside regions verified
by Saha [18], who presented the correlations. This, in combination with the boundary condition inconsistency for the different enhancement techniques, makes the results for plain tubes
and for tubes with continuous twisted-tape inserts the most reliable. This is also confirmed by
the results from the experimental verification with a single-tube including a U-bend (see
4.1.3).
5.7
Experiments with Single-Tubes
Correlated heat transfer and pressure drop for a tube with a twisted-tape insert using correlations according to Manglik and Bergles [27] were in relatively good agreement with measured
data. This can be seen in the figures in section 4.1.3.2. When it comes to the empty tube, free
convection as a contribution to forced convection, resulted in higher measured Nusselt
numbers than expected, see 4.1.3.1. This leads to the fact that extra considerations must be
taken when using correlations from the literature that are developed from experiments with a
single-tube when the purpose is to predict the heat transfer of a full-sized cooling-coil. To
make the correlations reliable for heat transfer for a single-tube as well as a full-sized coolingcoil, the correlations should contain a term taking free convection into account. (The correlations for twisted-tape inserts presented by Manglik and Bergles [27] do so.) The deviation of
the measured Nusselt number from the curve-fit presented by Hong and Hrnjak [8] in the experiments with full-scale cooling-coils (see Figure 4.3 - Figure 4.8) is probably due to a contribution from free convection in their experiments with a single-tube including a U-bend. If
Figure 4.14 - Figure 4.16 are studied it can be seen that the measured Nusselt number in the
experiments with a single-tube in the present study actually agrees rather well with the the
Nusselt number predicted by using the curve-fit presented by Hong and Hrnjak [8] at the same
time as they agree with the Nusselt number prediction using the correlation containing a term
taking free convection into account presented by Shome and Jensen [50].
5.8
Uncertainty of Measurement
The uncertainty of measurement is rather high in all the experiments, especially in the ones
with full-scale cooling-coils (see Table 4.1 - Table 4.5 and Appendix B). The reason for this is
not bad measurement devices or measurement technique, but is simply due to the fact that a
small uncertainty of measurement is hard to obtain in this kind of experiments. One of the
parameters that affects the uncertainty strongly is the temperature difference at the inlet or the
63
outlet of the heat exchanger. When the energy flow ( m c p ) on the two sides of the heat exchanger differ too much (which can not be avoided in this kind of experiments), the temperature difference on either of the sides will be very small. This results in a high uncertainty regarding the logarithmic mean temperature difference (tlm), which in turn results in a large
uncertainty for the measured Nusselt number. Some results related with too high values of the
uncertainty are not even presented in this thesis. In the experiments with cooling-coil the uncertainty is normally least for the lowest Reynolds numbers, while the opposite is true for the
experiments with the coaxial heat exchanger (single-tube). This is due to the fact that air is the
heat transfer medium on the outer side in the former case (low value of m c p ) and water in
the latter (high value of m c p ).
Since the agreement is very good with the Gnielinski correlation in many of the experiments it
might be suspected that the uncertainty of measurement is somewhat overestimated. The sign
in the different contributions should maybe not always be +, but either plus or minus. However, a more thorough analysis of the uncertainty of measurement separating the different
contributions is beyond the scope of this study. In addition, in some test points the energy
balance deviated relatively much from 1.00, which motivates the estimated values of the uncertainty of measurement. However, despite the uncertainty, the results from the experiments
allow us to draw some essential conclusions.
64
65
Conclusions
From the experiments with cooling-coils served with a secondary refrigerant as heat
transfer medium it has been concluded that, when predicting the heat transfer performance on the liquid side of a cooling coil the Gnielinski (T) correlation leads to good
agreement for Re up to 1700, assuming a new entrance length is formed after each Ubend. In addition, these entrance lengths must be accounted for, when predicting the
pressure drop on the liquid side of the cooling-coil.
For the optimising criteria stated in this study it has been concluded by using the
created calculation model that the overall efficiency of the cooling-coil can be improved by replacing one full-length coil with up to four shorter ones contained within
the same total volume. The overall efficiency can also be improved by increasing the
number of parallel loops in the cooling-coil. Besides, for a large number of parallel
loops and/or in the case of several smaller cooling-coils with shorter distance between
the U-bends, the overall efficiency can be improved by reducing the tube diameter.
It has been shown that optimal operation regarding liquid flow rate and inlet temperature to the cooling-coil is strongly dependent upon cooling-coil geometry, choice of
secondary refrigerant and cooling demand. However, it was found that for the most
efficient cooling-coils, optimal operation for display cabinet applications corresponded
to the laminar flow regime, no matter which of the liquids being used.
Application of enhancement techniques such as twisted-tape inserts and longitudinal

internal fins may lead to further improvement of the cooling-coil performance if the
flow path (the total tube length) is short enough. However, the most important benefit
from the enhancement techniques is that they offer the lower values of the optimal
liquid flow.
When results from small-scale experiments, e.g. experiments with a single-tube, are
used for prediction of the performance of a cooling-coil, the heat transfer contribution
due to free convection must be considered.
66
67
Recommendations for Future Work
In order to obtain further improvements of the cooling-coil performance, other items than the
conventional coil parameters have to be changed and the traditional finned-tube coil design
might be abandoned. Therefore, in future work the heat transfer and pressure drop performance of other cross-sectional geometries of the tubes than the circular one should be investigated.
When it comes to the optimising criteria for a display cabinet application, in future work other
parts of the system than the display cabinet and the chiller might be included in the system,
e.g. the piping, the liquid cooler etc. In addition, the assumptions regarding the efficiency of
the different components, such as for example the liquid pumps, should be developed further
in order to make the comparisons more general.
68
69
8
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
References
Livsmedelsverket, SLV FS 1996:5 Statens livsmedelsverks kungrelse med freskrifter
och allmnna rd om hantering av livsmedel (In Swedish). 1996.
Axell, M and Fahln, P. Promotion of energy efficient display cabinets. in Proceeding of
the International Conference "Refrigerated transport, storage and retail display" of IIR
D1, D2/3. 1998. Cambridge, United Kingdom: International Institute of Refrigeration:
pp. 244-251.
Fahln, P, Butikskyla (In Swedish). 2000, SP Swedish National Testing and Research
Institute: SP RAPPORT 2000:03. Bors, Sweden. 56 p.
Haglund, C and Fahln, P. Jmfrelse av metoder fr att frbttra vrmverfring och
tryckfall i kldbrarkylda kylbatterier med laminra vtskeflden (In Swedish). in Proceedings of the Nordic conference "16. Nordiske klemde, 9. Nordiske varmepumpedage". 2001. Copenhagen, Denmark: pp. 263-272.
Wang, C-C, Recent progress on the air-side performance of fin-and-tube heat exchangers. International Journal of Heat Exchangers, 2000. 1(1): pp. 49-76.
Mao, Y, W. Terrell, J, and Hrnjak, P. Performance of a display case at low temperatures
refrigerated with R404A and secondary coolants. in IIF-IIR - Commission D1, D2/3.
1998. Cambridge, United Kingdom: International Institute of Refrigeration.
Hrnjak, P S. Heat transfer issues in laminar flow of single-phase secondary refrigerants
through the pipes. in Workshop IEA Annex 26. 2000. Stockholm, Sweden: The Royal
Institute of Technology.
Hong, S H and Hrnjak, P S, Heat transfer in thermally developing flow of fluids with high
Prandtl numbers preceding and following U-bend. 1999, Air Conditioning and Refrigerating Center, University of Illinois: (217) 333-3115. Urbana, USA. 154 p.
Bergles, A E, Techniques to augment heat transfer, in Handbook of Heat Transfer
Applications. 1985, McGraw-Hill: New York. Chapter 3.
Bergles, A E and Joshi, S D. Augmentation techniques for low Reynolds number in-tube
flow. in Low Reynolds Number Flow Heat Exchangers. Proceedings of the 4th NATO
Advanced Study Institute on Heat Transfer. 1983. Ankara, Turkey: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Eds. Kakac, S et al: pp. 695-720.
Smith, J W and Gowen, R A, Heat transfer efficiency in rough pipes at high Prandtl
Number. AIChE Journal, 1965. 11: pp. 941-943.
Soliman, H M and Feingold, A. Analysis of heat transfer in internally finned tubes under
laminar flow conditions. in Proceeding of the 6th International Heat Transfer Conference.
1978. Toronto, Canada: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation: pp. 571-576.
Hong, S W and Bergles, A E, Augmentation of laminar flow heat transfer in tubes by
means of twisted-tape inserts. ASME Journal of Heat Transfer, 1976(2): pp. 251-256.
Date, A W, Prediction of fully developed-flow in a tube containing a twisted tape. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 1974. 17: pp. 845-859.
van Rooyen, R S and Krger, D G. Laminar flow heat transfer in internally finned tubes
with twisted-tape inserts. in Proceedings of the 6th International Heat Transfer Conference. 1978. Toronto, Canada: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation: pp. 577-581.
Marner, W J and Bergles, A E. Augmentation of tubeside laminar heat transfer by means
of twisted-tape inserts, static-mixer inserts, and internally finned tubes. in Proceedings of
the 6th International Heat Transfer Conference. 1978. Washington, DC: Hemisphere
Publishing: pp. 583-588.
Marner, W J and Bergles, A E, Augmentation of highly viscous laminar heat transfer inside tubes with constant wall temperature. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science,
1989. 2: pp. 252-267.
70
18. Saha, S K, Gaitonde, U N, and Date, A W, Heat transfer and pressure drop characteristcs of laminar flow in circular tube fitted with regularly spaced twisted-tape elements.
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, 1989. 2: pp. 310-322.
19. Saha, S K and Dutta, A, Thermohydraulic study of laminar swirl flow through a circular
tube fitted with twisted tapes. ASME Journal of Heat Transfer, 2001. 123: pp. 417-427.
20. Lecjaks, Z, Machac, I, and Sir, J, Pressure loss in fluids flowing in pipes equipped with
helical screws. International Chemical Engineering, 1987. 27: pp. 205-209.
21. Lecjaks, Z, Machac, I, and Sir, J, Heat transfer to a newtonian liquid flowing through a
tube with an internal helical element. International Chemical Engineering, 1987. 27: pp.
210-217.
22. Bandyopadhyay, P S, Gaitonde, U N, and Sukhatme, S P, Influence of free convection on
heat transfer during laminar flow in tubes with twisted tapes. Experimental Thermal and
Fluid Science, 1991. 4: pp. 577-586.
23. Donevski, B, Plocek, M, Kulesza, J and Sasic, M, Analysis of tubeside laminar and
turbulent heat transfer with twisted tape inserts, in Heat Transfer Enhancement and
Energy Conservation. 1990, Hemisphere Publishing: New York. 175-185 p.
24. Dasmahapatra, J K, Augmentation of tube side heat transfer to power law fluids in
laminar flow by means of twisted tape inserts, in Experimental Heat Transfer, Fluid
Mechanics, and Thermodynamics 1991. 1991, Elsevier Science Publishing: New York. p.
661-667.
25. Manglik, R M, Heat transfer enhancement of intube flows in process heat exchangers by
means of twisted-tape inserts (PhD Thesis). 1991, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute: Troy,
NY, USA
26. Manglik, R M and Bergles, A E, Heat transfer enhancement and pressure drop in viscous
liquid flows in isothermal tubes with twisted-tape inserts. Wrme- und Stoffubertragung,
1992. 27: pp. 249-257.
27. Manglik, R M and Bergles, A E, Heat transfer and pressure drop correlations for
twisted-tape inserts in isothermal tubes: part I - Laminar flows. ASME Journal of Heat
Transfer, 1993. 115(4): pp. 881- 889.
28. Lopina, R F and Bergles, A E, Heat transfer and pressure drop in tape-generated swirl
flow of single-phase water. ASME Journal of Heat Transfer, 1969. 91: pp. 434-442.
29. DuPlessis, J P, Heat transfer correlations for thermally developing laminar flow in a
smooth tube with a twisted-tape insert. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer,
1987. 30: pp. 509-515.
30. Manglik, R M and Bergles, A E, Heat transfer and pressure drop correlations for
twisted-tape inserts in isothermal tubes. II. Transition and turbulent flows. ASME
Journal of Heat Transfer, 1993. 115(4): pp. 890-896.
31. Manglik, R M and Bergles, A E, Numerical modelling and analysis of laminar heat
transfer in non-circular compact channels, in Computer Simulations in Compact heat Exchangers. 1998, Computational Mechanics Publication, Eds. Sundn, B and Faghri, M:
Southampton, United Kingdom. pp. 11-49.
32. Saha, S K and Chakraborty, D. Heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics of laminar flow through a circular tube fitted with regularly spaced twisted tape elements with
multiple twist. in Proceedings of the 14th National Heat and Mass Transfer Conference
and 3rd ISHMT-ASME Joint Heat and Mass Transfer Conference. 1997. IIT Kanpur,
India: pp. 313-318.
33. Watkinson, A P, Miletti, D L, and Kubanek, G K, Heat transfer and pressure drop of
internally finned tubes in laminar oil flow. ASME PAPER 75-HT-41, 1975: pp. 1-9.
71
34. Chai, J C and Patankar, S V, Laminar natural convection in internally finned horizontal
annuli. Numerical Heat Transfer. Part A, Applications, 1993. 24(1): pp. 67-87.
35. Dong, Z F and Ebadian, M A, A numerical analysis of thermally developing flow in elliptic ducts with internal fins. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 1991. 12(2):
pp. 166-172.
36. Shome, B and Jensen, M K, Numerical investigation of laminar flow and heat transfer in
internally finned tubes. Journal of Enhanced Heat Transfer, 1996. 4(1): pp. 35-51.
37. Shome, B, Mixed convection laminar flow and heat transfer of liquids in horizontal internally finned tubes. Numerical Heat Transfer; Part A: Applications, 1998. 33(1): pp. 6583.
38. Fabbri, G, Heat transfer optimization in internally finned tubes under laminar flow conditions. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 1998. 41(10): pp. 1243-1253.
39. Fabbri, G, Optimum profiles for asymmetrical longitudinal fins in cylindrical ducts.
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 1999. 42(3): pp. 511-523.
40. Shome, B and Jensen, M K, Experimental investigation of laminar flow and heat transfer
in internally finned tubes. Journal of Enhanced Heat Transfer, 1996. 4(1): pp. 53-70.
41. Rowley, G J and Patankar, S V, Analysis of laminar flow and heat transfer in tubes with
internal circumferential fins. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 1984. 27:
pp. 553-560.
42. Webb, R L and Bergles, A E. Performance evaluation criteria for selection of heat transfer surface geometries used in low Reynolds number heat exchangers. in Low Reynolds
Number Flow Heat Exchangers. Proceedings of the 4th NATO Advanced Study Institute
on Heat Transfer. 1983. Ankara, Turkey: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Eds.
Kakac, S et al: pp. 735-753.
43. EN255, Air conditioners, liquid chilling packages and heat pumps with electrically
driven compressors - heating mode.1997, CEN European Committee for Standardization.
44. Melinder, . Heat transfer and other characteristics of low temperature liquid secondary
refrigerants. in Procceding of IIR (IIF) Conference "Heat transfer issues in natural refrigerants", Commission B1, with E1 & E2. 1997. College Park, USA: pp. 150-159.
45. Melinder, , Thermophysical properties of liquid secondary refrigerants - tables and
diagrams for the refrigeration industry. 1997, Paris, France: International Insitute of Refrigeration.
46. Melinder, , Thermophysical properties of liquid secondary refrigerants - Charts and
tables, Handbook No 12 of the Swedish Society of Refrigeration. 2 ed. 1997, Stockholm,
Sweden: Swedish Society of Refrigeration
47. Bergles, A E. Experimental verification of analyses and correlation of the effects of
temperature dependent fluid properties on laminar heat transfer. in Low Reynolds
Number Flow Heat Exchangers. Proceedings of the 4th NATO Advanced Study Institute
on Heat Transfer. 1983. Ankara, Turkey: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Eds.
Kakac, S et al: pp. 473-486.
48. Bergles, A E. Prediction of the effects of temperature-dependent fluid properties on laminar heat transfer. in Low Reynolds Number Flow Heat Exchangers. Proceedings of the
4th NATO Advanced Study Institute on Heat Transfer. 1983. Ankara, Turkey:
Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Eds. S. Kakac et al: pp. 451-471.
49. Bandyopadhyay, P S, Gaitonde, U N, and Sukhatme, S P. Heat transfer by combined free
and forced laminar convection to a thermic fluid flowing in a heated horizontal tube. in
The Second World Conference on Experimental Heat Transfer, Fluid Mechanics, and
Thermophysics. 1991. Dubrovnik, Jugoslavia: Elsevier: pp. 729-735.
72
50. Shome, B and Jensen, M K, Mixed convection laminar flow and heat transfer of liquids
in isothermal horizontal circular ducts. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer,
1995. 38(11): pp. 1945-1956.
51. Hishida, M, Nagano, Y, and Montesclaros, M S, Combined forced and free convection in
the entrance region of an isothermally heated horizontal pipe. Journal of Heat Transfer,
1982. 104: pp. 153-159.
52. Fahln, P, Performance tests of air source heat pumps under frosting conditions - Quality
of results. 1994, SP Swedish National Testing and Research Institute: SP REPORT
1994:01. Bors, Sweden. 328 p.
53. Hellsten, G, Tabeller och diagram, Energi- och kemiteknik. 1 ed. 1992, Falkping,
Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksell Frlag AB
54. GUM, Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement.1995, International
Organization for Standardization.
55. EAL-R2, Expression of the uncertainty of measurement.1997, EAL European Cooperation for Accreditation of Laboratories.
56. Welty, J R, Wicks, C E, and Wilson, R E, Fundamentals of Momentum, Heat and Mass
Transfer. 3 ed. 1984, Singapore: John Wiley & Sons. 803 p.
57. Gray, D L and Webb, R L. Heat transfer and friction correlations for plate finned-tube
heat exchangers having plain fins. in Proceedings of the 8th International Heat Transfer
Conference. 1986. San Francisco, USA: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation: pp. 27452750.
58. Schmidt, T E, Heat transfer calculations for extended surfaces. Refrigerating Engineering, 1949(April): pp. 351-357.
59. Shah, R K and London, A L, Laminar flow forced convection in ducts - Supplement 1.
Advances in heat transfer. Vol. 1. 1978, New York: Academic press. 477 p.
60. VVS Handboken (In Swedish). 1 ed. 1963, Stockholm, Sweden: Frlags AB VVS
61. VDI-Wrmeatlas - Berechnunsbltter fr den Wrmeubergang. 1984, Dsseldorf,
Germany: VDI-Verlag
62. ASHRAE Hanbook - Fundamentals. 1997, Atlanta, USA: American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers
63. Mrstedt, S-E and Hellsten, G, Data och diagram - Energi- och kemitekniska tabeller (In
Swedish). 6 ed. 1994, Stockholm: Liber Utbildning AB
64. 4, V p, Meteorological measurements concerning questions of air pollution - Air humidity.1985, VDI-Kommission Reinhaltung der Luft.
65. Langhaar, H L, Steady flow in the transition length in a straight tube. Journal of Applied
Mechanics, 1942. 9: pp. A55-A58.
66. Mirth, D R and Ramadhyani, S, Correlations for predicting the air-side Nusselt numbers
and friction factors in chilled-water cooling coils. Experimental Heat Transfer, 1994.
7(2): pp. 143-162.
67. Gnielinski, V, Zur Wrmebertragung bei laminarer Rohrstrmung und konstanter
Wandtemperatur (In German). Chemieingenieurtechnik, 1989. 61(2): pp. 160-161.
68. VDI-Wrmeatlas - Berechnunsbltter fr den Wrmeubergang (In German). 1997,
Berlin: Springer-Verlag
69. Sieder, E N and Tate, C E, Heat transfer and pressure liquids in tubes. Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry, 1936. 28: pp. 1429.
70. Eckert, E R G, Introduction to heat and mass transfer. 1963, New York: McGraw-Hill
71. Gnielinski, V, New equations for heat and mass transfer in turbulent pipe and channel
flow. International Chemical Engineering, 1976. 16: pp. 359-368.
73
72. Kim, N-H, Yun, J-H, and Webb, R L, Heat transfer and friction correlations for wavy
plate fin-and-tube heat exchangers. ASME Journal of Heat Transfer, 1997. 119(3):
pp. 560-567.
74
75
Appendix A
Correlations
In this appendix all the correlations used in the comparisons with measured data presented in
the result section 4.1 are listed.
A1
Liquid Side Heat Transfer Correlations
Nu(Gnielinski, T) [67] quoted by [68]
3
Nu m,T = 3.66 3 + 0.7 3 + 1.615 (x *)1 3 0.7
x* =
13
(A1.1)
(A1.2)
x
d Re b Prb
Valid range: Developing temperature profile, fully developed velocity profile.

Accurate to within 6 % in the range of 0.01< x*< 0.1.
Nu(Gnielinski, H) Quoted by [68]
13
3
Nu m, H = 4.36 3 + 0.6 3 + 1.953 (x *)1 3 0.6
(A1.3)
x* according to Eq. (A1.2)

Valid range: Developing temperature profile, fully developed velocity profile.
Accurate to within 1 % in the range of 0.001< x*< 0.01.
Nu(Sieder&Tate) [69]
Nu m
= 1.86 Re b Prb
L
13
B
w
0.14
with the approximation that

Valid range:
Ltube
< 0.1
d Re b Pr
(A1.4)
0.14
=1
76
Nu(Hong&Hrnjak) [8]
Nu m

0.369
3
3 1.461
= 7 + 0.7 +
(x *)
0.7
(
1 0.369)
13
(A1.5)
x* according to Eq. (A1.2)

E.g. a curve fit created from results from experiments on a single-tube including
a U-bend presented by Hong and Hrnjak [8].
Nu(constant, T) [59]
NuT=3.66
(A1.6)
Valid range: Fully developed laminar flow. Constant wall temperature boundary
condition.
Nu(constant, H) [59]
NuH=4.36
(A1.7)
Valid range: Fully developed laminar flow. Constant heat flux boundary
condition.
Nu(Shome&Jensen) [50]
For 1 (See Eg. A1.15)
( )
( )
thermally developing
Nu m
Nu TD,CP
=
+
NuTD ,CP
0.5632 + 1.57 z + 0.3351 , 10 6 z + 10 3
0.3686
, 10 3 z + 10 2
= 0.9828 + 1.129 z +
+ 0.7373
exp 3.1563 z + , z + > 10 2
3.6568 + 0.1272 z
0.18
0.22
1 + 0.067 z + Prb
0.62
( )
( )
( )
0.27
simultaneously developing
(A1.8)
(A1.9)
For > 1 (See Eg. A1.15)

Nu m = 7.93 Ra 0.21 F 0.05 ln (1 + 0.13 )
z+ =
(A1.10)
x
d Re in Prin
(A1.11)
77
+ =
F=
B
w
(A1.12)
(d dT )B (TB Tw )
B
1 +
(A1.13)
(A1.14)
( )
= Ra 1 4 F 1 4 z +
12
Valid range: 0.0048 < w < 51.6, 6102 < Ra < 108, 2 < Pr <15100,
10-6 < z+ > 0.2 and Re < 2420.
(A1.15)
78
A2
Liquid Side Pressure Drop Correlations

dp =pb
Ltube,tot b u b 2
+ p hl
d
2
hl = head loss
p b = f
(A2.1)
lam [59]
f =
64
Reb
(A2.2)
Valid range: Single phase laminar flow in circular tubes with Red < 2300 (in
smooth tubes up to 8000).
turb-Eckert [70]
f =
0.3164
4
Re b
(A2.3)
Valid range: Turbulent flow in circular ducts.

turb-Gnielinski [71]
f = (0.79 ln Reb 1.64)2
(A2.4)
Valid range: Single phase flow with Re > 2300

lam-Langhaar [65]
Ltube,tot b u b 2
b ub 2
p b = f
+ m
+ p hl
d
2
2
f according to Eq. (A2.2)

m=2.28
hl = head loss
(A2.5)
79
A3
Air Side Heat Transfer Correlations
Schmidt [58]
(A3.1)
HTC = a,eff = a A
a =
Nu d h a
(A3.2)
dh
A =1
fin =
A fin
A0
1 fin
(A3.3)
tanh(m ri )
m ri
2 a
m=
fin fin
(A3.4)
(A3.5)
r

r
= e 1 1 + 0.35 ln e
ri

ri
(A3.6)
HTC(Kim et al 1997 - wavy) [72]
a according to Eq. (A3.2)
Nu d h
0.272
p fin fin

0.394 Pra1 3 Re 0.643 p t
Dc
p
Dc
l
=
0.133
X 0.558
dh
Pd
p
Pd
D
fin
c
fin
0.205
(A3.7)
Valid range: 500 Re Dc 6000 , 1 nl 4 , 1.16 p t p l 1.33 ,
0.15 p fin D 0.33 , 1.44 X f Pd 10.0 , 0.23 Pd
(p fin ) 1.21 ,
staggered tube layout.

HTC(Wang 2000 - wavy) [5]

Nu d h = j Re Dc * Pra1 3
(A3.8)
80
pl
fin
0.456
J1
= 1.79097 Re D
p
J 1 = 0.1707 1.374 l
fin
nl
0.493
0.27
p fin

Dc
p fin

Dc
1.343
0.886
nl
P
d
Xf
0.143
0.317
P
d
Xf
(A3.9)
0.0296
(A3.10)
Valid range: 500 Re Dc 10000 , 1 nl 6 , 13.6mm Dc 16.85mm ,

31.75mm p t 38.1mm , 27.5mm p l 33mm , 2.98mm p fin 6.43mm ,
6.87mm X f 8.25mm , 12.3 14.7 (degree), Pd = 1.8 .
HTC(Mirth&Ramadhyani 1994 - wavy) [66]

a =
Nu a
2 s fin
(A3.11)
Nu = 0.0197 Re 02.s94
Re 2 s =
Va a 2 s fin
0.3
pt Dc
111900
1 +
2 s fin
Re L
2s 2 s
fin

Pr 1 / 3
1.2

(A3.12)
(A3.13)
Ac a
HTC(Gray&Webb 1986 - plain) [57]

Nu d h = 0.14 Pra
13
Re 0D.672
c
pt
pl
0.502
p fin fin

Dc
Valid range: Staggered configuration, nl > 4.
0.0312
d
h
Dc
(A3.14)
81
A4
Air Side Pressure Drop Correlations

dp = pa
dp(Kim et al 1997 - wavy)[72]

p a = f
f = ff
ff =
A0 a u a 2
Ac
2
A fin
A0
(A4.1)
A fin
+ f t 1
A0
4.467 Re D0.423
c
pt
pl

1 fin

p fin

1.08
(A4.2)
p fin
D
c
0.0339
p Dc
0.118
Re D0.16 t
f t = 4 0.25 +
c
( pt Dc 1)
Dc
Xf

Pd
0.672
(A4.3)
(A4.4)
Valid range: 500 Re Dc 9000 , 1 nl 8 , 1.16 p t p l 1.33 ,
0.11 p fin D 0.33 , 3.23 X f Pd 5.65 ,

0.29 Pd
(p fin ) 1.0 , staggered tube layout.
dp(Wang 2000 - wavy) [5]
pa according to Eq. (A4.1)

f =
Pd
X
f
F2
0.05273 Re FD1
c
p fin

pt
p fin
F1 = 0.1714 0.07372
pl
p fin
F 2 = 0.426
pl
0.3
A
ln 0
At
0.25
F3
A
ln 0
At
Pd

X f
A
ln 0
At
2.276
d
h
Dc
0.1325
n l0.02305
(A4.5)
0.2
(A4.6)
(A4.7)
82
10.2192
ln Re Dc
F3 =
(A4.8)
Valid range: 500 Re Dc 10000 , 1 nl 6 , 13.6mm Dc 16.85mm ,

31.75mm p t 38.1mm , 27.5mm p l 33mm , 2.98mm p fin 6.43mm ,
6.87mm X f 8.25mm , 12.3 14.7 (degree), Pd = 1.8 . (Entrance and exit
losses are included)

dp(Mirth&Ramadhyani 1994 - wavy) [66]
pa according to Eq. (A4.1) with

f according to Eq. (A4.2) with
ff
0.375 Re 0.368
Pd
=
2 s fin
8.64 Re P0.457
P
d
ft =
2.17
pt
Dc
1.08
L

p
l
0.174 ln Re Dc
pt
Dc
0.545
1.24
(A4.9)
(A4.10)
dp(Gray&Webb 1986 - plain) [57]

p a = p f + pt
(A4.11)
A f a ua 2
p f = f f
Ac
2
(A4.12)
ff =
0.508 Re D0.521
c
p t = f t
pt
Dc
1.318
At a u a 2
A c ,t
2
ft according to Eq. (A4.4)

Valid range: Staggered configuration, nl > 4.
(A4.13)
(A4.14)
83
Appendix B
Experimental Data
Below, experimental data presented in the graphs in section 4.1 are listed. All the values listed
below are mean values over a time period. The temperature dependent variables, e.g. Re, Pr,
are based on mean temperature of the liquid or the air.
B1
Conventional Cooling-Coils
Cooling-coil B2, Propylene glycol 39 %w

Figure 4.1, Figure 4.2, Figure 4.3a, Figure 4.4a, Figure 4.6a
Variable
Unit
tb, in
5.7
6.7
6.7
C
tb,out
9.2
10.6
11.1
C
m3/h
Vb
3.650
3.000
2.550
Reb
Prb
p b
ta,in
ta,out
Va,in
bar
C
C
m3/h
ReDc
Pra
Pa
p a
K/kW
1/(UA)
1/(A)a+tube/(A)tube K/kW
Nub
W/m2/K
a
%
U(UA)
U(Nub)
%
%
U(a)
Q a Q b
6.8
11.8
5.3
11.8
3.7
12.9
2.2
17.2
-1.8
20.8
3965
68.4
4.878
30.2
7.9
3430
64.3
3.318
29.3
9.1
2945
63.5
2.428
28.7
9.4
2.030
2376
62.5
1.378
28.5
10.4
1.500
1706
64.7
0.848
27.7
10.8
1.020
1149
65.5
0.528
27.2
10.9
0.510
606
61.3
0.228
25.9
12.6
0.256
302
61.8
0.108
24.4
14.3
1839
1439
0.72
1839
1443
0.72
1839
1447
0.72
1840
1429
0.72
1840
1433
0.72
1853
1448
0.72
1840
1442
0.72
1841
1454
0.72
0.61
0.55
0.63
0.55
0.66
0.55
0.78
0.55
24.1
0.95
0.55
14.1
1.03
0.55
11.6
1.18
0.55
8.8
1.35
0.55
7.0
8.2
8.1
7.6
6.3
27.7
5.1
16.6
4.7
13.8
4.8
11.7
6.7
12.8
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.95
0.93
0.94
0.94
0.94
84

Figure 4.5, Figure 4.6b
Variable
Unit
tb, in
2.3
C
tb,out
17.0
C
m3/h
Vb
0.254
Reb
Prb
p b
ta,in
ta,out
Va,in
bar
C
C
m3/h
ReDc
Pra
Pa
p a
K/kW
1/(UA)
1/(A)b+tube/(A)tube K/kW
Nub
2
W/m
/K
a
%
U(UA)
U(Nub)
%
%
U(a)
Q a Q b
Cooling-coil B2, Temper -20
Figure 4.1, Figure 4.2
Variable
Unit
tb, in
C
tb,out
C
3
m
/h

Vb
Reb
Prb
p b
ta,in
ta,out
Va,in
bar
C
C
m3/h
ReDc
Pra
Pa
p a
K/kW
1/(UA)
Nub
W/m2/K
a
%
U(UA)
U(Nub)
%
%
U(a)
Q a Q b
-1.4
21.2
-1.8
20.8
-2.2
21.8
-2.4
22.0
-1.9
21.7
0.1
19.1
301
61.4
0.250
299
60.8
0.256
302
61.8
0.257
307
61.0
0.257
307
61.0
0.258
309
60.7
0.259
307
61.5
29.0
7.9
28.3
12.0
24.4
14.3
24.4
16.0
24.1
16.9
23.0
17.9
19.9
16.7
592
468
0.72
2.1
2.09
0.80
1124
882
0.72
7.1
1.65
0.80
1841
1489
0.72
16.3
1.35
0.80
2408
1942
0.72
26.3
1.20
0.80
2895
2336
0.72
36.5
1.12
0.80
3884
3144
0.72
63.5
1.03
0.80
4877
3949
0.72
96.5
0.99
0.80
14.6
5.3
22.1
4.7
34.2
6.7
46.8
8.0
57.8
9.4
81.1
13.0
97.7
19.9
11.6
14.9
24.6
34.5
0.97
0.93
0.94
0.96
0.97
0.96
0.93
6.0
9.4
6.0
10.3
5.9
12.0
5.5
13.7
5.7
13.7
5.1
14.5
5.0
16.0
4.060
13827
17.0
5.007
30.5
7.9
3.000
10370
16.7
2.917
30.1
8.0
2.010
7136
16.2
1.407
30.0
8.4
1.520
5512
15.9
0.847
30.0
8.8
1.520
5535
15.8
0.847
29.6
8.9
1.260
4600
15.8
0.607
29.1
8.9
1.020
3806
15.4
0.417
28.7
9.6
1839
1404
0.72
1839
1406
0.72
1826
1400
0.72
1839
1409
0.72
1839
1412
0.72
1839
1415
0.72
1840
1417
0.72
0.58
0.55
0.60
0.55
0.62
0.55
0.65
0.55
0.64
0.55
0.67
0.55
0.71
0.55
9.3
8.7
7.7
6.7
6.8
6.2
5.8
0.91
0.93
0.96
0.96
0.95
0.95
0.96
*Test point used for determination of the heat transfer resistance on the air side and through the tube wall
(1/(A)a+tube/(A)tube).
85

Figure 4.1, Figure 4.2, Figure 4.3b, Figure 4.4b
Variable
Unit
tb, in
4.5
1.8
C
tb,out
17.2
18.3
C
m3/h
Vb
0.766
0.505
Reb
Prb
p b
ta,in
ta,out
Va,in
bar
C
C
m3/h
ReDc
Pra
Pa
p a
K/kW
1/(UA)
Nub
W/m2/K
a
%
U(UA)
U(Nub)
%
%
U(a)
Q a Q b
Cooling-coil B2, Hycool 20
Figure 4.1, Figure 4.2
Variable
Unit
tb, in
C
tb,out
C
m3/h
Vb
Reb
Prb
p b
ta,in
ta,out
Va,in
bar
C
C
m3/h
ReDc
Pra
Pa
p a
K/kW
1/(UA)
Nub
2
W/m
/K
a
%
U(UA)
U(Nub)
%
%
U(a)
Q a Q b
-2.3
21.2
-3.4
21.6
2892
15.2
0.227
27.8
11.0
1857
15.6
0.107
26.4
12.3
0.263
950
15.9
0.047
24.5
13.9
0.164
585
16.2
0.027
22.7
15.7
1826
1428
0.72
1840
1446
0.72
1841
1456
0.72
1841
1465
0.72
0.84
0.55
15.3
1.09
0.55
8.3
1.27
0.55
6.2
1.49
0.55
4.8
5.2
21.0
4.9
13.0
7.0
13.9
14.1
22.7
0.97
0.96
0.98
0.98
6.4
9.6
6.2
10.7
5.5
12.3
5.0
13.8
5.0
15.2
4.5
16.6
3.8
18.6
4.216
16064
13.2
5.09
30.4
8.1
3.020
11621
13.1
2.78
30.5
8.2
1.980
7704
12.9
1.30
30.1
8.1
1.513
5957
12.8
0.81
30.1
8.3
1.250
4991
12.6
0.56
30.0
8.8
1.007
4063
12.4
0.38
29.2
9.1
0.765
3135
12.2
0.23
28.7
10.0
1842
1429
0.72
1826
1416
0.72
1839
1430
0.72
1832
1424
0.72
1839
1422
0.72
1842
1429
0.72
1839
1428
0.72
0.57
0.55
0.59
0.55
0.60
0.55
0.63
0.55
0.65
0.55
0.67
0.55
0.72
0.55
9.79
8.81
7.51
6.64
6.23
5.79
5.37
0.96
0.95
0.96
0.96
0.98
0.98
0.97
86

Figure 4.1, Figure 4.2,Figure 4.3c, Figure 4.4c
Variable
Unit
tb, in
1.3
-2.5
C
tb,out
20.1
21.6
C
m3/h
Vb
0.495
0.265
Reb
Prb
p b
ta,in
ta,out
Va,in
bar
C
C
m3/h
ReDc
Pra
Pa
p a
K/kW
1/(UA)
Nub
W/m2/K
a
%
U(UA)
U(Nub)
%
%
U(a)
Q a Q b
2004
12.4
0.10
27.1
11.6
1046
12.7
0.03
24.4
14.1
0.152
590
13.0
0.01
22.7
16.2
1836
1440
0.72
1841
1456
0.72
1837
1461
0.72
0.93
0.55
10.95
1.24
0.55
5.96
1.56
0.55
4.09
5.15
12.61
7.60
13.69
17.13
26.25
0.99
0.97
0.99
5.4
9.2
5.3
9.8
5.1
10.0
5.2
10.9
5.4
12.6
5.2
15.5
-1.5
17.9
4434
61.6
4.86
29.4
8.9
3.018
3692
60.5
3.38
29.4
9.3
2.517
3115
59.8
2.36
29.2
9.7
2.029
2513
59.8
1.43
27.9
10.5
1.498
1898
58.5
0.84
26.6
11.8
1.038
1416
54.7
0.52
25.8
12.8
0.527
761
52.1
0.24
23.8
14.4
0.242
311
57.7
0.20
23.3
15.0
1811
701
0.72
1806
698
0.72
1803
698
0.72
1811
704
0.72
1804
709
0.72
1806
711
0.72
1804
715
0.72
1807
715
0.72
0.79
0.82
0.86
0.98
1.17
1.28
1.52
1.97
6.17
5.82
5.49
5.07
4.82
4.84
5.43
5.73
0.91
0.90
0.90
0.91
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.93

Figure 4.6a, Figure 4.7a
Variable
Unit
tb, in
5.3
C
tb,out
8.5
C
m3/h
Vb
3.697
Reb
Prb
p b
ta,in
ta,out
Va,in
bar
C
C
m3/h
ReDc
Pra
Pa
p a
K/kW
1/(UA)
Nub
2
W/m
/K
a
%
U(UA)
U(Nub)
%
%
U(a)
Q a Q b
-4.2
21.8
87

Figure 4.6b, Figure 4.7b
Variable
Unit
tb, in
0.1
C
tb,out
16.2
C
m3/h
Vb
0.257
Reb
Prb
p b
ta,in
ta,out
Va,in
bar
C
C
m3/h
ReDc
Pra
Pa
p a
K/kW
1/(UA)
Nub
W/m2/K
a
%
U(UA)
U(Nub)
%
%
U(a)
Q a Q b
-1.1
17.7
-0.2
16.8
-0.9
17.9
-1.6
17.7
-0.6
17.4
-1.5
18.2
-0.3
18.1
328
58.2
0.253
326
57.7
0.253
325
57.7
0.256
332
57.3
0.258
328
58.3
0.259
335
57.4
0.257
331
57.6
0.256
339
56.2
34.1
10.4
26.6
13.6
21.7
14.4
21.8
15.7
21.0
15.8
19.7
16.0
20.1
16.9
19.5
17.1
599
228
0.72
1.2
3.08
1135
452
0.72
2.6
2.31
1860
759
0.72
4.3
1.92
2504
1019
0.72
6.0
1.71
2995
1229
0.72
9.7
1.59
3884
1602
0.72
15.0
1.45
4973
2043
0.72
21.1
1.33
5968
2456
0.72
3.7
4.4
6.3
7.1
8.1
10.8
12.4
15.6
0.95
0.90
0.93
0.94
0.92
0.91
0.91
0.92
0.4
1.8
-0.1
2.6
-1.7
4.0
-2.6
6.7
-5.1
15.4
2.04
814
96.4
0.320
1.00
403
95.7
0.133
30.7
2.4
0.48
193
96.3
0.058
30.7
2.1
0.27
113
91.1
0.030
30.2
2.9
0.10
49
76.7
0.010
27.4
5.5
313
834
0.72
314
837
0.72
312
837
0.72
307
832
0.72
3.67
2.55
14.4
4.02
2.55
11.0
4.50
2.55
8.3
5.13
2.55
6.2
7.2
30.4
5.4
21.1
4.6
15.6
4.1
12.1
0.95
0.95
0.99
0.99

Variable
Unit
tb, in
0.5
C
tb,out
1.3
C
m3/h
Vb
3.58
Reb
Prb
p b
ta,in
ta,out
Va,in
bar
C
C
m3/h
ReDc
Pra
Pa
p a
K/kW
1/(UA)
Nub
2
W/m
/K
a
%
U(UA)
U(Nub)
%
%
U(a)
Q a Q b
1413
97.7
0.715
1.26
88
Cooling-coil B5, Propylene glycol 39%w

Figure 4.10
Variable
Unit
tb, in
-2.6
C
tb,out
6.7
C
3
m
/h

Vb
0.268
Reb
Prb
p b
ta,in
ta,out
Va,in
bar
C
C
m3/h
ReDc
Pra
Pa
p a
K/kW
1/(UA)
1/(A)b+tube/(A)tube K/kW
Nub
W/m2/K
a
%
U(UA)
U(Nub)
%
%
U(a)
Q a Q b
Variable
Unit
tb, in
C
tb,out
C
m3/h
Vb
Reb
Prb
p b
ta,in
ta,out
Va,in
bar
C
C
m3/h
ReDc
Pra
Pa
p a
K/kW
1/(UA)
Nub
2
W/m
/K
a
%
U(UA)
U(Nub)
%
%
U(a)
Q a Q b
-0.5
4.3
113
91.1
0.267
112
92.0
30.2
2.9
30.9
0.9
312
837
0.72
11.0
4.50
1.97
139
372
0.72
3.0
6.23
1.97
28.6
4.6
17.0
10.8
14.3
17.3
0.99
0.95
*
-0.9
-0.2
-1.4
0.1
-1.0
4.2
-3.4
7.6
-4.4
15.7
4.758
6030
23.4
0.864
32.7
-0.1
0.972
1227
23.4
0.052
32.5
0.8
0.535
736
21.4
0.019
31.0
2.1
0.251
352
21.0
0.000
30.6
1.9
0.112
179
18.3
0.000
28.7
5.0
316
821
314
826
0.72
312
825
0.72
312
827
0.72
308
818
0.72
2.70
2.55
3.60
2.55
12.5
3.82
2.55
10.3
4.24
2.55
7.7
4.74
2.55
5.9
7.0
5.8
32.4
4.3
25.1
3.4
18.3
3.2
14.4
0.92
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
89

Figure 4.8c, Figure 4.9c
Variable
Unit
tb, in
C
tb,out
C
3
m
/h

Vb
Reb
Prb
p b
ta,in
ta,out
Va,in
bar
C
C
m3/h
ReDc
Pra
Pa
p a
K/kW
1/(UA)
Nub
W/m2/K
a
%
U(UA)
U(Nub)
%
%
U(a)
Q a Q b
*
-2.4
-1.4
-1.2
1.9
-0.8
4.7
-1.3
8.4
-5.4
15.0
3.580
5378
17.5
0.980
1562
16.3
35.1
-1.6
33.0
0.6
0.510
846
15.6
0.023
31.6
2.0
0.261
451
14.9
0.006
30.4
3.1
0.122
216
14.4
0.004
29.9
3.4
299
798
0.72
297
787
0.72
295
783
0.72
293
781
0.72
290
787
0.72
2.69
2.52
3.37
2.52
14.4
3.87
2.52
9.1
4.31
2.52
6.8
4.64
2.52
5.7
10.4
5.9
23.4
4.5
13.0
3.7
9.2
3.1
7.4
0.98
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.02
Variable
Unit
tb, in
-0.2
C
tb,out
1.7
C
m3/h
Vb
2.020
Reb
Prb
p b
ta,in
ta,out
Va,in
bar
C
C
m3/h
ReDc
Pra
Pa
p a
K/kW
1/(UA)
Nub
2
W/m
/K
a
%
U(UA)
U(Nub)
%
%
U(a)
Q a Q b
791
98.5
0.540
-0.4
3.2
-0.3
6.6
-1.9
10.4
-3.4
18.5
1.003
409
94.5
0.230
33.2
0.9
0.490
219
85.7
0.107
32.6
1.9
0.260
123
80.4
0.046
31.6
2.1
0.116
64
67.9
0.018
28.9
5.5
377
473
0.72
375
471
0.72
372
469
0.72
372
472
0.72
2.32
1.54
9.7
2.58
1.54
7.2
2.90
1.54
5.6
3.41
1.54
4.1
11.2
105.3
7.8
76.5
5.6
57.9
4.5
41.9
0.99
1.00
1.02
1.02
90
Cooling-coil B4, Temper 20

Variable
Unit
tb, in
C
tb,out
C
3
m
/h

Vb
Reb
Prb
p b
ta,in
ta,out
Va,in
bar
C
C
m3/h
ReDc
Pra
Pa
p a
K/kW
1/(UA)
Nub
W/m2/K
a
%
U(UA)
U(Nub)
%
%
U(a)
Q a Q b
*
0.0
0.9
-0.5
1.5
-1.4
2.7
-2.6
5.8
-3.6
11.7
-3.8
20.4
4.792
6321
22.4
1.372
33.2
0.3
2.029
2681
22.3
0.252
0.996
1323
22.2
0.082
33.9
-0.1
0.490
675
21.4
0.028
34.2
-0.3
0.248
374
19.5
0.012
33.0
0.7
0.106
185
16.6
0.003
28.0
6.0
380
478
0.72
383
481
0.72
386
484
0.72
383
482
0.72
376
480
0.72
1.61
1.54
2.20
1.54
9.5
2.42
1.54
7.1
2.69
1.54
5.4
3.20
1.54
3.7
42.2
11.6
124.8
7.5
90.8
5.2
68.3
4.9
47.3
0.93
1.01
1.01
1.02
1.02
Figure 4.11c, Figure 4.12c
Variable
Unit
tb, in
C
tb,out
C
m3/h
Vb
Reb
Prb
p b
ta,in
ta,out
Va,in
bar
C
C
m3/h
ReDc
Pra
Pa
p a
K/kW
1/(UA)
Nub
2
W/m
/K
a
%
U(UA)
U(Nub)
%
%
U(a)
Q a Q b
*
0.6
1.6
0.5
2.4
-0.7
3.3
-2.7
5.4
-4.9
10.9
-6.5
21.7
1.998
3273
15.8
0.280
33.4
0.988
1614
15.9
0.090
33.6
0.2
0.506
827
15.9
0.040
34.6
-0.8
0.256
436
15.2
0.030
34.5
-0.9
0.095
181
13.4
0.000
28.7
5.2
383
462
0.72
383
459
0.72
385
459
0.72
380
454
0.72
376
457
0.72
1.62
1.55
2.14
1.55
10.0
2.44
1.55
6.6
2.70
1.55
5.1
3.34
1.55
3.2
47.4
14.7
140.5
8.2
88.8
5.4
67.9
4.8
43.6
3.992
6491
16.0
0.950
33.0
0.8
0.97
1.02
1.02
1.03
1.03
91
B2
Single-tube without inserts, Propylene glycol 39 %w

Figure 4.13
Variable
Unit
tb, in
-4.1
-5.2
-6.2
C
tb,out
1.5
2.3
5.0
C
m3/h
m b
297.7
203.2
113.8
Reb
903
611
360
Prb
111.7
112.7
107.0
tW,in
22.3
22.3
22.3
C
tW,out
20.7
20.8
21.1
C
3
m
/h

VW
0.83
0.84
0.86
-14.0
14.5
-14.9
19.8
29.6
98
101.7
22.1
21.2
15.5
59
88.5
21.9
21.4
13.9
1.6
16.36
3.7
5.3
15.5
1.6
14.54
3.5
5.0
17.9
1.6
12.46
3.3
4.8
0.83
21.5
1.6
9.86
3.3
4.7
0.83
25.5
1.6
9.29
3.7
5.0
1.03
1.03
1.03
0.97
1.03
Single-tube without inserts, Propylene glycol 39 %w

Figure 4.17
Variable
Unit
tb, in
8.9
8.7
8.5
C
tb,out
9.00
8.8
8.8
C
m3/h
m b
296.1
203
101.2
Reb
1552
1056
524
kPa
12.40
7.98
3.67
p b
8.2
8.4
8.6
9.0
8.6
10.2
45.3
231
1.56
30.9
161
1.03
12.8
68
0.40
1/(UA)
1/(A)W+tube/(A)tube
Nub
U(UA)
U(Nub)
Q b W e
K/kW
K/kW
%
%
-
Single-tube without inserts, Temper -20

Figure 4.14
Variable
Unit
tb, in
-10.0
C
tb,out
7.1
C
3
m
/h
m b
99.8
Reb
Prb
tW,in
tW,out
VW
1/(UA)
1/(A)W+tube/(A)tube
Nub
U(UA)
U(Nub)
Q b W e
C
C
m3/h
K/kW
K/kW
%
%
-
-14.8
13.6
-14.9
15.9
-14.2
19.4
976
24.6
22.2
20.7
49.7
503
23.7
22.3
21.1
40.3
426
22.7
22.2
21.2
25.8
295
20.9
22.0
21.3
0.81
14.8
1.6
12.02
3.3
4.9
0.83
15.8
1.6
11.28
3.3
4.8
0.84
16.1
1.6
11.12
3.3
4.9
0.84
17.7
1.6
10.35
3.6
5.0
0.99
0.99
0.99
1.00
92
Single-tube without inserts, Hycool 20

Figure 4.15
Variable
Unit
tb, in
-9.8
C
tb,out
8.9
C
3
m
/h
m b
107.9
Reb
Prb
tW,in
tW,out
VW
1/(UA)
1/(A)W+tube/(A)tube
Nub
U(UA)
U(Nub)
Q b W e
C
C
m3/h
K/kW
K/kW
%
%
-
-11.8
15.4
-12.8
17.7
1304
16.7
22.5
21.0
55.2
707
15.7
22.2
21.0
42.0
547
15.4
22.2
21.2
0.84
13.1
1.6
12.66
3.2
5.3
0.85
14.0
1.6
11.87
3.3
5.0
0.85
14.7
1.6
11.43
3.4
45.0
0.99
0.99
1.00
4.1
16.4
4.1
17.5
4.2
19.9
49.7
1384
9.2
22.0
21.4
40.0
1137
9.0
21.9
21.4
24.1
715
8.6
21.8
21.4
0.84
16.1
1.6
9.65
2.0
3.9
0.85
16.7
1.6
9.34
2.1
3.9
0.84
18.3
1.6
8.83
2.9
4.5
Single-tube without inserts, Water

Figure 4.16
Variable
Unit
*
tb, in
10.6
C
tb,out
16.6
C
3
m
/h
m b
403.2
Reb
Prb
tW,in
tW,out
VW
1/(UA)
1/(A)W+tube/(A)tube
Nub
U(UA)
U(Nub)
Q b W e
C
C
m3/h
K/kW
K/kW
%
%
-
12587
8.4
23.0
20.3
0.8276
2.9
1.6
2.5
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
*Test point used for determination of the heat transfer resistance on the water side and through the tube wall
(1/(A)W+tube/(A)tube).
93
Single-tube with twisted-tape inserts, Propylene glycol 39 %w

Figure 4.18
Variable
Unit
tb, in
1.0
-12.4
-13.8
-13.9
C
tb,out
13.9
12.6
16.9
19.3
C
3
m
/h
m b
200.7
101.0
50.5
30.1
Reb
978
332
181
115
Prb
68.7
102.7
94.2
88.4
tW,in
22.9
22.9
22.3
22.1
C
tW,out
20.3
20.4
20.9
21.1
C
m3/h
VW
0.81
0.8
0.83
0.82
-14.4
21.2
15.0
60
85.1
21.9
21.4
5.2
1.6
54.62
1.8
6.1
7.7
1.6
32.15
1.6
4.5
10.7
1.6
22.66
1.7
4.1
13.6
1.6
17.42
2.2
4.1
0.82
18.9
1.6
12.93
5.0
6.3
1.02
1.01
1.04
1.04
1.04

Figure 4.19
Variable
Unit
tb, in
9.0
8.5
8.3
8.6
C
tb,out
9.2
8.6
8.3
9.0
C
m3/h
m b
209.4
207.1
107.2
50.6
Reb
1106
1065
545
264
kPa
46.99
46.96
19.78
7.59
p b
8.7
9.3
7.9
8.5
30.8
162
4.20
15.4
78
2.05
1/(UA)
1/(A)W+tube/(A)tube
Nub
U(UA)
U(Nub)
Q b W e
K/kW
K/kW
%
%
-
Single-tube with twisted-tape inserts, Temper -20

Figure 4.18
Variable
Unit
tb, in
-10.0
-14.3
C
tb,out
18.4
20.5
C
3
m
/h
m b
99.3
50.4
Reb
Prb
tW,in
tW,out
VW
1/(UA)
1/(A)W+tube/(A)tube
Nub
U(UA)
U(Nub)
Q b W e
C
C
m3/h
K/kW
K/kW
%
%
-
-14.4
21.0
-13.8
21.5
1202
19.7
22.9
20.6
588
20.5
22.4
20.9
39.9
467
20.3
22.2
21.0
25.0
299
19.9
22.1
21.3
0.85
5.4
1.6
40.48
1.8
5.9
0.85
7.4
1.6
27.41
2.6
5.3
0.88
8.3
1.6
23.74
3.3
5.7
0.88
11.3
1.6
16.92
5.7
7.5
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.00
94
Single-tube with twisted-tape inserts, Hycool

Figure 4.18
Variable
Unit
tb, in
-7.9
-14.4
C
tb,out
19.5
21.3
C
3
m
/h
m b
99.3
49.9
Reb
Prb
tW,in
tW,out
VW
1/(UA)
1/(A)W+tube/(A)tube
Nub
U(UA)
U(Nub)
Q b W e
C
C
m3/h
K/kW
K/kW
%
%
-
1405.5
14.0
22.7
20.6
666.2
15.0
22.4
21.0
40.1
538.5
14.9
22.2
21.1
0.86
5.2
1.6
38.85
2.1
6.3
0.85
6.8
1.6
27.34
3.6
6.4
0.84
7.7
1.6
24.12
5.1
7.6
0.98
0.98
0.99
Single-tube with twisted-tape inserts, Water

Figure 4.18
Variable
Unit
tb, in
5.07
5.03
C
tb,out
21.43
21.6
C
m3/h
m b
49.4
39.8
Reb
Prb
tW,in
tW,out
VW
1/(UA)
1/(A)W+tube/(A)tube
Nub
U(UA)
U(Nub)
Q b W e
C
C
m3/h
K/kW
K/kW
%
%
-
-14.3
21.5
1526
8.2
22.1
21.2
1233
8.2
22.0
21.3
0.82
5.6
1.6
34.18
5.7
9.5
0.83
6.2
1.6
31.1
8.5
12.4
1.00
1.01
95
Appendix C
Uncertainty of Measurements
The uncertainty of measurements has been evaluated according to Guide to the Expression of
Uncertainty in Measurement [54] and EAL-R2 [55]. The former method establishes general
rules for establishing and expressing uncertainty in measurements that can be followed in
most fields of physical measurements. The latter method is in accordance with the former one,
but it concentrates on the method most suitable for measurements in a calibration laboratory.
According to these methods the measurand or (output quantity), Y, is the particular quantity
subject to measurement. The output quantity depends on a number of input quantities, Xi (i =
1,2,3 ..,N) according to the functional relationship. The model function f describes how values
of the output quantity Y can be determined from the input quantities Xi.
Y = f (X1, X2, ..,XN)
(C.1)
An estimate of the measurand Y, the output estimate y, is obtained from Eq. (C.2) using input
estimates xi for the values of the input quantities Xi
y = f (x1, x2,.., xN)
(C.2)
Evaluation of Uncertainty of Measurement of Input Estimates

The uncertainty of measurement associated with the input estimates is evaluated according to
either a Type A or a Type B method of evaluation. The Type A evaluation of standard
uncertainty is the method of evaluating the uncertainty by the statistical analysis of a series of
observations. In this case the standard uncertainty u(xi) is the experimental standard deviation
of the mean that follows from an averaging procedure or an appropriate regression analysis.
The Type B evaluation of standard uncertainty u(xi) is the method of evaluating the uncertainty by means other than the statistical analysis of a series of observations. In this case
the evaluation of the standard uncertainty is based on some other scientific knowledge.
Calculation of the Standard Uncertainty of the Output Estimates

For the uncorrelated input quantities the square of the standard uncertainty associated with the
output estimate y is given by
(C.3)
u 2 ( y ) = u i2 ( y )
i =1
The quantity ui (y)(i = 1,2,..,N) is the contribution to the standard uncertainty associated with
the output estimate y resulting from the standard uncertainty associated with the input
estimate xi
ui(y) = ci ui(xi)
(C.4)
where ci is the sensitivity coefficient associated with the input estimate xi, i.e. the partial
derivative of the model function f with respect to Xi, evaluated at the input estimate xi,
ci =
f
f
=
xi X i
(X1 = x1XN = xN)
(C.5)
96
If the model function f is a sum or a difference of the input quantities Xi

f (X 1, X
,.., X
) =
i =1
(p i
(C.6)
the output estimate y is given by the corresponding sum or difference of the input estimates
(C.7)
y ( xi ) = ( p i xi )
i =1
whereas the sensitivity coefficients equal pi and the square of the standard uncertainty associated with the output estimate can be calculated according to
N
u 2 ( y ) = pi2 u 2 ( xi )
i =1
(C.8)
If the model function f is a product or quotient of the input quantities Xi

N
pi
f ( X 1 , X 2 ,.., X N ) = c X i
(C.9)
i =1
the output estimate again is the corresponding product or quotient of the input estimates
N
pi
y = c xi
(C.10)
i =1
The sensitivity coefficients is equal to piy/xi in this case and an expression analogous to
Eq. (C.8) is obtained from the Eq. (C.3), if the relative standard uncertainties w(y) = u(y)/| y|
and wi = u(xi)/| xi| are used.
N
w 2 ( y ) = pi2 w 2 ( xi )
i =1
(C.11)
Expanded Uncertainty of Measurement

The expanded uncertainty of measurement U, obtained by multiplying the standard uncertainty u(y) of the output estimate by a coverage factor k,
U = ku(y)
(C.12)
In cases where a normal (Gaussian) distribution can be attributed to the measurand and the
standard uncertainty associated with the output estimate has sufficient reliability, the standard
coverage factor k = 2 shall be used. The assigned expanded uncertainty corresponds to a
coverage probability of approximately 95 %.
97
The uncertainty of the calculated quantities has been calculated in a way analogue to Eq. (C.8)
and Eq. (C.11). As an example the uncertainty of the cooling capacity on the liquid side, Q b ,
has been calculated according to the expression below. The expanded uncertainty of the
results of the experiments is presented in 4.1 and in Appendix B.
(C.13)
Q b = Vb b c pb (t bout t bin )

2
2
2
Q b
Q b
Q b
2

[U (Qb )] = U (Vb ) +
U (c pb ) +
U ( b ) +
(c pb )
( b )
(Vb )
Q b
U (t bout t bin )
(t bout t bin )
(C.14)
Liquid Side Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop in Finned-Tube Cooling-Coils

ISRN LUTMDN/TMHP02/7007SE
ISSN 0282-1990
Errata (2002-10-21)
Page 20
Table 2.3 Estimated expanded measurement uncertainty of the measurands in the performed
experiments.
New (Old):
B2&B3
B4&B5
Single
tubes
.
Liquid density
%
+0.2 (+2)
+0.2 (+2)
+0.2 (+2)
b
1
Concentration by weight
%
+2 (+3)
+2 (+3)
+2 (+3)
cw
Liquid density2
+0.2 (+2)
+0.2 (+2)
%
+0.2 (+2)
b
2
Specific heat capacity
%
+3 (+3)
+3 (+3)
+3 (+3)
cpb
2
Specific heat capacity (water) cpb
%
+1
.
Page 45
Table 4.5 The expanded experimental uncertainty ranges for the different variables used in
Eq. (4.7) - Eq. (4.11) are as the values stated below or better for the different test points with
the plain tube without inserts.
New (Old):
Tubes with twisted-tape inserts
Uncertainty
Propylene Temper
glycol
3 (1-2)
3 (1)
U( Q& b ) %
.
3-6 (2-5)
3-6 (2-6)
U( U A ) %
U(Nub) %
5-7 (4-6)
6-8 (5-8)
Hycool
Water
3 (1)
2 (2)
4-6 (2-5)
7-8 (6-8)
6-8 (6-8)
9-12 (9-12)
.
Page 55-57, Figure 4.32a, Figure 4.33a and Figure 4.34a
Old: W&em, min = 978 W
New: W&em, min = 1004 W. The W& em,e -part of the bars in the graphs shall be reduced by 27 W.
Page 93
New (Old):
Figure 4.18
Variable
Unit
.
%
U(UA)
3.6(1.8) 3.2(1.6) 3.3(1.7) 3.6(2.2) 5.8(5.0)
U(Nub)
%
7.3(6.1) 5.8(4.5) 5.3(5.3) 5.2(4.1) 7.0(6.3)
.......
New (Old):
Single-tube with twisted-tape inserts, Temper -20
Figure 4.18
Variable
Unit
........
%
U(UA)
3.4(1.8) 3.9(2.6) 4.4(3.3) 6.4(5.7)
U(Nub)
%
7.1(5.9) 6.4(5.3) 6.7(5.7) 8.2(7.5)
.......
Page 94
New (Old):
Single-tube with twisted-tape inserts, Hycool
Fel! Hittar inte referensklla.
Variable
Unit
.......
%
U(UA)
3.5(2.1) 4.6(3.6) 5.9(5.1)
U(Nub)
%
7.5(6.3) 7.4(6.4) 8.4(7.6)
.......

Heat Exchanger - WaterCoil

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Heat Exchanger - WaterCoil

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Liquid Side Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop in

Caroline Haglund Stignor

Thesis for the degree of Licentiate of Engineering

Parameter Study .............................................................................................................21

Experiments with Conventional Cooling-Coils........................................................59

Recommendations for Future Work.............................................................................67

Uncertainty of Measurements ...................................................................95

Specific heat; J/kg/K

Darcy friction factor, f = p d 2 Ltube u 2

Gravitational acceleration; m/s2

Pitch for 180 rotation of twisted-tape

Specific enthalpy; J/kg

Mass flux; kg/s

Number of parallel loops or circuits of a cooling-coil

Wave (waffle) height; mm

Pressure difference; Pa, kPa or bar

Radius of tube bend; mm

Reynolds number based on empty tube diameter

Tape spacing (twisted-tapes); m

Relative tape spacing (twisted-tapes), s = S/d ; m

Unfrosted fin spacing; m

Dimensionless swirl parameter, Sw =

Wall-to-bulk fluid temperature difference; K

Expanded (total) uncertainty of measurements

Overall heat transfer coefficient; W/(m2K)

Volume flow; m3/s or m3/h

Projected wavy length; mm

Local distance along the test section from the inlet; m or mm

Heat transfer coefficient; W/(m2K)

Coefficient of isobaric thermal expansion; =

Relative humidity of air; %

Thermal conductivity; W/m/K

Viscosity (dynamic); Pas or mPas

Viscosity (Kinematic); m2/s

Density difference (thermal expansion); kg/m3

Refrigeration of merchandise in supermarkets is responsible for a significant amount of the

Liquid Side Performance of Full-Sized Cooling-Coils

Heat Transfer Augmentation Techniques for Laminar Flow

Figure 1.5 Finned tube with twisted tape insert [31].

Performance Evaluation Criteria

Whether the overall performance of the cooling-coil is improved by a certain enhancement

Thermophysical Properties of Liquid Secondary Refrigerants

Description of Tested Objects

Conventional Cooling-Coils, B2 and B3

outer diameter of tubes

longitudinal (direction of air flow)

Figure 2.1 Nomenclature of cooling-coil.

Improved Conventional Cooling-Coils, B4 and B5

Single-Tubes with and without Inserts

Figure 2.3 Continuous twisted-tape insert (sketch according to Date [14]).

Secondary Refrigerants used in the Experiments

Thermal conductivity (W/m/K)

Specific heat (J/kg/K)

Conventional Cooling-Coils, B2 and B3

Figure 2.5 Measurement set-up for experimental evaluation of a full-scale conventional

Figure 2.6 Schematic drawing of the experimental set-up.

Figure 2.7 Schematic drawing of measuring points.

Improved Conventional Cooling-Coils, B4 and B5

Figure 2.8 Measurement set-up for experimental evaluation of B4.

Single-Tubes with and without Inserts

Conventional Cooling-Coils, B2 and B3

Improved Conventional Cooling-Coils, B4 and B5

Single-Tubes with and without Inserts

Conventional Cooling-Coils without Inserts

Q a = Va a (ha,in ha ,out )

Wem = Wem, min + Wem,e