Heat Mass Transfer
DOI 10.1007/s00231-017-2107-3
TECHNICAL NOTE
Investigations on the performance of chevron type plate
heat exchangers
Oruganti Yaga Dutta 1 & B. Nageswara Rao 1
Received: 25 April 2016 / Accepted: 10 July 2017
# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017
Abstract This paper presents empirical relations for the chev-
ron type plate heat exchangers (PHEs) and demonstrated their
validity through comparison of test data of PHEs. In order to
examine the performance of PHEs, the pressure drop(ΔP), the
overall heat transfer coefficient (Um) and the effectiveness (ε)
are estimated by considering the properties of plate material
and working fluid, number of plates (N t ) and chevron
angle(β). It is a known fact that, large surface area of the plate
provides more rate of heat transfer (Q̇ ) thereby more effec-
tiveness (ε). However, there is a possibility to achieve the
required performance by increasing the number of plates with-
out altering the plate dimensions, which avoids the new design
of the system. Application of the Taguchi’s design of experi-
ments is examined with less number of experiments and dem-
onstrated by setting the levels for the parameters and com-
pared the test data with the estimated output responses.
1 Introduction
Heat exchangers are classified according to transfer process,
construction, flow arrangement, surface compactness, number
of fluids and heat transfer mechanisms. They have been used
in the steam power plants, chemical processing plants, heating
and air conditioning in buildings, household refrigerators, car
radiators and radiators for space vehicles [1]. However, the
design of heat exchangers involves cost, size, weight and eco-
nomic considerations [2]. In steam and chemical power plants,
* B. Nageswara Rao
bnrao52@rediffmail.com; bnrao52@kluniversity.in
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Koneru Lakshmaiah
University, Green Fields, Vaddeswaram, Guntur 522502, India
cost of heat exchanger is the main concern, whereas in radia-
tors the size and weight are the dominant factors. Shell and
tube heat exchangers (STHE) contain a large number of tubes
packed in a shell whose axes parallel to that of shell. Heat
transfer takes place as one fluid flows inside the tubes while
the other fluid flows outside the tubes within the shell.
A plate heat exchanger (PHE) usually consists of a stack of
corrugated metal plates in mutual contact in a frame by
clamping bolts as in Fig. 1. These corrugated plates have
corrugations inclined at some angles which influence the rate
of change of heat transfer. Each plate is having four apertures
at corners serving two for inlet ports and remaining two for
outlet ports. Gasket sealing is designed to direct the fluids in
alternate flow passages. The flow passages are formed by
adjacent plates so that the two streams exchange heat while
passing through alternate channels [3]. High efficiency gasket
plate heat exchangers (PHE) are being used in free cooling,
cooling tower isolation, water heaters, waste heat recovery,
heat pump isolation and thermal (ice) storage systems
(www.wcrhx.com/plate-heat-exchanger-applications),
(https://www.slideshare.net/gchilveri/heat-exchangers-and-
types). The capacity of PHE can be enhanced by placing more
number of plates. The corrugated flow passage in PHE
promotes fluid turbulence. Freezing is less due to shear
force. Assembling, dissembling and cleaning tasks are simple.
All heat exchangers have a finite life, which are being
categorized as expendable type due to failures at some point
of time. Failures observed in heat exchangers are due to indi-
vidual or a combination of mechanically and chemically in-
duced corrosion; fouling due to the accumulation of scale,
solids and algae. Properly used and maintained heat ex-
changers can last up to 20 years [4].
It should be noted that the design of heat exchangers de-
pends on the generated empirical information in the form of
correlations among the main influencing variables. The

Fig. 1 A Plate heat exchanger: (a) Rear support; (b) Idler wheel; (c)
Active plate; (d) Gasket seal; (e) Heat exchange sheet; (f) Guide bar;
(g) Bolt; (h) Hot fluid inlet; (i) Cold fluid outlet; (j) Fixed plate; (k) Hot
fluid outlet; (l) Cold fluid inlet; (m) Tail edge; (n) Clamping bolt; (o) Nut;
(p) Lower guide bar. (http://www.shipssp.com/marine-heat-exchangers/
1116733.html)
empirical information may be applicable for the range of fluid
velocity, temperature, time or length for which it is generated.
The information applicable to bigger scales has to be generat-
ed via laboratory-scale models, which requires establishment
of scaling laws to ensure geometric, kinematic and dynamic
similarities. It is not an easy task to simultaneously satisfy the
above mentioned three similarities. Therefore, the activity has
to be supported by flow-visualization studies and by simple
analytical solutions to equations governing the phenomenon
under consideration. Designer needs a design tool that is scale
neutral as well as scientific and economical to use. The key is
to solve the differential equations describing the laws of mass,
momentum, energy and then to interpret the solutions for
practical design.
1.1 Empirical relations for design
Experiments have been performed by several researchers and
examined the performance of heat exchangers utilizing vari-
ous empirical relations for friction factor and Nusselt number
[5–13]. Martin [6] has developed an empirical relation for the
friction factor ( f ) in terms of the chevron angle (β) and the
Reynolds number (Re) applicable for both laminar and turbu-
lent flow regimes. Pike [9] has performed experiments in
small plate heat exchangers with high surface enlargement
factors and determined the friction factors for the Reynolds
numbers in the laminar and turbulent flow regimes. He com-
puted the friction factor ( f ) values from the empirical relation
of Martin specifying Re > 400 instead Re > 2000 for turbulent
flow regimes. Due to wrongly specifying the range of Re for
the turbulent flow regimes, a large discrepancy is noticed in
friction factor values of Pike [9] from the Martin’s empirical
relation and those generated from the test data.
Heat Mass Transfer
The mathematical model of counter-flow heat exchangers,
in general, contains an equation of the heat balance associated
to hot and cold fluids, mass-flow rates, inlet and unknown
outlet temperatures. The rate of heat transfer ðQ̇Þ is also equat-
ed with the product of the overall heat transfer coefficient
(Um), total heat transfer area (At) and Logarithmic Mean
Temperature Difference (ΔTln). From the above one can ob-
tain two equations for the unknown outlet temperature of the
cold and hot fluids, which are non-linear in nature and to be
solved through an iterative process. Patrascioiu and Radulescu
[14] have examined the counter-flow double-pipe heat ex-
changer and adopted an iterative procedure to obtain outlet
temperature of the cold and hot fluids. Laskowski [15] has
investigated the effect of the inlet parameters (viz., the inlet
temperatures and the mass flow rates of the hot and cold
fluids) on the heat transfer effectiveness (ε) of the counter-
flow double-pipe heat exchanger. The outlet temperature of
the hot and cold fluids can be estimated directly by adopting
effectiveness method [10, 11, 16]. It should be noted that there
is no change in the procedure for outlet temperature evaluation
of cold and hot fluids in the counter-flow double-pipe heat
exchangers and the counter-flow plate heat exchangers.
1.2 CFD for design
Finite element method (FEM) and finite volume method
(FVM) are two basic numerical methods, which involve
subdividing the flow domain into a large number of finite
elements/ control volumes, and solving the governing fluid
flow equations of a system of algebraic equations through an
iterative process [17]. The commercial Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) codes in use are FLUENT, CFX, STAR CD,
FIDAP, ADINA, CFD2000, COMSOL, PHOENICS and
many others [18] (https://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Codes),
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/computational_fluid_
dynamics), (https://www.taygeta.com/CFD/CFD_codes_c.
html), (cfd2012.com/matlab.html). Ozden and Tari [19] have
performed shell side CFD analysis and obtained numerical
solutions for the fluid flow and heat transfer in a small shell-
and-tube heat exchangers. Some assumptions in the numerical
simulations of heat exchangers do not correspond to the actual
conditions of the plate heat exchangers [20]. For example, the
commonly specified constant wall temperature/heat flux ther-
mal boundary condition may not be the realistic situation as
the temperature/heat flux varies along the plate due to com-
plex three-dimensional flow caused by the shape of the corru-
gation pattern. A fully developed flow approximation is valid
in the central region for large plate heat exchangers, whereas
such approximation is invalid for small plate heat exchangers
due to the development of flow at the central region, and the
developing region is negligible when compared to the fully
developed region.
Heat Mass Transfer

Compared to the correlation based methods, the use of

CFD in heat exchanger design is limited due to the require-
ment of large amounts of computer power, computer memory
and computational time [21, 22]. There is a need for compar-
ison of CFD simulations with experimental data due to lack of
universally applicable boundary conditions and turbulent
models [23–26]. The CFD developmental activities are
progressing rapidly. It will become an integral part of all de-
sign processes. However, design validation through testing is
unavoidable [27, 28].

1.3 Outline of the present study

To design or to assess the performance of a corrugated plate

heat exchanger, the total heat transfer rate has to be related to
the inlet and outlet fluid temperatures, the overall heat transfer
coefficient, and the heat transfer surface area. There is a need
for identifying the appropriate empirical relations from the
existing various relations. Motivated by the work of above
researchers, this paper examines the adequacy of the identified Fig. 2 Temperature difference along the length in a counter-flow heat
empirical relation for friction factor coefficient ( f ), and the exchanger [11]
evaluation of outlet temperature of hot and cold fluids in a
counter-flow heat exchanger through comparison of test data. ˙
Q mh C ph ðT hi −T ho Þ mc C pc ðT co −T ci Þ
The design formulae can be utilized for the performance eval- ε¼ ¼
 ¼
 ð2Þ
uation of PHEs by estimating the pressure drop (ΔP), the Q̇max mC p min ðT hi −T ci Þ mC p min ðT hi −T ci Þ
overall heat transfer coefficient (Um) and effectiveness (ε)
Here (mCp)min is the smaller of mhCph and mcCpc for the hot
from the properties of plate material and working fluid, num-
and cold fluids. The effectiveness (ε) for counter-flow heat
ber of plates (Nt) and chevron angle (β). An attempt is made to
exchanger is [2]
understand the applicability of Taguchi’s design of experi-
ments by setting the levels for the parameters with less number
of experiments and estimating the output responses. 1−expð−MAt U m Þ
ε¼  ; ð3Þ

 1 expð−MAt U m Þ
mC p min −
mC C pc mh C ph
2 Basic design concepts in counter-flow heat
exchangers M ¼ mc 1Cpc − mc 1Cpc ; the overall heat transfer coefficient,

In counter-flow heat exchangers (see Fig. 2), the temperature dif-  −1
ference between hot and cold fluids varies with position along the 1 1 δ
Um ¼ þ þ Rf þ ; ð4Þ
path of flow. Figure 3 shows the geometry of the chevron plate. hhot hcold κ
The rate of heat transfer (Q) is given by [2, 10, 11, 29–31],
δ is the thickness of the plate; Rf is the fouling resistance
inside the PHE; and the heat transfer coefficients hhot and hcold
Q ¼ mh C ph ðT hi −T ho Þ ¼ mc C pc ðT co −T ci Þ ¼ At U m ΔT ln ð1Þ for hot and cold fluids are evaluated by specifying the respec-
tive Reynolds number and the corresponding friction factor in
Here, mc and mh are the mass flow rates of cold and hot the empirical relation [32]:
fluids respectively; Cpc and Cph are the specific heats of cold
and hot fluids respectively; Thi and Tci are the inlet tempera-
 1
tures of hot and cold fluids respectively; Tho and Tco are the κ f Lλ N λ 0:333
0:374 μ 6
outlet temperatures of hot and cold fluids respectively; At = h ¼ 0:205 Pr 2
f Re sin2β ð5Þ
4aW p μs
NtLWp, is the total heat transfer area.
Defining the effectiveness (ε) as the ratio of actual heat The chevron angle (β) is: 10° < β < 80°; κf is the thermal
transfer rate ðQ̇Þ to the maximum possible heat transfer rate conductivity of the fluid; μs is the dynamic viscosity corre-
ðQ̇Þmax through a heat-exchanger, one can write [15, 29–31] sponding to the wall temperature; Nλ is number of wavelength
 Heat Mass Transfer

Fig. 3 Geometry of a chevron

plate. (a) Gasket and (b) chevron
plate with corrugations [11].
(δ = plate thickness;
λ = corrugation pitch; DP= port
diameter; β = chevron angle; HP=
height of the plate; WP= width of
the plate; Nλ= number of
wavelength per plate; Nc= number
of channels per each fluid; Nt=
number of plates; NP= number of
passages; a= amplitude; ϕ=
enlargement factor; Lλ= enlarged
length per wave length;
γ = corrugation aspect ratio; Dh=
hydraulic diameter; Ac = area of
channel per each fluid)

per plate; Wp is the width of the plate; λ is the wavelength of Here, L is the length of the plate; ρ is the density of the
the chevron pattern or the corrugation pitch; ‘a’ is the ampli- fluid; u is the velocity of the fluid; De(effective diameter) =
tude of the sinusoidal corrugation with the plate thickness ‘δ’, 2b(b is the space between two plates).
which is expressed in terms of the PHE height ‘Hp’; the sur- The logarithmic mean temperature difference (ΔTln) be-
face waviness is represented by the corrugation aspect ratio ‘γ’ tween the hot and cold fluids is [2]
and the surface enlargement factor (ϕ). The corrugated area is
obtained using the path distance of the sinusoidal corrugation. ΔT 0 −ΔT L
ΔT ln ¼   ð8Þ
The chevron angle (β) is found to be insignificant on the ΔT 0
corrugated area. The enlarged length per wavelength (Lλ), ln
ΔT L
number of channels (Nc) per each fluid, number of channels
per pass (Np), the surface enlargement factor (ϕ) and the hy- For counter-flow arrangement, ΔT0 = Thi − Tco andΔTL =
draulic diameter (Dh) are defined in Fig. 3. Nt is the total Tho − Tci.
number of plates; Pr ¼ μ κCP , is the Prandtl number; From Eq. (2), one can express the outlet temperatures of the hot
Re ¼ GD and cold fluids in the counter-flow heat exchangers in the form.
μ , is the Reynolds number; G ¼ Ac , m is the mass-
h m

flow rate; Area of the channel cross-section, Ac = 2aWpNc;


mC p min
N c ¼ N2Nt −1p . The friction factor ( f ) developed by Martin [6] T ho ¼ T hi −ε ðT hi −T ci Þ ð9Þ
mh C ph
in terms of the chevron angle (β) and the Reynolds number

(Re) is applicable for both laminar and turbulent flow regimes. mC p min
T co ¼ T ci þ ε ðT hi −T ci Þ ð10Þ
The friction factor ( f ) is [9, 31] mc C pc

( )−2 In order to have an equalized heat exchanger, i.e., a heat

cosβ ð1−cosβÞ exchanger with the same temperature difference in both ends,
f ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi it is needed the equality of the mass flow rates and also the
0:045tanβ þ 0:09sinβ þ f o secβ 3:8f 1
equality of the specific heats of both fluids. For the case of
ð6Þ equal mass flow rates of the cold and hot fluids, Eq. (8) yields:
ΔTln = ΔT0 = ΔTL. For this case, the outlet temperatures of
For Re < 2000, f o ¼ Re
16
and f 1 ¼ 149:25
Re þ 0:9625. the cold and hot fluids can be estimated from
For Re > 2000, f o = (1.56 ln Re − 3.0) −2.0 and f 1 =
9.75Re−0.289.   −1
mh C ph mh C ph
The pressure drop (ΔP), that is the difference of pressure T ho ¼ T ci þ T hi 1þ ð11Þ
between inlet and outlet ports of a plate heat exchanger is [2] At U m At U m

  −1
4fLρu2 mc C pc mc C pc
ΔP ¼ ð7Þ T co ¼ T hi þ T ci 1þ ð12Þ
2De At U m At U m
Heat Mass Transfer
The Nusselt number is an important dimensionless param-
eter that represents the temperature gradient at a surface where
heat transfer by convection is taking place. It is a function of
the Reynolds number (Re), the Prandtl number (Pr), and the
length if the fluid is still at the hydro dynamic entrance region.
For the fully developed flow region it is constant. The Nusselt
number (Nu) can be generated from the empirical relation of
Chisholm and Wanniarachchi [7]:
 0:66
β cial in any heat exchanger design. An attempt is made here to
Nu ¼ 0:72Re0:59 Pr0:4 ϕ0:41 ; for 103 < Re
30
 
< 4  103 ; 30 ≤ β ≤ 80 ð13Þ
To select the type of the plate for a specified duty, the
number of transfer units (NTU) is defined as
At U m
NTU ¼
 ð14Þ
mC p min
Using Eqs. (1) and (13), one can write the effectiveness (ε)
as a function of NTU and the inlet and outlet temperature of
hot and cold fluids, useful to see the performance of counter-
flow heat exchanger for off-design conditions, in the form:
ΔT ln
ε¼ NTU ð15Þ
ðT hi −T ci Þ
The logarithmic mean temperature difference (ΔTln) be-
tween the hot and cold fluids in Eq. (15) can be found directly
from Eq. (8) using the inlet and outlet temperature of the hot
and cold fluids. For the specified ε and the inlet and outlet
temperature of hot and cold fluids, NTU can be found directly
from Eq. (15). For a counter-flow heat exchanger, the effec-
tiveness is always increases with the NTU numbers.
3 Results and discussion
Pike [9] has conducted several tests on small brazed plate
heat exchangers (whose specifications are given in Table 1)
by designing a test apparatus to electronically monitor and
record the inlet and outlet temperatures, pressures, and
flow rates. Outlet temperatures of hot and cold fluids, pres-
sure drop are measured at different mass flow rates using
thermocouples and pressure transducers respectively. The
friction factor ( f ) at different mass flow rates are evaluated
from the measured pressure drop using ΔP correlation (7).
Precautionary steps have been taken to ensure the steady
state nature of the test runs. For temperature related stabil-
ity, the fluctuation of inlet temperature is in a range of
±0.12%0C, whereas the hot and cold loop flow rates report-
ed are within 1% difference. The largest uncertainty of heat
transfer due to instrument accuracy is 3.9%. The experi-
mental uncertainties reported by Pike [9] are within the
acceptable range. Comparison of the friction factor evalu-
ated from test data showed wide discrepancy with that of
the estimated by Martin’s models. However, the test data
provided by Pike [9] is valuable and useful for further
investigations.
Good estimation of heat transfer and pressure drop is cru-
evaluate the performance of the counter-flow corrugated plate
heat exchangers considering the measured flow rates and inlet
temperatures of Ref. 9 as input in addition to the geometric
parameters and fluid properties. For heat transfer and pressure
drop calculations, the fluid (water) properties viz.
density,ρ(kg/m3), kinematic viscosity, υk(m2/sec), Prandtl
number(Pr), specific heat, Cp(J/kg . K), thermal conductivity,


Kf (W/m . K) are evaluated at film temperature, Tf ¼ T ci þT hi
2
utilizing the software [http://www.mhtl.uwaterloo.ca/old/
onlinetools/airprop/airprop.html]. The outlet temperature of
cold and hot fluids in the plate heat exchangers are estimated
for comparison with test results. It should be noted that the
agreement between measured and estimated outlet
temperatures of the hot and cold fluids depends on the
accuracy in the evaluation of the heat transfer rate, in turn,
on the accuracy of the friction factor.
From the geometrical and fluid properties, mass flow rate
and inlet temperature of hot and cold fluids, one can find the
total heat transfer area (At), the maximum possible heat trans-
fer rateðQ̇Þmax , the Reynolds number (Re), and the Prandtl
number (Pr). The friction factor ( f ) in Eq. (6) is evaluated
for the Reynolds number, Re (Re < 2000 for laminar flow
regime, whereas for the turbulent flow regime, Re > 2000).
Pike [9] has computed the friction factor( f ) from the empiri-
cal relation of Martin specifying Re > 400 instead Re > 2000
for turbulent flow regimes. Asadi and Khoshkhoo [31] have
used the relation of Martin, but while evaluating the friction
factor ( f ), they wrongly used the power (−2) of the expression
in Eq. (6) by− 12, which results very high values. Figures 4, 5
and 6 show a good comparison of experimental data with
those estimated from the empirical relation (6) for the friction
factor ( f ) of B, C and D-type PHEs. For the overall heat
transfer coefficient, the heat transfer coefficients hhot and hcold
for hot and cold fluids are evaluated by specifying the respec-
tive Reynolds number and the corresponding friction factor in
the empirical relation (5). The effectiveness (ε) and the pres-
sure drop (ΔP) for the counter-flow plate heat exchanger are
found from Eqs. (3) and (7). The outlet temperature of the hot
and cold fluids can be estimated from Eqs. (9) and (10),
whereas in case of equal mass flow rates of hot and cold fluids,
Eqs. (11) and (12) are used.
 Heat Mass Transfer

Table 1 Specifications of A, B, C and D type plate heat exchangers [9]

A B C D

Parameters (see Figure-3)

Number of plates, N t 10 14 20 20
Plate spacing, b (m) 0.002362 0.00221 0.00221 0.00221
Width of the plate, WP (m) 0.0762 0.0762 0.0762 0.0762
Length of the plate, LP (m) 0.127 0.15748 0.254 0.38862
Height of the plate, H P (m) 0.023622 0.028448 0.044196 0.045212
Enhancement factor, 2.1072 2.0705 2.0705 2.0705
Mass flow rate (kg/sec) in PHEs
Hot water 0.189– 0.473 0.189–0.614 0.190–0.694 0.188–0.631
Cold water 0.189–0.472 0.189-0.615 0.189-0.695 0.189-0.631
Inlet Temperature (0C) in PHEs
Hot water 42 - 88 41 - 96 35 - 92 38 - 90
Cold water 24 - 38 27 - 43 26 - 44 29 - 49
0
Outlet Temperature ( C) in PHEs
Hot water 35 - 65 35 - 65 30 - 57 33 - 57
Cold water 30 - 60 34 - 73 31 - 78 36 - 81
Plate material: AISI 316 Stainless steel (thermal conductivity, κ=16.5 W/m.K)
Number of passages:NP = 1
Plate thickness: δ=0.0006 m
Chevron angle: β=60°

Figures 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 show a good comparison of
measured and estimated overall heat-transfer coefficient
(Um), pressure drop (ΔP), effectiveness (ε), outlet temperature
of hot and cold fluids respectively for B-type PHE. It can be
seen from Fig. 12 that the Nusselt number (Nu) increases with
increasing the Reynolds number. Figures 13, 14 and 15 show
the variation of the Pressure drop (ΔP), overall heat transfer
coefficient (Um) and effectiveness (ε) with Reynolds number
for A, B, C and D type PHEs. It is noted that the pressure drop
(ΔP) and the overall heat transfer coefficient (Um) increase,
whereas the effectiveness (ε) decreases with increasing the
Reynolds number. It should be noted that the difference in
the output responses (viz., ΔP, Um, ε, Nu) with respect to
the Reynolds number (Re) for each type heat exchanger in
Figs. 12, 13, 14 and 15 is mainly due to high and low heat
transfer. In fact, the hotter fluids have high Reynolds number.
This is the reason why the curves of the output responses in
Figs. 12, 13, 14 and 15 shifted to the right. The estimated
outlet temperatures for A, C and D-type PHEs are also exam-
ined and found in good agreement with test data (see Fig. 16).
The above observations confirm the validity of the empirical
relations for chevron type plate heat exchangers.
Regarding the variation of temperatures of hot and cold
fluids in the counter-flow heat exchangers (in which the hot
and cold fluids enter from opposite ends as in Fig. 2), the inlet
temperature of the hot fluid (Thi) is higher than the inlet
Heat Mass Transfer
Fig. 4 Variation of friction factor ( f ) with Reynolds number (Re) for B-
type PHE
temperature of the cold fluid (Tci), whereas the outlet tempera-
ture of the cold fluid (Tco) can exceed the outlet temperature of
the hot fluid (Tho) [see Figs. 17 and 18]. The cold fluid may be
heated to the inlet temperature of the hot fluid, and the outlet
temperature of the cold fluid never exceed the inlet temperature
of the hot fluid (i . e . , Tco → Thi and Tco < Thi). Otherwise,
this would be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics
(i.e., ΔTo < 0 and ΔTln in Eq. (8) becomes undefined).
For the specified inlet temperature of hot and cold fluids,
(Thi = 59.15°C and Tci = 28.46°C), mass-flow rate (mh =
0.1896kg/sec, mc = 0.1890kg/sec), the overall heat-transfer coef-
ficient (Um), the pressure drop (ΔP) and the effectiveness (ε) are
estimated for different chevron angles of Type-B plate heat ex-
changer. The results are presented in Table 2. All these parame-
ters are found to increase with increasing the chevron angle.
Fig. 5 Variation of friction factor ( f ) with Reynolds number (Re) for C-
type PHE
Fig. 6 Variation of friction factor ( f ) with Reynolds number (Re) for D-
type PHE
Taguchi’s design of experiments and the analysis of vari-
ance (ANOVA) will be useful for identification of the contri-
bution of each process parameter on the output responses and
to obtain much information from few tests [33–36]. In the
present study the assignment levels of process parameters
(mass flow rate of hot and cold fluids, inlet temperatures of
hot and cold fluids) are arranged in such a way that the data
will fit the L9 orthogonal array of Taguchi’s approach. The
minimum number of experiments as per Taguchi:
N Taguchi ¼ 1 þ Number of factors* ðNumber of levels−1Þ
¼ 1 þ 3ð3−1Þ ¼ 7:
ð16Þ
ð16Þ
Table 3 gives the assignment levels of process parameters
and the generated performance/output responses (viz., overall
heat transfer coefficient, pressure drop, effectiveness, outlet
Fig. 7 Comparison of measured and estimated overall heat transfer
coefficient for B-type PHE
 Heat Mass Transfer

Fig. 8 Comparison of Measured and Estimated Pressure drop for B-type Fig. 10 Comparison of measured and estimated hot fluid outlet
PHE temperatures for B-type PHE

 
N
temperatures of hot and cold fluids) for the assigned process Here Ψ ¼ ∑ ψi =N , is the average of the total data.
parameters as per L9 orthogonal array. Mean values of the i¼1
output response are evaluated for the level settings in The sum of squares due to factor A is
Table 4. In order to study the sensitiveness of the change in
the level of setting, the sum of the squares of deviation of each kA
2
of the mean value from the grand mean is evaluated. SS A ¼ ∑N Ai ΨAi −Ψ ð18Þ
i¼1
Percentage contribution is obtained by dividing the sum of
the squares of the each process parameter with the total sum Here kA is the number of levels of factor A; ΨAi is the
of squares. Let ψi(i = 1 to N) be the output responses of N average of observations under Ai level; and NAi is the number
number of experiments. of observations under Ai level. Percentage contribution of fac-
The total sum of squares (total variation) is calculated from tor A to the total variation which may affect the average re-
[35, 36] sponse is

2 SS A
N PA ¼ 100  ð19Þ
SS T ¼ ∑ ψi −Ψ ð17Þ SS T
i¼1

Fig. 9 Comparison of measured and estimated effectiveness (ϵ) for B- Fig. 11 Comparison of measured and estimated cold fluid outlet
type PHE temperatures for B-type PHE
Heat Mass Transfer
Fig. 12 Variation of the Nusselt Number (Nu) with Reynolds number
(Re) in B-Type PHE
The percentage contribution of each factor to the total var-
iation can be calculated in a similar manner from the sum of
squares due to each factor. It can be seen from the ANOVA
results in Table 4 that the mass flow rate (i.e., one of the
process parameters ‘A’) is found to be a sensitive parameter,
which is influencing on the variation in the output responses,
viz., overall heat transfer coefficient, pressure drop and the
effectiveness. This is the reason why the first, second and
third mean values of the overall heat transfer coefficient, and
the pressure drop show increasing trend, whereas the effec-
tiveness shows decreasing trend with respect to the mass flow
rate (i.e., factor ‘A’). The inlet temperature of the hot fluid
(i.e., the parameter ‘B’) is found to influence on the variation
of output responses (viz., the outlet temperature of hot and
cold fluids). It is very interesting to note that the values of Um
and ΔP in Table 3b show increasing trend, whereas the values
Fig. 13 Variation of the pressure difference (ΔP)with Reynolds number
(Re) in plate heat exchangers
Fig. 14 Variation of the overall heat transfer coefficient U(W/m2K) with
Reynolds number (Re) in plate heat exchangers
of ε show different behavior of increasing and decreasing
trend. The reason for such a trend is explained as follows.
The first mean value of the effectiveness (ε) for the factor-A
is the average of the ε values corresponding to the level-1 of
the factor-A, related to Test runs 1 to 3 in Table 3b. The small
variations in the third decimal values of ε (0.5790, 0.5815 and
0.5819) over the 1-mean value of ε =0.5803 in Table 4 is
mainly due to variation in the inlet temperature of the hot
and cold fluids as evidenced in Table 4 of %contribution.
Similar trend can be seen for the second and third mean values
of the effectiveness (ε).
By means of additive law the output response for the de-
sired process parameters can be estimated from [34]
n
η ¼ ηm þ ∑ fηm ði; jÞ−ηm g ð20Þ
j¼1
Fig. 15 Variation of the effectiveness (ϵ) with Reynolds number (Re) in
plate heat exchangers
 Heat Mass Transfer

Fig. 18 Comparison of outlet temperature of cold and hot fluids

(TcoandTho) with inlet temperature of hot fluid (Thi) in D-Type PHE

Here η is the output response for the process parameters; ηm

is the mean value of η with 9 test runs; ηm(i, j) is the mean of η
at the level (i) and the process parameter (j); and n is number
of process parameters.
For simplicity, the process parameters (mh, mc), Thi and
Tci are designated by A, B and C respectively. From the
ANOVA results in Table 4, it is possible to estimate the
output response, η(viz.,Um,ΔP,ε,Thoand Tco) for the specified
process parameters (Ai,Bj,Ckfor i,j,k=1,2,3). Subscripts for A,
B and C denote the level of the process parameter. Table 5
gives comparison of estimated output responses with test
results for the specified process parameters (Ak,Bk,Ckfor
k=1,2,3). The effectiveness decreases, whereas the pressure
drop and overall heat transfer coefficient increase with in-
Fig. 16 Comparison of measured and estimated outlet temperature of hot
and cold fluids in A-type, C-type and D-type plate heat exchangers
creasing the Reynolds number.
From the ANOVA results (see Table 4), one can find the
process parameters (A3B3C2) to obtain the maximum overall
heat transfer coefficient(Um). The estimated overall heat trans-
fer coefficient(Um) for the process parameters (A3B3C2) is
7004.86, whereas it is generated from the test data is
7004.85. The minimum value of overall heat transfer coeffi-
cient (Um) from the ANOVA results corresponds to the pro-
cess parameters (A1B1C1). The estimated overall heat transfer

Table 2 Overall heat transfer coefficient(Um), pressure drop(ΔP) and

the effectiveness(ε)for the specified chevron angle(β), mass-flow rate(m-
h = 0.1896kg/sec, mc = 0.1890kg/sec), inlet temperature of hot and cold
fluids (Thi = 59.15°CandTci = 28.46°C)

Angle(β°) Um(W/m2K) ΔP(k . Pa) (ε)

30 4555.36 0.0637 0.4921

45 5488.48 0.1250 0.5387
60 6278.65 0.2801 0.5720
Fig. 17 Comparison of outlet temperature of cold and hot fluids 75 6899.24 0.8137 0.5950
(TcoandTho) with inlet temperature of hot fluid (Thi) in C-Type PHE
Heat Mass Transfer

Table 3 Performance output responses (viz., overall heat transfer coefficient, pressure drop, effectiveness, outlet temperatures of hot and cold fluids)
for the assigned process parameters (viz., mass flow rate and inlet temperature of hot and cold fluids) as per L9 orthogonal array

(a) Assignment of levels of process parameters

Level Mass flow rate (kg/s) Inlet temperatures of hot and cold fluids (°C)
A=(mh, mc) B=Thi C=Tci
1 (0.1896,0.1890) 59.15 28.46
2 (0.2520,0.2521) 52.04 27.24
3 (0.2833,0.2835) 50.18 27.60
(b) Performance output responses
Test runs Levels Um (W/m2K) ΔP (k.Pa) ε Tho(°C) Tco(°C)
A B C
1 1 1 1 6278.65 0.2801 0.5790 41.43 46.22
2 1 2 2 6344.45 0.3263 0.5815 37.66 41.66
3 1 3 3 6356.66 0.3357 0.5819 37.08 40.74
4 2 1 2 6720.11 0.4102 0.5240 42.42 43.96
5 2 2 3 6773.46 0.4644 0.5259 39.18 40.45
6 2 3 1 6781.55 0.4732 0.5262 38.74 39.89
7 3 1 3 6931.10 0.4872 0.5023 43.28 43.45
8 3 2 1 6980.08 0.5463 0.5041 40.14 40.34
9 3 3 2 7004.85 0.5789 0.5049 38.58 38.82

coefficient (Um) for the process parameters (A1B1C1) is This way the optimum process parameters for the output
6278.65, which is exactly coinciding with the generate value response can be estimated with minimum number of experi-
from the test data. ments as per the Taguchi’s approach.

Table 4 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for overall heat transfer

coefficient, pressure drop, effectiveness, outlet temperature of hot and 4 Concluding remarks
cold fluids

Factors 1-Mean 2-Mean 3-Mean Sum of Squares % contribution Investigations on the performance of the Chevron type plate
heat exchangers are made in this paper using appropriate
Overall heat transfer coefficient, Um (W/m2K) existing heat transfer and friction factor correlations. The ad-
A 6326.59 6758.37 6972.01 648,648.3 98.7 equacy of these empirical relations is examined by estimating
B 6643.29 6699.33 6714.35 8417.4 1.28 the outlet temperature of hot and cold fluids as well as effec-
C 6680.09 6689.80 6687.07 150.53 0.02 tiveness (ε) and comparing with the test data of PHEs [9]. The
Pressure drop, ΔP(k.Pa) pressure drop (ΔP), overall heat transfer coefficient (Um) and
A 0.3140 0.4493 0.5375 0.076 90.31 effectiveness (ε) evaluated from the measured input
B 0.3925 0.4456 0.4626 0.008 9.53
C 0.4332 0.4385 0.4291 0.0001 0.16
Table 5 Comparison of estimated output responses with test results for
Effectiveness(ε) the process parameters
A 0.5808 0.5254 0.5038 9.47E-03 99.88
B 0.5351 0.5372 0.5377 1.13E-05 0.118 Process Re Output response
parameters
C 0.5364 0.5368 0.5367 2.48E-07 0.002
AiBjCk Um ΔP ε Tho(°C) Tco(°C)
Outlet temperature of hot fluid, Tho(°C) (W/m2K) (k . Pa)
A 38.72 40.11 40.67 6.027 16.42
B 42.38 38.99 38.13 30.21 82.34 A1B1C1 620 6278.65 0.2726 0.5790 41.54 46.12
(6278.65)+ (0.2801) (0.5790) (41.43) (46.22)
C 40.10 39.55 39.84 0.456 1.24
A2B2C2 759 6776.19 0.4662 0.5260 38.99 40.28
Outlet temperature of cold fluid, Tco(°C)
(6776.37) (0.4675) (0.5262) (38.98) (40.28)
A 42.87 41.43 40.87 6.408 14.40
A3B3C3 838 7002.12 0.5620 0.5049 38.98 38.78
B 44.54 40.82 39.81 37.25 83.74 (7001.96) (0.5750) (0.5052) (38.77) (39.00)
C 42.15 41.48 41.54 0.826 1.86
+ Results in parenthesis are generated from test data [9]

parameters are reasonably in good agreement with the report-
ed test values [9]. The design of a plate heat exchanger (PHE)
depends on the chevron angle (β) and number of plates (Nt).
The overall heat transfer coefficient (Um) and the pressure
drop (ΔP) are found to increase with increasing the chevron
angle (β). When the number of plates (Nt) increases, there is a
possibility of enhancing the rate of heat transfer ðQ̇Þ thereby
the effectiveness (ε). The possibility of acquiring complete
information through less number of experiments following
Taguchi’s approach, is demonstrated by generating output re-
sponses (viz., overall heat transfer coefficient, pressure drop,
effectiveness, outlet temperature of hot and cold fluids) for the
specified input parameters (viz., the mass flow rate and inlet
temperature of hot and cold fluids) through the empirical re-
lations and estimating the output responses corresponding to
the measured input parameters, and comparing with the test
data [9].
Future work is directed towards the selection of optimum
input parameters such as mass flow rate of hot and cold fluids
(mh, mc); inlet temperature of hot and cold fluids (Thi, Tci);
number of plates (Nt) and chevron angle (β°) to achieve the
possible maximum heat transfer rate ðQ̇Þ or the effectiveness
(ε) and minimum pressure drop (ΔP) by adopting the Taguchi
method and performing minimum number of experiments.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to appreciate Dr. Andrew
H. Pike for providing test data on several plate heat exchangers (open
access) useful in the present study. The authors wish to thank the re-
viewers for their valuable comments/suggestions to improve the clarity
of presentation.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest We would like to state that there is no conflict of
interest.
References
1. Shah RK (1994) Heat exchangers. In: Bisio A, Boots SG (eds)
Encyclopedia of energy technology and the environment. John
Wiley & Sons, New York, pp 1651–1670
2. Necati Ozisik M (1997) Basic heat transfer. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
3. Sinnott RK (2005) Chemical engineering design, vol 6, Fourth edn.
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford
4. Heat Exchanger Care and Water Quality Guide (2005) MTS sys-
tems corporation, Minnesota, USA. Manual Part Number: 015–
164-000C. http://www.mts.com/cs/groups/public/documents/
library/mts_004900.pdf
5. Muley A, Manglik RM (1995) Experimental investigation of heat
transfer enhancement in a PHE with β=60° chevron plates. In: Heat
and Mass Transfer. Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi, p 737
6. Martin H (1996) A theoretical approach to predict the performance
of chevron type plate heat exchangers. Chem Eng Prog 35:301–310
7. Chisholm D, Wanniarachchi AS (1992) Mal-distribution in single-
pass mixed-channel plate heat exchangers. In: Compact Heat
Exchangers for Power and Process Industries, HTD. vol 201.
ASME, New York
Heat Mass Transfer
8. Tovazhnyanski LL, Kapustenko PA, Tsibulnik VA (1980) Heat
transfer and hydraulic resistance in channels of plate heat ex-
changers. Energetika 9:123
9. Pike AH (2012) Experimental determination of colburn and friction
factors in small plate heat exchangers with high surface enlarge-
ment factors. http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses
10. Shah RK, Sekulic DP (2003) Fundamentals of heat exchanger de-
sign. John Wiley & Sons, New York
11. Kakac S, Liu H, Pramuanjaorenkj A (2012) Heat exchangers: se-
lection, rating and thermal design, Third edn. CRC Press, USA
12. Cieslinski JT, Fiuk A, Typinski K, Siemienczuk B (2016) Heat
transfer in plate heat exchanger channels: experimental validation
of selected correlation equations. Arch Thermodynamics 37(3):19–
29
13. Aradag S, Genc Y, Turk C (2017) Comparative gasketted plate heat
exchanger performance prediction with computations, experiments,
correlations and artificial neural network estimations. Eng Appl
Comput Fluid Mech 11(1):467–482. doi:10.1080/19942060.2017.
1314870
14. Patrascioiu C, Radulescu S (2012) Modeling and simulation of the
double tube heat exchanger case studies. In: Advances in Fluid
Mechanics & Heat and Mass transfer, pp. 35–41. ISBN: 978–1–
61804-114-2
15. Laskowski R (2015) The black model of a double-tube counter-
flow heat exchanger. Heat Mass Transf 51:1111–1119
16. Yaga Dutta O, Therisa T, Nageswara Rao B (2017) Design valida-
tion through testing of a double-tube counter-flow heat exchanger.
Int J Control Theory and Appl 10(10):399–409
17. Patankar SV (1980) Numerical heat transfer & fluid flow.
Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New York
18. Feistauer M (2007) Finite volume and finite element methods in
CFD (Numerical Simulation of Compressible Flow). Charles
University, Prague. www.mat.univie.ac.at/~wk/feist_wien_text.pdf
19. Ozden E, Tari I (2010) Shell side CFD analysis of a small shell-and-
tube heat exchanger. Energy Convers Manag 51:1004–1014
20. Jain S, Joshi A, Bansal PK (2007) A new approach to numerical
simulation of small sized plate heat exchangers with chevron plates.
J Heat Transf 129:291–297
21. Sunden B (2007) Computational heat transfer in heat exchangers.
Heat Transfer Eng 28:895–897
22. Sunden B (2007) Computational fluid dynamics in research and
design of heat exchangers. Heat Transfer Eng 28:898–910
23. Han XH, Cui LQ, Chen SJ, Chen GM, Wang Q (2010) A numerical
and experimental study of chevron, corrugated-plate heat ex-
changers. Commun Heat & Mass Transfer 37:1008–1014
24. Aslam Bhutta MM, Hayat N, Bashir MH, Khan AR, Ahmad KN,
Khan S (2012) CFD applications in various heat exchangers design:
a review. Appl Therm Eng 32:1–12 ISSN:1359-4311
25. Stogiannis IA, Paras SV, Arsenyeva OP, Kapustenko PO (2013)
CFD modelling of hydrodynamics and heat transfer in channels
of a PHE. Chem Eng Trans 35
26. Skocilas J, Palaziuk I (2015) CFD simulation of the heat transfer
process in a chevron plate heat exchanger using the SST turbulence
model. Acta Polytech 55(4):267–274
27. Ikegami Y, Mutair S, Kawabata Y (2015) Experimental and numer-
ical investigations on plate-type heat exchanger performance. Open
J Fluid Dyn 5:92–98
28. Dilleswararao P, Nageswara Rao B (2017) CFD simulations and
validation through test data of a double pipe counter-flow heat
exchanger. Int J Mech Eng Technol (IJMET) 8(5):818–831
29. Cengel YA (2007) Heat and mass transfer. McGraw-Hill, New York
30. Incropera FP, Dewitt DP, Bergman TL, Lavine AS (2015)
Principles of heat and mass transfer, Seventh edn. Wiley India
Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
Heat Mass Transfer
31. Sahin B, Ust Y, Teke I, Erdem HH (2010) Performance analysis and
optimization of heat exchangers: a new thermoeconomic approach.
Appl Therm Eng 30:104–109
32. Asadi M, Khoshkhoo RH (2014) Effects of chevron angle on ther-
mal performance of corrugated plate heat exchanger. Int J Eng Pract
Res 3(1):8–12
33. Ranjit KR (1990) A primer on the Taguchi method. Society of
Manufacturing Engineers Dearborn, Michigan
34. Ross PJ (1989) Taguchi techniques for quality engineering.
McGraw-Hill, Singapore
35. Singaravelu J, Jeyakumar D, Nageswara Rao B (2009) Taguchi’s
approach for reliability and safety assessments of stage separation
process of a multistage launch vehicle. Reliab Eng Saf 94:1526–
1541
36. Singaravelu J, Jeyakumar D, Nageswara Rao B (2011) Reliability
and safety assessments of the satellite separation process of a typical
launch vehicle. J Defense Model Simul: Appl Methodol Technol 9:
369–382