Article

Thermal Characteristics of a Primary Surface Heat

Exchanger with Corrugated Channels
Jang-Won Seo 1 , Chanyong Cho 2 , Sangrae Lee 3 and Young-Don Choi 1, *
Received: 17 October 2015; Accepted: 23 December 2015; Published: 30 December 2015
Academic Editor: Kevin H. Knuth
1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea; versatile@korea.ac.kr
2 Research and Development Division, INNOWILL Corp., Daejeon 34037, Korea; cycho@innowill.com
3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 305-764,
Korea; srlee@innowill.com
* Correspondence: ydchoi@korea.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-2-3290-3355; Fax: +82-2-928-1607

Abstract: This paper presents the heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics of a primary surface
heat exchanger (PSHE) with corrugated surfaces. The PSHE was experimentally investigated for
a Reynolds number range of 156–921 under various flow conditions on the hot and cold sides.
The inlet temperature of the hot side was maintained at 40 ˝ C, while that of the cold side was
maintained at 20 ˝ C. A counterflow was used as it has a higher temperature proximity in comparison
with a parallel flow. The heat transfer rate and pressure drop were measured for various Reynolds
numbers on both the hot and cold sides of the PSHE, with the heat transfer coefficients for both sides
computed using a modified Wilson plot method. Based on the results of the experiment, both Nusselt
number and friction factor correlations were suggested for a PSHE with corrugated surfaces.

Keywords: primary surface heat exchanger (PSHE); corrugated surfaces; Nusselt number;
friction factor; correlation; counterflow; overall heat transfer coefficient (OHTC); heat transfer
coefficient (HTC)

1. Introduction
A primary surface heat exchanger (PSHE) was manufactured through compression processing of
a thin metal surface, resulting in the formation of a heat transfer plate with a corrugated surface.
Two such heat transfer plates were then stacked and their edges connected by laser welding.
This process produced a single cell and was then repeated in order to manufacture several cells,
the exact number of which is determined by the amount of heat transfer area required, which were then
stacked. The structural strength of this stack was ensured through the connection of end plates. Finally,
a header was connected to facilitate the flow of the system’s working fluid. The completed PSHE is
shown in Figure 1. This PSHE production method significantly reduces the weight and size of the
heat exchanger, ensuring greater economic efficiency than most other production methods. Moreover,
the manufacturing process has a high degree of reliability because of lower thermal resistance for the
PSHE and because the location of the welding joints, which join the two heat transfer plates that create
a cell, do not block channel flow. In addition, as this PSHE structure facilitates both heat exchange
across channels, resulting in an increased approach temperature, as well as direct heat exchange,
because the thickness of the heat transfer plates is very small at only 0.1 mm, an excellent heat transfer
structure can be achieved. Figure 2 shows the structure and fluid form of the heat transfer plates of the
PSHE. Because of these advantages, such a PSHE has applications in various fields, such as fuel cell
systems, in heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and in micro gas turbines.

Entropy 2016, 18, 15; doi:10.3390/e18010015 www.mdpi.com/journal/entropy

Entropy 2016, 18, 15 2 of 16
Entropy 2016, 18, 15
Entropy 2016, 18, 15

(A) (B)
(A) (B)
Figure 1. A primary surface heat exchanger (PSHE) manufactured through laser welding. (A)
Figure 1. A primary surface heat exchanger (PSHE) manufactured through laser welding. (A) Vertical
Vertical1.flow
Figure configuration,
A primary surfacewith
heat inlet and outlet
exchanger ports
(PSHE) perpendicular
manufactured to the laser
through flow welding.
direction (A)
(B)
flow configuration, with inlet and outlet ports perpendicular to the flow direction; (B) Parallel flow
Parallel flow
Vertical flowconfiguration with
configuration, inlet
with andand
inlet outlet portsports
outlet parallel to the flow direction.
perpendicular to the flow direction (B)
configuration with inlet and outlet ports parallel to the flow direction.
Parallel flow configuration with inlet and outlet ports parallel to the flow direction.

Figure 2. PSHE thermal plate flow pattern.

Figure 2. PSHE thermal plate flow pattern.
Among the previous studies Figure PSHE thermal
on2.PSHEs, Kim et al.plate flow pattern.
[1] performed a three-dimensional numerical
method
Among on athe recuperator for a gas
previous studies turbine Kim
on PSHEs, engine.
et al.In[1]this study, aa crossflow
performed was adopted,
three-dimensional and
numerical
suggestions
Among
method theawere
on previous provided
recuperator forfor
studies distributing
a on
gas PSHEs,
turbineKim the et
engine.temperature
al.In[1] equally
performed
this study, aand decreasing
three-dimensional
a crossflow the weight
was adopted, numerical
and
structurally
suggestions
method to
wereincrease
on a recuperator the
provided forcooling
for effects.
distributing
a gas turbine Intheaddition,
temperature
engine. the heat
In this transfer
equally
study, andarate and pressure
decreasing
crossflow the drop
weight
was adopted,
and suggestions were provided for distributing the temperature equally and decreasing the by
characteristics
structurally to of the
increase hydraulic
the diameter,
cooling aspect
effects. In ratios
addition, and channel
the heat gap variables
transfer rate were
and compared
pressure drop
weight
transforming them of theinto
characteristics
structurally to increase thedimensionless
hydraulic diameter,parameters.
cooling aspect ratiosMa
effects. In addition, andet channel
al. [2] numerically
the heat transfer analyzed
gap variables
and both
were compared
rate offset
pressure by
drop
bubble and offset-strip
transforming them intofin configurations.
dimensionless A crossflow
parameters. Mapattern was
et al. [2] employed for
numerically the offset
analyzed bothbubble,
offset
characteristics of the hydraulic diameter, aspect ratios and channel gap variables were compared
while the
bubble andoffset-strip
offset-stripfin fin distributed
configurations.flowAin the direction
crossflow patternofwas the employed
working fluid.
for theThe numerical
offset bubble,
by transforming
method,
while thewhich
them into
focused
offset-strip
dimensionless
finon a region flow
distributed
parameters.
of repeated
Ma etof
small channels,
in the direction
al.the
[2] using
numerically
workingsymmetric
analyzed
fluid. The
both offset
andnumerical
periodic
bubble and
method, offset-strip
boundarywhichconditions, fin
focused configurations.
employed a governing
on a region A crossflow
equation
of repeated pattern
smalland was
assumed
channels, employed
an incompressible
using for the
symmetric andfluid. offset bubble,
The
periodic
whileboundary
the offset-strip
results for conditions,fin distributed
both configurations
employed aflow
were in the and
analyzed
governing direction
compared
equation of the
and working
using
assumed thean fluid.
Nusselt The numerical
number
incompressible and method,
friction
fluid. The
which focused
factor.
results Ma eton
for both a[3]region
al.configurations
performedof repeated
a numerical
were small
analyzed channels,
analysis
and on theusing
compared local symmetric
usingheat
the flow of and
Nusselt anumberperiodic
cross-wavy boundary
PSHE.
and friction
Given that
factor.
conditions, Ma previous
et al. [3] a
employed studies
performed
governingmainly examined
a numerical
equation the effects
analysis
and on the
assumed of heat
local exchanger
heat flowtypes
an incompressible of a on convective
cross-wavy
fluid. heat for
ThePSHE.
results
Given that previous studies mainly
both configurations were analyzed and compared examined the effects of heat exchanger types on convective
2 of 17 using the Nusselt number and friction factor. heat
Ma et al. [3] performed a numerical analysis on2the local heat flow of a cross-wavy PSHE. Given that
of 17
previous studies mainly examined the effects of heat exchanger types on convective heat transfer,
Entropy 2016, 18, 15 3 of 16

they emphasized that the effects of longitudinal heat conduction in a small-scale channel, which was
ignored earlier, should be considered. The results of an isotropic heat transfer model and those of
an anisotropic transfer model were also compared in order to evaluate the analytic results, comparing
conditions, such as the effects of varying inlet temperatures and the temperature difference between
the hot side and cold side. Doo et al. [4] studied an engine intercooler by calculating the analytic area
where the channel-fin pitch was adjusted using the Navier–Stokes equation. Results were obtained
using the dimensionless Nusselt number, the Stanton number and the entropy generation rate.
Fsadni et al. [5] conducted a heat transfer experiment using helical coils in the nucleate boiling
region and examined the results. They estimated the bubble growth during nucleate boiling by
increasing heat flux, and a correlation was proposed based on the experimental results. Jeong et al. [6]
modeled the performance of fin-type and Louver-fin heat exchangers and proposed a heat exchanger
with an enhanced plate fin. In particular, friction factor and convergence grid tests were performed
to verify the grid reliability. Colburn j-factor and Fanning friction factor (f -factor), which are
dimensionless numbers, were used to determine the effective area factor, and the performance of
the proposed enhanced fin configuration was compared to existing fin configurations. Tang et al. [7]
performed experimental and numerical analyses on fin-type and tube-type heat exchangers, the
tube-type having a hydraulic diameter of 18 mm, with the performances of the vortex generators for
the two types of exchangers compared in terms of both heat transfer and pressure drop. The results
showed that the tube-type vortex generator had better heat performance than the slit fin-type vortex
generator when the flow length was extended and as the height decreased in the high flux region.
Pirompugd et al. [8] examined the heat and mass transfer performances of wavy fin-type and
tube-type heat exchangers. By analyzing the circular fin under three different conditions—high
humidity, average humidity and dry—it was found that the degree of inlet humidity had little effect on
the heat and mass transfer characteristics. A correlation was proposed by applying the dimensionless
Colburn j-factor and comparing the results for the three humidity conditions. Zhenyu et al. [9]
conducted a study on the design of primary surface recuperators for microturbines of varying fin
width and height. A correlation for the heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics to estimate heat
performance was proposed. Although these previous studies on PSHEs involved many numerical
analyses on micro gas turbines, recuperators and the efficiency of various configurations, the number
of experimental studies that can be practically applied to heat exchangers is insufficient. Moreover,
because only a few firms manufacture these special heat exchangers globally and because these are not
well-known firms, it is difficult to obtain the data of such studies. Unlike common commercial heat
exchangers, a PSHE consists of very thin heat transfer plates. Thus, studies on PSHE manufacturing
methods, as well as numerical analyses of relevant heat transfer characteristics, are being performed to
enhance welding methods, as well as to increase structural strength and heat performance.
In this study, a PSHE was manufactured and an experiment performed that investigated the
effects of Reynolds number on heat performance, by examining the heat transfer and pressure drop
characteristics. As this study offers a rare experimental analysis of a manufactured PSHE, the data from
this study are expected to be used as basic design and comparison data for researchers performing
similar studies on, or numerical analyses of, PSHEs. In this paper, the scope of all experimental results
is described in detail and a heat-transfer coefficient and a friction-factor correlation are proposed.
Entropy 2016, 18, 15 4 of 16

2. Experimental Setup and Data

2.1. PSHE
Stainless
Entropy Steel (STS) 316L was used as the material for the heat transfer plate with a total of
2016, 18, 15
eight heat transfer plates manufactured through compression processing. Two plates were joined to
internal
form pressure
a cell with a and
total structural
of four cells strength,
created end that plates
were then werestacked
connecteduponateach bothother.
ends To of increase
the stacked
the
heat transfer
internal pressure plates. After stacking
and structural the end
strength, heatplates
transferwereplates, a bond
connected at bothwasends created
of thethrough
stacked laser
heat
welding plates.
transfer of the outer
After edge using
stacking theaheat
thin transfer
sheet ofplates,
the same material.
a bond This resulted
was created through in laser
a PSHE with 18
welding of
channels, four cells and eight plates, with this structure allowing for the
the outer edge using a thin sheet of the same material. This resulted in a PSHE with 18 channels, four necessary steady-state and
constant
cells inlet plates,
and eight temperature
with this condition requiredforby
structure allowing this study.
the necessary Two such
steady-state and PSHEsconstant were
inlet
manufactured—one
temperature condition to required
confirm by manufacturing
this study. Two conditions
such PSHEs and were
one for experimental use—with
manufactured—one to confirmthe
detailed specification
manufacturing conditionsof these
andPSHEs
one forpresented
experimental in Figure 3A andthe
use—with Table 1. The
detailed manner of stacking
specification of these
the cellspresented
PSHEs is shownininFigureFigure3A 3B,and
andTable
the PSHE
1. Theusedmanner in the experiment
of stacking is shown
the cells is shownin Figure 4A; the
in Figure 3B,
PSHE
and thebefore
PSHEand usedafter
in thetheexperiment
installationisof a pressure
shown in Figure gauge
4A;and differential
the PSHE beforepressure
and aftergauge is shown
the installation
in aFigure
of pressure 4A,B,
gaugerespectively.
and differentialTo confirm
pressurethe gauge shape of thein internal
is shown Figure 4A,B,channels and the
respectively. Tobonding
confirm
condition
the shape of of the
theinternal
heat transfer
channelsplates,
and the one of thecondition
bonding manufactured PSHEs
of the heat was plates,
transfer cut in one half.of The
the
cross-section of one half of the cut PSHE and a photograph of the heat
manufactured PSHEs was cut in half. The cross-section of one half of the cut PSHE and a photograph transfer plate are shown in
Figure
of 5A,B.
the heat Figureplate
transfer 5B indicates
are shown thatinthe bonding
Figure 5A,B.condition
Figure 5Bofindicates
the heatthattransfer plates was
the bonding excellent.
condition of
From
the heatthis cut PSHE,
transfer platesthe wasinlet area (AFrom
excellent. c) and thecut
this effective
PSHE, theheatinlet
transfer
area (A area
c ) (A
and s )
theof the rounded
effective heat
channelsarea
transfer were(As )calculated.
of the rounded With regardwere
channels to the fluid flow,
calculated. a counterflow,
With regard to the fluidwhichflow, a facilitates
counterflow, a
high-temperature
which facilitates a approach,
high-temperaturewas applied in this
approach, was experiment,
applied inwith the corrugated
this experiment, with channels mixing
the corrugated
the fluid flow
channels mixing from
theside
fluidtoflow
sidefrom
in theside
direction
to sideof inthe
theworking
directionfluid’s
of the movement.
working fluid’s movement.

(A)
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Cont.
Cont.
Entropy 2016, 18, 15 5 of 16
Entropy 2016, 18, 15

Entropy 2016, 18, 15

(B)
(B)
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Schematic
Schematic geometry of corrugated
geometry of corrugated surfaces
surfaces (A);
(A) and
and stacked
stacked layers
layers (B).
(B).
Figure 3. Schematic geometry of corrugated surfaces (A) and stacked layers (B).

(A) (B)
(A) (B)
Figure 4. The PSHE used in the experiment (A) and installed sensors (B).
Figure 4. The
Figure 4. The PSHE
PSHE used
used in
in the
the experiment
experiment (A); and installed
(A) and installed sensors
sensors (B).
(B).

(A) (B)
Figure 5. Cont.
(A) (B)

Figure
Figure 5.
5. Cont.
Cont.

5 of 17

5 of 17
Entropy 2016, 18, 15 6 of 16
Entropy 2016, 18, 15

(C)
Figure 5.
Figure 5. The
The metal
metal heat
heat transfer
transfer plate
plate (A);
(A) and
and cross-sectional
cross-sectional view
view of
of the
the PSHE
PSHE (B,C).
(B,C).

Table 1. Specifications
Table 1. Specifications of
of the
the primary
primary surface
surface heat
heat exchanger
exchanger (PSHE).
(PSHE).

Metal Plate Material STS 316L

Metal Plate Material STS 316L
Dimensions of PSHE (W × L × H), mm 55 × 156 × 29
Dimensions of PSHE (W ˆ L ˆ H), mm 55 ˆ 156 ˆ 29
Dimensions
Dimensions ofofhot
hot channel
channel (W(Wˆ L׈LH),
× H),
mmmm 1.31.3ˆ×9.53
9.53ˆ×1.02
1.02
Dimensions of cold channel (W × L × H),
Dimensions of cold channel (W ˆ L ˆ H), mm mm 1.3 × 9.53 × 0.51
1.3 ˆ 9.53 ˆ 0.51
Channel
Channelheight, mm
height, mm 66
Number of plates 8
Number of plates 8
Number of cells 4
Number
Number of cells
of channels 184
EndNumber of channels
plate thickness, mm 2.518
End plate thickness, mm 2.5
2.2. Experimental Equipment
2.2. Experimental Equipment
The complete experimental setup is shown in Figure 6A. Figure 6B shows a schematic of the
The complete
experimental system experimental setup of
and the location is shown in Figure 6A.sensor.
each measurement FigureThe 6B shows a schematic
experimental of the
equipment
experimental system and the location of each measurement sensor. The
consists of two sections—one circulating the hot fluid and the other circulating the cold fluid—and the experimental equipment
consistswhich
PSHE, of two sections—one
exchanges circulating
heat between thethe
hothotandfluid
coldand theThermostatic
fluids. other circulating baths the cold
and fluid—and
water pumps
the PSHE, which exchanges heat between the hot and cold fluids.
were installed in each section in order to maintain a constant inlet temperature and flow rate Thermostatic baths and forwater
both
pumps
the werecold
hot and installed
fluids.inToeach
removesection
anyin ordermatter
foreign to maintain
in the afluid,
constant inlet
a filter wastemperature
installed at the andinlets
flow
rate
of for water
each both the hot and
pump. cold fluids. To pressure
A thermocouple, remove any foreign
gauge, matter in
differential the fluid,
pressure a filter
gauge and was installed
volumetric
at the inlets of each water pump. A thermocouple, pressure gauge, differential
flow meter were also installed to measure the temperature, pressure and flow rate of the working pressure gauge and
fluid for the experiment. Before performing the experiment, the experiment system was operated the
volumetric flow meter were also installed to measure the temperature, pressure and flow rate of for
working fluid for the experiment. Before performing the experiment,
a minimum of 30 min to ensure that the appropriate inlet temperatures—40 C for the hot side and the experiment
˝ system was
operated
20 for acold
˝ C for the minimum
side—were of 30reached.
min to ensure
Duringthatthisthe appropriate
time, any bubbles inlet temperatures—40
generated from the flow °C for the
of the
hot side and 20 °C for the cold side—were reached. During this time,
working fluid were removed. When the measured inlet and outlet temperatures of the PSHE were any bubbles generated from
the flow of
different by the working
no more thanfluid
0.5 ˝were
C, when removed.
the flowWhenratesthe measured
of the hot andinletcoldandsidesoutlet
weretemperatures
different by no of
the PSHE were different by no more than 0.5 °C, when the flow rates of the
more than 5%, when the heat balance, calculated based on the inlet and outlet temperatures of the hot hot and cold sides were
different
and by noofmore
cold sides, than
the hot and5%,coldwhen
sidesthe heat balance,
differed by less thancalculated
10% and based
after on the inletthe
confirming and outlet
absence
of leaks, a steady-state was considered to have been attained. When this steady-state conditionafter
temperatures of the hot and cold sides, of the hot and cold sides differed by less than 10% and was
confirming
reached, datathewere
absence of leaks,
collected a steady-state
at five-second was considered
intervals for 5 min. The to have been attained.
following data wereWhen this
obtained:
steady-state
inlet condition
and outlet was reached,
temperatures at the hot data
andwere collected
cold sides, at five-second
pressure, differential intervals
pressurefor 5 end
and min.plate
The
following data were
temperatures of the PSHE. obtained: inlet and outlet temperatures at the hot and cold sides, pressure,
differential pressure and end plate temperatures of the PSHE.

6 of 17
Entropy 2016, 18, 15 7 of 16
Entropy 2016, 18, 15

(A)

(B)
Figure 6.
Figure 6. PSHE
PSHE experimental
experimental apparatus.
apparatus. (A)
(A) Photograph
Photograph of experimental apparatus;
of experimental apparatus; (B)
(B) schematic
schematic
diagram of
diagram of the
the experimental
experimental apparatus.
apparatus.

2.3. Experimental
2.3. Experimental Conditions
Conditions and Results Analysis
and Results Analysis
Water was
Water was used
used as as the
the hot
hotand
andcold
coldfluid
fluidininthis
thisexperiment,
experiment,with
withthe inlet
the temperature
inlet temperature kept at
kept
40 °C˝ for the hot-side fluid and 20 °C
˝ for the cold-side fluid. The inflow rate
at 40 C for the hot-side fluid and 20 C for the cold-side fluid. The inflow rate was measured by was measured by
increasing the
increasing hot-side flow
the hot-side flow rate
rate while
while maintaining
maintaining the the same
same volumetric
volumetric flow
flow conditions
conditions and
and the
the
cold-side flow rate. Based on the measured results, the volumetric flow rate ranged
cold-side flow rate. Based on the measured results, the volumetric flow rate ranged between 3 and between 3 and
17 L/min,
17 L/min, andand the
the Reynolds
Reynolds number
number ranged between 156
ranged between 156 and
and 921.
921. The hydraulic diameter
The hydraulic diameter was
was
calculated using
calculated using aa method
method proposed
proposed by by Cowell
Cowell [10],
[10], and
and the
the Reynolds
Reynolds number
number was was calculated
calculated using
using
Equations (1) and
Equations (1) and (2).(2).
4 c
4A 4 cLf
4A
Dh “= =
“ (1)
(1)
P As
.
GDh m Dh
Re
Re h “= =
“ (2)
(2)
µ µ Ac
Acc is
is the free flow area; As is the total heat transfer area; and
and LLf isis the
the length
length of a channel in the
flow direction. At both ends, the total free flow area was 696 mm 22 ; the total heat transfer area was
mm
187,060 mm22; and Lff was
was104.8
104.8mm.
mm.
The heat transfer rates for the hot and cold sides were
were derived
derived using
using Equations
Equations (3)
(3) and
and (4).
(4).
= m. C , `T , −
Qh “ ,
˘ (3)
h p,h h,i ´ Th,o (3)
=. , ` , − , ˘ (4)
Qc “ mc C p,c Tc,o ´ Tc,i (4)

7 of 17
Entropy 2016, 18, 15 8 of 16

The overall heat transfer coefficient and heat transfer performance were obtained using
Equations (7) and (8), and the log mean temperature difference (LMTD) was determined by
Equation (5). #
pT1 ´ T2 q T1 “ Th,i ´ Tc,o
TLMTD “ (5)
ln pT1 {T2 q T2 “ Th,o ´ Tc,i

Qh ` Qc
Qm “ (6)
2
Qm
U“ (7)
As TLMTD
Qm
UA “ (8)
TLMTD
Generally, the overall heat transfer coefficient is represented by the sum of heat resistance,
as shown in Equation (9).
1 1 t 1
“ ` ` (9)
UA phAqh kAm phAqc
Here, t, k and Am denote the distance between the channels of the hot and cold sides, the heat
conductivity of the heat transfer plate and the mean heat transfer area of hot and cold sides, respectively.
The hot and cold side heat balance of the PSHE was calculated using Equation (10), and only the results
that were within the 5% error range of heat quantity in the entire experiment were used.

|Qh ´ Qc |
Qloss p%q “ (10)
Qh

To evaluate the characteristics of the pressure drop of the PSHE, the f -factor was derived as shown
in Equation (11).
2ρi P
ˇ ` ˘ ˇ
ˇ
´ K ` 1 ´ σ 2 ˇ
ˇ `. ˘2 c ˇ
Ac ρm ˇˇ m{A c
ˇ
f “ ˆ ˙ ˇ (11)
A s ρi ˇ
ˇ ρi ` 2
˘ ρi ˇˇ
ˇ ´2 ´ 1 ` 1 ´ σ ´ K e
ρo o ρ ˇ
In Equation (11), σ is the contraction coefficient; the ratio of minimum free-flow area to the inlet
and outlet port area. Kc and Ke are the contraction-loss coefficient and expansion-loss coefficient,
respectively, and are calculated using a graph proposed by Kays and London [11] and Shen at al. [12].
The effects of gravity, generated by the difference in the amount of pressure drop and height owing to
the fluid density at the inlet and outlet, were ignored.

2.4. Uncertainty
The experimental uncertainty of the PSHE was evaluated using ASME PTC 19.1 [13] and NIST
Technical Note 1297 [14]. The uncertainty consists of the bias error and precision error, as shown
in Equation (12). The uncertainty of a computational variable generated by error propagation was
evaluated by Equation (13). d
ˆ ˙2 ˆ
S 2
˙
B
Π“2 ` ? (12)
2 N
g
f n ˆ ˙2
fÿ Bp
Πp “ e usi (13)
BSi
i “1

Π is the total uncertainty; B is the bias error; S is the standard deviation; N is the number of
measurements; and p is the computational variable. The details of the results of uncertainty analysis
for this experiment are presented in Table 2.
 Π is the total uncertainty; B is the bias error; S is the standard deviation; N is the number of
measurements; and p is the computational variable. The details of the results of uncertainty analysis
for this experiment are presented in Table 2.

Entropy 2016, 18, 15 Table 2. Parameters and estimated uncertainty. 9 of 16

Parameters Uncertainty (%)

2. Parameters T
Temperature,
Table and estimated uncertainty.
0.31
Pressure drop, ΔP 0.94
Flow rate Parameters
of hot side, Uncertainty
0.64 (%)
Flow rate of cold side,
Temperature, T 0.78
0.31
Averaged Pressure drop, ∆Prate, Qm
heat transfer 0.94
1.19
.
Flow rate of hot side, mh 0.64
Reynolds number of hot .side 3.13
Flow rate of cold side, mc 0.78
Reynolds number of cold
Averaged heat transfer rate, Qm side 3.29
1.19
Heat Reynolds
transfer coefficient
number of hotof hot
sideside 7.36
3.13
Heat Reynolds number of cold
transfer coefficient sideside
of cold 3.29
7.31
Heat transfer coefficient
Friction factor, off hot side 7.36
5.2
Heat transfer coefficient of cold side 7.31
Friction factor, f 5.2
3. Experimental Results and Discussion
3. Experimental Results and Discussion
3.1. Heat Transfer Characteristics
3.1. Heat Transfer Characteristics
The characteristics of heat transfer according to an increase in the Reynolds number were
The characteristics
examined by fixing the of heat
inlet transfer according
temperature of the hotto an
sideincrease
at 40 °C in and
the Reynolds
the cold sidenumberat 20were
°C.
examined by fixing the inlet temperature of the hot side at 40 ˝ C and the cold side at 20 ˝ C. Figure 7A
Figure 7A shows the thermal equilibrium of the hot and cold sections. The error of thermal
shows the thermal
equilibrium equilibrium
was within ±3%, andof the
the hot and cold
reliability of sections. The errorapparatus
the experimental of thermaland equilibrium
measurement was
within ˘3%,
equipment wasand the reliability
determined to beof the experimental
excellent. Figure 7B apparatus and measurement
shows a comparison of the mean equipment was
heat transfer
determined to be excellent. Figure 7B shows a comparison of the mean heat transfer
between two cases: one in which the Reynolds number at both sides increased constantly and one between two cases:
onewhich
in in which
the the Reynolds
Reynolds number
number at both
of the hot sides increased while
side increased constantly and side
the cold one inhadwhich the Reynolds
a fixed
number of
number. the figure
This hot side increased
also shows thatwhile the transfer
heat cold sideincreases
had a fixed Reynolds
as the number.
Reynolds number Thisoffigure also
the fixed
cold section increases or as the Reynolds number of both sides increases. This increase is due to the
shows that heat transfer increases as the Reynolds number of the fixed cold section increases or as
Reynolds
typical number of both
characteristics sides increases.
of thermal performanceThis where
increase is heat
the due to the typical
transfer characteristics
rate increases as theofflow
thermal
rate
performance where the heat transfer rate increases as the flow rate increases. As the
increases. As the Reynolds number of the cold side increased by 100, the heat transfer rate increased Reynolds number
of the
by cold side increased
approximately by 100, the heat transfer rate increased by approximately 8% on average.
8% on average.

(A) (B)
Figure
Figure 7.
7. Heat
Heat balance
balance and
and average
average heat
heat transfer
transfer rate:
rate: (A)
(A) heat balance between
heat balance between hot
hot and
and cold
cold sides;
sides
(B) and cold side fixed Re conditions for the hot side increases.
(B) and cold side fixed Re conditions for the hot side increases.

In Figure 8A, the overall heat transfer coefficient U is shown, and in Figure 8B, the heat
In Figure 8A, the overall heat transfer coefficient U is shown, and in Figure 8B, the heat transfer
transfer performance UA is shown. These figures show the results of the case when the Reynolds
performance UA is shown. These figures show the results of the case when the Reynolds numbers
of the hot and cold sections are the same and 9the case when the Reynolds number of the hot side
of 17
increased while that of the cold side was fixed between 200 and 600. It was found that as the Reynolds
numbers of the hot and cold sides increased, the overall heat transfer coefficient and heat transfer
performance tended to increase. This is a result of the heat transfer rate increasing as the temperature
Entropy 2016, 18, 15

numbers of the hot and cold sections are the same and the case when the Reynolds number of the
hot side increased while that of the cold side was fixed between 200 and 600. It was found that
Entropy 2016, 18, 15
as
10 of 16
the Reynolds numbers of the hot and cold sides increased, the overall heat transfer coefficient and
heat transfer performance tended to increase. This is a result of the heat transfer rate increasing as
difference
the betweendifference
temperature the inlet and outlet decreased.
between the inlet The andoverall
outlet heat transfer coefficient
decreased. The overall andheatheat transfer
transfer
performance are represented as the ratio of the average heat transfer rate and
coefficient and heat transfer performance are represented as the ratio of the average heat transfer log mean temperature
difference,
rate and log calculated from the difference
mean temperature between
difference, the inlet
calculated from andtheoutlet temperatures,
difference betweeninthe regard
inlettoandan
increasing
outlet Reynolds number.
temperatures, in regard Namely,
to anthe log mean Reynolds
increasing temperature difference
number. has significant
Namely, the log effects
mean
on the results.difference
temperature Moreover, it was
has found that
significant effectstheon heat
thetransfer
results.performance
Moreover, itwas wasmore
foundrapid
thatwhen the
the heat
Reynoldsperformance
transfer numbers of was bothmore
sides rapid
increased
when equally than when
the Reynolds the Reynolds
numbers of both number of the cold
sides increased side
equally
was fixed. This faster increase is because the flow rates of the hot and cold
than when the Reynolds number of the cold side was fixed. This faster increase is because the flow sides increased at the
same of
rates time.
the Thus,
hot and this result
cold indicates
sides increasedthatatantheincrease in theThus,
same time. flow rates of both
this result sides leads
indicates that to
anhigh heat
increase
transfer
in the flowperformance.
rates of both sides leads to high heat transfer performance.

(A) (B)
Figure 8. Influence
Figure 8. InfluenceofofReynolds
Reynolds number.
number. (A) (A) Overall
Overall heat transfer
heat transfer coefficient
coefficient (U) vs. Reynolds
(U) vs. Reynolds number;
number; (B) heat transfer performance (UA) vs. Reynolds
(B) heat transfer performance (UA) vs. Reynolds number. number.

In general, the heat transfer coefficient correlation in a single phase is commonly known to
In general, the heat transfer coefficient correlation in a single phase is commonly known to have
have the form of the Sieder–Tate Equation (14).
the form of the Sieder–Tate Equation (14).
ℎ .
=ˆ ˙ = ∙ Re ∙ Pr / ˆ ˙0.14 (14)
hDh n 1{3 µ
Nu “ “ C¨ Re ¨ Pr (14)
k µw
where C is a constant; n is the Reynolds exponent; and µw is the average wall temperature of the
end
whereplates.
C is aToconstant;
obtain the heat
n is thetransfer
Reynolds coefficient
exponent;of and
the hot
µw and
is thecold sides,wall
average a modified Wilson
temperature ofplot
the
method [15–17]
end plates. was used.
To obtain Thetransfer
the heat balance coefficient
between the heathot
of the resistance
and coldand heata transfer
sides, modifiedcoefficient
Wilson plotof
the hot and cold sections is shown in Equation (15) and is represented using the Reynolds
method [15–17] was used. The balance between the heat resistance and heat transfer coefficient of the number
and Prandtl
hot and coldnumber
sectionswith the power-law
is shown in Equation form.
(15) and is represented using the Reynolds number and
Prandtl number with the power-law 1 1form. .
= − Re Pr /
„ ˆ ˙ « ˆ ˙0.14 ff
1 1 k µ (15)
Y“ ´/ . Ren Pr1{3 / .A
= Re Pr
U A kA m D h Re Pr w µ
h
« ˆ ˙0.14 ff « ˆ ˙0.14 ff´1 (15)
k n 1{3 µ k n 1{3 µ
where Ch , Cc and X“ Re were Re Pr A Re Prlinear-regression A analysis [18].
Dh calculatedµwby iterative multiple
Dh µw
h c
The result of the cold-side heat transfer experiment is shown in the modified Wilson plot in
where C9.1 h1A
Figure 1 1 and Re were
, Ccorrelation
c of the cold-side
calculated byconvective heat transfer
iterative multiple coefficientanalysis
linear-regression within [18].
the Reynolds
number range used is as shown in Equation (16).
The result of the cold-side heat transfer experiment is shown in the modified Wilson plot in
Figure 9. A correlation of the cold-side convective heat transfer coefficient within the Reynolds number
ℎ = 0.0848Re . Pr / ( / ) . ( / ) (16)
range used is as shown in Equation (16).

hc “ 0.0848Re0.6547
c Pr1{3 pµ{µw q0.14
c pk{Dh qc
10 of 17 (16)
128 ă Rec ă 622
Entropy
Entropy 2016, 18, 15
2016, 18, 15 11 of 16

Entropy 2016, 18, 15

128 < Re < 622
By using the proposed correlation of the cold-side heat transfer coefficient, the hot-side heat
By using the proposed correlation of128 < the
the<cold-side
Re of 622heat transfer coefficient, the hot-side heat
transfer coefficient could be obtained. The correlation hot-side convective heat transfer coefficient
transfer coefficient could be obtained. The correlation of the hot-side convective heat transfer
is shown in Equation
By using (17). correlation of the cold-side heat transfer coefficient, the hot-side heat
the proposed
coefficient is shown in Equation (17).
transfer coefficient could be obtained. The correlation of the hot-side convective heat transfer
0.6547 1{/3 0.14
ℎ
coefficient is shown in Equation =
hh “ 0.1248Reh . Pr
0.1248Re
(17). ( / w q)h . pk{D
Pr pµ{µ ( / h q)h
(17)
156. ă Reh/ă 921 . (17)
ℎ = 0.1248Re Pr (
156 < Re < 921 / ) ( / )
(17)
156 < Re < 921

Figure 9. Typical
Figure 9. modified
Typical Wilson plot
modified results
Wilson for results
plot the calibration
for theofcalibration
the cold-sideofheat
thetransfer coefficient.
cold-side heat
transfer coefficient.
Figure 9. Typical modified Wilson plot results for the calibration of the cold-side heat transfer coefficient.
Figure 10A shows that the error range is within 10% when the hot-side convective heat transfer
coefficient obtained through the experiment is compared to the value obtained using Equation (17).
Figure 10A shows that the error range is within 10% when the hot-side convective heat transfer
coefficient obtained through the experiment is compared to the
the value
value obtained
obtained using
using Equation
Equation (17).
(17).

(A) (B)
Figure 10. Comparisons (A) between suggested correlations and experimental (B) data for hot-side heat
transfer coefficients. (A) Heat transfer coefficient; (B) Nusselt number.
Figure
Figure 10.
10. Comparisons
Comparisons between
between suggested
suggested correlations
correlations and
and experimental
experimental data
data for
for hot-side
hot-side heat
heat
transfer coefficients.
transfer10B
coefficients. (A) Heat transfer
(A) results
Heat transfer coefficient;
coefficient; (B) Nusselt number.
(B)difference
Nusselt number.
Figure shows the of comparing the between the proposed correlation and
the Nusselt number, a non-dimensional form, by using the calculated convective heat transfer
Figure 10B shows the results of comparing the difference between the proposed correlation and
coefficient. When these results are represented as a new correlation, it can be expressed as
the Nusselt number, a non-dimensional form, by using the calculated convective heat transfer
Equation (18).
coefficient. When these results are represented as a new correlation, it can be expressed as
Equation (18). = 0.1248Re . Pr / ( / ) . (18)
. / ( / ) .
= 0.1248Re Pr (18)
11 of 17

11 of 17
Entropy 2016, 18, 15 12 of 16

Figure 10B shows the results of comparing the difference between the proposed correlation and the
Nusselt number, a non-dimensional form, by using the calculated convective heat transfer coefficient.
When these results are represented as a new correlation, it can be expressed as Equation (18).

Entropy 2016, 18, 15 Nu “ 0.1248Re0.6547 Pr1{3 pµ{µw q0.14 (18)

The error range

The rangeofofthe
thecorrelation
correlationof of
thetheheat transfer
heat coefficient
transfer in this
coefficient in experiment is within
this experiment is within
˘10%,
and the range of the Reynolds number is between 156
±10%, and the range of the Reynolds number is between 156 and 921. and 921.
Figure 11A,B
Figure 11A,B shows
shows the the result
result of
of comparing
comparing the the experimental
experimental results
results with
with the
the correlations
correlations of
of
Oyakawa, Shinzato
Oyakawa, Shinzato andand Mabuchi
Mabuchi and and Kays
Kays andand London
London [19],
[19], which,
which, in in terms
terms ofof Reynolds
Reynolds number
number
ranges and
ranges and channel
channel shape,
shape, are
are the
the most
most similar
similar to
to the
the correlation
correlation proposed
proposed in in this
this study.
study. The
The Kays
Kays
and London
and Londoncorrelation
correlationshows
showsaadifference
differenceofof14.7%
14.7%on onaverage,
average,andandthat Oyakawaetetal.al.shows
thatofofOyakawa shows a
a difference of 33% from the present results for the PSHE used in this study.
difference of 33% from the present results for the PSHE used in this study. The Sieder and Tate [20] The Sieder and
Tate [20] correlation,
correlation, which is which is well acknowledged
well acknowledged as a fully-developed
as a fully-developed turbulent turbulent correlation,
correlation, and theand the
Dittus
Dittus
and and Boelter
Boelter [21] correlation
[21] correlation had a difference
had a difference of 46%ofon46% on average
average in the in the smooth
smooth duct condition.
duct condition. This
This phenomenon
phenomenon is often
is often observed
observed in laminar
in laminar flow, showing
flow, showing that
that the the changes
changes in the in the channel
channel of the of the
main
mainand
flow flowtube
andhave
tubeahave
greata effect
great effect
on theon the convective
convective heat transfer
heat transfer coefficient.
coefficient.

(A) (B)
Figure
Figure 11.
11. Comparison
Comparison between
between suggested
suggested correlation
correlation and
and previous
previous correlations.
correlations. (A)
(A) Heat
Heat transfer
transfer
coefficient; (B) Nusselt number.
coefficient; (B) Nusselt number.

3.2.
3.2. Pressure
Pressure Drop
Drop Characteristics
Characteristics
Figure 12A shows
Figure 12A shows the thepressure
pressuredrop
dropresults
resultsforfor
thethe
casecase in which
in which the Reynolds
the Reynolds numbers
numbers of
of both
both
sidessides increased
increased identically
identically andthe
and for forcase
the in
case in which
which the hot-side
the hot-side flowrate
flowrate was increased
was increased after
after fixing
fixing the cold-side Reynolds number between 200 and 600. In this figure,
the cold-side Reynolds number between 200 and 600. In this figure, the pressure drop increased the pressure drop
increased exponentially
exponentially with an increasing
with an increasing ReynoldsReynolds
number.number. The Reynolds
The Reynolds numbernumber was evaluated
was evaluated by the
by the effects
effects of viscosity
of viscosity accordingaccording to the
to the mass mass
flow flow
of the of the working
working fluid oftemperatures.
fluid of varying varying temperatures.
When the
When the inlet temperature
inlet temperature is low, theis resistance
low, the resistance of the working
of the working fluid increases
fluid increases in the channel,
in the channel, and asand
the
as the Reynolds number increases, the pressure drop increases significantly.
Reynolds number increases, the pressure drop increases significantly. As the cold-side Reynolds As the cold-side
Reynolds number by
number increased increased
100, the by 100, the
hot-side hot-side
pressure drop pressure
tended todrop tended
increase by to increase by
1.2%–2.5%. This1.2%–2.5%.
increase is
This increase is because the hot-side working fluid’s viscosity increases in accordance
because the hot-side working fluid’s viscosity increases in accordance with an increase in the Reynolds with an
increase
number in of the
the Reynolds
cold-side. number of the cold-side.
3.2. Pressure Drop Characteristics
Figure 12A shows increases in the channel, and as the Reynolds number increases, the pressure
drop increases significantly. As the cold-side Reynolds number increased by 100, the hot-side
pressure
Entropy 2016,drop
18, 15 tended to increase by 1.2%–2.5%. This increase is because the hot-side working
13 of 16
fluid’s viscosity increases in accordance with an increase in the Reynolds number of the cold-side.

Entropy 2016, 18, 15

(A) (B)

Figure 12.
Figure 12. Pressure
Pressure drop
drop and
and friction
friction factor:
factor: (A)
(A) pressure
pressure drop vs. Reynolds
drop vs. Reynolds number
number in
in all
all of the
of the
experiments; (B) friction factor vs. Reynolds number.
experiments; (B) friction factor vs. Reynolds number.

Figure 12B shows a dimensionless friction factor according to the Reynolds number using
Figure 12B shows a dimensionless friction factor according to the Reynolds number using
Equation (11). In this figure, the subscript N refers to the number of stacked cells, and the
Equation (11). In this figure, the subscript N refers to the number of stacked cells, and the correlation
correlation of the friction factor is represented as a function of the Reynolds number, as shown in
of the friction factor is represented as a function of the Reynolds number, as shown in Equation (19).
Equation (19).
fN = 0.3424Re´0.2605
“ 0.3424Re .. , 156 < Re ă
156 ă < 921
921 (19)
(19)
The Reynolds number exponent was obtained using the least squares method. The correlation
The Reynolds number exponent was obtained using the least squares method. The correlation and
and experimental
experimental resultresult show
show an anoferror
error ˘7%,ofand
±7%,
the and the application
application range of numbers
range of Reynolds Reynoldsisnumbers
156–921.
is 156–921.
Figure 13 compares the friction factor previously proposed and the Colburn j-factor. The Colburn
Figure 13 compares the friction factor previously proposed and the Colburn j-factor. The
j-factor of the PSHE is expressed as shown in Equation (20).
Colburn j-factor of the PSHE is expressed as shown12 of 17
in Equation (20).
j= 0.1189Re´0.3382
“ 0.1189Re . ,, 156 < Re ă
156 ă < 921
921 (20)
(20)

13. Comparison
Figure 13. Comparison of friction factor
factor (f(f-factor) Colburn j-factor
-factor) and Colburn j-factor correlations
correlations vs.
vs. Reynolds
number experimental data for the PSHE.

The proposed
The proposedcorrelation
correlationwas
was compared
compared to the
to the hydraulic
hydraulic diameter,
diameter, the Reynolds
the Reynolds numbernumber
range
range and the existing correlations suggested for similar types of channels. When the proposed
and the existing correlations suggested for similar types of channels. When the proposed correlation
correlation was compared to the Kays and London corrugated surfaces correlation, which
considered a Reynolds number range of 400–3000, there was a difference of approximately 12.3%
from the f-factor and 15.3% from the j-factor on average. Oyakawa et al. utilized a Reynolds number
range between 600 and 3000, with the proposed wavy fin-type correlation differing from theirs in
terms of the f-factor and j-factor by approximately 38.8% and 34.3%, respectively. The results were
Entropy 2016, 18, 15 14 of 16

was compared to the Kays and London corrugated surfaces correlation, which considered a Reynolds
number range of 400–3000, there was a difference of approximately 12.3% from the f -factor and 15.3%
from the j-factor on average. Oyakawa et al. utilized a Reynolds number range between 600 and 3000,
with the proposed wavy fin-type correlation differing from theirs in terms of the f -factor and j-factor
by approximately 38.8% and 34.3%, respectively. The results were similar to those from the offset strip
fin-type correlation by Kays and London. The various studies by Hatada and Senshu for different
angles of the convex Louvre fin gave higher results than those for the other fin types. Compared to
the results of the correlations resulting from our experiment, the f -factor showed a difference of 43%,
and the j-factor showed a difference of 53%.
Table 3 lists the dimensionless parameters and experimental data obtained for the hot side when
the Reynolds numbers of both sides were identical.

Table 3. PSHE Experimental data values.

Parameters Value
.
Mass flow rate, mh (g/min) 3871 4884 5762 6693 7623 8608 9516 10,408 11,375
Mass flux, G (kg/m2 ¨s) 93 117 138 160 183 206 228 249 272
LMTD, (K) 9.9 10.5 10.8 11.0 11.1 11.3 11.5 11.6 11.5
Pressure drop, ∆P (kPa) 0.36 0.54 0.76 0.97 1.24 1.46 1.84 2.07 2.40
Heat transfer rate, Q (W) 2953 3631 4182 4763 5349 5956 6498 6994 7409
OHTC, U (W/m2 ¨K) 1595 1845 2073 2308 2557 2790 2998 3196 3404
UA (W/K) 298 345 388 432 478 522 561 598 637
Reynolds number, Reh = Rec 201 254 301 350 400 453 501 550 604
Prandtl number 4.86 4.83 4.82 4.81 4.80 4.78 4.77 4.76 4.73
HTC, h (W/m2 ¨K) 2692 3141 3503 3865 4212 4562 4871 5170 5488
Nusselt number 6.78 7.91 8.81 9.72 10.59 11.47 12.24 12.99 13.78
Friction factor, f 0.0861 0.0809 0.0774 0.0744 0.0719 0.0696 0.0678 0.0662 0.0646
Colburn j-factor, j 0.0198 0.0183 0.0173 0.0164 0.0157 0.0150 0.0145 0.0141 0.0136

4. Conclusions
In this study, an experiment was performed on the characteristics of heat transfer and pressure
drop with changes in the Reynolds numbers of the hot and cold sides of a PSHE. The study proposes
a heat transfer coefficient and dimensionless correlation based on the experiment results. It also
compares the proposed correlation with existing correlations that are the most similar to the correlation
of this study in terms of Reynolds number range and channel shape.

(1) The average heat transfer rate increased as the flowrate increased because of an increase in the
Reynolds number of the hot and cold sides.
(2) Although the drop in pressure on the hot side increased with the cold-side Reynolds number,
the amount of increase was insignificant. In addition, as the Reynolds numbers of the hot and
cold sides increased simultaneously, the pressure drop increased.
(3) The correlation of the heat transfer coefficients of the hot and cold sides was proposed by applying
the modified Wilson plot method to the heat transfer coefficient. For this correlation, the range of
the Reynolds number was between 156 and 921.
(4) The friction factor f was calculated by using the pressure drop results, and the appropriate friction
factor correlation, for the PSHE examined in this study, was proposed.

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the late Kyu-Jung Lee (Korea University, College of
Mechanical Engineering) for his mentorship and for sharing his expertise in heat transfer. They would also like to
acknowledge Lauren Price for her significant contribution in preparing this manuscript. This work was supported
by the Human Resources Program in Energy Technology of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation
and Planning (KETEP) with a grant (No. 20144010200770) provided with financial resources from the Ministry of
Trade, Industry and Energy of the Republic of Korea.
Author Contributions: The intial research concept was conceived by Chanyong Cho and Sangrae Lee.
Changyong Cho constructed the experimental apparatus. Chanyong Cho and Sangrae Lee designed the PSHEs
used in this study. Jang-Won Seo developed the experimental design, performed the experiments for this study and
Entropy 2016, 18, 15 15 of 16

undertook data analysis, while also writing the paper. Young-Don Choi consulted throughout the entire process,
checking experimental results and providing guidance. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature

Ac Minimum free flow area (mm2 )

As Total effective heat transfer area (mm2 )
B Bias error
Cp Specific heat (J/kg¨K)
Dh Hydraulic diameter (mm)
f Friction factor
G Core mass velocity (kg/m2 ¨s)
H Width of fluid path (mm)
h Heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 ¨K)
j Colburn j-factor
Kc Contraction loss coefficient
Ke Expansion loss coefficient
L Length from root to center (mm)
N Stacked number of cells
Nu Nusselt number
∆P Pressure drop (kPa)
P Perimeter
Pr Prandtl number
Q Heat transfer rate (W)
Re Reynolds number
∆T LMTD Log mean temperature difference (K)
UA Heat transfer performance (W/K)
W Width of metal sheet (mm)
Greek Symbols
ρ Fluid density (kg/m3 )
Π Uncertainty
µ Dynamic viscosity (N¨s/m2 )
σ Free flow area/frontal area
Subscripts
c Cold
i Inlet
h Hot
m Mean
o Outlet
s Surface

References
1. Kim, M.S.; Ha, M.Y.; Min, J.K. Numerical study on the cross-corrugate primary surface heat exchanger having
asymmetric cross-sectional profiles for advanced intercooled-cycle aero engines. Int. J. Heat Mass Trans. 2013,
66, 139–153. [CrossRef]
2. Ma, T.; Zeng, M.; Luo, T. Numerical study on thermo-hydraulic performance of an offset-bubble primary
surface channels. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2013, 61, 44–52. [CrossRef]
3. Ma, T.; Zhang, J.; Borjigin, S. Numerical study on thermo small-scale longitudinal heat conduction in
cross-wavy primary surface heat exchanger. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2015, 76, 272–282. [CrossRef]
Entropy 2016, 18, 15 16 of 16

4. Doo, J.H.; Ha, M.Y.; Min, J.K. An investigation of cross-corrugated heat exchanger primary surface for
advanced intercooled-cycle aero engines. Int. J. Heat Mass Trans. 2012, 55, 5256–5267. [CrossRef]
5. Fsadni, A.M.; Ge, Y.T.; Lamers, A.G. Bubble nucleation on the surface of the primary heat exchanger in
a domestic central heating system. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2012, 45–46, 24–32. [CrossRef]
6. Jeong, C.H.; Kim, H.R.; Ha, M.Y. Numerical investigation of thermal enhancement of plate fin type heat
exchanger with creases and holes in construction machinery. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2014, 62, 529–544. [CrossRef]
7. Tang, L.H.; Zeng, M.; Wang, Q.W. Experimental and numerical investigation on air-side performance of
fin-and-tube heat exchangers with various fin patterns. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 2009, 33, 818–827. [CrossRef]
8. Pirompugd, W.; Wang, C.C.; Wongwises, S. Finite circular fin method for wavy fin-and-tube heat exchangers
under fully and partially wet surface conditions. Int. J. Heat Mass Trans. 2008, 51, 4002–4017. [CrossRef]
9. Liu, Z.; Cheng, H. Multi-objective optimization design analysis of primary surface recuperator for
microturbines. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2008, 28, 601–610.
10. Cowell, T.A. A general method for the comparison compact heat transfer surfaces. J. Heat Transf. 1990, 112,
288–294. [CrossRef]
11. Kays, W.M.; London, A.L. Compact Heat Exchangers, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1964.
12. Shen, S.; Xu, J.L.; Zhou, J.J.; Chen, Y. Flow and heat transfer in microchannels with rough wall surface.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2006, 47, 1311–1325. [CrossRef]
13. ANSI/ASME PTC 19.1. In Measuring Uncertainty; The American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York,
NY, USA, 1998.
14. Taylor, B.N.; Kuyatt, C.E. Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results;
NIST Technical Note 1297; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington (DC), USA, 1994.
15. Shah, R.K. Assessment of modified Wilson plot techniques for obtaining heat exchanger design data.
Heat Trans. 1990, 5, 51–56.
16. Wilson, E.E. A basis for rational design of heat transfer apparatus. Trans. ASME J. Heat Trans. 1915, 37, 47–82.
17. Hashmi, A.; Tahir, F. Empirical Nusselt number correlation for single phase flow through a plate heat
exchanger. In Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS International Conference on Heat and Mass Transfer (HMT ’12),
Cambridge, MA, USA, 25–27 January 2012; pp. 41–46.
18. Manglik, R.M.; Bergles, A.E. Heat Transfer Enhancement of Intube Flows in Process Heat Exchangers by Means of
Twisted-Tape Inserts; Report No. HTL-18; Heat Transfer Laboratory, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute: Troy,
NY, USA, 1991.
19. Hesselgreaves, J.E. Compact Heat Exchangers; Pergamon: Edinburgh, UK, 2001.
20. Sieder, E.N.; Tate, G.E. Heat transfer and pressure drop of liquid in tubes. Ind. Eng. Chem. 1936, 28, 1429–1435.
[CrossRef]
21. Dittus, F.W.; Boelter, L.M.K. Heat transfer in automobile radiators of the tubular type. Int. Commun. Heat
Mass Transf. 1985, 12, 3–22. [CrossRef]

© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).