Heat Exchanger

Test Rig

Erik van Kemenade

eindhoven university of technology

department of mechanical engineering

September 1999

This research was supported by the Netherlands Agency for Energy and the Environment
(NOVEM)
project 338420-7811
Summary
The development of a heat exchanger test rig capable of measuring the effectivity of a counterflow
gas-gas heat exchanger with an accuracy of 1 % is described.
At an operating point defined by a secondary flow of 200 m 3 hr -1 , balanced conditions and a
temperature difference of 10 K between the ingoing temperatures of the primary and secondary
flows, the effectivity of a heat exchanger with a predicted effectivity of 89 % can be measured
within 1 %.

heat exchanger test rig i

Samenvatting
De ontwikkeling van een test bank voor gas-gas tegenstroom warmtewisselaars waarmee het
mogelijk is om de effectiviteit met een nauwkeurigheid van 1 % te meten is beschreven.
Op een werkpunt gedefinieerd door een secundaire stroming van 200 m3 hr-1, gebalanceerde condities
en een temperatuur verschil van 10 K tussen de ingaande temperaturen, kan de effectiviteit van een
warmtewisselaar met een effectiviteit van 89 % binnen 1 % worden gemeten.

heat exchanger test rig ii

Contents
Summary i
Samenvatting ii
Contents iii
Symbols iv

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Counterflow gas-gas heat exchangers 1
1.2 Background of the project 2
1.4 Scope of the project 2
2 Effectivity measurement 3
2.1 Accuracy of the test rig 4
2.2 Temperature measurement 5
2.2.1 Thermistor properties 7
2.2.2 Design of the temperature measurement units 7
2.2.3 Flow conditioning 9
2.2.4 Velocity profile 11
2.2.5 Temperature profile and distance between the mixers 12
2.2.6 Influence of the velocity and the temperature difference 13
2.2.7 Number of mixers 13
2.2.7 Pressure drop 14
2.2 Mass- and capacity flow measurement 14
2.3 Ducts 16
2.4 Data acquisition 18
2.5 Predicted accuracy 18
3 Experimental validation 19
4 Conclusion and discussion 21
4.1 Conclusions 21
4.2 Discussion 21

Literature 22

heat exchanger test rig iii

Symbols
A heat exchanging surface [m2]
C capacity flow [WK-1]
D diameter [m]
NTU number of transfer units [-]
RH relative humidity [-]
T temperature [K]
U heat transfer coefficient [Wm-2K -1]
V volume flow [m3s-1]

e effectivity [-]
e emissivity
r specific mass [kgm-3]
s standard deviation [-]

heat exchanger test rig iv

1 Introduction
In 1997 Novem commissioned a project to the Eindhoven University of Technology, Fontys/Ceditec
and LEVEL energy technology to build a test rig for counterflow gas-gas heat exchangers. In this
final report the results are summarised.

1.1 Counterflow gas-gas heat exchangers

In recent years heat recovery techniques in industrial and domestic appliances have been gaining
importance due to the increased awareness of the limitations on the energy supply. Most heat
recovery techniques require a heat exchanger of some sort. A number of methods is used to recover
heat from exhaust flows such as ventilation air from buildings, damp hot air from dryers, or waste
gases from burners. All these methods are designed to exploit the temperature difference between
exhaust and supply flows to the full, using as little material and fan energy as possible. The most
common methods are recuperators such as cross-flow plate exchangers, regenerators such as heat
wheels or alternating flow through porous masses and heat exchangers with an intermediate
medium, e.g. the twin coil or even the heat pump. These methods are still far from ideal, because
they all allow mixing to take place so that the maximum temperature difference is not maintained.
This drawback can be circumvented by using a counterflow recuperator.
Counterflow recuperators have always been designed as plate exchangers. The heat transfer can be
much improved by working with ducts instead of plates. Recently several patents have been
acquired concerning such a geometry, including one by a partner in this project, LEVEL energy
technology. Each duct is surrounded by a series of ducts in which the direction of flow is reversed
(figure 1.1)

figure 1.1 counterflow duct recuperator

The recuperator is developed for a number of applications, including radiant burners, drying
processes and ventilation systems (Veltkamp 1995, van Kemenade 1997) with effectivities in the
order of 90 %, the effectivity being defined as the actual heat transfer divided by the maximum
amount of heat which can be transferred.

heat exchanger test rig 1

1.2 Background of the project

During the (NOVEM supported) development of the LEVEL heat exchanger, it became evident that
it is very hard to measure the effectivity accurately. As the effectivity comes near the maximum
value small deviations in the measured temperatures have a large impact on the recorded
effectivity. As the effectivity is directly related to the capacity of the heat exchanger defined by
the overall heat transfer coefficient U multiplied by the heat transferring surface A, it is an
important parameter to compare design alternatives and validate simulation tools. For that reason
NOVEM started a project to built a test rig enabling the determination of the effectivity with an
accuracy of 1 percent.

1.4 Scope of the project

The project is triggered by the development of high effectivity heat exchangers for ambient
conditions (i.e. ventilation systems) and high temperature conditions (i.e. burners, gas turbines).
The main goal is to develop techniques to determine the effectivity of such systems with an high
accuracy. The analysis tools developed during the project have a broad applicability, for practical
reasons the operating point of the test rig had to be limited however. Based on rather arbitrary
considerations as availability of equipment and ease of construction, the operating point for the test
rig is chosen at an air flow of 200 m3hr-1, balanced conditions and a temperature difference of 10 K
between the ingoing temperatures of the primary and secondary flows.
The test rig is designed in an iterative process. First a parametric model is made for all the ingoing
parameters which have an influence on the effectivity. Using this model (chapter 2) in combination
with the experimental data for the components of the test rig, the accuracy's needed for the
different sensors were balanced to arrive at the desired accuracy. The experiments used are
described in chapter 3.
In this report only the final results are given. Details can be found in the following reports:
1998 Arink, C.A.F., Het ontwerp van een meetopstelling voor gas-gas warmtewisselaars,
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, WOC-WET 98.002
Contents: Development of the parametric model, initial choices for the measurement
principles, validation of the bulk temperature measurement principle, functional design of
the test rig.
1998 Huffel, M.L.P.C. van, De ontwikkeling van een warmtewisselaar meetbank, Fontys
Hogescholen Eindhoven
Contents: Error analysis for the data acquisition system, design of the data aquisition
1999 Kroonen, R.J.M.H., Het ontwerpen van een temperatuurmeetsectie om nauwkeurig de
temperatuur van een luchtstroom in een kanaal te meten, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven,
WOC-WET 98.002
Contents: Development of the temperature measurement section, final design of the test rig
1999 Wolfs, M., De ontwikkeling van een warmtewisselaar meetbank, Fontys Hogescholen
Eindhoven
Contents: Calibration of the individual sensors, development of the data acquisition system

heat exchanger test rig 2

2 Effectivity measurement
The effectivity of a heat exchanger is commonly defined as the actual heat transferred divided by
the maximum amount of heat which can be transferred. The maximum amount of heat which can be
transferred is rather arbitrarily defined as the minimal capacity flow C (mass flow multiplied by
the heat capacity) times the maximum temperature difference available.

Cc Tc,out - Tc,in Ch Th,in - Th,out

e= = (2.1)
Cmin Th,in - Tk,in Cmin Th,in - Tc,in

The subscript h denotes the hot fluid and c the cold. In principle the effectivity can be determined
from the bulk temperatures only as

Ch Th,in - Th,out Th,in - Th,out

e = = when Ch < Cc (2.2)
Ch Thi,n - Th,in Thi,n - Th,in

Cc Tc,out - Tc,in Tc,out - Tc,in

e = = when Cc < Ch (2.3)
Cc Thi,n - Tc,in Thi,n - Tc,in

Th,in - Th,out Tc,out - Tcin

e = = when Ch = Cc (2.4)
Th,n - Tcin Thi,n - Tc,in

When the capacity flows of both fluids equal each other the heat exchanger is said to be balanced.
During experiments this can be used as a reference case to check the equipment. When evaluating
equation (2.1) to (2.4) the heat capacity should be averaged over the temperature range of the heat
exchanger. Normally however the physical properties are evaluated at the mean temperature.
This condition is only satisfied if the heat exchanger is balanced as is shown in figure 2.1.

Th,in Th,in Th,in

dTh
Tc,out Tc,out dTh
DT Th,out DT dT dTh
dTc c Th,out Tc,out DT Th,out
C c < Ch C c = Ch dTc
Tc,in Tc,in
dA dA C c > Ch dA
Tc,in
surface surface surface

figure 2.1 temperature profiles in a counterflow heat exchanger

The effectivity is closely related to the heat exchanging capacity of a heat exchanger defined as
UA where U denotes the heat transfer coefficient and A the heat exchanging surface. The heat
exchanging capacity is less dependant on the operating conditions than the effectivity. If the heat
exchanging capacity is known for one operating point, the results can be used to calculate the
performance for other operating conditions. For a counterflow heat exchanger the relation between
the heat exchanging capacity and the effectivity is

Cmin ±UA
1 - exp 1 ±
Cmax Cmin
e= (2.5)
Cmin Cmin -UA
1- exp 1 ±
Cmax Cmax Cmin

this equation reduces for a balanced counterflow heat exchanger to

heat exchanger test rig 3

 UA
Cmin
e= (2.6)
UA
1+
Cmin

These equation are plotted in figure 2.2

1
Cmin/Cmax
0
0.25
0.8 0.5
0.75
1
effectivity [-]
0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
NTU = UA/Cmin

figure 2.2 effectivity of a counterflow heat exchanger as a function of the number of transfer units

2.1 Accuracy of the test rig

The accuracy of the determined effectivity is dependent on the accuracy in which the terms of
equation (2.1) can be determined. The accuracy's are given relatively, based on the relative
standard deviations sx/x derived of a series of measurements for x, except for the deviation in the
temperature which is given absolutely. All values given are based on the 95 % certainty interval
bounded by 2s, unless mentioned otherwise.
On the assumptions that the absolute standard deviations in the differential temperature
measurements sDT are constant and that the relative deviations in the capacity flows between the
hot and the cold side are equal, the absolute error in the temperature and the relative error in the
capacity flows can be related to the accuracy in the effectivity for a chosen operating point (Arink
1998, figure 2.3)

0.1

0.08
temperature difference [K]

±2%
absolute error in the

0.06
± 1.5 %

0.04 ±1%

± 0.5 %
0.02

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
relative error in the capacity flow [%]

figure 2.3 uncertainty in the effectivity as a function of the relative error in the capacity flow and the absolute error
in the temperature

heat exchanger test rig 4

Errors can be introduced in the piping system, peripheral equipment, and the measuring equipment
which are treated in Arink (1998). All possible sources for an inaccuracy in the measured effectivity
must be taken into account.
The design of the test rig is divided in four parts
- the heat exchanger is regarded as a black box of which the heat exchanging properties are
defined by the effectivity in one operating point. The heat exchanger is regarded as a "black
box" with one major exception. It is inevitable that pressure losses occur when a medium flows
through the heat exchanger. The common description techniques for the performance treat heat
transfer separately from the pressure drop. The pressure drop in a heat exchanger is irreversible
however and leads to an increase of the medium temperature. The measurements show this
effect, while most analysis techniques do not take it into account. The solution can be found in a
second law analysis (Bejan 1985). To comply with current standards, in this report we will
correct the measured temperatures with the measured pressure drop over the heat exchanger
however. The effect has a comparatively large effect on the measured effectivity while the
influence on the determined heat transfer coefficient is small.
- To determine the effectivity of a heat exchanger, temperatures, pressures, flows and humidities
have to be measured.
- The ducts transport the air from the measurement stations to the heat exchanger. All heat
transfer between the ducts and the surroundings and the pressure drop in the ducts influence the
measured temperatures.
- The data from the sensors have to be recorded in a suitable data acquisition system
All subjects mentioned have an impact on the accuracy of the test rig. For instance, a less accurate
temperature measurement requires a more accurate pressure measurement or flow measurement. Not
all iterations involved in this process are given in this report.

2.2 Temperature measurement

In order to determine the effectivity according to expression 2.1, the bulk temperatures of the air
flow have to be measured on the locations indicated in figure 2.4. The problem to be solved is how
the measure the bulk temperature which is not identical to the mean temperature in a cross section
as the velocities may differ. Consequently it is necessary to mix the airflow thoroughly before
measuring the temperature locally.
Temperature sensors can be divided roughly in three categories as shown in figure 2.5. As air hardly
radiates optical temperature sensors are not suitable in this project. As the old mercury
thermometer, still being used widely for calibration purposes, shows non-electrical thermometers
can be very good. Nevertheless electrical contact sensors are chosen as they allow for a relatively
easy data acquisition
Having made that decision, the option for a thermocouple and a resistivity method (plain or with
NTC's) remains. Thermocouples, though trusty and widely applied, have a low temperature
dependence and a very low voltage output. It is very hard to get a accuracy below 1 K. The
difference between the resistivity methods, represented by a Pt-100 sensor and two NTC thermistors
is shown in figure 2.5. The choice between a thermistor and Pt-100 was made rather subjectively on
the arguments listed in table 2.1. Thermistors are selected.

heat exchanger test rig 5

 P
RH

mixing T mixing T V
section section 123456

heat
654321 exchanger
mixing mixing
P section T section
V heater
RH

figure 2.4 schematic and sketch of the test rig

100

table 2.1 advantages and disadvantages of

relative resistance RT/R20oC

10 NTC sensors compared with RTD

sensors

RTD, Pt100 Advantages Disadvantages

1
N TC small dimensions non-linear
, -3
.0 %
NT K -1 high resistance not standardised
C,
-5. high sensitivity lower temperature range
0.1 4%
K -1
fast recalibration

0.01
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
temperature [oC]

figure 2.5 relative resistance of a Pt100 and NTC

sensor as a function of temperature

heat exchanger test rig 6

2.2.1 Thermistor properties

Thermistors are intrinsic semi conductors produced from a ceramic material. The dependence of the
resistance on the temperature is expressed as

R T = R T0 ×exp ±b 1 ± 1 (2.7)
T T0

NTC thermistors have a negative temperature dependence, the resistance globally varies from -3 to
-6% per Kelvin temperature rise. The value of the material constant b ranges from 500 to 2000 K.
Most thermistors are produced as spheres or cylinders covered with a protective glass layer.
Normally the thermistor are part of a wheatstone bridge, keeping either the current through- or
the voltage over the thermistor constant.
As a current flows through the thermistor, ohmic heating will occur, which must be accounted for.
Also the thermistor has to be connected and is subject to heat conduction through the wires. A third
error may occur due to heat exchange with the surroundings.

2.2.2 Design of the temperature measurement units

The air flows are thoroughly mixed in the ducts (see ¤ 2.2.3) so that in principle one thermistor can
be used to measure the bulk temperature. Three thermistors are applied however to be able to detect
a faulty thermistor. The design of the temperature measurement units are sketched in figure 2.6 and
shown in figure 2.7 and 2.8 (The parameter variations given in this paragraph all start from the
final design with a flow of 200 m3hr-1 and a temperature difference of 1 K between wall and air
stream. The results are obtained from a model incorporating the following energy flows:
- ohmic heating of the thermistor
- convection to the thermistor
- radiative heat transfer with the surroundings
- conduction through the support
- convection to the connection wires
- ohmic heating of the connection wires
- conduction through the connection wires.

figure 2.6 sketch of the temperature measurement unit

heat exchanger test rig 7

figure 2.7 temperature measurement unit figure 2.8 temperature sensor

The temperature of the thermistor depends on ohmic heating, the convective heat transfer from the
air stream and the heat transfer with the surroundings due to radiation and conduction.
The deviation of the thermistor temperature due to ohmic heating has a systematic nature and is
balanced by convective heat transfer . In figure 2.9 the deviation as a function of the air flow is
given for the final construction.
The thermistors are mounted within radiation shields consisting of a chromium plated brass tube
(15x60 mm) to reduce the radiative heat exchange. The dimensions of the radiation shield are such
that a large part of the heat transfer with the surroundings are suppressed with a minimum
disturbance of the convective heat transfer to the thermistor. Figure 2.10 gives a quantitative
impression of the influence of the dimensions of the radiation shields on the readings from the
thermistor when a temperature difference of 1 K exists between the duct walls and the air flow. The
radiation shields are mounted on PVC supports reducing the heat transfer to the wall. Due to the
low heat conduction of PVC, the dimensions of the support are not critical.

0.4 20
emissivity
1 18
0.35
16
0.7
0.3
temperature variation [mK]

temperature variation [mK]

0.1 14
Dshield [mm]
0.25 12 25

0.2 10
15
8
0.15
6
0.1
4
0.05 2 5

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
air flow [m3hr-1] length [m]

figure 2.9 variation of the measured temperature as a figure 2.10 variation of the measured temperature as a
function of the flow and emissivity of the function of the length and diameter of the
radiation shield radiation shield

heat exchanger test rig 8

The electrical connection of the thermistor plays a major role in the accuracy of the thermistor. As
heat- and electrical conductance are closely related, there exist no materials with a high
electrical- and a low thermal conduction. Thermal conduction can be reduced by applying a long thin
wire but in that case the electrical resistance also rises which is undesired. Optimisation of both
effects resulted in an impractical small diameter or long length of the wire. For that reason another
approach is taken. A small wire ( 0.12 mm) is placed inside the air stream for a certain distance
before it is firmly attached to the inner wall. At the inner wall it takes the wall temperature. For a
temperature difference of 1 K between air and wall, the deviation of the thermistor temperature
due to wire conduction is given in figure 2.11. A length of 0.22 m was chosen.
The deviation of the thermistor temperature in the final design is plotted in figure 2.12 as a
function of the wall temperature and the flow, assuming a constant temperature of the air stream.

0.25 5
DT [K]

15
0.2 4
temperature variation [mK]

temperature variation [mK]

0.15 3

0.1 2

5
0.05 1

1
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 50 100 150 200 250
wire length [m] air flow [m3hr-1]

figure 2.11 measured temperature as a function of the figure 2.12 measured temperature as a function of the
length of the thermistor connection wires air flow and the temperature difference
(D=0.12 mm) between the wall and the air stream

2.2.3 Flow conditioning

In the test rig, the secondary air temperature is heated to accomplish a temperature difference
between the primary and secundary flow. The resulting air stream does not have a homogeneous
temperature profile however. For that reason the air stream is mixed to obtain a homogeneous
(bulk) temperature. The desired mixing effectivity can be reached by applying turbulent mixers as
are manufactured by Sulzer for instance (figure 2.13). Besides the Sulzer static mixer a home made
variety, designated by FT-150, was tested.

heat exchanger test rig 9

figure 2.13 static mixers, Sulzer (left) and FT-150 (right)

The experimental setup is shown in figure 2.14. The air stream stratified by heater comprising four
separate convectors which can be regulated seperately. To make sure that a stratified flow
develops, a flow straightener is placed behind the heater. The temperature distribution is
measured before and after the mixing section with a ross containing 13 T-type thermocouples (figure
2.15). In the mixing section several static mixers can be placed.

figure 2.14 experimental setup

heat exchanger test rig 10

figure 2.15 temperature measurement cross

Three temperature profiles represented by figure 2.16 were tested for all configurations.

1-0-0-0 1-1-0-0 0-1-1-0

figure 2.16 tempertaure profiles tested

2.2.4 Velocity profile

For one static mixer the axial velocities were measured behind the static mixers using a Pitot tube
(figure 2.17 and 2.18). Immediately after the static mixer, the profiles are chaotic as can be
expected. After a settling length of one diameter (1D) the turbulent velocity profile starts to
develop and after 3D the velocity is almost constant. This distance is taken for the temperature
measurements. The measured deviations in the velocity profile are used to calculate the uncertainty
in the resulting bulk temperature.

heat exchanger test rig 11

 7 7
● ●
●
6 ●
6
●
❍ ●
5 ● ● ❍ 5
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ●
❍ ▲
❍ ▲ ❍ ● ● ● ●
▲
❍ ▲
■ ■ ■
❍ ▲
❍
■ ■ ■ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ❍
● ▲ ❍

velocity [ms-1]
▲ ▲ ■ ■ ■ ■ ▲
■
velocity [ms-1]

4 ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 4 ❍ ▲
❍ ❍ ❍
■ ■
❍
❍ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ❍
■ ▲ ▲ ■ ■
▲ ■ ■ ■ ■ ▲ ▲ ●
● ● ▲ ▲
❍ ▲
● ■
❍
▲
● ▲ ■ ❍ ●
3 ❍ ❍ ❍ ● ●
3 ■ ❍ ❍ ●
■ ● ❍
●
■
● ▲
▲ ●
2 2 ■ ❍
●
● ●
1 ● Dx = 0D ● 1 ❍ ● Dx = 0D
❍ Dx = 1D ❍ Dx = 1D
0 ■ Dx = 2D 0 ■ Dx = 2D
▲ Dx = 3D ● ▲ Dx = 3D
-1 -1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
position [mm] position [mm]

figure 2.17 axial velocity profile after the Sulzer mixer figure 2.18 axial velocity profile after the FT-150
mixer

2.2.5 Temperature profile and distance between the mixers

In the next experiment two mixers were used at several distances between each other and for the
temperature profiles of figure 2.16. The Sulzer mixer is not very sensitive to variations in the initial
temperature profile, the mixing effectivity is between 95 and 98 % in all cases. The FT-150 mixer is
more sensitive to the inlet temperature profile (figure 2.19 and 2.20). Subsequently the 1-1-0-0
profile was used as a worst case situation. For both mixer types the best mixing effectivity is
reached when the air stream is allowed to settle for 1D between the two mixers. If the distance is
less, the chaotic temperature profile hinders the second mixer, if the distance is larger,
stratification occurs.

100 100

99 99
■
98 ● 98
●
mixing effectivity [-]

❍
mixing effectivity [-]

● ❍
● ● ■
97 1-0-0-0
❍ 97 ■
0-1-1-0
● ❍ ■
● ❍
■ 0-1-1-0 ❍
96 ■ ■ 96
■ ■ 1-0-0-0
❍ ❍ ■ ❍
●
95 ❍
■ ■ ❍ 1-1-0-0
❍
1-1-0-0 95 ● ■ ■
●
❍ ❍
94 94
●

93 93 ●
●
92 92 ●
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
distance between mixers distance between mixers
pipe diameter pipe diameter

figure 2.19 mixing effectivity after two Sulzer Mixers figure 2.20 axial velocity profile after the FT-150
as a function of the distance between the mixer as a function of the distance between
mixers for the temperature profiles of the mixers for the temperature profiles of
figure 2.16 figure 2.16

heat exchanger test rig 12

2.2.6 Influence of the velocity and the temperature difference

In figure 2.21 and 2.22 the influence of the velocity on the mixing effectivity is shown. The velocity
has almost no influence on the mixing effectivity. The influence of the initial temperature
difference is also small.

95 95 9.5 ▲

DT [oC]
15.5 ■
4▲
94.5 ▲ 94.5 20 ❍ ▲
❍
■

mixing effectivity [-]

mixing effectivity [-]

DT [oC] ❍
■
▲ ❍
■
▲
94 9.5 ■ ▲ 94 4●
■ ● ●
●

20 ❍ ■
❍
15.5 ● ●
▲
■
93.5 ●
❍ 93.5
●
❍

93 93
50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
flow [m3hr-1] flow [m3hr-1]

figure 2.21 mixing effectivity after two Sulzer mixers figure 2.22 mixing effectivity after two FT-150 mixers
with a spacing of 1D as a function of the air with a spacing of 1D as a function of the air
flow and temperature difference flow and temperature difference

2.2.7 Number of mixers

The number of mixers in combination with their spacing determines the mixing effectivity
achieved. This influence is tested within the rather arbitrary constraint that the length of the
mixing section should be below 8D. For this experiment only FT-150 mixers were used. Though the
Sulzer mixer arguably has a better performance, the FT-150 mixer also performs adequately and is
readily available. The configurations of figure 2.23 were tested and configuration 7 is chosen as it
has a good mixing effectivity and a low pressure drop.

configuration

X-X-X-X-X-X-3.2D
X-X-X-O-X-X-3D

X-X-X-X-X-4D
X-X-X-X-X-4D

X-X-O-O-X-X-2.8D

X-X-O-X-X-3.8D
X-O-X-O-X-O-X-1.8D

X-X-X-O-X-4.6D
X-X-D-X-4.6D
X-D-X-D-X-3.6D

X-D-X-5.4D

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 90 92 94 96 98 100

pressure drop [Pa] mixing effectivity [%]

figure 2.23 pressure drop and mixing effectivity for the tested mixer configurations

heat exchanger test rig 13

2.2.7 Pressure drop

Using the static mixers leads to an irreversible pressure loss and heat generation. This is no problem
at the inlets of the heat exchanger but the temperature at measured at the outlet has to be corrected
for this heat generation. The increase of the temperature is calculated according to the pressure-
flow relation of figure 2.24

500

400
pressure drop [Pa]

●
300
●

200 ●

●
100
●

●
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
flow [m3hr-1]

figure 2.24 pressure drop over the mixing section as a function of the flow

2.2 Mass- and capacity flow measurement

The mass flow can be measured directly (hot wire, Corioli) but these principles cannot meet the
demanded accuracy. Volume flow measurement can be done by positive displacement meters and
techniques where in a cross section the time and position averaged velocity is measured. Positive
displacement meters can reach the best accuracy. An IGA rotary displacement flow meter is used
(figure 2.25). Measurement errors are mainly due to internal leak as deviations in the counter
mechanism can be calibrated.

figure 2.25 principle of a rotary displacement flow meter

To convert the measured volume flow to a mass flow , the pressure, temperature and relative
humidity must be known (and can introduce a deviation) to assess the correct values for the specific
mass and heat capacity of the air flow. In the test rig, the temperature is measured directly before
the gas meter with a temperature measurement unit as described in ¤ 2.2.2.

heat exchanger test rig 14

The gas meter has a rather large heat capacity so care must be taken that the meter is at the correct
temperature. Neglecting heat transfer with the surroundings, the heat balance for the gas meter
becomes

dT f
kA T f ±Tbulk = M f cp f (2.8)
dt
kA denotes the heat exchanger ÒsizeÓ, and M f the mass of the heat exchanger.
From this equation the time constant t can be calculated as

Tbulk M f cp f
t = 1 t= (2.9)
Tf t ×t+1 kA

indicating that after t seconds, about 40 % of the initial temperature difference remains. In Arink
(1998) the time constant is calculated at half an hour. To prevent deviations in the temperature
measurement sections due to radiative exchange with the flow meter, it is advised to wait for two
hours before commencing with the measurements.
To convert the measured volume flow rate to a mass rate, the specific mass and heat capacity have
to be determined at the pressure, humidity and temperature near the gas meter. The temperature is
known from the temperature measurement units in the outlets. The pressure is determined using the
laboratory mercury barometer in combination with calibrated Huba control differential pressure
gauges. In Wolfs(1999) is shown that the relative deviation of the pressure gauge remains within
0.1 %.
A capacitative humidity sensor is applied. The sensor was tested by comparing it with a (wet bulb)
thermometer (Wolfs 1999). The relative deviation can amount to 2%. Humidity sensors are
notorious for errors due to saturation or fouling. During start-up of the test rig a simple check can be
performed by comparing the readout of the R.H. sensor to the theoretical values. In figure 2.26 and
2.27 the readings of the temperature and humidity sensors is given during start-up. Theoretically
the relative humidity should drop from an initial value of 0.023 to 0.008 which indeed is indicated
by the R.H.. sensor.

40 0.25

36 0.2
relative humidity [-]
temperature [°C]

32 0.15

28 0.1

24 0.05

20 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
time [103 s] time [103 s]

figure 2.26 mean temperature as a function of the time figure 2.27 relative humidity as a function of the time
during start-up during start-up

heat exchanger test rig 15

2.3 Ducts

While flowing through the ducts the air will change in temperature due to heat transfer with the
surroundings. These effects have been modelled by both Arink (1998) and Kroonen (1999). Concerning
the heat transfer, the forced convection on the inside of the pipe is modelled using the well known
Churchill-Chu empirical relation for the Nusselt number, for the natural convection on the outside
the Seider-Tate equation is applied. The radiative heat transfer on the inside is calculated by
dividing the pipe in segments, assuming that axial heat transfer through wall conduction is
negligible compared to the radial conduction. In figure 2.28 to 2.32 the influence of several design
variables are given, starting from the conditions of table 2.2.

table 2.2 reference conditions

geometry, material properties operating conditions

piping insulation
inner diameter 0.15 m thickness 0.05 m flow 225 m3hr-1
wall thickness 0.005 m conduction coef. 0.038 Wm-1K-1 temperature 20 °C
length 5 m emission coefficient 0.1 inlet temperature 20 °C

0.3 0.35

0.3
0.25
temperature variation [Km-1]
temperature variation [Km-1]

0.25
0.2

0.2
0.15
0.15

0.1
0.1

0.05
0.05

0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
heat conduction coefficient [Wm-1K-1] insulation thickness [m]

figure 2.28 influence of the insulation heat conduction figure 2.29 influence of the insulation thickness
coefficient on the axial temperature coefficient on the axial temperature
variation variation

heat exchanger test rig 16

 0.5 2.5

temperature variation [Km-1]

0.4 2
temperature variation [Km-1]

0.3 1.5

0.2 1

0.1 0.5

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
emission coefficient [-] air flow [m3hr-1]

figure 2.30 influence of the insulation emission figure 2.31 influence of the air flow on the axial
coefficient on the axial temperature temperature variation
variation

0.3

0.25

0.2
temperature variation [Km-1]

0.15

0.1

0.05

-0.05

-0.1
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
temperature [oC]

figure 2.32 influence of the air inlet temperature on the axial temperature variation

The material and thickness of the insulation layer used have a large influence on the air
temperature in the ducts. For instance: a decrease in the heat conduction coefficient from 0.05 to
0.025 Wm-1K-1 results in a 40 % lower temperature drop. The effect of enlarging the thickness of the
insulation is limited. Increasing the thickness also leads to a larger surface and there exists an
optimum layer thickness. The thickness of the duct itself and the radiative properties of its inner
surface are hardly relevant. The outside emissivity e is of importance as radiative heat transfer
can account for 18 % (e=0.1) to 69% (e=1) of the total heat transfer.
Based on these considerations PVC is chosen as a suitable and readily available material for the
ducts. The selection of the insulation material is based on the heat conduction coefficient and
diffusion resistance to prevent condensation. Extruded polystyrene with a closed cell structure has
good diffusion resistant properties (m = 7500) and a low heat conduction coefficient ( l = 0.038
Wm-1K-1). Radiation can be reduced by adding a reflective layer of aluminium foil.

heat exchanger test rig 17

2.4 Data acquisition

The data acquisition system is documented in Wolff (1998) and van Huffel (1998). As there is no
need for a fast measurement system, a National Instruments data acquisition system based on SCXI
modules (signal condition extensions for instruments) is used. The acquisition part of modules for the
temperature, pressure, volume flow and pressure measurements.
The pressure- and relative humidity measurements are straightforward, the sensors deliver a
signal in the range between 0-10 V and the accuracy can be calculated from the accuracy of the
components (power supply, sensor and measuring device).
The resistances of the RTD's are measured using a wheatstone bridge. The wheatstone bridge has to
be matched to provide the conditions mentioned in paragraph 2.2 and to provide an optimal signal
for the data acquisition system. Deviations which may occur in the resistances used add to the total
accuracy of the system.
The flow meters deliver a pulse signal using a custom build segment disc and optical sensor (van
Huffel 1998). During each measuring cycle the number of pulses is counted during a specified time
interval. The accuracy of this procedure is determined by the length of the counting interval. This
time interval is chosen such that the resulting error is negligible compared with the deviations in
the flow meter itself.
To facilitate monitoring of the measurement process, the effectivity and mass flows are calculated
on line, while the raw data are stored. The final results are obtained using a separate post-
processing program. This procedure allows backtracking of the results whenever a measurement
anomaly is observed.

2.5 Predicted accuracy

The deviations which may occur due to the effects quantified in the preceding paragraphs are
combined in a numerical model to predict the accuracy of the test rig for a specified operating point
(Kroonen 1999). The predicted error assuming that systematic errors are avoided is 0.82 %, with a
certainty of 95 %. The contribution of some main parameters to this error is depicted in figure 2.33.

massflow
primary
flow

heat capacity

temperature

massflow
secundary
flow

heat capacity

temperature

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

relative contribution to the total random deviation

figure 2.33 contribution of the major parameters to the error in the accuracy

heat exchanger test rig 18

3 Experimental validation
The experiments performed to validate the test rig are given in table 3.1. A resume of the main
results is given in this chapter. For the measurements a LEVEL counterflow heat exchanger was
used.

table 3.1 experiments

experiment motivation method

flow meter calibration elimination of systematic errors,
checking random errors
pressure difference gauge elimination of systematic errors,
calibration checking random errors
RH sensor check check if the error remains within
2%
Temperature sensor
1 power supply stability/noise check
2 wiring noise check
3 calibration determining the resistance-
temperature relation
4 comparison between check if the assumptions for the
measurement sections measurement unit hold
Heat exchanger
1 effectivity deviation < 1 % check the theory
2 working range check the accuracy of the test rig
outside the operating point
comparison with a reference floe
meter (Wolfs 1999)
comparison with a Betz micro-
manometer (Wolfs 1999)
comparison with a wet bulb RH
sensor (Wolfs 1999)
monitoring with an oscilloscope
(Kroonen 1999)
monitoring with an oscilloscope
(Kroonen 1999)
EUT calibration service (Kroonen
1999)
comparison between the
measurement sections (Kroonen
1999)
bring the heat exchanger in balance
in check the effectivities (Kroonen
1999)
repeat the measurements for other
flows

All the influences mentioned in the preceding sections are modelled to predict the deviations in the
temperature for the test rig. The model has been validated by placing two identical measurement
sections behind each other. The experimental results are given in figure (3.1) The thermistors were
calibrated against each other at a flow of 200 m3hr-1 and a temperature of 20 *C. For these
condition the temperature rise in the measurement section is as expected. At lower flows the
predicted temperature difference is smaller and vice versa at higher flow rates. This artefact is
probably due to the calibration procedure.

heat exchanger test rig 19

 0.15
temperature [°C]

0.1 20.7 ❍
27.4 ❍ ● ❍23.4
18.9 22.0 ■
29.8 ❍ 19.2 ●
0.05 20.2 ●

DTmeasured [°C]
22.0 ● 18.1 ❍
24.4 ■ 18.2 ■

0
25.5 ●

-0.05
flow [m3hr-1]
29.7 ● ● 141
-0.1 ■ 180
❍ 207

-0.15
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2
DTpredicted [°C]

figure 3.1 comparison between the predicted and measured temperatures

The final test was a comparison with a LEVEL laminar counterflow recuperator. Both the
effectivity and the pressure loss was measured (figure 3.2 and 3.3). The measured effectivity
matches the calculated values at the point where the thermistors were calibrated. At lower values
the measured effectivity starts to deviate as is to be expected. The pressure drop is somewhat larger
than calculated and shows a turbulent profile combined with a turbulent profile. This is due to the
pressure losses associated with the in- and outflow ports of the heat exchanger casing.

1 140

120 calculated (LEVEL)A

in- and exit lossesB
0.95 ca A+B
lcu 100 ✖ measurements
la te
✖ d ✖
effectivity [-]
effectivity [-]

✖
80
measured ✖ ✖
0.9 ✖
✖
✖
60 ✖✖

40
0.85
✖
20

0.8 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
flow [m3hr-1] flow [m3hr-1]

figure 3.2 calculated and measured effectivity as figure 3.3 calculated and measured pressure drop as
function of the flow function of the flow

heat exchanger test rig 20

4 Conclusion and discussion

4.1 Conclusions

Ñ At an operating point defined by a secondary flow of 200 m3hr-1, balanced conditions and a
temperature difference of 10 K between the ingoing temperatures of the primary and
secondary flows, the effectivity of a heat exchanger with a predicted effectivity of 89 % can
be measured within 1 %.
Ñ The numerical model predicting the accuracy of the test rig can be used to assess the maximum
effectivity in other operation points. In general the accuracy is higher when the (measured)
effectivity is lower, either by changing the heat exchanger design or changing the operating
conditions.
Ñ The initial assumption that the heat exchanging power UA of a heat exchanger can be
determined by measuring the temperatures and the flows is false. The irreversible losses
associated with the pressure drop and subsequent temperature rise of the medium is not taken
into account in the definition of the effectivity.

4.2 Discussion

It is proven that it is possible to measure the effectivity of a heat exchanger with an accuracy of
1%, but only within strictly specified conditions. Consequently, quoting an effectivity without
specifying the conditions is rather useless.
As is, the test rig is only proven to determine the effectivity within one percent at one operating
point and for a certain heat exchanger. The next step will be to asses the accuracy of the test rig in
other operating conditions and for heat exchangers with a different heat exchanging capacity.
The operating range of the test rig is limited by the sensors and materials used. The analysis of the
deviations which occur in the test rig show that it is hardly feasible to construct a test rig which is
capable to determine the effectivity of a broad range of heat exchangers in a broad field of
operating conditions. Also is shown however that it is possible to predict the accuracy achieved
under certain conditions. This allows for a fast design of a test rig which is applicable for the
desired conditions.
During the project it became evident that the generally adopted definition of the effectivity is
lacking because irreversible pressure losses are neglected as is recognised by several authors (Soland
1978, Bejan 1988, Veltkamp 1993). The solution adopted during this project is to correct the measured
temperatures with the measured pressure losses to comply with the current practice. Another
solution can be to adopt a characterisation of the heat exchanger which includes the pressure losses
using a second law analysis as is proposed by Bejan (1988).

heat exchanger test rig 21

Literature
1978 Soland, J.G., W.M. Mack and W.M. Roshenow, Performance ranking of plate-fin heat
exchanging surfaces, J. Heat transfer vol. 100, p. 514
1988 Bejan, A, Advanced engineering thermodynamcs, McGraw-Hill, New York
1993 Veltkamp, W.B., Haalbaarheidsstudie van een laminaire tegenstroom kanaal
warmtewisselaar, LEVEL enrgietechniek rapport 93.09, Son
1997 Kemenade, E van, Ontwikkeling prototype recuperatieve stralingsbrander, LEVEL
enrgietechniek rapport 97.01, Son
1998 Arink, C.A.F., Het ontwerp van een meetopstelling voor gas-gas warmtewisselaars,
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, WOC-WET 98.002
1998 Huffel, M.L.P.C. van, De ontwikkeling van een warmtewisselaar meetbank, Fontys
Hogescholen Eindhoven
1999 Kroonen, R.J.M.H., Het ontwerpen van een temperatuurmeetsectie om nauwkeurig de
temperatuur van een luchtstroom in een kanaal te meten, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven,
WOC-WET 98.002
1999 Wolfs, M., De ontwikkeling van een warmtewisselaar meetbank, Fontys Hogescholen
Eindhoven

heat exchanger test rig 22