Accepted Manuscript

An investigation of the effects of geometry design on refrigerant flow mal-dis-

tribution in parallel flow condenser using a hybrid method of finite element
approach and CFD simulation

Mohammad Hassan Shojaeefard, Seyed Davoud Nourbakhsh, Javad Zare

PII: S1359-4311(16)32119-6
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.10.009
Reference: ATE 9211

To appear in: Applied Thermal Engineering

Received Date: 1 July 2016

Revised Date: 5 September 2016
Accepted Date: 1 October 2016

Please cite this article as: M. Hassan Shojaeefard, S. Davoud Nourbakhsh, J. Zare, An investigation of the effects
of geometry design on refrigerant flow mal-distribution in parallel flow condenser using a hybrid method of finite
element approach and CFD simulation, Applied Thermal Engineering (2016), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.applthermaleng.2016.10.009

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 An investigation of the effects of geometry design on refrigerant flow
mal-distribution in parallel flow condenser using a hybrid method of finite
element approach and CFD simulation

Mohammad Hassan Shojaeefarda, Seyed Davoud Nourbakhsha, Javad Zarea*

a
School of Mechanical Engineering, Iran University of Science & Technology, Tehran, Iran.

*Corresponding author: Javad Zare

Email: j_zare@mecheng.iust.ac.ir

Tel.: +98-917-1085183
Fax: +98-21-77240363

1
Abstract

Flow mal-distribution in tubes is an important problem in parallel flow heat exchangers

(PFHXs) which should be considered in heat exchanger modeling. In the present study, a

hybrid method is developed for flow distribution forecasting based on simultaneous use of

computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation for 3D analysis of flow in PFHX headers

and finite element model for solving flow within tubes. The developed method forecasts are

verified against the experimental data of a parallel flow condenser (PFC) performance. The

method is then utilized to investigate the effects of tube protrusion depth, inlet tube location,

inlet tube diameter and combination of tube protrusion depth and inlet tube location on

refrigerant flow mal-distribution. The data indicate flow mal-distribution increment (increase

of standard deviation (STD) from 0.51% to 1.77%) by increasing the tube protrusion depth

from 1/4 to 3/4 of header diameter which results in about 14% increment in pressure drop and

3.9% decrement in capacity. Also, reduction of flow mal-distribution in cases of increasing

the inlet tube diameter and locating the header inlet on the top of the header, a small distance

away from the first tube is observed. The presented model and results can be used to

accurately design PFCs.

Keywords: PFC, CFD simulation, one dimensional finite element approach, flow mal-

distribution, protrusion depth.

2
Nomenclature

Aair air-side surface area (m2) x refrigerant quality

Ac minimum free-flow area for air side (m2) xj coordinate (m)
Afin fin surface area (m2) Greek symbols
Afr frontal area (m2) α void fraction and permeability
Aref refrigerant-side surface area (m2) β constant
cp specific heat capacity (kJ/kg K) δ Kronecker delta
C heat capacity rate (kW/K) δfin fin thickness (m)
C2 pressure jump coefficient (1/m) δwall tube wall thickness (m)
effectiveness and rate of dissipation of
Cµ constant ε
turbulent kinetic energy (m2/s3)
Cɛ1 constant η overall surface efficiency
Cɛ2 constant ηo constant
Dh hydraulic diameter (m) µ dynamic viscosity (Pa s)
f friction coefficient  kinematic viscosity (m2/s)
fi gravitational field (m/s2) ρ density (kg/m3)
Fd fin width (m) ρm mean average air density (kg/m3)
Fp fin pitch (m) σ surface tension (N/m)
G mass flux (kg/m2 s) σk effective Prandtl number for k
turbulent kinetic energy generation
Gk σε effective Prandtl number for ε
(kg/m s3)
h heat transfer coefficient (kW/m2 K) subscripts
H fin height (m) air air
j Colburn j-factor ave average
thermal conductivity (kW/m K) and
k crit critical
turbulent kinetic energy (m2/s2)
L1 louver height (m) dec deceleration
La louver angle (degree) Dh hydraulic diameter
Lp louver pitch (m) eff effective
M number of considered cases exp experimental
mass flow rate (kg/s) f liquid
Δm thikness of the medium (m) fin fin
N number of flat tubes in inlet header g gas
NTU number of transfer units in inlet
P pressure (Pa) k f or g for liquid and vapor phases
Pr Prandtl number l liquid
ΔP pressure drop (Pa) Lp louver pitch
Q heat transfer rate (kW) max maximum
Re Reynolds number min minimum
St Stanton number out outlet
STD standard deviation pred predicted
Su Suratman number ref refrigerant
T temperature (K) t turbulent
Tp tube pitch (m) tube tube
UA overall heat transfer coefficient (kW/K) wall wall
u face air velocity (m/s)
u fluctuating velocity (m/s)
Uj mean velocity (m/s)
V velocity normal to the porous face (m/s)
VC maximum air velocity (u Afr /Ac) (m/s)

3
1. Introduction

Application of PFHXs due to their advantages against conventional heat exchangers such as

compactness, higher performance, lower weight and reliability has been grown rapidly in

recent years. Therefore, developing appropriate models to anticipate PFHXs performance

with high accuracy and also to improve their design is necessary.

Yin et al. [1] extended a numerical code for a microchannel condenser. The effects of

important factors such as non-uniform air temperature and velocity at the front, fin

conduction, refrigerant-side maldistribution caused by pressure balance between tubes and

air-side distribution for multislabs were considered in simulations. The obtained results were

compared with the test data and also the results of changing the number of flat tubes in each

pass were analyzed. Wang et al. [2] proposed a numerical model for parallel flow condensers

that takes into account the refrigerant flow mal-distribution. The effects of aspect ratio, pass

arrangement and mass flow rate on flow distribution, heat transfer and pressure drop were

investigated. They found that changing aspect ratio or pass arrangement varies the heat

capacity much less than flow distribution and pressure drop.

Tian et al. [3] developed a distributed parameter model for parallel flow minichannel

evaporator by considering uniform refrigerant distribution and neglecting header pressure

drops. Despite of the good agreement among the results of the numerical model with the

experimental data, it was mentioned that the model accuracy can be increased by taking

refrigerant distribution factor and flow pass arrangement into account. Experimental and

simulation study of automotive heat exchangers were conducted by [4]. A distributed

parameter model was developed and validated via coil designer software. It was found that

condensers with shorter louvered fins have 3–8.6% higher heat capacity than condensers with

longer louvered fins.

4
Huang et al. [5] presented a finite volume-based model to simulate microchannel heat

exchangers with variable tube and fin geometries. Equal distribution of refrigerant flow into

the tubes was assumed and enhancement of the heat exchanger performance and

improvement of the material utilization were reported as the benefits of the proposed design.

Zhao et al. [6] developed and validated a distributed parameter model of minichannel

evaporator by neglecting mal-distribution of refrigerant flow within flat tubes. It was found

that R134a has higher two-phase heat transfer coefficient than R1234yf and the model

predicts the capacity of the evaporator using R-134a better than the evaporator using

R1234yf.

Zou et al. [7] used the obtained experimental quality distribution of upward refrigerant flow

in vertical header as input of a developed microchannel heat exchanger model. The whole

heat exchanger capacity degradation due to flow mal-distribution was calculated for both

R410a and R134a, showing reduction of up to 30% for R410a and 5% for R134a. Refrigerant

flow mal-distribution in inlet header of a microchannel heat exchanger was analyzed using

co-simulation approach by Huang et al. [8]. Experimental data was used for verifying the

results and significant role of gravity on the liquid distribution in a vertical header was

reported.

Yin et al. [9] modeled a CO2 gas cooler using a one dimensional finite element approach with

assumption of uniform flow distribution within tubes. The predicted capacity was within ±2%

of the experimental data. An investigation of a multilouver fin, microchannel condenser was

performed in [10]. A design procedure was developed which led to a 19% condenser mass

reduction for uniform air flow.

Mal-distribution of refrigerant flow among multiport flat tubes is one of the most important

issues in PFHXs applications which affects the PFHXs performance. Therefore, many

researchers have investigated the effects of refrigerant flow mal-distribution on PFHXs

5
performance and presented solutions to obtain more uniform distribution. Kim and Han [11]

experimentally studied air-water flow distribution for a heat exchanger with 10 flat tubes and

round headers. The effects of tube protrusion depth, header mass flux and quality were

analyzed and compared with the data of a heat exchanger with 30 flat tubes. They found that

protrusion depth has a significant effect on water flow distribution for the downward flow

configuration and flow distribution is more uniform for 10 tube heat exchanger.

Saleh et al. [12] employed multi objective approximation assisted optimization procedure in

order to design optimum headers for compact heat exchangers. Their goal in optimizing was

to decrease mass flow rate mal-distribution and the header frontal area with respect to the

total heat exchanger frontal area. The three obtained extreme designs were verified by CFD

simulations. Predicted total pressure drop error and mass flow rate relative STD error were

less than 6% and 8%, respectively, which are evidences of the metamodels acceptable

accuracy.

Wang et al. [13] numerically and experimentally investigated the single phase flow into

PFHXs. The effects of inlet flow condition, tube diameter, header size, area ratio, flow

directions and gravity were analyzed. Improving the flow mal-distribution by reducing the

branching tube size or increasing the entrance settling distance at the intake conduit and also

negligible effect of gravity on flow mal-distribution were observed.

The flow distribution of R410a refrigerant in a test section simulating a PFHX with vertical

headers was explored by Byun and Kim [14]. A more uniform flow distribution was achieved

when the flow inlet location was placed at the top rather than the middle. As for the outlet

location, top or bottom flow outlet was better than middle. Also, proper selection of inlet and

outlet position decreased thermal degradation within several percent. Experimental studies of

a parallel flow evaporator consists of two row/four pass configuration showed a reduction of

between 13 and 40 percent in heat transfer due to flow mal-distribution. Also, the measured

6
pressure drops in header showed a pressure drop increase with an increase of mass flux [15].

Brix et al. [16] built a one dimensional model to study the effects of refrigerant and air mal-

distributions on the parallel evaporator performance. Significant reduction of the cooling

capacity was achieved in case of unevenly distributed inlet quality and also non-uniform

airflow.

Two approaches for reducing flow mal-distribution in the header tube arrangement were

checked numerically by Said et al. [17]. The flow mal-distribution decreased 12 and 7.5 times

the original by introduction of orifice and nozzle in actual tube inlet, respectively. Habib et al.

[18] used CFD simulation to examine the effects of geometry and operating conditions on

flow mal-distribution in heat exchangers. Also, they presented correlations of flow mal-

distribution parameters based on the obtained results [19].

Vist and Pettersen [20] presented the experimental results of two-phase flow distribution in

compact heat exchanger headers. R134a refrigerant was used as working fluid and the effects

of vapor fraction at the header inlet, heating load on tubes, header diameter and the inlet tube

length of header were analyzed. Hwang et al. [21] demonstrated that the side-inlet location

provides more suitable liquid flow distribution than end-inlet location in heat exchangers with

horizontal headers.

As is evident from the literature review, although considering the effects of flow mal-

distribution in calculation of the PFHXs performance is particularly important but

comprehensive studies on modeling the flow mal-distribution in PFCs and the role of

geometrical parameters are not available. In fact, despite the existing efforts on modeling

flow mal-distribution in literature it should be mentioned that using only empirical pressure

drop correlations to consider flow mal-distribution is not sufficient for PFHX performance

prediction and also, CFD simulation of the whole heat exchanger has high computational

cost. On the other hand, only CFD simulations of headers are not sufficient since part of the

7
flow mal-distribution is caused by the uneven heat transfer in the flat tubes and it is

imperative to consider both pressure drop and heat transfer in the flat tubes. Therefore, it is

necessary to develop a reliable approach with low computational cost and capability of

considering all factors which affect the flow distribution. Also, analyzing the effects of

geometry design as one of the most important causes of flow mal-distribution is crucial.

Using hybrid methods can be considered as one of the promising ways to treat this issue.

Combining the interesting characteristics of different methods such as finite volume and

finite element to solve CFD problems or using combination of these two methods in series

with each other are some of the examples of such hybrid methods. Sheikholeslami et al. [22,

23] studied forced convection heat transfer in different semi annulus lids filled with Fe 3O4-

water ferrofluid. The control volume finite element method (CVFEM) was used for solving

the governing equations. Direct and inverse relations of the heat transfer enhancement with

Reynolds number and Hartmann number were observed, respectively.

The effect of electric field on Fe3O4–ethylene glycol nanofluid convective heat transfer in an

enclosure with sinusoidal wall was simulated using CVFEM [24]. Augmentation of supplied

voltage and Reynolds number led to heat transfer increment. The CVFEM was also utilized

to study the ferrofluid flow and free convection heat transfer in the presence of an external

variable magnetic field in enclosures with different geometries and boundary conditions [25-

27].

In the present work, a PFHX hybrid procedure based on utilizing the CFD simulation and one

dimensional finite element model in series with each other is developed. In fact, in the

proposed model, CFD simulation is used for three dimensional simulation of flow in PFHX

headers, while the one dimensional finite element method is responsible for thermal and

hydraulic analysis of flow inside heat exchanger flat tubes. The conservation equations for

the mass and momentum along with the transport equations for the turbulence model are

8
solved to simulate the flow characteristics in headers. The finite volume method is used to

discretize the equations. The finite element model which uses the Effectiveness Number of

Transfer Units (ε-NTU) method to model the heat transfer is responsible for forecasting flow

behavior within flat tubes. In fact, the outputs of CFD simulation are used as inputs for the

finite element method and vice versa. This process is repeated until the mass flow rate

residual in each port is within the predefined value as the convergence criteria of the

algorithm.

Unlike the presented papers in literature about modeling the flow mal-distribution using only

empirical pressure drop correlations or only CFD simulations of headers which are not

accurate assumptions, the proposed algorithm is a new hybrid method with the capability of

considering actual flow behavior in both headers and flat tubes completely. The model has

the advantages of predicting PFC overall performance, higher accuracy, faster calculations

and stable convergence compared with other modeling methods.

The details of the method concept are presented in the next sections and then the obtained

results (condenser capacity, pressure drop and outlet refrigerant temperature) from applying

the proposed method are validated against experimental data of a PFC using R134a as

working fluid. A good agreement among the results of proposed approach and experimental

data shows the accuracy of the developed method. The effects of geometry design on

refrigerant flow mal-distribution in terms of tube protrusion depth, inlet tube location and

inlet tube diameter are studied using the developed method. Also, the combined effect of

reducing protrusion depth and locating the inlet tube at top of the header is checked and

analyzed.

9
2. Experimental set up

2.1. Test sample

A PFC with specific dimensions and geometry using R134a as working fluid was tested and

its operating parameters were measured under different conditions. The main components of

a PFC are header tubes, multiport flat tubes and louvered fins. Flow passes are composed of

header tubes and multiport flat tubes. Header tubes distribute and collect the flows. Actually,

the refrigerant first flows into the header tube and is distributed into the multiport flat tubes

which act as refrigerant passages. Then, the refrigerant flows are mixed again at the header

tube at last before into the next flow pass. The baffles divide the header tubes and the

corrugated louvered fins are also used in the air side to enhance the heat exchange between

the refrigerant and air. A view of the PFC with flow configuration is displayed in Fig. 1.

Also, the geometrical parameters of the used condenser are presented in Table 1.

2.2. Test facility

The main components of an experimental test apparatus of AAC system are evaporator,

condenser, compressor and expansion valve. A schematic diagram of the experimental test

facility used in this study is shown in Fig. 2.

As it can be seen, the test set up consists of two isolated rooms with controlled conditions for

evaporator and condenser, respectively. The compressor stand is also installed in the

condenser room. A turbofan provides the required air flow through the condenser and air

velocity is controlled by the nozzles. The condenser inlet air temperature is adjusted by a

heater that is installed at the upstream of condenser. The conditions of sensible and latent

thermal loads at the evaporator chamber are adjusted by a heater and humidifier that are

installed upstream of evaporator. The air flowing through the evaporator is also controlled by

the nozzles. The pressure drop of air flow through the condenser and evaporator is also

measured using a differential pressure transducer.

10
The used refrigerant is R134a which flows through a closed-loop circuit. A coriolis type mass

flow meter which is installed between the condenser and the expansion valve measures the

refrigerant mass flow rate. Resistance temperature sensors and pressure transducers are used

to measure the refrigerant side temperatures and pressures. A clutch turns the compressor on

and off and a torque meter and a tachometer which uses a RPM detector are responsible for

measuring the compressor torque and rotational speed, respectively. The laboratory

accreditation of test apparatus is based on ISO 17025 and the accuracy of experimental

parameters is summarized in Table 2. To perform the tests, the condenser input parameters

were adjusted and the output parameters were measured after reaching the steady state

condition. The steady state data was taken after lying the measured parameter values within

an acceptable range (very little variation of the measured parameters) which was considered

as the steady state achieving condition. This procedure takes about 50-90 minutes from

starting the experimental test facility.

2.3. Uncertainty analysis

Due to dependence of the usefulness of experimentally measured data on their uncertainty,

estimating the uncertainty of experimental results is necessary. Uncertainty of the outlet

refrigerant temperature as a directly measured variable is calculated based on the accuracy of

experimental parameters presented in Table. 2. Also, if a parameter (y) is computed based on

several directly measured variables (xi), each direct measured variable contributes an

uncertainty (u(xi)) to the calculated parameter. The absolute uncertainty can be evaluated

based on a first-order Taylor series approximation of the function for y (

y
iN 2

u  ( ( u ( xi )) )1/2 ) in which u(xi) is the uncertainty of each direct measured variable. The
i 1 xi

condenser capacity which is evaluated based on the average values of refrigerant side and air

11
 1
side capacities ( Q  (Qair  Q ref . ) ) and condenser pressure drop are the calculated
2

parameters which their uncertainties for different experimental tests are computed.

3. Header CFD simulation

Simulation of the PFHX headers is carried out using a CFD code, Fluent 6.3.26. To simulate

the flow characteristics in headers, the conservation equations for the mass and momentum

should be solved. Because the flow in headers is three dimensional and turbulent, it is

necessary to solve additional transport equations for the turbulence model.

The assumptions in deriving the equations are steady state, incompressible flow and also the

gravity is included. The time-averaged equations for the mass and momentum are as follows.

 (1)
( U j )  0
x j

  P  U i (2)
( U iU j )  (  uiuj )    ( )   fi
x j x j xi x j x j

where µ is the fluid viscosity.  uiuj is the stress tensor which should be appropriately

modeled. The common method to do this, is utilizing the Boussinesq concept which relates

the Reynolds stresses to the mean velocity gradients with the eddy viscosity as the

proportionality factor. This approach has the advantage of low computational cost compared

with the Reynolds stress model which solves the transport equations for each of the terms in

the Reynolds stress tensor. The disadvantage of the Boussinesq hypothesis is assuming the

eddy viscosity as an isotropic scalar quantity which can be eliminated by modifying the

transport equations for the selected turbulence parameters.  uiuj is given by

 U U j  2 (3)
 u iu j   t ( i  )    k  ij
 x j x i  3

µt is the turbulent viscosity and k is the kinetic energy of turbulence.

12
In order to choose a suitable turbulence model, different available models were applied and

the results were compared against the experimental data. Finally, based on the comparison

results, complex flow behavior in headers and also available data in literature [8, 17-19] the

renormalization group (RNG) k-ε model was selected as the most appropriate model. It is

also worth mentioning that the RNG k-ε model due to additional term in its ε equation

produces accurate results for separating flows, swirling flows and secondary flows compared

with other two-equation models. Another advantage of this model against more powerful

methods is its low computational cost which makes it so suitable for the developed method in

the present work. The kinetic energy of turbulence (k) and its rate of dissipation (ε) are

obtained from the following conservation equations:

  eff k (4)
( U j k )  ( )  Gk  
x j x j  k xi

  eff   2 (5)
( U j )  ( )  C 1Gk  C 3
x j xi  k xi k k

k2
where eff ( t   ) is the effective viscosity and t (  C ) as the turbulent viscosity


is calculated using the high-Reynolds number limit. The value of C as the proportionality

factor for the turbulent viscosity is considered 0.0845 which is derived using RNG theory to

accurately describe the variation of turbulent transport with effective Reynolds number to

U j
provide better results for near-wall flows. Gk (   uiuj ) is the generation of turbulent
xi

kinetic energy due to the mean velocity gradients and the quantities σk and σε are the effective

Prandtl numbers for k and ε, respectively. Cε3 is a combination of Cε2 and R which enables the

model to be more responsive to the effects of rapid strain and streamline curvature. Cε3 is

given by

13
 C  3 (1   / 0 ) (6)
C3  C 2 
1   3
R
The constant C  1 ( 1.42) is the coefficient of the standard ε-production term which takes into

account the increased production due to local anisotropy near the wall and the constant

C  2 ( 1.68) is the coefficient of the ε-dissipation term which are derived analytically by the

RNG theory.  ( Sk /  ) is the ratio of the turbulent time scale ( k /  ) to the time scale of

the mean strain (S) that is large in regions of rapid distortion. S is the measure of the

1 U j U i
deformation tensor given by S  2w ijw ij where w ij  (  ) . The constant
2 x i x j

0 ( 4.38) is the fixed point for homogeneous shear flow of the RNG k-ε model equations

without R (obtained in the limit of small wij).  ( 0.012) is also a constant which is

calculated based on relationship with the von Karman constant. Based on the industrial

application of the PFC condenser, available researches [17-19] and comparison with

experimental data the standard wall functions [28] are utilized to link the solution variables at

the near-wall cells and the corresponding quantities on the wall. For all studied cases the

range of y  in which wall functions are suitable is considered to be 30 to 40 ( 30  y   40 ).

A given uniform velocity distribution is used as boundary condition at the inlet tube of the

condenser, while a given pressure is used at the outlet. No-slip boundary condition is also

applied at the solid walls. The turbulence intensity is considered in the range of 5-10% which

is suitable for fully developed flow at the inlet tube of the header and the turbulence length

scale is proportional to the inlet tube hydraulic diameter.

The governing equations are discretized using finite volume method. SIMPLE algorithm is

used for velocity and pressure coupling and second order upwind method was used for

momentum equation discretization. The scaled residuals of different variables (mass,

14
velocity, k and ε) are chosen as indicators of numerical computation convergence which all

should be lower than 10 -5 in this study. In the developed procedure, all the headers include

inlet, intermediate and outlet headers are simulated using CFD code.

4. One dimensional finite element modeling

In the presented procedure, a one dimensional finite element approach is proposed to predict

thermal and hydraulic performance of refrigerant flow within flat tubes. The condenser tubes

are divided into finite elements (Fig. 3(a)).

The uniform distribution of velocity and temperature is considered for air across the

condenser and the heat transfer between the ports and axial heat conduction are neglected.

Based on the mentioned assumptions, the ε-NTU method [29] is used to model the heat

transfer between the refrigerant and the air. The maximum possible heat transfer rate for each

element is:

Q max  C min (T ref ,in T air ,in ) (7)

The actual heat transfer rate is also defined as:

Q  C min (T ref ,in T air ,in ) (8)

and the effectiveness is then defined as:

Q (9)

Qmax

The effectiveness is a function of the NTU and heat capacity ratio Cr, as defined in Eq. 10.

min(C air ,C ref ) C min (10)

Cr  
max(C air ,C ref ) C max
C air  m air c p ,air
C ref  m ref c p ,ref

15
When two phase flow is present, the heat capacity ratio is zero. For superheat and subcooled

regions (single phase flow), Eq. 11 is used and for condensation region (two phase-flow), Eq.

12 is used.

  1  exp 1/ Cr  NTU 0.22 (exp Cr NTU 0.78   1)  (11)

  1  exp(NTU ) (12)

where NTU is defined as the ratio of overall heat transfer coefficient and heat capacity rate:

UA (13)
NTU 
Cmin

The overall heat transfer coefficient, UA, is defined in terms of the total thermal resistance to

the heat transfer between the air and refrigerant.

1 1  1 (14)
  wall 
UA  hair Aair kwall Aref href Aref

where kwall is the thermal conductivity of the wall evaluated at the average wall temperature.

The global efficiency (  ) is defined as [30]:

Afin (15)
  1 (1   f )
Aair

tanh  ml 
ηf =
ml

 2hair 
m= 
 k   
1+   fin / Fd  
 fin fin 

l  ( H / 2)   fin

where kfin is the fin thermal conductivity, δfin is the fin thickness, H is the fin height and Fd is

the fin width.

16
4.1. Air-side heat transfer and pressure drop

The air side heat transfer coefficient is assumed to be constant in an individual element and is

calculated using [30]:

 0.487  L 
0.257
 Fp 
0.13
H 
0.29
 Fd 
0.235
 (16)
  ReLp   
a
      
  90   Lp   Lp   Lp  
j  0.279 0.05

 L  Tp  
0.68
 fin 
 1
     
 Lp   Lp  
     Lp  

hair  Gc p St
St  j Pr 2/3
c
Pr  p
k

The air side pressure drop is as Eq. 17 [30].

f Aair (17)
Pair  ( mV c 2 )
2 Ac

 0.781  L 
0.444
 Fp 
1.682
H 
1.22
 Fd 
0.818
 L1 
1.97

f   Re Lp 
  
a
        
  90   Lp   Lp   Lp   Lp  
 

The geometrical parameters of a multi-louvered fin are indicated in Fig. 3 (b).

4.2. Refrigerant-side heat transfer and pressure drop

The refrigerant side heat transfer coefficient is different for single phase and two phase

refrigerant flows. Refrigerant enters the condenser as superheated vapor, condenses and

leaves in a liquid phase (liquid phase may not always be present). Therefore, the condenser is

divided to three zones. If the refrigerant is as a single phase, vapor or liquid, the refrigerant

heat transfer coefficient is calculated using [31]:

h  0.023ReDh 0.8 Pr 0.4  k / D h  (18)

The single phase refrigerant pressure drop is determined using Eq. 19 [29]:

17
dP  G2  (19)
  f / Dh  
dz  2 
64
Re Dh  2300 f 
Re
0.3164
Re Dh  2300 f 
Re0.25

For the two-phase refrigerant Eq. 20 is used for heat transfer coefficient [32].

   (20)
  0.04  
 3.8  x  1  x   
0.76

h  0.023  Reeq 0.8  Prl 0.4  kl / D h   1  x   
0.8
0.38 
   P  
    
   Pcrit  
D G
Reeq  h
l

The pressure drop of two-phase region is attributed to friction pressure drop and deceleration

pressure drop. The two-phase friction pressure drop is calculated using Eq. 21 [33]:

18
  dP 
 dP   dP  2  dz 
  f
C 1
 dz    dz   f  2f  1   2
2
X
F f X X  dP 
 dz 
g

 dP  2f  G 2 (1  x )2  dP  2f  G 2 x 2
   f f    g g
 dz  f Dh  dz  g Dh
f k  16 Rek 1 Rek  2000
f k  0.079 Rek 0.25
2000  Rek  20000
f k  0.046 Rek 0.2 Rek  20000
for laminar flow in rectangular channel
f k Rek  24(1  1.3553  1.9467  2  1.7012 3  0.9564 4  0.2537  5 )
subscript k denotes f or g for liquid and vapor phases
G (1  x )D h GxD h GD h g  Dh
Ref  Re g  Refo  Su go 
f g f g 2
Liquid Vapor C
Turbulent Turbulent 
C  0.39  Refo 0.03  su go 0.1   f / g 
0.35

Turbulent Laminar 
C  0.00087  Refo 0.17  su go 0.5   f / g   0.14

C  0.0015  Refo 0.59  su go 0.19   /   

0.36
Laminar Turbulent f g

C  0.000035  Refo 0.44  su go 0.5   /   

0.48
(21)
f g
Laminar Laminar

and the deceleration pressure drop is calculated using Eq. 22.

 dP  2 x
2
(1  x )2 2 x
2
(1  x )2 (22)
   G [  ]  G [  ]
 dx dec  g (1   ) l out  g (1   ) l in

where α is the void fraction, given by [34]:

1  x  g 2/3 1 (23)
  [1  ( )( ) ]
x l

The above mentioned relations are used to model the heat transfer and pressure drop within

flat tube ports. In addition to geometric parameters of the PFC, other parameters include mass

flow rate, temperature and pressure of refrigerant in inlet of each flat tube port, air inlet

temperature and air mass flow rate are used as input parameters for the numerical code.

19
As stated, the condenser is divided into finite elements. The inlet properties of each element

are used to estimate the average thermophysical properties of the element which makes good

results if the selected element length is small enough. Each flat tube is divided into 210

elements based on testing different numbers of elements. Heat transfer and pressure drop in

each element are calculated and then by using enthalpy release the outlet parameters are

evaluated which is then used for the inlet conditions of the next element and so on forth. The

sum of the heat transfer rate in each element is the total heat transfer rate of the condenser.

The condenser outlet air temperature is also obtained by averaging all elements outlet air

temperature. The developed model has the ability of determining the locations of single phase

and two phase regions [35].

5. Developed method concept

In the developed method, a one dimensional finite element model is used for forecasting

thermal and hydraulic performance of flow within flat tubes, while the CFD simulation is

employed for solving flow characteristics in headers. Actually, the PFC flat tubes are

removed and the headers are attached together to make a solution domain. In place of headers

connection, a porous jump condition which is suitable to model a thin porous media is used

as the representative of the flat tube pressure drop. Schematic of the co-simulation concept

for the whole condenser can be seen in Fig. 4(a and b). The flow is considered single-phase in

inlet and outlet headers in CFD simulation as in actual conditions, but the two-phase flow

within intermediate headers is treated using two-phase homogenous model. Thermophysical

properties are evaluated based on the average values of temperature and pressure or

temperature and quality and are kept constant within headers during each iteration.

Also, the flow chart of the presented method is illustrated in Fig. 5. In order to solve, first the

whole flow field is solved without applying any pressure drop in flat tubes, which gives the

20
refrigerant mass flow rate and pressure in inlet of each port. Then, the obtained pressure and

mass flow rate are used as inputs for the finite element method, which gives the pressure drop

and heat transfer rate of refrigerant flow within flat tubes. The obtained pressure drop is

applied via the porous jump condition (Eq. 24) to the solution domain.

 V 2 (24)
P  ( V  C 2 )m
 2
In Eq. 24, µ is the fluid viscosity, α is the permeability, V is the normal velocity, C2 is the

pressure jump coefficient, ρ is the density and Δm is the thickness of the medium. The first

term on the right hand side is a porous media inertial loss term which is not necessary to be

considered in our simulations. The second term demonstrates the skin friction pressure drop

and the total pressure drop in each flat tube port is applied by adjusting the C2 value.

The obtained heat transfer rate is also employed to find the flat tube outlet refrigerant

temperature. The average values of the flat tubes outlet temperatures and qualities in each

header are then used to calculate the mean fluid properties and the whole flow field is solved

once again using CFD code. The aforementioned process is repeated until the mass flow rate

residual in each port is within the predefined value which is chosen as the convergence

criteria of the algorithm. It is worth mentioning again that finite volume method is used to

discretize the governing equations for CFD simulation of flow in headers while the finite

element method is utilized to anticipate flow behavior within flat tubes. Therefore, these

methods which are applied to different parts of the PFC are completely different and should

not be confused with each other.

21
6. Grid generation and evaluation of the developed method

Schematic of the PFC headers used in CFD simulation and their geometrical specifications

can be seen in Fig. 4(a) and Table. 1, respectively. Given that, the inlet, intermediate and

outlet headers are composed of similar repeating parts, the headers are divided into smaller

parts which themselves are divided into smaller volumes for meshing procedure (Fig. 6(a)).

The used grid is a combination of structured and unstructured elements. Map type hexahedral

elements are used for cubic volumes and tetprimitive hexahedral elements for other volumes

(Fig. 6(b)). 58% of all elements are hexahedral-map type and 42% are hexahedral-

tetprimitive.

The governing equations are solved for various numbers of elements in order to check the

grid independency. The results of condenser pressure drop and capacity are depicted in Fig.

7. As it is observable, beyond 3436111 cells, increasing the number of elements does not

cause any visible change in condenser pressure drop and capacity and therefore this number

of elements is used for CFD simulations.

The obtained experimental results from calorimeter test apparatus (Table. 3) are used to

evaluate the developed method predictions. The relative humidity is also considered 8%

during experimental tests.

The average absolute deviation which is evaluated based on the predicted value ( o pred ) and

experimental value ( o exp ) is used to measure the developed method performance.

 1 M o pred  o exp  (25)

Average absolute deviation(%)     100
 M i 1 o exp 

in which, M is the number of considered cases.

Fig. 8 shows the evaluation of refrigerant pressure drop, condenser capacity and outlet

refrigerant temperature, respectively. The average absolute deviation from experimental

results is 2.8% for refrigerant pressure drop, 4.1% for condenser capacity and 3% for outlet

22
refrigerant temperature. A good agreement among the proposed method forecasts and

experimental results is obtained that shows the accuracy of the developed method and

validity of the used relations and assumptions.

7. Results and discussion

The developed method was validated against the experimental data in previous section using

the original geometry of the condenser and it was found that this method is capable of

predicting condenser performance and flow mal-distribution accurately. The design

procedure of the PFCs is normally based on the assumption of uniform flow distribution in

flat tubes, but because of some influencing parameters in practice (such as pressure drop in

headers which has not been considered in uniform flow distribution modeling, geometry

design, operating conditions and …), the flow distribution is non-uniform. This non-

uniformity can deteriorate condenser performance which should be considered in

performance evaluation. The population STD in mass flow rate is calculated as the measure

of refrigerant flow mal-distribution in inlet header flat tubes.

1 N (26)
STD 
N
 (m i  m avg )2
i 1

in which, N is the number of flat tubes in inlet header, m i is each flat tube mass flow rate and

m avg is the average value of mass flow rates.

Since the geometry design is one of the main reasons of the flow mal-distribution, the

proposed procedure is used to analyze the effects of some geometrical parameters on

condenser performance and also on refrigerant flow mal-distribution within inlet header

23
7.1. Effect of tube protrusion depth

As it was stated, the main components of a PFC are header tubes, multiport flat tubes and

louvered fins. Insertion of the flat tubes into the header is one of the parameters affecting

header pressure drop and flow mal-distribution. Three different protrusion depths are used to

study the effects of tube protrusion depth on condenser capacity and pressure drop as well as

flow mal-distribution. The header cross section is divided into three zones and the original

protrusion depth (2/4 of header diameter), the decreased protrusion depth (1/4 of header

diameter) and the increased one (3/4 of header diameter) are investigated as the

representative of these zones to find the best configuration.

The mass flow distribution in inlet header and pressure and velocity contours on a sliced

plane at the center of a middle port for different considered cases are displayed in Figs. 9-11.

It is obvious that regardless of the tube protrusion depths, the flow behavior for single-phase

vapor is similar and the tube 2 has the highest mass flow in comparison with other flat tubes.

In fact, because the flat tube 2 is located in front of the inlet tube the highest mass flow rate

passes from this tube. After tube 4 the mass flow begins to increase slightly with moving

toward the lower tubes which is due to gravity effect. In other words, the inlet header can be

divided into three different zones. There is an increasing zone (up to tube 2) due to existence

of the inlet tube, a decreasing region (up to tube 4) and again an increasing region (up to tube

17) due to gravity effect. Also, based on the rate of increment of mass flow it can be

concluded that the effect of gravity on flow distribution in case of single-phase vapor flow in

inlet header is not significant.

Despite of similarity of the flow behavior, it is observed that in case of increased protrusion

depth more flow is distributed into first two tubes and last three tubes and less flow in other

tubes in comparison with other configurations and also the rate of enhance of mass flow from

tube 4 to tube 17 will also be higher.

24
Pressure and velocity contours show that increasing the protrusion depth increases the flow

recirculation zones between successive flat tubes and confines the main flow between the top

of the flat tubes and the header rear part. Also, protrusion depth enhancement causes the flow

velocity increment by decreasing the flow passage area which is a cause of flow mal-

distribution. In addition to flow velocity increment, subjecting to successive contractions and

expansions and also tube protrusion depth are some the reasons of the pressure drop

augmentation.

The velocity and pressure difference distributions from top to the bottom of the inlet header

along the intersection of a plane perpendicular to the center of the middle port and a plane

tangent to the inlet of the flat tubes are plotted in Fig. 12.

A sudden rise in velocity and pressure is observed at the inlet of the tubes which are located

in front of the header inlet tube for all cases. This is because these tubes are directly hit by the

incoming refrigerant flow from the inlet tube. But in other tubes, the pressure difference

decrease in inlet of each tube is accompanied with a velocity increment. Clearly, Fig. 12

shows increase of flow mal-distribution using higher protrusion depth.

Also, the results of the influence of protrusion depth on the mass flow STD inside the inlet

header as well as the total pressure loss across the condenser and the condenser capacity are

summarized in Table. 4. It can be observed that by increasing the protrusion depth from 1/4

to 3/4 of header diameter, the STD increases from 0.51% to 1.77% which results in about

14% increment in pressure drop and 3.9% decrement in capacity. In fact, it can be concluded

that protrusion depth increment causes the condenser performance deterioration in terms of

pressure drop increment and capacity decrement.

25
7.2. Effect of inlet tube location

As proper selection of the inlet tube location can improve the flow distribution and

consequently the PFC performance, five different inlet locations along the inlet header are

considered (Fig. 13). The distances of different inlet tube configurations from top of the

header are displayed in Table. 5. The case #1 corresponds to the original configuration of the

condenser and other cases are checked to find the best location. Comparison of the mass flow

distributions and pressure and velocity contours are displayed in Figs. 14 and 15,

respectively. The pressure and velocity contours of case #1 are illustrated in Fig. 10.

It is obvious that locating the inlet tube against the flat tubes causes the tube placed in front of

the inlet to have the maximum mass flow (Cases 1 to 4) which is observable as a peak in flow

distribution diagram of each case. But more uniform flow distribution can be achieved by

locating the inlet tube at the top of the header rather than against the flat tubes (Case#5)

which can also be verified based on velocity and pressure difference distributions along the

inlet header (Fig. 16).

The presented results of the influence of the inlet tube location on STD in Table. 6 (reduction

of the STD from 0.63% to 0.38% by locating the inlet position at the top of the header in

comparison with original configuration and increase of the STD from 0.63% to 0.90% with

moving the inlet tube toward the bottom of the header) also confirm the superiority of the

proposed inlet tube location.

However, an insignificant increase in the pressure drop is observed by moving the inlet tube

toward the top of the header (as can be seen in Fig. 16 and Table. 6) but enhancement of

capacity from 9993 W to 10136 W achieved for optimum case (case#5) compared with the

original case (case#1).

26
7.3. Effect of inlet tube diameter

The effect of inlet tube diameter on the mass flow distribution in the inlet header and velocity

and pressure contours are indicated in Figs. 17 and 18, respectively (The pressure and

velocity contours for inlet tube diameter of 10 mm can be seen in Fig. 10). The pressure

difference and velocity distributions are also demonstrated in Fig. 19. The considered

diameters are 8 mm, 10 mm (original configuration) and 12 mm. The figures reveal the

refrigerant flow mal-distribution increment with inlet tube diameter reduction. Similar flow

behavior is observed for inlet tube diameters of 10 and 12 mm while it is a little different for

tube diameter of 8 mm. In fact, the minimum mass flow occurs in tube 3 for the case of tube

with diameter of 8 mm and tube 4 has higher mass flow than tubes 3 and 5 whereas in cases

with diameters of 10 and 12 mm the minimum mass flow occurs in tube 4 and after that the

mass flow begins to increase.

The results of the effect of the inlet tube diameter on the mass flow STD and the condenser

pressure drop as well as the condenser capacity are presented in Table. 7. Decrement of the

STD from 0.86% to 0.62% is observed as a consequence of increasing the diameter by 50%

(from 8 to 12 mm). This can be explained based on the velocity increment at the header inlet

with the inlet tube diameter decrement which can induce jet flow at the entrance and affect

the uniformity of the velocity and pressure distributions in the inlet header. Also, 1 kPa

decrease in pressure drop and 126 W increase in capacity are the outcomes of inlet tube

diameter change from 8 to 12 mm.

7.4. Combined effect of tube protrusion depth and inlet tube location

It was found in previous sections that more uniform flow distribution is attainable via

decreasing the protrusion depth and locating the inlet tube at the top of the header. In this

section, combined effect of reducing tube protrusion depth and locating the inlet tube at top

27
of the header is examined to see how much it is capable of improving flow distribution

compared with each case separately. Mass flow distribution, pressure and velocity contours

and also pressure difference and velocity distributions which are plotted in Figs. 20 and 21,

respectively confirm the possibility of obtaining more uniform distribution but the amount of

variation is not so high.

Actually, the amount of STD reduces to 0.36% from 0.38% for the case of locating the inlet

tube at top and 0.51% for the case of protrusion depth of 1/4 of header diameter.

Consequently the capacity increases due to reduction of flow mal-distribution but by moving

the inlet tube to the top of the header the pressure drop of the combined case enhances about

2 kPa compared with the case of decreased tube protrusion depth (Table. 8).

Finally, it is worth mentioning that however the developed method and the presented results

were based on a PFC with single-phase vapor filled inlet header but can be so useful for

better understanding the amount of flow behavior dependence on geometrical parameters and

also the possible ways of improving the performance of PFCs with single-phase liquid as

working fluid. In addition, the method can be extended to the case of existence of two-phase

flow within inlet header using appropriate CFD solver.

8. Conclusions

Considering the importance of refrigerant flow mal-distribution within multiport flat tubes in

PFCs, a method based on iteration and modification through combining CFD simulation and

one dimensional finite element modeling was developed in the present study. In the

developed method the CFD simulation was used for 3D analysis of flow inside the PFC

headers while the one dimensional finite element approach was responsible for modeling the

flow within multiport flat tubes. In fact, a solution domain was made attaching the headers

together by removing the flat tubes and a porous jump condition was used as the

representative of the flat tube pressure drop. Good anticipation agreement compared to the

28
utilized experimental results for verification (average absolute deviations of 2.8%, 4.1% and

3% for refrigerant pressure drop, condenser capacity and outlet refrigerant temperature,

respectively) showed the accuracy of the method and validity of the used assumptions. Using

the proposed method, the influences of some geometrical parameters include tube protrusion

depth, inlet tube location, inlet tube diameter and combination of tube protrusion depth and

inlet tube location were investigated on refrigerant flow mal-distribution. Increase of STD

from 0.51% to 1.77% by increasing the protrusion depth from 1/4 to 3/4 header diameter

revealed the significant effect of tube protrusion depth on flow mal-distribution increment.

Locating the inlet tube position at the top of the header in comparison with original

configuration resulted in reduction of the STD (from 0.63% to 0.38%) and consequently the

flow mal-distribution. Increasing the inlet tube diameter from 8 to 12 mm reduced the STD

from 0.86% to 0.62% which can be attributed to velocity decrement at the header inlet.

Combination of reducing the protrusion depth and locating the inlet tube at the top of the

header also reduced the flow mal-distribution compared with each case separately. The

obtained results can be so valuable for designers to decrease the impacts of flow mal-

distribution on heat exchangers performance and the accuracy of the method can also be

further improved using more appropriate correlations and CFD solvers.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Sardsaz Khodro Ind. Co. and the authors gratefully

acknowledge Mr. Abbasali Gorji as the chief executive officer for providing the experimental

results.

29
References

[1] X.-W. Yin, W. Wang, V. Patnaik, J.-S. Zhou, X.-C. Huang, Evaluation of microchannel

condenser characteristics by numerical simulation, International Journal of Refrigeration, 54

(2015) 126-141.

[2] T. Wang, B. Gu, B. Wu, H. Ma, C. Qian, Modeling for multi-pass parallel flow condenser

with the effect of refrigerant mal-distribution, International Journal of Refrigeration, 60

(2015) 234-246.

[3] Z. Tian, L. Ma, B. Gu, L. Yang, F. Liu, Numerical model of a parallel flow minichannel

evaporator with new flow boiling heat transfer correlation, International Journal of

Refrigeration, (2015).

[4] Y.Y. Liang, C.C. Liu, C.Z. Li, J.P. Chen, Experimental and simulation study on the air

side thermal hydraulic performance of automotive heat exchangers, Applied Thermal

Engineering, 87 (2015) 305-315.

[5] L. Huang, V. Aute, R. Radermacher, A model for air-to-refrigerant microchannel

condensers with variable tube and fin geometries, International Journal of Refrigeration, 40

(2014) 269-281.

[6] Y. Zhao, Y. Liang, Y. Sun, J. Chen, Development of a mini-channel evaporator model

using R1234yf as working fluid, International Journal of Refrigeration, 35 (2012) 2166-2178.

[7] Y. Zou, H. Tuo, P.S. Hrnjak, Modeling refrigerant maldistribution in microchannel heat

exchangers with vertical headers based on experimentally developed distribution results,

Applied Thermal Engineering, 64 (2014) 172-181.

[8] L. Huang, M.S. Lee, K. Saleh, V. Aute, R. Radermacher, A computational fluid dynamics

and effectiveness-NTU based co-simulation approach for flow mal-distribution analysis in

microchannel heat exchanger headers, Applied Thermal Engineering, 65 (2014) 447-457.

30
[9] J.M. Yin, C.W. Bullard, P.S. Hrnjak, R-744 gas cooler model development and

validation, International Journal of Refrigeration, 24 (2001) 692-701.

[10] V. Subramaniam, S. Garimella, Design of Air-Cooled R-410A MicroChannel

Condensers, ASHRAE Transactions, 111 (2005).

[11] N.-H. Kim, S.-P. Han, Distribution of air–water annular flow in a header of a parallel

flow heat exchanger, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 51 (2008) 977-992.

[12] K. Saleh, O. Abdelaziz, V. Aute, R. Radermacher, S. Azarm, Approximation assisted

optimization of headers for new generation of air-cooled heat exchangers, Applied Thermal

Engineering, 61 (2013) 817-824.

[13] C.-C. Wang, K.-S. Yang, J.-S. Tsai, Y. Chen, Characteristics of flow distribution in

compact parallel flow heat exchangers, part I: Typical inlet header, Applied Thermal

Engineering, 31 (2011) 3226-3234.

[14] H. Byun, N. Kim, Refrigerant distribution in a parallel flow heat exchanger having

vertical headers and heated horizontal tubes, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, 35

(2011) 920-932.

[15] H.-W. Byun, N.-H. Kim, An experimental study on refrigerant distribution in a two

row/four pass parallel flow minichannel heat exchanger, Heat and Mass Transfer, (2015) 1-

19.

[16] W. Brix, M.R. Kærn, B. Elmegaard, Modelling refrigerant distribution in microchannel

evaporators, International Journal of Refrigeration, 32 (2009) 1736-1743.

[17] S. Said, R. Ben-Mansour, M. Habib, M. Siddiqui, Reducing the flow mal-distribution in

a heat exchanger, Computers & Fluids, 107 (2015) 1-10.

[18] M. Habib, R. Ben-Mansour, S. Said, M. Al-Qahtani, J. Al-Bagawi, K. Al-Mansour,

Evaluation of flow maldistribution in air-cooled heat exchangers, Computers & Fluids, 38

(2009) 677-690.

31
[19] M. Habib, R. Ben‐Mansour, S. Said, J. Al‐Bagawi, K. Al‐Mansour, Correlations of flow

maldistribution parameters in an air cooled heat exchanger, International journal for

numerical methods in fluids, 56 (2008) 143-165.

[20] S. Vist, J. Pettersen, Two-phase flow distribution in compact heat exchanger manifolds,

Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, 28 (2004) 209-215.

[21] Y. Hwang, D.-H. Jin, R. Radermacher, Refrigerant distribution in minichannel

evaporator manifolds, Hvac&R Research, 13 (2007) 543-555.

[22] M. Sheikholeslami, K. Vajravelu, M.M. Rashidi, Forced convection heat transfer in a

semi annulus under the influence of a variable magnetic field, International Journal of Heat

and Mass Transfer, 92 (2016) 339-348.

[23] M. Sheikholeslami, M. Rashidi, D. Ganji, Effect of non-uniform magnetic field on

forced convection heat transfer of–water nanofluid, Computer Methods in Applied

Mechanics and Engineering, 294 (2015) 299-312.

[24] M. Sheikholeslami, S. Soleimani, D. Ganji, Effect of electric field on hydrothermal

behavior of nanofluid in a complex geometry, Journal of Molecular Liquids, 213 (2016) 153-

161.

[25] M. Sheikholeslami, D.D. Ganji, Ferrohydrodynamic and magnetohydrodynamic effects

on ferrofluid flow and convective heat transfer, Energy, 75 (2014) 400-410.

[26] M. Sheikholeslami, M.M. Rashidi, Effect of space dependent magnetic field on free

convection of Fe 3 O 4–water nanofluid, Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical

Engineers, 56 (2015) 6-15.

[27] M.S. Kandelousi, Effect of spatially variable magnetic field on ferrofluid flow and heat

transfer considering constant heat flux boundary condition, The European Physical Journal

Plus, 129 (2014) 1-12.

32
[28] B.E. Launder, D. Spalding, The numerical computation of turbulent flows, Computer

Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 3 (1974) 269-289.

[29] T.L. Bergman, A.S. Lavine, F.P. Incropera, D.P. DeWitt, Fundamentals of heat and mass

transfer, John Wiley & Sons, 2011.

[30] M.-H. Kim, C.W. Bullard, Air-side thermal hydraulic performance of multi-louvered fin

aluminum heat exchangers, International Journal of Refrigeration, 25 (2002) 390-400.

[31] F. Dittus, L. Boelter, University of California publications on engineering, University of

California publications in Engineering, 2 (1930) 371.

[32] M. Shah, A general correlation for heat transfer during film condensation inside pipes,

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 22 (1979) 547-556.

[33] S.-M. Kim, I. Mudawar, Universal approach to predicting two-phase frictional pressure

drop for adiabatic and condensing mini/micro-channel flows, International Journal of Heat

and Mass Transfer, 55 (2012) 3246-3261.

[34] S. Zivi, Estimation of steady-state steam void-fraction by means of the principle of

minimum entropy production, Journal of Heat Transfer, 86 (1964) 247-251.

[35] M.H. Shojaeefard, J. Zare, Modeling and combined application of the modified NSGA-

II and TOPSIS to optimize a refrigerant-to-air multi-pass louvered fin-and-flat tube

condenser, Applied Thermal Engineering, 103 (2016) 212-225.

33
Figure Capture

Fig. 1. Schematic of the condenser with flow configuration

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the experimental test facility

Fig. 3. Schematic of the finite element approach. a) The calculation element; b) Side view of

multi-port flat tube and geometrical parameters of a multi-louvered fin

Fig. 4. Schematic of the hybrid method concept

Fig. 5. The flow chart of the presented method

Fig. 6. Schematic of the condenser header repeating part. a) Repeating part and its

subdivisions; b) Repeating part mesh

Fig. 7. Grid independency study

Fig. 8. Comparison of the developed method results with the experimental data

Fig. 9. Mass flow distributions, pressure contours and velocity contours (protrusion depth=

1/4 of header diameter)

Fig. 10. Mass flow distributions, pressure contours and velocity contours (protrusion depth=

2/4 of header diameter)

Fig. 11. Mass flow distributions, pressure contours and velocity contours (protrusion depth=

3/4 of header diameter)

Fig. 12. The velocity and pressure difference distributions from top to the bottom of the inlet

header (along the intersection of a plane perpendicular to the center of the middle port and a

plane tangent to the inlet of the flat tubes) at different protrusion depths

Fig. 13. Different inlet positions along the inlet header

Fig. 14. Mass flow distributions of different inlet tube configurations

34
Fig. 15. Pressure contours and velocity contours of different inlet tube configurations

Fig. 16. The velocity and pressure difference distributions from top to the bottom of the inlet

header (along the intersection of a plane perpendicular to the center of the middle port and a

plane tangent to the inlet of the flat tubes) at different inlet tube locations

Fig. 17. The effect of inlet tube diameter on the mass flow distributions

Fig. 18. Pressure contours and velocity contours at different inlet tube diameters

Fig. 19. The velocity and pressure difference distributions from top to the bottom of the inlet

header (along the intersection of a plane perpendicular to the center of the middle port and a

plane tangent to the inlet of the flat tubes) at different inlet tube diameters

Fig. 20. Mass flow distributions, pressure contours and velocity contours (inlet tube position

as case #5; tube protrusion depth of 1/4 header diameter)

Fig. 21. The velocity and pressure difference distributions from top to the bottom of the inlet

header (along the intersection of a plane perpendicular to the center of the middle port and a

plane tangent to the inlet of the flat tubes)

35
Table Capture

Table 1. Geometrical parameters of the used condenser

Table 2. The accuracy of experimental parameters

Table. 3. Experimental results of the PFC performance

Table. 4. Effect of the protrusion depth

Table. 5. The distances of different inlet tube configurations from top of the header

Table. 6. Effect of the inlet tube position

Table. 7. Effect of the inlet tube diameter

Table. 8. Effect of combination of the protrusion depth and inlet tube position

36
Fig. 1. Schematic of the condenser with flow configuration

37
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the experimental test facility

38
 a)

b)
Fig. 3. Schematic of the finite element approach. a) The calculation element; b) Side view of
multi-port flat tube and geometrical parameters of a multi-louvered fin

39
a) 3D CFD model b) One dimensional finite element model
Fig. 4. Schematic of the hybrid method concept

40
Fig. 5. The flow chart of the presented method

41
a) b)

Fig. 6. Schematic of the condenser header repeating part. a) Repeating part and its
subdivisions; b) Repeating part mesh

42
 124 9.995

123.5 9.99

123 9.985
Pressure drop (kPa)

Capacity (kW)
122.5 9.98

122 9.975

121.5 9.97

121 9.965

120.5 9.96
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Number of cells x 10000

Fig. 7. Grid independency study

43
 250
Experimental

200 Developed method

Pressure drop (kPa) 150

100

50

0
1 2 3 4 5
No. of Case
a) Pressure drop
14
Experimental
12 Developed method
10
Capacity (kW)

0
1 2 3 4 5
No. of Case
b) Capacity
80
Experimental
75
Developed method
Outlet Temperature (oC)

70

65

60

55

50

45

40
1 2 3 4 5
No. of Case
c) Outlet temperature
Fig. 8. Comparison of the developed method results with the experimental data

44
 9

Mass flow percentage (%)

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Tube number

Pressure difference (Pa) Velocity (m/s)

Fig. 9. Mass flow distributions, pressure contours and velocity contours (protrusion depth=
1/4 of header diameter)

45
 9
8

Mass flow percentage (%)

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Tube number

Pressure difference (Pa) Velocity (m/s)

Fig. 10. Mass flow distributions, pressure contours and velocity contours (protrusion depth=
2/4 of header diameter)

46
 12

Mass flow percentage (%)

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Tube number

Pressure difference (Pa) Velocity (m/s)

Fig. 11. Mass flow distributions, pressure contours and velocity contours (protrusion depth=
3/4 of header diameter)

47
 10
1/4 of header diameter
9
2/4 of header diameter
8
3/4 of header diameter
Velocity (m/s) 7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Distance from top (m)

145
1/4 of header diameter
2/4 of header diameter
140
Pressure difference (kPa)

3/4 of header diameter

135

130

125

120

115
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Distance from top (m)

Fig. 12. The velocity and pressure difference distributions from top to the bottom of the inlet
header (along the intersection of a plane perpendicular to the center of the middle port and a
plane tangent to the inlet of the flat tubes) at different protrusion depths

48
Fig. 13. Different inlet positions along the inlet header

49
 9

7
Mass flow percentage (%)

4
Case #1
3 Case #2

2 Case #3
Case #4
1
Case #5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Tube number

Fig. 14. Mass flow distributions of different inlet tube configurations

50
 Velocity (m/s) Pressure difference (Pa) Velocity (m/s)
Pressure difference (Pa)
Case #2 Case #3

Pressure difference (Pa) Velocity (m/s) Pressure difference (Pa) Velocity (m/s)
Case #4 Case #5
Fig. 15. Pressure contours and velocity contours of different inlet tube configurations

51
 9
case #1
8 Case #2
Case #3
7
Case #4
6 Case #5
Velocity (m/s)

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Distance from top (m)

128
Case #1
Case #2
126 Case #3
Pressure difference (kPa)

Case #4
124 Case #5

122

120

118

116
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Distance from top (m)

Fig. 16. The velocity and pressure difference distributions from top to the bottom of the inlet
header (along the intersection of a plane perpendicular to the center of the middle port and a
plane tangent to the inlet of the flat tubes) at different inlet tube locations

52
 10
d=8mm
9
d=10mm
8
Mass flow percentage (%)
d=12mm
7

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Tube number

Fig. 17. The effect of inlet tube diameter on the mass flow distributions

53
 Pressure difference (Pa) Velocity (m/s)
d= 8 mm

Pressure difference (Pa) Velocity (m/s)

d= 12 mm
Fig. 18. Pressure contours and velocity contours at different inlet tube diameters

54
 12
d=8 mm
10 d=10 mm
d=12 mm
Velocity (m/s) 8

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Distance from top (m)

128
d=8 mm
127 d=10 mm
126 d=12 mm
Pressure difference (kPa)

125

124

123

122

121

120

119
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Distance from top (m)

Fig. 19. The velocity and pressure difference distributions from top to the bottom of the inlet
header (along the intersection of a plane perpendicular to the center of the middle port and a
plane tangent to the inlet of the flat tubes) at different inlet tube diameters

55
 7

Mass flow percentage (%)

5

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Tube number

Pressure difference (Pa)

Velocity (m/s)
Fig. 20. Mass flow distributions, pressure contours and velocity contours (inlet tube position
as case #5; tube protrusion depth of 1/4 header diameter)

56
 7
Combined effect
6 1/4 of header diameter
Case #5
Velocity (m/s) 5

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Distance from top (m)

127
Combined effect
126 1/4 of header diameter
125 Case #5
Pressure difference (kPa)

124

123

122

121

120

119

118
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Distance from top (m)
Fig. 21. The velocity and pressure difference distributions from top to the bottom of the inlet
header (along the intersection of a plane perpendicular to the center of the middle port and a
plane tangent to the inlet of the flat tubes)

57
Table 1. Geometrical parameters of the used condenser
Parameters Value
Length (mm) 546
Width (mm) 319
Depth (mm) 16
Number of passes 4
Number of tubes 31
Inlet tube diameter (mm) 10
Ports per tube 7
Header diameter (mm) 18

58
 Table 2. The accuracy of experimental parameters

Item Scale Accuracy

Refrigerant mass flow rate 0~600 kg/h ±0.1%
Compressor rotational speed 0~6000 RPM ±0.05 %
Compressor torque meter 0~100 N m ±0.5 %
Refrigerant side temperature -50~150 ºC ±0.4 %
Refrigerant side pressure -0.1~3.5 MPa.G ±0.25%
Air side temperature 0~100 ºC ±0.4 %
Air side pressure difference 0~1000 Pa ±0.1%
Condenser air flow rate 400~9000 m3/h ±0.5 %
Evaporator air flow rate 50~900 m3/h ±0.5 %

59
 Table. 3. Experimental results of the PFC performance
Case Air volumetric Tair,in. Tref.,in. Pref.,in. Q ΔPref. Tref.,out
No. flow rate (m3/h) (oC) (kg/s) (oC) (kPa.G) (kW) (kPa) (oC)
1 3130.5 44.9 0.0121 77.6 1297 2.339 8 45.6
2 2502.9 44.9 0.0450 90.6 1797 8.034 70 57.7
3 1252 44.9 0.0685 108.5 2791 10.357 121 77.3
4 2503.4 44.9 0.0762 101.4 2290 12.756 163 67.2
5 1877.6 45 0.0889 108.9 2767 13.691 210 75.1

60
 Table. 4. Effect of the protrusion depth
Protrusion depth Capacity (W) Pressure drop (kPa) STD (%)
1/4 of header diameter 10075 120.88 0.51
2/4 of header diameter 9993 123.54 0.63
3/4 of header diameter 9676 137.86 1.77

61
Table. 5. The distances of different inlet tube configurations from top of the header
Center line distance from
Case No.
top of the header (mm)
Case #1 27
Case #2 44.62
Case #3 93.75
Case #4 144
Case #5 6

62
 Table. 6. Effect of the inlet tube position
Case No. Capacity (W) Pressure drop (kPa) STD (%)
Case #1 9993 123.54 0.63
Case #2 9880 120.95 0.85
Case #3 9871 119.95 0.86
Case #4 9845 120.54 0.90
Case #5 10136 124.55 0.38

63
 Table. 7. Effect of the inlet tube diameter
Inlet tube diameter Capacity (W) Pressure drop (kPa) STD (%)
d=8mm 9872 122.67 0.86
d=10mm 9993 123.54 0.63
d=12mm 9998 121.73 0.62

64
 Table. 8. Effect of combination of the protrusion depth and inlet tube position
Capacity (W) Pressure drop (kPa) STD (%)
Combined effect of tube
protrusion depth and inlet tube 10145 122.60 0.36
location
Tube protrusion depth (1/4 of
10075 120.88 0.51
header diameter)
Inlet tube location (Case #5) 10136 124.55 0.38

65
Highlights

 A hybrid method for modeling flow mal-distribution is developed.

 The developed method is verified against experimental data of a PFC performance.
 The method is used to study the effects of geometry design on flow mal-distribution.
 The tube protrusion depth shows the most influence on flow mal-distribution.

66