International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 158 (2020) 120 0 08

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/hmt

Development of experimental Nusselt number and friction factor

correlations for condensation of R-1233zd(E) in plate heat exchangers
Oh Jin Kwon1, Jae Hoon Jung1, Yong Tae Kang∗
School of Mechanical Engineering, Korea University,145 Anam-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul02841, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: R-1233zd(E), a kind of HCFO refrigerants, has a negligible ODP and a GWP of 1-7, and it is classified
Received 23 February 2020 as the ASHRAE classification A1 level, which means stable and safe to use in the refrigeration industry.
Revised 12 May 2020
In this study, condensation heat transfer and frictional pressure drop of R-1233zd(E) in three different
Accepted 27 May 2020
plate heat exchangers, two brazed types (BPHE-30 and BPHE-60) and a shell-and-plate type (SPHE) are
Available online 30 June 2020
experimentally investigated. Condensation heat transfer coefficient and frictional pressure drop are esti-
Keywords: mated by varying heat flux from 1.5 kW/m2 to 4.5 kW/m2 , saturation pressure from 200 kPa to 300 kPa,
Condensation mass flux of refrigerant from 13.0 kg/m2 s to 26.7 kg/m2 s, and mean vapor quality between the inlet and
Low GWP refrigerants outlet of heat exchanger from 0.25 to 0.9. It is confirmed that the condensation heat transfer coefficient
Plate heat exchanger increases with increasing heat flux, mass flux of refrigerant, and mean vapor quality while it decreases
Pressure drop;, R-1233zd(E) with increasing the saturation pressure of refrigerant. Frictional pressure drop increases with increasing
Shell-and-plate heat exchanger
the mass flux of refrigerant and mean vapor quality while it decreases with increasing the saturation
pressure of refrigerant. On the other hand, the heat flux doesn’t have significant effect on the frictional
pressure drop. It was found that the BPHE has a higher Nusselt number and lower friction factor than
the SPHE, so that the SPHE having excessively high friction factor against Nusselt number is not rec-
ommended as a condenser with R-1233zd(E). Finally, experimental correlations for Nusselt number and
friction factor are developed with ±25% error range for the BPHE.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The first-generation refrigerants (SO2 , CH3 Cl, NH3 , CO2 ), which
were mainly used from the 19th century to the early 20th cen-
tury, had disadvantages such as toxicity, explosiveness and high
pressure required to the system [1]. In 1929, an American scien-
tist Thomas Migdley developed a harmless and stable freon re-
frigerant to the human body, and started the mass production in
earnest from 1932. The ChloroFluoroCarbon (CFC) refrigerants and
HydroChloroFluoroCarbon (HCFC) refrigerants, which were mainly
used at this time, were called the second-generation refrigerants
and revolutionized the refrigeration-based industry [2]. However,
stability, which was considered to be a great advantage of freon
refrigerant, caused the freon refrigerant to be a major cause of the
environmental problem due to the long atmospheric lifetime of re-
frigerant and destruction of ozone layer [3]. Since then, the Mon-
treal Protocol (1987) limited the use of CFC and HCFC refrigerants
and caused the use of the third-generation refrigerants with a low
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ytkang@korea.ac.kr (Y.T. Kang).
1
O.J. Kwon and J.H. Jung share the first authorship of 50%, respectively.
ODP, namely HFC refrigerants. However, the HFC refrigerants have
a high GWP as shown in Table 1, and new refrigerants are required
to replace them to reduce the global warming effects [4].
Recently, regulations on environmentally harmful refrigerants
have been enacted globally. Representative examples include the
United States’ modified Montreal Protocol (2013) [5], and the Euro-
pean Union’s F-gas regulation [6]. These regulations will also limit
the use of third-generation refrigerants in developing countries,
and therefore the development of new refrigerants to replace them
is essential. On the other hand, the new refrigeration system is
under investigation for the environmental problems of refrigerants
used in vapor compression refrigeration. However, the advantages
of vapor compression cycle such as the convenience of installation,
small system size, high performance and wide range of operating
temperature make it difficult to develop new refrigeration systems.
Currently, natural refrigerants such as hydrocarbon and CO2 ,
and HydroFluoroCarbon (HFC) refrigerants with low GWP such
as R-32, HydroFluoroOlefin (HFO) and HydroChloroFluoroOlefin
(HCFO) refrigerants have been extensively studied to replace the
conventional refrigerants. Table 1 shows the environmental im-
pacts and stability of each refrigerant. The HFC refrigerants with
low GWP such as R-32 can be used under the current regulatory

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2020.120 0 08
0017-9310/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 O.J. Kwon, J.H. Jung and Y.T. Kang / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 158 (2020) 120008

Nomenclature port Manifold

post Postcondenser
A Area, [m2 ] pre Precondenser
b Mean spacing between two plates, [m] r Refrigerant side
B Bias error sat Saturation
Bo Boiling number sys Systematic
cp Specific heat, [kJ/kg/K] test Test section
Dh Hydraulic diameter, [m] tot Total
f Fanning friction factor tp Two phase
G Mass flux, [kg/m2 /s] w Water side
Ge Geometric parameter w,c Cold side in water-to-water experiments
g Gravitational acceleration, [m/s2 ] w,h Hot side in water-to-water experiments
h Heat transfer coefficient, [kW/m2 /K]
Acronyms
i Enthalpy, [kJ/kg]
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
k Thermal conductivity, [kW/m/K]
conditioning Engineers
L Port-to-port length, [m]
BPHE Brazed Plate Heat Exchanger
m˙ Mass flow rate, [kg/s]
CFC ChloroFluoroCarbon
N Number of samples
GWP Global Warming Potential
Nu Nusselt number
HCFC HydroChloroFluoroCarbon
P Pressure, [kPa]
HCFO HydroChloroFluoroOlefin
Pr Prandtl number
HFC HydroFluoroCarbon
Q˙ Heat transfer rate, [kW]
HFO HydroFluoroOlefin
R Random error
ODP Ozone Depletion Potential
Re Reynolds number
SPHE Shell-and-plate Heat Exchanger
q Heat flux, [kW/m2 ]
rwall Wall thermal resistance, [m2 K/kW]
T Temperature, [°C]
t Plate thickness, [m]
U Overall heat transfer coefficient, [kW/m2 /K]
u Flow velocity, [m/s] level, but it will not be free from the future environmental regu-
V Volume, [m3 ] lations. HCFO and HFO refrigerants are low GWP and ODP refrig-
v Specific volume, [m3 /kg] erants with interesting thermodynamic properties and are widely
W Plate width, [m] regarded as refrigerants for use in the future refrigeration-based
X Value for each sample industry. As a result, studies on HCFO and HFO refrigerants are un-
x Vapor quality derway in various research institutes and industries [7,8].
The plate heat exchanger has a flow path formed between the
Greek symbols laminated thermal plates, and the shape of the flow path can be
β Chevron angle, [o ] variously set by packing or welding between the plates and the
γ Average velocity ratio partition, which restricts the flow paths. According to the configu-
 Difference ration of the partition, two or more fluids can be heat-exchanged,
λ Corrugation pitch, [m] and the flow direction can be freely set. The plate heat exchanger
μ Viscosity, [kg/m/s] has a heat transfer coefficient, about three times higher than that
ρ Density, [kg/m3 ] of a general shell-and-tube type heat exchanger, and can be re-
ξ Average total head loss coefficient for channel flow duced in size and weight with a required heat transfer area of
σ Standard deviation about 20 to 30%. In addition, due to the advantages of low pol-
φ Enlargement factor lution and easy maintenance, efforts are being made to replace the
ω Uncertainty existing heat exchangers in various industries. However, the con-
ventional plate heat exchangers have the problems such as rela-
Subscripts tively small capacity, high pressure loss, and limit of working pres-
c Channel sure. In order to solve this problem, a shell and plate heat ex-
c,r Channels for refrigerant changer (SPHE), which combines the advantages of a shell and
de Deceleration tube type and a plate heat exchanger, has been developed.
ele Elevation In this study, we conducted experimental analysis on the con-
eq Equivalent densation heat transfer performance of R-1233zd(E), a kind of HFO
f Friction refrigerants, in plate heat exchangers. The experimental study on
g Gas the condensation heat transfer characteristics and the frictional
in Inlet pressure drop of the R-1233zd(E) in a plate heat exchanger was
LMTD Logarithmic mean temperature difference conducted by Kwon et al. [9]. However, since only one type of
l Liquid plate heat exchanger was used in the experiment, it is difficult to
lg Difference between liquid phase and vapor phase apply their experimental results to various types of plate heat ex-
lo Liquid only changers. Therefore, in this study, we evaluate the condensation
m Mean value performance of R-1233zd(E) using brazed type plate heat exchang-
out Outlet ers (BPHE) and SPHE that have not been tested in the previous
plate Plate studies, and the experimental correlations of Nusselt number and
friction factor are developed.
 O.J. Kwon, J.H. Jung and Y.T. Kang / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 158 (2020) 120008 3

Table 1
ODP, GWP, and ASHRAE safety group by refrigerant.

Type Refrigerants ODP GWP (100 years’ horizon) ASHRAE standard 34 safety group

CFCs R-11 1 4,660 A1

R-12 1 10,200 A1
HCFCs R-22 0.05 1810 A1
R-123 0.02 77 B1
HFCs R-32 0 675 A2L
R-134a 0 1,430 A1
HCFO R-1233zd(E) 0.00024-0.00034 1-7 A1
HFO R-1234yf 0 4 A2L
R-1234ze(E) 0 6 A2L
Natural R-744(CO2 ) 0 1 A1
R-717(NH3 ) 0 0 B2

Table 2 degree. In the following description, each of the heat exchangers

Thermodynamic properties of R-1233zd(E) and other refrigerants.
will be referred to BPHE-60, BPHE-30, SPHE, respectively, for con-
Temp = 40 °C R123 R245fa R1233zd(E) venience. All heat exchangers are vertically installed so that the
Saturated vapor pressure [kPa] 154.7 249.6 215.4 flow of water and refrigerant is perpendicular to the ground. In
Liquid density [kg/m3 ] 1425 1297 1226 the case of SPHE, water flows from bottom to top through the two
Vapor density [kg/m3 ] 9.645 14.07 11.63 shell side channels, while the refrigerant flows from top to bottom
Latent heat of vaporization [kJ/kg] 165.3 181.2 183.5 through three plate channels. In the case of BPHEs, water flows
Liquid specific heat [kJ/kgK] 1.057 1.357 1.26
from bottom to top through three channels while the refrigerant
Vapor specific heat [kJ/kgK] 0.7387 1.011 0.8662
Liquid thermal conductivity [mW/mK] 73.38 76.69 78.74 flows from top to bottom through two plate channels. The U ar-
Vapor thermal conductivity [mW/mK] 11.28 15.19 11.95 rangement type, which is one of the flow arrangements suggested
Liquid viscosity [g/ms] 0.3524 0.3307 0.2521 in Raju et al. [11], is used in the BPHE. On the other hand, for the
Vapor viscosity [g/ms] 0.01126 0.01075 0.009219
refrigerant side of SPHE, the flow arrangement is Z-arrangement as
ODP 0.02 0 0
GWP 77 1030 1-7 shown in Fig. 2.
ASHRAE standard 34 safety group B1 B1 A1 The heat transfer area,Atot is calculated by the following equa-
tions for each heat exchanger.

BP HE : Atot = φ wLN plate (1)

2. Experimental setup & data analysis π 
SP HE : Atot = D2plate − 2D2port φ Nplate (2)
4
2.1. Characteristics of R-1233zd(E)
where the enlargement factor used to convert the actual heat
The R-1233zd(E) used in this study is a refrigerant developed transfer area of the corrugated plate is calculated using the λ, cor-
to replace R-245fa and R-123, which have been mainly used as rugation pitch, and the mean spacing between two plates, b, ac-
low-pressure refrigerants. The molecular formula is CF3 = CHCHCl cording to the calculation method used in Amalfi et al. [12,13].
and the molecular weight is 130g/mol. Because there is a double πb
bond(olefin) between carbon and carbon-chlorine(Cl) which is a Aφ = (3)
λ
halogen element, the R-1233zd(E) is classified as HCFO type re-   1   
frigerant. Although the ODP is not zero due to the presence of φ Aφ ≈ 1+ 1 + A2φ + 4 1 + A2φ /2 (4)
6
chlorine, according to Perkins et al. [10], the carbon-carbon double
bond in the molecule of R-1233zd(E) increases the instability when The hydraulic diameter of a corrugated channel between adja-
exposed to the atmosphere, resulting in a low atmospheric lifetime cent plates is calculated using Eq. (5) according to Han et al. [14].
of 26 days. R-1233zd(E) has excellent properties as an alternative
refrigerant, considering that R-123 and R-245fa, refrigerants to be 4bW 2b
Dh = = (5)
replaced by R-1233zd(E), have an atmospheric lifetime of 1.4years 2W φ φ
and 7.6 years respectively. In addition, R-123 and R-245fa are clas-
sified as a B1 ASHRAE standard safety group, which means high 2.3. Single phase water-to-water experiment
toxicity, while the R-1233zd(E) is an A1 safety group, which means
low toxicity and flammability. Table 2 shows the thermodynamic In order to evaluate the heat transfer coefficient of the refrig-
properties and environmental factors of low-pressure refrigerants erant in the heat exchanger, a water-to-water experiment should
such as R-123, R-245fa, and R-1233zd(E). R-1233zd(E) shows the be carried out before the water-to-refrigerant experiment. The ex-
highest latent heat while it has smaller vapor density than R-245fa perimental setup used for this procedure is the same as the sin-
does, which means R-1233zd(E) has a better volumetric capacity. gle phase water-to-water experimental setup used in the previous
study [9], which consists of two constant temperature baths, vol-
2.2. Tested plate heat exchangers umetric flow meters, RTD sensors, and data logger. Experiments
are conducted by installing the same heat exchanger used in the
Three types of plate heat exchangers are used in the present ex- water-to-refrigerant experiment in the test section. In addition, the
periments. Detailed specifications of the heat exchangers are sum- experimental conditions are the same as the temperature con-
marized in Table 3, and the schematic diagrams for the heat ex- ditions in the water-to-refrigerant experiment. This experimental
changers are shown in Fig. 1. The heat exchangers used in the procedure is carried out in accordance with Muley and Manglick
present study are two different BPHEs with a corrugation angle [15]. and Longo et al. [16], and detailed description of the proce-
of 60 and 30 degrees, and a SPHE with a corrugation angle of 60 dure is reported in the previous study [9].
4 O.J. Kwon, J.H. Jung and Y.T. Kang / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 158 (2020) 120008

Table 3
Geometric conditions of the tested plate heat exchangers.

Heat exchanger BPHE-60[9] BPHE-30 SPHE

Port-to-port length, L (mm) 234 234 220

Plate length, Lplate (mm) 287 287 324
Plate Width, W (mm) 117 117 324
Area of the plate, A (m2 ) 0.0274 0.0274 0.0777
Enlargement factor,φ 1.15 1.15 1.17
Angle of corrugation,β 60 30 60
Mean spacing between two plates, b (mm) 1.94 1.94 2.1
Corrugation pitch,λ(mm) 7.5 7.5 7.5
Number of channels on refrigerant side,Nr 2 2 3
Number of channels on water sideNw 3 3 2
Port diameter (mm) 19.05 19.05 55
Plate thickness t (mm) 0.4 0.4 0.4

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of plate heat exchangers.

In the case of BPHE-30, the same method as described in the Table 4

Coefficients of water-to-water heat
previous study [9] is used as Eqs. (6) and (7). However, in the
transfer experiments for BPHE and
case of SPHE, there are difference in the shape between the water SPHE.
and the refrigerant flow paths. Therefore, there should be different
Constants Value
model to predict the water side heat transfer coefficient, which is
represented as Eq. (8). The exponents of Prandtl number is taken to C1 0.086
be 1/3 in accordance with [15,17]. The coefficients in Eqs. (7) and C2 0.68
C3 0.0299
(8) are summarized in Table 4.
C4 0.155
C5 0.699
1
U= 1 1
(6) C6 0.7004
hw,c
+ hw,h
+ rwall

For the BPHE,

2.4. Two phase refrigerant-to-water experiment
0.333 kw,c 0.333 kw,h
hw,c = C1 ReCw,c
2
Pr , hw,h = C1 ReCw,h
2
Pr (7)
w,c Dh w,h Dh Fig. 3 shows a schematic diagram of two phase refrigerant-to-
water experimental setup. The experimental apparatus consists of
For the SPHE,
four parts: an evaporator, a pre-condenser, a test section, and a
0.333 kw,c 0.333 kw,h post-condenser. In addition, the experimental apparatus consists of
hw,c = C3 ReCw,c
5
Pr , hw,h = C4 ReCw,h
6
Pr (8) one refrigerant loop, one high temperature water circulation loop,
w,c Dh w,h Dh
O.J. Kwon, J.H. Jung and Y.T. Kang / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 158 (2020) 120008 5

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of flow arrangement in SPHE.

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of refrigerant-to-water experimental apparatus.

6 O.J. Kwon, J.H. Jung and Y.T. Kang / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 158 (2020) 120008

Table 5 2.5. Data analysis

Two-phase refrigerant-to-water experimental conditions of tested plate
heat exchangers.
BPHE-60 Heat flux [kW/m2 ] 2.5 3.5 4.5
Mass flux [kg/m2 s] 13.0 16.7 19.9
Saturation pressure [kPa] 200 250 300
BPHE-30 Heat flux [kW/m2 ] 1.5 2.0 2.5
Mass flux [kg/m2 s] 13.7 20.0 26.7
Saturation pressure [kPa] 200 250 300
SPHE Heat flux [kW/m2 ] 1.5 2.0 2.5
Mass flux [kg/m2 s] 10 13 16
Saturation pressure [kPa] 250 300 350
and three low temperature water circulation loops. The circula-
tion process of the refrigerant has a clockwise flow as shown in
the schematic diagram. In the pre-condenser, the test section and
the post-condenser, the refrigerant flows from the top to the bot-
tom while the water supplied through the low temperature wa-
ter circulation flows from the bottom to the top in each heat ex-
changer. The evaporator has a shell-and-tube heat exchanger struc-
ture, and a band-heater is installed around the evaporator tank. A
pressure gauge and a thermometer are installed at the entrance
and exit of all parts after the calibration to have a high accuracy.
The flow rate of the refrigerant is measured in an oval gear flow
meter installed at the rear of the post-condenser. In order to mea-
sure the mass flow rate, the density of the refrigerant should be
calculated using the temperature sensor and the pressure sensor
installed with the flow meter. Then, the mass flow rate of the re-
frigerant is calculated using the following equations.
ρ post,out = ρ (Tpost,out , Pcond,out )
 
V˙ [L/min] ρ post,out kg/m3
m˙ r [kg/s] =
60 [s/ min] × 10 0 0 [L/m3 ]
The refrigerant evaporated in the evaporator is subjected to
heat exchange in the pre-condenser using a low temperature wa-
ter circulation device to match the inlet refrigerant quality required
in the test section. In the test section, the refrigerant is subjected
to partial condensation experiments at constant heat flux, satura-
tion pressure, and mass flux. In order to more precisely measure
the pressure drop in the test section, a differential pressure gauge
is installed at the entrance and exit of the test section. After that,
the refrigerant discharged from the test section is completely con-
densed in the post-condenser, stored in the refrigerant tank, and
circulated to the evaporator through the refrigerant pump. In or-
der to precisely control the saturation pressure in the test sec-
tion, a pressure regulator and a back pressure regulator are in-
stalled at the outlet of the evaporator and the outlet of the post-
condenser, respectively. For the reliability of the experimental re-
sults, the steady-state maintenance is performed for about 1 hour
before the experiment data are collected, and then the data col-
lection is performed for 40 minutes to 1 hour. The experimen-
tal conditions for each heat exchanger are summarized in Table 5,
and the conditions indicated by shading are the base conditions
for each variable. When one of the heat flux, mass flux, and sat-
uration pressure is varied, the other two variables are maintained
at the base conditions. For example, when the heat flux is tested
at 3.5 kW/m2 , not the base condition of 2.5 kW/m2 , the condi-
tions of mass flow rate and saturation pressure are maintained at
19.9 kg/m2 s and 200 kPa, respectively. Different experimental con-
ditions are set for different heat exchangers because there are lim-
itations on the refrigerant mass flux and heat flux due to the dif-
ference in chevron angle, channel configuration, and hydraulic di-
ameter.
2.5.1. Single phase water-to-water experiment
The following procedure is carried out to develop the experi-
23.8
mental correlations of predicted heat transfer coefficients on the
water using the data obtained from the single phase water to wa-
ter experiments. The analysis procedure iss performed according to
the procedures described in Muley and Manglick [15] and Longo
et al. [16].
For the reliability of the experimental results, the data analy-
sis is carried out using the experimental results, in which the dif-
ference of heat transfer rates between the cold water side. The
heat transfer rate between the hot and cold water is calculated by
Eqs. (11) and (12), and the average heat transfer rate Q˙ avg is cal-
culated through Eq. (13). In addition, the temperature difference
between the cold and hot water is set to be 7.5–8.5 °C, which
is corresponding with the temperature difference in two phase
refrigerant-to-water experiment.
Qw,h = mw,h c p,w,h (Tw,h,in − Tw,h,out ) (11)
Qw,c = mw,c c p,w,c (Tw,c,out − Tw,c,in ) (12)
 
Qw,h + Qw,c
Qw,avg = (13)
2
The overall heat transfer coefficient U is then calculated using
the calculated average heat transfer rate Q˙ avg and the log mean
temperature difference (LMTD) method as shown in Eq. (14).
Qw,LMT D = Qw,avg = U Atot LMT D (14)
1
U= 1 1
(15)
hw,c
+ hw,h
+ vwaH
(9)
The calculated overall heat transfer coefficient is applicable to
the thermal resistance model as shown in Eq. (15). The cold and
(10)
hot water side heat transfer coefficients are represented as hw,c
and hw,h , respectively. And the wall thermal resistance, rwall is
given by Eq. (16).
rwaH = t/kwaH (16)
In order to develop the heat transfer coefficient correlation for
single phase water without knowing the heat transfer coefficient
on both sides, the modified Wilson plot method should be used.
When applying the modified Wilson plot, the difference of the heat
transfer coefficient prediction model applied to BPHE and SPHE
should be different. In the case of the BPHE, the constants C1 and
C2 in Eq. (7) for each heat transfer coefficient prediction model are
shared because the flow channel shapes of refrigerant and water
are the same. However, in the case of the SPHE, the flow channel
shapes of the refrigerant and water are not the same, and since the
distribution structure of the fluid differs, C3 and C4 in Eq. (8) are
set to be different.
Then, the Eqs. (7) and (8) are substituted into the Eq. (15), and
the values of each dimensionless number and heat transfer coeffi-
cients measured from the experiments are inputted and the data
regression analysis is performed for each plate heat exchanger.
2.5.2. Two phase refrigerant-to-water experiment
In the refrigerant-to-water experiments, the experimental data
acquired from the RTD temperature sensor, pressure transducer,
differential pressure transducer, and flow meter installed in the
experimental apparatus are used to evaluate the condensation
heat transfer coefficient and the frictional pressure drop of the R-
1233zd(E). The amount of heat transfer rate in the pre-condenser,
the test section, and the post-condenser is calculated using the
temperature difference of water supplied by the low temperature
water circulation system. In order to evaluate the overall heat
 O.J. Kwon, J.H. Jung and Y.T. Kang / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 158 (2020) 120008 7

transfer coefficient U, the LMTD method is used. For the reliabil- The frictional pressure drop in the test section is calculated us-
ity of the experimental results, the data reduction process is per- ing the experimental values measured by a differential pressure
formed using the experimental results that are distributed within transducer and a pressure gauge attached to the inlet and the out-
the errors of 4% of the heat flux set in the test section, 2% of the let of the test section. According to Collier and Thome [18], the
mass flux and 1% of the saturation pressure. frictional pressure drop consists of four pressure change factors as
In order to measure the mean vapor quality in the test section, follows;
it is essential to measure the flow enthalpy in the superheated va- Pf = Ptot − Pport + Pde + Pele (33)
por at the high temperature and high pressure from the evapora-
tor. The pressure and temperature measured through the pressure The total pressure drop across the heat exchanger is measured
gauge and the RTD temperature sensor are used to evaluate the by the differential pressure transducer attached to inlet and out-
enthalpy of superheated vapor. let of heat exchanger. Also, the effects of manifold of the tested
plate heat exchanger(࢞Pport ), of deceleration of the refrigerant in
ipre,in = i(Pr,pre,in , Tr,pre,in ) (17) the tested plate heat exchanger(࢞Pde ), of gravity(࢞Pele ) are con-
sideredand calculated as follows.
Then, the vapor quality of the refrigerant at the exit of pre-
u2m
condenser can be calculated using the heat transfer rate of the pre- Pport ≈ 1.5 (34)
condenser and the refrigerant mass flow rate using the Eqs. (18)– 2vm
(20) Pport = G2r v f g x (35)
Qw,pre = mw,pre c p,w,pre (Tw,pre,out − Tw,pre,in ) (18) gL
Pele = (36)
ipre,out = ipre,in − (Qw,pre /mr ) (19) vm
xpre,out = x(ipre,out , Pr,pre,out ) (20) v m = [x m v g + ( 1 − x m ) v l ] (37)
mr
The calculated vapor quality at the outlet of the pre-condenser Gr = (38)
Acha · Nc,r
is estimated to be equal to the vapor quality at the inlet of the test
The friction factor in the tested plate heat exchanger is cal-
section. It is set based on fact that pressure difference and heat
culated using the measured frictional pressure drop Pf and the
loss between the test section and the outlet of pre-condenser are
shape information of the test plate heat exchanger described
negligible due to short flow path and complete insulation as shown
above. The friction factor defined in this study is the Fanning fric-
Eqs. (21) and (22).
tion factor.
ipre,out ≈ itest,in (21) P f D h
f =− (39)
xpre,out ≈ xtest,in (22) 2G2r vm L

The amount of heat transfer rate in the test section is also 2.6. Uncertainty analysis
calculated through the temperature difference in low temperature
water supplied by the low temperature water circulation device as Uncertainty analysis for the measurements of the condensation
in the case of pre-condenser. The measured heat transfer rate is heat transfer coefficient, frictional pressure drop, and friction fac-
used to calculate the refrigerant vapor quality at the outlet of test tor is carried out based on the method presented by Kline and Mc-
section. The equations used are as follows. Clintock [19] and Holman [20]. The experimental uncertainty U is
calculated by including the effects of experimental equipment (Bias
Qw,test = mw,test c p,w,test (Tw,test,out − Tw,test,in ) (23) error, B) and random standard uncertainty (Random error, R). The
itest ,out = itest ,in − (Qw,test /mr ) (24) equations used in the calculation are as follows.
xtest,out = x(ir,test,out , Pr,test,out ) (25) Ux = B2 + R2 (40)
The mean vapor quality in the test section is the arithmetic X = X ( x1 , x2 , x3 , · · · , xn ) (41)
mean of the test section outlet and inlet vapor qualities. In ad- 2 2 2
dition, the overall heat transfer coefficient U in the test section is δX δX δX
B= U + U + ··· + U (42)
calculated using the heat transfer rate Qtest and the log mean tem- δ x1 1 δ x2 2 δ xn n
perature difference in the test section.
N
xtest,in + xtest,out 1 2
xm = (26) σ= (Xn − X̄ ) (43)
2 N−1
n−1
Qw,LMT D = Qw,test = U Atot LMT D (27) 2σ
R= √ (44)
Eq. (28) is used to evaluate the condensation heat transfer co- N
efficient of refrigerant, hr in the test section. The wall thermal re- The errors of the measuring devices used to obtain the experi-
sistance, rwall is calculated as shown in Eq. (16), and the water side mental data such as flow rate, temperature and pressure are sum-
heat transfer coefficient hw is derived from the single phase water- marized in Table 6, and the results of the uncertainty analysis are
to-water experiment. In addition, the log mean temperature differ- described in Table 7. As the results of the uncertainty analysis, the
ence is calculated as following equations based on fact that fluids uncertainty of condensation heat transfer coefficient is estimated
in the heat exchanger are in counter current flow configuration. as 4.19%, the friction pressure drop is 2.85%, and the friction factor
1 is 2.97%, respectively.
U= 1 1
(28)
hr
+ hw
+ vwaH 3. Results and discussion
0.333
kw T1 − T2
hw = C1 ReCw2 Pr TLMT D = (30) 3.1. Development of water side heat transfer coefficient correlation
w Dh ln(T1 − T2 )
T1 = Tsat ,test ,in − Tw,test,out (31) As previously described, the water-to-water experiments are
T2 = Tsat ,test ,out − Tw,test,in (32) performed prior to the experiment of the R-1233zd(E) with the
8 O.J. Kwon, J.H. Jung and Y.T. Kang / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 158 (2020) 120008

Table 6
Specification and uncertainty of measuring devices.

Devices Type Uncertainty Range

Thermometer RTD probe sensor 0.2K -100 to 200 °C

Absolute Pressure transducer Strain-gage 0.035% f.s. 0–2 Mpa
Differential Pressure transducer Strain-gage 0.015% f.s. 0–100 kPa
Water flowmeter Turbine 1.25% 2.0–40 l/m
Refrigerant flowmeter Oval gear 1% 15–550 l/h

Table 7 (b), respectively. The results for BPHE-60 are obtained from Kwon
Results of Uncertainty analysis.
et al. [9]. In each graph, the X and Y axes are derived using Eqs. (7),
[%] B R U (8), and (15) and have the form of Eqs. (45) and (46). In the
Heat transfer coefficient, hr 3.52 2.27 4.19 Eqs. (45) and (46), P is the exponent of the Reynolds number in
Frictional pressure drop, Pf 2.83 0.37 2.85 the water side heat transfer coefficient correlation for each heat
Friction factor, f 2.87 0.76 2.97 exchanger, 0.689 for BPHE-60, 0.680 for BPHE-30, 0.699 for SPHE.
p 0.333
hw,h kw,h Rew,h Prw,h
X= = · · (45)
hw,c kw,c Rew,c Prw,c
1   p  0.333 kw,h

Y = − rwaH · Rew,h · Prw,h · (46)
U Dh
The final Nusselt number correlations for the BPHE-60 (Kwon
et al. [9]), BPHE-30 and SPHE are obtained as follows;
N uBPHE−60 = 0.271Re0w.689 P rw
0.333
(47)
N uBPHE−30 = 0.086Re0w.68 P rw
0.333
(48)
0.699 0.333
N uSPHE = 0.029Rew P rw (49)

3.2. Two-phase refrigerant-to-water experiments

The experimental results of BPHE-60 are analyzed in our pre-

vious study [9], so the results of BPHE-30 and SPHE are only de-
scribed below. After analyzing the heat transfer and pressure drop
characteristics for the BPHE-30 and SPHE, the final combined Nu
and friction factor correlations are developed for both BPHE-60 and
BPHE-30 in Section 3.3.

3.2.1. Effects of heat flux on the condensation heat transfer and

Fig. 4. Single phase heat transfer coefficient correlations for BPHE-30 (a), and SPHE
(b).
two phase refrigerant-to-water experimental apparatus and the
modified Wilson plot technique is used to analyze the experimen-
tal data.
The results of developed water side heat transfer coefficient
correlations for BPHE-30 and SPHE are plotted in Fig. 4(a) and
frictional pressure drop
Fig. 5(a) and (b) show the condensation heat transfer coefficient
according to the mean vapor quality in BPHE-30 and SPHE, respec-
tively. In the experiments of the BPHE-30, the heat flux is varied at
1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 kW/m2 , while the saturation pressure and refrig-
erant mass flux are kept constant at 200 kPa and 20.0 kg/m2 s. The
heat transfer rates for each heat flux condition are 0.189, 0.253,
and 0.316 kW, respectively. The differences between the vapor
quality of inlet and outlet are 0.11, 0.14, and 0.18 for each heat flux
condition. As can be seen from Fig. 5, the condensation heat trans-
fer coefficient increases with increasing the heat flux and mean
vapor quality. However, the condensation heat transfer coefficient
starts to gradually increases after the mean vapor quality of about
0.5. It is concluded that the turbulent effect is not significant in the
low vapor quality region in the BPHE-30, but it starts to increase
gradually after the condensation heat transfer coefficient increases
sharply with the change of the flow shape at the mean vapor qual-
ity of 0.5.
In the experiment of SPHE, the heat flux varies with 1.5, 2.0,
and 2.5 kW/m2 , while the saturation pressure and refrigerant mass
flux are maintained at 300 kPa and 13.0 kg/m2 s, respectively. The
heat transfer rates at the test section corresponding to each heat
flux condition are 0.548, 0.730 and 0.917 kW, respectively. The dif-
ferences between the vapor quality of inlet and outlet are 0.14,
0.19, and 0.24 for each heat flux condition. As can be seen in
Fig. 5, the results of the SPHE experiments show that the conden-
sation heat transfer coefficient increases with increasing mean va-
 O.J. Kwon, J.H. Jung and Y.T. Kang / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 158 (2020) 120008
Fig. 5. Condensation heat transfer coefficient according to the mean vapor quality
with different heat flux in BPHE-30 (a), and SPHE (b).
por quality and heat flux, corresponding to the results of the pre-
vious study and BPHE-30.It is noted that the inlet vapor quality of
the heat exchanger is different according to the different heat flux
conditions even if the mean vapor quality is same. For example,
if there are three data with the same mean vapor quality of 0.5
in the SPHE, the inlet quality at the tested plate heat exchanger
is 0.570, 0.595 and 0.620, respectively, according to the test sec-
tion heat fluxes of 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 kW/m2 , respectively. In addi-
tion, the increased inlet vapor quality causes more even distributed
flow between the flow channels in the plate heat exchanger. The
increase in the condensation heat transfer coefficient with increas-
ing the mean vapor quality is caused by the increase of equivalent
Reynolds number and vapor shear effect. Under given conditions of
heat flux and mass flux, the equivalent Reynolds number increases
up to two times or more depending on the variation of mean va-
por quality. This increase in the equivalent Reynolds number leads
to an increase in the turbulent effects. Increased vapor shear effect
enhances the condensation heat transfer coefficient by removing
the condensed refrigerant liquid film which acts as the heat trans-
fer resistance in the thermal plates. The results of this study agree
well with those of Vlasogiannis et al. [21], Yan et al. [22], and Han
et al. [14].
Fig. 6(a) and (b) show the frictional pressure drop according to
the mean vapor quality between the inlet and outlet of the tested
heat exchanger for BPHE-30 and SPHE, respectively. Experimental
9
Fig. 6. Frictional pressure drop according to the mean vapor quality with different
heat flux in BPHE-30 (a), and SPHE (b).
conditions for each heat exchanger are the same as those for the
condensation heat transfer coefficient. It is found that the frictional
pressure drop in both heat exchangers increases with increasing
the mean vapor quality while the effect of heat flux on the fric-
tional pressure drop is negligible.
The minimum and maximum values of the frictional pressure
drop for each heat exchanger are significantly different. Experi-
mental results range between 3.87 and 7.10 kPa for BPHE-30 and
between 10.14 and 39.86 kPa for SPHE, and 4.39 to 13.63 kPa for
BPHE-60 studied in the previous study [9]. In the BPHEs, the higher
the chevron angle, the stronger the turbulent flow and the higher
frictional pressure drop in the heat exchanger. Although the SPHE
has lower mass flux conditions than the BPHEs, it has much higher
mass flow rate due to the differences in the geometry of heat ex-
changer. Therefore, the frictional pressure drop is greatly increased
during the process of distributing into the plate and the merging
process.
3.2.2. Effects of mass flux on condensation heat transfer and
frictional pressure drop
Fig. 7(a) and (b) show the condensation heat transfer coeffi-
cients as a function of the mean vapor quality for each refrigerant
mass flux in BPHE-30 and SPHE, respectively. In the experiments
10 O.J. Kwon, J.H. Jung and Y.T. Kang / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 158 (2020) 120008
Fig. 7. Condensation heat transfer coefficient according to the mean vapor quality
with different mass flux in BPHE-30 (a), and SPHE (b).
of the BPHE-30, the refrigerant mass flux varies with 13.7, 20.0,
and 26.7 kg/m2 s at given saturation pressure of 200 kPa and heat
flux of 1.5 kW/m2 . In the experiments of the SPHE, the refrigerant
mass flux varies with 10.0, 13.0, and 16.0 kg/m2 s at given satura-
tion pressure of 300 kPa and heat flux of 1.5 kW/m2 . Considering
that the refrigerant mass flux ranges 5–40 kg/m2 s in typical refrig-
eration cycles, the refrigerant mass flux conditions for each heat
exchanger may be regarded as a somewhat low mass flux condi-
tion. However, since the plate heat exchanger used in the present
experiments can have higher efficiency and heat transfer capacity
than the conventional fin-tube type air-cooled heat exchanger, the
mass flux is set to be somewhat lower conditions.
As can be seen from Fig. 7(a) and (b), the condensation heat
transfer coefficient increases with increasing the mass flux in the
BPHE-30. The highest condensation heat transfer coefficients are
obtained at the highest mean vapor qualities at all mass flux con-
ditions, but the lowest condensation heat transfer coefficients are
not obtained at the lowest mean vapor qualities. It means that
in the low vapor quality region, the effect of mass flux is very
low. However, the condensation heat transfer coefficient increases
significantly with the increase of the mass flux in the high va-
Fig. 8. Frictional pressure drop according to the mean vapor quality with different
mass flux in BPHE-30 (a), and SPHE (b).
por quality region. This result is also found in Raju and Jagdish
Chand [11], which suggested that the plate heat exchangers have
the highest heat transfer performance when the heat transfer oc-
curs in the form of two phase flow with a high vapor quality. How-
ever, in the present experimental results of the SPHE, there are
some difference from those of the BPHE-30. In the low vapor qual-
ity region, the condensation heat transfer coefficient increases with
decreasing the refrigerant mass flux. This problem is caused by the
maldistribution which occurs more significantly in the SPHE than
BPHE due to the flow arrangement and geometry of the heat ex-
changer. On the other hand, the effect of mass flux is much lower
than the previous study with a high chevron angle of 60o (BPHE-
60) because the turbulent effect is caused by the metal-to-metal
point contacts and corrugated thermal plate in the plate heat ex-
changer, which becomes more significant in BPHE-30 than BPHE-
60.
Fig. 8(a) and (b) show the frictional pressure drops according to
the mean vapor quality for each mass flux in BPHE-30 and SPHE,
respectively. It is found that the frictional pressure drop increases
with increasing the mean vapor quality and refrigerant mass flux.
 O.J. Kwon, J.H. Jung and Y.T. Kang / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 158 (2020) 120008
Fig. 9. Condensation heat transfer coefficient according to the mean vapor quality
with different saturation pressure in BPHE-30 (a), and SPHE (b).
It is considered that the vapor shear effect described before causes
more friction between thermal plates and working fluid in the
high vapor quality region. Also, in the low vapor quality region,
the frictional pressure drop doesn’t have difference between dif-
ferent mass fluxes, which means that frictional pressure drop is
mostly affected by the vapor shear effect. The effect of vapor shear
in the plat heat exchanger can be well reflected by the equivalent
Reynolds number which was first defined by Akers et al. [23] as
follows:
Geq Dh
Reeq =
μ and frictional pressure drop. A higher Chevron angle promotes the
 1  ρ 1 / 2 
l
Geq = G 1 − xm + xm
ρv
3.2.3. Effects of saturation pressure
Fig. 9(a) and (b) show the condensation heat transfer coeffi-
cients according to the mean vapor quality for each saturation
pressure in BPHE-30 and SPHE, respectively. In the experiments
of the BPHE-30, the saturation pressure varies with 200, 250, and
300 kPa for given mass flux and heat flux at 20.0 kg/m2 s and
1.5 kW/m2 . In the experiments of the SPHE, the saturation pres-
sure varies with 250, 300 kPa, and 350 kPa for given mass flux
and heat flux at 13.0 kg/m2 s and 1.5 kW/m2 . The saturation tem-
11
Table 8
Change of refrigerant properties according to the saturation pressure.
SaturationPressure[kPa] 200 250 300 350
SaturationTemperature[°C] 37.7 44.7 50.8 56.1
Liquid conductivity[W/mK] 0.07944 0.07732 0.07553 0.07397
Liquid viscosity[10−6 N•s/m2 ] 258.8 239.4 224.9 213.4
Specific heat [kJ/kgK] Liquid 1.257 1.266 1.275 1.284
Vapor 0.8607 0.8778 0.8934 0.9079
Density [kg/m3 ] Liquid 1231 1213 1198 1183
Vapor 10.83 13.41 15.99 18.57
peratures of R-1233zd(E) at the saturation pressures of 200, 250,
300, and 350 kPa are 37.7, 44.7, 50.8, and 56.1 °C, respectively. In
addition, the low temperature water supplied to the tested plate
heat exchanger is set to be 7.5–8.5 °C which are lower than the
saturation temperature as described above.
The condensation heat transfer coefficients in all heat exchang-
ers increase with decreasing the saturation pressure. Table 8 shows
the thermodynamic properties of R-1233zd(E) according to the sat-
uration pressure. As the saturation pressure increases, the liquid
conductivity and liquid density of refrigerant decrease, while the
density of gas refrigerant increases. The liquid conductivity and
the liquid density decrease by about 7% and 9%, respectively, as
the saturation pressure increases from 200 kPa to 350 kPa, while
the vapor density increases by 70%. Thus, the equivalent Reynolds
number defined in Eq. (50) decreases and the volume of condensed
water increases, which increases the thermal resistance and gener-
ally reduces the vapor shear effect, resulting in the reduction of
condensation performance.
Fig. 10(a) and (b) show the frictional pressure drop according
to the mean vapor quality for each saturation pressure in BPHE-
30 and SPHE, respectively. The frictional pressure drop also tends
to decrease with increasing the saturation pressure due to the de-
crease of vapor density and vapor shear effect. It is also founded
that the pressure drop difference depending on the saturation
pressure becomes larger at high quality region than that at low
quality region. This is because the vapor density variation with the
change of saturation pressure is larger at high quality region.
3.2.4. Comparisons between different types of plate heat exchanger
Fig. 11(a) shows the results of performance comparison be-
tween BPHE-30 and BPHE-60. The performance comparison is car-
ried out for the ratio of the Nusselt number to the friction fac-
tor. Experimental results used are those conducted under the same
experimental conditions for both heat exchangers. It is found that
the ratio of Nu/f increases with increasing the equivalent Reynolds
number with different gradients depending on the Chevron angle
of the plates. The reason of this result can be explained from the
definition of the equivalent Reynolds number. The Reynolds num-
ber indicates the ratio of the viscous force to the inertial force
(momentum) physically, and the higher the Reynolds number, the
more turbulent flow occurs, which promotes both heat transfer
(50)
heat transfer performance while at the same time the frictional
(51) pressure drop lowers in the low equivalent Reynolds region, result-
ing in better performance of BPHE-60 than results of BPHE-30 in
the low equivalent Reynolds region. However, in the high equiva-
lent Reynolds region, the heat transfer performance enhances to-
gether in the two heat exchangers, but the frictional pressure drop
significantly increases in the BPHE-60. Accordingly, the ratio of
Nusselt number and friction factor is reversed near the equivalent
Reynolds number of 1100 in the present experiments.
Fig. 11(b) shows the friction factor versus the Nusselt number
for three heat exchangers, BPHE-60, BPHE-30 and SPHE. In the ex-
perimental results of the BPHEs, as Reynolds number increases,
the friction factor decreases while with the Nusselt number in-
12 O.J. Kwon, J.H. Jung and Y.T. Kang / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 158 (2020) 120008

Fig. 11. Comparison between different angle of corrugation (a), and types of plate
Fig. 10. Frictional pressure drop according to the mean vapor quality with different heat exchanger (b).
saturation pressure in BPHE-30 (a), and SPHE (b).

are 1.07, and 37.93, respectively. In addition, the flow arrangement

creases. However, in the experimental results of SPHE, as Reynolds
of refrigerant channel in SPHE has a Z-arrangement as described
number increases, both Nusselt number and friction factor in-
above. At this time, the maldistribution becomes more severe than
crease. As Reynolds number increases, friction factor in turbulent
the U-arrangement, and the flow is concentrated to the channels
flow generally tends to decrease because the mean velocity be-
near to the outlet. In the previous studies on the condensation heat
tween the plates increases. However, in the SPHE experiments, the
transfer in SPHEs such as Lim et al. [26] and Park et al. [27], the
equivalent Reynolds number range is 500-1820, which means that
U-arrangements have been used. Therefore, it is recommended to
sufficient turbulent flow is established. As a result of the analysis,
use U-arrangement than Z-arrangement in the flow arrangement
the maldistribution caused by the internal channel structure of the
of SPHE.
SPHE and the large pressure drop at the refrigerant inlet and outlet
are the main reasons for the above results.
According to the Bassiouny et al. [24,25], M2 can be defined as 3.3. Developments of Nusselt number and friction factor correlations
an indicator of the maldistribution phenomenon inside a plate heat
exchanger. Through the analysis of the experimental results in Section 3.2,
2−γ∗ 2−γ the factors affecting the heat transfer coefficient and the frictional
(Nc Ac )2
M2 = − (52) pressure drop are determined, and developments of Nusselt num-
A∗2
out A2in ξ
ber and friction factor correlation are performed by establishing a
As the absolute value of this index increases, the maldistribu- generic form that can reflect the influences of each factor. For the
tion occurs severely. The maldistribution index, M2 is composed of SPHE, as described in Section 3.2.4, the correlation development is
the factors such as the number of channels in the heat exchanger, not performed due to the difficulty of functioning as the key pa-
the channel cross-sectional area, and the cross-sectional area of the rameters and the lack of reliability due to the maldistribution phe-
inlet. The m2 values of BPHE and SPHE used in this experiment nomenon.
 O.J. Kwon, J.H. Jung and Y.T. Kang / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 158 (2020) 120008 13

Table 9
Coverage of dimensionless numbers for correlations of BPHEs.

Reeq Relo Boeq [10−5 ] Prl

BPHE-60 500 - 2400 136 - 251 5 - 40 4.7 - 5.3

BPHE-30 500 - 3350 170 - 342 3 - 20 3.8 - 5.3

3.3.1. Nusselt number correlation in BPHEs

Condensation heat transfer coefficients for R-1233zd(E) in the
BPHEs are measured according to the variations of the key parame-
ters such as heat flux, saturation pressure, mean vapor quality, and
refrigerant mass flux. The equivalent Reynolds number, Reeq, which
reflects the effect of mean vapor quality and refrigerant mass flux
is used, and liquid only Reynolds number, Relo , is used to reflect
the effect of the condensed refrigerant which acts as a thermal
resistance. In addition, the equivalent boiling number to reflect
the influence of the heat flux, and the Prandtl number are used.
The equivalent Reynolds number is calculated using Eq. (50) and
other dimensionless numbers are calculated using Eqs. (53)–(56).
A nondimensional geometric parameter, Ge, is defined as Eq. (57),
where the Chevron angle is in radian unit.
hr Dh
Nu = (53)
kl
G Dh
Relo = (54)
μ1

q
Boeq = (55)
Geq i f g
c p,l μl
Pr = (56)
l kl
π
Ge = β (57)
180
Based on the above nondimensional parameters, the following
Nusselt number correlation is developed for the BPHEs.
0.333
Nu = 0.887Re1eq.146 Re−0
lo
.354
Bo0eq.292 Ge0.903 Pr (58) Fig. 12. Comparison of Nusselt number (a) and friction factor (b) between the pre-
l
dicted and measured value in BPHEs.
Fig. 12(a) shows the comparisons of the predicted Nusselt num-
ber by the correlation and the Nusselt number obtained from the
experiments, and it is confirmed that 92.9% of the data are dis- Fig. 13(a) and (b) for the Nusselt number and the friction factor,
tributed within the error range of ±25%. In the case of liquid only respectively.It is found that the correlations from the literature are
Reynolds number, it has a negative exponent value because the not able to predict the condensation heat transfer performance of
condensates on the thermal plate results in a higher heat transfer R-1233zd (E) in the BPHE plate heat exchanger. These results can
resistance. In addition, the applicable ranges for each dimension- be caused by different experimental conditions and condensation
less number are summarized in Table 9. modes.
In the study of Zhang et al. [28], HFO series Low GWP refrig-
3.3.2. Friction factor correlation in BPHEs erants such as R-1233zd(E), R-1234ze(E) and the conventional re-
The frictional pressure drop of R-1233zd(E) in the plate heat ex- frigerants such as R-245fa, and R-134a were used in the experi-
changers is mainly varied with the key parameters such as satura- ments. Experiments were carried out in the ranges of wide mass
tion pressure, mean vapor quality, and refrigerant mass flux. In this flux and saturation pressure. As for the condensation modes, the
study, the following friction factor correlation is developed with an present study conducted partial condensation experiments to ob-
error band of ±25%. tain the local heat transfer coefficient inside the plate heat ex-
changers. On the other hand, Zhang’s study conducted the exper-
f = 2367.31Re−0
eq
.543
Re−0
lo
.517
Ge0.177 (59)
iments for the condensation of the superheated vapor into a sub-
Fig. 12(b) compares the friction factor estimated through the cooled liquid. Therefore, there should be a big difference between
developed correlation with the friction factor obtained through the experimental results in Nusselt number values. However, in the
the experiment, and it is confirmed that 89.1% of the data is dis- case of the friction factor, 64.5% of the data is distributed within
tributed within the error range of ±25%. the error range of ±25% because the geometric conditions of the
tested heat exchanger are similar and the difference of the heat
3.3.3. Comparisons with other studies flux at the test section does not greatly affect the frictional pres-
The present correlations are compared with the correlations sure drop.
provided by Han et al. [14], Yan et al. [22], Zhang et al. [28], Kuo As shown in Fig. 13(a), Han et al. [14], Yan et al. [22] and Kuo
et al. [29] and Tao et al. [30]. Table 10 summarizes the experi- et al. [29] developed Nusselt correlations in BPHEs, and the com-
mental conditions such as the type of heat exchangers and refrig- parisons were conducted for developed correlations in this study.
erants used in each study. The comparison results are shown in Eldeeb et al. [31] also made comparisons of these comparative
14 O.J. Kwon, J.H. Jung and Y.T. Kang / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 158 (2020) 120008

Table 10
Comparison of experimental conditions between present study and previous studies.

Han et al. [14]. Yan et al. [22]. Zhang et al. [28]. Kuo et al. [29]. Present study

Refrigerant R-410A, R-22 R-134a R-1233zd(E) R-410A R-1233zd(E)

Heat exchanger BPHE BPHE BPHE BPHE BPHE
Area of the plate, m2 0.0547 0.0540 0.0211 0.0540 0.0274
Number of effective plates 4 1 14 1 4
Angle of corrugation, 45, 55, 70 60 65 60 30, 60
Saturation temperature, °C 20 – 30 26.7 – 35.5 29.7 - 71.0 20 – 31.5 37.7 - 50.8
Mass flux, kg/m2 s 13.0 – 34.0 60.0 – 120.0 16.0 - 90.0 50.0 – 150.0 13.0 - 26.7
Heat flux, kW/m2 4.7 – 5.3 10 - 16 4.0 - 57.4 10 - 20 1.5 - 4.5
Mean vapor quality 0.15 – 0.9 0.08 – 0.86 Not available 0.1 – 0.8 0.25 – 0.90

compared with the present correlation, their accuracies are rather

low. Although these correlations have advantages from the view-
point of applicable refrigerants, the present correlation is much
better for accurate prediction of the low GWP refrigerant (R-
1233zd(E)).

4. Conclusions and perspectives

In this study, the condensation heat transfer and pressure drop

characteristics of R-1233zd(E) in plate heat exchangers are exper-
imentally studied. Experiments are conducted under partial con-
densation conditions to measure the condensation heat transfer
coefficient according to the mean vapor quality. By analyzing the
results of the partial condensation experiments for three differ-
ent plate heat exchangers, the key factors affecting the condensa-
tion performance of R-1233zd(E) are identified. Based on the ex-
perimental results, it is concluded that the maldistribution phe-
nomenon severely occurs in SPHE with Z-arrangement. The pre-
dictive correlations for Nusselt number and friction factor are for-
mulated to reflect the influence of the key factors affecting the
condensation performance of R-1233zd(E). In addition, the corre-
lations presented in this study are compared with the correlations
from the literature. The following conclusions are drawn from the
present study.

1 Condensation heat transfer coefficient increases from

Fig. 13. Comparison of correlations for Nusselt number (a), and friction factor (b)
with other studies.
studies, and reported that the differences were very big each other.
As shown in Table 10, geometric conditions of BPHE and thermal
conditions of experiments are different. In the case of Yan et al.
[22], due to the large difference in the experimental conditions, the
error in prediction accuracy is very large. Although the experimen-
tal conditions of Han et al. [14] and Kuo et al. [29] are somewhat
similar, there are also differences in refrigerants, and it is shown
that the present correlation is the best in terms of the prediction
accuracy under the experimental conditions of the low GWP refrig-
erant (R-1233zd(E)).
In Fig. 13(b), the correlations of Zhang et al. [28] and Tao et al.
[30] show that part of the data are within the error range. But
0.3 kW/m2 K to 3 kW/m2 K with increasing heat flux as
1.5–4.5 kW/m2 , refrigerant mass flux as13.0–26.7 kg/m2 s,
and mean vapor quality from 0.25 to 0.9, respectively, in the
plate heat exchangers. It is caused by the increase of the inlet
vapor quality and the reduction of thermal resistance due to
the increase of the vapor shear effect. In addition, it is found
that the condensation heat transfer coefficient is dominantly
influenced by the vapor density out of the thermodynamic
properties of the refrigerant.
2 Frictional pressure drop increases from 4 kPa to 18 kPa with in-
creasing mean vapor quality, refrigerant mass flux and chevron
angle. On the other hand, it decreases with increasing satura-
tion pressure. The effect of mean vapor quality and refriger-
ant mass flux on the frictional pressure drop can be reasonably
explained through the use of equivalent Reynolds number pro-
vided by Akers et al. [23].
3 It is concluded that the BPHE has a higher Nusselt number and
a lower friction factor, so that the SPHE having excessively high
friction factor against Nusselt number is not recommended as
a condenser. In addition, it is confirmed that the maldistribu-
tion of refrigerants occurs in the SPHE with inadequate internal
flow path structure and the large aspect ratio compared with
the BPHE.
4 The experimental correlations for Nusselt number and friction
factor are developed with the error range of ± 25%, respec-
tively and the data of 92.9% and 89.1% were distributed, re-
spectively, within the error range. From the comparisons with
the literature correlations, it is concluded that the correlations
 O.J. Kwon, J.H. Jung and Y.T. Kang / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 158 (2020) 120008
developed in present study have a high accuracy to predict the
condensation performance of R-1233zd(E) in the plate heat ex-
changers.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Oh Jin Kwon: Writing - review & editing. Jae Hoon Jung: Data
curation, Writing - review & editing. Yong Tae Kang: Conceptual-
ization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing - review & editing.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Korea Institute of Energy
Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) and the Ministry of
Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE) of the Republic of Korea (No.
10052926).
References
[1] S. Benhadid-Dib, A. Benzaoui, Refrigerants and their environmental impact
substitution of hydro chlorofluorocarbon HCFC and HFC hydro fluorocarbon.
Search for an adequate refrigerant, Energy Procedia 18 (2012) 807–816.
[2] M.S. Bhatti, A historical look at chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants, ASHRAE Trans.
105 (1999) 1186.
[3] G. Lorentzen, The use of natural refrigerants: a complete solution to the
CFC/HCFC predicament, Int. J. Refriger. 18 (3) (1995) 190–197.
[4] G.J. Velders, D.W. Fahey, J.S. Daniel, M. McFarland, S.O. Andersen, The large
contribution of projected HFC emissions to future climate forcing, in: Proceed-
ings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 2009, pp. 10949–10954.
[5] W. Goetzler, R. Zogg, J. Young, C. Johnson, Alternatives to vapor-compression
HVAC technology, ASHRAE J. 56 (10) (2014) 12.
[6] A. Mota-Babiloni, J. Navarro-Esbrí, Á. Barragán-Cervera, F. Molés, B. Peris, Anal-
ysis based on EU Regulation No 517/2014 of new HFC/HFO mixtures as alter-
natives of high GWP refrigerants in refrigeration and HVAC systems, Int. J. Re-
friger. 52 (2015) 21–31.
[7] W.A. Fouad, L.F. Vega, Next generation of low global warming potential refrig-
erants: thermodynamic properties molecular modeling, AIChE J. 64 (1) (2018)
250–262.
[8] A.G. Devecioğlu, V. Oruç, Improvement on the energy performance of a refrig-
eration system adapting a plate-type heat exchanger and low-GWP refrigerants
as alternatives to R134a, Energy 155 (2018) 105–116.
[9] O.J. Kwon, B. Shon, Y.T. Kang, Experimental investigation on condensation heat
transfer and pressure drop of a low GWP refrigerant R-1233zd (E) in a plate
heat exchanger, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 131 (2019) 1009–1021.
[10] R.A. Perkins, M.L. Huber, M.J. Assael, Measurement and Correlation of the Ther-
mal Conductivity of trans-1-Chloro-3, 3, 3-trifluoropropene (R1233zd (E)), J.
Chem. Eng. Data 62 (9) (2017) 2659–2665.
15
[11] K. Raju, J. Chand, Consider the plate heat-exchanger, Chem. Eng. 87 (16) (1980)
133–144.
[12] R.L. Amalfi, F. Vakili-Farahani, J.R. Thome, Flow boiling and frictional pressure
gradients in plate heat exchangers. Part 2: comparison of literature methods
to database and new prediction methods, Int. J. Refriger. 61 (2016) 185–203.
[13] R.L. Amalfi, F. Vakili-Farahani, J.R. Thome, Flow boiling and frictional pressure
gradients in plate heat exchangers. Part 1: review and experimental database,
Int. J. Refriger. 61 (2016) 166–184.
[14] D.-H. Han, K.-J. Lee, Y.-H. Kim, The characteristics of condensation in brazed
plate heat exchangers with different chevron angles, J.-Korean Phys. Soc. 43
(1) (2003) 66–73.
[15] A. Muley, R. Manglik, Experimental study of turbulent flow heat transfer and
pressure drop in a plate heat exchanger with chevron plates, J. Heat Transfer
121 (1) (1999) 110–117.
[16] G. Longo, A. Gasparella, Refrigerant R134a vaporisation heat transfer and pres-
sure drop inside a small brazed plate heat exchanger, International journal of
refrigeration 30 (5) (2007) 821–830.
[17] M. Edwards, A.C. Vaie, D Parrott, Heat-transfer and pressure-drop character-
istics of a plate heat-exchanger using newtonian and non-newtonian liquids,
Chem. Eng.-Lond. 285 (1974) 286-&.
[18] J.G. Collier, J.R. Thome, Convective Boiling and Condensation, Clarendon Press,
1994.
[19] S. Kline, FA McClintock, Describing uncertainties in single-sample experiments,
Mech. Eng. 75 (1) (1953) 3–8.
[20] J.P. Holman, W.J. Gajda, Experimental Methods for Engineers, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 2001.
[21] P. Vlasogiannis, G. Karagiannis, P. Argyropoulos, V. Bontozoglou, Air–water
two-phase flow and heat transfer in a plate heat exchanger, Int. J. Multiphase
Flow 28 (5) (2002) 757–772.
[22] Y.-Y. Yan, H.-C. Lio, T.-F. Lin, Condensation heat transfer and pressure drop of
refrigerant R-134a in a plate heat exchanger, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 42 (6)
(1999) 993–1006.
[23] W. Akers, H. Deans, O. Crosser, Condensing heat transfer within horizontal
tubes, Chem. Eng. Progr. (1958) 54.
[24] M. Bassiouny, H. Martin, Flow distribution and pressure drop in plate heat ex-
changers—II Z-type arrangement, Chem. Eng. Sci. 39 (4) (1984) 701–704.
[25] M. Bassiouny, H. Martin, Flow distribution and pressure drop in plate heat ex-
changers—I U-type arrangement, Chem. Eng. Sci. 39 (4) (1984) 693–700.
[26] J. Lim, K.S. Song, D. Kim, D. Lee, Y. Kim, Condensation heat transfer character-
istics of R245fa in a shell and plate heat exchanger for high-temperature heat
pumps, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 127 (2018) 730–739.
[27] J.-H. Park, Y.-S. Kim, Condensation heat transfer and pressure drop of R-134a
in the oblong shell and plate heat exchanger, Int. J. Air-Condition. Refriger. 12
(3) (2004) 158–167.
[28] J. Zhang, B. Elmegaard, F. Haglind, Heat transfer and pressure drop charac-
teristics of high temperature condensation of R245fa and R1233zd in a plate
heat exchanger, 16th International Heat Transfer Conference (IHTC-16), Begell
House, 2018.
[29] W. Kuo, Y. Lie, Y. Hsieh, T. Lin, Condensation heat transfer and pressure drop
of refrigerant R-410A flow in a vertical plate heat exchanger, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer 48 (25–26) (2005) 5205–5220.
[30] X. Tao, C.A.I. Ferreira, Heat transfer and frictional pressure drop during conden-
sation in plate heat exchangers: Assessment of correlations and a new method,
Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 135 (2019) 996–1012.
[31] R. Eldeeb, V. Aute, R. Radermacher, A survey of correlations for heat transfer
and pressure drop for evaporation and condensation in plate heat exchangers,
Int. J. Refriger. 65 (2016) 12–26.