Accepted Manuscript

Research Paper

Numerical study on performances of shell-side in trefoil-hole and quatrefoil-

hole baffle heat exchangers

Lu Ma, Ke Wang, Minshan Liu, Dan Wang, Tong Liu, Yongqing Wang,
Zunchao Liu

PII: S1359-4311(16)33867-4
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.05.097
Reference: ATE 10410

To appear in: Applied Thermal Engineering

Received Date: 3 December 2016

Revised Date: 16 May 2017
Accepted Date: 17 May 2017

Please cite this article as: L. Ma, K. Wang, M. Liu, D. Wang, T. Liu, Y. Wang, Z. Liu, Numerical study on
performances of shell-side in trefoil-hole and quatrefoil-hole baffle heat exchangers, Applied Thermal
Engineering (2017), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.05.097

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.
 Numerical study on performances of shell-side in trefoil-hole and
quatrefoil-hole baffle heat exchangers
Lu Ma, Ke Wang1 , Minshan Liu, Dan Wang, Tong Liu, Yongqing Wang, Zunchao Liu
(Key Laboratory of Process Heat Transfer and Energy Saving of Henan Province, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou
450002, China)

Abstract
Shell-side performances of trefoil perforated plate baffle heat exchanger with equilateral triangle tube layout and

quatrefoil-hole baffle heat exchangers with square tube arrangement have been studied numerically. Through

establishment of periodic model of heat exchangers with three different trefoil and quatrefoil opening heights of 1.8mm,

2.3mm and 2.8mm, the influence of opening height on the shell-side performances has been studied. The experiment of

a heat exchanger with trefoil-hole baffles has been conducted to verify the validation and accuracy of periodic model.

The results indicate that the enlargement of opening height decreases pressure drop and heat transfer coefficient while

the reduction of it causes dramatic pressure loss with a modest increase of heat transfer coefficient. The heat transfer

coefficient per unit pressure drop of trefoil-hole baffle heat exchangers is higher than that of heat exchangers with

quadrifoil-hole baffles.

Keywords: heat transfer performance; trefoil perforated plate; quatrefoil perforated plate; shell-and-tube heat
exchanger

Nomenclature

Latin symbols sv the systematic standard uncertainty

A heat transfer area , mm2 Tsp,in inlet temperature for shell-side, K
bv random standard uncertainty of the Tsp,out outlet temperature for shell-side, K
mean ΔTm logarithmic mean temperature
Cp specific heat capacity,J/(Kg*K) difference, K
Cμ constant values for Standard and Uv the expended uncertainty
Realizable k-ε model V velocity of Z direction
do outer diameter of tubes,mm
Din inter shell diameter, mm Greek symbols
h heat transfer coefficient, W/m2*K Γ generalized diffusion coefficient
H opening height for quatrefoil-hole ν kinematic viscosity,m2/s
and trefoil-hole, mm ρ density, Kg/m3
L perforated plate spacing/model ε turbulent kinetic energy dissipation
length/tube effective length, mm rate, m2/s3
m mass flow rate, Kg/s μ dynamic viscosity,kg/(m*s)
M the number of significant σk Prandtl number for k
systematic error sources σε Prandtl number for ε
Nt number of tubes ψ opening ratio
N the number of sample sizes Subscripts
P tube pitch, mm sp,in inlet of shell-side
Δp pressure drop per unit meter(Pa/m) sp,out outlet of shell-side
Q heat transfer rate, W sp shell side

1
Corresponding author
E-mail: kewang@zzu.edu.cn.

28
1. Introduction
Due to the advantages of sustainable development, economic value and

environmental protection, nuclear energy has been widely used. The reactor is the main

device of utilizing nuclear energy, and its safety issue arrests people’s attention:

especially after the Fukushima accident. The safety, reliability and decommission of

reactor need further long-term efforts [1]. PWR (pressurized water reactor) is the most

advanced and common equipment among the reactors[2], and the working performance

of the major heat transfer equipment for PWR nuclear island device, heat exchanger with

trefoil and quatrefoil perforated plate baffles, has direct impacts on performance of PWR

nuclear unit.

According to distinctions of support structures, shell-and-tube heat exchangers can

be divided into four categories: heat exchangers with segmental baffles, heat exchangers

with rod baffles, heat exchangers with helical baffles and heat exchangers with shutter

baffles [3-6]. Besides supporting structure of tube bundle, the baffles are supposed to

enhance heat transfer，lower the possibility of flow induced vibration and make fluid in

the shell side flow in an expected flow pattern: segmental baffles direct fluid to flow in a

zigzag manner, the arrangement of helical baffles causes the appearance of “quasi plug

flow” ， the mixed flow pattern generated by shutter baffles is a combination of

longitudinal flow and cross flow while rod baffles have the fluid move longitudinally.

The trefoil or quatrefoil perforated plate baffle is one of the round orifice plate which

directs shell-side fluid flow longitudinally. Besides trefoil or quatrefoil-hole plate baffles

(Fig.1g and h), the round orifice plate baffles also include big round-hole plate baffles

(Fig.1a), small round-hole plate baffles (Fig.1b), rectangle-hole plate baffles (Fig.1c),

29
eccentric-hole plate baffles (Fig.1d), plum blossom plate baffles (Fig.1e) and

reticulated-hole plate baffles (Fig.1f), which are sketched in Fig.1[7]. The fluid in the

shell side travels through holes in plates and develops jet flow, which enhances heat

transfer and increases local flow resistance. The distinctions between different baffles

make each support structure exhibit its unique utilization and application;

trefoil/quatrefoil-hole baffle heat exchangers have exceptional advantages in nuclear

engineering. Taking the secondary loop of nuclear power plant for an example, the

equipment associated with heat transfer consists of steam generator, condenser,

feed-water heater and so on. For steam generator of 51B type, the heat exchanger is

placed vertically with gas-water separator in upper part and inverted U-type heat

exchanger tubes which are supported by quatrefoil-hole baffles with square tube

arrangement in lower part [8]. Besides supporting requirements of tube bundles,

quatrefoil or trefoil perforated plate baffles have underlying capability in anti-vibration

especially in nuclear engineering which puts forward an overwhelming challenge of its

enhanced requirements for safe manipulation and operation. It is also an everlasting

exploration to decrease resistance, reinforce heat transfer and reduce cost for support

structure, especially when the corrosion of gaps between tubes and support baffles has a

great affection on safe operation of nuclear plant unit [9]. So the development and

improvement of industry necessitate investigation of seeking appropriate and efficient

support structures.

30
 （b） （c）

（d） （e） （a）

（a） （b）
（b） （c
（
c. rectangle-hole plate
a. big round-hole plate baffle b. small round-hole plate baffle
baffle

（a） （b）

（d）
（d） （e）
（e）

（a） （b） （c） （d） plate

f. reticulated-hole （e
d. eccentric-hole plate baffle e. plum blossom-hole plate baffle
baffle

（d） （e）

g. quatrefoil-hole plate baffle h. trefoil-hole plate baffle

Fig.1 Sketch of supporting plate baffles

In engineering field, experimentation is indispensable in studying performances of

various kinds of heat exchangers and many literatures had corroborated [10-14]. With the

development of fluid dynamics and calculation software, numerical simulation, which is

31
capable to provide quantity of details on specific parameters of different equipment, has

generalized its applications in many fields. For example, the CFD software has already

showed its advantages in design and optimization of various kinds of heat exchangers,

and comparisons between simulation results and experimental measurements proved

CFD software is an effective tool in predicting performances of heat exchangers [15].

Just as reported in literature [16-19], some fundamental elements such as velocity profiles,

temperature distribution and flow parameters of heat exchangers had been discussed and

analyzed by means of numerical simulation, which also gave credit in demonstrating the

accuracy and applicability of CFD.

Maakoul et al. built whole model of heat exchanger with three support structures,

including trefoil perforated plates, helical baffles and segmental baffles, and conducted

numerical simulation and experimental research, which elucidated the different impacts

of support structure on shell side [20]. You et al. took advantage of numerical simulation

based on periodic unit duct model and experiment to study flow and heat transfer of shell

side of heat exchanger with trefoil perforated plates, and deduced the correlations of heat

transfer and pressure drop under certain support distance [21]. The periodic unit duct

model is a simplification of shell-and-tube heat exchanger with longitudinal flow, which

ignores the influences of inlet, outlet and inner shell wall [22].

The literatures concerned about numerical researches on performance of heat

transfer and flow of heat exchanger with trefoil perforated plates by employing whole

model and periodic unit duct model have already appeared, but the studies about heat

exchangers with quatrefoil perforated plates are rare, and comparison of shell-side

performances of heat exchangers with trefoil and quatrefoil perforated plate baffles is

32
even more scanty. The influence of quatrefoil and trefoil opening heights on performance

of shell side is analyzed through establishment of periodic model, and numerical results

of these two have been compared; model validation with experimental research is also

demonstrated.

2. Numerical model and computation strategy

2.1 Physical models

The establishment of model is based on actual dimension of heat exchanger. The

specific parameters of geometry model are presented in Tab.1, and tube arrangement for

perforated plates is presented in Fig.2. The tubes with identical number could provide

equal amount of heat transfer area to make sure the simulation would be carried out under

the same conditions.

Fig.2 Schematic diagram of tube arrangement for perforated plates

Tab.1 Geometry parameters for physical model
Item Definitions and dimension
Shell parameters Inner shell diameter(Din) 144mm
Tube parameters Outer diameter of tube(do) 14mm
Central distance of tubes(P) 19mm
Number of tubes(Nt) 37
Baffle parameters Pitch for perforated plates (L) 150
Thickness of perforate plate 10mm
Dimension for trefoil and quadrifoil opening(H ) 1.8,2.3,2.8mm

33
 There were literatures employing periodic model to gain dependable results to

predict performance of shell side [19,23-24].The equally spaced arrangement of

perforated plates makes the flow in shell side vary periodically; when the value of wall

temperature is regarded as constant and influence of inlet and outlet nozzle being

negligible, there is a postulation that the fluid in shell side flow periodically along flow

direction, and takes periodic model as a simplification of whole heat exchanger.

2.2 Basic assumption and boundary conditions

In order to conduct numerical simulation smoothly and correctly, the assumptions

involved are as follows:

1) The fluid is at turbulence condition, and it is fully developed without taking the effect

of inlet and outlet nozzle into account.

2) The media in shell side is water, which is incompressible;

3) The gap between baffle and inner shell wall is neglected, and gravitation is ignored.

4) The temperature of outer tube wall is set as constant value (T w=363.15K), and the

energy spreading in the surrounding is not taken into consideration.

The Reynolds number is defined by equivalent diameter of shell side ranging from

4750 to 23750. For all the periodic models, the temperature of upstream is 293.15K

(Tsp,in=293.15K) and the surface perpendicular to the flow direction is periodical; all the

walls in this article are regarded as no-slip. The SIMPLEC algorithm is adopted to couple

the pressure and velocity, which is more suitable for solving incompressible flow field

with well robustness.

2.3 Selection of turbulence model

34
 There are two approaches to predict characteristics of turbulence including Direct

Numerical Simulation (DNS) and Non-direct numerical simulation. Just as its name

implies, by directly solving time-dependent Navier-Stokes equations without any

hypothesis, DNS eliminates deviations from the introduction of turbulent model, which is

an unexampled advantage in contrast with Non-direct numerical simulation. At the same

time, it needs high time and spatial resolution of computer which is essential to

accurately resolve a wide range of length and time scales. It is only applicable to

moderate Reynolds number even for super computer and difficult to generalize the use of

DNS in industrial engineering [25-27]. Large Eddy Simulation (LES) and Reynolds

Averaged Naiver-Stokes (RANS) together constitute Non-direct numerical simulation

method. Turbulence instantaneous motion can be decomposed into large-scale eddies and

small-scale eddies: large-scale eddies are calculated by directly solving Navier-Stokes

equations, and through Sub-grid scale model, small-scale eddies are able to establish

connection with large-scale eddies: it is the core idea of LES. It’s suitable for

computation of high Reynolds number, verification and evaluation of new turbulence

model and prediction for sophisticated flow which other models could not perform well.

The difficulties of LES application lie in high demands for computer to fully resolve

paramount large scale eddies [25,28-29].

By operating time-average for unsteady Navier-Stokes control equations in RANS,

all instantaneous values of flow properties can be expressed as the form of mean and

fluctuating values. For incompressible Newtonian fluid, taking the time-mean

formulation of Navier-Stokes equations, continuity and N-S equations can be expressed

as follows.

35
 ui
 0
x i
(1)
ui u 'j 
 
'

ui  ui u j 1 p  2 ui
      
t x j  x i x j x j x j
'
Here, ρ is fluid density, ν the kinematic viscosity, ui the mean velocity, and ui the

'
fluctuating velocity. The term ui u 'j stands for Reynolds-stress tensor. According to the

treatment of Reynolds-stress, there are Reynolds Stress Model (RSM) and models based

on the boussinesq eddy-viscosity approximation. The latter models are extensively used

in CFD software, especially for those two-equation models including k-ε turbulence

model employed in this article [30-31].

The k-ε model is the most widely adopted two-equation model, with its improved

version, such as Renormalization Group (RNG) k-ε model [32] and Realizable k-ε model

[33]. For original k-ε model, it has another designation: Standard k-ε model. The primary

transport equations for Standard k-ε model are specified as follows.

k2
t  C  (2)

k k    t k   ui
 uj      ij  (3)
t x j x j   k x j  x j
     t     ui 2
 uj     C 1   C 2 (4)
x j    x j 
ij
t x j k x j k
 C
Here,  =1.3，  k =1.0，  =0.09，  1 =1.44，  2 =1.92.
C C
There is no difference between Standard k-ε model and RNG model, except for the
C
modification of coefficient  2 , which can be obtained from following formulas.
C  3 1   0 
C  2  C  2  
1  1 3
(5)
Sk 1   ui  uj 
  ,S  2S ij S ij ,S    
 2  x j x i 
 

36
 Here, C  =0.085， C  1 =1.42， C  2 =1.68，  =0.012，  k    =0.72， 0 =4.38. Sij

denotes deformation tensor and S represents flow’s mean stain-rate. The classic k-ε model

could not provide sound predictions for adverse pressure gradients and flows where

production of turbulence exceeds its dissipation, including separated flows and

impingement [34]. After specific coefficient Cε2 modified, RNG k-ε model is capable to

deal with flows which have high stain rate and streamlines with big curvature and predict

recirculation length for separated flow.

The equations for Realizable k-ε model can be expressed in the following forms.

 ui k       
    t  
    x i 
 x i x j  

 ui     t    k2
       C    C (6)
x i      x i 
1 2
 x i k  

   u u ui    ui  u j  ui
t
 x i  x i
i j
 x i  x j
Here, C1=max[0.43,μ/(μt+5)]，C2=1.9，σk=1.0，σε=1.2.

Compared with Standard k-ε model and RNG k-ε model, it contains an alternative

formulation for the turbulent viscosity and modified transport equation for the dissipation

rate (ε) which is derived from an exact equation for the transport of the mean-square

vorticity fluctuation. Realizable k-ε model could provide relatively precise predictions for

flows including rotation uniform shear flow, boundary layer flows where exist strong

adverse gradients of pressure, separated flow and recirculation [20,35]. In shell-side of

perforated plate baffle heat exchanger, fluid mainly passes through holes in

quadrifoil–hole baffles and trefoil-hole baffles, develops jet flow, and sometimes even

generates large-scale recirculation. The Realizable k-ε model is adopted under all

considered situations.

37
2.4 Data reduction

The equations employed in calculating heat transfer coefficient are written in the

following:

The logarithmic mean temperature difference

Tmax  Tmin
Tm  , Tmax  Tw  Tsp ,in , Tmin  Tw  Tsp ,out (7)
Ln(Tmax Tmin )
The heat transfer area

A  N t    do  L (8)
The heat transfer rate of shell side

Q  m  C p  Tsp ,out  Tsp ,in  (9)

So, the heat transfer coefficient can be expressed as

h  Q (A  T m ) (10)
2.5 Mesh and its validation

The quality of grid plays a very significant role in numerical simulation and it is a

positive correlation between the number of grids and computational accuracy: refinement

of grid brings out an increase in number of it, which means the improvement of

calculation precision and capability to capture fluid’s parameters simultaneously, and, of

course, requires large investment of time and resources; while coarse meshing could

reduce time consumption, it would also lead to results inaccuracy, even distortion. So

there is a requirement to balance refining between coarsening grids.

The application employed in meshing is Mesh module of Workbench, and meshing

is under both global and local control. By setting parameters for grids, there are a series

of different numbers of grids. To make a trade-off aforementioned, it is essential to

conduct heat transfer and flow validation for these grids.

Taking model of heat exchanger with quatrefoil perforated plates as an example,

38
there were grids of 1.16, 2.45, 3.05, 3.91 and 5.8 million and curves of grid independence

test are depicted in Fig.3. When cell number reached 3.91 million, both the relative

deviations of heat transfer and pressure are all less than 2%. It is the number of grids that

can balance accuracy between time consumption. And meshing of computational domain

is exhibited in Fig.4.

3.3

heat transfer coefficient 2.9

heat transfer coefficient/KW*m-2*K-1

3.2 pressure drop

2.8

pressure drop/KPa
3.1

2.7
3.0

2.6
2.9

2.8 2.5

2.7 2.4
100 200 300 400 500 600

cell number/104

Fig.3 Shell-side heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop versus grid number

Fig.4 mesh for quadrifoil perforated plate heat exchanger

3. Model validation

3.1 Experiment system

Laser Doppler Velocimetry measurement system and hydraulic system of heat

exchanger compose the experimental platform, which is set up to measure the velocity in

entity model of heat exchanger with trefoil-hole baffles to validate the accuracy of

39
numerical simulation of periodic model. The heat exchanger model is made of

polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and concrete dimension could be obtained from Fig.5.

The main measurement equipment and auxiliary instruments are shown in Fig.6.

The water in the tank (2) flows through rotor flowmeter (5) under the force of pump (3),

then finally enters into heat exchanger with trefoil-hole baffles (1), with a repeating cycle.

The volumetric flow rates can be adjusted by valves (4) and measured by rotor flowmeter

(5). The velocities of tracking particles measured by LDV (6) and values are acquired

with data acquisition (7). The specific details for parameters of LDV and rotor flowmeter

are listed in Tab.2 and Tab.3. The Software Flowsize suited with FSA system of LDV

from TSI corporation, is adopted as data acquisition to display measuring data

instantaneously.

Fig.5 Sketch of heat exchanger with trefoil-hole baffles

40
 Fig.6 Schematic diagram of experiment system

Tab.2 Specific parameters of LDV

Measurement index Concrete parameters
Laser out-put power 2W
Wavelength of two-dimension laser 514.5nm,488nm
Type of fiber-optical probe TR×60
Standard beam diameter 2.65mm
Type of lens series TLN06-350
Focal length of lens 363 mm
Beam separation 50 mm
Fringe spacing 3.7
Measurement accuracy ±0.2%

Tab.3 Specificition of flowmeter

Measurement index Concrete parameters
Type of flowmeter LZB-50
Measurement range 0.6-6m3/h
Measuring accuracy ±2.5%
Measuring media water

The media in shell side is water and recycled water will be placed in room for at

least 12 h and 24 h to make sure water temperature stays the same as indoor temperature.

During the period of experiment, thermometers are placed in room and water tank

respectively to record temperature in case of its fluctuation. With hollow spheres being

41
seed particles of laser, movements of tracking particles are able to substitute that of fluid.

The concentration of seed particles has great significance on data rate that too high or too

low of concentration can both lead to reduction of data rate. It was a gradual process from

adding tracking particles into water until attaining an appropriate data rate. The

parameters of seed particles can be observed from Tab.4.

Tab.4 Specific details of tracer particle

Designation of TSI 10089
Shape Hollows sphere
Diameter 8~12μm
Density 1.05~1.15g/cc
3.2 Measurement

In order to guarantee accuracy of measuring points’ positions, there is a need to

relocate measuring points under the influence of refraction. Two representative locations

of XY plane are selected: one is exactly in trefoil-hole, and the other is behind support

structure, where both lines are parallel to axis Z. The velocities of measuring-points along

axial direction are measured, and distribution can be seen in Fig.7.

Fig.7 Distribution of measuring-point in XY plane

3.3 Uncertainties analysis

The accuracy of data from LDV is a composite of precise extent of hydraulic system

of heat exchanger and the ability of signal analysis procedure to process and record

related information. According to the effect of the error, measurement uncertainties can

42
be classified into random uncertainty and systematic uncertainty. Several factors

contribute to the uncertainties, including without limitation, reliability of equipment

adopted and installation method.

The error of LDV system itself is not more than 0.2%. The accuracy of installation

affects precision of measurement, with no more than 0.8% under professional calibration.

For hydraulic system, the parameter actually reacted in measurement uncertainties is

volumetric flow rate obtained from rotor flow meter at the accuracy of 2.5%.

Being the primary value obtained from the experiment, the uncertainty of velocity of

Z direction is discussed and calculated on the basis of Refs.[36-38]. The expanded

uncertainty of V with an appropriate confidence level of 95% in applications can be

indicated as:

 
1
 2 M


2 2 2
Uv  2sv  bk   2 sv  bv 2
(11)
 k 1 

sv bv
Here, denotes the systematic standard uncertainty; means random standard

uncertainty of the mean; M is the number of significant elemental systematic error

sources.

Every measured value of V which is taken by a computer-based data acquisition of

Flowsize over a short time should be considered and handled as a single measurement.

Since no defined mathematical relationship exists between V and its independent

sv
variables, can be obtained and expressed as

sv  
v
N
j v 
2

N (12)
j 1 N 1

Here, vj stands for each measured value in observations available and N represents

43
the number of sample sizes for each measuring point in specific location. The systematic

sv
standard uncertainty can be extrapolated from the systematic error sources described

above.

Given all aforementioned discussions, the random standard uncertainties of V are

calculated and results indicate the value of Uv ranges from 5.5% to 9.8%, which

corroborates the reliability of the experimentation conducted in this article. The scope of

variation of uncertainties is probably influenced by test conditions and gives credit for

comparison between simulation results and measured values.

3.4 Comparison between numerical results and measured values

The Fig.8 depicts the discrepancies between simulation results and measured values

in experiment when volumetric flow rate is 4.5m3/h. The numerical results in line 1 are in

accordance with measuring-point data tested well, except for a few discrete points. There

is also a deduction that the existence of trefoil-hole would efficiently improve velocity

about three times higher than average velocity of the fluid, proving its jet effect.

1.2
simulation results 0.90
experiment results simulation results
experiment results
0.9 0.72
velocity/m*s-1

velocity/m*s-1

0.54
0.6

0.36

0.3
0.18

0.0 0.00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Z/mm Z/mm

(a) Line1 (b)line2

Fig.8 Comparison of velocities of Z direction between simulation results of whole model and
experiment values

44
 Though simulation results of line 2 are not so well coincident with measuring data,

the margin of error is less than 15.6%. The following factors account for deviations in

Fig.8 (b): location of line 2, its nearness of perforated plate and change of velocity

gradient. Besides the factors above, the relocation of measure points, substitution of

tracking particles for flow field motion, transmittance of plexiglass and some other

factors involving distinctions between numerical model and entity and so on could also

have impact on accumulated magnitude of deviations.

After the fluid in shell side arrives at the second baffle and before climbs over last

baffle, regular fluctuations of the velocities establish the correctness of simplification of

periodical model and demonstrate the accuracy of simulation results.

4. Results and discussion

Shell side fluid flows through trefoil and quadrifoil holes, and generates jet flow,

which could scour the following flow zones and excite its underlying capacity in

enhancing heat transfer. So jet flow is a critical factor that affects the performance of the

shell side. For a given flow velocity of shell side, the increase of jet velocity and intense

heat transfer are at the price of relative high resistance when opening height is small; on

the contrary, pressure drop may decline with insufficient shell side heat transfer when

opening height becomes larger. For heat exchangers with various kinds of baffles,

velocity is a primary element, and it is far more significant than that as it comes to

perforated plate baffle heat exchangers. Therefore, it is essential to deliberate on

perforated plate heat exchanger. The influence of opening height on shell-side

performance of heat exchanger with quatrefoil perforated plate baffles under certain plate

distance was accomplished in this section; and comparison of thermo-hydraulic

45
performances on shell side of heat exchanger with trefoil and quatrefoil perforated plate

baffles was also achieved by the approach of numerical simulation.

4.1 Analysis for flow field

Temperature, pressure and velocity are several elementary factors in general heat

exchangers; while for heat exchanger with longitudinal flow, the velocities in mainstream

direction affect heat transfer of shell-side significantly, which refers to the velocities in z

direction in subsequent paragraphs. The sections showed in the velocity contour

magnitude are sliced transversely equidistant along the flow direction (plane1 to plane 6)

and the slice appeared in turbulent kinetic energy nephogram is cut by plane 0. The

planes used for slicing sections are displayed in Fig.9.

Fig.9 Specific details for planes employed in slicing

Fig.10 and Fig.11 depict the contours of velocity magnitude and turbulent kinetic

energy of heat exchangers with quadrifoil-hole baffles and trefoil-hole baffles separately,

which could provide plenty of valuable information to deep comprehending the

complicated characteristics of flow and heat transfer in heat exchanger’s shell side. Since

periodic model of heat exchanger with perforated plate baffles has been calculated by

46
symmetric simplication, all the contours are presented in hemi-section.

When fluid flows through trefoil and quatrefoil holes in perforated plate baffles, it

develops jet flows and generates high-speed velocity profile around and behind the

opening; contours of turbulent kinetic energy also indicate high mechanical energy loss in

the vicinity of support structure. Distinctions of flow velocity profile before and after

going through perforated plate baffles were presented in the third and fourth slice in the

contours of velocity magnitude.

(a) Contours of velocity magnitude of quadrifoil-hole baffle heat exchanger

(b) Contours of velocity magnitude of trefoil-hole baffle heat exchanger

Fig.10 Contours of velocity magnitude of perforated plate heat exchanger (Re=23750)

Every velocity magnitude contour in Fig.10 manifests the velocities in the main

stream are higher than that in the periphery. And areas with negative values are mostly

located in central region and the periphery of inner side of shell wall in Fig.10 (a). With

enlarging dimensions of quadrifoil opening, the areas of regions with negative values in

47
the main stream increase gradually. Compared with quadrifoil perforated plate heat

exchanger, the velocity magnitude contours in (b) of Fig.10 show negative values

primarily distribute in the periphery. The speed of mainstream fluid in central region

maintains a relative high velocity. The appearance of negative values in velocity

magnitude contours demonstrates existence of recirculation areas where the fluid flows

backwards and forwards.

The contours of turbulent kinetic energy and streamlines are revealed in Fig.11.

Turbulent kinetic energy is positively related to turbulent velocity fluctuation variance

and fluid mass. By eliminating the impacts of variable of mass, turbulent kinetic energy is

only proportional to turbulent fluctuation kinetic energy. The gaps in nephograms are

support structures: the maximum value of turbulent kinetic energy appears at the back of

it, and the presence of the speed extremum at the rear of the plates confirms that. When

opening height of holes in perforated plate baffles is growing, turbulent kinetic energy

decreases gradually. The patterns of streamlines prove there are large-scale reverse flows

in the vicinity of support structure, which are more obvious in the shell-side of

trefoil-hole baffle heat exchanger. Turbulence fluctuation kinetic energy of the fluid

indicates substantial loss of mechanical energy which results in an increase of flow

resistance significantly.

(a) Turbulent kinetic energy contours and streamlines of quadrifoil-hole baffle heat exchanger

48
 (b) Turbulent kinetic energy contours and streamlines of trefoil-hole baffle heat exchanger

Fig.11 Contours of turbulent kinetic energy and streamlines of perforated plate heat exchanger (Re=23750)

The negative values in Fig.10 elucidate the existence of reverse flows and the

changing trend in Fig.11 show tremendous local flow resistance. The high-speed jet flows

compensate for the negative values and improve the average velocity of shell side, which

is the reason why the heat transfer of heat exchanger can be enhanced.

4.2 shell side performance for heat exchanger with perforated plates

Fig.12 shows the influence of aperture sizes of quadrifoil and trefoil holes (H) on

performances of heat exchangers with quadrifoil and trefoil perforated plates. (a), (c) and

(e) represent curves of heat transfer coefficient, pressure drop and heat transfer

coefficient per unit pressure drop of heat exchanger with quadrifoil-hole baffles

respectively; (b), (d) and (f) stand for that of heat exchanger with trefoil-hole baffles. The

heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop both increase with the increment of Reynolds

number while heat transfer coefficient per unit pressure drop decreases. The ratio of heat

transfer coefficient to pressure drop is another parameter discussed in this section (h/Δp),

which is the heat transfer coefficient per unit pressure drop.

49
 11.0
H=1.8mm 12.5
H=1.8mm
H=2.3mm

heat transfer coefficient/KW*m-2K-1

H=2.3mm

heat transfer coefficient/KW*m-2K-1

H=2.8mm H=2.8mm
8.8
10.0

6.6
7.5

4.4 5.0

2.2 2.5

4.75 9.50 14.25 19.00 23.75 4.75 9.50 14.25 19.00 23.75

Reynolds number/103 Reynolds number/103

(a) (b)

155 175
H=1.8mm H=1.8mm
H=2.3mm H=2.3mm
124
H=2.8mm H=2.8mm
140
Pressure/Pa*m-1

Pressure/Pa*m-1
93 105

62 70

31 35

4.75 9.50 14.25 19.00 23.75 4.75 9.50 14.25 19.00 23.75

Reynolds number/103 Reynolds number/103

(c) (d)

0.90
0.90
H=1.8mm H=1.8mm
H=2.3mm H=2.3mm
H=2.8mm 0.72 H=2.8mm
0.72

0.54 0.54
h/Δp
h/Δp

0.36 0.36

0.18 0.18

0.00 0.00
4.75 9.50 14.25 19.00 23.75 4.75 9.50 14.25 19.00 23.75

Reynolds number/103 Reynolds number/103

(e) (f)
Fig.12 Curves of heat transfer coefficient, pressure drop and h/Δp versus Reynolds number for
perforated plate heat exchanger

Under the condition of a constant Reynolds number, the heat transfer coefficient and

pressure drop reduces with enlargement of opening height of quadrifoil and trefoil holes

and heat transfer coefficient per unit pressure drop goes another way around. when

50
Reynolds number is 14250, the heat transfer coefficient of quatrefoil-hole baffle heat

exchanger with opening height of 2.3mm and 2.8mm decreases by 9.54% and 15.89%

than that with opening height of 1.8mm, and the pressure drop reduces by 35.73% and

54.49% separately; at the same time, heat transfer coefficient per unit pressure drop

grows by 40.74% and 84.81%.

Keeping Reynolds number still at 14250, the heat transfer coefficient of trefoil-hole

baffle heat exchanger with value of H (2.3mm and 2.8mm ) is 12.01% and 25.52% lower

than that with value of H (1.8mm), and pressure drop declines by 45.64% and 62.92%; on

the contrary, the heat transfer coefficient per unit pressure drop rises by 61.31% and

100.78%. It can be observed that relative change amplitude of heat transfer coefficient,

pressure drop and heat transfer coefficient per unit pressure drop of trefoil-hole baffled

heat exchanger are higher than that of heat exchanger with quadrifoil-hole baffles. And

the influence of aperture sizes on performance of heat exchanger with trefoil-hole baffles

is much more significant than that of quatrefoil perforated plate heat exchanger.

4.3 Comparison for heat exchanger with perforated plates

For shell-and-tube heat exchanger with longitudinal flow in shell side, fluid flows

parallelly almostly to axis direction. As for the perforated plate heat exchanger, the

exchange of mass and heat transfer depends principally on the aperture sizes of

trefoil-hole or quadrifoil-hole. As its name implies, the distinctions between two kinds of

perforated plate heat exchanger rely on the number of petal-shaped hole around a tube.

Taking opening ratio as evaluation criterion, the trefoil shape hole could provide more

flow area than quatrefoil shape opening, which in turn enhances heat transfer in shell-side.

The opening ratio is defined by the rate of minimum flow area to maximum flow area of

51
shell side. Different aperture sizes of perforated plate baffles have corresponding opening

ratios. And the opening ratios of perforated plate baffles are listed in Tab.5.

Tab.5 Opening ratio of perforated plate (ψ)

H/mm 1.8 2.3 2.8

Quatrefoil-hole baffles 0.2119 0.2534 0.2902
Trefoil-hole baffles 0.2370 0.2929 0.3467

Because of distinctions of tube arrangement, the velocity in the central region of

heat exchanger with trefoil-hole baffles stays relatively high. Velocity in the periphery of

shell-side of heat exchanger with quadrifoil-hole baffles exceeds that of heat exchanger

with trefoil-hole baffles. This is another reason to illuminate heat transfer coefficient of

heat exchanger with trefoil-hole baffles is higher than that of heat exchanger with

quadrifoil-hole baffles.

While the slope of heat transfer coefficient curves in (a) of Fig.12 is flatter than that

in (b) while pressure drop increases more sharply in (d) than that in (c). As for the curves

of heat transfer coefficient per unit pressure drop, the steepness in (e) is much larger than

that in (f). When the value of H is 2.3mm, the heat transfer coefficient and h/Δp of heat

exchanger with trefoil-hole baffles is 3.6-24.28% and 5.34-32.8% higher than that of heat

exchanger with quatrefoil-hole baffles; while pressure drop of quatrefoil perforated plate

baffle heat exchanger is 1.58-7.26% greater than that of heat exchanger with trefoil-hole

baffles. With decreasing opening height of quadrifoil-hole and trefoil-hole, though the

heat transfer coefficient goes up, tremendous pressure loss leads to the decline of heat

transfer coefficient per unit pressure drop.

52
5. Conclusion

The performance of fluid flow and heat transfer in shell sides of heat exchanger with

quadrifoil-hole baffles and trefoil-hole baffles has been studied numerically. The

influence of aperture sizes of quadrifoil-hole and trefoil-hole on thermos-hydraulic

performance also has been analyzed. For the heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop in

shell sides, heat exchanger with trefoil perforated plates is more sensitive to the aperture

sizes than that with quatrefoil perforate plates.As to heat transfer coefficient per unit

pressure drop which reflects comprehensive performance of heat exchanger in certain

degree, it changes more violent for quatrefoil-hole baffle heat exchanger. When opening

ratio (ψ) is small, there is not much difference of the curves in (e) and (f) of Fig.12. As

opening ratio increases, the curves are capable to display obvious distinctions between

different support structures.

The increasing aperture size of trefoil-hole and quadrifoil-hole leads to the decline

of heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop. However, the variations of amplitude of

them are not cogradient. The heat transfer coefficient drops a little with great fall of

pressure drop. Thus from economic point of view, the aperture size should not be so small;

large opening height will decrease the intensity of perforated plates and cause detriment

to the ability of withstanding flow induced vibration. Therefore, for a fixed tube diameter

and central distance of tubes, it ought to be an appropriate aperture size for trefoil-hole

and quadrifoil-hole to satisfy requirements of strength and heat transfer.

Acknowledgements
The work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation Programs of China

(51376163 and 51476147) and Research Project of Foundation and Frontier Technology

of Henan Province (162300410081).

53
References
[1]M. Baba, Fukushima accident: What happened?, Radiation Measurements,55(2013) 17-21.
[2]M. K. Rowinski, T. J. White, J.Y. Zhao, Small and Medium sized Reactors (SMR): A review of
technology, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 44(2015)643-656
[3]A. Singh, S.S. Sehgal, Thermo-hydraulic Analysis of Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchanger with
Segmental Baffles, ISRN Chemical Engineering, 2013 (2013) 1-5.
[4] W. Liu, Z. Liu, Y. Wang, S. Huang, Flow mechanism and heat transfer enhancement in
longitudinal-flow tube bundle of shell-and-tube heat exchanger, Science in China Series E:
Technological Sciences, 52 (2009) 2952-2959.
[5]J. Lutcha, J. Nemcansky, Performance improvement of tubular heat exchangers by helical Baffles,
Institution Chemical Engineers,68(1990):263-270.
[6]Y.Q. Wang, X. Gu, K. Wang, Q.W. Dong, Numerical investigation of shell-side characteristics of
H-Shape baffle heat exchanger, Procedia Engineering,18(2011) 53-58.
[7] Y. Wang, Q. Dong, M. Liu, Characteristics of fluid flow and heat transfer in shell side of heat
exchangers with longitudinal flow of shellside fluid with different supporting structures, in:
International Conference on Power Engineering 2007, October 23-27, Hangzhou, China.
[8] Chunyi Liu, Steam generator of 900000 mw nuclear power plant of France [J]. Foreign nuclear
news,6(1983):25-26(in Chinese)
[9] H. Bodineau, T. Sollier, Tube support plate clogging up of French PWR steam generators, Eurosafe,
2008
[10]W. Roetzel and D. Lee, Experimental investigation of leakage in shell and tube heat exchangers
with segmental baffles, International Journal of Mass and Heat Transfer,36(1993)3765-3771.
[11] B. Peng, Q.W. Wang, C. Zhang, G.N. Xie, L.Q. Luo, Q.Y. Chen, M. Zeng, An Experimental
Study of Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchangers With Continuous Helical Baffles, Journal of Heat Transfer,
129 (2007) 1425-1431.
[12] S. Wang, J. Wen, Y. Li, An experimental investigation of heat transfer enhancement for a
shell-and-tube heat exchanger, Applied Thermal Engineering, 29 (2009) 2433-2438.
[13] B. Gao, Q. Bi, Z. Nie, J. Wu, Experimental study of effects of baffle helix angle on shell-side
performance of shell-and-tube heat exchangers with discontinuous helical baffles, Experimental
Thermal and Fluid Science, 68 (2015) 48-57.
[14]J Wen, H.Z. Yang, S.M. Wang , X. Gu, PIV experimental investigation on shell-side flow patterns
of shell and tube heat exchanger with different helical baffles, International Journal of Mass and Heat
Transfer,104(2017)247-259
[15]M. M. A. Bhutta, M. H. Bashir, A. R. Khan, K. N. Ahmad, S. Khan, CFD applications in various
heat exchangers design: A review, Applied Thermal Engineering, 32(2012)1-12.
[16]E. Pal, I. Kumar, J.B. Joshi, N.K. Maheshwari, CFD simulations of shell-side flow in a
shell-and-tube type heat exchanger with and without baffles, Chemical Engineering Science, 143
(2016) 314-340.
[17] J. Yang, L. Ma, J. Bock, A.M. Jacobi, W. Liu, A comparison of four numerical modeling
approaches for enhanced shell-and-tube heat exchangers with experimental validation, Applied
Thermal Engineering, 65 (2014) 369-383.
[18] E. Ozden, I. Tari, Shell side CFD analysis of a small shell-and-tube heat exchanger, Energy
Conversion and Management, 51 (2010) 1004-1014.
[19] J.-F. Zhang, Y.-L. He, W.-Q. Tao, 3D numerical simulation on shell-and-tube heat exchangers
with middle-overlapped helical baffles and continuous baffles – Part II: Simulation results of periodic
model and comparison between continuous and noncontinuous helical baffles, International Journal of
Heat and Mass Transfer, 52 (2009) 5381-5389.
[20]Anas El Maakoul, Azzedine Laknizi, Said Saadeddine, Numerical comparison of shell-side
performance for shell and tube heat exchangers with trefoil-hole, helical and segmental baffles.
Applied Thermal Engineering, 105(2016)175-185
[21]Y.H. You, A.W. Fan, X.J. Lai, S.Y. Huang, W. Liu, Experimental and numerical investigations of

54
shell-side thermo -hydraulic performances for shell-and-tube heat exchanger with trefoil-hole baffles.
[J]. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2013(50)950-956
[22] Q. W. Dong, Y. Q. Wang, M. S. Liu, Numerical and experimental investigation of shellside
characteristics for ROD baffle heat exchanger [J]. Applied Thermal Engineering, 28 (7)(2008)
651-660.
[23]F. N. Taher, S. Z. Movassag, K. Razmi, R. T. Azar, Baffle space impact on the performance of
helical baffle shell and tube heat exchangers, Applied Thermal Engineering, 44(2012) 143-148.
[24]J.F. Yang, M. Zeng, Q.W. Wang, Effects of sealing strips on shell-side flow and heat transfer
performance of a heat exchanger with helical baffles, Applied Thermal Engineering,
64(1-2)(2014)117-128.
[25] C.D. Argyropoulos, N.C. Markatos, Recent advances on the numerical modelling of turbulent
flows[J]. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 39(2015)693-732.
[26] And P M, Mahesh K. DIRECT NUMERICAL SIMULATION: A Tool in Turbulence
Research[J]. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics. 30(1)(1998)539-578.
[27]G. Alfonsi, On Direct Numerical Simulation of Turbulent Flows [J]. Applied Mechanics
Reviews, 64(2)(2011)293-300.
[28] M. Meinke, Th. Rister, F. Rutten, A. Schvorack, Simulation of internal and free turbulent flows,
in: H.J. Bungartz, F. Durst, C. Zenger (Eds.), High Performance Scientific and Engineering
Computing, Springer-Verlag, 1998, pp. 61–79.
[29] J. Frohlich, W. Rodi, Introduction to large eddy simulation of turbulent flows [J]. Closure
Strategies for Turbulent & Transitional Flows,1999,267-298.
[30] D. Wilcox, Turbulence Modelling for CFD, third ed., DCW Industries, Inc, 2006.
[31] B.E. Launder, B.I. Sharma, Application of the energy-dissipation model of turbulence to the
calculation of flow near a spinning disc[J]. Letters in Heat & Mass Transfer, 1(1)(1974)131-137.
[32] V. Yakhot, S.A. Orszag, S. Thangam, T.B. Gatski, C.G. Speziale, Development of turbulence
models for shear flows by a double expansion technique[J]. Physics of Fluids A Fluid Dynamics,
4(7)(1992)1510-1520.
[33] T.-H. Shih, W.W. Liou, A. Shabbir, Z. Yang, J. Zhu, A new k–e eddy viscosity model for high
Reynolds number turbulent flows[J].Computers & Fluids, 24(1995)227-238
[34] Yu H, Thé J. Validation and optimization of SST k-ω turbulence model for pollutant dispersion
within a building array[J]. Atmospheric Environment, 145(2016)225-238.
[35] ANSYS Documentation, Fluent, User’s guide,2016
[36] ASME PTC 19.1-2005, Test Uncertainty, New York, 2006
[37] H.W. Coleman, W.G. Steele, Experimentation, Validation and Uncertainty Analysis for
Engineers, third ed., John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, 2009, pp: 55–130.
[38] Wu S Y, Shen Z G, Xiao L, et al. Experimental study on combined convective heat loss of a fully
open cylindrical cavity under wind conditions [J]. International Journal of Heat & Mass Transfer,
83(2015) 509-521.

55
 Fig.1 Fig.1 Sketch of supporting plate baffles

Fig.2 Schematic diagram of tube arrangement for perforated plates

Fig.3 Shell-side heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop versus grid number

Fig.4 mesh for quadrifoil perforated plate heat exchanger

Fig.5 Sketch of heat exchanger with trefoil-hole baffles

Fig.6 Schematic diagram of experiment system

Fig.7 Distribution of measuring-point in XY plane

Fig.8 Comparison of velocities of Z direction between simulation results of whole model and
experiment values

Fig.9 Specific details for planes employed in slicing

Fig.10 Fig.10 Contours of velocity magnitude of perforated plate heat exchanger (Re=23750)

Fig.11 Contours of turbulent kinetic energy and streamlines of perforated plate heat exchanger (Re=23750)

Fig.12 Curves of heat transfer coefficient, pressure drop and h/Δp versus Reynolds number for
perforated plate heat exchanger

Tab.1Geometry parameters for physical model

Tab.2 Specific parameters of LDV

Tab.3 Specificition of flowmeter

Tab.4 Specific details of tracer particle

Tab.5 Opening ratio of perforated plate (ψ)

56
 （b） （c）

（d） （e） （a）

（a） （b）
（b） （c
（
c. rectangle-hole plate
a. big round-hole plate baffle b. small round-hole plate baffle
baffle

（a） （b）

（d）
（d） （e）
（e）
（d） （e）
（a） （b） （c） f. reticulated-hole plate
d. eccentric-hole plate baffle e. plum blossom-hole plate baffle
baffle

（d） （e）

g. quatrefoil-hole plate baffle h. trefoil-hole plate baffle

Fig.1 Sketch of supporting plate baffles

57
 Fig.2 Schematic diagram of tube arrangement for perforated plates

Fig.3 Shell-side heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop versus grid number

Fig.4 mesh for quadrifoil perforated plate heat exchanger

58
Fig.5 Sketch of heat exchanger with trefoil-hole baffles

Fig.6 Schematic diagram of experiment system

Fig.7 Distribution of measuring-point in XY plane

59
 1.2
simulation results 0.90
experiment results simulation results
experiment results
0.9 0.72
velocity/m*s-1

velocity/m*s-1
0.54
0.6

0.36

0.3
0.18

0.0 0.00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Z/mm Z/mm

(a) Line1 (b) Line2

Fig.8 Comparison of velocities of Z direction between simulation results of whole model and
experiment values

Fig.9 Specific details for planes employed in slicing

60
 (a) Contours of velocity magnitude of quadrifoil-hole baffle heat exchanger

(b) Contours of velocity magnitude of trefoil-hole baffle heat exchanger

Fig.10 Contours of velocity magnitude of perforated plate heat exchanger (Re=23750)

(a) Turbulent kinetic energy contours and streamlines of quadrifoil-hole baffle heat exchanger

(b) Turbulent kinetic energy contours and streamlines of trefoil-hole baffle heat exchanger

Fig.11 Contours of turbulent kinetic energy and streamlines of perforated plate heat exchanger (Re=23750)

61
 11.0
H=1.8mm 12.5
H=1.8mm
H=2.3mm

heat transfer coefficient/KW*m-2K-1

H=2.3mm
heat transfer coefficient/KW*m-2K-1 H=2.8mm H=2.8mm
8.8
10.0

6.6
7.5

4.4 5.0

2.2 2.5

4.75 9.50 14.25 19.00 23.75 4.75 9.50 14.25 19.00 23.75

Reynolds number/103 Reynolds number/103

(a) (b)

155 175
H=1.8mm H=1.8mm
H=2.3mm H=2.3mm
124
H=2.8mm H=2.8mm
140
Pressure/Pa*m-1

Pressure/Pa*m-1
93 105

62 70

31 35

4.75 9.50 14.25 19.00 23.75 4.75 9.50 14.25 19.00 23.75

Reynolds number/103 Reynolds number/103

(c) (d)

0.90 0.90
H=1.8mm H=1.8mm
H=2.3mm H=2.3mm
0.72 H=2.8mm 0.72 H=2.8mm

0.54 0.54
h/Δp

h/Δp

0.36 0.36

0.18 0.18

0.00 0.00
4.75 9.50 14.25 19.00 23.75 4.75 9.50 14.25 19.00 23.75
3
Reynolds number/10 Reynolds number/103

(e) (f)
Fig.12 Curves of heat transfer coefficient, pressure drop and h/Δp versus Reynolds number for
perforated plate heat exchanger

62
 Tab.1Geometry parameters for physical model
Item Definitions and dimension
Shell parameters Inner shell diameter(Din) 144mm
Tube parameters Outer diameter of tube(do) 14mm
Central distance of tubes(P) 19mm
Number of tubes(Nt) 37
Baffle parameters Pitch for perforated plates (L) 150
Thickness of perforate plate 10mm
Dimension for trefoil and quadrifoil opening(H ) 1.8,2.3,2.8mm

Tab.2 Specific parameters of LDV

Measurement index Concrete parameters
Laser out-put power 2W
Wavelength of two-dimension laser 514.5nm,488nm
Type of fiber-optical probe TR×60
Standard beam diameter 2.65mm
Type of lens series TLN06-350
Focal length of lens 363 mm
Beam separation 50 mm
Fringe spacing 3.7
Measurement accuracy ±0.2%

Tab.3 Specificition of flowmeter

Measurement index Concrete parameters
Type of flowmeter LZB-50
Measurement range 0.6-6m3/h
Measuring accuracy ±2.5%
Measuring media water

Tab.4 Specific details of tracer particle

Designation of TSI 10089
Shape Hollows sphere
Diameter 8~12μm
Density 1.05~1.15g/cc

Tab.5 Opening ratio of perforated plate (ψ)

H/mm 1.8 2.3 2.8

Quatrefoil-hole baffles 0.2119 0.2534 0.2902
Trefoil-hole baffles 0.2370 0.2929 0.3467

63
Graphical abstract

0.90 0.90
H=1.8mm H=1.8mm
H=2.3mm H=2.3mm
0.72 H=2.8mm 0.72 H=2.8mm

0.54 0.54

h/Δp
h/Δp

0.36 0.36

0.18 0.18

0.00 0.00
4.75 9.50 14.25 19.00 23.75 4.75 9.50 14.25 19.00 23.75
3
Reynolds number/10 Reynolds number/103

(a) (b)
The figures above indicate changing trend of heat transfer coefficient per unit

pressure drop when the Reynolds number is increasing. The distinction between the two

is the number of petal-shaped holes around a tube: (a) stands for the curves of heat

transfer coefficient per unit pressure drop of heat exchange with trefoil-hole baffles while

(b) represents that of quatrefoil perforated plate heat exchanger. The horizontal axis

denotes the Reynolds number. From the figures, it can be seen the heat transfer

coefficient per unit pressure drop decreases with the mass flow rate, but the variations are

not cogradient. The figures illustrate that the heat transfer coefficient per unit pressure

drop of trefoil perforated plate heat exchanger is higher than that of heat exchanger with

quadrifoil-hole baffles. It shows the shell-side performance of heat exchanger with trefoil

perforated plates is superior to that of quadrifoil-hole baffle heat exchanger.

64
Highlight
Numerical simulation of two kinds of perforated plate heat exchanger is conducted.
The effect of opening height on shell-side performance is discussed in details.
Experimental validation for periodic model of heat exchanger is carried out.
Simulation results indicate trefoil perforated plate heat exchanger performs better.

65