0
Research Papers

Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Analysis of Chilled Water and Ice Slurry in a Plate Heat Exchanger

[+] Author and Article Information
Rajinder Singh

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Delhi college of Engineering,
Delhi-110042, India
e-mail: rajindersingh1102@gmail.com

Surendra Singh Kachhwaha

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
School of Technology,
Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University,
Raisan,
Gandhinagar, Gujarat 382007, India
e-mail: sskachhwaha@rediffmail.com

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF THERMAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS. Manuscript received May 31, 2014; final manuscript received January 23, 2015; published online November 11, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Suman Chakraborty.

J. Thermal Sci. Eng. Appl 8(1), 011020 (Nov 11, 2015) (9 pages) Paper No: TSEA-14-1139; doi: 10.1115/1.4030738 History: Received May 31, 2014

The present study reports the experimental validation of thermohydraulic modeling for prediction of pressure drop and heat transfer coefficient. Experiments were performed on plate heat exchanger using chilled water and ice slurry as secondary fluids. Propylene glycol (PG) and mono-ethylene glycol (MEG) are used as depressants (10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% concentration) in ice slurry formation. The results show that thermohydraulic modeling predicts the pressure drop and overall heat transfer coefficient for water to water and water to ice slurry within the discrepancy limit of ±15%.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic diagram of the experimental facility (1 = ice slurry generator, 2 = pump, 3 = insulation, 4 = ice slurry storage tank, 5 = drainage, 6 = pump, 7 = thermocouple, 8 = agitator, 9 = condensing unit, 10 = data acquisition system, 11 = rotameter, 12 = plate heat exchanger, 13 = pump, 14 = mass flow meter, 15 = water inlet, 16 = water outlet, 17 = sampling point, 18 = mass flow meter, 19 = thermocouple, 20 = pressure transducer, and V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, and V6 = valves)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Dimensions of plate heat exchanger

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Variation of pressure drop with chilled water flow rate (comparison of predicted pressure drop with experimental data)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of the predicted pressure drop (T-H model) with the experimental values in PHE (water to water)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison of the predicted overall heat transfer coefficient (T-H model) with the experimental values (ice slurry) in PHE

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Variation of cooling duty with flow rate: (a) ice slurry using PG as antifreeze and (b) ice slurry using MEG and antifreeze

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of predicted pressure drop with experimental data using PG as antifreeze with 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% concentration: (a) variation of pressure drop with flow rate and (b) pressure drop versus Reynolds number

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of predicted pressure drop with experimental data using MEG as antifreeze with 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% concentration: (a) variation of pressure drop with flow rate and (b) variation of pressure drop with Reynolds number

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of the predicted pressure drop (T-H model) with the experimental values (ice slurries) in PHE

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Variation of overall heat transfer coefficient with flow rate (comparison of predicted overall heat transfer coefficient with experimental data)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of the predicted overall heat transfer coefficient (T-H model) with the experimental values in PHE (water to water)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of predicted overall heat transfer coefficient with experimental data using PG as antifreeze with 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% concentration: (a) variation of overall heat transfer coefficient with flow rate and (b) variation of overall heat transfer coefficient with Reynolds number

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

A schematic drawing of a chevron-type PHE

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of predicted overall heat transfer coefficient with experimental data using MEG as antifreeze with 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% concentration: (a) variation of overall heat transfer coefficient with flow rate and (b) variation of overall heat transfer coefficient with Reynolds number

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In