1 s2.0 S0140700722004443 Main
1 s2.0 S0140700722004443 Main
1 s2.0 S0140700722004443 Main
PII: S0140-7007(22)00444-3
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2022.11.035
Reference: JIJR 5714
Please cite this article as: Houpei Li , Lizhi Wang , Haobo Jiang , Hequn Liu , Qiang Gao ,
Linjie Huang , Quantification of flow distribution and heat capacity potential of a microchannel evapo-
rator, International Journal of Refrigeration (2022), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2022.11.035
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. 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.
a microchannel evaporator
Houpei Li1,2,* Lizhi Wang3, Haobo Jiang3, Hequn Liu1,2, Qiang Gao4, Linjie Huang3
1
College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha, 410082, China
2
Key Laboratory of Building Safety and Energy Efficiency (Hunan University),
3
Sanhua Central Research Institute, China
4
Sanhua Micro-Channel Heat Exchanger Cooperation, China
*
corresponding author: Prof Houpei Li, Hunan University, China, [email protected],
+86- 0731-88822610
Highlights
Liquid and vapor mass flow rates are calculated with the method, and it
Abstract
distribution helps analyze the maldistribution issue. This study proposes a method to
Li et al., 2
quantify the flow distribution and capacity potential in the microchannel heat
thermography. The method calculates the liquid and vapor mass flow rate at the inlet
from simulation and the infrared image. The method is validated with tests of a
49-tube horizontal microchannel evaporator with R134a. The exit region of the top
tubes has an extremely high surface temperature, which forms a superheat region.
More liquid flows to the tubes located at the center of the heat exchanger. The total
mass flow rate is low when the tube has a long superheat region. The heat capacity of
distributed. When the refrigerant outlet superheats of the evaporator is lower, the
improvement potential is higher. In the superheat region, the heat flux is much lower
than the average value. This quantification method provides a tool for a more
R134a
𝐴 area m2
AC Air conditioner -
distribution -
𝑙 length m
𝑃 pressure Pa
𝑅 Relaxation coefficient -
𝑇 temperature K
W Weight function -
Greek alphabet
ε Effectiveness
𝜂 Efficiency
σ coefficient of variation
Subscript
ave average
c cross-sectional
fin fin
i Location i
in inlet
l liquid
m mean
max maximum
min minimum
out outlet
r ratio
tot total
v vapor
1. Introduction
Heat exchangers have been widely used in many thermal systems, such as power
Li et al., 5
plants, electric vehicles, heat pumps, air conditioners, refrigerators, etc. A parallel
flow microchannel heat exchanger provides an interface for heat transfer between the
working fluids and the air. Flat microchannel tubes with multiple ports have been used
in the heat exchanger (Kim and Han, 2008). The port diameter is at the scale of 1 mm.
The tubes provide not only a higher heat transfer coefficient on the working fluid side
but also a higher pressure drop than larger tubes (Li and Hrnjak, 2017). In a
and distributes the fluid into the tubes. When using the microchannel heat exchanger
the two-phase flow has been of researchers' interest for decades since it affects the
two-phase. In most cases, the refrigerant with a vapor quality of about 0.15-0.25 flows
into the evaporator inlet header. Since the momentum of the liquid and vapor flows
are different, it is hard to distribute the two-phase flow into each microchannel tube
microchannel tube may also cause maldistribution. Furthermore, when the oil
circulation rate is high, the distribution will be affected. Thus, the inlet mass flow
rates, as well as inlet vapor qualities, of all tubes are not uniform. Such a
all, the maldistribution affects the distribution of temperature differences between the
refrigerant and the air. The refrigerant evaporates from a low vapor quality to
Li et al., 6
vapor, the temperature difference between the refrigerant and air is small. When the
refrigerant is in two-phase, the temperature difference is large, and the heat transfer
rate is high. Secondly, refrigerant flow with higher inlet quality will be heated to
superheated vapor faster because the inlet specific enthalpy is higher than the other
tubes. In addition, due to the sensible heat being much lower than the latent heat, the
temperature of the superheated vapor will rise dramatically, and the temperature
difference between refrigerant and air is reduced. Moreover, heat transfer coefficient
of superheated vapor is much smaller than the two-phase flow. Maldistribution in the
evaporator may cause a heat exchanger capacity to decrease up to 64% (Lee et al.,
2021). Reducing the maldistribution can improve the capacity and efficiency of the
Quantifying the flow rates of the two phases in the microchannel tubes of an
other parameters and revealing the mechanism of the distribution, and providing an
indicator for engineers to improve the design. In addition, comparing the capacity of a
heat exchanger with maldistribution and uniform distribution can show the potential
gaining for improving the heat exchanger. Heat capacity with a uniform flow rate in
each parallel tube is the goal of optimizing the structure of a heat exchanger.
maldistribution (Martínez-Ballester et al., 2013a, 2013b; Zou and Hrnjak, 2013a). Zou
and Hrnjak have studied the distribution of R134a and R410A flow in different
vertical headers by experiments (Zou and Hrnjak, 2013a, 2013b). They used the
correlation based on their experimental results to predict the distribution (Zou et al.,
2014). The distribution can also be predicted with numerical simulations. Lee and
Jeong propose a model based on mass, momentum, and energy balance to predict flow
distribution in the header (Lee et al., 2021; Lee and Jeong, 2019). The essential
parameters that affect distribution have been found by researchers around the world. It
has been concluded that a high inlet mass flow rate and low inlet vapor quality will
uniform the distribution (Mahvi and Garimella, 2019, 2017). Thus, using a
flash-gas-bypass technique that bypasses the vapor and leads more liquid flows into
the evaporator will improve the uniformity of distribution (Li and Hrnjak, 2015a; Tuo
and Hrnjak, 2013). A higher oil circulation rate could also improve the header's
distribution because oil helps mix the two-phase flow (Zou and Hrnjak, 2014). It has
been reported that the depth of the microchannel tube is inserted into the header
affects the distribution. The distribution could be improved when the microchannel
tube is inserted deeper into the header, since the effective diameter of the header is
reduced and the flow inertia is enhanced (Redo et al., 2019). The effect of tube depth
is stronger when the mass flow rate is lower (Marchitto et al., 2016). In other words,
high local velocity (higher flow rate) in the header caused by the blocks of two-phase
flow helps uniform the distribution. Thus, a structure such as a baffle could be placed
Li et al., 8
in the header to increase the local velocity and mix the two phases (Wijayanta et al.,
2016). However, Kim et al. reported that the tube depth has a slight effect on
distribution when the flow is upward in the header (Kim et al., 2013; Kim and Byun,
2013). In addition, when the heat exchanger is placed closer to the expansion device
in the system, the distribution can be improved (Bowers et al., 2006). Most
microchannel heat exchanger headers are circular or rectangular, but Mahvi and
Gareimella presented that a triangular header could improve the distribution (Mahvi
and Garimella, 2017). Flow patterns have significant effect on distribution (Dario et
al., 2015). The orientation of the header significantly affects distribution when the
inlet flow pattern is slug flow. When it is annular flow, the orientation of the header
has a slight influence on the distribution (Liu et al., 2017). Some parameters are
reported that do not influence on the maldistribution. The header diameter has an
insignificant effect on the distribution of the two-phase flow (Vist and Pettersen,
2004). For a downward heat exchanger, the heat capacity basically do not affect the
distribution (Wijayanta et al., 2018). The studies mentioned above have successfully
discovered the mechanism of flow distribution in the header. However, the technique
et al., 2010) assumed that the tube with a longer length at a low temperature has a
higher flow rate. When the mass flow rate is high, it needs more heat transferred to
cause dry-out and superheat. Later, the refrigerant flow rate is measured, and the
Although they have measured the mass flow rate in each microchannel tube, the mass
flow meter and connections to the sensor will cause the pressure drop, which differs
from the test condition to a real heat exchanger product. Thus, the method of using
calculating the liquid flow rate distribution in the microchannel evaporator using
infrared images (Li and Hrnjak, 2015b). They directly related the length in the tube
with a lower temperature to the liquid mass flow rate, and used a heat exchanger
simulation to calculate the vapor mass flow rate. A transitioning line is obtained
through simulation to find the length of low temperature. This method was later
updated by Gao et al. recently (GAO et al., 2021). They updated the calculation based
on a heat transfer and fluid dynamics analysis. However, the newer method did not
calculate the vapor mass flow rate. Secondly, the calculation is still based on the
estimated mass flow rate distribution is lacking. One of the most concerning issues to
improved. When the maldistribution issue is not critical, other issues that affect
efficiency (such as superheat control and frost) should be prioritized. Thus, the
difference between cases with maldistribution and with uniform distribution should
also be predicted. This paper proposed a method to quantify not only the distribution
heat capacity. Therefore, the innovation of the study is to calculate the flow rates of
Li et al., 10
liquid and vapor in each microchannel tube and the potential heat capacity without
maldistribution.
In order to accurately quantify the liquid and vapor flow rate distributions in a
microchannel heat exchanger, a new method based on heat exchanger simulation and
experiments of the evaporator. By comparing the calculated and the measured wall
temperature, the inlet fluid condition is updated in order to match the wall temperature
contour. The method is validated with the experimental results of an evaporator. The
calculation results are further studied to discuss the improvement potential of uniform
distribution. The effect of outlet superheat and flow rate distribution variation on the
other types of heat exchangers is also discussed. The method provides a tool for
the interest of a study. The method also helps to quantify the maldistribution level and
further reveals the mechanism of the maldistribution. The heat capacity with
maldistribution from the real-world heat exchanger and the capacity of the same heat
method can also help researchers to estimate the potential of improving the
exchanger model was built and integrated into the quantification method. The heat
transfer rate, pressure drop, and wall temperature can be calculated from the model.
As shown in Figure 1(c), the microchannel tube is discretized using the Finite Volume
Method (FVM). The heat transfer rate in each discretized volume is calculated using
(1-13). Table 1 summarizes the correlations applied to compute the pressure gradient
and heat transfer coefficient on the air and refrigerant sides of the models.
(a) (b)
fins
microchannel tube
(c)
outlet header
inlet header
Figure 1 Drawing of the microchannel heat exchanger. (a) is the overview, (b) is
the detail at right top conner of the heat exchanger, and (c) is the detail of center part
Figure 1 (c) shows three discretized volumes of the FVM method along one
exchanger model, the heat transfer coefficient and pressure gradient in each
discretized volume are calculated using predictive correlations. Both air and
refrigerant sides contribute to the heat transfer in each discretized volume. In each
volume (index ‘i’ in the figure), the input condition of the inlet is from the calculated
outlet condition of the previous volume (index ‘i-1’). For the first volume of a
method introduced in the next section. The overall heat transfer rate UA of each
Where the total efficiency 𝜂𝑡𝑜𝑡 is related to the fin area 𝐴𝑓𝑖𝑛 , total area 𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑡
and fin efficiency 𝜂𝑓𝑖𝑛 . 𝜂𝑡𝑜𝑡 is calculated by (2, and 𝜂𝑓𝑖𝑛 is calculated by (3.
𝐴
𝜂𝑡𝑜𝑡 = 1 − 𝐴𝑓𝑖𝑛 (1 − 𝜂𝑓𝑖𝑛 ) (2)
𝑡𝑜𝑡
tanh(𝑚𝑙)
𝜂𝑓𝑖𝑛 = (3)
𝑚𝑙
𝐻𝑇𝐶𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑃
𝑚=√ (4)
𝑘𝑓𝑖𝑛 𝐴𝑐
In (3, 𝑚 is the fin constant and it could be calculated with (4, and 𝑙 is the fin
length. In (4, 𝐻𝑇𝐶𝑎𝑖𝑟 is the heat transfer coefficient on the air side, 𝑃 is the
perimeter of the fin, 𝑘𝑓𝑖𝑛 is the thermal conductivity of the fin, and 𝐴𝑐 was the
cross-sectional area of the fin. 𝐶 is the capacity of fluid, which is defined by the Eqs
5 and 6. The minimum and maximum fluid capacity (𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛 and 𝐶𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) are calculated
Li et al., 13
in (7, and they are the minimum and maximum value of the air side or refrigerant side
The Number of Transfer Unit (NTU) is defined by (9. And the Effectiveness ϵ
is defined in (10.
𝑈𝐴
𝑁𝑇𝑈 = 𝐶 (9)
𝑚𝑖𝑛
1
1 − exp ((𝐶 ) 𝑁𝑇𝑈 0.22 (exp(−𝐶𝑟 𝑁𝑇𝑈 0.78 ) − 1)) , 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 − 𝑝ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑒
ϵ ={ 𝑟 (10)
1 − exp(−𝑁𝑇𝑈) , 𝑡𝑤𝑜 − 𝑝ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑒
The capacity of an evaporator can be calculated based on the air side and ref side
The capacity is used to calculate the outlet specific enthalpy of each discretized
volume based on energy balance, as (12 stated. The outlet pressure is calculated from
𝑑𝑃
𝑃𝑟𝑜 = 𝑃𝑟𝑖 + Δ𝐿 𝑑𝑧 (13)
(14 shows. When the specific enthalpy is in-between the saturated liquid and vapor
specific enthalpies, the correlation in two-phase will be used (Cavallini et al., 2009,
Li et al., 14
2006; Kim and Mudawar, 2013; Muller-Steinhagen and Heck, 1986). When it is not
The above equations are the basis of the microchannel heat exchanger models.
The pressure gradient and heat transfer coefficient of refrigerant and air sides are
calculated by correlations. Table 1 lists the correlations applied. On the air side, the
correlations from (Chang et al., 1994; Chang and Wang, 1997) are suggested and
adopted in many literature (Qasem and Zubair, 2018; Sadeghianjahromi and Wang,
2021). So these two correlations are applied in this model. The accelerating and
and the void fraction is calculated with Zivi’s model (Zivi, 1964). The single-phase
(Gnielinski, 1976) and Churchill (Churchill, 1977). The correlations for calculating
flow boiling characteristics are chosen since their accuracies are proved. The flow
boiling heat transfer coefficient and pressure gradient were measured and the
correlations were tested (Li and Hrnjak, 2022, 2019, 2021). Kim and Mudawar (Kim
and Mudawar, 2013) is a flow boiling heat transfer coefficient correlation based on a
used for calculating the pressure gradient of refrigerant, and its accuracy was proved
in the previous studies (Li, 2019; Li and Tang, 2022). The refrigerant in the inlet and
outlet headers are assumed isothermal, and the pressure gradient is calculated with
Li et al., 15
Parameters Correlation(s)
Air side Heat transfer coefficient Chang and Wang (Chang and Wang,
𝐻𝑇𝐶𝑎𝑖𝑟 1997)
𝑑𝑃
Air side Pressure drop Chang et al. (Chang et al., 1994)
𝑑𝑧 𝑎𝑖𝑟
Refrigerant side evaporating heat Kim and Mudawar (Kim and Mudawar,
𝑑𝑃
drop (Muller-Steinhagen and Heck, 1986)
𝑑𝑧
3. No subcooled boiling.
The first assumption is based on the report from Tuo and Hrnjak, which shows
how pressure drop in the header can affect distribution(Tuo and Hrnjak, 2013). A path
is defined as the length portion in the inlet header where the flow passed, a
microchannel tube, and the length portion in the outlet header, as Figure 2 shows. A
path pressure drop is defined as the summary of pressure drop caused by friction,
acceleration, and gravity in the inlet header, contraction from the header to the
microchannel tube, microchannel tube, expansion from the tube to the header, and
outlet header. Thus, the first assumption indicates that the pressure drop from the inlet
flow path 1
flow path 2
flow path 3
The most heat exchanger in real life has oil inside, which affects the heat transfer
and pressure drop. In this study, the oil effect is neglected since the oil circulation rate
in the experiment is low. The approach can be updated by including correlations for
refrigerant and oil mixtures. Assumptions 3 and 4 simplify the calculations. The
specific enthalpy is used to determine the phase (vapor quality) of the refrigerant.
When the vapor quality is larger than 1 or smaller than 0 (more precisely, the specific
enthalpy is higher than the saturation vapor or lower than the saturation liquid), the
single-phase correlations are adopted. When the quality is between 0 and 1, the
this model, and the model can be updated by applying a velocity and temperature
Central Research Institute in Hangzhou, China. The schematic of the test chamber for
the evaporator experiments is presented in Figure 3. In the experiment, the air flow
rate to the microchannel evaporator was controlled with a variable speed blower. The
air pressure intake is measured by a pressure sensor (GE) with an accuracy of 0.1%.
with an accuracy of 0.15%. The air velocity is measured with an air velocity meter
(Yokogawa) with an accuracy of 1%. The dry bulk and wet bulk temperatures at the
inlet and outlet of the evaporator are measured with pt100 thermometers with an
Equipments
Wind tunnel
Chamber A (Indoor)
Chamber A T P
Test section
DP DP
T P Nozzel Blower
IR Camera
Evaporator
Wind Tunnel
DP
T P P T
P T
Refrigerant loop
refrigerant mass flow rate is measured with a mass flow meter (Micromotion) with an
accuracy of 0.1%, and it measures the superheated vapor from the outlet of the
evaporator. The pressure drop across the evaporator is measured with a differential
pressure sensor (Yokogawa) with an accuracy of 0.2%. The pressures (at the inlet of
the expansion valve, inlet and outlet of the evaporator) are measured with pressure
Li et al., 19
sensors (DRUCK) with the accuracy of 0.2%. The temperatures of the refrigerant are
On the upwind side of the sample heat exchanger, an infrared camera (fluke
TiX580) was placed. The radiative properties of aluminum are set in the camera to
ensure the accuracy of the measured temperature. The sample microchannel heat
exchanger is a one-pass evaporator with a vertical inlet header, vertical outlet header,
and 49 horizontal microchannel tubes. The refrigerant flows from top to bottom in the
inlet header, and from bottom to top in the outlet header. The parameters of the
Width m 0.534
Height m 0.416
Depth mm 25.4
Port number - 24
There are four tests with different temperature superheat in this study. The flow
Li et al., 20
rate of air is about 1080 m3h-1, the inlet temperature of the air is 26.5 ºC, and the
relative humidity is 55%. The refrigerant outlet pressure is about 415 kPa, and the
outlet temperatures superheated vary from 2.8 to 10.3 K (with mass flow rate
decreasing from 28.7 to 26.6 g-s-1). Temperature superheat is calculated based on the
refrigerant pressure and temperature measured at the outlet of the evaporator. The
refrigerant inlet vapor quality is about 0.22. The inlet flow rate of vapor is from 5.85
The heat transfer rate of the evaporator is measured on both the refrigerant and
air sides. (15 and (16 show how the heat capacity is calculated from the two sides.
The 𝑚̇ref is the measured refrigerant mass flow rate, and 𝑚̇air is the air mass flow
rate calculated from the air states (pressure, dry-bulk, and wet-bulk temperatures),
measured air volumetric flow rate, and the cross-sectional area. The inlet specific
enthalpy ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑓,𝑖𝑛 is determined from the pressure and subcooled measured before the
expansion valve (with an ideal expansion process is assumed in the experiment), and
ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑓,𝑜𝑢𝑡 is determined from the measured pressure and superheat at the outlet of the
evaporator. Specific enthalpy of air is determined from the measured air states
The difference between the refrigerant side and the air side is about 5 %. The
refrigerant is R134a. The details of the test conditions and the heat balance are listed
in Table 3.
Li et al., 21
each microchannel tube, the liquid mass flow rate and vapor mass flow rate are the
same. The wall temperature on the microchannel tube is calculated with the heat
exchanger model. The temperature is compared to the measurements from the infrared
images. If the tube has a larger superheat region from the IR image than the model,
the liquid mass flow rate is reduced, and vice versa. A method to average the wall
temperature is used to determine the length of the superheat region and will be
discussed in subsection 3. The pressure drop of each flow path is the same. If the
outlet pressure of one path is lower than the average pressure, the vapor mass flow
rate of the path will be reduced, and vice versa. The iteration method is summarized in
Figure 4.
Li et al., 22
distribution.
The heat capacity of the microchannel heat exchanger was measured on both the
air side and refrigerant side, and it was also calculated with the quantification method.
Using the test 3 as an example, the measured wall temperature from the IR camera
and temperature calculations from the quantification method are presented in Figure 5.
The refrigerant enters the inlet header on the right-hand side. Then flows into the
Li et al., 23
microchannel tube from right to left, as the figure shows. Figure 5(a) presents the
measured wall temperature with IR camera. A large region with low temperature (blue)
indicates that the refrigerant is in a two-phase region (vapor quality changes from 0.22
to 1). When the temperature rises and the color becomes yellow and red, the
calculation in Figure 5(b) matches the wall temperature measurements in Figure 5(a).
The method uses the temperature differences between the calculation and
measurement to update the liquid mass flow rate. Thus, the method can predict the
liquid refrigerant inlet mass flow rate in each flow path, i.e., each microchannel tube.
The outlet pressures of each path are assumed to be uniform. The pressure is used to
update the inlet vapor mass flow rate of each microchannel tube. There are 49
microchannel tubes in this heat exchanger, thus 49 liquid mass flow rates and 49
vapor mass flow rates are calculated. The total mass flow rate of liquid and vapor is
limited by the measurements (in this test, mass flow rate is 27.5 g-s-1, vapor quality is
0.22, thus vapor mass flow rate is 27.5 × 0.22 = 6.05 g-s-1, and liquid mass flow
(a) (b)
Outlet Inlet
00.03 00.03
04.62 04.62
08.22 08.22
30.00
02.91 02.91
00.21
Temperature colorbar
00.21
22.80
Wall temperature measurements Wall temperature calculation
(c) (d)
19.20
00.03 00.03
04.62 04.62
15.60
08.22 08.22
02.91 02.91
12.00
06.51 06.51
00.21 00.21
When comparing the wall temperature between the measurement and calculation,
shows. The temperature 𝑇(𝑧) along one microchannel tube at the axial location 𝑧 is
multiplied with a weight function 𝑊(𝑧). The weight function follows the rule that
when 𝑧 is higher, 𝑊(𝑧) is higher. This is because the quantification method tries to
predict the refrigerant superheat region correctly. When the location is closer to the
outlet (𝑧 is higher), the temperature is more important. (18 shows the weight function
camera in Figure 5 shows that the tubes at the top should have a higher 𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑒 , and the
tubes at the center should have lower 𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑒 . It can be expected that the top tubes
should have lower liquid flow rates, and the center tubes should have higher liquid
flow rates.
1
𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑒 = 𝑛 ∑ 𝑊(𝑧) ∑𝑛𝑥=1 𝑊(𝑧)𝑇(𝑧) (17)
𝑊(𝑧) = 𝐶1 𝑧 (18)
The initial guess of the liquid and vapor distribution (𝐷𝑙 , 𝐷𝑣 ) is uniform, as (19
shows. Comparing the difference between the average temperature from calculation
and measurement (𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑒,𝑐 − 𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑒,𝑚 ), the liquid distribution is updated, as (20 shows.
temperature of the total contour. Similarly, the outlet pressure (𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡 ) is used to update
the vapor distribution, as (21 shows. The difference between the outlet pressure and
the average value of the outlet pressure at this iteration (𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡,𝑎𝑣𝑒 ) is used to update the
vapor distribution. And 𝑅𝑣 is the relaxation coefficient which is 0.5 in this study.
Modifying the relaxation coefficient will significantly change the computing cost of
the iteration and the accuracy of the results. Basically, higher the relaxation coefficient,
𝐷𝑙 = [1 1 … 1], 𝐷𝑣 = [1 1 … 1] (19)
𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑒,𝑐 −𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑒,𝑚
𝐷𝑙 = 𝐷𝑙 + × 𝑅𝑙 (20)
𝑇𝑚
The maldistribution reduces the heat capacity of a heat exchanger. In other words,
Li et al., 26
the heat capacity of the heat exchanger could be improved when the distribution is
uniform. Improving the distribution of the heat exchanger will significantly increase
the efficiency of the thermal application. In this study, the potential to improve the
capacity of a heat exchanger is defined. The potential is the heat transfer rate
differences between two cases that have the same outlet condition (pressure,
temperature superheat), and the same inlet specific enthalpy. Thus, the inlet pressures
and mass flow rates of the two comparing cases are different. The same comparison
method could be found in literature such as (Shi et al., 2011), that the pressure and
temperature subcooling before the expansion valve (which determines inlet specific
enthalpy of the evaporator with isentropic expansion process) and outlet pressure and
temperature superheat are fixed. The inlet pressure and mass flow rate of refrigerant
Updating
Refrigerant outlet pressure
refrigerant inlet
converges?
pressure
Updating
Refrigerant outlet temperature
refrigerant
superheat converges?
mass flow rate
heat exchanger
exchanger, the refrigerant outlet conditions are the criterion for iteration. The input of
the method is the results from the heat exchanger model with maldistribution.
When the calculated refrigerant outlet pressure is higher than the input pressure,
the inlet pressure will be reduced. When the refrigerant outlet temperature superheat is
lower than the input temperature, the refrigerant inlet mass flow rate will be reduced.
When the differences are less than 0.01kPa (outlet pressure) and 0.001K (outlet
Li et al., 28
temperature superheat), the iteration stops. The calculated heat transfer rate is the
potential heat capacity of the heat exchanger with uniform distribution. The capacity
Figure 5 presents the temperature contour of test 3. The calculated air outflow
temperature, heat exchanger wall temperature, and refrigerant temperature are shown.
The air temperature is higher than the wall temperature, which is higher than the
refrigerant temperature. The two contours in Figure 5(a) and (b) are similar, which
The heat transfer rates (or heat capacities) of the four tests listed in Table 3 are
calculated by the heat exchanger simulation with the quantified flow distribution. The
(assuming uniform distribution) with the same input condition. The calculation results
5000
Heat capacity (calculation) [W]
4000
±5%
3000
2000
Comparing the heat capacity measurement (average from refrigerant and air
sides) of the tested evaporator and the calculation based on the quantification method,
the difference is within 1.3%. The results are slightly improved from the calculation
without the quantification method (3.2%). In this study, the measured heat capacity is
defined as the average value of refrigerant and air sides. The air side measurement is
about 5% higher than the refrigerant side, according to Table 3. The model is also
tested with experimental results from the literature (Algirdas Vincas Bielskus, 2011).
Without the quantification method, the difference between the calculated and
measured heat capacities is within 5%. The difference is reduced when the
maldistribution is considered, and the value is within 3.3%. The results validate the
The calculated heat capacity of a heat exchanger is smaller when the calculation
is with the quantification method is applied than that is without the quantification.
This is because the method considers the maldistribution, and maldistribution reduces
In the heat exchanger model, the discretized volume has a length of 10 mm along
the microchannel tube. It has been tested that the calculated heat capacity of the heat
exchanger is not affected by the grid size of the numerical model. Taking the test 1 as
an example, the measured heat capacity is 4419.5 W, averaged from the refrigerant
and air sides. The calculated heat capacities are 4379.6, 4385.3, 4385.5, and 4385.3 W
when the discretized volume lengths are 20, 10, 5, and 1 mm, respectively, with
Figure 5 presents the air outflow and refrigerant temperature contour of test 3.
The refrigerant temperature is high when the wall temperature of the heat exchanger is
method. It indicates that the heat transfer between the air and refrigerant is small when
the wall is in superheat region. The temperature difference between the air inflow to
the refrigerant from the calculation of test 3 is presented in Figure 8. The temperature
when superheat occurs, the refrigerant temperature rises rapidly, and the temperature
Temperature difference
from air inflow to refrigerant [K]
15.00
12.00
9.000
6.000
3.000
0.000
3.2E+4
2.4E+4
1.6E+4
8E+3
Temperature difference
from air inflow to outflow [K]
11.00
8.800
6.600
4.400
2.200
0.000
Figure 8 Temperature and heat flux contours show the maldistribution effect on
heat transfer.
Figure 8 also shows the heat flux contour of the heat exchanger for test 3. The
average heat flux is about 28 kW-m-2. In the superheat region of wall temperature, the
Li et al., 32
heat flux is very low. When the refrigerant temperature from Figure 5 rises, it enters
vapor-phase. The heat transfer coefficient on the refrigerant side is significantly lower
in vapor-phase than that in two-phase. The air temperature difference from the inflow
to outflow contour (the third contour in the figure) shows that in most areas of the
heat exchanger, the air is cooled by at least 10 K. However, the air temperature does
not change in the superheat region. The temperature difference is very small. There is
13.7% of the area that the air temperature drop is less than 1.04 K (10% of the
maximum difference). This also indicates that the heat capacity can be largely
presented in Figure 9. The four contours have the same refrigerant inlet (pressure and
specific enthalpy) and air inlet conditions, but different refrigerant outlet temperature
superheat control. The temperature superheat changes from 2.8 to 10.3 K from test 1
to test 4, respectively. The heat capacity reduces from 4321 to 4151 W. Comparing the
four contours, the location of the superheated region in the contour does not change
than other areas in the contour. And it is always observed at the top right corner in the
contours in this study. A plot of the mass flow rate is presented near each contour. The
mass flow rate is calculated based on the quantification method in the paper. The
calculated mass flow rates of liquid-phase and vapor-phase in each channel are
0.032-0.65 mg/s and 0.015-0.50 mg/s, respectively. There are four curves in each plot:
Li et al., 33
total mass flow rate (black), liquid mass flow rate (blue), and vapor mass flow rate
(red) of each horizontal microchannel tube are plotted, and the refrigerant inlet vapor
quality (green).
Mass flow rate [g/s]
Total Liquid Vapor
Vapor quality [-]
Vapor quality [-]
test 1 Temperature [°C] 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
30.00
10
27.00
21.00 30
18.00 40
15.00
0.001 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 0.0002 0
Mass flow rate [g/s]
Vapor quality [-]
test 2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
10
30
40
10
30
40
10
Tube number [-]
20
30
40
Figure 9 Temperature contour and the mass flow rate distribution of the four
cases.
In each case, the total mass flow rate of each microchannel tube does not change
significantly. However, the liquid and vapor mass flow rates vary from tube 1 to 49
(top to bottom). More liquid is gathered from tube 20 to tube 45, as the figure presents.
Due to the contribution of gravity and momentum, more vapor and less liquid enter
Li et al., 34
tubes 1 to 20. It seems that tubes 46-49 also have less liquid flow. The heat exchanger
has both inlet and outlet on the top. Thus, the refrigerant in the lowest microchannel
tube (tube 49) has the longest flow distance than other tubes. The total mass flow rate
in tube 49 is lower for a pressure balance in the header. The liquid mass flow rate in
the bottom tubes is lower. It seems that an end-effect in the header counters the gravity,
which reduces the liquid flow rate in the bottom tubes. It is possible that the liquid
bounce at the header end and form eddies. The eddies prevent liquid from entering the
superheat region at the bottom left corner in the four contours. The temperature in the
small superheat region is 2-4 K lower than the larger superheat region (at the top left
corner).
Even though a superheat region is observed at the top right corner in the contour,
and the refrigerant inlet vapor quality in tubes 1 to 10 is extremely high, the total mass
flow rate does not change significantly. The maldistribution is mainly caused by the
liquid mass flow rate (or vapor) distribution rather than the total mass flow rate.
The liquid and vapor mass flow rates are calculated and presented in Figure 9.
The flow rate profile is not uniform. It indicates that the distribution can be improved,
and the capacity can be increased. The heat capacity potential is calculated. The
results evaluate the potential of heat capacity when the distribution is uniform. The
6000 30
5000 25
4000 20
Improvements [%]
Heat capacity [W]
3000 15
2000 10
1000 5
0 0
4.7 6.3 10.5 11.1
Outlet temperature superheat [K]
Heat transfer rate calculated with maldistribution
Heat transfer rate assumed uniform distribution
Improvement of Heat transfer rate
The heat capacity is increased by about 10-20 % when the distribution is uniform.
method. In Figure 7, the heat capacity is calculated with uniform distribution and the
same mass flow rate as the maldistribution case. Thus, when the maldistribution is
reduced, the mass flow rate can be increased in the system, and further the heat
higher. As the outlet temperature superheat decreases from 11.1 to 4.7 K (calculated
temperature superheat by the model), the percentage improvement increases from 9.6
Li et al., 36
to 21.3%. When superheat is high, there is more heat exchanger area where the
coefficient of refrigerant is low, and the pressure gradient is high. Consequently, both
the heat capacity and the potential are reduced due to high superheat. In many
refrigeration and air conditioning applications, a low evaporator outlet superheat will
improve the system efficiency. Thus, the uniform flow distribution of a heat
calculating the liquid and vapor mass flow rate of each tube inlet in a microchannel
tube exchanger. The method can be extended to other situations, such as a multi-pass
heat exchanger, a multi-slab heat exchanger, a condenser, and so on. When applying
the method to a multi-pass heat exchanger, the method needs to be modified to treat
each pass as an independent heat exchanger. But the inlet condition of the last pass
should be the outlet condition calculated from the previous pass. In most condensers,
the refrigerant inlet is single-phase with very high temperature superheat, and liquid is
absent. However, if the condenser has multiple passes, the second and later passes
might have distribution issues. In Table 1, the correlations for modeling condensers
are listed. When applying the method to a multi-slab evaporator, the infrared image
should be taken to the last slab (outlet slab) because the superheat region is the most
important characteristic in calculating the liquid mass flow rate. And the weight
function 𝑊(𝑥) can be modified to increase the accuracy of the model. It is important
Li et al., 37
to note that using a uniform weight function (𝑊(𝑥) = 1) also works well in this study.
The difference in this study is only several watts in capacity by using (18 and the
uniform weight function. For the multi-slab evaporator, a weight function similar to
(18 is recommended.
application, the heat capacity potential can be calculated. The heat capacity potential
could be used to indicate whether it is worth improving flow distribution in the heat
the heat exchanger performance. If the potential is low, it may indicate that the
indicate other issues, such as temperature superheat is too high. However, it presents
that maldistribution is not the most critical issue that needs to be solved at this design
stage.
6. Conclusions
microchannel heat exchangers is proposed in this study. The method uses the infrared
image of a heat exchanger to calculate the liquid mass flow rate, and pressure balance
to calculate the vapor mass flow rate. In addition, the heat capacity potential of a heat
four experiments of the same heat exchanger measured in this study and 48 tests from
the literature. The results show that the method can correctly calculate the heat
Both liquid mass flow rate and vapor mass flow rate are calculated for the four
tests in this study. In the 49-tube evaporator, more liquid flows into tubes 20 to 45
from the top of the evaporator (Figure 9). More vapor enters tubes 1 to 20 due to
gravity and momentum. The total mass flow rate in tubes 46-49 is low due to the
pressure drop.
(Figure 10). In this study, the evaporator outlet superheat is more critical to the
capacity improvement potential. When the superheat is low, the potential is as large as
20 %. The maldistribution strongly affects the uniformity of the heat flux. In the
superheat region, the heat flux is low. In test 3, the air temperature drop is less than 10%
of the maximum value in 13.7% of the heat exchanger area (Figure 8).
The method is proposed and validated with a one-pass one-slab evaporator. It can
level and calculate the improvement potential. The improvement potential could be
system. It can be caused by the momentum of the two phases in the header, flow
instability, and oil. The proposed quantification method ignores the oil effect and
calculates flow rates of liquid and vapor phases. Future work could be distinguishing
Furthermore, the oil effect should also be investigated to fully understand the
mechanism of maldistribution.
Acknowledgement
This research is funded by the Hunan University Start-up Research Grant, and
acknowledged.
References
Conference at Purdue.
Manifold.
Cavallini, A., Col, D. Del, Doretti, L., Matkovic, M., Rossetto, L., Zilio,
C., Censi, G., Del Col, D., Doretti, L., Matkovic, M., Rossetto, L., Zilio, C.,
Li et al., 40
Transfer Model for Heat Exchanger Design. Heat Transfer Engineering 27,
31–38. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1080/01457630600793970
Cavallini, A., Del Col, D., Matkovic, M., Rossetto, L., 2009. Frictional
131–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2008.09.003
Chang, Y.J., Wang, C.C., 1997. A generalized heat transfer correlation for
louver fin geometry. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 40, 533–
544. https://doi.org/10.1016/0017-9310(96)00116-0
Chang, Y.J., Wang, C.C., Chang, W.J., 1994. Heat transfer and flow
Dario, E.R., Tadrist, L., Oliveira, J.L.G., Passos, J.C., 2015. Measuring
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2015.08.103
horizontal and vertical two-phase pipe flow, in: Proc. of European Two-Phase
Li et al., 41
GAO, Y., SILSBEE, D., TANG, K., ELBEL, S., 2021. An Updated
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJREFRIG.2012.12.001
Kim, N.H., Byun, H.W., Sim, Y.S., 2013. Upward branching of two-phase
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EXPTHERMFLUSCI.2013.07.014
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2007.05.028
transfer coefficient. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 64, 1239–
1256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2013.04.014
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.04.100
Lee, W.J., Lee, H., Jeong, J.H., 2021. Numerical evaluation of the range
116429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.116429
Li, H., Hrnjak, P., 2022. Heat transfer coefficient, pressure gradient, and
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHEATMASSTRANSFER.2021.121992
Li, H., Hrnjak, P., 2019. Heat transfer coefficient, pressure drop, and flow
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.05.036
Li, H., Hrnjak, P., 2017. Measurement of heat transfer coefficient and
Li et al., 43
pressure drop during evaporation of R134a in new type facility with one pass
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.07.066
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJREFRIG.2015.07.020
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.01.003
Li, H., Hrnjak, P.S., 2021. Heat transfer coefficient, pressure gradient,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2021.117914
Liu, Y., Sun, W., Wu, W., Wang, S., 2017. Gas-liquid two-phase flow
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHEATMASSTRANSFER.2017.05.029
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2019.04.026
Marchitto, A., Fossa, M., Guglielmini, G., 2016. Phase split in parallel
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EXPTHERMFLUSCI.2015.12.017
Numerical model for microchannel condensers and gas coolers: Part I – Model
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2012.08.023
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2018.06.104
Redo, M.A., Jeong, J., Giannetti, N., Enoki, K., Yamaguchi, S., Saito, K.,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EXPTHERMFLUSCI.2019.04.021
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2020.110470
Shi, J., Qu, X., Qi, Z., Chen, J., 2011. Investigating performance of
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2010.08.008
Tuo, H., Hrnjak, P., 2013. Effect of the header pressure drop induced flow
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2013.06.002
Vist, S., Pettersen, J., 2004. Two-phase flow distribution in compact heat
Li et al., 46
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0894-1777(03)00041-4
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EXPTHERMFLUSCI.2016.03.021
Transfer. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1115/1.3687113
Zou, Y., Hrnjak, P.S., 2014. Effect of oil on R134a distribution in the
upward flow in the vertical header of microchannel heat exchanger and its
124–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2013.02.068
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2013.04.021
Zou, Y., Tuo, H., Hrnjak, P.S., 2014. Modeling refrigerant maldistribution