DOI 10.1007/s00231-007-0346-4
ORIGINAL
Received: 19 May 2007 / Accepted: 12 September 2007 / Published online: 25 October 2007
Springer-Verlag 2007
Abstract The heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics of heat exchangers having louver fins were
experimentally investigated. The samples had small fin
pitches (1.01.4 mm), and experiments were conducted up
to a very low frontal air velocity (as low as 0.3 m/s). Below
a certain Reynolds number (critical Reynolds number), the
fall-off of the heat transfer coefficient curve was observed.
The critical Reynolds number was insensitive to the louver
angle, and decreased as the louver pitch to fin pitch ratio
(Lp/Fp) decreased. Existing correlations on the critical
Reynolds number did not adequately predict the data. The
heat transfer coefficient curves crossed over as the Reynolds number decreased. Possible explanation is provided
considering the louver pattern between neighboring rows.
Different from the heat transfer coefficient, the friction
factor did not show the fall-off characteristic. The reason
was attributed to the form drag by louvers, which offsets
the decreased skin friction at low Reynolds numbers. The
friction factor increased as the fin pitch decreased and the
louver angle increased. A new correlation predicted 92% of
the heat transfer coefficient and 94% of the friction factor
within 10%.
List of symbols
A
heat transfer area (m2)
cp
specific heat (J /kg s)
Cr
heat capacity ratio, dimensionless [Eq. (6)]
D
ideal transverse distance (m)
Dh
FD
Fe
Fp
f
fi
H
h
j
k
Ll
Lp
m_
N
NTU
Pf
Pr
Q
ReLp
ReLp
ReDh
S1
S2
t
T
Tp
tf
U
Vmax
Greek symbols
a
louver angle (degree)
b
flow angle (degree)
123
1128
e
DP
g
go
q
m
r
Subscripts
c
heat exchanger core
exp experimental
i
tube-side
in
inlet
f
fin
m
mean
max maximum
min minimum
o
airside
out
outlet
pred predicted
t
tube
1 Introduction
Fin-and-tube heat exchangers have been widely used as
condensers or evaporators in a household air-conditioning
system. In the forced convective heat transfer between air
and refrigerant, the controlling thermal resistance is on the
air-side. To improve the air-side performance, rigorous
efforts have been made, which include a usage of high
performance fins and of small diameter tubes, etc. However, fin-and-tube heat exchangers have inherent shortcomings such as the contact resistance between fins and
tubes, the existence of a low performance region behind
tubes, etc. These short-comings may be overcome if fins
and tubes are soldered, and low profile flat tubes with high
performance fins are used. Brazed aluminum flat-tube heat
exchangers with louver fins could be the choice, although
the price could be higher due to additional brazing process.
Flat tube heat exchangers have been used as condensers of
automotive air conditioning units for more than ten years,
and they are replacing fin-and-tube condensers of the residential air-conditioning units. The possibility of replacing
the residential fin-and-tube heat exchangers by flat tube
heat exchangers has been studied by Webb and Jung [1].
They showed that, for the same air-side thermal capacity,
the flat-tube geometry requires less than half the heat
exchanger volume compared with the fin-and-tube counterpart. The advantage of flat-tube heat exchangers has
further been studied by Webb and Lee [2]. They compared
the thermal performance of flat tube condenser having
123
1129
2 Experiments
2.1 Heat exchanger samples
A total of 12 heat exchangers having three different fin
pitches (1.0, 1.2, 1.4 mm) and four different louver angles
(15, 19, 25, 27) were tested. The louver pitch was fixed
at 1.7 mm. The samples consisted of 24 steps of louver fins
brazed to flat tubes as illustrated in Fig. 1. The height and
width of the samples were 254 and 400 mm, respectively.
The tube-side was circuited in a serpentine fashion with
Table 1 Summary of previous studies on the air-side performance of flat-tube heat exchangers having louver fins
Investigators
LP (mm)
Fp (mm)
a (degree)
LP/Fp
ReLp
Davernport [10]
1.53.0
1.01.6
836
0.942.24
3004,000
0.81.4
1.73.3
2230
0.240.85
301,000
0.81.5
1.52.0
1434
0.260.91
100700
1.01.4
1.42.1
30
0.481.0
1002,000
1.31.9
1.82.2
28
0.600.85
100800
1.7
1.01.4
1529
1.211.70
100500
This study
1.7
1.01.4
1527
1.211.70
301,000
123
1130
two tubes per pass. With this circuitry, tube-side flow was
maintained turbulent. Maintaining turbulent flow in the
tube-side is important because the tube-side thermal
resistance needs to be minimized for an accurate assessment of the airside heat transfer coefficient. In addition to
this, tube-side flow mal-distribution problem, which might
exist for a multiple tube configuration, was eliminated.
Dimensional details of the flat tube and the louver fin are
provided in Fig. 2 and Table 2.
20.0
1.4
R0.6
0.4
R1
2.0
0.5
Dh: 1.307mm
A
Ll H
TP
FD
LP
FP
S2
123
The total heat transfer rate used for the calculation of airside heat transfer coefficient was obtained from the
mathematical average of Qo and Qi.
1131
FD (mm)
a (degree)
FP (mm)
LP (mm)
Ll (mm)
H (mm)
TP (mm)
S1 (mm)
S2 (mm)
20
15
1.0
1.7
6.4
8.15
2.0
1.82
1.0
20
19
1.0
1.7
6.4
8.15
2.0
1.82
1.0
20
25
1.0
1.7
6.4
8.15
2.0
1.82
1.0
20
27
1.0
1.7
6.4
8.15
2.0
1.82
1.0
20
15
1.2
1.7
6.4
8.15
2.0
1.82
1.0
20
19
1.2
1.7
6.4
8.15
2.0
1.82
1.0
20
25
1.2
1.7
6.4
8.15
2.0
1.82
1.0
20
27
1.2
1.7
6.4
8.15
2.0
1.82
1.0
20
15
1.4
1.7
6.4
8.15
2.0
1.82
1.0
10
20
19
1.4
1.7
6.4
8.15
2.0
1.82
1.0
11
12
20
20
25
27
1.4
1.4
1.7
1.7
6.4
6.4
8.15
8.15
2.0
2.0
1.82
1.82
1.0
1.0
123
1132
2
fi 1:58 lnReDh;i 3:28 :
Max. Uncertainties
Temperature
0.1 K
Differential pressure
1 Pa
ReDc
2%
10%
12%
Q Qo Qi =2
NTU0:22
expCr NTU 0:78 1
Cr
4
where
e Q=Qmax
_ p min =mc
_ p max :
Cr mc
1
1
1
t
go ho Ao UA hi Ai kt At
ki
ReDh;i 1; 000Pri fi =2
p
Dh;i 1:0 12:7 fi =2Pr 2=3 1
i
where
123
go 1
Af
1 g:
Ao
11
tan hml
ml
12
where
s
2ho
tf
m
1
kf t f
FD :
13
H
l tf
2
The heat transfer coefficient is traditionally presented as
the Colburn j factor.
ReLp
10
Vmax Lp
m
ho
qo Vmax cpo
Pr 2=3
o
14
15
1
r
2
1
c
Ao qin qm Vmax 2
qout
q
1 r2 Ke in :
16
qout
In Eq. (16), Kc and Ke are coefficients for pressure loss
at the inlet and outlet of the heat exchangers, and were
evaluated at ReDh = ? from Figs. 4, 5 of Kays and London
[22].
1133
= 15
= 19
1.0 mm
1.2 mm
1.0 mm
1.2 mm
1.4 mm
0.1
0.1
0.01
30
100
1000
0.01
30
2000
100
1000
2000
Re Lp
Re Lp
a) = 15
b) = 19
1
o
= 25
= 27
1.0 mm
1.2 mm
1.4 mm
1.0 mm
1.2 mm
1.4 mm
0.1
0.1
0.01
30
100
1000
2000
0.01
30
100
1000
Re Lp
Re Lp
c) = 25
d) = 27
2000
Fig. 4 The j and f factors of present samples showing the effect of fin pitch
Fig. 5 Illustration of the flow
efficiency
FLOW
IDEAL STREAMLINE
ACTUAL STREAMLINE
123
1134
Table 4 The critical Reynolds numbers predicted by Cowell et al. [22] and Webb and Trauger[5]
Investigators
19
25
15
19
25
15
19
25
27
%140
%140
%140
%140
%100
%110
%130
%130
%70
%70
%70
%70
328
258
196
182
332
261
198
183
336
264
200
184
1,522
1,405
1,280
1,247
1,522
1,405
1,280
1,247
1,522
1,405
1,280
1,247
17
N
D
18
19
123
1135
1.0
0.9
Fe
0.8
Webb
0.7
Cowell et al.
0.6
Lp/Fp=1.0
Lp/Fp=1.4
0.5
0.4
50
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Re Lp
Fp
= 27
1.0 mm
1.2 mm
1.4 mm
Fig. 7 A graph showing louver patterns for the louver angle 27
123
1136
F p = 1.0mm
o
19
o
27
15
o
25
0.1
0.01
30
100
1000
2000
Re Lp
a) Fp = 1.0 mm
1
F p = 1.2mm
o
19
o
27
15
o
25
0.1
0.01
20
100
1000
2000
Re Lp
b) Fp = 1.2 mm
1
F p = 1.4mm
o
25
19
o
27
0.1
downstream louvers decreases as the louver angle increases, yielding virtually no gap at 27 louver angle. In this
case, the downstream louver will be buried in the boundary
layer from the upstream louver, which will decrease the
heat transfer coefficient. Figure 8 shows that the friction
factor increases as the louver angle increases. Same trend
has been reported by Achaichia and Cowell [4] and Chang
and Wang [13]. As noted by Achaichia and Cowell, more
flow will be louver-directed for increased louver angle,
which will lengthen the travel distance of the flow, and
eventually increase the friction factor.
The literature shows several correlations which predict
the heat transfer coefficients and friction factors of louver
finned heat exchangers. The present data are compared
with the predictions by Davernport[11], Achaichia and
Cowell [4], Sunden and Svantessen [12], Chang and Wang
[29], Chang et al. [30] and Kim and Bullard [15] correlations, and the results are shown in Fig. 10. The statistical
data are summarized in Table 5. The analytical model by
Sahnoun and Webb [14] was also assessed. For the heat
transfer coefficient, Achaichia and Cowell [4] correlation
and Sahnoun and Webb model [14] reasonably predict the
data except for the low Reynolds number range. At low
Reynolds numbers, the data are overpredicted. The reason
may be attributed to the extrapolation of the correlation or
the model. The Achaichia and Cowell correlation is
applicable for the Reynolds number larger than 150 as
reported by themselves. The Sahnoun and Webb model
includes the flow efficiency correlation, which was developed from the flow visualization data by Webb and Trauger
[5]. The flow visualization test was conducted in a water
tunnel for the Reynolds number range 400 ReLp 4,000.
Kim and Bullard [15] correlation overpredicts the
ReLp \ 100 data, and underpredicts the ReLp [ 100 data.
Figure 10 shows that the Davernport correlation highly
0.01
30
100
1000
2000
Fp = 1.0mm
15
Re Lp
c) Fp = 1.4 mm
19
123
27
Fig. 9 A graph showing louver patterns for the fin pitch 1.0 mm
1137
jexp/jpred
Davenport[11]
Achaichia and Cowell[4]
Sunden and Svantesson[12]
Chang and Wang[27]
Sahnoun and Webb[14]
Kim and Bullard[15]
Present study
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Re Lp
a) jexp/jpred
5
Davenport[11]
Achaichia and Cowell[4]
Sunden and Svantesson[12]
Chang and Wang[27]
Sahnoun and Webb[14]
Kim and Bullard [15]
Present study
fexp/fpred
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Re Lp
b) fexp/fpred
underpredicts the data, and the Chang and Wang correlation overpredicts the data. Note that the present samples
have very small fin pitches, which most of the previous
correlations do not cover. Figure 10 shows all the correlations underpredict most of the present friction factors
except for the Achaichia and Cowell [4] correlation, which
overpredicts the data.
Since none of the existing correlations adequately predicted the data, an attempt was made to develop a new
correlation. Figure 4 shows that, for ReLp [ 150, the
present j factor increases as the Reynolds number decreases
and the fin pitch decreases. The trend is reversed for
ReLp 150. Thus, different correlations were developed for
the corresponding Reynolds number ranges. A multiple
regression procedure was carried out to correlate the data.
The potentially significant variables are a flow variable
ReLp and louver fin parameters (a, Fp, Lp, etc.). The final
correlation is as follows:
ReLp [ 150 :
j 0:705Re0:477
Lp
a 0:271 L 0:155
p
90
Fp
20
ReLp \150 :
j 0:0311Re0:183
Lp
a 0:0475 L 1:25
p
90
Fp
21
a 0:493
f 8:42Re0:560
Lp
90
0:535
Lp
:
22
Fp
123
1138
10
(%)
30
(%)
50
(%)
100
(%)
(3)
Standard
deviation (%)
(4)
Davernport [11]
jexp/jpred
3.8
9.1
fexp/fpred
0.0
0.5
24.2
1.08
100.0
35.8
12.4
58.3
58.4
88.7
96.2
100.0
19.3
fexp/fpred
0.0
0.0
44.7
100.0
145.0
3.8
93.6
100.0
27.3
28.0
77.4
100.0
27.5
74.2
87.1
91.9
100.0
24.3
fexp/fpred
0.5
2.2
6.5
76.3
45.4
65.1
88.2
100.0
58.2
28.0
72.0
100.0
27.6
0.0
5.9
5.3
85.6
95.8
100.0
23.0
fexp/fpred
23.0
64.7
96.2
98.4
21.4
jexp/jpred
91.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
6.7
fexp/fpred
93.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
5.6
This study
4 Conclusions
In this study, the heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics of heat exchangers having louver fins were
experimentally investigated. The samples had small fin
pitches (1.01.4 mm), and experiments were conducted up
to very low frontal air velocities (as low as 0.3 m/s). Listed
below are the major findings.
(1)
(2)
123
(5)
References
1. Webb RL (1992) Air-side performance of enhanced brazed aluminum heat exchangers. ASHRAE Trans 98(2):391410
2. Webb RL, Lee H (2001) Brazed aluminum heat exchangers for
residential air-conditioning. J Enhanc Heat Transf 8:114
3. Davernport CJ (1980) Heat transfer and fluid flow in louvered
triangular ducts. PhD thesis, Lanchester Polytechnic, UK
4. Achaichia A, Cowell TA (1988) Heat transfer and pressure drop
characteristics of flat tube and louvered plate fin surfaces. Exp
Therm Fluid Sci 1:147157
5. Webb RL, Trauger PE (1991) Flow structure in the louvered fin
heat exchanger geometry. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 4:205217
6. DeJong NC, Jacobi AM (2003) Localized flow and heat transfer
interactions in louvered fin arrays. Int J Heat Mass Transf
46:443455
7. Achaichia A, Cowell TA (1988) A finite difference analysis of
fully developed periodic laminar flow in inclined louvered arrays.
In: Proceedings of second UK national heat transfer conference.
Glassgow, pp 883888
8. Atkinson KN, Drakulic R, Heikal MR, Cow ell TA (1998) Two
and three dimensional numerical models of flow and heat transfer
over louvered fin arrays in compact heat exchangers. Int J Heat
Mass Transf 41:40634080
9. Tafti DK, Wang G, Lin W (2000) Flow transition in a multilouvered fin array. Int J Heat Mass Transf 43:901919
10. Davernport CJ (1983) Heat transfer and flow friction characteristics of louvered heat exchanger surfaces, in Heat Exchangers:
Theory and Practice, Hemisphere Pub, pp 387412
11. Davernport CJ (1983) Correlation of heat transfer and flow friction characteristics of louvered fin. AIChE Symp Ser 79:1927
12. Sunden B, Svantessen J (1992) Correlation of j and f factors for
multi-louvered heat transfer surfaces. In: Proceedings of third UK
national heat transfer conference, pp 805811
13. Chang YJ, Wang CC (1996) Air-side performance of brazed
aluminum heat exchangers. J Enhanc Heat Transf 3(1):1528
14. Sahnoun A, Webb RL (1992) Prediction of heat transfer and
friction for the louver fin geometry. J Heat Transf 114:893900
15. Kim MH, Bullard CW (2002) Air-side thermal hydraulic performance of multi-louvered fin aluminum heat exchangers. Int J
Refrigeration 25:390400
16. ASHRAE Standard 41.1 (1986) Standard method for temperature
measurement, ASHRAE
17. ASHRAE Standard 41.2 (1987) Standard method for laboratory
air-flow measurement, ASHRAE
18. ASHRAE Standard 41.5 (1975) Standard measurement guide,
engineering analysis of experimental data, ASHRAE
19. Incropera FP, Dewitt DP (1990) Fundamentals of heat and mass
transfer, 3rd edn. Wiley, London
1139
26. Kim NH, Kim HJ (2007) Flow efficiency in louvered fin geometries having large louver pitch to fin pitch ratio. Int J Air Cond
Refrig (submitted)
27. Webb RL (1991) Letters to the editor. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 4:374
28. DeJong NC, Jacobi AM (1997) An experimental study of flow
and heat transfer in parallel plate arrays: local, row by row and
surface average behavior. Int J Heat Mass Transf 40(6):1365
1378
29. Chang YJ, Wang CC (1997) A generalized heat transfer correlation for louver fin geometry. Int J Heat Mass Transf 40(3):533
544
30. Chang YJ, Hsu KC, Lin YT, Wang CC (2000) A generalized
friction correlation for louver fin geometry. Int J Heat Mass
Transf 43:22372243
123