Technical Papers

35th Annual Meeting

International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration

March 17–20, 2013

2013 Industrial Refrigeration Conference & Exhibition

The Broadmoor
Colorado Springs, Colorado
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The success of the 35th Annual Meeting of the International Institute of Ammonia
Refrigeration is due to the quality of the technical papers in this volume and the labor of its
authors. IIAR expresses its deep appreciation to the authors, reviewers and editors for their
contributions to the ammonia refrigeration industry.

Board of Directors, International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration

ABOUT THIS VOLUME

IIAR Technical Papers are subjected to rigorous technical peer review.

The views expressed in the papers in this volume are those of the authors, not the
International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration. They are not official positions of the
Institute and are not officially endorsed.

International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration

1001 North Fairfax Street
Suite 503
Alexandria, VA 22314

+ 1-703-312-4200 (voice)
+ 1-703-312-0065 (fax)
www.iiar.org

2013 Industrial Refrigeration Conference & Exhibition

The Broadmoor Hotel & Resort
Colorado Springs, Colorado
 Technical Paper #3

Design Methodology and Impact of

Cross-flow Heat Exchangers’ in Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning Systems

Dr. S. Zahid H. Rizvi, Ph.D., C. Eng.

Johnson Controls Inc.
Dubai, UAE

Abstract

This paper discusses the design of heat exchangers’ for refrigeration and air conditioning systems and
also the use of extended surface heat transfer for these heat exchangers. Cross-flow heat exchangers
are extensively used in refrigeration and air conditioning applications. The basic design includes a heat
exchanger coil-block located in an airstream for cooling and heating purposes. Several construction
options are available, including: (1) various spaced fin coils; (2) electric, hot gas or water defrosting;
(3) fan(s). Also heat exchangers can be designed for low air velocity, standard velocity and as sloped
unit evaporators.

The size and cost of the heat exchanger is dependent upon the heat duty, the allowable pressure
drop and the geometry of the heat transfer area. Often one heat transfer resistance within the overall
heat transfer dominates and this determines the amount of surface area required for the duty. The
dominance of this resistance is often broken by the use of extended surface (fins), which will result
in a lower surface and hence smaller heat exchanger. The extended surface performance can be
predicted by a number of indicators: fin effectiveness, fin efficiency, enhancement and augmentation.
This paper will also consider which, if any, of the above performance indicators are the best and the
design methodology for the heat exchangers.

© IIAR 2013 1
Design Methodology and Impact of Cross-flow Heat Exchangers’ in Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning Systems

1.0 Refrigeration Systems Heat Exchangers.

In any refrigeration system, absorption of energy (heat) and provision of cooling

effect is carried out in the evaporator unit and rejection of heat in the condenser.
Therefore enhancement of performance for these heat exchangers is a critical factor
in the overall system performance analysis. Refrigeration systems are generally
simple; however, the process of evaporation and condensation is not. This is
because the refrigerant exists in two phases in the heat exchangers, and designers
must take these factors into account. The proportion of liquid to vapour diminishes
in evaporation, and increases in condensation, throughout the respective heat
exchangers. The velocities of the liquid and vapour phases differ and the pattern of
flow will also change during evaporation and condensation. Several authors have
reported flow patterns, from tests, for long-tube evaporators and condensers in
refrigeration processes.

Improving heat transfer coefficients in the nucleate evaporation region is a method

of enhancing heat transfer. In the two-phase forced convection region, where
evaporation occurs at the liquid-film vapour-core interface, heat transfer coefficients
are considerably higher than those for nucleate evaporation and are amongst the
highest reported by several authors. The methods for improving performance in the
nucleate evaporation region depend on achieving sustained nucleation at a lower
superheat than with a normal smooth surface. It has been reported by several authors
that nucleation occurs at gas or vapour-filled cavities in the heating surface. The
superheat at which nucleation occurs depends critically on the size and distribution
of these cavities and on the surface temperature gradient.

Enhanced heat transfer surfaces are particularly important in refrigeration, because

refrigeration systems operate at small temperature differences. It is particularly
important to be able to operate at small temperature differences in order to maintain
the RH values within acceptable limits and maintain product quality and weight. Also
at small temperature differences in the evaporator the system capacity is critically

Technical Paper #3 © IIAR 2013 3

 2013 IIAR Industrial Refrigeration Conference & Exhibition, Colorado Springs, Colorado

dependent on the evaporation temperature. However, it is also important to be able

to operate with small temperature differences in the condenser because the efficiency
of the system depends on the compression ratio, which is the ratio of the relevant
compressor condensing pressure and suction pressure. Another significant reason for
enhancing heat transfer, particularly for evaporators, is to reduce the hysteresis effect
by which it takes a greater temperature difference to initiate boiling than is required
to maintain it. Reducing the hysteresis effect is very beneficial when the temperature
difference required to initiate refrigerant boiling is limited by external circumstances.

2.0 Heat Exchangers Design.

Conservation of energy and extended surface heat transfer are inextricably linked.
The two stream heat exchangers for energy conservation implies transferring the
maximum possible heat (energy/enthalpy) between the streams, whilst minimizing
the pressure drop of each stream, so that excessive pumping power is not consumed.

2.1 Heat Transfer:

The maximum heat that can be transferred between the two streams is directly
related to the two inlet temperatures and this is given by the following expression:

Qmax = (Mcp)min (Thi – Tcl) (1)

Also (Mcp)min is smaller of and (Mcp)h and (Mcp)c (2)

This is a hypothetical value, and is obtained when the outlet temperature of (Mcp)min
stream is equal to the inlet temperature of the other stream and the heat exchanger
must be a 1:1 countercurrent configuration of infinite size. Designers use the concept
of logarithmic temperature difference to evaluate the actual heat transfer and this is
expressed as:

4 © IIAR 2013 Technical Paper #3

Design Methodology and Impact of Cross-flow Heat Exchangers’ in Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning Systems

Qact = UA LMTD FT (3)

and LMTD = (ΔTh – ΔTc)/In(ΔTh – ΔTc) (4)

The FT is a correction factor, which depends upon the exchanger configuration and
flow arrangement, and accommodates the deviation of the mean temperature driving
force in the exchanger to that occurring in a truly 1:1 counter current exchanger.
Any design and/or performance calculation should provide information relating to
the efficiency of the heat duty with respect to maximum possible heat duty between
the two streams. The definition of the effectiveness is in essence a ratio of actual
performance to the maximum performance and is expressed as:

ε = Qact/Qmax (5)

Each exchanger configuration and flow arrangement has a unique relationship

between the thermal effectiveness, the number of transfer units and the heat capacity
ratio and these relationships can be transposed to provide the UA in terms of the
minimum heat capacity flow rate, the effectiveness and the heat capacity ratio,
expressed as:

UA = (Mcp)min xfn{ε,C*, configuration, flow arrangement} (6)

Hence the UA value depends upon the heat duty–through the value of the
effectiveness, the ratio of the heat capacity flow rates and the stream with the smaller
heat capacity flow rate. The physical size of the exchanger is directly related to
the smaller heat capacity flow rate and the design configuration to accommodate
the UA value. Each exchanger configuration and flow arrangement has a value of
thermal effectiveness that cannot exceed εmax. The first three exchangers and flow
arrangements in Table 1 have values of equal εmax equal to unity for all values of the
heat capacity flow rate ratio.

Technical Paper #3 © IIAR 2013 5

 2013 IIAR Industrial Refrigeration Conference & Exhibition, Colorado Springs, Colorado

Type εmax
1:1 Counter flow HX 1.0 for all values of C*
1:1 Counter flow, both unmixed 1.0 for all values of C*
1:1 Regenerators 1.0 for all values of C*
All other types have εmax relationships dependent upon the value of C*
1:1 Co-current HX 1/(1+C*)

1:2 Both streams mixed TEMA E Shell At C*=1 εmax=0.586

Table 1: εmax values for some configurations and flow arrangements.

2.2 Overall Resistances:

Irrespective of the specific design methodology, the designers must evaluate the
configuration and flow arrangement for the ε-Ntu method and equation (4) for the
LMTD technique. The reciprocal of the product UA is the total resistance to heat flow
between the two streams and this normally comprises of five individual resistances
as follows:

1 1 1 1 1
= + + Rw + + (7)
UA (αA)h (αfoA)h (αfoA)c (αA)c

Where α and are αfo convective and fouling heat transfer coefficients respectively
and Rw is the conductive resistance of the wall between the two process streams.
If the resistances on one side of the wall are much greater (at least by one order
magnitude) than the summation of the remaining resistances, then it is worthwhile
considering some form of augmentation on that side. This is often referred to the
situation of controlling resistances. Hence if the hot side resistances are controlling,
i.e.

1 1 1 1
+ >> Rw + + (8)
(αA)h (αfoA)h (αfoA)c (αA)c

6 © IIAR 2013 Technical Paper #3

Design Methodology and Impact of Cross-flow Heat Exchangers’ in Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning Systems

Then it is worthwhile considering augmentation on the hot side. Note that the fouling
coefficients have been used in the above correlation (8).

2.3 Increase of Surface Area:

The most common method of enhancing heat transfer is to increase the secondary
surface area of the heat exchanger. This is achieved by the addition of fins to the
outside of the tubes for condensers and evaporators. This seems to be a fairly simple
method of surface enhancement in theory, but it is quite complex in practice because
of heat transmission through the fin from the tip region to the root. The fin efficiency
is the ratio of the heat flow through the fin to that flowing through the fin if the
entire fin surface is at the fin (root) temperature. This is expressed as:
.
Qf
ηf = . (9)
Q tb

The temperature difference of the fin is not uniform over its length, neither is the
heat transfer coefficient. These factors can give rise to complex calculations. The
efficiency of a simple finite fin of constant cross sectional area and uniform heat
transfer coefficient is therefore given by the following equation:

tanh(axf)
ηf = (10)
axf

αb 0.5

where, a= (11)
kS

Fin efficiency depends on the fin dimensions, the fin material conductivity and the
heat transfer coefficient from the medium to the fin. In cases where the external heat
transfer coefficients are low, the fin may be both extensive and of light gauge, as in
an evaporator. Also in cases where the external heat transfer coefficients are high,
the fin may be much shorter and broader in proportion to its length. Fins may be
contoured or otherwise shaped to promote turbulence which improves heat transfer

Technical Paper #3 © IIAR 2013 7

 2013 IIAR Industrial Refrigeration Conference & Exhibition, Colorado Springs, Colorado

or may be arranged to promote a spiraling movement of the heat transferring liquid,

as in rifling in the bore of a tube.

3.0 Geometry & Construction of Fin-tube Cross-flow Heat

Exchangers’.

3.1 Materials:

The predominant materials for fin-tube cross-flow air coolers (evaporators) and
air-cooled condensers construction are steel, copper and aluminium. Each of these
materials when correctly selected for operation, either individually or in combination,
provides long operational life. Galvanic couplings such as aluminium fins on copper
tubes are discouraged by metallurgy experts, but in practice this combination is used
extremely successfully on majority of plants using non-ammonia based refrigerants.
Evaporators and condensers in such combination have been observed for more than
20 years without corrosion failures. Reaction between the two metals appears to
take place only when the electrical specific conductance of the condensate is high.
For ammonia refrigeration systems the established galvanized steel tube evaporators
and condensers are still widely used, although lighter constructions utilizing thin-
walled aluminium or stainless steel tubes are increasingly seen being used. In
general, corrosion rates reduce at low temperatures, but again where aluminium
is used saline or caustic environments must be avoided. With stainless steel the
presence of chlorides must be avoided. Figures 1, 2 and 3 illustrate the geometry
and construction of typical flooded/overfeed and DX evaporators’ and an air cooled
condenser heat exchanger for refrigeration applications.

8 © IIAR 2013 Technical Paper #3

Design Methodology and Impact of Cross-flow Heat Exchangers’ in Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning Systems

Figure 1: Flooded Evaporator with Hot-gas Defrosting Layout

Figure 2: D.X. Evaporator with Electric Defrosting Layout

Technical Paper #3 © IIAR 2013 9

 2013 IIAR Industrial Refrigeration Conference & Exhibition, Colorado Springs, Colorado

Figure 3: Air-cooled Condenser Layout

3.2 Heat Exchanger Surface:

Heat exchanger surface area is often quoted as the criteria for performance for air
cooler evaporators and condensers. This is only true to a limited extent and there are
many factors to be considered in arriving at the amount of surface a heat exchanger
requires and comparison of surface from one type of heat exchanger to another is
only possible if these factors are taken into account. To evaluate the sensible heat
transfer overall coefficient ‘U’ the general correlation is expressed as:

1 AO AO L 1 1 1
= + + + + (12)
U Aiαi Aw K αOηO fi fO

Each term can be derived or calculated with relative ease except for αo which is
empirically obtained for each specific fin configuration and bonding method under
the normal range of operation. By manipulation of the terms within this correlation,

10 © IIAR 2013 Technical Paper #3

Design Methodology and Impact of Cross-flow Heat Exchangers’ in Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning Systems

large variations in ‘U’ value can be obtained and consequently large variations for
surface requirements can be achieved for a given duty. To illustrate this figures 4
and 5 provide data for two different tube pitch and fin configurations when required
to operate on a fixed duty of 30kW (8.53TR) and a face velocity of 3.5m/s (688.9ft/
min). With each configuration, two variables are introduced namely the fin spacing
and refrigerant flow rates providing a range of internal coefficients. Figure 4 is for fin-
tube cross-flow evaporator heat exchangers with a fin thickness of 0.5mm (0.0196") x
64mm (2.5") x 64mm (2.5") with 16mm (0.63") diameter tubes in staggered formation.

Figure 4. Comparison of 'U' values and Surface areas for an air cooler having 64 mm (2.5") x 64 mm (2.5")

Technical Paper #3 © IIAR 2013 11

 2013 IIAR Industrial Refrigeration Conference & Exhibition, Colorado Springs, Colorado

Figure 5 is for fin-tube cross-flow evaporator heat exchangers with a fin thickness
of 0.25mm (0.009") x 50.8mm (2.0") x 38.1mm (1.5") with 16mm (0.63") diameter
tubes in staggered formation.

Figure 5. Comparison of 'U' values and Surface areas for an air cooler having 50.8 mm (2.0") x 38.1
mm (1.5") Extended Fins

From these figures, it is evident that the wider the fin spacing (or smaller secondary
to primary surface ratio) the less effect the variation on internal film coefficient has

12 © IIAR 2013 Technical Paper #3

Design Methodology and Impact of Cross-flow Heat Exchangers’ in Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning Systems

to the ‘U’ value and subsequent surface in each case. Therefore it becomes apparent
that as more fins are installed on the heat exchanger, it is essential to maximize
the internal coefficient if full benefit of this extra surface is to be obtained. Figure
4 indicates surface requirements, for a 12mm (0.47") fin spacing (normally for low
temperature air cooler evaporators), which varies between 270m2 (2,906.2ft2) to
360m2 (3,875ft2) approximately for the extremes of the internal coefficient given,
a variation of 33%. Whereas, for a 4mm (0.15") fin spacing (commonly used for
condensers and medium temperature evaporators) surface requirement, varies from
approximately 305m2 (3,283ft2) to approximately 580m2 (6,243ft2), a variation of
90%.

Figure 5 which has the smaller ratio of secondary to primary surface provides higher
‘U’ values and consequently smaller total surfaces. Also for the 12mm (0.47") fin
spacing the surface requirement varies from approximately 220m2 (2,368ft2) to
270m2 (2,906.4ft2), a variation of 23%, and for the 4mm (0.015") fin spacing from
approximately 210m2 (2,260.4ft2) to 335m2 (3,605.9ft2), a variation of 60%. Therefore
it can be seen that by manipulation of only two variables, for the given geometry,
large differences in surface requirements are made, and unless all factors are assessed
a heat exchanger performance can not be judged on surface alone. Heat exchanger
surface also has to be considered not only from a heat transfer stance, but also from
its frost holding capacity, occupied volume and its ability to provide satisfactory
defrosting.

4.0 Extended Surface (Fin) Heat Transfer.

Extended surfaces come in many forms: cluster of cylindrical, rectangular, conical,

concave parabolic single fins attached to a planar wall; longitudinal rectangular
fins on the outside of a tube arranged parallel to the axis of the tube (typically fins
attached to the external tube wall for evaporator and condenser heat exchangers for
refrigeration applications); micro-sized fins on the inside of the tubes, and various

Technical Paper #3 © IIAR 2013 13

 2013 IIAR Industrial Refrigeration Conference & Exhibition, Colorado Springs, Colorado

types of strip fins used in plate-fin exchangers. All the area of the extended surface is
not fully utilized in the transfer of heat, because the temperature driving force from
the fin surface to the surrounding fluid falls from the base of fin along its length. The
general equation for the temperature distribution along a fin is:

d2Tf dAx dTf αAs

Ax + – (Tf – T∞) = 0 (13)
dn2 dn dn λ

Where n is the direction normal to the surface, Ax is the cross-sectional area of the
fin and As is the surface area per unit length of fin.

4.1 Performance Indicators:

The heat flow from an isolated fin to the surrounding fluid is given by the flow of
heat across the base of the fin and is given by the following expression:

dT d
Qf = λf 2t |x=0 = 2 αλft (TB – T∞) f |y=0 (14)
dx dy

4.2 Fin Effectiveness:

The fin effectiveness is defined as the ratio of heat flowing through the fin to that
which would flow if the fin was not attached to the primary heat transfer surface:

ςf = Qf/α2t (TB – T∞) (15)

For a fin of finite length, the gradient is given by separate eqn. with y=0 and the fin
effectiveness is:
1+ f
tanh
f
t f t
= (16)
t
fa

f
+ tanh
t f t

14 © IIAR 2013 Technical Paper #3

Design Methodology and Impact of Cross-flow Heat Exchangers’ in Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning Systems

4.3 Fin Efficiency:

The commonly used fin efficiency was originally referred to as effectiveness by

Harper and Brown (1922), but was later called the efficiency by Gardner (1945) and
is the ratio of the heat flow through the fin to the heat flow if all the surface of the fin
was at the base temperature, and expressed as:

ηf = Qf/α ( + t) (TB – T∞) (17)

and for a fin of finite length:

1+ f
tanh
t f
t f t t
= = (18)
( + t) t ( + t)
fa fa

f
+ tanh
t f t

4.4 Enhancement Factor (Surface Augmentation):

Manzoor et al. (1983) introduced an enhancement factor to account for the ratio of
the total resistance on the fin side of an assembly to the resistance as if the extended
surface was not present. This was an attempt to include the pitch of the fin into
consideration of the flow of heat from the primary surface with fins attached to
it. This approach came from the analytical solution of the rigorous mathematical
model of one-dimensional representation of heat flow through an assembly with fins
attached to one side of the primary surface. The heat flow from the isolated fin and
the associated primary surface, which is the fin spacing, is given by:

df
Qs = 2α(p–t)– 2 αλft |y=0 (TB – T∞) (19)
dy

Technical Paper #3 © IIAR 2013 15

 2013 IIAR Industrial Refrigeration Conference & Exhibition, Colorado Springs, Colorado

The enhancement factor is defined as:

εf = 2αp (TB – T∞)/Qs (20)

This enhancement factor can be readily represented in terms of either the

effectiveness or the efficiency, and is given by the following correlation:

t t ( + t)
= 1/ 1 + ( 1) = 1 / 1 + (21)
p p p
fa fa fa

4.5 Assembly Augmentation Factor, AUGass:

The three performance factors: effectiveness, efficiency and surface augmentation do

not provide any indication of the advantages to be obtained by using the extended
surface assembly for the duty required between two process streams. The duty of an
exchanger is given by:

.
Q = UA∆Tm (22)

where the mean temperature difference over the exchanger, ΔTm, is a function of
the inlet and outlet temperatures of the two process streams, and the exchanger
configuration and the flow arrangement is kept the same and only the heat transfer
surfaces are different: a surface without fins and one comprising a fin assembly, then
the products of the overall heat transfer coefficient and transfer area are identical for
both situations, and expressed as:

.
Q /∆Tm= (UA)p = (UA)ass (23)

The assembly augmentation factor is the ratio of the overall coefficient for the finned
assembly to the overall coefficient for the plain primary surface:

Uass Ap
AUGass = = (24)
Up Aass

16 © IIAR 2013 Technical Paper #3

Design Methodology and Impact of Cross-flow Heat Exchangers’ in Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning Systems

Woods et.al. (1996) provided tables for analyses and these list the changes in
assembly heat flow, fin effectiveness, fin efficiency, surface enhancement and
augmentation, indicated in the following tables:

Parameter t s λf αf tw λw αuf
Qass ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑
ςf ↑ ↓ − ↑ ↓ − − −
ηf ↓ ↑ − ↑ ↓ − − −
εf ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ − − −
Augs ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ − − −
Augass ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑
Table 2: Performance indicator response to increase in the magnitude of system parameters.

Variable Water-side Air-side

f eqn. (25) 34.70 109.74
t
max=

/ f
eqn. (26) 1.9212 0.6075
t t

ςfa eqn. (16) 33.32 60.22

ηf eqn. (18) 0.4925 0.8900
Augsa eqn. (20) 2.8572 4.4027
Table 3: Evaluation of the fin effectiveness, efficiency and surface augmentation.

Table 3 contains values of the maximum effectiveness, the argument for the
hyperbolic functions in the various equations for the evaluation of the fin
effectiveness and efficiency, and ultimately the surface augmentation for the water-
side and air-side addition of the fins. The addition of fins to the air-side (often used
for evaporators and condensers in refrigeration) results in much larger values of the
maximum effectiveness, fin effectiveness and efficiency, and surface augmentation.
However, the fin effectiveness for the water-side is much closer to the maximum
effectiveness for that side, so that longer fins on the water-side would not provide
much more heat flow.

Technical Paper #3 © IIAR 2013 17

 2013 IIAR Industrial Refrigeration Conference & Exhibition, Colorado Springs, Colorado

R1 R2 RT U AUGass
Surface Type (m2k/W) (m2k/W) (m2k/W) (W/m2k) (-)
0.05882 0.05882 0.06472 15.45
Plain (0.33) (0.33) (0.36) (2.72) 1.000
0.05882 0.002059 0.06088 16.42
Fins water-side (0.33) (0.011) (0.34) (2.89) 1.063
0.01335 0.05882 0.01923 52.00
Fins air-side (0.075) (0.33) (0.109) (9.15) 3.365
0.01335 0.002059 0.01541 64.91
Fins both sides (0.075) (0.011) (0.087) (11.43) 4.200
Table 4: Evaluation of assembly augmentation for various arrangements (I-P values are indicated in
brackets.)

Table 4 lists the various resistances for some assembly configurations and the
corresponding overall heat transfer coefficients and assembly augmentation factors.
For the plain primary surface, the resistance on the air-side is the controlling value
and so the addition of fins to the water-side would not be recommended. This is
borne out in the calculations: air-side resistance becomes more dominant, but there is
an increase in heat flow of 6.3% or the area could be reduced by 1.063. The addition
of fins to the air-side sharply increase the heat flow by 236.5% or the area could be
reduced by 3.365. Also the addition of fins to the air-side reduces the resistance of
that side and the addition of fins to both sides increase in heat flow by 320% or a
reduction in area of 4.20.

18 © IIAR 2013 Technical Paper #3

Design Methodology and Impact of Cross-flow Heat Exchangers’ in Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning Systems

5.0 Discussion and Conclusion.

Discussion and conclusion are analyzed a follows:

5.1 Design Techniques for Refrigeration Heat Exchangers’:

Design of heat exchangers for refrigeration applications is quite complex and the
geometry can vary with different applications. Also the design methodology for
heat exchangers is critical in terms of ensuring minimal product weight losses and
efficient and rapid defrosting process. These were outlined in sections 2 and 3 earlier.
There are several reasons for performance enhancement, which include reduced
volume, weight and cost of the heat exchanger. Designers should take account of the
following key features for evaporator and condenser heat exchangers, outlined in this
paper:

A) Fin spacing

B) Tube pitch

C) UA value calculation

D) LMTD evaluation

E) Heat transfer coefficients

F) Surface augmentation.

Fin spacing is usually defined upon the heat exchanger application, and in the case of
refrigerant-to-air applications this depends on the evaporating and the air temperature
respectively. For lower air (room) temperatures wider fin spacing is often utilized
to decrease the rate of frost/ice buildup. Typically for a low temperature air cooling
application of -30°C (-22°F) the evaporator fin spacing may be 12mm (0.47") and for
+7°C (+44.6°F) the fin spacing may be 4.5mm (0.17"). This practice also has an
impact on the design, size and cost of the heat exchanger since the ability to increase

Technical Paper #3 © IIAR 2013 19

 2013 IIAR Industrial Refrigeration Conference & Exhibition, Colorado Springs, Colorado

the external surface becomes limited. Figures 1, 2 and 3 illustrate evaporators’

and condenser heat exchangers for refrigeration applications, with geometry and
circuiting configurations. Also figures 4 and 5 indicate tube pitch, fin spacing and U
value’s significant impact in the design, size and cost of heat exchangers. Calculation
of the UA and LMTD values is also a critical factor in the design of heat exchangers
and equations (1) to (8) provide basis for understanding and practical calculations
analyses. Surface augmentation is also a key factor in design consideration and
equations (13) to (26) provide practical analyses.

5.2 Extended Surface Performance Indicator:

Conservation of energy and enhancement of performance are some of the key

elements of best design practice for heat exchangers in refrigeration systems.
Extended surfaces are widely utilized in heat exchangers and the best performance
indicator for extended surface heat transfer is the assembly augmentation factor.
The fin efficiency, which is the most commonly used indicator, does not provide the
necessary information for the prediction of heat flow and requires the evaluation of
the total surface area in the subsequent calculation of the overall heat flow, indicated
in equations (17) and (18). The fin effectiveness is a better indicator for the isolated
fin and is much easier to use in the evaluation of the overall heat flow through the
assembly, indicated in equations (15) and (16). Woods et.al (1996) provided tables
for analyses, Tables 2 to 4, and these list the changes in assembly heat flow, fin
effectiveness, fin efficiency, surface enhancement and augmentation for increase in
the system parameters: fin length, thickness, spacing (with the pitch held constant),
thermal conductivity and heat transfer coefficient, wall thickness and conductivity,
and lastly, the coefficient on the un-finned side of the assembly. Only the assembly
augmentation factor Augs, changes in a similar way to the overall heat flow for all
the system parameters, except for the fin heat transfer coefficient. For this latter
parameter, the assembly augmentation factor falls whereas the heat flow becomes
larger. However, this trend of the augmentation factor is correct, because it is a
measure of the extended surface assembly with respect to a plain primary surface. If

20 © IIAR 2013 Technical Paper #3

Design Methodology and Impact of Cross-flow Heat Exchangers’ in Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning Systems

the heat transfer coefficient on the fin side increases, then the controlling resistance
of the system becomes less dominant and this does not favour the use of fins.

The assembly augmentation factor immediately provides the magnitude of reduction

in the exchanger area and size, when an extended surface assembly is used instead
of a plain primary surface, indicated in equations (22) to (26). The effectiveness and
efficiency can not reflect changes in the system parameters unless they are related to
the isolated fin, and the enhancement factor and surface augmentation do not alter
with respect to the wall parameters and the un-finned side heat transfer coefficient.
All these performance indicators are needed for the evaluation of the assembly
augmentation factor and this is the best performance indicator for the representation
of heat flow through an extended surface assembly. Tables 3 and 4 provide an
analyses of fin effectiveness, efficiency, surface augmentation and various assembly
arrangements. For air side (cooling medium in refrigeration applications) there would
be advantages in using longer fins , because the fin effectiveness is considerably
less than the maximum effectiveness, indicated in Table 3, and also values of
effectiveness and efficiency are indicated for the adiabatic fin tip boundary condition.

The effectiveness values are lower than the respective values for the adiabatic tip
boundary condition, whereas the efficiency values indicate the opposite trend. The
adiabatic tip condition values will under estimate the heat flow. Table 4 indicates
the critical factor for the required surface with addition of external fins, and this
is an excellent illustration of the effects of adding fins to the primary surface and
how to make use of the various performance indicators. The concept of assembly
augmentation factor needs to be taken up by manufacturers and users of extended
surfaces, and it would be advantageous if the academics would teach this approach
in their lectures on extended heat transfer.

Technical Paper #3 © IIAR 2013 21

 2013 IIAR Industrial Refrigeration Conference & Exhibition, Colorado Springs, Colorado

Nomenclature

A = Transfer surface area. m2

Ax = Cross-sectional area. m2

As = Surface area per unit length. m

AUG = Assembly augmentation, dimensionless. -

Aug = Surface augmentation, dimensionless. -

a = Cross-sectional area. m2

b = Exposed perimeter. m

C* = Ratio of flowing heat capacities, dimensionless. -

cp = Heat capacity. J/kg K

FT = Correction factor. -

fi = Internal fouling factor. W/m2 K

fo = External fouling factor. W/m2 K

K = Thermal conductivity of tube wall. W/m K

k = Conductivity of fin material. W/m K

L = Tube wall thickness. m

22 © IIAR 2013 Technical Paper #3

Design Methodology and Impact of Cross-flow Heat Exchangers’ in Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning Systems

LMTD = Logarithmic temperature difference. K

= Fin length. m

.
M = Mass flow rate. kg/s

.
M cp = Heat flow capacity. W or kW

n = Distance normal to surface. m

N = Length. m

NTU = Number of heat transfer units. -

p = Half fin pitch. m

.
Q = Heat transfer (duty). W

.
Qf = Heat flow through fin. kW

.
Q tb = Heat flow through fin surface at base (root) temperature. kW

R = Thermal resistance. m2 K/W

s = Half fin spacing. m

S = Cross-sectional area of fin. m2

t = Half fin thickness. m

T = Temperature. K

Technical Paper #3 © IIAR 2013 23

 2013 IIAR Industrial Refrigeration Conference & Exhibition, Colorado Springs, Colorado

U = Overall heat transfer coefficient. W/m2 K

x = Distance. m

xf = Height of fin. m

y = Dimensionless distance.

Subscripts

a = area. m2

act = Actual.

ass = Assembly.

b = Exposed perimeter. m

B = Base.

c = Cold.

f = Fin.

fa = Diabatic fin tip condition.

fi = Fouling coefficient, internal.

fo = Fouling coefficient, external.

fa = Diabetic fin tip condition.

fb = Infinite fin.

24 © IIAR 2013 Technical Paper #3

Design Methodology and Impact of Cross-flow Heat Exchangers’ in Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning Systems

fc = Adiabetic fin tip condition .

fo = Fouling.

h = Hot.

i = Internal surface area. m2

w = Mean tube wall area. m2

m = Mean.

max = Maximum.

min = Minimum.

o = Outside.

p = Plain.

s = Surface.

uf = Un-finned.

w = Wall.

∞ = Surrounding.

1 = Inlet.

2 = Outlet.

Technical Paper #3 © IIAR 2013 25

 2013 IIAR Industrial Refrigeration Conference & Exhibition, Colorado Springs, Colorado

Greek

α = Heat transfer coefficient. W/m2 K

αi = Internal heat transfer film coefficient W/m2 K

αO = External heat transfer film coefficient W/m2 K

εε = Thermal effectiveness.

εf = Surface enhancement.

ςf = Fin effectiveness.

ςfa = Fin effectiveness, fin of finite length.

λ = Solid thermal conductivity. W/m2 (K/m)

ηf = Fin efficiency.

ηfa = Fin efficiency, fin of finite length.

ηfo = Fin efficiency, diabatic fin tip condition.

 = Normalized temperature.

γ = Liquid coefficient.

µ = Dynamic viscosity. kg/ms

∞ = Surrounding.

26 © IIAR 2013 Technical Paper #3

Design Methodology and Impact of Cross-flow Heat Exchangers’ in Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning Systems

∆h = Enthalpy difference. kJ/kg

∆P = Pressure difference. Pa

∆T = Temperature difference. K

References
1) Collier, J. G. and Thome, J. R. (1994). ‘Convective boiling and condensation’
(third edition), sub-cooled boiling heat transfer, void fraction and pressure
drop, saturated boiling heat transfer, pp 183-324. Publishers, Oxford University
Press U.K.

2) Chisholm, D. (1973). ‘Pressure gradients due to friction during the flow of

evaporation two-phase mixtures in smooth tubes and channels’. International
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 16, 347-348.

3) Friedel, L. (1976). ‘Momentum exchange and pressure drop in two-phase

flows’. Proceedings of NATO ASI, Study Institute, Istanbul, Turkey 16-27
August, I, 239-312. Hemisphere Publication Corporation.

4) Gardner, K.A. (1945) Efficiency of Extended Surfaces, ASME Journal of Heat

Transfer, 67, 621-631.

5) Harper, D. R. and Brown, W.B. (1922) Mathematical Equations for Heat

Conduction in the fins of Air-cooled Engines, NACA Report No. 158.

6) Heggs, P.J. and Stones (1980) Improved Design Methods for Finned Tube Heat
Exchangers, Trans. IChemE, 58, 147-154.

7) Incorpera, F. P. and DeWitt, D. P., ‘Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer’,

1990 3rd Edition, Wiley, New York.

Technical Paper #3 © IIAR 2013 27

 2013 IIAR Industrial Refrigeration Conference & Exhibition, Colorado Springs, Colorado

8) Kern, D.Q and Kraus, A.D. (1972) Extended Surface Heat Transfer, McGraw-
Hill, New York.

9) Kreith, F. (1973) Principles of Heat Transfer, 3rd Edition, Harper and row, New
York.

10) Linhoff, B(1993) Pinch analysis – a state-of-the-art review, Trans. IChemE, 71,
503-522.

11) Manzoor, M., Ingham, D.B. and Heggs, P.J. (1983) The One Dimensional
Analysis of Fin Assembly Heat Transfer, 105, 646-651.

12) Rizvi, Z. H. (2002). ‘Design methodology for refrigeration and air-conditioning

systems’. PhD Thesis, UMIST, U.K.

13) Saunders, E.A.D. (1988) Heat Exchangers: Selection, Design and Construction,
Longmann Scientific and Technical, UK.

14) Schneider, P.J., ‘Construction Heat Transfer’, 1955, Addison-Wesley, Mass.

15) Shah, M. M. (1976). ‘A new correlation for heat transfer during boiling flow
through pipes’. ASHRAE Transactions, 88 (1), 185-196.

16) Thome, J. R. (1999). ‘Flow boiling of refrigerant-oil mixtures in plain and

enhanced tubes’. NATO ASI, Series E, vol. 355, 487-513. Kluwer Academic
Publishers.

17) Wang, C. C. (1999). ‘Optimum design of air-cooled fin and tube heat
exchangers’. NATO ASI, Series E, vol. 355, 163-184. Kluwer Academic
Publishers.

18) Wood, A.S., Tupholme, G.E., Bhatti, M.I.H. and Heggs, P.J. (1996)
Performance Indicators for Steady-state Heat Transfer through Fin Assemblies,
ASME Journal of Heat Transfer, 118, 310-316.

28 © IIAR 2013 Technical Paper #3