Navigation by alphabet

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
G-type shells in shell-and-tube heat exchangers: Gaddis, E S, Galerkin method, for heat conduction finite-element calculations, Galileo number, Gas-liquid flows: Gas-liquid-solid interfaces, fouling at, Gas-solid interfaces, fouling at, Gas tungsten arc welding, Gaseous fuels, properties of, Gases: Gaskets: Gauss-Seidel method, for solution of implicit equations, Geometric optics models for radiative heat transfer from surfaces, geothermal brines, fouling of heat exchangers by, Germany, Federal Republic of, mechanical design of heat exchangers in: Gersten, K, Girth flanges, in shell-and-tube heat exchangers, Glass production, furnaces and kilns for, Glycerol (glycerine): Gn (heat generation number), Gnielinski, V Gnielinski correlation, for heat transfer in tube banks, Gomez-Thodas method, for vapour pressure, Goodness factor, as a basis for comparison of plate fin heat exchanger surfaces, Goody narrow band model for gas radiation properties, Gorenflo correlation, for nucleate boiling, Gowenlock, R, Graetz number: Granular products, moving, heat transfer to, Graphite, density of, Grashof number Gravitational acceleration, effect in pool boiling, Gravity conveyor: Gregorig effect in enhancement of condensation, Grid baffles: Grid selection, for finite difference method, Griffin, J M, Groeneveld correlation for postdryout heat transfer, Groeneveld and Delorme correlation for postdryout heat transfer, Gross plastic deformation Group contribution parameters tables, Guerrieri and Talty correlations for forced convective heat transfer in two-phase flow, Gungor and Winterton correlation, for forced convective boiling, Gylys, J,

Index

HEDH
A B C D E F G
G-type shells in shell-and-tube heat exchangers: Gaddis, E S, Galerkin method, for heat conduction finite-element calculations, Galileo number, Gas-liquid flows: Gas-liquid-solid interfaces, fouling at, Gas-solid interfaces, fouling at, Gas tungsten arc welding, Gaseous fuels, properties of, Gases: Gaskets: Gauss-Seidel method, for solution of implicit equations, Geometric optics models for radiative heat transfer from surfaces, geothermal brines, fouling of heat exchangers by, Germany, Federal Republic of, mechanical design of heat exchangers in: Gersten, K, Girth flanges, in shell-and-tube heat exchangers, Glass production, furnaces and kilns for, Glycerol (glycerine): Gn (heat generation number), Gnielinski, V Gnielinski correlation, for heat transfer in tube banks, Gomez-Thodas method, for vapour pressure, Goodness factor, as a basis for comparison of plate fin heat exchanger surfaces, Goody narrow band model for gas radiation properties, Gorenflo correlation, for nucleate boiling, Gowenlock, R, Graetz number: Granular products, moving, heat transfer to, Graphite, density of, Grashof number Gravitational acceleration, effect in pool boiling, Gravity conveyor: Gregorig effect in enhancement of condensation, Grid baffles: Grid selection, for finite difference method, Griffin, J M, Groeneveld correlation for postdryout heat transfer, Groeneveld and Delorme correlation for postdryout heat transfer, Gross plastic deformation Group contribution parameters tables, Guerrieri and Talty correlations for forced convective heat transfer in two-phase flow, Gungor and Winterton correlation, for forced convective boiling, Gylys, J,
H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Goodness Factor Comparisons

DOI 10.1615/hedhme.a.000302

3.9.7 Goodness factor comparisons

Surface geometries must be selected for each fluid stream before the heat exchanger design can be undertaken. This selection will depend on mechanical design and thermal performance considerations. On a thermal performance basis alone, one desires a surface geometry that meets the required cost, size, and friction power limitations. Several “goodness factors” have been proposed to allow comparison of surface performance characteristics in this regard (LaHaye et al., 1974; Kays and London, 1951; Cox and Jallouk, 1973; Bergles et al., 1974; Soland et al., 1976). These methods compare the thermal performance of two surfaces on a friction power basis. By writing the heat transfer coefficient (α) and the friction power (P) as functions of j, f, ReDh, and Dh, one obtains

\[\label{eq1} \alpha=\frac{c_{p}\eta}\,{\mbox{Pr}^{2/3}}\frac{j\mbox{Re}_{D_{h}}}{D_{h}} \tag{1}\]

\[\label{eq2} \frac{P}{A}=\frac{\eta^{3}}{2\rho^{2}}\frac{f\,\mbox{Re}^{3}_{D_{h}}}{D^{3}_{h}} \tag{2}\]

The thermal performance of two surfaces may be compared by plotting jReDhDh versus f (ReDh /Dh)3, which compares the heat transfer coefficients for equal friction power per unit surface area. For equal P /A, or f (ReDh /Dh)3, the surface having the largest value of j ReDh /Dh will require the least heat transfer surface area for equal thermal effectiveness. Alternatively, one may modify Equation 1 and Equation 2 to allow comparison on a volume basis. Multiplying each equation by (β = A /V = 4σ /Dh) allows comparison of αA /V versus P /V. Thus, for equal friction power per unit volume (P /V), one compares the heat exchanger volumes for equal thermal effectiveness.

The application of Equation 1 and Equation 2 are illustrated in Figure 1. This figure shows the performance of the surfaces of Figure 299.1 and Figure 299.2 on a surface area goodness factor basis. The graph is prepared for the case of equal hydraulic diameter. Figure 1 shows that the offset-strip fin yields significantly higher heat transfer coefficients for equal P /A. As the Reynolds number is reduced to small values, associated with laminar flow, the offset fin loses some of its advantage.

... You need a subscriptionOpen in a new tab. to view the full text of the article. If you already have the subscription, please login here