doi:10.1515/auoc-2016-0011
Ovidius University Annals of Chemistry
Volume 27, Number 1, pp. 62-72, 2016
Estimation of pressure drop in gasket plate heat exchangers
Anisoara Arleziana NEAGU1, Claudia Irina KONCSAG1,*, Alina BARBULESCU2 and Elisabeta BOTEZ3
Department of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, “Ovidius” University of Constanta, 124 Mamaia Street,
900521 Constanta, Romania
2
Higher Colleges of Technology, Sharjah, UAE
3
Department of Food Science, Food Engineering and Applied Biotechnology, ”Dunarea de Jos” University,
111 Domneasca Street, 800201 Galati, Romania
1
Abstract. In this paper, we present comparatively different methods of pressure drop calculation in the gasket plate
heat exchangers (PHEs), using correlations recommended in literature on industrial data collected from a vegetable
oil refinery. The goal of this study was to compare the results obtained with these correlations, in order to choose
one or two for practical purpose of pumping power calculations. We concluded that pressure drop values calculated
with Mulley relationship and Buonopane & Troupe correlation were close and also Bond’s equation gave results
pretty close to these but the pressure drop is slightly underestimated. Kumar correlation gave results far from all
the others and its application will lead to oversize. In conclusion, for further calculations we will chose either the
Mulley relationship or the Buonopane & Troupe correlation.
Keywords: pressure drop, edible oils, gasket plate heat exchangers.
1. Introduction
In order to be placed on the market, vegetable oils
are subject to a refining process, when the product is
improving both in terms of sensorial quality and
stability during shelf storage. Gasket plate heat
exchangers (PHE) are customary in all modern
vegetable oil refineries. The Chevron type gasket
plate heat exchangers were introduced in 1930 with
dedication to the food industry because they have
very good transfer coefficients and can be easily
cleaned [1-4].
The calculation of pressure drop is an important
part of the technological dimensioning of gasket plate
heat exchangers since the power consumption for
pumping is determined by the pressure loss in the
equipment.
The estimation of pressure drop in exchangers is
made with different correlations recommended in
literature. All these correlations take into account the
geometry of the equipment, the hydrodynamic regime
and the physical properties of fluids.
Due to the regular shape of cross-corrugated
passages in the PHEs, numerical models can
reproduce with fidelity the geometry when
investigating the buoyancy effects on pressure losses
[5].
In recent years, the authors use finite element
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for the analysis
of tortuosity, shape factor and friction factor
determination [6].
*
Also, the Re-Normalization Group (RNG)
method is used for the re-normalization of NavierStokes equations in prediction of vortex evolution and
the calculation of friction factors and pressure losses
[7].
However, different simple correlations developed
empirically in laboratory by Kumar, Mulley, Bond,
Buonopane, Gulenoglu and other scientists [8-13] can
be applied in industrial conditions. The aim of this
work was to select a reliable mathematical model
from these simple correlations, for the estimation of
pressure drop in gasket plate heat exchangers used in
the vegetable oil refining industry.
2. Theoretical approach
The chevron-type plate is the most used element
for PHEs. The plate corrugations are in form of
chevron because this pattern is easy to manufacture.
Longitudinal and transversal corrugations are plotted
in two separated plans [7] and the corrugation angle
can be 30o, 45o or 60o, but most frequently 60o.
In Fig. 1, the chevron- type plate is presented
with the principal dimensions, some of them being
used in hydrodynamic calculations: Lp- vertical portto-port channel length, m; Leff- effective length, m;
Lh- horizontal port-to-port channel length, m; Lwwidth of flow channel, m; Dp- port diameter, m; βchevron angle, deg.
Corresponding author: ckoncsag@univ-ovidius.ro
© 2016 Ovidius University Press
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/30/16 9:28 AM
A. A. Neagu et al. / Ovidius University Annals of Chemistry 27 (2016) 62-72
The mass velocity for the cold and hot fluids in
the port is calculated by Eq. (4):
�̇
�� =
(4)
�
where ̇ represents the total flow rate in the port
opening (kg/s), Dp – the port diameter, m [6, 8, 9].
As one can see in Eq.1-4, the pressure drop in heat
exchangers depends on equipment geometry,
physical properties of fluids and flow conditions. The
friction factor, f, is of great importance and there are
dedicated correlations for its estimation.
For example, Kumar correlations (5) and (6)
correlate f with the flow regime expressed as
Reynolds numbers [13, 14]:
=
Fig.1.Chevron-type plate
=
+∆ �
∆�� =
∙
(1)
where ∆ � represents the total pressure drop (Pa),
∆ – channel pressure drop (Pa), ∆ � – port pressure
drop (Pa).
The channel pressure drop is defined by the Eq.
(2):
∙
� ∙�
ℎ
∙(
��ℎ
∙ �,ℎ
)∙
�
�
− .
(2)
where f represents the friction factor, nondimensional; Lp –vertical port-to-port channel length,
m; Np – number of passes; dh –hydraulic diameter, m;
Gch – the fluid mass velocity in the channel, kg∙m-2∙s;
ρc,h – density for the cold respectively for the hot
fluid, kg/m3; μ – dynamic viscosity of fluid at the
mean temperature in the apparatus, Pa∙s; μw –
dynamic viscosity of fluids at the wall temperature,
Pa∙s.
The friction factor f is calculated with different
equations from literature as function of Reynolds
number and chevron angle.
The pressure drop in the port ducts can be
estimated with Eq. (3) [13]:
∆ � = . ∙ �� ∙ (
�
∙ �,ℎ
)
, for � =
,
�
−
, for � >
, 8
(5)
(6)
It is important to know that, according to Kumar’s
observations, the critical Reynolds value for the
transition from the laminar to the turbulent flow in
PHEs, is approximately 100 [6,14] since for other
authors [15,16] , the turbulent regime starts at Re≅
400.
The early buoyancy apparition is linked to the
shape of cross-corrugated passages and the abrupt
change in density and viscosity of fluids due to strong
variation of its temperature in a short distance.
Other researchers developed correlations of f
with Re, in their own way, following experimental
studies. All these equations (Eq. 5-10) are empirical:
- Bond correlation I [13]:
The total pressure drop is the sum of pressure drop
in channels and in the ports. It can be estimated with
the Eq. (1):
∆ �=∆
ͷͿ,ͺͶͶ
� Ͷ,ͻ;Ϳ
=
∙ � − ,
,
(7)
- Buonopane & Troupe correlation [11]:
=
,
�
(8)
,
- Bond correlation II [9]:
∙� − ,
= ,
(9)
- Gulenoglu correlation [12]:
=
, ∙� − ,
+ ,
(10)
Mulley [12] developed a more complex
correlation (Eq. 11) taking into account the most
important geometrical dimension, from the viewpoint
of friction, the corrugation inclination angle relative
to vertical direction, β, so called chevron angle:
(3)
where Np represents the number of passes, Gp –mass
velocity of fluid in the port, kg∙m-2 ∙s; ρc,h – density for
cold / hot fluids, kg/m3.
=
�
,
63
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/30/16 9:28 AM
∙[
�
,
+
�
,
,
]
,
(11)
A. A. Neagu et al. / Ovidius University Annals of Chemistry 27 (2016) 62-72
of ±0,005 oC for temperature, ±0,0002 g/cm3 for
density and ±0,1% for the viscosity. The variation
curves of density and viscosity with temperature were
draw and discussed in previous works [17, 18].
Properties for cooling water and steam were found in
[19].
With the geometrical characteristics of each heat
exchanger and the physical properties of fluid
calculated in the working conditions, the pressure
drop was calculated for each circuit with the
following correlations: Kumar (Eq. 5 or 6 depending
on flow regime), Bond I (Eq. 7), Buonopane &
Troupe (Eq. 8), Bond II (Eq. 9), Gulenoglu (Eq. 10)
and Mulley (Eq. 11).
Results are presented in Tables 1-6, each table
corresponding to one of the six PHEs in the industrial
plant.
3. Experimental
There were six gasket plate heat exchangers in the
industrial plant of different size and with different
working fluids (oils with changing properties, cooling
water and condensing steam).
In the degumming and neutralization stage, the
working fluids are crude oil - bleached oil in PHE #1,
crude oil – steam in PHE #2, crude oil – water in PHE
#3 and crude oil – steam in PHE #4. In the winterizing
stage, the working fluids are bleached oil – water in
PHE #5 and in the deodorization stage the working
fluids are deodorization oil – water in PHE #6.
The experiment was performed in three
campaigns, as follows:
- Campaign 1: processing sunflower oil
- Campaign 2: processing rapeseed oil
- Campaign 3: processing sunflower oil
Every campaign was a few days long, the stock of
raw had constant quality during one campaign and the
flow rates and temperatures in the process were
constant for days. However, inside of each campaign,
there were found little changes in flow rates and
temperatures, allowing us to have in the end 9
different sets of data for the purposes of this study.
The physical properties of oils (density, viscosity),
in all stages of the process, were measured at
atmospheric pressure with Anton Parr SVM 3000
apparatus, following the ASTM D445/ISO 121852
method, in the range of 20 oC-110 oC, with a precision
4. Results and Discussions
For gasket plate heat exchanger PHE #1, the
working fluids are crude oil - bleached oil. Both fluids
are liquid and work in the laminar flow (Re<100).
The pressure drop values calculated for this
equipment with Eq. 5-11 are presented in Table 1. It
can be observed that the highest values of pressure
drop are obtained using Kumar relationship Eq. 5, 23 times higher than using other methods. Mulley and
Buonopane & Troupe correlations give closer results,
as also seen in Table 7.
Table 1. Pressure drop in PHE #1 calculated with different correlations
Working
fluids
Density,
[kg/m3]
Dinamic
viscosity,
[Pa·s]
Flow
rate,
[kg/s]
Reynolds
number
Crude oil
890.0
0.0132
1.736
27
Bleached
oil
877.6
0.0131
2.138
58
Crude oil
890.0
0.0132
2.049
32
Bleached
oil
877.6
0.0131
2.524
68
Crude oil
890.0
0.0132
2.457
39
Bleached
oil
877.6
0.0131
3.026
81
Crude oil
890.0
0.0132
2.713
43
Bleached
oil
877.6
0.0131
3.342
90
Pressure
drop,
[Pa]
Kumar
correlation
Mulley
correlation
Bond I
correlation
Buonopane
& Troupe
correlation
17765
4
17769
19046
6
19052
15884
5
15,889
24255
8
24263
14173
8
14181
31655
12
31667
13358
9
13367
36763
14
36778
8876
4
8880
1096
6
10702
8227
5
8,232
13698
8
13706
7571
8
7579
19660
12
19672
7236
9
7245
21252
14
21266
12396
4
12400
16734
6
16740
16440
5
16,445
22149
8
22157
22376
8
22384
30122
12
30134
26485
9
26494
35770
14
35784
First campaing, sunflower oil
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
36957
4
36961
40217
6
40223
46732
5
46,737
50819
8
50827
60339
8
60347
65548
12
65560
69399
9
69409
75508
14
75522
64
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/30/16 9:28 AM
A. A. Neagu et al. / Ovidius University Annals of Chemistry 27 (2016) 62-72
Second campaign, rapeseed oil
Crude oil
876.0
0.0162
2.72
45
Bleached
oil
888.80
0.0126
3.35
72
Crude oil
889.9
0.0142
1.736
33
Bleached
oil
877.1
0.011
2.138
53
Crude oil
889.9
0.0142
2.049
39
Bleached
oil
877.1
0.011
2.524
62
Crude oil
889.9
0.0142
2.457
47
Bleached
oil
877.1
0.011
3.026
75
Crude oil
889.9
0.0142
2.713
52
Bleached
oil
877.1
0.011
3.342
82
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
68356
9
68365
83279
14
83293
32150
9
32159
39870
14
39884
17558
9
17567
22691
14
22705
26562
9
26571
36823
14
36837
15837
4
15841
19587
6
19593
19893
5
19898
24921
8
24929
25706
8
25713
32537
12
32549
29633
9
29642
37668
14
37682
8243
4
8247
10870
6
10876
10646
5
10651
14038
8
14046
14088
8
14096
18578
12
18590
16416
9
16426
21648
14
21662
11864
4
11868
16827
6
16833
15726
5
15731
22304
8
22312
21414
8
21422
30371
12
30383
25344
9
25353
35945
14
35959
Third campaign, sunflower oil
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
The working fluids for gasket plate heat
exchanger PHE #2 are crude oil and steam. The
results of pressure drop for crude oil – steam are
presented in Table 2. Reynolds numbers indicate a
turbulent flow either we accept the critical Re>100 [6,
14], or Re>400 [15, 16] for the transition to the
turbulent flow. As a consequences, pressure drop on
the oil circuit are higher than those in the PDE #1.
It can be observed from Table 2 that the Kumar
relationship give the highest values of pressure drops
33464
4
33468
41509
6
41515
42283
5
42288
5244
8
52455
54631
8
54639
67764
12
67776
62832
9
62841
77935
14
77494
for both oil and steam circuits. The pressure drop on
the condensing steam circuit is higher than on oil
because the turbulent flow is well developed. By
comparing the values of pressure drop in the steam
circuit, there are observed high differences, the
Kumar correlation giving results tenfold higher than
Bond correlation and even differences between the
other correlations’ results are important. This is due
to the fact that all these correlations were produced
for liquids working in PHEs.
Table 2. Pressure drop values in PHE #2 calculated with different correlations
Working
fluids
Density,
[kg/m3]
Dinamic
viscosity,
[Pa·s]
Flow
rate,
[kg/s]
Crude oil
874.3
0.0087
1.736
Steam
1.923
0.000015
0.023
Crude oil
874.3
0.0087
2.049
Steam
1.923
0.000015
0.028
Pressure
drop,
[Pa]
Reynolds
number
Kumar
correlation
Mulley
correlation
Buonopane
& Troupe
correlation
Bond I
correlation
39621
3
39624
14136
6
14142
46261
5
46266
18135
8
24339
3
24342
35002
6
35008
31488
5
31493
46396
8
11830
3
11833
10037
6
10042
15999
5
16004
12962
8
First campaign, sunflower oil
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
328
9309
387
10987
50223
3
50227
121950
6
121956
66606
5
666611
164814
8
65
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/30/16 9:28 AM
A. A. Neagu et al. / Ovidius University Annals of Chemistry 27 (2016) 62-72
Crude oil
874.3
0.0087
2.475
Steam
1.923
0.000015
0.033
Crude oil
874.3
0.0087
2.713
Steam
1.923
0.000015
0.037
Crude oil
873.0
0.011
2.72
Steam
1.923
0.000015
0.037
Crude oil
873.2
0.0091
1.736
Steam
1.923
0.000015
0.028
Crude oil
873.2
0.0091
2.049
Steam
1.923
0.000015
0.033
Crude oil
873.2
0.0091
2.475
Steam
1.923
0.000015
0.033
Crude oil
873.2
0.0091
2.713
Steam
1.923
0.000015
0.037
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
467
13175
513
14548
164822
91885
7
91892
229239
11
229250
107664
8
107671
274474
14
274488
18143
50814
7
50821
23802
11
23813
77655
8
77663
27618
14
27632
46396
42167
7
42174
63175
11
63186
48709
8
48717
74769
14
74783
12970
22536
7
22542
17155
11
17156
26734
8
26743
19989
14
20003
93262
36
93270
27819
15
27834
57976
36
57985
74992
15
75007
18531
36
18567
20105
15
20120
43562
4
43562
14136
6
14142
56631
5
56636
18135
8
18143
74357
7
74363
23802
11
23813
86273
8
86281
27618
14
27632
26925
4
26929
35002
6
35008
34991
5
34996
46396
8
46396
46307
7
46314
63175
11
63186
53959
8
53968
74769
14
74783
22612
4
22616
10037
6
10042
28251
5
28256
12962
8
12970
39294
7
39301
17155
11
17156
47047
8
47052
19989
14
20003
Second campaign, rapeseed oil
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
425
14585
18583
36
18619
274625
15
274640
Third campaign, sunflower oil
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
313
9309
369
10987
443
13175
489
14548
Working fluids for gasket plate heat exchanger
PHE#3 are crude oil and water. Table 3 presents the
values of pressure drops.
From Table 3, also it can be observed that highest
values of pressure drop are obtained with Kumar
correlation. Also, there are higher values of pressure
drop on water circuit because the mass velocity of
water is three times higher than that of oil in similar
flow sections; it is to be considered that pressure drop
58810
4
58814
121950
6
121956
73513
5
73518
164814
8
164822
100100
7
100107
229239
11
229250
118470
8
118478
274474
14
274488
is also dependent on friction factor, f, decreasing with
Re, and f is four times higher in the oil circuit. The
combined effect of this two antagonist factors led to
pressure drop double in the water circuit.
For gasket plate heat exchanger PHE #4, the
working fluids are crude oil and steam. The pressure
drop values for this equipment are presented in Table
4.
66
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/30/16 9:28 AM
A. A. Neagu et al. / Ovidius University Annals of Chemistry 27 (2016) 62-72
Table 3. Pressure drop values in PHE #3 calculated with different correlations
Working
fluids
Density,
[kg/m3]
Dinamic
viscosity,
[Pa·s]
Flow
rate,
[kg/s]
Crude oil
888.0
0.0157
1.736
Water
987.9
0.00077
5.251
Crude oil
888.0
0.0157
2.049
Water
987.9
0.00077
6.198
Crude oil
888.0
0.0157
2.475
Water
987.9
0.00077
7.432
Crude oil
888.0
0.0157
2.713
Water
987.9
0.00077
8.206
Crude oil
886.7
0.0152
2.720
Water
987.9
0.00077
8.227
Crude oil
886.9
0.0132
1.736
Water
987.9
0.00077
5.251
Crude oil
886.9
0.0132
2.049
Water
987.9
0.00077
6.198
Crude oil
886.9
0.0132
2.475
Water
987.9
0.00077
7.432
Crude oil
886.9
0.0132
2.713
Water
987.9
0.00077
8.206
Pressure
drop,
[Pa]
Reynolds
number
Kumar
correlation
Mulley
correlation
Bond I
correlation
Buonopane
& Troupe
correlation
11185
2
11187
6978
15
6993
14570
3
14572
8134
21
8156
19634
4
19638
11397
31
11428
23182
5
23186
13701
38
13740
3212
2
3214
5135
15
5150
4149
3
4152
6616
21
6637
5491
4
5495
9272
31
9303
6402
5
6407
15126
38
15164
4415
2
4417
9203
15
9218
5852
3
5855
11766
21
11788
7969
4
7973
16211
31
16242
9437
5
9441
19266
38
19304
22824
5
22829
13769
38
13807
6211
5
6215
11194
38
11232
9201
5
9205
19352
38
19390
11439
2
11441
6942
16
6958
15586
3
15589
7230
22
7252
17751
4
17755
11285
31
11316
20794
5
20799
13584
38
13622
2915
2
2917
5017
16
5033
3765
3
3788
6747
22
6769
4984
4
4988
9334
31
9365
5842
5
5847
1143
38
11181
4116
2
4118
9018
16
9034
5457
3
5460
11955
22
11977
7430
4
7434
16279
31
16310
8794
5
8799
19267
38
19305
First campaign, sunflower oil
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
25
154
29
1782
35
2155
39
2386
13563
2
13565
26009
15
26024
17136
3
17139
33701
21
33723
22142
4
22146
47596
31
47627
25476
5
25480
57321
38
57359
Second campaign, rapeseed oil
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
40
2391
24608
5
24612
57511
38
57549
Third campaign, sunflower oil
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
29
1526
35
1801
42
2160
46
2385
12034
2
12036
25433
16
25449
15207
3
15210
34372
22
34394
19648
4
19651
47808
31
47839
22597
5
22602
5724
38
57280
67
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/30/16 9:28 AM
A. A. Neagu et al. / Ovidius University Annals of Chemistry 27 (2016) 62-72
Table 4. Pressure drop values in PHE #4 calculated with different correlations
Working
fluids
Density,
[kg/m3]
Dinamic
viscosity,
[Pa·s]
Flow
rate,
[kg/s]
Crude oil
883.4
0.0128
1.736
Steam
1.923
0.000015
0.050
Crude oil
883.4
0.0128
2.049
Steam
1.923
0.000015
0.059
Crude oil
883.4
0.0128
2.475
Steam
1.923
0.000015
0.071
Crude oil
883.4
0.0128
2.713
Steam
1.923
0.000015
0.078
Crude oil
882.1
0.0133
2.72
Steam
1.923
0.000015
0.078
Crude oil
882.3
0.0115
1.736
Steam
1.923
0.000015
0.050
Crude oil
882.3
0.0115
2.049
Steam
1.923
0.000015
0.059
Crude oil
882.3
0.0115
2.457
Steam
1.923
0.000015
0.071
Crude oil
882.3
0.0115
2.713
Steam
1.923
0.000015
0.078
Pressure
drop, [Pa]
Reynolds
number
Kumar
correlation
First campaign, sunflower oil
102
33443
∆
14
∆ �
33457
∆ �
9104
89006
∆
73
∆ �
89079
∆ �
120
45131
∆
19
∆ �
45150
∆ �
10745
120291
∆
101
∆ �
120392
∆ �
144
63085
∆
28
∆ �
63113
∆ �
12885
167311
∆
145
∆ �
167456
∆ �
159
75320
∆
35
∆ �
75355
∆ �
14228
200326
∆
177
∆ �
200503
∆ �
Second campaign, rapeseed oil
154
83473
∆
35
∆ �
83508
∆ �
14265
209422
∆
1851
∆ �
209607
∆ �
Third campaign, sunflower oil
113.4
35936
∆
14
∆ �
35950
∆ �
9104
89006
∆
73
∆ �
89079
∆ �
134
48566
∆
20
∆ �
48586
∆ �
10745
120291
∆
101
∆ �
120392
∆ �
161
67551
∆
28
∆ �
67579
∆ �
12885
167311
∆
145
∆ �
167456
∆ �
177
80881
∆
35
∆ �
80816
∆ �
14228
200326
∆
177
∆ �
200503
∆ �
The pressure drop in the crude oil circuit in PHE
#4 is smaller than in similar PHE #2 because the route
length is smaller and the section area is double in PHE
#4 comparing with PHE#2. The same can be said
about pressure drop on steam circuit. Also, the same
Mulley
correlation
Bond I
correlation
Buonopane
& Troupe
correlation
16312
14
16326
10390
73
10443
20840
19
20859
13323
101
13424
27440
28
27468
17495
145
17640
31778
35
31813
20299
177
20476
9495
14
9519
7370
73
7443
12230
19
12249
9519
101
9620
16242
28
16270
12597
145
12742
18912
35
18947
14678
177
14855
16278
14
16292
25613
73
25686
21532
19
21551
33950
101
34051
29499
28
29527
46230
145
46375
34792
35
34827
54714
177
54891
35650
35
35685
20450
185
20635
21180
35
21215
14820
185
15005
38780
35
38816
55012
185
55197
16906
14
16910
10390
73
10443
21652
20
21672
13323
101
13424
28406
28
28434
17495
145
17640
32948
35
32983
20299
177
20476
9894
14
9908
7370
73
7443
12778
20
12798
9519
101
9620
16911
28
16939
12597
145
12742
19705
35
19740
14678
177
14855
17273
14
17287
25613
73
25686
22896
20
22916
33950
101
34051
31177
28
31205
46230
145
46375
36899
35
36934
54714
177
54891
considerations made at PHE #2 about the differences
between the results calculated with different
correlations for the steam circuit are valid for the
PHE#4.
68
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/30/16 9:28 AM
A. A. Neagu et al. / Ovidius University Annals of Chemistry 27 (2016) 62-72
Table 5. Pressure drop values in PHE #5 calculated with different correlations
Working
fluids
Density,
[kg/m3]
Dinamic
viscosity,
[Pa·s]
Flow
rate,
[kg/s]
Bleached
oil
895.2
0.022
1.940
Water
988.4
0.00078
2.546
Bleached
oil
895.2
0.022
2.193
Water
988.4
0.00078
2.878
Bleached
oil
895.2
0.022
2.490
Water
988.4
0.00078
3.268
Bleached
oil
895.2
0.022
2.755
Water
988.4
0.00078
3.616
Bleached
oil
893.6
0.018
2.76
Water
988.4
0.00078
3.622
Bleached
oil
894.65
0.0206
1.940
Water
988.4
0.00078
2.546
Bleached
oil
894.65
0.0206
2.193
Water
988.4
0.00078
2.878
Bleached
oil
894.65
0.0206
2.490
Water
988.4
0.00078
3.268
Bleached
oil
894.65
0.0206
2.755
Water
988.4
0.00078
3.616
Pressure
drop, [Pa]
Reynolds
number
Kumar
correlation
Bond I
correlation
Buonopane
& Troupe
correlation
Muley
correlation
6321
2
6323
2240
4
2244
7653
3
7656
2778
5
2783
9314
4
9318
3480
6
3486
10838
5
10843
4163
7
4170
8713
2
8715
4207
4
4211
10718
3
10721
5144
5
5149
13315
4
13319
6384
6
6390
15808
5
15813
7594
7
7601
13034
2
13036
2556
4
2560
15268
3
15330
3287
5
3292
18071
4
18075
4065
6
4158
20734
5
20737
4905
7
4912
10525
5
10530
4173
7
4180
15455
5
15460
7603
7
7610
19781
5
19786
4930
7
4937
5739
2
5741
2223
4
2227
6935
3
6937
2768
5
2773
8432
4
8436
3474
6
3480
9854
5
9859
4162
7
4169
8141
2
8143
4178
4
4182
10027
3
10030
5146
5
5151
12442
4
12446
6386
6
6392
14776
5
14781
7584
7
7591
11227
2
11229
2556
4
2560
13243
3
13246
3210
5
3215
15776
4
15780
4065
6
4071
18181
5
18186
4905
7
4912
First campaign, sunflower oil
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
25
921
28
1038
32
1179
35
1305
26727
2
26729
11165
4
11169
31757
3
31760
13977
5
13982
37996
4
38000
17487
6
17493
41614
5
41619
21054
7
21061
Second campaign, rapeseed oil
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
38
1306
42012
5
42017
21069
7
21076
Third campaign, sunflower oil
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
30
919
34
1038
39
1179
43
1304
The working fluids for gasket plate heat
exchanger #5 are bleached oil and water. The
23577
2
23579
11102
4
11106
28029
3
28032
13872
5
13877
33529
4
33533
17473
6
17479
38672
5
38677
21003
7
21010
calculated pressure drop values for bleached oil and
water are presented in Table 5.
69
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/30/16 9:28 AM
A. A. Neagu et al. / Ovidius University Annals of Chemistry 27 (2016) 62-72
In this case too, the pressure drops calculated by
Kumar relationship are higher than with other
methods. The methods of Bond, Mulley and
Buonopane give closer values.
In the heat exchanger #6 the working fluids are
deodorized oil – water. The pressure drop values for
this equipment are presented in Table 6.
Table 6. Pressure drop values in PHE #6 calculated with different correlations
Working
fluids
Density,
[kg/m3]
Dinamic
viscosity,
[Pa·s]
Flow
rate,
[kg/s]
Pressure
drop,
[Pa]
Reynolds
number
Kumar
correlation
Bond I
correlation
Buonopane
& Troupe
correlation
Mulley
correlation
1123
2
1125
2099
24
2124
1449
3
1451
2827
28
2855
1920
4
1924
3706
41
3747
2234
5
2239
4656
50
4706
1484
2
1486
3937
24
3962
1963
3
1966
5205
28
5234
2678
4
2682
7046
41
7087
3171
5
3176
8375
50
8425
2500
2
2502
2437
24
2457
3059
3
3062
3316
28
3345
3854
4
3858
4646
41
4688
4389
5
4394
5584
50
5634
2268
5
2273
4708
50
4758
3167
5
3172
8458
50
8509
4543
5
4547
5612
50
5663
1117
2
1119
2113
20
2133
1442
3
1445
2841
29
2870
1909
4
1913
3930
41
3972
2224
5
2229
4691
50
4741
1461
2
1463
3947
20
3968
1936
3
1939
5233
29
5261
2637
4
2641
7125
41
7166
3120
5
3125
8430
50
8481
2540
2
2542
2440
20
2460
3098·
3
3101
3320
29
3349
3890
4
3894
4652
41
4693
4422
5
4426
5590
50
5641
First campaign, sunflower oil
Deodorized
oil
879.2
0.0109
1.736
Water
986.75
0.00074
6.02
Deodorized
oil
879.2
0.0109
2.049
Water
986.75
0.00074
7.100
Deodorized
oil
879.2
0.0109
2.475
Water
986.75
0.00074
8.500
Deodorized
oil
879.2
0.0109
2.713
Water
986.75
0.00074
9.400
Deodorized
oil
878.7
0.012
2.720
Water
986.75
0.00074
9.436
Deodorized
oil
879.2
0.0116
1.736
Water
986.75
0.00074
6.022
Deodorized
oil
879.2
0.0116
2.049
Water
986.75
0.00074
7.108
Deodorized
oil
879.2
0.0116
2.457
Water
986.75
0.00074
8.523
Deodorized
oil
879.2
0.0116
2.713
Water
986.75
0.00074
9.410
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
19
979
23
1154
27
1379
30
1528
4904
2
4906
10533
24
10558
6137
3
6140
14186
28
14215
8003
4
8007
19611
41
19652
9205
5
9210
23614
50
23664
Second campaign, rapeseed oil
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
27
1533
9449
5
9454
23868
50
23919
Third campaign, sunflower oil
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
∆
∆ �
∆ �
18
979
21
1156
26
1386
28
1530
4915
2
4917
10568
20
10589
6210
3
6213
14283
29
14312
8024
4
8028
19867
41
19908
9226
5
9231
23635
50
23685
70
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/30/16 9:28 AM
A. A. Neagu et al. / Ovidius University Annals of Chemistry 27 (2016) 62-72
Following this comparative study we recommend
the relationships of Mulley and Buonopane & Troupe
for the estimation of pressure drop in gasket plate heat
exchangers. The Kumar correlation should be applied
with caution since it results in oversizing.
These correlations wouldn’t be considered for the
calculation of pressure drop on condensing steam
circuits since they weren’t worked out for this type of
fluid.
In the PHE #6, the pressure drop calculated with
Kumar correlation is higher than after the use of other
methods, and all the other considerations for PHE# 3
and #5 (oil-water) are valid for PHE#6.
To compare all the pressure drop values obtained
by applying different methods, the results of
calculations with Buonopane & Troupe correlation
were taken as a reference and relative errors to this
were calculated.
The relative error is calculated with Eq. 12:
� ����
�� � =
∆� − ∆���
∆���
� �
� �
×
References
[%] (12)
[1] C.S. Fernandes, R.P. Dias, J.M. Maia, Recent
Patents on Mechanical Engineering 1 (3), 198205 (2008)
[2] A.H.K. Al-Tae, Comparative study of
temperature control in a heat exchanger process.
M. Sc. Thesis, Chemical Engineering/Unit
Operation, University of Technology (2011)
[3] D.H. Han, K.J. Lee and Y.H. Kim, Journal of the
Korean Physical Society 43 (1), 66-73, (2003)
[4] G.N. Jogi and M.S. Lawankar, International
Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced
Engineering 2 (10), 110-115 (2012)
[5] I. Gherasim, M. Taws, N. Galanis and C.T.
Nguyen, Applied Thermal Engineering 51, 346363 (2013)
[6] C.S. Fernandes, R.P. Dias, J.M. Noberga and
J.M. Maia, Chemical Engineering and
Processing 46, 825-833 (2007)
[7] Z.Luan, G. Zhang, M. Tian and M. Fan, Journal
of Hydrodynamics 20(4), 524-529 (2008)
[8] G. Gulenoglu, F. Akturk, S. Aradag, N.S. Uzol,
S. Kakac, International Journal of Thermal
Sciences 75, 249-256, (2014)
[9] V.R. Naik, V.K. Matawala, International Journal
of Engineering and Advanced Technology
(IJEAT), 2 (4), 362-369 (2013)
[10] T. Kuppan, Heat Exchanger Design Handbook,
Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New York,
(2000)
[11] S. Kakac, H. Liu, Heat Exchangers. Selection,
Rating and Thermal Design, Second Edition,
CRC Press (2002)
[12] F. Akturk, G. Gulben, S. Aradag, , N.S. Uzol, S.
Kakac, 6th International Advanced Technologies
Symposion, 16-18 May,172-178 ( 2011)
[13] S. Kakac, H. Liu, Heat Exchangers Selection,
Rating, and Thermal and Design, second ed.,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, 373–412 (2002)
[14] H. Kumar, The plate heat exchanger:
construction and design, in: Proceedings First,
UK National Conference on Heat Transfer,
University of Leeds, Inst. Chem. Symp. Series
No. 86, 1275–1288, (1984), cited in [6]
The comparison was made only for liquid as a
working fluid, because the original correlations were
worked out on experimental data on liquids. Results
are presented in Table 7:
Table 7. Average relative errors of pressure drop
values calculated with different methods compared
with those obtained with Buonopane & Troupe
method, %.
PHE #
1
2
3
4
5
6
Kumar
method
+136.5
+114.0
+183.8
+171.63
+176.32
+191.01
Mulley
method
- 2.0
-36.4
-29.4
-9.0
+16.3
+11.7
Bond I
method
-41.7
-37.7
-35.9
-35.7
-38.2
-36.1
The pressure drop values calculated with Mulley
relationship and Buonopane & Troupe correlation
were close and also Bond’s equation gave results
close to the previous but systematically
underestimated. Kumar correlation gave results far
from all the others and its application will lead to
oversize.
Following this comparative study we recommend
the relationships of Mulley and that of Buonopane to
be used for the estimation of pressure drop in gasket
plate heat exchangers. The Kumar correlation should
be applied with caution since it results in oversizing.
5. Conclusions
Different models developed by Kumar, Mulley,
Bond and Buonopane & Troupe were applied in
industrial conditions on six PHEs in an industrial
plant, in different size and working with different
fluids (oils with changing properties, cooling water
and condensing steam).
The pressure drop values calculated with Mulley
relationship and Buonopane correlation were very
close and also Bond’s equation gave results close to
the previous but slightly underestimated. Kumar
correlation gave results far from all the others and its
application will lead to oversize.
71
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/30/16 9:28 AM
A. A. Neagu et al. / Ovidius University Annals of Chemistry 27 (2016) 62-72
[18] A.A Neagu, I. Niţă, E. Botez, S. Geacai, Ovidius
University Annals of Chemistry 24 (2), 121-126
(2013)
[19] K. Raznjevic, Thermodynamic Tables and
Diagrams (Tabele si diagrame termodinamice, in
Romanian), Ed. Tehnica, Bucharest (1978)
[15] W.W. Focke, J. Zachariades, I. Olivier, The
effect of the corrugation inclination angle on the
thermo-hydraulic performance of plate heat
exchangers, International Journal of Heat and
Mass Transfer 28 (8), 1469-1479 (1985)
[16] A. Cooper, J.D. Usher, Heat Exchanger Design
Handbook, Vol. 3, Section 3.7. Plate heat
exchangers, Hemisphere, Washington, USA
(1983)
[17] A.A. Neagu, I. Niţă, E. Botez, Ovidius
University Annals of Chemistry 25 (2), 71–74
(2014)
Received: 10.04.2016
Received in revised form: 08.06.2016
Accepted: 09.06.2016
72
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/30/16 9:28 AM