Science and Technology for the Built Environment

ISSN: 2374-4731 (Print) 2374-474X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhvc21

A heat transfer and friction factor correlation

for low air-side Reynolds number applications of
compact heat exchangers (1535-RP)

Pradeep Shinde & Cheng-Xian Lin

To cite this article: Pradeep Shinde & Cheng-Xian Lin (2017) A heat transfer and friction
factor correlation for low air-side Reynolds number applications of compact heat exchangers
(1535-RP), Science and Technology for the Built Environment, 23:1, 192-210, DOI:
10.1080/23744731.2016.1203240

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2016.1203240

© 2017 The Author(s). Published with Accepted author version posted online: 02
license by Taylor & Francis© Pradeep Shinde Aug 2016.
and Cheng-Xian Lin. Published online: 17 Aug 2016.

Submit your article to this journal Article views: 311

View related articles View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uhvc21
Science and Technology for the Built Environment (2017) 23, 192–210
Published with license by Taylor & Francis
ISSN: 2374-4731 print / 2374-474X online
DOI: 10.1080/23744731.2016.1203240

A heat transfer and friction factor correlation for low air-side

Reynolds number applications of compact heat exchangers
(1535-RP)
PRADEEP SHINDE and CHENG-XIAN LIN∗
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Florida International University, 10555 W. Flagler St., Miami, FL 33174,
USA

In this article, an experimental investigation of the heat transfer and pressure drop of compact heat exchangers with louvered fins
and flat tubes was conducted within a low air-side Reynolds number range of 20< ReLp < 200. Using an existing low-speed wind
tunnel, 26 sample heat exchangers of corrugated louver fin type, were tested. New correlations for Colburn factor j and Fanning
friction factor f have been developed using eight nondimensional parameters based on the experimental data. Within the investigated
parameter ranges, it seems that both the j and f factors are better represented by two correlations in two flow regimes (one for ReLp
= 20 – 80 and one for ReLp = 80 – 200) than single regime correlation in the format of power-law. The results support the conclusion
that airflow and heat transfer at very low Reynolds numbers behaves differently from that at higher Reynolds numbers.

Introduction Reynolds number based on louver pitch Lp , ReLp > 100. At

Compact heat exchangers are widely used in commercial and
residential air-conditioning (AC) systems. These heat exchang-
ers with multi-louver fins and flat tubes typically have oval tube
minor dimensions from 0.8 to 3 mm. This type of design of-
fers several advantages to reducing air-side thermal resistance
(Webb and Jung 1992): (1) smaller wake region behind the
tube thus not reducing heat transfer downstream; (2) lower
profile drag due to smaller projected frontal area of flat tube
versus conventional round tube; (2) overall increased air-side
heat transfer coefficient and conductance value.
Reducing the air-side thermal resistance, by use of multi-
louver fins and flat tubes, for air-cooled heat exchangers can
effectively improve performance. A literature survey shows
that the available heat transfer and friction factor correla-
tions for louvered surfaces in literature are only valid at high
© Pradeep Shinde and Cheng-Xian Lin.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/),
which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and repro-
duction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
Received June 24, 2015; accepted April 23, 2016
Pradeep Shinde, Student Member ASHRAE, is a PhD Student.
Cheng-Xian Lin, PhD, Member ASHRAE, is an Associate Pro-
fessor.
∗
Corresponding author e-mail:lincx@fiu.edu
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be
found online at www.tandfonline.com/uhvc.
low Reynolds number (ReLp < 100), a concise and accurate
correlation is not available. As energy efficiency becomes more
and more important in buildings, this type of data for com-
pact heat exchanger is urgently needed to help facilitate the
design of more effective commercial and residential AC sys-
tems. This need is also driven by the design of low-noise heat
exchanger and microchannel heat exchanger (MCHX) that are
operated at low airflow rates. In addition, the development of
heat transfer and friction factor correlations can provide en-
gineers a better physical understanding of the role of louver
dimensions associated with the flow and thermal transition
phenomena at low Reynolds numbers.
Compact heat changers with louvered fins have been inves-
tigated extensively in the past. Researchers have carried out
both experimental and computational studies to understand
the underlying fluid flow and heat transfer characteristics. For
heat exchanger designs, the performance data, such as Fan-
ning friction factor f and Colburn factor j, for the louvered
surfaces have become widely available over the last 25 years.
Most of the useful correlations were obtained by experimen-
tal methods. Davenport (1983), Achaichia and Cowell (1988),
Sunden and Svantesson (1992), Webb and Jung (1992), and
Chang et al. (1994) have all performed experiments to quan-
tify performance for louvered fin surfaces of compact heat
exchangers. A monumental study was undertaken by Chang
and Wang (1997) to consolidate all of the previous test data
for generating a generalized heat transfer correlation. This
correlation for j- and f -factors is referred to as the Chang and
Wang correlation, and is currently the most widely used corre-
lation for predicting air-side resistance and pressure drop for
heat exchangers with louvered fins. Kim et al. (2003) has since
 Table 1. Existing correlations.

Authors Correlations ReLp Comments

0.33
 Ll 1.1
Davenport (1983) j = 0.249Re−0.42
Lp Lh H
H0.26 300–4000 f developed for Re = 70–4000. Lh is
louver height.
0.37
 Ll 0.89
0.23
f = 5.47Re−0.72
Lp Lh H
L0.2
p H f or 70 < Re < 900

−0.39 0.33 Ll
 1.1 0.26
f = 0.494Re Lp Lh H 
H f or 1000 < Re < 4000
 −0.19 −0.11  −0.15
−0.57 F p T Lh
Achaichia and St = 1.54Re Lp Lp Lp Lp
150–3000 Plate-and-tube louver fin. T is tube
Cowell (1988) transverse pitch. St is Stanton
0.26 0.33 (0.318logReLp −2.25) number. Four data points when Re <
p T
f = 0.895 f A1.07 F p−0.22 L0.25 Lh , f A = 596Re Lp for 50 < ReLp < 3000
−1.17 −0.05 1.24 0.25 0.83
f = 10.4Re Lp F p L p Lh T for ReLp < 150 150.
Chang et al. (1994) j = 0.291Re−0.589
Lp ε 0.438 100–700 Finning factor, ε = Ao /Ato : 7–12
−0.514
f = 0.805Re Lp (F p /L p )−0.72 · (H/L p )−1.22 (Ll /L p )1.97
 θ 0.27  Fp −0.14  Fl −0.29  Td 0.23  Ll 0.68  Tp −0.28  δ −0.05
Chang and Wang j = Re−0.49
Lp 90 Lp Lp Lp Lp Lp Lp
100–3000 91 samples. Tp is tube pitch. f not
(1997) provided.
Chang et al. (2000) f = f 1 ∗ f 2 ∗ f 3 
<5000 j not provided.
0.805F p
− Fl    3.04
f 1 = 14.39Re L p loge 1.0 + F p /L p , Re L p < 150
0.6049−1.064/θ 0.2   0.5
−0.527
f1 = 4.97Re L p loge (F p /L p ) + 0.9 , 150 < Re L p < 5000
  0.48 −1.435  −3.01   −3.01
f2 = loge δ/F p + 0.9 Dh /L p loge 0.5Re L p , Re L p < 150
   −2.966  −0.7931(Tp /Th )
f 2 = Dh /L p loge 0.3Re L p  F p /L
l , 150 < Re L p < 5000
0.1167Tp
f 3 = (F p /Ll )−0.308 (Fd /Ll )−0.308 e− Dm θ 0.35 , Re L p < 150
 −0.0446   1.4 −3.553 −0.477
f 3 = Tp /Dm loge 1.2 + L p /F p θ , 150 < Re L p < 5000
   −0.13  −0.29  −0.235  0.68  −0.279  −0.05
θ 0.257 Fp H Fd Ll Tp δ
Kim and Bullard j = Re−0.487
Lp 90 Lp Lp Lp Lp Lp Lp
100–600 45sample. Fp /Lp <1. TP is tube pitch.
(2002)
 θ 0.444  Fp −1.682  H −1.22  Fd 0.818  Ll 1.97
f = Re−0.781
Lp 90 Lp Lp Lp Lp
(Continued on next page)

193
194
Table 1. (Continued)

Authors Correlations ReLp Comments

a RebLp
Jacobi et al. (2005) j= RebLp +d
40–370 a, b, c, d depends on specimen.
jChang&Wang is the j proposed by
   
Chang and Wang (1997).
F
jmodi f i ed 1.1Re Lp cosh 0.4 L pp −1
 
jChang&amp;Wang
= F
Re Lp +24−3 L pp
 θ 0.257  Fp −0.5177  H −1.9045  Lh 1.7159  Fd −0.2147  δ −0.05
Dong et al. (2007) j = 0.26712Re−0.1944
Lp 90 Lp L L L L
200–2500 Fp /Lp > 1
   −09925 p 0.5448  p −0.2003 p 0.0688 p
−0.3068 θ 0.444 F p H Lh Fd
f = −0.54486Re Lp 90 L L L L
   p −0.293  p 0.366  p −0.073  p−0.327  −1.548
−0.289 0.092 θ 2.019 F p H Lh Fd δ
Li and Wang (2010) j = 00883Re Lp N 90 Lp Lp Lp Lp Lp
400–1600 7 samples. Multi-region louvers. La =
28o, Lp = 1.2, Fp = 2.8 mm. N is
−3.313 number of louver regions. Re is
 θ 2.4  Fp −776  H 0.062  Lh 0.334  Fd 0.157  δ Reynolds number based on De , a
f = 0.0171Re−0.437
Lp N0.41 90 Lp Lp Lp Lp Lp
hydraulic diameter.
  −0.543  
 Fd −0.875  H 0.426 Fp δ 0.12
Li et al. (2011) j = 0.2162Re−0.351
Dc Dc Dc Dc Dc
200–1730 11 samples. Dc was not defined, but
seems Dh , the hydraulic diameter.
 0.69  1.382  −1.837  0.062
Fd H Fp δ
f = 0.4183Re−0.506
Dc Dc Dc Lp Lp
Volume 23, Number 1, January 2017 195

conducted an additional study for dry and wet surfaces and sure drops using specifically instrumented facilities is required
developed newer j- and f -factor correlations; however, these to advance the state-of-the-art.
were based on a much smaller data set and parameter range. To address the current and future needs in HVAC indus-
Recently, Dong et al. (2007) investigated the multi-louvered tries, a detailed experimental study was carried out by the
fin and flat tube heat exchanger and developed general corre- authors to investigate the heat transfer and pressure drop char-
lations for both j- and f -factors using larger ratio of fin-to- acteristics of compact heat exchangers with louvered fins and
louver pitches Fp /Lp as compared to that by Kim and Bullard flat tubes at different low air-side Reynolds numbers (20 <
(2002). ReLp < 200). The main objective of this research was to de-
Table 1 shows the f and j correlations developed in the velop air-side heat transfer and pressure drop correlations, in
past by various researchers. As can be seen from the table, the terms of j- and f -factors, for high performance compact heat
number of parameters used in the correlations varies from re- exchangers specifically under low air velocity conditions or
searcher to researchers. Never the less, most of the correlations within a low Reynolds number range that has not been well
for j- and f -factors are in the format of power-law. investigated.
A careful evaluation of the previous research indicates that
the existing correlations about the j- and f -factors are valid
for high Reynolds numbers in the range of 100 to 1000. Ja- Compact heat exchangers
cobi et al. (2005) have proposed a modified j-factor correlation The test samples were brazed aluminum microchannel heat
(as compared to that by Chang and Wang 1997) designed to exchangers (MCHX) with flat tube louvered fin geometry,
account for curve changing at low Reynolds numbers and rec- similar to the ones tested by Chang et al. (1994).
ognize optimal louver-fin-pitch design. This correlation was Figure 1 depicts the definitions of the key geometrical pa-
based on test data within a Reynolds number range from 40 rameters for the flat tube, louver, and fins, as well as the MCHX
to 370; however, the data available for the lower ReLp range assemble. Although other types of louver fin heat exchangers
was very limited (2–3 data points when ReLP < 100 depending as reported in Chang and Wang (1997), this project focused on
on test samples). In addition, the focus of Jacobi et al. (2005) the “corrugated louvers” with near triangular or rectangular
was to generate a single range correlation. A friction factor channels for airflows.
correlation was also not proposed. Another example of previ-
ous study is Aoki et al. (1989), where very limited data points
were used in low ReLp range. Within a range of ReLp = 60 –
700, their heat transfer data are correlated in terms of Nus-
selt number (Nu) in a power law format: Nu = 0.87ReLp Pr1/3,
when Fp = 1 mm and θ = 35o. However, within the range of
ReLp < 100, only two data points are available.
The lack of credible correlations, for example, j- and f -
factors, in the low Reynolds number range is further com-
plicated by the fact that heat transfer and pressure drop are
much more sensitive at lower airflow rates than higher airflow
rates. At low Reynolds numbers, it has been discussed by sev-
eral researchers that there might be a transition regime from
louver directed to fin directed flow (Hiramatsu et al. 1990;
Sahnoun and Webb, 1992). This transition depends on both
the Reynolds number and geometrical parameters, such as ra-
tio of fin pitch to louver pitch, Fp /Lp . In general, when ReLp
is low and Fp /Lp is high, the gap between adjacent louvers is
blocked, and the flow is fin directed in the direction of the fin.
At higher ReLp and lower Fp /Lp the boundary layers are thin-
ner, and the flow is almost aligned with the louvers. However,
this phenomenon is not well captured by any of the existing
correlations.
It should be pointed out that the concept of two regimes, for
example fin directed flow and louver directed flow, has been a
controversial subject in the literature. Davenport (1980) con-
jectured that a flattening behavior (actually “nonpower-law”
in their work) of the experimental Stanton number curve as
Reynolds number was reduced, was due to this same two-
regime effect. Since it was reported, it has been a subject
discussed and argued by researchers from different angles
(Achaichia and Cowell 1988). For example, Shah and Webb
(1983) argued that such flattening or nonpower-law behavior
of the Stanton number curve is due to experimental error. Fig. 1. Schematic drawing and geometric parameters of mi-
Therefore, a new experimental study of heat transfer and pres- crochannel heat exchanger.
196 Science and Technology for the Built Environment

tested geometry has 18 mm depth of fin array in flow direc-

tion, 8.58 mm fin height, 7.11 mm louver length, 27◦ louver
angle, 14 mm fin pitch, and 1.14 mm louver pitch. Test sample
core size is 609.4 × 356.8 mm.
Table 2 is the test sample matrix developed for this project
based on the availability of the MCHXs on the market. A
total of 26 heat exchanger samples were used in the test. The
test sample matrix covered fairly wide parametric ranges for
fin pitch, fin height, fin thickness, louver pitch, louver angle,
louver length, tube depth, and fin depth. In place of provider’s
names, codes were used to maintain confidentiality. The ranges
for each parameter are summarized in Table 3.
Fig. 2. A picture of the brazed aluminum heat exchanger sample.

The test samples were commercially available, and were
obtained from several manufacturers in the United States,
Europe, and Asia who were able to provide the detailed ge-
ometries or design drawing of the heat exchangers. Figure 2
is a picture of a typical sample tested in this project. This
Test facilities
The heat exchanger samples were tested in an instrumented
low-speed wind tunnel in the research laboratory. The wind
tunnel has a 0.6096-m long rectangular test section of cross-
section 0.635 × 0.457 m on edge. The general design layout
of the apparatus is illustrated in Figure 3. The wind tunnel

Table 2. Sample matrix.

Fin Louver Louver Louver Tube Tube

Sample Fin pitch Fin height thickness pitch Lp angle length Ll height Dm depth Td Fin depth
no. Fp (FPI) H (mm) δ (mm) (mm) θ (deg) (mm) (mm) (mm) Fd (mm) Providers

1 14 8.58 0.13 1.14 27 7.11 1.83 18 18 U1

2 20.3 10 0.1 1.14 25 6.75 1.75 25 25 E1
3 20 8 0.1 0.9 27 6.5 1.5 30 30 E1
4 23 8 0.08 1 28 6.6 1.8 12 12 C1
5 20.3 8 0.08 1 28 6.6 1.8 12 12 C1
6 18 8 0.08 1 28 6.6 1.8 12 12 C1
7 20.3 8 0.1 1 20 6.6 2 16 16 C1
8 23 8 0.1 1 28 6.6 2 16 16 C1
9 21.17 8 0.1 1 28 6.6 2 16 16 C1
10 19.24 8 0.1 1 28 6.6 2 16 16 C1
11 20.3 8 0.1 1 28 6.6 1.8 16 16 C1
12 20.3 7.5 0.1 1 28 6.2 2 16 16 C1
13 14.94 8 0.1 1.3 34 6.6 2 20 20 C1
14 20.3 8 0.1 1 28 6.6 2 20 20 C1
15 20.3 7.5 0.1 1 28 6.2 2 20 20 C1
16 14.94 8 0.1 1 28 6.6 2 26 26 C1
17 20.3 8 0.1 1 28 6.6 2 26 26 C1
18 21.17 5.6 0.1 1 28 6.6 1.4 16 16 C1
19 14 8.00 0.17 1.14 30 5.97 2.03 25.4 25.4 U2
20 12 9.45 0.15 2.44 28 7.87 4.19 26.9 26.9 U3
21 9 9.45 0.15 2.44 28 7.87 4.19 26.9 26.9 U3
22 7 9.45 0.15 2.44 28 7.87 4.19 26.9 26.9 U3
23 11 7.4 0.10 1.02 27 5.97 1.6 25.6 28.0 U5
24 14 7.4 0.10 1.02 27 5.97 1.6 25.6 28.0 U5
25 15 7.4 0.10 1.02 27 5.97 1.6 25.6 28.0 U5
26 18 7.4 0.10 1.02 27 5.97 1.6 26.6 28.0 U5

Table 3. Summary of parameter ranges.

Fin pitch Fp Fin height H Fin thickness Louver pitch Louver angle Louver length Tube height Tube depth Fin depth
(FPI) (mm) δ (mm) Lp (mm) θ (deg) Ll (mm) Dm (mm) Td (mm) Fd (mm)

7–21.17 5.6–10 0.08–0.17 0.9–2.44 20–34 5.97–7.87 1.5–4.19 12–30 12–30

Volume 23, Number 1, January 2017
Fig. 3. Low-speed wind tunnel apparatus.
was powered by a 1.5-kW, 1750-RPM centrifugal fan. It pro-
vided a maximum speed in the test section (with no block-
age) of about 6 m/s and a Reynolds number per meter of up
to about 400,000 (based on the tunnel’s hydraulic diameter).
The tunnel can be operated as a closed loop system or as
an open loop by the opening or closing of the loop connect
valve or damper (No. 17) as shown the figure. The airflow
rate was controlled by changing the inlet and out let dampers
(No. 1 and No. 16). Before the test section (No. 10), a flow
straightener and an air pre-heater are installed. The original
wind tunnel had one circular developing section accompa-
nied with Venturi meter for airflow measurement through the
tunnel.
To facilitate the measurement of the heat transfer and pres-
sure drops at very low Reynolds numbers based on louver pitch
(20 < ReLp < 200), one venruti meter for relatively higher flow
rates, and one orifice meter for relatively lower flow rates, were
installed. The working flow rates for each meter were provided
in Table 4. On the water-side, the system had a 45-gallon water
tank furnished with a standard 4.5 kW heater, as well as a pre-
Table 4. Precisions of the measurement instruments.
Parameter Instrument/method
Air-side temperature Thermocouple calibration
Water-side temperature Thermocouple calibration
Air-side pressure drop HHP-103 manometer
(at test section) (differential pressure transducer)
Air-side volume flow rate Orifice: 477A digital manometer
Venturi: 477A digital manometer
Water-side volume flow rate FTB-1400 turbine flowmeter
197
cision tankless heater. The water heater can provide up to 27
kW keeping temperature change less than1oF. Four pressure
taps before and four pressure taps after the test samples, were
used for pressure measurement.
Table 4 also provides the summary of the instrumental
precisions for the measurement of temperatures, flow rates,
and pressure drops on air- and water-sides. A thermocouple
grid was applied to measure the air temperatures at inlet (be-
fore the heat exchanger) and outlet (after the heat exchanger)
to take into account the possibility of nonuniform measure-
ments. T-type thermocouples from Omega Engineering Inc.
were used for the measurement of air temperature at inlet
and outlet of the test section. Nine thermocouples were used
before the heat exchanger and 15 thermocouples were used af-
ter the heat exchanger. Less thermocouples were used before
the heat exchanger because inlet air temperature is relatively
more uniform. On the water-side temperature measurement,
T-type thermocouple probes were used at the inlet and out-
let, with one on each location, of the connection tubes of
the heat exchangers. These thermocouples and probes were
Range Precision/error
0–100◦ C ±0.1◦ C
0–100◦ C ±0.1◦ C
0–10.4 in wc (0–2587.9 Pa) ±0.2% FS
0–335 scfm (0–9.486 m3/s) ±0.1% FS
260–885 scfm ±0.1% FS
(7.362–25.060 m3/s)
0–7.4 gpm (0–4.668 × 10-4 m3/s) ±1%
198
pre-calibrated with thermometer of 0.1◦ C precision. A low-
range digital manometer was used to measure the static pres-
sure drop across the test unit during the heating experiment.
The operating range of the manometer is between 0 to 2501
Pascal (0 to 10.04 inch H2 O) with accuracy of ±5.002 Pa
(0.02008 in. H2 O). The air volumetric flow rate was evaluated
from the static pressure difference across the orifice meter as
well as the Venturi meter. The pressure difference across the
orifice or Venturi meter was measured by digital differential
pressure manometer. The operating range of the manometer
is between 0 to 4982 Pascal (0 to 20 in. H2 O) with accuracy
of ±4.982 Pa (0.02 in. H2 O). Both the orifice and Venturi me-
ters were calibrated by the instrument manufacturers based
on National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
standards. The water volumetric flow rate was measured using
the liquid turbine flow meter. The operating range of the flow
meter is between 2.8 to 28 LPM (0.75 to 7.5 GPM) with accu-
racy of ±1% of reading. The measurements from the turbine
flow meter were displayed on 6-digit rate meter. The accuracy
of the display is 0.01% of the rate ±1.5 least significant digit
(LSD). The flow meter was also calibrated by the manufacture
based on NIST standard.
A data acquisition unit was employed to record the tran-
sients associated with temperature monitoring of 24 thermo-
couple junctions on air-side measurements and two thermo-
couple probes on water-side measurements. The chassis pos-
sessed four slots for modules out of which three were used.
The calibration standard used for this instrument is ASTM
E230-87. Output of the data acquisition unit was fed into
a desktop computer via USB-2 interface bus. The personal
computer (PC)-based data acquisition system was controlled
by LabVIEW software.
For each sample’s test, the procedures can be generally di-
vided into the following seven steps: (1) Water was pre-heated.
The water in the storage tank was first pre-heated to about
80oC. This water heating process usually takes about 1 h. (2)
The water pump is turned on to circulate the water through
the heat exchanger. (3) The fan-motor unit is turned on to
move the airflow in the wind tunnel. (4) The control valve is
adjusted to achieve the desired airflow rates. (5) Let the sys-
tem stabilize for about 15–30 min. This is monitored by the
data acquisition system to ensure the curves of temperature
and pressure versus time are flatting or no noticeable change.
(6) Repeat step 4 and 5 for another airflow rate until all data
points are collected. Depending on the flow rates, either Ven-
turi or orifice flow meter are to be used. (7) Save data and turn
off the system. At least 10 minutes of steady state data, such
as inlet and outlet temperatures shown on a stability graph,
were required to ensure steady data logging conditions. Stabil-
ity in the heat exchanger inlet fluid temperature measurement
of around 0.02◦ C per min of sample also means a standard
deviation, as suggested by the Electric Power Research Insti-
tute (EPRI; 1998). After the system is stabilized, data were
recorded for a 30-min test time with 1.1-s interval. Final aver-
age values obtained for each temperature as well as pressure
drop measurement were used for further data reduction using
the procedures to be described in the following section.
The wind tunnel was insulated with fiberglass materials
and aluminum tapes. In most of the experiments (over 90%),
Science and Technology for the Built Environment
the energy balance between the water-side and air-side was
maintained at less than 5%. At very low Reynolds numbers
(ReLp < 50), the maximum heat balance was less than 15%.
An uncertainty analysis has been performed. In summary, ex-
cept for cases at extremely low Reynolds numbers or near the
lowest end of the instrumental measurement range, reason-
able uncertainties can be obtained for j- and f -factors: 91.7%
of the uncertainties in the j-factor are less than 7.8%, while
93.0% of the uncertainties in f -factor are less than 7.8%. The
maximum uncertainties in j and f -factors are 28.3 and 26.7%,
respectively.
Data reduction
The heat transfer rate of the MCHX was computed using
the enthalpy method, for both air-side as well as water-side.
Air-side heat transfers coefficient was obtained using the
effectiveness-number of transfer units (NTU) method. The
air-side heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics are pre-
sented in terms of Colburn j-factor and friction f -factor, re-
spectively. Air properties were calculated based on ASHRAE
Fundamentals Handbook (2013).
The air-side Reynolds number was evaluated based on air
properties, minimum free flow velocity of air, and the Louver
pitch of the fin as shown in the following Equation 1.
ρ V̄c LP
Re LP = (1)
μ
Air mass flow rate was calculated using air volumetric flow
rate by means of two measuring meters, Orifice meter and Ven-
turi meter, as mentioned earlier. Per ASHRAE Fundamentals
Handbook (2013), the volumetric flow rate through the orifice
meter in the experiment can be calculated (with simple ma-
nipulation) by using the following equation as a function of
measured static pressure difference across the orifice (Pori )
installed in the tunnel.

Q̇o = Kori A2 2Pori /ρom (2)
where the flow coefficient (Kori ) is a function of discharge
coefficient (Cori ) and the beta ratio of the orifice (βori ). ρ om is
the mean density of the air. Similarly, the volumetric flow rate
as a function of measured static pressure difference across the
Venturi meter through the Venturi meter (Pven ) installed in
the tunnel was estimated using the Equation 3.

Q̇o = Kven A2 2Pven /ρom (3)
where the Venturi meter Flow coefficient (Kven ) is a function
of discharge coefficient (Cven ) and the beta ratio of the Venturi
meter (βven ).
The heat transfer rate on water-side as well as air-side was
calculated for the test sample through enthalpy method as
shown in Equations 4 and 5, respectively.
q̇o = ṁo c p,o To (4)
q̇i = ṁi c p,i Ti (5)
Volume 23, Number 1, January 2017 199

Fig. 5. Repeatability test for sample #13, February 2015.

Fig. 4. Repeatability test for sample #1, January 2014.

The mathematical average of q̇o and q̇i was used to calcu- McQuiston et al. (2005):
late the air-side heat transfer coefficient, which is a common

practice in existing literature. NTU 0.22
  
ε = 1 − exp exp −Cr NTU 0.78 − 1 (9)
Cr
(q̇o + q̇i )
q̇avg = (6)
2
where
The maximum possible heat transfer from the heat exchanger
based upon hot water and cold air heat exchange system was q̇avg
ε= (10)
used for the calculation of the heat exchanger effectiveness. q̇max
Cmi n
q̇max = Cmin (Ti1 − To1 ) (7) Cr = (11)
Cmax
where UAo = Cmi n NTU (12)

Cmi n = ṁi c p,i, if mi c p,i < ṁo c p,o and For the turbulent flow of water inside the flat tubes, the Dittus-
Cmi n = ṁo c p,o , if ṁo c p,o < ṁi c p,i (8) Boelter correlation as expressed in the following Equation 36,
was adopted (Incroprea and DeWitt 2000) to evaluate the
The effectiveness-NTU method was used to determine the air- water-side heat transfer coefficient.The overall surface effec-
side overall heat transfer, UAo (Incroprea and DeWitt 2000). tiveness (εs ) can be evaluated from:
The UAo product was calculated using the effectiveness-NTU
method for both streams unmixed cross-flow arrangement. Af  
Approximate expression for effectiveness-NTU is provided by εs = 1 − 1 − ηf (13)
Ao
200 Science and Technology for the Built Environment

Fig. 6. f and j Factors versus ReLp for samples #20, #21, and Fig. 7. f and j factors versus ReLp for samples #23 and #24.
#22.

Therefore,
where
1 1 1 δw
= − + (18)
εs h o Ao U Ao h i Ai kw Aw
Ao = Ab + A f (14)
 
tanh ml f where kw and δ w are the thermal conductivity and thickness of
ηf = (15) the tube wall, respectively. hi is water-side heat transfer coeffi-
ml f
cient, which was calculated by the Dittus-Boelter correlations
(Incroprea and DeWitt 2000).
The fin efficiency was determined by the method defined in Solving Equation 18 for h o yields:
Kays and London (1984).
 −1
1 1 1 δw
  ho = − + (19)
2h o δf εs Ao UAo h i Ai kw Aw
m= 1+ (16)
kf δ f fd
The air-side heat transfer characteristic was presented in terms
H of the Colburn j-factor and can be calculated as follows:
lf = − δf (17)
2
ho
j= Pr 2/3 (20)
Assuming zero water-side fouling resistance, the air-side heat G c c p,o o
transfer coefficient was calculated by subtracting the water-
side and wall resistances from the total thermal resistance. where G c = ρom Vc .
Volume 23, Number 1, January 2017 201

Fig. 8. f and j factors versus ReLp for samples #5 and #6. Fig. 9. f and j factors versus ReLp for samples #14 (Td = 20 mm)
and #17 (Td = 26 mm).

Pressure drop equation described by Kays and London

(1984), was used to calculate the heat exchanger core Fanning repeatability test, the experiment was conducted four times
friction factor as follows: with the same conditions. As can be seen from the two figures,
  the repeatability of the experiments was satisfactory. Except
Ac ρom 2ρo1 P   ρo1
f = − K c + 1 − σ 2
− 2 − 1 the data in very low Reynolds number range, 90% of the data
Ao ρo1 G 2c ρo2 were within less than 5% of their average value. This provided

  ρo1
+ 1 − σ 2 − Ke
ρo2
The entrance and exit loss coefficients (Kc andKe ) were eval-
uated for triangular ducts at ReDh = ∞ from Kays and Lon-
don (1984).
Results and discussions
Repeatability test
Repeatability tests were conducted at the beginning of exper-
iments and after about every 6 months to verify the mea-
surement instrument stability in the wind tunnel test facil-
ity. Figures 4 and 5 show two typical repeatability tests for
heat exchanger samples #1 and #13, respectively. In each
confidence in the stability of the test facility and instruments
(21) during the course of the project period.
f and j factor data
General observations about the j and f factors
Figures 6–18 provide the j and f factors obtained from the
present experimental measurements. In these figures, the ex-
perimental data are grouped loosely in a way to try to show the
effects of key parameter(s) on the j- and f -factors whenever
possible. As discussed below, most of the samples compared
in the same figure have more than one variables that are dif-
ferent in value, for example the differences of j- or f -factors
for different samples are the combined results of multiple pa-
rameters. Of course, this was due to the fact that the test
matrix was formed based on available heat exchangers on the
202
Fig. 10. f and j factors versus ReLp for samples #12 (Td = 16 mm)
and #15 (Td = 20 mm).
market. Only a few heat exchangers were custom-made by the
manufacturers due to cost and other restrictions.
The effects of fin pitch, Fp , on the f - and j-factors are
illustrated in Figure 6 (samples #20, #21, and #22), Figure 7
(samples #23 and #24), and Figure 8 (samples #5 and #6).
The values of Fp are marked in the figures. These figures cover
a fin pitch range of 7–20.3 fins per inch (FPI). In each of these
figures, it is clearly shown that, in general, with the increase of
fin pitch (increase in FPI or decrease in mm), the magnitudes
of both f - and j-factors increase at fixed Reynolds numbers.
This is consistent with previous research work in the literature
(Chang and Wang 1997; Kim and Bullard 2002). However, the
f -factor might not follow this trend for some of the samples.
As seen in Figure 7, the f -factor for the lower fin pitch is
actually higher, which is consistent with the results reported
by Achaichia and Cowell (1988). Such f -factor phenomena
may result from the shifting of flow regimes between louver
direct flow and fin directed flow due to the complex effects of
both geometrical parameters and flow conditions, which need
to be further investigated.
The effects of tube depth, Td , on the f - and j-factors are
illustrated in Figures 9 and 10. In Figure 9, the Td , values for
Science and Technology for the Built Environment
Fig. 11. f and j factors versus ReLp for samples #10 (Fp = 19.24
FPI, Td = 16 mm) and #16 (Fp = 14.94 FPI, Td = 26 mm).
samples #14 and #17 are 20 and 26 mm, respectively; while in
Figure 10 the Td values for samples #12 and #15 are 16 and
20 mm, respectively. These figures show that with an increase
in tube depth, the j-factor increases while f -factor decreases.
This seems consistent with some, if not all, of the previous
work in the literature (Chang et al. 2000; Chang and Wang
1997).
Figure 11 shows the j- and f -factors for samples #10 and
#16, where both their tube depth (Td ) and fin pitch (Fp ) are
different. The tube depth for samples #10 and #16 are 16 and
26 mm, respectively; while the fin depth for samples #10 and
#16 are 19.24 and 14.94 FPI, respectively. The combined effect
is that sample #10, as compared to sample #16, has higher f
and lower j.
Figure 12 shows the j and f factors for samples #7 and
#11, where both their louver angle (θ ) and tube height (Dm )
are different. The louver angles for samples #7 and #11 are
20o and 28o, respectively; while the tube height for samples #7
and #11 are 2 and 1.8 mm, respectively. The combined effect
is that sample #7, as compared to sample #11, has lower
f - and j-factors.
Volume 23, Number 1, January 2017
Fig. 12. f and j factors versus ReLp for samples #7 (θ = 20o, Dm
= 2 mm) and #11 (θ = 28o, Dm = 1.8 mm).
Figures 13 through 17 provide the f - and j-plots for other
test samples. As there are more than one geometrical param-
eters that are varying, the differences in the f - and j-factors
in each one of these figures reflected the combined effects of
the varying parameters, which are listed in the Test Matrix
(Table 2).
All the experimental data are provided in Figure 18, which
gives an overview of the data ranges for j- and f -factors within
the investigated parameter ranges for this project.
Discussions about the nonpower-law heat transfer phenomena
In the work by Achaichia and Cowell (1988), the heat transfer
data, in terms of Stanton number (St, which is proportional to
the j-factor), have noticeable “nonpower-law” behavior when
the Reynolds number is in very low range (loosely in the order
of about ReLp < 100 as it depends on samples). In other words,
with the increase of ReLp , the heat transfer data first drops
and then increases within this region in logarithmic scale.
The extent of the nonpower-law behavior seems significantly
affected by the geometrical parameters, such as fin pitches.
This is the region that was sometime claimed as the transi-
tion from louver-direct to fin-directed flows. However, such
203
Fig. 13. f and j factors versus ReLp for samples #9 and #25.
“nonpower-law” behavior was not clearly identified as the
dominated characteristics in the heat transfer data obtained
from the present project. As will be shown in the next section,
only a couple of samples, such as Sample #11 in Figure 12,
have shown weak nonpower-law behavior in the present study.
In overall, most of the heat transfer test data seem to behave
“monotonically” with the change of Reynolds number—with
the increase of Reynolds number, the j-factor decreases. It
seems the present heat transfer data behave in a way more
close to linear relationship with ReLp in the logarithmic scale,
except that the slopes of the data lines are different from
each other in two flow regions (ReLp ≤ 80 and ReLp >
80). Here, such variation was referred to as the “flattening”
phenomena.
It should be also be noted in the differences between the
types of heat exchangers used in the present study and those
in Achaichia and Cowell (1988), although they all called mi-
crochannel or compact heat exchangers with louvered fins.
Per the classification by Chang and Yang (1997), the test
samples in the present study was type A corrugates louver
with triangular channel, while those used in the literature was
type B plate-and tube louver fin geometry. The main differ-
204
Fig. 14. f and j factors versus ReLp for samples #4, #8, and #26.
ences between type A and type B louver fin heat exchangers
are:
1) Fins of type A forms triangular channel while fins of type
B form parallel plate channel for the airflows.
2) There is usually single flat tube in type A while there are
two or multiple flat tubes in type B within the fin depth.
These differences between the type A and type B louver fin
heat exchangers could be the main reason that present heat
transfer data look somewhat different from previous research
in the literature.
Nevertheless, close to half of the test samples in the present
study have showed certain levels of flattening phenomena in
the j-factors with the decrease of the Reynolds numbers. While
some of the test samples have very weak flattening behavior,
some other samples, such as those of sample #17 in Figure 9,
samples #12 and #15 in Figure 10, and samples #18 and
#19 in Figure 17, to name a few, do demonstrate the flatten-
ing phenomena that is noticeable in the graphs. This could
serve as a confirmation of the existence of unusual or unique
characteristics in heat transfer for compact heat exchangers at
very low Reynolds numbers. In other words, the two regime
Science and Technology for the Built Environment
Fig. 15. f and j factors versus ReLp for samples #1 and #13.
concept still can be applied to the present research to explain
the heat transfer behaviors in low Reynolds number range.
In summary, it was believed that two flow regimes do exist,
where fluid flow and heat transfer behave differently: when
ReLp is very low (ReLp ≤ 80), airflow through the louver is
minimized due to thick viscous boundary layers, forming fin
directed flow; when ReLp is higher (ReLp > 80), airflow through
the louver is augmented due to thinner boundary layers, form-
ing louver direct flow. The two flow regimes could have dif-
ferent j-behaviors. However, the specific heat transfer curve j
versus ReLp was dictated by the detailed configurations of the
louver fins and flat tubes in the heat exchangers, which might
look different from existing work.
These observations provide some guides in developing the
power-law correlations for j- and f-factors, to be detailed in
the next section.
Correlations for j and f-factors
The collected test data for low Reynolds numbers were an-
alyzed to develop correlations for both the j- and f - factors
using all of the key parameters in the text matrix, except the
tube depth (Td ). This was because for most of the test samples
used in this project, the fin depth (Td ) is identical to the tube
Volume 23, Number 1, January 2017 205

Fig. 16. f and j factors versus ReLp for samples #2 and #3. Fig. 17. f and j factors versus ReLp for samples #18 and #19.

depth (Fd ). Inclusions of either Td or Fd resulted in nearly the As previously mentioned, most of the present test data sup-
same correlations and coefficients. Therefore, only Fd , rather ports the existence of two power-law curves of different slopes
than both Td and Fd was used in the development of corre- within two sub-ranges: the lower range (ReLp = 20 – 80) and
lations for the j- and f -factors. It should be noted that no the higher range (ReLp = 80 – 200). Our efforts of correlating
previous study has included both both Td and Fd . This might all of the experimental data using a single correlation equation
reflect the fact that most of the heat exchangers on the market for either j- or f -factors have resulted in unsatisfactory results.
are made with almost the same Td and Fd . Heat exchangers In the following sections, the correlations will be presented
with considerably different Td and Fd might affect the forms using the two ReLp sub-ranges with 93.6–99.6% confidence
of the correlations, but are beyond the scope of this research, levels. The rms error is indicated right under each correlation
and may need to be specifically studied. equation.
In developing the correlations, the percentage of the corre-
lated test data dictates the root-mean-square (rms) errors. In j-factor correlations
the literature for high Reynolds numbers, the percentage used When 20 < ReLp ≤ 80, the j-factor can be correlated by Equa-
by researchers varied considerably. For example, 83.14% of the tion 22:
test data of f -factor were correlated within ±15% by Chang       
et al. (2000); 89.3% of the test data of j-factor were correlated F p −0.2 H −2.3 δ −0.001 θ 1.1
j = Re−0.324
within ±15% by Chang and Wang (1997); 94.5% of test data Lp
Lp Lp Lp 90
of f -factor were correlated within ±12%, and 91.1% of the  1.72  1.88  −0.195
test data of f -factor within ±20% by Li and Wang (2010). As Ll Dm Fd
(22)
will be shown in the followings, roughly 85% of correlated test Lp Lp Lp
data were used for developing the j- and f -factor correlations
within the full range of Reynolds number, ReLp = 20 – 200, in The above correlation (Equation 22) is developed with at least
the present study. 85.3% of the test data being correlated. Figure 19 shows the
206 Science and Technology for the Built Environment

Fig. 18. f and j factors versus ReLp for all samples.

comparison of experimental data and the correlation for the f-factor correlations
j-factors. The present correlation predicts the test data within When 20 < ReLp ≤ 80, the f -factor can be expressed by Equa-
an rms error of ±19.68%. tion 24 with at least 85.3% test data correlated.
When 80< ReLp ≤ 200, the j-factor can be expressed by
Equation 23:
         −0.06  −0.014  −1.35  0.67
F p −0.07 H −2.48 δ −0.006 θ 0.09 Fp H δ θ
f = Re−0.4 f = Re−0.87
Lp
Lp
Lp Lp Lp 90 Lp Lp Lp 90
 1.83  1.65  −0.012  0.007  0.83  0.019
Ll Dm Fd Ll Dm Fd
(23) (24)
Lp Lp Lp Lp Lp Lp

The above correlation (Equation 23) correlates at least 84.8%

of the test data. Figure 20 shows the comparison of the exper- Figure 21 shows the comparison of experimental data and the
imental data and predicted results using the above correlation correlation for the f -factor in the range of ReLp = 20–80. The
for the j-factor in the range of ReLp = 80–200, within an rms above correlation (Equation 24) predicts the test data within
error of ±22.12%. an rms error of ±13.53%.
Volume 23, Number 1, January 2017 207

Fig. 21. Comparison of experimental data and correlation for f

Fig. 19. Comparison of experimental data and correlation for j factor (ReLp = 20–80).
factor (ReLp = 20–80).

Figure 22 shows the comparison of the experimental data and

When 80 < ReLp ≤ 200, the f -factor can be expressed by predicted results using the above correlation for the f -factor in
Equation 25 with at least 85.6% test data correlated. the range of ReLp = 80–200. The above correlation (Equation
25) predicts the test data with an rms error of ±10.68%.
      
F p −0.016 H −0.01 δ −1.1121 θ 0.74 Comparison of experimental data with available correlations
f = Re−0.856
Lp
Lp Lp Lp 90 In this section, the j- and f-factor experimental data are
 0.31  0.53  0.053 compared to the well-known correlations by Chang and
Ll Dm Fd
(25) Wang (1997), Chang et al. (2000), and Kim and Bullard
Lp Lp Lp (2002). A summary of the differences between the current

Fig. 20. Comparison of experimental data and correlation for j Fig. 22. Comparison of experimental data and correlation for f
factor (ReLp = 80–200). factor (ReLp = 80–200).
208 Science and Technology for the Built Environment

Table 5. Percentage of the total data falling within the specified deviation.

Deviation of prediction from data

Within Within Within Within Within Within Within Within

Source of prediction ±5% ±10% ±15% ±20% ±25% ±40% ±45% ±50%

j (Chang and Wang 1997) 7.49% 15.42% 22.03% 28.63% 36.56% 61.67% 69.6% 78.85%
f (Chang et al. 2000) 20.26% 33.92% 47.58% 55.95% 66.96% 92.51% 97.36% 100%
j (Kim and Bullard 2002) 4.41% 12.78% 21.59% 33.48% 44.1% 74.89% 84.14% 92.1%
f (Kim and Bullard 2002) 15.86% 28.63% 38.33% 46.7% 55.07% 82.38% 88.55% 92.95%

data and the correlations by these authors are provided in
Table 5.
As can be seen from the previously discussed four correla-
tions, all the correlations by Chang and co-works and Kim and
Bullard can only correlate less than 67% (as low as 36.56%)
of the current experimental data with a deviation of ±25%. In
contrast, as noted earlier, the proposed correlations equations
are able to correlate about 85% of the data within errors of less
than ±25% (less than ±22.12% for j and less than ±13.53%
for f ). This confirms that within the investigated parameter
ranges, the proposed correlations work better than the exist-
ing ones for predicting the test data obtained from this project.
This is not surprising as the existing correlations are developed
primarily for high Reynolds number applications and the heat
exchanger geometries are different from those used in this
project. The existing correlations, as reported in the related
references, work very well with their own data set, but not for
the test data from this project.
Additional comments on the j- and f-factor correlations
First, the fact that the test data can be correlated within two
Reynolds number ranges supports the concept of flow regime
transition from louver-direct flow to duct-directed flow, to
some extent. The existence of the two flow regimes is believed
to be the main reason that causes the differences in the cor-
relations in two different Reynolds number ranges, although
they are in the same power-law formats.
Second, the signs of the coefficients for every parame-
ter in the power-law correlations are consistent with those
reported in most of the literature. However, the absolute
values of these coefficients are mostly different from those
reported in the literature when power-law formats were
used.
Third, a note is also made here that the power-law corre-
lations presented are not perfect. If more test data are to be
correlated, the rms errors will further increase, and vice versa.
Even with at least 85% test data correlated, the authors believe
better correlations with lower levels of rms might be developed
by further analysis of the influences of the key parameters
or use of different format of mathematical expressions. This
could be part of the future work.
Conclusions
In this research project, the heat transfer and pressure drop
data for MCHXs are measured on a wind tunnel facility, which
was instrumented specifically for low air-side Reynolds num-
ber testing in the range of 20 < ReLp < 200. Experiments
were carried out with 26 aluminum-brazed heat exchanger
samples with different designs. The test matrix covered fairly
wide geometrical parameter ranges for fin pitch, fin height,
fin thickness, louver pitch, louver angle, louver length, tube
height, and tube depth.
Within the investigated parameter ranges, it was found that
heat transfer relationship, in term of j-factor versus ReLp , in
low Reynolds range, could be different from that in the high
Reynolds range. However, the characteristics of the j-factors
versus Reynolds numbers are not exactly the same as reported
in the past, which is characterized by a nonpower law behavior.
The present heat transfer data are better characterized as a
flattening behavior.
Based on the test data, it is possible that the f -factor and
j-factor behave as if there are two flow regimes based on the
magnitude of ReLp . Two sets of corrections have been devel-
oped for both f -factor and j-factor in the range of 20 < ReLp
< 80 and 80 < ReLp < 200. The correlations were developed
using eight key parameters in the format of power-law. All
parameters used in the correlations were nondimensionalized
based the louver pitch.
Although power-law formats were used for both j- and f -
correlations, the coefficients in each flow regimes were differ-
ent, reflecting difference in flow and heat transfer characteris-
tics between the relatively lower and relatively higher Reynolds
number ranges.
Completion of the present project serves as a good start to
fill the knowledge gap in the heat transfer and pressure drop
data within low air-side Reynolds number range for design
and application of MCHXs using louver fins with flat tubes.
However, it should be careful when using the obtained results,
as they were based on (and, therefore, more suitable for) the
MCHXs of type A corrugated louver with triangular channels.
Other types of louver fins might result in different conclusions
that need to be investigated.
Nomenclature
Ab = Air − side surface area of tube, m2
Ac = Minimum free flow area, m2
Af = Total fin surface area, m2
Af r = Frontal area, m2
Ai = Water − side total surface area, m2
Ao = Air − side total surface area, m2
Aw = Tube wall area, m2
Volume 23, Number 1, January 2017 209

C = Heat capacity, W/K Subscripts

cp = Specific heat at constant pressure, J/kg.K
1 = Inlet
Dm = Tube height, mm
2 = Outlet
f = Fanning friction factor, dimensionless
A/f = Area per fin
Fd = = Fin depth, mm
avg = Average
Fp = Fin pitch, mm or FPI
b = Base
FS = Full scale
cs = Cross-sectional
Gc = Mass density of air at minimum free flow velocity,
d = Depth
kg/m2 .sec
f = Fin
H = Fin height, mm
H = Height
h = Heat transfer coefficient, W/m2×K
i = Water-side
hi = Water − side heat transfer coefficient, W/m2 .K
k = Variable
j = Colburn j-factor, dimensionless
l = Length
ho = Air − side heat trnsfer coefficient, W/m2 .K
m = Mean
Kc = Entrance loss coefficient
max = Maximum
Ke = Exit loss coefficient
min = Minimum
k = Thermal conductivity, W/m×K
n = Number
kf = Thermal conductivity of fin material, W/m.K
o = Air-side
kw = Thermal conductivity of wall material, W/m.K
s = Surface
lf = The fin length, m
w = Wall
Ll = Louver length, mm
Lp = Louver pitch, mm
...
m = Mass flow rate, kg/s Superscript
NTU = Number of transfer units, dimensionless
Pr = Prandtl number, dimensionless n = Index
q̇ = Heat transfer rate, W
Q̇ = Volumetricflowrate, m3 /s
R = Reference function Acknowledgement
Re Dh = Reynolds number based on hydraulic diameter,
dimensionless Special thanks are given to members who served on the
Re L p = Reynolds number based on louver pitch, Project Monitoring Sub-Committee, including Chad Bow-
dimensionless ers, Stanislav Perencevic, Omar Abdelaziz, Xudong Wang,
rms = Root-mean-square Joseph Stevenson, Nick Sider, and Mark Johnson, for their
T = Temperature, K very helpful discussions and suggestions during the course of
Td = Tube depth, mm the project.
UAo = Overall thermal conductance, W/K
V = Velocity, m/s
Vc = Minimum free flow velocity, Q̇o /Ac , m/sec
Funding

The authors would like to express their gratitude to ASHRAE

Greek Symbols for supporting this research project.
θ = Louver angle, deg.
P = Differential pressure, in.wc.
ρ= = Density, kg/m3 References
ρom = Air density at bulk mean temperature, kg/m3
δor δ f = Fin thickness, mm Achaichia, A. and T.A. Cowell. 1988. Heat transfer and pressure drop
δw = Tube wall thickness; average, m characteristics of flat tube and louvered plate fin surfaces. Experi-
εs = Overall surface effectivness, dimensionless mental and Thermal Fluid Science 1:147–57.
ηf = Fin efficiency, dimensionless Aoki, H., T. Shinagawa, and K. Suga. 1989. An experimental study of
P = Pressure drop, Pa the local heat transfer characteristics in automotive louvered fins.
T = Temperature difference, K Experimental and Thermal Fluid Science 1:293–300.
ASHRAE. 2013. 2013 ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals. Atlanta:
ε = Effectiveness of the heat exchanger, dimensionless ASHRAE.
σ = Contraction factor,Ac /Afr Chang, Y.-J., K.-C. Hsu, Y.-T. Lin, and C.-C. Wang. 2000. A general
μ = Dynamic viscosity, kg/m.s friction correlation for louver fin geometry. International Journal of
μom = Dynamic viscosity at bulk mean temperature, Heat Mass Transfer 43:2237–43.
kg/m.s Chang, Y.J., and C.C. Wang. 1997. A generalized heat transfer correlation
νo = Viscosity, μom /ρom , m2 /s for louver fin geometry. International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer 40(3):533–44.
210
Chang, Y.J., C.C. Wang, and W.R. Chang. 1994. Heat transfer and flow
characteristics of automotive brazed aluminum heat exchangers.
ASHRAE Transactions 100(2):643–52.
Davenport, C.J. 1980. Heat transfer and fluid flow in louvered triangular
ducts. Ph.D. Thesis, CNAA, Lanchester Polytechnic, Coventry, UK.
Davenport, C.J. 1983. Correlation for heat transfer and flow friction char-
acteristics of louvered fin. American Institute of Chemical Engineers
Symposium Series 79:19–27.
Dong, J., J. Chen, Z. Chen, W. Zhang, and Y. Zhou. 2007. Heat transfer
and pressure drop correlations for the multi-louvered fin compact
heat exchangers. Energy Conservation and Management 48:1506–15.
EPRI TR-107397. 1998. Service Water Heat Exchanger Testing Guide-
lines. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute Report.
Hiramatsu, M., T. Ishimaru, and K. Matsuzaki. 1990. Research on fins
for air conditioning heat exchangers. JSME International Journal
33:749–56.
Incroprea, F.P., and D.P. DeWitt. 2000. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass
Transfer, 4th Ed. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Jacobi, M., Y. Park, Y. Zhong, G. Michna, and Y. Xia. 2005. High Per-
formance Heat Exchangers for Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration
Applications (Non-Circular Tubes). Air-Conditioning and Refrig-
eration Technology Institute, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.
ARTI-21CR/605-20021-01.
Kays, W.M., and A.L. London. 1984. Compact Heat Exchangers, 3rd Ed.
Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Kim, M.H., and C.W. Bullard. 2002. Air-side thermal hydraulic perfor-
mance of multi-louvered fin aluminum heat exchanger. International
Journal of Refrigeration 25(3):390–400.
Science and Technology for the Built Environment
Kim, M.H., S.Y. Lee, S.S. Mehendale, and R.L. Webb. 2003. Microchan-
nel heat exchanger design for evaporator and condenser applica-
tions. Advances in Heat Transfer 37:297–429.
Li, W., and X. Wang. 2010. Heat transfer and pressure drop correlations
for compact heat exchangers with multi-region louver fins. Interna-
tional Journal of Heat Mass Transfer 53:2955–62.
Li, J., S. Wang, and W. Zhang. 2011. Air-side thermal hydraulic per-
formance of an integrated fin and micro-channel heat exchanger.
Energy Conversion and Management 52:983–9.
McQuiston, F.C., J.D. Parker, and J.D. Spitler. 2005. Extended Surface
Heat Exchangers, 6th Ed. Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
analysis and design. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp.
482–513.
Sahnoun, A., and R. Webb. 1992. Prediction of heat transfer and fric-
tion for the louver fin geometry. Journal of Heat Transfer 114:893–
900.
Shah, R.K., and R.L. Webb. 1983. Compact and Enhanced Heat
Exchangers. Heat exchangers: theory and practice. J. Taborek,
G.F. Hewitt, and N. Afghan, eds. pp. 425–68. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Sunden, B., and J. Svantesson. 1992. Correlation of j- and f-factors for
multi-louvered heat transfer surfaces. Proceedings of the 3rd UK
National Heat Transfer Conference, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK,
September 16–18, pp. 805–11.
Webb, R.L., and S.H. Jung. 1992. Air-side performance of enhanced
brazed aluminum heat exchangers. ASHRAE Transactions 98(Pt.
2):391–401.