CFD ANALYSIS ON PERFORMANCE OF CHEVRON TYPE PLATE HEAT EXCHANGERS

International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering Research and Development (IJMPERD) ISSN (P): 2249 6890; ISSN (E): 2249 8001 Vol. 10, Issue 2, Apr 2020, 1481-1498 TJPRC Pvt. Ltd. CFD ANALYSIS ON PERFORMANCE OF CHEVRON TYPE PLATE HEAT EXCHANGERS P. ISSAC PRASAD, JANJETI THARUN KUMAR & B. NAGESWARA RAO Department of Mechanical Engineering, Koneru Lakshmaiah Educational Foundation, Vaddeswaram, India ABSTRACT In this study thermal performance of chevron type plate heat exchanger (GPHE) in single-phase flow is carried out using the ANSYS FLUENT 15 software. Steady state simulations are performed varying Reynolds number from 500 to 2300 and the Prandtl number from 0.85 to 2.75 for the counter flow PHE. Heat transfer coefficient (Um), pressure drop (ΔP) and the temperature distribution (ΔT) are arrived considering number of plates, properties of fluid and the chevron angle (β). The corrugation inclination angle during the analysis is taken into account due to its high influence in the flow process and its direction. Calculations on the requirements of minimum area are made for a single-phase flow to optimize maximum heat transfer rate. Simulation results agree well with existing design values. KEYWORDS: ANSYS FLUENT 15, Chevron angle & Simulations & Temperature distribution Received: Feb 01, 2020; Accepted: Feb 14, 2020; Published: Mar 07, 2020; Paper Id.: IJMPERDAPR2020141 NOMENCLATURE A [m 2 ] dp [Pa] D [m] h [W/(m 2 K)] L [m] N Nu Pr Q [W] Re area pressure drop hydraulic diameter heat transfer coefficient length of plate number Nusselt number Prandtl number heat capacity Reynolds number V [m/s] velocity W [m] T [K] (x, y, z) [m] width of single plate temperature Cartesian coordinate system www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

1482 P. Issac Prasad, Janjeti Tharun Kumar & B. Nageswara Rao Special Characters Corrugation angle δ [mm] mesh interval μ [Pas] μ s dynamic viscosity dynamic viscosity of clod fluid INTRODUCTION Heat transfer can take place through any combination of conduction, convection and radiation. In this study transfer of heat occurs between two different fluids which are not mixing. Therefore, plate heat exchangers (PHEs) are used for exchange of heat. Major modes are convection and conduction. Convection occurs due to flow of liquid whereas conduction occurs through plates. Thickness of plates plays a vital role for this type of modes. These heat exchangers can be classified depending on the size, shape, usage, surface compactness, flow arrangements, number of fluids [1]. PHEs are initially installed in dairy units because of the regular cleaning reasons. Plates in heat exchangers are normally made of stainless steel and held together between two fixed rigid supports by means of tension rods. The major advantage in the design of PHEs is the possibility of exposing the fluid over a very large surface. This facilitates the heat transfer and increases in the rate of temperature change. The important feature of gasketed plate heat exchangers (GPHEs) as shown in Figure-1 is easy to install and remove for mechanical cleaning of the heat transfer surfaces, as the channels between plates are sealed by elastomeric gaskets made with fiber material in some cases. Due to limitations of gaskets, PHEs are restricted to below 473K temperature and 2.5 MPa pressure. These limits can be enhanced further by increasing the size and using high strength of the gaskets. Though many researchers have focused on thermal efficiency enhancement for the past decade providing some changes in patterns of the corrugated plate, situations in process industries are unchanged. Those studies indicate development of larger heat transfer area to volume ratio, design flexibility, and high thermal effectiveness. Hence, they are suitable for energy transfer and space saving. Pike [2] has performed experiments on small PHEs to evaluate friction factor for various values of Reynolds number and the overall heat transfer coefficient.dutta and Rao [3] have examined the test results of Pike [2] adopting the Taguchi s approach and obtained better results compared to those of Pike [2] by varying effectiveness, hot and cold outlet temperatures, friction factor (f), and overall heat transfer coefficient (U).Henrik Forsback and Joel Johansson [4] have done CFD analysis for GPHE. They have used 2D Analysis - flank model; 3D Analysis - Rhomb model; and 3D Analysis - Rectangular model. Knowing the influence of press depth and plate thickness on the stiffness response of the plate, they have conducted tests using 4-16 plates. Asif et al. [5] have performed analysis and developed a generalized Nusselt Number relation for commercial PHE configurations under single-phase flow for two different chevron angle plates (30/30and 60/60)and different chevron plates having angles 30, 45, 60 degrees. Dafe Egeregor [6] states that the heat transfer enhancement mostly depends on the Chevron angle (β) and the direction of flow. Because of the corrugated surface, flow in heat exchangers is highly turbulent. This may be the reason Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal Rating: 3.11

Cfd Analysis on Performance of Chevron Type Plate Heat Exchangers 1483 why the empirical relations in the design of GPHE deviate from actual paths. Vinay Patil et al. [7] have explained that the flow medium cannot distribute uniformly in some arrangements, which affects the PHE performance. Consideration of these approaches needs modifications to overcome the problems. In this study, GPHEs of 3 different kinds are considered with counter flow arrangement. The basic parameters of PHE are taken from Pike [2], who has done experiments on small PHEs and determined the friction factor variation with Reynolds number and evaluated the overall heat transfer coefficient (OHTC). Details of GPHEs In simulation studies, the corrugated plates are essentially the main components. The chevron angle(β), corrugation depth and corrugation pitch variations for three types of plates are considered in the present study. Counter flow arrangement is initialized in PHEs. The size of a chevron type plate can range from a few square centimeters (100 mm x 300 mm) up to 2 or 3 square meters (1200 mm x 2600 mm). The number of plates in a single exchanger may range from just ten to several hundred in number, so that the surface exchange areas can reach to thousands of square meters in the heat transfer process. Figure -1 shows the model of GPHE with counter flow arrangement. Figure 1: A Typical Plate Heat Exchanger (PHE) Plates having a low Chevron angle will provide high heat transfer rate along with the high pressure drop. Long plates made of hard materials are used for long duty sessions. On the other hand, plate having high Chevron angle will give low heat transfer rate and low pressure drop. These soft type plates are used for short duty sessions. Figure-2 shows three different plate geometries used in PHE experiments [2]. Table-1 gives the design parameters of these three GPHEs. Figure 2: Types of Plates used in the Experiments [2] www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

1484 P. Issac Prasad, Janjeti Tharun Kumar & B. Nageswara Rao Table 1: Design Parameters of the three GPHEs Plate Type-A Type-B Type-C No of plates, N 10 14 20 Plate spacing, b(m) 0.002362 0.00221 0.00221 Width, W (m) 0.0762 0.762 0.0762 Length, L (m) 0.137 0.15748 0.254 Height, H (m) 0.023622 0.028448 0.044196 Enhancement factor, Ø 2.1072 2.0705 2.0705 Chevron angle, β ( o ) 45 45 45 Mass flow rate (kg/sec) in GPHEs Hot water 0.189-0.473 0.189-0.164 0.190-0.694 Cold water 0.189-0.472 0.189-0.615 0.189-0.695 Inlet temperature ( o C) in GPHEs Hot water 42-48 41-96 35-92 Cold water 24-38 27-43 26-44 Outlet temperature ( o C) in GPHEs Hot water 35-63 35-63 30-57 Cold water 30-60 34-73 31-78 CFD Analysis Full-scale tests are in most cases prohibitively expensive and often impossible. Experimental backup is essential to investigate new phenomenon and to examine the adequacy of computational methods. Number of experiments can be minimized through numerical simulations. An optimal assessment effort should be a judicious combination of computation and experiment. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is helpful in understanding the nature of fluid flow, heat transfer rate, variation of pressure and temperature for the specified conditions. The strategy of CFD is towards discretization of the flow domain using a grid (Mesh). Details of commercial CFD packages can be found in (cfd2012.com/matlab.html), (https://www.cfdonline.com/wiki/codes),https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/computational_fluid_dynamics,https://www.tayget a.com/cfd/cfd_codes_c.html). CFD simulation processes will save cost and turnaround time. They are widely used in the process of design and upgrade of GPHEs, brazed type HEs, etc. In the present study CFD fluent 15 Version is used to examine the performance of the Chevron type PHEs. The performance of the GPHEs and the total heat transfer rate have to be related to the inlet and outlet fluid temperatures, the overall heat transfer coefficient, and the heat transfer surface area of the heat exchanger. Modifications are made in empirical relations of the friction factor with Reynolds number from numerical simulations on counter-flows to have comparison with existing test data. Basic concepts of Counter-Flow Heat Exchanger In counter-flow heat exchanger, the temperature difference between two fluids changes with respect to the position along the flow path. Maximum heat transfer can be achieved in counter-flow. Such a flow is considered in the present CFD simulations. The heat transfer rate is given by Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal Rating: 3.11

Cfd Analysis on Performance of Chevron Type Plate Heat Exchangers 1485 Q = m h C ρh [T hi T h0 ] (1) Q= m c C pc [T C0 T ci ] (2) Here, Q = Heat gain (W); m= mass flow rate of the working fluid (kg/sec); Tc o= Outlet temperature of the cold working fluid ( C); Tc i= Inlet temperature of the cold working fluid ( C); C pc= Specific heat of the cold working fluid (J/kg K); T ho= Outlet temperature of the hot working fluid ( C); T hi= Inlet temperature of the hot working fluid ( C); and C ph= Specific heat of the hot working fluid (J/kg K). Effectiveness is given by, ε = Q = m h C ρh [T hi T h 0 ] Qmax (mc P )mi n(t hi TC i ) (3) ε = m CC pc [T Co Tc i ] (mc P )mi n(t hi TC i ) (4) Effective temperature difference (ΔT) is given by (ΔT) = ΔT 1 ΔT 2 ln ΔT 1 ΔT2 (5) T 1 and T 2 are the temperature differences at inlet and outlet of fluids. Numerical simulations for investigating the GPHEs parameters, temperature distribution, flow fluctuations and pressure drop distribution, the governing equations (of continuity, momentum and energy) are presented below. For steady three-dimensional transient flows Continuity equation: κ i [ρu i ] = 0 (6) Momentum equation: x i [ρu i u j ] = x 1 μ [ u j κ i ] p x j (7) Energy equation: x i [ρu i T] = MODELING AND CFD SIMULATIONS Plate Model and Creation of Fluid Domain [ λ T ] (8) ϰ i C ρ x i Creation of base plate geometry is the first step in numerical simulations of GPHE. Plate geometries consist of inlet and outlet ports, corrugated channels, and gaskets. Figure-3 shows the basic characteristics of the Chevron type plates in which Chevron angle(β) varies from 35 to 65 0.The shell of A, B, C- type GPHEs contains 10, 14 and 20 plates. Complete system is analyzed considering the assembly of plates. Distribution of contacting points (huge in number) in the corrugated GPHE www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

1486 P. Issac Prasad, Janjeti Tharun Kumar & B. Nageswara Rao has high influence on the mesh quality. Following Dafe Egeregor [7], fine grid is employed for Type-A, Type-B and Type- C of GPHEs utilizing ANSYS Fluent 15 Version [8]. Figure-4 shows a plate geometry, which is duplicated for generating the required number of plates. Figure 3: Basic Geometric Characteristics of a Chevron Type Plate Figure 4: Plate Geometry from the Design Modular and Meshing. Luan et al. [9] have performed experiments on welded PHEs and proposed a method for improving the mesh quality of the corrugated passages for plates with minimum effort. This method is adopted while building the mesh for Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal Rating: 3.11

Cfd Analysis on Performance of Chevron Type Plate Heat Exchangers 1487 Type-A, Type-B and Type-C PHEs. Numerical simulations are carried out on the generated CFD models varying plate geometries and heat conditions. A typical plate meshing is also shown in Figure-4. Table-2 gives details on number of tetrahedron elements, nodes and minimal nodal distance. Figure-5 shows complete assembly meshing of three GPHEs. Mesh near to the walls and boundaries are refined appropriately to examine the effects of pressure, thermal and velocity boundary layers. Table 2: Grid Details of GPHEs GPHE Nodal Distance (mm) Number of Elements Number of Nodes K (W/m k) Type-A 0.23 269,389 55,691 26.9685 Type-B 0.36 160,915 34,848 27.0013 Type-C 0.34 121,506 26,593 27.6627 Figure 5: Complete Assembly Meshing of GPHEs Care is taken while introducing the structured tetrahedral cells as much as possible in the system analysis to refine the mesh near the walls, surfaces (viz., cold-inlet, cold-outlet, hot-inlet and hot-outlet), and heat transfer interfaces for minimizing the computational errors (if any). Fluent Solver Setup In the FLUENT solver, specification of initial boundary conditions and the selection of the turbulence model are very important. The meshing of GPHEs (viz., Type-A, Type-B and Type-C) are checked to ensure the quality. Simulation type is altered to pressure based, whereas the velocity formulation is assigned to absolute, and time is set to steady state. From the models: energy option is kept to ON. Viscous model is selected as k-ε model. Fluent data base can be considered by clicking the create/edit option to add properties of water-liquid, stainless steel, copper, ASTM A179, C12200 materials. Otherwise, one can create a user defined database.scm extension file or choose the file from chemkin mechanism source for material assignment process creating appropriate replica of practical data. In numerical simulations, different parts of GPHE geometries are assigned to corresponding fluids and solids. Boundary conditions are to be set as per the k-ε model. Inlet conditions are defined as mass flow inlet and outlet conditions are set as outflow. Two inlets and two outlets are assigned by considering hot fluid side and cold fluid side of www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

1488 P. Issac Prasad, Janjeti Tharun Kumar & B. Nageswara Rao the GPHE. Each wall is set to no-slip condition. The walls are set to zero heat flux condition. Integral type surface is selected from the monitor option. Temperature is selected as field variable. Surfaces of hot fluid inlet, hot fluid outlet, cold fluid inlet and cold fluid outlet are selected for obtaining exact drop in temperature profiles from inlet to outlet. k Turbulence model is adopted for the enhanced wall treatment. 5.3 Assumptions GPHEs operate under steady state. No change in phase of fluids (for unmixed single-phase fluids) Heat losses are negligible Uniform temperature of fluid streams throughout the flow cross-section. No thermal energy reservoir or sink in the heat exchanger. Fluids with constant specific heat (Cp). Fouling resistance is negligible. 5.4 Boundary Conditions Hot fluid inlet temperature (inner fluid),t hi = 365K Cold fluid inlet temperature (outer fluid), T ci =300K Hot fluid flow rate, m h=0.04 kg/s Cold fluid flow rate, m c=0.05 kg/s Heat capacity of cold fluid, C c = m c C pc =0.05 4180.83=209.041 W/K. Heat capacity of hot fluid, C h =m h C ph = 0.04 4198.3 = 167.932 W/K C h<c c, C min = C h 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 6.1 Fluid Flow and Thermal Analysis Residual in numerical simulations of the three types of GPHEs are shown in Figures 6 to 8 for energy, continuity, x- velocity, y-velocity, z-velocity, epsilon. Creation of a high-quality tetra mesh inside the complex and irregular geometry channels is very important in simulations [10]. Low-quality meshes induce divergence paths and terminate the computational process. Mesh models having different number of elements are created for Type-A, Type-B and Type-C of GPHEs and noted the pressure drop and outlet temperature. Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal Rating: 3.11

Cfd Analysis on Performance of Chevron Type Plate Heat Exchangers 1489 Figure 6: Residuals in Numerical Simulations for Type-A of GPHE Figure 7: Residuals in Numerical Simulations for Type-B of GPHE Figure 8: Residuals in numerical simulations for Type-C of GPHE Figures 9 to 11 show the counter plots of three GPHEs. Uniform constant fluid is flowing through the passage in a zigzag manner. After zooming to a large size, the blank zones are represented by the points of contact. The flow pattern is visible near the contact regions. The fluid flow in the passage is distracted by the contact points of the system. The turbulence is intensive and the heat transfer coefficient is greatly increased. Similar trend is noted for the pressure distributions. The uniform constant fluid flow is in every separate passage. Complex flows and temperature field in the www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

1490 P. Issac Prasad, Janjeti Tharun Kumar & B. Nageswara Rao cross-corrugated passage may result in high wall-fluid heat interaction rates between two fluids. Figure 9: Temperature Contour of Type-A GPHE Figure-9 shows the temperature distribution. Temperature of the fluid at the inlet cross-section is uniform, whereas at the outlet hole, it is unequal due to merging of flows from one direction to different directions. Temperature depends on the characteristic flow length. More flow length leads to the maximum time for heat transfer rate and larger drop in temperature. Figures 12 and 13 show the contour plots of pressure in Type-A and Type-C GPHEs. Figure 10: Temperature Contour of Type-B GPHE Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal Rating: 3.11

Cfd Analysis on Performance of Chevron Type Plate Heat Exchangers 1491 Figure 11: Temperature contour of Type-C GPHE Figure 12: pressure Contour of Type-A GPHE www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

1492 P. Issac Prasad, Janjeti Tharun Kumar & B. Nageswara Rao Figure 13: Pressure Contour Plot of Type-C GPHE From the numerical simulations it is observed that, hot fluid temperature is gradually decreased and cold fluid temperature is increased along the flow path throughout the length of the GPHE. A slight pressure drop (ΔP) is noticed at the inlet entry section. The temperature contour plots of single plate Type-A and Type-B GPHEs in Figures 14 and 15 indicate temperature variation along the length of the plate. Figures 16 to18 show the variation of friction factor (f) with Reynolds number for three types of GPHE. They also show the deviation from the experiments. Figure 14: Temperature Contour Plot of A-type plate Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal Rating: 3.11

Cfd Analysis on Performance of Chevron Type Plate Heat Exchangers 1493 Figure 15: Temperature Contour Plot of B-type Plate 6.2 Empirical Relations Asif et al. [14] have provided the empirical relations (9) and (10) for Nusselt number corresponding to the corrugated angles 30 0 and 60 0 and single-phase flow as N u 0.093R 0.716 e P 1.3 r S 0.14 (9) N u 0.112 R 0.712 e P 1.3 r S 0.14 (10) number, Here is the dynamic viscosity of hot fluid. Pr is the Prandtl number. Friction factor f is S is the dynamic viscosity of cold fluid. R e is the Reynolds pin pout D 2 p D f (11) 2 1 2 L LV V 2 The Nusselt number N and Reynolds number u R are defined as [2] e h L N u, k V D R e (12) Here, k is the thermal conductivity of fluids. www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

1494 P. Issac Prasad, Janjeti Tharun Kumar & B. Nageswara Rao Figures 19 to 21 show the variation of the overall heat transfer coefficient, outlet temperature of cold fluid and Nusselt number with Reynolds number. They show the deviation of numerical simulations from the test results. Figure 16: Friction factor (f) with Reynolds number for Type-A GPHE. Figure 17: Friction Factor (f) with Reynolds Number for Type-B GPHE. Figure 18: Friction Factor (f) with Reynolds Number for Type-C GPHE. Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal Rating: 3.11

Cfd Analysis on Performance of Chevron Type Plate Heat Exchangers 1495 Figure 19: Variation of Heat Transfer Coefficient with Reynolds Number Figure 20: Variation of Cold Fluid Outlet Temperature, TCO ( 0 C) with Reynolds Number for Three Types of GPHEs. Figure 21: Variation of Nusselt Number with Reynolds Number for three types of GPHEs www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

1496 P. Issac Prasad, Janjeti Tharun Kumar & B. Nageswara Rao CONCLUSIONS This paper deals with CFD simulations on gasketed plate heat exchangers (GPHEs) utilizing Fluent 15 Version. Results are presented for Nusselt number, heat transfer coefficient and friction factor in terms of Reynolds number for GPHEs using water and air as the working fluids for both hot and cold medium. Considering hot side fluid as reference fluid, the impact of heat transfer from hot side fluid to cold fluid is examined. In hot side Nusselt number is found to increase gradually with increasing Reynolds number. It is not influencing significantly with Prandtl number for 400<Re<2400 and 3.25< Pr <6.75. From the present numerical simulation it is observed that maximum temperature distribution takes place for Type- A GPHE, whereas it is quite less for Type-B and Type-C. Similar trend is noticed in pressure distribution. For better effectiveness, there is a need for identification of appropriate parameters like length, conductivity, fluid type, inlet conditions, etc. It is observed that Type-C GPHE is less effective in performance when compared to Type-A and Type-B GPHEs. From residual plots of CFD, the energy balance is constant for Type-A indicating more heat transfer per unit area and better performance characteristics. Numerical simulations indicate the advantage of using Chevron type plates over the ordinary heat exchangers. Chevron type plate heat exchanger surfaces promote higher heat transfer coefficient. Both the heat transfer coefficient and the pressure drop are found to increase with increasing Chevron angle. There is a possibility to modify the design of GHPE through numerical simulations to high heat transfer coefficient with possible hydraulic resistance. Numerical simulations indicate 15 to 20% deviations from test results. There is a necessity to specify the temperature dependent fluid properties to perform simulations close to the tests. The heat transfer rate in Chevron plates depends on the Reynolds number. Turbulent flow should be created in heat exchangers to achieve more convective transfer with high Reynolds numbers. REFERENCES 1. Kakac S, Liu H, Pramuanjaorenkj A (2012) Heat exchangers: selection, rating and thermal design, Third Edition, CRC Press, USAISBN 9781466556164 2. Pike AH (2012) Experimental determination of Colburn and friction factors in small plate heat exchangers with high surface enlargement factors, Master s Theses, 83. 3. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/83 4. Dutta OY, Nageswara Rao B (2018) Investigations on the performance of chevron type plate heat exchangers, Heat & Mass Transfer, Vol.54, pp.227-234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00231-017-2107-3 5. Henrik Forsback and Joel Johansson (2011)Simulation and testing of GPHE channel plates during assembling, Master's Dissertation, Division of Solid Mechanics, Lund University, Box 118, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden ISRN LUTFD2/TFHF- 11/5161-SE (1-94) 6. http://www.solid.lth.se/fileadmin/hallfasthetslara/utbildning/examensarbete/tfhf5161.pdf 7. Atul Bhattad, Jahar Sarkar, Pradyumna Ghosh (2017)Exergetic analysis of plate evaporator using hybrid nanofluids as secondary refrigerant for low-temperature applications, International Journal of Exergy, Vol.24, No.1, pp.1-20 8. DOI: 10.1504/IJEX.2017.086857 9. DafeEgeregor (2008) Numerical simulation of heat transfer and pressure drop in a plate heat exchanger using FLUENT as a CFD tool, Master s Degree Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:833076/fulltext01.pdf Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal Rating: 3.11

Cfd Analysis on Performance of Chevron Type Plate Heat Exchangers 1497 10. Vinay Patil, Manjunath H, Basavaraj Kusammanavar (2013) Validation of plate heat exchangers using CFD, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Robotic Research (IJMERR), Vol.2, No.4, pp.222-230 11. http://www.ijmerr.com/v2n4/ijmerr_v2n4_28.pdf 12. ANSYS FLUENT 15 Tutorial Guides: Heat Transfer & Fluid Flow Simulation. 13. Luan HB, Kuang JP, Cao Z, Wu Z, Tao WQ, Sunden B (2017) CFD analysis of two types of welded plate heat exchangers, Numerical Heat Transfer Part A: Applications, Vol.71, No.3, pp.250-269 DOI: 10.1080/10407782.2016.1264761 14. Jan Skocilas, IevgenPalaziuk (2015) CFD simulation of the heat transfer process in a chevron-plate heat exchanger using the SST turbulence model, Acta Politechnica (Journal of Advanced Engineering), Vol.55, No.4, pp.267-274 15. https://ojs.cvut.cz/ojs/index.php/ap/article/view/2495/2892 16. Björn Palm, Joachim Claesson (2006) Plate Heat Exchangers: Calculation Methods for Single and Two-Phase Flow, Heat Transfer Engineering, Vol.27, No.4, pp.88-98. 17. DOI: 10.1080/01457630500523949 18. Ayub ZH (2003) Plate Heat Exchanger Literature Survey and New Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Correlations for Refrigerant Evaporators, Heat Transfer Engineering, Vol.25, No.4, pp.3-16 DOI: 10.1080/01457630304056 19. Khan TS, Khan MS, Ayub ZH (2017) Single-Phase Flow Pressure Drop Analysis in a Plate Heat Exchanger, Heat Transfer Engineering, Vol.38, No.2, pp.256-264. DOI: 10.1080/01457632.2016.1177430 20. Asif M, Aftab H, Syed HA, Ali MA, Muizz PM (2017) Simulation of corrugated plate heat exchanger for heat and flow analysis, International Journal of Heat and Technology (IJHT), Vol.35, No.1, pp.205-210 21. http://iieta.org/sites/default/files/journals/ijht/35.1_27.pdf 22. Sai Krishna TKS, Rajasekhar SG, Pravarakhya C (2013)Design and analysis of plate heat exchangers with CO2and R134a as working fluids, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), Vol.4, No.4,pp.311-318 http://www.iaeme.com/masteradmin/uploadfolder/ijmet_04_04_034/ijmet_04_04_034.pdf 23. Han W, Saleh K, Aute V, Ding G, Hwang Y, Radermacher R (2013) Numerical simulation and optimization of single-phase turbulent flow in chevron-type plate heat exchanger with sinusoidal corrugations, HVAC&R Research, Vol.19, No.7, pp.788-799 24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10789669.2011.558167 25. Atul Bhattad, Jahar Sarkar, Pradyumna Ghosh (2018) Discrete phase numerical model and experimental study of hybrid nanofluid heat transfer and pressure drop in plate heat exchanger, International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol.91, pp.262-273 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2017.12.020 26. Wang YN, Lee JP, Park MH, Jin BJ, Yun TJ, Song YH, Kim IS (2017) A Study on 3D Numerical Model for Plate Heat Exchanger, Procedia Engineering, Vol.174, pp.188-194 doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.01.203 27. Sekhar GV (2013) Estimation of Thermal and Hydraulic Characteristics of Compact Brazed Plate Heat Exchangers, PhD Thesis, Department of Energy Sciences, Lund University, Sweden.https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/publication/e881a11f-f55d-479fbb39-efb462c120ec 28. Ikegami Y, Mutair S, Kawabata Y (2015) Experimental and numerical investigations on plate-type heat exchanger performance, Open Journal of Fluid Dynamics (OJFD), Vol.5, pp.92-98 doi: 10.4236/ojfd.2015.51011 www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org

1498 P. Issac Prasad, Janjeti Tharun Kumar & B. Nageswara Rao Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal Rating: 3.11