8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
1/218
Particulate Fouling of HVAC Heat Exchangers
by
Jeffrey Alexander Siegel
B.S. (Swarthmore College) 1995
M.S. (University of California, Berkeley) 1999
A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Engineering – Mechanical Engineering
in the
GRADUATE DIVISION
of the
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
Committee in charge:
Professor Van P. Carey, Chair
Professor Ralph Greif
Professor William W. Nazaroff
Fall 2002
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
2/218
i
To my mother, father, and sister
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
3/218
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................vi
LIST OF TABLES.....................................................................................................ix
NOMENCLATURE ..................................................................................................xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................xv
CHAPTER 1: PARTICULATE FOULING OF HVAC HEAT EXCHANGERS ....1
1.1 Introduction........................................................................................1
1.2 Review of Published Fouling Models................................................3
1.3 Scope of Dissertation Research .........................................................6
1.4 Important Non-dimensional Parameters ............................................8
1.5 Outline of Dissertation.......................................................................11
CHAPTER 2: MODELING PARTICLE DEPOSITION ON HVAC HEAT
EXCHANGERS.........................................................................................................13
2.1 Introduction........................................................................................13
2.1.1 Fin-and-tube heat exchangers ................................................14
2.2 Previous Studies.................................................................................15
2.3 Preliminary Deposition Modeling using CFD ...................................17
2.4 Modeling the Mechanisms of Particle Deposition on HVAC HeatExchangers.........................................................................................19
2.4.1 Deposition on leading edge of fins ........................................20
2.4.2 Impaction on refrigerant tubes ...............................................23
2.4.3 Gravitational settling on fin corrugations ..............................25
2.4.4 Deposition by air turbulence in fin channels .........................27
2.4.5 Deposition by Brownian diffusion.........................................31
2.4.6 Combining deposition mechanisms .......................................32
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
4/218
iii
2.4.7 Particle deposition mechanisms not considered ....................33
2.4.8 Particle reflection...................................................................34
2.5 Non-isothermal Deposition Processes ...............................................36
2.5.1 Thermophoresis to fin walls...................................................36
2.5.2 Thermophoretic deposition on tubes......................................38
2.5.3 Diffusiophoresis to fin walls..................................................39
2.5.4 Presence of condensed water .................................................41
2.6 Modeling Parameters .........................................................................41
2.7 Modeling Results ...............................................................................43
2.7.1 Isothermal conditions.............................................................44
2.7.2 Non-isothermal conditions.....................................................54
2.7.3 Comparison with Muyshondt et al. (1998)............................57
2.8 Conclusions and Implications of Model Results ...............................60
CHAPTER 3: MEASURING PARTICLE DEPOSITION ON HVAC HEATEXCHANGERS.........................................................................................................62
3.1 Introduction........................................................................................62
3.2 Previous Studies.................................................................................63
3.3 Experimental Methods .......................................................................64
3.3.1 Measuring particle deposition fraction ..................................65
3.3.2 Measuring deposition fraction in a non-isothermal system...75
3.3.3 Methods for experiment to determine fouling to pressure-
drop relationship ...................................................................79
3.3.4 Measurement devices, sensors, and uncertainty ....................82
3.4 Experimentally Tested Parameters ....................................................84
3.5 Analysis..............................................................................................85
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
5/218
iv
3.5.1 Deposition fraction (both isothermal and non-isothermal)....85
3.5.2 Non-isothermal experiments..................................................86
3.5.3 Pressure drop experiments .....................................................87
3.6 Results ................................................................................................89
3.6.1 Isothermal deposition fraction ...............................................89
3.6.2 Non-isothermal deposition fractions......................................93
3.6.3 Dust deposition experiment ...................................................96
3.7 Discussion and Implications of Experimental Results.......................99
CHAPTER 4: BIOAEROSOL DEPOSITION ON HVAC HEAT EXCHANGERS
AND IMPLICATIONS FOR INDOOR AIR QUALITY..........................................104
4.1 Introduction........................................................................................104
4.2 Bioaerosols of concern.......................................................................105
4.2.1 Fungi ......................................................................................106
4.2.2 Bacteria ..................................................................................108
4.3 Bioaerosol Deposition on Heat Exchangers ......................................111
4.4 Viability and Spread of Deposited Bioaerosols .................................114
4.5 Discussion..........................................................................................118
CHAPTER 5: FOULING TIMES AND ENERGY IMPLICATIONS OF HVACHEAT EXCHANGER FOULING.............................................................................122
5.1 Introduction........................................................................................122
5.2 Previous Studies.................................................................................123
5.3 Estimation of Fouling Times and Energy Impacts ............................126
5.3.1 Residential systems................................................................126
5.3.2 Commercial systems ..............................................................147
5.4 Analysis Results.................................................................................150
5.4.1 Residential systems................................................................150
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
6/218
v
5.4.2 Commercial systems .............................................................156
5.5 Discussion..........................................................................................158
5.5.1 Residential systems................................................................158
5.5.2 Commercial systems ..............................................................160
5.6 Conclusions........................................................................................161
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................164
REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................169
APPENDIX A: EXPERIMENTAL PROTOCOLS...................................................179
APPENDIX B: TABULATED EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS................................193
APPENDIX C: MICROSCOPY OF MATERIAL ON FOULED COILS................196
APPENDIX D: INDOOR PARTICLE NUMBER CONCENTRATION
DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS ................................................................................199
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
7/218
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Asymptotic fouling (modified from Bott, 1995) ...............................4
Figure 1.2: Analysis and experimental plan .........................................................12
Figure 2.1: Front view of leading edge of fins (left) and side view of heatexchanger and refrigerant tubes (right)..............................................14
Figure 2.2: Unrefined mesh from computational fluid dynamics simulation ......18
Figure 2.3: Top view of fin channel showing particle trajectory because of airturbulence...........................................................................................27
Figure 2.4: Critical velocity for onset of particle bounce (Cheng and Yeh,
1979) ..................................................................................................35
Figure 2.5: Deposition as a function of velocity for fin spacing = 4.7 fin/cm .....45
Figure 2.6: Deposition as a function of fin spacing for U = 2 m/s.......................45
Figure 2.7: Impaction deposition on fin edges as a function of velocity for fin
spacing = 4.7 fin/cm...........................................................................46
Figure 2.8: Impaction deposition on fin edges as a function of fin spacing for
U = 2 m/s............................................................................................47
Figure 2.9: Gravitational, tube impaction, and turbulent penetration fractions
for U = 1 m/s and fin spacing = 4.7 fin/cm........................................48
Figure 2.10: Gravitational, tube impaction, and turbulent penetration fractions
for U = 4 m/s and fin spacing = 4.7 fin/cm........................................48
Figure 2.11: Gravitational, tube impaction, and turbulent penetration fractionsas a function of fin spacing for 2.4 fin/cm and U = 2 m/s .................49
Figure 2.12: Gravitational, tube impaction, and turbulent penetration fractionsas a function of fin spacing for 7.1 fin/cm and U = 2 m/s .................50
Figure 2.13: Uncertainty for fin impaction for U = 2 m/s and fin spacing = 4.7
fin/cm.................................................................................................51
Figure 2.14: Uncertainty for tube impaction for U = 2 m/s and fin spacing = 4.7
fin/cm.................................................................................................51
Figure 2.15: Uncertainty for gravitational settling for U = 2 m/s and fin spacing
= 4.7 fin/cm........................................................................................52
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
8/218
vii
Figure 2.16: Uncertainty in air turbulence impaction for U = 2 m/s and fin
spacing = 4.7 fin/cm...........................................................................53
Figure 2.17: Overall uncertainty bounds for U = 2 m/s and fin spacing = 4.7
fin/cm.................................................................................................54
Figure 2.18: Comparison of deposition on isothermal coil, cooled coil, andcooled-and-condensing coil for U = 2 m/s and fin spacing = 4.7
fin/cm.................................................................................................55
Figure 2.19: Penetration by thermophoresis as a function of θ for U = 2 m/s and
fin spacing = 4.7 fin/cm.....................................................................56
Figure 2.20: Comparison of present model and the work of Muyshondt et al.
(1998) as a function of fin spacing for U = 1.5 m/s...........................59
Figure 3.1: Schematic of experimental apparatus ................................................65
Figure 3.2: Cross section of duct showing measurement points for pitot tube
air velocity measurement ...................................................................69
Figure 3.3: Sampling locations immediately upstream of duct ............................73
Figure 3.4: Schematic of measurements and sensor locations for cooled and
cooled-and-condensing coil experiments...........................................76
Figure 3.5: SAE coarse dust fractional mass distribution function......................80
Figure 3.6: Apparatus for dust experiment...........................................................81
Figure 3.7: Modeled and measured deposition for 1.5 m/s air velocity ...............90
Figure 3.8: Modeled and measured deposition for 2.2 m/s air velocity ...............91
Figure 3.9: Modeled and measured deposition for 5.2 m/s air velocity ...............91
Figure 3.10: Non-isothermal deposition fraction for 1.5 m/s air velocity..............94
Figure 3.11: Normalized mass deposited vs. relative pressure drop for 2.0 m/sair velocity .........................................................................................97
Figure 3.12: Top view of idealized (left) and real (right) fin channels ..................101
Figure 4.1: Deposition fractions for air velocity of 1.5 m/s and fin spacing of
4.7 fin/cm...........................................................................................113
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
9/218
viii
Figure 5.1: Duct penetration fractions vs. particle size for residential duct
systems described in Table 5.1 ..........................................................129
Figure 5.2: Filter efficiency curves for parametric analysis.................................130
Figure 5.3: Filter Efficiency curves for spun fiberglass furnace filter from
Hanley and Smith (1993) for U = 1.8 m/s .........................................131
Figure 5.4: Filter Efficiency curves for spun fiberglass furnace filter fromHanley et al. (1994) for U = 1.3 m/s..................................................132
Figure 5.5: Coil deposition fractions as a function of fin spacing for U = 2 m/s.133
Figure 5.6: Wet coil deposition fractions as a function of fin spacing for U = 2m/s......................................................................................................134
Figure 5.7: Fan curve and system curves for clean and fouled coil .....................143
Figure 5.8: Fan curves used to determine flow ....................................................144
Figure 5.9: Performance degradation from reduced flow from Parker et al.
(1997).................................................................................................145
Figure 5.10: Performance degradation from reduced flow from Palani et al. (1992) ................................................................................................146
Figure 5.11: Fouling time ratios (relative to Base Case)........................................152
Figure C.1: Optical Microscopy on Coil 1. .........................................................196
Figure C.2: SEM image from Coil 2.....................................................................197
Figure D.1: Urban submicron indoor air particle number concentration
distributions........................................................................................199
Figure D.2: Urban supermicron particle indoor air number concentration
distributions........................................................................................200
Figure D.3: Rural submicron indoor air particle number concentrationdistributions........................................................................................201
Figure D.4: Rural supermicron indoor air particle number concentration
distributions........................................................................................202
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
10/218
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Reynolds numbers and ranges for HVAC heat exchangers...............9
Table 1.2: Non dimensional parameters that govern particle behavior in
HVAC heat exchangers......................................................................11
Table 2.1: Summary of approaches used to estimate model uncertainty............33
Table 2.2: Velocities considered in simulations .................................................42
Table 2.3: Geometric parameters for this study and for Muyshondt et al. (1998) ................................................................................................43
Table 2.4: Diffusiophoretic penetration as a function of air relative humidity,φ , for θ = 0.92, U = 2 m/s and fin spacing = 4.7 fin/cm....................57
Table 3.1: Test heat exchanger geometric parameters ........................................70
Table 3.2: Summary of particle sampling locations............................................73
Table 3.3: Summary of temperature and relative humidity measurement
locations .............................................................................................79
Table 3.4: Measurements, sensors, and uncertainty............................................83
Table 3.5: Temperature conditions for non-isothermal experiments ..................94
Table 3.6: Moisture volumes for non-isothermal experiments ...........................95
Table 3.7: Modeled and measured deposition fractions for cooled-and-condensing experiments.....................................................................96
Table 3.8: Mass balance calculations..................................................................98
Table 4.1: Fungal species in different parts of HVAC systems..........................108
Table 4.2: Bacterial species in different parts of HVAC systems.......................110
Table 5.1: Residential duct systems for parametric analysis ..............................128
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
11/218
x
Table 5.2: Parameters varied in the simulation of mass deposition....................141
Table 5.3: Commercial HVAC fans....................................................................149
Table 5.4: Fouling time ratios .............................................................................151
Table 5.5: Contribution to mass deposited by particle size ................................154
Table 5.6: Flow reduction and pressure drop for different fan curves................155
Table 5.7: Fan power for clean and fouled coils.................................................156
Table 5.8: Commercial building fan power increase (W) based on fan typeand flow and pressure conditions.......................................................157
Table B.1: Data from isothermal and non-isothermal deposition fractionexperiments ........................................................................................193
Table B.2: Leading edge fraction for isothermal experiments ............................194
Table B.3: Data from pressure drop experiment..................................................195
Table C.1: Fiber diameter and lengths from two residential coils.......................198
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
12/218
xi
NOMENCLATURE
Aduct duct cross sectional area
A fin fin surface area
Atube tube outer surface area
Anozzle sampling nozzle entry areab f filter bypass
bc coil bypass cf corrugation factor
c8-c18 psychrometric coefficients from ASHRAE (2001)
C air,down downstream air concentration
C air,up upstream air concentration C b,filter concentration of fluorescein extracted from filter
C b,holder concentration of fluorescein extracted from filter holder
C b,nozzle concentration of fluorescein extracted from nozzleC c Cunningham slip correction factor
C D coefficient of dragC in indoor particle concentrationC m coefficient of momentum slip = 1.14
C out outdoor particle concentration
C s coefficient of slip = 1.14C t coefficient of thermal slip = 2.18
d a particle aerodynamic diameter
d d droplet diameter
d nozz nozzle diameterd p particle diameter
d tube tube diameter
D Brownian diffusion coefficient D12 diffusivity of water in air
DC duty cycle of the air handler fan
e coefficient of restitution f friction factor, frequency (of VOAG)
f IPA fraction of isopropyl alcohol in particle solution
g acceleration due to gravity = 9.8 m/s2
h average height of fin corrugations
T fl Lagrangian integral scale of time
k Boltzmann constant = 1.38x10-23
J/K
k g thermal conductivity of the gas
k p thermal conductivity of the particle Kn particle Knudsen number
m mass of deposit per unit area M mass of dust on coil for each insertion
M c mass concentration that deposits on coil M coil mass of fluorescein or test dust on heat exchanger
M duct,up mass of dust on the floor of the duct upstream
M duct,down mass of dust on the floor of the duct downstream
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
13/218
xii
M f loaded filter mass
M f,0 clean filter mass M filter,up mass of dust collected on the upstream sampling filters
M foul deposited mass that doubles heat exchanger pressure drop
M insert total mass of dust put into the system
M mound mass of dust that fell directly to the floor of the duct underneath the sifter M sifter mass of dust that remained in the sifter after each dust insertion
n fouling exponent
nm,in indoor particle size mass distribution function nrow number of rows of tubes in direction of flow
n set number of sets of offset tube rows
noffset number of offset tube rows per set p penetration fraction through cracks in the building envelope
p1 partial pressure of water
p2 partial pressure of gas P velocity pressure
P duct,r penetration through the return duct system P duct,s penetration through the supply duct system
P D penetration by Brownian diffusion P df penetration by diffusiophoresis
P G penetration by gravitational settling
P fin penetration by fin impaction P H 2O partial pressure of water vapor P H 2O, sat saturated partial pressure of water vapor
P tube penetration by tube impaction P T penetration by air turbulence impaction
P Th penetration by thermophoresis Pr Prandtl number
Q air flow rate through the HVAC system
Qcondensate volumetric flow of condensateQ L VOAG liquid flow rate
Q s air sampling flow rate
Q s,iso isokinetic sampling flow rate
Re p particle Reynolds number Retube tube Reynolds number
R f fouling resistance
R f ∞ asymptotic fouling resistanceSt Stanton number Stk eff,fin particle effective Stokes number based on t
Stk etf,tube particle effective Stokes number based on d tube Stk nozz particle Stokes number based on d nozz t time, experimental duration
t fin fin thickness
T average air temperature
T down average downstream air temperature
T dp air dew point temperature
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
14/218
xiii
T up average upstream air temperature
T wall heat exchanger temperature u air velocity in bulk flow direction
u fin bulk air velocity in fin channels
u’ turbulent fluctuating air velocity in bulk flow direction
u p particle velocity in bulk flow directionu p’ turbulent fluctuating particle velocity in bulk flow direction
U air bulk velocity, instantaneous velocity
U p instantaneous particle velocityv air velocity in vertical direction
vc critical velocity for onset of particle bounce
vi impact velocity v p particle velocity in vertical direction
vr reflection velocity
V b,filter volume of buffer used to extract filterV b,holder volume of buffer used to extract filter holder
V b,nozzle volume of buffer used to extract nozzleV condensate volume of condensate
V H2O volume of condensed water on the coilV s particle settling velocity
w center-to-center fin spacing, wall normal air velocity (Muyshondt et al., 1988)
w’ turbulent fluctuating component of air velocity in wall normal directionw p particle velocity in wall-normal direction
w p’ turbulent fluctuating component of particle velocity in wall normal direction
wtube center-to-center tube spacing in vertical directionW Df overall diffusiophoretic velocity
W Df’ diffusiophoretic velocityW
SfStefan flow velocity
W up humidity ratio upstream of the duct
W down humidity ratio downstream of the duct y peak to trough width of fin corrugations
yT particle entering location
z heat exchanger depth in direction of flow
z tube center-to-center tube spacing in direction of flow
β particle deposition loss rate to building surfaces, fouling constant, coefficient
in Equation (2.22)
∆ turbulent thermal boundary layer thickness
∆ P pressure drop of fouled coil∆ P external static pressure drop of the system
∆ P initial pressure drop of cleaned coil
∆ P / z pressure drop per unit length of the duct
є eddy viscosity
φ air relative humidity
φ D deposition flux to heat exchanger surface
φ R removal flux from heat exchanger surface
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
15/218
xiv
γ 1 mole fraction of water vapor
γ 2 mole fraction of dry air
η deposition fraction
η asp aspiration efficiency
η c coil deposition fraction
η f filter efficiencyη fan fan efficiency
η motor fan motor efficiency
η r HVAC filter efficiency (from Riley et al., 2000)
κ thermophoretic coefficient
λ air mean free path
λ i
envelope infiltration rate
λ r HVAC air exchange rate, µ air dynamic viscosity
ν air kinematic viscosityθ temperature ratio
ρ * unit density = 1 g/cm3
ρ air air density
ρ p particle density
τ shear stress
τ w wall shear stress
τ imp characteristic time for a particle impaction by air turbulence
τ p particle relaxation time
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
16/218
xv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the contributions of my advisors: Van Carey, Bill
Nazaroff, and Ralph Greif. Their comments and guidance were crucial in shaping and
improving this dissertation. Van Carey and Bill Nazaroff guided me throughout my
graduate school career and Bill Nazaroff’s extensive comments on a draft of this
dissertation were particularly helpful. Iain Walker and Max Sherman at Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory were instrumental in obtaining funding and guiding this
project. John Proctor made many valuable suggestions over the course of this work,
Mark Sippola and De-Ling Liu, my colleagues in the Department of Environmental
Engineering, contributed to this work by reviewing papers, sharing information about
equipment, and assisting with the issues that arose in conducting the experiments.
Fabienne Boulieu from INSA Lyon assisted with data collection. Shana Bernstein and
Laura Siegel edited portions of this document and found many errors – the errors that
remain are mine, not theirs. Adam Lewinberg and Anna Greenberg, among many others,
contributed moral support over the years of dissertation research and writing.
Much of the work in this dissertation was sponsored by the California Institute for
Energy Efficiency (CIEE), a research unit of the University of California (Award No.
BG-90-73). Publication of research results does not imply CIEE endorsement of or
agreement with these findings, nor that of any CIEE sponsor. Support was also provided
by the Office of Research and Development, Office of Nonproliferation and National
Security, and the Office of Building Technology, State, and Community Programs,
Office of Building Research and Standards, US Department of Energy under contract
DE-AC03-76SF00098.
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
17/218
1
CHAPTER 1: PARTICULATE FOULING OF HVAC HEAT
EXCHANGERS
1.1 Introduction
Heat exchangers are a significant part of many industrial processes that involve
energy exchange. Most of these heat exchangers become fouled with use. The United
Engineering Foundation, which hosts a conference every three years on the fouling
problem, estimates that the cost of heat exchanger fouling is 0.4 % of global Gross
Domestic Product (UEF, 2001). This high cost has lead to frequent study of the fouling
problem, including numerous books and conferences on the subject (Somerscales and
Knudsen, 1981; Melo et al., 1988; Bott, 1995). Much of this work has focused on
particular industries. Crude oil processing, dairy and food processing, and nuclear
reactor cooling are all industries that have conducted a large amount of research aimed at
understanding and mitigating fouling.
One of the most common uses of heat exchangers is the heating and cooling of
buildings. There are 107 - 10
9 heat exchangers installed in heating, ventilating, and air
conditioning (HVAC) systems in buildings in the United States. Building energy use
represents about one third of total worldwide energy use. Of that total, about one third is
for heating and cooling (EIA, 2002). Heat exchangers are a central part of most heating
and cooling systems, thus even small fractional performance degradations owing to
fouling have the potential to cause large societal energy consequences. Furthermore,
many heat exchangers used in HVAC systems are directly in the indoor air stream. Any
material that deposits on these heat exchangers can react with other deposited or airborne
contaminants and produce odorous compounds. If the deposited material is biological in
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
18/218
2
nature, it can grow and contaminate other parts of the HVAC system and spread to indoor
spaces.
The heat exchangers used on the air side of most HVAC systems are extended
surfaces. They are typically a fin-and-tube configuration, which consist of tubes that
carry a refrigerant and fins that facilitate energy exchange between the refrigerant and the
air. Fin-and-tube heat exchangers consist of refrigerant tubes that run perpendicular (and
almost always horizontal) to the flow, and fins that run parallel (and almost always
vertical) to the direction of flow. The fins are often corrugated or have other extensions
from the surface to further promote energy exchange between the refrigerant and the air.
Important parameters in the design of fin-and-tube heat exchangers are the
number and spacing of tubes and the number of fins (usually expressed as a fin pitch, i.e.
the number of fins per unit length). Energy efficiency and performance requirements
often lead to higher fin pitches which increases the heat transfer between the refrigerant
and the air. Pressure drop considerations and cost limitations lead to lower fin pitches.
It is well known to technicians and designers that HVAC fin-and-tube heat
exchangers become fouled with use (RSC, 1987; Neal, 1992; Turpin, 2001). Common
contaminants include airborne particulate matter and dusts. Corrosion, both from
chemical reactions between deposited material on the (often moist) heat exchanger
surface, and from acidic air contaminants is also reported (Proctor, 1998b). Cleaning of
the heat exchangers, usually with strong acids, bases or detergents and mechanical
scrubbing with wire brushes, is a standard part of maintenance and commissioning
procedures (Turpin, 2001). Biological contamination issues are also well known:
textbooks typically recommend the use of biocide coatings or fungicide applications on
and around HVAC heat exchangers (Kuehn et al., 1998).
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
19/218
3
Despite the documented occurrence of fouling of HVAC heat exchangers by
particulate matter, there has been relatively little study of the way in which particles are
transported to and deposit on heat exchanger surfaces. There are studies that document
biological growth on heat exchanger surfaces (Hugenholtz and Fuerst, 1992; Morey,
1988) and others that examine the role of HVAC heat exchanger surfaces as sources and
sinks of contaminants (Muyshondt et al. 1998). Others have explored aspects of the
energy consequences of heat exchanger fouling (Krafthefter and Bonne, 1986;
Krafthefter et al., 1987). In summary, despite the importance of HVAC heat exchangers
and anecdotal and scientific evidence that they foul, there has been relatively little study
of the mechanisms and processes that cause fouling of these systems.
The goals of the research reported on here are to improve our understanding of the
processes and rates of fouling by airborne particulate matter and to predict the impacts of
fouling. The structure of this chapter is to review the relevant fouling literature, to
present a scope for this study, to describe non-dimensional parameters that are useful in
characterizing HVAC heat exchangers and particle deposition, and to outline this
research project and dissertation.
1.2 Review of Published Fouling Models
The most widespread general model for heat exchanger fouling is described by
Bott (1995). A summary of the predictions of this model appears in Figure 1.1. The
amount of deposited material initially remains small during the induction period because
adhesive forces are small until sufficient material deposits to condition the surface for
future deposition. The length of the induction period can vary greatly for different
systems (Bott, 1995). The steady growth of the layer occurs as surface conditions permit
a constant increase in fouling. Finally, the deposit layer reaches a maximum and
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
20/218
4
asymptotes. This asymptotic behavior, although not universal, is caused by a balance
between deposition and removal of the fouling agent. The y-axis in Figure 1.1 can also
be interpreted as the fouling heat transfer resistance or the friction factor for the heat
exchanger.
Time
D e p o s t T
c
n e s s
Induction or
Initiation
Steady
Growth
Asymptotic Limit
Figure 1.1: Asymptotic fouling (modified from Bott, 1995).
The asymptotic model has been experimentally verified for numerous fouling
problems (Bott and Bemrose, 1983; Epstein, 1981). Mathematically, the generalized
fouling process can be described as (follows Bott, 1995):
d
d D R
m
t φ φ = − (1.1)
Where m is the mass of deposit per unit area, φ D is the deposition flux to the heat
exchanger surfaces, and φ R is the removal flux of fouling agent from the surface.
Experiments need to be done for each system and flow condition to determine the
functional forms of φ D and φ R.
Kern and Seaton (1959) provided the first detailed functional form for asymptotic
fouling:
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
21/218
5
( )1 e t f f R ( t ) R β −∞= − (1.2)
Where R f is the heat transfer resistance of the fouled heat exchanger as a function
of time, R f ∞ is the asymptotic limit of fouling resistance and β is a constant that is
dependent on the system. Fouling resistances span a very large range. Some reported
values in the literature include 10-5
– 10-4
°C/W⋅m2 for a cooling water system (Merry
and Polley, 1981) and 10-3
– 10-2
°C/W⋅m2 (Bott, 1981) for paraffin in an industrial heat
exchanger. Mills (1992) tabulates design values for fouling resistances for a wide range
of fluids that range from 10-4 – 10-2 °C/W⋅m2.
The Kern and Seaton expression is by far the most common functional form for
asymptotic fouling and is still used for a wide variety of fluids and heat exchanger
geometries. Other functional forms for asymptotic fouling have been proposed, including
a driving force model (Konak, 1976):
( )d
d
n f f f
R ( t ) K R R ( t )
t ∞
= − (1.3)
Where K and n are constants (note that Equation (1.3) and Equation (1.2) are equal for n
= 1 and K = β ). Epstein (1988) assumed a constant temperature difference between the
heat exchanger and the fluid and that the heat flux follows a power law relationship. He
proposed the following model:
( )
d
d
f
n f f
R ( t ) K
t R R ( t )∞
=
−
(1.4)
The models proposed in Equations (1.2) - (1.4) are all useful for conceptualizing
fouling, but all require extensive testing at all possible system conditions to obtain the
correct functional form and values of the coefficients. Most fouling research consists of
experiments to determine these parameters for a particular system. Very little research
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
22/218
6
has been done to determine fouling resistances and their functional form for HVAC heat
exchangers.
Equations (1.2) - (1.4) all focus on an increased resistance to heat transfer caused
by fouling. Bott (1995) points out that the pressure drop increases that result from
fouling can also have a significant effect on heat exchanger performance. This is true for
HVAC heat exchangers and is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.
1.3 Scope of Dissertation Research
There are many different kinds of heat exchangers used in HVAC systems. In
order to focus the investigation, the following limits are put on this investigation. In this
study, I am primary interested in particulate fouling of air-side indoor fin-and-tube heat
exchangers used for cooling. Corrosion fouling, in addition to particulate fouling, can
occur in HVAC heat exchangers, but is often related to a particular airborne chemical
contaminant (Proctor, 1998b) or is caused by the more extreme temperatures that occur
from the development of a thick fouling layer (Bott, 1995) . Although there are many
water-side heat exchangers in HVAC systems, the fouling that occurs in these liquid
systems is typically one of scaling and precipitation (Somerscales and Knudsen, 1981),
not particle deposition. Outdoor heat HVAC exchangers, which reject/absorb heat that
the refrigerant acquires/loses at the indoor heat exchangers, also foul, but the fouling
mechanism is of a different nature than considered here. Large scale debris, such as
leaves, and wind-blown soil, as well as algal growth in evaporative condensers and
cooling towers are typical fouling agents for outdoor HVAC heat exchangers (RSC,
1987; Neal, 1992). Other designs, such as unextended tube bundles (no fins), are used as
heat exchangers in some larger HVAC systems, but by far the most predominant type are
fin-and-tube. The focus on heat exchangers used for cooling is because the effects of
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
23/218
7
fouling are more severe than for heating. Air conditioning systems are more sensitive to
flow reduction (Palani et al., 1992; Parker et al., 1997; Proctor, 1998a) than heating heat
exchangers. Also, cooling heat exchangers (evaporators) serve to dehumidify the air
stream which provides bulk water for microbiological growth and can accelerate the rate
of fouling.
The focus on particulate fouling means that the range of particle diameters being
considered is crucially important, as particle size determines most particle properties.
Previous work on heat exchanger fouling has typically considered supermicron particles
as these particles are sufficiently large to cause a significant fouling layer when they
deposit (Bott and Bemrose, 1983; Muyshondt et al., 1998). However, submicron
particles exist at much higher concentrations in typical indoor environments, so this study
will consider particles as small as 0.01 µm in diameter. Particles in the size range of 0.01
to 1 µm exist in indoor environments as the result of combustion (including tobacco
smoke), penetration from outdoor sources, and gas-to-particle conversion processes
(Hinds, 1999). Particles in the range of 1 - 10 µm include some soil grains, certain
bioaerosols, and particles from cooking and other household activities. Very large
particles, with diameters from 10 – 100 µm, are those found in indoor dusts (Hinds,
1999). It is important to note that smaller particles (i.e. those with a characteristic
dimension of 10 nm or even smaller) do exist in indoor environments. However, because
mass goes with the cube of particle diameter (for spherical particles), these very small
particles are unlikely to contribute significantly to pressure drop or deposited mass. Also,
certain particles, particularly dust fibers, exist in indoor air at sizes larger than 100 µm.
However, there are very limited data on the concentration of these particles in indoor
environments. They are typically non-spherical and thus have poorly understood
behavior in indoor air flows. Their large inertia leads to deviation from fluid streamlines
and makes them difficult to sample, which, combined with very limited regulatory
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
24/218
8
interest, explains the lack of data. Some analysis of larger dust fibers is included in
Chapter 5, but most of the analysis is limited to 0.01 to 100 µm spherical particles.
1.4 Important Non-dimensional Parameters
In addition to the particle diameter, there are also many non-dimensional
parameters that are relevant for the study of heat exchanger fouling. Table 1.1 lists
important air Reynolds numbers. The ranges of values in the table are based on flow
rates, dimensions, and heat exchanger geometries typical of residential and commercial
systems. The first parameter is the Reynolds number in the duct leading up to a heat
exchanger, Reduct . These flows are always turbulent and frequently are developing
because of bends, constrictions, and other geometric changes to the flow near the heat
exchangers. Another duct Reynolds number, Reτ ,duct is based on the friction velocity, u*,
which is a parameter with dimensions of velocity ( * w air u / τ ρ = , where τ w is the wall
shear stress and ρ air is the air density) that is often used to characterize turbulent flow.
When flow enters the heat exchanger, the Reynolds numbers in the fin channels, Re fin
,
drops two to three orders of magnitude from Reduct because the characteristic dimensions
becomes the much smaller fin spacing. Even though the low values for Re fin in Table 1.2
suggest laminar flow, the upstream turbulence in the duct and enhanced surfaces typically
lead to a transition flow in the heat exchanger core. The Reynolds number based on the
tube diameter, Retube, is used to describe flow around and the heat exchanger tubes, an
important geometric feature in HVAC heat exchangers.
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
25/218
9
Table 1.1: Reynolds numbers and ranges for HVAC heat exchangers.
Typical Ranges
Parameter Formulaa Residential Commercial
Reynolds number based
on duct dimensionduct
duct d u
Reν
= 104 - 10
52⋅10
4 - 3⋅10
5
Reynolds number based
on duct dimension and
friction velocity
*duct
,duct d u
Reτ ν
= 6⋅102 - 5⋅10
3 103 - 10
4
Reynolds number in finchannels
fin fin
w u Re
ν
⋅
= 102 – 9⋅10
2 10
2 - 2⋅10
3
Reynolds number basedon tube diameter
tube fintube d u Re
ν
⋅
= 6⋅102 - 5⋅103 6⋅102 - 104
aIn these expressions, d duct is characteristic dimension of duct, u is bulk air velocity, ν is kinematic viscosity
of air, u* is the friction velocity ( 8*u / u f / w air τ ρ = = where f=2d duct ∆ P/ ρ air zu2 where ∆ P/z is the
pressure drop per length of the duct in the direction of flow and ρ air is the air density), u fin is the bulk
velocity in the fin channels (u fin = u(1+t fin/w) where t fin is the fin thickness and w is the center to center fin
spacing), and d tube is the tube diameter.
The Reynolds numbers in Table 1.1 are important when describing and relating
different systems. Although the face area of heat exchangers varies over a large range,
from less than 0.1 m2 to over 4 m
2, the parameters in Table 1.1 and the reduction of a heat
exchanger to the simplest unit of a fin channel allow conclusions to be generalized.
There are also several non-dimensional parameters that govern particle dynamics
and deposition in the system. Particle Reynolds number, Stokes numbers, and relaxation
times for spherical particles of the size range 0.01 – 100 µm and typical HVAC velocities
and geometric parameters are listed in Table 1.2. The particle Reynolds number, Re p is
used to calculate the coefficient of drag, C D, which appears in the other dimensional
parameters in Table 1.2. Stk fin is the particle Stokes number that governs deposition by
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
26/218
10
impaction on fin edges. The Stokes numbers in Table 1.2 are in a general form. Stokes
numbers are most commonly reported assuming that Re p < 0.1, for which spherical
particles are in the Stokesian range, and assuming that C D = 24/ Re p. A similar parameter
that governs deposition on the refrigerant tubes is Stk tube. Note that both Stokes numbers
vary by nine orders of magnitude in HVAC systems. This is mostly due to the
dependence of the Stokes numbers on d p2 (for Stokesian behavior, Re p < 0.1). Particle
diameter varies over four orders of magnitude for particles that we are relevant for
present purposes. The last parameter in Table 1.2, the particle relaxation time, is shown
in its dimensionless form as commonly used for particles in turbulent flow. This
parameter governs how rapidly a particle responds to changes in the fluid velocity.
The parameters in Tables 1.1 and 1.2 influence the different mechanisms by
which particles of various sizes are likely to deposit. Deposition mechanisms are
discussed in more detail in the modeling work in Chapters 2 and the experimental work
in Chapter 3.
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
27/218
11
Table 1.2: Non-dimensional parameters that govern particle behavior in HVAC heat
exchangers.
Parameter Formula
a
Typical Range
In HVAC Heat
Exchangers
Particle Reynolds number p p p
d u u Re
ν
−
= 10-4 - 4⋅10
1
Particle Stokes number
based on fin thickness
c
D
4C
3C
p p fin
air fin
d Stk
t
ρ
ρ = 5⋅10
-6 - 10
3
Particle Stokes number based on tube diameter
c
D
4C
3C
p ptube
air tube
d Stk
d
ρ
ρ = 2⋅10
-8 - 2⋅101
Particle relaxation time
(dimensionless)( )
2
c
D
4C
3C
* p p
pair
ud
u
ρ τ
ρ ν
+= 8⋅10
-8 – 10
2
aIn these expressions, d p is particle diameter, u p is the particle velocity, C c is the Cunningham slip
correction factor (C c is calculated from Hinds (1999); C c>>1 for d p < the mean free path of air, λ , and C c ~
1 for particles > 1 µm), C D = f( Re p) is the coefficient of drag for the assumed spherical particle calculated
from Seinfeld and Pandis (1998), ρ p is the particle density.
1.5 Outline of Dissertation
The overall outline for this work is presented below in Figure 1.2. The integrated
structure of this investigation is to first determine what particulate contaminants are
present in indoor and in outdoor air and how they are transported through a duct system
to the heat exchanger. Some of these particles are filtered, the rest are available to
deposit on the heat exchanger. Simulation and experimental results are used to determine
what fraction of particles actually deposit in the heat exchanger. The model and
experiments are detailed in Chapters 2 and 3. Chapter 4 applies these results, combined
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
28/218
12
with data on bioaerosol concentrations, environmental requirements, and health effects,
to determine the indoor air quality implications of biological fouling (depicted in the
lower branch of Figure 1.2). Chapter 5 uses deposition fraction experimental and
simulation results, as well as results from an additional experiment relating pressure drop
to the mass of material deposited to determine the pressure drop that results from fouling
and the rate of fouling in typical HVAC heat exchangers. This information, combined
with research about fans and the impact of airflow on capacity, is used to estimate the
energy consequences of fouling.
Size Resolved
Particles Presented
to Evaporator Coil
Particles
Deposited on
Evaporator and
Mass
Indoor Air
Particle
Concentrations
Outdoor Air
Particle
Concentrations
Duct
Leakage and
HVAC Air
Flow Data
Filtration,
Filter Bypass,
Coil Bypass
Experimental andSimulated Particle
Deposition
Data
Increased
Pressure Drop
Through Coil
Due to Fouling
Reduced Airflow
Due to Fouling
Energy Impacts
of Coil Fouling
Experimental Foulingvs. Pressure Drop
Data Typical Fan
Curves
Reduced Air
Flow Energy
Consequences
Existing AC
Flow Data
Bioaerosol
Concentrations
Bioaersol
Deposition
Growth and
Amplification
Indoor Air
Quality Impacts
of Biological
Coil Fouling
Environmental
Conditions
Spread to
Indoor
Spaces
Figure 1.2: Analysis and experimental plan.
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
29/218
13
CHAPTER 2: MODELING PARTICLE DEPOSITION ON HVAC
HEAT EXCHANGERS
2.1 Introduction
One purpose of this dissertation is to create a simple, robust, and widely
applicable model of particle deposition on fin-and-tube heat exchangers. Particulate
fouling of air-side heat exchangers has been modeled by other researchers, mostly
because of its importance to industrial processes. Significant strides have been made in
the modeling of heat exchanger fouling processes in dairy processing (e.g. Lalande and
Rene, 1988), nuclear reactor cooling systems (e.g. Watkinson, 1988), crude oil
distillation (e.g. Marshall et al., 1988), and other process and industrial heat exchangers.
This body of work is important and has improved many of the processes that use heat
exchangers, but there are several limitations that prevent its application to the specific
problem of HVAC heat exchanger fouling. The first limitation is one of geometry. The
fin-and-tube heat exchangers that are typical of HVAC systems are not widely used in
industrial processes, and the existing models are not typically adaptable to new
geometries. The second limitation is one of medium. Many of the problems discussed in
the literature involve fouling of the liquid side of a heat exchanger. Although the physics
do not change as the medium changes, the limiting mechanisms for fouling of liquid
systems are often crystallization or precipitation reactions. These reactions are less
important in HVAC heat exchanger fouling and other low temperature particulate and gas
fouling problems. The third limitation has to do with the purpose of process heat
exchanger fouling work. In many studies, it is often less important to understand the
mechanisms than it is to find solutions. The purpose of this chapter is to develop a
mechanistic model of particle deposition on HVAC heat exchangers and to understand
the important parameters in the fouling process.
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
30/218
14
2.1.1 Fin-and-tube heat exchangers
Before describing different approaches to the problem, it is important to clearly
describe the system being studied. For the purposes of modeling, the fin-and-tube heat
exchanger geometry is reduced to a series of straight channels created by the fins with
cylindrical refrigerant tubes that run horizontally perpendicular to the fins. The fins are
often corrugated to increase area for heat transfer. A schematic of typical fin-and-tube
heat exchanger geometry appears in Figure 2.1.
h
ytfin w
dtube
wtube
z
Air flow
direction
Air flow
into page
Figure 2.1: Front view of leading edge of fins (left) and side view of heat exchanger and
refrigerant tubes (right) where w is the center-to-center fin spacing, h is the averageheight of fin corrugations, t fin is the fin thickness, y is the peak to trough width of fin
corrugations, d tube is the tube diameter, wtube is the tube spacing, z is the heat exchanger
depth.
The tube geometry of HVAC heat exchangers can vary over a wide range of
diameters and configurations. To improve heat transfer, a typical heat exchanger will
have multiple rows of offset tubes. The heat exchanger depicted in Figure 2.1 has two
sets of offset tubes, for a total of four tube rows. This is typical of many HVAC heat
exchangers and matches the test coil used for the experiments described in Chapter 3.
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
31/218
15
The notation that is used to describe the heat exchanger in Figure 2.1 is noffset = 2, n set = 2,
and nrow = noffset n set = 4.
2.2 Previous Studies
A general model of fouling by gas-side particulate matter is presented by Bott
(1988). He divides particle fouling into three distinct processes: (1) transport and
deposition of particles to surfaces, (2) adhesion of deposited particles, and (3)
reentrainment of adhered particles. He further subdivides the transport and deposition
portion into transport through the bulk flow to the boundary region (typically caused by
advection, Brownian and eddy diffusion, thermophoresis and gravity) and transport
across the boundary layer (typically caused by the same mechanisms, without advection,
but with the addition of inertial impaction). Although it lacks complete detail, this was
among the first mechanistic examinations of particle deposition in heat exchangers. The
adhesion and potential resuspension of particles are described as “complicated
phenomena” that depend on surface roughness, amount and properties of previously
deposited materials, the presence of a liquid, and turbulent bursts. This work is useful in
outlining a general model and presenting important terms and possible deposition
mechanisms. It stresses the need for experimental data to both verify mathematical
models and provide input data for particular heat exchanger geometries.
In the same volume as Bott (1988), Epstein (1988) presents an overview of the
mechanisms that can cause particle deposition in heat exchangers. He reviews the work
of several authors on particle deposition and discusses the applicably of this work to
particulate fouling problems. He discusses the potential role of and governing equations
for deposition by means of Brownian diffusion, inertial impaction, gravitational settling,
and thermophoresis. He also describes the mechanisms of particle bounce, adhesion and
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
32/218
16
re-entrainment. The work also suggests that individual deposition mechanisms can be
assumed to operate independently in many heat exchanger geometries.
Muyshondt et al. (1998) used a very different approach to model the specific
problem of particle deposition on typical fin-and-tube HVAC heat exchangers. They
used a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) package and a Lagrangian approach. The
CFD software solves approximations to the continuity, momentum, and energy equations
for the airflow through a system and then uses this solution in a force balance to track
particle motion through the system. The three-dimensional equations for particle
velocity, for particles of the diameter range of 1- 100 µm, are as follows: (note,
typographical errors in Muyshondt et al. are corrected here):
( )D3 C
4
p air p p
p p
duu u U U
dt d
ρ
ρ = − −
(2.1)
( )D3 C
4
p air p p
p p
dvv v U U g
dt d
ρ
ρ = − − +
(2.2)
( )D3 C
4
p air p p
p p
dww w U U
dt d
ρ
ρ = − −
(2.3)
where u p, v p, and w p are the Cartesian components of the particle velocity, ρ air is the air
density, C D is the coefficient of drag on the (assumed spherical) particle, ρ p is the particle
density, d p is the particle diameter, u, v and w are the components of the air velocity and
U and U p are total air and particle instantaneous velocities (2 2 2U u v w= + + and
2 2 2 p p p pU u v w= + + ), and g is the acceleration due to gravity.
Muyshondt et al. approximated air turbulence with a Reynolds stress turbulence
model with an assumed turbulence intensity of 5%. The turbulence intensity is typically
defined as u´/u where u´ is the standard deviation of the normally distributed fluctuating
component of the air velocity. The turbulence introduced randomness into the model and
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
33/218
17
thus a Monte Carlo simulation for several thousand particles was done for each particle
size considered. The resulting collection efficiency curves for a simple HVAC heat
exchanger are presented at three fin spacings (3.9, 4.7 and 5.5 fin/cm), two air velocities
(1.5 and 2.3 m/s), and vertical and horizontal fin orientation. (It is not clear why
Muyshondt et al. varied this last parameter. HVAC heat exchangers are almost always
installed with vertical fins to limit gravitational settling, provide for condensation
drainage, and to facilitate cleaning.) The results of Muyshondt et al. suggest increasing
collection efficiency with particle size, moderate deposition (< 10 %) for all vertical fin
cases for particles of 1 – 10 µm aerodynamic diameter, and sharply increasing deposition
for particles >10 µm. Their reported collection efficiencies asymptote at ~70 - 80 % for
70 µm and larger particles. Their results are discussed later in a comparison with the
modeling work of this chapter.
Although the Muyshondt et al. (1998) simulation work provides estimates of
particle deposition on HVAC heat exchangers, it presents little information on the
physics of the deposition processes. Furthermore, gravitational settling on fin
corrugations was excluded from their analysis, as was deposition on the leading edge of
the fins. My field work indicates that this is an important deposition location.
2.3 Preliminary Deposition Modeling using CFD
A primary purpose of my study was to mechanistically model deposition
processes on HVAC heat exchangers. To this end, initial runs were made with a
commercial CFD package, Fluent™. The initial approach was to construct a 17 × 65, 2-
dimensional grid (see Figure 2.2) and then calculate the velocity flow field through the
system. The original runs were conducted for isothermal conditions (no cooling of the
heat exchanger) and the flow was assumed to be laminar. For simplicity, the fins were
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
34/218
18
initially assumed to be infinitely thin and uncorrugated. The grid was refined eight times
until there was less than 2% average difference in the velocity fields between successive
runs.
Figure 2.2: Unrefined mesh from computational fluid dynamics simulation.
A significant challenge occurred when turbulence was introduced into the system.
Typical CFD models have two basic turbulence models: the k-ε model and the Reynolds
stress model. Both of these models approximate turbulence and require unmeasurable
parameters as input. Initial runs were completed with a k-ε model using, initially,
standard turbulence coefficients of C µ = 0.09, C 1 = 1.44, C 2 = 1.92, σ k = 1.0, and σ ε = 1.3.
(Mandrusiak (1988) presents complete equations and descriptions of the coefficients and
their importance in his Appendix A.) There is no clear way to determine these
parameters as they are geometry and flow specific and the transition flow in HVAC heat
exchangers is particularly poorly understood. Successive runs of the flow field
generation and particle tracking software, which solves approximations to Equations (2.1)
- (2.3), produced deposition rates that, although roughly consistent with the results of
Muyshondt et al. (1998), had variations of 30 – 50% in deposition fraction for 15 µm
particles depending on the turbulence model inputs. Even small changes in the
turbulence model parameters resulted in significant changes in the flow field. A
particular area of concern was the boundary layer flows near fin walls and refrigerant
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
35/218
19
tubes, as their structure was very sensitive to model parameters and they are crucial to
correctly assessing particle deposition (Bott, 1988). It should be pointed out that the
transition flows (from turbulent duct flow to laminar or to low Reynolds number
turbulent channel flow) that are prevalent in HVAC heat exchangers are particularly
difficult to model numerically with existing models (Versteeg and Malalasekera, 1995).
Given the limitations associated with the CFD approach, even for the 2-D case,
this approach was deemed to be too computationally intensive and too dependent on
unknown turbulence model parameters. Although CFD has applications in the study of
particle deposition problems, the complex geometry and unknown turbulence model
parameters would require a significant effort to produce reasonable results for the system
of interest.
2.4 Modeling the Mechanisms of Particle Deposition on HVAC Heat
Exchangers
Instead of using CFD, I developed a different approach, one that considers
deposition of particles by individual mechanisms. This approach also has many
limitations – it ignores details of boundary layer development, requires some empirical
calculations, involves many assumptions about the nature of the air flow and turbulence,
assumes independent interactions among deposition mechanisms, and makes
idealizations about the geometry. The limitations are discussed in more detail throughout
this chapter. The strengths of this approach are that it is computationally simple, it
allows for clear indication of the importance of various deposition mechanisms, it permits
straightforward investigation of important parameters that lead to particle deposition in
HVAC heat exchangers, and it can be adjusted to new geometries easily.
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
36/218
20
The particle deposition model accounts for impaction on refrigerant tubes and fin
leading edges, Brownian diffusion in fin channels, gravitational settling on fin
corrugations, and air turbulence effects. When the heat exchanger is cooled,
thermophoresis to the fins and tubes is also considered. When cooled below the
dewpoint, the effect of condensed moisture, both through the mechanism of
diffusiophoresis and owing to increased tube diameter and fin thickness from condensed
moisture, is also included. Each deposition mechanism is defined and described below.
2.4.1 Deposition on leading edge of fins
My field examination of fouled heat exchangers suggested that impaction on the
leading edge of the fins is an important deposition mechanism. For this analysis, I
assume that the fin edge is a blunt body and use Hinds’ (1999) analysis for rectangular
slit cascade impactors with a modification to account for the fraction of face area of the
coil that is occupied up by fin edges. This analysis assumes that the air approaching the
fin edge makes a 90° bend. All particles that impact on the surface are assumed to stick.
The penetration fraction accounting only for losses because of impaction on fin edges,
P fin, is estimated as follows:
12
fint fin eff , fin
t P S k cf
w
π = −
(2.4)
where Stk eff,fin is the particle Stokes number based on the duct air velocity and the fin
thickness, corrected for particles having particle Reynolds numbers > 0.1 (Israel and
Rosner, 1983; Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998),t fin is the fin thickness, w is the center-to-center
fin spacing, and cf is the corrugation factor. The corrugation factor takes into account the
fact that a corrugated fin is longer than a straight fin and thus has more area for particle
impaction. The corrugation factor is defined as 2 2 y h / h+ where h is the average
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
37/218
21
height of the fin corrugations and y is the peak-to-trough corrugation width (see Figure
2.1 for a schematic of the geometry). The term in the parentheses in Equation (2.4) is
limited to a maximum value of one to limit deposition only to the fraction of particles that
are directly in front of each fin.
Hinds (1999) estimates a 10% uncertainty bound on deposition (1- P fin) when
using the formulation of Equation (2.4) for cascade impactors. Although seemingly quite
crude, this uncertainty is adequate for this situation, because of the addition of the t fin /w
factor which, for the most extreme case (corresponding to a dense fin spacing) is 10%.
Thus the actual error in P fin is at most 1% from using this analysis. This contribution to
uncertainty also is likely considerably smaller than that which results from the adaptation
of Equation (2.4) from cascade impactor geometry to analysis of deposition on the
leading edge of heat-exchanger fins.
Equation (2.4) predicts the penetration fraction for cascade impactor plates.
There is some question about how appropriate the analysis is for deposition on a fin edge
because fin edges are much thinner that cascade impactor plates and thus cause less
disturbance to fluid streamlines. The thinner fin edges would cause Equation (2.4) to
underpredict the penetration associated with fin edge-impaction. An alternative estimate
of the penetration fraction for this mechanism was calculated assuming that the fin edges
were vertical half-cylinders with diameter equal to the fin thickness. A modification of
the work of Wang (1986) for deposition of particles from turbulent flow onto circular
cylinders was used:
0 802 1
1 arctan 0 808
. fin
fin,round eff , fin
t P . Stk cf
wπ
= − −
(2.5)
Equation (2.5) is discussed in more detail below, in the section about particle impaction
on refrigerant tubes.
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
38/218
22
Equations (2.4) and (2.5) require knowledge of the particle Reynolds number for
the calculation of the Stokes’ numbers. The particle Reynolds number (see Table 1.2)
requires calculation of both the gas and the particle velocity. Without a detailed flow
field, this difference is unknown. The particle Reynolds number is required for
calculating the drag coefficent (C D), which in turn is used to calculated Stk eff,fin. To
explore the effects of Re p on the results, an assumption was made that the difference
between the particle and the gas velocity was equal to the gas velocity for calculating P fin.
The implications of this decision are discussed in the presentation of the simulation
results. For comparison purposes, P fin was also calculated assuming that all particles
obeyed Stokes law for drag on a sphere.
There is reason to believe that Equation (2.4) is a more appropriate predictor of
fin-edge impaction than Equation (2.5). The geometry of a fin edge is more similar to a
blunt impactor plate than it is to the smoothly rounded edge assumed in Equation (2.5).
Also, although the fin edges represent a smaller collection area than impactor plates, the
details of how the air streamlines deviate around the fin edges is also important.
According to the analysis of Panton (1996), for appropriate Reynolds numbers ( Re fin), the
streamlines would deviate from their straight-through orientation much closer to the fin
edge than they would for a cascade impactor plate. This would cause more particles to
impact than if the streamlines curved further back from the fin edge.
Additional attempts to refine the calculations of the fin edge-impaction could be
done by using the flow field from the flow into cascading plates presented by Panton
(1996) and using a Lagrangian approach to track particles. In preliminary simulations
with 15 µm particles, a 2 m/s air velocity, and a fin spacing of 4.7 fin/cm ( Re fin ≅ 200),
this approach yielded similar results to Equation (2.4). This potentially more accurate
and computationally intensive avenue could be explored if greater accuracy was required
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
39/218
23
for the leading edge impaction calculation. However, because impaction on fin edges
accounts for, at most, 10% removal of particles (corresponding to complete removal of
particles in front of each fin edge), this deposition mechanism does not warrant these
more sophisticated calculations for my present purposes.
2.4.2 Impaction on refrigerant tubes
Particles may also impact on the refrigerant tubes that run perpendicular to the
airflow direction and the fins. There are several theoretical and experimental studies of
particle impaction on tubes. An extension of the analysis of Israel and Rosner (1983)
suggests the following formula for estimating penetration for flow past a network of
tubes:
14
2 3
1 1 11 1 1 25 0 014 0 508 10
set n
tubetube offset
tube
d P . . . n
a wa a
−−
= − + − + ×
(2.6)
where a = (Stk etf,tube – 1/8) where Stk eff,tube is the particle Stokes number based on the air
velocity in the heat exchanger and the tube diameter, n set is the number of tube sets in the
direction of flow d tube is the refrigerant tube diameter, wtube is the center-to-center tube
spacing, and noffset is the number of offset tube rows in each tube set. The term in the
innermost parentheses is limited to value of less than or equal to one and the
d tube /wtubenoffset factor is added to limit the deposition to particles in the volume of air
directly in front of the tubes. The assumption that a given particle will not deposit if their
Stokes number is less than 1/8 was first proposed by Taylor and has been verified by
other researchers (e.g. Bott, 1988). Israel and Rosner (1983) report that single tube
impaction deposition calculated with this formulation is good to 10% root mean square
(RMS) error for isolated horizontal tubes.
For improved accuracy, the following fit from Wang (1986) was used:
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
40/218
24
( )0 8021 arctan 0 80
set n
. tubetube offset
tube
d P . a n
wπ
= −
(2.7)
The difference between Equations (2.6) and (2.7) is very small (< 2%) for Stk eff,tube > 5,
although it is much greater for Stk eff,tube < 1. Given the importance of relatively low
particle Stokes numbers in the fouling problem, Equation (2.7) was used for all modeling.
In all cases, P tube was limited to a minimum value of 1 - d tube /wtubenoffset to only allow for
removal of particles directly in front of the tubes.
There are several important assumptions that must be made to allow the use of
Equation (2.7). The first is that each tube can be considered to be independent of the
other tubes in the system. The simulations and experimental work of Ilias and Douglas
(1989) suggest that this is a good assumption for tubes in a vertical plane with tube
spacings typical of those in HVAC heat exchangers. However, the wake of upstream
tubes can alter deposition for downstream rows of tubes. Braun and Kudriavtsev (1995)
conducted numerical flow simulations for flow past a tube network with d tube = wtube =
z tube, where z tube is the tube spacing in the direction of flow. The flow fields in their work
suggest that the wake effect can lead to greatly increased turbulence on downstream tubes
at Retube typical of HVAC heat exchangers. This greater turbulence would in turn lead to
increased particle deposition, although the magnitude of this effect is unclear. The
narrow fin channels tend to decrease the air turbulence, and geometric features that are
designed to restart the boundary layers and promote turbulence tend to increase air
turbulence. The effect of tube wake was not quantified because of lack of data on
turbulence characteristics in a representative geometry.
The second assumption is that the particles are uniformly mixed as they approach
each tube. Although the tube wakes promote mixing, the short characteristic time that it
takes particles to travel between the sets of tubes [O(10 ms)] means that the assumed
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
41/218
25
uniform particle concentration, particularly at high enough Stk eff,tube to cause significant
deposition (Stk eff,tube > ~1), is unlikely to be correct for downstream tube rows. Bouris
and Bergeles (1996) document this shielding effect for a very high flow system ( Retube =
1.3 ×104) with very large particles (45 - 700 µm). Their experimental work in a
combustion boiler heat exchanger, suggests about 80% less deposition on the second row
of aligned tubes. Their work is not directly applicable (because of the high flows and
large particle sizes), but it does suggest that the shielding effect can be significant. This
would then lead to Equation (2.7) overestimating deposition. To establish the lower
bound on uncertainty resulting from the shielding effects, calculations were done
assuming complete shielding (i.e. only considering deposition on the first two vertical
row of tubes in Figure 2.1 by setting n set = 1 in Equation (2.7)).
Similar to the calculation of P fin, the difference between particle and gas velocity
is not explicitly known. As in the fin impaction case, assumption of this difference being
equal to the air velocity was made for impaction on tubes. This is more clearly a good
assumption for impaction deposition on tubes than it is for fins because, as a consequence
of the larger tube diameter, deposition only occurs for much larger particles than impact
on the fin edges. Larger particles have significant inertia and larger relaxation times and
are less likely to quickly adjust to changes in air velocity near the tubes. Thus, the
assumption of non-Stokesian drag (i.e. using the Seinfeld and Pandis (1998) equations for
C D) is more appropriate and was used for all calculations.
2.4.3 Gravitational settling on fin corrugations
To increase heat transfer, manufacturers often corrugate fins. Large particles can
deposit by gravitational settling on the corrugation ridges. The penetration fraction
accounting for losses only from gravitational settling, P G, is estimated as follows (Fuchs,
1964):
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
42/218
26
( )1
V z y s P GhU w t fin
= −
− (2.8)
where V s is the particle settling velocity, z is the heat exchanger depth in the direction of
bulk air flow, h is the average height of the fin corrugations, U is the bulk air velocity in
the heat exchanger, and y is the peak-to-trough corrugation width (see Figure 2.1 for
geometric description). The ratio in the parentheses is limited to a value of one. Particles
are not assumed to be Stokesian for the calculation of V s, for which this equation is used:
( )cD
4C
3C
p air p s
air
d g V
ρ ρ
ρ
−=
(2.9)
where C c is the Cunningham slip correction factor (Hinds, 1999), ρ p is the particle
density, ρ air is the air density, d p is the particle diameter, g is acceleration due to gravity,
and C D is the coefficient of drag on the particle calculated assuming the particle is a
sphere and using the formulation presented in Seinfeld and Pandis (1998). Because C D
is a function of particle Reynolds number, which is a function of V s, an iterative scheme
was used to determine V s.
The largest uncertainty connected to deposition associated with gravitational
settling is that the channel geometry that Fuchs (1964) considered is significantly
different than the sloped wall and ceiling geometry that occurs in the fin corrugations.
Furthermore Fuchs’ analysis was limited to laminar flow, rather than the transition flow
in heat exchangers. Several researchers have considered gravitational settling in
horizontal tubes (e.g. Pich, 1972) and inclined tubes (e.g. Lipatov et al., 1988; Anand et
al., 1992), but these geometries are even less applicable because of their circular cross
section or the fact that they slope in the direction of flow, rather than across the channel
as occurs in a fin corrugation. To assess the variation in deposition by gravitational
settling, an upper bound on the penetration fraction associated with this mechanism was
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
43/218
27
made by doubling the average height of the fin corrugation. Similarly, a lower bound
was estimated by halving the average height of the fin corrugation.
2.4.4 Deposition by air turbulence in fin channels
Air turbulence in the duct leading up to a heat exchanger can also induce
deposition on heat-exchanger surfaces. The fluctuating components of velocity can
impart an angled trajectory to particles as they enter the heat exchanger (see Figure 2.3).
If the particle has a sufficiently large relaxation time and a sufficient deviation in velocity
direction from the bulk flow, it will impact on a fin and not penetrate the coil.
w p'
wT
u p'U
z
Figure 2.3: Top view of fin channel showing particle trajectory because of air turbulencewhere wT is the particle entering location, w p´ is the fluctuating particle velocity
component perpendicular to fin channel, U is the bulk air velocity, u p´ is the fluctuating
particle velocity component in the direction of airflow, and z is the heat exchanger depth
Mathematically, I estimate the penetration associated with losses owing to
turbulent deposition as:
Prob 1imp
T
p
P τ
τ
= >
(2.10)
where τ imp is the characteristic time for a particle to impact on the wall and τ p is the
particle relaxation time. The impaction time scale, τ imp is calculated from geometry and
trigonometry as follows:
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
44/218
28
T
imp p
w
w ' τ =
(2.11)
where wT is the distance from the nearest fin when the particle enters the channel and w p´
is the particle turbulence fluctuating velocity component perpendicular to the fin channel
at a given particle entering location. The particle relaxation time, τ p, was computed
according to the following expression, which does not assume Re p < 0.1 Hinds (1999).
( )c
D
4C
3C
p p p '
air p
d
U u
ρ τ
ρ =
+ (2.12)
where u p´ is the particle turbulence fluctuating velocity component in the streamwise
direction at a given particle entering location
A Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate P T . For a given particle size, 107
simulations were completed to minimize any numerical uncertainty. In the analysis,
particles were assumed to enter the channel uniformly distributed between the fins, by
selecting wT from a uniform distribution with maximum value of (w-t fin )/2. The
fluctuating components of the air velocity were assumed to be independent Gaussian
distributions whose shape, as a (weak) function of bulk velocity in the duct, comes from
direct numerical simulation (DNS) data presented by Moser et al. (1999). Although we
are considering impaction by air turbulence as a two-dimensional phenomenon (because
the vertical component of fluctuating velocity will not lead to significant increased
deposition), the Moser et al. (1999) simulations consider all three dimensions.
The Moser et al. (1999) data provide the fluctuating components of the air
velocity. Caporaloni et al. (1975) present a multi-step formulation for relating fluid
fluctuating velocity components to those of particles in the turbulent flow:
pu ' Ku' = (2.13)
8/13/2019 Fouling calculation in heat exchanger
45/218
29
2
1
fl
fl
aT b K
aT
+=
+ (2.14)
( )2
36
2 p air p
µa
d ρ ρ =
+ (2.15)
3
2air
p air
b ρ
ρ ρ =
+ (2.16)
where T fl is the Lagrangian integral scale of time which is assumed to be equal to є /u´ 2
where є is the eddy viscosity determined from the Moser et al. (1999) data and µ is the
dynamic viscos
Top Related