Journal Pre-proof

Quantification of flow distribution and heat capacity potential of a

microchannel evaporator

Houpei Li , Lizhi Wang , Haobo Jiang , Hequn Liu , Qiang Gao ,

Linjie Huang

PII: S0140-7007(22)00444-3
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2022.11.035
Reference: JIJR 5714

To appear in: International Journal of Refrigeration

Received date: 28 March 2022

Revised date: 29 November 2022
Accepted date: 29 November 2022

Please cite this article as: Houpei Li , Lizhi Wang , Haobo Jiang , Hequn Liu , Qiang Gao ,
Linjie Huang , Quantification of flow distribution and heat capacity potential of a microchannel evapo-
rator, International Journal of Refrigeration (2022), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2022.11.035

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2022 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Li et al., 1

Quantification of flow distribution and heat capacity potential of

a microchannel evaporator

Houpei Li1,2,* Lizhi Wang3, Haobo Jiang3, Hequn Liu1,2, Qiang Gao4, Linjie Huang3

1
College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha, 410082, China

2
Key Laboratory of Building Safety and Energy Efficiency (Hunan University),

Ministry of Education, China

3
Sanhua Central Research Institute, China

4
Sanhua Micro-Channel Heat Exchanger Cooperation, China

*
corresponding author: Prof Houpei Li, Hunan University, China, [email protected],

+86- 0731-88822610

Highlights

 A quantification method is proposed to calculate the flow rate distribution

of microchannel heat exchangers.

 Liquid and vapor mass flow rates are calculated with the method, and it

shows how refrigerant is distributed in the inlet header.

 The potential of improving the heat capacity of the evaporator with

uniform distribution is calculated and discussed.

Abstract

Maldistribution of fluid among the ports reduces the heat capacity of a

microchannel heat exchanger. It is essential to understand the maldistribution

mechanism to optimize the design of the heat exchanger. Quantification of the

distribution helps analyze the maldistribution issue. This study proposes a method to
Li et al., 2

quantify the flow distribution and capacity potential in the microchannel heat

exchangers by integrating a microchannel heat exchanger model and infrared

thermography. The method calculates the liquid and vapor mass flow rate at the inlet

of each microchannel tube by comparing the wall temperature of a heat exchanger

from simulation and the infrared image. The method is validated with tests of a

49-tube horizontal microchannel evaporator with R134a. The exit region of the top

tubes has an extremely high surface temperature, which forms a superheat region.

More liquid flows to the tubes located at the center of the heat exchanger. The total

mass flow rate is low when the tube has a long superheat region. The heat capacity of

the tested evaporator has 9.6-21.3% improvement potential when uniformly

distributed. When the refrigerant outlet superheats of the evaporator is lower, the

improvement potential is higher. In the superheat region, the heat flux is much lower

than the average value. This quantification method provides a tool for a more

profound investigation of the maldistribution issue of a microchannel evaporator, and

it can be expanded to heat exchangers with different structures.

Keywords: Microchannel, evaporator, maldistribution, infrared thermography,

R134a

Nomenclature and abbreviation

𝐴 area m2

AC Air conditioner -

𝐶 Capacity of fluid J kg-1K-1

𝐶𝑝 Thermal Capacity J kg-1K-1

Li et al., 3

𝑑𝑃/𝑑𝑧 Pressure gradient Pa m-1

distribution -

FVM Finite volume method -

ℎ Specific enthalpy J kg-1

𝐻𝑇𝐶 heat transfer coefficient W m-2K-1

𝑙 length m

𝑚̇ Mass flow rate kg s-1

𝑚 Fin constant m-1

𝑃 pressure Pa

𝑄̇ heat transfer rate W

𝑅 Relaxation coefficient -

𝑇 temperature K

𝑈𝐴 overall heat transfer rate W K-1

W Weight function -

𝑧 Position index along the tube -

Greek alphabet

ε Effectiveness

𝜂 Efficiency

σ coefficient of variation

Subscript

air air side

Li et al., 4

ai air sides inlet condition

ao air sides outlet condition

ave average

ave,c average, calculation

ave,m average, measurement

c cross-sectional

fin fin

i Location i

in inlet

l liquid

m mean

max maximum

min minimum

out outlet

r ratio

ref refrigerant side, refrigerant

ri refrigerant side inlet

ro refrigerant side outlet

tot total

v vapor

1. Introduction

Heat exchangers have been widely used in many thermal systems, such as power
Li et al., 5

plants, electric vehicles, heat pumps, air conditioners, refrigerators, etc. A parallel

flow microchannel heat exchanger provides an interface for heat transfer between the

working fluids and the air. Flat microchannel tubes with multiple ports have been used

in the heat exchanger (Kim and Han, 2008). The port diameter is at the scale of 1 mm.

The tubes provide not only a higher heat transfer coefficient on the working fluid side

but also a higher pressure drop than larger tubes (Li and Hrnjak, 2017). In a

microchannel heat exchanger, an inlet header connects to multiple microchannel tubes

and distributes the fluid into the tubes. When using the microchannel heat exchanger

as an evaporator in the refrigeration or air conditioning system, the maldistribution of

the two-phase flow has been of researchers' interest for decades since it affects the

performance of thermal systems (Tuo and Hrnjak, 2013).

In an evaporator of a refrigeration system, the fluid at the inlet is typically in

two-phase. In most cases, the refrigerant with a vapor quality of about 0.15-0.25 flows

into the evaporator inlet header. Since the momentum of the liquid and vapor flows

are different, it is hard to distribute the two-phase flow into each microchannel tube

equally. In addition, instability of two-phase flow during flow boiling in the

microchannel tube may also cause maldistribution. Furthermore, when the oil

circulation rate is high, the distribution will be affected. Thus, the inlet mass flow

rates, as well as inlet vapor qualities, of all tubes are not uniform. Such a

maldistribution has negative effects on the performance of a heat exchanger. First of

all, the maldistribution affects the distribution of temperature differences between the

refrigerant and the air. The refrigerant evaporates from a low vapor quality to
Li et al., 6

superheated vapor in the microchannel tube. When the refrigerant is superheated

vapor, the temperature difference between the refrigerant and air is small. When the

refrigerant is in two-phase, the temperature difference is large, and the heat transfer

rate is high. Secondly, refrigerant flow with higher inlet quality will be heated to

superheated vapor faster because the inlet specific enthalpy is higher than the other

tubes. In addition, due to the sensible heat being much lower than the latent heat, the

temperature of the superheated vapor will rise dramatically, and the temperature

difference between refrigerant and air is reduced. Moreover, heat transfer coefficient

of superheated vapor is much smaller than the two-phase flow. Maldistribution in the

evaporator may cause a heat exchanger capacity to decrease up to 64% (Lee et al.,

2021). Reducing the maldistribution can improve the capacity and efficiency of the

microchannel evaporator. In conclusion, it is significant to understand the relationship

between maldistribution and evaporator capacity reduction.

Quantifying the flow rates of the two phases in the microchannel tubes of an

evaporator is essential for evaluating the maldistribution. The quantification is helpful

for a deeper understanding of the effect of maldistribution, relating the distribution to

other parameters and revealing the mechanism of the distribution, and providing an

indicator for engineers to improve the design. In addition, comparing the capacity of a

heat exchanger with maldistribution and uniform distribution can show the potential

gaining for improving the heat exchanger. Heat capacity with a uniform flow rate in

each parallel tube is the goal of optimizing the structure of a heat exchanger.

Experimental and numerical approaches have been used to study the

Li et al., 7

maldistribution (Martínez-Ballester et al., 2013a, 2013b; Zou and Hrnjak, 2013a). Zou

and Hrnjak have studied the distribution of R134a and R410A flow in different

vertical headers by experiments (Zou and Hrnjak, 2013a, 2013b). They used the

coefficient of variation to quantify the uniformity of the distribution and proposed a

correlation based on their experimental results to predict the distribution (Zou et al.,

2014). The distribution can also be predicted with numerical simulations. Lee and

Jeong propose a model based on mass, momentum, and energy balance to predict flow

distribution in the header (Lee et al., 2021; Lee and Jeong, 2019). The essential

parameters that affect distribution have been found by researchers around the world. It

has been concluded that a high inlet mass flow rate and low inlet vapor quality will

uniform the distribution (Mahvi and Garimella, 2019, 2017). Thus, using a

flash-gas-bypass technique that bypasses the vapor and leads more liquid flows into

the evaporator will improve the uniformity of distribution (Li and Hrnjak, 2015a; Tuo

and Hrnjak, 2013). A higher oil circulation rate could also improve the header's

distribution because oil helps mix the two-phase flow (Zou and Hrnjak, 2014). It has

been reported that the depth of the microchannel tube is inserted into the header

affects the distribution. The distribution could be improved when the microchannel

tube is inserted deeper into the header, since the effective diameter of the header is

reduced and the flow inertia is enhanced (Redo et al., 2019). The effect of tube depth

is stronger when the mass flow rate is lower (Marchitto et al., 2016). In other words,

high local velocity (higher flow rate) in the header caused by the blocks of two-phase

flow helps uniform the distribution. Thus, a structure such as a baffle could be placed
Li et al., 8

in the header to increase the local velocity and mix the two phases (Wijayanta et al.,

2016). However, Kim et al. reported that the tube depth has a slight effect on

distribution when the flow is upward in the header (Kim et al., 2013; Kim and Byun,

2013). In addition, when the heat exchanger is placed closer to the expansion device

in the system, the distribution can be improved (Bowers et al., 2006). Most

microchannel heat exchanger headers are circular or rectangular, but Mahvi and

Gareimella presented that a triangular header could improve the distribution (Mahvi

and Garimella, 2017). Flow patterns have significant effect on distribution (Dario et

al., 2015). The orientation of the header significantly affects distribution when the

inlet flow pattern is slug flow. When it is annular flow, the orientation of the header

has a slight influence on the distribution (Liu et al., 2017). Some parameters are

reported that do not influence on the maldistribution. The header diameter has an

insignificant effect on the distribution of the two-phase flow (Vist and Pettersen,

2004). For a downward heat exchanger, the heat capacity basically do not affect the

distribution (Wijayanta et al., 2018). The studies mentioned above have successfully

discovered the mechanism of flow distribution in the header. However, the technique

of evaluating maldistribution is also important.

The maldistribution can be quantified by infrared images. Bowers et al. (Bowers

et al., 2010) assumed that the tube with a longer length at a low temperature has a

higher flow rate. When the mass flow rate is high, it needs more heat transferred to

cause dry-out and superheat. Later, the refrigerant flow rate is measured, and the

coefficient of variation is used to quantify the maldistribution (Zou et al., 2014).

Li et al., 9

Although they have measured the mass flow rate in each microchannel tube, the mass

flow meter and connections to the sensor will cause the pressure drop, which differs

from the test condition to a real heat exchanger product. Thus, the method of using

infrared images to obtain the flow rate distribution of a microchannel evaporator

product will be helpful. Li and Hrnjak proposed a quantification method for

calculating the liquid flow rate distribution in the microchannel evaporator using

infrared images (Li and Hrnjak, 2015b). They directly related the length in the tube

with a lower temperature to the liquid mass flow rate, and used a heat exchanger

simulation to calculate the vapor mass flow rate. A transitioning line is obtained

through simulation to find the length of low temperature. This method was later

updated by Gao et al. recently (GAO et al., 2021). They updated the calculation based

on a heat transfer and fluid dynamics analysis. However, the newer method did not

calculate the vapor mass flow rate. Secondly, the calculation is still based on the

geometric length measurement on the IR image. Moreover, analysis with the

estimated mass flow rate distribution is lacking. One of the most concerning issues to

heat exchanger researchers and designers is whether the maldistribution should be

improved. When the maldistribution issue is not critical, other issues that affect

efficiency (such as superheat control and frost) should be prioritized. Thus, the

difference between cases with maldistribution and with uniform distribution should

also be predicted. This paper proposed a method to quantify not only the distribution

of a header-type microchannel heat exchanger, but also the potential improvement of

heat capacity. Therefore, the innovation of the study is to calculate the flow rates of
Li et al., 10

liquid and vapor in each microchannel tube and the potential heat capacity without

maldistribution.

In order to accurately quantify the liquid and vapor flow rate distributions in a

microchannel heat exchanger, a new method based on heat exchanger simulation and

infrared thermography is proposed. In this method, the wall temperature of the

microchannel tube is calculated based on a microchannel heat exchanger model. In

addition, the wall temperature is measured from infrared thermography from

experiments of the evaporator. By comparing the calculated and the measured wall

temperature, the inlet fluid condition is updated in order to match the wall temperature

contour. The method is validated with the experimental results of an evaporator. The

calculation results are further studied to discuss the improvement potential of uniform

distribution. The effect of outlet superheat and flow rate distribution variation on the

heat capacity improvement potential is presented. The application of the method on

other types of heat exchangers is also discussed. The method provides a tool for

researching the microchannel heat exchanger, especially when maldistribution is in

the interest of a study. The method also helps to quantify the maldistribution level and

further reveals the mechanism of the maldistribution. The heat capacity with

maldistribution from the real-world heat exchanger and the capacity of the same heat

exchanger with uniform distribution are compared. The proposed quantification

method can also help researchers to estimate the potential of improving the

maldistribution issue of a heat exchanger.

Li et al., 11

2. The heat exchanger model

1.1 Brief introduction of the heat exchanger model

A microchannel heat exchanger is made up of an inlet header, an outlet header,

several microchannel tubes, and fins, as Figure 1 illustrates. A microchannel heat

exchanger model was built and integrated into the quantification method. The heat

transfer rate, pressure drop, and wall temperature can be calculated from the model.

As shown in Figure 1(c), the microchannel tube is discretized using the Finite Volume

Method (FVM). The heat transfer rate in each discretized volume is calculated using

the Effectiveness-Number of Transfer Unit method (ϵ-NTU), provided in equations

(1-13). Table 1 summarizes the correlations applied to compute the pressure gradient

and heat transfer coefficient on the air and refrigerant sides of the models.

(a) (b)
fins

microchannel tube

(c)

Tri, Pri, mri i-1 i i+1 Tro, Pro

Discretized volume

outlet header
inlet header

Figure 1 Drawing of the microchannel heat exchanger. (a) is the overview, (b) is

the detail at right top conner of the heat exchanger, and (c) is the detail of center part

of the heat exchanger and an illustration of the heat exchanger model.

Li et al., 12

1.2 Heat transfer and pressure drop in the heat exchanger

Figure 1 (c) shows three discretized volumes of the FVM method along one

microchannel tube. The model is one-dimensional. In the microchannel heat

exchanger model, the heat transfer coefficient and pressure gradient in each

discretized volume are calculated using predictive correlations. Both air and

refrigerant sides contribute to the heat transfer in each discretized volume. In each

volume (index ‘i’ in the figure), the input condition of the inlet is from the calculated

outlet condition of the previous volume (index ‘i-1’). For the first volume of a

microchannel tube, the inlet condition is calculated based on the quantification

method introduced in the next section. The overall heat transfer rate UA of each

volume is calculated by:

−1
1 1
𝑈𝐴 = (𝐻𝑇𝐶 + 𝐻𝑇𝐶 ) (1)
𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝐴𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝜂𝑡𝑜𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑓 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑓

Where the total efficiency 𝜂𝑡𝑜𝑡 is related to the fin area 𝐴𝑓𝑖𝑛 , total area 𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑡

and fin efficiency 𝜂𝑓𝑖𝑛 . 𝜂𝑡𝑜𝑡 is calculated by (2, and 𝜂𝑓𝑖𝑛 is calculated by (3.
𝐴
𝜂𝑡𝑜𝑡 = 1 − 𝐴𝑓𝑖𝑛 (1 − 𝜂𝑓𝑖𝑛 ) (2)
𝑡𝑜𝑡

tanh(𝑚𝑙)
𝜂𝑓𝑖𝑛 = (3)
𝑚𝑙

𝐻𝑇𝐶𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑃
𝑚=√ (4)
𝑘𝑓𝑖𝑛 𝐴𝑐

In (3, 𝑚 is the fin constant and it could be calculated with (4, and 𝑙 is the fin

length. In (4, 𝐻𝑇𝐶𝑎𝑖𝑟 is the heat transfer coefficient on the air side, 𝑃 is the

perimeter of the fin, 𝑘𝑓𝑖𝑛 is the thermal conductivity of the fin, and 𝐴𝑐 was the

cross-sectional area of the fin. 𝐶 is the capacity of fluid, which is defined by the Eqs

5 and 6. The minimum and maximum fluid capacity (𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛 and 𝐶𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) are calculated
Li et al., 13

in (7, and they are the minimum and maximum value of the air side or refrigerant side

capacity. The ratio of C (𝐶𝑟 ) is calculated in (8.

𝐶𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 𝑚̇𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝐶𝑃 𝑎𝑖𝑟 (5)

𝑚̇𝑟𝑒𝑓 𝐶𝑃 𝑟𝑒𝑓 , 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 − 𝑝ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑒

𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑓 = { (6)
∞, 𝑡𝑤𝑜 − 𝑝ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑒

𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛 = min(𝐶𝑎𝑖𝑟 , 𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) , 𝐶𝑚𝑎𝑥 = max(𝐶𝑎𝑖𝑟 , 𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) (7)

𝐶
𝐶𝑟 = 𝐶 𝑚𝑖𝑛 (8)
𝑚𝑎𝑥

The Number of Transfer Unit (NTU) is defined by (9. And the Effectiveness ϵ

is defined in (10.
𝑈𝐴
𝑁𝑇𝑈 = 𝐶 (9)
𝑚𝑖𝑛

1
1 − exp ((𝐶 ) 𝑁𝑇𝑈 0.22 (exp(−𝐶𝑟 𝑁𝑇𝑈 0.78 ) − 1)) , 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 − 𝑝ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑒
ϵ ={ 𝑟 (10)
1 − exp(−𝑁𝑇𝑈) , 𝑡𝑤𝑜 − 𝑝ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑒

The capacity of an evaporator can be calculated based on the air side and ref side

inlet temperature, which is defined in (11.

𝑄̇ = 𝜖𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛 (𝑇𝑎𝑖 − 𝑇𝑟𝑖 ) (11)

The capacity is used to calculate the outlet specific enthalpy of each discretized

volume based on energy balance, as (12 stated. The outlet pressure is calculated from

(13, and it is derived from force balance.

𝑄̇
ℎ𝑟𝑜 = ℎ𝑟𝑖 + 𝑚̇ (12)
𝑟𝑒𝑓

𝑑𝑃
𝑃𝑟𝑜 = 𝑃𝑟𝑖 + Δ𝐿 𝑑𝑧 (13)

In the model, the state of refrigerant is determined by the specific enthalpy, as

(14 shows. When the specific enthalpy is in-between the saturated liquid and vapor

specific enthalpies, the correlation in two-phase will be used (Cavallini et al., 2009,
Li et al., 14

2006; Kim and Mudawar, 2013; Muller-Steinhagen and Heck, 1986). When it is not

in-between the saturated enthalpies, the correlation in single-phase will be used

(Churchill, 1977; Gnielinski, 1976).

ℎ𝑙 < ℎ < ℎ𝑣 𝑡𝑤𝑜 − 𝑝ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑒
{ (14)
ℎ ≥ ℎ𝑣 𝑜𝑟 ℎ ≤ ℎ𝑙 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 − 𝑝ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑒

The above equations are the basis of the microchannel heat exchanger models.

The pressure gradient and heat transfer coefficient of refrigerant and air sides are

calculated by correlations. Table 1 lists the correlations applied. On the air side, the

correlations from (Chang et al., 1994; Chang and Wang, 1997) are suggested and

adopted in many literature (Qasem and Zubair, 2018; Sadeghianjahromi and Wang,

2021). So these two correlations are applied in this model. The accelerating and

decelerating pressure gradients are calculated based on the homogeneous assumption,

and the void fraction is calculated with Zivi’s model (Zivi, 1964). The single-phase

characteristics of refrigerants are calculated with correlations from Gnielinski

(Gnielinski, 1976) and Churchill (Churchill, 1977). The correlations for calculating

flow boiling characteristics are chosen since their accuracies are proved. The flow

boiling heat transfer coefficient and pressure gradient were measured and the

correlations were tested (Li and Hrnjak, 2022, 2019, 2021). Kim and Mudawar (Kim

and Mudawar, 2013) is a flow boiling heat transfer coefficient correlation based on a

large database. Muller-Steinhagen and Heck (Muller-Steinhagen and Heck, 1986) is

used for calculating the pressure gradient of refrigerant, and its accuracy was proved

in the previous studies (Li, 2019; Li and Tang, 2022). The refrigerant in the inlet and

outlet headers are assumed isothermal, and the pressure gradient is calculated with
Li et al., 15

Friedel (Friedel, 1979).

Table 1. The correlations applied to the heat exchanger model.

Parameters Correlation(s)

Air side Heat transfer coefficient Chang and Wang (Chang and Wang,

𝐻𝑇𝐶𝑎𝑖𝑟 1997)
𝑑𝑃
Air side Pressure drop Chang et al. (Chang et al., 1994)
𝑑𝑧 𝑎𝑖𝑟

Void fraction Zivi (Zivi, 1964)

Refrigerant side single-phase heat

Gnielinski (Gnielinski, 1976)
transfer coefficient 𝐻𝑇𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑓

Refrigerant side single-phase pressure

Churchill (Churchill, 1977)
𝑑𝑃
drop
𝑑𝑧

Refrigerant side evaporating heat Kim and Mudawar (Kim and Mudawar,

transfer coefficient 𝐻𝑇𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑓 2013)

Refrigerant side condensing heat

Cavallini (Cavallini et al., 2006)
transfer coefficient 𝐻𝑇𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑓

Refrigerant side evaporating pressure Muller-Steinhagen and Heck

𝑑𝑃
drop (Muller-Steinhagen and Heck, 1986)
𝑑𝑧

Refrigerant side condensing pressure

Cavallini (Cavallini et al., 2009)
𝑑𝑃
drop
𝑑𝑧

Refrigerant side adiabatic pressure drop

Friedel (Friedel, 1979)
𝑑𝑃
𝑑𝑧
Li et al., 16

1.3 The assumptions of the heat exchanger model

This quantification method to calculate the flow rate distribution of a

microchannel heat exchanger is mainly based on the assumptions:

1. The pressure drop of each flow path is the same.

2. The oil effect on pressure drop and heat transfer is neglected.

3. No subcooled boiling.

4. Dry-out only happens at the thermodynamical vapor zone (x>=1).

5. The air inflow is uniform (velocity and temperature).

The first assumption is based on the report from Tuo and Hrnjak, which shows

how pressure drop in the header can affect distribution(Tuo and Hrnjak, 2013). A path

is defined as the length portion in the inlet header where the flow passed, a

microchannel tube, and the length portion in the outlet header, as Figure 2 shows. A

path pressure drop is defined as the summary of pressure drop caused by friction,

acceleration, and gravity in the inlet header, contraction from the header to the

microchannel tube, microchannel tube, expansion from the tube to the header, and

outlet header. Thus, the first assumption indicates that the pressure drop from the inlet

to the outlet of the evaporator of each flow path is the same.

Outlet header Inlet header

Microchannel tube

flow path 1

flow path 2

flow path 3

Figure 2 The pressure drop of each flow path.

Li et al., 17

The most heat exchanger in real life has oil inside, which affects the heat transfer

and pressure drop. In this study, the oil effect is neglected since the oil circulation rate

in the experiment is low. The approach can be updated by including correlations for

refrigerant and oil mixtures. Assumptions 3 and 4 simplify the calculations. The

specific enthalpy is used to determine the phase (vapor quality) of the refrigerant.

When the vapor quality is larger than 1 or smaller than 0 (more precisely, the specific

enthalpy is higher than the saturation vapor or lower than the saturation liquid), the

single-phase correlations are adopted. When the quality is between 0 and 1, the

two-phase correlations are adopted instead. The airflow is assumed to be uniform in

this model, and the model can be updated by applying a velocity and temperature

distribution to the model.

1.4 A brief introduction to the validation experiments

A microchannel evaporator was tested in a psychrometric chamber in the Sanhua

Central Research Institute in Hangzhou, China. The schematic of the test chamber for

the evaporator experiments is presented in Figure 3. In the experiment, the air flow

rate to the microchannel evaporator was controlled with a variable speed blower. The

air pressure intake is measured by a pressure sensor (GE) with an accuracy of 0.1%.

The pressure drop is measured with a differential pressure transducer (Yokogawa)

with an accuracy of 0.15%. The air velocity is measured with an air velocity meter

(Yokogawa) with an accuracy of 1%. The dry bulk and wet bulk temperatures at the

inlet and outlet of the evaporator are measured with pt100 thermometers with an

accuracy of 0.2 °C.

Li et al., 18

Equipments

Control Chamber B (outdoor) Chamber C (Indoor)

Wind tunnel

Chamber A (Indoor)

Wind tunnel Wind tunnel

Chamber A T P

Test section
DP DP

T P Nozzel Blower

IR Camera
Evaporator

Wind Tunnel

DP

T P P T

Mass flow meter Expansion Valve

P T

Refrigerant loop

Figure 3 Schematic of the psychrometric chamber and evaporator test setup

The refrigerant flow rate is controlled with a variable-speed compressor. The

refrigerant mass flow rate is measured with a mass flow meter (Micromotion) with an

accuracy of 0.1%, and it measures the superheated vapor from the outlet of the

evaporator. The pressure drop across the evaporator is measured with a differential

pressure sensor (Yokogawa) with an accuracy of 0.2%. The pressures (at the inlet of

the expansion valve, inlet and outlet of the evaporator) are measured with pressure
Li et al., 19

sensors (DRUCK) with the accuracy of 0.2%. The temperatures of the refrigerant are

measured by pt100 thermometers with an accuracy of 0.2 °C.

On the upwind side of the sample heat exchanger, an infrared camera (fluke

TiX580) was placed. The radiative properties of aluminum are set in the camera to

ensure the accuracy of the measured temperature. The sample microchannel heat

exchanger is a one-pass evaporator with a vertical inlet header, vertical outlet header,

and 49 horizontal microchannel tubes. The refrigerant flows from top to bottom in the

inlet header, and from bottom to top in the outlet header. The parameters of the

structure are listed in Table 2.

Table 2 Structure of the tested microchannel heat exchanger.

Parameter Unit Value

Width m 0.534

Height m 0.416

Depth mm 25.4

Microchannel tube length m 0.502

Microchannel tube finned length m 0.470

Port size (height x width) mm x mm 0.74 x 0.635

Port number - 24

Fin pitch mm 1.4

Fin height mm 6.35

Fin thickness mm 0.08

There are four tests with different temperature superheat in this study. The flow
Li et al., 20

rate of air is about 1080 m3h-1, the inlet temperature of the air is 26.5 ºC, and the

relative humidity is 55%. The refrigerant outlet pressure is about 415 kPa, and the

outlet temperatures superheated vary from 2.8 to 10.3 K (with mass flow rate

decreasing from 28.7 to 26.6 g-s-1). Temperature superheat is calculated based on the

refrigerant pressure and temperature measured at the outlet of the evaporator. The

refrigerant inlet vapor quality is about 0.22. The inlet flow rate of vapor is from 5.85

to 6.31 g-s-1. The inlet liquid flow rate is 20.7-22.4 g-s-1.

The heat transfer rate of the evaporator is measured on both the refrigerant and

air sides. (15 and (16 show how the heat capacity is calculated from the two sides.

The 𝑚̇ref is the measured refrigerant mass flow rate, and 𝑚̇air is the air mass flow

rate calculated from the air states (pressure, dry-bulk, and wet-bulk temperatures),

measured air volumetric flow rate, and the cross-sectional area. The inlet specific

enthalpy ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑓,𝑖𝑛 is determined from the pressure and subcooled measured before the

expansion valve (with an ideal expansion process is assumed in the experiment), and

ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑓,𝑜𝑢𝑡 is determined from the measured pressure and superheat at the outlet of the

evaporator. Specific enthalpy of air is determined from the measured air states

(pressure and temperatures).

𝑄 = 𝑚̇ref (ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑓,𝑖𝑛 − ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑓,𝑜𝑢𝑡 ) (15)

𝑄 = 𝑚̇air (ℎ𝑎𝑖𝑟,𝑖𝑛 − ℎ𝑎𝑖𝑟,𝑜𝑢𝑡 ) (16)

The difference between the refrigerant side and the air side is about 5 %. The

refrigerant is R134a. The details of the test conditions and the heat balance are listed

in Table 3.
Li et al., 21

Table 3 Test conditions and results of the microchannel heat exchanger.

Test Capacity Capacity Capacity Temperature Mass flow

number measurement measurement balance superheat of rate of

air side [W] refrigerant side [%] refrigerant refrigerant

[W] outlet [K] [g-s-1]

1 4518 4321 4.36 2.8 28.7

2 4500 4256 5.42 5.5 28.1

3 4443 4217 5.09 7.5 27.5

4 4322 4151 3.96 10.3 26.6

3. The Quantification Method

1.5 Iterations of the quantification method

At the beginning of the iteration, the distribution is assumed to be uniform. In

each microchannel tube, the liquid mass flow rate and vapor mass flow rate are the

same. The wall temperature on the microchannel tube is calculated with the heat

exchanger model. The temperature is compared to the measurements from the infrared

images. If the tube has a larger superheat region from the IR image than the model,

the liquid mass flow rate is reduced, and vice versa. A method to average the wall

temperature is used to determine the length of the superheat region and will be

discussed in subsection 3. The pressure drop of each flow path is the same. If the

outlet pressure of one path is lower than the average pressure, the vapor mass flow

rate of the path will be reduced, and vice versa. The iteration method is summarized in

Figure 4.
Li et al., 22

Input: refrigerant inlet pressure, refrigerant inlet

specific enthalpy, refrigerant inlet mass flow rate,
air velocity, air temperature

Guess: uniform distribution of

both liquid and vapor mass flow
rate

Calculate: wall temperature and outlet

pressure of each microchannel tube

Same outlet pressure of each Updating

flow path? vapor flow rate

Calculated wall temperature Updating liquid

matches the IR image? flow rate

Output: heat transfer

rate, pressure drop

Figure 4 The iteration method of the quantification of mass flow rate

distribution.

1.6 The numerical approach for quantifying flow distribution

The heat capacity of the microchannel heat exchanger was measured on both the

air side and refrigerant side, and it was also calculated with the quantification method.

Using the test 3 as an example, the measured wall temperature from the IR camera

and temperature calculations from the quantification method are presented in Figure 5.

The refrigerant enters the inlet header on the right-hand side. Then flows into the
Li et al., 23

microchannel tube from right to left, as the figure shows. Figure 5(a) presents the

measured wall temperature with IR camera. A large region with low temperature (blue)

indicates that the refrigerant is in a two-phase region (vapor quality changes from 0.22

to 1). When the temperature rises and the color becomes yellow and red, the

refrigerant must be superheated. The superheat region of the wall temperature

calculation in Figure 5(b) matches the wall temperature measurements in Figure 5(a).

The method uses the temperature differences between the calculation and

measurement to update the liquid mass flow rate. Thus, the method can predict the

liquid refrigerant inlet mass flow rate in each flow path, i.e., each microchannel tube.

The outlet pressures of each path are assumed to be uniform. The pressure is used to

update the inlet vapor mass flow rate of each microchannel tube. There are 49

microchannel tubes in this heat exchanger, thus 49 liquid mass flow rates and 49

vapor mass flow rates are calculated. The total mass flow rate of liquid and vapor is

limited by the measurements (in this test, mass flow rate is 27.5 g-s-1, vapor quality is

0.22, thus vapor mass flow rate is 27.5 × 0.22 = 6.05 g-s-1, and liquid mass flow

rate is 21.45 g-s-1) for mass conservation.

 Li et al., 24

(a) (b)
Outlet Inlet

00.03 00.03

04.62 04.62

08.22 08.22
30.00

02.91 02.91

06.51 06.51 26.40

00.21

Temperature colorbar
00.21

22.80
Wall temperature measurements Wall temperature calculation

(c) (d)

19.20
00.03 00.03

04.62 04.62
15.60

08.22 08.22

02.91 02.91
12.00

06.51 06.51

00.21 00.21

Air outflow temperature calculation Refrigerant temperature calculation

Figure 5 Measured and calculated temperature of test 3.

When comparing the wall temperature between the measurement and calculation,

a weighted average temperature (𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑒 ) on one microchannel tube is calculated as (17

shows. The temperature 𝑇(𝑧) along one microchannel tube at the axial location 𝑧 is

multiplied with a weight function 𝑊(𝑧). The weight function follows the rule that

when 𝑧 is higher, 𝑊(𝑧) is higher. This is because the quantification method tries to

predict the refrigerant superheat region correctly. When the location is closer to the

outlet (𝑧 is higher), the temperature is more important. (18 shows the weight function

𝑊(𝑧) . 𝐶1 is the coefficient, and in this research 𝐶1 is equal to

1
. The wall temperature measurement from the IR
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑎 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒−1
Li et al., 25

camera in Figure 5 shows that the tubes at the top should have a higher 𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑒 , and the

tubes at the center should have lower 𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑒 . It can be expected that the top tubes

should have lower liquid flow rates, and the center tubes should have higher liquid

flow rates.
1
𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑒 = 𝑛 ∑ 𝑊(𝑧) ∑𝑛𝑥=1 𝑊(𝑧)𝑇(𝑧) (17)

𝑊(𝑧) = 𝐶1 𝑧 (18)

The initial guess of the liquid and vapor distribution (𝐷𝑙 , 𝐷𝑣 ) is uniform, as (19

shows. Comparing the difference between the average temperature from calculation

and measurement (𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑒,𝑐 − 𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑒,𝑚 ), the liquid distribution is updated, as (20 shows.

And 𝑅𝑙 is a relaxation coefficient which is 0.4 in this study. 𝑇𝑚 is the mean

temperature of the total contour. Similarly, the outlet pressure (𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡 ) is used to update

the vapor distribution, as (21 shows. The difference between the outlet pressure and

the average value of the outlet pressure at this iteration (𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡,𝑎𝑣𝑒 ) is used to update the

vapor distribution. And 𝑅𝑣 is the relaxation coefficient which is 0.5 in this study.

Modifying the relaxation coefficient will significantly change the computing cost of

the iteration and the accuracy of the results. Basically, higher the relaxation coefficient,

lower the computing cost, and lower the accuracy.

𝐷𝑙 = [1 1 … 1], 𝐷𝑣 = [1 1 … 1] (19)
𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑒,𝑐 −𝑇𝑎𝑣𝑒,𝑚
𝐷𝑙 = 𝐷𝑙 + × 𝑅𝑙 (20)
𝑇𝑚

𝐷𝑣 = 𝐷𝑣 + (𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡,𝑎𝑣𝑒 ) × 𝑅𝑣 (21)

1.7 Potential of the capacity of a heat exchanger

The maldistribution reduces the heat capacity of a heat exchanger. In other words,
Li et al., 26

the heat capacity of the heat exchanger could be improved when the distribution is

uniform. Improving the distribution of the heat exchanger will significantly increase

the efficiency of the thermal application. In this study, the potential to improve the

capacity of a heat exchanger is defined. The potential is the heat transfer rate

differences between two cases that have the same outlet condition (pressure,

temperature superheat), and the same inlet specific enthalpy. Thus, the inlet pressures

and mass flow rates of the two comparing cases are different. The same comparison

method could be found in literature such as (Shi et al., 2011), that the pressure and

temperature subcooling before the expansion valve (which determines inlet specific

enthalpy of the evaporator with isentropic expansion process) and outlet pressure and

temperature superheat are fixed. The inlet pressure and mass flow rate of refrigerant

are calculated with an iteration method, as Figure 6 shows.

Li et al., 27

Input: refrigerant inlet specific enthalpy, air velocity,

air temperature, refrigerant outlet pressure,
refrigerant outlet temperature superheat

Guess: refrigerant inlet pressure,

refrigerant inlet mass flow rate
Distribution: uniform

Calculate: refrigerant outlet pressure,

refrigerant outlet temperature
superheated

Updating
Refrigerant outlet pressure
refrigerant inlet
converges?
pressure

Updating
Refrigerant outlet temperature
refrigerant
superheat converges?
mass flow rate

Output: heat transfer rate

Figure 6 The iteration method of quantification of the heat capacity potential of a

heat exchanger

In the quantification method of calculating the heat capacity potential of a heat

exchanger, the refrigerant outlet conditions are the criterion for iteration. The input of

the method is the results from the heat exchanger model with maldistribution.

When the calculated refrigerant outlet pressure is higher than the input pressure,

the inlet pressure will be reduced. When the refrigerant outlet temperature superheat is

lower than the input temperature, the refrigerant inlet mass flow rate will be reduced.

When the differences are less than 0.01kPa (outlet pressure) and 0.001K (outlet
Li et al., 28

temperature superheat), the iteration stops. The calculated heat transfer rate is the

potential heat capacity of the heat exchanger with uniform distribution. The capacity

could be understood as the goal of heat exchanger improvements.

4. Results and Discussion

1.8 Validations of the method

Figure 5 presents the temperature contour of test 3. The calculated air outflow

temperature, heat exchanger wall temperature, and refrigerant temperature are shown.

The air temperature is higher than the wall temperature, which is higher than the

refrigerant temperature. The two contours in Figure 5(a) and (b) are similar, which

indicates the excellent accuracy of the quantification method.

The heat transfer rates (or heat capacities) of the four tests listed in Table 3 are

calculated by the heat exchanger simulation with the quantified flow distribution. The

heat transfer rate is also calculated without the maldistribution quantification

(assuming uniform distribution) with the same input condition. The calculation results

are presented in Figure 7.

Li et al., 29

5000
Heat capacity (calculation) [W]

4000

±5%
3000

2000

Data from this study

Calculation with quantification method
1000
Calculation without quantification method
Data from the literature
Calculation with quantification method
Calculation without quantification method
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Heat capacity (measurement) [W]

Figure 7 Heat capacity calculation based on the quantification method.

Comparing the heat capacity measurement (average from refrigerant and air

sides) of the tested evaporator and the calculation based on the quantification method,

the difference is within 1.3%. The results are slightly improved from the calculation

without the quantification method (3.2%). In this study, the measured heat capacity is

defined as the average value of refrigerant and air sides. The air side measurement is

about 5% higher than the refrigerant side, according to Table 3. The model is also

tested with experimental results from the literature (Algirdas Vincas Bielskus, 2011).

Without the quantification method, the difference between the calculated and

measured heat capacities is within 5%. The difference is reduced when the

maldistribution is considered, and the value is within 3.3%. The results validate the

heat exchanger model.

Li et al., 30

The calculated heat capacity of a heat exchanger is smaller when the calculation

is with the quantification method is applied than that is without the quantification.

This is because the method considers the maldistribution, and maldistribution reduces

the heat transfer rate.

In the heat exchanger model, the discretized volume has a length of 10 mm along

the microchannel tube. It has been tested that the calculated heat capacity of the heat

exchanger is not affected by the grid size of the numerical model. Taking the test 1 as

an example, the measured heat capacity is 4419.5 W, averaged from the refrigerant

and air sides. The calculated heat capacities are 4379.6, 4385.3, 4385.5, and 4385.3 W

when the discretized volume lengths are 20, 10, 5, and 1 mm, respectively, with

maldistribution quantification. Without the quantification method, the calculated

capacities are 4568.7, 4562.7, 4561.9, and 4561.5 W, respectively.

1.9 Temperature and heat flux contours

Figure 5 presents the air outflow and refrigerant temperature contour of test 3.

The refrigerant temperature is high when the wall temperature of the heat exchanger is

in superheat region. A uniform air inflow temperature is assumed in the quantification

method. It indicates that the heat transfer between the air and refrigerant is small when

the wall is in superheat region. The temperature difference between the air inflow to

the refrigerant from the calculation of test 3 is presented in Figure 8. The temperature

difference can be as significant as 15 K when the refrigerant is in two-phase. However,

when superheat occurs, the refrigerant temperature rises rapidly, and the temperature

difference can be as small as 0.05 K.

Li et al., 31

Temperature difference
from air inflow to refrigerant [K]
15.00

12.00

9.000

6.000

3.000

0.000

Heat flux [W-m-2]

4E+4

3.2E+4

2.4E+4

1.6E+4

8E+3

Temperature difference
from air inflow to outflow [K]
11.00

8.800

6.600

4.400

2.200

0.000

Figure 8 Temperature and heat flux contours show the maldistribution effect on

heat transfer.

Figure 8 also shows the heat flux contour of the heat exchanger for test 3. The

average heat flux is about 28 kW-m-2. In the superheat region of wall temperature, the
Li et al., 32

heat flux is very low. When the refrigerant temperature from Figure 5 rises, it enters

vapor-phase. The heat transfer coefficient on the refrigerant side is significantly lower

in vapor-phase than that in two-phase. The air temperature difference from the inflow

to outflow contour (the third contour in the figure) shows that in most areas of the

heat exchanger, the air is cooled by at least 10 K. However, the air temperature does

not change in the superheat region. The temperature difference is very small. There is

13.7% of the area that the air temperature drop is less than 1.04 K (10% of the

maximum difference). This also indicates that the heat capacity can be largely

improved when maldistribution is avoided in an evaporator.

1.10 Flow rate distributions

Temperature contours of wall temperature measured by the infrared camera are

presented in Figure 9. The four contours have the same refrigerant inlet (pressure and

specific enthalpy) and air inlet conditions, but different refrigerant outlet temperature

superheat control. The temperature superheat changes from 2.8 to 10.3 K from test 1

to test 4, respectively. The heat capacity reduces from 4321 to 4151 W. Comparing the

four contours, the location of the superheated region in the contour does not change

significantly. The superheated region is where the temperature is significantly higher

than other areas in the contour. And it is always observed at the top right corner in the

contours in this study. A plot of the mass flow rate is presented near each contour. The

mass flow rate is calculated based on the quantification method in the paper. The

calculated mass flow rates of liquid-phase and vapor-phase in each channel are

0.032-0.65 mg/s and 0.015-0.50 mg/s, respectively. There are four curves in each plot:
Li et al., 33

total mass flow rate (black), liquid mass flow rate (blue), and vapor mass flow rate

(red) of each horizontal microchannel tube are plotted, and the refrigerant inlet vapor

quality (green).
Mass flow rate [g/s]
Total Liquid Vapor
Vapor quality [-]
Vapor quality [-]
test 1 Temperature [°C] 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
30.00

10
27.00

Tube number [-]

20
24.00

21.00 30

18.00 40

15.00
0.001 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 0.0002 0
Mass flow rate [g/s]
Vapor quality [-]
test 2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

10

Tube number [-]

20

30

40

0.001 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 0.0002 0

Mass flow rate [g/s]
Vapor quality [-]
test 3 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

10

Tube number [-]

20

30

40

0.001 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 0.0002 0

Mass flow rate [g/s]
Vapor quality [-]
test 4 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

10
Tube number [-]

20

30

40

0.001 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 0.0002 0

Mass flow rate [g/s]

Figure 9 Temperature contour and the mass flow rate distribution of the four

cases.

In each case, the total mass flow rate of each microchannel tube does not change

significantly. However, the liquid and vapor mass flow rates vary from tube 1 to 49

(top to bottom). More liquid is gathered from tube 20 to tube 45, as the figure presents.

Due to the contribution of gravity and momentum, more vapor and less liquid enter
Li et al., 34

tubes 1 to 20. It seems that tubes 46-49 also have less liquid flow. The heat exchanger

has both inlet and outlet on the top. Thus, the refrigerant in the lowest microchannel

tube (tube 49) has the longest flow distance than other tubes. The total mass flow rate

in tube 49 is lower for a pressure balance in the header. The liquid mass flow rate in

the bottom tubes is lower. It seems that an end-effect in the header counters the gravity,

which reduces the liquid flow rate in the bottom tubes. It is possible that the liquid

bounce at the header end and form eddies. The eddies prevent liquid from entering the

bottom tubes. It is also presented in the contours in Figure 9. There is a small

superheat region at the bottom left corner in the four contours. The temperature in the

small superheat region is 2-4 K lower than the larger superheat region (at the top left

corner).

Even though a superheat region is observed at the top right corner in the contour,

and the refrigerant inlet vapor quality in tubes 1 to 10 is extremely high, the total mass

flow rate does not change significantly. The maldistribution is mainly caused by the

liquid mass flow rate (or vapor) distribution rather than the total mass flow rate.

1.11 Heat capacity potential of the heat exchanger

The liquid and vapor mass flow rates are calculated and presented in Figure 9.

The flow rate profile is not uniform. It indicates that the distribution can be improved,

and the capacity can be increased. The heat capacity potential is calculated. The

results evaluate the potential of heat capacity when the distribution is uniform. The

results are presented in Figure 10.

Li et al., 35

6000 30

5000 25

4000 20

Improvements [%]
Heat capacity [W]

3000 15

2000 10

1000 5

0 0
4.7 6.3 10.5 11.1
Outlet temperature superheat [K]
Heat transfer rate calculated with maldistribution
Heat transfer rate assumed uniform distribution
Improvement of Heat transfer rate

Figure 10 Comparison between maldistribution and uniform distribution.

The heat capacity is increased by about 10-20 % when the distribution is uniform.

There is a huge potential to improve the evaporator by reducing the maldistribution.

Comparing Figure 10 to Figure 7, the improvement of heat capacity is larger in this

method. In Figure 7, the heat capacity is calculated with uniform distribution and the

same mass flow rate as the maldistribution case. Thus, when the maldistribution is

reduced, the mass flow rate can be increased in the system, and further the heat

capacity can be increased.

In addition, when the outlet temperature superheat is smaller, the improvement is

higher. As the outlet temperature superheat decreases from 11.1 to 4.7 K (calculated

temperature superheat by the model), the percentage improvement increases from 9.6
Li et al., 36

to 21.3%. When superheat is high, there is more heat exchanger area where the

refrigerant is in a superheated vapor-phase. In vapor-phase, the heat transfer

coefficient of refrigerant is low, and the pressure gradient is high. Consequently, both

the heat capacity and the potential are reduced due to high superheat. In many

refrigeration and air conditioning applications, a low evaporator outlet superheat will

improve the system efficiency. Thus, the uniform flow distribution of a heat

exchanger will further improve the system performance.

5. Extension and discussion of the method

Maldistribution harms the performance of an evaporator. This method focuses on

calculating the liquid and vapor mass flow rate of each tube inlet in a microchannel

tube exchanger. The method can be extended to other situations, such as a multi-pass

heat exchanger, a multi-slab heat exchanger, a condenser, and so on. When applying

the method to a multi-pass heat exchanger, the method needs to be modified to treat

each pass as an independent heat exchanger. But the inlet condition of the last pass

should be the outlet condition calculated from the previous pass. In most condensers,

the refrigerant inlet is single-phase with very high temperature superheat, and liquid is

absent. However, if the condenser has multiple passes, the second and later passes

might have distribution issues. In Table 1, the correlations for modeling condensers

are listed. When applying the method to a multi-slab evaporator, the infrared image

should be taken to the last slab (outlet slab) because the superheat region is the most

important characteristic in calculating the liquid mass flow rate. And the weight

function 𝑊(𝑥) can be modified to increase the accuracy of the model. It is important
Li et al., 37

to note that using a uniform weight function (𝑊(𝑥) = 1) also works well in this study.

The difference in this study is only several watts in capacity by using (18 and the

uniform weight function. For the multi-slab evaporator, a weight function similar to

(18 is recommended.

When the method is applied to an evaporator in an air conditioner or refrigerant

application, the heat capacity potential can be calculated. The heat capacity potential

could be used to indicate whether it is worth improving flow distribution in the heat

exchanger. If the potential is high, the maldistribution should be avoided to improve

the heat exchanger performance. If the potential is low, it may indicate that the

structure is well-designed, and the maldistribution effect is insignificant. It may also

indicate other issues, such as temperature superheat is too high. However, it presents

that maldistribution is not the most critical issue that needs to be solved at this design

stage.

6. Conclusions

A method to quantify the flow rate distribution and capacity potential of

microchannel heat exchangers is proposed in this study. The method uses the infrared

image of a heat exchanger to calculate the liquid mass flow rate, and pressure balance

to calculate the vapor mass flow rate. In addition, the heat capacity potential of a heat

exchanger assuming a uniform distribution is calculated. The method is validated with

four experiments of the same heat exchanger measured in this study and 48 tests from

the literature. The results show that the method can correctly calculate the heat

transfer rate of the evaporator.

Li et al., 38

Both liquid mass flow rate and vapor mass flow rate are calculated for the four

tests in this study. In the 49-tube evaporator, more liquid flows into tubes 20 to 45

from the top of the evaporator (Figure 9). More vapor enters tubes 1 to 20 due to

gravity and momentum. The total mass flow rate in tubes 46-49 is low due to the

pressure drop.

The heat capacity can be improved by 9.6-21.3% if the distribution is uniform

(Figure 10). In this study, the evaporator outlet superheat is more critical to the

capacity improvement potential. When the superheat is low, the potential is as large as

20 %. The maldistribution strongly affects the uniformity of the heat flux. In the

superheat region, the heat flux is low. In test 3, the air temperature drop is less than 10%

of the maximum value in 13.7% of the heat exchanger area (Figure 8).

The method is proposed and validated with a one-pass one-slab evaporator. It can

also be extended to other heat exchangers such as multi-pass heat exchanger,

multi-slab heat exchangers, and condensers. It helps to quantify the maldistribution

level and calculate the improvement potential. The improvement potential could be

used as an indicator of whether it is worth improving the flow distribution considering

the product development and manufacturing costs.

Maldistribution is a critical issue that affects the performance of a refrigeration

system. It can be caused by the momentum of the two phases in the header, flow

instability, and oil. The proposed quantification method ignores the oil effect and

calculates flow rates of liquid and vapor phases. Future work could be distinguishing

the effect of flow instability and header-induced maldistribution by experiments.

Li et al., 39

Furthermore, the oil effect should also be investigated to fully understand the

mechanism of maldistribution.

Acknowledgement

This research is funded by the Hunan University Start-up Research Grant, and

this financial support is acknowledged. The technique, material, experimentation, and

funding support from Sanhua Central Research Institute is also gratefully

acknowledged.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

Algirdas Vincas Bielskus, 2011. Two phase flow distribution in parallel

flow heat exchangers - experimentally verified model (Master Thesis).

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois.

Bowers, C., Wujek, S., Hrnjak, P., 2010. Quantification of Refrigerant

Distribution and Effectiveness in Microchannel Heat Exchangers Using

Infrared Thermography, in: International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

Conference at Purdue.

Bowers, C.D., Newell, T.A., Hrnjak, P.S., 2006. Experimental

Investigation of Two-Phase Refrigerant Distribution in a Microchannel

Manifold.

Cavallini, A., Col, D. Del, Doretti, L., Matkovic, M., Rossetto, L., Zilio,

C., Censi, G., Del Col, D., Doretti, L., Matkovic, M., Rossetto, L., Zilio, C.,
Li et al., 40

Censi, G., 2006. Condensation in Horizontal Smooth Tubes: A New Heat

Transfer Model for Heat Exchanger Design. Heat Transfer Engineering 27,

31–38. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1080/01457630600793970

Cavallini, A., Del Col, D., Matkovic, M., Rossetto, L., 2009. Frictional

pressure drop during vapour-liquid flow in minichannels: Modelling and

experimental evaluation. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 30,

131–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2008.09.003

Chang, Y.J., Wang, C.C., 1997. A generalized heat transfer correlation for

louver fin geometry. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 40, 533–

544. https://doi.org/10.1016/0017-9310(96)00116-0

Chang, Y.J., Wang, C.C., Chang, W.J., 1994. Heat transfer and flow

characteristics of automotive brazed aluminum heat exchangers, in: American

Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)

Annual Meeting. Orlando, FL.

Churchill, S.W., 1977. Friction-Factor Equation Spans all Fluid-Flow

Regimes. Chemical Engineering 84, 91–92.

Dario, E.R., Tadrist, L., Oliveira, J.L.G., Passos, J.C., 2015. Measuring

maldistribution of two-phase flows in multi-parallel microchannels. Applied

Thermal Engineering 91, 924–937.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2015.08.103

Friedel, L., 1979. Improved friction pressure drop correlations for

horizontal and vertical two-phase pipe flow, in: Proc. of European Two-Phase
Li et al., 41

Flow Group Meet. Ispra, Italy.

GAO, Y., SILSBEE, D., TANG, K., ELBEL, S., 2021. An Updated

Quantification Method for Liquid Refrigerant Distribution in Microchannel

Evaporators Using Infrared Thermography, in: 18th International Refrigeration

and Air Conditioning Conference at Purdue. West Lafayette, IN.

Gnielinski, V., 1976. New equations for heat and mass-transfer in

turbulent pipe and channel flow. International chemical engineering.

International Chemical Engineering 16, 359–368.

Kim, N.H., Byun, H.W., 2013. Effect of inlet configuration on upward

branching of two-phase refrigerant in a parallel flow heat exchanger.

International Journal of Refrigeration 36, 1062–1077.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJREFRIG.2012.12.001

Kim, N.H., Byun, H.W., Sim, Y.S., 2013. Upward branching of two-phase

refrigerant in a parallel flow minichannel heat exchanger. Experimental

Thermal and Fluid Science 51, 189–203.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EXPTHERMFLUSCI.2013.07.014

Kim, N.-H., Han, S.-P., 2008. Distribution of air–water annular flow in a

header of a parallel flow heat exchanger. International Journal of Heat and

Mass Transfer 51, 977–992.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2007.05.028

Kim, S.M., Mudawar, I., 2013. Universal approach to predicting saturated

flow boiling heat transfer in mini/micro-channels - Part II. Two-phase heat

Li et al., 42

transfer coefficient. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 64, 1239–

1256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2013.04.014

Lee, W.J., Jeong, J.H., 2019. Development of a numerical analysis model

for a multi-port mini-channel heat exchanger considering a two-phase flow

distribution in the header. Part I: Numerical modeling. International Journal of

Heat and Mass Transfer 138, 1264–1280.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.04.100

Lee, W.J., Lee, H., Jeong, J.H., 2021. Numerical evaluation of the range

of performance deterioration in a multi-port mini-channel heat exchanger due

to refrigerant mal-distribution in the header. Applied Thermal Engineering 185,

116429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.116429

Li, H., 2019. Evaporation of Pure Fluids and Mixtures in a Microchannel

Tube. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Li, H., Hrnjak, P., 2022. Heat transfer coefficient, pressure gradient, and

flow patterns of R1233zd(E) and R1336mzz(Z) evaporating in a microchannel

tube. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 182, 121992.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHEATMASSTRANSFER.2021.121992

Li, H., Hrnjak, P., 2019. Heat transfer coefficient, pressure drop, and flow

patterns of R1234ze(E)evaporating in microchannel tube. International Journal

of Heat and Mass Transfer 138, 1368–1386.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.05.036

Li, H., Hrnjak, P., 2017. Measurement of heat transfer coefficient and
Li et al., 43

pressure drop during evaporation of R134a in new type facility with one pass

flow through microchannel tube. International Journal of Heat and Mass

Transfer 115, 502–512.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.07.066

Li, H., Hrnjak, P., 2015a. An experimentally validated model for

microchannel heat exchanger incorporating lubricant effect. International

Journal of Refrigeration 59, 259–268.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJREFRIG.2015.07.020

Li, H., Hrnjak, P., 2015b. Quantification of liquid refrigerant distribution

in parallel flow microchannel heat exchanger using infrared thermography.

Applied Thermal Engineering 78, 410–418.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.01.003

Li, H., Hrnjak, P.S., 2021. Heat transfer coefficient, pressure gradient,

and flow patterns of R1234yf evaporating in microchannel tube. Journal of

Heat Transfer 143.

Li, H., Tang, K., 2022. A comprehensive study of drop-in alternative

mixtures for R134a in a mobile air-conditioning system. Applied Thermal

Engineering 203, 117914.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2021.117914

Liu, Y., Sun, W., Wu, W., Wang, S., 2017. Gas-liquid two-phase flow

distribution in parallel micro-channels with different header and channels’

orientations. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 112, 767–778.

Li et al., 44

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHEATMASSTRANSFER.2017.05.029

Mahvi, A.J., Garimella, S., 2019. Two-phase flow distribution of

saturated refrigerants in microchannel heat exchanger headers. International

Journal of Refrigeration 104, 84–94.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2019.04.026

Mahvi, A.J., Garimella, S., 2017. Visualization of flow distribution in

rectangular and triangular header geometries. International Journal of

Refrigeration 76, 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJREFRIG.2017.02.002

Marchitto, A., Fossa, M., Guglielmini, G., 2016. Phase split in parallel

vertical channels in presence of a variable depth protrusion header.

Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 74, 257–264.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EXPTHERMFLUSCI.2015.12.017

Martínez-Ballester, S., Corberán, J.-M., Gonzálvez-Maciá, J., 2013a.

Numerical model for microchannel condensers and gas coolers: Part II –

Simulation studies and model comparison. International Journal of

Refrigeration 36, 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2012.08.024

Martínez-Ballester, S., Corberán, J.-M., Gonzálvez-Maciá, J., 2013b.

Numerical model for microchannel condensers and gas coolers: Part I – Model

description and validation. International Journal of Refrigeration 36, 173–190.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2012.08.023

Muller-Steinhagen, H., Heck, K., 1986. A Simple Friction Pressure Drop

Correlation for Two-Phase Flow in Pipes 20, 297–308.

Li et al., 45

Qasem, N.A.A., Zubair, S.M., 2018. Compact and microchannel heat

exchangers: A comprehensive review of air-side friction factor and heat

transfer correlations. Energy Conversion and Management 173, 555–601.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2018.06.104

Redo, M.A., Jeong, J., Giannetti, N., Enoki, K., Yamaguchi, S., Saito, K.,

Kim, H., 2019. Characterization of two-phase flow distribution in

microchannel heat exchanger header for air-conditioning system.

Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 106, 183–193.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EXPTHERMFLUSCI.2019.04.021

Sadeghianjahromi, A., Wang, C.C., 2021. Heat transfer enhancement in

fin-and-tube heat exchangers – A review on different mechanisms. Renewable

and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137, 110470.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2020.110470

Shi, J., Qu, X., Qi, Z., Chen, J., 2011. Investigating performance of

microchannel evaporators with different manifold structures. International

Journal of Refrigeration 34, 292–302.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2010.08.008

Tuo, H., Hrnjak, P., 2013. Effect of the header pressure drop induced flow

maldistribution on the microchannel evaporator performance. International

Journal of Refrigeration 36, 2176–2186.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2013.06.002

Vist, S., Pettersen, J., 2004. Two-phase flow distribution in compact heat
Li et al., 46

exchanger manifolds. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 28, 209–215.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0894-1777(03)00041-4

Wijayanta, A.T., Miyazaki, T., Koyama, S., 2018. Note on refrigerant

R134a flow maldistribution in a header type evaporator. International Journal

of Refrigeration 95, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJREFRIG.2018.08.003

Wijayanta, A.T., Miyazaki, T., Koyama, S., 2016. Liquid–vapor phase

distribution in horizontal headers with upward minichannel-branching

conduits. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 76, 264–274.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EXPTHERMFLUSCI.2016.03.021

Zivi, S.M., 1964. Estimation of Steady-State Steam Void Fraction by

Means of the Principle of Minimum Entropy Production. Journal of Heat

Transfer. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1115/1.3687113

Zou, Y., Hrnjak, P.S., 2014. Effect of oil on R134a distribution in the

microchannel heat exchanger with vertical header. International Journal of

Refrigeration 40, 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2013.09.037

Zou, Y., Hrnjak, P.S., 2013a. Experiment and visualization on R134a

upward flow in the vertical header of microchannel heat exchanger and its

effect on distribution. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 62,

124–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2013.02.068

Zou, Y., Hrnjak, P.S., 2013b. Refrigerant distribution in the vertical

header of the microchannel heat exchanger - Measurement and visualization of

R410A flow. International Journal of Refrigeration 36, 2196–2208.

Li et al., 47

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2013.04.021

Zou, Y., Tuo, H., Hrnjak, P.S., 2014. Modeling refrigerant maldistribution

in microchannel heat exchangers with vertical headers based on

experimentally developed distribution results. Applied Thermal Engineering

64, 172–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.12.033