Comparision of Heat Exchanging Performance Depending on Different Arrangement of Heat Exchanging Pipe (II)

열회수장치의 열교환 파이프배치형식별 열교환 성능 비교(II)

This study was carried out to improve the performance of heat recovery device attached to exhaust gas flue connected to combustion chamber of greenhouse heating system. Three different units were prepared for the comparison of heat recovery performance; AB-type(control unit) is exactly the same with the typical one fabricated for previous study of analyzing heat recovery performance in greenhouse heating system, other two types(C-type and D-type) modified from the control unit are different in the aspects of airflow direction(U-turn airflow) and pipe arrangement. The results are summarized as follows; 1. In the case of Type-AB, when considering the initial cost and current electricity fee required for system operation, it is expected that one or two years at most would be enough to return the whole cost invested. 2. Type-C and Type-D, basically different with Type-AB in the aspect of airflow pattern, are not sensitive to the change of blower capacity with higher than $25\;m^{3}/min$. Therefore, heat recovery performance was not improved so significantly with the increment of blower capacity. This is assumed to be that air flow resistance in high air capacity reduces the heat exchange rate as well. Never the less, compared with control unit, resultant heat recovery rate in Type-C and Type-D were improved by about 5% and 13%, respectively. 3. Desirable blower capacity for these heat recovery units experimented are expected to be about $25\;m^{3}/min$, and at the proper blower capacity, U-turn airflow units showed better heat recovery performance than control unit. But, without regard to the type of heat recovery unit, it is recommended that comprehensive consideration of system's physical factors such as pipe arrangement density, unit pipe length and pipe thickness, etc., are required for the optimization of heat recovery system in the aspects of not only energy conservation but economic system design.