Accepted Manuscript

Title: Numerical investigation of heat transfer intensification

in shell and helically coiled finned tube heat exchangers and
design optimization

Authors: Ashkan Alimoradi, Meysam Maghareh

PII: S0255-2701(17)30410-5
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.cep.2017.08.005
Reference: CEP 7051

To appear in: Chemical Engineering and Processing

Received date: 24-4-2017

Revised date: 29-7-2017
Accepted date: 6-8-2017

Please cite this article as: Ashkan Alimoradi, Meysam Maghareh, Numerical
investigation of heat transfer intensification in shell and helically coiled finned
tube heat exchangers and design optimization, Chemical Engineering and
Processinghttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2017.08.005

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. 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.
Numerical investigation of heat transfer intensification in shell and helically coiled finned
tube heat exchangers and design optimization

Ashkan Alimoradi1*, Meysam Maghareh2

1
Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Razi University, Kermanshah,
Iran
2
Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Amirkabir University of
technology, Tehran, Iran
1*
E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
(Tel: +989381875326, Fax: +988346132250)
2
E-mails: [email protected]

Graphical abstract

1
Highlights:

 The heat transfer intensification due to installation of the annular fins on the outer surface of the
helical coiled tube is studied.
 Realizable K-ε was selected as the turbulence model.
 With increase of (ω) and (σ), the heat transfer rate is generally increases.
 The optimum values for (ω) and (σ) are obtained which maximize the heat transfer and minimize
the material consumption.

Abstract

In this work, the heat transfer intensification in shell and helically coiled tube heat exchangers
via installing annular fins on the outer surface of the helical coil, has been numerically
investigated. Thirteen heat exchangers were designed for this purpose. All geometrical
parameters of the heat exchangers are same except, fin's number or height. All of the heat
exchangers have been studied at three different shell side Reynolds number (Resh=7500, 15000
and 30000). In order to validation of the numerical model two method has been used. In the first
method, the calculated heat transfer has been compared with the approximate method which is
based on the experimental correlations for both coil and shell side Nusselt numbers and
consideration of the E-NTU relations of these types of heat exchangers. In the second method,
the heat transfer coefficient of the shell side has been compared with the experimental heat
transfer coefficients of the previous works. An acceptable agreement has been observed in these
comparisons. Furthermore, the optimum cases and some correlations has been obtained for
prediction of heat transfer coefficient of the shell side. Results indicate that, in the range of
7500≤ Resh≤ 30000, the heat transfer rate can increase up to 44.11%.

Nomenclature

A Area (m2)
c Specific heat capacity (J/kgK)
C heat capacity (J/K)

2
Cµ Coefficient of turbulent viscosity as defined in E.q. (11)
d Diameter (m)
E Effectiveness
e Turbulent dissipation (J)
f The distance between inlet and outlet of the shell
H Height (m)
h Heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K)
k Thermal conductivity (W/mK)
K Turbulent kinetic energy (J)
l Length of coiled tube (m)
M Mass (kg)
m° Mass flow rate (kg/s)
Nf Number of fins
NTU Number of transfer units
Nu Nusselt number
P Pitch (m)
p Pressure (Pa)
Pr Prandtl number
Q Heat transfer rate (W)
q Heat flux (W/m2)
r Radius (m)
Ra Rayleigh number
Re Reynolds number
s Coefficient of fin efficiency as defined in E.q. (23)
Sij Strain rate tensor
t Thickness of fin (m)
T Temperature (K)
U Overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K)
V Velocity (m/s)
v Volume (m3)
xi, xj Cartesian coordinates

3
 Greek symbols
α Bypass area factor
β Expansion coefficient (K-1)
η Fin efficiency
ρ Density (kg/m3)
τij Viscous stress tensor
θ Enthalpy (j)
ω dimensionless height of fins
σ Number of fins per meter of the coiled tube (fin/m)
µ Viscosity (Pa.s)
Subscripts
c Coil
dh Hydraulic diameter
f Fin
i, j x, y or z directions
in Inlet
min Minimum
o Overall
opt Optimum
out Outlet
r Relative
sh Shell
T Turbulent
t Tube
tot Total
v Shell inlet

Keywords: Heat exchanger, Numerical method, Heat transfer intensification, Helical coil,
Annular fin, Optimal design

4
1. Introduction

Shell and helically coiled tube heat exchangers, are one of the important devices in many
industrial applications like: HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning), petroleum,
power production and waste heat recovery. These types of the heat exchangers are used more
than the double pipe heat exchangers, when there are space limitations. Furthermore, the inner
side of the coils has a greater heat transfer coefficient than the inner side of straight pipes at same
conditions. The heat transfer process in these types of heat exchangers, has been studied by many
researchers. Numerous correlations have been proposed for the coil side as well as the shell side
Nusselt numbers, by use of numerical or experimental methods. For example, Ashkan et al. [1]
studied the effect of the operational and geometrical parameters on the Nusselt numbers of the
both (coil and shell) sides by use of both numerical and experimental methods. They found that,
the Nusselt number of the coil side is usually more than twice the Nusselt number of the shell
side for these heat exchangers. Thus, the shell side (with its high heat transfer resistance) can
substantially prevent the heat transfer rate enhancement (even though the heat transfer coefficient
of the coil side is too high). A method for solving this problem is, using the finned tubes instead
of finless tubes. They are used when the heat transfer coefficient on the outside of the tubes is
much lower than the heat transfer coefficient inside the tubes [2]. Thus, installing the fins on the
outer side of the helical coils maybe a good choice for the heat transfer intensification. Fins
enhance the heat transfer rate via increasing the surface area of the heat exchangers. The second
example for the studies on shell and helically coiled finless tube is Ghorbani et al. [3] work.
They studied the mixed convection heat transfer in these types of exchangers for various
Reynolds numbers, tube to coil diameter ratio and dimensionless coil pitch, experimentally. They
proposed a correlation for the shell side Nusselt number as a function of the Reynolds and
Rayleigh numbers.

Finned tube heat exchangers are widely studied in the past years. Chauvet et al. [4] investigated
natural convection heat transfer in a finned helically coiled tube heat exchanger immersed in hot
water. They proposed a correlation for the prediction of the Nusselt number of the outer side of
the coil as a function of the Rayleigh number. Bahadori et al. [5] suggested simple equations for
the prediction of efficiency, heat transfer coefficients of fin side and fin tip temperature for

5
uniform thickness finned tube heat exchangers for df/dt up to 3. Choi et al. [6] studied plate
finned tube heat exchangers with large fin pitches. The effect of fin pitch, fin alignment, the
number of tube rows, and vertical fin space on the heat transfer was obtained. They found that,
the Colburn j-factors of the discrete plate finned tube heat exchangers are 6.0–11.6% higher than
those of the continuous plate finned tube heat exchangers. Cui et al. [7] experimentally studied
the boiling heat transfer characteristics of a new kind of micro finned helically coiled tube heat
exchangers with R134a as the working fluid. They suggested a correlation for calculating the
boiling heat transfer coefficient. Gupta et al. [8] obtained an optimized geometrical parameters
for the finned coiled tube heat exchangers which are used in small and medium helium
refrigerators/liquefiers. Also they found that, the change of clearance can adjust the thermal and
pressure drop performance. They also experimentally studied the coiled finned tube heat
exchangers used in the cryogenic applications and obtained correlations for the heat transfer
coefficient of the shell side and the friction factors for both sides [9-10]. Karmo et al. [11]
reported a numerical analysis of the heat transfer and pressure drop in a finned tube heat
exchanger and suggested a method for the effective design of these heat exchangers. Kim et al.
[12-13] tested flat plate finned tube heat exchangers with large fin pitch. They found that, if the
fin pitch decreases and the number of tube row increases the air side heat transfer coefficient will
decrease. They also proposed correlations for the heat transfer coefficient and the j-factor as a
function of the operational as well as geometrical parameters. Li et al. [14] experimentally tested
internally finned and micro finned helical tubes for Reynolds number between 1000 and 8500.
They found that, the average heat transfer intensification ratio (compared with the smooth helical
tube) for the two finned tubes was 71% and 103%, but associated with a flow resistance increase
of 90% and 140%, respectively. Lu et al. [15] numerically investigated the effect of geometrical
parameters (i.e. fin pitch (pf), tube pitch (pt), fin thickness (t), and tube diameter (dt)) on the
performance of a two row finned tube heat exchanger. It was found that, the heat transfer rate per
pressure drop (i.e. Q/∆P) and the heat transfer rate per the assumed power in the pump increases
with longitudinal tube pitch or with transverse tube pitch, and it decreases with larger tube
diameter or fin thickness. Naphon et al. [16] studied the effect of the operational parameters on
the thermal performance and pressure drop of the helical coil heat exchanger with and without
helical crimped fins at different coil diameters. Promvonge et al. [17] experimentally studied
turbulent flow and heat transfer characteristics in a square duct fitted diagonally with 30° angle

6
finned tapes. They obtained the effect of the fin blockage ratio on the heat transfer and friction
factor. Sun et al. [18] numerically studied the fluid flow and the heat transfer of both air side and
water side of elliptical finned tube heat exchangers. Response surface methodology was used to
obtain the effect of the number of rows, axis ratio, transversal tube pitch, longitudinal tube pitch,
fin pitch, air velocity and water volumetric flow rate. Suzuki et al. [19] used the fluent code to
study the heat transfer characteristics of an air cooler with finned tubes. The RNG K–e model
selected to calculate the thermal hydraulics of the finned heat transfer tube banks. It was found
that, the velocity vector patterns, temperature distributions, and loss coefficients are not different
largely between the turbulence models. Zdaniuk et al. [20] experimentally studied the heat
transfer coefficients and the friction factors for eight internally finned helically coiled tubes and
one smooth tube for Reynolds number between 12000 and 60000. They recommended a coil
because of its high Colburn j-factors and moderate friction factors at all Reynolds numbers.

There are various studies about the application of the annular fins on tubes, for enhancement of
heat transfer. For example, Kundu et al. [21] studied radiative heat transfer and heat generated by
a nuclear reactor for annular stepped fins through linearization of the radiation terms. They found
that, at the optimum case, the heat dissipation rate of the annular stepped fins are higher than this
for annular disc fins under constrained volumes. Senapati et al. [22] numerically studied natural
convection heat transfer for a vertical cylinder with annular fins. They found that, with the
installing of the fins to the outer side of the tube, heat transfer increases for laminar flow and for
turbulent flow heat transfer first increases and gets a maximum value then starts to decrease.
They also obtained the optimum fin spacing for the maximum heat transfer for the cases of
turbulent flow and developed correlations for prediction of Nusselt number for both laminar and
turbulent regimes. A. Aziz et al. [23] performed an analytical study to investigate the
performance of an annular fins and obtained the design parameters for various types of boundary
conditions. B. Kundu et al. [24] suggested an analytical method for a wide range of thermo-
psychrometric parameters, namely, differential transformation to obtain the temperature field in
wet annular fins with triangular and rectangular geometries. They performed an optimization
study to determine the optimum design variables. Huang et al. [25] used conjugate gradient
method (CGM) to obtain the optimum shapes of partially wet annular fins based on the desired
fin efficiency and fin volume. They found that, the optimum annular fin shape always has the
highest fin efficiency among all five common annular fins. Arslanturk [26-27] obtained simple

7
correlation equations for optimum design of annular fins with uniform cross section. The fin
volume (or mass) was constant to obtain the dimensionless geometrical parameters of the fin
with maximum heat transfer rates. He found the optimum radius ratio of an annular fin which
maximizes the heat transfer rate as a function of Biot number (hdt/2k) and the fin volume.

According to the literature review, there few studies about the helically coiled fined tube heat
exchangers. The aim of this study is to investigate the heat transfer intensification in cylindrical
shell and helically coiled tube heat exchangers due to installation of the annular fins on the outer
surface of the helical coil tube which has not been investigated in the previous works for these
special types of heat exchangers. This study is the first numerical simulation of these types of
heat exchangers thus, the design details and the results, can be useful for the next researchers.
The effect of the number of fins per meter of the coiled tube length and fins dimensionless height
on the heat transfer rate will be obtained. Furthermore, a diagram and correlations are obtained
for the prediction of the heat transfer coefficient of the fin side which has been not suggested in
previous works (however, determination of this parameter is an important part of the design of
these types of heat exchangers).
At the end of this study, the optimal values of the fin geometry which maximize the heat transfer
rate and minimize the material consumption (for construction of the fins), are obtained. This
study shows that, how the distribution of the material (for construction of the fins) can be
effective on the heat transfer rate.

2. Heat exchanger geometry, mesh and numerical method

The heat exchangers which are designed in this work, include a cylindrical shell and a helical
coiled tube. Annular fins with uniform cross section have been installed on the outer surface of
the coiled tube to determine their effect on the intensification of the heat transfer. The annular
fins are widely used for circular tubes cause of its comfortable installation. The use of the
annular fins reduces the difficulties of the transformation of the straight finned tubes to helical
coils. The heat exchanger with its finned coiled tube is shown in Fig.1. Furthermore, its
dimensions and the geometrical parameters of the fins are shown in and Fig. 2. According to this
figure, the following parameters is defined:

8
 2𝐻𝑓
ω= (1)
𝑃𝑐 −𝑑𝑡
𝑁𝑓
σ= (2)
𝑙

A numerical code is used for the simulation of the steady state, single phase forced convection
heat transfer on both sides and conductive heat transfer in the solid fins. The governing Equation
(i.e. continuity, momentum and energy) are, respectively as follows:

𝜕
(𝜌𝑉𝑖 ) = 0 (3)
𝜕𝑥𝑖

𝜕 𝜕𝑝 𝜕𝜏𝑖𝑗
(𝜌𝑉𝑗 𝑉𝑖 ) = − + (4)
𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝜕𝑥𝑗

𝜕 1 𝜕 𝜕 𝜕𝑇
(𝜌𝑉𝑗 (𝜃 + 𝑉𝑖 𝑉𝑖 )) = (𝑉𝑖 𝜏𝑖𝑗 ) + (𝑘 𝜕𝑥 ) (5)
𝜕𝑥𝑗 2 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝑗

Where τij is the viscous stress tensor and is defined as follows:

𝜏𝑖𝑗 = 2µ𝑆𝑖𝑗 (6)

Sij is the strain rate tensor which is:

1 𝜕𝑉𝑖 𝜕𝑉𝑗
𝑆𝑖𝑗 = ( + ) (7)
2 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑖

The first term on the right-hand side of Equation (5) represents the heat transfer due to
convection which is the main form of energy transfer in the fluid regions. However; the second
term represents the heat transfer due to conduction. This is the only term which remains in the
energy equation at the solid regions (i.e. fins).
The turbulent flow is considered for the both sides thus, a model should be selected for the
consideration of the turbulence effects in addition to the other governing Equation. Realizable K-

9
e is selected for the simulation of the turbulence effects. The transfer equations for this model are
as follows:

𝜕 𝜕 𝜕𝐾
(𝜌𝐾𝑉𝑗 ) = [(µ + µ 𝑇 ) ] + 2µ 𝑇 𝑆𝑖𝑗 𝑆𝑖𝑗 − 𝜌𝑒 (8)
𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗

2𝑆𝑖𝑗 𝑆𝑖𝑗 𝐾
𝜕 𝜕 𝜕𝑒 𝑒2
(𝜌𝑒𝑉𝑗 ) = [(µ + µ 𝑇 ) ] + 𝜌𝑒√2𝑆𝑖𝑗 𝑆𝑖𝑗 max [0.43, 2𝑆𝑖𝑗𝑆𝑒𝑖𝑗𝐾 ] − 1.9𝜌 (9)
𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗 +5 𝐾+√𝜌𝑒
µ
𝑒

Where µT is the turbulent viscosity and defined as follows [28]:

𝐾2
µ 𝑇 = 𝜌𝐶µ (10)
𝑒

Where the coefficient Cµ is not constant in the Realizable K-e model (unlike the standard K-e
model) and is obtained from the following equation:

1
𝐶µ = 𝐾 1 𝑆𝑖𝑗 𝑆𝑗𝑘 𝑆𝑘𝑖 (11)
4.04+ 𝑒 √6 cos[3 cos−1 (√6 2 )]
(𝑆𝑖𝑗 𝑆𝑖𝑗 )3

This model can be used successfully for simulation of the heat transfer phenomena in these types
of heat exchangers [1]. For enhancement of the simulation accuracy, the second-order upwind
scheme has been used as the discretization pattern in all governing equations. Furthermore, the
SIMPLE algorithm is considered for the coupling the pressure and velocity. The following
assumptions have been considered during the simulation:
a. The fluids are incompressible.
b. There is no leakage.
c. Contact resistance, tube thickness, radiation, Buoyancy force and heat dissipation from the
outer surfaces of the shell are negligible.
d. Fin, tube and shell have smooth surfaces.
e. b. No-slip conditions at the solid surfaces (i.e. inner and outer surfaces of the tube, fin surface
and inner surfaces of the shell).
Furthermore, the boundary conditions are as follows:

10
a. Hot water at the temperature of 90 °C flows through the coil side while, the cold water at the
temperature of 10 °C flows through the shell side. For all heat exchangers, the inlet velocity for
coil side is assumed 1 m/s however; the inlet velocity for the shell side is changed from 0.75 to 3
m/s (i.e. 0.75, 1.5 and 3 m/s) to obtain the effect of the Reynolds number of the shell side on the
heat transfer intensification. Thus, thirty nine cases are totally studied.
b. The outlet gauge pressure is equal to zero on both sides.
c. The outer surfaces of the shell are insulated.
Convergence is accepted when the residuals of the continuity, momentum, energy and K-e
equations are smaller than 10-4, 10-4, 10-7 and 10-3, respectively.
To investigate the effect of the dimensionless height of the fins and the number of the fins per
meter of the coiled tube length on the heat transfer intensification, they are changed separately
while, the other specifications of the heat exchanger (i.e. operational and other geometrical
specifications of the heat exchanger) are kept constant. The range of change of geometrical
parameters of the fins is shown in Table 1. According to this table, thirteen heat exchangers
should be designed. The fin sizes of the most finned tube heat exchangers are in this range.
Furthermore, the fin parameters are dimensionless thus, the results may be used for an arbitrary
fin sizes.
The working fluid of the both shell and coil side is water. Furthermore, the tube and fins are
made from copper. The physical properties of these materials are shown in Table 2.
In order to generate an appropriate mesh for this complex geometry, it was divided into four
parts: a) the coil, b) the internal cylinder, c) the fins and d) the rest of the shell. By use of
Gambit, separate (but connected) mesh have been generated for each parts shown in Fig. 3a and
3b. The interval size between nodes is considered 1.0, 3.0 and 1.0 (mm) for parts (a), (b) and (c),
respectively while, this value varies from 1.0 to 3.0 (mm) for part (d). The regular hexahedral
elements have been used in the parts (a), (b) and (c) while, irregular tetrahedral elements have
been used for part (d).
When the solution converged, the of heat transfer rate is obtained as follows:

𝑄𝑐 = 𝑚̇𝑐 𝑐(𝑇𝑖𝑛,𝑐 − 𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡,𝑐 ) (12)

𝑄𝑠ℎ = 𝑚̇𝑠ℎ 𝑐(𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡,𝑠ℎ − 𝑇𝑖𝑛,𝑠ℎ ) (13)

11
 𝑄𝑠ℎ +𝑄𝑐
𝑄𝑡𝑜𝑡 = (14)
2

Furthermore, the total mass of the fins and the Reynolds number of the shell side based on the
outer diameter of the tube will be obtained as follows:

2
𝑀𝑓 = 𝑁𝑓 𝜌𝑐𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝜋𝑡((𝑑𝑡 + 𝐻𝑓 ) − 𝑑𝑡2 )/4 (15)

𝜌𝑉𝑖𝑛 𝑑𝑡
𝑅𝑒𝑠ℎ = (16)
µ

3. Approximate method for calculating the heat transfer rate

In order to validate the model, a comparison is performed between predicted heat transfer rates
which are obtained based on the present numerical model and experimental correlations
proposed in previous works. These correlations are as follows:
a. The Nusselt number of the coil side is predicted using the following correlation which is
proposed by Hardik et al. [29]:

𝑑
𝑁𝑢𝑐 = 0.0456( 𝑐 )−0.16 𝑅𝑒𝑐0.8 𝑃𝑟𝑐0.4 (17)
𝑑𝑡

Where Rec is the coil side Reynolds number based on inside diameter of the tube and prc is the
Prandtl number.

b. The Nusselt number of the shell side is predicted using the following correlation which is
proposed by Ashkan et al. [1]:

𝑑
0.723 𝑐 0.378 𝑣 0.556 𝑑 𝑑𝑠ℎ −0.82 𝐻𝑐 0.043 𝐻𝑠ℎ −1.03 𝑓 0.561 𝑃𝑐 0.138 0.717
𝑁𝑢𝑠ℎ = 0.247𝑅𝑒𝑠ℎ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 𝑃𝑟𝑠ℎ (18)
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡

This equation (i.e. Equation (18)) has been obtained for the finless coiled tubes thus, it is
expected that, the accurate heat transfer may not be obtained. Where Resh is the shell side
Reynolds number based on outside diameter of the tube and prsh is the Prandtl number. dc, dsh, dv

12
are coil, shell, inlet of shell diameter and Hc, Hsh, f and pc are coil height, shell height, the
distance between the inlet and outlet of the shell and coil pitch, respectively.

When the heat transfer coefficient of both side is obtained, the overall heat transfer coefficient is
obtained as follows [30]:

1 1 1
= + (19)
𝑈𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑡 ℎ𝑐 𝐴𝑡 ɳ𝑜 ℎ𝑠ℎ 𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑡

Where the overall fin efficiency is obtained as follows:

𝑁𝑓 𝐴𝑓
ɳ𝑜 = 1 − (1 − ɳ𝑓 ) (20)
𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑡

Where:

𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑡 = 𝑁𝑓 𝐴𝑓 + 𝐴𝑡 (21)

2𝑟𝑡 𝐾1 (𝑠𝑟𝑡 )𝐼1 (𝑠(𝑟𝑡 +𝐻𝑓 +𝑡/2))−𝐼1 (𝑠𝑟𝑡 )𝐾1 (𝑠(𝑟𝑡 +𝐻𝑓 +𝑡/2))
ɳ𝑓 = (22)
𝑠((𝑟𝑡 +𝐻𝑓 +𝑡/2)2 −𝑟𝑡2 ) 𝐾0 (𝑠𝑟𝑡 )𝐼1 (𝑠(𝑟𝑡 +𝐻𝑓 +𝑡/2))+𝐼0 (𝑠𝑟𝑡 )𝐾1 (𝑠(𝑟𝑡 +𝐻𝑓 +𝑡/2))

Where I0 and K0 are modified, zero-order Bessel functions of the first and second kinds, I1 and
K1 are modified, first-order Bessel functions of the first and second kinds, respectively and (s) is
defined as follows:

2ℎ𝑠ℎ 0.5
𝑠=( ) (23)
𝑘𝑡

Then the heat transfer rate is obtained using E-NTU method. Ashkan [31] suggested to use the E-
NTU relations as follows:

𝑈𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑡
𝑁𝑇𝑈 = (24)
𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛

13
 1−exp[−𝑁𝑇𝑈(1+𝐶𝑟 )]
𝐸 = 0.874 (25)
1+𝐶𝑟

𝑄 = 𝐸𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛 (𝑇𝑖𝑛,𝑐 − 𝑇𝑖𝑛,𝑠ℎ ) (26)

4. Results and discussions

4.1 Mesh and turbulence model independency

Mesh independency analysis is studied for the case with ω=0.8 and σ=392 at Resh=15000. Three
grids with different number of cells have been considered for this case. The attached cells to the
outer wall of the finned tube and the cells of the fins, have been refined from grid #1 to #3. These
changes can be seen in Fig. 4a and 4b in a section that is passing through a set of fins and
perpendicular to the shell's cross sections. This section has been shown in Fig. 5. Total heat
transfer and the temperature of the outlet fluid of the shell side (i.e. Tosh) have been obtained and
compared between each grids. Results have been shown in Table 3. As it can be seen from this
table, the relative changes of the total heat transfer rate and the temperature of the outlet fluid of
the shell side is less than 1% from the grid #2 to #3 thus, the grid #2 is suitable for this geometry
and more refinement does not decrease the errors in any appreciable way.
To investigate the effect of turbulence models on the results, some cases are re-analyzed with
considering the standard K-ω or LES (Large Eddy Simulation) as the turbulence model. In each
cases, the attached cells to the outer wall of the finned tube have been refined, until the values of
y+ be equal between the turbulence models. This ensures that, this analysis is not a function of
y+. As it can be seen from Table 4, the predicted heat transfer rate differences between the
turbulence models are negligible (the same results was obtained by Suzuki et al. [19]).

4.2 Model validation

In these section, the calculated numerical heat transfer rate for all cases is compared with the
heat transfer rate obtained based on the approximate method discussed in the section 3. Results
have been shown in Fig. 6. As it can be seen, there is an acceptable agreement between the
predicted heat transfer rates obtained via these two methods for some cases (the average and

14
maximum differences are 8.11% and 30.92%, respectively). However; the differences for the
other cases are relatively significant. The reason of errors are probably because, in the analytical
method Equation (18) has a significant error in the prediction of outer side heat transfer
coefficient because it does not consider the effect of the fins geometry. Furthermore, the
consideration of the only one heat transfer coefficient for the shell side is probably the second
reason of errors. This is clearly visible in Fig 7 which shows the contour of the local heat transfer
rate coefficient for the case with σ=192 and ω=0.4 at Resh=30000. The local heat transfer rate
coefficient has been obtained from the following formula:
𝑞̅
ℎ𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 = (27)
(𝑇̅𝑓,𝑡 −𝑇̅𝑠ℎ )

Thus, obtaining the effect of fins geometry on the outer side heat transfer coefficients is essential
for the prediction of the accurate heat transfer rate. The outer side heat transfer coefficient has
been obtained for all cases. The results are shown in Figs. 8. As it can be seen, the heat transfer
coefficients of the fin side (i.e. hf), outer side of the tube (i.e. ht) and the total (i.e. htot or hsh) have
been obtained as function of Resh, ω and σ. The following equations have been used to obtain
these heat transfer coefficients (the bar refers to the average values):

𝑄𝑓
ℎ𝑓 = (28)
𝐴𝑓 (𝑇̅𝑓 −𝑇̅𝑠ℎ )

𝑄𝑡
ℎ𝑡 = (29)
𝐴𝑡 (𝑇̅𝑡 −𝑇̅𝑠ℎ )

𝑄𝑡𝑜𝑡
ℎ𝑡𝑜𝑡 = (30)
𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑡 (𝑇̅𝑓,𝑡 −𝑇̅𝑠ℎ )

It can be seen from Figs. 8 that, there is a significant difference between the heat transfer
coefficients of the fin side (hf) and the outer side of the tube (ht).
It can also be seen from these figures, when the σ and Resh are held constant, all heat transfer
coefficients will generally increase with increase of the ω (or height of the coil). The similar
result was obtained by Gupta et al. [8]. However, there are some notable exceptions. For
example, for cases with (Resh=7500, σ=192 ω=0.6), (Resh=7500, σ=96 ω=0.6) and (Resh=15000,
σ=96 ω=0.6) when the ω increases, ht, hf and htot will increase, respectively (instead of

15
reduction). This figure can be used by the designer of these types of heat exchanger for the
prediction of the outer side heat transfer coefficients.
The predicted heat transfer coefficients of the shell side (i.e. htot), can be compared with the
experimental works of Ghorbani et al. [3] and Gupta et al. [9].
Ghorbani et al. [3] proposed the following correlation for the calculation of the Nusselt number
of the shell side in finless coiled tube heat exchangers:

Nudh =0.0041Re0.2 0.3 0.4533

dh Prsh Radh (31)
Although this correlation is for finless coiled tube heat exchangers, it can also be used for the
finned tube heat exchangers because, the Reynolds and Rayleigh numbers are functions of the
hydraulic diameter. This parameter involves all geometrical parameters of the shell side and
defined as follows:
4𝑣𝑠ℎ
𝑑ℎ = 𝜋𝑑2
(32)
𝑠ℎ
𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑡 + 2 +𝜋𝑑𝑠ℎ 𝐻𝑠ℎ

The Reynolds and Rayleigh numbers (based on hydraulic diameter) are defined as follows:
4𝑚̇𝑠ℎ
𝑅𝑒𝑑ℎ = (33)
𝜋𝑑ℎ 𝜇

𝑔𝛽|𝑇̅𝑠ℎ − 𝑇̅𝑤 |𝑑ℎ3 𝜌2 𝑐

𝑅𝑎𝑑ℎ =
𝜇𝑘
Where the expansion coefficient β of the water is 207E (-6) K-1.
The proposed equation by Gupta et al. [9] for the prediction of the heat transfer coefficient is as
follows:
𝛼 𝑅𝑒𝑤𝑜𝑘 0.703 1/3
ℎ𝑡𝑜𝑡 = 0.19( )( ) 𝑃𝑟𝑠ℎ (34)
𝑑𝑡 𝛼+1

Where coefficient α is the bypass area factor and it is given by:

𝜋𝑑2
( 4𝑠ℎ −𝜋𝑑𝑐 𝑑𝑓 )
𝛼= (35)
(𝜋𝑑𝑐 (1−𝜎𝑡))

And the Rewok is defined as follows:

𝑚̇𝑠ℎ 𝑑𝑡
𝑅𝑒𝑤𝑜𝑘 = 𝜋𝑑2
(36)
𝜇 4𝑠ℎ

Then the Nusselt number is obtained as follows:

ℎ𝑡𝑜𝑡 𝑑ℎ
Nudh = (37)
𝑘

16
As it can be seen from Figs. 9 for the most cases, the Nusselt number of the present work has a
good agreement with one or both of these two works (i.e. Ghorbani et al. [3] and Gupta et al. [9]
works). According to this figures, with increase of the Rhdh, the Nusselt number generally
decreases. Furthermore, the data of the present work has a lower dispersion than the others. The
following correlation can be proposed for the prediction of the shell side heat transfer coefficient
in shell and helically coiled finned tube heat exchangers which are functions of Resh (Equation
(16)) and Redh (Equation (36)):
a) For Resh=7500 and 2200≤ Redh≤ 5500:

−1.863
𝑁𝑢𝑑ℎ = (3𝐸 + 8)𝑅𝑒𝑑ℎ (38)

b) For Resh=15000 and 2200≤ Redh≤ 5500:

−1.572
𝑁𝑢𝑑ℎ = (1𝐸 + 8)𝑅𝑒𝑑ℎ (39)

c) For Resh=30000 and 2200≤ Redh≤ 5500:

−1.584
𝑁𝑢𝑑ℎ = (6𝐸 + 8)𝑅𝑒𝑑ℎ (40)

4.3 Effect of the geometrical parameters of the fins on the heat transfer and design
optimization

The contours of the temperature of the fins and the velocity magnitude of the shell side fluid,
have been shown in Figs. 10 and 11 on the section shown in Fig. 5. These contours are obtained
for the cases with σ=192 and Resh=30000 and ω=0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8.
In these contours, the ranges for the velocity and temperature are considered 0≤V≤1.5 m/s and
300≤T≤330 K, respectively in order the differences be more sensible. In Fig. 11, there are some
discontinuity in the contours. This is because, the velocity in these regions are out of the
mentioned range (i.e. 0≤V≤1.5).

17
It can be seen from Figs. 10a-10d, the temperature of the fins reduces with increase of ω (or
height of the fins). This is probably because, when the height of the fins increases, the contact
area of the cold fluid of the shell side with the fins increases.
The effect of σ and ω on the heat transfer rate is shown in Figs. 12a, 12b and 12c at Resh=7500,
15000 and 30000, respectively. It should be noted that, there are two effective factors on the heat
transfer rate that change when the fins geometrical parameters are changed. The first factor is the
total area (i.e. Atotal) which increases as the σ or ω are increased. The second is the velocity of the
shell side fluid near the fins and tube which usually decreases when the σ or ω are increased
according to Figs. 11a-11d. Thus, the first factor is in contrast to the second factor. Figs. 12a,
12b and 12c show which of these two factors are more effective on the heat transfer. The
Instabilities which exist in these figures are due to the contrast between these two factors.
According to these figures, the following results can be obtained:

a) For an arbitrary Reynolds number in the range 7500≤ Resh≤ 30000, it can be concluded that, if
the σ is held constant, the heat transfer rate generally increases with the increase of ω. Thus, the
maximum heat transfer rate is obtained when the ω is equal to 0.8. This is similar to the result
that Senapati et al. [22] concluded. The average of maximum increase of the heat transfer rate at
Resh=7500, 15000 and 30000 is 17.25%, 35.73% and 44.11% for σ =96, 192 and 392,
respectively.
b) For an arbitrary Reynolds number in the range 7500≤ Resh≤ 30000, it can be concluded that, if
the ω is held constant, the heat transfer rate always increases with the increase of σ. It is obvious
that, the maximum heat transfer rate is obtained when the σ is equal to 392. The average of
maximum increase of the heat transfer rate at Resh=7500, 15000 and 30000 is 29.35%, 32.24%,
41.74% and 44.11% for ω equals to 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8, respectively.
c) By holding the ω and σ constant, the heat transfer rate always increases with the increase of
Resh.
Furthermore, it can be found from these figures that, there are some cases with same heat transfer
rate that have the different Mf. Thus, it can be concluded that an optimal cases should be exist,
which has the maximum heat transfer rate and minimum material consumption. In order to find
the optimal cases, the following parameters have been obtained for each cases:

18
 ∆𝑄 𝑄𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 −𝑄𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒
%= × 100 (38)
𝑄𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 𝑄𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒

∆𝑄 𝑄𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 −𝑄𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒

= (39)
𝑀𝑓 𝑀𝑓

The designer of the finned tube heat exchangers usually try to design fins which have the
maximum heat transfer enhancement and consume the minimum material. These two aims are
usually in contrast together (according to Figs. 12a, 12b and 12c). In other words, a cases which
has the maximum heat transfer enhancement, usually does not consume the minimum material.
Thus, it is reasonable idea to select a case which has the average (or more) heat transfer
enhancement and the average (or less) material consumption instead of the cases with the
maximum heat transfer enhancement and material consumption or cases with the minimum heat
transfer enhancement and material consumption, as the optimum cases. Thus, the following
conditions (or criteria) are defined to find the optimum cases:

∆𝑄 ̅̅̅̅̅̅
∆𝑄
a) ( )>( ) (40)
𝑀𝑓 𝑀𝑓

∆𝑄 ̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
∆𝑄
b) (% ) > (% ) (41)
𝑄𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 𝑄𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒

These equations show that, the average values of ∆Q/Q and ∆Q/Mf are the critical value for
determination of the optimum cases. The values of these two parameters are shown in Table 5, 6
and 7. Any case that follows these two criteria simultaneously, is a candidate for the optimum
case. Results are shown in Tables 5, 6 and 7 for the Resh=7500, 15000 and 30000, respectively.
The optimum cases (or cases) are highlighted in the tables. As can be seen, there are two
optimum cases for Resh=7500 while, there is only one optimum case for Resh=15000 and 30000.
The selection of each of these two optimum cases is depending on the design conditions. The
designers should specify that maximum energy transfer is more important or minimum material
consumption. If the “Maximum heat transfer” is more important, the cases with (ω=0.8 and σ
=192), (ω=0.2 and σ =392) and (ω=0.2 and σ =392) are the optimum cases for Resh=7500, 15000
and 30000, respectively. While, if the “minimum material consumption” is more important, the
case with (ω=0.2 and σ =392) is the optimum cases for all Reynolds numbers. This indicates

19
that, it is better to consume the material for construction of the fins in a way which involve lower
height fins with higher number of fins instead of higher height fins with lower number of fins.
For example in Table 6, the mass of fins for case #4, #6 and #9 is approximately equal to 60 g,
while the value of ∆Q/Q for them is 17%,25% and 32%, respectively.
This optimum case can be compared with the correlation proposed by Arslanturk [27] (which
determine the optimum case based on the maximum heat transfer rate for a constant volume or
mass of fin). It is as follows:
𝑑𝑡 +2𝐻𝑓 8𝑣𝑓 8𝑣𝑓 2 ℎ𝑡𝑜𝑡 𝑑𝑡
( )𝑜𝑝𝑡 = (0.5275 + 0.1795 − 0.0324 + ( ) )[2.5894 − 0.1661 ln ( )+
𝑑𝑡 𝜋𝑑𝑡3 𝜋𝑑𝑡3 2𝑘

ℎ𝑠ℎ 𝑑𝑡 2
0.0817 ln ( ) ] (42)
2𝑘

For the optimum case (i.e. the case with ω=0.2 and σ =392) the parameters of the right hand side
of Equation (42) are as follows: vf=3.45E-8 (m3), dt=0.01 (m) and htot=2671 (W/m2K) (which has
been obtained from Equation (30)). By substituting these values in Equation (42) the optimum
fin height is obtained. It is equal to 1.8 (mm) that is not exactly equal with the optimum fin
height of the present work (which is 1 mm) however; they are in a good agreement.

5. Conclusions

In this study, the heat transfer intensification in shell and helically coiled tube heat exchangers
due to installation of the annular fins on the outer surface of the helical coil was numerically
investigated. Realizable K-e was selected as the turbulence model. Furthermore, the second order
upwind was used as discretization scheme for all governing equations and the SIMPLE
algorithm was applied for the pressure and velocity coupling scheme. For validation of the model
first the predicted heat transfer was compared with the approximate method which is based on
the experimental correlations for both coil and shell side Nusselt numbers of shell and helically
coiled finless tube heat exchangers and consideration of the E-NTU relations of these types of
heat exchangers. Then the heat transfer coefficient of the shell side was compared with the
experimental heat transfer coefficients of the previous works. An acceptable agreement has been
observed in these comparisons. Results indicates:
a) The difference between the predicted heat transfer rates due to changing of the turbulence
model are negligible.

20
b) The effect of ω and σ on the heat transfer rate was obtained at various shell side Reynolds
number.
c) For an arbitrary Reynolds number in the range 7500≤ Resh≤ 30000, if the σ is held constant,
the heat transfer rate generally increases with the increase of ω. The maximum increase of the
heat transfer rate is 17.25%, 35.73% and 44.11% for σ =96, 192 and 392, respectively.
d) For an arbitrary Reynolds number in the range 7500≤ Resh≤ 30000, if the ω is held constant,
the heat transfer rate always increases with the increase of σ. The maximum increase of the heat
transfer rate is 29.35%, 32.24%, 41.74% and 44.11% for ω equals to 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8,
respectively.
e) By holding the ω and σ constant, the heat transfer rate always increases with the increase of
Resh.
f) The optimum cases which has the maximum heat transfer rate and minimum material
consumption for construction of the fins are obtained. If the “minimum material consumption” is
more important, the case with (ω=0.2 and σ =392) is the optimum cases for all Reynolds
numbers.
g) It is better to consume the material for construction of the fins in a way which involve lower
height fins with higher number of fins instead of higher height fins with lower number of fins.
h) If the σ and Resh are held constant, all heat transfer coefficients (i.e. hf, ht and htot) will
generally increase with increase of the ω (or height of the coil).
i) A diagram and some correlations has been obtained for prediction of heat transfer coefficient
of the shell side.

21
References

[1] Ashkan Alimoradi, Farzad Veysi, Prediction of heat transfer coefficients of shell and coiled
tube heat exchangers using numerical method and experimental validation, International Journal
of Thermal Sciences 2016; 107:196-208.
[2] M. Nitsche, R.O. Gbadamosi, A Practical Guide for Planning, Selecting and Designing of
Shell and Tube Exchangers, CHAPTER 12 Finned Tube Heat Exchangers, Heat Exchanger
Design Guide, 2016, Pages 247–264.
[3] Ghorbani N, Taherian H, Gorji M, Mirgolbabaei H. Experimental study of mixed convection
heat transfer in vertical helically coiled tube heat exchangers. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2010, 34,
900-905. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.expthermflusci.2010.02.004.
[4] L. P. Chauvet, D. J. Nevrala, S. D. Probert, Heat-Transfer Correlations for an Immersed
Finned Heat-Exchanger Coil Transferring Heat from a Hot-Water Store, Applied Energy 44
(1993) 283-314.
[5] Alireza Bahadori, Hari B.Vuthaluru, Predictive tool for estimation of convection heat transfer
coefficients and efficiencies for finned tubular sections, International Journal of Thermal
Sciences 49 (2010) 1477-1483.
[6] Jong Min Choi, Yonghan Kim, Mooyeon Lee, Yongchan Kim, Air side heat transfer
coefficients of discrete plate finned-tube heat exchangers with large fin pitch, Applied Thermal
Engineering 30 (2010) 174–180.
[7] Wenzhi Cui, Longjian Li, Mingdao Xin, Tien-Chien Jen, Qinghua Chen, Quan Liao, A heat
transfer correlation of flow boiling in micro-finned helically coiled tube, International Journal of
Heat and Mass Transfer 49 (2006) 2851–2858.
[8] Prabhat Kumar Gupta, P.K. Kush, Ashesh Tiwari, Design and optimization of coil finned-
tube heat exchangers for cryogenic applications, Cryogenics 47 (2007) 322–332.
[9] Prabhat Kumar Gupta, P.K. Kush, Ashesh Tiwari, Experimental research on heat transfer
coefficients for cryogenic cross-counter-flow coiled finned-tube heat exchangers, international
journal of refrigeration 32 (2009) 960–972.

22
[10] Prabhat Kumar Gupta, P.K. Kush, Ashesh Tiwari, Experimental studies on pressure drop
characteristics of cryogenic cross-counter flow coiled finned tube heat exchangers, Cryogenics
50 (2010) 257–265.
[11] Diala Karmo, Salman Ajib, Ayman Al Khateeb, New method for designing an effective
finned heat exchanger, Applied Thermal Engineering 51 (2013) 539-550.
[12] Yonghan Kim, Yongchan Kim, Heat transfer characteristics of flat plate finned-tube heat
exchangers with large fin pitch, International Journal of Refrigeration 28 (2005) 851–858.
[13] Mooyeon Lee, Yonghan Kim, Hosung Lee, Yongchan Kim, Air-side heat transfer
characteristics of flat plate finned-tube heat exchangers with large fin pitches under frosting
conditions, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 2655–2661.
[14] Longjian Li, Wenzhi Cui, Quan Liao, Xin Mingdao, Tien-Chien Jen, Qinghua Chen,
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 48 (2005) 1916–1925.
[15] Chi-Wen Lu, Jeng-Min Huang, W.C. Nien, Chi-Chuan Wang, A numerical investigation of
the geometric effects on the performance of plate finned-tube heat exchanger, Energy
Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 1638–1643.
[16] Paisarn Naphon, Thermal performance and pressure drop of the helical-coil heat exchangers
with and without helically crimped fins, International Communications in Heat and Mass
Transfer 34 (2007) 321–330.
[17] Pongjet Promvonge, Sompol Skullong, Sutapat Kwankaomeng, Chinaruk Thiangpong, Heat
transfer in square duct fitted diagonally with angle-finned tape—Part 1: Experimental study,
International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 39 (2012) 617–624.
[18] Lei Sun, Chun-Lu Zhang, Evaluation of elliptical finned-tube heat exchanger performance
using CFD and response surface methodology, International Journal of Thermal Sciences 75
(2014) 45-53.
[19] Daisuke Suzuki, Hiroyasu Mochizuki, Thermal–hydraulic analysis of air cooled finned heat
transfer tubes, Annals of Nuclear Energy 95 (2016) 1–11.
[20] Gregory J. Zdaniuk, Louay M. Chamra, Pedro J. Mago, Experimental determination of heat
transfer and friction in helically-finned tubes, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 32
(2008) 761–775.
[21] Balaram Kundu, Kwan-Soo Lee, Analytical tools for calculating the maximum heat transfer
of annular stepped fins with internal heat generation and radiation effects, Energy (2014) 1-16.

23
[22] Jnana Ranjan Senapati, Sukanta Kumar Dash, Subhransu Roy, Numerical investigation of
natural convection heat transfer from vertical cylinder with annular fins, International Journal of
Thermal Sciences 111 (2017) 146-159.
[23] Abdul Aziz, Tiegang Fang, Thermal analysis of an annular fin with (a) simultaneously
imposed base temperature and base heat flux and (b) fixed base and tip temperatures, Energy
Conversion and Management 52 (2011) 2467–2478.
[24] B. Kundu, D. Barman, Analytical study on design analysis of annular fins under
dehumidifying conditions with a polynomial relationship between humidity ratio and saturation
temperature, International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 31 (2010) 722–733.
[25] Cheng-Hung Huang, Yun-Lung Chung, An inverse problem in determining the optimum
shapes for partially wet annular fins based on efficiency maximization, International Journal of
Heat and Mass Transfer 90 (2015) 364–375.
[26] Cihat Arslanturk, Simple correlation equations for optimum design of annular fins with
uniform thickness, Applied Thermal Engineering 25 (2005) 2463–2468.
[27] Cihat Arslanturk, Erratum to ‘‘Simple correlation equations for optimum design of annular
fins with uniform thickness” [Applied Thermal Engineering 25 (2005) 2463–2468], Applied
Thermal Engineering 29 (2009) 1271–1272.
[28] ANSYS FLUENT 12.0 User's Guide, Modeling Turbulence. ANSYS Inc; 2013. pp. 695-
759.
[29] B.K. Hardik, P.K. Baburajan, S.V. Prabhu, Local heat transfer coefficient in helical coils
with single phase flow, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 89 (2015) 522–538.
[30] T. L. Bergman, A. S. Lavine, F. P. Incropera, D. P. Dewitt, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass
Transfer, seventh edition, Wiley, pp. 160-172.
[31] Ashkan Alimoradi, Study of thermal effectiveness and its relation with NTU in shell and
helically coiled tube heat exchangers, Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 9 (2017) 100–107.

24
Figure captions

Fig. 1: The heat exchanger with its finned tube coil.

Fig 2: Dimensions of the heat exchanger and geometrical parameters of the fins.
Fig 3: Generated mesh for: a) Coil and fins. b) Shell.
Fig 4: Changes of mesh from: a) grid #1. To b) #3.
Fig 5: The selected section.
Fig 6: Comparison between predicted heat transfers rates using numerical and analytical method.
Fig 7: Contour of the local heat transfer rate coefficient (W/m2K) for the case with σ=192 and
ω=0.4 at Resh=30000.
Fig 8: Heat transfer coefficients of fin side (hf), outer side of the tube (ht) and their total (htot) as
function of Resh, ω and σ.
Fig 9: Comparison of the Nusselt numbers of the present study with the previous works at a)
Resh=7500. b) Resh=15000. c) Resh=30000.
Fig 10: Contour of the temperature (K) for cases with with σ=192 and Resh=30000 and ω equals
to: a) 0.2, b) 0.4, c) 0.6 and d) 0.8
Fig 11: Contour of the velocity (m/s) for cases with with σ=192 and Resh=30000 and ω equals to:
a) 0.2, b) 0.4, c) 0.6 and d) 0.8
Fig 12: Effect of σ and ω on the heat transfer at: a) Resh=7500. b) Resh=15000. c) Resh=30000.

25
Fig. 1: The heat exchanger with its finned tube coil.

26
Fig. 2: Dimensions of the heat exchanger and geometrical parameters of the fins.

27
Fig 3: Generated mesh for: a) Coil and fins.

28
Fig 3: Generated mesh for: b) Shell.

29
Fig 4: Changes of mesh from: a) grid #1

30
Fig 4: Changes of mesh to grid: b) #3.

31
Fig 5: The selected section.

32
Fig 6: Comparison between predicted heat transfers rates using numerical and analytical method.

33
Fig 7: Contour of the local heat transfer rate coefficient (W/m2K) for the case with σ=192 and
ω=0.4 at Resh=30000.

34
Fig 8: Heat transfer coefficients of fin side (hf), outer side of the tube (ht) and their total (htot) as
function of Resh, ω and σ.

35
 200

180

160
Present work, R²
140 = 0.9347

120
Ghorbani et al
Nush

100 [3], R² = 0.9764

80

60 Gupta et al [9],
R² = 0.7482
40

20

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Redh

Fig 9: Comparison of the Nusselt numbers of the present study with the previous works at a)
Resh=7500.

36
 250

200

Present work,
150 R² = 0.9635
Nush

Ghorbani et al
[3], R² = 0.99
100

Gupta et al [9],
R² = 0.7482
50

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Redh

Fig 9: Comparison of the Nusselt numbers of the present study with the previous works at b)
Resh=15000.

37
 400

350

300

Present work,
250 R² = 0.9309
Nush

200
Ghorbani et al
[3], R² = 0.4473
150

100 Gupta et al [9],

R² = 0.7482

50

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Redh

Fig 9: Comparison of the Nusselt numbers of the present study with the previous works at c)
Resh=30000.

38
Fig 10: Contour of the temperature (K) for cases with with σ=192 and Resh=30000 and ω equals
to: a) 0.2

39
Fig 10: Contour of the temperature (K) for cases with with σ=192 and Resh=30000 and ω equals
to: b) 0.4

40
Fig 10: Contour of the temperature (K) for cases with with σ=192 and Resh=30000 and ω equals
to: c) 0.6

41
Fig 10: Contour of the temperature (K) for cases with with σ=192 and Resh=30000 and ω equals
to: d) 0.8

42
Fig 11: Contour of the velocity (m/s) for cases with with σ=192 and Resh=30000 and ω equals to:
a) 0.2

43
Fig 11: Contour of the velocity (m/s) for cases with with σ=192 and Resh=30000 and ω equals to:
b) 0.4

44
Fig 11: Contour of the velocity (m/s) for cases with with σ=192 and Resh=30000 and ω equals to:
c) 0.6

45
Fig 11: Contour of the velocity (m/s) for cases with with σ=192 and Resh=30000 and ω equals to:
d) 0.8

46
Fig 12: Effect of σ and ω on the heat transfer at: a) Resh=7500

47
Fig 12: Effect of σ and ω on the heat transfer at: b) Resh=15000.

48
Fig 12: Effect of σ and ω on the heat transfer at: c) Resh=30000.

49
Table 1: Range of geometrical parameters of the fins.

Case No Fin height (Hf) (mm) Number of fins σ (fin/m) ω

0 0 0 0 0
1 1 96 96 0.2
2 2 96 96 0.4
3 3 96 96 0.6
4 4 96 96 0.8
5 1 192 192 0.2
6 2 192 192 0.4
7 3 192 192 0.6
8 4 192 192 0.8
9 1 392 392 0.2
10 2 392 392 0.4
11 3 392 392 0.6
12 4 392 392 0.8

Table 2: Physical properties of materials.

Materials ρ kg/m3 cp j/kgK k(T) W/mK µ(T) Pa.s Pr

=2.1897e- 3.21-6.75
11T42.1897e-11T4-
=1.5326e-8T3-2.261e-
Water 998.2 4182 3.055e-
5T2+0.010879T-1.0294
11T3+1.6028e-11T2-
0037524T+0.33158
Copper 8978 381 387.6 none

50
Table 3: Mesh independency analysis for case with (σ=392 fin/m and ω=0.8) at Resh=15000.

Grids 1 2 3
Fins number of cells 50176 931214 931214
Coil side number of cells 342568 342568 1025896
Shell side number of cells 2060902 2356895 3324661
Total number of cells 2453646 3630677 5281771
Q (j) 6298.079 6913.241 6887.249
%Q - 9.76 -0.37
Tosh (K) 292.08 292.88 292.84
%Tosh - 0.273 -0.015

Table 4: Comparison of the turbulence models.

σ Q (W) for Q (W) for Q (W) for Maximum

No Resh ω
(fin/m) (K-e) (K-ω) (LES) Difference %
1 7500 0.8 192 5289.60 5059.49 5309.30 4.35
2 15000 0.4 96 5117.21 5057.38 5168.81 1.18
3 30000 0.2 392 7337.38 7189.26 7385.34 2.03

51
 Table 5: Determination of optimum cases at Resh=7500.

N.O. ω σ (fin/m) Mf (g) %∆Q/Qfinless ∆Q/Mf (W/g)

1 0.2 96 14.215 6.18 16.525
2 0.4 96 29.784 5.946 7.588
3 0.6 96 46.707 5.867 4.774
4 0.8 96 64.984 19.916 11.649
5 0.2 192 28.43 9.561 12.781
6 0.4 192 59.569 12.049 7.688
7 0.6 192 93.415 19.074 7.761
8 0.8 192 129.969 38.227 11.179
9 0.2 392 58.638 25.546 16.559
10 0.4 392 122.861 24.651 7.626
11 0.6 392 192.669 38.963 7.686
12 0.8 392 268.062 39.463 5.595
Average 18.725 10.165

52
 Table 6: Determination of optimum cases at Resh=15000.

N.O. ω σ (fin/m) Mf (g) %∆Q/Qfinless ∆Q/Mf (W/g)

1 0.2 96 14.215 11.078 35.673
2 0.4 96 29.784 11.257 17.301
3 0.6 96 46.707 9.471 9.282
4 0.8 96 64.984 17.836 12.563
5 0.2 192 28.43 15.821 25.472
6 0.4 192 59.569 25.31 19.449
7 0.6 192 93.415 32.563 15.956
8 0.8 192 129.969 36.809 12.964
9 0.2 392 58.638 32.391 25.285
10 0.4 392 122.861 34.136 12.718
11 0.6 392 192.669 45.802 10.881
12 0.8 392 268.062 49.45 8.444
Average 26.827 17.166

53
Table 7: Determination of optimum cases at Resh=30000.

N.O. ω σ (fin/m) Mf (g) %∆Q/Qfinless ∆Q/Mf (W/g)

1 96 0.2 14.215 10.462 41.082
2 96 0.4 29.784 12.164 22.796
3 96 0.6 46.707 9.96 11.903
4 96 0.8 64.984 13.991 12.018
5 192 0.2 28.43 20.243 39.745
6 192 0.4 59.569 26.388 24.727
7 192 0.6 93.415 35.22 21.045
8 192 0.8 129.969 32.139 13.803
9 392 0.2 58.638 30.114 28.667
10 392 0.4 122.861 37.945 17.239
11 392 0.6 192.669 40.465 11.723
12 392 0.8 268.062 43.423 9.042
Average 26.043 21.149

54