Use of genetic algorithms for the optimal design

of shell-and-tube heat exchangers
José M. Ponce-Ortega
a,b
, Medardo Serna-González
a
, Arturo Jiménez-Gutiérrez
b,
*
a
Facultad de Ingeniería Química, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, Morelia, Mich. 58060, Mexico
b
Departamento de Ingeniería Química, Instituto Tecnológico de Celaya, Celaya, Gto. 38010, Mexico
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 9 October 2006
Accepted 25 June 2007
Available online 18 March 2008
Keywords:
Shell-and-tube heat exchangers
Bell–Delaware
Genetic algorithm
Optimization
a b s t r a c t
This paper presents an approach based on genetic algorithms for the optimal design of shell-and-tube
heat exchangers. The approach uses the Bell–Delaware method for the description of the shell-side flow
with no simplifications. The optimization procedure involves the selection of the major geometric param-
eters such as the number of tube-passes, standard internal and external tube diameters, tube layout and
pitch, type of head, fluids allocation, number of sealing strips, inlet and outlet baffle spacing, and shell-
side and tube-side pressure drops. The methodology takes into account the geometric and operational
constraints typically recommended by design codes. The examples analyzed show that genetic algo-
rithms provide a valuable tool for the optimal design of heat exchangers.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The transfer of heat between process fluids is an essential part of
most chemical processes. To carry out such heat transfer process,
shell-and-tube heat exchangers are widely used because they are
robust and can work in a wide range of pressures, flows and tem-
peratures [1]. The traditional design approach for shell-and-tube
heat exchangers involves rating a large number of different exchan-
ger geometries to identify those that satisfy a given heat duty and a
set of geometric and operational constraints [2]. This approach is
time-consuming, and does not guarantee an optimal solution.
Jegede and Polley [3] reported a design approach based on sim-
plified equations that related the exchanger pressure drop, the sur-
face area and the heat transfer coefficient; their model was based on
the Dittus–Boelter correlation for the tube-side flow, and on the
Kern correlations for the shell-side flow [4]. The combination of
the pressure drop relationships with the basic exchanger design
equation gave rise to a simple design algorithmthat avoids the iter-
ative procedure required to test different geometries. However, the
use of the Kern method may lead to significant errors in the calcula-
tions because of its simplified flow pattern model for the shell-side.
Polley et al. [5] developed an algorithm using the Bell–Delaware
method [6] to describe the flow pattern of the shell-side fluid. The
model accounts for leakage and bypass streams using the flow
model proposed by Tinker [6]. Although the model by Polley
et al. [5] provides better estimations than the one by Jegede and
Polley [3], some shortcomings can be mentioned. In order to keep
the accuracy of the Bell–Delaware method, Polley et al. [5] devel-
oped a rather complex relationship for pressure drop estimation
on the shell-side, which requires an iterative procedure that in-
volves detailed estimations of exchanger geometries. The algo-
rithm also shows some lack of flexibility for the shell-side,
because it is restricted by the assumptions that cross-flow areas
are equal to window flow areas, and that the spacings for end baf-
fles are equal to those for the central baffles. The second geometric
restriction ignores cases when large inlet and outlet nozzles make
it necessary to have higher inlet and outlet baffle spacings than
central baffle spacings [6]. Finally, the algorithm does not take into
account the end pressure losses on the tube-side due to contrac-
tions at the tube inlets, expansions at the exits, and flow reversal
in the headers.
Recently, Serna and Jimenez [7] presented an algorithm for the
rigorous design of segmentally baffled shell-and-tube heat
exchangers. The algorithm makes use of the maximum allowable
pressure drops of both streams without introducing geometric lim-
itations. In particular, the use of two compact formulations for
pressure drop estimations provides a simple algorithm with
remarkable convergences properties. The shell-side pressure drop
equation is based on the Bell–Delaware method, and the model
for the tube-side includes the estimation for end effects. However,
this algorithm does not explicitly take into account some of the
geometric and operational constraints regularly imposed for ex-
changer design, and it only considers the pressure drops as optimi-
zation variables. Therefore, sub-optimal design solutions are
typically obtained.
Chaudhuri and Diwekar [8] used simulating annealing for the
optimal design of heat exchangers, and developed a command
1359-4311/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2007.06.040
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +52 461 611 7575x139; fax: +52 461 611 7744.
E-mail address: arturo@iqcelaya.itc.mx (A. Jiménez-Gutiérrez).
Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009) 203–209
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Applied Thermal Engineering
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ apt her meng
procedure to link the HTRI design program to the annealing algo-
rithm. The authors used simulating annealing as an optimization
technique because the HTRI design program is a black-box model,
and therefore explicit relationships for the geometric and opera-
tional constraints are not available.
Mizutani et al. [9] have recently presented an optimization pro-
cedure to design shell-and-tube heat exchangers using the
Bell–Delaware method to calculate the shell-side heat transfer
coefficients and pressure drops. Mitzutani et al. [9] used disjunc-
tive programming techniques to get the optimal design and con-
sidered different construction alternatives. Because of the high
degree of non-linearity and possible non-convexities of the Bell–
Delawere method, gradient methods such as the one used by Mizu-
tani et al. [9] may get trapped into local optimal solutions.
This work presents an approach based on a genetic algorithm
(GA) for the optimal design of shell-and-tube heat exchangers.
The approach overcomes some of the limitations of earlier meth-
ods based on mathematical programming techniques, and uses
the Bell–Delaware model for the shell side of the exchanger.
2. Model formulation
The optimization procedure involves the selection of the major
geometric parameters such as the number of tubes passes, stan-
dard internal and external tube diameters, tube layout and pitch,
type of head, fluid allocation, number of sealing strips, inlet and
outlet baffle spacing, and shell-side and tube-side pressure drops.
The objective is to minimize the total annual cost for the exchan-
ger, including the capital costs for the exchanger and two pumps
(shell-side and tube-side), and the operating cost of such pumps.
The methodology considers explicitly major geometric and opera-
tional constraints.
Genetic algorithms are used to guide the search towards an
optimal solution. A shell-and-tube heat exchanger needs to be de-
signed for each set of values of the search variables; the design
method by Serna and Jimenez [10] was used for that purpose.
2.1. Heat exchanger model
The basic design equation is
A ¼
Q
F
T
DT
LM
1
h
S
þ R
ds
þ
D
t
2k
w
ln
D
t
D
ti

þ
D
t
D
ti
h
T
þ
D
t
D
ti
R
dt

ð1Þ
where all symbols are defined in the nomenclature section.
The exchanger area is related to the film heat transfer coeffi-
cients and the allowable pressure drops through two compact for-
mulations recently development by Serna and Jimenez [7]. For
turbulent tube-side flow in the tube-side, the compact formula is
Nomenclature
A heat transfer surface area
A
f
annualization factor for capital cost
c cost coefficient (exponent) in capital cost law for ex-
changer
C
1
to C
5
coefficients in detailed capital cost laws for exchangers
C
a
, C
0
b
cost coefficients in capital cost law for heat exchangers
C
b
baffle cost assuming 1/2 in thickness, based on weight
C
ba
base cost to cover those overheat and labor cost
C
e
, C
f
cost coefficient in capital cost law for pumps
C
exc
capital exchanger cost
C
p
fluid specific heat at constant pressure and average tem-
perature
C
pow
cost per unit of power
C
pump
capital pump cost
C
sh
shell cost including fabrication, based on weight
C
tb
cost of tubes, based on outside heat transfer surface
C
td
tube-sheet and baffle drilling, and bundle tubing cost,
based on number of tubes
C
ts
tube-sheet cost based on weight, including cutting but
not drilling
D
s
inside shell diameter
D
ti
tube inside diameter
D
t
tube outside diameter
e cost coefficient (exponent) in capital cost law for pump
fitness fitness function
F
T
correction factor to logarithmic mean temperature dif-
ference for non-countercurrent flow
g vector of feasible constraints
h clean heat transfer coefficient
H
Y
annual plant operation time
k
s
, k
t
, k
w
thermal conductivity of shell-side fluid, tube-side fluid,
and tube wall
K
S
shell-side constant for pressure drop relationship
K
T
tube-side constant for pressure drop relationship
L
to
overall tube length
L
tt
total tube length
m exponent for shell-side heat transfer coefficient in pres-
sure drop relationship
_ m fluid mass velocity
n exponent for tube-side heat transfer coefficient in pres-
sure drop relationship
N
s
number of shells
N
tt
total number of tubes
penalty penalty factor in the fitness function
Q heat duty
r penalty term
R
bs
ratio baffle spacing to inside shell diameter
R
ds
shell-side fouling factor
R
dt
tube-side fouling factor
R
dw
combined resistance of tube wall and fouling factors
S
m
cross-flow area near shell centerline
S
w
net cross-flow area through one baffle window
T stream temperature
TAC total annual cost
t
s
shell thickness
t
t
tube-sheet thickness
U overall heat transfer coefficient
v velocity for fluid stream
x vector of optimization variables
x
1
to x
10
search optimization variables
DP pressure drop for fluid stream
DT
LM
log-mean temperature difference
g pump efficiency
q density of fluid stream
l viscosity of fluid stream
Subscripts
c cold
h hot
max maximum value
mat tubes material
min minimum value
s, S shell-side
t,T tube-side
w at wall temperature
204 J.M. Ponce-Ortega et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009) 203–209
DP
T
¼ K
T
Aðh
T
Þ
n
ð2Þ
Eq. (2) accounts for pressure drops in straight tubes and in tube
ends. For turbulent flow on the shell-side flow
DP
S
¼ K
S
Aðh
S
Þ
m
ð3Þ
Eq. (3) is based on the Bell–Delaware method. The compact formu-
lation was obtained after an analytical treatment of the original
equations, and therefore it has the same degree of applicability as
the original Bell–Delaware method. The definitions of K
S
, K
T
, m
and n, and how these parameters depend on the geometric param-
eters of the exchanger and the fluid physical properties, along with
the design algorithm used in this work, are shown by Serna and
Jimenez [10]. The main steps of the design algorithm are included
in Appendix A.
2.2. Constraints for a feasible design
The design of a heat exchanger involves a number of constraints.
For convenience, the constraints may be classified into operating
constraints and geometric constraints. Some of the operating con-
straints are maximum allowable pressure drops and velocities for
both sides of the exchanger. Geometric constraints include maxi-
mum shell diameter, maximum tube length, minimum and maxi-
mum ratio of baffle spacing to shell diameter, and minimum and
maximum ratio of cross-flow area to area in a window.
The maximum pressure drops (DP
T,max
, DP
S,max
) depend on the
external pumps, and set upper bounds for the operating pressure
drops
DP
T
6 DP
T;max
ð4Þ
DP
S
6 DP
S;max
ð5Þ
Upper bounds on the velocities for both the tube-side and the shell-
side prevent erosion and flow-induced tube vibration, while lower
bounds prevent fowling. These constraints are considered in the
model,
v
t;min
6 v
t
6 v
t;max
ð6Þ
v
s;min
6 v
s
6 v
s;max
ð7Þ
Sinnott [1] recommends velocities for liquids from 1 to 2.5 m s
À1
on
the tube-side and 0.3–1 m s
À1
on the shell-side.
Upper limits of the shell diameter and the tube length are part
of the primary geometrical constraints
D
s
6 D
s;max
ð8Þ
L
TT
6 L
TT;max
ð9Þ
As shown in Example 3, the algorithm can also be restricted to the
use of standard dimensions for these variables.
For baffles, close spacings leads to higher heat transfer coeffi-
cients but at the expense of higher pressure drops. On the other
hand, wide baffle spacings result in bypassing and reduced cross-
flow, with a decrease in the heat transfer coefficient. Therefore,
constraints on R
bs
are set
R
bs;min
6 R
bs
6 R
bs;max
ð10Þ
Typical values of R
bs,min
and R
bs,max
are 0.2 and 1.0, respectively.
Bounds on the ratio of cross-flow area to area in a window, S
m
/
S
w
, are also considered
ðS
m
=S
w
Þ
min
6 S
m
=S
w
6 ðS
m
=S
w
Þ
max
ð11Þ
Typical values are 0.8 and 1.4 for lower and upper bounds,
respectively.
2.3. Objective function
The objective function consists of minimizing the total annual
cost of the exchanger. The total cost consists of five components:
the capital cost of the exchanger, the capital costs for two pumps,
and the operating (power) costs of the pumps. The expression for
the total annual cost is of the form
TAC ¼ A
f
ðC
exc
þ C
pump;T
þ C
pump;S
Þ þ C
pow
H
Y
g
_ m
t
DP
T
q
t
þ
_ m
s
DP
S
q
s

ð12Þ
where C
exc
, C
pump,T
and C
pump,S
are the capital cost for the exchanger,
tube-side and shell-side pumps, respectively. The capital costs for
the pumps are given by the following equations:
C
pump;T
¼ C
e
þ C
f
_ m
t
DP
T
q
t

e
ð13Þ
C
pump;S
¼ C
e
þ C
f
_ m
S
DP
S
q
s

e
ð14Þ
The capital cost for the heat exchanger is typically calculated by an
equation of the form
C
exc
¼ C
a
þ C
0
b
A
c
ð15Þ
Alternatively, one can incorporate a more detailed estimation by
splitting the capital cost into the cost of component parts and man-
ufacturing costs. Purohit [11] suggested the following expression
for that purpose:
C
exc
¼ C
ts
þ C
sh
þ C
b
þ C
td
þ C
tb
þ C
ba
ð16Þ
where C
ts
is the tube-sheet cost based on weight, including cutting
but not drilling; C
sh
is the shell cost including fabrication, based on
weight; C
b
is the baffle cost assuming 1/2-in thickness, based on
weight; C
td
is the tube-sheet, baffle drilling and bundle tubing cost,
based on number of tubes; C
tb
is the cost of tubes, based on outside
heat transfer surface; and C
ba
is the base cost to cover overhead and
labor costs, which is independent on the type of material.
2.4. Search variables
A vector x of search variables was manipulated as part of the
optimization algorithm. The vector contains 10 components,
according to the degrees of freedom of the problem; the definition
of variables is given in Table 1. Once the search vector is defined,
the algorithm by Serna and Jimenez [10] is used to obtain the de-
sign of the exchanger. It should be clear that a major difficulty is
the selection of design values that satisfy all of the geometric
and operational constraints.
3. Optimization model using genetic algorithms
To generate an efficient optimization method, genetic algo-
rithms are used. Genetic algorithms search for an optimum solu-
tion based on the mechanics of natural selection and genetic
[12,13].
Table 1
Search optimization variables
Variable Definition
x
1
Tube-side pressure drop
x
2
Shell-side pressures drop
x
3
Baffle cut (between 15% and 45%)
x
4
Number of tube passes (1, 2, 4, 6 or 8)
x
5
Standard inside, outside tube diameters and pitch (80 standard
possible combinations given by the TEMA)
x
6
Tube pattern arrangement (triangular, square or rotated square)
x
7
Hot fluid allocation (tubes or shell)
x
8
Number of sealing strings (0, 1, 2, 3 or 4)
x
9
Tube bundle type (fixed-tube plate, packed-tube plate, floating head,
pull-through floating head or U-tube bundle)
x
10
Ratio inlet and outlet baffle spacing
J.M. Ponce-Ortega et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009) 203–209 205
A population of chromosomes is formed initially from a random
set of solutions. New generations are then produced, and some
measure of fitness for the chromosomes is used to guide the selec-
tion. Offsprings are formed by either (a) merging two chromo-
somes from the current generation using a crossover operator, or
(b) modifying a chromosome using a mutation operator. A new
generation is formed by selecting some of the parents and off-
springs, based on the fitness values, and rejecting others to keep
the population size constant. Fitter chromosomes have higher
probabilities of being selected. After several generations, the algo-
rithm converges to the best chromosome, which represents the
optimal solution to the problem provided by the GA. Fig. 1 shows
a general representation of the operations behind a GA.
3.1. Handling the constraints
The original problem can be set as,
min TACðxÞ
s:t: g
i
ðxÞ P0 8i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m ð17Þ
where x is the vector of optimization variables. The set of con-
straints g(x) correspond to the inequalities given by (4)–(11).
For the implementation of the genetic algorithm, we used a
penalty function in the objective function, to provide the following
fitness function to be minimized:
fitnessðxÞ ¼ TACðxÞ þpenaltyðxÞ ð18Þ
The penalty function accounts for the violation of the constraints,
such that
penaltyðxÞ ¼
0 if x is feasible
¸
m
i¼1
r
i
g
2
i
ðxÞ otherwise

ð19Þ
where r
i
is a variable penalty coefficient for the ith constraint; r
i
var-
ies according to the level of violation. To provide an efficient algo-
rithm, the value of each r
i
was increased proportionally as a
function of the number of generations.
4. General approach
The main steps of the approach are shown in Fig. 2. The algo-
rithm begins generating a set of random initial populations, that
is, a set of values for the optimization variables according to the
population size. Each of these individuals (set of design or search
variables) is then fed to the design algorithm for heat exchangers
to obtain a set of designs. The fitness function for each individual
of the population is evaluated; from those values, the algorithm se-
lects the best individuals of the current generation as the parents
to a new generation. Then, new generations are created through
the mutation and crossover operations. The procedure is repeated
until the optimal design is detected.
For the GA implementation, a population size of 100 individuals
was used, with an elite count of three individuals. A crossover frac-
tion value of 0.8 was used. The algorithm stopped when no further
improvement in the fitness function in 30 successive generations
was observed. As an alternative termination step, a maximum of
300 generations was imposed.
5. Results and discussion
Three case studies are used to show the application of the pro-
posed algorithm.
Example 1. This example is taken from Mizutani et al. [9] and
involves two fluids with the properties shown in Fig. 3. The tube
thermal conductivity is 50 W/m K.
A summary of the results obtained with the proposed model is
given in Table 2, where a comparison with the results reported by
Mizutani et al. [9] is included. The results for Design A in Table 2
were obtained keeping the constraints imposed by Mizutani et al.
[9] of a tube length of 4.88 m and a baffle cut of 25%. The solution
Solutions
encoding
chromosomes
1100101010
1011101110
0011011001
1100110001
corssover
1100101010
1011101110
1100101110
1011101010
mutation
0011011001
0011001001
evaluation
Offspring
1100101110
1011101010
0011001001
decoding
Solutions
fitness
computation
selection
Roulettewheel
new population




Fig. 1. General structure of genetic algorithms.
Initial population
Set optimization variables
Shell and tube heat
exchanger designs
Tests constraint
Evaluate penalty term
Fitness function
TAC+penalty term
Optimum?
Yes
End
No
New generation
Mutation
Crossover
Selection
New generation
TAC and implicit variables
for each design
Fig. 2. Solution strategy for the optimum design of heat exchangers.
Fig. 3. Stream data for Example 1.
206 J.M. Ponce-Ortega et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009) 203–209
was found in 121 generations, which required the simulation of
12,100 heat exchangers, and consumed 51 s of CPU time. One can
notice that the design obtained with the proposed algorithm has a
lower total annual cost than the one obtained by Mizutani et al. [9].
This observation seems to indicate that the solution obtained by
Mizutani et al. [9] got trapped into a local optimal point within
their search algorithm. The main difference between both results is
in the pumping costs. Our solution shows a reduction in pumping
costs of about 60% that, in spite of an increment in the area cost of
11%, provides a reduction in the total annual cost of 22%. It is
important to notice that the film heat transfer coefficients for
Design A are closer to each other than the ones obtained by
Mizutani et al. [9], thus providing a more efficient design. Large
differences in film coefficients are linked to an inefficient use of
pressure drops, which raises the pumping costs needed for the
exchanger.
The GA was also used for this problemwithout the constraints in
tube length and baffle cut imposed by Mizutani et al. [9]. The results
are reported as Design B in Table 2. One can notice a significant
reduction in the total area required by the exchanger. This is the
result of the number of passes being reduced to one, and of smaller
tube diameters being selected. This arrangement produces higher
stream velocities with better heat transfer coefficients, which
provide a smaller area. Another issue worth of mention is that the
relationship L
tt
/Ds is higher than for the other two designs. Design B
has a total annual cost 49.88% lower than the one obtained by
Mizutani et al. [9], and 17.13% lower than Design A.
Example 2. This example was previously analyzed by Serna and
Jimenez [7]. A shell-and-tube heat exchanger must be designed
to cool down oil using cooling water. Fig. 4 shows the design data.
The tube wall thermal conductivity was neglected.
The solution was obtained after 90 generations using a CPU
time of 71 s. Table 3 shows a summary of the results obtained with
the proposed algorithm, as well as the design reported by Serna
and Jimenez [7]. Their design was based on gradient methods, and
they did not optimize the geometry of the exchanger; the main
design variables such as baffle and tube characteristics were
specified. From Table 3 it can be seen that the design obtained
using the algorithm proposed in this work meets all the geometric
and operational constraints. On the other hand, the design by Serna
and Jimenez [7] shows a shell-side stream velocity 65% higher than
the maximum recommended value, which can lead to erosion in
the baffles and tube vibrations.
The new design provides the geometric configuration (tubes,
baffles, shell) needed as part of the optimal solution. A proper use
of the pressure drops for each side of the exchanger provides a high
heat transfer coefficient, thus optimizing the area and the cost of
the exchanger. The design obtained using GA has total pumping
costs 10.7% lower than the one reported by Serna and Jimenez [7],
along with reductions in the exchanger area of 10% and in total
annual cost of 6.1%.
Example 3. In this example, the data from Example 2 were taken,
but three major aspects were changed. First, only standard sizes for
the tube length and the shell diameter were considered. Second, a
different economic environment was assumed, in which higher
capital investment is required for heat exchangers. And third, the
economic model involved a more detailed description for the cost
of the exchanger.
The exchanger cost was calculated from the cost of component
parts plus manufacturing costs. The following relations, proposed
by Purohit [11], were used for Eq. (16)
C
ts
¼
pq
mat
C
1
ðD
s
þ2t
s
Þ
2
t
t
3456
ð20Þ
C
sh
¼
pq
mat
C
2
D
s
L
to
t
s
144
ð21Þ
C
0
b
¼
pq
mat
C
1
D
2
s
N
b
13824
ð22Þ
C
td
¼ C
4
N
tt
ð23Þ
C
tb
¼ C
3
A ð24Þ
C
ba
¼ C
5
ð25Þ
The constants for the cost equations were taken from Purohit [11]:
C
1
= 0.5 $/lb, C
2
= 1.0 $/lb, C
3
= 75 (A)
À0.4
$/ft
2
, C
4
= 2.0 $/tube,
C
5
= $30,000. For the exchanger, q
mat
= 486.954 lb/ft
3
. Values for t
s
and t
t
were calculated according to TEMA [14] standards.
To get convergence, 391generationwere needed, witha comput-
ing time of 182 s. Table 4shows a summaryof the results obtained. A
heat exchanger with an area of 220 m
2
was obtained. One can notice
how the economic scenario influences the resulting optimum
design. Tube diameters of mediumsize were selected, thus reducing
the number of tubes. This provided a proper compromise between
the material and manufacturing costs associated with the tubes.
Given the economic scenario considered, the minimumtotal annual
Table 2
Results for Example 1
Concept Mizutani et al. [9] This work
Design A Design B
Area (m
2
) 202 242.88 161.34
h
T
(W/m
2
K) 6,480.00 1,628.94 4,493.71
h
S
(W/m
2
K) 1,829.00 2,991.26 2,003.71
v
T
(m/s) – 0.83 1.00
v
s
(m/s) – 0.37 0.40
U (W/m
2
K) 860.00 714.51 873.62
Number of tubes 832 653 739
Tubes arrangement Square Triangular Square
Number of tube-passes 2 6 1
D
ti
(mm) 12.60 22.918 10.92
D
t
(mm) 15.90 25.40 12.70
Number of baffles 8 8 13
Heat kind Fixed Floating pull Floating pull
Hot fluid allocation Shell Tube Shell
F
Ã
T
DT
LM
24.90 25.01 30.79
D
s
(m) 0.687 1.105 0.639
Total tube length (m) 4.88 4.88 5.602
Baffle spacing (m) 0.542 0.516 0.391
Baffle cut (%) 25 25 31.85
DP
T
(Pa) 22,676.00 10,981.30 7,748.18
DP
S
(Pa) 7,494.00 4,714.28 6,828.43
Pumping cost ($/yr) 2,424.00 960.36 1,033.98
Area cost ($/yr) 2,826.00 3,142.59 2,468.77
Total annual cost ($/yr) 5,250.00 4,102.95 3,502.75
Fig. 4. Data for Example 2.
J.M. Ponce-Ortega et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009) 203–209 207
cost for this problem was $105,067 $/yr, with the highest contribu-
tion due to the capital cost for the exchanger.
One of the major aspects to highlight from this problem is that
the use of detailed capital costs for the heat exchanger of the type
of Eqs. (20)–(25) introduces additional non-linearities and possibly
non-convexities to the problem. Such items can affect the perfor-
mance of standard methods based on mathematical programming
techniques. On the other hand, the GA can handle these types of
models without potential convergence problems. The use of GA
also provides an interesting potential for the synthesis of heat ex-
changer networks, as recently reported by Ravagnani et al. [15]. In
such work, the best placement of the heat exchangers to accom-
plish some degree of energy integration was detected. As it is com-
mon in the network synthesis stage, the work by Ravagnani et al.
[15] did not incorporate the design details of the exchangers. The
model presented in this work could be incorporated into a heat ex-
changer network formulation to provide both the network struc-
ture and the equipment sizing with the type of details shown in
this work.
6. Conclusions
An algorithm for the optimal design of shell-and-tube heat
exchangers based on genetic algorithms has been presented. The
model uses the Bell–Delaware correlations for a proper calculation
of heat transfer coefficients and pressure drops in the shell-side.
The use of GA together with the Bell–Delaware method allows sev-
eral design factors, typically specified from experience and later
subject to a rating test, to be calculated as part of the optimum
solution. Also, the objective function can accommodate any type
of information available for the cost of equipment; highly non-lin-
ear functions that arise from a detailed cost model for a heat ex-
changer can be handled without the convergence problems
typically encountered in mathematical programming techniques
based on gradient methods. Also, because of their nature, genetic
algorithms provide better expectations to detect global optimum
solutions than gradient methods, in addition to being more robust
for the solution of non-convex problems. The solution to examples
taken from the literature show how previously reported designs
can be improved through the use of the approach presented in this
work.
Appendix A. Design algorithm
The parameters K
S
, K
T
, m and n from the compact formulas de-
pend on the exchanger configuration, which is not known until the
problem is solved for a given set of design variables. To develop an
efficient algorithm, Serna and Jimenez [10] proposed to use the
parameters of the compact formulations as search variables, and
decoupled the equations with the unknown variables h
T
, h
S
and
A. Rearranging the simultaneous systemof Eqs. (1)–(3), one obtains
two sequential algebraic equations for h
T
and h
S
:
h
T
À
DP
T
F
T
DT
LM
K
T
Q

K
S
DP
T
K
T
DP
S
h
n
T

þ R
ds
þ
Dt
2kw
ln
Dt
D
ti

þ
Dt
D
ti
h
T
þ
Dt
D
ti
R
dt

¸
¸

1
n
¼ 0 ð26Þ
h
S
À
K
T
DP
S
h
n
T
K
S
DP
T

1
m
¼ 0 ð27Þ
To solve this set of equations, the following steps are used:
1. Specify the design data. These data include: (1) Mass flowrates,
physical properties, inlet and outlet temperatures and fouling
factors; (2) the search optimization variables: Pressure drops
for each stream, inside and outside tube diameters, tube pitch,
number of tube passes, tube layout, tube bundle type, the fluids
allocation, the number of sealing strips, the clearances and the
baffle cut. The heat duty and the correction factor F
T
are calcu-
lated from the specification (1).
2. Guess initial values for K
S
, K
T
, m and n. Kern method can be used
to get initial values.
3. Solve Eq. (26) numerically to obtain h
T
.
4. Determine h
S
and A sequentially from Eqs. (27) and (1).
5. Obtain sequentially geometric parameters for the exchanger,
once h
T
, h
S
, and A have been calculated (for further details, see
Serna and Jimenez [10]).
6. Obtain the constants for the Bell–Delaware method, the ideal
heat transfer factor, the ideal friction factor, as well as the leak-
age and bypass area and correction factors for the shell-side.
7. Calculate the new values for the tear variables K
S
, K
T
, m, n (for
details, see Serna and Jimenez [10]).
Table 3
Results for Example 2
Serna and Jimenez [7] This work
Area (m
2
) 200.02 180.49
h
T
(W/m
2
K) 5,567.92 6,062.84
h
S
(W/m
2
K) 1,009.17 1,247.17
v
T
(m/s) 1.00 1.26
v
s
(m/s) 1.32 0.78
U (W/m
2
K) 483.06 535.32
Number of tubes 838 1,545
Tubes arrangement Square, 90° Square, 45°
Number of tube-passes 4 4
D
ti
(mm) 16.60 10.92
D
t
(mm) 19.10 12.70
Number of baffles 21 9
Heat kind Fixed tubes Floating pull
Hot fluid allocation Shell Shell
F
Ã
T
DT
LM
(°C) 51.06 46.97
D
s
(m) 0.899 0.769
Total tube length (m) 4.156 3.080
Baffle spacing (m) 0.181 0.301
Baffle cut (%) 16.75 22.82
DP
T
(Pa) 15,822.0 30,543.15
DP
S
(Pa) 61,354.0 36,467.05
Pumping cost ($/yr) 3,874.90 3,501.52
Area cost ($/yr) 27,311.70 25,902.32
Total annual cost ($/yr) 31,186.60 29,403.84
Table 4
Results for Example 3
Variable Value
Area (m
2
) 220.72
h
T
(W/m
2
K) 4,977.26
h
S
(W/m
2
K) 835.18
v
T
(m/s) 1.11
v
s
(m/s) 0.76
U (W/m
2
K) 437.75
Number of tubes 1,058.18
Tubes arrangement Triangular, 30°
Number of tube-passes 6
D
ti
(mm) 17.27
D
t
(mm) 19.05
Number of baffles 6
Heat kind Fixed tubes
Hot fluid allocation Shell
F
Ã
T
DT
LM
(°C) 46.97
D
s
(m) 0.863
Total tube length (m) 3.658
Baffle spacing (m) 0.456
Baffle cut (%) 26.94
DP
T
(Pa) 27,451.96
DP
S
(Pa) 13,876.96
Pumping cost ($/yr) 2,662.22
Area cost ($/yr) 102,405.49
Total annual cost ($/yr) 105,067.71
208 J.M. Ponce-Ortega et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009) 203–209
8. Check for convergence. The algorithm converges when all of the
following deviation functions are smaller than some given tol-
erance. If convergence is not achieved, calculate the values of
the tear variables for the next iteration and go back to step 3.
This algorithm was used to design each of the exchangers that
were needed as part of the genetic algorithm application.
References
[1] R.K. Sinnot, Coulson & Richarson’s Chemical Engineering-Chemical Engineering
Design, second ed., vol. 6, ButterWorth–Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 1996.
[2] K. Muralikrishna, U.V. Shenoy, Heat exchanger design targets for minimum
area and cost, Chemical Engineering Research and Design 78 (2000) 161–167.
[3] F.O. Jegede, G.T. Polley, Optimum heat exchanger design, Chemical Engineering
Research and Design 70 (A2) (1992) 133–141.
[4] D.Q. Kern, Process Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1950.
[5] G.T. Polley, M.H.P. Panjeh Shahi, F.O. Jegede, Pressure drop considerations in
the retrofit of heat exchanger networks, Chemical Engineering Research and
Design 68 (1990) 211–220.
[6] J. Taborek, Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers: Single Phase Flow, Heat Exchanger
Design Handbook, Hemisphere Publishing Corp., Bristol, PA, 1983. Section 3.3.
[7] M. Serna, A. Jimenez, A compact formulation of the Bell–Delaware method for
heat exchanger design and optimization, Chemical Engineering Research and
Design 83 (A5) (2005) 539–550.
[8] P.D. Chaudhuri, U.M. Diwekar, An automated approach for the optimal design
of heat exchangers, Industrial Engineering and Chemistry Research 36 (1997)
3685–3693.
[9] F.T. Mizutani, F.L.P. Pessoa, E.M. Queiroz, S. Hauan, I.E. Grossmann,
Mathematical programming model for heat exchanger network synthesis
including detailed heat-exchanger design. 1. Shell-and-tube heat exchanger
design, Industrial Engineering and Chemistry Research 42 (2003) 4009–
4018.
[10] M. Serna, A. Jimenez, An efficient method for the design of shell and tube heat
exchanger, Heat Transfer Engineering 25 (2) (2004) 5–16.
[11] G.T. Purohit, Estimating costs of shell and tube heat exchangers, Chemical
Engineering 90 (17) (1983) 57–67.
[12] D.E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine
Learning, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1989.
[13] M. Gen, R. Cheng, Genetic Algorithms and Engineering Design, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 1997.
[14] TEMA. Standards of the Tubular Heat Exchanger Manufactures Association,
seventh ed., Tubular Heat Exchanger Manufactures Association, New York,
1988.
[15] M.A.S.S. Ravagnani, A.P. Silva, P.A. Arroyo, A.A. Constantino, Heat exchanger
network synthesis and optimization using genetic algorithm, Applied Thermal
Engineering 25 (2005) 1003–1017.
J.M. Ponce-Ortega et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009) 203–209 209