Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009) 203–209

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

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 a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents an approach based on genetic algorithms for the optimal design of shell-and-tube
Received 9 October 2006 heat exchangers. The approach uses the Bell–Delaware method for the description of the shell-side flow
Accepted 25 June 2007 with no simplifications. The optimization procedure involves the selection of the major geometric param-
Available online 18 March 2008
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-
Keywords: side and tube-side pressure drops. The methodology takes into account the geometric and operational
Shell-and-tube heat exchangers
constraints typically recommended by design codes. The examples analyzed show that genetic algo-
Bell–Delaware
Genetic algorithm
rithms provide a valuable tool for the optimal design of heat exchangers.
Optimization 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 algorithm that 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
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +52 461 611 7575x139; fax: +52 461 611 7744.
E-mail address: arturo@iqcelaya.itc.mx (A. Jiménez-Gutiérrez).
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
204 J.M. Ponce-Ortega et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009) 203–209

Nomenclature

A heat transfer surface area m_ fluid mass velocity

Af annualization factor for capital cost n exponent for tube-side heat transfer coefficient in pres-
c cost coefficient (exponent) in capital cost law for ex- sure drop relationship
changer Ns number of shells
C1 to C5 coefficients in detailed capital cost laws for exchangers Ntt total number of tubes
Ca, C 0b cost coefficients in capital cost law for heat exchangers penalty penalty factor in the fitness function
Cb baffle cost assuming 1/2 in thickness, based on weight Q heat duty
Cba base cost to cover those overheat and labor cost r penalty term
Ce, Cf cost coefficient in capital cost law for pumps Rbs ratio baffle spacing to inside shell diameter
Cexc capital exchanger cost Rds shell-side fouling factor
Cp fluid specific heat at constant pressure and average tem- Rdt tube-side fouling factor
perature Rdw combined resistance of tube wall and fouling factors
Cpow cost per unit of power Sm cross-flow area near shell centerline
Cpump capital pump cost Sw net cross-flow area through one baffle window
Csh shell cost including fabrication, based on weight T stream temperature
Ctb cost of tubes, based on outside heat transfer surface TAC total annual cost
Ctd tube-sheet and baffle drilling, and bundle tubing cost, ts shell thickness
based on number of tubes tt tube-sheet thickness
Cts tube-sheet cost based on weight, including cutting but U overall heat transfer coefficient
not drilling v velocity for fluid stream
Ds inside shell diameter x vector of optimization variables
Dti tube inside diameter x1 to x10 search optimization variables
Dt tube outside diameter DP pressure drop for fluid stream
e cost coefficient (exponent) in capital cost law for pump DTLM log-mean temperature difference
fitness fitness function g pump efficiency
FT correction factor to logarithmic mean temperature dif- q density of fluid stream
ference for non-countercurrent flow l viscosity of fluid stream
g vector of feasible constraints
h clean heat transfer coefficient Subscripts
HY annual plant operation time c cold
ks, kt, kw thermal conductivity of shell-side fluid, tube-side fluid, h hot
and tube wall max maximum value
KS shell-side constant for pressure drop relationship mat tubes material
KT tube-side constant for pressure drop relationship min minimum value
Lto overall tube length s, S shell-side
Ltt total tube length t,T tube-side
m exponent for shell-side heat transfer coefficient in pres- w at wall temperature
sure drop relationship

procedure to link the HTRI design program to the annealing algo- dard internal and external tube diameters, tube layout and pitch,
rithm. The authors used simulating annealing as an optimization type of head, fluid allocation, number of sealing strips, inlet and
technique because the HTRI design program is a black-box model, outlet baffle spacing, and shell-side and tube-side pressure drops.
and therefore explicit relationships for the geometric and opera- The objective is to minimize the total annual cost for the exchan-
tional constraints are not available. ger, including the capital costs for the exchanger and two pumps
Mizutani et al. [9] have recently presented an optimization pro- (shell-side and tube-side), and the operating cost of such pumps.
cedure to design shell-and-tube heat exchangers using the The methodology considers explicitly major geometric and opera-
Bell–Delaware method to calculate the shell-side heat transfer tional constraints.
coefficients and pressure drops. Mitzutani et al. [9] used disjunc- Genetic algorithms are used to guide the search towards an
tive programming techniques to get the optimal design and con- optimal solution. A shell-and-tube heat exchanger needs to be de-
sidered different construction alternatives. Because of the high signed for each set of values of the search variables; the design
degree of non-linearity and possible non-convexities of the Bell– method by Serna and Jimenez [10] was used for that purpose.
Delawere method, gradient methods such as the one used by Mizu-
tani et al. [9] may get trapped into local optimal solutions. 2.1. Heat exchanger model
This work presents an approach based on a genetic algorithm
(GA) for the optimal design of shell-and-tube heat exchangers. The basic design equation is
The approach overcomes some of the limitations of earlier meth-    
Q 1 Dt Dt Dt Dt
ods based on mathematical programming techniques, and uses A¼ þ Rds þ ln þ þ Rdt ð1Þ
the Bell–Delaware model for the shell side of the exchanger. F T DT LM hS 2kw Dti Dti hT Dti
where all symbols are defined in the nomenclature section.
2. Model formulation The exchanger area is related to the film heat transfer coeffi-
cients and the allowable pressure drops through two compact for-
The optimization procedure involves the selection of the major mulations recently development by Serna and Jimenez [7]. For
geometric parameters such as the number of tubes passes, stan- turbulent tube-side flow in the tube-side, the compact formula is
 J.M. Ponce-Ortega et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009) 203–209 205

DP T ¼ K T AðhT Þn ð2Þ the capital cost of the exchanger, the capital costs for two pumps,
and the operating (power) costs of the pumps. The expression for
Eq. (2) accounts for pressure drops in straight tubes and in tube
the total annual cost is of the form
ends. For turbulent flow on the shell-side flow
 
DP S ¼ K S AðhS Þm ð3Þ HY m_ t DP T m_ s DPS
TAC ¼ Af ðC exc þ C pump;T þ C pump;S Þ þ C pow þ
g qt qs
Eq. (3) is based on the Bell–Delaware method. The compact formu-
lation was obtained after an analytical treatment of the original ð12Þ
equations, and therefore it has the same degree of applicability as where Cexc, Cpump,T and Cpump,S are the capital cost for the exchanger,
the original Bell–Delaware method. The definitions of KS, KT, m tube-side and shell-side pumps, respectively. The capital costs for
and n, and how these parameters depend on the geometric param- the pumps are given by the following equations:
eters of the exchanger and the fluid physical properties, along with  
_ t DP T e
m
the design algorithm used in this work, are shown by Serna and C pump;T ¼ C e þ C f ð13Þ
Jimenez [10]. The main steps of the design algorithm are included qt
 e
in Appendix A. m_ S DP S
C pump;S ¼ C e þ C f ð14Þ
qs
2.2. Constraints for a feasible design
The capital cost for the heat exchanger is typically calculated by an
equation of the form
The design of a heat exchanger involves a number of constraints.
For convenience, the constraints may be classified into operating C exc ¼ C a þ C 0b Ac ð15Þ
constraints and geometric constraints. Some of the operating con-
Alternatively, one can incorporate a more detailed estimation by
straints are maximum allowable pressure drops and velocities for
splitting the capital cost into the cost of component parts and man-
both sides of the exchanger. Geometric constraints include maxi-
ufacturing costs. Purohit [11] suggested the following expression
mum shell diameter, maximum tube length, minimum and maxi-
for that purpose:
mum ratio of baffle spacing to shell diameter, and minimum and
maximum ratio of cross-flow area to area in a window. C exc ¼ C ts þ C sh þ C b þ C td þ C tb þ C ba ð16Þ
The maximum pressure drops (DPT,max, DPS,max) depend on the where Cts is the tube-sheet cost based on weight, including cutting
external pumps, and set upper bounds for the operating pressure but not drilling; Csh is the shell cost including fabrication, based on
drops weight; Cb is the baffle cost assuming 1/2-in thickness, based on
DP T 6 DPT;max ð4Þ weight; Ctd is the tube-sheet, baffle drilling and bundle tubing cost,
DP S 6 DPS;max ð5Þ based on number of tubes; Ctb is the cost of tubes, based on outside
heat transfer surface; and Cba is the base cost to cover overhead and
Upper bounds on the velocities for both the tube-side and the shell- labor costs, which is independent on the type of material.
side prevent erosion and flow-induced tube vibration, while lower
bounds prevent fowling. These constraints are considered in the 2.4. Search variables
model,
vt;min 6 vt 6 vt;max ð6Þ A vector x of search variables was manipulated as part of the
vs;min 6 vs 6 vs;max ð7Þ optimization algorithm. The vector contains 10 components,
according to the degrees of freedom of the problem; the definition
Sinnott [1] recommends velocities for liquids from 1 to 2.5 m s1 on
of variables is given in Table 1. Once the search vector is defined,
the tube-side and 0.3–1 m s1 on the shell-side.
the algorithm by Serna and Jimenez [10] is used to obtain the de-
Upper limits of the shell diameter and the tube length are part
sign of the exchanger. It should be clear that a major difficulty is
of the primary geometrical constraints
the selection of design values that satisfy all of the geometric
Ds 6 Ds;max ð8Þ and operational constraints.
LTT 6 LTT;max ð9Þ
3. Optimization model using genetic algorithms
As shown in Example 3, the algorithm can also be restricted to the
use of standard dimensions for these variables. To generate an efficient optimization method, genetic algo-
For baffles, close spacings leads to higher heat transfer coeffi- rithms are used. Genetic algorithms search for an optimum solu-
cients but at the expense of higher pressure drops. On the other tion based on the mechanics of natural selection and genetic
hand, wide baffle spacings result in bypassing and reduced cross- [12,13].
flow, with a decrease in the heat transfer coefficient. Therefore,
constraints on Rbs are set
Rbs;min 6 Rbs 6 Rbs;max ð10Þ Table 1
Search optimization variables
Typical values of Rbs,min and Rbs,max are 0.2 and 1.0, respectively. Variable Definition
Bounds on the ratio of cross-flow area to area in a window, Sm/
x1 Tube-side pressure drop
Sw, are also considered x2 Shell-side pressures drop
ðSm =Sw Þmin 6 Sm =Sw 6 ðSm =Sw Þmax ð11Þ x3 Baffle cut (between 15% and 45%)
x4 Number of tube passes (1, 2, 4, 6 or 8)
Typical values are 0.8 and 1.4 for lower and upper bounds, x5 Standard inside, outside tube diameters and pitch (80 standard
possible combinations given by the TEMA)
respectively.
x6 Tube pattern arrangement (triangular, square or rotated square)
x7 Hot fluid allocation (tubes or shell)
2.3. Objective function x8 Number of sealing strings (0, 1, 2, 3 or 4)
x9 Tube bundle type (fixed-tube plate, packed-tube plate, floating head,
The objective function consists of minimizing the total annual pull-through floating head or U-tube bundle)
x10 Ratio inlet and outlet baffle spacing
cost of the exchanger. The total cost consists of five components:
206 J.M. Ponce-Ortega et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009) 203–209

Initial population
corssover
Set optimization variables
1100101010
1011101110
chromosomes
↓ Shell and tube heat
1100101110 exchanger designs
1011101010
encoding 1100101010 TAC and implicit variables
Solutions 1011101110 for each design New generation
0011011001
1100110001 mutation Tests constraint
Evaluate penalty term
Selection
001101
1001
↓
0011001001 Fitness function
TAC+penalty term New generation
Mutation
Crossover

evaluation Yes No
selection End Optimum?
Offspring
1100101110
new population 1011101010
0011001001 Fig. 2. Solution strategy for the optimum design of heat exchangers.
↓ decoding
Solutions
↑
fitness
Roulettewheel computation is, a set of values for the optimization variables according to the
population size. Each of these individuals (set of design or search
Fig. 1. General structure of genetic algorithms. 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-
A population of chromosomes is formed initially from a random
lects the best individuals of the current generation as the parents
set of solutions. New generations are then produced, and some
to a new generation. Then, new generations are created through
measure of fitness for the chromosomes is used to guide the selec-
the mutation and crossover operations. The procedure is repeated
tion. Offsprings are formed by either (a) merging two chromo-
until the optimal design is detected.
somes from the current generation using a crossover operator, or
For the GA implementation, a population size of 100 individuals
(b) modifying a chromosome using a mutation operator. A new
was used, with an elite count of three individuals. A crossover frac-
generation is formed by selecting some of the parents and off-
tion value of 0.8 was used. The algorithm stopped when no further
springs, based on the fitness values, and rejecting others to keep
improvement in the fitness function in 30 successive generations
the population size constant. Fitter chromosomes have higher
was observed. As an alternative termination step, a maximum of
probabilities of being selected. After several generations, the algo-
300 generations was imposed.
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. 5. Results and discussion

3.1. Handling the constraints Three case studies are used to show the application of the pro-
posed algorithm.
The original problem can be set as, Example 1. This example is taken from Mizutani et al. [9] and
min TACðxÞ involves two fluids with the properties shown in Fig. 3. The tube
s:t: g i ðxÞ P 0 8i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m ð17Þ thermal conductivity is 50 W/m K.
A summary of the results obtained with the proposed model is
where x is the vector of optimization variables. The set of con- given in Table 2, where a comparison with the results reported by
straints g(x) correspond to the inequalities given by (4)–(11). Mizutani et al. [9] is included. The results for Design A in Table 2
For the implementation of the genetic algorithm, we used a were obtained keeping the constraints imposed by Mizutani et al.
penalty function in the objective function, to provide the following [9] of a tube length of 4.88 m and a baffle cut of 25%. The solution
fitness function to be minimized:
fitnessðxÞ ¼ TACðxÞ þ penaltyðxÞ ð18Þ
The penalty function accounts for the violation of the constraints,
such that
8
<0 if x is feasible
penaltyðxÞ ¼ P m
ð19Þ
: ri g 2i ðxÞ otherwise
i¼1

where ri is a variable penalty coefficient for the ith constraint; ri var-

ies according to the level of violation. To provide an efficient algo-
rithm, the value of each ri 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 Fig. 3. Stream data for Example 1.
 J.M. Ponce-Ortega et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009) 203–209 207

was found in 121 generations, which required the simulation of using the algorithm proposed in this work meets all the geometric
12,100 heat exchangers, and consumed 51 s of CPU time. One can and operational constraints. On the other hand, the design by Serna
notice that the design obtained with the proposed algorithm has a and Jimenez [7] shows a shell-side stream velocity 65% higher than
lower total annual cost than the one obtained by Mizutani et al. [9]. the maximum recommended value, which can lead to erosion in
This observation seems to indicate that the solution obtained by the baffles and tube vibrations.
Mizutani et al. [9] got trapped into a local optimal point within The new design provides the geometric configuration (tubes,
their search algorithm. The main difference between both results is baffles, shell) needed as part of the optimal solution. A proper use
in the pumping costs. Our solution shows a reduction in pumping of the pressure drops for each side of the exchanger provides a high
costs of about 60% that, in spite of an increment in the area cost of heat transfer coefficient, thus optimizing the area and the cost of
11%, provides a reduction in the total annual cost of 22%. It is the exchanger. The design obtained using GA has total pumping
important to notice that the film heat transfer coefficients for costs 10.7% lower than the one reported by Serna and Jimenez [7],
Design A are closer to each other than the ones obtained by along with reductions in the exchanger area of 10% and in total
Mizutani et al. [9], thus providing a more efficient design. Large annual cost of 6.1%.
differences in film coefficients are linked to an inefficient use of
pressure drops, which raises the pumping costs needed for the Example 3. In this example, the data from Example 2 were taken,
exchanger. but three major aspects were changed. First, only standard sizes for
The GA was also used for this problem without the constraints in the tube length and the shell diameter were considered. Second, a
tube length and baffle cut imposed by Mizutani et al. [9]. The results different economic environment was assumed, in which higher
are reported as Design B in Table 2. One can notice a significant capital investment is required for heat exchangers. And third, the
reduction in the total area required by the exchanger. This is the economic model involved a more detailed description for the cost
result of the number of passes being reduced to one, and of smaller of the exchanger.
tube diameters being selected. This arrangement produces higher
The exchanger cost was calculated from the cost of component
stream velocities with better heat transfer coefficients, which
parts plus manufacturing costs. The following relations, proposed
provide a smaller area. Another issue worth of mention is that the
by Purohit [11], were used for Eq. (16)
relationship Ltt/Ds is higher than for the other two designs. Design B
has a total annual cost 49.88% lower than the one obtained by pqmat C 1 ðDs þ 2ts Þ2 tt
C ts ¼ ð20Þ
Mizutani et al. [9], and 17.13% lower than Design A. 3456
pqmat C 2 Ds Lto t s
C sh ¼ ð21Þ
Example 2. This example was previously analyzed by Serna and 144
Jimenez [7]. A shell-and-tube heat exchanger must be designed 0 pqmat C 1 D2s N b
Cb ¼ ð22Þ
to cool down oil using cooling water. Fig. 4 shows the design data. 13824
The tube wall thermal conductivity was neglected. C td ¼ C 4 N tt ð23Þ
The solution was obtained after 90 generations using a CPU C tb ¼ C 3 A ð24Þ
time of 71 s. Table 3 shows a summary of the results obtained with C ba ¼ C 5 ð25Þ
the proposed algorithm, as well as the design reported by Serna
and Jimenez [7]. Their design was based on gradient methods, and The constants for the cost equations were taken from Purohit [11]:
they did not optimize the geometry of the exchanger; the main C1 = 0.5 $/lb, C2 = 1.0 $/lb, C3 = 75 (A)0.4 $/ft2, C4 = 2.0 $/tube,
design variables such as baffle and tube characteristics were C5 = $30,000. For the exchanger, qmat = 486.954 lb/ft3. Values for ts
specified. From Table 3 it can be seen that the design obtained and tt were calculated according to TEMA [14] standards.
To get convergence, 391 generation were needed, with a comput-
ing time of 182 s. Table 4 shows a summary of the results obtained. A
Table 2 heat exchanger with an area of 220 m2 was obtained. One can notice
Results for Example 1 how the economic scenario influences the resulting optimum
Concept Mizutani et al. [9] This work design. Tube diameters of medium size were selected, thus reducing
the number of tubes. This provided a proper compromise between
Design A Design B
the material and manufacturing costs associated with the tubes.
Area (m2) 202 242.88 161.34
Given the economic scenario considered, the minimum total annual
hT (W/m2 K) 6,480.00 1,628.94 4,493.71
hS (W/m2 K) 1,829.00 2,991.26 2,003.71
vT (m/s) – 0.83 1.00
vs (m/s) – 0.37 0.40
U (W/m2 K) 860.00 714.51 873.62
Number of tubes 832 653 739
Tubes arrangement Square Triangular Square
Number of tube-passes 2 6 1
Dti (mm) 12.60 22.918 10.92
Dt (mm) 15.90 25.40 12.70
Number of baffles 8 8 13
Heat kind Fixed Floating pull Floating pull
Hot fluid allocation Shell Tube Shell
F T DT LM 24.90 25.01 30.79
Ds (m) 0.687 1.105 0.639
Total tube length (m) 4.88 4.88 5.602
Baffle spacing (m) 0.542 0.516 0.391
Baffle cut (%) 25 25 31.85
DPT (Pa) 22,676.00 10,981.30 7,748.18
DPS (Pa) 7,494.00 4,714.28 6,828.43
Pumping cost ($/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.
208 J.M. Ponce-Ortega et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009) 203–209

Table 3 model presented in this work could be incorporated into a heat ex-
Results for Example 2 changer network formulation to provide both the network struc-
Serna and Jimenez [7] This work ture and the equipment sizing with the type of details shown in
2
Area (m ) 200.02 180.49 this work.
hT (W/m2 K) 5,567.92 6,062.84
hS (W/m2 K) 1,009.17 1,247.17 6. Conclusions
vT (m/s) 1.00 1.26
vs (m/s) 1.32 0.78
U (W/m2 K) 483.06 535.32 An algorithm for the optimal design of shell-and-tube heat
Number of tubes 838 1,545 exchangers based on genetic algorithms has been presented. The
Tubes arrangement Square, 90° Square, 45° model uses the Bell–Delaware correlations for a proper calculation
Number of tube-passes 4 4
of heat transfer coefficients and pressure drops in the shell-side.
Dti (mm) 16.60 10.92
Dt (mm) 19.10 12.70
The use of GA together with the Bell–Delaware method allows sev-
Number of baffles 21 9 eral design factors, typically specified from experience and later
Heat kind Fixed tubes Floating pull subject to a rating test, to be calculated as part of the optimum
Hot fluid allocation Shell Shell solution. Also, the objective function can accommodate any type
F T DT LM (°C) 51.06 46.97
of information available for the cost of equipment; highly non-lin-
Ds (m) 0.899 0.769
Total tube length (m) 4.156 3.080 ear functions that arise from a detailed cost model for a heat ex-
Baffle spacing (m) 0.181 0.301 changer can be handled without the convergence problems
Baffle cut (%) 16.75 22.82 typically encountered in mathematical programming techniques
DPT (Pa) 15,822.0 30,543.15
based on gradient methods. Also, because of their nature, genetic
DPS (Pa) 61,354.0 36,467.05
Pumping cost ($/yr) 3,874.90 3,501.52
algorithms provide better expectations to detect global optimum
Area cost ($/yr) 27,311.70 25,902.32 solutions than gradient methods, in addition to being more robust
Total annual cost ($/yr) 31,186.60 29,403.84 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
cost for this problem was $105,067 $/yr, with the highest contribu- work.
tion due to the capital cost for the exchanger.
One of the major aspects to highlight from this problem is that Appendix A. Design algorithm
the use of detailed capital costs for the heat exchanger of the type
of Eqs. (20)–(25) introduces additional non-linearities and possibly The parameters KS, KT, m and n from the compact formulas de-
non-convexities to the problem. Such items can affect the perfor- pend on the exchanger configuration, which is not known until the
mance of standard methods based on mathematical programming problem is solved for a given set of design variables. To develop an
techniques. On the other hand, the GA can handle these types of efficient algorithm, Serna and Jimenez [10] proposed to use the
models without potential convergence problems. The use of GA parameters of the compact formulations as search variables, and
also provides an interesting potential for the synthesis of heat ex- decoupled the equations with the unknown variables hT, hS and
changer networks, as recently reported by Ravagnani et al. [15]. In A. Rearranging the simultaneous system of Eqs. (1)–(3), one obtains
such work, the best placement of the heat exchangers to accom- two sequential algebraic equations for hT and hS:
plish some degree of energy integration was detected. As it is com- 0   11n
DPT F T DT LM
mon in the network synthesis stage, the work by Ravagnani et al. KTQ
[15] did not incorporate the design details of the exchangers. The hT  @    A ¼0 ð26Þ
K S DP T
K T DP S hnT
þ Rds þ 2kDtw ln Dt
Dti
þ DDht T þ DDt Rdt
ti ti

 n
1
K T DPS hT m
Table 4 hS  ¼0 ð27Þ
K S DPT
Results for Example 3
To solve this set of equations, the following steps are used:
Variable Value
2
Area (m ) 220.72 1. Specify the design data. These data include: (1) Mass flowrates,
hT (W/m2 K) 4,977.26
physical properties, inlet and outlet temperatures and fouling
hS (W/m2 K) 835.18
vT (m/s) 1.11 factors; (2) the search optimization variables: Pressure drops
vs (m/s) 0.76 for each stream, inside and outside tube diameters, tube pitch,
U (W/m2 K) 437.75 number of tube passes, tube layout, tube bundle type, the fluids
Number of tubes 1,058.18
allocation, the number of sealing strips, the clearances and the
Tubes arrangement Triangular, 30°
Number of tube-passes 6
baffle cut. The heat duty and the correction factor FT are calcu-
Dti (mm) 17.27 lated from the specification (1).
Dt (mm) 19.05 2. Guess initial values for KS, KT, m and n. Kern method can be used
Number of baffles 6 to get initial values.
Heat kind Fixed tubes
3. Solve Eq. (26) numerically to obtain hT.
Hot fluid allocation Shell
F T DT LM (°C) 46.97 4. Determine hS and A sequentially from Eqs. (27) and (1).
Ds (m) 0.863 5. Obtain sequentially geometric parameters for the exchanger,
Total tube length (m) 3.658 once hT, hS, and A have been calculated (for further details, see
Baffle spacing (m) 0.456 Serna and Jimenez [10]).
Baffle cut (%) 26.94
DPT (Pa) 27,451.96
6. Obtain the constants for the Bell–Delaware method, the ideal
DPS (Pa) 13,876.96 heat transfer factor, the ideal friction factor, as well as the leak-
Pumping cost ($/yr) 2,662.22 age and bypass area and correction factors for the shell-side.
Area cost ($/yr) 102,405.49 7. Calculate the new values for the tear variables KS, KT, m, n (for
Total annual cost ($/yr) 105,067.71
details, see Serna and Jimenez [10]).
 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.
209
[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.