International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 159 (2020) 120140

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

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

Intelligent optimization design of shell and helically coiled tube heat

exchanger based on genetic algorithm
Cong Wang a, Zhengyu Cui a, Hongmei Yu a, Kai Chen b, Jianli Wang a,∗
a
Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Design and Manufacture of Micro-Nano Biomedical Instruments, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Southeast University,
Nanjing 210096, PR China
b
Key Laboratory of Enhanced Heat Transfer and Energy Conservation of the Ministry of Education, School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, South
China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510640, Guangdong, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The intelligent optimization design of a helically coiled tube heat exchanger is proposed. The structural
Received 19 March 2020 design, meshing, and numerical calculations are integrated into the genetic algorithm to perform intel-
Revised 12 June 2020
ligent optimization in selecting the structural and thermodynamic parameters. Compared with the ex-
Accepted 26 June 2020
perimental results, the heat flux and heat transfer rate of the heat exchanger with the optimal structure
increase by 110% and 101%, respectively, which can be proved by the decrease of the average intersec-
Keywords: tion angle between the velocity vector and temperature gradient on both the shell side and tube side.
Field synergy principle Considering the pressure drop constraint, the maximum heat flux increases by 12% compared with the
Genetic algorithm value obtained from the optimization criterion when the total heat transfer rate is maximized, indicating
Intelligent optimization
its potentials in reducing the financial cost. Finally, this method provides an automatic solution to the
Shell and helically coiled tube heat
optimization design of a diversity of heat exchangers.
exchanger
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Heat exchangers can improve industrial production efficiency
and ensure equipment safety. Among various types of heat ex-
changes, shell and tube heat exchangers have been widely used
in various industrial applications, such as power systems, energy
industry, refrigeration, heating ventilation and air conditioning
(HVAC), and food processing [1–5]. Due to their compact structure,
small pressure loss and high heat transfer coefficient, the helically
coiled tube heat exchangers have been extensively studied as one
of the passive heat transfer enhancement. The centrifugal force can
produce a longitudinal secondary flow in the helically coiled tube,
which results in higher heat transfer efficiency than the value ob-
tained from the straight tubes [6–8]. Salimpour [9] conducted ex-
periments on three kinds of heat exchangers with different coil
pitches in both the parallel-flow and counter-flow configurations.
Alimoradi and Veysi [10] numerically and experimentally investi-
gated the effect of physical properties of fluid, operational param-
eters, and geometrical parameters on the Nusselt (Nu) numbers of
the shell and tube sides. When the pitch size was doubled, the Nu
number was found to increase by 10% and 0.8% on the shell side
and tube side, respectively. Based on a newly designed shell and
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wangjianli@seu.edu.cn (J. Wang).
helically coiled finned tube heat exchangers, Wang et al. [11] nu-
merically investigated the effect of fin geometry and the inlet mass
flow rate of shell on the exergy loss. The results showed the exergy
loss increased with the increase of the shell-side flow rate, height
and number of fins, number of transfer units (NTU), heat transfer,
and fan work.
The heat exchangers have been optimized to achieve different
objectives by using various methods. The optimization objectives
are to maximize the thermal efficiency and the Nu number, or/and
to minimize the total cost (including the setup cost and operational
cost) [12], the entropy generation rate, and the thermal resistance
of heat exchanger based on the entransy theory [13]. For most tra-
ditional shell and tube heat exchanger, the empirical relationship
between design variables and optimization objectives can be well
established, and a few intelligent optimization algorithms have also
been applied. Fettaka et al. [14] conducted the non-dominated
sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II) to minimize the heat transfer
area and pumping power. Petinrin et al. [15] optimized the entropy
generation of a typical shell-and-tube heat exchanger by employ-
ing the firefly algorithm (FA). Khosravi et al. [16] compared the ef-
fect of the FA method and cuckoo search (CS) method on the opti-
mization results. Meanwhile, genetic algorithm (GA) [12,17,18], par-
ticle swarm optimization (PSO) [19], heat transfer search algorithm
[20], Jaya algorithm [21,22], gravitational search algorithm [23], co-
hort intelligence algorithm [24], differential evolution [25,26], im-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2020.120140
0017-9310/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 C. Wang, Z. Cui and H. Yu et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 159 (2020) 120140

Nomenclature

A heat transfer area, m2

cp specific heat capacity, J kg−1 K−1
d tube diameter, m
D coiled diameter, m
h convection heat transfer coefficient, W m−2 K−1
Nu Nusselt number
p pressure, Pa
࢞pt total pressure drop, Pa
q heat flux density, W m−2
qv volume flow rate, L min−1
Q total heat transfer rate, W
Re Reynolds number Fig. 1. Physical model of helically coiled tube heat exchanger.
s coiled pitch, m
T temperature, K
࢞T log mean temperature difference, K
and 33.42%, respectively. Unfortunately, the Taguchi method can-
u velocity, m s−1
not get a global optimal solution. Although the correlation formula
λ thermal conductivity, W m−1 K−1
between the design variable and the objective fitted by the re-
θ field synergy angle, °
sponse surface method [32] or the artificial neural network [33,34]
ṁ mass flow rate, kg s−1
can be optimized by a genetic algorithm, the results deviate from
Ṡgen entropy generation rate, W K−1
the experimental data [35]. Recently, increasing interests have been
Ns entropy generation number
attracted to the intelligent optimization of the shell and helically
Pr Prandtl number
coiled tube heat exchanger [36–38].
De Dean number
In this paper, an intelligent optimization scheme is performed
γ dimensionless pitch
on the whole shell and helically coiled tube heat exchanger. By
Greek symbols combining the optimization design, structural design, meshing, and
ρ density, kg m−3 numerical calculation, a genetic algorithm is used to automatically
k turbulence kinetic energy, J kg−1 determine the coiled pitch, coiled diameter, tube diameter, and
ε turbulence dissipation rate, m3 s−2 flow parameters, to maximize the heat transfer rate per thermal
μ dynamic viscosity, kg m−1 s−1 surface area. At the same time, the optimization results with and
without the pressure drop constraint are compared. The field syn-
Subscripts ergy principle (FSP) is used to explain the cause of the improved
i inlet performance of the heat exchanger. Additionally, the theory of en-
o outlet tropy production minimization is employed to evaluate the overall
h shell side thermal performance.
c coiled tube side

2. Model description and numerical simulation

perialist competitive algorithm [27] were used for the optimization
design of shell and tube heat exchanger. However, for the shell
2.1. Physical model
and helically coil tube heat exchanger, due to its complex struc-
ture, optimization reports are few. Jamshidi et al. [28] discussed
The physical model of the shell and helically coiled tube heat
the effect of fluid flow and geometrical parameters on the heat
exchanger with its parameters is shown in Fig. 1. The flows on the
transfer rate, the heat transfer was enhanced by using the Taguchi
tube side and shell side are arranged in the counter-flow configu-
method. The experimental results indicated that the heat transfer
ration. The primary geometrical parameters of the heat exchanger
rate can be improved with the increases of the coil diameter, coil
and the range of the design variables including coiled pitch s,
pitch, and mass flow rate on the shell and tube sides. Furthermore,
coiled diameter D, and tube diameter d are shown in Table 1. To
the shell-side flow rate, coil diameter, coil pitch, and tube-side flow
simplify the structure and numerical computation, the thickness of
rate are the most important design parameters in the coiled tube
coiled tubes is neglected and the outer wall of the heat exchanger
heat exchangers. Etghaniand Baboli [29] set the heat transfer coef-
is set to be adiabatic.
ficient and exergy loss as the objective functions to optimize four
The working fluid is considered incompressible with constant
parameters in the shell and helical tube heat exchanger by using
physical parameters, and the gravity of the fluid is ignored. The
the Taguchi method. Alimoradi and Veysi [30] calculated the heat
steady-state governing equations including the mass conservation,
transfer and entropy for the steady-state forced convection heat
momentum conservation, and energy conservation are expressed
transfer in the shell and helically coiled tube heat exchangers, and
as follow [31]:
thirteen parameters were optimized to maximize the heat trans-
Mass conservation
fer rate per entropy generation(COD). Wang et al. [31] studied the
heat transfer and flow characteristics on the shell side of helically ∂
coiled tube heat exchanger by using the response surface method ( ρ ui ) = 0 (1)
∂ xi
and multi-object genetic algorithm (MOGA) to maximize the per-
formance evaluation criterion (PEC) and the field synergy num- Momentum conservation
ber (Fc). In their study, the transverse spacing, coiled radius, and   
tube diameter were selected as the design variables. The results ∂ ∂p ∂ ∂ ui ∂ u j
( ρ ui u j ) = − + (μ + μt ) + (2)
suggested that the PEC and the Fc would be improved by 36.84% ∂xj ∂ xi ∂ x j ∂ x j ∂ xi
 C. Wang, Z. Cui and H. Yu et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 159 (2020) 120140 3

Table 1
Geometric parameters of the shell and helically coiled tube heat exchanger.

Structure Geometric parameters Initial design Variation range

Shell- Inner diameter /mm 140 –

side Length /mm 250 –
Inlet and outlet tube diameter /mm 10 –
Tube- Pitch (s) /mm 13 13~18
side Coiled diameter (D) /mm 104 90~110
Number of coiled turns /turns 10 –
Tube diameter (d) /mm 10 9~12

Energy conservation 2.3. Optimization objective

 
∂ ( ρ ui T ) ∂ ∂T
= (μ/Pr + μt /Prt ) (3) The heat flux q can be calculated as
∂ xi ∂ xi ∂ xi
Q
where ρ , u, p, T, μ, and Pr are the fluid density, velocity, pressure, q= (7)
A
temperature, dynamic viscosity, and Prandtl number, respectively. where A is the heat transfer area, i.e., the surface area of the coiled
In this paper, the heat transfer performance is numerically in- tube. The total heat transfer rate Q is calculated as
vestigated when the Reynolds (Re) number is over 30 0 0. In the 
helically coiled tube heat exchanger, the flows involve rotation and Q = m˙ c c p (Tc,i − Tc,o ) = m˙ h c p Th,o − Th,i (8)
boundary layers effect. The simulation results obtained from differ- where Tc,o and Th,o are obtained from the numerical simulation.
ent turbulent models are compared, including the standard k-ε , re- The log-mean temperature difference can be expressed as
alizable k-ε , RNG k-ε , standard k-omega, and SST k-omega models.  
The occupancy of computing resources, the prediction accuracy of Tc,i − Th,o − Tc,o − Th,i
TM =
   (9)
the results, and the applicability of the calculation model are con- ln Tc,i − Th,o / Tc,o − Th,i
sidered comprehensively. Finally, the standard k-ε turbulent model
and the heat transfer coefficient
is employed in the present numerical simulation. Transport equa-
q
tions for the standard k-ε model are given as follows [5]: h= (10)
Turbulent kinetic energy k equation TM
The Re number and Nu number are
∂ ∂
(ρ k ) + ( ρ kui ) ρ ud
∂t ∂ xi Rec = (11)
   2 μ
∂  μ  ∂k μt ∂ u j ∂ ui
= μ+ t + + − ρε (4) hd
∂xj σk ∂ x j 2 ∂ xi ∂xj N uc = (12)
λ
Turbulent energy dissipation ε equation
The total pressure drop is
∂ ∂ 
(ρε ) + (ρε ui ) pt = ( pc,o − pc,i ) + ph,o − ph,i (13)
∂t ∂ xi
   2
μt  ∂ε
To avoid the entropy production paradox, the improved entropy
∂ μt ∂ u j ∂ ui ε ε2 production number [39] is calculated to analyze the change of en-
= μ+ + C1 + − C2 ρ
∂xj σε ∂ x j 2 ∂ xi ∂xj k k tropy production during the optimization process, which is defined
(5) as
S˙ gen Tc,i
where C1 = 1.44, C2 = 1.92, σ k = 1.0, and σ ԑ = 1.3. μt is the tur- Ns = (14)
bulent viscosity, which is defined by Q
where the entropy generation rate is calculated by
ρ k2
μt = Cμ (6) Tc,o T
ε S˙ gen = m˙ c c p ln( ) + m˙ h c p ln( h,o ) (15)
where Cμ = 0.09. Tc,i Th,i
The performance of the whole heat exchanger is simulated by Additionally, the FSP is used to explain the cause of the heat
the commercial software FLUENT. The boundary conditions are es- transfer enhancement [40]. The FSP states that the velocity vec-
tablished as follows: water is used as the working fluids on both tor and temperature gradient should be as uniform and parallel as
the shell side and tube side, in which cold water flows on the shell possible. The local intersection angle between the velocity vector
side and hot water flows on the tube side. The shell-side and tube- and temperature gradient is defined by
side boundary conditions are set as velocity inlet and pressure out- U · ∇T
let, respectively. The volume flow rate of the inlet is both estab- θ = arcos (16)
|U | · |∇ T |
lished as 1 L/min. The inlet temperature of the shell-side and tube-
side are 293 K and 343 K, respectively. The interface of the shell- where U is the velocity vector, which consists of three compo-
side and tube-side is set as the coupled wall, while other walls are nents: Ux , Uy , and Uz ; ∇ T is the temperature gradient. It is known
non-slip, impermeable, and adiabatic. The governing equations are that the smaller intersection angle gives the better the synergy be-
solved by the SIMPLE algorithm. The second-order upwind scheme tween the velocity and temperature gradient, leading to the en-
is chosen for the momentum, pressure, energy, turbulent kinetic hancement of the convection heat transfer. Finally, the average in-
energy, and turbulent dissipation rate. The convergence of the so- tersection angle is used as the criterion, which is calculated by
lution is monitored by checking the residuals of the continuity, [41]

momentum, and energy equations, which are required to be less θ dV
than 10−4 , 10−4 , and 10−9 , respectively. θm =  i i (17)
dVi
4 C. Wang, Z. Cui and H. Yu et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 159 (2020) 120140

Fig. 2. Grid of the shell-side and tube-side.

where dV is the control volume, and the subscript i indicates a lo-

cal node.

2.4. Grid independence assessment

The grid division of the calculation domain of the coiled tube

heat exchanger is shown in Fig. 2. The shell side and tube side are
divided by the combination of the structural grid (hexahedral grid)
and non-structural grid (tetrahedral grid). The hexahedral grids are
adopted as the main mesh structure for the shell side, while tetra-
hedral grids are generated for the tube side. The orthogonal quality
of the overall grid is greater than 0.9, the deviation is less than 0.1,
and the Jacobi is less than 6, based on which the numerical results
obtained are reliable, and the calculation convergence is achieved.
The grid independence tests are applied to prove the accuracy of
the calculation. As shown in Fig. 3, with the increase in the num-
ber of grids, the Nc growth rate is 7.1%, 5.4%, 1.5%, 0.34%, and 0.34%
respectively. The value of y+ at the tube side decreases from 75 to
27 with the increasing number of elements. Thus, the grids num-
ber of 80 0,0 0 0 is suitable for this geometry.
Fig. 3. Grid independence test.

2.5. Model validation

exchanger, the Nu number can be predicted by the empirical for-
To validate the accuracy of the numerical model and solution mula [42]:
method, simulation results were compared with the experimental
data [28] and the empirical formula [42]. In the coiled tube heat N uc = 0.112De0.51 γ −0.37 P r 0.72 (18)
 C. Wang, Z. Cui and H. Yu et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 159 (2020) 120140
Fig. 4. Comparison of tube-side Nu number between numerical results and experi-
mental data.
where De is the Dean number and γ is the dimensionless pitch. As
shown in Fig. 4, the results illustrate that the relationship between
the Re number and Nu number obtained from the numerical sim-
ulation is in agreement with the experimental results [28] as well
as the predictions from the Salimpour’s formula [42], and the max-
imum error of the Nu number is less than 6%.
3. Optimization procedure
The genetic algorithm is a method that simulates biological
evolution to construct an artificial intelligence model. It has been
widely used in optimization due to its strong adaptability and
learning ability. Genetic algorithms mainly include the following
process: individual coding, fitness calculation, selection, crossover,
and mutation. The design variables are converted into binary num-
bers and synthesized into a string. The fitness functions are ob-
tained from simulation. Roulette Wheel Selection method is used
for genetic algorithm. The higher the fitness, the greater the prob-
ability of being selected. Uniform crossover and random uniform
mutation are employed to obtain the offspring population. The
integer-based uniform crossover operator takes two distinct parent
individuals and interchanges each corresponding binary bit with
a probability of 0.85. Following crossover, the mutation operator
changes each of the binary bits with a mutation probability of 0.01.
When the pressure drop constraint is ignored, the specific process
is as follows:
(1) An initial generation of 40 individuals is generated in MAT-
LAB. Each calculation contains three parameters: coiled tube
pitch, coiled diameter, tube diameter. These three parame-
ters are coded in binary.
(2) MATLAB reads the macro files needed to perform modeling
(UG), converts the three design variables to decimal num-
bers, and writes the values to the file. Then MATLAB will call
the modeling software to complete the parametric modeling
and output the model file automatically.
(3) MATLAB calls the meshing software (ICEM), and runs the log
file written in advance to complete the automatic meshing
and output the grid file.
(4) MATLAB reads the log files needed to run FLUENT and writes
the inlet flow parameters on the shell side and tube side to
the file. Then, MATLAB calls the CFD software to read the
5
grid file to complete the simulation, and finally outputs out-
let temperature.
(5) MATLAB calculates the objective function value by using the
inlet and outlet temperature.
(6) New generations are generated by the selection, crossover,
and mutation operations. The roulette selection method is
adopted. The probability of crossover and mutation are 0.85
and 0.01, respectively.
(7) Repeat steps 1–6 until satisfying the convergence condition.
(8) Output the final optimization result.
Fig. 5 shows the entire optimization process. When the pressure
drop constraint is considered, the inlet and outlet flow parameters
will be included in step 1 and the penalty function will be used to
calculate the objective function in step 5. The advantage of this op-
timization method is that all operations are implemented in MAT-
LAB. It is convenient to change design variables, and can be readily
extended to different applications.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Sensitivity analysis
The effect of some geometric variables, such as coiled pitch s,
coiled diameter D, and tube diameter d, on the total pressure drop
࢞pt and heat flux q are investigated. In each section, the values
of all parameters are kept the same except the selected one for
the investigation, and the sensitivity of the objective function with
respect to the selected parameter is discussed.
4.1.1. Effect of the coiled pitch
Fig. 6(a) and (b) presents the effect of the coiled pitch on
the heat flux and the total pressure drop when D =100 mm and
d = 10 mm. The total pressure drop decreases with the increase
of the coiled pitch at different flow rates on the tube side. Com-
paratively, the heat flux increases when the coiled pitch increases
from 13 mm to 15 mm, and subsequently decreases. Some conflict-
ing effects on the heat flux of the system lead to the peak position
at around 15 mm. When the coiled pitch is small, the compacted
coiled tube will inevitably give rise to a large heat transfer area to
decrease the heat flux. For instance, if s = d = 10 mm, the adjacent
tubes will contact with each other to block the flow channel on the
shell side, and the heat flux between the shell flow and tube flow
is expected to be small. Meanwhile, the large pitch tends to de-
crease the turbulence intensity on the tube side, resulting in the
increase of the corresponding thermal resistance. In the extreme
case, if the coiled pitch is infinitely large, the coiled tube tends to
be straight, and the minimum heat transfer coefficient is expected.
4.1.2. Effects of the coiled diameter and the tube diameter
Fig. 7(a) and (b) shows the effect of the coiled diameter on the
heat flux and total pressure drop when s = 15 mm and d = 10 mm.
The increase of the coiled diameter tends to increase the longitudi-
nal secondary flow in the helically coiled tube to enhance the heat
transfer, which in turn leads to the increment of the pressure drop.
By changing the tube diameter, the trade-off between the heat
flux and pressure drop can also be found in Fig. 8(a) and (b). When
the flow rate is constant, the pressure drop decreases as the tube
diameter increases. Meanwhile, the large tube diameter will de-
crease the Re number, so the heat transfer coefficient is also ex-
pected to be small.
4.2. Optimization results
Both the thermodynamic and structural parameters are used
in the design variables. Structural parameters include coiled pitch,
6 C. Wang, Z. Cui and H. Yu et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 159 (2020) 120140

Fig. 5. flowchart of the overall optimization.

Fig. 6. q and ࢞pt versus coiled pitch at different flow rates on the tube side.
 C. Wang, Z. Cui and H. Yu et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 159 (2020) 120140 7

Fig. 7. q and ࢞pt versus coiled diameter at different flow rates on the tube side.

Fig. 8. q and ࢞pt versus tube diameter at different flow rates on the tube side.

coiled diameter, and tube diameter, as shown in Table 1. The flow
parameters include inlet flow rates on the tube side and shell side.
The optimization results of heat exchangers with and without the
pressure drop constraint are compared.
4.2.1. Case 1: optimization without pressure drop constraint
In this study, three structural parameters are selected as the de-
sign parameters. The optimization problem can be described as the
following equation:
Arg (Objective):
Q trend can be observed in qave , indicating that the new generation
maxq =
A
which is subjected to 13 mm≤ s ≤ 18 mm, 90 mm≤ D ≤ 110 mm,
and 9 mm≤ d ≤ 12 mm.
The changes in the maximum heat flux qmax and the average
heat flux qave in each generation are shown in Fig. 9. It shows that
qmax in the heat exchanger with the optimized structure increases
by 23.2% compared with the initial generation. Although qmax re-
mains the same in the 4th and 5th iterations, the crossover and
mutation operation in the genetic algorithm can jump out of the
local optimal solution and find a better solution. The value of qmax
reaches a platform after the 6th generation, while a slight increase
(19)
8 C. Wang, Z. Cui and H. Yu et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 159 (2020) 120140

Table 2
Optimization Results.

Initial design Experimental data [28] Case1 (Op.) Case2 (Op.)

s /mm 15 13 15.2 14.9

D /mm 92 104 109.7 95.7
d /mm 11 10 9.1 9.8
qv,c /(L/min) 1 1 1 1.075
qv,s /(L/min) 1 1 1 1.366
q /(W/m2 ) 8666 8754 18,387 20,213
Q /W 893.5 928.8 1866.7 1933

Fig. 9. q varies with the number of iterations in case study 1. Fig. 11. q varies with the number of iterations for case study 2.

The final optimization results are shown in Table 2. When the

coiled pitch, coiled diameter, and tube diameter are 15.2 mm,
109.7 mm, and 9.1 mm, respectively, the value of qmax is
18,387 W/m2 . Compared with the initial design and the experi-
mental setup [28], after the optimization, qmax increases by 112.2%
and 110%, and Q also increases by 108.9% and 101%, respectively.
Therefore, the optimized heat exchanger improves both economic
and heat transfer efficiency. In this case, the optimized structure
has a pressure drop of 1534.1 Pa.

4.2.2. Case 2: optimization with pressure drop constraint

Fig. 10. q distribution in each individual in case study 1.
has greater fitness and better structure. Fig. 10 compares the dis-
tribution of q at the initial generation and the final generation. It is
found that the values of q of the individuals in the last generation
distribute in a larger range, and four individuals reach the maxi-
mum value. The individuals with smaller values of q can be further
eliminated in the subsequent iteration by using the Roulette Wheel
Selection method.
In this study, based on Case 1, the pressure drop constraint is
introduced to consider the pump power consumption. In the fit-
ness evaluation, a penalty function is applied to punish individu-
als with a pressure drop greater than 10 0 0 Pa. Therefore, the opti-
mization problem can be described as the following equation:
Arg (Objective):
Q
maxq = −α · max (0, pt − pmax ) (20)
A
which is subjected to 13 mm≤ s ≤ 18 mm, 90 mm ≤ D ≤ 110 mm,
9 mm≤d ≤ 12 mm, 0.5 L/min≤ qv, h ≤ 1.5 L/min, 0.5 L/min ≤
qv, c ≤ 1.5 L/min, and pt ≤ 10 0 0 Pa. ࢞pmax is the total pressure
drop limit, ࢞pmax = 10 0 0 Pa. ࢞pt is the total pressure drop ob-
tained from the numerical simulation. α is the penalty factor, and
α =10.
Fig. 11 shows the values of q in each generation under the pres-
sure drop constraint. The values of q for the individuals in the ini-
tial and 10th generations are compared in Fig. 12. Compared with
the initial generation, qmax and qave increases by about 16.2% and
 C. Wang, Z. Cui and H. Yu et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 159 (2020) 120140 9

Table 3
Comparison of the design results with different
optimization criterions.

Qmax Ns min qmax

s/mm 15.2 13.1 14.9

D/mm 100.4 108.9 95.7
d/mm 11.2 10.7 9.8
qv,c /(L/min) 1.059 0.532 1.075
qv,s /(L/min) 1.374 0.799 1.366
q/(W/m2 ) 17,788 11,527 20,213
Q/W 2038 1374 1933
࢞p/Pa 918.7 226.9 947.2
Ns 0.0747 0.05592 0.0787

side. Compared with the initial generation, the average intersection

angle on the shell side and tube side decreases by 1.44° and 1.06°,
respectively. Therefore, only a slight decrement in the average in-
tersection angle can result in a significant improvement in the heat
transfer performance of the heat exchanger.
Fig. 12. q distribution in each individual for case study 2.
To gain an insight into the improvement in the synergy be-
tween the velocity vector and temperature gradient, the distribu-
tion of the local intersection angle at the middle plane of the ini-
tial and optimal structures are compared in Fig. 14(a) and (b). The
velocity vector and temperature gradient are supplemented in the
magnified contour, as shown in Fig. 14(b) and (d). For the ini-
tial structure, the velocity vector is almost perpendicular to the
temperature gradient near the shell wall. This situation is greatly
improved in the optimal structure when the coiled diameter in-
creases to 109.7 mm. Meanwhile, the region of the small intersec-
tion angle distinctly increases near the coiled tube. Besides, due to
the fact that the intersection angle obtained from the tube flow
is larger, the relatively smaller tube diameter can also benefit to
the heat transfer performance. All these improvements account for
the enormous increase in the heat flux in the optimized heat ex-
changer.

4.4. Entropy production analysis

Taking Case 2 as an example, the average entropy production

Fig. 13. θ m varies with the number of iterations for case study 1.
76.4%, respectively. The geometric and flow parameters of the op-
timal structure are shown in Table 2. Compared with the heat ex-
changer with the optimal structure in Case 1, at higher inlet flow
rates, the values of q and Q of the optimized heat exchanger in
Case 2 increase by 3.6% and 9.9%, respectively. Interestingly, by us-
ing a relatively larger inlet flow, the pressure drop of the optimized
heat exchanger in Case 2 is only 947.2 Pa, which also has a signif-
icant drop by 38%.
4.3. FSP analysis
Taking Case 1 as an example, the changes in the average in-
tersection angle θ m in the optimal individuals of each generation
are shown in Fig. 13. The evolution process shows that the aver-
age intersection angles in both the shell flow and the tube flow
monotonously decrease, which is consistent with the observation
in the heat flux (Fig. 9), i. e., the smaller the intersection angle,
the larger the heat flux. Both the fitness function and the average
intersection angle become stable after the 6th iteration. It also in-
dicates that the tube geometry will have a larger impact on the
heat transfer performance on the shell side than that on the tube
number Ns of the generation during the optimization process is
shown in Fig. 15. Compared with the 9th generation, the 8th gen-
eration has a smaller Ns and higher Q. However, Fig. 11 shows that
qave of the 8th generation is smaller than that of the 9th gener-
ation, so the heat transfer area of the 8th generation should be
larger. Thus, to minimize the entropy production number, the heat
transfer efficiency of the heat exchanger can be improved, but the
financial cost cannot be guaranteed, as indicated by the results of
the 8th and 9th generations.
Finally, the performances of the heat exchanger obtained by dif-
ferent optimization criteria are compared. Table 3 lists the design
variables of the heat exchanger at the maximum values of Q, the
minimum value of Ns, and the maximum values of q. At the low
entropy production, the corresponding pressure drop is also the
smallest due to the small inlet and outlet flow rates, at a cost of
the poor heat transfer performance. Therefore, the entropy produc-
tion can save the cost of the pump to a certain extent, but does
not necessarily meet the heat transfer requirement. The entropy
production and the pressure drop obtained from the other two cri-
teria are close to each other. Using the two criteria, the difference
in Q is very small (~5%). Comparatively, the value of q increases by
about 12% when the maximum value of q is used as the optimiza-
tion objective, indicating its practical application in reducing the
financial cost.
10 C. Wang, Z. Cui and H. Yu et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 159 (2020) 120140
Fig. 14. Intersection angle distributions at the middle plane of (a) initial structure; (b) magnified contour of the circle region denoted in the initial structure; (c) optimized
structure; (d) magnified contour of the circle region denoted in the optimized structure, black and blue streamlines in (b) and (d) are the velocity vector and temperature
gradient, respectively.
Fig. 15. Ns changes with the number of iterations for case study 2.
5. Conclusions
The genetic algorithm is applied, combined with structural de-
sign, meshing, and numerical calculation, to perform the automatic
optimization design of a coiled tube heat exchanger. The heat flux
is selected as the optimization criterion. The parametric studies
about the coiled pitch, coiled diameter, and tube diameter are con-
ducted. Under the conditions that the inlet flow rates are constant
and the pressure drop constraint is ignored, compared with the ex-
perimental results, the heat flux and heat transfer rate of the heat
exchanger with the optimal structure increase by 110% and 101%,
respectively. Compared with the initial generation, the average in-
tersection angle between the velocity vector and temperature gra-
dient on the shell side and tube side decreases by 1.44° and 1.06°,
respectively. When the pressure drop constraint is considered, the
optimal value of the heat flux increases by 3.6%. Compared with
the results obtained from the optimization criterion when the heat
transfer rate is maximized, the value of the heat flux increases by
about 12%, and the total heat transfer rate only reduces by about
5%, indicating its potential applications in reducing financial cost.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Cong Wang: Methodology, Software, Validation, Investigation,
Writing - original draft. Zhengyu Cui: Software, Visualization,
Writing - review & editing. Hongmei Yu: Software, Visualization,
Writing - review & editing. Kai Chen: Writing - review & editing,
Supervision. Jianli Wang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing
- review & editing, Supervision.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Founda-
tion of China (Nos. 51876041, 51976062).
References
[1] S. Chingulpitak, S. Wongwises, A comparison of flow characteristics of refrig-
erants flowing through adiabatic straight and helical capillary tubes, Int. Com-
mun. Heat Mass Transf. 38 (2011) 398–404.
[2] P.K. Sahoo, M.I.A. Ansari, A.K. Datta, A computer based iterative solution for ac-
curate estimation of heat transfer coefficients in a helical tube heat exchanger,
J. Food Eng. 58 (2003) 211–214.
[3] W.H. Park, C.K.K. Yang, Effects of using advanced cooling systems on the overall
power consumption of processors, IEEE TVLSI Syst. 21 (2013) 1644–1654.
 C. Wang, Z. Cui and H. Yu et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 159 (2020) 120140
[4] H. Ma, N. Du, Z. Zhang, F. Lyu, N. Deng, C. Li, S. Yu, Assessment of the optimum
operation conditions on a heat pipe heat exchanger for waste heat recovery in
steel industry, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 79 (2017) 50–60.
[5] K. Chen, Y. Chen, Y. She, M. Song, S. Wang, L. Chen, Construction of effective
symmetrical air-cooled system for battery thermal management, Appl. Therm.
Eng. 166 (2020) 114679.
[6] B.A. Bhanvase, S.D. Sayankar, A. Kapre, P.J. Fule, S.H. Sonawane, Experimental
investigation on intensified convective heat transfer coefficient of water based
PANI nanofluid in vertical helical coiled heat exchanger, Appl. Therm. Eng. 128
(2018) 134–140.
[7] S.M. Hashemi, M.A. Akhavan-Behabadi, An empirical study on heat transfer
and pressure drop characteristics of CuO–base oil nanofluid flow in a hori-
zontal helically coiled tube under constant heat flux, Int. Commun. Heat Mass
Transf. 39 (2012) 144–151.
[8] H. Mirgolbabaei, H. Taherian, G. Domairry, N. Ghorbani, Numerical estimation
of mixed convection heat transfer in vertical helically coiled tube heat ex-
changers, Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 66 (2011) 805–819.
[9] M.R. Salimpour, Heat transfer coefficients of shell and coiled tube heat ex-
changers, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 33 (2009) 203–207.
[10] A. Alimoradi, F. Veysi, Prediction of heat transfer coefficients of shell and coiled
tube heat exchangers using numerical method and experimental validation,
Int. J. Therm. Sci. 107 (2016) 196–208.
[11] J. Wang, S.S. Hashemi, S. Alahgholi, M. Mehri, M. Safarzadeh, A. Alimoradi,
Analysis of Exergy and energy in shell and helically coiled finned tube heat
exchangers and design optimization, Int. J. Refrig. 94 (2018) 11–23.
[12] J. Yang, S.-.R. Oh, W. Liu, Optimization of shell-and-tube heat exchangers using
a general design approach motivated by constructal theory, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf. 77 (2014) 1144–1154.
[13] Z.Y. Guo, H.Y. Zhu, X.G. Liang, Entransy—A physical quantity describing heat
transfer ability, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 50 (2007) 2545–2556.
[14] S. Fettaka, J. Thibault, Y. Gupta, Design of shell-and-tube heat exchangers
using multiobjective optimization, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 60 (2013) 343–
354.
[15] M.O. Petinrin, T. Bello-Ochende, A.A. Dare, M.O. Oyewola, Entropy generation
minimization of shell-and-tube heat exchanger in crude oil preheat train using
firefly algorithm, Appl. Therm. Eng. 145 (2018) 264–276.
[16] R. Khosravi, A. Khosravi, S. Nahavandi, H. Hajabdollahi, Effectiveness of evolu-
tionary algorithms for optimization of heat exchangers, Energ. Convers. Manag.
89 (2015) 281–288.
[17] L. Gosselin, M. Tye-Gingras, F. Mathieu-Potvin, Review of utilization of genetic
algorithms in heat transfer problems, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 52 (9-10) (2009)
2169–2188.
[18] S. Fettaka, J. Thibault, Y. Gupta, Design of shell-and-tube heat exchangers using
multiobjective optimization, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 60 (2013) 343–354.
[19] X.W. Wang, H.P. Li, L.F. He, Z.C. Li, Evaluation of multi-objective inverse heat
conduction problem based onparticle swarm optimization algorithm, normal
distribution and finite element method, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 127 (2018)
1114–1127.
[20] B.D. Raja, R.L. Jhala, V. Patel, Many-objective optimization of shell and tube
heat exchanger, Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 2 (2017) 87–101.
[21] R.V. Rao, A. Saroj, Constrained economic optimization of shell-and-tube heat
exchangers using elitist-Jaya algorithm, Energy 128 (2017) 785–800.
[22] R.V. Rao, A. Saroj, Economic optimization of shell-and-tube heat exchanger
using Jaya algorithm with maintenance consideration, Appl. Therm. Eng. 116
(2017) 473–487.
[23] D.K. Mohanty, Gravitational search algorithm for economic optimization design
of a shell and tube heat exchanger, Appl. Therm. Eng. 107 (2016) 184–193.
11
[24] S.V. Dhavle, A.J. Kulkarni, A. Shastri, I.R. Kale, Design and economic opti-
mization of shell-and-tube heat exchanger using cohort intelligence algorithm,
Neural Comput. Appl. 30 (2016) 111–125.
[25] E.H.d. Vasconcelos Segundo, A.L. Amoroso, V.C. Mariani, L.d.S. Coelho, Eco-
nomic optimization design for shell-and-tube heat exchangers by a Tsallis dif-
ferential evolution, Appl. Therm. Eng. 111 (2017) 143–151.
[26] B.V. Babu, S.A. Munawar, Differential evolution strategies for optimal design of
shell-and-tube heat exchangers, Chem. Eng. Sci. 62 (2007) 3720–3739.
[27] A. Hadidi, M. Hadidi, A. Nazari, A new design approach for shell-and-tube heat
exchangers using imperialist competitive algorithm (ICA) from economic point
of view, Energy Convers. Manag. 67 (2013) 66–74.
[28] N. Jamshidi, M. Farhadi, D.D. Ganji, K. Sedighi, Experimental analysis of heat
transfer enhancement in shell and helical tube heat exchangers, Appl. Therm.
Eng. 51 (2013) 644–652.
[29] M. Majid Etghani, S. Amir Hosseini Baboli, Numerical investigation and opti-
mization of heat transfer and exergy loss in shell and helical tube heat ex-
changer, Appl. Therm. Eng. 121 (2017) 294–301.
[30] A. Alimoradi, F. Veysi, Optimal and critical values of geometrical parameters
of shell and helically coiled tube heat exchangers, Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 10
(2017) 73–78.
[31] G. Wang, D. Wang, J. Deng, Y. Lyu, Y. Pei, S. Xiang, Experimental and numerical
study on the heat transfer and flow characteristics in shell side of helically
coiled tube heat exchanger based on multi-objective optimization, Int. J. Heat
Mass Transf. 137 (2019) 349–364.
[32] S. Wang, J. Xiao, J. Wang, G. Jian, J. Wen, Z. Zhang, Application of response sur-
face method and multi-objective genetic algorithm to configuration optimiza-
tion of Shell-and-tube heat exchanger with fold helical baffles, Appl. Therm.
Eng. 129 (2018) 512–520.
[33] X. Wang, N. Zheng, Z. Liu, W. Liu, Numerical analysis and optimization study
on shell-side performances of a shell and tube heat exchanger with staggered
baffles, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 124 (2018) 247–259.
[34] M. Bahiraei, R. Khosravi, S. Heshmatian, Assessment and optimization of hy-
drothermal characteristics for a non-Newtonian nanofluid flow within minia-
turized concentric-tube heat exchanger considering designer’s viewpoint, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 123 (2017) 266–276.
[35] J. Wen, X. Gu, M. Wang, S. Wang, J. Tu, Numerical investigation on the multi-
-objective optimization of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger with helical baffles,
Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 89 (2017) 91–97.
[36] M. Miansari, M.A. Valipour, H. Arasteh, D. Toghraie, Energy and exergy analysis
and optimization of helically grooved shell and tube heat exchangers by using
Taguchi experimental design, J. Thermodyn. Catal. 139 (5) (2019) 3151–3164.
[37] Y. Han, X.S.Wang, Z. Zhang, H.N. Zhang, Multi-objective optimization of geo-
metric parameters for the helically coiled tube using Markowitz optimization
theory, Energy (2020) 192.
[38] Y. Han, X.S. Wang, H.N. Zhang, Q.Z. Chen, Z. Zhang, Multi-objective optimiza-
tion of helically coiled tube heat exchanger based on entropy generation the-
ory, Int. J. Therm. Sci. (2020) 147.
[39] J.E. Hesselgreaves, Rationalisation of second law analysis ofheat exchangers,
Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 43 (20 0 0) 4189–4204.
[40] Z.Y. Guo, D.Y. Li, B.X. Wang, A novel concept for convective heat transfer en-
hancement, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 41 (14) (1998) 2221–2225.
[41] J.J. Zhou, Z.G. Wu, W.Q. Tao, Numerical simulation and field synergy analysis
of heat transfer performance of radial slit fin surface, Prog. Comput. Fluid Dyn.
6 (7) (2006) 419–427.
[42] M.R. Salimpour, Heat transfer characteristics of a temperature-dependen-
t-property fluid in shell and coiled tube heat exchangers, Int. Commun. Heat
Mass Transf. 35 (2008) 1190–1195.