Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology.

Received January 27, 2017;

Accepted manuscript posted August 17, 2017. doi:10.1115/1.4037637
1
Copyright (c) 2017 by ASME

A Study about Performance Evaluation Criteria of Tube Banks with Various Shapes
and Arrangements Using Numerical Simulation
Amin Jodaei, e-mail: am.jodaei@gmail.com
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
1
Kamiar Zamzamian, e-mail: zamzamian@iaut.ac.ir
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract: Tube bank heat exchangers are designed to efficiently transfer heat between two fluids. Shapes and arrangements of tubes in heat
exchangers have significant effects in heat transfer and pressure drop of fluid. In this study, the three-dimensional numerical investigation is
performed to determine heat transfer coefficients, friction factor and performance evaluation criteria of cam shaped tube banks in aerodynamic

d
and inverse aerodynamic directions in the cross flow air and compared with those of elliptical tube banks in heat exchanger. The arrangements
of tubes are aligned and staggered with longitudinal pitch of 44.88 mm and transverse pitch of 28.05 mm. Reynolds number in the range of 11500

ite
to 18500 was used, and the tube surface temperature was fixed and considered 352 K. Results indicate the superior heat transfer of elliptical tube
bank over the cam shaped tube banks in inverse aerodynamic and aerodynamic directions in both arrangements. Moreover, the performance
evaluation criteria of the cam shaped tube banks with inverse aerodynamic and aerodynamic directions and elliptical tube bank in aligned

ed
arrangement are approximately 1.4, 1.1 and 1.6, respectively. The obtained results for staggered arrangements are also 1.5, 1.3 and 1.8,
respectively.

py
Keywords: Numerical simulation, Tube bank, Cross flow, Heat transfer, Performance evaluation criteria

Co
Nomenclature
SL Longitudinal pitch (mm) Reeq Equivalent Reynolds number ΔP Pressure drop in tube banks (Pa)
Reynolds number based on the minimum surface J
ST Transverse pitch (mm) ReD Cp Specific heat at constant pressure ( )
between tubes kg.K

SD Diagonal pitch, (mm) μ Dynamic viscosity (

ot
kg
m.s
) k Thermal conductivity (
W
m.K
)
d Small diameter (mm) Q̇ Heat transfer rate (W) PEC Performance evaluation criteria
tN
W kg
D Large diameter (mm) h Average heat transfer coefficient (
m2 .K
) ρ Density of the air ( )
m3
Deq Effective diameter (mm) As Surface area of the tube (m ) 2
π Mathematical constant
SL
rip

Longitudinal pitch ratio Ts Surface temperature of tube (K) Subscripts

Deq
ST
Transverse pitch ratio T∞ Free stream temperature (K) cam Cam shaped tube bank
Deq
sc

C Perimeter of the tube (mm) Nueq Equivalent Nusselt number cir Circular tube bank
Perpendicular distance between the two arcs of cam
𝑙 shaped tubes (mm) Nuave Average Nusselt number ellip Elliptical tube bank
nu

L Length of the tubes (mm) N Number of tubes in tube bank ave Average
m
V∞ Free stream velocity ( ) f Friction factor eq Equivalent
s
Ma

m
Vmax Maximum velocity in tube bank ( ) NL Number of tubes in transverse rows ∞ Free stream
s

1. Introduction
ed

The increase in energy demand in all sectors of the human society requires an increasingly more intelligent use of available
energy. In this regard, the exploitations of high performance heat exchangers for saving and making effective use of energy is a very
pt

important matter. Heat exchangers are found in numerous industrial applications, such as steam generation in a boiler or air cooling
in the coil of an air conditioner. Tube banks are usually arranged in an aligned or staggered manner and are characterized by the
ce

dimensionless transverse, longitudinal, and diagonal pitches. Typically, one fluid moves over the tubes, while the other fluid, at a
different temperature, passes through the tubes. The significant parameter affecting the performance of the system is usually the
placement of the tubes in the vicinity of the fluid.
Ac

Aiba and Hajima [1] and Arbita and others [2] experimentally investigated the heat transfer around the tubes arranged as an
aligned and staggered orientation in the tube bank, and estimated the effect of the pitch ratio on the Nusselt number. Krishen Gowde
and others [3] performed the finite element simulation of transient flow and heat transfer past an aligned tube bank and studied the
pressure drop and Nusselt number variation in the tube bank by varying the pitch to diameter ratio from 1.5 to 2. Balabani and
Yianneshis [4] experimentally studied the mean flow and turbulence structure of cross flow over the tube bank with increasing
longitudinal pitch ratio from 1.6 to 2.1. Buyruk [5] performed a numerical study of heat transfer characteristics on tandem cylinders,
inline and staggered tube bank in the cross flow of air with a pitch ratio of 1.13 to 6. Xu and Zhou [6] also performed an experimental
study of the vortex formation and the Strouhal number in the wake of the two aligned identical cylinders at various pitch ratio and
Reynolds number. Olinto and others [7] performed studies on the characteristics of the flow in the first row of the tube bank with a
pitch ratio from 1.26 to 1.6 and confirm the bistable flow modes within the pitch ratio of 1.5 to 2. It has been observed that the flow
over the cylindrical tubes in case of the tube bank reports early separation of the fluid from the wall boundary, which is undesirable.
Further, the wake formation at the downstream reduces the heat transfer capacity by increasing the pressure drop within the tube

1
Corresponding author

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/22/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology. Received January 27, 2017;
Accepted manuscript posted August 17, 2017. doi:10.1115/1.4037637
2
Copyright (c) 2017 by ASME
bank. Therefore, the researchers were forced to make the use of non-bluff bodies, to enhance the heat transfer rate. Rocha and others
[8] numerically studied elliptical and circular sections in one and two row tubes and plate fin heat exchanger. The elliptic tubes and
plate fin heat exchangers were reported to have considerably better overall performance than circular one due to lower pressure drop
and higher fin efficiency of elliptic tubes and plate fin.
Ibrahim and Gomaa [9] studied experimentally and numerically thermo-fluid characteristics of elliptical tube bank in cross
flow. Their Reynolds number varied in range of 5600 to 40000 and angle of attack varied from 0 to 150 degrees. The elliptic tube
bank at zero angle of attack was reported to have the maximum thermal performance. Using elliptic tube arrangement in heat
exchangers was also reported to lead to energy conservation. Lam and others [10] studied effects of wavy cylindrical tubes in a
staggered tube bank. They used experimental measurement and large eddy simulation technique. Their Reynolds number varied in
range of 6800 to 13400. Their results showed that by using wavy tube, drag coefficient was reduced and the fluctuating lift was
suppressed. Du and others [11] carried on experimental studies on the air inlet angle of the air side performance for cross flow oval
tube heat exchangers of double row tubes and three 6 row tubes. The air inlet angle of 60 and 45 degrees was best for low and high
Reynolds number in case of double row tube heat exchanger, while 90 degree air inlet angle was best for three row heat exchanger.

d
Wang and others [12] carried on three-dimensional numerical simulations of flow and heat transfer characteristics in smooth wavy

ite
fin and elliptical tube heat exchanger using different vortex generators. It was found that the attack angle of the vortex significantly
affected the thermal performance of the elliptical tubes. Moreover, Sun and others [13] numerically compared the overall thermal
performance of the elliptical and circular finned tube condensers. It was found that the increase of 3.6% to 6.7% in the coefficient

ed
of performance (COP) was observed by using elliptical tubes. Toolthaisong and others [14] studied the effect of attack angles and
aspect ratio on the air side thermal and pressure drop of cross flow heat exchanger in a staggered arrangement. The heat transfer
was maximum and minimum for the attack angle of 90 and 0 degrees for 0.18 aspect ratio. The aspect ratio 0.18 provided the

py
maximum area normal to flow attack.
As Nouri-Borujerdi and Lavasani [15] experimentally studied convective heat transfer from a cam shaped tube in cross flow.

Co
Their Reynolds number and angle of attack varied in ranges of 0 to 180 degrees and 15000 to 27000, respectively. Their results
show that maximum thermal performance of cam shaped tube is at angle of zero, and in comparison to circular tube, cam shaped
tube had larger thermal hydraulic performance. Tang and others [15] experimentally and numerically studied airside heat transfer
and friction factor of five types of fin and tube heat exchanger in Reynolds number in range of 4000 to 10000. Their results show
ot
that by using vortex generators with higher angle of attack and smaller height, overall performance of heat exchanger will be
improved. The further research on the aerodynamic profile along the tube continues, Lavasani and others [17] and Bayat and others
tN
[18] develop a new cam profile cross section of the tube in the cross flow tube bank. They performed an experimental study of heat
transfer from aligned and staggered cam shaped tube bank in inverse aerodynamic direction for ReD from 27000 to 42500. The
results indicate the pressure drop of 93-95% and 92-93% in the friction factor of the cam shaped tubes as compared to circular tubes
rip

aligned and staggered arrangements, respectively. The thermal performance is also about 6 and 5-6 times greater than that of the
circular tubes. Therefore, the investigation of the shape and the placement of tubes in heat exchangers are important.
The present study involves the detailed study of heat transfer, friction factor and factors affecting the performance evaluation
sc

criteria of cam shaped tube banks in aerodynamic and inverse aerodynamic directions, and that of elliptical tube banks with two
aligned and staggered arrangements that are subject to cross flow of air for Reeq from 11500 to 18500. The results are also compared
with the experimental results of circular tube bank with aligned and staggered arrangements obtained by Lavasani and others [17,
nu

18].

2. Computational Domain
Ma

2.1. Geometry
In all tube banks of the present study, the distance between the upper and lower tubes to the upper and lower walls of the test is 90
S S
mm. The transverse pitch ratio T = 1.25 is 28.05 mm and the logical pitch ratio L = 2 is 44.88 mm. The length of all tubes is
Deq Deq
ed

310 mm. The number of the tubes in aligned and staggered arrangements is 16 and 14, respectively. The geometry and arrangements
of the tube banks are as follows:
pt

2.1.1. The cam shaped tube bank

Figure 1 shows the cross section profile of the cam shaped tube that comprised some parts of two circles with two arcs segments
ce

tangent to them with the same dimension as studied by Lavasani and others [17, 18]. The tube diameters are d = 8 and D = 16 mm
where distance between their centers is l = 15.75 mm.
Ac

Figure 1. Cam profile of tube

Because the cam shaped tube banks are not geometric symmetric in the flow directions, both inverse aerodynamic and aerodynamic
directions were used in this study. The 2-D aligned and staggered arrangements of the cam shaped tubes, in aerodynamic direction
are presented in Figure 2.

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/22/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology. Received January 27, 2017;
Accepted manuscript posted August 17, 2017. doi:10.1115/1.4037637
3
Copyright (c) 2017 by ASME

(a) (b)
Figure 2. Cam shaped tube bank in aerodynamic direction with: (a) aligned and (b) staggered arrangements

2.1.2. The elliptical tube bank

d
Figure 3 shows the cross section profile of the elliptical tube. To compare the tubes, the perimeter of the cam shaped, elliptical, and
circular tubes needs to be equal. The perimeter of the elliptical tubes is calculated from the following approximate equation given

ite
by Ramanujan [19]. In this equation “a” is semi-major axis and “b” is semi-minor axis that are equal to 12.5475 and 9.8086 mm,
respectively.

ed
𝐶 ≈ 𝜋 [3(𝑎 + 𝑏) − √(3𝑎 + 𝑏) + (𝑎 + 3𝑏)] (1)

py
Co
Figure 3. Elliptical profile of tube
2.2. Mesh generation
The type of mesh used in all tube banks of this study is hexahedral-cooper. The meshes are produced by GAMBIT 2.4.6 software.
The illustrations of 2-D mesh for cam shaped tube bank in inverse aerodynamic direction in x-y surface are provided in the Figure
4. ot
tN
rip
sc

(a) (b)
nu

Figure 4. Mesh around the cam shaped tube bank in inverse aerodynamic direction with: (a) aligned (b) staggered arrangements
Ma

2.3. Boundary Conditions

Flow speed varies in the tube bank. Therefore, a reference velocity is needed for calculating Reynolds number. In this study,
Reynolds number is calculated based on velocity of free fluid flow. For comparing heat transfer from each tube in tube bank with
single tube in cross flow, Reynolds number is defined with the following equation:
ed

ρV∞ Deq
Reeq = (2)
μ
Where Deq is the diameter of an equivalent circular tube whose perimeter is approximately equal to that of the cam shaped and
pt

elliptical tubes.
C
Deq = = 22.44 mm
π
ce

The physical properties of the fluid in average temperature of free stream and tube surface is equal to:
(T +T )
Tf = s ∞ (3)
Ac

2
This equation is used in numerical simulation. Density, dynamic viscosity, thermal conductivity and specific heat at constant
pressure of air fluid are as follows:
kg kg W J
ρ𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 1.2 𝜇𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 1.92 × 10−5 𝑘𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 0.0242 Cp = 1006
m3 m. s m. K 𝑎𝑖𝑟 kg. K
For inlet boundary condition, the inlet velocity is used. Reynolds numbers used in the present study are 11500, 14000, 15500, 16500
m
and 18500. The inlet velocity of air flow based on the equation (2) is 8.19, 9.98, 11.05, 11.76 and 13.19 , respectively. The inlet
s
temperature of air flow is 298 K. For the outlet boundary condition of the flow, pressure outlet with gauge pressure is used. All tube
banks are assumed inside a channel. Wall boundary condition is used for the surfaces of the channel and no-slip condition over the
walls of channel is applied. Moreover, heat flux of the walls is considered zero. Wall boundary condition is used for the surfaces of
tubes. The temperature of the tubes surface is constant which is equal to 352 K. The boundary condition for the cam shaped tube
bank in inverse aerodynamic direction with staggered arrangement is presented in Figure 5.

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/22/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology. Received January 27, 2017;
Accepted manuscript posted August 17, 2017. doi:10.1115/1.4037637
4
Copyright (c) 2017 by ASME

Figure 5. Boundary condition over the domain and around the cam shaped tube bank in inverse aerodynamic direction with staggered
arrangement

d
2.4. Numerical methods

ite
For steady state and incompressible condition, the transport equation for the conservation of mass, momentum, and energy are as
follows:
∂u ∂v ∂w

ed
+ + =0 (4)
∂x ∂y ∂z

∂u ∂u ∂u 1 ∂P μ ∂2 u ∂2 u ∂2 u

py
𝑢 +v +w =− + ( + + ) (5)
∂x ∂y ∂z ρ ∂x ρ ∂x2 ∂y2 ∂z2
∂v ∂v ∂v 1 ∂P μ ∂2 y ∂2 y ∂2 y
u +v +w =− + ( + + ) (6)
∂x ∂y ∂z ρ ∂y ρ ∂x2 ∂y2 ∂z2

Co
∂w ∂w ∂w 1 ∂P μ ∂2 w ∂2 w ∂2 w
𝑢 +v +w =− + ( + + ) (7)
∂x ∂y ∂z ρ ∂z ρ ∂x2 ∂y2 ∂z2

∂T ∂T ∂T ∂2 T ∂2 T ∂2 T
𝑢 +v +w = α( + + ) ot (8)
∂x ∂y ∂z ∂x2 ∂y2 ∂z2
In the above mentioned equation, 𝜌 is the density of the working fluid air, P is the fluid pressure, μ is the dynamic viscosity, while
tN
𝛼 and T indicates thermal diffusivity and temperature of the fluid. The SST k − ω turbulence model (shear–stress transport k − ω)
is used in the present simulation. The turbulence model is the simple and complete form of two equation Reynolds–averaged Navier-
Stoke (RANS) based turbulence model. The model combines the k-omega turbulence model and k-epsilon turbulence model such
rip

that the k − ω is used in the inner region of the boundary layer and switches to the k − ε in the free shear flow. According to
Hoffmann and Chiang [20], the SST k − ω model often merit it for its good behavior in adverse pressure gradients and separating
flow The turbulence model is based on transport equation for the turbulent kinetic energy (k) and the specific dissipation rate (ω).
sc

For steady state condition, k and 𝜔 in the fluid flow can be expressed in the Cartesian co-ordinates as:
∂k ∂ω
∂(ρkui ) ∂ (Γk ∂xi ) ∂(ρωui ) ∂ (Γω ∂xi )
nu

= + Gk − Yk + Sk = + Gω − Yω + Sω
∂xi ∂xi ∂xi ∂xi (9)

In the above equations, Gk represents generation of turbulent kinetic energy due to mean velocity gradients, Gω generation of the
Ma

specific dissipation rate. Sk and Sω are the user defined source term. Yk and Yω represent the dissipation of k and ω due to
turbulence. Γk and Γω are effective diffusion coefficient k and 𝜔 which are determined by the following equation:
μt μt
Γk = μ + Γω = μ +
σk σω (10)
ed

In the above equations, 𝜇𝑘 is viscosity turbulence and σk and σω are turbulent Prandtl number. In the SST k − ω turbulence model,
it is assumed that viscosity turbulence is related to k and 𝜔. Thus due to the above-listed parameter, SST k − ω turbulent model
pt

receptive to the effect of the eddies behind tubes, SST k − ω turbulent model which is based on recirculation of the fluid is selected
as it is more effective than any other two-equation model for this particular analysis.
ce

2.4.1. Discretization and parameters of numerical solutions

Computational grid information is imported from GAMBIT in ANSYS FLUENT 16.2 software. The three-dimensional numerical
Ac

simulation is used for solving the Navier-Stokes and energy equations. The present work aimed at analyzing the heat transfer and
friction factor around the tube banks. It has also been assumed that the flow is steady and the working fluid air is incompressible
because the Mach number of the flow during the peak Reynolds number of 18500 is less than the threshold value of 0.3 in all tube
banks. To solve the equations, the Pressure-Based algorithm is used. The governing equations for momentum, Turbulent Kinetic
energy, specific dissipation rate, and energy are discretized with the second-order upwind scheme and for pressure is also discretized
with standard algorithm. The Implicit Method for Pressure-Linked Equation (SIMPLE) algorithm is used to couple the pressure and
velocity components. The convergence criteria of the scaled residual are of the order of 10−4 for the continuity and momentum, 10−6
for energy, 10−3 for k and 𝜔 parameters.

3. Computation of Average Nusselt Number and Friction Factor

The heat transfer coefficient h is defined in terms of heat transfer rate and temperature difference, which is determined by the
numerical simulation as:
Q̇w
h= (11)
As (Ts −T∞ )

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/22/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology. Received January 27, 2017;
Accepted manuscript posted August 17, 2017. doi:10.1115/1.4037637
5
Copyright (c) 2017 by ASME

Where Q̇w is the rate of heat transfer from the tube to the air, As is the surface area of the tube, Ts is the surface temperature of the
tube, and T∞ is the free stream temperature. However the average Nusselt number of the tubes is calculated from:
Q̇w
̅̅̅̅ave =
Nu (12)
πNLk(Ts −T∞ )
Where N and L are the number of tubes in the tube bank and the length of the tubes, respectively. Kreith and Bohn [21] used the
following equation for the calculation of friction factor:
∆P
f=1 2
(13)
N ρ(Vmax )
2 L
Where ΔP and NL represent difference between the pressure at inlet and the exit of the tube banks, number of transvers rows,
respectively. The Performance Evaluation Criteria (PEC) of noncircular tube banks heat exchanger is defined by comparing the
performance of test tubes with the circular tube bank, which is proposed by Webb [22] and is defined as:
Nuave cam Nuave ellip
Nuave cir Nuave cir
PEC = PEC =

d
1 1
fcam 3 fellip 3 (14)
( ) ( )
fcir

ite
fcir
The Webb efficiency is the measure of heat transfer rate of noncircular to circular tube banks to that of friction factor for the
noncircular over the circular tube banks for same Reynolds number.

ed
4. Validation of Numerical Scheme and Grid Independency
4.1. Grid Independency

py
Grid Independency is used to find the optimal grid, that is, the computation is not related to the domain of grid. The grid system
comprises of three different grid sizes and the average Nusselt number is computed for each all tube banks. Table 1 (a) indicates
grid independency test for cam shaped tube bank in inverse aerodynamic direction with aligned arrangement. The grid system

Co
comprises of three different grid sizes containing 895950, 1505220 and 2154320 cells. For grid size between 1505220 and 2154320,
the error percent is equal to 0.2%. With respect to computation time, the grid size containing 1505220 cells is selected. Table 1 (b)
also indicates grid independency test for cam shaped tube bank in inverse aerodynamic direction with staggered arrangement.
ot
Because of the above mentioned problem, the grid size containing 1445820 cells is selected. The number of computational grid cells
for cam shaped tube bank in aerodynamic direction with aligned and staggered arrangements and also elliptical tube bank with
aligned and staggered arrangements are 1439640, 1449840, 1454650 and 1520200, respectively.
tN

Table 1. Grid Independency for cam shaped tube bank in inverse aerodynamic direction with: (a) aligned and (b) staggered arrangements.
(a) (b)
rip

The number of Relative The number of Relative

𝐍𝐮𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐍𝐮𝐚𝐯𝐞
computational grid cells difference (%) computational grid cells difference (%)
895950 75.2579 - 739560 82.8996 -
sc

1505220 77.9195 1445820 84.5805

0.2 0.2
2154320 78.1277 2068000 84.7770
nu

Table 2. Grid Independency for cam shaped tube bank in aerodynamic direction with: (a) aligned and (b) staggered arrangements.
(a) (b)
The number of Relative The number of Relative
Ma

𝐍𝐮𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐍𝐮𝐚𝐯𝐞
computational grid cells difference (%) computational grid cells difference (%)
810060 72.0964 - 844120 78.4148 -
1439640 74.4505 1449840 79.4411
1.9 0.2
2023750 75.8874 2053940 79.6666
ed

Table 3. Grid Independency for elliptical tube bank with: (a) aligned and (b) staggered arrangements.
(a) (b)
pt

The number of Relative The number of Relative

𝐍𝐮𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐍𝐮𝐚𝐯𝐞
computational grid cells difference (%) computational grid cells difference (%)
ce

907320 82.0856 - 912120 90.0499 -

1454650 84.5369 1520200 91.7916
1.2 0.7
2162510 85.5735 2128280 92.4946
Ac

4.2. Validation of numerical results

In order to validate the results of the present study, the obtained results are compared with those of Lavasani and others [17, 18].
These results are presented in the Figure 6. In aligned and staggered arrangements, maximum variation was 6.9% and 7.2% at Reeq
= 11500, respectively. In experimental results, the uncertainty of Nusselt number varied in range of 3-7% for aligned arrangement.
Also, for staggered arrangement, the uncertainty Nusselt number varied in range of 2-6%. Because the convergence criteria of the
scaled residual are of the order of 10−4 for the continuity and momentum, 10−6 for energy, 10−3 for k and 𝜔 parameters are small,
differences between experimental and numerical results can be ignored. It can be concluded that the present numerical simulation
which makes use of SST k − ω model is in good agreement with the experimental results.

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/22/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology. Received January 27, 2017;
Accepted manuscript posted August 17, 2017. doi:10.1115/1.4037637
6
Copyright (c) 2017 by ASME

100 100

90 Experimental results [17] Result of the present study 90 Exprimental results [18] Results of the present study

80 80

Nuave
Nuave

70 70

60 60

50 50

40 40
11500 12500 13500 14500 15500 16500 17500 18500 11500 12500 13500 14500 15500 16500 17500 18500

d
Reeq Reeq
(a) (b)

ite
Figure 6. Comparison of average Nusselt number in cam shaped tube bank in inverse aerodynamic direction with: (a) aligned and (b) staggered
arrangements obtained from experimental results and results of the present study

ed
5. Results
The contour of static pressure for the cam shaped tube bank in inverse aerodynamic direction in Reeq = 18500 and surface x-y is

py
presented in Figure 7. The maximum static pressure occurs in front of the tubes of the first column that is in line with the fluid. In
aligned and staggered arrangements, cam shaped tube bank in aerodynamic direction, static pressure is greater than that of cam
shaped tube bank in inverse aerodynamic direction because the frontal surface over which the fluid flow passes is bigger. Therefore,

Co
the static pressure in elliptical tube banks is greater than those of cam shaped tube banks in both directions of aligned and staggered
arrangements.

ot
tN
rip
sc

(a) (b)
Figure 7. The contour of static pressure for Reeq = 18500 around cam shaped tube bank in inverse aerodynamic direction with: (a) aligned and
(b) staggered arrangements in x-y surface
nu

The contour of velocity of magnitude for the cam shaped tube bank in aerodynamic direction in Reeq = 18500 and surface x-y is
presented in Figure 8. The minimum surface between tubes occurs in transverse surface. As a result, the maximum velocity occurs
Ma

there. Transverse surface in elliptical tube bank is smaller than that of cam shaped tube bank. Therefore, the maximum velocity of
elliptical tube bank is greater than that of cam shaped tube bank.
ed
pt
ce
Ac

(a) (b)
Figure 8. The contour of velocity of magnitude for Reeq = 18500 around cam shaped tube bank in aerodynamic direction with: (a) aligned and
(b) staggered arrangements in x-y surface

The pathline of the fluid for the elliptical tube bank in Reeq = 18500 and surface x-y is presented in Figure 9. The velocity is negative
behind the tubes that is due to the eddies. The flow past over the tubes generate the turbulence in the fluid flow, across the tube
bank. Therefore eddies are formed behind the tubes. Based on the results obtained for the Reynolds number in the range of 11500
to 18500, it is found that the intensity of the turbulence increases with the increase in the Reynolds number for the fluid flow. The
higher intensity eddy increases the turbulence in the fluid flow. This is often increases heat transfer rate and higher pressure drop of
the tube banks.

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/22/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology. Received January 27, 2017;
Accepted manuscript posted August 17, 2017. doi:10.1115/1.4037637
7
Copyright (c) 2017 by ASME

(a) (b)
Figure 9. The pathline of flow for Reeq = 18500 around elliptical tube bank with: (a) aligned and (b) arrangements in x-y surface

In Figure 10, the variations of the friction factor for the tube banks with aligned and staggered arrangements are presented. It is clear

d
from the figure that the friction factor is maximum in case of the circular tube banks. The friction factor of the cam shaped tube

ite
bank in aerodynamic direction is higher than that of inverse aerodynamic direction. The minimum value of friction factor is also
observed in the elliptical tube banks. Based on the obtained results, with the increase of Reynolds number from 11500 to 18500, the
friction factor for circular tube bank, cam shaped tube banks in inverse aerodynamic and aerodynamic directions, and elliptical tube

ed
bank with aligned arrangement decrease 7.4%, 5.9%, 2.3% and 3.8%, respectively. For staggered arrangement, the friction factor
of circular tube bank, cam shaped tube banks in inverse aerodynamic and aerodynamic directions, and elliptical tube bank decrease
10.7%, 6.2%, 5.6 % and 8.1%, respectively. This is often due to the dominant pressure force. Also, with the comparison to circular

py
tube bank, the decrease of friction factor for cam shaped tube bank in inverse aerodynamic and aerodynamic directions and elliptical
tube bank with aligned arrangement are about 96.2%, 93.5% and 96.4%, respectively. Moreover, the decrease of friction factor of

Co
cam shaped tube bank in inverse aerodynamic and aerodynamic directions and elliptical tube bank with staggered arrangement are
about 95.9%, 94.9%, and 97%, respectively.
0.8 0.8

0.7 0.7

0.6
ot 0.6
Cam shaped tube bank in aerodynamic direction
tN
0.5 Cam shaped tube bank in aerodynamic direction
0.5

0.4 Cam shaped tube bank in inverse aerodynamic direction Cam shaped tube bank in inverse aerodynamic direction
f

0.4
f
rip

0.3 Circular tube bank [17] 0.3 Circular tube bank [18]

0.2
Elliptical tube bank 0.2 Elliptical tube bank
sc

0.1
0.1

0
11500 12500 13500 14500 15500 16500 17500 18500 0
11500 12500 13500 14500 15500 16500 17500 18500
Reeq
nu

Reeq
(a) (b)
Figure. 10. Friction factor of tube banks with: (a) aligned and (b) staggered arrangements Vs Reynolds number
Ma

The contour of static temperature for the elliptical tube bank for Reeq = 18500 and x-y surface is presented in Figure 11. The
temperature of the air in the cross flow across the tube bank increases, by gaining the heat from the tube surface. Because of low
longitudinal pitch, the temperature of fluid within the tubes increases. Therefore, the temperature difference of surface tube and that
ed

of fluid decreases and heat transfer from surface tube decreases. As it is obvious in Figure 9, due to the high-intensity eddy formation,
the elliptical tube banks are observed to have more heat transfer than the cam shaped tube banks in both directions.
pt
ce
Ac

(a) (b)
Figure 11. The contour of static temperature for Reeq = 18500 around elliptical tube bank with: aligned and (b) staggered arrangements in x-y
surface

The variations of average Nusselt numbers around tube banks with aligned and staggered arrangements are presented in Figure 12.
In both arrangements, the value of average Nusselt number in the circular tube bank is the maximum. The Nusselt number of
elliptical tube bank is also more than that of the cam shaped tube banks in inverse aerodynamic and aerodynamic directions,
respectively. Based on the obtained results, with the increase of Reynolds number from 11500 to 18500 with aligned arrangement,
the average Nusselt number increases in circular tube bank, cam shaped tube bank inverse aerodynamic and aerodynamic directions,
and elliptical tube bank approximately 32%, 33.6%, 33%, and 35.1%, respectively. For staggered arrangement, the increase of
Reynolds number in circular tube bank, cam shaped tube bank inverse aerodynamic and aerodynamic directions, and elliptical tube

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/22/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology. Received January 27, 2017;
Accepted manuscript posted August 17, 2017. doi:10.1115/1.4037637
8
Copyright (c) 2017 by ASME
bank about 30%, 32.4%, 30.1% and 32.1%, respectively. In aligned arrangement, the decrease of Nusselt number of cam shaped
tube banks in inverse aerodynamic and aerodynamic directions, and elliptical tube bank are approximately 50%, 52.9%, and 46.9
%, respectively. Moreover, in staggered arrangement, the decrease of Nusselt number of cam shaped tube banks in inverse
aerodynamic and aerodynamic directions, and elliptical tube bank are approximately 47.9%, 50.8% and 43.6 %, respectively.
180 180

160 160

140 140

Cam shaped tube bank in aerodynamin direction

120
Cam shaped tube bank in aerodynamic direction 120
Nuave

Nuave
Cam shaped tube bank in inverse aerodynamic direction
Cam shaped tube bank in inverse aerodynamic direction
100 100 Circular tube bank [18]
Circular tube bank [17]
Elliptical tube bank

d
Elliptical tube bank
80 80

ite
60 60

40 40

ed
11500 12500 13500 14500 15500 16500 17500 18500 11500 12500 13500 14500 15500 16500 17500 18500
Reeq Reeq
(a) (b)

py
Figure 12. Average Nusselt number Vs Reynolds number for tube bank with: (a) aligned and (b) staggered arrangements

Figure 13 present the PEC of tube banks. In both arrangements, the performance evaluation criteria of elliptical tube bank is higher

Co
than that of cam shaped in inverse aerodynamic and aerodynamic directions, respectively. For aligned arrangement, PEC of the cam
shaped in inverse aerodynamic and aerodynamic directions, and elliptical tube bank are approximately 1.4, 1.1 and 1.6 times more
than that of circular tube bank, respectively. For staggered arrangement, PEC of cam shaped in inverse aerodynamic and
aerodynamic directions, and elliptical tube bank are approximately 1.5, 1.3, and 1.8 times more than that of circular tube bank,
ot
respectively. As the result, PEC of the staggered arrangement of all tube banks is higher than of aligned arrangement. Moreover, in
both arrangements, with the increase of Reynolds number from 11500 to 18500, the amount of PEC does not change so much. In
tN
the present study, the PEC of the elliptical tube bank with the staggered arrangement is the highest due to the increase in the Nusselt
number along with the decrease in the friction factor with the increase Reynolds number.
2 2
rip

Cam shaped tube bank in arodynamic direction

1.8 Cam shaped tube bank in inverse aerodynamic direction 1.8 Cam shaped tube bank in aerodynamic direction
Elliptical tube bank Cam shaped tube bank in inverse aerodynamic direction
sc

1.6 1.6 Elliptical tube bank

PEC

PEC
nu

1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2
Ma

1 1
11500 12500 13500 14500 15500 16500 17500 18500 11500 12500 13500 14500 15500 16500 17500 18500
Reeq Reeq
ed

(a) (b)
Figure 13. PEC of tube banks with: (a) aligned and (b) staggered arrangements Vs Reynolds number
pt

6. Conclusion
ce

Heat transfer and the friction factor of the cam shaped tube banks in aerodynamic and inverse aerodynamic directions and that of
the elliptical tube bank, with aligned and staggered arrangements in cross flow have been studied numerically and compared
experimentally with circular tube bank with the same arrangements. The dependency of heat transfer and friction factor of fluid
Ac

flow on the shape and arrangement of the tubes and the Reynolds number is clear from the results. Some of the important aspects
of the present study are as follows:

1. In both arrangements, the maximum the average Nusselt number is observed in the circular tube banks. The average Nusselt
number of elliptical tube bank is higher as compared to that of cam shaped tube banks in inverse aerodynamic and aerodynamic
directions. Also the average Nusselt number of all tube banks with staggered arrangement is higher than that of aligned arrangement.
Moreover by increasing the Reynolds number, the amount of the average Nusselt number increases in all tube banks.
2. The maximum friction factor is found in the circular tube banks. The variation between the friction factor of the circular tube
bank and those of other tube banks is significant. The minimum friction factor is also observed in the elliptical tube bank. Moreover,
by increasing the Reynolds number, the friction factor in all tube banks is reduced in small values.
3. The performance evaluation criteria of the elliptical tube bank, in two arrangements, is higher than that of the cam shaped tube
banks in inverse aerodynamic and aerodynamic directions, respectively. In all tube banks, the performance evaluation criteria of the

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/22/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology. Received January 27, 2017;
Accepted manuscript posted August 17, 2017. doi:10.1115/1.4037637
9
Copyright (c) 2017 by ASME
staggered arrangement is also higher than that of aligned arrangement. Therefore, the elliptical tube bank with staggered arrangement
has the highest PEC in this study.

References
[1] Aiba, S., Hajime, T., 1982, “Heat transfer around tubes in in-line tube banks”, Bulletin of the JSME, 25, 919-924.
[2] Aiba, S., Tsuchida, H., Terukazu, O., 1982, “Heat transfer around tubes in staggered tube banks”, Bulletin of the JSME, 25, 927-933.
[3] Krishne Gowda, Y., Patnaik, B. S. V., Aswatha Narayana, P., Seetharamu, K., 1998, “Finite element simulation of transient laminar flow and
heat transfer past an in-line tube bank”, International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 19, 49-55.
[4] Balabani, S., Yianneskis, M., 1996, “An experimental study of the mean flow and turbulence structure of cross flow over tube bunks”,
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 210, 317-331.
[5] Buyruk, E., 2002, “Numerical study of heat transfer characteristics on tandem cylinders, in-line and staggered tube banks in cross flow of air”,
International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, 29, 355-366.
[6] Xu, G., Zhou, Y., 2004, “Strouhal Numbers in the wake of two in-line cylinders”, Experiments in Fluids, 37, 248-256.

d
[7] Olinto, C. R., Indrusiak, M.L.S., Endres, L. A. M., Moller, S. V., 2009, “Experimental study of the characteristics of the flow in the first rows

ite
of tube banks”, Nuclear Engineering and Design. 239, 2022-2034.
[8] Rocha, L. A. O., Saboya, F. E. M., Vargas, J. V. C., 1997, “A comparative study of elliptical and circular sections in one and two row tube
sand plate fin heat exchangers”, International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 18, 247-252.

ed
[9] Ibrahim, T. A., Gomaa, A., 2009, “Thermal performance criteria of elliptic tube bundle in cross flow”, International Journal of Thermal
Sciences, 48, 2148-2158.
[10] Lam, K., Lin, Y. F., Zou, L., Liu, Y., 2010, ”Experimental study and large eddy simulation of turbulent flow around tube bundles composed

py
of wavy and circular cylinders”, International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 31, 32-44.
[11] Du, X. P., Zeng, M., Dong, Z. Y., Wang, Q. W., 2014, “Experimental study of the effect of air inlet angle on the airside performance for cross
flow finned oval tube heat exchangers”, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, 52, 146-155.

Co
[12] Wang, Q., Lotfi, B., Zeng, M., Sunden, B., 2014, “3-D numerical investigation of flow and heat transfer characteristics in smooth wavy fin
and elliptical tube heat exchangers using new type vortex generators”, Energy, 73, 233-257.
[13] Sun, L., Yang, L., Shao, L. L., Zhang, C. L., 2015, “Overall thermal performance oriented numerical comparison between elliptical and
circular finned tube condensers, International Journal of Thermal Sciences, 89, 234-244.
[14] Toolthaisong, S., Kasayapanand, N., 2013, “Effect of attack angles on air side thermal and pressure drop of the cross flow heat exchangers
ot
with staggered tube arrangement”, Energy Procedia, 34, 417-429.
[15] Nouri-Borujerdi, A., Lavasani, A. M., 2007, “Experimental study of forced convection heat transfer from a cam shaped tube in cross flows”,
tN
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 50, 2605-2611.
[16] Tang, L. H., Zeng, M., Wang, Q. W., 2009, “Experimental and numerical investigation on airside performance of fin and tube heat exchangers
with various fin patterns”, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, 33, 818-827.
rip

[17] Lavasani, A. M., Bayat, H., Maarefdoost, T., 2014, “Experimental study of convective heat transfer from in-line cam shaped tube bank in
cross flow”, Applied Thermal Engineering, 65, 85-93.
[18] Bayat, H., Lavasani, A. M., Maarefdoost, T., 2014, “Experimental study of thermal-hydraulic performance of cam shaped tube bank
with staggered arrangement”, Energy Conversion and Management, 85, 470-476.
sc

[19] Ramanujan, S., 1914, “Modular equations and approximations to π”, Quarterly journal of pure and applied mathematics. 45, 350-372.
[20] Hoffmann, K. A., Chiang, S. T., 2000, “Computational fluid dynamics”. Volume 3, Publication of engineering education system, USA.
[21] Kreith, F., Bohn, M. S., 2001, “Principle of heat transfer”, 6th edition, Brooks/Cole, USA.
nu

[22] Webb, R. L., 1981, “Performance evaluation criteria for use of enhanced heat transfer surface in heat exchanger design”, International Journal
of Heat and Mass Transfer, 24 (4), 715-726.
Ma
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/22/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use