Chemical Engineering and Processing 45 (2006) 268–275

A new design approach for shell-and-tube heat exchangers using genetic

algorithms from economic point of view
Resat Selbaş a,∗ , Önder Kızılkan a , Marcus Reppich b
aS.D.Ü. Technical Education Faculty, Department of Mechanical Education, 32260 Isparta, Turkey
b Augsburg University of Applied Sciences, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Baumgartnerstr. 16, DE-86161 Augsburg, Germany
Received 20 February 2005; received in revised form 6 April 2005; accepted 8 July 2005
Available online 27 October 2005

Abstract
A heat exchanger is a device that is used to transfer heat between two or more fluids that are at different temperatures. Heat exchangers are
essential elements in a wide range of systems, including the human body, automobiles, computers, power plants, and comfort heating/cooling
equipment. The most commonly used type of heat exchanger is the shell-and-tube heat exchanger, the optimal design of which is the main objective
of this study.
A primary objective in the heat exchanger design is the estimation of the minimum heat transfer area required for a given heat duty, as it governs
the overall cost of the heat exchanger. However there is no concrete objective function that can be expressed explicitly as a function of design
variables and in fact many numbers of discrete combinations of the design variables are possible.
In the present study, genetic algorithms (GA) has been successfully applied for the optimal design of shell-and-tube heat exchanger by varying
the design variables: outer tube diameter, tube layout, number of tube passes, outer shell diameter, baffle spacing and baffle cut. LMTD method is
used to determine the heat transfer area for a given design configuration.
© 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Heat exchanger; Optimization; Genetic algorithm

1. Introduction A shell-and-tube heat exchanger is an extension of the

Heat exchangers are devices that facilitate heat transfer
between two fluids at different temperatures. In the majority
of heat exchangers, a solid wall separates the two fluids so that
they are not in direct contact with each other.
Shell-and-tube heat exchangers are probably the most com-
mon type of heat exchangers applicable for a wide range of
operating temperatures and pressures (Fig. 1). They have larger
ratios of heat transfer surface to volume than double-pipe heat
exchangers, and they are easy to manufacture in a large variety
of sizes and flow configurations. They can operate at high pres-
sures, and their construction facilitates disassembly for periodic
maintenance and cleaning. Shell-and-tube heat exchangers find
widespread use in refrigeration, power generation, heating and
air conditioning, chemical processes, manufacturing, and med-
ical applications.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 246 2111370; fax: +90 246 2371283.
E-mail address: selbas@tef.sdu.edu.tr (R. Selbaş).
double-pipe configuration. Instead of a single pipe within a
larger pipe, a shell-and-tube heat exchanger consists of a bundle
of pipes or tubes enclosed within a cylindrical shell. One fluid
flows through the tubes, and a second fluid flows within the space
between the tubes and the shell. As shown in Fig. 2, baffles are
placed along the tube bundle to force the fluid between the tubes
and shell to flow across the tubes. The turbulence induced by
this flow configuration yields higher heat-transfer coefficients
than flow parallel to the tubes.
The design of shell-and-tube heat exchangers including ther-
modynamic and fluid dynamic design, strength calculations, cost
estimation and optimization represents a complex process con-
taining an integrated whole of design rules, calculating methods
and empirical knowledge of various fields. At present various
commercial programs such as HTRI, HTFS, THERM and CC-
Therm are available. These tools allow designing and rating of
tubular heat exchangers however, they do not consist any opti-
mization strategies that are needed from industries’ point of
view. The application of optimization methods, when design-
ing heat exchangers, leads to the most cost-effective variant of

0255-2701/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cep.2005.07.004
 R. Selbaş et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 45 (2006) 268–275 269

performance evaluation [1–13]. Using genetic algorithm in this

field is a new and interesting technique.
In present study, logarithmic mean temperature difference
(LMTD) method is used to specify the characteristic dimensions
of shell-and-tube heat exchanger. Clearly use of LMTD method
is facilitated by knowledge of the hot and cold fluid inlet and
outlet temperatures, since LMTD may then be readily computed.
Fig. 1. Typical U-tube heat exchanger and shell side fluid flow. Problems for which these temperatures are known may be clas-
sified as heat exchanger design problems. Typically, the fluid
apparatus. The design of heat exchangers requires knowledge of inlet temperatures and flow rates, as well as a desired hot or cold
the allowable pressure drops of the streams that can be fully used. fluid outlet temperature, are prescribed. The design problem is
Information about allowable pressure drops are also required for then one of the selecting an appropriate heat exchanger type and
input data of the above mentioned software packages. Setting the determining the size, that is the heat transfer surface area, A and
allowable pressure drop from experience or technical intuition total costs including initial costs and operating and maintenance
can lead to a final solution far from the optimal design. costs.
In the present work, a new method using the genetic algo- The equations are given for I-type and U-type shell-and-tube
rithms is presented to find optimal design parameters of a shall- heat exchangers. This method is based upon Eq. (1) and depends
and-tube heat exchanger within allowable pressure drops. The on rapidly estimating values for Q, LMTD, F and K.
results are interesting even tough the authors used simplified Q
relations that are based on economic parameters and process A= (1)
KF LMTD
data with a sufficient accuracy.
For sensible heat transfer, the heat transfer rate is given by;
Pressure drop and heat transfer rates are interdependent quan-
tities and both of them essentially influence the capital and Q = ṁh Cp,h (Th,i − Th,o ) = ṁc Cp,c (Tc,o − Tc,i ) (2)
operating costs of any heat exchanging system. It is necessary
For the tube side heat transfer coefficient, first the flow veloc-
to suggest such dimensions of apparatus that results under given
ity for tube side is found.
economic conditions from optimal heat transfer and optimal
pressure drop. ṁ
π(di2 /4)ρ
Vi = NT
(3)
2. Approximate design method s
NT is the number of tubes and s is the number tube of passes,
Because of the complexity of rigorous design methods, it is which can be found approximately from the following equation
useful to have an estimation procedure that can quickly give [14–18]:
approximate dimensions of a heat exchanger for a specified ser-

vice. Such a method is given here for purposes of preliminary DG − 0.02 n
NT = C (4)
area estimation, plant layout, or checking the results of computer do
output. A short investigation of literature shows that, a number C and n are coefficients that are taking values according to flow
of studies on different types of heat exchangers have been under- arrangements and number of passes. For different arrangements
taken by various researches for system optimization, design and these coefficients are shown in Table 1.
Then Reynolds number is determined as follows:
Vdi
Re = (5)
ν
The heat transfer coefficient hi can be determined from the equa-
tion of Nusselt number [19,20]:
hi di
Nu = = 0.023Re0.8 Pr 0.4 (6)
k

Table 1
C and n coefficients
Triangular tube pitch, St = 1.25do
Number of passes 1 2 4 6 8
C 0.319 0.249 0.175 0.0743 0.0365
n 2.142 2.207 2.285 2.499 2.675
Square tube pitch, St = 1.25do
C 0.215 0.156 0.158 0.0402 0.0331
n 2.207 2.291 2.263 2.617 2.643
Fig. 2. Shell side fluid flow.
270 R. Selbaş et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 45 (2006) 268–275

Fig. 3. Triangular and square tube pitch arrangements.

For estimating the heat transfer coefficient on the shell The correction factor F for the flow configuration involved
side, first equivalent diameter is found. Equivalent diame- is found as a function of dimensionless temperatures ratios for
ter varies with the flow arrangements. For square tube pitch most flow configurations of interest [23,24].
[21]:  
√ 1−P
R +1
2 ln 1−PR
1.27 2 F=  √  (14)
De = (St − 0.785do2 ) (7a) R−1
ln 2−P(R+1−√R +1)
2
do
2−P(R+1+ R2 +1)
and for triangular tube pitch [21]:
where R is the correction coefficient and given by [23,24]:
1.10 2
De = (St − 0.917do2 ) (7b) R = Th,i − Th,o /Tc,o − Tc,i and P is the efficiency and given by
do P = Tc,o − Tc,i /Th,i − Tc,i .
The flow arrangements are shown schematically in Fig. 3.
Cross-sectional area normal to flow direction is determined 3. Pressure drop and cost estimation
from Eq. (8) [21]:
In all heat exchangers, there is close physical and economical
(St − do )eDG
As = (8) affinity between heat transfer and the pressure drop. For a con-
St stant heat capacity, in the heat exchanger that is to be designed,
Fluid velocity for the shell side can be obtained from [22]: increasing the flow velocities will cause a rise of the heat trans-
ṁ fer coefficient. In this case, with low investment costs, more
Vo = (9) compact heat exchanger designs with lower dimensions can be
ρAs
carried out. However, increase of the flow velocities will cause
Reynolds number for shell side flow:
VDe
Re = (10)
υ
and h from the Nusselt number [15]:

0.14
ho De µ
Nu = = j Re Pr1/3 (11)
k µ0
are found. Here, j is dimensionless thermal factor according to
Kern method and can be specified from Fig. 4.
The overall heat transfer coefficient K depends on both the
tubeside and shellside heat transfer coefficient and fouling resis-
tances by [21]:
1 do do xw 1
= + Rf,i + + Rf,o + (12)
K h i di di kw ho
where kw is the thermal conductivity of the tube wall material,
xw is the wall thickness of the tubes and Rf,i and Rf,o are fouling
resistances of inside and outside of the tube, respectively.
For the case study (I- and U-type shell-and-tube heat
exchangers), the flow between the adjacent baffles is consid-
ered as cross flow. The logarithmic mean temperature difference
LMTD is determined by:
(Th,i − Tc,o ) − (Th,o − Tc,i )
LMTD =   (13)
T −Tc,o Fig. 4. Dimensionless coefficient according to Kern method vs. Reynolds num-
ln Th,ih,o −Tc,i ber according to shell side equivalent diameter.
 R. Selbaş et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 45 (2006) 268–275 271

more pressure drops in the heat exchanger. For these pressure i is the interest rate, ec the rate of increase of energy costs, and
drops, more powerful pumps or fans are needed, this means tp is the operating period.
additional cost in the investment. For this reason, when design-
ing a heat exchanger, pressure drops must be considered with 4. Genetic algorithms: an overview
heat transfer and the best solution for the system must be found.
In the case study, tube side flow velocities are selected to be The basic principles of genetic algorithm (GA) were first
between 0.5 and 1.5 m/s, and the allowable pressure drops on proposed by Holland. It is inspired by the mechanism of natural
both sides are assumed to be about 105 bar [16]. selection where stronger individuals would likely be the winners
Tube side pressure drop in plain tubes is given below [15]: in a competing environment. Here, GA uses a direct analogy

  of such natural evolution. It presumes that a potential solution
L µ −m ρVi2 of a problem is an individual and can be represented by a set
Pb = s λ + 2.5 (16)
d i µ0 2 of parameters. These parameters, regarded as the genes of a
chromosome, can be structured by a string of values in binary
m is 0.14 for turbulent flow, λ is friction coefficient. This for-
form. A positive value, known as fitness value, is used to reflect
mulation is straightforward and quite accurate while tubes are
the degree of “goodness” of the chromosome, which is generally
smooth and clean.
correlated with the objective function of the problem.
Calculation of shell side pressure drop is implicit in the design
GA has three major applications, namely, intelligent search,
methods for heat transfer. Roughness has less effect on shell side
optimization and machine learning. Currently, GA is used along
pressure drop than on the tube side. For the case study, according
with neural nets and fuzzy logic for solving more complex
to Kern’s method, shell side pressure drop of a heat exchanger
problems. Because of their joint usage in many problems,
which has baffles [15]:
these together are often referred to by a generic name: “soft-


DG L ρVo2 µ −0.14 computing”.
PG = 8jf,k (16) A GA through a simple cycle of stages:
De e 2 µ0
where jf,k is the dimensionless pressure factor according to (1) Creation of a population of strings,
Kern’s method. (2) Evaluation of each string,
The final goal is to find the optimal design of the heat (3) Selection of best strings,
exchanger from an economic viewpoint. An economic assess- (4) Genetic manipulation to create population of strings.
ment allows a comparable estimation of various technical vari-
ants. Economic costs include initial costs and operating and The cycle of a GA is presented in Fig. 5.
maintenance costs. These costs are usually obtained by using Each cycle in GA produces a new generation of possible solu-
correlations given earlier experience of equipment that have been tions for a given problem. In the first phase, an initial population,
built. They depend on parameters like heat transfer area, allow- describing representatives of the potential solution, is created
able pressure drops, construction materials, etc. to initiate the search process. The elements of the population
The initial costs and operating and maintenance costs are are encoded into bit-strings, called chromosomes. The perfor-
determined from [21,25,26]: mance of the strings, often called fitness, is the evaluated with
IC = A × fd × C1 (17) the help of some functions, representing the constraints of the
problem. Depending on the fitness of the chromosomes, they
(Eb + EG ) × H × fe × C1 × C2
OC = (18) are selected for a subsequent genetic manipulation process. It
3600 × 1000 should be noted that the selection process is mainly responsible
and total cost:
TC = IC + OC
where E is the pumping power and can be determined from the
equation below [21,25,26]:
Pn ṁn
En = (19)
ρn η
η is the pump efficiency. The capital recovery factor and capital
investment factor are given by [21,25,26]:
i(1 + i)tp
C1 = (20)
(1 + i)s − 1
 tp
1+ec
1+i −1
C2 =   (21)
1 − 1+ec
1+i Fig. 5. The cycle of genetic algorithms.
272 R. Selbaş et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 45 (2006) 268–275
Fig. 6. A single point crossover after the 3rd bit position from the L.S.B.
for assuring survival of the best-fit individuals. After selection
of the population strings the genetic manipulation process con-
sisting of two steps is carried out. In the first step, the crossover
operation that recombines the bits (genes) of each two selected
strings (chromosomes) is executed. Various types of crossover
operators are found in the literature. The single point and two
points crossover operations are illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7,
respectively. The crossover points of any two chromosomes are
selected randomly. The second step in the genetic manipulation
process is termed mutation, where the bits at one or more ran-
domly selected positions of the chromosomes are altered. The
mutation process helps to overcome trapping at local maxima.
The offsprings produced by the genetic manipulation process
are the next population to be evaluated.
The cycle of evolution is repeated until a desired termination
criterion is reached. This criterion can be set by the number of
evolution cycles (computational runs), or the amount of variation
of individuals between different generations, or a pre-defined
value of fitness. In so doing, the generation pool will merge
where the final chromosome is emerged as the solution to the
problem of concern.
5. Optimal heat exchanger design problem
The problem representation in terms of a genetic code is one
of the key aspects of GA that leads to its success or failure. Binary
string representation for decision variables has been suggested
for GA problems in earlier studies. Since then, researchers have
considered many other representations for discrete, combinato-
rial problems. It is believed that Gray coding, is in fact better
for most practical problems than standard binary coding. Here,
Fig. 7. Two point crossover: one after the 4th and the other after the bit positions from the L.S.B.
the heat exchanger problem was represented as a large scale,
discrete, combinatorial optimization problem, with the solution
vector X containing elements xi , i varying from 1 to 6. Each xi
corresponds to a particular configuration choice for, tube outer
diameter and tube pitch, tube layout, number of tube passes, shell
outer diameter, baffle spacing and baffle cut, respectively. Thus
any choice of a vector X refers to a particular heat exchanger
design configuration. Following alternatives are considered:
X = {x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 }
• x1 : 14 choices of tube outer diameter data from the set. These
represent combinations of tube outer diameter ranging from
10 to 32 mm and tube pitch is 1.25 times the tube outer diam-
eter do .
• x2 : two choices of tube layout data. These include combina-
tions of tube arrangements triangular tube pitch or square tube
pitch.
• x3 : five types of shell choices involving “number of tube
passes”. These include combinations with 1–5 numbers of
tube passes.
• x4 : 14 choices of shell outer diameter data from the set. These
represent combinations of shell outer diameter ranging from
150 to 1200 mm.
• x5 : six types of baffle spacing choices. These include combi-
nations in the range 0.2–0.45 times the shell diameter.
• x6 : four choices of baffle cut in the range of 15–45%.
Based on these choices for design variables, the total number
of design combinations are 14 × 2 × 5 × 14 × 6 × 4 = 47,040, it
means that if an exhaustive search is to be performed it will take
 R. Selbaş et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 45 (2006) 268–275 273

Fig. 9. GA results.

Fig. 8. Solution method scheme. for this case study is found to be 2093 kW. The hot water is
assigned to the tubeside and the cold water to the shellside.
at the maximum 47,040 function evaluations before arriving at For the economic calculations, fd, unit cost of heat exchanger
the global minimum heat exchanger area. So the strategy which per area is assumed to be 25 $/m2 , fe, electric cost, 0.1 $/kWh for
takes few function evaluations is the best one. Turkey, H, annual operating period, 17,280,000 s/year, I, interest
Table 2 rate, 60%, ec, rate of increase of energy costs, 50%, tp, total
Optimal heat exchanger design problem [13] operating period, 10 years. The pump efficiencies are assumed
to be 70%.
Minimum cost (X)
X ∈ {x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 , x5 , x6 , x7 } 7. Results and discussion
Where
x1 = {1, 2, . . ., 14} The objective function for this case study is the heat transfer
x2 = {1, 2}
x3 = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
area. Primary goal in heat exchanger design is the estimation of
x4 = {1, 2, . . ., 14} the minimum heat transfer area required for a given heat duty,
x5 = {1, 2, . . ., 6} as it governs the overall cost of the heat exchanger. In the case
x6 = {1, 2, 3, 4} study, GA was used to optimize the design of heat exchangers for
Subject to a given duty based on the total heat transfer area required, subject
Feasibility constraints, pressure drop
to the pressure constraints and process infeasibilities. The test
Considering total heat exchanger cost and as the objective case has 47,040 combination design configurations. For the case
function, genetic algorithm technique is applied to find the opti- study, minimum heat exchanger cost for the above heat duty is
mum design configuration. Solution method scheme for the case found to be 1431.21 $ by using GA. Fig. 9 shows GA iterations
study is given in Fig. 8. As seen from the scheme, in the first against the heat exchanger costs and Fig. 10 shows areas found
step, GA procedure selects design parameters randomly. After by GA against initial costs.
that, it generates initial population and evaluates each of them.
Pressure drops are estimated and if it is within the accept-
able constrains, the final solution occurs. The procedure goes
on until optimum configuration is found within pressure drop
constrain.

6. A case study

As a case study the following problem is considered.

Design a heat exchanger for the following duty: 20 kg/s of
water leaves from the base of a system at 75 ◦ C and is to be cooled
to 50 ◦ C by exchange with water coming from city pipeline at
20 ◦ C and exit temperature of the water is assumed to be 35 ◦ C.
The fluids’ physical properties are specified from thermophysi-
cal property tables for water according to the (Ti − To )/2 average
temperatures. By performing the energy balance, the heat duty Fig. 10. Variation of initial costs with area.
274 R. Selbaş et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 45 (2006) 268–275

of the performance of genetic algorithm. From this study we

conclude that the combinatorial algorithms such as genetic algo-
rithm provide significant improvement in the optimal designs
compared to the traditional designs. Genetic algorithm applica-
tion for determining the global minimum heat exchanger cost
is significantly faster and has an advantage over other methods
in obtaining multiple solutions of same quality. Thus, providing
more flexibility to the designer.

Appendix A. Nomenclature

A heat transfer area (m2 )

C experimental coefficient for determining number of
tubes
Fig. 11. Film heat transfer in relation to total costs. Cp specific heat (J/kg ◦ C)
C1 capital recovery factor
C2 capital investment factor
d tube diameter (mm)
D shell diameter (mm)
e distance between baffles (mm)
ec rate of increase of energy costs (%)
E pumping power (W)
fd unit cost of heat exchanger per area ($/m2 )
fe electric cost ($/kWh)
F configuration correction factor
h heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 ◦ C)
H annual operating period (s/year)
i interest rate (%)
IC initial cost ($)
Fig. 12. Shell side fluid velocity in relation to costs. j thermal factor according to Kern method
jf,k pressure factor according to Kern method
A shell-and-tube exchanger with tubes of 16 mm in a 1.25 mm k thermal conductivity (W/m ◦ C)
square pitch arrangement with shell diameter of 1.1 mm and with K overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K)
double pass TEMA will have the lowest heat exchanger area; LMTD logarithmic mean temperature difference (◦ C)
with a 35% baffle cut and 45% baffle spacing. The tube side and ṁ flow rate (kg/s)
shell side pressure drops for this configuration are 3763.8 and n experimental coefficient
1976.2 Pa, respectively, and within the specifications. NT number of tubes
It can be observed from he results that, the optimum solu- Nu Nusselt number
tion occurs when the magnitude of heat transfer coefficients are OC operating and maintenance cost ($)
close to each other. The values of h1 and h2 show small varia- P efficiency
tions in some points and big variations in other points (Fig. 11). P pressure drop (Pa)
These values were calculated for every selection of GA and the Pr Prandtl number
total costs were estimated. Fig. 12 shows the shell side fluid Q heat transfer rate (W)
velocity in relation to total costs. As seen from the figure, with R correction coefficient
the increase of shell side fluid velocity, operation and mainte- Re Reynolds number
nance costs increase. Initial costs show nearly a straight line. Rf fouling resistance (m2 K/W)
This means, it does not dependent on shell side fluid velocity. S number of tube passes
St tube pitch (mm)
8. Conclusions tp operating period (year)
T stream temperature (◦ C)
This paper demonstrates successful application of genetic V flow velocity (m/s)
algorithm for the optimal design of shell-and-tube heat exchang- x wall thickness of the tubes (mm)
ers. Approximate design methods for shell-and-tube have been
investigated and a generalized procedure has been developed Greek letters
to run the GA algorithm and to find the global minimum heat η pump efficiency
exchanger area. A case study has been made for examination λ Friction coefficient
 R. Selbaş et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 45 (2006) 268–275 275

µ dynamic viscosity (Pa s) [8] R.L. Cornelissen, G.G. Hirs, Thermodynamic optimization of a heat
ν kinematic viscosity (m2 /s) exchanger, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 42 (1999) 951–959.
ρ density (kg/m3 ) [9] M.C. Tayal, Y. Fu, Optimal Design of Heat Exchangers: A Genetic Algo-
rithm, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carnegie
Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Subscripts [10] N.H. Abu-Hamdeh, Control of a liquid–liquid heat exchanger, Heat Mass
b belonging to tube Transf. 38 (2002) 687–693.
c cold stream [11] H. Li, V. Kottke, Analysis of local heat and mass transfer in the shell-
e equivalent and-tube heat exchanger with disc-and-doughnut baffles, Int. J. Heat
Mass Transf. 42 (1999) 3509–3521.
f surrounding fluid [12] R.K. Shah, Encyclopedia of Energy Technology and the Environment,
G belonging to shell John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1994, pp. 1651–1670.
h hot stream [13] B.V. Babu, S.A. Munawar, Differential evolution for the optimal design
i inlet of heat exchangers, in: Proceedings of the All India Seminar on Chem-
o outlet ical Engineering Progress on Resource Development: A Vision 2010
and Beyond, IE (I), Orissa State Centre, Bhuvaneshwar, March 13,
s cross-sectional 2000.
w tube wall [14] H. Martin, Heat Exchangers, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Wash-
0 at wall temperature ington, USA, 1992.
[15] R.K. Sinnot, Coulson and Richardson’s Chemical Engineering, vol. 6,
Butterworth Heinemann, 1996.
References
[16] R.K. Shah, K.J. Bell, The CRC Handbook of Thermal Engineering, CRC
Press LLC, USA, 2000.
[1] M. Reppich, J. Kohoutek, Optimal design of shell-and-tube heat [17] F.P. Incropera, D.P. DeWitt, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer,
exchangers, Comput. Chem. Eng. 18 (Suppl.) (1994) S295–S299. John Wiley and Sons Inc., USA, 1996.
[2] Z. Stevanovic, G. Ilic, N. Radojkovic, M. Vukic, M. Stefanovic, G. [18] W.M. Rohsenow, J.P. Hartnett, Handbook of Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill
VuSkovic, Design of shell-and-tube heat exchangers by using CFD tech- Book Company, USA, 1973.
nique. Part 1. Thermo-hydraulic calculation, Mech. Eng. 1 (8) (2001) [19] A.F. Mills, Heat Transfer, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, USA,
1091–1105. 1999.
[3] H. Li, V. Kottke, Visualization and determination of local heat transfer [20] D.Q. Kern, Process Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill International Book
coefficients in shell-and-tube heat exchangers for staggered tube arrange- Company, USA, 1984.
ment by mass transfer measurements, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 17 (1998) [21] O. Genceli, Heat Exchangers, Birsen Book Company, İstanbul, Tırkey,
210–216. 1999 (in Turkish).
[4] B.V. Babu, S.B. Mohiddin, Automated design of heat exchangers using [22] HEDH, Heat Exchanger Design Handbook, Heat Exchanger Theory,
artificial intelligence based optimization, in: Proceedings of the Interna- VDI-Verlag Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Düsseldorf, 1983.
tional Symposium and 52nd Annual Session of IIChE (CHEMCON-99), [23] A.P. Fraas, Heat Exchanger Design, 2nd ed., John Wiley and Sons, USA,
Panjab University, Chandigarh, December 20–23, 1999. 1989.
[5] G. Fabbri, A genetic algorithm for fin profile optimization, Int. J. Mass [24] M.M. Ohadi, The Engineering Handbook, CRC Press LLC, USA, 2000.
Transf. 40 (9) (1997) 2165–2172. [25] S. Kakaç, Heat Exchanger Design Course, Fundamentals and Appli-
[6] A. Konar, Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing Behavioral and cations, Istanbul Technical University, Mechanical Engineering, 31–24
Cognitive Modeling of the Human Brain, CRC Press LLC, USA, 2000. May 1996.
[7] A. Hofman, Theoretical solution for the cross-flow heat exchanger, Heat [26] E.U. Schlünder (Ed.), Heat Exchanger Design Handbook, vols. 1–5,
Mass Transf. 36 (2000) 127–133. Hemisphere, New York, 1983.