Heat Mass Transfer

DOI 10.1007/s00231-015-1705-1

ORIGINAL

Numerical investigation for finding the appropriate design

parameters of a fin-and-tube heat exchanger with delta-winglet
vortex generators
M. Behfard1 · A. Sohankar1 

Received: 8 April 2015 / Accepted: 23 October 2015

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Abstract  A numerical simulation is performed to inves- j Colburn factor

tigate the heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics of l Length of delta winglet (m)
three-row inline tube bundles as a part of a heat exchanger L Length of main domain (m)
(Re = 1000, Pr = 4.29). To enhance heat transfer, two pairs p Pressure (Pa)
of delta winglet-type vortex generators (VGs) installed Pl Longitudinal tube pitch (m)
beside the first row and between the first and second rows Pr Prandtl number
of the tube bundles. The diameter of the second row of the Pt Transverse tube pitch (m)
tubes is chosen smaller than those of the first and third. A Δp Pressure drop (Pa)
comprehensive study on the effects of various geometrical Q Heat transfer (W)
parameters such as transverse and longitudinal positions of Re Reynolds number
VGs, length and height of VGs and angle of attack of the S Channel width (m)
delta winglets is performed to augment heat transfer. Based t Thickness of delta winglet (m)
on this study the best values of these design parameters T Temperature (K)
are determined. The results showed that the best model ΔT Temperature difference (K)
increases the convective heat transfer ratio and thermal per- u, v, w Velocity components in x, y and z directions
formance factor about 59 and 43 %, respectively, in com- (m/s)
pare with the geometry without VG. Uin Inlet velocity (m/s)
x, y, z Cartesian coordinates (m)
List of symbols X Longitudinal position of delta winglet (m)
A Heat transfer area (m2) Y Transverse position of delta winglet (m)
Cp Specific heat (J/kg K)
d Tube diameter of the second row (m) Greek symbols
D Tube diameter of the first and third row (m) α Attack angle of the first delta winglet (°)
Dh Hydraulic diameter, Dh = 2H (m) β Attack angle of the second delta winglet (°)
E Thermal performance factor Γ Total vorticity flux (1/s)
f Fanning friction factor μ Dynamic viscosity (Pa s)
h Heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K) ρ Density (kg/m3)
h* Height of delta winglet (m) ω Magnitude of the vorticity vector (1/s)
H Channel height (fin pitch) (m)
Subscripts
i, k Index
* A. Sohankar in Inlet parameter
asohankar@cc.iut.ac.ir LMTD Logarithmic mean temperature difference
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Isfahan University o Heat exchanger without delta winglet
of Technology, Isfahan, Iran out Outlet parameter

13

w Wall
1 Related to first delta winglet
2 Related to second delta winglet
1 Introduction
Fin-and-tube heat exchangers are widely used in many
fields such as power systems, heating, ventilating, air con-
ditioning and refrigeration applications, chemical engineer-
ing, automotive industry, etc. Achieving higher thermal
performance is the main objective to design the compact
heat exchangers. This can lead to significant energy sav-
ing, lower cost and smaller size of apparatus. A common
method for heat transfer enhancement is to apply vortex
generators (VGs), such as ribs, wings and winglets. They
generate longitudinal vortices to swirl, destabilize the
primary flow and increase the mixing of the downstream
regions. In addition, VGs induce a secondary flow that is
of the same order of magnitude as the primary flow. Thus,
heat transfer enhancement is associated with the secondary
flow with relatively low penalties related to pressure drops
[1]. Many studies were performed to investigate the heat
transfer enhancement in the compact heat exchanger. Fie-
big et al. [2] experimentally investigated the effect of wing-
let-type VGs on the heat transfer and pressure drop of a fin-
and-tube heat exchanger with three circular tube rows. The
heat transfer enhancement was 55 to 65 % for the inline
tube arrangement with a corresponding increase of 20 to
45 % in the apparent friction factor. Chen et al. [3–5] have
performed numerous numerical studies on the heat trans-
fer augmentation for finned oval tube heat exchangers. A
single delta winglet pair was punched on the fin surface to
generate the longitudinal vortices [3]. Three different attack
angles, β  = 20°, 30°, and 45° and two different aspect
ratios (1.5 and 2) were taken at a Reynolds number of 300.
Higher heat transfer and pressure drop were observed with
larger attack angle and small aspect ratio. It was found that
the winglet configuration with an attack of angle, β = 30°
and an aspect ratio of 2 gave the best ratio of heat trans-
fer enhancement to pressure drop penalty with (j/j0)/(f/
f0) = 1.04 [3]. Further, Chen et al. [4, 5] numerically inves-
tigated the impact of multiple VGs on the finned oval tube
heat exchanger element. In this study the delta winglets
with the optimal attack angle of 30° and aspect ratio of 2
as studied in earlier paper were taken, with the Reynolds
number fixed at 300. Chen et al. [4] studied the inline con-
figuration of delta winglets, with one to three winglet pairs
placed inline on the fin surface. It was found that the ratio
of (j/j0)/(f/f0) was 1.04, 1.01 and 0.97 for a fin oval tube
element with one, two, and three delta winglet pairs in-line.
In extension to this work, Chen et al. [5] investigated the
staggered configuration of delta winglets, with two to four
13
Heat Mass Transfer
winglet pairs placed staggered along the tube. The ratio of
(j/j0)/(f/f0) of 1.151 and 1.097 for a fin oval tube element
with two and four staggered winglets were reported. The
results were compared with Chen et al. [4] and showed that
the winglets in the staggered arrangement achieved larger
heat transfer enhancement for oval fin-tube heat exchangers
than winglets in the in-line arrangement.
Torii et al. [6] proposed a common-flow-up delta wing-
let configuration and they stated that the heat transfer
increases and the pressure drop reduces in a fin-and-tube
heat exchanger with circular tube. In the case staggered
tube banks, the heat transfer was increased about 30 % and
the pressure drop was reduced about 34–55 %. In the case
of in-line arrangement, the heat transfer augmentation and
pressure loss reduction were reported to be about 10–20
and 8–15 %, respectively.
The unsteady flow and heat transfer were simulated
using LES and DNS for a channel with two angled ribs as a
Vee-shaped VG to augment heat transfer [7–9]. The VGs
were attached on the bottom wall of the channel and their
angles in respect to the main flow were chosen between 10°
and 30°. The Prandtl number was 0.71 and the Reynolds
numbers based on the inflow velocity and the height of
channel were from 200 to 2000. A comparison between the
DNS and LES results was performed and it was found that
relatively similar results are obtained from a LES simula-
tion with fine grid and a DNS simulation with finer grid. It
was shown that the thermal performance parameter
increases with increasing Reynolds number or the inci-
dence angle. Kwak et al. [10] experimentally evaluated two
to five rows of staggered circular tube bundles with a single
transverse row of delta winglets in common flow-up con-
figuration placed beside the front row of tubes. For three
row tube bundles, the heat transfer was augmented by 10 to
30 % and yet the pressure loss was reduced by 34 to 55 %
with an increase in Reynolds number from 350 to 2100.
Kwak et al. [11] further compared the heat transfer
enhancement and pressure loss penalty caused by a single
row of winglets built in the first transverse row of tubes,
between the common flow up (CFU) and common flow
down (CFD) winglet configurations. For the three-row tube
bundle in a staggered arrangement, the CFD winglet-pairs
bring about 5–15 % increase in heat transfer enhancement
and 2–10 % increase in pressure loss penalty, in compari-
son with fin-tube bundles without winglet. In this study, the
front two rows of the CFU winglet-pairs was applied for a
three-row tube bundle in a staggered/in-line arrangement,
for comparison. Heat transfer and pressure loss in the stag-
gered arrangement were increased by 6–15 % and by
61–117 %, respectively, in comparison with the case of the
single transverse row of the CFU winglet- pairs. The corre-
sponding increases for an in-line arrangement with two
rows of winglets were 7–9 and 3–9 %, respectively. Joardar
Heat Mass Transfer
and Jacobi [12] experimentally assessed the potential of
winglet-type VG arrays for air-side heat transfer enhance-
ment by full-scale wind-tunnel testing of a compact plain-
fin-and-tube heat exchanger. They showed that the air-side
heat transfer coefficient increases about 16.5–44 % for the
single-row winglet arrangement with an increase in pres-
sure drop less than 12 % and the heat transfer coefficient
increases 29.9–68.8 % for the three-row VG array with a
pressure drop penalty about 26–87.5 %. Wu and Tao [13]
presented numerical computation results on laminar con-
vection heat transfer in a rectangular channel with a pair of
rectangular winglets longitudinal VG punched out from the
lower wall of the channel. The effect of the punched holes
and the thickness of the rectangular winglet pair to the fluid
flow and heat transfer were numerically studied. It was
found that the case with punched holes has more heat trans-
fer enhancement in the region near to the VG and lower
average flow frictional coefficient compared with the case
without punched holes. Chu et al. [14] numerically investi-
gated the heat transfer characteristics and flow structure in
full-scale fin-and-tube heat exchangers with rectangular
winglet pair (RWP). Three configurations inline-1RWP,
inline-3RWP and inline-7RWP were compared with
exchanger without RWP. It was found that among the three
enhanced configurations, the inline-1RWP case is obtained
the best overall performance, and the inline-3RWP case is
better than the inline-7RWP case. Tian et al. [15] performed
three dimensional numerical simulations on laminar heat
transfer and fluid flow characteristics of a flat-plate channel
with longitudinal vortex generators (LVGs). The effects of
two different shaped LVGs, rectangular winglet pair (RWP)
and delta winglet pair (DWP) with two different configura-
tions, common-flow-down (CFD) and common-flow-up
(CFU), were investigated. The numerical results indicated
that the application of LVGs effectively enhanced heat
transfer of the channel. Lei et al. [16] numerically studied
the effect of the delta-winglet VGs on heat transfer and
pressure drop of a novel heat exchanger for Reynolds num-
ber from 600 to 2600. The results illustrated that the delta-
winglet VG with an attack angle of 20° and an aspect ratio
of 2 provide the best integrated performance over the range
of Reynolds number computed. To enhance the heat trans-
fer of fin-tube surface, Wu and Tao [17] and Wu et al. [18]
proposed two kind of novel fin-tube surface with two rows
of tubes in different diameters, arranged in staggered pat-
tern. Numerical and experimental results demonstrated that
the fin-tube surface with first row tube in a smaller size and
second row tube in a larger size can lead to an increase on
heat transfer and a decrease on pressure drop in comparison
with the traditional fin-tube surface with two rows of tubes
in the same size. A novel combined LVG, comprising a rec-
tangular wing mounted with an accessory rectangular wing,
was developed and the turbulent flow and heat transfer
characteristics were numerically analyzed by Min et al.
[19]. The influences of six main parameters of the com-
bined rectangular winglet pair including the location of
accessory wing on the main wing and geometric sizes of
the accessory wing on heat transfer enhancement and fluid
flow resistance characteristics in a rectangular channel
were examined. The numerical results showed that in the
range of the study, the increase of the six parameters pro-
vides the increase of heat transfer and pressure drop. He
et al. [20] numerically investigated the potential of punched
winglet-type VG arrays used to enhance air-side heat trans-
fer performance of finned tube heat transfer. The arrays
were composed of two delta-winglet pairs with two layout
modes of continuous and discontinuous winglets. Their
results were compared to a conventional large winglet con-
figuration for the Reynolds number ranging from 600 to
2600. The numerical results showed that the arrays with
discontinuous winglets provide the best heat transfer
enhancement. Mirzaei and Sohankar [21] numerically stud-
ied heat transfer augmentation and pressure loss penalty
caused by VGs for finned flat/round tube heat exchangers.
It was found that the flat tube with VGs provides better
thermal performance than the round one, especially at the
lower Reynolds numbers. Jang et al. [22] numerically
assessed the thermal–hydraulic characteristics of a three-
dimensional laminar in-line and staggered plate fin-and-
tube heat exchangers with block-type VG mounted behind
the tubes. The results showed that the maximum area
reduction ratios reached 14.9–25.5 % combined with the
optimal design of the VG span angle and transverse loca-
tion at ReDh = 400–1200 for the in-line arrangement, and
7.9–13.6 % of the maximum area reduction ratio was
achieved for the staggered arrangement. Delac et al. [23]
carried out a three dimensional numerical model of plain
fin flat tube heat exchanger in order to analyze optimal rec-
tangular winglet VG geometry. The results showed that
optimum heat transfer without significant pressure drop
increase gives the VG geometry of 0.64 × 1.92 mm with
impact angle 10˚. To improve the heat transfer performance
of circular tube bank fin heat exchanger, the heat transfer
performance of a novel fin with curve rectangular VGs
were numerically investigated by Gong et al. [24]. They
assessed the effects of the circumferential position, the
radial position, the base arc length and height of VGs and
the fin spacing on the heat transfer performance of the heat
exchanger. Their results showed that when the leading edge
of VGs is located in the transversal axis of the tube, the
heat transfer performance is optimal. Gholami et al. [25]
numerically investigated the effects of using three different
VG shapes (flat, wavy-up and wavy-down rectangular
winglets) on heat transfer enhancement and pressure drop
for fin-and-tube compact heat exchanger. The results
showed that the wavy rectangular winglet can significantly
13

improve the heat transfer performance of the fin-and-tube
compact heat exchangers with a moderate pressure loss
penalty.
In present work, the numerical investigations of the
fin-and-tube heat exchangers with delta-winglet VGs in
“common-flow-up” orientation are performed, by the aid
of the commercial software Fluent. The influence of attack
angles, dimensions (length and height of VGs) and place-
ment positions (transverse and longitudinal locations of
VGs) of the delta winglets on the heat transfer enhance-
ment and pressure drop characteristic of a fin-and-tube heat
Fig. 1  Schematic diagram of the computational domain and relevant
geometrical parameters of the plain fin-and-tube heat exchanger with
delta winglets
Fig. 2  Three-dimensional sche-
matic diagram of the computa-
tional domain and coordinate
system
13
Heat Mass Transfer
exchanger were examined, and the optimal design value of
each parameter is determined.
2 Problem description
Figure  1 presents the computational domain for prob-
lem under consideration. It is a part of the plain fin-and-
tube heat exchanger with three tube rows in an in-line
arrangement along the flow direction and two pairs of
delta-winglet VGs placed in “common-flow-up” orienta-
tion. The top and side views of the computational domain
are shown in Fig. 1. The present configuration is similar
to that proposed by Torii et al. [6] but some modifica-
tions are made in some aspects, i.e., (a) the diameter of
the second row of tubes is reduced from 30 to 20.4 mm,
(b) the delta winglet like to the first winglet is added in
the area between the first and second tube rows. These
modifications are performed in order to improve the over-
all heat transfer in the wake region, where there is a poor
heat transfer region behind the tube. As shown in Fig. 1a,
due to the symmetric arrangement in the Y-direction, the
shadow section is selected as the computational domain.
In Fig. 2, the computational domain and the coordinate
system are presented, where X, Y, Z are the streamwise,
span wise and normal coordinates, respectively. The com-
putational domain is made of three regions namely the
upstream-extended region, the main solution domain and
the downstream-extended region; see Fig. 2. The first adi-
abatic region is 0.416 times of the main solution domain
in order to ensure the fully developed velocity distribution
at the inlet of main domain. The downstream-extended
region is chosen to be equal to the main solution domain.
Heat Mass Transfer

It is used to avoid recirculation and ensure for applying the equations in the Cartesian coordinates can be expressed as
fully developed boundary conditions at the outlet. follows:
The dimensions of the main geometrical parameters,
∂ui
like tubes diameter (D and d), tube longitudinal pitch =0 (1)
∂xi
(Pl), tube transverse pitch (Pt), fin pitch (H), length and
width of flow channel (L and S) and winglet thickness (t)
are listed in Table 1. The other ten parameter including µ ∂ 2 ui
 
∂ui 1 ∂p
positions and geometrical sizes are tabulated in Table 2
uk = − (2)
∂xk ρ ∂xk xk ρ ∂xi
and the levels of each parameters are also shown. When
one of the studied parameters including attack angles,
locations and dimensions for each the VGs is varied, the ∂ 2T
 
∂T 
other parameters are fixed at base values; see Table 2.
uk = (3)
∂xk ρcp ∂xk xk
Figure 3a–e illustrates the schematic view of the different
configurations employed. It should be noted that the existence of VGs and tubes
are main sources for production of disturbance and turbu-
lence in fluid flow especially at higher Reynolds numbers.
3 Governing equations, boundary conditions Thus, the influence of the turbulence models such as k-
and numerical details ω (SST) is also investigated in this study. Comparison of
numerical results with experimental results of Torii et al.
In present work, the assumptions including the 3-D, incom- [6] showed that in the range of Reynolds numbers less
pressible, steady, no viscous dissipation with constant fluid than 1300, the results with and without turbulence models
properties are employed. The three dimensional govern- are relatively similar. Also simulations without turbulence
ing equations including continuity, momentum and energy model for aforementioned range of Reynolds numbers pro-
vides better results in comparison with experimental ones.
Thus, all simulations are performed without turbulence
Table 1  The dimensions of the main geometrical parameters
model in this work (Re = 1000).
Parameter Symbol Value (mm) Second order upwind scheme is used to discretize the
Diameter of tube (first and third row) D 30
convective terms in governing equations for momentum
Diameter of tube (second row) d 20.4
and energy. SIMPLE algorithm is employed in order to
Tube transverse pitch Pt 75
implement the coupling between pressure and velocity.
The convergence criterion is satisfied when the scaled
Tube longitudinal pitch Pl 75
residuals of continuity and momentum equations are
Main domain length L 300
below 10−4 and the scaled residual of energy equation
Channel width S 150
below 10−7.
Channel height (fin pitch) H 5.6
The boundary conditions are described for three regions
Winglet thickness t 0.3
shown in Fig. 2 as follows:

Table 2  Positions and Parameter Symbol/unit Base value Levels

geometrical dimensions of the
delta winglets Attack angle of the first winglet α/° 15 10, 15, 20
Attack angle of the second winglet β/° 15 10, 15, 20
Height of the first VG h∗1 /mm 5 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5
Height of the second VG h∗2 /mm 5 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5
Transverse position of the first VG Y1/mm 30.836 +0.2H, Ref, −0.2H, −0.4H
Transverse position of the second VG Y2/mm 15.45 +0.2H, Ref, −0.2H, −0.4H
Longitudinal position of the first VG X1/mm 51.164 +2H, +1H, Ref, −1H, −2H
Longitudinal position of the second VG X2/mm 100.038 +0.5H, Ref, −0.5H
Length of the first winglet l1/mm 30 15, 20, 30, 40
Length of the second winglet l2/mm 30 15, 20, 30

Ref indicates the geometry with base values, + or −show the increase or decrease from the base values

13
 Heat Mass Transfer

Fig. 3  The investigated geometrical parameters for heat transfer augmentation: a attack angles of VGs, b transverse locations of VGs, c longitu-
dinal locations of VGs, d length of VGs and e height of VGs

(a) In the upstream extended region (b) In the main solution domain

• Inlet: • The upper and lower surfaces (XY planes), the tubes
wall and delta winglet VGs:
u = Uin , v = w = 0, T = Tin (4a)
• The upper and lower surfaces (XY planes):
u = v = w = 0, T = Tw (5a)
• The lateral boundary surfaces (XZ planes):
u = v = w = 0, insulated walls (4b)
• The lateral boundary surfaces (XZ planes):
∂u ∂w ∂T ∂u ∂w ∂T
= = 0, v = 0, =0 (4c)
= = 0, v = 0, =0 (5b)
∂y ∂y ∂y ∂y ∂y ∂y

13
Heat Mass Transfer

(c) In the downstream extended region: Ŵ is the averaged vorticity magnitude flux over the cross-
sections, YZ-planes.
• Outlet:
To investigate simultaneously the heat transfer enhance-
∂u ∂v ∂w ∂T ment and pressure drop in the heat exchangers, the factor of
= = = =0 (6a) thermal performance E [21, 28] is applied as:
∂x ∂x ∂x ∂x
• The upper and lower surfaces (XY planes): j/jo
E= (12)
(f /fo )1/3
u = v = w = 0, insulated walls (6b)
where the subscript “o” denotes the heat exchanger without
• The lateral boundary surfaces (XZ planes):
the VG.
It should be emphasized that there are constraints and
∂u ∂w ∂T criteria for evaluating the optimum thermal system, e.g. the
= = 0, v = 0, =0 (6c) identical mass-flow-rate constraint, the identical pumping
∂y ∂y ∂y
power constraint, and the identical pressure drop constraint.
It should be noted that a constant temperature is set
A direct comparison on the basis of heat transfer coefficient
over the upper and lower surfaces (XY planes), the tubes
(or Colburn factor) and pressure drop (or friction factor)
wall and delta winglet VGs in the main domain (Eq. 5a),
is not sufficient in choosing the optimum thermal system.
see also Fig. 2. This is because the fin thickness is gener-
This is because when heat transfer coefficient becomes
ally very small and its thermal conductivity is usually very
larger, the pressure drop becomes larger too. In general, a
high. Thus, it is expected its temperature becomes equal to
performance criterion (e.g. Eq. 12) should cover variations
base (tube) temperature in a short time during an unsteady
of many parameters such as working fluid, Reynolds num-
behavior. By the way, steady state simulations are carried
ber, surface geometry and heat transfer surface area.
in this work. Also this type of boundary condition was pre-
In order to improve the quality of the grid system, com-
viously employed by researchers, e.g. [25–27].
putational domain is divided into several blocks (subdo-
In order to provide a quantitative estimation of the heat
mains). Then, the adjacent subdomains of the delta winglet
transfer and flow characteristics, some parameters are
are meshed with unstructured tetrahedral elements, whereas
introduced:
the rest subdomains and extended regions are all meshed
ρUin Dh h H

�p
 with structured hexahedral elements. In addition, the gener-
Re = j= Pr 2/3 f = 2 (7) ated meshes are much finer around the wall surfaces, tubes
µ ρUin Cp L ρUin
and delta winglets to improve the accuracy of the simula-
tion results and coarser in the extended regions to save the
where Re, j and f are the Reynolds number, Colburn j-fac-
computing resource. The overview of the grid and also the
tor and Fanning friction factor, respectively.
its detail around the delta winglets and the tubes are shown
The convective heat transfer coefficient h is obtained in
in Fig. 4a–c, respectively.
terms of the heat transfer rate Q and the log-mean tempera-
ture difference.
Q 4 Grid independence and validation
h= (8)
ATLMTD
The grid independence test is performed to ensure the accu-
and the log-mean temperature difference is defined as:
racy and reliability of the numerical simulations. In order
(Tin − Tw ) − (Tout − Tw ) to validate the results independency of the grid density,
�TLMTD = (9) three sets of grid numbers are investigated, which include
ln[(Tin − Tw )/(Tout − Tw )]
about 600,000, 700,000 and 1,400,000 cells for the refer-
The averaged pressure on a cross section are defined as
ence configuration, where the parameters are fixed at base
follows:
values as shown in Table 2. The averaged convective heat
 transfer coefficient and pressure drop for the three grids
pdA
p =  p = pin − pout (10) are listed in Table 3. As seen, there is a small difference
dA
between the results so that the maximum relative error of
the results is less than 2 %. Hence, in order to save the
To description of the intensity of the secondary flow, the
computer resource, cost and safety, the suitable grid num-
total vorticity flux Ŵ, is used.
 ber is selected as about 700,000.
1 To verify the reliability of the computational method
Ŵ= ω dA (11)
A adopted, the heat transfer and flow characteristics of the

13
 Heat Mass Transfer

Fig.  4  a The overview of grid b grid detail around a delta winglet and c around a tube

Table 3  Grid independence test Re Grid size Diff.  %

I:600,000 II:700,000 III:1,400,000 I versus II II versus III

h(w/m2 K) 300 495.8 497.2 498.5 0.28 0.26

1300 1123.6 1129.9 1149.4 0.57 1.73
2200 1656.8 1664.7 1675.8 0.48 0.67
ΔP(pa) 300 2.17 2.18 2.19 0.28 0.27
1300 19.81 19.87 20.03 0.28 0.86
2200 49.46 49.48 49.63 0.04 0.3

plain fin-and-tube heat exchanger with three tube rows in an
in-line arrangement with a delta winglet pair are compared
with the same geometrical configurations as presented in
Torii et al. [6]. The comparison j/jo and f /fo between the
numerical and experimental results for air flow (Pr = 0.7)
are shown in Fig. 5a, b, respectively. As seen, the average
discrepancy between the predicted j/jo and the experimen-
tal values is less than 5.6 %. Also the agreement for f /fo is
good although the discrepancy is higher than that for j/jo.
Joardar and Jacobi [12] expressed the results of Torii et al.
[6] would have been more compelling if uncertainty in fric-
tion factor due to propagated errors in pressure drop and
air flow measurements were also reported, particularly for
the inline tube pattern where the improvement in pressure
drop by VGs was 15–8 % in the Reynolds number range of
350–2100. However, the agreement between the numerical
and experimental results related to j/jo indicates that the
present simulation reliable to predict heat transfer and flow
characteristics in these heat exchangers.
5 Results and discussion
In the first part of this section, a comparative study is per-
formed in order to understand the flow structure and heat
transfer characteristic of the problem under consideration
with and without VGs. In continuation, the effects of vari-
ous geometrical parameters such as transverse and longitu-
dinal positions of VGs, length and height of VGs and angle
of attack of the delta winglets on heat transfer augmenta-
tion are investigated in the fin-and-tube heat exchanger
with VGs.

13
Heat Mass Transfer

Fig. 5  Comparison of j/jo and f/fo between the present simulation and experimental results [6] for model validation: a j/jo and b f/fo

5.1 Heat and fluid flow structures

In this section, the effects of delta-winglet VGs on heat

transfer characteristic and flow patterns are investigated.
This type of flow contains many complex phenomena
such as boundary layer, separation, recirculation and wake
flow. Thus, it is necessary to study flow and heat patterns,
because they can be used to explain the global flow param-
eter variations such as pressure drop and Nusselt number.
Figure  6 shows the streamlines at five cross sections
before, on and after the first VG at the Reynolds number of
1000. The sharp edges of the VGs are natural positions of
the separation and swirling motion. Flow separation occurs
along the side edge of VG because of the pressure differ-
ence between the upstream and downstream sides. Accord-
ing to Fig. 6, it is seen that with reaching fluid flow to the
first delta winglet, the flow separation from edge of winglet
causes to form a longitudinal vortex along the side of VG
(X/L = 0.18). This vortex becomes bigger and stronger in
the stramwise along the VG. Also some new vortices gener-
ate in the other part of domain and the size of these vorti-
ces increases along and after the delta winglet (X/L = 0.22,
0.25 and 0.28).
Figure  7 presents the streamlines at five cross sections
along the channel. The positions of the cross sections in
the streamwise direction are also shown in Fig. 7a. As
seen, the number and extent of the vortices generated by
the first VG increase with increasing distance from the VG
and the core of vortices are deflected towards the wake Fig.  6  a Position of the selected cross sections in the streamwise
region. Then these vortices merge to those are gener- before, on and after the first VG, b streamlines plots in the cross sec-
ated by the second VG. From the cross sections shown in tions introduced in Fig. 6a; Re = 1000

13

Fig.  7  a Position of the selected cross sections in the streamwise, b
streamlines coloured by pressure (pa) in different cross sections intro-
duced in Fig. 7a; Re = 1000
Fig.  7b, it can be seen that the vortices generated by the
first VG have more extent and power (lower pressure in the
central region) than those created by second winglet; see
Fig.  7 (X/L = 0.38 and 0.45). The first winglet has been
located into the mainstream and flow fluid moves over it
with a higher velocity, while the second winglet has been
almost located in the region with lower velocity than that
for the first VG. Thus, the vortices generated by the second
VG are smaller and weaker than those with the first VG.
This point is also observed from Fig. 8, where the stream-
wise variation of the averaged vortices Ŵ (see Eq. 11) on
the cross sections (YZ-planes) is shown for two geom-
etries introduced in Table 4 (A and C). As it is observed
from this figure, the value of Ŵ in most locations for the
geometry with VGs (C) is larger than that for the geometry
without VGs (A). Also in the wake region behind the first
tube, one can observe that the value Ŵ in the presence of
second VG is evidently larger than that in the case with-
out second VG; see also Fig. 9. From above descriptions,
it can be concluded that VGs specially the second VG play
a crucial role to generation of longitudinal vortices into
wake regions and guide the upstream fluid flow in this
area; see also Fig. 9.
13
Heat Mass Transfer
Fig. 8  The streamwise variations of the averaged vortices on the
cross sections (YZ-plane) for two configurations introduced in
Table 4
Figure  9 represents the streamlines on a XY-plane for
three configurations introduced in Table 4. This plane is
chosen very close to the bottom surface (Z = 0.1 mm).
According to Fig. 9a, b, it can be seen that the presence of
the VG for the first tube causes to reduce the wake region
behind the first tube. A nozzle-like passage is formed
between the tube and VG when a VG with common-flow-
up arrangement is employed beside the first row of tubes.
The fluid accelerates passing through the narrow passage
and significantly delays the flow separation. Therefore, the
size of the recirculation zone is reduced; see also Fig. 10.
By comparing Fig. 9b, c, it can be clearly realized the influ-
ence of the presence of the second VG at the wake region
behind the first tube, where a part of the mainstream flow
with high velocity is guided towards the wake zone and this
in turn lead to reduce the size of the wake region behind of
the first tube.
Figure  10 illustrates the streamwise variations of the
sectional pressure (see Eq. 10) for geometries introduced
in Table 4 at Re = 1000. As is seen from figure, the varia-
tions of pressure drop for all three geometries are identical
up to location of the leading edge of the first VG. But with
reaching fluid flow to the tube and winglet, severe pres-
sure drop is occurred due to form and friction drag caused
by the tube and winglet, where this reduction is higher for
geometries with VGs. Upon leaving the first VG, the pres-
sure variations in all three geometries is slight due to the
low pressure area behind the tube but again, with reaching
fluid flow to the second tube the pressure especially for two
geometries with VGs sharply decreases. The same trend
also occurs for the third row of tubes. From Fig. 10, it is
Heat Mass Transfer

Table 4  Specifications of the geometries studied

Model Model description

A Similar to Figs. 1 and 2 but without VGs (with smaller diameter of the second row of tubes)
B The geometry similar to that proposed by Torii et al. [6] but with smaller diameter of the second row of tubes
(similar to Figs. 1 and 2 but without second VG)
C Similar to Figs. 1 and 2 (with two VGs and smaller diameter of the second row of tubes)

Fig. 11  Convective heat transfer coefficient contours on the bot-

tom wall (Z = 0) for three configurations introduced in Table 4: a
A-Model, b B-Model and c C-Model

observed that the pressure changes of two configurations

Fig. 9  Streamline plots on a XY-plane at Z = 0.1 mm for three
configurations introduced in Table 4: a A-Model, b B-Model and c
C-Model
Fig. 10  The streamwise variations of the sectional pressure for
geometries introduced in Table 4
with VGs (B and C) have no significant differences with
each other. In general, the fluid flow resistance in the heat
exchanger without VG depends on the friction resistance
of the fin surfaces and the local resistance of the tubes (a
dominant part of the total pressure drop). With the installa-
tion of VGs, the fluid flow resistance along the channel not
only comes from the above two aspects, but also includes
an additional local resistance and form drag of the VGs. In
this case, the VGs delay the boundary layer separation from
the first tube due to acceleration of the fluid flow between
the tube and winglet. This leads to a reduction on the size
of wake region behind the tubes and ultimately causes a
reduction on the form drag. Thus, increasing or decreas-
ing the total pressure drop is determined by the combined
effects of the mentioned factors.
In order to investigate the effect of VGs on the heat
transfer for three geometries introduced in Table 4, con-
vective heat transfer contours in the bottom fin surface
(Z = 0) are presented in Fig. 11. As seen, a large value for
this coefficient is observed at the inlet region due to a very
low thermal boundary layer thickness, while this coeffi-
cient decreases gradually with the growth of the thermal
boundary layer along the flow direction. With reaching
fluid flow to the first VG and tube, heat transfer coefficient
suddenly increases because of the formation of longitudi-
nal and horseshoe vortices which bring better mixing and

13

Fig. 12  Comparison of the ratios of convective heat transfer coeffi-
cient, pressure drop and thermal performance parameter for different
attack angles; see Figs. 1 and 3
enhances heat transfer in these zones. The regions with
high heat transfer due to the formation of horseshoe vor-
tices are limited only around the tubes, while the develop-
ment of longitudinal vortices along the channel enhances
this coefficient in the other regions; see Fig. 11b, c.
According to Fig. 11c, it is observed that the regions with
the high heat transfer increases due to the presence of the
second winglet and then expanded around the third tube;
see also Fig. 8. In general, the swirling and mixing of the
fluid flow and disrupting the boundary layer developing by
the longitudinal vortices are main reasons for heat transfer
enhancement when the VGs are employed.
5.2 Best values for VGs geometrical parameters
The effects of various geometrical parameters including the
transverse and longitudinal positions of VGs, length and
height of VGs and their angle of attack on the heat trans-
fer augmentation and pressure drop are investigated and the
best values of these parameters are determined. It should
be noted that the heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop
are scaled with those for heat exchanger without the VGs
(denoted by symbol “o”).
5.2.1 Influence of the angles of attack of VGs (α, β)
The influence of the angles of attack of VGs on the ther-
mal performance of heat exchanger is studied; see Table 2.
Figure 12 presents the variations of the ratios of heat trans-
fer coefficient h/ho and pressure drop �p/�po and the
thermal performance factor E for different angles of attack
13
Heat Mass Transfer
Fig. 13  The streamline coloured by pressure (Pa) at X/L = 0.45,
β = 15° for different angle of attack of first VG: a 10°, b 15° and c
20°
of both VGs for problem under consideration; see Figs. 1a
and 3a. It is observed from Fig. 12 that the ratios of h/ho
and �p/�po increases with increasing the angle of attack
of the first winglet (α) due to generation of the stronger
vortices by VGs; see Fig. 13a–c. As seen from Fig. 12
unlike the first winglet, the variations of the angle of the
second winglet (β) exception those cases with α  = 15˚,
almost no significant effect on heat transfer and pressure
drop results. With the investigation thermal performance
values, it is observed that the geometry with α = β= 15˚
has the highest value, where the best thermal performance
is about 1.38 in comparison with the geometry without
VGs. The configurations with α  = 20˚ are located in the
second place of the highest thermal performance values
and in these cases, the variations of β does not affect the
results. By referring to Fig. 12, one can adopted α = 20˚
and β  = 10˚ as best angles, where there is a higher heat
transfer ratio for this case in compare with the geometry
with α = 15˚ and β = 15˚. For these two cases, a negligi-
ble difference between their thermal performance parame-
ters exists due to higher pressure drop. In this work, geom-
etry with α = β = 15˚ is employed as best case based on a
higher thermal performance parameter.
5.2.2 Influence of the transverse position of VGs (Y1, Y2)
The effects of the transverse position of the winglets (see
Figs. 1a, 3b) on the heat transfer coefficient, pressure drop
ratio and thermal performance parameter are presented in
Fig.  14. As seen from this figure, heat transfer ratio and
performance factor have different values and almost do
not follow particular trends at the fixed locations of Y2 for
the variation of Y1, whereas pressure drop ratio increases
continuously with decreasing the distance between the first
winglet and the tube. For different transverse positions, the
highest value of pressure drop is related to the configura-
tion that the first and second winglets have minimum and
Heat Mass Transfer

Fig. 15  Comparison of the ratios of heat transfer coefficient, pres-

sure drop and coefficient of performance for different longitudinal
Fig. 14  Comparison of the ratios of heat transfer coefficient, pres- positions; see Figs. 1 and 3
sure drop and thermal performance parameter for different transverse
positions; see Figs. 1 and 3

maximum distance with the tube and wall, respectively. It

can be also seen from Fig. 14, almost in the most cases,
excluding particular position −0.4H for each the VGs, heat
transfer and pressure drop ratios decreases with decrease
of distance between the second winglet and the side wall
(Y2). The results indicate that the transverse locations of
Y1  =  −0.2H and Y2  =  +0.2H provide the highest over-
all performance denoted as best conditions. This case
increases the thermal performance and heat transfer coef-
ficients by 39 and 51 %, respectively; see Fig. 14.

5.2.3 Influence of the longitudinal position of VGs (X1, X2)

Figure 15 illustrates the influence of the longitudinal posi-

tion of VGs (see Figs. 1a, 3c) on heat transfer coefficient
and pressure loss ratios and thermal performance factor.
According to the figure, the maximum values occurs at a
certain position of the first winglet (X1 = −1H) for various
positions of the second winglet (X2). As seen shifting of X1
from −1H to both sides causes to decrease all aforemen-
tioned parameters for various X2.
Figure 16a–e shows local temperature distributions on Fig. 16  Local temperature distributions (k) on a XY-plane at
a XY-plane at Z = 2.8 mm, X2 = +0.5H for different lon- Z = 2.8 mm (X2 = +0.5H) for different longitudinal positions of the
gitudinal positions of first winglet (X1). It can be observed first winglet: a X1 = +2H, b X1 = +1H, c X1 = XRef, d X1 = −1H
and e X1 = −2H
from Fig. 16a–e that as regards the space between the
first delta-winglet and the tube forms a nozzle-like flow
passage, thus with upstream shifting of the first VG, the severe impinge on the adjacent downstream tube, the
region between the trailing edge of first winglet and the wake flow becomes warmer and it leads to higher temper-
tube is more narrowed and consequently is further accel- ature gradients and local heat transfer enhancement; see
erated the fluid through it. The accelerated flow has more Fig. 16d in compare with the other plots.

13
 Heat Mass Transfer

By comparing the results of the thermal performance

factor, it can find that the placement of the first wing-
let at location X1 = −1H causes the highest value coef-
ficient of performance, where the best thermal perfor-
mance is about 1.41 in comparison with the geometry
without delta winglets. In this case, the change of longi-
tudinal position of second winglet has a negligible effect
on the thermal performance; see Fig. 15. From this fig-
ure it can be also clearly seen that for various positions
of the first winglet, the placement of the second winglet
at locations X2 = XRef and X2 = +0.5H causes the min-
imum and maximum pressure drop, respectively. Thus,
case with X1  =  −1H and X2  = XRef provides the best
performance and it is employed as best condition.

5.2.4 Influence of the length of VGs (l1, l2)

The influence of VGs length (see Figs. 1a, 3d) on the

heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop ratios and Fig. 17  Comparison of the ratios of heat transfer coefficient, pres-
sure drop and coefficient of performance for different length of VGs;
thermal performance factor is presented in Fig. 17. It is see Figs. 1 and 3
observed from this figure that the aforementioned param-
eters increase continuously with increase of the length of
the first VG from l1 = 15 to l1 = 30 mm for every chosen
lengths of the second winglet (l2), while these parameters
decrease with further increase of l1 from 30 to 40 mm. It
is concluded that the length of 30 mm for the first VG and
length of 20 mm for the second VG provide the highest val-
ues of the aforementioned parameters, which are used as
the best lengths. The best geometry increases the thermal
performance and heat transfer coefficients by 39 and 50 %,
respectively.
Figure  18a–d presents the streamline plots in a YZ-
plane at X/L = 0.45, l2 = 20 mm for different lengths of
the first VG (l1). This figure shows that with increasing l1,
the generated vortices are inclined toward the right side
(toward the wake region), the influence of second VG
also increases where the generated vortices by the second
VG become stronger (higher vorticity and lower pressure Fig. 18  Streamline coloured by pressure (Pa) on a YZ-plane
on their centre). This phenomenon causes heat transfer at X/L = 0.45 (l2  = 20 mm) for different lengths of first VG: a
enhancement, additional pressure drop and the increase of l1 = 15 mm, b l1 = 20 mm, c l1 = 30 mm and d l1 = 40 mm
the performance coefficient; see Figs. 17 and 18c. How-
ever, with further increase of l1 from 30 to 40 mm, the
number and strength of vortices decrease and the avail- this figure, the aforementioned parameters increase by
able vortices in the wake region are also inclined toward increasing the height of both VGs. The best heat trans-
the left side (toward outside the wake region). This phe- fer and thermal performance coefficients are provided for
nomenon in turn leads to reduction of heat transfer; see h1∗ = h2∗ = 5.5 mm, where their increased values are about
also Fig. 17. 54 and 41 % in comparison with the geometry without
VGs. It is observed from Fig. 19 that the height variation
5.2.5 Influence of the height of VGs (h1∗ , h2∗) of the first VG has greater impact on the parameters men-
tioned above than that of the second VG. For instance,
The effect of VGs height (see Figs. 1a and 3e) on the ratios geometry with h1∗ = 5.5 mm and h2∗ = 4 mm has higher heat
of heat transfer coefficient and pressure loss, and thermal transfer and pressure drop than those for with h1∗ = 4 mm
performance factor is illustrated in Fig. 19. As seen from and h2∗ = 5.5 mm. It should be noted that the channel height

13
Heat Mass Transfer
is 5.6 mm and also considering this point that the geometry
with height of 5.5 mm for each the VGs has the best heat
transfer ratio and coefficient of performance, thus 5.5 mm
is selected as the best VGs heights.
Figure  20 shows the streamline in YZ-planes at
X/L  = 0.45 for two heights of the second VG (h2∗); (left:
h1∗ = 4 mm, right: h1∗ = 5.5 mm). It is seen from Fig. 20 (left)
that the constant shape and strength of the vortices nearly
are preserved. As a result, the height variations of second
winglet at the fixed height of first winglet (h1∗ = 4 mm), no
remarkable impact occurs on the heat transfer and flow char-
acteristics; see also Fig. 19. However, as can be observed
from Fig. 20 (right) with increasing h1∗ to 5.5 mm, the gener-
ated vortices become stronger compared to those shown in
left side plots. Thus, the number and strength of generated
vortices by the second VG increases by increasing h2∗ from
4 to 5.5 mm. Consequently, with increasing h1∗ from 4 to
Fig. 19  Comparison of the ratios of heat transfer coefficient, pres-
sure drop and coefficient of performance for different height of VGs;
see Figs. 1 and 3
Fig. 20  Streamline coloured by pressure (Pa) on a YZ-plane at X/L = 0.45 for different heights of second VG: a h∗2 = 4 mm, b h∗2 = 5.5 mm,
left h∗1 = 4 mm, right h∗1 = 5.5 mm
5.5 mm, h∗2 has a more significant impact on the heat transfer
and flow characteristics; see also Fig. 19.
5.3 Best configuration
The individual effect of the VGs dimensions, locations and
angles of attack were investigated in the previous subsec-
tions. In those studies, when a parameter was varied, the
other parameters were fixed at the base values, see Table 2.
In this section, the cumulative effects of ten factors are
considered to introduce the best configuration for heat
exchanger model. The geometries investigated are denoted
as M1–M6 including five configurations which are related
to the best conditions when each factor is studied alone
and the geometry proposed by Torii et al. [6]; see Table 5.
Based on new simulations, two best cases are studied and
denoted as M7 and M8 models; see Table 5. The first best
case (M7) is determined based on the best conditions for
each factors (including attack angles, locations and dimen-
sions of VGs), and second best case (M8) is selected based
on the second place of the best conditions for each param-
eters. A comparison between the results of these two best
cases and other six configurations is presented in Fig. 21.
Figure 21 shows that the model M7 is best one in terms
of heat transfer and thermal performance factor. This con-
figuration gives about 59 % heat transfer enhancement and
provides 43 % higher thermal performance factor compared
to that for without VGs. Also this model imposes 37 %
higher pressure drop in comparison with the reference con-
figuration (without VGs). The model M2 is the best one in
term of pressure drop, which increases the pressure drop
about 24 % compared to the geometry without VGs. Nev-
ertheless, model M7 is selected as the best model due to the
higher thermal performance parameter for model M7 com-
pared to model M2. When the best model is compared with
the geometry proposed by Torii et al. [6] (M1 model), heat
transfer ratio increases about 15 %, while the pressure loss
ratio increases about 8 %. In addition, the performance coef-
ficient increases about 11 % in comparison with model M1.
13
 Heat Mass Transfer

Table 5  Summary of the Model Model description

geometries investigated
M1 Geometry proposed by Torii et al. [6]
M2 The best conditions associated with attack angle of VGs
M3 The best conditions associated with length of VGs
M4 The best conditions associated with transverse position of VGs
M5 The best conditions associated with height of VGs
M6 The best conditions associated with longitudinal position of VGs
M7 Combining the best conditions associated with for each factors
M8 Combining second place of the best conditions associated with for each parameters

vortices are deflected towards the wake region. These

Fig. 21  Comparison of the thermal performance factor and the ratios
of heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop for geometries intro-
duced in Table 5
6 Conclusions
In this work, three-dimensional numerical simulations are
performed to investigate the influence of various design
parameters (including attack angles, transverse and lon-
gitudinal locations, length and height of VGs) on the heat
transfer and fluid flow characteristics in a fin-and-tube heat
exchanger with built-in two pairs of delta-winglet VGs.
In order to reduce the tube wake, the delta winglets are
arranged in a “common-flow-up” orientation in the first row
and between the first and second rows of three-row inline
tube bundles. Along the direction of flow, the diameter of
the second row of tubes is smaller than the first and third
rows of tubes. The findings are summarized as follows:
1. The study of flow structures shows that the number and
extent of the vortices generated by the first VG increase
with increasing distance from the VG and the core of
vortices merge to those are generated by the second
VG.
2. The results show that the intensity of heat transfer
significantly increases with the increase of the attack
angle of the first VG accompanying with an increase
in the pressure drop. The best angle of attack for both
VG is 15°, where the best value for performance factor
is about 1.38 in comparison with the geometry without
VGs.
3. The placement of the first and second VGs at the trans-
vers locations −0.2H and +0.2H provides the highest
overall performance, where these characteristics are
increased by 39 % compared to the configuration with-
out VGs, respectively.
4. The results indicate that for various positions of the
first VG, the placement of the second VG at locations
X2 = XRef and X2 = +0.5H causes the minimum and
maximum pressure drop, respectively. The case with
X1  =  −1H and X2  = XRef provides the best perfor-
mance and it can employed as best condition, where
the best thermal performance is about 1.41 in compari-
son with the geometry without delta winglets.
5. With increase of the length of the first VG from 15 to
30 mm for every chosen lengths of the second wing-
let, the investigated parameters increase continuously,
while these parameters decrease with further increase
of the length of the first winglet from 30 to 40 mm. The
best lengths are 30 and 20 mm for the first and second
VGs, respectively. This case increases the thermal per-
formance coefficient by 39 %.
6. A continuous increase in the main parameters occurs
by increasing in the height of the first and second
winglets from 4 to 5.5 mm. The best height is 5.5 mm
for both VGs. In these conditions, the increase on the
thermal performance coefficient is about 41 % compar-
ison with that for without the VGs.
7. The optimal configuration based on the best conditions
for each factors (including attack angles, locations and
dimensions of VGs), is designed. The results show that
this model increases the convective heat transfer ratio

13
Heat Mass Transfer
and thermal performance factor about 59 and 43 % in
compare with the geometry without VG, respectively.
References
1. Jacobi AM, Shah RK (1995) Heat transfer surface enhancement
through the use of longitudinal vortices: a review of recent pro-
gress. Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 11:295–309
2. Fiebig M, Valencia A, Mitra N (1993) Wing-type vortex gener-
ators for fin and tube heat exchangers. Exp Thermal Fluid Sci
7:287–295
3. Chen Y, Fiebig M, Mitra NK (1998) Conjugate heat transfer of a
finned oval tube with a punched longitudinal vortex generator in
form of a delta winglet—parametric investigations of the wing-
let. Int J Heat Mass Transf 41:3961–3978
4. Chen Y, Fiebig M, Mitra NK (1998) Heat transfer enhancement
of a finned oval tube with punched longitudinal vortex generators
in-line. Int J Heat Mass Transf 41:4151–4166
5. Chen Y, Fiebig M, Mitra NK (2000) Heat transfer enhancement
of finned oval tubes with staggered punched longitudinal vortex
generators. Int J Heat Mass Transf 43:417–435
6. Torii K, Kwak K, Nishino K (2002) Heat transfer enhancement
accompanying pressure-loss reduction with winglet-type vortex
generators for fin-tube heat exchangers. Int J Heat Mass Transf
45:3795–3801
7. Sohankar A, Davidson L (2001) Effect of inclined vortex genera-
tors on heat transfer enhancement in a three-dimensional chan-
nel. Numer Heat Transf A-39:443–448
8. Sohankar A (2004) The LES and DNS simulations of heat trans-
fer and fluid flow in a plate-fin heat exchanger with vortex gen-
erators. Iran J Sci Technol 28:443–452
9. Sohankar A (2007) Heat transfer augmentation in a rectangu-
lar channel with a vee-shaped vortex generator. Int J Heat Fluid
Flow 28:306–317
10. Kwak KM, Torii K, Nishino K (2003) Heat transfer and pressure
loss penalty for the number of tube rows of staggered finned—
tube bundles with a single transverse row of winglets. Int J Heat
Mass Transf 46:175–180
11. Kwak KM, Torii K, Nishino K (2005) Simultaneous heat transfer
enhancement and pressure loss reduction for finned-tube bundles
with the first or two transverse rows of built-in winglets. Exp
Thermal Fluid Sci 29:625–632
12. Joardar A, Jacobi AM (2008) Heat transfer enhancement by
winglet-type vortex generator arrays in compact plain-fin-and-
tube heat exchangers. Int J Refrig 31:87–97
13. Wu JM, Tao WQ (2008) Numerical study on laminar convection
heat transfer in a rectangular channel with longitudinal vortex
generator. Part (A): verification of field synergy principle. Int J
Heat Mass Transf 51:1179–1191
14. Chu P, He YL, Tao WQ (2009) Three-Dimensional Numeri-
cal study of flow and heat transfer enhancement using
vortex generators in fin-and-tube heat exchangers. Journal of
Heat Transfer ASME 131:091903.1–091903.9
15. Tian TL, Ling HY, Gang LY, Quan TW (2009) Numerical study
of fluid flow and heat transfer in a flat-plate channel with lon-
gitudinal vortex generators by applying field synergy principle
analysis. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 36:111–120
16. Lei YG, He YL, Tian LT, Chu P, Tao WQ (2010) Hydrodynamics
and hea ttransfer characteristics of a novel heat exchanger with
delta-winglet vortex generators. Chem Eng Sci 6:1551–1562
17. Wu JM, Tao WQ (2011) Impact of delta winglet vortex genera-
tors on the performance of a novel fin-tube surfaces with two
rows of tubes in different diameters. Energy Convers Manag
52:2895–2901
18. Wu JM, Zhang H, Yan CH, Wang Y (2012) Experimental study
on the performance of a novel fin-tube air heat exchanger with
punched longitudinal vortex generator. Energy Convers Manag
57:42–48
19. Min C, Qi C, Wang E, Tian L, Qin Y (2012) Numerical inves-
tigation of turbulent flow and heat transfer in a channel with
novel longitudinal vortex generators. Int J Heat Mass Transf
55:7268–7277
20. He YL, Han H, Tao WQ, Zhang YW (2012) Numerical study of
heat-transfer enhancement by punched winglet-type vortex gen-
erator arrays in fin-and-tube heat exchangers. Int J Heat Mass
Transf 55:5449–5458
21. Mirzaei M, Sohankar A (2013) Heat transfer augmentation in
plate finned tube heat exchangers with vortex generators: a com-
parison of round and flat tubes. IJST Trans Mech Eng 37:39–51
22. Jang JY, Hsu LF, Leu JS (2013) Optimization of the span angle
and location of vortex generators in a plate-fin and tube heat
exchanger. Int J Heat Mass Transf 67:432–444
23. Delac B, Trp A, Lenic K (2014) Numerical investigation of heat
transfer enhancement in a fin and tube heat exchanger using vor-
tex generators. Int J Heat Mass Transf 78:662–669
24. Gong B, Wang LB, Lin ZM (2014) Heat transfer characteris-
tics of a circular tube bank fin heat exchanger with fins punched
curve rectangular vortex generators in the wake regions of the
tubes. Appl Thermal Eng 75:1–15
25. Gholami AA, Wahid MA, Mohammed HA (2014) Heat transfer
enhancement and pressure drop for fin-and-tube compact heat
exchangers with wavy rectangular winglet-type vortex genera-
tors. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 54:132–140
26. Hu WL, Song KW, Guan Y, Chang LM, Liu S, Wang LB (2013)
Secondary flow intensity determines Nusselt number on the fin
surfaces of circle tube bank fin heat exchanger. Int J Heat Mass
Transf 62:620–631
27. Hu WL, Su M, Wang LC, Zhang Q, Chang LM, Liu S, Wang
LB (2013) The optimum fin spacing of circular tube bank
fin heat exchanger with vortex generators. Heat Mass Transf
49:1271–1285
28. Mirzaei M, Sohankar A, Davidson L, Innings F (2014) Large
Eddy simulation of the flow and heat transfer in a half-corru-
gated channel with various wave amplitudes. Int J Heat and Mass
Transf 76:432–446
13