Journal of Cleaner Production 200 (2018) 552e567

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Sustainability optimisation of shell and tube heat exchanger, using a

new integrated methodology

Cartelle Barros a, *, Manuel Lara Coira b, María Pilar de la Cruz Lo
Juan Jose
pez a,
~ o Gochi a
Alfredo del Can
a
Departamento de Ingeniería Civil, Escuela Polit
ecnica Superior (EPS), Universidade da Corun~ a (UDC), Campus de Esteiro, C/Mendiza
bal s/n, 15403, Ferrol, A
Corun~ a, Spain
b
Departamento de Ciencias de la Navegacio
n e Ingeniería Marina, Escuela Polit
ecnica Superior (EPS), Universidade da Corun~ a (UDC), Campus de Esteiro, C/
Mendiza
bal s/n, 15403, Ferrol, A Corun
~ a, Spain

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

Article history: A new integrated methodology to optimise the sustainability of engineering systems is presented in this
Received 26 December 2017 study. It is partially based on the use of the MIVES (Modelo Integrado de Valor para una Evaluacio
n Sos-
Received in revised form tenible, or Integrated Value Model for Sustainability Assessment, in translation) method. Its effectiveness
15 May 2018
was assessed throughout its application to a shell and tube heat exchanger (STHE). For that purpose, a
Accepted 27 July 2018
case study previously analysed in the existing literature was considered, in this case with a different goal.
Available online 31 July 2018
Three design variables (shell internal diameter, tube outside diameter and baffle spacing) were used for
optimisation. Brute force, Monte Carlo simulation and genetic algorithm approaches were the optimi-
Keywords:
Shell and tube heat exchanger
sation techniques deployed to maximise the sustainability index (SI) of the STHE. The results obtained
Sustainability optimisation are in line with the idea that there is no solution with full-scale, strict sustainable development (SI ¼ 1),
Multi-criteria decision making method since the different designs have advantages but also disadvantages. Nevertheless, there can be significant
Monte Carlo differences in the contribution to integral sustainability among all the valid designs for a specific
Brute force application.
Genetic algorithm © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction: literature review and main gaps in current
knowledge
The present section is organised as follows: Sections 1.1 and 1.2
provide a literature review on integral sustainability and STHEs
optimisation, respectively. The main gaps in current knowledge as
well as the objectives and novel aspects of this paper are presented
in Section 1.3.
1.1. Integral sustainability
Nowadays, it is accepted that there are limits on growth
(Meadows et al., 2004) and conventional development. Due to this,
measures are starting to be taken to protect existing and future
generations from the consequences of overcoming those limits. As a
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: juan.cartelle1@udc.es (J.J. Cartelle Barros), mlara@udc.es

pez), alfredo@udc.es (A. del Can
(M. Lara Coira), pcruz@udc.es (M.P. de la Cruz Lo ~o
Gochi).
result, sustainable development and integral sustainability are two
terms that have acquired a great relevance in almost any sphere of
activity, including, among others: the economy, industry and the
construction and energy sectors.
Both terms go beyond environmental aspects (pollution control
and reduced consumption of resources), also including social
(equality, decent life, social stability, protection of social and cul-
tural values) and economic issues (minimisation of life-cycle cost,
long term productivity of resources, equitable development). In
other words, sustainable development and integral sustainability
lie on three basic pillars: environmental, social and economic. Some
authors consider an additional dimension, the technical one,
related to functional and technological advantages.
Energy can be considered a key factor in reducing poverty and
improving living standards (Büyüko € zkan and Karabulut, 2017).
Therefore, energy issues and the sustainability dimensions must go
together. Nevertheless, this is not always the case, and the energy
sector is far from pursuing integral sustainability. On the positive
side, sustainability assessment has been addressed by a great
number of authors. The reader can find in Cartelle Barros et al.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.266
0959-6526/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J.J. Cartelle Barros et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 200 (2018) 552e567
(2015) a compilation of some of the research studies related to this
subject.
However, it is now necessary to go beyond sustainability
assessment, in search of optimisation, in terms of maximising the
contribution to sustainable development of engineering systems.
Few studies that tackle sustainability optimisation are found. Al
Sharrah et al. (2010) planned a petrochemical network for Kuwait
by developing an optimisation model, where some sustainability
indicators were used as objectives. Liu and Huang (2015) proposed
a methodology combined with Monte Carlo simulation to deter-
mine metal-finishing industrial system configuration with the
highest performance in terms of sustainability, involving three
sectors and six plants.
Ren et al. (2015) developed a model for helping decision makers
select the most sustainable design for biodiesel supply networks.
In the same vein, a model to maximise the sustainability index,
as well as the profit in industrial systems, is presented in Ren
et al. (2016). This model was applied to a natural
gaseacetyleneemethanoleformaldehyde-based integrated indus-
trial system as a way of illustrating the proposed approach.
Abdallah and El Rayes (2016) designed an optimisation model
for maximising the sustainability of existing buildings; they
considered a public building as a case study to assess the perfor-
mance of the proposed model. Also in the construction sector, Tapia
and Padgett (2016) presented a framework based on multi-
objective optimisation to find the repair option with the highest
contribution to sustainability for infrastructures exposed to natural
hazards.
Pratama et al. (2017) presented a multi-objective optimisation
model to identify the most sustainable scenario for power gener-
ation planning in Indonesia for 2050. Also in the energy sector, Lee
et al. (2017) designed a method to optimise the sustainability of an
integrated wastewater treatment plant with a combined heat and
power generation system. Sustainability optimisation was also
addressed in the nuclear industry; Sekimoto and Nagata (2010) is
an example of this.
The reader can find more studies addressing sustainability
optimisation in Jawahar et al. (2017), Kannegiesser et al. (2015) and
Meng et al. (2017).
1.2. Shell and tube heat exchangers (STHEs)
Heat exchangers are devices used to transfer heat between two
or more fluids that are at different temperatures (Azad and
Amidpour, 2011; Guo et al., 2009; Hadidi et al., 2013; Hadidi and
€
Nazari, 2013; Ozçelik, 2007; Patel and Rao, 2010; Rao and Saroj,
2017; Selbaş et al., 2006; Tharakeshwar et al., 2017). The fluids
(liquid or gas) are usually separated by a solid wall (Hadidi et al.,
2013; Hadidi and Nazari, 2013; Tharakeshwar et al., 2017). Heat
exchangers are used in different industries including power engi-
neering, petroleum refining, food, chemical, process industries and
many others (Azad and Amidpour, 2011; Bahiraei et al., 2015,
2017a; Bahiraei and Hangi, 2013; Guo et al., 2009; Saeedan and
Bahiraei, 2015). In fact, heat exchangers can be considered vital
elements in various systems such as the human body, computers,
vehicles and power plants among others (Selbaş et al., 2006).
Shell and tube heat exchangers (STHEs) are the most frequent
type of heat exchangers (Asadi et al., 2014; Azad and Amidpour,
2011; Bahiraei et al., 2015; Ghanei et al., 2014; Hadidi et al., 2013;
€
Hadidi and Nazari, 2013; Ozçelik, 2007; Patel and Rao, 2010;
Saeedan and Bahiraei, 2015; Selbaş et al., 2006; Tharakeshwar et al.,
2017). They are composed of a bundle of tubes contained inside a
€
cylindrical shell (Ozçelik, 2007). One of the fluids flows along the
inside of the tubes while the other flows between the shell and the
€
bundle of tubes (Ozçelik, 2007). The reader can find a diagram of a
553
typical STHE in Hadidi et al. (2013). STHEs can be used under a wide
range of operating pressures and temperatures (Ghanei et al., 2014;
Hadidi et al., 2013; Hadidi and Nazari, 2013; Selbaş et al., 2006;
Tharakeshwar et al., 2017). STHE's adaptability to different opera-
tion conditions (Fesanghary et al., 2009; Patel and Rao, 2010; Soltan
et al., 2004; Vasconcelos Segundo et al., 2017), its relatively simple
manufacturing (Fesanghary et al., 2009; Patel and Rao, 2010; Soltan
et al., 2004; Vasconcelos Segundo et al., 2017), robustness and
reliability (Costa and Queiroz, 2008; Ghanei et al., 2014; Hadidi
et al., 2013; Hadidi and Nazari, 2013) make this type of heat
exchanger suitable for being used in several applications such as
power generation, chemical processes, refrigeration, heating and
air conditioning, manufacturing and medical applications (Ghanei
€
et al., 2014; Hadidi et al., 2013; Hadidi and Nazari, 2013; Ozçelik,
2007; Selbaş et al., 2006; Tharakeshwar et al., 2017). Its use has
also been proposed for alternative energy applications, including
geothermal and ocean thermal (Rao and Saroj, 2017). In other
words, it can be concluded that STHEs play a crucial role in in-
dustries (Tharakeshwar et al., 2017), and they are expected to
maintain this position in the years to come (Costa and Queiroz,
2008).
Designing a STHE is a complex process that includes the selec-
tion of operating and geometrical parameters that meet the
necessary heat duty under a set of constraints (Ghanei et al., 2014;
Hadidi et al., 2013; Hadidi and Nazari, 2013; Patel and Rao, 2010;
Rao and Saroj, 2017; Tharakeshwar et al., 2017; Vasconcelos
Segundo et al., 2017). Traditional design methods are based on
iterative procedures, where design parameters are progressively
modified until an adequate solution is found (Caputo et al., 2008).
Nevertheless, the solution reached, despite meeting the specifica-
tions and constraints, can be far from the best solution for a specific
heat duty. Taking this into consideration and also due to their
widespread use, many authors have carried out studies focused on
the optimisation of heat exchangers and, in particular, STHEs,
adopting different objective functions.
Soltan et al. (2004) determined the baffle spacing associated to
the minimum capital and operating costs for segmentally baffled
shell and tube condensers. In Balkan (2005), the author improved
the classical application of the entropy minimisation principle to
optimise the entropy generation caused by irreversible heat
transfer in exchangers. From an economic point of view, Selbas et al.
(2006) applied genetic algorithms (GAs) for the optimal design of
€
STHEs. Also by using a GA, Ozçelik (2007) optimised (minimised)
the capital and exergetic cost of STHEs.
In Costa and Queiroz (2008), the authors presented an optimi-
sation procedure to reduce the capital costs of STHEs by decreasing
the heat transfer area for a certain application. Caputo et al. (2008)
proposed a method to minimise the total discounted cost of STHEs,
by using a GA. Returning to the entropy issue, Guo et al. (2009)
developed a design procedure to minimise the entropy genera-
tion rate in STHEs, also by using a GA. By the use of harmony search
algorithm and global sensitivity analysis, the optimal design of a
STHE (minimum combined operating and investment cost) is pre-
sented in Fesanghary et al. (2009).
Ponce Ortega et al. (2009) minimised the total annual costs for
STHEs through the use of an approach based on a GA. The economic
optimisation of STHEs is developed in Patel and Rao (2010), based
on a particle swarm optimisation technique. Sanaye and
Hajabdollahi (2010) modelled and optimised an industrial STHE
by minimising the total cost and maximising the effectiveness. A GA
technique was applied for that purpose. Azad and Amidpour (2011)
used a GA to optimise (minimise) the sum of capital and operating
costs of STHEs.
Hadidi et al. (2013) developed a new design procedure, based on
imperialist competitive algorithm, to minimise the total costs of
554 J.J. Cartelle Barros et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 200 (2018) 552e567
STHEs. Also looking for an economic optimisation, Hadidi and
Nazari (2013) presented a new design approach for STHEs, this
time relying on biogeography-based optimisation algorithm. In
Ghanei et al. (2014), the authors presented a multi-objective
(thermal and economic) optimisation of STHE, the particle swarm
optimisation technique was applied. In the following case by using
a cuckoo search algorithm, Asadi et al. (2014) proposed a model to
optimise the total annual costs of STHEs.
Rao and Saroj (2017) used the Jaya algorithm for optimising
STHE design from an economic point of view. Tharakeshwar et al.
(2017) carried out a multi-objective (total cost and effectiveness)
optimisation of STHEs through a computational technique called
bat algorithm. Vasconcelos Segundo et al., 2017 proposed the use of
the Tsallis differential evolution technique to minimise the total
annual costs of STHEs.
The reader can find more studies addressing the optimisation of
heat exchangers in Bahiraei et al. (2015), (2017b), Bahiraei and
Hangi (2013) and Saeedan and Bahiraei (2015).
1.3. Objectives. Gaps in current knowledge
After reading Section 1.1, it can be concluded that there is a great
number of studies measuring the integral sustainability in the en-
ergy sector, usually employing multi-criteria methods. On the
contrary, sustainability optimisation has received much less
attention in all sectors, including the energy sector. In fact, the
majority of existing studies dealing with sustainability optimisation
do not consider all sustainability pillars in depth.
On the other hand, after reading Section 1.2, it is clear that many
authors addressed the optimisation of STHEs under different ob-
jectives, where the economic optimisation is probably the most
common one. Nevertheless, to the best of the authors’ knowledge,
one of the main gaps in current literature is that there are no
studies addressing the sustainability optimisation of STHEs.
Decision makers in the energy sector very often base their
choices on a small number of indicators. In many cases the eco-
nomic criterion is the only aspect taken into account. Nevertheless,
any engineering system has an impact on its surroundings,
including the environment and society. Therefore, it is now
necessary to consider these two dimensions at the time of opti-
mising any engineering system. The original contribution of this
paper is fourfold. On one hand, the aim of this study is to propose a
new integrated methodology to optimise the sustainability of en-
gineering systems, by considering, at least, the economic, social and
environmental pillars in depth. Secondly, this is the first time that
this new methodology will be applied to optimise the sustainability
of STHEs. In other words, a new objective function which changes
from the existing ones will be considered in this paper: the sus-
tainability index (SI). Thirdly, the SI can be divided into the corre-
sponding environmental, social and economic objective functions,
related to the partial sustainability indices. Therefore, a multi-
objective optimisation will also be addressed here, with a wider
scope than the ones seen in literature. A case study will be
considered to show effectiveness of the proposed methodology. It is
hoped that the advances here proposed would serve to make the
society more aware of the different impacts of engineering systems.
Finally, as far as the authors are aware, this is the first time that the
MIVES method will be applied for optimising the sustainability of
an energy system.
2. Material and methods
2.1. MIVES method
Sustainability assessment is frequently done by performing life-
cycle analysis (LCA). The conventional output of an LCA is a list
containing the estimation of potential value of the different envi-
ronmental indicators. That estimation takes into account the life-
cycle of the engineering system. An example of these indicators
are the global warming and the acidification potentials, measured
in the suitable units; for instance, respectively, in equivalent CO2
and SO2 emissions. The concept of LCA can also be applied to social,
economic and technical indicators. The LCA output list, containing
the values of the different indicators, is not useful for making de-
cisions, since extracting valuable conclusions and making decisions
from them are not simple tasks. Moreover, different designs of an
engineering system will have advantages and disadvantages.
Therefore, an integration method is needed. In fact, an index inte-
grating all the values for the indicators could be useful to overcome
the abovementioned difficulties. More information about this index
will be provided in Section 4.2.
The methodology to optimise the sustainability of engineering
systems proposed in the present study is, in part, based on the
integration method called MIVES (Modelo Integrado de Valor para
una Evaluacio
n Sostenible, or Integrated Value Model for Sustain-
ability Assessment, in translation). Therefore, to gain a better un-
derstanding of the optimisation methodology, it is necessary to
introduce MIVES. This method can be classified as a deterministic
multi-criteria decision one. It is based on the use of requirement
trees, value functions and, optionally, the Analytic Hierarchy Pro-
cess (AHP).
MIVES serves to integrate the environmental, social, economic
and technical LCA outputs. It makes it possible to transform
different types of indicators, measured in different units, into the
same dimensionless one, known as degree or level of satisfaction.
When performing this transformation, it also allows one to
consider non-linear assessment. Finally, MIVES takes into account
the relative importance of the different indicators, and generates a
single, global sustainability index.
In the construction sector, MIVES has already helped to assess
sustainability in the design of structures (Aguado et al., 2012;
Cuadrado et al., 2015; del Can ~ o et al., 2012; del Can ~ o et al., 2016; de
la Fuente et al., 2017; Go
mez et al., 2012; Pons and De La Fuente,
2013, for instance), buildings (Cuadrado et al., 2012; Hosseini
et al., 2016; Pons and Aguado, 2012; San-Jose
et al., 2007; San-

Lombera and Cuadrado Rojo, 2010; San-Jose
Jose
Lombera and
Garrucho Aprea, 2010, among others), and urban infrastructures
(de la Fuente et al., 2016; Ormazabal et al., 2008). It has also been
used for assessing occupational risk (Casanovas et al., 2014; Reyes
et al., 2014) and prioritising infrastructure investments (Pardo-
Bosch and Aguado, 2015; Pujadas et al., 2017). In the energy
sector this method was also applied to assess the sustainability of
renewable and non-renewable power plants (Cartelle Barros et al.,
2015).
Uncertainty can affect specific variables of engineering systems
and MIVES has been combined with the Monte Carlo simulation
(MIVES-Monte Carlo method) (del Can ~ o et al., 2012) and with fuzzy
arithmetic (Fuzzy-MIVES method) (del Can ~ o et al., 2016) to solve
this issue.
The reader can find in de la Cruz et al. (2014a) a complete
description of the deterministic MIVES method, and in Appendix B
of Cartelle Barros et al. (2015) an example of the detailed operations
for applying MIVES to a case study. On the other hand, the foun-
dations and detailed description of the MIVES-Monte Carlo and
Fuzzy-MIVES methods can be found in de la Cruz et al. (2014a),
(2014b), respectively.
2.2. Integrated optimisation methodology
The conceptual framework for a MIVES-based, integrated
 J.J. Cartelle Barros et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 200 (2018) 552e567
method to optimise sustainability of engineering systems has been
proposed by the authors in del Can ~ o et al. (2015). Firstly, a math-
ematical model must be created for designing the engineering
system. Specific requirements have to be met, and this design
model will include all the variables (continuous and discrete),
equations, and constraints necessary for ensuring an adequate
design of the system. However, there is usually more than one
suitable design that fulfils all the needs of a particular application.
Thus, the designer generally has a certain degree of freedom in the
design process.
Moreover, it is possible to create a MIVES-based model to assess
the sustainability of the engineering system (sustainability model).
This model shall be composed of a set of environmental, social,
economic and, if necessary, technical indicators. As indicated in Al-
Sharrah et al. (2010), it is important to consider all representative
indicators in order to provide a comprehensive sustainability
assessment of the system under study. Representative indicators
should be understood as the ones that can have an important
impact on the assessment results. In other words, those indicators
that, despite being important (at least in theory), do not provide a
differential character among the results of the different alternatives
may be excluded. In the same vein, those indicators that have a
minor weight in relation to the most important aspects of the
sustainability model can also be excluded, since their inclusion will
hardly affect the results.
Once the design and sustainability models are defined, linking is
possible, configuring the complete model to be optimised. That is,
design variables of the engineering system (design model) can
adopt different values, always ensuring that all requirements are
met under the defined constraints. These values will be associated
with diverse valid designs of the system. Each design will have its
own capital and operating costs, its environmental emissions, and
so on. The outputs of the design model will define the inputs of the
sustainability model, which will be used to estimate the sustain-
ability index associated to each valid alternative. In Fig. 3 of del
Can~ o et al. (2015) a conceptual graph representing an STHE
model to be optimised is shown.
The next step is to apply a conventional or metaheuristics
simulation process to find the engineering system with the highest
contribution to integral sustainability. One of the easiest conceptual
technique consists in applying the Monte Carlo simulation, in
which different types of distribution functions are assigned to each
one of the design variables. During simulation, pseudo-random
values are generated according to the previously defined distribu-
tion functions. By applying this technique a random search is car-
ried out and, after the simulation, the design with the highest
contribution to sustainable development can be identified. Monte
Carlo is an approximate method, so that it will make it possible to
obtain an exact (optimal) or, more frequently, approximate (sub-
optimal) solution to the problem. The reader can find more infor-
mation about the Monte Carlo simulation, including its use in
optimisation, in Fishman (2003), Kroese et al. (2011) and Robert
and Casella (2005).
Another conceptually simple alternative is to apply a brute force
approach (exhaustive search). Brute force optimisation methods try
to calculate all the solutions of a problem, so that the best one can
be identified. Obviously, this type of technique is only viable for
problems where the number of solutions is limited, as it requires a
considerable computation power. This method is highly recom-
mended for problems in which the design variables are discrete and
with a small number of possible states, since its implementation is
simple and the optimum will be found with a 100% of probability. If
the variables are continuous, the number of possible solutions is
infinite. However, this does not mean that a brute force algorithm
cannot be used. In this case, not all potential solutions will be
555
assessed, since it is impossible. In fact, the solutions that will be
assessed are those which are defined according to a certain preci-
sion for each continuous variable. In other words, the interval of
possible values associated to each continuous variable has to be
discretised in a determined number of steps. The reader can find an
application of the exhaustive search method in the energy sector in
Pesaran et al. (2014) .
The problem of optimising the sustainability of an engineering
system can also be understood as a multi-objective optimisation
problem, where each of the sustainability dimensions (partial
sustainability indices: economic (EI), social (SOI), and environ-
mental (ENI)) can be defined as an objective function. In these types
of problems there is usually a conflict among the objectives,
therefore the solution consists in a set of optimal results (known as
Pareto-optimal ones) instead of a single solution (Deb et al., 2002).
Genetic algorithms are adaptive and semi-stochastic optimisation
methods based on several strategies from biological evolution
(Floudas and Pardalos, 2009). Schaffer (1985) proposed the first
multi-objective optimisation genetic algorithm and, since then, a
considerable number of multi-objective genetic algorithms have
been suggested. In this line, Srinivas and Deb (1994) proposed a
non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm, called NSGA. It was later
modified and improved by Deb et al. (2002), who addressed its
main criticisms (lack of elitism, computational complexity, among
others). The result is NSGA-II, which will be employed in this work.
It is important to remark that the three previous techniques
(Monte Carlo simulation, brute force approach and NSGA-II) can
have very different performances. As shown in Section 5, in this
particular case, the three methodologies provided very similar re-
sults. Furthermore, the differences in the computation times were
not considerable. Nevertheless, this is because the number of var-
iables, their ranges of possible values, as well as the complexity of
the models and, in general, the complexity of the optimisation
problem is reduced, in comparison with other potential applica-
tions. The reader should bear in mind that, if the complexity of the
problem increases, Monte Carlo simulation and brute force
approach easily become inapplicable, with inadmissible computa-
tion times. On the contrary, the NSGA-II technique will probably
remain as an attractive option with reasonable calculation times.
Despite this and, depending on each particular application, there
can be other techniques more adequate than the ones considered in
this study. In fact, other search methods can be used, such as
simulated annealing, tabu search and other genetic algorithms,
among others (Floudas and Pardalos, 2009).
3. Case study
The following case study was considered to prove the applica-
tion of the integrated optimisation methodology. A STHE has been
designed to sub-cool condensate from a methanol condenser from
368.15 K (95  C) to 313.15 K (40  C). The coolant will be brackish
water with a temperature increase from 298.15 K (25  C) to 313.15 K
(40  C). This example was first considered in Sinnot (2005). Since
then, many authors have analysed the optimisation of this case
study from an economic point of view (Asadi et al., 2014; Azad and
Amidpour, 2011; Caputo et al., 2008; Hadidi et al., 2013; Hadidi and
Nazari, 2013; Patel and Rao, 2010; Vasconcelos Segundo et al.,
2017). The original design considered a counter-flow arrange-
ment, as well as one shell pass and two tube passes (n ¼ 2) with an
equilateral triangular pitch arrangement. The same configuration is
used in the present work. The STHE will be made of 316 stainless
steel (kw ¼ 16.3 W/m K, rw ¼ 8000 kg/m3). The exchanger will be a
fixed tube sheet one, since it is the simplest and cheapest valid
option for the case under study. The shell internal diameter (Ds), the
tube outside diameter (do) and the baffle spacing (B) will be the
556 J.J. Cartelle Barros et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 200 (2018) 552e567

variables used for the sustainability optimisation. These variables

will vary between 0.1 and 1.15 m, 0.008 and 0.05 m, and 0.051 and
0.5 m, respectively. The design specifications are shown in Table 1.
Asadi et al. (2014), Azad and Amidpour (2011), Caputo et al. (2008),
Hadidi et al. (2013), Hadidi and Nazari (2013), Patel and Rao (2010)
and Vasconcelos Segundo et al. (2017) have employed the same
specifications, for a different purpose (cost optimisation). In Section
4, the models for this case study will be described.
4. Models
4.1. Design model for the STHE
The main objective in the design of a heat exchanger is to
determine the surface area required for the specified heat transfer
duty (Sinnot, 2005). Therefore, this requirement is probably the
most important parameter in heat exchangers, since the whole
calculation process aims to ensure it.
The logarithmic mean temperature difference (LMTD) approach
is used to calculate the heat exchanger surface area (A) for each
possible design configuration (Incropera et al., 2006; Kern, 1950;
Shah and Sekulic, 2003; Sinnot, 2005). The LMTD method was used
in previous STHE optimisation studies (Asadi et al., 2014; Caputo
€
et al., 2008; Hadidi et al., 2013; Hadidi and Nazari, 2013; Ozçelik,
2007; Patel and Rao, 2010; Selbaş et al., 2006; Vasconcelos
Segundo et al., 2017).
Q
A¼ (1)
U$F$LMTD
Q is the heat transfer duty, U is the overall heat transfer coeffi-
cient and F is the correction factor. The heat transfer duty, Q, is
determined by:
Q ¼ mt $Cpt $ðTco  Tci Þ ¼ ms $Cps $ðThi  Tho Þ (2)
For cross-flow between adjacent baffle, the logarithmic mean
temperature difference (LMTD) used in Eq. (1) is calculated by
applying Eq. (3) (Incropera et al., 2006; Kern, 1950; Shah and
Sekulic, 2003; Sinnot, 2005).
ðThi  Tco Þ  ðTho  Tci Þ
LMTD ¼ (3)
lnððThi  Tco Þ=ðTho  Tci ÞÞ
Tco  Tci
P¼ (5)
Thi  Tci
Thi  Tho
R¼ (6)
Tco  Tci
The overall heat transfer coefficient, U, is necessary to calculate
the heat exchanger surface area A. Similarly, some previous esti-
mates are necessary for determining U. The number of tubes (Nt)
can be approximately calculated by using Eq. (7) (Sinnot, 2005).

n1
D
Nt ¼ K1 $ b (7)
do
K1 and n1 are two constants that depend on the number of tube
passes and on the tube arrangement. The reader can find in Ta-
ble 12.4 of Sinnot (2005) the values of these two coefficients for the
case in which the following relation is fulfilled (also assumed in the
present work):
St ¼ 1:25$do (8)
Eq. (8) implies that tubes must be spaced with a minimum
distance (center-to-center) of 1.25 times the tube outside diameter,
according to TEMA (1999). In this case K1 and n1 take the values of
0.249 and 2.207, respectively.
The bundle diameter, Db, and the shell internal diameter, Ds, are
related through Eq. (9), where bd is bundle diametrical clearance.
Ds ¼ Db þ bd (9)
The bundle diametrical clearance (bd) depends on the type of
STHE (Sinnot, 2005). A considerable number of authors assumed
that in Eq. (7), the shell internal diameter (Ds) can be used instead of
the bundle diameter (Db) (Asadi et al., 2014; Caputo et al., 2008;
Hadidi et al., 2013; Hadidi and Nazari, 2013; Patel and Rao, 2010;
Vasconcelos Segundo et al., 2017). This is not an unfavourable
approximation for the considered STHE, since the clearance in fixed
tube sheet designs is minimum (particularly in comparison with
other types). However, in the present work, Fig. 12.10 of Sinnot
(2005) is used to calculate Db.
The flow velocity for the tube side fluid (vt) is calculated by using
Eq. (10) (Kern, 1950; Sinnot, 2005).

The correction factor, F, is a function of the number of shell and mt n

tube passes, as well as shell and tube fluid temperatures (Sinnot,
vt ¼ $ (10)
p$d2 $r Nt
4 i t
2005). For the considered configuration, it is calculated by using
the following equation (Kern, 1950; Shah and Sekulic, 2003; Sinnot, The tube inside diameter (di) can be estimated on the basis of
2005). the following equation, also considered in Asadi et al. (2014),

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
R2 þ 1 ln½ð1  PÞ=ð1  R$PÞ
F¼ $ h  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi .  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi i (4)
R  1 ln 2  P$ R þ 1  R2 þ 1 2  P$ R þ 1 þ R2 þ 1

P and R are two dimensionless temperature ratios, given by Eq. Caputo et al. (2008), Hadidi et al. (2013), Hadidi and Nazari (2013),
(5) and Eq. (6), respectively. F can also be calculated by using Patel and Rao (2010) and Vasconcelos Segundo et al. (2017).
Fig. 12.19 of Sinnot (2005).
Table 1
Case study specifications.

m (kg/s) Ti (K) To (K) r (kg/m3) Cp (J/kg K) m (Pa s) mw (Pa s) k (W/m K) Rf (m2 K/W)

Shell side: methanol 27.8 368.15 313.15 750 2840 0.00034 0.00038 0.19 0.00033
Tube side: brackish water 68.9 298.15 313.15 995 4200 0.0008 0.00052 0.59 0.0002
 J.J. Cartelle Barros et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 200 (2018) 552e567 557

is given by Eq. (19) (Kern, 1950; Sinnot, 2005).

di ¼ 0:8$do (11) .
The Reynolds number for the tube side flow (Ret) is computed as 0:43$S2t  p$d2o 8
de ¼ 4, (19)
follows (Shah and Sekulic, 2003; Sinnot, 2005): p$do =2
vt $rt $di The flow velocity for the shell side can now be calculated by
Ret ¼ (12) using Eq. (20) (Kern, 1950; Sinnot, 2005).
mt
The tube side Prandtl number (Prt) is given by Eq. (13) (Shah and ms
vs ¼ (20)
Sekulic, 2003; Sinnot, 2005). rs $As
The shell side Reynolds number (Res) is computed as follows
mt $Cpt
Prt ¼ (13) (Sinnot, 2005):
kt
The tube side convective coefficient, ht, is determined according ms $de
Res ¼ (21)
to the flow regime, so different correlations should be used. If the As $ms
tube side Reynolds number (Ret) is below 2300 (in the considered
The shell side Prandtl number (Prs) can be obtained through Eq.
case study, this has never occurred), Eq. (14) will be used (Stephan
(22) (Shah and Sekulic, 2003; Sinnot, 2005).
and Preuber correlation (Lee et al., 2005)).
" # ms $Cps
kt 0:0677$ðRet $Prt $ðdi =LÞÞ1:33 Prs ¼ (22)
ht ¼ $ 3:657 þ (14) ks
di 1 þ 0:1$Prt $ðRet $ðdi =LÞÞ0:3 The shell side convective coefficient, hs, is then calculated by
If the tube side Reynolds number (Ret) varies between 2300 and using the following expression (Kern, 1950).
10000, the Gnielinski correlation will be used (Incropera et al.,

2006; Lee et al., 2005). ks 1=3 ms 0:14
hs ¼ 0:36$ $Re0:55 $Pr $ (23)
2 3
de s s
mws
kt 4 ðft =8Þ$ðRet  1000Þ$Prt Eq. (23) is Kern's formulation to segmental baffled STHEs and
ht ¼ $  5 (15)
di 1 þ 12:7$ðft =8Þ1=2 $ ðPrt Þ2=3  1 was used in Asadi et al. (2014), Caputo et al. (2008), Hadidi et al.
(2013), Hadidi and Nazari (2013), Patel and Rao (2010) and
In Eq. (15), ft is the Darcy friction factor for the tube side and it Vasconcelos Segundo et al. (2017). As for the tube side convective
will be calculated through Eq. (16); it is equivalent to using Eq. factor (ht), there are also other, alternative calculation processes for
(8.21) from Incropera et al. (2006). the shell side one (hs) (Sinnot, 2005).
The overall heat transfer coefficient (U) depends on the tube and
ft ¼ ð1:82$log10 ðRet Þ  1:64Þ2 (16) shell convective coefficients (ht and hs), the tube and shell fouling
resistances (Rft and Rfs) and the wall thermal resistance. It is
The Darcy friction factor must not be confused with the Fanning calculated by applying Eq. (24) (Incropera et al., 2006; Rohsenow
friction factor, since the Darcy factor is four times the Fanning one et al., 1998; Sinnot, 2005).
(Incropera et al., 2006).
For tube side Reynolds (Ret) exceeding 10000, the Sieder and 1
U¼  
Tate correlation will be used (Incropera et al., 2006). ð1=hs Þ þ Rfs þ ððdo $lnðdo =di ÞÞ=2$kw Þ þ ðdo =di Þ$ Rft þ ð1=ht Þ


kt 1=3 mt 0:14 (24)
ht ¼ 0:027$ $Re0:8 $Pr $ (17)
di t t
mwt It is now possible to obtain the heat exchanger surface area (A)
(Eq. (1)). The tubes length (L) is given by Eq. (25).
There are other, alternative ways to calculate tube side
convective and friction factors (ht and ft, respectively) (Incropera
A
et al., 2006; Kern, 1950; Lee et al., 2005; Sinnot, 2005). L¼ (25)
Nt $p$do
Once the convective coefficient is calculated for the tube side, it
is time to repeat the process for the shell side, since both co- The total tube side pressure drop (DPt) is the sum of the pressure
efficients are necessary for estimating the overall heat transfer drop along the tubes length and the pressure losses due to flow
coefficient U. Once again, some parameters should first be deter- reversal in the headers, contraction at the tube inlets and expansion
mined. The crossflow area, As, is calculated by applying Eq. (18) at the exits (Kern, 1950; Sinnot, 2005). It is computed as follows:
(Kern, 1950; Sinnot, 2005).

 


rt $v2tL$ft mt m
DPt ¼ $ $ þ p $n (26)
As ¼ Ds $B$
St  do
(18)
2 di mwt
St
The constant p accounts for the pressure losses due to the
In Eq. (18), the expression in parentheses is the ratio of the number of flow reversals, contractions and expansions (Sinnot,
clearance between tubes and the distance between tube centres 2005). For one shell pass and two tube passes, there will be one
(Rohsenow et al., 1998; Sinnot, 2005). flow reversal, two contractions and two expansions (Sinnot, 2005).
The equivalent shell diameter (de), also known as hydraulic There is no a unique value of constant p; a value of 2.5 is assumed in
diameter, is calculated as four times the ratio between the free area Sinnot (2005), while a value of 4 is considered in Kern (1950). Since
and the wetted perimeters (Kern, 1950). The free area and the this case study was originally considered in Sinnot (2005), a value
wetted perimeters, and so, the hydraulic diameter (de), depend on of p ¼ 2.5 will be used in the present work. The value adopted by
the tube pitch arrangement. For a triangular pitch arrangement, de constant m depends on the tube side Reynolds (Ret). Nevertheless,
558 J.J. Cartelle Barros et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 200 (2018) 552e567
for the values that Ret will take in the present case study, m ¼ 0.14.
There are other alternatives to estimate the total tube side pressure
drop (DPt), as the one included in Sinnot (2005).
The shell side pressure drop (DPs) is given by Eq. (27) (Kern,
1950):


0:14
r $v2 L Ds ms
DPs ¼ fs $ s s $ $ $
2 B de mws
The shell side friction coefficient (fs) is obtained from the
following equation (previously used in Asadi et al. (2014), Caputo
et al. (2008), Hadidi et al. (2013), Hadidi and Nazari (2013) and
Patel and Rao (2010):
fs ¼ 2$bo $Re0:15
s (28)
where bo is a numerical constant that takes a value of (bo ¼ 0.7216)
for the present case study. The reader can find in Peters and
Timmerhaus (1991) more information about bo and its calculation.
The case study will be subjected to some restrictions as a way of
avoiding absurd designs as well as undesirable parameter values
(for example, for the tube and shell fluid velocities). The following
restrictions will be considered:
DPt  25000ðPaÞ
DPs  25000ðPaÞ
B < Ds
Ds
B>
5
The possible combinations of the design variables (see Section
3) that do not meet all the specified constraints will generate non-
valid designs that will not be considered as feasible solutions to the
sustainability optimisation problem. The reader can find in Sinnot
(2005) and TEMA (1999) more information about recommenda-
tions to have in mind at the time of designing STHEs.
4.2. Sustainability model
The sustainability of each valid STHE design will be assessed by
applying a MIVES model that consists of nine indicators. The global
assessment parameter is the sustainability index (SI) and it will also
be the objective function to be optimised. As previously mentioned,
the SI is the weighted sum of the economic, social and environ-
mental indices (EI, SOI, ENI). Therefore, EI, SOI and ENI will be the
objective functions in the context of a multi-objective optimisation
problem.
The sustainability index (SI) is calculated by applying Eq. (33).
This is a particular case of the general MIVES equation (de la Cruz
et al., 2014a). The calculation of EI, SOI and ENI can also be per-
formed with Eq. (33), only considering the criteria and indicators
belonging to each sustainability pillar. The SI falls between the in-
terval [0, 1], being 0 and 1 the minimum and maximum levels of
satisfaction, respectively. The EI, SOI and ENI fall between the in-
tervals [0, 0.28], [0, 0.33] and [0, 0.39], respectively, as can be
deduced from Eq. (33) and Table 2.
X
ind¼9
SI ¼ aind $bind $gind $Vind
ind¼1
where aind, bind and gind are the tree weights (for the requirements,
criteria and indicators, respectively) and Vind are the value functions
used to measure the performance of each design with respect to a
certain indicator. The reader can find the providential proof of Eq.
(33) in de la Cruz et al. (2014a) and an example of the detailed
operations for applying it in Appendix B of Cartelle Barros et al.
(2015). The requirement tree for the model with the correspond-
ing partial indices (requirements), criteria and indicators, as well as
their weights, are presented in Table 2.
(27)
As this was the first time that the proposed integrated meth-
odology would be applied to optimise the sustainability of an en-
ergy system, the decision was made to consider a not very wide set
of indicators. In fact, the parameters included in Table 2 were
picked from a provisional set including all the sustainability aspects
found in the literature. For that purpose, their importance, the
available data and several interviews with an expert who has more
than 40 years of experience in the energy sector, in the interna-
tional arena, had been taken into account. As can be seen from
Table 2, the three main sustainability pillars (economic, social and
environmental) as well as their most important aspects will be
assessed. It is now necessary to clarify how each one of the in-
dicators will be evaluated.
The total cost (Ctot) includes capital investment (Ci), energy cost
(Ce), annual operating cost (Co) and the total discounted operating
cost (Cod) (Asadi et al., 2014; Azad and Amidpour, 2011; Caputo
(29) et al., 2008; Hadidi et al., 2013; Hadidi and Nazari, 2013; Patel
and Rao, 2010; Vasconcelos Segundo et al., 2017). The total cost
(Ctot) is calculated by applying Eq. (34).
(30)
Ctot ¼ Ci þ Cod (34)
(31)
The capital investment (Ci) is determined as a function of the
heat exchanger surface area (A) by employing Hall's correlation
(32) (Taal et al., 2003).
Ci ¼ a1 þ a2 $Aa3 (35)
where a1 ¼ 12400, a2 ¼ 401.76 and a3 ¼ 0.91 for stainless steel
STHEs (both shell and tubes). The values adopted in this study for
the numerical constants a1 and a2 are an update of the values
proposed by Hall (Taal et al., 2003), taking into account the cur-
rency exchange as well as the changing value of money over time.
This last aspect is of great importance to avoid underestimations,
for obtaining a capital investment (Ci) representative of the present
time.
The annual operating cost (Co) depends on the energy cost (Ce),
the annual operating time (H), and the pumping power (PP) needed
to overcome friction losses (Azad and Amidpour, 2011; Caputo
et al., 2008; Hadidi et al., 2013; Hadidi and Nazari, 2013; Patel
and Rao, 2010).
Co ¼ PP$Ce $H (36)
The energy cost (Ce) is a parameter that can present considerable
variations across and within countries. Therefore, three possible
scenarios will be considered: a baseline scenario where the energy
cost (Ce) will take a value of 0.00012 V/W h, and two additional
cases, the optimistic and pessimistic ones, where the energy cost
(Ce) will be 0.00007 and 0.00030 V/W h, respectively. In relation to
the annual operating (H) time, a value of 7000 h/year will be
assumed. The pumping power (PP) can be calculated through Eq.
(37).


(33) 1 mt $DPt ms $DPs
PP ¼ $ þ (37)
h rt rs
where h is the overall pumping efficiency that in the present study
will take a value of h ¼ 0.75. This value is a compromise between
 J.J. Cartelle Barros et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 200 (2018) 552e567 559

Table 2
Requirement tree of the sustainability model.

aind Req.a bind Criteria gind Indicators

SI 28% EI 100% Costs 100% Total cost (Ctot)

33% SOI 60% Employment generation 100% Employment generation (EG)
40% Accidents 60% Lethal accidents (LA)
40% Serious non-lethal accidents (NLA)
39% ENI 27% Global Warming 100% Global Warming Potential (GWP)
17% Acidification 100% Acidification Potential (AP)
19% Eutrophication 100% Eutrophication Potential (EP)
18% Ozone Depletion 100% Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP)
19% Photochemical Ozone Creation 100% Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP)
a
Requirements.

h ¼ 0.70 considered in Azad and Amidpour (2011) and Hadidi et al.
(2013) and h ¼ 0.80 used in Asadi et al. (2014) and Vasconcelos
Segundo et al. (2017). The total discounted operating cost is then
computed as follows:
Xy
j¼n
Co
Cod ¼
j¼1 ð1 þ iÞj
where ny is the estimated service life of the STHE (here assumed as
ny ¼ 10 years), and i the annual discount rate. As in the case of the
energy cost (Ce), three discount rates (i) will be considered: 10%
(baseline case), 15% (optimistic case) and 5% (pessimistic case).
The social and environmental indicators will be assessed with
the help of the GaBi professional database (Thinkstep, 2017), with
only one exception: employment generation (EG). Nevertheless, all
of them will be evaluated from the amount of material (316 stain-
less steel) used in the manufacturing process of each one of the
possible designs. In this first implementation of the presented
methodology, only the material consumed in the manufacturing of
the tubes will be considered. The authors have verified that, with
the equations and constraints established in Section 4.1, the ratio
between the material used in the tubes and the total amount of
material used in the STHE is relatively constant. Therefore, this
approximation does not entail making a serious error, at the same
time that makes the calculations much easier. However, this does
not imply that the same assumption can always be considered in
the design of a STHE. The volume of tubes (V) is given by Eq. (39).
V ¼ 0:09$p$L$d2o $Nt
Once the volume (V) is calculated, the amount of stainless steel
(M) consumed in manufacturing the tubes is determined by
applying Eq. (40).
M ¼ rw $V
In this paper, it has been assumed that a higher consumption of
stainless steel leads to higher employment generation (EG). It is
obvious that, for a single STHE, there cannot be remarkable differ-
ences in employment generation. Nevertheless, if one considers the
serial production of hundreds, or even thousands, of STHEs, it
seems reasonable that a higher consumption of material is associ-
ated with a higher employment generation. Starting out from this
premise, the employment generation (EG) will be directly assessed
from the stainless steel mass of tubes (M). There are equivalences
between the amount of material consumed and the qualified
working time used in its production (Thinkstep, 2017). However,
using the mass (M) or using the qualified working time will produce
the same results, as long as equivalent value functions are defined.
According to Brensing and Sommer (2017), the welding process
is one of the techniques used to manufacture steel tubes, with
diameters ranging from 6 to 2500 mm, and wall thickness from 0.5
to 40 mm. The ranges employed in the present case study fall
within those mentioned. For the manufacturing process, the
starting material is the rolled flat product which, depending on the
dimensions and application of the tube, can take the form of hot
rolled wide strip or plate, or hot or cold rolled steel strip/skelp. The
(38) reader can find in Brensing and Sommer (2017) more information
about the steel tube manufacturing processes, from their begin-
nings. On the other hand, the GaBi professional database
(Thinkstep, 2017) provides information about the starting material
used in the manufacturing processes of 316 stainless steel tubes.
Table 3 (Thinkstep, 2017) shows the social and environmental
factors for 1 kg of 316 stainless steel.
The reader should bear in mind that the values in Table 3 do not
include the manufacturing process of the tube. From the authors’
point of view, this simplification should not seriously affect the
results of the optimisation process here performed. The social
(except EG) and environmental indicators will be assessed by using
the following generic term:
Social=environmentalind ¼ M$Find (41)
where Social/environmentalind represents any of the remaining so-
cial and environmental indicators, and Find represents the corre-
sponding factors in Table 3. The reader can find in Kupfer et al.
(2017) more information about the five environmental impacts
considered in the present study.
Following the MIVES method (see Section 2.1 and de la Cruz
et al. (2014a)), a value function was defined for each of the in-
(39) dicators considered. In this study, all the indicators are quantitative
variables. MIVES uses Eq. (42) as a basis for defining each value
function Vind. Table 4 shows the parameters used for those
functions.

 P P  
(40) j j Aind
1  exp  mind $ ind nindind;min
Vind ¼
P   (42)
j P j Aind
1  exp  mind $ ind;maxnind ind;min
In Eq. (42), Pind is the input value of a certain indicator for the
design under assessment. Pind,min and Pind,max are the input values to
the value functions (Vind) that generate the minimum and
maximum degrees of satisfaction, respectively (here 0 and 1). Aind,
mind and nind are shape factors used to generate convex, concave, s-
shaped and straight line value functions. Value functions have been
constructed, taking into account the opinion of the expert previ-
ously mentioned. For establishing Pind,min and Pind,max, a preliminary
exhaustive search was performed. By proceeding this way, it was
possible to find the designs with the minimum and maximum input
values for each indicator. In other words, it was possible, for
instance, to estimate the minimum and maximum total costs for
560 J.J. Cartelle Barros et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 200 (2018) 552e567

Table 3
Social and environmental factors for 1 kg of 316 stainless steel.

LA (n of cases) NLA (n of cases) GWP (kg of CO2-eq.) AP (kg of SO2-eq.) EP (kg of phosphate-eq.) ODP (kg of R-11-eq.) POCP (kg of C2H4-eq.)

316 stainless steel 5.683E-13 4.347E-10 3.18 0.0533 0.00163 1.97E-7 0.00282

Table 4
Parameters for the value functions applied to the STHE under study.

Indicator Parameters Characteristics

Pind,min Pind,max nind mind Aind Trend

Ctot (V) 165000 70000 70000 0.95 6.5 Decreasing

EG (kg)a 1000 16000 2500 0.01 1 Increasing
LA (nº of cases) 9E-9 6E-10 8.16E-9 0.01 1 Decreasing
NLA (nº of cases) 7E-6 4.5E-7 6.345E-6 0.01 1 Decreasing
GWP (kg of CO2-eq.) 52000 3500 30500 0.2 7 Decreasing
AP (kg of SO2-eq.) 850 55 750 0.2 6 Decreasing
EP (kg of phosphate-eq.) 25 1.5 16 0.75 5.5 Decreasing
ODP (kg of R-11-eq.) 0.0035 0.0002 0.00272 0.5 0.35 Decreasing
POCP (kg of C2H4-eq.) 50 3 45.3 0.6 0.35 Decreasing
a
Relationship between employment generation and the mass of steel used.

the case under study. Obviously, the designs that did not fulfil the analysis is highly recommendable. The reader can find in Section 1
restrictions (from Eq. (29) to Eq. (32)) were not taken into account, of Appendix A the additional sets of weights considered (Tables A1-
since they are not valid solutions. Once the preliminary search was A6) as part of the sensitivity analysis performed in this work, as
carried out, the final values for Pind,min and Pind,max were defined for well as more information about them.
each indicator, considering different levels of exigency. The reader
can find in de la Cruz et al. (2014a) further information about value
5. Results and discussion
functions and in Cartelle Barros et al. (2015) (Appendix B) an
example of the detailed operations for applying them.
The validity and efficacy of the integrated optimisation meth-
Defining the weights (Table 2) for the different branches on the
odology were tested by analysing the case study presented in
requirement tree is not a simple task. Some authors assume that all
Section 3. As mentioned in Section 4.2, three scenarios were
aspects of the evaluation have the same level of importance.
considered (baseline, optimistic and pessimistic). Three techniques
Nevertheless, an equal weightage is not always desirable, since it
were used in order to find the most sustainable design: i) brute
can lead to an incorrect assessment (Cartelle Barros et al., 2015). As
force approach (BF), ii) Monte Carlo simulation (MC), and iii) the
stated in the existing literature (for example Cartelle Barros et al.
genetic algorithm NSGA-II. For the first technique, the intervals of
(2015), among many others), and according to the common defi-
the design variables (shell internal diameter, Ds; tube outside
nition of sustainability (for instance, the one suggested by the UNO
diameter, do; and baffle spacing, B) were split into the same number
Rio Declaration (United Nations Conference on Environment and
of steps and all the valid combinations (valid designs) were
Development, 1992)), all the requirements are important for sus-
assessed. For the Monte Carlo method, continuous uniform distri-
tainable development. Therefore, large differences in their weights
bution functions for the design variables were defined, covering the
must not be established. In the same vein, there are reasons for
whole ranges indicated in Section 3. For the third method, it is
believing that the environmental dimension should be the most
necessary to select one of the solutions from the Pareto optimal
important one, closely followed by the social and economic pillars
frontier. For that purpose a multi-criteria decision making method
(Cartelle Barros et al., 2015). Similarly, social aspects should be
can be used. Here, the most preferred Pareto-optimal solution will
slightly more important than the economic ones (Cartelle Barros
be the one with the highest sustainability index (SI). Table 5 sum-
et al., 2015). In other words, if the environment is destroyed, so-
marises the results obtained. The reader can find the results of the
cial and economic activities are not an option (Cartelle Barros et al.,
sensitivity analysis in Section 2 of Appendix A (Table A.7), as well as
2015). At the same time, the economic activity can be seriously
a short discussion on them. It is important to note that in a real
affected by social differences, for example, as a result of a limited
manufacturing process of a STHE, considering three or four deci-
purchasing power that makes it impossible to consume beyond
mals is no sense. In fact, the values shown in Table 5 and A7 for the
survival needs (Cartelle Barros et al., 2015). This assumption jus-
variables (Ds, do and B) should be interpreted as a mathematical
tifies the set of weights defined for the requirements (partial
result of the optimisation process instead of real or exact figures.
indices). The weighting of the criteria and indicators has been fixed
Moreover, by using standardised diameters, some of the most
allowing for the expert opinions, as well as the weights used in
sustainable designs will probably result in the same real STHE.
other studies focused on the integral sustainability assessment. In
As indicated in Section 1.3, this is the first time that the sus-
the specific case of the environmental parameters (environmental
tainability of a STHE is optimised. The case study here analysed, was
criteria), the worldwide weighting factors presented in Kupfer et al.
previously considered in literature, but with a different purpose
(2017) have been taken into account. In fact, these weighting fac-
(economic optimisation). Furthermore, there can be differences in
tors were the result of a worldwide questionnaire, in which more
the values taken by some parameters of the model such as the
than 200 experts, mainly academics and consultants, were asked to
overall pumping efficiency h, the numerical constants a1 and a2,
establish the relative importance of the main environmental im-
among others. All these factors make it very difficult, even impos-
pacts. On the other hand, despite the fact that the proposed weights
sible, to make real comparisons among the present results and the
are the result of a logical and reasoned process, there can be un-
ones in literature. In fact, only biased and partial comparisons will
certainty caused by potential subjectivity. Therefore, a sensitivity
be possible, all of them concerning the economic dimension.
 J.J. Cartelle Barros et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 200 (2018) 552e567 561

Table 5
Parameters of the most sustainable STHE designs.

Baseline Optimistic Pessimistic

BFa MCb NSGA-IIc BFa MCb NSGA-IIc BFa MCb NSGA-IIc

Ds (m) 0.6939 0.6889 0.7143 0.6409 0.6679 0.8595 0.8636 0.876 0.8736
do (m) 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.0081 0.0091 0.008 0.0082 0.008
B (m) 0.5 0.488 0.4986 0.4955 0.4862 0.5 0.5 0.499 0.5
Nt 4500 4400 4800 3768 4059 5457 7330 7230 7520
vt (m/s) 0.9561 0.9729 0.8969 1.1425 1.0438 0.6097 0.5873 0.5715 0.5725
Ret 7615.1 7766.1 7139.2 9094.5 8375.2 5520.6 4675 4643.3 4556.9
Prt 5.6949 5.6949 5.6949 5.6949 5.6949 5.6949 5.6949 5.6949 5.6949
ft 0.034 0.0338 0.0346 0.0323 0.0331 0.0374 0.0394 0.0395 0.0397
ht (W/m2 K) 5246.4 5330.2 4931.6 6200.8 5695.2 3362.9 3219.1 3130.9 3132.4
As (m2) 0.0694 0.0672 0.0712 0.0635 0.065 0.0859 0.0864 0.0874 0.0874
de (m) 0.0057 0.0057 0.0057 0.0057 0.0057 0.0065 0.0057 0.0058 0.0057
vs (m/s) 0.5341 0.5512 0.5204 0.5836 0.5707 0.4313 0.4292 0.424 0.4243
Res 6701.2 6935.2 6528.5 7322.1 7217.2 6154.3 5384.5 5429.6 5323.1
Prs 5.0821 5.0821 5.0821 5.0821 5.0821 5.0821 5.0821 5.0821 5.0821
hs (W/m2 K) 2588.9 2603.8 2552 2718.2 2675.2 2171.9 2295.4 2259.1 2281
U (W/m2 K) 794.1041 800.2903 781.2041 830.4012 814.0105 678.2283 685.5335 676.6819 679.2481
A (m2) 218.611 216.9212 222.2209 209.0555 213.2649 255.9608 253.2333 256.5458 255.5766
L (m) 1.9329 1.956 1.8421 2.2076 2.0739 1.6407 1.3746 1.3831 1.3523
DPt (Pa) 11076 11484 9511.8 16867 13556 3860.4 3591.3 3368.7 3390.6
fs 0.3849 0.383 0.3865 0.3799 0.3807 0.3899 0.3978 0.3973 0.3985
DPs (Pa) 19733 21458 18495 24746.6 23465 12041 11652 11378 11351
V (m3) 0.1574 0.1566 0.16 0.1505 0.1548 0.2096 0.1823 0.1885 0.1840
M (kg) 1259.2 1253 1280 1204.2 1238.3 1677.1 1458.6 1508.4 1472.1
PP (W) 1997.9 2102.9 1792.3 2780.3 2411.3 951.5220 907.4254 873.3403 874.0396
Ci (V) 66484 66103 67296 64328 65279 74832 74226 74961 74746
Co (V/year) 1678.2 1781.5 1505.5 1362.3 1181.5 466.2458 1905.6 1834 1835.5
Cod (V) 10312 10947 9205.8 6837.2 5929.9 2340.0 14714 14162 14173
Ctot (V) 76796 77050 76547 71166 71209 77172 88940 89123 88919
LA (nº of cases) 7.16E-10 7.12E-10 7.27E-10 6.84E-10 7.04E-10 9.53E-10 8.29E-10 8.57E-10 8.37E-10
NLA (nº of cases) 5.47E-7 5.45E-7 5.56E-7 5.23E-7 5.38E-7 7.29E-7 6.34E-7 6.56E-7 6.40E-7
GWP (kg of CO2-eq.) 4004.3 3984.6 4070.4 3829.2 3937.7 5333.0 4638.4 4796.6 4681.3
AP (kg of SO2-eq.) 67.1153 66.7863 68.2236 64.1817 66.0001 89.3871 77.7446 80.3964 78.4640
EP (kg of phosphate-eq.) 2.0525 2.0424 2.0864 1.9628 2.0184 2.7336 2.3776 2.4587 2.3996
ODP (kg of R-11-eq.) 2.48E-4 2.47E-4 2.52E-4 2.37E-4 2.44E-4 3.30E-4 2.87E-4 2.97E-4 2.90E-4
POCP (kg of C2H4-eq.) 3.5509 3.5335 3.6096 3.3957 3.4919 4.7293 4.1133 4.2536 4.1514
EI 0.2764 0.276 0.2767 0.2798 0.2798 0.2759 0.2253 0.2239 0.2255
SOI 0.1337 0.1336 0.1338 0.1334 0.1336 0.1356 0.1346 0.1348 0.1347
ENI 0.384 0.3841 0.3834 0.3854 0.3845 0.3727 0.3786 0.3773 0.3782
SI 0.7941 0.7937 0.7939 0.7986 0.7979 0.7842 0.7385 0.736 0.7384
a
Brute Force.
b
Monte Carlo.
c
Non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II.

Nonetheless, if the comparisons are made cautiously, extracting baseline case.

some conclusions from them is possible. More information about
such will be later provided.
As seen in Table 5, for the three scenarios (baseline, optimistic
and pessimistic), the sustainability index (SI) achieved with the
brute force approach is higher than the ones obtained by applying
the Monte Carlo and NSGA-II algorithms. Nevertheless, one can
consider that the three methodologies provide very similar results,
since the differences vary between 0.0004 and 0.0144. Taking into
account that the SI falls inside the interval [0, 1], the variation in
results is insignificant. This is obviously a direct consequence of the
values adopted by the design variables that, once again, are in close
proximity for the baseline and pessimistic cases. In the optimistic
scenario, brute force and Monte Carlo approaches provide similar
designs, while the NSGA-II results deviate slightly from the other
ones. Consequently, the highest differences for the design variables
are: 0.2186 m for the internal shell diameter (Ds), 0.0011 m for the
tube outside diameter (do), and 0.0138 m for the baffle spacing (B).
Despite this, the differences among the SIs are again small. In fact,
excluding the optimistic case, the highest differences for the design
variables are: 0.0254 m for the internal shell diameter (Ds) in the
baseline case, 0.0002 m for the tube outside diameter (do) in the
pessimistic case, and 0.012 m for the baffle spacing (B) in the
These differences also generate variations in the other param-
eters of the design, such as the number of tubes (Nt), fluid velocities
(vt and vs), heat exchanger surface area (A), pressure drops (DPt and
DPs), and so on. From this, it can be concluded that there can be
different designs with similar SIs and design variables taking
different, but not very far values. Furthermore, the SIs obtained
with the three approaches are probably sub-optimal solutions.
However, what is certain is that the exact (optimal) solution must
be very close to SI ¼ {0.7941, 0.7986 and 0.7395} for the baseline,
optimistic and pessimistic cases, respectively. Henceforth, unless
otherwise stated, all the comments will refer to the solutions
provided by the brute force approach since, to a large extent, they
will also be applicable to the results obtained by Monte Carlo and
NSGA-II (and vice versa). There can be some exceptions for the
results provided by the NSGA-II method in the optimistic case.
Nevertheless, additional clarifications will not be needed, since the
reader is be able to extract the corresponding conclusions from the
comments included in the present section if desired.
The best design presents a SI of 0.7941 for the baseline scenario.
Similarly, the solutions for the optimistic and pessimistic cases take
a value of 0.7986 and 0.7385, respectively. All these sustainability
indices can be considered as quite good solutions, since they are
562 J.J. Cartelle Barros et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 200 (2018) 552e567

close to the best possible solution (SI ¼ 1) and far from the less
sustainable one (SI ¼ 0). To these should be added that, for the
moment, it is impossible to achieve full-scale, strict sustainable
development (SI ¼ 1), since every activity, product or process has an
impact on its surroundings (planet and population) (del Can ~ o et al.,
2015). In other words, there is no solution with a perfect perfor-
mance in all the sustainability indicators. This results from the
previously alluded fact that obtaining good outcomes in some in-
dicators leads to having a poor performance in other aspects of
integral sustainability. On the other hand, 0.2791 and 0.5215;
0.2825 and 0.5432; 0.2709 and 0.4408 were the lowest and average
sustainability indices (SI) obtained from the baseline, optimistic
and pessimistic cases, respectively. That gives an idea about the
capacity of the proposed integrated method to optimise the sus-
tainability of an engineering system.
As indicated in Sections 1.3 and 4.2, the SI can be broken down
as the sum of an economic index (EI), a social index (SOI) and an
environmental index (ENI). The authors considered that it would
also be interesting to optimise each one of the sustainability partial
indices. This will serve to assess the differences among the global
sub-optimal solutions and the designs that maximise each
dimension of the global sustainability. Once again, for the NSGA-II
method, the most preferred Pareto-optimal solution was the one
with the highest partial sustainability index for each case. Table 6
summarises the results of the partial optimisations for the base-
line scenario.
As seen in the table, the SIs achieved employing the EI or ENI as
objective functions are similar to the ones presented in Table 5. In
fact, the NSGA-II technique provides exactly the same design when
the SI or the ENI are established as the objective. However, the
previous tendency is not true for the SOI. The main reasons that
explain these results will be highlighted later in this section.
Returning to Table 5, the EI can achieve a maximum value of 0.28
(Section 4.2). The EI depends only on the total cost (Ctot). Therefore,
minimising Ctot is equivalent to maximising the EI. For the baseline
case, the EI takes a value of 0.2764, while Ctot reaches a value of
76796 V. As a way of determining effectiveness and validity of the
proposed methodology, these values were compared with the ones
in literature. For that purpose, the values for the decision variables
(Ds, do and B) associated to the minimum Ctot obtained by Asadi
et al. (2014), Caputo et al. (2008), Hadidi et al. (2013), Hadidi and
Nazari (2013), Patel and Rao (2010) and Vasconcelos Segundo
et al. (2017) were introduced in the present model, for the base-
line scenario. The results are presented in Table 7.
It can be seen that with the proposed methodology there is a
reduction in the total costs. Consequently, the economic indices
(EIs) of literature are always under the value shown in Table 5. This
does not mean that the present method is better than the existing
ones to perform economic optimisations. As mentioned earlier,
there are some differences in the models that made it impossible to
carry out unbiased comparisons. Some of the optimisation tech-
niques here employed are conceptually simpler than the ones used
by Asadi et al. (2014), Caputo et al. (2008), Hadidi et al. (2013),
Hadidi and Nazari (2013), Patel and Rao (2010) and Vasconcelos
Segundo et al. (2017). Therefore, if more sophisticated optimisa-
tion methods are applied, a similar and possibly higher EI would be
obtained. Despite this and even taken into account that the main
purpose of this work is to optimise the SI, the economic results are
also high-performing and they can be better than the ones of
literature, under certain conditions. It can also be concluded that
small variations in the parameters of the model can have a great
impact on the results. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that
the SIs of Table 7 are always under the one included in Table 5 for
the baseline case. This is a logical result, since in existing studies the
sustainability was not the optimisation objective.
On the other hand, as indicated in Eq. (34), Ctot is the sum of the
capital investment (Ci) and the total discounted operating cost
(Cod). The capital investment (Ci) is a function of the heat exchanger
surface area (A), so a minimum A implies a minimum Ci. Then again,
the total discounted operating cost (Cod) depends on the pumping
power (PP), which in turn relies on the pressure drops (DPt and
DPs). Therefore, reducing the pressure losses (fluid velocities) is the
same as decreasing the total discounted operating cost (Cod). In
other words, the key to reaching a high economic index (EI) lies
mainly in having a design with a small area (A) and low fluid ve-
locities (vt and vs). The optimistic case is the one with the smallest
area (A), and so, with the lowest capital investment (Ci). Precisely
the opposite occurs in the pessimistic case, which presents the
largest area (A) and highest capital investment (Ci).
Concerning the total discounted operating cost (Cod), the
pessimistic case presents the lowest fluid velocities (pressure
drops), followed by the baseline and the optimistic cases. In
accordance with the above, the pessimistic case should obtain the
lowest discounted operating cost (Cod). Nevertheless, this does not
happen. The values adopted by the energy cost (Ce) and discount
rate (i) are not the same for all cases. However, if one evaluates the
pessimistic case with the baseline energy cost (Ce) and discount
rate (i), the total discounted operating cost (Cod) will take a value of
4684.5 V, which is the lowest one.
Similarly, the optimistic design under the baseline scenario
generates a total discounted operating cost (Cod) of 14349 V. This
verifies the consistency of the reasoning proposed. In addition, it
can be concluded that all the scenarios are associated with satis-
factory results in monetary terms. The lowest economic index (EI) is
0.2253, which is not too far from the potential maximum (0.28).
This EI value was achieved by the pessimistic design and is caused
by the values adopted by the energy cost (Ce) and discount rate (i).
The baseline and optimistic cases have obtained very similar

Table 6
Results of the partial optimisations for the baseline scenario.

EI optimisation SOI optimisation ENI optimisation

BFa MCb NSGA-IIc BFa MCb NSGA-IIc BFa MCb NSGA-IIc

Ds (m) 0.7364 0.7449 0.7340 1.1394 1.1478 1.15 0.6409 0.6841 0.7143
do (m) 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.0496 0.0498 0.05 0.008 0.008 0.008
B (m) 0.5 0.4966 0.5 0.4819 0.4602 0.4467 0.4955 0.4859 0.4986
SI 0.7933 0.7929 0.7935 0.2882 0.2883 0.2892 0.7922 0.7937 0.7939
EI 0.2767 0.2766 0.2768 0.0143 0.0146 0.0151 0.2734 0.2757 0.2767
SOI 0.1339 0.134 0.1339 0.1983 0.1983 0.1984 0.1334 0.1336 0.1338
ENI 0.3827 0.3823 0.3828 0.0756 0.0754 0.0757 0.3854 0.3844 0.3834
a
Brute Force.
b
Monte Carlo.
c
Non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II.
 J.J. Cartelle Barros et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 200 (2018) 552e567
Table 7
Main results of the literature proposals with the model developed in this study.
(Caputo et al., 2008) (Patel and Rao, 2010) (Hadidi et al., 2013)
Ds (m) 0.83 0.81 0.879
do (m) 0.016 0.015 0.015
B (m) 0.5 0.424 0.5
SI 0.7209 0.7377 0.7174
EI 0.252 0.2571 0.2459
SOI 0.1425 0.1407 0.1421
ENI 0.3264 0.3398 0.3295
Ctot (V) 84832 83795 85925
economic indices (EI), both very close to the maximum (0.28). The
slight difference between these two designs is, again, on the values
fixed for energy cost (Ce) and the discount rate (i).
The social index (SOI) varies between 0 and 0.33 (Section 4.2).
This partial index depends on three indicators: employment gen-
eration (EG), lethal accidents (LA) and serious non-lethal accidents
(NLA). All of these are based on the volume (mass) of stainless steel
consumed for manufacturing the tubes of the STHE (V), but in a
different way. The employment generation (EG) increases when the
volume of stainless steel increases (V). However, the opposite is
true for the accidents; a greater number of accidents are associated
with a lower level of satisfaction. In other words, achieving good
results for employment generation (EG) implies reaching unsatis-
factory results for lethal and non-lethal accidents (LA and NLA), and
vice versa. This is why in all cases, the social index (SOI) is far from
the best possible result (0.33). Similarly, since the pessimistic
design is the one that consumes more kg (m3) of stainless steel, its
employment generation (EG) is the highest one, while it has the
worst results for accidents. Alternatively, the optimistic design
consumes fewer resources, so that it generates the best results for
lethal and non-lethal accidents (LA and NLA) and the worst ones for
employment generation (EG). At a global level, the most sustainable
design in terms of social contribution is the pessimistic one
(0.1346), closely followed by the baseline (0.1337) and the opti-
mistic designs (0.1334). Nevertheless, what they all have in com-
mon is their remarkable performance for lethal and non-lethal
accidents (LA and NLA), as well as their insufficient performance in
terms of job creation (EG).
The environmental index (ENI) is the one with the highest
contribution to the objective function (SI), ranging between 0 and
0.39 (Section 4.2). It depends on five indicators (global warming
potential, GWP; acidification potential, AP; eutrophication poten-
tial, EP; ozone depletion potential, ODP; and photochemical ozone
creation potential, POCP). In this case, unlike in the social dimen-
sion, all the indicators are based on the volume of stainless steel
consumed (V) in the same form. That is to say that a higher con-
sumption of stainless steel (higher volume, V, and higher mass, M)
is accompanied by greater amount of pollutant substances, and so, a
larger environmental impact.
In other words, if one wants to reduce the environmental im-
pacts derived from the five impact categories considered in the
present work, the possible design with the lowest volume (V) and
mass (M) must be found. This is reflected in the results presented in
Table 5. As mentioned earlier, the pessimistic design consumes
more stainless steel than the baseline and optimistic designs.
Therefore, it has obtained the poorest outcomes from an environ-
mental point of view (ENI ¼ 0.3786). On the other side of the coin,
the optimistic design uses a lower amount of stainless steel and has
thus reached the highest environmental index (ENI ¼ 0.3854). The
baseline design is in an intermediate position between the two
extreme cases. However, all of the designs are high-performing,
since their results are close to the maximum (0.39). In fact, the
563
(Hadidi and Nazari, 2013) (Asadi et al., 2014) (Vasconcelos Segundo et al., 2017)
0.801 0.826 0.727
0.01 0.0151 0.0114
0.5 0.414 0.45
0.7781 0.7355 0.7738
0.2721 0.2561 0.2703
0.1361 0.1409 0.1366
0.3699 0.3385 0.3668
79302 84021 80065
differences between the three scenarios are negligible, which is a
direct consequence of the material consumption; the pessimistic
design only consumes 254.4 kg of stainless steel more than the
optimistic one.
As commented before, the differences among the three sce-
narios are based on the values adopted by the energy cost (Ce) and
discount rate (i), that affect the economic dimension and so, indi-
rectly, the remaining pillars of sustainability. The mitigation effect
produced by a lower energy cost allows the designs for the opti-
mistic case to achieve higher fluid velocities and, consequently,
pressure losses. Just the opposite is true for the pessimistic
scenario.
In short, it can be concluded that all indicators move, in general,
in the same direction with only one exception: employment gen-
eration (EG). Although not always the heat exchanger surface area
(A) increases when the volume (V) does (or the mass, M, does) (and
vice versa), it can be said that these two parameters go usually hand
in hand. Since reducing the heat exchanger area (A) has a positive
impact on the capital investment (Ci), which, at the same time, is
the most relevant part of the total cost (Ctot), and reducing the
volume of stainless steel (V) has also a positive impact on all social
and environmental indicators (excluding the employment gener-
ation, EG), the most sustainable design will probably be the one
with the lowest values of A and V (or near). Stated differently,
optimising sustainability index (SI) is an equivalent to optimising
the economic index (EI) and to optimising the environmental index
(ENI) as has been mentioned before.
6. Conclusions and future developments
In this paper a new integrated methodology to optimise the
sustainability of engineering systems is presented. This method-
ology, partially based on the MIVES method, has been satisfactorily
tested by addressing the problem of maximising the integral sus-
tainability of a shell and tube heat exchanger (STHE). For that
purpose, a case study previously addressed in the existing literature
was considered. Brute force, Monte Carlo and a genetic algorithm
approaches were applied to find the optimum solution. The three
techniques provide similar results, demonstrating that they can not
only be valid but also suited for not very complex sustainability
optimisation problems solved by the proposed methodology.
The main conclusions extracted from this work are the
following:
 At present, it is too early to achieve full-scale, strict sustainable
development (SI ¼ 1).
 The proposed methodology resulted to be very helpful, since the
valid designs presented a sustainability index (SI) ranging from
0.2791 to 0.7941 (baseline scenario).
 Even under the plausible worst conditions, it is always worth
looking for the most sustainable design.
564 J.J. Cartelle Barros et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 200 (2018) 552e567

 The energy cost (Ce) and the discount rate (i) can have a (UDC), under the Support Program for Pre-doctoral Stays Inditex-
considerable impact on the results, especially on the economic UDC 2017.
index (EI).
 After a sensitivity analysis, the results, as well as the MIVES Conflicts of interest
model, can be considered as robust. The differences in the values
that the optimisation variables adopt are negligible. None.
 The integrated methodology proposed here can be of interest to
engineers and manufacturers in order to optimise the sustain- Acknowledgements
ability of not only STHEs, but also all types of engineering
systems. We would also like to thank Prof. Juan Carlos Baltazar (Texas
 In the particular case considered in this study, complex opti- A&M University, USA), Prof. Alberto Arce Ceinos (University of
misation techniques are not necessary, since the exhaustive Corun~ a, Spain) and Prof. Jose

Luis Mier Buenhombre (University of
search and Monte Carlo approaches provided good enough re- Corun~ a, Spain) for some interesting conversations, which helped
sults in reasonable elapsed times. This could be extended to all enhance the paper. We are also very grateful to Prof. Jorge Vanegas
cases in which the complexity of the optimisation problem is from the Texas A&M University (USA) for his help during the stay
reduced. that one of the authors spent at that university, where part of this
 If the number of variables or, in general, the complexity of the work has been developed.
models increase, smart search techniques, like NSGA-II, among
other options, will be necessary. Appendix A. Supplementary data

This paper presents certain advantages that must be emphas- Supplementary data related to this article can be found at
ised. This was the first time that the sustainability optimisation of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.266.
an energy system was addressed by considering the three classical
dimensions of integral sustainability in depth. Moreover, three Nomenclature
different optimisation techniques were applied to check out the
validity of the best solution. A sensitivity analysis was also per- a1 numerical constant (V)
formed, resulting in robust results that prove the accuracy and a2 numerical constant (V/m2)
applicability of the proposed models. Furthermore, the set of a3 numerical constant
weights employed are based on the existing literature, certifying, A heat exchanger surface area (m2)
once again, the validity of this study. Aind shape factor
On the other hand, the main weak points are those related to AP acidification potential (kg of SO2-eq.)
possible future developments that are out of the scope of this work. As maximum crossflow area at the shell equator (m2)
In fact, there are several improving pathways. First, the MIVES bd bundle diametrical clearance (m)
model could be gradually expanded by incorporating new eco- bo numerical constant
nomic, social and environmental indicators. In the same vein, the B baffle spacing (m)
indicators should be modified in order to assess each STHE design Cp specific heat (J/kg K)
in its entirety by, for example, considering all the components of Ce energy cost (V/W h)
the STHE and their manufacturing processes. It is foreseeable that Ci capital investment (V)
these improvements will not alter the results to a great extent, but Co annual operating cost (V/year)
this should be verified. Second, the scope of the optimisation pro- Cod total discounted operating cost (V)
cess can be extended to make it possible, for example, to include Ctot total cost (V)
the structural analysis. Regarding the methodology, there are two de equivalent shell diameter (m)
main improvement options. Alternative multi-criteria decision di tube inside diameter (m)
methods, different from MIVES, can be tested. Similarly, other do tube outside diameter (m)
search methods, like simulated annealing, tabu search and other Ds shell internal diameter (m)
genetic algorithms, should be incorporated into the proposed in- Db bundle diameter (m)
tegrated methodology. They can be used to solve the same case EG employment generation
study addressed here. Their results will need to be carefully EI economic index
compared with the ones presented here (brute force, Monte Carlo ENI environmental index
and NSGA-II) in order to analyse the computational advantages and EP eutrophication potential (kg of phosphate-eq.)
disadvantages. Finally, the ultimate objective must be to optimise fs shell side friction coefficient
the sustainability of complete energy systems comprising a large ft tube side friction coefficient (Darcy)
amount of design variables, such as an air conditioning system or a F correction factor
power plant, among other options. A preliminary line of action will Find social/environmental factor
be to solve the same or similar case study but, this time, increasing GWP global warming potential (kg of CO2-eq.)
the number of design variables (tube pitch arrangement, material, hs shell side convective coefficient (W/m2 K)
among others). ht tube side convective coefficient (W/m2 K)
H annual operating time (h/year)
Funding i annual discount rate (%)
k thermal conductivity (W/m K)
The present work was supported by the Ministry of Culture, K1 numerical constant
Education and University Planning of Galicia (Spain), under the Pre- L tubes length (m)
doctoral Stage Support Program of the Galician Plan for Research, LA lethal accidents (nº of cases)
Innovation and Growth 2011e2015 (Plan I2C), grant ED481A-2015/ LMTD logarithmic mean temperature difference (K)
~a
200. It was also supported by Inditex and the University of A Corun m numerical constant
 J.J. Cartelle Barros et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 200 (2018) 552e567 565

mind shape factor References

ms shell side mass flow rate (kg/s)
mt tube side mass flow rate (kg/s) Abdallah, M., El Rayes, K., 2016. Multiobjective optimization model for maximizing
sustainability of existing buildings. J. Manag. Eng. 32 https://doi.org/10.1061/
M mass of tubes (kg) (ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000425.
n number of tube passes Aguado, A., Can ~ o, A., Asce, M., Cruz, M.P. De, Go
mez, D., Josa, A., 2012. Sustainability
n1 numerical constant assessment of concrete structures within the Spanish structural concrete code.
J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 138, 268e276. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
nind shape factor 7862.0000419.
ny equipment life (year) Al-Sharrah, G., Elkamel, A., Almanssoor, A., 2010. Sustainability indicators for
Nt number of tubes decision-making and optimisation in the process industry: the case of the
petrochemical industry. Chem. Eng. Sci. 65, 1452e1461. https://doi.org/10.1016/
NLA serious non-lethal accidents (nº of cases) j.ces.2009.10.015.
NSGA-II non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II Asadi, M., Song, Y., Sunden, B., Xie, G., 2014. Economic optimization design of shell-
ODP ozone depletion potential (kg of R-11-eq.) and-tube heat exchangers by a cuckoo-search-algorithm. Appl. Therm. Eng. 73,
1030e1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.08.061.
p constant for tube side pressure drop
Azad, A.V., Amidpour, M., 2011. Economic optimization of shell and tube heat
P dimensionless temperature ratio exchanger based on constructal theory. Energy 36, 1087e1096. https://doi.org/
Pind Input value for the design under assessment 10.1016/j.energy.2010.11.041.
Bahiraei, M., Hangi, M., 2013. Investigating the efficacy of magnetic nanofluid as a
Pind,max Input value that generates a 1
coolant in double-pipe heat exchanger in the presence of magnetic field. Energy
Pind,min Input value that generates a 0 Convers. Manag. 76, 1125e1133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.
POCP photochemical ozone creation potential (kg of C2H4-eq.) 09.008.
PP pumping power (W) Bahiraei, M., Hangi, M., Saeedan, M., 2015. A novel application for energy efficiency
improvement using nanofluid in shell and tube heat exchanger equipped with
Prs shell side Prandtl number helical baffles. Energy 93, 2229e2240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.
Prt tube side Prandtl number 10.120.
Q heat duty (W) Bahiraei, M., Jamshidmofid, M., Heshmatian, S., 2017a. Entropy generation in a heat
exchanger working with a biological nanofluid considering heterogeneous
R dimensionless temperature ratio particle distribution. Adv. Powder Technol. 28, 2380e2392. https://doi.org/
Res shell side Reynolds number 10.1016/j.apt.2017.06.021.
Ret tube side Reynolds number Bahiraei, M., Khosravi, R., Heshmatian, S., 2017b. Assessment and optimization of
hydrothermal characteristics for a non-Newtonian nanofluid flow within
Rfs shell side fouling resistance (m2 K/W) miniaturized concentric-tube heat exchanger considering designer's viewpoint.
Rft tube side fouling resistance (m2 K/W) Appl. Therm. Eng. 123, 266e276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.
St tube pitch (m) 2017.05.090.
Balkan, F., 2005. Application of EoEP principle with variable heat transfer coefficient
SI sustainability index
in minimizing entropy production in heat exchanges. Energy Convers. Manag.
SOI social index 46, 2134e2144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2004.10.020.
Vind value function Brensing, K.H., Sommer, B., 2017. Mannesmannro € hren-werke GmbH. Steel Tube and
Pipe Manufacturing Processes. http://www.smrw.de/English/media-und-more/
Tci cold fluid inlet temperature (K)
publications/publications.html. (Accessed 31 July 2017).
Tco cold fluid outlet temperature (K) Büyüko €zkan, G., Karabulut, Y., 2017. Energy project performance evaluation with
Thi hot fluid inlet temperature (K) sustainability perspective. Energy 119, 549e560. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Tho hot fluid outlet temperature (K) j.energy.2016.12.087.
Caputo, A.C., Pelagagge, P.M., Salini, P., 2008. Heat exchanger design based on
U overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K) economic optimisation. Appl. Therm. Eng. 28, 1151e1159. https://doi.org/
vs shell side fluid velocity (m/s) 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2007.08.010.
vt tube side fluid velocity (m/s) Cartelle Barros, J.J., Lara Coira, M., de la Cruz, L?pez, M.P., del Ca?o Gochi, A., 2015.
Assessing the global sustainability of different electricity generation systems.
V volume of tubes (m3) Energy 89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.110.
Vind value functions Casanovas, M., Armengou, J., Ramos, G., 2014. Occupational risk index for assess-
DP t tube side pressure drop (pa) ment of risk in construction work by activity, 140, 1e9. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000785.
DP s shell side pressure drop (pa) Costa, A.L.H., Queiroz, E.M., 2008. Design optimization of shell-and-tube heat ex-
changers. Appl. Therm. Eng. 28, 1798e1805. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.applthermaleng.2007.11.009.
Greek letters Cuadrado, J., Zubizarreta, M., Pelaz, B., Marcos, I., 2015. Methodology to assess the
a weights for the sustainability requirements of the environmental sustainability of timber structures. Construct. Build. Mater. 86,
149e158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.109.
MIVES tree
, J., Reyes, J., 2012. Sustainability index for industrial
Cuadrado, J., Rojí, E., San Jose
b weights for the sustainability criteria of the MIVES tree buildings. Struct. Build. 165, 245e253. https://doi.org/10.1680/stbu.10.00029.
g weights for the sustainability indicators of the MIVES de la Cruz, M.P., Castro, A., del Can ~ o, A., Go
mez, D., Lara, M., Cartelle, J., 2014a.
tree Comprehensive methods for dealing with uncertainty in assessing sustain-
ability. Part I: the MIVES-Monte Carlo method. In: García-Cascales, M.S.,
h overall pumping efficiency Sa
nchez-Lozano, J.M., Masegosa, A.D., Cruz-Corona, C. (Eds.), Soft Computing
m dynamic viscosity (Pa s) Applications for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency. IGI Global, Hershey,
p numerical constant pp. 69e106.
de la Cruz, M.P., Castro, A., del Can ~ o, A., Go

mez, D., Lara, M., Gradaille, G., 2014b.
r density (kg/m3) Comprehensive methods for dealing with uncertainty in assessing sustain-
ability. Part 2: the fuzzy-MIVES method. In: García-Cascales, M.S., S
anchez-
Lozano, J.M., Masegosa, A.D., Cruz-Corona, C. (Eds.), Soft Computing Applica-
Subscripts tions for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency. IGI Global, Hershey,
c cold pp. 107e140.
de la Fuente, A., Armengou, J., Pons, O., Aguado, A., 2017. Multi-criteria decision-
e equivalent making model for assessing the sustainability index of wind-turbine support
h hot systems: application to a new precast concrete alternative. J. Civ. Eng. Manag.
i inlet 23, 194e203. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2015.1023347.
de la Fuente, A., Pons, O., Josa, A., Aguado, A., 2016. Multi-criteria decision making in
ind indicator
the sustainability assessment of sewerage pipe systems. J. Clean. Prod. 112,
o outlet 4762e4770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.002.
s shell Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T., 2002. A fast and elitist multiobjective
genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6, 182e197. https://
t tubes
doi.org/10.1109/4235.996017.
w tube wall
566 J.J. Cartelle Barros et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 200 (2018) 552e567
del Can ~ o, A., Go
mez, D., de la Cruz, M.P., 2012. Uncertainty analysis in the sus-
tainable design of concrete structures: a probabilistic method. Construct. Build.
Mater. 37, 865e873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.020.
del Can ~ o, A., de la Cruz, M.P., Cartelle, J.J., Lara, M., 2015. Conceptual framework for
an integrated method to optimize sustainability of engineering systems.
J. Energy Power Eng. 9, 608e615. https://doi.org/10.17265/1934-8975/
2015.07.002.
del Can ~ o, A., Pilar de la Cruz, M., Go
mez, D., Pe
rez, M., 2016. Fuzzy method for
analysing uncertainty in the sustainable design of concrete structures. J. Civ.
Eng. Manag. 22, 924e935. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2014.928361.
Fesanghary, M., Damangir, E., Soleimani, I., 2009. Design optimization of shell and
tube heat exchangers using global sensitivity analysis and harmony search al-
gorithm. Appl. Therm. Eng. 29, 1026e1031. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.applthermaleng.2008.05.018.
Fishman, G., 2003. Monte Carlo: Concepts, Algorithms, and Applications, fourth ed.
Springer, New York.
Floudas, C.A., Pardalos, P.M., 2009. Encyclopedia of Optimization, second ed.
Springer, New York.
Ghanei, A., Assareh, E., Biglari, M., Ghanbarzadeh, A., Noghrehabadi, A.R., 2014.
Thermal-economic multi-objective optimization of shell and tube heat
exchanger using particle swarm optimization (PSO). Heat Mass Tran. 50,
1375e1384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00231-014-1340-2.
Go
mez, D., del Can ~ o, A., de la Cruz, M.P., Josa, A., 2012. Evaluacio
n de la sostenibi-
lidad en estructuras de hormigo
n y meta
licas. La EHE y la EAE. In: Aguado, A.
(Ed.), Sostenibilidad Y Construccio
n. Asociacio
n Científico-Te
cnica del
Hormigo
n (ACHE), Barcelona, pp. 413e439.
Guo, J., Cheng, L., Xu, M., 2009. Optimization design of shell-and-tube heat
exchanger by entropy generation minimization and genetic algorithm. Appl.
Therm. Eng. 29, 2954e2960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.
2009.03.011.
Hadidi, A., Hadidi, M., Nazari, A., 2013. A new design approach for shell-and-tube
heat exchangers using imperialist competitive algorithm (ICA) from economic
point of view. Energy Convers. Manag. 67, 66e74. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2012.11.017.
Hadidi, A., Nazari, A., 2013. Design and economic optimization of shell-and-tube
heat exchangers using biogeography-based (BBO) algorithm. Appl. Therm.
Eng. 51, 1263e1272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2012.12.002.
Hosseini, S.M.A., de la Fuente, A., Pons, O., 2016. Multicriteria decision-making
method for sustainable site location of post-disaster temporary housing in ur-
ban areas. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 142, 4016036 https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001137.
Incropera, F.P., DeWitt, D.P., Bergman, T.L., Lavine, A.S., 2006. Fundamentals of Heat
and Mass Transfer, sixth ed. John Wiley, New York.
Jawahar, N., Satish Pandian, G., Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N., 2017. An opti-
mization model for sustainability Program. Ann. Oper. Res. 250, 389e425.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-1928-z.
Kannegiesser, M., Günther, H.O., Autenrieb, N., 2015. The time-to-sustainability
optimization strategy for sustainable supply network design. J. Clean. Prod.
108, 451e463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.030.
Kern, D.Q., 1950. Process Heat Transfer. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Kroese, D.P., Taimre, T., Botev, Z.I., 2011. Handbook of Monte Carlo Methods, first ed.
Wiley, Hoboken.
Kupfer, T., Baitz, M., Makishi Colodel, C., Kokborg, M., Scho €ll, S., Rudolf, M., et al.,
2017. GaBi Database and Modelling Principles 2017. Thinkstep, Leinfelden-
echterdingen. http://www.gabi-software.com/fileadmin/GaBi_Databases/GaBi_
Modelling_Principles_2017.pdf.
Lee, P.S., Garimella, S.V., Liu, D., 2005. Investigation of heat transfer in rectangular
microchannels. Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 48, 1688e1704. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijheatmasstransfer.2004.11.019.
Lee, S., Esfahani, I.J., Ifaei, P., Moya, W., Yoo, C.K., 2017. Thermo-environ-economic
modeling and optimization of an integrated wastewater treatment plant with a
combined heat and power generation system. Energy Convers. Manag. 142,
385e401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.03.060.
Liu, Z., Huang, Y., 2015. Sustainability enhancement under uncertainty: a Monte
Carlo-based simulation and system optimization method. Clean Technol. En-
viron. Policy 17, 1757e1768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-015-0916-y.
Meadows, D., Meadows, D., Randers, J., 2004. Limits to Growth: the 30-year Update,
third ed. Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont.
Meng, K., Lou, P., Peng, X., Prybutok, V., 2017. Multi-objective optimization decision-
making of quality dependent product recovery for sustainability. Int. J. Prod.
Econ. 188, 72e85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.03.017.
Ormazabal, G., Vinolas, B., Aguado, A., 2008. Enhancing value in crucial decisions:
line 9 of the Barcelona subway. J. Manag. Eng. 24, 265e272. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2008)24:4(265).
€
Ozçelik, Y., 2007. Exergetic optimization of shell and tube heat exchangers using a
genetic based algorithm. Appl. Therm. Eng. 27, 1849e1856. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2007.01.007.
Pardo-Bosch, F., Aguado, A., 2015. Investment priorities for the management of
hydraulic structures. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 11, 1338e1351. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15732479.2014.964267.
Patel, V.K., Rao, R.V., 2010. Design optimization of shell-and-tube heat exchanger
using particle swarm optimization technique. Appl. Therm. Eng. 30, 1417e1425.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2010.03.001.
Peters, M.S., Timmerhaus, K.D., 1991. Plant Design and Economics for Chemical
Engineers, fourth ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Ponce-Ortega, J.M., Serna-Gonz??lez, M., Jim??nez-Guti??rrez, A., 2009. Use of
genetic algorithms for the optimal design of shell-and-tube heat exchangers.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 29, 203e209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.
2007.06.040.
Pons, O., Aguado, A., 2012. Integrated value model for sustainable assessment
applied to technologies used to build schools in Catalonia, Spain. Build. Environ.
53, 49e58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.01.007.
Pons, O., De La Fuente, A., 2013. Integrated sustainability assessment method
applied to structural concrete columns. Construct. Build. Mater. 49, 882e893.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.09.009.
Pratama, Y.W., Purwanto, W.W., Tezuka, T., McLellan, B.C., Hartono, D., Hidayatno, A.,
Daud, Y., 2017. Multi-objective optimization of a multiregional electricity sys-
tem in an archipelagic state: the role of renewable energy in energy system
sustainability. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 77, 423e439. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.021.
Pujadas, P., Pardo-Bosch, F., Aguado-Renter, A., Aguado, A., 2017. MIVES multi-
criteria approach for the evaluation, prioritization, and selection of public in-
vestment projects. A case study in the city of Barcelona. Land Use Pol. 64,
29e37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.02.014.
Rao, R.V., Saroj, A., 2017. Economic optimization of shell-and-tube heat exchanger
using Jaya algorithm with maintenance consideration. Appl. Therm. Eng. 116,
473e487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.01.071.
Ren, J., Liang, H., Dong, L., Sun, L., Gao, Z., 2016. Design for sustainability of industrial
symbiosis based on emergy and multi-objective particle swarm optimization.
Sci. Total Environ. 562, 789e801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.04.
092.
Ren, J., Tan, S., Yang, L., Goodsite, M.E., Pang, C., Dong, L., 2015. Optimization of
emergy sustainability index for biodiesel supply network design. Energy
Convers. Manag. 92, 312e321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.12.066.
Reyes, J.P., San-Jose
, J.T., Cuadrado, J., Sancibrian, R., 2014. Health & Safety criteria for
determining the sustainable value of construction projects. Saf. Sci. 62,
221e232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.08.023.
Robert, C., Casella, G., 2005. Monte Carlo Statistical Methods, second ed. Springer,
Berlin.
Rohsenow, W.M., Hartnett, J.P., Cho, Y.I., 1998. Handbook of Heat Transfer, third ed.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Saeedan, M., Bahiraei, M., 2015. Effects of geometrical parameters on hydrothermal
characteristics of shell-and-tube heat exchanger with helical baffles: numerical
investigation, modeling and optimization. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 96, 43e53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2015.02.004.
San-Jose
, J.T., Losada, R., Cuadrado, J., Garrucho, I., 2007. Approach to the quantifi-
cation of the sustainable value in industrial buildings. Build. Environ. 42,
3916e3923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.11.013.
San-Jose
Lombera, J.-T., Cuadrado Rojo, J., 2010. Industrial building design stage
based on a system approach to their environmental sustainability. Construct.
Build. Mater. 24, 438e447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.10.019.
San-Jose
Lombera, J.-T., Garrucho Aprea, I., 2010. A system approach to the envi-
ronmental analysis of industrial buildings. Build. Environ. 45, 673e683. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.08.012.
Sanaye, S., Hajabdollahi, H., 2010. Multi-objective optimization of shell and tube
heat exchangers. Appl. Therm. Eng. 30, 1937e1945. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.applthermaleng.2010.04.018.
Schaffer, J.D., 1985. Multiple objective optimization with vector evaluated genetic
algorithms. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Genetic Algo-
rithm and Their Applications.
Sekimoto, H., Nagata, A., 2010. Performance optimization of the CANDLE reactor for
nuclear energy sustainability. Energy Convers. Manag. 51, 1788e1791. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2009.12.045.
€ Reppich, M., 2006. A new design approach for shell-and-tube
Selbaş, R., Kızılkan, O.,
heat exchangers using genetic algorithms from economic point of view. Chem.
Eng. Process. Process Intensif. 45, 268e275. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cep.2005.07.004.
Shah, R.K., Sekulic, D.P., 2003. Fundamentals of Heat Exchanger Design. John Wiley
& Sons, New Jersey.
Sinnot, R.K., 2005. Coulson and Richardson's Chemical Engineering, Chemical En-
gineering Design, fourth ed., vol. 6. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Srinivas, N., Deb, K., 1994. Multiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting
in genetic algorithms. Evol. Comput. 2, 221e248.
Soltan, B.K., Saffar-Avval, M., Damangir, E., 2004. Minimizing capital and operating
costs of shell and tube condensers using optimum baffle spacing. Appl. Therm.
Eng. 24, 2801e2810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2004.04.005.
Taal, M., Bulatov, I., Klemes, J., Stehlík, P., 2003. Cost estimation and energy price
forecasts for economic evaluation of retrofit projects. Appl. Therm. Eng. 23,
1819e1835. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-4311(03)00136-4.
Tapia, C., Padgett, J.E., 2016. Multi-objective optimisation of bridge retrofit and post-
event repair selection to enhance sustainability. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 12,
93e107. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2014.995676.
Pesaran, M., Mohd Zin, A.A., Khairuddin, A., Shariati, O., 2014. Optimal sizing and
sitting of distributed generators by a weighted exhaustive search. Elec. Power
Comp. Syst. 42, 1131e1142. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325008.2014.921947.
TEMA, 1999. Standards of the Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association, eight
ed. Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association, New York.
Tharakeshwar, T.K., Seetharamu, K.N., Durga Prasad, B., 2017. Multi-objective opti-
mization using bat algorithm for shell and tube heat exchangers. Appl. Therm.
Eng. 110, 1029e1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.09.031.
 J.J. Cartelle Barros et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 200 (2018) 552e567 567

[database] Thinkstep, 2017. Professional Database 2017. GaBi Database 2017 LCI
Documentation. http://www.gabi-software.com/support/gabi/gabi-database-
2017-lci-documentation/professional-database-2017/.
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992. The Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development. http://www.un.org/documents/
ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm.
Vasconcelos Segundo, E.H. de, Amoroso, A.L., Mariani, V.C., Coelho, L. dos S., 2017.
Economic optimization design for shell-and-tube heat exchangers by a Tsallis
differential evolution. Appl. Therm. Eng. 111, 143e151. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.applthermaleng.2016.09.032.