See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259536270

Multi-Objective Optimization of a Cross-Flow

Plate Heat Exchanger Using Entropy Generation
Minimization

Article in Chemical Engineering & Technology January 2014

DOI: 10.1002/ceat.201300411

CITATIONS READS

10 216

3 authors:

Mojtaba Babaelahi Somayyeh Sadri

University of Qom Shahid Beheshti University
25 PUBLICATIONS 533 CITATIONS 5 PUBLICATIONS 26 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hoseyn Sayyaadi
Khaje Nasir Toosi University of Technology
80 PUBLICATIONS 1,282 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

desalination system View project

Deslination Hybriad Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hoseyn Sayyaadi on 18 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Entropy generation minimization 87

Mojtaba Babaelahi Research Article

Somayyeh Sadri
Hoseyn Sayyaadi Multi-Objective Optimization of a Cross-Flow
K. N. Toosi University of Plate Heat Exchanger Using Entropy
Technology, Tehran, Iran.
Generation Minimization
Multi-objective optimization of a cross-flow plate fin heat exchanger (PFHE) by
means of an entropy generation minimization technique is described. Entropy
generation in the PFHE was separated into thermal and pressure entropy genera-
tion as two objective functions to be minimized simultaneously. The Pareto opti-
mal frontier was obtained and a final optimal solution was selected. By imple-
menting a decision-making method, here the LINMAP method, the best trade-
off was achieved between thermal efficiency and pumping cost. This approach led
to a configuration of the PFHE with lower magnitude of entropy generation,
reduced pressure drop and pumping power, and lower operating and total cost in
comparison to single-objective optimization approaches.

Keywords: Cross-flow plate fin heat exchanger, Entropy generation minimization,

LINMAP decision-making, Multi-objective optimization, Thermohydraulic design
Received: July 06, 2013; revised: August 18, 2013; accepted: October 04, 2013
DOI: 10.1002/ceat.201300411

1 Introduction obtained the optimum design of heat exchangers in separate

The plate fin heat exchanger (PFHE) is a type of heat exchang-
er that uses plates and finned chambers to transfer heat
between hot and cold fluids [1, 2]. Two important issues in the
design of heat exchangers are maximum efficiency and mini-
mum cost for a particular application. Optimization of heat
exchangers can lead to these objectives. In optimizing thermal
systems, many classical and non-classical techniques have been
used. Bejan [3] considered heat losses and frictional pressure
drops in channels and found that heat losses were reduced
while the heat transfer area was increased; however, in this
way, pressure drops in channels became higher. The balance of
entropy generation in a controlled volume of a gas-gas heat
exchanger for calculating the entropy generation was studied
by Bejan [4]. Den Buick [5] described the optimal design of a
cross-flow heat exchanger and qualified optimal repartition of
the transfer area for maximum effectiveness of a heat exchang-
er. Rao [6] examined all classical and non-classical techniques
that could be used in optimizing shell and tube heat exchan-
gers. Venkatrathnam [7] and Abramazon and Ostersetzer [8]
genetic algorithm was developed on a plate and frame heat
Correspondence: Prof. Hoseyn Sayyaadi (sayyaadi@kntu.ac.ir), K. N.
Toosi University of Technology, P.O. Box 19395-1999, Tehran 1999
143344, Iran.
works by Lagrangian multiplier and an iterative method.
Hesselgreaves [9] used an analytical method for size optimiza-
tion of PFHEs. Gonzales et al. [10] minimized the total cost of
air-cooled heat exchangers considering ten decision variables
including operating and geometrical parameters. Selba et al.
[11] optimized shell and tube heat exchangers using the genet-
ic algorithm from an economic point of view. Allen et al. [12]
defined the optimal geometry and flow arrangement for cost
minimization of shell and tube condensers. Peng et al. [13] uti-
lized back propagation neural networks in cooperation with
the genetic algorithm to obtain an optimal design of PFHEs
with objectives including minimum total weight and total
annual cost. Similar works for cost minimization of heat
exchangers have been performed using classical and non-clas-
sical methods [1421].
With respect to analysis methods, objective functions of all
the above-mentioned studies can be divided into two groups
in terms of the first law of thermodynamics or combination of
the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Sanaye et al.
obtained an optimum design for a PFHE using NSGA-II and
artificial neural network analysis [22]. Thermal modeling was
conducted for the optimal design of compact heat exchangers
by Ahmadi et al. [23]. Multi-objective optimization using the
exchanger by Najafi et al. [24]. Rao et al. introduced a modi-
fied version of the TLBO algorithm and applied it to multi-
objective optimization of PFHEs [25].

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2014, 37, No. 1, 8794 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.cet-journal.com
88 H. Sayyaadi et al

Nowadays, the second category that involves entropy and Table 1. Stream data for hot (fluid a) and cold (fluid b) gas
exergy has been extended among the researchers. One suitable flows.
and interesting method for optimizing heat exchangers and
Parameters Fluid a Fluid b
other energy systems is entropy generation minimization
(EGM). The concept of EGM was first introduced for model- Mass flow rate [kg s ] 1
0.8962 0.8296
ing and optimizing the technique by Bejan [26]. Later, some
Inlet temperature [K] 513 277
researchers [2730] applied this method for optimizing heat
transfer devices. Inlet pressure [kPa] 100 100
Multi-objective optimization of a cross-flow PFHE was per- 1 1
Specific heat [J kg K ] 1017.7 1011.8
formed. The value of entropy generation was divided into two
3
parts, i.e., entropy generation related to heat transfer and to Density [kg m ] 0.8196 0.9385
fluid friction. Since the entropy generations related to heat Dynamic viscosity [N s m ] 2
241 218.2
transfer and pressure drop have conflicting objectives, in which
increase in one objective leads to decrease of another and vice Prandtl number 0.6878 0.6954
versa, in order to find the best values of decision variables, Heat duty Q [kW] 160
these objectives were optimized simultaneously in a multi-
objective optimization process which balanced the two con-
flicting objectives. The multi-objective optimization of a PFHE 2.1 Thermal Calculation of a PFHE
was performed using the genetic algorithm while some geo-
metric specifications of the PFHE were considered decision The heat balance between streams can be calculated as follows:
variables and proper constraints were imposed. The Pareto


optimal frontier was obtained and a final optimal solution was Q ma ha;in ha;out mb hb;in hb;out


(1)
selected using a class of decision-making tools called LINMAP Q ma cp;a Ta;in Ta;out mb cp;b Tb;in Tb;out
(linear programming technique for multidimensional analysis
of preference) method. where Q, m, h, cp, and T denote the rate of heat transfer, mass
flow rate of fluid, heat transfer coefficient, and specific heat of
fluid and temperature, respectively. On the other hand:
2 Thermal and Hydraulic Design of the
Q UAF LMTD (2)
Cross-Flow PFHE
U, A, and F mean the overall heat transfer coefficient, heat
A PFHE consists of a block of alternating layers of various fins transfer area, and correction factor. The logarithmic mean
and flat separators, known as partitioning plates [31, 32]. A temperature difference (LMTD) is defined as:
schematic view of a simple cross-flow PFHE is given in Fig. 1.
In this heat exchanger, two gas streams flow and heat is trans- DT1 DT2
LMTD   (3)
ferred from a hot gas (fluid a) into a cold gas (fluid b) stream. ln
DT1
Data of the streams for hot and cold gas flows are indicated in DT2

Tab. 1 [33].
where
DT1 Ta;in Tb;out (4a)

DT2 Ta;out Tb;in (4b)

Thermal resistance related to the plates, which are located

between hot and cold streams, is ignored because a thin metal
is used; therefore, the overall effective heat transfer area can be
estimated from the following equation [34]:
Figure 1. Schematic view of a cross-flow PFHE. 1 1 1
(5)
UA hAa hAb
Thermohydraulic modeling is performed under the follow-
Flow areas related to fluids a and b are calculated as follows:
ing assumptions: (i) Steady-state flow is considered for both
hot and cold sides. (ii) Properties of fluids are constant with Affa Lb Na Ha ta 1 na t a (6)
respect to temperature. (iii) Thermal resistance related to the
partitioning plate between two streams is negligible. (iv) Simi- Affb La Nb Hb t b 1 nb tb (7)
lar offset-strip fins are considered for both hot and cold sides.
(v) Uniform distribution of heat transfer coefficients and heat where Aff, L, N, H, t, and n represent the free flow area, heat
transfer area through the heat exchanger. (vi) The number of exchanger length, number of fin layers of fluid, outer height of
fin layers for stream a is one layer greater than the correspond- the fin, fin thickness, and fin frequency, respectively. The
ing number of fin layers for stream b. hydraulic diameter of the finned passage is given as follows:

www.cet-journal.com 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim Chem. Eng. Technol. 2014, 37, No. 1, 8794
 Entropy generation minimization 89

2s t H t 4fb Lb G2b 2fb m2b Lb

Dh h i (8) DPb (17)
H t t qb Dh;b La Nb Hb tb 2 1
2
s H t 2qb Dh;b 2 2 nb tb
lf
where
For Re 1500, it follows [35]:
s 1=n t (9) 0:74 0:41 0:02
f 8:12Re lf =Dh fs=H tg (18)
Dh and s denote the hydraulic diameter and fin spacing.
Heat transfer areas are obtained similarly and the total heat For Re > 1500, f is defined as [35]:
transfer area is calculated by combining Aa and Ab which are 0:36 0:65
f 1:12Re lf =Dh t=Dh 0:17 (19)
determined by:

Aa La Lb Na 1 2na Ha t a (10) The Re number is expressed as follows:

GDh m Dh
Ab La Lb Nb 1 2nb Hb tb (11) Re (20)
l l Aff

The heat transfer coefficient (h) is written in terms of the where DP, f, and q denote the pressure drop, fanning friction
Colburn factor (j) as follows: factor, and density, respectively. A new detail regarding the
h hydraulic design of a PFHE is reported in [36].
j St Pr2=3 Pr 2=3 (12)
Gcp

j, St, Pr, and G denote the Colburn factor, Stanton number, 3 Entropy Generation Minimization
Prandtl number, and mass flux velocity, respectively. The Col-
burn factor j depends on parameters such as type of fin, geom- Entropy generation minimization (EGM) is based on basic
etry and details of makeup as well as Reynolds number of the principles of thermodynamics, heat and mass transfer, and
stream [32]. fluid mechanics. EGM was introduced earlier by Bosnjakovic
Substituting h and A in the heat balance equations (Eqs. (1) in the 1930s [37, 38] and the concept was further developed in
and (2)) leads to the following expression: the 1970s by Bejan [2]. EGM is used in real applications to de-
tect irreversibilities. These irreversibilities in heat exchangers
1 Ha ta 1 na ta are related to heat transfer between streams due to tempera-
2=3 1 2na ha La ture differences and frictional pressure drop. As noted by Bejan
ja ma cp;a Pra
(13) in [39], the entropy generation rate for two streams (e.g., a and
1 Hb tb 1 nb tb FLMTD b) can be achieved in terms of temperature and pressure as:

jb mb cp;b Prb
2=3 1 2nb hb Lb Q     
Ta;2 Pa;2
S ma cp;a ln Ra ln
Ta;1 Pa;1
For Re 1500, it follows [35]:      (21)
Tb;2 Pb;2
mb cp;b ln Rb ln
j 0:53Re 0:5
lf =Dh 0:15
fs=H tg 0:14
(14) Tb;1 Pb;1

where S is the rate of entropy generation. The above equation

For Re > 1500, j is defined as [35]:
can be rearranged based on thermal and pressure irreversibili-
j 0:21Re 0:4
lf =Dh 0:24
t=Dh 0:02 (15) ties:
    
Ta;2 Tb;2
where lf and h are the lance length and inner height of the fin, S ma cp;a ln mb cp;b ln
Ta;1 Tb;1
respectively.      (22)
Pa;2 Pb;2
ma Ra ln mb Rb ln
Pa;1 Pb;1
2.2 Hydraulic Calculation of a PFHE
S SDT SDP (23)
The acceptable pressure loss for each stream is specified ac-
cording to the type of application by customers. In the hydrau-
    
lic design of heat exchangers, fins and passages are selected Ta;2 Tb;2
such that overall pressure drops of streams never violate these SDT ma cp;a ln mb cp;b ln ;
Ta;1 Tb;1
limitations. Uniform distribution of a stream over the width of 2 0 1 0 13
UAF LMTD UAF LMTD
a layer is provided by proper design of the distributors [32]. Ta;1 Tb;1
6 B ma cp;a C B mb cp;b C7
Pressure drop on both sides of the heat exchanger can be ob- 4ma cp;a ln@ A mb cp;b ln@ A5
Ta;1 Tb;1
tained using factor f as follows:
    
UAF LMTD UAF LMTD
4fa La G2a 2fa m2a La ma cp;a ln 1 mb cp;b ln 1
DPa (16) ma cp;a Ta;1 mb cp;b Tb;1
2qa Dh;a q2a Dh;a L2b Na2 Ha ta 2 1 na ta (24a)

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2014, 37, No. 1, 8794 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.cet-journal.com
90 H. Sayyaadi et al

         
Pa;2 Pb;2 Ta;2 Tb;2
SDP ma Ra ln mb Rb ln Ns;DT ma cp;a ln mb cp;b ln =Cmax
Pa;1 Pb;1 Ta;1 Tb;1
       
Pa;1 DPa Pb;1 DPb UAF LMTD
ma Ra ln mb Rb ln ma cp;a ln 1 (28)
Pa;1 Pb;1 ma cp;a Ta;1
      
DPa DPb UAF LMTD
ma Ra ln 1 mb Rb ln 1 mb cp;b ln 1 =Cmax
Pa;1 Pb;1 mb cp;b Tb;1
(24b)
Non-dimensioned entropy generation related to fluid fric-
where U, A, F, LMTD, DPa, and DPb are calculated according tion:
to Sect. 2.1 and 2.2. Entropy generation is non-dimensiona-     
Pa;2 Pb;2
lized through dividing by Cmax, where Cmax is the greatest mcp Ns;DP ma Ra ln mb Rb ln =Cmax
Pa;1 Pb;1
among two streams, thus it follows:     
DPa DPb
ma Ra ln 1 mb Rb ln 1 =Cmax
S Pa;1 Pb;1
Ns (25)
Cmax (29)

where N is the dimensionless entropy generation. In the cur-

rent study, the dimensionless entropy generation number was
converted into two separate parts as follows: 4.2 Decision Variables and Constraints
SDT S
Ns DP (26) In the current study, decision variables were the design param-
Cmax Cmax eters of the PFHE as follows: (i) fin height (Ha and Hb); (ii) fin
thickness (ta and tb); (iii) fin frequency (na and nb); (iv) num-
Ns Ns;DT Ns;DP (27) ber of fin layers for a stream (Nb = Na 1); (v) dimensions of
heat exchanger (La and Lb); (vi) fin dimension (lfa and lfb).
A lower entropy generation related to heat transfer led to a These decision variables are indicated in Fig. 2 and are consis-
higher thermal efficiency; however, entropy generation related tent with the decision variables considered in [33] and [45].
to fluid friction and pumping cost was increased. Thus, these Each decision variable was normally required to be within a
two types of dimensionless entropy generations were consid- given range (Tab. 2) [33, 45].
ered as two separate conflicting objective functions.

5 Cost Analysis
4 Multi-Objective Optimization
Cost analysis was performed based on the estimation method
Multi-objective optimization problems usually exhibit a prob- of Muralikrishna and Shenoy [21]. In this formulation, the
ably uncountable set of solutions to assess the status of vectors cost of the heat exchanger is divided into capital and opera-
showing the best possible trade-offs in the objective function tional costs as follows:
space [40]. Pareto optimality is the key concept to express the Total cost = capital cost (heat exchanger core + pump a +
relationship between multi-objective optimization results in pump b) + operating cost of (pump a + pump b).
order to determine a solution which is actually one of the best
n
 
possible trades-offs [41, 42]. In multi-objective optimization, a Cost Af Ca Cb AcHT Ce Cf Wa d
process of decision-making is required for selection of the final
 o C h  (30)
optimal solution from available solutions of the Pareto fron- pow
Ce Cf Wb d Wa Wb
tier. In this paper, the LINMAP decision-making method was g
employed [43, 44]. In this method, the solution with mini-
mum distance from an imaginary solution, called the ideal where W, AHT, Ci (i {a, b, e, f, pow}, and d are pumping
point, was selected as the final desired optimal solution [44]. power, heat transfer area, and constant variables, respectively.
Details of MOEA (multiobjective evolu-
tionary algorithm) and LINMAP methods
are described in [44].

4.1 Objective Functions

The two objective functions defined in this

paper were as follows:
Non-dimensioned entropy generation
related to heat transfer: Figure 2. Schematic view of the considered decision variables for PFHE.

www.cet-journal.com 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim Chem. Eng. Technol. 2014, 37, No. 1, 8794
 Entropy generation minimization 91

Table 2. Range of decision variables.

Decision variable Range

Fin height Ha [m] 0.0020.01

Fin thickness ta [m] 0.00010.0002
Fin frequency na [fins/m] 1001000
Number of fin layers Na 110
Dimensions of heat exchanger La [m] 0.11
Fin dimension lfa [m] 0.0010.01
Fin height Hb [m] 0.0020.01
Fin thickness tb [m] 0.00010.0002
Fin frequency nb [fins/m] 1001000
Dimensions of heat exchanger Lb [m] 0.11
Fin dimension lfb [m] 0.0010.01 Figure 3. Pareto frontier: the best trade-off values for two objec-
tive functions.

These parameters were calculated by thermal and hydraulic tance from the ideal point might be considered a desirable
analysis. The annual operating time of the systems was as- final solution. Since the axes in Fig. 3 did not have a similar
sumed to be 8000 h. Other coefficients and parameters in scale, it was impossible to compare the values corresponding
Eq. (33) are defined in [21] and presented in Tab. 3. to each value (i.e., Ns,DT and Ns,DP). Thus, both Ns,DT and Ns,DP
had to be normalized to become comparable. It follows:
Table 3. Cost coefficiency of a heat exchanger [21].
Ns;DT i
Parameter Value
n
Ns;DT i q P

(31)
2 i
Ns;DT
2
Af [m ] 0.322
Ca [US $] 30 000 Ns;DP i
n
Ns;DP i q
P 2 (32)
Cb 750 Ns;DP i
c 0.8
where i and n are indices for each individual solution on the
Ce 2000 Pareto frontier and normalized value, respectively. The nor-
Cf 5 malized Pareto frontier is demonstrated in Fig. 4. In the next
step, the closest point of the normalized Pareto frontier to the
d 0.68
1
Cpow [US $ Wh ] 0.00005
g 0.7

6 Results and Discussion

Objective functions, decision variables, and constraints as
introduced in Sect. 4.1 and 4.2 were optimized in a multi-
objective optimization process using MOEA. Fig. 3 illustrates
the Pareto frontier in the objective space.
As mentioned previously in the multi-objective optimiza-
tion problems, all solutions located on the Pareto frontier are a
potential final solution. Therefore, selection of a final optimal
solution from the set of the Pareto frontier needs a process of
decision-making. In this paper, the LINMAP method [44] of
decision-making was employed. Actually, the LINMAP meth-
od worked based on the definition of an imaginary point,
namely the ideal point. At this point, both objective functions Figure 4. Schematic view of the final optimal solution selection
had their optimum value independent from other objectives. from the normalized Pareto frontier using the LINMAP decision-
In the LINMAP method, a solution with the closest special dis- making method.

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2014, 37, No. 1, 8794 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.cet-journal.com
92 H. Sayyaadi et al

ideal solution was selected as a desirable final optimal solution. The main difference between the present approach and [33]
The procedure is schematically illustrated in Fig. 4. and [45] was related to the separation of entropy generation
The non-dimensioned Pareto frontier was curve-fitted using due to temperature difference and pressure losses in the cur-
a polynomial. The following expression denotes Ns,DP as a rent work. Values of Ns,DT and Ns,DP for the final optimal solu-
function of Ns,DT and Ns,DP for all optimal solutions located on tion were 0.017972 and 0.028655, respectively. Therefore, val-
the Pareto frontier: ues of thermal efficiency and pumping power were evaluated.
 5 These values for the final optimal solution were 0.9161 and
n
Ns;DP 21:377Ns;DT
n
6 72:015 Ns;DTn 7.869 kW, respectively. As already explained, Ns,DT and Ns,DP
 4  3 were separated and considered as two distinct objective func-
96:133 Ns;DT
n n
65:673 Ns;DT (33) tions. However, in [33] and [44], Ns (= Ns,DT + Ns,DP) was tak-
 2 en as a single objective function. Comparison of the results
25:397 Ns;DT
n n
6:2065Ns;DT 0:9987 obtained in the present approach, in [33] and in [45] showed
that the heat transfer area of the optimized heat exchanger was
a little greater than the corresponding heat transfer area in
If Ns,DT was desired as a function of Ns,DP, then:
[33] but a little smaller than the corresponding heat transfer
 5 area in [45]. The total non-dimensioned entropy generation
n
Ns;DT 15:370Ns;DP
n
6 54:776 Ns;DPn
for the optimal heat exchanger of this study was significantly
 4  3 less than the corresponding total entropy generation of a simi-
78:386 Ns;DP
n n
58:145 Ns;DP (34) lar PFHE obtained in [33] and [44] (26.4 % less than the cor-
 2 responding Ns in [33] and 12.1 % less than the corresponding
24:490 Ns;DP
n n
6:3477Ns;DP 1:0225 Ns in [45]).
Further pressure drop, pumping power, and operating cost
Quantities of decision variables, objective functions, and key of the optimal PFHE of the current study were much lower
parameters of the PFHE for the final solution are presented in than the corresponding values in [33] and [45]. Pumping
Tab. 4, in which they are compared with the corresponding power and operating cost of the PFHE in this study were
results obtained in the literature by other researchers [33, 45] 31.0 % and 32.9 % less than the corresponding pumping power
using different approaches. in [33] and [45], respectively (similar results valid for the
The same constraints and decision variables which were con- operating cost). The capital cost of the heat exchanger surface
sidered in [33] and [45] were taken into account in this paper. was almost similar for all cases; however, the total cost ob-

Table 4. Decision variables, objective function, and parameters for the final optimal solution.

Current study Reference [29] Reference [41]

Parameters
Stream a Stream b Stream a Stream b Stream a Stream b

H [mm] 9.90 9.90 9.53 9.53 9.80 9.80

t [mm] 0.130 0.130 0.146 0.146 0.10 0.10
n [fins/m] 505.0 539.0 534.9 534.9 442.9 442.9
N 10 9 8 9 10 9
L [mm] 989.00 983.00 994.00 887.00 925.00 996.00
lf [mm] 5.00 3.30 6.30 6.30 9.80 9.80
2
A [m ] 0.0897 0.0803 0.0614 0.07739 0.0923 0.0772
DP [kPa] 4.234 2.962 7.100 4.120 1.750 11.100
Ns,DT 0.017972
Ns,DP 0.028655
Ns 0.046627 0.063332 0.053028
Pumping power [kW] 7.869 11.406 11.726
Effectiveness e 0.9329 0.9329 0.9329
Capital cost 4023.8 4032.2 4031.4
Pumping cost
[US $] Operation cost 4496.6 6517.7 6700.6
Capital cost of surface [US $] 9718.5 9709.8 9718.4
Total cost [US $] 18238.9 20259.7 20450.4

www.cet-journal.com 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim Chem. Eng. Technol. 2014, 37, No. 1, 8794
 Entropy generation minimization 93

tained in this work was 10.0 % and 12.1 % lower than the cor- Q [W] rate of heat transfer
responding total cost of PFHEs introduced in [33] and [45], R [J kg1K1] specific gas constant
respectively. Re [] Reynolds number
Tab. 4 indicates that the approach of the current paper with s [m] fin spacing (1/n1)
separation of the thermal entropy generation from the hydrau- S [W K1] rate of entropy generation
lic entropy generation and their consideration as two separate St [] Stanton number (h/GCp)
objective functions led to improvement in most factors of the t [m] fin thickness
PFHE compared to traditional approaches in [33] and [45]. T [K] temperature
However, the cost was not an objective of this research. Eco- U [W m2K1] overall heat transfer
nomic features of the optimized PFHE using the presented W [W] pumping power
approach were better than the corresponding economic pa-
rameters in [33] and [45]. Greek symbols
q [kg m3] density
l [N m2s1] viscosity
7 Conclusions
A multi-objective optimization of a cross-flow PFHE was pre- References
sented based on EGM. It was found that both thermal entropy
generation and pressure entropy generation of the cross-flow
[1] B. Kim, B. Sohn, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 2006, 27, 514521.
PFHE were in optimum state. Therefore, multi-objective opti-
[2] D. A. Reay, Heat Recovery Syst. CHP 1994, 14, 459474.
mization of this type of heat exchangers led to the best trade-
[3] A. Bejan, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 1978, 21, 655658.
off between entropy generation related to heat transfer and en-
[4] A. Bejan, Entropy Generation through Heat and Fluid Flow,
tropy generation related to fluid friction. It was shown that
Wiley, New York 1982.
this approach, in terms of separating entropy generation,
[5] V. den Buick, J. Heat Transfer 1991, 113, 341347.
enabled a better design of the PFHE with less total entropy
[6] K. R. Rao, Ph. D. Thesis, Indian Institute of Science, Banga-
generation, lower pressure drop and pumping power, less
lore 1991.
operating cost, and less total cost compared to the approach
[7] G. Venkatrathnam, Ph. D. Thesis, Indian Institute of Technol-
that considered total entropy generation as an objective func-
ogy, Kharagpur 1991.
tion of the single-objective optimization.
[8] B. Abramzon, S. Ostersetzer, in Proc. of the 1st Int. Conf. on
Aerospace Heat Exchanger Technology (Ed: A. Hashemi), Else-
The authors have declared no conflict of interest.
vier, New York 1993, 349368.
[9] J. E. Hesselgreaves, in Proc. of the 1st Int. Conf. on Aerospace
Heat Exchanger Technology (Ed: A. Hashemi), Elsevier, New
Symbols used York 1993, 391399.
[10] M. T. Gonzalez, N. C. Petracci, M. Urbican, Heat Transfer
A [m2] heat transfer area
Eng. 2001, 22, 1116.
Aff [m2] free flow area
[11] R. Selbas, O. Kizilkan, M. Reppich, Chem. Eng. Process. 2006,
AHT [m2] heat transfer area
4, 268275.
C [W K1] heat capacity rate
[12] B. Allen, L. Gosselin, Int. J. Energy Res. 2008, 10, 958969.
cp [W kg1K1] specific heat of fluid
[13] H. Peng, X. Ling, Appl. Therm. Eng. 2008, 5, 642650.
Dh [m] hydraulic diameter
[14] P. Wildi-Tremblay, L. Gosselin, Int. J. Energy Res. 2007, 9,
f [] fanning friction factor, correction
867885.
factor
[15] B. V. Babu, S. A. Munawar, Chem. Eng. Sci. 2007, 14, 3720
G [kg m2s1] mass flux velocity
3739.
h [W m2K1] heat transfer coefficient
[16] A. C. Caputo, P. M. Pelagagge, P. Salini, Appl. Therm. Eng.
h [m] inner height of the fin
2008, 10, 11511159.
H [m] height or outer height of the fin
[17] Y. Ozcelik, Appl. Therm. Eng. 2007, 11, 18491856.
j [] Colburn factor
[18] L. Valdevit, A. Pantano, H. A. Stone, A. G. Evans, Int. J. Heat
l [m] lance length of the fin
Mass Transfer 2006, 21, 38193830.
L [m] heat exchanger length
[19] G. N. Xie, B. Sunden, Q. W. Wang, Appl. Therm. Eng. 2008,
LMTD [] logarithmic mean temperature
8, 895906.
difference
[20] I. Ozkol, G. Komurgoz, Numer. Heat Transfer, Part A 2005, 3,
m [kg s1] mass flow rate of fluid
283296.
n [fins/m] fin frequency
[21] K. Muralikrishna, U. V. Shenoy, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2000,
Na, Nb [] number of fin layers of fluid a or b
58, 161167.
Ns [] dimensionless entropy generation
[22] S. Sanaye, H. Hajabdollahi, Appl. Energy 2010, 87, 1893
P [N m2] pressure
1902.
DP [N m2] pressure drop
Pr [] Prandtl number

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2014, 37, No. 1, 8794 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.cet-journal.com
 94
[23] P. Ahmadi, H. Hajabdollahi, I. Dincer, J. Heat Transfer 2011,
133, 021801021810.
[24] H. Najafi, B. Najafi, Appl. Therm. Eng. 2011, 31, 18391847.
[25] R. Venkata Rao, V. Patel, Appl. Math. Model. 2013, 37, 1147
1162.
[26] A. Bejan, Entropy Generation Minimization, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL 1948.
[27] R. T. Ogulata, F. Doba, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 1998, 41,
373381.
[28] J. Vargas, A. Bejan, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 2001, 22, 657665.
[29] R. Culham, Y. Muzychka, IEEE Trans. Compon. Packag.
Technol. 2001, 24, 159165.
[30] M. Iyengar, IEEE Trans. Compon. Packag. Technol. 2003, 26,
6270.
[31] D. Jainender, Design of Compact Plate Fin Heat Exchanger,
National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, India 2009.
[32] M. A. Taylor, Plate-Fin Heat Exchangers Guide to their
Specification and Use, Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow Service,
ORA, UK 1987.
[33] M. Mishra, P. K. Das, S. Sarangi, Appl. Therm. Eng. 2009, 29,
29832989.
www.cet-journal.com 2014 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
View publication stats
H. Sayyaadi et al
[34] The Standards of the Brazed Aluminum Plate-Fin Heat
Exchanger Manufacturers Association, ALPEMA, 2000.
www.alpema.org
[35] H. M. Joshi, R. L. Webb, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 1987, 30,
6984.
[36] W. Wang, S. Zhang, J. Yang, J. Zheng, X. Ding, M. Chou,
P. Tang, X. Zhan, Chem. Eng. Technol. 2013, 36 (4), 657664.
[37] F. Bosnjakovic, Arch. Wrmewirtsch. Dampfkesselwes. 1938,
19 (1), 12 (in German).
[38] F. Bosnjakovic, Technische Mitteilungen, Essen 1939, 32 (15),
439445 (in German).
[39] A. Bejan, J. Heat Transfer 1977, 99, 374380.
[40] Technical Assessment Guide (TAGTM), Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, CA 1993.
[41] C. M. Fonseca, P. J. Fleming, in Handbook of Evolutionary
Computation (Eds: T. Back, D. B. Fogel, Z. Michalewicz),
Oxford University Press, New York 1997.
[42] D. A. Van Veldhuizen, G. B. Lamont, Evolutionary Computa-
tion 2000, 2, 125147.
[43] J. H. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems,
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI 1975.
[44] H. Sayyaadi, R. Mehrabipour, Energy 2012, 38, 362375.
[45] R. V. Rao, V. K. Patel, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 2010, 49, 17121721.
Chem. Eng. Technol. 2014, 37, No. 1, 8794