International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 114 (2017) 1314–1330

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

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

Numerical study on airside thermal-hydraulic performance of

rectangular finned elliptical tube heat exchanger with large row number
in turbulent flow regime
Lanping Zhao a,b,⇑, Xitao Gu a,b, Lei Gao a,b, Zhigang Yang b,c
a
Institute of Refrigeration and Cryogenics, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
b
Shanghai Key Lab of Vehicle Aerodynamics and Vehicle Thermal Management Systems, Shanghai, China
c
Shanghai Automotive Wind Tunnel Center, Tongji University, Shanghai, China

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

Article history: The objective of this study is to investigate the air side thermal–hydraulic characteristics of rectangular
Received 20 January 2017 finned elliptical tube heat exchangers (RFETHXs) using 3D numerical simulations based on the validated
Received in revised form 17 May 2017 standard k-e turbulence model. First, fin efficiency of RFETHXs is investigated. The effects of various
Accepted 12 June 2017
parameters such as row number, transverse tube pitch, longitudinal tube pitch, fin pitch, fin thickness
and Re have been studied. Then the influences of structural parameters on the thermal-hydraulic perfor-
mance of RFETHXs are examined, not only the characteristics including the effect of fin thermal resistance
Keywords:
but also the pure convective performance excluded this effect. The contribution ratios of each structural
Rectangular finned elliptical tube heat
exchanger (RFETHX)
parameter on fin efficiency and air side thermal-hydraulic performance are given. It is observed that, the
Thermal-hydraulic performance most important structure factors for fin efficiency are fin thickness and fin pitch. For the RFETHXs with
Fin efficiency fully developed air side flow and heat transfer (N > 5), from the third row to the last second row, the aver-
Contribution ratio age fin surface Nu of each row is almost stable, and the value of the second row is 9% higher than the
Multiple correlations stable value. The results show that the air side heat transfer performance and friction factor of
Turbulent regime RFETHXs is mainly determined by the transverse tube pitch. For j/f1/2 at fixed Re, the contribution ratio
of transverse tube pitch is 32% while the value is 24% at fixed frontal velocity.
Moreover, two sets of multiple correlations, both including and excluding fin thermal resistance, are
proposed to describe the air side heat transfer and friction characteristics of RFETHXs in turbulent flow
regime.
Ó 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
Finned-tube heat exchangers (FTHXs) are widely used in a vari-
ety of applications in the HVAC&R systems, large climatic test facil-
ities and power plants, etc., to exchange heat between gases and
liquids. The most common shape of tubes used in FTHXs is the cir-
cular tube [1]. In some applications, strict aerodynamic require-
ments in addition to heat transfer requirements limits the use of
FTHXs with circular tube, such as airline heat exchangers in large
climatic wind tunnels of the automotive industry, which is usually
in turbulent regime, and accounts for almost 40% of fan power and
largely determines the capacity of refrigeration unit of wind tunnel
[2]. Elliptical tubes can offer significant advantages over the circu-
lar ones because of smaller wake region and lower profile drag on
⇑ Corresponding author at: Institute of Refrigeration and Cryogenics, Tongji
University, Shanghai, China.
E-mail address: lanpingzhao@tongji.edu.cn (L. Zhao).
the air side, as reported by Webb and Jung [3]. Therefore, it is
reasonable to expect the suitability of elliptical tubes used in cases
with strict pressure drop or high energy saving requirements by
replacing circular tubes in FTHXs.
So far, several experimental and numerical works have con-
ducted the thermal-hydraulic performance of FTHXs with elliptical
tube. The early work of Schulenberg [4] initiated the application of
finned elliptical tubes in industrial heat exchangers. The works
reported by Brauer [5] and Rocha et al. [6] indicate that finned
elliptical tube heat exchangers have a considerably better overall
performance than the circular ones through fin efficiency gain
and pressure drop reduction. Saboya and Saboya [7] conducted
mass transfer experiments to determine average transfer coeffi-
cients for elliptical FTHX using the naphthalene sublimation tech-
nique and the heat and mass transfer analogy. The results show
that the use of elliptical tubes led to higher thermal-hydraulic per-
formance. Jang and Yang [8] presented an experimental study on a
four-row elliptical FTHX. The results indicated that the heat

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.06.049
0017-9310/Ó 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 L. Zhao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 114 (2017) 1314–1330 1315

Nomenclature

A airside total heat transfer area (m2) x, y, z Cartesian coordinates

Aa average area of the flow passage (m2) xj jth Cartesian coordinate
Ae outside tube surface area (m2) Y raw data
Af fin surface area (m2)
Ai ith surface area of fin (m2) Greek symbols
C1eC2eCl turbulence model constants C/ generalized diffusion coefficient
cp specific heat at constant pressure (J kg1 K1) b finned ratio of the heat exchanger
CR contribution ratio DP pressure drop (Pa)
de equivalent diameter (m) DT mean temperature difference (K)
Dh hydraulic diameter (m) d tube thickness (m)
dr,t minor axis of the elliptical tube (m) e turbulence energy dissipation rate (m2 s3)
dr,l major axis of the elliptical tube (m) gf fin efficiency
f friction factor k thermal conductivity (W m1 K1)
Fp fin pitch (m) l dynamic viscosity (kg m1 s1)
Ft fin thickness (m) leff effective viscosity (kg m1 s1)
Gk stress source (Pa) lt turbulent viscosity (kg m1 s1)
h heat transfer coefficient (W m2 K1) q air density (kg m3)


h average heat transfer coefficient (W m2 K1) rerkrTrk,w turbulence model constants
j Colburn factor m kinematic viscosity (m2 s1)
k turbulence kinetic energy (m2 s2) / general variable
m mass flow rate (kg s1)
N row number
Subscripts
Nu Nussle number base fin base
Nu Nussle number of the fin surface bulk bulk air
Pl longitudinal tube pitch (m) fin fin surface
Pr Prandtl number
i the ith factor
Pt transverse tube pitch (m) in air-side inlet
Q surface heat transfer rate of fin (W) j the jth factor
Re Reynolds number
L larger
SN signal-to-noise ratios max maximum
S/ Generalized source term min minimum
T temperature (K) out air-side outlet
u, v, w x, y, z velocity components (m s1)
S smaller
uj Cartesian velocity components (m s1) w wall
um mean air velocity (m s1)

transfer coefficient per unit pressure drop of the elliptical finned
tube was 50% higher than that of the circular one with the same
perimeter. Mainardes’ experimental optimization study [9] for a
given volume FTHX found that a relative heat transfer gain of up
to 80% is observed in the elliptic arrangement optimized with
respect to tube-to-tube spacing, as compared to the optimal circu-
lar one in turbulent forced convection. Numerical studies of Han
et al. [10] reported that as comparing with the big circle-tube lou-
ver fin, the heat transfer rate of oval-tube fin is increased by 1.5–
4.9%, while the pressure drop loss is decreased by 22.0–31.8%. Taler
and Oclan [11] studied the gas side heat transfer coefficient of a
two-row plain finned elliptical tube heat exchanger. The simula-
tions predicted a lower Nusselt number (13%) as compared to the
experimental measurements. Afterwards, to improve the predic-
tion by CFD simulations for the air side temperature differences,
Taler and Ocłoń [12] further developed a new algorithm to find
the thermal-contact resistance of the above same FTHX. The
numerical investigation of Łopata and Ocłoń [13] addressed the
effect of fouling on the local heat transfer conditions in a high-
temperature FTHX with rectangular fin and elliptical tube
(RFETHX). Lotfi et al. [14] and Chu et al. [15] numerically investi-
gated the heat transfer and friction characteristics of elliptical
FTHX with vortex generators.
A number of papers reported about the effects of various struc-
tural parameters on the performance of FTHX with elliptical tube,
and furthermore, several works addressed the development of
thermal hydraulic correlations for the convenience of engineering
purpose. Simo Tala et al. [16] found that the reduction of the tube
ellipticity significantly increases the thermal-hydraulic perfor-
mance of the plain-finned tube heat exchanger up to 80% when
compared to a circular tube shape using unsteady-RANS simula-
tions and entropy production rates analysis. Erek et al. [17] carried
out a numerical study on a one-row elliptical FTHX, the results
show the effect of ellipticity of the tube, fin pitch and the position
of the tube on the heat transfer and pressure drop. Sßahin et al. [18]
numerically investigated the heat transfer enhancement and pres-
sure drop values of seven different fin angles with one-row ellipti-
cal FTHX. Based on realizable k-e turbulence model, response
surface methodology was applied by Sun and Zhang [19] to under-
stand the interactions among several design factors of plain-finned
elliptical FTHX. The results indicate that the axis ratio strongly
interacts with air velocity and water volumetric flow rate. The
work of Kumar et al. [20] on elliptical tube heat exchangers with
annual fins constitutes the most complete numerical information
available in the open literature about air cooled heat exchanger.
The effect of tube shape, tube diameter, fin spacing, the number
of rows, fin height, frontal velocity, transverse tube pitch on the
thermal–hydraulic performance had been studied. Taler [21] pre-
sented numerical corrections based on CFD simulation for the j factor
of a two-row FTHX with elliptical tube and plain fin. The relative
error does not exceed 10% in the region of 350
Rea
1500. Taler
[22] presented a new method for the simultaneous determination
1316 L. Zhao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 114 (2017) 1314–1330

of the heat transfer correlations for both fluids, the method was j-Colburn factor and f-friction factor, are proposed to describe the
used to determine the experimental heat transfer correlations on air side performance of RFETHXs.
the air and water side in a two-row FTHX with elliptical tube
and plain fin. The proposed method allows estimation of the 95%
2. Model description
CI of determined parameters in the region of 150
Rea
350. Du
et al. [23] developed the experimental correlations of Nu vs. ReDc
2.1. Physical model
and f vs. ReDc for two cross-flow RFETHXs under four different air
inlet angles, and the correlation coefficients and standard devia-
Fig. 1 illustrates an elementary unit of RFETHXs usually used in
tions are also acquired. Lotfi et al. [24] proposed a group of corre-
indirect cooling system in power engineering. It is an elliptical tube
lations for the smooth wavy fin-and-elliptical tube heat
of dimension 36 mm  14 mm with a rectangular fin of dimension
exchangers utilizing new type vortex generators based on the
55 mm  26 mm, and there are 4 holes with 4 fin pitch positioning
numerical simulations in the region of 500
ReDh
3000, the
sheets on the fin. Each hole has the dimension of 1 mm  1 mm.
average and maximum deviations computed by the correlations
For the reason of fin efficiency improvement, each fin corner is cut.
are 2.83% and 13.87% for the friction factor, 3.48% and 14.68% for
Fig. 2 demonstrates the three-dimensional schematic of an
the average Nusselt number in the enhanced case RTW VGs.
elliptical tube bank with six staggered rows arrangement. The ver-
Another important topic for FEHX is fin efficiency, which is one
tical small pieces are fin pitch positioning sheets. The top view and
of the critical parameters in determining the air side performance
the side view of the computational domain are illustrated in Fig. 2
of FTHX. The correlation of Schmidt [25,26] is a well-known ana-
(b) and (c). According to the symmetrical arrangement, the two
lytical model for the fin efficiency and often used in experimental
views of the computational domain are distinguished by the
studies [7], but it is under some ideal assumptions. Computational
shaded lines. The actual computational domain is extended by
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) studies of FTHXs allow for actually calculat-
upstream 1 time and downstream 5 times of the length of the bank
ing the fin efficiency because the temperature of every point in the
to ensure a uniform inlet velocity and to avoid recirculation at the
computational domain is known. However, many researchers still
outlet.
use the correlation of Schmidt to get the fin efficiency while per-
forming CFD calculations [14,19,25,27,28]. Some researchers chose
to not separate the thermal transmittance into heat transfer coef- 2.2. Governing equations and boundary conditions
ficient and fin efficiency [15,29]. Tao et al. [30] defined local fin
efficiency in their study of a wavy fin and tube heat exchanger. The flow is assumed to be steady, turbulent and no viscous dis-
Taler and Ocłoń [12], Han et al. [10] and S ß ahin et al. [18] got the sipation. And the fluid is considered incompressible ideal gas with
fin efficiency through CFD calculation but the studies addressed constant thermo-physical properties at the average temperature of
little information about the method and the fin efficiency. Song the flow field. The governing equations for the 3D steady forced
et al. [31] experimentally obtained the heat transfer coefficients convection are continuity, momentum, turbulence kinetic energy
on the fin surface using the naphthalene sublimation technique (k), turbulence energy dissipation rate (e) equations, and energy
and the heat and mass transfer analogy. These values were then equation, which are given as:
applied as boundary conditions to a numerical simulation, allow-

@ quj u @ @u
ing for the calculation of the fin efficiency. Ameel et al. [32] pro- ¼ Cu þ Su ; j ¼ 1; 2; 3 ð1Þ
@xj @xj @xj
posed a method to obtain the fin efficiency and thermal-
hydraulic performance in interrupted fin and tube heat exchangers where q represents air density; uj represents flow velocity at xj
through the CFD calculation of one time and a post-processing direction; / represent the control variables, C/ and S/ represent
step. the diffusion coefficient and the source term, respectively. The
Considering the existing studies, most of researches of meanings and expressions of them in the governing equations of
elliptical-tube heat exchanger focus on the performance of ellipti- the standard k-e turbulence model are list in Table 1.
cal tubes with plain continuous fins, louver fins and annular fins. The computational domain is composed of six boundaries: inlet,
There are very few works of RFETHXs in open literature. The outlet and four symmetrical boundaries (right and left, top and
importance of various structural factors in the thermal-hydraulic bottom) as schematic in Fig. 2. The inner tube wall is given a con-
performance of RFETHXs needs to be clear. And, the literature anal- stant temperature and both the conductions through the tube wall
ysis exhibits a lack of air side thermal-hydraulic correlations of and the fin are considered. The problem is solved as conjugated
RFETHXs with large row number in turbulent region, which is heat transfer. No slip boundary conditions are used at all the solid
important to design a heat exchanger for new applications such surfaces. At the entrance of the computational domain the velocity
as large climatic wind tunnel in the automotive industry. In such inlet boundary condition and at the exit of the computational
applications, the row number of FTHXs is usually bigger than 6 domain the outflow condition are adopted. Additional details of
due to the large heat exchange demand and the restricted frontal the boundary conditions are given in Table 2.
area. Furthermore, the fact that the airside performance of FTHX
is usually not separated from fin efficiency in most relevant litera-
tures limits the use of the results of these works. Literatures about
the influence of each structural factor on fin efficiency and how the
fin efficiency affects air side performance in real FTHXs are still
scarce. The main objective of this study is to investigate the effects
of structural parameters such as the row number, fin pitches, fin
thickness, and tube pitches on the air side performance of RFETHXs
with tube rows number greater than 6 in turbulent region. At the
same time, the study of fin efficiency of RFETHXs is another major
task of this paper. The contribution ratio for air side performance of
each factor is investigated by using Taguchi method considering fin
efficiency. Moreover, the air side performance correlations, both
including and excluding fin thermal resistance, in terms of the Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of an elliptical tube with a rectangular fin.
 L. Zhao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 114 (2017) 1314–1330 1317

(a) Physical model (6 rows)

(b) Top view of the computational domain

(c) Side view of the computational domain

Fig. 2. Schematic configuration of a RFETHX.

2.3. Parameter definitions Usually, it is laborious to get local heat transfer coefficient of fin.
Under the assumption that the heat transfer coefficient of each fin
2.3.1. Fin efficiency is constant, the fin efficiency of RFETHXs in this work is simplified
The fin efficiency g is commonly defined as the ratio of the as following:
actual heat dissipation of a fin to its ideal dissipation if the entire Pn

fin at the same temperature as its base [20]. It is important to note h  ðT fin;i  T bulk;i Þ
gf ¼ Pni¼1
i ð3Þ
that this definition is made for a fin where the bulk temperature is i¼1 hi  ðT base  T bulk;i Þ
a constant. In a finned-tube heat exchanger, the bulk temperature
changes due to the transferred heat, the fin efficiency could be Qi
defines as [30,32]: hi ¼ ð4Þ
Ai ðT fin;i  T bulk;i Þ
R
hlocal ðT fin ðAÞ  T bulk ðAÞÞdA
g¼R
Afin
ð2Þ
de
h i
Afin
hlocal ðT base ðAÞ  T bulk ðAÞÞdA Nui ¼ ð5Þ
k

Here h
is the average heat transfer coefficient of the ith row of fin;
Here A is the area of an unit; Afin is the area of fin; Tfin is the tem- i

perature of an fin unit; Tbulk is temperature of bulk air; Tbase is the gf denotes the fin efficiency; Nui is the average Nussle number of
temperature of fin root; hlocal is the local heat transfer coefficient the fin surface of the ith row; Qi represents the surface heat transfer
of fin. rate of the ith row of fin; Ai is the surface area of the ith row of fin;
1318 L. Zhao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 114 (2017) 1314–1330

Table 1 Tfin,i and Tbulk,i represent the fin surface temperature and the corre-
Governing equations of standard k-e turbulence model. sponding bulk air temperature (mass weighted average) of the ith
u Uu S/ row; Tbase is the temperature of fin root.
Continuity 1 0 0
     
x-momentum u leff  @p @
leff @u @ @v @ @w 2.3.2. The behavior of the flow and heat transfer
@x þ @x @x þ @y leff @x þ @z leff @x
     
y-momentum v leff  @p þ @
l @u
þ @
l @v
þ @
l @w
@x @x eff @y @y eff @y @z eff @y
     
z-momentum w leff  @p @
leff @u @ @v @ @w um de
@x þ @x @z þ @y leff @z þ @z leff @z Re ¼ ð6Þ
Turbulent kinetic k l þ rlkt Gk  qe m
energy
Dissipation rate e l þ rlet e ðc G  c qeÞ
k 1e k 2e Q ¼ mcp ðT out  T in Þ ð7Þ
l l
Pr þ rT
Temperature cp T t 0
Q
Where: x, y, z represent the point coordinates in the flow field; u, v, w represent the k¼ ð8Þ
velocity vectors at x, y, z direction respectively; k represents turbulent kinetic
A DT
energy; e is dissipation rate; Pr, T, cp, l, lt are Prandtl number, temperature, specific
heat at constant pressure, kinetic viscosity and turbulent viscosity, respectively; Gk DT max  DT min
DT ¼ ð9Þ
is the stress source caused by mean velocity gradient; The effective viscosity
2
lnðDT max =DT min Þ
leff ¼ l þ lt and lt ¼ qC l ke with C l ¼ 0:09. The turbulence model constants are
given by standard k-e model as following:
1
C 1e ¼ 1:44; C 2e ¼ 1:92; rk ¼ 1:00; re ¼ 1:30; rT ¼ 0:85; rk;wall ¼ 0:85: h¼1 ð10Þ
k
 d
bk

0 1 A
Table 2 h ¼1 d A þA g
ð11Þ
Boundary conditions. k
 bk e f f

Physical surface Temperature Velocity Pressure

hde
Inlet 284 K 3.5–12.5 m/s @p
¼0 Nu ¼ ð12Þ
@T @u
@x k
Outlet @x ¼0 @x ¼0 Atmospheric
Tube(inner wall) 345 K No slip – In the equations above, um is the average velocity in the flow
Tube(outer wall) Coupling No slip – channel, de is the equivalent diameter of the elliptical tube; Tin
Fin surface Coupling No slip – and Tout are the bulk temperatures at the inlet and outlet section
@T @u @p
@x ¼ 0 @x ¼ 0
Symmetry ¼0
@x of the computational domain, respectively, and DTmax =
max(Tin  Tw, Tout  Tw), DTmin = max(Tin  Tw, Tout  Tw),

Fig. 3. Grid distribution.

 L. Zhao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 114 (2017) 1314–1330 1319

respectively. b is the area ratio of fin to tube, dtube is the tube thick- domain is divided into five zones including the inlet extended
ness; Ae, Af and A represent outside tube surface area, fin surface region, outlet extended region, central fluid zone, fin zone and tube
area and airside total heat transfer area, respectively. h and h0 are zone. And in the central fluid zone, each bulk air region corre-
the airside heat transfer coefficient including and excluding the sponding to each fin is defined as a sub zone as shown in Fig. 3.
thermal resistance of fin, respectively. This special pre-processing method is used to simplify the
post-processing process to obtain the fin efficiency and thermal-
2.3.3. j-Colburn factor, f-friction factor hydraulic characteristics simultaneously through one time
simulation. Then different zones are employed with different grid
generating shapes. For the tube zone, the inlet and outlet zones,
h
j¼ Pr2=3 ð13Þ regular, gradually thinner and gradually denser structured hexahe-
qcp um dral meshes are applied respectively. The central fluid zone and the
fin zone are employed with finer structured hexahedral mesh
2 DP A a mixed with wedge mesh to guarantee the computational accuracy
f ¼ ð14Þ
qu2m A and the success of meshing. As the convective heat transfer is
Here q is air density, Aa represents the average area of the flow pas- strongly influenced by the near-wall refinement, enhanced wall
sage; DP is the air side pressure drop between inlet and outlet of the treatment is used in this work, which needs y+ less than 3 to
computational domain. ensure the applicability of the standard k-e model. 19 rows of
For a wind tunnel heat exchanger, the air side pressure drop boundary layer mesh near the tubes are used, with 0.01 mm high
across the FTHX is important, so the thermal-hydraulic perfor- as the first row dimension and 1.2 as the growth factor, the
mance index at the same pressure drop j/f1/2 is used in this work. checked results show that y+ of all solid surfaces are below 2.5
in the whole frontal velocity range in this work.
A 9-row heat exchanger model of test sample 3# in Table 4 is
2.4. Grid independency and code validation
used for grid-independency test. The results of grid-
independency test is shown in Table 3.
2.4.1. Grid generation and grid independence tests
The relative error of air side heat transfer coefficient between
Fig. 3 shows the schematic diagram of the generated mesh by
case 4 and case 5 is 0.14%, and finally the grid number of
using software GAMBIT 2.4.6. First, the whole computational
242,918,4 is selected considering the accuracy of the numerical
Table 3 results.
Results of grid-independency test (Re = 13,307). The governing equations of the heat exchangers are solved by
Case Grid number Pressure Air side heat transfer the commercial CFD software ANSYS FLUENT15.0. Both convective
drop (Pa) coefficient (W m2 K1) and diffusive terms in governing equations for momentum and
1 118,817,6 395.20 69.64 energy are discretized by second-order upwind scheme. All the dis-
2 162,980,8 398.41 70.39 cretized equations were solved in a segregated manner with the
3 199,555,2 403.37 70.65 SIMPLE algorithm. The convergence criterion is that the normal-
4 242,918,4 404.49 71.00
ized residuals are less than 104 for the momentum equation
5 290,020,8 405.50 71.08
and less than 106 for the energy equation.

Table 4
Geometric dimensions of the test samples. 2.4.2. Validation
The experiments are conducted in an open wind tunnel as
Sample dtube d Fp Pt Pl N Manufacturer
number (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) schematically shown in Fig. 4. The system consists of an air loop
and a water loop. Air is induced to the wind tunnel to across the
1 1.5 0.3 2.8 27 56 8 A
2 1.5 0.3 2.8 27 56 8 B finned bundles of test core, and flows through the contraction sec-
3 1.5 0.3 3.2 27 56 9 A tion, the air flow volume measuring section and the expansion
4 1.5 0.3 2.5 27 56 8 A pipe, and then is discharged through a centrifugal blower. The

Fig. 4. Schematic of test facility and test sample.

1320 L. Zhao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 114 (2017) 1314–1330

frontal area of the test core is 0.217 m2. The circulating water is Table 5
heated to 70–80 °C by the electric heater in the pressure stabilizing Test sample information [33].

water tank, pumped into the test sample and cooled, then returned Material dtube (mm) d (mm) Fp (mm) Pt (mm) Pl (mm) N
to the tank to complete the cycle. The volumetric flow rate is mea- Carbon steel 2.52 0.49 3.9 30.25 60.5 6
sured by a turbine flow meters with the accuracy of 0.50%. The
inlet air temperature and the temperature difference between inlet
and outlet through the test core are measured by two sets of multi-
point T-type copper-constantan thermocouple grids with the accu-
racy of 0.2 °C, there are 16 thermocouples on each girds. Water
temperature is measured by platinum resistance thermometers
with the accuracy of 0.1 °C. The pressure of the test coil is detected
by a precision differential pressure transducer, reading to 0.1 Pa.
The air velocity of the test core is measured by nozzle flow meter,
which is located in the circular duct downstream of the test core.
The tests are conducted in the weathers of January in Shanghai,
the inlet air temperature is around 283 K. During the tests, the test
condition is maintained as following: inlet temperature of water,
345–351 K; water velocity, around 1 m/s; air frontal velocity,
3.38–12.62 m/s. In all tests, the thermal equilibrium between air
side and water side is within 5%. After the condition is stable, three
times measurements are recorded and the average value is taken
as the measurement result. (A) Nu
Four samples are tested in this study. The geometrical parame-
ters are tabulated in Table 4 sample 1 and 2 have the same geomet-
rical parameters but from two different manufacturers. Tubes and
fins are made of the number 10 and 08F carbon steel respectively.

(B) f.

Fig. 6. Comparison with the previous work of Liu and Cai [33].

The comparisons of the results between measurements and

simulations are shown in Fig. 5. For sample 1# and 2#, both devi-
(a) Nusselt number
ations of Nu and DP are within ± 10% (Re = 6000–12,300). Devia-
tions of Nu and DP for sample 4# are below 12% and 11%
respectively (Re = 6000–22,800). Although the air side pressure
drop deviations of sample 3# is relatively bigger, they are all below
15%, and the Nu deviation is less than 12% (Re = 6000–22,800). The
agreement between the numerical results and experimental data
indicates the reliability of the computational model.

2.4.3. Comparison with previous works

(b) Air side pressure drop
Fig. 5. Comparison between numerical results and experimental data.
The code is also compared with the experimental correlations of
Liu and Cai [33] for RFETHXs. Their test samples might be the most
similar RFETHXs to the structure of heat exchanger in this paper in
literature. The material information and structural parameters of
the samples of Liu and Cai [33] is listed in Table 5.
In Fig. 6(A), the heat transfer results are shown and in Fig. 6(B),
the friction comparison are listed. It can be observed that, the heat
transfer and friction results agree well with the work of Liu and Cai
[33] with a deviation within 10–16% and below 14% respectively.
The deviations are due to the assumptions considered in the CFD
model. Also, in the present case the contact resistance between
 L. Zhao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 114 (2017) 1314–1330
the fin and tube has been ignored, the material of the samples of
Liu and Cai [33] might be not exactly as the same in this work,
which might affect the results for the CFD simulations. Anyway,
the deviations in figure is reasonable in CFD simulation of FTHXs.
3. Computational results and discussion
3.1. Fin efficiency
3.1.1. Effect of flow and thermal environment of RFETHXs
In order to intuitively understand the effects of the flow and the
thermal environment in RFETHXs on the fin efficiency, the effect of
flow channel environment is shown in Fig. 7, the comparisons of
the fin efficiencies of an independent fin, two heat exchangers with
maximum pitches (Pt = 35 mm, Pl = 64 mm, Fp = 10 mm) and mini-
mum pitches (Pt = 27 mm, Pl = 56 mm, Fp = 2 mm) of the structural
parameters range in this work are illustrated. It demonstrates that
under the same frontal velocity range, the fin efficiency of the inde-
pendent fin is about 15.7–17.5% larger than that of the MIN struc-
ture, and 5.4–6.3% more than that of the MAX structure. If we use
average air velocity of the flow channel of the two heat exchangers
to calculate the fin efficiencies of single fin within the average
velocity range 3.5–12.5 m/s, the fin efficiencies will be 3.8–4.1%
Fig. 7. Comparison of fin efficiencies of a single fin and two special RFETHXs(N = 9,
Ft = 0.3 mm).
Fig. 8. Fin efficiency with respect to the variation of fin thickness (N = 9, Pt = 27 -
mm, Pl = 56 mm, Fp = 2.8 mm).
1321
and 11–12.6% larger respectively, compared to that of MAX struc-
ture and Min structure. This indicates that the effect of the flow
field and thermal environment caused by heat exchanger structure
has big influence on the fin efficiency, so using the fin efficiency of
an independent fin in the design of heat exchangers will cause big
errors whether the average velocity between tubes or the frontal
velocity is used.
3.1.2. Effect of fin thickness
In Fig. 8, the fin efficiency is shown for varying fin thickness and
the Reynolds number. We can observe that as the fin thickness
increases, the fin efficiency rises. But the rate of increase of fin effi-
ciency is gradually slowing down with the increase in fin thickness.
Also, it can be observed that the fin efficiency decreases with an
increase in the Reynolds number. The reason can be explained as
shown in Fig. 9, as the fin thickness is increased, both the fin tem-
perature and bulk air temperature rise, but the average tempera-
ture difference between fin and bulk air slightly increases or
almost keeps unchanged, which represents the fin heat transfer
capacity in the real situation. Meanwhile, the average temperature
difference between fin base and bulk air is decreased, which results
in an increase in the fin efficiency as explained in Eq. (3). The gap
between these two temperature differences increases with the
increase of the Reynolds number, which leads to the decline of
fin efficiency. The results reveal that the fin thickness and the Rey-
nolds number are important factors affecting the fin efficiency in
RFETHXs.
3.1.3. Effect of tube pitches
Fig. 10 shows the relationship between the transverse tube
pitch and fin efficiency. It can be observed that as the transverse
tube pitch is increased, the fin efficiency increases about 2.6–
4.3% within the transverse tube pitch range from 27 mm to
35 mm under the three Reynolds numbers (6400, 13000 and
22000). Fig. 11 tells us that as the transverse tube pitch increases,
both the numerator and denominator of Eq. (2) are decreased, but
the denominator comes down faster, which results in the increase
of fin efficiency. Compared to the effect of fin thickness, the influ-
ence of the transverse tube pitch on the fin efficiency is relatively
smaller.
The behavior of the fin efficiency with respect to the variation of
the longitudinal tube pitch is illustrated in Fig. 12. It can be seen
that when the longitudinal tube pitch increases from 56 mm to
64 mm, the efficiency of the fin decreases by about 1.4% under
the Reynolds number 6400. The influence of the longitudinal tube
Fig. 9. Temperture difference between fin and bulk air versus fin thickness.
1322 L. Zhao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 114 (2017) 1314–1330

Fig. 10. Distribution of fin efficiency as a function of transverse tube pitch (N = 9, Fig. 13. Behavior of fin efficiency with respect to the variation of fin pitch.
Pl = 56 mm, Fp = 2.8 mm, Ft = 0.3 mm).

pitch on the fin efficiency is not as big as that of the transverse tube
pitch.

3.1.4. Effect of fin pitch and the number of rows

Fig. 13 indicates that the fin efficiency increases with the
increase of the fin pitch. Within the fin pitch range 2–4 mm of this
work, the difference of fin efficiency could be as high as 5.4–6.6%
under the same Reynolds number. Afterwards, the fin efficiency
still increases with increasing fin pitch but the increasing tendency
becomes gentle. From this figure, we can infer that when the fin
thickness reaches a certain value, the fin efficiency will almost
stable. It also tells us, the choice of large spacing in the fin pitch
range 2–4 mm is more effective to improve fin efficiency of
RFETHXs in practical applications.
The simulation result show that the fin efficiency of a 6-row
heat exchanger is slightly bigger than that of a 10-row heat
exchanger under each frontal velocity but the difference is less
than 0.5%. Therefore, the corresponding graph is omitted here.

3.2. Air-side heat transfer and friction characteristics

Fig. 11. Temperture difference between fin and bulk air versus transverse tube
pitch.
Fig. 12. Distribution of fin efficiency as a function of longitudinal tube pitch (N = 9,
Pt = 27 mm, Fp = 2.8 mm, Ft = 0.3 mm).
3.2.1. Effect of row number
First the effect of the number of rows on turbulence heat trans-
fer are examined based on the sizes: Pt = 27 mm, Pl = 56 mm,
Fp = 2.8 mm, Ft = 0.3 mm, while the number of rows being varied
from two to seven (N = 2–7). The numerical results of j-colburn fac-
tor and f-friction factor with different number of rows are shown in
Fig. 14. The characteristics may be summarized as follows. Firstly,
with the increase of the Reynolds number, the colburn factor and
the friction factor decrease, which are similar to the regular pattern
as that of heat exchangers with a circular tube and continuous fin.
Secondly, one can carefully examine that the j-colburn factor and f-
friction factor are almost unchanged when the number of rows is
larger than five. That is to say, the heat transfer and fluid flow
approach the fully developed state when the number of rows is lar-
ger than five.
Fig. 15 demonstrates the average Nusselt number of each row of
fin with the number of rows being varied from two to ten, the fron-
tal velocity is fixed at 7.5 m/s. For the heat exchangers with the
number of rows larger than 5, it could be clearly found that the
average Nussle number from the third row of fin to the third row
fin of the end is almost unchanged, and that of the last but one
row of fin is slightly bigger than this value. The second row of
the fin has the largest average Nusselt number while that of the
first row and the last row of fins are much lower. The special
 L. Zhao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 114 (2017) 1314–1330
(a) Colburn factor
(b) Friction factor
Fig. 14. Behavior of j and f with respect to the variation of N and Re.
Fig. 15. Average fin surface Nusselt number of each row.
feature of heat transfer in Fig. 15 is related to the air average veloc-
ity and bulk air thermophysical properties corresponding to the
fins in the flow direction of RFETHXs. It also indicates that the heat
transfer approaches the fully developed state from the third row of
1323
fin. For heat exchangers with the number of rows less than 5
(2,3,4), the incomplete state of development could be seen from
the average Nusselt numbers, which is consistent with the result
of Fig. 16.
Fig. 16 presents the local velocity distributions of the central
section between the two adjacent fins along the flow direction.
The situation in Fig. 16(a) is from a 6-row heat exchanger, the air
velocity of the second row is obviously bigger than that of other
rows. Due to the lack of structural constraints, the air velocities
of the front half of the first row of fin and the rear half of the last
row of fin are smaller comparing to other parts of fins. At the same
time, the big dead zone exists behind the last row of tube. It also
indicates that from the third row, the flow field tends to be stable
until the last but one row. As shown in Fig. 16(b) and (c), the flow
fields of a 2-row heat exchanger and a 3-row heat exchanger are
not fully developed.
In order to make the problem to be concentrated, only the
RFETHXs with fully developed heat transfer and flow are studied
in later sections.
3.2.2. Effect of fin thickness
The effect of fin thickness has been studied for a 9-row heat
exchanger is shown in Fig. 17, the three structural parameters
are fixed as Pt = 27 mm, Pl = 56 mm, FP = 2.8 mm, respectively,
and the fin thickness is ranging from 0.2 mm to 0.6 mm. It can
be clearly seen that both of colburn factor and friction factor are
increased with the increase of fin thickness. In order to illustrate
the influence of the thermal conductance of the fin on the perfor-
mance of the air side, the heat transfer characteristic separated
from fin efficiency is also presented, which represents the average
pure convective heat transfer performance in the flow passage. The
results show that for a fin of carbon steel, the thermal resistance of
the fin has big influence on the heat transfer performance of the air
side. After the separation, the colburn factors are 1.26–2.04 times
bigger as the original value for the Reynolds number range from
6400 to 22000. From Eq. (11), we know that as the fin efficiency
increases with the fin thickness, the colburn factor separated from
fin efficiency is less sensitive to fin thickness as shown in Fig. 17(a).
We can infer that when the fin is made from high thermal conduc-
tivity material, the difference between the two groups of colburn
factors will decrease. Conversely, with the decrease of the thermal
conductivity of fin material, the gap between the two sets of data
will be great, especially for low conductivity material such as stain-
less steel.
Fig. 17(c) shows that the performance index j/f1/2 is increased
with the rise of fin thickness. For the Reynolds number range from
6400 to 22000, the index could increase 30–38% when the fin
thickness is from 0.2 mm to 0.6 mm. The higher the Reynolds num-
ber is, the bigger of the increase of j/f1/2. That is to say, for the
applications such as wind tunnel, the fin thickness of RFETHXs
should be not too small. The average Nussle number of the fins
in the whole RFETHXs are illustrated in Fig. 17(d). We find that
the value is almost stable with the rise of fin thickness at the same
Reynolds number, which could be explained as following: the
mean velocity rises with the fin thickness at fixed follow passage,
but the average air bulk temperature is also increased which leads
to an increase in thermal conductivity of air. As a result of the
interactions of these two factors, the average Nussle number is
almost unchanged.
3.2.3. Effect of tube pitches
Fig. 18 shows the effect of transverse tube pitch on the heat
exchanger performance. The number of rows is 9 and three Rey-
nolds numbers are studied, they are 6400, 13000 and 22000, the
three structural parameters are fixed at Pl = 56 mm, FP = 2.8 mm
and Ft = 0.3 mm, respectively. The transverse tube pitch is ranging
1324 L. Zhao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 114 (2017) 1314–1330

Fig. 16. Velocity distribution of the central section of the flow passage between fins.

(a) Colburn factor (b) Friction factor

(c) Thermal-hydraulic performance index at the same pressure drop (d) Average fin surface heat transfer coefficient

Fig. 17. Air side thermal-hydraulic performance with respect to fin thickness.

from 27 mm to 35 mm. Three features can be noted as follows:
Firstly, both of colburn factor and friction factor are decreased with
the increase of the transverse tube pitch. For the Reynolds number
range from 6400 to 22000, colburn factor could decrease 33–48%
when the transverse tube pitch is from 27 mm to 35 mm. The cor-
responding decreases of friction factor and performance index j/f1/2
are 36–42% and 3–9%, respectively. The lower the Reynolds num-
ber is, the bigger of the decreases of colburn factor, friction factor
and j/f1/2 are. Secondly, with the increase of the transverse tube
pitch, its influence on heat transfer, friction factor and j/f1/2 gradu-
 L. Zhao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 114 (2017) 1314–1330
(a) Colburn factor
(c) Thermal-hydraulic performance index at the same pressure drop
Fig. 18. Airside thermal-hydraulic performance with respect to transverse tube pitch.
ally decrease. The j factor becomes less sensitive to the transverse
tube pitch as the Reynolds number rises. Thirdly, after separated
from fin efficiency, the j factor is increases about 40–78%.
Fig. 18(d) indicates that the average Nussle number of the fins
of the whole RFETHXs decreases with the rise of transverse tube
pitch. When the transverse tube pitch is from 27 mm to 35 mm,
the average Nussle number declines 20–22%. The main reason lies
in the smaller mean velocity and lower air temperature in the flow
passage due to bigger transverse tube pitch.
Fig. 19 indicates the effect of the longitudinal tube pitch on the
performance. The three structural parameters are fixed at Pt = 27 -
mm, FP = 2.8 mm and Ft = 0.3 mm, respectively. The longitudinal
tube pitch is ranging from 56 mm to 64 mm. First, unlike the influ-
ence of transverse tube pitch, both of colburn factor and friction
factor are increased with the increase of longitudinal tube pitch
while the performance index j/f1/2 is almost stable at the same Rey-
nolds number. Secondly, we can note that the effect of longitudinal
tube pitch on heat transfer and friction performance is less pro-
nounced than that of the transverse tube pitch. Thirdly, two sets
of colburn factor almost have the same slope under the same Rey-
nolds number because fin efficiency is insensitive to longitudinal
tube pitch. The small change of j with longitudinal tube pitch is
caused by the structure of the elliptical tube in this work, the big
1325
(b) Friction factor
(d) Average fin surface heat transfer coefficient
ratio of major axis to minor axis is 36/14 makes the weak area
behind each tube very small, the change of longitudinal tube pitch
will not have a significant impact on this region. It can be predicted
that with the decrease of the ratio of major axis to minor axis, the
influence of the longitudinal tube pitch will be strengthened.
Due to the weak relationship between the mean velocity in the
flow passage and the longitudinal tube pitch, the average Nussle
number of the fins is unchanged with the longitudinal tube pitch
rises as demonstrated in Fig. 19(d).
3.2.4. Effect of fin pitch
Fig. 20 shows the effect of fin pitch on the performance. The
three structural parameters are fixed at Pt = 27 mm, Pl = 56 mm
and Ft = 0.3 mm respectively. The fin pitch is ranging from 2 mm
to 10 mm. Interesting features can be noted as follows: Firstly,
the colburn factor j is decreased with the increase of fin pitch,
but it declines much faster in the fin pitch range 2–4 mm, j
decreases 4.4–12.8% at the three Reynolds numbers. From fin pitch
4 mm, the rate of descent is slowing down, which is consistence
with the fin efficiency trend in Fig. 13. The friction factor shows dif-
ferent pattern, the finch pitch of 4 mm is a turning point, within
the range 2–4 mm, friction factor declines with the rise of fin pitch.
From 4 mm, the friction factor increases with fin pitch. Secondly,
1326 L. Zhao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 114 (2017) 1314–1330
(a) Colburn factor
(c) Thermal-hydraulic performance index at the same pressure drop
Fig. 19. Airside thermal-hydraulic performance with respect to longitudinal tube pitch.
after separated from fin efficiency, the j factor is more sensitive to
fin pitch because of the relationship between fin efficiency and fin
pitch in Fig. 9. Thirdly, Fig. 20(c) shows that the performance index
j/f1/2 is decreased with the rise of fin pitch. For Re range from 6400
to 22000, the index could decrease 8–11% when the fin pitch is
from 2 mm to 10 mm. As demonstrated in Fig. 20(d), the average
fin surface heat transfer coefficient is decreased with the increase
of fin pitch, but it declines much faster in the fin pitch range 2–
4 mm. From fin pitch 4 mm, the rate of descent is slowing down.
3.3. Analysis of the contribution ratio of each structural parameter
In order to further explore the effect of each structural factor on
the performance of RFETHXs. The contribution ratio of each struc-
tural parameter for fin efficiency and air-side thermal-hydraulic
performance will be analyzed using the Taguchi method in the fol-
lowing paragraphs. Another objective of this part is to understand
how the contribution ratios change when the air-side heat transfer
performance is separated from fin efficiency. The Taguchi method
is one of the effective optimizing design methods based on the sta-
tistical principle [34]. It is very useful in identifying and optimizing
(b) Friction factor
(d) Average fin surface heat transfer coefficient
dominant process parameters with a minimum number of experi-
ments or numerical simulations, and has been successfully applied
in the research area of FTHX [35–37].
The control factors used in this study are made up of five inde-
pendent parameters related to the air-side structure of RFETHX.
The levels of each factor in this study are shown in Table 6. These
factors are selected based on the above numerical database. In this
part, row number of heat exchanger is also considered. Two groups
of calculations are carried out, with frontal velocity (7.5 m/s) and
Reynolds number (13000) as fixed factors respectively.
Orthogonal arrays are a key part of the Taguchi method. It can
effectively reduce experimental or numerical costs through arrang-
ing different levels of different factors uniformly. According to the
numbers of factors and levels in this work, an orthogonal array of
L25 (55) is adopted. The numerical results of the 25 cases include
fin efficiency, j colburn factor and f friction factor will be trans-
formed to signal-to-noise ratios (SN) based on a logarithmic data
transformation. According to the Taguchi method and the situation
in heat exchanger, the Larger-the-better formula is used to
transform the CFD simulation data of g and j while the
Smaller-the-better formula assists to transform the CFD simulation
 L. Zhao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 114 (2017) 1314–1330 1327

(a) Colburn factor (b) Friction factor

(c) Thermal-hydraulic performance index at the same pressure drop (d) Average fin surface heat transfer coefficient

Fig. 20. Airside thermal-hydraulic performance with respect to fin pitch.

Table 6
Level of each factor.

Code Factors (unit) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

A Fin thickness (mm) 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6
B Fin pitch (mm) 2 4 6 8 10
C Transverse tube pitch (mm) 27 29 31 33 35
D Longitudinal tube pitch (mm) 56 58 60 62 64
E Row number 6 7 8 9 10

data of f. The Larger-the-better formula and the Smaller-the-better of each factor. The difference between maximum and minimum of
formula are defined as following [33]: average signal-to-noise ratio of each factor under five levels in this
! paper represents the impact of this factor on heat exchanger
1X n
1 performance.
SNL ¼ 10 log ð15Þ
n i¼1 Y 2i The contribution ratio of each factor represents its effect on the
target and is defined as:
!
1X n
SNmax;i  SNmin;i
SRS ¼ 10 log Y2 ð16Þ CRi ¼ Pn ð17Þ
n i¼1 i
i¼1 ðSN max;i  SN min;i Þ

where SNL and SNS represent the performance criteria for the
Larger-the-better and Smaller-the-better objectives respectively, Y
is the raw data obtained from the numerical simulation (i.e. g, j
and f in this study) and n represents repeated times of each test
which is taken to be one in this study. In this paper, intuitive anal-
ysis is used to study the effect of each factor. Average signal-to-
noise ratio means the arithmetic mean value of SN for each level
In order to more directly express the contribution ratio of each
structural factor, the contribution ratio of each factor to each per-
formance parameter of RFETHXs in this paper is given in Table 7.
These performance parameters include j-Colburn factor (including
or excluding fin thermal resistance), f-friction factor, the thermal-
hydraulic performance index at the same pressure drop j/f^(1/2)
and fin efficiency. Considering the application situation of RFETHXs
1328 L. Zhao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 114 (2017) 1314–1330

Table 7
Contribution ratio of structural factors to performance parameters.

Factor performance A B C D E Remarks

j (including the fin thermal resistance) 11% 15% 29% 23% 22% Re = 13000
j (excluding the fin thermal resistance) 7% 17% 29% 23% 23%
j (including the fin thermal resistance) 16% 25% 31% 15% 14% vfrontal = 7.5 m/s
j (excluding the fin thermal resistance) 10% 10% 43% 18% 19%
f 8% 20% 45% 20% 8%
j/f1/2 11% 12% 32% 25% 20% Re = 13000
20% 27% 24% 12% 17% vfrontal = 7.5 m/s
Fin efficiency 59% 27% 8% 4% 3% Re = 13000
57% 29% 9% 3% 2% vfrontal = 7.5 m/s

0:9114
0:4709
0:1296

in climatic wind tunnels, the frontal velocity is usually determined Pt  dr;t Pl  dr;l FP
by the simulation velocity of automotive testing condition. The f ¼ 1:3549N0:0591
dr;t dr;l de
contribution ratio of each structural factor to each performance
0:0438
Ft
parameter of RFETHXs at fixed frontal velocity is also listed in  Re0:3164
de ð19Þ
Table 7. de
At fixed Re = 13000, no matter whether the efficiency is stripped
where dr,t is the minor axis of the elliptical tube, and dr,l represents
or not, transverse tube pitch is the most influential factor for j-
the major axis of the elliptical tube.
Colburn factor and the last factor is fin thickness. At fixed frontal
The predicted results and the related CFD numerical data are
velocity of RFETHXs, for j-Colburn factor including the fin thermal
compared as shown in Fig. 21. The proposed air-side performance
resistance, the largest influence comes from transverse tube pitch,
correlation describes 93% for Colburn factor and 99% for friction
its contribution ratio accounts for 31%. If the fin thermal resistance
factor within ±15% deviations, as shown in Fig. 21(a) and (b),
is excluded, the effect of transverse tube pitch rises to 43%. At the
respectively. Mean deviations of the proposed j and f correlations
same time, the ratio values of fin thickness and fin pitch decrease.
For f friction factor, it can be seen, that the contribution ratio of
transverse tube pitch is the largest, which accounts for 45%, fol-
lowed by is the longitudinal tube pitch and fin pitch, both of them
accounts for 20%, fin thickness and number of rows are listed in the
last. As to say the performance index j/f^(1/2), the maximum effect
is from transverse tube pitch at fixed Re. At fixed frontal velocity,
fin pitch will be in the first rank. The order of the parametric effec-
tiveness for g is A > B > C > D > E under both of conditions of Re =
13000 and the fixed frontal velocity 7.5 m/s. The contribution ratio
of each structural factor to fin efficiency is almost equivalent. Fin
thickness is the dominant factor for the fin efficiency of RFETHX,
its contribution ratio accounts for about 58%, and the least impor-
tant factor is the number of rows which could be neglected. The fin
pitch has second influence on fin efficiency.

3.4. Multiple correlations

In the above section of contribution ratio of parameter factors

analysis, only Re = 13000 or 7.5 m/s frontal velocity is considered. (a) Colburn factor
Here more computational simulations have been done for the 25
structural parameter combinations based on the above orthogonal
array, considering 10 frontal velocities within the range of 3.5–
12.5 m/s. There are a total of 250 sets of calculation results, 10 sim-
ulations for each structure. The data of colburn factor and friction
factor will be compressed in compact forms so that the results
could be extended to other conditions than those included in the
present computations. Multiple linear regression method is used
to get the suitable thermal-hydraulic characteristics correlations
of RFETFXs. This is the direct motivation of the present study.

3.4.1. Multiple correlations including the effect of fin thermal

resistance
The thermal–hydraulic performance correlations containing the
effect of fin thermal resistance are as following:

0:7268
0:1319
0:1381
P t  dr;t P l  dr;l FP
j ¼ 1:0062N0:2045
dr;t dr;l de (b) Friction factor

0:1495
Ft
 Re0:4408
de ð18Þ Fig. 21. Comparison between predicted results using correlations and CFD results.
de
 L. Zhao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 114 (2017) 1314–1330
are 7.3% and 4%, respectively, indicating that the correlations are of
sufficient accuracy. Carefully examine shows that the large devia-
tion of j calculations is connected to the simulation conditions of
low Reynolds number (1500–3000) based on hydraulic diameter.
In this work, the standard k-e turbulence model is used which is
more suitable to typical turbulent flow regime than the flow region
of low Reynolds number (1500–3000) based on hydraulic diame-
ter. Thus the heat transfer and fluid flow correlations of carbon
steel RFETHXs in turbulent flow region are established as the forms
of Eqs. (18) and (19), and here it should be organized again that the
application ranges of the present correlations are listed as follows:
Pt  dr;t Pl  dr;l Fp Ft
¼ 0:93  1:5; ¼ 0:56  0:78; ¼ 0:10  0:52;
dr;t dr;l de de
¼ 0:01  0:03; Rede ¼ 5500  23800
Using the above correlations to predict colburn factor and fric-
tion factor for all the carbon steel RFETHXs in Section 3.2 and com-
paring with the CFD simulation results. It indicates that 85% of the
deviations of colburn factor and 99% of the deviations of friction
factor are within ±15%. This shows that the prediction results of
the above correlations are also acceptable.
3.4.2. Multiple correlations excluding the effect of fin thermal
resistance
In order to further improve the applicability of above correla-
tions, the effect of thermal resistance of fin is excluded from Eq.
(20), the correlation of friction factor is unchanged, the pure con-
vective heat transfer characteristics are listed as following:

0:82
0:1361
0 Pt  dr;t Pl  dr;l
j ¼ 0:2N0:2160
dr;t dr;l

0:0043
0:0578
FP Ft
 Re0:3326
de
de de
The deviations between predicted results and original CFD simula-
tion data of the two groups of j correlations are almost unchanged.
That is 92% of the deviations are within ±15%, and the average devi-
ation is around 10%. Furthermore, Eq. (20) is also used to predict the
j factor of the structures in Section 3.2 and comparing with the CFD
simulation results, the proposed air-side pure convective correla-
tion still describes 87.7% for j-Colburn factor within ±15%, the aver-
age deviation is around 10%. The application ranges of the present
correlations are the same as Eq. (17).
Comparing each power exponent of Eqs. (18) and (20), it can be
seen that the effect of transverse tube pitch becomes more pro-
nounced when the conduction effect of fin is removed. At the same
time, the influences of fin pitch, fin thickness and Reynolds number
are decreased. The effects of the other two factors (row number
and longitudinal tube pitch) do not change much. This is consistent
with results of previous parameter analysis and contribution ratio
calculation.
4. Concluding remarks
Based on 3D numerical simulations using the validated stan-
dard k-e turbulence model, and for the first time, the effects of var-
ious parameters such as row number, transverse tube pitch,
longitudinal tube pitch, fin pitch, fin thickness and frontal velocity
(or Re) on the fin efficiency of RFETHXs have been studied in this
work. Then the effects of structural parameters on the thermal-
hydraulic performance of this kind of heat exchangers are
discussed, not only the characteristics including the effect of fin
thermal resistance but also the pure convective performance
excluded this effect. The contribution ratio of each structural
parameter on fin efficiency and air side thermal-hydraulic
1329
performance is given through the Taguchi method. Moreover,
two sets of correlations of air side heat transfer and friction char-
acteristics of RFETHXs corresponding to the two situations (includ-
ing/excluding fin thermal resistance effect) are proposed by using
multiple linear regressions. The major findings are summarized
as following:
(1) Fin thickness and fin pitch are the dominant structural fac-
tors in the fin efficiency of RFETHXs. The sum of contribution
ratios of these two parameters for fin efficiency can be as
high as eighty-six percent both at fixed Reynolds number
and fixed frontal velocity. The effect of row number on fin
efficiency could be neglected.
(2) For the RFETHXs with fully developed air side flow and heat
transfer (N > 5), from the third row to the last but one row,
the fin surface Nusselt number of each row is almost stable;
the second row of fins has the largest Nusselt number, which
is 9% higher than the stable value; that of the first row and
the last low of fins are 9–13.6% lower than the steady value.
(3) The results show that the air side heat transfer performance
and friction factor of RFETHXs is mainly determined by the
transverse tube pitch. For j/f1/2 at fixed Re, the contribution
ratio of transverse tube pitch is 32% while the value is 24%
at fixed frontal velocity.
(4) Both the parameter analysis and the contribution ratio study
indicate that the effect of the transverse tube pitch on heat
transfer becomes more pronounced when the conduction
effect of fin is removed. Meanwhile, the influences of Re is
decreased.
(5) For the first time, in turbulent flow region and for fully
developed flow and heat transfer RFETHXs, both the air side
heat transfer correlations including and excluding the effect
of fin thermal resistance are proposed, and the correlation in
ð20Þ terms of f-friction factor is presented simultaneously.
References
[1] T.A. Tahseen, M. Ishak, M.M. Rahman, An overview on thermal and fluid flow
characteristics in a plain plate finned and un-finned tube banks heat
exchanger, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 43 (2015) 363–380.
[2] Z.Y. Lanping Zhao, Effect of tube arrangement on performance of rectangular
finned ellliptical tube bundles, J. Tongji Univ. (02) (2016) 298–302.
[3] S.-H. Jung, R.L. Webb, Air-side performance of enhanced brazed aluminum heat
exchangers, ASHRAE (1992) 91–401.
[4] F.J. Schulenberg, Finned elliptical tubes and their application in air-cooled heat
exchangers, ASME J. Eng. Ind. 88 (2) (1966) 179–186.
[5] H. Brauer, Compact heat exchangers, 1964.
[6] L. Rocha, F. Saboya, J. Vargas, A comparative study of elliptical and circular
sections in one- and two-row tubes and plate fin heat exchangers, Int. J. Heat
Fluid Flow 18 (2) (1997) 247–252.
[7] S.M. Saboya, F.E. Saboya, Experiments on elliptic sections in one- and two-row
arrangements of plate Òn and tube heat exchangers, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 24
(1) (2001) 67–75.
[8] J. Jang, J. Yang, Experimental and 3-D numerical analysis of the thermal-
hydraulic characteristics of elliptic finned-tube heat exchangers, Heat Transfer
Eng. 19 (4) (1998) 55–67.
[9] R.S.M.J.R.L.S. Mainardes, Optimally staggered finned circular and elliptic tubes
in turbulent optimally staggered finned circular and elliptic tubes in turbulent
forced convection, J. Heat Transfer 129 (5) (2007) 674–678.
[10] H. Han, Y. He, Y. Li, Y. Wang, M. Wu, A numerical study on compact enhanced
fin-and-tube heat exchangers with oval and circular tube configurations, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transf. 65 (2013) 686–695.
[11] D. Taler, P. Ocłoń, Determination of heat transfer formulas for gas flow in fin-
and-tube heat exchanger with oval tubes using CFD simulations, Chem. Eng.
Process. 83 (2014) 1–11.
[12] D. Taler, P. Ocłoń, Thermal contact resistance in plate fin-and-tube heat
exchangers, determined by experimental data and CFD simulations, Int. J.
Therm. Sci. 84 (2014) 309–322.
[13] S. Łopata, P. Ocłoń, Numerical study of the effect of fouling on local heat
transfer conditions in a high-temperature fin-and-tube heat exchanger, Energy
92 (2015) 100–116.
[14] B. Lotfi, M. Zeng, B. Sundén, Q. Wang, 3D numerical investigation of flow and
heat transfer characteristics in smooth wavy fin-and-elliptical tube heat
exchangers using new type vortex generators, Energy 73 (2014) 233–257.
1330 L. Zhao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 114 (2017) 1314–1330
[15] P. Chu, Y.L. He, Y.G. Lei, L.T. Tian, R. Li, Three-dimensional numerical study on
fin-and-oval-tube heat exchanger with longitudinal vortex generators, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 29 (5–6) (2009) 859–876.
[16] J.V. Simo Tala, D. Bougeard, S. Russeil, J.L. Harion, Tube pattern effect on
thermalhydraulic characteristics in a two-rows finned-tube heat exchanger,
Int. J. Therm. Sci. 60 (2012) 225–235.
_
[17] A. Erek, B. Özerdem, L. Bilir, Z. Ilken, Effect of geometrical parameters on heat
transfer and pressure drop characteristics of plate fin and tube heat
exchangers, Appl. Therm. Eng. 25 (14–15) (2005) 2421–2431.
[18] H.M. S ß ahin, A.R. Dal, E. Baysal, 3-D Numerical study on the correlation between
variable inclined fin angles and thermal behavior in plate fin-tube heat
exchanger, Appl. Therm. Eng. 27 (11–12) (2007) 1806–1816.
[19] L. Sun, C. Zhang, Evaluation of elliptical finned-tube heat exchanger
performance using CFD and response surface methodology, Int. J. Therm. Sci.
75 (2014) 45–53.
[20] A. Kumar, J.B. Joshi, A.K. Nayak, P.K. Vijayan, 3D CFD simulations of air cooled
condenser-III: Thermal–hydraulic characteristics and design optimization
under forced convection conditions, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 93 (2016)
1227–1247.
[21] D. Taler, Determination of heat transfer correlations for plate-fin-and-tube
heat exchangers, Heat Mass Transf. 40 (10) (2004) 809–822.
[22] D. Taler, Experimental determination of correlations for average heat transfer
coefficients in heat exchangers on both fluid sides, Heat Mass Transf. 49 (8)
(2013) 1125–1139.
[23] X.P. Du, M. Zeng, Z.Y. Dong, Q.W. Wang, Experimental study of the effect of air
inlet angle on the air-side performance for cross-flow finned oval-tube heat
exchangers, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 52 (2014) 146–155.
[24] B. Lotfi, B. Sundén, Q. Wang, An investigation of the thermo-hydraulic
performance of the smooth wavy fin-and-elliptical tube heat exchangers
utilizing new type vortex generators, Appl. Energy 162 (2016) 1282–1302.
[25] T.E. Schmidt, Heat transfer calculations for extended surfaces, Refrigeration 54
(4) (1949) 351–357.
[26] C.J.L.C.C.C. Wang, Heat transfer and friction correlation for compact louvered
_n!and!tube heat exchangers, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. (1999).
[27] H. Huisseune, C.T. Joen, P.D. Jaeger, B. Ameel, S.D. Schampheleire, M.D. Paepe,
Performance enhancement of a louvered fin heat exchanger by using delta
winglet vortex generators, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 56 (1–2) (2013) 475–487.
[28] T. Perrotin, D. Clodic, Thermal-hydraulic CFD study in louvered fin-and-flat-
tube heat exchangers, Int. J. Refrig. 27 (4) (2004) 422–432.
[29] J. Li, S. Wang, J. Chen, Y. Lei, Numerical study on a slit fin-and-tube heat
exchanger with longitudinal vortex generators, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 54 (9–
10) (2011) 1743–1751.
[30] Y.B. Tao, Y.L. He, J. Huang, Z.G. Wu, W.Q. Tao, Numerical study of local heat
transfer coefficient and fin efficiency of wavy fin-and-tube heat exchangers,
Int. J. Therm. Sci. 46 (8) (2007) 768–778.
[31] K. Song, Y. Wang, Q. Zhang, L. Wang, Y. Liu, Numerical study of the fin
efficiency and a modified fin efficiency formula for flat tube bank fin heat
exchanger, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 54 (11–12) (2011) 2661–2672.
[32] B. Ameel, H. Huisseune, J. Degroote, C.T. Joen, P. De Jaeger, J. Vierendeels, M. De
Paepe, On fin efficiency in interrupted fin and tube heat exchangers, Int. J. Heat
Mass Transf. 60 (2013) 557–566.
[33] B.X. Liu, Z.H. Cai, Heat transfer and draft loss performance of air flowing across
staggered banks of oval tubes fitted with rectangular fins, J. Eng. Thermophys.
3 (4) (1982) 365–371.
[34] T. Mori, Taguchi Method: Benefits Impacts Mathematics Statistics and
Applications, ASME Press, 2011.
[35] I. Kotcioglu, A. Cansiz, M. Nasiri Khalaji, Experimental investigation for
optimization of design parameters in a rectangular duct with plate-fins heat
exchanger by Taguchi method, Appl. Therm. Eng. 50 (1) (2013) 604–613.
[36] Y.L.P.Y. Heng Wang, Parametric study and optimization of H-type finned tube
heat exchangers using Taguchi method, Appl. Therm. Eng. 103 (2016) 128–
138.
[37] C. Hsieh, J. Jang, Parametric study and optimization of louver finned-tube heat
exchangers by Taguchi method, Appl. Therm. Eng. 42 (2012) 101–110.