International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 6555–6566

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

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

Effect of fin pitches on the optimum heat transfer performance of crimped spiral

fin-and-tube heat exchangers
Parinya Pongsoi a, Santi Pikulkajorn b, Somchai Wongwises a,c,⇑
a
Fluid Mechanics, Thermal Engineering and Multiphase Flow Research Lab. (FUTURE), Department of Mechanical Engineering, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi,
Bangmod, Bangkok 10140, Thailand
b
Somchai Industry Co., Ltd, Bangkok 10150, Thailand
c
The Royal Institute of Thailand, Academy of Science, Sanam Suea Pa, Dusit, Bangkok 10300, Thailand

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

Article history: This study conducted experiments on the optimized fin pitch for crimped spiral fin-and-tube heat
Received 31 December 2011 exchangers. The experiments covered a size range of 2.4–6.5 mm, which is the manufacturing limitation
Received in revised form 18 June 2012 for this kind of fin. The water-flow arrangement used in this experiment combined the parallel cross-flow
Accepted 20 June 2012
and the counter cross-flow in a two-row configuration. Ambient air was used as the working fluid on the
Available online 20 July 2012
air-side, and hot water was used on the tube-side. The effects of fin pitches on the heat transfer coeffi-
cient and pressure drop characteristics were studied. The results clearly showed that the convective heat
Keywords:
transfer coefficient (ho) for a fin pitch of 2.4 mm is relatively low compared with that of other fin pitches
Crimped fin
Heat transfer
with the same air frontal velocity. Using larger fin pitches (i.e., 4.2, 6.2, and 6.5 mm) resulted in negligible
Heat exchanger differences in the pressure drop. Moreover, this work introduces the parameter of three performances
Air–water indexes, which can be expressed as the ratio of the desired output to the required input, for optimization
Optimum fin pitch purposes. Due to the difference in optimum fin pitch obtained by these performance indexes, an intersec-
tion analysis was conducted. The results indicated that the optimum fin pitch is 4.2 mm for this work,
which could be valuable for the effective design for industrial thermal-system applications.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The fin-and-tube heat exchanger was designed for thermal sys-
tems in many industrial applications involving heat transfer and
heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration system
(HVAC&R) applications that use a forced airflow through a fin-
and-tube heat exchanger. Nowadays, the spiral fin-and-tube heat
exchanger is the preferred type of heat exchanger for industrial
applications. However, the heat transfer rate from the heat exchan-
ger is normally limited by the thermal resistance on the air-side.
One way to augment the heat transfer performance of the heat ex-
changer is to improve its fin geometry, but this method may re-
quire more fan power because of the loss associated with the
pressure drop.
Many researchers have studied the effects of plate fin geome-
try—using plain fins, slit fins, wavy fins, louvered fins, compounded
fins, circular fins, and conventional spiral fins—on the heat transfer
performance and frictional characteristics. On the other hand, the
⇑ Corresponding author at: Fluid Mechanics, Thermal Engineering and Multi-
phase Flow Research Lab. (FUTURE), Department of Mechanical Engineering, King
Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangmod, Bangkok 10140, Thailand.
Tel.: +66 24709115.
E-mail address: somchai.won@kmutt.ac.th (S. Wongwises).
review of the literature indicated that only a few studies indicated
the need for research on crimped spiral fin-and-tube heat exchang-
ers [1–7]. The crimped spiral fin features a sine-shaped fin that
provides a higher heat transfer rate on the air-side through an in-
crease in the contact surface between the fin base and the tube.
Nuntaphan et al. [1,2] studied the air-side of the crimped spiral
fin heat exchanger to analyze the effects of the tubes’ diameters, fin
spacings, transfer tube pitches, and arrangements, and they pro-
posed a correlation between the heat transfer and friction charac-
teristics in the case of low Reynolds numbers under dry and wet
surface conditions. The results showed that the heat transfer coef-
ficient for the dry surface was higher than that for the wet surface.
Moreover, heat exchangers using crimped spiral finned tubes were
investigated by Srisawad and Wongwises [3], who focused on the
air-side performance of helically coiled crimped spiral finned tube
heat exchangers in dry surface conditions. Pongsoi et al. [4,5] stud-
ied the effects of fin pitch and number of tube rows on the air-side
heat transfer characteristics of crimped spiral fin-tube heat
exchangers having a multipass parallel and counter cross-flow
arrangement under sensible heating conditions at a high Reynolds
number, proposed the e-NTU relation equation for this new type of
water-flow arrangement, and proposed both heat transfer and fric-
tion correlations. Tang et al. [6,7] investigated the air-side heat
transfer and friction characteristics of five kinds of fin-and-tube

0017-9310/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2012.06.061
6556 P. Pongsoi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 6555–6566

Nomenclature

A area, m2 T temperature, oC
Amin minimum free flow area, m2 U overall heat transfer coefficient, W/(m2 K)
Af surface area of fin, m2 Vi velocity based on tube inside diameter (di), m/s
Ao total surface area, m2 Vfr air frontal velocity, m/s
Ap cross-sectional or profile area of fin, m2 Wp fan power, W
cp specific heat at constant pressure, J/(kg K)
C heat capacity rate (mcp), W/K Greek symbols
C⁄ capacity rate ratio, dimensionless e heat exchanger effectiveness
Cc cold-fuid capacity rate, W/K g fin efficiency
Ch hot-fluid capacity rate, W/K go overall surface effectiveness
df outside diameter of fin, m q density, kg/m3
di tube inside diameter, m r contraction ratio of cross-sectional area
do tube outside diameter, m l dynamic viscosity of air, Pa s
f Fanning friction factor, dimensionless / combination of terms, dimensionless
fp fin pitch, m w radius ratio, dimensionless
ft fin thickness, m DP pressure drop, Pa
Gc mass flux of the air based on minimum free flow area, f1 heat exchanger performance index, W/Pa
kg/m2 s f2 system performance index, W/Pa
H height, m f3 dimensionless system performance index, dimension-
h heat transfer coefficient, W/(m2 K) less
Io modified Bessel function solution of the first kind, order
0 Subscripts
I1 modified Bessel function solution of the first kind, order 1 air-side inlet
1 2 air-side outlet
k thermal conductivity, W/(m K) a air
K0 modified Bessel function solution of the second kind, or- ave average
der 0 b unfinned base surface
K1 modified Bessel function solution of the second kind, or- c multipass counter cross flow or cold fluid
der 1 f fin
L length, m fr frontal (L  H)
m mass flow rate, kg/s h hot fluid
n number of tubes in row HX heat exchanger
Nrow number of tube rows i tube-side
NTU number of transfer units, dimensionless in inlet
PL longitudinal tube pitch, m m mean value
PT transverse tube pitch, m max maximum
Pr Prandtl number, dimensionless min minimum
Q heat transfer rate, W o air-side
ro radius of tip fin, m p multipass parallel cross flow
ri radius of base fin, m pc multipass parallel-and-counter cross flow
R radius function in terms of the radius ratio, dimension- Sys system
less t tube
Redi Reynolds number based on tube inside diameter (di), w water
dimensionless
Redo Reynolds number based on tube outside diameter (do),
dimensionless

heat exchangers crimped spiral fin, plain fin, slit fin, fin with delta-
wing longitudinal vortex generators, and mixed fin for which the
number of tube rows (Nrow) was 12 and the diameter of the tubes
(do) was 18 mm throughout both experimental and numerical
investigation. Their results indicated that the crimped spiral fin
gave a high pressure drop, but it also provided a higher air-side
heat transfer performance than the other types.
According to the literature, several studies have been devoted to
the heat transfer and friction characteristics of finned tube heat
exchangers under numerous conditions. However, research is
needed in the area of the optimal design for fin and tube heat
exchangers. Previous researchers [8–10] have extensively observed
that the effects of the fin pitch give reliable guidelines for an effec-
tive design of the plate and circular fin, in which the other geomet-
ric effects, such as fin thickness, longitudinal tube pitch, and
transverse tube pitch, show no significance with regard to the
optimum fin pitch. Nevertheless, until now, none of the studies
in the literature reported on the optimal heat transfer performance
of crimped spiral fin-and-tube heat exchangers. Therefore, the pur-
pose of this study is to investigate the optimized fin pitch for a
crimped spiral fin-and-tube heat exchanger having a two-row con-
figuration. The fin pitches that were tested covered a size range of
2.4 mm to 6.5 mm, which is the manufacturing limitation for this
kind of fin. Finding the optimized fin pitch would be valuable when
designing industrial applications in HVAC&R systems, waste heat
recovery units (WHRU), and other units and systems.
2. Experimental apparatus
A schematic diagram of the experimental apparatus is shown in
Fig. 1. Air and hot water were used as the working fluids. The main
 P. Pongsoi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 6555–6566 6557

ΔP
1
ΔP T T
5
4 3 2

T T
11
Tank B
6 9
1. Inverter control speed
Tank A
2. Mixing devices 7. Valve
7
3. Straightener 8. Water pump 10
4. Test unit (heat exchanger) 9. Temperature controller
5. Settling means 10. Heater
8
6. Water flow meter 11. Stirrer

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental apparatus.

Fig. 2. The photos of the tested crimped spiral fin and tube heat exchangers and schematic diagram of crimped spiral fin.

components of the system were the heat exchanger, water-flow
loop, air supply, instrumentation, and data acquisition system.
The present study used a type of fin-and-tube heat exchanger.
The copper tubes have a large diameter (about 16 mm), and are
very commonly used in ventilator and fan-coil units [11,12]. More-
over, the tubes are also finned with aluminum fins. Photos of the
crimped spiral fin pattern are shown in Fig. 2. The water-side cir-
cuitry arrangement and detailed dimensions of the tested fin-
and-tube heat exchangers are shown in Fig. 3. Finally, the geomet-
ric parameters of the heat exchangers are summarized in Table 1.
An open-type wind tunnel was used to push air through the
heat exchanger. The connections of the duct were designed so that
parts could be changed or repaired quickly and easily. This
arrangement operated in a cross-flow with the hot water passing
through the heat exchanger. The tunnel was a rectangular air duct
fabricated from a 0.43  0.48 m steel plate. The duct was insulated
with a 16 mm thick Aeroflex standard sheet. The fresh air was
drawn into the duct and passed through the mixing device,
straightener, and heat exchanger by means of a 2.2 kW axial flow
fan. The speed of the fan was adjusted with an inverter.
6558 P. Pongsoi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 6555–6566

L= 320 mm
Multipass Parallel and Counter
A fr 2
Crossflow
= Frontal area, L x H (mm)

H= 350 mm
PL
d o = Tube outside diameter (mm)
Inlet
PL = Longitudinal tube pitch (mm)
PT = Transverse tube pitch (mm)

Water flow Air flow

PT
L PL direction
do

Water inlet
PT

Outlet

Water outlet
Air flow Multipass parallel Multipass counter Multipass parallel-and-counter
cross flow cross flow cross flow (present)

Water outlet
Nrow =2 Air flow Nrow =2 Air flow Nrow =2 Air flow

Water inlet
Water inlet
Water flow Water flow Water flow
Nrow= 2 direction direction direction

Water outlet

Fig. 3. Geometric details and schematic diagram of the heat exchangers algorithm for multipass parallel cross flow, multipass counter cross flow and multipass parallel-and-
counter cross flow ( and  signs indicate that water flows into or out of the paper, respectively).

Table 1
Detailed geometric parameters of the test samples.

No. Fin type di (mm) do (mm) df (mm) PL (mm) PT (mm) ft (mm) nt Nrow fp (mm)
1–5 Crimped 13.5 16.35 34.8 35 39 0.4 9 2 2.4, 3.2, 4.2, 6.2 and 6.5

Remarks: df = outside diameter of fin; di = tube inside diameter; do = tube outside diameter; fp = fin pitch; ft = fin thickness; PL = longitudinal tube pitch; PT = transverse tube
pitch; nt = number of tubes in row; Nrow = number of tube rows.
Notes: Tube layouts of all heat exchangers are staggered layout.

Thermocouple probes were located at the air inlet and outlet Table 2
sections of the heat exchanger. The temperature was measured Experimental conditions.

with 1 mm diameter probes extending into the duct where the Inlet-air-dry bulb temperature, oC 31.5 ± 0.5
air flowed. The probes were T-type copper-constantan thermocou- Inlet-air frontal velocity, m/s 26
ples grounded to a stainless steel outer sheath. The measuring Inlet-water temperature, oC 55  70
Water flow rate, kg/s 0.2  0.233
points were at the positions recommended by the ASHRAE stan-
dard [13]. The temperature was monitored and recorded continu-
ously. All temperature-measuring devices were well calibrated in
a controlled temperature bath using a standard precision mer- Table 3
cury-in-glass thermometer. All sensors were wired directly to ter- The accuracies of the measurements.

minal control panels mounted on the bench. The air flow rate was Parameters Accuracy
detected with a nozzle based on the ISO 5801 standard. The drops Inlet-air dry-bulb temperature, oC ±0.1
in air pressure across the test section and the nozzle were mea- Pressure drop, Pa ±0.5
sured with a digital manometer. Four pressure taps were attached Inlet-water temperature, oC ±0.1
on each wall: upstream and downstream taps in the test section Water flow rate, kg/s ±0.4 (±0.02 of full scale)
and in the nozzle.
To avoid any distortion of the air velocity profile, mixing devices
and straighteners were installed in the duct. Air velocity and air
velocity fluctuation in the duct were checked with a Constant Tem- Table 4
Uncertainties of the derived experimental values.
perature Anemometer 90CN10/C10 (CTA, Dantec) that had an
automatic probe setup. Stream Ware software was used to set up Parameters Maximum uncertainties (%)
the anemometer modules, to perform velocity and directional cal- Air-side heat transfer rate, Qa ±4.96
ibrations, and to provide an experimental platform wherein auto- Water-side heat transfer rate, Qw ±3.37
matic sequences of hardware setup, data acquisitions, and data Pressure drop, DP ±2.50
Frontal velocity, Vfr ±3.30
reductions could be performed. The probe used in this experiment
Air-side heat transfer coefficient, ho ±8.98
was a wedge-shaped, right-angled film probe 55R33 with a
 P. Pongsoi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 6555–6566
Fig. 4. Details of area of unfinned base surface (Ab) equation.
non-cylindrical sensor in a 1  0.2 mm sheath. All signals were reg-
istered by a data acquisition system and then averaged over the
elapsed time.
The hot-water flow loop consisted of two storage tanks, an
18 kW electric heater, a centrifugal pump, a control unit, and a flow
meter with a 0.5 LPM resolution (Fig. 1). The purpose of this loop
was to transfer heat to the air flowing through the heat exchanger.
The temperature of the hot water in the two tanks was measured
with T-type copper-constantan thermocouples and was controlled
with the temperature controller. After the hot water had been
heated to the required temperature, it was pumped out of storage
tank (A), delivered to the heat exchanger, and then returned to
storage tank (B), which was used to pre-heat the water in order
to reduce the temperature difference before entering tank (A).
The water temperatures at the inlet and outlet of the heat exchan-
ger were measured with 1 mm diameter probes extending inside
the tube where the water flowed. The probes consisted of T-type
copper-constantan thermocouples grounded to a stainless steel
outer sheath.
In the experiment, at a specific inlet water temperature, the
water flow rate was fixed while the air flow rate was increased.
The system was allowed to approach a steady state before any data
was recorded. After the system reached a steady state, the inlet and
outlet temperatures of the air passing across the heat exchanger
and the water flow rates were determined. All tested conditions
of the heat exchangers are shown in Table 2. It must be noted that
for industrial service, the operation velocity is normally much
higher, as reported by Xie et al. [11]. Therefore, this study extended
the applicable range (Vfr up to 6 m s1). The accuracies of the direct
measurement sensors and the uncertainties, which were calcu-
lated using the root mean sum square method, are shown in Tables
3 and 4.
3. Data reduction
In order to determine the heat transfer characteristics of
the heat exchangers from the data recorded under steady state
6559
conditions during each test run, the method of number of transfer
units (e-NTU), based on the concept of heat exchanger effective-
ness, was applied to determine the UA product.
The air-side heat transfer rate is given as:
Q a ¼ ma cP;a DT a ð1Þ
The water-side heat transfer rate is given as:
Q w ¼ mw cP;w DT w ð2Þ
The total rate of heat transfer used in the calculation is averaged
from the air-side and water-side as follows:
jQ a j þ jQ w j
Q av e ¼ ð3Þ
2
The overall heat transfer coefficient can be written in terms of the
total resistance to heat transfer. This total resistance is the sum of
the individual resistances, as follows:
1 1 lnðdo =di Þ 1
¼ þ þ ð4Þ
UA hi Ai 2pkt L go ho Ao
The e-NTU relationships with one fluid mixed and one fluid un-
mixed in the cross-flow were employed to determine the overall
heat transfer coefficient. From Fig. 3, the present mixed circuitry
arrangement is a combination of parallel and counter cross-flow.
Therefore, the e-NTU relationships developed by Pongsoi et al.
[4] were selected to calculate the heat exchanger effectiveness.
This relation combines both the effect of parallel and the counter
cross-flow configuration of water-flow arrangement from [14–
16], as shown in Eqs. (5)–(7), in order to calculate the overall heat
transfer coefficient. However, the multipass parallel and counter
cross-flow used in this experiment is a combination of multipass
parallel cross-flow and counter cross-flow. It may be suitable to
use the average value of those relations shown in Eq. (7). The
schematic diagram of the heat exchangers algorithm for multipass
parallel cross-flow, multipass counter cross-flow, and multipass
parallel and counter cross-flows (Nrow = 2) are shown in Fig. 3.
For the present flow configuration, the heat exchanger’s
6560 P. Pongsoi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 6555–6566

Fig. 5. Flowchart of the data reduction for air-side heat transfer coefficient (ho).

effectiveness lies between the multipass parallel cross-flow and

the counter cross-flow. Note that using inappropriate e-NTU rela-
tionships for complex flow arrangement may lead to an error of
up to 10%, as pointed out by Navarro and Cabezas-Gomez [17]. This 9
type of multipass parallel and counter cross-flow arrangement
Crimped spiral fin
may be an efficient choice for the reverse flow heat exchanger that 8 +5%
fp = 2.4 - 6.5 mm
is employed in recuperative systems in modern industrial
complexes. 7 Nrow = 2
In this work, the air-side working fluid (air) is defined as fluid A, -5%
and the tube-side working fluid (water) is defined as fluid B. It 6
should be noted that the minimum heat capacity rate (Cmin) is
Qw (kW)

on the air-side (fluid A). Therefore, the following relations are ap- 5
plied in the present calculations.
Multipass parallel cross-flow 4
For (Nrow = 2):
  3
K  
NTU A ðC A =2Þ
ep ¼ 1 1  e2K=CA ; K ¼1e ð5Þ
2 2
Redo = 4000-13000
Multipass counter cross-flow
1
For (Nrow = 2): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
   1 Qa (kW)
K K 2K=C 
ec ¼1 þ 1 e A ; K ¼ 1  eNTUA ðC A =2Þ ð6Þ
2 2
Fig. 6. Energy balance between air and water.
 P. Pongsoi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 6555–6566 6561

160 be expressed in terms of fin efficiency (g), fin surface area (Af),

Crimped spiral fin and total surface area (Ao), as follows:
140
Af
go ¼ 1  ð1  gÞ ð19Þ
Heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K)

120 Ao
The relationship among the total surface area of the fin (Ao), the
100
surface area of the fin (Af), and (Ab) equals the area of the unfinned
80 Fin ptch (mm) base surface (in Fig. 4). It is determined from Eq. (20):
2.4 min.
 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  
L
60 3.2 Ab ¼ nt Nrow pdo L  fp2 þ ðpdo Þ2  ft ð20Þ
4.2 fp
6.2
40 6.5 max. The surface area of fin (Af) can be estimated by assuming it to be
equal to that of the radial fin:
20
 
L 2 2
0 Af ¼ nt Nrow ½0:5pdf  0:5pdo þ pdf f t  ð21Þ
0 2 4 6 8 10
fp
Frontal velocity (m/s)
where Ao = Af + Ab
Fig. 7. Effect of fin pitch on the air-side heat transfer coefficient of crimped spiral The efficiency of a radial fin with a rectangular profile is deter-
fin and tube heat exchangers at Tw,in = 70 oC and water flow rate of 0.233 kg/s. mined by the method proposed by Gardner [19]:

2w I1 ð/Ro ÞK 1 ð/Ri Þ  I1 ð/Ri ÞK 1 ð/Ro Þ

g¼ ð22Þ
where /ð1 þ wÞ I0 ð/Ri ÞK 1 ð/Ro Þ þ I1 ð/Ro ÞK 0 ð/Ri Þ
ep þ ec
eA ¼ ð7Þ
2
fluid A is mixed(Cmin); fluid B is unmixed(Cmax).
eA ¼ eB =C A ð8Þ (a) 8

CA 1
C A ¼ ¼ C 6 1 ð9Þ
C B C B 6

NTU B
NTU A ¼ ð10Þ
Qave(kW)

C A
4
where C⁄ = Cmin/Cmax is equal to Cc/Ch or Ch/Cc, depending on the
value of the hot and cold fluid heat capacity rates. Fin pitch (mm)
2.4 min.
C min ¼ C h ; C h < C c ð11Þ 2 3.2
4.2
or 6.2
6.5 max.
C min ¼ C c ; C c < C h ð12Þ
0
as 0 2 4 6 8 10

Q max ¼ ðmcP Þc ðT h1  T c1 Þ if C c < C h ð13Þ Vfr (m/s)

or
(b) 250 Fin pitch (mm)
Q max ¼ ðmcP Þh ðT h1  T c1 Þ if C h < C c ð14Þ
2.4 min.
200 3.2
Q av e 4.2
e¼ ð15Þ 6.2
Q max
6.5 max.
The UA term in Eq. (4) is calculated by using Eq. (16): 150
Δ P(Pa)

UA ¼ C min ðNTUÞ ð16Þ

100
The tube-side heat transfer coefficient (hi) is evaluated from the
semi-empirical correlation of Gnielinski [18]:
 
kw ðRedi  1000ÞPrðfi =2Þ 50
hi ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ð17Þ
di 1 þ 12:7 fi =2 Pr2=3  1

0
where the friction factor is given by: 0 2 4 6 8 10
2
fi ¼ ð1:58lnRedi  3:28Þ ð18Þ Vfr(m/s)
where Redi = qVidi/l Fig. 8. Effect of fin pitches on (a) the average heat transfer rate and (b) the pressure
The overall surface effectiveness (go), which is defined as the drop of crimped spiral fin and tube heat exchangers at Tw,in = 65 oC and water flow
ratio of effective heat transfer area to total heat transfer area, can rate of 0.233 kg/s.
6562 P. Pongsoi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 6555–6566

The pumping (fan) power determined from the equation pro-

posed by Kays and London [20] is given in terms of the fanning fric-
tion factor. The equation includes the entrance and exit pressure
losses:

Main flow Air flow (a)   "  #

Amin qm 2DP q1 q
f ¼  ð1 þ r Þ 1  1
2
ð27Þ
Ao q1 G2c q2

where r is the ratio of minimum free flow area to frontal area, Ao is

the total heat transfer area, and Amin is the minimum free flow area.
For Eq. (27), if entrance and exit effects are negligible (q1 = q2
and qm = [q1 + q2]/2), then the friction coefficient can be calculated
from

" #
Main flow
Air flow (b) Amin qm 2DP
f ¼ ð28Þ
Ao G2c

Therefore, the pumping (fan) power is

Sine shape
Gc Amin DP
Wp ¼ ð29Þ
qm
The reason for choosing these three performance indexes and
how to use them in order to find and optimized the fin pitch will
be explained and discussed later in the Results section.
Main flow Air flow (c)

(a) 100 Aluminium fin

Vfr(m/s) Peak
3
4
Fig. 9. Schematic showing the flow distribution at fin base of crimped spiral fin 4.2
5
6.2 6.5
(sine shape): (a) fp = 6.5 and 6.2 mm, (b) fp = 4.2 mm and (c) fp = 3.2 and 2.4 mm. 3.2
fp(mm)
2.4
ζ1

50

where
 1=2
2ho
/ ¼ ðro  ri Þ3=2 ð23Þ
kf Ap Tw,in= 55oC
Water flow rate 0.2 kg/s
The air-side heat transfer coefficient (ho) can then be calculated
from Eq. (4). The flow chart with the reduction of the data is shown 0
in Fig. 5. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
According to the main purpose of this work, in order to find an Fin pitch (mm)
optimized fin pitch, the parameter called the performance index
150
must be introduced. In general, the performance index is consid- (b) Aluminium fin Tw,in= 65oC
ered as the ratio of the desired output to the required input. How- Vfr(m/s)
ever, there are three performance indexes introduced in this work: Water flow rate 0.2 kg/s
3
the heat exchanger performance index, the system performance in- 4
5
dex, and the dimensionless system performance index, which can 100
4.2
6.2 6.5
be expressed as below. fp(mm)
3.2

The heat exchanger performance index: 2.4

ζ1

f1 ¼ ðQ av e =DPÞHX ð24Þ

which subscript ‘‘HX’’ means ‘‘heat exchanger’’. 50

The system performance index:

f2 ¼ ðQ av e =DPÞSys ð25Þ

which subscript ‘‘Sys’’ means ‘‘system’’. 0

The dimensionless system performance index: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Fin pitch (mm)
f3 ¼ ðQ av e =W p ÞSys ð26Þ
Fig. 10. Effect of fin pitch on the heat exchanger performance index f1 having
which Wp is fan power. different inlet-water temperatures (a) 55 oC and (b) 65 oC.
 P. Pongsoi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 6555–6566 6563

150 contrast, for fin pitch 2.4 mm, it can be clearly seen that the heat
(a)
Aluminium fin transfer coefficient lower than other fin pitches, about 11–15% at
Vfr(m/s)
the same air frontal velocity. This result is similar to that described
3
4
4.2 by Kim and Kim [22] (plate fin or conventional heat exchangers),
6.2 6.5
5
3.2 Mon and Gross [23] (annular fin), and Lee et al. [24] (spiral fin).
100 fp(mm) It is believed to be the result of boundary layer interruption be-
2.4
tween fin spacing, preventing an increase in heat transfer coeffi-
cient. The convection heat transfer coefficient decreases with
ζ1

smaller fin pitches as the boundary layer becomes thicker with a

decrease in fin pitch, which can cause easier boundary layer inter-
50
ruption between the fins [24]. However, this phenomenon did not
Tw,in= 70oC
occur at a large fin pitch, as mentioned by Kim and Kim [22].
Fig. 8(a) shows the influence of fin pitches on the average heat
Water flow rate 0.2 kg/s
transfer rate of crimped spiral fin-and-tube heat exchangers. The
0 average heat transfer rate increases as fin pitch decreases. When
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 fp decreases from 6.2 mm to 2.4 mm, the average heat transfer rate
Fin pitch (mm) increases by about <5% (for fp = 6.2 mm), 27–32% (for fp = 4.2 mm),
49–55% (for fp = 3.2 mm), and 65–70% (for fp = 2.4 mm) to a fin
150
pitch of 6.5 mm over the range of air frontal velocities (2  6 m/
(b) Aluminium fin
s). Furthermore, the effects of fin pitch on the average heat transfer
Vfr(m/s)
3 rate in case of 6.2 mm and 6.5 mm are negligible. Moreover,
4.2
4
6.2
6.5
Fig. 8(b) shows the effects of fin pitches on the pressure drop of
5 3.2
100 fp(mm) a crimped spiral fin-and-tube heat exchanger. As expected, the
2.4
pressure drop increases as air frontal velocity increases. Further-
more, using larger fin pitches (i.e., 4.2, 6.2, and 6.5 mm) results
ζ1

in negligible differences in the pressure drop. Over the range of

50
Tw,in= 70oC
Water flow rate 0.233 kg/s
0 and (b). On the other hand, the flow distribution at the base of
2 3 4 5 6 7
Fin pitch (mm)
Fig. 11. Effect of fin pitch on the heat exchanger performance index f1 having
different water flow rates.
4. Results and discussion
The experimental results of this study are presented based on
the energy balances between the air- and water-sides and are used
to determine the performance of the crimped spiral fin and tube
heat exchangers (Fig. 6). The experiments were conducted follow-
ing the ANSI/ASHRAE 33 Standards [21] in which the energy un-
balance between the air and water of the crimped spiral fin-and-
tube heat exchangers, denoting |Qa  Qw|/Qave, is less than 0.05.
Some experimental data from Pongsoi et al. [4] was also used in
this work. The analysis of the heat transfer performance of all the
heat exchangers examined are presented in terms of the heat
transfer coefficient and pressure drop plotted against the air fron-
tal velocity (Vfr). As expected, both the heat transfer and pressure
drop increased along with the increasing air frontal velocity. In
addition, the experimental results mostly focused on the three per-
formances indexes, f1, f2, and f3, which are important for the anal-
ysis of the optimum fin pitch.
Fig. 7 illustrates the effects of fin pitches on the air-side heat
transfer coefficient of crimped spiral fin-and-tube heat exchangers
having a two-row configuration and fin pitches of 2.4, 3.2, 4.2, 6.2
and 6.5 mm. Test results indicated that the effects of fin pitch on
the heat transfer coefficient are very small at 3.2, 4.2, 6.2, and
6.5 mm. In this regard, higher operating velocities promote better
mixing and lead to a better heat transfer coefficient, and this
phenomenon prevails regardless of a change in the fin pitch. In
air frontal velocities, it was found that the pressure drops of the
fp = 2.4, 3.2, 4.2, and 6.2 mm are higher than that of the fp = 6.5 mm
by about 78–103%, 52–64%, 11–20% and <8%, respectively. This
might be because the main flow at base of the fin can flow along
the corrugated channel more effectively compared with smaller
fin pitches (i.e., 2.4 mm and 3.2 mm) as illustrated in Fig. 9(a)
8
fin (sine shape) in the case of fin pitches of 2.4 mm and 3.2 mm
seems to be strongly obstructed by the closer channel of fin pitch
as shown in Fig. 9(c), resulting in the highest pressure drop (for
fp = 2.4 mm).
For the optimization of fin pitch, the descriptive analysis is pre-
sented for three performances indexes (f1, f2, and f3 These indexes
described in this work can be expressed as the ratio of the desired
output to the required input, as mention before. However, unlike
other thermal systems, the determination of the performance in-
dex is too complicated for the heat exchanger. Therefore, in this
present work, the performance index will be derived in three terms
and will be discussed later in order to determine which one is
preferable.
First, the heat exchanger performance index (f1), in which the
consideration is a focus only on the heat exchanger section, can
be expressed as the ratio of heat absorbed by the air-side to the
pressure drop of heat exchanger, which indicates the air flow fric-
tion across the heat exchanger. Therefore, (f1) can be described as
the performance of the heat exchanger. The effects of fin pitches on
the performance index (f1) is shown in Figs. 10 and 11 as having a
different inlet-water temperature and a water flow rate, respec-
tively. This figure shows that f1 increases with increasing fin pitch
until reaching its maximum value at a fin pitch of 4.2 mm, and then
decreases with further increases in the fin pitch. This phenomenon
is the same for all air frontal velocity. This might be because by
adding fin surface, the flow field is inevitably stabilized, and the
contributions of vortices and unstable flow field are also lessened
[10]. Moreover, it is commonly known that the pressure drop en-
dures a heat transfer and exhibits a decreasing trend of the heat ex-
changer performance index with a decreasing fin pitch. The
maximum value of f1 means that it is possible to obtain an opti-
mum fin pitch under this criterion when all the other parameters
are kept fixed over the range of testing conditions. Actually, using
6564 P. Pongsoi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 6555–6566
Fin pitch (mm)
2.4
3.2
4.2
6.2
6.5
400
Fan-A
300
Fan-B
Δ P(Pa)
200
100 Fan-C
96 Pa
Fan-D
0
0 2
Fig. 12. Axial fan performance curve (P–Q fan curve) with system lines of crimped spiral fin-and-tube heat exchangers having various fin pitches at Tw,in = 60 oC and water
flow rate of 0.233 kg/s.
a fin pitch higher than 4.2 mm seems to be preferable in terms of
production cost because it is cheaper in the sense of having less
fin pitch length. However, the value of f1, which is the index to de-
scribe the heat exchanger’s performance, is relatively lower than
that of 4.2 mm. Therefore, it is not recommended to consider only
the production cost but also the performance index when design-
ing crimped spiral fin-and-tube heat exchangers.
The next performance index that is derived in this study is the
system performance index (f2). Unlike f1, which mainly focuses
only in the heat exchanger section, a more advance consideration
is developed in order to obtain the performance index that is suit-
able to describe the whole system, including both the heat exchan-
ger and the pumping fan. Fig. 12 show the axial commercial fan
curve fan (P–Q curve) with the system lines of crimped spiral fin-
and-tube heat exchangers having various fin pitches. The commer-
cial fan P–Q curve A to D is plotted in Fig. 12, along with the heat
exchanger pressure drop, which is referred to as the system line
of the heat exchanger. The interception of these two plots could
indicate the operating point of heat exchanger. The dashed line
in Fig. 12 shows the connection from the operating point to the
average heat transfer rate in the case of a fin pitch of 3.2 mm with
fan B. The ratio between the average heat transfer rate and the
pressure drop at the operating point is introduced as f2. The pres-
sure drop at the operating point obtained for each fin pitch subject
to the fan curve is illustrated in Fig. 13(b). Moreover, the obtained
average heat transfer rate is also illustrated in Fig. 13(a). In addi-
tion, the effect of the fin pitch subject to the actual fan curve on
the system performance index is illustrated in Fig. 14. It was found
that the system performance index of fin pitches of 2.4, 3.2, and
8000
4800 W 6000
Q(W)
4000
2000
1500
1000
500
4 6 8 10
Vfr(m/s)
4.2 mm is similar and significantly higher than those of 6.2 mm
and 6.5 mm. The f2 of fin pitch of 2.4, 3.2, and 4.2 mm is generally
higher than that of 6.2 mm and 6.5 mm with a maximum discrep-
ancy of about 20% for every fan curve. It is noted that fan A and B is
subjected to a high-power fan, and fans C and D are subjected to a
low-power fan. The system performance index also decreases with
the increasing input power type. The low-power fan gives a higher
system performance index than the higher-power one.
Finally, the dimensionless system performance index is intro-
duced. This index is the modification of the system performance
index by dividing the average heat transfer rate with pumping
(fan) power, which could be expressed as Eq. (30). In the same
manner, the dimensionless system performance index could be de-
scribed as COP for it represents the ratio of the desired heat trans-
fer rate and the provided pumping work. Fig. 15 illustrates the
effect of the fin pitch subject to the fan curves on the dimensionless
system performance index. Similar to the system performance in-
dex, the f3 for a lower-power fan is also greater than that of the
higher-power fan. Furthermore, the f3 decreases with increasing
fin pitch for all fans. It must be noted that while considering the
performance index in term of both f1 and f2, a fin pitch of
4.2 mm seems to be the highest value than that of other cases,
illustrating the optimized fin pitch. However, consideration of
the performance index in terms of f3 gives an alternate result.
In light of the findings of this study, the value of performance
index is validated from the consideration as the ratio of the desired
output to the required input, as mentioned above. It can be seen
that the fin pitches are key to and directly affect the performance
indexes, i.e., the heat exchanger performance index (f1), the system
 P. Pongsoi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 6555–6566 6565

600
(a) 10
Fin pitch (mm)
Fan types
A 2.4
B 3.2
8
C 4.2
fp(mm) D 6.2
400 6.5
2.4
3.2
6 4.2
Qave(kW)

ζ3
6.2 6.5

4
200

2 Tw,in= 60oC
Water flow rate 0.233 kg/s

0 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Fan - A Fan - B Fan - C Fan - D
Fin pitch (mm) Fan - Types

250 Fig. 15. Effect of fin pitch subjected to pumping (fan) power on the performance
(b) Fan types A C Water flow rate 0.233 kg/s index f3 at optimum fan operating point (Tw,in = 60 oC and water flow rate of
B D
Tw,in= 60oC 0.233 kg/s).
200 fp(mm)
2.4 3.2
4.2 6.2 6.5

Table 5
150 Characteristics of fin pitch on performances index.
ΔP(Pa)

Fin Heat exchanger System Dimensionless system

pitches performance index performance performance index (f3)
100
(f1) index (f2)
2.4 Low High High
3.2 Low High High
50
4.2⁄ High⁄ High⁄ Intermediate⁄
6.2 Low Low Low
6.5 Low Low Low
0
⁄
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Note: Optimum condition.
Fin pitch (mm)

Fig. 13. Effect of fin pitches on (a) the average heat transfer rate and (b) the
According to Fig. 16, the intersection area of the three mathemat-
pressure drop of crimped spiral fin and tube heat exchangers at operating point.
ical sets of performance indexes show that the fin pitch of 4.2 mm
has good prospects after consideration of each element and of the
performance index (f2), and the dimensionless system perfor- composition as a whole. Therefore, it is believed that the fin pitch
mance index (f3). As the authors have noted, these factors are com- of 4.2 mm is the optimum fin pitch in this study. This report is of-
pared for fin pitches of 2.4, 3.2, 4.2, 6.2, and 6.5 mm in Table 5. It is fered with the expectation that it may be of assistance in designing
interesting to note that the fin pitch of 4.2 mm is outstandingly cost-effective, optimally sized thermal system equipment.
better than other fin pitches. Moreover, as shown in Fig. 16, the
results are shown based on the three performance indexes (f1, f2,
and f3). This figure can be used to present the optimum fin pitch.

150
Fin pitch (mm) Input power type
2.4
Low
3.2
4.2 High
6.2
100 6.5
ζ2

Negligible difference

50

0
Fan - A Fan - B Fan - C Fan - D
Fan - Types Fig. 16. The intersection of performance index sets defined as the grouping up of
the fin pitches.( is the area in the middle of the diagram that represents the
Fig. 14. Effect of fin pitch subjected to fan curve on the performance index f2 at intersection point of all two sets and three sets indicating the high and intermediate
optimum fan operating point (Tw,in = 60 oC and water flow rate of 0.233 kg/s). value of the performance index).
6566 P. Pongsoi et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 6555–6566
5. Conclusion
In this study, an experimental investigation on the optimized
fin pitch for crimped spiral fin-and tube-heat exchangers was con-
ducted. The following conclusions based on the tests were
obtained:
 It could be clearly seen that the convective heat transfer coeffi-
cient (ho) for a fin pitch of 2.4 mm was relatively low compared
to that of the other fin pitches. Furthermore, using larger fin
pitches (i.e., 4.2, 6.2, and 6.5 mm) resulted in negligible differ-
ence in the pressure drop.
 Three performance indexes are introduced in this work in order
to validate the optimum fin pitch. However, the optimum fin
pitch obtain by those three are quite different. The heat exchan-
ger performance index (f1) provides the peak value (optimum)
at a fin pitch of 4.2 mm, whereas the system performance index
(f2) of fin pitches of 2.4, 3.2, and 4.2 mm seem identical. More-
over, the dimensionless system performance index (f3)
decreases with increases in the fin pitch.
 Due to the differences in the optimum fin pitch obtained by
these performance indexes, the intersection analysis was con-
ducted. The results were that the optimum fin pitch is 4.2 mm
(or 6 fins per inch) for this work. Therefore, industrial designers
should consider the optimum fin pitch when designing the
crimped spiral fin-and-tube heat exchanger.
Acknowledgments
The authors are indebted to the Thailand Research Fund, the Of-
fice of the Higher Education Commission and the National Re-
search University Project for supporting this study.
References
[1] A. Nuntaphan, T. Kiatsiriroat, C.C. Wang, Air side performance at low Reynolds
number of cross-flow heat exchanger using crimped spiral fins, Int. Commun.
Heat Mass Transfer 32 (1–2) (2005) 151–165.
[2] A. Nuntaphan, T. Kiatsiriroat, C.C. Wang, Heat transfer and friction
characteristics of crimped spiral finned heat exchangers with
dehumidification, Appl. Therm. Eng. 25 (2–3) (2005) 327–340.
[3] K. Srisawad, S. Wongwises, Heat transfer characteristics of a new helically
coiled crimped spiral finned tube heat exchanger, Heat Mass Transfer 45 (4)
(2009) 381–391.
[4] P. Pongsoi, S. Pikulkajorn, C.C. Wang, S. Wongwises, Effect of fin pitches on the
air-side performance of crimped spiral fin-and-tube heat exchangers with a
multipass parallel and counter cross-flow configuration, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer 54 (9–10) (2011) 2234–2240.
[5] P. Pongsoi, S. Pikulkajorn, C.C. Wang, S. Wongwises, Effect of number of tube
rows on the air-side performance of crimped spiral fin-and-tube heat
exchangers with a multipass parallel and counter cross-flow configuration,
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (4) (2012) 1403–1411.
[6] L.H. Tang, G.N. Xie, M. Zeng, M. Lin, Q.W. Wang, A comparative study of fin-
and-tube heat exchangers with various fin patterns, ASME Conf. Proc., Heat
Transfer Part A and B 4 (2008) 1239–1246.
[7] L.H. Tang, M. Zeng, Q.W. Wang, Experimental and numerical investigation on
air-side performance of fin-and-tube heat exchangers with various fin
patterns, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 33 (5) (2009) 818–827.
[8] R. Romero-Mendez, M. Sen, K.T. Yang, R. McClain, Effect of fin spacing on
convection in a plate fin and tube heat exchanger, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 43
(1) (2000) 39–51.
[9] T. Sencic, A. TRP, K. Lenic, Parametric study of operating and geometry
characteristics effect on heat transfer in annular finned tube heat exchanger,
Eng. Rev. 29 (1) (2009) 25–36.
[10] C.W. Lu, J.M. Huang, W.C. Nien, C.C. Wang, A numerical investigation of the
geometric effects on the performance of plate finned-tube heat exchanger,
Energ. Convers. Manage. 52 (3) (2011) 1638–1643.
[11] G. Xie, Q. Wang, B. Sunden, Parametric study and multiple correlations on air-
side heat transfer and friction characteristics of fin-and-tube heat exchangers
with large number of large-diameter tube rows, Appl. Therm. Eng. 29 (1)
(2009) 1–16.
[12] Y.C. Liu, S. Wongwises, W.J. Chang, C.C. Wang, Airside performance of fin-and-
tube heat exchangers in dehumidifying conditions - Data with larger diameter,
Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 53 (7–8) (2010) 1603–1608.
[13] ASHRAE Handbook Fundamental, American society of heating, Refrigerating
and air-conditioning engineers, SI-ed., Inc., Atlanta, chap. 13 (1993) 14–15.
[14] ESDU 86018, Effectiveness-NTU Relations for the design and performance
evaluation of two-stream heat exchangers, Engineering science data unit
86018 with amendment, London ESDU International plc, 1991, pp. 92–107.
[15] H.A. Navarro, L. Cabezas-Gomez, A new approach for thermal performance
calculation of cross-flow heat exchanger, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 48 (2005)
3880–3888.
[16] L. Cabezas-Gomez, H.A. Navarro, J.M. Saiz-Jabardo, Thermal performance of
multipass parallel and counter-cross-flow heat exchangers, J. Heat transfer
129 (2007) 282–290.
[17] H.A. Navarro, L. Cabezas-Gomez, Effectiveness-ntu computation with a
mathematical model for cross-flow heat exchangers, Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 24
(4) (2007) 509–521.
[18] V. Gnielinski, New eguation for heat and mass transfer in turbulent pipe and
channel flow, Int. Chem. Eng. 16 (1976) 359–368.
[19] K.A. Gardner, Efficient of extended surface, ASME Trans. 67 (1945) 621.
[20] W.M. Kays, A. London, Compact Heat Exchangers, third ed., Mcgraw-Hill, New
York, 1984.
[21] ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 33-2000, Method of Testing Forced Circulation Air
Cooling and Air Heating Coils, 2000.
[22] Y.H. Kim, Y. Kim, Heat transfer characteristics of flate plate finned-tube heat
exchangers with large fin pitch, Int. J. Refrig. 28 (6) (2005) 851–858.
[23] M.S. Mon, U. Gross, Numerical study of fin-spacing effects in annular-finned
tube heat exchangers, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 47 (8–9) (2004) 1953–1964.
[24] M. Lee, T. Kang, Y. Kim, Air-side heat transfer characteristics of spiral-type
circular fin- tube heat exchangers, Int. J. of Refrig. 33 (2) (2010) 313–320.