International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 54495458

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

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

Numerical study of heat-transfer enhancement by punched winglet-type

vortex generator arrays in n-and-tube heat exchangers
Y.L. He a,, H. Han a, W.Q. Tao a, Y.W. Zhang a,b
a
Key Laboratory of Thermo-Fluid Science and Engineering of MOE, School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xian Jiaotong University, Xian, Shaanxi 710049, China
b
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA

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

Article history: The potential of punched winglet type vortex generator (VG) arrays used to enhance air-side heat-trans-
Received 25 November 2011 fer performance of nned tube heat exchanger is numerically investigated. The arrays are composed of
Received in revised form 26 April 2012 two delta-winglet pairs with two layout modes of continuous and discontinuous winglets. The heat
Accepted 29 April 2012
transfer performance of two array arrangements are compared to a conventional large winglet congu-
Available online 18 June 2012
ration for the Reynolds number ranging from 600 to 2600 based on the tube collar diameter, with the
corresponding frontal air velocity ranging from 0.54 to 2.3 m/s. The effects of different geometry param-
Keywords:
eters that include attack angle of delta winglets (b = 10 deg, b = 20 deg, b = 30 deg) and the layout loca-
Fin-and-tube heat exchanger
Vortex generator array
tions are examined. The numerical results show that for the punched VG cases, the effectiveness of the
Heat transfer enhancement main vortex to the heat transfer enhancement is not fully dominant while the corner vortex also shows
signicant effect on the heat transfer performance. Both heat transfer coefcient and pressure drop
increase with the increase of attack angle b for the side arrangements; the arrays with discontinuous
winglets show the best heat transfer enhancement, and a signicant augmentation of up to
33.870.6% in heat transfer coefcient is achieved accompanied by a pressure drop penalty of 43.4
97.2% for the 30 deg case compared to the plain n. For the front arrangements of VGs higher heat trans-
fer enhancement and pressure drop penalty can be obtained compared to that of the side arrangement
cases; the case with front continuous winglet arrays has the maximum value of j/f, a corresponding heat
transfer improvement of 36.781.2% and a pressure drop penalty of 60.7135.6%.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction streamwise vortices are generated in the ow eld due to ow sep-

Fin-and-tube heat exchangers are widely used in various engi-
neering elds, such as heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and
refrigeration (HVACR) systems. High heat exchanger performance
is very important in meeting efciency standards with low cost
and environmental impact. For liquid-to-air and phase-change
heat exchangers that are typical for HVAC&R systems, the air side
convection resistance is usually dominant due to the thermophys-
ical property of air. Thus many efforts have been made to enhance
air-side heat transfer performance and variants of n patterns like
wave, louver and slit n have been adopted [13]. However, with
signicant heat transfer enhancement, the associated penalty of
pressure drop is also tremendous for those conventional heat
transfer enhancement methods.
In recent years, a very promising strategy of enhancing air-side
heat transfer performance is using ow manipulator, known as
vortex generators. When the uid ows through vortex generators,
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 29 8266 5930; fax: +86 29 8266 5445.
E-mail address: yalinghe@mail.xjtu.edu.cn (Y.L. He).
aration on the leading edge of vortex generators (VGs), causing
bulk ow mixing, boundary-layer modication, and ow destabili-
zation; heat transfer is enhanced due to these vortices. The longi-
tudinal vortex generators applied in various heat exchangers
have received considerable attentions for the advantage of heat
transfer enhancement, accompanied by a modest pressure drop
penalty.
Fiebig et al. [4] experimentally investigated three tube rows
heat exchanger element with delta winglets. They reported a
5565% heat transfer augmentation with corresponding 2045%
increase in the apparent friction factor for an inline arrangement.
Biswas et al. [5] performed numerical investigations of ow struc-
ture and heat transfer characteristics in a channel with a built-in
tube and a winglet type vortex generator. Fiebig et al. [6] measured
a 10% local heat transfer enhancement for round tubes but a 100%
enhancement for at tubes under certain geometry. Deb et al. [7]
numerically investigated heat transfer characteristics and ow
structure in laminar and turbulent ows through a rectangular
channel containing built-in vortex generators. Jacobi and Shah
[8] reviewed vortex-induce heat transfer enhancement and

0017-9310/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2012.04.059
5450 Y.L. He et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 54495458
Nomenclature
Ac minimum ow cross-sectional area (m2)
Af n surface area (m2)
Afr frontal area (m2)
A0 total surface area (m2)
Dc tube outer diameter (m)
Dh hydraulic diameter, 4AcL/A0 (m)
E fan power per unit core volume (W m3)
Fp n pitch (m)
f friction factor
h heat transfer coefcient (W m2 K1), or the height of
the delta winglet (m)
j Colburn factor
L n length along the main ow direction (m)
l chord length of the large winglet (m)
Nu Nusselt number
p pressure (Pa)
Pl longitudinal tube pitch (m)
Pt transverse tube pitch (m)
Pr Prandtl number
Re Reynolds number based on tube collar diameter
Q heat transfer rate (W)
T temperature (K)
u, v, w velocity components in x-, y-, z-directions (m s1)
um mean velocity at the minimum ow cross-sectional area
(m s1)
discussed the theoretical basis for the method. Biswas et al. [9]
found that the ow behind a winglet type vortex generator is con-
sists of a main vortex, a corner vortex and induced vortices. Lee
et al. [10] carried out a numerical study of heat transfer character-
istics and turbulent structure in a three-dimensional boundary
layer with longitudinal vortices.
Chen et al. [11] numerically investigated heat transfer and ow
in a oval-tube heat transfer element in both in-line and staggered
arrangements with punched winglets type vortex generators.
Wang et al. [12] utilized a dye-injection technique to visualize
the ow structure for enlarged plain n-and-tube heat exchanger
with annular and delta winglet vortex generators. Torri et al. [13]
proposed a common-ow-up arrangement strategy which can aug-
ment heat transfer while reducing pressure penalty in a n-and-
tube heat exchanger at relatively low Reynolds number. Leu et al.
[14] numerically and experimentally studied the heat transfer
and ow in the plate-n and tube heat exchangers with inclined
block shape vortex generators mounted behind the tubes. Wu
and Tao [15] conducted a numerical simulation to investigate the
heat transfer performance of a rectangular channel with a pair of
rectangular winglets VGs punched out from the wall of the chan-
nel. They analyzed the results from the view of eld synergy prin-
ciple [1618]. Joardar and Jacobi [19] experimentally assessed the
potential of winglet-type vortex generator arrays for multi-row
inline-tube heat exchangers. They found that the air-side heat
transfer coefcient increased from 16.5% to 44% for the single-
row winglet arrangement with an increase in pressure drop of less
than 12%; for the three-row vortex generator array the heat trans-
fer coefcient increases from 29.9% to 68.8% with a pressure drop
penalty from 26% to 87.5%. Joardar and Jacobi [20] also numerically
investigated the ow and heat transfer enhancement using an ar-
ray of VGs in a n-and-tube exchanger with common-ow-up
arrangement. They observed that the impingement of winglet redi-
rected ow on the downstream tube is an important heat transfer
augmentation mechanism for the inline-tube geometry.
U velocity vector (m s1)
x, y, z Cartesian coordinates (m)
Z heat transfer power per unit temperature and per unit
volume (Wm3 K1)
Greek symbols
b attack angle of the delta winglet (deg)
df n thickness (m)
l dynamic viscosity (kg m1 s1)
q density (kg m3)
k thermal conductivity (W m1 K1)
r Ac/Afr, contraction ratio of cross-sectional area
gf n efciency
g0 surface efciency
Subscripts
a air
f n
in inlet
m mean
out outlet
w tube wall
The foregoing literature reviews show that most works in vor-
tex generators have employed ideal geometries, and generally
the number of winglet-type VGs in each row tube dose not exceeds
one pair. One general thought is that more VGs pairs can be added
in each row tube to explore the true potential of the vortex-
enhancement strategy, because the associated pressure drop pen-
alty of using winglet type VGs is relatively lower than that of the
louvered n or slit n. Chen et al. [21] compared the thermo-
hydraulic performance of nned oval tube heat exchanger element
with one to three rows of winglets. If more winglet-type VGs were
employed, another question that needs to be answered is that how
we can organize the winglets to achieve the best performance.
More recently, He et al. [22] proposed a VG array deployed in a
V-like conguration by imitating the formations of animals group
movement and their experiments showed that this conguration
only caused very low pressure drop penalty in the case of nearly
heat transfer performance. However VGs were mounted on the
n surface in their experiment, not punched. In the practical heat
exchanger design, punched winglets may be easier to be adopted.
Hirokazu [23] indicated that continuous punched hole can lead
to reduction of n efciency, thus the impact of the punching
should be assessed. Moreover, if the back-row small winglet adja-
cent to the preceding one in a VG array, the vortices generated by
different winglets may affect each other and the interactions of the
vortices should be considered.
In this work, numerical study of n-and-tube heat exchanger
with two kinds of VG arrays and a conventional VG conguration
in common-ow-up arrangement are performed. For two different
VG arrays, the effect of VG spacing is investigated. Detailed study
was focused on the complex ow and heat transfer interactions
resulting from employing delta winglet VGs. Meanwhile, effects
of punching, attack angle and placement locations of delta winglet
on the uid ow and heat transfer characteristics were examined.
Two different performance evaluation criteria (PEC) of area-good-
ness factor and volume-goodness factor are employed to assess
 Y.L. He et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 54495458 5451

(a) Schematic of core region of a plain fin-and-tube heat exchanger

135 135 135

6 mm

6 mm

6 mm
2 mm

air flow 10.2 5.115 mm 5.11
3m 5mm
m

Large winglet Array-A Array-B

(b) Large winglet and two kinds of delta winglet arrays geometry and placements
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of n-and-tube heat exchanger with three kinds of VG placements.

the heat transfer and pressure drop performance of n-and-tube

0.13 mm

heat exchanger.

3.2 mm
2. Model descriptions y

2.1. Physical model x periodic

Fig. 1(a) shows the schematic diagram of core region of a plain (a) Side view
n-and-tube heat exchanger with two-rows tubes along the ow
direction. The tube outside diameter Dc is 10.23 mm, the trans- 22 mm
verse tube pitch Pt is 25.4 mm, the longitudinal tube pitch Pl is
22 mm, the n pitch Fp is 3.2 mm, and the n thickness df is
0.13 mm. The delta winglet pairs are punched out from the n sur-
face and placed symmetrically on both sides of each round tube in
an inline arrangement. The base chord length l and height h of large outflow
winglet are 10.23 mm and 2.56 mm, respectively. The attack angle inlet
b of VG, in this investigation has three different values (b = 10 deg,
25.4 mm

b = 20 deg and b = 30 deg) with respect to the coming ow direc- x

tion. The VG arrays are composed of two small delta winglets; each
delta winglet has the same height, same placement position, and
half chord length of the large winglet. For discontinuous winglet
array 2 mm spacing between winglets can be observed. For conve-
nience, array-A and array-B are used to represent the continuous
winglet VG array and discontinuous winglet VG array, respectively.
Fig. 2 presents the computational domain for n-and-tube heat
exchanger with delta winglets. The side and top views of the com-
putational domain are shown in Fig. 2(a) and (b), respectively. Due
to symmetry, the region outlined by the dashed lines in Fig. 2 is se-
lected as the computational domain, and the two neighboring ns
centric surface are taken as the upper and lower boundaries of the
computational domain. The actual computational domain is ex-
tended ten times of the n spacing from the entrance to ensure a
uniform velocity distribution. At the exit, 30 times of n spacing
is also extended downstream to avoid recirculation and ensure
the outow boundary condition can be applied [24].
symmtry
z
(b) Top view
Fig. 2. Computational domain and coordinate system.
2.2. Governing equations and boundary conditions
The uid is considered to be incompressible with constant ther-
mophysical properties. Due to the low air inlet velocity and the
small n space, the ow in the n channel of compact heat exchan-
ger is assumed to be laminar and steady state. The thermal contact
resistance between the tube and n collar is ignored, and the tube
surface is set as constant temperature. Effects of n thickness on
5452 Y.L. He et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 54495458
the heat conduction in the ns are taken into account. The temper-
ature distribution in the ns will be determined by solving the con-
jugated heat transfer problem between uid and solid in the
computational domain. The governing equations and boundary
conditions for numerical simulation in this paper can be found in
Ref. [24] and will not be restated here for brevity.
2.3. Numerical methods and grid independence validation
The computational uid code FLUENT is used to solve the
NavierStokes and energy equations with the corresponding
boundary conditions. The multi-block hybrid method is adopted
to generate the computational grid, and structured grids are pref-
erential where it is feasible. To improve the accuracy of the simu-
lation results, the grids around the tubes and vortex generators are
rened with unstructured grids as shown in Fig. 3. Grid indepen-
dence is examined to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the
numerical methods. Three different grid systems, which include
about 600,000, 840,000 and 1170,000 hybrid cells, are adopted
for the case of array-B at attack angle b = 30 deg and Re = 2600.
The difference in averaged Nusselt number for the three grid sys-
tems is less than 3%, as shown in Table 1. The nal adopted grid
number is 840,000. Similar validations are also performed for the
large winglet and array-A cases.
2.4. Parameter denitions
Some parameters are dened as follows:
qum Dc
Re 1 the permitted error range of experiments. The excellent agreement
l
Q present numerical results are reliable to predict the heat exchanger
h 2
A0 DT g0
A
g0 1  f 1  gf 3
A0
hDc
Nu 4
k 4.1. Flow pattern and heat transfer
Dp pin  pout 5
h The delta winglets are punched out from the heat transfer ns
j Pr2=3 6
qum cp
Dp Ac
f 1  7
2
qu2m A0
where um is the uid velocity at the minimum cross-section of the
tube row, Dc is the hydraulic diameter based on the n collar out-
side diameter, A0 is the total heat transfer area, Ac is the minimum
free ow area, and gf is obtained using Schmidts method [25]; and
DT is the log-mean temperature difference.
The PECs of area goodness factor and volume goodness
factor are used to evaluate the heat transfer and pressure drop
Fig. 3. Typical computational mesh.
Table 1
Results of different grid numbers.
Grid no. 600,000 840,000 1170,000
Nu 24.00 23.81 23.74
f 0.0452 0.0456 0.0456
performance. The area goodness factor is dened as j/f, while
the volume goodness factor is described as follow:
 
4r _ a 4r
m
Z g0 h ; E Dp 8
Dh A0 q D h
where Z represents the heat transfer per unit temperature differ-
ence and per unit core volume and E represents the fan power per
unit core volume.
3. Validation of model and numerical method
In order to validate the reliability of the numerical method,
numerical simulation is conducted on a n-and-tube heat transfer
exchanger with the same tube diameter as presented in Ref. [26].
The inlet air velocity ranges from 0.54 to 2.33 m/s and the corre-
sponding Reynolds number ranges from 600 to 2600. The Colburn
j-factor and friction factor are shown in Fig. 4. The maximum dis-
crepancy between the predicted Colburn j-factor and the experi-
mental results is less than 9.5% and the maximum discrepancy
between the predicted friction factor and experimental values is
less than 10%. Almost all the simulation results located within
between the numerical results and experimental data indicates the
performance.
4. Results and discussion
surface. When the air ows through the winglets, the longitudinal
vortices were generated due to the pressure difference between
the front surface and the back surface of the winglets. To investi-
gate the effect of punched vortex generators on the uid ow
structure of the uid in n channel, taking the array-B case with
the attack angle b = 30 deg as an example, the path line is numer-
ically generated for Re = 2600 in Fig. 5. When one uid parallel to
the n channel (xz plane) encounters the punched delta winglet,
part of the uid ows over the winglet (from y-direction) and
forms the main vortex, another part of uid ows through the
punching hole, mixes with the uid bypassing the winglet (from
 Y.L. He et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 54495458 5453

0.030 Induced vortex Corner vortex Main vortex

Region behind tube
Experimental
0.025
Numerical

0.020

0.015
j

(a) Large winglet

0.010
Corner vortex Main vortex Induced vortex
Region behind tube
0.005

0.000
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Re
(a) Couburn j factor

(b) Array-A
0.08
Experimental
Numerical Induced vortex Corner vortex Main vortex
Region behind tube
0.06
f

0.04

0.02
(c) Array-B

0.00
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Re
(b) Friction factor f
Fig. 4. Comparison of numerical and experimental results.
z-direction) from the trailing edge and forms the corner vortex.
The main vortex, located directly downstream of the delta winglet,
is formed by ow separation at the leading edge of the winglet,
while the corner vortex is usually formed by the deformation of
the near wall vortex lines at the pressure side of the winglet. How-
ever, the corner vortex here is different from the conventional
corner vortex described by Biswas et al. [9], and shows more char-
acteristics of main vortex and stronger disturbance to uid due to
Fig. 6. Local velocity vectors of secondary ow on the cross section (x = 20 mm).
3000
the same rotation axis with the mainstream (x-direction). In gen-
eral, the strength of corner vortex is weaker than the main vortex,
but the opposite conclusion can be observed from the partially en-
larged view in Fig. 5, which looks different but reasonable. The
main reason can be attributed to that the present winglets are
punched, not mounted or attached in the n surface. A consider-
able portion of uid does not turn over the winglet, but streams
through the punching hole, which reduces the pressure difference
caused by winglet and also reduces the quantity of uid to form
the main vortex.
Then a detailed study of the ow structure is carried out to get a
better understanding of the role of VGs. Fig. 6 presents the local
velocity vectors of secondary ow on the cross section

Main vortex

Winglet

Tube

Corner vortex
Fin

Fig. 5. Path lines around the delta winglet array.

5454 Y.L. He et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 54495458

plain fin
70 large winglet
array A
array B
60

-1
h Wm K
-2
(a) Large winglet 50

40

30

500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Re
(a) Heat transfer coefficient versus Re
(b) Array-A
25
plain fin
large winglet
20 array A
array B

15

(c) Array-B P (Pa)

10
Fig. 7. Local temperature distribution on the cross section (x = 20 mm).

(x = 20 mm) at Re = 2600. The vortices behind the large winglet are
typical with a main vortex, a corner vortex and an induced vortex.
Compared to the large winglet case, the swirling motion associated
with the VG arrays is obviously more complicated. Two pairs of
main vortices and corner vortices can be observed. The main vorti-
ces are located in the upper side of the n channel and the corner
vortices are located in the lower side. The generated vortices
squeeze each other, and the geometry dimension and the inu-
enced range of the vortices are smaller than that of large winglet
case. More vortices with smaller dimension make the local uid
mixing stronger and more uniform. In addition, for array-A
arrangement, an induced vortex appears in the center of two pairs
of counter-rotating vortices; the existence of induced vortex may
not enhance the local heat transfer of the n channel but will
weaken mainstream vortex and causes extra pressure drop.
To further investigate the inuence of uid ow on the heat
transfer performance, Fig. 7 shows the local temperature
50
45 large winglet
array A
40 array B
35
30
Nu
5
0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Re
(b) Pressure drop versus Re
Fig. 9. Heat transfer coefcient and pressure drop versus Re.
distribution on the cross section (x = 20 mm). All VGs arrange-
ments obviously change the temperature distribution in the n
channel, and signicant distortion occurred in the thermal bound-
ary layer due to the strong swirling ow effect of mainstream vor-
tex. In the up-wash region of the mainstream vortex the thermal
boundary becomes thicker while in the down-wash region the
thermal boundary shows the opposite tendency. Moreover, the
mainstream vortex also enhanced the mixing of the uid, espe-
cially in the wake region of the tube. For the large winglet case
shown in Fig. 7(a), the disturbance of corner vortex to the uid
downstream is obviously stronger than that caused by the main
vortex. For the two kinds of VG arrays shown in Fig. 7(b) and (c),
the main vortex produced by the back-row small winglet shows
little impact on isotherm distribution, and the corner vortex in-
duced by the front-row small winglet of array-B has a greater effect
on the isotherm distribution than that of array-A. Compared to the
large winglet case, the array arrangement can effectively change

25 local temperature distribution and enhance the local heat transfer,

but the effect to the wake region is relatively weak.
20 In order to quantitatively analyze the effects of different VGs
15 arrangements on the heat transfer behavior along the ow direc-
tion, the span averaged local Nusselt number distributions for
10 Tube 1 Tube 2 three VG cases are shown in Fig. 8. The averaged local heat transfer
5 shows periodicity in the stream-wise direction. Two kinds of array
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
cases present better heat transfer performances at the axial loca-
x (mm)
tion of tubes because of more uniform cross sectional temperature
Fig. 8. Distribution of spanwise averaged local heat transfer along the main ow distribution, while the large winglets presents better heat transfer
direction at Re = 2600. performance in the wake region due to strong mixing effects
 Y.L. He et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 54495458 5455

0 38. 80
plain fin
plain fin large winglet - 10
0.36
large winglet 70 array A - 10
array B - 10
array A
0.34 large winglet - 20
array B array A - 20
60

-1
h Wm K
array B - 20
0.32 large winglet - 30

-2
j/f

array A - 30
0.30 50 array B - 30

0.28
40

0.26
30
0.24
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Re Re
(a) Area goodness factor (a) Heat transfer coefficient

4
4.5x10 20 plain fin
plain fin
large winglet - 10
large winglet
4 array A - 10
4.0x10 array A array B - 10
array B 15 large winglet - 20
4
-1

3.5x10 array A - 20
Z Wm K

P (Pa)
array B - 20
-3

large winglet - 30
4
3.0x10 10 array A - 30
array B - 30
4
2.5x10
5
4
2.0x10

2 3 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

10 10
-3 Re
E Wm (b) Pressure drop
(b) Volume goodness factor
Fig. 11. Effects on heat transfer coefcient and pressure drop at different attack
Fig. 10. Area goodness and volume goodness factors for different VG arrangements angles.
at attack angle b = 30 deg.

Fig. 10 presents the area goodness and volume goodness factors

between the main ow and tube wake region. For the array
arrangements, two peaks of Nusselt number on each tube can be
clearly observed. Compared to array-A case, the peak value of Nus-
selt number for array-B arrangement is higher and the position is
closer to the upstream. In the whole ow domain array-A shows
the worst heat transfer capability due to the mutual interference
and offset of vortices generated by the two adjacent small winglets.
Fig. 9(a) presents the variation in the air-side heat transfer coef-
cient h versus Reynolds number. With a higher value of Reynolds
number, a global augmentation in heat transfer can be observed.
Among all three VGs layouts, the array-B case presents the best
heat transfer performance due to the best ow organization and
the front delta winglets of the array-B are placed closer to up-
stream position relative to the other layouts; the large winglets
shows relatively lower pressure penalty which can be explained
as a better wake region management and reducing the form drag
by introducing high momentum uid to the wake and delaying
the uid ow separation on the tube surface. Comparing to the
plain n at the range of Reynolds number of the present study,
the heat transfer coefcient and pressure drop increase by
28.768.3% and 35.274.6%, respectively, for the case of large
winglets; the heat transfer coefcient and pressure drop increase
by 29.959.1% and 42.689.6%, for the case of array-A; the heat
transfer coefcient and pressure drop increase by 33.870.6% and
43.497.2%, respectively, for the case of array-B.
for three different VGs arrangements compared with the plain n
case. The j/f ratio of the cases of array-A and array-B are lower than
the plain-n case as shown in Fig. 10(a). The case of large winglet
shows the highest value of j/f in the three different VGs arrange-
ments. Another criterion is the volume goodness factor where
the heat transfer power per unit temperature and per unit volume
(Z) is plotted against the fan power per unit core volume (E). From
the viewpoint of the heat exchanger volume required, geometries
with larger value of Z will require less core volume for a given
air-side heat transfer capacity. It is evident that for a given E value,
all the three arrangements with VGs have higher Z value than the
plain n case, and the large winglets case and array-B case have
relatively higher Z value than the array-A case.
4.2. Effect of attack angle
Effects of attack angle of delta winglets for three different VG
arrangements are investigated and the attack angle has three dif-
ferent values of 10 deg, 20 deg, and 30 deg. All other geometrical
parameters of n-and-tube heat exchanger remain the same as
the baseline case. Fig. 11 shows the effects of the attack angle on
heat transfer coefcient and pressure drop penalty against the Rey-
nolds number. The heat transfer coefcient and pressure drop in-
crease with the attack angle increase. For different attack angles,
the array-B arrangement always has the highest value of heat
transfer coefcient and pressure drop. The array-A arrangement
5456 Y.L. He et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 54495458

m m
15
1 mm
m 5. 1
2m

30
10
.23

1mm
mm
air flow 5.115 mm

Large winglet Array-A Array-B

Fig. 12. Schematic diagram of front VG congurations.

0.36
80 plain fin plain fin
0.34 large winglets
large winglet
arrya A
70 array A
0.32 array B
array B
-1

60 0.30
h Wm K
-2

j/f
0.28
50
0.26

40 0.24

0.22
30
0.20
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Re Re
(a) Heat transfer coefficient (a) Area goodness factor

30 50000
plain fin
45000 plain fin
large winglet
25 large winglet
array A
array A
array B 40000
array B
20
-1
Z Wm K

35000
P (Pa)

-3

15
30000

10
25000

5 20000

0 10
2 3
10
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
-3
Re E Wm
(b) Pressure drop (b) Volume goodness factor

Fig. 13. Heat transfer coefcient and pressure drop for front VG congurations. Fig. 14. Area goodness and volume goodness factors for front VG congurations.

shows better heat transfer performance than the large winglet case
when the attack is less than 20 deg, while the large winglet case
shows better for 30 deg attack angle. It should also be noted that
the large winglet case always has the lowest pressure drop penalty
for different VG arrangements and the two kinds of VGs array
arrangements have relatively higher pressure loss.
4.3. Inuence of placement positions
In order to explore a more effective placement of VGs for the
aforementioned three different VG n patterns, a more upstream
placement is employed since the longitudinal vortices generated
by VGs can affect a larger downstream heat transfer domain.
Fig. 12 shows the schematic of the front arrangements of VGs for
n-and-tube heat exchanger. For the ns with three different
VGs mentioned above, a similar geometry is adopted, reference
to the design of He et al. [22]. The distance between the leading
edge of the n and the tip of the winglets is 1 mm; the transverse
spacing between the tips of two adjacent winglets is also 1 mm;
the attack angle of VGs is selected as 30 deg.
Fig. 13 shows the variations in heat transfer coefcient h and the
pressure drop Dp against Reynolds number. Compared to the plain-
n, the heat transfer coefcient and pressure drop increase by 38.9
86.3% and 70.3149.2%, for the case of front large winglet case;
36.781.2% and 60.7135.6% for the case of front array-A; and
30.684.1% and 62.4146.7%, for the case of front array-B, respec-
tively. By comparing Figs. 9 and 13, it is clear that using the front
VG arrangements can get greater heat transfer argumentation and
 Y.L. He et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 54495458
also higher pressure drop penalty. The results of front VG arrange-
ments are obviously different from that of side VG arrangements,
and the large winglet has the best heat transfer performance and
also highest pressure drop. The array-A case shows higher value
of heat transfer coefcient at a lower range of Reynolds number
than array-B, while the array-B performs better when the Reynolds
number is above 1500 as shown in Fig. 13(a). It can be explained
that the array-A case places closer to upstream which is benet to
enhance the air-side heat transfer, but the continuous winglets
arrangement will degrade the heat transfer performance. In the
lower Reynolds number range, the effect of former is stronger while
with the increase of Reynolds number the effect of latter becomes
larger and larger. Thus it can be thought that a placement of VGs
closer to the upstream can get higher heat transfer augment in
low Reynolds number regions, which can also be understood from
the view of boundary layer. The thickness of boundary at one loca-
tion is inversely proportional to Reynolds number and the bound-
ary layer is growing rapidly along the ow direction under low
Reynolds numbers. It is also worth noticing that the front array-A
case always has the lowest pressure drop among all the front VG
cases in the Reynolds number range considered.
The area goodness and volume goodness factors of the plain n
with three different kinds of VG arrangements are presented in
Fig. 14. With the increase of Reynolds number, the ratios of j/f grad-
ually reduce. Among all VG arrangements, array-A has the highest
ratio of j/f; the large winglet case and array-B have similar ratio of
j/f. Fig. 14(b) presents the volume goodness factor for different n
patterns, and it can be seen that the large winglets case has a
slightly higher value than other arrangements. Additionally, the ar-
ray-A shows better performance in a lower range of Reynolds num-
ber, in contrast the array-B has a better performance in a relatively
higher Reynolds number range.
5. Conclusions
In present paper, three dimensional numerical simulations are
performed to investigate the heat transfer characteristics and ow
structure in a n-and-tube heat exchanger with delta winglet vor-
tex generators. Two kinds of VGs array arrangements and a con-
ventional arrangement are comprehensively and comparatively
investigated. The major conclusions are drawn as follows:
(1) For the punched VGs, the corner vortex shows the charac-
teristics of main vortex, and plays a more important role on
the uid ow behavior and heat transfer characteristic in the
channel of n-and-tube heat exchanger than that of the
main vortex.
(2) The VG arrays generate more vortices and the vortices inu-
ence each other which weaken the swirling movement of
the uid, especially for the continuous small winglet array.
In addition, the vortices generated by the large winglets
can affect the whole region of n channel height (y-direc-
tion) while the VG arrays can only inuence the uid ow
structure of local n channel.
(3) For side arrangements of VGs, the discontinuous small delta
winglets case shows best heat transfer enhancement, and a
signicant augmentation of up to 33.870.6% in heat trans-
fer coefcient is achieved accompanied by a pressure drop
penalty of 43.497.2%. Meanwhile the large winglets case
represents the lowest pressure loss and highest value of j/f.
(4) For VGs arrangements with three different values of attack
angles, the discontinuous small winglet array always shows
best heat transfer improvement and also largest pressure
loss. The large winglet case show relatively worse heat
transfer enhancement when the attack angle below 20 deg.
5457
(5) The front arrangements of VGs can achieve larger heat transfer
enhancement and pressure penalty. Among all front VG cases,
the array-A arrangement shows best ratio value of j/f and large
winglet case shows best performance in volume compactness.
Furthermore, it is reasonable to believe that front arrange-
ments can be more effective in low Reynolds number regions.
Acknowledgements
The present work is supported by the Joint Funds of NSFC-
Guangdong of China under Grant (No. U0934005) and National Ba-
sic Research Program of China (973 Program) (2011CB710702).
References
[1] D.T. Beecher, T.J. Fagan, Effects of n pattern on the air-side heat transfer
coefcient in plate nned-tube heat exchangers, ASHRAE Trans. 93 (1987)
19611984.
[2] C.C. Wang, C.J. Lee, C.T. Chang, S.P. Lin, Heat transfer and friction correlation for
compact louvered n-and-tube heat exchangers, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 42
(1999) 19451956.
[3] J.Y. Yun, K.S. Lee, Investigation of heat transfer characteristics on various kinds
of n-and-tube heat exchangers with interrupted surfaces, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer 42 (1999) 23752385.
[4] M. Fiebig, A. Valencia, N.K. Mitra, Wing-type vortex generators for n-and-tube
heat-exchangers, Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 7 (1993) 287295.
[5] G. Biswas, N.K. Mitra, M. Fiebig, Heat-transfer enhancement in n-tube heat-
exchangers by winglet type vortex generators, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 37
(1994) 283291.
[6] M. Fiebig, A. Valencia, N.K. Mitra, Local heat transfer and ow losses in n-and-
tube heat exchangers with vortex generators: a comparison of round and at
tubes, Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 8 (1994) 3545.
[7] P. Deb, G. Biswas, N.K. Mitra, Heat-transfer and ow structure in laminar and
turbulent ows in a rectangular channel with longitudinal vortices, Int. J. Heat
Mass Transfer 38 (1995) 24272444.
[8] A.M. Jacobi, R.K. Shah, Heat-transfer surface enhancement through the use of
longitudinal vortices a review of recent progress, Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 11
(1995) 295309.
[9] G. Biswas, K. Torri, D. Fujii, K. Nishino, Numerical and experimental-
determination of ow structure and heat-transfer effects of longitudinal
vortices in a channel ow, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 39 (1996) 34413451.
[10] S.H. Lee, H.S. Ryou, Y.K. Choi, Heat transfer in a three-dimensional turbulent
boundary layer with longitudinal vortices, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 42 (1999)
15211534.
[11] Y. Chen, M. Fiebig, N.K. Mitra, Heat transfer enhancement of nned oval tubes
with staggered punched longitudinal vortex generators, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer 43 (2000) 417435.
[12] C.C. Wang, L. Jerry, Y.T. Lin, C.S. Wei, Flow visualization of annular and delta
winlet vortex generators in n-and-tube heat exchanger application, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transfer 45 (2002) 38033815.
[13] K. Torii, K.M. Kwak, K. Nishino, Heat transfer enhancement accompanying
pressure-loss reduction with winglet-type vortex generators for n-tube heat
exchangers, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 45 (2002) 37953801.
[14] J.S. Leu, Y.H. Wu, J.Y. Jang, Heat transfer and uid ow analysis in plate-n and
tube heat exchangers with a pair of block shape vortex generators, Int. J. Heat
Mass Transfer 47 (2004) 43274338.
[15] J.M. Wu, W.Q. Tao, Numerical study on laminar convection heat transfer in a
rectangular channel with longitudinal vortex generator, Part A: verication of
eld synergy principle, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 51 (2008) 11791191.
[16] Y.L. He, W.Q. Tao, F.Q. Song, W. Zhang, Three-dimensional numerical study of
heat transfer characteristics of plain plate n-and-tube heat exchangers from
view point of eld synergy principle, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 26 (2005) 459473.
[17] Z.Y. Guo, W.Q. Tao, R.K. Shah, The eld synergy (coordination) principle and its
applications in enhancing single phase convective heat transfer, Int. J. Heat
Mass Transfer 48 (2005) 17971807.
[18] W.Q. Tao, Z.Y. Guo, B.X. Wang, Field synergy principle for enhancing
convective heat transfer its extension and numerical verications, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transfer 45 (2002) 38493856.
[19] A. Joardar, A.M. Jacobi, Heat transfer enhancement by winglet-type vortex
generator arrays in compact plain-n-and-tube heat exchangers, Int. J. Refrig.
31 (2008) 8797.
[20] A. Joardar, A.M. Jacobi, A numerical study of ow and heat transfer
enhancement using an array of delta-winglet vortex generators in a n-and-
tube heat exchanger, J. Heat Transfer 129 (2007) 11561167.
[21] Y. Chen, M. Fiebig, N.K. Mitra, Heat transfer enhancement of a nned oval tube
with punched longitudinal vortex generators in-line, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer
41 (1998) 41514166.
[22] J. He, L. Liu, A.M. Jacobi, Air-side heat-transfer enhancement by a new winglet-
type vortex generator array in a plain-n round-tube heat exchanger, Trans.
ASME 132 (2010).
5458 Y.L. He et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 54495458

[23] F. Hirokazu, Research and development on heat exchangers for air
conditioners with the alternative winglet, in: Seventh International
Conference on Enhanced, Compact and Ultra-Compact Heat Exchangers,
Heredia, Costa Rica, 2009, pp. 201207.
[24] P. Chu, Y.L. He, W.Q. Tao, Three-dimensional numerical study of ow and heat
transfer enhancement using vortex generators in n-and-tube heat
exchangers, J. Heat Transfer 131 (2009) 09190310919039.
[25] T.E. Schmidt, Heat transfer calculations for extended surfaces, Refrig. Eng. 4
(1949) 351357.
[26] C.C. Wang, Y.J. Chang, Y.C. Hsieh, Y.T. Lin, Sensible heat and friction
characteristics of plate n-and-tube heat exchangers having plane ns, Int. J.
Refrig. 19 (1996) 223230.