Accepted Manuscript

Research Paper

Identifying the geometry parameters and fin type that lead to enhanced per-
formance in tube-and-fin geometries

A. Morales-Fuentes, Y.A. Loredo-Sáenz

PII: S1359-4311(17)35783-6
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.12.057
Reference: ATE 11578

To appear in: Applied Thermal Engineering

Received Date: 5 September 2017

Revised Date: 27 November 2017
Accepted Date: 16 December 2017

Please cite this article as: A. Morales-Fuentes, Y.A. Loredo-Sáenz, Identifying the geometry parameters and fin
type that lead to enhanced performance in tube-and-fin geometries, Applied Thermal Engineering (2017), doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.12.057

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Identifying the geometry parameters and fin type that lead to
enhanced performance in tube-and-fin geometries
A. Morales-Fuentes*, Y. A. Loredo-Sáenz
Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Ingeniería Mecánica y Eléctrica, FIME, San Nicolás de los Garza, Nuevo León, México

Abstract

Several fin types geometries have been developed seeking improvements on the thermal
and hydraulic characteristics of compact heat exchangers. The geometry selection is
generally base on the comparison of performance data available in open literature,
unfortunately, information is only existing for few geometries types and the performance
analysis is assessed in several ways. Furthermore, the parameters used as means of
comparison might be derived from different reference values, making the geometry
selection not a straight forward task. In this study, the thermal and hydraulic characteristics
of plain fin, annular fin and pin fin attached to circular tubes are obtained using 3D CFD
simulation using commercial software. The frontal velocities range from 1 to 4 m/s and the
performance comparison is carried out using a volume goodness factor plot. The results
show that a geometry with larger surface area to volume ratio leads to enhanced
performance.

Keywords: Thermal and hydraulic performance, compactness ratio, fin efficiency, Plain
fin-and-tube, Annular fins, Pin fins.

1. Introduction

In several heat exchange engineering applications where air is used as the heat sink or
source, extended surfaces are used as a passive technique for heat enhancement. The aim of
the technique is to improve the heat transfer characteristics by the selection of a geometry
layout or through variations on the geometric parameters. The heat enhancement is given
due to the formation of horseshoe vortices originated by flow patterns modifications that
are usually associated to pressure drop penalties. In refrigeration and air conditioning
applications, the geometry most extensively used as an evaporator is the plain fin-and-tube
layout, due to its ease of manufacture and drainage capability, however several new
configurations such as annular fins, and pin fin -among others- are available in the market.

*
Corresponding author.
FIME, Av. Universidad s/n, Ciudad Universitaria, C.P.66451
Tel.: +(52) 811 340 4020, Ext. 1619; Fax: +(52) 811 052 3321
e-mail address: arturo.moralesfn@uanl.edu.mx
In recent years, the plain fin-and-tube geometry has been extensively studied seeking the
improvement of thermal and hydraulic characteristics by geometric parameters variations
and the development of empirical correlation for such purpose. Derived from 74 samples, a
correlation for plain fin-and-tube based on geometric parameter is presented in [1, 2]. They
observed that the thermal characteristic described as the Colburn “j” factor ( ) decreases as
the Reynolds number ( ) increases and the number of tube rows increases from 1 to 3.
The flow resistance is larger as the number of fins increases, therefore, the friction factor
( ) increases as the fin density does. In [3] the effect of fin pitch, the number of tube rows
and, tube alignment on the heat transfer characteristics are investigated using an
experimental setup. A correlation as function of the tube rows, and fin pitch is proposed.
The results suggest that staggered tube arrays and reduced fin pitch enhance the thermal
characteristic. As observed by other authors [4-6], they also show that the effect of the tube
rows on the air side heat transfer coefficient ( ) is nearly independent of the number of tube
rows for tube rows larger than four. Bhuiyan, Amin et al. [7] present a 3D CFD simulation
of a four-row plain fin-and-tube heat exchanger using commercial software in the
transitional regime ( ranging from 400 to 2000). The effect of geometrical parameters
such as fin pitch, longitudinal pitch and transverse pitch of tube spacing are discussed.
Simulation is carried out using turbulence model and results are presented in the
form of and vs. . In [8] a semi-empirical correlation for thermo-hydraulic
characteristics as function of the finning factor (defined from geometric characteristics such
as number of tube rows, number of fins and fin pitch) and is proposed. The correlation
is derived from experimental analysis of eight different commercial plain fin evaporators.
The thermo-hydraulic characteristics have also been studied numerically, in [9] the effects
of number of tube rows, tube diameter, tube pitches and fin pitch of plain fin-and-tube heat
exchanger using three-dimensional simulation are examined. The authors observed that the
tube diameter and the fin pitch have much more significant effect than the tube pitch and
the material thermal conductivity. The fin pitch is numerically studied in [10], the authors
highlight that the optimal fin pitch decreases as the flow velocity increases. In [11] a
methodology of analysis based on local and global energy balances, from three-dimensional
velocity and temperature fields, to design more efficient devices is introduced. Numerical
simulation is used to analyze the influence of operating conditions and the geometry
parameters (tube diameter, fin spacing and tube layout) of a six-tube-row fin-tube heat
exchanger. In [12] a three-dimensional numerical study is conducted to investigate the air
side characteristics of finned-tube heat exchanger with multiple-rows of tubes. Several
combinations of circular and elliptical tubes in a velocity range of 0.5 to 2.5 m/s are
analyzed. It is to highlight that the fin spacing is used as characteristic length to determine
the . The results are presented in terms of and vs. , they observed that for lower
velocities the elliptical tubes array performs better meanwhile for larger velocities the
combination of elliptical and circular tubes are preferred. Based on a fluid dynamics
technique, the performance of a plain fin-and-tube heat exchanger is quantified, using a
novel turbulence model-free approach [13]. It is concluded that the technique is beneficial
if introduced for advanced design and optimization of heat transfer equipment with
minimized numerical uncertainties. They categorize the air flow into three flow regimes (1)
steady-state laminar flow (up to equal to 4,000), (2) an unsteady flow with periodic
fluctuations (up to equal to 6,000) and (3) a turbulent flow with random fluctuations.

Annular fins are a popular geometry for cooling and heating applications in industry,
however experimental data are scarce. In [14] a heating application is used to measure the
Nusselt number ( ) and pressure loss. The transverse and longitudinal pitches were
parametrically varied and for each configuration the was observed in a range 7,500-
32,000. In [15] the naphthalene sublimation technique is used to obtain the local convective
heat and mass transfer coefficients. The authors discuss variations in a range from 3,300
to 12,000 that arise due to boundary layer development, forward-edge separation, the tube
wake, horseshoe vortices, and tip vortices. A prediction of the average heat transfer
coefficient and fin efficiency of a vertical annular fin using the finite difference method
along with experimentally measurement of temperatures is presented by Chen and Hsu
[16]. They observed that the increases with air velocity and fin pitch (increased from 5-18
mm). The based on the hydraulic diameter ranges from 1,550 to 7,760. Annular fin has
also been studied numerically. In [17] the effect of fin pitch on a four-row annular-finned
tube bundle in staggered and in-line arrangements is investigated. The ranges from
8,600 to 430,000 and the ratio fin pitch to fin height ranges from 0.1 to 0.8. In [18] it is
observed that the main geometry parameter affecting the thermo-hydraulic characteristics
are fin height and fin pitch. An increase in the overall heat transfer and pressure drop is
observed as fin height is increased and fin pitch is reduced. For heat exchanger design, they
suggest that fin pitch to fin height ratio should be below 1.5. In [19] an experimental and 3-
D CFD study is used as a means of comparison for heat exchange and pressure drop
characteristics among eccentric and concentric annular-fins. The eccentric fins shows an
enhanced thermal characteristic associated with a reduction in the pressure drop.

Pin fins attached to tube surface are used in engineering applications where the temperature
approach is an issue. Applications of this fin type can be found in compact heat exchangers
in refrigeration systems and in the heat recovery zone of fired heaters. Despite its spread
use due to manufacture and cleaning benefits, there is little information in open literature
regarding its thermo-hydraulic performance. In [20], heat transfer and pressure drop
characteristics are numerically studied. The results show that the pin-fin diameter, pin-fin
length and pin-fin number around the tube improve the thermo-hydraulic performance.
In a design stage, the selection of the fin type geometry is not only based on the thermo-
hydraulic characteristics, however this information is essential to assess the equipment
performance. Commonly a direct comparison of the dimensionless numbers such and
vs. is used as guidance, nevertheless this information does not provide a straightforward
comparison when different fin types are evaluated. Two parameters are recently proposed
as comparison performance criterion: 1) the area goodness factor ( ) defined as the ratio
and plotted vs. . A larger value of the ratio for a given indicates that a lower
frontal area is required for a fixed pressure drop. And 2) the volume goodness factor ( )
which presents the vs. the power requirement ( ) at constant airflow. A higher value of
for a given , indicates a more compact heat exchanger. Several authors have reported
fin type geometries using these criteria as presented in the review by Kumar et al. [21]. In
[8] a plot of pumping power vs. heat transfer is used as a means of comparison for a plain
fin-and-tube heat exchangers. In the review paper [22], it is observed that heat exchangers
with annular fins show the lowest goodness factor among the slit, plain, and wavy finned
tubes. Using information provided by other authors it was found that the effect of fin pitch
is largely influenced by the boundary layer development. In [23] the thermal and hydraulic
characteristics of six geometries are investigated: 1) plain circular fins, 2) crimped fin 3)
serrated fin 4) plain plate fins, 5) wavy fin and 6) plain fin with punched delta winglet pair.
It is observed that circular fins have a 140% to 170% larger than plate fins per unit
pumping power for a given . They also observed an increase of 100% in the per unit
pumping power when fin pitch increases from 3 to 6 mm. An alternative VGF method for
geometry performance evaluation is presented in [24] where the heat transfer rate per unit
heat exchanger volume is plotted vs. the power input per unit heat exchanger volume. This
analysis is more convenient since it can be applicable to all kinds of heat exchanger
surfaces and do not require the conversion of experimental data in terms of and . The
authors present a comparison between smooth pipes and pin fin in a rectangular channel;
they also include an analysis of some geometries presented in [25].

Regardless of the performance parameter used for geometry comparison purposes, the
information available in open literature regarding the thermo-hydraulic characteristics is not
consistent and direct comparison is not always possible. In determining the , authors use
either the hydraulic diameter, the tube diameter or the fin pitch as the characteristic length
in plain fin-and-tube exchangers an example of the three cases can be found in [12, 18, 25].
The use of a different values results in important variations of the as presented in Table
1 for the plain fin geometry 8.0-3/8T described in [25]. Another uncertainty arises when the
velocity used for determining the is the frontal [13], rather than the maximum velocity
that occurs in the narrowest flow area section [25] or even the mass velocity which is used
to reduce uncertainities due to the expansion or contraction of a gas.
 Table 1. Reynolds number determined from different characteristic length and velocity
Characteristic Hydraulic diameter Tube diameter Fin pitch Tube diameter
length
Characteristic max. velocity max. velocity max. velocity frontal velocity
velocity
Frontal velocity
0.5 240.6 675.2 209.9 360.8
1 475.0 1333.0 414.5 712.2
2 937.5 2631.0 818.1 1405.6
4 1851.1 5194.7 1615.3 2775.9
6 2757.8 7739.2 2406.5 4135.8

Regarding the , the is used widespread as a thermal performance comparison parameter;

however, several authors report the instead. Besides, the characteristic length used for
determination, might be any of the aforementioned. When is obtained from CFD
simulation, a reference temperature is needed; when reported, the logarithmic mean
temperature is used [9, 18, 20]. When information is collected from experimental data, the
is derived from the overall heat transfer coefficient, which also includes the heat transfer
inside tubes. This consideration is usually neglected in simulation and deviations might
occur. Concerning the hydraulic characteristic, it is usually reported as the friction factor,
however some authors report the Euler number ( ) instead [18, 26].

Finally, the thermo-hydraulic performance of the heat exchanger depends upon the fin type
geometry and geometric parameters such as fin length, tube pitch, and tube diameter. When
they are changed, a shift on the performance curve occurs and new investigation needs to
be performed [9]. Little research exists regarding the performance of a geometry for a range
of geometric parameters. In [1] a correlation for in plain fin-and-tube geometry as
function of the number of tube rows (1-6), tube diameter (6.35-12.7 mm), fin pitch (1.19 to
8.7 mm), transversal tube pitch (17.7-31.75), and longitudinal tube pitch (12.4-27.5) is
presented.

These features highlight the importance of the use of consistent parameters for describing
the thermo-hydraulic characteristics of a geometry that leads to the selection of an
enhanced performance fin type. The aim of this study is to compare quantitatively the
performance of three fin types using information derived from 3-D CFD simulation using
commercial software, and give guidance for the design and selection on fin types. The
geometries are plain fin-and-tube, annular fin-and-tube and pin fin-and-tube. For
comparison purposes among different fin types, the same heat transfer area per unit length
of tube and area to volume ratio (also known as compactness ratio or area density) is set by
adjusting fin pitch and fin length as necessary. The simulation assumes operation with dry
air with frontal velocities between 1 to 4 m/s. The thermo-hydraulic performance is
compared taking into account the heat transfer rate per unit volume vs. the power input per
unit volume [24].

2. Model description

2.1. Physical model

Three heat transfer geometries for cooling application are compared adjusting the
geometric parameters for the same heat exchange area. A schematic diagram of the
geometries are presented in Figure 1, namely plain fin-and-tube, annular fin-and-tube and
pin fin-and-tube. The heat is transferred from the warm dry air through the fin and tube
surface. The geometrical parameter that describes the geometries are: fin pitch ( ), fin
length ( ), fin thickness ( ), tube diameter ( ) and pin diameter ( ). Since only one
tube row is considered, the tube row pitch is not analyzed in this study.

Plain fin-and-tube Annular fin-and-tube Pin fin-and-tube

Figure 1. Schematic description of several fin type geometries under study.

2.2 Computational domain

The computational domain is formed by the solid elements comprising a single fin and a
tube section half the length of the given span between fins and the surrounding air. As in
other studies [9], the inlet air section extends 1.5 times the stream-wise fin length to ensure
a uniform velocity distribution. The air exit region extends 5 times the stream-wise fin
length to allow the development of the flow due to the imposition of a pressure condition.

3. Mathematical formulation and numerical method

3.1 Governing equations

The analysis is carried out using commercial software ANSYS FLUENT v.18 [27] which
uses the finite volume method to solve the Navier-Stokes and energy equations. The
governing equations of continuity, momentum and energy for the steady state,
incompressible flow with constant physical properties are shown in Equations (1)-(3)
respectively. The turbulent model realizable k- make use of Equation (4) and (5). The
natural convection and radiation effects are negligible; the contact thermal resistance
between tube and fin is considered negligible as well. The thermal and hydraulic
characteristics are determined by the conjugate solution between the surface and the air.

ui
0 (1)
xi

  u u j 2 u  

x j
uiu j    P  
xi x j
  i 
 
  ij l  
  x
  uiuj   (2)
  jx xi 3 xl 
 j

  
ui E  p     keff T  (3)
xi xi  x j 

  t  k  u j
ku j           uiu j   (4)
x j x j  k  x j  x j

  t    2
u j          C S  C (5)
x j x j   x j  k  
1 2


The constants is equal to unity, = 1.2 and =1.9. The turbulent viscosity is

determined from and .

3.2 Boundary condition

The boundary conditions are schematically presented in Figure 2. At the upstream
boundary condition, the temperature, and velocity in the direction of the flow are specified.
Temperature is set to 298 K and velocity is varied in a range of 1 to 4 m/s. At the solid
sections in contact with air, the no-slip condition is imposed and heat flux is coupled. The
small control volume allows the use of periodic boundary conditions to represent larger
domains. The boundary condition assume that the temperature, mass and velocity are equal
between the periodic points, therefore the flux normal to the periodic surface is zero. This
boundary condition is set to the top, bottom and sides of the geometry. A constant
temperature of 263 K is set at the inner wall of the tube, assuming the evaporation of a
refrigerant at constant pressure. Finally, at the outlet boundary the pressure is set to 0 Pa,
allowing the complete development of flow which is a typical boundary condition in most
CFD studies.

Figure 2. Boundary condition for plain fin-and tube geometry

3.3 Numerical method

The solution for pressure and velocity coupling is conducted by the semi-implicit
(SIMPLE) algorithm. For the approximation of the convection term, a second order upwind
differential scheme is applied. The realizable k- model with enhanced wall treatment is
used to predict turbulent flow. This is a well-known model, computationally economical
and validated. The convergence criteria states that maximum residuals shown by the
software are below 1x10 -4 for momentum and mass, and 1x10 -10 for the temperature.

3.4 Solution algorithm

The computation domain is discretized into a finite number of cells characterized by finer
size edges in zones near to the solid-fluid interphase. This was performed by dividing the
edges, normal to the solid surface, in a number of sections with a growth factor (bias). This
approach allows the use of hexahedron cells regardless the fin type studied resulting in a
structured mesh. Some difficulties arise when hexahedron cells are to be used in curved
boundaries. In this case, the geometry is subdivided in smaller zones, which allow the
generation of a structured mesh at the expense of the mesh quality in the near curved wall
as shown in Figure 3.
 Figure 3. Mesh details in the nearby region of the fin for the three geometries under study.

3.5 Parameter definition

In accordance to most recent studies found in open literature related to fin-and-tube
exchangers [8, 11, 18, 28], the maximum velocity and the external tube diameter are used
for and determination as in Equation (6) and (7). The air thermal conductivity
determined at the average temperature along the airflow path and, the air side is
determined from the global heat flux and logarithmic mean temperature as shown in
Equation (8). The log mean temperature and pressure drop are determined from the inlet
and outlet domain section as in Equation (9) and (10) respectively. The friction factor is
determined from Equation (11).

vmax d t
Re  (6)


hd
Nu  (7)
k

q"
h (8)
TML

TML 
T1  Tw   T2  Tw 
T  T 
In 1 w (9)
T2  Tw 

P  P1  P2 (10)

P G 2 1  A m 
 f  (11)
P1 2 g c P1  Ac 1 
3.6 Physical properties
The geometry performance that results from different fin types and configurations, leads to
changes in the outlet temperature for the same inlet conditions. The physical properties
dependence on temperature might introduce an important change on the results. In this
study, the dry air properties are determined as function of temperature using the polynomial
shown in Table 2. The simulations are carried out assuming constant physical properties
determined as the average temperature between inlet and outlet of the domain. Initially the
outlet temperature is guessed, once the convergence is achieved, properties are updated
with the calculated exit temperature and a new solution is determined. The procedure is
repeated until temperatures differ between iterations at a range below 0.5%. The solid
surface (tube and fin types) is considered made of aluminum with constant physical
properties as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Physical properties of air as function of temperature and solid surface

Property Dry air (T in K) Solid surface Units
2,719
---
202.4
871

4.1 Grid dependence study

In an attempt to perform a grid dependence analysis regardless the type of fin, an approach
making use of a growth factor (bias) at the edges perpendicular to the solid surfaces is
implemented. The size of the element in the mid-span is used as a grid size reference and
refinement is accomplished by increasing the number of divisions in the edges, which in
turn reduces the size of the referenced element. This approach results in comparable
volume cells for different finned geometries, which gives a degree of confidence in the
calculations even if the dependence analysis is not carried out for all the geometries. In
Figure 4a and Figure 4b the results for the and vs. for four reference size cells is
presented. The reference size 1 to 4 produced cells of a side length as little as 0.12, 0.09,
0.07 and 0.04 mm respectively at the nodes closer to the wall.
 a) Colburn factor ( ) b) Friction factor ( )

Figure 4. Grid independence analysis for a Reynolds number 1,000 to 5,500

It is observed that a grid refinement reduces the difference in the calculated and . The
larger differences are observed for larger . For a value of 5,625, a difference of 1.1% and
4.1% is observed between mesh size 3 and 4 for and respectively. The computation cost
and the accuracy in the results are considered good enough for the mesh size 3, therefore it
used in the following simulations.

4. Validation
The simulation results are validated by comparison with data available in open literature
traditionally reported as and vs. . Two sets of experimental data internationally
accepted as reference for plain fin-and-tube geometry are used [1, 25]. The computational
domain used for validation is a plain fin-and-tube geometry with four staggered tube rows
as presented in [1]. The results for Colburn factor and friction factor are presented in Figure
5 for the geometry 8.0-3/8T [25]. Error bars for the data set presented in [1] are shown for
and , maximum deviations of 13% and 11% are observed respectively. The good
accordance between the predicted and reported results shows reliability in the results of the
present study.
Figure 5. Colburn factor and friction factor for Reynolds number evaluated in tube diameter
for the geometry 8.0-3/8T [25]

5. Results
Thermal and hydraulic characteristics are investigated for a plain fin-and-tube geometry
under constant heat transfer area through varying fin pitch and fin length. Latter, three
geometries with different fin types are compared using a volume goodness factor plot.
Finally, the compactness ratio is used as a means of comparison for geometry performance.
The analysis of the geometries assumes a single tube row with constant fin thickness (0.125
mm) and tube diameter (10 mm). For a larger number of tube rows, the thermo-hydraulic
characteristics are shifted as presented in [3, 5, 6]. The analysis of fin thickness, tube
diameter and tube rows are not within the scope of the present study.

5.1. Plain fin-and-tube geometry

Three plain fin-and-tube geometries under the same heat transfer area per unit length are
compared. The fin length is set and the number of fins is adjusted to meet the specified
surface area, the resulting geometries are describe in Table 3. As the fin length increases,
the fin density is reduced to retain the constant heat transfer area per unit length
assumption.

Table 3. Plain fin-and-tube geometries for the same heat transfer area per unit length.
Fin length Fin density Area per unit length
Geometry
[mm] [fins/m] [mm2/m]
Plain Fin 18-131 18 131 95,361
Plain Fin 20-100 20 100 95,315
 Plain Fin 22-79 22 79 95,315

The thermo-hydraulic characteristics are compared as function of as presented in Figure

6. It is noticeable that the resulting for the same frontal velocity is different in the three
geometries analyzed as indicated for a velocity 4 m/s in the Figure. This is because the
is defined from the maximum velocity which is different in each geometry. A geometry
with a larger number of fins, results in a larger for the same frontal velocity due to the
reduced space. On the other hand, the resulting friction factor shows a relevant difference
among the geometries under study. As fin density increases, the mass velocity and pressure
drop show an increase as well, however due to the quadratic dependence of on mass
velocity as shown in Equation (11), the resulting decreases. The friction factor for
geometries Plain Fin 20-100 and 18-131 are in average 10% and 20% respectively below
the geometry Plain Fin 22-79.

Figure 6. Thermal and hydraulic characteristics for several plain fin-and-tube

geometries.

As expected, the Colburn factor is enhanced as fin density is increased, the largest
difference is observed at lower where Plain Fin 18-131 is 8% above the geometry Plain-
Fin-22-79. As increases the thermal benefit of the geometry decreases to a point where a
difference is not noticeable ( larger than 5,000). The geometry Plain Fin 18-131 results
in the largest and lower for the range studied.

In order to assess the possible misleading on the geometry selection process when is
determined using the hydraulic diameter instead of tube diameter, the thermo-hydraulic
characteristics for the three geometries are presented in Figure 7. As fin density increases,
the fin spacing is reduced and the hydraulic diameter decreases. As a consequence the
decreases for the same frontal velocity as indicated for 4 m/s in the Figure 7. The friction
factor curves show the same performance trend as the resulting curves in Figure 6, which
use the tube diameter instead. Nevertheless, the Colburn factor exhibits a shift on the
curves performance order. Based on the hydraulic diameter, the Plain Fin 22-79 geometry
results in the highest values for and . Under this scenario, the geometry selection will be
based on either the thermal or hydraulic characteristic. If based on the thermal
characteristic, the results suggest the selection of the Plain Fin 22-79 geometry when is
based on the hydraulic diameter (Figure 7); meanwhile the highest value is observed on
the Plain Fin 18-131 geometry when is based on tube diameter (Figure 6).

Figure 7. Thermal and hydraulic characteristics for several plain fin-and-tube

geometries based on hydraulic diameter.

The VGF plot in Figure 8, compares the performance of the three geometries based on the
tube diameter. This approach allows a direct comparison, reducing ambiguities on the
selection process. The power input per unit volume and the heat transfer rate per unit
volume are determined from Equations (12) and (13) respectively.
 Figure 8. Volume goodness factor plot for plain fin-and-tube geometries.

eV  PV (12)

q"
qV  (13)
V

It is observed that a larger heat transfer rate capability is associated with a larger power
input. For a particular heat load, different power inputs are required according to the
geometry selected. E.g. for a heat load of 500 kW, a power input of 0.6, 1.95 and 5.08 kW
is required for geometries Plain Fin 18-131, 20-100 and 22-79 respectively. This significant
difference, highlights the importance on the knowledge of geometry performance for design
and selection purposes. When a fin type is to be evaluated, the trade-off between heat
transfer rate and power input indicates that a geometry with shorter fin length and larger fin
density are preferable. The limit to fin density might be imposed by restrictions due to
operation such as the allowable pressure drop when the frost develops [29]. The heat
transfer rate of Plain Fin 20-100 is 20% above the Plain Fin 22-79 and the performance of
Plain Fin 18-131 is 24% above that of Plain Fin 20-100.

5.2 Fin type performance comparison

In this section, geometries with three different fin types are compared under the same heat
transfer area per unit of tube length criterion. In order to do so, the heat transfer area of the
geometry Plain Fin 20-100 is used as the reference geometry and annular and pin fin-and-
tube geometries are generated adjusting the fin density when a geometry of equal fin length
is compared and, adjusting the fin length when a geometry with equal fin density is
compared. Two annular and two pin fin-and-tube geometries are generated as described in
Table 4. For the pin fin geometry, the diameter of the pin is 1 mm and 24 pins are attached
around the tube diameter to form an equivalent fin. The results of thermal and hydraulic
characteristics for these geometries are presented in Figure 9.

Table 4. Geometries with different fin types for equal heat transfer area
Fin length Fin density Area per unit length Compactness ratio
Geometry
[mm] [fins/m] [mm2/m] [mm2/m3]
Plain Fin 20-100 20 100 95,315 238.3
Annular Fin 20-138 20 137 95,763 166.3
Annular Fin 23-100 23 100 95,314 135
Pin Fin 20-156 20 156 95,299 165.5
Pin Fin 25-100 25 100 95,312 111.5

Figure 9. Thermal and hydraulic characteristics for plain, annular and pin fin-and-tube geometries
under constant heat transfer area.

It is remarkable that the friction factor for the pin fin geometries do not decrease as
increases in the way the other geometries do. In the range studied, the geometry is less
sensitive to the ratio pressure drop to mass velocity in determining the friction factor from
Equation (11). This behavior is also presented in [20] for larger than 12,500; in that
study the tube diameter is three times larger than the tube diameter in the present work,
therefore the is calculated in an equivalent range. It is observed that pin geometries
result in a significantly larger value than the others geometries. The thermal characteristic
of Pin Fin 20-156 is at 5% above the other geometries for lower and increases up to
10% for a of 5,000.
The analysis of Figure 9 does not lead to a straightforward selection of the geometry with
the highest performance. Based on the the geometry Pin Fin 25-100 should be selected
meanwhile based on the , the geometry Plain Fin 20-100 would be the preferred.
Additionally to the volume goodness factor plot in Figure 10a, the fin efficiency -usually
used to compare and evaluate extended surface in augmenting heat transfer- is presented in
Figure 10b.

a) VGF plot b) Fin efficiency

efficiency

Figure 10. Volume goodness factor plot and fin efficiency for several fin types.

In Figure 10a it is observed that geometry Plain Fin 20-100 shows the highest performance,
followed by Pin Fin 20-156, and Annular Fin 20-138. Finally, Pin Fin 25-100 and Annular
Fin 23-100 show similar performance even when their thermal and hydraulic characteristics
are different. For Plain Fin 20-100 the hydraulic characteristic is more significant on the
trade-off between power input vs. heat transfer rate resulting in an enhanced performance.
On the other hand, the thermal characteristic for Pin Fin 20-156 seems to be more important
in the fin type comparison. In Figure 10b it is observed that the fin efficiency decreases as
the increases. Among the geometries of the same fin type, the efficiency decreases as
the fin length increases. The highest fin efficiency is observed for the pin fin geometries,
however among the geometries studied with the same surface area, the geometry with
highest performance is not the one with largest fin efficiency but the one with largest
compactness ratio as it can be reviewed in Table 4. In the next section, the fin type is
analyzed using the compactness ratio as comparison parameter.

Velocity and Temperature distribution are visualized using parallel planes normal to flow
direction (left to right), separated 0.25 times the length of the fin. The results for Plain Fin
20-100, Annular Fin 20-138 and Pin Fin 20-156 geometries for a velocity of 4 m/s are
shown in Figure 11. They are all geometries of the same heat transfer area and same fin
length. The velocity distribution in Figure 11a shows a maximum value of 9.63 m/s for the
plain fin geometry at the location where the free flow area is restricted the most. A lower
maximum velocity is observed for the pin fin geometry (9.13 m/s), and even lower for the
annular fin (8.39 m/s). The planes downstream behind the tube show a low velocity region
for annular and plain fins. The size of this region is smaller for the pin fin geometry. At this
low velocity region, the temperature of the fluid is reduced as shown in Figure 11b,
however, the lowest temperature occurs at the neighboring area of the wall and tube. The
temperature in regions further away from the surface do not show a significant reduction.
The temperature distribution on the fin surfaces is also observed; lower temperatures result
in the frontal sections of the fins. This is more evident at the corners of the plain fin. The
results of the geometry performance (Figure 10a) follows the decreasing order of the
maximum velocity observed.

Plain fin 20-100 Annular fin 20-138 Pin fin 20-156

a) Velocity distribution [m/s]

b) Temperature distribution [°C]

Figure 11. Temperature and velocity distribution in three fin-and-tube geometries for a frontal velocity of
4 m/s.
5.3 Compactness ratio analysis
The surface area to volume ratio also known as compactness ratio or area density, is a key
criterion for the selection of a compact heat exchanger. The higher compactness ratio the
lower the heat exchanger volume requirement for a particular application. In this section,
the performance of three fin types are analyzed from the compactness ratio point of view.
Three plain fin geometries are compared with circular and pin fin geometries. The plain fin
geometries are generated increasing the fin length and fin density is adjusted as necessary.
For annular and pin fins, the fin length is set to 20 mm and fin density is adjusted to meet
the desired compactness ratio. A summary of the geometric characteristics is shown in
Table 5. Among the plain fin geometries, the one with smaller fin length requires lower fin
density to meet the compactness ratio. The annular and pin fin geometries increase the fin
density considerably, as a result, the heat transfer area per lineal meter increases.

Table 5. Plain, annular and pin fin geometries for equal compactness ratio
Fin length Fin density Area Compactness ratio
Geometry
[mm] [fins/m] [mm2/m] [mm2/m3]
Plain Fin 18-46 18 46 53,785 166
Plain Fin 20-55 20 55 66,401 166
Plain fin 22-61 22 61 80,345 166
Annular Fin 20-138 20 138 95,314 166.3
Pin Fin 20-156 20 156 95,299 165.5

The thermal and the hydraulic characteristics for the geometries with equal compactness
ratio are presented in Figure 12. The friction factor for plain fin results in the largest values,
followed by annular and pin fin. The geometry Pin Fin 20-156 does not show the decaying
trend as other geometries do for lower than 4,000. This geometry also results in a
comparatively larger value respect to other geometries that ranges from 3% at lower to
13% for a of 5,000.
 Figure 12. Thermal and hydraulic characteristics for plain, annular and pin fin-and-tube geometries
under equal compactness ratio.

The geometry Pin Fin 20-156 shows an important enhanced performance in comparison to
the other geometries (Figure 13a). It is important to point out that as power input increases,
a larger benefit on the heat transfer is observed, this feature differs from other geometries.
E.g. error bars of 5% for Plain Fin 18-46 shows that geometries Plain Fin 20-55 and
Annular Fin 20-138 retain this performance distance for the whole power input range
studied. The Pin Fin 20-156 increases its heat transfer rate to 12% for power input of 6
kW/m3. This is due to the less steep decrease of the fin efficiency as the increases as
observed in Figure 13b. This characteristic indicates that Pin Fin geometries should be
preferred specially for larger power inputs. This behavior is also observed for Pin Fin 25-
100 in Figure 10b. When a selection of a geometry with similar compactness ratio is to be
made, the fin efficiency is a parameter to be considered for an enhanced performance.

a) VGF plot b) Fin efficiency

efficiency

Figure 13. Fin efficiency and volume goodness factor plot for several fin types with equal compactness ratio.

6. Conclusions
The geometry selection of secondary surfaces in tube-and-fin geometries is nowadays
carried out by comparison between thermo-hydraulic characteristic such as and vs. .
Recently the VGF method identify the geometry performance based on power input and the
heat transfer rate, enabling an objective comparison among different geometry types. The
present work aims at providing thermo-hydraulic characteristic of three different fin types
using 3D CFD analysis, comparing its performance and identifying some criteria as
guidance for selection and design purposes. The main findings of this work are:

 A 3D CFD simulation is a reliable tool that provide thermo-hydraulic characteristic

for complex finned geometries where there is a lack of experimental data.
 The currently usage of the thermo-hydraulic characteristics for comparison purposes
leads to a different geometry selection when different reference values are use, e.g.
the characteristic length in determination.
 The volume goodness factor method allows a direct performance comparison
among geometries regardless the fin type and geometry characteristics. The use of
the and vs. method restrict the selection to one characteristic only.
 It is found that any increase on the pressure drop derived from a larger compactness
factor brings a benefit on the heat transfer. Therefore, the heat exchanger design
should target the largest compactness factor that allowable pressure drop can bear.
 The resulting heat transfer enhancement from an increment on pressure drop is
higher in a pin fin geometry than in plane and annular fins. This suggest that pin fin
geometry should be preferred mainly for higher pressure drop applications.
 In order to select the geometry with the highest performance, the first criterion
should be based on the compactness factor; when geometries of equal compactness
factor are compared, the fin efficiency should be the following selection criterion.

Acknowledgements
The authors greatly appreciate the financial support of the National Council for Science and
Technology (CONACYT), México, under the grant No. 179181 and PAICYT, UANL,
under the grant No. IT408-15.

Nomenclature
Exchanger total heat transfer area on one side [m2]
Exchanger minimum free-flow area [m2]
Area goodness factor
Heat capacity [kJkg-1 K-1]
Hydraulic diamenter [m]
Pin diameter [m]
Tube diamenter [m]
 Euler number
Power input per unit volume [kWm-3]
Friction factor
Fin length [m]
Fin pitch [m]
Fin thickness or pin diameter [m]
Mass flux [kgm-2 s-1]
Proportionality factor in Newton`s second law
Heat transfer coefficient [Wm-2 K-1]
Colburn factor
Thermal conductivity [Wm-1 K-1]
Turbulent kinetic energy [m2 s-2]
Nusselt number
Orthogonal quality
Pressure [Pa]
Heat flux [Wm-2]
Heat transfer rate per unit volume [kWm-3]
Reynolds number
The modulus of the mass rate-of-stress tensor
Skeweness
Temperature [°C]
Velocity [ms-1]
Heat exchanger volume [m3]
Specific volume [m3kg-1]
Volumetric flowrate [m3s-1]
Volume goodness factor

Greek symbols
Turbulent energy dissipation rate [m2 s-3]
Viscosity [Pa s]
Density [kgm-3]
 Kinematic viscosity [m2 s-1]

Subscripts
Inlet and exit condition
Effective
Components of velocity
Mean condition
Maximum value
Log mean
Turbulent
Condition at the wall
References

1. Wang, C.-C., K.-Y. Chi, and C.-J. Chang, Heat transfer and friction characteristics of plain fin-
and-tube heat exchangers, part II: Correlation. International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer, 2000. 43(15): p. 2693-2700.
2. Wang, C.-C. and K.-Y. Chi, Heat transfer and friction characteristics of plain fin-and-tube
heat exchangers, part I: new experimental data. International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer, 2000. 43(15): p. 2681-2691.
3. Kim, Y. and Y. Kim, Heat transfer characteristics of flat plate finned-tube heat exchangers
with large fin pitch. International Journal of Refrigeration, 2005. 28(6): p. 851-858.
4. Rich, D.G., The effect number of tube rows on heat transfer performance of smooth-plate
fin tube heat exchangers. ASHRAE Transactions, 1975. 81: p. 307-317.
5. Halıcı, F., İ. Taymaz, and M. Gündüz, The effect of the number of tube rows on heat, mass
and momentum transfer in flat-plate finned tube heat exchangers. Energy, 2001. 26(11): p.
963-972.
6. Wen, M.-Y. and C.-Y. Ho, Heat-transfer enhancement in fin-and-tube heat exchanger with
improved fin design. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2009. 29(5): p. 1050-1057.
7. Bhuiyan, A.A., M.R. Amin, and A.K.M.S. Islam, Three-dimensional performance analysis of
plain fin tube heat exchangers in transitional regime. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2013.
50(1): p. 445-454.
8. Barbosa, J.R., et al., A study of the air-side heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics
of tube-fin ‘no-frost’ evaporators. Applied Energy, 2009. 86(9): p. 1484-1491.
9. Xie, G., Q. Wang, and 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. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2009. 29(1): p. 1-16.
10. Hu, W., et al., The optimum fin spacing of circular tube bank fin heat exchanger with vortex
generators. Heat and Mass Transfer, 2013. 49(9): p. 1271-1285.
11. Cobian-Iñiguez, J., et al., Numerically-based parametric analysis of plain fin and tube
compact heat exchangers. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2015. 86: p. 1-13.
12. Deepakkumar, R. and S. Jayavel, Air side performance of finned-tube heat exchanger with
combination of circular and elliptical tubes. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2017.
119(Supplement C): p. 360-372.
13. Nagaosa, R.S., Turbulence model-free approach for predictions of air flow dynamics and
heat transfer in a fin-and-tube exchanger. Energy Conversion and Management, 2017.
142: p. 414-425.
14. Sparrow, E.M. and F. Samie, Heat transfer and pressure drop results for one- and two-row
arrays of finned tubes. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 1985. 28(12): p. 2247-59.
15. Hu, X. and A.M. Jacobi, LOCAL HEAT-TRANSFER BEHAVIOR AND ITS IMPACT ON A SINGLE-
ROW, ANNULARLY FINNED TUBE HEAT-EXCHANGER. Journal of Heat Transfer-Transactions
of the Asme, 1993. 115(1): p. 66-74.
16. Chen, H.-T. and W.-L. Hsu, Estimation of heat-transfer characteristics on a vertical annular
circular fin of finned-tube heat exchangers in forced convection. International Journal of
Heat and Mass Transfer, 2008. 51(7-8): p. 1920-1932.
17. Mon, M.S. and U. Gross, Numerical study of fin-spacing effects in annular-finned tube heat
exchangers. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 2004. 47(8): p. 1953-1964.
18. Bilirgen, H., S. Dunbar, and E.K. Levy, Numerical modeling of finned heat exchangers.
Applied Thermal Engineering, 2013. 61(2): p. 278-288.
19. Benmachiche, A.H., et al., Comparison of thermal and hydraulic performances of eccentric
and concentric annular-fins of heat exchanger tubes. Heat Mass Transfer, 2017: p. Ahead
of Print.
20. Tian, E., Y.L. He, and W.Q. Tao, Numerical Simulation of Finned Tube Bank Across a
Staggered Circular-Pin-Finned Tube Bundle. Numerical Heat Transfer Part a-Applications,
2015. 68(7): p. 737-760.
21. Kumar, A., et al., A review on the thermal hydraulic characteristics of the air-cooled heat
exchangers in forced convection. Sadhana-Academy Proceedings in Engineering Sciences,
2015. 40(3): p. 673-755.
22. Sayed Ahmed, S.A.E., O.M. Mesalhy, and M.A. Abdelatief, Flow and heat transfer
enhancement in tube heat exchangers. Heat Mass Transfer, 2015. 51(11): p. 1607-1630.
23. Kumar, A., J.B. Joshi, and A.K. Nayak, A comparison of thermal-hydraulic performance of
various fin patterns using 3D CFD simulations. International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer, 2017. 109: p. 336-356.
24. Sahiti, N., F. Durst, and A. Dewan, Strategy for selection of elements for heat transfer
enhancement. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 2006. 49(19): p. 3392-
3400.
25. Kays, W.M. and A.L. London, Compact Heat Exchangers. 3rd ed, ed. M. Hill. 1984.
26. Singh, S., et al., Implications of fin profiles on overall performance and weight reduction of
a fin and tube heat exchanger. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2017. 115(Supplement C): p.
962-976.
27. ANSYS Inc., Ansys User`s Guide Release 18.0. 2017: USA.
28. Næss, E., Experimental investigation of heat transfer and pressure drop in serrated-fin tube
bundles with staggered tube layouts. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2010. 30(13): p. 1531-
1537.
29. Morales-Fuentes, A., et al., Analysis of the heat transfer area distribution in a frosted plain
fin-and-tube geometry. International Journal of Refrigeration, 2017. 75: p. 26-37.
Elsevier Editorial System for Applied Thermal Engineering

Full title: Identifying the geometry parameters and fin type that lead to
enhanced performance in tube-and-fin geometries

Authors: A. Morales-Fuentes, Y. A. Loredo-Sáenz

Highlights

 Computational fluid dynamics is used as a tool for determining thermal and

hydraulic characteristics of complex fin geometries.
 The trade-off between pumping power and thermal performance is worth for
finned geometries with larger compactness ratio.
 Among geometries with similar compactness ratio, those with higher fin
efficiency result with an enhanced performance.