Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

Energy Conversion and Management 89 (2015) 281288

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management


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

Effectiveness of evolutionary algorithms for optimization of heat


exchangers
Rihanna Khosravi a,, Abbas Khosravi a, Saeid Nahavandi a, Hassan Hajabdollahi b
a
b

Centre for Intelligent Systems Research (CISR), Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3217, Australia
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Rafsanjan, Iran

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 26 June 2014
Accepted 12 September 2014
Available online 17 October 2014
Keywords:
Heat exchanger
Optimization
Genetic algorithm
Firey algorithm
Cuckoo search

a b s t r a c t
This paper comprehensively investigates performance of evolutionary algorithms for design optimization
of shell and tube heat exchangers (STHX). Genetic algorithm (GA), rey algorithm (FA), and cuckoo
search (CS) method are implemented for nding the optimal values for seven key design variables of
the STHX model. -NTU method and Bell-Delaware procedure are used for thermal modeling of STHX
and calculation of shell side heat transfer coefcient and pressure drop. The purpose of STHX optimization is to maximize its thermal efciency. Obtained results for several simulation optimizations indicate
that GA is unable to nd permissible and optimal solutions in the majority of cases. In contrast, design
variables found by FA and CS always lead to maximum STHX efciency. Also computational requirements
of CS method are signicantly less than FA method. As per optimization results, maximum efciency
(83.8%) can be achieved using several design congurations. However, these designs are bearing different
dollar costs. Also it is found that the behavior of the majority of decision variables remains consistent in
different runs of the FA and CS optimization processes.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Shell and tube heat exchangers (STHX) play a critical role in
operation of many industrial plants including oil reneries, power
stations, and manufacturing sites. By far, they are the most widely
used type of heat exchanger used in different industries. Optimal
design of STHX is a challenging engineering task. Several criteria
such as efciency and capital, operating, and energy costs can be
considered in the design. As mentioned in [1], the design process
has an iterative nature and includes several trials for obtaining a
reasonable conguration that fullls the design specications and
satises the trade-off between pressure drops and thermal
exchange transfers. No doubt, this process is massively time-consuming and expert expensive. Furthermore, there is no guarantee
that the nal design is optimal in terms of considered criteria due
to the limited capability of the design engineers in consideration
and evaluation of all admissible designs. Budget constrains during
the design phase even worsen this. So it is not surprising to see real
world STHX that their designs is far away from being optimal.
Fig. 1 displays the layout and uid ows of a typical STHX. Bafes placed along the tube bundle force the uid to ow through
tubes [2]. Bafes simply intensify the turbulent level and improve

Corresponding author.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.09.039
0196-8904/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

the shell lm coefcient of heat transfer. Detailed information


about components of a STHX can be found in [3]. The existing literature on design optimization of STHX greatly deal with nding
the optimal values for bafes (spacing and ratio) and the number,
length, diameter, and arrangement of tubes. Also tube pitch ratio
has been considered in some studies as well [4,5]. Two approaches
are often used for design optimization. Some authors focus on
simultaneous optimization of several variables [1,4], while others
x some less important variables and try to nd the optimal values
for the most important design variables [6,7].
Gradient descent optimization methods cannot be applied for
optimal design of STHX. This is due to a high level of calculation
complexity and discrete nature of decision variables making the
objective function nondifferentiable. Also these algorithms are
highly likely to be trapped in local optima due to the massiveness
of variable search space. Evolutionary algorithms, in contrast, are
able to efciently explore the search space and nd approximate
optimal solutions in a short time. They are also global optimization
methods and can avoid local optima using different mechanisms
and operations. Therefore, using evolutionary algorithms has
become a standard practice for design of heat exchangers in the
last decade [8,9].
Despite many breakthroughs in the eld of evolutionary optimization (mainly reported in publications handled by IEEE Computational Intelligence Society), genetic algorithm is the most used

282

R. Khosravi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 89 (2015) 281288

method by process engineering researchers for design optimization of heat exchangers [814]. Several optimization methods have
been introduced in recent years that outperform genetic algorithm
in term of optimization results. Also some of these methods are
even computationally less demanding. Examples of these methods
are particle swarm optimization [15,16], cuckoo search [17], imperialist competitive algorithm [18], bee colony optimization [19],
and rey algorithm [20]. These methods show different performances in different engineering applications. A conceptual comparison of these methods for several case studies can be found in
[21]. A few of these algorithms have been recently employed for
design and optimization of heat exchangers [2228].
The purpose of this paper is to comprehensively compare performance of the genetic algorithm, rey algorithm, and cuckoo
search method for the design of STHXs. To the best of our knowledge, this is the rst study where rey algorithm and cuckoo
search method are employed for optimal design of STHXs. Seven
design variables are considered as part of the optimization process.
These are tube arrangement, pitch ratio, diameter, length, quantity,
bafe spacing ratio, and bafe cut ratio. Optimization is purely
done for maximizing the efciency. Cost implications of this optimization approach are then analyzed and discussed. Performance
of optimization algorithms is compared on their ability to nd permissible and optimal congurations. The behavior of the seven
design variables are also studied in detail. Simulation experiments
are done for an approximate thermal model of a real world STHX.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 briey
introduces the STHX model used in this study. Optimization algorithms investigated in this study are briey described in Section 3.
Section 4 represents simulations results. Finally, conclusions are
provided in Section 5.

The efciency of the TEMA E-type STHX is calculated as,



_ p s ; mc
_ p t
C min
minC s ; C t min mc


C

_ p s ; mc
_ p t
C max maxC s ; C t max mc

where C min is,

C min minC h ; C c

where C h and C c are the hot and cold uid heat capacity rates, i.e.,
_ p h and C c mc
_ p c . m
_ is the uid mass ow rate. Specic
C h mc
heats cp are assumed to be constant.
The overall heat transfer coefcient (U o ) in (3) is then computed
as,


Uo

1
do lndo =di
do
do
Ro;f
Ri;f
ho
2kw
di hi di

1
5

where L; N t ; di ; do ; Ri;f ; Ro;f , and kw are the tube length, number, inside
and outside diameter, tube and shell side fouling resistances and
thermal conductivity of tube wall respectively. hi and ho are heat
transfer coefcients for inside and outside ows, respectively.
The total tube outside heat transfer area is calculated as.

At p L do Nt

where L and do are the tube length and outside diameter.


The tube side heat transfer coefcient (hi ) is calculated as,

hi 0:024

kt 0:8 0:4
Re Pr t
di t

for 2500 < Ret < 124; 000. kt and Prt are tube side uid thermal
conductivity and Prandtl number respectively. The tube ow Reynold number (Ret ) is also dened as,

Ret

mt di

lt Ao;t

Ao;t 0:25pdi
1

where the heat capacity ratio (C  ) is calculated as,




where mt is the tube mass ow rate and Ao;t is the tube side ow
cross section area per pass,

2. Modelling shell and tube heat exchanger

p !1
q
NTU 1C 2

2 1  e
p
2 1C 1C
2
1 eNTU 1C

U o At
C min

NTU

Nt
np

where np is the number of passes.


The average shell side heat transfer coefcient is calculated
using the BellDelaware method correlation,

hs hk J c J l J b J s J r
2

where subscripts s and t stand for shell and tube respectively. The
number of transfer units is dened as,

10

where hk is the heat transfer coefcient for an ideal tube bank,

hk ji cp;s

 
23
ks
m_ s
As
cp;s ls

ls
ls;w

!0:14
11

where ji is the Colburn j-factor for an ideal tube bank. As is also the
cross ow area at the centerline of the shell for one cross ow
between two bafes. lls is the viscosity ratio at bulk to wall tempers;w

ature in the shell side. J c ; Jl ; J b ; Js , and J r in (10) are the correction factors for bafe conguration (cut and spacing), bafe leakage, bundle
and pass partition bypass streams, bigger bafe spacing at the shell
inlet and outlet sections, and the adverse temperature gradient in
laminar ows.
The STHX total cost is made up of capital investment (C inv ) and
operating (C opr ) costs [1],

C total C inv C opr

12

There are several methods for determining the price of STHX.


Here we use the Halls method for estimation of the investment
cost as detailed in [29] (alternative cost estimation methods can
be found in [30]). C inv as a function of the total tube outside heat
transfer surface area (At ) is dened as,
Fig. 1. The layout of a STHX with shell and tube uid ows [2].

C inv 8500 409 A0:85


t

13

R. Khosravi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 89 (2015) 281288

where the construction materials are carbon and stainless steel.


The total discounted operating cost associated to pumping
power is computed as follows [1],

C opr

Ny
X

C0

k1 1 i

14

where i and N y are the annual discount rate (%) and the STHX life
time in year. C 0 is the annual operating cost and is calculated as
follows,

C 0 je P hopt

15

where je and hopt are the price of electricity ($/kW h) and annual
operating hours. The pumping power (P) is also calculated in watts
(W),


1 mt

g qt

Dpt

ms

qs

Dps


16

where g is pump efciency. qs and qt are uid density shell and


tube side respectively. Dps and Dpt are also total pressure drop in
shellside and tubeside, respectively.
More details about the STHX model used in this study can be
found in [4]. Calculations of shell and tube side heat transfer coefcients as well as pressure drops can be found in basic heat
exchanger design books [31,32].

GA is stochastic and gradient-free, so it can be easily applied for


minimization or maximization of discontinuous and nondifferentiable objective functions. Theoretical literature of GA is quite rich
and numerous applications of GA for real world optimization problems have been reported in the last two decades. Detailed discussion about GA and its operators can be found in basic reading
sources such as [3335].
3.2. Firey algorithm
Similar to evolutionary optimization methods, rey algorithm
(FA) is an approximate rather than complete optimization algorithm. In the family of approximate methods, the guarantee of
nding optimal and perfect solutions is compromised for the sake
of obtaining reasonably good solutions in a fraction of time and
effort required by complete algorithms [36]. FA was originally
developed and engineered by Prof. Yang in late 2007 and 2008 at
Cambridge University [20]. The algorithm is inspired by the ashing behavior and movement of reies. The method assumes that
the attractiveness between two reies is proportional to their
brightness and the less brighter one will move towards the
brighter one. Movement will be random if there is no brighter adjacent rey.
As attractiveness is proportional to the light intensity, the variation of attractiveness b with the distance r can be dened as,

b b0 ec r
3. Optimization algorithms
3.1. Genetic algorithm
Genetic algorithm (GA) is highly likely the most widely used
and researched evolutionary optimization method in the scientic
world. It is a guided stochastic search technique inspired from the
principles of natural ttest selection and population genetics. In
general terms, it is based on the parent and offspring iterations
and their evolutions through generations. GA generates candidate
solutions from the space of all possible solutions and examines
their performance as per the considered objective function. It has
been proven that GA performs strongly well in both constrained
and unconstrained search problems where the number of good
solutions is very limited compared to the size of the search space.
GA converges towards more competitive solutions by applying
elitism, crossover, and mutation mechanisms. GA rst creates a
population (often randomly) of potential solutions (also called
chromosomes) for the optimization problem. This population is
then assessed using the objective function of the interest. Then
GA uses its three operators to create the new population for the
next generation. The best performing chromosome(s) is copied to
the next generation unchanged. This process is called elitism and
makes sure that the best solution(s) is not lost as the optimization
proceeds.
Crossover operator is used for combing good parents and generating offspring. This operator is applied with the hope of retaining
the spirit of good chromosomes. In its simplest form, i.e., single
point, a random point (crossover point) is randomly selected. Then
the operator swaps portions of a pair chromosomes at the crossover point. Alternative crossover methods are multi-points, uniform, and arithmetic. Regardless of the type of applied crossover
operator, its generated offspring only include information held by
the current population. A new operator is required to introduce
and bring new information (solutions) to the population. Mutation
operator creates a new offspring by randomly changing the values
of genes at one or more positions of a selected chromosome. The
pseudo code for GA including three genetic operators is displayed
in Fig. 2.

283

17

where b0 is attractiveness at r 0. c is also the medium light


absorption coefcient. The distance between any two reies i
and j at spatial coordinates xi and xj is the Cartesian distance calculated as,

r kxi  xj k

r
Xd
x  xj;k 2
k1 i;k

18

where xi;k is the kth component of the coordinate xi of ith rey. In


normal 2D space, (18) is as follows,

q
xi  xj 2 yi  yj 2

19

Assuming the jth rey is brighter than ith rey, the movement of xi towards xj is dened as,
c r2i;j

xi xi b0 e

xi  xj a i

20

where the second and the third term in right are due to the attraction and randomization. a is a parameter multiplied in the vector of
random numbers i . This vector is generated through drawing numbers from a normal or uniform distribution. As mentioned in [20],
often b0 1 and a 2 0; 1 satisfy most of FA implementations. Note
that (20) is a pure random walk search if b 0. Also other distributions such as Levy ights can be considered for the randomization
terms () in (20).

Fig. 2. Pseudo code for GA.

284

R. Khosravi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 89 (2015) 281288

c is the key parameter of FA. It characterizes the variation of the


attractiveness between different reies. Its value has a direct
impact on the convergence speed of the algorithm and how the
spatial coordinates of reies change. While in theory c can take
any value in 0; 1, it is usually set to a value in 0; 10.
In this paper, we use a modied version of FA algorithm introduced in [37]. Two proposed modications aim to minimize the
chance of algorithm being trapped in local optima and to eliminate
the effects of initialization process on the algorithm performance.

The Lvy ight provides a random walk where its step is drawn
from a Lvy distribution. There are several ways to generate this
random step [20]. The Mantegnas algorithm is one of the most
efcient algorithms for generating symmetric (positive or negative) Lvy distributed steps. In this method, the step length in
(21) is calculated as

22

jv j1=b

where u and
3.3. Cuckoo search

u  N0; ru ;

The CS method is a nature-inspired metaheuristic optimization


method which was proposed by Yand and Deb in 2009 [17]. The
reproduction strategy of cuckoos is the core idea behind the CS
method. The CS method has been developed based on three idealized assumptions: (i) each cuckoo lays one egg at a time and
deposits it at a random chosen nest, (ii) the best nests with the
highest quality eggs are carried to the next generations, and (iii)
the number of host nests for depositing eggs are xed. Eggs laid
by a cuckoo are discovered by the host bird with a pre-set fraction
probability, pa 2 0; 1. In case of discovering alien eggs, the host
bird may simply through away them or abandon the nest and build
a completely new one.
In terms of optimization implementation, eggs in nests represent solutions. The idea is to replace not-so-good solutions in the
nests with new and potentially better solutions. Based on the three
idealized assumption, Fig. 3 shows the pseudo code for implementation of the CS method. The method applies two exploration
methods. Some solutions are generated in the neighborhood of
the current best solution (a Lvy walk). This speeds up the local
search. At the same time, a major fraction of new solutions are generated by far eld randomization and whose locations are far away
from the current best solution location. This is done to make sure
the method is not trapped in a local optimum. Fig. 3 presents the
pseudo code for CS method including Lvy ights. Note that CS
method is in general population-based, elitist, and single objective.
A Levy ight is considered when generating new solutions xt1
for the ith cuckoo,

where

xit1 xti a  Lev y

21

where a is the step size which depends on the scales of the problem
of interest. Often, a OL=100 satises the search requirements for
most optimization problems. L represents the difference between
the maximum and minimum valid value of the problem of interest.
The product  means entry-wise multiplication.

Fig. 3. Pseudo code for CS method including Lvy ights.

v are drawn from normal distributions,

v  N0; rv

rv 1 and,

ru

23

C1 b sinpb=2
C1 b=2 b 2b1=2

)1b
24

where Cz is the gamma function,

Cz

t z1 et dt

25

Two normal distributions are used by Mantegnas algorithm to


generate a third random variable which has the same behavior of a
Lvy distribution. In the CS method proposed by Yang and Deb
[20], the entry-wise multiplication of the random number and distance between the current and best solution is applied as a transition probability to move from the current location to the next
location. As per this, (21) can be rewritten as,

xt1
xti a s xti  xbest
r
i
i

26

where xbest
is the current best solution and r is a random number
i
drawn from a normal distribution with zero mean and unit variance. The step length s is also calculated using (22). Further discussion about CS method and its details can be found in [20,17].
4. Simulation results
This section describes the simulation results for optimizing the
design of STHX using GA, FA, and CS method. STHX model used in
simulations is identical to one described and analyzed in [4].
Table 1 summarizes the list of decision variables (STHX parameters) and their range. It is important to note that all these 7 variables are discontinuous due to practical construction constraints.
For instance, tube internal diameter is determined according to relevant standards and suppliers catalogs.
For the three optimization methods, we set the number of iterations (generations) to 30 and 60. The population size is also set to
10, 20, 30, and 50. Accordingly, 8 different sets of experiments are
performed for each optimization method (combination of different
population sizes and iteration numbers). Each experiment (e.g., GA
with 30 iterations and 10 populations) is repeated 50 times and
then statistics of experiments are reported. In total, 400 runs are
simulated and completed for each optimization method. This is
done to make sure conclusions are made based on general and
extensive optimization scenarios rather than a few tailored ones.
Therefore, obtained results and driven conclusions are statistically
meaningful and believable. Simulations are performed using a
Lenovo Thinkpad T420s laptop computer with Intel Core i72640 M CPU @2.8G Hz and 8 GB memory, running Windows 7
Professional.
The purpose of optimization is to maximize the efciency
through nding the best values for seven design parameters listed
in Table 1. For each run, the seven decision variables are randomly
initialized within their range (see Table 1).

285

R. Khosravi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 89 (2015) 281288


Table 1
The list of design variables (STHX parameters) and their range.
Variable

Minimum Maximum Increment Number of


solutions

Tube arrangement

(30, 45,
90)
0.0112

0.0153

1.25
3
100
0.19
0.2

3
8
600
0.32
1.4

0.001
0.001
1
0.001
0.001

20 (as per standard


tubes)
1750
5000
500
130
1200

Tube inside
diameter (m)
pt/do
Tube length (m)
Tube number
Bafe cut ratio
Bafe spacing ratio

#iter = 30,
#iter = 30,
#iter = 30,
#iter = 30,
#iter = 60,
#iter = 60,
#iter = 60,
#iter = 60,

0
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

40

45

50

40

45

50

40

45

50

#iter=30, #pop=50

0
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

#iter=60, #pop=20

100

50

0
0

Efficiency (%)

50

0.97
1.01
1.49
2.53
1.01
1.97
2.97
5.02

50

50

#iter=60, #pop=30

100

100

Efficiency (%)

50

CS

3.77
9.79
21.39
61.39
4.97
19.15
43.73
122.94

50

#iter=60, #pop=10

100

FA

0.90
1.03
1.53
2.53
0.55
1.01
1.56
2.54

50

#iter=30, #pop=30

GA

#iter=30, #pop=20

100

50

50

#pop = 10
#pop = 20
#pop = 30
#pop = 50
#pop = 10
#pop = 20
#pop = 30
#pop = 50

tion. It can nd globally optimal solutions if the initial values


selected for seven design parameters are proper (at least being
admissible). Otherwise it fails to nd generate optimal solutions

Efficiency (%)

Efficiency (%)

Simulation

GA
FA
CS

50

100

Efficiency (%)

Table 2
The mean of computation time for each optimization run.

#iter=30, #pop=10

100

Efficiency (%)

Fig. 5. The convergence behavior of FA for maximizing efciency.

Efficiency (%)

Efficiency (%)

Fig. 4 shows the efciency of the optimized STHX using GA, FA


and CS method for 50 runs. According to these results, FA and CS
show a much more consistent behavior in terms of maximizing
the efciency of the heat exchanger. The maximum efciency ()
is 83.80%. The efciency of CS optimized heat exchanger (CS ) is
equal to this value almost in all 400 simulations. There is only
one case (#iter = 30, #pop = 10) where CS is less than 80%. FA also
shows a similar performance although there are 5 out of 400 cases
where FA cannot nd an admissible solution. The efciency of GAoptimized heat exchangers (GA ) is equal to 83.80% in only a few
cases out of 400 simulations. More interestingly, GA is less than
80% in more than 75% of simulations. GA cannot nd admissible
solutions in 284 out of 400 simulations (71%). This indicates the
inability of the GA operators in nding permissible solutions
within the search space. As per demonstrated results in Fig. 4, this
is not something to be easily solved by simply increasing the number of iterations or the population size. GA performance is highly
dependent on the initialization process for STHX design optimiza-

10

15

20

25

30

35

#iter=60, #pop=50

100

50

0
0

10

15

20

Replicate
Fig. 4. STHX efciency optimization using GA, FA, and CS method for 50 runs.

25

30

Replicate

35

R. Khosravi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 89 (2015) 281288


50,000

50,000

45,000

45,000

40,000

40,000

Total Cost ($)

Total Cost ($)

286

35,000
30,000

35,000
30,000

25,000

25,000

20,000

20,000

15,000
82

82.5

83

83.5

15,000
82

84

82.5

Efficiency (%)

83

83.5

84

Efficiency (%)

100

Tube Diameter

Tube Arrangement

Fig. 6. The scatter plot of efciency and dollar cost for solutions found by FA (left) and CS (right).

80
60
40
20
0

10

20

30

40

20
10
0

50

10

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

Length

Pitch Ratio

2000

1000

2000

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

600

Spacing Ratio

Tube Number

4000

400
200
0
0

10

20

30

40

150
100
50
0

50

Replicate

Replicate

Cut Ratio

1500
1000
500
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

Replicate
Fig. 7. Optimal values of STHX design parameters in 50 runs of FA optimization.

using its two operators (crossover and mutation). In contrast, both


FA and CS method always nd permissible solutions and maximize
the efciency through appropriate exploration of the search space.
They both generate best results even with a small number of iterations and populations (top plots in Fig. 4).
Fig. 5 displays the prole of efciency as the objective function
along optimization iterations. Here the optimal solution is found in
the eighth generation. There is no need to continue optimization
after this. Similar patterns are also observed in other runs of FA.
Therefore, the effective and efcient required time for FA is around
2.6 s. Also note that all these computations and optimizations are
done ofine. Therefore, computational burden is the least important thing for the optimal design of STHX.
The computational cost of GA, FA, and CS method are also compared in this section. Comparison is made based on the time

required to nalize one optimization run and return the optimized


design parameters. The mean values of elapsed time for running
GA, FA, and CS method are shown in Table 2 for 8 experiments.
Optimization times increase as the number of iterations and population size increase. GA and CS have almost the same computational burden. However, FA is much more demanding in this
respect. This is in particular more evident for simulations with a
larger population size (e.g., 30 and 50). For these cases, tFA  tGA
and tFA  t CS . However, we should note that GA is not able to nd
admissible solutions in the majority of simulations. According to
all these, CS is the best in terms of global and fast optimization
of STHX considering random initialization.
As the performance of GA for optimal design of STHX is inferior,
we hereafter just report the optimization results for the FA and CS
methods. It is important to note that the week performance of the

287

100

Tube Diameter

Tube Arrangement

R. Khosravi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 89 (2015) 281288

80
60
40
20
0

10

20

30

40

20
10
0

50

10

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

1000

2000

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

600

Spacing Ratio

Tube Number

4000

Length

Pitch Ratio

2000

400
200
0
0

10

20

30

40

150
100
50
0

50

Replicate

Replicate

Cut Ratio

1500
1000
500
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

Replicate
Fig. 8. Optimal values of STHX design parameters in 50 runs of CS optimization.

GA is not something to be rectied purely by increasing the number of optimization generations or the population size. Even if the
performance is improved, the computational burden for nding
globally optimal solutions will be massive.1
Fig. 6 displays the scatter plot of efciency and dollar cost for
STHX optimized using FA (left) and CS (right) methods. These
results are from the eighth experiment (#iter = 50, #pop = 60). It
is easy to see that while efciency is almost the same for in the
majority of experiments (83.80%), there is a huge difference in
terms of the dollar cost. The total cost for the majority of solutions
found by FA and CS methods is around $45,000. Also the plot
clearly shows that the total cost increases as the efciency
increases. This is consistent with ndings in [4]. As per results in
this gure, designs identical in terms of efciency can have completely different total costs.
The optimal values for seven design variables obtained using FA
optimization are shown in Fig. 7. These are plotted for fty runs of
FA simulation (#8) to see how their values change from one simulation to another. The followings are observed:
 The optimal values for tube arrangement are 30 and 90. The
interesting point is that 45 arrangement is not returned as a
solution for maximizing the efciency.
 Tube diameter and pitch ratio often take a value between there
minimum and median in 50 runs. This tendency is in particular
more obvious for the pitch ratio.
 Tube lengths between 3 m and 8 m are returned in different
optimization runs. However, there is a tendency towards smaller values.
1
Note that this does not mean that GA is not a suitable tool for STHX design
optimization. GA can generate optimal results if initialization is performed properly
(admissible values are rst picked and assigned to design parameters).

 In contrast to the tube length, the number of tube is often


returned close to the upper bound (600). From a practical point
of view this makes sense. The effect of short tube length is compensated by increasing the number of tubes.
 There is no obvious pattern in the bafe spacing ratio in the 50
runs of the optimization process.
 Bafe cut ratio is set to its minimum value in 42 out of 50 optimization runs. This is a strong indication of the optimality of the
minimum values of bafe cut ratios for optimal design of heat
exchangers.
Now, we look at the same experiment and results obtained
using CS method (see Fig. 8):
 The optimal values for tube arrangement are 45 and 90. In
contrast to FA method, 30 arrangement is not selected by CS
method.
 Often middle values are returned for the tube diameter. The
pitch ratio has lower value tendency. These patterns are similar
to those found by FA method.
 There is no clear preference for the tube length.
 CS method always picks the maximum tube number is the optimal value.
 Similar to FA method, there is no consistent pattern for the bafe spacing ratio in the 50 runs of the CS method.
 Bafe cut ratio is always set to its minimum value (similar to FA
results).
According to these ndings, we may conclude that the tube
number is positively correlated with the STHX efciency. The
greater the number of tubes, the greater the efciency. Also, the
correlation coefcient between the bafe cut ratio and efciency
is negative. So, it is reasonable to select the smallest allowable baf-

288

R. Khosravi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 89 (2015) 281288

e cut ration to obtain maximum efciency. Selection of middle


values for tube diameter is the best in terms of efciency. The pitch
ratio also should be set to values less than the median value. These
ndings can smartly be used by engineers as rules of thumb for
optimal design of STHXs. The design can then be revised as per project requirements.
5. Conclusion
The optimization performances of genetic algorithm, rey
algorithm, and cuckoo search method are comprehensively examined for the design of shell and tube heat exchangers. It is found
that genetic algorithm cannot nd permissible design congurations in the majority of simulation replicates. In contrast, rey
algorithm nds permissible and optimal values for seven design
variables regardless of search starting point. It is also observed that
there are several design congurations for STHX with identical efciency. However, these designs have greatly different dollar cost
implications. Different patterns are found for seven design variables in pure efciency-based design and optimization of STHX.
While the values of the bafe spacing ratio signicantly differ from
one replicate to another, others such as the length, the number of
tubes, and the bafe cut ratio demonstrate consistent patterns.
These ndings can be used by STHX design engineers and experts
to signicantly shorten the optimal design process.
References
[1] Caputo AC, Pelagagge PM, Salini P. Heat exchanger design based on economic
optimisation. Appl Therm Eng 2008;28(10):11519. ISSN 1359-431.
[2] Babu B, Munawar S. Differential evolution strategies for optimal design of
shell-and-tube heat exchangers. Chem Eng Sci 2007;62(14):372039. ISSN
0009-2509.
[3] Standards of the Tubular Exchanger Manufactures Association, 7th ed.; 1998.
[4] Sanaye S, Hajabdollahi H. Multi-objective optimization of shell and tube heat
exchangers. Appl Therm Eng 2010;30:193745. ISSN 1359-4311.
[5] Walraven D, Laenen B, Dhaeseleer W. Optimum conguration of shell-andtube heat exchangers for the use in low-temperature organic Rankine cycles.
Energy Convers Manage 2014;83:17787. ISSN 0196-8904.
[6] Khalifeh Soltan B, Saffar-Avval M, Damangir E. Minimizing capital and
operating costs of shell and tube condensers using optimum bafe spacing.
Appl Therm Eng 2004;24:280110. ISSN 1359-4311.
[7] Eryener D. Thermoeconomic optimization of bafe spacing for shell and tube
heat exchangers. Energy Convers Manage 2006;47(1112):147889. ISSN
0196-8904.
[8] Selbas R, Kizilkan O, Reppich M. A new design approach for shell-and-tube heat
exchangers using genetic algorithms from economic point of view. Chem Eng
Process: Process Intens 2006;45(4):26875. ISSN 0255-2701.
[9] Hilbert R, Janiga G, Baron R, Thvenin D. Multi-objective shape optimization of a
heat exchanger using parallel genetic algorithms. Int J Heat Mass Transfer
2006;49(15-16):256777. ISSN 0017-9310.
[10] Ponce-Ortega JM, Serna-Gonzalez M, Jimenez-Gutierrez A. Use of genetic
algorithms for the optimal design of shell-and-tube heat exchangers. Appl
Therm Eng 2009;29(23):2039. ISSN 1359-4311.
[11] Guo J, Cheng L, Xu M. Optimization design of shell-and-tube heat exchanger by
entropy generation minimization and genetic algorithm. Appl Therm Eng
2009;29(1415):295460. ISSN 1359-4311.
[12] Hajabdollahi F, Hajabdollahi Z, Hajabdollahi H. Optimum design of gasket
plate heat exchanger using multimodal genetic algorithm. 2013;44(8):76189.

[13] Amini M, Bazargan M. Two objective optimization in shell-and-tube heat


exchangers using genetic algorithm. Appl Therm Eng 2014;69(12):27885.
[14] Yang J, Fan A, Liu W, Jacobi AM. Optimization of shell-and-tube heat
exchangers conforming to TEMA standards with designs motivated by
constructal theory. Energy Convers Manage 2014;78(0):46876. ISSN 01968904.
[15] Eberhart R, Shi Y. Particle swarm optimization: developments, applications
and resources. In: Proceedings of congress on evolutionary computation, vol.
1; 2001. p. 816.
[16] Trelea IC. The particle swarm optimization algorithm: convergence analysis
and parameter selection. Inform Process Lett 2003;85(6):31725. ISSN 00200190.
[17] Yang X-S, Deb S. Cuckoo search via levy ights. In: World congress on nature
and biologically inspired computing; 2009. p. 2104.
[18] Hadidi A, Hadidi M, Nazari A. A new design approach for shell-and-tube heat
exchangers using imperialist competitive algorithm (ICA) from economic point
of view. Energy Convers Manage 2013;67:6674. ISSN 0196-8904.
[19] Karaboga D, Akay B. A modied Articial Bee Colony (ABC) algorithm for
constrained optimization problems. Appl Soft Comput 2011;11(3):302131.
ISSN 1568-4946.
[20] Yang X. Nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithms. Luniver Press; 2008.
[21] Civicioglu P, Besdok E. A conceptual comparison of the Cuckoo-search, particle
swarm optimization, differential evolution and articial bee colony
algorithms. Artif Intell Rev 2013;39:31546.
[22] Patel V, Rao R. Design optimization of shell-and-tube heat exchanger using
particle swarm optimization technique. Appl Therm Eng 2010;30(11
12):141725. ISSN 1359-4311.
[23] Sahin AS, Kilic B, Kilic U. Design and economic optimization of shell and tube
heat exchangers using Articial Bee Colony (ABC) algorithm. Energy Convers
Manage 2011;52(11):335662. ISSN 0196-8904.
[24] Mariani VC, Duck ARK, Guerra FA, Coelho LdS, Rao RV. A chaotic quantumbehaved particle swarm approach applied to optimization of heat exchangers.
Appl Therm Eng 2012;42(0):11928. ISSN 1359-4311.
[25] Banooni S, Zarea H, Molana M. Thermodynamic and economic optimization of
plate n heat exchangers using the bees algorithm. Heat Transfer Asian Res,
ISSN 1523-1496.
[26] Hadidi A, Nazari A. Design and economic optimization of shell-and-tube heat
exchangers using biogeography-based (BBO) algorithm. Appl Therm Eng
2013;51(12):126372. ISSN 1359-4311.
[27] Zarea H, Moradi Kashkooli F, Mansuri Mehryan A, Saffarian MR, Namvar
Beherghani E. Optimal design of plate-n heat exchangers by a bees algorithm.
Appl Therm Eng 2014;69(12):26777.
[28] Ghanei A, Assareh E, Biglari M, Ghanbarzadeh A, Noghrehabadi AR. Thermaleconomic multi-objective optimization of shell and tube heat exchanger using
particle swarm optimization (PSO). Heat Mass Transfer 2014;50(10):137584.
[29] Hall S, Ahmad S, Smith R. Capital cost targets for heat exchanger networks
comprising mixed materials of construction, pressure ratings and exchanger
types. Comp Chem Eng 1990;14(3):31935. ISSN 0098-1354.
[30] Taal M, Bulatov I, Klemes J, Stehlik P. Cost estimation and energy price
forecasts for economic evaluation of retrot projects. Appl Therm Eng
2003;23(14):181935.
[31] Kakac S, Liu H. Heat exchangers selection rating, and thermal design. New
York: CRC Press; 2000.
[32] Shah RK, Sekulik DP. Fundamentals of heat exchanger design. John Wiley &
Sons; 2003.
[33] Holland JH. Adaptation in natural and articial systems. Michigan Press; 1975.
[34] Goldberg DE. Genetic algorithm in search, optimization, and machine
learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1989.
[35] Mitchell M. An introduction to genetic algorithms. MIT Press; 1998.
[36] Pal SK, Rai C, Singh AP. Comparative study of rey algorithm and particle
swarm optimization for noisy non-linear optimization problems. Int J Intell
Syst Appl 2012;4(10):507.
[37] Niknam T, Kavousifard A. Impact of thermal recovery and hydrogen
production of fuel cell power plants on distribution feeder reconguration.
IET Gener, Transm Distrib 2012;6(9):83143. ISSN 1751-8687.