0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

6 Ansichten8 SeitenChemical Engineering

Jun 17, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

Chemical Engineering

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

6 Ansichten8 SeitenChemical Engineering

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

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

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.

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

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.

_ 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

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

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 mt is the tube mass ow rate and Ao;t is the tube side ow

cross section area per pass,

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

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

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],

12

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].

t

13

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

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].

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

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

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).

284

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 ;

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

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.

v N0; rv

rv 1 and,

ru

23

C1 b sinpb=2

C1 b=2 b 2b1=2

)1b

24

Cz

t z1 et dt

25

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

Table 1

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

Variable

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

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

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 (%)

Efficiency (%)

Efficiency (%)

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

50,000

50,000

45,000

45,000

40,000

40,000

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.

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

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

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).

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

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.

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.