International Journal of Refrigeration 99 (2019) 479–489

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Refrigeration

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

An assessment of optimal airside heat transfer per unit friction power

characteristics of compact heat exchangers
Naef A.A. Qasem, Abdulrahman A. Al-Ghamdi, Syed M. Zubair∗
Mechanical Engineering Department, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia

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

Article history: This paper evaluates an optimal airside thermal-hydraulic performance of compact heat exchangers.
Received 10 November 2018 Seventy-five airside surfaces have been chosen, i.e. standard reference of Kays and London, to repre-
Revised 23 December 2018
sent louver-fin, strip-fin, wavy-fin, plain-fin, pin-fin, finned circular tubes and finned flat tubes. A ro-
Accepted 28 December 2018
bust evaluation method is implemented by an estimation of the heat transfer rate per unit pumping
Available online 30 December 2018
power with and without considering the heat exchanger compactness. Experimental data of Colburn
Keywords: j-factor and Fanning friction factor (f) are used to estimate both the heat transfer rates and the fric-
Compact heat exchangers tion power, respectively. The results demonstrate that strip-fin surface 1/10-27.03 shows an optimal heat
Optimal transfer values per unit friction power when the compactness is taken into consideration. Nonetheless,
Heat transfer pin-fin surface PF-4(F) shows an optimal heat transfer rate per pumping power when neglecting the im-
Pumping power portance of the compactness. The geometries having an optimal thermal-hydraulic performance for each
Fins
airside type (with or without considering the compactness) are recommended as benchmarks to assess
Compactness
the performance of similar airside surfaces.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.

Évaluation des caractéristiques du transfert de chaleur optimal côté air par unité
de puissance de friction des échangeurs de chaleur compacts

Mots-clés: Échangeurs de chaleur compacts; Optimal; Transfert de chaleur; Puissance de pompage; Ailettes; Compacité

1. Introduction louver-fin, wavy-fin, offset strip-fin, plain-fin, pin-fin, finned circu-

Compact heat exchangers are used in many domestic and in-
dustrial systems. Above all, they are vital components in air
conditioning and refrigeration systems, automotive vehicles, re-
newable energy applications, food engineering, and petrochemical
processes. Heating and cooling are the primary objectives of us-
ing compact heat exchangers to improve overall system efficiencies
(Dixit and Ghosh, 2015). The air-to-liquid heat transfer is achieved
by heat exchanger through a high surface density reaching a com-
pactness of more than 700 m2 m−3 (Sheik Ismail et al., 2010). Dif-
ferent fin arrangements are used to increase the heat transfer ar-
eas of heat exchangers airside. The surface arrangements include
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: smzubair@kfupm.edu.sa (S.M. Zubair).
lar tubes, and finned flat tubes. The fins are made of aluminum,
copper, stainless steel, and so on, to handle different operating
conditions and to satisfy proper applications.
Louver-fin surfaces are commonly used in refrigeration, air-
conditioning, heating, cooling, evaporation, power generation, and
so on. They are compact, handle high-pressure, sustainable, and
has low refrigerant charge (Saleem and Kim, 2017). The louver
is discontinuous metal wall interrupting air-flow to generate thin
boundary layers resulting in enhancing the heat transfer (Jang and
Chen, 2015; Leu et al., 2001). Additionally, the air circulation in an
intra-passage between fins leads to mixing hot and cold air (Okbaz
et al., 2018). An experimental study on airside thermal-hydraulic
performance is conducted (Kim and Bullard, 2002) using 45 airside
surfaces to obtain heat transfer and friction flow correlations. Un-
der low velocities (Re ≤ 800), heat transfer and flow friction char-
acteristics were experimentally investigated for different louver

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2018.12.030
0140-7007/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.
480 N.A.A. Qasem, A.A. Al-Ghamdi and S.M. Zubair / International Journal of Refrigeration 99 (2019) 479–489

are not affected much by dust under different environmental

Nomenclature conditions; thus, they are preferred to be used in off-road vehi-
cles (Dong et al., 2013). Finned tubes (flat and circular) heat ex-
2A twice wavy amplitude, mm changers are predominantly used in many applications. Fin-and-
Ac air flow cross-sectional area, m2 tubes are preferred in demanding applications (Abu Madi et al.,
Af fin surface area, m2 1998), air-conditioning and refrigeration, boilers, radiators, waste
Atot heat transfer surface area, m2 heat recovery (Bhuiyan and Islam, 2016), and power plant cooling
cp specific heat capacity of air, J kg−1 K−1 systems (Kong et al., 2016). The airside is used to cool a primary
Dh hydraulic diameter, mm fluid inside the tubes so that fins increase a heat exchange area.
Do pin/tube outside diameter, mm Finned flat tubes heat exchanger was numerically investigated for
E pumping power per unit surface area, W m−2 household refrigerators (Erbay et al., 2017). The fin type was lou-
f Fanning friction factor ver. Plain and pin fins are commonly used as a heat sink (Jonsson
Fh fin height, mm and Moshfegh, 2001) to cool devices (e.g., electronics) more than
Fg fin gap, mm in compact heat exchanger applications. Plain-fin surfaces were
Fp fin pitch, mm reported as a transformer air cooler, heat exchangers air cooler,
h heat transfer coefficient, W m−2 K−1 air-preheaters whereas pin-fin surfaces are used in the industry
j Colburn factor of power plant, electronic, and boilers of central heating systems
L wavy-fin wavelength, mm (Kashyap and Jhavar, 2016).
l strip length, mm To evaluate a heat transfer and fluid friction-flow performance
Ld heat exchanger depth, mm of compact heat exchangers, heat transfer coefficient, Colburn j-
Lg louver gap, mm factor, Nusselt number, and Stanton number are used to represent
Lh louver height, mm heat transfer while pressure drop and Fanning friction factor (f) are
Lp louver pinch, mm used to evaluate friction power. Some indices are reported to com-
P pressure, Pa pare available airside arrangements such as j/f (Jacobi et al., 2005;
Pt transverse space, mm Kwon et al., 2018; Ruiz and Carey, 2015; Shah and Sekulić, 2003)
Pl perpendicular space, mm and j/f1/3 (Dong et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2004). ‘j/f1/3 ’ index was
Pr Prandtl number also used to evaluate the performance of double-row and triple-
P pumping power, W row multi-louvered fin heat exchangers (Dogan et al., 2015).
Re Reynolds number (ρ VDh /μ) The last index (j/f1/3 ) was also used for comparing the perfor-
t fin thickness, mm mance to that of a plain surface ((j/jp )/(f/fp )1/3 ) (Shah and Sekulić,
V flow velocity, m s−1 20 03; Webb and Kim, 20 05). The three indices (j/f, j/f1/3 , and
(j/jp )/(f/fp )1/3 ) were implemented to investigate the airside perfor-
Greek symbols mance of strip-fin surfaces (Bhowmik and Lee, 2009). Actually,
α heat transfer area per volume between plates m2 these indices do not account the heat transfer surface area, hy-
m−3 draulic diameter, fins efficiency, and heat exchanger compactness.
β compactness, m−1 For this reason, Qasem and Zubair (2018a) proposed two robust
ηf fin efficiency methods to estimate heat transfer rate per unit friction power
ηo overall surface efficiency when compactness is considered as suggested by Shah and Sekulić
γ heat transfer surface area per unit heat exchanger (2003) and Webb and Kim (2005). The second method is by eval-
depth, m uating the heat transfer rate to friction power per unit depth of
μ dynamic viscosity, Pa s heat exchanger; this method does not consider the heat exchanger
ρ density, kg m−3 compactness. These two robust methods were successfully tested
σ free flow area to frontal area ratio on wavy-fin heat exchangers (Qasem and Zubair, 2018a).
Therefore, the main aim of this study is to expand the thermal-
angles and fin pitches of a louvered fin heat exchanger (Kim et al., hydraulic performance evaluation to include all the airside arrange-
2004). Twenty surfaces of multi-louvered fin and flat tube heat ex- ments of compact heat exchangers with or without considering the
changers were experimentally studied to obtain heat transfer and compactness. Seventy-five standard reference geometries reported
flow friction correlations (Dong et al., 2007a). by Kays and London (1984) are selected to implement the heat
Offset strip-fin surfaces are usually used in aircraft applica- transfer to pumping power evaluation. Based on this study, geome-
tions (Vyas and Bani Agrawal, 2013), cryogenic, and small indus- tries having an optimal heat transfer rate to friction power (with
tries (Kashyap and Jhavar, 2016). The heat transfer rates are in- and without considering the compactness) are recommended as
creased by an increase of the airside surface area in which thermal benchmark arrangements for each airside arrangement type. More-
boundary layers are regenerated at each channel. Sheik Ismail et over, the optimal performance geometries from different types are
al. (2010) reviewed the heat transfer and fluid-flow performance of compared together to recommend the optimal airside arrangement
offset strip-fin arrangements. An earlier study of offset rectangular for the compact heat exchangers when the compactness is in-
plate-fin surfaces was conducted by London and Shah (1968). Six- cluded or excluded.
teen offset strip-fin surfaces were experimentally studied to obtain
heat transfer and flow friction correlations (Dong et al., 2007b). 2. Studied airside surfaces and evaluation approach
A numerical model to characterize the thermal-hydraulic perfor-
mance of offset strip-fins surfaces were investigated under differ- 2.1. Investigated surfaces
ent Prandtl number values (Bhowmik and Lee, 2009).
Wavy-fin surfaces are desirable since they are simply manufac- The most practical compact heat exchangers are those of Kays
tured and they have a good potential for improving heat trans- and London (1984) including different airside arrangements that
fer. Wavy-fin surface enlarges the air flow path in a wavy-path are the standard reference in the literature. Therefore, this pa-
direction leading to increasing turbulence and temperature mix- per is focusing on these surfaces as listed in Table A1 (re-
ing (Lotfi et al., 2014; Qasem and Zubair, 2019). Moreover, they fer to Appendix A) that involves louver-fin, wavy-fin, strip-fin,
 N.A.A. Qasem, A.A. Al-Ghamdi and S.M. Zubair / International Journal of Refrigeration 99 (2019) 479–489 481

Fig. 1. Typical airside arrangements of compact heat exchangers (Qasem and Zubair, 2018b).

finned circular tubes, finned flat tubes, plain-fin, and pin-fin. The where β = 4σ /Dh , and ηo = 1 − (Af /Atot ) (1 − ηf ). The air proper-
geometrical parameters of these surfaces are described in Table A1. ties can be taken at any preferred standard conditions (Webb and
More details can also be found in Kays and London (1984). The Kim, 2005). The plot of ηo hβ against Eβ indicates to the airside
schemes of the typical airside arrangements of compact heat ex- thermal-hydraulic performance from the heat exchanger volume
changers are shown in Fig. 1. viewpoint.
Neglecting the heat exchanger compactness, Qasem and Zubair
2.2. Performance approach (2018a) proposed new relations that are considering the improve-
ment in heat transfer per unit friction power. Heat transfer (ηo h γ )
A performance comparison between the same or different types performance vs. pumping power (E γ ) per unit flow path (Ld ) is,
of airside arrangements was conducted in various methods includ-
ing j/f, j/f1/3 , and (j/jp )/(f/fp )1/3 . However, the reliable methods are cp μ Atot
ηohγ = ηo j.Re (3)
those devoted to estimating heat transfer rates per unit pumping Pr2/3 Dh Ld
power due to accounting heat transfer surface area, fin efficiency,
heat transfer coefficient, and pressure drop (Qasem and Zubair, μ3  1 3 Atot
Eγ = f.Re3 (4)
2018a). The heat transfer to friction power can be estimated by 2 ρ 2 Dh Ld
considering or neglecting the heat exchanger compactness.
While considering the heat exchanger compactness, Shah and Here, γ = Atot /Ld . Seeking for a simplicity to compare different ge-
Sekulić (2003) and Webb and Kim (2005) introduced an evalua- ometries, the values of Atot are taken for a piece having a width
tion of heat transfer rates (ηo h β ) per unit pumping power (E β ) as of one fin-pitch. The derivation of Eqs. (1)–(4) is explained in
expressed in the following equations (Eqs. (1) and (2)) which are Appendix B.
recently recommended by Qasem and Zubair (2018a).
cp μ 4σ 3. Results and discussion
ηohβ = ηo 2 j.Re (1)
Pr2/3 Dh
Based on the evaluation methods (Eqs. (1)–(4)), this section in-
μ3 4 σ troduces a comparison of f- and j-factor values against Reynolds
Eβ = f.Re3 (2)
2 ρ 2 Dh 4 values, ηo h β against E β , and ηo h γ against E γ for each type of
482 N.A.A. Qasem, A.A. Al-Ghamdi and S.M. Zubair / International Journal of Refrigeration 99 (2019) 479–489

airside arrangements. A compact heat exchanger having an opti-

mal ηo h β vs. E β and ηo h γ vs. E γ (for each type) is selected to
be compared with other types.

3.1. Louver-fin

Louver-fin as the airside surface of compact heat exchangers is

important because of their usage in the automotive industry, ra-
diators, and heaters (Cowell et al., 1995). Fourteen different ge-
ometries of louver fins (refer to Table A1) are compared based
on heat transfer rates to friction power as shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 2(a)
shows the airside thermal-hydraulic characteristics in terms of f
and j factors against Reynolds number. It is shown that surface 3/4-
11.1 and surface 3/4(b)-11.1 have the lowest f-factor values which
may indicate to less pumping power consumption. However, they
have the lowest j-factor value leading to lower heat transfer. The
highest values of j-factor can be obtained by using surface 3/8(a)-
6.06. It is important to note here that the f and j factors values are
not adequate to select the optimal airside surface.
The heat transfer (ηo h β ) per unit friction power (E β ), while
considering the heat exchanger compactness is presented in
Fig. 2(b). The values of ηo h β vs. E β show that surface 1/4(b)-11.1
has an optimal values of the heat transfer rates per unit pump-
ing power. For example, at E β = 10 kW m−3 , surface 1/4(b)-11.1 has
a heat transfer performance about 76.8 kW m−3 K−1 compared to
62.7, 61.55, and 52.2 kW m−3 K−1 for surfaces 3/4-11.1, 3/4(b)-11.1,
and 3/8(a)-6.06, respectively. Fig. 2(c) exhibits the heat transfer
(ηo h γ ) to pumping power (E γ ) per unit depth of the flow direc-
tion (i.e. neglecting the compactness). It shows that the optimal
surface is 3/8(a)-6.06. This surface achieves 3.44 W m−1 K−1 heat
transfer per 1 W m−1 friction power. Whereas, surface 1/4(b)-11.1,
which shows the optimal heat transfer to friction power per unit
volume, is found to have a heat transfer performance of 3.24 W
m−1 K−1 per 1 W m−1 friction power. This value (3.24 W m−1 K−1 )
is not far away from the optimal value (3.44 W m−1 K−1 ). This may
lead to select surface 1/4(b)-11.1 as the absolutely optimal louver
heat exchanger (with and without considering the compactness).

3.2. Offset strip-fin

The thermal and fluid flow characteristic of the twenty-one sur-

faces of strip-fin is shown in Fig. 3. Fig. 3(a) presents the thermal-
hydraulic characteristics in terms of f- and j-factor against Reynolds
number. Surface 1/2 - 11.94(D) shows the lowest f- and j-factor val-
ues. That is because the low-pressure drop which may be due to
low flow-turbulence, resulting in low heat transfer. On the other
side, surface 1/8-13.95 exhibits the highest f- and j-factor values.
It can be seen from Fig. 3(b) that surface 1/10-27.3 provides
the optimal heat transfer (ηo h β ) per unit pumping power (E β ).
For E β > 6 kW m−3 friction power, the heat transfer rates per unit
volume is more than 200 kW m−3 K−1 using surface 1/10-27.3.
However, other surfaces have low heat transfer values at the same
pumping power. While ignoring the effect of heat exchanger com-
pactness, Fig. 3(c) shows that the optimal ηo h β values vs. E β can
be accomplished by using surface 1/8-13.95. This is limited by fric-
Fig. 2. Performance characteristics of louver-fin arrangements in terms of (a) f- and
tion power values larger than 0.1 W m−1 while surface 1/8-16.12(T) j-factor (Kays and London, 1984), (b) heat transfer against friction power when con-
is found to have the optimal heat transfer (ηo h γ ) values when sidering the compactness, and (c) heat transfer against friction power while ne-
E γ < 0.1 W m−1 (see Fig. 3(c)). glecting the compactness.

3.3. Wavy-fin
Heat transfer and fluid flow friction performance of wavy-fin
arrangements were recently studied in detail (Qasem and Zubair,
2018a). In this regard one hundred and five geometries studied
experimentally and numerically were compared to the standard
reference surfaces (3 arrangements) of Kay and London (1984).
The results showed that the practical surfaces (Kays and London,
1984) are still the best wavy-fin geometries having an optimal
thermal-hydraulic performance. The heat transfer to friction power
is presented in Fig. 4 based on the three standard arrangements.
Fig. 4(a) shows the maximum j- and f-factor values are associ-
ated with surface 11.5-3/8 W while the surface 17.8-3/8 W has the
 N.A.A. Qasem, A.A. Al-Ghamdi and S.M. Zubair / International Journal of Refrigeration 99 (2019) 479–489
Fig. 3. Performance characteristics of offset strip-fin arrangements in terms of (a)
f- and j-factor (Kays and London, 1984), (b) heat transfer vs. friction power while
considering the compactness, and (c) heat transfer against friction power when ne-
glecting the compactness.
lowest values. The heat transfer performance per unit pumping
power while considering the heat exchanger compactness is illus-
trated in Fig. 4(b); however, when neglecting the compactness is
shown in Fig. 4(c). Surface 17.8-3/8 W demonstrates that the opti-
mal thermal-hydraulic performance per unit volume while surface
11.5-3/8 W or surface 11.22-3/8 W could be selected as the best
483
Fig. 4. Performance characteristics of wavy-fin arrangements in terms of (a) f- and
j-factor (Kays and London, 1984), (b) heat transfer against friction power while con-
sidering the compactness, and (c) heat transfer against friction power when ne-
glecting the compactness.
geometry having the optimal heat transfer to friction power per
unit flow path length (neglecting the compactness). To keep con-
sistency with the previous work (Qasem and Zubair, 2018a), one
could select surface 11.5-3/8 W to represent such case (i.e. ignoring
the compactness while reaching high heat transfer per pumping
power).
484 N.A.A. Qasem, A.A. Al-Ghamdi and S.M. Zubair / International Journal of Refrigeration 99 (2019) 479–489
Fig. 5. Performance characteristics of finned flat tubes arrangements in terms of
(a) f- and j-factor (Kays and London, 1984), (b) heat transfer against friction power
while considering the compactness, and (c) heat transfer against friction power
when neglecting the compactness.
3.4. Finned flat tubes
The finned flat tubes are frequently used to enhance heat trans-
fer. In this regard, five standard arrangements (see Table A1) are
used to evaluate heat transfer per unit friction power characteris-
tics, as presented in Fig. 5. The experimental j- and f-factors vs.
Reynolds number are shown in Fig. 5(a). Surface 9.68-0.87 exhibits
the lowest values for both j- and f-factor, which implies a low-
pressure drop with low heat transfer performance. The highest val-
ues of f- and j-factors are associated with surface 11.32-0.737-SR.
This could be explained by the fact that heat transfer is enhanced
by increasing the flow turbulence, which in turns increases the
pressure drop.
Fig. 5(b) shows that the optimal heat transfer performance
vs. pumping power per unit heat exchanger volume is obtained
by surface 11.32-0.737-SR. For 0.47 > E β > 796 kW m−3 friction
power, the heat transfer index is found to be 46 > ηo h β > 246 kW
m−3 K−1 . Moreover, without considering the compactness, surface
11.32-0.737-SR has the optimal heat transfer rates per unit pump-
ing power. It shows that heat transfer characteristic between 0.488
and 2.611 W m−1 K−1 is achieved by consuming pumping power
from 0.005 to 8.535 W m−1 , respectively (see Fig. 5(c)).
3.5. Finned circular tubes
Finned circular tubes are often used in heat transfer applica-
tions. Some of them have circular fins for each tube and the others
have a flat-fin that can handle some tubes in parallel or staggered
arrangement (see Fig. 1). Eight arrangements for airside (refer to
Table A1) are considered to study heat transfer rates per unit fric-
tion power. Two of them (surface 7.75-8/5T and surface 8.9-3/8 T)
represent the flat fin plates while the others represent circular fins.
The airside thermal-hydraulic characteristic of this kind of heat ex-
changers is presented in Fig. 6.
Fig. 6(a) illustrates the heat transfer to pressure drop in terms
of f and j factors against tested Reynolds number. As evident, sur-
face CF-7.75-5/8T shows the lowest values of both the f- and j-
factor referring to the lowest heat transfer when low friction is
implemented. Conversely, surface CF-8.8-1.0Jb has the highest f-
and j-factor values. The surface (CF-8.0-3/8T) is providing the op-
timal heat transfer rates per unit pumping power when the vol-
ume is fixed for all the (compared) compact heat exchangers (see
Fig. 6(b)). The heat transfer rates to the friction power per unit
depth of heat exchanges demonstrate that surface CF-7.75-5/8T has
the optimal performance compared to the other investigated ge-
ometries. This is attributed to the low-pressure drop (much lower
f-factor values), which is shown in Fig. 6(a).
3.6. Plain-fin
Plain-fin arrangements are the simply constructed heat ex-
changers due to no further modification in the surface along the
flow path. However, a proper design for the flat-fin arrangement
can play a role to enhance the heat transfer to the pumping power,
especially the pressure drop in such surfaces is not high. The eigh-
teen airside surfaces (arrangements) having plain plate fin are in-
vestigated in this section based on the data of Kays and London
(1984) as listed in Table A1 (refer to Appendix A).
Concerning heat transfer rates per unit friction power character-
istics, Fig. 7 shows the values of f- and j-factor vs. Reynolds num-
ber, ηo h β vs. E β , and ηo h γ vs. E γ . The f and j factors were tested
to reach high Reynold numbers more than 45,0 0 0 in some cases
(see Fig. 7(a)). The experimental results show that the highest f-
factor values are obtained by using surface 14.77 while the lowest
by surface 25.79. With regard to j-factor, surfaces 5.30 and 16.96T
have the highest and lowest values, respectively. The heat transfer
rates per unit friction power are shown in Fig. 7(b) when the heat
exchanger compactness is important, and in Fig. 7(c) when the
compactness is neglected. It can be shown that surface 46.45T has
the optimal heat transfer rates to friction power per unit volume
whereas surface 2.0 has the optimal values per unit depth of the
compact heat exchanger. For example, at friction power (E β ) = 50
 N.A.A. Qasem, A.A. Al-Ghamdi and S.M. Zubair / International Journal of Refrigeration 99 (2019) 479–489
Fig. 6. Performance characteristics of fin circular tubes arrangements in terms of
(a) f- and j-factor (Kays and London, 1984), (b) heat transfer against friction power
while considering the compactness, and (c) heat transfer against friction power
when neglecting the compactness.
kWm−3 , the heat transfer rate per unit volume is about 196.7 and
20.9 kW m−3 K−1 for surface 46.45T and surface 2.0, respectively.
It can be seen that when friction power (E γ ) is about 1 W m−1 ,
ηo h β is about 0.88 and 4.45 W m−1 K−1 using surfaces 46.45T and
2.0, respectively.
485
Fig. 7. Performance characteristics of plain-fin arrangements in terms of (a) f- and
j-factor (Kays and London, 1984), (b) heat transfer against friction power while con-
sidering the compactness, and (c) heat transfer against friction power when ne-
glecting the compactness.
3.7. Pin-fin
Pin-fin arrangements are frequently used in heat sink such as
electronic applications. However, they are reported to be used to
cool a primary fluid (e.g., water or refrigerant) in compact heat
exchangers (Kays and London, 1984). The six geometries of fin-
pin (refer to Table A1) were experimentally tested and reported
486 N.A.A. Qasem, A.A. Al-Ghamdi and S.M. Zubair / International Journal of Refrigeration 99 (2019) 479–489
Fig. 8. Performance characteristics of pin-fin arrangements in terms of (a) f- and
j-factor (Kays and London, 1984), (b) heat transfer vs. friction power while consid-
ering the compactness, and (c) heat transfer against friction power when neglecting
the compactness.
in terms of f- and j-factor characteristics (Kays and London, 1984).
These f and j factors are shown in Fig. 8(a) against Reynolds num-
ber. The surface PF-4(F) has the highest f- and j-factor values while
surface PF-3.0 has the lowest. Both surfaces PF-4(F) and PF-3.0 ex-
hibit a large f- and j-factor deviation from the other surfaces (see
Fig. 8(a)). Fig. 8(b) shows that the optimal values of heat transfer
Fig. 9. A comparison among typical types of compact heat exchangers: heat trans-
fer against friction power while considering the compactness.
rate per unit friction power are obtained by using surface PF-10(F)
when the compactness is considered. However, surface Pf-4(F) re-
veals the optimal values of heat transfer to pumping power when
neglecting the compactness (see Fig. 8(c)). For instance, the heat
transfer rates are found to be 66.0 and 58.3 kW m−3 K−1 when
the friction power per unit volume is 50 kW m−3 using PF-10(F)
and PF-4(F), respectively. Alternatively, per unit depth of heat ex-
changer, ηo h γ = 6.04 and 4.01 W m−1 K−1 for E γ = 0.8 W m−1 us-
ing PF-10(F) and PF- 4(F), respectively.
3.8. Comparison of different types of airside surfaces
Based on the abovementioned arrangements, that have optimal
heat transfer rates per unit friction power with or without consid-
eration of the compactness, These geometries (optimal from dif-
ferent types) are compared together to ascertain the best com-
pact heat exchanger that achieves an optimal thermal-hydraulic
characteristic.
While considering the compactness, the selected optimal ar-
rangements are surface 17.8-3/8 W (wavy-fin), surface PF-10(F)
(pin-fin), surface 46.45T (plain-fin), surface 1/10-27.03 (strip-fin),
surface 1/4(b)-11.1 (louver-fin), surface CF-8.0-3/8T (finned circu-
lar tubes), and surface 11.32-0.737-SR (finned flat tubes). Based on
these geometries, the heat transfer rates (ηo h β ) against friction
power (E β ) are depicted in Fig. 9. It is clear that the strip-fin sur-
face 1/10-27.03 has the optimal values. That is followed by plain-
fin surface 46.45T. It can be deduced from Fig. 9 that the strip-fin
surface 1/10-27.03 is strongly recommended to represent the air-
side surfaces of compact heat exchangers when the heat exchanger
size (volume) is an important factor.
When the compactness is not an important factor in rating of
compact heat exchangers, the selected (optimal) arrangements are
wavy-fin surface 11.5-3/8 W, pin-fin surface PF-4(F), plain-fin sur-
face 2.0, strip-fin surface 1/8-13.95, louver-fin surface 1/8(a)-6.06,
finned circular tubes surface CF-7.75-5/8T, and finned flat tubes
surface 11.32-0.737-SR. A comparison of the thermal performance
of these surfaces is shown in Fig. 10. Obviously, the pin-fin surface
PF-4(F) has the optimal heat transfer performance (ηo h β ) for all
the estimated friction power (E β ). This could be followed by strip-
fin surface 1/8-13.95. Thus, the recommended airside arrangement
of the compact heat exchanger is pin-fin surface PF-4(F) when the
compactness is not of great consequence.
The high compactness value of strip-fin surface 1/10-27.03
(β = 1068 m−1 ) augments the thermal-hydraulic performance
 N.A.A. Qasem, A.A. Al-Ghamdi and S.M. Zubair / International Journal of Refrigeration 99 (2019) 479–489 487

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the support provided by King Fahd

University of Petroleum & Minerals through the project IN171048.

Appendix

A. Investigated geometries

Table A1

B. Friction power and heat transfer index derivations

Friction power is a function of pressure drop as,

P = A c V P (A1)
Fig. 10. A comparison among typical types of compact heat exchangers: heat trans-
fer against friction power when neglecting the compactness. where
  1 
f L
P = ρ V2 (A2)
when the size is important (Fig. 9). In this regard, despite of the 4 Dh 2
plain-fin surfaces are known to have low performances (because
of a low turbulence flow), the plain-fin surface 46.45T shows an μ Re
V = (A3)
excellent performance due to a high compactness value (β = 1569 ρ Dh
m−1 ). On the other hand, the compactness is much lower for pin- and
fin surface PF-4(F) around 213 m−1 in which the performance is
Ac L Atot
optimal when the compactness is not accounted (Fig. 10). In other = (A4)
words, the high compactness values contribute to enhancing the
Dh 4
heat transfer per unit friction power when the heat exchanger size Substituting Eqs. (A2)–(A4) in Eq. (A1) resulting in friction
is important; otherwise, low values are better. However, the fric- power,
tion power may be increased for high compactness values leading
μ3  1 3
to minimize the performance. P= f Atot Re3 (A5)
2 ρ2 Dh
4. Concluding remarks The friction power per unit heat transfer area can be written as

Airside thermal-hydraulic performance of compact heat ex- P

E= (A6)
changers is assessed and evaluated. Seventy-five practical airside Atot
arrangements have been selected, that are the standard reference This results in,
reported by Kays and London (1984) to represent louver-fin, strip-
μ3  1 3
fin, wavy-fin, plain-fin, pin-fin, finned circular tubes and finned flat E= f Re3 (A7)
tubes. Heat transfer rate, pumping power, and compactness are the 2ρ 2 Dh
key performance parameters that have been highlighted to select For heat transfer coefficient (h), it can be expressed in term of
an optimal airside arrangement. j-factor as
The results confirm that strip-fin surface 1/10-27.03 has the op-
timal heat transfer values per unit friction power when the com- cp μ 1
h = j.Re (A8)
pactness is considered. In spite of this, pin-fin surface PF-4(F) ex- Pr2/3 Dh
hibits the optimal thermal-hydraulic performance per unit depth Multiplying Eq. (A8) by heat exchanger compactness and over-
of heat exchanger (when neglecting the significance of the com- all surface efficiency (β ηo ), the heat transfer rates per unit vol-
pactness). The applied comparison method in this paper is recom- ume can be estimated as written in Eq. (1). Likewise, multiplying
mended to be applied for evaluating any new or proposed airside Eq. (A7) by compactness, Eq. (2) is obtained.
geometries. Moreover, the optimal airside surfaces for each type of Instead of compactness, one may use heat transfer area per unit
compact heat exchanger could be taken as a benchmark to evalu- flow path length (γ = Atot /Ld ). This leads to Eqs. (3) and (4).
ate any new investigated airside geometry.
488 N.A.A. Qasem, A.A. Al-Ghamdi and S.M. Zubair / International Journal of Refrigeration 99 (2019) 479–489

Table A1
Airside geometrical parameters of compact heat exchangers (Kays and London, 1984).

Fin arrangement Geometrical parameters

Fp (mm) Fh (mm) Lp (mm) Fg (mm) Lg (mm) Dh (mm) t (mm) β (m−1 ) α Afin /Atot

Louver-fin 3/8-6.06 4.191 6.35 9.525 2.79 1.4 4.453 0.153 389 840 0.64
3/8(a)-6.06 4.202 6.35 9.53 0.89 3.3 4.453 0.152 389 840 0.64
1/2-6.06 4.184 6.35 12.7 2.79 1.4 4.453 0.152 363 840 0.64
1/2(a)-6.06 4.184 6.35 12.7 0.89 3.3 4.453 0.152 349 840 0.64
3/8-8.7 2.915 6.35 9.53 1.52 1.4 3.65 0.152 426 1007 0.705
3/8(a)-8.7 2.915 6.35 9.35 0.89 2.03 3.65 0.152 426 1007 0.705
3/16-11.1 2.288 6.35 4.763 0.89 1.4 3.084 0.152 504 1204 0.756
1/4-11.1 2.288 6.35 6.35 0.89 1.4 3.084 0.152 558 1204 0.756
1/4(b)-11.1 2.288 6.35 6.35 0.89 1.4 3.084 0.152 558 1204 0.756
3/8-11.1 2.288 6.35 9.53 0.89 1.4 3.084 0.152 558 1204 0.756
3/8(b)-11.1 2.288 6.35 9.53 0.89 1.4 3.084 0.152 558 1204 0.756
1/2-11.1 2.288 6.35 12.7 0.89 1.4 3.084 0.152 520 1204 0.756
3/4-11.1 2.288 6.35 19.05 1.27 1.02 3.084 0.152 558 1204 0.756
3/4(b)-11.1 2.288 6.35 19.05 1.27 1.02 3.084 0.152 558 1204 0.756

Do (mm) Fp (mm) Df (mm) Dh (mm) t (mm) β (m−1 ) σ α Afin /Atot

Finned circular tubes CF-7.34 9.65 3.46 23.37 4.68 0.46 453 0.538 459 0.892
CF-7.75-5/8T 17.17 3.277 – 3.48 0.4064 553 0.481 554 0.95
CF-8.0-3/8T 10.21 3.175 – 3.632 0.3302 588 0.534 587 0.913
CF-8.8-1.0Ja 26.01 2.888 44.76 5.893 0.3048 298 0.439 299 0.825
CF-8.8-1.0Jb 26.01 2.888 44.12 13.21 0.3048 194 0.642 191 0.825
CF-7.0-5/8J 16.38 3.63 30.73 6.68 0.254 269 0.449 269 0.83
CF-8.72 9.65 2.915 23.37 3.929 0.46 533 0.524 535 0.91
CF-8.72c 10.67 2.915 21.62 4.425 0.48 447 0.494 446 0.876

Do (mm) Pt (mm) Pl (mm) Fh (mm) Dh (mm) β (m−1 ) α Afin /Atot

Pin-fin AP-1 1.02 3.175 3.175 6.1 4.404 265 616.8 0.512
AP-2 1.02 2.44 3.05 10.1 3.576 307 669 0.686
PF-3 0.79 1.53 1.53 19.1 1.636 529 1112 0.843
PF-4(F) 1.65 3.175 5.055 12.75 5.66 213 459 0.704
PF-9(F) 1.65 4.98 6.05 12.95 9.042 147 316 0.546
PF-10(F) 0.91 2.886 2.794 11.18 4.343 322 702 0.693

Fp (mm) Fh (mm) L (mm) 2A (mm) t (mm) β (m−1 ) α Afin /Atot

Wavy-fin 17.8-3/8W 1.427 10.49 9.525 1.981 0.125 803 1686 0.892
11.44-3/8W 2.22 10.49 9.252 1.969 0.125 526 1152 0.847
11.5-3/8W 2.21 9.525 9.525 1.981 0.254 484 1138 0.822

Fp (mm) Fh (mm) l (mm) Dh (mm) t (mm) β (m−1 ) α Afin /Atot

Offset strip-fin 1/4(s)-11.1 2.288 6.35 6.35 3.084 0.152 520 1204 0.756
1/8-15.2 1.672 10.5 3.18 2.647 0.152 624 1368 0.873
1/8-13.95 1.821 9.525 3.175 2.68 0.254 566 1250 0.84
1/8-15.61 1.626 6.35 3.175 2.38 0.102 669 1548 0.923
1/8-19.86 1.279 2.49 3.175 1.54 0.102 804 2254 0.785
1/9-22.68 1.12 7.65 2.8 1.735 0.102 915 2069 0.896
1/9-25.01 1.015 5.08 2.8 1.5 0.102 986 2360 0.881
1/9-24.12 1.053 1.91 2.8 1.209 0.102 930 2830 0.857
1/10-27.03 0.94 6.38 2.54 1.423 0.102 1068 2466 0.878
1/10-19.35 1.312 1.91 2.54 1.403 0.102 814 2490 0.873
1/10-19.74 1.287 1.29 2.54 1.219 0.051 853 3028 0.923
3/32-12.22 2.083 12.3 2.4 3.41 0.102 515 1115 0.862
1/2-11.94(D) 2.128 6.02 12.7 2.266 0.152 825 1512 0.796
1/4-15.4(D) 1.65 5.23 6.35 1.605 0.152 884 2106 0.816
1/6-12.18(D) 2.083 8.97 4.52 2.63 0.102 802 1385 0.847
1/7-15.75(D) 1.613 7.72 3.63 2.07 0.102 764 1726 0.859
1/8-16.00(D) 1.587 6.48 3.175 1.862 0.152 782 1804 0.845
1/8-16.12(D) 1.575 5.23 3.175 1.552 0.152 909 2165 0.823
1/8-19.82(D) 1.282 5.21 3.175 1.537 0.102 936 2231 0.841
1/8-20.06(D) 1.266 5.11 3.175 1.491 0.102 958 2290 0.843
1/8-16.12(T) 1.575 7.98 3.175 1.567 0.152 948 2133 0.882

Fp (mm) Dh (mm) t (mm) β (m−1 ) σ α Afin /Atot

Finned flat tubes 9.68-0.87 2.625 3.597 0.102 775 0.697 751 0.795
9.1-0.737-S 2.793 4.206 0.102 749 0.788 735 0.813
9.68-0.87-R 2.625 3.597 0.102 775 0.697 751 0.795
9.29-0.737-SR 2.732 4.12 0.102 765 0.788 748 0.814
11.32-0.737-SR 2.242 3.51 0.102 889 0.78 886 0.845
(continued on next page)
 N.A.A. Qasem, A.A. Al-Ghamdi and S.M. Zubair / International Journal of Refrigeration 99 (2019) 479–489 489

Table A1
(continued)

Fp (mm) Fh (mm) Dh (mm) t (mm) β (m−1 ) α Afin /Atot

Plain-fin 2 12.7 19.05 14.453 0.813 119 249.672 0.606

3.01 8.439 19.05 10.82 0.813 153 322.507 0.706
3.97 6.398 19.05 8.585 0.813 186 391.7 0.766
5.3 4.792 11.94 6.147 0.152 285 616.8 0.719
6.2 4.097 10.29 5.54 0.254 288 669.3 0.728
9.03 2.813 20.9 4.643 0.203 382 800.5 0.888
11.1 2.288 6.35 3.081 0.152 520 1204 0.756
11.11 2.288 12.19 3.518 0.203 519 1024 0.854
14.77 1.718 8.38 2.59 0.152 615 1378 0.844
15.08 1.684 10.6 2.67 0.152 620 1358 0.87
19.86 1.279 6.35 1.875 0.152 795 1841 0.849
10.27 T 2.475 13.8 3.835 0.254 443 951 0.863
11.94 T 2.128 6.325 2.87 0.152 545 1289 0.769
12.0 T 2.119 6.35 2.87 0.152 556 1288 0.773
16.96 T 1.478 6.5 1.722 0.152 1103 1994 0.861
25.79 T 0.985 5.182 1.151 0.152 1488 2807 0.884
30.33 T 0.838 8.763 1.222 0.101 1543 2666 0.928
46.45 T 0.547 2.54 0.805 0.051 1569 4372 0.837

References
Abu Madi, M., Johns, R.A., Heikal, M.R., 1998. Performance characteristics corre-
lation for round tube and plate finned heat exchangers: equations relatives
aux performances d’échangeurs de chaleur constitués de tubes ronds et de
plaques à ailettes. Int. J. Refrig. 21, 507–517. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0140-70 07(98)0 0 031-0.
Bhowmik, H., Lee, K.-S., 2009. Analysis of heat transfer and pressure drop charac-
teristics in an offset strip fin heat exchanger. Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf.
36, 259–263. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2008.11.
001.
Bhuiyan, A.A., Islam, A.K.M.S., 2016. Thermal and hydraulic performance of finned-
tube heat exchangers under different flow ranges: a review on modeling and
experiment. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 101, 38–59. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2016.05.022.
Cowell, T.A., Heikal, M.R., Achaichia, A., 1995. Flow and heat transfer in compact
louvered fin surfaces. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 10, 192–199. https://doi.org/https:
//doi.org/10.1016/0894-1777(94)0 0 093-N.
Dixit, T., Ghosh, I., 2015. Review of micro- and mini-channel heat sinks and heat
exchangers for single phase fluids. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 41, 1298–1311.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.09.024.
Dogan, B., Altun, Ö., Ugurlubilek, N., Tosun, M., Sarıçay, T., Erbay, L.B., 2015. An ex-
perimental comparison of two multi-louvered fin heat exchangers with differ-
ent numbers of fin rows. Appl. Therm. Eng. 91, 270–278. https://doi.org/https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.07.059.
Dong, J., Chen, J., Chen, Z., Zhang, W., Zhou, Y., 2007a. Heat transfer and pres-
sure drop correlations for the multi-louvered fin compact heat exchangers.
Energy Convers. Manag. 48, 1506–1515. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2006.11.023.
Dong, J., Chen, J., Chen, Z., Zhou, Y., 2007b. Air-side thermal hydraulic performance
of offset strip fin aluminum heat exchangers. Appl. Therm. Eng. 27, 306–313.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.20 06.08.0 05.
Dong, J., Su, L., Chen, Q., Xu, W., 2013. Experimental study on thermal–hydraulic per-
formance of a wavy fin-and-flat tube aluminum heat exchanger. Appl. Therm.
Eng. 51, 32–39. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2012.09.
018.
Erbay, L.B., Uğurlubilek, N., Altun, Ö., Doğan, B., 2017. Numerical investigation of
the air-side thermal hydraulic performance of a louvered-fin and flat-tube heat
exchanger at low Reynolds Numbers. Heat Transf. Eng. 38, 627–640. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01457632.2016.1200382.
Jacobi, M., Park, Y., Zhong, Y., Michna, G., Xia, Y., 2005. High Performance Heat
Exchangers for Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Applications (Non-Circular
Tubes). Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Technology Institute. University of
Illinois, Urbana, IL ARTI-21CR/605-20021-01.
Jang, J.-Y., Chen, C.-C., 2015. Optimization of louvered-fin heat exchanger with vari-
able louver angles. Appl. Therm. Eng. 91, 138–150. https://doi.org/https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.08.009.
Jonsson, H., Moshfegh, B., 2001. Modeling of the thermal and hydraulic performance
of plate fin, strip fin, and pin fin heat sinks-influence of flow bypass. IEEE Trans.
Compon. Packag. Technol. 24, 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1109/6144.926376.
Kashyap, P.K., Jhavar, P., 2016. Enhancement of heat exchanger performance by the
extended surfaces-fins. Int. J. Eng. Trends Technol. 34, 260–265. https://doi.org/
10.14445/22315381/IJETT-V34P253.
Kays, W.M., London, A.L., 1984. Compact Heat Exchangers. McGraw Hill, New York.
Kim, J.H., Yun, J.H., Lee, C.S., 2004. Heat-transfer and friction characteristics for the
louver-fin heat exchanger. J. Thermophys. Heat Transf. 18, 58–64. https://doi.org/
10.2514/1.9123.
Kim, M.-H., Bullard, C.W., 2002. Air-side thermal hydraulic performance of multi-
louvered fin aluminum heat exchangers. Int. J. Refrig 25, 390–400. https://doi.
org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-7007(01)00025-1.
Kong, Y.Q., Yang, L.J., Du, X.Z., Yang, Y.P., 2016. Air-side flow and heat transfer char-
acteristics of flat and slotted finned tube bundles with various tube pitches.
Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 99, 357–371. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijheatmasstransfer.2016.04.002.
Kwon, B., Maniscalco, N.I., Jacobi, A.M., King, W.P., 2018. High power density air-
cooled microchannel heat exchanger. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf 118, 1276–1283.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.11.068.
Leu, J.-S., Liu, M.-S., Liaw, J.-S., Wang, C.-C., 2001. A numerical investigation of lou-
vered fin-and-tube heat exchangers having circular and oval tube configura-
tions. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 44, 4235–4243. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0017-9310(01)0 0 081-3.
London, A.L., Shah, R.K., 1968. Offset rectangular plate-fin surfaces - heat transfer
and flow friction characteristics. Trans. ASME, J. Eng. Power 90, 218–228. https:
//doi.org/10.1115/1.3609175.
Lotfi, B., Zeng, M., Sundén, B., Wang, Q., 2014. 3D numerical investigation of flow
and heat transfer characteristics in smooth wavy fin-and-elliptical tube heat ex-
changers using new type vortex generators. Energy 73, 233–257. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.06.016.
Okbaz, A., Pınarbaşı, A., Olcay, A.B., Hilmi Aksoy, M., 2018. An experimental, com-
putational and flow visualization study on the air-side thermal and hydraulic
performance of louvered fin and round tube heat exchangers. Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf. 121, 153–169. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.
2017.12.127.
Qasem, N.A.A., Zubair, S.M., 2019. Generalized air-side friction and heat transfer
correlations for wavy-fin compact heat exchangers. Int. J. Refrig. 97, 21–30.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2018.09.010.
Qasem, N.A.A., Zubair, S.M., 2018a. An assessment of the optimal air-side thermal-
hydraulic performance of wavy-fin compact heat exchangers. Int. J. Refrig. 96,
117–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2018.08.025.
Qasem, N.A.A., Zubair, S.M., 2018b. Compact and microchannel heat exchangers: a
comprehensive review of air-side friction factor and heat transfer correlations.
Energy Convers. Manag. 173, 555–601. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2018.06.104.
Ruiz, M., Carey, V.P., 2015. Experimental study of single phase heat transfer and
pressure loss in a spiraling radial inflow microchannel heat sink. J. Heat Transf.
137, 71702–71708. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4029821.
Saleem, A., Kim, M.-H., 2017. Air-side thermal hydraulic performance of microchan-
nel heat exchangers with different fin configurations. Appl. Therm. Eng. 125,
780–789. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.07.082.
Shah, R.K., Sekulić, D.P., 2003. Selection of heat exchangers and their components.
Fundamentals of Heat Exchanger Design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ,
USA, pp. 673–734.
Sheik Ismail, L., Velraj, R., Ranganayakulu, C., 2010. Studies on pumping power in
terms of pressure drop and heat transfer characteristics of compact plate-fin
heat exchangers—a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14, 478–485. https://doi.
org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.033.
Vyas, A., Bani Agrawal, A., 2013. Offset-strip fin heat exchangers a conceptual review
study. Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl. 3, 2248–9622.
Webb, R.L., Kim, N.-H., 2005. Principles of Enhanced Heat Transfer. Taylor & Francis,
New York.