International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 4295–4300

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

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

Research on the shell-side thermal performances of heat exchangers

with helical tube coils
Srbislav B. Genić a, Branislav M. Jaćimović a, Marko S. Jarić b,⇑, Nikola J. Budimir b, Mirko M. Dobrnjac c
a
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Belgrade, Kraljice Marije 16, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
b
Innovation Center of the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Belgrade, Kraljice Marije 16, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
c
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Banja Luka, Vojvode Stepe Stepanovića 71, 78000 Banja Luka, Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina

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

Article history: This paper presents the results of experimental research on shell-side heat transfer coefficient concerning
Received 16 February 2012 3 heat exchangers with helical coils. Measurements were carried in laboratory and the following corre-
Accepted 29 March 2012 lation was found to be adequate Nu = 0.50  Re0.55  Pr 1/3  (g/gw)0.14 where Re and Nu are based on shell-
Available online 24 April 2012
side hydraulic diameter.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Heat exchanger
Helical coil
Heat transfer coefficient
Hydraulic diameter

1. Introduction laboratory research on heat transfer parameters, conducted on 3

Heat exchangers with helical tubes are often encountered in
chemical and petrochemical industries, HVAC systems, thermal,
environmental and many other engineering applications. They
can be used as heaters, coolers, condensers and evaporators, and
their design is largely restricted to non-fouling fluids [1,2]. In com-
parison with straight-tube heat exchangers, heat transfer rate of
helically coiled heat exchangers is significantly greater because of
the secondary flow pattern in planes normal to the main flow [3,4].
Basically, helical coil heat exchangers are a compact shell and
tube apparatuses, consisting of several layers of coiled tubes within
a closed shell. There is a number of types of these apparatuses and
in the present study heat exchangers with concentric helical tubes
(HECHT) are to be investigated.
Tube bundle of HECHT consist of a number of tubes wound heli-
cally around a central supporting tube and placed in a cylindrical
shell. Rows of tubes can be wound in the same direction (Fig. 1)
or in the opposite directions (Fig. 2). Between the tube coils the
wire inserts are placed in order to prevent the collision of tubes
[1,5,6].
Despite the decades of application of the heat exchangers with
helical tube coils in the industry, the problems related to the heat
transfer have not been fully explored. The main reason for this sit-
uation is that the previous studies were oriented to specific appli-
cations of HECHT [2,7,8]. This article sublimates activities of our
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +381 63 435779; fax: +381 11 3370364.
E-mail address: mjaric@mas.bg.ac.rs (M.S. Jarić).
heat exchangers.
2. Literature survey of the HECHT shell-side heat transfer
correlations
Heat transfer in helically coiled tubes is carefully investigated
through numerous theoretical and experimental works are com-
prehensive correlations are given in literature such as VDI Heat At-
las [9]. On the other hand heat transfer correlations for shell-side
heat transfer are mentioned on very few occasions - one of the pa-
pers is [8] where the authors provided six correlations for six
investigated heat exchangers with concentric helical tubes of dif-
ferent sizes (Table 1). Another paper with three correlations, writ-
ten by Abadzic, is presented and recommended in [1] (Table 2).
Besides mentioned correlations, no other appropriate one was
found in the open literature. For example in [2] some data on heat
exchanger effectiveness are presented, but author did not provide
any correlation for shell-side heat transfer coefficient. It is neces-
sary to note that all these correlations are based on the outer tube
diameter (do, m) employed in Nusselt and Reynolds numbers.
3. The experimental work
Experimental research was conducted in laboratory on 3 heat
exchangers. Our laboratory holds the Accreditation Certificate for
the following standards:

0017-9310/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2012.03.074
4296 S.B. Genić et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 4295–4300

Fig. 1. HECHT with tubes wound in the same direction.

Fig. 2. HECHT with tubes wound in the opposite directions.

 BS EN 305:1997 Heat Exchangers. Definitions Of Performance  m_ 1 ; kg=s; mass flow rate of hot fluid;
Of Heat Exchangers And The General Test Procedure For Estab-  t1in, °C, inlet temperature of hot fluid;
lishing Performance Of All Heat Exchangers;  t1out, °C, outlet temperature of hot fluid;
 BS EN 306:1997 Heat Exchangers. Methods Of Measuring The  m_ 2 ; kg=s; mass flow rate of cold fluid;
Parameters Necessary For Establishing The Performance;  t2in, °C, inlet temperature of cold fluid;
 BS EN 307:1999 Heat Exchangers. Guidelines For Preparing  t2out, °C, outlet temperature of cold fluid.
Installation, Operating And Maintenance Instructions Required
To Maintain The Performance Of Each Type Of Heat Exchanger. Within these tests, the hot fluid was heated to desired temper-
ature in an electric heated tank (2), and the large quantity of cold
Measurement of fluid flow rate were performed with orifice water was placed in tank (3). Centrifugal pumps (4) and (5) and
flow meters and according to ISO 5167-1:2003 Measurement of flow meters and PT100 thermometers complemented the experi-
fluid flow by means of pressure differential devices inserted in cir- mental set-up.
cular cross-section conduits running full. Estimated maximal The geometric and construction parameters of tested heat ex-
uncertainty of the flow rate measurement is 2%. The temperatures changer are shown in Table 3. Other parameters of interest are:
of hot and cold fluids were measured using four platinum resis-
tance thermometers (PT 100) with the maximal uncertainty of  tube material: cooper – thermal conductivity ktw ¼ 380W
0.1 °C. =ðm  KÞ;
Laboratory set-up is shown in Fig. 3 where the central part is  number of tube passes: 1;
coiled tube heat exchanger item (1) with hot water as a tube-side  number of shell passes: 1;
fluid, while the cold water flowed on the shell-side. Both hot and  flow direction: counter-current.
cold water are decarbonized. All HECHT’s were thermally insu-
lated. The following notation is used in Fig. 3: The range of operating parameters during the measurements is
given in Table 4. The cross-section of HECHT-5 is shown in Fig. 1;
HECHT-14 is shown in Fig. 2.
Table 1
Six heat transfer correlations from [8]. 4. Results and discussion
Correlation Redo Winding angle (b)
After measuring inlet and outlet temperatures of hot and cold
(1) Nudo ¼ 0:0567  Re0:71  Pr0:93 500  45000 18°300
do fluids and their flow rates, three heat duties of the heat exchanger
(2) Nudo ¼ 0:0085  Re0:84  Pr0:57 900  7500 4°300
do could be determined from each set of test data:
(3) Nudo ¼ 0:0305  Re0:85  Pr 0:7 400  7500 18°300
do
(4) Nudo ¼ 0:032  Re0:83  Pr1:14 800  12000 18°300
do  heat duty calculated with measured values for the hot fluid
(5) Nudo ¼ 0:0851  Re0:71  Pr1:02 400  37000 4°300
do
(6) 0:0214  Re0:86  Pr0:83 500  7000 4°300
Nudo ¼ do Q_ 1 ¼ m
_ 1  cp1  ðt1in  t 1out Þ ð8Þ
 S.B. Genić et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 4295–4300 4297

Table 2
Abadzic’ s heat transfer correlations from [1].

Correlation Redo Winding angle (b)

(7) Nudo ¼ 0:332  Re0:6  Pr 0:36 1000  20000 9°

do

Nudo ¼ 0:123  Re0:7  Pr0:36 20000  200000 9°

do

Nudo ¼ 0:036  Re0:8

do  Pr0:36 200000  900000 9°

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðQ_ 1  Q_ m Þ2 þ ðQ_ 2  Q_ m Þ2
Dst ¼ ð11Þ
Q_ m

and further analysis was done only for working regimes with
Dst < 10%. This criterion is in accordance with [2,10] and [11].
Since all heat exchanger operated with counter-current flow,
mean logarithmic temperature difference is

ðt 1in  t2out Þ  ðt1out  t 2in Þ

LMTD ¼ ð12Þ
ln tt1in t 2out
1out t 2in

and the overall heat transfer coefficient is

Fig. 3. Laboratory set-up. Q_ m

k¼ ð13Þ
Sht  LMTD
 heat duty calculated with measured values for the cold fluid where Sht, m2, heat transfer surface.
Q_ 2 ¼ m
_ 2  cp2  ðt 2out  t 2in Þ ð9Þ Since the heat exchanger fouling in laboratory conditions can be
neglected, shell-side heat transfer coefficient is
 mean value of heat duty
Q_ 1 þ Q_ 2 1 1 1 do do do
Q_ m ¼ ð10Þ ¼     ln ð14Þ
2 ao k at di 2  ktw di
where cp1, J/(kg K) and cp2, J/(kg K) are specific heat capacities of hot
where at,W/(m2 K) is the tube side heat transfer coefficient. For cal-
and cold fluid, respectively.
culation of the tube side heat transfer coefficient we have used the
The unsteadiness (dispersion of heat duty) of each working re-
correlations from chapter G3 – Heat Transfer in Helically Coiled
gime is defined by
Tubes from VDI Heat Atlas [9], having on mind that water flow rate
is distributed unevenly in tubes according to equal pressure drop
criterion.

Table 3
Basic parameters of HECHT with 5, 14 and 26 tubes (coils are numbered in direction from the central tube to shell).

Parameter No. of coil, i HECHT-5 HECHT-14 HECHT-26

Inner shell diameter, Ds ; mm 105.3 254.4 107.1
Length of heat exchanger (distance between tubesheets), Lhe ; m 1.23 0.555 1.35
Outer tube diameter, do ; mm 10 12 10
Inner tube diameter, di ; mm 8 10 8
Direction of coils wounds Same direction Opposite direction Opposite direction
Outer diameter of central tube, Dct ; mm 48 142.4 44.5
Diameter of coil dw;i ; mm 1 70 158.4 60
2 92 184.4 89
3 – 210.4 –
4 – 236.4 –
Slope of coil, bi 1 6°480 5°100 42°030
2 7°460 4°260 42°280
3 – 5°110 –
4 – 4°370 –
Tube pitch, si ; mm 1 26.24 45 0.170
2 39.38 45 0.256
3 – 60 –
4 – 60 –
Length of tube, Lt;i ; m 1 9.526 6.00 1.235
2 9.526 6.97 1.235
3 – 5.97 –
4 – 6.71 –
Number of tubes, N t;i 1 2 3 10
2 3 3 16
3 – 4 –
4 – 4 –
Total number of tubes, N t 5 14 26
Heat transfer surface, Sht ; m2 1.5 3.38 1.037
4298 S.B. Genić et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 4295–4300

Table 4
Range of operating parameters.

Operating parameters HECHT-5 HECHT-14 HECHT-26

Tube-side flow rate, m_ 1 ; kg=s 0.19  0.44 0.59  3.21 0.63  0.66
Tube-side inlet temperature, t1in, °C 64  97 62  82 87  89
Tube-side outlet temperature, t1out, °C 23  50 58  72 61  63
_ 2 ; kg=s
Shell-side flow rate, m 0.28  2.21 0.46  4.15 0.85  1.18
Shell-side inlet temperature, t2in, °C 21  36 49  67 28  29
Shell-side outlet temperature, t2out, °C 30  66 58  73 43  46
Number of working regimes 27 14 3

4.1. Analysis of the correlations from [1,8] Specifically written, Eq. (15) reads

Vs
In the first instance, the analysis of measured data included the dh ¼ 4  ð18Þ
Ss
testing of the correlations (1) to (7). The correlation ratio (CR) and
root-mean-square deviation (RMSD), as the main statistical indica- where:
tors, are shown in Table 5. Statistical parameters presented in Ta-  Vs, m3, is the shell-side volume;
ble 5 led to the conclusion that correlations (1) to (7) cannot be  Ss, m2, is the shell-side surface of heat exchanger in contact with
considered as reliable, so we made additional effort to obtain fluid.
new correlation for shell-side heat transfer coefficient.
Volume of the shell-side with concentric helical tubes is
4.2. New correlation based on shell-side hydraulic diameter
V s ¼ V sh  V ct  V t ð19Þ
The basic idea in forming of the new correlation is to use the where:
hydraulic diameter as a characteristic length for shell-side heat  Vsh, m3, is the volume of shell
transfer coefficient. This has been common practice in the fields
of fluid mechanics and heat and mass transfer and the standard
p  D2s
V sh ¼  Lhe ð20Þ
procedure has been to calculate the hydraulic diameter and then 4
use this as the characteristic length dimension in the Reynolds  Vct, m3, is the volume of central (supporting) tube;
number or Nusselt number [12]. In the form that is common for p  D2ct
appartuses with complex flow geometry (for example packed mass V ct ¼  Lhe ð21Þ
4
transfer columns), the hydraulic diameter is defined by the expres-
 Vt, m3, is the volume of all tubes;
sion [5,6]
p  d2o
shell side volume Vt ¼  Lt ð22Þ
dh ¼ 4  ð15Þ 4
surface contact with fluid
 Lt, m, overall length of all tubes
so the shell-side Nusselt number is X
Nt

ao  dh Lt ¼ ðN t;i  Lt;i Þ ð23Þ

Nu ¼ Nudh ¼ ð16Þ i¼1
ks
Shell-side surface in contact with fluid consists of a shell surface,
and Reynolds number is
heat transfer surface (outer surface of the tube coils) and the outer
u s  d h  qs surface of central support tube
Re ¼ Redh ¼ ð17Þ
gs
Ss ¼ p  Ds  Lhe þ Sht þ p  dct  Lhe ð24Þ
where:
 us, m/s, is the referent shell-side fluid velocity; where heat transfer surface is
 ks ; W=ðm  KÞ; is the shell-side fluid heat conductivity; X
Nt
 qs, kg/m3, is the shell-side fluid density; Sht ¼ p  do  ðLt;i  Nt;i Þ ð25Þ
 gs, Pa s, is the shell-side fluid viscosity. i¼1

If the volume porosity of shell-side is

Vs V ct þ V t
Table 5
w¼ ¼1 ð26Þ
V sh V sh
Statistical parameters of the correlations from [1,8].

Correlation CR RMSD,%
then averaged shell-side flow area can be calculated as

(1) Nudo ¼ 0:0567  Re0:71

do  Pr0:93 0.699 26.98 p  D2s
(2) 0 75.23
As ¼ w  ð27Þ
Nudo ¼ 0:0085  Re0:84
do  Pr0:57 4
(3) Nudo ¼ 0:0305  Re0:85
do  Pr0:7 0.636 34.04
Referent shell-side fluid velocity is calculated using
(4) Nudo ¼ 0:032  Redo  Pr1:14
0:83 0 119.49
(5) Nudo ¼ 0:0851  Re0:71
do  Pr1:02 0 86.25 _s
m
(6) 0.721 30.48
us ¼ ð28Þ
Nudo ¼ 0:0214  Re0:86
do  Pr0:83 qs  As
(7) Nudo ¼ 0:332  Redo  Pr0:36
0:6 0.269 32.33
where m_ s ; kg=s, is the shell-side fluid mass flow rate.
Nudo ¼ 0:123  Re0:7
do  Pr
0:36

Nudo ¼ 0:036  Red0:8  Pr 0:36 Hydraulic diameter of tested heat exchangers as well as some
o
other data is given in Table 6.
 S.B. Genić et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 4295–4300 4299

Table 6
Hydraulic diameter of tested heat exchangers.

Heat exchanger HECHT-5 HECHT-14 HECHT-26

3 3
Shell-side volume, V s ; m 3 6.68  10 9.22  10 7.54  103
Shell-side surface of heat exchanger in contact with fluid Ss ; m2 2.23 4.04 1.65
Volume porosity of shell-side, w 0.506 0.328 0.62
Averaged shell-side flow area, As ; m2 4.41  103 1.66  102 5.59  103
Hydraulic diameter, dh ; mm 9.1 12.0 18.3

According to statistical analysis of the measured data (3 heat

exchangers, 44 working regimes) the following criterial equation
was found to be suitable

Nu ¼ 0:50  Re0:55  Pr1=3  ðg=gw Þ0:14 ð29Þ

for ranges of Re = 1000  9000, Pr = 2.6  6.0 and dh = 9.1  18.3mm.

Fluid properties are taken at the fluid arithmetic mean temperature,
except for viscosity gw which is taken at the arithmetic mean outer
tube wall temperature. Statistical parameters for (29) are
CR = 0.947 and RMSD = 8.25%.
Fig. 4 shows the measured values and correlation (29), as well
as the ±15% uncertainty field. Correlation field of (29) with ±15%
uncertainty field is presented in Fig. 5.

4.3. New correlation based on square root of shell-side flow area

In [12] Duan states ‘‘It must be expected that the superiority of

pffiffiffiffiffi Fig. 5. Correlation field for (29).
As to dh may be applicable to turbulent flow.’’ Duan’s conclusion
relates to laminar and turbulent flow in pipes and noncircular
channels such as rectangular, trapezoidal, double-trapezoidal, tri-
angular, rhombic, hexagonal, octagonal, circular sector, circular Statistical parameters for (30) are CR = 0.907 and
pffiffiffiffiffi
segment, and annular sector ducts. If As is used as characteristic RMSD = 21.32%, so it can be concluded that the quality of correla-
pffiffiffiffiffi
length scale instead of dh the following correlation is obtained tion (30) is significantly worse than (29) i.e. assumption that As
is superior to dh as a characteristic length is not proved to be right
NupAffiffiffiffi ¼ 0:12  Rep ffiffiffiffi  Pr1=3  ðg=g Þ0:14
0:78
A w ð30Þ in hereby presented case.
s s

where Nusselt and Reynolds numbers are calculated as

pffiffiffiffiffi 5. Conclusions
ao  As
NupAffiffiffiffi ¼ ð31Þ
s ks This paper presents the results of thermal performance mea-
surements on 3 heat exchangers with concentric helical coils.
and Reynolds number is Attention was paid on shell-side heat transfer coefficient which
pffiffiffiffiffi is strongly influenced by geometric/construction parameters such
us  As  qs
RepAffiffiffiffi ¼ ð32Þ as winding angle, radial pitch, axial pitch, etc. After examining
s gs
the correlations for shell-side heat transfer coefficient from the
and characteristic shell-side velocity us is calculated using (28). open literature it was concluded that new correlation has to be
found. From the results of the present study, it was found out that
the shell-side heat transfer coefficients should be based on shell-
side hydraulic diameter, because this parameter includes the num-
ber of shell side construction parameters.
Final form of shell-side heat transfer correlation (in which Nus-
selt and Reynolds numbers are based on hydraulic diameter) is

Nu ¼ 0:50  Re0:55  Pr1=3  ðg=gw Þ0:14

with statistical parameters as follows: CR = 0.947 and RMSD = 8.25%.

Experiments were conducted with water flowing on the both sides
of heat exchangers. The range of nondimensionless numbers is
Re = 1000  9000 and Pr = 2.6  6.0, and the range of the hydraulic
diameter is dh = 9.1  18.3mm.

Acknowledgment

We thank the Ministry of Education and Science of Serbia for a

partial support to this study through the Project of Technology
Fig. 4. Correlation (29) vs. measured data. Development.
4300 S.B. Genić et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 4295–4300

References [7] R.Q. Duan, S.Y. Jiang, Numerical investigation of gas flow distribution and
thermal mixing in helically coiled tube bundle, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 45 (7)
(2008) 704–711.
[1] E.M. Smith, Advances in Thermal Design of Heat Exchangers – A Numerical
[8] J.C. Messa, S.A. Foust, W.G. Poehlein, Shell-side heat transfer coefficients in
Approach: Direct-sizing, Step-wise Rating and Transients, Wiley, Chichester,
helical coil heat exchangers, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 8 (3) (1969)
2005. pp. 155.
343–347.
[2] P. Naphon, Thermal performance and pressure drop of the helical-coil heat
[9] VDI Heat Atlas, Springer, 2010, pp. 709–711.
exchangers with and without helically crimped fins, Int. Commun. Heat Mass
[10] D. Lelea, S. Nishio, K. Takano, The experimental research on microtube heat
Transfer 34 (2007) 321–330.
transfer and fluid flow of distilled water, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 47 (2004)
[3] A. Zachár, Analysis of coiled-tube heat exchangers to improve heat transfer rate
2817–2830.
with spirally corrugated wall, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 3928–3939.
[11] S. Genić, B. Jaćimović, Lj. Vladić, Heat transfer rate of direct-contact
[4] D.G. Prabhanjan, G.S.V. Raghavan, T.J. Rennie, Comparison of heat transfer rates
condensation on baffle trays, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 51 (25–26) (2008)
between a straight tube heat exchanger and a helically coiled heat exchanger,
5772–5776.
Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 29 (2) (2002) 185–191.
[12] Z. Duan, New correlative models for fully developed turbulent heat and mass
[5] M. Dobrnjac, Efficiency Of The Helical Coil Heat Exchangers, MSc Thesis,
transfer in circular and noncircular ducts, J. Heat Transfer 134 (1) (2012)
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering of the University of Belgrade, 1996.
014503 (6 pages).
[6] M. Jarić, Research On Thermal Performances And Pressure Drop Of Shell And
Tube Heat Exchangers With Helical Tube Coils, PhD Thesis, Faculty of
Mechanical Engineering of the University of Belgrade, 2011.