Energy Conversion and Management 85 (2014) 470476

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Experimental study of thermalhydraulic performance of cam-shaped

tube bundle with staggered arrangement
Hamidreza Bayat a,, Arash Mirabdolah Lavasani b, Taher Maarefdoost a
a
b

Young Researchers and Elite Club, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 20 February 2014
Accepted 2 June 2014
Available online 22 June 2014
Keywords:
Heat exchanger
Tube bundle
Experimental heat transfer
Cam-shaped tube
Cross-ow

a b s t r a c t
Flow and heat transfer from cam-shaped tube bank in staggered arrangement is studied experimentally.
Tubes were located in test section of an open loop wind tunnel with two longitudinal pitch ratios 1.5 and
2. Reynolds number varies in range of 27,000 6 ReD 6 42,500 and tubes surface temperature is between
78 and 85 C. Results show that both drag coefcient and Nusselt number depends on position of tube in
tube bank and Reynolds number. Tubes in the rst column have maximum value of drag coefcient,
while its Nusselt number is minimum compared to other tubes in tube bank. Moreover, pressure drop
from this tube bank is about 9293% lower than circular tube bank and as a result thermalhydraulic
performance of this tube bank is about 6 times greater than circular tube bank.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Study of ow and heat transfer around single and multiple bluff
bodies has wide engineering applications such as heat exchangers,
cooling towers, and electronic cooling. There are several authors
who published books about ow and heat transfer phenomena
around bluff bodies such as Kays and London [1], Hoerner [2],
Zukauskas and Ulinskas [3], Zukauskas and Ziugzda [4], and
Zdravkovich [5,6].
Traub [7] reported that turbulence grids lead to an enhancement in heat transfer of plain tube bundles. Stanescu et al. [8]
found that increasing ReD decreases the optimal spacing of cylinder
to cylinder. Wilson and Bassiouny [9] suggested to choose longitudinal pitch ratio a 6 3 for circular tube bank, in order to have best
performance and compactness. The studies of Mandhani et al. [10]
showed that decreasing value of porosity and increasing values of
Prandtl and Reynolds numbers, average value of Nusselt number of
circular tube bundle increases. Yoo et al. [11] found that average
Nusselt number of second and third tubes in staggered tube bank
is higher than rst tube. Gupta et al. [12] optimized coil nned
tube heat exchanger, by choosing a suitable mean diameter of shell
and appropriate clearance for a given n diameter. Hassan [13]
found that in a small tube bundle for decreasing pressure the pitch
over tubes should be widened.
One of the aspects in studying ow and heat transfer from multiple bodies is in heat exchangers where reducing pressure drop
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 937 1681530.
E-mail address: hrb.mech@gmail.com (H. Bayat).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.06.009
0196-8904/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

and increasing heat transfer is of interest to many scientists. There

are several studied about ow and heat transfer from non-circular
tubes [1422]. Rocha et al. [14] showed that compare to circular
tubes plate n heat exchangers, elliptic one performed better due
to lower pressure drop and higher n efciency. Matos et al.
[15,16] also found that elliptic tubes perform more efciently than
circular one. Ibrahim and Gomma [17] concluded that elliptic tube
bank at zero angle of attack has the maximum thermal performance. Ibrahim and Moawed [18] found that in an elliptic tubes
with longitudinal ns, the position of n on elliptic tubes, effects
on friction factor and heat transfer. Bouris et al. [19] reported that
in in-line tube bank, deposition rate for elliptic-shaped tubes is 73%
lower than circular tubes. Nouri-Borujerdi and Lavasani [20,21]
experimentally measured ow and heat transfer characteristics
around single cam-shape tube. Moawed [22] experimentally investigated forced convection from outside surface of helical coiled
tube.
Furthermore, several authors used vortex generator in order to
increase thermal performance of heat exchanger [2325]. Joardar
and Jacobi [23] reported that adding vortex generator enhanced
heat transfer with modest pressure drop penalties. However, Wu
and Tao [24] and Wu et al. [25] showed that it is possible to
enhance heat transfer with reduction in pressure drop by using
longitudinal vortex generator.
Compare to other works on literature streamlined-shaped tube
bundle, has higher thermalhydraulic performance and need less
pumping power due to low hydraulic resistance. Because camshaped tube compare to circular tube has lower drag coefcient
[20,21] and higher heat transfer of staggered tube bundle compared

H. Bayat et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 85 (2014) 470476

471

Nomenclature
C
CD
cp,i
d
D
Deq
f
h
j
k
L
l
_
m
NL
P
Q_
SD
SL/Deq
ST/Deq
Reeq
ReD
Nu

circumferential length (mm)

drag coefcient
pressure coefcient
small diameter (mm)
large diameter (mm)
equivalent diameter, Deq = C/p (mm)
friction factor
heat transfer coefcient (W m2 K1)
Colburn factor, Nu/(RePr1/3)
thermal conductivity (W m1 K1)
tube length (cm)
distance between centers (mm)
mass ow rate (kg s1)
number of transverse rows
pressure (Pa)
heat transfer rate (W)
diagonal pitch, (m)
longitudinal pitch ratio
transverse pitch ratio
Reynolds number, (U1Deq/t)
Reynolds number, (UmaxDeq/t)
Nusselt Number, (hDeq/k)

to in-line tube bundle, the purpose of this study is to experimentally investigate the ow and heat transfer characteristics around
cam-shaped tube bundle in staggered arrangements subject to
cross ow of air.
2. Experimental setup
The cross section prole of the cam-shaped tube is represented
in Fig. 1. These tube are comprised of two circles with two arcs segments tangent to them and are made of commercial steel plate
with 0.7 mm of wall thickness. Identical diameters of tubes are
equal to d = 8 mm, D = 16 mm and distance between their centers
is l = 15.75 mm.
A test tube with length of 31 cm was made, in order to measure
drag coefcient of cam shaped tube in tube bank. To measure the
static pressure on the tube surface by using a digital differential
pressure meter, fourteen holes with diameter of 1 mm were drilled
on the surface of test tube. Four test tubes with length of 22 cm
were made for measuring heat transfer. In order to decrease heat
transfer from these surfaces the two ends of test tubes were insulated by using elastomeric thermal tube insulation.
Fig. 2 shows fourteen cam-shaped tubes located at wind tunnel
test section. The space between two tandem tubes is dened by
longitudinal pitch SL and the space between side-by-side tubes is
dened by transverse pitch ST. In this study transverse pitch ratio
is ST/Deq = 1.25 and longitudinal pitch ratios are SL/Deq = 1.5 and 2.
Fig. 3 shows an open circuit low speed wind tunnel where the
experiments were performed. A pitot static tube is used to measure
the free stream velocity in front of the frame cross section. The air
velocity varied from 9 to 15 m/s by controlling a variable speed
motor.
To heat up the tubes, a pump circulates hot water between a tank
and the tubes. An electric heating element supplies the hot water
and a control valve regulates the hot water at the tube inlet. Water
temperature is measured at the inlet and outlet of the tubes using
type-k thermocouple wires and saved at interval times of one second by using data logger. A glass tube ow meter measures the ow
rate with 1% uncertainty in full-scale ow. A steady state condition
is reached between 5 and 15 min, depending on the ambient temperature and free stream velocity, and then data collection is started.

T
U
Umax
V_ w
Greek
i

t
g
r
h

temperature (K)
velocity (m s1)
T
maximum velocity, (STSD
U) (m s1)
volume ow rate (L s1)

density (kg m3)

uid kinematic viscosity (m2 s1)
thermalhydraulic performance
Afree ow area/Afrontal area
hole angle (degree)

Subscripts
ave.
average
cam
cam-shaped tube
eq
equivalent
i
inlet
o
outlet
s
surface
w
water
1
free stream

To estimate the pressure drag and heat transfer from the cam
shaped tubes compared to that of a circular tube with various
cross sections, it is important to select an appropriate reference
length. Deq is the diameter of an equivalent circular tube whose
circumferential length is equal to that of the cam-shaped tube.
Based on Fig. 1, the equivalent diameter is obtained by Deq = P/p =
22.44 mm where P is perimeter of cam shape tube.
For understanding ow characteristic better, Reynolds number
is dened with two equations. First, for comparing heat transfer
from each tube in tube bank with single tube in crossow, Reynolds number is calculated by Reeq = U1Deq/m. Second, since the
speed of uid varies along its path in tube bank, a reference velocity base on minimum free area available for uid ow is being used
for calculating of ReD = UmaxDeq/m. There are two correlations for

Fig. 1. Schematic of a cam-shaped tube: (a) pressure drag, (b) heat transfer test
tube.

472

H. Bayat et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 85 (2014) 470476

The thermo physical properties of air such as k is calculated at

lm temperature which is the average of surface and free stream
temperature, Tf = (Ts + T1)/2.
After measuring Nueq for all tubes in tube bank, the average
Nusselt number of tube bank was calculated by the following
equation.

Nuave:

calculating maximum velocity in staggered tube bundle [26]; if

2(SD  D) < (ST  D), maximum velocity is calculated from
Umax = STU1/(2(ST  D)), otherwise it is calculated from Umax =
STU1/(ST  D). In the present work the second correlation is used
for calculating maximum velocity, where Reynolds number base
on minimum free area varies in range of 27,000 6 ReD 6 42,500.
Quarmby and Al-Fakhri [27] showed that for L/Deq > 4 this ratio
has little effect on the heat transfer as a result the test tube for
measuring heat transfer was made with L/Deq = 8.
The pressure drag coefcient CD is determined experimentally
from pressure distribution over the cam shaped-tube surface,
including the large and small circles as well as two tangent arcs
P
between them by C D f 14
i1 cp;i Coshi DSi g=Deq , where the pressure
distribution on the cam shaped is expressed in dimensionless form
by the pressure coefcient cp;i pi  p1 =0:5qU 21 .
According to Fig. 1, pi is the static pressure which was measured
by a differential pressure meter at the location of the holes drilled
perpendicular to the tube surface. P1 and U1 are the pressure and
velocity of the air free stream respectively and q is air density.
Friction factor f is determined by calculating pressure drop
across tube bank. Where DP is the difference between the pressure
at inlet and the exit of the cam shaped tube bank and NL is number
of transverse rows.

DP
0:5N L qU 2max

The mean Nusselt number is determined as follows:

Nueq

 eq m
_ w C p;w T wi  T wo
hD

k
pLkT s  T 1

_ w qw V_ w which Cp,w, qw and V_ w are specic heat, density

where m
and volume ow rate of water respectively, temperature of tube
surface is dened by TS = (Twi + Two)/2.

1.
2.
3.
4.

Inlet Air Flow

Test Section
Static pitot tube
Digital differential
pressure meter
and thermocouples

where N is number of tubes in a row of tube bank. Heat transfer performance against the friction factor of cam denes by Nuave: =f .
Thermal hydraulic performance shaped tube bank base on circular tube bank is dened by efciency index g which has been
proposed by Webb [28].

Fig. 2. Cam-shaped tube bundle with staggered arrangement.

1
Nueq
N

5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Nuave:cam: =Nuave:cir:
fcam: =fcir:

Yan and Sheen [29] suggested a factor AGF or area goodness

factor for comparing heat exchanger base on their frontal area
and desired duty. Heat exchanger which has higher AGF is better
because it requires less frontal area.

AGF r2 J=f

In Eq. (5), r is ratio of free ow area to frontal area of tube bank

and j is Colburn factor, Nu/(RePr1/3).
3. Uncertainty analysis
Wind tunnel experiments are subjected to different sources of
uncertainty such as instrumentation, data acquisition, and data
analysis. Therefore, uncertainties of results are estimated with
theory of Moffat [30], a nal result, R, is typically the combination
of different measured variables, vi, where R = f(v1,v2,. . .v3). The
contribution of the uncertainty in each variable can be estimated
by:

UR

s

2 
2

2
dv 1
dv 2
dv n



v1

v2

vn

As an example, uncertainty of Nusselt number was calculated

by the following equation:
8
#2 "
#2
2 "
U Nueq <
UQ w
Qw
Q w

U
T
T
1
s
Nueq : pLkT s  T 1
pLkT s  T 1 2
pLkT s  T 1 2
9
1
"
#2 "
#2 2
=
Q w
Q w

U
7
L
k
2
2
;
pL kT s  T 1
pLk T s  T 1

Test Tubes
Fan
Variable Frequency
Drives
Hot Water Tank
Heating element

Fig. 3. Experimental setup.

10.
11.
12.
13.

Pump
Bypass valve
Control valve
Flow meter

473

H. Bayat et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 85 (2014) 470476

The uncertainty of drag coefcient was varied from 2% to 11%

where the uncertainties of tube in the second column is higher
due to lower value of drag coefcient. The uncertainty of pressure
drop and Nusselt number varied in range of 47% and 26%,
respectively.

78
Zukauskas and Ziugzda [4]

74

Present Work

Nu

70
66
62

4. Result and discussion

58
54
50
11500

12500

13500

14500

15500

16500

17500

18500

Re
Fig. 5. Comparison of heat transfer from circular tube in present work and
Zukauskas and Ziugzda [4].

0.56
0.52
0.48
0.44
0.4
0.36

CD

In order to ensure that setup is working properly for measuring

ow and heat transfer characteristics, drag coefcient and heat
transfer from single circular tube with diameter of 2.7 cm and
2.2 cm was measured, respectively. All experiments were performed with nominal tube surface temperature of about 7885 C
and air temperature varied in range of 29.831.3 C.
A comparison of drag coefcient of present study with Hoerner
[2] is presented in Fig. 4. There is only 8% difference between
present study and Hoerner [2]. Furthermore, drag coefcient of
cam-shaped tube is compared with other prole. As it is clear from
Fig. 4, drag coefcient of cam-shaped tube is about 64%, 25% and
39% lower than circular, elliptical, and cam-shaped tube at a = 0,
respectively. Furthermore, heat transfer from circular tube is
compared with Zukauskas and Ziugzda [4] in Fig. 5. There is only
a difference between 1% and 7% between present study with
Zhukauskas and Ziugzda. As a result, the present setup can be used
for studying ow and heat transfer characteristics of cam-shaped
tubes.

0.32
0.28
0.24
0.2
0.16

4.1. Drag coefcients of cam-shaped tubes in staggered arrangements

0.12

Symb. Culomn SL/Deq

1st
1st

0.08

Fig. 6 shows drag coefcients of cam shaped tubes in staggered

tube bundle arrangement with two pitch ratio SL/Deq = 1.5 and 2.
Results show that for both pitch ratios, the rst column tube has
the maximum value of the drag coefcient while the tubes in the
second column have the minimum.
The average of all drag coefcient for longitudinal pitch ratio
SL/Deq = 1.5 at Reynolds numbers from 13,000 to 21,000 are
approximately 0.51, 0.2, 0.32 and 0.23, for the rst, second, third
and fourth column tube, respectively. This coefcient for the rst
column tube is 12% greater than single cam shape tube in cross
ow but for tubes in second, third and fourth column is respectively 57%, 28% and 48% smaller within the same Reynolds number
range.
Furthermore, SL/Deq = 2 mean value of drag coefcients for
Reynolds number in range of 13,00021,000 are approximately
0.53, 0.19, 0.34 and 0.24 for the rst, second, third and fourth column tube, respectively. Compare to a drag coefcient of single
cam-shaped tube, drag coefcient of tube in the rst column tube

2
Circular Cylinder [2]
Elliptical Cylinder [2]

1.75

Cam-Shaped Tube (Present Work)

Cam-Shaped tube with

1.5

15000

Symb. Culomn SL/Deq

2nd
2nd

3rd
3rd

16000

1.5
2

17000

18000

Symb. Culomn SL/Deq

1.5
2

4th
4th

19000

1.5
2

20000

21000

Re eq
Fig. 6. Drag coefcient of cam-shaped tubes with staggered arrangement.

is about 16% greater but for tubes in second, third and fourth column is respectively 58%, 25% and 47% smaller within the same
Reynolds number range. For both longitudinal pitch ratio the minimum values of drag coefcients of tubes belong to the tubes in
second and forth column.
Tube in the rst column has higher drag coefcient because it is
conned by upper and lower tubes. The effect of blockage ratio on
drag coefcient is previously shown by Zukauskas [31]. The tubes
in the second, third and fourth column are in the wake region of
upstream tubes, as result, their drag coefcient is lower compare
to single tube in cross-ow.
Pressure drop of cam shaped tube bundle is compared with circular tube bundle in Fig. 7. Increasing pitch ratio from 1.5 to 2 will
augment friction factor about 1318%. Compare to circular tube
bundle, friction factor of cam shaped tube bundle is about 92%
and 93% lower for SL/Deq = 1.5 and 2, respectively. This lower friction factor is a result of aerodynamic shape of this tube and its
lower drag coefcient.
4.2. Heat transfer from cam-shaped tubes in tube bundle

1
0.75
0.5
0.25
0
13000

14000

Symb. Culomn SL/Deq

Circular Tube( Present Work)

1.25

CD

= 0 [21]

Cam-shaped tube with = 180 [21]

0.04
13000

1.5
2

15000

17000

19000

21000

23000

25000

27000

Re
Fig. 4. Comparison of drag coefcient of a cam-shaped tube with elliptical and
circular cylinder.

Before measuring heat transfer from cam-shaped tube bundle, a

single cam shaped tube was mounted in test section of wind tunnel
and its heat transfer was obtained. Fig. 8 shows that increasing
Reynolds number from 11,500 to 18,500 leads to augment of heat
transfer up to 33%. Heat transfer from single cam-shaped tube is
about 511% lower than circular tube with equivalent diameter.
Fig. 9 represents the temperature difference of water at inlet
and outlet of tubes that located in the rst and fourth column.
For all ranges of Reynolds number the difference is below 58 C.

474

H. Bayat et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 85 (2014) 470476

0.75

110
Symb. Column
1st

100
0.65

2nd
3rd

0.55
0.06

2
1.5
2
1.5

0.05

4th
Single Tube

Symb. S L/Deq Tube Shape

Nu eq

90

Circualr [26]
Circular [26]
Cam Shaped
Cam Shaped

80
70
60

0.04
50
SL / Deq = 1.5

0.03
27000

29000

31000

33000

35000

37000

39000

41000

43000

40
11500

Re D

12500

13500

14500

15500

16500

17500

18500

Reeq

(a) SL/Deq =1.5

Fig. 7. Friction factor of cam-shaped tubes with staggered arrangement.

110
Symb. Column

80

100
Single Circualr Tube

76

90

Single Cam-Shaped Tube

72

Nu eq

68

Nu

64
60
56

1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Single Tube

80
70
60

52
50

48

SL / Deq = 2

44

40
11500

40
11500

12500

13500

14500

15500

16500

17500

18500

12500

13500

14500

15500

16500

17500

18500

Reeq

(b) SL/Deq =2

Re
Fig. 8. Heat transfer from single cam-shaped tube.

Fig. 10. Heat transfer from cam-shaped tubes in different column with staggered
arrangements, (a) SL/Deq = 1.5, (b) SL/Deq = 2.

Heat transfer from cam-shaped tubes in second row was

obtained for Reynolds number in range of 11,50018,500 in staggered arrangements with two longitudinal pitch ratios 1.5 and 2.
As it is clear from Fig. 10, heat transfer from tube in rst column
is almost equal to state of single tube in cross-ow. However,
due to locating in turbulent wake of upstream tube, heat transfer
increases by moving in ow direction in tube bank.
At SL/Deq = 1.5, Nusselt number for tube in rst, second, third
and fourth column respectively increases about 22%, 38%, 50%
and 30% as the Reynolds number increases from 11,500 to
18,500. Compare to Nusselt number of single tube in cross-ow,
Nusselt number of tube in second, third and fourth column is
respectively about 19, 57 and 43 percent greater.
Moreover, for longitudinal pitch ratio 2, increasing Reynolds
number from 11,500 to 18,500 lead to increases of Nusselt about
49%, 33%, 37% and 45% for the tube in rst, second, third and fourth

column, respectively. Nusselt number of tube in second, third and

fourth column of tube bank is about 17, 61 and 35 percent greater
than single tube, respectively.
Zukauskas [31] described ow in staggered tube bank ow with
ow in a curved channel which periodically converge and diverge.
The same behavior has been seen in the present study, which drag
coefcient and heat transfer increased as the uid passes from second to third column and then decreased as the ow crosses from
third to fourth column.
Nusselt number of tubes in the second and subsequent column
is higher than tube in rst column. This can be attributed to the
high turbulence in wakes of upstream tubes which makes boundary layer of tubes in second and subsequent rows thinner. As a
result, heat transfer coefcient of tubes in subsequent column
became higher than tubes in rst column [26].
Nusset number of cam-shaped tube bank in staggered arrangements for Reynolds number in ranger of 27,00042,500 and
SL/Deq = 1.5 and 2 is presented in Fig. 11. Heat transfer from camshaped tube bank increases about 36% and 41% as the Reynolds
number increases from 27,000 to 42,500 for longitudinal pitch
ratios 1.5 and 2, respectively. Heat transfer of cam-shaped tube is
about 4854% lower than circular tub bundle. Due to the form of
cam-shaped tube, it requires less frontal area. Thus, for a specied
amount of space, the number of cam-shaped tubes that can be
placed in a column is more than circular tubes. This advantage
can be used to compensate the lower heat transfer of cam-shaped
tube bundle compared to circular one by putting more tubes in a
column in order to increase heat transfer surface.
Zukauskas [31] reported that changing longitudinal from 1.3 to
2 has hardly effect on the character of heat transfer in staggered
tube bundle, the same result is repeated here for cam-shaped
tubes, that increasing SL/Deq from 1.5 to 2 leaded to insignicant
increase in heat transfer.

10
Symb.

Tin - Tout ( C)

1st

T in = 87 C

Column S L/Deq
1.5

1st

4th

1.5

4th

4
11500

12500

13500

14500

15500

16500

17500

Reeq
Fig. 9. Temperature difference inside cam-shaped tube.

18500

H. Bayat et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 85 (2014) 470476

compare to circular tube, cam-shaped tube requires less frontal

area. These advantages can be used for designing heat exchangers
which not only require less space, but also have higher thermal
hydraulic performance.

180
160
Symb. SL/Deq
2
1.5
2
1.5

Nu ave.

140
120
85

Tube
Circualr [26]
Circular [26]
Cam Shaped
Cam Shaped

4.4. Comparison between staggered and in-line tube bundle

75
65
55
27000

29000

31000

33000

35000

37000

39000

41000

43000

Re D
Fig. 11. Heat transfer from cam-shaped tube bundle with staggered arrangement.

By comparing result of staggered with in-line tube bundle [32]

it can be seen that that for SL/Deq = 1.5, heat transfer of staggered
tube bundle is about is about 1822% higher than in-line tubes
with same longitudinal pitch ratio and Reynolds number and for
SL/Deq = 2, heat transfer of staggered tube bundle is about 610%
greater than in-line tube bundle. Thermalhydraulic performance
and area goodness factor of both arrangements is approximately
the same because these factors are calculated and compared with
their equivalent circular tube bundle.
5. Conclusion

Symb.

S L /Deq
1.5
2
Circular [26]

0
27000

475

29000

31000

33000

35000

37000

39000

41000

43000

Re D
Fig. 12. Thermalhydraulic performance of cam-shaped tube bundle with staggered arrangement and circular tube bundle.

Heat transfer from cam shaped tube bank in staggered arrangement has been investigated experimentally. Drag coefcients of
cam-shaped tube is about 64% lower than circular tubes. Friction
factor of cam-shaped tube is about 9293% lower than circular
tube bundle due to its streamline shape.
Thermalhydraulic performance of cam shaped tube is about
56 times greater than circular tube. This higher performance is
result of lower pressure drop of these tube compare to circular
ones. Furthermore, area goodness factor of cam-shaped tube
bundle is about 1214 times greater than circular tube bundle.
Consequently, using cam shaped tube in heat exchanger will
decrease the size of heat exchanger and increase thermal hydraulic
performance.
References

4.3. Thermalhydraulic performance of cam-shaped tube bundle

Thermalhydraulic performance of cam-shaped tube bundle is
compared with circular tube bundle in Fig. 12. Results show that
thermalhydraulic performance of present tube bundle is about
56 times greater than circular tube bundle. As a result camshaped tube bundle performs better than circular ones. The reason
for better performance of cam-shaped tube is a result of its aerodynamic shape and lower drag coefcient compare to circular tube.
Area goodness factor of cam-shaped tube bundle is compared
with circular ones in Fig. 13. It is clear that at both pitch ratios, area
goodness factor of cam-shaped tube bundle is about 1214 times
greater than circular tube bundle. Due to aerodynamic shaped,

0.025
0.02

AGF

0.015
0.01
0.0020

Symb. S L/Deq Tube

2
1.5
2
1.5

Circualr [26]
Circular [26]
Cam Shaped
Cam Shaped

0.0015

0.0010
27000

29000

31000

33000

35000

37000

39000

41000

43000

Re D
Fig. 13. Comparison of area goodness factor of cam-shaped tube bundle with
staggered arrangement with circular tube bundle.

[1] Kays WM, London AL. Compact heat exchangers. New York: McGraw Hill;
1984.
[2] Hoerner SF. Fluid dynamic drag, theoretical, experimental and statistical
information. NY, USA: AIAA; 1965.
[3] Zukauskas A, Ulinskas R. Heat transfer in tube banks in crossow. New
York: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.; 1988.
[4] Zukauskas A, Ziugzda J. Heat transfer of a cylinder in crossow. Washington,
DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.; 1985.
[5] Zdravkovich M. Flow around circular cylinders, vol. 1. Fundamentals: Oxford
University Press; 1997.
[6] Zdravkovich M. Flow around circular cylinders, vol. 2: applications. Oxford
University Press; 2003.
[7] Traub D. Turbulent heat transfer and pressure drop in plain tube bundles.
Chem Eng Process Process Intensif 1990;28:17381.
[8] Stanescu G, Fowler A, Bejan A. The optimal spacing of cylinders in free-stream
cross-ow forced convection. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 1996;39:3117.
[9] Safwat Wilson A, Khalil Bassiouny M. Modeling of heat transfer for ow across
tube banks. Chem Eng Process Process Intensif 2000;39:114.
[10] Mandhani V, Chhabra R, Eswaran V. Forced convection heat transfer in tube
banks in cross ow. Chem Eng Sci 2002;57:37991.
[11] Yoo S-Y, Kwon H-K, Kim J-H. A study on heat transfer characteristics for
staggered tube banks in cross-ow. J Mech Sci Technol 2007;21:50512.
[12] Gupta PK, Kush P, Tiwari A. Design and optimization of coil nned-tube heat
exchangers for cryogenic applications. Cryogenics 2007;47:32232.
[13] Hassan A. Effect of tube arrangement and condensate ow rate on the pressure
loss for cross ow of steam in small tube bundle. Energy Convers Manage
2010;51:7039.
[14] Rocha L, Saboya F, Vargas J. A comparative study of elliptical and circular
sections in one-and two-row tubes and plate n heat exchangers. Int J Heat
Fluid Flow 1997;18:24752.
[15] Matos R, Vargas J, Laursen T, Saboya F. Optimization study and heat transfer
comparison of staggered circular and elliptic tubes in forced convection. Int J
Heat Mass Transfer 2001;44:395361.
[16] Matos R, Laursen T, Vargas J, Bejan A. Three-dimensional optimization of
staggered nned circular and elliptic tubes in forced convection. Int J Therm
Sci 2004;43:47787.
[17] Ibrahim TA, Gomaa A. Thermal performance criteria of elliptic tube bundle in
crossow. Int J Therm Sci 2009;48:214858.
[18] Ibrahim E, Moawed M. Forced convection and entropy generation from elliptic
tubes with longitudinal ns. Energy Convers Manage 2009;50:194654.

476

H. Bayat et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 85 (2014) 470476

[19] Bouris D, Papadakis G, Bergeles G. Numerical evaluation of alternate tube

congurations for particle deposition rate reduction in heat exchanger tube
bundles. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 2001;22:52536.
[20] Nouri-Borujerdi A, Lavasani AM. Pressure loss and heat transfer
characterization of a cam-shaped cylinder at different orientations. ASME J
Heat Transfer 2008;130:124503.
[21] Nouri-Borujerdi A, Lavasani A. Experimental study of forced convection heat
transfer from a cam shaped tube in cross ows. Int J Heat Mass Transfer
2007;50:260511.
[22] Moawed M. Experimental study of forced convection from helical coiled tubes
with different parameters. Energy Convers Manage 2011;52:11506.
[23] Joardar A, Jacobi A. Heat transfer enhancement by winglet-type vortex
generator arrays in compact plain-n-and-tube heat exchangers. Int J Refrig
2008;31:8797.
[24] Wu J, Tao W. Impact of delta winglet vortex generators on the performance of
a novel n-tube surfaces with two rows of tubes in different diameters. Energy
Convers Manage 2011;52:2895901.
[25] Wu J, Zhang H, Yan C, Wang Y. Experimental study on the performance of a
novel n-tube air heat exchanger with punched longitudinal vortex generator.
Energy Convers Manage 2012;57:428.

[26] Kreith F, Manglik RM, Bohn MS. Principles of heat transfer. Cengage Learning;
2001.
[27] Quarmby A, Al-Fakhri A. Effect of nite length on forced convection heat
transfer from cylinders. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 1980;23:4639.
[28] Webb R. Performance evaluation criteria for use of enhanced heat transfer
surfaces in heat exchanger design. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 1981;24:71526.
[29] Yan W-M, Sheen P-J. Heat transfer and friction characteristics of n-and-tube
heat exchangers. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2000;43:16519.
[30] Moffat R. Contributions to the theory of single-sample uncertainty analysis.
ASME Trans J Fluids Eng 1982;104:2508.
[31] Zukauskas A. Heat transfer from tubes in cross-ow. Adv Heat Transfer
1987;18:87159.
[32] Mirabdolah Lavasani A, Bayat H, Maarefdoost T. Experimental study of
convective heat transfer from in-line cam shaped tube bank in crossow.
Appl Therm Eng 2014;65:8593.