Chemical Engineering and Processing 69 (2013) 112118

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering and Processing:

Process Intensication
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cep

Pilot experimental study on shell and tube heat exchangers with

small-angles helical bafes
Luhong Zhang a, , Youmei Xia a , Bin Jiang a,b, , Xiaoming Xiao a , Xiaoling Yang a
a
School of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin, PR China
b
National Engineering Research Center for Distillation Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin, PR China

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

Article history: In this paper, the experimental comparisons of shell side thermodynamic and hydraulics performance
Received 2 July 2011 are made among three helical bafes heat exchangers and one segmental bafes heat exchanger. The
Received in revised form 7 March 2013 experiment scale is larger than the previous experimental setup as the diameter of test heat exchangers
Accepted 8 March 2013
are 500 mm and the effective tube length are 6 m; the experiment mainly focuses on the small helical
Available online 17 March 2013
angle scheme as the helical angle ranges from 7 to 25 . Among all the four heat exchangers, both the
shell side heat transfer rate and the shell side pressure drop peak when helical angle equals 7 , and the
Keywords:
shell side heat transfer rate per unit pressure drop at this angle is the smallest. This phenomenon could
Heat transfer
Pressure drop
be easily illustrated as the concept uid-ow distance is presented. At last, the correlations for the shell
Shell-and-tube heat exchanger side Nusselt number and friction factor are presented as a reference.
Small helical angles 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V.
Fluid-ow distance

1. Introduction
The shell and tube heat exchangers are the most widely used
heat exchangers in many process industries, such as rening, power
generation, chemical industry, gas treatment, and air-conditioning
[1]. However, the conventional segmental bafes shell and tube
heat exchanger has several shortcomings as follows [14]: (1) large
back mixing due to the zigzag ow pattern; (2) fouling occurs in the
dead zones on each side of a bafe up against the shell; (3) high
shell side pressure drop; (4) low heat transfer coefcient on the
shell side. To overcome these drawbacks, various shell-side inten-
sication technologies have been developed to increase the heat
transfer coefcient on the shell side and reduce the shell side pres-
sure drop [58], and the helical bafes was one of the improved
structures [6,912]. The helical bafes was rstly proposed by
Lutcha and Nemcansky (1990) [6], with the analysis on the ow
pattern they found that the shell side ow could approach a plug
ow if the helical bafes are properly arranged. Stehlik et al. [10]
made comparison of correction factors to explore the pros and cons
of segmental bafes and helical bafes. Kral et al. [11] made exper-
iments to study the performance of shell and tube heat exchangers
Corresponding authors at: School of Chemical Engineering and Technology,
Tianjin University, Tianjin, PR China. Tel.: +86 22 27400199; fax: +86 22 27400199.
E-mail addresses: zhanglvh@tju.edu.cn (L. Zhang), binjiang@tju.edu.cn (B. Jiang).
with various bafes geometry. From 1990s, the studies on the
non-continuous helical bafes have been increasing in the open-
literature [1320], but barely no research focused on the helical
bafe angles smaller than 20 and the experiment scales were quite
small. Like Zhang et al. (2009) compared the experimental perfor-
mance of segmental bafes and several helical bafes including the
helix angles of 20 , 30 , 40 and 50 [21], the diameter of their test
heat exchanger was only 150 mm, which is rather small for industry
application.
In the present study, the shell side thermodynamic and
hydraulics performance of one segmental bafes heat exchanger
and three helical bafes helical bafes heat exchangers (the heli-
cal angle of 7 , 13 and 25 ) were made detailed comparisons with
pilot scale experiment.
2. Conguration and parameters of the heat exchanger
with non-continuous helical bafes
The geometric features characterizing the non-continuous heli-
cal bafes are helical bafes pitch (Phel ), helical angle (), and shell
inside diameter (Di ), as shown in Fig. 1. The elliptical sector-shaped
plates are joined end to end to arrange the pseudohelical bafe
system, each bafe accounts for a quarter of the heat exchanger
shell cross-section and four pieces of plates form a helical circle.
The geometric parameters of the tested heat exchangers are given

0255-2701/$ see front matter 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2013.03.005
 L. Zhang et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 69 (2013) 112118 113

Nomenclature

Latin letters
A surface heat transfer area, m2
b bafe thickness, m
Cp uid specic heat, J kg1 C1
D shell diameter, m
Dl tube bundle-circumscribed circle diameter, m
de equivalent diameter, m
d tube diameter, m
FT corrective factor of temperature difference
f friction factor
h heat transfer coefcient, W/(m2 C)
L uid-ow distance, m
l tube effective length, m
N tube count
n bafe numbers
Nu Nusselt number of uid
Pr Prandtl number
P bafes pitch, m
Q heat transfer rate, W
q shell side volume ow rate, m3 /h
Re Reynolds number
S shellside cross-ow area, m2
T temperature, C
t tube pitch, m
U overall heat transfer coefcient, W/(m2 C)
u uid mean velocity, m/s
Fig. 1. The non-continuous helical bafe conguration of the helical bafes heat
exchanger.
Greek letters
helical angle
TMTD corrective log mean temperature difference, C in Table 1 [1] and one should be noticed that Phel increases with
P pressure drop, Pa .
 uid thermal conductivity, W/(m C)
 uid viscosity, Pa s
 uid density, kg/m3 3. Experimental procedures

Subscripts 3.1. Experimental setup

ave average
hel helical bafes The line diagram of the experiment setup is shown in Fig. 2.
i inner Water was employed as the test uid and the setup consisted of
in inlet a cooling water loop and a heating water loop. The performance
o outer test for helical bafes and segmental bafes ran in parallel. The
out outlet cold water from the cold water tank was heated in both test
s shell side heat exchangers, then the heated water was cooled in the heat
seg segmental bafes exchanger for cooling, where the medium temperature was recov-
t tube side ered to the original value and returned to the cold water tank.
w wall Meantime, the hot water from the hot water tank was cooled in
both test heat exchangers, then the cooled water was heated by the
low pressure steam to obtain the original temperature and returned
to the hot water tank.

Table 1
Geometrical parameters of different heat exchangers.

Item Helical bafe Segemental bafe

Helix angle ( ) 7 13 25 0
Shell side inner diameter Di (mm) 500 500 500 500
do /di (mm) 19/15 19/15 19/15 19/15
Effective length l (mm) 6000 6000 6000 6000
Tube count N 208 208 208 208
Tube passes 2 2 2 2
TEMA type BEU BEU BEU BEU
Layout pattern 90 90 90 90
Tube pitch t (mm) 25 25 25 25
Bafes pitch P (mm) 145 310.4 638.8 300
Bafes thickness (mm) 3 3 3 3
Bafe numbers n 152 71 34 18
114 L. Zhang et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 69 (2013) 112118

Fig. 2. Equipment owsheet of the experimental setup: 1, 2 the outlet, inlet of cooling water (the medium used for recovering the temperature of the cold water); 3, 4
the outlet, inlet of low pressure steam (the medium used for recovering the temperature of the hot water); 5 the heat exchanger with helical bafes; 6 the heat exchanger
with segmental bafes; 7 the heat exchanger for cooling; 8 the heat exchanger for heating; 9 the cold water tank; 10 the hot water tank; T temperature sensor; P
pressure gauge; F ow meter.

The experiment consisted of several test groups as the change The Reynolds number of shell side uid Res can be obtained by:
of operation condition. For each test group, the volumetric ow
rate and the inlet temperature in the shell and tube side were set s de us
xed, the outlet temperature and the pressure drop of the shell side Res = (4)
s
and tube side were recorded. The volumetric ow rates in the shell
side and tube side varied from 50 m3 /h to 150 m3 /h and 50 m3 /h de is characteristic dimension, which is calculated by:
to 90 m3 /h respectively, and the inlet temperatures of shell side
1.27t 2
and tube side were controlled at 70 C and 40 C. Only after the de = do (5)
do
system had maintained steady for 10 min, the temperature data
and pressure data were recorded.
The temperatures were measured at the inlet/outlet of the 3.2.2. Calculation of overall coefcient
test heat exchangers by the PT100 temperature sensors with The overall heat transfer coefcient, U is equal to:
the precision of 0.2 C, the shell side pressure drops were mea-
Qave
sured by pressure transmitters with the accuracy of 0.1% at a U= (6)
(A TMTD )
range 01.0 MPa, and the volumetric ow rates for both side were
measured by vortex owmeters with the precision of 0.75% of where the surface heat transfer area A can be given as:
0250 m3 /h.
A = do lN (7)

3.2. Date reduction

(Qs + Qt )
Qave = (8)
2
3.2.1. Parameters of shell side
The shell side mean velocity us is dened by: TMTD = FT TL (9)
qs
us = (1)
S (T2 T1 )
TL = (10)
where qs is the shell side volume rate, S is the cross-ow area at the [ln(T2 /T1 )]
shell centerline.
For the non-continuous helical bafes [11]: T1 = Ts,out Tt,in , T2 = Ts,in Tt,out (11)
 (Di do )(t do )

S = 0.5Phel Di D1 + (2) Qs = s qs Cp,s (Ts,out Ts,in ) (12)
t
For the segmental bafes: Qt = t qt Cp,t (Tt,in Tt,out ) (13)
 (Di do )(t do )

S = Pseg Di D1 +  
t
(3)  Qs Qt 
 Q  5% (14)
ave
where Dl is the diameter of tube bundle-circumscribe circle.
 L. Zhang et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 69 (2013) 112118 115

Table 2
Fluid-ow-distance of different heat exchangers.

Helical bafe Segemental

bafe

Helical angle ( ) 7 13 25 0
Fluid-ow distance L (m) 53.67 25.34 12.80 9.91

3.2.3. Correlations for Nusselt number Nu and friction factor f

The correlations for the shell side Nusselt number Nus and fric-
tion factor fs are as follows,
1/3
Nus = cRem
s Pr s (15)

fs = Re
s (16)
Fig. 3. The uid-ow distance between two helical bafes.
The experimental Nus and fs are obtained by the calculation of
the shell side heat transfer coefcient hs and the shell side pressure
drop Ps , respectively,

hs de
Nus = (17)
s

P de
fs = (18)
(1/2s u2s ) l

where the hs is determined by [5]:

1 1
d  do 1
o
= + do ln /2kw + + Ri + Ro (19)
U hs di di ht

where kw is the thermal conductivity of tube wall, the fouling resis-

tance (Ri , Ro ) is neglected since the heat exchanger is new; ht is the
tube side heat transfer coefcient, which can be obtained by the
following relations of Gnielinski [22].
 
k f  fw
w w 2/3
ht = (Ret 1000)Pr t / 1 + 12.7 (Pr t 1)
di 8 2
 do

1+ (20)
l

where fw is the tube wall friction factor, which is calculated by:

2
fw = (1.82 lgRet 1.64) (21)

Fig. 4. The uid-ow distance between two segmental bafes.

3.2.4. Calculation of the uid-ow-distance
The uid-ow-distance is dened as the ow distance for the
main ow stream in the heat exchanger shell side. For the seg-
4. Experimental results and discussion
mental bafes, the uid-ow distance Lseg between two segmental
bafes is determined by:
4.1. Experimental results

Lhel (n 1) Di2 + Ps2 (22)

The original experimental data, which are tons of numbers
recording temperature, pressure and volume ow rate, are pre-
where n stands for the bafes number.
sented into points and lines in Figs. 59 as follows. The important
For helical bafes, the uid-ow distance Lhel per helical bafes
parameters of heat exchangers such as the Ps (shell side pressure
pitch can be obtained from
drop) and the hs (shell side heat transfer coefcients) can be read

2 in these gures.
 P 2
2Di s Fig. 5 shows the variation of hs with qs (shell side volume rate)
Lhel (n 1) + (23)
2 4
The overall uid-ow distance L of the four different heat
exchangers are listed in Table 2. To facilitate the calculation, Lseg
between the segmental bafes is supposed to be a straight line as
depicted in Fig. 3, and Lhel between the helical bafes is the arc AB
as shown in Fig. 4.
for all the four different heat exchangers. Firstly, as can be seen,
the hs for segmental bafes scheme is the smallest among the four
heat exchangers, secondly, the hs increases with the increase of
(helical angle) in the test angle range. If only the hs is considered
in choosing the heat exchanger, helical bafes heat exchanger with
small is the best choice, and segmental bafes heat exchanger is
the worst.
116 L. Zhang et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 69 (2013) 112118
Fig. 5. Experimental variation of shell side heat transfer coefcient hs with the
volume rate qs between segmental bafes and helical bafes heat exchangers.
Fig. 6. Experimental variation of shell side heat transfer coefcient hs with Reynolds
number Res between segmental bafes and helical bafes.
Fig. 7. Experimental variation of shell side pressure drop Ps with qs between
segmental bafes and helical bafes heat exchangers.
Fig. 8. Experimental variation of shell side heat pressure drop per unit uid-ow
distance Ps /L with qs between segmental bafes and helical bafes heat exchang-
ers.
Fig. 9. Experimental variation of shell side heat coefcients per unit pressure drop
hs /Ps with qs between segmental bafes and helical bafes heat exchangers.
Fig. 6 provides the variation of the hs with the Res (shell side
Reynolds number). It is obvious that the hs increases with the Res
for all heat exchanger schemes. Plus, the Reynolds number range
for each curve is very different, which results from the big change
of us (shell side uid velocity) for different heat exchangers. For
example, the Res for helical bafes with equals 7 ranges from
15,000 to 40,000 as us changes from 1.60 to 4.78 m/s, while the
Res for the segmental bafes ranges from 65,000 to 180,000 as us
changes from 0.39 to 1.16 m/s.
Fig. 7 presents the shell side pressure drop Ps with the qs
between the segmental bafes and the helical bafes heat exchang-
ers. Firstly, the Ps for helical bafes heat exchanger decreases
with the increase of . Secondly, the Ps for the segmental bafes
heat exchanger is almost equal to the Ps for helical bafes heat
exchanger with equals 13 , and much smaller than that for helical
bafes heat exchanger with equals 7 . It can be easily understood
from the point of view that Ps is connected with the bafes struc-
ture, the us and the L (uid-ow distance). For helical bafes heat
exchanger with equals 7 , the Lhel is the 53.67 m, and the us ranges
from 1.60 to 4.78 m/s, both parameters are the biggest, so Ps is the
biggest among the four heat exchangers. As the increase of , the
Lhel and the us fall leads to the decrease of Ps . For segmental heat
exchanger, although both the Lseg and the us are the smallest, the
 L. Zhang et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 69 (2013) 112118 117

Fig. 10. Experimental variation of Nu/Pr1/3 with Re for four different heat exchang-
ers. Fig. 11. Experimental variation of f with Re for four different heat exchangers.

Table 4
bafes structure is not good for uid ow, results in the relatively
Values of and .
large Ps .
In order to evaluate the inuence of bafes structure to uid fs = Res Helical bafe Segemental
bafe
ow, or to the Ps , the variation of Ps /L (shell side pressure drop
per unit uid-ow distance) with the qs between segmental baf- Helix angle ( ) 7 13 25 0
66.64 132.64 156.97 51.44
es and helical bafes schemes is depicted in Fig. 8. As can be
0.68 0.77 0.83 0.58
seen, the Ps /L for the segmental bafes scheme is bigger than
all the helical bafes schemes, and the Ps /L falls as the increase
of . The segmental bafes heat exchanger has a zigzag shaped 4.2. Correlations for Nusselt number and friction factor
uid ow channel, and the direction of channel changes quickly
and hugely, results in a high pressure drop. While the shell side The Nus is obtained via the Eq. (17), Fig. 10 shows the variation
uid in the helical bafes heat exchanger ows in a spiral pat- of Nus /Prs 1/3 with Res on the same shell side volume rate. Through
tern, which reduces the dead zone for the uid ow, alleviates data analysis and curve tting, the constants c and m in Eq. (15) are
the change of ow channels and reduces the pressure drop. From listed in Table 3.
Figs. 7 and 8, we can conclude that, rstly, the helical bafes struc- The fs is obtained based on the Eq. (18), Fig. 11 shows the vari-
ture is more helpful for uid ow which reduce the Ps /L, but ation of fs with Res on the same shell side volume rate. Through
the Ps for segmental bafes scheme may be smaller in some data analysis and curve tting, the constants and in Eq. (13) are
case when Lseg and the us are pretty small; secondly, with the listed in Table 4.
increase of , the helical bafe structure is more suitable for uid
ow. 4.3. The uncertainty of experimental data
Fig. 9 illustrates the experimental variation of the hs /Ps (shell
side heat transfer coefcients per unit pressure drop) with the The uncertainty of the experiment is determined by [1]:
qs between segmental bafes and helical bafes schemes. The 
2 
2 
2
hs /Ps is often used to evaluate the heat transfer performance of
R R R
heat exchangers, the bigger the hs /Ps is, the better heat trans- WR = Wx1 + Wx2 + + Wxn (24)
x1 x2 xn
fer performance the heat exchanger has. It is noted that rst, the
hs /Ps for the helical bafes heat exchanger with 7 is the small-
est among the helical bafes schemes, and the hs /Ps increases R = f (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) (25)
with the increase in helical angles; second, the hs /Ps for the seg-
where x1 , x2 ,. . ., xn are n independent variables, Wx1 , Wx2 , . . . , Wxn
mental bafes is between the hs /Ps for helical bafes with 7
are the absolute uncertainties of x1 , x2 ,. . ., xn . Through the calcula-
and 13 .
tion, the relative error of the shell side heat transfer hs is 7.44%,
It is observed from Figs. 59 that when the helical angle is small,
and the uncertainty of the pressure drop is about 10.3%.
for example 7 , the Ps could be rather high, thus the pump energy
consumption may be far beyond the limit. Therefore, although
5. Conclusions
the helical bafes behaves better in heat transfer generally, it
may not achieve good economic results in the small helical bafe
In this paper, the experimental performance comparison is
range.
made in detail among one segmental bafes heat exchanger and
three non-continuous helical bafes heat exchangers with helical
Table 3 angles of 7 , 13 and 25 . The experimental conclusions are sum-
Values of c and m.
marized as follows:
Nus = cRes m Prs 1/3 Helical bafe Segemental
bafe (1) The concept uid-ow distance is proposed to explain the
Helical angle ( ) 7 13 25 0 reason why the pressure loss for segmental bafes heat
c 0.448052 0.493082 0.491558 0.485256 exchanger is smaller than that for helical bafes heat exchanger
m 0.493 0.421 0.423 0.44
in small helical angle scheme, and the approximate calculation
118 L. Zhang et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 69 (2013) 112118
formulas of the uid-ow distance for helical bafes and seg-
mental bafes are also presented.
(2) When helical angle ranges from 7 to 25 , the shell side heat
transfer coefcient for the helical bafes heat exchanger falls
with the increase of helical angle under the same volume ow
rate and same effective tube length, besides, the coefcient for
the helical bafes scheme is bigger than that for the segmental
scheme in the test angle range.
(3) The helical bafes structure is more suitable for uid ow as the
shell side pressure drop per unit uid-ow distance is smaller,
but the shell side pressure drop for the helical bafes scheme
can be very large in some case when the shell side velocity and
uid-ow distance are big.
(4) Except the case with small helical angle (for example 7 ), the
shell side heat transfer coefcient per unit pressure drop for
the helical bafes scheme is bigger than that for the segmental
bafes scheme.
(5) The correlations for the shell side Nusselt number and friction
factor are presented. These correlations are consistent with the
experimental results, which could provide reference conclusion
for the design of helical bafes heat exchanger in the test helical
angle range.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported nancially by the Program for
Chang Jiang Scholars and Innovative Research Terms in Universities
(No. IRT0936) and National Basic Research Program of China (Nos.
2009CB219905 and 2009CB219907).
References
[1] B. Peng, Q.W. Wang, C. Zhang, G.N. Xie, L.Q. Luo, Q.Y. Chen, M. Zeng, An experi-
mental study of shell-and-tube heat exchangers with continuous helical bafes,
ASME Journal of Heat Transfer 129 (2007) 14251431.
[2] H.D. Li, V. Kottke, Visualization and determination of local heat transfer
coefcients in shell-and-tube heat exchangers for staggered tube arrangement
by mass transfer measurements, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 17
(1998) 210216.
[3] M. Reppich, S. Zagermann, A new design method for segmental bafed heat
exchangers, Computers and Chemical Engineering 19 (1995) 137142.
[4] H.D. Li, V. Kottke, Effect of the leakage on pressure drop and local heat transfer in
shell-and tube heat exchangers for staggered tube arrangement, International
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 412 (1998) p.425p.433.
[5] Y.G. Lei, Y.L. He, P. Chu, R. Li, Design and optimization of heat exchangers with
helical bafes, Chemical Engineering Science 63 (2008) 43864395.
[6] J. Lutcha, J. Nemcansky, Performance improvement of tubular heat exchangers
by helical bafes, Transactions of the Institute of Chemical Engineering 68 (A)
(1990) 263270.
[7] S.L. Wang, Hydrodynamic studies on heat exchangers with helical bafes, Heat
Transfer Engineering 23 (3) (2002) 4349.
[8] B.T. Peng, Experimental and Numerical Study of Heat Transfer and
Pressure Drop for Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchangers with Continuous
Helical Bafes, School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xian Jiao tong
University, Xian, 2005.
[9] J. Lutcha, J. Nemcansky, Performance improvement of tubular heat exchang-
ers by helical bafes, Transactions of the Institute of Chemical Engineering 68
(1990) 263270.
[10] P. Stehlik, J. Nemcansky, D. Kral, Comparison of correction factors for shell-
and-tube heat exchangers with segmental or helical bafes, Heat Transfer
Engineering 15 (1) (1994) 5565.
[11] D. Kral, P. Stelik, H.J. Van Der Ploeg, I. Bashir, Masster, Helical bafes in shell-
and-tube heat exchangers. Part1: experimental verication, Heat Transfer
Engineering 17 (1) (1996) 93101.
[12] Y.G. Lei, Y.L. He, R. Li, Y.F. Gao, Effects of bafe incline-nation angle on ow and
heat transfer of a heat exchanger with helical bafes, Chemical Engineering
Progress 47 (2008) 23362445.
[13] Q.W. Wang, G.N. Xie, B.T. Peng, M. Zeng, Experimental study and genetic-
algorithm-based correlation on shell-side heat transfer and ow performance
of three different types of shell-and-tube heat exchangers, ASME Journal of
Heat Transfer 129 (9) (2007) 12771285.
[14] M.J. Andrews, B.I. Master, Three-dimensional modeling of a helixchanger heat
exchanger using CFD, Heat Transfer Engineering 26 (6) (2005) 2231.
[15] M.J. Andrews, B.I. Master, 3-D modeling of the ABB lummus heat transfer
helixchanger using CFD, in: R.K. Shah (Ed.), Proceedings of the International
Conference on Compact Heat Exchangers and Enhancement Technology for the
Process Industries, Begell House, Banff, Canada, 1999.
[16] M.R. Jafari Nasr, A. Shfeghat, Fluid ow analysis and extension of rapid design
algorithm for helical bafe heat exchangers, Applied Thermal Engineering 28
(2008) 13241332.
[17] M. Prithiviraj, M.J. Andrews, Three Dimensional numerical simulation of shell-
and-tube heat exchangers, part 1: foundation and uid mechanics, Numerical
Heat Transfer Part A Applications 33 (8) (1998) 799816.
[18] M. Prithiviraj, M.J. Andrews, Three dimensional numerical simulation of shell-
and-tube heat exchangers, part 2: heat transfer, Numerical Heat Transfer Part
A Applications 33 (8) (1998) 817828.
[19] J.F. Zhang, Y.L. He, W.Q. Tao, 3D Numerical simulation on shell and-tube heat
exchangers with middle-overlapped helical bafes and continuous bafes.
Part I: numerical model and results of whole heat exchanger with middle-
overlapped helical bafes, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 52
(2009) 53715380.
[20] J.F. Zhang, W.Q. Tao, Three-dimensional numerical simulation and analysis of
the airside performance of slotted n surfaces with radial strips, Engineering
Computations 22 (78) (2005) 940957.
[21] J.F. Zhang, B. Li, W.J. Huang, Y.G. Lei, Y.L. He, W.Q. Tao, Experimental per-
formance comparison of shell side heat transfer for shell-and-tube heat
exchangers with middle-overlapped helical bafes and segmental bafes,
Chemical Engineering Science 64 (2009) 16431653.
[22] Q.W. Wang, G.N. Xie, M. Zeng, L.Q. Luo, Heat transfer analysis for shell-and-tube
heat exchangers with experimental data by articial neural networks approach,
Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (2007) 10691104.