559

A publication of

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS

VOL. 81, 2020 The Italian Association
of Chemical Engineering
Online at www.cetjournal.it

Guest Editors: Petar S. Varbanov, Qiuwang Wang, Min Zeng, Panos Seferlis, Ting Ma, Jiří J. Klemeš
Copyright © 2020, AIDIC Servizi S.r.l.
DOI: 10.3303/CET2081094
ISBN 978-88-95608-79-2; ISSN 2283-9216

The Sizing of Plate-Fin Exchangers to Fixed Dimensions

Within a Volume Design Region
Jorge L. García-Castillo, Martín Picón-Núñez*
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Guanajuato, Noria Alta S/N, Guanajuato, Gto., Mexico
[email protected]

This paper shows the development of a design approach for plate and fin heat exchangers to meet fixed
dimensions. This approach adopts the concept of volume design region that establishes the limits within which
the physical dimensions (length, width and height) of a specific design problem can be set. The design region
is determined by minimum and maximum dimensions. The heat exchanger volume is dictated by the problem
specifications and the type of secondary surface used on each of the fluids. High density surfaces tend to
produce small volumes, while the opposite applies to low density surfaces. In principle, if the heat transfer and
friction factor correlations for secondary surfaces are expressed as a function of the geometrical parameters
that define the fin density, then it possible to fix the surface density boundaries that give the smallest and largest
exchanger volume. The design methodology presented in this work enables to include exchanger dimensions
as a design objective along with the heat load and the pressure drop. To achieve these objectives, surface
design is a central strategy. In this work, triangular, louvered, rectangular and offset surfaces are used to
demonstrate the methodology.

1. Introduction
Plate and fin heat exchangers were originally developed for gas to gas applications. However, the new
manufacturing techniques have made it possible to construct them in almost any kind of material and geometry
(Hathaway et al., 2018), making them suitable for application with liquids and at higher temperatures and
pressures (Mortean et al., 2016). In the plate and fin technology, fluids flow through channels separated by
metal walls. Between these plates, secondary surfaces are placed to provide structural strength, to increase the
heat transfer area, and for heat transfer enhancement. The thermal performance of a plate and fin heat
exchanger depends mainly on the thermohydraulic characteristics of the heat transfer surface. A key issue in
design, is their appropriate specification. Secondary surfaces tend to produce high heat transfer coefficients and
pressure drop at low Reynolds numbers, and for the purposes of design, is of paramount importance the know
the way the heat transfer coefficient and the friction factor behave as a function of Reynolds and the fin
geometry. To date, a large amount of experimental data for compact surfaces has been published since the first
largest collection reported by Kays and London (1984). Since then, studies have extended the availability of
experimental data and semiempirical correlations (Rui et al., 2017). Further studies have demonstrated that
higher fin densities improve the heat transfer performance of these exchangers (Yang et al., 2017). The design
of plate and fin exchangers has been taken the route of optimisation studies seeking to find the design solutions
for minimum heat exchanger volume by surface selection (Kunpeng et al., 2015) and by multi-objective
optimisation (Khan and Li, 2017). Other authors have recognized the importance of surface selection when
space is a limitation (Tao et al., 2017). Recent research developments in plate and fin heat exchangers have
centred around the innovative production of new heat transfer surfaces aiming at improving heat transfer and
friction performance. Such investigations demonstrate the important role that secondary surfaces play in the
performance, size and cost of these devises. The present paper introduces a design approach for plate and fin
heat exchangers where block dimensions become an additional design objective. The design approach is based
on the engineering of secondary surfaces to meet a specific thermo-hydraulic performance. The work is
organized as follows: The design principles for plate and fin exchangers is revised; then the thermohydraulic

Paper Received: 03/04/2020; Revised: 23/05/2020; Accepted: 24/05/2020

Please cite this article as: García-Castillo J.L., Picón-Núñez M., 2020, The Sizing of Plate-Fin Exchangers to Fixed Dimensions Within a Volume
Design Region, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 81, 559-564 DOI:10.3303/CET2081094
560

aspects for the design of triangular, rectangular, offset and louvred surfaces are presented. Finally, the design
approach is demonstrated on a case study.

2. Design equation
The geometry of a plate and fin heat exchanger requires the definition of the exchanger height, width, and
length. For each stream, the type of secondary surface employed, and the number of passages must also be
specified. The type of surface is a design element that must be fixed at the outset of a design approach. The
general expression for the design of a heat exchanger is:
(1)
𝑄 = 𝑈 𝐴 𝐹 ∆𝑇𝐿𝑀
Where U is the overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K), A is the total surface area (m2), F is the correction
factor of the logarithmic mean temperature difference and ΔTLM is the logarithmic mean temperature difference
(K). For plate and fin heat exchangers, the total heat transfer area per unit volume is greater compared with
other technologies; this feature is referred as area density β (m2/m3); for this reason, is common to express their
dimensions as a function of the total exchanger volume, VT (m3). Similarly, the total surface area for the hot and
cold sides may vary significantly with the type of secondary surface used. One way of dealing whit this is by
linking the total surface area for each side to the total volume of the heat exchanger (Picón-Núñez et al., 1999).
This is represented by the term α, and is calculated as follows:
𝐴𝑖 (2)
𝛼𝑖 = ; 𝑖 = 1,2
𝑉𝑇

Where α (m2/m3) is the ratio to the total surface area of one side of the exchanger to the total exchanger volume
(VT ). The term i denotes the hot and cold side; for each side, α is calculated from the geometrical characteristics
of the type of surface employed as:
𝛿1
𝛼𝑖 = 𝛽𝑖 ( ) ; 𝑖 = 1,2 (3)
𝛿1 +𝛿2 +2𝐹𝑡ℎ

The term β is the area density and relates the surface area on one side of the heat exchanger to the volume on
that side, δ is the plate spacing (m) and Fth is the plate thickness (m). The total surface temperature effectiveness
of the fin can be determined from (Kays and London, 1984):

𝑡𝑎𝑛ℎ[(2ℎ/𝑘𝐹𝑡ℎ )1/2 (𝛿/2)]

𝜂𝑜 = 1 + 𝑓𝑠 { − 1} (4)
[(2ℎ/𝑘𝐹𝑡ℎ )1/2 (𝛿/2)]

The term fs is the ratio of the secondary surface area to that of the total surface area, for triangular surfaces is
expressed as:
(𝛿 − 𝐹𝑡ℎ )/𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃
𝑓𝑠 = (5)
[(𝑎𝑡 − 𝐹𝑡ℎ ) + (𝛿 − 𝐹𝑡ℎ )/𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃]

Where at is half of the base of the triangular fin (m) and θ is the characteristic angle (°). Introducing α into heat
transfer expression Eq(1), for a counter current arrangement (F = 1) and free of fouling, the resulting expression
is:
𝑄 1 1
𝑉𝑇 = [ + + 𝑅𝑤 ] (6)
Δ𝑇𝐿𝑀 (𝜂𝑜 ℎ𝐴)1 (𝜂𝑜 ℎ𝐴)2

Where Rw is the resistance to heat transfer due to the thermal conduction through the metal wall (K/kW). For
the design of a plate and fin exchanger, volume is a more precise variable to account for the size of the unit.

3. Surface engineering
For a heat exchanger to transmit the required heat load within the limitations imposed by the pressure drop and
within a set of desired dimensions, surface geometry becomes a degree of freedom that can be manipulated to
simultaneously achieve the three design objectives. Surface engineering is the procedure whereby the surface
geometry that meets a specific thermal performance is found. The thermal performance depends on three terms:
The heat transfer coefficient (h), the total surface area (A) and the total surface temperature effectiveness (ηo ).
The assumptions in the development of the approach for surface engineering are: steady state operation, single
phase heat transfer process, constant fluid properties, adiabatic operation, negligible longitudinal conduction
effects, uniform heat transfer coefficients and uniform flow distribution. Figure 1 shows the main geometrical
 561

dimensions that determine the thermo-hydraulic performance of secondaries surfaces such as triangular,
rectangular, offset, and louvred.

Figure 1: Geometry of secondary surfaces: a) Triangular, b) Rectangular, c) Louvered, d) Offset strip-fin

The heat transfer and friction performance of the secondary surfaces are determined from the expressions
presented by several authors. The pressure drop due to friction across the core of the heat exchanger is
expressed by:
2𝑓𝐿 𝑚2
Δ𝑃 = (7)
𝜌𝑑ℎ 𝐴2𝑐
Where f is the friction factor, ρ is the fluid density (kg/m3), L the flow length (m), m is the mass flow rate (kg/s)
and Ac is the free flow area (m2). For the complete specification of fin surface, dh is the hydraulic diameter (m)
and is calculated from the surface parameters as a function of the fin height and fin pitch.

4. Volume design approach

The volume design region represents the volume space where a feasible heat exchanger exits. A volume region
has minimum and maximum boundaries. These are determined, when the highest surface area density (with
the largest number of fins per inch) is used and when the lowest surface area density is used. For a two-stream
heat exchanger the total volume is calculated using Eq(6). The type of secondary surface employed in design
determines the shape and dimensions of the exchanger. For instance, a high-density surface results in a heat
exchanger with a large frontal area and short flow length. With a low-density surface, the resulting exchanger
exhibits low frontal area and long flow length. Table 1 shows heat transfer and friction correlation for different
types of surfaces. As mentioned above, the relation between heat exchanger dimensions and fin geometry
depends on the number of fins that can be accommodated per unit length in the flow direction. A high-density
fin is designed when the values of the variables at ,ar ,ao , and al (Figure 1) take the smallest possible values.
This is when the variables approximate the fin thickness: at = al = Fth and ar = ao = 2Fth . A low-density surface
is obtained when the number of fins per inch equals 1. In a pure countercurrent arrangement, only one of the
streams can fully absorb the pressure drop allocated for design (Picon-Núñez et al., 1999). In this case, the
stream chosen to maximise its pressure drop is referred to as the critical stream. In other arrangements such
as the crossflow, both streams can fully absorb their pressure drop. For a given surface geometry, the pressure
drop of the critical stream will fix the flow length and free flow area. To demonstrate the concept of volume
design region, the maximum and minimum volumes are calculated using the same surface type and same
surface density on a two-stream problem. The volume design region is calculated for triangular, rectangular,
offset strip-fin and louvered surfaces. Figure 2 depicts the volume design region. The exchanger width is a
degree of freedom that can be used to produce a design with a specific aspect ratio.
562

Table 1: Correlations for several heat transfer surfaces

Expression Range of validity Std dev Notes
Rectangular surfaces
𝐹𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ 0.192 𝐹𝑡ℎ −0.208
𝑗 = 0.233𝑅𝑒 −0.48 ( ) [ ] (8) 2,700 < 𝑅𝑒 < 10,000 ±5.3% (Diani et al., 2012)
𝛿 𝛿
𝐹𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ 0.034 𝐹 −0.169 (Diani et al., 2012)
𝑓 = 0.029𝑅𝑒 −0.09 ( ) [ 𝑡ℎ
] (9) 2,700 < 𝑅𝑒 < 10,000 ±3.4% ℎ𝐴𝑐
𝛿 𝛿
𝑗= 𝑃𝑟 2/3 (10)
𝑚𝐶𝑝
Triangular surfaces
0.765 0.765
𝑗 = 0.718𝑅𝑒 −0.625 [𝛿 ⁄𝐹𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ ] [𝐹𝑡ℎ ⁄𝐹𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ ] (11) 100 < 𝑅𝑒 < 1,000 ±12% (Chennu, 2018)
1.235 −0.764
𝑗 = 0.789𝑅𝑒 −1.1218 [𝛿 ⁄𝐹𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ ] [𝐹𝑡ℎ ⁄𝐹𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ ] (12) 1,000 < 𝑅𝑒 < 10,000 ±12% (Chennu, 2018)
0.156 −0.184
𝑓 = 3.12𝑅𝑒 −0.852 [𝛿 ⁄𝐹𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ ] [𝐹𝑡ℎ ⁄𝐹𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ ] (13) 100 < 𝑅𝑒 < 1,000 ±11% (Chennu, 2018)
−0.918 0.355 −0.175
𝑓 = 2.69𝑅𝑒 [𝛿 ⁄𝐹𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ ] [𝐹𝑡ℎ ⁄𝐹𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ ] (14) 1,000 < 𝑅𝑒 < 10,000 ±11% (Chennu, 2018)
Offset strip-fin surfaces
Rui et al., 2017)
𝑎𝑜 𝐹𝑡ℎ
𝑗 = 0.6522𝑅𝑒 −0.5403 𝜉 −0.1541 𝛿 0.1499 𝜂 −0.0678 (1 + 𝜉= (16), 𝛿 = (17)
(15) 300 < 𝑅𝑒 < 3,500 𝑏𝑜 𝐿𝑓𝑜
5.269𝑥10−5 𝑅𝑒1.34 𝜉 0.504 𝛿 0.456 𝜂 −1.055 )0.1 𝐹𝑡ℎ
𝜂= (18)
𝑎𝑜

𝑓 = 9.6243𝑅𝑒 −0.7422 𝜉 −0.1856 𝛿 0.3053 𝜂−0.2659 (1 + (Rui et al., 2017)

(19) 300 < 𝑅𝑒 < 3,500 4𝑎𝑜𝑏𝑜 𝐿𝑓𝑜
1.7669𝑥10−8 𝑅𝑒 4.429 𝜉 0.92 𝛿 3.767 𝜂0.236 )0.1 𝑑ℎ =
2(𝑎𝑜𝐿𝑓𝑜 +𝑏𝑜 𝐿𝑓𝑜+𝐹𝑡ℎ 𝑏𝑜)+𝐹𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑜
(20)

ln(𝑗) = −0.0264136(𝑙𝑛𝑅𝑒)3 + 0.555843(𝑙𝑛𝑅𝑒)2 − (21) (Rui et al., 2017)

300 < 𝑅𝑒 < 3,500 2𝑎𝑜𝑏𝑜
4.09241𝑙𝑛𝑅𝑒 + 6.21681 𝑑ℎ = (23)
𝑎𝑜 +𝑏𝑜
(22) 300 < 𝑅𝑒 < 3,500 𝑎𝑜
ln(𝑓) = 0.132856(𝑙𝑛𝑅𝑒)2 − 2.28042𝑙𝑛𝑅𝑒 + 6.79634 𝜉= (24)
𝑏𝑜

Louvered surfaces.
1.887 0.157 (Erbay et al., 2017)
[−0.484− ] 𝐹 𝐹𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ sin𝐿𝛼
𝑗 = 𝑅𝑒 𝑙𝑛𝑅𝑒 [ 𝑑] [2.24 − 0.588𝑙𝑛 ( )] (25) 100 < 𝑅𝑒 < 3,000 𝑚̇𝐿𝑝
𝐿𝑝 𝐿𝑝 𝑅𝑒 = (27)
𝜇𝐴𝑐
𝐹𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ
0.185 2 ln( 𝐿 )
𝐹 𝐿 𝑝
𝑓 = 𝑅𝑒 −0.433 [ 𝑑 ] (1.10 + 4.31 ( 𝛼) + 0.836 𝐹𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ 2
) (26) 100 < 𝑅𝑒 < 3,000 (Erbay et al., 2017)
𝐿𝑝 90
( 𝐿 )
𝑝

Figure 2: Pictorial representation of the volume design region: a) maximum volume, b) minimum volume

5. Case study
The case study refers to the design of a two-stream heat exchanger using plate and fin technology. Table 2
presents the operational data and physical properties of a problem taken from the literature (Smith, 1994). The
design approach will provide the volume design region where feasible solutions exist. The fin and plate thickness
used for the problem are 0.0003 m and 0.002 m, and the plate spacing (δ) is 0.0065 m.
 563

Table 2: Operating data and physical properties for case study

Flow stream parameters Hot gas Cold air
Mass flowrate (kg/s) 24.68 24.32
Pressure drop (Pa) 2,659.6 3,562.9
Inlet Temperature (K) 702.6 448.2
Outlet Temperature (K) 521.3 637.9
Physical properties mean values
Prandtl number 0.670 0.670
Cp (J/kg K) 1,084.80 1,051.90
Viscosity (Pa·s) 0.000030 0.000028
Thermal conductivity (W/m K) 0.0488 0.0447
Density (kg/m3) 0.577 5.827
Heat capacity mass flow rate CP (kW/K) 26.78 25.58

Using the operating information in Table 2 as input parameters, an iterative approach is implemented, and the
design results are shown in Table 3. For each type of surface, the two columns represent the design using the
lowest and highest fin density. As can be seen, for the case of the highest fin density, the louvered fin gives the
lowest volume VT = 0.39 m3 when compared with other geometries; however, it is not the case for the lowest fin
density. In this circumstances, the offset strip-fin surface exhibits lower volume. This situation comes about as
a result of the louvered fin having similar shape to the triangular surface, and, for a low fin density, the offset
strip fin has a larger heat surface area. From the results in Table 3, it can be seen that the triangular surface
gives the higher volumes for both conditions, VT,max = 21.81 m3 and VT,min = 0.61 m3 . The flow length that
corresponds to the minimum volume is L = 0.057 m and the free flow area is 3.37 m 2. The flow length for the
maximum volume is L = 1.77 m and the free flow area 2.97 m2. It is important to mention that the volume design
region is case sensitive. Now, these results can be expressed in a different way: any flow length between L =
0.057 m and 1.77 m and free flow area between 3.37 m 2 and 2.97 m2, can be achieved if the fin density is
modified accordingly. The fixing of the plate width (W) fixes the plate height (H), the shape of the frontal area
(aspect ratio) can be accommodated to desired relative dimensions. For a near 1 aspect ratio, Figure 3 depicts
the upper and lower limits for the volume design region of the feasible solutions.

Table 3: Volume and block dimensions for the case study.

Dimension Triangular Rectangular Offset strip-fin Louvered
Fin (fins/in) Fin (fins/in) Fin (fins/in) Fin (fins/in)
Fin =1 Fin =28.2 Fin =1 Fin =28.2 Fin =1 Fin =28.2 Fin =1 Fin =28.2
Volume (m3) 21.81 0.61 7.03 0.35 6.24 0.51 9.88 0.39
Width (m) 3.5 3.25 3.40 1.04 2.70 2.8 2.38 3.24
Height (m) 3.52 3.26 3.41 1.05 2.67 2.7 2.37 3.25
Length (m) 1.77 0.06 0.07 0.3151 0.86 0.07 1.75 0.06
Surface area (m2) 3,802 1,319 1,387.7 388.6 1,148 503.4 1,721 854.1
Pressure drop (Pa) 2,660 2,660 2,660 2,660 2,660 2,660 2,660 2,660
161.10 161.10 127.20 127.20 217.70 156.6 778.0 778.0

Figure 3: Volume design region using triangular surfaces: a) 𝐹𝑖𝑛 = 1, b) 𝐹𝑖𝑛 = 28.22, c)Volume design region
564

6. Conclusions
This paper has introduced a design methodology for plate and fin heat exchangers where block dimensions are
viewed as a new design objective. The main conclusions of this work are:
• Secondary heat transfer surfaces are a degree of freedom that can be used to achieve specific
dimensions as a design objective.
• Surface engineering is a design strategy based on the selection of fin density through which, heat duty,
pressure drop, and block dimensions can simultaneously be achieved.
• For a given design problem, the volume design region defines the minimum and maximum volume
achievable and is case dependent.
• Any heat exchanger can be designed within the limits imposed by the volume design region.
• One of the limitations of this approach is the range of validity of the generalized expressions for heat
transfer and friction factor. This is the case of very low viscosity fluids, that tend to exhibit large
Reynolds numbers which go beyond the range of validity of the expressions.

Acknowledgements
The support of the National Council for Science and Technology of Mexico (CONACYT) for the development of
this project is gratefully acknowledged.

References
Chennu R., 2018, Numerical analysis of compact plate-fin heat exchangers for aerospace applications,
International Journal of Numerical Methods for Heat & Fluid Flow, 24, 395-412.
Diani A., Mancin S., Rossetto L., 2012, Experimental and numerical analyses of different extended surfaces,
Journal of Physics Conference Series, 395, 012045.
Erbay L.B., Doğan B., Öztürk M., 2017, Comprehensive study of heat exchangers with louvered fins, In Heat
Exchangers Advances Features and Applications, Ed. Mushed S. and Matos-Lopes M., InTechOpen, Rijeka,
Croatia.
Hathaway B. J., Garde K., Mantell S. C., Davidson J. H., 2018, Design and characterization of an additive
manufactured hydraulic oil cooler, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 117, 188–200.
Kays W.M. and London A. L., 1984, Compact Heat Exchangers, Mac Graw Hill, New York, USA.
Khan T.A., Li W., 2017, Optimal design of plate-fin heat exchanger by combining multi-objective algorithms,
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 108, 1560–1572.
Kunpeng G., Shang N., Smith R., 2015, Optimization of fin selection and thermal design of counter-current plate-
fin heat exchangers, Applied Thermal Engineering, 78, 491-499.
Mortean M.V.V., Cisterna LHR., Paiva KV., Mantelli MBH., 2016, Development of diffusion welded compact heat
exchanger technology, Applied Thermal Engineering, 93, 995–1005.
Picón-Núñez M., Polley G.T., Torres-Reyes E., Gallegos-Muñoz A.,1999, Surface selection and design of plate
fin heat exchangers, Applied Thermal Engineering, 19, 917-931.
Rui S., Mengmeng C., Jianjun L., 2017, A correlation for heat transfer and flow friction characteristics of the
offset strip fin heat exchanger, International Journal of Heat and Mass transfer, 115, 695–705.
Smith E.M.,1994, Direct thermal sizing of plate and fin heat exchangers, Proceedings of the 10th International
Heat Transfer Conference, Brighton, UK, 1994, 55-66.
Tao C., Jie W., Wei P., 2017, Flow and heat transfer analyses of a plate-fin heat exchanger in an HTGR, Annals
of Nuclear Energy, 108, 316–328.
Yang Y., Li Y., Si B., Zheng J., 2017, Heat transfer performances of cryogenic fluids in offset strip fin-channels
considering the effect of fin efficiency, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 114, 1114–1125.