Applied Thermal Engineering 62 (2014) 680e689

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

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

On the performance of a vertical helical coil heat exchanger. Numerical

model and experimental validation
Jos Fernndez-Seara*, Carolina Pieiro-Pontevedra, J. Alberto Dopazo
rea de Mquinas y Motores Trmicos, E.T.S. de Ingenieros Industriales, University of Vigo, Campus Lagoas-Marcosende 9, 36310 Vigo, Spain

h i g h l i g h t s

A numerical model for vertical helical coils inside storage tanks was developed.

The model was validated against experimental data.

The Nusselt number improves by increasing the outer tube diameter.

The heat transfer rate depends mainly on the inner area.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 20 August 2012
Accepted 27 September 2013
Available online 25 October 2013

A numerical model was developed in order to predict the heat transfer process and pressure drop in a
vertical helical coil heat exchanger (HCHE) located inside a uid storage tank in which water is used as
inner and outer uid. Natural convection was considered as boundary condition for the HCHE outer
surface. The model was validated with experimental data obtained from an own facility with two HCHEs
tested under several operating conditions. The model developed was used to evaluate the main HCHE
representative geometrical parameters inuence on the overall heat transfer coefcient and pressure
drop. The results show that by increasing the tube diameter causes an increase of the Nusselt number
and a larger heat transfer rate to pressure drop ratio is obtained.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Helical coil
Heat exchanger
Experimental
Simulation

1. Introduction
Helical coil heat exchangers (HCHEs) are widely used in several
heat transfer applications such as steam generators, refrigerators,
nuclear reactors, chemical plants and domestic hot water systems
(DHW) due to their compactness in structure, ease of manufacture,
maintenance and improved thermal efciency. Moreover, it is wellknown that helical pipes provide enhanced inner convection heat
transfer when compared to straight pipes. Prabhanjan et al. [1]
report the performance comparison between a straight tube heat
exchanger and a helically coiled heat exchanger. Dravid et al. [2]
analyze the laminar ow heat transfer in helically coiled tubes.
The heat transfer rate through the coil depends on the inner and
outer convection processes, the conduction through the tube wall
and the fouling resistances on the inner and outer HCHE surfaces.
For any given HCHE, and apart from the fouling effects, the inner
and outer heat transfer coefcients determine the heat transfer
rate.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 34 986 812605; fax: 34 986 811995.

E-mail address: jseara@uvigo.es (J. Fernndez-Seara).
1359-4311/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.09.054

General empirical correlations widely used in the HCHE inner

convection heat transfer coefcient calculation, as well as the inner
friction factor, can be readily found in basic heat transfer literature,
such as Gnielinski [3] and Hewit et al. [4]. However, a literature
survey on the outer convection coefcient did not produce any
relevant citations, neither general correlations to determine the
convection coefcient on the outer surface of the coil have been
found, even when it usually controls the heat transfer process in
this kind of heat exchanger conguration. Prabhanjan et al. [5] reported an experimental investigation on natural convection from
vertical helical coils submerged in water and using water as inner
uid. Four different coils made from copper pipes with 15.8 mm
and 13.5 mm outer diameters were analyzed. Power-law correlations for the outer convection coefcients using different characteristic lengths were obtained. Ali [6] experimentally evaluated ve
coils including different pitch-to-coil diameter ratios, tube diameters of 8 mm and 12 mm and different numbers of turns, and
showed the outer heat transfer coefcients as power-law correlations by using the coil length as characteristic length. Ali [7] also
carried out experiments with six different vertical coil congurations immersed in a glycerolewater solution. Results were shown
as correlations including the number of turns and coil-to-tube

J. Fernndez-Seara et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 62 (2014) 680e689

Nomenclature
A
Cp
D
De
DHW
di
do
E
F
f
g
Gr
HCHE
h
k
N
Nu
P
Pe
Pr
p
Q
R
Ra
Re
r
T
U
V
z

area, m2
specic heat capacity at constant pressure, J kg1 K1
diameter, m
Dean number
domestic hot water
tubes inner diameter, m
tubes outer diameter, m
modeled-to-experimental error value
correction factor for the DTlm
Moodys friction factor
gravity acceleration, m s2
Grashof number
helical coil heat exchanger
convection heat transfer coefcient, W m2 K1
thermal conductivity, W m1 K1
number of HCHE turns
Nusselt number
pressure, kPa
perimeter, m
Prandtl number
coil pitch, m
heat transfer rate, W
coil radius, m
Rayleigh number
Reynolds number
tube radius, m
temperature,  C, K
overall heat transfer coefcient, W m2 K1
volumetric ow rate, m3 s1
HCHE vertical axis

Greek symbols
a
helical angle, 
b
thermal expansion coefcient, 1 K1
m
dynamic viscosity, kg m1 s1
n
velocity, m s1

diameter ratios. Ali [8], Xin and Ebadian [9] and Moawed [10] reported experimental researches on free convection from vertical
and horizontal helical pipes in air. Fernndez-Seara et al. [11] carried out an experimental study to analyze the thermal performance
of a vertical HCHE immersed in a DHW storage tank. The used coil
was formed from a straight stainless steel (AISI 316) tube with 8 m
length and 23/20 mm outer/inner diameters. It has 6 turns with a
mean diameter of 400 mm and 40 mm pitch. The average outside
coil Nusselt number for all the experimental data was correlated as
a power-law of the Rayleigh number taking the tubes diameter, the
tubes length, and the coils height, as characteristic lengths.
Regarding the HCHE thermal performance numerical evaluation, most of the models which have been developed are based on
simplied outer boundary conditions, such as constant wall temperature [12] or constant wall heat ux [13]. On the other hand, in
the Prabhanjan et al. paper [5] a numerical investigation of the
natural convection heat transfer from helical coiled tubes in water
was included. From this research a prediction model was developed taking into account a natural convection heat transfer process on the outer HCHE surface which suggested that the method
would promise to predict outlet temperatures from similarly
dimensioned heat exchangers. Recently, different boundary conditions were proposed by Mirgolbabaei et al. [14] and Colorado
et al. [15]. In the rst one, a numerical investigation was

p
r
s
q
DTlm
DP

681

Pi number
density, kg m3
stress tensor
control volume angle, 
logarithmic mean temperature difference
pressure drop, kPa

Subscripts
c
coil
cri
critical
di
related to the tubes inner diameter as characteristic
length
do
related to the tubes outer diameter as characteristic
length
exp
related to the experimental data

inner fouling
fo
outer fouling
H
related to the HCHEs height as characteristic length
ho
related to the HCHE outer convection heat transfer
coefcient
i
inner
if
HCHE inner uid
in
inlet
L
related to the tubes length as characteristic length
m
mean
mod
related to the model results
o
outer, outside
of
HCHE outer uid
out
outlet
ov
overall
s
straight tube
sf
surface
st
storage tank
t
tube
ti
related to the inner tube wall
to
related to the outer tube wall
w
water in the tank
x
characteristic length

performed on the outside mixed convection heat transfer from

vertical helical coiled tubes in a cylindrical shell by using a commercial uid dynamics software. In the second, a physicale
empirical model to describe the helical coil thermal behavior in an
oil and glycerol/water solution including an articial neural
network (ANN) model and outer natural convection boundary
condition was designed and validated. Rennie and Raghavan [16]
numerically investigated the heat transfer performance of a
double-pipe helical heat exchanger. Ferng et al. [17] also proposed
a computational uid dynamics methodology to investigate effects
of different Dean number and pitch size on thermalehydraulic
characteristics in a helically coil-tube heat exchanger. In 2012,
Zachr [18] investigated the natural convection induced heat
transfer over the outer surface of helically coiled-tube heat exchangers. Zachr also studied the effect of the distance between
the wall of the tank and the outer surface of the helical pipe, and
stated that distances lower than 2/3 do reverse the direction of the
natural convection induced resultant ow in the core and the
outer side region of the storage tank.
In this research, the main objective was to develop a detailed
simulation model in order to predict and evaluate the performance
of two HCHE placed into the water storage tank. The numerical
model and its implementation are detailed. Natural convection was
considered as the boundary condition for the HCHE outer surface.

682

J. Fernndez-Seara et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 62 (2014) 680e689

The model results are compared to the experimental data collected

from an own experimental facility, evaluated under several operating conditions. Finally, key results such as the inuence of the coil
tube diameter, pitch, tube length, and coil diameter on the overall
heat transfer coefcient and pressure drop are shown and
discussed.

The application of the mass, energy and momentum balances in

each system are given by Eqs. (1)e(4), according to the nomenclature in Fig. 1.
Inner uid system:

vP
Pe

rif $g$Rc $sen a s$Rc $
Ati
vq

2. Mathematical model
The numerical model was developed in order to predict the heat
transfer phenomena in a vertical HCHE located inside a uid storage tank, commonly used in DHW systems. Convection heat
transfer in the tube, conduction through the tube wall and convection heat transfer to the uid stored in the tank were considered
as the dominant heat transfer modes. The HCHE was modeled as
one helically coiled tube divided into several small control volumes.
The control volumes are connected in the HCHEs inner uid ow
direction. Each control volume is composed from a portion of tube
dened as a model parameter, and a corresponding tank volume
portion, as shown in Fig. 1. Three systems are considered at each
control volume, i.e. inner uid, tube and outer uid. In this
study, water was taken as the uid in both, inner and outer uid
ows.
The model equations were formulated from the mass, energy
and momentum balances applied to each system in each control
volume. In order to formulate the model, the following assumptions were applied: water is modeled as an incompressible uid;
the water and tube time-dependency physical properties are
neglected (stationary processes); the inner water ow is unidirectional, i.e. the trajectory of all water particles are parallel to the tube
wall; the outer water ow related to the HCHE vertical axis is also
unidirectional; the physical properties of the inner water ow and
tube wall are considered uniform in the tube radial direction; the
axial heat conduction in the tubes and the variations of the water
ows potential and kinetic energies are considered insignicant;
the pressure drop in the outer water ow is neglected; the storage
tank is isolated.

vif $rif $Cpif $

(1)

4


1 vTif
$
rif $g$sen a$vif Ui $ Tif  Tt
q
Rc v
di

(2)

Tube system:







Q Uo $do $ Tt  Tof Ui $di $ Tif  Tt

(3)

Outer uid system:

!
p$d2o
1
vT
2
$ Rst $p 
$Rc $vof $rof $Cpof $ of
2
2
vz



Uo $p$do $Rc $ Tt  Tof

(4)

The inner and outer overall heat transfer coefcients are

determined according to Eqs. (5) and (6).

Ui
1
hi

h1

kt

(5)

kt

fi

 
 
o
ro $lnrrm


Uo

 
 

ri $lnrrm 

(6)

h1 h1
o

fo

Several correlations found in technical literature were used in

the developed model to obtain the inner convection heat transfer
coefcient and friction factor, as well as the outer convection heat
transfer coefcients. The correlations were formulated as a function
of the dimensionless numbers commonly used in convection heat
transfer processes to data reduction. The Nusselt, Reynolds, Prandtl,
Rayleigh and Grashof numbers are calculated from Eqs. (7)e(11).

Nux

h$x
k

(7)

Rex

r$n$x
m

(8)

Pr

Cp$m
k

(9)

Rax Grx $Pr

Gr

(10)




g$b$ Tto  Tof $x3
v2

(11)

2.1. Inner convection heat transfer coefcient and friction factor

Fig. 1. Schematic of the HCHE in the DHW storage tank and the established control
volume.

Based on the Reynolds number, the inner convection heat

transfer coefcient of the water owing into the tube is determined
from the inner Nusselt number, which is calculated in Eq. (12) for
the laminar ow regime [19], and in Eqs. (13) and (14) for the
transitional regime [20]. For the turbulent ow condition, the
Nusselt number is calculated in Eq. (15) [21], as a function of the

J. Fernndez-Seara et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 62 (2014) 680e689

friction factor, dened in Eq. (16) [22]. The critical Reynolds number
calculated in Eq. (17) is used to determine the transitional regime
boundaries [19].


 0:9 
d
$Ren Pr 1=3 ;
Nudi 3:65 0:08$ 1 0:8$ i
Dc

Re < Recri

683

a) Fernndez-Seara et al. [11] correlations, Eqs. (23) and (24),

using the height and the length of the coil as characteristic
length.

NuH 0:8181$Ra0:2633
;
H

5:31  109  RaH < 4:02  1010

(23)

(12)
Nudi C$Nudi;ReRecri 1C$Nudi;Re22;000 ; Recri <Re<22;000

NuL 1:709$Ra0:2633
;
L

1:97  1014  RaL < 1:49  1015

(24)

(13)
C 22; 000  Re=22; 000  Recri

Nudi

f
$Re$Pr
8q

1 12:7$

f
2=3
8$ Pr

1

Pr
$ Pr
sf

(14)
!0:14
;

22; 000 < Re

(15)


f

 0:5 
0:3164
d
0:03$ i
0:25
Dc
Re

(16)


 0:45 
d
Recri 2300$ 1 8:6$ i
Dc

(17)

For the laminar and transitional regimes, the tubes inner wall
friction factor is calculated in Eqs. (18) and (19) as a function of the
straight tube correlation, Eq. (20) [23], and the Dean number, Eq.
(21). The friction factor calculation for the turbulent regime is
effected according to Eq. (16).

f
1;
fs

De  11:6

(18)

b) Churchill and Chu [24] correlations, Eqs. (25) and (26), for
laminar and turbulent ows, on horizontal straight tubes
and using the tubes outer diameter as characteristic
length.

Nudo 0:36 

0:518$Ra0:25
do

 9 4 ;
16 9
1 0:559
Pr

Rado < 109

8
31=6 92
2
>
>
=
<
Ra
7
6
; 109
Nudo 0:6 0:387$4
5



9=16 16=9
>
>
;
:
0:559
1
Pr
 Rado
(26)

c) Al-Urabi and Salman [25] correlation, Eq. (27), obtained for

air ow on straight tubes and using the tubes length as the
characteristic length.
1=3

f
d
1 0:015$Re0:75 $ i
fs
Dc
fs

NuL 0:158$RaL

0:4
;

11:6 < De

64
Re

(27)

(19)

(20)

 0:5
r
De Re$ i
Rc

(25)

(21)

d) Ali [8] correlations obtained for helical coils immersed in

water, Eqs. (28) and (29) for 8 and 12 mm tubes diameters,
using the tubes length as characteristic length, and Eq. (30)
using the coils height as characteristic length.

NuL 0:685$Ra0:295
;
L
NuL 0:00044$Ra0:516
;
L

3  1012  RaL < 8  1014

(28)

6  1011  RaL < 1014

(29)

6  108  RaH < 3  1011

(30)

2.2. Outer convection heat transfer coefcient

NuH 0:257$Ra0:323
;
H
Regarding the HCHE outer heat transfer process, the authors
have not found general correlations to calculate the outer convection coefcient. Taking into account natural convection as boundary condition, the water temperature around the coil is considered
as a constant. In order to calculate the outer natural convection heat
transfer coefcient, the Fernandez-Seara et al. [11] correlation
expressed in Eq. (22) was established in the numerical model as the
default option, by establishing the tubes outside diameter as the
characteristic length.

Nudo 0:4998$Ra0:2633
;
do

e) Ali [7] correlations obtained for helical coils immersed in

water, Eqs. (31) and (32) for 5 and 10 turns, using the coils
length as characteristic length and including a coil-to-tubes
outer diameter relationship.

 1:313
Dc
NuL 0:0000253$Ra0:739
$
; 1012  RaL  1014
L
do
(31)

4:67  106  Rado < 3:54  107

(22)

In addition, several correlations found in literature have been

included as a model parameter, to determine and compare the
outer Nusselt number estimation. These correlations are detailed
below.

 0:702
Dc
NuL 0:00001535$Ra0:671
$
;
L
do

7  1012  RaL

 8  1014
(32)

684

J. Fernndez-Seara et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 62 (2014) 680e689

NuH 0:0749$Ra0:3421
;
H

9  109  RaH  4  1011

(37)

3. Model implementation
A nite difference approach was used to solve the model
equations. The system of discretized equations was solved in space,
step by step, beginning with the control volume where the inner
water ow enters the HCHE. From the known values at the inlet
section, the values of the variables at the outlet of each control
volume are iteratively obtained, advancing in the ow direction.
The procedure is repeated until reach the last control volume. The
inlet temperature, pressure and mass ow of the inner uid, the
initial tube and outer uid properties, and the HCHE and tank geometries, are used as inputs.
A computer code was developed for the model implementation
by using Visual Basic Net. From the software results, the inner uid
outlet temperatures and the HCHE heat transfer rate are determined as well as other important parameters such as the inner
pressure drop, the coil temperature distribution, inner and outer
overall heat transfer coefcients, among others.
The calculation process is as follows:

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the experimental facility.

f) Ali [7] correlation, Eq. (33), obtained for vertical 12 mm in

diameter brass helical coils immersed in a glycerolewater
solution.

NuL 0:106$Ra0:335
;
L

2  1012  RaL  8  1014

(33)

g) Ali [7] correlation, Eq. (34), obtained for helical coils with
coil-to-tubes outer diameter ratio of 10, and taking into account the number of turns.

NuL 0:00000252$Ra0:797
$N1:524 ; 2  1013  RaL
L
 8  1014

(34)

h) Xin and Ebadian [9] correlation, Eq. (35), obtained for helical
coils and using the tubes outer diameter as the characteristic
length.

1. From the initial values, determine the water ow thermodynamic properties at the HCHE inlet and the water properties in
the tank.
2. For each control volume at each turn:
2.1. Calculate the heat ux as follows:
2.1.1. Guess an inner tube wall temperature, Tti.
2.1.2. Calculate the inner convection coefcient hi, from
Eqs. (12)e(21).
2.1.3. Calculate the heat ux between the inner water ow
and inner tube wall. Eqs. (3) and (5).
2.1.4. Calculate the outer tube wall temperature, Tto.
2.1.5. Calculate the external convection coefcient, ho, Eqs.
(22)e(37).
2.1.6. Calculate the overall heat transfer coefcient, and
then calculate the heat transfer rate between the inner and outer water ows.
2.1.7. Calculate the inner tube wall temperature Tti.
2.1.8. Compare the guessed and calculated inner tube wall
temperatures. If veried the convergence criterion of
1.0E2, continue, otherwise guess a new value and
return to step 2.
2.2. Determine the inner water ow loss pressure DPi. Eq. (1).
2.3. Calculate the thermodynamic properties of the inner water
ow at the control volume outlet, which will be used as
input for the following control volume. Eqs. (1), (2) and (4).
3. The process is repeated for each control volume.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Model validation

Nudo 0:29$Ra0:293
;
do

4  1013  Rado  1015

(35)

i) Prabhanjan et al. [5] correlations, Eqs. (36) and (37), obtained

for helical coils and using the tubes length and the coils
height as the characteristic length.

NuL 0:009759$Ra0:3972
;
L

5  1014  RaL  3  1015

(36)

An own experimental facility was used to obtain the experimental data in order to validate the model results. Two stainless
steel HCHE of 6 turns, 35 mm pitch, placed into a water storage tank
and located at the top of the tank, were tested. The HCHE, labeled
N 1 is 15/12 mm tubes outer/inner diameters, 4 m in length and
150 mm in diameter while the HCHE labeled N 2 is 20/23 mm
tubes outer/inner diameters, 9 m in length and 420 mm in diameter. Another stainless steel HCHE placed at the tanks bottom and
labeled N 3, with 15/12 mm in tubes outer/inner diameters, 6

J. Fernndez-Seara et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 62 (2014) 680e689

turns, 35 mm in pitch, 9 m in length and 420 mm in diameter is

used to maintain the water temperature as a constant. The tank
used is a commercial hot water storage tank of 150 L, 870 mm in
height, and 480 mm in inner diameter. Fig. 2 shows a schematic
diagram of the experimental facility. A detailed description of the
experimental setup and methodology can be found in FernndezSeara et al. [11].
The experimental facility was equipped with a data acquisition
system based on a 12-bit data acquisition card (USB-5008, National
Instruments) and a PC. Water was used as both uids, cold as inner
uid and hot as outer uid. The water temperature distribution
inside the tank, the HCHEs inner water ow inlet and outlet temperatures were measured by using A-Pt100 sensors with an accuracy of (0.15 0.002T) ( C), inserted in 6 mm diameter stainless
steel pockets and 190 mm long inside the tank, at 100 mm from the
tank wall and 50 mm long inside the HCHE. The inner HCHE N 1
and N 2 water ow rate was measured by using a volumetric ow
meter model SITRANS F M MAG 3100 and the transmitter model
SITRANS F M MAG 5000 with an accuracy of 0.25% of the
measured value. The pressure drop in the HCHE N 1 and N 2 inner
water ow was measured by using a differential pressure transmitter model SITRANS P DSIII with an accuracy of 0.075% of the
measured value. The location of all sensors at the experimental
setup is also shown in Fig. 2. The estimated overall error of the data
acquisition system and sensors is 0.2  C for temperature and
0.5% for ow rate measurements.
48 sets of experimental data were gathered from the HCHE N 1
and N 2 by combining several operating conditions. Hot water was
pumped through the HCHE N 3 to heat up the water stored in the
tank while cold water was introduced into the HCHE located at the
top of the tank. The operating conditions included 8 water volumetric ow rates inside the tested HCHE from 250 to 2000 L h1 at
ow rates intervals of 250 L h1 and 3 tank water (outer uid)
average temperatures at 50, 60 and 70  C. The tested HCHE water
inlet temperature was xed at 30  C. The tank water average
temperatures were kept constant by using the HCHE N 3 with
water ow inlet temperatures at 65, 80 and 95  C, and ranging the
water volumetric ow rate inside the HCHE N 3 from 330 to
515 L h1.
In addition, 19 sets of experimental data were carried out in
order to study the pressure drop in the HCHE N 1. In this cases, the
water HCHE N 1 inlet and tank temperatures were keeping constant at 30  C, and the water volumetric ow rate inside the HCHE
N 1 was varied from 500 L h1 to 1400 L h1 at intervals of 50 L h1.
All the experimental data was scanned and recorded under
stable working conditions, i.e. when the variations in all

temperature and ow rate measurements were within a 1% range,

in a time frame of 15 min. The water properties in the data
reduction process were obtained from Refprop Database [26].
The outer natural convection coefcients obtained from the
experimental data were calculated as follows. The heat ow
transferred through the coil was determined from an energy balance on the inner uid, according to Eq. (38).




Q Vif $rif $Cpif $ Tif;out  Tif;in

(38)

The overall heat transfer coefcient from the outer tube surface
was calculated from Eq. (39). The logarithmic mean temperature
difference was obtained from Eq. (40), where Tof refers to the water
temperature in the tank around de coil, i.e. the temperature
measured by sensors Tw6 to Tw10, which are nearly the same.

Uov

Q
F$Ao $DTlm

DTlm

(39)




Tof  Tif ;in  Tof  Tif;out
!
ln

(40)

Tof Tif;in
Tof Tif ;out

Since neither the wall temperature, nor the lm temperature

used to evaluate the Reynolds and Prandtl numbers, are known, an
iterative approach is used to determine the wall temperature and
the inner Nusselt number. The correlations to calculate the inner
Nusselt number were the same as used in the model. The inside
heat transfer coefcient was determined from Eq. (41) and the inner wall temperature was determined from Eq. (42).

hi

Nudi $k
di

Tti Tif

(41)

Q
Ati $hi

(42)

In Eq. (42) Tif is the average bulk temperature based on the mean
inlet and outlet temperatures. The lm temperature was obtained
as the mean value of wall and uid temperatures. The outside heat
transfer coefcient was calculated from the thermal resistance Eq.
(43). The water properties were evaluated at the mean bulk temperature. The outer tube wall temperature was calculated according
to Eq. (44).

ho
1
Uo

o
 dd$h

i

Tto Tof 

Fig. 3. Outer water temperature distribution experimental measurements from sensor

Tw1 to Tw10 (see Fig. 2).

685

do $ln ddo

Q
Ato $ho

(43)

2$k

(44)

The experimental performance of the HCHE N 1 and N 2 tested

was numerically simulated by using the developed model. The
maximum running time observed was 3 min, approximately, on an
Intel Core2 Duo-processor PC with 3 GB of RAM. Prior to the
analysis, a grid dependency of the solution was studied and a
proper control volumes number for the tubes geometry was
chosen.
Experimental results of water temperature proles along the
height of the tank for test set of 50  C water tank temperature are
shown in Fig. 3. Results from both HCHEs are represented. It can be
observed that the water temperature around the HCHE N 1 is
practically constant for each ow rate. Therefore the factor F in Eq.
(39) can be considered approximately 1 for this HCHE.

686

J. Fernndez-Seara et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 62 (2014) 680e689

Fig. 4 shows a comparison between experimental and numerical

results of the heat transfer rates (a), inner water ow outlet temperatures (b) and inner pressure drops (c), for the HCHE N 1. In
general, reasonable agreement can be appreciated between

experimental and model results of the three aforementioned variables. The results show that almost all the compared data remain
within an error band of 4% for the heat transfer rate, below 1%
for the inner water ow outlet temperature and 8% for the
pressure drops. Results of the uncertainty analysis are also included
in Fig. 4. These results revealed that the uncertainties in the
determination of the heat transfer rate increase with the increase of
the water ow ranging from 0.036 to 0.285 kW. The temperature and the pressure drop uncertainties values are so small that
can hardly be appreciated. The obtained temperature uncertainty
value is 0.2  C and the obtained pressure drop uncertainties values
range from 0.004 to 0.025 kPa.
Moreover, a comparison between the heat transfer rate predictions based on Eqs. (22)e(37) for the outer convection coefcient calculation was performed by using the numerical model.
Fig. 5 shows the model-to-experimental error values on the heat
transfer rate and on the outer convection coefcient, calculated
from the HCHE N 1 and HCHE N 2 for the three water tank
temperatures tested. In general, it can be observed that for each test
the lower the error on the outer convection coefcient prediction,
the lower the error on the heat transfer rate estimation. A good
prediction on the outer convection heat transfer coefcient results
in a good HCHE heat transfer estimation. From HCHE N 1 test N
19, an error value of 16.56% on the outer convection coefcient and
of 13.10% on the heat transfer rate predictions were observed by
using the Ali correlation (Eq. (28)), whereas in test N 9 lower error
values on both the outer convection coefcient and heat transfer
rate were 0.31% and 0.04%, when the Fernndez-Seara correlation
(Eq. (22)) was used. A summary of the maximum and minimum
error values on the HCHE heat transfer rate and outer convection
coefcient calculations is shown in Table 1.
Taking into account the results showed above, the model was
considered validated.
4.2. Parametric study
Once the model validation was carried out, the developed model
was used to evaluate the main HCHE representative geometrical
parameters inuence on the overall heat transfer coefcient. Two
types of parametric analysis have been carried out. Firstly, one of
the geometric parameters was changed (tubes outer diameter, coil
diameter, pitch and length) whilst keeping the remaining parameters constant. This methodology was used in several researches
found in literature [6,7,9,11]. However, the change of one of the
parameters implies a change of the coils heat exchange area. Hence
a second type of analysis has been performed in which the variation
of the parameters was effected whilst the inner heat exchange area
of the coil remained unchanged. In both types of analysis the tube
wall thickness was kept constant.

Fig. 4. Comparison of the experimental and modeled results of the HCHE heat transfer
rate (a), inner water ow outlet temperature (b) and inner water ow pressure drops
(c).

4.2.1. Parametric analysis with change of heat exchange area

The values of the geometric parameter analyzed are summarized in Table 2. One of them was varied while the rest of them were
maintained constant, so 72 different geometries were studied. In
order to simplify the gures, 36 HCHE geometries were selected as
the most representative. The operating conditions included water
volumetric ow rate inside the HCHE at 1000 L h1, tank water
temperature at 60  C and water inlet temperature at 30  C.
Mean values of the Nusselt numbers from the HCHE outer uid,
Nuo,do, calculated with the tubes diameter as the characteristic
length, are plotted in Fig. 6 as a function of L/Dc ratio. From the
gure it can be appreciated that, for a tubes diameter value and
xing an L/Dc ratio, similar Nusselt numbers were obtained, independently of the pitch and the coils diameter values. Therefore the
same Nuo,do are obtained with the same do, Dc, L and different pitch.

J. Fernndez-Seara et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 62 (2014) 680e689

687

Fig. 5. Errors on the prediction of the heat transfer rate and outer convection coefcient of the a) HCHE N 1 and b) HCHE N 2 by using several outer convection correlations.

This is due to the fact that both have the same L/Dc ratio for the
same tubes diameter. It is also observed that the highest Nuo,do
values are obtained with the larger do and the smaller Dc and L. On
the other hand Nuo,do values are almost constant with the increase
of the L/Dc relation for a xed L and do, i.e. with the increase of the
coils turns. However Nuo,do values decrease with the increase of the

coils turns for the same Dc, p and do, i.e. with the increase of heat
exchange area. This effect is higher for the larger do due to the fact
that the changes in the geometric parameters give a higher heat
exchange area with the largest do.
Fig. 7 shows the relationship between thermal power
exchanged and pressure drop, Q/DP, as a function of the L/Dc, where

Table 1
Errors on the estimation of the HCHE N 1 and HCHE N 2 heat transfer rate and outer convection coefcient.
Correlation for outer convection heat transfer coefcient calculation

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(27)

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

(32)

(33)

(34)

(35)

(36)

(37)

HCHE N 1

EQ
(%)
Eho
(%)

Max
Min
Max
Min

3.86
0.04
4.97
0.28

10.50
5.94
13.96
6.84

10.51
2.73
13.27
4.39

21.05
13.72
27.23
18.75

8.45
3.55
11.14
4.17

13.14
5.53
16.56
10.49

21.87
5.25
28.37
6.28

14.94
6.34
20.10
11.37

107.69
29.48
187.57
61.47

31.01
5.19
38.71
6.21

30.92
20.84
36.10
31.53

57.50
0.98
85.23
2.12

8.14
4.92
10.45
5.64

53.73
38.25
58.67
53.09

41.75
29.35
46.94
42.94

HCHE N 2

EQ
(%)
Eho
(%)

Max
Min
Max
Min

2.38
0.03
3.47
0.15

2.94
0.07
4.25
0.94

3.31
0.26
4.77
1.47

21.96
8.92
28.90
22.51

3.54
0.15
7.54
0.30

7.64
2.46
10.73
5.49

28.33
1.84
46.63
4.13

16.79
5.15
24.60
14.42

92.42
16.21
227.72
64.62

25.26
0.13
40.95
0.04

25.59
9.77
31.35
26.95

128.71
22.80
412.83
131.88

5.75
1.75
8.67
5.93

41.17
17.41
48.12
41.25

36.68
15.64
43.45
38.86

688

J. Fernndez-Seara et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 62 (2014) 680e689

Table 2
Geometrical parameters of HCHE analyzed in parametric analysis.
do (m)

Dc (m)

p (m)

L (m)

0.015
0.025

0.1
0.25
0.5

0.025
0.05
0.075
0.1

2
5
10

each data series are the same as those shown in Fig. 6. This gure
shows the large inuence of the increasing diameter on the
reduction of the pressure drop. As the pitch increases, the relation
Q/DP decreases caused by the increase of the pressure drop. The
largest Q/DP value is obtained from a larger Dc, a smaller p and a
higher do.
4.2.2. Parametric analysis without change of exchange area
In order to keep constant the inner heat exchanger area a second
parametric analysis was carried out. In this case, the variation of the
parameters was effected whilst the inner exchange area of the coil
remained unchanged, so length was calculated with the rest of
parameters in this analysis. The operating conditions included
water volumetric ow ratio inside the HCHE at 1000 L h1, tank
water temperature at 60  C and water inlet temperature at 30  C.
The geometries studied were: 2 HCHE outer pipe diameters at
0.015, 0.025 m; 3 HCHE coils diameters at 0.1, 0.25 and 0.5 m and 4
HCHE pitches at 0.025, 0.05, 0.075, 0.1 m. Thereby 24 geometries
were studied. In order to simplify the gures, 18 HCHE geometries
were selected as the most representative.
Mean values of the Nusselt numbers from the HCHE outer uid,
Nuo,do, are plotted in Fig. 8 as a function of L/Dc ratio, where each
data series represents HCHE with same do, L and pitch and different
Dc with values of 0.1, 0.25 and 0.5 m. This gure shows the effect of
the correlation used for calculating Nusselt, based on tubes
diameter as the characteristic length, so the same tubes diameter
leads to almost same Nusselt numbers independently of the other
geometric parameters, contrary to the observed in Fig. 6. On the
other hand the highest Nuo,do is also obtained for the higher do in
this analysis.
Fig. 9 shows the relation between thermal power exchanged and
pressure drop, Q/DP, as a function of L/Dc, where each data series are
the same as shown in Fig. 8. From Figs. 7 and 9 it is observed that
the low Q/DP values obtained with smallest do are independent of
the geometric parameters. This is attributed to the high pressure

Fig. 6. Mean values of Nusselt numbers from HCHE outer uid plotted against L/Dc
relation obtained from 36 HCHE geometries.

Fig. 7. Relation between thermal power exchanged and drop pressure, Q/DP, against L/
Dc from the 36 HCHE geometries.

Fig. 8. Mean values of Nusselt numbers from HCHE outer uid plotted against L/Dc
relation obtained from 18 HCHE geometries with equal inner exchanger area.

drop produced by the decrease of do, despite the fact that Q is

greater. This gure also shows the large inuence of the increasing
diameter and the decreasing pitch on the reduction of the pressure
drop.

Fig. 9. Relation between thermal power exchanged and drop pressure, Q/DP, against L/
Dc from the 18 HCHE geometries with equal inner exchanger area.

J. Fernndez-Seara et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 62 (2014) 680e689

5. Conclusions
A numerical model was developed in order to predict the heat
transfer phenomena and pressure drop in a vertical HCHE located
inside a uid storage tank. Natural convection was considered as
boundary condition for the HCHE outer surface. The model equations were formulated from the mass, energy and momentum
balances. Several correlations found in technical literature were
used in the model, which was developed to obtain the inner convection heat transfer coefcient and friction factor, as well as the
outer convection heat transfer coefcients. The model was validated with experimental data obtained from an own facility with
two HCHE under several operating conditions. The results show
that from amongst the 15 correlations used that of Fernndez-Seara
et al. [11] (Eq. (22)) would appear best tted to the experimental
results.
The model developed was used to evaluate the main HCHE
representative geometrical parameters inuence on the overall
heat transfer coefcient. The results show that the Nusselt number,
calculated with the outer tube diameter as the characteristic length,
improves by increasing the outer tube diameter. Moreover the heat
transfer is independent of the other geometric parameters for a
given value of inner heat exchanger area.
References
[1] D.G. Prabhanjan, G.S.V. Raghavan, T.J. Rennie, Comparison of heat transfer
rates between a straight tube heat exchanger and a helically coiled heat
exchanger, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 29 (2) (2002) 185e191.
[2] A.N. Dravid, K.A. Smith, E.W. Merrill, P.L.T. Brian, Effect of secondary uid
motion on laminar ow heat transfer in helically coiled tubes, AIChE J. 17
(1971) 1114e1122.
[3] V. Gnielinski, Helically coiled tubes of circular cross sections, in: G.F. Hewitt
(Ed.), Heat Exchanger Design Handbook, vol. 2, Begell House, Inc., New York,
USA, 2002 (Section 2.2.14).
[4] G.F. Hewit, G.L. Shires, Y.V. Polezhaev, International Encyclopedia of Heat and
Mass Transfer, CRC Press, Florida, USA, 1997, pp. 167e170.
[5] D.G. Prabhanjan, T.J. Rennie, G.S.V. Raghavan, Natural convection heat transfer
from helical coil tubes, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 43 (2004) 359e365.
[6] M.E. Ali, Experimental investigation of natural convection from vertical helical
coiled tubes, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 37 (4) (1994) 665e671.
[7] M.E. Ali, Free convection heat transfer from the outer surface of vertically
oriented helical coils in glycerolewater solution, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 43 (2004)
615e620.

689

[8] M.E. Ali, Laminar natural convection from constant heat ux helical coiled
tubes, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 41 (1998) 2175e2182.
[9] R.C. Xin, M.A. Ebadian, Natural convection heat transfer from helical pipes,
J. Thermophys. Heat Transfer 12 (2) (1996) 297e302.
[10] M. Moawed, Experimental investigation of natural convection from vertical
and horizontal helical pipes in HVAC applications, Energy Convers. Manage.
46 (2005) 2996e3013.
[11] J. Fernndez-Seara, R. Diz, F.J. Uha, J. Sieres, J.A. Dopazo, Thermal analysis of a
helically coiled tube in a domestic hot water storage tank, in: On Proceeding
of the 5th International Conference on Heat Transfer, Fluid Mechanics and
Thermodynamics, 2007. Paper number: SJ5, Sun City, South Africa.
[12] I. Di Piazza, M. Ciofalo, Numerical prediction of turbulent ow and heat
transfer in helically coiled pipes, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 49 (2010) 653e663.
[13] A.K. Satapathy, Thermodynamic optimization of a coiled tube heat exchanger
under constant wall heat ux condition, Energy 34 (9) (2009) 1122e1126.
[14] H. Mirgolbabaei, H. Taherian, G. Domairry, N. Ghorbani, Numerical estimation
of mixed convection heat transfer in vertical helically coiled tube heat exchangers, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010), http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
d.2284.
[15] D. Colorado, M.E. Ali, O. Garca-Valladares, J.A. Hernndez, Heat transfer using
a correlation by neural network for natural convection from vertical helical
coil in oil and glycerol/water solution, Energy 36 (2011) 854e863.
[16] T.J. Rennie, V.G.S. Raghavan, Numerical studies of a double-pipe helical heat
exchanger, Appl. Therm. Eng. 26 (2006) 1266e1273.
[17] Y.M. Ferng, W.C. Lin, C.C. Chieng, Numerically investigated effects of different
Dean number and pitch size on ow and heat transfer characteristics in a
helically coil-tube heat exchanger, Appl. Therm. Eng. 36 (2012) 378e385.
[18] A. Zachr, Investigation of natural convection induced outer side heat transfer
rate of coiled-tube heat exchangers, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer (2012), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2012.08.014.
[19] E.F. Schmidt, Wrmebergang und Druckverlust in Rohrschlangen, Chem. Ing.
Tech. 39 (1967) 781e789.
[20] V. Gnielinski, Heat transfer and pressure drop in helically coiled tubes, in:
Proc. 8th Int. Heat Transfer Conf., San Francisco, Hemisphere, Washington,
D.C., vol. 6, 1986, pp. 2847e2854.
[21] B.S. Petukhov, Heat transfer and friction in turbulent pipe ow with variable
physical properties, in: J.P. Hartnett, T.F. Irvine (Eds.), Advances in Heat
Transfer, vol. 6, Academic Press, New York, USA, 1970.
[22] P. Mishra, S.N. Gupta, Momentum transfer in curved pipes. 1. Newtonian
Fluids, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process. Des. Dev. 1 (1979) 130e137.
[23] H. Ju, Z. Huang, Y. Xu, B. Duan, Y. Yu, Hydraulic performance of small bending
radius helical coil-pipe, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 18 (2001) 826e831.
[24] S.W. Churchill, H.H.S. Chu, Correlating equations for laminar and turbulent
free convection from a horizontal cylinder, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 18 (1975)
1049e1053.
[25] M. Al-Urabi, Y.K. Salman, Laminar natural convection heat transfer from an
inclined cylinder, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 23 (1980) 45e51.
[26] E.W. Lemmon, M.O. McLinden, M.L. Huber, NIST Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport Properties Database (REFPROP), Version 8.0, National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Colorado, USA, 2008.