Exergetic Optimization of Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchangers Using NSGA-II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, a multi-objective exergy-based optimization through a genetic algorithm method is conducted to study and improve the performance of shell-and-tube type heat recovery heat exchangers, by considering two key parameters, such as exergy efficiency and cost. The total cost includes the capital investment for equipment (heat exchanger surface area) and operating cost (energy expenditures related to pumping). The design parameters of this study are chosen as tube arrangement, tube diameters, tube pitch ratio, tube length, tube number, baffle spacing ratio, and baffle cut ratio. In addition, for optimal design of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger, the method and Bell–Delaware procedure are followed to estimate its pressure drop and heat transfer coefficient. A fast and elitist nondominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II) with continuous and discrete variables is applied to obtain maximum exergy efficiency with minimum exergy destruction and minimum total cost as two objective functions. The results of optimal designs are a set of multiple optimum solutions, called “Pareto optimal solutions.” The results clearly reveal the conflict between two objective functions and also any geometrical changes that increase the exergy efficiency (decrease the exergy destruction) lead to an increase in the total cost and vice versa. In addition, optimization of the heat exchanger based on exergy analysis revealed that irreversibility like pressure drop and high temperature differences between the hot and cold stream play a key role in exergy destruction. Therefore, increasing the component efficiency of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger increases the cost of heat exchanger. Finally, the sensitivity analysis of change in optimum exergy efficiency, exergy destruction, and total cost with change in decision variables of the shell-and-tube heat exchanger is also performed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".