Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009) 2251–2256

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

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

Neural networks analysis of thermal characteristics on plate-fin heat

exchangers with limited experimental data
Hao Peng, Xiang Ling *
School of Mechanical and Power Engineering, Nanjing University of Technology, No. 5 Xin Mo Fan Road, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210009, 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, an application of artificial neural networks (ANNs) was presented to predict the pressure
Received 20 August 2008 drop and heat transfer characteristics in the plate-fin heat exchangers (PFHEs). First, the thermal perfor-
Accepted 12 November 2008 mances of five different PFHEs were evaluated experimentally. The Colburn factor j and friction factor f to
Available online 27 November 2008
different type fins were obtained under various experimental conditions. Then, a feed-forward neural
network based on back propagation algorithm was developed to model the thermal performance of
Keywords: the PFHEs. The ANNs was trained using the experimental data to predict j and f factors in PFHEs. Different
Plate-fin heat exchanger
network configurations were also examined for searching a better network for prediction. The predicted
Fin
Artificial neural network
values were found to be in good agreement with the actual values from the experiments with mean
Back propagation algorithm squared errors (MSE) less than 1.5% for j factor and 1% for f factor, respectively. This demonstrated that
Colburn factor the neural network presented can help the engineers and manufacturers predict the thermal character-
Friction factor istics of new type fins in PFHEs under various operating conditions.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction thermal characteristics of fin-tube refrigerating heat exchangers

Plate-fin heat exchangers (PFHE) are used extensively and reg-
ularly in process industries, e.g., heating and air conditioning, heat
recovery and power generation. The complexity of these systems is
due to their geometrical configuration, the physical phenomena
present in the heat transfer and to the large number of variables in-
volved in its operation. Of many fin geometries used in PFHEs, such
as: plain, wavy, serrated, perforated and louvered fins, reliable pre-
diction of heat transfer and pressure drop in these fins remains a
difficulty. Because there is a large number of geometrical parame-
ters, only limited experimental data have appeared in the litera-
ture. As a consequence, some empirical correlations were applied
for predicting the fin’s performance in PFHEs. It is well-known that,
the prediction errors by means of correlations are much larger than
the measurement errors, being mainly due to the data compression
represented by them.
Presently, the problem of thermal characteristics predictions
in various heat exchangers had been addressed using artificial
neural networks (ANNs). It offered a new way to simulate non-
linear, or uncertain, or unknown complex system without requir-
ing any explicit knowledge about input/output relationship. For
example, Diaz et al. [1–3] did a lot of researches in simulating
and controlling heat exchanger performance using ANNs. Parch-
eco-Vega et al. [4–6] applied ANNs approach to analysis the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 25 83587321; fax: +86 25 83600956.
E-mail addresses: phsight1@hotmail.com (H. Peng), xling@njut.edu.cn (X. Ling).
with limited experimental data. Thibault and Grandjean [7] used
a neural network for heat transfer data analysis. Islamoglu et al.
[8,9] predicted heat transfer rate of a wire-on-tube heat exchan-
ger and made heat transfer analysis for air flowing in corrugated
channels. In more recently studies, Xie et al. [10,11] developed
an ANNs method to analyze the heat transfer of shell-and-tube
heat exchangers. Ermis [12] modeled the heat transfer coeffi-
cient, pressure drop and Nusselt number in compact heat
exchangers using ANNs. Dudul [13] developed neural network
to learn the dynamics of a typical liquid saturated steam heat
exchanger. From the literature review mentioned above, it is
known that ANNs better serve to thermal analysis in engineering
applications, especially in heat exchangers. However, the ANNs
method have not been used or tested for thermal characteristics
in PFHE yet. For this reason, the research of this paper is focus
on the applicability of ANNs method for thermal characteristics
(including pressure drop and heat transfer) analysis in PFHEs.
First, an experimental system was set up for investigation on
the thermal performance of PFHEs. Next to that, the ANNs ap-
proach was applied to the experimental data to show its capabil-
ity in the representation of the thermal characteristics. Later, a
methodology based on the cross-validation procedure was devel-
oped to estimate the expected error of the ANN approach con-
structed from undersized data when determining PFHEs
behavior under different working conditions. Finally, the pro-
posed technique will be applied to the available experimental
measurements to confirm the validity of the method.

1359-4311/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2008.11.011
2252 H. Peng, X. Ling / Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009) 2251–2256

Nomenclature

De hydraulic diameter (m) sf fin pitch (m)

G mass flux (kg/m2 s) Dt temperature difference (K)
Kc abrupt contraction or entrance coefficient
Ke abrupt expansion or exit coefficient Greek symbols
L effective length (m) df fin thickness (m)
Lf fin length in serrated fin (Fig. 2) (m) k thermal conductivity (W/m K)
M number of training data sets m kinematic viscosity (m2/s)
MSE mean squared error l dynamic viscosity (Pa s)
N number of testing data sets q density (kg/m3)
Pr Prandtl number c latent heat (kJ/kg)
DP pressure drop (Pa) u input and output variables
Q heat flux (W)
Re Reynolds number Subscripts
St Stanton number as air side
T temperature (K) e experimental
Ve experimental value i inlet
Vp ANNs predicting value m mean value
cp specific heat (J/kg K) o outlet
f friction factor p predicted
hf fin height (m) ss steam side
j Colburn factor w wall
m mass flow rate (kg/s)

2. Experimental data

2.1. Testing samples

The test samples (aluminium PFHEs) set up in a cross-flow as

shown in Fig. 1. Of the many fin geometries described earlier, ser-
rated fins (Fig. 2) are considered in the present study. Also the de-
tailed parameters of the testing samples (PFHEs) are illustrated in
Table 1.

2.2. Experimental system Fig. 2. Serrated fin.

Limited experimental data from a series tests of several fin

geometries, schematically shown in Fig. 3, which consists of wind
turner subsystem, steam-condensation water loop and the mea-
suring subsystem.
2.2.1. Wind tunnel subsystem
A wind tunnel subsystem is tailor-made for the experiments,
which consist of a bell mouth, a webby section, a contraction sec-
tion, a test section (PFHE), a velocity measuring section and a suc-
tion blower. The wind tunnel has a rectangular cross-section
throughout the test section which is 300 mm in height and
200 mm in width. The air flow rate can be regulated by a butterfly
valve.

2.2.2. Working fluid loop

The saturated steam is generated by the steam boiler and moves
to the test section, where it condenses by the cold air. Then, the
condensed water is returned to the water tank, thus completing
a closed loop.

2.2.3. Measuring subsystem

Fig. 1. Cross-flow PFHE. The air temperatures before and after the testing core are mea-
sured by a Pt100 thermal resistance and matrix thermocouples.
The steam inlet temperatures are obtained by an E type armored
Table 1 thermocouples. These thermocouples are pre-calibrated which
Geometrical parameters of PFHEs.
have an uncertainty of 0.1 K. The air velocity is determined by
Parameter Sample-1 Sample-2 Sample-3 Sample-4 Sample-5 the Pitot tube combined with tilting micromanometer and the con-
hf (mm) 4.7 4.7 6.5 6.5 9.5 densed water flow rate is measured by the rotameter, which have
sf (mm) 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.5 the same uncertainty of 1%. The pressure drop at the air side is read
f (mm) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 by a U-shape differential pressure gauge, whose uncertainty is 1%.
Lf (mm) 5 5 5 5 5
More detailed description of the experimental system and
De (mm) 2.45 2.93 2.67 3.10 3.69
tested plate-fin heat exchangers can be found in Refs. [14,15].
 H. Peng, X. Ling / Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009) 2251–2256 2253

Fig. 3. Schematic of test apparatus.

2.3. Determination of thermal performance 2.4. Experimental procedure

The heat transfer performance and pressure drops of serrated For the air side, the three main parameters: mass flow rate,
fins for a given geometric and flow conditions can be characterized temperature distribution and pressure drop were obtained. And
by a Colburn factor j and a friction factor f, respectively. The flow for steam side, the flow rate of condensed water was measured.
conditions can be characterized by Reynolds number, which can These measurements gave the total heat flux at both the air and
be calculated in terms of dimension parameters such as fin pitch, steam side:
fin height, etc.
Q as ¼ mas cpas Dt as ð9Þ
In PFHEs, the Colburn factor j and friction factor f can be defined
in Eqs. (1) and (2): Q ss ¼ mss css ð10Þ
For all studied cases in this paper, the heat balances between air
j ¼ StPr2=3 ð1Þ and steam were less than 5% by on-line calculations. If the heat bal-
   ance were well satisfied, all the corresponding experimental data
4L qi DP q were saved on a computer for data reduction. All thermocouples
f ¼2  ðK c þ 1  r2 Þ þ ð1  r2 ¼ K e Þ  i
De qm qum 2 q0 used in the present experiment with an experimental uncertainty
 
q of ±0.1 K, and the uncertainties of flow rate and pressure drop mea-
þ2 i 1 ð2Þ
q0 surement are less than ±0.5% and ±1%, respectively.
Experimental were performed for Reynolds number ranging
While the Prandtl number is: 600–7000 at the air side. Forty sets of experimental data were ob-
tained and divided into two parts: one part is used for training net-
lc p works (see Table 2); the other is used for testing networks (see
Pr ¼ ð3Þ
k Table 3).
The Stanton number can be evaluated by solving Eq. (4):
3. Prediction of thermal performance using ANNs
qw
St ¼ ð4Þ
cp GðT m  T w Þ
One of the ANN models extensively used is the multilayer per-
where qw is the mean heat flux density, G is the mass flux and Tm is ceptron model based on the back propagation (BP) algorithm [16].
the average temperature between the inlet and outlet This BP architecture has proven to be robust and flexible and has
temperatures: been used widely to classify images in the remote sensing field.
This type of neural network generally consist of three or four lay-
Q
qw ¼ ð5Þ ers: an input layer, an output layer, and one or two middle (some-
Ac
times called hidden) layers, as shown in Fig. 4. Every unit in a layer
Ti þ To is connected to every unit in the next layer by weighted connec-
Tm ¼ ð6Þ
2 tions. The connections have variable weights, which are usually
The Reynolds number is defined in terms of hydraulic diameter De: set initially to random values. The data from the input layer are
passed to hidden layer by the weighted connections. Each hidden
GDe
Re ¼ ð7Þ layer unit sums all of its inputs in some way and if the total value
l is above certain threshold, it then produces an output. The outputs
2ðhf  df Þðsf  df Þ are passed to the output layer, where the process is repeated. Any
De ¼ ð8Þ
ðhf  df Þ þ ðsf  df Þ outputs from the output layer provide the classification result.
2254 H. Peng, X. Ling / Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009) 2251–2256

Table 2 During training, input data for which the correct result is known
Experimental data for training the network. are entered into the ANN. The data pass forward through each of
No. Inputs Outputs layers and the results are compared with the known correct result.
hf (mm) sf (mm) f (mm) Lf (mm) Reas j f The error in the output is propagated back through the network
and is used to adjust the weights of each connection, such that
1 4.7 2.0 0.3 5 727.95 0.01705 0.07630
2 4.7 2.0 0.3 5 1033.6 0.01375 0.06652
the error in the result will be reduced. This training cycle is re-
3 4.7 2.0 0.3 5 1806.4 0.01155 0.05557 peated many thousands of times, until a useful level of accuracy
4 4.7 2.0 0.3 5 3490.7 0.00870 0.04707 is achieved.
5 4.7 2.0 0.3 5 4443.2 0.00756 0.04470 The advantage of ANNs method than conventional regression
6 4.7 2.0 0.3 5 5188 0.00691 0.04331
analysis is: free of linear supposition, have large degrees of free-
7 4.7 2.5 0.3 5 845.55 0.01615 0.08476
8 4.7 2.5 0.3 5 1198.5 0.01396 0.07133 dom, and more effectively deal with nonlinear functional forms
9 4.7 2.5 0.3 5 2106.4 0.01188 0.05736 [17].
10 4.7 2.5 0.3 5 2760.3 0.00997 0.05295 For PFHEs in the present study, five independent parameters
11 4.7 2.5 0.3 5 3974.5 0.00903 0.04855
were fed into the input layer of the network (as shown in Fig. 4):
12 4.7 2.5 0.3 5 5807.2 0.00722 0.04534
13 4.7 2.5 0.3 5 6561.2 0.00684 0.04453
fin height, hf; fin pitch, sf; fin thickness, df; and fin length Lf; Rey-
14 6.5 2.0 0.3 5 1142.3 0.01561 0.06836 nolds number at the air side, Reas; The output layer included two
15 6.5 2.0 0.3 5 1978.8 0.01203 0.05792 parameters: Colburn factor, j; and friction factor, f.
16 6.5 2.0 0.3 5 2555.9 0.01066 0.05526 A total of 40 sets of data were run in the network, of which
17 6.5 2.0 0.3 5 3616.3 0.00904 0.05127
M = 33 sets of experimental data, were used to train the network
18 6.5 2.0 0.3 5 4431.2 0.00821 0.04937
19 6.5 2.0 0.3 5 5118.3 0.00767 0.04785 (Table 2), while the rest of N = 7 data, were used to test the net-
20 6.5 2.0 0.3 5 5724.3 0.00728 0.04671 work (Table 3). The sigmoid function was adopted in ANNs, which
21 6.5 2.5 0.3 5 949.26 0.01546 0.08289 requires the range of both input and output values should between
22 6.5 2.5 0.3 5 1342.5 0.01303 0.07060 0.1 and 0.9. The data evaluated experimentally in this study are
23 6.5 2.5 0.3 5 2326.3 0.00993 0.05759
24 6.5 2.5 0.3 5 3005.7 0.00875 0.05574
normalized in order to have the values. The formula used in the
25 6.5 2.5 0.3 5 4253.3 0.00737 0.05239 following:
26 6.5 2.5 0.3 5 5210.9 0.00666 0.05078
27 6.5 2.5 0.3 5 6730.6 0.00587 0.04756 ActualðuÞ  MinðuÞ
NoVðuÞ ¼  ðHigh  LowÞ þ Low ð11Þ
28 9.5 2.5 0.2 5 911.2 0.01767 0.07666 MaxðuÞ  MinðuÞ
29 9.5 2.5 0.2 5 1288.7 0.01566 0.05602
30 9.5 2.5 0.2 5 2232.7 0.01248 0.04128
where u represents the input and output variables. Min is minimum
31 9.5 2.5 0.2 5 4991 0.00781 0.03302
32 9.5 2.5 0.2 5 5763.1 0.00698 0.03185 data value, Max is the maximum data value, High is the maximum
33 9.5 2.5 0.2 5 6443.3 0.00633 0.03137 normalized data value = 0.9, and low is the minimum normalized
data value = 0.1.

Table 3 4. Results and discussion

Experimental data for testing the network.
When using ANNs as a reliable tool for predicting the thermal
No. Inputs Outputs
performance in PFHEs, the factors that influence its predictions
hf (mm) sf (mm) f (mm) Lf (mm) Reas j f
should be considered. As noted by several literatures [18–21], the
1 4.7 2.0 0.3 5 2381.2 0.00979 0.05157 performance of neural networks is influenced by the learning and
2 4.7 2.5 0.3 5 5814.7 0.00615 0.04236
momentum rate, number of training cycles, group of data set,
3 4.7 2.5 0.3 5 4954.1 0.00808 0.04655
4 6.5 2.0 0.3 5 807.99 0.01840 0.07975
and the characteristics of ANNs, i.e., the number of hidden layers,
5 6.5 2.5 0.3 5 6018 0.00621 0.04914 number of hidden nodes, the architecture, etc. In order to decide
6 9.5 2.5 0.2 5 2881.5 0.01100 0.03892 the configuration of neural network, the error convergence was
7 9.5 2.5 0.2 5 4075.1 0.00899 0.03509 checked by changing the number of hidden layers and also by
adjusting the learning rate and momentum rate. To facilitate the
comparisons between predicted values for different network
parameters and actual values, there is need for error evaluation.
The relative error of every predicted output was defined by:

Ve  Vp
Error ¼  100% ð12Þ
Ve
During the training process, the performance of the network
was evaluated by calculating the mean squared error (MSE) values,
which is defined according to following the expression:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PM e p 2
i¼1 ðV i  V i Þ
MSE ¼ ð13Þ
M
In the present work, the learning rate of 0.25 and the momen-
tum rate of 0.9 were determined by the trail and error process,
respectively. For searching a relatively good configuration of ANNs,
six different networks, 5–7–3–2, 5–6–4–2, 5–4–3–2, 5–6–2, 5–4–2
and 5–3–2 were examined. During the training period the devel-
oped ANNs models, had a 5–6–4–2 network (Fig. 4) and 150,000
Fig. 4. Configuration of a 5–6–4–2 neural network for modeling PFHE. training cycles found to have best performance, which has a
 H. Peng, X. Ling / Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009) 2251–2256 2255

maximum relative error less than 4% and less than 1.5% for the MSE Table 4
value. Fig. 5 shows the MSE values during the training process. It Comparison of experimental data and ANNs results for j and f factors: testing results.

can be seen that the mean squared error asymptotes at about No. Reas Experimental data ANNs testing Error (%)
100,000 cycles. At the end of training process, the relative errors j f j f j f
for training data are shown in Fig. 6. Most of errors of Colburn fac-
1 2381.2 0.00979 0.05157 0.01021 0.05186 4.29 0.57
tor j and friction factor f are within 2% region, and the maximum 2 5814.7 0.00615 0.04236 0.00631 0.04298 2.56 1.47
relative errors is about 4%. 3 4954.1 0.00808 0.04655 0.00805 0.04678 0.39 0.50
Once training is completed, predictions from the testing data 4 807.99 0.01840 0.07975 0.01799 0.08367 2.21 4.91
set were done using the already trained network. Table 4 shows 5 6018 0.00621 0.04914 0.00636 0.04976 2.49 1.26
6 2881.5 0.01100 0.03892 0.01117 0.03713 1.58 4.61
the error values between the output of the network and the testing
7 4075.1 0.00899 0.03509 0.00893 0.03403 0.72 3.01
experimental data. It is obvious that all the values are in the range
of 0%–5%. Fig. 7 shows the predicted j and f factors from trained
and tested ANNs, it can be seen that both predicted results are well
close to the corresponding measured experimental data. The max-
0.018
imum relative errors were approximately 5% for both j and f fac-
tors, and the MRE were 1.19% of j factor and 0.64% of f factor, Training results
0.016
respectively. Testing results +5%
In order to estimate the prediction performance of the ANNs
0.014 Desired line
developed in the present study, also the effects of input parameters
MSE=1.19% -5%
on the outputs were investigated. For this purpose, while one of
0.012
the input parameters was allowed to change from its minimum

j
to maximum values in the range of the available data set with
0.010
equivalent intervals, the others were kept constant, and then they

0.008

10 0.006

0.004
8 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018
MSE values (%)

j
6
0.08
Mean squared errors (MSE)
4
Training results
Testing results +5 %
2 0.06 Desired line
MSE=0.64% -5 %
0
f

0 40.000 80.000 120.000 160.000

Training cycles 0.04
Fig. 5. Mean squared errors for data training.

4
0.02
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
f
Relative errors (%)

3
Fig. 7. Thermal performance from training and testing results evaluated using
Colburn factor j ANNs.

Friction factor f
2
were introduced as the inputs to the trained neural network. For
example, Fig. 8 indicates the changes in the predicted values of j
factor with respect to the Reas, which ranges of 600–7000, when
1
other four input parameters (hf, sf, df, Lf) were kept constant at
the values shown in the figure. As expected, j factor decreases with
increasing Reas and this trend is very similar to the existing exper-
0 imental results. That is to say, when the initial conditions are given,
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 the ANNs model can predict the output parameter without imple-
Number of training data menting any experiments.
As shown in the above figures, the precision of ANNs is vali-
Fig. 6. Relative errors of training data. dated. It can be seen that the PFHE performance can directly obtain
2256 H. Peng, X. Ling / Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009) 2251–2256
0.020
0.018
h f =6.5mm
0.016 s f =2.0mm
L f =5.0mm
0.014
δ f =0.3mm
j
0.012
0.010
0.008
0.006
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Reas
Fig. 8. ANNs predictions for j factor with respect to Reas.
from the input information through the ANN network. In other
words, when designing a plate-fin heat exchanger under given in-
let mass flow rate, i.e., the Reynolds number at inlet, the inlet and
outlet temperatures or the temperature difference and the fin
geometries at both cold and hot side. The ANN approach is useful
and convenient for engineers or designers to predict the perfor-
mance of PFHE with limited experimental data. It does not require
understanding the heat transfer and flow characteristics, which is
actually a very complex phenomenon to be expressed by mathe-
matical formulations. Once the ANN is trained, the weighted con-
nections from the network corresponding to a practical heat
exchanger can be transferred to engineers or designers. Then engi-
neers may simply put the testing data into the trained network and
therefore quickly make accurate prediction of thermal perfor-
mance for the heat exchangers.
5. Conclusion
An artificial neural network (ANNs) based on back propagation
algorithm has been developed to predict the thermal performance
of PFHEs. Results indicated that the ANNs model can be trained to
provide satisfactory estimations of both j and f factors in PFHEs.
The MRE were 1.19% of j factor and 0.64% of f factor, respectively.
Also the versatility of the ANNs modeling was demonstrated by
presenting the effects of some input parameters on the outputs
using the developed network. It is recommended that the ANNs
prediction model has a high accuracy and reliability for simulating
thermal systems, especially for manufacturers or designers to
model the complicated heat exchangers in engineering applica-
tions with limited experimental data.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by
Funds of the program for new century excellent talents in Univer-
sity (Grant No. NCET-07-0434) and the Doctorate Foundation of
Nanjing University of Technology (Grant No. BSCX200714).
References
[1] G. Diaz, M. Sen, K.T. Yang, R.T. McClain, Simulation of heat exchanger
performance by artificial neural networks, Int. J. HVAC&R Res. 5 (1999) 195–
208.
[2] G. Diaz, M. Sen, K.T. Yang, R.T. McClain, Dynamic prediction and control of heat
exchangers using artificial neural networks, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer. 45
(2001) 1671–1679.
[3] G. Diaz, M. Sen, K.T. Yang, R.T. McClain, Adaptive neuro-control of heat
exchangers, ASME J. Heat Transfer. 123 (2001) 417–612.
6000 [4] A. Pacheco-Vega, M. Sen, K.T. Yang, R.T. McClain, Neural network analysis of
fin-tube refrigerating heat exchanger with limited experimental data, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transfer. 44 (2000) 763–770.
[5] A. Pacheco-Vega, G. Diaz, M. Sen, K.T. Yang, R.T. McClain, Heat rate predictions
in humid air–water heat exchangers using correlations and neural networks,
ASME J. Heat Transfer. 123 (2001) 348–354.
[6] A. Pacheco-Vega, M. Sen, K.T. Yang, Simultaneous determination of in-and-
over-tube heat transfer correlations in heat exchangers by global regression,
Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer. 46 (2003) 1029–1040.
[7] J. Thibault, B.P. Grandjean, A neural network methodology for heat transfer
data analysis, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer. 34 (1991) 2063–2070.
[8] Y. Islamoglu, A new approach for the prediction of the heat transfer rate of the
wire-on-tube type heat exchanger-use of an artificial neural network model,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 23 (2003) 243–249.
[9] Y. Islamoglu, A. Kurt, Heat transfers analysis using ANNs with experimental
data with air flow in corrugated channels, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer. 47 (2004)
1361–1365.
[10] N. Xie, Q.W. Wang, M. Zeng, L.Q. Luo, Heat transfer analysis for shell-and-tube
heat exchangers with experimental data by artificial neural networks
approach, Appl. Therm. Eng. 27 (2007) 1096–1104.
[11] Q.W. Wang, G.N. Xie, M. Zeng, L.Q. Luo, Prediction of heat transfer rates for
shell-and-tube heat exchangers by artificial neural networks approach, J.
Therm. Sci. 15 (2006) 257–262.
[12] K. Ermis, ANN modeling of compact heat exchangers, Int. J. Energy Res. 32
(2008) 581–594.
[13] S.V. Dudul, Identification of a liquid saturated steam heat exchanger using
focused time lagged recurrent neural network model, IETE J. Res. 53 (2007)
69–82.
[14] H. Peng, Z.J. Sun, X. Ling, Numerical and experimental study on flow and heat
transfer performance of some compact surface recuperators, J. Aerospace
Power 23 (2008) 138–144.
[15] H. Peng, X. Ling, Numerical modeling and experimental verification of flow and
heat transfer over serrated fins at low Reynolds number, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci.
32 (2008) 1039–1048.
[16] Y. Wang, A neural network adaptive control based on rapid learning method
and its application, Adv. Model Anal. 46 (1994) 27–34.
[17] F.F. Farshad, J.D. Garber, J.N. Lorde, Predicting temperature profiles in
producing oil wells using artificial neural networks, Eng. Comput. 17 (2000)
735–754.
[18] G. Chryssolouris, L. Moshin, A. Ramsey, Confidence interval prediction for
neural network models, IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 7 (1996) 229–232.
[19] R. Shao, E.B. Martin, J. Zhang, A.J. Morris, Confidence bounds for neural
network representations, Comput. Chem. Eng. 21 (1997) 1173–1178.
[20] P. Niyogi, F. Girosi, Generalization bounds for function approximation from
scattered noisy data, Adv. Comput. Math. 10 (1999) 51–80.
[21] M.A. Kramer, J.A. Leonard, Diagnosis using back propagation neural networks-
analysis and criticism, Comput. Chem. Eng. 14 (1990) 1323–1338.