Design Validation of Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger by HTRI

Xchanger Software

Nirmal S. Parmar
Parul Institute of Engineering and Technology, Limda, Baroda.
PG student, Mechanical Engineering Department,
E-mail ID: [email protected]

Adil A. Khan
Parul Institute of Engineering and Technology, Limda, Baroda.
Assitant Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department,
E-mail ID: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

This paper is intended to assist anyone with some general technical experience, but perhaps limited specific knowledge
of heat transfer equipment. A characteristic of heat exchanger design is the procedure of specifying a design, heat
transfer area and pressure drops and checking whether the assumed design satisfies all requirements or not. The
purpose of this paper is how to design the shell-and-tube heat exchanger which is the majority type of liquid-to-liquid
heat exchanger. General design considerations and design procedure are also illustrated in this paper. In design
calculation HTRI software is used to verify manually calculated results. In this paper attempt is made to overcome
some major theoretical assumptions and serve practical approach as much as possible for shell tube heat exchanger
design. It is hoped that the software will bridge the gap between engineering fundamentals and the existing industry
practice of shell and tube heat exchanger design.

KEY WORDS hid = shell side heat transfer coefficient for ideal
tube bank, W/m2K
Heat exchanger, HTRI, pressure drop, fouling, he = shell side heat transfer coefficient for heat
heat transfer coefficient, LMTD, EMTD exchanger, W/m2K
ks = thermal conductivity of shell side, W/mK
kt = thermal conductivity of tube side, W/mK
NOMENCLATURE L = effective tube length of heat exchanger
between tube sheets, m
Ao = heat transfer area based on the outside ms = shell side mass flow rate, kg/s
surface area of tubes, m2 mt = tube side mass flow rate, kg/s
Ai = heat transfer area based on the inside surface Nt = total number of tubes or total number of
area of tubes, m2 holes in tube sheet
As = crossflow area at or near shell centerline, m2 Nu = Nusselt number
Aw = area for flow through baffle window, m2 P = perimeter, m
C = clearance between tubes, m ∆P = pressure drop, Kpa
CL = tube layout constant Pr = Prandtl number
CTP = tube pass constant PT = pitch size, m
Ds = shell inner diameter, m Q = heat load duty of heat exchanger, W
Dw = equivalent diameter of baffle window, m R = thermal resistance
do = tube outer diameter, m Re = Reynolds Number
di = tube inner diameter, m T = absolute temperature, oC, K
F = correction factor to LMTD for non counter ∆T = temperature difference, oC, K
flow systems Uc = overall heat transfer coefficient for clean
fi = friction factor for flow across an ideal tube surface based on total external surface area,
bank W/m2k
G = mass velocity, kg/m2s Uf = overall heat transfer coefficient for fouled
h = heat transfer coefficient, W/m2K surface based on total external surface area,
hi = tube side heat transfer coefficient, W/m2K W/m2k

STHE Thermal Design with Optimization of Flow Pressure Drop due to Fouling 82
Uo = overall heat transfer coefficient based on 1 A  1 R fi  R fo 1
total external surface area, W/m2k  o    Ao Rw  
Uo Ai i hi i  o o ho (2)
um = average velocity of fluid, m/s

INTRODUCTION
For the single tube pass, purely countercurrent
heat exchanger, F= 1.00. For preliminary design
The heat exchanger is equipment that allows heat
shell with any even number of tube side passes,
transference between two fluids at different
F may be estimated as 0.9
temperatures. Heat exchangers are extensively
Heat load can be estimated from the heat balance
used in industry due to their wide variety of
as:
construction and applications in heat transfer
processes for producing conventional energy
Q = (mCp)c (Tc2 – Tc1) = (mCp)h (Th2 – Th1) (3)
such as condensers, heaters, boilers or steam
If one stream changes phase:
generators. They provide an adequate surface for
heat transference to occur and their mechanical
Q = mhfg (4)
and thermal characteristics allow high pressure
and high temperature processes.
LMTD (Log Mean Temperature Difference
In recent years, new software’s for design of heat
Method) calculation:
exchangers has been focusing in adapting the
equipment to the required process and new
If three temperatures are known, the fourth one
solutions have been found that make the design
can be found from the heat balance,
time shorter.[1] (Th1  Tc 2 )  (Th 2  Tc1 )
Tlm 
(T  Tc 2 )
BASIC DESIGN PROCEDURE ln h1
(Th 2  Tc1 ) (5)
A selected shell and tube heat exchanger must Heat transfer area can be calculated from
satisfy the process requirements with the equation (1). Number of tubes of diameter (do),
allowable pressure drops until the next scheduled shell diameter (Ds) to accommodate the number
cleaning of the plant of tubes (Nt), with given tube length (L) can be
The following are the major assumptions made estimated,
for the pressure drop analysis;
1. Flow is steady and isothermal, and fluid Ao   e Nt L (6)
properties are independents of time.
2. Fluid density is dependent on the local One can find the shell diameter (Ds), which
temperature only or is treated as constant. would contain the right number of tubes (Nt), of
3. The pressure at a point in the fluid is diameter (dt).
independent of direction. The total number of tubes can be predicted in fair
4. Body force is caused only by gravity. approximation as function of the shell diameter
5. There are no energy sink or sources along by taking the shell circle and dividing it by the
streamline; flow stream mechanical energy projected area of the tube layout pertaining to a
dissipation is idealized as zero. single tube A1.
6. The friction factor is considered as constant
with passage flow length.[4]  Ds 2
N t  (CTP) (7)
4 Ai
Preliminary Estimation of Unit Size:
Heat transfer or the size of heat exchanger
Where CTP is the tube count calculation constant
Q = UoAo∆Tm (1) that accounts for the incomplete coverage of the
shell diameter by the tubes.
The overall heat transfer coefficient Uo based on
the O.D. of tubes can be estimated from the Based on fixed tube sheet the following values
estimated values of individual heat transfer are suggested:
coefficients, the wall and fouling resistance and
the overall surface efficiency using equation One tube pass: CTP = 0.93
Two tube pass: CTP = 0.90
Three tube pass: CTP = 0.85

STHE Thermal Design with Optimization of Flow Pressure Drop due to Fouling 83
A1 = (CL) (PT)2 (8)
For, 400  Re s 
 s Ds
 1106

Where CL is the tube layout constant:
The equivalent diameter (De) can be given by
CL = 1.0 for 90o and 45o
For square pitch;
CL = 0.87 for 30o and 60o

Equation (7) can be written as: 4  2  do 2  (16)

De  P  
 do  T 4 
 CTP  Ds
2
For triangular pitch;
Nt  0.875  
(9)
 CL  (Pr ) d o
2 2

4  PT 2 3  d o 2  (17)
De    
Where PR is the Tube Pitch Ratio (PR = PT/do).  do  4 8 
The shell diameter in terms of main construction 2
diameter can be obtained as from equations (6) Bundle cross flow area As , at the centre of the
and (9),
shell;
1/ 2
CL  Ao (Pr ) 2 d o  (10)
Ds  0.637   Ds CB
CTP  L  As 
PT (18)
Tube Side Pressure Drop: Where, C = clearance between adjacent tubes
The tube side pressure drop can be calculated by
knowing the number of tube passes (Np) and B = baffle spacing
length (L) oh heat exchanger, PT = pitch of tubes
The pressure drop for the tube side fluid is given
by equation Ds = equivalent diameter
2
LN p um (11) Shell side mass flow rate Gs;
Pt  4 f  .
di 2 m
LN p Gi 2 Gs 
Pt  4 f (12) As (19)
di 2 
Where, m = mass flow rate
The change of direction in the passes
introduction in the passes introduction an This method is based on Kern theory. The shell
additional pressure drop due to sudden side pressure drop depends on the number of
expansions and contractions that the tube fluid tubes, the number of times the fluid passes the
experiences during a return that is accounted for tube bundle between the baffles and the length of
allowing four velocity head per pass each crossing.
The pressure drop on the shell side is calculated
by the following expression:
 um 2
Pt  4 N p (13)
2 Gs 2 ( Nb  1) Ds
The total pressure drop of the side becomes: Ps  f (20)
2  Dss
 LN p  um 2
Pt   4 f  4N p  (14) Where, фs = (µb/ µs) 0.14
 di  2 Nb = Number of baffles
(Nb + 1) = Number of times fluid passes
Shell Side Pressure Drop: to the tube bundle
Kern suggested following correlations for the
shell side heat transfer coefficient; Friction factor (f) calculated from:

1 f  exp(o.576  0.19 ln Res ) (21)

 c p   3  b 
0.55 0.14
ho De DG 
 0.36  e s      (15)
k     k   w  Where,

STHE Thermal Design with Optimization of Flow Pressure Drop due to Fouling 84
  s Ds
400  Re s   1106 (22)
 Uf (W/m2-K) 757.95 728.79 3.85
Uc (W/m2-K) 1656.10 1601.79 3.39
EMTD (‘c) 5.20 4.60 13.04
The correlation has been tested based on data Heat 0.1365 0.1360 0.37
obtained on actual exchangers. The friction exchanged
coefficient also takes entrance and exit losses (Q) (MW)
into account.[2][4] Table 1: calculated and HTRI Xist results

PROBLEM DEFINATION Manually calculated results are based on inlet

and outlet conditions as well as with major
Data for feed water cooler is shown in table assumption explained earlier. While HTRI
taken from the CCPL (Charisma Career Pvt. calculate the results at different point on the
Ltd.). Both fluids are in liquid phase. It is liquid length from the inlet of heat exchanger.(figure:1
to liquid heat transfer process. There is counter to 6) The fluid properties, heat flux , pressure
flow in heat exchanger. It is assumed that shell drop etc, are iterated at these points which gives
and tube are made of carbon steel. inherent results of the heat exchanger design.[3]

SHELL SIDE: Sour water

Mass flow rate (kg/s) : 3.6575
ID (m) : 0.475
Inlet temperature (oC) : 45.9
Fouling factor (m2-K/W) : 0.000334

TUBE SIDE: Cooling

water
Inlet temperature (oC) : 33
Outlet temperature (oC) : 37
Mass flow rate (kg/s) : 8.1737
ID (m) : 0.025
Figure 1: Liquid thermal conductivity v/s
OD (m) : 0.027
temperature
Length (m) : 0.6
Pitch (m) : 0.032
Tube layout : 90o
Tube count : 106

This problem is solved by theory based

calculation as well as by HTRI Xchanger.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Calculated outputs and HTRI Xchanger software

outputs are shown in table 1;

Property Calculated HTRI Error Figure 2: Liquid density v/s temperature

results results (%)

SHELL SIDE
∆P (kpa) 6.82 5.92 13.19
h (W/m2-K) 2696.97 2758.60 2..23
Re 10706.23 10476.00 2.14
Th2 (‘c) 36.97 37.00 0.08

TUBE SIDE
∆P (kpa) 35.53 37.15 4.36
h (W/m2-K) 5006.38 5203.40 3.78
Re 33918.17 34900.00 2.81

STHE Thermal Design with Optimization of Flow Pressure Drop due to Fouling 85
 is gradual increase in liquid thermal conductivity
and gradual decrease in density of cooling water.
In theoretical approach these values are kept
constant. Thus how this software designing
approach overcome some assumption made in
theories.
Figure 4 shows the overall heat transfer
coefficient distribution along the length from the
inlet. Its almost near to the calculated values.
Figure 5 shows the graph of the Reynolds
number, in which shell side Reynolds number is
almost constant but there is little variation at tube
side as shown in graph. Figure 6 shows the duty
Figure3: Bulk tempreture v/s length from inlet curve for shell and tube side along length from
inlet. So these results are very useful to
understand inside process of heat exchanger.[3][5]

CONCLUSION

This paper identifies the advantages of having

the appropriate exchanger designing software.
Optimal design condition can be obtained in less
time. Number of iterations and their comparison
can be analyzed easily.
There is gradual variation in thermal
conductivity, Bulk temperature and density of
Figure 4: Overall U v/s length from inlet the fluid in HTRI results. In theories it is
assumed that fluid properties kept constant and
process is isothermal. So it may cause for result
variation. As shown in result table-1 there is
4.5% average error variation in results.

REFERENCES

1. Arturo R L, Miguel T V & Pedro Q D.

(2011) “The Design Of Heat
Exchanger”, science research. Vol 3 pp
911-920
Figure 5: Reynolds number v/s lenth from inlet 2. Kakkan, S (1999). “Heat Exchangers
Selection, Rating and Thermal Design”.
pp 263-274
3. Leong kc & Toh kc (1998), “shell and
tube heat exchanger design software for
educational applications”,
int.j.engng.ed. vol14 pp 217-234
4. Shah, RK (2003). “Fundamental of heat
exchanger design” Rochster Institute of
Technology. pp 381
5. Su Thet Mon Than, (2008) “Heat
Exchanger Design”, world academy of
Figure 6: Duty v/s length from the inlet science engineering and technology. pp
604-611

Figures 1 to 6 shows few results of HTRI

Xchanger for given problem. Figures 1, 2 & 3
shows variation in properties of the fluids. There

STHE Thermal Design with Optimization of Flow Pressure Drop due to Fouling 86