8.

TUBESHEETS FOR U-TUBE HEAT

EXCHANGERS

8.1 INTRODUCTION
The tubesheet constitutes a structurally important and economically
significant element in a tubular heat exchanger. The thickness of the
tubesheet affects the hardware cost in a number of ways. The time spent to
drill and to ream the tube holes is directly related to the tube sheet thickness.
The portion of the tube length lying within the tubesheet is effectively lost
for heat transfer and must be replaced by increasing the tube (and hence the
unit) overall length. The depth of the tube roll is also dependent on the
tubesheet thickness; typically, the depth of the roll is specified as the
tubesheet thickness less 1/8 in. Although some industry standards provide
for limiting the maximum roll depth to 2 in., many process conditions
warrant complete elimination of the stagnant annulus between the tube and
the tubesheet on the shellside which necessitates a full depth roll. All of
these factors pertaining to the tubesheet have a bearing on equipment cost.
The design attention commanded by the tubesheet does not stem from
considerations of economy alone. The tubesheet is also the principal barrier
between the shellside and the tubeside chambers. It experiences the
operating transients of both heat exchanging streams. The tubesheet's own
uneven thermal capacitance (low capacitance of the perforated interior and
high capacitance of the solid outer rim) contributes to the development of
thermal stresses. These considerations have sustained an ongoing interest in
both experimental and analytical investigations into the structural behavior
of tubesheets.
A thorough analysis of the stresses in the tube sheet is a daunting task
since significant residual stresses are locked into the tubesheet during
fabrication operations. The drilling operation often imports a bow to the
tube sheet discernible to the naked eye. Welding of the tube ends to the
tubesheet (see Chapter 7) also produces plastic strains which warp the
tubesheet. Weld overlays, when performed, have a similar effect. In nearly
all cases, the tubesheet is not stress relieved after weld overlaying, drilling,
and tube welding. Therefore, plastic residual stresses are permanently
locked into the tube sheet. Precise mathematical means to quantify these
residual stresses do not yet exist.
The study of the tubesheet behavior under operating conditions (pressure
and thermal loading) is fairly well established, however. The standard
analysis techniques are typified by the works of Gardner [8.1.1-8.1.3] and

387

K. P. Singh et al., Mechanical Design of Heat Exchangers

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1984
388 Mechanical Design oj Heat Exchangers
Miller [8.1.4]. Since their pioneering efforts, there have been many similar
papers published dealing with the analysis of heat exchanger tubesheets. All
of these works advocate the use of classical plate theory together with a
reduced elastic modulus to simulate the weakening effect of the per-
forations. In the case of fixed or floating head construction, an elastic
foundation simulating deflection restraint provided by the tubes is also
included. The elastic foundation effect complicates the analysis
significantly; hence, Chapter 9 is devoted in its entirety to integral and
floating head tubesheet analysis.
In V-tube exchangers, the tubes are normally considered to have little
effect on the restraint of tubesheet movement. However, the tubes do
provide some rotational resistance to tubesheet bending since the presence
of support baffles prevents free tube movement as the tubesheet flexes
under pressure loading. This effect has been investigated in [8.1.3, 8.1.5]. It
is concluded in these references that, for V-tube units designed for relatively
low pressure service, carrying out the design computations including tube
rotational resistance, can lead to a more efficient utilization of material.
However, in most practical situations the geometry and operating con-
ditions are such that inclusion of the effect of tube rotational resistance on
tubesheet bending is not warranted considering the complexity of the
analysis that ensues.
This chapter focuses on the analysis of a V-tube heat exchanger tube sheet
having a perforated region modelled as an axisymmetrically loaded thin
circular plate, and an unperforated rim modelled as a ring. It is attached to
the heat exchanger body by one of three attachment configurations: 1)
integral attachment to both shell and channel; 2) integral attachment to
either shell or channel with gasketed construction on the non-integral side;
3) two sided gasketed attachment. The reader is encouraged to compare the
relative simplicity of the analysis presented herein for the complete integral
construction with the analysis presented in [8.1.6] for the same con-
struction, but, including tube rotational resistance and treatment of the
unperforated rim as an annular plate rather than as a ring.
Despite all of the effort directed toward rigorous analysis and design of
V-tube tubesheets using plate theory, effective moduli, correct account of
interaction with shell and channel, etc., perhaps the most used formula for
establishing the thickness of a tubesheet in a V-tube exchanger is the em-
pirical formula set forth by the Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers
Association [TEMA] in their Standards [8.1.7].

h=GCr ( ~) 1/2 (8.1.1)

SA
where 0.5 ~ C r ~ 0.625 is a parameter that indicates the degree of edge
rotational resistance (pinned or clamped), h is the tubesheet thickness, G is
the diameter of the tubesheet region exposed to pressure, p is the design
pressure, and SA is the allowable stress for the tubesheet material at the