Numerical Simulation on a Novel Shell-And-tube Heat

© All Rights Reserved

0 views

Numerical Simulation on a Novel Shell-And-tube Heat

© All Rights Reserved

- b w 25437443
- Psu Syllabus Mechanical
- Sparger Design Guide
- Engineering Service Examination Syllabus for Mechanical Engineering
- Flowin Pipe
- 2e2ds
- Man-Arian Flow Cad Software
- Me Added
- Study on Steady Flow over a Rotating Disk in Porous Medium with Heat Transfer
- Simulation Cfd Comparison Matrix
- 71
- heat exhanger lol
- 24_Flow
- MechanicsLab.pdf
- A New Method to Interpret Two-Phase Profiles From Temperature and Flowmeter Logs
- 24140_061216090859
- CMS_Design_Selection.pdf
- 341462209-IRJET-Experimental-Investigations-of-Double-Pipe-Heat-Exchanger-with-Triangular-Baffles.pdf
- Wax Management Strategy Part 2_ Wax Deposition Modeling — GATE, Inc
- Analysis of Helicalcum Pinfin Heat Exchanger

You are on page 1of 12

2017, Vol. 9(8) 1–12

Ó The Author(s) 2017

Numerical simulation on a novel DOI: 10.1177/1687814017717665

journals.sagepub.com/home/ade

shell-and-tube heat exchanger with

screw cinquefoil orifice baffles

Xuankai Zhang, Dong Han, Weifeng He, Chen Yue and Wenhao Pu

Abstract

A novel shell-and-tube heat exchanger with screw cinquefoil orifice baffles is designed to grasp the weakness of the

traditional shell-and-tube heat exchanger with cinquefoil orifice baffles. It specifically enhances the heat transfer coeffi-

cient in the area between adjacent baffles and enhances the shell-side fluid flushing ability on bundles. In the proposed

shell-and-tube heat exchanger with screw cinquefoil orifice baffles, screw-type cinquefoil orifice baffles are installed in

the shell side. Shell-and-tube heat exchanger with screw cinquefoil orifice baffle is compared with shell-and-tube heat

exchanger with cinquefoil orifice baffles and the traditional shell-and-tube heat exchanger with segmental baffles by

means of numerical simulations. The numerical result shows that the heat transfer coefficient and shell-side fluid flushing

ability in the shell-and-tube heat exchanger with screw cinquefoil orifice baffle is higher than that in the shell-and-tube

heat exchanger with cinquefoil orifice baffles and shell-and-tube heat exchanger with segmental baffles, for the shell-side

fluid that is urged to flow in approximately continuous helical flow. Under the same shell-side mass flow rate, heat trans-

fer coefficient of shell-and-tube heat exchanger with screw cinquefoil orifice baffle is about 9.2% higher than that of

shell-and-tube heat exchanger with cinquefoil orifice baffles and shell-and-tube heat exchanger with segmental baffles by

about 5.4% on average. The article presents a novel design thought when researchers design heat exchangers.

Keywords

Computational fluid dynamics, heat exchanger, heat and mass transfer, numerical analysis, cinquefoil orifice baffle

posed by Phillips Petroleum Company,5 which has been

Shell-and-tube heat exchangers (STHXs) have been widely used as heat exchanger for steam generator of

widely used in the chemical engineering, aviation indus- nuclear power plants.6,7 In the STHX with orifice baf-

try, and so on for their wide range of allowable design fles, orifice plates have been developed as a support to

pressures and temperatures.1 However, shell-and-tube tubes, and the shell-side fluid flows longitudinally

heat exchanger with segmental baffles (STHX-SG), the through the gaps between the orifice edges and tube

most widely used, has many disadvantages. For exam-

ple, the shell-side fluid in STHX-SG flows across tube

bundles in a zigzag manner, which could lead to a great College of Energy and Power Engineering, Nanjing University of

flow resistance and a high vibration level. Other issues Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China

like the ‘‘dead’’ flow region and fouling, which cause

Corresponding author:

low heat transfer efficiency,2–4 also trouble such heat Dong Han, College of Energy and Power Engineering, Nanjing University

exchanger users. To change this situation, many novel of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, China.

STHXs have been proposed. Email: handong@nuaa.edu.cn

Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License

(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without

further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/

open-access-at-sage).

2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

walls. This heat exchanger not only has a lower pres- orifice baffles. The heat transfer performance in the

sure drop, but also being less liable to fouls, eliminates area between adjacent baffles is still not satisfactory.

stagnant recirculation zones and avoids flow-induced Although there appear various types of orifice baffles

vibration compared to the conventional STHX-SG.6,8 in recent years, design of new shapes of the orifice

Because of these advantages, the STHX with orifice attracts research interests. The aforementioned prob-

baffles attracted considerable attention in recent years. lem has not been resolved, which limits the develop-

A El Maakoul et al.1 using computational fluid ment of STHX-COB.

dynamics (CFD) to simulated three STHXs with the While the shell-and-tube heat exchanger with helical

recently developed trefoil-hole, helical baffles, and the baffles (STHX-HB) shows good thermo-hydraulic per-

conventional segmental baffles, respectively, at low formance and low vibration level.9 STHX-HB was first

shell-side flow rates. And the results indicated that heli- proposed by Lutcha and Nemcansky.10 They proposed

cal baffles result in higher thermo-hydraulic perfor- the helical baffles in STHX-HB are the most important

mance while trefoil-hole baffles have a higher heat factor influencing heat transfer, which directly leads to

transfer performance with large pressure drop com- the shell-side fluid to flow in approximately continuous

pared to segmental baffles. Y You et al.6 based on the helical flow. And they found that the helical baffles

experimental results found that trefoil-hole baffles could force the shell-side fluid to approach plug flow,

could generate high-speed flush, intensive recirculation which increased the average temperature driving force.

flow, and high turbulence intensity level, which lead the The flow patterns induced by the baffles also intensified

Nusselt number of the shell side is about 4.5 times than the shell-side heat transfer remarkably.11 Generally

without baffles. Y You et al.8 studied the effect of baf- speaking, there are two kinds of helical baffles, contin-

fle number and baffle distance on the small-size heat uous helical baffles and discontinuous helical baffles.

exchanger with trefoil-hole baffles. The convection heat Considering the difficulty in the manufacture of contin-

transfer coefficient on the shell side of the small-size uous helical baffles, the discontinuous helical baffles

heat exchanger monotonically drops while the shell side formed by overlapped fans or oval-shaped plates to

overall thermo-hydraulic performance monotonically replace it now. But the leakage by discontinuous helical

rises. There are many types of orifice baffles, such as baffle is relatively large due to the triangle zones, which

trefoil-hole baffles, quatrefoil-hole baffles, and cinque- will reduce the heat transfer performance.12 S Wang

foil orifice baffles, but very few related academic litera- et al.11 proposed folded helical baffles which can block

ture are available.6 Figure 1 depicts the sketch of some the triangle leakage zones between two adjacent plain

familiar orifice baffles. And the shell-and-tube heat baffles in STHX-HB. And the experimental results

exchanger with cinquefoil orifice baffles (STHX-COB) showed that the integrative performance of STHX-HB

was the choice for further study. is greatly enhanced by the improved folded baffles.

However, the enhanced heat transfer region in To solve above problems, through using STHX-

STHX-COB is focused on the vicinity of cinquefoil COB as the foundation, introducing the concept of the

helical flow in STHX-HB, a new type of heat exchan-

ger, shell-and-tube heat exchanger with screw cinque-

foil orifice baffles (STHX-SCOB), was proposed.

STHX-SCOB provides a new choice for industry. In

this article, STHX-SCOB was simulated by CFD

method. The shell-side flow patterns of STHX-SG,

STHX-SCOB, and STHX-COB were compared

numerically. Moreover, impacts from two significant

parameters, including the helical angle and baffle thick-

ness, on the heat transfer and pressure drop perfor-

mance of STHX-SCOB, were studied.

flow field

Physical models

The physical model of STHX-SG is presented in

Figure 2(a) and (d). In STHX-SG, the baffle thickness

Figure 1. The sketch of some familiar orifice baffles: (a) trefoil- is 3 mm, and the baffle cut is 36%. The baffle number

hole baffle, (b) cinquefoil orifice baffle, (c) rectangular orifice is 4. And the baffle pitch is 117 mm. More details are

baffle, and (d) small round hole orifice baffle. listed in Table 1.

Zhang et al. 3

Item Dimensions

Effective tube length, L (mm) 600

Shell diameter, Di (mm) 95

Tube central distance, Dt (mm) 30

Tube outside diameter, dt (mm) 20

neglected;

3. The tube wall temperatures are kept constant in

the whole shell side;

4. The natural convection induced by the fluid

density variation is neglected;

5. The heat exchanger is assumed well insulated,

and the heat loss to the environment is totally

neglected.8

The renormalization group (RNG) k-e model of

Yakhot and Orszag is adopted in the simulation

because the model provides improved predictions of

near-wall flows and be chosen by many researchers.13

Figure 2. The shape of three heat exchangers: (a) graphical

The RNG k-e model was derived by a statistical tech-

model of segmental baffle in STHX-SG, (b) graphical model of

screw-type cinquefoil orifice baffle, (c) graphical model of

nique called renormalization method, which is widely

cinquefoil orifice baffle, (d) graphical model of original tube used in industrial flow and heat transfer because of its

bundle in STHX-SG, (e) two significant parameters which economy and accuracy.14 The governing equations for

influent heat transfers performance in STHX-SCOB, and continuity, momentum, energy, k, and e in the compu-

(f) graphical model of original tube bundle in STHX-COB. tational domain can be expressed as follows:

Continuity equation

In STHX-SCOB, screw-type cinquefoil orifice baffles

are substituted for plain baffles to be installed in the ∂

shell side. The original straight flow path was replaced ðrui Þ = 0 ð1Þ

∂xi

by helical flow path. The shapes of two kinds of baffles

are shown in Figure 2(b) and (c), respectively. Momentum equation

As shown in Figure 2(e), the helical angle a refers

the angle between the central axis and the channel line ∂ ∂ ∂uk ∂p

ðrui uk Þ = m ð2Þ

tangent. In this figure, a at 38° and the baffle thickness ∂xi ∂xi ∂ui ∂xk

with Db at 8 mm is designed. Meanwhile, the baffle

Energy equation

thickness is 3 mm in STHX-COB. The arrangement of

tube bundle is regular triangle in both heat exchangers.

∂ ∂ k ∂t

The simulated STHX-SCOB has three baffles in the ðrui tÞ = ð3Þ

∂xi ∂xi CP ∂xi

shell-side direction with a total tube number of 7, and

the same situation is designed for the referenced STHX- Turbulent kinetic energy equation

COB. Cinquefoil orifice angle b is 40°, and outer dia-

meter of orifice do is 28 mm in both STHX-SCOB and ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂k

ðrk Þ + ðrkui Þ = ak meff + Gk re ð4Þ

STHX-COB. Other common geometry parameters of ∂t ∂xi ∂xj ∂xj

two models are listed in Table 1.

To simplify numerical simulation while still keep the Turbulent dissipation energy equation

basic characteristics of the process, following assump-

tions are made: ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂e

ðreÞ + ðreui Þ = ae meff

∂t ∂xi ∂xj ∂xj

ð5Þ

1. The fluid-flow and heat transfer processes are e e2

+ Cle Gk C2e r

turbulent and in steady state; k k

4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

where rus de

2 Re = ð12Þ

k ms

meff = m + mt , mt = rCm ,

e

h ð6Þ where ms is the dynamic viscosity is the shell side, and

h 1h de is the equivalent diameter. So, the expression used to

Cle = C1e

0

12 k 1 2m

h = 2Eij Eij , Eij = ð7Þ Re = ð13Þ

e ∂ui

2 ∂xj +

∂uj ms ½ðNcl + 1ÞB + ðDi Ncl dt Þ

∂xi

About STHX-SCOB and STHX-COB, the following

The empirical constants for the RNG k-e model are expression is used to calculate Reynolds number

assigned the following values

4m

Cm = 0:0845, C1e = 1:42, C2e = 1:68 ð8Þ Re = ð14Þ

ms pðDi + Ndt Þ

b = 0:012, h0 = 4:38, ak = ae = 1:39 ð9Þ N is the tube number.

The shell-side inlet pipe is set as velocity inlet, while

outlet pipe is set as pressure outlet. Water is used as the Heat transfer rate and overall heat transfer coefficient. Heat

working fluid, and its thermal properties depend on its transfer rate of the shell-side fluid is determined by

operation temperature. The temperature of inlet is

360 K and the pressure of outlet is 0 atm. The reference [ = mcp ðts, in ts, out Þ ð15Þ

pressure is 1 atm. The wall temperatures of the tubes

In above equations, m is the shell-side mass flow rate,

are uniform and fixed to 300 K. Other shell walls are

cp is the fluid specific heat capacity, ts, in is the inlet tem-

non-slip, impermeable, and adiabatic. The computer

perature at shell side, and ts, out is the average outlet

code CFX is used to simulate the flow and heat trans-

temperature at shell side. And heat transfer coefficient

fer. The governing equations are iteratively solved by

is defined by

the finite-volume method with semi-implicit method for

pressure-linked equations (SIMPLE) pressure–velocity Dtmax = ts, in tw ð16Þ

coupling algorithm. The advection scheme chose high

resolution for calculation. The convergence criterion is Dtmin = ts, out tw ð17Þ

that the normalized residuals are less than 106 for the Dtmax Dtmin

flow equations and 108 for the energy equation. The Dtm = ð18Þ

lnðDtmax =Dtmin Þ

computations were performed with a work station with

CPU frequency of 4.8 GHz, and it usually took approx- A = N pdt L ð19Þ

imately 24 h for every case. [

h= ð20Þ

ADtm

Data reduction Dtm is the log mean temperature difference, A means

Shell-side velocity and Reynolds number. The mean shell-side the heat exchange area based on the outer diameter of

fluid velocity is defined by the tubes, L is the effective length of the tubes, N is the

tubes number, and dt is the outer diameter of the tubes.

m

us = ð10Þ Nusselt number, friction coefficient, and comprehensive

rAc performance

hde

us is the shell-side average velocity. r is the fluid density Nu = ð21Þ

l

and Ac is the cross-flow area at the shell centerline.1 For

the segmental baffles15 f=

2de Dp

ð22Þ

rLu2i

Ac = ðDi Ncl dt ÞB ð11Þ

In above equations, B is baffle pitch, Dp is the total

Here, Di is the internal diameter of the shell, dt is the pressure drop in shell side, l is the thermal conductiv-

external diameter of the tubes, B is the baffle spacing, ity, de is the equivalent diameter of shell side, and ui is

and Ncl is the number of tubes in the central row. the inlet average velocity, according to Yang and Liu.16

With the mean velocity value, the Reynolds number In order to evaluate the comprehensive performance,

for the shell side is determined by the parameter CP = Nu f 1=3 14,17 was introduced.

Zhang et al. 5

STHX-COB and (b) meshes of STHX-SCOB (a = 38º,

Db = 8 mm).

Model validation

Figure 4. STHX-SCOB results of different grid systems

Grid generation and independence. The three-dimensional (a = 38º, Db = 8 mm, m = 0.375 kg/s).

(3D) geometry was created in unigraphics next genera-

tion, which next meshed by tetrahedral and hexahedral

grids in the commercial code integrated computer engi- Figure 5 shows the simulation results by the method

neering and manufacturing code for computational fluid in this article compared with the results in Ozden and

dynamics (ICEM). Because ICEM has excellent merit on Tari.20 In addition, the results in Ozden and Tari20 are

managing very complex 3D geometries (see Figure 3). considered satisfactory by MG Yehia et al.21 The maxi-

According to Zhu et al.,18 the same method that the tet- mum relative deviation for heat transfer coefficient h is

rahedral mesh was used in the region near to the cinque- 5%, and the shell-side pressure drop Dp has the maxi-

foil orifice baffles and the hexahedral mesh is used in the mum relative deviation of 3%. Therefore, it can be con-

region outside of the cinquefoil orifice baffles is applied cluded that this model could gives a good prediction for

in the research, and the simulation results by this method heat transfer characteristics.

coincide well with the experimental results.

For make sure the accuracy of simulations, accord-

ing to Wang et al.12 and Yang et al.,19 the grid indepen- Results and discussion

dence of the numerical solutions was conducted on

STHX-SCOB, STHX-COB, and STHX-SG. Flow distributions in different heat exchangers

Four different grid systems are generated for the The flow behavior in STHX-SG is shown in Figure 6.

STHX-SCOB (a = 38°, Db = 8 mm, m = 0.375 kg/s) The streamline pattern in shell side is a zigzag pattern,

and their results are shown in Figure 4. Under the oper- which causes large dead zones. The region back of the

ation conditions of G3 and G4, differences of h=Dp and baffles has eddy formation and fluid recirculation, caus-

Dp were less than 2%. Considering both convergent ing a large amount of energy spent in this region.

time and solution precision, the grid quantities of The flow distributions in shell side of STHX-SCOB

STHX-SCOB, STHX-COB, and STHX-SG were chose and STHX-COB are totally different. Figure 7 shows

as 3,668,432, 3,086,673, and 3,269,825, respectively. the distribution of flow lines in shell-side velocity flow

field of these two heat exchangers when the shell-side

mass flow rate m is 0.375 kg/s. As shown in Figure 7,

Numerical investigations compared with other papers. The due to the sudden decrease in flow passage area at baf-

verified STHX-SG model geometry was made exactly fles, the shell fluid velocity increases, which results in

as Ozden and Tari20 and MG Yehia et al.21 for it is sim- jet effect and destruction to the boundary layer in two

ilar to the STHXs being studied in this article. The veri- heat exchangers. Besides, in Figure 7(c), the secondary

fied STHX-SG baffle number is 6, and the baffle cut flow can be found in local enlarging graph, which dis-

ratio is 36%, while other model geometrical parameters turbs the shell fluid and enhances the heat transfer.

are presented in Ozden and Tari20 and Yehia et al.21 While in Figure 7(b), due to the effect of the helical

According to the literature value, water is the working angle, the tube bundles are washed out by revolving

fluid. The shell inlet temperature is 300 K, and tube wall fluid. As shown in Figure 8(b), the shell flow velocity in

temperature is 450 K. The shell outlet is pressure outlet. STHX-SCOB is higher, especially in peripheral side

While the turbulence model is RNG k-e model, and tubes’ wall. The spiral motion brings about good mix-

pressure–velocity coupling is SIMPLE. The CFD pack- ing, which directly leads to improvement of heat trans-

age CFX is used to simulation. After grid independency fer. Moreover, a higher flow velocity enhances the

check, the number of cells is 2,841,973. shell-side fluid flushing ability. The new type of heat

6 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 5. The comparison between the result in Ozden and Tari20 and the simulation result by the proposed method: (a) variation

of h with tube side inlet flow rate m in comparison with Ozden and Tari and the results by the proposed method and (b) variation of

Dp with tube side inlet flow rate m in comparison with Ozden and Tari and the results by the proposed method.

Figure 6. (a) Flow distributions in STHX-SG (m = 0.375 kg/s) and (b) local magnification in STHX-SG.

exchanger is more like helical baffle heat exchanger in Pressure drop and comprehensive performance

some way. The relationship between the shell-side pressure drop

Dp and m is shown in Figure 10(a). The results of the

simulation indicate that a high Dp in STHX-SCOB is

Heat transfer coefficient obtained compared to that in STHX-COB and STHX-

Heat transfer coefficient h is a very significant para- SG. It is clear that the pressure drop of the STHX-

meter in design of industrial STHXs because it is related SCOB is about 15.4% on average higher than that of

to the area of land occupied by the equipment and the the STHX-SG and 36.0% on average higher than that

cost of production materials. Therefore, h is obtained of the STHX-COB. The reason for this phenomenon is

more attention in some cases. that helical flow path on screw-type cinquefoil orifice

Figure 9 illustrates relationship between h and m. baffles changes the direction of shell-side fluid flow and

In Figure 9, h of STHX-SCOB is obviously higher causes substantial dissipations of mechanical energy.

than that of STHX-COB by about 9.2% and STHX- But the pressure drop is not the only standard to

SG by about 5.4% on average. With m of 0.15 kg/s, h judge the performance of the heat exchanger.

in the STHX-SCOB is higher than that of the STHX- Comprehensive performance, CP = Nu f 1=3 , of the

COB by 15.4%; but when m increases to 1.5 kg/s, the three heat exchangers is shown in Figure 10(b). It can

difference drops down to 6.9%. The reason for this be seen from Figure 10(b) that CP in STHX-SCOB is

phenomenon is that in STHX-SCOB turbulence is 3.0% higher than that of STHX-COB with Re at 2322,

stronger than STHX-SG and STHX-COB, which and the difference drops down to 0.3% with Re at

leads to a higher heat transfer coefficient, particularly 11,610. However, when Re increases to 23,220, CP in

at low m. STHX-SCOB is 4.0% lower than that in STHX-COB.

Zhang et al. 7

Figure 7. Flow distributions in different heat exchangers (m = 0.375 kg/s): (a) flow distributions in STHX-COB, (b) flow

distributions in STHX-SCOB (a = 38º, Db = 8 mm), (c) local magnification in STHX-COB, and (d) local magnification in STHX-SCOB

(a = 38º, Db = 8 mm).

Figure 8. Velocity contours in different heat exchangers (m = 0.375 kg/s, Z = 200 mm): (a) velocity contours in STHX-COB and

(b) velocity contours in STHX-SCOB.

It can be inferred from above that the heat transfer per- Effects of structural parameters on STHX-SCOB

formance in STHX-SCOB is higher than that in

The helical angle of helical flow paths. According to the

STHX-COB at low Re number. Moreover, CP of

design thought about helical baffle heat exchanger,22,23

STHX-SG is higher than that of STHX-SCOB and

the helical angle a impacts heat transfer and flow char-

STHX-COB. It should be emphasized that this result is

acteristics of the STHX-SCOB significantly. STHX-

under the same mass flow rate, the fluid velocity of

SCOB with different helical angles (a = 27°, 38°, and

STHX-SG is much lower than those of STHX-SCOB

46°) was studied. As shown in Figure 11, h and Dp

and STHX-COB, leading to significant increase in CP

increase as a is increased. From Figure 11(d), h in

of STHX-SG at the same Reynolds number.

8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

that of a at 38°. Similarly, from Figure 11(e), Dp in

STHX-SCOB with a at 38° is 31.6% higher than that

with a at 27° on average. Then, about comprehensive

performance, CP in STHX-SCOB with a at 46° is

4.6% lower than that with a at 38° on average. Then,

CP in STHX-SCOB with a at 38° is 2.3% lower than

that a at 27° on average.

Above phenomenon can be explained that the shell

fluid radial velocity increases after flowing through heli-

cal flow paths. The bigger the a gets, the bigger the shell

fluid radial velocity becomes. However, the axial velo-

city of shell fluid is small at high a. Therefore, it brings

about good mixing, which directly leads to the strong

heat transfer. However, the energy loss is big.

Figure 9. Heat transfer coefficient versus the shell-side mass

flow rate.

The baffle thickness. Due to the novel baffle changes the

shell fluid distribution, both h and Dp in STHX-SCOB

are higher than that in STHX-COB. In addition to a,

the baffle thickness Db is another significant parameter

in STHX-SCOB, and its effects on the heat transfer

and flow characteristics are analyzed in this part. The

conclusion can be obtained that the streamline is more

crowded in flow field when the baffle thickness

increases by comparing the pictures of Figure 12(a)–(c).

From Figure 12(d), h in the STHX-SCOB with Db

at 3 and 8 mm are 15.8% and 8.3% lower than that

with Db at 13 mm on average, respectively. Besides, Dp

in the STHX-SCOB with Db at 3 and 8 mm is 79.5%

and 35.7% lower than that with Db at 13 mm on aver-

age, respectively. Then, CP in the STHX-SCOB with

Db at 3 and 8 mm is 5.1% and 2.3% higher than that

with Db at 13 mm on average, respectively. In conclu-

sion, the thicker the Db , the more intense the distur-

bance of the shell-side fluid, leading to a greater energy

loss, and then more the helical flow paths of the fluid

velocity at the shell side.

Conclusion

In this article, a novel STHX-SCOB with helical flow

paths is proposed to improve heat transfer performance

at shell side. When the traditional STHX-COB and

STHX-SG are compared, considering the impacts from

the structure parameters of screw-type cinquefoil orifice

baffle, heat transfer and pressure drop performance at

shell side is investigated, and the most significant con-

clusions are summarized as follows:

Figure 10. Other heat transfer performances: (a) pressure

drop versus the shell-side mass flow rate and (b) comprehensive 1. As a novel heat exchanger, STHX-SCOB pro-

performance versus the shell-side Reynolds number. vides a new heat transfer enhancement choice.

Besides, the screw structure in the STHX-SCOB

STHX-SCOB with a at 46° is 6.2% higher than that of improves fluid flushing ability on the shell side.

a at 38° on average. Similarly, h in STHX-SCOB with The screw-type cinquefoil orifice baffles enhance

a at 38° is 7.1% higher than that of a at 27°. But Dp in the heat transfer considerably, and this

Zhang et al. 9

Figure 11. Heat transfer performances with different helical angles: (a) velocity flow distribution (a = 27º, m = 0.375 kg/s,

Db = 8 mm), (b) velocity flow distribution (a = 38º, m = 0.375 kg/s, Db = 8 mm), (c) velocity flow distribution (a = 46º, m = 0.375 kg/s,

Db = 8 mm), (d) heat transfer coefficient versus the shell-side mass flow rate, (e) pressure drop versus the shell-side mass flow rate,

and (f) comprehensive performance versus the shell-side Reynolds number.

enhancement is done at the expense of a large angle of a at 38° and baffle thickness of Db at

pressure drop. So next, other screw-type orifice 8 mm in STHX-SCOB.

baffle heat exchangers should be researched to 3. Under the same shell-side mass flow rate m and

obtain the optimal structure parameters for Db at 8 mm, the bigger the a, the higher the h

other screw-type orifice baffle heat exchanger. and Dp. The heat transfer coefficient h of

2. Under the same shell-side mass flow rate m, STHX-SCOB with a at 46° is 6.2% higher than

heat transfer coefficient h of STHX-SCOB is that with a at 38°, while the pressure drop Dp

about 9.2% higher than that of STHX-COB of STHX-SCOB with a at 46° is about 36.9%

and STHX-SG by about 5.4% on average, higher than that with a at 38°. Similarly, the

while the pressure drop Dp of STHX-SCOB is heat transfer coefficient h of STHX-SCOB with

about 36.0% higher than that of STHX-COB a at 38° is about 7.1% higher than that with a

and STHX-SG by about 15.4% with the helical at 27°, while the pressure drop Dp of STHX-

10 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 12. Heat transfer performances with different baffle thicknesses: (a) temperature flow distribution (Db = 3 mm,

m = 0.375 kg/s, a= 46º), (b) temperature flow distribution (Db = 8 mm, m = 0.375 kg/s, a= 46º), (c) temperature flow distribution

(Db = 13 mm, m = 0.375 kg/s, a= 46º), (d) heat transfer coefficient versus the shell-side mass flow rate, (e) pressure drop versus the

shell-side mass flow rate, and (f) comprehensive performance versus the shell-side Reynolds number.

SCOB with a at 38° is about 31.6% higher than Declaration of conflicting interests

that with a at 27°. The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with

4. Under the same shell-side mass flow rate m and respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this

a at 46°, the bigger the Db , the higher h and Dp article.

are. The heat transfer coefficient h in the

STHX-SCOB with Db at 3 and 8 mm are 15.8%

Funding

and 8.3% lower than that with Db at 13 mm on

average, respectively. And the pressure drop Dp The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-

in the STHX-SCOB with Db at 3 and 8 mm is port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this

article: This work was supported by the Program of National

79.5% and 35.7% lower than that with Db at

Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51506090).

13 mm on average, respectively.

Zhang et al. 11

1. El Maakoul A, Laknizi A, Saadeddine S, et al. Numeri- numerical model and results of whole heat exchanger

cal comparison of shell-side performance for shell and with middle-overlapped helical baffles. Int J Heat Mass

Tran 2009; 52: 5371–5380.

tube heat exchangers with trefoil-hole, helical and seg-

18. Zhu LY, Lang HF, Zhou G, et al. Numerical simulation

mental baffles. Appl Therm Eng 2016; 109: 175–185.

on shell side fluid flow and heat transfer in heat exchan-

2. Li HD and Kottke V. Effect of the leakage on pressure

ger with trefoil-baffles. CIESC J 2014; 65: 829–835 (in

drop and local heat transfer in shell-and-tube heat

Chinese).

exchangers for staggered tube arrangement. Int J Heat

19. Yang JF, Zeng M and Wang QW. Numerical investiga-

Mass Tran 1998; 41: 425–433.

tion on combined single shell-pass shell-and-tube heat

3. Gu X, Liu B, Wang Y, et al. Heat transfer and flow resis-

exchanger with two-layer continuous helical baffles. Int J

tance performance of shutter baffle heat exchanger with

Heat Mass Tran 2015; 84: 103–113.

triangle tube layout in shell side. Adv Mech Eng 2016; 8:

20. Ozden E and Tari I. Shell side CFD analysis of a small

1–8.

shell-and-tube heat exchanger. Energ Convers Manage

4. Guo J, Xu M and Cheng L. The application of field

2010; 51: 1004–1014.

synergy number in shell-and-tube heat exchanger optimi-

21. Yehia MG, Attia AA, Abdelatif OE, et al. Computa-

zation design. Appl Energ 2009; 86: 2079–2087.

tional investigations of thermal simulation of shell and

5. Gentry CC. Rod baffle heat exchanger technology. Chem

tube heat exchanger. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2014

Eng Prog 1990; 86: 48–56.

12th biennial conference on engineering systems design and

6. You Y, Fan A, Lai X, et al. Experimental and numerical

analysis, Copenhagen, 25–27 July 2014, p.V003T12A001.

investigations of shell-side thermo-hydraulic perfor-

New York: ASME.

mances for shell-and-tube heat exchanger with trefoil-

22. Yang JF, Lin YS, Ke HB, et al. Investigation on com-

hole baffles. Appl Therm Eng 2013; 50: 950–956.

bined multiple shell-pass shell-and-tube heat exchanger

7. Zhou GY, Xiao J, Zhu L, et al. A numerical study on

with continuous helical baffles. Energy 2016; 115:

the shell-side turbulent heat transfer enhancement of 1572–1579.

shell-and-tube heat exchanger with trefoil-hole baffles. 23. Lei YG, He YL, Li R, et al. Effects of baffle inclination

Enrgy Proced 2015; 75: 3174–3179. angle on flow and heat transfer of a heat exchanger with

8. You Y, Chen Y, Xie M, et al. Numerical simulation and helical baffles. Chem Eng Process 2008; 47: 2336–2345.

performance improvement for a small size shell-and-tube

heat exchanger with trefoil-hole baffles. Appl Therm Eng

2015; 89: 220–228. Appendix 1

9. Zhang JF, Li B, Huang WJ, et al. Experimental perfor-

mance comparison of shell-side heat transfer for shell- Notation

and-tube heat exchangers with middle-overlapped helical

A heat transfer area (m2 )

baffles and segmental baffles. Chem Eng Sci 2009; 64:

1643–1653.

Ac cross-flow area at the shell centerline (m2 )

10. Lutcha J and Nemcansky J. Performance improvement of B baffle pitch (m)

tubular heat exchangers by helical baffles. Chem Eng Res Cp specific heat capacity (J/(kg K))

Des 1990; 68: 263–270. CP comprehensive performance

11. Wang S, Wen J, Yang H, et al. Experimental investiga- de equivalent diameter (m)

tion on heat transfer enhancement of a heat exchanger do outer diameter of orifice (mm)

with helical baffles through blockage of triangle leakage dt tube outside diameter (mm)

zones. Appl Therm Eng 2014; 67: 122–130. Db baffle thickness (mm)

12. Wang Q, Chen Q, Chen G, et al. Numerical investigation Di internal shell diameter (mm)

on combined multiple shell-pass shell-and-tube heat Dt tube central distance (mm)

exchanger with continuous helical baffles. Int J Heat f friction coefficient

Mass Tran 2009; 52: 1214–1222.

h average heat transfer coefficient

13. Yakhot V and Orszag SA. Renormalization-group analy-

(W=m2 K)

sis of turbulence. Phys Rev Lett 1986; 57: 1722–1724.

14. Jian W, Huizhu Y, Wang S, et al. Numerical investigation k turbulent fluctuation kinetic energy

on baffle configuration improvement of the heat exchan- (m2 =s2 )

ger with helical baffles. Energ Convers Manage 2015; 89: L total effective tube length (mm)

438–448. m shell side mass flow rate (kg/s)

15. Eduardo C. Heat transfer in process engineering. New N number of tubes

York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, 2009. Ncl number of tubes in the central row

16. Yang J and Liu W. Numerical investigation on a novel Nu Nusselt number

shell-and-tube heat exchanger with plate baffles and Dp pressure drop (Pa)

experimental validation. Energ Convers Manage 2015; Re Reynolds number

101: 689–696. Dtm logarithmic mean temperature

17. Zhang JF, He YL and Tao WQ. 3D numerical simula-

difference (K)

tion on shell-and-tube heat exchangers with middle-

12 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

ts, in , temperature of inlet tube and outlet e turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate

ts, out tube (K) (m2 =s3 )

tw tube wall temperature (K) m dynamic viscosity (kg/(m s))

u, v, w velocities in different directions (m/s) mt turbulent dynamic viscosity (kg/(m s))

ui inlet average velocity (m/s) l thermal conductivity (W/(m K))

us shell side average velocity (m/s) r fluid density (kg=m3 )

x, y, z Cartesian coordinate [ heat transfer quantity (W)

a helical angle of helical flow paths (°)

b cinquefoil orifice angle (°)

- b w 25437443Uploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- Psu Syllabus MechanicalUploaded byammu0312
- Sparger Design GuideUploaded byShooeib
- Engineering Service Examination Syllabus for Mechanical EngineeringUploaded bydivya29nilu
- Flowin PipeUploaded bypraSHANT2331
- 2e2dsUploaded byMark Cecil Tano
- Man-Arian Flow Cad SoftwareUploaded byTam Tran
- Me AddedUploaded byrajanjasu
- Study on Steady Flow over a Rotating Disk in Porous Medium with Heat TransferUploaded byIOSRjournal
- Simulation Cfd Comparison MatrixUploaded bytalabiz
- 71Uploaded bytotok89
- heat exhanger lolUploaded byMuhammad Zulhilmi
- 24_FlowUploaded byMohamed Labib
- MechanicsLab.pdfUploaded byJayanthan Gunarajah
- A New Method to Interpret Two-Phase Profiles From Temperature and Flowmeter LogsUploaded byHo Hoang Phuc
- 24140_061216090859Uploaded byMohmmed Mahmoud
- CMS_Design_Selection.pdfUploaded byDaniel Puello Rodelo
- 341462209-IRJET-Experimental-Investigations-of-Double-Pipe-Heat-Exchanger-with-Triangular-Baffles.pdfUploaded byRidhoQodri
- Wax Management Strategy Part 2_ Wax Deposition Modeling — GATE, IncUploaded bymjst1982
- Analysis of Helicalcum Pinfin Heat ExchangerUploaded byijire publication
- HEAT TRANSFER CORRELATION FOR NON-BOILING STRATIFIED FLOW PATTERN | J4RV3I11006Uploaded byJournal 4 Research
- S&T HEUploaded byArpit Sharma
- Syl Lab Us of Mechanical EngineeringUploaded byavinash_k007
- [5] Exp 5 Forced Convection Heat TransferUploaded byizzril
- Bell Delaware Method English 2 (1)Uploaded byaldair
- 147433276-14-Heat-Exchangers.pdfUploaded byoperationmanager
- 3253.pdfUploaded byLaga Pratama
- ASME MFC-7M_2006Uploaded byHasbullah
- 1001352.pdfUploaded byQayyum Khan
- Experiment 5Uploaded byReinier Roman Santos

- Stabilized space–time computation of wind-turbine rotor aerodynamicsUploaded bySattar Al-Jabair
- Chapter 6 LectureUploaded byDarran Cairns
- tubingperformancerelationtpr-140607023150-phpapp02Uploaded byOghale B. E. Omuabor
- hydraulicsUploaded byJek Bonos Hayagan
- Foundation Engineering Refresher ModuleUploaded byTaki Tachibana
- Classification of RobotUploaded bySourabh Angural
- 11 Most Important Questions & Answers From ASME B 31.3 Which a Piping Stress Engineer Must KnowUploaded byRakesh Ranjan
- Lecture_13_vUploaded byLucian Nicolau
- diesel cycleUploaded byIany Assom
- Fórmulas Para Calcular El Factor de FricciónUploaded byEstuardo Javier Gan Rodríguez
- Chemistry 21b Spectroscopy- Lecture # 5: Rotation of Polyatomic MoleculesUploaded byMddl2a
- Sheet 6Uploaded byJames Truxon
- FM_QBUploaded byArun Raja K K
- x Topical Mcqs [Trial]Uploaded byBaqar Hussain Naqvi
- 1Uploaded byTerry Miles
- Stark EffectUploaded byBharath Prabhu
- KINEMATICS_OF_MACHINERY Question Paper April_may2012 r07Uploaded bysasi0823
- Biefield Brown EffectUploaded byA.Amala Arasu
- 04 Truss- Method of Joints and SectionsUploaded byHusen Taufiq
- An Otto Cycle is an Idealized Thermodynamic Cycle Which Describes the Functioning of a Typical Spark Ignition Reciprocating Piston EngineUploaded bykhalifawhan
- Spin rotationsUploaded bydionyscar
- Jackson Solutions - Solutions to jackson's ElectrodynamicsUploaded bypeters53
- Beach Marks Fatigue Zones- ChandaUploaded byChandaKunda
- The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity by R HillUploaded byAgapito
- TorsionUploaded byTano Chavez
- mirror mountUploaded byAmit Jha
- Physics for Scientists and Engineers Chapter 01Uploaded bytopwarmachine
- Unit6-MCNUploaded byAnonymous nwByj9L
- Tech Memo_y FactorUploaded bysumitrochakraborti
- Material Balance AnalysisUploaded byOluwafemi Olominu

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.