Ambekar Aniket Shrikant.et. al Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Application www.ijera.

com
ISSN : 2248-9622, Vol. 6, Issue 3, ( Part -5) March2016, pp.99-107

RESEARCH ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS

Comparison of Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger using Theoretical

Methods, HTRI, ASPEN and SOLIDWORKS simulation
softwares
Ambekar Aniket Shrikant*, R. Sivakumar**, M. Vivekanandan***
*(M.Tech. Student, National Institute of Technology, Tamil Nadu India,
**(Mechanical Engg. Dept., M.V.J. College of Engg., Bangalore, Karnataka, India,
***(Uttam Industrial Engg. Pvt. Ltd., Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu, India.

ABSTRACT
The aim of this article is to compare the design of Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger with baffles. Baffles used in
shell and tube heat exchanger improve heat transfer and also result in increased pressure drop. Shell and tube
heat exchanger with single segmental baffles was designed with same input parameters using 1) Kern’s
theoretical method; 2) ASPEN simulation software and 3) HTRI simulation software 4) SOLIDWORKS
simulation software. Shell side pressure drop and heat transfer coefficient are predicted. The results of all the
three methods indicated the results in a close range. The proven theoretical methods are in good agreement with
the simulation results.
Keywords – ASPEN, HTRI, Kern’s theoretical method, Segmental baffles, Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger
detailed accurate in estimating heat transfer
I. INTRODUCTION coefficient and the pressure drop on the shell side for
For the past few decades, shell and tube common geometric arrangements. Bell–Delaware
exchangers are widely used in many engineering method can indicate the existence of possible
applications, such as chemical engineering weaknesses in the shell side design, but cannot point
processes, power generation, petroleum refining, out where these weaknesses are.
refrigeration, air-conditioning, food industry, etc. Gaddis and Gnielinski [4] studied the
Shell and tube heat exchangers are relatively simple pressure drop on the shell side of STHX with
to manufacture, and have multi-purpose application segmental baffles.
possibility when compared with other types of Heat Karno and Ajib [5] reported from their
exchangers. It was reported that more than 30% of studies on baffle spacing that baffle cut and baffle
the heat exchangers in use are of the shell-and-tube spacing are the most important geometric parameters
type. that effect pressure drop as well as heat transfer
Baffles play a significant role in Shell and coefficient on the shell side of a STHX.
tube heat exchanger assembly. They provide Bin Gao et al [6] carried out experimental
support for tubes, enable a desirable velocity to be studies on discontinuous helical baffles at different
maintained for the shell-side fluid flow, and prevent helical angles of 8o, 12o, 20o , 30o and 40o and
the tubes from vibrating. Baffles also guide the reported that the performance of baffle at 40 o helix
shell-side flow to move forward across the tube angle was the best among those tested.
bundle, increasing fluid velocity and heat transfer Sirous et al [7] replaced a segmental tube
coefficient. If one takes the most commonly used bundles by a bundle of tubes with helical baffles in a
single segmental baffles as an example, heat transfer shell and tube heat exchanger to reduce pressure
is improved as the baffles guide the shell side fluid drop and fouling and hence reduce maintenance and
to flow in a zigzag pattern between the tube bundle, operating cost in Tabriz Petroleum Company.
which enhances the turbulence intensity and the Farhad et al [8] reported from simulation
local mixing. studies that for same helix angle of 40oand same
Gaddis D [1] reported that the 9th edition of mass flow rate, heat transfer per unit area decreases
standards and design recommendations of Tubular with increase in baffle space. However, for same
Exchanger Manufacturers Association (TEMA) was pressure drop, the most extended baffle space
released in 2007. obtains higher heat transfer. Pressure gradient
Kern method [2] and Bell–Delaware decreases with increase in baffle space.
method [3] are the most commonly used correlations Yonghua et al [9] developed a numerical
based approaches for designing the shell side. While model of STHX based on porosity and permeability
Kern method gives conservative results, suitable for considering turbulence kinetic energy and its
the preliminary sizing, Bell–Delaware method is a dissipation rate. The numerical model was solved

www.ijera.com 99 | P a g e
Ambekar Aniket Shrikant.et. al Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Application www.ijera.com
ISSN : 2248-9622, Vol. 6, Issue 3, ( Part -5) March2016, pp.99-107
o
over a range of Re from 6813 to 22,326 for the shell THI C 90
o
side of a STHX with flower baffles. Simulations THO C 70
Density kg/m3 971.8
results agreed with that of experiments with error Specific Heat Capacity kJ/kgK 4.1963
less than 15%. Viscosity mPas 0.354
Yingshuang et al [10] carried out Conductivity W/mK 0.67
experimental investigations on flower baffled STHX Fouling Factor - 0.0002
and the original segmental baffle STHX models and Flow Rate kg/s 0.3
Tube Side Fluid-Cold Water
reported that the overall performance of the flower o
TCI C 30
baffled heat exchanger model is 20–30% more TCO o
C 38
efficient than that of the segmental baffle heat Density kg/m3 984
exchanger under same operating conditions. Specific Heat Capacity kJ/kgK 4.178
Edward et al [11] presented the procedure Viscosity mPas 0.725
for evaluating the shell side pressure drop in shell- Conductivity W/mK 0.623
Fouling Factor - 0.0002
and-tube heat exchangers with segmental baffles. Flow Rate kg/s 0.7533
The procedure is based on correlations for
calculating the pressure drop in an ideal tube bank Hot fluid is considered to flow in the shell
coupled with correction factors, which take into as a thumb rule says that fluid with low flow rate
account the influence of leakage and bypass streams, should always be in shell side. A vice versa heat
and on equations for calculating the pressure drop in exchanger was also designed which was inferior
a window section from the Delaware method. with respect to hot fluid shell side design. Thus,
Young et al [12] reported from simulation confirming the thumb rule. With the above basic
studies on STHX with helical baffles using data a shell and tube heat exchanger was designed
commercially available CFX4.2 codes and by
concluded that the performance of STHX with 1) Theoretical Method (Kern’s Method).
helical baffles is superior to that of a conventional 2) ASPEN Simulation Software.
STHX. Fluid is in contact with the tubes flowing 3) HTRI Simulation Software
rotationally in the shell and hence reduced the 4) Solidworks Simulation Software.
stagnation zones in the shell side, thereby improving
heat transfer. 2.1 Design of STHX by Kern’s Theoretical
Sparrow & Reifschneider [13], Eryener Method:
[14], Karno & Ajib [15] carried out studies on the This method is employed as it is simple to
effects of baffle spacing in a STHX on pressure drop use and the design is reliable. All the empirical
and heat transfer. equations in this section are as proposed by Donald
Li and Kottke [16,17] and Karno and Ajib Q. Kern.
[18] carried out investigations on the effect of tube Design of heat exchanger with this method is
arrangement in STHX from heat transfer view point. illustrated as follows:
From literature review, it is observed that Logarithmic Mean Temperature Difference
different studies on heat transfer coefficient and LMTD is calculated as:
pressure drop in STHX with different baffle shape,
spacing, and tube spacing have been carried out. It T Hi  T Co   T Ho  T Ci 
( Tlm) =
is observed that comparison of theoretical design  T Hi  T Co 
methods of STHX with that of simulations using ln  
  
software have not been done.  T Ho  T Ci (1)
= 45.74
II. DESIGN OF SHELL AND TUBE For One shell pass and two tube passes,
HEAT EXCHANGER T Hi  T Ho 
A shell and tube heat exchanger with single R= = 2.5 (2)
segmented baffles is designed. Single segmented T Co  T Ci 
baffle are chosen as they are the most widely used, T Co  T Ci 
large data is available and hence can be theoretically S= = 0.133 (3)
designed. T Hi  T Ci 
A water-water 1-2 pass shell and tube heat LMTD correction factor is read from graph
exchanger is designed considering the data in the given by Kern D.Q. [2] for one shell pass and two or
following Table 1. more tube passes using R and S values as
Ft = 0.99
Table 1 Data for design of heat exchanger Corrected Tlm = Ft Tlm (4)
Shell Side Fluid-Hot Water o
Property Unit Value
= 0.99 45.74 = 45.15 C

www.ijera.com 100 | P a g e
Ambekar Aniket Shrikant.et. al Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Application www.ijera.com
ISSN : 2248-9622, Vol. 6, Issue 3, ( Part -5) March2016, pp.99-107

It is assumed that U = 785W/m2K = 14666.3

Heat Load is given by: 4 . 178  0 . 725  10
3
C
(Q) = mC (5) Pr = = = 4.86
= 0.3 4.1963 (90-70) = 25.18kW k 0 . 623
Provisional Area is given by: L 1038
= = 57.54
Q d i
18 . 04
A= (6)
U  T lm Jh = 4  10
3
is taken from graph given by Kern
25180 2 D.Q. [2]
= = 0.71m 0 . 14
785  45 . 15 J h Re Pr
0 . 33
k   
Choose 21.34mm OD, 18.04mm ID, 1.068m hi   
 
long Copper tubes. di  w  (11)
Allowing for tube-sheet thickness, take =
L = 1.038m 3
4  10  14666 . 3  4 . 86  0 . 623
0 . 33

0 .9 
0 . 14
Area of one tube =  d o L (7) 3
18 . 04  10
= π 0.02134 1.038 = 0.0696m2
= 3072.3W/m2oC
Number of tubes N is given by 1.1.2 Prediction of Shell Side Heat Transfer
0 . 71 Coefficient:
(N) = = 10 (8)
0 . 0696
1.35 triangular pitch is used to maintain good
ligament Baffle Spacing (B) = 50.8mm
Bundle Diameter Db is given by Tube Pitch (Pt) =1.35 di = 1.35 21.34 =
1 28.8mm
 N  2 . 207 Cross Flow Area (As) is given by:
(Db)= d o  
 0 . 249   Pt  d o 
(9)   Ds  B
 
1
 Pt 
 10  2 . 207 (12)
21 . 34   =113.73mm
 28 . 8  21 . 34 
 0 . 249  =    168 . 3  50 . 8  10
6

28 . 8 
 
Fixed U-tube Head is used. From FigureA3,
= 2.2146 10-3m2
Bundle diametrical Clearance = 10mm
Shell diameter (Ds) = Db + 10 = 113.73 + 10 = 0 .3
Hot water mass velocity = 3
123.73mm 2 . 2146  10
Nearest Standard Pipe size of 168.28mm is = 135.47kg/sm 2

considered as Shell Diameter. Equivalent Diameter is given by

1.1.1 Prediction of Tube Side Heat Transfer
Coefficient de =
1 .1
P t
2
 0 . 917  21 . 34 
2
 = 21.23mm
Tube cross-sectional area is given by di
   ud 135 . 47  21 . 23  10
3
 di =  18 . 04 = 255.6mm2
2 2
(10) e
4 4 Re = = 3
= 8124
 0 . 354  10
N 10 3
Tubes per pass = = =5 C 4 . 1963  0 . 0 . 354  10
2 2 Pr = = = 2.22
Total Flow Area = 5 255.6 = 1.278 10-3m2 k 0 . 67
Choose 29% baffle cut, from figureA4, J h = 7
0 . 753
Cold Water mass velocity = -3
10-3
1.278 × 10 0 . 14
k   
0 . 33
2 J Re Pr
= 597.3kg/sm  
hs 
h
 
Linear velocity (u) =
597 . 3
= 0.6m/s
de  w 
984 =
3 3
 ud 984  0 . 6  18 . 04  10 7  10  8124  2 . 22  0 . 67
0 . 33

0 .9 
i 0 . 14
Re = = 3 3
 0 . 725  10 21 . 23  10

www.ijera.com 101 | P a g e
Ambekar Aniket Shrikant.et. al Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Application www.ijera.com
ISSN : 2248-9622, Vol. 6, Issue 3, ( Part -5) March2016, pp.99-107

= 2101.5W/m2oC Table2 Input to ASPEN simulation Software

1.1.3 Prediction of Overall Heat Transfer I. Problem Definition
Coefficient: A. Application Options
1. General
 do  Calculation Mode Simulation
d o ln  
  Location of Hot fluid Shell-Side
1 1 1  di  do
    2  F  Select Geometry Based on SI standards
U hi hs 2  ks di
Calculation Method Advanced method
2. Hot side
(13) Application Liquid, no phase change
Simulation Calculation Output temperature
3  21 . 34  3. Cold side
21 . 34  10 ln  
1 1 1  18 . 04  Application Liquid, no phase change
    Simulation Calculation Output temperature
U 3072 . 3 2101 . 5 2  385
B. Process Data
21 . 34 Fluid Name Shell-Side Tube-
 2  0 . 0002  hot water Side
18 . 04
cold
U = 782W/m2 water
Well near the assumed value of 785W/m2oC Mass flow rate (kg/s) 0.3 0.753
1.1.4 Prediction of Pressure Drop on Tube side Inlet Temperature ( ) 90 30
From graph given by Kern DQ [2], for Re = Operating Pressure abs (bar) 1 1
14666.3 Fouling Resistance (m2K/W) 0.0002 0.0002
3
II. Property Data
Jf = 5  10 Properties of fluids were imported form ASPEN database
 0 . 14 III. Exchanger Geometry
  L     u 2

P  N 8J     2 .5  A. Shell/Heads
p
 f     2
  d i   w  
Front Head Type B-bonnet bolted or
(14) integral tube-sheet
= 1.8kPa Shell Type E-one pass shell
1.1.5 Prediction of Pressure drop on Shell-Side Rear Head Type U – U-tube bundle
From graph given by Kern DQ [2], at Re = 8124 Exchanger Position Horizontal
Shell Inner diameter (mm) 154.05
Jf = 4.5 10-2
B. Tube
 0 . 14
  D s  L     u 2 Number of Tubes 10
P  8J       Number of Tubes Plugged 0
 f     2
  d e  B   w  
Tube length (mm) 1038
(15) Tube Type Plain
= 64.77Pa Tube Outside Diameter (mm) 21.34
The results of this method are the Tube wall Thickness (mm) 1.65
1. Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient U= Tube Pitch (mm) 28.8
782W/m2C Tube Pattern 45
2. Tube-side Pressure Drop ∆P = 1.8kPa Tube Material Copper
3. Shell-side Pressure Drop ∆P = 64.77Pa. C. Baffles
Baffle Type Single Segmental
Baffle Cut (%) 29
2.2 Design of STHX using ASPEN simulation Baffle Orientation Horizontal
software: Baffle Thickness (mm) 3.2
This software can be used to design, rate, Baffle Spacing (mm) 50.8
simulate and do cost prediction of a heat exchanger. Number of Baffles 16
Here ASPEN is used to simulate the heat exchanger D. Nozzles
Outside diameter of shell side 26.645
designed by Kern’s theoretical method. In Inlet nozzle (mm)
simulation mode of this software all the data related Inside diameter of shell side 26.645
to geometry of heat exchanger and the properties of Inlet nozzle (mm)
fluids are to be stated as input to the software. Flow Outside diameter of tube side 26.645
Inlet nozzle (mm)
rates and input temperatures of the fluid streams are Inside diameter of tube side 26.645
also to be stated. The software then gives output in Inlet nozzle (mm)
terms of the output temperature attained by the IV. Construction Specifications
streams. It generates a specification sheet called A. Materials of Construction
TEMA sheet which indicates the overall Heat Shell Carbon Steel
Tube-Sheet Carbon Steel
transfer coefficient, Pressure Drop in both shell-side
Baffles Carbon Steel
and tube-side and many other parameters involved in Heads Carbon Steel
heat exchanger design. Nozzle Carbon Steel
The input for ASPEN simulation software Tube Copper
in this case is as shown in the following Table 2, B. Design Specifications

www.ijera.com 102 | P a g e
Ambekar Aniket Shrikant.et. al Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Application www.ijera.com
ISSN : 2248-9622, Vol. 6, Issue 3, ( Part -5) March2016, pp.99-107

1. Codes and Standards generates a specification sheet called TEMA sheet

Design Code ASME Code Sec VIII which indicates the overall Heat transfer coefficient,
Div 1
Service Class Refinery Service
Pressure Drop in both shell-side and tube-side and
TEMA Class C-General Class many other parameters involved in heat exchanger
Material Standard ASME design. This Software also provides necessary
Dimensional Standard ANSI - American drawings of the heat exchanger.
The input for HTRI simulation software in this
case is as shown in the following Table 3.

Table 3 Input data to HTRI Simulation Software

I. Case Mode Simulation
II. Exchanger Service Generic Shell and Tube
III. Process Conditions
Fluid Name Shell-Side Tube-Side
hot water cold water
Mass flow rate (kg/s) 0.3 0.753
Inlet Temperature ( ) 90 30
Operating Pressure abs (bar) 1 1
Fouling Resistance (m2K/W) 0.00 0.000
02 2
IV. Shell Geometry
TEMA Type B-E-U
Shell ID (mm) 154.05
Orientation Horizontal
Figure 1 Heat Exchanger Specification sheet by Hot Fluid Shell Side
ASPEN Simulation. V. Baffle Geometry
Type Single Segmental
Orientation Perpendicular
Baffle Cut (%) 29
Baffle Spacing (mm) 50.8
Baffle Thickness (mm) 3.2
Crosspasses 17
VI. Tube Geometry
Type Plain
Length (m) 1.038
Tube OD (mm) 21.34
Wall Thickness (mm) 1.65
Pitch (mm) 28.8
Layout Angle 45
Tube Pass 2
Tube Count 10
Tube Material Copper
VII. Nozzles
Standards ANSI
Figure 2 TEMA Construction details of Shell and Outside diameter of shell side 26.645
Tube Heat Exchanger given by ASPEN Simulation Inlet nozzle (mm)
Inside diameter of shell side Inlet 26.645
The output of APSEN Simulation software nozzle (mm)
Outside diameter of tube side Inlet 26.645
gives the specification sheet shown in Fig. 1 and nozzle (mm)
TEMA specification sheet shown in Fig. 2. Inside diameter of tube side Inlet 26.645
nozzle (mm)
2.3 Design of STHX HTRI Simulation Software: Inlet Type Radial
This software can be used to design, rate Outlet Type Radial
and simulate a heat exchanger. Here HTRI is used to Radial Position of inlet Top
nozzle on shell
simulate the heat exchanger designed by Kern’s Longitudinal Position of At Rear Head
theoretical method. In simulation mode of this inlet nozzle on shell
software all the data related to geometry of heat Radial Position of inlet Opposite Side
exchanger and the properties of fluids are to be nozzle on shell
Location of nozzle at U- Before U-bend
stated as input to the software. Flow rates and input bend
temperatures of the fluid streams are also to be Number at each location 1
stated. The software then gives output in terms of the VIII. Property Data
output temperature attained by the streams. It
www.ijera.com 103 | P a g e
Ambekar Aniket Shrikant.et. al Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Application www.ijera.com
ISSN : 2248-9622, Vol. 6, Issue 3, ( Part -5) March2016, pp.99-107

Properties of fluids were imported form HTRI database
The output of HTRI Simulation software
gives the specification sheet shown in Fig. 3 and
TEMA specification sheet shown in Fig. 4.
1) Shell Side Inlet was set as Flow opening the mass
flow rate varied from 0.1kg/s to 0.5kg/s for different
simulations and temperature was set to 363.15K.
2) Tube Side Inlet was set to Flow opening the mass
flow rate was set to 0.7533kg/s and the
temperature was set to 303.15K.
3) Both shell side and tube side were set as Pressure
openings with pressure set to Atmospheric
Pressure.
Figures 6, 7 and 8 show the variations in
pressure, temperature, and velocity within the
STHX with single segmental baffles simulated
using Solidworks Simulation software.

Figure 3 Heat Exchanger Specification sheet by

HTRI Simulation. Figure 5 2D view of the Shell and Tube Heat
Exchanger designed

Figure 6 Pressure variation in STHX

Figure 4 TEMA Construction details of Shell and

Tube Heat Exchanger given by HTRI Simulation

2.3 Design of STHX using Solidworks Flow

Simulation Software:
A commercially available CFD code
(SOLIDWORKS FLOW SIMULATION) has been
used to carry out the numerical calculations for the
studied geometries. A three dimensional geometrical
model of the problem is developed with Figure 7 Temperature variatiion in STHX
SOLIDWORKS software. Mesh generation is done.
The physical model is presented in Fig. 5. The tube
material is Copper while the other components are
carbon steel. The physical properties of carbon steel
and copper are taken from the SOLIDWORKS
database. Thermal properties of water are also taken
from the SOLIDWORKS database.
The water inlet boundary conditions are set
as Flow opening inlets and outlet boundary
conditions are set as Pressure opening outlets. The
exterior wall is modeled as adiabatic. The simulation Figure 8 Velocity variation in STHX
is solved to predict the heat transfer and fluid flow
characteristics by using k-ɛ turbulence model.
Following are the boundary conditions
assumed:
www.ijera.com 104 | P a g e
Ambekar Aniket Shrikant.et. al Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Application www.ijera.com
ISSN : 2248-9622, Vol. 6, Issue 3, ( Part -5) March2016, pp.99-107

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 4 shows the variations in the Overall
Heat transfer coefficient, Shell side outlet
temperature, and shell side temperature difference.
Table 4 Comparison of Overall Heat Transfer
Coefficient, Shell side outlet temperature and Shell
side temperature difference predictions
Temperature

Temperature
Overall HTC

Difference
Shell Side

ShellKSide
Figure 10 Variation in Shell Side Temperature
Outlet

Heat Exchanger
2
Difference with different design softwares

°C
W/m
°C

Design Method
Kern's method 70 782 20
ASPEN Simulation 70.08 790.2 19.92
HTRI Simulation 70.84 781.91 19.16
CFD Simulation 68.79 852.46 21.21

It is observed from Fig. 9 that Kern’s

method, and HTRI simulations have similar values
of Overall Heat transfer coefficient, while that
obtained from ASPEN simulation is little higher, and
that obtained from CFD simulations using
Solidworks software is the highest with variation of
over 9% when compared to Kern’s theoretical
method. This is variation in Solidworks software
results may be due to better grid convergence of the
solution while the theoretical values are based o
empirical correlations only.
Similarly, It is observed from Fig. 10 that
shell side temperature difference is almost similar
with Kern’s method and ASPEN method, while that
with HTRI simulation showed a lesser value, while
that with CFD simulation using Solidworks software
is higher by 6%. This variation in Solidworks
software results may be owing to improvement in
computation capability due to finer meshes in flow
field.
Fig. 11 shows that the Shell side outlet
temperature is very similar with Kern’s method, and
APSEN simulation. On the other hand, HTRI
simulation is greater by 1.2% while that by
Solidworks Simulation is lesser by 1.7%.
Figure 11 Variation in Tube Side Outlet
Temperature with different design softwares
IV. CONCLUSIONS
A Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger was
designed with same input parameters using Kern’s
method, ASPEN simulation software, HTRI
simulation software and by SolidWorks Flow
Simulation software and the Overall heat transfer
coefficient values are 782, 790.2, 781.9 and 852.6
W/m2K respectively. Simulation results of Overall
heat transfer coefficient with Kern’s method ASPEN
and HTRI software are similar while, that with
SolidWorks software is greater by 9%. Shell side
temperature drop is greater by 6% with Solid works
software. All the three Methods obtained almost
same results for the same geometry of heat
exchanger. Thus, it can be concluded that the results
generated with single segmental baffle configuration
are real time.

REFERENCES
[1] Gaddis D, editor. Standards of the Tubular
Exchanger Manufacturers Association.
(Tarrytown (NY): TEMA Inc. 2007).
[2] Kern DQ, Process heat transfer. (New York
(NY): McGraw-Hill, 1950).
[3] Bell KJ. Delaware method for shell side
design. In: Kakac S, Bergles AE, Mayinger
F, editors. Heat exchangers: thermal–
Figure 9 Variation in Overall Heat Transfer hydraulic fundamentals and design. New
coefficient with different design softwares York: Hemisphere, 1981, 581–618.
[4] Gaddis ES, and Gnielinski V., Pressure
drop on the shell side of shell-and-tube
heatexchangers with segmental baffles.
Chem Eng Process 36, 1997, 149–59.
www.ijera.com 105 | P a g e
Ambekar Aniket Shrikant.et. al Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Application www.ijera.com
ISSN : 2248-9622, Vol. 6, Issue 3, ( Part -5) March2016, pp.99-107

[5] Karno A, Ajib S., Effects of baffle cut and [15] Karno A, and Ajib S., Effects of baffle cut
number of baffles on pressure drop and heat and number of baffles on pressure drop and
transfer in shell-and-tube heat exchangers – heat transfer in shell-and-tube heat
numerical simulation. Int JHeat Exchangers exchangers – numerical simulation, Int J
7, 2006, 299–322. Heat Exchangers, 7, 2006, 299–322.
[6] Bin Gao, Qincheng Bi, Zesen Nie and [16] Li HD and Kottke V., Visualization and
Jiangbo Wu, Experimental study of effects determination of local heat transfer
of baffle helix angle on shell-side coefficients in shell-and-tube heat
performance of shell-and-tube heat exchangers for staggered tube arrangement
exchangers with discontinuous helical by mass transfer measurements, Exp Therm
baffles, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Fluid Sci, 17, 1998,210–6.
Science, 68, 2015, 48–57. [17] Li HD, and Kottke V., Visualization and
[7] Sirous Zeyninejad Movassag, Farhad determination of local heat transfer
Nemati Taher, Kazem Razmi and Reza coefficients in shell-and-tube heat
Tasouji Azar, Tube bundle replacement for exchangers for in-line tube arrangement by
segmental and helical shell and tube heat mass transfer measurements, Heat Mass
exchangers: Performance comparison and Transfer, 33, 1998371–6.
fouling investigation on the shell side, [18] Karno A, and Ajib S., Effect of tube pitch
Applied Thermal Engineering, 51, 2013, on heat transfer in shell-and-tube heat
1162-1169. exchangers – new simulation software,
[8] Farhad Nemati Taher, Sirous Zeyninejad Heat Mass Transfer, 42, 2006, 263–70.
Movassag, Kazem Razmi and Reza Tasouji
Azar, Baffle space impact on the NOMENCLATURE
performance of helical baffle shell and tube A Area (m2)
heat exchangers, Applied Thermal As Cross Flow Area (m2)
Engineering, 44, 2012, 143-149. B Baffle Spacing (m)
[9] Yonghua You, Aiwu Fan, Suyi Huang and C Specific Heat Capacity (J kg-1 K-1)
Wei Liu, Numerical modelling and Db Bundle Diameter (m)
experimental validation of heat transfer and Di Inside diameter of shell (m)
flow resistance on the shell side of a shell- Ds Outside diameter of shell (m)
and-tube heat exchanger with flower de Equivalent Diameter (m)
baffles, International Journal of Heat and di Inside diameter of tube (m)
Mass Transfer, 55, 2012. 7561–7569. do Outside diameter of tube (m)
[10] Yingshuang Wang, Zhichun Liu, Suyi F Fouling Factor.
Huang, Wei Liu and Weiwei Li, Ft Log Mean Temperature Difference
Experimental investigation of shell-and- Correction Factor
tube heat exchanger with a new type of h Enthalpy (J kg-1K-1)
baffles, Heat and Mass Transfer, 47, 2011, hi Tube side Film Heat Transfer Coefficient
833–839. (W m-2 K-1)
[11] Edward S. Gaddis and Volker Gnielinski hs Shell side Film Heat Transfer Coefficient
Pressure drop on the shell side of shell-and- (W m-2 K-1)
tube heat exchangers with segmental Jf Friction Factor
baffles, Chemical Engineering and Jh Heat Transfer Factor
Processing, 36, 1997, 149-159. k Thermal Conductivity, Turbulent kinetic
[12] Young-Seok Son and Jee-Young Shin, energy.
Performance of a shell-and-tube heat L Length (m)
exchanger with spiral baffle plates, m Mass Flow Rate (kg s-1)
KSME International Journal, Volume N Number of tubes.
15(11), 2001, 1555-1562. Np Number of tube side passes
[13] Sparrow EM and Reifschneider LG., Effect Pin Pressure at inlet of the shell
of interbaffle spacing on heat transfer and Pout Pressure at outlet of the shell (
pressure drop in a shell-and-tube heat ∆P Pressure Drop.
exchanger. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 29, Pt Pitch.
1986, 1617–1628. Q Heat Load.
[14] Eryener D., Thermo economic optimization TCi Tube side fluid inlet temperature.
of baffle spacing for shell and tube heat TCo Tube side fluid outlet temperature.
exchangers, Energy Convers Manage 47, THi Shell side fluid inlet temperature.
2006, 1478–1489. THo Shell side fluid outlet temperature.

www.ijera.com 106 | P a g e
Ambekar Aniket Shrikant.et. al Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Application www.ijera.com
ISSN : 2248-9622, Vol. 6, Issue 3, ( Part -5) March2016, pp.99-107

∆Tlm Log Mean Temperature Difference.

t Time.
U Overall Heat Transfer Factor.
u Velocity.
Le Lewis Number.
Re Reynolds number.
Pr Prandtl Number.
x Co-ordinate.
y Co-ordinate.
z Co-ordinate.

Greek Letters
ρ Density.
µ Dynamic Viscosity.
ɛ Turbulent dissipation energy.

www.ijera.com 107 | P a g e