Applied Thermal Engineering 161 (2019) 114099

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

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

Experimental investigation on thermal-hydraulic performance of a novel T

shell-and-tube heat exchanger with unilateral ladder type helical baffles
⁎
Jian Chen, Xing Lu, Qiuwang Wang, Min Zeng
Key Laboratory of Thermo-Fluid Science and Engineering, Ministry of Education, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710049, China

H I GH L IG H T S

• AThenovel heat exchanger with unilateral ladder helical baffles (STHX-ULHB) is proposed.
• Two performances of the STHX-ULHB and the STHX-SB are experimentally compared.
• The comprehensive
criteria are used to evaluate the comprehensive performance of the STHX-ULHB.
• performance of the STHX-ULHB is superior to that of the STHX-SB.

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A novel structure of the shell-and-tube heat exchanger with unilateral ladder type helical baffles (STHX-ULHB) is
Shell-and-tube heat exchanger proposed. Compared with the shell-and-tube heat exchanger with segmental baffles (STHX-SB), the heat transfer
Unilateral ladder type helical baffle and pressure drop performances of the STHX-ULHB are experimentally investigated. The experimental results
Segmental baffle show that both the shell-side heat transfer coefficient hs and the overall heat transfer coefficient K of the STHX-
Heat transfer enhancement
ULHB are dramatically increased with the increasing of the mass flow rate, which are 109.3–125.5% and
Pressure drop
105.2–122.5% higher than that of the STHX-SB, respectively. The pressure drop of the STHX-ULHB is decreased
by 12.1–45.9% than that of the STHX-SB. Two criteria, i.e., the heat transfer coefficient per unit pressure drop
and the thermal performance enhancement factor (TEF), are introduced to evaluate the comprehensive per-
formance of the STHX-ULHB. Overall, the shell-side heat transfer coefficient per unit pressure drop of STHX-
ULHB is 151.9%–176.4% higher than that of the STHX-SB. The values of the TEF of the STHX-ULHB increase by
161.3–178.9%, with an average value of 171.2%. Both of the results illustrate that the comprehensive perfor-
mance of the STHX-ULHB is superior to that of the STHX-SB.

1. Introduction
The shell-and-tube heat exchangers (STHX) are the most common
heat transfer equipment, and they are widely applied to various in-
dustrial fields such as air conditioning equipment, power generation,
petro-chemical industry, waste energy recovery and environment en-
gineering. Master et al. [1] surveyed the market share of the STHX, the
results showed that the STHX accounted for 35–40% of the all heat
exchangers due to their reliable operation, structural simplicity, pos-
sible upgrades and convenient maintenance. The segmental baffles are
the original type baffle that have been used in the STHX-SB, and this
shell-side structure forces the fluid to flow by a zigzag pattern. The
shell-and-tube heat exchangers with segmental baffles (STHX-SB) have
many advantages such as easy manufacture, convenient installation and
flexible disassembly. However, they have apparent disadvantages such
as serious pressure loss, flow stagnant zones and large pump power
consumption. Moreover, the shell-side zigzag flow pattern induces tube
bundle vibration and shortens the working time of the STHX-SB.
To overcome the drawbacks of the traditional STHX-SB mentioned
above, a great number of researchers have proposed many structures,
such as rod baffle [2], double segmental baffle [3], louver baffles [4],
flower-like baffle [5,6] and helical baffle [7–11]. All these new struc-
tures aimed to augment heat transfer and decrease power consumption.
Researchers attempted to change the shell-side zigzag flow pattern and
replace the traditional STHX-SB. However, it is still impossible to adopt
one kind of STHX to all practical fields, because few STHX can meet all
different requirements. Each type of STHX has special advantages or
disadvantages, so many researchers tried to develop new heat transfer
technology and propose new structures.
El-Said et al. [12] proposed new segmental baffles configurations in

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zengmin@mail.xjtu.edu.cn (M. Zeng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.114099
Received 9 January 2019; Received in revised form 4 June 2019; Accepted 7 July 2019
Available online 13 July 2019
1359-4311/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Chen, et al.
Nomenclature
A heat transfer area (m2)
cp specific heat capacity (kJ·kg−1 ·K−1)
D diameter of shell (m)
d diameter of tube (m)
h heat transfer coefficient (W·m−2·K−1)
K overall heat transfer coefficient (W·m−2·K−1)
L effective length of tube (m)
m mass flow rate (kg·s−1)
P pressure (Pa)
T temperature (K)
u velocity (m·s−1)
Greek symbols
Δ difference
λ thermal conductivity (W·m−1·K−1)
ρ density (kg·m−3)
the STHX, and presented an experiment study about the thermo-
dynamic performance and the flow resistance of shell-and-tube heat
exchangers. Lutcha and Nemcansky [7] proposed a new style baffle
called helical baffle, which is benefit to augment the heat transfer in
shell side. Stehlik and Kral et al. [8] further studied the heat exchanger
with helical baffles. They experimentally investigated the heat transfer
and flow performance of the heat exchangers with different helix angle
baffles. It was found that the shell-and-tube heat exchangers with helix
angle of 40°demonstrated the best comprehensive heat transfer and
pressure drop performance. Andrews and Master [13,14] made a 3D
model simulation work for the STHX-HB, and the results showed that
the shell-side fluid flow manner became more similar to a plug pattern
by increasing the helix angles. Zhang et al. [15] experimentally in-
vestigated the characteristics of shell-and-tube oil cooler with over-
lapped helical baffles and also compared to the STHX-SB. The experi-
mental results found that the shell-side pressure drop of the STHX-HB
was significantly decreased but the shell-side heat transfer coefficient
was also lower than that of the STHX-SB. Saeedan et al. [16] used the
method of neural network to seek the optimum helix angle and baffle
axial overlap for the STHX-HB. And they obtained 38 optimal cases by
using the neural network and performing optimization. Maakoul et al.
Fig. 1. Unilateral ladder type helical baffles in Ref. [28]. (a) U-tube heat exchanger; (b) Helical baffles.
2
Applied Thermal Engineering 161 (2019) 114099
Subscript
i tube-side
s shell-side
in inlet
out outlet
w wall
Abbreviation
STHX shell-and-tube heat exchanger
STHX-CHB shell-and-tube heat exchanger with continuous helical
baffles
STHX-ULHB shell-and-tube heat exchanger with unilateral ladder
type helical baffles
STHX-HB shell-and-tube heat exchanger with helical baffles
STHX-SB shell-and-tube heat exchanger with segmental baffles
[17] studied the performance of the STHX with trefoil-hole, helical and
segmental baffles and found that the helical baffle had higher thermo-
hydraulic performance while the trefoil-hole baffle had a higher heat
transfer performance with large pressure drop compared to the seg-
mental baffle.
Except to above studies on non-continuous helical baffles, in order
to improve the shell-side triangular leakage zones and the central
leakage zones in original STHX-HB many other researches have also
been carried out. Wang et al. [18–23] invented the new type continuous
helical baffles to overcome the drawbacks caused by the non-con-
tinuous helical baffle in the STHXs. Chen et al. [24,25] proposed the
shell-and-tube heat exchangers with combined helical baffles and the
combined multiple shell-pass shell-and-tube heat exchangers with
continuous helical baffles. And they did systematical work about the
integrated flow and heat transfer characteristics of the STHX-CHB. Ji
et al. [26] designed a double shell-pass shell-and-tube heat exchanger
with continuous helical baffles (STHX-CHB), and it was found that the
structure improved the shell-side performance of the pressure drop and
the heat transfer coefficient. Chen et al. [27] presented an experimental
investigation about the shell-and-tube heat exchanger with different
incline angles trisection helical. The results showed that the shell-side
J. Chen, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 161 (2019) 114099

heat transfer coefficient, the pressure drop and the comprehensive heats water in the expansion tank, then the hot water fills the pipes and
index decreased with the increase of the baffle incline angle. Chen et al. goes through the heat exchanger. The hot water is driven by a pump to
[28] proposed a heat exchanger with helical baffles that structure go through the shell-side flow channel, and then it conducts heat ex-
consisted of unilateral ladder type helical baffles (Fig. 1). The numerical change process with the cooling water in the tube. After been cooled by
results found that it had enhanced heat transfer and reduced the flow the cooling water in the tubes, the hot water returns to the water tank
resistance due to the spiral flow pattern compared with the traditional and is still heated by the electrical heater for next continuous cycle. For
STHX-HB. However, this structure has just been numerical investigated the cooling water cycle, the cooling water is from the water tank and is
for a U-tube heat exchanger. driven by the pump into the heat exchanger. It goes through the tube
Although the computation fluid dynamic (CFD) method was used to bundle of testing heat exchangers. After that, the heated water of the
seek the heat transfer enhancement technology, the numerical simula- tube-side is cooled down by the air cooling tower and returns to the
tion method also plays a significant role in exploring how structure water tank for being reused. The volume flow rate of the hot water and
factors affect the performance of the flow and heat transfer of a heat the cooling water are adjusted by the solenoid valve located in the
exchanger. Some researchers adopted the 3D CFD method to per- water loop. Moreover, in the experiment system, the inlet hot water
forming the numerical simulation of various heat exchangers with dif- temperature is controlled within 50 °C in all the testing cases. That is
ferent baffles. However, the experimental method is the crucial and aim to reduce the deviation of physical property and to get accurate
reliable method to investigate a heat exchanger. The experimental experimental data for calculation.
study is still an indispensable step and a key link of a new type of heat The measuring system includes data acquisition equipment and
exchanger from design to industrial application. Moreover, experi-
mental researches of the heat exchangers are significant and useful
resource of data for the design of shell-and-tube heat exchangers.
From the above review, to overcome the disadvantages of the ori-
ginal segmental baffle and replace the conventional STHX-SB, unilateral
ladder type helical baffle is a worthwhile attempt and an important
alternative for heat transfer enhancement. There is little experimental
study on the STHX-ULHB. Many fundamental problems about STHX- (a)
ULHB are still un-resolved in open references. In this study, a novel
structure of shell-and-tube heat exchanger with unilateral ladder type Baffle 1
helical baffles is proposed (Fig. 2). The unilateral ladder type helical
baffles consist of two parts, baffle 1 and baffle 2 (shown Fig. 2b), which
are equal semicircular from a complete circle plate. And the angle be-
tween baffle 1 and baffle 2 is 45° (shown in Fig. 2c). The novel STHX-
ULHB has two advantages compared with the traditional structure in
Fig. 1. Firstly, the arc-shaped baffle replaces the rectangular plat baffle,
so it can improve triangular leakage zones and the central leakage zones Baffle 2
in the inner of the STHX, and it can also augment the heat transfer
performance. Secondly, the joint of two arc-shape baffles is welded (b)
which replaces the tie rods, so the structure is more compact and easier
for manufacture. In the shell side, the folded trip baffles and segmental
baffles are combined together with a certain angle. The margin of the
folded trip baffles is arc-shaped, so the folded baffle and the segmental
baffle can fit the cylindrical shell. With this unique shell-side structure 45°
and flow channel, the shell-side fluid flow can be induced to go through
in a spiral flow pattern which is quite different from the zigzag manner
of the traditional segmental baffles. And the spiral flow form can extend
the life spans of the heat exchanger by reducing the vibration of tube 175mm
bundle. Moreover, the novel unilateral ladder type helical baffle is
continuous and overcomes the leakage flow caused by discontinuous
helical baffle. In order to analyze the shell-side pressure drop and heat 175mm
transfer characteristics of the structure of the STHX-ULHB, a water-
water heat transfer experiment is designed and carried out. And the
new structure of STHX-ULHB and the traditional STHX-SB are also
experimentally investigated and compared.
(c)
2. Experiment system and procedure

Table 1 shows the geometric structure parameters of the STHX-

ULHB and the STHX-SB. Fig. 2 shows the physical model of the STHX-
ULHB. Fig. 3 represents the photo of tube bundles of the STHX-ULHB,
and it shows the real objects of the tube bundles in the processing
workshop. Fig. 4 shows the overall structure of the STHX-ULHB after
being processed.
The experimental system schematic is shown in Fig. 5. The experi- (d)
mental system consists of three parts namely the hot water cycle, the
cooling water cycle and the measurement system. Municipal water goes Fig. 2. Physical model of the heat exchanger with unilateral ladder type baffles
through the tube bundle, and the hot water flows in the shell side of the (STHX-ULHB). (a) Schematic diagram of unilateral ladder type heliacal baffles;
testing heat exchanger. For the hot water cycle, the electrical heater (b) (c) zoom view of normal scheme; (d) left sectional view of scheme.

3
J. Chen, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 161 (2019) 114099

Table 1 3. Experimental data reduction

Structure parameters of the STHX-ULHB and the STHX-SB.
Item STHX-ULHB STHX-SB 3.1. Overall heat transfer coefficient K

Shell side parameters The average heat transfer rate is defined as:
Do/Di/mm 159/144 159/144
Material Stainless steel Stainless steel Φ=(Φs +Φt )/2 (1)
Tube parameters
do/di/mm 16/15 16/15 The heat transfer rate of shell-side fluid is:
Effective length/mm 1051 1051
Φs =Ms ·c p,s ·(t s,in − t s,out) (2)
Number 19 19
Layout pattern 30° 30° The heat transfer rate of tube-side fluid is:
Material Stainless steel Stainless steel
Baffles parameters Φt =Mt ·c p,s ·(t s,in − t s,out) (3)
Thickness/mm 5 5
Number 12 12 The heat balance deviation in percent is defined as
Baffle spacing/mm 175 87.5
Baffle cut 50% 30% |Φs −Φt |
ε= × 100\%
Φ (4)
The inlet temperature and the outlet temperature of the hot water in
the shell are represented by ts,in and ts,out , respectively; and the inlet
temperature and the outlet temperature of the cooling water in the shell
are represented by tt,in and tt,out respectively. The specific heat capacity
of the hot water and the cooling water are represented by cp,s and cp,t,
respectively; Ms and Mt are the mass flow rate of the shell-side and the
tube-side fluid. During the test, the heat balance deviation between the
hot water and the cooling water should be less than 5.0%. In order to
determine the thermodynamic and transport property of the hot water
and cooling water, the average temperature of the inlet and outlet is
used as the reference temperature is.
The overall heat transfer coefficient K is defined as:
Φ
K=
AΔt (5)

A = Nt ·π·d o ·ltc (6)

Fig. 3. Photo of tube bundles of the heat exchanger with unilateral ladder type Δ t= F·Δt m (7)
baffles (STHX-ULHB). A is the heat exchange area based on the outer diameter of tubes do.
Nt is the number of tubes and ltc is the length of the tube. F is the
correction factor, and Δtm is the logarithmic mean temperature differ-
ence.

3.2. Shell-side heat transfer coefficient hs

The shell-side heat transfer coefficient hs is:

1
hs =
1
K
−
1 do
hi di
−
do
2λw
ln ( )
do
di (8)

λi 0.8 0.4
hi = 0.023 Re Pr
di (9)
The Nusselt number is:
hs d o
Nu =
Fig. 4. Photo of the heat exchanger with unilateral ladder type baffles (STHX- λ (10)
ULHB). where hs is the shell-side heat transfer coefficient, hi is the tube-side
heat transfer coefficient, di is the inner diameter of the tubes and do is
testing instructs. The pressure drop ΔP, the temperature t and the vo- the outer diameter of the tubes. λw is the thermal conductivity coeffi-
lume flow rate V are measured and automatically recorded by this cient of the tube. λ is the thermal conductivity coefficient of the fluid.
system. All instruments are shown in Table. 2. In addition, pressure
drop transducers measure both the ΔP12 and the ΔP34 (Fig. 6). The 3.3. Shell-side resistance coefficient f
overall shell-side pressure drop, ΔP12, measures the total pressure drop
of the shell-side structure of the STHX-ULHB. And it includes pressure The shell-side resistance coefficient f is defined as:
drops of inlet and outlet sudden change in the STHX-ULHB and the tube 2ΔP12 do
bundle zone pressure drop ΔP34. The tube bundle zone pressure drop f=
ρs u2lt (11)
denotes by ΔP34, which only includes the pressure drop between cross
section 3 and cross section 4. m
u=
ρs Am (12)

4
J. Chen, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 161 (2019) 114099

1. Cooling Tower 2. Water Tank 3. Water Tank 4. Cooling Water Pump 5. Hot Water Pump 6.
Heater 7. Test Section 8. Data Acquisition System
Fig. 5. Schematic drawing of the experimental system.

Table 2 represented by Am. The inner diameter of the shell is represented by Di.
The test range and accuracy of instruments. Ds is the diameter of the tube-bundle circumscribed circle. Dm is dia-
Instruments Function Specification
meter of the central tube. The shell-side resistance coefficient f reflects
the influence of the shell-side structure on flow resistance character-
Turbine flowmeter Volume flow rate of fluid Type:LWZ-32 istics, ν is the kinematic viscosity of the fluid.
measurement
Range:2–20 m3/h
Accuracy:1.0% 3.4. Experimental uncertainty analysis
Platinum resistance Fluid temperature Type:Pt100
thermometer measurement The uncertainties of the experimental data are calculated with the
Range:-100-200℃
Accuracy:
method described in the study of Kline and McClintock [29]. The un-
Different pressure Measure the pressure Type:Rosemount 3051 certainty calculation method involves calculating derivatives of the
transmitter difference on both sides of Range:0–62 kPa desired variable with respect to individual experimental quantities and
the liquid Accuracy:0.25% applying known uncertainties mentioned above. According to their
Keithley data acquisition Acquisition, display and Type:3700
research, the experimental uncertainty is calculated based on Eq. (16).
system output the measured
physical quantity 2 2 2
Type:7708 ΔR = ⎛ ∂R Δx1⎞ + ⎛ ∂R Δx2⎞ +⋯+⎛ ∂R Δxn⎞
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟

Stabilized voltage supply Provide 24 VDC voltage for
measuring instruments
Range:0–24 V ⎝ ∂x1 ⎠ ⎝ ∂x2 ⎠ ⎝ ∂xn ⎠ (16)
where R = R (x1、x2、x3… xn) and xn are the variables that affect the
result of R. ΔR is determines by the variable x and contributes to the
experimental uncertainty The results of maximum uncertainties of the
physical parameters are shown in Table 3.

4. Experimental results and discussion

4.1. Data validation

In this study, in order to validate the accuracy of the experimental

Fig. 6. The pressure drop test profile arrangement.
For the unilateral ladder type helical baffle:
(Ds − Dm ) ⎤
Am, novel = 0.5Hb ⎡ (Di − Ds ) + (pt − do )
⎢ pt ⎥ (13)
⎣ ⎦
For the segmental baffle:
(Ds − Dm ) ⎤
Am, original = 0.5Hb ⎡ (Di − Ds ) + (pt − do )
⎢ pt ⎥ (14)
⎣ ⎦
The shell-side Reynolds number Res is defined as:
system, it is firstly conducted for the performance of the flow and heat
transfer of the STHX-SB. The data about the flow and pressure drop
measurement in this experimental study is compared with the results
predicted by the Bell-Delaware method [30], which is widely used in
engineering. It is found from Fig. 7 that the maximal deviation of the
heat transfer coefficient between the present experimental results and
the data of Bell-Delaware method is within 17% in shell-side. As shown
in Fig. 8, the maximal deviation of the drop pressure is 9% in shell-side.
Thus it is demonstrated that the experiment system and the data re-
duction method are reliable.
Table 3
Experimental uncertainty analysis results.
Uncertainty item Value Uncertainty item Value

udo M 6.8% Nu 7.8%

Res =
ν (15) hs 7.3% f 8.7%
ΔP 8.4% K 7.1%
where the length of tubes is represented by lt and the overall pressure Res 6.6%
drop in shell-side is represented ΔP12. The minimum transverse area is

5
J. Chen, et al.
Fig. 7. Shell-side heat transfer coefficient hs of experimental results versus that
of the Bell-Delaware method calculation results.
Fig. 8. Pressure drop of experimental results versus that of the Bell-Delaware
method calculated results.
4.2. Comparison of pressure drop performance
The variation of the shell-side total pressure drop ΔP12 and the tube-
bundle pressure drop ΔP34 versus the hot water volume flow rate are
demonstrated in Fig. 9. It can be clearly observed that the total pressure
drop ΔP12 and the tube-bundle pressure drop ΔP34 of the STHX-ULHB
are significantly lower than those of the STHX-SB under the same shell-
side flow rate. Compared with the STHX-SB, the overall shell-side
pressure drop ΔP12 of the STHX-ULHB decreases by 15.3–47.1% and the
tube-bundle pressure drop ΔP34 of the STHX-ULHB is down
12.1–45.9%. The segmental baffles and the zigzag flow pattern caused
significant pressure drop in the shell-side, which have been demon-
strated by various studies. It can be found from Fig. 10 that the flow
resistance coefficient f of STHX-ULHB is also obviously lower than that
of the STHX-SB, which is demonstrated that the novel structure baffles
have significant advantages in fluid flow performance.
4.3. Comparison of heat transfer performance
The overall heat transfer coefficient K is shown in Fig. 11 with the
hot water volume flow rate. And the shell-side heat transfer coefficient
6
Applied Thermal Engineering 161 (2019) 114099
hs v is represented in Fig. 12 with the hot water volume flow rate. From
the Figs. 11 and 12, as the hot water volume flow rate of the shell-side
grows, the overall heat transfer coefficient K and the shell-side heat
transfer coefficient hs both increase. It can be found that, under the
same hot water volume flow rate, both the overall heat transfer coef-
ficient K and the shell-side heat transfer coefficient hs of the STHX-
ULHB are much higher than that of the traditional STHX-SB. Under the
same operation conditions, the overall heat transfer coefficient K in-
creases by 5.2–22.5%, with an average value of 17.4%. While the shell-
side heat transfer coefficient hs of the STHX-ULHB increases by
9.3–25.5%, compared with the conventional STHX-SB. Moreover,
within the large volume flow rate, the overall heat transfer coefficient K
and the shell-side heat transfer coefficient hs of the STHX-ULHB in-
crease obviously.
The structure of unilateral ladder type helical baffles can induce a
spiral plug flow, which is accompanied with the complicated secondary
flow. So it can conduct better heat transfer performance. The spiral plug
flow induces the disturbance that is more violent than the zigzag pat-
tern of the segmental baffles. And the spiral plug flow pattern makes the
hot water participate in heat exchange with the cooling water more
fully in the STHX-ULHB. Hence under the same volume flow rate, the
overall heat transfer coefficient K and the shell-side heat transfers
coefficient hs of the STHX-ULHB are much superior to those of the
STHX-SB.
4.4. Comprehensive performance analysis and evaluation
The pressure drop ΔP and the shell-side heat transfer coefficient hs
are both critical parameters in the heat exchanger performance. Except
that, the integrated performance is also an important indicator for the
heat exchanger, so it is vital to compare the comprehensive perfor-
mance of the STHX-ULHB and the STHX-SB. The shell-side heat transfer
coefficient per unit pressure drop hs /ΔP is represented in Fig. 13 with
the shell-side hot water volume flow rate. At the same shell-side flow
rate, the hs /ΔP should be a more reasonable comparison criterion,
because the pressure drop of the heat exchangers ΔP is usually limited
in industrial applications. In this study, in order to investigate the in-
tegrated performance of the STHX-ULHB and the STHX-SB, the hs/ΔP is
introduced to analyze the comprehensive characteristic. From Fig. 13, It
can be found that the hs/ΔP of the STHX-ULHB is obviously higher than
that of the STHX-SB, and the STHX-ULHB are 51.9%-76.4% higher than
the STHX-SB. Based on the experimental results discussed above, it can
be easily found that the heat transfer capacity of the STHX-ULHB is
superior to that of the original STHX-SB at the same pressure drop.
Fig. 9. Pressure drop versus flow rate of shell side.
J. Chen, et al.
Fig. 10. Flow resistance coefficient f versus shell-side Reynolds number Res.
Fig. 11. Overall heat transfer coefficient K versus shell-side flow rate.
Fig. 12. Shell-side heat transfer coefficient hs versus shell-side flow rate.
7
Applied Thermal Engineering 161 (2019) 114099
Fig. 13. Shell-side heat transfer coefficient per unit pressure drop versus shell-
side flow rate.
Moreover, the structure of shell-side with unilateral ladder type helical
baffles can definitely save much pumping power at the equal heat
transfer capacity, comparing with the conventional segmental baffles.
In order to compare the integrative characteristics of the STHX-
ULHB and the STHX-SB, the thermal performance enhancement factor
(TEF) is adopted as a comparison index [31–33], which represents the
comparison value of the quantity of heat exchange among with dif-
ferent heat exchangers at an identical pumping power condition.
Nunovel
Nuoriginal
TEF = 1/3
⎛ fnovel ⎞
⎝ forignal ⎠ (17)
The variation trend of the data about TEF is shown in Fig. 14 with
the shell-side volume flow rate. The bigger the value of the TEF is, the
comprehensive performance of the novel heat exchanger is more aug-
mented. From Fig. 14, it can be easily found that the values of the TEFs
are all larger than 1.0, which are among 2.613–2.789. Compared with
the STHX-SB, the values of the TEF of the STHX-ULHB increase by
161.3–178.9%, with an average value of 171.2%. Thus, the integrative
performance of the STHX-ULHB is augmented significantly. And the
flow and the heat transfer characteristics are much better than the
Fig. 14. Thermal performance enhancement factor versus shell-side flow rate.
J. Chen, et al.
conventional STHX-SB.
5. Conclusions
A novel shell-and-tube heat exchanger with unilateral ladder type
helical baffles (STHX-ULHB) is proposed and experimentally in-
vestigated. The pressure drop and heat transfer characteristics of the
STHX-ULHB and the traditional STHX-SB are experimentally compared.
The comprehensive performance of the STHX-ULHB is also analyzed.
The main findings and results are summarized as follow.
(1) The unilateral ladder type helical baffles induce the spiral plug flow
in the STHX-ULHB, which avoid the serious pressure loss and im-
prove the stagnant flow zones. And thus these characteristics en-
hance the flow and heat transfer performance of the STHX-ULHB.
Under the same volume flow rate, the pressure drop of STHX-ULHB
is apparently decreased. The pressure drop of STHX-ULHB is de-
creased by 15.3–47.1% than that of segmental baffles, with an
average value of 33.4%. The overall heat transfer coefficient K and
the shell-side heat transfer coefficient hs of the heat exchanger are
all higher than that of the traditional heat exchanger with seg-
mental baffles. The overall heat transfer coefficient K increases by
5.2–22.5%, with an average value of 17.4%, and the shell-side heat
transfer coefficient hs increased by 9.3–25.5%.
(2) Under the same operating condition, the comprehensive perfor-
mance of the STHX-ULHB is superior to the STHX-SB. the index of
hs/ΔP is enhanced by 51.9%-76.4%. And the values of the TEF
range from 2.613 to 2.789, which demonstrates that the integrative
performance of STHX-ULHB is augmented by 161.3–178.9%, with
an average value of 171.2%.
(3) This study provides support of experimental data for possibly
practical applications in replacing the traditional heat exchanger
with segmental baffles in the future.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the key project of Intergovernmental
International Scientific and Technological Innovation Cooperation in
China under Grant No. 2018YFE0108900.
References
[1] B.I. Master, K.S. Chunangad, V. Pushpanathan, Fouling mitigation using helix
changer heat exchangers, Proceedings of the ECI conference on heat exchanger
fouling and cleaning: fundamentals and applications, Santa Fe, USA, 2003, pp.
317–322.
[2] C.C. Gentry, Rod baffle heat exchanger technology, Chem. Eng. Progr. 86 (1990)
48–57.
[3] R. Mukherjee, Effectively design shell-and-tube heat exchangers, Chem. Eng. Progr.
94 (1998) 21–37.
[4] Y.G. Lei, Design and performance analysis of the novel shell-and-tube heat ex-
changers with louver baffles, Appl. Therm. Eng. 125 (2017) 870–879.
[5] Y.S. Wang, Z.C. Liu, S.Y. Huang, Experimental investigation of shell and-tube heat
exchanger with a new type of baffles, Heat Mass Transf. 47 (2011) 833–839.
[6] Y.H. You, A.W. Fan, S.Y. Huang, Numerical modeling and experimental validation
of heat transfer and flow resistance on the shell side of a shell-and-tube heat ex-
changer with flower baffles, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 55 (2012) 7561–7569.
[7] J. Lutcha, J. Nemcansky, Performance improvement of tubular heat exchangers by
helical baffles, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 68 (1990) 263–270.
Applied Thermal Engineering 161 (2019) 114099
[8] P. Stehlik, J. Nemcansky, D. Karl, Comparison of correction factors for shell-and-
tube heat exchangers with segmental or helical baffles, Heat Transf. Eng. 15 (1994)
55–65.
[9] X. Xiao, L. Zhang, X. Li, Numerical investigation of helical baffles heat exchanger
with different Prandtl number fluids, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 62 (2013) 434–444.
[10] C. Dong, Y. Chen, J.F. Wu, Flow and heat transfer performances of helical baffle
heat exchangers with different baffle configurations, Appl. Therm. Eng. 80 (2015)
328–338.
[11] R.T. Azar, S. Khalilarya, S. Jafarmadar, Tube bundle replacement for segmental and
helical shell and tube heat exchangers: experimental test and economic analysis,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 62 (2014) 622–632.
[12] E.M.S. El-Said, M.M.A. Al-Sood, Shell and tube heat exchanger with new segmental
baffles configurations: A comparative experimental investigation, Appl. Therm.
Eng. 150 (2019) 803–810.
[13] M.J. Andrews, B.I. Master, 3-D modeling of the ABB lummus heat transfer Helix
changer using CFD, International Conference on Compact Heat Exchangers, Banff,
Canada, (1999).
[14] M.J. Andrews, B.I. Master, Three-dimensional modeling of a helix changer heat
exchanger using CFD, Heat Transf. Eng. 26 (2005) 22–31.
[15] J.F. Zhang, Y.L. He, W.Q. Tao, Experimental performance comparison of shell-and-
tube oil coolers with overlapped helical baffles and segmental baffles, Appl. Therm.
Eng. 58 (2013) 336–343.
[16] M. Saeedan, M. Bahiraei, Effects of geometrical parameters on hydrothermal
characteristics of shell-and-tube heat exchanger with helical baffles: Numerical
investigation, modeling and optimization, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 96 (2015) 43–53.
[17] A.E. Maakoul, A. Laknizi, S. Saadeddine, Numerical comparison of shell-side per-
formance for shell and tube heat exchangers with trefoil-hole, helical and segmental
baffles, Appl. Therm. Eng. 109 (2016) 175–185.
[18] Q.W. Wang, G.N. Xie, B.T. Peng, Experimental study and genetic-algorithm-based
correlation on shell-side heat transfer and flow performance of three different types
of shell-and-tube heat exchangers, ASME J. Heat Transf. 129 (9) (2007) 1277–1285.
[19] B.T. Peng, Q.W. Wang, M. Zeng, An experimental study of shell-and-tube heat ex-
changers with continuous helical baffles, ASME J. Heat Transf. 129 (10) (2007)
1425–1431.
[20] Q.W. Wang, Q.Y. Chen, G.D. Chen, Numerical investigation on combined multiple
shell-pass shell-and-tube heat exchangers with continuous helical baffles, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transf. 52 (2009) 1214–1222.
[21] Q.W. Wang, G.D. Chen, J. Xu, Second-law thermodynamic comparison and maximal
velocity ratio design of shell-and-tube heat exchangers with continuous helical
baffles, ASME J. Heat Transf. 132 (10) (2010) 101801–101810.
[22] Q.W. Wang, G.D. Chen, Q.Y. Chen, M. Zeng, Review of improvements on shell-and-
tube heat exchangers with helical baffles, Heat Transf. Eng. 31 (2010) 836–853.
[23] Q.W. Wang, G.D. Chen, M. Zeng, Shell-side heat transfer enhancement for shell-and-
tube heat exchangers by helical baffles, Chem. Eng. Transf. 21 (2010) 217–222.
[24] G.D. Chen, M. Zeng, Q.W. Wang, Numerical studies on combined parallel multiple
shell-pass shell-and-tube heat exchangers with continuous helical baffles, Chem.
Eng. Transf. 21 (2010) 229–234.
[25] G.D. Chen, M. Zeng, Q.W. Wang, Experimental and numerical studies on shell side
performance of three different shell-and-tube heat exchangers with helical baffles,
J. Enhan. Heat Transf. 18 (5) (2011) 449–463.
[26] S. Ji, W.J. Du, P. Wang, L. Cheng, Numerical investigation on double shell-pass
shell-and-tube heat exchanger with continuous helical baffles, J. Thermodyn.
(2011) 1–7.
[27] Y.P. Chen, W.H. Wang, J.F. Wu, Experimental investigation on performances of
trisection helical baffled heat exchangers for oil/water-water heat transfer, Energy
Convers. Manage. 101 (2015) 460–469.
[28] S.F. Yang, Y.P. Chen, J.F. Wu, Performance simulation on unilateral ladder type
helical baffle heat exchanger in half cylindrical space, Energy Convers. Manage. 150
(2017) 134–147.
[29] S.J. Kline, F.A. McClintock, Describing uncertainties in single-sample experiments,
Mech. Eng. 75 (1) (1953) 3–8.
[30] K.J. Bell, Final report of the cooperative research program on shell and tube heat
exchangers, University of Delaware Engineering Experimental Station, Newark
Delaware, 1963.
[31] R.L. Webb, Performance evaluation criteria for use of enhanced heat transfer sur-
faces in heat exchanger design, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 24 (1981) 715–726.
[32] P. Promvonge, N. Koolnapadol, M. Pimsarn, Thermal performance enhancement in
a heat exchanger tube fitted with inclined vortex rings, Appl. Therm. Eng. 62 (2014)
285–292.
[33] S.M. Wang, J. Wen, H. Yang, Experimental investigation on heat transfer en-
hancement of a heat exchanger with helical baffles through blockage of triangle
leakage zones, Appl. Therm. Eng. 67 (2014) 122–130.