Accepted Manuscript

CFD simulation study of shell and tube heat exchangers with different baffle
segment configurations

Ambekar Aniket Shrikant, R. Sivakumar, N. Anantharaman, M. Vivekenandan

PII: S1359-4311(16)31359-X
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.08.013
Reference: ATE 8812

To appear in: Applied Thermal Engineering

Received Date: 5 March 2016

Revised Date: 11 July 2016
Accepted Date: 2 August 2016

Please cite this article as: A.A. Shrikant, R. Sivakumar, N. Anantharaman, M. Vivekenandan, CFD simulation study
of shell and tube heat exchangers with different baffle segment configurations, Applied Thermal Engineering (2016),
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.08.013

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 1

CFD simulation study of shell and tube heat exchangers with different baffle segment
configurations

Ambekar Aniket Shrikant 1, R. Sivakumar2, N.Anantharaman3, M. Vivekenandan4,

1
M.Tech Student National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu, India
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Addis Ababa Science and Technology University, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia
3
Department of Chemical Engineering , National Institute of Technology,
Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu, India
4
Uttam Industrial Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu, India
1
meaniketambekar@gmail.com, Ph.+91 7598275439
2
ramalingam.sivakumar@gmail.com
3
naraman@nitt.edu
4
vivekbanu@gmail.com

Abstract

The aim of this article is to study the effects of different configurations of baffles in shell and
tube heat exchanger (STHX) on heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop. Baffles used in shell
and tube heat exchanger improve heat transfer and also result in increased pressure drop. Shell
and tube heat exchangers with single, double, triple segmental baffles, helical baffles and flower
baffle are designed and Fluid dynamic simulations are also carried out with SOLIDWORKS
Flow Simulation software (ver.2015). Simulation results showed that for same shell side mass
flow rate, Heat transfer coefficient, pressure drop and heat transfer rate are found to be maximum
with single segmental baffles. Almost zero stagnation zones are observed in helical baffles,
leading to reduction in fouling, and long operational lifetime as the flow induced vibration is
low. Flower ’A’ and Flower ’B’ type baffles also showed reduced stagnation zones.

Key words: - SOLIDWORKS flow simulation, Segmental baffles, Helical Baffles,

Flower Baffles, Heat transfer coefficient, Pressure drop.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
 2

For the past few decades, shell and tube exchangers are widely used in many engineering
applications, such as chemical engineering processes, power generation, petroleum refining,
refrigeration, air-conditioning, food industry, etc [1]. Shell and tube heat exchangers are
relatively simple to manufacture, and have multi-purpose application possibility when compared
with other types of Heat exchangers [2]. It is reported that more than 30% of the heat
exchangers in use are of the shell-and-tube type [3, 4].

Baffles play a significant role in Shell and tube heat exchanger (STHX) assembly. They provide
support for tubes, enable a desirable velocity to be maintained for the shell-side fluid flow, and
prevent the tubes from vibrating. Baffles also guide the shell-side flow to move forward across
the tube bundle, increasing fluid velocity and heat transfer coefficient. If one takes the most
commonly used single segmental baffles as an example, heat transfer is improved as the baffles
guide the shell side fluid to flow in a zigzag pattern between the tube bundle, which enhances the
turbulence intensity and the local mixing [5].

However, the single segmental baffles have some inherent defects since the structure has
some limitations:

(1) Fouling is formed in the stagnation zone near the shell wall and the rear of baffle
plates;

(2) Large pressure drop results from baffles’ impeding the fluid flow and the flow
separation occurs near the baffle edge. Hence higher pumping power is often needed to
offset the higher pressure drop under the same heat load;

(3) Significant bypass streams and leakage streams due to manufacturing tolerances;

(4) Short operational lifetime as a result of flow induced tube vibration [6, 7].

Therefore, it is necessary to investigate other baffles to lower the shell side pressure drop
and hence the operating cost of heat exchanger.

Bin Gao et al (2015) carried out experimental studies on discontinuous helical baffles at
different helical angles of 8 , 12 , 20 , 30 and 40 and reported that the performance of
baffle at 40o helix angle is the best among those tested [8].
 3

Sirous et al (2013) replaced segmental tube bundles by a bundle of tubes with helical
baffles in a shell and tube heat exchanger to reduce pressure drop and fouling and hence
reduce maintenance and operating cost in Tabriz Petroleum Company [9].

Farhad et al (2012) reported from simulation studies that for the same helix angle of 40 o
and same mass flow rate, heat transfer per unit area decreases with increase in baffle
space. However, for the same pressure drop, the most extended baffle space obtains
higher heat transfer. Pressure gradient decreases with increase in baffle space [10].

Yonghua et al (2012) developed a numerical model of STHX based on porosity and

permeability considering turbulence kinetic energy and its dissipation rate. The
numerical model was solved over a range of Re from 6813 to 22,326 for the shell side of
a STHX with flower baffles. Simulations results agreed with that of experiments with
error less than 15% [11].

Yingshuang et al (2011) carried out experimental investigations on flower baffled STHX

and the original segmental baffle STHX models and reported that the overall performance
of the flower baffled heat exchanger model is 20–30% more efficient than that of the
segmental baffle heat exchanger under same operating conditions [12].

Edward et al (1997) presented the procedure for evaluating the shell side pressure drop in
shell-and-tube heat exchangers with segmental baffles. The procedure is based on
correlations for calculating the pressure drop in an ideal tube bank coupled with
correction factors, which take into account the influence of leakage and bypass streams,
and on equations for calculating the pressure drop in a window section from the Delaware
method [13].

Young et al (2001) reported from simulation studies on STHX with helical baffles using
commercially available CFX4.2 codes and concluded that the performance of STHX with
helical baffles is superior to that of a conventional STHX. Fluid contacts with the tubes
flowing rotationally in the shell and hence reduced the stagnation zones in the shell side,
thereby improving heat transfer [14].

Awad et al (2012) reviewed and compiled the literature on Heat Exchangers. The
concepts of entropy generation minimization in Heat Exchangers to maximize their
 4

performance were studied by various researches were presented [15]. However, no report
was presented on simulation studies on STHX.

From literature review, it is observed that STHX with single segment baffles, helical
baffles with different helix angles, and flower baffles were studied and compared for
improving the performance. However, comparison of simulations has not been done with
same specification of STHX and input conditions with single, double, triple segmental
baffles, helical baffles and flower baffles. Hence the novel idea of to studying the effects
of different configurations of baffles such as single, double, triple segmental baffles,
helical baffles and flower baffles in shell and tube heat exchanger (STHX) on heat
transfer coefficient and pressure drop has been carried out.

2. DESIGN OF SHELL AND TUBE HEAT EXCHANGER

A STHX with different baffle geometries is designed [15, 16, 17] to study the effects of
variations in baffle geometry. A water-water 1-2 pass shell and tube heat exchanger is designed
considering the data in the following table 1. Figure 1 to 3 shows single, double and triple
segmental baffles respectively. Figure 4 and 5 shows flower-A and flower-B type baffles
respectively while Figure 6 shows the helical baffled STHX arrangement. Figure 7 shows the
2D view of the STHX designed.

Hot fluid is considered to flow in the shell as a thumb rule says fluid with low flow rate should
always be in shell side. A vice versa heat exchanger is also designed which is inferior with
respect to hot fluid shell side design. Thus, confirming the thumb rule.

2.1 CFD simulation of Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger

2.1.1 Physical Model

A commercially available CFD code (SOLIDWORKS FLOW SIMULATION- ver.2015)

has been used to carry out the numerical calculations for the studied geometries. A three
dimensional geometrical model of the problem with SOLIDWORKS software is used and Mesh
 5

generation is done. The physical model is presented in figure 7. 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 modelled as adiabatic. The
simulation is solved to predict the heat transfer and fluid flow characteristics by using k-ɛ
turbulence model.

2.1.2 Governing equations

For turbulent flow modelling, the k-ɛ turbulence model is adopted for calculation process.
The governing equations for continuity, momentum, energy, k and ɛ in the computational
domain are shown as follows:

Continuity:


u i  = 0 (1)
xi

Momentum:


ui u k  =    u k  P
  (2)
xi xi  xi  xi

Energy:

  t k 
xi
ui t =  
 x C 
 (3)
xi  i p 

Turbulent kinetic energy:

 k     
u i k   =

   t
 k
   Sk

(4)
xi t xi   k  xi 
 6

Turbulent dissipation energy:

      
u i    =

   t
 
   S

(5)
xi t xi     xi 

Where the source terms Sk and Sɛ are defined as

u i
S k =  ijR     t PB (6)
x j

 u   2
S  = C 1  f1 ijR i   t C B PB   C 2 f 2 (7)
 k x j  k


Here PB represents the turbulent generation due to buoyancy forces and can be written as

g i 1 
PB   (8)
 B  xi

where gi is the component of gravitational acceleration in direction xi, the constant

σB = 0.9, and constant CB is defined as: CB = 1 when PB > 0, and 0 otherwise;

3
 0.05 
f1  1    (9)
 f 
  


f 2  1  exp  RT2  (10)

The constants Cµ, Cɛ1, Cɛ2, σk, σɛ are defined empirically. In Flow Simulation the
following typical values are used:

Cµ = 0.09, Cɛ1 = 1.44, Cɛ2 = 1.92, σk = 1, σɛ = 1.3

Where Lewis number Le = 1 the diffusive heat flux is defined as:

 7

   h
qi    t  , i = 1, 2, 3. (11)
 Pr  c  xi

Here the constant σc = 0.9, Pr is the Prandtl number, and h is the thermal enthalpy.

These equations describe both laminar and turbulent flows. Moreover, transitions from
one case to another and back are possible. The parameters k and µt are zero for purely laminar
flows.

2.1.3 Conjugate Heat Transfer:

Flow Simulation allows predicting simultaneous heat transfer in solid and fluid media
with energy exchange between them. Heat transfer in fluids is described by the energy
conservation equation, where the heat flux is defined by the following equation. The
phenomenon of anisotropic heat conductivity in solid media is described by the following
equation:

e   T 
  i   QH (12)
t xi  xi 

where e is the specific internal energy, e = c·T, c is specific heat, Q H is specific heat
release (or absorption) per unit volume, and i are th1e eigen values of the thermal conductivity
tensor. It is supposed that the heat conductivity tensor is diagonal in the considered coordinate
system. For isotropic medium 1 = 2 = 3 = .

The energy exchange between the fluid and solid media is calculated via the heat flux in
the direction normal to the solid/fluid interface taking into account the solid surface temperature
and the fluid boundary layer characteristics, if necessary.

4.3 Boundary Conditions

1) Shell Side Inlet is set as Flow opening the mass flow rate varied from 0.1kg/s to 0.5kg/s for
different simulations and temperature is set to 363.15K.
 8

2) Tube Side Inlet is set to Flow opening the mass flow rate is set to 0.7533kg/s and the
temperature was set to 303.15K.

3) Both shell side and tube side are set as Pressure openings with pressure set to Atmospheric
Pressure.

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

CFD simulations of pressure, temperature and velocity profile in STHX with different baffle
configurations have been discussed. Overall heat transfer coefficient and heat transfer rate has
been compared to conclude the best design parameters.

3.1 Pressure variations with different baffle configurations in STHX

Figures 8 to 13 show the pressure variations within the STHX with single, double, triple, helical,
flower ‘A’ and flower ‘B’ type baffles respectively for a flow rate of 0.3kg/s on the shell side
and 0.7533kg/s on the tube side. It is observed from figure 8 to figure 13 that the pressure drop
of increasing order is as follows: 1. Flower ’A’ & Flower ’B’, 2. Helical baffle, 3. Double
segmental baffle, 4. triple segmental baffle 5. Single segmental baffle.

Single segmental baffles shows maximum pressure drop because of hairpin like turns the fluid
takes at the edge of the baffles. In flower ‘A’ or flower ‘B’ baffles the angle of turn of the stream
lines are reduced and hence the pressure drop is minimum.

3.2 Temperature variations with different baffle configurations in STHX

Figures 14 to 19 show the temperature variations within the STHX with single, double, triple,
helical, flower ‘A’ and flower ‘B’ type baffles respectively for a flow rate of 0.3kg/s on the shell
side. The following is the order of decreasing heat transfer and Overall heat transfer coefficient:

1. Single segmental baffles

2. Double segmental baffles

3. Flower ‘B’ baffles

4. Flower ‘A’ baffles

 9

5. Triple segmental baffle

6. Helical baffles

3.3 Velocity variations with different baffle configurations in STHX

Figures 20 to 25 show the velocity variations within the STHX with single, double, triple,
helical, flower ‘A’ and flower ‘B’ type baffles respectively for a flow rate of 0.3kg/s on the shell
side.

From figure 20, it is inferred that single segmental baffles enhance the heat transfer as they guide
the shell side fluid to flow in a zigzag pattern between the tube bundle, which enhances the
turbulence intensity and the local mixing. However, the single segmental baffles have some
inherent defects since the structure limitations, such as fouling in the stagnation zone near the
shell wall and the rear of baffle plates, significant bypass streams and leakage streams due to
manufacturing tolerances and short operational lifetime as a result of flow induced tube
vibration.

From figure 21, it is inferred that double segmental baffles guide the shell side fluid to flow in
two zigzag patterns between the tube bundle, which enhances the turbulence intensity and the
local mixing. These two zigzag patterns are less vigorous in nature as compared to the single
zigzag pattern created by single segmental baffles. Thus, the turbulent intensity is not as high as
produced by single segmental baffle. However, the double segmental baffles also have some
inherent defects as that in single segmental baffles. But it has greater operational lifetime
compared to single segmental baffles as flow induced vibrations are low in this case.

From figure 22, it is inferred that triple segmental baffles guide the shell side fluid to flow in a
zigzag pattern between the tube bundle, which enhances the turbulence intensity and the local
mixing when compared to an un-baffled heat exchanger. It is evident from the flow profile that
eddies are created which affect the performance of the heat exchanger adversely. The turbulence
intensity is almost equal to that created by double segmental baffles. The triple segmental
baffles also have some other as that in single segmental baffles.
 10

From figure 23, it is inferred that helical baffles augment heat transfer as they guide the shell side
fluid to flow in a spiral pattern between the tube bundle, which enhances the turbulence intensity
and the local mixing. This spiral pattern leads to reduction in pressure drop, almost zero
stagnation zones leading to reduction in fouling, and long operational lifetime as the flow
induced vibration is low.

From figure 24, it is inferred that the fluid velocity magnitude on the shell side changes
periodically in the central part of the flower ‘A’ baffled heat exchanger. When the fluid passes a
baffle, it is firstly accelerated rapidly and then flows across the breaches with large velocity.
After rushing out of the breaches, the fluid is expanded suddenly and the velocity is decreased
gradually. This periodic flow pattern is caused by the periodic changes of flow area which is
induced by arrangement of flower baffles. Moreover, it is also noticed that in the downstream
just behind a baffle, two recirculation flow regions are generated, where the velocity magnitude
is very small.

From figure 25, it is inferred that the flow pattern created is similar to that created by flower ‘A’
baffle, except that more stream lines are observed in flower ‘A’ baffles when compared with
flower ‘B’ baffles and hence lesser is the stagnation zone in flower ‘A’ when compared with
flower ‘B’ baffle.

3.4 Pressure drop variations with change in mass flow rate:

Figure 26 shows the variation in shell side pressure drop for different baffle configurations. The
slope of the pressure drop is found to increase with increase in mass flow rate. More the mass
flow rate, steeper is the curve profile. Single segmental baffles show the highest pressure drop
while flower ‘A’ type baffles show minimum Pressure drop.

3.5 Variations in Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient with change in mass flow rate:

Figure 27 shows the variation in Overall heat transfer coefficient for different baffle
configurations. The slope of the curves is generally found to decrease with increase in shell side
mass flow rate. Single segmental baffles show the highest Overall heat transfer coefficient while
helical baffles show slowest Overall heat transfer coefficient.
 11

CONCLUSIONS

CFD simulation studies on Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger has been carried with single, double,
triple, helical, flower ‘A’ type, and flower ‘B’ type baffle configurations. The following are the
conclusions arrived from these simulation studies:

 Single Segmental Baffles provide good Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient but with large
Pressure Drop and thus consume large pumping power.

 Double Segmented Baffles can be used instead of Single segmented baffles wherever a
small compromise with outlet Temperature is feasible as the pressure drop will reduce by
25%-30%, leading to equivalent Energy Savings.

 Helical Baffles are effective as the Pressure Drop is reduced by 30%-35% as compared to
Single Segmented Baffles. But the Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient decrease by
approximately 40%. This states that 40% more tubes should be added to take care of the
necessary heat transfer area required to achieve the temperature gradient. In this case
retrofitting may not be possible but, in case of adding a new heat exchanger use of helical
baffles may be justified based on economics.

 Triple Segmented Baffles are inefficient to this configuration.

 Flower Baffles are the most effective baffles as they reduce the pressure Drop by 25% -
35% while the Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient is lowered to 30% -35% of that
produced with single segmental baffles.

 Flower ‘B’ Baffles are more effective than Flower ‘A’ Baffles as they reduce the Pressure
Drop to the same extent as that of Flower ‘A’ baffles but with a better thermal
performance associated.
 12

RFERENCES

[1] B.Sunden, Computational fluid dynamics in research and design of heat exchangers,
Heat Transfer Eng 28 (2007) 898–910.
[2] B.I. Master, K.S. Chunangad, A.J. Boxma, D. Kral, P. Stehlík, Most frequently used
heat exchangers from pioneering research to worldwide applications, Heat Transfer Eng.
27 (6) (2006) 4–11.
[3] K.J. Bell, Heat exchanger design for the process industries, transactions of the ASME,
Trans. ASME J. Heat Transfer 126 (6) (2004) 877–885.
[4] B.B. Gulyani, Estimating number of shells in shell and tube heat exchangers: a new
approach based on temperature cross, Trans. ASME J. Heat Transfer 122 (3) (2000)
566–571.
[5] L. Huadong, V. Kottke, Effect of baffle spacing on pressure drop and local heat transfer
in shell-and-tube heat exchangers for staggered tube arrangement, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer 41 (1998) 1303–1311.
[6] P. Stehlik, J. Nemcansky, D. Kral, L.W. Swanson, Comparison of correction factors for
shell-and-tube heat exchangers with segmental or helical baffles, Heat Transfer Eng. 15
(1994) 55–65.
[7] Q.W. Wang, Q.Y. Chen, G.D. Chen, M. Zeng, Numerical investigation on combined
multiple shell-pass shell-and-tube heat exchanger with continuous helical baffles, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transfer 52 (5–6) (2009) 1214–1222.
[8] Bin Gao, Qincheng Bi, Zesen Nie, Jiangbo Wu, Experimental study of effects of baffle
helix angle on shell-side performance of shell-and-tube heat exchangers with
discontinuous helical baffles, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 68 (2015) 48–57.
[9] Sirous Zeyninejad Movassag, Farhad Nemati Taher, Kazem Razmi, Reza Tasouji Azar,
Tube bundle replacement for segmental and helical shell and tube heat exchangers:
Performance comparison and fouling investigation on the shell side, Applied Thermal
Engineering 51 (2013) 1162-1169.
 13

[10] Farhad Nemati Taher, Sirous Zeyninejad Movassag, Kazem Razmi, Reza Tasouji
Azar, Baffle space impact on the performance of helical baffle shell and tube heat
exchangers, Applied Thermal Engineering 44 (2012) 143-149.
[11] Yonghua You, Aiwu Fan, Suyi Huang, Wei Liu, Numerical modeling and
experimental validation of heat transfer and flow resistance on the shell side of a shell-
and-tube heat exchanger with flower baffles, International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer 55 (2012) 7561–7569.
[12] Yingshuang Wang, Zhichun Liu, Suyi Huang, Wei Liu, Weiwei Li, Experimental
investigation of shell-and-tube heat exchanger with a new type of baffles, Heat and Mass
Transfer 47 (2011) 833–839.
[13] Edward S. Gaddis, Volker Gnielinski, Pressure drop on the shell side of shell-and-
tube heat exchangers with segmental baffles, Chemical Engineering and Processing 36
(1997) 149-159.
[14] Young-Seok Son, Jee-Young Shin, Performance of a shell-and-tube heat
exchanger with spiral baffle plates, KSME International Journal, Volume
15, Issue 11, (2001) 1555-1562.
[15] D. Gaddis, editor. Standards of the Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers
Association, Tarrytown (NY): TEMA Inc.; (2007).
[16] DQ Kern, Process heat transfer, New York (NY): McGraw-Hill; (1950).
[17] J. Taborek, Thermal and hydraulic design of heat exchangers, In: Hewitt GF, editor.
Heat exchangers design handbook, vol. 3. New York: Begell House Inc.; (2002)
[18] FLUENT 6.2 user’s guide, FLUENT Inc., 2005, Section 11.10.2.
[19]

Nomenclature

A Area.

As Cross Flow Area.

 14

B Baffle Spacing.

C Specific Heat Capacity.

Db Bundle Diameter.

Di Inside diameter of shell.

Ds Outside diameter of shell.

de Equivalent Diameter.

di Inside diameter of tube.

do Outside diameter of tube.

F Fouling Factor.

Ft Log Mean Temperature Difference Correction Factor.

h Enthalpy.

hi Tube side Film Heat Transfer Coefficient.

hs Shell side Film Heat Transfer Coefficient.

Jf Friction Factor.

Jh Heat Transfer Factor.

k Thermal Conductivity, Turbulent kinetic energy.

L Length.

m Mass Flow Rate.

N Number of tubes.

Np Number of tube side passes.

Pin Pressure at inlet of the shell.

Pout Pressure at outlet of the shell.

∆P Pressure Drop.
 15

Pt Pitch.

Q Heat Load.

TCI Tube side fluid inlet temperature.

TCO Tube side fluid outlet temperature.

THI Shell side fluid inlet temperature.

THO Shell side fluid outlet temperature.

∆Tlm Log Mean Temperature Difference.

t Time.

U Overall Heat Transfer Coeifficient.

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.

 16

Figure 1 Single Segmental Baffle

Figure 2 Double Segmental Baffle

 17

Figure 3 Triple Segmental Baffle

Figure 4 Flower ‘A’ Baffles

 18

Figure 5 Flower ‘B’ Baffles

Figure 6 3D view of Helical baffled U-tube Heat Exchanger

Figure 7 2D view of the Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger designed

 19

Figure 8 Pressure variations in STHX with single segmental baffles

Figure 9 Pressure variation in STHX with double segmental baffles

 20

Figure 10 Pressure variations in STHX with triple segmental baffles

Figure 11 Pressure variations in STHX with helical baffles

 21

Figure 12 Pressure variations in STHX with Flower ‘A’ baffles

Figure 13 Pressure variations in STHX with Flower ‘B’ baffles

 22

Figure 14 Temperature variations in STHX with Single segmental baffles

Figure 15 Temperature variations in STHX with Double segmental baffles

 23

Figure 16 Temperature variations in STHX with Triple segmental baffles

Figure 17 Temperature variation in STHX with helical baffles

 24

Figure 18 Temperature variations in STHX with Flower ‘A’ baffles

Figure 19 Temperature variations in STHX with Flower ‘B’ baffles

 25

Figure 20 Velocity variations in STHX with single segmental baffles

Figure 21 Velocity variations in STHX with double segmental baffles

 26

Figure 22 Velocity variations in STHX with triple segmental baffles

Figure 23 Velocity variations in STHX with helical baffles

 27

Figure 24 Velocity variations in STHX with Flower ‘A’ baffles

Figure 25 Velocity variations in STHX with Flower ‘B’ baffles

 28

Figure 26 Shell Side Pressure Drop vs. Shell Side Flow Rate
 29

Figure 27 Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient vs. Shell Side Flow Rate
 30

Table1:-Data for design of Shell and tube heat exchanger

Shell Side Fluid-Hot Water

Property Unit Value
THI 90
THO 70
3
Density kg/m 971.8
Specific Heat Capacity kJ/kgK 4.1963
Viscosity mPas 0.354
Conductivity W/mK 0.67
Fouling Factor m2K/W 0.0002
Flow Rate kg/s 0.3
Tube Side Fluid-Cold Water
TCI 30
TCO 38
3
Density kg/m 984
Specific Heat Capacity kJ/kgK 4.178
Viscosity mPas 0.725
Conductivity W/mK 0.623
Fouling Factor m2K/W 0.0002
Flow Rate kg/s 0.7533
 31

HIGHLIGHTS

 Double Segmented Baffles is preferred to Single segmented baffles with lesser outlet
temperature to reduce by 25%-30% pressure drop.

 Helical Baffles show 30%-35% reduced pressure drop and 40 % decreased overall heat
transfer coefficient than Single Segmented Baffles.

 Triple Segmented Baffles are inefficient.

 Flower Baffles reduce the pressure Drop by 25% - 35% while the Overall Heat Transfer
Coefficient is lowered by 30% -35% than single segmental baffles.

 Flower ‘B’ baffles perform better than Flower ‘A’.