Proceedings of the ASME 2011 Pressure Vessels & Piping Division Conference

PVP2011
July 17-21, 2011, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Proceedings of the ASME 2011 Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference
PVP2011
July 17-21, 2011, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

PVP2011-57867
PVP2011-57867

Design by Finite Element Analysis on Tubesheet of

Heat Exchanger with a Central Hole

Li Guo Zhao Jianping

Nanjing University of Technology Nanjing University of Technology
Nanjing, Jiangsu, China Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

ABSTRACT
As one of major components of heat exchanger, tubesheet
is of paramount importance to enhance the safety of heat
exchanger whether its design is reasonable. As the diversity of
the heat exchangers’ operating condition, structures of
tubesheets also become very special. A fixed tubesheet heat
exchanger with a central pipe whose diameter is greater than
other heat exchanger tubes is presented in this paper. A central
hole in tubesheet will weaken the stiffness and intensity of the
tubesheet and cause local stress concentration along the central
hole’s edge. However, there is no design method for this kind of
tubesheet with a central hole and it is unable to be calculated
using various international standards available. In this paper,
finite element analysis code ANSYS is used to simulate the real
complex structure, real loads and boundary conditions of the
tubesheet so that the design problem can be visualized. The
three-dimensional finite element model of the tubesheet is built
considering the influence of tube channel, partial shell and heat
transfer tube bundle. The different pressure in shell-side and
tube-side will cause the mechanical stress. The temperature
gradient exists widely and the tubesheet, shell as well as heat
transfer tubes can’t transform freely. Therefore, there may exists
high thermal stress due to the high temperature difference in
shell-side and tube-side. The thermal stress has great impact on
the total stress distribution. So the simulation of the temperature
field is very important. By means of thermal analysis coupling
with structure analysis, the distribution of temperature, stress
and deformation is obtained. Through evaluating the stress
intensity of the tubesheet, it is found that the dangerous region is
located at the edge of the tube distribution region and local
stress concentration along the edge of the central hole is not
obvious. The result shows that the tubesheet is appropriately
designed and the design by finite element analysis method is
feasible. This paper provides a solution for this kind of
structure's analysis design in engineering application.
INTRODUCTION
The stress of tubesheet is the most complex in components
of heat exchangers. A complicated elastic system is constituted
by the tubesheet connecting with shell, tube bundle and tube
channel. It is very difficult to obtain the precise strength
calculation results. For this reason, an appropriate design
method for tubesheet is important to enhance the safety of heat
exchanger. So far, many design codes has been developed in
different countries, such as ASME code Ⅷ [1], TEMA standard
[2] and GB151 standard [3]. But they are all used in a certain
applicable scope. Due to the diversity of the operating
conditions, a fixed tubesheet heat exchanger with a central pipe
whose diameter is significantly greater than other heat
exchanger tubes is presented. This paper analyses the tubesheet
of a waste heat boiler whose integral structure configuration is
mentioned above. Figure 1 shows schematic diagram of the
tubesheet with a central hole. The central bypass pipe
connecting the two tubesheets is used to make the process
successive when the medium flow is large. This new type
structure has extensive prospect. However, a central hole in
tubesheet will weaken the stiffness and intensity of the tubesheet
and cause local stress concentration along the edge of the central
hole, and there is no design method for this kind of tubesheet
using various international standards available. Xue [4]
considered the central pipe only had great influence on
tubesheet stress near itself and the influence region was small.
But, this method is not accepted by any standard so it can’t be
used to solve engineering problems directly. Besides, elastic
plate theory can’t exactly simulate the temperature field.
In this paper, finite element analysis method [5] is applied
to design the special tubesheet. Finite element analysis code
ANSYS is playing more and more important role in designing
of pressure vessel. This paper builds an appropriate finite
element model to simulate the actually complex structure, loads
and boundary conditions. Thermal analysis coupling with
structure analysis is done orderly.

1 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
The size of central pipe is ø 356×28mm. The heat transfer
tubes whose size is ø38×4mm are arranged triangularly. The
main design parameters and components material parameters of
the heat exchangers are respectively showed in Table 1 and
Table 2.

TABLE 1: THE MAIN DESIGN PARAMETERS

Tube-side Shell-side
Design pressure
3.5 4.8
/MPa
Design temperature
350 261
/℃
FIGURE 1: SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE TUBESHEET Medium Reforming gas Steam

TABLE 2: THE COMPONENTS MATERIAL PARAMETERS

Material E / MPa μ λ / (W / m·℃) α / (10-6 ℃-1)

Shell 15CrMoR 194000 0.3 12.56 44.8
Channel 15CrMoR 186000 0.3 13.24 42.1
Tubesheet 15CrMoR 186000 0.3 13.24 42.1
Head 15CrMoR 186000 0.3 13.24 42.1
Tube 15CrMoG 186000 0.3 13.24 42.1

The model was simplified considering following factors [6].

Considering that the tubesheet is symmetrical according to its
geometry structure characteristic and load states, a quarter was
cut off from the whole structure along the longitudinal
symmetrical plane. A half of the shell was cut off along the
longitudinal direction. The model was built containing tubesheet,
channel, partial shell, tubes and head, as shown in Figure 2. The
tubes and tubesheet were welded together, so the elements were
connecting with each other continuously and contact relation
was not considered.
Solid elements were chosen to build the finite element
model. Eight node hexahedron elements Solid 45 were used in
structure analysis while Solid 70 used in thermal analysis
correspondingly. The global finite element analysis model is
shown in Figure 3, and local enlargement of the tubesheet is
shown in Figure 4. FIGURE 2: THE MODEL OF HEAT EXCHANGER

2 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 were applied with the pressure correspondingly.

THERMAL ANALYSIS RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The boundary conditions of temperature were applied
following the rules mentioned above. Then the temperature field
of the structure was obtained, as shown in Figure 6. It can be
seen that the main temperature gradient is through the thickness
of the tubesheet and shell stiffening ring which connecting the
two shells and the tubesheet. Figure 7 shows the temperature
distribution of the tubesheet.

FIGURE 3: THE GLOBAL FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

FIGURE 6: GLOBAL TEMPERATURE FIELD DISTRIBUTION

FIGURE 4: FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF TUBESHEET

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Here, the conductive heat transfer as result of temperature
gradient was mainly considered. Average temperature was added
to the tube-side and shell-side separately. All the outside
surfaces were setting as adiabatic surfaces.
Because this model was simplified as the symmetrical
structure, all the symmetrical planes from where the model was
cut off were applied with symmetrical constraints of
displacement, as shown in Figure 5.
FIGURE 7: TEMPERATURE FIELD OF THE TUBESHEET

FIGURE 5: BOUNDARY CONDITIONS OF DISPLACEMENT

The pressure of tube-side is 3.5MPa, and the pressure of

shell-side is 4.8MPa. All the surfaces which belong to the side FIGURE 8: THREE PATHS ON TUBESHEET

3 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Three paths were chosen from the places of the main tube tubesheet while local stress concentration along the edge of the
distribution region, the central hole and the curved portion, as central hole was not obvious.
shown in Figure 8. Figure 9 shows the temperature distribution
along the three paths. We can see that temperature along the
thickness direction of the major portion of the tubesheet is close
to the fluid temperature of tube-side, but not the same in the
central hole and the curved portion. Only the temperature of thin
area near the shell-side is close to the fluid temperature of
shell-side. Temperature gradient varied almostly linearly
through the thickness of the central hole and the curved portion
which are far away from the tube distribution region. This result
agrees with the distribution rule studied by predecessor [7].
Temperature distribution of the model verified the "skin effect"
theory described in ASME code.

FIGURE 10: GLOBAL STRUCTURE THERMAL STRESS

INTENSITY DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM

FIGURE 9: TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION

ALONG THE PATHS

STRUCTURE ANALYSIS RESULT AND DISCUSSION ( A ) NEAR THE SHELL-SIDE

The structure analysis was carried out after the thermal
analysis since the nodal temperature obtained above has been
added to the structure as body loads. Based on the temperature
field, all the structure loads were applied as mentioned above.
Solving this operating condition, then the thermal stress
distribution which coupling the thermal analysis with the
structure analysis was obtained, as shown in Figure 10. The
stress distribution of the tubesheet is shown in Figure 11 (a) and
(b).
From Figure11, it is found that the most dangerous place on
the tubesheet is at the edge of tube distribution region. The
stress level of tubesheet near the shell-side is greater than
tubesheet near the tube-side due to the pressure difference in the
two sides. The maximum stress is the result of thermal ( B ) NEAR THE TUBE-SIDE
expansion of tubes connecting with the tubesheet. Thermal
expansion of the tubes is less than that of the tubesheet, because FIGURE 11: THERMAL STRESS INTENSITY DISTRIBUTION
DIAGRAM OF TUBESHEET
the tubesheet was treated as a flexible plate, and its temperature
was greater than these tubes. And, the farther away from the
central hole, the larger axial thermal expansion of the tubes STRESS INTENSITY EVALUATION
generated. So the peripheral tubes on the tubesheet caused stress The stress intensity evaluation was carried out following
concentration at the edge of tube distribution region on the JB4732-1995 Steel Pressure Vessels – Design by Analysis [8].
The third intensity theory (the maximum shear stress theory)

4 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 was applied in analysis design. The stress intensity is defined as
follows:

S12 = σ 1 − σ 2 (1)
S13 = σ 1 − σ 3 (2)
S 23 = σ 2 − σ 3 (3)

{
Then the stress intensity is S = Max S12 , S13 , S 23 }
According to JB4732-1995 standard, categories of stress
intensity should meet the following restrictions:

S I ≤ KS m (4)
S II ≤ 1.5KS m (5)
S III ≤ 1.5 KS m (6) FIGURE 13: STRESS INTENSITY LINEARIZATION
CURVE OF PATH 4
S IV ≤ 3KS m (7)

In this paper, class A design load combination was suited

not including wind load and earthquake load, so K =1.
Allowable stress intensity of 15CrMoR under 350℃ is 141MPa,
and 147MPa under 261℃. The former was used on safe side.
Local membrane stress intensity S II and primary stress intensity
plus secondary stress intensity S IV should be satisfied as
follows:

S II <1.5 S m =1.5×141=211.5MPa (8)

S IV <3 S m =3×141=423MPa (9)

Four paths were chosen along the thickness direction of the

tubesheet from the tube-side to shell-side, one at the central hole, FIGURE 14: STRESS INTENSITY LINEARIZATION
one at the curved portion, and two near the maximum stress CURVE OF PATH 5
intensity region, as shown in Figure 12. Figure 13-16 show the
thermal stress intensity linearization result of path 4-path 7.
Stress intensity evaluation of these paths was carried out
respectively, as shown in Table 3.

FIGURE 15: STRESS INTENSITY LINEARIZATION

CURVE OF PATH 6
FIGURE 12: FOUR PATHS ON TUBESHEET

5 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 analysis with structure analysis, it is found that the most
dangerous place on the tubesheet is at the edge of tube
distribution region while local stress concentration along the
edge of the central hole is not obvious. The maximum stress is
caused by temperature gradients on tubesheet and thermal
expansion differentials. The farther away from the central hole,
the larger axial thermal expansion of the tubes generated.
According to JB4732-1995, stress intensity evaluation of the
tubesheet is passed. So the tubesheet is designed reasonably.

NOMENCLATURE
E = Elastic Modulus
μ = Poisson Ratio
λ = Heat Transfer Coefficient
α = Linear Expansion Coefficient
FIGURE 16: STRESS INTENSITY LINEARIZATION CURVE σ1 = The First Principal Stress
OF PATH 7
σ2 = The Second Principal Stress
TABLE 3: STRESS INTENSITY EVALUATION RESULT σ3 = The Third Principal Stress
OF THE PATHS SI = The Primary Global Membrane Stress Intensity
Limit of S II = The Primary Local Membrane Stress Intensity
Linearization Evaluation
Paths allowable stress
result/MPa
intensity/MPa
result S III = The Primary Membrane Stress Intensity plus
Primary Bending Stress Intensity
S II 45.18 211.5 Pass
Path4 SIV = The Primary Stress Intensity plus Secondary Stress
S IV 103.8 423 Pass
Intensity
S II 69.11 211.5 Pass Sm = Allowable Stress Intensity
Path5
S IV 330.8 423 Pass K = Load Combination Coefficient
S II 72.12 211.5 Pass
Path6 REFERENCES
S IV 307.7 423 Pass [1] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section Ⅷ [S].
S II 29.82 211.5 Pass Publishing House of ASME, 2007.
Path7 [2] Urey R.Miller, Ding Li-wei. Comparison of Tubesheet
S IV 203.3 423 Pass Design Method of ASME and TEMA Standard(1) [J].
Petrochemical Design, 2004, 21(4): 21-26.
Obviously, stress intensity evaluation of all the paths was [3] GB151-1999 Tubular Heat Exchangers [S]. Chinese
passed. Path 5 was the closest path to the most dangerous region. Standard Press, 1999.
The tubesheet met the analysis design requirements. [4] Xue Ming-de, Xu Feng, Li Shi-yu. A Design Method by
Analysis on Fixed Tubesheets of Heat Exchangers with a
CONCLUSIONS Central Pipe [J]. Pressure Vessel Technology (in Chinese),
This paper solved the design calculation of tubesheet of 2005, 22(1): 16-21.
heat exchanger with a central hole. The result shows that design [5] Zhou Chang-yu, He Xiao-hua. Basic Method of Finite
by finite element analysis method is feasible and advantageous. Element Analysis and Engineering Application [M].
It is found from thermal analysis that temperature along the Chemical Industry Press, 2006.
thickness direction of the major portion of the tubesheet is close [6] Liu Hai-liang. Finite Element Analysis of High Pressure
to the fluid temperature of tube-side. Only the temperature of Water Heater’s Tubesheet(1) [J]. Pressure Vessel
thin area near the shell-side is close to the fluid temperature of Technology (in Chinese), 2004, 21(11): 19-22.
shell-side. Temperature gradient varied almostly linearly [7] Gardener K A. Heat Exchanger Tube Sheet Temperature [J].
through the thickness of the central hole and the curved portion The Refiner and Natural Gasoline Manufacturer, 1942(4):
which are far away from the tube distribution region. This kind 72-74.
of temperature distribution of the model verified the "skin [8] JB4732-1995 Steel Pressure Vessels – Design by Analysis
effect" theory described in ASME code. By coupling thermal [S]. Chinese Standard Press, 1995.

6 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms