i-sss^sJ?

- ^

Prcc^fiiiiie V< ,H K°iip}<

Basis of the Tubesheet Heat

Exchanger Design Rules Used in
the French Pressure Vessel Code
F. Osweiller For about 40 years most tubesheet exchangers have been designed according to the
Centre Technique des Industries
standards of TEMA. Partly due to their simplicity, these rules do not assure a safe
Mecaniques, heat-exchanger design in all cases. This is the main reason why new tubesheet design
Senlis, France rules were developed in 1981 in France for the French pressure vessel code CODAP.
For fixed tubesheet heat exchangers, the new rules account for the "elastic rotational
restraint" of the shell and channel at the outer edge of the tubesheet, as proposed
in 1959 by Galletly. For floating-head and U-tube heat exchangers, the approach
developed by Gardner in 1969 was selected with some modifications. In both cases,
the tubesheet is replaced by an equivalent solid plate with adequate effective elastic
constants, and the tube bundle is simulated by an elastic foundation. The elastic
restraint at the edge of the tubesheet due the shell and channel is accounted for in
different ways in the two types of heat exchangers. The purpose of the paper is to
present the main basis of these rules and to compare them to TEMA rules.

Introduction luaiawf mt*i llMt»Of DUItlt

Many process industries are increasing their use of tubular

heat exchangers in preference of plate exchangers because tu-
bular exchangers are better able to withstand service involving
both high temperature and high pressure. Nevertheless, one
a «4 Bh ta u,
must not forget that a tubesheet heat exchanger is not only an

apparatus devoted to transfer heat from one fluid to another,
but also a pressure vessel.
For a long time pressure vessel codes, and especially ASME,
have provided rules for the design of the various parts of a
heat exchanger (shell, tubes, heads, flanges, nozzles, etc.), but
none for the essential part of the exchanger: the tubesheet. It
is essential because three main parts of the vessel—the shell,
the tube bundle, and the channel head—are connected to it
(Fig. 1). Thus, in addition to pressure and thermal expansion
loads, the tubesheet is subjected to the reactive loads from
these three parts.
The lack of tubesheet design rules in Section VIII of the
ASME Code in the 1930s was due largely to the complexity
of the design problem and the fact that Section VIII was still
in an early stage of development.
In order to remedy this deficiency, the American manufac-
turers decided 50 years ago to create the Tubular Exchanger
Manufacturers Association (TEMA) to develop standard rules
Contributed by the Pressure Vessels and Piping Division and presented at the
Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Nashville, Tennessee, June 17-21,1990,
of THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAI ENGINEERS. Manuscript received by
the PVP Division, August 9, 1991.
w*-
=lc u
•itfLLona M i l
Fig. 1 Scheme of a tubular heat exchanger
for the design and fabrication of tubular exchangers. This well-
known standard [I] has been widely used in the past 40 years,
and still is.
These rules have the merit of long satisfactory experience;
but due to their simplicity, they often lead to overthickness or
sometimes (for high pressure especially) to underthickness, and
may become unconservative. These disadvantages increase
nowadays as chemical and power industries need larger and
larger exchangers operated at higher and higher pressures and
temperatures.
That is why CETIM [2] in connection with SNCT [3] and
SPEICHIM (SPIE BATIGNOLLES Group) decided to de-
velop, under the responsibility of the author, French design
rules insuring greater safety and efficiency, thanks to a better
representation of the tubesheet and its connections with the
shell, head, and tubes.

124 / Vol. 114, FEBRUARY 1992 Transactions of the ASME

Copyright © 1992 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/28333/ on 07/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/a
 The first purpose of this paper is to present the main basis
of these rules for fixed tubesheet, floating head, and U-tube
heat exchangers.
The second purpose is to show, through a comparison with
TEMA rules, why CODAP rules lead to a safer and more
efficient design than TEMA.
Historical Background
The first rules concerning the design of tubesheet heat ex-
changers were developed for the first time in the U. S. in 1941
by the Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association (TEMA).
This standard proposed a simple formula to calculate the
tubesheet thickness for U-tube and floating head heat ex-
changers. This semi-empirical method was based on the max-
imum stress in thin circular plates subjected to uniform
pressure. Rules for fixed tubesheet heat exchangers appeared
30 years later based on Gardner's work [4]. The original TEMA
method [1] did not account for the tubes which stiffen the
tubesheet, nor for the holes which weaken it. The recent 1988
Edition [5] tries to overcome this deficiency.
Second-generation rules were initiated in 1948 by Gardner
[6], who was the first to set up the basis of a more rational
approach for the design of floating tubesheet heat exchangers
by accounting for the support of the tubes and the weakening
effect of the holes in the tubesheet. In 1952, Gardner [4] adapted
this method to the design of fixed tubesheet heat exchangers.
Simultaneously, and independently, Miller [7] proposed a
method which seems different in its presentation, but which
in fact is the same.
The Miller method was adopted by the British Standard 1515
[8] in 1965 and the Gardner method by the STOOMWEZEN
[9] in 1973. Using this approach requires about 15 parameters
Nomenclature
C0 = coefficient depending on parameters X0
and RD
d, = outside tube diameter
D0 = perforated area diameter of tubesheet
D* = £ , *-e 3 /12(l-c* 2 ) = flexural rigidity of
equivalent plate
e = tubesheet thickness obtained by CODAP
method
es, e, = shell, tube thickness
E* = elastic modulus of equivalent plate
E, = elastic modulus of shell, tubes
/ = nominal design stress in CODAP
xs = l-AT(G?,/2fl)2 = shellside drilling coeffi-
cient
x, = l - A W , - 2 e , ) / 2 / ? ] 2 = tubeside drilling
coefficient
xm= (x, + xs)/2 = mean solidity factor of tubesheet
F = TEMA coefficient
Hh H2 = coefficients depending on parameters X
and Z
H4 = H2/H1
ks = [ir-es-(2R + es)-Es]/(L/2) = axial rigidity
of half-shell
k, = [ir-er(dret)-E,]/(L/2)= axial rigidity
of one half-tube
kw = N-k,/irR2 = modulus of equivalent elastic
foundation wR
K6 = coefficient of elastic restraint at tube-
sheet periphery
L = tube length
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/28333/ on 07/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/a
for the design of the tubesheet, instead of four previously, and
the method is iterative.
In 1969, Gardner [10] improved his floating tubesheet method
by considering the unperforated annulus at the tube-
sheet periphery and proposed a direct formula. This method
was used later by various pressure vessel codes for the design
of floating head and U-tube exchangers: ISC [11] in 1973,
BS 5500 [12] in 1976, CODAP [13] in 1982, and more recently,
for U-tube exchangers only, by ASME [14]. All these methods
have the drawback of considering the tubesheet either simply
supported or clamped at its edges, which obliges the designer
to make an aribitrary choice between these two extreme cases
[16].
The third generation of design methods will overcome this
drawback by taking into account the degree of edge fixity of
the tubesheet. This more realistic approach was proposed by
Galletly [15], as early as 1959, by considering the tubesheet as
"elastically clamped" at its periphery. This method was
adopted in CODAP in 1982 for fixed tubesheet heat ex-
changers.
In 1975, the ASME decided to set up a Special Working
Group in order to implement new rules for the design of tube-
sheet heat exchangers, based on a more scientific basis than
TEMA. The first such rules for the treatment of U-tube heat
exchangers appeared in the Winter 1982 Addenda to ASME
Section VIII, Division 1 as nonmandatory Appendix AA [14].
The method proposed by Gardner [10] in 1969 was selected as
a basis for these rules.
Design rules for fixed tubesheet heat exchangers are in prep-
aration [21] by the Working Group, based on the work of
Soler and Singh [16]. A first draft of these rules is available,
but not yet published.
In these new methods, about 40 parameters are involved
ME = reactive bending moment at tubesheet
periphery
N = number of tubes
p = tube pitch
P = equivalent differential pressure in TEMA
P* = equivalent differential pressure in CO-
DAP
Ps, Pt = shellside, tubeside pressure
Q = N-k,/ks = ratio of tube-bundle/shell rig-
idity
q(r) = effective pressure at radius r
r = radius (Q<r<R)
R = outer tubesheet radius
RD = 2R/D0
S = allowable stress of ASME VIII-Division
1
T = tubesheet thickness in TEMA code
VE = axial reaction at tubesheet periphery
X, Z - characteristic parameters of exchanger
<xs, a, = thermal expansion coefficient of shell,
tubes
7 = M f l , - 2 0 o C ) - a ^ - 2 0 ° C ) ] - Z , = axial
differential thermal expansion between
tubes and shell
ACa = coefficient depending on xm and RD
6S, 6, = mean temperature of shell, tubes
fi = tubesheet ligament efficiency
BE = tubesheet rotation at its periphery
a = maximum stress in tubesheet
v, vs, v, = Poisson ratio of tubesheet, shell, tubes
v* = Poisson ratio of equivalent tubesheet
FEBRUARY 1992, Vol. 114 /125
 Table 1 Basis of tubesheet design methods used in various pressure
vessel codes
CODES Date TYPE OF EXCHANGER headl
U-TUBE FLOATING HEAD FIXED TUBESHEET

TEMA 1941 TEMA TEMA TEMA + GARDNER 52

BS 1515 1965 MILLER 1952 MILLER 1952 MILLER 1952

ISO 1973 GARDNER 1969 GARDNER 1969
STOOMWEZEN 1975 GARDNER 1960 GARDNER 1948 . GARDNER 1952
BS550O 1976 GARDNER 1969 GARDNER 1969 CODAP 1990
ANCC 1975 TEMA 1968 TEMA 1968

CDDAP 1980 GARDNER 1969 GARDNER 1969 GALLETLY 1959

ASME vm-i 1982 GARDNER 1969 SOLER 1984 SOLER 1984
(modified) (in preparation) (in preparation)

Fig. 4 Connection of the tubesheet with shell and head

¥
1 f^T
; /• V \
Fig. 2 Fixed tubesheets heat exchanger /// 1 !
/// • :

e/p<0 25 — [ ,
# s/p-O-5

alREAL MODEL blANALYTICAL MODEL

| // £• i
1 // ' ! : i

LU 7/ i : ; !

V,/ | • i

W *H ~A /
Ol M (JJ
U i 1 ; IP
04 M Oe &7 Ofl M W 0 Ol 02 03 04 05 0-6 07 OB OS 10

ME \ /ME Fig. 5 Values of E*/E and v* for triangular pattern

HT
elastic foundation ol modulus:
N
k >t
4P # -[•»•«, -Pt-'t]
N lubes ol rigidity : Nk, -NEt.Si
L/2
Fig. 3 Analytical model used in the design method
which take into account the characteristics of the tubesheets,
the tube-bundle, the shell, and the channel head. A historical
summary of the evolution of tubesheet design rules is given in
Table 1.
French Rules for Fixed Tubesheet Heat Exchangers
This type of heat exchanger has 2 tubesheets attached to the
shell, generally by welding. The channel is attached to the
tubesheet either by welding or by bolting (Fig. 2). This type
is probably the most common because it is simple to fabricate,
and consequently less expensive than the 2 others. However,
it can only be used if the temperature difference between tubes
and shell is not too high. Otherwise, the differential thermal
expansion will cause excessively high stresses in various parts
of the exchanger. An expansion joint on the shell can solve
this problem by absorbing the differential expansion.
The design analysis of fixed tubesheet heat exchangers is
complex because the four basic elements (tubesheet, tubes,
shell, channel) are interconnected to form a statically indeter-
minate structure and are subjected to different pressures and
thermal expansions. The stresses in the four elements of the
structure are determined by using thin shell theory in the elastic
range, and are limited to maximum allowable stress values.
However, discontinuity stresses in the shell or channel can be
partially or fully plastic.
In order to achieve a method suitable for inclusion in a
pressure vessel code, the following assumptions are made:
• The tubesheet is uniformly perforated over its whole area
(unperforated annular rim is not considered).
» The membrane loads in the tubesheet are negligible, as
compared to the bending loads.
8
The tubes are uniformly distributed over the whole tube-
sheet and subjected to a uniform temperature 9,. The bending
moments in the tubes at their attachment with the tubesheet
are neglected.
• The exchanger is axisymmetrical and symmetric about
the plane midway between the tubesheets so as to treat only
a half-structure as shown in Fig. 3.
For convenience of presentation only the main steps of the
analysis are developed hereafter; for more details and complete
equations, see reference [17].
First Step: Modeling of the Tubesheet-Shell-Channel Con-
nection. The tubesheet is disconnected from the remainder
of the exchanger by applying at its periphery (Fig. 4):
• An axial reaction VE due to the end load acting on the
head and to the axial displacement As of the half-shell
PrirR2-ksAs
VF = (1)
2TTR
where ks is the axial rigidity of the half-shell.
9
A reactive bending moment ME. The radial displacement
at the junction is supposed to be prevented (8r = 0), which
enables considering the moment ME as proportional and op-
posite to the tubesheet rotation 6E at its periphery
MF= -K, (2)
where
Ke = 2(8s + 8C) (3)
The coefficient Ke depends on the bending rigidities {bs) of
the shell and (<5C) of the channel. It represents the degree of

126 / Vol. 114, FEBRUARY 1992 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/28333/ on 07/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/a

 Ps-Xs — Pt'Xt
• The reactive loads of the tubes: - kw-A,(r) where A,(r)

w represents the axial displacements of the tubes.

® The differential expansion between tubes and shell which
is given, for the half-exchanger, by

a-RZ±.
r
p *=[a,-(0,-2OoC)-<v(0,-2O°C)]-| (6)
Fig. 6 Ligament efficiency p.
and acts as an equivalent uniform pressure through the equiv-
alent solid plate.
elastic restraint of the tubesheet by the shell and the head, and
varies between two extreme values: The net effective pressure acting on the equivalent plate is
given by
» 0, which corresponds to the simply supported case;
• oo, which corresponds to the clamped case.
q(r) = [Ps-xs-Prx,]-kw- A.00-2
In TEMA. Only these two extreme cases are consid-
ered: the tubesheet is assumed to be either simply supported
N
or clamped at its periphery through the coefficient Foi TEMA. -v, \ (P P).{d<-e<)2~] + »,12P,-Q\ (7)
Between these two theoretical cases, TEMA proposes for F a R2{P, PS) 2
linear interpolation depending on the ratio es/G (see Fig. 12). Two last terms in Eq. (7) account for the loads resulting from
The problem involved by this simplification is discussed in the the axial displacements of tubes and shell by the Poisson effect
chapter devoted to "comparison with TEMA." of pressures Ps and P,-Q is the ratio of tubes/shell rigidities.
Second Step: Modeling of the Tubesheet. The tubesheet Fifth Step: Analytical Treatment. The problem is now
is replaced by an equivalent solid plate of effective elastic reduced to the case of an equivalent solid circular plate of
constants E* and v*. A study undertaken by the author [18] elastic constants E* and v*, elastically restrained at its pe-
has led to setting up curves for the determination of E* and riphery by a moment ME, resting on an elastic foundation of
v* as a function of the ligament efficiency n for different values modulus kw and subjected to a net effective pressure q(r).
of the ratio e/p (see Fig. 5). From classical thin plate theory, the deflection of such a plate
The flexural rigidity of the equivalent solid plate is given by is governed by a fourth-order differential equation
E*-e3 d4w 2d^w ld2w \dw q(r)
D*=- D (4) (8)
12(1 - p*y1=v dr4 + rdr* i dr1 V dr ~ D*
2

where solution of which is

E-e3 Ps-xs-PrX,- 7
D-- is the flexural rigidity of the tubesheet before w(r) =.4-ber x + 5-bei x + s (9)
12(1 - / )
drilling
[ K A
D*
is the deflection efficiency of the tubesheet K
I ™ A
x=k-r= (10)
-MD*
In CODAP rules the ligament efficiency is based on the min-
imum ligament width when the tubes are welded on the tube- where r = radial distance from the center of the tubesheet, and
sheets (Fig. 6) ber x and bei x are Bessel functions of order 0.
From w(r), one may determine the shear force, the bending
p-d moment, and the slope at any point in the tubesheet. The 2
constants of integration A and B are obtained from the 2
where d is the tube-hole diameter. When tubes are expanded boundary conditions (1) and (2) at the periphery of the
over more than 90 percent of the tubesheet thickness, credit tubesheet (r=R). The solution results in 2 fundamental di-
is taken for half the tube wall as strengthening the ligament, mensionless parameters which characterize the mechanical be-
and the formula becomes havior of the exchanger. The first one
p-(d-et)
/* = X= (11)

Third Step: Modeling of the Tube Bundle. The tubes are
assumed uniformly distributed over the whole tubesheet and
in sufficient number so as to act as a uniform elastic foundation
of modulus
N-k,
kw —
vrr2
where k, is the axial rigidity of a half-tube.
Fourth Step: Modeling of the Loading. The loads acting
on the equivalent plate are due to:
9
The pressures Ps and P, which must be corrected for the
tube-hole areas to calculate the uniform differential pressure
acting on the equivalent plate
represents the relative rigidity of the tube-bundle with respect
to that of the tubesheet. It may vary from 0 (no tube-bundle)
to about 50 (very stiff tube-bundle). The second one
K,
Z =- (12)
(5) 4
lk„-D*3
represents the elastic rotational restraint at the periphery of
the tubesheet. It may vary from 0 (simple supported case) to
infinity (clamped case).
The values of these parameters control the maximum stresses
in the various parts of the exchanger: the tubesheets, the
tubes, the shell, and the channel head. As X and Z depend on
the tubesheet thickness, through D*, the method is iterative.

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology FEBRUARY 1992, Vol. 114 /127

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/28333/ on 07/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/a

 100 100 100 001 0-10 100

Fig. 7(a) Values of coefficients H, and H2 as a function of Z for various values of X

\H2(X) z 0-6
o P .=°; 5
0

180
/ ,' / O B
160 Simply supported . -v—X* / / /'

140 / ///
120 / /// / ,2

/ /// / / /3
•' / // / / //*'
8
80
//// / / / // /
^ CO
60
• ' / / / / / / / /

40

; ^ ^ ^ ^
20 ^
*3 ^
X
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 12 14 16 18 20

Fig. 7(b) Values of coefficients H, and H2 as a function of X for various values of Z

Sixth Step: Determination of the Maximum Stresses. The quantities H{ and H4 appearing in Eqs. (13) and (14)
Once the bending moment in the equivalent plate has been are dimensionless coefficients given by curves depending on
obtained from Eq. (9), it is easy to get the bending stress in two basic dimensionless parameters X and Z. These curves are
the tubesheet as a function of r and of the two parameters X plotted in Fig. 1(a) as a function of Z for different values of
and Z (see reference [17]). X. The left part of these curves ( Z < 0.5) represents a situation
A parametric treatment allows the determination of the max- in which the maximum bending stress appears inside the plate;
imum stress in the real tubesheet, which may be written in the whereas the right part (Z>0.5) corresponds to a maximum
form used for circular plates under pressure stress appearing at the periphery of the plate. For the inter-
2 mediate values of Z (Z — 0.5), Fig. 1(a) shows that the stress
1 R
•P* (13) is lower than for Z = 0 (simply supported case) and Z = oo
Ix-H^X, Z) \e (clamped case). For this optimum value Z 0 P T of Z, two max-
in which /x represents the ligament efficiency of the tubesheet, imum stresses appear simultaneously in the tubesheet (one
and P* represents the equivalent pressure acting on the plate. inside and one at the periphery) with the same value.
This is seen more clearly in Fig. 1(b) where H\ and Hi have
been plotted as a function of X, for different values of Z; the
p* = [xs + 2v,{l-xs) + 2vs-Q\ curve relative to Z 0 PT is higher than those relative to Z = 0 and
Q + H, Z=oo. This figure also shows that it is not correct to use
P y interpolation between simply supported and clamped cases,
' [xl + 2ul(l-x,) + Q] + (14)
Q + H< Q + H4 which is a current practice.
CODAP rules permit use of a thicker shell and channel near
where H4 depends on X and Z. the tubesheet so as to adjust the value of Z as close as possible
In Eq. (14), the first term represents the equivalent shellside to Z O PT = 0 . 5 . The maximum stresses in the tubes, the shell,
design pressure (called P / in TEMA), the second the equivalent and the channel can be obtained in a similar way as detailed
tubeside design pressure (called P't in TEMA), and the third in reference [17].
the equivalent thermal expansion design pressure (called P'd in When the tubesheet has an extension for bolting on the shell
TEMA). or channel, this part of the tubesheet is calculated as an annular

128 / Vol. 114, FEBRUARY 1992 Transactions of the AS ME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/28333/ on 07/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/a

 IJIJLJI

Fig. 8 Scheme of a floating head heat exchanger

1.0'
0.9 SOLIDITY FACTOR = 0.6
0.8
0.7 • SIMPLY SUPPORTED, BOTH ENDS
STATIONARY TUBESHEET CLAMPEDj Fig. 10 Various types of connections in CODAP
0.6 FLOATING, SIMPLY SUPPORTED

0.5
Rules for Floating-Head Heat Exchangers
0.4 In this case only, one tubesheet is fixed to the shell, by
welding or bolting, and the second tubesheet is free to move
inside the shell (Fig. 8). This type is more expansive than the
0.3
fixed type, but it has two advantages:
1 there are no stresses due to differential thermal expansion
between tubes and shell;
0.2 2 access into the shell is easier.
The design is much more simple as the second tubesheet is
free. The basic theory is the same as for the fixed tubesheets,
with the further assumption that the axial rigidity of the shell
is zero, which leads to P*=PS-P, in Eq. (13).
0.1
2 3 4 5
Tubesheet Design. The rule used in CODAP is based on
Fig. 9 Values of coefficient C„
the method proposed by Gardner in 1969 [10]. The tubesheet
thickness for bending is given by the direct formula

e=(C0 + AC0)-Dt (15)

plate clamped on the shell or channel and subjected to the 2nf
uniform differential pressure Ps - Pt and to the moment exerted where D0 is the diameter of the perforated area of the tubesheet.
by the adjoining flange. The coefficient Ca, given in Fig. 9, depends on 2 coefficients:
1 X0 which is similar to the coefficient X relative to the fixed
Practical Design Procedure. The design procedure is as tubesheets, with modifications so as to present a direct formula
follows: for calculating e
1 Select a value for tubesheet thickness e. 1.5(l-V*2)(x,-xs)^-^
2 Determine values of E* and v* from Fig. 5.
3 Calculate X and Z by Eqs. (11) and (12). Xn (16)
4 Determine values of Hu H2 from Fig. 7(a). \P.-P,
5 Calculate P* by Eq. (14).
6 Calculate the bending stress a in the tubesheet by Eq. (13). 2fi-f
The stresses in tubes, shell, and channel, which are not given 2 RD = 2R/D0, which accounts for an untubed rim at the
in this paper, are calculated in the same way. periphery of the tubesheet.

All these calculated stresses are limited to the maximum
allowable stresses fixed by CODAP using the concept of pri-
mary and secondary stresses:
8
bending stresses (in tubesheet, shell, channel) are limited
to
1.5f for pressure loads (2f for the tubesheet, when
integral with shell and channel),
• 3f for thermal expansion loads + pressure loads
9 acceptable in a pressure vessel code because 2 different de-
membrane stresses (in tubes, shell) are limited to
• f for pressure loads
1.5f for thermal expansion loads + pressure loads.
Values of coefficient C0 are given (Fig. 9) for a mean solidity
factor xm of the tubesheet equal to 0.6. The coefficient AC0
gives corrections for other values of the solidity factor. As
shown in Fig. 9, C0 values are only given for the two theoretical
cases of simply supported and clamped tubesheets; no credit
is given to the rotational restraint on the tubesheet from the
shell and channel. Therefore, the designer must judge whether
the tubesheet is simply supported, clamped, or halfway be-
tween these two extreme cases. Such a design approach is not
signers could obtain two different tubesheet thicknesses for
the same heat exchanger.

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology FEBRUARY 1992, Vol. 114 /129

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/28333/ on 07/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/a

 IJXJILJI

11
Fig. 11 Scheme of a U-tube heat exchanger
002 OJOS

Fig. 12 Coefficient F of TEMA

To provide consistent designs, CODAP decided to consider
the tubesheet as
9
PCODAP ~y2/*H, fJ- 0.3
simply supported (SS) when bolted with shell and channel
(sketch 1 in Fig. 10)
0.8 OR 1
/~i SS TEMA"
o ^~*o
8 simply supported
halfway between simply supported (SS) and clamped (CL)
in all other cases, i.e., >TEMA
•v £lamped
cj.am
• integral with shell and bolted with channel (sketch 2)
• bolted with shell and integral with channel (sketch 3)
• integral with shell and channel (sketch 4)

In these cases, C0 is taken in the rules as •z=o (

CODAP

The same treatment is applied to the coefficient AC 0 , which

also depends on the type of tubesheet-shell-channel connection. Fig. 13 Comparison of coefficient F i n CODAP and TEMA codes for
simply supported and clamped case
In CODAP, the coefficient C0 depends on the tubesheet
thickness through the coefficient Xa (Eq. (16)), which is a
function of E* and consequently of e (see Fig. 5). So the basic
ter is devoted to U-tube heat exchangers. The bending tubesheet
formula, Eq. (15), is written in the French rules as
thickness is given by the direct formula
(C 0 + AC0)> (D0\\{Ps_Pt) ( n )

e=(C0 + AC0)-D0 (20)

and a is limited to If. The method is iterative, but the direct 2M/
Eq. (15) is very helpful for finding a first evaluation of e by where C0 + AC0 is given directly by a table as a function of
using the lowest curve in Fig. 5, giving results on the safe side. the solidity factor and ratio 2R/D0.
Tube Design. The calculation of the maximum axial stresses
in tubes is quite similar to the one used in fixed tubesheets. Comparison With TEMA
Two different formulas are given for interior and outermost Comparison for Fixed and Floating-Head Heat Exchangers.
tubes TEMA rules for fixed tubesheets were elaborated by Gardner
[4] for the fifth edition of 1968, which remained unchanged
(Ps Xs- -Prx,)+FH(P, -P,)
Hi (18) in the sixth edition of 1978 [1], analyzed in reference [19]. In
xt — xs these editions, the basic bending formula for the tubesheet
(Ps -Ptx,)-F,e(Ps-
•Xs- -Pt) thickness is
°t,t (19)
x,-
The tube coefficients Fti and F,e are analogous to coefficient T=F- (21)
C0 and are given by curves, which depends on parameters X0
and RD. where F i s given by Fig. 12. (F= 1.0 for a simply supported
An inconvenience of the method is that the value of the tubesheet, F = 0 . 8 for a clamped tubesheet.) G is the shell
coefficient X0 implicitly assumes that the thickness of the diameter. P=P* for fixed tubesheets (Eq. (14)) and PSP, for
tubesheet is the one calculated from Eq. (15). If the real thick- floating tubesheets. S= allowable stress taken from ASME
ness is higher, the stresses calculated in the tubes by Eqs. (18) VIII-Division 1.
and (19) will not be correct, but generally the results are on From the basic analysis presented for fixed and floating-
the safe side. head heat exchangers, Eq. (13) shows that the bending formula
can be written
Rules for U-Tube Heat Exchangers
1
This type, which has only one tubesheet fixed to the shell
and channel by welding or bolting (Fig. 11), is simpler than the
two other types of heat exchangers, but may be more costly
r= \/2/xZ/i ( j - ^ C O D A P r.
II (22)

due to the forming of the tubes. The design method is also
simpler as the tubes do not act as an elastic foundation. So
the floating-head heat exchanger method can be used by mak-
ing Xo = 0 in the foregoing equations. This is done in most
tubesheet codes (ISO, BS 5500), but in CODAP a special chap-
where Hx depends on the characteristic coefficients X and Z
of the heat exchanger. In TEMA, Z = 0 (simply supported case)
or 00 (clamped case).
Comparison of tubesheet Eqs. (21) and (22) shows that the
coefficient F of TEMA has been empirically chosen by assum-

130 / Vol. 114, FEBRUARY 1992 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/28333/ on 07/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/a

 Table 2 Comparison of CODAP (e) and TEMA (7) thicknesses for U- ceptable for classical exchangers of medium size, subjected to
tube exchangers normal pressures, for which these rules were originally estab-
lished in the sixties and seventies.
e/T VALUES Today chemical and petroleum industries need larger ex-
changers operating under increasingly severe conditions. Due
SKETCH 1 (Fig. 10) SKETCHES2,3,4(Fig.l0) to their simplicity, TEMA standards do not ensure the same
H = 0.22 H = 0.335 H = 0.22 u = 0.335
level of safety for all these modern exchangers.
RD
This is the main reason why the French Pressure Vessel Code
Committee has elaborated from 1975 to 1980 a more scientific
1.0 1.35 1.10 1.33 1.08 design method for fixed tubesheet heat exchangers accounting
1.1 1.28 1.07 1.24 1.01 for the axial rigidity of the tubes, the presence of the holes,
1.3 1.15 0.99 1.07 0.90 and the type of connection between tubesheet, shell, and head.
Certain other countries (Australia, China, India, UK, USA,
etc.) are developing a similar approach, but as far as the author
knows, CODAP was the first to publish such rules in 1980.
ing that the stiffening effect of the tubes (accounted for by
coefficient X) is balanced by the weakening effect of the holes For floating-head and U-tube exchangers, CODAP, as do
(accounted for by coefficient /x). some other pressure vessel codes, proposes rules based on the
work of Gardner, with some modifications. These rules take
If the first stiffening effect prevails, which happens when into account the untubed rim at the periphery of the tubesheet,
Xis high (X> 7), the TEMA formula will be overconservative. but the treatment of the tubesheet-shell-channel connection
In the inverse case, which happens when Xis low (X<3), the needs further refinements.
TEMA thickness will be underconservative. This is illustrated
in Fig. 13. These two types of methods, for fixed tubesheets and float-
ing-head and U-tube tubesheets, are already in practice in some
The seventh edition of TEMA [5], published in 1988, pro- countries, but not always officially. France will propose them
vides a new bending formula for the tubesheet, which includes as a basis for the future European Unfired Pressure Vessel
a ligament efficiency i) Code, whose implementation was decided in November 1989
by the European Community.
(23)
References
with a factor 3 instead of 2 below G. This ligament efficiency 1 TEMA, "Standards of Tubular Exchanger Manufacturer's Association,"
is based on the mean ligament efficiency in the tubesheet, Sixth Edition, 1978.
instead of the minimum ligament efficiency /x in CODAP 2 CETIM, Centre Technique des Industries Mecaniques, Technical Center
for Mechanical Industry.
3 SNCT, Syndicat National de la Chaudronnerie-Tolerie, National Asso-

" = 1-4in7© ciation for Pressure Vessels.

where
0 = — for triangular pitch
8 = — for square pitch
Values of t\ generally range between 0.4 and 0.6, whereas it
values are usually between 0.2 and 0.3. Finally, this new for-
mula leads to a thickness decrease on the order of 5 to 15
percent for a square pattern, 0 to 10 percent for a triangular
pattern.
Camparison for U-Tube Heat Exchangers. In this type of
exchanger, the tubes do not provide any staying action to the
tubesheet. TEMA takes this into consideration by increasing
the F value by 25 percent: F= 1.25 when the tubesheet is
simply supported, F= 1.00 when the tubesheet is clamped.
Table 2 shows a comparison between the thicknesses ob-
tained by CODAP and TEMA (6th Edition) for 3 different
values of RD and two values of /x, for the sketches shown in
Fig. 10.
Conclusions
The TEMA rules for determining tubesheet thickness are
based on a semi-empirical method which assumes that the
stiffening effect supplied by the tubes is balanced by the weak-
ening effect of the holes. This simplistic approach was ac-
4 Gardner, K. A., "Heat Exchanger Tubesheet Design-2: Fixed Tube-
sheets," Trans. ASME, Vol. 74, 1952, pp. 159-166.
5 TEMA, "Standards of Tubular Exchanger Manufacturer's Association,"
Seventh Edition, 1988.
6 Gardner, K. A., "Heat Exchanger Tubesheet Design," Trans. ASME,
Vol. 70, 1948, pp. 377-385.
7 Miller, K. A. G., "Design of Tube Plates in Heat Exchangers," Proceed-
ings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 113, 1952, pp. 215-231.
8 BS 1515—Part 1,' 'British Standard Specification for Fusion Welded Pres-
sure Vessels," 1965.
9 STOOMWENZEN (Dutch Code), "Rules for Pressure Vessels," 1973.
10 Gardner, K. A., "Tubesheet Design: A Basis for Standardization," First
International Conference on Pressure Vessel Technology, Part 1, Design and
Analysis, ASME, 1969, pp. 621-648.
11 ISO/DIS2694, "Pressure Vessels," 1973.
12 BS 5500, "British Standard Specification for Fusion Welded Pressure
Vessels," 1988.
13 CODAP: French Code for the Construction of Pressure Vessels, AFIAP
and SNCT, 1985.
14 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 1, Ap-
pendix AA, 1989.
15 Galletly, G. D., "Optimum Design of Thin Circular Plates on an Elastic
Foundation," Proceedings of the Institute of the Mechanical Engineers, Vol.
173, 1959, pp. 687-698.
16 Singh, K. P., and Soler, A., Mechanical Design of Heat Exchangers, 1st
Edition, Arcturus Publishers, 1984.
17 Osweiller, F., "Methode de calcul des echangers a deux tStes fixes pour
le CODAP," Etude CETIM, No. 14B031, 1986.
18 Osweiller, F., "Evolution and Synthesis of the Effective Elastic Constants
Concept for the Design of Tubesheets," ASME JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL
TECHNOLOGY, Aug. 1989, Vol. I l l , pp. 209-217.
19 Osweiller, F., "Analysis of TEMA Tubesheet Design Rules," Proceedings
of the 1986 Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, Chicago, Illinois, July 1986.
20 ANNC Italian Code, VSR Collection, Chap. VSR-l-N, 1975.
21 Soler, A., Caldwell, S., Singh, K. P., "Tubesheet Analysis—A Proposed
ASME Design Procedure," Karl Gardner Memorial Session, ASME PVP-Vol.
118, H00343, D e c , 1986.

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology FEBRUARY 1992, Vol. 114 /131

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/28333/ on 07/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/a