Sei sulla pagina 1di 13

Author’s Accepted Manuscript

Performance Analysis of Shell and Tube Heat


Exchanger: Parametric Study

Ammar Ali Abd, Mohammed Qasim Kareem,


Samah Zaki Naji

www.elsevier.com/locate/csite

PII: S2214-157X(17)30341-6
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2018.07.009
Reference: CSITE318
To appear in: Case Studies in Thermal Engineering
Received date: 24 December 2017
Revised date: 16 June 2018
Accepted date: 23 July 2018
Cite this article as: Ammar Ali Abd, Mohammed Qasim Kareem and Samah Zaki
Naji, Performance Analysis of Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger: Parametric
S t u d y , Case Studies in Thermal Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2018.07.009
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 galley proof before it is published in its final citable 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.
Performance Analysis of Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger:
Parametric Study
Ammar Ali Abd1,3, Mohammed Qasim Kareem1, Samah Zaki Naji2,3
1
Water Resources Engineering College, Al-Qasim Green University, Iraq.
2
Petroleum Engineering Department, Kerbala, Iraq.
3
Chemical Engineering Department, Curtin University, Australia

(ammarali.abd@postgrad.curtin.edu.au)

(ammarali@wrec.uoqasim.edu.iq)

(mohammed.qasim.salami@wrec.uoqasi.edu.iq)

(Samah.alrashid@uokerbala.edu.iq)

Abstract
Enhancement of heat transfer through shell and tube exchangers stills taking high
attention by researchers. The present work investigated the effect of shell diameter
and tube length on heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop for shell side with
both triangular and square pitches. In addition, the effect of baffle spacing and
cutting space on heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop were studied.
Moreover, standards fouling rates used for both shell and tube sides to estimate
the reduced heat transfer. Increasing shell diameter with a triangular pitch and
pull-through floating head recorded 3% increasing in heat transfer coefficient for
only 0,05m increasing in shell diameter. While 2.8% increase in heat transfer
coefficient for shell side by 0.05m increasing in shell diameter with split-ring
floating head and square pitch. Heat transfer coefficient for shell side reduced by
15.15% by increasing baffle space by 0.2 from shell diameter and the pressure drop
by 41.25%. Increasing cutting space from 15% to 25% decreases heat transfer
coefficient by 5.56% and the pressure drop diminished by 26.3%. Increasing tube
length by 0.61m leads to enhance the heat transfer coefficient by 31.9% and
pressure drop by 14.11% for tube side. For shell side, increasing tube length by
0.61m gives 2.2% increasing in heat transfer coefficient and 21.9% increasing for
pressure drop. Fouling resistance change on shell side shows a high effect on heat
transfer more than same rate change on the tube side. Based on the result, this
study can help designers to quick understand of each parameter effect on heat
transfer into shell and tube exchangers.

Keywords: Shell diameter; Baffle spacing; Cutting space; Fouling rate.

Introduction

Shell and tube heat exchanger considers one of the most common types of
exchangers widely used in the industrial processes. This exchanger consists of a
vessel with different sizes contains a number of tubes inside. Heat transfers
between these tubes together and with the shell side through tube walls. Shell and
tube exchangers characterize by easy to manufacture in different sizes and flow
configurations [1]. The rate of transferred heat depends on several factors such as
feed temperature and pressure, shell diameter, a number of tubes, tube geometry,
baffle spacing and cutting spacing [2]. Abd & Naji (2017) studied design of shell
and tube heat exchanger in details and tested the effect of shell diameter on
overall heat transfer coefficient by using different bundle diameters [3]. Shinde &
Chavan, (2017) concluded that baffle spacing, and pitch type can play a vital role in
enhancing heat transfer into exchangers [4]. In the same vein, Eryener (2006)
tested the effect of baffle material on heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop by
using different materials of constructions to recommend stainless steel as the best
choice [5]. Yu, Ren, and Zeng (2018) tested the effects of distance, width, profile,
and layout of the baffle on the overall heat transfer of exchanger [6]. Dizaji,
Jafarmadar, and Asaadi (2017) investigated experimentally using a corrugated shell
and corrugated tube instead of smooth shell and tube to improve the heat transfer
through the exchanger [7]. Alimoradi and Veysi (2017) examined the effect of
geometry parameters on the heat transfer and entropy generation [8]. Gao et. al.
(2015) experimentally studied the effect of using helix angles on the performance of
shell and tube heat exchanger [9]. Each part in exchanger has a direct effect on the
total transferred heat, therefore, it is important to choose carefully all the
parameters.

This paper will design shell and tube heat exchanger by using different parameters
to study the effect of baffle spacing, cutting space, shell diameter, tube length,
fouling rate on heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop for shell and tube sides.
The properties estimated by using Hysys simulation program for dry gases in shell
side and hot oil in tube side as shown in table 1 and 2. In the design of shell and
tube exchanger cannot avoid trial and error process to reach requested result.
Therefore, study the effect of each parameter of design can lead to quick
prediction and effective design.

Results and Discussion

The simulation run with Hysys v8.8 program, where the fluid package chose to be
Peng-Robinson. The working conditions include input and output temperatures,
mass flowrate, pressure, and compositions provided from real project executed by
Clough company as shown in tables 1 and 2. The design suggested to pumped dry
gases in shell side and hot oil in tube side.

1- Effects of shell diameter on shell heat transfer coefficient for


triangular and square pitch

Many factors influence the fluid flow inside shell side such as tubes arrangement,
pith type, baffle space, cutting space, and shell header type. Abd & Naji (2017)
mentioned procedure to calculate shell diameter based on the bundle diameter
with triangular and square pitches [3]. Here, the calculations used three different
types of headers which are pull-through floating head, split-ring floating head, and
outside packed head. Shell diameter estimated for each type to check out the
change in heat transfer coefficient for triangular and square pitches respectively.
Generally, heat transfer coefficient for shell side increases as shell diameter
increases for both triangular and square pitches. Pull-through floating head with
triangular pitch gives 3% increasing in shell heat transfer coefficient for 0.005m
increasing in shell diameter. While split-ring floating head promotes heat transfer
coefficient on shell side by almost 1% only for 0.005m increasing in shell diameter
with a triangular pitch. Outside packed head comes with small shell diameter
compare to two other heads, and the heat transfer coefficient increases by 1.5% for
0.005m increasing in shell diameter with a triangular pitch. Controlling heat
transfer coefficient can be achieved by manipulating the header as shown in the
figure below. While square pitch creates larger shell diameter than triangular pitch
for same conditions. Where, pull-through floating head increases heat transfer
coefficient for shell side by 0.9%, 2.8% with split-ring floating head, and 1.5% with
an outside-packed head for o.005m increasing in shell diameter.

Triangular Pitch Hs Pull-


1400 Through
floating head
Overall Heat Transfer
Coefficeint (w/m2.k)

1350

1300 Hs Split-ring
floating head
1250

1200
Hs Outside-
1150 packed head
0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.9
Shell Diameter (m)

Figure 1. shell diameter against heat transfer coefficient for shell side with three types of
headers and triangular pitch.

Square Pitch
Hs, Pull- 1350
Shell overall heat transfer

Through
coefficeint (w/m2.k)

floating head 1300

Hs, Outside- 1250


packed head
1200

Hs, Split-ring 1150


floating head
1100
0.78 0.8 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96
Shell Diameter (m)
Figure 2. shell diameter against heat transfer coefficient for shell side with three types of
headers and square pitch.

Based on above figures, square pitch can be selected as best choice to increase
shell diameter for all three headers. The possible reason is the design pressure for
this heat exchanger is small, where square uses usually with small range of
pressure. On the other hand, triangular pitch gives the ability to control shell
diameter in case of high pressure drop and high overall heat transfer.
2- Effect of baffle and cutting spacing on overall heat transfer
coefficient and pressure drop

Baffles can play a vital role in enhancing heat transfer by increasing velocity and
direct the fluid stream. Single segmental considers as common baffle type. Eryener
(2006) examined the determination of optimum baffle spacing in the design of
shell and tube heat exchanger [5]. Sinnott (1993) concluded that effective baffle
spacing range is between 0.2 to 1 from shell diameter [10]. Li and Kottke (1998)
investigated experimentally the effect of baffle spacing on the performance of heat
exchanger [11]. While Saffar and Damangir (1995) developed a new correlation to
estimate the optimum baffle spacing [12]. This study uses different baffle spacing
to inspect the change in both pressure drop and heat transfer coefficient on the
shell side. Figure 3 shows that pressure drop, and heat transfer coefficient
decreases as baffle spacing increases. Where heat transfer coefficient reduces by
15.15% for 0.2 from shell diameter increasing in baffle spacing. Shell pressure drop
decreases by 41.25% to 0.2 from shell diameter baffle spacing increases as shown in
the figure below. Where, increasing baffle space leads to reduce velocity, as a
result, the pressure drop decrease and overall heat transfer as well, this finding
agrees with what was reached by Li and Kottke experimentally.

12000 1400
Pressure drop of shell side (N/m2)

10000 1200 Shell Overall Heat Transfer


Coefficient (w/m2.k)
1000
8000
800
6000
600
4000
400

2000 200

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Shell Pressure Drop
Baffle spacing (m)
Figure 3. Baffle spacing against shell heat transfer coefficient and shell pressure drop.
While figure 4 illustrates that increasing cutting space reducing both heat
transfer coefficient and pressure drop of shell side. It shows that using 15%
cutting space lead to higher heat transfer coefficient and high-pressure
drop. Increasing in cutting space by 10% produces decreasing in shell heat
transfer coefficient by 5.56% and the pressure drop reduces by 26.3%.
instead of heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop decreases, however
pressure drop reduced by percent higher than heat transfer coefficient
which can be a method to reduce generated pressure into shell side.
Therefore, the cutting space and baffle spacing can be selected based on the
required specification to balance the pressure drop and high heat transfer.

16000 1600

Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient


Pressure Drop of Shell Side (N/m2)

14000 1400

12000 1200

10000 1000

(w/m2.k)
8000 800

6000 600

4000 400

2000 200

0 0
15% 25% 35% 45%
Shell Pressure Drop
Baffle Cuting (m)
Shell heat transfer coefficient
Figure 4. Cutting space against shell heat transfer coefficient and shell pressure drop.

3- Effect of tube length on overall heat transfer coefficient and pressure


drop for tube and shell sides.

Tube length considers as an important factor in balancing pressure drop and


heat transfer coefficient of shell and tube exchangers. Standards tube length
1.83m, 2.44m, 3.66m, 4.88m, and 6.1m used to simulate the effect of length on
heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop on both sides [10]. Abd & Naji (2017)
studied the effect of tube length on the overall heat transfer coefficient [3].
Here, analysis study used to check the effect of tube length on the heat transfer
coefficient for both shell and tube sides. In addition, the effect of tube length
on pressure drop tested for both sides as well. Heat transfer coefficient and
pressure drop increase as tube length increase for both sides as shown in
figures 5. Figure 5 shows that tube length increasing by 0.61m result increasing
in heat transfer coefficient on tube side by 31.9%. while the pressure drops
increase by 14.11% for 0.61m increasing in tube length. On the other hand,
increasing in tube length by 0.61m leads to 2.2% increase in heat transfer
coefficient on the shell side. The pressure drops for shell side increases by
21.9% for 0.61m increasing in tube length as shown in figure 6. Based on the
result, heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop for tube side are more
sensitive to change with tube length than shell side.

1800 12000

Overall heat transfer coefficient


Pressure Drop tube side (N/m2)

1600
10000
1400
1200 8000

(w/m2.k)
1000
6000
800
600 4000
400
2000
200
0 0
1.83 2.44 3.66 4.88 6.1
Tube Length (m)
Tube pressure drop

Figure 5. Tube length against heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop for tube side.
1800 1600

Overall heat transfer coefficient


Pressure Drop shell side (N/m2)

1600 1550
1400 1500
1200
1450 (w/m2.k)
1000
1400
800
1350
600
400 1300

200 1250

0 1200
1.83 2.44 3.66 4.88 6.1
Tube Length (m)
Shell Pressure Drop Overall heat transfer coefficient
Figure 6. Tube length against heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop for shell side.

The reason after increases operation pressure and overall heat transfer coefficient
with tube length increasing is that cross section area directs proportion to tube
length. As a result, total heat transfer and pressure increases.
4- Effect of Fouling factor on heat transfer

Fouling can be considered as one of industrial operations problems that lead to


reducing thermal and hydraulic performance of equipment. where any material
deposits on surfaces can lead to additional resistance against energy transfer.
Therefore, the prevention of these deposits can play a vital role in enhancing the
heat transfer. Lei, et al. (2011) illustrates six forms of fouling which are
crystallization, particulate, chemical, corrosion, biological and solidification [13].
Many studies devoted to examining the factors that influence fouling deposits.
Lemos, Costa, and Bagjewicz (2017) stated that the fouling factor relates directly to
baffle spacing [14]. Srinivasan (2005), mentioned that fouling deposit rate increases
as fluid temperature decreases [15]. Rodriguez and Smith (2007) proposed new
correlation to predict the fouling rate and the decreasing in heat transfer efficiency
with time [16]. Aminian and Shahhosseini (2008) evaluated the generated fouling
rate with crude oil flow by studies different parameters such as the velocity of flow
and feed temperature [17]. Ishiyama et al. (2010) considered control fouling rate by
monitoring the feed temperature and velocity [18]. Fouling rate depends strongly
on the fluid compositions that flow into equipment, where in our design the fluids
are hot oil and dry gas. This part will test the effects of fouling factor on overall
heat transfer and energy amount. Several standards fouling rate used for both sides
shell and tube to study the rate of change in heat transfer against fouling rate. The
findings are on the shell side the change in fouling rate by 0.00003 m2. k/w lead to
decreasing in heat transfer by 50 kW as shown in figure 7. On the other hand, heat
transfer for tube side decreases by 6 kW with 0.00003 m2. k/w fouling rate change
for same conditions as shown in figure 8.
2880
Heat Transfer (kJ/s)

2840

2800

2760

2720

2680

2640
0.0003 0.00035 0.0004 0.00045 0.0005
Fouling rate

Figure 7. Fouling rate changing on shell side against heat transfer


2840

Heat Transfer (kJ/s) 2830

2820

2810

2800

2790

2780
0.000175 0.00018 0.000185 0.00019 0.000195 0.0002 0.000205
Fouling Rate

Figure 8. Fouling rate changing on shell side against heat transfer

Conclusion

The study investigated the effect of change some parameters on heat transfer
coefficient and pressure drop for shell and tube heat exchanger. The study
concluded that as shell diameter increases the heat transfer coefficient and
pressure drop increases. The pull-through head with triangular pitch can be the
best choice to increase heat transfer coefficient. While, baffle spacing and cutting
space reduced the heat transfer coefficient when increases. The fouling factor on
shell side can affect the heat transfer heat more than that for tube side, therefore it
is important to reduce fouling rate on shell side. The parameters selection has
direct effect on both overall heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop.
References

[1] M. Mirzaei, H. Hajabdollahi & H. Fadakar (2017). Multi-objective optimization


of shell-and-tube heat exchanger by constructal theory. Applied Thermal
Engineering, 125, 9-19.

[2] L. Liu, N. Ding, J. Shi, N. Xu, W. Guo & C. Wu (2016). Failure analysis of tube-
to-tubesheet welded joints in a shell-tube heat exchanger. Case Studies in
Engineering Failure Analysis, 32–40.

[3] A. A. Abd & S. Z. Naji (2017). Analysis study of shell and tube heat exchanger for
clough company with reselect different parameters to improve the design.
Case Studies in Thermal Engineering, 10, 455-467.

[4] S. Shinde & U. Chavan (2017). Numerical and Experimental Analysis on Shell
Side Thermo-Hydraulic Performance of Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger
with Continuous Helical FRP Baffles. Thermal Science and Engineering
Progress. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2017.11.006.

[5] D. Eryener (2006). Thermoeconomic optimization of baffle spacing for shell


and tube heat exchangers. Energy Conversion and Management, 47(11-12),
1478-1489.

[6] C. Yu, Z. Ren, & M. Zeng (2018). Numerical investigation of shell-side


performance for shell and tube heat exchangers with two different clamping
type anti-vibration baffles. Applied Thermal Engineering.

[7] H. S. Dizaji, S. Jafarmadar & S. Asaadi (2017). Experimental exergy analysis for
shell and tube heat exchanger made of corrugated shell and corrugated
tube. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, 475-481.

[8] A. Alimoradi & F. Veysi (2017). Optimal and critical values of geometrical
parameters of shell and helically coiled tube heat exchangers. Case Studies
in Thermal Engineering, 73-78.

[9] B. Gao, Q. Bi, Z. Nie & J. Wu (2015). 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, 48-
57.

[10] R. K. Sinnott (1993). Chemical Engineering Design (2 ed., Vol. 6). Pergamon.
[11] H. Li & V. Kottke (1998). Effect of baffle spacing on pressure drop and local
heat transfer in shell-and-tube heat exchangers for staggered tube
arrangement. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 41(10), 1303-
1311.

[12] M.Saffar-Avval, & E.Damangir. (1995). A general correlation for determining


optimum baffle spacing for all types of shell and tube exchangers.
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 38(13), 2501-2506.

[13] C. Lei, Z. Peng, T. Day, X. Yan, X. Bai & C. Yuan (2011). Experimental
observation of surface morphology effect on crystallization fouling in plate
heat exchangers. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer,
38(1), 25-30.

[14] J. C. Lemos, L.H.Costa & J.Bgajewicz (2017). Linear method for the design of
shell and tube heat exchangers including fouling modeling. Applied Thermal
Engineering, 125, 1345-1353.

[15] M. Srinivasan (2005) Heat exchanger fouling of some Canadian crude oils.
Heat Transfer Eng.7–14.

[16] C.Rodriguez, & R.Smith. (2007). Optimization of Operating Conditions for


Mitigating Fouling in Heat Exchanger Networks. Chemical Engineering
Research and Design, 85(6), 839-851.

[17] J. Aminian & S. Shahhosseini (2008). Evaluation of ANN modeling for


prediction of crude oil fouling behavior. Applied Thermal Engineering, 28(7),
668-674.

[18] E.M.Ishiyama, A.V.Heins, W.R.Paterson, L.Spinelli, & D.I.Wilson. (2010).


Scheduling cleaning in a crude oil preheat train subject to fouling:
Incorporating desalter control. Applied Thermal Engineering, 30(13), 1852-
1862.
Physical Properties
Table 1 Dry gas Properties
Dry Gas
Temperature, 𝑇, ℃ 24.7 260 142.35
𝐾𝑔 39.12 19.22 29.17
Density, 𝜌, ( 3 )
𝑚
Viscosity, µ (cP) 0.01247 0.01867 0.01557
𝐾𝐽
Specific Heat, 𝐶𝑝 2.412 2.87 2.64
𝐾𝑔.𝐾
𝑊 0.036 0.071 0.0535
Thermal Conductivity, 𝑘 , ( )
𝑚.𝑘

Table 2 Hot Oil Properties


Hot Oil
Temperature, T (°C) 280 220 250
Density, ρ (kg/m3) 1273.6 1409.4 1341.5
Viscosity, µ (cP) 0.1131 0.1804 0.14675
𝐾𝐽
Specific Heat, 𝐶𝑝 ( ) 2.67 2.88 2.87
𝐾𝑔.𝐾
Thermal Conductivity 0.0875 0.095 0.091
𝑊
𝑘 ,( )
𝑚.𝑘

Note: The values at the mean temperature were obtained by linear interpolation.

Potrebbero piacerti anche