Proceedings of the ASME 2013 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference

PVP2013
July 14-18, 2013, Paris, France

PVP2013-97930

NUMERICAL ANALYTIC APPROACH TO A CALCULATION OF A THERMAL

STRESS STATE OF SHELL AND TUBE HEAT EXCHANGERS

Igor Laskin Boris Volfson

RAN GROUP
Senior Research Fellow, PhD
6/5 Barklai str. Moscow 121087
Russia
E-mail: igor_las@rambler.ru
JSC VNIINEFTEMASH
Head of the Department of Strength Calculation
and Mathematical Modeling of Oil and Gas
Equipment
th
115191 19 4 Roschinsky pr., Moscow, Russia
Tel./Fax:7(495)9525985 E-mail: volfsonb2@asme.org

ABSTRACT shell side and channel, tube sheet, transitional part “shell side
Nowadays, a stress calculation of shell and tube heat channel”, shell side nozzles and heat exchanger tubes.
exchangers’ elements is based either on analytic methods
described in ASME, TEMA, EN, GOST and other standards or
on numerical modeling using FEA. The main disadvantage of
the analytic methods is that they can be applied only to certain
apparatuses’ designs and it is very difficult or even impossible
to use them with non-typical constructions. Otherwise, such a
calculation is easy to perform with modeling by FEA. However,
a direct finite element simulation of several thousands of tubes,
which can be designed in one heat exchanger, makes the task
very time-consuming and the resulting model very big and
computation-intensive. This paper examines a typical model,
which includes 3.5 million nodes and more than 3 million
elements. We offer a numerical analytic solution of this task,
which consists in modeling of a tube bundle by an orthotropic Fig. 1 Considered model of the heat exchanger
continuum with equivalent properties. The comparison of the
results of a temperature distribution calculation and the stress- The proposed simplified calculation methodology is based
strain distribution calculation using direct numerical modeling on the substitution of a tube bundle with an equivalent solid
of the tubes in the tube bundle by shell elements from one hand, body with orthotropic properties (Fig. 2).
and of the suggested numerical analytic solution from another,
shows that these results do match closely enough to practice.

INTRODUCTION
There are many cases, when finite element modeling
allows to simplify a design model significantly and to decrease
the dimension of a problem by using various approximations
based on analytical solutions or experimental outcomes. This
paper presents the results of a verification of a shortcut
methodology of the numerical analysis of stress-strain state on
the example of high-temperature tube-and-shell heat exchanger Fig. 2 Tube bundle as equivalent solid body
calculation. Figure 1 presents the considered model. It includes

1 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/77344/ on 02/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 This analysis was performed with ANSYS software. part of the models A and B are presented on Figures 5 and 6
Figure 3 and Figure 4 presents two types of finite element respectively.
models. The first type (hereafter defined as “model A”) is to
simulate a tube bundle with shell elements SHELL 131 and
other parts of the heat exchanger – solid elements SOLID 185.
The model A includes more than 3 million elements and 3.5
millions nodes.

Fig. 5 Temperature distribution in the most heated zone,

Model A, °С

Fig. 3 Solution A of the finite element model

The second option is to simulate a tube bundle as a solid

body (cylinder) with orthotropic properties, and a tube sheet as
a solid plate of the equivalent thickness and the adjusted
elasticity modulus (hereafter defined as “model B”). The model
B uses only solid finite elements SOLID 185. It includes 565
thousand elements and 481.5 thousand nodes. It is one-seventh
the size of the solution A model.

Fig. 6 Temperature distribution in a model, Model B

Design pressure in tubes and shell is P = 0.6 MPa.

MODELING OF THE TUBE BUNDLE IN THE

EQUIVALENT SIMPLIFIED MODEL

A perforated tube sheet has lesser bending stiffness, than a

solid plate of the same thickness. The Russian standard for
strength calculation of heat exchangers, GOST R 52857.7 [1]
uses a stiffness factor of perforated plate to value elastic
properties of a perforated plate in comparison with a solid one.
This factor is determined by the following formula:
Fig. 4 Solution B of the finite element model

During the first phase of work we performed technological ψ 0 = ηt7 / 3 = 0.49, (1)
thermal analysis using the HTRI software. The resulting
thermal fields were used in the strength calculation by finite where ηt – influence factor of pressure on a tube sheet from a
element method. Temperature distribution in the most heated tube side

2 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/77344/ on 02/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 π (d t − 2 ⋅ st ) 2 The tubesheet is under tube-side pressure, which is
ηt = 1 − ⋅ = 0.73, (2) determined by following formula:
4 t1 ⋅ t 2
где t1 = 26 mm – horizontal tube pitch; Pt = ηt ⋅ P = 0.438 MPa,
t 2 = 22.52 mm – vertical tube pitch;
The tubesheet is under shell side pressure, which is
d t = 20 mm – tube diameter; determined by following formula:
st = 3 mm – tube wall thickness.
According to GOST R 52857.7 design stresses in tube Pm = η m ⋅ P = 0.276 MPa,
sheets with tubes, fixed in a part of the tubesheet thickness, are
in 1/ϕЕ times larger than stresses in a solid plate of the same
thickness. Herein ϕЕ is the effective attenuation factor,
COMPARISON OF CALCULATIONS’ RESULTS
determined by a formula:
The calculations’ results are shown on Figures 7-10 and in
t1 − d t the Table 1.
ϕE = = 0.23 (3)
t1
Figure 7 shows Von Mises distribution of equivalent
stresses in the area of maximum stress values in finite element
Taking into account that a condition of a stress-strained
‘A model’, and Figure 8 – in finite element ‘B model’.
tube sheet is like pure bending, we can exchange a perforated
part of a tube sheet on the equivalent solid plate of the effective
Figure 9 shows Von Mises distribution of equivalent
thickness in the calculation model:
stresses in the area of maximum temperature values in finite
element ‘A model’, and Figure 10 – in finite element ‘B
S рпр = S p ϕE = 24.04 mm (4) model’.

To make bending stiffness of the equivalent solid plate of

the effective thickness equal with bending stiffness of the
perforated part of a tube sheet we will exchange the elasticity
modulus Ep=132 MPa for this part on the equivalent effective
value:

ψо
Enp = E = 2.81*105 MPa (5)
ϕE p

A tube bundle is modeling as an orthotropic elastic prism.

Furthermore elastic modulus of the bundle’s material in
directions transverse to the apparatus axis are taken as zero. In
the direction along apparatus axis an effective bundle elasticity
modulus is taken as:
Fig. 7 Von Mises distribution of equivalent stresses in the
ET*= (ηt - ηm) ET = 3.6*104 MPa (6)
area of maximum stress values in finite element ‘A model’
where: ηm,– influence factor of pressure on a tube sheet from
a tube side:
π d t2
ηm = 1 − ⋅ = 0.4634 (7)
4 t1 ⋅ t2

When a tubesheet is under pressure, it is necessary to bear

in mind, that there are no tube holes in the model B. We can
make allowance for the lack of holes in the tubesheet
calculation model and the tubes section area by using influence
factors of pressure ηt и ηm.

3 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/77344/ on 02/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 within the “precise” Model A and within the approximate
Model B differed less than 3%.

Another comparison has been made for combinations of

stresses, which serves to evaluate the construction strength
according to ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section
VIII, Division 2 [ 2 ]. Fig. 11 shows the most loaded sections,
for which stress linearization was calculated.

Fig. 8 Von Mises distribution of equivalent stresses in the

area of maximum stress values in finite element ‘B model’

Fig. 11 The most loaded sections and stress linearization

Table 1 contains the comparison of linearized stresses

combinations in sections 1 to 3, which serves to evaluate the
construction strength according to ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 2 [ 2 ],
Table 1
Calculated stress The finite The finite
Section combinations, element element
MPa model A model B
Fig. 9 Von Mises distribution of equivalent stresses in the
Pl+Pb = 10.34 10.96
area of maximum temperature values, Model A 1
Pl+Pb+Q = 18.44 19.49
Pl+Pb = 23.5 25.19
2
Pl+Pb+Q = 43.34 45.97
Pl+Pb = 36.59 37.62
3
Pl+Pb+Q = 73.12 75.12

The comparison of values of stresses, presented in the

Fig. 10 Von Mises distribution of equivalent stresses in the
area of maximum temperature values, Model B
As it appears from results presented on figures 7 to 10,
maximum values of Von Mises equivalent stresses, calculated
Table 1, shows that calculated stress combinations in
accordance with ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,
Section VIII, Division 2, 2010 differs in the «precise» Model A
and «approximate» Model B calculations by the value of 2% to
7%. Besides, the more stress value, the less difference between
the results.
CONCLUSION
The comparison of the results of “precise” modeling and of
suggested by this article “approximate” modeling of a tube
bundle of a heat exchanger demonstrates that the difference
between maximum stresses in the construction, calculated

4 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/77344/ on 02/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 within Model A and Model B, is less than 3%. It allows to use
the suggested approximate model in practical calculations.

It can become especially efficient in those cases, when the

construction and loading are close to axisymmetric ones. Since
the suggested approximate model allows to use flat elements of
PLANE type, that simplify the task significantly allows to
decrease its dimension in several orders.

Method of a tube bundle approximate modeling suggested

in this article may be used effectively in stress calculation of
non-typical constructions of shell and tube heat exchangers.

REFERENCES
1. Nationalnyi Standart Rossiiskoi Federatsii GOST R
52857.7-2007 “Sosudy i Apparaty. Normy i Metody
Rascheta na Prochnost. Teploobmennye Apparaty”,
Moscow, 2008, (National Standard of Russian
Federation GOST R 52857.7-2007 “Vessels and
Apparatus. Norms and Methods of Strength
Calculation. Heat Exchangers”, in Russian).
2. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII,
Division 2, 2010, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, New York.

5 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/77344/ on 02/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo