QFuel Contractor

Email: Qfuel@qfl.com.qa

Heat Exchanger Design

Prepared by:
Ayman Arif

Submitted to:
Dr. Easa al-Musleh

Date:

20/03/19
Table of Contents
1. Objectives.................................................................................................................................3
2. Process Description.................................................................................................................3
3. Assumptions and Constraints.................................................................................................3
4. Detailed Design Procedure.....................................................................................................4
5. HE Design Results................................................................................................................17
6. HTRI for Design & Rating...................................................................................................18
7. Comparison of TEMA types..................................................................................................25
8. References.............................................................................................................................27

List of Tables

Table 1: Property table.....................................................................................................................5

Table 2: Summary for all iterations...............................................................................................17
Table 4: Comparison of TEMA types...........................................................................................25

List of Figures

Figure 1: HTRI Design Sheet........................................................................................................18

Figure 2: HTRI Design Specs Sheet..............................................................................................19
Figure 3: Mechanical Drawing of HTRI Design...........................................................................20
Figure 4:HTRI Rating mode results.............................................................................................21
Figure 5: HTRI Rating Specifications sheet..................................................................................22
Figure 6: Mechanical Drawing of HTRI Rating............................................................................23
 1. Objectives
 To design a heat exchanger using Kern’s method with iterations
 To design and rate the heat exchanger using HTRI
 To compare different TEMA types

2. Process Description
A shell and tube heat exchanger had to be designed in this task. It is one of the most common
heat exchanged used in industry. The chosen heat exchanger to design was a heat exchanger with
both streams as process streams, known as a process-to-process heat exchanger. These types of
heat exchangers are beneficial due to their reduction in cost since they lower the utility
requirements of the plant.
The heat exchanger is used to heat the condensate feed after it’s pumped and before it enters the
atmospheric distillation column. The diesel stream is leaving the atmospheric distillation column
at a high temperature and is used to heat the condensate feed to its required temperature.
Therefore, the hot fluid is diesel and the cold fluid is the pumped condensate. The hot stream,
diesel, enters the heat exchanger at 108.4 C and leaves at 83.73 C. The cold stream, pumped
condensate, enters the heat exchanger at 50.25 C and leaves at 93.39 C. There are no phase
changes in the heat exchanger- both of the streams are liquid. The flowrates are taken from the
simulation and the duty for the heat exchanged is calculated.

3. Assumptions and Constraints

Assumptions:
1) No phase change on shell or tube side
2) The mean temperature is used to get the properties since the temperature difference is not
too high
3) Carbon steel is the material of construction as it the most readily available
4) Square pitch is used since it gives lower pressure drop and is easy to clean
5) The heat duty of the diesel is used for the calculations since it is closest to the one given
from the software.
 6) The thermal conductivity is constant.
7) Split ring rear head type is used since it allows for easy cleaning due to fouling.
8) The TEMA type is AFS.
A- Removable cover since it is better for maintenance purposes
F- Our heat exchanger has 2 shell passes
S- The split ring head type is picked for the ease of cleaning

Constraints:
1) TEMA and ASME standards will be used for the tube side and shell side dimensions to
avoid the design of a special heat exchanger which will be hard to obtain and maintain.
2) Linear velocity of tube side should be 1-4 m/s according to the recommended range for
liquids.[1]
Linear velocity of shell side should be 0.3-1 m/s according to the recommended range for
liquids.[1]
3) Pressure drop of tube side should be <35 kPa since the liquid has a viscosity < 1cP. [1]
Pressure drop of shell side should be between 50-70 kPa since the liquid has a viscosity
between 1-10 cP. [1]
4) The error between the U assumed and the U calculated can only be 30% or less. [1]
5) The U calculated will be used for the U assumed in the next iteration if the error is more
than 30%.

4. Detailed Design Procedure

The heat exchanger design was carried out using Kern’s method. The steps carried out for the
detailed mechanical heat exchanger using Kern’s method are shown below. The sample
calculations are included within the steps. The design starts off with iteration 1, which is
terminated when it is not satisfied and the remaining sample calculations are shown for the next
iteration.
Step 1 & 2: Specifications and Properties
1) In this step, the following properties need to be determined. They can be extracted from
HYSYSTM
i. Inlet and outlet temperatures of both of the streams
ii. Mass flowrates of both streams
iii. Inlet pressure for both streams
iv. Density of both streams at mean temperature
v. Viscosity of both streams at mean temperature
vi. Heat Capacity of both streams at mean temperature
vii. Thermal Conductivity of both streams at mean temperature

2) The Heat Duty can be calculated as follows:

Q= ṁCp ∆ T

3) Fluid Allocation is done based on certain rules of thumb and properties of the fluid.

Sample Calculation:
1) Properties
Table 1: Property table

Properties (Units) Pumped Condensate Diesel

Inlet T ( C) 50.25 108.4

Outlet T ( C) 93.39 83.73
Avg T ( C) 71.82 96.065
Pressure P (bar) 8 2.155
Molar Flow n (kmol/h) 2700 236.6
Mass Flow m (kg/h) 334788.8088 54431.59743
Density  (kg/m^3) 718.6 791.2
Viscosity  (cP) 0.4468 1.265
Heat Capacity Cp (kJ/kg. C) 2.159 2.151
Thermal
Conductivity k (W/m.k) 0.102 0.1139
Heat Duty Q (kW) 802.3394363 802.3394363
Fluid Allocation - Tube Side Shell Side
 2) Heat duty
kg kJ
Q=54331
hr (
× 2.161
kg C )
× ( 108.4−83.73 ) C=802 kJ /hr

3) Fluid Allocation

Pumped Condensate- Tube side, Diesel- Shell side

Justification: The fluid was allocated to the tube or shell side by using rules of thumb. The
pumped condensate was assigned to the tube side since it has higher pressure and is less
viscous. The diesel was assigned to the shell side since it has higher flow, lower pressure and
is more viscous.

Step 3: Assumption for the Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient U

In this step, the assumption of U can be made from Table 12.1[1] or Figure 12.1[1] based on the
categories of the fluid.

Sample Calculation:
The range found in the 1st iteration was 100-400 W/m2°C .
Justification: This was found using Table 12.1[1] where both of the fluids were classified as
‘Light Oils’. Therefore, to start off, my U assumed will be 100 W/m2°C

Step 4: Finding ∆Tm

1) the log mean temperature needs to be found.

2) Then, a temperature correction factor Ft needs to be calculated. This is done by the

calculation of the factors R and S using the below equations:
(T −T 2 )
R= 1
(t 2−t 1 )
(t 2−t 1)
S¿
(T 1−t 1 )
 3) The correction factor, Ft, can then be found using Figure 12.19[1] or Figure 12.20[1]
According to the number of shell and tube passes.

4) The temperature difference can then be found by:

∆ T m=F t∗∆ T lm

Sample Calculations:
( 108.4−93.39 )−( 93.39−50.25 ) ° C
∆ T LM = =23.0 ° C
1) (108.40−93.39)
ln ((93.39−50.25) )
2)
(108.4−83.73)
R= =0.572
(93.39−50.25)
( 93.39−50.25 )
S= =0.742
( 108.4−50.25 )

3) For 1 shell pass and 2 tube passes, Figure 12.19[1] was used to find Ft using R and S.
However, this is out of the range of the graph.

Try 2 shell pass and 4 tube passes, Figure 12.20[1] was used to find Ft using R and S and
this fits within the range of the graph
F t=0.92

4)
∆ T m=F t∗∆ T lm=0.92× 23.0 ° C=21.18 ° C

Step 5: Heat Transfer Area

The overall heat transfer area can be calculated as follows:

Q
A=
∆ T m ×U assumed
Sample Calculations:
Q 802.3 ×10 3 W
A= = =378.8 m2
∆ T m ×U assumed W
21.18° C × 100 2
m °C
Step 6: Layout & Tube Size

1) Determine type of head from TEMA standards and choose material of construction

2) Choose outer diameter for the tube, the standard tube sizes can be found in Table 12.3[1]

3) Choose thickness for the tube, the standard thickness can be found in Table 12.3[1]

4) Calculate the inner diameter of the tube:

D i=D o−2∗(thickness)

5) Choose the length of the tube, the standards lengths can be found in Table 12.3[1]

Sample Calculations:
1)
Type of head: Split ring floating head type
Material: Carbon Steel
Justification: The type of head is chosen to be split ring since the tube bundle can be
removed and the tubes can be cleaned in case of fouling.
Justification: The type of material used is carbon steel. This is because most of the
standards given are for steel and it is the most commonly used and widely available
material for pipes.

2) Do =19 mm=0.019 m

Justification: The outer diameter is picked as 19 mm for the first trial since it is a smaller
diameter and would give more compact and cheaper heat exchangers. It is chosen as a
TEMA standard from Table 12.3. [1]
 3) Thickness=2.1mm=0.021 m

Justification: The thickness is chosen to be 2.1 mm since it is an adequate thickness that

would withstand the internal and external pressure. It is chosen from the TEMA standards
in Table 12.3. [1]

4) D i=19 mm−( 2∗2.1 mm ) =14.8 mm=0.0148 m

5) L=4.88 m from Table 12.3[1]

Justification: 4.88 m is a TEMA standard and is in the middle of the ranges

Step 7: Number of Tubes

Calculate the following parameters for the tube side:

1) Area of tubes
At =π DoL

2) Number of tubes
Area
Tubes=
Area of tube
3) Tubes per pass Area
Tubes per pass=
tube passes

4) Cross-sectional area of tube

π
Ac = D i2
4

5) Area per pass

A
= Ac∗Tubes per pass
Pass
6) Tube-side velocity
ṁ
ut =( )
ρt∗area per pass
The tube side velocity has a recommended range according to the type of fluid present in the
tube.
Sample Calculations:
1)
At =π D 0 L=π × 0.019m × 4.88 m=0.291m2
2)
Area 378.8 m 2
Tubes= = =1301 Tubes
Area of tube 0.291 m 2
3)
Area 1301tubes
Tubes per pass= = =325tubes
tube passes 4
4)
π π
Ac = D i 2= ×(0.0148m)2=1.72× 10−4 m 2
4 4
5)
A
= Ac∗Tubes per pass=( 1.72 ×10−4 m2 ) × 4=0.559 m2
Pass
6)
334789 kg
ṁ 3600 s m
ut =
( )
ρt∗A
pass
=
kg
718.6 3 × 0.559 m2
m
=2.314
s

Justification: The recommended range for tube-side liquids is 1-4 m/s.[1] The design
satisfies this constraint. The tube side velocity should be high enough for a good heat
transfer coefficient and to reduce fouling but it can cause a high pressure drop.

Step 8: Bundle & Shell Diameter

1) Determine the Type of Pitch
2) Calculate the Tube Pitch
pt =1.25 d o

3) Find K1 and n1 using Table 12.4[1] according to the type of pitch used and the number of
tube passes.

4) Calculate the bundle diameter

N t n1
Db =d o
[1]
K1 ( ) 1

5) Find the shell clearance using Figure 12.12 and find the shell diameter as follows:
 D s =D b +Clearance

Sample Calculations:

1) Pitch type: Square Pitch

Justification: Square pitch is used since it the outside of the tubes can be cleaned easily due
to fouling. The square pitch also gives a lower pressure drop than the triangular or rotated
square pitch.

2) pt =1.25 d o=1.25 ×0.019 m=0.0238 m

3) For square pitch and 4 tube passes:

K 1=0.158 ,n1 =2.263

1 1
4) Nt 381
D b =d o ( )
K1
n1
=0.019 m× ( 0.158 ) 2.263
=1.021 m

5)
Shell Clearance=0.073 m( Figure 12.12) [1]

Ds =Db +Clearance=1.021 m+ 0.073 m=1.094 m

Step 9: Tube-side Heat Transfer Coefficient

1) Calculate Reynold’s number
ρud i
ℜ=
μ
2) Calculate Prandtl Number
Pr=
Cp μ
3) Calculate L/di kf

4) Find the Heat Transfer Factor, jh, using Figure 12.23[1]

5) Calculate the Tube-side Heat Transfer coefficient, hi

 kf μ
Sample Calculations:
hi =
di ( )
j h ReP r 0.33
μw

1) kg m

ℜ=
ρu d
=
(t
718.6 ×2.31
im s) 3
=5.51× 10 4
μ 0.4468
2) 1000
J 0.4468
Pr=
Cp μ
=
2159
kg ° (
C
×
1000
=9.46
)
kf W
0.102 2
3) m .K
L 4.88 m
= =329.7
d i 0.0148 m

4)
j h =0.0032 from Figure 12.23[1]

5) W
0.102
.K
kf μ m2 W
hi =
di
j h ReP r 0.33 ( )
μw
=
0.0148 m
× 0.0032× ( 5.51× 104 ) × 9.460.33=2549.6 2
m C

Step 10: Shell-side Heat Transfer Coefficient

1) Choose the baffle spacing factor; typically it lies between 0.2-1.0[1]

2) Calculate the baffle spacing.

l B =Baffle spacing factor × D s
3) Calculate the Cross Flow Area
( ( pt −d o ) Ds lB )
A s=
pt

4) Calculate the Mass Velocity

Ws
Gs =
As

5) Calculate the Linear Velocity Gs

u s=
ρ
6) Calculate the Equivalent Diameter
1.27 2
d e= ( pt −0.785 d 2o )
do
 7) Calculate the Reynold’s number: ρu s d e
ℜ=
8) Choose a Baffle Cut %; typically is lies betweenμ 15-45%[1]

9) Find the Heat Transfer Factor at the chosen Baffle Cut % using Figure 12.29

10) Calculate the Prandtl Number

Pr=
Cp μ
kf
11) Calculate the Shell-side Heat Transfer Coefficient, hs

kf μ 0.14
h s=
de h ( )
j ReP r 0.33
μw

Sample Calculations:
1) Baffle Spacing Factor=0.2

Justification: This baffle spacing gives high heat transfer coefficient and not too high
pressure drop.

2) l B =Baffle spacing factor × D s=0.2 ×1.09 m=0.219 m

3)
( ( pt −d o ) Ds l B )
( ( 0.0238 m−0.019 m )∗( 1.09m)∗0.219 m) 2
A s= = =0.240 m
pt 0.0238 m
4) 54431
W 3600
Gs = s = =631.6 kg /s
A s 0.240 m2
kg
5) 631.6
Gs s m
u s= = =0.798
ρ kg s
791.2 3
Justification: The recommended range is from m 0.3-1.0 m/s.[1] The velocity is on the higher
side, this means that it will reduce fouling.

6) 1.27 2 1.27
d e= ( p t −0.785 d 2o ) = ( 0.02382−0.785 ( 0.019 ) ) =0.0188 m
do 0.019 m

7) kg m
791.2 ×0.798
ρu s d e m 3
s
ℜ= = =9.37 × 103
μ 1.265 /1000
 8) Baffle Cut :25 %

Justification: 25% Baffle Cuts give good Heat transfer area without a big ∆P

9) j h =0.0058 ¿ Figure 12.29

Pr=
10)
J 1.265
Cp μ
=
( 1139
kg C
×
1000 )
=23.9
11) kf W
0.1139 2 W
0.1139m K
kf μ 0.14 m2 K ( W
h s= j ReP r 0.33
de h ( )
μw
=
0.0188 m
× 9.37∗103 ) ×23.9 0.33=940.0 2
m C
The viscosity term can be neglected since viscosity is not so high.

Step 11: Overall Coefficient

1) Get the fouling factors for the shell side and tube side fluid. This can be found in Table
12.2.
2) Get the Thermal Conductivity of the Tube from Table 12.6
3) Calculate 1/Overall Coefficient, 1/Uo
do
d o ln ⁡( )
1 1 1 di do 1 do 1
4) Calculate the Overall
= +Coefficient,
U o ho h od
+
2 kw (×
Uo- +the inverse
d i hid )
of the×equation
+(
d i hi
) above.

5) Calculate the error between Uassumed and Ucalculated

U error=¿U calculated−U assumed ∨ ¿ × 100 % ¿
U assumed
The error should be less than 30% to proceed. Otherwise, go back and change the design
variables.

Sample Calculations:
W
1) Diesel fouling factor coefficient , h od=5000
m2 C
W
Pumped Condensate fouling factor coeffieicnt ,h id =2000
m2 C
 Justification: Diesel taken as heavy oil from Table 12.2. [1] Pumped condensate taken as
light oil from Table 12.2[1]

W
2) k w =45 of Carbon Steel ¿ Table 12.6[1]
m2 C

3)
do 0.019 m
1 1 1
d o ln ⁡(
di
)
d 1 d 1 1 1
0.019 m∗ln ( 0.0148 m) 0.019 m

4)
= + +
U o ho h od 2 kw (
+ o×
d i hid )(
+ o× =
d i hi ) W
940 2
+
5000 2
W
+
W
2∗45 2
+
( 0.0148 m
m C m C m C
1 W
Uo= =406
m2 C m2 C
0.00246
W

¿ 406−100
5) U error=¿U calculated−U assumed ∨ × 100 %= ∗100 %=306 % ¿
U assumed 100

U error % should be less than 30%. Need to go back and change the design.

TERMINATE ITERATION 1.

Assume this as the new U assumed for Iteration 2. Repeat Steps 1-10. The sample
calculations for Iteration 2 step 11 is shown below.

Step 11: Pressure Drop

Tube Side:-
1) Recall the Tube-side Reynold’s number
2) Find the Friction Factor, jf using Figure 12.24
3) Calculate the Tube Side Pressure Drop

L μ −m
ρ u2t
∆ Pt =N p (8 j f
di( )( )
μw
+2.5)×
2
Shell Side:-
1) Recall the Shell-side Reynold’s number
2) Find the Friction Factor, jf using Figure 12.30
3) Calculate the Shell-side Pressure Drop
2 −0.14
Ds L ρ us μ
∆ P s=8 j f ( )( ) ( )
de l B 2 μw
Sample Calculations:
Tube Side:
1) As calculated in the tube-side calculations,

ℜ=1.46 ×105

2) j f =0.0027¿ Figure 12.24 [1]

L μ −m
ρ u2t 718.6 kg m 2
( ( )( )
3) ∆ Pt =N p 8 j f
di μw )
+2.5 ×
2
=4 × ( 8 × 0.0027× 128+2.5 ) ×
m3
×(3.18
s ) =76 kPa

The pressure drop should be <35 kPa since Viscosity < 1cP[1].

TERMINATE ITERATION 2.

Use the same U and repeat Steps 1-10 for Iteration 3. Increase the OD, reduce length to
satisfy P drop. Calculations for Iteration 3 Step 11 is shown below.

Shell Side:
1) As calculated in the shell-side calculations,

ℜ=1.06 ×105

2) j f =0.0028¿ Figure 12.24

3)
kg 0.46 m 2
D s L ρ u2s μ −0.14 1.17 m 2.44 m
718.6
m3
×( s )
∆ P s=8 j f ( )( ) ( )
d e l B 2 μw
=8 × 0.0027 × ×
0.0375 m 0.352m
×
2
=14 kPa
The pressure drop should be between 50-70 kPa since Viscosity is 1-10 cP

TERMINATE ITERATION 3.
 Use the same U and repeat Steps 1-10 for Iteration 4. Increase baffle spacing and baffle
cuts to satisfy P drop.

5. HE Design Results
Table 2: Summary for all iterations

Iteration 1 Iteration 2 Iteration 3 Iteration 4

Assumed HT Coefficient U assumed (W/m2 ∘C) 100 Acceptable 406 Acceptable 406 Acceptable 406 Acceptable

Heat Transfer Area Ao 2

(m ) 378.7940784 Acceptable 93.29903408 Acceptable 93.29903408 Acceptable 93.29903408 Acceptable

Tube Side Velocity ut (m/s) 2.313918254 Acceptable 3.17777432 Acceptable 2.113918739 Acceptable 2.118516213 Acceptable

Shell Side Velocity us (m/s) 0.798301609 Acceptable 0.469730479 Acceptable 0.461830502 Acceptable 0.833192664 Acceptable

HT coefficient %error U error (%) 306.1751118 Too high 15.81669899 Acceptable 26.00621132 Acceptable 16.36440686 Acceptable

Pressure drop- Tube side (kPa) - - 76.40034951 Too high 27.30650322 Acceptable 28.45264661 Acceptable

Pressure drop- Shell Side (kPa) - - - - 14.04635324 Too low 54.29037639 Acceptable

Tube Side HT Coefficient hi W/m2.C 2549.616554 - 2954.361907 - 2038.089256 - 2042.521812 -

Shell Side HT Coefficient ho W/m2.C 939.9891813 - 572.173643 - 543.7990743 - 625.8568625 -

Decrease tube-side P drop Increase shell side P drop

Comments for next iteration: Set Ucalculated to Uassumed Meets the requirements
Decrease baffle spacing Decrease OD and Baffle Spacing

Iteration 1:
The U % error was too high so U calculated is taken for the next iteration.
Iteration 2:
The steps are repeated again. The U % error is 15% now which is acceptable. The pressure drop
on the tube side is too high so the iteration is terminated. In iteration 3, the pressure drop should
be reduced by increasing the tube diameter. This will reduce the velocity and therefore reduce
the pressure drop.
Iteration 3:
The steps are repeated again. The U % error is 26% now which is acceptable. The pressure drop
on the shell side is too low so the iteration is terminated. In iteration 4, the pressure drop should
be increased by reducing the baffle spacing.
Iteration 4:
All the recommended designs and constraints are satisfied. The overall coefficient is found to be
406 W/m2.C. The heat transfer area is 93 m2. All the velocity and pressure drop requirements are
met.

6. HTRI for Design & Rating

Design mode:

Figure 1: HTRI Design Sheet

Figure 2: HTRI Design Specs Sheet
 Type F Type S
Tube outlet 2 Shell pass Split ring
nozzle Shell inlet
nozzle

Type A
Front head
Shell outlet
nozzle

Tube inlet
nozzle Figure 3: Mechanical Drawing of HTRI Design

The design mode in HTRI is a way for the software to come up with its own design using our
defined TEMA type and limited input. The TEMA type of AFS and the fluid properties were
defined. The tube’s outer diameter, thickness, length and pitch according to my final iteration.
The shell’s internal diameter was also added. These were the required parameters for the
software to generate its own design. The results are shown in the design sheet in Figure 1 and the
specifications sheet in Figure 2. It can be seen that the required U is 441.47 W/m2.C. The U
obtained from the excel iterations is 407 W/m2.C. These values are very close and give the
overdesign as 14%. This validates the excel calculations as the difference is very less and could
just be due to the extra iterations made in HTRI as compared to Kern’s method in excel. The heat
transfer coefficient for the tube side obtained in HTRI (1610.9 W/m2.C) is lower than the one
obtained in the excel (2042 W/m2.C) so the HTRI design would be more efficient. The shell side
heat transfer coefficient obtained in the HTRI (795.8 W/m2.C) is slightly higher than the excel
(625.8 W/m2.C) and could be due to the unspecified baffle cuts and baffle spacing. The
mechanical drawing of the designed heat exchanger is shown in Figure 3. It can be seen that the
tube length is short and the shell diameter is relatively high.
Rating mode:

Figure 4:HTRI Rating mode results

Figure 5: HTRI Rating Specifications sheet
 Type F
Shell inlet 2 Shell pass Type S
Tube outlet nozzle Split ring
nozzle

Type A
Front head Shell outlet
nozzle Baffle cuts
Tube inlet
nozzle Figure 6: Mechanical Drawing of HTRI Rating

The rating mode in HTRI is a way for the software to simulate your design using our defined
TEMA type and detailed input. It requires more input than the design mode since it is used just
as a check for your design and doesn’t function to generate its own. The TEMA type of AFS and
the fluid properties were defined. The tube’s outer diameter, thickness, length and pitch
according to my final iteration. The shell’s internal diameter, heat exchanged, baffle cuts and
baffle spacing was also added. These were the required parameters for the software to generate
the rating of our design. The results are shown in the design sheet in Figure 4 and the
specifications sheet in Figure 5. It can be seen that the required U is 456 W/m2.C. The U obtained
from the excel iterations is 407 W/m2.C. These values are very close and give the overdesign as
-44%. This deviation from the optimum design can be due to the design decisions such as baffle
cuts and baffle spacing made and the assumptions such as the negligence of the viscosity
correction term.

The tube side heat transfer coefficient obtained from HTRI (2017.5 W/m2.C) is almost identical
to the one obtained from the excel (2042 W/m2.C). This validates the excel and the design.
Moreover, the higher heat transfer coefficient is preferred since it would give a better heat
exchanger performance. The shell side heat transfer coefficient is lower in the HTRI (299.1
W/m2.C) than in the excel (625.9 W/m2.C) This could be due to the different design decisions
made. However, the higher heat transfer coefficient would be preferred since it would give a
better performance. The mechanical drawing of the designed heat exchanger is shown in Figure
6. It can be seen that the tube length and the shell diameter is the same as in design mode since
these were specified by the system. However, the baffles vary.

The HTRI design mode gives a value of U closer to the excel value. This means that the value
obtained from the excel is justified and that Kern’s method gives a value similar to that of HTRI.
The HTRI design mode uses more iterations and makes its own shell side design decisions
whereas in the excel, the design decisions for the shell side were mostly ourselves. The
similarities of the values justify the design decisions. However, the heat transfer coefficients
from excel were closer to the rating mode in HTRI.
 7. Comparison of TEMA types
Table 3: Comparison of TEMA types

AFU AFS AFT BFS

Fluid Allocation Condensate Shell Tube side Tube side Tube side
side
Diesel Tube Shell side Shell side Shell side
side
Design decision OD (mm) 19 32 32 16
ID (mm) 15.6 28.6 28.6 12.6
Length (m) 6.1 2.44 2.44 4.88
Tube passes 4 4 6 8
Baffle Cut (Pct 25 15.3 16.4 22.7
Dia.)
Baffle spacing 0.4*Ds 198.9 215.2 265.7
(mm)
Heat transfer 124.9 471.0 408.5 60.1
area(m2)
Number of tubes 343 506 350 250
Results
Shell diameter 580 1070 1000 461.0
(mm)
Overall heat 300 441.5 507.3 651.9
transfer
coefficient
Heat transfer 933.3 1610.9 2649.6 3196.2
coefficient –
tube
Heat transfer 805.3 795.8 947.9 1842.2
coefficient –
shell
Velocity – tube 1.17 1.54 3.09 3.19
side
Velocity – shell 0.4 0.36 0.39 0.72
side

Kern’s method only correlates rear head type with the performance of the heat exchanger. There
is no correlation of front head type or shell type provided in Kern’s method. Therefore, the front
head type was chosen based on only the cost, ease of maintenance and number of shell and tube
passes in the heat exchanger. As it can be observed from Table 2, three heat exchangers had an
“A” type front head and one had a “B” type front head. “A” front head type has a removable
cover. This provides easy access to the tubes and hence cleaning is easier. Moreover, in case of a
problem, it will be easier to disassemble it and repair it. On the other hand, “B” front head type is
less expensive. It does not have a removable cover which prevents any leaks.

All of the heat exchangers designed had “F” shell types. This is because “F” type provides a 2-
Pass shell and all of the heat exchangers designed required 2 shell passes.
The rear head type along with the dimensions and number of tubes have a significant effect on
the shell diameter which in turn affects the shell side velocity followed by heat transfer
coefficient, overall coefficient and pressure drop. The shell diameter is generally the highest with
a split ring rear head type due to the high shell clearance [1]. As it can be observed from Table 2,
the AFS type gave the highest shell diameter as expected (1071mm > 580,1000,450 mm). Even
though the BFS type also has a split ring rear head type, its shell diameter was the lowest (450
mm). This is because the number of tubes in BFS was the lowest compared to other types (262
<343, 381, 351) which is a result of different design decisions made and a high overall
coefficient (597 W/m2C > 300, 406, 441 W/m2C). Observing the results obtained from BFS type,
it is evident that the design decisions made, and the overall coefficient had a higher effect on the
performance of the heat exchanger than the type.

Pull through floating head type also results in a high shell clearance, however, it is slightly lower
than the split ring type [1]. This can be observed in Table 2 where the shell diameter of AFT type
is slightly lower than AFS. Fixed and U-tube has the smallest shell clearance compared to other
rear head types [1]. This can be observed from Table 2, where the AFU type’s shell diameter was
significantly lower than AFT and AFS. The AFS type of heat exchanger gave the lowest heat
transfer coefficient which was expected since its shell diameter and baffle cut was the highest.
However, its shell side velocity was the highest. This is because the baffle spacing in AFS was
lower compared to AFU and BFS type heat exchanger designs. BFT type gave a higher heat
transfer coefficient than AFU and AFS. This is because the baffle cut was smaller than AFS and
the baffle spacing was smaller than AFU. Moreover, the fluid allocations were different in AFU
design compared to the other designs which further made the effect of types on the heat
exchanger performance unclear.
 8. References
[1]- Sinnott, R., & Towler, G. (2013). Chemical engineering design. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heineman.