Anda di halaman 1dari 3

# The procedure for the design of the shell and tube heat exchanger was simplified using many

assumptions and did not account other factors such as the leakages in the shell-side fluid. In the
iterative procedure of the design found in Towler, the overall heat transfer coefficient U should be
guessed first. There are suggested values for U in the said reference which we used in our design. The
calculated U values were near the initial guess. This is because the water-water system which is our
reference for the guessed initial U is almost similar to the water-milk system in the process where the
milk is mostly water. There is only one iteration for U in the calculations made. However, in the
calculation of the wall viscosity, around two iterations were made. The viscosity is dependent on
temperature. The early convergence of the values was due to the small difference in temperature and
relatively high heat transfer coefficient of the shell-side and tube-side fluid and the

For convenience, we made calculations having different combinations of tube sizes, lengths, and layouts
instead of iterating for the pressure drop. We had runs where the pressure drop and velocities
calculated are in the range of acceptable values. The power needed to compensate for the pressure
drops are in the range of 0.8 to 1.3 kW which are reasonable. (Bakit reasonable, may nakita kasi ako sa
net 1000 W eh kaya ayun)

III.
In the overall assessment of the equipment designs, criteria were established based on costs on
operation and construction.
OPERATION . (65%)
Power to compensate pressure drop (40%)
Cleaning .. (20%)
vmilk (5%)
vwater (5%)
tube length . (15%)
CONSTRUCTION (35%)
Power
The maximum power was based on the 35 kPa

## pressure both on shell and tube side.

Velocities
The maximum velocity for the shell-side fluid is 1 m/s
while it is 4 for the tube-side fluid.
Tube length
We want a shorter tube length in order to minimize
the space allotment for the STHE both on cleaning
and installation
Construction
The first part represents the cost based on the
number of tubes and the second one represents the
cost on length. The greater the number of tubes and
the longer the tube length, the less points the certain
STHE design will get.

STHE

1-2

2-4

3-6

Tube OD (in)
Thickness (in)
Length (ft)
Area (m2)
Layout
No of tubes
Uo (W/m2K)
hi (W/m2K)
ho (W/m2K)
Shell ID (in)
Shell velocity (m/s)
Tube velocity (m/s)
Shell pressure drop (Pa)
Tube pressure drop (Pa)
Power (W)

0.75
0.065
16
61.45937
square
212
963.54
5482.287284
4716.705055
22.62
0.555
1.144
13853.02
14586.6
852.1417146
46.84440545

1.5
0.065
20

2
0.083
20
58.5605
square
66
870.42
4768.317112
3179.530014
37
0.622
1.26
21134.13
26291.62
1395.396554
47.91043074

square
84
934.16

29.25
0.664
1.183
22470
18711.71
1265.337603
48.90580141

From the established criteria, the 2-4 STHE garnered the highest points. The 1-2 STHE may have the
lowest power requirement but the construction and installation costs may be higher compared to the
others. Cleaning may also be harder due to the higher number of tubes. The 3-6 STHE may look less
expensive in the construction based on the materials but it has the greatest power requirement. The 2-4
STHE is more preferred because of its simpler design. BASTA INTERMEDIATE SYA SA DLAWA.

IV
The 2-4 STHE is the best design we made. If we will consider other factors mentioned in the criteria.
We wouldnt recommend it strongly because the calculation was simplified. Many factors were not
accounted like the leakages on the shell side fluid. The deviation from ideality may affect the
calculations greatly.
No, the calculation was simplified. Simulation