U-Tube Heat-Exchangers: New

Common Design Rules for ASME,

CODAP, and EN 13445 CODES
F. Osweiller
Centre Technique des Industries Mcaniques,
Senlis, France

In the year 2000, ASME Code Section VIIIDiv. 1, CODAP (French Code) and EN
13445 (European Standard for Unfired Pressure Vessels) have adopted the same rules for
the design of U-tube tubesheet heat exchangers. Three different rules were proposed,
based on a different technical basis, to cover: Tubesheet gasketed with shell and channel; Tubesheet integral with shell and channel; Tubesheet integral with shell and
gasketed with channel or the reverse. At the initiative of the author, a more refined and
uniform technical approach has been developed, to cover all tubesheet configurations.
The paper explains the rationale for this new design method which has been incorporated
recently in ASME, CODAP, and EN 13445. This is substantiated with comparisons to
TEMA Standards and a benchmark of numerical comparisons DOI: 10.1115/1.2138061

In 1992 ASME and CODAP decided to reconcile their design

rules devoted to tubesheet heat-exchangers. This reconciliation
has been extended to the draft European Standard for Unfired
Pressure Vessel, as CEN/TC54 decided in 1993 to adopt CODAP
tubesheet design rules.
This reconciliation covers both the analytical aspect same theoretical basis and the editorial aspect same notations, same
tubesheet configurations, same design loading cases, same structure, and presentation of the rules. For more details see Osweiller
1. This reconciliation applies to the three types of heatexchangers:

Later on, Urey Miller, as a member of the ASME Special Working Group on Heat Transfer Equipment, developed a more refined
analytical approach to cover the cases where the tubesheet is extended as a flange configurations b and e, which was adopted in
ASME in 1992, and in CODAP in 1998.
More details are provided in Solers book 3 and Osweillers
paper 4.
However, this new set of rules was not totally satisfactory:

Three different rules, based on different analytical approaches, were proposed to cover configurations a, b, d,
and e;
the rule for configuration d covered only the case where
the tubesheet was not extended as a flange, with gaskets on
both sides of the same diameter;
the rule for configuration a used the same formula, corrected by TEMA coefficient F to account for the degree of
restraint of the tubesheet by the shell and channel.
That approach is not satisfactory for reasons explained by
Osweiller 4;
Configurations c and f gasketed tubesheet not extended as
a flange were not covered.

Fixed tubesheet heat-exchangers. ASME and CODAP use

the same analytical approach, but CODAP ignores the unperforated tubesheet rim.
Floating tubesheet heat-exchangers. Both codes have
adapted the fixed tubesheet approach to the case of floating
tubesheets.
U-tube tubesheet heat-exchangers. ASME and CODAP
have adopted the same rules.

Six configurations of tubesheets are covered in ASME,

CODAP, and EN 13445 rules, depending on their junction with
the shell and the channel see Fig. 1.
However, for U-tube tubesheets, the 1998 ASME edition covered only four of these six configurations using three different
analytical approaches.
The purpose of this paper is to show the development of a new
analytical treatment to cover the six configurations in a more consistent and refined manner.
This paper represents the views of the Special Working Group
on Heat Transfer Equipment, the committee developing the UHX
tubesheet design rules in ASME Section VIII, Division 1.

Use of an effective pitch to account for unperforated diametral lanes,

use of direct formula to determine the tubesheet thickness.

Introduction

For these reasons, the author proposed in 2000 to develop a

more refined, and unique, approach to cover the six tubesheet
configurations. This approach is based on Urey Millers method
mentioned above, with some improvements:

Treatment of configurations c and f where the tubesheet is

not extended as a flange;
accounting for local pressures acting on the shell and the
channel, when integral with the tubesheet;
use of Poissons ratio in all formulas, rather than using
= 0.3 which leads to odd coefficients;
derivation of more condensed formulas, providing formulas more consistent with the fixed, tubesheet rules, and
improving the clarity of the rules.

Historical Background Of U-Tube Tubesheets

The 1990 CODAP rules for U-tube tubesheets were originally

based on Gardners method 2, also adopted by BS 5500 in 1976
and ISO 2694 in 1973. It was adopted by ASME for the first time
in 1982, with some improvements, to cover configurations a and
d:

The next section explains the basis of this new approach.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessels and Piping Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received August 31,
2005; final manuscript received October 20, 2005. Review Conducted by G. E. Otto
Widera.

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology

Basis of Analytical Treatment

Figure 2 shows, for a tubesheet integral both sides configuration a, the free body of the component parts perforated

Copyright 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/16/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

FEBRUARY 2006, Vol. 128 / 95

Fig. 1 Configurations of tubesheets in ASME, CODAP, and EN 13445:

a Configuration a: Tubesheet integral with shell and channel;
b Configuration b: Tubesheet integral with shell and gasketed with channel, extended as a flange;
c Configuration c: Tubesheet integral with shell and gasketed with channel, not extended as a flange;
d Configuration d: Tubesheet gasketed with shell and channel;
e Configuration e: Tubesheet gasketed with shell and integral with channel, extended as a flange;
f Configuration f: Tubesheet gasketed with shell and integral with channel, not extended as a flange

c = + AcQc + cAcM c + c Pc

tubesheet, unperforated tubesheet rim, shell, and channel, together with the relevant discontinuity forces and moments applied
on these components. All loads are by unit of circumferential
length in this figure, which shows the sign conventions. Subscript
s is used for the shell, subscript c for the channel, no subscript for
the tubesheet.
A nomenclature is given at the end of the paper.
The main steps of the analytical treatment of this structure are
described below.
3.1

Integral Channel.

Edge radial displacement and rotation are given by

c = cAcQc + 22c AcM c

where:
Ac =

c =

kc = c

c =

is the influence coefficient

kc2c

4 121 2c
Dc + tctc
Ect3c
61 2c

D2c
2 c
8Ectc

is the channel coefficient

is the channel bending rigidity

is the coefficient due to pressure

acting on the channel

Note. Pressure acting in the channel and tubes is

noted as Pc rather than Pt, usually used in Code design
rules to maintain consistency of subscripts. Final formulas used in the Codes are expressed with Pt.
The equilibrium of the channel head is as follows:

2ac + tcVc a2c Pc = 0

which leads to:
2ac + tcVc = a2c Pc
c
Fig. 2 Analytical model for tubesheet integral both sides a

If radial displacement of the tubesheet is neglected, the

compatibility equation writes:

96 / Vol. 128, FEBRUARY 2006

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/16/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Transactions of the ASME

h
wc = c with c = R = a
2

3rd term =

A combination of Eqs. 1 and 3 permits us to determine:

M c = kc1 + hc/2a + kccc Pc
Qc = + kcc1 + hca 2kc2c c Pc

where c =

3.2 Integral Shell. The same equations apply, using subscript

s instead of subscript c:
5

h
ws = s with s = R = a
2

Determination of Moments Acting on the Tubesheet.

Introducing M c, Qc Eqs. 4 and M s, Qs Eqs. 7 into

Eq. 11 permits us to obtain a linear relation between M a
and a, noting that R = a continuity of rotations:

aM a = Kaa + aM *
with:

Ka =

12

h22c
Eh3
ln K + ackc 1 + hc +
12
2

+ a sk s 1 + h s +

Rotation of the tubesheet at radius a is given by:

121 *
a3
a =
aM a + Ps Pc
* 3
8
Eh

as Ds
=
a Do

3.5

3.3 Perforated Tubesheet. The perforated tubesheet which

extends over radius a is treated as a solid circular plate of effective elastic constants E* and *, which are given by curves as a
function of the ligament efficient in ASME, CODAP, and EN
13445 Codes.
a

a3
s 1s2 + 1Ps
4

where s =

M s = + ks1 + hs/2a + ksss Ps

Qs = kss1 + hs/2a 2kss2s Ps

ac Dc
=
a Do

And similarly, for the fifth term:

5th term =

2as + tsVs = as2 Ps

a3
c 12c + 1Pc
4

h2s2
2

13
14

M * = M TS + M Pc M Ps
b

Equilibrium equation is as follows:

2aVa + a2Ps Pc = 0

M * is the moment acting on the rigid ring, due to pressures Ps and Pt where:
MTS =

D2o
S 1S2 + 1Ps c 12c + 1Pt.
16
15

which leads to:

a
Va = Ps Pc
2

is the moment due to pressures Ps and Pt acting on the

rigid ring;

M Pc = ckcc1 + chc Pc

3.4 Unperforated Rim. The unperforated rim of the

tubesheet is assumed to behave as a rigid ring without distortion
of the cross section. Rotation is given by:

R =

12 R M R
= a
Eh3 ln K

RM R =

M Ps = skss1 + shs Ps

M*

Ma =

h
MPs asVsas a
2

as + a
Ps
a
2
2

Expliciting MPc and Vc, we obtain for the third term of 11:

18

F=

1 *
c + s + E ln K
E*

c =

h22c
6Dc
3 kc 1 + hc +
h
2

s =

h2s2
6Ds
k
1
+
h

+
s
s
h3
2

with:

ac + a
Pc
a
MPc = a2c a2
2
2
MPs = as2 a2

D2o
FPs Pt
32
1+F

where:

11
where MPc and MPs are the moments due to pressures Pc and
Ps acting on the rigid ring:

17

is the moment acting on the rigid ring, due to pressure Ps

in the shell.
Combining Eq. 12 with tubesheet Eq. 8 permits us to
determine the moment M a acting at the periphery of the
perforated tubesheet.

h
Eh
ln K R = aM a + acM c acQc
+ MPc
12
2

acVcac a asM s asQs

16

is the moment acting on the rigid ring, due to pressure Pt

in the channel;

10

where R is the centroidal radius of ring, M R the unit moment

acting on ring, and K = A / Do.
The equilibrium of moments acting on the rigid ring is as follows, considering the axis r = a:
3

19

20
21

Note 1. F is the edge restraining parameter, which may

vary form 0 to as follows:

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/16/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

FEBRUARY 2006, Vol. 128 / 97

If there is no bending support from the channel kc

= 0 and the shell ks = 0:
i = 0 and ki = 0 lead to F close to zero, and M a
= M * = M TS.
The tubesheet is almost simply supported.
If there is no unperforated rim
K = 1, s = 0, c = 0: F = 0 and M a = 0.

The tubesheet is fully supported.

If there is a high bending support from the channel
kc = and the shell ks = : c = and s = lead to
F = .
The tubesheet is fully clamped:
D2o
Ps Pc.
Ma =
32
d

The moment at radius r of the perforated tubesheet is

given by the classical formula:
D20
*

Mr = M a + 3 +

64

r
a

Ps Pt

The maximum bending moments in the perforated

tubesheet will appear:

either at the periphery:

M*
MR = M a = Mp =

D2o
FPs Pt
32
1+F

22

or at the center:
Mo = Mo = Mp + 3 + *

D2o
Ps Pt
64

Note 2. If we ignore the unperforated tubesheet rim, these formulas lead to the classical circular plates see note 1:
for clamping at periphery of tubesheet
F = : p =

3 Do
16 h

Ps Pt

Ps Pt

Va
Do
=
Ps Pt
h 4h

24

where is the basic ligament efficiency of the tubesheet.

3.6 Determination of Bending Moments in the Channel
and Shell. The bending moment M c in the channel is given by Eq.
4, where a is given by Eq. 8:

M c = k c c c P t 6

1 * Do
hc
1+
E* h3
2

Mp +

D2o
Ps Pt
32

Mp +

D2o
Ps Pt
32

3.7 Tubesheet Integral With Channel and Gasketed With

Shell (Configuration e). Same analytical treatment as above is
applied, which leads to similar equations:
M * = M TS + M Pc +

Cs Gs
Ws
2Do

27

where: Ws is the shell flange design bolt load

Cs is the bolt circle diameter
Gs is the shell gasket load reaction diameter
Other formulas remain unchanged, except formula 19 giving
F, where s = 0. For more details, see Appendix A.
3.8 Tubesheet Gasketed With Shell and Channel (Configuration d). Same analytical treatment is applied, which leads to
similar equations:
M * = M TS +

Cs Gs
Cc Gc
Ws
Wc
2Do
2Do

28

Other formulas remain unchanged, except formula 19 giving F,

where s = 0 and c = 0. For more details, see Appendix B.
3.9 Generic Equations for All Configurations. From above
it appears that the maximum moments in the tubesheet, channel,
and shell are given by Eqs. 22, 23, 25, and 26, using formulas 1521 to determine M TS, M PC, M PS, F, s, and c, and
the formula below for M *:
M * = M TS + M Pc M Ps +

Cs Gc
Cc Gc
WS
WC
2Do
2Do

29

In these equations:
ks = 0 if the shell is gasketed;
kc = 0 if the channel is gasketed;
Ws = 0 if the shell is integral;
Wc = 0 if the channel is integral;

How to Use the Rules

The basic design formulas used in ASME, CODAP, and EN

13445 Codes appear in bold characters in Sec. 3.
A tubesheet thickness h must be assumed to calculate the maximum stresses in the tubesheet, shell, and channel and to check that
they do not exceed the maximum allowable stresses in these components. Therefore, interative calculations are necessary to obtain
the optimized tubesheet thickness, for wich = maximum allowable stress.
The calculation shall be performed for each of the following
loading cases:

The shear stress is determined from Eq. 9:

These moments permit us to calculate the bending stresses in

the channel and shell at their junction with the tubesheet.

for simple support at center of tubesheet

F = 0: o =

33 + * Do
32
h

1 * Do
hs
1+
E* h3
2

26

23

which enables to determine the maximum bending

stress in the tubesheet.

M s = k s s s P s + 6

25
The bending moment M s in the shell is obtained in the same
way:

1. tube-side pressure Pt acting only Ps = 0

2. shell-side pressure Ps acting only Pt = 0
3. both pressures Pt and Ps acting simultaneously, especially if
there is vacuum on one side.
The design procedure is as follows:
1. Calculate the moment M TS due to pressures Ps and Pt acting
on the unperforated tubesheet rim, from formula 15 which
is the same for all configurations. However, s and c depend on the configuration type.
2. Calculate, as necessary, coefficients i, ki, i, i, relative to
shell i = s and/or channel i = c to determine M Ps formula
17, M Pc formula 18 and F formulas 19, A2, or
B2, depending on configuration type.

98 / Vol. 128, FEBRUARY 2006

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/16/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Transactions of the ASME

3. Calculate the moment M * acting on the unperforated

tubesheet rim formulas 14, 27, and 28.
4. Calculate the maximum bending moments in the tubesheet
at its periphery, M a formula 22, and center M o formula
23, and their maximum:
M = MAXMp,Mo
5. Calculate the maximum bending stress in the tubesheet:
Fig. 3 Ligament efficiency

6M
*h 2

where * is the effective ligament efficiency, which accounts for the tubesheet holes, the tube expansion depth ratio, and for possible unperforated pass-partition lanes.
This primary bending stress is limited to 2S: 2S.
Calculate the shear stress at periphery of tubesheet:
Do
=
Ps Pt
4h

where:

where = 1 dt / p is the basic ligament efficiency, which

accounts for the tubesheet holes.
Shear stress must not exceed 0.8S: 0.8S.
If these conditions are not satisfied, the calculations shall
be performed again, assuming a higher tubesheet thickness
h.
6. Calculate the bending moments in the channel formula
25 and in the shell formula 26, if these components are
integral with the tubesheet. The corresponding bending
stresses are given by:
in the channel: c =

in the shell: s =

with

2 Mc

C=

33 + *
= 1.112 when the tubesheet
8

3
= 0.866
4

is simply supported
when the tubesheet
is clampled

Using * = 0.5 and = 1.5, ho writes:

ho =
where
C

0.75 2

1.0

for clamping, which is the TEMA value

T=F

2 Ms

ts

P
S

F = 1.25 when the tubesheet is simply supported

F = 1.0

when the tubesheet is clamped

G
2

P
S
*

P
S

dt
P

dt
P

for triangular pitch

2

for square pitch

tr 0.42 sq 0.50

This formula is derived from the classical circular plate formula see Note 2 of III-5.

ho = C

Therefore, for a given value of ligament efficiency

, sq tr, and the tubesheet thickness is lower for
square pitch than for triangular pitch. For more details, see Osweiller 5.
The minimum value = 0.2 imposed by TEMA
leads to the minimum values of :

1. The original TEMA formula 6th ed., 1978 was written for
U-tube tubesheets:
G
2

G
3

tr = 1 0.907

Comparison to Tema

A ligament efficiency was introduced, based on the

mean ligament efficiency width see Fig. 3 which
leads to:

sq = 1 0.785

with

P
S

1.285 for simple support:TEMA uses 1.25

T=F

2. The new TEMA formula appeared for the first time in 1988
7th ed. and is still valid in the 1999 8th ed.

tc

These primary bending stresses are limited respectively, to:

1.5Sc and 1.5Sc. If these conditions are not satisfied, the
calculations must be performed again using a higher channel
and/or shell thickness. If certain conditions are met, the
Code permits us also to perform an elastic-plastic calculation at the junction of the tubesheet with the channel and/or
shell.

* is the effective ligament efficiency

S is the maximum allowable stress * = 1.5 for a
primary bending stress.

0.75 =

C=

Coefficient 3 in new TEMA formula has been tailored

so that old and new formulas give the same results for
these minimum values of .
Considering that usually ranges between 0.42 and
0.6, the new TEMA formula will lead to lower
tubesheet thickness than before. These values of are
generally significantly higher than the effective ligament efficiency * used in the Codes 0.25 *
0.4, as * is based on the minimum ligament efficiency see Fig. 3.

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/16/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

FEBRUARY 2006, Vol. 128 / 99

Table 1 Comparison of TEMA, ASME, CODAP, and EN 13445 tubesheet thickness for 4 U-tube Heat Exchangers mm

Assuming that = 1.1*, the classical circular plate

formula of Sec. 2 leads to new TEMA formula if we
use = 2.0.
In 1969, GARDNER 2 came to the same conclusion and proposed to use = 2.0, arguing that the
original TEMA formula did not lead to failures in
more than 20 years.
CODAP 2000, PD 5500, and EN 13445 have been
using this value for two decades, but ASME adopted
this value recently.

If the ultimate stress controls the determination of S = 3.0,

CODAP-EN 13445 leads to a lower tubesheet thickness than
ASME.
2 TEMA new formula leads to lower thickness than the old
formula except Example 2 for which = 0.37 is below the
TEMA minimum for reasons explained in Sec. 5.
TEMA formula may lead to lower tubesheet thickness than
ASME, due to the high ligament efficiency used by
TEMA.
Using * = will lead to an ASME tubesheet thickness reduced by 15%25%, lower than TEMA thickness see last
ASME column of Table 1.
3 The classical circular plate formula generally leads to a
tubesheet thickness higher than TEMA, even with = 2.0.
4 In the four examples, TEMA considers the tubesheet as
simply supported F = 1.25. However, ASME methods
show that in example 1 the tubesheet is rather clamped
high value of coefficient F due to the high bending rigidities of the shell and channel as compared to the tubesheet
bending rigidity.

Numerical Comparisons

Numerical comparisons have been performed on the four

U-tube tubesheet heat exchangers which are presently treated in
the four examples of current UHX rules of ASME Section VIII
2004 Edition. For each of these examples, Table 1 shows the
results obtained for the tubesheet thickness from:

Classical circular plate, using the ASME ligament efficiency * and values = 1.5 and 2.0.
TEMA: old formula 6th ed., and new formula 8th ed..
ASME: old method Appendix AA 2001 Edition, and new
method UHX 2004 Edition presented in this paper using,
respectively, = 1.5 and = 2.0.
CODAP and EN 13445: use of ASME new method, with
= 2.0 or 3.0. In these two codes:
if the yield stress controls safety factor 1.5 applied on
yield stress: f = S and = 2.0.
if the ultimate strength controls safety factor 2.4 on ultimate strength, instead of 3.5 in ASME Section VIII
Div. 1: f = 1.5S and = 3.0.

Examination of Table 1 shows that, for these examples:

1 New ASME UHX rule leads to lower tubesheet thickness
than the old rule of ASME Section VIII-Div. 1 Appendix
AA.
CODAP-EN 13445 obtains same thickness if the yield stress
controls the determination of S = 2.0.

These trends need to be confirmed by a set of about 10 examples, representative of the configurations used in the industry.

Conclusions
The following items must be outlined.
1 A unique analytical treatment has been developed to cover
the various configurations of U-tube tubesheets. This treatment is in line with the treatment of fixed and floating
tubesheet heat exchangers, which are currently covered in
UHX rules of ASME Section VIIIDiv. 1.
2 This approach accounts for the behavior of the heat exchanger by considering the junction of the tubesheet with
shell and channel, which was no covered in Appendix A
when the tubesheet was integral configuration a or gasketed configuration d both sides.
Configurations c and f, where the gasketed tubesheet is not
extended as a flange, is now covered.
3 Numerical comparisons show that these new ASME rules

100 / Vol. 128, FEBRUARY 2006

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/16/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Transactions of the ASME

lead to lower tubesheet thickness than the old Appendix AA

rules.
For the four examples considered, these new rules lead to
tubesheet thicknesses similar to the values obtained by
TEMA.
4 These new U-tube rules are published as follows

ASME Section VIIIDiv. 1 in new mandatory Part

UHX July 2004 Edition.
Unfired Pressure Vessel Standard EN 13445 in chapter 13 of part Design in June 2002.
CODAP 2005 in chapter C7 of Part C Design in
December 2005.
It is the opinion of the author that these new common rules will be
extended to other Codes and Standards and will find an increased
use on national and international markets.
Notations Ds = 2as , ts , Vs , Qs , M s, Dc = 2ac , tc , Qc , M c,
R , M R, A , Do = 2a are shown on Fig. 2.
Notations Gs = 2as , Cs , Ws are shown on Fig. 3.
Notations Gc = 2ac , Cc , Wc are shown on Fig. 4.
Using: i = s for shell, i = c for channel:

i =

4 121 i2
Di + titi

ki = i

i =

Fig. 4 Analytical model for tubesheet integral with channel

and gasketed with shell configuration e

W s = H Ps + P s
which leads to:
Wgs =

Eiti3
61 i2

Di2
4Eiti
Ai =

E , E* elastic modulus of unperforated, perforated

tubesheet area
, * Poissons ratio of unperforated, perforated
tubesheet area
Es , Ec elastic modulus of shell, channel
s , c Poissons ratio of shell, channel
h assumed tubsheet thickness
S , Ss , Sc allowable stress for tubesheet, shell, channel
Ws , Wc shell, channel flange design bolt load
Ps shell-side pressure
Pc = Pt channel-side pressure= tube-side pressure
= 1 dt / p basic ligament efficiency of tubesheet
* effective ligament efficiency of tubesheet, used
in the Code ASME, CODAP, or EN 13445
effective ligament efficiency of tubesheet, used
in TEMA

Appendix A: Tubesheet Integral One Side, Gasketed

Other Side (Configurations b and e)
Figure 4 shows, for configuration e of Sec. 3.5, the loads
applied to the unperforated tubesheet rim.
Discontinuity loads Vc , Qc , M c due to the channel remain unchanged.
Discontinuity loads due the gasketed shell are as follows:
Ws = CsBs = shell flange design bolt load
H Ps = WgsGs = shell gasket load reaction
Equilibrium of shell writes:

with:

Vs =

Gs Cs
Cs
Cs
Bs Vs
Bs
a
2
2
2 Gs

Nomenclature

Cs
Bs Vs
2as

as
Ps
2

Moments of Bs and Wgs acting on the rigid ring write:

i
2

kii2

Gs2
4

Gs
a
2

CsCs Gs
Bs + asVsas a
4

Equation 11 for the equilibrium of moments acting on the

rigid ring becomes:
RM R =

h
Eh3
ln K a = aM a + acM c + acQc
+ MPc
12
2

acVcac a +

CsCs Gs
4

MPs asVsas a

A1

where the third term has already been calculated in Sec. 3.5, part
a.
Similarly the fifth term writes.
5th term =

a3
s 1s2 + 1Ps
4

where: s =

as Gs
=
a Do

Following the procedure explained in Sec. 3.5, part b, we

obtain:
M * = M TS + M Pc +

Cs Gs
Ws
2Do

where M TS and M PC are given by formulas 15 and 16.

F=

1 *
c + ELnK
E*

A2

Equations 22 and 23 giving the maximum moments M a and

M o in the tubesheet remain unchanged. Same for equations giving
and M c.
Configuration b shall be covered by the same equations, reversing subscripts s and c.

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/16/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

FEBRUARY 2006, Vol. 128 / 101

M * = M TS +

Cs Gs
Cc Gc
Ws
Wc
2Do
2Do

F=

1 *
E ln K
E*

B1
B2

Equations 22 and 23 giving the maximum moments M a and

M o in the tubesheet remain unchanged. Same for equation giving
.
As there is no bending moment in shell and channel, Sec. 6
does not apply. Fore more details see Appendix A.
Equation B1 applies to the general case where the tubesheet is
extended as a flange on both sides. If the tubesheet is not extended
as a flange or is through-bolted, Cs = Cc and Eq. B1 becomes
M * = M TS +
Fig. 5 Analytical model for tubesheet gasketed both sides
configuration d

If the tubesheet is not extended as a flange configurations c and

f, the diameter of midpoint of contact between flange and
tubesheet shall be considered instead of Cs configuration e or Cc
configuration b in formula giving M *.

Appendix B: Tubesheet Gasketed With Shell and Channel (Configuration d)

Figure 5 shows the loads applied to the unperforated tubesheet
rim.
Loads due to gasketed channel are as follows:
Wc = CcBc = channel flange design bolt load
H Pc = WgcGc = channel gasket load reaction
Equilibrium of channel writes:
Wgs =

Cc
ac
Bc Vc with: Vc = Pc .
2ac
2

Loads due to the gasketed shell are given in Appendix A.

Equation A1 of Appendix A for the equilibrium of the rigid
ring becomes
RM R =

CcCc Bc
Eh3
ln K a = aM a
Bc + MPc
12
4

acVcac a +

CsCs Gs
Bs
4

MPs asVsas a
Following the procedure explained in Appendix A, we obtain

Gc Gs
Wmax
2Do

B3

where
Wmax = MAXWs,Wc.

Appendix C: Codes References

ASME Section VIIIDiv. 1Appendix AA: July 2001 Edition
ASME Section VIIIDiv. 1Part UHX: July 2004 Edition
CODAP 2005: French Code for Unfired Pressure VesselsPart
C Section C7
EN 13445: European Standard for Unfired Pressure Vessels
Part 3Clause 13 published in 2002
TEMA Standards: 6th ed.1978
TEMA Standards: 8th ed.1999
BS 5500 UK: Specifications for Unfired Fusion Welded Pressure Vessels: 1976 Edition
PD 5500 UK: Specifications for Unfired Fusion Welded Pressure Vessels: 2000 Edition
ISO-2694 Draft 1973 EditionChapter 30

References
1 Osweiller, F., 2000, Tubesheet Heat Exchangers: New Common Design Rules
in UPV, CODAP, and ASME, ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 122, pp.
317324.
2 Gardner, K. G., 1969, Tubesheet Design: A Basis for Standardization, Pressure Vessel Technology, 1969 Delft Conference, pp. 621648.
3 Soler, A. I., 1984, Mechnical Design of Heat Exchangers, Arcturus, P.O. Box
606, Cherry Hill, NJ 08003, p. 1047.
4 Osweiller, F., 1999, U-Tube Heat Exchangers, A Comparison of Code Design
Rules, PVP, Vol. 385, ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, Boston,
pp. 109124.
5 Osweiller, F., 1986, Analysis of TEMA Tubesheet Design Rules, Comparison with up-to-date Code Methods PVP Vol. 107 ASME Pressure Vessel and
Piping Conference, Chicago, pp. 19.

102 / Vol. 128, FEBRUARY 2006

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/16/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Transactions of the ASME