Anda di halaman 1dari 13

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700712

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhmt

A simple method to calculate shell side uid pressure drop in a shell


and tube heat exchanger
B. Parikshit , K.R. Spandana, V. Krishna, T.R. Seetharam, K.N. Seetharamu
Department of Mechanical Engineering, PES Institute of Technology, 100 ft. Ring road, Banashankari III stage, Bangalore 560 085, India

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 19 September 2014
Received in revised form 12 December 2014
Accepted 9 January 2015

Keywords:
Shell and tube heat exchanger
Pressure drop
FEM model
Friction factors
No tube in window section

a b s t r a c t
Pressure drop predictions on the shell side of a shell and tube heat exchanger (STHX) are investigated
using the concept of Finite Element Method (FEM). In this model the shell side region is discretised into
a number of elements and by taking into account the effect of ow pattern, the pressure drop on the shell
side of a STHX is determined. The present method is simple to apply and the predictions agree reasonably
well with a large number of experimental data available in the literature. The range of applicability of the
present method extends beyond that used by others in the literature. The earlier predictions were
restricted to tubes in the window region, however, the predictions of the present method are extended
to the cases of no tubes in the window (NTIW) region also.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Shell and tube heat exchangers are very widely used in a
number of industries and its applications include transformer oil
cooling, exhaust gas heat recovery, solvent distillate process,
ethanol mash-stillage, power plants, air-conditioning units, etc.
This heat exchanger (HX) comprises of one uid owing through
the tubes and the other uid owing in the shell across the tube
bundle. The ow in the shell side of a shell and tube heat exchanger (STHX) with segmented bafes is quite complex. The ow in
bafe region is illustrated in Fig. 1, in terms of main stream SH,
leakage stream between tubes and bafe SL and bypass stream
between tube bundle and shell SB. The gaps between a bafe and
the tube cause leakage stream SL, which may modify the main
stream SH signicantly. As the tubes cannot be placed very close
to the shell, bypass streams SB may be formed, which also inuences the main stream. The ow direction of the main stream relative to the tubes is different in the window sections created by the
bafe cut from that in the cross ow sections existing between the
segmental bafes. This necessitates the use of different equations
to calculate the pressure drop in the window sections to those used
in the cross ow sections. The spacing between the tube plates and
the rst and the last bafe differs in many cases from the spacing
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: parikshit15b@gmail.com (B. Parikshit), spandi93@gmail.com
(K.R.
Spandana),
vkrishna@pes.edu
(V. Krishna),
tr.seetharam@pes.edu
(T.R. Seetharam), knseetharamu@yahoo.com (K.N. Seetharamu).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2015.01.068
0017-9310/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

between two adjacent bafes. Some of the afore mentioned


streams are not present in the rst and the last section of the
HX. A large number of investigations which describe methods to
calculate the shell side pressure drop in a STHX have been
published [15]. A critical review of these methods is given by
Palen and Taborek [6]. They have compared the different
calculation procedures against a large number of experimental
measurements on small units and on industrial HXs. According
to them, the methods of Tinker [3,4] and of Delaware [5] gave
the best result as compared to the other methods. The method of
Tinker [3,4] has been criticized as it is relatively complicated.
Gaddis and Gnielinski [7] have followed the Delaware method
[5] to calculate the shell side pressure drop, except that, instead
of using diagrams as in the Delaware method to calculate the
pressure drop in the ideal tube bank, they have used equations previously presented by them in [8,9]. Correction factors are then
used, as in the Delaware method, to take into account the deviation
of the ow inside the shell from that in the ideal case of a tube
bank. They have compared pressure drops predicted by their
model with those obtained experimentally by different investigators. The comparison is represented by the ratio, Dpm/Dpc for all
available experimental points, as a function of Reynolds number
(Re). The comparison shows that for large number of experimental
points the deviations between measurements and theoretical predictions are as high as 35% for Reynolds number range from 10 to
105. Further, about one third of the experimental points have deviations more than 35%. They also found that in extreme cases, the
measured pressure drop is as low as one fth or as high as four

B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700712

701

Nomenclature
a
Abmin
Amin
Anozzle
b
c
d0
Dotl
Ds
Eu

relative transverse pitch of tube bundle, a = xt/do


minimum cross- sectional area at the bafe tip (m2)
minimum area of ow of uid in a cross section (m2)
nozzle cross-section area (m2)
relative longitudinal pitch of tube bundle, b = xl/do
relative diagonal pitch of tube bundle, c = xd/do
outer tube diameter (m)
diameter of the circle encompassing the end tubes (m)
inner diameter of shell (m)
2DPA2
Euler number (friction factor), Eu nqQmin
2

p
pt
Q

tube pitch, p dpot


tube pitch (m)
volume ow rate in (m3/s)

Re
S
xd
xi

Euc

xl
xt
x(i)

Nc
necf

corrected friction factor after using angular correction


factor
correction for angular ow
nozzle pressure drop coefcient for each nozzle
bafe cut in (m)
number of rows in a particular element, if it is interbafe element it is necf and if it is window element it
is new
number of elements in inter-bafe region
c
number of rows in inter-bafe element = Dxs 2l
l Nc

new

number of rows in window section =

Ntw
Nw

number of tubes in window section


total number of elements in upper and lower window
section
pressure at ith node

Qd0
Reynolds number, Re Aqmin
l
bafe spacing (m)
diagonal pitch of tube bundle (m)
distance between outer most tubes at cross section
(Fig. 2(b)) at the end of ith element (m)
space between the outer most tube in a shell and shell
outer diameter (m): Ds  Dotl
longitudinal pitch of tube bundle (m)
transverse pitch of tube bundle (m)
net distance at the exit of ith element within the tube
outer limit (m), xi xi x2 i1
viscosity of the uid (in Pa s)
density of shell side uid (kg/m3)
acute angle the uid makes with the tube in the
mid-section in radians
acute angle the uid makes with the tube in the window
section in radians
pressure drop (Pa)
calculated shell side pressure drop
experimental pressure drop
pressure drop predicted by Finite element model
measured shell side pressure drop
angle subtended by the bafe cut

Kw
kn
lc
N

Pi

0:8lc 

Ds Dotl
2

Nw
2 xl

times the calculated values. This clearly indicates that the method
of Gaddis and Gnielinski [7] cannot be applied safely in the form
suggested by them. Kapale et al. [10] have proposed a theoretical
model to calculate the shell side pressure drop. Their model incorporates the effect of pressure drop in inlet and out let nozzles along
with the losses in the segments created by bafes. For the range of
Reynolds number between 103 and 105, they found that their
results match more closely (deviation between +2.4% and 4%)
with the available experimental results. But they have not shown
the validity of their model to predict pressure drop in HXs with
NTIW. The calculation adopted by Kapale et al. [10] is complex.
They have not predicted pressure drop for all the cases for which
experimental data is available. Thus, there is a need to develop a
simple model to calculate pressure drop on the shell side of STHXs.
All the theoretical models reported in literature to calculate the
shell-side pressure drop in a STHX require a lot of calculations with

Fig. 1. Flow through shell of shell and tube heat exchanger with segmental bafe
with leakage streams. [7].

xe

l
q
wm
ww
DP
DPc
DPexp
DPfem
DPm
hb

a number of variables involved in the calculations. Further these


models use different correlations for window section and cross
ow section. In all the above mentioned references, the methodology to nd pressure drop coefcient involves tedious calculations
which include various geometrical parameters and is time consuming. These pressure drop coefcients have been changed time
and again, yet no coefcient has been found which works satisfactorily for all cases.
Friction factors for ow over rectangular tube banks have been
given by Zukauskas [11] and Gunter and Haw [12]. A Finite element model of STHX for determining amount of heat transfer has
been developed by Ravikumaur et al. [13] in 1988 but application
of such a model to determine pressure drop in STHX has not been
carried out so far.
Yonghua et al. [14], experimentally investigated the shell-side
thermo-hydraulic performance of a shell and tube HX with trefoil
hole bafes under turbulent ow regime. Based on the experimental
results, empirical correlations of the Nusselt number and pressure
loss as a function of the Reynolds number are obtained. To analyze
the mechanisms of these thermo-hydraulic characteristics, numerical computation is carried out. Ender and Ilker [15], investigated
the bafe spacing, bafe cut and shell diameter dependencies of
the heat transfer coefcient and the pressure drop by numerically
modeling a small HX. The authors refer to the Bell-Delaware [5]
method as a very detailed and an accurate method to estimate the
outlet parameters and have compared their results to that method,
but Bell-Delaware method itself does not predict pressure drop values close to the experimental values. The authors have also compared the pressure drop results to Kapales [10] model and have
found a deviation of up to 34%. Results obtained from the CFD simulations show that the existing analytical methods under predict
the pressure drop in many cases. Vera et al. [16], present a model
to determine the outlet conditions of a shell and tube HX working
in a refrigeration cycle either as a condenser or evaporator only.
The model does not take the internal geometrical information into

702

B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700712

Upper
Window
MidSecon
Lower
Window

1
2
3
4

a. One baffle space divided into


elements (1, 2, 3, 4)

b. Cross section of the baffle


space

Flow direcon
(Longitudinal direcon)

Transverse direcon

c. Circular cross section split into


Rectangular elements

d. Flow direcon and associated


pitches

Fig. 2. Element model of the shell and tube heat exchanger.

account and as a result requires special types of correlations to


estimate the heat transfer coefcients and the pressure drop. The
pressure drop model of Vera et al. [16] is much simpler than the
earlier published works on pressure drop models, but this model
is restricted to refrigerator systems. This model uses Zukauskas
friction factor [11] to determine the inuence of geometrical factors
on pressure drop (according to the expression proposed by Hewitt
et al. [17]). But these correlations are not explicitly used as a method
by itself elsewhere to nd pressure drop in shell and tube HXs.
Rajagapal and Srikanth [18] have studied the effect of bafe inclination angles of 0, 10 and 20. The pressure drop decreases by 4% for
HXs with a 10 bafe inclination angle and by 16% for HX with 20
bafe inclination angle. Prithiviraj and Andrews [19] have developed a three-dimensional CFD numerical code, HEATX, to simulate
ow and heat transfer in shell and tube heat exchangers. The model
presented by Prithiviraj and Andrews [19] uses ideal tube bank
correlations of Zukauskas [11] to nd the distributed resistances
for shell side cross ow pressure drop and heat transfer. The CFD
analysis is carried out only for a 30 tube bundle and the validation
for other cases are not presented. Problem set up and calculation
time for executing the Bell [5] and Kern [2] method is about
20 min. The typical computational time taken to run the HEATX
[19] three-dimensional simulations are about 20 h on a Pentium
133. However, the HEATX results are fairly accurate and a deviation
up to 10% is observed when veried against the experimental work
of Halle [20].
In the present work, an attempt has been made to formulate a
new and simple method to predict the pressure drop on the shell
side of a shell and tube HX using the concept of FEM. Initially the
model is tested with friction factors given by Gunter et al. [12],

but is found to be deviating up to 85% from the experimental works


of Halle et al. [20]. In the proposed model, the correlation for friction factor as suggested by Zukauskas [11] is used for each element. The overall pressure drop is computed after assembly of
all elements. The novelty of the present model lies in the fact that
the pressure drop on the shell side of the STHX can be determined
in a simple way with limited data of HX geometry provided by
manufacturers. The predicted pressure drop is compared to experimental work for 240 cases. In order to limit the number of pages,
130 cases are presented here. The conguration codes used
throughout this paper for an abbreviated description of the congurations of HXs tested are as presented in Table 1.
2. New pressure drop model
Fluid ows when there is a pressure drop between 2 regions.
The pressure drop encountered between the 2 sections for a given
ow quantity is connected in the form of an element (as in the case

   
Qi
Pi
1 1
of FEM) 1R

, where R is the ow resistance


Qj
Pj
1 1
encountered during the ow between the 2 sections. Thus, the element relates the pressure drop encountered to the ow quantity
through the resistance encountered by the uid. When the friction
factor varies along the length of the uid ow as in the developing
section of a pipe, this method helps to incorporate such variations
in the model. This method of representation allows us to determine
the total pressure drop by summing up the pressure drop in each of
the sub regions.
The steps in the FEM involve geometric representation of the
domain, discretization of the domain into elements and nodes,

703

B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700712

2.2. Yaw correction factor

Table 1
Explanation of heat exchanger conguration code [20].
Position

Symbols

Denition

1st letter
2nd letter
1st number
2nd number

F
N
P
6 or 8
10 or 14 in

3rd number
Last digit

30 to 90 deg
15.5 to 29.8 percent

Full tube bundle


No-tube-in-window bundle
Plain tube
Number of cross passes
Nominal size of nozzles
10 in. size: 0.241 m (9.50 in.)
14 in. size: 0.337 m (13.25 in.)
Tube layout pattern
Bafe cut as percentage of inside
diameter

obtaining the characteristics of an element, assembly of all


elements, incorporating boundary conditions and solving the
system of equations.
In FEM, to obtain the characteristics of the entire domain for
any variables like temperature, pressure etc., a small region is
selected which has typical characteristics of the entire domain.
Using variational or weighted residual method, characteristic of
the sub-region is obtained. After obtaining the characteristic of
the element, all the elements are assembled. Nodal values like
temperature, pressure are then determined by inserting the
boundary conditions and solving the system of equations.
2.1. Geometrical model
The model requires the shell side of STHX to be discretised into
many elements, with elements in window section, mid-section,
and inletoutlet section as shown in Fig. 2. In the present model,
Zukauskas friction factor has been used. The discretization and
the number of elements taken should be such that, it should reect
the situation (in rectangular tube bundles) Zukauskas [11] has
used for determining the friction factor. In this way 4 elements
gives satisfactory results. These 4 elements in one cross ow
section are distributed with 1 element in each window section
and 2 elements in the mid-section to nd pressure drop across that
section.
The longitudinal and transverse pitches for various tube arrays
are as given by Shah et al. [21] and are illustrated in Table 2.
For inline tube arrangement, the minimum cross ow area used
is given by

Amin

xt  do Sxi
Sxe
xt

whereas for staggered arrangement, the minimum cross ow area is


given by

Amin

xt  do Sxi
Sxe
xt

for xt  do 6 2xd  do

2a

or

Amin

2xd  do Sxi
Sxe
xt

for xt  do > 2xd  do

2b

In most of the investigations so far reported in literature, the


actual ow direction of uid has not been taken into account for
calculation of pressure drop. Most of the authors have assumed a
model wherein, uid ow is perpendicular to tube bundles. However Kapale et al. [10] have proposed a model which takes into
account direction of uid ow. They consider uid ow in the window region to be parallel to the tubes and that in the mid-section
to be owing at an angle. In the present investigation the uid ow
direction adopted is different from that of the model of Kapale
et al. [10].
The ow pattern for this model for inter-bafe region and inlet
and outlet sections are shown in Figs. 35. Figs. 3 and 4 represent
the ow in inter-bafe region, while Fig. 5 represents ow in both
inlet and outlet sections. The ow patterns in inter-bafe region
differ from that for inlet and outlet section as depicted in Figs. 35.
These ow patterns decide the angle w (Appendix A) at which
the uid crosses the tube bundle. The correction factor given by
Zukauskas [11], which is in the form of a graph is correlated by
Schlunder [22], Eqs. (3a) and (3b) give correlations to obtain yaw
correction factors.
Yaw correction factor for inline tube arrangement:

K w 1:107 exp0:301w2:412

3a

Yaw correction factor for staggered tube arrangement:

K w 1:245 exp0:478w1:733

3b

The Euler number (Eu) as obtained from [11] is multiplied by


correction factor K w and the corrected Euler number (Euc) is
calculated:

Euc K w Eu

The shell-side uid ow is found to vary depending on the Shell


diameter, bafe spacing and tubes in window section.
2.3. FEM model
In the case of a STHX, the uid ow on its shell side is complex.
The ow path of a shell side uid is rst determined as it decides
the characteristics of the element (shown in Section 2.2). The
friction factor required to nd the pressure drop is selected (in
the present case Zukauskas correlations) for each of the sections.
Stiffness matrix for each of the element is then determined. These
stiffness matrices are assembled to obtain the global stiffness
matrix. On the load vector, known boundary conditions are
inserted and pressure at each of the nodes is determined (see
Fig. 6). Typical example for pressure drop in a pipe network is
available in Lewis et al. [23].
In the present model the whole HX is discretised into a number
of elements depending on the number of bafes. Between the bafes, it is discretised into 4 elements in the direction of ow as illustrated in Fig. 2(a) and the evaluation for pressure drop is performed
element by element using Zukauskas correlation for rectangular
tube bundles [11]. The formula to be used for calculating pressure
drop is discussed in reference [24]. Using Euc, the pressure drop for

Table 2
Properties of tube banks [21].
30 Triangular staggered array
Transverse tube pitch (xt)
Longitudinal tube pitch (xl)

pt
p

3
2 pt

60 Rotated triangular staggered array


p
3pt

pt

90 Square inline array

pt
2

pt

45 Rotated square staggered array


p
2pt
pt
p
2

704

B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700712

w
m
m = w

m = w

a. With tubes in window section

b. No tubes in window section

Fig. 3. Flow in Inter-bafe region when

Ds
S

6 1.

m
w

a. With tubes in window section

b. No tubes in window section

Fig. 4. Flow in Inter-bafe region when

Ds
S

> 1.

Table 3
Correction factors for 60 and 45 tube arrangement.
K45 = 0.97
K45 = 9.289 Re0.2203 + 2.289
K45 = 1.834
K60 = 0.85
K60 = 1
K60 = 1.05
K60 = 1.1

for
for
for
for
for
for
for

Re < 104
104 6 Re 6 106
Re > 106
Re < 3  104
3  104 6 Re < 5  104
5  104 6 Re 6 105
Re P 105

m
pressure drop due to sudden expansion at inlet nozzle and sudden
contraction at the exit nozzle as discussed by Gaddis et al. [7]:


ow over a rectangular tube bank is calculated. The coefcient k of
stiffness matrix for each element within the shell and tube HX is
given by

Euc qQn

5b

The value of kn is taken as 1 for each nozzle as suggested by Gaddis


et al.
The pressure element is given by,

Fig. 5. Flow in Inlet or outlet section.

2A2min

2A2nozzle
kn q Q

5a

Eq. (5b) gives the pressure drop coefcient in nozzles, these elements are added at the beginning of the inlet section and at the
end of exit section. These elements are added to take into account

k

k



Pi
Pj

Q
Q


6

Using the coefcient of stiffness matrix for each element, the coefcient for overall stiffness matrix is obtained and then the equations are solved to get overall pressure drop.
For a window section with no tubes, the pressure drop is negligible. Hence, the nodal pressure value at the exit (Pj) can safely be
approximated to the nodal pressure value at the inlet (Pi) of the
element. The pressure element of the NTIW region is given by

705

B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700712
Table 4
Prediction of pressure drop with tubes in window region and comparison with experimental results.
Volume ow rate Q (m3/s)

Experimental pressure drop, DPexp (kPa)

FEM model pressure drop, DPfem (kPa)

Deviation (in%)

0.090
0.133
0.150
0.180
0.200

74.240
157.750
198.980
282.890
346.690

75.385
153.131
191.204
268.533
327.276

1.542
2.928
3.908
5.075
5.600

F P8 1000 30 25.5

0.050
0.080
0.100
0.120
0.130
0.160
0.188

26.550
65.160
99.790
141.360
157.730
244.870
333.210

27.844
63.383
94.630
131.916
152.823
224.600
303.845

4.874
2.728
5.171
6.681
3.111
8.278
8.813

F P8 1400 90 25.5

0.063
0.080
0.100
0.120
0.140
0.164

28.900
45.830
70.497
100.230
134.960
183.160

30.150
46.608
70.355
98.838
132.058
178.172

4.324
1.697
0.202
1.389
2.150
2.723

F P8 1000 90 25.5

0.063
0.080
0.100
0.130
0.150
0.180
0.215

31.900
50.590
77.820
129.114
170.184
241.960
339.990

31.554
48.872
73.893
120.836
158.404
224.167
315.159

1.085
3.395
5.047
6.412
6.922
7.354
7.303

Heat exchanger conguration

Volume ow rate Q (m3/s)

Experimental pressure drop, DPexp (kPa)

FEM model pressure drop, DPfem (kPa)

Deviation (in%)

Heat exchanger conguration


(a)
F P8 1400 30 25.5

(b)
F P6 1400 30 28.9

0.070
0.085
0.090
0.100
0.120
0.135

28.300
40.660
45.280
55.140
77.540
96.640

28.627
40.198
44.466
53.620
74.392
92.127

1.154
1.136
1.797
2.757
4.060
4.670

F P6 1000 30 28.9

0.075
0.085
0.100
0.120
0.150
0.180
0.205

37.740
47.450
63.890
89.190
134.170
187.310
237.640

34.268
42.754
57.158
79.487
119.672
167.886
214.196

9.199
9.896
10.537
10.879
10.806
10.370
9.865

F P6 1400 90 29.6

0.050
0.070
0.090
0.100
0.130
0.160
0.189

11.290
21.190
33.900
41.284
67.430
99.420
135.760

12.249
22.431
35.460
43.040
70.044
103.439
141.796

8.496
5.856
4.600
4.253
3.876
4.043
4.446

F P6 1000 90 29.6

0.078
0.090
0.100
0.120
0.140
0.160
0.176

28.970
38.290
47.020
67.100
90.630
117.590
141.600

29.454
38.326
46.578
65.427
87.401
112.497
134.823

1.670
0.093
0.939
2.493
3.563
4.331
4.786

Heat exchanger
conguration
(c)
F P6 1400 45 29.8

F P6 1400 60 29.6

Volume
ow rate Q
(m3/s)

Experimental
pressure drop,
DPexp (kPa)

0.050
0.070
0.100
0.120
0.140
0.174

10.230
19.445
38.430
54.440
73.074
110.690

0.066
0.080
0.100

22.285
32.118
49.078

Deviation using
Zukauskas correction
factor (in%)

FEM model pressure drop


using new correction factor,
DPfem (kPa)

Deviation using
new correction
factor (in%)

9.756
16.740
30.928
42.378
55.445
81.432

4.630
13.912
19.522
22.156
24.124
26.432

10.306
19.869
38.887
54.724
73.132
110.456

0.741
2.183
1.189
0.522
0.080
0.211

30.270
41.840
60.778

35.833
30.270
23.839

23.903
33.156
49.662

7.262
3.230
1.189

FEM model pressure drop using


Zukauskas correction factor,
DPfem (kPa)

(continued on next page)

706

B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700712

Table 4 (continued)
Heat exchanger
conguration

Volume
ow rate Q
(m3/s)

Experimental
pressure drop,
DPexp (kPa)

FEM model pressure drop using


Zukauskas correction factor,
DPfem (kPa)

0.120
0.140
0.157

69.395
93.010
115.640

82.600
107.370
130.778

Volume ow rate Q (m3/s)

Heat exchanger
conguration

1

1



Pi
Pj

19.028
15.439
13.090

Deviation using
new correction
factor (in%)

69.530
94.542
115.249

0.195
1.647
0.338

FEM model pressure drop, DPfem (kPa)

Deviation (in%)

0.050
0.070
0.090
0.100
0.130
0.150
0.174

24.240
48.170
79.230
97.610
164.090
217.840
292.260

24.928
48.332
79.091
97.154
162.096
214.411
286.789

2.838
0.336
0.176
0.468
1.215
1.574
1.872

z0.050
0.070
0.090
0.100
0.125
0.140

28.996
55.696
90.690
111.260
171.530
213.710

28.898
56.178
89.388
109.782
172.778
213.297

0.336
0.865
1.436
1.329
0.728
0.193

 
0
0

Apart from the elements dened as shown in Fig. 2 STHXs with low
bafe cuts will also have spring elements just at the bafe space to
take into account the minor losses which will be discussed in Section 3.2. The coefcient k for the stiffness matrix of this spring element is given by

FEM model pressure drop


using new correction factor,
DPfem (kPa)

Experimental pressure drop, DPexp (kPa)

(d)
F P6 1400 45 15.5

F P6 1400 60 15.5

Deviation using
Zukauskas correction
factor (in%)

A2bmin
kl qQ

drop for STHXs with tubes in window agree well with experimental values with a deviation of 0.5% to +7.3% as seen from Table 4c.
The friction factors with their correction factors when applied
to a low bafe cut of 15.5% gave a deviation of more than 50% from
experimental values. The reason for this deviation being, the minor
losses encountered at the bafe end in the 15.5% bafe cut due to
orice effect. The effect of minor losses increases for lower bafe
cuts and this is also evident from the pressure drop distribution
illustrated by Halle et.al [20], where the pressure drop at 15.5% bafe cut is 60% higher than other bafe cuts. The minor loss coefcients (kl) for 15.5% bafe cut are represented in Eqs. (9) and (10):

K l 0:315 For 60 tube bundle

3. Results and discussions

K l 0:415 For 45 tube bundle

10

3.1. Comparison with experimental value and new correction factors

The minimum cross ow area at the bafe is calculated using Eq.


(11), and the pressure drop due to minor loss is determined by
Eqs. (6) and (8):

Zukauskas [11] suggested friction factors are used for staggered


(30) with a/b ratio as 1.155 and inline (90) tube bundles with
(a  1)/(b  1). For any other tube conguration Zukauskas [11]
have proposed correction factors to be multiplied with corresponding friction factor of staggered (30) and inline (90) conguration.
But when Zukauskas friction factor, along with his correction factor
was applied to 45 and 60 tube bundle, this model gave a deviation of +27% and 36% respectively (Table 4c). Additional correction factors k45 and k60 are proposed respectively for 45and 60
tube bundles as given in Table 3, on lines similar to Kapale et al.
who modied the friction factors presented by Kern [2].
The present method with 4 elements in a cross ow path, is
applied to most of the cases presented by Halle et al. [20]. The
results are shown in Tables 4 and 5. The experimental results given
by Halle [20], has innate error of about 5% as discussed by Kistler
and Chenoweth [25]. It is found that, for 30 and 90 tube bundles
as shown in Tables 4a,b and Tables 5a,b, the pressure drops are
compared with values reported by Halle et al. [20] and the deviation is less than 5% for most of the cases. Therefore, the use of friction factors proposed by Zukauskas [11] in the present model
yields good results.
The correction factors are to be multiplied with the standard
friction factors given by Zukauskas [11] for staggered (30) tube
bundles with a/b ratio of 1.155 and inline (90) tube bundles with
(a  1)/(b  1) as 1. Using these correction factors, the pressure

Abmin

 2
2
1 Ds
do
hb  sinhb  Ntw p
2 2
4

11

The pressure drop in HX with tubes in window section (Table 4)


mostly deviated by less than 6%. However, the maximum deviation
(10.9%) is found in cases with nozzle diameter of 10 inches, probably, by the use of the nozzle pressure drop coefcient as suggested
by Gaddis et al. [7] which is 2 (for both the nozzles combined). HX
with NTIW (Table 4) deviated by less than 7% in most of the cases.
3.2. Present prediction of DP and its comparison with available values
The present predictions of DP are compared with those available in literature (Table 6). The present method predicts the pressure drop with greater accuracy when compared to most of the
other models. Zukauskas [11] has already provided well established results for friction factors for Reynolds number ranging 10
to 106. The earlier authors have applied their models for Reynolds
number 103 to 105. However, Gaddis et al. [7], have used the friction factors for Reynolds number range from 10 to 105 with deviations in predicted pressure drops up to 35% and in some cases
beyond that. Thus, in the present model, the predictions are
extended beyond the Reynolds number 105 upto 106, in view of
the friction factors of Zukauskas used in the present method.

707

B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700712
Table 5
Prediction of pressure drop with no NTIW region and comparison with experimental results.
Volume ow rate Q (m3/s)

Experimental pressure drop, DPexp (kPa)

FEM model pressure drop, DPfem (kPa)

Deviation (in%)

0.100
0.130
0.160
0.200
0.240
0.280
0.316

46.070
73.690
106.860
159.320
220.800
290.960
361.295

45.123
72.159
105.307
159.008
223.571
298.994
376.161

2.056
2.078
1.454
0.196
1.255
2.761
4.115

N P8 1000 30 25.5

0.075
0.090
0.120
0.150
0.180
0.210
0.251

29.110
40.280
67.210
99.980
138.320
181.985
249.980

29.254
40.335
67.563
101.540
142.264
189.735
265.521

0.494
0.137
0.525
1.560
2.851
4.258
6.217

Heat exchanger conguration

Volume ow rate Q (m3/s)

Experimental pressure drop, DPexp (kPa)

FEM model pressure drop, DPfem (kPa)

Deviation (in%)

0.064
0.090
0.120
0.150
0.170
0.200
0.230
0.251

18.540
35.320
60.840
92.750
117.510
159.760
208.058
245.420

17.031
31.576
53.624
81.310
102.898
139.978
182.694
215.948

8.137
10.600
11.861
12.335
12.435
12.382
12.191
12.009

N P6 1000 90 29.6

0.037
0.060
0.090
0.120
0.160
0.200
0.230
0.251

3.426
8.378
17.740
30.200
51.430
77.710
100.640
118.300

3.105
7.489
15.733
26.822
46.028
70.283
91.788
108.532

9.359
10.610
11.315
11.186
10.504
9.557
8.795
8.257

Heat exchanger conguration

Volume ow rate Q (m3/s)

Experimental pressure drop, DPexp (kPa)

FEM model pressure drop, DPfem (kPa)

Deviation (in%)

0.102
0.130
0.160
0.200
0.230
0.261

24.281
37.574
54.601
81.591
104.929
131.747

23.966
37.058
54.121
81.755
106.143
134.640

1.298
1.373
0.879
0.202
1.157
2.196

0.050
0.080
0.100
0.130
0.150
0.177

14.465
36.170
55.890
93.220
123.220
170.160

14.298
36.337
56.188
93.344
123.067
169.550

1.154
0.460
0.534
0.133
0.124
0.359

Heat exchanger conguration


(a)
N P8 1400 30 25.5

(b)
N P8 1400 90 25.5

(c)
N P6 1000 30 28.9

N P6 1400 45 15.5

Heat exchanger
conguration
(d)
N P6 1400 60 29.6

N P6 1400 60 15.5

Volume ow rate Q
(m3/s)

Experimental pressure drop, DPexp


(kPa)

FEM model pressure drop using new correction factor,


DPfem (kPa)

Deviation
(in%)

0.051
0.080
0.100
0.130
0.170
0.203

5.498
12.420
18.600
29.910
48.600
67.000

4.955
11.222
16.448
29.665
46.502
64.377

9.881
9.643
11.571
0.821
4.317
3.915

0.054
0.070
0.090
0.130
0.160
0.189

17.130
28.130
45.460
91.750
136.410
187.510

18.034
29.268
46.150
98.218
142.498
198.329

5.277
4.047
1.518
7.049
4.463
5.770

Pressure drop predicted for the case of Reynolds number of 106,


deviates from the experimental value by the order of 9%. Thus
extending the validity of the present model beyond the Reynolds
number of 105 to the case of Reynolds number of 106.

The methods provided by Bell [5] and Kern [2] show deviations
up to 40% in calculating pressure drop, as mentioned in the work
by Prithviraj and Andrews [19]. This deviation is observed because
their methods are unable to predict nozzle pressure drop. Also,

708

B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700712

Calculate Abmin and determine the spring


element stiffness matrix coefficient

It can also be seen that the method by Gaddis et al. [7], which is
currently the widely accepted pressure drop model, predicts pressure drop with lower accuracy compared to the present model.
HEATX results are promising, but since its a CFD simulation,
and time consuming it cannot be applied to new cases in the
absence of the availability of CFD tools and complete geometric
details.
Although Kapale et al. [10] model gives better results, the process of calculation using [10] is time consuming and tedious. Also,
Kapale et al. [10] have not shown the validity of their model for all
the congurations presented by Halle et.al [20]. Just like Bell [5]
and Gaddis [7], Kapales [10] method involves cumbersome calculations to arrive at pressure drop coefcient. Kapales method also
involves referring to works of Gaddis et al. [7] to nd various factors and hence, involves quite a lot of work in obtaining various
parameters required to calculate the pressure drop. Friction factors
proposed by Kern [2] have been modied by Kapale et al. [10] by
introducing a correction factor to develop a new empirical formula.
But their correction factors to Kerns friction factor are applicable
only for 3 tube pitches, 1.25, 1.33 and 1.50.
Table 6b presents the prediction of DP and its comparison with
other works for the case of NTIW. For the 2 cases considered, it can
be observed that FEM predictions are quite close to the experimental values. It can also be observed that the present method predicts
the pressure drop in the NTIW better than the predictions of Bell
and Gaddis. However, the predictions from HEATX are close to
the experimental values with a penalty of taking very large time
of the order of 20 h for the predictions.

Determine the stiffness matrix coefficient


to account for nozzle losses

4. Conclusion

Determine geometrical variables


for each element:
xl, xt, x(i), Amin(i), necf, new

Find Reynolds number at each element and


corresponding Euler number (Eu)
For window section elements

Determine Yaw angle at window


section (w) using Fig 3a, Fig 4a
and Fig 5 Appendix 1.

For mid-section elements

Determine Yaw angle at mid


section (m) using Fig 3b, Fig 4b
and Fig 5

Determine yaw correction factor (K)


and corrected Euler number (Euc )

Low baffle
cut ?
If no
If yes

Construct all Element stiffness matrix

Assemble element matrices to find


Global stiffness matrix and load vector

Apply boundary condition

Solve for the system of equations

Pressure distribution and pressure drop

Fig. 6. Algorithm for the present model.

Kerns [2] method as pointed out by Prithviraj and Andrew [19], is


specically designed for units with a bafe cut of 25%. Kerns
method does not have a provision to account for NTIW bundles
and so cannot be used to predict the pressure drop for NTIW bundles. Bells [5] method rightly predicts the trend of the number of
bafe on the overall pressure drop. Although, Kerns method has
fewer calculation steps compared to that of Bell-Delaware, the
complexity still persists. This can be seen in the published works
of Kapale et al. [10] and Prithviraj and Andrews [19], the values
of pressure drop calculated using Kerns method yields different
results, for the same HX and with the same mass ow rates. This
clearly shows that the analytical methods of Bell [5] and Kern [2]
are difcult to implement.

The proposed model in this paper predicts the shell side pressure drop of a shell and tube heat exchanger using the concept of
Finite Element Method. This method is simple to apply and the
predictions are quite close to the experimental values. The model
has been successfully tested for shell and tube heat exchangers
with bafe cut in the range of 25% to 30%. And also, for a minimum
bafe cut of 15.5% the predictions are quite good. From this investigation the following conclusions can be drawn:
 The present model is simple and is able to predict pressure drop
with minimum geometrical details.
 The model has been successfully tested for shell and tube Heat
Exchangers with bafe cut from 25 to 30%, and can be applied
with condence up to a minimum bafe cut of 15.5%.
 This model takes considerably less computation time to predict
the pressure drop compared to all other available models.
 The pressure drop can be predicted up to any point, along the
ow, on the shell side of a shell and tube Heat Exchanger.
 The present model is applicable to the case of no tubes in window section which many other models do not have a provision
to calculate. Flow directions predicted in this shell and tube
Heat Exchanger take into account the effects of bafe spacing,
bafe cut and no tubes in window section. By using these ow
directions, the predictions of pressure drop are quite close to
the experimental values for 240 cases.
 It was found out that for 30 and 90 tube bundles, Zukauskas
friction factor gave agreeable results but for 45 and 60 correction factors had to be proposed. These correction factors were
veried after applying the same for 130 experimental points.

Conict of interest
None declared.

709

B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700712
Table 6a
Prediction of DP and validation for shell and tube heat exchangers with tubes in window section.
Heat exchanger
conguration

F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
a

P6
P6
P6
P6
P8
P6
P6
P6

1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
1000
1400
1000

30
30
30
30
30
30
45
90

28.9%
28.9%
28.9%
28.9%
25.5%
28.9%
29.8%
25.5%

Volume ow rate
Q (m3/s)

Exp. pressure drop


DPexp (kPa)

FEM model pressure drop,


DPfem (kPa)

Percentage (%) deviation from experimental values


Present
model

Kapales
model [10]

HEATX
[19]

Taborek
[21]

Gaddis
[7]

Kern
[2]

0.08
0.1
0.12
0.133
0.133
0.133
0.05
0.215

36.32
55.14
77.54
93.97
157.75
107.65
10.19
339.99

36.14
53.62
74.39
89.66
153.13
95.91
10.31
315.16

0.5
2.8
4.1
4.6
2.9
10.9a
1.2
7.3

3.1
1.4
0.0
0.8
2.4
3.9
4.0
2.3

6.3
5.6
7.1
7.4
3.1
2.8



4.1
5.8
7.2
8
20.1
9.5
1.5
19.5

14.8
15.4
16
28
9.2
10.4
27.5
27.9

26.5
25.2
17.6
20.5
59
5.1
22.9
18.1

Low nozzle diameter case.

Table 6b
Prediction of DP and validation for shell and tube heat exchangers with no tubes in the window section and comparison of CFD simulation [19].
Heat exchanger
conguration

Exp. Pressure drop DPexp


(kPa)

Volume ow rate Q
(m3/s)

N P8 1400 30 25.5%
N P6 1000 30 28.9%

0.133
0.133

39.9
77.1

38.62
75.20

Acknowledgment

Appendix A
Calculation of Ww and Wm.
Heat
exchanger
case

Heat exchanger
section type

Ww

Ds
S

Tubes in window
section
No tubes in window
section
Inlet and When
outlet
uid
section
enters
section
When
uid
exits
section
Tubes in window
section
No tubes in window
section
Inlet and When
outlet
uid
section
enters
section
When
uid
exits
section

tan1

Ds
S

>1

Percentage (%) deviation from experimental


values
Present
model

HEATX
[19]

Bell
[6]

Gaddis
[7]

3.2
2.5

1.5
4.7

5.4
12

14.4
13.8

Appendix B. Example problem

This work is supported in part by the TEQIP 1.2.1 research grant


(World Bank), for the Centre of Excellence in Knowledge Analytics
and Ontological Engineering (KAnOE) at PES Institute of Technology, Bangalore 560085, India.

61

FEM model pressure drop, DPfem


(kPa)

wm (radians)

(radians)

tan1
tan1


4lc
3S


2lc
Se

tan1
tan1

HX conguration HX with Tubes in window section


Inner diameter of the shell (Ds) 0.59 m
Diameter of outer tube limit (Dotl) 0.568 m
Outer diameter of tubes (do) 0.191 m
Tube pitch (p) 1.25
Tube bundle array angle 30
Bafe cut 28.9%
Number of bafes 5
Length of each cross path (S) 0.597 m
Inlet and outlet nozzle diameter 0.337 m
Volume ow rate (Q) 0.085 m3/s
q 997.0479 kg/m3
l 8.9  104 Pa s

Ds 2lc

S
4

p
2

Here, the elements are labeled in each section according to


direction of uid ow, i.e. when the uid enters the section, the
element it encounters rst is the rst element and the element
from which it leaves that section is the 4th element.
Step 1. Determination of geometrical variables from the given
geometrical data

p
2

lc Baffle cut percentage  Ds 0:289  0:59 0:1705 m


tan1
tan1
1

tan


3lc
2S


2lc
S


2lc
Se

tan1
tan1
p
2

Ds 2lc

S
4

Ds 2lc
S
2

a 1:25;

b 1:0825

xt 0:0239 m; xl 0:0207 m
s

2 
2
Ds  2lc
Dotl
x1 2  

0:5105 m
2
2
x2 0:5680 m

p
2

xe Ds  Dotl 0:0220 m
x1

0:5105 0
0:2553 m
2

710

B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700712

x2

0:5680 0:5105
0:5393 m
2

Euc 4 0:320999

Since, the array is staggered, then depending on the case either


Eq. (2a) or Eq. (2b) is used to calculate the minimum area of ow.
Here, xt  do 6 2xd  do therefore Eq. (2a) is used.

Step 4. Determination of stiffness matrix and pressure drop

Amin 1 0:0436 m2

For calculating pressure drop, stiffness matrix (6) is rst calculated using Eqs. (5a), (5b) and (8).

Amin 2 0:0775 m2
Step 2. Determination of Reynolds number for the given volumetric
ow and Euler number
Euler number (Eu) for the Reynolds number is either determined from the correlations presented in Schlunder [22] or directly
from the Zukauskas graphs [11,23].
Re(1) = A qQd10 l = 41703.3108, for which Euler number Eu(1) is
min

found to be 0.320811 from Zukauskas correlation


qQd0
Re(2) = Amin
= 23461.4357, for which Euler number Eu(2) is
2l
found to be 0.372618 from Zukauskas correlation
Step 3. Determination of Yaw angle and corrected Euler number
From Eu the value of Euc is calculated using Eq. (4). For staggered array Eq. (3b) has to be used to determine the yaw correction
factor Kw.
Since, S > Ds the problem is the case of Fig. 3, the values of yaw
angle are determined using the relations depicted in Appendix A.
Step 3(a) At sections between bafes (inter-bafe regions)
1

ww wm tan
So;

Ds
0:7795 rad
S

Euc 1 Euc 4 0:19132 window section


Euc 2 Euc 3 0:222213 mid section

rad; so;

wm tan1

k
k
k k



Pi

Pj

Q

Assembly of the elements give:


2

0:38014
6
6 0:38014
6
6
104  6 0
6
6
40

38 9
P1 >
>
>
> >
>
7>
>
P >
1:06 0
0
>
>
7>
< 2>
=
7>
7
2:12 1:06
0
7 P3
>
7>
> >
>
7>
P4 >
1:06 1:44014 0:38014 5>
>
>
>
>
>
: >
;
P5
0
0:38014 0:38014

0:38014 0
1:44014
1:06
0
0

Let P5 be 0.
Solving the above matrix, we obtain the pressure distribution in one inter-bafe region and the result is as follows:

Step 3(b) At the inlet and outlet sections

n(1) and n(4) correspond to number of rows of tubes in window sections (new)
n(1) = n(4) = 6.17
Using Eq. (5a),
k(1) = k(4) = 3.8014  105
n(2) and n(3) correspond to number of rows of tubes in window sections (necf)
n(2) = 6.020887
Using Eq. (5a),
k(2) = k(3) = 1.06  104
The pressure drop for one inter bafe region is calculated as
follows:

8
9
0:085 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
0
>
>
>
>
<
=
0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
0
>
>
>
>
>
>
:
;
0:085

K w 0:596356

Step 4(a) For inter-bafe region

Therefore, at the inter-bafe regions,

wm

The Euler numbers are multiplied with the correction factors K45 or
K60 if the given tube bundle is a 45 or 60 tube bundle
respectively.

K w 1:000585

2lc
0:518991 rad; K w 0:280714
S

Therefore, at the inlet and outlet regions,

Euc 1 0:09006

8 9 8
9
P1 >
>
>
6:0758  103 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
3>
>
>
>
P
>
>
>
>
3:8398

10
2
< = <
=
3
P3 3:0379  10
>
>
>
>
>
>
> P4 >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
2:236  103 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
: ; :
;
3
P5
0  10
Therefore, the net pressure drop in all inter-bafe regions
(DPibr)=4  6.0758 = 24.3032 kPa (see Fig. 7).

Euc 2 Euc 3 0:372836

P1

P2 P1
P3 P2
P4 P3
P4 P
5

Fig. 7. Elements of inter-bafe region. P1, P2, P3, P4, P5 are the pressures at nodal points 1 to 5, and DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4 are the pressure drop in the elements of the section.

711

B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700712

P4
P3
P2
P1

P4

P5

P3
P2

P1

Fig. 8. Elements of inletoutlet region. P1, P2, P3, P4, P5 are the pressures at nodal points 1 to 5, and DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4 are the pressure drop in the elements of the section.

P1

P1 P2

Fig. 9. Entry and exit Nozzle element. P1, P2 are the pressures at nodal points 1 and 2 respectively, and DP1 is the pressure drop in the element of one nozzle section.

Step 4(b) For Inlet and exit section


n(1) and n(4) correspond to number of rows of tubes in window sections (new)
n(1) = n(4) = 6.17
Using Eq. (5a),
k(1) = 8.0755  105
k(4) = 2.2657  105
n(2) and n(3) correspond to number of rows of tubes in window sections (necf)
n(2) = n(3) = 6.021
Using Eq. (5a),
k(2) = k(3) = 6.3178  105

k

k k



Pi
Pj

Q

Assembly of the elements give:


2

0:80755
6
6 0:80755
6
6
104 6 0
6
60
4
0
9
8
0:085 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
0 >
>
>
=
<

0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
0 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
;
:
0:085

38 9
P1 >
>
>
>
> >
>
7>
>
>
7>
P >
1:43933 0:63178 0
0
=
< 2>
7>
7
P
0:63178 1:26356 0:63178 0
7
3
>
7>
>
>
>P >
0
0:63178 0:85835 0:22657 7
>
> 4>
5>
>
>
>
;
: >
P5
0
0
0:22657 0:22657
0:80755 0

Let P5 be 0.
Solving the above matrix, we obtain the pressure distribution in one Inlet/outlet region and the results are as follows:

8 9 8
9
P1 > >
>
7:4950  103 >
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
3>
>
> >
>
>
< P2 >
< 6:4424  10 >
= >
=
3
P3 5:097  10
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> P4 >
> 3:7516  103 >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
: ; :
;
P5
0  103
The net pressure drop in inlet and outlet region (DPior) =
2  7.495  103 Pa = 14.99 kPa (see Fig. 8).
Step 4(c) Nozzle pressure drop
The nozzle pressure drop is determined using Eq. (5b) in (6),



Pi

k

k

Pj

1:87756

1:87756

1:87756

1:87756

104 


P1

P2

452:7146

Q


P1
P2

0:085

0:085

Therefore, net pressure drop from inlet and outlet nozzles = (DPnz) = 2  0.4527 = 0.9054 kPa (see Fig. 9).
Step 4(d) Low bafe cut pressure drop
If the bafe cut is low, then the sudden-expansion and contraction losses should be taken into account by using Eq. (8)
in (6).
Here, bafe cut is not low, hence pressure drop due to bafe
cut of 28.9%, (DPbl) = 5  0 = 0

Net pressure drop determined by FEM model DPfem


DPibr DPior DPnz DPbl
24:3032 14:99 0:9054 0 40:1986 kPa
Experimental pressure drop DPexp 40:66 kPa:
References
[1] D.A. Donohue, Heat transfer and pressure drop in heat exchangers, Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 41 (1949) 4992511.
[2] D.Q. Kern, Process Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1950.
[3] T. Tinker, Shell-Side Characteristics of Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers, Parts I,
II, III, General Discussion on Heat Transfer, Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
London, 1951. pp. 97116.
[4] T. Tinker, Shell-side characteristics of shell and tube heat exchangers: a
simplied rating system for commercial heat exchangers, Trans. ASME 80
(1958) 3652.
[5] K.J. Bell, Final report of the cooperative research program on shell and tube
heat exchangers, University of Delaware, Engineering Experimental Station,
Bulletin No. 5, 1963.
[6] J.W. Palen, J. Taborek, Solution of shell side ow pressure drop and heat
transfer by stream analysis method, Chem. Eng. Prog. Symp. Ser. 65 (1969) 53
63.
[7] E.S. Gaddis, V. Gnielinski, Pressure drop on the shell side of shell and-tube heat
exchangers with segmental bafes, Chem. Eng. Process. 36 (1997) 149159.
[8] E.S. Gaddis, V. Gnielinski, Druckverlust in querdurchstriimten Rohrbiindeln,
vt.verfahrenstechnik 17 (1983) 410418.

712

B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700712

[9] E.S. Gaddis, V. Gnielinski, Pressure drop in cross ow across tube bundles, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 25 (1985) 115.
[10] Uday C. Kapale, Satish Chand, Modeling for shell-side pressure drop for liquid
ow in shell-and-tube heat exchanger, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 49 (2006)
601610.
[11] A.A. Zukauskas, Heat transfer from tubes in cross ow, Adv. Heat Transfer 18
(1987) 87159.
[12] A.Y. Gunter, W.A. Haw, A general correlation of friction factors for various
types of surfaces in cross ow, Trans. ASME 67 (1945) 643660.
[13] S.G. Ravikumaur, K.N. Seetharamu, P.A. Aswatha Narayana, Finite element
analysis of shell and tube heat exchangers, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer
15 (2) (1988) 151163.
[14] Yonghua You, Aiwu Fan, Xuejiang Lai, Suyi Huang, Wei Liu, Experimental and
numerical investigations of shell-side thermo-hydraulic performances for
shell-and-tube heat exchanger with trefoil-hole bafes, Appl. Therm. Eng. 50
(1) (2013) 950956.
[15] Ender. Ozden, Ilker. Tari, Shell side CFD analysis of a small shell-and-tube heat
exchanger, Energy Convers. Manage. 51 (5) (2010) 10041014.
[16] F. Vera-Garca, J.R. Garca-Cascales, J. Gonzlvez-Maci, R. Cabello, R. Llopis, D.
Sanchez, E. Torrella, A simplied model for shell-and-tubes heat exchangers:
practical application, Appl. Therm. Eng. 30 (10) (2010) 12311241.
[17] G. Hewitt, G. Shires, T. Bott, Process Heat Transfer, CRC Press Inc., 1994.

[18] Rajagapal Thundil Karuppa Raj, Srikanth Ganne, Shell side numerical analysis
shell and tube heat exchanger considering the effects of bafe inclination
angle on uid ow, Therm. Sci. 16 (4) (2012) 11651174.
[19] M. Prithiviraj, M.J. Andrews, Comparison of a three-dimensional numerical
model with existing methods for prediction of ow in shell-and-tube heat
exchangers, Heat Transfer Eng. 20 (2) (1999) 1519.
[20] H. Halle, J.M. Chenoweth, M.W. Wambsganss, Shell-side water ow pressure
drop distribution measurements in an industrial-sized test heat exchanger,
ASME J. Heat Transfer 110 (1988) 6067.
[21] R.K. Shah, Dusan P. Sekulic, Fundamentals of Heat Exchanger Design, Wiley,
New York, 2003.
[22] E.U. Schlunder, Heat Exchanger Design Handbook, vols. 14, Hemisphere, New
York, 1983, http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/3.60159.
[23] Roland W. Lewis, Perumal Nithiarasu, Kankanhalli N. Seetharamu,
Fundamentals of Finite elements for Heat and Fluid ow, John Wiley & Sons,
UK, 2004.
[24] Frank P. Incropera, David P. Dewitt, Theodore L. Bergman, Adrienne S. Lavine,
K.N. Seetharamu, T.R. Seetharam, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer,
Wiley India Private Ltd., 2013.
[25] R.S. Kistler, J.M. Chenoweth, Heat exchanger shellside pressure drop:
comparison of predictions with experimental data, ASME J. Heat Transfer
110 (1988) 6876.