paper

© All Rights Reserved

8 tayangan

paper

© All Rights Reserved

- TOSCA Fluid Broschuere 2012
- Modules
- Computational Fluid Dynamics
- CFD
- CFD Syllabus
- cfd
- CFD Modelling of Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication Markus Hartinger PhD
- Advances_in_Finite_Element_Procedures_for_Nonlinear_Dynamic_Response
- For Summer COoling
- Unstructured Grid Generation for Aerospace Applications (1999)
- Level Sets in CFD in Aerospace
- Application of Computational Fluid Dynamics for Modeling and Designing Photobioreactors
- Terziev Etal JFS 2018 Behaviour and Performance of Ships Advancing Through Restricted Shallow Waters
- A CFD-FEM Approach to Study Wing
- water-08-00495
- MotorbikeSimulationWithOpenFOAM.pptx
- Turbolence
- SailingYacht_newsletter07-4
- mentorpaper_101392
- CFD QB

Anda di halaman 1dari 13

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

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.

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

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 (m)

volume ow rate in (m3/s)

Re

S

xd

xi

Euc

xl

xt

x(i)

Nc

necf

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

Ntw

Nw

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

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

elements (1, 2, 3, 4)

space

Flow direcon

(Longitudinal direcon)

Transverse direcon

Rectangular elements

pitches

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],

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

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

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

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

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

given by

Amin

xt do Sxi

Sxe

xt

for xt do 6 2xd do

2a

or

Amin

2xd do Sxi

Sxe

xt

2b

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

K w 1:245 exp0:478w1:733

3b

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

calculated:

Euc K w Eu

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

p

3pt

pt

pt

2

pt

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

Ds

S

6 1.

m

w

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

et al.

The pressure element is given by,

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)

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

Deviation (in%)

(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%)

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

Zukauskas correction factor,

DPfem (kPa)

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)

Zukauskas correction factor,

DPfem (kPa)

0.120

0.140

0.157

69.395

93.010

115.640

82.600

107.370

130.778

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

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

using new correction factor,

DPfem (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):

10

(11), and the pressure drop due to minor loss is determined by

Eqs. (6) and (8):

(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

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)

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

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

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

(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)

(kPa)

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

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

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.

to account for nozzle losses

4. Conclusion

for each element:

xl, xt, x(i), Amin(i), necf, new

corresponding Euler number (Eu)

For window section elements

section (w) using Fig 3a, Fig 4a

and Fig 5 Appendix 1.

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

and Fig 5

and corrected Euler number (Euc )

Low baffle

cut ?

If no

If yes

Global stiffness matrix and load vector

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)

DPexp (kPa)

DPfem (kPa)

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

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

(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

values

Present

model

HEATX

[19]

Bell

[6]

Gaddis

[7]

3.2

2.5

1.5

4.7

5.4

12

14.4

13.8

(World Bank), for the Centre of Excellence in Knowledge Analytics

and Ontological Engineering (KAnOE) at PES Institute of Technology, Bangalore 560085, India.

61

(kPa)

wm (radians)

(radians)

tan1

tan1

4lc

3S

2lc

Se

tan1

tan1

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

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

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

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.

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

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 2 Euc 3 0:222213 mid section

rad; so;

wm tan1

k

k

k k

Pi

Pj

Q

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:

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

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

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).

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.

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

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

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.

- TOSCA Fluid Broschuere 2012Diunggah olehSergey Fedorinov
- ModulesDiunggah olehPurvang Desai
- Computational Fluid DynamicsDiunggah olehpoliskarma
- CFDDiunggah olehchirag sanghani
- CFD SyllabusDiunggah olehSelvamuthu Kumaran
- cfdDiunggah olehAsal Mortazavi
- CFD Modelling of Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication Markus Hartinger PhDDiunggah olehAghajani
- Advances_in_Finite_Element_Procedures_for_Nonlinear_Dynamic_ResponseDiunggah olehAli İhsan Karakaş
- For Summer COolingDiunggah olehBoris Joshua Q. Teodoro
- Level Sets in CFD in AerospaceDiunggah olehKian Chuan
- Unstructured Grid Generation for Aerospace Applications (1999)Diunggah olehsrikanth sikhakolli
- Application of Computational Fluid Dynamics for Modeling and Designing PhotobioreactorsDiunggah olehHaraprasad Nanjundappa
- Terziev Etal JFS 2018 Behaviour and Performance of Ships Advancing Through Restricted Shallow WatersDiunggah olehSurya Chala Praveen
- A CFD-FEM Approach to Study WingDiunggah olehanmol6237
- water-08-00495Diunggah olehVictor Peter
- MotorbikeSimulationWithOpenFOAM.pptxDiunggah olehJulien Bernier Ouellet
- TurbolenceDiunggah olehFolpo
- SailingYacht_newsletter07-4Diunggah olehSonia
- mentorpaper_101392Diunggah olehByeong-Taek Yun
- CFD QBDiunggah olehVignesh Durai
- introcfdDiunggah olehRenato Al
- Galoa Proceedings Pibic 2015 38152 Comparison BetweDiunggah olehAnonymous zNMZGjS4XC
- book-chapt1.pdfDiunggah olehVinitJory
- IJTTE_CaramatescuDiunggah olehAdrian Caramatescu
- Ada 323498Diunggah olehIsaac Kocherla
- 8 Lindborg JakobsenDiunggah olehCarlos Manuel Romero Luna
- PO_08Diunggah olehHarold Taylor
- Shakeel AssignDiunggah olehshakeel6787
- 2. AbstractDiunggah olehjprakash_vin
- FfC_v5.0-01-IntroductionDiunggah olehCatalin

- Exercises PI Process BookDiunggah olehJoan
- 10.1146_annurev-fluid-010313-141302Diunggah olehInformationEmissary
- 6Diunggah olehInformationEmissary
- 5Diunggah olehInformationEmissary
- 5Diunggah olehInformationEmissary
- 4Diunggah olehInformationEmissary
- 3.psDiunggah olehInformationEmissary
- 2Diunggah olehInformationEmissary
- Jksimmet 20v6 Intro 2bsim1 140403001229 Phpapp02 GsDiunggah olehInformationEmissary
- ScribdDiunggah olehInformationEmissary
- World Pump Market ReportDiunggah olehInformationEmissary

- CFD Analysis of Flow Through a Conical ExhaustDiunggah olehrvnaveen26
- DesignBuilder Simulation Training_HSD.pdfDiunggah olehnpnbkck
- Numerical Solution of Overland Flow Model Using Finite Volume MethodDiunggah olehEndless Love
- 10 Tips and Tricks Thermal AnkitDiunggah olehsainath_84
- CFASTDiunggah olehMihail Pustovit
- 01667Diunggah olehWoei Tding Chong
- Challenges of Aircraft Design IntegrationDiunggah olehJack Azad
- 814527370-MITDiunggah olehpothirajkalyan
- cr020718sDiunggah olehKasra Talebi Azar
- Flapping Wing FlightDiunggah olehqyilmazoglu
- Asymmetric Behavior of Propeller–Rudder SystemDiunggah olehsumardiono10
- AA V2 I2 New Meshing Features in ANSYS WorkbenchDiunggah olehSharda Siddh
- Moving VehicleDiunggah olehKall Dill
- Finite Element Study of the Mass Transfer in Annular ReactorDiunggah olehYehia El Shazly
- 2012 - Development of OpenFOAM application for internal combustion engine simulation.pdfDiunggah olehEduardo Azevedo Stonoga
- CFD Analysis of Eppler 374Diunggah olehraymun c
- Ansys Capabilities 19.1Diunggah olehTahir Tariq
- CFD Diffuser Gas Power PumpDiunggah olehktjayakumar3878
- 291780171-Xflow2012-Validation-Guide.pdfDiunggah olehKopi
- Non Conservative EulerDiunggah olehSadiq Sarfaraz
- 2011.10 DNV-SDARI Ship Fuel SavingsDiunggah olehgnd100
- Aswc2014 Aerovibro Acoustics Wind NoiseDiunggah olehmatteo_1234
- ANSYS AeroMechanics Update SSPDiunggah olehprakulmittal2
- HVAC Airport sampleDiunggah olehAyingBabe
- ICEM-Intro 14.0 AgendaDiunggah olehrewmarine
- CFD Course Work 3rd Year Sam MailerDiunggah olehSam Mailer
- CFD of Clubman Roll CagesDiunggah olehJoel Forbes
- Cfd Model for Shear Regime AtomizationDiunggah olehsymkimon
- ICEM-GeometryDiunggah olehMohsen Salehi
- Computational Behera 2015Diunggah olehAnonymous mXicTi8hB