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.
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
p
pt
Q
Re
S
xd
xi
Euc
xl
xt
x(i)
Nc
necf
new
Ntw
Nw
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
702
B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700712
Upper
Window
MidSecon
Lower
Window
1
2
3
4
Flow direcon
(Longitudinal direcon)
Transverse direcon
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
Amin
xt do Sxi
Sxe
xt
Amin
xt do Sxi
Sxe
xt
for xt do 6 2xd do
2a
or
Amin
2xd do Sxi
Sxe
xt
2b
K w 1:107 exp0:301w2:412
3a
K w 1:245 exp0:478w1:733
3b
Euc K w Eu
Table 2
Properties of tube banks [21].
30 Triangular staggered array
Transverse tube pitch (xt)
Longitudinal tube pitch (xl)
pt
p
3
2 pt
pt
pt
2
pt
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
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%)
(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%)
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
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)
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
(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
Abmin
2
2
1 Ds
do
hb sinhb Ntw p
2 2
4
11
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
(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)
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
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
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.
4. Conclusion
Low baffle
cut ?
If no
If yes
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)
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
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
HEATX
[19]
Bell
[6]
Gaddis
[7]
3.2
2.5
1.5
4.7
5.4
12
14.4
13.8
61
wm (radians)
(radians)
tan1
tan1
4lc
3S
2lc
Se
tan1
tan1
Ds 2lc
S
4
p
2
p
2
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
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
ww wm tan
So;
Ds
0:7795 rad
S
rad; so;
wm tan1
k
k
k k
Pi
Pj
Q
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.
k
k k
Pi
Pj
Q
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
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.