Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

F. Osweiller

Centre Technique des Industries Mécaniques, Senlis, France

U-Tube Heat-Exchangers: New Common Design Rules for ASME, CODAP, and EN 13445 CODES

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

1 Introduction

In 1992 ASME and CODAP decided to reconcile their design rules devoted to tubesheet heat-exchangers. This reconciliation has been extended to the draft European Standard for Unfired Pressure Vessel, as CEN/TC54 decided in 1993 to adopt CODAP tubesheet design rules. This reconciliation covers both the analytical aspect same the- oretical basis and the editorial aspect same notations, same tubesheet configurations, same design loading cases, same struc- ture, and presentation of the rules . For more details see Osweiller 1 . This reconciliation applies to the three types of heat- exchangers:

Fixed tubesheet heat-exchangers. ASME and CODAP use the same analytical approach, but CODAP ignores the un- perforated tubesheet rim.

Floating tubesheet heat-exchangers. Both codes have adapted the fixed tubesheet approach to the case of floating tubesheets.

U-tube tubesheet heat-exchangers. ASME and CODAP have adopted the same rules.

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

2 Historical Background Of U-Tube Tubesheets

The 1990 CODAP rules for U-tube tubesheets were originally

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

d :

Contributed by the Pressure Vessels and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the J OURNAL OF P RESSURE V ESSEL T ECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received August 31, 2005; final manuscript received October 20, 2005. Review Conducted by G. E. Otto Widera.

— Use of an effective pitch to account for unperforated dia- metral lanes,

— use of direct formula to determine the tubesheet thickness.

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

— Three different rules, based on different analytical ap- proaches, were proposed to cover configurations a , b , d , and e ;

— the rule for configuration d covered only the case where the tubesheet was not extended as a flange, with gaskets on both sides of the same diameter;

— the rule for configuration a used the same formula, cor- rected by TEMA coefficient F to account for the degree of restraint of the tubesheet by the shell and channel. That approach is not satisfactory for reasons explained by Osweiller 4 ;

— Configurations c and f gasketed tubesheet not extended as a flange were not covered.

For these reasons, the author proposed in 2000 to develop a more refined, and unique, approach to cover the six tubesheet configurations. This approach is based on Urey Miller’s method mentioned above, with some improvements:

— Treatment of configurations c and f where the tubesheet is not extended as a flange;

— accounting for local pressures acting on the shell and the channel, when integral with the tubesheet;

— use of Poisson’s ratio in all formulas, rather than using = 0.3 which leads to odd coefficients ;

— derivation of more condensed formulas, providing formu- las more consistent with the fixed, tubesheet rules, and improving the clarity of the rules.

The next section explains the basis of this new approach.

3 Basis of Analytical Treatment

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

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology

Copyright © 2006 by ASME

FEBRUARY 2006, Vol. 128 / 95

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

Fig. 1 Configurations of tubesheets in ASME, CODAP, and EN 13445: „ a … Configuration

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

aConfiguration a: Tubesheet integral with shell and channel;

bConfiguration b: Tubesheet integral with shell and gasketed with channel, extended as a flange;

cConfiguration c: Tubesheet integral with shell and gasketed with channel, not extended as a flange;

dConfiguration d: Tubesheet gasketed with shell and channel;

eConfiguration e: Tubesheet gasketed with shell and integral with channel, extended as a flange;

f Configuration f: Tubesheet gasketed with shell and integral with channel, not extended as a flange

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

3.1 Integral Channel.

a Edge radial displacement and rotation are given by

a Edge radial displacement and rotation are given by Fig. 2 Analytical model for tubesheet integral

Fig. 2 Analytical model for tubesheet integral both sides a

96 / Vol. 128, FEBRUARY 2006

c = + A c Q c + c A c M c + c P c

c = c A c Q c + 2 2 c A c M c

where:

A c =

1

2

k c c

is the influence coefficient

c = 4

12 1 2 c

D c + t c t c

is the channel coefficient

1

k c = c

3

E c t c

2 is the channel bending rigidity 6 1 c

c =

2

D c

2 c is the coefficient due to pressure

8 E c t c

acting on the channel

Note. Pressure acting in the channel and tubes is noted as P c rather than P t , usually used in Code design rules to maintain consistency of subscripts. Final formu- las used in the Codes are expressed with P t . b The equilibrium of the channel head is as follows:

which leads to:

2 a c + t c V c a c

2 P c = 0

2

c If radial displacement of the tubesheet is neglected, the compatibility equation writes:

2 a c + t c V c = a 2 c P c

Transactions of the ASME

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

w c = − h c with c = − R = − a

2

3

A combination of Eqs. 1 and 3 permits us to deter- mine:

M c = − k c 1 + h c /2 a + k c c c P c

4

Q c = + k c c 1 + h c a 2 k c c

2 c P c

3.2 Integral Shell. The same equations apply, using subscript

s instead of subscript c :

2 a s + t s V s = a s 2 P s

w s = − h s with s = R = a

2

5

6

M s = + k s 1 + h s /2 a + k s s s P s

Q s = − k s s 1 + h s /2 a 2 k s s 2 s P s

7

3.3 Perforated Tubesheet. The perforated tubesheet which

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

a Rotation of the tubesheet at radius a is given by:

a = 12 1 − *

E

* h 3

aM a + a 3 P s P c

8

8

b Equilibrium equation is as follows:

− 2 aV a + a 2 P s P c = 0

which leads to:

V a = a

2

P s P c

9

3.4 Unperforated Rim. The unperforated rim of the

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

R =

12 R · M R

Eh 3

ln K

= a

10

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

acting

The equilibrium of moments acting on the rigid ring is as fol-

lows, considering the axis r = a :

on ring, and K = A / D o .

RM R = Eh 3 ln K R = − aM a + a c M c a c Q c

12

h

2

+ M P c

a c V c a c a a s M s a s Q s

h

2

M P s a s V s a s a

11

where M P c and M P s are the moments due to pressures P c and

P s acting on the rigid ring:

M P c = a c 2 a 2 a c + a a P c

2

2

M P s = a s 2 a 2 a s + a a P s

2

2

Expliciting M P c and V c , we obtain for the third term of 11 :

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology

3

3rd term = − a 4 c − 1 2 c + 1 P c

where c = a c = D c

a D

o

And similarly, for the fifth term:

3

5th term = − a 4 s − 1 s 2 + 1 P s

where s = a s = D s

a

D

o

3.5 Determination of Moments Acting on the Tubesheet.

a Introducing M c , Q c Eqs. 4 and M s , Q s Eqs. 7 into Eq. 11 permits us to obtain a linear relation between M a and a , noting that R = a continuity of rotations :

12

aM a = − K a a + aM *

with:

K a = Eh 3

12

ln K + a c k c 1 + h c + h 2 c

2

2

+ a s k s 1 + h s + h 2 s

2

2

13

14

b M * is the moment acting on the rigid ring, due to pres- sures P s and P t where:

M * = M TS + M P c M P s

M TS = D o

16

2

S 1 S + 1 P s c 1 2 c + 1 P t .

2

15

is the moment due to pressures P s and P t acting on the rigid ring;

16

is the moment acting on the rigid ring, due to pressure P t in the channel;

17

is the moment acting on the rigid ring, due to pressure P s in the shell. c Combining Eq. 12 with tubesheet Eq. 8 permits us to determine the moment M a acting at the periphery of the perforated tubesheet.

M P c = c k c c 1 + c h c P c

M P s = s k s s 1 + s h s P s

M a =

2

M * D o F P s P t

32

1 + F

18

where:

with:

F = 1 * c + s + E ln K E *

c = 6 D c

h

3

k c 1 + h c +

h 2 c

2

2

19

20

s = 6 D s

h

3

k s 1 + h s +

h 2 s

2

2

21

Note 1. F is the edge restraining parameter, which may vary form 0 to as follows:

FEBRUARY 2006, Vol. 128 / 97

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

— If there is no bending support from the channel k c = 0 and the shell k s = 0 :

i = 0 and k i = 0 lead to F close to zero, and M a = M * = M TS . The tubesheet is almost simply supported. If there is no unperforated rim

K = 1, s = 0, c = 0 : F = 0 and M a = 0.

The tubesheet is fully supported.

— If there is a high bending support from the channel k c = and the shell k s = : c = and s = lead to F = . The tubesheet is fully clamped:

2

M a = − D o P s P c .

32

d The moment at radius r of the perforated tubesheet is given by the classical formula:

M r = M a + 3 + * D 0 1 − a 2 P s P t

64

The maximum bending moments in the perforated tubesheet will appear:

2

r

— either at the periphery:

M R = M a = M p =

2

M * D o F P s P t

32

1 + F

22

— or at the center:

2

M o = M o = M p + 3 + * D o P s P t

64

23

which enables to determine the maximum bending stress in the tubesheet.

Note 2. If we ignore the unperforated tubesheet rim, these for- mulas lead to the classical circular plates see note 1 :

— for clamping at periphery of tubesheet

F = : p = 3 3 + *

32

D h o

2

P s P t

— for simple support at center of tubesheet

F = 0 : o =

16 D h o

3

2

P s P t

e The shear stress is determined from Eq. 9 :

=

h = 4 D

a

V

h P s P t

o

24

where is the basic ligament efficiency of the tubesheet.

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

M c = k c c c P t − 6 1 *

D o

E

*

h

3

1 + h c M p + D o P s P t

2

2

32

25

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

98 / Vol. 128, FEBRUARY 2006

M s = k s s s P s + 6 1 *

D o

E

*

h

3

1 + h s M p + D o P s P t

2

2

32

26

These moments permit us to calculate the bending stresses in the channel and shell at their junction with the tubesheet.

3.7 Tubesheet Integral With Channel and Gasketed With

Shell (Configuration e). Same analytical treatment as above is applied, which leads to similar equations:

M * = M TS + M P c + C s G s W s

2

D o

27

where: W s is the shell flange design bolt load C s is the bolt circle diameter G s is the shell gasket load reaction diameter Other formulas remain unchanged, except formula 19 giving F , where s = 0. For more details, see Appendix A.

3.8 Tubesheet Gasketed With Shell and Channel (Configu-

ration d). Same analytical treatment is applied, which leads to

similar equations:

M * = M TS + C s G s

2

D o

W s C c G c

2

D o

W c

28

Other formulas remain unchanged, except formula 19 giving F , where s = 0 and c = 0. For more details, see Appendix B.

3.9 Generic Equations for All Configurations. From above

it appears that the maximum moments in the tubesheet, channel, and shell are given by Eqs. 22 , 23 , 25 , and 26 , using for-

mulas 15 21 to determine M TS , M P C , M P S , F , s , and c , and

the formula below for M * :

M * = M TS + M P c M P s + C s G c W S C c G c W C

2

D o

2

D o

In these equations:

k s = 0 if the shell is gasketed; k c = 0 if the channel is gasketed; W s = 0 if the shell is integral; W c = 0 if the channel is integral;

29

4 How to Use the Rules

The basic design formulas used in ASME, CODAP, and EN 13445 Codes appear in bold characters in Sec. 3. A tubesheet thickness h must be assumed to calculate the maxi- mum stresses in the tubesheet, shell, and channel and to check that

they do not exceed the maximum allowable stresses in these com- ponents. Therefore, interative calculations are necessary to obtain the optimized tubesheet thickness, for wich =maximum allow- able stress. The calculation shall be performed for each of the following loading cases:

1. tube-side pressure P t acting only P s = 0

2. shell-side pressure P s acting only P t = 0

3. both pressures P t and P s acting simultaneously, especially if there is vacuum on one side.

The design procedure is as follows:

1. Calculate the moment M TS due to pressures P s and P t acting on the unperforated tubesheet rim, from formula 15 which

is the same for all configurations. However, s and c de-

pend on the configuration type.

2. Calculate, as necessary, coefficients i , k i , i , i , relative to

shell

17 , M P c formula 18 and F formulas 19 , A2 , or B2 , depending on configuration type .

i = s and/or channel i = c to determine M P s formula

Transactions of the ASME

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

3. Calculate the moment M * acting on the unperforated tubesheet rim formulas 14 , 27 , and 28 .

4. Calculate the maximum bending moments in the tubesheet at its periphery, M a formula 22 , and center M o formula 23 , and their maximum:

M = MAX M p , M o

5. Calculate the maximum bending stress in the tubesheet:

=

6 M

* h 2

where * is the effective ligament efficiency, which ac- counts for the tubesheet holes, the tube expansion depth ra- tio, and for possible unperforated pass-partition lanes. This primary bending stress is limited to 2 S : 2 S . Calculate the shear stress at periphery of tubesheet:

= D h P s P t

o

4

where =1− d t / p is the basic ligament efficiency, which accounts for the tubesheet holes.

Shear stress must not exceed 0.8S : 0.8S . If these conditions are not satisfied, the calculations shall be performed again, assuming a higher tubesheet thickness

h

6. Calculate the bending moments in the channel formula 25 and in the shell formula 26 , if these components are integral with the tubesheet. The corresponding bending stresses are given by:

.

—in the channel: c = 6

2

t c

M c

—in the shell: s = 6

2

t s

M s

These primary bending stresses are limited respectively, to:

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

5 Comparison to Tema

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

T = F G

2 P

S

with F = 1.25 when the tubesheet is simply supported

F = 1.0 when the tubesheet is clamped

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

h o = C G

2

P

* S

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology

= C G 2 P * S Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology with Fig. 3 Ligament

with

Fig. 3 Ligament efficiency

C = 3 3 + *

8

C = 4 = 0.866

3

= 1.112 when the tubesheet

is simply supported

when the tubesheet

is clampled

where:

* is the effective ligament efficiency

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

Using * = 0.5 and = 1.5, h o writes:

h o =

C

G

P

S

0.75

2

where

0.75 = 1.285

C

1 . 0 for clamping, which is the TEMA value

for simple support:TEMA uses 1.25

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

T = F G

3

P

S

a A ligament efficiency was introduced, based on the mean ligament efficiency width see Fig. 3 which leads to:

tr = 1 − 0.907 d t

P

2

sq = 1 − 0.785 d t

P

2

for triangular pitch

for square pitch

Therefore, for a given value of ligament efficiency , sq tr , and the tubesheet thickness is lower for square pitch than for triangular pitch. For more de- tails, see Osweiller 5 . The minimum value = 0.2 imposed by TEMA leads to the minimum values of :

tr 0.42 sq 0.50

b Coefficient 3 in new TEMA formula has been tailored so that old and new formulas give the same results for these minimum values of . Considering that usually ranges between 0.42 and 0.6, the new TEMA formula will lead to lower tubesheet thickness than before. These values of are generally significantly higher than the effective liga- ment efficiency * used in the Codes 0.25

0.4 , as * is based on the minimum ligament effi- ciency see Fig. 3 .

*

FEBRUARY 2006, Vol. 128 / 99

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

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

thickness for 4 U-tube Heat Exchangers „ mm … c Assuming that = 1.1 * ,

c Assuming that = 1.1 * , the classical circular plate formula of Sec. 2 leads to new TEMA formula if we use = 2.0. In 1969, GARDNER 2 came to the same conclu- sion and proposed to use = 2.0, arguing that the original TEMA formula did not lead to failures in more than 20 years. CODAP 2000, PD 5500, and EN 13445 have been using this value for two decades, but ASME adopted this value recently.

6 Numerical Comparisons

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

— Classical circular plate, using the ASME ligament effi- ciency * and values = 1.5 and 2.0.

— TEMA: old formula 6th ed. , and new formula 8th

— ASME: old method Appendix AA 2001 Edition , and new method UHX 2004 Edition presented in this paper using,

respectively, = 1.5 and

= 2.0.

— CODAP and EN 13445: use of ASME new method, with

= 2.0 or 3.0. In these two codes:

• if the yield stress controls safety factor 1.5 applied on

yield stress : f = S and = 2.0.

• if the ultimate strength controls safety factor 2.4 on ul- timate strength, instead of 3.5 in ASME Section VIII—

Div.

1 : f = 1.5S and = 3.0.

Examination of Table 1 shows that, for these examples:

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

100 / Vol. 128, FEBRUARY 2006

If the ultimate stress controls the determination of S = 3.0 , CODAP-EN 13445 leads to a lower tubesheet thickness than ASME. 2 TEMA new formula leads to lower thickness than the old formula except Example 2 for which = 0.37 is below the TEMA minimum for reasons explained in Sec. 5. TEMA formula may lead to lower tubesheet thickness than ASME, due to the high ligament efficiency used by TEMA. Using * = will lead to an ASME tubesheet thickness re- duced by 15%–25%, lower than TEMA thickness see last ASME column of Table 1 . 3 The classical circular plate formula generally leads to a tubesheet thickness higher than TEMA, even with = 2.0. 4 In the four examples, TEMA considers the tubesheet as simply supported F = 1.25 . However, ASME methods show that in example 1 the tubesheet is rather clamped high value of coefficient F due to the high bending rigidi- ties of the shell and channel as compared to the tubesheet bending rigidity.

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

7 Conclusions

The following items must be outlined.

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

Transactions of the ASME

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

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

— ASME Section VIII—Div. 1 in new mandatory Part UHX July 2004 Edition .

— Unfired Pressure Vessel Standard EN 13445 in chap- ter 13 of part “Design” in June 2002.

— CODAP 2005 in chapter C7 of Part C “Design” in December 2005.

It is the opinion of the author that these new common rules will be extended to other Codes and Standards and will find an increased use on national and international markets.

Notations D s = 2 a s , t s , V s , Q s , M s , M R , A , D o = 2 a are shown on Fig. 2.

Notations G s = 2 a s , C s , W s are shown on Fig. 3. Notations G c = 2 a c , C c , W c are shown on Fig. 4. Using: i = s for shell, i = c for channel:

D c = 2 a c , t c , Q c ,

R ,

i = 4

12 1 − i 2

D i + t i t i

k i = i

E

i t

3

i

6 1 − i 2

i

=

t i 1 − i

D

2

i

4

E i

2

A i = 1

2

k i i

Nomenclature

M c ,

E , E * elastic modulus of unperforated, perforated tubesheet area , * Poisson’s ratio of unperforated, perforated tubesheet area E s , E c elastic modulus of shell, channel s , c Poisson’s ratio of shell, channel h assumed tubsheet thickness S , S s , S c allowable stress for tubesheet, shell, channel W s , W c shell, channel flange design bolt load P s shell-side pressure P c = P t channel-side pressure=tube-side pressure =1− d t / p basic ligament efficiency of tubesheet * effective ligament efficiency of tubesheet, used in the Code ASME, CODAP, or EN 13445 effective ligament efficiency of tubesheet, used in TEMA

Appendix A: Tubesheet Integral One Side, Gasketed Other Side (Configurations b and e )

Figure 4 shows, for configuration e of Sec. 3.5, the loads applied to the unperforated tubesheet rim. Discontinuity loads V c , Q c , M c due to the channel remain un- changed. Discontinuity loads due the gasketed shell are as follows:

W s = C s B s = shell flange design bolt load

H P s = W gs G s = shell gasket load reaction

Equilibrium of shell writes:

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology

of shell writes: Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology Fig. 4 Analytical model for tubesheet integral with

Fig. 4 Analytical model for tubesheet integral with channel and gasketed with shell configuration e

which leads to:

2

W s = H P s + P s G s

4

W gs = C s

2

B s V s

with:

V s = a s

2

P s

a s Moments of B s and W gs acting on the rigid ring write:

C

s

2

B s C s

2

a G s

2

s B s V s G s a

C

s

G

2

= C s C s G s

4

B s + a s V s a s a

Equation 11 for the equilibrium of moments acting on the rigid ring becomes:

RM R = Eh 3 ln K a = − aM a + a c M c + a c Q c

12

a c V c a c a + C s C s G s

4

h

2

+ M P c

A1

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

M P s a s V s a s a

3

5th term = a 4 s − 1 s 2 + 1 P s

where: s = a s = G s

a D

o

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

M * = M TS + M P c + C s G s

2

D o

W s

where M TS and M P C are given by formulas 15 and 16 .

F = 1 * c + ELnK

E

*

A2

Equations 22 and 23 giving the maximum moments M a and

M o in the tubesheet remain unchanged. Same for equations giving

and M c .

Configuration b shall be covered by the same equations, revers-

ing subscripts s and c .

FEBRUARY 2006, Vol. 128 / 101

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

Fig. 5 Analytical model for tubesheet gasketed both sides „ configuration d … If the

Fig. 5 Analytical model for tubesheet gasketed both sides

configuration d

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

f , the diameter of midpoint of contact between flange and

tubesheet shall be considered instead of C s configuration e or C c configuration b in formula giving M * .

Appendix B: Tubesheet Gasketed With Shell and Chan- nel (Configuration d )

Figure 5 shows the loads applied to the unperforated tubesheet rim. Loads due to gasketed channel are as follows:

W c = C c B c = channel flange design bolt load

H P c = W gc G c = channel gasket load reaction

Equilibrium of channel writes:

W gs = C c

2

B c V c with: V c = a c

2

P c .

a c Loads due to the gasketed shell are given in Appendix A. Equation A1 of Appendix A for the equilibrium of the rigid ring becomes

RM R = Eh 3 ln K a = − aM a C c C c B c B c + M P c

12

4

a c V c a c a + C s C s G s

4

B s

M P s a s V s a s a

Following the procedure explained in Appendix A, we obtain

102 / Vol. 128, FEBRUARY 2006

M * = M TS + C s G s

2

D o

W s C c G c

2

D o

F = 1 * E ln K

E

*

W c

B1

B2

Equations 22 and 23 giving the maximum moments M a and M o in the tubesheet remain unchanged. Same for equation giving

.

As there is no bending moment in shell and channel, Sec. 6 does not apply. Fore more details see Appendix A. Equation B1 applies to the general case where the tubesheet is extended as a flange on both sides. If the tubesheet is not extended

as a flange or is through-bolted, C s = C c and Eq. B1 becomes

where

M * = M TS + G c D G o s W max

2

W max = MAX W s , W c .

B3

Appendix C: Codes References

ASME Section VIII—Div. 1—Appendix AA: July 2001 Edition ASME Section VIII—Div. 1—Part UHX: July 2004 Edition CODAP 2005: French Code for Unfired Pressure Vessels—Part

C Section C7

EN 13445: European Standard for Unfired Pressure Vessels— Part 3—Clause 13 published in 2002 TEMA Standards: 6th ed.—1978 TEMA Standards: 8th ed.—1999 BS 5500 UK : Specifications for Unfired Fusion Welded Pres- sure Vessels: 1976 Edition PD 5500 UK : Specifications for Unfired Fusion Welded Pres- sure Vessels: 2000 Edition ISO-2694 Draft 1973 Edition—Chapter 30

References

1 Osweiller, F., 2000, “Tubesheet Heat Exchangers: New Common Design Rules in UPV, CODAP, and ASME,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 122, pp.

317–324.

2 Gardner, K. G., 1969, “Tubesheet Design: A Basis for Standardization,” Pres- sure Vessel Technology, 1969 Delft Conference, pp. 621–648.

3 Soler, A. I., 1984, Mechnical Design of Heat Exchangers, Arcturus, P.O. Box 606, Cherry Hill, NJ 08003, p. 1047.

4 Osweiller, F., 1999, “U-Tube Heat Exchangers, A Comparison of Code Design

Rules,” PVP, Vol. 385, ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, Boston, pp. 109–124. 5 Osweiller, F., 1986, “Analysis of TEMA Tubesheet Design Rules,” Compari- son with up-to-date Code Methods PVP Vol. 107 ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, Chicago, pp. 1–9.

Transactions of the ASME

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