Heat Transfer

Selecting Baffles for

Shell-and-Tube
Heat Exchangers
Salem Bouhairie Baffles play a crucial role in regulating shellside fluid
Heat Transfer Research, Inc.
flow and improving heat transfer between shellside
and tubeside process fluids. Heres how to choose the
correct baffle to meet process requirements.

T
he first step in specifying a shell-and-tube heat
exchanger is selecting the right shell, which was
discussed in a previous CEP article (1). The next step
is determining the most effective baffle arrangement.
Shell-and-tube heat exchangers employ baffles to trans-
port heat to or from tubeside process fluids by directing the
shellside fluid flow. The increased structural support that
baffles provide is integral to tube stability, as they minimize
both tube sagging due to structural weight and vibration due
to cyclic flow forces. However, baffles improve heat transfer
at the expense of increased total pressure drop.
Baffles come in a range of shapes and sizes, the most
common of which is the segmental baffle. The Tubular
Exchanger Manufacturers Association, Inc. (TEMA) provides
design guidelines for segmental baffles. Other, non-TEMA-
type baffles include helical, disc-and-donut, and grid baffles.
This article summarizes the performance characteristics of
the different types of baffles and offers guidance on choosing
effective baffles for shell-and-tube heat exchanger design.
Figure 1 shows the most common types of TEMA baffles.
Baffle spacing, cut, and orientation are key characteris-
tics of TEMA baffle designs.
Single-segmental baffles are used in many industrial heat
exchangers because of their suitability for a wide range of
applications. They operate well in single-phase processes,
and crossflow heat transfer (across the tubes) is greater than
the longitudinal heat transfer (through the windows). In
addition, they are relatively easy to fabricate, so they are less
expensive than other types of baffles.
However, single-segmental baffles may not be effec-
tive with very viscous fluids, where improperly mixed flow,
bypass, and leakage streams reduce the efficiency of heat
transfer. Furthermore, this configuration generates an undesir-

Segmental baffle configurations Single-Segmental Double-Segmental

Highest Pressure Drop, PS PD 0.33PS 0.5PS
Segmental baffles, often referred to simply as TEMA
baffles, are circular plates with one or more segments Support Plate Baffle
removed to allow the shellside fluid to flow through an open
area, or window. To prevent bundle flow bypass, sealing
strips may be placed in notches along the edges of segmental
baffles. Baffles may also have holes through which steel
tie-rods can pass to provide increased structural support.
Triple-Segmental No-Tubes-In-Window
TEMA baffles can be single- or multi-segmental, or tube PT 0.25PS 0.33PS Wide Spacing
support plates. Tube support plates are used in the no-tubes-
in-window (NTIW) design to ensure that all baffles support p Figure 1. In exchangers with TEMA baffle types, smaller windows
every tube, eliminating tubes with long unsupported spans. result in higher pressure drops.

Copyright 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) CEP February 2012 www.aiche.org/cep 27
Heat Transfer
Center Baffle Wing Baffles
(First Baffle Group)
p Figure 2. The window flow areas around the center and
wing baffles in a double-segmental baffle arrangement p Figure 3. In exchangers with triple-segmental baffles, larger window areas are
should be roughly equal. responsible for lower total pressure drops.
ably high pressure drop, especially with high-velocity flows.
Double-segmental baffles split the flow so that it passes
around center baffles and between wing baffles (Figure 2). In
general, the center and wing baffles overlap by two to four
tube rows. The window flow area outside the center baffle
should generally equal the window flow area between the
wing baffles. Pressure drop is one-third to one-half that in a
shell with single-segmental baffles. However, this results in
lower crossflow heat transfer 6090% of the heat transfer
with single-segmental baffles at the same spacing and cut
and the same total flowrate.
Triple-segmental baffles have lower longitudinal-flow
and crossflow velocities (whereas double-segmental baffles
have only lower crossflow velocities) for a given baffle spac-
ing. Triple-segmental baffles produce roughly one-fourth to
one-third the pressure drop of single-segmental baffles in a
comparably sized unit, and have heat-transfer rates that are as
much as one-half lower (2). Triple-segmental baffles typically
consist of three distinct baffle groups that create the equiva-
lent of two double-segmental streams in parallel (Figure 3).
No-tubes-in-window (NTIW) configurations provide sup-
port for all of the tubes to mitigate tube vibration in the win-
dow zone. Tube support plates are placed between widely
spaced baffles. Because tubes cannot occupy the window
spaces, larger shells are required to accommodate a specified
tube count; this can be expensive for units operating at high
shellside pressures. The lack of tubes in the window reduces
pressure drop, while added support plates enhance crossflow.
This results in better conversion of pressure drop to heat
transfer than in exchangers with single-segmental baffles.
The relative reduction in pressure drop depends on baffle
cut, and the relative increase in heat transfer depends on the
number of support plates added.
Baffle spacing
Baffle spacing is the longitudinal distance between baf-
fles. It controls the amount of effective heat transfer derived
from the pressure drop within each compartment and affects
28 www.aiche.org/cep February 2012 CEP
Center Baffle Support Plates Wing Baffles
(Second Baffle Group) (Third Baffle Group)
the potential for flow-induced vibration. The baffle spac-
ing should be set such that the free-flow areas through the
windows and across the tube bank are roughly equal.
TEMA standards specify that the minimum spacing
between segmental baffles should be the larger of one-fifth
of the shell inside diameter or 51 mm (3). Spacing that is
too small will result in higher pressure drop and poor bundle
flow penetration i.e., it increases the axial flow inertia
through the outer leakage areas between the baffle and shell.
Small baffle spacing also makes it difficult to mechanically
clean the outsides of the tubes.
Maximum spacing between segmental baffles (with
tubes in window) should equal one-half the maximum
unsupported span length. To enhance end-zone flow control
and distribution, the baffles near the shell inlet and outlet
should be located as close as practical to the shell nozzle.
The distance between the first and second baffles should not
be less than the central baffle spacing, as shellside flow tends
to accelerate in the end zones.
The optimum ratio of baffle spacing to shell inside diam-
eter that results in the highest conversion of pressure drop to
heat transfer is generally between 0.3 and 0.6 (4).
Baffle cut
Baffle cut is the ratio of the baffle window height to the
shell inside diameter. If the baffle cut is too small, the flow
will jet through the window area and flow unevenly through
the baffle compartment (Figure 4, left). If the baffle cut is
too large, the flow will short-cut close to the baffle edge and
avoid cross-mixing within the baffle compartment (Figure
4, right). A baffle cut that is either too large or too small can
increase the potential for fouling in the shell.
In both cases, recirculation zones of poorly mixed flow
cause thermal maldistribution that reduces heat transfer. To
divert as much heat-carrying flow across the tube bundle as
possible, adjacent baffles should overlap by at least one tube
row. This requires a baffle cut that is less than one-half of the
shell inside diameter.
Copyright 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

p Figure 4. If the baffle cut is too small (left) or too large (right), fouling
can occur in the shaded areas due to uneven flow distribution.
hw
Baffle Cut = hw/d
p Figure 5. The optimum baffle cut is 25% of the shell inside diameter.
Optimum baffle cuts are typically 25% of the shell
inside diameter (Figure 5). However, for a single-segmental
baffle configuration with low-pressure gas flows, a 4045%
baffle cut is common to limit pressure drop.
For NTIW configurations, a 15% baffle cut is most com-
mon. The ratio of the window velocity to crossflow velocity
should be less than 3:1 for effective flow distribution.
Baffle orientation
The orientation of TEMA baffles is particularly
important for horizontal shell-and-tube heat exchangers,
especially near the inlet and outlet nozzles. Baffle cuts for
segmental baffles may be parallel or perpendicular to the
nozzle axis, or inclined, as shown in Figure 6. The best
baffle orientation depends on the baffle and shell type.
Single-segmental baffles. For single-phase service,
single-segmental baffles with a perpendicular baffle-cut
orientation in an E- or J-shell are preferred to improve flow
distribution in the inlet and outlet regions. With vertical
inlet or outlet nozzles, parallel-cut baffles are preferred if
the shellside process fluid condenses and needs a means of
drainage. Parallel-cut baffles should also be used when the
shellside fluid has the potential for particulate fouling, and in
multipass F-, G-, or H-type shells to facilitate flow distribu-
tion. (For an introduction to shell types, see Ref. 1.) How-
ever, parallel-cut baffles have the potential for significant
flow and temperature maldistribution in the end zones, which
can induce local tube vibration and reduce the effective heat-
Copyright 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
Nozzle Axis
Parallel-Cut Perpendicular-Cut Inclined-Cut
Baffle Baffle Baffle
p Figure 6. Baffle orientation is referenced with respect to the nozzle
axis, and can be parallel, perpendicular, or inclined.
12 m/s
(39.4 ft/s)
Window
Parallel Perpendicular
p Figure 7. Although preferred for certain shellside fluids, parallel-cut
single-segmental baffles can cause uneven flow in the inlet and outlet
regions.
transfer rate in the inlet and outlet baffle spaces. Figure 7,
obtained via computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling,
illustrates this phenomenon.
Double-segmental baffles. To distribute flow effectively
in the inlet region with double-segmental baffles, a center
baffle with a parallel-cut orientation is generally selected as
the first baffle. The parallel baffle cut reduces the accumula-
tion of deposits from high-fouling shellside fluids. It is good
practice to locate the first baffle under the nozzle, where
high flowrates can cause tube vibration. The first baffle is
often shaped like a T to provide intermediate tube support
where bundle entrance velocities have high kinetic energy
(Figure 8, top).
If perpendicular-cut double-segmental baffles are used
with single inlet and outlet nozzles, thermally ineffective
areas will form in the end zones (Figure 8, middle). Better
end-zone distribution can be achieved with two inlet and
two outlet nozzles, plus wing baffles in the end zones to
maintain flow symmetry upon entry and exit (Figure 8,
CEP February 2012 www.aiche.org/cep 29
Heat Transfer
Parallel Cut (End View)
Intermediate Vibration Support
Perpendicular Cut (End View)
Ineffective Region
Perpendicular Cut (End View)
p Figure 8. Double-segmental baffle configurations should use a T-shaped first plate with a the shell radius (Figure 10).
parallel-cut orientation. Perpendicular-cut orientation should be used only with double inlet Helical baffles can cross near their
and outlet nozzles.
bottom). In effect, the performance of perpendicular-cut
double-segmental baffles depends on the number
of nozzles.
Triple-segmental baffles. The triple-segmental baffle
set shown in Figure 3 has five different components and is
one of several possible arrangements. Other designs, which
are not discussed here, have six pieces or three pieces. The
permutations complicate the determination of baffle orienta-
tion, particularly in the inlet and outlet zones. Orientation of
triple-segemental baffles has not been studied extensively,
and general guidelines have not been developed.
Non-TEMA baffle types
Most non-TEMA-type baffles usually produce lower
pressure drops and have better flow and heat-transfer distri-
butions. The improvements stem from the baffles generating
crossflow through swirling, maximizing longitudinal flow,
or increasing symmetrical flow and heat-transfer distribu-
tion. Helical, disc-and-donut, and grid baffles are the most
common non-TEMA-type baffles.
Helical baffles
Helical baffles promote swirling flow, which helps to
alleviate bypass and stagnant flow areas that can occur with
conventional segmental baffles. They are effective for low-
to high-viscosity fluids, and they are commonly used in
oil-refinery and refrigeration applications. Heat exchangers
with helical baffles may experience less shellside fouling
than exchangers with segmental baffles. Helical baffles are
subject to bundle-to-shell bypass at very high mass flow-
rates. Unlike segmental baffles, helical baffles do not seem
30 www.aiche.org/cep February 2012 CEP
T-Baffle (End View) to benefit from added seal strips to block
bypass, as the strips only increase pressure
drop.
Helical baffles can be continuous spiral
assemblies. However, these are not common
because they are difficult (and expensive) to
fabricate.
Instead, most helical-baffled heat
exchangers use baffles that are inclined at an
angle from a transverse plane perpendicular
to the shell axis (Figures 9 and 10). These
quadrant baffles (each of which occupies
one-fourth of the shell cross-section) touch
each other at crossover points that define a
cross-fraction. The baffle cross-fraction is
the ratio of the distance from the center of
the shell to the crossover point divided by
midpoint (a cross-fraction of 50%), tip-to-
tip (a cross-fraction of 100%), or at a point
within this range. Depending on user and fabricator prefer-
ences, the cross-fraction selected may range from 20% to
100%. Reducing the cross-fraction (increasing the overlap)
enhances tube support and protects against vibration, but at
the expense of increased pressure drop. In general, helical-
p Figure 9. Helical baffles promote swirling, which helps to reduce
bypass and stagnant flow.
Baffle Crossover
r B B Points
rco
C C
S
A A
D D
(End View) (Elevation View)
Cross-fraction = rco/r
r = shell radius
rco = radial distance from shell axis to baffle crossover point
S= baffle angle relative to transverse plane through shell
p Figure 10. Helical quadrant baffles touch at crossover points, which
define the cross-fraction.
Copyright 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
 Spiral Crossflow
Bypass Flow
Outside Tube Bundle
Longitudinal Flow
Y within Tube Bundle
X
Z Flow Angle
Z Z
Baffle Angle
p Figure 11. The flow through a helical-baffled exchanger includes
spiral crossflow, longitudinal flow, and bypass flow.
baffled exchangers have less potential for tube vibration
because the tubes are well supported by the quadrant baffles.
Helical baffles come in single- or double-helix configu-
rations. Many industrial applications use 12-deg. to 15-deg.
angled baffles. Larger baffle angles result in lower pressure
drop and increased longitudinal flow relative to crossflow.
Some studies have reported that baffle angles of 25 deg.
to 40 deg. produce optimal conversion of pressure drop to
heat transfer (5).
The quadrant baffles induce flow that combines spiral
crossflow, longitudinal flow, and bypass flow (Figure 11).
In reality, this flow is far from an ideal helix it undergoes
fewer revolutions than the number of baffle revolutions
through the length of the exchanger. The design of these
baffles requires knowledge of both the baffle angle and the
actual flow angle (i.e., the direction of the resulting vector
of the three principal flow velocity components (x, y, and z,
or axial, radial, and tangential), relative to a plane trans-
verse to the exchanger axis).
Disc-and-donut baffles
Disc-and-donut baffles generate radially symmetric flow
in both the crossflow and longitudinal flow directions the
flow expands around the disc baffle and contracts through
the donut baffle (Figure 12). A step change in both pressure
drop and temperature occurs between consecutive pairs of
disc baffles and donut baffles.
The main thermally effective crossflow stream can
occupy up to 80% of a baffle compartment, minimizing the
bypass flow around the outer tubes (6). The driving forces
for bypass and leakage streams in an exchanger with disc-
Copyright 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
Radially Contracting
Crossflow through
Radially Expanding Donut Baffle
Crossflow around
Disc Baffle
p Figure 12. Disc-and-donut baffles distribute flow in a radially
symmetric manner.
and-donut baffles are smaller than those in exchangers with
segmental baffles.
Disc-and-donut baffles are often installed in NTIW
arrangements. Radial tube layouts are preferred over con-
ventional triangular or square layouts, because the result-
ing radial flow distribution produces uniform heat transfer
throughout the tube bundle cross-section.
Disc-and-donut baffles are most effective in shellside
vapor environments, and are commonly selected for gas-gas
applications where vibration can be a problem.
Grid baffles
Grid baffles are metal lattices that generate primarily
longitudinal flow. They produce low pressure drops, which
results in high heat-transfer-to-pressure-drop ratios and
protects against tube vibration. In addition, shellside flow
distribution is uniform, which is particularly important for
shellside vaporization because it eliminates vapor pockets
that can cause pitting of tubes and baffles (7).
The most common generic grid baffle designs are rod-
type baffles and strip baffles. Each grid type has a charac-
teristic baffle flow-contraction ratio, which is defined as the
free flow area through the baffle divided by the free flow
area through the bundle between baffles. This parameter
ranges from zero to one, with practical values of about 0.2
for high contraction and 0.7 for low contraction. The grid
baffles act as strainers on the bundle free-flow area, locally
contracting and accelerating the heat-carrying flow longitu-
dinally along the tubes. The higher the contraction (i.e., the
lower the contraction ratio), the higher the pressure drop.
An exchanger design with a low contraction ratio, therefore,
requires more pumping power than one with a high contrac-
tion ratio.
Rod-type baffles are used in such applications as over-
head condensers, gas coolers and heaters, feed and effluent
exchangers, and kettle reboilers. They consist of rods laid
out in a grid pattern that provide a supporting structure for
the heat exchanger tubes and basic structural rigidity. The
CEP February 2012 www.aiche.org/cep 31
Heat Transfer
Y Y
X Z
p Figure 13. Rod-type baffles support the tubes and provide structural
rigidity.
Segmental Baffle
2 Rod-Type Baffles per Baffle Space
p Figure 14. Rod-type baffles may be combined with segmental
baffles for better tube support.
longitudinal flow friction effectively generates heat transfer,
especially in exchangers with long tubes.
Rod-type baffles are made by welding round rods to
a supporting ring (Figure 13), which also serves as a seal
to prevent leakage flows. The rods are often located after
every second tube row, with consecutive baffles assembled
at 90-deg. angles. Thus, they are generally limited to square
tube layouts.
It is possible to corrugate the rods to support a triangular
tube layout (known as a triangular-grid baffle). Triangular-
grid baffles permit higher tube densities, produce higher
turbulence, and generate higher heat transfer. However,
mechanical cleaning of the tubes is more difficult due to lim-
ited access lanes. Therefore, triangular layouts are appropri-
ate for shellside services that use chemical cleaning.
In the bundle shown in Figure 13, four longitudinal
tie bars are placed around the supporting ring to hold the
baffles in place and maintain the proper baffle spacing.
Rods with as small a diameter as possible are preferred, to
permit a higher tube density and hence higher heat-transfer
rate. The baffle contraction ratio for rod-type baffles is
about 0.550.65 (7).
Some industrial applications benefit from combin-
ing rod-type baffles with segmental baffles. Figure 14
shows two rod-type baffles fitted within the space between
single-segmental baffles. This baffle combination provides
increased tube support for vibration protection, without
32 www.aiche.org/cep February 2012 CEP
X Z
p Figure 15. Strip baffles have lower baffle contraction ratios and
higher pressure drops than rod-type baffles.
increasing pressure drop significantly.
Strip baffles (Figure 15) are grid baffles formed from
flat strips that are placed in a crisscross pattern, with a strip
after every tube row in both directions. The overall structure
is welded to a ring for rigidity and ease of assembly. The
strips are notched to lock the tubes in place.
Figure 15 shows square-layout strip baffles. Strip
baffles can also accommodate 30-deg. triangular layouts.
For a given tube pitch ratio (i.e., the spacing between tubes
divided by the tube outside diameter), 30-deg. layouts have
the highest critical velocities prior to fluidelastic instability,
so tube vibration potential is minimized.
With a baffle contraction ratio of approximately
0.20.25, strip baffles produce higher pressure drops per
baffle than rod-type baffles (7).
Closing thoughts
Baffling is the most crucial shellside consideration
in shell-and-tube heat exchanger design, because baffles
regulate shellside fluid flow and improve heat transfer while
offering significant tube support. Although TEMA baffles
are easier to fabricate, they usually have higher pressure
drops than non-TEMA-type baffles. It is equally important
to consider how baffle selection affects other shellside
parameters, such as tube pitch ratio, tube layout pattern,
tube size, shell type, and shell diameter. A basic understand-
ing of the various baffle types and their advantages and
disadvantages (Table 1) is essential to choosing an effective
baffle configuration. CEP
SAlEM BouHAiriE is a research engineer at Heat Transfer Research, Inc.
(HTRI) (Email: sab@HTRI.net), where he conducts computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) simulations and physical experiments for projects and
contracts. He teaches workshops on heat exchanger vibration analysis
and conducts webinars on heat exchanger design. Prior to joining HTRI,
he worked at Northwest Hydraulic Consultants in Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada, where he conducted hydraulic structure modeling investiga-
tions and river hydrology assessments. He has delivered presentations
on his work in Canada, the U.S., Brazil, Thailand, and Korea, and has
published research in the Journal of Fluid Mechanics and the Journal of
Hydro-environment Research. Bouhairie earned his BEng, MEng, and
PhD in civil engineering from McGill Univ. in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Copyright 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
 Table 1. Each baffle type has advantages and disadvantages that make it suitable for different applications.
Baffle Type Advantages Disadvantages/Limitations
Single-Segmental Highest potential heat-transfer rates Highest potential pressure drop
Easiest to fabricate Cannot be used for very viscous fluids
Least expensive
TEMA-Type Baffles

Double-Segmental Lower pressure drop than with single-segmental Lower heat-transfer rates than with single-
baffles segmental baffles
Triple-Segmental Lower pressure drop than with double-segmental Lower heat-transfer rates than with double-
baffles segmental baffles
No-Tubes-in-Window All tubes are supported, eliminating tube vibration Requires a smaller tube bundle and/or larger
Configuration Higher conversion of pressure drop to shellside shell; a larger shell makes this configuration more
heat transfer than single-segmental baffles expensive

Helical Less shellside fouling Difficult fabrication, design methods are not
Moderate heat-transfer rates and pressure drops standardized
Minimizes or eliminates areas of stagnant flow Significant bundle-to-shell bypass at high mass
flowrates
Minimizes or eliminates tube vibration
Disc-and-Donut Radially symmetric flow distribution More expensive than traditional double-segmental
Minimizes bypass flow baffles
Non-TEMA-Type Baffles

Same pressure drop as with double-segmental
baffles, with better heat transfer
Well suited for gas-gas applications
Grid Provides tube support
Uniform flow distribution
Relatively low pressure drops
High conversion ratio of pressure drop to heat
transfer
Preferred radial tube layout requires a less-
common fabrication method than triangular and
square layouts
In a radial tube layout, the angular gaps between
tubes near the shell are larger than those between
tubes near the center; this requires the addition of
an improvised, nonradial (e.g., triangular or rotated
square) layout between the radial tube rows
Relatively low heat-transfer rates, unless the tubes
are long
Specific tube layouts are required

Literature Cited Further Reading

1. Lestina, T. G., Selecting a Heat Exchanger Shell, Chem. Eng.
Progress, 107 (6), pp. 3438 (June 2011).
2. Green, D. W., and R. H. Perry, Heat-Transfer Equipment in
Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook, 8th ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY (2008).
3. Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association, Standards
of the Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association, 9th ed.,
TEMA, New York, NY (2007).
4. Mukerjee, R., Dont Let Baffling Baffle You, Chem. Eng.
Progress, 92 (4), pp. 7279 (Apr. 1996).
5. Lutcha, J., and J. Nemcansky, Performance Improvement of
Tubular Heat Exchangers by Helical Baffles, Trans. IChemE.,
68 (Part A), pp. 263270 (1990).
6. Taborek, J., Pressure Drop to Heat Transfer Conversion in
Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchangers with Disk-and-Donut Baffles,
AIChE Spring Meeting, New Orleans, LA (2004).
7. Taborek, J., Longitudinal Flow in Tube Bundles with Grid
Baffles, in Heat Exchanger Design Handbook Part 3, Ther-
mal and Hydraulic Design of Heat Exchangers, Section 3.3.12,
Begell House, New York, NY (1998).
Bell, K. J., and A. C. Mueller, Wolverine Engineering Data Book
II, available at www.wlv.com/products/databook/databook.pdf,
Wolverine Tube, Inc., Decatur, AL (2001).
Hewitt, G. F., et al., Process Heat Transfer, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL (1994).
Hewitt, G. F., ed., Heat Exchanger Design Handbook, Begell
House, New York, NY (1998).
Kakac, S., and H. Liu, Heat Exchangers: Selection, Rating, and
Thermal Design, 2nd ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (2002).
Kern, D., Process Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY
(1950).
Rohsenow, W., et al., Handbook of Heat Transfer, 3rd ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (1998).
Serth, R. W., Process Heat Transfer: Principles and Applications,
Elsevier, New York, NY (2007).
Thome, J. R., Wolverine Engineering Data Book III, available at
www.wlv.com/products/databook/db3/DataBookIII.pdf, Wolver-
ine Tube, Inc., Decatur, AL (20042010).
Webb, R., Principles of Enhanced Heat Transfer, 2nd ed., John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ (2005).

Copyright 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) CEP February 2012 www.aiche.org/cep 33