Accepted Manuscript

Design and performance analysis of the novel shell-and-tube heat exchangers

with louver baffles

Yonggang Lei, Yazi Li, Shenglan Jing, Chongfang Song, Yongkang Lyu, Fei
Wang

PII: S1359-4311(17)32255-X
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.07.081
Reference: ATE 10749

To appear in: Applied Thermal Engineering

Received Date: 5 April 2017

Revised Date: 12 June 2017
Accepted Date: 10 July 2017

Please cite this article as: Y. Lei, Y. Li, S. Jing, C. Song, Y. Lyu, F. Wang, Design and performance analysis of the
novel shell-and-tube heat exchangers with louver baffles, Applied Thermal Engineering (2017), doi: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.07.081

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Design and performance analysis of the novel shell-and-tube heat

exchangers with louver baffles

Yonggang Leia, Yazi Lia, Shenglan Jinga, Chongfang Songa, Yongkang Lyub , Fei Wanga
a
College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Taiyuan University of Technology,

Taiyuan, Shanxi 030024, China

b
Key Laboratory of Coal Science and Technology, Ministry of Education and Shanxi Province,

Taiyuan, Shanxi 030024, China

Abstract

Two novel shell-and-tube heat exchangers with louver baffles are invented and

designed for energy conservation. A certain amount louver baffles at the inclination

angle between shell side flow direction and louver baffle are equipped in shell side to

support tube bundles. Numerical simulations are carried out to investigate the

thermo-hydraulic performance of the two reformed shell-and-tube heat exchangers with

louver baffles. For comparison, a shell-and-tube heat exchanger with conventional

segmental baffles also studied in the paper. Fluid flow structures and temperature

distributions are presented for the analysis of the physical behavior of fluid flow and

heat transfer. Oblique flow is produced in the shell side of the shell-and-tube heat

exchangers with louver baffles that decrease and eliminate the dead spaces and augment

the local heat transfer. Compared with the shell-and-tube heat exchanger with segmental

baffles, abrupt change of fluid flow is avoided that decrease the pressure drop in the

shell side. The numerical results indicated that the heat transfer coefficient per pressure

drop of both the shell-and-tube heat exchangers with louver baffles are higher than that

of the shell-and-tube heat exchanger with segmental baffles. This implies that at the

same heat transfer quantity, the pumping power of the shell-and-tube heat exchangers

1
with louver baffles is lower than that of the shell-and-tube heat exchanger with

conventional segmental baffles.

Keywords: Louver baffles, Shell-and-tube heat exchanger, Oblique flow, Design,

Numerical simulation

1. Introduction

Among varied heat exchangers, shell-and-tube heat exchanger is commonly and

widely used due to versatility, robustness, and reliability[1-3]. The segmental baffle is

the most common baffle in shell-and-tube heat exchanger that widely used in power

generation, petrochemical industries, air-conditioning, waste heat recovery and so on.

However, there are some disadvantage for the conventional shell-and-tube heat

exchanger with single segmental baffles such as high pressure drop, dead zone, and high

risk of vibration[4-7]. Therefore, it is essential to design and develop preferable

shell-and-tube heat exchanger to overcome the drawbacks.

In the past few decades, numerous investigations have been conducted thus far in

order to find preferable types of baffle for shell-and-tube heat exchangers with high

efficiency[8-14]. Double-segmental baffle and disc-and-doughnut baffle were designed

for shell-and-tube heat exchanger to improve the shell-side performance[15,16].

However the zigzag pattern in shell side of the traditional shell-and-tube heat

exchanger with single segmental baffles is not changed radically and the principle

drawbacks is still remain for the above mentioned structure with improved baffles.

In order to further improve the performance in shell side of the shell-and-tube heat

exchanger, researchers have successfully designed many supported structure in shell

side which change the transverse flow manner to longitudinal flow and helical flow.

2
Rod-baffle heat exchanger originally presented by Phillips Petroleum Company is the

typical longitudinal flow heat exchanger which tube bundles are supported by Rod

baffles[17,18]. Dong et al. [19] used a periodic flow unit as the simplified model to

study the performance of Rod-baffle heat exchanger. The numerical simulation results

indicated that pressure drop and heat transfer coefficient decrease with the increase of

baffle pitch at the same fluid velocity and the decrease extent of pressure drop is larger

than heat transfer. You et al. [20] adopted round rods with arc cuts as supported structure

to improve the shell side performance of rod-baffle heat exchanger. The influences of

baffle distance, rod diameter and clamping method of tubes on thermo-hydraulic

performance were studied. Liu et al. [21] conducted numerical investigation on the fluid

flow and heat transfer in shell side of a rod-baffle heat exchangers with spirally

corrugated tubes. Physical quantity synergy analysis was conducted for the performance

study. Wang and You et al. [22,23] investigated the heat transfer and flow resistance

on shell side of the shell-and-tube heat exchanger with flower baffles. Yang and Liu [24]

proposed a shell-and-tube heat exchanger with new plate baffles. They reported that the

plate baffles heat exchanger has a higher comprehensive performance of 115% 122%

than the rod baffles one.

Another way to improve the performance of shell-and-tube heat exchanger is

generating helical flow in shell side by helical baffles. The discontinuous helical baffles

was firstly introduced to improve shell-and-tube heat exchanger performance by Lutcha

and Nemcansky [25]. They found that plug flow are generated in shell side that

reducing back mixing and increasing heat transfer. In recent yeas, Lei et al. [26] studied

the performance of a heat exchanger with single helical baffles by using experimental

3
and numerical method, and designed a shell-and-tube heat exchanger with two-layer

helical baffles. Lei et al. [27] also studied the effects of baffle inclination angle on the

performance of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger with continuous helical baffles based on

periodic model. Zhang et al [28] conducted a comprehensive experimental investigation

for shell-and-tube heat exchangers with middle-overlapped helical baffles at helix angle

of 20, 30, 40, 50. Wang et al. [29] numerically studied the performance of a

combined multiple shell-pass shell-and-tube heat exchanger with continuous helical

baffles in outer shell pass which improve the heat transfer. Three dimensional numerical

simulations on the performance of shell-and-tube heat exchangers with

middle-overlapped helical baffles were also carried out by Zhang et al [30, 31].

Movassag et al. [32] reported the performance comparison of shell and tube heat

exchangers by tube bundle replacement. It indicated that helical baffles have higher heat

transfer for the same pressure drop. Azar et al. [33] experimentally studied the

performance of tube bundle replacement for segmental and helical baffles. The results

indicated that it not only improved heat transfer of the helix bundle over segmental

bundle, but also increases up to two-three times of operational running times. In order to

block triangular leakage zones in original heat exchangers with helical baffles, fold

helical baffle and ladder-type fold baffle was presented by Wen and Wang et al. [34,35].

Yang et al. [36] proposed a combined single shell-pass shell-and-tube heat exchanger

with two-layer continuous helical baffles. The results show that the new shell-and-tube

heat exchanger has a higher heat transfer performance with a lower pressure drop.

It can be seen from the foregoing literature review, although researchers have put

forwarded and investigated many improved baffles in shell-and-tube heat exchanger,

4
there are insufficient to meet all requirements and restrains such as assemblage, fouling,

bundle vibration, maintenance, heat transfer efficiency, and pumping power

consumption. It is still challenging to design and improve baffle structure to meet the

demand of easy assembly and low pumping power consumption for energy saving. To

our best knowledge, the investigation on shell side flow structure are focus on

transverse, longitudinal, and helical flow pattern. There is very few researches on the

oblique flow in shell side of shell-and-tube heat exchanger. notably, there are no

investigations of shell-and-tube heat exchanger with louver baffles.

In this study, two types of reformed shell-and-tube heat exchangers with louver

baffles are invented and designed in order to decrease the pumping power and improve

the overall performance of the shell side compared with the shell-and-tube heat

exchangers with conventional segmental baffles. For the novel heat exchangers, Oblique

flow is produced in the shell side by louver baffles that not only decrease and eliminate

the dead spaces, but also avoid the abrupt change of the direction of flow in the shell

side. In the paper, the thermo-hydraulic performance of the novel heat exchangers are

investigated by using three dimension numerical simulation and the comparison of the

numerical and experimental results is present for the validation of numerical method.

Details of the flow structures and temperature distributions in the shell side will be

analyzed to understand the physical mechanism of heat transfer improvement and

pumping power saving. Comparison of the thermo-hydraulic performance of the two

shell-and-tube heat exchangers with louver baffles and the shell-and-tube heat

exchanger with conventional segmental baffles will be conducted.

5
2. Physical models of the novel types of heat exchangers

The new types of heat exchangers are designed on the base of louver baffles at the

inclination angle between shell side flow direction and louver baffle which generate

oblique flow. A certain amount louver baffles which fixed on the baffle rings are placed

in shell side to support tube bundles. The schematic diagram of the arrangement of

louver baffles and tube bundles for the two heat exchangers with louver baffles are

presented in Fig1. For the convenience of discussion, hereinafter, one is assigned the

name STHX-LV1 as illustrated in Fig1(a) and another is assigned the name STHX-LV2

as shown in Fig1(b). It can be seen from Fig1(a) , for STHX-LV1, one period of louver

baffles consist of two baffle groups. The first baffle group has three inclined plates fixed

on one baffle ring and the second baffle group has two inclined plates fixed on another

baffle ring. The total area of blades of these two baffles group is equal to the shell cross

section area. As shown in Fig1(b), for STHX-LV2, one period of louver baffles is also

composed of two baffle groups with baffle cut of 20% that like conventional segmental

baffle. For comparison purpose, a shell-and-tube heat exchanger with conventional

segmental baffles at baffle cut of 20%, which is named STHX-SG, is also studied in the

paper. The three shell-and-tube heat exchangers of the STHX-SG, STHX-LV1 and

STHX-LV2 have same dimensions of shell, tube, inlet and outlet. Contour of the two

heat exchangers with louver baffles are presented in Fig2. The layout of tube bundles of

the three heat exchangers is also identical as shown in Fig3. Base geometry dimensions

of the heat exchangers are listed in Table1. The only difference of the three heat

exchangers is the baffles equipped in shell side. Thermo-physical properties of the

working fluid are listed in Table2.

6
3. Numerical simulation

3.1. Governing equation

The working fluid in shell side of the three heat exchangers is water which is steady,

turbulence, and incompressible. The fluid physical properties are constant and the effect

of gravity is negligible. The RNG k turbulence model with standard wall functions

is employed to accurately simulate the thermo-hydraulic performance. The governing

equations for continuity, momentum, energy, k and in computational domain can

be written as follows:

Continuity equation:

ui
=0 (1)
xi

Momentum equation:

(uiu j ) P ui (2)
= +
x j xi x j x j

Energy equation:

( u jT )= k T (3)

x j x j C p x j

Turbulent kinetic energy k equation:

( kui ) k (4)
(k ) + = k eff + Gk
t xi x j x j

Turbulent kinetic energy equation:

( ui ) 2 (5)
( ) + = eff +C1 Gk C2
t xi x j x j k k

k2 (1 / o )
where: e ff = + t , t =C , C 1 = C 1 ,
1+ 3

7
 k u j
= ( 2 E ij E ij ) 1/ 2 , E ij = 1 ( u i + ),
2 x j xi

ui u j ui
Gk = t ( + )
x j xi x j

The empirical constants for the RNG k model are assigned as follows.

C = 0.0845 , C1 = 1.42 , C2 = 1.68 , = 0.012 , o = 4.38 .

3.2. Boundary conditions and numerical methods

The uniform velocity boundary condition was set for shell side inlet of these heat

exchangers. The fluid temperature is kept constant of 333K at the shell side inlet.

Non-slip boundary condition was employed on all solid walls. the boundary condition of

adiabatic was imposed for the shell wall, inlet and outlet nozzle walls, while the tube

walls were set as constant temperature of 298K. The outflow boundary condition was

applied for the shell side outlet. Fluid-solid conjugated heat transfer was modeled for

the baffles because of the conjugated heat transfer characteristics between the baffle

walls and fluid. The standard wall functions was employed for the near wall region to

accurately simulate the thermo hydraulic performance. The governing equations

mentioned above were discretized by the finite volume method with SIMPLE

pressure-velocity coupling algorithm. QUICK scheme was applied for both the

convective and diffusive terms in the numerical simulation. The convergence criterion

were taken as 110-4 for the flow equations and 110-8 for the energy equation.

3.3. Grid generation

The tetrahedron unstructured grids were employed for the computational domain

due to the complex of the models which composed of tube bundle, shell, baffles, inlet

and outlet nozzle. Mesh refinements were employed for the region adjacent to tubes

8
and baffles wall. Fig.4. demonstrate the meshes of STHX-LV1. Grid independence

tests have been conducted for the computational models to ensure the quality of meshes

and the accuracy of simulation. Six mesh systems with 8.5 105 , 1.06 106 , 1.5 106 ,

2.05 106 , 2.35 106 and 3.56 106 cells were generated for STHX-LV1. Fig.5. shows

the results of grid independence tests. It was found that the relative deviation between

the fifth grid system and sixth grid system is less 1% for heat transfer coefficient and

2% for pressure drop. Thus, the fifth grid system with 2.35 106 cells was selected for

computation considering both the solution precisions and numerical resource cost. The

similar grid independence tests were also carried out for STHX-SG and STHX-LV2.

3.4 Date reduction

Shell-side pressure drop and heat transfer coefficient are employed to analyze the

heat exchanger performance. The major equations on how to process date are shown as

follows:

Q = m C p ( T ou t Tin ) (6)

h = Q / Tm A (7)

( T in T w ) (T o u t T w )
Tm = (8)
ln [ ( T in T w ) /(T o u t T w ) ]

A = n d L (9)

where Q is the heat transfer rate, m is the mass flow rate of working fluid, Cp is the

specific heat of water, h is the heat transfer coefficient, Tm is the log mean temperature

difference, Tin and Tout are temperature at shell-side inlet and outlet, T w is the temperature

of the tube walls, A is the total heat transfer area, n is the number of tubes, d is the

diameter of tubes, L is the effective length of tubes.

9
3.5 Model validation

In order to validate the reliability of the present computational model and numerical

method, the heat exchanger model with segmental baffles that has same geometric

parameters from literature[28] was calculated at first. There are two cycles, oil cycle

and water cycle, in this experiment system. Oil flow is in the shell side while water act

as a coolant flowing inside the tubes. For the heat exchanger, the diameter of the shell is

325mm, the diameter of the tubes is 19mm, the number of the tubes is 97, the tube pitch

is 25mm, the baffle pitch is 130mm, and the number of the baffles is 8. The comparison

between numerical simulation results and experimental data is shown in Fig6. The

results indicated that the numerical simulation data line of the shell-side pressure drop

has similar tendency just as that of the experimental results. The maximum deviation of

two results is less than 15%. The agreement between the numerical results and

experimental data confirms the reliability of numerical method mentioned above.

4. Results and discussion

4.1 Fluid flow structures and temperature distributions

The path lines in the shell side of the STHX-SG, STHX-LV1, STHX-LV2 are

illustrated in Fig.7. It can be seen from Fig.7(a) that the zigzag flow pattern is generated

in the shell side of the heat exchanger with conventional segmental baffles. The

direction of flow is changed abruptly when the flow hits the segmental baffles.

Therefore, larger momentum change and severe pressure drop caused in shell side. An

important phenomenon can be clearly found that that large dead spaces and recirculation

zones appear behind the segmental baffles which result in ineffective heat transfer area

and heat transfer deterioration in the region. As can be seen from Fig.7(b) and Fig.7(c),

10
the fluid flows in shell side of the heat exchangers with louver baffles are in oblique

flow pattern that is different from the flow structure in shell side of the heat exchanger

with conventional segmental baffles. The cross flow paths are found throughout the

shell volume and the flow is well developed. The flow structure in shell side caused by

louver baffles is smoother than that by segmental baffles. It is worth to note that the tube

bundles in the shell-and-tube heat exchanger with louver baffles are washed out by

oblique flow which decrease and eliminate the dead spaces and back mixing at the back

of the baffles that mentioned above in the heat exchanger with segmental baffles as

marked with a circle in Fig.7(a). Therefore, the local heat transfer in the region behind

baffles is significantly improved. It can be also observed that path lines in the shell side

of the STHX-LV1 are obviously smoother than that of the STHX-LV2. The different

flow structures among the three heat exchangers cause the different thermo-hydraulic

that will be analyzed in the following section.

Fig.8 display the temperature distributions of these three heat exchangers. For the

shell-and-tube heat exchanger with segmental baffles, temperature distribution as shown

in Fig.8(a) is obviously non-uniform along the shell side. The temperature behind the

baffles as marked with a circle is very low that indicate the local heat transfer in the

region is terrible. This phenomenon is because of the dead spaces and recirculation

zones in the region. It is interesting to note that from the Fig.8(b) and Fig.8(c), the

temperature is distributed more uniform in the shell side of the two heat exchangers

with louver baffles that can effectively improve the thermo-hydraulic performance.

Particularly, the temperature behind the louver baffles is higher than that behind the

segmental baffles which imply the improvement of heat transfer efficiency.

11
4.2 Pressure drop

Because pumping power costs are depended on the pressure drop of a heat exchanger,

the pressure drop is a very important parameter in the design of shell-and-tube heat

exchanger. Fig.9 demonstrates the pressure drop versus flow rate in shell side. For

comparison, the same function for shell-and-tube heat exchanger with segmental baffles

is also presented in the figure. For all heat exchangers, the pressure drop increase with

the increase of flow rate. It is clear that the pressure drops in shell side of the two heat

exchangers with louver baffles are remarkably lower than that of the heat exchanger

with segmental baffles at same flow rate which imply the lower pumping power for the

two heat exchangers with louver baffles at same flow rate. The reason for above

phenomenon can be attributed to the followings. For STHX-SG, zigzag flow pattern are

caused out in shell side and primary flow direction change dramatically which result in

abrupt momentum change and severe pressure drop. Whereas for STHX-LV1 and

STHX-LV2, the fluid flow in shell side become smoother and fluid obliquely wash the

tube bundles in shell side by louver baffles that the primary flow direction does not

change dramatically. So, the pressure loss in shell side of the shell-and-tube heat

exchangers with louver baffles can be reduced comparing with the shell-and-tube heat

exchangers with conventional segmental baffles. The results indicated that comparing to

the conventional STHX-SG at the flow rate from 5m3/h to 15m3/h , the pressure drops

in shell side of STHX-LV1 and STHX-LV2 are decreased by about 63% and 55% on

average, respectively. It can be also seen that the pressure drop in shell side of

STHX-LV1 is lower than that of the STHX-LV2 and the difference increases with the

increases of flow rate. In comparison with the STHX-LV2, the pressure drop of the

12
STHX-LV1 is shown to decrease by 19%.

4.3 Heat transfer

The heat transfer rate versus pumping power are given in Fig.10. A higher position

in the figure signifies a better heat transfer quantity at same pumping power, which also

implies less pumping power is required to reach the same heat transfer rate. It can be

seen from the figure that at the same pumping power, the heat transfer rates of the two

shell-and-tube heat exchangers with louver baffles obviously above that of the

shell-and-tube heat exchanger with segmental baffles. This means that under the same

pumping power, the heat transfer performance of the shell-and-tube heat exchangers

with louver baffles are superior to the shell-and-tube heat exchanger with segmental

baffles. The deviations of the heat transfer rate at the same pumping power is small in

the region of low pumping power, while the difference become larger for the region of

high pumping power. It is very interesting to note that the heat transfer rate has a fast

increase with increasing of pumping power in the region of lower pumping power. The

results indicated that for the same heat transfer rate, the shell-and-tube heat exchanger

with segmental baffles will need much more pumping power than that of the two

shell-and-tube heat exchangers with louver baffles. It is understood that the pumping

power cost for the shell-and-tube heat exchangers with louver baffles is much less than

that of the heat exchanger with segmental baffles at a given heat transfer quantity.

4.4 Overall performance

Considering both the heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop of heat exchangers

are significant to indicate the efficiency of heat exchangers. It is desirable to obtain the

higher heat transfer rate at the same pressure drop that improve the comprehensive

13
performance. In the present study, the overall performance of the three shell-and-tube

heat exchangers is evaluated by using the heat transfer coefficient per pressure drop.

Fig.11 depicts the heat transfer coefficient per pressure drop versus flow rate for the

STHX-LV1, STHX-LV2, and STHX-SG. It can be observed that the heat transfer

coefficient per pressure drop of all the heat exchangers decrease with increasing flow

rate. It is very interesting to note that the overall performance of both STHX-LV1 and

STHX-LV2 are obviously higher than that of the STHX-SG. It can be concluded that the

thermo-hydraulic performance of the two new shell-and-tube heat exchangers with

louver baffles demonstrates obviously advantages compared with the shell-and-tube

heat exchanger with segmental baffles. The heat transfer efficiency at the same pressure

drop for the two new shell-and-tube heat exchangers with louver baffles is superior to

the shell-and-tube heat exchanger with segmental baffles. The reason for the results can

be explained as followings. On one hand, the louver baffles smooth the fluid flow and

decrease the dead spaces in shell side, hence resulting in a better thermal mixing and

local heat transfer improvement. On other hand, the primaries flow direction in shell

side of the two shell-and-tube heat exchangers with louver baffles doesn't change

dramatically that decrease the abrupt momentum change and severe pressure loss. The

results indicated that the heat transfer coefficients per pressure drop of the STHX-LV1

and STHX-LV2 are about 94.6% ~ 118.2% and 73.3% ~ 89.7% on average higher than

that of the STHX-SG. Furthermore, The heat transfer coefficients per pressure drop of

STHX-LV1 increase by 10.1% ~ 15.5% over that of STHX-LV2. It was found that the

STHX-LV1 shows the best overall performance among the three heat exchangers.

14
5. Conclusions

In the present paper, Two reformed shell-and-tube heat exchangers with louver

baffles (STHX-LV1 and STHX-LV2) are proposed and designed for energy saving.

The physical behavior of fluid flow and thermo-hydraulic were analyzed by three

dimensional numerical simulation. A shell-and-tube heat exchangers with conventional

segmental baffles (STHX-SG) was also numerically studied for comparison. The

thermo-hydraulic performance of the three shell-and-tube heat exchangers were

obtained and the performance comparisons were explored. The main conclusions are

drawn as follows:

1 Oblique flow pattern is generated in the shell side of the heat exchangers with

louver baffles which is smoother than the flow pattern in the shell side of the heat

exchangers with segmental baffles. Compared with the heat exchanger with

segmental baffles, dead spaces and recirculation zones are decreased for the new

shell-and-tube heat exchangers that improve the heat transfer efficiency. Abrupt

change of the direction of flow is avoided in the shell side of the two new

shell-and-tube heat exchangers that result in the decrease of pressure drop.

2 The temperature distributions in the shell side of the two new shell-and-tube heat

exchangers with louver baffles are more uniform that can effectively improve the

thermo-hydraulic performance. Particularly, the temperature behind the louver

baffles is higher than that behind the segmental baffles which imply the

improvement of heat transfer efficiency.

3 Compared with the conventional STHX-SG at the same flow rate, the pressure

drops in shell side of STHX-LV1 and STHX-LV2 are decreased by about 63%

15
 and 55% on average, respectively. The pressure drop in shell side of STHX-LV1

is 19% lower than that of the STHX-LV2. At the same pumping power, the heat

transfer rates of the two shell-and-tube heat exchangers with louver baffles

obviously are higher than that of the shell-and-tube heat exchangers with

segmental baffles.

4
The overall performance of the two novel shell-and-tube heat exchangers with

louver baffles are superior to the shell-and-tube heat exchanger with segmental

baffles. It was found that the heat transfer coefficients per pressure drop of the

STHX-LV1 and STHX-LV2 are about 94.6% ~ 118.2% and 73.3% ~ 89.7%

higher than that of the STHX-SG. The heat transfer coefficients per pressure drop

of the STHX-LV1, which have the best overall performance among the three heat

exchangers, raise 10.1% ~ 15.5% than that of the STHX-LV2.

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant

No.U1510136). The first author wish to thank Prof. Yaling He, Prof. Wenquan Tao, Prof.

Derek B. Ingham, and the China Scholarship Council Foundation.

Notation

A heat transfer area, m2

Cp specific heat, J / (kg K)

Ds diameter of shell, mm

d diameter of tube, mm

h heat transfer coefficient, W / (m2 K)

L effective length of the tube, m

16
k turbulent kinetic energy,

P pressure drop, Pa

Pr Prandtl number,

m shell-side mass flow rate, kg/s,

n number of tubes

Q heat transfer rate, J/s.

Tin inlet temperature, K,

Tout outlet temperature, K

Tw tube wall temperature, K

u, v, w x, y, z velocity components (m s-1)

u velocity vector

x, y, z Cartesian coordinates

Greek symbols

turbulent energy dissipation

thermal conductivity, W / (m K)

dynamic viscosity, Ns / m2

density, kg / m3

References
[1] Markowski M, Trafczynski M, Urbaniec K. Identification of the influence of fouling on the

heat recovery in a network of shell and tube heat exchangers. Appl Energy 2013; 102:

755764.

[2] Yang J, Fan AW, Liu W, Jacobi AM. Optimization of shell-and-tube heat exchangers

conforming to TEMA standards with designs motivated by constructal theory. Energy

17
 Convers Manage 2014; 78: 468476.

[3] Pal E, Kumar I, Joshi JB, Maheshwari NK. CFD simulations of shell-side flow in a

shell-and-tube type heat exchanger with and without baffles. Chem Eng Sci 2016: 143

314-340.

[4] Webb RL. Principles of enhanced heat transfer, New York; Wiley: 1994.

[5] Stehlik P, Nemcansky J, Kral D, Swanson LW. Comparison of correction factors for

shell-and-tube heat exchangers with segmental or helical baffles. Heat Transfer Eng 1994;

15: 55-65.

[6] Li HD, Kottke V. Effect of the leakage on pressure drop and local heat transfer in

shell-and-tube heat exchangers for staggered tube arrangement. Int J Heat Mass Transfer

1998; 41 (2): 425433.

[7] Soltan BK, Saffar-Avval M, Damangir E. Minimization of capital and operating costs of

shell and tube exchangers. Appl Therm Eng 2004; 24: 2801-2810.

[8] Saffar-Avval M, Damangir E. A general correlation for determining optimum baffle spacing

for all types of shell and tube exchangers. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 1995; 38: 2501-2506.

[9] Mukherjee R. Effectively design shell-and-tube heat exchangers. Chem Eng Progress 1998;

94: 21-37.

[10] Deng XH, Den SJ. Investigation of heat transfer enhancement of roughened tube bundles

supported by ring or rod supports. Heat Transfer Eng 1998; 19: 21-27.

[11] Sthlik P, Wadekar VV. Different Strategies to improve Industrial heat exchange. Heat

Transfer Eng 2002; 23: 36-48.

[12] Bell KJ. Heat exchanger design for the process Industries. ASME J Heat Transfer 2004;

126: 877-885.

[13] Chen YP, Sheng YJ, Dong C, Wu JF. Numerical simulation on flow field in circumferential

overlap trisection helical baffle heat exchanger. Appl Therm Eng 2013; 50: 1035-1043.

[14] You YH, Chen YQ, Xie MQ, Luo XB, Jiao L, Huang SY. Numerical simulation and

performance improvement for a small size shell-and-tube heat exchanger with trefoil-hole

baffles. Appl Therm Eng 2015; 89; 220-228.

[15] Mukherjee R. Use double-segmental baffles in the shell-and-tube heat exchangers. Chem

Eng Progress 1992; 88: 47-52.

18
[16] Li HD, Kottke V. Analysis of local shell side heat and mass transfer in the shell-and-tube

heat exchanger with disc-and-doughnut. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 1999; 42: 3509-3521.

[17] Gentry CC. Rod-baffle heat exchanger technology. Chem Eng Prog 1990; 86: 48-56.

[18] Gentry CC. Rod baffle heat exchanger. Appl Therm Eng 1998; 18: VII-VIII.

[19] Dong QW, Wang YQ, Liu MS. Numerical and experimental investigation of shell side

characteristics for Rod baffle heat exchanger. Appl Therm Eng 2008; 28: 651-660.

[20] You Y, Zhang F, Fan A, Dai F, Luo X, Liu W. A numerical study on the turbulent heat

transfer enhancement of Rod baffle heat exchanger with staggered tubes supported by

round rods with arc cuts. Appl Therm Eng 2015; 76: 22032.

[21] Liu JJ, Liu ZC, Liu W. 3D numerical study on shell side heat transfer and flow

characteristics of rod-baffle heat exchangers with spirally corrugated tubes. Int J Therm Sci

2015; 89: 34-42.

[22] Wang YS, Liu ZC, Huang SY, Liu W, Li WW. Experimental investigation of shell-and-

tube heat exchanger with a new type of baffles. Heat Mass Transfer 2011; 47: 8339.

[23] You YH, Fan AW, Huang SY, Liu W. Numerical modeling and experimental validation of

heat transfer and flow resistance on the shell side of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger with

flower baffles. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2012; 55: 7561-7569.

[24] Yang J, Liu W. Numerical investigation on a novel shell-and-tube heat exchanger with plate

baffles and experimental validation. Energy Convers Manage 2015; 101; 689696.

[25] Lutcha J, Nemcansky J. Performance improvement of tubular heat exchangers by helical baffles.

Trans Inst Chem Eng 1990; 68: 263-270.

[26] Lei YG, He YL, Chu P, Li R. Design and optimization of heat exchangers with helical baffles.

Chem Eng Sci 2008; 63: 4386-4395.

[27] Lei YG, He YL, Li R, Gao YF. Effects of baffle inclination angle on flow and heat transfer

of a heat exchanger with helical baffles. Chem Eng Progress 2008; 47: 23362345.

[28] Zhang JF, Li B, Huang WJ, Lei YG, He YL, Tao WQ. Experimental performance comparison of

shell-side heat transfer for shell-and-tube heat exchangers with middle-overlapped helical

baffles and segmental baffles. Chem Eng Sci 2009; 64: 1643-1653.

[29] Wang QW, Chen QY, Chen GD, Zeng M. Numerical investigation on combined multiple

shell-pass shell-and-tube heat exchanger with continuous helical baffles. Int J Heat Mass

19
 Transfer 2009; 52: 1214-1222.

[30] Zhang JF, He YL, Tao WQ. 3D numerical simulation on shell-and-tube heat exchangers with

middle-overlapped helical baffles and continuous baffles-part I: numerical model and results of

whole heat exchanger with middle overlapped helical baffles. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2009;

52: 5371-5380.

[31] Zhang JF, He YL, Tao WQ. 3D numerical simulation on shell-and-tube heat exchangers with

middle-overlapped helical baffles and continuous baffles-part II: simulation results of periodic

model and comparison between continuous and noncontinuous helical baffles. Int J Heat Mass

Transfer 2009; 52: 5381-5389.

[32] Movassag SZ, Taher FN, Razmi K, Azar RT. Tube bundle replacement for segmental and

helical shell and tube heat exchangers: Performance comparison and fouling investigation on

the shell side. Appl Therm Eng 2013; 51: 1162-1169.

[33] Azar RT, Khalilarya S, Jafarmadar S. Tube bundle replacement for segmental and helical shell

and tube heat exchangers: Experimental test and economic analysis. Appl Therm Eng 2014; 62:

622-632.

[34] Wang SM, Wen J, Yang HZ, Xue YL, Tuo HF. Experimental investigation on heat transfer

enhancement of a heat exchanger with helical baffles through blockage of triangle leakage

zones. Appl Therm Eng 2014; 67: 122-130.

[35] Wen J, Yang HZ, Wang SM, Xue YL, Tong X. Experimental investigation on performance

comparison for shell-and-tube heat exchangers with different baffles. Int J Heat Mass

Transfer 2015; 84: 990-997.

[36] Yang JF, Zeng M, Wang QW. Numerical investigation on combined single shell-pass

shell-and-tube heat exchanger with two-layer continuous helical baffles. Int J Heat Mass

Transfer 2015; 84: 103-113.

20
Captions
Fig.1. Schematic diagram of the arrangement of louver baffles and tube bundles for heat
exchanger with louver baffles: (a) STHX-LV1; (b) STHX-LV2
Fig.2. Contour of the heat exchangers with louver baffles: (a) STHX-LV1; (b)
STHX-LV2
Fig.3. Tube bundle layout
Fig.4. Mesh topology: (a) front view; (b) local grids of louver baffles ; (c) side view
Fig.5. Results of different grid systems
Fig.6. The comparison of numerical results and experimental data
Fig.7. The path lines in the shell side of the three shell-and-tube heat exchangers: (a)
STHX-SG ; (b) STHX-LV1; (c) STHX-LV2
Fig.8. The temperature distributions in the shell side of the three shell-and-tube heat
exchangers: (a) STHX-SG ; (b) STHX-LV1; (c) STHX-LV2
Fig.9. Pressure drop in shell side versus flow rate
Fig.10. Heat transfer rate in shell side versus pumping power
Fig.11. Heat transfer coefficient per pressure drop in shell side versus flow rate
Table1. Geometric parameters
Table 2. Thermo-physical properties of water

21
First baffle group Second baffle group

baffle ring tube bundles

(a)

22
 First baffle group Second baffle group

baffle ring tube bundles

(b)

Fig.1. Schematic diagram of the arrangement of louver baffles and tube bundles for heat
exchanger with louver baffles: (a) STHX-LV1; (b) STHX-LV2

23
 (a)

(b)

Fig.2. Contour of the heat exchangers with louver baffles: (a) STHX-LV1; (b)
STHX-LV2

24
Fig.3. Tube bundle layout

25
 (a)

(b)

(c)

Fig.4. Mesh topology: (a) front view; (b) local mesh of louver baffles ; (c) partial
side view

26
 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
5.0x10 1.0x10 1.5x10 2.0x10 2.5x10 3.0x10 3.5x10 4.0x10
580
560 h

h /(wm-2K-1)
540
520
500
480
460
155
Ps
150
Ps /(Pa)

145

140

135
5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
5.0x10 1.0x10 1.5x10 2.0x10 2.5x10 3.0x10 3.5x10 4.0x10
Grid number

Fig.5. Results of different grid systems

27
 16

Experimental[28]
14
Numerical

12

10

P / (kPa) 8

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
3 -1
Vs / (m h )

Fig.6. The comparison of numerical results and experimental data

28
 (a)

(b)

(c)

Fig.7. The path lines in the shell side of the three shell-and-tube heat exchangers: (a)
STHX-SG ; (b) STHX-LV1; (c) STHX-LV2

29
 (a)

(b)

(c)

Fig.8. The temperature distributions in the shell side of the three shell-and-tube heat
exchangers: (a) STHX-SG ; (b) STHX-LV1; (c) STHX-LV2

30
 4000

STHX-SG
STHX-LV1
STHX-LV2
3000

P/ (Pa) 2000

1000

0
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
3 -1
Vs / (m h )

Fig.9. Pressure drop in shell side versus flow rate

31
 5
4.0x10
STHX-SG
5
STHX-LV1
3.5x10 STHX-LV2

5
Q /(Js )
-1
3.0x10

5
2.5x10

5
2.0x10

5
1.5x10

5
1.0x10
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
-1
N /(Pakgs )

Fig.10. Heat transfer rate in shell side versus pumping power

32
 4.0
STHX-SG
3.5 STHX-LV1
STHX-LV2
3.0
h/Ps\ wm K Pa )
2.5
-1
-1

2.0
-2

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
3 -1
Vs / (m h )

Fig.11. Heat transfer coefficient per pressure drop in shell side versus flow rate

33
 Table1. Geometric parameters
Item Dimensions and description
STHX-LV1 STHX-LV2
Shell-side parameters
Ds (mm) 250 250
Tube parameters
d (mm) 19 19
L (mm) 2500 2500
Number 61 61
Tube pitch (mm) 25 25
Arranging style for tubes triangle triangle
Baffle parameters
Baffle group numbers 6 6
Width of each plate (mm) 50 62.5
Plate pitch (mm) 100 62.5
o
Plate inclination angle / 60 60o

34
Table 2. Thermo-physical properties of working fluid
Parameter Value
Cp (J/kg K) 4183
Pr 7.02
2
(m /s) 1.0048 10

3
(kg/m ) 998.2
(W/mK) 0.599

35
 Highlights

Two novel shell-and-tube heat exchangers with louver baffles are proposed.

Oblique flow is produced to decrease and eliminate the dead spaces.

Thermo-hydraulic performances are investigated by Numerical simulations

Fluid flow structures and temperature distributions are presented

Overall performance of the STHX-LV1 and STHX-LV2 are improved by

94.6% ~ 118.2% and 73.3% ~ 89.7%.

36