Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: The present work deals with the numerical and experimental investigation of heat and fluid flow in shell and
Shell-and-tube heat exchanger tube heat exchanger with continuous helical baffles on shell side. Seven helix angles, namely 10°, 19°, 21°, 25°,
Helix angle 30°, 38°, and 50° are investigated numerically by modeling a full length continuous helical baffled shell-and-tube
FRP baffle heat exchanger for different mass flow rates and inlet temperature conditions. Results revealed that the larger
Heat transfer coefficient
helix angles (30°, 38° and 50°) adds to lower heat transfer and lower pressure drop, and smaller helix angles (10°,
Pressure drop
19°and 21°) resulted in higher heat transfer as well as higher pressure drop. The experiments were carried out on
shell and tube heat exchanger for helical baffles with 25° helix angle and results were compared with segmental
baffles. New baffle material, FRP (Fiber Reinforced Plastic) is introduced on the shell side of the proposed heat
exchanger. For material comparison between FRP and stainless steel, the deviation of heat transfer coefficient is
8–10%, which can serve as a potential replacement for conventional baffle material, thereby reducing the capital
and operating cost of the tubular heat exchanger.
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sunil.shinde@vit.edu (S. Shinde).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2017.11.006
Received 5 September 2017; Received in revised form 16 November 2017; Accepted 18 November 2017
2451-9049/ © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
S. Shinde, U. Chavan Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 5 (2018) 158–171
field in helical baffle heat exchanger and concluded that heat transfer to be easy and cost effective.
enhancement depends upon Reynolds number as well as helix angle. The detail process of manufacturing the FRP Helical Baffle is as
Zhang et al. [7] experimentally studied effect of petal shaped helical follows:
baffles on pressure drop and heat transfer. Material used: 20% Glass filled FRP with 5 mm thickness. (Fiber
Numerical analysis on the continuous helical baffles in shell-and- reinforced plastic)
tube heat exchanger is carried out by J-F Yang et al. [20] they con- Density of FRP: 1800 kg/m3
cluded that CSSP-STHX provides better heat transfer performance. Operating Temp: up to 90 0C
Prithviraj and Andrews [21] computed heat transfer and fluid flow in Step – 1) Creating the CAD model and draft drawing of helical
shell-and-tube heat exchangers using the distributed resistance method. baffle.
Numerical investigation on shell-and-tube heat exchanger by Lei et al. Step – 2) Preparation of the wooden pattern from drawing.
[3] showed good agreement with experimental results. They used Step – 3) Making the mould from wooden pattern.
concept on distributed resistance with porous medium. Table 2 gives
research carried out on different baffle types numerically. • Alternate layer Glass wool and adhesive is applied on the wooden
From literature it is observed that only few investigators have car- pattern till the required thickness is achieved. Then it is kept for
ried out numerical analysis of heat and fluid flow in heat exchanger in soaking for 24 h.
shell and tube heat exchanger using full-length model. Also, no major • After complete soaking the mould is removed from the pattern.
efforts have been carried out to investigate the effect of baffle material • Before applying the glass wool, thin layer of separator solution is
on the performance of heat exchanger. applied on the surface of the pattern which does not allows the glass
The present study examines the thermo-hydraulic performance of a wool to stick to the pattern.
shell and tube heat exchanger with single helical baffles using numer- • Again the alternate layers of glass wool and adhesives are applied on
ical and experimental methods for seven different helix angles ranging the mould till the required thickness is achieved.
from 10° to 50°. The comparisons of the performance of seven heat • Then it is kept for the soaking and after complete soaking it is re-
exchangers with diverse baffle inclination angle are presented based on moved from the mould.
numerical results. Also the effect of baffle material is discussed. • Here also before applying the glass wool thin layer of separator
solution is applied on the surface of the moulds which does not al-
lows the glass wool to stick to the pattern.
1.1. Fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) baffles
• Here the adhesive used for making the pattern is of very high quality
compared to the adhesive used for making the final product.
Baffles are used to create the turbulence and hence enhance the heat
transfer. In case of the helical baffle heat exchanger, the baffles used are • Thus the final product i.e. one helical baffle (one cycle) is produced
from the mould.
of helicoids type which is three-dimensional geometry which makes its
manufacturing a challenging task. FRP is a composite material con- • Depending on length of heat exchanger and pitch of helical baffle,
several helical baffles are linked together to form a continuous he-
sisting a polymer (the resin) and a ceramic. In FRP, the strength and
lical baffles.
stiffness is obtained due to presence of glass fibers while resin matrix
provided the compressive strength, impact resistance and corrosive
With this method, fabrication and mounting of helical baffle (any
resistance. The manufacturing of the helical baffle with sheet metal
material) without the central tube is much simpler and cost effective.
(Steel or Aluminum) requires very complex die design. Whereas the
Considering all the above facts, an attempt is made to fabricate a
manufacturing of the FRP baffle is much simpler and cost-effective with
helical baffle of FRP material and consequently investigate its perfor-
the help of a wooden pattern. The process of fabricating helical baffle
mance numerically as well as experimentally.
using the wooden pattern is comparatively easier and cheaper. With
large scale implementation of helical baffle, this process would turn out
159
S. Shinde, U. Chavan Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 5 (2018) 158–171
2. Numerical study study, B, d, and Dis kept constant, while the helix inclination angle
ranges from 10° to 50°. The range of geometrical parameters used for
2.1. Numerical model and grid distribution present study is given in Table 3. Schematic diagram of geometrical
parameters of baffles and tube is shown in Fig. 3.
To acquire the comprehensive properties of helix angle full-length Variation of helix cycles for different baffle helix angle is shown in
model of length 1123 mm along with seven helix angles namely, 10°, Fig. 4.
19°, 21°, 25°, 30°, 38° and 50° were considered. The numerical domain The domain is meshed with help of unstructured layered polyhedral
of 25° helix angle is shown in Fig. 2. mesh, generated by the software, STAR CCM+. The meshes on the
The various geometrical parameters considered are: baffle pitch B, outer wall and side view of geometry are shown in Figs. 5 and 6.
tube diameter d, shell diameter D, and helix inclination angle β. For this The total number of nodes ranges from 6,913,913 to 2,272,077. The
160
S. Shinde, U. Chavan Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 5 (2018) 158–171
region adjacent to the tubes and baffle walls are meshed finer with a ∂ ∂ ∂ ⎛ ∂ε ⎞ ε ε2
growth rate of 1.1. A grid independence test is done with help of shell (ρε ) + (ρε ui) = ⎜αk μeff ⎟ + C1 G k −C 2ε ρ
∂t ∂xi ∂xj ⎝ ∂xj ⎠ k k (7)
domain cell count since our focal point is on the performance of shell
side only. For grid independence test, the computational domain of 25° where
helix angle has been chosen, as flow pattern can be completely devel-
μeff = μ + μt , μt = ρCμ k2/ ε, Gk = 2μt Sij Sij, η = 2Sij Sij
oped in presence of 5 helical cycles. Simulations were carried out with
five grid densities 1,256,790, 1,542,509, 2,079,880, 2,944,506 and k/ ε, Sij = 1/2((∂ui / ∂xj) + (∂uj/ ∂xj))
4,358,125. In view of convergent time, resolution, precision solution
and low computational time, the grid system of 2,079,880 was selected The empirical constants are assigned the following values:
for the final computational model. Fig. 7 shows a variation of HTC with
Cμ = 0.0845, C1ε = 1.42, C2ε = 1.68, β = 0.012, η0 = 4.38, α
shell domain cell count.
= 1, αε = 1.3
2.2. Governing equations and boundary conditions The heat transfer coefficient was calculated by using the coupled
method which is given as
Commercial CFD code STAR CCM+ was used for numerical analysis
of computational domains of seven helical baffle heat exchangers. The ∂t ⎞
tw| b= tf |b, −k ⎛ = ho(tw−tf)
governing equations (1)(7) used for numerical analysis are as follows: ⎝ ∂eta ⎠ (8)
Continuity Equations For the present numerical study following assumptions are made:
∂ρ ∂ (ρ u) ∂ (ρ v) ∂ (ρ w)
+ + + =0 1. All the simulations are carried by considering steady-state.
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z (1)
2. The thermo-physical properties of working fluid are constant.
Momentum Equations: 3. Heat loss to surrounding is negligible.
∂Tyx 4. Leakages between baffles and tubes are negligible.
∂ (ρ u) ∂ρ ∂ ∂
x−momentum + div(ρ uU) = − + Txx + + Tzx + Fx
∂t ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂z
For the numerical analysis full length model of heat exchanger was
(2) considered with convection boundary condition on both sides of heat
∂ (ρ v) ∂ρ ∂Txy ∂Tyy ∂Tzy exchanger. All the solid surfaces were given no slip boundary condition,
y−momentum + div(ρ vU) = − + + + + Fy while adiabatic condition was applied on shell side wall. Ambient water
∂t ∂y ∂x ∂y ∂z
and hot water are considered as working fluid in shell side and tube side
(3)
respectively. Coupled wall function with thin wall model was used for
∂ (ρ w) ∂ρ ∂ ∂Tyz ∂ the heat conduction through baffles. SIMPLE method was used for
z−momentum + div(ρ wU) = − + Txz + + Tzz + Fz
∂t ∂z ∂x ∂y ∂z pressure–velocity coupling with second order upwind scheme for dis-
cretization of convective terms. The convergence criterion of 10−5 and
(4)
10−8 is kept for residuals of flow and energy equations respectively.
Energy Equation: The thermophysical properties of the working fluid and FRP material
∂ (ρ w) λ are listed in Table 4. All the boundary conditions used for analysis are
+ div(ρUT) = div ⎛ grad T⎞ + S T
⎜ ⎟
listed in Table 5.
∂t ⎝ CP ⎠ (5)
Turbulent kinetic energy is given by: 3. Computational results
161
S. Shinde, U. Chavan Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 5 (2018) 158–171
Table 2
CFD studies on different baffle configurations.
Z. Duan et al. [22] Non-continuous baffles with continuous connection and middle overlapped Oil Realizable k-ε
between two sections
C. Dong et al. [23] Trisection, quadrant, quadrant end-to-end and continuous helical baffles Water RNG k- ε
J.F. Yang et al. [20] Continuous and Discontinuous baffles with 40° helix angle. Oil RNG k- ε
Y.P. Chen et al. [25] Circumferential overlap trisection helical baffle Water RNG k-Є
162
S. Shinde, U. Chavan Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 5 (2018) 158–171
(a)
(b)
3.4. Fluid flow characteristics the cross flow velocity is dominant and as it strikes the baffle surface,
this velocity is converted into radial, axial and angular components, due
The shell-side velocity vector distribution for seven helix angle is to baffle geometry. At the entry of outlet nozzle, the velocity suddenly
shown in Fig. 13. It is observed that the fluid flows along the spiral increases due to sudden contraction.
passage due to the presence of helical baffles. Also there are almost no Higher velocity gradients are observed near the tube due to free
stagnation zones in the shell-side. At the inlet nozzle entry, the velocity vortices created by the tangential component of velocity and helical
is high due to pumping action and the velocity suddenly decreases at flow along the shell radius. Fig. 14 shows the velocity streamlines for
the inlet nozzle exit due to sudden expansion. At the inlet nozzle exit different helix angles. The flow pattern inside the shell of the heat
163
S. Shinde, U. Chavan Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 5 (2018) 158–171
ShellIN
TubeIN
TubeOUT
ShellOUT
Table 5
Boundary conditions.
50
3.5. Performance evaluation factor
164
S. Shinde, U. Chavan Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 5 (2018) 158–171
k-İ Realizable
3200
k-İ Standard
2800 k-Ȧ SST
HTC (W/m2K)
2000
1600
1200
800
400
0
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600
Re
8000 18000
0.50 kg/s
0.5 kg/s 16000
7000 0.75 kg/s
0.75 kg/s
14000 1.00 kg/s
6000 1.00 kg/s
1.25 kg/s
1.25 kg/s
¨P (Pa)
12000
HTC (W/m2 .K )
1.50 kg/s
5000 1.50 kg/s
10000 2.00 kg/s
2.00 kg/s
4000
8000
3000 6000
2000 4000
2000
1000
0
0 5.000 15.000 25.000 35.000 45.000 55.000 65.000
5.000 15.000 25.000 35.000 45.000 55.000
Helix Angle (deg)
Helix Angle (deg)
Fig. 11. Variation of shell side pressure drop against helix angles at different flow rates.
Fig. 9. Variation of shell side HTC against helix angles at different flow rates.
Fig. 10. Temperature distribution for different helix angles at flow rate of 1.25 kg/s.
165
S. Shinde, U. Chavan Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 5 (2018) 158–171
Fig. 12. Pressure distribution for different helix angles at flow rate of 1.25 kg/s.
A review of the existing literature suggests that no major work is In the present study, the heat transfer and pressure drop of heat
carried out on the baffle material. The most commonly baffle material exchangers with single helical baffle with 25° helix angle and
used in the industry is stainless steel. In present work, FRP baffle ma- Segmental heat exchanger is studied experimentally.
terial is used to study the effect on heat transfer and pressure drop of
the shell and tube heat exchanger. Figs. 16 and 17 show the effect of
5.1. Experimental setup
stainless steel (SS) and FRP baffle material on heat transfer coefficient
and pressure drop for heat exchanger with 25° baffle helix angle.
The experimental setup used for the present study is similar to that
The heat transfer coefficient of SS material is more than FRP ma-
used by Shinde and Chavan [26] as shown in Fig. 18.
terial due to its conducting properties. It is observed that the average
Fig. 19 shows the line diagram of the experimental setup. The setup
percentage deviation between the SS and FRP material is less than 6%.
consists of two separate loops i.e. cooling loop and a heating loop.
Hence it can be stated that there is very less variation in heat transfer
Heating loop consists of heater coils to heat inlet water at preset tem-
coefficient and pressure drop when SS material is replaced by FRP
perature. The cooling loop comprises of a centrifugal pump, volumetric
material. Therefore FRP can serve as good substitute material in in-
flow meter, and a heat exchanger. The required flow rate to the shell
dustrial applications to save maintenance cost with prolong service life
side is adjusted through bypass valve 2. The tube side conditions were
and also reducing the overall weight of heat exchanger.
kept at constant inlet temperature and flow rate for all the flow rate
variation on the shell side. The segmental and helical baffle heat ex-
changers are mounted on the same structure. The inlet and outlet piping
of the 2 heat exchangers is kept common. The hydraulic valves are
Fig. 13. Velocity vectors for different helix angles at flow rate of 1.25 kg/s.
166
S. Shinde, U. Chavan Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 5 (2018) 158–171
Fig. 14. Streamlines of various helix angles at flow rate of 1.25 kg/s.
6.2 12000
5.8 0.50 kg/s
0.75 kg/s 10000
5.2 1.00 kg/s
4.8 1.25 kg/s 8000
1.50 kg/s
4.2
¨P ( Pa)
3.2
4000 SS Baffle
2.8
2000 FRP Baffle
2.2
1.8
0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
1.2
0.8
Flow Rate ( kg/s)
Fig. 17. Effect of baffle material on pressure drop for 25° baffle helix angle.
0.2
5 15 25 35 45 55
Helix Angle (deg) 100 temperature sensors each are installed on tube and shell side (Inlet
and outlet). Pressure transducers (least count-1 Pa) are installed at shell
Fig. 15. Variation of performance ratio (HTC/ΔP) against helix angles at different flow
rates.
inlet and outlet respectively.
It was also ensured that there exists energy balance before an ex-
perimental run. The pressure transducers were used to measure pres-
4000 sure of the shell side flow rate. Flow rate was varied in the range of
3500 30–120 lpm.
3000 The details of the equipment used for measuring the flow rate and
HTC (W/m2K)
167
S. Shinde, U. Chavan Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 5 (2018) 158–171
1 d
Amin = ·B·Dis ⎛1− o ⎞
⎜ ⎟
2 ⎝ Pt ⎠ (12)
The heat transfer coefficient and Nusselt number are defined by Eqs.
(5) and (6)
Q
h=
AΔT (13)
h·de
Nu =
k (14)
The uncertainties associated with the experimental setup are esti-
mated by the method proposed by Kline and McClintock [27]. Un-
certainty in the experimental analysis of various parameters such as the
Nusselt number and friction factor are within ± 4.6% and ± 8.2% re-
spectively.
168
S. Shinde, U. Chavan Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 5 (2018) 158–171
Table 6
Details of measuring equipments.
1. Electromagnetic Flow Meter Micro Mag Tube side-0–60 lpm Tube side-1 lpm
Shell side-0–100 lpm Shell side-1 lpm
2. PT100 Temperature sensors A-class element 0–100 °C 0.1 °C
3. Pressure Transducers Huba Control 5436 Wurenios Switzerland Type- PT 0–9999 Pa 1 Pa
⎧ (Thi−Tco)−(Tho−Tci) ⎫
ΔTm = 6. Results and discussions
⎨
⎩
ln ( Thi − Tco
Tho − Tci ) ⎬
⎭ (18)
The experiments were conducted for two heat exchangers i.e. helical
baffle heat exchanger with 25° helix angle and segmental baffle heat
(d) The overall heat transfer coefficient U can be determined from: exchanger and their results were compared with computational results
Q= U× A× ΔTm (19) of the helical baffle heat exchanger with 25° helix angle.
169
S. Shinde, U. Chavan Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 5 (2018) 158–171
Table 7 7000
Shell side and baffle parameters used for experimental study.
Segemental Baffle Expt.
6000
Item Dimensions Helical Baffle Expt.
5000
Helical Baffle CFD
HTC ( W/m2K)
Shell side parameters
Do/Di (m) 0.167/0.153
4000
Tube side parameter
Dos/Dis 0.012/0.0095 3000
Effective length (m) 1.123
Number 24 2000
Layout pattern (degree) 90°
Tube pitch (m) 0.0225
1000
Baffle parameters
Helix angle (degree) 25° 0
Helix pitch (m) 0.224 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Baffle thickness (m) 0.003
Number 5 Mass Flow Rate ( kg/s)
Nozzle parameters Fig. 23. Comparative results of HTC for helical and segmental baffle heat exchanger.
Inner diameter (m) 0.032
25000
8000 30000 Segemental Baffle Expt.
HTC by Kern method
7000 20000 Helical Baffle Expt.
HTC by Experiment 25000
6000 Helical Baffle CFD
ǻP by Kern Method
HTC, W/m2k
15000
ǻP by Experiment 20000
5000
ǻP,pa
¨P (Pa)
3000
10000 5000
2000
5000
1000 0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Mass Flow Rate (kg/s)
Mass flow rate, kg/s Fig. 24. Comparative results of ΔP for helical and segmental baffle heat exchanger.
Fig. 22. Validation of HTC and pressure drop for segmental baffle heat exchanger.
performance ratio is observed to be more in case of helical baffle heat
exchanger than segmental baffle heat exchanger.
6.3. Effect on performance ratio (HTC/ΔP)
7. Conclusion
Fig. 25 shows the comparison of performance ratio (HTC/ΔP) by
experimental results for heat exchanger with helical baffle and seg-
In the present numerical and experimental study, the heat transfer
mental baffle with numerical data for helical baffle heat exchanger. The
and pressure drop performance of the shell and tube heat exchanger
flow in the shell side of the heat exchanger with continuous helical
with helical baffles on shell side was presented. Subsequently, an ex-
baffles is smooth, rotational and helical due to the shape of the baffle,
perimental study has been conducted on 25°FCHB-STHX and SB-STHX
which indicates better performance at flow rates higher than 1 kg/s.
to judge the performance of heat exchanger. Finally, a comparative
The numerical results of helical baffle heat exchanger are more than
study between numerical study and experimental study has been done
both cases, as the bypass leakages have not been taken into account.
to evaluate the performance. The conclusions are drawn as the fol-
For experimental results of helical baffle heat exchanger and seg-
lowing:
mental heat exchanger, it can be noted that the pressure drop is com-
paratively less for lower flow rates as compared to heat transfer,
1. From the Numerical & experimental results it is confirmed that the
whereas it is exactly opposite in the high flow rate region. The
170
S. Shinde, U. Chavan Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 5 (2018) 158–171
3.2
2.7 Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
Helical Baffle CFD online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2017.11.006.
2.2
1.7 References
1.2
[1] R.K. Shah, D.P. Sekulic, Fundamentals of Heat Exchanger Design, John Wiley & Sons,
0.7 2003.
[2] C. Zhang, G.N. Xie, B. Peng, Q.W. Wang, L.Q. Luo, Q.Y. Chen, M. Zeng, An experimental
0.2 study of shell-and-tube heat exchangers with continuous helical baffles, J. Heat Transfer
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 129 (10) (2007) 1425–1431.
[3] Yong-Gang Lei, Ya-Ling He, Rui Li, Ya.-Fu. Gao, Effects of baffle inclination angle on flow
Mass Flow Rate (kg/s) and heat transfer of a heat exchanger with helical baffles, Chem. Eng. Process. 47 (12)
(2008) 2336–2345.
Fig. 25. Comparative results of HTC/ΔP for Helical baffle and Segmental baffle heat [4] Yong-Gang Lei, Ya-Ling He, Pan Chu, Rui Li, Design and optimization of heat exchangers
with helical baffles, Chem. Eng. Sci. 63 (17) (2008) 4386–4395.
exchanger.
[5] Jian-Fei Zhang, Ya-Ling He, Wen-Quan Tao, 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
performance of tubular heat exchanger can be improved by helical baffles, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 52 (23) (2009) 5371–5380.
baffles instead of conventional segmental baffles. [6] Jian-Fei Zhang, Ya-Ling He, Wen-Quan Tao, 3D numerical simulation on shell-and-tube
2. The fabrication cost of producing helical baffles is simple, easy and heat exchangers with middle-overlapped helical baffles and continuous baffles–Part II:
simulation results of periodic model and comparison between continuous and non-
cost effective with the help of wooden pattern. continuous helical baffles, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 52 (23) (2009) 5381–5389.
3. The variation of heat transfer coefficient is large for the lower helix [7] Jian-Fei Zhang, Bin Li, Wen-Jiang Huang, Yong-Gang Lei, Ya-Ling He, Wen-Quan Tao,
Experimental performance comparison of shell-side heat transfer for shell-and-tube heat
angles (β < 21°). However, the effect of baffle inclination angle on exchangers with middle-overlapped helical baffles and segmental baffles, Chem. Eng. Sci.
heat transfer coefficient is small for higher helix angles (β > 21°). 64 (8) (2009) 1643–1653.
4. Pressure drop increases with increase in baffle inclination angle. [8] Jian-Fei Zhang, Ya-Ling He, Wen-Quan Tao, A design and rating method for shell-and-
tube heat exchangers with helical baffles, J. Heat Transfer 132 (10) (2010) 051802-(1-8).
Pressure drop is less in the region of low helix (β < 21°) and it is [9] Shui Ji, Du. Wen-jing, Peng Wang, Lin Cheng, Numerical investigation on double shell-
large in the high helix angle region (β > 21°). pass shell-and-tube heat exchanger with continuous helical baffles, J. Thermodyn. 2011
(2011) 1–7.
5. The effectiveness (integrated performance) of helical baffle heat
[10] J. Lutcha, J. Nemcansky, Performance improvement of tubular heat exchangers by helical
exchanger is large in low helix angle region, and it is small in high baffles, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 68 (3) (1990) 263–270.
helix angle region. Maximum effectiveness is observed for helix [11] D. Kral, P. Stehlik, H.J. Van Der Ploeg, B.I. Master, Helical baffles in shell-and-tube heat
exchangers, Part I: experimental verification, Heat Transfer Eng. 17 (1) (1996) 93–101.
angle of 21°. [12] M.J. Andrews, B.I. Master, Three-dimensional modeling of a Helixchanger® heat ex-
6. Variation of pressure drop and heat transfer coefficient for Stainless changer using CFD, Heat Transfer Eng. 26 (6) (2005) 22–31.
Steel material as compared to FRP material is in the range of 3–5% [13] B. Peng, Q.W. Wang, C. Zhang, G.N. Xie, L.Q. Luo, Q.Y. Chen, M. Zeng, An experimental
study of shell-and-tube heat exchangers with continuous helical baffles, J. Heat Transfer
and 10–12%.As the deviation is small, FRP material can serve as a 129 (10) (2007) 1425–1431.
good potential replacement for the existing material, which will [14] Yu-qi Huang, Yu. Xiao-li, Lu. Guo-dong, Numerical simulation and optimization design of
the EGR cooler in vehicle, J. Zhejiang Univ. Sc. A 9 (9) (2008) 1270–1276.
tremendously reduce the initial cost and operation cost of the heat [15] Q. Wang, Q. Chen, G. Chen, M. Zeng, Numerical investigation on combined multiple
exchanger. shell-pass shell-and-tube heat exchanger with continuous helical baffles, Int. J. Heat Mass
7. For prediction of thermal performance of FCHB-STHX, numerical Transfer 52 (5) (2009) 1214–1222.
[16] Gui-Dong Chen, Min Zeng, Wang Qiuwang, Experimental and numerical studies on shell-
and experimental results are compared for 25° helix angle. It was side performance of three different shell-and-tube heat exchangers with helical baffles, J.
found that numerical results were in good agreement with experi- Enhanced Heat Transfer 18 (5) (2011) 449–463.
[17] Shui Ji, Du Wen-Jing, Peng Wang, Lin Cheng, Numerical investigation on double shell-
mental results and the deviation was in the range of 6–11%.
pass shell-and-tube heat exchanger with continuous helical baffles, J. Thermodyn. 2011
8. For experimental results of FCHB-STHX and SB-STHX, pressure (2011) 1–7.
drop is comparatively low as compared to heat transfer coefficient [18] Gui-dong Chen, Min Zeng, Qiu-wang Wang, Shi-ze Qi, Numerical studies on combined
parallel multiple shell-pass shell-and-tube heat exchangers with continuous helical baf-
at lower flow rates, whereas it is exactly opposite in the high flow fles, Chem. Eng. 21 (2010) 229–234.
rate region. The effectiveness is more for SB-STHX till 1 kg/s and [19] Farhad Nemati Taher, Kazem Razmi, Sirous Zeyninejad Movassag, Reza Tasouji Azar,
thereafter effectiveness of FCHB-STHX is more than SB-STHX. Baffle space impact on the performance of helical baffle shell and tube heat exchangers,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 44 (2012) 143–149.
9. Even though the initial and installation cost of the helical baffles is [20] J.F. Yang, M. Zeng, Q.W. Wang, Effects of sealing strips on shell-side flow and heat
higher than segmental baffles, it can greatly reduce the main- transfer performance of a heat exchanger with helical baffles, Appl. Therm. Eng. 64 (1)
(2014) 117–128.
tenance and operating costs by almost 20–40%. Energy cost can
[21] M. Prithiviraj, M.J. Andrews, Three dimensional numerical simulation of shell-and-tube
amount to saving of 15–20% on the usage of continuous helical heat exchangers. Part I: foundation and fluid mechanics, Numer. Heat Transfer, Part A 33
baffle heat exchangers in the industry. (8) (1998) 799–816.
[22] Z. Duan, F. Shen, X. Cao, J. Zhang, Comprehensive effects of baffle configuration on the
10. Use of helical baffles in heat exchanger reduces shell side pressure performance of heat exchanger with helical baffles, Nucl. Eng. Des. 300 (2016) 349–357.
drop, pumping cost, size, weight, fouling etc. as compare to seg- [23] C. Dong, Y.P. Chen, J.F. Wu, Influence of baffle configurations on flow and heat transfer
mental baffle for new installations. The helix baffle type heat ex- characteristics of trisection helical baffle heat exchangers, Energy Convers. Manage. 88
(2014) 251–258.
changers can save capital cost as well as operating and maintenance [24] M. Bahiraei, M. Hangi, M. Saeedan, A novel application for energy efficiency improve-
cost and thus improves the reliability and availability of process ment using nanofluid in shell and tube heat exchanger equipped with helical baffles,
Energy 93 (2015) 2229–2240.
plant in a cost effective way. [25] Y.P. Chen, Y.J. Sheng, C. Dong, J.F. Wu, Numerical simulation on flow field in cir-
cumferential overlap trisection helical baffle heat exchanger, Appl. Therm. Eng. 50 (1)
(2013) 1035–1043.
[26] S. Shinde, U. Chavan, Performance of turbulence models on heat transfer and pressure
Acknowledgement drop with a 25° continuous helical baffled heat exchanger, Int. Rev. Mech. Eng. 11 (1)
(2017) 69–76.
This research work has been funded by Board of College and [27] S.A. Kline, F.A. McClintock, Describing uncertainties in single-sample experiments, ASME
Mech. Eng. 75 (1953) 3–8.
University Development (BCUD), under S. P. Pune University, under the [28] T. Kuppan, Heat Exchanger Design Handbook, Mercel Dekker Inc., New York, 2002, pp.
University research grant scheme. Grant No. BCUD/OSD/184 dated 11/ 69–73.
171