See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320578712

Analysis study of shell and tube heat exchanger for clough company with
reselect different parameters to improve the design

Article  in  Case Studies in Thermal Engineering · September 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.csite.2017.10.002

CITATIONS READS

4 1,856

2 authors:

Ammar Ali Abd Samah Zaki Naji

Al-Qasim Green University University of Kerbala
3 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

design of LNG storage tank View project

Stability of Water Droplet on the Oil surface View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ammar Ali Abd on 30 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 10 (2017) 455–467

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/csite

Analysis study of shell and tube heat exchanger for clough MARK
company with reselect different parameters to improve the design
⁎
Ammar Ali Abda, , Samah Zaki Najib
a
Water Resources Engineering College/Al-Qasim Green University, Iraq
b
Petroleum and petrochemical Engineering Department/Kerbala University, Iraq

AR TI CLE I NF O AB S T R A CT

Keywords: The specification design of this heat exchanger has been taken from a real project executed by
Nusselt number Clough. The process data given matches the real application exactly and was used to design the
Heat transfer coefficient heat exchanger. The Regeneration Gas Heater was manufactured in Malaysia, and was shipped to
Clough a fabrication yard in Thailand for installation within a pre-assembled module. This paper illus-
Square arrangement
trates fully thermal and mechanical design for this heat exchanger. Here, the redesign takes place
Shell and tube exchanger
to improve the design by reselect different parameters which can enhance the heat transfer
through the exchanger. As well as, new correlation is developed to predict Nusselt number for
tube side which reduces the error percent with Kern's method from 15.25% to 12.64% based on
simulation data. Where, the proposed and Kern's correlations compared against experimental
data to show that the proposed correlation is quite accurate. After many iterations, the new
design suggested that four tubes passes need to be used with 1.38 m tube length. In addition, the
tube arrangement chosen to be square type with 0.9 m shell diameter. With these parameters, the
exchanger achieves high enough heat transfer coefficient and the pressure drop within specifi-
cation.

1. Introduction

The task at hand is to design a heat exchanger that will heat dry gas (natural gas) with hot oil. Heat exchangers are a type of
process equipment in which heat is exchanged between two streams, a hot and cold one. They can be used to heat and cool streams
and even in some cases completely vaporise the process stream. There are several different types of heat exchangers which include
Double-pipe exchangers, Shell and tube exchangers, air coolers and many more. Where, 80% of the energy utilization systems uses
heat exchangers [1].
The project involved the design of a shell and tube heat exchanger with a number of specifications. Shell and tube heat exchangers
are commonly used in the chemical industries and separations processes. They are made from bundles of tubes and may be composed
of several types of tubes: plain, longitudinally finned, etc [2]. The ends of tubes are placed in sheets that divide the shell and tubes
fluids [3]. Baffles are also placed in the shells which aid in direction the shell-side fluid flow and create a more turbulent flow regime.
There are several advantages with this heat exchanger type that include a large surface area for a small volume, easy cleaning, a good
mechanical layout and well-known design procedures [3]. It is necessary to know all the parameters and data of the requested design
before starting calculations. Therefore, the design will be limited to certain specification requested by the company as shown in Table
A1 in Appendix A. These specifications will help to make the design applicable for the requested conditions. As a first step, the heat

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ammarali@wrec.uoqasim.edu.iq (A.A. Abd).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2017.10.002
Received 2 March 2017; Received in revised form 17 September 2017; Accepted 5 October 2017
2214-157X/ © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
A.A. Abd, S.Z. Naji Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 10 (2017) 455–467

Nomenclature Pt Tube pitch(m)

B Baffle spacing(m)
Ao Overall heat transfer area Ms Mass velocity of shell (kg/m2 s)
Do Outside diameter (m) De hydraulic diameter
L Pipe length (m) ∆P Pressure drop (bars )
Nt number of tubes L Length of tube (m)
Db bundle diameter (mm) di Inside diameter of tube (m)
Do tube outside diameter (mm) v Flow velocity (m /s )
Nu Nusselt number jf Friction factor
Pr Prandtl number De Equivalent diameter (m)
jh . Heat transfer factor Lb Baffle spacing (m)

exchanger will be designed by Hysys simulation program to find all the physical properties for both fluids as shown by Tables A2 and
A3 in Appendix A. The used procedure to design the heat exchanger in this paper is Kern's method [4]. Kern's method bases on
experimental data which can lead to reasonable prediction for Nusselt number [4]. While, the pressure drop prediction is less satisfy
because it is affected by leakage and bypassing than heat transfer [4]. Kern's method applies modified figure to find the friction factor,
and neglecting the viscosity term which lead to error percentage when calculates Nusselt number. Therefore, it would significantly
important if we can modify new correlation proportional directly to Reynold and Prandtl numbers based on Kern's method can be
reduce the error. In this work, more than seventy heat exchangers with different conditions designed by using Hysys simulation
program to calculate the Nusselt number for tube side. Simulated Nusselt numbers plotted against Reynold and Prandtl numbers to
find new correlation which can calculate the overall heat transfer coefficient with smaller error percentage.

2. Strategy

Kern's method will come in steps as shown below [4]:

2.1. Energy balance

In making an energy balance of the two fluids several things will be assumed that no heat loss to the surrounds, negligible
Potential and kinetic energy changes, no phase changes, constant specific heat capacity, and steady State Conditions [5].
qcold = qhot (EnergyBalanceEquation)

ṁ hot c phot (Thot1 − Thot 2) = ṁ cold c pcold (TC1 − TC 2)

The heat transfer and the flowrate can be calculated based on the above equation with the given data.

ṁ cold 2.8536 kg/s

q, heat 1772.633 kw
ṁ hot 10.294
Kg
s

3. Exchanger Type and dimensions

In order to start the calculations two shell pass and four tube passes will be used to start with. The LMTD-Method will be used to
evaluate the required equipment's area. Analysis will start by first calculating the mean temperature. Both fluids will be used in
counter-flow to maximise the log mean temperature difference. The temperatures for both side provided as specification by Table A1
in Appendix A.
∆T1−∆T2
∆Tlm = ∆T
ln ∆ T1
2

For counter flow:

∆T2 = Thot , inlet − Tcold, outlet ,∆T1 = Thot , outlet − Tcold, inlet

Th2 − Th1 T − Tc2

P= R = c1
Tc1 − Th1 Th2 − Th1

For a Two shell and Four tube passes the geometry correction factor (F) can be calculated using the equation show bellow. Note
the equation is valid for two shell and any even number of tube passes.

456
A.A. Abd, S.Z. Naji Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 10 (2017) 455–467

2
⎡ (R +1) ⎤ ln 1 − P
( )
⎢ 2(R −1) ⎥ 1 − PR
F= ⎣ ⎦
A + B + (R2 +1)
ln ⎡ ⎤
⎢ A + B − (R2 +1) ⎦
⎣ ⎥

2 2
Where , A = −1−R, B = * (1−P )(1−PR)
P P
As the correction factor is above 0.75 it can be noted that the configuration used is valid and efficient [4]. In same vein, the
calculated mean temperature should be corrected by:
∆Tm = F .∆Tlm

For counter flow

∆T1 195.3℃
∆T2 20℃
∆Tlm 76.926℃
P 0.235
R 3.9
F 0.888
∆Tm 68.3

3.1. Assumption of overall heat transfer coefficient

To calculate the heat exchanger area, values of mean temperature difference (∆Tm ) and overall heat transfer coefficient (OHTC, U)
should be obtained.
For this design, the range of U values depend on the fluids which are the dry gas and hot oil, therefore it can be start assuming
with overall heat transfer coefficient 375 W/m2.℃ [6].

3.2. Heat transfer area

The total heat transfer area can be calculated directly from:

q = UAo ∆Tm
Based on above equation, if the inlet and outlet temperatures for both hot and cold streams is known, with constant thermal load
exchanged. Increasing the overall heat transfer coefficient will reduce the total heat transfer surface area of the exchanger. Where, as
reducing the heat transfer area will reduce the overall cost of the equipment which includes manufacturing costs, fouling and thereby
maintenance costs [7]. with known total heat transfer and the assumed overall heat transfer coefficient, the area can be calculated as
below.
q 1772.633 × 103
Ao = = = 69.2 m2
U ∆Tm 375 × 68.3
The actual area will be as mentioned by Table A1, Aactual = A0 ×1.1
= 1.1 × 69.2 = 76.12 m2
This represents the total heat transfer area of the exchanger.

3.3. Layout and tube size

To start with a 19.05 mm outer diameter tube and with 1.6 mm thickness will be used, both of which are standard sizes [5]. The
manufacturing material that will be used is carbon steel which can provide good thermal conductivity. Finally, the tube length was
set to 1.83 m which should be sufficient large to lower the cost and reduce the shell diameter. Where, Bisoniya reported that
increasing tube length leads to increase the heat transfer and the pressure drop at the same time [8]. Thermal conductivity of carbon
steel will be K carbon steel = 55 W/m K [3].
Factors can be considered in the allocation of the two fluids which can be illustrated below:

Fouling: The fluid with the higher fouling factor should be placed in the tubes as they are easier to clean than the shell [9]. The
deposits accumulation on the internal surface of the heat exchanger causes reducing in the heat transfer and the effectiveness of
the exchanger [10].

457
A.A. Abd, S.Z. Naji Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 10 (2017) 455–467

Fluid Temperature: It is safer to allocate the cold fluid around the hot fluid, as well as, it will reduce energy loses and the overall
cost of the equipment's [9].
Pressure Drop: the pressure drop on the tube side will be higher than that on the shell side. Therefore, the lowest pressure
allowance should be allocated in the tube side [9].

However, the project flow diagram shows that the dry gas flows in the tube side because it is less dirty and the hot oil in shell side.
As well as, that the specification sheet gives that the lower fouling factor with dry gas and higher fouling factor for hot oil, therefore,
the dirtier fluid will be in the shell side which is hot oil.

3.4. Number of tubes

In calculation of the tube area, the thickness of tube sheet will be neglected. Hence, the tube area and tubes numbers can be
calculated:
Areaof singletube = πDo L

Ao
TubesNumber =
Atube

752 Tubes will be used in total; therefore, as there are four tube passes and the number of tubes per pass will be 188.
π
crosssectionareaof tube = (Din )2
4

Nt
Tubesfor eachpass =
PassesNumbers

Tubetotalarea = Tubesfor eachpass × crosssectionareaof tube

ṁ
Massvelocityof DryGas, Ms =
tubetotalarea

ṁ
velocity =
ρ

Area of single tube 0.101 m2

Tubes Numbers 752
cross section area of tube 0.0002 m2
Tubes for each pass 188tubes / pass
Tube total area 0.0376 m2
Mass velocity of Dry Gas,Ms 75.89kg/m2s
velocity 2.6 m/s

3.5. Bundle and shell diameter

An estimation of the Bundle diameter (Db ) can be made using the bellow equation [3].
Db n1
Nt = K1 ( )
Do

K1 and n1 are constants that can obtained for square arrangement and four passes from Table A4 in Appendix A, which are 0.158
and 2.263 respectively [4].
Db
752 = 0.158*( )2.263Db = 0.8034m
0.01905
The shell clearance for a Pull–through floating head heat exchanger can be determined from Fig. A1 in Appendix A, by con-
sidering the bundle diameter, and a Pull-through floating head exchanger the shell clearance will be approximately 94 mm [4]. Based
on these two values the shell diameter (Ds) can be evaluated Fig. A1.
Ds = Db + clearance = 0.8034 + 0.094 = 0.9m

458
A.A. Abd, S.Z. Naji Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 10 (2017) 455–467

3.6. Tube side heat transfer coefficient

In order to determine the tube side heat transfer coefficient, the Reynolds number must first be evaluated. We will also assume
that the flow is fully developed; therefore, the entry region does not need to be considered.
Ms *Di
Re =
μ
A turbulent flow is present and therefore the turbulent equations should be used. Eq. (1) will be used in determining the average
Nusselt number and in the calculation, it will be assumed that the viscosity factor (µ/µw)0.14 is one [4].
μ 0.14
Nu = jh × Re ×Pr 0.33 × ,
μw (1)
μcp Nu
Pr = , ht = *k
k Di
L
jh can be obtained from Fig. A2 with Di
= 115.5 which is jh = 3 × 10−3 , and Nu = jh × Re ×Pr 0.33

Re 7.7254*10 4
Pr 76.4
Nu 969.3
ht 3265.65 W/m2.°C

3.7. Shell-side heat transfer coefficient

In the calculation of Nusselt number on the shell side, Kern's procedure will be employed to calculate the external heat transfer
coefficient. Rao and Raju concluded that as the baffle cut decreases the overall heat transfer increases [11]. For this design, the baffle
cut will be 0.3, which should provide an optimum heat transfer coefficient without result in a high pressure drop, and the baffle will
be a segmental baffle. In the calculation of shell cross flow area (As) a baffle spacing of Ds/3 will be used [4].
The first Step in calculating the external heat transfer coefficient is to determine the cross-flow area of the shell.
Pt = 1.25Do

Ds × (Pt − Do) × B
As =
Pt
The equivalent shell side diameter (de) can be calculated by using Eq. (2) for a Square arrangement of tubes [4].
1.27
De = *(pt 2 −0.785do2)
do (2)

Ms *De ṁ
Re = , velocity =
μ ρ

Nu = jh × Re ×Pr 0.33 (3)

The shell side heat transfer factor can be estimated by Fig. A3, [4]:
Nu
hs = *k
De

Pt 0.02381 m
As 0.054 m2
De 0.0188 m
Ms 190.63 kg/m2.s
velocity 0.1421 m/s
Re 2.442×10 4
Pr 4.6232
Nu 153.8
hs 744.457 W/m2.°C

459
A.A. Abd, S.Z. Naji Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 10 (2017) 455–467

3.8. Overall heat transfer coefficient

The overall heat transfer coefficient based on the outer area (Uo) can be calculated by considering all the thermal resistances
present in the heat exchanger.

1
=
1 r 1 r
+ R s + Rt * o + * o +
ro*ln ro
i()
r

Uo hs ri hi ri kcarbonsteel

Uo = 432.189

Uo − Uass 432.189 − 375

%Difference = × 100% = × 100% = 15.25%
Uass 375

The assumption can be assumed fairly accurate, as Kern's limitations for difference percentage is 30% [4].

3.9. Pressure drop

3.9.1. Tube side

Akhmadullin and Tyagi, (2017) reported that the friction losses and the pressure drop of nozzles can be considered as the main
sources of pressure in the tubes [12]. And the pressure drop for the total tubes can be evaluated by:

L
∆Pt = Np ⎛4 × jf ×
⎜ + 1.25⎞ × ρV 2
⎟

⎝ di ⎠
From Fig. A4 in Appendix A, the friction factor will be, jf = 3.8 × 10−3, [4].
∆Pt = 592.544 Pa

The pressure of nozzles can be added for inlet and outlet by adding 15% of the total calculated pressure [4] Fig. A4.
0.15 × 592.544 + 592.544 = 681.43 Pa
This pressure drop is well within the limit of 0.5 bars and hence is acceptable.

3.9.2. Shell side

The pressure drop can be estimated by using the following equation:
Ds L
∆Ps = 4×jf × × × ρ × V2
de lb

From Fig. A5 in Appendix A and the Reynold number on the shell side, jf can be estimated to be around 0.037, [4]:
∆Ps = 1170.73 Pa

The pressure drop in the shell nozzle significant only when dealing with gases [4]. As a result, the nozzle pressure drop may be
neglected. The obtained value of 1170.73 Pa is less than the limit of 0.5 bars and hence is acceptable Fig. A5.

4. Study the effect of increasing tube length on the overall heat transfer coefficient

Many iterations done with same procedure by using different lengths to study the change in the overall heat transfer coefficient
for the exchanger. Where, the used lengths been 1.5, 1.83, 2, 2.44, 3, and 3.66 m, check Table A5. Where, increasing tube length
increases the overall heat transfer, as shown by Fig. 1.
Where, by plotting length against overall coefficient for more than iteration, quick prediction can be showed form below
equation:

Fig. 1. Overall heat transfer coefficient against tube length.

460
A.A. Abd, S.Z. Naji Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 10 (2017) 455–467

Fig. 2. Tube length against shell diameter.

Fig. 3. Nusselt number against Reynold and Prandtl based on the proposed correlation.

Fig. 4. The comparisons between the proposed and Kern's correlations with Experimental Data.

UoverallCoefficient = 120. 46*Length + 228. 8, withR2 = 0. 9712

Now, this equation helps chosen new length that can reduce the error percentage between the assumed and the calculated overall
heat transfer coefficient, for this heat exchanger the best length will be 1.83 mm standard length which gives enough heat transfer
and accepted pressure drop.

5. Study the effect of increasing tube length on shell diameter

In this part, effect of increasing tube length on shell diameter examined, where, as length increase shell diameter decrease.
Fig. 2, describe the change in length with shell diameter which can be demonstrated by below equation:
shelldiameter = −0. 1276*Length + 1. 1081

This equation will give more flexibility to calculate shell diameter by using the chosen length directly. Therefore, the shell
diameter with 1.83 m length will be 0.8746 m.

5.1. Proposed correlation to calculate Nusselt number for tube side

Internal flow can be descripted by flow of fluid surrounding by solid walls. Heat exchangers are conglomerates of internal flows.
There are two basic points should be taken in account by the designer who contemplates using an internal flow configuration. They
are heat transfer and the thermal conductivity between fluid and walls [13]. Kern's suggested correlation that considers the effect of
fluid viscosity at the wall and in tube [13]. In addition, Kern's modified a figure to calculate the friction factor for limit range of
Reynold number. The problem with Kern's correlation can be illustrated by that the viscosity term should be ignore at the beginning
of the calculating as the wall temperature is unknown. Thus, the calculation comes with an error percentage. Therefore, it is worthy
to find new correlation that can solve this problem and reach more accurate results.
Usually, most of Nusselt number correlations for fully developed flow is function of Reynold and Prandtl numbers [14]. Simu-
lation program (Hysys V8.8) used to calculate the Nusselt numbers for internal flow with different temperatures, mass flow rates,
tube dimensions, fluid type. The collected Nusselt numbers plotted against Reynold and Prandtl numbers for each case to create new
correlation based on Kern's correlation form which is proportional directly to Reynold and Prandtl numbers as shown by Fig. 3.

461
A.A. Abd, S.Z. Naji Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 10 (2017) 455–467

The proposed correlation works more accurate than kern's correlation with wide range of Reynold numbers, different types of
fluids, flow rates, and different dimensions. The limitations of the new correlation are that it is applicable for fully developed
turbulent flow, and internal flow through tubes. The calculation will recompute using the new correlation for tube side to test the
proposed correlation as shown below:
Nu = 0. 0126*Re 0 . 8762 Pr 0 . 289
With, Re=7.7254*10 4 and Pr = 76.4 .
Nu = 0.0126*(7.7254*10 4)0.8762 (76.4)0.289 = 846.02

846.02
ht = × 0.0534 = 2850.313W/m2.°C
0.01585
Now, with same calculation for shell side, the overall heat transfer coefficient can be calculated to be:

1
=
1 r 1 r
+ R s + Rt * o + * o +
ro*ln ro
i ()
r

Uo hs ri hi ri kcarbonsteel

1
=
1
+ 0.00035 + 0.00018*
0.00953
+
1
*
0.00953
+
0.00953*ln ( 0.00953
0.007925 )
Uo 744.457 0.007925 2850.313 0.007925 55
1
= 0.0013432 + 0.00035 + 0.00022 + 0.000422 + 0.000032
Uo
1
= 0.0023672→Uo = 422.4
Uo
Uo − Uass 422.4 − 375
%Difference = ×100% = × 100% = 12.64%
Uass 375
The new correlation reduces the error percentage from 15.25% to 12.64% which can give better prediction than kern's equation.

6. Comparison of Kern's and the proposed correlations with experimental data

The proposed correlation in this work will be compared with experimental data exist in literature suggested by Skupinski et al.
with constant wall temperature for turbulent flow part [15]. Analysis study done to study the heat transfer by forced convective
shows that the Nusselt number depends strongly on Reynolds and Prandtl at low fluid speed [16]. Based on this study, low ex-
perimental Reynolds numbers uses to study the both correlations Kern's and the proposed to test the accuracy.
The comparisons presented by Fig. 4 show that the agreement between the proposed correlation in this work and the experimental
data is quite good. As the proposed correlation gives close Nusselt numbers to the experimental data than Kern's correlation.

7. Conclusion

In conclusion, the designed heat exchanger is competent for the duty of heat transfer. It means the dry gas at 24.7 °C can be heated
to 260 °C by this exchanger with hot oil at 280 °C. Furthermore, the flow rates of fluids also can be achieved with a pressure in the
scope of demand. The presented method is Kern's method, which can provide satisfactory prediction of heat transfer coefficient. The
core concept is using a trail-and-error process to approach the feasible OHTC. However, it is criticized for its performance on the
prediction of pressure drop, which is more optimal to be examined with Bell's method. In the study, the numerical results of cal-
culation validate the correlation between fluid velocity and heat transfer coefficient. It demonstrates that the higher flow rate lead to
higher heat transfer coefficient. However, the high velocity will cause high pressure drop, which may reduce the useful life of
equipment. Therefore, it is significant to find the equilibrium between high heat transfer coefficient and proper pressure drop. In
addition, new correlation proposed based on kern's method to rich more accurate results. The proposed correlation reduces the error
percentage and can be applied easily. Moreover, four different lengths used to study the effect of increasing tube length on overall
heat transfer coefficient, and shell diameters. To sum up, the shell and tube heat exchanger is feasible for this given system and can do
the function with high performance.

Appendix A

See Appendix Table A1–A5.

See Appendix Figs. A1–A5.

462
A.A. Abd, S.Z. Naji Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 10 (2017) 455–467

Table A1
Given specification by clough for the design.

Dry Gas Temperature in 24 ℃

Temperature out 260 ℃
Hot Oil Temperature in 280 ℃
Temperature out 220 ℃
Pressure drop for both side Less than 50 kpa
Fouling Factor in tube side m2 . ℃
0.00018
w
Fouling Factor in shell side m2 . ℃
0.00035
w
Outer tube diameter 19.05 mm
The heat exchanger shall include a 10% surface area margin (i.e. actual area / required area = 1.1) in the fouled condition.
Stream Data Dry Gas Hot Oil
1 2 3 4
Flow, kg/h 10.273 10.273 Resultant Resultant
Composition (mol%): CO2 3.4 3.4 – –
N2 0.5 0.5 – –
Methane 90.6 90.6 – –
Ethane 3.5 3.5 – –
Propane 1.3 1.3 – –
i-Butane 0.1 0.1 – –
n-Butane 0.3 0.3 – –
n-Pentane 0.3 0.3 – –
H2O Nil Nil – –
Transcal N (Hot Oil) – – 100 100

Table A2
Dry gas properties.

Dry gas

Temperature, T, ℃ 24.7 260 142.35

Density, ρ, (
Kg
) 39.12 19.22 29.17
m3
Viscosity, µ (cP) 0.01247 0.01867 0.01557
Specific heat, Cp
KJ 2.412 2.87 2.64
Kg . K

Thermal conductivity, k, (
W
) 0.036 0.071 0.0535
m.k

Table A3
Hot oil properties.

Hot oil

Temperature, T (°C) 280 220 250

Density, ρ (kg/m3) 1273.6 1409.4 1341.5
Viscosity, µ (cP) 0.1131 0.1804 0.14675
Specific Heat, Cp (
KJ
) 2.67 2.88 2.87
Kg . K

Thermal Conductivity k, (
W
) 0.0875 0.095 0.091
m.k

Note: The values T1 and T2 were the lower and upper temperature bounds from the mean temperature of the respective fluids. The physical
properties of these fluids at T1 and T2 were obtained: Physical property data from the Project Sheet. The values at the mean temperature were
obtained by linear interpolation.

463
A.A. Abd, S.Z. Naji Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 10 (2017) 455–467

Table A4
Constants to calculate Bundle diameter [4].

Triangular Pitch pt = 1.25do

No. passes 1 2 4 6 8
K1 0.319 0.249 0.175 0.0743 0.0365
n1 2.142 2.207 2.285 2.499 2.675

Square Pitch pt = 1.25do

No. passes 1 2 4 6 8
K1 0.215 0.156 0.158 0.0402 0.0331
n1 2.207 2.291 2.263 2.617 2.643

Table A5
Overall heat transfer coefficient and length.

Length Overall heat exchanger

1.5 418.2
1.83 432.189
2 489.4
2.44 500
3 601.47
3.66 669.79

Fig. A1. Bundle diameter & shell diameter [4].

464
A.A. Abd, S.Z. Naji Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 10 (2017) 455–467

Fig. A2. Heat Transfer Factor Tube Side [4].

Fig. A3. Heat Transfer Factor Shell Side [4].

465
A.A. Abd, S.Z. Naji Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 10 (2017) 455–467

Fig. A4. Friction Factor for Tube Side [4].

Fig. A5. Friction Factor for Shell Side [4].

466
A.A. Abd, S.Z. Naji Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 10 (2017) 455–467

References

[1] C. Qun, W. Jing, W. MoRan, P. Ning, G. ZengYuan, A comparison of optimization theories for energy conservation in heat exchanger groups, Chin. Sci. Bull.
(2011) 449–454, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11434-010-4297-7.
[2] D.S. Patel, R.R. Parmar, V.M. Prajapati, CFD analysis of shell and tube heat exchangers, Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. (2015).
[3] J.M. Coulson, J.F. Richardson, Chemical Engineering Design, 6th ed., University College of Swansea: Robert Maxwell, M.C., 1983.
[4] Gavin P. Towler, R.K. Sinnott, Chemical Engineering Design, 5th ed., Amsterdam: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann, 2008.
[5] T. Kuppan, Heat Exchanger Design Handbook, 1st ed., Marcel Dekker, New York, 2000.
[6] S. Kakac, H. Liu, Heat Exchanger: Selection, Rating, and Thermal Design, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1998.
[7] A.V. Azad, N.V. Azad, Application of nanofluids for the optimal design of shell, Case Stud. Therm. Eng. (2016) 198–206.
[8] T.S. Bisoniya, Design of earth–air heat exchanger system, Geotherm. Energy (2015) 3–18, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40517-015-0036-2.
[9] Frank P. Incropera, David P. Dewitt, Fundamentals of Heat Transfer, 4th ed., Wiley, New York, 1981.
[10] R. Harche, R. Absi, A. Mouheb, Study of the fouling deposit in the heat exchangers of Algiers refinery, Int. J. Ind. Chem. (2014) 5–16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s40090-014-0016-6.
[11] J.B. Rao, V.R. Raju, Numerical and heat transfer analysis of shell and tube heat exchanger with circular and elliptical tubes, Int. J. Mech. Mater. Eng. (2016)
6–11, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40712-016-0059-x.
[12] I. Akhmadullin, M. Tyagi, Numerical analysis of downhole heat exchanger designed for geothermal energy production, Geotherm. Energy (2017) 5–13, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40517-017-0071-2.
[13] C. Meola, A new correlation of nusselt number for impinging, Heat Transf. Eng. (2009) 221–228, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01457630802304311.
[14] D. Taler, Experimental determination of correlations for average heat, Heat Mass Transf. (2013) 1125–1139, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00231-013-1148-5.
[15] E. Skupinski, J. TortelL.Vautrey, Determination des coefficients de convection d′un alliage sodium-potassium dans un tube circulaire, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 8
(6) (1965) 937–940, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0017-9310(65)90077-3.
[16] J. Will, N. Kruyt, C. Venner, An experimental study of forced convective heat transfer from smooth, solid spheres, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 1059–1067 (2017)
(2017) 1059–1067 (doi:109).

467

View publication stats