ELSEVIER Chemical Engineering and Processing 36 (1997) 149-159

Pressure drop on the shell side of shell-and-tube heat exchangers

with segmental baffles1
Edward S. Gaddis a,*, Volker Gnielinski b
a Institut fir Thermische Verfuhrenstechnik, Technische UniversitZit ClausthaI, LeibnizsraJe 1.5, 38678 ClausthaI-Zellerfeld, Germany
b Lehrstuhl ldnd Institut fir Then-n&he Verfahrenstechnik, Universitiit h’arlsruhe TH, ICaiserstraJe 12, 76131 Karlsrtlhe, Germany
Received 1 December 1996

Abstract

A procedure is presented for evaluating the shell side pressure drop in shell-and-tube heat exchangers with segmental baffles.
The procedure is based on correlations for calculating the pressure drop in an ideal tube bank coupled with correction factors,
which take into account the influence of leakage and bypass streams, and on equations for calculating the pressure drop in a
window section from the Delaware method. The proposed equations were checked by comparing experimental measurements
available in the literature with the theoretical predictions. The ranges of the geometrical and operational parameters, for which
the deviations between the experimental measurements and the theoretical predictions were within & 35%, are presented in the
paper.

Kurzfassung

Em Verfahren fiir die Berechnung des Druckverlusts im AuSenraum von Rohrbfindel-Warmetibertragern mit Segment-Um-
lenkblechen wird dargestellt. Das Verfahren basiert auf Gleichungen fur die Berechnung des Druckverlusts in einem idealen
Rohrbiindel gekoppelt mit Korrekturfaktoren, die den EinfluD der Leek- und der Bypassstromungen beriicksichtigen, und auf
Gleichungen fur die Berechnung des Druckverlusts in einer Fensterzone nach der Delaware-Methode. Zur Uberprtifung der
Gleichungen wurden MeBwerte aus dem Schrifttum herangezogen und mit den theoretischen Berechnungen verglichen. Die
Bereiche der geometrischen und der betrieblichen Parameter, fiir die die Abweichungen zwischen den gemessenen und den
berechneten Werten innerhalb & 35% lagen, werden angegeben. 0 1997 Elsevier Science S.A.

Keywords: Pressure drop; Segmental baffles; Shell-and-tube heat exchangers

Synopse im AuJenraum beeinj&ssen. Dies gilt ebenso fur den

Bypass-Strom; denn die Rohre konnen nicht gleichmaJig
Die Striimung im AuJ’enraum von Rohrbiindel- und dicht am Mantelblech angeordnet werden.
Wiirmeiibertragern mit Segment-Umlenkblechen unter- Die in dieser Arbeit angegebene Methode zur Berech-
scheidet sich von der Striimung quer zu einem Rohrbiindel nung des Druckverlustes im AuJenraum hat sich im
ohne Umlenkbleche dudurch, daJ die Umlenkbleche eine wesentlichen aus der Delaware-Methode entwickelt, bei
Strtimung des Fluids bewirken, die teils parallel und teils der der Auj’enraum in Zonen unterteilt wird. Der Ein@J
quer zum Rohrbiindel verlauft. Fertigungsbedingte Spalte der Leek- und der Bypass-Stromungen auf den Druck-
zwischen den Rohren und den Bohrungen in den Um- verlust wird mit Hi&e von Korrekturfaktoren beriick-
lenkblechen sowie zwischen den Umlenkblechen und dem sichtigt. Gegeniiber der Delaware-Methode werden fir
Mantel fihren zu Leckstriimungen, die den Druckverlust die Berechnung des Druckverlusts im querangestriimten
idealen Rohrbiindel nicht Diagramme sondern Gleichun-
gen verwendet. Dieses so modtjizierte Berechnungsver-
* Corresponding author.
fahren wurde an einer grojen Anzahl von MeJwerten aus
’ Dedicated to Prof. Dr.-Ing. A. Vogelpohl on the occasion of his
65th birthday. dem Schrifttum iiberpriift. Anhand dieses Vergleichs wur

0255-2701/97/$17.00 Q 1997 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved

PIISO255-2701(96)04194-3
150 ES. Gaddis, V. Gnielinski/ Chemical Engineering
den die Bereiche der geometrischenund der betrieblichen
Parameter ermittelt, bei denen die Abweichungen zwis-
then den gemessenenund den berechnetenDruckverlusten
innerhalb & 35% liegen. Dieses Berechnungsverfahren
bildet die Grundlage jlir dus in dem deutschenHandbuch
‘VDI- WLirmeatlas’ [15] und in deer englischen
obersetzung dieses Handbuchs ‘VDI Heat Atlas’ 1161
angegebeneBerechnungs-verfahren.
1. Introduction
The flow in the shell side of a shell-and-tube heat
exchanger with segmental baffles is very complex. The
baffles lead to a stream inside the shell, as shown in Fig.
1, which is partly perpendicular and partly parallel to the
tube bank. The gaps between the tubes and the holes in
the baffles and the gap between a baffle and the shell
cause leakage streams S,, which may modify the main
stream S, significantly. Since the tubes of the heat
exchanger can not be placed very near to the shell,
bypass streams S, may be formed, which influence also
the main stream. The flow direction of the main stream
relative to the tubes is different in the window sections
created by the baffle cut from that in the cross flow
sections existing between the segmental baffles. This
necessitates the use of different equations to calculate the
pressure drop in the window sections to those used in the
cross flow sections. The spacing between the tube plates
and the tist and the last baffle, which is mostly dictated
by the diameter of the inlet and oulet nozzles, differs in
many cases from the spacing between two adjacent
baffles and some of the aforementioned streams are not
present in the first and in the last heat exchanger
sections. This adds to the complexity of the problem.
A lot of publications appeared in the last few decades
(e.g. [l-5]), which describe methods to calculate the
pressure drop in the shell of a shell-and-tube heat
exchanger with baffles. A critical review is given by
Palen and Taborek [6]. The different calculation proce-
main stream
SH
SL leakage stream
SE bypass stream
Fig. 1. Flow through the shell of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger with
segmental baffles.
and Processing 36 (1997) 149-159
AP
=
(n,-IlAp,
+
*AbE
+
nu AP,
+
.Aps
Fig. 2. Dividing the shell side of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger into
sections.
dures have been checked in [6] against a large number
of experimental measurements on small units and on
industrial scale heat exchangers. According to [6], the
methods of Tinker [3,4] and of Delaware [5] gave the
best results compared with the other methods available
in the open literature. The method of Tinker [3,4] has
been frequently criticized because it is relatively compli-
cated. The procedure presented in this paper for calcu-
lating the shell side pressure drop is based principally
on the Delaware method [5]. However, instead of using
diagrams-as in the Delaware method-to calculate
the pressure drop in the ideal tube bank, the present
authors use equations previously presented in [7,8].
Correction factors are then used-as in the Delaware
method-to take into consideration the deviatation of
the flow inside the shell of the heat exchanger from that
in the ideal case of a tube bank. Pressure drops ob-
tained experimentally by different investigators from
measurements on a number of shell-and-tube heat ex-
changers were compared with those calculated by this
procedure. In the paper, the comparison is presented
and discussed and the validity ranges of the equations
are given. This procedure forms the basis for the com-
putational procedure in the German handbook ‘VDI-
Wgrmeatlas’ [15] and in the English translation of that
handbook ‘VDI Heat Atlas’ [16].
2. Calculation procedure
As seen in Fig. 2, the shell side pressure drop may be
calculated from the equation
AP = (nu - l)ApQ + 2ApQE + n&p, + APS (1)
where Ap is the shell side pressure drop, ApQ is the
pressure drop in a cross flow section, ApQE is the
 ES. Gaddis, V. Gnielinslci / Chemical Engineering and Processing 36 (1997) 149-159 151

pressure drop in an end cross flow section, Ap, is the a window section counts onIy as a half restriction. Fig.
pressure drop in a window section, Aps is the pressure 3 illustrates the rules for evaluating n,.
drop in both inlet and outlet heat exchanger nozzles The velocity is calculated from
and n, is the number of segmental baffles. F
It is assumed in Eq. (1) that the pressure drop w, = - (4)
components, are constant in the corresponding sections A,
along the heat exchanger length. The change in the with
physical properties in the different sections is thus
A, = SL,, (5)
ignored and the mean value can be used. The assump-
tion of a constant window pressure drop in all window where A, is the flow area defined by Eq. (5), k is the
sections implies that the difference in the length of the fluid volumetric flow rate in the heat exchanger shell, S
Crst and the last window sections as compared with is the baffle spacing and L, is the sum of the shortest
that of the intermediate window sections is not signifi- distances connecting neighbouring tubes and the short-
cant and is thus ignored. est distances between the outermost tubes and the shell
measured in the tube row on or near to the shell
2.1. Pressure drop in a crossJiow section diameter parallel to the edge of the baffle cuts.
Fig. 4 shows the lengthes LE, e and e,. Tie rods
A cross flow section is that part of the heat exchanger connecting the baffles together and furing the baffle
shell, which lies between two adjacent baffles and is spacing, which influence the length L,, should be con-
bounded from the top and the bottom by the planes sidered in evaluating LE.
that touch the upper and lower edges of the baffle cuts. The following equations correlate the pressure drop
The pressure drop in a cross flow section may be coefficient 5 to the Reynolds number and the geometry
calculated from the following equation: of the tube bank [7,8]:
For an in-line layout:
APQ = APQ,O~L~B. (4
The first term in Eq. (2) is the pressure drop in an ideal
tube bank in the abscence of bypass and leakage
streams. To account for the influence of leakage
4 = U,l + t&t
[
1 - exp - Re2;;;00
c II 9 (6)

streams and bypass streams, the pressure drop AP~,~ in

the ideal case of a tube bank is multiplied by the 280z[(b0.* - 0.6)2 + 0.751
correction factors fL and fB, respectively. fa,l,f= (8)
(4ab - z)a’,6 ’
The pressure drop for an ideal tube bank is calcu-
lated as follows [7,8]:
2

Apa,o = hv 9,

where 5 is the pressure drop coefficient, nw is the

number of major restrictions in the path of the main
flow in a cross flow section, p is the fluid density and W,
is the velocity defined by Eq. (4).
The number of major restrictions in the path of the
+ [O.O3(a - l)(b - I)]. (10)
main flow in a cross flow section is equal to the number For a staggered layout:
of the shortest connection lengthes between the tubes,
which has to be crossed by the main flow during its
motion in a cross flow section from one edge of the
segmental baffles to the other edge. For an in-line tube
layout and for a staggered tube layout having the
shortest distance between the tubes present between
neighbouring tubes in the same row, the number of
major restrictions nw is equal to the number of the tube
rows nR in the cross flow section. For a staggered
layout having the shortest distance between the tubes al in-line layout bi staggered Layout cl staggered layout
present between tubes in two neighbouring rows, the with bbi)%?? with bd-?$-l,&?
number of major restrictions is equal to (nR - 1). Fur- n,= 5 nW = 1 n, = 10
ther, a major restriction that lies on the baffle edge
marking the boundary between a cross flow section and Fig. 3. Determination of the number of the major restrictions.
152 ES. Gaddis, V. Gnielinski/ Chemical Engineering and Processing 36 (1997) 149-159

0~2; b=%; LE=2e,+Ee

0 do

a) in -tine Layout bl staggered layout c) staggered layout

with bz+-vm with bdi-vf?%
e=(a-lIda e = (a-l)d, e=(c-l)do

Fig. 4. Definition of L,, e and e,.

0.57/[((4ob/x) - 1)Re]“~2S

(11) (18)
and
(12)

280~c[(b~.~- 0.6)2 + 0.751

fi,,=(y >0.14. (19)
fa,l,v= (4ab - 7c)al.h
for b >iJm
The other variables in the above equations are
(13)
a = sg/da (transverse pitch ratio), (20)
and
b = q/d, (longitudinal pitch ratio), (21)
280n[(b”,’ - 0.6)2 + 0.751
fa,*,v
= (4ab - z)c 1.6
for b<&dm, c = dm (diagonal pitch ratio), (22)
(14) where TVis the dynamic viscosity and vw is the dynamic
viscosity at wall temperature and where sq is the trans-
:,=&& (15) verse pitch, S, is the longitudinal pitch and & is the
outer tube diameter.
and The physical properties p and q should be evaluated
at the arithmetic mean of the inlet and outlet fluid bulk
1.2 +0.4(;-1)9-0.01(;-1)’ temperatures and the dynamic viscosity qvv at the mean
-kw = 2.5 + (a _ ()85)1.08
wall temperature. Because the cross flow changes its
(16) direction in the shell a number of times, the corrections
The Reynolds number is defined for both tube layouts recommended in [7,8] to account for the number of
rows in the ideal tube bank are ignored.
by
2.1.1. Baffle leakagefactor
According to [9], the baffle leakage factor fL may be
calculated from
tr, t1 are pressure drop coefficients for laminar and
turbulent flow respectively. fa is an arrangement factor, fL = exp[ - 1.33(1 -I- R,)RL] (23)
which takes in consideration the influence of the ge- with
ometry of the ideal tube bank on the pressure drop.
The associated subscripts 1, t, f and v indicate laminar I’ = [ - 0.15(1 + RM) + 0.81, (24)
flow, turbulent flow, in-line tube layout and staggered A
tube layout respectively. The factors f& and f,,, in Eqs. RM==, (25)
A SG
(6) and (11) are viscosity correction factors, which take
in consideration the change in the pressure drop due to R,=+
change in the viscosity near the wall during heating and E
cooling for laminar flow and turbulent flow respectively
and
as compared with the pressure drop in the isothermal
case and are correlated as follows: A,,= ASRU + &MU* (27)
 ES. Gaddis, V. Gnielinski/ Chemical Engineering and Processing 36 (1997) 149-159 153

R, and RL are ratios of flow areas and A,, is the sum

of the gap areas between the tubes and the holes in the
baffles A,,, and the gap area between a baffie and the
shell AsMU. The areas AsRU and AsMU may be calulated sealing strips
from the following equations:

A
Fig. 6. Arrangement of sealing strips (n, = 2 in the figure).

fB = exp[ - PR,(l - m)] for Rs < 4 (31)

and and
fB = 1 for R, 2 $, (32)
(30)
where
where II is the number of tubes in a tube bank including
blind tubes, nF is the total number of tubes in upper R,+ (33)
and lower window sections including blind tubes, dB is E

the diameter of tube hole in a baffle, Di is the shell and

inside diameter, D, is the baffle diameter, y is the angle
corresponding to baffle edge in degrees and H is the
baffle cut.
The correction factorf, given in [9] and expressed by A, is the flow area that causes the bypass stream and ns
Eq. (23) differs slightly from that factor recommended is the number of pairs of sealing strips encountered by
initially in the Delaware method [5]. Fig. 5 relates the the bypass stream during flow across one crossflow
baffle leakage factor fL to the ratios RM and R,. section (Fig. 6). The flow area A, may be calculated
Sedimentation and corrosion-if present during op- from
eration of the heat exchanger-might reduce the area
A,=S(Di-D,-e) for e<(Di-DB) (35)
of the aforementioned gaps and thus might lead to an
increase in the shell pressure drop with elapse of time. and
Depending on the expected amount of deposits during
A,=0 for e>(Di-DB). (36)
operation, the baffle leakage factor fL, calculated from
the Eq. (23) might be correspondingly modified. Di is the inside shell diameter and DB is the diameter of
the circle that touches the outer surface of the outer-
2.1.2. Bundle bypass factor most tubes in that part of the bundle in a crossflow
According to [5], the bundle bypass factorf, may be section. Depending on the tube layout, the shortest
calculated from distance between two neighbouring tubes e can lie
either between two tubes in the same row or between
two tubes in two different but neighbouring rows (see
Fig. 3).
For an in-line tube la out and for a staggered tube
layout with b 2 0.5 /- 2a + 1
0.8
e=(a- l)d, (37)
and for a staggered tube layout with b < 0.5dm
e = (c - l)d,. . (38)
According to [5], the constant p in Eq. (31) has a value
of 5.0 for laminar flow (Re < 100) and a value of 4.0 in
the transition region (100 < Re < 4000) as well as for
tubulent flow (Re > 4000). Taborek [9] recommends for
p the following values, which are slightly different than
those values mentioned in [5]:
RL ,B = 4.5 for Re < 100 (39)
Fig. 5. Baffle leakage factory, as a function of the ratios R, and R,. and
 ES. Gaddis, V. Gnielinski / Chemical Engineering and Processing 36 (1997) 149-159
RB
Fig. 7. Bypass factor as a function of the ratios R, and R,.
/?=3.7 for Re2100.
In this work, the values of p recommended by Taborek
[9] were used in further calculations. The bundle bypass
factorf, is shown in Fig. 7 as a function of the ratio R,
with the ratio R, as a parameter.
2.2. Pressure drop in an end CYOSSJ¶OW
section
An end cross flow section is that part of the heat
exchanger shell, which lies between one of the tube
plates and the adjacent baffle and is bounded at its
outlet (for the inlet end cross flow section) or at its inlet
(for the outlet end cross flow section) by the plane that
touches the edges of the baffle cuts. An inlet end cross
flow section does not have leakage streams that flow in
that section from a previous cross flow section and an
outlet end cross flow section does not have leakage
streams that flow in a following cross flow section. The
influence of leakage in both end cross flow sections is
thus ignored. Fig. 8 shows the difference in the path of
leakage streams between an end cross flow section and
inlet end cross
cross flow section flow section cross flow section
main stream
----- leakage stream
-‘-‘- tube axis
Fig. 8. Difference in the path of leakage streams between an end cross
flow section and a cross flow section.
a cross flow section. The pressure drop Ap,, in an end
cross flow section may be calculated from the following
equation:
APQE= APQE,O~B. (41)
ApoE, is the pressure drop in an end cross flow section
in the abscence of bypass streams. One has to distin-
guish between two different cases. In the first case, the
baffle spacing S, in an end cross flow section is equal to
the baffle spacing S in a cross flow section. In that case,
the pressure drop ApQE,Oin an end cross flow section in
the abscence of bypass streams can be calculated from
where EWE is the number of the major restrictions in the
path of the main flow in an end cross flow section. The
procedure for evaluating nWE is similar to that for
evaluating n,. The other case is when S, # S. The
(40) pressure drop ApQE,Ocan be calculated in that case from
The velocity w,,n is based now on the flow area A,,,
defined by
A,,, = sELE* (44)
Thus
(45)
Eqs. (6) and (11) can be used to calculate the pressure
drop coefficient <. The Reynolds number Re in Eqs.
(6), (7), (9), (ll), (12), (15) and (18) should be replaced
by the Reynolds number Re, in an end cross flow
section, which is defined by
Re, = Re g. (46)
E
To evaluate the bundle bypass factory,, Eq. (31) or Eq.
(32) (depending on the value of R,) may be used. The
numerical value of the constant p in Eq. (31) depends
on the numerical value of the Reynolds number Re,
(p = 4.5 for Re, < 100 and p = 3.7 for Re, 2 100).
2.3. Pressure drop in a window section
According to [5], the pressure drop in a window
outlet end
section may be calculated from the following equations:
For Re I 100:
56 52
(47)
APF~1
= (ew,p /q~)nWF+ (d,wq/q)
and for Re > 100:
 ES. Gaddis, Y. Gnielinski
where AP~,~ window pressure drop for laminar flow and
AP~,~ window pressure drop at Re > 100.
nWF is the number of the major restrictions in a
window section. Its numerical value shouldn’t be an
integer and can be calculated from
0.8H
nw=-,
Xl
Eq. (49) is valid when (~1~~ I 2n,,), otherwise (11~~ =
2n,,), where nZRFis the number of the tube rows in a
window section. d, is the equivalent diameter of the
flow area in a window section, which can be calculated
from
where AF is the flow area and U, the wetted perimeter
for a window section. AF and U, can be evaluated from
A, = A,, - A,,,
AFG= sin(;)],
and
A ro is the cross-sectional area of a window section
including the area of the window tubes and A,, is the
cross-sectional area of the window tubes. In evaluating
the equivalent diameter d,, the wetted area of the edge
of the baffle has been ignored. The characteristic veloc-
ity w, in Eq. (47) Eq. (48) is evaluated from
w, = (w,wp,
where
P ls z 2 for both laminar and turbulent flow will be on
wp = -.
AF
Eqs. (47) and (48) give in most cases different values for
the pressure drop in a window section at Re = 100.
Therefore, Taborek [9] suggests to use intermediate
values of those values given by Eqs. (47) and (48) in the
range 50 I Re I 200 based on engineering judgment, or
to use the higher value as a factor of safety. In the
present work, superposition was used and the equation
recommended in this work to calculate the pressure
drop ApF in a window section is given by
where
/ Chemical Engineering and Processing 36 (1997) 149- 159 155
f, =fi,, for Re < 100 (see Eq. (18)) (58)
and
f, =fi,t for Re 2 100 (see Eq. (19)). (59)
The influence of bypass streams on the pressure drop in
a window section has been ignored.
2.4. Pressure drop in inlet and outlet nozzles
The pressure drop Ap, in both inlet and outlet heat
exchanger nozzles, as a result of sudden expansion at
the inlet nozzle and sudden contraction at the outlet
nozzle, may be calculated from
(60)
where
(51) i” \vs and d, are the nozzle pressure drop coefficient
fti both nozzles, the nozzle velocity and the nozzle
(52) diameter respectively. The inlet and outlet nozzle di-
ameters have been assumed to be equal.
The nozzle pressure drop coefficient 4s is the summa-
(53) tion of the nozzle pressure drop coefficient <s,rN for the
inlet nozzle and the nozzle pressure drop coefficient
4 s,oN for the outlet nozzle. Since the flow area at the
outlet of the inlet nozzle is usually much larger than the
flow area based on the nozzle diameter, ts,TN M 1 (sud-
den enlargement of flow area corresponding to the case
of a tube connected to a large vessel). The nozzle
pressure drop coefficient 5s,oN for the outlet nozzle
depends on the Reynolds number Re, for the flow
through the outlet nozzle (Res = wsdsp/v) and on the
ratio of the flow areas before and after the sudden
contraction. If the flow area before the sudden contrac-
(55) tion is much larger than the flow area after the contrac-
tion (flow area of the nozzle) rS,oN M 1 for laminar flow
and koN < 0.6 for turbulent flow [14]. Thus, assuming
(56) the safe side.
3. Available experimental measurements
A number of investigators carried out experimental
measurements on shell-and-tube heat exchangers with
segmental baffles and variable geometries. Tinker [ll]
examined 10 heat exchangers with different shell diame-
ters varying from 90 to 260 mm using oil and water as
shell-side fluid. Short [12] (B.E. Short, private commu-
nication) examined a heat exchanger with a shell diame-
(57) ter of 154 mm. Water and three different grades of oil
covering a wide range of viscosity were used as shell
156 ES. Gaddis, V. Gnielinski/ Chemical Engineering and Processing 36 (1997) 149-159

Table 1 This indicates that the above procedure cannot be

Range of examined geometrical and operating parameters applied safely in its present form for an unlimited range
Baffle spacing of the geometrical and operating parameters. As shown
Inside shell diameter in Table 1, the ratio of the baffle spacing to the inside
Baffle cut shell diameter (S/Oi) and the ratio of the baffle cut to
Inside shell diameter the inside shell diameter (HIDi) have been varied within
a wide range. A well designed shell-and-tube heat ex-
Pitch ratio changer has usually these ratios lying in a much nar-
rower range. It is considered to be a good practice,
Reynolds number 0.5<Re<5x lo4 when 0.2 I (S/Oi) I 1.0 and 0.15 5 (HIDi) I 0.4. For
Prandtl number 31Pr16x 103
some of the examined geometries, the bundle bypass
factor fB and the baffle leakage factor fL were as low as
fluid. The geometry of the heat exchanger was varied by
changing the tube diameter, tube pitch, baffle cut and 0.11 and 0.19 respectively. A very low bundle bypass
baffle spacing. The extensive research work on shell- factor and a very low baffle leakage factor will lead to
and-tube heat exchangers of the University of Delaware a reduced pressure drop but the shell side heat transfer
[5,10] was carried out on a small unit of 133 mm shell coefficient will correspondingly decrease drastically. In
diameter and a larger unit of a shell diameter varying Fig. 10, the experimental points with heat exchanger
from 212 to 232 mm. All important geometrical geometries having numerical values for the ratio (S/OJ
parameters as well as the viscosity of the oil, which was that lie outside the range 0.2 I (S/OJ < 1.0 or numeri-
cal values for the ratio (HIDi) that lie outside the range
used as the shell side fluid, were changed in a wide
range in this investigation. The measurements in the 0.15 I (HIDi) I 0.4 or having a bundle bypass factor
fB < 0.4 or a baffle leakage factor fL < 0.4 have been
above investigations [5, lo- 121 (B.E. Short, private
communication) were made with equilateral triangulars eliminated from the figure. Fig. 10 shows then that the
and staggered squares as tube layouts. No experimental rest of the experimental points has a deviation not
measurements are availabe for in-line square layouts. greater than about f 35%. The number of the experi-
Gas was not used as shell side fluid. The total number mental points in that figure with a deviation slightly
of the experimental points was about 1450. The range, higher than + 35% is very low.
in which the different geometrical and operating
parameters were varied, is shown in Table 1. 5. Validity range of the equations s 1.0
The tube pitch t is related to the transverse pitch sq
and the longitudinal pitch si for the examined tube The experimental points in Fig. 10 have geometrical
layouts by the following relationships: and operating parameters, which lie within the ranges
For an equilateral triangle: shown in Table 2. These ranges may thus be considered
as the validity ranges of the computational procedure
t = sq (62) presented in this work. The expected deviations be-
and for a staggered square: tween actual and calculated pressure drops will lie then

t=J(1 3
2
2
+s21. (63)
most probably within + 35%. Since measurements with
gases as shell side fluid are not available, this procedure
should be applied only for liquids.

4. Comparison between experimental measurements and 6. Nomenclature

theoretical predictions
transverse pitch ratio
The measured shell side pressure drop Apm was com- L3 flow area leading to bypass streams
pared with the shell side pressure drop Ap, calculated AE flow area defined by Eq. (5)
by the above procedure. The comparison as represented A J%E flow area defined by Eq. (44)
by the ratio (Ap,/ApJ is shown in Fig. 9 for all AF flow area in a window section
available experimental points as a function of the A FG cross-sectional area of a window section
Reynolds number Re. Fig. 9 shows that for a large including area of window tubes
number of the experimental points the deviation be- A FR cross-sectional area of window tubes
tween measurements and theoretical predictions lies A SG sum of all gap areas as defined by Eq.
within f 35%. However, about one third of the experi- (27)
mental points has a deviation higher than 5 35%. In A SMU sum of the gap areas between the tubes
extreme cases, the measured pressure drop is as low as and the holes in the baffles
one fifth or as high as four times the calculated values. A SRU gap area between a baffle and the shell
 ES. Gaddis, V. Gnielimki / Chemical Engineering and Processing 36 (1997) 149-159 157

o Delaware (large unit) [5]

q Delaware (small unit) [5,10]
a Short[lZ]
v Short[13]
0 Tinker [I 11

Fig. 9. Comparison between experimental measurements and theoretical predictions for all available experimental points.

longitudinal pitch ratio nRF number of tube rows in a window sec-

diagonal pitch ratio tion
outer tube diameter number of pairs of sealing strips
diameter of tube hole in a baffle number of segmental baffles
equivalent diameter of the flow area in a number of the major restrictions in the
window section path of the main flow in a cross flow
nozzle diameter section
diameter of the circle that touches the %VE number of the major restrictions in the
outer surface of the outermost tubes of path of the main flow in an end cross
a bundle in a cross-flow section flow section
inside shell diameter %VF number of major restrictions in a win-
baffle diameter dow section
shortest distance connecting neighbour- AP shell side pressure drop
ing tubes APT calculated shell side pressure drop
shortest distance between outermost APF pressure drop in a window
tubes and shell APF,I window pressure drop at Rel 100
arrangement factor APFJ window pressure drop at Re > 100
bundle bypass factor A~rn measured shell side pressure drop
baffle leakage factor 'PQ pressure drop in a cross flow section
viscosity factor 'pQ,O pressure drop in an ideal tube bank
baffle cut APQE pressure drop in an end cross flow sec-
sum of the shortest connecting dis- tion
tances e between neighbouring tubes APQE,O pressure drop in an end cross flow sec-
and the distances e, between the outer- tion in the abscence of bypass streams
most tubes and the shell measured in APS pressure drop in both inlet and outlet
the tube row on or near to the shell heat exchanger nozzles
diameter parallel to the edge of the Pr Prandtl number
baffle cut r dimensionless number defined by Eq.
number of tubes in a tube bank includ- (24)
ing blind tubes RB bypass flow area ratio defined by Eq.
total number of tubes in upper and (33)
lower window sections including blind RL leakage flow area ratio defined by Eq.
tubes (26)
number of tube rows in a cross flow &VI flow area ratio defined by Eq. (25)
section RS Ratio defined by Eq. (34)
158 ES. Gaddis, V. Gnielinski/Chemieal Engineering and Processing 36 (1997) 149-1.59

c
_ 0 Delaware (large unit) [5]
- 0 Delaware (small unit) [5,10]
- a Short[l2]
v Short[13]
_ 0 Tinker[ll]

Fig. 10. Comparison between experimental measurements and theoretical predictions for experimental points having geometrical and operational
parameters within the ranges given in Table 2.

Re Reynolds number in a cross flow section nozzle velocity

ReE Reynolds number in an end cross flow characteristic velocity in Eqs. (47) and
section (48) calculated from Eq. (55)
Res Reynolds number for the flow through a P constant in Eq. (31)
nozzle Y angle corresponding to baffle edge in de-
longitudinal pitch grees
transverse pitch pressure drop coefficient
baffle spacing pressure drop coefficient for laminar
bypass stream flow
baffle spacing in an end cross flow sec- nozzle pressure drop coefficient
tion pressure drop coefficient for turbulent
%I main stream flow
sl. leakage stream P fluid density
t tube pitch Y dynamic viscosity
u.F wetted perimeter for a window section VW dynamic viscosity at wall temperature
V fluid volumetric flow rate in the heat ex-
changer shell Additional subscripts
f for in-line tube layout
velocity defined by Eq. (4)
velocity defined by Eq. (45) IN for inlet nozzle
1 for laminar flow
velocity defined by Eq. (56)
ON for 0utIet nozzle
t for turbulent flow
Validity range of the equations V for staggered tube layout
Baffle spacing 0.25 g $1.0
Inside shell diameter 0
Baffle cut References
0.151 g 10.4
Inside shell diameter 0
Bypass flow area ratio R,10.5 [l] D.A. Donohue, Heat transfer and pressure drop in heat ex-
Pitch ratio changers, Ind. Eng. Chem., 41 (1949) 2499-2511.
[2] D.Q. Kern, Process Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill, New York,
Inside shell diameter
1950.
Outer tube diameter [3] T. Tinker, Shell-side characteristics of shell and tube heat ex-
Bundle bypass factor &0.4 changers, Parts I, II, III, General Discussion on Heat Transfer,
Baffle leakage factor f&O.4 Inst. Mech. Eng., London, 1951, pp. 97-116.
Reynolds number 1<Re<105 [4] T. Tinker, Shell-side characteristics of shell and tube heat ex-
Prandtl number 1 <Pr<103 changers: a simplified rating system for commercial heat ex-
changers, Trans. ASME, 80 (1958) 36-52.
 ES. Gaddis, V. Gnielinski/ Chemical Engineering and Processing 36 (1997) 149-159
[5] K.J. Bell, Final Report of the Cooperative Research Program on
Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers, University of Delaware, Engi-
neering Experimental Station, Bulletin No. 5, 1963.
[6] J.W. Palen and J. Taborek, Solution of shell side flow pressure
drop and heat transfer by stream analysis method, Chem. Eng.
Progr. Symp. Series, 65 (1969) 53-63.
[7] ES. Gaddis and V. Gnielinski, Druckverlust in querdurch-
striimten Rohrbiindeln, ut verfahrenstechnik, 17 (1983) 410-418.
[S] ES. Gaddis and V. Gnielinski, Pressure drop in cross flow across
tube bundles, ht. Chem. Eng., 25 (1985) 1-15.
[9] J. Taborek, Shell-and-tube heat exchangers: single-phase-flow,
Section 3.3, Heat Exchanger Design Handbook, Hemisphere,
1983.
[lo] O.P. Bergelin, M.D. Leighton, W.L. Lafferty Jr. and R.L. Pig-
ford, Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop during Viscous and Turbu-
lent Flow Across Baffled and Unbafjed Tube Banks, University of
159
Delaware, Engineering Experimental Station, Bulletin No. 4,
1958.
[Ill T. Tinker, Shell Side Heat Transfer Characteristics of Segmen-
tally Baffled Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers, Preprint of paper
presented at the Annual Meeting, American Society of Mechan-
ical Engineers, 1947.
[12] B.E. Short, Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop in Heat Exchang-
ers, The University of Texas, Publication No. 4324, 1943.
[14] W. Kast, VDI-Warmeatlas, Section Lc, 7th edn., VDI-Verlag,
Frankfurt, 1994.
[15] E.S. Gaddis, VDI- Wtirmeatlas, Section Ll, 4th edn., VDI-Verlag,
Frankfurt, 1984 and the corresponding section in the following
editions.
1161 ES. Gaddis, VDZ Heat Atlas, Section Lm, 1st English edn.,
VDI-Verlag, Frankfurt, 1992 (translation of the 6th german edition
(1991)) and the corresponding section in the following editions.