Heat Transfer

Selecting Baffles for

Shell-and-Tube
Heat Exchangers
Salem Bouhairie
Heat Transfer Research, Inc.

Baffles play a crucial role in regulating shellside fluid

flow and improving heat transfer between shellside
and tubeside process fluids. Heres how to choose the
correct baffle to meet process requirements.

he first step in specifying a shell-and-tube heat

exchanger is selecting the right shell, which was
discussed in a previous CEP article (1). The next step
is determining the most effective baffle arrangement.
Shell-and-tube heat exchangers employ baffles to transport heat to or from tubeside process fluids by directing the
shellside fluid flow. The increased structural support that
baffles provide is integral to tube stability, as they minimize
both tube sagging due to structural weight and vibration due
to cyclic flow forces. However, baffles improve heat transfer
at the expense of increased total pressure drop.
Baffles come in a range of shapes and sizes, the most
common of which is the segmental baffle. The Tubular
Exchanger Manufacturers Association, Inc. (TEMA) provides
design guidelines for segmental baffles. Other, non-TEMAtype baffles include helical, disc-and-donut, and grid baffles.
This article summarizes the performance characteristics of
the different types of baffles and offers guidance on choosing
effective baffles for shell-and-tube heat exchanger design.

Segmental baffle configurations

Segmental baffles, often referred to simply as TEMA
baffles, are circular plates with one or more segments
removed to allow the shellside fluid to flow through an open
area, or window. To prevent bundle flow bypass, sealing
strips may be placed in notches along the edges of segmental
baffles. Baffles may also have holes through which steel
tie-rods can pass to provide increased structural support.
TEMA baffles can be single- or multi-segmental, or tube
support plates. Tube support plates are used in the no-tubesin-window (NTIW) design to ensure that all baffles support
every tube, eliminating tubes with long unsupported spans.
Copyright 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

Figure 1 shows the most common types of TEMA baffles.

Baffle spacing, cut, and orientation are key characteristics of TEMA baffle designs.
Single-segmental baffles are used in many industrial heat
exchangers because of their suitability for a wide range of
applications. They operate well in single-phase processes,
and crossflow heat transfer (across the tubes) is greater than
the longitudinal heat transfer (through the windows). In
addition, they are relatively easy to fabricate, so they are less
expensive than other types of baffles.
However, single-segmental baffles may not be effective with very viscous fluids, where improperly mixed flow,
bypass, and leakage streams reduce the efficiency of heat
transfer. Furthermore, this configuration generates an undesir-

Single-Segmental
Highest Pressure Drop, PS

Double-Segmental
PD 0.33PS 0.5PS
Support Plate

Triple-Segmental
PT 0.25PS 0.33PS

Baffle

No-Tubes-In-Window
Wide Spacing

p Figure 1. In exchangers with TEMA baffle types, smaller windows

result in higher pressure drops.

CEP February 2012 www.aiche.org/cep

27

Heat Transfer

Center Baffle

Wing Baffles

p Figure 2. The window flow areas around the center and

wing baffles in a double-segmental baffle arrangement
should be roughly equal.

Center Baffle
(First Baffle Group)

Baffle spacing
Baffle spacing is the longitudinal distance between baffles. It controls the amount of effective heat transfer derived
from the pressure drop within each compartment and affects
www.aiche.org/cep February 2012 CEP

Wing Baffles
(Third Baffle Group)

p Figure 3. In exchangers with triple-segmental baffles, larger window areas are

responsible for lower total pressure drops.

ably high pressure drop, especially with high-velocity flows.

Double-segmental baffles split the flow so that it passes
around center baffles and between wing baffles (Figure 2). In
general, the center and wing baffles overlap by two to four
tube rows. The window flow area outside the center baffle
should generally equal the window flow area between the
wing baffles. Pressure drop is one-third to one-half that in a
shell with single-segmental baffles. However, this results in
lower crossflow heat transfer 6090% of the heat transfer
with single-segmental baffles at the same spacing and cut
and the same total flowrate.
Triple-segmental baffles have lower longitudinal-flow
and crossflow velocities (whereas double-segmental baffles
have only lower crossflow velocities) for a given baffle spacing. Triple-segmental baffles produce roughly one-fourth to
one-third the pressure drop of single-segmental baffles in a
comparably sized unit, and have heat-transfer rates that are as
much as one-half lower (2). Triple-segmental baffles typically
consist of three distinct baffle groups that create the equivalent of two double-segmental streams in parallel (Figure 3).
No-tubes-in-window (NTIW) configurations provide support for all of the tubes to mitigate tube vibration in the window zone. Tube support plates are placed between widely
spaced baffles. Because tubes cannot occupy the window
spaces, larger shells are required to accommodate a specified
tube count; this can be expensive for units operating at high
shellside pressures. The lack of tubes in the window reduces
pressure drop, while added support plates enhance crossflow.
This results in better conversion of pressure drop to heat
transfer than in exchangers with single-segmental baffles.
The relative reduction in pressure drop depends on baffle
cut, and the relative increase in heat transfer depends on the
number of support plates added.

28

Support Plates
(Second Baffle Group)

the potential for flow-induced vibration. The baffle spacing should be set such that the free-flow areas through the
windows and across the tube bank are roughly equal.
TEMA standards specify that the minimum spacing
between segmental baffles should be the larger of one-fifth
of the shell inside diameter or 51 mm (3). Spacing that is
too small will result in higher pressure drop and poor bundle
flow penetration i.e., it increases the axial flow inertia
through the outer leakage areas between the baffle and shell.
Small baffle spacing also makes it difficult to mechanically
clean the outsides of the tubes.
Maximum spacing between segmental baffles (with
tubes in window) should equal one-half the maximum
unsupported span length. To enhance end-zone flow control
and distribution, the baffles near the shell inlet and outlet
should be located as close as practical to the shell nozzle.
The distance between the first and second baffles should not
be less than the central baffle spacing, as shellside flow tends
to accelerate in the end zones.
The optimum ratio of baffle spacing to shell inside diameter that results in the highest conversion of pressure drop to
heat transfer is generally between 0.3 and 0.6 (4).

Baffle cut
Baffle cut is the ratio of the baffle window height to the
shell inside diameter. If the baffle cut is too small, the flow
will jet through the window area and flow unevenly through
the baffle compartment (Figure 4, left). If the baffle cut is
too large, the flow will short-cut close to the baffle edge and
avoid cross-mixing within the baffle compartment (Figure
4, right). A baffle cut that is either too large or too small can
increase the potential for fouling in the shell.
In both cases, recirculation zones of poorly mixed flow
cause thermal maldistribution that reduces heat transfer. To
divert as much heat-carrying flow across the tube bundle as
possible, adjacent baffles should overlap by at least one tube
row. This requires a baffle cut that is less than one-half of the
shell inside diameter.
Copyright 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

Nozzle Axis

p Figure 4. If the baffle cut is too small (left) or too large (right), fouling

can occur in the shaded areas due to uneven flow distribution.

Parallel-Cut
Baffle

Perpendicular-Cut
Baffle

Inclined-Cut
Baffle

p Figure 6. Baffle orientation is referenced with respect to the nozzle

axis, and can be parallel, perpendicular, or inclined.
12 m/s
(39.4 ft/s)

d
Window
hw
Baffle Cut = hw/d

p Figure 5. The optimum baffle cut is 25% of the shell inside diameter.

Optimum baffle cuts are typically 25% of the shell

inside diameter (Figure 5). However, for a single-segmental
baffle configuration with low-pressure gas flows, a 4045%
baffle cut is common to limit pressure drop.
For NTIW configurations, a 15% baffle cut is most common. The ratio of the window velocity to crossflow velocity
should be less than 3:1 for effective flow distribution.

Baffle orientation
The orientation of TEMA baffles is particularly
important for horizontal shell-and-tube heat exchangers,
especially near the inlet and outlet nozzles. Baffle cuts for
segmental baffles may be parallel or perpendicular to the
nozzle axis, or inclined, as shown in Figure 6. The best
baffle orientation depends on the baffle and shell type.
Single-segmental baffles. For single-phase service,
single-segmental baffles with a perpendicular baffle-cut
orientation in an E- or J-shell are preferred to improve flow
distribution in the inlet and outlet regions. With vertical
inlet or outlet nozzles, parallel-cut baffles are preferred if
the shellside process fluid condenses and needs a means of
drainage. Parallel-cut baffles should also be used when the
shellside fluid has the potential for particulate fouling, and in
multipass F-, G-, or H-type shells to facilitate flow distribution. (For an introduction to shell types, see Ref. 1.) However, parallel-cut baffles have the potential for significant
flow and temperature maldistribution in the end zones, which
can induce local tube vibration and reduce the effective heatCopyright 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

Parallel

Perpendicular

p Figure 7. Although preferred for certain shellside fluids, parallel-cut

single-segmental baffles can cause uneven flow in the inlet and outlet
regions.

transfer rate in the inlet and outlet baffle spaces. Figure 7,

obtained via computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling,
illustrates this phenomenon.
Double-segmental baffles. To distribute flow effectively
in the inlet region with double-segmental baffles, a center
baffle with a parallel-cut orientation is generally selected as
the first baffle. The parallel baffle cut reduces the accumulation of deposits from high-fouling shellside fluids. It is good
practice to locate the first baffle under the nozzle, where
high flowrates can cause tube vibration. The first baffle is
often shaped like a T to provide intermediate tube support
where bundle entrance velocities have high kinetic energy
(Figure 8, top).
If perpendicular-cut double-segmental baffles are used
with single inlet and outlet nozzles, thermally ineffective
areas will form in the end zones (Figure 8, middle). Better
end-zone distribution can be achieved with two inlet and
two outlet nozzles, plus wing baffles in the end zones to
maintain flow symmetry upon entry and exit (Figure 8,
CEP February 2012 www.aiche.org/cep

29

Heat Transfer

to benefit from added seal strips to block

bypass, as the strips only increase pressure
drop.
Helical baffles can be continuous spiral
assemblies. However, these are not common
Intermediate Vibration Support
because they are difficult (and expensive) to
Perpendicular Cut (End View)
fabricate.
Instead, most helical-baffled heat
exchangers use baffles that are inclined at an
angle from a transverse plane perpendicular
Ineffective Region
to the shell axis (Figures 9 and 10). These
quadrant baffles (each of which occupies
Perpendicular Cut (End View)
one-fourth of the shell cross-section) touch
each other at crossover points that define a
cross-fraction. The baffle cross-fraction is
the ratio of the distance from the center of
the shell to the crossover point divided by
p Figure 8. Double-segmental baffle configurations should use a T-shaped first plate with a the shell radius (Figure 10).
Helical baffles can cross near their
parallel-cut orientation. Perpendicular-cut orientation should be used only with double inlet
midpoint (a cross-fraction of 50%), tip-toand outlet nozzles.
tip (a cross-fraction of 100%), or at a point
bottom). In effect, the performance of perpendicular-cut
within this range. Depending on user and fabricator preferdouble-segmental baffles depends on the number
ences, the cross-fraction selected may range from 20% to
of nozzles.
100%. Reducing the cross-fraction (increasing the overlap)
Triple-segmental baffles. The triple-segmental baffle
enhances tube support and protects against vibration, but at
set shown in Figure 3 has five different components and is
the expense of increased pressure drop. In general, helicalone of several possible arrangements. Other designs, which
are not discussed here, have six pieces or three pieces. The
permutations complicate the determination of baffle orientation, particularly in the inlet and outlet zones. Orientation of
triple-segemental baffles has not been studied extensively,
and general guidelines have not been developed.
Parallel Cut (End View)

T-Baffle (End View)

Non-TEMA baffle types

Most non-TEMA-type baffles usually produce lower
pressure drops and have better flow and heat-transfer distributions. The improvements stem from the baffles generating
crossflow through swirling, maximizing longitudinal flow,
or increasing symmetrical flow and heat-transfer distribution. Helical, disc-and-donut, and grid baffles are the most
common non-TEMA-type baffles.

p Figure 9. Helical baffles promote swirling, which helps to reduce

bypass and stagnant flow.

Helical baffles
Helical baffles promote swirling flow, which helps to
alleviate bypass and stagnant flow areas that can occur with
conventional segmental baffles. They are effective for lowto high-viscosity fluids, and they are commonly used in
oil-refinery and refrigeration applications. Heat exchangers
with helical baffles may experience less shellside fouling
than exchangers with segmental baffles. Helical baffles are
subject to bundle-to-shell bypass at very high mass flowrates. Unlike segmental baffles, helical baffles do not seem
30

www.aiche.org/cep February 2012 CEP

rco

Baffle Crossover
Points
C

S
A

(End View)

(Elevation View)

Cross-fraction = rco/r
r = shell radius
rco = radial distance from shell axis to baffle crossover point
S= baffle angle relative to transverse plane through shell

p Figure 10. Helical quadrant baffles touch at crossover points, which

define the cross-fraction.

Copyright 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

Spiral Crossflow

Bypass Flow
Outside Tube Bundle
Radially Expanding
Crossflow around
Disc Baffle

Longitudinal Flow
within Tube Bundle

Y
X

p Figure 12. Disc-and-donut baffles distribute flow in a radially

Flow Angle

Radially Contracting
Crossflow through
Donut Baffle

symmetric manner.
Z

Baffle Angle

p Figure 11. The flow through a helical-baffled exchanger includes

spiral crossflow, longitudinal flow, and bypass flow.

baffled exchangers have less potential for tube vibration

because the tubes are well supported by the quadrant baffles.
Helical baffles come in single- or double-helix configurations. Many industrial applications use 12-deg. to 15-deg.
angled baffles. Larger baffle angles result in lower pressure
drop and increased longitudinal flow relative to crossflow.
Some studies have reported that baffle angles of 25 deg.
to 40 deg. produce optimal conversion of pressure drop to
heat transfer (5).
The quadrant baffles induce flow that combines spiral
crossflow, longitudinal flow, and bypass flow (Figure 11).
In reality, this flow is far from an ideal helix it undergoes
fewer revolutions than the number of baffle revolutions
through the length of the exchanger. The design of these
baffles requires knowledge of both the baffle angle and the
actual flow angle (i.e., the direction of the resulting vector
of the three principal flow velocity components (x, y, and z,
or axial, radial, and tangential), relative to a plane transverse to the exchanger axis).

Disc-and-donut baffles
Disc-and-donut baffles generate radially symmetric flow
in both the crossflow and longitudinal flow directions the
flow expands around the disc baffle and contracts through
the donut baffle (Figure 12). A step change in both pressure
drop and temperature occurs between consecutive pairs of
disc baffles and donut baffles.
The main thermally effective crossflow stream can
occupy up to 80% of a baffle compartment, minimizing the
bypass flow around the outer tubes (6). The driving forces
for bypass and leakage streams in an exchanger with discCopyright 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

and-donut baffles are smaller than those in exchangers with

segmental baffles.
Disc-and-donut baffles are often installed in NTIW
arrangements. Radial tube layouts are preferred over conventional triangular or square layouts, because the resulting radial flow distribution produces uniform heat transfer
throughout the tube bundle cross-section.
Disc-and-donut baffles are most effective in shellside
vapor environments, and are commonly selected for gas-gas
applications where vibration can be a problem.

Grid baffles
Grid baffles are metal lattices that generate primarily
longitudinal flow. They produce low pressure drops, which
results in high heat-transfer-to-pressure-drop ratios and
protects against tube vibration. In addition, shellside flow
distribution is uniform, which is particularly important for
shellside vaporization because it eliminates vapor pockets
that can cause pitting of tubes and baffles (7).
The most common generic grid baffle designs are rodtype baffles and strip baffles. Each grid type has a characteristic baffle flow-contraction ratio, which is defined as the
free flow area through the baffle divided by the free flow
area through the bundle between baffles. This parameter
ranges from zero to one, with practical values of about 0.2
for high contraction and 0.7 for low contraction. The grid
baffles act as strainers on the bundle free-flow area, locally
contracting and accelerating the heat-carrying flow longitudinally along the tubes. The higher the contraction (i.e., the
lower the contraction ratio), the higher the pressure drop.
An exchanger design with a low contraction ratio, therefore,
requires more pumping power than one with a high contraction ratio.
Rod-type baffles are used in such applications as overhead condensers, gas coolers and heaters, feed and effluent
exchangers, and kettle reboilers. They consist of rods laid
out in a grid pattern that provide a supporting structure for
the heat exchanger tubes and basic structural rigidity. The
CEP February 2012 www.aiche.org/cep

31

Heat Transfer

Y
X

Y
Z

p Figure 13. Rod-type baffles support the tubes and provide structural

p Figure 15. Strip baffles have lower baffle contraction ratios and

rigidity.

higher pressure drops than rod-type baffles.

Segmental Baffle

2 Rod-Type Baffles per Baffle Space

p Figure 14. Rod-type baffles may be combined with segmental

baffles for better tube support.

longitudinal flow friction effectively generates heat transfer,

especially in exchangers with long tubes.
Rod-type baffles are made by welding round rods to
a supporting ring (Figure 13), which also serves as a seal
to prevent leakage flows. The rods are often located after
every second tube row, with consecutive baffles assembled
at 90-deg. angles. Thus, they are generally limited to square
tube layouts.
It is possible to corrugate the rods to support a triangular
tube layout (known as a triangular-grid baffle). Triangulargrid baffles permit higher tube densities, produce higher
turbulence, and generate higher heat transfer. However,
mechanical cleaning of the tubes is more difficult due to limited access lanes. Therefore, triangular layouts are appropriate for shellside services that use chemical cleaning.
In the bundle shown in Figure 13, four longitudinal
tie bars are placed around the supporting ring to hold the
baffles in place and maintain the proper baffle spacing.
Rods with as small a diameter as possible are preferred, to
permit a higher tube density and hence higher heat-transfer
rate. The baffle contraction ratio for rod-type baffles is
about 0.550.65 (7).
Some industrial applications benefit from combining rod-type baffles with segmental baffles. Figure 14
shows two rod-type baffles fitted within the space between
single-segmental baffles. This baffle combination provides
increased tube support for vibration protection, without
32

www.aiche.org/cep

February 2012

CEP

increasing pressure drop significantly.

Strip baffles (Figure 15) are grid baffles formed from
flat strips that are placed in a crisscross pattern, with a strip
after every tube row in both directions. The overall structure
is welded to a ring for rigidity and ease of assembly. The
strips are notched to lock the tubes in place.
Figure 15 shows square-layout strip baffles. Strip
baffles can also accommodate 30-deg. triangular layouts.
For a given tube pitch ratio (i.e., the spacing between tubes
divided by the tube outside diameter), 30-deg. layouts have
the highest critical velocities prior to fluidelastic instability,
so tube vibration potential is minimized.
With a baffle contraction ratio of approximately
0.20.25, strip baffles produce higher pressure drops per
baffle than rod-type baffles (7).

Closing thoughts
Baffling is the most crucial shellside consideration
in shell-and-tube heat exchanger design, because baffles
regulate shellside fluid flow and improve heat transfer while
offering significant tube support. Although TEMA baffles
are easier to fabricate, they usually have higher pressure
drops than non-TEMA-type baffles. It is equally important
to consider how baffle selection affects other shellside
parameters, such as tube pitch ratio, tube layout pattern,
tube size, shell type, and shell diameter. A basic understanding of the various baffle types and their advantages and
disadvantages (Table 1) is essential to choosing an effective
CEP
baffle configuration.
SAlEM BouHAiriE is a research engineer at Heat Transfer Research, Inc.
(HTRI) (Email: sab@HTRI.net), where he conducts computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) simulations and physical experiments for projects and
contracts. He teaches workshops on heat exchanger vibration analysis
and conducts webinars on heat exchanger design. Prior to joining HTRI,
he worked at Northwest Hydraulic Consultants in Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada, where he conducted hydraulic structure modeling investigations and river hydrology assessments. He has delivered presentations
on his work in Canada, the U.S., Brazil, Thailand, and Korea, and has
published research in the Journal of Fluid Mechanics and the Journal of
Hydro-environment Research. Bouhairie earned his BEng, MEng, and
PhD in civil engineering from McGill Univ. in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Copyright 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

Table 1. Each baffle type has advantages and disadvantages that make it suitable for different applications.
Baffle Type

TEMA-Type Baffles

Single-Segmental

Advantages

Disadvantages/Limitations

Highest potential heat-transfer rates

Highest potential pressure drop

Easiest to fabricate

Cannot be used for very viscous fluids

Least expensive
Double-Segmental

Lower pressure drop than with single-segmental

baffles

Lower heat-transfer rates than with singlesegmental baffles

Triple-Segmental

Lower pressure drop than with double-segmental

baffles

Lower heat-transfer rates than with doublesegmental baffles

No-Tubes-in-Window
Configuration

All tubes are supported, eliminating tube vibration

Requires a smaller tube bundle and/or larger

shell; a larger shell makes this configuration more
expensive

Helical

Less shellside fouling

Higher conversion of pressure drop to shellside

heat transfer than single-segmental baffles
Moderate heat-transfer rates and pressure drops
Minimizes or eliminates areas of stagnant flow
Minimizes or eliminates tube vibration

Disc-and-Donut

Radially symmetric flow distribution

Non-TEMA-Type Baffles

Significant bundle-to-shell bypass at high mass

flowrates
More expensive than traditional double-segmental
baffles

Minimizes bypass flow

Same pressure drop as with double-segmental
baffles, with better heat transfer
Well suited for gas-gas applications

Grid

Difficult fabrication, design methods are not

standardized

Preferred radial tube layout requires a lesscommon fabrication method than triangular and
square layouts
In a radial tube layout, the angular gaps between
tubes near the shell are larger than those between
tubes near the center; this requires the addition of
an improvised, nonradial (e.g., triangular or rotated
square) layout between the radial tube rows

Provides tube support

Uniform flow distribution

Relatively low heat-transfer rates, unless the tubes

are long

Relatively low pressure drops

Specific tube layouts are required

High conversion ratio of pressure drop to heat

transfer

Literature Cited
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Lestina, T. G., Selecting a Heat Exchanger Shell, Chem. Eng.

Progress, 107 (6), pp. 3438 (June 2011).
Green, D. W., and R. H. Perry, Heat-Transfer Equipment in
Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook, 8th ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY (2008).
Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association, Standards
of the Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association, 9th ed.,
TEMA, New York, NY (2007).
Mukerjee, R., Dont Let Baffling Baffle You, Chem. Eng.
Progress, 92 (4), pp. 7279 (Apr. 1996).
Lutcha, J., and J. Nemcansky, Performance Improvement of
Tubular Heat Exchangers by Helical Baffles, Trans. IChemE.,
68 (Part A), pp. 263270 (1990).
Taborek, J., Pressure Drop to Heat Transfer Conversion in
Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchangers with Disk-and-Donut Baffles,
AIChE Spring Meeting, New Orleans, LA (2004).
Taborek, J., Longitudinal Flow in Tube Bundles with Grid
Baffles, in Heat Exchanger Design Handbook Part 3, Thermal and Hydraulic Design of Heat Exchangers, Section 3.3.12,
Begell House, New York, NY (1998).

Copyright 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)

Further Reading
Bell, K. J., and A. C. Mueller, Wolverine Engineering Data Book
II, available at www.wlv.com/products/databook/databook.pdf,
Wolverine Tube, Inc., Decatur, AL (2001).
Hewitt, G. F., et al., Process Heat Transfer, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL (1994).
Hewitt, G. F., ed., Heat Exchanger Design Handbook, Begell
House, New York, NY (1998).
Kakac, S., and H. Liu, Heat Exchangers: Selection, Rating, and
Thermal Design, 2nd ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (2002).
Kern, D., Process Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY
(1950).
Rohsenow, W., et al., Handbook of Heat Transfer, 3rd ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (1998).
Serth, R. W., Process Heat Transfer: Principles and Applications,
Elsevier, New York, NY (2007).
Thome, J. R., Wolverine Engineering Data Book III, available at
www.wlv.com/products/databook/db3/DataBookIII.pdf, Wolverine Tube, Inc., Decatur, AL (20042010).
Webb, R., Principles of Enhanced Heat Transfer, 2nd ed., John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ (2005).

CEP

February 2012

www.aiche.org/cep

33