See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229034754

A computer program for designing of

shell-and-tube heat exchangers

Article in Applied Thermal Engineering · March 2004

DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2003.12.014

CITATIONS READS

36 636

3 authors, including:

Yusuf Ali Kara

Bursa Teknik Üniversitesi
23 PUBLICATIONS 156 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

PCM-Trombe wall sponsored by TUBITAK View project

Heat exchangers supported by Ataturk University View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yusuf Ali Kara on 05 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Applied Thermal Engineering 24 (2004) 1797–1805
www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

A computer program for designing of shell-and-tube

heat exchangers
€
Yusuf Ali Kara *, Ozbilen G€
uraras
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Atat€
urk, 25240 Erzurum, Turkey
Received 24 August 2003; accepted 23 December 2003
Available online 4 February 2004

Abstract
In a computer-based design, many thousands of alternative exchanger configurations may be examined.
Computer codes for design are organized to vary systematically the exchanger parameters such as, shell
diameter, baffle spacing, number of tube-side pass to identify configurations that satisfy the specified heat
transfer and pressure drops. A computer-based design model was made for preliminary design of shell-and-
tube heat exchangers with single-phase fluid flow both on shell and tube side. The program covers seg-
mentally baffled U-tube, and fixed tube sheet heat exchangers one-pass and two-pass for tube-side flow. The
program determines the overall dimensions of the shell, the tube bundle, and optimum heat transfer surface
area required to meet the specified heat transfer duty by calculating minimum or allowable shell-side
pressure drop.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Heat exchanger; Shell-and-tube; Sizing; Single-phase flow

1. Introduction

The design of a new heat exchanger (HE) is referred to as the sizing problem. In a broad sense,
it means the determination of exchanger construction type, flow arrangement, tube and shell
material, and physical size of an exchanger to meet the specified heat transfer and pressure drop.
This sizing problem is also referred to as the design problem. Inputs to the sizing problem are:
flow rates, inlet temperatures and one outlet temperature at least, and heat transfer rate.

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-442-231-4845; fax: +90-442-236-0957.
E-mail address: ykara@atauni.edu.tr (Y. Ali Kara).

1359-4311/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2003.12.014
1798 Y. Ali Kara, Ö. G€uraras / Applied Thermal Engineering 24 (2004) 1797–1805

Nomenclature

A area (m2 )
C heat capacity (W/K)
cp specific heat (J/kg K)
d tube diameter (m)
F correction factor for multi-pass and crossflow heat exchanger
h convective heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K)
k thermal conductivity (W/m K)
L length (m)
m_ mass flow rate (kg/s)
N number
Q heat rate (W)
R thermal resistance
T temperature (°C)
Pt tube pitch
U overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K)
DP pressure drop (Pa)
DT temperature difference (°C)
Subscripts
b baffle
c cold
cb central baffle
cf counter flow
ex exchanger
f fouling
h hot
i inlet, inner
ib inlet baffle
lm logarithmic mean
m mean
o outlet, outer
s shell
t tube
w wall

Kern [1] provided a simple method for calculating shell-side pressure drop and heat transfer
coefficient. However, this method is restricted to a fixed baffle cut (25%) and cannot adequately
account for baffle-to-shell and tube-to-baffle leakage. Kern method is not applicable in laminar
flow region where shell-side Reynolds number is less than 2000. Although the Kern equation is
not particularly accurate, it does allow a very simple and rapid calculation of shell-side heat
transfer coefficient and pressure drop to be carried out.
 Y. Ali Kara, Ö. G€uraras / Applied Thermal Engineering 24 (2004) 1797–1805 1799

The concept of considering the various streams through the exchanger was originally proposed
by Tinker [2]. He suggested a schematic flow pattern, which divided the shell-side flow into a
number of individual streams. TinkerÕs model has been the basis of ‘‘stream analysis method’’,
which utilizes a rigorous reiterative approach and is particularly suitable for computer calcula-
tions rather than hand calculation.
TinkerÕs original analysis was quite complex and hard to understand. After an extensive series
of experiments was carried out, a new method has emerged, commonly described as the Bell–
Delaware method [3]. The Delaware method uses the principles of TinkerÕs model but more
suitable for hand calculation. In this method, correction factors for baffle leakage effects, etc., are
introduced based on extensive experimental data. This method is widely used and most recom-
mended.
In manual design of an exchanger, the thermal design engineer cannot avoid the trial and error
routine. Accordingly there is little interest in hand calculation method. For manual design,
Saunders [4] proposed very practical method that simple design factors are provided which enable
the method proposed by Bell to be used rapidly for a fixed set of geometrical parameters.
In BellÕs work, the correction factors for heat transfer and pressure drop correlations are given
in graphic form. For computer applications, Taborek [5] gives the correlations for all correction
factors involving Bell methods. Wills and Johnston [6] have developed the stream analysis method
that is viable for hand calculation. Hewitt provides a more readily accessible version of Wills and
Johnston method [7].
Reppich and Zagermann [8] offers a computer-based design model to determine the optimum
dimensions of segmentally baffled shell-and-tube heat exchangers by calculating optimum shell-
side and tube-side pressure drops from the equations provided in his work. The six optimized
dimensional parameters are number of tubes, tube length, shell diameter, number of baffles, baffle
cut, and baffle spacing. The proposed model carries out also cost analysis.
Gaddis [9] presented a new procedure for calculating shell-side pressure drop, which is based
principally on Delaware method. However, instead of using diagrams––as in the Delaware
method––to calculate the pressure drop in tube bank, the present authors use equations previously
presented in [10,11].
Li and Kottke have carried out series of experimental work on shell-and-tube heat exchangers
to analysis shell-side heat transfer coefficient (HTC) and pressure loss. They employed a particular
mass transfer measuring technique based on absorption, chemical and color giving reaction in
their researches to obtain local shell-side HTC by applying the extended Lewis analogy between
heat and mass transfer to mass transfer coefficient. They studied local shell-side HTC in shell-and-
tube heat exchangers with disc-and-doughnut baffles and segmental baffles [12–14]. They also
investigated effect of leakage and baffle spacing on pressure drop and HTC in [15] and [16]
respectively.
Although design may be carried out by hand calculation, computer programs are widely
employed anymore. These are often proprietary codes produced by design industry, large pro-
cessing companies, and international research organizations such as Heat Transfer and Fluid
Flow Service (HTFS) or Heat Transfer Research Inc. (HTRI) or Tubular Exchanger Manufac-
turers Association (TEMA). Unfortunately, it is hard to employ them as a heat exchanger
subroutine of a computer simulation for any thermal system plant that one of its equipment is
heat exchanger. Researchers usually tend to make a mathematical model and a computer
1800 Y. Ali Kara, Ö. G€uraras / Applied Thermal Engineering 24 (2004) 1797–1805

simulation of thermal systems for their theoretical analysis and when a heat exchanger exists in
the system, a subroutine will be needed to solve thermo-hydraulic performance of heat exchanger.
Our program can be easily employed as a subroutine to any simulation program for preliminary
design purposes.

2. Model description

The number of tubes that can be placed within a shell depends on tube layout, tube outer
diameter, pitch size, number of passes, and shell diameter. These design parameters have been
standardized and given as tabulated form that usually called ‘‘tube counts’’. Many tube count
tables are available in open literature [4,17,18]. In this work we use tube counts given by Saunders
[4]. He presented a tube counts table for fixed tube sheet, U-tube and split backing ring floating
type exchangers, having the 24-shell diameter from 203 to 3048 mm and 13 tube configurations. In
these tube count tables both full count, which gives the maximum number of tubes that can be
accommodated under the conditions specified, and reduced count, due to an internally fitted
impingement baffles are given for every case.
Because tube counts are used in this study, from the view point of quantitative analysis, we will
consider that the selection of exchanger construction type, flow arrangement, tube layout and
materials have already been completed, and the sizing problem is then reduced to determine the
length of HE, heat transfer surface area, baffle sizing, and baffle number. Now, specification of a
shell-and-tube HE that meets the process requirements can be achieved by successive iteration.
This will constitute our design method. Although this can be carried out by hand calculation, a
computer program is made for this purpose. Because there are many alternative designs that
would satisfy a particular duty, it is necessary to optimize the design either in terms of capital cost
or running cost. Capital cost involves minimization of heat transfer surface area to meet heat
transfer service while running cost involves with minimum pressure drops. Our computer program
considers minimum or allowable shell-side pressure drop as constraining criteria for optimum
design. The program examines a series of exchangers from tube counts and chooses the optimal
design on the basis of constraining criteria, namely running cost.
Calculations for heat transfer and pressure loss for fluid flowing inside tubes is relatively simple.
On the other hand, because of the complex flow conditions, the associated heat transfer rate and
pressure loss within the shell of the exchanger are not straightforward. The calculation procedures
have evolved over the years as discussed in the introduction. In order to calculate shell-side heat
transfer coefficient and pressure drop, the model given by Taborek [5] based on the Bell–Delaware
method is employed. Taborek version of Delaware method is more suitable for computer-
based applications than BellÕs original work since correlations for the correction factors are
provided.
Kakacß and Liu [18] gives a detailed review for tube-side heat transfer coefficient for both
laminar and forced convection flow conditions. Considering his recommendations, to calculate
tube-side heat transfer coefficient for laminar flow Schl€ under correlation is used and, Gnielinski
equation is used for transition flow in the range of 2300 < Re < 104 and, Petukov–Kirillov cor-
relation is employed for turbulent flow in the range of 104 < Re < 5
106 [18].
 Y. Ali Kara, Ö. G€uraras / Applied Thermal Engineering 24 (2004) 1797–1805 1801

The governing equations for design problem are usually given as follows:
Heat rate
Q ¼ Ch ðThi  Tho Þ ¼ Cc ðTco  Tci Þ ð1Þ
where heat capacity rate for hot or cold fluid
C ¼ mc
_ p ð2Þ
Log mean temperature difference for pure counter flow
ðThi  Tho Þ  ðTho  Tci Þ
DTlm;cf ¼ ð3Þ
ln½ðThi  Tco Þ=ðTho  Tci Þ
The effective mean temperature difference for crossflow
DTm ¼ F DTlm;cf ð4Þ
where F is correction factor for multi-pass and crossflow heat exchanger and given for two-pass
shell-and-tube heat exchangers as follows:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
R2 þ 1
ln½ð1  P Þ=ð1  PRÞ
F ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð5Þ
ðR  1Þ ln½ð2  P fðR þ 1  R2 þ 1ÞgÞ=ð2  P fðR þ 1Þ þ R2 þ 1gÞ
where
Cc ðThi  Tho Þ
R¼ ¼ ð6Þ
Ch ðTco  Tci Þ
and
ðTco  Tci Þ
P¼ ð7Þ
ðThi  Tci Þ
Overall heat transfer coefficient
1
Uf ¼ ð8Þ
do do Rfi do
lnðdo =di Þ 1
þ þ þ Rfo þ
di
ht di 2kw hs
Heat transfer surface area
Q
Aex ¼ ð9Þ
Uf
DTm
and length of the exchanger
Aex
Lex ¼ ð10Þ
pdo Nt
A FOTRAN 90 code is developed based on the model described above. Baffle spaces at inlet and
outlet of the exchanger are assumed to be equal for simplicity. The program allows the user to
choose the shell-side fluid and also to select optimization constraints, i.e., one is minimum shell-
side pressure drop and the other is allowable shell-side pressure drop. The flow diagram of the
computer program is illustrated in the Fig. 1.
1802 Y. Ali Kara, Ö. G€uraras / Applied Thermal Engineering 24 (2004) 1797–1805

start

INPUT
Flowrates, temperatures, fouling factors, tube material
Select shell-side fluid; cold or hot?
Select optimum design criteria; minimum or allowable
shell-side pressure drop?

Calculate transport properties and heat rate

READ
Physical size of heat exchanger from “tube count” file

Calculate shell-side and tube side HTC

Calculate ∆Tm, Uf, Aex, Lex, Nb, Lib

Calculate shell-side pressure drop

Calculate tube-side pressure drop

N All exchangers are

examined?

Y
Select the exchanger that its’ shell-side pressure drop is
minimum or
less than an allowable value

PRINTOUT
Q, Uf, ∆ Ps, ∆ Pt, Aex, Lex, Nt, Ds, do, Pt,
Nb, Lcb, Lib, and type of exchanger

stop

Fig. 1. Flow diagram of the design program.

3. Results and discussion

The sample operation conditions under which the program is run are given in Table 1. The
program actually selects the optimum exchanger among the three different flow arrangement,
namely one-pass, two-pass, and U-tube exchangers. The program is run for both cold and hot
fluid as shell-side stream to show which one gives the best result. For instance, considering
minimum shell-side pressure drop as constraining criteria for optimum design as shown in Table
2, circulating cold fluid in shell-side has some advantages on hot fluid as shell stream since the
former causes lower shell-side pressure drop and requires smaller heat transfer area than the
 Y. Ali Kara, Ö. G€uraras / Applied Thermal Engineering 24 (2004) 1797–1805 1803

Table 1
Sample operating conditions
Hot fluid Cold fluid
Fluid Water Water
Fouling resistance [m2 K/W] 0.000176 0.000176
Mass flow rate [kg/s] 13.88 8.33
Inlet temperature [°C] 67 17
Outlet temperature [°C] – 40
Limitations Maximum allowable pressure drop ¼ 12 000 Pa
Tube material Carbon steel, thermal conductivity ¼ 60 W/m K

Table 2
Optimum design based on minimum shell-side pressure drop criteria
Cold fluid is on shell-side Hot fluid is on shell-side
Type of exchanger Two-pass U-pass
Shell-pressure drop [Pa] 100 947
Tube-side pressure drop [Pa] 78 56
Heat rate [W] 801 368 801 368
Total HTC [W/m2 °C] 422 80
Heat transfer area [m2 ] 64.15 340
Exchanger (tube) length [m] 0.516 4.82
Inside shell diameter [m] 1.219 1.219
Outer tube diameter [m] 0.01905 0.031
Number of tubes 2077 706
Central baffle spacing [m] 0.258 0.548
Inlet/outlet baffle spacing [m] 0.258 0.216
Number of baffles 1 9

latterÕs. As a consequent, if there are no restrictions to allocation of streams, i.e., which fluid will
flow through the shell, such as fouling fluid flow, high-pressure fluid flow or corrosive fluid, in
general, it is better to put the stream with lower mass flow rate on the shell-side because of the
baffled space.
As it is shown from Table 2, minimum shell-side pressure drop as the constraining criteria for
optimum design may always not give practically good results. For example, for cold fluid as shell
stream in Table 2, shell diameter and tube length of the selected exchanger that has the lowest
shell-side pressure drop are 1.219 and 0.516 m respectively. It is larger in diameter and shorter in
length and such an exchanger is not practical. This can be explained with central baffle spacing
that has a significant effect on shell-side pressure loss. Although there is no any correlation for
central baffle spacing, some recommendations are available in HEDH. The recommended baffle
spacing is somewhere between 0.4 and 0.6 of the shell diameter [4,5,18] for 25% baffle cut.
According to this assumption, the larger the shell diameter, the larger the central baffle spacing
resulting in lower pressure drop. As a result, this is why the program selects the exchanger larger
in shell diameter and shorter in exchanger length as an optimum design. In order to avoid this
obstacle, allowable shell-side pressure drop can be considered as the optimum design constraints
since, in general speaking, tube side pressure drop is expected to be lower than that of shell-side.
1804 Y. Ali Kara, Ö. G€uraras / Applied Thermal Engineering 24 (2004) 1797–1805

Table 3
Optimum design based on allowable shell-side pressure (<12000 Pa) drop criteria
Cold fluid is on shell-side Hot fluid is on shell-side
Type of exchanger Two-pass Two-pass
Shell-pressure drop [Pa] 10 836 10 602
Tube-side pressure drop [Pa] 2960 875
Heat rate [W] 801 368 801 368
Total HTC [W/m2 °C] 1383 709
Heat transfer area [m2 ] 19.6 38.2
Exchanger (tube) length [m] 1.11 2.1
Inside shell diameter [m] 0.489 0.540
Outer tube diameter [m] 0.01588 0.0254
Number of tubes 353 227
Central baffle spacing [m] 0.197 0.243
Inlet/outlet baffle spacing [m] 0.063 0.082
Number of baffles 6 9

The heat transfer surface area will then reduce on the contrary of pressure losses. The program is
extended to select, first of all, exchangers that have maximum allowable shell-side pressure drop
for each type of construction, and then to choose the one of them that has the smallest surface
area. By this way, we try to optimize both pressure drop and surface area. Taking 12 kPa of the
maximum allowable shell-side pressure drop, for instance, and choosing cold fluid as shell stream,
diameter of shell and length of the exchanger selected are 0.489 and 1.11 m, respectively as shown
in Table 3. This solution is more reasonable than the previous one just mentioned above. The heat
transfer surface area of the exchanger reduces almost 3.3 times comparing to that of selected
based on minimum shell-side pressure for the same allocation of stream.

4. Conclusions

The program selects an optimum exchanger among total number of 240 exchangers. The
program is restricted to single-segmental baffle having 25% baffle cut that is most frequently used,
triangular-pitch layout that results in greatest tube density. The exchanger type covers only fixed
tube sheet with one-pass and two-pass, and U-tube for E-type shell.
This program can be extended to different exchanger configurations, such as square pitch, 4 or 6
tube-pass, etc. by inserting data from tube counts. Working fluids other than water can also be
introduced easily.

References

[1] D.Q. Kern, Process Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1950.
[2] T. Tinker, Shell-side characteristic of shell-and-tube heat exchangers, Parts II, III, and I, in: Proceedings of General
Discussion on Heat Transfer, Institute of Mechanical Engineers and American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
London, New York, 1951, p. 89.
 Y. Ali Kara, Ö. G€uraras / Applied Thermal Engineering 24 (2004) 1797–1805 1805

[3] K.J. Bell, Final report of the cooperative research program on shell-and-tube heat exchangers, University of
Delaware Eng. Exp. Stat. Bull. 5 (1963).
[4] E.A.D. Saunders, Heat Exchangers, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1988 (Chapter 12).
[5] J Taborek, Recommended method: principles and limitations, in: G.F. Hewitt (Ed.), HEDH, Begell House, New
York, 2002 (Section 3.3.3).
[6] M.J.N. Wills, D Johnston, A new and accurate hand calculation method for shell-side pressure drop and flow
distribution, in: 22nd National Heat Transfer Conference, HTD, vol. 36, ASME, 1984.
[7] G.F. Hewitt, Flow stream analysis method for segmentally baffled shell and tube heat exchangers, in: G.F. Hewitt
(Ed.), HEDH, Begell House, New York, 2002 (Section 3.3.3).
[8] M. Reppich, S. Zagermann, New design method for segmentally baffled heat exchangers, Comput. Chem. Eng. 19
(Suppl.) (1995) S137–S142.
[9] S.E. Gaddis, V. Gnielinski, Pressure drop on shell side of shell-and-tube heat exchangers with segmental baffles,
Chem. Eng. Process. 36 (1997) 149–159.
[10] S.E. Gaddis, V. Gnielinski, Druckverlust in querdurchstr€ omten Rohurb€ undelin, Vt verfahrenstechnick 17 (1988)
410–418.
[11] S.E. Gaddis, V. Gnielinski, Pressure drop in crossflow across tube bundles, Int. Chem. Eng. 25 (1985) 1–15.
[12] H. Li, V. Kottket, Local heat transfer in the first baffle compartment of shell-and-tube heat exchangers for
staggered tube arrangement, Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 16 (1998) 342–348.
[13] H. Li, V. Kottket, Visualization and determination of local heat transfer coefficients in shell-and-tube heat
exchangers for staggered tube arrangement by mass transfer measurements, Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 17 (1998) 210–
216.
[14] H. Li, V. Kottket, Analysis of local shell-side heat and mass transfer in the shell-and-tube heat exchanger with disc-
and-doughnut baffles, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 42 (1999) 3509–3521.
[15] H. Li, V. Kottket, Effect of the leakage on pressure drop and local heat transfer in shell-and-tube heat exchangers
for staggered tube arrangement, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 41 (2) (1998) 425–433.
[16] H. Li, V. Kottket, Effect of baffle spacing on pressure drop and local heat transfer in shell-and-tube heat exchangers
for staggered tube arrangement, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 41 (10) (1998) 1303–1311.
[17] K.J. Bell, Delaware method for shell-side design, in: R.K. Shah, E.C. Subbarao, R.A. Mashelke (Eds.), Heat
Transfer Equipment Design, Hemisphere Publishing, New York, 1988, p. 145.
[18] S. Kakacß, H. Liu, Heat Exchangers, Selection, Rating, and Thermal Design, CRC Press, New York, 1998
(Chapters 3 and 8).

View publication stats