Accepted Manuscript

Numerical comparison of shell-side performance for shell and tube heat ex-
changers with trefoil-hole, helical and segmental baffles

Anas El Maakoul, Azzedine Laknizi, Said Saadeddine, Mustapha El Metoui,

Abdelkabir Zaite, Mohamed Meziane, Abdelatif Ben Abdellah

PII: S1359-4311(16)31421-1
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.08.067
Reference: ATE 8866

To appear in: Applied Thermal Engineering

Received Date: 16 June 2016

Revised Date: 10 August 2016
Accepted Date: 11 August 2016

Please cite this article as: A.E. Maakoul, A. Laknizi, S. Saadeddine, M.E. Metoui, A. Zaite, M. Meziane, A.B.
Abdellah, Numerical comparison of shell-side performance for shell and tube heat exchangers with trefoil-hole,
helical and segmental baffles, Applied Thermal Engineering (2016), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.applthermaleng.2016.08.067

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Numerical comparison of shell-side performance for shell and tube heat
exchangers with trefoil-hole, helical and segmental baffles
Anas El Maakoula*, Azzedine Laknizia, Said Saadeddineb, Mustapha El Metouia, Abdelkabir Zaiteb, Mohamed Mezianec,
Abdelatif Ben Abdellaha,c.
a College
of Science and Technology of Tangier, Abdelmalek Esaadi University – Tangier, Morocco
b College
of Science and Technology of Mohammadia, Hassan II University – Casablanca, Morocco
c Renewable Energy and Advanced Materials laboratory, International University of Rabat - Sale, Morocco

ABSTRACT:

Shell-and-tube heat exchanger, is one of the most widely used heat exchange apparatus in various industrial process and
research fronts. Baffle selection is critical to control and improve the thermo-hydraulic performance of this type of heat
exchanger. In this paper, three-dimensional computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations, using the commercial
software ANSYS FLUENT, have been performed to study and compare the shell-side flow distribution, heat transfer
coefficient and the pressure drop between the recently developed trefoil-hole, helical baffles and the conventional
segmental baffles, at low shell side flow rates. In this numerical comparison, the whole heat exchangers consisting of the
shell, tubes, baffles and nozzles are modeled, the numerical model predicts the thermo-hydraulic performance with a
considerably good accuracy, by comparing with experimental data for single segmental baffles. The model is then used to
compute and compare the thermo-hydraulic performance for the same heat exchanger with trefoil-hole and helical baffles.
The results show that the use of helical baffles results in higher thermo-hydraulic performance while trefoil-hole baffles
has a higher heat transfer performance with large pressure drop compared to segmental baffles.

1. INTRODUCTION: of segmental baffles improves heat transfer by

Heat exchangers have an important role in various
engineering processes. According to [1] more than 35-
40% of heat exchangers are of the shell-and-tube heat
exchangers (STHXs) type, this is mainly due to their
wide range of allowable design pressures and
temperatures, their rugged mechanical construction,
and ease of maintenance [2]. STHXs contain a number
of tubes packed in a shell with their axes parallel to
that of the shell. The process of heat transfer takes
place as one fluid flows inside the tubes, while the other
fluid flows on the shell side across the tube bundles.
Baffles are used to control the shell-side flow
distribution as well as enhancing heat transfer. Hence,
the form and structure of the baffles are of crucial
importance for the performance of this type of heat
exchangers.
The design and rating of STHXs can be difficult,
especially when evaluating the shell side thermo-
hydraulic performances. This difficulty is further
complicated due to the presence of various leakages and
secondary flows. Nowadays, the evaluation of these
performances is almost exclusively done using
commercial software such as Heat Transfer Research,
Inc. (HTRI). HTRI developed the Stream Analysis
method described [3], which is considered one of the
most rigorous methods available for computing the shell
side coefficients. However, most of the data needed for
its implementation remain proprietary. Several
empirical methods calculating shell-side heat transfer
coefficient and pressure drop have been well developed.
The most accurate is the Bell-Delaware method [4], the
method can be used in its complete or simplified version
[5]. Although not highly accurate, the simplified version
is straight forward and can be easily used. The complete
version is more accurate but relatively lengthy and
involved.
Segmental baffles (Fig 1.a) are most commonly used in
conventional STHXs [6] to support tubes and change
flow direction. The fluid flow in a tortuous, zigzag
manner across the tube bundle in the shell side, the use
enhancing turbulence or local mixing on the shell side of
the exchanger, however, the conventional STHXs with
segmental baffles present some major inconveniences [7,
8] : (1) the pressure drop across the shell is very high
due to flow separation at the edge of the baffles with
subsequent flow contraction and expansion; (2) low heat
transfer efficiency due to the flow stagnation in the
“dead zones”; (3) the strong induced vibrations reduce
the operation time of the STHXs; (4) large shell side
fouling resistance. When conventional segmental baffles
are used in STHXs, higher pumping power is usually
needed to offset the higher pressure drop under the
same heat load. As a result, it is necessary to use new
type of baffles to improve the shell side heat transfer
rates/pressure drop ratio.
To overcome these problems and improve the thermo-
hydraulic performance of the conventional STHXs,
various types of baffles have been designed. [9] discuss a
variety of different strategies available to process and
equipment designers to improve industrial heat
transfer. One illustrated example is the use of helically
baffled STHXs. In [10], the optimal angle for helical
baffles was found to be 40°. Also, the results suggest
that STHX with helical baffles are a proper replacement
for STHXs with segmental baffles. Experimental and
numerical results for Rod baffles and their
enhancement are presented in [11,12]. These baffles can
eliminate flow induced vibrations while having small
pressure drops and good overall thermo-hydraulic
performances.
Helical baffles (Fig 1.b) in STHXs represent an
alternative to segmental baffles by circumventing the
aforementioned drawbacks of conventional segmental
baffles [13]. Helical baffles are used as tubes support
and can produce a perfectly helical flow pattern across
the tubes bundles. They consist of baffles with an
inclined helix angle as measured from the perpendicular
to the axis of the exchanger. Typical angle values vary
from 10 to 40°. Helical baffles offer the following
advantages [14,15] : (1) improved shell side heat
transfer rates/pressure drop ratio; (2) reduced bypass

*Corresponding author: anaselmaakoul@gmail.com

Tel : +212616133378
a)
b)
c)
effects; (3) reduced shell-side fouling; (4) prevention of
flow induced vibration; (5) reduced maintenance.
Fig 1. Model of tubes bundles with different baffles type: a) Segmental baffles b) Helical baffles c) Trefoil-hole baffles
According to the experimental results in [16], the use of
continuous helical baffles resulted in nearly 10%
increase in heat transfer coefficient, compared to that of
conventional segmental baffles based on the same shell-
side pressure drops [17]. Until now, the majority of
helical baffles used in STHXs are non-continuous
approximate helicoids, due to difficulty in
manufacturing the continuous helical baffles. Non-
continuous helical baffles have a high fluid leakage
compared to continuous helical baffles [18] which can
decrease their thermo-hydraulic performance.
Therefore, this study will adopt a STHX with
continuous helical baffles.
Trefoil-hole baffles (Fig1.c) are new type heat transfer
devices and no publications comparing their
performance to traditional baffles could be found.
Trefoil-hole baffles are widely used in nuclear power
system due to their special advantages [19]. The shell
side fluid flows longitudinally through the gaps between
the orifice edges and tube walls. They have good
thermo-hydraulic performances while being less liable
to foul, eliminates stagnant recirculation zones and
avoid flow induced vibration compared to the
conventional STHXs with segmental baffles [20, 21].
It should be noted that nowadays and with the rapid
development of CFD, Numerical simulation of STHXs
has been a necessary supplement to experiments and
theory. Moreover, it offers an economic alternative. The
detailed mathematical and numerical modeling of
STHXs with helical baffles is discussed in [22,23]. The
*Corresponding author: anaselmaakoul@gmail.com
Tel : +212616133378
results show that the different numerical models
compare reasonably well with experimental data. In
[24], it was found that exit length to shell side velocity
ratio of 2.5 is required for proper convergence using
CFD code OpenFOAM-2.2.0. The effect of the flow field
on shell side heat transfer coefficient and a comparison
with analytical methods are presented for various flow
rates.
In this work, the commercial software ANSYS FLUENT
is adopted to conduct the numerical study for the same
STHX with three different baffle types, to evaluate their
thermo-hydraulic performance. First the STHX parts:
tubes, shell, baffles and nozzles are modeled for three
cases with segmental, helical and trefoil-hole baffles.
The numerical model was validated against
experimental data for a conventional small STHX heat
exchanger with segmental baffles. After the model
validation, the numerical model is used to compute and
compare the thermo-hydraulic performance for the same
STHX with trefoil-hole and helical baffles.
2. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP:
2.1 Geometric configuration:
A conventional STHX with segmental baffles is used in
the experiment, the warm water flows in the tube side,
while the cool water flows in the shell side in a counter
current configuration. The shell has an external
diameter of 50 mm, a thickness of 3 mm and a length of
200 mm. seven tubes with an external diameter of 6 mm
are installed inside the shell with a triangular
arrangement. The number of baffles is 4 with a spacing are listed in Table.1
of 35.6 mm. the baffles thickness is 1 mm. More details

Fig 2. Experiment system schematic.

(V1,V2) are used to regulate the flow rate of the two

Table 1. Structural parameters of the STHX with segmental
baffles
Material: Stainless steel
Tube internal diameter: 4 mm Tube external diameter:
6mm
Tube arrangement: Tube number: 7
Triangular
Tube effective length: 184 mm
Shell internal diameter: 44
mm
Baffle number: 4 Baffle spacing : 35.6 mm
Baffle thickness: 1 mm Baffle cut : ~22%
2.2 Experiment system:
As is shown in figure 2, two cycles are taken into
account, warm water cycle (red) and the cool water cycle
(sky blue). The centrifugal pump (P1) and the water
tank are used to recycle the warm water, which is
heated using an electrical heater (H) with a maximum
power of 3 kW. A flow control valve (V1) regulates the
warm water flow rate. The cool water is recycled using a
centrifugal pump (P2) and a water tank, the cooling is
done by using a heat pump. Both warm cool water tanks
are insulated.
Six platinum resistance thermometers (PT 100) with an
accuracy of 0.15 °C have been used, four of them
(T1,T2,T3,T4) are used to measure the fluid inlets and
outlets temperatures in the shell and tube side of the
STHX with segmental baffles. Two others (T5,T6),
combined with two temperature controller (TC), are
used to measure and control the temperature inside the
warm and cool water tank. Two turbine flow meters
(FI1, FI2) with an accuracy of 0.5% are used to measure
the volumetric flow rate in the tube and shell side
respectively. Moreover, two manual control valves
fluids. All the data retrieved by sensors are transmitted
to the computer where they are stored and processed
through a software.
3. DATA REDUCTION:
3.1 Data acquisition:
In the experiments, flow rates and temperatures were
measured and collected by a data acquisition system.
The energy balance between the shell side and tube
side, which was obtained from the data on the flow
rates, and inlet and outlet temperatures of warm and
cool water, was monitored during the experiments and
the experimental data were saved and processed when
the heat balance deviation is less than 5%.
3.2 Data reduction:
3.2.1 Shell side velocity and Reynolds number:
The mean shell side fluid velocity is defined by:
(1)
Where is the mass flow rate, water density in the
shell side and represents the cross-flow area at
the shell centerline. For the segmental baffles [25]:
(2)
Where is the internal diameter of the shell, the
external diameter of the tubes, the baffle spacing and
the number of tubes in the central row.
For helical baffles [16]:
(3)
 is the outer diameter of the central tube and
pitch between two adjacent tubes.
With the mean velocity value, the Reynolds number for
the shell side is determined by:
With the dynamic viscosity is the shell side.
For trefoil-hole baffles, the following expression is used
to calculate Reynolds number [21]:
Where is the tubes number.
Reynolds number for helical and trefoil-hole baffles are
used later in the numerical results.
3.2.2 Heat transfer rate:
Heat transfer rate of the shell side fluid (cool water):
Heat transfer rate of the tube side fluid (warm water):
is the flow rate, the temperature, the specific
heat. The subscript refers respectively to the shell
side and tube side; superscript stand for the
values at the inlet and outlet respectively. The physical
properties are evaluated at the average temperature of
the inlet and outlet for each side of the STHX.
The average heat transfer rate is defined as:
Heat balance deviation is:
3.2.3 Overall heat transfer coefficient:
Since the STHX is in a counter current configuration,
the logarithmic mean difference is expresses by:
(10)
The overall heat transfer coefficient based on the
external surface of the tubes is:
(11)
With , where is the number of tubes and
L the effective length of one tube.
4. MATHEMATICAL MODELING:
4.1 Physical models:
The configurations of the STHX with segmental, helical
and trefoil-hole baffles are shown respectively in Fig.3.
The size of the current STHX is small, thus the
the computation load of modeling the whole device for the
three type of baffles can be tolerated. The modeled
STHX exchanger with segmental baffles is the same
used in the experiment. Another one point should be
highlighted that baffle spacing of the three modeled
heat exchangers is kept the same with each other,
which is to ensure all of the values of geometry
parameters are consistent except the baffle type. It
(4) could be believed that under the same conditions,
comparisons between the three different baffles type are
more convincing [26]. The material of the different
STHX parts is stainless steel with a thermal
conductivity . The working fluid in
both the shell and tube side of the heat exchanger is
water.
(5)
a)
(6)
b)
(7)
c)
(8)
(9)
Fig 3. Isometric view of the computational domains for STHXs
with: a) Segmental baffles b) Helical baffles c) Trefoil-hole
baffles
4.2 Governing equations:
Water is considered as a Newtonian and incompressible
fluid with constant thermo-physical properties.
Furthermore, the fluid flow and heat transfer processes
are turbulent and in steady-state. The viscous heating
and compression work are both trivial and thus are
neglected in the energy equation. The heat exchanger is
assumed to be newly built and thus has a negligible
fouling resistance. The leakage between tube and baffle
and between baffle and shell is negligible and thus
ignored.
In this study, a hydrodynamic model based on the
unstructured-grid finite volume method was developed
using ANSYS Fluent software. This model was based on
the numerical solution of continuity, momentum and
energy equations. These equations are given below Note that it is normally accepted that the shell side flow
[26,27]: is considered to be fully developed turbulent at
for STHXs [28]. In the model validation, we have a
Continuity equation: minimum value of 56. For , there may
be regions of transitional, developing turbulent flow and
(12) fully developed turbulent flow coexisting in the shell
side complex flow passage [5]. The flow can be
Momentum equation: considered as fully turbulent due to the difficulty in
appreciating the different regimes.

(13) 4.3 Domains definitions, meshes and boundary

conditions:
Energy equation:
As mentioned before, three STHXs with different baffle
types are modeled. For each of the three studied STHXs,
(14)
three domain are defined, two fluid domain (water in
Where represent the fluid velocity, the tube and shell side) and the solid domain (tubes
temperature and pressure, respectively. is the fluid bundle, baffles). The computational domain is meshed
density, and the fluid kinematic viscosity and with unstructured tetrahedral grid Fig.4, which are
Prandtl number, subscript refers to turbulent. generated using the ANSYS MESHING tool. The
quality of the mesh for each STHX (elements quality,
Realizable turbulence model is adopted in the skewness) was evaluated using the built-in Mesh
current study because it can provide superior Metrics in ANSYS MESHING (table 2).
performance for flows involving rotation, boundary
layers effect under strong adverse gradient of pressure In order to ensure the accuracy of the numerical results,
and recirculation [27]. The transport equations in the the grid independency test is conducted. A series of grid
realizable model are given below: dependency tests were carried out to ensure that
optimized computational mesh was obtained. Three sets
Turbulent kinetic energy equation: of grids (~2.2 million, ~3.7 million and ~4.6 million
elements) are computed for the case of the STHX with
segmental baffles. It was found the difference in the
(15) rate of heat transfer between 3.7 million and ~4.6
million is less than 1%. Considering both convergent
Turbulent energy dissipation equation: time and solution accuracy, the grid system ~3.7 million
elements was adopted.
(16) The momentum boundary condition of no slip and no
penetration is set for all the solid walls. The thermal
Where represents the generation of turbulence kinetic
boundary condition of zero heat flux is set for the shell
energy due to the mean velocity gradients and is
wall and inlet and outlet nozzle walls, while the walls of
given by:
tubes, baffles, and tube bundle, which also represent the
solid-fluid interfaces between the two fluid domain and
(17) the solid domain, have the thermal boundary condition
of coupling heat transfer (two interfaces with coupled
The turbulent kinematic viscosity is: wall). The inlets for the shell and tube sides are set as
boundary conditions of velocity-inlet, the outlets are set
as pressure-outlet. The outlets are assumed to have a
(18)
pressure of zero so the inlet pressure is equal to the
The empirical constants for the realizable pressure drop on both shell and tube sides.
turbulence model are [27]:
The commercial ANSYS FLUENT is used to calculate
the fluid flow and heat transfer in the computational
domains. The governing equations are iteratively solved
The difference between the realizable turbulence
by the finite-volume formulation with the SIMPLE
model and the standard, RNG models is that is
algorithm. The second-order upwind scheme is adopted
no longer a constant, it is a function of the mean strain for the momentum, energy, turbulence and its
and rotation rates, the angular velocity of the system dissipation rate. The pressure term is treated with the
rotation, and the turbulence fields. standard scheme. Default under relaxation factors of
the solver are used, which are 0.3, 0.7, 0.8, and 0.8 for
The scalable wall function is used for the numerical
the pressure, momentum, turbulent kinetic energy, and
computation near the wall to avoid problems of
turbulent energy dissipation, respectively. The
successive refinements in standard wall function
convergence criterion is that the normalized residuals
meshes.
are less than 1e-4 for the flow equations and 1e-8 for the
energy equation.
a) b)

c)

Fig 4. Mesh: a) Outside Wall b) Baffle cut c) helical baffles

Average element Average Orthogonal

STHX baffles type nodes elements Average skewness
quality quality

Segmental 744248 3708741 0,21371 0,84553 0,86369

helical 747967 3716838 0,21548 0,84434 0,86266

Trefoil-hole 753346 3736286 0,21451 0,84502 0,86323

Table 2. Mesh details and metrics

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:
5.1 Model validation :
In order to validate the numerical study, a comparison
is done between numerical results and experimental
data using the STHX with segmental baffles. Fig.5
shows the heat transfer rates as a function of shell
side Reynolds number obtained by CFD model and the
experiment. This figure shows a good agreement
between both results. Because the inlets temperatures
are varied under different shell side flow rates
( , the curves in Fig.5 are
not smooth.
The maximum relative deviation for the average heat
transfer rate is 1%, while the overall heat transfer
coefficient has a maximum deviation of 2%. Thus, it can
be concluded the present numerical model give good
prediction for heat transfer characteristics.
Fig.6 shows the comparison of the pressure drop in the
shell side versus Reynolds number obtained by CFD
model and Bell-Delaware method [25]. This comparison
shows a good agreement between both models. The
pressure drop has a maximum relative deviation of 7%.
Thus, the present model gives an acceptable prediction
for the pressure drop characteristics.

Fig 6. Comparison of pressure drop

Fig 5. Heat transfer rate versus Re
Note that the total pressure drop values on the shell
side include the pressure drop associated with the
entrance and exit nozzles [28].
From the above comparisons, it could be concluded that
the CFD model has a reasonable precision. The model is
used to predict the heat transfer and thermo-hydraulic
performance for the same STHX with helical and trefoil-
hole baffles.
5.2 Methods of thermo-hydraulic performances
Using the computed results, heat transfer coefficients
on both shell and tube side are calculated by Newton’s
cooling law from the numerical temperature field. As
specified in the boundary conditions in FLUENT, the
shell and tube side outlets are assumed to have a
pressure of zero, thus, the pressure drop is equal to the
inlets pressure for both shell and tube side. The overall
thermo-hydraulic performance on the shell side is
expressed by the heat transfer coefficient per unit
pressure drop, i.e., . velocity jets, leading to substantial dissipation of fluid
It is noted that the comparisons between the three
STHX are based on the assumption that the initials
conditions are the same, i.e., the inlets temperatures
and velocities of working fluids are the same.
a)
b)
c)
Fig 7.Shell path lines at a) Segmental baffles
b) Helical baffles c) Trefoil-hole baffles
5.3 Flow field characteristics:
The flow behavior in the shell side for the STHX is
different depending on the baffle type, Fig.7 shows the
streamlines in the shell side for the three kinds of heat
exchangers. For the conventional segmental baffles, as
shown in Fig.7.a, the zigzag flow pattern causes large
dead zones, eddy formation and fluid recirculation at
the back of the baffles. A large amount of the fluid
energy is spent in areas where there are few tubes,
resulting in an inefficient conversion of pressure drop in
heat transfer.
With the helical baffles, Fig.7.b, the flow pattern in the
shell side is rotational, and the shell fluid passes though
the tube bundles close to an ideal helical pattern. Due to
the effect of baffle inclination angle, the fluid flow in the
axial direction is enhanced and turned into a plug flow.
Fluid flow with helical baffles is continuous and the
dead zones do not occur near the helical baffle. The
spiral motion brings about better mixing, and the heat
transfer in this region is significantly enhanced while
the pressure drop is reduced.
Trefoil-hole flow behavior is shown in Fig.7.c, it can be
seen that there are dead zones with visible fluid
recirculation areas formed at the back of the baffles,
while a weaker one emerges before the baffle due to its
blockage. These reverse flows result in increased
pressure drop of the shell side working fluid. The gaps
between trefoil-hole baffles and tubes generate high
energy. This indicates a large local pressure drop could
be generated when the fluid flows through a trefoil-hole
baffle. These high velocity jets increases the maximal
velocity on the shell side, which is an effective method
in order to enhance heat transfer performance for the
same mass flow rate.
5.4 Pressure drop:
The pressure drop is of great importance in the design
of shell-and-tube heat exchangers, pumping cost are
highly related to pressure drop, and therefore lower
pressure drop results in lower operating costs.
Fig.8 represents the velocity distribution and velocity
vectors at the shell side middle plane ( ) for each of the
computed STHX configurations. Trefoil-hole baffles
have the highest shell side maximum velocities, located
at the gaps between baffles and tubes Fig.9.a, the high
velocity jets can be seen clearly in Fig.9.b. By
comparison to trefoil-hole baffles, segmental and helical
baffles produce lower shell side maximum velocitiesn,
located at the baffle window and near the central tube
respectively Fig.8a, Fig8b. As can be seen in Fig.10.a
and Fig.10.c, trefoil-hole and segmental baffles produce
dead zones with remarkable fluid recirculation zones.
Helical baffles produce the lowest maximal velocities, a
better flow distribution, without dead zones and fluid
recirculation areas.
Higher maximal velocities, dead zones, and fluid
recirculation areas always produce an increase in
frictional pressure drops. Thus, it is expected -according
to the previous analysis- that the pressure drop will go
from highest to lowest in the following order: trefoil-
hole, segmental and helical baffles.
a) b)

Fig 9. Trefoil-hole baffles velocity contours at

: a) baffle wall b) shell side mid plane ( )

b) a)

b)

c)

c)

Fig 8.Velocity contours at a) Segmental

baffles b) Helical baffles c) Trefoil-hole baffles

a)

Fig 10. Velocity vectors at a) Segmental

baffles b) helical baffles c) Trefoil-hole baffles

Fig.11 depicts the variation of the pressure drop

versus the shell side mass flow rate for the three heat
exchangers. The pressure drop increases proportional to
the mass flow rate for the three heat exchangers. As
expected previously, trefoil-hole baffles produce the
highest pressure drop, higher on average by 135% and
218% than STHXs with segmental and helical baffles
respectively. This high pressure drop is caused by the
high velocity jets at the baffles opening and large fluid
recirculation zones. The pressure drop for the STHX
with helical baffles is about 26% on average lower than
the pressure drop for the STHX with segmental baffles.
The reason is that the flow distribution with segmental
baffles on the shell side is zigzag, flow separation at the
edge of baffles causes abrupt momentum change and
severe pressure drop. Whereas the primary flow
direction of helical baffles does not change dramatically.

Fig 12. Shell side heat transfer coefficient versus mass flow rate

Fig 11. Shell side pressure drop versus mass flow rate

5.5 Heat transfer performance:

Fig.12 represents the comparisons of the shell side heat

transfer coefficient for the three heat exchangers. It can
be observed that the shell side heat transfer coefficient
increases with the increases in the shell side mass
flow rate . for the STHX with trefoil-hole baffles is
higher on average by about 11% and 9 % than for Fig 13. Shell side Nusselt number versus Reynolds number

STHX with segmental and helical baffles respectively.

The numerical data on the shell side heat transfer for
The higher maximum velocities generated with trefoil-
the three configurations were used to fit the correlation
hole baffles intensively wash the downstream tube
between Nusselt number and Reynolds number in
walls, thus, result in a notable thermal enhancement on
the following form [29, 30]:
the shell side.

Fig.13 shows the variations of the Nusselt Number, in

the form of , versus the shell side . It can be The following correlations fitted by the numerical data
seen that the increases with increasing can be used to evaluate the shell side heat transfer
Reynolds number, the increase in depend coefficient for the three STHXs:
strongly on the baffle type. With trefoil-hole baffles,
increases rapidly with while the increase STHX-Segmental baffles:
for both segmental and helical baffles is slower. It can
be observed that for the same shell side flow rate, STHX (19)
with trefoil-hole baffles are expected to provide the best STHX-Helical baffles:
heat transfer performance.
(20)
STHX-Trefoil-hole baffles:

(21)
These correlations for STHX with segmental, helical
and trefoil-hole baffles have a maximum fitting error of
0.3%, 0.7%, and 1% respectively.

5.6 Comprehensive performance analysis (

):

The design of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger is a

compromise between higher heat transfer coefficients
and lower pressure drop in the fluids, since the two
parameters are highly dependent on each other. In
order to improve the heat transfer coefficient, it is
necessary to increase the fluid velocities. This always
produces an increase in frictional pressure drops. Heat
transfer coefficient per unit pressure drop at the shell
side, is adopted to evaluate the optimal ranges
for both parameters. In practical application the
pressure drop of the heat exchangers are usually
limited, the goal is to find the design parameter
combination that results in the highest heat transfer
coefficient within the pressure drop limitations. Thus,
the ratio should be a more reasonable
comparison quantity.
Fig.14 shows the comparisons of the ratio of the heat
transfer coefficient to pressure drop for the three heat
exchangers with different baffles. From the Fig.13, it
can be seen that the performance parameter
decreases with increases in the shell side flow rate. It is
clearly seen that the STHX with helical baffles has the
best performance ratio among the three STHXs.
On average, the performance ratio for STHX
with helical baffles is 39% and 192% higher on average
than STHXs with segmental and helical baffles
respectively.
baffles. This leads to less dead zones and less fluid
recirculation areas inside the shell. The results indicate
that, compared to the conventional segmental baffles,
the use of helical baffles provide a good balance between
heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics. While
trefoil-hole baffles enhance considerably the heat
transfer, this enhancement is done at the expense of a
large pressure drop. Thus, the highest thermo-hydraulic
performance is achieved by using helical baffles.
Although not considered in this study, further points
should be investigated: 1) the comparison between
baffle types on induced fouling resistances, flow
vibrations and leakages 2) the study of the effect of
varying other design parameters that have an effect on
the shell-side thermo-hydraulic performances.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Sardi Mohamed for the help with
English proofreading. The authors would like to express
their appreciation to “IRESEN” for providing financial
support to carry out this research.
Nomenclature
Latin symbols

cross-flow area at the shell centerline , mm²

heat exchange area based on the external
diameter of tube, mm²
baffle spacing, mm
specific heat capacity, J/(kg K)
coefficients in model
internal shell diameter, mm
external tube diameter, mm
average heat transfer coefficient, W/(m²K)
turbulent fluctuation kinetic energy, m²/s²
tube total effective length, m
mass flow rate, kg/s
number of tubes
tube pitch, mm
Prandtl number
pressure drop, Pa
average heat transfer rate, W
Reynolds number
inlet temperature, K
Fig 14. Heat transfer coefficient per pressure drop versus mass outlet temperature, K
flow rate logarithmic mean temperature difference, K
average velocity, m/s
Based on the results discussed above and for the Cartesian coordinate
interval of flow rate used, it is clear that STHX with
helical baffles performs better for the flow rates interval
studied. Greek symbols

If a new STHX is to be designed to replace an existing generalized diffusion coefficient

one, if the two heat exchangers have equal pressure turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate,
drop, the new STHX must have a larger heat transfer m²/s3
capacity, and if the two heat exchanger have equal heat thermal conductivity, W/(m K)
transfer capacity, the new STHX must have a lower dynamic viscosity, kg/(m s)
Kinematic viscosity, m²/s
pressure drop, thus, saving much pumping power.
density , kg/m3
6. CONCLUSION: Prandtl number for
Prandtl number for
In the present study, a numerical model is used to
compute and compare the thermo-hydraulic
Subscripts
performances of shell-and-tube heat exchangers with
different baffle types: segmental, helical and trefoil-hole
inlet
baffles. Flow analysis in shell side, showed that velocity out outlet
distribution in helical baffles is more uniform and s shell side
homogenous compared to segmental and trefoil-hole t tube side
 turbulent
References
[1] B. I. Master, K. S. Chunangad, and V. Pushpanathan,
"Fouling mitigation using helixchanger heat
exchangers," 2003.
[2] B. I. Master, K. S. Chunangad, A. J. Boxma, D. Kral,
and P. Stehlík, "Most Frequently Used Heat
Exchangers from Pioneering Research to Worldwide
Applications," Heat Transfer Engineering, vol. 27, pp.
4-11, 2006/06/01 2006.
[3] J.W. Palen, J. Taborek, Solution of shell side flow
pressure drop and heat transfer by stream analysis
method, Chem. Eng. Prog. Symp. Ser. 65 (92) (1969).
[4] K. J. Bell, "Heat Exchanger Design for the Process
Industries," Journal of Heat Transfer, vol. 126, p. 877,
2004.
[5] R.W. Serth ‘Process Heat Transfer Principles and
Applications’ chapter 5 p89, p200, Elsevier 2014
[6] H. Li and V. Kottke, "Analysis of local shellside heat
and mass transfer in the shell-and-tube heat
exchanger with disc-and-doughnut baffles,"
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol.
42, pp. 3509-3521, 9// 1999.
[7] Q. Wang, G. Chen, Q. Chen, and M. Zeng, "Review of
Improvements on Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchangers
With Helical Baffles," Heat Transfer Engineering, vol.
31, pp. 836-853, 2010/09/01 2010.
[8] H. Li and V. Kottke, "Effect of the leakage on
pressure drop and local heat transfer in shell-and-
tube heat exchangers for staggered tube
arrangement," International Journal of Heat and
Mass Transfer, vol. 41, pp. 425-433, 1998.
[9] P. Stehlík and V. V. Wadekar, "Different Strategies to
Improve Industrial Heat Exchange," Heat Transfer
Engineering, vol. 23, pp. 36-48, 2002/11/01 2002.
[10] M. R. Jafari Nasr and A. Shafeghat, "Fluid flow
analysis and extension of rapid design algorithm for
helical baffle heat exchangers," Applied Thermal
Engineering, vol. 28, pp. 1324-1332, 2008.
[11] Q. W. Dong, Y. Q. Wang, and M. S. Liu, "Numerical
and experimental investigation of shellside
characteristics for RODbaffle heat exchanger,"
Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 28, pp. 651-660,
5// 2008.
[12] Y. You, F. Zhang, A. Fan, F. Dai, X. Luo, and W. Liu, "A
numerical study on the turbulent heat transfer
enhancement of Rodbaffle heat exchanger with
staggered tubes supported by round rods with arc
cuts," Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 76, pp. 220-
232, 2015.
[13] Y.-G. Lei, Y.-L. He, R. Li, and Y.-F. Gao, "Effects of
baffle inclination angle on flow and heat transfer of a
heat exchanger with helical baffles," Chemical
Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification,
vol. 47, pp. 2336-2345, 2008.
[14] P. StehlÍK, J. NĚMČAnskÝ, D. Kral, and L. W. Swanson,
"Comparison of Correction Factors for Shell-and-
Tube Heat Exchangers with Segmental or Helical
Baffles," Heat Transfer Engineering, vol. 15, pp. 55-
65, 1994.
[15] D. Kral, P. Stehlik, H. J. Van Der Ploeg, and B. I.
Master, "Helical Baffles in Shell-and-Tube Heat
Exchangers, Part I: Experimental Verification," Heat
Transfer Engineering, vol. 17, pp. 93-101, 1996.
[16] B. Peng, Q. W. Wang, C. Zhang, G. N. Xie, L. Q. Luo,
Q. Y. Chen, et al., "An Experimental Study of Shell-
and-Tube Heat Exchangers With Continuous Helical
Baffles," Journal of Heat Transfer, vol. 129, pp. 1425-
1431, 2007.
[17] J.-F. Zhang, B. Li, W.-J. Huang, Y.-G. Lei, Y.-L. He, and
W.-Q. Tao, "Experimental performance comparison
of shell-side heat transfer for shell-and-tube heat
exchangers with middle-overlapped helical baffles
and segmental baffles," Chemical Engineering
Science, vol. 64, pp. 1643-1653, 2009.
[18] J.-F. Yang, M. Zeng, and Q.-W. Wang, "Effects of
sealing strips on shell-side flow and heat transfer
performance of a heat exchanger with helical
baffles," Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 64, pp.
117-128, 2014.
[19] G.-Y. Zhou, J. Xiao, L. Zhu, J. Wang, and S.-T. Tu, "A
Numerical Study on the Shell-Side Turbulent Heat
Transfer Enhancement of Shell-and-Tube Heat
Exchanger with Trefoil-Hole Baffles," Energy
Procedia, vol. 75, pp. 3174-3179, 2015.
[20] Y. You, A. Fan, X. Lai, S. Huang, and W. Liu,
"Experimental and numerical investigations of shell-
side thermo-hydraulic performances for shell-and-
tube heat exchanger with trefoil-hole baffles,"
Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 50, pp. 950-956,
2013.
[21] Y. You, Y. Chen, M. Xie, X. Luo, L. Jiao, and S. Huang,
"Numerical simulation and performance
improvement for a small size shell-and-tube heat
exchanger with trefoil-hole baffles," Applied Thermal
Engineering, vol. 89, pp. 220-228, 10/5/ 2015.
[22] M. J. Andrews and B. I. Master, "Three-Dimensional
Modeling of a Helixchanger® Heat Exchanger Using
CFD," Heat Transfer Engineering, vol. 26, pp. 22-31,
2005.
[23] R. Shen, X. Feng, and X. Gao, "Mathematical Model
and Numerical Simulation of Helical Baffles Heat
Exchanger," Journal of Enhanced Heat Transfer, vol.
11, pp. 461-460, 2004.
[24] E. Pal, I. Kumar, J. B. Joshi, and N. K. Maheshwari,
"CFD simulations of shell-side flow in a shell-and-
tube type heat exchanger with and without baffles,"
Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 143, pp. 314-340,
2016.
[25] C. Eduardo, Heat Transfer in Process Engineering:
2010 McGraw-Hill Education.
[26] J.-F. Yang, M. Zeng, and Q.-W. Wang, "Numerical
investigation on combined single shell-pass shell-
and-tube heat exchanger with two-layer continuous
helical baffles," International Journal of Heat and
Mass Transfer, vol. 84, pp. 103-113, 2015.
[27] "F. Inc., FLUENT User’s Guide, 2006.."
[28] R. K. Shah and D. P. Sekuli, Fundamentals of Heat
Exchanger Design, p.436-437, p.394-395 2003.
[29] S. W. Churchill and M. Bernstein, "A Correlating
Equation for Forced Convection From Gases and
Liquids to a Circular Cylinder in Crossflow," Journal of
Heat Transfer, vol. 99, p. 300, 1977.
[30] Y. Cengel, "Heat and mass Transfer," p. 358, 2007.
 Shell side performance of a STHX with different baffle types was studied
 Trefoil-hole baffles provide considerable heat transfer enhancement
 Helical baffles give higher heat transfer coefficient per unit pressure drop