ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 714–720

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpvp

On the design of the tubesheet and the tubesheet-to-shell junction

of a fixed tubesheet heat exchanger
K. Behsetaa,b,, S. Schindlerb,c
a
No 34, 7th Ave Nsre (Gisha) Street Tehran 14 467, Iran
b
Institute for Pressure Vessel and Plant Technology, Vienna University of Technology, Gusshausstr. 30/329, A-1040, Vienna, Austria
c
Technischer Überwachungsverein Austria, Krugerstr. 16, A-1015 Vienna, Austria
Received 31 January 2006; received in revised form 3 August 2006; accepted 3 August 2006

Abstract

For the (mechanical) design of an existing fixed tubesheet heat exchanger, a C2-Hydrogenation reactor in a petrochemical plant,
various code solutions are compared with each other and with a Finite Element solution based on the Direct Route in Design by Analysis
(EN 13445-3, Annex B). The codes and standards used in the investigation are ASME Section VIII, Division 1 and EN 13445-3, Clause
13 and Annex J.
The ASME VIII/2 and TEMA codes are not appropriate for this design.
The ASME VIII/1 and EN 13445-3 Clause 13 approaches are similar. Differences in maximum permissible pressures result partly from
different nominal design stresses.
The modern EN 13445-3 Annex J approach, being based on limit analysis theory, leads to very different, much more efficient results.
The Direct Route in Design by Analysis confirms the EN 13445-3 Annex J results, but gives, at the same time, clear insight into the
behaviour of the whole structure and the various maximum permissible pressure limiting details.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Heat exchanger design; Design by Analysis; Direct Route

1. Introduction
Heat exchangers are frequently called the workhorses in
process and petrochemical plants, and more than 65% of
these are (shell-and-tube type) tubular heat exchangers.
Tubular heat exchangers exemplify many aspects of the
challenges in the (mechanical) design of pressure vessels.
Their design requires a thorough grounding in several
disciplines of mechanics, and a broad understanding of the
interrelationships between the thermal and the mechanical
performance of heat exchangers [1]. In a liberal legal
framework, for the mechanical design of heat exchangers
the requirements in several codes and standards may be
used. Amongst these are the widely known code of the
American Society for Mechanical Engineers (ASME),
Corresponding author. No 34, 7th Ave Nsre (Gisha) Street Tehran 14
467, Iran.
E-mail address: behsetaeq@yahoo.com (K. Behseta).
ASME Code, Section VIII, Div. 1,2, [2], the European
Standard for Unfired Pressure Vessels EN 13445 by the
European Committee for Standardization (CEN) [3], and
the Standards of the Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers
Association (TEMA) [4].
Large heat exchangers and heat exchangers made of
expensive materials are cost effective components in
industrial plants. For these, a thorough understanding of
code differences is of paramount importance.
Results of code comparisons exist and a few are
published, see e.g. [5,6]. However, having been performed
before changes in ASME with regard to the effective elastic
constants of the perforated region of tubesheets, the
comparisons of ASME/EN are based on ASME results
that are not up-to-date.
Unique design advantages of one or other of the
aforementioned codes are few. However, the smaller
nominal design stresses of ASME and TEMA compared
to EN 13445 for low alloy steels in the low to medium

0308-0161/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpvp.2006.08.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Behseta, S. Schindler / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 714–720
temperature range, and for austenitic steels in the whole
temperature range, are well known.
For fixed tubesheet heat exchangers, of interest here, the
ratio, X, of the axial tube-bundle stiffness to the effective
tubesheet bending stiffness is an important parameter:
h i1=4
X ¼ 6ð1
n2 ÞN t E t et ðd t
et ÞD20 =ðLE  e3p Þ
with n the effective Poisson’s ratio of the perforated
tubesheet region, Nt the number of tubes, Et the modulus
of elasticity of the tube material, et the nominal tube
thickness, dt the nominal outside diameter of the tubes, D0
the equivalent diameter of the outer tube limit circle, E  the
effective modulus of elasticity of the perforated tubesheet
region, L the tube length between the tubesheet inner faces,
and ep the tubesheet thickness.
For the same nominal design stress the following applies:
For X less than about 2 [6] (or 3 [5]) ASME VIII/1 and
EN 13445-3 Clause 13 render slightly thicker tubesheets
than TEMA. For X larger than 5 [6] (or 9 [5]) TEMA
renders larger thicknesses than ASME and EN 13445-3
Clause 13, with no unique order but there are remarkable
differences between ASME VIII/1 and EN 13445-3 Clause
13 results. For X in the intermediate range all three render
comparable results, in most cases in the (descending)
thickness order TEMA, ASME VIII/1, EN 13445-3
Clause 13.
ASME VIII/2 does not take into account the staying
action of the tubes. This makes this code division
unattractive for fixed tubesheet heat exchangers.
The limit analysis theory based approach in EN 13445-3
Annex J offers, for fixed tubesheet heat exchangers, clear
advantages for all ratios X in comparison with the other
three approaches discussed above.
ASME VIII/1 and EN 13445-3 Clause 13 are very similar
in their approach. Both are based on classical shell and
plate theory, and both treat the perforated region of the
tubesheet as a solid (unperforated) plate of the same
thickness but with effective elastic constants. These are
intended to render an equivalent overall behaviour of the
perforated region and the equivalent unperforated plate.
Differences that are not caused by different nominal design
stresses are the result of the treatment of the unperforated
rim of tubesheets as a solid ring, without distortion of the
cross-section, in ASME VIII/1, and the assumption of a
tubesheet totally perforated, without an unperforated rim,
in EN 13445-3 Clause 13.
Part of this paper deals with just another comparison
between ASME VIII/1 and EN 13445-3 Clause 13, but for
a very large fixed tubesheet heat exchanger with outside
diameter 4430 mm, maximum allowable tube-side pressure
40 bar, self-weight approximately 1.56 MN, and practically
the whole cross-section tubed. This comparison is com-
plemented by another with the attractive EN 13445-3
Annex J approach, and by a comparison with the results of
an elaborate Finite Element (FE) model, with evaluation in
715
Table 1
Nominal design stresses used
Code ASME VIII/1 (MPa) EN 13445-3 (MPa)
Part
Tubesheet 138.0 145.0
Tubes 108.2 121.0
Shells 138.0 150.5
accordance with the requirements of the Direct Route in
Design by Analysis (DBA-DR), EN 13445-3 Annex B.
The tubesheet thickness to tube pitch ratio of the heat
exchanger considered is slightly smaller than 2.0, slightly
outside the limit of applicability of the ASME VIII/2
requirements. ASME VIII/2 being not attractive for this
kind of heat exchanger, this code division is not considered.
The ratio of the (axial) tube-bundle stiffness to the
effective tubesheet stiffness of this heat exchanger, at 12.46,
being fairly large, TEMA results in tubesheet thicknesses
that are known to be overly thick, see above, and,
therefore, TEMA is also not considered in this comparison.
In order to make the comparison unbiased, it is based on
ASME VIII/1 nominal design stresses for the ASME VIII/
1 calculations, and on nominal design stresses deduced
from ASME material (strength) parameters with EN
13445-3 Clause 6 requirements for EN 13445-3 Clause 13
and Annex J calculations, and also for the FE result
evaluation, adapted for the partial safety factor format
used in EN 13445-3 Annex B. To emphasise the goal of the
comparison, the comparison of code equations, and to be
able to show the influence of thermal stresses by means of
stress ratios, the nominal design stresses of Load Case 7—
design pressures and design temperatures—have also been
used in the decisive, thickness determining Load Case 3—
design pressures but without thermal expansion. The
corresponding nominal design stresses are compiled in
Table 1, see also the respective detailed calculations. The
differences in the nominal design stresses according to
ASME VIII/1 and EN 13445-3 are, for this example and
this load case, small (enough).
2. The heat exchanger
The heat exchanger considered in this paper is an
existing C2-Hydrogenation reactor in an olefin plant. The
design dimensions and design data, relevant for the
investigation, are:
Shell inner diameter—4250 mm1,2 (4294 mm)1,3
Channel outer diameter—4230 mm1
Shell thickness—70 mm1,2 (32 mm)1,3
Channel thickness—90 mm1
Tube outer diameter—57 mm
1
Nominal.
2
As variant SA 537 Cl.2 is also considered in the investigation.
3
Fluid temperatures.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
716 K. Behseta, S. Schindler / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 714–720

∅4230 90
∅58
135

2
R1
∅57
29
∅4250 70

1200

∅4288 32

Fig. 1. Geometry detail (dimensions in mm).

Tube thickness—2.9 mm1

Tubesheet thickness—135 mm1
Corrosion allowance—3 mm (on tubes 0)
Equivalent diameter of outer tube limit circle
(OTL)—4136 mm
Design pressure tubeside—40 bar
Design pressure shellside—10 bar
Design temperature tubeside—4/190 1C4
Design temperature shellside—4/145 1C4
Temperatures for determination of material Fig. 2. (a) FE model: Full model. Part of whole model, (b): FE model:
properties: Tubesheet of Full model.
Tubeside shell—145 1
Shellside shell—190 1C 3. Code results comparison
Tubesheet—167.5 1C
Tubes—167.5 1C The results of the calculations according to ASME VIII/1,
Materials: EN 13445-3 Clause 13 and Annex J, are given in Table 2
Shells: SA 516 Gr.705 for Load Case 3 (Design pressures, no thermal displace-
Tubesheet: SA 266 Cl.2 ment) and in Table 3 for Load Case 7 (Design pressures
Tubes: SA 344 Gr.1 and thermal displacements according to design tempera-
tures).
Details of the tube-to-tubesheet and the tubesheet-to-shells Because of the special design, especially the small
joints are shown in Fig. 1. The tube layout is shown in unperforated rim of the tubesheet and the shellside shell
Fig. 2, the isometric of the tubesheet in the so-called Full consisting of three courses of different thickness, comments
model. on the calculations are required.
The shellside shell consists of one middle course of Shellside courses of different thickness are directly
32 mm nominal thickness, and two thicker ones near the addressed in ASME VIII/1 and EN 13445-3 Clause 13.
tubesheet, nominal thickness 70 mm, the upper one of The given shell lengths of the thicker courses near the
1200 mm length, the lower of 800 mm length. tubesheets are, at 1200 and 800 mm, longer than the
required length (for the application scope):
4
Courses near tubesheet. pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
5
Course between thicker courses near tubesheets. l s ¼ 1:4 ðDe þ eÞes ¼ 753:3 mm.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Behseta, S. Schindler / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 714–720 717

Table 2
Stress ratios for Load Case 3

Stress ratioa Code

Load case 3 in % ASME VIII/1 (%) EN 13445-3 Cl.13 (%) EN 13445-3 Annex J (%)

Tubesheet
Bending 296.9/275.9 ¼ 108 288.2/290 ¼ 99 0
Shear 57.3/110 ¼ 52 65.9/116 ¼ 57 0
Shellside shell
seqnb
Membrane 41.6/138.0 ¼ 30 41.2/150.5 ¼ 27 39
Membrane+bending 98.0/275.9 ¼ 36 105.8/451.5 ¼ 23 —
seqfc
Membrane 96.0/138.0 ¼ 70 93.8/150.5 ¼ 62 90

Values for EN 13445-3 Annex J are optimised for the tubesheet only, not for tubesheet and shells. The ratios given for this approach are not stress ratios
but ratios of stress resultants, and there is no limit requirement for membrane plus bending stress resultants in the shells, only for the membrane stress
resultants.
a
Ratio of relevant stress to allowable value (of Load Case 7).
b
At junction to tubesheet.
c
Far from junction.

Table 3
Stress ratios for Load Case 7

Stress ratioa Code

Load case 7 in % ASME VIII/1 (%) EN 13445-3 Cl.13 (%) EN 13445-3 Annex J (%)

Tubesheet:
Bending 253.3/551.8 ¼ 46 145.7/435.0 ¼ 33 0
Shear 33.1/110 ¼ 30 33.3/116 ¼ 29 0
Shellside shell
seqnb
Membrane 49.3/138.0 ¼ 36 51.7/150.5 ¼ 34 39
Membrane+bending 96.8/552.0 ¼ 18 84.8/451.5 ¼ 19 —
seqfc
Membrane 113.8/138.0 ¼ 82 119.5/150.5 ¼ 79 90

Values for EN 13445-3 Annex J are optimised for the tubesheet only, not for tubesheet and shells. The ratios given for this approach are not stress ratios
but ratios of stress resultants, and there is no limit requirement for membrane plus bending stress resultants in the shells, only for the membrane stress
resultants.
a
Ratio of relevant stress to allowable value.
b
At junction to tubesheet.
c
Far from junction.

Different thicknesses are not directly addressed in the other
code variants. However, the lengths of the shell courses
being longer than the ‘‘usual’’ influence length of rotational
symmetric bending disturbances, the other code variants
are considered to be directly applicable as well.
The unperforated tubesheet rim is very small. The basic
assumptions in the models for ASME VIII/1 and EN
13445-3 Clause 13 are, with the exception of those for this
unperforated rim, equal. Thus, similar results according to
these codes could be expected. The results do agree well,
with one exception—the bending stress in the net cross-
section of the tubesheet in Load Case 7, see Table 3. The
cause of this discrepancy is that although the equations in
both codes are very much alike, in ASME VIII/1 the factor
Fm depends on the actions, whereas in EN 13445-3 Clause
13 it depends only on the geometry and the elastic
properties of the tubesheet and shells, not on the actions.
For Load Case 3 the values for Fm according to the two
code variants are close to each other but in Load Case 7
they differ by approximately a factor of 1.8.
That the stress ratios for Load Case 3 are large, and even
larger than unity, does not mean that the design is not
admissible. Formally and correctly for this load case, larger
nominal design stresses are allowed, and feasible—the
nominal design stresses for ambient temperatures. If there
are no thermal displacements then there is no temperature
larger than ambient.
EN 13445-3 Annex J uses a totally different approach
based on limit analysis theory.
The calculations according to this code variant showed
that the tubesheet plus tube bundle is self-supporting, the
tubesheet does not need the support of the shells, and no
reaction between tubesheet and shell junction is a statically
admissible solution. The results of this solution, which is
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
718 K. Behseta, S. Schindler / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 714–720

optimal with regard to the tubesheet, are included in the

tables. This solution is not the optimal one with regard to
the whole structure considered—tubesheet, tubes, and both
shells. Better solutions, which would decrease the large
stress ratio for the thin part of the shell-side shell can be
obtained, with increase of the tubesheet ratios. Further
iterations resulted in an overall optimal solution with ratios
29%, 70%, and 69%, for tubesheet bending, tubesheet
shear, and shellside shell membrane force far from the
junction.
ASME VIII/1 and EN 13445-3 Clause 13 indicate
wrongly that the tubesheet is the weak part. EN 13445-3
Annex J shows clearly that the tubesheet is self-supporting,
given that the tubes and the tube-to-tubesheet junctions are
strong enough, and that it is the thin course of the shellside
shell that is the weakest part.
This thin shell course is directly addressed in ASME
VIII/1 and in EN 13445-3 Clause 13, and, therefore,
checked in a routine application of this approach. The
check can be incorporated in applications of EN 13445-3
Annex J, but can be missed easily in routine applications.
The usual check as a cylindrical shell under internal
(shellside) pressure is only complementary, and does not
account for the large longitudinal stresses in the shell
course, due to the large pressure in the channel.
EN 13445-3 Annex J requires for heat exchangers with
fixed tubesheets a fatigue check, for which a conservative
approach is given. For the heat exchanger considered here,
a reactor in a petrochemical plant, fatigue is not a problem.
Results of a fatigue design check are given in Section 5, in
the discussion of the DBA-DR results.

4. The FE model
The heat exchanger is symmetric in the parts of interest
here with regard to two meridional planes, and is
considered to be symmetric with regard to a cross-section
in the middle between the tubesheet. Pre-checks with a
model representing one eighth of the heat exchanger, called
in the following the Full model and shown in Fig. 2,
showed this FE model to be too time consuming. Two
other, simpler FE models were checked against this full
model, and one of these, the so-called Sector model, shown
in Fig. 3, was used for all design checks.
This FE model consists of 42482 elements and 82238
nodes. The shells, tubesheet and a part of the tubes are
modelled with 3D-volume elements SOLID 45. Tubes not
modelled with volume elements are replaced by vertical
link elements, 12 per full bore. The upper nodes of the link
elements are the corresponding upmost nodes of the bores
in the tubesheet. All nodes at the meridional sides of the
tubesheet and shells are assigned with symmetry boundary
conditions. 3D-pipes, link elements, and the lower side of
shellside shell, are fixed in the vertical direction. To take
into account the pressure force on the upper end of the heat
exchanger, vertical forces were applied on all nodes of the
Fig. 3. (a) FE model: Whole Sector model. (b): FE model: Tubesheet of
Sector model.
upper side of the tube-side shell (the channel), with
resultant equal to the pressure force at the end.
5. The design checks
In accordance with EN 13445-3 Annex B, four design
checks have to be considered here. These are the gross
plastic deformation design check (GPD-DC), the progres-
sive plastic deformation design check (PD-DC), the fatigue
design check (F-DC), and the instability design check
(I-DC), for all relevant load cases. Of these design checks
only the first three are of interest here, the I-DC is a
straightforward comparison of calculated compressive
axial stresses in the tubes with the corresponding allowable
ones, with requirements in other clauses of the standard.
For the GPD-DC, in accordance with the standard’s
requirements, the pressures for Load Case 3 have been
increased proportionally, from zero up to the design
values and further. In the thermal stress free sector model
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Behseta, S. Schindler / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 714–720
a linear-elastic ideal-plastic constitutive law and associated
flow law is used with first-order-theory, stress-free initial
state, Mises
pffiffiffi yield condition, and with yield stresses given
by 1:2  3=2 times the nominal design stresses listed in
Table 1. The factor 1.2 results from the p relevant
ffiffiffi partial
safety factors in the standard. The factor 3=2 has to be
applied because of the use of the Mises’ yield condition in
the model and Tresca’s in the standard’s requirements for
the GPD-DC.
At 240% of the design pressure the FEA calculations
failed to converge, and the last convergent solution
obtained at a pressure of 198% of the design pressure
showed a maximum equivalent total plastic strain well
below the limit (for equivalent structural strains) of 5%.
There result permissible pressures of 198/1.2 ¼ 165% of
the design pressures. Total plastification occurred at the
upper end of the channel shell, with little plastic flow in the
tubesheet.
The tubesheet and the tubesheet-to-shell junction being
of interest, a second investigation has been performed with
a stronger channel shell material–SA 537 Cl.2, with
nominal design stress (at design temperature) of
188 MPa, and yield stress of 195.4 MPa. The FEA
calculations failed to converge in this case at 260% of the
design pressures, with the last convergent solution at 222%
of the design pressures with maximum plastic equivalent
total strain well below the limit (for equivalent structural
strains) of 5%. Critical sections are now the net cross-
section of the tubesheet (between the bores), and the thin
shell-side shell course. The maximum permissible pressures
are 222/1.2 ¼ 185% of the design pressures, and the
corresponding ratio of design pressures is 54%. This ratio
is smaller than the value obtained by use of EN 13445-3
Annex J, after overall optimisation.
In the PD-DC, shakedown to purely elastic behaviour
was proven for the cyclic load case from Action State 0,
given by zero pressures and ambient temperatures up to
Action State A, given by pressures of 185% of the specified
design pressures and temperatures equal to the design
temperatures, and back to Action State 0. In the resulting
reaction of the structure stationary thermal stresses
corresponding to a stationary temperature distribution,
with metal surface temperatures as specified, were included.
For use in Melan’s shakedown theorem a suitable
residual stress field was created by a pressurisation/
depressurisation cycle of the FE model used in the GPD-
DC, with maximum pressures close to the limit analysis
pressures of the model.
The superposition of the resulting residual stress field
with the stress field determined in the corresponding model
with an (unbounded) linear-elastic constitutive law for
actions of Action State A rendered a stress field for which
Mises equivalent stress exceeded nowhere the relevant
limit, given in the standard by the 0.2% proof stress at the
calculated metal temperature. Therefore, according to
Melan’s shakedown theorem, shakedown to linear-elastic
behaviour is proven for this action cycle.
719
Fig. 4. Maximum principal stress (normal to weld joint direction), linear-
elastic model, Action State M.
For the F-DC, EN 13445-3 recommends, taking account
of the strong influence of stress changes on the number of
allowed cycles, use of realistic action values, not design
values. Therefore, the allowable number of cycles was
determined for cyclic actions from Action State 0, up to
Action State M, and back to Action State 0. Action State
M is given by pressures of 85% of the maximum
permissible pressures and temperatures equal to the design
pressures, and where the above, in connection with the PD-
DC, described thermal stresses are included in the reaction
of the structure.
Fatigue is decisive in the weld joint between the channel
shell and the tubesheet, see Fig. 4. For Action State M a
maximum principal stress normal to the weld joint of
411.9 MPa was obtained. For the relevant fatigue class
FAT 63, the calculation of the allowable number of cycles
according to Clause 18 of EN 13445-3 gave a result of 2806
cycles, a value larger than the specified number of cycles to
be considered to occur under reasonably foreseeable
conditions, specified to be 300.
6. Conclusions
For this special heat exchanger, application of ASME
VIII/1 and EN 13445-3 Clause 13 leads to unnecessarily
thick tubesheets. Application of EN 13445-3 Annex J
results, for all parts, in thicknesses which are much more
economical, but the thin shell-side shell course requires
additional calculation steps that are easily missed in
routine applications. The fatigue check, required in this
approach, leads to overly conservative results if the
requirements in this annex are followed, and details of
the geometry at the hot spot cannot be taken into account
directly. The importance of these details is easily over-
looked.
The setting-up of the FE model is time-consuming, but
the results may be worth the effort: The maximum
permissible pressures, as per the Direct Route in Design
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
720 K. Behseta, S. Schindler / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 714–720
by Analysis, are even larger than the ones obtained with an
EN 13445-3 Annex J approach, definitely the best of the
three Design by Formula approaches discussed, and all
details can be incorporated. The various design checks give
a clear picture of the limit behaviour and of critical areas
important for in-service inspection (ISI)—critical regions
and required ISI intervals.
Acknowledgement
This paper is extract of parts of the dissertation prepared
at the Vienna University of Technology. Usage of ANSYS
under the university license is acknowledged.
References
[1] Singh KP, Soler AI. Mechanical design of heat exchangers and
pressure vessel components. Acturus Publishers, Inc.; 1984.
[2] 2004 ASME boiler and pressure vessel code, Section VIII, Division
1,2–rules for construction of pressure vessels. New York: ASME Press;
2004.
[3] EN13445-3: European standard for unfired pressure vessels—part 3:
design. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2002.
[4] TEMA: Standards of the tubular exchanger manufacturers association,
eighth ed. Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association, Inc.; 1999.
[5] Rao KR, editor. Companion guide to the ASME boiler & pressure
vessel code, vol. 2. New York: ASME Press; 2002.
[6] Osweiller F. Tubesheet heat-exchangers: new common design rules in
UVP, CODAP and ASME. In: Proceedings ninth international
conference on pressure vessel technology (ICPVT-9), vol. 1, Sydney,
2000. p. 43–55.