International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700–712

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhmt

A simple method to calculate shell side fluid pressure drop in a shell

and tube heat exchanger
B. Parikshit ⇑, K.R. Spandana, V. Krishna, T.R. Seetharam, K.N. Seetharamu
Department of Mechanical Engineering, PES Institute of Technology, 100 ft. Ring road, Banashankari III stage, Bangalore 560 085, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Pressure drop predictions on the shell side of a shell and tube heat exchanger (STHX) are investigated
Received 19 September 2014 using the concept of Finite Element Method (FEM). In this model the shell side region is discretised into
Received in revised form 12 December 2014 a number of elements and by taking into account the effect of flow pattern, the pressure drop on the shell
Accepted 9 January 2015
side of a STHX is determined. The present method is simple to apply and the predictions agree reasonably
well with a large number of experimental data available in the literature. The range of applicability of the
present method extends beyond that used by others in the literature. The earlier predictions were
Keywords:
restricted to tubes in the window region, however, the predictions of the present method are extended
Shell and tube heat exchanger
Pressure drop
to the cases of no tubes in the window (NTIW) region also.
FEM model Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Friction factors
No tube in window section

1. Introduction between two adjacent baffles. Some of the afore mentioned

Shell and tube heat exchangers are very widely used in a
number of industries and its applications include transformer oil
cooling, exhaust gas heat recovery, solvent distillate process,
ethanol mash-stillage, power plants, air-conditioning units, etc.
This heat exchanger (HX) comprises of one fluid flowing through
the tubes and the other fluid flowing in the shell across the tube
bundle. The flow in the shell side of a shell and tube heat exchan-
ger (STHX) with segmented baffles is quite complex. The flow in
baffle region is illustrated in Fig. 1, in terms of main stream SH,
leakage stream between tubes and baffle SL and bypass stream
between tube bundle and shell SB. The gaps between a baffle and
the tube cause leakage stream SL, which may modify the main
stream SH significantly. As the tubes cannot be placed very close
to the shell, bypass streams SB may be formed, which also influ-
ences the main stream. The flow direction of the main stream rel-
ative to the tubes is different in the window sections created by the
baffle cut from that in the cross flow sections existing between the
segmental baffles. This necessitates the use of different equations
to calculate the pressure drop in the window sections to those used
in the cross flow sections. The spacing between the tube plates and
the first and the last baffle differs in many cases from the spacing
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: parikshit15b@gmail.com (B. Parikshit), spandi93@gmail.com
(K.R. Spandana), vkrishna@pes.edu (V. Krishna), tr.seetharam@pes.edu
(T.R. Seetharam), knseetharamu@yahoo.com (K.N. Seetharamu).
streams are not present in the first and the last section of the
HX. A large number of investigations which describe methods to
calculate the shell side pressure drop in a STHX have been
published [1–5]. A critical review of these methods is given by
Palen and Taborek [6]. They have compared the different
calculation procedures against a large number of experimental
measurements on small units and on industrial HXs. According
to them, the methods of Tinker [3,4] and of Delaware [5] gave
the best result as compared to the other methods. The method of
Tinker [3,4] has been criticized as it is relatively complicated.
Gaddis and Gnielinski [7] have followed the Delaware method
[5] to calculate the shell side pressure drop, except that, instead
of using diagrams – as in the Delaware method – to calculate the
pressure drop in the ideal tube bank, they have used equations pre-
viously presented by them in [8,9]. Correction factors are then
used, as in the Delaware method, to take into account the deviation
of the flow inside the shell from that in the ideal case of a tube
bank. They have compared pressure drops predicted by their
model with those obtained experimentally by different investiga-
tors. The comparison is represented by the ratio, Dpm/Dpc for all
available experimental points, as a function of Reynolds number
(Re). The comparison shows that for large number of experimental
points the deviations between measurements and theoretical pre-
dictions are as high as ±35% for Reynolds number range from 10 to
105. Further, about one third of the experimental points have devi-
ations more than ±35%. They also found that in extreme cases, the
measured pressure drop is as low as one fifth or as high as four

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2015.01.068
0017-9310/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700–712 701

Nomenclature

a relative transverse pitch of tube bundle, a = xt/do p tube pitch, p ¼ dpot

Abmin minimum cross- sectional area at the baffle tip (m2) pt tube pitch (m)
Amin minimum area of flow of fluid in a cross section (m2) Q volume flow rate in (m3/s)
Anozzle nozzle cross-section area (m2) Re Reynolds number, Re ¼ Aqmin Qd0
l
b relative longitudinal pitch of tube bundle, b = xl/do S baffle spacing (m)
c relative diagonal pitch of tube bundle, c = xd/do xd diagonal pitch of tube bundle (m)
d0 outer tube diameter (m) xi distance between outer most tubes at cross section
Dotl diameter of the circle encompassing the end tubes (m) (Fig. 2(b)) at the end of ith element (m)
Ds inner diameter of shell (m) xe space between the outer most tube in a shell and shell
2DPA2
Eu Euler number (friction factor), Eu ¼ nqQmin
2 outer diameter (m): Ds  Dotl
Euc corrected friction factor after using angular correction xl longitudinal pitch of tube bundle (m)
factor xt transverse pitch of tube bundle (m)
Kw correction for angular flow x(i) net distance at the exit of ith element within the tube
kn nozzle pressure drop coefficient for each nozzle outer limit (m), xðiÞ ¼ xi þx2 i1
lc baffle cut in (m) l viscosity of the fluid (in Pa s)
N number of rows in a particular element, if it is inter- q density of shell side fluid (kg/m3)
baffle element it is necf and if it is window element it wm acute angle the fluid makes with the tube in the
is new mid-section in radians
Nc number of elements in inter-baffle region ww acute angle the fluid makes with the tube in the window
necf number of rows in inter-baffle element = Dxs 2l
l Nc
c
section in radians
0:8lc 
Ds Dotl DP pressure drop (Pa)
new number of rows in window section = Nw
2
DPc calculated shell side pressure drop
2 xl
DPexp experimental pressure drop
Ntw number of tubes in window section
DPfem pressure drop predicted by Finite element model
Nw total number of elements in upper and lower window
DPm measured shell side pressure drop
section
hb angle subtended by the baffle cut
Pi pressure at ith node

times the calculated values. This clearly indicates that the method
of Gaddis and Gnielinski [7] cannot be applied safely in the form
suggested by them. Kapale et al. [10] have proposed a theoretical
model to calculate the shell side pressure drop. Their model incor-
porates the effect of pressure drop in inlet and out let nozzles along
with the losses in the segments created by baffles. For the range of
Reynolds number between 103 and 105, they found that their
results match more closely (deviation between +2.4% and 4%)
with the available experimental results. But they have not shown
the validity of their model to predict pressure drop in HXs with
NTIW. The calculation adopted by Kapale et al. [10] is complex.
They have not predicted pressure drop for all the cases for which
experimental data is available. Thus, there is a need to develop a
simple model to calculate pressure drop on the shell side of STHXs.
All the theoretical models reported in literature to calculate the
shell-side pressure drop in a STHX require a lot of calculations with
Fig. 1. Flow through shell of shell and tube heat exchanger with segmental baffle
with leakage streams. [7].
a number of variables involved in the calculations. Further these
models use different correlations for window section and cross
flow section. In all the above mentioned references, the methodol-
ogy to find pressure drop coefficient involves tedious calculations
which include various geometrical parameters and is time con-
suming. These pressure drop coefficients have been changed time
and again, yet no coefficient has been found which works satisfac-
torily for all cases.
Friction factors for flow over rectangular tube banks have been
given by Zukauskas [11] and Gunter and Haw [12]. A Finite ele-
ment model of STHX for determining amount of heat transfer has
been developed by Ravikumaur et al. [13] in 1988 but application
of such a model to determine pressure drop in STHX has not been
carried out so far.
Yonghua et al. [14], experimentally investigated the shell-side
thermo-hydraulic performance of a shell and tube HX with trefoil
hole baffles under turbulent flow regime. Based on the experimental
results, empirical correlations of the Nusselt number and pressure
loss as a function of the Reynolds number are obtained. To analyze
the mechanisms of these thermo-hydraulic characteristics, numer-
ical computation is carried out. Ender and Ilker [15], investigated
the baffle spacing, baffle cut and shell diameter dependencies of
the heat transfer coefficient and the pressure drop by numerically
modeling a small HX. The authors refer to the Bell-Delaware [5]
method as a very detailed and an accurate method to estimate the
outlet parameters and have compared their results to that method,
but Bell-Delaware method itself does not predict pressure drop val-
ues close to the experimental values. The authors have also com-
pared the pressure drop results to Kapale’s [10] model and have
found a deviation of up to 34%. Results obtained from the CFD sim-
ulations show that the existing analytical methods under predict
the pressure drop in many cases. Vera et al. [16], present a model
to determine the outlet conditions of a shell and tube HX working
in a refrigeration cycle either as a condenser or evaporator only.
The model does not take the internal geometrical information into
702 B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700–712
Upper
Window
1
2
Mid-
Secon 3
Lower
Window 4
a. One baffle space divided into
elements (1, 2, 3, 4)
c. Circular cross section split into
Rectangular elements
Fig. 2. Element model of the shell and tube heat exchanger.
account and as a result requires special types of correlations to
estimate the heat transfer coefficients and the pressure drop. The
pressure drop model of Vera et al. [16] is much simpler than the
earlier published works on pressure drop models, but this model
is restricted to refrigerator systems. This model uses Zukauskas
friction factor [11] to determine the influence of geometrical factors
on pressure drop (according to the expression proposed by Hewitt
et al. [17]). But these correlations are not explicitly used as a method
by itself elsewhere to find pressure drop in shell and tube HXs.
Rajagapal and Srikanth [18] have studied the effect of baffle inclina-
tion angles of 0°, 10° and 20°. The pressure drop decreases by 4% for
HXs with a 10° baffle inclination angle and by 16% for HX with 20°
baffle inclination angle. Prithiviraj and Andrews [19] have devel-
oped a three-dimensional CFD numerical code, HEATX, to simulate
flow and heat transfer in shell and tube heat exchangers. The model
presented by Prithiviraj and Andrews [19] uses ideal tube bank
correlations of Zukauskas [11] to find the distributed resistances
for shell side cross flow pressure drop and heat transfer. The CFD
analysis is carried out only for a 30° tube bundle and the validation
for other cases are not presented. Problem set up and calculation
time for executing the Bell [5] and Kern [2] method is about
20 min. The typical computational time taken to run the HEATX
[19] three-dimensional simulations are about 20 h on a Pentium
133. However, the HEATX results are fairly accurate and a deviation
up to 10% is observed when verified against the experimental work
of Halle [20].
In the present work, an attempt has been made to formulate a
new and simple method to predict the pressure drop on the shell
side of a shell and tube HX using the concept of FEM. Initially the
model is tested with friction factors given by Gunter et al. [12],
b. Cross section of the baffle
space
Transverse direcon
(Longitudinal direcon)
Flow direcon
d. Flow direcon and associated
pitches
but is found to be deviating up to 85% from the experimental works
of Halle et al. [20]. In the proposed model, the correlation for fric-
tion factor as suggested by Zukauskas [11] is used for each ele-
ment. The overall pressure drop is computed after assembly of
all elements. The novelty of the present model lies in the fact that
the pressure drop on the shell side of the STHX can be determined
in a simple way with limited data of HX geometry provided by
manufacturers. The predicted pressure drop is compared to exper-
imental work for 240 cases. In order to limit the number of pages,
130 cases are presented here. The configuration codes used
throughout this paper for an abbreviated description of the config-
urations of HXs tested are as presented in Table 1.
2. New pressure drop model
Fluid flows when there is a pressure drop between 2 regions.
The pressure drop encountered between the 2 sections for a given
flow quantity is connected in the form of an element (as in the case
    
1 1 Pi Qi
of FEM) 1R ¼ , where R is the flow resistance
1 1 Pj Qj
encountered during the flow between the 2 sections. Thus, the ele-
ment relates the pressure drop encountered to the flow quantity
through the resistance encountered by the fluid. When the friction
factor varies along the length of the fluid flow as in the developing
section of a pipe, this method helps to incorporate such variations
in the model. This method of representation allows us to determine
the total pressure drop by summing up the pressure drop in each of
the sub regions.
The steps in the FEM involve geometric representation of the
domain, discretization of the domain into elements and nodes,
 B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700–712 703

Table 1 2.2. Yaw correction factor

Explanation of heat exchanger configuration code [20].

Position Symbols Definition In most of the investigations so far reported in literature, the
1st letter F Full tube bundle actual flow direction of fluid has not been taken into account for
N No-tube-in-window bundle calculation of pressure drop. Most of the authors have assumed a
2nd letter P Plain tube model wherein, fluid flow is perpendicular to tube bundles. How-
1st number 6 or 8 Number of cross passes ever Kapale et al. [10] have proposed a model which takes into
2nd number 10 or 14 in Nominal size of nozzles
10 in. size: 0.241 m (9.50 in.)
account direction of fluid flow. They consider fluid flow in the win-
14 in. size: 0.337 m (13.25 in.) dow region to be parallel to the tubes and that in the mid-section
3rd number 30 to 90 deg Tube layout pattern to be flowing at an angle. In the present investigation the fluid flow
Last digit 15.5 to 29.8 percent Baffle cut as percentage of inside direction adopted is different from that of the model of Kapale
diameter
et al. [10].
The flow pattern for this model for inter-baffle region and inlet
and outlet sections are shown in Figs. 3–5. Figs. 3 and 4 represent
the flow in inter-baffle region, while Fig. 5 represents flow in both
inlet and outlet sections. The flow patterns in inter-baffle region
obtaining the characteristics of an element, assembly of all differ from that for inlet and outlet section as depicted in Figs. 3–5.
elements, incorporating boundary conditions and solving the These flow patterns decide the angle w (Appendix A) at which
system of equations. the fluid crosses the tube bundle. The correction factor given by
In FEM, to obtain the characteristics of the entire domain for Zukauskas [11], which is in the form of a graph is correlated by
any variables like temperature, pressure etc., a small region is Schlunder [22], Eqs. (3a) and (3b) give correlations to obtain yaw
selected which has typical characteristics of the entire domain. correction factors.
Using variational or weighted residual method, characteristic of Yaw correction factor for inline tube arrangement:
the sub-region is obtained. After obtaining the characteristic of
K w ¼ 1:107 expð0:301w2:412 Þ ð3aÞ
the element, all the elements are assembled. Nodal values like
temperature, pressure are then determined by inserting the Yaw correction factor for staggered tube arrangement:
boundary conditions and solving the system of equations.
K w ¼ 1:245 expð0:478w1:733 Þ ð3bÞ
2.1. Geometrical model
The Euler number (Eu) as obtained from [11] is multiplied by
correction factor K w and the corrected Euler number (Euc) is
The model requires the shell side of STHX to be discretised into
calculated:
many elements, with elements in window section, mid-section,
and inlet–outlet section as shown in Fig. 2. In the present model, Euc ¼ K w Eu ð4Þ
Zukauskas friction factor has been used. The discretization and
the number of elements taken should be such that, it should reflect The shell-side fluid flow is found to vary depending on the Shell
the situation (in rectangular tube bundles) Zukauskas [11] has diameter, baffle spacing and tubes in window section.
used for determining the friction factor. In this way 4 elements
gives satisfactory results. These 4 elements in one cross flow 2.3. FEM model
section are distributed with 1 element in each window section
and 2 elements in the mid-section to find pressure drop across that In the case of a STHX, the fluid flow on its shell side is complex.
section. The flow path of a shell side fluid is first determined as it decides
The longitudinal and transverse pitches for various tube arrays the characteristics of the element (shown in Section 2.2). The
are as given by Shah et al. [21] and are illustrated in Table 2. friction factor required to find the pressure drop is selected (in
For inline tube arrangement, the minimum cross flow area used the present case Zukauskas correlations) for each of the sections.
is given by Stiffness matrix for each of the element is then determined. These
stiffness matrices are assembled to obtain the global stiffness
ðxt  do ÞSxðiÞ
Amin ¼ þ Sxe ð1Þ matrix. On the load vector, known boundary conditions are
xt inserted and pressure at each of the nodes is determined (see
whereas for staggered arrangement, the minimum cross flow area is Fig. 6). Typical example for pressure drop in a pipe network is
given by available in Lewis et al. [23].
In the present model the whole HX is discretised into a number
ðxt  do ÞSxðiÞ
Amin ¼ þ Sxe for xt  do 6 2ðxd  do Þ ð2aÞ of elements depending on the number of baffles. Between the baf-
xt fles, it is discretised into 4 elements in the direction of flow as illus-
or trated in Fig. 2(a) and the evaluation for pressure drop is performed
element by element using Zukauskas correlation for rectangular
2ðxd  do ÞSxðiÞ
Amin ¼ þ Sxe for xt  do > 2ðxd  do Þ ð2bÞ tube bundles [11]. The formula to be used for calculating pressure
xt drop is discussed in reference [24]. Using Euc, the pressure drop for

Table 2
Properties of tube banks [21].

30° Triangular staggered array 60° Rotated triangular staggered array 90° Square inline array 45° Rotated square staggered array
pffiffiffi pffiffiffi
Transverse tube pitch (xt) pt 3pt pt 2pt
pffiffi pt ptffiffi
Longitudinal tube pitch (xl) 3 pt p
2 pt 2 2
704 B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700–712

ψw
ψm
ψw
ψm = ψw ψm = ψw

a. With tubes in window section b. No tubes in window section

Ds
Fig. 3. Flow in Inter-baffle region when S
6 1.

ψw ψw
ψm ψm

ψw
ψw

a. With tubes in window section b. No tubes in window section

Ds
Fig. 4. Flow in Inter-baffle region when S
> 1.

Table 3
Correction factors for 60° and 45° tube arrangement.

K45 = 0.97 for Re < 104

ψw K45 = 9.289 Re0.2203 + 2.289
K45 = 1.834
for
for
104 6 Re 6 106
Re > 106
K60 = 0.85 for Re < 3  104
K60 = 1 for 3  104 6 Re < 5  104
K60 = 1.05 for 5  104 6 Re 6 105
K60 = 1.1 for Re P 105

ψm
pressure drop due to sudden expansion at inlet nozzle and sudden
contraction at the exit nozzle as discussed by Gaddis et al. [7]:
ψw
2A2nozzle
k¼ ð5bÞ
kn q Q

The value of kn is taken as 1 for each nozzle as suggested by Gaddis

et al.
Fig. 5. Flow in Inlet or outlet section. The pressure element is given by,
    
k k Pi Q
flow over a rectangular tube bank is calculated. The coefficient k of ¼ ð6Þ
k k Pj Q
stiffness matrix for each element within the shell and tube HX is
given by Using the coefficient of stiffness matrix for each element, the coef-
2A2min ficient for overall stiffness matrix is obtained and then the equa-
k¼ ð5aÞ tions are solved to get overall pressure drop.
Euc qQn
For a window section with no tubes, the pressure drop is negli-
Eq. (5b) gives the pressure drop coefficient in nozzles, these ele- gible. Hence, the nodal pressure value at the exit (Pj) can safely be
ments are added at the beginning of the inlet section and at the approximated to the nodal pressure value at the inlet (Pi) of the
end of exit section. These elements are added to take into account element. The pressure element of the NTIW region is given by
 B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700–712 705

Table 4
Prediction of pressure drop with tubes in window region and comparison with experimental results.

Heat exchanger configuration Volume flow rate Q (m3/s) Experimental pressure drop, DPexp (kPa) FEM model pressure drop, DPfem (kPa) Deviation (in%)
(a)
F P8 1400 30 25.5 0.090 74.240 75.385 1.542
0.133 157.750 153.131 2.928
0.150 198.980 191.204 3.908
0.180 282.890 268.533 5.075
0.200 346.690 327.276 5.600
F P8 1000 30 25.5 0.050 26.550 27.844 4.874
0.080 65.160 63.383 2.728
0.100 99.790 94.630 5.171
0.120 141.360 131.916 6.681
0.130 157.730 152.823 3.111
0.160 244.870 224.600 8.278
0.188 333.210 303.845 8.813
F P8 1400 90 25.5 0.063 28.900 30.150 4.324
0.080 45.830 46.608 1.697
0.100 70.497 70.355 0.202
0.120 100.230 98.838 1.389
0.140 134.960 132.058 2.150
0.164 183.160 178.172 2.723
F P8 1000 90 25.5 0.063 31.900 31.554 1.085
0.080 50.590 48.872 3.395
0.100 77.820 73.893 5.047
0.130 129.114 120.836 6.412
0.150 170.184 158.404 6.922
0.180 241.960 224.167 7.354
0.215 339.990 315.159 7.303

Heat exchanger configuration Volume flow rate Q (m3/s) Experimental pressure drop, DPexp (kPa) FEM model pressure drop, DPfem (kPa) Deviation (in%)
(b)
F P6 1400 30 28.9 0.070 28.300 28.627 1.154
0.085 40.660 40.198 1.136
0.090 45.280 44.466 1.797
0.100 55.140 53.620 2.757
0.120 77.540 74.392 4.060
0.135 96.640 92.127 4.670
F P6 1000 30 28.9 0.075 37.740 34.268 9.199
0.085 47.450 42.754 9.896
0.100 63.890 57.158 10.537
0.120 89.190 79.487 10.879
0.150 134.170 119.672 10.806
0.180 187.310 167.886 10.370
0.205 237.640 214.196 9.865
F P6 1400 90 29.6 0.050 11.290 12.249 8.496
0.070 21.190 22.431 5.856
0.090 33.900 35.460 4.600
0.100 41.284 43.040 4.253
0.130 67.430 70.044 3.876
0.160 99.420 103.439 4.043
0.189 135.760 141.796 4.446
F P6 1000 90 29.6 0.078 28.970 29.454 1.670
0.090 38.290 38.326 0.093
0.100 47.020 46.578 0.939
0.120 67.100 65.427 2.493
0.140 90.630 87.401 3.563
0.160 117.590 112.497 4.331
0.176 141.600 134.823 4.786

Heat exchanger Volume Experimental FEM model pressure drop using Deviation using FEM model pressure drop Deviation using
configuration flow rate Q pressure drop, Zukauskas correction factor, Zukauskas correction using new correction factor, new correction
(m3/s) DPexp (kPa) DPfem (kPa) factor (in%) DPfem (kPa) factor (in%)
(c)
F P6 1400 45 29.8 0.050 10.230 9.756 4.630 10.306 0.741
0.070 19.445 16.740 13.912 19.869 2.183
0.100 38.430 30.928 19.522 38.887 1.189
0.120 54.440 42.378 22.156 54.724 0.522
0.140 73.074 55.445 24.124 73.132 0.080
0.174 110.690 81.432 26.432 110.456 0.211
F P6 1400 60 29.6 0.066 22.285 30.270 35.833 23.903 7.262
0.080 32.118 41.840 30.270 33.156 3.230
0.100 49.078 60.778 23.839 49.662 1.189

(continued on next page)

706 B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700–712

Table 4 (continued)

Heat exchanger Volume Experimental FEM model pressure drop using Deviation using FEM model pressure drop Deviation using
configuration flow rate Q pressure drop, Zukauskas correction factor, Zukauskas correction using new correction factor, new correction
(m3/s) DPexp (kPa) DPfem (kPa) factor (in%) DPfem (kPa) factor (in%)
0.120 69.395 82.600 19.028 69.530 0.195
0.140 93.010 107.370 15.439 94.542 1.647
0.157 115.640 130.778 13.090 115.249 0.338

Heat exchanger Volume flow rate Q (m3/s) Experimental pressure drop, DPexp (kPa) FEM model pressure drop, DPfem (kPa) Deviation (in%)
configuration
(d)
F P6 1400 45 15.5 0.050 24.240 24.928 2.838
0.070 48.170 48.332 0.336
0.090 79.230 79.091 0.176
0.100 97.610 97.154 0.468
0.130 164.090 162.096 1.215
0.150 217.840 214.411 1.574
0.174 292.260 286.789 1.872
F P6 1400 60 15.5 z0.050 28.996 28.898 0.336
0.070 55.696 56.178 0.865
0.090 90.690 89.388 1.436
0.100 111.260 109.782 1.329
0.125 171.530 172.778 0.728
0.140 213.710 213.297 0.193

    
1 1 Pi 0 drop for STHXs with tubes in window agree well with experimen-
¼ ð7Þ
1 1 Pj 0 tal values with a deviation of 0.5% to +7.3% as seen from Table 4c.
The friction factors with their correction factors when applied
Apart from the elements defined as shown in Fig. 2 STHXs with low to a low baffle cut of 15.5% gave a deviation of more than 50% from
baffle cuts will also have spring elements just at the baffle space to experimental values. The reason for this deviation being, the minor
take into account the minor losses which will be discussed in Sec- losses encountered at the baffle end in the 15.5% baffle cut due to
tion 3.2. The coefficient k for the stiffness matrix of this spring ele- orifice effect. The effect of minor losses increases for lower baffle
ment is given by cuts and this is also evident from the pressure drop distribution
illustrated by Halle et.al [20], where the pressure drop at 15.5% baf-
fle cut is 60% higher than other baffle cuts. The minor loss coeffi-
A2bmin
k¼ ð8Þ cients (kl) for 15.5% baffle cut are represented in Eqs. (9) and (10):
kl qQ
K l ¼ 0:315 For 60 tube bundle ð9Þ

3. Results and discussions K l ¼ 0:415 For 45 tube bundle ð10Þ

3.1. Comparison with experimental value and new correction factors
Zukauskas [11] suggested friction factors are used for staggered
(30°) with a/b ratio as 1.155 and inline (90°) tube bundles with
(a  1)/(b  1). For any other tube configuration Zukauskas [11]
have proposed correction factors to be multiplied with correspond-
ing friction factor of staggered (30°) and inline (90°) configuration.
But when Zukauskas friction factor, along with his correction factor
was applied to 45° and 60° tube bundle, this model gave a devia-
tion of +27% and 36% respectively (Table 4c). Additional correc-
tion factors k45 and k60 are proposed respectively for 45°and 60°
tube bundles as given in Table 3, on lines similar to Kapale et al.
who modified the friction factors presented by Kern [2].
The present method with 4 elements in a cross flow path, is
applied to most of the cases presented by Halle et al. [20]. The
results are shown in Tables 4 and 5. The experimental results given
by Halle [20], has innate error of about 5% as discussed by Kistler
and Chenoweth [25]. It is found that, for 30° and 90° tube bundles
as shown in Tables 4a,b and Tables 5a,b, the pressure drops are
compared with values reported by Halle et al. [20] and the devia-
tion is less than ±5% for most of the cases. Therefore, the use of fric-
tion factors proposed by Zukauskas [11] in the present model
yields good results.
The correction factors are to be multiplied with the standard
friction factors given by Zukauskas [11] for staggered (30°) tube
bundles with a/b ratio of 1.155 and inline (90°) tube bundles with
(a  1)/(b  1) as 1. Using these correction factors, the pressure
The minimum cross flow area at the baffle is calculated using Eq.
(11), and the pressure drop due to minor loss is determined by
Eqs. (6) and (8):
 2 2
1 Ds do
Abmin ¼ ðhb  sinhb Þ  Ntw p ð11Þ
2 2 4
The pressure drop in HX with tubes in window section (Table 4)
mostly deviated by less than ±6%. However, the maximum deviation
(10.9%) is found in cases with nozzle diameter of 10 inches, prob-
ably, by the use of the nozzle pressure drop coefficient as suggested
by Gaddis et al. [7] which is 2 (for both the nozzles combined). HX
with NTIW (Table 4) deviated by less than ±7% in most of the cases.
3.2. Present prediction of DP and its comparison with available values
The present predictions of DP are compared with those avail-
able in literature (Table 6). The present method predicts the pres-
sure drop with greater accuracy when compared to most of the
other models. Zukauskas [11] has already provided well estab-
lished results for friction factors for Reynolds number ranging 10
to 106. The earlier authors have applied their models for Reynolds
number 103 to 105. However, Gaddis et al. [7], have used the fric-
tion factors for Reynolds number range from 10 to 105 with devi-
ations in predicted pressure drops up to ±35% and in some cases
beyond that. Thus, in the present model, the predictions are
extended beyond the Reynolds number 105 upto 106, in view of
the friction factors of Zukauskas used in the present method.
 B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700–712 707

Table 5
Prediction of pressure drop with no NTIW region and comparison with experimental results.

Heat exchanger configuration Volume flow rate Q (m3/s) Experimental pressure drop, DPexp (kPa) FEM model pressure drop, DPfem (kPa) Deviation (in%)
(a)
N P8 1400 30 25.5 0.100 46.070 45.123 2.056
0.130 73.690 72.159 2.078
0.160 106.860 105.307 1.454
0.200 159.320 159.008 0.196
0.240 220.800 223.571 1.255
0.280 290.960 298.994 2.761
0.316 361.295 376.161 4.115
N P8 1000 30 25.5 0.075 29.110 29.254 0.494
0.090 40.280 40.335 0.137
0.120 67.210 67.563 0.525
0.150 99.980 101.540 1.560
0.180 138.320 142.264 2.851
0.210 181.985 189.735 4.258
0.251 249.980 265.521 6.217

Heat exchanger configuration Volume flow rate Q (m3/s) Experimental pressure drop, DPexp (kPa) FEM model pressure drop, DPfem (kPa) Deviation (in%)
(b)
N P8 1400 90 25.5 0.064 18.540 17.031 8.137
0.090 35.320 31.576 10.600
0.120 60.840 53.624 11.861
0.150 92.750 81.310 12.335
0.170 117.510 102.898 12.435
0.200 159.760 139.978 12.382
0.230 208.058 182.694 12.191
0.251 245.420 215.948 12.009
N P6 1000 90 29.6 0.037 3.426 3.105 9.359
0.060 8.378 7.489 10.610
0.090 17.740 15.733 11.315
0.120 30.200 26.822 11.186
0.160 51.430 46.028 10.504
0.200 77.710 70.283 9.557
0.230 100.640 91.788 8.795
0.251 118.300 108.532 8.257

Heat exchanger configuration Volume flow rate Q (m3/s) Experimental pressure drop, DPexp (kPa) FEM model pressure drop, DPfem (kPa) Deviation (in%)
(c)
N P6 1000 30 28.9 0.102 24.281 23.966 1.298
0.130 37.574 37.058 1.373
0.160 54.601 54.121 0.879
0.200 81.591 81.755 0.202
0.230 104.929 106.143 1.157
0.261 131.747 134.640 2.196
N P6 1400 45 15.5 0.050 14.465 14.298 1.154
0.080 36.170 36.337 0.460
0.100 55.890 56.188 0.534
0.130 93.220 93.344 0.133
0.150 123.220 123.067 0.124
0.177 170.160 169.550 0.359
Heat exchanger Volume flow rate Q Experimental pressure drop, DPexp FEM model pressure drop using new correction factor, Deviation
configuration (m3/s) (kPa) DPfem (kPa) (in%)
(d)
N P6 1400 60 29.6 0.051 5.498 4.955 9.881
0.080 12.420 11.222 9.643
0.100 18.600 16.448 11.571
0.130 29.910 29.665 0.821
0.170 48.600 46.502 4.317
0.203 67.000 64.377 3.915
N P6 1400 60 15.5 0.054 17.130 18.034 5.277
0.070 28.130 29.268 4.047
0.090 45.460 46.150 1.518
0.130 91.750 98.218 7.049
0.160 136.410 142.498 4.463
0.189 187.510 198.329 5.770

Pressure drop predicted for the case of Reynolds number of 106, The methods provided by Bell [5] and Kern [2] show deviations
deviates from the experimental value by the order of 9%. Thus up to 40% in calculating pressure drop, as mentioned in the work
extending the validity of the present model beyond the Reynolds by Prithviraj and Andrews [19]. This deviation is observed because
number of 105 to the case of Reynolds number of 106. their methods are unable to predict nozzle pressure drop. Also,
708 B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700–712

It can also be seen that the method by Gaddis et al. [7], which is
Determine geometrical variables
currently the widely accepted pressure drop model, predicts pres-
for each element:
xl, xt, x(i), Amin(i), necf, new sure drop with lower accuracy compared to the present model.
HEATX results are promising, but since it’s a CFD simulation,
and time consuming it cannot be applied to new cases in the
Find Reynolds number at each element and absence of the availability of CFD tools and complete geometric
corresponding Euler number (Eu)
details.
Although Kapale et al. [10] model gives better results, the pro-
For window section elements For mid-section elements
cess of calculation using [10] is time consuming and tedious. Also,
Kapale et al. [10] have not shown the validity of their model for all
the configurations presented by Halle et.al [20]. Just like Bell [5]
Determine Yaw angle at window Determine Yaw angle at mid
section (ψw) using Fig 3a, Fig 4a section (ψm) using Fig 3b, Fig 4b and Gaddis [7], Kapale’s [10] method involves cumbersome calcu-
and Fig 5 Appendix 1. and Fig 5 lations to arrive at pressure drop coefficient. Kapale’s method also
involves referring to works of Gaddis et al. [7] to find various fac-
tors and hence, involves quite a lot of work in obtaining various
parameters required to calculate the pressure drop. Friction factors
Determine yaw correction factor (Kψ)
proposed by Kern [2] have been modified by Kapale et al. [10] by
and corrected Euler number (Euc ) introducing a correction factor to develop a new empirical formula.
But their correction factors to Kern’s friction factor are applicable
only for 3 tube pitches, 1.25, 1.33 and 1.50.
Table 6b presents the prediction of DP and its comparison with
Low baffle
other works for the case of NTIW. For the 2 cases considered, it can
cut ?
be observed that FEM predictions are quite close to the experimen-
If no tal values. It can also be observed that the present method predicts
the pressure drop in the NTIW better than the predictions of Bell
If yes
and Gaddis. However, the predictions from HEATX are close to
Calculate Abmin and determine the spring the experimental values with a penalty of taking very large time
element stiffness matrix coefficient of the order of 20 h for the predictions.

Determine the stiffness matrix coefficient

to account for nozzle losses 4. Conclusion

Construct all Element stiffness matrix
Assemble element matrices to find
Global stiffness matrix and load vector
The proposed model in this paper predicts the shell side pres-
sure drop of a shell and tube heat exchanger using the concept of
Finite Element Method. This method is simple to apply and the
predictions are quite close to the experimental values. The model
has been successfully tested for shell and tube heat exchangers
with baffle cut in the range of 25% to 30%. And also, for a minimum
baffle cut of 15.5% the predictions are quite good. From this inves-
tigation the following conclusions can be drawn:

Apply boundary condition
Solve for the system of equations
Pressure distribution and pressure drop
Fig. 6. Algorithm for the present model.
Kern’s [2] method as pointed out by Prithviraj and Andrew [19], is
specifically designed for units with a baffle cut of 25%. Kern’s
method does not have a provision to account for NTIW bundles
and so cannot be used to predict the pressure drop for NTIW bun-
dles. Bell’s [5] method rightly predicts the trend of the number of
baffle on the overall pressure drop. Although, Kern’s method has
fewer calculation steps compared to that of Bell-Delaware, the
complexity still persists. This can be seen in the published works
of Kapale et al. [10] and Prithviraj and Andrews [19], the values
of pressure drop calculated using Kern’s method yields different
results, for the same HX and with the same mass flow rates. This
clearly shows that the analytical methods of Bell [5] and Kern [2]
are difficult to implement.
 The present model is simple and is able to predict pressure drop
with minimum geometrical details.
 The model has been successfully tested for shell and tube Heat
Exchangers with baffle cut from 25 to 30%, and can be applied
with confidence up to a minimum baffle cut of 15.5%.
 This model takes considerably less computation time to predict
the pressure drop compared to all other available models.
 The pressure drop can be predicted up to any point, along the
flow, on the shell side of a shell and tube Heat Exchanger.
 The present model is applicable to the case of no tubes in win-
dow section which many other models do not have a provision
to calculate. Flow directions predicted in this shell and tube
Heat Exchanger take into account the effects of baffle spacing,
baffle cut and no tubes in window section. By using these flow
directions, the predictions of pressure drop are quite close to
the experimental values for 240 cases.
 It was found out that for 30° and 90° tube bundles, Zukauskas
friction factor gave agreeable results but for 45° and 60° correc-
tion factors had to be proposed. These correction factors were
verified after applying the same for 130 experimental points.
Conflict of interest
None declared.
 B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700–712 709

Table 6a
Prediction of DP and validation for shell and tube heat exchangers with tubes in window section.

Heat exchanger Volume flow rate Exp. pressure drop FEM model pressure drop, Percentage (%) deviation from experimental values
configuration Q (m3/s) DPexp (kPa) DPfem (kPa)
Present Kapale’s HEATX Taborek Gaddis Kern
model model [10] [19] [21] [7] [2]
F P6 1400 30 28.9% 0.08 36.32 36.14 0.5 3.1 6.3 4.1 14.8 26.5
F P6 1400 30 28.9% 0.1 55.14 53.62 2.8 1.4 5.6 5.8 15.4 25.2
F P6 1400 30 28.9% 0.12 77.54 74.39 4.1 0.0 7.1 7.2 16 17.6
F P6 1400 30 28.9% 0.133 93.97 89.66 4.6 0.8 7.4 8 28 20.5
F P8 1400 30 25.5% 0.133 157.75 153.13 2.9 2.4 3.1 20.1 9.2 59
F P6 1000 30 28.9% 0.133 107.65 95.91 10.9a 3.9 2.8 9.5 10.4 5.1
F P6 1400 45 29.8% 0.05 10.19 10.31 1.2 4.0  1.5 27.5 22.9
F P6 1000 90 25.5% 0.215 339.99 315.16 7.3 2.3  19.5 27.9 18.1
a
Low nozzle diameter case.

Table 6b
Prediction of DP and validation for shell and tube heat exchangers with no tubes in the window section and comparison of CFD simulation [19].

Heat exchanger Volume flow rate Q Exp. Pressure drop DPexp FEM model pressure drop, DPfem Percentage (%) deviation from experimental
configuration (m3/s) (kPa) (kPa) values
Present HEATX Bell Gaddis
model [19] [6] [7]
N P8 1400 30 25.5% 0.133 39.9 38.62 3.2 1.5 5.4 14.4
N P6 1000 30 28.9% 0.133 77.1 75.20 2.5 4.7 12 13.8

Acknowledgment Appendix B. Example problem

This work is supported in part by the TEQIP 1.2.1 research grant HX configuration – HX with Tubes in window section
(World Bank), for the Centre of Excellence in Knowledge Analytics Inner diameter of the shell (Ds) – 0.59 m
and Ontological Engineering (KAnOE) at PES Institute of Technol- Diameter of outer tube limit (Dotl) – 0.568 m
ogy, Bangalore 560085, India. Outer diameter of tubes (do) – 0.191 m
Tube pitch (p) – 1.25
Appendix A Tube bundle array angle – 30°
Baffle cut – 28.9%
Calculation of Ww and Wm. Number of baffles – 5
Length of each cross path (S) – 0.597 m
Heat Heat exchanger Ww wm (radians) Inlet and outlet nozzle diameter – 0.337 m
exchanger section type (radians) Volume flow rate (Q) – 0.085 m3/s
case q – 997.0479 kg/m3
D
D
l – 8.9  104 Pa s
Ds Tubes in window
S 61 tan1 S
s
tan1 s
S
section Here, the elements are labeled in each section according to
   
No tubes in window tan1 4lc
tan1 Ds 2lc
direction of fluid flow, i.e. when the fluid enters the section, the
3S S
section 4
element it encounters first is the first element and the element
  p
Inlet and When tan1 2lc
2 from which it leaves that section is the 4th element.
Se
outlet fluid
section enters Step 1. Determination of geometrical variables from the given
section geometrical data
When p
2
fluid
lc ¼ Baffle cut percentage  Ds ¼ 0:289  0:59 ¼ 0:1705 m
exits
section
Ds
    a ¼ 1:25; b ¼ 1:0825
>1 Tubes in window tan1 3lc
tan1 Ds 2lc
S 2S S
section 4
    xt ¼ 0:0239 m; xl ¼ 0:0207 m
No tubes in window tan1 2lc
tan1 Ds 2lc
S S
section 2 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
   2  2
Inlet and When 1 2lc p Ds  2lc Dotl
tan Se
2 x1 ¼ 2   þ ¼ 0:5105 m
outlet fluid 2 2
section enters
section x2 ¼ 0:5680 m
When p
2
fluid xe ¼ Ds  Dotl ¼ 0:0220 m
exits
section 0:5105 þ 0
xð1Þ ¼ ¼ 0:2553 m
2
710 B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700–712

0:5680 þ 0:5105 Euc ð4Þ ¼ 0:320999

xð2Þ ¼ ¼ 0:5393 m
2
The Euler numbers are multiplied with the correction factors K45 or
Since, the array is staggered, then depending on the case either K60 if the given tube bundle is a 45° or 60° tube bundle
Eq. (2a) or Eq. (2b) is used to calculate the minimum area of flow. respectively.
Here, xt  do 6 2ðxd  do Þ therefore Eq. (2a) is used.
Step 4. Determination of stiffness matrix and pressure drop
Amin ð1Þ ¼ 0:0436 m2
For calculating pressure drop, stiffness matrix (6) is first calcu-
Amin ð2Þ ¼ 0:0775 m2 lated using Eqs. (5a), (5b) and (8).

Step 2. Determination of Reynolds number for the given volumetric Step 4(a) For inter-baffle region
flow and Euler number n(1) and n(4) correspond to number of rows of tubes in win-
dow sections (new)
Euler number (Eu) for the Reynolds number is either deter- n(1) = n(4) = 6.17
mined from the correlations presented in Schlunder [22] or directly Using Eq. (5a),
from the Zukauskas graphs [11,23]. k(1) = k(4) = 3.8014  105
Re(1) = A qQdð1Þ0 l = 41703.3108, for which Euler number Eu(1) is n(2) and n(3) correspond to number of rows of tubes in win-
min

found to be 0.320811 from Zukauskas correlation dow sections (necf)

qQd0
Re(2) = Amin = 23461.4357, for which Euler number Eu(2) is n(2) = 6.020887
ð2Þl
Using Eq. (5a),
found to be 0.372618 from Zukauskas correlation k(2) = k(3) = 1.06  104
The pressure drop for one inter baffle region is calculated as
Step 3. Determination of Yaw angle and corrected Euler number follows:
    
From Eu the value of Euc is calculated using Eq. (4). For stag- k k Pi Q
¼
gered array Eq. (3b) has to be used to determine the yaw correction k k Pj Q
factor Kw.
Assembly of the elements give:
Since, S > Ds the problem is the case of Fig. 3, the values of yaw
2 38 9
angle are determined using the relations depicted in Appendix A. 0:38014 0:38014 0 0 0 > P1 >
>
> > >
6 7> >
6 0:38014 1:44014 1:06 0 0 7>> P >>
6 7>< 2> =
Step 3(a) At sections between baffles (inter-baffle regions) 6
104  6 0 2:12 1:06 0
7
1:06 7 P3
6 7> >
Ds 6 7>> > >
1 40 0 1:06 1:44014 0:38014 5>>
> P4 >
>
>
ww ¼ wm ¼ tan ¼ 0:7795 rad >
: > ;
S 0 0 0 0:38014 0:38014 P5
8 9
So; K w ¼ 0:596356 > 0:085 >
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
>
> 0 >
>
Therefore, at the inter-baffle regions, < =
¼ 0
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
Euc ð1Þ ¼ Euc ð4Þ ¼ 0:19132 ðwindow sectionÞ >
>
>
0 >
>
>
: ;
0:085
Euc ð2Þ ¼ Euc ð3Þ ¼ 0:222213 ðmid sectionÞ Let P5 be 0.
Step 3(b) At the inlet and outlet sections Solving the above matrix, we obtain the pressure distribu-
tion in one inter-baffle region and the result is as follows:
p
wm ¼ rad; so; K w ¼ 1:000585 8 9 8 9
2 > P1 > > 6:0758  103 >
>
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
> > >
> 3>>
2lc > P
< = <
2 > > 3:8398  10 >
=
wm ¼ tan1 ¼ 0:518991 rad; K w ¼ 0:280714 3
S P3 ¼ 3:0379  10
>
> > > >
> P4 >
> > >
> >
> 2:236  103 >
>
>
Therefore, at the inlet and outlet regions, >
> >
> >
> >
>
: ; : 3 ;
P5 0  10
Euc ð1Þ ¼ 0:09006
Therefore, the net pressure drop in all inter-baffle regions
Euc ð2Þ ¼ Euc ð3Þ ¼ 0:372836 (DPibr)=4  6.0758 = 24.3032 kPa (see Fig. 7).

P1
P2 ∆P1

P3 ∆P2

P4 ∆P3
∆P4 P
5

Fig. 7. Elements of inter-baffle region. P1, P2, P3, P4, P5 are the pressures at nodal points 1 to 5, and DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4 are the pressure drop in the elements of the section.
 B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700–712 711

∆P4 P5
P4

∆P3
P3
∆P2 P2
P1 ∆P1

Fig. 8. Elements of inlet–outlet region. P1, P2, P3, P4, P5 are the pressures at nodal points 1 to 5, and DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4 are the pressure drop in the elements of the section.

P1
∆P1 P2

Fig. 9. Entry and exit Nozzle element. P1, P2 are the pressures at nodal points 1 and 2 respectively, and DP1 is the pressure drop in the element of one nozzle section.

    
Step 4(b) For Inlet and exit section k k Pi Q
¼
n(1) and n(4) correspond to number of rows of tubes in win- k k Pj Q
dow sections (new)
n(1) = n(4) = 6.17     
Using Eq. (5a), 1:87756 1:87756 P1 0:085
104  ¼
k(1) = 8.0755  105 1:87756 1:87756 P2 0:085
k(4) = 2.2657  105
n(2) and n(3) correspond to number of rows of tubes in win-    
P1 452:7146
dow sections (necf) ¼
n(2) = n(3) = 6.021 P2 0
Using Eq. (5a), Therefore, net pressure drop from inlet and outlet noz-
k(2) = k(3) = 6.3178  105 zles = (DPnz) = 2  0.4527 = 0.9054 kPa (see Fig. 9).
     Step 4(d) Low baffle cut pressure drop
k k Pi Q
¼
k k Pj Q If the baffle cut is low, then the sudden-expansion and con-
traction losses should be taken into account by using Eq. (8)
Assembly of the elements give: in (6).
2 38 9 Here, baffle cut is not low, hence pressure drop due to baffle
0:80755 0:80755 0 0 > P1 > 0
> >
> >
6 7> > cut of 28.9%, (DPbl) = 5  0 = 0
6 0:80755 1:43933 0:63178 0 0 7>
> P > >
6 < 2>
7> =
6 7
104 6 0 0:63178 1:26356 0:63178 0 7 P 3 Net pressure drop determined by FEM model ðDPfem Þ
6 7>
> >
60 0:63178 0:85835 0:22657 7>P > >
4 0 > 4>
5>
> >
> ¼ DPibr þ DPior þ DPnz þ DPbl
: >
> ;
0 0 0 0:22657 0:22657 P5
8 9 ¼ 24:3032 þ 14:99 þ 0:9054 þ 0 ¼ 40:1986 kPa
> 0:085 >
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
> 0 > >
>
< = Experimental pressure drop ðDPexp Þ ¼ 40:66 kPa:
¼ 0
>
> >
>
>
> 0 > >
>
> >
>
>
: >
; References
0:085

Let P5 be 0. [1] D.A. Donohue, Heat transfer and pressure drop in heat exchangers, Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 41 (1949) 499–2511.
Solving the above matrix, we obtain the pressure distribu- [2] D.Q. Kern, Process Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1950.
tion in one Inlet/outlet region and the results are as follows: [3] T. Tinker, Shell-Side Characteristics of Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers, Parts I,
II, III, General Discussion on Heat Transfer, Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
8 9 8 9 London, 1951. pp. 97–116.
>
> P1 > > 7:4950  103 >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
3>
[4] T. Tinker, Shell-side characteristics of shell and tube heat exchangers: a
> > > >
< P2 >
> simplified rating system for commercial heat exchangers, Trans. ASME 80
= >
< 6:4424  10 >= (1958) 36–52.
3
P3 ¼ 5:097  10 [5] K.J. Bell, Final report of the cooperative research program on shell and tube
>
> > >
> > >
>
> > >
> P4 > > 3:7516  103 >
> heat exchangers, University of Delaware, Engineering Experimental Station,
>
> >
> >
> >
> Bulletin No. 5, 1963.
: ; : ;
P5 0  103 [6] 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 (1969) 53–
The net pressure drop in inlet and outlet region (DPior) = 63.
2  7.495  103 Pa = 14.99 kPa (see Fig. 8). [7] E.S. Gaddis, V. Gnielinski, Pressure drop on the shell side of shell and-tube heat
exchangers with segmental baffles, Chem. Eng. Process. 36 (1997) 149–159.
Step 4(c) Nozzle pressure drop [8] E.S. Gaddis, V. Gnielinski, Druckverlust in querdurchstriimten Rohrbiindeln,
The nozzle pressure drop is determined using Eq. (5b) in (6), vt.verfahrenstechnik 17 (1983) 410–418.
712 B. Parikshit et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 700–712
[9] E.S. Gaddis, V. Gnielinski, Pressure drop in cross flow across tube bundles, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 25 (1985) 1–15.
[10] Uday C. Kapale, Satish Chand, Modeling for shell-side pressure drop for liquid
flow in shell-and-tube heat exchanger, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 49 (2006)
601–610.
[11] A.A. Žukauskas, Heat transfer from tubes in cross flow, Adv. Heat Transfer 18
(1987) 87–159.
[12] A.Y. Gunter, W.A. Haw, A general correlation of friction factors for various
types of surfaces in cross flow, Trans. ASME 67 (1945) 643–660.
[13] S.G. Ravikumaur, K.N. Seetharamu, P.A. Aswatha Narayana, Finite element
analysis of shell and tube heat exchangers, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer
15 (2) (1988) 151–163.
[14] Yonghua You, Aiwu Fan, Xuejiang Lai, Suyi Huang, Wei Liu, Experimental and
numerical investigations of shell-side thermo-hydraulic performances for
shell-and-tube heat exchanger with trefoil-hole baffles, Appl. Therm. Eng. 50
(1) (2013) 950–956.
[15] Ender. Ozden, Ilker. Tari, Shell side CFD analysis of a small shell-and-tube heat
exchanger, Energy Convers. Manage. 51 (5) (2010) 1004–1014.
[16] F. Vera-García, J.R. García-Cascales, J. Gonzálvez-Maciá, R. Cabello, R. Llopis, D.
Sanchez, E. Torrella, A simplified model for shell-and-tubes heat exchangers:
practical application, Appl. Therm. Eng. 30 (10) (2010) 1231–1241.
[17] G. Hewitt, G. Shires, T. Bott, Process Heat Transfer, CRC Press Inc., 1994.
[18] Rajagapal Thundil Karuppa Raj, Srikanth Ganne, Shell side numerical analysis
shell and tube heat exchanger considering the effects of baffle inclination
angle on fluid flow, Therm. Sci. 16 (4) (2012) 1165–1174.
[19] M. Prithiviraj, M.J. Andrews, Comparison of a three-dimensional numerical
model with existing methods for prediction of flow in shell-and-tube heat
exchangers, Heat Transfer Eng. 20 (2) (1999) 15–19.
[20] H. Halle, J.M. Chenoweth, M.W. Wambsganss, Shell-side water flow pressure
drop distribution measurements in an industrial-sized test heat exchanger,
ASME J. Heat Transfer 110 (1988) 60–67.
[21] R.K. Shah, Dusan P. Sekulic, Fundamentals of Heat Exchanger Design, Wiley,
New York, 2003.
[22] E.U. Schlunder, Heat Exchanger Design Handbook, vols. 1–4, Hemisphere, New
York, 1983, http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/3.60159.
[23] Roland W. Lewis, Perumal Nithiarasu, Kankanhalli N. Seetharamu,
Fundamentals of Finite elements for Heat and Fluid flow, John Wiley & Sons,
UK, 2004.
[24] Frank P. Incropera, David P. Dewitt, Theodore L. Bergman, Adrienne S. Lavine,
K.N. Seetharamu, T.R. Seetharam, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer,
Wiley India Private Ltd., 2013.
[25] R.S. Kistler, J.M. Chenoweth, Heat exchanger shellside pressure drop:
comparison of predictions with experimental data, ASME J. Heat Transfer
110 (1988) 68–76.