Applied Thermal Engineering 108 (2016) 999–1007

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

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

Research Paper

CFD simulation study of shell and tube heat exchangers with different
baffle segment configurations
Aniket Shrikant Ambekar a,⇑, R. Sivakumar b, N. Anantharaman c, M. Vivekenandan d
a
Department of Energy and Environment, National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu, India
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Addis Ababa Science and Technology University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
c
Department of Chemical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu, India
d
Uttam Industrial Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu, India

h i g h l i g h t s

The ΔP with double segmented baffles is 70–75% of single segmented baffles.

The ΔP with helical baffles is 65–70% of single segmented baffles.

Triple Segmented Baffles are inefficient.

Flower baffles reduce the ΔP by 25–35% than single segmental baffles.

Flower baffles reduce U by 30–35% as compared to single segmented baffles.

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

Article history: The aim of this article is to study the effects of different configurations of baffles in shell and tube heat
Received 5 March 2016 exchanger (STHX) on heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop. Baffles used in shell and tube heat
Revised 11 July 2016 exchanger improve heat transfer and also result in increased pressure drop. Shell and tube heat exchang-
Accepted 2 August 2016
ers with single, double, triple segmental baffles, helical baffles and flower baffle are designed and fluid
Available online 3 August 2016
dynamic simulations are also carried out with SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation software (ver.2015).
Simulation results showed that for same shell side mass flow rate, heat transfer coefficient, pressure drop
Keywords:
and heat transfer rate are found to be maximum with single segmental baffles. Almost zero stagnation
SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation
Segmental baffles
zones are observed in helical baffles, leading to reduction in fouling, and long operational lifetime as
Helical baffles the flow induced vibration is low. Flower ‘A’ and Flower ‘B’ type baffles also showed reduced stagnation
Flower baffles zones.
Heat transfer coefficient Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Pressure drop

1. Introduction desirable velocity to be maintained for the shell-side fluid flow,

For the past few decades, shell and tube exchangers are widely
used in many engineering applications, such as chemical engineer-
ing processes, power generation, petroleum refining, refrigeration,
air-conditioning, and food industry [1]. Shell and tube heat
exchangers are relatively simple to manufacture, and have multi-
purpose application possibility when compared with other types
of Heat exchangers [2]. It is reported that more than 30% of the
heat exchangers in use are of the shell-and-tube type [3,4].
Baffles play a significant role in shell and tube heat exchanger
(STHX) assembly. They provide support for tubes, enable a
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: meaniketambekar@gmail.com (A.S. Ambekar), ramalingam.
sivakumar@gmail.com (R. Sivakumar), naraman@nitt.edu (N. Anantharaman),
vivekbanu@gmail.com (M. Vivekenandan).
and prevent the tubes from vibrating. Baffles also guide the shell-
side flow to move forward across the tube bundle, increasing fluid
velocity and heat transfer coefficient. If one takes the most com-
monly used single segmental baffles as an example, heat transfer
is improved as the baffles guide the shell side fluid to flow in a zig-
zag pattern between the tube bundle, which enhances the turbu-
lence intensity and the local mixing [5].
However, the single segmental baffles have some inherent
defects since the structure has some limitations:
(1) Fouling is formed in the stagnation zone near the shell wall
and the rear of baffle plates.
(2) Large pressure drop results from baffles’ impeding the fluid
flow and the flow separation occurs near the baffle edge.
Hence higher pumping power is often needed to offset the
higher pressure drop under the same heat load.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.08.013
1359-4311/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1000 A.S. Ambekar et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 108 (2016) 999–1007

Nomenclature

A area Pout pressure at outlet of the shell

As cross flow area DP pressure drop
B baffle spacing Pt pitch
C specific heat capacity Q heat load
Db bundle diameter TCI tube side fluid inlet temperature
Di inside diameter of shell TCO tube side fluid outlet temperature
Ds outside diameter of shell THI shell side fluid inlet temperature
de equivalent diameter THO shell side fluid outlet temperature
di inside diameter of tube DTlm log mean temperature difference
do outside diameter of tube t time
F fouling factor U Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient
Ft log mean temperature difference correction factor u velocity
h enthalpy Le Lewis number
hi tube side film heat transfer coefficient Re Reynolds number
hs shell side film heat transfer coefficient Pr Prandtl number
Jf friction factor x co-ordinate
Jh heat transfer factor y co-ordinate
k thermal conductivity, turbulent kinetic energy z co-ordinate
L length
m mass flow rate Greek letters
N number of tubes q density
Np number of tube side passes l dynamic viscosity
Pin pressure at inlet of the shell e turbulent dissipation energy

(3) Significant bypass streams and leakage streams due to man-
ufacturing tolerances.
(4) Short operational lifetime as a result of flow induced tube
vibration [6,7].
Therefore, it is necessary to investigate other baffles to lower
the shell side pressure drop and hence the operating cost of heat
exchanger.
Gao et al. (2015) carried out experimental studies on discontin-
uous helical baffles at different helical angles of 8°, 12°, 20°, 30°
and 40° and reported that the performance of baffle at 40° helix
angle is the best among those tested [8].
Movassag et al. (2013) replaced segmental tube bundles by a
bundle of tubes with helical baffles in a shell and tube heat exchan-
ger to reduce pressure drop and fouling and hence reduce mainte-
nance and operating cost in Tabriz Petroleum Company [9].
Taher et al. (2012) reported from simulation studies that for the
same helix angle of 40° and same mass flow rate, heat transfer per
unit area decreases with increase in baffle space. However, for the
same pressure drop, the most extended baffle space obtains higher
heat transfer. Pressure gradient decreases with increase in baffle
space [10].
You et al. (2012) developed a numerical model of STHX based
on porosity and permeability considering turbulence kinetic
energy and its dissipation rate. The numerical model was solved
over a range of Re from 6813 to 22,326 for the shell side of a STHX
with flower baffles. Simulations results agreed with that of exper-
iments with error less than 15% [11].
Wang et al. (2011) carried out experimental investigations on
flower baffled STHX and the original segmental baffle STHX models
and reported that the overall performance of the flower baffled
heat exchanger model is 20–30% more efficient than that of the
segmental baffle heat exchanger under same operating conditions
[12].
Gaddis and Gnielinski (1997) presented the procedure for eval-
uating the shell side pressure drop in shell-and-tube heat exchang-
ers with segmental baffles. The procedure is based on correlations
for calculating the pressure drop in an ideal tube bank coupled
with correction factors, which take into account the influence of
leakage and bypass streams, and on equations for calculating the
pressure drop in a window section from the Delaware method [13].
Son and Shin (2001) reported from simulation studies on STHX
with helical baffles using commercially available CFX4.2 codes and
concluded that the performance of STHX with helical baffles is
superior to that of a conventional STHX. Fluid contacts with the
tubes flowing rotationally in the shell and hence reduced the stag-
nation zones in the shell side, thereby improving heat transfer [14].
Awad and Muzychka [18] reviewed and compiled the literature
on Heat Exchangers. The concepts of entropy generation minimiza-
tion in Heat Exchangers to maximize their performance were stud-
ied by various researches were presented [15]. However, no report
was presented on simulation studies on STHX.
From literature review, it is observed that STHX with single seg-
ment baffles, helical baffles with different helix angles, and flower
baffles were studied and compared for improving the performance.
However, comparison of simulations has not been done with same
specification of STHX and input conditions with single, double, tri-
ple segmental baffles, helical baffles and flower baffles. Hence the
novel idea of to studying the effects of different configurations of
baffles such as single, double, triple segmental baffles, helical baf-
fles and flower baffles in shell and tube heat exchanger (STHX) on
heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop has been carried out.
2. Design of shell and tube heat exchanger
A STHX with different baffle geometries is designed [15,16,17]
to study the effects of variations in baffle geometry. A water-
water 1–2 pass shell and tube heat exchanger is designed consid-
ering the data in the following Table 1. Figs. 1–3 shows single, dou-
ble and triple segmental baffles respectively. Figs. 4 and 5 shows
Flower-A and Flower-B type baffles respectively while Fig. 6 shows
the helical baffled STHX arrangement. Fig. 7 shows the 2D view of
the STHX designed.
Hot fluid is considered to flow in the shell as a thumb rule says
fluid with low flow rate should always be in shell side. A vice versa
 A.S. Ambekar et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 108 (2016) 999–1007 1001

Table 1
Data for design of shell and tube heat exchanger.

Property Unit Value

Shell side fluid-hot water
THI °C 90
THO °C 70
Density kg/m3 971.8
Specific heat capacity kJ/kg K 4.1963
Viscosity mPa s 0.354
Conductivity W/m K 0.67
Fouling factor m2 K/W 0.0002
Flow rate kg/s 0.3
Tube side fluid-cold water
TCI °C 30
TCO °C 38
Density kg/m3 984
Specific heat capacity kJ/kg K 4.178
Viscosity mPa s 0.725
Conductivity W/m K 0.623
Fouling factor m2 K/W 0.0002
Flow rate kg/s 0.7533

Fig. 3. Triple segmental baffle.

Fig. 1. Single segmental baffle.

Fig. 4. Flower ‘A’ baffles.

2.1. CFD simulation of shell and tube heat exchanger

2.1.1. Physical Model

Fig. 2. Double segmental baffle.
heat exchanger is also designed which is inferior with respect to
hot fluid shell side design. Thus, confirming the thumb rule.
A commercially available CFD code (SOLIDWORKS Flow
Simulation- ver.2015) has been used to carry out the numerical
calculations for the studied geometries. A three dimensional geo-
metrical model of the problem with SOLIDWORKS software is used
and mesh generation is done. The physical model is presented in
Fig. 7. The tube material is copper while the other components
are carbon steel. The physical properties of carbon steel and copper
are taken from the SOLIDWORKS database. Thermal properties of
water are also taken from the SOLIDWORKS database.
1002 A.S. Ambekar et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 108 (2016) 999–1007

Fig. 5. Flower ‘B’ baffles.


@ @ @t k
ðqui tÞ ¼ ð3Þ
@xi @xi @xi C p

Turbulent kinetic energy:

 
@ @ qk @ lt @k
ðqui kÞ þ ¼ lþ þ Sk ð4Þ
@xi @t @xi rk @xi
Turbulent dissipation energy:


 
@ @ qe @ lt @ e
ðqui eÞ þ ¼ lþ þ Se ð5Þ
@xi @t @xi re @xi
Fig. 6. 3D view of helical baffled U-tube heat exchanger.
where the source terms Sk and Se are defined as

@ui
Sk ¼ sRij  qe þ lt PB ð6Þ
@xj


e @ui qe2
Se ¼ C e1 f 1 sRij þ l t C B P B  C e2 f 2 ð7Þ
k @xj k

Here PB represents the turbulent generation due to buoyancy forces

and can be written as

gi 1 @q
Fig. 7. 2D view of the shell and tube heat exchanger designed. PB ¼  ð8Þ
r B q xi
where gi is the component of gravitational acceleration in direction
The water inlet boundary conditions are set as Flow opening
xi, the constant rB = 0.9, and constant CB is defined as: CB = 1 when
inlets and outlet boundary conditions are set as pressure Opening
PB > 0, and 0 otherwise;
outlets. The exterior wall is modelled as adiabatic. The simulation
is solved to predict the heat transfer and fluid flow characteristics !3
0:05
by using k-e turbulence model. f1 ¼ 1 þ ð9Þ
fl
2.1.2. Governing equations  
For turbulent flow modelling, the k-e turbulence model is f 2 ¼ 1  exp R2T ð10Þ
adopted for calculation process. The governing equations for conti-
nuity, momentum, energy, k and e in the computational domain The constants Cl, Ce1, Ce2, rk, re are defined empirically. In Flow Sim-
are shown as follows: ulation the following typical values are used:
Continuity:
C l ¼ 0:09; C e1 ¼ 1:44; C e2 ¼ 1:92; rk ¼ 1; re ¼ 1:3
@
ðqui Þ ¼ 0 ð1Þ
@xi where Lewis number Le = 1 the diffusive heat flux is defined as:


Momentum: llt @h

 qi ¼ þ ; i ¼ 1; 2; 3: ð11Þ
@ @ @uk @P Pr rc @xi
ðqui uk Þ ¼ l  ð2Þ
@xi @xi @xi @xi
Here the constant rc = 0.9, Pr is the Prandtl number, and h is the
Energy: thermal enthalpy.
 A.S. Ambekar et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 108 (2016) 999–1007 1003

These equations describe both laminar and turbulent flows.

Moreover, transitions from one case to another and back are possi-
ble. The parameters k and lt are zero for purely laminar flows.

2.1.3. Conjugate heat transfer

Flow Simulation allows predicting simultaneous heat transfer
in solid and fluid media with energy exchange between them. Heat
transfer in fluids is described by the energy conservation equation,
where the heat flux is defined by the following equation. The phe-
nomenon of anisotropic heat conductivity in solid media is
described by the following equation: Fig. 9. Pressure variation in STHX with double segmental baffles.


@ qe @ @T
¼ ki þ QH ð12Þ
@t @xi @xi

where e is the specific internal energy, e = cT, c is specific heat, QH

is specific heat release (or absorption) per unit volume, and ki are
the eigen values of the thermal conductivity tensor. It is supposed
that the heat conductivity tensor is diagonal in the considered coor-
dinate system. For isotropic medium k1 ¼ k2 ¼ k3 ¼ k.
The energy exchange between the fluid and solid media is cal-
culated via the heat flux in the direction normal to the solid/fluid
interface taking into account the solid surface temperature and
the fluid boundary layer characteristics, if necessary.

2.2. Boundary conditions

Fig. 10. Pressure variations in STHX with triple segmental baffles.
(1) Shell Side Inlet is set as Flow opening the mass flow rate var-
ied from 0.1 kg/s to 0.5 kg/s for different simulations and
temperature is set to 363.15 K.
(2) Tube Side Inlet is set to Flow opening the mass flow rate is
set to 0.7533 kg/s and the temperature was set to 303.15 K.
(3) Both shell side and tube side are set as Pressure openings
with pressure set to Atmospheric Pressure.

3. Results and discussion

CFD simulations of pressure, temperature and velocity profile in

STHX with different baffle configurations have been discussed.
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient and heat transfer rate has been Fig. 11. Pressure variations in STHX with helical baffles.
compared to conclude the best design parameters.

3.1. Pressure variations with different baffle configurations in STHX

Figs. 8–13 show the pressure variations within the STHX with
single, double, triple, helical, Flower ‘A’ and Flower ‘B’ type baffles
respectively for a flow rate of 0.3 kg/s on the shell side and
0.7533 kg/s on the tube side. It is observed from Figs. 8–13 that
the pressure drop of increasing order is as follows: 1. Flower ‘A’
& Flower ‘B’, 2. Helical baffle, 3. Double segmental baffle, 4. triple
segmental baffle, and 5. Single segmental baffle.

Fig. 12. Pressure variations in STHX with Flower ‘A’ baffles.

Single segmental baffles shows maximum pressure drop

because of hairpin like turns the fluid takes at the edge of the baf-
fles. In Flower ‘A’ or Flower ‘B’ baffles the angle of turn of the
stream lines are reduced and hence the pressure drop is minimum.

3.2. Temperature variations with different baffle configurations in

STHX

Figs. 14–19 show the temperature variations within the STHX

Fig. 8. Pressure variations in STHX with single segmental baffles. with single, double, triple, helical, Flower ‘A’ and Flower ‘B’ type
1004 A.S. Ambekar et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 108 (2016) 999–1007

Fig. 13. Pressure variations in STHX with Flower ‘B’ baffles.

Fig. 17. Temperature variation in STHX with helical baffles.

Fig. 14. Temperature variations in STHX with Single segmental baffles.

Fig. 18. Temperature variations in STHX with Flower ‘A’ baffles.

Fig. 15. Temperature variations in STHX with double segmental baffles.

Fig. 19. Temperature variations in STHX with Flower ‘B’ baffles.

baffles respectively for a flow rate of 0.3 kg/s on the shell side. The
following is the order of decreasing heat transfer and Overall Heat
Transfer Coefficient:

1. Single segmental baffles.

2. Double segmental baffles.
3. Flower ‘B’ baffles.
4. Flower ‘A’ baffles.
5. Triple segmental baffle.
Fig. 16. Temperature variations in STHX with Triple segmental baffles. 6. Helical baffles.
 A.S. Ambekar et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 108 (2016) 999–1007 1005

3.3. Velocity variations with different baffle configurations in STHX

Figs. 20–25 show the velocity variations within the STHX with
single, double, triple, helical, Flower ‘A’ and Flower ‘B’ type baffles
respectively for a flow rate of 0.3 kg/s on the shell side.
From Fig. 20, it is inferred that single segmental baffles enhance
the heat transfer as they guide the shell side fluid to flow in a zig-
zag pattern between the tube bundle, which enhances the turbu-
lence intensity and the local mixing. However, the single
segmental baffles have some inherent defects since the structure
limitations, such as fouling in the stagnation zone near the shell
wall and the rear of baffle plates, significant bypass streams and
leakage streams due to manufacturing tolerances and short opera-
tional lifetime as a result of flow induced tube vibration.
From Fig. 21, it is inferred that double segmental baffles guide
the shell side fluid to flow in two zigzag patterns between the tube
bundle, which enhances the turbulence intensity and the local Fig. 22. Velocity variations in STHX with triple segmental baffles.

mixing. These two zigzag patterns are less vigorous in nature as

compared to the single zigzag pattern created by single segmental
baffles. Thus, the turbulent intensity is not as high as produced by
single segmental baffle. However, the double segmental baffles
also have some inherent defects as that in single segmental baffles.
But it has greater operational lifetime compared to single segmen-
tal baffles as flow induced vibrations are low in this case.
From Fig. 22, it is inferred that triple segmental baffles guide the
shell side fluid to flow in a zigzag pattern between the tube bundle,
which enhances the turbulence intensity and the local mixing
when compared to an un-baffled heat exchanger. It is evident from

Fig. 23. Velocity variations in STHX with helical baffles.

Fig. 20. Velocity variations in STHX with single segmental baffles.

Fig. 24. Velocity variations in STHX with Flower ‘A’ baffles.

Fig. 21. Velocity variations in STHX with double segmental baffles.
the flow profile that eddies are created which affect the perfor-
mance of the heat exchanger adversely. The turbulence intensity
is almost equal to that created by double segmental baffles. The tri-
ple segmental baffles also have some other as that in single seg-
mental baffles.
From Fig. 23, it is inferred that helical baffles augment heat
transfer as they guide the shell side fluid to flow in a spiral pattern
between the tube bundle, which enhances the turbulence intensity
and the local mixing. This spiral pattern leads to reduction in pres-
sure drop, almost zero stagnation zones leading to reduction in
fouling, and long operational lifetime as the flow induced vibration
is low.
1006 A.S. Ambekar et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 108 (2016) 999–1007
Fig. 25. Velocity variations in STHX with Flower ‘B’ baffles.
From Fig. 24, it is inferred that the fluid velocity magnitude on
the shell side changes periodically in the central part of the Flower
‘A’ baffled heat exchanger. When the fluid passes a baffle, it is
firstly accelerated rapidly and then flows across the breaches with
large velocity. After rushing out of the breaches, the fluid is
expanded suddenly and the velocity is decreased gradually. This
periodic flow pattern is caused by the periodic changes of flow area
which is induced by arrangement of flower baffles. Moreover, it is
also noticed that in the downstream just behind a baffle, two recir-
culation flow regions are generated, where the velocity magnitude
is very small.
From Fig. 25, it is inferred that the flow pattern created is sim-
ilar to that created by Flower ‘A’ baffle, except that more stream
lines are observed in Flower ‘A’ baffles when compared with
Flower ‘B’ baffles and hence lesser is the stagnation zone in Flower
‘A’ when compared with Flower ‘B’ baffle.
3.4. Pressure drop variations with change in mass flow rate
Fig. 26 shows the variation in shell side pressure drop for differ-
ent baffle configurations. The slope of the pressure drop is found to
increase with increase in mass flow rate. More the mass flow rate,
steeper is the curve profile. Single segmental baffles show the high-
Fig. 26. Shell side pressure drop vs. shell side flow rate.
Fig. 27. Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient vs. shell side flow rate.
est pressure drop while Flower ‘A’ type baffles show minimum
Pressure drop.
3.5. Variations in Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient with change in
mass flow rate
Fig. 27 shows the variation in Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient
for different baffle configurations. The slope of the curves is gener-
ally found to decrease with increase in shell side mass flow rate.
Single segmental baffles show the highest Overall Heat Transfer
Coefficient while helical baffles show slowest Overall Heat Transfer
Coefficient.
4. Conclusions
CFD simulation studies on shell and tube heat exchanger has
been carried with single, double, triple, helical, Flower ‘A’ type,
and Flower ‘B’ type baffle configurations. The following are the
conclusions arrived from these simulation studies:

Single Segmental Baffles provide good Overall Heat Transfer
Coefficient but with large Pressure Drop and thus consume
large pumping power.

Double Segmented Baffles can be used instead of Single Seg-
mented Baffles wherever a small compromise with outlet Tem-
perature is feasible as the pressure drop will reduce by 25–30%,
leading to equivalent Energy Savings.

Helical Baffles are effective as the Pressure Drop is reduced by
30–35% as compared to Single Segmented Baffles. But the Over-
all Heat Transfer Coefficient decrease by approximately 40%.
This states that 40% more tubes should be added to take care
of the necessary heat transfer area required to achieve the tem-
perature gradient. In this case retrofitting may not be possible
but, in case of adding a new heat exchanger use of helical baffles
may be justified based on economics.

Triple Segmented Baffles are inefficient to this configuration.

Flower Baffles are the most effective baffles as they reduce the
pressure Drop by 25–35% while the Overall Heat Transfer Coef-
ficient is lowered to 30–35% of that produced with single seg-
mental baffles.

Flower ‘B’ Baffles are more effective than Flower ‘A’ Baffles as
they reduce the Pressure Drop to the same extent as that of
Flower ‘A’ baffles but with a better thermal performance associ-
ated.
 A.S. Ambekar et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 108 (2016) 999–1007 1007

References [10] Farhad Nemati Taher, Sirous Zeyninejad Movassag, Kazem Razmi, Reza Tasouji
Azar, Baffle space impact on the performance of helical baffle shell and tube
heat exchangers, Appl. Therm. Eng. 44 (2012) 143–149.
[1] B. Sunden, Computational fluid dynamics in research and design of heat
[11] Yonghua You, Aiwu Fan, Suyi Huang, Wei Liu, Numerical modeling and
exchangers, Heat Transfer Eng. 28 (2007) 898–910.
experimental validation of heat transfer and flow resistance on the shell side
[2] B.I. Master, K.S. Chunangad, A.J. Boxma, D. Kral, P. Stehlík, Most frequently used
of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger with flower baffles, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf.
heat exchangers from pioneering research to worldwide applications, Heat
55 (2012) 7561–7569.
Transfer Eng. 27 (6) (2006) 4–11.
[12] Yingshuang Wang, Zhichun Liu, Suyi Huang, Wei Liu, Weiwei Li, Experimental
[3] K.J. Bell, Heat exchanger design for the process industries, transactions of the
investigation of shell-and-tube heat exchanger with a new type of baffles, Heat
ASME, Trans. ASME J. Heat Transfer 126 (6) (2004) 877–885.
Mass Transf. 47 (2011) 833–839.
[4] B.B. Gulyani, Estimating number of shells in shell and tube heat exchangers: a
[13] Edward S. Gaddis, Volker Gnielinski, Pressure drop on the shell side of shell-
new approach based on temperature cross, Trans. ASME J. Heat Transfer 122
and-tube heat exchangers with segmental baffles, Chem. Eng. Process. 36
(3) (2000) 566–571.
(1997) 149–159.
[5] L. Huadong, V. Kottke, Effect of baffle spacing on pressure drop and local heat
[14] Young-Seok Son, Jee-Young Shin, Performance of a shell-and-tube heat
transfer in shell-and-tube heat exchangers for staggered tube arrangement,
exchanger with spiral baffle plates, KSME Int. J. 15 (11) (2001) 1555–1562.
Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 41 (1998) 1303–1311.
[15] D. Gaddis (Ed.), Standards of the Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers
[6] P. Stehlik, J. Nemcansky, D. Kral, L.W. Swanson, Comparison of correction
Association, TEMA Inc., Tarrytown (NY), 2007.
factors for shell-and-tube heat exchangers with segmental or helical baffles,
[16] D.Q. Kern, Process Heat Transfer, New York, McGraw-Hill, New York (NY),
Heat Transfer Eng. 15 (1994) 55–65.
1950.
[7] Q.W. Wang, Q.Y. Chen, G.D. Chen, M. Zeng, Numerical investigation on
[17] J. Taborek, Thermal and hydraulic design of heat exchangers, in: G.F. Hewitt
combined multiple shell-pass shell-and-tube heat exchanger with continuous
(Ed.), Heat Exchangers Design Handbook, vol. 3, Begell House Inc., New York,
helical baffles, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 52 (5–6) (2009) 1214–1222.
2002.
[8] Bin Gao, Qincheng Bi, Zesen Nie, Wu. Jiangbo, Experimental study of effects of
[18] M.M. Awad, Y.S. Muzychka, Thermodynamic optimization, heat exchangers –
baffle helix angle on shell-side performance of shell-and-tube heat exchangers
basics design applications, in: J. Mitrovic (Ed.), Heat Exchangers – Basics
with discontinuous helical baffles, Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 68 (2015) 48–57.
Design Applications, vol. 1, InTech, Rijeka, 2012, pp. 3–52 (Chapter. 1) InTech,
[9] Sirous Zeyninejad Movassag, Farhad Nemati Taher, Kazem Razmi, Reza Tasouji
ISBN 978-953-51-0278-6.
Azar, Tube bundle replacement for segmental and helical shell and tube heat
exchangers: performance comparison and fouling investigation on the shell
side, Appl. Therm. Eng. 51 (2013) 1162–1169.