Applied Thermal Engineering 143 (2018) 561–569

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

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

Research Paper

Numerical investigation on double tube-pass shell-and-tube heat exchangers T

with different baffle configurations
⁎
Li Hea,b, , Peng Lib
a
State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
b
School of Renewable Energy, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China

H I GH L IG H T S

• RNG k-ε model and standard wall treatment with boundary layers are adopted.
• STP-STHE and DTP-STHE are compared in the point of exergy theory.
• Pressure drop and heat transfer coefficient of DTP-STHEs with different baffles are compared.
• A new and more effective method is introduced to evaluate the economy of STHE.

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Thermo-hydraulic performances of shell-and-tube heat exchangers with different baffle types have been widely
Thermo-hydraulic performances evaluated using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) methods. In this paper, double-tube-pass shell-and-tube
Segmental baffle heat exchanger (DTP-STHE) is proposed to improve the recovered heat quality from the point of exergy analysis.
Heat exchangers Results reveal that the recovered heat quality in DTP-STHE is almost twice as that in single-tube-pass shell-and-
Exergy analysis
tube heat exchanger (STP-STHE). Furthermore, the heat transfer rates in both heat exchangers are nearly the
same. In all heat exchangers, increasing the mass flow rate of water in shell side can increase the exergy utilizing
efficiency and heat transfer rate, but the mass-weighted average temperature of water decreases. In order to
investigate thermo-hydraulic performances of different DTP-STHEs, three kinds of DTP-STHEs with segmental,
helical and flower baffles respectively are compared under the same conditions. Results show that flower baffles
produce the lowest pressure drop and lowest heat transfer coefficient. For better evaluating the economic per-
formance of these three kinds of heat exchangers, heat transfer rate per effective pumping power (i.e., QH/P0) is
introduced. The simulation results show that QH/P0 of flower baffle is the highest and QH/P0 of segmental baffle
the lowest.

1. Introduction
For last several decades, shell-and-tube heat exchangers (STHEs) in
their various forms are widely used in process industries because of
their easy manufacture, maintenance and upgrading, such as power
plants, air-conditioning, chemical plants and petroleum [1–3]. It is es-
timated that about 30% of the heat exchangers in current use are of the
shell-and-tube type [4–6]. Conventional single baffles play a significant
role in STHEs. The heat transfer coefficient in the heat exchanger is
enhanced by introduction of baffles. This is because the 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, thus
increasing the heat transfer coefficient [7,8].
However, the heat exchanger with segmental baffles normally has
some inherent defects resulting from structure limitations [9–12]: (1)
high pressure drop on the shell side because of the sudden contraction
and expansion of the flow at baffle cut section; (2) fouling formed in the
stagnation zone near the rear of the baffles; (3) low shell-side mass
velocity across the tubes due to significant bypass streams and leakage
streams caused by manufacturing tolerance and installation, and (4)
short operational lifetime as a result of flow induced tube vibration. In
order to minimize these shortcomings, it is necessary to investigate
other baffles to lower the shell side pressure drop and hence reducing
the operating cost of heat exchanger. One successful attempt is STHE
with helical baffles (HB-STHE) which was first invented in Czechoslo-
vakia [13] in late 1980th. Compared with traditional segmental baffles,

⁎
Corresponding author at: State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China.
E-mail address: helix111@tju.edu.cn (L. He).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.07.098
Received 20 August 2017; Received in revised form 4 July 2018; Accepted 17 July 2018
Available online 19 July 2018
1359-4311/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. He, P. Li
velocity distribution in helical baffle system is more uniform and
homogenous and the applications of the helical baffles greatly decrease
the proportions of bypass streams and leakage streams. Heat transfer
coefficient and pressure drop for shell side equipped with helical baffle
system were also introduced in Ref. [14]. By creating different ar-
rangements of the helical baffles, the comparison between these types
of baffles and the segmental one has been performed. Some equations
for both turbulent and laminar regimes were also proposed based on the
derived pressure drop relationship and the rapid design algorithm.
Additionally, other effects have been undertaken for identifying the
technical and economic performances of heat exchangers based on si-
mulation techniques. For example, Prithiviraj and Andrews [15] first
developed a 3D numerical code based on distributed resistance method
along with volumetric porosities and surface permeabilities to model
the tubes in a baffled shell and tube heat exchanger. In this method,
fluid flow and temperature field were simulated and the agreements
between simulation results and experiment values were within ± 7.4%
and 15%, respectively. Andrews and Master [16] performed detailed
three-dimensional CFD simulations to explore the performance of a
helical baffle heat exchanger. They discussed detailed mathematical
and numerical modeling of STHEs with helical baffles, in which three
cases with helix angles of 10°, 25°, and 40° were considered. Inspection
of the computed flows revealed distinct inner and outer regions, with
the outer region showing a very desirable plug flow characteristic. Xiao
et al. [17] used numerical method to simulate helical baffles heat ex-
changer with different Prandtl number fluids. Results found that the
helical baffles were used to direct the shell side fluid flow spirally across
the tubes, and the guide function would weaken when large Prandtl
number fluids involved. Results also reveal that heat exchanger con-
tained water as the shell side fluid achieved the best heat transfer
performance when helical tilt angle is at 40°. Gao et al. [18] focused on
the research on flow resistance and heat transfer of several shell-and-
tube heat exchangers with discontinuous helical baffles at different
helical angles of 8°, 12°, 20°, 30°and 40°. Results disclosed that the
shell-side pressure drop and heat transfer coefficient of the heat ex-
changer with smaller helix angle were higher than those with larger
helix angle at a given shell-side volume flow rate. However, in the
condition of the same shell-side Reynolds number, the flow resistance
with larger helix angle is lower and the heat transfer performance is
better. Zhang et al. [19] employed water as working fluid to simulate
shell-and-tube heat exchangers with small-angle helical baffles. The
paper focused on non-continuous helical baffles with a helix angle of
10–30°, and their shapes are 1/4 ellipse, 1/4 sector and 1/3 sector. This
study assumed that heat exchanger tubes were kept at a constant
temperature. Result indicated that the helical baffles increased the heat
transfer rate and decreased the pressure drop compared with conven-
tional segmental baffles heat exchangers.
In terms of STHE with helical baffles, other attempts were also make
to achieve better flow and heat transfer performance. For example, You
et al. [20] developed a numerical model based on the concepts of
porosity and permeability for the shell-side flow and heat transfer of
STHXs, where the distributed resistance and heat source, and the dis-
tributed turbulence kinetic energy and its dissipation rate were in-
troduced to account for the impacts of tubes on fluid. This study com-
pared contours between STHE with segmental baffles (SG-STHE) and
STHE with flower baffles (FB-STHE), and results pointed out that the
FB-STHE has a better overall thermal hydraulic performance than the
SG-STHX. However, this study didn’t investigate the heat transfer per-
formance between these two heat exchangers. Wang et al. [21] com-
pared the combined multiple shell-pass shell-and-tube heat exchanger
(CMSP-STHE) with SG-STHE by means of computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) method. They found that under the same mass flow rate and
overall heat transfer rate, the average overall pressure drop of the
CMSP-STHE was lower than that of SG-STHE by 13%, and that under
the same pressure drop in the shell side, the overall heat transfer rate
and mass flow rate of CMSP-STHE were higher than those of SG-STHE.
562
Applied Thermal Engineering 143 (2018) 561–569
Maakoul et al. [22] studied thermo-hydraulic performances of STHEs
with three different baffle types: segmental baffles, continuous helical
baffles and trefoil-hole baffles. The results indicated that HB-STHEs
could provide a good balance between heat transfer and pressure drop
characteristics. While the STHE with trefoil baffles (TB-STHE) could
enhance the heat transfer at the expense of a large pressure drop.
Ambekar et al. [23] used a numerical method to investigate STHEs with
different baffle segmental configurations. In this study, single, double,
triple and flower segmental baffles were adopted to study the heat
transfer and pressure drop in the shell side. Results showed that single
segmental baffles could provide good overall heat transfer coefficient at
cost of large pressure drop. Double, triple segmental baffles, flower
baffles and helical baffles could reduce pressure drop while heat
transfer coefficient reduced as well. However, the standard for identi-
fying the most economical one was not presented in this study, resulting
in its incapability of enhancing and verifying the simulation solutions.
According to the above literature review, it can be generally con-
cluded that different heat exchangers, involving STHE with single,
double, triple segmental baffles, helical baffles with different helix
angles, flower baffles, trefoil-hole baffles and multiple shell-pass, have
been extensively applied for improving flow and heat transfer perfor-
mance and reducing pressure drop. However, limited attention has
been paid on the pressure drop per unit between single-tube-pass STHE
(STP-STHE) and double-tube-pass STHE (DTP-STHE) under the similar
input conditions. Moreover, the previous studies merely considered the
overall heat transfer coefficient on the shell side of the heat exchanger
which could hardly judge the quality of heated water. Furthermore, the
flow and heat transfer performance of multiple tube-pass STHE with
segmental baffles, flower baffles and non-continuous baffles were not
compared. In this study, pressure drop per meter and recycled heat per
kilogram of water in the tube side will be compared between STP-STHE
and DTP-STHE. After that, heat transfer coefficient, pressure drop and
heat transfer rate per effective pumping power on DTP-STHE with
different baffle configurations will be compared.
2. Modeling details
2.1. Physics model
This study mainly focuses on the STHE with segmental, helical,
trefoil-hole and flower baffles. Configuration of DTP-STHE with helical
baffles is illustrated in Fig. 1, and the detailed geometry parameters
DTP-STHE are listed in Table 1. It should be specially mentioned that all
parameters, except for baffle types of these three heat exchangers,
Fig. 1. Configurations of DTP-STHE with helical baffles.
L. He, P. Li Applied Thermal Engineering 143 (2018) 561–569

Table 1
Geometry parameters of MTP-STHEs.
Item Dimensions and description

Baffle shape Segmental Helical Flowers

Shell inside diameter, Di/mm 87 87 87

Length of heat exchanger/mm 500 500 500
External tube diameter, d0/mm 19 19 19
Tube thickness/mm 1.5 1.5 1.5
Effective tube length, L/mm 365 365 365
Tube pitch, pt/mm 24 24 24
Tube number, NT 6 6 6
Baffle spacing, B/mm 57 57 57
Baffle thickness/mm 3 3 3
Inlet and outlet spacing/mm 61 61 61
Baffle cut, Di% 25 – –

Table 2 equations are shown as follows:

Thermo physical properties of shell-side hot water and tube-side cold water. Continuity Equation:
Parameter Unit Value ∂ (ρui )
=0
∂x i (1)
Hot water Cold water
Momentum Transport Equation:
Density, ρ kg·m−3 974 998
Conductivity, λ W·m−1·K−1 0.66 0.60 ∂ (ρui uk ) ∂p ∂ ⎛ ∂u
Specific heat, Cp J·kg−1·K−1 4194 4182 =− + ueff k ⎞ ⎜ ⎟

Dynamic viscosity, μ kg·m−1·s−1 0.00037 0.001

∂x i ∂xk ∂x i ⎝ ∂x i ⎠ (2)
Energy equation:

remain constant for better comparisons among the three different baf- ∂ (ρui T ) ∂ ⎡⎛ μ μ ∂T ⎤
= + t⎞
fles [24]. The working fluid in both the shell and tube side of the heat
⎜ ⎟

∂x i ∂x i ⎢
⎣⎝ Pr σ ⎥
T ⎠ ∂x i ⎦ (3)
exchanger is water. All properties of water are seen as constants be-
cause of small temperature change both in shell side and in tube side Turbulent kinetic energy:
whose values are shown in Table 2. Also, all parts of heat exchanger are
∂ (ρkui ) ∂ ⎡ ∂k ⎤
made from carbon steel with a thermal conductivity λ = 45 W/m2·K. = αk μeff + Gk + ρε
∂x i ∂x j ⎢
⎣ ∂xj ⎥
⎦ (4)
2.2. Governing equations Turbulent dissipation energy:

The commercial code FLUENT is adopted to simulate the flow and ∂ (ρεui ) ∂ ⎡ ∂ε ⎤ ε ε2
= αε μeff + C1∗ε Gk−C2ε ρ
heat transfer in the computational model. The numerical simulation is ∂x i ∂x j ⎢
⎣ ∂x ⎥
j⎦ k k (5)
performed with a three-dimensional steady-state turbulent flow system.
where
In the standard k-ε model, for each component of Reynolds Stress,
assuming that the viscous coefficient μt is isotropic scalar. However, in μeff = μ + μt
⎧
the case of curved streamline, turbulence is anisotropic, μt thus should ⎪ k2
⎪ μt = ρCμ
be an anisotropic scalar [25]. Additionally, RNG k-ε and Realizable k-ε ε
⎪C = 0.0845, αk = αε = 1.39
models are proposed to remedy the defects of k-ε model. The RNG k-ε ⎪ μ
put forward by Yakhot and Orissa [26] is similar in form to the standard ⎪ η (1 − η η0 )
C1∗ε = C1ε−
⎪ 1 + βη3
k-ε model, but has the following refinements: (1) the turbulent viscosity ⎪
C1ε = 1.42, C2ε = 1.68
has been modified, so the effect of swirl on turbulence is included in the ⎨
η = (2Eij Eji )1 2k
RNG model, enhancing accuracy for swirling flows; and (2) the RNG ⎪ ε
model has an additional term in its ε equation that improves the ac- ⎪
curacy for rapidly strained flows. Therefore, compared with standard k-
⎪
⎪
⎪
Eij =
1
2 ( ∂ui
∂xj
+
∂uj
∂xi )
ε model, the RNG k-ε model can better handle the flows with high strain η0 = 4.377, β = 0.012
⎪
rate and large curved streamline [25,26]. ⎪ σT = (0.9 ∼ 1.0)
⎩ (6)
In terms of the Realizable k-ε model, it is usually applied to the
circumstance when the time-averaged strain rate is significantly large.
RNG k-ε model is thus recognized as the most appropriate model among 2.3. Boundary conditions and near wall treatment
these three k-ε models when simulating flows in the shell side of STHEs.
All the governing equations are modified according to the conditions of The momentum boundary condition of no slip and no penetration is
the simulation setup. As the problem is assumed to be steady, the time set for all solid walls. The thermal boundary condition of zero heat flux
dependent parameters are dropped from the equations. The resulting is set for the shell wall and inlet and outlet nozzle walls, heat transfer

563
L. He, P. Li Applied Thermal Engineering 143 (2018) 561–569

between water and baffles is neglected. While the walls of tubes and 2.6. Data reduction
tube bundle, which also represent the solid-fluid interfaces between the
two fluid domains, have the thermal boundary condition of coupling 2.6.1. Heat flux and shell-side heat transfer coefficient
heat transfer. The inlets for the shell and tube sides are set as boundary Heat flux is an important parameter in heat exchanger analysis. QĊ is
conditions of mass flow inlet, the outlets are set as pressure-outlet. The defined as transferred heat to cold water, which can be calculated as
outlets are assumed to have a pressure of constant so the pressure dif- follow:
ference between inlet and outlet is equal to the pressure drop on both
QĊ = GC × cp, C × (tout , c−tin, c ) (7)
shell and tube sides.
In order to simplify the model and save computation time, standard where Gc is the mass flow rate of cold fluid and cp,c is the specific heat of
wall treatment is utilized, typically y+ of the first layer grid is 30 ≤ y+ cold water at certain temperature. Qḣ is the heat released by hot water
≤ 300. which can also be calculated as follow:
Q̇H = GH × cp, H × (tin, H −tout , H ) (8)
2.4. Numerical method where GH is the mass flow rate of hot water and cp,H is the specific heat
of hot water. In this study, the heat transfer between STHE and en-
The CFD code FLUENT is used to calculate the fluid flow and heat vironment is neglected, QĊ thus equals to Q̇H .
transfer in the computational domain. The governing equations are The shell side heat transfer coefficient of heat exchanger αs is an-
solved by the finite-volume method with pressure-velocity coupling other important parameter, which is defined by the following equation:
scheme and the SIMPLE algorithm. The second-order upwind scheme is
Q̇H
adopted for the momentum, energy, turbulence and its dissipation rate. αs =
A0 Δtm (9)
The pressure term is treated with the standard scheme. In addition to
under relaxation factor of pressure (0.5), default under relaxation fac- where A0 is the heat exchanger area based on the outer diameter of tube
tors of the solver are used, which are considered as 0.7, 0.8, and 0.8 for d 0 and effective tube length l. Δtm can be calculated by the Eq. (11).
the momentum, turbulent kinetic energy, and turbulent energy dis-
A0 = nπd 0 l (10)
sipation, respectively. The convergence criterions for residual mon-
itoring were assumed to be 10−3 for flow equations and 10−7 for the Δt − Δt
⎧ Δtm = ln(Δmax min
tmax Δtmin )
energy equation. Some physically meaningful variables, such as tem- ⎪
perature and velocity, were also monitored. ⎨ Δtmax = max(Th, in−Tc, out , Th, out−Tc, in )
⎪ Δtmin = min(Th, in−Tc, out , Th, out−Tc, in) (11)
⎩

2.5. Mesh generation and independence verification

Although the structure of heat exchanger is complex, the compu-
tation domain is meshed with unstructured grids by commercial code
ANSYS ICEM CFD. The regions adjacent to the tubes and shell are
meshed finer with boundary layer to better fit in enhanced wall treat-
ment in FLUENT and thus to improve the calculation accuracy, as
shown in Fig. 2. The quality of the mesh for each STHX (elements
quality, skewness, angle and so on) is evaluated using the built-in Mesh
Metrics in ICEM (Table 3).
Before the numerical simulation, mesh independence test is carried
out with adopting three different mesh size groups for the STP-STHE.
The total elements in the geometry are 3684238, 4598626, and
5806253, respectively (Table 4). It can be seen from Tables 5 and 6 that
the differences in pressure drop and heat transfer coefficient between
the last two mesh systems are less than 1%. Thus, the second mesh
system is adopted for the simulation considering the calculating time
and solution precision.
2.6.2. Pressure drop and effective pumping power
Pressure drop is another important factor to consider when de-
signing the STHE, because pumping power is highly related to pressure
drop, and therefore lower pressure drop results in lower operating
costs. As for STHE in this paper, if potential energy is neglected, total
pressure drop can be expressed as,
ΔPt = ΔPs + ΔPd, (12)
where ΔPs is static pressure drop and ΔPd is dynamic pressure drop.
Effective pumping power is largely determined by pressure drop,
given by:
Po = ΔPt ·V , (13)
where V denotes volume of STHE in the shell side.
2.6.3. Determination of shell side vs and Res number
vs and Res number on the shell side has significant effect on shell
side flow and heat transfer performance. For the same Re number,

Fig. 2. Mesh: (a) cold water inlet; (b) helical baffles.

564
L. He, P. Li Applied Thermal Engineering 143 (2018) 561–569

Table 3
Mesh details and metrics.
STHE baffles type Total nodes Total elements Min quality Min angle Min skew Min determinant

Segmental 5,569,794 1,334,821 0.2747 16.15 0.2410 0.3574

Helical 6,168,013 1,381,053 0.2801 12.87 0.2686 0.3355
flower 6,226,362 1,442,593 0.2837 15.89 0.2677 0.3000

regardless of the specific structure of the STHE, the flow of the fluid on Table 5
the shell side should have similarity. Comparison of heat transfer coefficient between the experimental results and
As for SG-STHE and HB-STHE, the mean shell side velocity vs is simulated results in the shell side.
defined by: Reynolds number Experimental data Simulation results
(W·m−2·K−1) (W·m−2·K−1)
GH
Vs = ,
ρs Across (14) 46,941 2326 2245
55,476 2404 2305
where GH is the mass flow rate of hot water on the shell side and Across 64,011 2477 2353
represents the cross-flow area at the shell centerline, ρs is the density of 72,546 2546 2393
hot water. For the segmental baffles in this case: 81,081 2587 2428

Across = (Ds −Nc d 0) B (15)

where Ds is the internal diameter of the shell, d0 the external diameter Table 6
Comparison of pressure drop between the experimental results and simulated
of the tubes, B the baffle spacing and Nc the number of tubes in the
results in the shell side.
central row.
For helical baffles: Reynolds number Experimental data (kPa) Simulation results (kPa)

Across = 0.5(Ds −Nc d 0) B (16) 46,941 8.99 7.98

55,476 11.70 11.19
where D1 is the tube bundle-circumscribed circle, pt the tube pitch. 64,011 15.70 14.94
With the vs the Re number of the shell side fluid in SG-STHE and HB- 72,546 20.01 19.24
STHE can be calculated by as follow: 81,081 25.22 24.10

Vs·de ·ρs
Res =
μs
where μs is the dynamic viscosity of hot water, de the equivalent
diameter. For the square tube layout, de can be gained from the fol-
lowing equation.
Ds2−Nt d 02
de =
Ds + Nt d 0
For flower baffles, Res is defined through Eq. (19):
ρs Ve de
Res =
μs
where Ve refers to the axial velocity at the breaches of flower baffles
on the shell side.
3. Model validations
The model is validated by using a frequently-used STHE design
software HTRI. The inputs of geometrical parameters and boundary
conditions in the validation are the same as in simulations. A conven-
tional STHX with segmental baffles is used in the experiment, where the
warm water flows in the shell side, while the cool water flows in the
tube side in a counter current configuration. The shell has an internal
diameter of 87 mm and a length of 500 mm. Six tubes with an external
diameter of 19 mm are installed inside the shell with a square ar-
rangement. The number of baffles is 5 with a baffle spacing of 57 mm
and the baffles thickness is 3 mm. Furthermore, the inlet spacing and
(17) outlet spacing are both 61 mm, and the baffle cut is 25% of the shell
inside diameter. Comparison of the simulation results with experiment
results is shown in Fig. 3(a) and (b), Tables 4 and 5. In the figure, Gs
donates mass flow rate of water in the shell side. It can be seen from
Fig. 3, Tables 4 and 5 that the difference between simulation results and
experimental results is between 3.5% and 6.1% for heat transfer coef-
(18) ficient and between 3.8% and 11.3% for pressure drop, so the numer-
ical method in this study is reliable and valid.
4. Results and discussion
(19)
4.1. Comparison between STP-STHE and DTP-STHE
Exergy theory is a powerful tool to analyze the heat transfer effi-
ciency because this can consider both heat quality and heat quantity. In
this study, STP-STHE and DTP-STHE are compared from point of heat
transfer performance (Table 7). In this table, Gs represents mass flow
rate of hot water in shell side, Δt represents increasing temperature of
cold water in tube side, Ex is the total absorbed energy of cold water
and Ex/m denotes the absorbed energy per kilogram. It should be no-
ticed that in order to better identify heat transfer efficiency, mass flow
rate of cold water per tube, inlet temperature of cold water and inlet
temperature of hot water both in STP-STHE and DTP-STHE remain the
same (i.e., 0.2 kg/s, 293.15 K and 353.15 K). Results show that Ex in
these two kind of heat exchangers is almost the same, which is due to
that heat exchange area in both exchangers are the same. However, Δt

Table 4
Comparison of three different mesh systems.
STHE baffles type Total nodes Total elements Min quality Min angle Min determinant

System1 3,684,238 1,053,987 0.2697 16.38 0.3253

System2 4,598,626 1,334,821 0.2732 16.72 0.3125
System3 5,806,253 1,586,956 0.2837 17.03 0.3343

565
L. He, P. Li Applied Thermal Engineering 143 (2018) 561–569

26.00 main cross-flow streams, the fluid velocities near the shell wall surface
Experimental results
24.00 CFD results
and at the corner of baffles are relatively small, resulting in the stag-
22.00 nation flow generation. The turbulence and local mixing result from the
20.00
segmental baffles are positive to heat transfer but rather negative to
huge pressure loss formation as pressure changes suddenly at each
18.00
P/kPa

baffle section. Therefore, most of fluid energy is spent in areas where

16.00
there are few tubes, leading to an inefficient conversion of pressure
14.00 drop in heat transfer.
12.00 As for heat exchanger with helical baffles, the function of helical
10.00 baffles is used to form a spiral fluid flow passage forcing the fluid to
8.00 flow through the channels between baffles as depicted in the Fig. 4b.
6.00 With the help of helical baffles, the flow pattern in the shell side is
45000 50000 55000 60000 65000 70000 75000 80000 rotational, and the shell fluid passes though the tube bundles close to an
Res ideal helical pattern. Compared to heat exchangers with helical baffles,
(a) no obvious changes could be found for the direction and the magnitude
of velocity at the near-baffle edge areas, and the uniformity of the ve-
2600 Experimental Results locity distribution with helical baffles are much better than that with
2550 CFD results
segmental baffles. Due to the effect of baffle inclination angle, the fluid
2500 flow in the axial direction is enhanced and turned into a plug flow.
W·m ·K )

2450 Fluid flow with helical baffles is continuous and the dead zones do not
-1

2400 occur near the helical baffle. Since fluid in the shell side in the helical
-2

2350 baffles heat exchanger keeps moving forward spirally as the cross plug
2300 flow with little back flow or vortex, both the helical baffles and seg-
2250 mental baffles have a similar heat transfer effect. The spiral motion
2200
brings about better mixing, and the heat transfer in this region is sig-
nificantly enhanced while the pressure drop is reduced.
2150
45000 50000 55000 60000 65000 70000 75000 80000 From Fig. 4c, it is clearly seen that the fluid velocity magnitude on
Res the shell side changes periodically in the heat exchanger with flower
(b) baffles. When the fluid passes through a baffle, it is accelerated rapidly
and flows across the breaches with large velocity magnitude. After
Fig. 3. Comparison of the experimental results and simulated results in the shell
side: (a) pressure drop ΔP; (b) heat transfer coefficient α. rushing out of the breaches, the fluid is expanded suddenly and the
velocity magnitude is decreased gradually. This periodic flow pattern is
caused by the periodic changes of the arrangement of flower baffles.
Table 7 Moreover, it is noticed that two recirculation flow regions are generated
Heat transfer performance comparison between STP-STHE and DTP-STHE.
in the downstream just behind a baffle, where the velocity magnitude is
Type Gs (kg/s) 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 very small. Lastly, like heat exchanger with helical baffles, vortex forms
just behind the baffles, which is positive to heat transfer and heat
STP-STHE Δt (K) 3.29 3.41 3.52 3.62 3.68
Ex (J) 16,496 17,096 17,645 18,165 18,484
mixing.
Ex/m (J·kg−1) 13,747 14,247 14,704 15,138 15,403 Fig. 5 represents the vectors at the shell side plane as is showed in
DTP-STHE Δt (K) 6.6 6.9 7.2 7.3 7.4 the left side for each of the computed STHE configurations. Segmental
Ex (J) 16,436 17,408 17,998 18,266 18,689 baffles have the highest shell side maximum velocities, located at the
Ex/m (J·kg−1) 27,393 19,013 29,997 30,443 31,148
gaps between baffles and shell side. The high velocity jets can be seen
clearly in Fig. 5b. By comparison to segmental baffles, helical baffles
produce lower shell side maximum velocities, located at the baffle
and Ex/m in DTP-STHE are obviously higher than those in STP-STHE.
window and near the central tube respectively Fig. 5a and b. As can be
This is because the heat exchange time of water in DTP-STHE is almost
seen in Fig. 5a and c, flower baffles produce no dead zones with re-
the twice of that in STP-STHE.
markable fluid recirculation zones compared with segmental baffles.
According to exergy analysis, the heat exergy of the heat stream can
Flower baffles and helical baffles produce relatively lower maximal
T
( )
be expressed as E = Q 1− T0 , where Q is the total heat of cold water
velocities, better flow distributions, without dead zones and fluid re-
after heat transfer, T0 is the environmental temperature and T is the
circulation areas. Higher maximal velocities, dead zones, and fluid re-
temperature of cold water after heat transfer. Δt in the tube side of DTP-
circulation areas always produce an increase in frictional pressure
STHE is almost twice of that in the tube side of STP-STHE. So T in DTP-
drops. Thus, it is expected that the pressure drop will go from highest to
STHE is higher than that in STP-STHE. Therefore, DTP-STHE has a
lowest in the following order: segmental, helical and flower baffles.
higher recovered heat quality without reducing heat quantity.
4.3. Pressure drop and heat transfer performance
4.2. Flow field characteristics on the shell side of DTP-STHE
The pressure drop is of great importance in the design of shell-and-
The flow behavior in the shell side for the STHX is different de- tube heat exchangers, pumping cost are highly related to pressure drop,
pending on the baffle type, Fig. 4 shows the streamlines in the shell side and therefore lower pressure drop results in lower operating costs.
for the three kinds of heat exchangers. For the conventional segmental Fig. 6 depicts the variation of the pressure drop ΔP versus the shell side
baffles, as shown in Fig. 4a, the baffles in the shell side work as ob- mass flow rate for the three heat exchangers. The pressure drop in-
stacles which divide the original axial flow into cross flow, fluid re- creases proportional to the mass flow rate for the three heat exchangers.
circulation and some vortex. The zigzag flow pattern also causes large As expected previously, segmental baffles produce the highest pressure
dead zones at the back of the baffles. Both of magnitude and direction drop, higher on average by 135% and 218% than STHEs with helical
of velocity changes dramatically as the fluid has to climb over baffles in and flower baffles respectively. This high pressure drop is caused by the
the zones near the edge of baffles. Compared to the velocities of the high velocity jets at the baffles opening and large fluid recirculation

566
L. He, P. Li
Fig. 4. Shell path lines of three different heat exchangers: (a) segmental baffle heat exchanger; (b) helical baffle heat exchanger; (c) flower baffle heat exchanger.
zones. The reason is that the flow distribution with segmental baffles on
the shell side is zigzag, flow separation at the edge of baffles causes
abrupt momentum change and severe pressure drop. Whereas the pri-
mary flow direction of helical baffles and flower baffles does not change
dramatically and flow velocity magnitude of both helical baffles and
flower baffles does not change severely.
Fig. 7 represents the comparisons of the shell side heat transfer
coefficient for the three heat exchangers versus Reynolds number of
shell side. A key point should be stressed that the dots in same position
at each line are in same mass flow rate. It can be observed that the shell
side heat transfer coefficient α increases with the increase of mass flow
rate Gs or Reynolds number in the shell side. It can be seen clearly from
Fig. 7 that under same mass flow rate of water in the shell side Reynolds
number of STHE with helical baffles is obviously higher than those of
STHE with segmental baffles and flower baffles. So α for the STHE with
helical baffles is a little higher than that for STHE with segmental and
helical baffles. However, the difference of α among these three heat
exchangers is within 6%. Furthermore, it can be judged that under
Reynolds number, flower baffles has the highest heat transfer coeffi-
cient compared to other two baffles. In order to evaluate the economy
of STHEs with different baffles, a new method needs to seek to study the
heat exchanger.
567
Applied Thermal Engineering 143 (2018) 561–569
4.4. Comprehensive performance analysis
As mentioned above, the design of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger
is a balance between higher heat transfer rate and lower effective
pumping power in the fluids (these two parameters is closely related to
heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop respectively, but can directly
evaluate the economy of STHE), since the two parameters depend
highly on each other. So it is necessary to increase the fluid velocities
when improving the heat transfer rate. Such measure always produces
an increase in frictional pressure drops, thus increasing the effective
pumping power. In order to better evaluate the economy of STHEs with
different kinds of baffles, heat transfer rate per unit effective pumping
power at the shell side, QH/Po is introduced to evaluate the economy of
different heat exchangers. In practical application the pressure drops of
the heat exchangers are usually limited, and the goal is to find the
design parameter combination that results in the highest heat transfer
rate within the effective pumping power limitations. Thus, the ratio QH/
Po is a useful parameter.
Fig. 8 shows the comparisons of the ratio of the heat transfer rate to
effective pumping power for the three heat exchangers with different
baffles. From Fig. 8, it can be seen that the performance parameter QH/
Po decreases with increases in the shell side flow rate. It is clearly seen
that the STHE with flower baffles has the best performance ratio QH/Po
among the three STHXs. On average, the performance ratio QH/Po for
L. He, P. Li
Fig. 5. Velocity vectors of three kinds of heat exchangers in longitudinal section: (a) segmental baffle (b) helical baffle (c) flower baffle.
Fig. 6. Shell side pressure drop of different kind heat exchanger versus mass
flow rate.
STHX with flower baffles is 223% and 49% higher on average than
STHXs with segmental and helical baffles respectively. Based on the
results discussed above, it is clear that STHX with flower baffles per-
forms better for the flow rates interval studied. Furthermore, the shell
side fluid mass flow rate in this section range from 1.1 kg/s to 1.9 kg/s,
QH/Po rate decreases with the shell side fluid mass rate increasing.
However, the recovered heat quality decreases at the same time. From
this point of view, the conclusion can also draw that if a new STHE is to
568
Applied Thermal Engineering 143 (2018) 561–569
Fig. 7. Shell side heat transfer coefficient versus Reynolds number of shell side.
be designed to replace an existing one, if the two heat exchangers have
equal effective pumping power, the new STHE must have a larger heat
transfer rate, and if the two heat exchanger have equal heat transfer
rate, the new STHE must have a lower effective pumping power.
5. Conclusion
This study compares the performances of STP-STHE and DTP-STHE
with segmental baffles. Results reveal that DTP-STHE can effectively
L. He, P. Li Applied Thermal Engineering 143 (2018) 561–569

4000
Heat Transfer 126 (6) (2004) 877–885.
Segmental [5] B.B. Gulyani, Estimating number of shells in shell and tube heat exchangers: a new
3500 Helical approach based on temperature cross, Trans. ASME J. Heat Transfer 122 (3) (2000)
Flower 566–571.
3000 [6] B.I. Master, K.S. Chunangad, V. Pushpanathan, Fouling mitigation using he-
lixchangers, in: Engineering Conference International, 2003.
2500
[7] E. Pal, I. Kumar, J.B. Joshi, N.K. Maheshwari, CFD simulation of shell-side flow in a
shell-and-tube type heat exchanger with and without baffles, Chem. Eng. Sci. 143
QH/Po

2000
1500
1000
500
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
-1
Gs(kg·s )
Fig. 8. Heat transfer rate per effective pumping power versus mass flow rate.
improve recovered heat quality in the shell side without decreasing
heat transfer rate. Then, a numerical model is used to simulate and
compare the thermo-hydraulic performances of DTP-STHEs with dif-
ferent baffle types: segmental, helical and flower baffles. Flow analysis
in shell side shows that velocity distribution in helical baffles is more
uniform and homogenous as compared to segmental and flower baffles.
This leads to less dead zones and less fluid recirculation areas inside the
shell as compared to segmental baffles. Moreover, results indicate that
the use of flower baffles can provide the best balance between heat
transfer rate and effective pumping power when compared to the
conventional segmental baffles and helical baffles.
However, simulation in this model still has some drawbacks, further
points should be investigated: (1) the comparison between baffle types
on induced fouling resistances, flow vibrations and leakages, (2) the
study of the effect of varying other design parameters that have an
effect on the shell-side thermo-hydraulic performances, and (3) un-
certainties associated with modeling inputs and sensitive analysis of
simulation results [27–29].
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their
helpful comments and suggestions. This research was supported by the
Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences
(XDA20040302) and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities.
References
[1] B. Sunden, Computational fluid dynamics in research and design of heat ex-
changers, Heat Transfer Eng. 28 (2007) 898–910.
[2] Z.G. Zhang, C.S. Wu, X.M. Fang, X. Gao, Z. Wang, Experimental study of shell-side
heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop for an integrally helical baffled heat
exchanger combined with different enhanced tubes, Ind Eng. Chem. Res. 48 (8)
(2009) 4040–4044.
[3] B.I. Master, K.S. Chunangad, A.J. Boxma, D. Kral, P. Stehlík, Most frequently used
heat exchangers from pioneering research to worldwide applications, Heat Transfer
Eng. 27 (6) (2006) 4–11.
[4] K.J. Bell, Heat exchanger design for the process industries, ASME Trans. ASME J.
(2016) 314–340.
[8] L. Huadong, V. Kottke, Effect of baffle spacing on pressure drop and local heat
transfer in shell-and-tube heat exchangers for staggered tube arrangement, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transfer 41 (1998) 1303–1311.
[9] P. Stehlik, J. Nemcansky, D. Kral, L.W. Swanson, Comparison of correction factors
for shell-and-tube heat exchangers with segmental or helical baffles, Heat Transfer
Eng. 15 (1994) 55–65 (Compendex).
[10] H.D. Li, V. Kottke, Visualization and determianation for local heat transfer coeffi-
cients in shell-and-tube heat exchangers for staggered tube arrangement by mass
transfer measurements, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 17 (3) (1998) 210–216.
[11] D. Kral, P. Stehlik, H.J. Van der Ploeg, B.I. Master, Helical baffles in shell-andtube
heat exchangers, Part I: Experimental verification, Heat Transfer Eng. 17 (1) (1996)
93–101.
[12] Q.W. Wang, Current status and development of shell-side heat transfer enhance-
ment of shell-and-tube heat exchangers with helical baffles, J. Xi’an Jiaotong Univ.
38 (9) (2004) 881–886 (in Chinese).
[13] J. Lutcha, J. Nemcansky, performance improvement of tubular heat exchangers by
helical baffles, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 68 (1990) 263–270 (Compendex).
[14] M.R. Jafari Nasr, A. Shafeghat, Fluid flow analysis and extension of rapid design
algorithm for helical baffle heat exchangers, Appl. Therm. Eng. 28 (2008)
1324–1332.
[15] M. Prithiviraj, M. Andrews, Three-dimensional numerical simulation of shell-and-
tube heat exchangers. Part 1: heat transfer, Int. J. Comput. Methodol. 33 (8) (1998)
799–816.
[16] M.J. Andrews, B.I. Master, Three-dimensional modeling of a helixchanger heat
exchanger using CFD, Heat Transfer Eng. 26 (6) (2005) 22–31.
[17] X.M. Xiao, L.H. Zhang, X.G. Li, B. Jiang, X.L. Yang, Y.M. Xia, Numeral investigation
of helical baffles heat exchanger with different Prandtl number fluids, Int. J. Heat
Mass Transfer 63 (2013) 434–444.
[18] B. Gao, Q.C. Bi, Z.S. Nie, J.B. Wu, Experimental study of effects of baffle helix angle
on shell side performance of shell-and-tube heat exchangers with discontinuous
helical baffles, Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 68 (2015) 48–57.
[19] M.H. Zhang, F. Meng, F.Z. Geng, CFD simulation on shell-and-tube heat exchangers
with small-angle helical baffles, Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. 9 (2) (2015) 183–193.
[20] Y.H. You, A.W. Fan, S.Y. Huang, W. Liu, Numerical modeling and experimental
validation of heat transfer and flow resistance on the shell side of a shell-and-tube
heat exchanger with flower baffles, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 55 (2012)
7561–7569.
[21] Q.W. Wang, Q.Y. Chen, G.D. Chen, M. Zeng, Numerical investigation on combined
multiple shell-pass shell-and-tube heat exchanger with continuous helical baffles,
Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 52 (2009) 1214–1222.
[22] A.E. Maakoul, A. Laknizi, S. Saadeddine, M.E. Metoui, A. Zaite, M. Meziane,
A.B. Abdellah, Numerical comparison of shell-side performance for shell and tube
heat exchangers with trefoil-hole, helical and segmental baffles, Appl. Therm. Eng.
109 (2016) 175–185.
[23] A.S. Ambekar, R. Sivakumar, N. Anantharaman, M. Vivekenandan, CFD simulation
study of shell and tube heat exchangers with different baffle segment configura-
tions, Appl. Therm. Eng. 108 (2016) 999–1008.
[24] J.F. Yang, M. Zeng, Q.W. Wang, Numerical investigation on combined single shell-
pass shell-and-tube heat exchanger with two-layer continuous helical baffles, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transfer 84 (2015) 103–113.
[25] Fluent Inc., FLUENT User’s Guide. Fluent Inc., 2017.
[26] V. Yakhot, S.A. Orissa, Renormalization-group analysis of turbulence: Basic theory,
J. Sci. Comput. 1 (1) (1986) 3–11.
[27] Y.Z. Chen, L. He, Y.L. Guan, H.W. Lu, J. Li, Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas
emissions and water-energy optimization for shale gas supply chain planning based
on multi-level approach: case study in Barnett, Marcellus, Fayetteville, and
Haynesville shales, Energy Convers. Manage. 134 (2017) 382–398.
[28] Y.Z. Chen, H.W. Lu, J. Li, G.H. Huang, L. He, Regional planning of new-energy
systems within multi-period and multi-option contexts: a case study of Fengtai,
Beijing, China, Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 65 (2016) 356–372.
[29] X. Cheng, L. He, H.W. Lu, Y.Z. Chen, L.X. Ren, Optimal water resources manage-
ment and system benefit for the Marcellus shale-gas reservoir in Pennsylvania and
West Virginia, J. Hydrol. 540 (2016) 412–422.

569