OPTIMIZATION AND CFD ANALYSIS OF A SHELL-AND-TUBE HEAT EXCHANGER

WITH A MULTI SEGMENTAL BAFFLE

Ahmet AYDIN1, Halit YAŞAR2, Tahsin ENGİN2*, Ekrem BÜYÜKKAYA2

1
Sakarya University, Engineering Faculty, Metallurgical and Materials Engineering Department,
Sakarya, Turkey
2
Sakarya University, Engineering Faculty, Mechanical Engineering Department, Sakarya, Turkey

*[email protected]

Abstract
The Shell-and-tube type heat exchangers have long been widely used in many fields of industry. These
types of heat exchangers are generally easy to design, manufacturing and maintenance, but require
relatively large spaces to install. Therefore the optimization of such heat exchangers from thermal and
economical points of view is of particular interest. In this article, an optimization procedure based on
the minimum total cost (initial investment plus operational costs) has been applied. Then the flow
analysis of the optimized heat exchanger has been carried out to reveal possible flow field and
temperature distribution inside the equipment using computational fluid dynamics. The experimental
results were compared with computational fluid dynamics analyses results. It has been concluded that
the baffles play an important role in the development of the shell side flow field. This prompted us to
investigate new baffle geometries without compromising from the overall thermal performance. It has
been found that the heat exchanger with the new baffle design gives rise to considerably lower
pressure drops in the shell side, which in turn reducing operating cost. The new baffle design is
particularly well suited for shell-and-tube heat exchangers, where a viscous fluid flows through shell
side with/out phase change.

Key Words: Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchanger, Optimization, Multi segmental Baffle, CFD Analysis,
Optimal Design

1. Introduction

Heat exchangers are devices used for transferring thermal energy between a solid object and a
fluid, or between two or more fluids. The fluids may be separated by a solid wall to prevent mixing or
they may be in direct contact. They are widely used in space heating, refrigeration, air conditioning,
power stations, petrochemical, chemical and pharmaceutical industries, natural gas processing and
wastewater treatment [1-4]. Among these, shell and tube heat exchangers are the most commonly used
ones. In this system, heat transfer performance depends on many parameters such as placement of
tubes, number of baffles, number of tubes and length. These heat exchangers have a lot of
advantageous, such as having a high ratio of volume and heat transfer area, easier cleaning,
manufacturing and repairing, and to be able to transfer high mass flow rates. However, it is possible to
improve the performance of a heat exchanger by changing baffle geometry. Since the flow direction
may be guided with these component, the whole heat transfer area is involved in the heat transfer and
the velocities and the turbulence may be higher due to the decreased flow section. Thus, this improved
value may provide higher heat transfer coefficient and heat performance. However, one of the major
constraints that stands in the way of optimizing its thermal design is the pressure drop.

Pressure drop is an important constraint in thermal design of shell and tube heat exchangers.
Thermal design of a shell and tube heat exchanger is meaningful solely when it is optimum and the
value of this is constrained by the pressure drop. As a result, optimization of thermal design requires
maximization of overall heat transfer coefficient and effective mean temperature difference so as to
minimize the heat transfer area subject to the constraints, pressure drop being the major one. The

1
pressure drop should be managed in such a way that the calculated pressure drop is within and as close
as possible to the allowable pressure drop. That is, when the pressure drop has a limiting effect during
thermal design, the calculated pressure value should be reduced so that it does not exceed the
permissible pressure drop. Moreover, drop in the determined pressure value should be as close as
possible to the permissible pressure drop when the pressure drop during the thermal design is high [5].

Accurate determination of acceptable pressure drops in a heat exchanger design is possible by

repeating several experiments many times. However, the fact that heat exchangers with a wide range
of applications can be operated under the most economical conditions depends primarily on the fact
that the pressure drops are objectively determined [2]. This pressure drop for both fluids sets the initial
investment cost of the heat exchanger as well as the cost of energy and the initial investment cost of
the pump or compressor required to heat the fluids. However, in many applications, the pressure drop
values given for the heat exchanger design are usually not determined objectively.

Various studies have been carried out for the optimization of shell and tube type heat
exchangers. Two different methods were used in these studies. One of them is Kern [6] and the other
one is the Bell-Delaware method [7]. Kern method gives conservative results, suitable for the
preliminary sizing. On the other hand, Bell–Delaware method is a detailed accurate in estimating heat
transfer coefficient and the pressure drop on the shell side for common geometric arrangements. Bell–
Delaware method indicates the existence of possible weaknesses in the shell side design, but doesn't
point out where these weaknesses are.

Investigations were carried out taking into account the pressure drops in the heat exchanger.
The first of these is McAdams [8]. This researcher derived two expressions that give optimum heat
flux for the unit heat energy. In heat exchanger cost optimization, some of the researchers used
Lagrange multipliers and geometric programming techniques. In order to apply these methods,
algebraic expressions are needed which express the boundary functions and the objective functions
correctly. Babu and Munawar [9] performed optimal design of shell and tube type heat exchangers
using ten different strategies in Differential Evolution (DE) method. Batalha et al. [10] investigated the
effect of the usage of different turbulence model while Ambekar et al. [11] studied four different
segmental baffle types, such as single, double, triple and flower. Mohammed et al. [12] done
comparison for several shell and tube heat exchangers with segmental baffles. Their simulation studies
shown how the temperature, pressure, velocity varies in shell due to different baffles orientation.
Markosvska et al. [4] made the optimal design of trunk tube heat exchangers by providing
simultaneous solutions of equations using a software package. Ravagani et al. [13] solved an
optimization problem with a shell and tube heat exchanger design, the objective function cost being
the least, by using the formulation and the particle swarm optimization (PSO) method. Abd and Naji
[14] examined the method of Kern to define the external heat transfer coefficient. Sayali Bhandurge et
al. [15] done investigation along with CFD simulation on single pass, counter flow shell and tube heat
exchanger at 0°,15°,30°,45° orientation. They examined the heat transfer rate and pressure drop of
shell side fluid with Bell-Delaware method. Edwards [16] evaluated the fundamental aspects of the
thermal design of trunk tube heat exchangers. Ponce et al. [17] solved a compact formulation of the
Bell-Delaware method proposed for optimal shell and tube heat exchanger design using genetic
algorithm. Varga et al. [18] studied helical baffles for the more favorable flow regulation. Azad and
Amidpour [19] used the new approach of structural theory to make the optimal design of shell and
tube type heat exchangers economical. Shrikant et al. [20] replaced a segmental tube bundles by a
bundle of tubes with helical baffles in a shell and tube heat exchanger to reduce pressure drop and
fouling and hence reduce maintenance and operating cost in Tabriz Petroleum Company. Using the
genetic algorithm, Sanaye and Hajabdollahi [21] solved objective function optimization using the
genetic algorithm, with the shell and tubular heat exchangers being the most efficient and least
expensive. Jegede and Polley [22] go for a very useful and simple method innovation for heat
exchanger optimization. Engin and Güngör [23] have applied this method to different types of heat
exchangers on the shell and tube type heat exchangers.

In this study, a new type of baffle called multi segmental baffle was proposed for use in shell
and tube heat exchangers. Then, this heat exchanger was optimized using the method proposed by
Jegede and Polley [22]. In the study, the results of CFD analysis of the heat exchanger with multi
2
segmental baffle were compared to the heat exchanger with conventional baffles. The heat exchanger
produced according to the optimization results was tested and the results were compared with the CFD
analysis results for the same heat exchanger.

2. Optimization Methodology

In this study, the optimization method developed by Jegede and Polley [22] was adopted. The
heat transfer rate of a heat exchanger, that is, the amount of heat transmitting from the hot fluid to the
cold fluid is expressed as follows.

𝑄̇ℎ = (𝑚̇𝐶𝑝 ) ((∆)𝑇)ℎ ; 𝑄̇𝑐 = (𝑚̇𝐶𝑝 ) ((∆)𝑇)𝑐 ; 𝑄̇ℎ = 𝑄̇𝑐 (1)

ℎ 𝑐

where 𝑚̇ is mass flow rate, 𝐶𝑝 is specific heat of the fluid, ∆𝑇 is temperature difference of the fluid.
The subscripts c and h refer to cold and hot fluids, respectively. The following equation is used to
express the heat transfer rate based on logarithmic temperature difference on the shell and tube sides.

𝑄̇ = 𝐾𝐴∆𝑇𝑚 (2)

where ∆𝑇𝑚 ise logarithmic temperature difference (Fig 1). By neglecting the wall thickness of tubes,
as well as fouling effects, total heat transfer coefficient can be expressed as

1
𝐾= (3)
1 1
+
ℎ𝑠 ℎ𝑡

∆𝑇1 − ∆𝑇2
∆𝑇𝑚 = (4)
∆𝑇
𝑙𝑜𝑔 ( 1 )
∆𝑇2

Figure 1. Calculation of Logaritmic Temperature Difference

3
Shell and tube side pressure drops were given by Jegede and Polley [22] as follows

∆𝑃𝑡 = 𝐶𝑡 𝐴ℎ𝑡3.5 (5)

∆Ps = Cs Ah5.1
s (6)

where Ct and Cs are the constants depending on geometric properties of the heat exchanger as well as
thermo-physical properties of the fluids. The cost components of a heat exchanger system to be taken
as basis for optimization are the initial cost and the operating cost.

𝐶𝑡 = 𝐶ℎ𝑒 + 𝐶𝑜𝑝 (7)

where Che is the initial investment cost of the heat exchanger and Cop is the cost of energy consumption
of the system. The initial investment cost of the heat exchanger is expressed by the following equation
[23].

1 1
𝐶ℎ𝑒 = 𝐶1 + 𝐶2 ( + ) (8)
ℎ𝑠 ℎ𝑡

The operation cost is the energy consumption cost required to overcome the pressure drop of
the pump and was given by [23].
ℎ𝑠 5.1 h3.5
t
𝐶𝑜𝑝 = 𝐶3 ( + ℎ𝑡 4.1 + 𝐶4 ℎ𝑠 5.1 ) + 𝐶5 ( + h2.5 3.5
t + 𝐶4 ht ) (9)
h𝑡 hs
The total cost function is consequently given as a function of shell and tube sides convective
heat transfer coefficients:

1 1 ℎ𝑠 5.1 ℎ𝑡3.5
𝐶𝑡 = 𝐶1 + 𝐶2 ( + ) + 𝐶3 ( + ℎ𝑡 4.1 + 𝐶4 ℎ𝑠 5.1 ) + 𝐶5 ( + ℎ𝑡2.5 + 𝐶4 ℎ𝑡3.5 ) (10)
ℎ𝑠 ℎ𝑡 ℎ𝑡 ℎ𝑠

Minimizing the above equation will also optimize the cost. Thus, the following equations are
obtained when the equations (10) are derived according to hs and ht and equalized to zero.

𝜕𝐶𝑡
𝑓1 (ℎ𝑠 , ℎ𝑡 ) = =0 (11)
𝜕ℎ𝑠
𝜕𝐶𝑡
𝑓2 (ℎ𝑠 , ℎ𝑡 ) = =0 (12)
𝜕ℎ𝑡

The roots of the equation were calculated as hs and ht. For the solution of two nonlinear equations with
two unknowns, the program created on Matlab was used. After Optimized hs and ht were evaluated.
Geometric parameters were calculated as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Parameters of the heat exchanger used in CFD analysis

Tube-Side Shell-Side
h=6817 Wm-2-K-1 h=3240 Wm-2-K-1
Velocity 0.8 ms-1 Velocity 0.38 ms-1
Tube number 37 Shell diameter 0.161 m
Surface area 2.8 m2 Distance between baffles 0.193 m
Length 1.4 m Baffle number 6
Pressure drop 736 Pa Pressure drop 736 Pa

4
3. Design parameters and CFD model

For optimization of the heat exchanger, the mass flow rates of water through the inner tubes
and the shell surface were 3.3 kgs-1 and 2.51 kgs-1, respectively. For shell side, the inlet water
temperature is 10 ° C. The outlet water temperature is 30 ° C. For tube-side, the inlet water
temperature is 130 °C. The outlet water temperature is 115 °C In order to clearly see the characteristic
differences, the analysis was carried out for the case where the temperature difference was highest for
the shell side and the tube side. In the optimization studies, the economic life of the heat exchanger,
the total working time, the pump efficiency, the total fouling resistance, the energy unit cost and the
annual real interest rate were taken as 15 years, 8000 hours, 70%, 0.00036 kg/ms, 0.070 $(kWh)-1
and 7%, respectively.

Table 2. Fluid properties

Water (Tube side) Water (Shell side)

Parameter
(Tmean=122.5 0C) (Tmean=20 0C)

Mass flow rate (kgs-1) 3.30 2.51

Density (kgm-3) 941.25 998
Specific heat (kJkg-1K-1) 4.249 4.182
Kinematic viscosity (kgm-1s-1) 0.683 0.598
Prandtl Number 1.3025 7.01
As a result of optimization of the heat exchanger, the input geometric parameters given in
Table 3 were obtained and these data were used in CFD analysis.

Table 3. Geometric Parameters of the heat exchanger used in CFD analysis

Tube-Side Shell-Side
Tube number 37 Shell diameter 0.161 m
Length 1.4 m Baffle number 6

Based on the optimization results obtained first in the CFD analysis developed with the
ANSYS Fluent program, the flow geometry is modeled with the separate Design Modeler for the
conventional and multi segmental baffle shell and tube model. In these models, two separate control
volumes are modeled to examine the shell side and tube side flows. For simplicity of solution,
symmetry of the model showing symmetry feature was taken and the number of solution networks was
reduced by half. The heat exchanger models with multi segmental and conventional baffles are shown
in Fig. 2.

Multi segmental baffle Conventional baffle

Figure 2. Multi segmental and conventional baffle shell and tube heat exchanger models

5
The most important advantage of multi segmental baffle is creating local turbulence zone. Thus, the
dead zones are eliminated for the shell side by using the multi segmental baffle. The details of multi
segmental baffle are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Details of the multi segmental baffle [mm]

During analysis, 3530171 elements for conventional baffle shell and tube and 10096426
elements for multi segmental shell and baffle tube models were used in the solution network where
tetrahedral elements were used. Figure 4 shows the element number independency of the numerical
solution based on heat capacity. As can be seen from the figure, when the number of elements is
increased over 10 million for multi segmental baffle and 3 million for conventional baffle there is
almost no change in the heat capacity obtained from the analysis. The k-ε turbulence model was used
in the simulation studies. Mass flow rate and pressure were defined as the inlet and outlet conditions,
respectively. In order to model the tube surface fouling resistance, thermal conductivity was taken as
3.36 Wm-1K-1 at the interface. The simulations were performed on a DELL T5600 Workstation (Intel®
Xeon®, 3.30 GHz, 2 processors, 16 cores, 128 GB RAM). The solution time is observed to be
approximately 2 h for each a solution.

6
 192
190

Heat Transfer Rate [kW]

188
186
184
182
180
178
176
174
172
0 2000000 4000000 6000000 8000000 10000000 12000000
Number of Cells

Multi Segmental Baffle Conventional Baffle

Figure 4. Element number independency of the numerical solution

4. Experimental setup and procedure

The experimental studies were carried out on the heat exchanger which has the geometric
dimensions obtained from the optimization studies. The tube side flow was supported by a frequency
converter pump with a closed loop. The hot water tank was heated by electrical heaters in order to
keep the temperature constant. On the other hand, the cold water was controlled with the frequency
converter pump and the heated water was evacuated out in a tank. Flow and temperature control were
done at the heat exchanger inlet and outlet points. The experimental setup is shown in Fig. 5. During
the experiments, flow rate and temperature control were done with the control panel and necessary
controls were provided.

The basic elements used in the experimental setup are hot and cold water tanks, shell and tube
heat exchanger and control panel. The system also includes water valves, manometers to measure the
pressure differences of the fluids entering and exiting the heat exchanger, and PT 100 thermocouples
for measuring the temperature of the hot and cold fluids. Before getting the experimental data, the
valve in the tube from which the water came from was opened and the system was expected to be
filled completely. Then the cold water outlet valve was opened and the control panel provided hot and
cold pumping at the desired flow rate. After a certain period of time, the system became stable and the
necessary measurement results were taken.

7
Figure 5. Experimental setup

Experiments were performed for four different input conditions. When the heater capacities
were 15 kW, the analyses were performed for low flow rates to ensure the stability of the temperature
(Tab. 4). In this study, experimental uncertainties were calculated by Turchin and friends [24] method.
Tab. 5 shows the measurement ranges, measurement accuracy of the measuring devices used in the
experimental setup, and uncertainty levels of the calculated parameters based on experimental data.

Table 4. Heat exchanger input parameters

Tube-Side Shell-Side

Inlet Inlet
Mass flow rate Mass flow rate
temperature temperature
(kgs-1) (kgs-1)
(K) (K)
0.3 323 0.4 295
0.7 323 0.7 295
1.1 323 1.0 295
1.5 323 1.4 295
2.1 323 1.9 295

Table 5. Measuring ranges and measurement accuracy of the devices used in the experiments and
uncertainty levels of the calculated parameters.
Equipment Range Accuracy Uncertainty (%)
PT 100 0/100°C ±1 °C
0/100 mbar 2 mbar
Manometer
0/2.5 bar 0.02 bar
Flow meter 0/50 lts-1 0.01 lts-1
Heat transfer rate - - 1.5

8
4. Results and discussion

A preliminary analysis was conducted for design parameters. In order to clearly see the
characteristic differences, the analysis was carried out for the case where the temperature difference
was highest for the shell side and the tube side. For the heat exchanger, the mass flow rates of water
through the inner tubes and the shell surface were 3.3 kgs -1 and 2.51 kgs-1, respectively. For shell side,
the inlet water temperature is 10 ° C. The outlet water temperature is 30 ° C. For tube-side, the inlet
water temperature is 130 °C. The outlet water temperature is 115 °C.

Fig. 6 shows streamlines in heat exchangers with conventional and multi segmental baffles. As
can be seen from the figure, in the heat exchanger having conventional baffles, recirculation zones are
formed at the rear of the baffles. In the case of multi segmental baffle, these recirculation zones are
almost never formed. These recirculation zones reduce the heat transfer from the hot fluid to the cold
fluid on the one hand, while increasing the fouling resistance in these areas. Increased fouling
resistance reduces the service life of the heat exchanger, increases the operating and maintenance costs
of the heat exchanger. In addition, the heat transfer in these recirculation zones decreases depending on
time and the efficiency of the heat exchanger is reduced.

Multi segmental baffle Conventional baffle

Figure 6. Streamlines in the heat exchangers with conventional and multi segmental baffles

9
 Fig. 7 shows the temperature distributions on tube surfaces in heat exchangers having
conventional and multi segmental baffles. As can be seen from the figures, when the curtain multi
segmental baffles are used, a much more uniform temperature distribution is obtained on the tube
surfaces compared to the conventional situation. This indicates that the heat transfer efficiency of the
conventional heat exchanger is lower than multi segmental baffle type heat exchanger.

Conventional baffle Multi segmental baffle

Figure 7. Temperature distribution on the tube surface of the heat exchangers with conventional and
multi segmental baffles
Fig. 8 shows velocity vectors in heat exchangers having conventional and multi segmental
baffles. It can be clearly seen from figure that, with the use of the multi segmental baffle, the local
turbulence regions occur in the heat exchanger and the velocity distribution is much more homogenous
than the conventional heat exchanger. On the other hand, recirculation zones are formed in the back of
the baffles in the conventional heat exchanger. In certain local areas of these regions, the speed
becomes zero, i.e., the flow becomes stationary. This reduces the heat transfer in these dead zones,
resulting in reduced heat exchanger efficiency and increased fouling resistance.

Conventional baffle Multi segmental baffle

Figure 8. Speed vectors formed in the heat exchangers with conventional and multi segmental baffles.

Fig. 9 shows the pressure variation in the heat exchanger along the length of the shell. As can
be seen from the figure, a uniform pressure distribution across the shell is seen in the heat exchanger
having multi segmental baffles. However, in the heat exchanger with conventional baffles, sharp
pressure drops occur due to increased pressure drop between the heat exchanger inlet and the outlet.

10
 Figure 9. Pressure variation across the heat exchanger body

Fig. 10 shows the temperature variations occurring between the inlet and outlet of the
tube surfaces in the heat exchangers. Considering that the temperature change on the tube
surface affects the thermal efficiency, the heat exchanger with multi segmental baffles is
evident from the fact that there is a much more uniform heat transfer than the conventional
heat exchanger.

Figure 10. Temperature variation on the tube surfaces across the inlet and outlet.

11
4.1. Comparison of the experimental and simulation results

The heat transfer rate calculated by experimental data and the heat transfer rate
obtained by CFD analysis in the heat exchanger with multi segmental baffles are compared in
Fig. 11. As can be seen from the figure, in both cases the heat transfer rate increases as the
mass flow rate increases. A difference up to 9% was occurred between the experimental and
the CFD results.

40

35
Heat Transfer rate (kW)

30

25

20

15 Experiment
CFD
10

5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Case

Fig. 11. Heat transfer rate of the heat exchanger for different working conditions

Fig. 12 compares the experimental and CFD pressure drops occurring on the tube side
of the heat exchanger with multi segmental baffles. As can be seen from the figure, the
pressure drops in the tubes increase with the increase of the mass flow rate as expected. The
experimental pressure drops were determined between 0.1 to 2.0 kPa, and the pressure drop
determined with CFD analysis were between 0.09 to 1.9 kPa. There was a difference up to 8%
between the experiment and CFD analysis.

12
 2.5

Experiment
2.0
Pressure Drop (kPa)
CFD

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Case

Figure 12. Tube side pressure drop for different working conditions.

Tab. 5 compares CFD analysis results of the optimized multi segmental baffle heat exchanger
with the conventional heat exchanger. The results indicate that the new design heat exchanger with
multi segmental baffle gives much better results compared to the conventional heat exchanger in terms
of both higher heat transfer rate and lower pressure drop. In the case of heat exchanger with multi
segmental baffle, there was about 7% increase in heat transfer rate compared to the conventional
heat exchanger. In the multi segmental baffle heat exchanger, a significant reduction in pressure drop
was achieved compared to the conventional heat exchanger. The CFD analysis results show that the 12
kPa pressure drop in the conventional heat exchanger was reduced to 4.03 kPa in the multi segmental
baffle heat exchanger. Thus, with the use of the multi segmental baffle, the operational cost was
reduced %66.42 compared to the conventional baffle.

Table 5. Performance values of the multi segmental and conventional baffle heat exchangers obtained with
CFD analyses
Multi segmental Conventional
baffle baffle
Heat transfer rate (kW) 190 182
Tube outlet temperature (K) 389 390
Shell side temperature (K) 300 299
Shell side pressure drop (kPa) 4.03 12
Tube side pressure drop (kPa) 720 732
Heat transfer rate / pressure
47 15
drop (kW/kPa) (Shell Side)

5. Conclusion

In this study, a new heat exchanger with multi segmental baffles has been designed and optimized
by using the method developed by Jegede and Polley. Then, the CFD analyzes of the new design and
conventional heat exchangers were conducted and compared. In addition, the heat exchanger produced
according to the parameters obtained as a result of the optimization was tested under certain operating

13
conditions and the results were compared with the results obtained by CFD analysis. As a result of the
study, the following conclusions were obtained:

 In the case of heat exchanger with multi segmental baffle, there was about 7% increase in heat
transfer rate compared to the conventional heat exchanger for the same heat transfer surface
area.

 In the multi segmental baffle heat exchanger, a significant reduction in pressure drop was
achieved compared to the conventional heat exchanger. The CFD analysis results showed that
the 12 kPa pressure drop in the conventional heat exchanger was reduced to 4.03 kPa in the
multi segmental baffle heat exchanger.

 In the heat exchanger having conventional baffles, recirculation zones are formed at the rear of
the baffles. In the case of multi segmental baffle, these recirculation zones are almost never
formed. These recirculation zones reduce the heat transfer from the hot fluid to the cold fluid
on the one hand, while increasing the fouling resistance in these areas. Increased fouling
resistance reduces the service life of the heat exchanger, increases the operating and
maintenance costs of the heat exchanger. The operating costs of the multi segmental baffle
heat exchanger were reduced by 197% compared to conventional heat exchanger.

Nomenclature Subscript

A heat transfer area, [m2] c cold

𝐶ℎ𝑒 cost of heat exchanger, [$/year] h hot
𝐶𝑜𝑝 operational cost, [$/year] s shell
𝐶𝑡 total cost, [$/year] t tube
𝐶𝑝 specific heat of the fluid, [kJkg-1K-1] i inlet
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics o outlet
h heat transfer coefficient, [Wm-2K-1]
𝑚̇ mass flow rate, [kgs-1]
𝑄̇ heat transfer rate, [kW]
K total heat transfer coefficient, [Wm-2K-1]
∆𝑃 pressure drop, [kPa]
∆𝑇 temperature difference, [K]
∆𝑇𝑚 logarithmic temperature difference, [K]

References

[1] Sharma, S., Dewangan, R. K., A Review On Shell And Tube Heat Exchanger (Sthx) Using Various
Orientation Angle Of Baffle, IJESRT International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research
Technology, Vol. 6(10), 2017.

[2] Petrik, M., Szepesi, G. L., Shell Side CFD Analysis of a Model Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchanger,
Chemical Engineering Transactions, 70(2018), pp. 313-318.

14
[3] Master, B.I., Chunangad, K.S., Boxma, A.J., Kral, D., Stehlík, P., Most Frequently Used Heat
Exchangers from Pioneering Research to Worldwide Applications, Heat Transfer Engineering,
27(2006), pp. 4–11.

[4] Markovska, L., Mesko, V., Kiprijanova, R., Grizo, A., Optimum Design of Shell-and-Tube Heat
Exchanger, Bulletin of the Chemists and Technologits of Macedonia, 15(1996), pp. 39 – 44.

[5] Singh, S.K. and Stephan, D., 2014 https://www.process-worldwide.com/

[6] Kern DQ, Process heat transfer. (New York (NY): McGraw-Hill, 1950).

[7] Bell, K.J., Delaware method for shell side design. In: Kakac S, Bergles AE, Mayinger F, editors.
Heat exchangers: thermal–hydraulic fundamentals and design. New York: Hemisphere, 1981, pp.
581–618.

[8] Mcadams, W.H., Heat Transmission, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1954.

[9] Babu, B. V., Shaik, M.A., Differential evolution strategies for optimal design of shell-and-tube
heat exchangers, Chemical Engineering Science, 62(2007), pp. 3720-3739.

[10] Leoni, G.B., Klein, S. T., De A., R., Medronho, Assessment with computational fluid dynamics
of the effects of baffle clearances on the shell side flow in a shell and tube heat exchanger, Applied
Thermal Engineering, 112(2017), pp. 497–506.

[11] Ambekar, A.S., Sivukamar, R., Anantharaman, N., Vivekenandan, M., CFD simulation study of
shell and tube heat exchangers with different baffle segment configurations, Applied Thermal
Engineering, 108(2016), pp. 999-1007.

[12] Irshad, M., Kaushar, M., Rajmohan, G., Design and CFD Analysis of Shell and Tube Heat
Exchanger, International Journal of Engineering Science and Computing. 7(2017), pp. 6453-6457.

[13] Ravanagi, M.A.S.S., Silva, A.P., Biscaia, E.C., Cabalero, J.A., Optimal Design of Shell-and-Tube
Heat Exchangers Using Particle Swarm Optimization, Industrial & Engineering Chemıstry Research,
48(2009), pp. 2927–2935.

[14] Abd, A.A., Naji, S.Z., Analysis study of shell and tube heat exchanger for clough company with
reselect different parameters to improve the design, Case Studies in Thermal Engineering, 10(2017),
pp. 455–467.

[15] Bhandurge, S.R., Wankhade, A.M., Jadhao, P.K., Talwekar, N.P., Analysis and Experimentation of
Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger with Different Orientation of Baffles, International Journal for
Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology, 4(2016), pp. 490-503.

[16] Edwards, J.E., Design and Rating Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger, Teesside, UK, 2008.

[17] Ponce, J.M., Serna, M., Rico, V., Jimenez, A., Optimal design of shell-and-tube heat exchangers
using genetic algorithms, 16th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering and
and 9th International Symposium on Process Systems Engineering, 21(2006), pp. 985-990.

[18] Varga, T., Szepesi, G., Siménfalvi, Z., Horizontal scraped surface heat exchanger - Experimental
measurements and numerical analysis, Pollack Periodica, 12(2017), pp. 107–122.

15
[19] Azad, A.V., Amidpour, M., Economic optimization of shell and tube heat exchanger based on
constructal theory, Energy, 36(2011), pp. 1087-1096.

[20] Shrikant, A.A., Sivakumar, R., Vivekanandan, M., Comparison of Shell and Tube Heat
Exchanger using Theoretical Methods, HTRI, ASPEN and SOLIDWORKS simulation softwares, Int.
Journal of Engineering Research and Application, 6(2016), pp. 99-107.

[21] Sanaye, S., Hajabdollahi, H., Multi-objective optimization of shell and tube heat exchangers,
Applied Thermal Engineering, 30 (2010), pp. 1937-1945.

[22] Jegede, F.O., Polley, G.T., Optimum Heat-Exchanger Design, Chemical Engineerıng Research &
Design, 70(1992), pp. 133-141.

[23] Engin, T., Güngör, K.E., Gövde-Boru Tipi Isı Değiştirgeçlerinin Tasarım ve Maliyet
Parametrelerine Göre Optimizasyonu, TÜBİTAK-Türk Mühendislik ve Çevre Bilimleri Dergisi,
20(1996), pp. 313-322.

[24] Turchi, A., Congedo, M., P., Helber, B., Magin, E., T., Thermochemical ablation modeling
forward uncertainty analysis—Part II: Application to plasma wind-tunnel testing, International Journal
of Thermal Sciences 118 (2017) pp. 510-517

Submitted: 22.02.2020.

Revised: 07.09.2020.

Assepted: 16.09.2020.

16