Novel Heat Exchanger Design With Rectangular Shell Geometry

NOVEL HEAT EXCHANGER DESIGN WITH RECTANGULAR SHELL GEOMETRY

Vipul Patel*

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Gujarat Power Engineering & Research Institute,

Mehsana, Gujarat 382 710, India

Rajesh Patel Vimal Savsani

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University,

Gandhinagar, Gujarat 382 007, India

ABSTRACT Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers (STHE) are the most

versatile type of heat exchangers used in industrial applications.

The shape of Shell side of the traditional STHE’s is cylindrical

for industrial applications. On one hand, STHE have some good

features but on the other hand, it has some limitations due to the

cylindrical geometry of the shell side. Some of these limitations

are maximum two shell pass is possible as per TEMA layout,

complete counter flow cannot be achieved, possibility of

reverse heat transfer when number of tube passes are more,

tubes are always laid parallel to shell and mounting over the

entire length of shell is not possible when impingement plate

provided etc. The objective of this study is to design a novel

heat exchanger to overcome the limitations of traditional

STHE. An experimental setup has been designed with

rectangular shell side for STHE. The novel heat exchanger

provides the flexibility to increase the number of shell pass and

complete counter flow can be achieved due to rectangular

geometry of shell side. For the same heat transfer rates, the

proposed novel heat exchanger design provides better Effective

Mean Temperature Difference (EMTD) and hence less surface

area for heat transfer in comparison with traditional STHE. The

experiments have been conducted on novel heat exchangers

under different operation conditions of hot and cold fluids. The

experiment results are compared with theoretical estimations of

overall heat transfer coefficient and Log Mean Temperature

Difference (LMTD) for traditional shell and tube heat

exchangers for the same operation conditions. The results show

that under the same operation conditions, the performance of

novel heat exchanger is much better than traditional STHE.

INTRODUCTION

The need of the time is to design the heat exchangers

which have high heat transfer rates with minimum possible

surface area for heat transfer. Varieties of heat exchangers are

used for industrial applications, such as shell-and-tube heat

exchangers, plate-fin heat exchangers, fin and tube heat

exchangers, etc. Among all, the shell-and-tube heat exchangers

(STHE) are relatively simple to manufacture, used for both

gaseous and liquid media, large temperature and pressure range

etc., hence they are widely used in chemical industry, power

plants, food industry, environment engineering, waste heat

recovery, air-conditioning, refrigeration system etc.

Shell and tube heat exchangers have some good

features on one hand but on the other hand they have some

limitations like their effectiveness and LMTD is less compare

to plate heat exchangers, flow induce vibration on tube side [1],

not well suited for temperature cross conditions, contains

stagnant zones (dead zones) on the shell side which can lead to

corrosion problems, large shell to bundle by pass for removable

bundle type heat exchangers, more than two-shell pass is

mechanically impractical [2], flow maldistribution (non-

uniform distribution of mass flow rate on one or both fluid

sides) [3].

Research efforts have been made to improve the heat

transfer rate and to reduce the size of STHE by conducting

experiments, CFD simulations of heat transfer and fluid flow

transport and use of optimization techniques. Experimental

research work involves modifications on the shell side and tube

side components arrangement of SHTE. The modifications on

the shell side accommodate use of overlapped helical baffle [4],

continuous helical baffle [5], inclined baffle [6] etc. to enhance

turbulence and to reduce the pressure drop; use of the sealer to

reduce the bypass losses between shell and baffles [7]. The tube

side experimental research work involve use of different

diameter tube [8], helical tube to reduce the fouling [9],

* Current Address of Vipul Patel: Pandit Deendayal Petroleum

University, Gandhinagar 382 007, India

1 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Proceedings of the ASME 2014 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition IMECE2014

November 14-20, 2014, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

IMECE2014-36834

corrugated or micro-fins [10], wire coil and wire mesh [11],

spiral tube [12] to enhance the turbulence and to improve the

heat transfer coefficient. Optimization is another way to

increase the performance and to reduce the size of the STHE.

Various optimization techniques have been applied to optimize

the capital cost and operating cost of STHE such as:

Irreversibility minimization method [13], Global Sensitivity

Analysis (GSE) [14], Harmony Search Algorithm (HAS) [15],

Biogeography-Based (BBO) algorithm [16], Constructal

Theory Method [17], Entransy Dissipation-based Thermal

Resistance Method [18], Heat Exchanger Networks (HENs)

design [19], Particle Swarm Optimization [20] etc. CFD is very

important tool to foresee the performance of the system before

adapting the system and also provides flexibility to change

design parameters without the expense of hardware changes. It

therefore costs less than laboratory or field experiments,

allowing engineers to try more alternative designs than would

be feasible otherwise. It also reduces design cycle time and cost

by optimizing through computer predictions and provides

higher level of confidence in prototype or field installed

performance. CFD has been used to investigate the

performance of the heat exchanger for many applications: CFD

analysis of the STHE with use of triangular fin [22, 23], CDF

for finding optimum parameter [24], performance analysis of

the Un-baffle heat exchanger [25], effects of baffle inclination

on fluid Flow [26] etc.

Literature review shows that lots of the research work

has been done on the STHE to improve the performance and

optimization of the total cost. Most of the documented research

work is done on shell side with baffle and tube side with

different geometry of tube. However due to the cylindrical

geometry of the shell side, STHE have many limitations and

disadvantages other than those listed above, which are:

1. In the shell and tube heat more than two shell pass is not

possible due to geometry limitation; hence complete

counter flow is not possible.

2. Achieving outlet temperature of cold fluid higher than

outlet temperature of hot fluid is difficult with one shell

and tube heat exchanger. These require series of heat

exchanger.

3. Stream C, E, & F loss.

4. On Shell side if impingement plate is provide then tubes

cannot be place in that portion over the entire length of the

STHE.

5. Contains stagnant zones (dead zones) on the shell side

which can lead to corrosion problems.

Majority of above problems and disadvantages of

traditional STHE can be overcome by changing the cylindrical

geometry of the shell side by square/rectangular geometry. Our

literature survey has revealed that there is no documented

research work on the square/rectangle geometry of shell side of

STHE.

The objective of this study is to design a Novel Heat

Exchanger (NHE) which has square/rectangle geometry of shell

side while tubes are of cylindrical in shape. The experimental

setup has been designed to predict the performance of NHE.

The experimental results on the performance of NHE are

compared with theoretical estimations for STHE for the same

input conditions and equivalent heat transfer surface area. Our

study shows that NHE provides much improved heat transfer

rates than the traditional STHE.

NOVEL HEAT EXCHANGER DESIGN The motive behind this study was the tube pass

arrangement for traditional STHE and the proposed NHE as

shown in Fig. 1. The comparison shows that it is possible to

have the number of the shell pass equal to the number of tube

pass for NHE, which is not the case for STHE. Hence the flow

of the hot and the cold fluid flow is always in counter flow

direction and temperature correction factor is greater than that

of the STHE. As per TEMA standard maximum two shell pass

is possible for traditional STHE due to its shell side geometry

which is cylindrical in shape. However with NHE, as many

number of shell pass required can be arranged with proposed

design as shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1 Tube pass arrangement for NHE and STHE

Figure 2 shows the proposed Novel Heat Exchanger

(NHE) design with rectangular geometry of shell side while the

figure 3 shows the tube arrangement, baffles position and the

fluid flow arrangement.

Figure 2 NHE design model


Figure 3 Line diagram for NHE configuration

The shell side fluid flows from top to bottom of NHE

with constant flow area for each pass. As shown in figure 2 &

3, each tube pass form a rectangular section and between tube

pass horizontal baffle is provided on shell side. The number of

horizontal baffles depends on the number of shell pass. Vertical

baffle is provided in the longitudinal direction of the tube to

support the tubes and to create turbulence on shell side. The

number of vertical baffles and tube number of pass depends on

type of baffle and maximum pressure drop available on the

shell side. However the number of tube pass depends on the

maximum pressure drop on tube side. Shell side fluid and tube

side fluids are separated by tube sheet.

EXPERIMENT SETUP

Figure 4 Experiment setup for NHE

Fig 4 shows the line diagram of the experimental

setup. Experimental set up consists of the two rotameters, four

pressure gauges, four thermocouples, two motors with pumps

fluid supply pipes, data acquisition system and two fluid

storage tanks. Rota meters are connected between fluid storage

tank and NHE to measure flow rate of fluids. Pressure gauges

are attached at inlet and outlet of hot and cold fluid side to

measure the pressure. Thermocouples are attached at inlet and

outlet of hot and cold fluid to measure the temperatures.

Thermocouples are connected with data acquisition system for

recording the temperature at different time intervals.

Hot water is supplied to the shell-side and cold water

supplied to the tube-side by pumps. Hot water is supplied from

the boiler. The experiments are performed at different flow rate

and different temperature of hot fluid. NHE experimental

performance data are compared with shell and tube heat

exchanger data for same flow rate and inlet-outlet temperatures

and heat transfer area.

HEAT TRANSFER MODEL FOR HEAT EXCHANGER In order to compare the performance of NHE with

traditional STHE, in this study we have selected single-shell

pass and four-tube pass STHE for comparison. The

experimental data of NHE such as inlet and outlet temperatures

of hot and cold fluids, flow rates of hot and cold fluid were

taken as input data for the heat transfer model of single-shell

pass and four-tube pass STHE. The estimated heat transfer area

from heat transfer model for single-shell pass and four-tube

pass STHE were compared with the NHE heat transfer area.

The heat transfer model used for the performance

analysis of single-shell pass and four-tube pass SHTE is taken

from the Sadik Kakac [20];

Flow Area

The flow area of shell side for both NHE and STHE is

different due to different geometrical shape, however the tube

side flow are is same for both NHE and STHE.

The shell side flow area for the single-shell pass and

four-tube pass heat exchanger can be written as;

( ). .T s s

T

P d B Da

P

−= (1)

Heat transfer area The heat transfer area of the shell and tube heat

exchanger can be estimated from;

. . .T

A d l Nπ= (2)

Theoretical over all Heat Transfer Coefficient (Uth) Uth is the theoretical overall heat transfer coefficient

for the shell and tube heat exchanger which depends on the

geometry of the heat exchanger and the themo-physical

properties of the flowing fluids.

.ln1 1

.

oo

io

th o i i

rr

rr

U h r h k

= + + (3)

Where, ho is shell side heat transfer coefficient, hi is

tube side heat transfer coefficient, ro and ri are outer and inner

radius of tube respectively.


Theoretical overall heat transfer coefficient Uth depends on the

tube and shell side heat transfer coefficient. Tube side and shell

side heat transfer coefficients were found by applying Bell

Delaware method for STHE. Bell-Delaware’s method was

issued after 16 years of experimentation on shell side flow in

laboratory. Nowadays, this method is commonly used in

manual calculations [26]. This method is simple and reliable

enough to be used in engineering applications with reasonable

accuracy. Since then many software have been developed based

on Bell Delaware method [27]. The tube side and shell side

heat transfer coefficients can be represented using Bell-

Delaware method [20, 21] which are represented in Table 1.

Table1: Shell and tube side heat transfer coefficient

Tube side

heat

transfer

Coefficient

(hi)

�� 2 � ��

1.07 � 12.7 � ��2�.� � �� 1��

For 0.5 � � � 2000, 10� � �� 5 � 10 , � � !1.58 � ln �� 3.28�&�

�� 2 � !�� 1000� � �

1 � 12.7 � ��2�.� � �� 1��

For 0.5 � � � 2000, 2300 � �� 10�, � � !1.58 � ln �� 3.28�&�

Shell side

heat

transfer

Coefficient

(ho)

� � 0.36 � �� .�� ( µ

µ)*�.+�

For 2000 � �� 100000

As per Kern method

�, � - � ./ � 01 � �234 � �� ( µ

µ)*�.+�

Where j� 0.37 � ��&�.�5�, ./ � 6,��67�,8 �467,�

As per Bell-Delaware method

Heat Duty (Q) For any heat exchanger we may write the heat balance

in the form of;

( ) ( ). . . .h ph hi ho c pc co ciQ m C T T m C T T= − = −& & (4)

Above equation is a general form of energy exchange

between hot and cold fluid in an ideal heat exchanger (i.e. heat

lost by one fluid is equal to heat gained by the second fluid

under steady state condition).

LMTD LMTD can be estimated with inlet and outlet

temperature of the hot fluid and cold fluid of heat exchangers

by;

1 2

1

2

ln

LMTDθ θ

θ

θ

−=

(5)

Actual Over all Heat Transfer Coefficient (Uact)

Overall heat transfer coefficient is main parameter to

compare the performance of any heat exchanger. Uact is

experimental estimation of the overall heat transfer coefficient

for known heat duty of the heat exchanger and LMTD.

. .act

QU

A LMTD F= (6)

Where, F = Temperature correction factor which

indicates the performance level of a given arrangement for

given terminal fluid temperatures. It depends on the number of

tube pass, number of shell pass, type of shell, type of flow

(Cross flow, counter flow or Parallel flow), etc. The correction

factor F is always less than unity.

SOLUTION PROCEDURE In order to compare performance of the proposed NHE

with the traditional for single-shell pass and four-tube pass

STHE, the experimental results of NHE are compared with the

theoretical estimations of single-shell pass and four-tube pass

STHE.

For the theoretical estimation of performance of

STHE, we have used the heat transfer model proposed in the

previous section. In this study we have used the same

geometrical data of the tube side (number of tube, tube OD,

pitch, tube length, etc.) and the experimental data of NHE

exchanger i.e. input and output temperatures and flow rates of

hot and cold fluids provided in Table 2 were used as input

parameters to predict the required heat transfer area for STHE.

The estimated heat transfer area of STHE was then compared

with the actual surface area NHE for the different flow rates of

hot and cold fluid.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The experiments are performed with NHE for different

flow rates of hot and cold fluids which are listed in the Table 2.

Table 2 Experiment data of NHE

Sr. No. 1 2 3

Parameter Shell

Side

Tube

Side

Shell

Side

Tube

Side

Shell

Side

Tube

Side

m(kg/s) 1.274 1.440 1.161 1.400 1.161 1.600

Tin (°C) 84.1 23.3 78.5 25 78.5 25

Tout (°C) 51.61 52.1 49 49.5 46.85 48


The estimated performance parameters for the STHE

for different input parameters listed in Table 2 are presented in

Table 3. Figure 5 shows the comparison of required heat

transfer area for NHE and STHE for different heat duty. To

review the performance of proposed NHE design critically, in

this study, we have compared the performance of NHE for three

different conditions of STHE which are: 1) keeping the same

geometrical conditions of tube sides (i.e. number of tube, tube

OD, pitch, tube length, etc.) which is represented as NHE =

STHE in Table 3. 2) Optimal length of tube: in this case the

length of the tubes were changed to match the heat duty of the

NHE keeping all other geometrical parameters STHE same as

the NHE. The result of this case is presented in Table 3 as

Optimal length. 3) Optimal Size: In this case all the geometrical

parameters of the tube and shell side of STHE were selected to

match the heat duty of NHE. The result of this case is presented

in Table 3 as optimal size.

Figure 5: Heat transfer area vs Heat duty of NHE and STHE

It is seen from Fig. 5 that for different heat duty, NHE

requires minimum heat transfer area compare to SHTE. If the

length of tubes of STHE is increased keeping all the parameters

of tube pass same as of NHE than also NHE require

approximate half heat transfer area than STHE. For optimized

size of STHE, the heat transfer area for non-optimized NHE is

lower than STHE as shown in Fig. 5.

The following observations can be made from the

performance parameter of NHE and STHE listed in Table 2.

1. STHE with same heat transfer area as NHE (Column

STHE = NHE), the result shows that, for the STHE Uth <

Uact. This means the STHE with such heat transfer area

cannot work. For the proper working of the any heat

exchanger Uth > Uact.

2. STHE with optimum length, the result shows that Uth is

greater than Uact for the STHE. The STHE can work

properly; but the heat transfer surface area of STHE is

greater than NHE.

3. STHE with optimum geometry input (Column Opt. Size),

the result shows that Uth > Uact for the STHE. So this

STHE can work properly. The STHE can work properly;

but the heat transfer surface area of STHE is greater than

NHE.

It would be more prudent to present comparative study

of pressure drop characteristics for NHE and STHE. We did

measure the pressure drop for NHE under different operation

conditions. Due to the very small pressure drop, the exit

pressure of shell side was difficult to measure due to higher

scale of pressure gauge. But we will conduct the study of the

pressure drop characteristics in our future study.

CONCLUSION

In this study we have proposed the Novel Heat

exchanger Design (NHE) with rectangular/square shape of the

shell side of heat exchanger. The performance of the NHE is

compared with the STHE heat exchanger for three different

geometrical configurations.

It can be concluded from this study that the proposed

NHE design provides much better heat transfer rates than the

STHE. For same heat duty, the heat transfer area required for

NHE is much lesser than the STHE. For the optimal length of

tube for STHE, keeping the same input and outlet temperatures

of NHE, the STHE requires the tube length much longer, e.g.

1050 m & so heat transfer area is increased significantly e.g.

4.260 m2 with one shell pass and four tube pass. For equal fluid

input condition and getting same temperature output as of

NHE, after optimum design of STHE minimum heat transfer

area require is 2.653 m2,which is significantly higher than the

NHE.


Table 3 Performance Parameter Comparison

NOMENCLATURE

A Heat transfer area, m2

Bs Baffle spacing for STHE, m

B NHE width, m

C Specific heat of kJ/kg-K F Temperature correction factor

D Equivalent diameter, m

Jc Overall correction factor

k Thermal conductivity, W/m-C

L Tube length, m

NT Number of tube

n Number of tube pass

PT Tube pitch, m

Q Heat duty, W

Re Reynolds Number

µ Viscosity, cP

µw Viscosity at wall temperature, cP

U Overall teat transfer coefficient, W/ m2-C

LMTD Log Mean Temperature Difference, C

H Heat Transfer Coefficient, W/ m2-C

d Tube diameter, m

N Number of Tube Pass

G Mass velocity, kg/s-m2

V Volume flow Rate, m3/s

v Velocity, m/s

Pr Prandtl number

Nu Nusselt number

C Tube clearance, m

ρ Density, kg/m3

Nb Number of baffle

R Fouling resistance, m2-C/W

SUBSCRIPT

w Wall

in Inlet

out Outlet

th Theoretical

act Actual/Experimental

p Pressure

i Inside

o Outside

ft Tube side

fs Shell Side

REFERENCES

1. Ramesh, K. and Shah, D., 2003, Fundamentals of Heat

Exchanger Design, Joln Wiley & Sons.

2. Donald, Q. and Kern, 2011, Process Heat Transfer, “Tata

McGraw Hill Education.

3. Sudhakara Rao, K., 2007, “Analysis Of Flow

Maldistribution In Tubular Heat Exchangers By Fluent”,

Thesis NIT Rourkela.

4. Zhang, J. F., Binli,W.J.,Yong, G., Ya, L., ,Wen Q., 2009,

"Experimental Performance Comparison of Shell-Side

Heat Transfer for Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchangers with

Middle-Overlapped Helical Baffles and Segmental

Baffles"Chemical Engineering science, 64 (8), pp. 1643-

1653.

5. Shiv Kumar, R., Ajeet, B., 2013, “Thermal analysis of

Helical Baffle in Heat Exchanger" International Journal of

Science and Research, 2(7), pp. 251-254.

6. Rajagapal, T., Karuppa, R., and Srikanth, G., 2012, “Shell

Side Numerical Analysis of A Shell and Tube Heat

Exchanger Considering The Effects of Baffle Inclination

Angle on Fluid Flow" International Journal of Heat and

Mass Transfer, 16 (4), pp. 1165–1174.

7. Simin, W., Jian, W., Yanzhong, L., 2009 "An

Experimental Investigation of Heat Transfer Enhancement

for A Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchanger" Applied Thermal

Engineering, 29 (11-12), pp. 2433–2438.

8. Sofia, G., Demetri, G., 2013, “Numerical Evaluation of A

Heat Exchanger With Inline Tubes Of Different Size for

Reduced Fouling Rates" International Journal of Heat And

Mass Transfer, 55 (19-20), pp. 5185–5195.

Parameter

1 2 3

NHE

STHE

NHE

STHE

NHE

STHE

STHE

=

NHE

Opt.

Length

Opt.

Size

STHE

=

NHE

Opt.

Length

Opt.

Size

STHE

=

NHE

Opt.

Length Opt. Size

Uact (W/m2-°°°°C) 1120 1390 712 1234 1056 1214 543 1162 1154 1363 725 1232

Uth (W/m2-°°°°C) NA 778 713 1310 NA 614 544 1239 NA 646 741 1077

A (m2) 1.588 1.588 3.078 1.721 1.588 1.588 3.880 1.730 1.588 1.588 3.289 1.838

Q 48204 48151 48151 48151 39860 39777 39777 39777 42765 42684 42684 42684

n 4 4 4 6 4 4 4 6 4 4 4 6

L 396 396 770 985 396 396 960 990 396 396 820 1050

Nt 112 112 112 48 112 112 112 48 112 112 112 48


9. Srbislav, B., Branislav, M., Marko, S., Nikola, J., 2013,

“Analysis of Fouling Factor in District Heating Heat

Exchangers With Parallel Helical Tube Coils" International

Journal Of Heat and Mass Transfer, 57 (1), pp. 9-15.

10. Hosseini, R., Hosseini-Ghaffar, A., Soltani, M., 2007,

“Experimental Determination of Shell Side Heat Transfer

Coefficient and Pressure Drop for An Oil Cooler Shell-

And-Tube Heat Exchanger With Three Different Tube

Bundles" Applied Thermal Engineering, 27 (5-6), pp.

1001–1008.

11. Pahlavanzadeh, H., Jafari Nasr, M. R., Mozaffari, S.H.,

2007, "Experimental Study of Thermo-Hydraulic And

Fouling Performance of Enhanced Heat Exchangers"

International Communications In Heat And Mass Transfer,

34 (7), pp. 907–916.

12. Jay, J., Bhavsar, V. K., Matawala, S., 2013, “Design and

Experimental analysis of Spiral Tube Heat Exchanger"

International Journal of Mechanical and Production

Engineering, 1(1), pp. 37–42.

13. Abbas Alwi, S. A., 2012, “Counter Flow Heat Exchangers'

Irreversibility Minimization" Natural and Applied

Sciences, pp. 57-69.

14. Fesanghary, M., Damangir, E., Soleimani, I., 2009,

“Design Optimization of Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers

Using Global Sensitivity Analysis and Harmony Search

Algorithm" Applied Thermal Engineering, 29 (5-6), pp.

1026–1031.

15. Amin, H., Ali, N., 2013, “Design and Economic

Optimization of Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchangers Using

Biogeography-Based (Bbo) Algorithm" Applied Thermal

Engineering, 51(1-2), pp. 1263-1272.

16. Abazar, V. A., Majid A., 2011 “Economic Optimization of

Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger Based on Constructal

Theory" Energy, 36 (2), pp. 1087-1096.

17. Qun, C., 3013, “Entransy Dissipation-Based Thermal

Resistance Method for Heat Exchanger Performance

Design and Optimization" International Journal of Heat

and Mass Transfer, 60, pp. 156–162.

18. Patel, V.K., Rao, R.V., 2010, “Design optimization of

Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchanger Using Particle Swarm

optimization Technique" Applied Thermal Engineering, 30

(11-12), pp. 1417-1425.

19. Ya, W., David, R., 2003, “Environmental and Economic

Assessments of Heat Exchanger Networks for Optimum

Minimum Approach Temperature" Computer and

Chemical Engineering, 27 (11), pp. 1577-1590.

20. Sadik K., “Heat Exchangers” Third Edition. 2012.

21. TEMA, Standards of Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers

Association, ninth edition. New York (2007).

22. Swapnaneel, S., and Das, D.H.,2012, “CFD Analysis of

Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger using triangular fins for

waste heat recovery processes" An International Journal

(ESTIJ), 2(6), pp. 2250-3498.

23. Khairun, H. O., “CFD Simulation Of Heat Transfer In

Shell And Tube Heat Exchanger" Thesis Universiti

Malaysia Pahang April 2009.

24. Usman Ur Rehman “Heat Transfer Optimization Of Shell-

And-Tube Heat Exchanger Through CFD Studies”

Master’s Thesis 2011.

25. Abdur, R,, Saad, S.M., 2012, “Shell Side CFD Analysis Of

A Small Shell-And-Tube Heat Exchanger Considering The

Effects Of Baffle Inclination On Fluid Flow” Proceedings

Of The National Conference On Trends And Advances In

Mechanical Engineering, Ymca University Of Science &

Technology, Faridabad, Haryana, India.

26. Bell, K. J., “Final Report of the Cooperative Research

Program on Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers” University

of Delaware Eng. Exp. Sta. Bull. 5, 1963.

27. Leong, K. C., Toh, K. C., and Leong, Y. C., “Shell and

Tube Heat Exchanger Design Software for Educational

applications” International Journal of Engineering

Education, 14, 3: 217-224, 1998.


Novel Heat Exchanger Design With Rectangular Shell Geometry

Documents

Transcript of Novel Heat Exchanger Design With Rectangular Shell Geometry