Heat Exchanger Learning Apparatus

Report
SPRING 2013

Date Submitted: May

MECT
4275

1, 2013

Team Name: HELA

Team Members:
Robert Maduro
Adolfo Leyva
Ricardo Gonzalez
Luis M. Avila

Table of Contents
1.

Abstract................................................................................................................ 4

2.

Executive Summary............................................................................................. 5

3.

Introduction.......................................................................................................... 6
3.1.

What is a Heat Exchanger?............................................................................6

3.2.

Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers....................................................................6

4.

Objective.............................................................................................................. 8

5.

Research.............................................................................................................. 9

6.

Design Problem.................................................................................................. 11

7.

System Components.......................................................................................... 14
7.1.

Tanks............................................................................................................ 14

7.2.

Bench Selection........................................................................................... 14

7.3.

Pumps.......................................................................................................... 15

7.4.

LabVIEW....................................................................................................... 17

7.5.

Temperature Sensor..................................................................................... 18

7.6.

Heat Source................................................................................................. 20

8.

Design Objective................................................................................................ 22

9.

Design Procedure of Heat Exchanger.................................................................23

10.

Design Criteria................................................................................................ 25

10.1.
11.

Tube Layout Configuration........................................................................26

Thermal Analysis of the Heat Exchanger........................................................30

11.1.

Thermal Sample Calculations...................................................................32

11.2.

Case 1 HTRI Results..................................................................................34

11.3.

Case 2 HTRI Results..................................................................................35

11.4.

Case 3 HTRI Results..................................................................................36

12.

Mechanical Design of the Heat Exchanger......................................................37

12.1.

Mechanical Calculations:..........................................................................38

12.1.1. Shell Cylinder Calculations....................................................................38

12.1.2. Tube sheet Calculations.........................................................................40
12.1.3. Flange Calculations................................................................................ 41
13.

Gantt Chart:.................................................................................................... 42

14.

Cost Estimation:.............................................................................................. 43

Works Cited.............................................................................................................. 44
2 | Page

Appendix 1: Quote from American Eagle Oilfield......................................................45

Appendix 2: Echoscan LLC Quotation.......................................................................46
Appendix 3: Total Dynamic Head Calculations..........................................................47
Appendix 4: HTRI Final Results.................................................................................50
Appendix 5: Thermal Calculations to Compare with HTRI Results............................65
Appendix 6: Detail of Tube Sheet Calculations.........................................................68
Appendix 7: Flange Calculations...............................................................................73
Appendix 8: Heat Exchanger Drawings....................................................................85
Appendix 9: Total Working Hours for the Project.......................................................93

Table of Figure

Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure

1 - Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger..................................................................5

2: Application of Heat Exchanger Technologies................................................9
3: Demand for Mechanical Engineers (4 Years)..............................................10
4: Total Dynamic Head...................................................................................14
5 - Flow Diagram for heat exchanger design process....................................22
6 - HELA preliminary Case 1..........................................................................25
7 - HELA preliminary Case 2..........................................................................26
8 - HELA preliminary Case 3..........................................................................27
9 - Flow Streams............................................................................................ 29
10 - Slip On and Weld Neck Flanges...............................................................35

3 | Page

1. Abstract
Team HELA is designing and will manufacture a Heat Exchanger Learning
Apparatus that will provide students with a comprehensive study of heat
exchangers and the various parameters that affect its performance. The apparatus
will help bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and hands on experience of
heat exchangers at the University of Houstons College of Technology. The Heat
Exchanger Learning Apparatus will be designed to be part of the lab curriculum for
the Mechanical Engineering Technology Degree Program. Currently Team HELA is in
the process of designing the main component of the apparatus, the heat exchanger,
and selecting the other components that will make up the apparatus. Once the
design is finalized the allocation of funds will proceed by finding sponsors that are
willing to contribute to the advancement of knowledge of the students.

4 | Page

2. Executive Summary
Team HELA will design a Heat Exchanger Learning Apparatus for future use in
the lab of the College of Technology. Students will be able to complete a full lab with
hands on experience that will be incorporated into their course curriculum.
Currently, there is no lab equipment that students can use to visually learn the
fundamentals of a heat exchanger system and its internal components. Most
educational institutions that offer engineering courses in thermodynamics and who
specialize in heat exchangers are only capable of teaching there students the
theoretical knowledge.
Heat exchangers are devices that provide the flow of thermal energy between
two or more fluids at different temperatures. Team HELA has decided to design and
manufacture a Shell and Tube heat exchanger. In order to get a good idea of what is
available on the market; Team HELA has researched products offered by other
companies similar to the one the team is proposing.
The project will consist of a Heat Exchanger Learning Apparatus that will have
interchangeable components and parameters that can be used by students in the
Mechanical Engineering Technology department at University of Houston. The
apparatus can be used in classes such as Fluids Mechanics or Elements of Plant
Design. This product will allow students to obtain first-hand experience handling
important equipment such as a shell and tube heat exchanger and its components.
The main components that were needed for the preliminary design were the pumps,
tanks, electrical components, LabVIEW, and sensors.
The very first step in the design process was to identify the problem. Once
the problem was recognized and all the parameters were set, the preliminary
5 | Page

selection of the configuration was selected. The thermal analysis and mechanical
design followed and was completed by the team.
For Team HELA the main goal was to bridge the gap between theoretical
knowledge and hands on experience with heat exchangers at the University of
Houstons College of Technology.

3. Introduction
3.1. What is a Heat Exchanger?
Heat exchangers are devices that provide the flow of thermal energy between
two or more fluids at different temperatures. These fluids must come into thermal
contact for this principle to work. Heat exchangers are used in a wide variety of
applications in various industries. The reason for their abundance is that heat
transfer is vital for many systems to work optimally. Some tasks that heat
exchangers can accomplish include: heating a cooler fluid by means of a hotter
fluid, reducing the temperature of a hot fluid by means of a cooler fluid, or boiling a
liquid by means of a hotter fluid. The transfer of thermal energy always flows from
the higher temperature system to the lower temperature system.
Although heat exchangers can come in any shape and size imaginable, the
construction of most heat exchangers falls into one of two categories: shell and tube
or plate. Plate heat exchangers utilize plates to separate hot and cold fluids which
alternate between each plate. Baffles are used to direct the flow of the fluids
between the plates. Because of the inability to reliably seal the large gaskets
between each of the plates, plate type heat exchangers are not widely used. Out of

6 | Page

the two, the most common type of heat exchanger construction is the shell and
tube.

3.2. Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers

For Shell and Tube heat exchangers, multiple tubes are installed in a
container known as a shell. A tube sheet separates the tube side fluid from the shell
side fluid at the ends of the tubes, which are either press-fitted or welded into the
tube sheet. Support plates in the shell act as baffles to direct the flow of fluid within
the shell back and forth across the tubes. Shell and tube heat exchangers come in
different forms and are classified based on the stationary head, shell, and rear head.
The main components of a shell and tube heat exchanger can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1 - Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger

The tube sheet is an important component of the heat exchanger because it

carries the loads and stresses applied from the tubes. During the mechanical stage
of the design, it is important to select the appropriate thickness of the tube sheet.
The baffles are used to create a dynamic flow pattern through the shell and force
7 | Page

the fluid to spend more time in contact with the inner tubes. The bundle is the inner
assembly of internal components and is composed of tubes, baffles, tie rods,
spacers, sliding bars, and tube sheet. The tie rods thread through the baffles and
are bolted to the tube sheets; spacers (large diameter tubes) are placed in between
the baffles to properly position them in the shell. Sliding bars are sometimes placed
in the bottom portion of the tube sheets to allow the bundle to slide when taking the
exchanger apart or putting it back together.
One of the biggest advantages of using a shell and tube heat exchanger is
that theyre the simplest to manufacture and the most cost effective.

8 | Page

4. Objective
Team HELA will design a Heat Exchanger Learning Apparatus for future use in
the lab of the College of Technology. Currently, there is no lab equipment that
students can use to visually learn the fundamentals of a heat exchanger system and
its internal components. Students will be able to complete a full lab with hands on
experience that will be incorporated into their course curriculum. The system will
have a control panel that will be able to change various parameters and acquire
necessary experimental data. Since heat exchangers are very common in the
petroleum industry, the control panel will be designed with current industry
technology in mind to give students a first-hand experience of what they may
encounter in the field. The system will consist of a one pass shell and tube heat
exchanger with different interchangeable U-tube bundles, which will show the
varying performance of each as they are utilized with different numbers of tubes
and baffles. The user will be able to control the flow rates of the two pumps that will
be used via the control panel. Electronic sensors will be fitted to measure the flow
rates of the hot and cold water streams. In addition, the control panel will be able to
regulate the temperature of the heat source. The inlet and outlet temperatures of
the hot and cold fluid will be registered by electronic sensors as well. Because there
are so many parameters that the students can manipulate via the control panel,
they will have the opportunity to fully understand the heat exchanger system from
head to toe. The lab that will coincide with the system and doing so will challenge
the students on their knowledge of fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, and elements
of plant design.
Students will have the ability to obtain quantitative results from the heat
exchanger learning apparatus. Some examples of the quantitative results that the
9 | Page

students will have to calculate are: heat transfer and heat loss for an energy
balance study, log mean temperature difference, heat transfer coefficients, and
pressure drop to compare with the experimental result. Furthermore, students will
also be able to study the effect of flow rate on the heat transfer rate.

5. Research
In order to get a good idea of what is available on the market; Team HELA has
researched products offered by other companies similar to the one the team is
proposing.

SOLTEQ offers various pieces of equipment for engineering and

research. They offer a bench type heat exchanger training apparatus that was
designed to allow students to get familiarized with different types of heat
exchangers. The control panel offered with the system is very primitive and can only
control the temperature of the heat source. The apparatus offered by SOLTEQ only
gives students the opportunity to see the heat exchangers operate, but fails to give
the students an understanding of the inner workings. However, HELA teams goal is
to design an apparatus that students will be able to take apart and interchange the
bundles to visually see the internal components of a shell and tube heat exchanger.
SOLTEQ has been contacted via email inquiring for a quote; since SOLTEQ is
overseas, they redirected us to their sister company in the states, American Eagle
Oilfield Services and Supplies. The quote provided by American Eagle Oilfield
Services was $22,750 for the apparatus. The information that was gathered during
the research enables the team to optimize both the design and economics of the
project. The official proposal received from SOLTEQ is attached in the Appendix 1:
Quote from American Eagle Oilfield of this report.
Another US company that was contacted by team HELA was Echoscan LLC,
an educational tools company that has been in the industry since 1980. On the first
10 | P a g e

contact Echoscan sent a catalog with all the educational tools that they offer. The
one that is similar to the idea proposed by the HELA team is the TD 078 Multi Heat
Exchanger. This apparatus consist of three different heat exchangers similar to the
one introduced by SOLTEQ with similar weaknesses. With this apparatus, students
dont have the ability to understand and visualize the internal components of the
heat exchangers. Additionally, the control system also does not reach the
expectations of team HELA because it does not use the latest technology that is
currently being used in the industry. The quote received from the sales manager,
David Ostem, was USD $24,995.00. One of the goals of team HELA is to reduce the
price and make it attainable for the university. The quote acknowledged from
Echoscan LLC is attached at the end of this report and is labeled as Appendix 2:
Echoscan LLC Quotation.
Researching different pieces of equipment has led to ideas on how Team
HELA can improve its design, set goals to develop a better training apparatus, and
cut down on manufacturing cost significantly.
The HELA team also contacted the lab director, Mr. Gordon, on any guidelines
that needed to be included in the design. He proposed to take into consideration the
doors width to avoid project disassembly and reassembly. In addition, portability
and compatibility with the limited schools 110V power supply need to be
considered. Doctor El Nahas, faculty of the College of Technology and in charge of
the Plant Design class, has also been presented with Team HELAs heat exchanger
proposal.

He stated that the idea could be useful, and the creation of a new

experiment would provide a positive effect to the course.

More products similar to the one being proposed by Team HELA will be
researched to get a well-rounded idea of what can be achieved and improved upon.
11 | P a g e

A group member is currently working for a company that designs and manufactures
heat exchangers. A visit to the company has been scheduled so the team may
observe first-hand the various processes related to building a heat exchanger. His
supervisor will be asked to be an industry mentor and an aid to our team.

12 | P a g e

6. Design Problem
Heat exchangers are fundamental in the operation of chemical and
mechanical systems. They serve the function of rejecting or gaining heat. Heat
exchangers are found in common applications such as radiators, internal
combustion engines, boilers, condensers, and HVAC systems. They play a crucial
role in every industry ranging from transportation, household, energy, national
defense, electronics, and farming sectors (Figure 1).

Figure 2:

Application

of Heat

Exchanger

Technologies

13 | P a g e

Nationally, the demand for trained engineers has remained above that of
other professions. The demand for mechanical engineers has increased by 74%
since of March of 2011, with over 15,400 new job postings. Most of the metropolitan
areas have seen an increase in the growth since the recession, a key factor affecting
the job market. The U.S. Department of Labor expects Americans to need as many
as 87,000 new mechanical engineers in the next four years.

Figure 3: Demand for Mechanical Engineers (4 Years)

Most

educational

institutions

that

offer

engineering

courses

in

thermodynamics and who specialize in heat exchangers are only capable of

teaching their students the theoretical knowledge. These institutions do not have
the resources for providing their students with equipment or apparatuses that are
designed to teach the inner workings of such fundamental components as heat
exchangers.

Since students have very limited access to these educational

apparatuses they are not going to be able to reach their full potential in their
respective field.
14 | P a g e

The goal to be achieved with this product is to develop an apparatus that

educational institutions are going to embrace as a fundamental tool in teaching the
complexity of a heat exchanger. The design and manufacturability of the apparatus
needs to be capable of bridging the gap between the theoretical and practical.
Various milestones need to be addressed to make a functional and appealing
product in the educational market. The fundamental objective of the apparatus is to
be an educational tool that is going to enable students to obtain an in-depth
knowledge of the different components and operations of heat exchangers. The
second goal of the project is to develop a product that is economical for the
consumer. The product has to be relatively economical to ensure that educational
institutions include it as a teaching tool in their classrooms. The final objective is for
it to be user friendly and require low amounts of maintenance during the operation
cycle. Achieving these three goals will enable this product to fill the void that
institutions have faced over the past century.

15 | P a g e

7. System Components
This section of the report introduces all the components needed for the heat
exchanger to operate. The main components that were needed for the preliminary
design were the pumps, tanks, electrical components, LabVIEW, and sensors.

7.1. Tanks
There were several criteria that were taken into account in the selection
process for the best suitable candidate. The tank needed to be able to contain the
water that was going to be circulating throughout the apparatus. The key aspects
that had the greatest impact on the selection process were the 15 gallon capacity,
dimensions, material, and price. Most of the tanks that were on the market were
designed as fuel tanks or fuel cells. Also, most were able to hold 15 gallons and
were constructed out of non-corrosive materials such as aluminum or stainless
steel. The prices ranged from $180 to $275; which was reasonable since the cost of
the raw material they were composed of was expensive. The only disadvantage that
was found was that they were designed for automobiles and none of the fittings
would have fit our application. The tanks would have needed modifications to fit our
application by drilling and welding new fittings. After a long deliberation the
decision was made to manufacture our own tanks. This would be most beneficial
and feasible, since they are going to be designed around our specific application.

7.2. Bench Selection

The bench is where all the components of the heat exchanger will be
attached. The selection process for a bench had several key components which
included: the load it could support, mobility, material, and cost. Most of the benches
16 | P a g e

that were in the market that fit our application were used in the medical or
restaurant industry. Since they were used in industries where hygiene is of crucial
importance, they were made out of stainless steel. This makes it easy to clean and
corrosion resistant. All four of the proposed candidates came with casters, which
enabled them to be mobile. The dimension of the bench was also a key factor
because it needed to fit within a 36 in. doorway, while still being able to hold all of
the equipment. From our calculations it was determined that the weight of all the
components would be around 600 lbs. After deliberating, the decision was made to
incorporate the AB Restaurant Equipment WTSG-30X48C into the project. The
manufacturer was contacted and they confirmed that the bench could support up to
800 lbs. Also that each caster was rated at 250 lbs.; these ratings met the load
criteria set forth by the team. Another benefit in choosing this bench was that it
was one of the most economical. The whole bench was composed of stainless steel.
This factor will increase the life of the apparatus and its aesthetics.

7.3. Pumps
There are four important factors that were taken into account for pump selection:

feet of head

max fluid temperature to transport

power requirements

In order to start the pump selection the Total Dynamic Head (TDH) was
calculated. Figure 4 shows the proposed configuration used to calculate TDH for the
apparatus.

17 | P a g e

Figure 4: Total Dynamic Head

Calculations in Appendix 3: Total Dynamic Head Calculations show the calculated

TDH for the cold fluid is 3.44 ft. and hot is 4.223 ft. A TDH of 5 ft was selected for
the pump in order to accommodate for both TDHs of the fluids. This was figured by
using a TDH approx. 20% greater than the needed for the hot fluid. The hot fluids
temperature was also an important factor in the pump decision. In order to perform
the desired experiment for our apparatus the water temperature needed to reach a
maximum of 180F. This meant that the pump had to be able to withstand the hot
liquid. Another factor was that the pump had to work on 110 V. The pump and all
the other components were restricted to working off of 110 V because that was the
power supply available in the school labs. From these criteria, and keeping cost in
mind, a pump was selected. The max flow rate of the selected pump equaled 13
GPM.

18 | P a g e

Once the total dynamic head of the system was calculated, it was possible to
convert the value from feet to psi by using the following formula:

P=0.434hSG

Where P is the pressure in psi, h is the total dynamic head and SG is

the specific gravity of the fluid. In this case the specific gravity of water is 1.

P=0.4343.441=1.49 psi

7.4. LabVIEW
LabVIEW is a development environment that engineers and scientists use for
graphical

programming

and

hardware

integration

to

design

and

deploy

measurement and control systems. LabVIEW is capable of: taking physical

measurements, performing analysis and signal processing, instrument control,
displaying data on the user interface, logging data, and generating reports. It is
based on the graphical programming language G and is a higher-level language
then C. When writing a LabVIEW program the operator can focus on the task at
hand, but in text-based programming the operator is instead concerned about the
code and syntax errors. A LabVIEW program is known as a VI, which stands for
virtual instrument. A VI consists of two major components. The first is a block
diagram where one can develop code. The operator can wire together graphical
blocks to create a program. Each block has inputs and outputs. When a block
executes it produces data that flows down the wire to the next block. The
movement of the data determines the order of execution of the program. The
second is the user interface where one can customize objects like graphs, knobs,
and buttons. Since LabVIEW is similar to making a flow chart, it takes a fraction of
the time to write a program compared to a text based language. LabVIEW has been
19 | P a g e

helping engineers since 1986. It is used in a wide variety of industries such as:
testing consumer electronics, controlling manufacturing machines autonomously,
and monitoring conditions in petroleum refineries.
LabVIEW is the software that one can install on their computer, but to begin
acquiring data one also needs hardware to integrate with the software. Team HELA
began researching the different types of hardware available. The main goal was to
find a piece of hardware that met the following design criteria for the project:
monitor the flow rate of both hot and cool water streams, monitor temperature in
four places on the heat exchanger, control the heat source, and be economically
feasible. National Instruments offers a wide variety of data acquisition (DAQ)
hardware. With the project design criteria in mind, Team HELA focused on a USB
portable DAQ and a PC slot desktop DAQ. To be more specific, the USB-6008 was
compared against the PCIe-6320. To accommodate for the temperature sensors and
two flow rate sensors, the hardware needed to have a minimum of six analog
inputs. The hardware also needed a minimum of one analog output to control the
heat source.
Table 1: Comparison of Hardware

Portable DAQ
USB-6008

Easy USB connection

8 inputs / 2 outputs
Sampling rate: 10kS/s
Input resolution: 12 bits
$169

Desktop DAQ
PCIe-6320

PC slot
16 inputs / 0 outputs
Sampling rate: 250kS/s
Input resolution: 16 bits
$977
20 | P a g e

Whichever hardware included these primary needs, and was the least costly, was
the one the team would select. According to Table 1, USB-6008 meets all of the
criteria.

7.5. Temperature Sensor

The project requires that a temperature measurement be taken at the four
nozzles of the heat exchanger. The temperature sensor that would be selected had
to meet the following primary criteria: take measurements of the water stream
between room temperature and 200F, take accurate measurements, and be
affordable. Team HELA did substantial research of various types of sensors that
included: thermocouple, RTD, thermistor, and fiber optic. It was narrowed down to a
thermocouple and a RTD sensor. Thermocouples are the most popular temperature
sensors, are effective in applications that require a large temperature range, and
are very inexpensive. A thermocouple is a junction of two dissimilar metals that
produce a temperature dependent voltage. For this reason, they are very rugged
and reliable. The LabVIEW hardware will measure the voltage the thermocouple
produces and convert it into a digital reading. RTDs exploit the fact that the
resistance of most metals increases with increasing temperature and are simple in
design. RTDs are more accurate and stable then thermocouples, but are also a little
more expensive. In contrast to thermocouples, RTDs have a smaller temperature
range, require current excitation, and have slower response times. RTDs are
primarily used for accurate temperature measurements in applications that are not
time critical. Table 2 shows a comparison of two temperature sensors that fell into
the projects criteria. The thermocouple was chosen because it is self-powered, falls
within the needed temperature range, and is least expensive.
Table 2: Comparison of Temperature Sensors

Thermocouple

RTD
21 | P a g e

THMK-A01L10-01

Self-powered
Accuracy: 1F
32-900F
Response time: 2.9s
$26

RTD1-D08L10-01

Stable readings
Accuracy:0.27F
-58-572F
Response time: 7s
$43.50

22 | P a g e

7.6. Heat Source

The project requires a heat source to increase the temperature of one of the
water streams to 180F. Team HELA researched different types of heat sources such
as: an immersion heater, water heater, and fish tank heater. An immersion heater
would easily fit into one of the storage tanks, be very inexpensive, and could be
controlled by LabVIEW. A water heater would remove the need of a second storage
tank and control the temperature of the water with a built in controller, but is much
more expensive than an immersion heater. A fish tank heater is very similar to an
immersion heater but does not supply sufficient power to heat the water in a timely
manner. The team is headed towards buying an immersion heat source, but no
decisions have been finalized. Another restriction imposed on our project is the
laboratorys electrical system. The heat source would have to be able to run off of a
normal 120V electrical socket. Also, the heat source current draw needed to be
below about 15A because that is the normal current rating on an electrical outlet.
The maximum wattage available from the electrical needed to be calculated, and is
shown below. Watts could be calculated by finding the product of the current, power
factor, and voltage. Once the maximum wattage was calculated, the minimum time
required to heat up 15 gallons of water was obtained.

The equation needed to

calculate the time required to heat up the volume of water can be seen below.

P=IPFV

P=15 A1120 V =1,800 watts

btu
weight [ lbs ]specific heat [
]temperature change [ F ] )
(
lb F
P=
(3.412

btu
heat up time [ hr ] )
watthr

23 | P a g e

lbs
btu
15 gal8.3
(1
( 180 F75 F )
(
)
[
]
gal
lb F )
1,800 watts=
btu
( 3.412 watthr
)( x hr)

time=2.13 hr

The results above state that the heat source had to run below the maximum 1,800
watts available to not blow any circuit breakers. The 1,800 watts was plugged into
the second equation and resulted in a time of at least 2.13 hours to heat up the
water. In the future when this experiment is performed, the TA would have to heat
the water a few hours in advance of the experiment.

24 | P a g e

8. Design Objective
The project will consist of a Heat Exchanger Learning Apparatus that will have
interchangeable components and parameters that can be used by students in the
Mechanical Engineering Technology department at University of Houston. The
apparatus can be used in classes such as Fluids Mechanics or Elements of Plant
Design. This product will allow students to obtain first-hand experience handling
important equipment such as a shell and tube heat exchanger and its components.
Students will also be able to collect experimental data for calculations of the heat
transfer coefficient, log mean temperature difference, number of tubes in the Head
Exchanger, and some others variables that could be applied. The apparatus will be
supplied with specifications on how to setup the equipment in the lab, a procedure
on how to approach the lab and an example of typical experimental results that
students may obtain during the laboratory experience. This project consists of an
innovating aspect. The interchangeable bundles that will be incorporated into the
design are not included in any of the products currently offered. This aspect is going
to enable students to get familiarized with the internal components of shell and
tube heat exchangers.
Some of the standards, regulations, and analysis that will be applied in the
design process of the Heat Exchanger Learning Apparatus are listed below.

The TEMA (Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association) standards

ASME Code Section VIII Division I
Thermal Calculations with the Aid of HTRI software
Pressure drop through the exchanger will be calculated and manually

measured with pressure gauges.

Incoming and outgoing temperature of the two fluids will be measured
and calculated.
25 | P a g e

Log mean temperature difference method will be used to manually

calculate the effectiveness of the exchanger.

26 | P a g e

9. Design Procedure of Heat Exchanger

The design procedure of shell and tube heat exchangers has been deeply
discussed throughout the years. The procedure to successfully design a heat
exchanger divides the process into the thermal design and the mechanical design.
The very first step in the design process was to identify the problem. Once
the problem was recognized and all the parameters were set, the preliminary
selection of the configuration was selected. For Team HELA the main goal was to
bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and hands on experience with heat
exchangers at the University of Houstons College of Technology. Based on research
and analysis, the TEMA type that best fit Team HELAs application was the B E U
configuration. The heat exchanger would also have interchangeable bundles. The
next step that was taken was to start working on the thermal design of the heat
exchanger. The team is currently in this step of the process and is utilizing the HTRI
software that aids engineers to run thermal calculations in heat exchangers. Once
the thermal design calculations were ready, and a specification sheet with the data
was available, the results were analyzed to see if the thermal performance or heat
transfers meet the requirements set by the team. Also, the pressure drop in the
tube and shell sides needed to be in the applicable range based on the pump that
was selected. Once that step was completed, the group ran mechanical calculations
and made decisions based on the results to finalize the design. Figure 5 shows the
flow diagram that describes the process followed to design the heat exchanger.

27 | P a g e

Figure 5 - Flow Diagram for heat exchanger design process

28 | P a g e

10.

Design Criteria

Based on the research and the calculations performed, the overall constraints
for the HELA have been gathered and established.
The Heat Exchanger designation according to TEMA standards will be a B-E-U
exchanger that consists of a removable channel and cover on the stationary head, a
one-pass shell, and a U-tube bundle in the rear side.
Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger Components:

O.D. of the Shell = 10 inch (standard pipe)

Length = 35 inch
Material = stainless steel

Bench:

Area = 5 ft2 (approx.)

Height = 4 ft. (approx.)

Tanks:

Size = two 15 Gallons tanks

Other components:

4 temperature sensors
1 temperature controller
2 flow rate sensors
LabVIEW software
LabVIEW hardware
Immersion heater
2 Centrifugal pumps
This is the basic design criteria that have been taken into account to design

and run thermal and mechanical calculations for the Heat Exchanger Learning
Apparatus.

29 | P a g e

10.1.

Tube Layout Configuration

Team HELA selected the dimensions of the tubes for the three different
bundle configurations using standard tubes and tubes. The selected
configurations were: Case 1 having a configuration with the maximum number of
tubes possible for the shell size, Case 2 having almost the same number of
tubes but with a diameter, and Case 3 having only seven inch tubes. These
different

configurations

were

selected

in

order

to

give

students

clear

understanding on how the surface area affects the heat transfer more than the
number of tubes. All three cases are illustrated in Figures 6 through 8.
All three configurations used were U-bundles, and the number of tubes is
equal to the number of holes in the tube sheet. The number of tubes specified and
calculated in the tube layout will be twice the number of tubes. Another component
that is seen in all three configurations is the use of two tie rods. Tie rods are used to
align the baffles properly within the bundle. Spacers are large diameter tubes that
are threaded over the tie rods and between the baffles to correct their spacing. The
tie rods are screwed into the tube sheet and run up to the support plate. The
support plate is the last baffle located at the quadrant of the bending tubes.
Figure 6 through 8 also contain some preliminary data including: shell
diameter, number of tubes, tube diameter, tube pitch, and tube layout angle.

30 | P a g e

Figure 6 - HELA preliminary Case 1

31 | P a g e

Figure 7 - HELA preliminary Case 2

32 | P a g e

Figure 8 - HELA preliminary Case 3

33 | P a g e

11.

Thermal Analysis of the Heat Exchanger

One of the most common advantages that engineers have in industry is the
use of software and programs that allow them to input data, specifications of a
project, and other input needed to be taken into account for a particular project. The
program performs the analysis based on standards, rules, regulations, and codes to
properly design an instrument or a piece of equipment based on standards or
regulations set by the client. For the thermal design analysis, Team HELA used
software utilized by many companies in the heat exchanger manufacturing industry.
The software used, with Ohmstede Ltd license and permission, for this project was
HTRI.
HTRI (Heat Transfer Research Inc.) is a company that has been in the heat
transfer industry for more than 50 years. Their experience in heat transfer has
helped them develop HTRI Xchanger Suite 6, innovating software. This software
helps engineers with the thermal design process of heat exchangers. (HTRI)
HTRI is made up of different modules that can be used for different kinds of
heat transfer equipment. The module used by Team HELA is for the design of Shell
and Tube Heat Exchangers. At the same time, each module is divided into different
modes. The Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger module is divided into Rating,
Simulation, and Design. Since the group already set constraints for the design, the
Simulation mode was selected. This mode allows the user to input various data,
including the size of the heat exchanger, to calculate the performance. It also
outputs outlet temperatures, pressure drop, Reynolds number in the heat
exchanger, and other important parameters.

34 | P a g e

Using the simulation mode of HTRI to double check the calculations was very
valuable for the team. It also allowed the user to manipulate the parameters and
try out new configurations. The group was forced to understand the theory of the
heat transfer formulas and physics being calculated by the software. While working
on the three different bundles Team HELA ran into some difficulties. For example, in
one of the cases the software was warning that the B stream percentage was to low
and needed revision in order for the design to work. It was important to understand
the different flow fractions to optimize the heat transfer throughout the shell.

Figure 9 - Flow Streams

The B flow fraction penetrates the tubes the most out of all the fractions and
transfers the most heat between fluids. In order to optimize the design, flow stream
fraction B had to have a significant percentage of fluid. Manipulating the number of
baffles in the shell, changing the tolerance between the baffle and the inside
diameter of the shell, and the outer tube limit dimension all affected the B flow
fraction dramatically. In the seven tube configuration a lot of the flow was falling
into the flow stream fraction C because the U-tubes dont occupy much volume in
the shell and therefore less resistance on the shell fluid. A good solution for the
problem was to add sealing strips that obligate the fluid to penetrate the tube area
and increase the B fraction percentage.
35 | P a g e

Another important factor that was taken into account while inputting the data
into the HTRI software product, was the fouling factor. The fouling is a general term
that includes any kind of deposit of extraneous material that appears upon the heat
transfer surface during the lifetime of the heat exchanger. Whatever the cause or
exact nature of the deposit, additional resistances to heat transfer is introduced and
the operational capability of the heat exchanges is correspondingly reduced.
(Thome) The fouling number used for each configuration was found in the TEMA
standard, 0.002 ft2-hr-F/Btu. This same number applies to the shell and the tube
side as well.

11.1.

Thermal Sample Calculations

In order to verify the values given by HTRI, Team HELA verified some of the
parameters calculated by the software. These parameters included:

Heat transfer rate

Exit water temperature of cold water
Log mean temperature difference (with correction factor)
Heat transfer area of bundle
Overall heat transfer coefficient

These values were calculated using parameters set as part of the design process,
and where the same as those entered into the HTRI software.

Below are the

equations used to calculate the values:

Equation 1: Heat transfer rate

Equation 2: Log mean temperature difference

Equation 3: Heat transfer area

36 | P a g e

Equation 4: Overall heat transfer coefficient

Using these equations we were able to verify the values obtained from HTRI for the
heat exchanger design with 52 bundle tubes. The calculations done can be found in
Appendix 5: Thermal Calculations to Compare with HTRI Results. The table below
shows the comparison of values calculated to values found with HTRI software.

Calculated

HTRI
Software

%
difference

89268.322

88000

1.44

Exit water
temperature of
cold water (F)

93.065

92.86

0.22

LTMD with
factor (F)

81.563

81.8

0.29

Heat transfer
area of bundle
(ft2)

17.112

17.111

0.01

Overall heat
transfer
coefficient
(Btu/ft2*hr*F)

63.958

63.36

0.94

Heat transfer
rate (Btu/hr)

Table 3: Comparison of values Calculated vs HTRI (52 tubes)

Comparing the values calculated with the ones produced from HTRI software gave
percent differences of less than 2%. In some values the percent difference was less
than .3%. Performing this comparison gave a better understanding of how the HTRI
software worked.
HTRI outputs three pages of detailed final results, a graph for temperature
differences, and also the graph for Reynolds number in the shell and tube side that
can be found in Appendix 4: HTRI Final Results for all three cases. The TEMA

37 | P a g e

specification sheet for each case is found in the following images for a summary of
the thermal results.

38 | P a g e

11.2.

Case 1 HTRI Results

39 | P a g e

11.3.

Case 2 HTRI Results

40 | P a g e

11.4.

Case 3 HTRI Results

41 | P a g e

12.

Mechanical Design of the Heat Exchanger

The type of body flanges on the inlet and outlet nozzles of the heat
exchanger needed to be chosen for the mechanical design. Based on economic
constraints, Team HELA decided to use standard ANSI flanges instead of designing
custom-made forged flanges. The two main ANSI flanges considered for the Heat
Exchanger Learning Apparatus design were the weld neck and the slip-on type.

Figure 10 - Slip On and Weld Neck Flanges

Weld neck flange were designed to resist high temperatures and pressures.
To be able to do so, more material has to be incorporated in to the flange, especially
in the hub. Weld neck flanges are complex to manufacture making them one of the
most expensive ANSI flanges. One advantage of this type of flange configuration is
that it only requires one weld to have it properly attached to the pipe. A V" bevel
weld is required for this type of flange and in some cases requires two passes to
completely fill in the bevel area. On the other hand, the slip-on type flange requires
two fillet welds to properly attach the pipe and flange. Fillet welds are much easier
to perform then V bevel welds. Some other benefits of the slip-on flange were: the
42 | P a g e

economical aspect, the shortness in height, requires less accuracy in preparing the
pipe it will be attached to, and good alignment since it slips over pipe. In addition to
selecting the type of flanges for the heat exchanger, other components had to be
chosen to start running some mechanical calculations. The type of pipes for the
shell and channel, the dimensions and gauge of tubes, and the material of each
were selected to initialize the calculations.

12.1.

Mechanical Calculations:

Team HELA was assisted by two different software products to run mechanical
calculations. The first was RCS, which is used by one of our sponsors (Ohmstede
LTD.) to run calculations and simultaneously generate the solid model in SolidWorks.
The other software was PVElite, this software provided a detailed package of
calculations using the most recent version of the ASME Code Section VIII Division I.
These regulations are used in industry for the design of pressure vessels. The
calculations attached in Appendix 6: Detail of Tube Sheet Calculations and Appendix
7: Flange Calculations provide detailed information and outputs regarding the
analysis of the heat exchanger. Team HELA decided to manually calculate some of
the most important mechanical aspects in the design in order to guarantee that the
results obtained by the software are accurate. The team also used it as a learning
experience to familiarize themselves with the use of the ASME code.
12.1.1. Shell Cylinder Calculations
Team HELA had to select a pipe that was compliant with ASME code for the
use of the shell. The formula for minimum thickness of shells under internal
pressure given in section UG-27 was used to calculate the minimum thickness
required. The specifications of the pipe used for the design of the shell have the
following specifications:

43 | P a g e

Inside Diameter = 10 in
Element Thickness = 0.365 in
Design Pressure 10 psig (Calculated in the pump section of this report)
Material SA-312 TP304L
Allowable Stress, Operating = 14225 psi
Material Density = 0.29 lbm/in3

The formula given in the ASME Code in section UG-27 to calculate minimum
thickness for this case is:

t=

PR
SE0.6 P

Where:

t=minimun required thickness of shell

P = internal design pressure

R = inside radius of the shell course under consideration
S = maximum allowable stress value
E = Joint efficiency for approximate joint in cylindrical shells (In this case this value
is 1 since the shell is a seamless pipe)

t=

(105.135)
=0.00361
(142251)0.6(10)

Comparing the results obtained of the thickness of the pipe with the required
minimum thickness shows that it was compliant with ASME code. Since the pipe was
sufficiently thick, when the group performed the calculations for the shell it passed
the code regulations. The same formula was used to calculate the minimum
required thickness for the nozzles of the heat exchanger.
44 | P a g e

Another calculation that Team HELA decided to perform manually to compare

with the results obtained by the RCS software was the body flange design
calculations. The section of the ASME Code used to perform analysis of the body
bolted flange connections with ring type gaskets was in the Appendix 2 of the ASME
code.
12.1.2. Tube sheet Calculations
The results for the tube sheet calculations following the ASME Code UHX-12
are given step by step in the format obtained from RCS. The calculations are run in
six different cases that are summarized at the end of the report and give the
required thickness of the tube sheet and the actual thickness. The minimum
thickness required by the code for the tube sheet was selected.

U-Tube Tubesheet results per ASME UHX-12 2010, 2011a

Results for 6 Load Cases:

Case#

--Reqd. Thk. + CA

-------- Tubesheet

Tbsht

Bend

Extnsn

Allwd

Stresses

Shear

Allwd

Case

Pass/

Type

Fail

---------------------------------------------------------------------------1uc

1.250

...

665

28450

47

11380

Fvs+Pt

Ok

2uc

1.250

...

665

28450

47

11380

Ps+Fvt

Ok

3uc

0.020

...

...

28450

...

11380

Ps+Pt

Ok

1c

0.473

...

837

28450

59

11380

Fvs+Pt-Ca

Ok

2c

0.473

...

837

28450

59

11380

Ps+Fvt-Ca

Ok

3c

0.270

...

...

28450

...

11380

Ps+Pt-Ca

Ok

---------------------------------------------------------------------------Max: 1.2500

...

in

0.029

0.005

(Str. Ratio)

45 | P a g e

Load Case Definitions:

Fvs,Fvt - User-defined Shell-side and Tube-side vacuum pressures or 0.0.
Ps, Pt - Shell-side and Tube-side Design Pressures.
Ca

- With or Without Corrosion Allowance.

Summary of Thickness Comparisons for 6 Load Cases:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------Thickness (in)

Required

Actual

P/F

---------------------------------------------------------------------------Tubesheet Thickness :

1.2500

1.2500

Ok

Tube Thickness :

0.0060

0.1094

Ok

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

12.1.3. Flange Calculations

The body flanges selected for the heat exchanger are ANSI standard slip on
flanges with a 10 nominal pipe size. In order to confirm that the selected rating of
150 lb flange was going to pass the calculations from the ASME Code standards, a
complete analysis was run using the PV Elite software. The gasket selection was an
important factor in the calculations. Based on the results, the group selected Gore
Tex gasket with a thickness of .010 and a standard nominal width of . A
beneficial aspect of this gasket is that it comes in a tape form, which can be reused
and ease to install.

The flange calculations package as well as the input data for

the two body flanges of the heat exchanger can be found in Appendix 7: Flange
Calculations of this report.

46 | P a g e

13.

Gantt Chart:

47 | P a g e

14.

Cost Estimation:

The cost estimation was made based on research and quotes from several companies to forecast the cost of
the materials needed in the design of the project. All prices are subject to change with deeper investigation for
better prices and special discounts as students. The table with the list of equipment, prices, and sources is shown
below.

Equipment

Qty.

Unit Price

Total

Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger with 3

Bundles
Tanks
Temperature Sensors
Flow Rate Sensors
Immersion Heater
Centrifugal Pumps
Bench
Miscellaneous
Computer, Software, Hardware

$1,500.00

$1,500.00

2
4
2
1
2
1
N/A
1

$270.00
$26.00
$350.00
$20.00
$104.00
$190.00
$600.00
$600.00

$540.00
$104.00
$700.00
$20.00
$208.00
$190.00
$600.00
$600.00

Estimated Total

$4,462.00

The total value was adjusted adding $600.00 for miscellaneous parts which includes the piping, bolts, gaskets, and
other components that may be needed to assemble the system.

48 | P a g e

Works Cited
Cengel, Yunus. Heat and Mass Transfer A Practical Approach, Third Edition. New York: McGraw Hil
Companies, Inc.l , 2007.
Energy, U.S. Department of. "DOE FUNDAMENTALS HANDBOOK MECHANICAL SCIENCE." Washington,
1993. Vol. 1.
Engineers, 17-2141 Mechanical. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. n.d. 06 February 2013.
Engineers, Mechanical. Government of Canada, Service Canada, Quebec, Programs Agreements and
Partnership. 06 February 2013.
Groups, Engineering. Mechanical Engineering Job Growth. n.d. 06 February 2013.
HTRI. Heat Transfer Research Inc. n.d. <http://www.htri.net/articles/htri_xchanger_suite>.
Insight, Jobs Trends. Hiring Demand for Mechanical Engineers Nears 4-Year. n.d. 06 February 2013.
Kakac, S. "Heat Exchangers: Selection, Rating, and Thermal Design." Liu., Hongtan. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC, 2002.
Kakac, Sadik. Heat Exchangers Selection, Rating, and Thermal Design. Miami: CRC PRESS, 2002.
Market, Mechanical Engineer: Duties & Job. Mechanical Engineer Job Description & Market Demand.
n.d. 06 February 2013.
Robert H. Perry, Don W. Green. Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook, Eight Edition. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 2008.
TEMA. Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association Inc. n.d. <http://www.tema.org/>.
Thome, John R. Wolverine Tube Heat Transfer Data Book. Wolverine Tube, Inc., 2010.

49 | P a g e

Appendix 1: Quote from American Eagle Oilfield

Inquiry for Apparatus Model # HE 158C- Offer from American eagle Oilfield Services & Supplies, Inc.
TO: University Of Houston
Houston, TEXAS
Tel: 409 457 3499
Attn. Mr. Robert Maduro
Academic Support Asst.
Reference to the above mentioned subject, and on behalf of our principles {Solution Engineering SDN.BHD
"SOLTEQ" },
Please find enclosed / attached our OFFER for the following items:
Item
Qty
Descriptions
U/Price
Extended
----- ------ ------------------------------------- ---------- --------------1
1 pc Heat exchanger training Apparatus.
22,750.00
22,750.00
Model # HE158C
1 pc
1 pc
1 pc

OPTIONAL ITEMS:
EI-DIGITAL INSTRUMINATIONS
DAS-DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEMS
PC-DESKTOP PC

2,442.00
3,406.00
1,041.00

2,442.00
3,406.00
1,041.00
------------Total Prices FOB Port Klang - Malaysia: US $ 29,639.00
==================================================================
TERMS & CONDITIONS
=================
- Manufacturer: SOLTEQ - Malaysia.
- Technical Data sheets attached.
- Warranty: 18 Months after the shipment date.
- Delivery: 3-4 Months (ex-Factory). Delivery depends on when order/payment received.
- Prices: FOB Port Klang-Malaysia (Excluded Insurance coverage).
- Payment Terms: 50% Down Payment With the order.
50% Due Which shipment is ready for dispatched.
Should you need any further assistant, please feel free to contact the undersigned.
Looking forward to receiving your valuable order.
Thank you,
Tahsien Kalla
Presdent/CEO
American Eagle Oilfield Services & Supplies, Inc.
1840 Snake River Road, Suite C
Katy, Texas 77449
Tel : 281 829 3838

50 | P a g e

Appendix 2: Echoscan LLC Quotation

51 | P a g e

Appendix 3: Total Dynamic Head Calculations

52 | P a g e

53 | P a g e

54 | P a g e

Appendix 4: HTRI Final Results

Case 1

55 | P a g e

56 | P a g e

57 | P a g e

58 | P a g e

59 | P a g e

Case 2

60 | P a g e

61 | P a g e

62 | P a g e

63 | P a g e

64 | P a g e

Case 3

65 | P a g e

66 | P a g e

67 | P a g e

68 | P a g e

69 | P a g e

Appendix 5: Thermal Calculations to Compare with HTRI Results

70 | P a g e

71 | P a g e

72 | P a g e

Appendix 6: Detail of Tube Sheet Calculations

UHX-12.5.1 Step 1:

Compute the Equivalent Outer Tube Limit Circle Diameter [Do]:

= 2 * ro + dt
= 2 * 4.3077 + 0.7500 = 9.365 in

Determine the Basic Ligament Efficiency for Shear [mu]:

= (p - dt) / p
= (1.250 - 0.750 ) / 1.250 = 0.400

UHX-12.5.2 Step 2 :

Compute the Ratio [Rhos]:

= Gs / Do (Configurations d, e, f)
= 12.5000 / 9.3654 = 1.3347

Compute the Ratio [Rhoc]:

= Gc / Do (Configurations d)
= 12.5000 / 9.3654 = 1.3347

Moment on Tubesheet due to Pressures (Ps, Pt) [Mts]:

= Do/16 * [(Rhos-1)*(Rhos+1)* Ps - (Rhoc-1) * (Rhoc+1) * Pt ]
= 9.365/16 * [ (1.335 - 1) * (1.335 + 1) * 10.000 (1.335 - 1) * (1.335 + 1) * 0.000 ]
= 51.0335 psig*in

UHX-12.5.3 Step 3, Determination of Effective Elastic Properties :

73 | P a g e

Compute the Ratio [rho]:

= ltx / h = 1.1250 / 1.0000 = 1.0000 ( must be 0 <= rho <= 1 )

Compute the Effective Tube Hole Diameter [d*]:

= max( dt - 2tt*( Et/E )( St/S )( rho ), dt - 2tt)
= max( 0.7500 -2*0.1094 *(27475000 /27475000 )*
( 14225 /14225 )*(1.000 ), 0.7500 -2*0.1094 )
= 0.5312 in

Compute the Effective Tube Pitch [p*]:

= p / sqrt( 1 - 4 * min( AL * CNV_factor, 4*Do*p)/(Pi * Do) )
= 1.2500 / sqrt( 1 - 4 * min( 19.38 *1.000 , 4*9.365 *1.250 )
(3.141* 9.365) )
= 1.4746 in

Compute the Effective Ligament Efficiency for Bending [mu*]:

= (p* - d*) / p* = (1.4746 - 0.5312 ) / 1.4746 = 0.63976

Note: mu* is > 0.6, Div. 1 Part UHX data for E*/E and nu* are not applicable.
Data from Div. 2 App. 5.E is used.

E*/E, nu* for Triangular pattern from Div. 2 Tables 5.E.1, 5.E.2.
h/p =

0.800000 ;

mu* =

0.639759

E*/E =

0.748851 ;

nu* =

0.292479 ;

E* = 20574688. psi

Skip Step 4 for Configuration d :

UHX-12.5.5 Step 5:

Diameter ratio [K]:

74 | P a g e

= A / Do = 12.7500 / 9.3654 = 1.3614

Determine Coefficient [F]:

= (1 - nu*)/E* * ( E * ln(K) )
= (1 - 0.29 )/20574688 * ( 27475000 * ln(1.36 ) )
= 0.2915

UHX-12.5.6 Step 6:

Moment Acting on Unperforated Tubesheet Rim [M*]

= Mts + W* * (Gc - Gs)/(2 * pi * Do)
= 51.0 + 1227.2 * (12.500 - 12.500 )/(2 * pi * 9.365 )
= 51.0335 psig*in

UHX-12.5.7 Step 7:

Maximum Bending Moment acting on Periphery of Tubesheet [Mp]:

= ((M*) - Do/32 * F * (Ps - Pt) ) / (1 + F)
= ((51.03 ) - 9.365/32 * 0.291 * (10.00 - 0.00 ) ) / (1 + 0.29 )
= 33.3293 psig*in

Maximum Bending Moment acting on Center of Tubesheet [Mo]:

= Mp + Do/64 * (3 + rnu*)(Ps - Pt)
= 33.33 + 9.365/64 * (3 + 0.292 )(10.00 - 0.00 )
= 78.4520 psig*in

Maximum Bending Moment acting on Tubesheet [M]:

= Max( |Mp|, |Mo| )
= Max( |33.329 |, |78.452 | )
= 78.4520 psig*in

75 | P a g e

UHX-12.5.8 Results for Step 8:

Tubesheet Bending Stress at Original Thickness:

= 6 * M / ( (mu*) * ( h - hg') )
= 6 * 78.452 / ( (0.6398 ) * ( 1.0000 - 0.0625 ) )
= 837.1373 psi

The Allowable Tubesheet Bending Stress [SigmaAll]:

= 2 * S = 2 * 14225.00 = 28450.00 psi

Tubesheet Bending Stress at Final Thickness [Sigma]:

= 6 * M / ( (mu*) * ( h - hg')
= 6 * 78.293 / ( (0.6398 ) * ( 0.2232 - 0.0625 )
= 28419.2910 psi

Required Tubesheet Thickness, for Bending Stress [HreqB]:

= H + CATS + CATC = 0.2232 + 0.1250 + 0.1250 = 0.4732 in

Required Tubesheet Thickness for Given Loadings (includes CA) [Hreq]:

= Max( HreqB, HreqS ) = Max( 0.4732 , 0.2551 ) = 0.4732 in

UHX-12.5.9 Step 9:

|Ps - Pt| = |10.00 - 0.00 | = 10.000 psig

Shear Stress check [Tau_limit]:

= 3.2 * S * MU * h / Do
= 3.2 * 14225.00 * 0.400 * 1.000 / 9.37 = 1944.18 psig

76 | P a g e

Average Shear Stress at the Outer Edge of Perforated Region [Tau]:

= 1/(4* Mu) * (Do/h) * |Ps - Pt|
= 1/(4*0.400)*(9.37/1.00)*|10.00-0.00|psi
= 58.53 psi

Note: Analysis Completed for Tubesheet Configuration d.

Stress/Force summary for loadcase 2 corr. (Ps + Fvt):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------Stress Description

Actual

Allowable

Pass/Fail

-----------------------------------------------------------------------Tubesheet bend. stress

837.1

<=

28450.0 psi

Ok

Tubesheet shear stress

58.5

<=

11380.0 psi

Ok

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thickness results for loadcase 2 corr. (Ps + Fvt):

---------------------------------------------------------------------------Thickness (in)

Required

Actual

P/F

---------------------------------------------------------------------------Tubesheet Thickness :

0.4732

1.2500

Ok

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

77 | P a g e

Appendix 7: Flange Calculations

Flange Input Data Values

Description: Channel to TubeSheet

Channel to Tubesheet Flg

Description of Flange Geometry (Type)

Integral Slip On

Design Pressure

Design Temperature

10.00

psig

205

Internal Corrosion Allowance

ci

0.1250

in

External Corrosion Allowance

ce

0.0000

in

Use Corrosion Allowance in Thickness Calcs.

No

Flange Inside Diameter

10.020

in

Flange Outside Diameter

16.000

in

Flange Thickness

1.1900

in

Thickness of Hub at Small End

go

0.8329

in

Thickness of Hub at Large End

g1

0.9250

in

0.7500

in

Length of Hub

Flange Material

SA-182 F304L

Flange Material UNS number

S30403

Flange Allowable Stress At Temperature

Sfo

14225.00

psi

Flange Allowable Stress At Ambient

Sfa

16700.00

psi

Bolt Material

SA-193 B8

Bolt Allowable Stress At Temperature

Sb

16700.00

psi

Bolt Allowable Stress At Ambient

Sa

18800.00

psi

78 | P a g e

Diameter of Bolt Circle

14.250

in

Nominal Bolt Diameter

0.8750

in

Type of Threads

TEMA Thread Series

Number of Bolts

12

Flange Face Outside Diameter

Fod

12.750

in

Flange Face Inside Diameter

Fid

10.750

in

Flange Facing Sketch

1, Code Sketch 1a

Gasket Outside Diameter

Go

11.750

in

Gasket Inside Diameter

Gi

10.750

in

Gasket Factor

2.0000

Gasket Design Seating Stress

2800.00

Column for Gasket Seating

2, Code Column II

Gasket Thickness

tg

0.0100

ANSI Flange Class

150

ANSI Flange Grade

GR 2.2

psi

in

ASME Code, Section VIII, Division 1, 2010, 2011a

Corroded Flange ID,

Bcor = B+2*Fcor

10.270

in

Corroded Large Hub,

g1Cor = g1-ci

0.800

in

Corroded Small Hub,

g0Cor = go-ci

0.708

in

Code R Dimension,

R = ((C-Bcor)/2)-g1cor

1.190

in

Gasket Contact Width,

N = (Go - Gi) / 2

0.500

in

0.250

in

0.250

in

Basic Gasket Width,

Effective Gasket Width,

bo = N / 2
b = bo

79 | P a g e

Gasket Reaction Diameter,

G = (Go + Gi) / 2

11.250

in

Basic Flange and Bolt Loads:

Hydrostatic End Load due to Pressure [H]:

= 0.785 * G * Peq
= 0.785 * 11.2500 * 10.000
= 994.020 lbf
Contact Load on Gasket Surfaces [Hp]:
= 2 * b * Pi * G * m * P
= 2 * 0.2500 * 3.1416 * 11.2500 * 2.0000 * 10.00
= 353.429 lbf
Hydrostatic End Load at Flange ID [Hd]:
= Pi * Bcor * P

/ 4

= 3.1416 * 10.2700 *10.0000/4

= 828.382 lbf
Pressure Force on Flange Face [Ht]:
= H - Hd
= 994 - 828
= 165.637 lbf
Operating Bolt Load [Wm1]:
= max( H + Hp + H'p, 0 )
= max( 994 + 353 + 0 , 0 )
= 1347.449 lbf
Gasket Seating Bolt Load [Wm2]:
= y * b * Pi * G

+ yPart * bPart * lp

= 2800.00*0.2500*3.141*11.250+0.00*0.0000*0.00
= 24740.043 lbf
Required Bolt Area [Am]:
= Maximum of Wm1/Sb, Wm2/Sa

80 | P a g e

= Maximum of 1347/16700 , 24740/18800

= 1.316 in

ASME Maximum Circumferential Spacing between Bolts per App. 2 eq. (3) [Bsmax]:
= 2a + 6t/(m + 0.5)
= 2 * 0.875 + 6 * 1.190/(2.00 + 0.5)
= 4.606 in

Actual Circumferential Bolt Spacing [Bs]:

= C * sin( pi / n )
= 14.250 * sin( 3.142/12 )
= 3.688 in

ASME Moment Multiplier for Bolt Spacing per App. 2 eq. (7) [Bsc]:
= max( sqrt( Bs/( 2a + t )), 1 )
= max( sqrt( 3.688/( 2 * 0.875 + 1.190 )), 1 )
= 1.1200

Bolting Information for TEMA Imperial Thread Series (Non Mandatory):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------Minimum

Actual

Maximum

----------------------------------------------------------------------------Bolt Area, in

1.316

5.028

Radial distance bet. hub and bolts

1.250

1.190

Radial distance bet. bolts and the edge

0.938

0.875

Circumferential spacing between bolts

2.063

3.688

4.606

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Min. Gasket Contact Width (Brownell Young) [Not an ASME Calc] [Nmin]:
= Ab * Sa/( y * Pi * (Go + Gi) )

81 | P a g e

= 5.028 * 18800.00/(2800.00 * 3.14 * (11.750 + 10.75 ) )

= 0.478 in

Flange Design Bolt Load, Gasket Seating [W]:

= Sa * ( Am + Ab ) / 2
= 18800.00 * ( 1.3160 + 5.0280 )/2
= 59633.22 lbf
Gasket Load for the Operating Condition [HG]:
= Wm1 - H
= 1347 - 994
= 353.43 lbf

Moment Arm Calculations:

Distance to Gasket Load Reaction [hg]:
= (C - G ) / 2
= ( 14.2500 - 11.2500 )/2
= 1.5000 in
Distance to Face Pressure Reaction [ht]:
= ( R + g1 + hg ) / 2
= ( 1.1900 + 0.8000 + 1.5000 )/2
= 1.7450 in
Distance to End Pressure Reaction [hd]:
= R + ( g1 / 2 )
= 1.1900 + ( 0.8000/2.0 )
= 1.5900 in

Summary of Moments for Internal Pressure:

Loading

Force

Distance Bolt Corr

Moment

End Pressure,

Md

828.

1.5900

1.1200

1475. in-lb

Face Pressure,

Mt

166.

1.7450

1.1200

324. in-lb

82 | P a g e

Gasket Load,

Mg

Gasket Seating, Matm

353.

1.5000

1.1200

594. in-lb

59633.

1.5000

1.1200

100187. in-lb

Total Moment for Operation,

Mop

Total Moment for Gasket seating, Matm

2393. in-lb
100187. in-lb

Note: User choose not to perform Stress Calculations on this ANSI Flange.
Pressure rating of the flange will be used to check code compliance.

Estimated Finished Weight of Flange at given Thk.

48.7

lbm

Estimated Unfinished Weight of Forging at given Thk

68.8

lbm

PV Elite is a trademark of Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis Solutions, Inc. 2013

83 | P a g e

Flange Input Data Values

Description: TubeSheet to Shell

Tubesheet to Shell Flg

Description of Flange Geometry (Type)

Integral Slip On

Design Pressure

Design Temperature

10.00

psig

205

Internal Corrosion Allowance

ci

0.1250

in

External Corrosion Allowance

ce

0.0000

in

Use Corrosion Allowance in Thickness Calcs.

No

Flange Inside Diameter

10.020

in

Flange Outside Diameter

16.000

in

Flange Thickness

1.1900

in

Thickness of Hub at Small End

go

0.8329

in

Thickness of Hub at Large End

g1

0.9250

in

0.7500

in

Length of Hub

Flange Material

SA-182 F304L

Flange Material UNS number

S30403

Flange Allowable Stress At Temperature

Sfo

14225.00

psi

Flange Allowable Stress At Ambient

Sfa

16700.00

psi

Bolt Material

SA-193 B8

Bolt Allowable Stress At Temperature

Sb

16700.00

psi

Bolt Allowable Stress At Ambient

Sa

18800.00

psi

Diameter of Bolt Circle

14.250

in

Nominal Bolt Diameter

0.8750

in

84 | P a g e

Type of Threads

TEMA Thread Series

Number of Bolts

12

Flange Face Outside Diameter

Fod

12.750

in

Flange Face Inside Diameter

Fid

10.750

in

Flange Facing Sketch

1, Code Sketch 1a

Gasket Outside Diameter

Go

11.750

in

Gasket Inside Diameter

Gi

10.750

in

Gasket Factor

2.0000

Gasket Design Seating Stress

2800.00

Column for Gasket Seating

2, Code Column II

Gasket Thickness

tg

0.0100

ANSI Flange Class

150

ANSI Flange Grade

GR 2.2

psi

in

ASME Code, Section VIII, Division 1, 2010, 2011a

Corroded Flange ID,

Bcor = B+2*Fcor

10.270

in

Corroded Large Hub,

g1Cor = g1-ci

0.800

in

Corroded Small Hub,

g0Cor = go-ci

0.708

in

Code R Dimension,

R = ((C-Bcor)/2)-g1cor

1.190

in

Gasket Contact Width,

N = (Go - Gi) / 2

0.500

in

0.250

in

0.250

in

11.250

in

Basic Gasket Width,

bo = N / 2

Effective Gasket Width,

b = bo

Gasket Reaction Diameter,

G = (Go + Gi) / 2

85 | P a g e

Basic Flange and Bolt Loads:

Hydrostatic End Load due to Pressure [H]:

= 0.785 * G * Peq
= 0.785 * 11.2500 * 10.000
= 994.020 lbf
Contact Load on Gasket Surfaces [Hp]:
= 2 * b * Pi * G * m * P
= 2 * 0.2500 * 3.1416 * 11.2500 * 2.0000 * 10.00
= 353.429 lbf
Hydrostatic End Load at Flange ID [Hd]:
= Pi * Bcor * P

/ 4

= 3.1416 * 10.2700 *10.0000/4

= 828.382 lbf
Pressure Force on Flange Face [Ht]:
= H - Hd
= 994 - 828
= 165.637 lbf
Operating Bolt Load [Wm1]:
= max( H + Hp + H'p, 0 )
= max( 994 + 353 + 0 , 0 )
= 1347.449 lbf
Gasket Seating Bolt Load [Wm2]:
= y * b * Pi * G

+ yPart * bPart * lp

= 2800.00*0.2500*3.141*11.250+0.00*0.0000*0.00
= 24740.043 lbf
Required Bolt Area [Am]:
= Maximum of Wm1/Sb, Wm2/Sa
= Maximum of 1347/16700 , 24740/18800
= 1.316 in

86 | P a g e

ASME Maximum Circumferential Spacing between Bolts per App. 2 eq. (3) [Bsmax]:
= 2a + 6t/(m + 0.5)
= 2 * 0.875 + 6 * 1.190/(2.00 + 0.5)
= 4.606 in

Actual Circumferential Bolt Spacing [Bs]:

= C * sin( pi / n )
= 14.250 * sin( 3.142/12 )
= 3.688 in

ASME Moment Multiplier for Bolt Spacing per App. 2 eq. (7) [Bsc]:
= max( sqrt( Bs/( 2a + t )), 1 )
= max( sqrt( 3.688/( 2 * 0.875 + 1.190 )), 1 )
= 1.1200

Bolting Information for TEMA Imperial Thread Series (Non Mandatory):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------Minimum

Actual

Maximum

----------------------------------------------------------------------------Bolt Area, in

1.316

5.028

Radial distance bet. hub and bolts

1.250

1.190

Radial distance bet. bolts and the edge

0.938

0.875

Circumferential spacing between bolts

2.063

3.688

4.606

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Min. Gasket Contact Width (Brownell Young) [Not an ASME Calc] [Nmin]:
= Ab * Sa/( y * Pi * (Go + Gi) )
= 5.028 * 18800.00/(2800.00 * 3.14 * (11.750 + 10.75 ) )
= 0.478 in

87 | P a g e

Flange Design Bolt Load, Gasket Seating [W]:

= Sa * ( Am + Ab ) / 2
= 18800.00 * ( 1.3160 + 5.0280 )/2
= 59633.22 lbf
Gasket Load for the Operating Condition [HG]:
= Wm1 - H
= 1347 - 994
= 353.43 lbf

Moment Arm Calculations:

Distance to Gasket Load Reaction [hg]:
= (C - G ) / 2
= ( 14.2500 - 11.2500 )/2
= 1.5000 in
Distance to Face Pressure Reaction [ht]:
= ( R + g1 + hg ) / 2
= ( 1.1900 + 0.8000 + 1.5000 )/2
= 1.7450 in
Distance to End Pressure Reaction [hd]:
= R + ( g1 / 2 )
= 1.1900 + ( 0.8000/2.0 )
= 1.5900 in

Summary of Moments for Internal Pressure:

Loading

Force

Distance Bolt Corr

Moment

End Pressure,

Md

828.

1.5900

1.1200

1475. in-lb

Face Pressure,

Mt

166.

1.7450

1.1200

324. in-lb

Gasket Load,

Mg

353.

1.5000

1.1200

594. in-lb

59633.

1.5000

1.1200

100187. in-lb

Gasket Seating, Matm

88 | P a g e

Total Moment for Operation,

Mop

Total Moment for Gasket seating, Matm

2393. in-lb
100187. in-lb

Note: User choose not to perform Stress Calculations on this ANSI Flange.
Pressure rating of the flange will be used to check code compliance.

Estimated Finished Weight of Flange at given Thk.

48.7

lbm

Estimated Unfinished Weight of Forging at given Thk

68.8

lbm

PV Elite is a trademark of Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis Solutions, Inc. 2013

89 | P a g e

Appendix 8: Heat Exchanger Drawings

90 | P a g e

91 | P a g e

92 | P a g e

93 | P a g e

94 | P a g e

95 | P a g e

96 | P a g e

97 | P a g e

Appendix 9: Total Working Hours for the Project

98 | P a g e