distribution category: energy conservation-- …/67531/metadc283578/...distribution category: energy...

Distribution Category:Energy Conservation--

Industry (UC-95f)

ANL--83-9

ANL-83-9 DE83 010690

ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY9700 South Cass Avenue

Argonne, Illinois 60439

SHELLSIDE WATERFLOW PRESSURE DROP AND DISTRIBUTIOIN INDUSTRIAL"SIZE TEST HEAT EXCHANGER

by

H. Halle and M. W. Wambsganss

Components Technology Division

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United StatesGovernment. Neither the United States Government nor any agenc- thereof, nor any of theiremployees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsi-bility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, orprocess disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer-ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark,manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom-mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The viewsand opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of theUnited States Government or any agency thereof.

January 1983

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

NOMENCLATURE ......................................................... 6

ABSTRACT .......................................................... 7

I. INTRODUCTION ......................... m........................ 7

II. TEST EXCHANGER CONFIGURATIONS................................. 8

III. FLOW TEST RESULTS............................. 13

A. Overall Pressure Drop................. ..... 0............ 13

B. Pressure Distribution...................... 23

IV. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS........................ 23

A. Comparison of Overall Pressure Drops...................... 23

B. Comparison of Exponential Variation of Pressure Drop

versus Flowrate Function.................................. 34

C. Pressure Distribution..................................... 36

D. Nozzle Losses............................................. 36

E. Comparison with Recent Handbook Formulas.................. 40

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...................................................... 41

REFERENCES .......... 00 ........... w................................... 43

4

LIST OF FIGURES

No. Title Page

1. Test exchanger installed in Flow-Induced Vibration TestFacility (FIVTF) ........................................... 9

2. Test exchanger in no-tubes-in-window configuration (30triangular pattern, eight-crosspass tube bundle).......... 9

3. Test heat exchanger, eight-crosspass configuration........ 12

4. Test heat exchanger, six-crosspass configuration.......... 12

5. Tube layout and identification, 30 triangular pattern.... 14

6. Tube layout and identification, 90* square pattern...... 0 15

7. Schematic representations of field fixes and NTIWconfiguration: (a) Case 8, (b) Case 10, (c) Case 12,(d) Cases 13 and 14....................................... 16

8. Schematic representation of NTIW configurations and fieldfixes: (a) Case 18, (b) Case 21, (c) Cases 23 and 26,(d) Case 22............................................... 17

9. Location of pressure taps on shell (a) 8-crosspass

configuration,(b) 6-crosspass configuration............... 21

10. Overall pressure drop versus flowrate: Cases 4 and 25..... 22

11. Fractional distribution of pressure drop averaged andnormalized to overall pressure drop (30 tube layout,8-crosspass configurations)............................... 28

12. Fractional distribution of pressure drop averaged andnormalized to overall pressure drop (30 tube layout,6-crosspass configurations).......... ..................... 29



5

No.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

LIST OF TABLES

Title

General features and basic dimensions of test exchanger...

Tbe and tube bundle data.................................

Summary of test cases..................................

Matrix of flow tests .....................................

Overall pressure drop versus flowrate.....................

Pressure drop distribution.................................

Comparison of pairs of corresponding test cases...........

Combined inlet/outlet nozzle region pressure droplosses at 0.063 m3/s (1000 gal/min) flowrate..............

Inlet and outlet nozzle region pressure drop losses at0.126 m3/s (2000 gal/min) flowrate........................

Overall pressure drop comparison: Handbook/test/computer..

Page

10

11

18

20

24

25

32

38

39

4210.

N (KNCLATURE

9.

6

NOMENCLATURE

Symbol Description

Q Flowrate

r Ratio of pressure drop between tap E and the outlet tap tothe overall pressure drop

V Flow velocity in inlet and outlet nozzles

a Exponential variation of pressure drop with flowrate

Y Pressure drop constant

Ap Pressure drop

p Fluid density

Subscripts pertaining to pressure drop, Ap

none Overall, inlet-to-outlet

c Crossflow regions

e End zones, i.e., the first and last baffle compartment notincluding the nozzles and not including the window regionsopposite the nozzles

k Core region not influenced by nozzle flow

n Nozzle region

s Sum of calculated components, Table 10

w Window-turnaround regions

Configuration Code

6 or 8 Number of crosspasses

10, 12, or 14 Nominal nozzle size

30 or 90 30* triangular or 90* square layout tube pattern

N No-tubes-in-window bundle (otherwise full bundle)

F Finned tubes (otherwise plain tubes)

X Field or design fix

7

SHELLSIDE WATERFLOW PRESSURE DROP AND DISTRIBUTIONIN INDUSTRIAL-SIZE TEST HEAT EXCHANGER

by

H. Halle and M. W. Wambsganss

ABSTRACT

The shellside pressure drop between the inlet and outlet

nozzles as well as the pressure drops through individual sec-

tions of different shell-and-tube test-exchanger configurations

are measured under water flow. The segmentally baffled test

exchanger is nominally 0.6 m (2 ft) in diameter, 3.7 m (12 ft)

long and contains a tube bundle of 19 mm (0.75 in.) outside-

diameter tubes. Results are reported of 24 test cases obtained

from various combinations of parameters: 30 triangular or 90

square tube layout patterns (all on a 1.25 pitch-to-diameter

ratio), numbers of crosspasses, sizes of nozzles, plain or

finned tubes, and full or special fix tube bundles. The expo-

nential change of pressure drop as a function of flowrate is

also investigated and an attempt is made to calculate nozzle

losses.

I. INTRODUCTION

Along with the capacity to transfer heat, the pressure drop across a

heat exchanger is a very important parameter. This is because the pressure

drop is proportional to the energy required to force the heat transferring

fluids through the heat exchanger; consequently, pressure drops, in effect,

determine the operating cost throughout the life of the exchanger. One of

the goals of heat exchanger design is to optimize the relationships of heat

transfer capacity, pressure drop, and cost; this task has been greatly

facilitated by development of comprehensive computer programs for the use of

the industry, e.g. (11.

This memorandum reports the pressure drop measurement of ahellside flow

of water through industrial-sized shell-and-tube heat exchanger configura-

tions. The overall inlet to outlet pressure drop as well as the pressuredrop distribution through various sections of the segmentally baffled test

heat exchangers were taken. The work was performed because it appears that

there is surprisingly little information available in the open literature onthe shellside pressure drops of actual, operating heat exchangers. It is

expected that the generated data will be useful for comparison, input, and

perhaps even retrofitting of computer programs for industrial heat exchanger

design and for the sophisticated flow distribution mapping such as theprogram applied in [23.

8

The pressure drop measurements were undertaken as part of a Heat

Exchanger Tube Vibration Program [3] sponsored by the U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Energy Systems Research, under the Energy Conversion and

Utilization Technology (ECUT) Program. The Heat Exchanger Tube Vibration

Program systematically investigates tube vibration in industrial-sized

shell-and-tube heat exchanger configurations by means of a series of tests

to provide data that contribute to the cost-effective design of heat

exchangers capable of operating without flow-induced vibration damage

[4-6]. This report presents the test results of 24 different configurations

obtained by appropriate assembly of the test exchanger specially designed

and fabricated to provide the versatility required for this program. The

test configurations comprise different combinations of tube layout patterns,

number of crosspasses, size of inlet/outlet nozzles, plain or finned tubes,

etc. The pressure drop as well as the exponential change of pressure drop

as a function of flcwrate are investigated. An attempt is made to calculate

the pressure losses in the inlet/outlet nozzle regions.

Heat Transfer Research, Inc. (HTRI), a not-for-profit research

organization with over 175 members representing heat exchanger designers,

manufacturers, and users, is retained as a consultant to the program. HTRI

serves as an important two-way link with industry and assists to transfer

the results of this test program to its members.

II. TEST EXCHANGER CONFIGURATIONS

The test exchanger is a segmentally baffled shell and tube exchanger,

representative of an industrial heat exchanger. It is specially designed to

permit easy assembly/disassembly necessary to provide different tube bundle

configurations. There is no flow on the tubeside, the tube ends are open to

readily permit observation or instrumentation. The exchanger is piped to

Argonne's Flow-Induced Vibration Test Facility (FIVTF) as shown in Fig. 1.

The FIVTF has four pumps which can be operated in combinations to deliver a

maximum water flowrate of up to 0.50 m3/s (8,000 gpm) to the shellside of

the bundle. Fig. 2 shows the tube bundle, in a no-tubes-in-window configu-

ration, on a specially built transporter prior to insertion into the shell,

seen in the left background.

The general features, dimensions, and data of the test exchanger are

given on Tables 1 and 2. It is configured with eight or six crosspasses,

having seven or five equally spaced baffles, as shown on Figs. 3 and 4

schematically. Figures 5 and 6 show the 30 triangular and 90 square tube

layout patterns and the systems used to identify tube location. Table 2

indicates the baffle cut as a percentage of the shell inside diameter. For

the eight-crosspass configuration the baffle cut provided alternate saddle-

type support for the tubes in rows G and U for the 30 and F and R for the

9

Fig. 1. Test exchanger installed in Flow-Induced Vihra.ion Test Facility(FIVTF). ANL Neg. No. 113-79-100A.

Fig. 2. Test exchanger in no-tubes-in-window configuration (30* triangularpattern, eight-crosspass tube bundle). ANL Neg. No. 113-79-368.

10

Table 1. General features and basic dimensions of test exchanger

Shellside fluid

Tubeside

Shell (Stainless steel), I.D.

Shell, inside length (tubesheetspacing)

Modular shell construction

Nozzles, inlet and outlet

Nozzles at shell midspan

Tube bundle

Tubesheets

Tie bolts

Tie bars

Water

No fluid, open tubes, ready insertionof instrumentation

0.59 m (23.25 in.)

3.58 m (140.75 in.)

Flexibility to change nozzleorientation

Insertion of piping to reduce insidediameter permits providing threenominal sizes/inside diameters

14-in. size/337 mm (13.25 in.) I.D.12-in. size/288 mm (11.328 in.) I.D.10-in. size/241 mm (9.500 in.) I.D.

Observation ports or alternate flowrot*te (e.g., direct crossf low)

Removable unit, ready assembly/disassembly

One stationary, one floating; specialdouble tubesheet construction to con-tain 0-rings to seal tubes

Stainless steel rods in tube locationsSecure and space tubesheets on bothends of heat exchangerCompress double tubesheets on eachend to seal 0-ringsSame O.D. as tubes

Secure and space baffle plates, smallerO.D. than tubes

11

Table 2. Tube and tube bundle data

Tube, plain (Admiralty brass)0.D.Wall thickness

Tube, finned (Admiralty brass), 19 fins/in.o. D.I.D., unfinned plain tube at end or landRoot diameter, finned sectionI.D., finned sectionsEquivalent "squashed" diameter, finnedsection

Tube layout pattern30 triangular

90 square

Pitch-to-diameter ratio

Number of crosspasses

Number of tubes (not counting 11 tiebolts and 8 tie bars)

30 triangular layout

90 square layout

Baffle spacing

Baffle (brass) thickness

Tube/Baffle hole clearance

Cut of single segmental baffles30 triangular layout

90 square layout

19.1 m (0.750 in.)1.2 m (0.049 in.)

19.1 - (0.750 in.)15.7 mm (0.620 in.)15.9 m (0.625 in.)13.8 - (0.541 in.)

16.9 m (0.666 in.) est.

One side of equilateraltriangle normal to flow

Sides parallel and normalto flow

1.25

8 (i.e., 7 baffles)6 (i.e., 5 baffles)

488, full tube bundle326, NTIW, 8 crosspass286, NTIW, 6 crosspass

410, full tube bundle276, NTIW, 8 croespass238, NTIW, 6 crosapass

448 - (17.6 in.) approx.,8 crosspass

597 - (23.5 in.) approx.,6 crosspass

9.5 - (0.375 in.)

0.4 - (0.016 in.) uiniim

25.52,28.92,

15.51,29.6,

8 crosspass6 crosspass

8 crosspass6 crosspass

12

3.58 m (140.75 in.) TUBE LENGTH INSIDE SHELL

BAFFLE .-

SPACING(TYP)

OBSERVATIONPOR T ( T YP )

A

I

4 SPAN TUBE

B 8 SPAN TUBE

F-r - I- f tI

U ___ WE I -I = U = II - ~lI~

I

iF ~T1F'T'U ~ l I Ed I 1

- Y- -

I

'II

OUTLET

")

)

I_________ p U

INLET A5 SPAN TUBE

0.59 m ( 23.25 in.) SHELL TUBES -NSIDE DIAMETER TOP VIEW 3 BAFFLE SUPPORTS

TUBES- 4 EQUAL SPANS7 BAFFLE SUPPORTS

- - - 8 EQUAL SPANS-

BAFFLE CUT ("WINDOW

* 0.255 DIAMETER (TYP.

TUBES-4 BAFFLE SUPPORTS5 SPANS ( 3 EA. 0.250 VIEW AA VIEW 66AND 2 EA. 0.125 TUBELENGTH)

Fig. 3. Test heat exchanger, eight-crosspass configuration

3.58 m (140.75 In.) TUBE LENGTH INSIDE SHELL -)

BAFFLE -SPACING

(TYP.)

OBSERVE TIONPOT ( TYP.)

' B

3 SPAN TUBE

6 SPAN TUBEAmI

II -- 1 11 / /I II

11--I,

I U~1 -~~I

7

I II \ "

INLET

7 | N '/ in

A B4 SPAN TUBE

II I

~4Z|I.1Ii

OUTLET

-0.59. (23.25s1.) SHELL TOP VIEW TUBES-INSIDE DIAMETER P 2 BAFFLE SUPPORTS

TUBE S- 3 EQUAL SPANS5 BAFFLE SUPPOR TS6 EQUAL SPANS

BAFFLE CUT WINDOWSN)o' 0.296 DIAMETER (TYP.)

TUBES-3 BAFFLE SUPPORTS VIEW AA VIEW BE4 SPANS (2 EA.0.167AND 2 E A. O.333 TUBELENGTH I

Fig. 4. Test heat exchanger, six-crosspass configuration

(I

-C

h

I

.

13

900 layout. Following industrial practice, the baffle cut was increased for

the six-crosspass configurations resulting in saddle support for the tubes

in H and T for the 30* and G and Q for the 90 patterns, respectively.

Table 3 presents a listing and a brief description of all configura-

tions tested. Table 4 presents a matrix of the test program. It is seen

that in addition to the full bundle tests, various design and field fixes to

avoid or remedy vibration problems were applied; many of the associated tube

layout patterns are shown on Figs. 7 and 8. The no-tubes-in-window (NTIW)

configurations comprise a design fix obtained by removing all tubes in the

baffle window. Since these tubes include those most susceptible to vibra-

tion, the WTIW bundles contain only the remaining well supported central

tubes. Naturally, the removal of the tubes alters the heat transfer/pressure

drop relationship. For the subject tests, the window areas of the baffles

were fitted with metal plates to cover the unused baffle holes. The unused

tubesheet holes were plugged and sealed. The passlane test configurations

were obtained by removal of the tubes indicated; since these simulate field

fixes the unused baffle holes were not covered. The Case 24 FIVER (acronym

for Flow-Induced Vibration Evasion Restraint) design fix conceived by HTRI

involves the installation of auxiliary baffle plates that resulted in much

improved vibration performance.

Additional information as well as the vibration testing is presented in

the references indicated: Cases 1 to 5 [4], Cases 6 to 15 [5], and Cases 16

to 26 [6].

III. FLOW TEST RESULTS

Shellside pressure drop measurements were taken for all configurations

tested with room temperature water as the shellside fluid. Figure 9 shows

schematics of the location of the pressure taps for the eight- and six-

crosspass configurations. The overall inlet to outlet pressure drop was

measured between the taps designated A and I by means of a differential

pressure transducer.

A. Overall Pressure Drop

When the overall pressure drop (A-I) is plotted as a function of

flowrate on log-log paper, the data can be correlated with a straight line,

as shown, for example, in Fig. 10 for Cases 4 and 25. This implies that theoverall pressure drop can be correlated by a power function relationship of

the general form

Ap - YQa (1)

where y and a are constants for a particular tube bundle configuration.

14

* TIE BOLT (II LOCATIONS)* TIE BAR (8 LOCATIONS)

0 E00[ LYO O

8FFL, .0 F08000@T80L :0F

080080 JyOu nd ,

__ o8 o8 o ® o 8 8

BAFFLE (N. It ,,AND 7) FAR WINDOW

NEAR WIDWBAFFLE (NO. 2,4 AND 6)

EIGHT- CROSSPASS TUBE BUNDLE: 7 BAFFLESFig. 5. Tube layout and identification, 300 triangular pattern

15

0 TIE BOLT (II LOCATIONS)

. TIE BAR (8 LOCATIONS)

F G H I J K L M N O p

E *0000 RST

B 0 0OO00000 0

A 00 00000®0000o 00 w

000 00000@00000 00000 0000000000 000

0800 0.000000000 000oo~oo 00ooo@OOOO ~OOO

00000 0000000000 000000000 8o8OOOOo 0008800000 00080

F000 0000 @0 000 000000008000: o008 0000 00000

00000 OOOOOGOOOOO 00000000000 0 o0008 000000 0080oo 0000000000 ooo

[email protected] 000.-INLET O OQOOOO00@00 000NOZZLE

00 0000000000 000 00000®00000 0

00000000000. 000000 .

FA RBAFFLE (NQ 1, 3,5 8 7) - BAFFLE-

WINDOW

BAFFLE ~ -BAFFLE (No 2, 4, B 6)WINDOW

EIGHT-CROSSPASS TUBE BUNDLE :7 BAFFLES

Fig. 6. Tube layout and identification, 90* square pattern

16

1 q o

. 0 O UO , " cOc o Cepk.

O~D ~

IC

(a) CASE I

U C 2 (a ) C ASE S 2

"> o . N 0

. 0 N~a 00~ .

o> o o

(d ) CASES 10 NO1

Fig. 7. Schematic representations of field fixes and NTIW configuration:(a) Case 8, (b) Case 10, (c) Case 12, (d) Cases 13 and 14

17

F i J K L M N 0 , O

S 08888488888 u

" 0000@®00000O

.880000.00 .

0888>38888888 88888f~ow o08o8888

-. 800O8888 .-

Z8888 8888888888 e88

00000000000. 880.0o8 .

(") CASE 1S

, G N I J K L M N 0O R

.. OZ 880O o88

888 8888rL05 8888

NOZL 8888*

.88880o

(C) CASES 23 AND 26

, G N L M N 0O

E888 0 0000 88 888.. O 58 0 1 8 088 888

8 00088888oo

0 000 00000 0000.080 8888888 8888QZ 8 0 888 88 ggQoc 0 8®08 o8 88

IN.E g ooo 8 oo008 8008.

888828888 880.8880000 .

(b) CASE 21

G Ntj K L M N 0

-

0ooo0.oo -" S 88888 o "' o888 8888003)88008 880 w

.888 0000 888888 000000 88 88 888 8 8558 8rL08 'S88 80 888888 8(0)88* oo 8 8888

88 8888 00 8880O 8 888

Mt[, . *88 0 .

(d) CASE 22

Fig. 8. Schematic representation of 'TrIW configurations and field fixes:(a) Case 18, (b) Case 21, (c) Cases 23 and 26, (d) Case 22

18

Table 3. Si'nmary of test cases

NominalNo. of inlet/outlet Tube

Case Cross- nozzle LayoutNo. passes size (in.) Pattern Tube Bundle Configuration

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Full bundle

Full bundle

Full bundle

NTIW bundle

NTIW bundle

Full bundle

Full bundle

Row U removed (Fig. 7a)

Row U replaced with stainlesssteel tubes

Field fix: passlane in farwindow region (Fig. 7b)*

Full bundle (rerun of Case 7)

Field fix: passlane in bathwindow regions (Fig. 7c)

8

8

8

8

8

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

8

8

8

6

6

6

6

14

12

10

10

14

14

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

14

14

14

10

10

10

30

300

30*

30*

30

300

300

30

300

30*

300

30

30

30

30*

900

90*

90

900

90

900

900

NTIW bundle

NTIW bundle;(Fig. 7d)

Full bundle;

Full bundle

Full bundle

NTIW bundle

Full bundle

Full bundle

(Fig. 7d)

finned tubes

finned tubes

(Fig. 8a)

Field fix: pass lane in farwindow region (Fig. 8b)*

Field fix: pass lane in bothwindow regions (Fig. 8d)

19

Table 3. Summary of test cases (Contd.)

NominalNo. of inlet/outlet Tube

Case Cross- nozzle LayoutNo. passes size (in.) Pattern Tube Bundle Configuration

10

10

10

10

90

90

90

90

NTIW bundle (Fig. 8c)

Design fix: FIVER; auxiliarybaffles in flow turn-aroundregions

Full bundle; finned tubes

NTIW bundle; finned tubes(Fig. 8c)

Passlane(s) created by removal of the following tubes:Case 10: 11 tubes, in rows U through AA, Nos. 23 and 25 or 24, as

applicableCase 12: 22 tubes, in rows A through G and U through AA, Nos. 23 and 25

or 24, as applicableCase 21: 6 tubes, R-12 through W-12Case 22: 12 tubes, A-12 through F-12 and R-12 through W-12

23

24

25

26

6

6

6

6

Table 4. Matrix of flow tests

Identification by Case Number

Crosspasses:

Tube Type:

Tube Bundle:

Feature:

8

Plain

Full

8

Plain

NTIW

6

Plain

Full

6

Plain

NTIW

NozzleSizein.

6

Plain

Fix

Pass-lane(s)

6

Plain

Fix

Special

6 6

Finned Finned

Full NTIW

30' Triangular

90 Square

101214

1014

3 4 7,11 13 10,12 8,921

1617

5

15 14

6

2018 19

23 21,22 24 25 26

0

21

BC

INLET

v-f

E

GH

IIF

OUTLET

(a) EIGHT CROSSPASS CONFIGURATION

TOP VIEWS

E

_ 1 1 1

iI I

H

OUTLET

G

I

F

(b) SIX CROSSPASS CONFIGURATION

Taps - A.E.and I: on bottom of nozzles

B,CD,F,G,and H: on shell In horizontal plane of flow

Fig. 9. Locati'an of pressure taps on shell (a) 8-crosspass configuration,(b) 6--crosspass configuration

D

B C

INLETt

D

AM

AML

T---qqpp-

,w w

22

- 20a0

W~i 10',

acN/

-J /

I- d

2 0 CASE 4, ALPHA=:I9780 CASE 25 ALPHA:2.03

-J

S00 1000 2000 4000FLOWRATE ,gol/mIn

Fig. 10. Overall pressure drop versus flowrate: Cases 4 and 25

23

For this report the above equation will be expressed as

sp(lb/in.2) y(lb/in.2) (Q(gal/min)) (2)

which, taking logarithms on boLh sides becomes

in Ap(lb/in.2) - In y(lb/in.2) + a in { Q(gai/min) }. (3)

For the pressure drop data obtained from each of the various test configura-

tions, Eq. (3) was employed to determine the constants y and a by means of

linear regression analysis. Table 5 indicates the range of flowrates from

which the data were taken and summarizes the results of the linear regres-

sion analysis computations, listing, in addition to the constants y and a,

th' overall pressure drops at 0.063 m3 /s (100u gal/min) and 0.126 m3 /s (2000

gal/min). Figure 10 shows the pressure drop curves for the cases with the

smallest and largest a values encountered.

B. Pressure Distribution

The pressure distribution through various sections of the test

exchanger was determined by taking pressure drop measurements between taps B

through H and the outlet tap I of the exchanger with the differential pres-

sure transducer (Fig. 9). The connections were made by switching with a

valve system. In a very few high pressure cases, the central tap E was used

as a "common" base and the pressures to the outlet tap I determined by

simple addition or subtraction.

Table 6 presents the normalized fractional distribution for each test

configuration tested to date. The overall pressure drop was set equal to

unity and the fractional drops (remaining to the outlet tap) were calculated

for each flowrate tested and then averaged to obtain the results given in

Table 6. As indicated on Fig. 9, taps C, D, E (center), F, and G are

located in different positions for the eight and six-crosspass configura-

tions. Figures 11 through 14 present the fractional pressure distribution

of the four different tube layout/baffle configurations in graphical form,

with the tap locations B through H plotted approximately scaled according to

their axial location.

IV. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

A. Comparison of Overall Pressure Drops

At the same flowrate the overall pressure drop varied as expected for

any of the pairs of comparative test cases listed on Table 7: it was always

24

Table 5. Overall pressure drop versus flowrate

AP- y(Q/1 0 0 0)Q with U.S. units indicated

Overall pressureRange of flowrates drop Ap at

Q used to 1000 gpm 2000 gpmConfiguration determine a and y Exponent Y

Case Code** gal/min a lb/in.2 lb/in.2

8.14.308.12.308.10.30

8.10.30-N8.14.30"N

6.14.306.10.30

69109309X6.10.30-X6.10.30-X6.10.30"X6.10.30"N6.10-30-NF6.10.30"F8.10.908.14.90

8.14.90-N69149906.10.90

6.10.90-X

6"10"90"X6.10.90"N6 .10.90-X6.10.90"F6-10 90-NF

6 in. pipe12 in. pipe

770-31901030-3190

800-30001175-39801580-50101060-21901160-32901100-28001600-2200900-3000600-3000

1620-41501000-6250600-2600

1000-34001000-26001010-3980800-3000

1230-2790600-2600

1190-3200590-3990890-2830

1020-3220790-5270

1000-20001000-2000

1.931.92

1.911.781.791.871.831.851.931.91

1.91

1.80

1.901.92

1.931.931.891.87

1.951.861.931.851.922.031.951.94

1.90

5.435. 51

6.01

3.112.933.38

3.993.08

3.813.34

2.351.48

1.334.044.624.19

2.61

2.532.772.752.161.33

3.002.38

1.00

2.68

0.09

20.720.9

22.610.7

10.112.414.2

11.114.512.5

8.81

5.164.99

15.317.6

16.09.529.25

10.710.0

8.254.78

11.49.71

3.8810.30.34

*Examples, 30.48 m (100 ft) of U. S. Schedule 40 pipe [7]

**Refer to nomenclature

tUse of Case 2 data requires qualifying explanation.

tt1 gal/sin (gpa) - 6.309 x 10- 5 *3/s1 lb/in.2 - 6.895 kPa

1

2t3456789

10121314151617181920212223242526

*

Table 6. Pressure drop distribution

Listed is the fraction of the pressure drop between the tap indicated and the outlet tap to the overall

inlet/outlet pressure drop.Listed underneath is the fractional pressure drop between taps.Note that, as explained in the text, the location of taps C through G is different for the

eight- and six-crosspass configurations; see Fig. 9.

Config1:-ration

Code

8.14.30

8.10.30

8-10.30"N

8.14.30"N

6.14.30

6.10.30

6.10.30-X

6.10.30-X

Tai

A

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

P

0.094

0.118

0.077

0.086

0.129

0.146

0.188

0.124

B

0.906

0.882

0.923

0.914

0.871

0.854

0.812

0.876

0.037

0.036

0.024

0.024

0.61

0.058

0.046

0.070

C

0.869

0.846

0.899

0.890

0.810

0.796

0.766

0.806

0.140

0.132

0.131

0.149

0.171

0.144

0.124

0.140

D

0.729

0.714

0.768

0.746

0.639

0.652

0.642

0.666

0.211

0.204

0.220

0.229

0.134

0.110

0.090

0.115

E

0.518

0.510

0.548

0.517

0.505

0.542

0.552

0.551

0.229

0.215

0.231

0.243

0.144

0.116

0.092

0.113

F

0.289

0.295

0.317

0.274

0.361

0.426

0.460

0.438

0.109

0.104

0.108

0.119

0.147

0.125

0.097

0.123

G

0.1800.013

0.1910.010

0.209-0.004

0.155-0.004

0.214-0.005

0.301-0.008

0.363-0.013

0.3150.007

Case

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

LAi

H

0.167

0.181

0.213

0.159

0.219

0.309

0.376

0.308

Table 6. Pressure drop distribution (Contd.)

Conffigu-ration Tap

Case Code A B C D E F G H

6.10.30"X

6-10-30-X

6.10.30-N

6.10.30-FN

6-10-30-F

8.10.90

8.14.90

8.14.90"N

6.14.90

6.10.90

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

0.812

0.855

0.904

0.930

0.880

0.873

0.891

0.904

0.881

0.840

0.052

0.066

0.040

0.050

0.060

0.027

0.027

0.027

0.060

0.050

0.766

0.789

0.864

0.880

0.820

0.846

0.864

0.877

0.821

0.790

0.130

0.128

0.165

0.180

0.160

0.103

0.116

0.130

0.157

0.120

0.642

0.661

0.699

0.700

0.660

0.743

0.748

0.747

0.664

0.670

0.094

0.107

0.116

0.130

0.120

0.180

0.194

0.218

0.125

0.110

0.552

0.554

0.583

0.570

0.540

0.563

0.554

0.529

0.539

0.560

0.100

0.09

0.143

0.130

0.120

0.222

0.242

0.254

0.138

0.110

0.460

0.455

0.440

0.440

0.420

0.341

0.312

0.275

0.401

0.450

0.106

0.101

0.144

0.160

0.130

0.098

0.110

0.122

0.151

0.130

0.363-0.015

0.354-0.002

0.296-0.019

0.280-0.020

0.2900.030

0.2430.004

0.2020.007

0.153-0.002

0.250-0.0')7

0.320-0.010

0.180

0.145

0.096

0.070

0.120

0.127

0.109

0.096

0.119

0.160

N%

0.376

0.356

0.315

0.300

0.260

0.239

0.195

0.155

0.257

0.330

Table 6. Pressure drop distribution (Contd.)

Conf igu-ration

Code

6.10.90"X

6-10-90-X

6.10.90-"N

6.10.90-X

69109909F

6.10.90-FN

Tap

A

1

I

1

1

1

1

0.180

0.142

0.086

0.156

0.120

0.050

B

0.820

0.858

0.914

0.844

0.880

0.950

0.040

0.049

0.032

0.059

0.056

C.057

C

0.780

0.809

0.882

0.785

0.824

0.893

0.120

0.133

0.171

0.128

0.159

0.175

D

0.660

0.676

0.711

0.657

0.665

0.718

0.100

0.108

0.128

0.109

0.117

0.130

E

0.560

0.568

0.583

0.548

0.548

0.588

0.100

0.110

0.138

=0.126

0.133

0.145

F

0.460

0.458

0.445

0.422

0.415

0.443

0.120

0.123

0.157

0.131

0.144

0.162

G

0.340-0.010

0.335-0.010

0.288-0.014

0.2910.001

0.2710.016

0.281-0.034

Case

21

22

23

24

25

26

H

0.350

0.345

0.302

0.290

0.255

0.315

N~

m

)

4 511_1.( V

TAP

Fig. 11. Fractional distribution of pressure drop averaged and normalized to overallpressure drop (30 tube layout, 8-crosspass configurations)

CASE1 3

A A

B BC C

D D

E

F

GH

0.8

0.0

a

a

z0

0

N-J

0Z

0.6 f

0.4

0.2

0

.lmr-AL1

Fl- _ _ _ r

E

HF

G

H

0o0 1\I

10 12 13 14 15

1.0

CASE

6 7 8

A A

B B

C C

D D

E

E

F

FG

S H H

TAP

Fig. 12. Fractional distribution of pressure drop averaged and normalized to overall

pressure drop (300 tube layout, 6-crosspass configurations)

S.0O

W 0.8

0

0

V

.4

0

2 0.40

z

0

N0

CASE16 17 18

1.0 AAA A

BBC B C

C

0.8D D

W

00

0.6 EE

Z 0

0

0.4 F

W F

2 G H& 0.2-O

G H

0TAP



CASE

10 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

1.0A A B

B C

O, C

0 0.".-aD

DD

EEEE~0.6 E -

0FF

o FQ0.4ION

H

g0.2 G H

0

0II

TAP



Table 7. Comparison of pairs of corresponding test cases

DifferentParameters

Full/NTIWbundle

30*/900layout

10/14 in.Nozzles

Common 8914930

Cases

Ya

Coimon

Cases

Ya

Coon

Cases

Y4

1/5

5.43/2.931.93/1.79

8.14

1/17

5.43/4.191.93/1.93

8.30

3/1

6.01/5.431.91/1.93

8010030

3/4

6.01/3.111.91/1.78

8010

3/16

6.01/4.621.91/1.93

8.300N

4/5

3.11/2.931.78/1.79

6.10.30

7/13

3.99/1.481.83/1.80

8.14"N

5/18

2.93/2.611.79/1.89

6.30

7/6

3.99/3.381.83/1.87

8.14.90

17/18

4.19/2.61

1.93/1.89

6.14

6/19

3.38/2.531.87/1.87

8.90

16/17

4.62/4.191.93/1.93

6.10.90 6.10.30-F 6e10-90-F

20/23

2.77/1.33

1.95/1.85

6010

7/20

3.99/2.771.83/1.95

15/14

4.04/1.331.92/1.90

6-10"N

13/23

1.48/1.331.80/1.85

25/26

2.38/1.002.03/1.95

6.10"F

15/25

4.04/2.381.92/2.03

6.10"-FN

14/26

1.33/1.001.90/1.95

6090

20/19

2.77/2.531.95/1.87

woN

mmllm

Table 7. Comparison of pairs of corresponding test cases (Contd.)

DifferentParameters

8/6crosspasses

Coon 14.30

Cases

Ya

1/6

5.43/3.381.93/1.87

10.30

3/7

6.01/3.991.91/1.83

10.30"N

4/13

3.11/1.481.78/1.80

10.90

16/20

4.62/2.771.93/1.95

14.90

17/19

4.19/2.531.93/1.87

Corson 6-10.30 6.10.30"N 6.10-90 6.10-90"N

Plain/finned Casestubes

Ya

7/15

3.99/4.041.83/1.92

13/14

1.48/1.331.80/1.90

20/25

2.77/2.381.95/2.03

23/26

1.33/1.001.85/1.95

Legend: Comon: Configuration code of common parameters; refer to nomenclature

y : Overall pressure drop at 1000 gal/min flowrate in lb/in.2 (1 lb/in.2 - 6.895 kPa)

a : Exponential variation of pressure drop as a function of flowrate

1

34

higher for the 10 inch nozzles than for 14 inch nozzle, higher for 8 than

for 6 crosspasses, and higher for the 30 than the 90 tube pattern layout.

A comparison of plain to finned tubes must take into consideration both

increases in flow area and increase in surface roughness with opposite

effects on the pressure drop. The effects are mixed. For the 90 patterns

the pressure drops of plain tube bundles are higher than for finned tubes,

for 30* patterns they were about the same.

Comparing the one and two passlane field fix data it is seen that the

open lanes together with the open baffle holes result in a significantly

reduced overall pressure drop for the finned tubes. It can also be observed

that the FIVER gives rise to a relatively small increase of pressure drop

when compared to the corresponding full bundle test of Case 20.

To provide a perspective value for the flow regimes, an estimate of the

Reynolds' number for the full tube bundle has been computed based on the

available flow area in the central plane of the test exchanger normal to the

flow, assuming no leakage, and using the tube diameter as the characteristic

dimension. On that simplified basis the Reynolds' numbers at the 0.126 m3/s

(2000 gal/min) flowrate for the 30 triangular tube layout pattern are

approximately 42,000 and 31,000 for the 8- and 6-crosspass configurations,

respectively; for the 90* square pattern the corresponding values are 36,000

and 27,000.

B. Comparison of Exponential Variation of Pressure Drop versus Flowrate

Function

To facilitate the following discussion pertaining to the exponent a

(Eq. 1), two examples for commercial water pipe, taken from an industrial

catalog [71, have been included on Table 5. The commercial pipe examples

indicate that (a) because the friction factor decreases with flowrate, the

exponent is less than 2, and (b) because the rate of decrease of the

friction factor is smaller for higher Reynolds' numbers, the exponent for

the smaller pipe, with larger flow velocities, is larger than for the bigger

pipe. Examination of customary friction factor versus Reynolds' number

graphs (Stanton's diagram) shows that the rate of decrease of the friction

factor decreases with Reynolds' number as surface roughness increases, thus

flow through a rougher pipe will be characterized not only by a higher

pressure drop but also by a higher exponent.

Since for commercial pipe the exponent a actually increases slightly

with flowrate, this might be true for the test exchanger configurations too

but was not determinable from the experimental data. The exponents in Table

5 were calculated in a consistent manner for all test cases and the two

examples on the basis of being constant at all flowrates. At times, data

from test runs at low flowrates and thus low pressure levels were considered

35

questionable and not utilized. And even though the determination of the

exponent a is subject to experimental errors and inaccuracies, examination

of the data indicate some very interesting trends. The following will

discuss the effect of the various configurations on the pressure drop

exponent, a; the comparative pairs cf tests are listed on Table 7:

1. Full tube bundle versus no-tubes-in-window configurations

The no-tubes-in-window (NTIW) configurations have window areas

void of tubes which allow the flow to slow down to a lowered velocity for a

substantial part of its path through the heat exchanger. Therefore it is

not surprising to note that all NTIW bundles res'Ated in a lower exponent

than the corresponding full bundle.

2. 30 triangular and 90 square

Comparison shows that the exponent was equal or larger for the 90

than for the 30 tube layout patterns. There appear to be opposing tenden-

cies at work. On one hand, the 30 pattern tends to result in higher flow

velocities in the window regions than the 90' pattern because the 30 bundle

contains more tubes and is more tightly packed than the 90 bundle. This

tends to increase the exponent. Also, because of the arduous flow path

through the bundle, there is probably some increase of the effective rough-

ness, tending to slightly increase the exponent. On the other hand, because

the 30' pattern operates at higher pressure drop levels, the leakage bypass

fractions past the baffle and around the baffles are higher, reducing the

flow through the bundle - this is what the HTRI computer generated data

indicate and appears reasonable. Therefore, the 90' pattern has a higher

fraction of the flow passing through the bundle, and, for the same flowrate,

a somewhat higher velocity tending towards a larger exponent. It appears

from the test data that for the 14 inch nozzle, full tube bundle configura-

tion with fractionally very small nozzle losses, the above trends balanced

and the exponents (with some experimental coincidence) were equal. On the

other hand, for the 10 inch nozzle, and the 6 crosspass bundles with

relatively larger nozzle losses, the effect of these nozzle losses incurred

by high entrance velocities appears to be dominant and increased the

exponent. It could be speculated that proportionally increased internal

window reentrance and reexit losses cause a similar effect in the NTIW

bundles.

3. 10 versus 14 inch size nozzles

It was found that the exponent a is higher for the 14 inch than

for the 10 inch nozzles for the 30' triangular pattern configurations, with

the opposite trend for the 90' square configuration. As a consequence the

percentage nozzle losses were calculated to decrease with flow for the 30'pattern and to be about the same or to increase with flow for the 90

pattern as will be discussed in Section D.l.

36

4. Eight versus six crosspass

With closer baffle spacing producing higher flow velocities, the

eight-crosspass configurations can be expected to have higher exponents than

the comparative six crosspass configurations. This was found experimentally

with the exception of two pairs of test cases where nozzle loss effects may

have dominated. These are the low pressure level 30 pattern NTIW tests and

the 90* pattern full bundle tests, all with 10 inch nozzles.

5. Plain versus finned tubes

For all test cases the exponent was higher for the finned tubes

than for the plain tubes, even though the finned bundle has, at least in the

crossflow regions, larger gaps, and lower velocities. Apparently the addi-

tional roughness dominates to increase the exponent.

C. Pressure Distribution

With regard to the distribution of pressure drop through the various

sections of the exchanger, it appears that the pressure drop measurements

are affected by the flow velocity at the measurement location. The small or

sometimes negative difference between taps G and H suggests that the

velocity of the flow passing tap G at the window is larger than at tap H

which is somewhat bypassed by the main flow, thus the pressure at taps H

appears to recover to offset any losses between taps G and H. The same

phenomenon working in the opposite direction apparently exaggerates the

measured pressure drops between taps B and C. There is apparently also some

effect on the central tap E, which is in a sheltered location on the

observation port, not directly on the internal shell wall. It is noted that

the measured tap F. to F is usually larger than the drop D to E for almost

all tests, this probably indicates some pressure recovery at tap E.

D. Nozzle Losses

1. Total nozzle losses

A method was devised in an attempt to calculate the total, i.e.,

combined, inlet and outlet nozzle loss. Perhaps entrance and exit would be

more accurate terms than inlet and outlet nozzle, because the inlet and

outlet flow effects probably extend well beyond the immediate nozzle region

to some extent into the tube bundle. The computation method requires data

from pairs of comparative test cases performed with both 10 and 14 inch

nozzles. The results obtained from five available pairs (Table 7) are

listed on Tables 8 and 9.

The method assumes that the overall pressure drop can be expressed

as the sus of two components: the nozzle region losses &pn and the losses

Apk in the remaining "core" region of the heat exchanger structure. It isthen assumed that the total inlet/outlet nozzle (i.e., entrance/exit region)

37

losses &Pn vary with the square of the (identical) inlet and outlet veloci-

ties. Based on the 1.945 area ratio of the 14 to 10 inch nozzles, the

nozzles losses for the 10 inch nozzles are taken to be a 3.784 multiple of

the 14 inch nozzle losses. The remaining core region losses Apk are assumed

to be independent of nozzle size and constant for any particular flowrate.

Mathematically, using the nozzle sizes 10 and 14 as subscripts one obtains

A1- APn10 + Apkl0

and (4)

AP14 - APn14 + Apkl4

where Ap's are test data, APnlO - 3.784 APn14, and Apkl0 - APkl4. The

results of the easily obtained solutions are tabulated on Table 8 and the

left side of Table 9 for 0.063 and 0.126 m3/s (1000 and 2000 gal/min)flowrates, respectively.

At the higher flowrate the percentage nozzle losses are found to

be higher for comparable six versus eight crosspasses, and 900 versus 30

pattern configurations, apparently because the nozzle losses become

relatively more evident when the losses in the remainder of the exchanger

are low. At the lower flowrate, however, the 30* pattern indicates the

higher percentage nozzle loss. The relationship between the 0.063 and 0.126

m3/s (1000 and 2000 gal/min) flowrate data is influenced by the flowrate

exponent discussed previously. The results on Table 8 and the left side of

Table 9 indicate that at the higher flowrate the percentage total nozzle

loss decreases for the 30*, and is approximately equal or increases for the

90', configurations. While this cannot be explained at this time, it is

interesting to note that the corresponding computer generated HTRI data

indicate the same trends.

2. Separate inlet and outlet nozzle losses

The general method used to compute the total nozzle loss was also

applied to estimate the proportion of that loss occurring in the entrance

and exit regions. Essentially two parallel calculations were made for the

flow regions upstream and downstream of the central tap E.

The calculations require the fraction r of the pressure drop

between the central tap E and the outlet to the overall inlet/outlet

pressure drop. The r value for each test case is listed under tap E in

Table 6. Thus the pressure drop from the inlet tap A to tap E is (1-r)Ap

and from tap E to the outlet is rAp. The dynamic pressure due to the inletand outlet velocities V in the nozzles is considered, any velocity at tap E

is assumed to have a negligible effect. For the inlet region upstream of

Table 8. Combined inlet/outlet nozzle region pressure drop lossesat 0.063 m3/s (1000 gal/min) flowrate

Overallpressure "Core" Nozzle Percentdrop loss loss nozzle

Configuration p Apk Apn lossCase Code lb/in.2 lb/in.2 lb/in.2

1 8.14.30 5.43 5.22 0.208 3.83

3 8.10-30 6.01 5.22 0.787 13.1

6 6914.30 3.38 3.16 0.219 6.48

7 610.30 3.99 3.16 0.829 20.8

17 8-14.90 4.19 4.04 0.154 3.68

16 8.10.90 4.62 4.04 0.583 12.6

19 6.14.90 2.53 2.44 0.0862 3.41

20 6.10.90 2.77 2.44 0.326 11.8

5 8.14.30"N 2.93 2.87 0.0647 2.21

4 8.10.30-N 3.11 2.87 0.245 7.87

Ap is also y for this flowrate.1 lb/in. 2 - 895 kPa

Table 9. Inlet and outlet nozzle region pressure drop losses at 0.126 m3/s (2000 gal/min) flowrate

Combined inlet/outlet pressure drops Regional pressure drop loss, lb/in.2

Overallpressed "Core" Nozzle Percent Core Nozzle

drop loss loss nozzle

Configuration Ap Apk Apn lossCase Code lb/in.2 lb/in.2 lb/in.2 % Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet

1 8-14.30 20.7 20.0 0.682 3.30 9.61 10.4 0.539 0.144

3 810-30 22.6 20.0 2.58 11.4 9.61 10.4 2.04 0.545

6 6.14.30 12.4 11.8 0.647 5.22 6.02 5.74 0.273 0.374

7 6.10.30 14.2 11.8 2.45 17.3 6.02 5.74 1.03 1.42

17 8.14.90 16.0 15.4 0.575 3.59 6.95 8.48 0.342 0.233

16 8.10.90 17.6 15.4 2.18 12.4 6.95 8.48 1.29 0.882

19 6.14.90 9.25 8.73 0.521 5.63 4.11 4.62 0.305 0.216

20 6910-90 10.7 8.73 1.97 18.4 4.11 4.6- 1.15 0.817

5 8.14.30"N 10.1 9.88 0.216 2.14 4.90 4.98 0.129 0.0862

4 8.10.30"N 10.7 9.88 0.817 7.64 4.90 4.98 0.488 0.326

Upstream and downstream

Test data

1 lb/in. 2 - 6.895 kPa

of tap E, respectively.

LA)~0

40

tap E, using the nozzle sizes 10 and 14 as subscripts for any pair of

comparative test cases:

(1 - r1 0)Ap1 0 + (pV 0)/2 - APnl0inlet + APklOinlet

and (5)

(1 - r14)Ap14 + (pV 4)/2 - APnl4inlet + APkl4inlet

Similarly, for the outlet region downstream of tap E:

r10Ap10 - APnl0outlet + APkl0outlet + (pV 0)/2

and (6)

r1 4 Ap14 - APnl4outlet + APkl4outlet + (pV1 4)/2 .

Corresponding to Eq. 4, the Ap's are the test data and with the respective

inlet and outlet subscripts, Apn10 - 3.784 Apnl4, and Apkl 0 - Apkl4.Equations 5 and 6 are separately solved for the inlet and outlet regions to

obtain the respective "core" and nozzle region losses. The calculations

were performed for the 0.126 in.3/s (2000 gal/min) flowrate. At that

flowrate the dynamic pressures in the 14 and 10 inch size nozzles are 1.01

and 3.80 kPa (0.146 and 0.551 lb/in.2) respectively.

The computed regional losses are tabulated on the right side of

Table 9. It is seen that the nozzle losses in the inlet region were usually

found to be larger than those in the exit region. Cases 6 and 7 constitute

an exception for which no straightforward explanation can be offered. The

results of these calculations were found to be very sensitive to small

variations of the experimental input data, particularly the fractional

pressure drop at tap E.

The entire method may be questioned a overly simplistic,

nevertheless, at this time it represents a possible attempt within the scope

of a program with the primary mission to investigate tube vibration.

Eventually computer generated flow distribution studies may provide better

insights.

E. Comparison with Recent Handbook Formulas

A comparison is provided between the measured overall pressure drop

data, the HTRI computer generated overall pressure drop data, and pressure

drop data obtained by applying information excerpted from a heat exchanger

handbook [8] prior to its recent publication. The handbook formulas are

41

used to compute the pressure drop as a sum of pressure losses in three

regions, che crossflow regions, the window regions, and the inlet and outlet

end zones. These end zones are the first and last baffle compartments and

do not include the nozzles and the window regions opposite the nozzles. It

is emphasized that the excerpted handbook information that was available at

the time the computations were made provides a pressure drop that does not

include the nozzle losses as such, and consequently does not permit a

perfect comparison with the experimental and HTRI data.

The evaluation of the handbook formulas requires some discretion, for

instance some assumptions have to be made, some values have to be read from

graphs, etc. The summary comparison in Table 10 presents the results of the

handbook calculation, the three components and the sum, the HTRI computer

generated data and the experimental overall pressure drop data at the 0.126

m 3/s (2000 gal/min) flowrate. It is seen that in many instances there is

fairly good agreement.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was performed as part of a Heat Exchanger Tube Vibration

Program which is sponsored by the U. S. Department of Energy, Office of

Energy Systems Research, under the Energy Conversio: and Utilization

Technology (ECUT) Program, and represents a U.S. contribution to the

International Energy Agency (IEA) Program of Research and Development on

Energy Conservation in Heat Transfer and Heat Exchangers. The continuing

encouragement and support of W. H. Thielbahr, J. J. Eberhardt, and M. Gunn

of the US/DOE are appreciated.

The assistance of various personnel of Argonne's Components Technology

Division is gratefully acknowledged as well as the diligent efforts of

student-aides E. Zywicz, T. S. Chmelik, and J. K. Roberts.

The authors also thank J. M. Chenoweth and J. Taborek of HTRI for

consultation and cooperation throughout all phases of the test program;

J. Kissel and D. Fijas of American Standard for assistance during design and

fabrication of the test exchanger; and J. G. Withers of Wolverine Tube

Division, UOP, Inc., for his help in providing the finned tubing.

Table 10. Overall pressure drop comparison: Handbook/test/computer

Basis: 0.126 m 3 /s (2000 gal/min) flowrate

Handbook calculated pressure drops, lb/in.2 Overall pressure drop, Ap, lb/il. 2

HTRIcomputer

Configuration Ap c Apw AP Aps programCase Code crossflow window end zones sum Test ST-4, Mod. 5.3

1 8.14.30 3.60 ,4-2 2.74 20.5 20.7 20.54

6 6-14-30 1.23 7.84 1.39 10.5 12.4 11.58

17 8.14.90 2.17 11.0 1.59 14.7 16.0 16.48

19 6.14.90 0.75 5.77 0.86 7.37 9.25 9.05

5 8-14-30-N 3.51 2.99 1.93 8.44 10.1 12.87

13 6.10-30-N 1.29 1.53 0.95 3.77 5.16 6.65

18 8-14-90-N 2.09 2.91 1.15 6.15 9.52 11.68

23 6.10.90-N 0.75 1.41 0.55 2.72 4.78 5.64

15 6-10.30"F 0.92 5.92 0.97 7.81 15.3 -

25 6.10909F 0.56 4.52 0.59 5.67 9.71 9.89

Note: Complete comparison is not possible because available handbook data did not allow inclusion of

nozzle losses. Also note that listed test cases include both 14 in. (where available) and 10 in.

nozzle configurations.1 lb/in.2 - 6.895 kPa.

43

REFERENCES

1. Heat Transfer Research, Inc., Computer Program ST-4.

2. Wambsganss, M. W., Yang, C. I., and Halle, H., "Fluidelastic Insta-bility in Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers - A Framework for a PredictionMethod," ANL Report ANL-83-8 (December 1982).

3. Wambsganss, M. W., Halle, H., and Chenoweth, J. M., "A DOE-SponsoredProgram on Heat Exchanger Tube Vibration," Paper 819300, Proc. 16thIntersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conf., Vol. 1, pp. 595-599,ASME (1981).

4. Halle, H., and Wambsganss, M. W., "Tube Vibration in Industrial SizeTest Heat Exchanger," ANL Technical Memorandum ANL-CT-80-18 (March1980).

5. Wambsganss, M. W., and Halle, H., "Tube Vibration in Industrial SizeTest Heat Exchanger (300 Triangular Layout - 6-Crosspass Configura-tion)," ANL Technical Memorandum ANL-CT-81-42 (October 1981).

6. Halle, H., and Wambsganss, M. ;., "Tube Vibration in Industrial SizeTest Heat Exchanger (90 Square Layout)," ANL Report ANL-83-10(February 1983).

7. Crane Company, "Valves, Fittings," Catalog No. 60, Chicago, 1960.

8. Heat Exchanger Design Handbook, Vol. 3, Thermal and Hydraulic Design ofHeat Exchangers, Schlu'nder, E. U., Editor-in-Chief, HemispherePublishing Corporation, Washington, DC, 1983.

44

Distribution for ANL-83-9

Internal:

RobertsZenoRosenbergWambsganss (60)HoltzEvansBoersBrunsvoidBumpChenFrance

H. Halle (100)J. A. JendrzejczykW. P. LawrenceT. M. MulcahyP. TurulaM. WeberC. I. YangANL Patent Dept.ANL Contract FileANL Libraries (3)TIS Files (6)

External:

DOE-TIC, for distribution per UC-95f (249)Manager, Chicago Operations Office, DOEDirector, Technology Management Div., DOE-CHD. L. Bray, DOE-CHComponents Technology Division Review Committee:

A. Bishop, U. PittsburghF. W. Buckman, Consumers Power Co.R. Cohen, Purdue U.R. A. Greenkorn, Purdue U.W. M. Jacobi, Westinghouse Electric Corp., PittsburghE. E. Ungar, Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.J. Weisman, U. Cincinnati

J. J.

R. S.G. S.M. W.R. E.A. R.B. L.A. R.T. R.S. S.D. M.

distribution category: energy conservation-- …/67531/metadc283578/...distribution category: energy...

Documents