×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

large L/D ratio HX sizing

large L/D ratio HX sizing

large L/D ratio HX sizing

(OP)
Hi all,
Are there any negative issues that I should be aware of in regards to slender HX, ie., shell length is much greater than diameter, lets say L/D > 5.

I have no concern with thermal design for long and slender hx shape but from a mechanical perspective, too long and slender a vessel the more challenge it is to support it on two saddles without getting into large repads around the shell.  Are there other concerns?  

Would it be correct to justify use of a hair-pin with shorter length in such instance?

thanks.

RE: large L/D ratio HX sizing

There are many other concerns, like fabrication tolerances (might end up with a deformed shell), maintenance requirements (space for bundle removal), long flimsy bundle, special lifting arrangement for bundle handling, additional costs (more strakes, more weld). The structural weakness might offset the benefit of thinner materials. Overall, bad design, avoid if possible.
Cheers,
gr2vessels  

RE: large L/D ratio HX sizing

I'd say that depends greatly on whether or not your L is beyond 20 feet in length.

Long, slender bundles are common in small exchangers.  I'd rather deal with the issues raised by gr2vessels than deal with multiple pass shells or low tubeside velocities.

RE: large L/D ratio HX sizing

(OP)
Thanks to both for your input.  I should've qualify that my question is pertaining to a fix tubesheet design, hence no pulling of bundle.  I agree with moltenmental about limiting removable bundle to 20'.

gr2vessels brought up a good point which I did not thought of.  large L/D shell can have significant deflection to mess up fabrication tolerance and would be difficult to extract a bundle on a removable bundle due to scraping of baffles caused by shell deflection.

I don't understand moltenmetal last sentence.  It is because one is trying to develop the bulk stream velocity and that's why they end up with long bundle or multiple passes. I'm just trying to understand why you mention low tubeside velocity.
 

RE: large L/D ratio HX sizing

Sorry, guess I've got tubeside on the brain. Yes, with small exchangers the focus is usually on the tubeside velocity, but it works the same on the shellside.  As the note implies, if the option is between a long, thin bundle or multiple shell passes on a shorter bundle, I'll take the long, thin bundle every time.

RE: large L/D ratio HX sizing

I am nowhere close to being familiar with hx design approaches....Just throwing in my 2 uninformed cents fwiw:  

It seems that long tubes if not properly supported would be more susceptible to vibration which can cause fatigue.

Design against vibration is a tricky business and a big part of it is avoiding resonances.  When flow is present, there can be broadband excitation and a variety of discrete-frequency excitations.  I would think the logical approach is to attempt to place the lowest resonant frequency above most of the excitations which requires stiff design (relatively short distance between supports).
 

=====================================
(2B)+(2B)'  ?

RE: large L/D ratio HX sizing

Cost is the main driver for keeping the diameter down (smaller tube plate and fewer tube holes). If multiple passes are required to achieve the required length, then you do not get true counter current flow and you loose heat transfer efficiency. But the length is usually constrained to standard tube lenghts (20ft/6m).

Of course there are standard designs for multi-tube hairpins (Brown Fintube) that offer cost advantages and do work.

Vibration is dependent on un-supported tube length, but also baffle spacing, baffle cut and tube/tube sheet attachment. When designing HEs I found that high cuts and spacings gave better thermal design and lower overall cost than short spacings and free area. TEMA has requirements for maximum baffle spacings and most STHE sizing  programs predict vibration.
 

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources