×
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

Baffle Material for Stainless Steel Tube Bundle

Baffle Material for Stainless Steel Tube Bundle

Baffle Material for Stainless Steel Tube Bundle

(OP)
Hello Metallurgists,

I have a Shell and Tube heat exchanger with U-tube bundle for which I'm replacing the bundle.
Shellside service is ethane. Tubeside service is condensing steam.
All material for original exchanger is Carbon Steel.
For the replacement bundle, I'm replacing it with a 316 Stainless Steel tube bundle to address a erosion/corrosion issue caused by some upstream equipment - (yes, I know I should be addressing the upstream process upset issue instead but at this point, I have no choice)

Question is: should I make my baffles 316 SS as well? or are they okay as Carbon Steel?

My reasoning: I'm worried that I will ruin the 316 SS tubes with the Carbon Steel baffles due to iron contamination. Is my worry warranted?

Thanks in advance.

RE: Baffle Material for Stainless Steel Tube Bundle

Narbij, is your erosion / corrosion issue on the tubeside or shellside? That should inform your choice.

I see these things both ways, all the time. If the shell fluid is not especially corrosive CS baffles would likely be OK, if not, perhaps not.

OTOH, probably not a large incremental cost to go with SS.

Regards,

Mike

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

RE: Baffle Material for Stainless Steel Tube Bundle

(OP)
SnTMan: Thanks for responding.

Erosion/corrosion issue is on the shellside. The existing CS baffles are fine though...however the existing CS tubes are suffering impingement damage from amine carryover, hence the change to SS. For a relatively small HX, you're probably right about the incremental cost. However, in this case, I could save some significant $$$ by switching to CS.

Thanks.

RE: Baffle Material for Stainless Steel Tube Bundle

If the erosion is shellside then go to SS baffles.
With more erosion resistant tubing you could easily find yourself eroding out the holes, and then having tubes fail by vibration.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, Plymouth Tube

RE: Baffle Material for Stainless Steel Tube Bundle

(OP)
EdStainless: That's an interesting thought...I had not considered that. Indeed this particular HX is quite prone to vibration as well...
I'll take another look at the photographs from the inspection reports.

Thank you kindly for chiming in with that.

RE: Baffle Material for Stainless Steel Tube Bundle

If you have serious cross flow issues causing vibration then you might want to use a tighter baffle spacing in your new bundle. Don't be afraid to solve problems.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, Plymouth Tube

RE: Baffle Material for Stainless Steel Tube Bundle

I would hope you know that switching to stainless steel will be a hit on heat exchanger thermal performance. Other than that, if the impingement is on the carbon steel tubes caused by an upstream flow issue, you may still have other problems.

RE: Baffle Material for Stainless Steel Tube Bundle

If there are no leaks, then the process fluid and steam are clean then this HX environment is pretty benign.
However, trying to solve any and all upstream process problems by ramping up metallurgy can lead to open-ended expenditure, as well as lower efficiency.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

RE: Baffle Material for Stainless Steel Tube Bundle

The thermal performance could stay the same since the SS version will not have an added corrosion allowance. With walls that 30% thinner the heat transfer will be nearly identical to the CS version.
Make sure that the SS tubes are specified to the designed wall, without added corrosion allowance.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, Plymouth Tube

RE: Baffle Material for Stainless Steel Tube Bundle

Quote:

The thermal performance could stay the same since the SS version will not have an added corrosion allowance. With walls that 30% thinner the heat transfer will be nearly identical to the CS version.

Typical corrosion allowance is small in comparison to the loss in heat transfer using austenitic stainless steel tube materials. I doubt it will remain the same. Most of the heat exchanger replacement bundles I have dealt with at power plants over many years take a hit on thermal performance unless more surface area was added to compensate for the loss in thermal conductivity using austenitic stainless steel tubing versus non-ferrous (copper-nickel),martensitic stainless steel, duplex or CS.

RE: Baffle Material for Stainless Steel Tube Bundle

I had sort of assumed performance had been confirmed. Perhaps not.

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

RE: Baffle Material for Stainless Steel Tube Bundle

Metengr, Yes and no, I understand what you are saying.
I have seen many applications moving from Cu-Ni to duplex or ferritic SS actually improve overall heat transfer. Part is removal of CA, part is using the higher strength of the material allowing the use of much thinner walls, and part is the option of higher flow velocities because of the higher erosion resistance.
In austenitics the walls will not be that much thinner than CS, but flow velocity can be much higher.
I have frequently seen people change tube diameter when moving from CS to SS in order to optimize the heat transfer. Just switching the alloy and leaving the same OD and wall for tubes will be a recipe for disappointment.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, Plymouth Tube

RE: Baffle Material for Stainless Steel Tube Bundle

It needs a specialist HX designer to assess all of the impacts on performance.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

RE: Baffle Material for Stainless Steel Tube Bundle

Absolutely agree, ironic metallurgist.

RE: Baffle Material for Stainless Steel Tube Bundle

Narbij,


Question is: should I make my baffles 316 SS as well? or are they okay as Carbon Steel?
A- The baffles should be of stainless steell also.Iron contamination, during operation as well as galvanic corrosion(during shutdown)is possible from Carbon Steel baffles.Low ph could be a significant contributing fator towards above,

Baffles are the suppoting assembly for tube bundle. However cheap design could endanger the tube bundle significantly. Definitely upgrading to costlier material means, yiou're redesigning for longer service/operational life.

Thanks

Pradip Goswami,P.Eng.IWE
Welding & Metallurgical Specialist
ca.linkedin.com/pub/pradip-goswami/5/985/299

RE: Baffle Material for Stainless Steel Tube Bundle

hi
normal design is usualy to have the same metallurgy for tubes and baffles
regards

RE: Baffle Material for Stainless Steel Tube Bundle

(OP)
Thank you all for your inputs.

1) EdSTainless: I did some more digging onsite, and in speaking with the Chief Inspector, found out that this was definitely a warranted concern - he had three examples where precisely this occurred. Thank you immensely for cluing me in here.
2) THERMAL PERFORMANCE - SnTMan and metengr: Indeed the hit on thermal performance from switching CS to SS was considered and optimized to drop thermal performance by a mere 1.6%. In this case, it was not an issue because of the service of this exchanger as well as the overdesign in the original design.
3) IRON CONTAMINATION: Agreed, there can be cases where this is a concern - specifically, in my understanding, in a wetted environment with the presence of oxygen, iron contamination from baffles on tubes can lead to stainless no longer being "stainless" - I have specified HX's in other services with full SS bundle cage assembly to avoid this. In this case, I did not deem it a concern.
4) GALVANIC CORROSION: again, requires a wetted environment. The galvanic cell would cause the CS to preferentially corrode and, galvanic corrosion being local, may cause the holes to widen and the same concern would as EdStainless raised would be applicable.

I chose to implement a full SS bundle including baffles.

Thanks again for chiming in and educating me. As always, appreciate this community very much.

JA

RE: Baffle Material for Stainless Steel Tube Bundle

Narbij, appreciate the update.

Good Luck :)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

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