No Fooling-No Fouling tech paper search help 3

What journal is it published in?
btw, i'm no 'old timer'.


Fe

See the bibliography here:
Gilmour, G. H., “No Fooling—No Fouling,” CEP 61(7), pp. 49–54, 1965.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

We have quite the archive here, so, well ..... here you go


If you want better quality - let me know.

IRStuff

What comes up when I click on the link is a copyrighted report with the following:

Article copyright © 2004 by Gulf Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Not to be distributed in electronic or printed form, or posted on a Website, without express written permission of copyright holder

Click to expand...

Patricia Lougheed

-----
"Somebody on this Internet forum said it was ok" is not a sufficient explanation when responding to a lawsuit.

******

Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.

In IRStuff's defense -

The paper wasn't posted on a website - A LINK to it was, which is on the Public Access site:


And then there is the "distribution" - did he download and email it to people? Or did he provide a roadmap to someone?

If I gave you a map to a bank and you end up robbing the bank - am I culpable? Are the people who built the roads enabling your theft?

Please go easy on the ethics and legalities of my "link" post

Nice one. You beat me too it

When I click on the link by IRStuff no BS about copyright comes up.


Fe

AllHandlesTaken,

Thank you very much for your link. I truly appreciated your help.

Vesselguy / Irstuff / other oldtimers:

I can't just read this thread and stay put. The article in question - Charlie Gilmour's famous articleI on fouling and the mis-use of it - is a classic that I would recommend to all engineers dealing with heat transfer. I have applied every principle that Charlie expounds in this article ever since I first read it in 1965 (I graduated in 1960) and I have never regretted the time I spent doing it and applying the simple, logical principles Charlie set out. It is an engineering opus at its best. And what is more important is that IT WORKS!

I appreciate the ability to download this copy although I still have the original article that I carefully cut out of my subscription ChE Progress magazine back in 1965. However, it is stored in some cardboard box up in my attic in such an efficient way that I haven't found it in five years that I've searched for it. It is a golden classic in practical and logical engineering and it should be treasured by all who are lucky enough to have a copy and study it. My advice to those who read these lines is to read it carefully and apply all that Charlie suggests. You will never regret spending the little time in harvesting such great, field experience.

Montemayor,
I totally agree with you. You be surprised at how many EPC heat transfer "experterten" would not fathom doing thermal design of S&T exchangers without fouling factor. I write the criterias for zero fouling as optional requirement into company standards but I have not gotten any bite so far. So far, I've only ended up with negotiated lower fouling factor instead. People are afraid to take away the safety net (fouling factor) and that's just human nature.

Question for you Montemayor, what criteria do you use when you use zero fouling? Do you use Re(turbulent > 3000)as a criteria or do you sue minimum bulk stream velocity criteria?

Vesselguy:

As you probably know, designing and specifying a shell & tube heat exchanger is not a task for the inexperienced or the lame-brained. You have to know your merde before attempting this part of engineering. After going through 49 years of process design, I am not surprised that many engineers – especially young ones – are reluctant to enter into the complete world of heat transfer. The easiest and safest thing to do when facing a heat exchanger design and spec is to simply “cover your behind” or employ belt and suspenders type of design by employing fouling factors to cover up for your lack of knowledge or expertise.

This was always Charlie Gilmour’s dilemma. I have used zero fouling factor many, many times in the past and walked away from a successful application without ever looking back. The issue is not primarily “saving money” by specifying a smaller exchanger. The real issue is not to foment or propagate fouling itself by assigning a fouling factor. This is advocating your own demise and failure – as Charlie aptly explained. Don’t get me wrong. There are times when one MUST employ a fouling factor - primarily when one is deprived or starved of basic data and full stream descriptions or real-life compositions. However, in today’s world I have found less and less of that kind of situation and more complete, accurate, and detailed stream definitions. Therefore, the justification for a fouling factor today is much less than it was back in the 1950’s when Charlie Gilmour and Don Kern were kicking heat transfer A__ right and left.

When I have applied zero fouling factor, I have always made sure that:
1) The heat transfer fluids are carefully, accurately, and completely defined;
2) I have a reasonable drop allowed. This enables me to kick up the Reynolds Number – especially in the tube side;
3) With a high Reynolds Number, I have a higher velocity and discourage any potential fouling; one type of fouling is inherent to stagnant flow or dead-end spots in the exchanger;
4) I always make it a point to encourage a practical and logical mechanical design; eliminate the existence of air pockets in the exchanger – especially in the shell side; avoid horizontal shell baffles – they are theoretically attractive, impossible to fit and seal and bitches to pull out for maintenance; they arve te losers.
5) Be practical and realistic in what you require of a fabricator with respect to clearances and baffles seals. There is just so much you can accomplish is trying to attain a close approach to counter-current heat transfer. Sometimes you have to bite the bullet and swallow the trade-off.
6) If you can afford it and the application fits, make judicious use of spiral heat exchangers; they are undoubtedly the best heat transfer devices – but they require more capital and can only sustain relatively lower pressures. However, they spiral action is inherently self-sweeping and self-cleaning.

There are more tips I could come up with, but I’ve run out of Rioja wine while I’m writing this in my room in Madrid, Spain. I’ll have to continue this on another thread when my stockpile has been reinforced.

I hope this helps to foster your efforts with respect to applying more intelligent and smart engineering thinking in heat exchanger applications. I am certain that you will be truly inspired and optimistic when you read and study Charlie Gilmour's Opus.

Montemmayor,

Spain... Nice!

1) The heat transfer fluids are carefully, accurately, and completely defined;
Reply: True. The problem is for serivce such as bitumen, you often don't get exact properties such as content of asphaltenes. Also, no one has done any production data gathering to show at what Re (or shear rate) will minimize fouling.

2) I have a reasonable drop allowed. This enables me to kick up the Reynolds Number – especially in the tube side;

Reply: I always use up what deltaP I can get but leaving 10% as a margin. I too push the Process Engineer to upsize the pump to give me more head. But, there is always the risk of up sizing the piping to the next piping class and any equipment upstream of the HX.

3) With a high Reynolds Number, I have a higher velocity and discourage any potential fouling; one type of fouling is inherent to stagnant flow or dead-end spots in the exchanger;

Reply: Just want to pick your brain for what you think is a "high" Re? I have not yet found any literature to give me that guidance based on fluid type. Any tips on this?

4) I always make it a point to encourage a practical and logical mechanical design; eliminate the existence of air pockets in the exchanger – especially in the shell side; avoid horizontal shell baffles – they are theoretically attractive, impossible to fit and seal and bitches to pull out for maintenance; they arve te losers.

Reply: Sorry, I don't understand how baffle cut plane affects maintenance? Can you elaborate on this? As far as fit up, the shell/baffle OD clearance is the key factor.


6) If you can afford it and the application fits, make judicious use of spiral heat exchangers; they are undoubtedly the best heat transfer devices – but they require more capital and can only sustain relatively lower pressures. However, they spiral action is inherently self-sweeping and self-cleaning.

Reply: YES YES YES!! I feel the same way. I tried to specified spirals for high fouling services but have no luck so far. The cost ratio between spiral and S&T is 2.5:1 to 3:1. This is largely due to using more spiral shells than that of S&T (ex., you might need 8 spiral shells to replace 3 shell and tube in the same service). Project Engineers/Project Managers generally choke on the capital cost and we're dead in the water. I have done life cycle analysis on project to prove that in a 20yr life, the pay back more than justify the initial high TIC, but...these project people (just like Politicians) are short sighted and only want to do what makes them look good right now.

Vesselguy

I believe that Montemayor is refereing to baffles to split the shell (eg a BFU shell)

Tickle

tickle,

Longitudinal baffle, that makes sense now.