Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1 Introduction
One of the most common types of shell-and-tube exchanger R = CPH/CPC = (TCo - Tc,)/{Tm - TH0) (3)
is the 1-2 design (1 shell pass-2 tube passes). Because the flow and
arrangement involves part countercurrent and part cocurrent
flow, the effective temperature difference for heat exchange is P- (7/fi ~ THo)/(THi - Ta) (4)
reduced compared with a purely countercurrent device. This is Some designers use the alternative definitions
accounted for in design by the introduction of the FT factor
into the basic heat exchanger design equation, as discussed by R' = CPC/CPH = {Tm - THo)/(TCo - Tci) (3a)
Bowman et al. (1940) and
Q=UAATLMFT (1) P'=(TCo-Ta)/(THi-Ta) (4a)
The FT correction factor is usually correlated in terms of two instead of R and P. Whichever of the two conventions is
dimensionless ratios, the thermal effectiveness of the ex- adopted is immaterial in determining the value of FT for given
changer (P) and the ratio of the two heat capacity flow rates exchanger profiles. This results because
(R). R' = l/R, P'=RP
At the early stages of design, engineers need to be able to
screen alternative designs before going forward to more de- and
tailed calculations. These alternatives include not only dif- FT{R, P)=FT(l/R, RP) = FT(R', P') = FT(\/R', R'P')
ferent types of exchanger, but also in the case of 1-2 designs,
multiple shell arrangements forced by unacceptably low values Three basic situations can be encountered when using 1-2
of FT. If multiple shells are required then the most common exchangers (Fig. 1):
practice is to adopt a trial-and-error approach in which the (a) We have a temperature approach. This situation is
number of shells in series is progressively increased until a straightforward to design for using a single 1-2 shell.
satisfactory value of FT is obtained for each shell. (b) We have a small temperature cross. This situation is
This paper describes an alternative approach to the design usually straightforward to design for and again can probably
of 1-2 exchangers, particularly useful in the early stages of be accommodated in a single shell.
design, which does not rely directly on FT factors. The ap- (c) We have a large temperature cross. Local reversal of
proach is fully compatible with established design procedures heat flow may be encountered, which is wasteful in heat
and offers two distinct advantages: transfer area. The design might even become infeasible.
(0 It generates better designs than those based on tradi- One basic question therefore remains: How much
tional rules of thumb for specifying minimum permissible FT temperature cross can we tolerate before encountering reversal
be avoiding uncertain areas of the FT chart more effectively. of heat flow or infeasibility? Clearly, infeasible exchanger
(H) For multishell arrangements, the number of shells does designs returnF T <0, but havingF T >0 is not enough to make
not need to be evaluated by trial and error but can by a design practical. A commonly used rule of thumb requires
evaluated explicitly. FT-> 0.75 for the design to be considered practical as discussed
by Kern (1950).
2 F T Correction Factors However, the use of the criterion FT>0.15 for 1-2 ex-
Graphical and analytical correlations exist for FT based on a changers is only a rule of thumb and can lead to poor designs
number of assumptions concerning the heat transfer in a 1-2 if not used with caution.
exchanger (see Bowman et al., 1940). Important among these The fact that designs using values of FT less than 0.75 are
are that the streams assume constant heat capacity flow rates unacceptable is not solely due to the inefficiency of the chosen
and that the overall heat transfer coefficients remains fixed. configuration. Bell (1984) has pointed out that the whole
The correlations are then normally expressed in the form method is only approximate since it is based on certain simpli-
fying assumptions. Any violation of the simplifying assump-
FT=f{R, P) (2) tions will tend to have a particularly significant effect in areas
where of the FT chart where slopes are particularly steep. For exam-
ple, in an exchanger with a close temperature approach, bun-
dle and baffle bypassing not accounted for in the approach
Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division for publication in the JOURNAL OF
HEAT TRANSFER. Manuscript received by the Heat Transfer Division February can result in an exchanger that is not just inefficient but is
23, 1987. Keywords: Heat Exchangers, Modeling and Scaling. thermodynamically infeasible. Any uncertainties or inac-
FT
Nomenclature
Temperature Temperature
FT
+- temperature
' crosses
smaller
0 0-1 0-2 0-3 0-4 0-5 0-6 07 08 09 10 <c=>
i> *1>
Enthalpy Length
Fig. 3 A line of constant slope can be closely approximated by a line of
constant X p Fig. 5 Two 1-2 shells in series or a single 2-4 shell
i Temperature
410
360
110c
110
Enthalpy
Enthalpy
5 Shells suggested
Fig. 8 The slope of the first step is given by AT.,, fi, and P 1 2 (which
Fig. 6 The simplest method for multishell design is "stepping-off" depends on X p ). Continuing to step-off with the same slope will deter-
(with no temperature cross allowed) mine the number of shells required to satisfy a given value of X p
say XP = 0.8, then the step slope will be different, resulting in 310J/t5V^
a different number of shells to solve the problem.
! 210 <^y?k"
! 160>^
,, Temperature
110
i /t60
410 Enthalpy
360
overall
899
N
crf ^% = 990
= 1 660
110 N
Xp = 09(ie.F T = 0-75] N, ffi = 1 239
Nm, = 0 470
0
Enthalpy
Fig. 10 No matter how we divide the problem into sections, there is
Fig. 9 Stepping-off to meet a given value of Xp is consistent with complete additivity among the parts in determining the overall number
achieving the corresponding value of FT of shells