Mechanical Department, Faculty of Engineering, Suez University

EVALUATING AND OPTIMIZING

PERFORMANCE OF SHELL AND
TUBE HEAT EXCHANGER USING
EXCEL-SOLVER

PREPARED BY: INTRODUCED TO:

Team 3 DR. Ahmed Safwat
 Team Members:

1. Mohamed Ragab Ahmed

2. Mohamed Mohamed Abdelhafiz

3. Mohamed Ragab Gamal

4. Adel Ezz El-Deen Gaber

5. Osama Ahmed Ateya

6. Abdelrahman Mohamed El-Sayed

Page 2 of 9
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgment .............................................................................................................................. 4
Abstract............................................................................................................................................. 5
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................... 5
2. List of Symbols ............................................................................................................................... 5
3. Assumptions .................................................................................................................................. 6
4. Method.......................................................................................................................................... 6
4.1. INPUTS............................................................................................................................................... 6
4.1.1. Cold Stream Data .............................................................................................................. 6
4.1.2. Hot Stream Data .............................................................................................................. 6
4.2. NECESSARY DELIVERABLE ..................................................................................................................... 6
4.2.1. Mass Velocity .................................................................................................................... 6
4.2.2. Reynolds Number ............................................................................................................. 6
4.2.3. Heat Transfer Rate ........................................................................................................... 6
4.2.4. The Outlet Temperature .................................................................................................. 6
4.2.5. Bulk Temperature ............................................................................................................. 7
4.2.6. Dynamic Viscosity Based on Wall Temperature at Tube Side ........................................ 7
4.2.7. Bulk Temperature at Shell Side ......................................................................................... 7
4.2.8. Dynamic Viscosity Based On Wall Temperature At Shell Side ........................................ 7
4.2.9. Inside Tube Heat Transfer Coefficient ............................................................................. 7
4.2.10. Outside Tube Heat Transfer Coefficient .......................................................................... 7
4.2.11. Log Mean Temperature Difference ................................................................................. 7
4.2.12. LMTD Correction Factor ................................................................................................... 8
4.2.13. Dirt Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient ............................................................................. 8
4.2.14. Clean Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient .......................................................................... 8
4.2.15. Operation Fouling Resistant ............................................................................................ 8
4.2.16. Friction Factor (Fanning) for Tube ................................................................................... 8
4.2.17. Total Tube Pressure Loss for Tube Side ........................................................................... 8
4.2.18. Inside Shell Diameter ........................................................................................................ 8
4.2.19. Friction Factor (Fanning) for Shell Side ........................................................................... 9
4.2.20. Number of Baffles ............................................................................................................ 9
4.2.21. Total Pressure Drop in Shell Side ..................................................................................... 9
4.2.22. The Smaller Heat Capacity Rate ...................................................................................... 9
4.2.23. Maximum Possible Heat Transfer Rate ........................................................................... 9
4.2.24. Actual Heat Transfer Rate ................................................................................................ 9
4.2.25. Effectiveness of Heat Exchanger ..................................................................................... 9
5. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 9
6. References..................................................................................................................................... 9

Page 3 of 9
 Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Prof. Dr. S Sujono, Polytechnic of Energy and Mineral Akamigas, Jl. Gajah Mada No.38, Mentul,
Karangboyo, Kec. Cepu, Kabupaten Blora, Jawa Tengah 58315, Indonesia. We want to thank him for responding to our
questions and helping us by explaining some mysterious points in his research.
jono1166@gmail.com

I would like to thank Amr Mohamed Fouad our classmate in Mechanical Power Department at Faculty of Engineering
for helping our team in this validation and making this program in Excel-Solver.

Page 4 of 9
Abstract. Heat exchangers in the oil and gas industry play an important role as heat exchangers. In this research,
shell-and-tube heat exchanger was chosen because this type of heat exchanger is the most widely used in the industry
in general and in the oil and gas industry in particular. This research was conducted to determine the performance of
shell and tube type heat exchangers in terms of thermal and hydraulic. Data acquisition is done by observing in the
field. We have tried to make a program in Excel-Sheet to validate the result of “Evaluating and Optimizing Performance
of Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger Using Excel-Solver” Research that written by Dr. S Sujono. We have
communicated with Dr. Sujono and he supported us with the missing information in the paper. We have reached for
acceptable results by comparing with the paper results. So that the data processing and calculation results are obtained
as follows: Fouling factor operation 0.026 (hr.ft2 .F/Btu) higher than design 0.00485 (hr.ft2 .F/Btu), Shell side pressure
drop of 16 psi has over the maximum permissible of 10 psi, so it is time for cleaning, tube side pressure drop of 2.85
psi is still under the maximum permissible of 10 psi the effectiveness of the operation is 62.4% less than design value
of 68.73%. By this study we would understand how to avoid fouling, corrosion and failure and leak problems by your
design failure and leak problems by your design.

1. Introduction
A heat exchanger specifically a shell-and-tube type is
𝐴𝑠 Cross Sectional Area of Shell Side
heat transfer mechanical equipment that is widely used 𝑨𝒕 Cross Sectional Area of Tube Side
in various industrial fields, such as petroleum, 𝑄 Heat Duty
petrochemical, energy and others so. The heat 𝐶𝑝ℎ Specific Heat of Hot Fluid
exchanger is an important equipment of the many 𝐶𝑝𝑐 Specific Heat of Cold Fluid
equipment components in the industry. Given the 𝑇ℎ𝑖 Hot Fluid Temperature Inlet
𝑇ℎ𝑜 Hot Fluid Temperature Outlet
function of this equipment to transfer heat that will be 𝑇𝑐𝑜 Cold Fluid Temperature Outlet
used for the needs of the heating process, if the 𝑇𝑐𝑖 Cold Fluid Temperature Inlet
performance of this equipment has decreased, the heat ℎ𝑖 Inside Tube Heat Transfer Coefficient
transfer process will also experience a decrease too, so ℎ𝑜 Outside Tube Heat Transfer Coefficient
𝑘 Thermal Conductivity of Tube Material
the condition of the performance of the equipment must Pr Prandtl Number
always be monitored (1:4). The mechanism of heat 𝑇𝑠 Wall Temperature
transfer in the shell and tube type occurs by conduction 𝑇𝑏 Bulk Temperature
and convection. Conduction heat transfer is the process 𝑞𝑤 Heat Rate Through The Wall
𝑐 Specific Heat
of heat transfer if heat flows from a temperature high to
𝑈𝑓 Dirt Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient
a place where the temperature is lower with fixed heat 𝑈𝑐 Clean Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient
conducting media. While heat transfer by convection is LMTD Log Mean Temperature Difference
heat transfer occurs between a solid surface with fluid F LMTD Correction Factor
that flows around it with using a medium of liquid / gas 𝑅𝑓 Operation Fouling Resistant
𝑓 Friction Factor
fluid.
Δ𝑝𝑡 Inside Tube Pressure Drop
Δp Total Pressure Drop Inside Tube
2. List of Symbols Δ𝑝𝑟 Pressure Loss
𝐿 Tube Length Tube
𝐑𝐞𝒔 Reynold Number at Shell Side 𝜌 Fluid Density
𝐑𝐞𝒕 Reynold Number at Tube Side 𝑎 = - 0,14 (Turbulent Flow)
𝑫𝒆 Shell Side Equivalent Diameter 𝑃𝑡 Tube Pitch
𝒅𝒊 Inside Tube Diameter B Baffle Space
n Number of Tube Passes C Clearance
𝑮𝒔 Mass Velocity at Sell Side 𝑄𝑎𝑐𝑡 Actual Heat Transfer Rate
𝑮𝒕 Mass Velocity at Tube Side QMax Maximum Possible Heat Transfer Rate
𝝁 Dynamic Viscosity of Fluid 𝜀 Effectiveness of Heat Exchanger
𝝁𝒘 Dynamic Viscosity Based on Wall Temperature 𝑗̇𝐻 Factor for heat transfer, dimensionless
𝑨𝒔 Cross Sectional Area of Shell Side
𝒎𝒔 Mass Flow Rate of shell side
𝒎𝒕 Mass Flow Rate of tube side

Page 5 of 9
3. Assumptions 4.2. Necessary Deliverables Data
We have communicated with Dr. S Sujono for 4.2.1. Mass Velocity
expressing our thanks for his efforts to make that paper 𝑚𝑠
and then asked him for some misinformation about Gs =
𝐴𝑠
some constants such as (𝜇𝑤 , 𝑘, n, 𝑇𝑠 , and 𝑇𝑏 ). Then he
told us to use Copper as a tube material, 1 tube passes
and use this formula to predict approximate wall 8.8199
𝐺𝑠 = = 571.9𝐾𝑔/𝑚2 . 𝑠
temperature and then using it for predicting 0.0154
approximated (𝜇𝑤 , Dynamic Viscosity Based on Wall
𝑚𝑡
Temperature) and use any available data for oil 𝐺𝑡 =
viscosity. And we used Engine Oil. 𝐴𝑡

37.79936
𝐺𝑡 = = 1608.178𝐾𝑔/𝑚2 . 𝑠
4. Method 0.023504

4.1. Inputs
4.2.2. Reynolds Number
4.1.1 Cold Stream Data Inputs
𝐷𝑒 𝐺𝑠
Re𝑠 =
𝜇
0.0091 ∗ 571.9
Re𝑠 = = 475.41
0.011

Re𝑠 < 4,000

∴ 𝐿𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑟

ⅆi 𝐺𝑡
Re𝑡 =
𝜇
0.014844 ∗ 1608.178
Re𝑡 = = 33671.74
0.000709

4.1.2. Hot Stream Data Inputs Re𝑡 > 10,000

∴ 𝑇𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡
4.2.3. Heat Transfer Rate
𝑄 = 𝑀ℎ 𝐶𝑝ℎ (𝑇ℎ𝑖 − 𝑇ℎ𝑜 ) = 𝑀𝑐 𝐶𝑝𝑐 (𝑇𝑐𝑜 − 𝑇𝑐𝑖 )

𝑄 = 8.8199 ∗ 1867.3 ∗ (150.81 − 76.667)

= 1221115.544 W
4.2.4. The Outlet Temperature
Q
𝑇𝑐𝑜 = + 𝑇𝑐𝑖
Mc cpc

1221115.544
𝑇𝑐𝑜 = + 32 = 39.73℃
37.79936 ∗ 4178.425

Page 6 of 9
4.2.5. Bulk Temperature at Tube Side 4.2.8. Dynamic Viscosity Based on Wall Temperature
at Shell Side
We will determine the bulk temperature from Water
data table based on Dynamic Viscosity 𝜇 𝑄 = ℎ𝑜 A(𝑇𝑠 − 𝑇𝑏 )

𝑗𝐻 = 0.5934Re𝑠 0.4822

𝑗𝐻 = 0.5934 ∗ 475.40780.4822 = 11.594

𝑘 𝑐𝜇 1/3 𝜇 0.14
ℎ𝑜 = 𝑗𝐻 ( ) ( )
𝐷𝑒 𝑘 𝜇𝑤

By using the last equations with iteration and data

mentioned in (Table:2) we get
Table:1
𝑇𝑠 = 131.715℃
∴ 𝑇𝑏 = 36.1406℃ ∴ 𝜇𝑤 = 0.008042285𝐾𝑔/𝑚. 𝑠

4.2.9. Inside Tube Heat Transfer Coefficient

4.2.6. Dynamic Viscosity Based on Wall Temperature
at Tube Side 𝑘 𝜇 0.14
ℎ𝑖 = 0.023Re0.8 Pr 0.33 ( )
𝑄 = ℎ𝑖 A(𝑇𝑠 − 𝑇𝑏 ) 𝑑𝑖 𝜇𝑤

𝑘 𝜇 0.14 0.627
ℎ𝑖 = 0.023Re0.8 Pr 0.33 ( ) ℎ𝑖 = 0.023 ∗ 33671.70.8
𝑑𝑖 𝜇𝑤 0.01484376

By using the last equations with iteration and data in 0.000709 0.14
∗ 4.7250.33 ( )
(Table:1) we get 0.000676
𝑇𝑠 = 38.414℃
= 6834.246𝑊/℃. 𝑚2
∴ 𝜇𝑤 = 0.00067605𝐾𝑔/𝑚. 𝑠
4.2.10. Outside Tube Heat Transfer Coefficient
4.2.7. Bulk Temperature at Shell Side
𝑘 𝑐𝜇 1/3 𝜇 0.14
ℎ𝑜 = 𝑗𝐻 ( ) ( )
We will determine the bulk temperature from Engine 𝐷𝑒 𝑘 𝜇𝑤
oil data table based on Dynamic Viscosity 𝜇 1
0.108 1867.3 ∗ 0.011 3
ℎ𝑜 = ∗ 11.594 ∗ ( )
0.0091 0.108
0.14
0.011
∗( )
0.008042285

= 822.7864622𝑊/℃. 𝑚2

4.2.11. Log Mean Temperature Difference

𝛥𝑇1 = 𝑇ℎ0 − 𝑇𝑐𝑖 = 76.6667 − 32 = 44.6667℃

𝛥𝑇2 = 𝑇ℎ𝑖 − 𝑇𝑐𝑜 = 150.8111 − 39.7314

Table:2 = 111.079683℃
∴ 𝑇𝑏 = 117℃

Page 7 of 9
 𝛥𝑇1 −𝛥𝑇2 44.6667−111.079683 4.2.16. Friction Factor (Fanning) for Tube
LMTD= 𝛥𝑇 = 44.6667
𝐿𝑛( 1 ) 𝐿𝑛(111.079683)
𝛥𝑇2
𝑓 = 0.0014 + 0.125𝑅−0.32

=72.8989℃ 𝑓 = 0.0014 + 0.125 ∗ 33671.74132−0.32

4.2.12. LMTD Correction Factor (5) 𝑓 = 0.005848207

From online shell and tube heat exchanger correction 4.2.17. Total Tube Pressure Loss for Tube Side
factor calculator we determined that correction factor
for this case is 𝐿 𝐺𝑡2 𝜇 𝑎
Δ𝑝𝑡 = 4𝑓𝑛 ( )
𝐷𝑖 2𝜌 𝜇𝑤
F=0.99
12.39317
4.2.13. Dirt Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient Δ𝑝𝑡 = 4 ∗ 0.005848207 ∗ 1 ∗
0.014844
𝑄
𝑈𝑓 = 1608.1777552 0.000709 −0.14
A.F.LMTD ∗ ( )
2 ∗ 994.1058 0.000676049
1221115.544
= =25236.33 Pa= 3.66 Psi
100.87096*0.99*72.8989

=167.739 𝑊/℃. 𝑚2 𝐺𝑡2

Δ𝑝𝑟 = 4𝑛
2𝜌
4.2.14. Clean Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient
, When n=1, Δ𝑝𝑟 = 0
1 1 𝑑𝑜 ln(𝑑𝑜 /𝑑𝑡 ) 𝑑𝑜
= + + ∴ ΔP = Δ𝑝𝑟 + Δ𝑝𝑡 = 0 + 25236.33
𝑈𝑐 ℎ𝑜 2𝑘 𝑑𝑡 ℎ𝑖

1 1 ∴ ΔP = 25236.33 Pa
=
𝑈𝑐 822.7864622
∴ ΔP = 𝟑. 𝟔𝟔 𝐏𝐬𝐢
0.01905ln(0.01905/0.01484)
+ 4.2.18. Inside Shell Diameter
2 ∗ 389
1.10 2
0.01905 𝐷𝑒 = (𝑃𝑡 − 0.917𝑑𝑜2 )
+ 𝑑𝑜
0.01484 ∗ 6834.246

𝑈𝑐 =709.584 𝑊/℃. 𝑚2 𝐷𝑒 . 𝑑0
∴ 𝑃𝑡 = √ + 0.917𝑑0 2
1.1
4.2.15. Operation Fouling Resistant

1 1 0.0091 ∗ 0.01905
𝑅𝑓 = − ∴ 𝑃𝑡 = √ + 0.917 ∗ 0.019052
𝑈𝑓 𝑈𝑐 1.1
1 1
𝑅𝑓 = − ∴ 𝑃𝑡 = 0.022161657 m
167.739 709.584
𝑑𝑠
= 0.00455236 ℃. 𝑚2 /𝑤 𝐴𝑠 = (𝑃𝑡 − 𝑑𝑜 )𝐵
𝑃𝑡
R f = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟐𝟔℉. 𝐟𝐭 𝟐 /𝐁𝐭𝐮
𝑃𝑡 . 𝐴𝑠
𝑑𝑠 =
(𝑃𝑡 − 𝑑𝑜 )𝐵

Page 8 of 9
 0.022161657 ∗ 0.0154 4.2.25. Effectiveness of Heat Exchanger
𝑑𝑠 =
(0.022161657 − 0.01905) ∗ 0.3556
𝑄𝑎𝑐𝑡 1221115.544
𝜀= =
𝑑𝑠 = 0.3089 m 𝑄max 1956749.5
= 𝟔𝟐. 𝟒%
4.2.19. Friction Factor (Fanning) for Shell Side

𝑓 = exp(0.576 − 0.19ln Re) 5. Conclusion

𝑓 = exp(0.576 − 0.19ln(475.4078225)) From data processing and calculation results are

obtained as follows: Fouling factor operation 0.026
𝑓 = 0.551456195 (hr.ft2.F/Btu) higher than design 0.00485
(hr.ft2.F/Btu), Shell side pressure drop of 16 psi has
4.2.20. Number of Baffles over the maximum permissible of 10 psi, so it is time
for cleaning, tube side pressure drop of 3.6 psi is still
𝐿 12.393 under the maximum permissible of 10 Psi, the
𝑁𝐵 = =
𝐵 0.3556 effectiveness of the operation is 62.4% less than design
value of 68.73%.
= 34.8 ≅ 35 Baffle

4.2.21. Total Pressure Drop in Shell Side

(𝑁𝐵 + 1)𝑑𝑠 𝐺𝑠2 𝜇𝑤 0.14 6. References

Δ𝑝𝑠 = 𝑓 ( )
𝐷𝑒 2𝜌 𝜇
1. Zhang J and Chang H 2007 Heat Transfer (Beijing: Science Press).
(35 + 1)0.3089
Δ𝑝𝑠 = 0.551456195 2. Kays W M and London A L 1998 Compact Heat Exchangers Third
0.009144 Edition (New York: Krieger Publishing Company).

571.90422 0.008042 0.14 3. Necati O N 1985 Heat Transfer (New York: McGraw-Hill Book
∗ ( )
2 ∗ 956.1421 0.011 Company).

= 109778.23 𝑝𝑎 =16 Psi 4. Khan N A, Khan A M and Kamil M 2014 Modeling of Spiral Coil
Heat Exchanger: Model with Easy Simulation Using Ms-Excel The
Institution of Engineers 95(2014) 19-25.
4.2.22. The Smaller Heat Capacity Rate
5. https://www.wolframcloud.com/objects/demonstrations/Correctio
Cc = 𝑚𝑐 𝑐𝑝𝑐 = 37.7994*4178.4246=157941.79 W/℃ nFactorForShellAndTubeHeatExchanger-source.nb

Ch =𝑚ℎ 𝑐𝑝ℎ = 8.8199 ∗ 1867.312 = 16469.41 W/℃

∴ 𝐶min = 16469.41 w/℃

4.2.23. Maximum Possible Heat Transfer Rate

𝑄max = 𝐶𝑚𝑖𝑛 (𝑇ℎ𝑖 − Tci )

=16469.419(150.811-32) =1956749.5 W

4.2.24. Actual Heat Transfer Rate

𝑄 = 𝑀ℎ 𝐶𝑝ℎ (𝑇ℎ𝑖 − 𝑇ℎ𝑜 ) = 𝑀𝑐 𝐶𝑝𝑐 (𝑇𝑐𝑜 − 𝑇𝑐𝑖 )

𝑄 = 8.8199 ∗ 1867.3 ∗ (150.81 − 76.667)

= 1221115.544 W

Page 9 of 9