DraftOctober18,2002

UreyR.Miller
PartUHX
WhitePaper

ThisWhitePaperisintendedtodescribethebasisofrequirementscontainedin
MandatorySectionUHXofSectionVIIIDivision1oftheBoilerandPressureVesselCode.
Thediscussionprovidesthehighlightsforthederivationoftheanalyticalmethodologyand
adiscussionofthedifferencesofbetweentheASMErequirementsandthoseofTEMAand
otherinternationalCodes.Likewise,ageneraldiscussionisprovidedregardingthe
significanceofthecalculatedstressesandhowtherulesareintendedtobeapplied.
I

UTUBETUBESHEETS

I.1

AppendixAA1forUtubetubesheetappearedinSectionVIIIDivision1forthe
firsttimein1982.TheruleswerebasedonGardner'smethod(1969).Thesame
methodwasadoptedinBS5500(1976)andinCODAP(1982),usingforthe
allowablebendingstressinthetubesheet: S 2 S asrecommendedbyGardner
(whereisamultiplierofthebasicCodeallowablestress).
Themethodwasimprovedin1990byASME,basedonworksofAlanSoler(1984)
andUreyMillertoaccountfortheconfigurationsbande(tubesheetgasketedonone
sideandintegralontheotherside).(SeeFigure1.)
Inyear2000,F.Osweillerproposedamorerefinedapproach,basedonthelatter,to
provideananalysismodeltocoverthe6configurationsoftubesheetsshownin
Figure1.
Thismethod,whichfollowsthestressanalysisofSectionVIIIDiv.2Appendix4,is
basedonthefollowing(seeFigure2):

a)

theperforatedtubesheetistreatedasasolidequivalentcircularplateofeffective
elasticconstantsE*(effectivemodulusofelasticity)and*(effectivePoissons
Ratio)dependingontheligamentefficiency*ofthetubesheet

b)

theunperforatedtubesheetrimistreatedasarigidring

c)

theconnectionofthetubesheetwithshellandchannelaccountsfortheedge
displacementsandrotationsofthe3components.Theeffectofthepressure Ps
(shellsidepressure)and Pt (tubesidepressure)actingonshellandchannel,
respectively,isconsidered

d)

themaximumstressesintubesheet,shellandchannelaredeterminedandlimitedto
theappropriateallowablestressbasedstressclassificationsofSectionVIIIDivision
2Appendix4.
Thismethodistheonlymethodwhichaccountsforallthe4itemsa)throughd)
above.

DraftOctober18,2002

UreyR.Miller

I.2
Thismethodhasbeenadoptedin2001byASME(SectionVIIIDiv.1Appendix
AA1),byCODAP(ChapterC7)andEuropeanStandard(UPVDesignPartClause13).
Publicationisscheduledbythe3Codesin2002.ThisisalsothebasisofPartUHX12of
SectionVIIIDiv.1.
Formoredetailsofthespecificderivation,seepaperfromF.Osweiller(2002),attached.

"ICPVT2002
VancouverRev11.pdf"

I.3

TheTEMAruleappearedforthefirsttimein3rdEdition1952usingthewellknown
tubesheetformula:
G P
T F
2 S with

F=

1.0
1.25

ifthetubesheetisclamped
ifthetubesheetissimplysupported

(whereTistheTEMAtubesheetthickness)
TheTEMAformulaisbasedontheclassicalcircularplateformula:
G
P
T C
2 * S

with C=

0.866 iftheplateisclamped
1.113 iftheplateissimplysupported

where * istheeffectiveligamentefficiencyand S theallowablestress.

Ifweuse * 0.5 and 1.5 weobtainapproximatelythevaluesofTEMAformula
whichinthis3rdEditiondoesnotconsideranyligamentefficiencyasadirectinput.
Currenteditioncorrectsthatandprovidesanewformula:
G
P
T F
3 S

where istheTEMAligamentefficiencybasedonthemeanwidthoftheligament
(ASMEligamentefficiency * isbasedontheminimumwidthoftheligament,which
leadstolowervaluesthanTEMA).

I.4

Theminimumvaluesof are0.42(triangularpitch)and0.50(squarepitch).
Coefficient3inthenewTEMAformulahasbeendeterminedsothatoldandnew
formulasledtoapproximatelysameresultsfortheseminimumvaluesof .Inreal
cases willgenerallyrangebetween0.45and0.60,whichleadstoadecreaseofT
byabout10to15%.
FormoredetailsseeF.Osweillerspaper(2002).
TEMAligamentefficiency issignificantlyhigherthanASMEligamentefficiency
* (generally 0.25 * 0.35 ).

DraftOctober18,2002

UreyR.Miller

ComparisonofTEMAnewformulaandclassicalplateformulashowsthatTEMA
allowsthebendingstressintheequivalentsolidplatetobe2.6S,insteadof1.5S
recommendedbyASMESectionVIIIDiv.2.
Nevertheless,forabout40years,TEMAformuladidnotleadtofailuresinUtube
tubesheets.Itislikelythatavalueofallowablestressof2Scouldbeusedwithout
affectingthesafetymargin.ThisvaluewasalsorecommendedbyGARDNERin
1969andhasbeenusedinmostEuropeancodes(BS5500,CODAP)forabout20
years.Thisisalsojustifiedbylimitloadanalysisappliedtocircularplates,which
leadsto 1.9 ifthetubesheetissimplysupportedand 2.1 ifthetubesheetis
clamped.TheSWGHTEisconsideringrevisingtherulestoeffectivelyallow 2.0 .
ForthesereasonstubesheetthicknessobtainedbyASMEisgenerallythickerthan
TEMA,whichisnotthecaseforCODAPandUPV.SeeTable1,whichshowsa
comparisonon4Utubetubesheetheatexchangers.
I.5

InconclusionASMEmethodhastheadvantageofaccountingfortheperforated
tubesheet,theunperforatedrim,theinteractionofthetubesheetwithshelland/or
channel,whicharenottreatedrigorouslyinTEMA.TheASMEmethodisconsidered
morerigorousandallowsthedesignertomoreaccuratelyaccountforactual
geometry.

II.

FIXEDTUBESHEETS

II.1

AppendixAA2forfixedtubesheetsappearedin1992.Themethodwasvalidated
byperformingabenchmarkof10industrialheatexchangerswithcomparisonto
TEMAStandardsandtoCODAPruleswhichhavebeenusedinFrancesince1980.
ThedesignmethodisbasedonthesamestressanalysisasdescribedforUtube
tubesheets.However,thetubebundleisconsideredasanelasticfoundation,which
addsconsiderablecomplications.Formoredetails,seeAlanSolersbook(1984)and
theSoler/CaldwellPVPpaperthatisattached.CODAPmethodisbasedonthe
sameapproach,exceptthattheunperforatedrimisnotconsidered.CODAPmethod
hasbeenadoptedbyBS5500(1986)andbyUPV(1992).

"SolerCaldwell
PVPPaper.pdf"

ItshouldbenotedthatbothASMEandCODAPcametothesameconclusioninthe
80's(withoutconsultingeachother)thatiswasnecessarytodevelopnewdesign
rulesaccountingbetterforthebehaviorofthetubesheetsthanTEMA.

DraftOctober18,2002
II.2

UreyR.Miller

TEMArulesarebasedonthesamebasicapproachasASMEandCODAP,but
drasticsimplificationshavebeenmadeinTEMA:

unperforatedrimisnotconsidered
connectionoftubesheetwithshellandchannelisnottreatedrigorously(ratio
es / Ds (whereesisshellthicknessandDsistheshelldiameter)incoefficientF
cannotaccountfortherotationalstiffnessoftheshellorchannel)
coefficientFdoesnotaccountforthestiffeningeffectofthetubebundle,nor
fortheholeswhichweakenthetubesheet.TEMAassumesthatthese2
effectsarecounterbalanced.

ThesesimplificationshaveasignificantimpactontheresultsobtainedbyTEMA.
II.3

Thedesignoftheheatexchangertubesheetissignificantlyaffectedbythe
stiffnessratio X a :
Xa

axialtubebundlerigidity
tubesheetbendingrigidity

whichaccountsforthesupportaffordedtothetubesheetbythetubebundlewhich
strengthenthetubesheetandfortheperforationswhichweakenit.Itmayrange
between X a 1 (lowsupport)and X a 20 (highsupport)butliesgenerallybetween
2and8.
TheASMEformulafortubesheetstresscanbewritten:
G P X
h FASME e a
3
S

with:

FASME 3

FM X a
*

(WherehistherequiredASMEtubesheetthickness)
soastocomparetotheTEMAformula:
G P X
T FTEMA e a
3
S

with:FTEMA=

0.8
1.0

ifthetubesheetisclamped
ifthetubesheetissimplysupported

IntheTEMAformula,theequivalentpressure, Pe ,accountscorrectlyforthetube
bundlethrough X a (despitesomesimplifications),butcoefficientFTEMAdoesnot
dependon X a .TherigoroussolutionoftheequationsshowsthatthetermFASMEisa
strongfunctionof X a .Itcanbedemonstratedthatwhen X a issmall,thenFASMEis
greaterthanFTEMA.When X a islarge,thenFASMEissmallerthanFTEMA.Sincethe
tubesheetstressisdirectlyproportionaltoFASME,thenitfollowsthatsmallvaluesof
X a resultsinathickertubesheetthanTEMAandlargevaluesof X a resultsina
thinnertubesheetthanTEMA.

DraftOctober18,2002

UreyR.Miller

CoefficientFASMEisrepresentedinFigure3whenthetubesheetiseithersimply
supportedorclamped.Figure3showsthatFASMEvariessignificantlywith X a :

forlowvaluesof X a X a 3 TEMArulesgenerallyleadtoanunconservative
thickness

forhighvaluesof X a X a 6 TEMAruleswillgenerallyleadtoconservative
thickness

valuesof X a between3and6,TEMArulesleadtotubesheetthicknessthatis
closetoASME.

Duetosimplificationsmentionedabove,TEMAdoesnotensureanoveralland
consistentdesignmarginforallheatexchangers.Numericalcomparisonbetween
ASME,CODAPandTEMAillustratesthisinTable2. However,itmustbepointed
outthatthevalueofcoefficientFTEMAhasbeenremarkablywellchosenasit
representsapproximatelythemeanvalueofcoefficientFASME.
FormoredetailsseeAlanSolersbook9.8(1984)andF.Osweillerspaper
(AnalysisofTEMAtubesheetdesignrulescomparisonwithuptodateCode
methodsPVP1986).

"OsweillersPVP
Paper1986.pdf"

III.

FLOATINGTUBESHEETS
Thesameanalyticalapproachappliestofloatingtubesheets,withthesimplification
thattheequivalentpressures Pe X a Ps Pt .
AgainTEMAignorestheeffectofthetubebundleandsamecommentsasabove
apply.

DraftOctober18,2002

UreyR.Miller

REFERENCES
K.G.GARDNER(1969)
"TubesheetDesign:abasisforstandardization"PressureVesselTechnology
1969DelftConferencep.621648.
A.I.SOLER(1984)
"MechanicalDesignofHeatExchangers"Arcturuspublishers1047pages.
F.OSWEILLER(1986)
"AnalysisofTEMAtubesheetdesignrulesComparisonwithuptodateCode
Methods"PVPVol.107ASMEPressureVessel&PipingConferenceChicagop.
19.
F.OSWEILLER(2000)
"TubesheetHeatExchangers:NewCommonDesignRulesinUPV,CODAPand
ASME"ASMEJournalofPressureVesselTechnologyVol.122August2000.
F.OSWEILLER(2002)
"NewcommondesignrulesforUtubeheatexchangersinASME,CODAPandUPV
Codes"PVPVancouverAugust4to8,2002.
CodeReferences

ASMESectionVIII Div.1AppendixAA:July2001Edition(AddendaJuly
2002)
DraftUHXChapter(May2002,Rev.0)

CODAP2000:FrenchCodeforUnfiredPressureVesselsSectionC7:
January2001Edition

UPV:DraftEuropeanStandardforUnfiredPressureVessels(PrEN13445)
Part3Clause13:tobepublishedin2002

TEMAStandards:3rdEdition1952

TEMAStandards:6thEdition1978

TEMAStandards:8thEdition1999

BS 5500 (UK): Specifications for Unfired Fusion Welded Pressure Vessels:

2000Edition.

DraftOctober18,2002

UreyR.Miller

(a)Configurationa:
Tubesheetintegralwithshellandchannel

(b)Configurationb:
Tubesheetintegralwithshellandgasketedwith
channel,extendedasaflange

(c)Configurationc:
Tubesheetintegralwithshellandgasketedwith
channel,notextendedasaflange

(d)Configurationd:
Tubesheetgasketedwithshellandchannel

(e)Configuratione:
Tubesheetgasketedwithshellandintegralwith
channel,extendedasaflange

(f)Configurationf:
Tubesheetgasketedwithshellandintegralwith
channel,notextendedasaflange

Figure1:ConfigurationsoftubesheetsinASME,CODAPandUPV
Codes

DraftOctober18,2002

UreyR.Miller

Figure2:Analyticalmodelfortubesheetintegralbothsides(configurationa)

DraftOctober18,2002

UreyR.Miller

Thicknesses(h,T)areinmm

ho C

P
* S

G P
Tnew F
3 S

CIRCULAR
PLATE
FORMULA

LIGAMENT
EFFICIENCIES

EXAMPLE

G
2

(using*)
N

Config.

Pitch

(,)

1dt/p

(ASME)
(CODAP)
(UPV)

(TEMA)

0.25

0.35

0.56

0.17

0.2

0.25

ss=simplysupported
cl=clamped

0.28

0.24

0.39

0.37

0.42

0.56

ho
ho
F
=1.5 =2.0
(ss,cl) (ss,cl) (ss,cl)
22.0

19.1

1.21

(cl)

(cl)

(ss)

40.9

35.6

1.25

(ss)

(ss)

(ss)

131.3

113.8

1.25

(ss)

(ss)

(ss)

108.7

94.2

1.25

(ss)

(ss)

(ss)

Nodirectformula:iterativecalculationstoobtainthe
optimizedtubesheetthicknessh

TEMA

ASME

(using

(using*)

T
old

T
new

17.3

15.5

CODAP/UPV

(using

h
h
h
h
h
old
new
new
new
new
(ss,cl) =1.5 =1.5 =1.5 =2.0 =3.0
3.90

20.6

15.0

11.9

13.2

11.0

38.1

37.6

33.2

32.5

26.4

124.2

121.4

92.2

105.2

86.3

109.5

103.1

89.4

87.8

69.2

(cl)
29.5

32.3

0.43
(ss)

87.4

89.7

0.46
(ss)

103.3

92.2

0.86
(ss)

:triangularpitch
:squarepitch

Table1:ComparisonofTEMA,ASMEandCODAP/UPVtubesheetthicknesson4UtubeHeatExchangers

(using*)

DraftOctober18,2002

UreyR.Miller

Figure3:ComparisonofTEMAandASMEUHXRulesforFixedTubesheets

10

DraftOctober18,2002

11

UreyR.Miller

DraftOctober18,2002

IV.

UreyR.Miller

SignificanceofCalculatedStresses
ThisSectiondiscussesthesignificanceofthestressesinaheatexchangeratthe
tubesheet/shell/channelinorderthattheheatexchangerengineermaycorrectly
applythePartUHXrules.Inordertounderstandthesignificanceofthedetermined
stresses,onehastounderstandthedifferencebetweenprimarystressesand
secondarystressesandhoweachmayhaveaninfluenceonthedesign.
ThetubesheetrulesofPartUHXareintendedtogenerallyfollowthestress
classificationofSectionVIII,Div.2forprimaryandprimaryplussecondarystresses.
ThedefinitionsofprimaryandsecondarystressesaredefinedinSectionVIIIDivision
2,Appendix4.ThescopeofPartUHXdoesnotincludeanyconsiderationofpeak
stressesoranyrequirementsforfatigue.
Thebendingstressresultingfromapressureloadinginaflatplateisaprimary
bendingstress.Anyyieldingoftheplatematerialresultsinapermanent
deformation,andthedeformationmaycontinuetooccuruntiltheplatefails(orthe
deformationissolargethattheplatecannotperformitsintendedfunction).When
thetubesheetisextendedasaflange,theloadingimposedbytheboltingmomentis
consideredprimary.Thus,primarybendingstresslimitsareappropriatewhen
consideringthetubesheetbendingstressresultingfrompressureloadingacting
aloneorincombinationwiththeboltloadingwhenapplicable.
Thestressesintheshellandchannelaresomewhatmorecomplextocategorize.
Theaxialmembranestresses(theaveragestressacrossthethickness)intheshell
andchannelremotefromthetubesheetresultingfrompressureloadingsareprimary.
Thebendingstressattheshelltotubesheetjunctureandthechanneltotubesheet
junctureresultfromrestraineddifferentialmotionatthesejunctures.Assuch,these
bendingstresseshavethebasiccharacteristicofasecondarystress.However,
thereisaveryimportantdistinctionthathastobemaderegardingthesestresses.
Thisdistinctionisclearlydefinedbyfootnote2ofTable4120.1ofSectionVIIIDiv.2.
Thebendingstressatashelltoflatplatejuncturemaybedefinedassecondary
unlessthediscontinuitybendingmomentattheedgeofaflatplateisrequiredto
maintainthebendingstresselsewhereintheplatetowithinitsallowablestress.In
thisinstance,theshell/channelbendingstressisclassifiedasprimarybendingand
shouldbelimitedtotheprimarybendingstresslimit.
Whenanelasticstressanalysisincludestherotationalstiffnessoftheshelland
channelindeterminingthetubesheetstressunderprimaryloading,thediscontinuity
bendingstressshouldbecategorizedasprimarybendingstressandbelimited
accordingly.
However,theremaybeinstanceswherethedesignneednotconsiderthefull
strengtheningeffectoftheshell/channel.Forexample,ifonechosetonotinclude
thestiffeningeffectoftheshellandchannelforthetubesheetanalysis,theshelland
channelbendingstressescouldbecorrectlycategorizedassecondaryandbe
limitedaccordingtothesecondarystressconsiderations.

12

DraftOctober18,2002

UreyR.Miller

Iftheshell/channelbendingstressesresultingfrompressure/boltingloadsonlydo
notsatisfytheprimarystresslimits,thenfullcreditcannotbetakenforthestiffness
ofthatcomponent.Insuchcases,itisdeemedappropriatetoapplya"knockdown"
factortothestiffnessoftheshellorchannelcomponentbyreducingitsmodulusof
elasticitywhentheprimarybendingstresscriteriahasnotbeensatisfied.The
"knockdown"factorusedinthePartUHXElasticPlasticanalysisisbasedon
evaluationsoftheextentofstrengtheningofferedbythefullyplasticmomentatthe
shellandchanneljunctionwhentheprimarystresslimitsarenotsatisfied.
Thus,whenconsideringpressure/boltingloadsonly,theshell/channelstressesare
consideredprimarybendingstressesintheinitialcalculation.Iftheshell/channel
stressmembraneplusbendingstressdoesnotmeettheprimarybendingstress
allowable,thentheengineermay,athisoption:

conductsimplified,pseudoelasticplasticanalysistodetermineifreduced
strengtheningeffectresultsinacceptabletubesheetdesign.
increaseshell/channelthicknessadjacenttotubesheet
increasetubesheetthicknesstolowershell/channelstress
increasethetubesheetthicknessandshell/channelthickness

Thestressesresultingfromthetemperaturedifferentialaresecondaryinthatthey
areselflimiting.TheCodelimitsonsecondarystressarederivedtoaccomplish
"shakedowntoelasticaction".ThePartUHXrulesconsiderthetubesheet,shell,
channel,andtubestressestobesecondarystressesundertheactionofthermal
load.
Ithasbeenalong,standingpracticeofTEMAtodividetheloadsresultingfrom
thermalexpansionbyafactoroftwo,includingthetubeloads.Thus,theTEMA
allowabletubetensilestressforthermalloadcasesiseffectivelyincreasedbya
factoroftwo.Thispracticehasnotledtoanynotedproblemsordeficienciesin
allowedtubeloads,andthispracticeiscontinuedforthePartUHXrulesfor
allowabletensilestresswhenconsideringanythermalloadconditions.The
maximumaxialcompressiveloadinPartUHXparallelsthatasgiveninTEMA.For
compressivestresses,tubebucklingmayrestrictthetubesloadcarryingability.
Thisistrueforeitherpressureorthermalloadconditions.Ifasubstantialnumberof
tubeswereabovetheirbucklinglimit,itispossiblethatthebundlecouldnotsustain
therequiredloading.Forthisreason,nodistinctionismadebetweenprimaryand
secondaryallowablecompressiveloadsinthetubes.

13

DraftOctober18,2002
V.

UreyR.Miller

HowtoUsetheRules
Basedontheabovediscussion,therulesofPartUHXfortubesheetshouldgenerally
beusedinthefollowingmanner.

Establishthegeometryfortheinitialsetofcalculations.
Calculatethetubesheetstressbasedonthefullsupportofanintegrally
attachedshelland/orchannelusingLoadCases1,2and3.(SeePartUHX
fordefinitionofLoadCases.LoadCases1,2,and3considerpressureloads
only.)
Oncethetubesheetstressisshowntobeacceptableusinganallowable
stressbasedon1.5S(whereSisthebasicallowablestressfromSectionII
PartD),calculatetheshell/channelstressesasappropriateforLoadCases1,
2,and3.
Iftheshell/channelstressesdonotexceedtheirrespectiveallowablestress
basedon1.5S,thenthegeometryisacceptableforLoadCases1,2,and3,
anditisnotnecessarytoconductaplasticanalysis.
Iftheshell/channelstressexceedsitsprimarystressallowableof1.5S,but
lessthanthesecondarystressallowable(greaterof3Sor2Sy),thenthe
simplifiedelasticplasticanalysismaybeusedforLoadCases1,2,and3.
Fortheelasticplasticanalysis,itisrequiredthatthetubesheetstressbeless
thantheprimarybendingallowablestress(of1.5S)afterreducingthe
strengtheningeffectoftheadjacentcylinder(s).Itisnotrequiredtorecheck
theshell/channelstressfortheelasticplasticanalysis.Ifthetubesheetstress
fromtheelasticplasticanalysisexceedstheallowableprimarybending
stress,thenanewgeometryshallbeestablishedanditisnecessarytostart
overatthefirststep.
Iftheshell/channelstressexceedsitsprimaryplussecondarystresslimit
(largerof3Sor2Sy),thenthegeometryisnotacceptableandmustbe
revised.Itwillthenbenecessarytostartoverandreturntothefirststep
DeterminethetubeloadingforLoadCases1,2,and3.Themaximumtube
stressshallnotexceeditsallowableineithertensionorcompressionusing
theprimarystresslimits.
ForLoadCases4,5,6,and7,(whichconsiderpressureplusrestrained
differentialthermalexpansion)determinetubesheet,shell/channel,andtube
stressesusingtheunalteredelasticpropertiesfortheshelland/orchannel
(usetheelasticanalysisparameters).Ifanyofthestressesexceedtheir
respectiveallowablestressofthelargestof3Sor2Sy,thenthegeometryis
notacceptableandshallbereconsideredanditisnecessarytorestartand
returntothefirststep.Usetheallowablebucklingstressfordeterminingthe
tubeallowablecompressivestresses.Iftheallowablestressesaresatisfied,
thenthedesignisconsideredacceptable.

BecauseofthecomplexityoftheprocedureinAppendixAAoftheCode,itislikely
thatuserswillcomputerizethesolution.Thecriteriaandlogicpresentedinthis
Sectionwillfacilitatetheunderstandingofthecorrectapplicationoftherules.

14

DraftOctober18,2002
VI.

UreyR.Miller

EffectofLigamentEfficiencyinCalculationProcedure
TheTEMAandPartUHXtubesheetdesignmethodsbothdefineandusealigament
efficiency.TheTEMAmethodisbasedontheaveragewidthoftheligament
betweenthetubeholes,andisdifferentfortriangularpitchvs.squarepitch.The
PartUHXmethodusestheminimumligamentwidthhowever,ifthetubesare
expandedintothetubesheet,thentubewallmaybeconsideredaspartofthe
effectiveligament.
Forthispurpose,thePartUHXcalculationproceduredefinestheeffectivetubehole
diameterd*,usedtocalculate*(theeffectiveligamentefficiency)asfollows.
p d*
p

E S
d * MAX d t 2tt t t , d t 2tt
E S

Intheseequations:

* =effectiveligamentefficiency
p =tubepitch,in.
d* =effectivetubeholediameter,in.
dt =nominaloutsidediameteroftubes,in.
tt
=nominaltubewallthickness,in.
Et =modulusofelasticityfortubematerialatdesigntemperature,psi
E =modulusofelasticityfortubesheetmaterialatdesigntemperature,psi
St=allowablestressfortubematerialatdesigntemperature,psiForawelded
tube,usetheallowablestressforanequivalentseamlesstube,psi
S = allowablestressfortubesheetmaterialatdesigntemperature,psi

= tubeexpansiondepthratio=ltx/h,(0<<1)
ltx = expandedlengthoftubeintubesheet(0<ltx<h)
h
= tubesheetthickness,in.
ThePartUHXcalculationprocedurealsotakesintoaccountdifferencesinmaterial
propertiesofthetubeandtubesheet.ItallowstheManufacturertotakeadvantage
ofthestiffeningeffectofatubeexpandedintoatubesheetforalltubesheet
configurations,whetherUtubeorstraighttube.
ToillustratethedifferencebetweentheTEMAmethodandthePartUHXmethodsfor
determiningligamentefficiency,considera1inchdiameter,16BWGtubethatisthe
samematerialasthetubesheet.Ifthetubeisexpandedthefulldepthofthe
tubesheet,then*=0.304,butifthetubeisweldedandnotexpandedatall,then*
=0.20.However,theTEMAligamentefficiencyis0.420and0.498fortriangularand
squarepitchlayoutsrespectivelyregardlessofwhetherthetubesareexpandedor
not.

15

DraftOctober18,2002

UreyR.Miller

Theligamentefficiencyhasadirectbearingonthecalculatedtubesheetstress.A
smallerligamentefficiencyresultsinalargerpredictedtubesheetstressandalarger
ligamentefficiencyresultsinasmallerpredictedtubesheetstress.Thus,asmaybe
seen,ifthesamebasictheoryisusedtodeterminethestressinaplate,thenthe
TEMAligamentefficiencywouldresultinasmallercalculatedstressascomparedto
theASMEmethod,evenwhenthefulltubewallisconsidered.Thisdifferenceis
exacerbatedwhenthetubeisnotexpanded.ThePartUHXmethodfordetermining
ligamentefficiencyisconsistentwiththatfoundinSectionVIIIDivision2Appendix4.
Inclusionofthetubewallincontributingtotheligamentefficiencyisconsidereda
rationalconsiderationasopposedtousingagreaterligamentefficiencythatdoesnot
considerhowthetubeisjoinedtothetubesheet.
Inordertomaintainjointintegrity,theManufacturersdesignandtubeexpanding
proceduremustbeadequatetoensurethattherewillbetubeholecontactunderall
operatingconditionssuchasstartups,shutdowns,normaloperation,andupsets.
Therefore,actionbeingdevelopedunderItemBC022366willrequirethat
Manufacturershavewritten,qualifiedexpandingproceduresforjoints(whether
weldedandexpandedorexpandedonly)todemonstratethattheexpandedjointis
capableofprovidingtherequiredpropertiesforitsintendedapplication.Qualification
underBC022366shallconsistoftheManufacturerdemonstratingtotheAuthorized
Inspectorarecordofhavingproducedsatisfactoryexpandedjointsusinganexisting
writtenprocedure,orbyshearloadtestingspecimensproducedusingaproposed
procedure.
VII.

TubeStressesandTubetoTubesheetJointLoads
VII.1 General
BothASMEandTEMArequirethatthedesignofthetubesandtubejointsconsider
variousloadingcases.Forthecalculationofthetubestressesandthetubejoint
loads,theASME(TEMA)loadingcasesarecorrelatedasfollowsusingPt(P2)forthe
tubesidepressure,Ps(P3)fortheshellsidepressure,andP(Pd)forthepressure
duetothedifferentialthermalexpansion:
ASME
Loading
Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

ASME
Loads
Pt
Ps
Pt,Ps
P
Pt,P
Ps,P
Pt,Ps,P

TEMARCB
7.23
Pt*
P2
P3
P2P3
Pd
P2+Pd
P3+Pd
P2P3+Pd

ASMELoadingCases1,2and3consideronlytheeffectsofpressureloading
(TEMAP2&P3)andarereferredtoasthepressureloadingcases.Fortubeto
tubesheetjointloads(UHX15),ASMEalsodescribesthesecasesasthosedueto
pressureinducedaxialforces.

16

DraftOctober18,2002

UreyR.Miller

ASMELoadingCases4,5,6and7includetheeffectsofthermalexpansionP
(TEMAPd)andarereferredtoasthethermalloadingcases.Fortubetotubesheet
jointloads,ASMEalsodescribesthesecasesasthoseduetothermallyinducedor
pressureplusthermallyinducedaxialforces.
VII.2 TubeStresses
1)TEMA
TheTEMAcalculationforthetubelongitudinalstressStattheperipheryofthetube
bundleisgiveninRCB7.23.
Whenthetubesareintension(Pt*positive),andathermalloadingcase(the
equivalentdifferentialexpansionpressurePdisincludedinthePt*term)isbeing
considered,thecalculatedtensilestressisdividedbytwo(Ct=0.5).
TEMArequiresthatthecalculatedstressStnotexceed1.0timestheCodeallowable
tensilestress.BydividingthelongitudinaltensilestressStbytwoforthethermal
loadingcases,TEMAeffectivelypermitstheallowablestresstobe2.0timesthe
Codeallowabletensilestressforthethermalloadingcases.
Whenthetubesareincompression(Stnegative),thestressmustnotexceedthe
bucklingstresslimit(allowabletubecompressivestress)calculatedinRCB7.24.
2)ASME
TheASMEcalculationforthetubelongitudinalstresst,oisgiveninUHX13.5.9for
fixedtubesheetheatexchangersandUHX14.5.9forfloatingtubesheetheat
exchangers.
TheASMEequationdoesnotrequireaCttermbecauset,oiscomparedto1.0times
theallowablestressforthepressureloadingcasesandto2.0timestheallowable
stressforcasesthatincludethermalloading.
Whenthetubesareincompression(t,onegative),thestressmustnotexceedthe
bucklingstresslimitStbcalculatedinUHX13.5.9(b)orUHX14.5.9(b).
CONCLUSION
TheTEMAandASMEcalculatedtubestresseswillnotyieldthesameresultsdueto
differencesinthetheirtubeloadingmodels,butbothcomparethesestressestothe
sameallowablestresslimits.
TEMAandASMEcalculatethebucklingstresslimit(allowabletubecompressive
stress)thesamehowever,Fqmaybedifferentbecauseitiscalculatedusinga
differentmodel.BothTEMAandASMEdonotpermittheallowablebucklingstress
toexceed1.0timestheCodeallowablestress.

17

DraftOctober18,2002

UreyR.Miller

NotethatASMEparagraphsUHX13.4(b)andUHX14.4(c)permittheallowable
stressesforthethermalloadingcasestobetakenattheoperatingtemperature.
TEMAandASMEonlycalculatethetubelongitudinalstressandthebucklingstress
limitattheperipheryofthetubebundle,becauseitispresumedthatthisisthe
locationofthehighesttubestress.SWGHTE,underBC94439,isworkingon
developingthemaximumstressoftheinteriortubes,becauseithasbeenshownthat
sometimestheinteriortubestressishigherthantheperipheraltubesstress.CODAP
presentlyhasrulesforcalculatingtheinteriortubestress.
VII.3 TubetoTubesheetJointLoads
1)TEMA
TheTEMAcalculationforthetubetotubesheetjointloadWjattheperipheryofthe
tubebundleisgiveninRCB7.25.Thisloadonlyconsiderstheeffectofpressure
because,TEMAassumesthatthejointloadscausedbythethermalloadingare
withinacceptablelimitsifthetubestressescalculatedforpressureloadingarewithin
theallowablestresslimits.Thisassumptioncouldleadtojointloadsforthethermal
loadingcasesthataregreaterthanthejointstrength.
TEMAdirectstheusertocalculatetheallowablejointloadinaccordancewiththe
Codeorbyothermeans.
2)ASME
ASMEdoesnotgivethetubejointloadequation,butitcaneasilybecalculatedas
follows:

W j t , o At

Wj
t,o
At

=
=
=

tubetotubesheetjointload,lb(N)
axialtubestressfromUHX13.5.9orUHX14.5.9,psi(MPa)
tubecrosssectionalarea,in.(mm)

TheASMECodespecifiestheallowabletubejointloadLmaxineitherUHX15
(formerlyUW20)forstrengthweldedtubejointsorAppendixAforallothertube
joints.Forthepressureloadingcases,Lmaxcannotexceed1.0timesthetubejoint
strength.Forthethermalloadingcases,Lmaxcannotexceed2.0timesthetubejoint
strengthexcept,thatforweldedonlytubejointswherethethicknessthroughthe
throatoftheweldislessthanthenominaltubethickness,Lmaxislimitedto1.0times
thetubejointstrengthforallloadingcases.

18

DraftOctober18,2002

UreyR.Miller

ASMEusesthefollowingguidelines:
a)
b)
c)
d)

ForfullstrengthweldsmeetingtherequirementsofUHX15.4,thetubejoint
strengthistubestrengthFt.
ForpartialstrengthweldsmeetingtherequirementsofUHX15.5,thetube
jointstrengthisthewelddesignstrengthFd,whichisthefilletweldstrengthFf,
orthegrooveweldstrengthFg,oracombinationofboth(Ff+Fd).
ForpartialstrengthweldsmeetingtherequirementsofUW18(d),thetube
jointstrengthistheallowableloadonthefilletweld.
Forallothertubejoints,thetubejointstrengthistheallowableloadfortube
totubesheetjointsasestablishedbymeetingtherequirementsofAppendixA.

CONCLUSION
TheASMEmethodpermitsthedesignertocalculatethetubejointloadforevery
loadingcase,whereastheTEMAmethodonlyrequiresthiscalculationforpressure
loading.
TEMAassumesthatthetubejointstrengthwillbeatleastequaltubejointloadforall
loadingcasejustbymeetingtheASMEallowableloadcriteriaforthepressure
loadingcases.AreviewoftheASMEallowabletubejointloaddescribedabove
showsthatthetubejointloadsshouldbecalculatedforeveryloadingcaseand
properlycomparedwiththecorrespondingallowabletubetotubesheetjointload.
VIII.

InserviceImplicationsforExistingExchangers
Therehasbeensomeconcernexpressedregardingtheinkindreplacementofheat
exchangerbundlesifnewrulesareadoptedthataredifferentfromthoseofthe
originalfabrication.

RepairsandalterationsarenotaffectedbyUHX,becausetheCodesandStandards
ineffectatthetimeofconstructionmaybeused.Insubstantiation,itisnotedthat
ParagraphRC1020oftheNationalBoardInspectionCode(NBIC)states:
WhenthestandardgoverningtheoriginalconstructionistheASME
Code,repairsandalterationsshallconforminsofaraspossibletothe
sectionandeditionoftheASMECodemostapplicabletothework
planned.
TherulesofnearlyallNorthAmericanpoliticaljurisdictionsrequirerepairsand
alterationstobemadeinaccordancewitheithertheNBICorAPI510Pressure
VesselInspectionCode:Maintenance,Inspection,Rating,Repair,andAlteration.
API510hasprovisionssimilartothoseoftheNBIC.TheseInspectionCodesare
usedworldwide.

19

DraftOctober18,2002

UreyR.Miller

Forreplacementheatexchangerbundlesinkind,itisacommonandacceptable
practiceforanownertoshipadrawingofatubebundle(orforthatmatter,adrawing
ofashellsection)tofabricatorwithnoconsiderationatallgiventowhetherdesign
calculationsarerequiredornot.Thefabricatorbuildsthebundle(orpartofashell)
tothecurrentcoderules,and,ifneeded,appliesaPartStampandsendsitbackto
theownerwhofillsoutthenecessarypostconstructionpaperworktothesatisfaction
ofthejurisdiction.(ThePartStampholderisnotrequiredbySectionVIIItocertify
anydesign.)ThisdoesnotviolateanyASMErequirementsandis,infact,whatthe
NBICsuggestsbedone.SinceaUStampisnotnormallyrequiredforreplacement
heatexchangerbundles,SectionVIIIdoesnotprohibitfabricationtothedrawing
becausedesigncalculationsarerequiredbySectionVIIIforPartsormaterials.For
SectionVIIIconstruction,thedesignresponsibilitybelongstotheUStampCertificate
holderhowever,forapostconstructionreplacementbundle,thereisnotnecessarily
aUStampCertificateholderinvolved.
IfthereisareplacementbundlethatrequiresaUStamp,thenallmandatoryrules,
includingthedesignrules,ineffectmustbesatisfied.Thisisnotanydifferentthan
foranyothercomponentorpieceofequipmentgoingintoanoperatingfacilityand
anydifferencesingeometryfromtheoldtothenewhastotakenintoconsideration.

20