International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 81 (2004) 563567 www.elsevier.

com/locate/ijpvp

Comparison of two FEA models for calculating stresses in shell-and-tube heat exchanger
Weiya Jin*, Zengliang Gao, Lihua Liang, Jinsong Zheng, Kangda Zhang
Institute of Process Equipment and Control Engineering, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou 310032, China

Abstract Two nite element analysis models of tubesheet of shell-and-tube heat exchangers are highlighted. Traditional theory of elastic foundation model is used for tube to tubesheet interaction in model I. Pipe elements are used to represent actual interaction between tube and tubesheet in model II. By the comparison of model I and model II results, it is conrmed that the distributions of the deformations and stress intensities for both models have very little differences under complicated mechanical and thermal loads. Model I is suitable for FEA of shell-and-tube heat exchangers, because model I is enough accurate and model II is more complicated and it takes more time and memory spaces of computer. The axial forces at tube-to-tubesheet for two models are nearly the same and the axial forces generated by bending moments are very small. The elastic foundation theory of the standards of design is suitable. q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Heat exchangers; Tubesheet; Finite element analysis models

1. Introduction Shell-and-tube heat exchangers are widely used in process industry. Tubesheet is the main part of the exchanger. Various researchers in many countries have done a lot of work for the calculation and design of the tubesheets. Several countries have drawn up the standards for design of the shell-and-tube heat exchangers [1 6]. Because a shell-and-tube heat exchanger is a complex elastic system, which consists of tubesheets, heads, shell, anges and bolts, it is difcult to calculate deformations and stresses accurately. The different simplied methods are used in those standards according to the different structures. For xed tubesheet heat exchangers the tubesheet is considered as a circular plate on which shell side pressure ps and tube side pressure pt are acted as o shown in Figs. 1 and 2 [7,8]. Mm ; Mp ; MR MR and VR are acted on the connection of shell and plate, ange and plate. Mm is moments associated with ange pretighting force. The moment Mp is from hermetization pressure. Moment o MR MR and shear force VR are resulted from the constraint between the circular at plate and shell. Because the perforated plate is weakened by tube holes, it is simplied as a solid plate which has the same diameter
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: ipece@zjut.edu.cn (W. Jin). 0308-0161/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijpvp.2004.02.003

and thickness as the perforated plate with an effective Youngs modulus and an effective Poissons ratio. The area outside of the perforated plate is considered as the annular solid plate which has normal Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio. When the exchanger is in service, the temperature stress generated by the temperature difference between tubes and the shell should be considered. In addition, it is considered that the tube sheet is enhanced by the tubes. For this enhancement, the tubesheet is treated as an equivalent solid plate, which placed on elastic foundation. When the ratio of the tube diameter d to the tubesheet diameter Di is very small and there are many tubes distributed in the tubesheet evenly, this simplication is reasonable. The tubesheet stresses are declined and the stress distribution of the tubesheet is changed because of the enhancement of the tubes for the large heat exchangers. The enhancement generated by the tubes axial compressive stiffness and bending stiffness can affect the deection and slope of the tubesheet. The enhancement is related to many factors, so it is difcult to obtain the exact theoretical solution. Simplications are made and some coefcients are used for easy calculations for the tubesheet design in many standards of heat exchangers. The operating conditions and structures of the exchangers are variable for actual exchangers. The temperatures of each tube passes are different from each other for

564

W. Jin et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 81 (2004) 563567

Fig. 1. Shell side pressure and ange moment acted on tubesheet. Fig. 5. Model II.

of xed tubesheet exchangers. The modeling of FEA and the calculation results are studied.

2. Modeling of FEA Tubesheet consists of a elastic system with the shell, anges and tubes. It is simplied as an equivalent solid plate. An effective Youngs modulus E* and effective Poissons ratio n* are used for the perforated part of the tubesheet. The normal Youngs modulus E and Poissons ratio n are used for the un-perforated part of the tubesheet. Tube side pressure is applied on tube side pressurized area. Shell side pressure is applied on shell and shell side pressurized area. Gasket force is applied on tube side sealing area of the tubesheet. Bolting force is applied on the outside ring of shell side of the tube sheet. The temperature distributions of the shell, tubes and tubesheet are considered. Two methods are used for the modeling of FEA to consider the tube enhancement to the tubesheet. Half of the exchanger is considered for both models. Model I (shown in Fig. 3): Tubesheet is modeled as an equivalent solid plate on elastic foundation. Axial forces are considered at tube-to-tubesheet joints (shown in Fig. 4). Bar elements (spring effect) for tubes coupled with 3D solid element for tubesheet are used. Nodes generated on

Fig. 2. Tube side pressure and ange moment acted on tubesheet.

the exchangers with several tube passes. The thermal stresses result from the temperature differences not only between shell and tubes but also between tubes of different passes. The stress distribution of tubesheet is more complex. It is impossible to use the present heat exchanger standards to solve this problem accurately. In this paper, nite element analysis (FEA) method is applied to calculate these complex stresses of the tubesheet

Fig. 3. Model I.

Fig. 4. Model I loads acted on bar element-to-tubesheet joints.

Fig. 6. Model II loads acted on pipe element-to-tubesheet joints.

W. Jin et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 81 (2004) 563567 Table 1 Exchanger major dimension and symbol Symbol Di ts d0 tt L T N P DT Db Description Shell inside diameter Shell thickness tube outside diameter tube thickness Length of tubes between inner surfaces of tube sheets Tube sheet thickness Total tube number Tube pitch with triangle arrangement Tube sheet outside diameter Circle diameter of bolt arrangement Unit mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm Value 1452 23 19.05 1.2 7274 100 2278 25 1676 1622 Fig. 7. Model I tube sheet case 1 actual stress intensity diagram. Table 2 Major components material properties Tube sheet Material code Coefcient of thermal expansion a (1/8C) Poissons ratio n Youngs modulus E SA226 11.52 1026 Shell SA515 11.52 1026 Tube SB338 8.28 1026

565

21.1 8C

93.3 8C

12.42 1026 0.3 n* 0:4094 2.014 105 E* 4:06 104 1.97 105 E* 3:96 104

12.42 1026 0.3 2.01 105 1.97 105

8.46 1026 0.3 1.07 105 1.03 105

21.1 8C 93.3 8C

E* ; n* are effective Youngs modulus and effective Poissons ratio for perforated plate.

the tubesheet. The real constant (cross-section area) of the bar elements is the equivalent area of the actual tube crosssection area. An effective shell side pressure is acted on tubesheet shell side, because there is no pressure on the part of tubesheet tubes connected. Model II (shown in Fig. 5): Model II used pipe elements for tubes coupled with 3D solid element for the tubesheet. This is a one to one tube to tube sheet model which represents actual interaction between tubes and the tubesheet. Number of the pipe elements is equal to the tube number. The displacement and slope of pipe element nodes must be the same as those of the tubesheet at the tube to tubesheet joints. Axial forces and bending moments are considered at tube-to-tubesheet joints (shown in Fig. 6). The real outside diameter and thickness of the tubes are input for the real constant of the pipe elements.

the lower surface of the tubesheet are more than the number of the holes on the tubesheet. On every such node, a bar is coupled to the 3D solid modeled tubesheet. There are a lot of bars in the model, which represent tube action to
Table 3 Two operating conditions used for the analysis Case 1 ps pt usq Temperature (8C) u Pass1 t Pass2 Tubesheet surface Shell side uTs temperature (8C) Tube side uTt Diagram Pressure (MPa) 2.01 0.34 69.95 35.35 35.35 39.59 31.69 Case 2 1.86 0.18 88 93 44 52.68 37.33

3. Example Models I and II are used in a large two tube pass shell-and-tube heat exchanger. The exchangers major

Fig. 8. Model II tube sheet case1 actual stress intensity diagram.

566

W. Jin et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 81 (2004) 563567

Fig. 9. Model I tube sheet case2 actual stress intensity diagram.

Fig. 11. Model I tube case 1 axial stress SZ diagram.

dimensions and symbols are listed in Table 1. The properties of major components materials are shown in Table 2. Two operating conditions for FEA analysis are shown in Table 3. The temperatures of two tube passes are the same in case 1 but different in case 2. Elastic foundation theory are used for model I. We meshed the perforated area as per actual drawing very nely and generated 5120 nodes. On every node, a bar was coupled to the 3D solid modeled tubesheet. There were total 5120 bar representing 2278 tubes connected to the tubesheet. The cross area of each bar element was calculated based on equivalent tube area as following: 2278 A p 19:052 2 19:05 2 2 1:22 4 29:925 mm2 5120

Fig. 12. Model II tube case 1 axial stress SZ diagram.

the effective pressure is calculated below:   ps p 14502 2 2278 p 19:052 4 4 0:6068ps p0 p 2 4 1450

Total 87,070 elements and 72,553 nodes are generated in the model I. In model II, 2278 pipe elements represent 2278 tubes in the exchanger. These pipe elements are coupled 3D solid

Fig. 10. Model II tube sheet case2 actual stress intensity diagram.

Fig. 13. Model I tube case 2 axial stress SZ diagram.

W. Jin et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 81 (2004) 563567 Table 5 Comparison of axial stresses of the tubes at tube-to-tubesheet joints Case 1 Model I Max. axial stress (MPa) Model II (for the Axial stress (MPa) 08 tube which has the max. axial stress at 0 degree) 908 1808 2708 Bending stress (MPa) 34.219 36.502

567

Case 2 49.081 49.359

35.065 47.695 35.266 48.051 36.703 49.714 1.0259 1.2028

5. Conclusion
Fig. 14. Model II tube case 2 axial stress SZ diagram.

Table 4 Comparison of maximum stress intensities of tubesheet Maximum stress intensities of the tubesheet (MPa) Model I Case 1 Case 2 105.83 166.0 Model II 115.68 170.3

element for the tubesheet at actual location as per drawing. Total 2,94,864 elements and 78,151 nodes are generated. The elements of model II are three times more than those of model I. The modeling and calculation of model II are more complex and it takes more time and memory spaces of computer.

The pipe elements in model II can not only take axial force but also bending moment at tube to tube sheet joint Therefore, Model II is nearer to actual condition and results shall be more actural. The axial forces at tube-to-tubesheet from two models are nearly the same. The axial forces generated by the bending moments are very small. So the elastic foundation theory of the standards of design is suitable. The maximum stress intensities and distributions of the stress intensities for these two models have very little differences under complicated mechanical and thermal loads So the FEA analyses for the tubesheet with these two models are reliable. By the comparison of model I and model II results, Model I is suitable for FEA of shell-and-tube heat exchangers, because model I is enough accurate and model II is more complicated and it takes more time and memory spaces of computer. References
[1] TEMA. Standard of Tubular Exchanger Manufactures Association; 1999. [2] BS5500. British Standard Specication for Fusion-welded Pressure Vessels; 1982. [3] ASME. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code?Section VIII Division 2, New York, American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 1998. [4] JIS B 8249-1996. Shell and Tube Heaat Exchangers; 1996. [5] Germany AD Pressure Vessel Code. B5 Flat end, Flat plate and its support; 1982 [6] China GB151-1999. Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger; 1999. [7] Ming-de Xue. The Basis of Tubesheet Design Rules in the Chinese Pressure Vessel Code. Int J Pressure Vessel Piping 1990; 186:13 20. [8] Ke-zhi Huang. An advised calculation method for stress of xed tubesheet heat exchanger. Mechnical Engineer 1980;2:123.

4. Calculation results The stress distributions in the tubesheet and the tubes for Cases 1 and 2 calculations are shown in Figs. 7 14. The maximum and minimum axial stresses of the tubes for model I at tube-to-tubesheet are listed in Table 4. The maximum and minimum axial stresses of the tubes at different angle of model II at different location of tube-totubesheet joints are listed in Table 5.