Tubesheets for U-Tube Heat Exchangers

  • Krishna P. Singh
  • Alan I. Soler

Abstract

The tubesheet constitutes a structurally important and economically significant element in a tubular heat exchanger. The thickness of the tubesheet affects the hardware cost in a number of ways. The time spent to drill and to ream the tube holes is directly related to the tubesheet thickness. The portion of the tube length lying within the tubesheet is effectively lost for heat transfer and must be replaced by increasing the tube (and hence the unit) overall length. The depth of the tube roll is also dependent on the tubesheet thickness; typically, the depth of the roll is specified as the tubesheet thickness less 1/8 in. Although some industry standards provide for limiting the maximum roll depth to 2 in., many process conditions warrant complete elimination of the stagnant annulus between the tube and the tubesheet on the shellside which necessitates a full depth roll. All of these factors pertaining to the tubesheet have a bearing on equipment cost.

Keywords

Welding Drilling Perforation Flange Allo 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [8.1.1]
    Gardner, K. A., “Heat Exchanger Tube Sheet Design,” Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 70, 15, p. 377 (1948).Google Scholar
  2. [8.1.2]
    Gardner, K. A., “Heat Exchanger Tube Sheet Design-2 Fixed Tube Sheets,” Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 74, p. 159 (June 1952).Google Scholar
  3. [8.1.3]
    Gardner, K. A., “Heat Exchanger Tube Sheet Design, Part 3: U-Tube and Bayonet-Tube Sheets,” Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 82, p. 25 (March 1960).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [8.1.4]
    Miller, K. A. G., “The Design of Tubeplates in Heat Exchangers,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London, Vol. 1B, p. 215 (1952–53).Google Scholar
  5. [8.1.5]
    Soler, A. I., “Tubesheet Design in U-Tube Exchangers Including the Effect of Tube Rotational Restraint,” Journal of Engineering for Industry, Trans. ASME, Vol. 98, No. 4, pp. 1157–1160 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [8.1.6]
    Soler, A. I., and Soehrens, J. E., “Design Curves for StressA Analysis of U-Tube Heat Exchanger Tubesheet with Integral Channel and Head,” Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 100, p. 221 (May 1978).Google Scholar
  7. [8.1.7]
    “Standards of the Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association,” Sixth Edition, N.Y. (1978).Google Scholar
  8. [8.1.8]
    “ASME Pressure Vessel Code,” Section VIII, Div. 2, N.Y. 1980, Article 4. 9, p. 461.Google Scholar
  9. [8.1.9]
    O’Donnell, W. J., “Effective Elastic Constants for the Bending of Thin Perforated Plates with Triangular and Square Penetration Patterns,” Journal of Engineering for Power, Trans. ASME, B, Vol. 95, p. 121 (February 1973).Google Scholar
  10. [8.1.10]
    Soler, A. I., and Hill, W. S., “Effective Bending Properties for Stress Analysis of Rectangular Tubesheets,” Journal of Engineering for Power, Vol. 99, No. 3, p. 365 (July 1977).Google Scholar
  11. [8.3.1]
    Burgreen, D., “Pressure Vessel Analysis,” C. P. Press, pp. 195–200 (1979).Google Scholar
  12. [8.6.1]
    “ASME Pressure Vessel Code,” Section VIII, Div. 1, Non Mandatory Appendix U, N.Y. (1980).Google Scholar
  13. [8.6.2]
    “Standards of the Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association — Sample Problem Book,” TEMA, Tarrytown, N.Y. (1980).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Krishna P. Singh
    • 1
  • Alan I. Soler
    • 2
  1. 1.Joseph Oat CorporationCamdenUSA
  2. 2.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations