Seeking expert advice regarding the heat exchanger designed in EDR
Thread Content
This post was last edited by 17156614 on 2019-8-14 at 11:54. I’m seeking help from experts: I’m designing a shell-and-tube heat exchanger with a power capacity of around 9000 kW, and I have several questions. 1. Initially, I planned to use the BEM configuration, aiming for a series-parallel arrangement with 1 unit; however, in the design mode, two units are always connected in series, and it’s not possible to achieve a series-parallel arrangement of 1 unit. When using the BEU configuration, it is possible to design a heat exchanger with a series-parallel arrangement of 1 unit. Why is this? 2. After being designed in the BEU format, heat exchangers with a series-parallel ratio of 1 can be calculated, but their dimensions are basically DN2000*3000, and they have a large area margin. Isn’t it more economical to use elongated designs? When I tried to use an elongated design, it failed. What is the reason for this? Theoretically, it could also be designed as DN1000*6000, right? This issue always arises during verification; it seems to be related to the number of baffle plates and the length from those baffle plates to the ends of the front and rear end caps. I’m not sure exactly what this means – could someone with more expertise please take a look?
No one paid attention to me; I figured it out on my own. It seems that four heat exchangers need to be connected in series, but I just want to create one large heat exchanger
Later it was changed to the BEU format, allowing for heat exchangers with a series-parallel ratio of 1. But basically, their dimensions are DN2000*3000, and they have a large amount of area headroom. Isn’t it more economical to use elongated designs? I tried using an elongated design, but it failed. Why is that? Theoretically, it should be possible to design them as DN1000*6000. What’s the reason for all this?
Well, I’m playing the single-player version of the forum
Questions 1 and 2 are not apparent at the moment; it might be related to high power. If there is a process input interface, I can try to calculate solutions to your problems. Question 3: Generally, experienced people use verification calculations; the errors indicated tell you that the distance between the last spans is much larger than the distance between the baffle plates. 1167.44/450=2.59 – is the spacing too tight? It’s best for the distances between each span to be roughly equal.
You need to select a heat exchanger that is similar to one specified in the heat exchanger standards, based on the results obtained from the design patterns, and then carry out verification calculations using that selected heat exchanger. Also, for a heat exchanger with a diameter of 2 meters, is the tube length 3 meters? That’s absolutely ridiculous, isn’t it? For a heat exchanger of this diameter, the tubes are about 6 to 9 meters long. In the verification mode, the spacing of the baffle plates can be adjusted appropriately to prevent too long a suspended section of the heat exchange tubes at one end.
Thank you. The design I came up with is DN2000*3000. After some research, it seems that the flow rate in the pipe is too high, which results in a large pressure drop; therefore, increasing the pipe diameter is necessary to reduce this pressure drop
It should be adjusted to verification mode, and as expected, relevant parameters should be entered for calculation.
It is recommended to use the verification mode for adjustments; in design mode, many things still need to be adjusted manually