I would like to ask if any friends have used HTFS to accurately simulate the national standard heat exchanger?
Thread Content
I would like to ask if any friends have used HTFS to accurately simulate the national standard heat exchanger? When using HTFS software to perform heat exchanger calibration calculations, the number of tubes is often inconsistent with the calculation, and the positions of the tube openings and saddles, as well as the baffle spacing, are inconsistent with the standard drawings. How did you solve the problem? I have been confused and hope to get guidance. For example, when simulating a standard heat exchanger BES800-2.5-170-6/25-2I (366 heat exchange tubes, baffle spacing 450mm), how to input its structural dimensions? This post was last edited by gwd1988 on 2009-3-18 12:59 ]
“The number of tubes is often inconsistent with the calculation, and the position of the nozzle and saddle and the baffle spacing are inconsistent with the standard drawing." Can you provide the source file and describe the content carefully? If it is a product bug, we will answer it in time.
File cannot be uploaded. My suffix is JPG, and DOC doesn’t seem to be uploaded. This post was last edited by gwd1988 on 2009-3-19 13:21 ]
BES800-2.5-170-6/25-2I (366 heat exchange tubes, baffle spacing 450mm) You want to use a BES type heat exchanger, a detachable floating head heat exchanger, with a shell diameter of 700mm, an operating pressure of 2.5Mpa, a light tube area of 170㎡, 366 diameter φ25 light tubes, a tube length of 6 meters, and a tube length of 2. Many inputs in your source file do not meet the above requirements. For example, for the shell diameter, you enter 700mm, and for the pipe length, you enter 3 meters. In your file, since many inputs are not very standardized, it is recommended that you use the advanced calculation mode, which can be found in Program Options-Calculation Options, and increase the maximum number of convergences from the default 50 to 100, so that the program can converge normally. In addition, why did you enter 600mm in the baffle input item End length at front head? Also, why is the spacing between the baffles at the exit 126mm? These inputs need to be verified by you. As for the nozzle inconsistency problem you mentioned, it is not a problem with the product, but an error in your input.: You want the two nozzles to face down, but your input does not reflect this in the EDR. So much depends on the time relationship. If you still have problems after making changes, please describe your problem carefully and upload it.
MICRO: Hello! Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to read my calculation file. When I originally calculated, I used BES800-2.5-170-6/25-2I (366 heat exchange tubes, baffle spacing 450mm). Later, due to the change in processing capacity, the heat exchanger model was changed to BES700-2.5-60-3/25-2I (268 heat exchange tubes, baffle spacing 450mm). In addition, the 126mm spacing between the baffles at the exit was not entered by me and cannot be modified at all. The End length at front head was entered as 600mm to make room for the shell side inlet, but the effect did not meet my expectations. Tomorrow I will revise it according to your opinions. If there are any problems, I still need to trouble you.
5# gwd1988 B-JAC calculation results indicate that the pressure drop is too large. Why is the volume flow rate displayed not the average flow rate?