Difference between coolant flowing in the shell side and the tube side of the heat exchanger for burners

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol Give it a boost

This post was last edited by wang06120325 on 2015-6-14 at 13:20. This seems to relate to heat exchangers; in our case, we use a tube side configuration, specifically a four-tube design with two inlets and two outlets. If resistance is a concern, using the shell side for heat exchange requires the addition of baffles to ensure effective heat transfer; however, too many baffles will increase the system’s resistance. Additionally, there are relative dead zones between each baffle, which hinders heat exchange. On the other hand, using the tube side facilitates cleaning during maintenance. It is possible to find out which types of fluids are suitable for use in the tube side or shell side by checking the specifications of this chemical processing equipment. Of course, the tube side also has resistance, and this resistance results in a pressure drop. During the last major repair, I noticed two small holes in the partition of the heat exchanger’s tube side head, which likely serve to balance the pressure on both sides. The above are just my personal opinions.

The burner cooling water can flow through either the tube side or the shell side; either option is feasible, depending on what you consider to be the most important factor. Generally, circulating water flows in the tube side, and this is also the design in GE process packages. Circulating water tends to form scale more easily than burner cooling water; from this perspective, it is appropriate for the circulating water to flow in the tube side. Meanwhile, since burner cooling water needs to be cooled, having it flow in the shell side makes it easier to cool it with external air. From another perspective, since the cooling water pressure for the burner is high, using it in the tube side allows for full utilization of this pressure drop to improve heat transfer efficiency. More importantly, it enables reduction of the thickness of the shell side, thereby lowering the mechanical strength requirements imposed by high pressures on that section.

What are the advantages of using the shell side? Besides the fact that outside air can help with cooling

This design relies entirely on the pipe system; it needs to be considered from the perspective of pressure vessel design. Media under high pressure flows through the tube side, saving material. When flowing through the shell side, the overall design of the equipment becomes thicker, resulting in an **increase in cost**. As for good or bad, there’s no need to overthink it; meeting the technical requirements is sufficient.

The use of air cooling mentioned above seems a bit far-fetched in my opinion. Additionally, the burner cooling water heat exchangers here are all insulated; if such insulation were indeed necessary, it could be removed. I believe that heat exchange mainly relies on circulating cooling water. Moreover, both the pressure difference between the inlet and outlet of the circulating water and the diameter of the pipes affect the efficiency of heat exchange – the former affects the flow velocity while the latter affects the flow rate. It’s important not to view things in a one-dimensional manner but to conduct a comprehensive analysis before drawing conclusions: handshake.

This post was last edited by wang06120325 on 2015-6-15 at 17:51. The process does not use coal-fired boilers; coal-fired boilers utilize boiler water, and the temperature and pressure for heat exchange with medium-pressure steam are relatively high. We use Texaco burners along with cooling water heat exchangers, and indeed there is insulation in place. If a better heat exchange effect is desired, the insulation can be removed – which is something that also puzzles me :):).