Numerical Analysis of Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger with Different Baffle Configurations Performance
The aim of the present work is to investigate the performance indication and flow of a counter heat device using different baffle configurations numerically.This research illustrates the consequence of segmental stumps and wavy cross-section stumps with varying wave numbers and amplitude.The governing equations of energy and Navier-Stokes equations were solved using the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software package FLUENT 22R1, employing the finite volume method.The SIMPLE algorithm with second-order upwind discretization for the convection term was used for velocity and pressure calculations.Different cold water rates of flow (2, 4, 6, and 8 L/min) at 23 through shell and Constand hot water flow rate at 1 LPM at 50 were analysed for their effect on heat transfer efficiency.The heat exchanger's thermal performance was comparing its duty with various baffle configurations to its performance without baffle.The research results indicate that installing baffles increased the heat exchanger's effectiveness ()., with the enhancement ratio (/NE) reaching 1.2 and 1.23 for segmental and wavy baffles respectively compared to no baffle.On the other hand, the overall heat transfer coefficient (Uo) showed an improvement with baffles, achieving a performance increase of up to 1.38 at 8 LPM for Wavy baffles with wave number and amplitude (15 and 3 mm) respectively.The pressure drop in the system increased to 406 Pa at wavy baffles (15 and 3 mm) of 6 LPM.The maximum amount of exergy destruction being approximately 0.29 at 8 LPM for segmental.The results providing insights into optimal baffle design for specific applications.
Authors
- Alyaa Qasim Najm
- Saadoon Fahad Dakhil
- Ahmed Qasim Mohammed
Publication Details
- Journal
- International Journal of Heat and Technology
- Published
- 2024-08-31
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.18280/ijht.420423
- Citations
- 2
- Primary Topic
- Heat Transfer and Optimization
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.43