italy 2014ugm analysis of embaffle heat exchanger

7/27/2019 Italy 2014ugm Analysis of Embaffle Heat Exchanger

1/40

Parametric CFD analysis of an

EMbaffle Heat Exchanger

EMbaffle B.V.

The Netherlands


2/40

Brembana&Rolle Group


3/40


Reactors

Pressure Vessels & Columns

Conventional Heat Exchangers

Advanced Heat Exchangers

Waste Heat Recovery Units

Fired Heaters

ORC Systems


4/40


Reactors





Fired Heaters

ORC Systems


5/40


Reactors





Fired Heaters

ORC Systems


6/40


Reactors





Fired Heaters

ORC Systems


7/40


Reactors





Fired Heaters

ORC Systems


8/40


Reactors





Fired Heaters

ORC Systems


9/40


Reactors





Fired Heaters

ORC Systems


10/40


Step 1:

Original concepts and patents

Step 2:

Full-scale manufacturing and field

tests in Shell operating plants

Step 3:

Initial commercial licensing agreements

2002/04

Shell Global Solutions

2004/06

Netherlands and USA

2004/06

Globally

2007Step 4:

EMbaffle B.V. owned by Shell

Technology Ventures Fund I

2012Step 5:

EMbaffle B.V. owned by B&R


11/40

EMbaffle Technology

Grid Production Process:

A sheet of metal is passed

through a cutter

It is simultaneously cut and

expanded

The resulting expanded sheet is

welded to a support ring


12/40

EMbaffle Characteristics:

EMbaffle Technology


13/40


Full tube support

Segmental baffle EMbaffle

EMbaffle Technology


14/40


Full tube support

Open structure allowing pure longitudinal flow

EMbaffleSegmental baffle

EMbaffle Technology


15/40


Full tube support


No tubes vibration

EMbaffle Technology


16/40


Full tube support


Enhanced turbulence hence heat transfer coefficient

EMbaffle Technology


17/40


Full tube support


Enhanced turbulence hence heat transfer coefficient

More compact design

EMbaffle Technology


18/40


Geometry(EMbaffle)

Fluid Dynamics

(Turbulence)

Thermodynamics

(Heat Transfer)

Low Shell side

Fouling

No Tube

Vibration

Low

Pressure Drop

Energy & CO2Savings

EMbaffle Technology


19/40

EMbaffle Applications:

Gas-to-gas (Gas Fields, LNG, etc)

Gas-to-liquid (Gas Coolers)

On-shore and off-shore processing

Refining and petrochemical

Concentrated Solar Power (CSP)

Geothermal

EMbaffle Technology


20/40

CFD Parametric Model


21/40

LWD Long Way of the grid Diamond

SWD Short Way of the grid Diamond

BL Bond Length

SW Strand Width

MT Material Thickness

Psi Deviation angle of the Strand Width

TOD Tube Outer Diameter

TT

Tube Thickness

BS Baffle Spacing

n Number of consecutive grids



22/40



23/40

a) TubeFluiddomain

b) Tubedomain

c) ShellFluiddomain



24/40



25/40

ShellFluid:

Symmetry

TubeFluid:

translational periodicity



26/40

Starting from 2002, several experimental tests were performed by

EMbaffle in collaboration with:

Tests results were used to develop the correlations used to design

an EMbaffle heat exchanger by means of the software:

Analysis Cases


27/40

Flow direction

Shell-side (n-pentane) Tube-side (water)

Tin(C) vin(m/s) Pin(kPa) Tin(C) vin(m/s) Pin(kPa)

Counter-

current

48 0.223 1636.2 95.64 0.431 665.96

Analysis Cases


28/40

Analysis Cases


29/40

1) Influence of the turbulence model on the performance

Analysis Cases


30/40

1) Influence of the turbulence model on the performance

2) Influence of the baffle spacing on the performance

Analysis Cases


31/40

Influence of the turbulence model on the performance:

ShellFluid domain: Shear Stress Transport

Analysis A:

TubeFluid domain:Shear Stress Transport

ShellFluid domain: Detached Eddy Simulation

Analysis B:

TubeFluid domain: Shear Stress Transport

Analysis Case 1


32/40

Results Case 1


33/40

Results Case 1


34/40

Results Case 1

Experimental

dataCFD Case 1 CFD Case 2 Units

SHELLSIDE

(COLD FLUID)

Fluid n-Pentane -

Turbulence Model - RANS-SST URANS-DES -

Mass flow rate 0.027709 Kg/s

Inlet velocity 0.222937 m/s

Inlet temperature 48 C

Outlet temperature 83.47 76.7 76.8 C

Boundary Conditions Heat Transfer Coefficient - 11000 W/m2 K

Outside Temperature - 85 C

COMPARISON DATAExchanged duty 2546 2069.9 2110.6 W

Duty mismatch - -18.7 -17.1 %


35/40

Influence of the baffle spacing on the performance:

Analysis A: baffle spacing = 50 mm

Analysis B: baffle spacing = 100 mm

Analysis C: baffle spacing = 200 mm

Analysis Case 2


36/40

Results Case 2

0.0002

0.0003

0.0004

0.0005

0.0006

0.0007

0.0008

0.0009

0.001

0.0011

0.0012

200 250 300 350 400

T.K.E

[m^2/s^2]

X direction [mm]

BS = 50 mm

BS = 100 mm

BS = 200 mm

FLOW DIRECTION


37/40

Results Case 2

Baffle spacing [mm]Turbulence decay distance

from baffle [%]

50 86

100 37

200 18.5


38/40

A comparison between some experimental tests and the

parametric CFD model was performed in order to validate it.

Two different turbulence models were applied to the shell-side fluid domain to find out which one was better matching

the experimental data.

Results show that the CFD model is too conservative in

comparison to the real performance of the EMbaffle HEX,even if the DES model seems to better match the real

performance.

Conclusion


39/40

Performing extensive tests with several fluids (gas, molten

salts, etc..) at different Reynolds ranges

Investigating the effect of different grid shapes on the thermaland hydraulic performance

Investigating the optimum baffle spacing in terms of

minimum pressure drop and maximum heat transfer

coefficient for each application

Simulating two phases flow

Future developments


40/40

Thank you for your attention

For further information:

[email protected]
http://www.embaffle.com/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.embaffle.com/

italy 2014ugm analysis of embaffle heat exchanger

Documents