Italy 2014ugm Analysis of Embaffle Heat Exchanger

Parametric CFD analysis of an
EMbaffle Heat Exchanger

EMbaffle B.V.
The Netherlands

Brembana&Rolle Group

Reactors
Pressure Vessels & Columns
Conventional Heat Exchangers
Advanced Heat Exchangers
Waste Heat Recovery Units
Fired Heaters
ORC Systems

Reactors
Fired Heaters
ORC Systems

Reactors
Fired Heaters
ORC Systems

Reactors
Fired Heaters
ORC Systems

Reactors
Fired Heaters
ORC Systems

Reactors
Fired Heaters
ORC Systems

Reactors
Fired Heaters
ORC Systems

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
2007
Step 4:
EMbaffle B.V. owned by Shell
Technology Ventures Fund I
2012

Step 5:
EMbaffle B.V. owned by B&R

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

EMbaffle Characteristics:

EMbaffle Technology
Full tube support
Segmental baffle EMbaffle

EMbaffle Technology
Full tube support
Open structure allowing pure longitudinal flow
EMbaffle Segmental baffle

EMbaffle Technology
Full tube support

No tubes vibration

EMbaffle Technology
Full tube support
Enhanced turbulence hence heat transfer coefficient

EMbaffle Technology
Full tube support
Enhanced turbulence hence heat transfer coefficient
More compact design

EMbaffle Technology

Geometry
(EMbaffle)
Fluid Dynamics
(Turbulence)
Thermodynamics
(Heat Transfer)
Low Shell side
Fouling
No Tube
Vibration
Low
Pressure Drop
Energy & CO
2
Savings

EMbaffle Technology
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

CFD Parametric Model
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


a) TubeFluid domain
b) Tube domain
c) ShellFluid domain


ShellFluid:
Symmetry
TubeFluid:
translational periodicity

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
Flow direction
Shell-side (n-pentane) Tube-side (water)
T
in
(C) v
in
(m/s) P
in
(kPa) T
in
(C) v
in
(m/s) P
in
(kPa)
Counter-
current
48 0.223

1636.2 95.64 0.431 665.96

Analysis Cases

Analysis Cases

1) Influence of the turbulence model on the performance

Analysis Cases

1) Influence of the turbulence model on the performance

2) Influence of the baffle spacing on the performance

Analysis Cases
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

Results Case 1

Results Case 1

Results Case 1
Experimental
data
CFD 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 DATA
Exchanged duty 2546 2069.9 2110.6 W
Duty mismatch -
-18.7 -17.1
%
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

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

Results Case 2
Baffle spacing [mm]
Turbulence decay distance
from baffle [%]
50 86
100 37
200 18.5
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
Performing extensive tests with several fluids (gas, molten
salts, etc..) at different Reynolds ranges
Investigating the effect of different grid shapes on the thermal
and 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
Thank you for your attention

For further information:
www.EMbaffle.com
Info@EMbaffle.com

Italy 2014ugm Analysis of Embaffle Heat Exchanger

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Italy 2014ugm Analysis of Embaffle Heat Exchanger

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Italy 2014ugm Analysis of Embaffle Heat Exchanger

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Parametric CFD analysis of an

EMbaffle Heat Exchanger

You might also like