Based on the unified analytical method of stress analysis for fixed tubesheet (TS) heat exchangers (HEX), floating head and U-tube HEX presented in Part I, numerical comparisons with ASME method are performed in this paper as Part II. Numerical comparison results indicate that predictions given by the unified method agree well with finite element analysis (FEA), while ASME results are not accurate or not correct. Therefore, it is concluded that the unified method deals with thin TS of different types of HEX in equal detail with confidence to predict design stresses.

References

References
1.
ASME
,
2013
, “ASME Section VIII—Division 1 Example Problem Manual,”
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
,
New York
, Standard No. PTB-4-2013.
2.
Osweiller
,
F.
,
2014
, “Criteria for Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchangers According to Part UHX of ASME Section VIII Division 1,”
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
,
New York
, pp.
93
94
.
3.
Gardner
,
K. A.
,
1948
, “
Heat Exchanger Tubesheet Design
,”
ASME J. Appl. Mech.
,
15
(
4
), pp.
377
385
.
4.
Osweiller
,
F.
,
1989
, “
Evolution and Synthesis of the Effective Elastic Constants Concept for the Design of Tubesheets
,”
ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol.
,
111
(3), pp.
209
217
.
5.
ASME
,
2015
, “Section VIII—Division 1-2015,”
ASME Code, American Society of Mechanical Engineers
,
New York
.
6.
Sampson
,
1960
, “Photoelastic Analysis in Perforated Material Subject to Tension or Bending,” Bettis Technical Review, Washington, DC, Report No. WAPD BT 18.
7.
Meijers
,
P.
, and
van der Heijen
,
A. M. A.
,
1980
, “Refined Theory for Bending of Perforated Plates,” Laboratorium voor technische mechanica, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, Report No. 198109.
You do not currently have access to this content.