ANALYSIS AND REDESIGN OF W- TYPE RADIANT TUBE USING FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

PRESENT BY M.Akbar Ali A.HajaSheikAlavuden V .Saravanan M .Venkateshwaran

INTERNAL GUIDE:
Mr.M.Varatharajulu,B.E., M.B.A (Asst. Professor), Dept. Of Mechanical Engg. EXTERNAL GUIDE: Mr. A. Karuppiah. M.E Manager Cold Mill (SSTP) BHEL. (Trichy)

To analyze and to find out the failure

causes of the radiant tube.

Provide solution for the failure of radiant

Tube.
Comparing the solution with the existing

design.

INTRODUTION ABOUT RADIANT TUBE

Radiant tubes are heat transfer mountings. Gases by convection and radiation transfers heat to the radiant tube. The heated tube transfers energy to the furnace, by means of convection and radiative heat transfer. There are three types of radiant tube P-type ,W-type& Utype. Our project is concerned with w-type radiant tube. Material of the radiant tubes are nickel chrome steel.

PROBLEM DESCRIPTON
Radiant tubes are designed to operate at 960C; the furnace temperature is maintained between 700C and 1100C by a design requirement based on the tube thickness. Due to the uneven heating, the radiant tubes were

frequently damaged after their rated service. In general, the damage style of a number of the tubes is almost the same. The failure mode of the tubes appeared to be in the surface of the tube, about 6590 cm from the burner-mounting flange.

METHODOLOGY
The analysis can be carried out using ANSYS software In general, there are three steps in the development of a finite element model. Developing a geometrical model, selecting an element, determining material properties and finally converting the geometrical model to a finite element model by griding. Applying boundary and initial conditions, loading and performing calculations based on the model. Extracting results.

Contd.
Modeling of the radiant tube was done by using Pro-e software.

The model is imported to the ANSYS and imported model is

meshed. And finally using ANSYS software, the analysis of the radiant tube was done. The results were obtained for various parameters like temperature distribution, equivalent stress and total deformation. The results obtained for suggested model were compared with the existing model.

Contd.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

S.No Approximate Distance from burner-mounting flange (mm)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0 - 300 300 - 600 600 - 1000 1000 - 1500 1500 - 2500 2500 - 4500 4500 - 5000

8
9 10

5000 - 5500
5500 - 6000 6000 - 6600

Suggestion I It is suggested to increase the thickness of the wall in the Radiant tube. Suggestion II It is suggested to change the material properties, which will withstand the load against the exiting failure.

Observation
From the above charts it is observed that the

temperature distribution, equivalent stress and the total deformation are high at the critical region in all the cases. The suggestion II model exhibits very low stress and deformation compared to other two models.

Material Comparison
Existing material properties Elements / Name of the material C Innovated material properties Reason and cause DIN17456 (STD) 0.35 to 0.55% SA 106 Grade A. 0.35 To reduce the hardenability To increase the toughness and strength at high temperature To increase the resistance to cracking at high temperature To keep the same weldability To keep the impact toughness To increase the corrosion resistance at high temperature To increase the strength To increase the high temperature tensile strength To withstand the high temperature

Si

1.0 to 2.0%

1.2

Mn

1.5%

1.5

P S

0.040 % 0.030 %

0.040 0.030

Cr Ni Mo

27.0 to 30.0 % 47.0 to 50.0 % 0.05%

30.00 50.00 0.05

4.0 to 6.0 %

Conclusion.
Radiant tubes are designed to operate at 960C; but

the furnace temperature is required maintained between 700C and 1100C, so it is required to change the material of the radiant tube.
Analysis of the radiant tube carried out using ANSYS

WORKBENCH Software Results had been obtained for Temperature distribution, Equivalent Stress and for Total deformation for different models. Graphs have been plotted between Temperature distribution and distance, Equivalent stress and distance and between total deformation and distance

Contd.
Compared to the existing model, the suggested model I is

found to have 21.05% lesser stress and 21.05% lesser total deformation. Compared to existing model suggested model II have 34.21% lesser stress and 31.24% lesser deformation. By this analysis it is found that the suggested models have higher strength and higher temperature withstanding capability than the existing model. It is suggested that to use model II for the effective use without fail for the longer period than the other two models.

THANK YOU