A Compilation of Laboratory Reports

A Compilation of Laboratory Reports
in
Chemical Engineering Laboratory I

(ChE 402)
Elaine May L. Geneston

BS Chemical Engineering -4
Engr. Rosario Dangin

Laboratory Instructor
March 23,2015
Table of Contents
Experiment
Activity/Title
1.
Calibration of Venturi and Orifice Meters
2.
Reynolds Number
3.
Fluidization
4.
Heat Loss in Bare and Lagged Pipes
5.
Plate and Frame Filter Press
6.
Sedimentation
7.
Sieving
8.
Agitation
Calibration of Venturi and Orifice Meters

BS Chemical Engineering IV
Group 5
Department of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering and

Architecture
Cebu Institute of Technology University
N. Bacalso Ave. Cebu City, 6000 Philippines
The objective of this experiment is to gather data on pressure drop

versus water flow rate and to plot the coefficient of discharge of a sharp
orifice versus Reynolds Number, and the coefficient of discharge of a
venturi versus Reynolds Number.
The two typical head meters that are used to measure flow rates are
the orifice and venture meters. to fix the water flow rate , the pump was
started and the main regulating flow valve was gradually opened. The
tubes were connected from the venture or orifice pressure tapping points
to the manometer (mouth or inlet tap point and throat tap point), care
must be taken to ensure that there is no trapped air in the connecting
lines. Ample time was allowed to stabilize the flow before taking any
readings. The upstream and downstream of the manometer was read and
recorded. For any reading of the manometer, the volume discharge at the
outlet was collected and the time was measured to collect certain quantity
of water either in the steeped measuring tank or using a graduated
cylinder. Several trials were taken by adjusting the main flow regulating
valve. The coefficient of discharge of the orifice apparatus and its
Reynolds Number was obtained.
Engr. Rosario G. Dangin
Instructor
March 23, 2015
1 .Introduction
The Orifice and venturi meter are two typical head meters that are used to
measure flow rates. By their design, a pressure difference will occur between
theupstream and downstream sides of the element. The cause is the constriction
which changes the pressure head partly into velocity heads. This is the principle
on which by a manometric apparatus attached to static bores located upstream
and downstream or on the element.
The orifice meter is the simplest and most inexpensive. It consists of a flat
plate, perpendicularly placed to the stream of flow, attached to the conduit by
flanges, with a concentric hole with respect to the conduit, on it. The hole is
usually sharp edge with respect to the upstream and resembles a squat
frustum of a cone when seen in cross section. Streamlines issuing from such a
constriction attains its minimum cross sectional area at a mean distance of
pipe diameter downstream. That location is called the vena contracta.
Thelocation is not constant but rather, the distance from the plate decreases as
D (orifice)/D (pipe) increases with respect to a bore located 1 2 pipe diameters
upstream. The maximum pressure different is noted when the downstream bore
is at the vena contracta. The magnitude of the pressure differential is dependent
on the location of tapping. There are 5 ways of tapping: corner taps, pipe taps,
flange taps, vena contracta taps, and radius taps.
The main disadvantage of the orifice meter is the permanent head loss is
the always accounted for due to friction at the constriction. The venturi meter is
composed of 2 frustums of cone and a throat. The converging cone is of a larger
angle sine friction effects on the upstream side are usually negligible. The
diverging cone is made of as smooth and as tapering as possible to eliminate
drag and friction. The loss amounts to 10% to 20% of the initial head. Tapings are
located at a part of the meter whose diameter is still equal to that of the pipe at
the upstream and at the throat to assure maximum pressure difference. The
equation that are derived for the flow rates are applicable for both the venturi
and orifice meters and incompressible and compressible fluid flow, the only
difference when the fluid is compressible the insertion of a coefficient of
expansion,, which is a function of D (constriction)/D (pipe), acoustic ratio and

the pressure head.
Theoretically for the variation of C with R e (which is also a measure of flow)
opposite should be seen for the venturi and orifice flow meters. For the venturi,
as NRe increases, C should be increase since friction effects decrease and flow
rate approaches the theoretical. For the orifice meter, as N Re increases, C should
decrease since friction increase and a greater head loss results.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1
Materials and Apparatus
Hydraulic bench apparatus

Orifice meter, Venturi meter
Stopwatch
Manometer
Water
Caliper
2.2 Methods
The venturi meter or orifice meter apparatus was set-up. The pump was
started and the main regulating flow valve was gradually opened to fix the water
flow rate.The tubes was connected from the venturi or orifice pressure tapping
points to the manometer (mouth or inlet tap point and throat tap point), care must
be taken to ensure that there is no trapped air in the connecting lines. Ample time
was allowed to stabilize the flow before taking any readings. The upstream and
downstream of the manometer was read and recorded. The diameter of the
cylindrical cross-section of the tapping points of the venturi or orifice apparatus was
recorded.The theoretical volumetric flow rate was computed.For any reading of
manometer, the volume discharge at the outlet was collected and the time was
measured to collect certain quantity of water either in the steeped measuring tank
or using a graduated cylinder. The volume collected and the time was recorded. The
actual volumetric flow rate from the volume collected divided by the time obtained
was computed. Several trials were taken by adjusting the main flow regulating
valve. The data was recorded and computed for the coefficient of discharge of the
Venturi or Orifice apparatus and its Reynolds Number.
3. Results
A. Venturi Flow Meter
Gathered Data:
Trial
Manometer Reading
Upstream (cm) Downstream (cm)
Rm (m)
1
2
3
27.6
28.3
31.2
18.5
18.6
19.6
0.091
0.097
0.116
33.3
20.6
0.127
35.6
21.7
0.139
6
7
8
9
10
36
30.9
31.6
45.3
51.5
22.4
21
21.2
35.7
36.3
0.136
0.099
0.104
0.096
0.152
Volumetric Flowrate
(Q actual) m3/s
0.00001
0.0000092
0.0000164
0.0000214
0.0000264
0.0000236
0.0000134
0.0000168
0.000016
0.00003
B. Orifice Flow Meter

Gathered Data:
Trial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Manometer Reading
Upstream (cm)
23.8
32.5
23.2
29.7
38.8
47.7
68
60.3
63.5
74.5
Downstream (cm)
19.3
25.1
14.6
26.9
36.5
46.2
64.8
39.3
52.6
68.3
Volumetric Flowrate
(Q actual) m 3/s
Rm (m)
0.045
0.074
0.086
0.028
0.023
0.015
0.032
0.21
0.109
0.062
0.00034
0.0003675
0.0003775
0.000275
0.00031
0.000295
0.00032
0.0004
0.00039
0.0003675
Theoretical Volumetric Flowrate

A
Qtheoretical =
2(P 1P2)
1(
D2
)
D1
A 2 g ( H )
N =
1(
D2
)
D1
D2 D2 Q
=
Where:
D1= pipe diameter = 0.025m
0.015 m
D2= throat diameter =
= viscosity of water (H20) at 25 0C = 0.8937 x 10 -3 kg/msH= manometer reading

difference (R)
= density of water (H20) at 25 0C = 997.08 kg / m
0.000176715 m2
A= area of throat =
Computed Data:
Volumetric Flowrate
(Q theoretical ) m 3 /s
0.000253052
0.000261261
0.000285705
0.000298945
0.00031275
0.000309356
0.000263941
0.000270524
0.000259911
0.000327048
C
(discharged
coefficient)
0.039518
0.035214
NRe Actual
NRe Theoretical
9470.133278
8712.522616
239643.7444
247417.9862
0.057402
15531.01858
270566.7314
0.071585
20266.08521
283104.8184
0.084413
0.076287
0.050769
0.062102
0.061559
0.09173
25001.15185
22349.51454
12689.97859
15909.82391
15152.21324
28410.39983
296178.0031
292964.4035
249955.673
256189.939
246139.3317
309718.5337
B. Orifice Meter Flow
Computed Data:
Volumetric Flowrate
(Q theoretical ) m 3 /s
0.000177949
0.000228194
0.000246002
0.000140368
0.000127219
0.000102739
0.00015006
0.000384414
0.000276951
0.000208874
C
(Coefficient
Discharge)
1.910659732
1.610468275
1.534540733
1.959135024
2.436735926
2.871356237
2.132483501
1.040545402
1.40819257
1.759430795
Graphs
NRe Actual
NRe Theoretical
321984.5315
348027.398
357497.5312
260428.6651
293574.1316
279368.9317
303044.2649
378805.3311
369335.1978
348027.398
168520.0803
216103.2311
232967.1175
132930.432
120478.4353
97295.11374
142108.6094
364044.981
262276.0592
197806.8128
C vs Actual NRe
0.1
0.08
f(x) = 0x + 0.01
R = 0.98
0.06
Coefficient Discharge
0.04
0.02
0
5000
10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Actual Reynolds Number
C vs Theoretical NRe
0.1
0.08
f(x) = 0x - 0.12
R = 0.83
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
200000
250000
300000
B. Orifice Flow Meter
350000
C vs Actual NRe
2.5
2
1.5
f(x) = - 0x + 5.41
R = 0.69
1
0.5
0
300000
325000
350000
375000
400000
C vs Theoretical NRe
3.5
3
2.5
2
Coefficient Discharge 1.5
f(x) = - 0x + 3.05
R = 0.86
1
0.5
0
10000
110000
210000
310000
Theoretical Reynolds Number
4.Discussion
As shown on the graph plotted above,
the used of Venturi meter is more
accurate than using orifice meters. As the fluid flows through the orifice plate the
velocity increases, at the expense of pressure heat.
The Orifice and venturi meter are two typical head meters that are used to
measure flow rates. Pressure difference will occur between the upstream and
downstream sides of the element. The cause is the constriction which changes the
pressure head partly into velocity heads.For the orifice meter, as N Re increases, C
should decrease since friction increase and a greater head loss results.
5. Conclusion
As the orifice is passed, the pressure drops immediately. The drop
continues until the vena contracta is reached. Then gradually increases until a
maximum pressure point is reached that will be lower than the pressure upstream of
the orifice. The pressure difference is obtained because the velocity is increased
from V1 to V2. When the velocity decreases as the fluid leaves the orifice the
pressure increases and tends to return to its original level. Because of some
frictional losses, some of the difference P1 P2 is not fully recovered. The
permanent pressure loss is much higher because of eddies formed when the jet
expands below the vena contracta. The pressure drop across the orifice increases
when the rate of flow increases. When there us no differential there is no flow rate.
To obtain the actual volumetric flow rate, the volume collected is divided by the
time obtained. And for the theoretical volumetric flow rate given the pressure drop,
the Bernoulli equation at a constant elevation and continuity equation was used.
6. Appendices
A. Formulas
Bernoulli equation at a constant elevation from a point in the pipe in the pipe to the
constriction.
P1 U 21 P2 U 22
+ = +
2
2
U 22U 21 =2
( P1 P 2)
From continuity equation,

A1U1 = A2U2
U1 =
1
D
2
( D 2) U 2
Let B =
D2
D1
U1 = B
U2
U 22U 21 =2
( P1 P 2)
U 22(B 2U 2 )2=2
U 22B4 U 22 =2
U2 =
U2=
(P1P 2)
2( P1P2 )
1( B )
2( P1P2 )
D
1 2
D1
( )
A2
Q(Theo)=
(P1 P2)
2( P 1P2)
D
1 2
D1
( )
Q(actual)=Volume/Time
C=
NRe =
Q (actual)
Q(theo)
D ( U 2 ) ( )
Where: P = P1 - P2 = pressure drop

U = velocity
A = area
= density
D = diameter (orifice/venturi)
C = discharged coefficient
NRe = Reynolds number
7. References
http://www.shambhaviimpex.com/venturimeter-orificemeter-calibration.html
30
Last
"Fundamentals of Orifice Metering." Afms.org. Smith Metering, Inc, n.d. Web.

Sept. 2013. <http://www.afms.org/Docs/gas/Fundamenatls_of_Orifice.pdf>.
accessed March 20, 2015.
engel, A., and J. M. Cimbala. Fluid Mechanics: Fundamentals and

Applications.
2nd ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2010. Print. Last
accessed March 20, 2015.
FLUIDIZATION

Department of Chemical Engineering
College of Engineering and Architecture

196 N. Bacalso Avenue Cebu City, 6000 Philippines
This experiment is about fluidization of a bed of solid by passing a fluid,

usually a gas upwards through a bed of particles supported on a distributor.
Fluidization or fluidizing, converts a bed of solid particles into an expanded
mass that has many properties of a liquid. As a fluid is passed upward
through a bed of particles, pressure loss due to frictional resistance increases
as fluid flow increases. At a point, whereby the upward drag force exerted by
the fluid on the particle equal to apparent weight of particles in the bed,
fluidization occurs. The size of solid particle which can be fluidized varies
greatly from less than1m to 6cm. It is generally concluded that particles
distributed in sizes between 150m and 10m are the best for smooth
fluidization (least formation of large bubbles). Large particles cause
instability and result in slugging or massive surges. Small particles (less than
20m) frequently even though dry, act as if damp, forming agglomerates or
fissures in the bed, or spouting. Adding finer sized particles to a coarse bed
or coarse sized particles to a bed of fines usually results in better fluidization.
The upward velocity of the gas is usually between 0.15m/s and 6m/s. This
velocity is based upon the flow through the empty vessel as is referred to as
the superficial velocity. As the velocity of flow increases, the particles
rearrange themselves to offer less resistance to the fluid flow and the bed
will tend to expand unless it is composed of large particles (mean diameter >
1mm). The expansion continues until a stage is reached where the drag force
exerted on the particles will be sufficient to support the weight of the
particles in the bed. The fluid/particle systems then begin to exhibit fluid like
properties and it will flow under the influence of a hydrostatic head. This is
the point of incipient fluidization and the gas velocity needed to achieve this
is referred to as the minimum fluidization velocity, U mf. Beyond this
velocity, the pressure drop across the bed will be approximately equal to the
weight of the bed per unit area. The effective P excludes the
hydrostatic pressure drop across the bed which can be neglected in gas
fluidized systems operating at atmospheric pressure. It is likely, however that
this pressure drop will be exceeded just prior to fluidization with gas fluidized
systems in order to overcome cohesive forces between the particles and
break down the residual packing and interlocking of particles within the bed.
The behavior of fluidization is depends on the types of the particles

composed in the vessel. Geldart (1973) classified powders into four groups
according to their fluidization properties at ambient condition. There are 4
stages of particles that are (A) aerated, (B) bubble, (C) cohesive and (D)
dense. In this experiment, we are considering with a coarse sand which is in
group B, Ballotini which is in group A and Glutinous flour which is in group C.
From this experiment, we can obtain the bed expansion, bed pressure drop
and the flow rate of the fluid. By the equation given in the theory, superficial
gas velocity, Umf and mf for all cases can be calculated. Then only, we plotted
two graphs which are bed pressure drop against superficial gas velocity and
bed expansion against superficial gas velocity for all cases. The U mf predicted
from the graph then is being compared with the calculated one.
______________________________________________________________________________
___________________________

Instructor
March 23, 2015
1. INTRODUCTION
Fluidized bed reactors are a relatively new tool in the chemical
engineering field.
Fritz Winkler developed the first fluidized bed gas
generator in Germany in the 1920s. One of the first United States fluidized
bed reactors used was the Catalytic Cracking Unit, created in Baton Rouge,
LA in 1942 by the Standard Oil Company (Exxon Mobil). A fluidized bed is a
packed bed through which fluid flows at such a high velocity that the
particles in the bed are loosened such that the bed behaves as though it is a
liquid.
Fluidized beds provide a large surface area for contact between solids and a
liquid or a gas that is conducive for heat and mass transfer.
In this
environment, nearly uniform temperatures can be maintained in the reactor
even with highly exothermic reactions.
This is important because a
temperature gradient can form in a poorly mixed bed, leading to equipment
failure, product degradation, and decreased efficacy of the reaction. A
fluidized bed also provides uniform mixing, which is important for product
quality and efficiency. Fluidized bed reactors are often a continuous process,
meaning they are also very efficient compared to batch processes.
However, there are some disadvantages to fluidized beds. One disadvantage
is that the cost of a fluidized bed reactor is usually high because the vessels
are typically larger than batch or other processes. Another disadvantage is
that sometimes particles may become entrained, or blown along with the
flow, which can be costly and problematic to repair. There is also an extra
power input that is required for the pump to moderate the pressure drop.
Finally, the fluid-like behavior of these fine particles may eventually cause
erosion issues.
Fluidized beds can be stimulated by either gas or liquid flows. In either case,
the process of fluidization is a competition between the force of gravity
pointing downwards and the upward pointing drag force caused by friction
between the flowing fluid and the individual particles that make up the
fluidized bed. As the flow rate of the working fluid is increased, it flows faster
across the individual particles, increasing the magnitude of the drag force.
Eventually, at a certain velocity (called the minimum fluidization velocity, V f),
the drag and gravitational forces will be in balance, and the bed will begin to
fluidize and bubble. As the velocity is further increased, the drag force
becomes more and more dominant over gravity, and the bed bubbles more
furiously. The individual particles are not carried away with the flow, because
their settling velocities are far larger than the minimum fluidization velocity,
perhaps 50-75 times larger.
In this experiment, minimum fluidization velocity will be found for
several different types of fluidized beds. The effects of pressure drop, bed
height, bed type, grain size, and temperature will be investigated.
2. Materials and Methods:

2.1 Materials:
Fluidization apparatus
Tap water
Tape Measure
Graduated Cylinder
Timer
2.2 Methods:
1. The weight of the bed and the average of the particle were noted.
2. The water container was filled with water sufficient enough to operate the
apparatus.
3. Before operating, the height of the mercury was level by removing the clip
and adjusting the pressure in the manometer slowly.
4. Before turning the pump the valve was surely closed to avoid mercury
spillage.
5. The pump was turned on.
6. Initial height of the particle was recorded.
7. The pressure drop across the bed was measured starting with the lowest
possible flow-rate of water.
8. By simultaneously collecting liquid sample in the exit tube using graduated
cylinder the volumetric flow rate and the time of collection was recorded.
9. The volume of the liquid sample was measured and recorded.
10. The flow rate of water was increased and the corresponding pressure drop
across the bed was recorded.
11. The new height of bed was measured if the bed expands.
12. Steps 10 and 11 was repeated until the maximum allowable flow-rate was
reached.
3. Results:
3.1 Tables:
Orifice
Trial No.
Volume
(mL)
Upstream
Downstrea
m
850
21.8
992
34.5
24
Volumetric Rm (cm)
flow rate,
Q (m3/s)
8.5x10-4/
17.8
5.13
9.92x10-4/
10.5
850
49.5
37.6
540
66.1
52.7
550
63.7
50.5
500
81.2
66.3
500
41.1
29.8
530
53.7
40.7
620
89.7
28.8
10
680
17.7
7.8
Trial No.
Volume
(mL)
Upstream
Throat
610
26.6
23.2
9.4
8.5x10-4/
5.06
5.4x10-4/
3.14
5.5x10-4/
3.48
5x10-4/
3.07
5.3x10-4/
3.99
5.3x10-4/
3.08
6.2x10-4/
4.17
6.8x10-4/
5.44
11.9
13.4
13.2
14.9
11.3
13.0
30.9
9.9
Table.1
Venturi
640
36.5
32.5
770
38.1
35.8
760
37.8
34.5
880
24.5
21.2
870
36.8
33.1
650
29.5
25.4
680
35.3
31.8
740
65.4
60.5
Volumetric
flow rate,
Q (m3/s)
6.1x10-4/
3.20
6.4x10-4/
4.61
7.7x10-4/
5.54
7.6x10-4/
5.38
8.8x104
/6.12
8.7x10-4/
5.63
6.5x10-4/
3.87
6.8x10-4/
4.59
7.4x10-4/
4.65
Rm (cm)
3.4
4
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.7
4.1
3.5
4.9
10
800
43
8x10-4/
4.59
39
3. Results and Discussion:

Tabulated Data and Results
Pressure
Time
(sec)
2.37
2.76
2.35
2.32
2.04
1.63
2.56
Bed
(mmHg)
Left
Right
195
203
206
210
213
214
214
Porosity ()
height
191
185
182
177
173
174
174
P in
manometer
(Pa)
533.2895
2399.8026
3199.7368
4399.6382
5332.8947
5332.8947
5332.8947
Volumetric
P in bed
Volume
(Pa)
(m3)
1.58655
8.95310
10.61965
15.07147
17.18321
24.16057
620.2174
Velocity v,
Superficial
Fanning
(m/s)
velocity v,
friction
(m/s)
(f)
(m)
-5
8.3x10
2.77x10-4
2.60x10-4
3.12x10-4
2.95x10-4
2.84x10-4
2.42x10-4
flow rate
(m3/s)
3.502x10-5
1.004x10-4
1.106x10-4
1.345x10-4
1.446x10-4
1.742x10-4
9.453x10-5
NRe, bed
NRe, particle
0.05
0.0278680305
0.0181627462
144.974
217.462
0.06
4
0.0798955946
7
0.0520712581
415.631
623.446
0.0880124777
7
0.0573613660
457.856
686.784
0.08
2
0.1070314489
7
0.0697568149
556.796
835.194
0.09
0.1150687548
5
0.0749950590
598.608
897.912
0.09
0.1386236313
9
0.0903467447
721.144
1081.72
0.7522440794
7
0.4902685293
0.256
3913.30
5869.96
0.07
0.09
0.651741293
5
4. Discussion:
Fluidization is a process when a fl uid is passed upward trough a bed
of particles the pressure loss in the fluid due to the frictional resistance
with increases with increasing fl uid fl ow. A point is reached when the
upward drag force exerted by the fl uid on the particles is equal to the
apparent weight of particles in the bed. At this point the particles re l i f t e d
b y t h e fl u i d , t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i c l e i n c re a s e s , a n d t h e
b e d b e c o m e fluidized. The superficial fluid velocity at which the packed
bed becomes a fluidized bed is known as the minimum fluidization velocity.
This velocity increases with particle sizeand particle density and is affected
by fluid properties.For the first types of particles which is coarse grade sand,
the graph shows a little increasement in the pressure drop when the
superfi cial velocity gas also increase. The fl u i d i z a t i o n s t a r t s w h e n
i t re a c h e s m i n i m u m fl u i d i z a t i o n v e l o c i t y w h i c h i s
a b o u t 0.0715m/s. The second type is fi ner sand or ballotini, from the
graph we can saw that the pressure drop also increase as the
superfi cial gas velocity increased. For this case, the minimum
fl uidization velocity is 0.0682m/s. For these two types of particles,
bubbles continue to grow, never achieving a maximum size. Lastly is the
glutinous fl our, fl uidization did not occur in this case. The bed not
expanding and resist aeration. This is because the flour is cohesive and the
structure is so strong upon fl uidization. Besides that, it also because
the interaction force between the particles is strong if compared to the
hydronamic force by the fluiding gas. For Glutinous Flour, fluidization did not
occur because group C particles exhibit cohesive tendencies. The structures
are so strong which upon fluidization, cracks and rat hole is form and at a
given pressure different, the bed not expanding and resist aeration.
5. Conclusion:
Thus, t h e m i n i m u m fl u i d i z i n g v e l o c i t y , U mf for coarse
grade sand is 0.0715m/s while Umf for Ballotini is 0.0682m/s.2 . T h e
v o i d a g e a t m i n i m u m fl u i d i z i n g v e l o c i t y mf for coarse grade
sand is 0.321387while mf for Ballotini is 0.383097.3 . C o n c l u d i n g t h a t
t h e b e d e x p a n s i o n a n d t h e p re s s u re d ro p o f t h e p a r t i c l e a re
p ro p o r t i o n a l t o t h e superficial velocity of the gas supply.
References:
[1] http://www.thermopedia.com/content/1241/
[2] http://www.slideshare.net/jeufier/calibration-of-orifice-venturi-meter
[3] http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/orifice-nozzle-venturi-d_590.html
[4] Kim, S.: Calculations of Low Reynolds Number Rocket Nozzles. AIAA Paper 930888,Jan. 1993.
HEAT LOSS IN BARE AND LAGGED PIPES

Geneston, Elaine May L.
Group 5

The impact on heat transfer to or from the fluid will depend not only on
the relative thermal resistances of the pipe wall, but also on the other
thermal resistances in the system. For bare piping, the air surface coefficient
normally represents the largest thermal resistance in the system. The wind
speeds at the surface, along with the thermal emittance of the surface
material, are dominant. As insulation is added to the system, the resistance
of the insulation layer begins to dominate and other resistances become less
important. As expected, the heat loss or gain depends on both the thickness
of the insulation as well as the choice of the pipe material. However, the
effect of insulation thickness is considerably more significant than the choice
of pipe material.
Instructor
Engr. Rosario Dangin
March 23, 2015

1. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Materials:
Boiler
Test Pipes bare, paint, silver chrome paint and 85% magnesia insulation
Thermocouple
Beakers
Graduated Cylinder
Stopwatch
2.2 Methods:
Three runs with steam at approximately 30 psig for each run was made.
1 The drain cock was cracked under the header to remove the water from the
steam line and header after adjusting the system to the desired pressure.
2 The four plug typ0e valve was opened to blow out any condensate from the
pipes and was closed until only small amount of steam escapes along with the
condensate.
3 The condensate from each pipe was measured and collected over a time interval
of 15 30 minutes, when the system has reached the equilibrium, as
determined by surface temperature measurements.
3. Results:
3.1 Tables:
PIPE NO.
COVERING
1
Paint
OUTSIDE
DIAMETER, in
EMISSIVITY
RUN NO.
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE
STEAM
PRESSURE
STEAM
TEMPERATUR
E
ROOM
TEMPERATUR
E
TIME/RUN
1.34
LENGTH OF PIPE
2
3
Bare Pipe
Silver
Chrome
Paint
1.34
1.34
0.95
0.95
4
85%
Magnesia
Insulation
2.48%
0.35
0.95
1
29.58 in Hg
30 psig
134.38oC
25oC
15mins
Table.1
Pipe
Trial
1
2
Silver Chrome
126oC
101oC
102oC
3
Paint
116oC
106oC
81oC
4
Bare Paint
139oC
112oC
61oC
D
A
B
62oC
68oC
62oC
112oC
117oC
122oC
117oC
119oC
101oC
121oC
113oC
107oC
C
D
A
B
C
D
Average
Volume
of
Condensate
Table.2
A
B
C
1
Magnesia
61oC
65oC
64oC
65oC
66oC
66oC
63oC
70oC
64oC
64.667oC
138
Sample Calculations
109oC
115oC
119oC
116oC
102oC
107oC
112.33oC
205
117oC
118oC
110oC
113oC
121oC
113oC
111oC
219
105oC
113oC
112oC
124oC
100oC
118oC
110.417oC
240
1 atm
29.921 inHg
Atmospheric Pressure = 29.58 inHg x

lb
2
14.696 lb /
1 atm
(abs)
Pressure in the system = 30 psig + 14.696
HL1 = 242.922
HL2 = 180
Btu
lb
HV2 = 1150.263
Btu
lb
@ 44.696
@ 14.5285
Btu
lb
lb
2
lb
2
lb
2
= 44.696
lb
2
(abs)
(abs)
@ 14.5285
lb
2
(abs)
Substitute values to the equation:

HL1 = x (HL2) + (1 x) (HV2)
Paint:
= 17.443
mL
g
219 mL
1.34
A=
min
hr
15 min
60
x 929.219
Btu
lb
= 1918.200
(10ft) = 3.508 ft2
T=111oC 25oC = 86oC 186.8oF
(hc + hr) =
AT
Btu
hr
=2.9272
2
(3.508 ft )(186.8 F )
1918.200
Btu
hr ft 2 oF
Btu
hr
(abs)
T
Hc=0.42 ( D
701.3
100
537
100
Hr=
0.173 ( 0.95 )
L.E. =
0.25
1.34
= 0.42( 186.8 F
0.25
Btu
= 1.443 hr ft 2 oF
= 1.40444
240219
x100=8.75%
240
Silver Chrome:
mL
g
205 mL
1.34
A=
min
hr
15 min
60
x 929.219
Btu
lb
= 1795.576
(10ft) = 3.508 ft2
T=234.194oF 77oF = 157.194oF
(hc + hr) =
AT
T
Hc=0.42 ( D
Btu
hr
=3.2562
2
(3.508 ft )(157.194 F)
1795.576
0.25
1.34
= 0.42( 157.194 F
0.25
Btu
hr ft 2 oF
Btu
= 1.3822 hr ft 2 oF
Btu
hr
701.5
100
537
100
Hr=
0.173 ( 0.35 )
= 0.6125
237234.194
L.E. =
x100=1.183%
237
85% Magnesia Insulation
mL
g
138 mL
2.48
A=
min
hr
15 min
60
x 929.219
Btu
lb
= 1208.73
(10ft) = 6.493 ft2
T=148.4006 - 77= 71.4006oF
(hc + hr) =
AT
T
Hc=0.42 ( D
Btu
hr
=2.607
2
(6.493 ft )(71.4006 F )
1208.73
0.25
2.48
71.4006
F
= 0.42(
0.25
Btu
hr ft 2 oF
Btu
= 0.973 hr ft 2 oF
Btu
hr
611.6
100
537
100
Hr=
0.173 ( 0.95 )
Btu
= 1.30651 hr ft 2 oF
237148.4006
L.E. =
x100=37.384%
237
Bare Pipe
mL
g
240 mL
1.34
A=
min
hr
15 min
60
Btu
lb
x 929.219
= 2102.138
(10ft) = 3.508 ft2
T=10.417-25=85.417oC 185.7506oF
(hc + hr) =
AT
T
Hc=0.42 ( D
Btu
Btu
hr
2
=3.226
hr ft oF
(3.508 ft 2 )(185.7506 F )
2102.138
0.25
1.34
= 0.42( 185.7506 F
0.25
Btu
= 1.441 hr ft 2 oF
Btu
hr
698.9
100
537
100
Hr=
0.173 ( 0.95 )
Btu
= 1.3753 hr ft 2 oF
4. Discussion:
The impact on heat transfer to or from the fluid will depend not only on
the relative thermal resistances of the pipe wall, but also on the other
thermal resistances in the system. For bare piping, the air surface coefficient
normally represents the largest thermal resistance in the system. The wind
speeds at the surface, along with the thermal emittance of the surface
material, are dominant. As insulation is added to the system, the resistance
of the insulation layer begins to dominate and other resistances become less
important. As expected, the heat loss or gain depends on both the thickness
of the insulation as well as the choice of the pipe material. However, the
effect of insulation thickness is considerably more significant than the choice
of pipe material.
5. Conclusion:
Therefore, when steam is first admitted to a pipe after a period of
shutdown, the pipe is full of air. Further amounts of air and other noncondensable gases will enter with the steam, although the proportions of
these gases are normally very small compared with the steam. When the
steam condenses, these gases will accumulate in pipes and heat exchangers.
Precautions should be taken to discharge them. The consequence of not
removing air is a lengthy warming up period and a reduction in plant
efficiency and process performance. Air in a steam system will also affect the
system temperature. Air will exert its own pressure within the system, and
will be added to the pressure of the steam to give a total pressure. Therefore,
the actual steam pressure and temperature of the steam/air mixture will be
lower than that suggested by a pressure gauge.
References:
[1] http://www.insulation.org/articles/article.cfm?id=IO120901
[2] https://www.scribd.com/doc/239142736/Bare-and-Lagged
[3] https://www.scribd.com/doc/156984866/Heat-Loss-for-Bare-and-Lagged-Pipes
PLATE AND FRAME FILTER PRESS

Geneston, Elaine May L.
Group 5

______________________________________________________________________________
Filtration is a widely used unit operation of Chemical Engineering Process which utilizes the
separation of solid and liquid. It uses the theory of solid and liquid separation by flowing liquid
with solid suspension through porous mediums or screens which retain the solid suspensions and
liquid flows out as filtrate. It is generally used in various industry, such as wastewater treatment
industry, food and beverages industry, pharmaceutical industry and chemical industry. Plate and
frame filter press is one of the most used filtering machines around due to its simplicity in usage
and efficiency it produced. The experiment`s objective was to study the operation of the filter
press for filtration of calcium carbonate slurry and to determine the filter medium
resistance and specific cake resistance from filtration data obtained. Calcium
carbonate solution was used as the filtrate. The experiment was run, every 5 L of filtrate
produced the time was taken. At three different times, three samples were taken to study the
relationship of density and viscosity to volume of filtrate. The viscosity and density of the
samples was decreasing as V is approaching the final volume. And using the equation
given, the value of filter medium resistance and filter cake resistance was found. The
viscosity and density values at the three different samples were taken and it is found that
they are proportional in relationship. The value of filter medium resistance and
specific cake resistance was determined from filtration data obtained.
______________________________________________________________________________
Instructor
December 20, 2014

1
INTRODUCTION
Many process operations produce SLURRY of solid particles suspended in a liquid which
must be separated into the solid and liquid phases. The simplest method is to FILTER the slurry
through a fine mesh FILTER CLOTH so that the solid FILTER CAKE is deposited on the cloth
whilst the clear liquid FILTRATE flows through. Either the CAKE or the FILTRATE or both
may be the useful products of this operation. As the cake builds up on the cloth the resistance to
flow increases and a greater pressure would be required to force the liquid through the cake
itself. In a vacuum filter the cake can be scrapped off the cloth continuously but this is slow and
produces a very loose cake. High pressure filtration is faster and produces denser cakes but it is
necessary to contain the system within a PRESS which must then be opened to remove the cake.
This method is therefore only suitable for batch operations.
2
Materials and Methods:

2.1 Materials:
Plate and Frame Filter Press Equipment

Water
Calcium Carbonate
2.2 Methods:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
18 L of slurry containing 10% by weight of CaCO3 and 90% by weight water was prepared.
The feed tank was filled with the predetermined amount of slurry.
The movable head was tightened to lock.
The necessary valves (pressure and control valves) were opened.
The agitator and the pump were switched on simultaneously.
When the slurry from the feed tank was already consumed, the switch and the pump of both
agitators were turned off.
2-6 procedure was repeated using 20% by weight of CaCO3.
3. Results:
3.1 Tables:
Table 1. Test run data using 10% by weight CaCO3 in 18 L of slurry.
Filtrate Volume, (Vf),L
1.2
2.3
3.4
4.5
5.6
6.7
7.8
slurry=1.07 g/mL
Time, sec
12.30
18.10
22
26.40
30
35
39.2
Wt Slurry= 19.2kg
Vf/Time (Rate), 1/sec

0.16260
0.16575
0.18182
0.1894
0.2
0.2
0.2041
Wt. of water in slurry= 17.3 L
Volume of water in slurry=17.3 kg
Solid in cake = 1.92 kg

Table 2 Test data using 20% by weight CaCO3 in 18L of slurry.
Filtrate Volume, (Vf),l
1.2
2.3
3.4
4.5
5.6
6.7
7.8
slurry=1.144 g/mL
Wt Slurry= 20.6 kg
Time, sec
10
17.5
24.4
30.44
36.8
43
48.72
Vf/Time (Rate), 1/sec

0.2
0.1714
0.1639
0.1643
0.1630
0.1628
0.1642
Wt. of water in slurry= 16.48 kg
Volume of water in slurry=16.48 L
Solid in cake = 4.12 kg
4. Sample Calculations
From Perrys Chemical Engineering Handbook
g
Specific GravityCaCO3 = 2.711 mL
M
M H 2O
slurry =
H 2O
M CaCO 3
CaCO 3
@10% CaCO3 :
0.1
)
( 0.91 )+( 2.711
1g
slurry =
@20%:
0.2
)
( 0.81 )+( 2.711
g
= 1.067 mL
1g
slurry =
g
1.144 mL
Solving for the weight of the slurry:
Solving for the weight of the slurry:
Ws = Vss
Ws = Vss
1000 mL
1L
Ws = 18 L (1.067
)
g
mL
1000 mL
1L
Ws = 18 L (1.144
)
g
mL
Ws = 19.2 kg
Ws = 20.6 kg
Solving for mass of CaCO3:
Solving for mass of CaCO3:
% by weight CaCO3 =
M CaCO 3
M Slurry
% by weight CaCO3 =
M CaCO3
= 0.10(19.2 kg)
M CaCO3
= 0.20(20.6 kg)
M CaCO3
= 1.92 kg
M CaCO3
= 4.12 kg
MH2O = Ws -
M CaCO3
= 19.2 kg 9.2 kg
MH2O = 17.28 kg
MH2O = Ws -
M CaCO3
= 20.6 kg 4.12 kg
MH2O = 16.48 kg
M CaCO 3
M Slurry
4. Discussion:
A filter cake is formed by the substances that are retained on a filter. The filter cake
grows in the course of filtration, becomes thicker as particulate matter is being
retained. With increasing layer thickness the flow resistance of the filter cake
increases. As time volume increase, the filter cake resistance is increasing until the
cake was fully stuffed at the trays. The filter medium resistance changed only when the
pressure drop changed. Cake resistance is based on the volume of filtrate stocked in the filter.
With some filter cakes, the specific resistance varies with the pressure drop across it. This is
because the cake becomes denser under the higher pressure and so provides fewer and smaller
passages for flow. The effect is spoken of as the compressibility of the cake. The
pressure drop of this experiment was constant at 40 psi. Filter cake builds up on the upstream
side of the cloth that is the side away from the plate. In the early stages of the
filtration c y c l e , t h e p r e s s u r e d r o p a c r o s s t h e c l o t h i s s m a l l a n d f i l t r a t i o n
p r o c e e d s a t m o r e o r l e s s a constant rate. As the cake increases, the process becomes more
and more a constant-pressure one and this is the case of this experiment. Calcium carbonate is
directly affected by the pressure drop because of the size of its particle, this does not
apply to materials with smaller particle like salt and sugar .The result of the experiment may
not be correct because of the machine may not be functioning properly. This may cause
error of the experiment which means it is not the same as the theory. The weight of the cake (dry
and wet) was different for every tray. The difference of weight of wet cake and dry cake
is because of the weight of moisture (water) in wet cake.
5. Conclusion:
The filter medium resistance and specific cake resistance had been determined
by using formulas and the data obtained. We explained the factor that affects the filter
medium resistance and specific cake resistance value which are pressure drop, filter medium,
the size of particle. The result of the experiment may not be correct as the machine may not be
functioning properly. Proper maintenance should be done for better reliability of the experiment
6. References:
[1] https://www.scribd.com/doc/138327400/Lab-Experiment-12-Filter-Press
[2] https://www.scribd.com/doc/58703428/Plate-and-Frame-Filtration
[3] Coulson JM and Richardson JF, Chemical Engineering Vol2, New York: Pergamon Press,
1990
[4] https://www.scribd.com/doc/51658822/Plate-and-Filter-Frame-Press
SEDIMENTATION
GENESTON, MAFEL MELODY L.
Group 5

Sedimentation is the tendency for particles in suspension to settle out of the fluid in
which they are entrained, and come to rest against a barrier. This is due to their
motion through the fluid in response to the forces acting on them: these forces can
be due to gravity, centrifugal acceleration or electromagnetism. In geology
sedimentation is often used as the polar opposite of erosion, i.e., the terminal end of
sediment transport. In that sense it includes the termination of transport by
saltation or true bed load transport. Settling is the falling of suspended particles
through the liquid, whereas sedimentation is the termination of the settling process.
Sedimentation may pertain to objects of various sizes, ranging from large rocks in
flowing water to suspensions of dust and pollen particles to cellular suspensions to
solutions of single molecules such as proteins and peptides. Even small molecules
supply a sufficiently strong force to produce significant sedimentation. It is
accomplished by decreasing the velocity of the water being treated to a point below
which the particles will no longer remain in suspension. When the velocity no longer
supports the transport of the particles, gravity will remove them from the flow.

Instructor
March 23, 2015
1. INTRODUCTION
Sedimentation is a physical process whereby solid particles, of greater
density than their suspending medium, will tend to separate into regions of
higher concentration under the influence of gravity. As a solid/liquids
separation technique it therefore possesses the great advantage of utilizing a
natural and therefore countless, driving force. The sedimentation process is
traditionally divided into settling within four regimes which are schematically
depicted.
2.1 Materials:
Sedimentation Apparatus
Mesh
Stop Watch
Beaker
Spatula
Stirring rod
Powder of Calcium Carbonate
2.2 Methods
Part A
1. The powdered calcium carbonate was sieved to achieve a uniform size of a particle
using a mesh.
2. 1L of 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%, and 10% by weight calcium carbonate suspension in water
was prepared.
3. The slurry every prepared sample was placed in sedimentation tubes at the same
height. The light was turned on for better readings and at convenient time intervals
the readings were noted.
4. The rise of the sludge interphase at the base of the cylinder was recorded.
5. A 24 hours period was allowed to elapse for final compaction readings.
Part B
The above procedure was repeated except that the slurry is of the same concentration
(4%) but with different in8itial heights.
3. Results:
3.1 Tables:
Part A
Height Interface w/100 ml at differing concentrations
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
480
490
480
490
480
92
398
449
471
472
78
308
421
453
461
64
243
395
436
450
53
200
370
418
440
49
172
347
402
430
47
153
325
386
421
44
120
285
355
420
43
105
266
338
402
42
96
252
326
394
41
88
237
313
386
Time
Interval
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
AFTER 24
hours
36
61
90
111
140
Height Interface of Varying Concentration at time t

600
500
400
Height, mm
2%
300
4%
200
6%
100
8%
10%
0
0
10
15
20
25
Time, min
30
35
40
45
50
Table A1. Data for Limiting Concentration Vs Limiting Velocity at 2%

Time Interval
(min)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Zi (mm)
C (g/L)
Vs (mm/min)
480
92
78
64
53
49
47
44
43
42
41
20.26
105.7043478
124.6769231
151.95
183.4867925
198.4653061
206.9106383
221.0181818
226.1581395
231.5428571
237.1902439
77.6
40.2
27.73
21.35
17.24
14.43
12.46
10.93
9.73
8.78
Graph A1. Limiting Concentrations vs. Settling Velocity at 2%
Settling Velocity (V), mm/min
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
Concentration (C), g/L
Table B1. Data for Limiting Concentration Vs. Limiting Velocity at 4%

Time Interval
(min)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Zi (mm)
C (g/L)
Vs (mm/min)
490
398
308
243
200
172
153
41.03
50.51
65.28
82.74
100.52
116.89
131.4
18.4
18.2
16.47
14.5
12.72
11.23
35
40
45
50
120
105
96
88
167.54
191.47
209.42
228.46
10.57
9.63
8.76
8.04
Graph B1. Limiting Concentrations vs. Settling Velocity at 4%

20
15
Settling Velocity (Vs), mm/min
10
5
0
50
70
90
110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250
Table C1. Data for Limiting Concentration Vs. Limiting Velocity at 6%

Time Interval (min)
Zi (mm)
C (g/L)
Vs (mm/min)
0
480
62.36
5
449
66.67
6.2
10
421
71.1
5.9
15
395
75.78
5.67
20
370
80.9
5.5
25
347
86.26
5.32
30
325
92.1
5.17
35
285
105.03
5.57
40
266
112.53
5.35
45
252
118.78
5.07
50
237
126.3
4.86
Graph C1. Limiting Concentrations vs. Settling Velocity at 6%
7
6
5
4
Settling Velocity (Vs), mm/min 3

2
1
0
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
Table D1. Data for Limiting Concentration Vs. Limiting Velocity at 8%

Time Interval
(min)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Zi (mm)
C (g/L)
Vs (mm/min)
490
471
453
436
418
402
386
355
338
326
313
84.25
87.65
91.13
94.68
98.76
102.69
106.95
116.29
122.14
126.63
131.89
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.52
3.47
3.86
3.8
3.64
3.54
Graph D1. Limiting Concentrations vs. Settling Velocity at 8%
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
Settling Velocity (Vs), mm/min
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
Table E1. Data for Limiting Concentration Vs. Limiting Velocity at 10%
Time Interval (min)

Zi (mm)
0
480
5
472
10
461
15
450
20
440
25
430
30
421
35
480
40
402
45
394
50
386
Graph E1. Limiting Concentrations vs.
C (g/L)
Vs (mm/min)
106.73
108.54
1.6
111.13
1.9
113.85
2
116.43
2
119.14
2
121.69
1.97
106.73
0
127.44
1.95
130.03
1.91
132.72
1.88
Settling Velocity at 10%
Settling Velocity (Vs)/ mm/min

105
110
115
120
125
130
135
Table 2A. Data for initial Mass Settling Rate for each Concentration
C (g/L)
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
J
1572.18
754.95
386.63
320.15
170.77
Graph 2A. Concentration vs. Initial Mass Settling Rate

2000
1500
Initial Mass Settling Velocity Rate 1000

500
0
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10% 12%
Concentration
Part B
Time
Interval
0
5
10
Height of Interface w/ (4% Concentration but different initial

heights)
1 w/ Hi =
2 w/ Hi =
3 w/ Hi =
4 w/ Hi =
5 w/ Hi =
500ml
600ml
700ml
800ml
900ml
236
290
339
396
439
96
147
192
220
290
28
38
54
55
138
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
AFTER 24
hours
23.5
17
21
20
19
18
18
17
27
25
23
22
21
20.5
20
19.5
32
30
28
27
26
25
24
23.5
37
36
31
30
29
28
27
26
51
42
40
38
37
35.5
35
33.5
17
18
21
23
28
Height of Interface of Varying Volumes at time t

500
450
400
350
300
Height, mm
1 w/ Hi = 500ml
250
2 w/ Hi = 600ml
200
3 w/ Hi = 700ml
150
4 w/ Hi = 800ml
100
5 w/ Hi = 900ml
50
0
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time, t
Table 3A. Data for Limiting Concentration vs. Settling Velocity for 4% 500 ml
solution
Time Interval
(min)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Zi (mm)
C (g/L)
Vs (mm/min)
236
96
28
23.5
17
21
20
19
18
18
17
41.03
100.87
345.82
412.05
569.59
461.1
484.154
509.64
537.95
537.95
569.69
28
20.8
14.17
10.95
8.6
7.2
6.2
5.45
4.84
4.38
Graph 3A. Limiting Concentrations vs. Settling Velocity for 4% 500 ml solution
30
25
20
Initial Settling Velocity (Vs), mm/min 15

10
5
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Table 3B. Data for Limiting Concentration vs. Settling Velocity for 4% 600 ml
solution
Time Interval
C (g/L)
Vs (mm/min)
Zi (mm)
(min)
0
290
41.03
5
147
80.94
28.6
10
38
313.12
25.2
15
27
440.69
17.53
20
25
475.95
13.25
25
23
517.33
10.68
30
22
540.85
8.93
35
21
566.6
7.69
40
20.5
580.42
6.74
45
20
594.94
6
50
19.5
610.19
5.41
Graph 3B. Limiting Concentrations vs. Settling Velocity for 4% 600 ml solution
35
30
25
20
Initial Settling Velocity (Vs), mm/min
15
10
5
0
80
180
280
380
480
580
680
Concentration (C), G/L
Table 3C. Data for Limiting Concentration vs. Settling Velocity for 4% 700 ml
solution
Time Interval (min)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Zi (mm)
339
192
54
32
30
28
27
26
25
24
23.5
C (g/L)
41.03
72.44
257.58
434.66
463.64
496.76
515.15
534.97
556.37
579.55
591.88
Vs (mm/min)
29.4
28.5
20.47
15.45
12.44
10.4
8.94
7.85
7
6.31
Graph 3C. Limiting Concentrations vs. Settling Velocity for 4% 700 ml solution
35
30
25
20
Initial Settling Velocity (Vs), mm/min
15
10
5
0
70
170
270
370
470
570
670
Table 3D. Data for Limiting Concentration vs. Settling Velocity for 4% 800 ml
solution
Time Interval (min)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Zi (mm)
396
220
55
37
36
31
30
29
28
27
26
C (g/L)
41.03
73.85
295.42
439.13
451.33
524.13
541.5
560.27
580.28
601.77
624.92
Vs (mm/min)
35.2
34.1
23.93
18
14.6
12.2
10.49
9.2
8.2
7.4
Graph 3D. Limiting Concentrations vs. Settling Velocity for 4% 800 ml solution
Initial Settling Vvelocity (Vs), mm/min
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
70
170 270 370 470 570 670
Table 3E. Data for Limiting Concentration vs. Settling Velocity for 4% 900 ml
solution
Time Interval
(min)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Zi (mm)
C (g/L)
Vs (mm/min)
439
290
138
51
42
40
38
37
35.5
35
33.5
41.03
62.11
130.52
353.18
428.86
450.3
474
486.82
507.39
514.63
537.67
29.8
30.1
25.87
19.85
15.96
13.37
11.49
10.09
8.97
8.11
Graph 3E. Limiting Concentrations vs. Settling Velocity for 4% 900 ml solution
35
30
25
20
Initial Settling Velocity (vs), mm/min 15

10
5
0
60
160
260
360
460
560
660
Table 4A. Data for initial Mass Settling Rate for each Concentration
Weight of CaCO3 in
slurry
J
574.5
6
704.1
3
844.6
6
1155.
62
1100.
51
20.52
24.62
28.73
32.83
36.93
Graph 4A. Concentration vs. Initial Mass Settling Rate

1400
1200
1000
800
Initial Mass Settling Rate (J)
600
400
200
0
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
Weight of CaCO3 in slurry
Equations
C=
CoZo
Z
(ZoZ)
t
J= Co (Vo)
Where: C
limiting concentration
Co
initial concentration
Vo
initial settling velocity
settling velocity
Zo
initial height
height at a certain time
time needed to reach current height
initial mass settling rate
4. Discussion:
Sedimentation is a treatment process where water is slowly flowing through a
reservoir. Because of the low flow velocities particles are able to deposit on the
bottom of the reservoir. Distinction should be made between discrete and flocculent
settling. The cumulative frequency distribution of settling velocities cannot be
calculated in a theoretical way because the size, shape and mass density of the
particles are unknown and even variable with flocculent settling. The frequency
distribution is found experimentally by plotting the percentage remaining SS (p)
against the settling velocity versus that can be calculated from the depth of the
sampling port under the water surface (H) divided by the elapsed time t.
5. Conclusion:
Sedimentation practices are designed to be effective at retaining suspended
solids that typically adsorb to solids. In every after the experiment, the retained
solids must need to removed. Such apparatus is not that effective at retaining the
dissolved pollutants. The panel must be translucent enough. At short period of time,
particles are well distributed in a water phase at its flocculated suspension initial
state based on the nature of the CaCO3. The formed flocs will cause an increase in
sedimentation rate due to increase in size of sedimenting particles.
References:
[1] http://www.slideshare.net/jeufier/sedimentation-finalrepz1
[2] http://www.slideshare.net/GerardBHawkins/sedimentation
[3] http://www.slideshare.net/jshrikant/l-10-sedimentation
[4] http://www.slideshare.net/Redrika95/sedimentation-44097040
AGITATION
GENESTON, ELAINE MAY L.
Group 5

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________
This experiment only utilizes the agitator equipment. Before the start of the experiment
a couple of measurement is made the diameter of the vessel and impeller, which are
vital in the computations later on. Due to its similarities with the properties of water,
assumptions are made for fluids densities and viscosities. The fluid is liquid water. The
data are obtained with and without the baffled vessel. Efficient mixing is obtained when
correct answers are available to such questions as (1) size of motor required to drive the
mixing equipment; (2) speed of the unit for quality of mixing desired; & (3) type of
impeller and used of baffles. The paddle and the impeller are fixed on the shaft at near
the bottom of the tank. The faster the rate of revolution of the shaft, the more the
vortex becomes distinctive. With an increase of the rotating velocity, much more air is
sucked into water. Doubling the impeller diameter will quadruple Reynolds Number.
This follows, as the impeller will sweep an area four times larger when the diameter is
doubled. Temperatures and pressures are accounted for in Reynolds Number as they
affect both density and viscosity. These factors are useful for sizing and selections of
tanks, impellers, and the associated driving equipment. It is clear that major variables in
the problem will be the size of the impeller and its speed. The presence of the baffles
will affect the energy consumption materially.

Instructor
March 23, 2015
PROBLEM
Components for a liquid detergent (=10 centipoises) are blended in
the pilot plant in a 10 gal, baffled, flat-bottomed tank 10 in. in diameter. A
double-turbine agitator with blades 6 in. in diameter is used. A
1
2
hp motor
turns the agitator at 500 rpm for 30 min to attain complete dispersion.
In the plant a geometrically similar unit is planned to blend 200 gal
batches of this solution. Determine consistent values of agitator and tank
diameter, revolutions per minute, power requirement, and batch time for the
plant unit. Base the design on (a) constant
peripheral speed, (c) constant rpm.
Given:
=10 cp
V 1 = 10 gal
, (b) constant agitator
D T 1 = 10 in. (tanks diameter)

D A1
= 6 in. (agitator diameter)

T = 30 min (batch time)
Calculate:
DT 2
DA2
N, P, t at
V2
= 200 gal
a Constant time
b constant agitator peripheral speed
c Constant rpm
Solution:
a Constant time
R=
DT 2
V 2 13
V1
= 27.144 in.
DA2 N P
DT 2
DT 1
200 13
10
DT 2
10
DA2
= R D A1
D A 2=
200 3
(6 in)
10
DA2
= 16.287 in.
DA2 N1 P
N2
N 2=
N2
N1
D A 12
D A 22
62
(500)( 16.287 2 )
= 67.86 or 68 rpm
D A2 N2 P
N2
N1
DA 1
2
DA 2

A Compilation of Laboratory Reports

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A Compilation of Laboratory Reports

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A Compilation of Laboratory Reports

Chemical Engineering Laboratory I

Elaine May L. Geneston

Engr. Rosario Dangin

Calibration of Venturi and Orifice Meters

Heat Loss in Bare and Lagged Pipes

Plate and Frame Filter Press

Calibration of Venturi and Orifice Meters

Elaine May L. Geneston

Department of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering and

The objective of this experiment is to gather data on pressure drop

March 23, 2015

expansion,, which is a function of D (constriction)/D (pipe), acoustic ratio and

2. Materials and Methods

Materials and Apparatus

Hydraulic bench apparatus

B. Orifice Flow Meter

Theoretical Volumetric Flowrate

D2= throat diameter =

= viscosity of water (H20) at 25 0C = 0.8937 x 10 -3 kg/msH= manometer reading

= density of water (H20) at 25 0C = 997.08 kg / m

A. Venturi Flow Meter

B. Orifice Meter Flow

10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Actual Reynolds Number

B. Orifice Flow Meter

Actual Reynolds Number

Theoretical Reynolds Number

the used of Venturi meter is more

From continuity equation,

Where: P = P1 - P2 = pressure drop

"Fundamentals of Orifice Metering." Afms.org. Smith Metering, Inc, n.d. Web.

engel, A., and J. M. Cimbala. Fluid Mechanics: Fundamentals and

Elaine May L. Geneston

Department of Chemical Engineering

College of Engineering and Architecture

This experiment is about fluidization of a bed of solid by passing a fluid,

The behavior of fluidization is depends on the types of the particles

Engr. Rosario G. Dangin

March 23, 2015

2. Materials and Methods:

3. Results and Discussion:

HEAT LOSS IN BARE AND LAGGED PIPES

Department of Chemical Engineering

March 23, 2015

Atmospheric Pressure = 29.58 inHg x

Pressure in the system = 30 psig + 14.696

Substitute values to the equation:

(10ft) = 3.508 ft2

T=111oC 25oC = 86oC 186.8oF

(10ft) = 3.508 ft2

T=234.194oF 77oF = 157.194oF

85% Magnesia Insulation

(10ft) = 6.493 ft2

T=148.4006 - 77= 71.4006oF

(10ft) = 3.508 ft2

PLATE AND FRAME FILTER PRESS

Department of Chemical Engineering

December 20, 2014

Materials and Methods:

Plate and Frame Filter Press Equipment

Vf/Time (Rate), 1/sec

Solid in cake = 1.92 kg

Vf/Time (Rate), 1/sec