University of San Carlos

Department of Chemical Engineering

CHE 422L Chemical Engineering Laboratory 1

Data Processing & Analysis Report

(Form CHE422L-2)

Prepared and submitted by:

Bungabong, Nika A. Perez, Muriel Tamar T. Pestao, Jason Moen V.

Experiment : Heat Transfer in a Double Pipe Heat Exchanger

Objectives of the Experiment
1. Investigate the effects of varying the inlet temperature, the flow rates, and the flow arrangement
(countercurrent or co-current parallel flow) on the temperature profiles in a double-pipe heat
exchanger.
2. Determine the overall heat transfer coefficients and the effectiveness of the heat exchanger unit at
the required operating conditions and compare them with theoretically calculated values.
Results & Discussion
Objective 1:
The effect of varying the inlet temperature on the temperature profiles of countercurrent and co-current
parallel flow are evident in Figures 1.1 and 1.2. The arrows in the profile indicate the direction of the fluid
and its change in temperature through the length of the heat exchange. Seen in Table 1.1 is the effect of
the flow arrangement on the temperature change of the fluids. The countercurrent flow resulted in the hot
fluid having a larger temperature drop than the temperature rise of the cold fluid. For a co-current flow,
however, the temperature of both fluids change at almost the same rate. Observed in both figures, the
higher the inlet temperature, the higher is the rate of heat transfer and the increase of the temperature of
the cold fluid for that length of heat exchange.
The next two figures are the temperature profiles where the ratio of the hot fluid to cold fluid flow rates
are being varied. Figures 1.3 and 1.4 show that the higher the flowrate of the cold fluid is than the hot fluid,
the larger is temperature drop of the hot fluid than other ratios of flowrates. In the same way, the higher the
flowrate of the hot fluid is than the cold fluid, the higher is the temperature increase of the cold fluid. There
is a larger temperature drop with the unequal flow rate ratios because the amount of heat available to
transfer depends on the amount of fluid available to carry that heat. Table 1.2 shows that the smaller the
flow rate of the fluid, the larger is its temperature difference while having relatively smaller heat transfer
rates than the equal flowrate ratio. Unequal flow rates appear to have relatively the same effect whether the

1
flow arrangement is countercurrent of co-current. Equal flow rates have the same effect as observed in the
varied inlet temperature discussion.

Figure 1.1. Countercurrent Flow Temperature Profile: Effect of Inlet Temperature

75
70
65
50C Hot Fluid 60C Hot Fluid 70C Hot Fluid 29C Cold Fluid
60
55
50
Temperature (C)
45
40
35
29C Cold Fluid 29C Cold Fluid
30
25
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Distance (mm)

Figure 1.2. Co-current Flow Temperature Profile: Effect of Inlet Temperature

70
65
60
50C Hot Fluid 55C Hot Fluid 65C Hot Fluid 29C Cold Fluid
55
50
Temperature (C) 45
40
35
29C Cold Fluid 29C Cold Fluid
30
25
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Distance (mm)

Table 1.1. Temperature difference and heat transfer rates of the fluids with varying inlet temperatures
Stream Temperature Difference ( T ) Heat Transfer Rate (KJ/s)

2
 Countercurrent Flow Co-current Flow Countercurrent Flow Co-current Flow
Hot Fluid (Square) 4.70 3.97
0.604 0.527
Cold Fluid (Square) 3.93 3.8
Hot Fluid (Triangle) 7.23 5.2
1.013 0.700
Cold Fluid (Triangle) 5.90 4.8
Hot Fluid (Circle) 10.13 7.6
1.235 1.006
Cold Fluid (Circle) 7.83 7.0

3
 Figure 1.3. Countercurrent Flow Temperature Profile: Effect of Varying Flowrates
55

50
1:3 (Hot Fluid) 1:1 (Hot Fluid) 3:1 (Hot Fluid) 1:3 (Cold Fluid)
45

40
Termperature (C)
35

30
1:1 (Cold Fluid) 3:1 (Cold Fluid)

25
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Distance (mm)

Figure 1.4. Co-current Flow Temperature Profile: Effect of Varying Flowrates

55

50
1:3 (Hot Fluid) 1:1 (Hot Fluid) 3:1 (Hot Fluid) 1:3 (Cold Fluid)
45

40
Termperature (C)
35

30
1:1 (Cold Fluid) 3:1 (Cold Fluid)

25
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Distance (mm)

Table 1.2. Temperature difference and heat transfer rates of the fluids with varying inlet temperatures
Temperature Difference ( T ) Heat Transfer Rate (KJ/s)
Stream
Countercurrent Flow Co-current Flow Countercurrent Flow Co-current Flow
Hot Fluid (Square) 6.67 6.10 0.370 0.437

4
 Cold Fluid (Square) 1.30 2.07
Hot Fluid (Triangle) 4.70 3.97
0.604 0.527
Cold Fluid (Triangle) 3.93 3.80
Hot Fluid (Circle) 3.00 2.40
5.33 0.446
Cold Fluid (Circle) 6.37 6.00
Ideally, for an infinite length of heat exchange, a countercurrent flow would have an cold fluid that would
reach the same temperature as the inlet temperature of the hot fluid and on the other side of the pipe, the
hot fluid would cool down until it is the same temperature as the as the cold fluid going in the heat
exchanger. For a co-current flow arrangement, an infinite length of heat exchange would result in both the
hot and cold fluids approaching a temperature in between their inlet temperatures. Although the fluids in the
experiment did not reach those ideal temperatures due to the limit in the length of the heat exchange
equipment, the trend can be observed in their temperature profiles. Figures 1.1 and 1.3 show that the
temperature of the cold fluid is changing toward the direction of the inlet temperature of the hot fluid and the
temperature of the hot fluid is dropping towards the inlet temperature of the cold fluid. While in Figures 1.2
and 1.4 the direction of the temperature change of both fluids appear to be approaching each other at a
temperature in between their inlet temperatures.

5
Objective 2:

2.1 Comparison of Theoretical Values and Experimental Values of U and

The overall heat transfer coefficient determines how much heat is allowed to transfer from a fluid to a
solid, solid to fluid, or fluid to another fluid. It is defined largely by the system but in many cases, it is proved
to be insensitive to operating conditions to the system (Lienhard, 2013). Table 2.1.1 and Table 2.1.4 shows
that at both countercurrent and co-current flow arrangement and fixed inlet temperature, the overall heat
transfer coefficient increases with the heat transfer rate as the relation is directly proportional. In the case of
varying the inlet temperature, U also varies with flow arrangement. With flowrate ratio 3:1 in both
countercurrent and co-current, theoretically there is greater heat transfer rate when the hot stream flowrate
is greater than the cold stream since there is more available heat to transfer (Geankoplis, 2015). Aside from
this fact, the increased of its flowrate bring the regime of flow to turbulence. In a turbulent flow there is
greater heat transfer does increasing the overall heat transfer coefficient (Brown, et al. 1950). In either
countercurrent or co-current flow, the overall heat transfer coefficient increases with increasing hot inlet
temperature. However, the actual data does not conclude to the theory. This may be due to unstable
flowrates.

Table 2.1.1 Countercurrent operation: Effect of Varying Flowrates at 50C

ave
Uactual Utheo
Fhot:Fcold (kW/mK) (kW/mK)
% diff U actual theo % diff
(kJ/s)
1:3 0.370 1.169 2.130 45.11 0.245 0.400 38.77
1:1 0.604 1.953 3.376 43.06 0.205 0.312 34.38
3:1 0.533 1.756 3.767 53.40 0.354 0.578 38.74

Table 2.1.2 Countercurrent operation: Effect of Varying Temperature at 1:1 Flowrate Ratio
Inlet Temperature ave
Uactual Utheo
% diff U actual theo % diff
setting (C) (kJ/s)
(kW/mK) (kW/mK)

60 1.013 2.208 3.701 40.34 0.213 0.314 32.01

70 1.235 2.107 3.364 42.02 0.226 0.337 32.84

Table 2.1.3 Co-current operation: Effect of Varying Flowrates at 50C

ave
Uactual Utheo
Fhot:Fcold (kW/mK) (kW/mK)
% diff U actual theo % diff
(kJ/s)
1:3 0.437 1.395 2.174 35.82 0.291 0.397 26.64
1:1 0.527 1.666 3.282 49.25 0.187 0.299 37.48

6
 3:1 0.446 1.439 3.715 61.26 0.316 0.560 43.52

Table 2.1.4 Co-current operation: Effect of Varying Temperature at 1:1 Flowrate Ratio
Inlet Temperature ave
Uactual Utheo
% diff U actual theo % diff
setting (C) (kJ/s)
(kW/mK) (kW/mK)

55 0.700 1.797 3.392 47.04 0.194 0.300 35.22

65 1.006 1.911 3.585 46.71 0.210 0.317 34.00

In all cases, the percent difference between the actual and the theoretical vales of the overall heat
transfer coefficients are large. These are due to the limitation of the calculation of the theoretical value
since it only took into account the heat exchange in inner pipe not including the acrylic outer pipe. In fact,
during the experiment, the acrylic outer pipe is warm which shows that there are heat losses due to the
heat exchange of the outer pipe and the cold water stream, and the outer pipe with the air. The same goes
for the effectiveness of the heat exchanger which is why the actual effectiveness is lesser than the
theoretical.

2.2 Comparison between values of Uactual and actual at Different Conditions

Varying the flowrates clearly affects the overall heat transfer coefficient and the effectiveness of heat
exchange. To quantify the difference, percent difference is used to compare actual values from different
flowrate ratios since both values mean the same thing. The values of the actual U and in accordance to its
conditions are presented in the previous tables.

Table 2.2.1 Countercurrent operation: Effect of Varying Flowrates at 50C

Fhot:Fcold vs Fhot:Fcold % difference between actual U % difference between actual
1:3 vs 1:1 48.71 17.78
1:3 vs 3:1 40.10 36.48
1:1 vs 3:1 9.05 5.39

Table 2.2.2 Co-current operation: Effect of Varying Flowrates at 50C

Fhot:Fcold vs Fhot:Fcold % difference between actual U % difference between actual
1:3 vs 1:1 17.70 43.53
1:3 vs 3:1 3.13 8.24
1:1 vs 3:1 14.60 51.32

In both operation, there is very great variation between its own actual U at different flowrate ratio. The
percent difference shows how to what extent the variation is. Based from Table 2.2.1, in the case of

7
countercurrent, there is not much difference in actual overall heat transfer of flowrate ratio 1:1 compared to
flowrate ratio 3:1 or simply when the flowrate of the hot stream is increased. On the other hand, increasing
the flowrate of the cold stream results to lower overall heat transfer coefficient since there will be less
available heat to transfer. To further visualize the difference, figure 2.2.1 shows a comparison for the actual
U of both flow arrangement at different flowrate ratios.

Theoretically, the overall heat transfer coefficient increases with increasing hot water flowrate as
mentioned previously. As shown in figure 2.2.1, the overall heat transfer coefficient varies as far as 1.169 to
1.922. This means that unlike most of the case, the overall heat transfer coefficient accounts a lot of factors
that determines its values. Thus, it is sensitive to these operating conditions of the system.

The actual effectiveness is affected by the heat transfer rate. Also, the heat transfer rate is affected by
the overall heat transfer coefficient. Thus, any change in the process condition will also affect the actual
effectiveness as shown in the table.

1.922
1.756
1.666

1.395 1.439

1:3 1.169 1:1 3:1 1:03 1:01 3:01

1

Figure 2.2.1 Different actual U for Varying Flowrates in Countercurrent Operation

8
Table 2.2.3 Countercurrent operation: Effect of Varying Temperature at 1:1 Flowrate Ratio
% difference between actual U % difference between actual
60C vs 70C 4.69 5.78

Table 2.2.4 Co-current operation: Effect of Varying Temperature at 1:1 Flowrate Ratio
% difference between actual U % difference between actual
55C vs 65C 6.14 7.57

Varying the temperature for both flow arrangement does not affect the overall heat transfer coefficient
and the effective as much as varying the flowrate ratio as the % difference between values suggest in table
2.2.3 and table 2.2.4. Hence, in the case of varying the inlet temperature and at fixed flowrate, the overall
heat transfer coefficient and effectiveness are both less sensitive to changes in the process conditions.

Conclusions

The inlet temperature of the fluids greatly determines the temperature change of the fluid in the
temperature profile. In a countercurrent flow, the temperature of the fluids at the exit approach the inlet
temperature while for co-current flow, the fluids approach a temperature in between their inlet
temperatures. Varying the flow rates of the fluid results in temperature changes that are driven by the
temperature of the larger flow rate.

The overall heat transfer coefficient and the effectiveness is affected by the inlet temperature setting and
flowrate ratio. In addition, in varying the inlet temperature, it is proven based from the data obtained that it
is less sensitive compared to varying the flowrates in both flow arrangement.

9
ANNEX 1: Raw Data

(See attached paper)

10
 ANNEX 2: Processing of Data

Objective 2: Determination of the Overall heat transfer coefficient and effectiveness:

Average Temperature of Each Sensor Average Temperature of Hot Water Stream

T 1+T 2 +T 3
T +T +T T ave, H =
T 1 = 1 st 2nd 3 rd 3
3
(50.8+ 46.9+ 44.1) C
(50.8+50.9+50.6) C T ave, H =
T1= 3
3
T ave, H =47.3 C
T 1 =50.77 C

Countercurrent Temperature Gradient Co-current Temperature Gradient

T max =T 3T 4 T max =T 1T 4

T max =(44.1 29.5) T max =(43.87 28.83)

T max =14.6 T max =15.03

T min =T 1T 6 T min =T 3 T 6

T min =(50.7730.8) T min =(49.9730.90)

Temperature Log Mean

T max T min
T lm=
T max
ln ( )
T min

14.619.97
T lm=
14.6
ln ( )
19.97

T lm=17.14

11
Heat Capacities

C H =m ,H C p H CC = m,C C p C

kg kJ kg kJ
C H =0.017 4.180 CC =0.049 4.178
s kg s kg

kW kW
C H =0.071 CC =0.205

Actual Heat Transfer Rate Maximum Heat Transfer Rate

H , max =Cmin ( T HiT Ci )

H =C H ( T 1 T 3 )

kW
kW H , max =0.071 ( 50.7729.50 )
H =0.071 (50.7744.1)

H =0.474 kW

C =C C ( T 6T 4 )

kW
C =0.205 ( 30.829.5)

C =0.266 kW

H + C
ave =
2

( 0.474+0.266 ) kW
ave =
2

12
 ave =0.370 kW

Actual Effectiveness of Heat Exchanger

H
actual =
H , max

0.370 kW
actual =
1.511 kW

actual = 0.245

Lateral Surface Area Cross-Sectional Area

A oi = Doi L D2ii
A 1=
4
1m
A oi = 9.5 mm 0.660 m
1000 mm (0.0083 m)2
A 1=
4
2
A oi =0.0197 m
A 1=5.4106 x 105 m2

Annular Cross-Sectional Area

A annular = Area of inner diameter of outer pipe Areaof outer diameter of inner pipe

(12 mm9 mm )2 1m 2
A annular =
4
(
1000 mm )
A annular =4.91 106 m2

13
Actual Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient

ave
U actual =
A T lm

0.370 kW
U actual =
0.0185m2 17.14

kW
U actual =1.169
m2

Velocities

V , H V , C
v H= vC =
A ii A annular

L L
1.000 2.940
min 1m3 1 min min 1 m3 1 min
v H= vC =
0.0172 m 1000 L 60 s
2
4.91 10 m 1000 L 60 s
6 2

v H =0.308 m/ s v C =9.981 m/ s

Heat Transfer Coefficient

Using Equation 4.5-10 (Geankoplis, 2015)

0.8
v
hi=1429 (1+ 0.0146 T ave , H ( ) ) H0.2
Dii

m
0.308 0.8
s
hi=1429 (1+ 0.0146 47.3 )
0.0083 m

14
 W
hi=2454.272 2
m

Theoretical Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient

1
U theo=
1 ( r oi r ii ) A ii A
+ + ii
hi k Alm ho A oi

1 1 kW

( )
U theo= 2

1 ( 0.005 m0.004 ) 0.0172m 0.0172 m2
1000 W
+ +
W W W
2454.272 2 15.78 0.0184 m2 32924 2 0.020 m2
m m m

kW
U theo=
2.130 2
m

Number of Transfer Units

U theo A
NTU = ( C min )
kW

( )
2.130 2
0.0185 m2
m
NTU =
kW
0.071

NTU =0.554

Theoretical Co-current Effectiveness

Theoretical Countercurrent Effectiveness

C min
NTU (1 )
C max
1e
= C min
C NTU (1
C
)
1( min ) e max

Cmax 15
 C min
NTU (1 )
C max
1e
= C min
C NTU (1
C
)
1( min ) e max

Cmax

Percent Difference between actual and theo values

| theo actual| |U theoU actual|

diff = 100 diff U = 100
theo U theo

|0.4000.245| |2.1301.169|
diff = 100 diff U = 100
0.400 2.130

diff U =45.11
diff =38.77

Percent Difference between actual values of U and

| 1 2| |U 1U 2|
diff actual= 100 diff U actual = 100
U 1 +U 2
( +2 )
1 2
( 2 )
|0.2050.245|
diff actual= 100 |1.9531.169|
0.20+ 0.245
( 2 ) diff U actual =
( 1.953+1.169
)
100

diff actual=17.78

16
 References

[1] Brown, G. G., Foust, A. S., Katz, D. L., Schneidewind, R., Wood, W. P., Brown, G.
M., York, L. J. (1950). Unit Operations. New Delhi: CBS Publishers &
Distributors.

[2] Geankoplis, C. (2015). Transport Processes & Separation Process Principles

(Includes Unit Operations). Pearson Education South Asia Pte Ltd.

[3] Lienhard, J. H. (2013). A Heat Transfer Textbook: Fourth Edition. Courier

Corporation.

[4] McCabe, W., Smith, J., & Harriott, P. (2005). Unit Operations of Chemical
Engineering. McGraw-Hill Education.

17