CHE151-1L: Chemical Engineering 2

Laboratory Report

Evaluation of the Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient

A R T I C L E I N F O
using Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchanger
Article history:
Katipunan, Angelika Michelle C. Submitted on 23 August 2018

Student of CHE151-1L/B11, School of Chemical, Biological, and Materials Engineering and Sciences, Mapúa
University, Intramuros, Manila

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION TSET 𝒎̇H (kg/s) 𝒎̇C (kg/s) QH (J/s) QC (kg/s)
(oC)
Heat Exchanger is an essential equipment that
focuses on one of the most important parameters which is the 40 0.0165209 0.016521 -138.118 200.2709
overall heat transfer coefficient. Factors that affect the said
parameter for a shell and tube heat exchanger are the inlet hot 40 0.0165209 0.033042 -103.588 331.4829
fluid temperature and flow rate, and the flow configuration.
Two flow configurations were observed, the counter current 50 0.0164514 0.016451 -295.716 302.5933
flow and co-current flow. The values that were obtained after
each run includes the actual temperatures and flow rates of 50 0.0164514 0.032903 -330.102 453.89
the streams which was used for the quantification of the
overall heat transfer coefficient (1). 60 0.016371 0.016371 -493.162 534.2585

TSET 𝒎̇H (kg/s) 𝒎̇C (kg/s) QH (J/s) QC (kg/s) 60 0.016371 0.032742 -582.205 657.549
(oC)
Table 2. Mass Flow Rates and Heat Transfer Rates of Counter
40 0.0165209 0.016521 -89.7766 290.0475 Current Flow

40 0.0165209 0.033042 -96.6825 317.6711 The variance between the two parameters suggests
the presence of heat in the surrounding which has been
50 0.0164514 0.016451 -316.348 288.8391 absorbed by the cooling fluid flowing in the shell side of the
heat exchanger (2). Moreover, this difference indicates the
50 0.0164514 0.032903 -343.856 453.89 possibility of more deviations when the calculation of the
overall heat transfer coefficient is done. The computed heat
60 0.016371 0.016371 -534.259 520.5596 transfer rate of the cold fluid must also be compared to its
respective flow rates to realize how these two parameters are
60 0.016371 0.032742 -589.054 671.2479 related. For this to be possible, graphs of the heat transfer
rates for the co-current and counter current configurations
Table 1. Mass Flow Rates and Heat Transfer Rates of Co - were generated and shown in Figures 1 and 2.
current Flow

Page 1 of 6
 the product of circumference of the tubes and its length for
COLD FLUID FLOW RATE VS. HEAT
heat exchangers. It is directly proportional to the heat rate
TRANSFER RATE (CO-CURRENT)
transfer but inversely proportional to the overall heat transfer
40degcel 50degcel 60degcel
coefficient which is also measured based on the areas of the
800
tubes. However, the value of area was remained since the
600 same apparatus and setup was used throughout the
QC (J/S)

experiment.
400

200 Another essential parameter used specifically for

counter and co-current shell and tube heat exchangers is the
0 log mean temperature difference or LMTD. It is used to replace
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 the usual temperature difference which is only constant for a
𝑉𝐶̇ (L/min)
specific region in the heat exchanger. The variation of
Figure 1. Cold Fluid Flow Rate vs. Heat Transfer Rate for Co- temperature difference is the result of the fluid flow
Current Configuration. happening inside the shell and the tube. Parameters were
quantified to compute for the overall transfer coefficient. The
effect of other variables to these two were also considered.
COLD FLUID FLOW RATE VS. HEAT
Tables 3 and 4 tabulates the calculated values for the log mean
TRANSFER RATE (COUNTER CURRENT)
temperature difference and overall heat transfer coefficient.
40degcel 50degcel 60degcel
700
600 TSET (oC) 𝑽̇𝑪 LMTD (oC) U (W/m2-
500 (L/min) s-oC)
QC (J/S)

400 40 1 11.02223922 48.7339839

300
40 2 11.04692096 52.3654915
200
100 50 1 17.53347823 107.953048
0 50 2 18.54140685 110.961541
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 60 1 24.49854893 130.481701
𝑉𝐶̇ (L/min) 60 2 25.66085757 137.348099
Table 3. Calculated Values for LMTD and Overall Heat Transfer
Figure 2. Cold Fluid Flow Rate vs. Heat Transfer Rate for
Coefficient for Co-Current Flow.
Counter Current Configuration.

Graphs from Figure 1 and 2 shows direct

TSET (oC) 𝑽̇𝑪 LMTD (oC) U (W/m2-oC)
proportionality between the two parameters. Thus, as the (L/min)
flow rate of the fluid in a heat exchanger increases, the rate at 40 1 10.54359879 78.3789641
which it transfers or absorbs heat also increases. This trend is 40 2 11.0438887 56.1212885
supported by the mathematical definition of heat transfer rate 50 1 16.64994995 106.267553
in heat exchanger. This parameter is an essential for the design 50 2 18.9401014 104.280738
and prediction of the performance of a heat exchanger. It can
60 1 25.49882349 115.719813
be quantified using the general design equation that relates it
60 2 26.30664756 132.418538
with the heat transfer area, log mean temperature difference
Table 4. Calculated Values for LMTD and Overall Heat Transfer
(LMTD) and the overall heat transfer coefficient.
Coefficient for Counter Current Flow.
As the heat transfer rate was determined, it can be
Tables 3 and 4 indirectly shows the direct
used in the design equation for the quantitation of the overall
proportionality between the inlet temperature of the hot fluid
heat transfer coefficient. The equation also required two
and heat transfer coefficient and also the flowrate of the cold-
important parameters which are the heat transfer area and the
water. To visualize the relationship of the said parameters for
log mean temperature difference. Heat transfer area is one of
the Co-Current flow, the computed values for the overall heat
the critical parameters for heat transfer. It measures the
transfer coefficient (U) is plotted against flowrate (𝑉𝑐̇ ), inlet
available surface area for heat transfer which is calculated as
Page 2 of 6
temperature (TSet), and log mean temperature difference Figure 3 shows the direct proportionality between the
(LMTD). The resulting plots are shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5. cold fluid flow rate and the overall heat transfer coefficient. As
the results from the three temperatures were evaluated, it can
COLD FLUID FLOW RATE VS. OVERALL HEAT be seen that the increase at 60 °C is much more drastic
TRANSFER COEFFICIENT (CO-CURRENT) compared to other temperatures. This observation can be
40degcel 50degcel 60degcel attributed to the direct proportionality of the temperature
difference and the overall heat transfer coefficient. Figure 4
160
140 shows the plot generated for the relationship of the hot water
inlet temperature and the overall heat transfer coefficient. It
U (𝑊/𝑚^2−℃)

120
100 can be observed that these components are directly
80
proportional with each other. Figure 5 then shows the plot of
60
40 LMTD and the overall heat transfer coefficient. It can be seen
20 that it is directly proportional. However, from the theoretical
0 concept of the relationship between the two components,
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 LMTD must be inversely proportional with the overall heat
𝑉𝐶̇ (L/min)
transfer coefficient. Thus, the plot failed to model its
Figure 3. Cold Fluid Flow Rate vs. Overall Heat Transfer relationship. Plots that were generated cannot be reliable or is
Coefficient Plot for Co-Current Flow. questionable since more data points are needed to picture out
the trend and relationships of the said parameters.

HOT WATER INLET TEMP VS. OVERALL HEAT Now for the Counter Current Flow, in order to
TRANSFER COEFFICIENT (CO-CURRENT)
visualize the relationship of the parameters tabulated in Table
Vc = 1 L/min Vc = 2 L/min 4, the computed values for the overall heat transfer coefficient
150 (U) is plotted against flowrate (𝑉𝑐̇ ), inlet temperature (TSet), and
log mean temperature difference (LMTD). The resulting plots
U (𝑊/𝑚^2−℃)

100 are shown in Figures 6, 7, and 8.

50
COLD FLUID FLOW RATE VS. OVERALL HEAT
TRANSFER COEFFICIENT (COUNTER
0 CURRENT)
0 20 40 60 80 40degcel 50degcel 60degcel
TH,IN (OC) 150
Figure 4. Hot Water Inlet Temperature vs. Overall Heat
U (𝑊/𝑚^2−℃)

Transfer Coefficient for Co-Current Flow. 100

50
LMTD VS. OVERALL HEAT TRANSFER
COEFFICIENT (CO-CURRENT) 0
Vc = 1 L/min Vc = 2 L/min 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
150 𝑉𝐶̇ (L/min)
Figure 6. Cold Fluid Flow Rate vs. Overall Heat Transfer
U (𝑊/𝑚^2−℃)

100
Coefficient Plot for Counter Current Flow.

50

0
0 10 20 30
LMTD (OC)
Figure 5. Log Mean Temperature Difference vs. Overall Heat
Transfer Coefficient for Co-Current Flow.

Page 3 of 6
 HOT WATER INLET TEMP VS. OVERALL HEAT
The relationship between the LMTD and hot water
TRANSFER COEFFICIENT (COUNTER CURRENT) temperature can also be evaluated and plotted in Figures 9 and
Vc = 1 L/min Vc = 2 L/min 10 for co-current and counter current flow, respectively.
150
U (𝑊/𝑚^2−℃)

100 HOT WATER INLET TEMP VS. LMTD (CO-

CURRENT)
50 Vc = 1 L/min Vc = 2 L/min
30
0
0 20 40 60 80

LMTD (OC)
20
TH,IN (OC)

10
Figure 7. Hot Water Inlet Temperature vs. Overall Heat
Transfer Coefficient for Counter Current Flow.
0
0 20 40 60 80
TH,IN (OC)
LMTD VS. OVERALL HEAT TRANSFER
COEFFICIENT (COUNTER CURRENT)
Vc = 1 L/min Vc = 2 L/min Figure 9. Hot Water Inlet Temperature vs. Log Mean
Temperature Difference for Co-Current Flow.
150
U (𝑊/𝑚^2−℃)

100 HOT WATER INLET TEMP VS. LMTD

(COUNTER CURRENT)

50 Vc = 1 L/min Vc = 2 L/min
30
0 25
LMTD (OC)

0 10 LMTD (OC) 2 0
Figure 8. Log Mean Temperature Difference vs. Overall Heat
Transfer Coefficient for Counter Current Flow.
From Figure 6, it can be seen that the trend from 60o,
cold fluid flow rate is directly proportional with overall heat
transfer coefficient. While for temperatures 40oC and 50oC, a
deviation was seen that the trend becomes indirectly
proportional with each other. Theoretically, both components
should be directly proportional with each other. Thus, the plot
failed to model the desired trend for the cold fluid flow rate
and the overall heat transfer coefficient. From Figure 7, the
relationship between the hot water inlet temperature and the
overall heat transfer coefficient was evaluated. It can be seen
in this plot that both components are directly proportional to
each other although it did not formed a straight line, thus,
more points should be needed to conclude the relationship of
both components. Lastly, based from Figure 7, the plot
resulted to a direct proportionality between the LMTD and the
overall heat transfer coefficient. However, based from
theoretical studies, both components are indirectly
proportional with each other based from its mathematical
design equation, thus, the plot failed to model the relationship
of both components.
30 20
15
10
5
0
0 20 40 60 80
TH,IN (OC)
Figure 10. Hot Water Inlet Temperature vs. Log Mean
Temperature Difference for Counter Current Flow.
It can be seen from Figures 9 and 10 that there is a
direct proportionality between the hot water inlet
temperature and log mean temperature difference. The trend
is expected because LMTD is a function of hot water
temperature which holds true for both co-current and counter
current flow. Log mean temperature difference measures the
average temperature drop in the surface of a heat exchanger.
It is useful to maintain accuracy of thermal system analysis
especially for heat exchanger where the temperature drop is
not constant. This measures the difference in temperature
explaining why it should be directly proportional to the
temperature of the hot water. Based from Figure 10, the
temperature difference varies for both configurations. From
the co-current configuration, the temperature of the hot fluid
leaves the exchanger at a temperature below that at which the

Page 4 of 6
cold fluid leaves. While for the counter current configuration,
the exit temperature of the cold and hot fluid approaches the
same value. Thus, it can be seen that counter current has
better efficiency because it is capable of cooling the hot fluid
at a much lower temperature. Additionally, counter flow is
more appropriate for maximum energy recovery. In a number
of industrial applications there will be considerable energy
available within a hot waste stream which may be recovered
before the stream is discharged. This is done by recovering
energy into a fresh cold stream. Note in the Figures shown
below that the hot stream may be cooled to cold inlet fluid for
counter flow, but may only be cooled to cold outlet
temperature for parallel flow. Counter flow allows for more
energy recovery. Similar arguments may be made to show the
advantage of counter flow for energy recovery from
refrigerated cold streams (3).
60 0.260606 60 0.257576
Table 5. Calculated Values for Thermal Effectiveness for Co-
Current and Counter Current Flow.
Thermal effectiveness (𝜀) measures the ratio of the
tube side temperature to the maximum temperature change
across the heat exchanger (4). Based from the data obtained,
co-current is more effective and efficient than counter current
since the peak of effectiveness obtained was greater.
Theoretically, counter current flow heat exchangers are more
efficient than co-current flow since they produce a more
uniform temperature difference between the fluid.
In conclusion, the students were able to accomplish
successfully the determination of overall heat transfer
coefficient and correlated the said component to other
parameters involved. Based from the results gathered, it was
understood that the overall heat transfer coefficient can be a
function of inlet temperature, flow geometry and
characteristics, and fluid properties. It can be concluded that
heat transfer rate is directly proportional with flow rate and
inlet temperature and has a direct relationship with the overall
heat transfer coefficient.

Furthermore, it can be concluded that counter-

Figure 11. Temperature Profiles for Co-Current and Counter
Current Flow. (From www.unilab.eu)
On the other hand, the thermal effectiveness of co-
current and counter current flows were also calculated and the
results are shown in Table 5 to determine which configuration
is better.
current configuration is better than co-current based on its
thermal effectiveness since it is capable to cool the hot fluid at
a temperature lower than the cold fluid. The significance and
influence of LMTD to the overall heat transfer coefficient was
also realized. It can be concluded that LMTD is an important
parameter for accurate measurement of the temperature drop
in the system and is directly proportional to the flowrate, inlet
temperature, and overall heat transfer coefficient.

Co-Current Flow Counter Current Flow In order for the experiment to gain more accurate
𝑽̇𝑪 = 1 L/min results, the apparatus and its setup must be calibrated
TSET (oC) 𝜀 TSET (oC) 𝜀 correctly and must be checked from time to prevent unwanted
40 0.092857 40 0.153846 conditions to happen. Ample time is essential to allow the
equipment to stabilize so that the values that will be read from
50 0.206278 50 0.204762 it will be accurate. Lastly, for a more better model of
relationships of affected parameters and the overall heat
60 0.236364 60 0.218182 transfer coefficient, a measurement for an additional flow rate
and temperature is recommended.
𝑽̇𝑪 = 2 L/min
TSET (oC) 𝜀 TSET (oC) 𝜀
40 0.107692 40 0.115385

50 0.217391 50 0.208696

Page 5 of 6
 REFERENCES

(1) Brogan, R.J. (2011). “Shell and Tube Heat

Exchangers”. Retrieved from:
http://www.thermopedia.com/content/1121/

(2) Mukherjee, R. (1998). “Effectively Design Shell-

and-Tube Heat Exchanger”. Retrieved from:
http://www-
unix.ecs.umass.edu/~rlaurenc/Courses/che333/Ref
erence/exchanger.pdf

(3) Nptel (n.d.). “Heat Exchangers”. Retrieved from:

https://nptel.ac.in/courses/Webcourse-
contents/IISc-
BANG/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/pdf/M7/
Student_Slides_M7.pdf

(4) Engineered Software Inc. (2015). “What is the

Difference Between the Effectiveness-NTU and
LMTD Methods for Analyzing Heat Exchangers?”.
Retrieved from: https://eng-software.com/about-
us/press/articles/what-is-the-difference-between-
the-effectiveness-ntu-and-lmtd-methods-for-
analyzing-heat-exchangers/

Page 6 of 6