Heat Exchangers experiment Date Performed: Jan19, 2012 Performed by Pravin Upadhyay, Hou- Ran Chen, James Hourton

Report by Pravin Upadhyay

Summary: The heat exchanger experiment was performed in both the double pipe heat exchanger and the shell and tube heat exchanger. All together, 8 runs were performed; 4 run for each tube. For each tube 2 counter flows and 2 parallel flows was performed. And finally, the heat lost and heat gained were calculated and studied for both parallel flow and counter flow for both the heat exchangers. The cold water flow rate was set to 1.1L/min and the hot water flow rate was kept 1.1L/min in one run and 2.1L/min in the other run for each flow. The experiment led to a conclusion that counter flow is more efficient than parallel flow for both types of heat exchangers. Similarly, a double pipe heat exchanger was more efficient than a shell and tube heat exchanger. Introduction:Heat exchangers help us to transfer heat energy from one fluid to another without making a physical contact so it is one good example for saving energy. It is used in our daily purpose as in car radiators, refrigerators, boilers, air conditioners, furnaces, swimming pool, etc. They are also used for industrial purposes as in space heating, power plants, petrochemical plants, petroleum refineries, natural gas processing and many more. In this experiment, heat exchanger is used to transfer energy from a hot stream of water to a cold stream. The group was provided with the dimensions for both shell and tube and double pipe heat exchangers by which the group calculated the area for heat exchange. The heat gained and heat lost by the two stream of water was also calculated along with the heat transfer coefficient varying the flow rates of the hot water for parallel and counter flow. The group hoped the counter flow to be more efficient than parallel flow and double pipe to be more efficient than a shell and tube based on the theoretical assumptions. Experimental Results:The group had four runs for each heat exchanger: two for parallel flow and two for counter flow. The cold water flow rate was always kept at 1.1L/min at our best and the hot was

rate was kept at 1.1L/min and 2.2L/min consecutively for two different runs for each flow. When the steady state was gained, the group recorded the following readings: For a double pipe heat exchanger:Counter Flow rate:Run (1) Hot water flow rate Cold water flow rate Thin Thout Tcin Tcout 2.12 L/min 1.1L/min 70.5 OC 62.5 OC 20.4OC 36.3OC Run(2) 1.1L/min 1.1L/min 69.2oC 57.8oC 20.4oC 32.5oC

For Parallel Flow: Run (1) Hot water flow rate Cold water flow rate Thin Thout Tcin Tcout 2.12 L/min 1.1L/min 71.4 OC 63.4 OC 20.4OC 36.5OC Run(2) 1.1L/min 1.1L/min 68.2oC 57.2oC 20.4oC 32.2oC

For a shell and tube heat exchanger:For counter flow:Run (1) Hot water flow rate Cold water flow rate Thin Thout Tcin Tcout 1.1 L/min 1.1L/min 69.8 OC 60.3 OC 20.3OC 31.2OC Run(2) 2.14L/min 1.1L/min 70oC 64.4oC 20.3oC 34.0oC

For Parallel Flow: Run (1) Hot water flow rate Cold water flow rate Thin Thout Tcin Tcout 2.18 L/min 1.1L/min 70.1 OC 64.4 OC 20.1OC 34.4OC Run(2) 1.1L/min 1.1L/min 68.6oC 60.2oC 20.1oC 28.3oC

Dimensions for a shell and tube heat exchanger:No. of tubes = 7 Outer diameter of inner tube = 6.4 mm Inner diameter of inner tube = 5.2 mm Length = 14.4 cm Dimensions for double pipe heat exchangers:Length of both tubes = 660 mm Outer diameter of inner tube = 9.5 mm Wall thickness of outer tube = 3 mm Wall thickness of inner tube = 0.6 mm Inner diameter of outer tube = 12 mm

Analysis of results:Now, the heat gained and heat lost for both the shell and tube heat exchanger and the double pipe heat exchanger was calculated by the group for counter flow and parallel flow configuration in steady state. A sample calculation for one steady state is given below in the excel chart sheet.

Based on the calculations performed in excel the following data s were obtained. For a double pipe heat exchanger:Area of double pipe heat exchanger= 0.0197 m2 Counter Flow rate Heat water flow rate Cold water flow rate
Qh(kW) Qc(kW) (oC) U(kW/m2K) 1.1L/min 1.11L/min 0.87 0.93 11.75 3.88 2.12L/min 1.1L/min 1.16 1.22 11.44 5.28 1.1L/min 1.1L/min 0.84 0.91 11.40 3.88

Parallel Flow rate

2.12L/min 1.1L/min 1.19 1.26 11.74 5.38

For a shell and tube heat exchanger:Area of shell and tube heat exchanger = 0.0203 m2 Counter Flow rate Heat water flow rate Cold water flow rate
Qh(kW) Qc(kW) ( C) U(kW/m2K)
o

Parallel Flow rate

2.14L/min 1.1L/min 0.83 1.04 9.01 5.11 1.1L/min 1.1L/min 0.64 0.63 8.29 3.76 2.18L/min 1.1L/min 1.12 1.10 10.47 5.28

1.1L/min 1.11L/min 0.73 0.83 10.18 3.77

From the data s above the group observed that heat gained is not equal to heat lost which is supposed to be. The factors behind this could be that the heat-exchanging surface also absorbs some amount of heat and the system used is not completely insulated. The group also observed that the counter flow is more effective than parallel flow because the temperature of cold water leaving the system is higher in counter flow. Also, the group observed that the higher the flow rate of hot water, the more is the heat transfer coefficient. It is also supported by the group s observation of cold water leaving the system at higher

temperature. Most importantly, the group observed that the double pipe heat exchanger is more
efficient than the shell and tube one because the value of U in double pipe heat exchanger is higher than the shell and tube heat exchanger. It is because U is inversely proportional to the area of the heat exchange surface. That is the more is the area of heat exchange the less is the value of U. Since double pipe heat exchanger has less area compared to the shell and tube heat exchanger, the group observed that double pipe heat exchanger had higher value of U compared to the shell and tube heat exchanger. Some other reasons for the error in the experiment could be because of the accumulation of air bubbles inside the heat exchangers. Few leakages were still present which would lead to a variation in the flow rate. Conclusion:Hence, we can conclude that the rate of heat transfer increases with the increase in the flow rate of the hot stream. Counter flow leads to more heat exchange than parallel flow. And a double pipe heat exchanger is more efficient than a shell and tube heat exchanger. References:Perry s chemical engineering handbook Dr. Ciciraeilli video posted in moodle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer_coefficient http://ezproxy.latech.edu:2220/ehost/detail?sid=95c4b45a-8d7a-4c4f-84fb885b7b88f786@sessionmgr15&vid=1#db=nlebk&AN=219494