Counter & Parallel

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 18
At a glance
Powered by AI
The main aim of the experiment was to study heat transfer phenomena in parallel and counter flow arrangements by calculating the LMTD and overall heat transfer coefficient and comparing their performance.

The objectives of the experiment were to calculate the LMTD and overall heat transfer coefficient for both parallel and counter flow arrangements in order to compare the performance of the two types of heat exchangers.

In counter flow, the hot fluid enters at one end while the cold fluid enters at the other end, allowing their temperatures to approach each other more closely compared to parallel flow. This makes counter flow the most efficient arrangement.

1.

0 ABSTRACT
The main aim of this experiment was to study the heat transfer phenomena in both
parallel and counter flow arrangements. This was done by calculating the Logarithmic
Mean Temperature Difference (LMTD) and the overall heat transfer coefficient for both
parallel and counter flow arrangements. Hence, a comparison of the performance of
parallel and counter flow heat exchanger was made. The apparatus consists of a
concentric tube heat exchanger. The hot water flows through inner tube and cold water
flows through outer tubes. Direction of cold fluid flow can be changed from parallel or
counter to hot water so that unit can be operated as parallel or counter flow heat
exchanger. For flow measurement rotameters are provided. A magnetic drive pump is
used to circulate the hot water from a recycled type water tank, which is fitted with
heaters and digital temperature controller. In both parallel and counter flow the flow
rates were set at 155 LPH. The temperature recordings at the sensors were recorded at
10 minute intervals until a considerable steady state was reached. The temperature
sensors that were used to record the temperatures during the parallel flow arrangement
were T1, T2, T3 and T4 .While for the counter flow arrangement, the temperature
sensors involved were T1, T2, T3, and T5.T1 records the inlet temperature of hot water,
T2 records the outlet temperature of hot water, T3 records the inlet temperature of cold
water, T4 records the outlet temperature of cold water for parallel flow, and T5 records
the outlet temperature of cold water for counter flow. For parallel flow, considerable
steady state was reached at the 70 th minute with temperature readings of T1=69.8
, T2=62.2 , T3=37.2 , T4=44.2 . While for counter flow, steady state was
reached at the 60th minute, with temperature recordings of T1=72.6 , T2=62.4
, T3=33.9 , T5=42.4 .The inside and outside overall heat transfer coefficient
for parallel flow was calculated to 1103.132 W/mC and 826.484 W/mC respectively.
While in counter flow, the inside and outside overall heat transfer coefficient obtained
values of 1183.476 W/mC and 886.679 W/mC respectively.

2.0 OBJEBTIVES
The objectives of this experiment were:

To calculate the LMTD for both parallel and counter flow arrangements.
To calculate the overall heat transfer coefficient for both parallel and counter flow

arrangements.
To compare the performance of parallel and counter flow heat exchanger.

3.0 INTRODUCTION
A heat exchanger can have several different flow patterns. Counter flow, parallel flow,
and crossflow are common heat exchanger types. A counter flow heat exchanger is the
most efficient flow pattern of the three. It leads to the lowest required heat exchanger
surface area because the log mean temperature drop is the highest for a counter flow
heat exchanger.

The Counter Flow Heat Exchanger


A counter flow heat exchanger has the hot fluid entering at one end of the heat
exchanger flow path and the cold fluid entering at the other end of the flow path.
Counter flow is the most common type of liquid-liquid heat exchanger, because it is the
most efficient. A double pipe heat exchanger is usually operated as a counter flow heat
exchanger, as shown in the diagram at the left. A picture of a double pipe heat
exchanger is shown at the right. The flow pattern in a shell and tube heat exchanger
with a single tube pass will be approximately counter flow if it is long in comparison with
its diameter. Because of the baffles and the need to distribute the flow of the shell side
fluid over the cross-section of the shell, the flow is not as close to counter flow in a shell
2

and tube heat exchanger as it is in a double pipe heat exchanger. The bottom diagram
on the left shows approximately counter flow in a straight tube, one tube pass shell, and
tube heat exchanger.

The Parallel Flow Heat Exchanger


A double pipe heat exchanger can be operated in parallel flow mode as shown in the
diagram at the left. Similarly a shell and tube heat exchanger can be operated in
approximately parallel flow by having both fluids enter at one end and exit at the other
end. With parallel flow the temperature difference between the two fluids is large at the
entrance end, but it becomes small at the exit end as the two fluid temperatures
approach each other. The overall measure of heat transfer driving force, the log mean
temperature difference is greater for counter flow, and so the heat exchanger surface
area requirement will be larger than for a counter flow heat exchanger with the same
inlet and outlet temperatures for the hot and the cold fluid.

The Cross Flow Heat Exchanger


A car radiator and an air conditioner evaporator coil are examples of crossflow heat
exchangers. In both cases heat transfer is taking place between a liquid flowing inside a
tube or tubes and air flowing past the tubes. With a car radiator, the hot water in the
tubes is being cooled by air flowing through the radiator between the tubes. With an air
conditioner evaporator coil, air flowing past the evaporator coils is cooled by the cold
refrigerant flowing inside the tube(s) of the coil. Crossflow heat exchangers are typically
used for heat transfer between a gas and a liquid as in these two examples.

Hybrid Flow Heat Exchangers

Shell and tube heat exchangers with two or four tube passes are common. They will
have a hybrid flow pattern, where it might be approximately concurrent flow in some part
of the heat exchanger and approximately parallel flow or crossflow in another part.
Examples are the straight tube heat exchanger with 2 tube passes shown at the left and
the two pass condenser shown at the right.

4.0 RESULTS AND DATA


For the parallel flow arrangement, it took 70 minutes for the system to reach a
considerable steady state. Whereas for counter flow, it took 60 minutes. The
temperature recordings were recorded at 10 minute intervals at a constant flow rate of
155 LPH.
Table 1: Temperature readings of sensors at a constant flow rate 155 LPH for
parallel flow mode recorded at 10 minute intervals for 70 minutes.
Time
(min)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70

Fh (LPH)
155
155
155
155
155
155
155
155

Hot water side


T1 (C)
T2 (C)
70.5
59.2
71.7
62.2
69.7
61.3
72.3
63.4
70.7
62.6
69.8
62.5
69.8
62.4
69.8
62.2

Cold water side


Fw (LPH)
T3 (C)
T4 (C)
155
30.2
38.3
155
31.6
40.1
155
33.8
41.4
155
35.2
43.0
155
36.5
43.7
155
37.5
44.3
155
37.3
44.1
155
37.2
44.2

Table 2: Temperature readings of sensors at a constant flow rate 155 LPH for
counter mode flow recorded at 10 minute intervals for 60 minutes.
Time
(min)
0
10
20
30

Fh (LPH)
155
155
155
155

Hot water side


T1 (C)
T2 (C)
69.3
59.9
71.8
62.4
71.1
62.7
72.1
62.4

Cold water side


Fw (LPH)
T3 (C)
T5 (C)
155
34.1
41.3
155
34.0
42.4
155
33.8
42.0
155
34.3
42.5
4

40
50
60

155
155
155

72.3
72.4
72.6

62.2
62.3
62.4

155
155
155

34.1
34.0
33.9

42.6
42.4
42.4

The temperature readings obtained as shown in table 1 and table 2, were then used to
calculate the heat gained (Qc) and heat loss (Qh) by the hot and cold water, the average
heat transfer within the system (Q), the LMTD (T m), and also the overall inside,(U i) and
outside, (UO) heat transfer coefficient. The values that were obtained are as shown
below.
Table 3: Calculated values of Qh, Qc, Q, Tm, Ui and Uo in parallel flow heat transfer
arrangement.
Time
(min)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70

Qh
(W)
1997.057
1679.037
1487.944
1570.959
1431.539
1290.060
1307.722
1243.047

Qc
(W)
1446.676
1519.308
1357.600
1392.776
1285.099
1213.467
1213.455
1249.145

Q
(W)
1772.912
1599.173
1422.772
1481.868
1358.319
1251.764
1260.589
1296.096

Tm
(C)
29.55
30.21
27.12
27.92
25.80
24.58
24.72
25.58

Ui
(W/mC)
1219.770
1107.431
1097.533
1110.366
1101.423
1065.400
1066.835
1103.132

U
(W/mC)
913.871
829.706
822.290
831.904
825.204
798.215
799.290
826.484

Table 3: Calculated values of Qh, Qc, Q, Tm, Ui and Uo in counter flow heat transfer
Time
(min)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60

Qh
(W)
1660.836
1661.399
1661.232
1714.459
1785.159
1802.872
1802.898

Qc
(W)
1287.659
1498.795
1463.088
1463.123
1516.648
1498.795
1516.637

Q
(W)
1474.248
1580.097
1562.160
1588.791
1650.904
1650.834
1659.768
arrangement.

Tm
(C)
26.88
28.90
28.50
28.84
28.90
29.19
29.34

Ui
(W/mC)
1147.404
1143.821
1146.708
1152.507
1195.078
1183.154
1183.476

U
(W/mC)
859.648
856.969
859.132
863.477
895.372
886.439
886.679

5.0 DISCUSSION
This experiment was carried out successfully, with the objectives achieved. Which was
to study the heat transfer phenomena in parallel and counter flow arrangements.
Therefore, the LMTD values for both parallel and counter mode flows were calculated.
Also the overall heat transfer coefficients for both modes of flow were calculates, with
that, a comparison in terms of performance was done for both counter and parallel flow
arrangements. Throughout the duration of this experiment, the flow rates of both hot
and cold water in both modes of flow were kept constant at 155 LPH. The temperature
recordings were collected at 10 minute intervals until a considerable steady state was
achieved. For the parallel flow arrangement, a steady state was attained at the 70 th
minute, whereas for the counter flow arrangement, steady state was achieved at the
60th minute. Furthermore, in order to better understand the principles of the parallel and
counter flow heat transfer, the properties of both the hot and cold water was determined
using methods of interpolation which can be seen later on in the appendix of this report.
In the parallel flow arrangement, the inlet flow of both hot and cold water enters at one
end and exits at the other end, proving that there was no friction in terms of the flow of
water within the system. With this said, it is evident also that there were different forms
of heat transfer taking place within the heat exchanger system, mainly convection and
conduction. Convection can be seen when heat was being transferred from the hot
water to the cold water. For convective heat transfer, it depends on the properties of
fluid, flow geometry, and the flow rate. Whereas conduction was taken place as heat
was being transferred across the pipe to the flowing liquids. The temperature sensors
that were used to record the temperatures during the parallel flow arrangement were
T1, T2, T3 and T4. T1 records the inlet temperature of hot water, T2 records the outlet
temperature of hot water, T3 records the inlet temperature of cold water and T4 records
the outlet temperature of cold water for parallel. At the beginning of the experiment for
parallel flow, the temperature readings that were collected were T1=70.5 , T2=59.2
, T3=30.2 , T4=38.3 . Upon attaining a considerable steady state at the

70th minute, the temperature readings that were recorded were T1=69.8 , T2=62.2
, T3=37.2 , T4=44.2 .

In terms of counter flow heat exchanger, the inlet of hot water and inlet of cold water
was different in a way where both of the flow of inlet and hot water was flowing in
directions opposite of each other. Hence, naming it counter flow heat exchanger. During
counter flow mode there will friction present, unlike the parallel flow arrangement. The
temperature sensors that were involved in recording the temperatures during the
counter flow arrangement was T1, T2, T3 and T5. Here, T5 records the outlet
temperature of the cold water during counter flow, while the rest of the sensors functions
normally as stated previously. At the 0 minute mark, the temperature readings were
T1=69.3 , T2=59.9 , T3=34.1 , T5=41.3 . As for the counter flow
mode, steady state was reached faster compared to the parallel flow mode which was
at the 60th minute. The temperature readings recorded at the 60 minute mark were,
T1=72.6 , T2=62.4 , T3=33.9 , T5=42.4 .
Hence with the temperature readings collected, it was then used to plot graphs with
respect to time at 10 minute intervals. Two separate graphs were plotted for parallel and
counter flow mode arrangement respectively, with constant flow rates of 155 LPH for
both hot and cold fluid.

80
70
60
50

Temperature (C)

40

T1 (C)
T2 (C)

30

T3 (C)

20

T4 (C)

10
0
0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Time (min)

Figure 1: Temperature readings versus time at 10 minute intervals for parallel flow
arrangement.
Upon analyzing the graph above, the temperature recordings were fluctuating
throughout the experiment till the 40 minute mark. From the 50 th minute onwards it
started reaching a significant steady state which was at the 70 th minute. These
increment and decrement of values can also be seen in the temperature difference
between the inlet and outlet of both hot water. Theoretically, in parallel flow the
temperature difference between the two fluids is large at the entrance end, but it
becomes small at the exit end as the two fluid temperatures approach each other. The
reasons that these increment and decrement in temperatures occurred is because of
the uneven distribution heat energy that was being transferred within the system itself.
Secondly, it could also be due to the fact that there was no frictional force present to
assist in the stabilization of the rate of heat transfer.
The temperature readings for counter mode that were tabulated in table 2 were then
used to also plot a graph of temperature readings of the respective sensors (T1, T2, T3,
& T5) with respect to time.

80
70
60
50

Temperature (C)

40

T1 (C)
T2 (C)

30

T3 (C)

20

T5 (C)

10
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Time (min)

Figure 2: Temperature readings versus time at 10 minute intervals for counter


flow arrangement.
By observing the graph above, it is obvious that unlike in the parallel flow values of the
temperature readings were not fluctuating as much due to the friction that was present
caused by the two fluids flowing in the opposite direction. The system achieved a
significant steady state at the 60 th minute of the experiment. This also shows that
compared to parallel flow mode, the system achieves a significant steady state at a
higher rate with counter flow mode.
The temperature profiles of the two heat exchangers at their respective mode of flow,
indicate two major disadvantages in the parallel flow design. First, the large temperature
difference at the ends causes large thermal stresses. The opposing expansion and
contraction of the construction materials due to the diverse fluid temperatures can lead
to eventual material failure. Secondly, the temperature of the cold fluid exiting the heat
exchanger never exceeds the lowest temperature of the hot fluid. This relationship is a
distinct disadvantage if the purpose of the design was to raise the temperature of the
cold fluid.

The temperature readings recorded were used to calculate the Logarithmic Mean
Temperature Difference (LMTD) for both parallel and counter flow arrangement. When a
fluid is being heated, the temperature of the fluid is a maximum at the wall of the heating
surface and decreases toward the center of the stream. If the fluid is being cooled, the
temperature is a minimum at the wall and increases toward the center. Because the
temperature difference between the hot and cold fluid streams varies along the length of
the heat exchanger it is necessary to derive an average temperature difference (driving
force) from which heat transfer calculations can be performed. This average
temperature difference is called the Logarithmic Mean Temperature Difference. It is also
evident here that the higher the LMTD value the higher the amount of heat being
transferred. With that, graphs were plotted to further understand the phenomena of heat
transfer for both the parallel and counter flow heat exchanger respectively.
35
30
25
20

LMTD (C) 15

Tm in counter flow
10

Tm in parallel flow

5
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Time (min)

Figure 3: Calculated LMTD values corresponding to counter and parallel flow


respectively with time at 10 minute intervals.
From the graph above, it is seen that the LMTD for counter flow will eventually become
higher compared to the LMTD values of the parallel flow, thus, proving that the
efficiency of the counter flow heat exchanger is much higher compared to that of the
10

parallel flow heat exchanger. At the 0 minute mark the values LMTD values for both
parallel flow and counter flow were calculated to be equivalent to 29.55

and 26.88

respectively. While the final LMTD values for both parallel and counter flow were

calculated to be, 25.58

and 29.34 . The increment of the LMTD values in the

counter flow arrangement can also be observed in the graph shown above. It increased
gradually until reaching a steady state, while in parallel mode, the opposite occurred by
decreasing in value. It was also observed that in the counter flow arrangement, it took a
much shorter time for the LMTD value to become constant compared to parallel flow.
This, as stated previously, could be due to the uneven distribution of heat that occurred
within the system.

Whether parallel or counter flow, heat transfer within the heat exchanger involves both
conduction and convection. One fluid (hot) convectively transfers heat to the tube wall
where conduction takes place across the tube to the opposite wall. The heat is then
convectively transferred to the second fluid. This is because this process takes place
over the entire length of the exchanger, the temperature of the fluids as they flow
through the exchanger is not generally constant, but varies over the entire length. The
rate of heat transfer varies along the length of the exchanger tubes because the values
depends on the temperature difference between hot and the cold fluid. In the parallel
flow arrangement, the temperature of the cold water outlet is always lesser that that of
the hot water outlet. Therefore, the heat transfer is restricted by the cold waters outlet
temperature. On the other hand, in the counter flow arrangement, the restriction is
relaxed and outlet temperature of cold water can exceed the outlet temperature of hot
water. Hence, in this design, the heat transfer is restricted by the cold water inlet
temperature.

11

At the beginning of the experiment, the heat loss by hot water in both parallel and
counter flow was calculated to be 1997.057 Watts and 1660.836 Watts respectively. The
values pertaining to heat gained by cold water however were equivalent to, 1448.767
Watts and 1287.659 Watts for parallel and counter flow respectively. For the final
readings however, the heat loss by hot water for both parallel and counter flow were
1243.047 Watts and 1802.898 Watts respectively. As for the heat gained by cold, the
values obtained were 1249.145 Watts and 1516.637 Watts for parallel and counter flow
respectively. The heat loss by hot water and the heat gained by cold water increased
throughout the duration that the experiment was conducted for counter flow fluid
arrangement, As for parallel flow, the values pertaining to heat gained by cold water and
heat loss by hot water, it showed patterns of increment and decrement throughout the
experiment, and eventually decreasing in trend and stabilizing. It is evident here that the
rate of heat transfer in counter flow will eventually also show much higher readings
compared to that of parallel flow. At the respective steady states of the two experiment
conducted, the readings that were obtained pertaining to the amount of heat transferred
was calculated to be equivalent to 1296.096 Watts and 1659.768 Watts for parallel and
counter flow respectively.

Inside overall heat transfer O utside overall heat transfer


coefficient (W/mC)
coefficient (W/mC)

Ui
U

Time (min)

12

Figure 5: Overall inside (U) and outside (U) heat transfer coefficient versus time
at 10 minute intervals for parallel flow.

Outside overall heat transfer


Inside overall heat transfer
coefficient
coefficient (W/mC)
(W/mC)

Ui
U

Time (min)

Figure 5: Overall inside (U) and outside (U) heat transfer coefficient versus time
at 10 minute intervals for counter flow.
As stated earlier the higher the amount of heat transferred the higher the LMTD value to
be. Hence, by observing the formula (which can be seen on the appendix of this report)
to calculate the overall heat transfer coefficient (U), U is observed to be the
proportionality constant. Therefore, by understanding the function of U in a theoretical
basis it would be easier to comprehend it practically. Which is, by calculated the inside
and outside overall heat transfer coefficient it would help in further understanding of
heat transfer in the fluid and also pipes in both modes of flow.
By observing the graphs above, it can be seen that for both parallel and counter flow
mode, the inside and outside overall heat transfer coefficient showed similar trends in
their respective modes of flow. In parallel flow, it can be seen that it fluctuates in a
decreasing manner, whereas for counter flow, increased gradually throughout the
duration of the experiment. The final readings for both parallel and counter flow for the
inside and outside overall heat transfer are as follows: 826.484 W/mc (Uo) and
13

1103.123 W/mc (Ui) for parallel flow; 886.679 W/mc (Uo) and 1183.476 W/mc (Ui)
for counter flow. From here, it is obvious that the values of the inside and outside overall
heat transfer coefficient were higher in counter flow mode compared to the parallel
mode flow. Here, it is evident that there is frictional as well as turbulence force occurring
in transfer of energy across the walls, thus, eventually leading to an increase in driving
force. In conclusion, from these findings, it is evident that the counter flow heat
exchanger has a higher efficiency compared to the parallel mode heat exchanger.
6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This experiment was carried out successfully with the aims of the experiment being
achieved. Which was to study the heat transfer phenomena in parallel and counter fluid
flow arrangements. This was done by calculating the Logarithmic Mean Temperature
Difference (LMTD) and the overall heat transfer coefficient for both parallel and counter
flow arrangements. Hence, a comparison of the performance of parallel and counter
flow heat exchanger was made. The parallel flow heat exchanger experiment reached a
significant steady state at the 70 minute mark where the LMTD was 24.58 oC, the rate of
heat transfer (Q) was 1296.096 Watts, the outside overall transfer coefficient was
826.484 W/mC and the inside overall heat transfer coefficient was 1103.132 W/mC
Whereas the counter flow heat exchanger achieved a steady state at the 60 th minute,
with values of ; 29.34 oC for LMTD, 1659.768 Watts for rate of heat transfer, 886.679
W/mC outside overall coefficient and 1183.476 W/mC for inside overall heat transfer
coefficient.
An advantage with parallel flow type heat exchangers is a more uniform wall
temperature. In applications where wall temperatures are too high or too low can lead to
problems such as corrosion as faced by exchangers handling flue gases or can
experience chemical reactions or unwanted phase change (freezing) co-current type
heat exchangers are provided in complete or in part. It is a common design feature of
furnace air preheat exchangers which exchange heat between fresh cold air and
furnace effluent flue gases, where too low a wall temperature can lead to corrosion
because of acidic gases condensing with water. Furthermore, the design of a parallel

14

flow heat exchanger is advantageous when two fluids are required to be brought nearly
to the same temperature.
The counter flow heat exchanger has three significant advantages over the parallel flow
design. First, the more uniform temperature difference between two fluids minimizes the
thermal stress throughout the heat exchanger. Second, the outlet temperature of the
cold fluid can approach the highest temperature of the hot fluid (inlet temperature).
Third, the more uniform temperature difference produces a more uniform rate of heat
transfer throughout the heat exchanger.
7.0 REFERENCES
Heat Exchanger. (2016). Retrieved from www.real-world-physics-problems.com
Dr. Bengston, H. (2010). Heat Exchanger Flow Patterns.
Retrieved from www.brighthubengineering.com
Parallel and Counter Flow Designs. (2016). Retrieved from www.engineersedge.com
8.0 APPENDIX
Length of tube L
Outer diameter of tube D0
Inner diameter of tube Di

1.6m
0.0095m
0.0127m

For parallel mode, using the data recorded at the 70 th minute:


T 1+T 2 69.8+62.2
Mean hot water temperature Th=
=
=66.0 C
2
2
Mean temperature of cold water Tc=

T 3+T 4 37.2+44.2
=
=40.70 C
2
2

Properties of water at Th and Tc:


( T T 1 )( y 2 y 1)
( 66.060 ) (977.5980.4)
h= y 1+
=980.4+
=979.820 Kg /m
T 2T 1
7065

Cph= y 1+

C = y 1+

( T T 1 ) ( y 2 y 1)
( 66.060 ) (41904187)
=4187+
=4187.60 J / Kg C
T 2T 1
7065

( T T 1 ) ( y 2 y 1)
( 40.740 ) (990.1992.1)
=9992.1+
=991.820 Kg/m
T 2T 1
4540

15

Cpc= y 1+

( T T 1 ) ( y 2 y 1)
( 40.7040 ) (41804179)
=4179+
=4179.14 J / Kg C
T 2T 1
4540

Mass flow rate of hot water, Mh


Fh h
155 979.820

=
=0.04220 Kg /sec
3600 1000 3600 1000
Heat loss by hot water, Qh = MhCph(T1-T2)
0.04220 4187.60 [ 69.862.2 ] =1343.047 W

Mass flow rate of hot water, Mc


Fh c
155 991.820

=
=0.04270 Kg /sec
3600 1000 3600 1000
Heat loss by hot water, Qc = McCpc(T4-T3)
0.04270 4179.14 [ 44.237.2 ] =1249.145 W
Average heat transfer systemQ=

Qh+ Qc 1343.05+1249.15
=
=1296.10W
2
2

Temperature difference inlet at of hot wtaer T 1=(T 1T 3)=69.837.2=32.6 C


Temperature difference at outlet of hot wtaer T 2=T 2T 4=62.244.2=18.0 C

Logarithmic meantemp .difference Tm=

( T 1 T 2) 32.618.0
=
=24.58 C
T 1
32.6
ln
ln
T 2
18.0

[ ]

[ ]

Inside heat transfer area A = DL=3.142 0.0095 1.6=0.0478 m2


Outside heat transfer area A = DL=3.142 0.0127 1.6=0.0638 m2
Overall inside heat transfer coeffificient U =

Q
1296.096
=
=1103.123 W /m C
A Tm 0.0478 24.58

16

Overall outside heat transfer coeffificient U =

Q
1296.096
=
=826.484 W /m C
A Tm 0.0638 24.58

For Counter mode, using the data recorded at the 60 th minute:


T 1+T 2 72.6+62.4
Mean hot water temperature Th=
=
=67.50 C
2
2
Mean temperature of cold water Tc=

T 3+T 4 33.9+ 42.4


=
=38.20 C
2
2

Properties of water at Th and Tc:


( T T 1 )( y 2 y 1)
( 67.5060 ) (977.5980.4)
h= y 1+
=980.4+
=978.950 Kg/m
T 2T 1
7065

Cph= y 1+

C = y 1+

( T T 1 ) ( y 2 y 1)
( 67.5060 ) (41904187)
=4187+
=4188.50 J /Kg C
T 2T 1
7065

( T T 1 ) ( y 2 y 1)
( 38.2035 ) (992.1994.0)
=9992.1+
=992.784 Kg/m
T 2T 1
4035

Cpc= y 1+

( T T 1 ) ( y 2 y 1)
( 38.2035 ) ( 41794178)
=4179+
=4178.64 J / Kg C
T 2T 1
4035

Mass flow rate of hot water, Mh


Fh h
155 978.950

=
=0.04220 Kg /sec
3600 1000 3600 1000
Heat loss by hot water, Qh = MhCph(T1-T2)
0.04220 4188.50 [ 72.662.4 ] =1802.898 W
Mass flow rate of hot water, Mc
Fh c
155 992.784

=
=0.04270 Kg/sec
3600 1000 3600 1000
Heat loss by hot water, Qc = McCpc(T5-T3)
0.04270 4178.64 [ 42.433.9 ] =1516.637 W
Average heat transfer systemQ=

Qh+ Qc 1802.90+1516.637
=
=1659.768W
2
2

17

Temperature difference inlet at of hot wtaer T 1=(T 1T 5)=72.642.4=30.2 C


Temperature difference at outlet of hot wtaer T 2=T 2T 3=62.433.9=28.5 C

Logarithmic meantemp .difference Tm=

( T 1 T 2) 30.228.5
=
=29.34 C
T 1
30.2
ln
ln
T 2
28.5

[ ]

[ ]

Inside heat transfer area A = DL=3.142 0.0095 1.6=0.0478 m2


Outside heat transfer area A = DL=3.142 0.0127 1.6=0.0638 m2
Overall inside heat transfer coeffificient U =

Q
1659.768
=
=1183.476 W /m C
A Tm 0.0478 29.34

Overall outside heat transfer coeffificient U =

Q
1659.768
=
=886.679 W /m C
A Tm 0.0638 29.34

18

You might also like