Experiment - 10

Experiment – 10
Double Pipe Heat Exchanger
Group - 13
Payday Gang

Apurva Chauhan 2018A1PS0061P

Aman Agarwal 2018A1PS0036P

Abhishek Kumar 2018A1PS0060P

Vinckal Jindal 2018A1PS0146P

Aniketraj Jha 2018A1PS0068P

1
Experiment - 10

1) AIM:

• To calculate the overall heat transfer coefficient (theoretical and experimental) of the
heat exchanger.
• To calculate the local heat transfer coefficient of the heat exchanger using Seider Tate
Equation and Dittus-Boelter Equation.

2) OBJECTIVE: To study the heat transfer phenomena in parallel and counter flow
arrangements.

3) Observation table:

a. Counter Current:-

Hot
Hot Cold
Flow Rate Flow Rate water Cold water out
S.No. water in water in
ṁH(LPM) ṁC(LPM) out (°C)
(°C) (°C)
(°C)

1 2 2 65.8 53.3 32.4 41.1

2 3 2 65.3 54.8 32.4 41.5

b. Co- current (Parallel):-

Hot Hot Cold

Flow Rate Flow Rate Cold water out
S.No. water in water water in
ṁH(LPM) ṁC(LPM) (°C)
(°C) out (°C) (°C)

1 2 2 65.1 52.4 32.2 38.4

2 3 2 64.6 53.6 32.3 38.8

2
Experiment - 10

4) Sample Calculations:

Now we will use this data to calculate required properties. As per assumptions, fluid properties we
have used are for water at 20 °C, so by the properties given in the manual and the observation
tables, we have for the first set of readings;

Hot Fluid in Counter-

Current Flow

Mass flow rate, 𝑚̇𝑤= 2 LPM or

2 𝑇1= 65.8 °C Density, ρw = 998.21 kg/m3
× 0.99821 = 0.03327 kg/s
60

Specific heat, 𝑐𝑝𝑤= 4.185 Thermal conductivity, 𝑘𝑓𝑤= Kinematic viscosity, νw =

kJ/kg.K 0.598 W/m.K 1.003 x 10−6 m2/s

Cold Fluid in Counter-

Current Flow

Mass flow rate, 𝑚̇𝑤= 2 LPM or

2 t1= 32.4 °C Density, ρc = 998.21 kg/m3
× 0.99821 = 0.03327 kg/s
60

Specific heat, 𝑐𝑝c= 4.185 Thermal conductivity, 𝑘𝑓c= Kinematic viscosity, νc = 1.003
kJ/kg.K 0.598 W/m.K x 10−6 m2/s

For the pipes, according to the diagram;

3
Experiment - 10

We have
Length of pipe= 1.66 m,
I.D of inner pipe, IDp = 0.0158 m,
O.D of inner pipe, ODp = 0.0226 m,
0.0158 0.0226
Mean diameter of pipe, MDp= + = 0.0212 𝑚 [where, MDp=(IDp+ODp)/2]
2 2

I.D of outer pipe, IDa = 0.0266 m,

Now we will calculate the velocities in the tubular and annular regions. We have assumed that
the tube contains hot fluid and the annular region contains the cold fluid.

𝜋 0.03327 × 4
𝑉𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 = 𝑚̇⁄𝜌( 𝐼𝐷𝑝 2 ) = = 0.1699 𝑚/𝑠
4 (998.21 × 𝜋 × 0.0158)
and

𝜋 4
𝑉𝑎 = 𝑚̇⁄𝜌( )(𝐼𝐷𝑎 2 − 𝑂𝐷𝑝 2 ) = 0.03327 × = 0.2156 𝑚/𝑠
4 998.21 × 𝜋 × (0.02662 − 0.02262 )

Equivalent diameter is given as;

(𝐼𝐷𝑎 2 − 𝑂𝐷𝑝 2 ) 0.02662 − 0.02262

𝐷𝑒 = = = 0.0087 𝑚
𝑂𝐷𝑝 0.02261

Heat transfer areas can be calculated as;

4
Experiment - 10

Area of pipe, Ap= π*MDp*L = 𝜋 × 0.0212 × 1.66 = 0.1105 𝑚2

Area of annulus, Aa = π*De*L = 𝜋 × 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 × 1.66

= 𝜋 × 0.0087 × 1.66 = 0.0453 𝑚2

Heat transfer rate for hot water is;

𝑄𝑤 = 0.03327 × 4.185 × (65.8 − 53.3) = 1.7404 𝑘𝑊

Heat transfer rate for cold water is;

𝑄𝑐 = 0.03327 × 4.185 × (41.1 − 32.4) = 1.2113 𝑘𝑊

Therefore,
𝑄𝑤 + 𝑄𝑐
𝑄 = 𝑞𝑚 = = 1.4758 𝑘𝑊
2

Now, we know 𝑄 = 𝑞𝑚 = 𝑈0,𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑡 𝐴𝑝 ∆𝑇𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷

Ap is 0.1105 m2 and ∆𝑇𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷 needs to be found out for counter current flow. It is calculated as;

(𝑇1 − 𝑡2 ) − (𝑇2 − 𝑡1 )
𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷 = = 22.74 °𝐶
𝑇1 − 𝑡2
ln (𝑇 − 𝑡 )
2 1
Therefore, 𝑈0,𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑡 can be calculated.

𝑄 1475.8 𝑊
𝑈0,𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑡 = = = 45.1372 2
𝐴𝑝 × ∆𝑇𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷 0.1105 × 312.02 𝑚 .𝐾

This is the overall heat transfer coefficient (experimental).

We now calculate Reynolds number for annular and tubular flow.

𝑉×𝐷
𝑅𝑒 =
𝜈
For annular region;
0.0087
𝑅𝑒 = 0.2156 × = 1870.10
1.003 × 10−6
This is laminar flow.

For tubular region;

5
Experiment - 10

0.0158
𝑅𝑒 = 0.1699 × = 2676.39
1.003 × 10−6

This is neither laminar nor turbulent but we will take it to be turbulent for calculations.

Now, Nusselt number can be calculated as;

For annular region, by Seider-Tate equation;

1 1
𝐷 × 𝑅𝑒 × 𝑃𝑟 3 7 3
𝑁𝑢 = 1.86 ( ) = 1.86 × (0.0087 × 1870.10 × ) = 7.614
𝐿 1.66
Also,
ℎ𝐷 0.0087
𝑁𝑢 = = 7.614 = ℎ ×
𝐾𝑓 0.598
𝑊
Therefore, ℎ𝑎 = 523.35 𝑚2.𝐾

For turbulent flow, we will use Modified Dittus-Boelter Equation which is;

4
Using this equation, as the fluid is being heated, we will get 𝑁𝑢 = 0.023 × (2676.39)5 × 70.4 =
0.589 𝑊
28.40 and ℎ𝑡 = 28.40 × 0.0158 = 1075.025 𝑚2.𝐾

Now, we can calculate theoretical overall heat transfer coefficient by

1 1 1 𝑂𝐷𝑝 𝑂𝐷𝑝 𝑂𝐷𝑝
= + + 𝑙𝑛 ( )
𝑈0 ℎ𝑎 ℎ𝑝 𝐼𝐷𝑝 2𝑘 𝐼𝐷𝑝

Inputting values,
1 1 1 0.0226 0.0266 0.0226
= + × + 𝑙𝑛 ( )
𝑈0 523.35 1076.025 0.0158 2 × 0.598 0.0158
𝑊
𝑈𝑜 = 99.9493
𝑚2 . 𝐾
Therefore, we can say that
𝑊
• The overall heat transfer coefficient (Theoretical) = 99.9493 𝑚 2 .𝐾
𝑊
• The overall heat transfer coefficient (Experimental) = 42.80
𝑚2 .𝐾
𝑊
• The local heat transfer coefficient (inner pipe) = 396.23 𝑚2.𝐾

6
Experiment - 10

𝑊
• The local heat transfer coefficient (annular space) = 523.35 𝑚2.𝐾

for the first set of readings of counter-current flow. In case of co-current flow, the only
difference would be that the LMTD would change and the new formula would be;
(𝑇1 − 𝑡1 ) − (𝑇2 − 𝑡2 )
𝐿𝑀𝑇𝐷 =
𝑇 −𝑡
ln (𝑇1 − 𝑡1 )
2 2

Results table:

Properties in Counter-current Flow Co-current flow

𝑾
𝒎𝟐 . 𝑲 Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 1 Reading 2

Overall heat
transfer
99.9493 103.5022998 99.60204651 103.5022998
coefficient
(Theoretical)

Overall heat
transfer
45.1372 52.854534 40.33162841 49.03052728
coefficient
(Experimental)

Local heat
transfer
396.23 1448.635349 1047.336095 1448.635349
coefficient
(inner pipe)

Local heat
transfer
523.35 523.4301835 523.4301835 2630.855001
coefficient
(annular space)

7
Experiment - 10

Graph plotting:

S. No Counter-current flow Co-current flow

LMTD in U0,th U0,expt LMTD in U0,th U0,expt

°C 𝑾 𝑾 °C 𝑾 𝑾
𝒎𝟐 . 𝑲 𝒎𝟐 . 𝑲 𝒎𝟐 . 𝑲 𝒎𝟐 . 𝑲

Reading 27.74 99.9493 45.1372 22.12 99.60204651 40.33162841

1

Reading 23.09 103.5022998 52.854534 22.43 103.5022998 49.03052728

2

Counter-current flow
120
Overall Heat transfer coefficient

100

80

60
U theoretical

40 U experimental

20

0
20 22 24 26 28 30
LMTD

8
Experiment - 10

Co-current flow
120
Overall Heat transfer coefficient

100

80

60
U theoretical

40 U experimental

20

0
22.1 22.15 22.2 22.25 22.3 22.35 22.4 22.45
LMTD

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

RESULTS:
• In this experiment, we have found out the overall heat transfer coefficients for both counter-
current flow and co-current flow and we have found out that the overall heat transfer
coefficient for counter-current flow was greater than overall heat transfer coefficients for
co-current flow.
• We have also found out that with the increase in the rate of mass flow for the tubular fluid
or hotter fluid, the overall heat transfer coefficient in both cases of flow increased.
• Also, the local heat transfer coefficient for annular region was lower than that of the tubular
region and with the increase in mass flow rate for the hotter fluid, the local heat transfer
coefficient increased.
• The Reynolds number for each reading was also calculated and it was found out that while
the fluid flow in the annular region was laminar, the fluid flow in tubular region was
turbulent in general.

9
Experiment - 10

• The values of heat transfer rate were also found out and in general, the heat transfer rate
was higher for the hotter fluid increased with the increase of mass flow rate.
• It was also found out that the theoretical overall heat transfer coefficient was always higher
than the experimental overall heat transfer coefficient.
DISCUSSIONS:
• The reason why counter-current flow has higher overall heat transfer coefficient is because
in that type of flow, there is a higher temperature gradient at every point in the heat
exchanger than in the case of co-current flow. The high temperature gradient ensures better
heat transfer.
• With the increase of mass flow rate, the overall heat transfer coefficient increased and this
can be explained as per unit time, there is a larger mass of fluid coming in contact with the
cold fluid thus ensuring more heat transfer according to the formula.
• The local heat transfer coefficient for annular region was lower than that of the tubular
region because heat transfer in annular region was much lower than the heat transfer in
tubular region. This can also be explained as the entry and exit temperature difference for
the colder fluid is lower, the heat transfer is lower which implies lesser value of heat
transfer coefficient.
• The experimental overall heat transfer coefficient was about half times the theoretical
overall heat transfer coefficient. This is concerning because this is an error % of almost
50%. The reasons for such a large % error can be because of faulty readings, or because of
our assumptions of taking fluid properties at 20 °C. It can also be because the equipment
we have used has reduced efficiency due to fouling, corrosion or other similar problems,
as the % error is almost consistent with other readings.

CONCLUSIONS:
• We have studied and calculated the overall heat transfer coefficient both experimentally
and theoretically for both counter-current and co-current flow for two set of readings. After
the experiment, it was found out that for counter-current flow, the overall heat transfer
coefficient was higher than co-current flow which matches with the theory.

10
Experiment - 10

• We have calculated the local heat transfer coefficient of the heat exchanger using Seider
Tate Equation and Dittus-Boelter Equation and found out that the local heat transfer
coefficient for tubular region was higher than the annular region.
• The increase of mass flow rate affects the overall and local heat transfer coefficients as
increasing of mass flow rate increases the mass per unit time in contact with the other fluid
which facilitates heat transfer.
• Graphs of the overall heat transfer coefficient both experimentally and theoretically were
plotted against LMTD and the curve was decreasing was counter-current flow and
increasing for co-current flow. This trend can be explained as the increasing of LMTD
means lesser temperature gradient therefore lesser overall heat transfer for counter-current
flow while for co-current the LMTD difference is only slightly greater so other factors have
compensated for the trend we see.

11