Report on Fuel, Nozzle and Heat Exchanger Lab Experiments

Student Name:

Student Number:

Introduction

This report presents experimental procedure, results and discussion of three experiments. The

three experiments were on Fuel, Nozzle and Heat Exchanger. The report is divided into three

parts in accordance with the experiments done.

Part 1: Fuel Lab

Heat of combustion of fuels is an important parameter in the selection and utilization of fuels. Its

experimental determination is crucial in engineering when it comes to comparing fuel

specifications and their actual performance.

1.1. Objectives

1.1.1. General Objective

To determine the heat of combustion of solid and liquid fuels using a semi-automated Parr 6100

Bomb Calorimeter.

1.1.2. Specific Objectives

i. To determine fuel sample weights

ii. To determine the Energy Equivalent in calories and Joules per kelvin

iii. To determine the change in temperatures (∆ T )

iv. To determine the higher and lower heat values in calories and Joules per kg

v. To calculate higher heating value

1.2. Results

Results in Appendix B1 illustrates sample temperature and octane numbers. The value of

research octane number (RON) was found as 102.9 and mean octane number (MON) was 92.5.

The average value was found to be 97.7. The standard grade of petrol in literature is E10, which

has a Research Octane Number (RON) of 97 to 98 (Jargon Burster, 2023). The average value

found in this experiment fell within the range in the standard E10 for super unleaded petrol.

Appendix B1 further illustrates results of determination of cetane number. The cetane number

obtained was 47.9 for sample and freezing point temperatures of 22.2 oC and -37oC, respectively.

Generally, diesel engines operate well with a cetane number between 48 and 51 (Hidayat et al.,

2023). The cetane number of 47.9 obtained in the experiment was slightly below the optimal

range in literature but still within a reasonable range for many diesel engines. The temperatures

of 22.2°C and -37°C obtained in the experiment were relevant depending on the specific

conditions under which the fuel is expected to perform without freezing.

Appendix B3 illustrates results of burning diesel and biomass. Results for burning biomass show

that temperature change was 1.2319oC and the value of EE was 2391 Cal/ oC and 0.85478MJ/oC.

The observed higher heating value for biomass was 18.537MJ/kg and the calculated value was

18.524MJ/kg. The values are close to that of polysaccharides whose HHV is 18.60MJ/kg and

falls within that of wood ranging from 15.6 to 28.5MJ/kg (Esteves et al., 2023).

1.3. Discussion

Observed higher heating value for diesel was slightly lower than the calculated value. The

observed higher heating value for biomass was slightly higher than that of the calculated value.

The differences were very small meaning that the results of the experiment agree with the

calculations. This indicates that the experiment was conducted accurately and reliably, and that
the fuels have consistent and predictable heating values. The sources of errors that could have

caused the differences were possibly related to the accuracy of the apparatus and measuring

instruments used in the experiment, such as the bomb calorimeter, the thermometer, and the

balance (Oyebanji et al., 2023). Additionally, errors could have arisen from factors such as

incomplete combustion, heat loss, moisture content, and ash content of the biomass fuel (Gani et

al., 2023).

Higher heating value is the amount of heat produced by the complete combustion of a unit

quantity of fuel when all the products of combustion are cooled down to the initial temperature

and the water vapor formed during combustion is condensed (Favrat and Kane, 2023). Lower

heating value is the amount of heat produced by the same process when the water vapor remains

as vapor and is not condensed (Favrat and Kane, 2023; Yang et al., 2023). Therefore, higher

heating value is always higher than lower heating value because it includes the latent heat of

vaporization of water. To convert LHV to HHV, there is need to add the heat of vaporization of

water multiplied by the mass of water produced per unit mass of fuel. To convert HHV to LHV,

same quantity of heat of vaporization is subtracted. The difference between HHV and LHV is

important because it affects the efficiency and performance of combustion systems. In

applications such as gas turbines, LHV is used to calculate the efficiency, while in boilers HHV

is used for the same purpose.

Diesel was found to have a higher HHV than biomass because it contains more hydrogen and

less oxygen per unit mass than biomass (Douvartzides et al., 2019). Hydrogen has a higher heat

of combustion compared to carbon and oxygen, and water vapor has a higher heat capacity than

carbon dioxide or nitrogen (Alaedini et al., 2023). Therefore, diesel released more heat per unit

mass than biomass when it was burned.

1.4. Conclusion

The observed higher heat value for biomass was found as 18.537MJ/kg and that of diesel was

45MJ/kg. Energy equivalent for the two fuels were 2391 and 2410 Cal/ oC, respectively.

Calculated higher heat values for biomass and diesel were 18.532MJ/kg and 45.1MJ/kg,

respectively. There were very small differences between calculated and observed higher heat

values. The results indicate that the experiment was conducted accurately and reliably since the

fuels have consistent and predictable heating values.

Sources of errors were possibly related to the accuracy of the apparatus and measuring

instruments used in the experiment and factors such as incomplete combustion, heat loss,

moisture content, and ash content of the biomass fuel. Future research can focus on ways of

minimization errors by carrying out the following:

i. Checking of the accuracy of the apparatus and measuring instruments used in the

experiment before and after each measurement.

ii. The combustion of the biomass fuel should be complete and uniform, which can be

achieved by using a sufficient amount of oxygen and ensuring a good mixing of the fuel

and oxygen.

iii. Heat loss from the bomb calorimeter to the surroundings should be minimized by using

proper insulation and avoiding opening the lid during the measurement.

iv. Moisture content and ash content of the biomass fuel should be measured and accounted

for in the calculation of the heat value, as they affect the mass and energy balance of the

system.
1.5. References

Alaedini, A.H., Tourani, H.K., Saidi, M., 2023. A review of waste-to-hydrogen conversion

technologies for solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) applications: Aspect of gasification process

and catalyst development. J. Environ. Manage. 329, 117077.

Douvartzides, S.L., Charisiou, N.D., Papageridis, K.N., Goula, M.A., 2019. Green diesel:

Biomass feedstocks, production technologies, catalytic research, fuel properties and

performance in compression ignition internal combustion engines. Energies 12, 809.

Esteves, B., Sen, U., Pereira, H., 2023. Influence of Chemical Composition on Heating Value of

Biomass: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Energies 16, 4226.

https://doi.org/10.3390/en16104226

Favrat, D., Kane, M., 2023. From the fuel heating values to the fuel exergy value in advanced

energy systems. ECOS 25–30.

Gani, A., Zaki, M., Mamat, R., Nizar, M., Rosdi, S., Yana, S., Sarjono, R., 2023. Analysis of

technological developments and potential of biomass gasification as a viable industrial

process: A review. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 100439.

Hidayat, J., Sugiarto, B., Anggarani, R., Aisyah, L., Fathurrahman, N.A., Yogi, P., Riza, F.M.,

Hasfi, N.M., 2023. Evaluation of Quality of Biodiesel and Diesel Fuel with High Ratio

Blends. Presented at the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, IOP

Publishing, p. 012018.

Jargon Burster, 2023. Petrol Grades Explained [WWW Document]. UKCO. URL

https://www.uk-car-discount.co.uk/jargon/petrol-grades-explained (accessed 11.30.23).

Oyebanji, J.A., Oyedepo, S.O., Oyebanji, O.T., Araoyinbo, A.O., Kilanko, O., Dirisu, J.O., Saleh,

B., 2023. Experimental investigation of heating values and chemical compositions of

selected fuel woods as bio-fuel sources in developing countries. Fuel 340, 127600.

World Nuclear Association, 2019. Heat values of various fuels - World Nuclear Association

[WWW Document]. URL https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-

figures/heat-values-of-various-fuels.aspx (accessed 11.30.23).

Yang, H., Lin, X., Pan, H., Geng, S., Chen, Z., Liu, Y., 2023. Energy saving analysis and thermal

performance evaluation of a hydrogen-enriched natural gas-fired condensing boiler. Int. J.

Hydrog. Energy 48, 19279–19296.

Part 2: Nozzle Lab

The lab report presents results of an experiment, analysis and discussions of pressure

distributions and mass flow parameters in a convergent divergent nozzle.

2.1. Objectives

2.1.1. General Objective

To measure the actual performance of a convergent-divergent nozzle and to compare the results

with theory.

2.1.2. Specific Objectives

i. To measure and plot pressure distributions along the length of the nozzle;

ii. To determine the ideal and actual mass flow parameter against actual pressure ratio;

2.2. Results and Graphs

Appendix A1 illustrates data obtained from the test for all the 30 positions of the nozzle.

Regulator was set at 400kN/m2 and inlet air temperature ranged between 18.8 and 19.7 oC. Total

inlet reservoir pressure (P01) was determined. Inclined manometer factor was 0.2. pressures P2.

Appendix A1 further illustrates nozzle data that was used in the calculations. The coefficient of

discharge of the orifice of the convergent -divergent nozzle, CD, was 0.52.

Figure 2.1 is the graph showing pressures at points along the Nozzle. Pressures at Points 1-5

remained at 400kN/m2. The pressures decreased gradually from the entrance of the nozzle to

orifice. Sharp reduction of pressures occurred between Points 7 and 10 (at the orifice). Between

Points 21 and 26 (exit), there was general increase of pressures. The pressure at the exit of the

nozzle was the back pressure. The pressures generally stabilized after Point 27.
 Pressure at Points along the Nozzle
450
400
Pressure (kPa)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Points along the Nozzle

Series2 Series4 Series6 Series8

Series10 Series12 Series14 Series16

Figure 2. 1: Pressure at points along the Nozzle

The mass flow rate was found as 0.03443kg/s and the actual mass flow parameter was 0.1333.

Ideal mass flow parameter for test run 1 was 0.6363, which was higher than the actual mass flow

parameter. Values for test run 1 and other test runs are presented in Table 2.3.

Figure 2.2. illustrates the variations of actual and ideal mass flow parameters with pressure ratio.

As pressure ratio increased from 0.475 to 0.925, there was general reduction of both ideal and

actual mass flow parameters. However, the ideal mass flow parameter values were higher than

those of actual mass flow parameters.

 Variation of Actual and Ideal Mass Flow Parame-
ters with Pressure Ratio
0.7
Mass flow parameter 0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.4750.5250.5750.6250.6750.7250.7750.8250.8750.9250.975

Pressure Ratio (Pt/P01)

factual fideal

Figure 2. 2: Variation of actual and ideal mass flow parameters with pressure ratios

Both ideal and actual mass flow parameters reduced as a result of friction, heat transfer, and

shock waves in the nozzle that lower the efficiency and performance nozzles and cause deviation

of actual values from those of ideal isentropic flow (Karabeyoglu, 2019). The ideal mass flow

parameter was calculated based on assumption that isentropic flow through the nozzle is an

idealized scenario that does not account for the effects of friction, heat transfer, and shock waves

(Liu et al., 2023).

2.3. Discussion

The pressures decreased gradually from the entrance of the nozzle to orifice. Sharp reduction of

pressures occurred between Points 7 and 10 (at the orifice). Between Points 21 and 26 (exit),

there was general increase of pressures. The pressures generally stabilized after Point 27.
 Pressure variations obtained in test runs 6, 7 and 8 were for sub-sonic flows while test runs 1, 2,3

and 4 represented supersonic flows. Shock inside the nozzle was experienced in test runs 2,3, 4

and 5. Shock outside was experienced in test run 1. Maximum thrust can be achieved with the

nozzle when there is high exit pressure and velocity which calls for optimal nozzle to achieve

perfect expansion (Karabeyoglu, 2019).

The experiment can be improved using various measures that optimize nozzle performance. The

measures include reducing direct effects of friction and prevention of shock induced boundary

layer separation (Karabeyoglu, 2019). The use of better optimal bell-shaped nozzles can balance

length to weight ratio of the nozzles and reduce 3D flow losses.

2.4. Conclusion

Pressure distributions along the length of the nozzle were measured and plotted. The plots

showed that pressure generally reduced between the entrance and nozzle orifice. Shock inside the

nozzle was experienced in test runs 2,3, 4 and 5. Shock outside was experienced in test run 1.

Both ideal and actual mass flow parameters reduced with increase in pressure ratios.

In the current experiment, the flow was not chocked at the throat. Future experiment can adjust

the inlet pressure and throat area ratio to achieve Mach number of 1 for critical flow at the throat

(NASA, 2021). Also, there were shock waves and flow separation in the nozzle. In future, the

exit pressure should be equal to the ambient pressure to avoid shock waves. Friction and heat

transfer losses should be minimized to lower experimental errors.

2.5. References

Karabeyoglu, A., 2019. Thrust Equation, Nozzles and Definitions.

Liu, Y., Cao, X., Guo, D., Cao, H., Bian, J., 2023. Influence of shock wave/boundary layer

interaction on condensation flow and energy recovery in supersonic nozzle. Energy 263,

125662.

NASA, 2021. Nozzle Design - Converging/Diverging (CD) Nozzle [WWW Document]. URL

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/nozzled.html (accessed 12.2.23).

Part 3: Heat Exchanger Lab

This part presents results, analysis and discussions on heat exchanger lab experiment. Thes

experiment sought to study practical applications of heat transfer principles and differences in

performance between counter-current and co-current flow exchangers.

3.1. Objectives

i. To study the practical application of heat transfer principles

ii. To evaluate the differences in performance of tube-in-tube heat exchanger in counter-

current and co-current flows.

3.2. Results Analysis

Counter-current flow heat exchanger was associated with higher rates of heat transfer than co-

current heat flow. Generally, increase in flow rate of cold water was associated with increase in

heat transfer in both types of heat exchangers. However, increase in flow rate of cold water was

associated with reduction of temperature differences at inlet and outlet of cold water in both

types of heat exchangers. The reduction in temperature differences was from 11.9 oC to 4.5oC

with counter-current flow heat exchanger and from 12 oC to 4.5 with co-current flow heat

exchanger. Effectiveness of the heat exchangers increased with increase in flow rates of the cold

water in both types. The increase in heat exchanger effectiveness was from 0.957 at flow rate of

0.5 l/min to 0.9595 at flow rate of 1 l/min with counter-current flow heat exchanger and from

0.965 to 0.986 with co-current flow heat exchanger. The logarithmic mean temperature

difference was generally lower with counter-flow heat exchanger compared with co-current heat

exchanger. It decreased with increase in flow rate of cold water in both types of heat exchangers.

Flow rate of cold water of 0.5 l/min was associated with higher heat gain of 18.449W with

counter-flow heat exchanger and 14.919W with co-current flow heat exchanger. Counter-flow
heat exchanger was associated with higher heat losses from cold water than co-current heat

exchanger.

Figure 3.1 illustrates that higher heat transfer rates are possible with counter-current heat

exchangers compared with co-current ones. The graph shows a steady increase in heat transfer

rates from 18.45W to 28.82W as flow rates of cold water increased from 0.5l/min to 1.9l/min for

counter-current heat exchanger. For co-current flow heat exchanger, the heat transfer rate first

decreased from 14.92W at 0.5l/min to 7.07 at 1l/min and then increased thereafter to 15W at

2l/min.

Heat Transfer against Cold water Flow Rate

35
Heat Transfer (W)

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1

Flow rate of cold water (l/min)

counter-current co-current

Figure 3. 1: Variation of heat transfer for co-current and counter-current heat exchangers

Figure 3.2 illustrates the relationship between heat exchanger effectiveness and cold water flow

rate. co-current flow heat exchanger was more effective than counter-current flow heat

exchanger where hot water flow rate was kept constant at 1.0 l/min. As flow rate of cold water

rose from 0.5 l/min to 1.0 l/min, the effectiveness of both heat exchangers also increased.
Beyond flow rate of 1.0 l/min of cold water, the effectiveness of counter-current and co-current

heat exchangers reduced.

Heat Echanger Effectiveness versus Cold Water

Flow Rate
0.99
Effectiveness

0.98
0.97
0.96
0.95
0.94
0.93
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1

Cold Water Flow Rate (l/min)

counter-current co-current

Figure 3. 2: Variation of heat exchanger effectiveness with cold water flow rate

Results in Figure 3.3 illustrates variation of universal heat transfer coefficient (U) with cold

water flow rate. There is general reduction of universal heat transfer coefficient with increase in

flow rate of cold water. Surprisingly, co-current flow heat exchanger had higher universal heat

transfer coefficient than counter-current flow heat exchanger. The rate of reduction of universal

heat transfer coefficient was higher for both types of heat exchangers when cold water flow rate

was increased from 0.5 l/min to 1 l/min, thereafter the rate was constant. It implies that high rates

of heat transfer are possible with low cold water flow rates.
 Variation of Universal Heat Transfer Coefficient with
Cold Water Flow Rate

Universal Heat Transfer Coef-

7.6
7.4
ficient (W/m^2K) 7.2
7
6.8
6.6
6.4
6.2
6
5.8
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2

Cold Water Flow Rate (l/min)

counter-current co-current

Figure 3. 3: Variation of universal heat transfer coefficient with cold water flow rate

Figure 3.4 illustrates variation of changes in hot water temperatures with increase on cold water

flow rate when the flow was changed from counter-current to co-current. There was slight

increase in ∆H when the flow was changed from counter-current to co-current.

 Variation of Hot Water Temperature versus Flow
Rate

Change in dH (oC)
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1

Cold Water Flow Rate (l/min)

counter-current co-current

Figure 3. 4: Variation of temperature differences in hot water with cold water flow rate

Figure 3.5 illustrates variation of temperature differences in cold water with cold water flow rate.

There was no remarkable difference in variation of temperature of cold water with the change

from counter-current to co-current flows.

Variation of Changes in Cold Water Tempera-

ture versus Cold Water Flow Rate
Change in Cold Water

13
Temperature (oC)

12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1

Cold Water Flow Rate (l/min)

counter-current co-current

Figure 3. 5: Variation of temperature differences in cold water with cold water flow rate
Figure 3.6 illustrates variation of LMTD with flow rate of cold water. It was found that LMTD in

co-current flow heat exchanger dropped at a higher rate with increase of cold water flow rate

from 0.5 to 1.0 l/min than in counter-current flow heat exchanger. The rate of drop of LMTD

with increase in flow rate of cold water was generally linear above cold water flow rate of 1.2

l/min and was higher in counter-current flow than in co-current flow heat exchanger. At flow rate

of 1.8 l/min, the LMTD for the two types of heat exchanger were generally equal. This was also

true for cold water flow rates between 0.5 and 0.6 l/min.

Variation of LMTD with Cold Water Flow Rate

9
8.5
8
LMTD

7.5
7
6.5
6
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1

Cold Water Flow Rate (l/min)

counter-current co-current

Figure 3. 6: Variation of LMTD with cold water flow rate

3.3. Discussion

The energy balance for a heat exchanger represents the difference between the heat transfer rates

of the hot and cold streams. The results of the experiment show that the counter-current heat

exchanger has a higher heat transfer rate than the co-current heat exchanger for all flow rates of

cold water. This is consistent with the theoretical prediction that counter-current heat exchangers

have a higher heat transfer than co-current heat exchangers, since they can achieve a greater
temperature difference between the two streams. The co-current heat exchanger exhibits a non-

monotonic behavior, with a minimum heat transfer rate at 1 l/min of flow rate of cold water. This

may be due to the thermal resistance of the heat exchanger wall, which reduces the heat transfer

coefficient and thus the heat transfer rate.

For cold water flow rates that were higher than hot water flow rate, the effectiveness of both

types of heat exchangers reduced. It was realized that as effectiveness of both types of heat

exchangers increased with increase of flow rates of cold water from 0.5 l/min to peak at 1 l/min,

universal heat transfer coefficient reduced. It means that optimal universal heat transfer

coefficient and effectiveness is possible with cold water flow rates that are lower than hot water

flow rates.

A possible way to improve the performance of the co-current heat exchanger is to increase the

surface area or reduce the thickness of the wall (Xu et al., 2022). The results of this experiment

corroborate findings in literature on the effects of flow rates on heat transfer rates for different

types of heat exchangers (Shah and Sekulib, 1998; Xu et al., 2022).

The results show a general reduction of overall heat transfer coefficient with increase in flow rate

of cold water. It could be due to the decrease in temperature difference between the hot and cold

fluids, which reduces the driving force for heat transfer. This could also be due to the increase in

fouling factor of the cold water side, which reduces the individual heat transfer coefficient and

thus the overall heat transfer coefficient.

The rate of reduction of overall heat transfer coefficient was higher for both types of heat

exchangers when cold water flow rate was increased from 0.5 l/min to 1 l/min, thereafter the rate

was constant. This implies that high rates of heat transfer are possible with low cold water flow
rates. This behavior could be because at low cold water flow rates, the cold water has a longer

residence time in the heat exchanger, which allows more heat transfer to occur. However, at high

cold water flow rates, the residence time is shorter and the temperature difference is smaller,

which limits the amount of heat transfer.

There was slight increase in difference of hot water temperature (∆TH) when the flow was

changed from counter-current to co-current heat exchanger. However, there was no remarkable

variation in difference of temperature of cold water (∆TC) with the change from counter-current

to co-current flows. This can be explained by the fact that in a counter-current heat exchanger,

the hot and cold fluids enter at opposite ends and have a larger temperature difference along the

length of the heat exchanger, resulting in a higher heat transfer rate and a lower ∆TH

(Alrwashdeh et al., 2022). In contrast, in a co-current heat exchanger, the hot and cold fluids

enter at the same end and have a smaller temperature difference along the length of the heat

exchanger, resulting in a lower heat transfer rate and a higher ∆TH. However, the ∆TC is not

affected by the flow direction because it depends only on the inlet and outlet temperatures of the

cold fluid, which are fixed by the experimental conditions (Kraus et al., 2001). The small and

insignificant differences can also be attributed to heat losses.

LMTD in co-current flow heat exchanger dropped at a higher rate with increase of cold water

flow rate from 0.5 to 1.0 l/min than in counter-current flow heat exchanger. This was possibly

because in co-current flow, the temperature difference between the hot and cold fluids decreases

along the length of the heat exchanger, resulting in a lower driving force for heat transfer

(Mohanty et al., 2019). In contrast, in counter-current flow, the temperature difference remains

relatively constant along the length of the heat exchanger, maintaining a higher driving force for

heat transfer (Guo et al., 2015). The rate of drop of LMTD with increase in flow rate of cold
water was generally linear above cold water flow rate of 1.2 l/min and was higher in counter-

current flow than in co-current flow heat exchanger. This can be attributed to the fact that as the

cold water flow rate increases, the cold water outlet temperature approaches the hot water inlet

temperature, reducing the LMTD. However, this effect is more pronounced in counter-current

flow than in co-current flow, because in counter-current flow, the cold water outlet temperature

can exceed the hot water inlet temperature, leading to a negative LMTD. At flow rate of 1.8

l/min, the LMTD for the two types of heat exchanger were generally equal. This was also true for

cold water flow rates between 0.5 and 0.6 l/min. At these flow rates of cold water, the

temperature profiles of the two types of heat exchangers were similar, and thus the LMTD values

were comparable.

Effectiveness of both co-current and counter-current flow heat exchanger was found to be above

0.95, indicating a high degree of thermal contact and efficient heat exchange between the hot and

cold water. Effectiveness of both types of heat exchangers was highest at cold water flow rate of

1 l/min. This corresponds to the lowest Reynolds number and the highest heat transfer coefficient

(Moya-Rico et al., 2020). Counter-current flow had highest effectiveness of 0.9595 and co-

current flow heat exchanger had 0.986. Co-current flow heat exchanger performed better than

counter-current one which can be attributed to the lower temperature difference between the inlet

and outlet streams in the co-current configuration. As flow rate of cold water rose from 0.5 l/min

to 1.0 l/min, the effectiveness of both heat exchangers also increased. This can be linked to

increased Reynolds number and the decrease in heat transfer coefficient. Beyond flow rate of 1.0

l/min of cold water, the effectiveness of counter-current and co-current heat exchangers reduced.
3.4. Conclusion

Heat transfer principles of temperature difference, hot and flow rates of cold water, counter-

current flow and co-current flow tube-in-tube heat exchanger were studied. Counter-current flow

heat exchanger was found to have higher heat transfer rates than co-current one. There was

increase of effectiveness of both types of heat exchangers as flow rates of cold water increased

from 0.5 l/min until it was the same as that of hot water. Effectiveness of heat exchangers

reduced with increase in cold water flow rate beyond the flow rate of hot water. LMTD dropped

with increase in flow rate of cold water in both types of heat exchangers. Variation of

temperature differences in hot water increased with increase of flow rate of cold water. The

opposite was true for temperature differences in cold water.

3.5. References

Alrwashdeh, S., Ammari, H., Madanat, M., Al-Falahat, A., 2022. The Effect of Heat Exchanger

Design on Heat Transfer Rate and Temperature Distribution. Emerg. Sci. J. 6, 128–137.

https://doi.org/10.28991/ESJ-2022-06-01-010

Guo, K., Zhang, N., Smith, R., 2015. Optimisation of fin selection and thermal design of

counter-current plate-fin heat exchangers. Appl. Therm. Eng. 78, 491–499.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.11.071

Kraus, A.D., Aziz, A., Welty, J., 2001. Extended Surface Heat Transfer. John Wley & Sos. Inc.,

New York.

Mohanty, S., Arora, R., Parkash, O., 2019. Performance prediction and comparative analysis for

a designed, developed, and modeled counterflow heat exchanger using computational

fluid dynamics. Comput. Therm. Sci. Int. J. 11.

https://doi.org/10.1615/ComputThermalScien.2019028520
Moya-Rico, J.D., Molina, A.E., Belmonte, J.F., Córcoles Tendero, J.I., Almendros-Ibáñez, J.A.,

2020. Experimental characterization of a double tube heat exchanger with inserted

twisted tape elements. Appl. Therm. Eng. 174, 115234.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.115234

Shah, R.K., Sekulib, D., 1998. Heat exchangers, in: Handbook of Heat Transfer. University of

Kentucky.

Xu, K., Qin, K., Wu, H., Smith, R., 2022. A New Computer-Aided Optimization-Based Method

for the Design of Single Multi-Pass Plate Heat Exchangers. Processes 10, 767.

https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10040767
 Appendix A (Nozzle Lab)

A.1 Table of Observed Data

Test Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
P01 (kN/m^2) 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400
T01 (oC) 19.7 19.3 19.2 19.1 18.9 18.9 18.8 18.9
T3 (oC) 19.6 19.1 19 18.9 18.7 18.7 18.6 18.7
Orifice Plate ∆P3 (cm
H2O) 22 21.5 21.2 21 21 21 16.1 6.9
Inclined manometer
factor 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
P2 (kN/m2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400
2 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400
3 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400
4 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400
5 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400
6 400 400 390 390 390 400 400 400
7 400 390 390 390 390 390 400 400
8 380 370 370 370 370 370 390 400
9 310 310 310 310 300 310 360 380
10 (throat) 190 190 190 190 190 200 290 370
11 150 150 150 150 150 200 290 370
12 130 130 130 130 130 210 290 370
13 120 120 120 120 120 220 290 370
14 110 110 110 110 110 220 300 370
15 100 100 100 100 100 220 300 370
16 90 90 90 90 90 230 300 370
17 90 90 90 90 120 240 300 370
18 80 80 80 80 180 240 300 370
19 70 70 70 70 180 230 310 370
20 70 70 70 70 180 230 310 370
21 60 60 60 60 190 260 310 370
22 50 60 60 130 200 260 320 380
23 50 50 50 150 210 270 320 380
24 50 50 50 150 220 270 320 380
25 40 40 110 170 220 270 320 380
26 (exit) 30 80 130 180 230 280 320 380
27 0 100 140 190 240 280 330 380
28 0 100 140 190 240 280 330 380
29 20 100 140 190 240 280 330 380
30 20 100 140 190 240 280 330 380
 Nozzle data

Nozzle dimension Measurement (mm)

Discharge pipe diameter 76.2
Orifice diameter 41.9
Nozzle length 50
Nozzle inlet convergence radius 9.5
Nozzle throat diameter 6.37
Nozzle probe diameter 3.3
Nozzle exit diameter 7.22

A.2 Sample Calculation

Actual mass flow parameter is given by Equation 1.1.

ṁ √ R T 01
f= (1.1)
A t P01

Where,

ṁ = Mass flow rate of air;

R= Gas constant;

T 01= Inlet air temperature in Kelvin;

P01= Inlet reservoir pressure in Pa;

At = Throat cross-sectional are in m2.

Throat cross-sectional area is given in Equation 1.2.

2
πd
At = (1.2)
4
 −3 2
π ( 6.37 × 10 )
¿
4

−5 2
¿ 3.1869 ×10 m

Mass flow rate, ṁ , can be calculated using orifice plate theory as shown in Equation 1.3.

ṁ=C D A t ρ
√ 2 ∆ P3
4
ρ(1−d )
(1.3)

Where,

C D = Coefficient of discharge, 0.52;

∆ P3 = Pressure drop across orifice;

ρ = Density of water, 1.204kg/m3;

6.37
d = Ratio of orifice diameter to pipe diameter, d= =0.083595801
76.2

Pressure drop is found using Equation 1.4.

∆ P3 =ρgh(1.4)

Where,

ρ = Density of water, 1000kg/m3;

g= Gravitational acceleration, 9.81m/s2;

h= Head of water, m;

∆ P3 =1000∗9.81∗0.22

¿ 2158.2 Pa
For test run 1, we have mass flow rate given as follows:

ṁ=0.52∗3.1869 ×10−5∗1000
√ 2∗2158.2
1000(1−0.0835958014 )

¿ 0.03443 0516 kg /s

For test run 1 we have actual mass flow parameter given as shown below:

0.034430516∗√ 8.314∗(273.15+19.7)
f actual=
( 3.1869 ×10−5 )∗( 400 ×103 )

¿ 0.13327317

Actual pressure ratio for test run 1 is given in Equation 1.5.

Pt
PR= (1.5)
P01

Where,

Pt = Pressure at throat, 190kPa;

P01= Inlet reservoir pressure, 400kPa;

190
¿
400

¿ 0.475

Ideal mass flow parameter, f ideal, was given in Equation 1.6.

 √ ( )( ( ) )
2 γ −1
2 γ Pt γ Pt γ
f ideal= 1− (1.6)
γ −1 P 01 P01

Where,

γ = 1.2;

For test run 1, ideal mass flow parameter is calculated as shown below:

√ ( )
2 1.2−1
2∗1.2
f ideal= ( 0.475 ) 1.2 1−( 0.475 ) 1.2
1.2−1

¿ 0.680475834

A.3 Table of Calculated Results

Test Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
∆P3 (Pa) 2158.2 2109.15 2079.72 2060.1 2060.1 2060.1 1579.41 676.89
ṁ (kg/s) 0.0344 0.0340 0.0338 0.0336 0.0336 0.0336 0.0295 0.0193
f actual 0.1333 0.1317 0.1307 0.1301 0.1300 0.1300 0.1138 0.0745
f ideal 0.6363 0.6363 0.6363 0.6363 0.6363 0.6422 0.6053 0.3688

Appendix B (Fuel Lab)

B.1 Table of Observed Data

Sample temperature 18.6oC

Name of Sample Standard of Measurement Octane Number Average Value

Research octane number (RON) 102.9

Petrol 97.7
Mean octane number (MON) 92.5
 B.1 Table of Observed Data (Determination of Cetane number)

Name of sample Diesel

Item/Parameter Observed value

Temperature of sample 22.2oC

Freezing point temperature -37oC

Cetane number 47.9

B.2 Sample Calculation

Calculated higher heat value for biomass (HHV) is given in Equation 1.7

∆ T b∗EEb
HHV cb = (1.7)
mb

Where,

∆ T b=¿Change in temperature with biomass, oC;

EE b= Energy Equivalent value for biomass, Cal/oC;

mb= Mass of biomass, g;

1.2319∗2391
HHV cb =
0.665

¿ 4429.28 Cal / g

¿ 18.53210752 MJ /kg

Calculated higher heat value for diesel (HHV) is given in Equation 1.2.
 ∆ T d∗EEd
HHV cd = (1.8)
md

Where,

∆ T d =¿Change in temperature with diesel, oC;

EEd = Energy Equivalent value for diesel, Cal/oC;

md = Mass of diesel, g;

3.6945∗2410
¿
0.826

¿ 10779.35 Cal /g

¿ 45.1008004 MJ /kg

The results show that burning 0.826g of diesel gave EE value of 2410 calories per oC with

temperature increase of 3.6945oC resulting into higher heating value of 45MJ/kg. The results

confirm literature that the values range between 44 and 48MJ/kg (World Nuclear Association,

2019).

Percentage difference (ε b) between observed and calculated HHV for biomass was found as

shown in Equation 1.3.

HHV ob−HHV cb
ε b= ×100 % (1.9)
HHV ob

Where,

HHV ob = Observed higher heating value for biomass, MJ/kg;

 HHV cb = Calculated higher heating value for biomass, MJ/kg;

18.537−18.53210752
ε b= × 100 %
18.537

¿ 0.000264 %

Percentage difference (ε d) between observed and calculated HHV for diesel was found as shown

in Equation 1.4.

HHV od −HHV cd
ε d= ×100 % (1.10)
HHV od

Where,

HHV od = Observed higher heating value for diesel, MJ/kg;

HHV cd = Calculated higher heating value for diesel, MJ/kg;

45.0038−45.1008004
ε d= × 100 %
45.0038

¿−0.002155 %

B.3 Table of Calculated Results

Fuel sample Sample EE value EE value ∆ T (oC) Observed Calculated

o o
weight (Cal/ C) (MJ/ C) Higher higher
Heating heating
value value
(MJ/kg) (MJ/kg)
Diesel 0.826 2410 0.01008344 3.6945 45.0038 45.1008004

Biomass 0.665 2391 0.85478 1.2319 18.537 18.53210752

 Appendix C (Heat Exchanger Lab)

C.1 Table of Observed /Supplied data

No. Flow type T set Hot Cold Tin Tout Tmid Tin Tout Tmid
point flow flow hot hot hot cold cold cold
rate rate water water water water water water
Fhot Fcold H1 H2 H3 C1 C2 C3
o o o o o o o
C L/min L/min C C C C C C

1. Counter- 60 1.0 0.5 59.1 52.8 56.4 19.8 31.7 26.0

current
2. Counter- 60 1.0 1.0 58.7 51.5 55.4 19.8 27.2 23.7
current
3. Counter- 60 1.0 2.0 58.0 49.3 53.7 19.6 24.1 21.9
current
4. Co-current/ 60 1.0 0.5 59.2 52.9 55.9 20.5 32.5 27.8
parallel
5. Co-current/ 60 1.0 1.0 58.6 51.3 54.8 20.1 27.4 24.7
parallel
6. Co-current/ 60 1.0 2.0 57.9 49.0 53.3 19.7 24.2 22.6
parallel

C.2 Sample Calculation

Specific heat capacity (kJ/kgK) and density (kg/m3) of each water at 60 oC and at 19.8oC from

tables and calculate the following:

a. Reduction in hot fluid temperature

∆ T hot =H 2−H 1

¿ 59.1−52.8

¿ 6.3 K
b. Increase in cold fluid temperature

∆ T cold=C 2−C 1

¿ 31.7−19.8

¿ 11.9 K

c. Heat transfer rate from hot fluid

h hot =ṁ c ∆ T hot

Where,

ρ hot v̇ 983.2∗1.0
ṁhot = Mass flow rate of water, kg/s; ṁ= = =0.016387 kg/ s
1000∗60 1000∗60

c hot = Heat capacity of water at Tmid (H3), 4181J/kgK.

h=ṁ c ∆ T hot

¿ 0.016387∗4181∗6.3

¿ 431.64 W

d. Heat transfer rate to cold fluid

h cold =ṁcold c cold ∆ T cold

Where,

ρcold v̇ 996.3∗0.5
ṁcold = Mass flow rate of water, kg/s; ṁcold= = =0.0083025 kg /s
1000∗60 1000∗60

c cold = Heat capacity of water at Tmid (C3), 4182J/kgK.

h cold =ṁcold c cold ∆ T cold

¿ 0.0083025∗4182∗11.9
 ¿ 413.18 W

e. Heat energy loss rate to or gained from the surroundings

Heat energy loss rate to the surroundings is given by

∆ h=h hot −hcold

¿ 431.64−413.18 W

¿ 18.46 W

f. Heat exchanger effectiveness

Actual heat transfer rate

ϵ=
Maximum heat transfer rate

413.18
¿
431.64

¿ 0.9572

g. Logarithmic Mean Temperature Difference (‘LMTD’)

∆T cold −∆ T hot
LMTD=
ln
( ∆ T cold
∆ T hot )
11.9−6.3
¿
ln ( )
11.9
6.3

¿ 8.805187

h. Overall heat transfer coefficient (‘U’)

1
U=
1 tw 1
+ +
hi k h 0

Where,

hi = Heat transfer coefficient of hot side;

 h 0= Heat transfer coefficient of cold side;

D 0−Di 12−10
t w= Wall thickness, = =1 mm
2 2

k = Thermal conductivity of wall material;

Heat transfer coefficient of water at H3 (56.4oC) and at C3 (26oC) are given by hi =9.97W/m2K

15.2+ 16.6
and h 0= 25.3W/m2K, respectively. Average k is given by =15.9 W /mK .
2

1
U= −3
1 1× 10 1
+ +
9.97 15.9 25.3
2
¿ 7.14849999 W /m K

C.3 Table of Calculated Results

Heat Heat
∆Thot ∆Tcold ∆Hhot ∆Hcold
Loss/gain exchanger LMTD U
(oC) (oC) (W) (W)
rate (W) Effectiveness
6.3 11.9 431.630 413.181 18.449 0.957 8.805 7.148
7.2 7.4 493.710 514.510 -20.800 0.960 7.300 6.764
8.7 4.5 597.316 626.132 -28.817 0.954 6.371 6.406
6.3 12 431.865 416.945 14.919 0.965 8.846 7.440
7.3 7.3 500.618 507.691 -7.072 0.986 7.111 6.876
8.9 4.5 611.109 626.108 -14.999 0.976 6.452 6.492