The document summarizes an experiment to determine the overall heat transfer coefficient (Uo) of a pilot scale heat exchanger. Students measured Uo under laminar and turbulent flow regimes and with co-current and counter-current steam and water flow, both with and without a steam trap. Uo values ranged from 2280-3400 W/m2K and correlated with water velocity. Condensation was found to affect Uo values more in co-current than counter-current flow. Recommendations included further investigating Uo in laminar flow and varying both steam and water flow rates.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
The document summarizes an experiment to determine the overall heat transfer coefficient (Uo) of a pilot scale heat exchanger. Students measured Uo under laminar and turbulent flow regimes and with co-current and counter-current steam and water flow, both with and without a steam trap. Uo values ranged from 2280-3400 W/m2K and correlated with water velocity. Condensation was found to affect Uo values more in co-current than counter-current flow. Recommendations included further investigating Uo in laminar flow and varying both steam and water flow rates.
The document summarizes an experiment to determine the overall heat transfer coefficient (Uo) of a pilot scale heat exchanger. Students measured Uo under laminar and turbulent flow regimes and with co-current and counter-current steam and water flow, both with and without a steam trap. Uo values ranged from 2280-3400 W/m2K and correlated with water velocity. Condensation was found to affect Uo values more in co-current than counter-current flow. Recommendations included further investigating Uo in laminar flow and varying both steam and water flow rates.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
The document summarizes an experiment to determine the overall heat transfer coefficient (Uo) of a pilot scale heat exchanger. Students measured Uo under laminar and turbulent flow regimes and with co-current and counter-current steam and water flow, both with and without a steam trap. Uo values ranged from 2280-3400 W/m2K and correlated with water velocity. Condensation was found to affect Uo values more in co-current than counter-current flow. Recommendations included further investigating Uo in laminar flow and varying both steam and water flow rates.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 26
Evaluation of the Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient for a Pilot Scale Heat Exchanger
Josie Prado Erin Hadi Trevor Binney
February 3rd, 2005
Presentation Overview
Project Objectives Project Planning and Execution Background and Experimental Procedure Results and Discussion Conclusions Recommendations for Future Work
Project Objectives 1) Experimentally determine the overall heat transfer coefficient (Uo) Laminar and turbulent flow regimes Co-current and counter current operation 2) Correlate Uo to the liquid flow rate in the inner pipe in the form Uo = aVb 3) Compare experimental results with predicted and reported values 4) Investigate the effect of the steam trap
Project Planning 1)
Design of Experiment Review equipment operation Determine what parameter(s) will be varied Determine what measurements to take Cold water rotameter Range ~ 5 -100 Quench water rotameter Range ~ 1.5-10
2) Rotameter Calibration
Project Planning 3) Data Collection
Co-current flow Without steam trap With steam trap Counter-current flow Without steam trap With steam trap
Project Planning 4) Data Analysis
Empirical Analysis
Determination of Uo from experimental data Correlation of Uo to cold water flow rate by fitting the data to a power curve Performed from fundamental principles of heat transfer
Theoretical Analysis
Project Planning
Roles and Responsibilities
Josie Prado (Team Leader)
Temperature, pressure, and flow rate measurements Scale operator and timer Data Entry
Trevor Binney (Safety Coordinator)
Erin Hadi (Operations Manager)
Project Planning
Safety Issues
Steam burns
Mitt was used for all steam valve adjustments Steam trap configuration was checked before making adjustments Hoses were kept away from major traffic areas Rubber sole shoes were worn at all times
Tripping Hazards
Slipping Hazards
Equipment Dimensions & Specifications
Double pipe exchanger
Inner Pipe: 1ID/1.125OD Outer Pipe: 2ID/2.125OD Length: 60 Tap water 9 to 10 C
Inner pipe (Cu) Outer pipe (Cu) Steam Water
Cold water supply
ri ro
Steam Supply
26 to 29 psig ~128 C
Background
Resistance to Heat Transfer
Convective:
between surface and adjacent fluid
Water/pipe interface Steam/pipe interface
Conductive:
Through the inner pipe
Heat Exchanger Setup
Counter-Current Operation Water Out Steam in
Thermocouples
Steam Out
Water in
Experimental Procedure
Rotameter Calibration
Set rotameter flow rate to a specific value Measure mass of water entering the drum over time
10 lbs of water per interval of time
Calculate flow rate in lb/s Generate calibration curve Flow rate required for laminar flow is outside the rotameters measuring range
Physical Constraint
Max laminar flow rate = 0.08 lb/s Quench rotameter reading of 1.35
Experimental Procedure
Collecting Data
Set equipment configuration Co-current/Counter-current Steam trap ON/OFF Set flow rate & wait for steady state to be reached Record stream temperatures, pressure, and flow rates Take several readings at each set of conditions Weigh and time the collection of steam and quench water
Published data: Exchanger Uo values between 2280 3400 W/m2K
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient vs. Water Velocity 3000 2900 2800 2700 2600 2500 2400 2300 2200 2100 2000 0.00
Uo (W/m2K)
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
water velocity (m/s) Co-current without steam trap Counter-current without steam trap Power (Co-current without steam trap) Power (Counter-current without steam trap)
Results
Co-current & Counter-current Uo vs. water flow rate with and without steam trap in operation: 2900 2800 2700
counter-current steam trap off co-current steam trap on Power (counter-current steam trap on) Power (co-current steam trap off) counter-current steam trap on co-current steam trap off Power (counter-current steam trap off) Power (co-current steam trap on)
Results & Discussion
Why is Uo higher for co-current flow than for counter current flow? Why is the change in enthalpy of steam much lower than the change in enthalpy of water?
Hwater ~ 42 kJ/lb Hsteam ~ -11 kJ/lb
Is it possible that some of the steam is condensing?
Results and Discussion
Effect of condensation on co-current vs. counter current operation:
More drastic temperature difference in co-current mode leads to immediate formation of a condensate film In counter-current flow, condensate film formation is likely to begin further down the pipe
Results & Discussion
Comparison with theoretical values
Assuming no steam condenses:
Uo = 185 - 205 W/m2K Uo = 900 - 1740 W/m2K
Taking condensation into account
Conclusions 1) Empirical Uo values are verified by published values 2) Theoretical analysis does not invalidate experimental values if steam condensation is taken into account 3) The steam trap did not have a significant effect on the heat exchanger performance
Recommendations for Future Work
1) Investigate the effect of water velocity on Uo in laminar region A more sensitive rotameter would be required 2) Investigate heat exchanger performance while varying both water and steam flow rate
References
Incropera, Frank P. and David P. Dewitt. (2002) Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer. John Wiley and Sons. New York, pp. 470, 486, 492, 647, 723. Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook, 7th Edition (1997). R.H. Perry, D.W. Green, and J.O. Maloney, Eds. McGraw Hill: New York, pp. 5-20, 10-5, 11-4 Welty, James R, Charles E. Wicks, Robert E. Wilson, and Gregory Rorrer (2001). Fundamentals of Momentum, Heat, and Mass Transfer. Fourth Edition. John Wiley and Sons: New York, pp. 201-209, 374, 723, 727, 733.
