ME-332 Heat Transfer & HVAC Lab

Heat Transfer and HVAC Lab

Lab Report 04
CONCENTRIC TUBE HEAT EXCHANGER

6TH SEMESTER

Submitted to: LE Zeeshan Ahsan

Session: 2021 Section: ME-13B Group: A

SUBMITTED BY
Name CMS Marks

SYED JAON ABBAS 375601

School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering
 ME-332 Heat Transfer & HVAC Lab

Objectives:
• To calculate heat transfer from hot liquid, heat gained by cold liquid, heat loss,
logarithmic mean temperature difference and global heat coefficient.
• To determine heat exchanger effectiveness experimentally and through NTU-
method.

Apparatus:
• Concentric Tube Heat Exchanger.
• Base Unit.

Figure 1: Concentric Tube Heat Exchanger

Introduction:
𝜟𝑻
𝒒 = −𝒌𝑨
𝜟𝒙
𝜟𝒙
For conduction: 𝑹𝒕 = 𝒌𝑨
𝟏
or convection: 𝑹𝒕 = 𝒉𝑨
𝜟𝑻
𝒒 = 𝑹𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍; 𝜟𝑻 = 𝑻𝒉 − 𝑻𝒄
𝟏 𝜟𝒙 𝟏
𝑹𝒕𝑶𝒕𝒂𝒍=𝒉 + 𝒌𝑨 + 𝒉
𝒉 𝑨𝒉 𝑪 𝑨𝑪
 ME-332 Heat Transfer & HVAC Lab

𝑻𝒉 − 𝑻𝒄
𝒒=
𝟏 𝜟𝒙 𝟏
( + + )
𝒉𝒉 𝑨𝒉 𝒌𝑨 𝒉𝑪 𝑨𝑪
𝑻𝒉 −𝑻𝒄
𝒒= 𝟏 𝜟𝒙 𝟏 ; 𝑹𝒉𝒊 & 𝑹𝑪𝒊 are resistances due to impurities.
(𝑹𝒉𝒊 + + + +𝑹𝑪𝒊 )
𝒉𝒉 𝑨𝒉 𝒌𝑨 𝒉𝑪𝑨𝑪

𝒒 = 𝑼𝑨𝜟𝑻m
𝜟𝑻𝟏 − 𝜟𝑻𝟐
𝜟𝑻𝒎 =
𝜟𝑻
𝒍𝒏 (𝜟𝑻𝟏 )
𝟐

In parallel flow: 𝜟𝑻𝟏 = 𝑻𝒉𝒊 − 𝑻𝒄𝒊 & 𝜟𝑻𝟐 = 𝑻𝒉𝟎 − 𝑻𝑪𝟎

In counterbalance flow: 𝜟𝑻𝟏 = 𝑻𝒉𝒊 − 𝑻𝑪𝟎 & 𝜟𝑻𝟐 = 𝑻𝒉𝟎 − 𝑻𝒄𝒊

𝒒𝒉 = 𝒎𝒉 𝑪𝒑𝒉 (𝑻𝒉𝒊 − 𝑻𝒉𝟎 ); 𝒒𝑪 = 𝒎𝒄 𝑪𝒑𝒄(𝑻𝑪𝟎 − 𝑻𝒄𝒊 )

𝒒
𝜺=
𝒒𝒎𝒂𝒙
𝒒𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝒎𝒉 𝑪𝒑𝒉 (𝑻𝒉𝒊 − 𝑻𝒄𝒊 ); 𝒎𝑪 𝑪𝑷𝑪 < 𝒎𝒉𝑪𝑷 𝒉

𝒒𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒍 = 𝒎𝒉 𝑪𝒑𝒉 (𝑻𝒉𝒊 − 𝑻𝒉𝟎 ); 𝒎𝑪 𝑪𝑷𝑪 < 𝒎𝒉𝑪𝑷 𝒉

𝑻𝒉𝒊 − 𝑻𝒉𝟎
𝜺=
𝑻𝒉𝒊 − 𝑻𝒄𝒊
𝑼𝑨
𝑵𝑻𝑼 =
(𝒎𝑪𝑷 )𝒎𝒊𝒏

𝟏 − 𝒆−𝑵𝑻𝑼(𝟏−𝑪𝑹)
𝜺=
𝟏 − 𝑪𝑹 𝒆−𝑵𝑻𝑼(𝟏−𝑪𝑹)
(𝒎𝑪𝑷 )𝒎𝒊𝒏
𝒄𝑹 =
(𝒎𝑪𝑷 )𝒎𝒂𝒙
Theory:
• Parallel flow heat exchangers operate with both the hot and cold fluids entering
the device at one end and flowing in the same direction throughout. This
configuration offers the advantage of simplicity and compactness in design.
However, a notable drawback is the diminishing temperature difference between
the fluids as they traverse the heat exchanger, potentially compromising the
efficiency of heat transfer compared to alternative arrangements.
 ME-332 Heat Transfer & HVAC Lab

• In contrast, counterflow heat exchangers feature hot and cold fluids entering at
opposite ends and flowing in opposite directions. This results in the hot and cold
fluids moving towards each other as they progress through the exchanger. The
counterflow configuration often leads to enhanced heat transfer efficiency. This
is primarily due to the sustained temperature gradient between the two fluids
throughout the exchanger's length, facilitating more effective thermal energy
transfer.

Procedure:
• Arrange the valves to establish a parallel flow configuration.
• Ensure that there is an adequate amount of water in the heating tank above the
level switch.
• Activate both the heating element and pump.
• Utilize the ST-16 temperature sensor display on the control unit to adjust the
temperature of the hot water tank. Navigate to 'MODE' and use the ∆ and ∇ buttons
to select the desired temperature.
• Adjust the hot and cold-water flow rates as necessary.
• Allow sufficient time for the hot water at the intake of the heat exchanger to reach
steady-state conditions, indicated by a consistent temperature reading (T1).
• Perform the necessary calculations and record temperature and flow readings in
the data recording table.
• If counter flow valve settings are required, repeat the experiment accordingly.
• Upon completion of the experiment, deactivate the heater supply and pump before
turning off the main power switch.

Results:
Dint =16mm; Dout = 18mm; L= 1m
Dint+Dout (16∗10−3 )+(18∗10−3 )
A=𝜋×𝐿× =𝜋×1× =0.05341 m2
2 2

Volume flow rate of cold water = 1.6 l/min = 2.667 × 10-5 m3/s
Volume flow rate of hot water = 2 l/min = 3.333 × 10-5 m3/s
Hot Tank Set Temperature = ST-16 = 39˚C
𝜌𝑐 = 996 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
𝑚𝑐 = 996(2.667 × 10-5) = 0.026 kg/s
𝜌ℎ = 990 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
𝑚ℎ = 990(3.333 × 10-5) = 0.033 kg/s
𝐶𝑃𝐶 = 𝐶𝑝ℎ = 4.186 J/g ˚C
 ME-332 Heat Transfer & HVAC Lab

Cmin= 𝐶𝐶 = 𝑚𝑐 . 𝐶𝑃𝐶 = 4.186(0.026) = 0.108 kw/k

Cmax =𝐶ℎ = 𝑚ℎ . 𝐶𝑃ℎ = 4.186(0.033) = 0.138 kw/k
(𝑚𝐶 )𝑚ⅈ𝑛 0.108
𝑐𝑅 = (𝑚𝐶 𝑃)𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.138 = 𝟎. 𝟕𝟖𝟑
𝑃

(Parallel flow):
Identifiers Temperature in kelvin
Hot water inlet ST-1 304.15
Hot water outlet ST-3 300.15
Cold water inlet ST-4 294.15
Cold water outlet ST-6 296.15
𝑞𝐶 = 𝐶𝑐(𝑇𝐶0 − 𝑇𝑐ⅈ ) = 0.108(296.15-294.15) = 216 W

q= 𝑞𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙 = 𝑞ℎ = 𝐶ℎ (𝑇ℎ𝑖 − 𝑇ℎ0 )= 0.138(304.15-300.15) = 552 W

𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 = Cmin(𝑇ℎ𝑖 − 𝑇𝑐𝑖 ) = 0.108(304.15 – 294.15) = 1080 W

𝑞 552
𝜀=𝑞 = 1080 = 0.51
𝑚𝑎𝑥

𝛥𝑇1 = 𝑇ℎⅈ − 𝑇𝑐ⅈ = 304.15 – 294.15 = 10 k

𝛥𝑇2 = 𝑇ℎ0 − 𝑇𝐶0 = 300.15 – 296.15 = 4k
𝛥𝑇1 −𝛥𝑇2 10−8
𝛥𝑇𝑚 = 𝛥𝑇 = 10 = 6.548 K
𝑙𝑛( 1 ) 𝑙𝑛( )
8
𝛥𝑇2

𝑞 = 𝑈𝐴𝛥𝑇m
𝑞 0.552
𝑈 = 𝐴𝛥𝑇m = (0.05341)(20.638)= 1578 W/m2K

>>effectiveness using NTU method.

𝑈𝐴 (1.578)(0.05341)
𝑁𝑇𝑈 = (𝑚𝐶 = = 0.780
𝑃 )𝑚ⅈ𝑛 0.108

1−𝑒 −𝑁𝑇𝑈(1−𝐶𝑅 ) 1−𝑒 −0.570(1−0.783)

𝜀= = 1−(0.783)𝑒 −0.570(1−0.783) = 0.46
1−𝐶𝑅 𝑒 −𝑁𝑇𝑈(1−𝐶𝑅 )

(Counterbalance flow):
Identifiers Temperature in kelvin
Hot water inlet ST-1 304.15
Hot water outlet ST-3 301.15
Cold water inlet ST-6 294.15
Cold water outlet ST-4 295.15

𝑞𝐶 = 𝐶𝑐(𝑇𝐶0 − 𝑇𝑐ⅈ ) = 0.108(295.15-294.15) = 108 W

 ME-332 Heat Transfer & HVAC Lab

q= 𝑞𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙 = 𝑞ℎ = 𝐶ℎ (𝑇ℎ𝑖 − 𝑇ℎ0 )= 0.138(304.15-301.15) = 414 W

𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 = Cmin(𝑇ℎ𝑖 − 𝑇𝑐𝑖 ) = 0.108(304.15 – 294.15) = 1080 W

𝑞 414
𝜀=𝑞 = 1080 = 0.38
𝑚𝑎𝑥

𝛥𝑇1 = 𝑇ℎ𝑖 − 𝑇𝐶0 = 304.15 – 295.15 = 9 k

𝛥𝑇2 = 𝑇ℎ0 − 𝑇𝑐ⅈ = 301.15 – 294.15 =7 k

𝛥𝑇1 −𝛥𝑇2 9−7
𝛥𝑇𝑚 = 𝛥𝑇 = 9 = 7.958 K
𝑙𝑛( 1 ) 𝑙𝑛( )
7
𝛥𝑇2

𝑞 = 𝑈𝐴𝛥𝑇m
𝑞 0.414
𝑈= = = 974 W/m2K
𝐴𝛥𝑇m (0.05341)(7.958)

>>effectiveness using NTU method.

𝑈𝐴 (0.974)(0.05341)
𝑁𝑇𝑈 = (𝑚𝐶 = = 0.481
𝑃 )𝑚ⅈ𝑛 0.108

1−𝑒 −𝑁𝑇𝑈(1−𝐶𝑅 ) 1−𝑒 −0.481(1−0.783)

𝜀= −𝑁𝑇𝑈(1−𝐶𝑅 )
= 1−(0.783)𝑒 −0.481(1−0.783) = 0. 34
1−𝐶𝑅 𝑒

Discussion:
After conducting experiments with both parallel flow and counter balanced flow
arrangements of valves, we observed distinct differences in heat transfer characteristics.
Specifically, in parallel flow configurations, the heat transfer on the hot side (qh)
exceeded that of counter balanced flow, while the heat transfer on the cold side (qc) was
lower. This phenomenon can be attributed to the nature of temperature differences
between the hot and cold fluids along the length of the exchanger.
In parallel flow heat exchangers, the temperature difference between the hot and cold
fluids diminishes progressively, resulting in a lower heat transfer rate on the hot side
compared to counterflow arrangements. Conversely, in counterflow heat exchangers, the
temperature difference remains relatively high across the exchanger's length, facilitating
more effective heat transfer on the hot side.
Additionally, we noted that the parallel flow heat exchanger demonstrated greater
effectiveness (ε=0.51) compared to the counterflow heat exchanger (ε=0.38). However,
it's crucial to recognize that the effectiveness of a heat exchanger is influenced by various
factors, and the superiority of either parallel flow or counterflow design depends on
specific conditions and requirements.
While our findings suggest that the parallel flow heat exchanger was more effective in
our experimental setup, it's essential to acknowledge that this conclusion may not
 ME-332 Heat Transfer & HVAC Lab

universally apply. Contextual factors and operational conditions play a significant role in
determining the optimal heat exchanger design for a given application.

Conclusion:
In our experiment, our objectives were twofold: to calculate heat transfer from the hot
liquid, heat gained by the cold liquid, heat loss, logarithmic mean temperature difference,
and global heat coefficient, and to determine heat exchanger effectiveness both
experimentally and through the NTU (Number of Transfer Units) method.
Our experimental results revealed interesting findings regarding heat transfer
characteristics in parallel flow and counter flow heat exchangers. We observed that heat
transfer on the hot side was greater in parallel flow configurations compared to counter
flow, whereas the trend was reversed for heat transfer on the cold side. Furthermore, our
experiments indicated that the parallel flow heat exchanger exhibited greater
effectiveness than the counter flow heat exchanger in our specific setup.
However, discrepancies arose when comparing the effectiveness calculated using the
general method and the NTU method. The general method yielded higher effectiveness
values for both counter flow and parallel flow configurations compared to the NTU
method. Several potential sources of error were identified:
1. Discrepancies in calculations due to inconsistent use of significant figures after
decimal points.
2. Insufficient time given for the system to reach stability, potentially leading to
inaccuracies in measurements.
3. Possible instrumental errors contributing to inaccuracies in data collection and
analysis.
Despite these challenges, our experiment provided valuable insights into heat transfer
dynamics and the effectiveness of different heat exchanger configurations. Moving
forward, it's essential to address these sources of error to improve the accuracy and
reliability of our experimental results. Additionally, future studies could explore further
optimization of heat exchanger designs and methodologies to enhance performance and
efficiency in various applications.