Lab 3: Heat Exchanger

A Lab Report

Submitted By

Neel Nadpara

ME 3264 Applied Measurements Laboratory

Section 004L

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Connecticut

Lab Preformed On:

February 17, 2015

Summary:
The process of heat exchange between two fluids that are at different temperatures and separated
by a solid wall occurs in many engineering applications. The device used to implement this
exchange is a heat exchanger. A heat exchanger is an apparatus designed to transfer thermal
energy from a hot fluid to a cold fluid (this allows a heat exchanger to either remove heat from a
hot fluid or add heat to a cold fluid). Specific applications for heat exchangers can include space
heating and air conditioning, power production, waste heat recovery, and chemical processing.
The direction of fluid motion inside the heat exchanger can normally categorized as parallel
flow, counter flow, or cross flow. In this experiment, only parallel (co-current) flow and counter
(countercurrent) flow are observed. For parallel flow, also known as co-current flow, both the
hot and cold fluids flow in the same direction. Both the fluids enter and exit the heat exchanger
on the same ends. For counter flow, both the hot and cold fluids flow in the opposite direction.
Both the fluids enter and exit the heat exchanger on the opposite ends. The purpose of this
experiment was to study how a heat exchanger functions and understand basic heat exchanger
analysis methods. By running this experiment the data that is collected can be used to calculate
the log mean temperature difference (LMTD), the number of heat transfer units, and the
effectiveness of the heat exchanger. Additionally, by changing the flow directions, the effects of
different flow arrangements on the effectiveness of the heat exchanger were demonstrated. The
countercurrent flow should have proven to be more effective than the co-current flow.

Experimental Procedure:
The purpose of this experiment is to show how a heat exchanger functions and the effects of
different flow arrangements on effectiveness. Therefore, a heat exchanger must be set up to test
these parameters. Prior to the experiment being initiated, the heat exchanger must be preheated to
reduce the time required to reach steady state. The parameters for the preheating are well defined
as the preheating was done by using a heater outputting 320 W for two hours. The volumetric
flow rate of the hot channel was maintained at 160 ±1 liters/min while a flow rate of 41.5
liters/min was maintained for the cold. Thirty minutes prior to the experiment being run, the
system was turned off. When the experiment was started, the first step taken was to ensure that a
counter flow setup was observed. In order to do this, the pre-labeled valves were set to have the
first and fourth valves open while the second and third were closed. It was also important to
ensure that all the valves were not closed as it would lead to a pressure build up in the heat
exchanger which could result in safety hazards. Following this, the flow of air though the heat
exchanger would need to be set and maintained by the flow meters. The flow meter for the hot
air was set to 160 ±1 liters/min, the flow meter was read by ensuring that the float within the
meter was perched on the 160 line the uncertainty of ±1 liters/min was determined as that is half
of the smallest scale value that is readable on the meter. The other flow meter controlling the rate
of the cold air was set so that 41.5 liters/min was the volumetric flow rate. The only difference
here was that there was a small ball instead of a float within the meter that allows the flow rate to
be read. In order to analyze the heat exchanger and determine values important parameters such
as the LMTD and effectiveness the temperatures for the various zones of the heat exchanger are
required. In order to measure these temperatures, type K thermocouples were employed. A
Thermocouple is a sensor used to measure temperature. Thermocouples consist of two wire legs
made from different metals. The wires legs are welded together at one end, creating a junction.
This junction is where the temperature is measured. When the junction experiences a change in
temperature, a voltage is created. The voltage can then be interpreted using thermocouple
reference tables or LabVIEW’s built in features (based on the type of thermocouple) to calculate
the temperature. The thermocouples would have to be calibrated in order to make accurate
measurements (this is typically done by using two different known temperatures (usually
freezing and boiling water which are known to be 0°C and 100°C respectively. Nevertheless,
type K thermocouples generally have an uncertainty on the order of ±2.2°C. For measuring the
needed temperatures from the thermocouples LabVIEW was utilized, therefore the VI was
loaded and started. There were thermocouples placed in the hot and cold inlets and outlets, one to
measure the ambient temperature, and one to measure the temperature of the wall of the heat
exchanger. Once LabVIEW is set to run the data will be recorded and saved as a LVM file which
can later be imported into Excel to generate graphs. After the VI in LabVIEW is started, the heat
exchanger system is stated by turning on the heater (using the 120V option) and the input power
(q) is set to 220 ±1 W. Once the system is started, a timer is set to go off every 15 minutes and a
screenshot of the system at that time is captured. This is utilized in order to perform some of the
calculations and temperature predictions. The average heat exchange temperature can be
computed theoretically and compared to the actual that is being measured. However, once an
hour has passed all of the valves are opened up again. Subsequently, the first and fourth valve are
closed while the second and third remain open. This alters the setup of the system from
countercurrent flow to co-current flow. Following this 20 minutes are allowed to pass to allow
the system to once again reach steady state and then LabVIEW is stopped, the heater is turned
off, and the flow meters are also shut off. The data that was recorded was saved as an LVM and
later imported into Excel to allow graphs to be generated.
 Figure 1: Schematic view of the test rig illustrating the major components as well as
thermocouple locations.

Results:

Table 1: The Chart below includes all the data obtained from LabVIEW as well as Calculations
Based on that Data

Raw Data Countercurrent Flow Co-Current

T=15min T=30min T=45min T=60min Average
Temp (°C)
Hotin (°C) 63.004 63.680 63.533 63.972 63.547 64.801
Hotout (°C) 53.227 55.134 55.761 56.515 55.159 57.503
Coldin (°C) 22.629 22.482 22.493 22.467 22.518 22.843
Coldout (°C) 42.006 44.491 46.187 47.213 44.974 49.118
q (J/s)
qhot (J/s) 32.129 28.084 25.540 24.504 27.564 23.982
qcold (J/s) 16.523 16.523 20.203 21.100 18.587 22.404
qloss (J/s) 107.450

Calculations
LMTD 25.500 25.300 24.450 24.390 24.910 20.850
R = (LMTD/qc) 1.543 1.531 1.480 1.476 1.508 0.931
qmax (J/s) 34.427 35.129 34.994 35.390 34.985 35.777
NTU 0.760 0.766 0.793 0.794 0.778 1.259
Theoretical Effectiveness 0.68 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.63
Actual Effectiveness 0.48 0.53 0.58 0.60 0.55 0.62
 Theoretical Tout (°C)
Thot (°C) 57.27 57.83 57.87 57.68 57.66 58.84
Tcold (°C) 44.7 44.75 44.60 44.70 44.68 45.80

Table 2: Additional Parameters that were used for Calculations

Heating input power: Preheat Power: Height of Cmin

220 ± 1 W 350 ± 3.5 W system: :
.6m .853
Flow Rate of Heated Channel, Mass Flow Mass of Area of System: Cr:
Rate: system: .84 m² .259
160 ± 1 liters/min => .00326 kg/s 10 kg
Flow Rate of Heated Channel, Mass Flow Heater
Rate: Voltage:
41.5 ± 1liters/min => .000847 kg/s 120 ± 1 V

Figure 2: Graph showing the temperature change in the heat exchanger over time.

Temperature Change in a Heat Exchange over Time

70

60

50
Temperature (°C)

40

30

20

10

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Time (sec)

Hot Outlet Cold Inlet Cold Outlet

Hot Outlet Wall Temperature Ambient Temperature
Discussion:
First off, the graph in Figure 2 shows the temperatures of each of the thermocouples for the hour
that the heat exchanger was run in countercurrent flow as well as the 20 minutes it was run in co-
current flow. The graph shows that from starting the system rises in temperature in the
countercurrent setup. As the time progresses closer and closer to the one hour mark (3600
seconds), the temperatures get closer to steady state. A steady state flow process requires
conditions at all points in an apparatus remain constant as time changes. Thus, there must be no
accumulation of mass or energy over the time period of interest. This is not really possible in this
system (or most real world systems) as there can be leaks, variations in the heater’s generation of
heat, etc. however it can be assumed that a steady state has been reached “for all intents and
purposes.” Also, from the graph we can observe that the wall temperature of the heat exchanger
is somewhat higher than the hot outlet during the entire experiment. Also, there is a significant
amount of noise for the curve for ambient temperature meaning the ambient temperature near the
thermocouple was continuously changing, or there could be some calibration issues. Another
important characteristic of the graph is that at the one hour mark (3600 seconds), the cold inlet
and cold outlet temperatures swap positions indicating the change from countercurrent flow to
co-current flow. Finally, the most extreme temperature difference between the cold inlet and
outlet is seen at the time when the experiment is ended. Next, the calculations can be discussed.
The heat loss calculations preformed yielded a result of 107.45 J/s. This is a value that is larger
than the value of the heat source, which is not possible. This could be due to an excess of heat
being stored from the preheat stage as the preheat temperature is greater than the actual running
temperature. However, the graph in Figure 2 would likely show this higher initial temperature.
The error is more likely due to the placement or calibration of the thermocouple that was
supposed to measure the wall temperature of the heat exchanger. The temperature of the wall of
the heat exchanger is an important quantity as it along with the ambient temperature helps to
determine the heat lost (qloss). Another important quantity that needs to be discussed is the
LMTD which shows the appropriate average temperature difference between the hot and cold air
streams which drives heat transfer. The calculated values of LMTD show that the countercurrent
setup has a higher value than that of the co-current setup meaning that there is a larger amount of
heat moving from the hot channel to the cold. Furthermore, the best measure of the benefit of
something is how well it works or the effectiveness. The effectiveness of a heat exchanger shows
the ratio of actual heat transfer in a heat exchanger to the maximum possible heat transfer.
For a given heat exchanger, the higher the effectiveness the better it does at transferring heat
from one fluid to another. Amongst the two different types of heat flows, theoretical
effectiveness of the countercurrent is higher than the co-current In practice, a countercurrent
setup should yield a better effectiveness than a co-current one as the temperature of the hot outlet
being greater than that of the cold outlet. However, when the calculated values from the data
gathered are compared, the effectiveness of co-current flow is much higher, and is very close the
theoretical value which can likely be attributed to some type of error. Moreover, it can be noted
that the effectiveness of the countercurrent flow approaches closer and closer to the theoretical
value and if the system was given even more time to reach a “steady state” it is likely that the
effectiveness for the system would have increased. Additionally, when the theoretical hot outlet
temperature is compared to the actual the theoretical value for the countercurrent nearly a
constant 57 °C. Also, the actual temperature value of hot outlet is less than this in every time
interval but there is a 1°C rise for every 15 minutes. Thus, a “steady state” is not been reached,
but the temperature was climbing ever so closely to the theoretical. This can be accounted for
due to some heat being lost to the surroundings. The system is insulated; however no insulation
is ever perfect. Also, the co-current theoretical hot outlet was greater than the actual, nonetheless
it both temperatures values are greater than the countercurrent actual and theoretical outlets. This
can be attributed to the system not actually being at steady state. Moreover, the theoretical cold
outlet temperature is originally greater than the actual value. However, after 30 minutes the
actual outlet temperature grew to be greater than the theoretical. Also, in the co-current system,
the measured outlet temperature is greater than then theoretical temperature. The deviation from
the measured (actual) vs the theoretical values can be attributed to the fact that steady state was
not reached and that the data from the start of the lab when the system is still heating up and
reaching steady state would provide a lower effectiveness. Also, it is important to note that
countercurrent systems should have a greater effectiveness than co-current, thus there are errors
within this lab that need to be analyzed.

Data and Error Analysis:

This lab definitely has a number of errors. First, let’s discuss the error propagation of three key
components. Three of the largest error propagations are derived from the power supplied by the
heater, the flow meters which determine the mass flow rate of the system, and the thermocouples
which determine the temperatures that are used in nearly every subsequent calculation utilized in
this lab. For error propagation, the error propagation equation that follows is employed:

2 2
𝜕𝑅 𝜕𝑅
√
𝛿𝑅 = ( ∗ 𝛿𝑋) + ( ∗ 𝛿𝑌) + ⋯
𝜕𝑋 𝜕𝑌

When the calculations are computed, the final results are determined as shown in the table
below:

Tools Used Uncertainty Error Propagation

Preheating Heater
Power ± 3.5 W
Electric Heater ±1W
Qloss ±1W ± 10.372 W
Hot Flow Meter ± 1 liters/min ± 4.59E-8 m3/s
 Cold Flow Meter ± 1 liters/min
Hot Thermocouple ± 2.2 °C
Cold Thermocouple ± 2.2 °C ± 10.563 °C

Errors in this lab include the variability in the power provided by the heater used in the lab. Also,
the heat loss calculation which was discussed previously was defiantly too large a value which
can be attributed to a thermocouple being placed in the wrong place or being calibrated
incorrectly. Also, the flow rate valves are not extremely precise instruments and since they
determine mass flow rate an error with them can cause significant error within the lab. Moreover,
the system could be better insulated to prevent heat loss. Additionally, there may be leaks in the
provided air flow channels. Also, the system could be given more time to reach steady state
which would reduce error. Moreover, we could calibrate each thermocouple prior to the
experiment allowing for more accurate temperature measurements. Also, different
thermocouples types that are more precise can reduce errors. The thermocouple for the ambient
conditions can be fixture to something instead of hanging off the table which could have led to
the great deal of noise that was observed.

Conclusion:
Overall, the lab accuracy demonstrates the basic objectives of the lab, primarily how a heat
exchanger functions and how basic heat exchanger calculations/analysis can be performed. It
also demonstrates how different types of flows affect the LMTD and effectiveness of a heat
exchanger. The results did not show that the countercurrent system was more efficient than the
co-current, but this is likely attributed to the numerous errors with this lab. However, the general
principles of a heat exchanger were successfully demonstrated as it was shown how heat can be
transferred from a hotter fluid to a colder one.