You are on page 1of 16

Mindanao State University- Iligan Institute of Technology Department of Chemical Engineering College of Engineering

Unit Operations Laboratory No. 3 Experiment on Reynolds Analogy for Mass transfer: Determination of the Convective Heat and Mass Transfer Coefficient Ratio for the Cooling of Water with and without Evaporation

Submitted by: Bahinting, Sandra Enn Cano, Rozen Dumaog, Mary Bernadine Duquilla, Russil John C. Mutia, Nicel Mae Ondoy, Karl Gorre, Regino jr Suyat, Rowena

Submitted to: Engr. Arniel Ching O. Dizon

July 15, 2010

Then two cups of evaporating water were simultaneously exposed to the same air stream. The predicted by Reynolds analogy is 5. Time constants for both systems were then evaluated by means of these transient temperature measurements which gave the value of the ratio .941x10-4 m3·K/J.95 times higher and differs by 83% from the experimental ratio.Abstract Simultaneous molecular heat and mass transfer occur in a system due to temperature gradient in such a way that the system and the surroundings reach thermal equilibrium. . The ratio of the convective mass transfer coefficient to the convective heat transfer coefficient was found to be 1. one cup with evaporation and the other added with oil forming thin film which hindered the evaporation through molecular mass transfer. Wet and dry bulb temperatures were first determined. Their rates of cooling were measured by recording temperature deviations as a function of time.the convective mass-transfer coefficient to the convective heat-transfer coefficient. This experiment aims to determine the ratio of the convective heat and mass transfer coefficients for the evaporation of water by applying the Reynolds analogy relating the said coefficients and through the energy conservation principle.

......6 Conclusions and Recommendations..................................................................9 Appendix B........................................4 Convective Heat and Mass Transfer......................................................................2 Data Treatment.............................3 Sample Preparation......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2 Results......................................................................4 Reynolds Analogy....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1 Methodology...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7 References.................................................................................................................................4 Prantdl Number...................................8 Appendix A.........................................................................................................................................................................................4 Discussion.......................................................................................................................................................................................10 Appendix C..................................................................................................Table of Contents Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................................2 Data Gathering...............................................................11 ..................................................................................................

.

It suggests a simple relation between different transport phenomena in which the relation should be accurate when transport occurs by means of turbulent eddies. Mass transfer by convection involves the transport of material between a boundary surface such as liquid surface and a moving fluid or between two relatively immiscible moving fluids.e.transfer in terms of its coefficients are related by the Reynolds analogy. with subscript w referring to conditions on the air side of the liquid-water-air interface. assuming .INTRODUCTION Background Convection is one of the major modes of heat transfer and mass transfer in fluids i. In this particular activity. In heat transfer. 2 Where  Eq. 1 The initial condition is . Energy Conservation Principle In a system. convection is a process by which heat is transferred by movement of a heated fluid such as air or water.and mass. 4 Here.and mass.transfer coefficients in the evaporation of water. 3 And the time constant is: Eq. it can estimate mass transfer coefficients from heat transfer coefficient. 1 . gives:  . is the time constant for the cooling process without evaporation. convectively losing heat and mass to the air only from the open top. liquids and gases. with initial water temperature Ti greater than the ambient air temperature T0. In addition. Taking water vapor of the air side of the liquid-water-air interface as species 1. The concept of convective heat. the difference of water temperature T with time t elapsed is described from the conservation of energy principle as:  Eq. as would be the case if the liquid water were covered with a thin film of oil. Eq. Reynolds analogy was used to present the relation of the convective heat. and subscript o referring to ambient conditions and rearranging.

5 Where is the molecular weight of water. 6 p1= pv(T) for ambient conditions Eq.The mass fraction by: of the water vapor is related to the partial pressure of the water vapor. From Reynolds analogy. is the molecular weight of air. 2 . p1 Eq. 9 where Sc is the Schmidt number . the obtained values of the ratio of the convective mass transfer to the convective heat transfer from the conservation of energy principle and Reynolds analogy will be compared. Reynolds analogy holds true when Npr=1 and NSc 1. the ratio of the convective mass transfer coefficient to convective heat transfer coefficient is:    Eq. And p1 is: p1=pv(T) for saturated conditions Eq . 10 The main objective of this activity is to determine the ratio of the convective heat-and masstransfer coefficients by measuring the rates of cooling of two cups of water simultaneously exposed to the same air stream. equation 9 becomes:    Eq. one cup with evaporation and one without evaporation. 8 Reynolds Analogy Reynolds analogy relates heat and mass transfer. Moreover. the ratio of the convective mass-transfer coefficient to the convective heat-transfer coefficient evaluated by means of transient temperature measurements is given by:  Eq. is the mass diffusivity of water vapor and k is the air thermal conductivity. and p is the total atmospheric pressure. 7 From Eq. Pr is the Prandtl number. 4. Simplifying.

Also. Using Styrofoam cups. The temperature readings for dry and wet bulb were then recorded. the bottom and side of a cup was insulated by stacking it with two other cups. from the temperature and time data. the time constant was also determined from the plot for the water with an oil film. Both cups were filled from the beaker with equal known volumes of water about 10-20°C warmer than the ambient air.METHODOLOGY Materials The equipments used in the experiment were six paper cups i. Each cup was then inserted with a thermometer and the time was recorded for every 0. The numerical value of was then determined by getting the negative inverse of the slope of the plot. Enough oil was added to one cup to form a thin oil film on the water surface. three for the cooling with evaporation and three for the one without evaporation. light oil. Data Treatment From the data on the dry and wet bulb temperatures. the relative humidity was determined using a psychrometric chart. The two thermometers were clipped in an iron stand and the beaker was placed around an inch below the thermometer for the wet bulb temperature. A small fan was then used to blow air on the two thermometers until a constant temperature was reached. a graph of ln versus time was generated. Data Gathering The wet-bulb and ambient air temperatures were first determined using two thermometers. The same thing was done to make the second insulated cup.5°C drop in temperature. milliliter measuring beaker. each cup was gently stirred to assure even temperature distribution in the liquid. two thermometers. From these values. Between measurements. This served as a wick to allow the water to reach the thermometer's bulb thus maintaining a wet bulb. electric fan and gauze. the hD/h was calculated. the bulb of the thermometer was covered with a piece of wet gauze whose other end was immersed in a beaker full of water. 3 .e. For the wet-bulb temperature. In a similar manner. One thermometer for the ambient and the other is for the wet bulb.

04x10-6m2/s / 24. Pr = (16.657 Similarly.6565 Convective Heat and Mass Transfer The experimental ratio of the convective mass transfer coefficient to heat transfer coefficient is given by:    4 .  š š  •  • š  •    = 1.15x10-3 m3·K/J For trial 2 at 31oC.RESULTS Reynolds Analogy The theoretical hD/h is given by:   Or Where  Using values from appendix A at 30oC for trial 1.155x10-3 m3·K/J Prantdl Number The Prantdl number is given by: Thus for trial 1. hD/h = 1.ave= 0.43x10^-6m2/s ) = 0.656 and Npr. from table A of appendix A. 158x10-3 m3·K/J thus. hD/have = 1. Npr= 0. for trial 2.

   ‰ š    ‰   1w  Similarly for trial 2. 10 = .7622 1w = . 5 . Eq. hD/have = 1. Thus. 5. = .Trial 1 2500 h Trial 2 2500 5000 Percent Difference 0% 0% 5000 Table A: Time Constant.687 =.941x10-4 m3·K/J. 6. Note: See Appendix C for the Plot of ln versus time.48 p10= pv(30oC) : p10 = 31.75oC) p1w = 57.0467. Using Eq.0197 and hD/h = 1. from table A. Eq. p1w= pv(40.0201 From the calculated values above. 7 and tables A and B of appendix A for trial 1.878x10-4m3·K/J.0486 1o = . from Figures A and B of appendix B and table 1 of appendix A.

2. hD/h from Reynolds analogy was found to be 1. Thus. the numerical value of the convective heat-transfer coefficient h can be determined using the equation below with Cp obtained from published data. From the calculations above. Would a different value of the ration be obtained if the initial temperature of the water were increased to 30-40°C above the ambient temperature? Ans. the time constant was found to be 5000 for the two trials (see table 1). This contributes to the disagreement in the hD/h. Moreover.941x10-4 m3·K/J. Is the time constant actually constant for either of the two cups? Ans. because the obtained values of were different for either of the two cups. the ratio from Reynolds analogy was found to be 5. heat dissipation was not significantly contributed by convection alone but also by conduction. In turn. from these values. Is it possible to determine the numerical value of the convective heat-transfer coefficient h from the data for the cup with an oil film? If so. This represents a relative error of just around 6%. the value of the time constant for cooling with evaporation was found to be 2500 for trial 1 and trial 2.95 times larger giving a relative error of 83%. how could this result be used to determine the numerical value of the convective mass-transfer coefficient ? Ans. Consequently. based from equation 8. respectively. measured from the diameter of the cup. is temperature dependent. but its application is limited. Therefore. And for cooling without evaporation. one can evaluate that the ration Thus. the stacked Styrofoam cups did not serve well as insulation and the expanded fibreglass insulation should not have been replaced by Styrofoam cups. Answers to questions: 1. 6 . Reynolds analogy cannot be used while expecting precision. on the conditions of the experiment the mechanism of mass transfer and heat transfer are not identical.: Yes. Comparing this to the hD/h value from the conservation of energy principle. From the calculations. as expected. And for which. The values represent zero percent relative error for both set-ups.: Yes. the Prantdl number of air for the conditions on the experiment was 0. While the two trials did agree.: No . this wasn t the case with that predicted from Reynolds analogy. the ratios of the convective mass transfer to the convective heat transfer were calculated.004x10-4m3·K/J and 1. and m from the product of the density and the measured volume of water. And it is valid only if the Prantdl number is equal to 1[1]. 3. surface area A.155x10-3 m3·K/J.6565. the two independent trials agree with each other.878x10-4m3·K/J for trial 1 and trial 2. the value of the ratio of the convective mass transfer coefficient to the convective heat transfer coefficient.DISCUSSION From the results. the theoretical value predicted by Reynolds analogy differed significantly and in fact. The hD/h values are 2. they are directly proportional to each other. Reynolds analogy predicts similarities in transport processes. which was found to be 1.

the obtained value of h can be substituted to eqn.: It serves as a correction factor accounting for the effect of the blowing of the water vapor which is faster temperature changes resulting to lower time constant value.  can be determined. 7 . the use of Styrofoam cup as an insulation is not effective to allow only convective heat transfer to the air in the open top. the ratio of the convective mass transfer coefficient to the convective heat transfer coefficient is 1. 4.After that. representing the effect of water vapor blowing into the air at the liquid-water-air interface. in Eq. CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATIONS From the results of the experiment.95 times higher and differs by 83% from the experimental ratio. we recommend the use of other insulating material such as fiberglass. 8. the predicted by Reynolds analogy is 5. Additionally. kapton and melamine. 8.Hence.2 Ans.941x10-4 m3·K/J. How important is the term. As such. Moreover.

7 Edition. Inc. 5 Edition.numericana.. Rerieved from http://www.com/answer/gas. and Green D... 1980 nd [2]Geankoplis.com/air-propertiesd_156. Smith C. Retrieved from http://www.engineeringtoolbox. Principles of Unit Operations. Perry s Chemical Engineers Handbook. Physics of Gases and Fluids. G.REFERENCES [1]Foust.. R. et al. Retrieved from http://www.com. Third Edition. Singapore: Prentice-Hall. New York: John Wiley. Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering.S. 8 .html. 1999s th [5]Natural convection.ph/#hl=tl&source=hp&q=natural+convection&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql= &oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=1&cad=b [6]Michon. 2 Edition. 1995 [3]McCabe W. A. 1993 th [4]Perry.H. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.com/doc/12937589/HT3eChap14122. and Harriott P.htm. Retrieved from http://www. [7]Air Properties. Christie J. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Corporation. Transport Processes and Unit Operations.google. [8]Mass Convection.scribd.

75 57.166kg/m3 2429x103 J/kg 16.48 9 .Appendix A D12 K hfg (air) (air) (Relative Humidity) Trial 1 2.6110x10-5 m2/s .57x10-6m2/s 70.687 31 33.13x10-6m2/s 24.0264 W/m-K 16.04x10-6m2/s 24.54% Temp(oC) pv(mmHg) 30 31.43x10-6m2/s 76.13x10-6m2/s 1.226 40.02647W/m-k 16.562 Table B: Vapor Pressure 40 55.22% Table A: Table of Values Trial 2 2.1621kg/m3 2427x103 J/kg 16.5932x10-5 m2/s .04x10-6m2/s 1.

Appendix B Figure 1: Trial 1 Experimental Values Figure 2: Trial 2 Experimental values 10 .

Appendix C Figure 1: Trial 1 ln vs Time Plot for Water without Oil Film Figure 2: Trial 1 ln vs Time Plot for Water Oil Film 11 .

Appendix C Figure 3: Trial 2 ln vs Time Plot for Water without Oil Film Figure 4: Trial 2 ln vs Time Plot for Water with Oil Film 12 .