ABSTRACT

Heat transfer from a warmer fluid to a cooler fluid, across a solid wall
separation, is a common operation in most chemical engineering industries. In
many of the applications of heat transfer in process plants, one or more of the
mechanisms of heat transfer may be involved.

This report presents the experimental results and analysis of heat transfer
from hot water to cold water as studied using an Armfield U-tube Heat
Exchanger, by co-current and counter current flows. The hot water inlet
stream was maintained at a temperature of about 85-90°C and that of the
cooling water inlet stream was 25°C. The results of the experiment showed
that the heat transfer rate in co-current flow is not the same as that of
counter-current flow. The heat transfer rate in counter-current flow was
higher. The average heat transfer coefficient increased with increasing mass
flow rate of the cooling water.

Moreover, in this experiment, considerations were also given to the theory of

heat exchange, the method and calculations involved in the experiment, and
the discussion of the results of the experiment.

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page
Abstract i
Table of contents ii

CHAPTER ONE- INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Title of Experiment 1
1.2 Experiment Objectives 1
1.3 Justification of Experiment 2

CHAPTER TWO- THEORY 3

2.1. Definition of Keywords 3
2.2. The Heat Exchange Process 3
2.2.1 Co-Current Flow or Parallel Flow 3
2.2.2. Counter-Current Flow 4
2.3. Principles of the Experiment 5

CHAPTER THREE- EXPERIMENTATION AND RESULTS 8

3.1. Definition 8
3.2. Apparatuses Used 8
3.3. Sample Used 9
3.4. Experiment Procedure 9
3.5. Results of the Experiment 10
3.7. Graphs 13

CHAPTER FOUR- DISCUSSION 15

4.1. Result Analysis 15
4.1.1. Result Comparison 15
4.2. Result Interpretation 17

CHAPTER FIVE- CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION 19

5.1. Conclusion 19
5.2. Recommendation 20
REFERENCES 21
APPENDIX 22

2
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 TITLE OF EXPERIMENT: HEAT EXCHANGE

In this heat exchange experiment, heat is transferred from a hot fluid to a

cooling fluid, as the fluids flow through concentric tubes. The fluids used are
both liquid water.

1.2 EXPERIMENT OBJECTIVES:

The objectives of this experiment are as follows:

 To determine the amount of heat transferred to the cooling water.
 To calculate the logarithmic mean temperature difference, LMTD.
 To determine the heat transfer coefficient, k, of the operating fluid.
 To illustrate the inter-relationship between the mass flow rate and the
heat transfer coefficient.
 To demonstrate the working principles of industrial heat exchangers in
the most convenient way possible in the laboratory.
 To accurately explain the practical importance of: temperature profiles,
co- and counter-current flows, energy balance, log mean temperature
difference and heat transfer coefficients.

3
1.3 JUSTIFICATION OF THE EXPRIMENT
There are many industrial processes that require or produce heat. Some of
these processes involve exothermic and endothermic reactions. For
exothermic reactions, an efficient method of removal of excess heat is
required, while for endothermic reactions, an efficient means of introduction
of adequate heat to facilitate the reaction is needed. Hence, heat exchange is
a very important process in industries.
The necessity of this experiment is also made obvious by the need to estimate
how efficiently heat can be transferred to a fluid by convection in both co-
current and counter-current flows. Thus, the heat transfer coefficient is a
property of the fluid which gives an idea of this efficiency and has been
calculated in this experiment for liquid water for both operations.

4
 CHAPTER TWO

THEORY

2.1 DEFINITION OF KEYWORDS

I. Log Mean Temperature Difference: The LMTD is the driven force for the
heat exchange between the two fluids. As the LMTD value increases, the
amounts of heat transfer between the two fluids also increase.

2.2 THE HEAT EXCHANGE PROCESS

In this section, qualitative relationships for the transfer of heat to a fluid

flowing in a tube are discussed. Attention is also given to the process involving
heat transfers for co- and counter current flows.

There are typical arrangements for fluid flow in heat exchangers. Accordingly,
they are classified on the basis of their flow arrangements as:

2.2.1 Co-Current Flow or Parallel Flow:

The flow is said to be co-current or parallel when the hot and cold fluid flow in
one direction, parallel to each other. The temperature length curves for co-
current flow are show in Fig. 2.1.

Since it is not possible to bring the exit temperature of the cold fluid to the
entrance temperature of the hot fluid and the heat transferred is quite low,
then co-current flow is rarely used in single-pass exchangers. Parallel flow is
useful in some special situations where it is important to change the
temperature of one fluid very rapidly.

5
 Th1
Th1
Temperature

ΔTmax
Th2
Th2
ΔTmax ΔTmin ΔTmin
Tc2
Tc2 Tc1

Tc1

Fig 2.1 Temperature Profile for Co-Current Flow

Fig 2.2 Temperature Profile for Counter-Current Flow

2.2.2 Counter-Current Flow

Where the two fluid streams flow parallel to each other, but in opposite
directions, the heat exchange process is called Counter-Current Heat Transfer.

The four terminal temperatures are denoted as follows:

Temperature of entering hot fluid, Th1

Temperature of leaving hot fluid, Th2

Temperature of entering cold fluid, Tc1

Temperature of leaving cold fluid, Tc2

The approaches are:

For co-current flow

For counter-current flow

6
2.3 PRINCIPLES OF THE EXPERIMENT

When a liquid flows through a tube at a temperature different from that of the
walls of the tube, heat is transferred between the tube walls and the liquid.
Such heat transfer, that is a convection heat transfer, takes place at the solid-
liquid interface. This flow of heat is expressed as being proportional to the
product of the curved surface area of the tube and the temperature difference
for the system. The proportionality factor is known as the ‘heat transfer
coefficient’, h. Hence, the magnitude and nature of this heat transfer
coefficient is directly related to the curved surface area of the tube and the
temperature difference that exists between the fluid and the tube walls.

Assuming there is a steady flow of the liquid in the tube which has a uniform
cross-sectional area through its length, then, the heat transfer coefficient is a
function of the diameter and the length of the tube.

The rate of heat flow at any point depends on:

 Heat transfer coefficient (K), itself a function of the properties of the

fluids involved, fluid velocity, materials of construction, geometry and
cleanliness of the exchanger
 Temperature difference between hot and cold streams

Total heat transferred (Q) depends on:

 Heat transfer surface area (A)

 Heat transfer coefficient (K)
 Average temperature difference between the streams, strictly the log
mean (ΔTm)

Thus total heat transferred Q = K.A.ΔTm

7
  But the larger the area the greater the cost of the exchanger

Therefore there is a trade-off between the amount of heat transferred and the
exchanger cost

Energy Balance on the Heat Exchanger

The solution to the heat exchanger problem may be simple enough to be

represented by a straight-forward overall balance or may be so detailed as to
require integral calculus. For designing or predicting the performance of a heat
exchanger, it is necessary that the total heat transfer may be related with its
governing parameters. Heat flows from the hot fluid to the cold fluid, in a heat
exchanger. Neglecting shaft work, mechanical energy and any loss of heat, the
energy balance on the heat exchanger can be written as:

Where ṁ1 = flow rate of the hot fluid

Q1= rate of heat transfer from the hot fluid

Hh1, Hh2 = specific enthalpies of hot fluid at inlet and outlet, respectively.

The above equation can also be written for the cold water stream flowing
through the heat exchanger. The sign of Q1 is positive, while that of Q2 is
negative. This is because the hot fluid losses heat while the cold fluid gains the
heat.

If there is no chemical reaction or a change of phase and constant enthalpies

are assumed, then the energy balance for the heat exchanger becomes

Where cp1 = specific heat capacity of the hot fluid

8
Logarithmic mean Temperature Difference (LMTD)

Logarithmic Mean Temperature Difference is defined as that temperature

difference which, if constant, would give the same rate of heat transfer as
actually occurs under variable conditions of temperature difference.

In order to derive an expression for LMTD for both co-current flow and
counter-current flow heat exchangers, the following assumptions are made:

i. The flow is steady.

ii. The specific heat and mass flow rates are constant.
iii. The overall heat transfer coefficient K is constant.
iv. There is no change of phase of the fluids during the operation.
v. The changes in mechanical energies, as well as shaft work, are negligible.
vi. There is no heat exchange with the surroundings, due to heat exchanger
being perfectly lagged.
vii. Axial conduction along the tubes of the heat exchanger is neglected.

LMTD for Co-Current Flow

( )

LMTD for Counter-Current Flow

( )

Subscripts h and c represent hot and cold water, respectively

Subscripts 1 and 2 represent inlet and outlet streams, respectively.

9
 CHAPTER THREE

EXPERIMENTATION AND RESULTS

3.1 DEFINITION

Heat exchange by co-current and counter-current flows, using the Armfield

Concentric U-tube Heat Exchanger.

3.2 APPARATUSES USED

The apparatuses used in this experiment are:

Armfield Concentric U-Tube Heat Exchanger, Control Valves, Electric Water

Heater, Rotameter, Pump, Adjustable Temperature Controller, three
Thermometers

The description of the apparatuses used in the experiment is given below:

I. Armfield Concentric U-Tube Heat Exchanger: A heat exchanger may be

defined as a device which transfers the energy from a hot fluid to a cold
fluid, with maximum rate and minimum investment. Heat exchangers
are widely used in refrigeration, air conditioning, space heating, power
generation, and chemical processing.
II. Control Valves: this is a mechanical device used to regulate the flow of
the fluids within the tubes.
III. Electric Water Heater: This is a hot water storage tank that heats the
water in it to about 80°C, according to specification. It is equipped with
an immersion-type heater and an adjustable temperature controller.
Also, this water heater can maintain a temperature within 1°C of
deviation.

10
 IV. Rotameter: this is an instrument on the main apparatus which is used
for measuring the flow rates of the fluids by indicating the height
reached in a tube by a small float supported by the flowing liquid.
V. Pump: this is a device that forces the water from the storage tank into
the U-tubes.
VI. Adjustable Temperature Controller
VII. Three Thermometers: A thermometer is an instrument used to measure
temperature. The thermometer used for this experiment is the mercury-
in-glass type. With the thermometers installed in both the inside and the
outside tubes, the required inlet and outlet temperatures of the hot and
cold fluids can be read from the thermometers during the
experimentation.

3.3 SAMPLE USED:

Cold Fluid -Water

Hot Fluid -Water

3.4 EXPERIMENT PROCEDURE:

I. We were exposed to the functions of the heat exchanger, the different

flow systems and their different controls.
II. Starting with co-current flow system, the fluid (water) was heated to a
temperature of T=80°C.
III. We adjusted the cooling water flow rate to ̇ , initially, by
measuring the discharge volume in a graduated cylinder.

11
IV. When the temperatures became fairly constant, the following
temperature readings were taken: Th1 and Th2, temperature of hot water
in the inlet and outlet streams, respectively; Tc1 and Tc2, temperature of
cold water in the inlet and outlet streams, respectively.
V. The above temperature readings were taken again, after every 2
minutes, for at least six times. The average temperature was recorded.
VI. The procedure (from I-V) was repeated for new flow rates of the cooling
water. The flow rates were: ṁ2=20kg/hr; ṁ3=40kg/hr and; ṁ4=50kg/hr.
VII. Then the entire experiment was repeated for counter-current flow. The
results were also recorded.

3.5 RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENT

GIVEN:

Hence, the surface area of the inner tube is:

12
RESULTS: The results of the Heat Exchange Experiment are tabulated below.

A. Co-Current Flow

Cooling Water Flow Rate Th1 (°C) Th2 (°C) Tc1 (°C) Tc2 (°C)
̇ 80 65 25 40
̇ 83 63 25 42
̇ 90 60 25 39
̇ 95 55 25 35

TABLE 3.1

̇ (kg/hr) Q1 (KJ/hr) Q2 (KJ/hr) ΔTm (°C) K (KJ/hr.m2.°C)

10 630 -630 38.05 334.62
20 1428 -1680 36.42 932.27
40 2352 -5040 38.94 2615.8
50 2100 -8400 39.91 4253.7
TABLE 3.2

B. Counter-Current Flow

Cooling Water Flow Rate Th1 (°C) Th2 (°C) Tc1 (°C) Tc2 (°C)
̇ 80 37 25 70
̇ 85 39 25 67
̇ 90 40 25 63
̇ 95 42 25 60
TABLE 3.3

̇ (kg/hr) Q1 (KJ/hr) Q2 (KJ/hr) ΔTm (°C) K (KJ/hr.m2.°C)

10 1890 -1806 10.97 3327.2
20 3528 -3864 15.92 4905.3
40 6384 -8400 20.42 8313.7
50 7350 -11130 24.93 9022.8
TABLE 3.4

13
Where

̇ (kg/hr) -Water Flow Rate,

Th1, Th2 -Inlet and outlet temperatures of Hot Water,
Tc1, Tc2 -Inlet and outlet temperatures of Cooling Water,
Q1 -Heat Transferred to the Cooling Water,
Q2 -Heat Transferred from the Hot Water,
ΔTm -Logarithmic Mean Temperature Difference,
K -Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient

14
 3.6 GRAPHS

Co-Current Flow
4800

4600

4400

4200

4000

3800

3600

3400
Overall heat Transfer Coefficient, K (KJ/m.hr.°C)

3200

3000

2800

2600

2400

2200

2000

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Mass Flow Rate of Cold Water, ṁ (kg/hr)
15
GRAPH 3.1 A Graph of Heat Transfer Coefficient against Mass Flow rate of Water, for Co-Current
Flow
 Counter-Current Flow
10000

9500

9000

8500

8000

7500

7000
Overall heat Transfer Coefficient, K (KJ/m.hr.°C)

6500

6000

5500

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Mass Flow Rate of Cold Water, ṁ kg hr

GRAPH 3.2 A Graph of Heat Transfer Coefficient against Mass Flow rate of Water, for Counter-
Current Flow
16
 CHAPTER FOUR

DISCUSSION

4.1 RESULT ANALYSIS

Observing Graph 3.1 and Graph 3.2, we notice a clear increasing linear trend
for all four values of heat transfer coefficients of water. This is consistent with
Newton’s Law of Convection, as it requires the heat transferred to increase
linearly over an increase in temperature difference. Observing Table 5, we see
that the accepted range for values correspond, therefore the results of this
test can be considered accurate.

4.1.1 RESULT COMPARISON

There were two tests that were run on the Armfield U-Tube Heat Exchanger
equipment. They are: Co-current Heat exchange; and Counter-current Heat
Exchange.

I. Co-Current Flow: Considering the co-current flow heat transfer, at the

inlet of the U-tube heat exchanger, hot water and cold water enter
simultaneously and in the same direction. So, as the fluids move along the
tubes, the hotter fluid loses some heat while the cooling fluid gains the heat.
The heat transferred to the cooling water was seen to increase with increasing
inlet temperature of the hot water. This heat was also noticed to increase as
the mass flow rate of the water increased.

According to the Law of Conservation of Energy, the heat lost from the hot
water must be equal to the heat gained to the cold water. However, as

17
observed in this experiment, this is only applicable to a perfect heat transfer
situation. Initially, for 10kg/hr mass flow rate, the algebraic sum of the heat
loss and gain of the hot and cold fluids was noticed to be zero. As the mass
flow rate of the water increased, it was also noticed that a difference between
the heat loss and gain of the hot and cold fluids was introduced.

For instance, at ṁ1 = 20kg/hr, ; that is, . There

is a difference of -252KJ/hr between Q1 and Q2. Furthermore, it was also
noticed that this difference between Q1 and Q2 increased as the mass flow rate
of the water increased. This occurrence could be attributed to the fact that
since the copper material of the inner tube is a good conductor of heat, then
as the hot water flows at an initially slow rate, the absorbs the heat and has
enough time to transmit it through its thickness to the cooling water. But as
the mass flow rate increases, the copper has a limited time to transmit the
heat across its thickness to the cooling water.

It was also observed that the Log Mean Temperature Difference for the co-
current flow experiment ranged from 38 - 40°C, which is quite narrow.

II. Counter-Current Flow: At each end of the U-tube heat exchanger, the
hot and cold fluids enter simultaneously but in opposite directions. As the
fluids move through the tube, the cooling water gets hot quickly, unlike in co-
current flow where the cooling water’s temperature slowly increases along the
tube length.

For the counter-current flow, I observed that with an increasing mass flow
rate, the Log Mean Temperature Differences (LMTDs) of the hot and cold fluids

18
steadily increased. This is unlike the case with co-current flow, although the
maximum LMTD for this flow was less than the LMTDs of co-current flow.

Again, it has been observed that the values of Q 1 and Q2 for counter-current
flow are quite higher than those of co-current flow. And, this resulted in high
values for the heat transfer coefficients obtained.

2.1 RESULT INTERPRETATION

From the results of both flow methods, it was evident that, for a larger mass
flow rate, the heat transfer coefficient of the hot water increased. This
relationship between the overall heat transfer coefficient, K, and the mass flow
rate is because K depends on the convective effects of the hot fluid, and the
heat transfer coefficient of the heat exchanger material. Hence, increasing the
flow rate of the cold fluid would also increase the heat transfer coefficient.
Moreover, the difference between the heat lost by the hot water and the heat
gained by the cold water for both flows is equal to the heat lost to the
surroundings by radiation plus the heat absorbed by the copper tube.

This is the reason why Q1 was not always equal to Q2. Therefore, with any flow
rate of water, the efficiency of the heat exchanger is related to the ratio of the
heat gained by the cold water to that lost from the hot water. That is,

efficiency, | |.

It can be inferred that during a heat exchange operation, if the hot fluid has a
relatively small mass flow rate and an almost steady LMTD is to be maintained
between the two fluids, then co-current flow will be more efficient. Moreover,

19
if a very large rate of heat transfer is required and the mass flow rate of the
hot fluid is also large, then counter-current flow is more preferable.
According to Fig 2.1, it is evident that for co-current flow, the temperature
difference between the hot and cold fluids keeps on decreasing from inlet to
outlet. While from Fig 2.2, the temperature difference between the two fluids
remains more or less nearly constant, for counter-current flow.
Hence, most industries opt for counter-current flow heat transfer since they
deal with large materials per unit time. Since the co-current type of heat
exchanger requires a large area of heat transfer, it is therefore rarely used in
practice.

20
 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION

5.1 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the heat transfer coefficient of the system was calculated at four
different flow rates for both co-current flow and counter-current flow heat
exchangers. From the results it was clear that the overall heat transfer
coefficient was hugely affected by the flow rates of the cold water and the hot
water.

When the water flow rate was increased the heat transfer of the liquid also
increased. This was due to the fact that there was more water flowing through
the pipe, creating a greater temperature difference. Since there was less heat
absorption per unit of cold water, the water had more potential to absorb the
heat from the hot water.

The correlation equations for the overall heat transfer coefficient of a parallel
flow heat exchanger were proved true in this experiment. The equations for
the cross flow were also confirmed in this experiment.

By in large, both experiments illustrated accurately the behaviour of heat

transfer in both heat exchangers and it showed the apparent connection
between the values obtained experimentally and theoretically through
correlations.

21
5.2 RECOMMENDATION

For future experimentation on the transfer of heat from hot water to cooling
water using a U-tube heat exchanger, more consideration should be given to
the insulation/lagging of the outer tube to reduce the loss of heat to the
surroundings by radiation.

Also, the inlet temperature should be further maintained more closely to 85°C,
which is the required temperature, to ensure that the calculated overall heat
transfer coefficients obtained for each flow experiment are comparable.

Aside from the above, the report gives an acceptable description of the
experiment and thus can be adopted for further analysis.

22
 REFERENCES
Bird R. B., Warren E. S., “Transport Phenomena: Macroscopic Balances for
Nonisothermal Systems”, 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc., p.
463.

Mccabe S. H., “Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering”, 6th Edition,

McGraw-Hill International, pp. 315-333.

Obibuenyi J. I., “Laboratory Manual on CHE 310: Chemical Engineering

Lab 2- Heat Exchange”, FUT Owerri, p. 51-56.

Rajput R. K., “Heat and Mass Transfer: Heat Exchangers”, Revised Edition,
S. Chand, pp. 574-585.
Richardson J. F., Harker J.H., “Coulson and Richardson’s Chemical Engineering
Volume 1: Fluid Flow, Heat Transfer and Mass transfer”, 6th
Edition, ButtterWorth-Heinemann, pp. 503-535.

23
 APPENDICES

CO-CURRENT FLOW CALCULATIONS

1. Determination of the Amount of Heat Transferred to the Cooling
Water, Q1

Where, cp = 4.2 KJ/ (Kg) (°C)

For ṁ = 10kg/hr;

For ṁ = 20kg/hr;

For ṁ = 40kg/hr;

For ṁ = 50kg/hr;

2. Determination of the Amount of Heat Transferred from the Hot Water,

Q2

Where, cp = 4.2 KJ/ (Kg) (°C)

For ṁ = 10kg/hr;

For ṁ = 20kg/hr;

For ṁ = 40kg/hr;

For ṁ = 50kg/hr;

3. Calculation of the Log Mean Temperature Difference, ΔTm

( )

24
For ṁ = 10kg/hr;
( )

For ṁ = 20kg/hr;
( )

For ṁ = 40kg/hr;
( )

For ṁ = 50kg/hr;
( )

4. Determination of Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient, K

For ṁ = 10kg/hr;

For ṁ = 20kg/hr;

For ṁ = 40kg/hr;

For ṁ = 50kg/hr;

COUNTER-CURRENT FLOW CALCULATIONS

1. Determination of the Amount of Heat Transferred to the Cooling
Water, Q1

Where, cp = 4.2 KJ/ (Kg) (°C)

For ṁ = 10kg/hr;

For ṁ = 20kg/hr;

For ṁ = 40kg/hr;

25
For ṁ = 50kg/hr;

2. Determination of the Amount of Heat Transferred from the Hot Water,

Q2

Where, cp = 4.2 KJ/ (Kg) (°C)

For ṁ = 10kg/hr;

For ṁ = 20kg/hr;

For ṁ = 40kg/hr;

For ṁ = 50kg/hr;

3. Calculation of the Log Mean Temperature Difference, ΔT m

( )

For ṁ = 10kg/hr;
( )

For ṁ = 20kg/hr;
( )

For ṁ = 40kg/hr;
( )

For ṁ = 50kg/hr;
( )

4. Determination of Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient, K

26
For ṁ = 10kg/hr;

For ṁ = 20kg/hr;

For ṁ = 40kg/hr;

For ṁ = 50kg/hr;

Fluid Transfer Fluid Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient

Surface (Btu/ft2 hr oF) (KJ/m2 hr °C)
Water Cast Iron Air or Gas 1.4 8.8
Water Mild Steel Air or Gas 2.0 12.6
Water Copper Air or Gas 2.3 14.5
Water Cast Iron Water 40 - 50 250 - 320
Water Mild Steel Water 60 - 70 375 - 445
Water Copper Water 60 - 80 375 - 500
Air Cast Iron Air 1.0 7.0
Air Mild Steel Air 1.4 8.8
Steam Cast Iron Air 2.0 12.6
Steam Mild Steel Air 2.5 15.8
Steam Copper Air 3.0 19.0
Steam Cast Iron Water 160 1000
Steam Mild Steel Water 185 1167
Steam Copper Water 205 1293
Steam Stainless Steel Water 120 760

 1 Btu/ft2 hr oF = 6.309 KJ/m2 hr °C

TABLE 5

27