CL203-S1 Course Project

For the CL203-S1 course project, each group needs to develop a laboratory experiment that
illustrates a transport process. We’ve covered momentum transport (fluid mechanics) in class
so far, and have developed the continuity and Navier-Stokes’ equations that describe flow of
Newtonian fluids. Therefore, I recommend that you stick with experiments in this domain –
however, I will not constrain you to this.
When you plan your project, please consider the following points (in the context of the
laboratory experiment):
 What is the principle or phenomenon that is being illustrated in the experiment?
 Can measurements be made within one laboratory session (3 hours)?
 What is the level of sophistication required to make these measurements? How
complicated is it to build this experimental set-up? How can you estimate the error in
your measurements? (This aspect is very important for a good experiment)
 What data needs to be collected? How will this need to be plotted? How can the data
be analyzed? What is the level of sophistication required for such analysis?
I would recommend that you attempt to create experiments that are robust, viz. easy to carry
out and that provide sufficiently rich information, such that detailed analysis can be carried out.

Examples:
Here is a reference that describes two experiments with static fluids: https://peer.asee.org/two-
take-home-experiments-in-fluid-mechanics.pdf
These are easy to perform, but I feel that you might want to aim for greater sophistication.
Here is a recent attempt to design laboratory experiments, during the pandemic:
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pof/article/34/5/053105/2846801/Do-it-yourself-rheometry
This deals with measuring the properties of non-Newtonian fluids.
I have demonstrated experiments in class (low Reynolds number flows and a CD/balloon
hovercraft). Can you think of what measurements and analysis you can do with these?
You might also be interested in a recent Twitter post:
https://twitter.com/SaverioIV/status/1701996622425514473
and associated paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.12927).
These are, of course, only a few examples and I am sure that you will be far more creative in
designing experiments. The Indian Society of Rheology website has videos of a large number
of fluid mechanics experiments, performed by Prof Chirag Kalelkar (IIT-KGP):
https://isr.org.in/fluid-mechanics-videos/
Several of these illustrate fluid mechanics instabilities. Analysis of these is challenging, but the
more adventurous among you might wish to consider these. Of course, you can devise your
own experiment and I look forward to seeing how creative you can get.
Resources:
You can use the institute and department Maker Space for your project. Prof Gundabala (in-
charge of the department Maker Space lab) has offered to procure things you might need for
your experiments (if we inform him ahead of time). For example, filament/resin for 3D printing
or curable silicone resin in case you wish to fabricate soft microfluidic devices. You can use
cell phone cameras for imaging, or use facilities available on campus. In addition, you might
need to procure things that are not available in the Maker Space. Each group can spend up to
INR 2000 for their projects. Please keep all the bills and the department will reimburse
expenses (against bills, up to this limit).

The Report:
A laboratory experiment is described in a report, including the conduct of the experiment,
listing and analysis of the data. To give you a sense of what we expect from laboratory
experiments in chemical engineering, I attach a model report (prepared by Prof P Sunthar), that
describes what is expected from a laboratory report. One of the end points of your project
would be to conduct the experiment you have designed, collect data, analyze it and prepare
such a report.
In particular, please pay attention to the rigour with which you conduct the experiment. What
are the potential sources of error and how can these be minimized? It is very important to
quantify the error in your measurements. For a useful resource, please see:
https://www.physics.hmc.edu/courses/p053/manual/2008/intro_to_uncert_v4.pdf
Please be aware of what plagiarism is (https://www.plagiarism.org) and why it is considered
serious academic malpractice. Plagiarism is unacceptable and reports will be checked for it.

Time lines and Evaluations:

4-Oct 2023 One-page summary of your plan Each group to submit
Title of your experiment by email to me.
Brief abstract (1 paragraph) of what you aim to do
Estimate of what resources you will need and where I might choose to have
these are available (Maker space lab, etc) a quick 10-min online
Is there anything you would like the Maker Space lab meeting with your
to procure? group, in case I need
Estimate of what you will need to procure (with more clarity (3%)
approximate budget)
23-Oct 2023 Brief update of your progress + statement of what Email submission to
each group member contributed to project. Feel free me (3%)
to include photographs and any preliminary data
9-Nov-2023 Final report due 3%
Post endsem Final viva with each group 6%

You will be graded on timeliness and quality (including clarity of expression, creativity and
rigour)
 CL 232 Chemical Engineering Lab-1 [2019]

Experiment Number

Title

Sub-group Code

Date of Experiment

Date of Report Submission

Roll Number Name Responsibility owned

(data, analysis, plots,
report, none)

(For use by examiners only)

Criterion TA assigned grade Faculty assigned grade

Calculations

Graphical plots

Hypothesis testing

Report quality

Initials with date

R&P TA initials with date

 Model Experimental Report

P Sunthar

January 12, 2019

Contents
1 Objectives 2

2 Notes on the Procedure 2

3 Set-up 2

4 Results 2
4.1 Raw data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4.2 Sample calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4.3 Derived data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4.4 Plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

5 Discussion 4
5.1 Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.2 Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.3 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.3.1 Hypothesis 1: The positive deviation is because of the room was hot that day 5
5.3.2 Hypothesis 2: The thermal conductivity of the fluid is incorrect . . . . . . . . 5
5.3.3 Hypothesis 3: The diameter of the pipe is actually lower than assumed . . . . 6
5.3.4 Hypothesis 4: The flow is not fully developed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1
 In this report snippet we show some ways to analyse the results. In this document, text that appear
in gray boxes are instructions and annotations that are not to be reproduced in the report. The main
objective of this section is to interpret the deviation of the results from known behaviour. Known
behaviours are two fold

1. Theory: analytical expressions obtained in some idealised conditions with certain assumptions.
These are usually found in textbooks.

2. Empirical: correlations, which are mathematical functions that are fit to data obtained by several
researchers.

1 Objectives

2 Notes on the Procedure

[Optional] Include any special notes on the procedure you followed that was not given in the manual

3 Set-up

[Optional] Include any special pictures or schematics of the setup that was not given in the manual.

4 Results
4.1 Raw data
In this section present the raw data table, as noted down on the day of experimentation. Note down all
the set points and various errors

1. Least count errors

2. Systematic deviations (optional)

3. Random errors (from fluctuations in meter, minimum-maximum, or standard deviation)

4.2 Sample calculation

Using the raw data show a sample calculation that results in various other derived quantities that will
be plotted or analysed otherwise. The sample calculation must be one of the reading data row that
appears in the following section (Derived data). The calculations must also include propagation of
errors.

4.3 Derived data

2
 20
Expt.
Fit
18 Hausen correlation
FD Theory

16

14

12
Nu

10

2
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
1/Gr

Figure 1: Nusselt number variation against inverse of Graetz number.

Provide tabular data for the various derived quantities. You may use spreadsheet functions to arrive at
the values. Where appropriate each of the derived quantities must include its standard error (of mean).

4.4 Plots
After the error analysis, the plot of Nusselt number Nu against the inverse of Graetz number Gr
is show in Figure 1. The experimental data has been fit to the equation

a/Gr
Nu = Nu∞ + (1)
1 + b/Gr2/3
using a non-linear least square method. The parameters have been estimated (using gnuplot fit)
as follows

Nu∞ = 4.8 ± 0.4

a = 0.108 ± 0.054
b = 0.07 ± 0.04

3
 Note that the fitting software actually reported the values as follows:

Nu∞ = 4.79847 ± 0.3682

a = 0.108859 ± 0.05354
b = 0.0707456 ± 0.04058

However, since we know that there is an estimation error, we restrict the number of significant digits
in the value only up to the first (or second) significant digit in the error.

5 Discussion
5.1 Observations
1. The experimental observations deviate from the empirical correlation beyond the errors of
estimation.

2. The theory and empirical correlations agree only for small values of Gr.

3. For 1/Gr > 1, the Nusselt number saturates to a constant value, as expected in the theory,
and as observed in the empirical correlations.

5.2 Questions
1. Why is the experimental data (as determined by the fit) shifted to higher Nu?

5.3 Hypotheses

A “Hypothesis” is a claim; it is a guess answer to the question. Hypothesis can be arrived at by several
ways:

1. A blind guess (without having any prior-knowledge of the connections)

2. An educated guess (or intuition)

3. By inductive reasoning

However we arrive at an hypothesis, it needs to have certain properties to be qualified as “scientific”.

1. The predictions from the hypothesis must be testable. Meaning, we should be able to perform an
experiment to test it.

2. The predictions must be falsifiable. The test should be such a way that it must allow for an
outcome that is negative; that then rejects the hypothesis.

While the second one is more philosophical (and is rarely possible to get it unfalsifiable for sim-
ple laboratory experiments we conduct), the first one is very relevant. Sometimes hypotheses are in-

4
 principle testable, but it is difficult to test it in a normal lab. So it is important to get easily testable
hypothesis.
In this section we show various examples of such hypotheses that can appear in a report. Note that
each of hypotheses below directly answers the question.

5.3.1 Hypothesis 1: The positive deviation is because of the room was hot that day
Explanation The empirical data may have been obtained in the western countries where the
room temperature is around 20◦ C. Whereas, the weather when we performed the experiments
was exceptionally hot, around 43◦ C. This could have caused the deviation in the measured data.

This is possibly a blind guess. There is no logical link shown between a higher room temperature and an
increase in Nu. Just in-the-air arguments will not do. It is essential to show through known relations
between phenomena (using equations): how much, higher room temperature will affect the measured
variables, and therefore the derived quantity Nu.
The hypothesis does not even attempt to link the phenomenon qualitatively. Meaning, it must at
least show a high room temperature actually leads to higher Nu (just the qualitative direction of change,
if not the quantitative magnitude).
Conclusion: This hypothesis is only a blind guess, it does not make any prediction of the increase
in Nu, that can be matched (or tested) with experiments. This hypothesis must be rejected.
Note: It does not mean that all blind guesses will be rejected. The guess itself is fine. Only that the
guess did not make any quantitative prediction that can be tested.

5.3.2 Hypothesis 2: The thermal conductivity of the fluid is incorrect

We assumed the thermal conductivity of glycerol to be k0 = 300 W/m·K. But the actual thermal
conductivity at the mean temperature of the fluid Tm = 320 K is k = 287 W/m·K.
This will modify the Nusselt number as

Nu hD/k k0
≡ = = 1.045 (2)
Nu0 hD/k0 k

where, Nu0 is the initially computed Nusselt number and Nu is the corrected one.

The above equation is a definite prediction from the hypothesis. It is expected that such quantitative
estimates be obtained as predictions. If thermal conductivity is the reason then it predicts that the
derived Nu has to be corrected by a factor of 1.045.

Conclusion We reject this hypothesis because

1. It predicts an increase in the derived Nu, which is already higher than expected.

2. Also, there is already a 10% error in the estimation of the Nusselt number (using the fit).
Thermal conductivity varies only 3% in this range.

5
 20
Expt.
Fit
18 Hausen correlation
FD Theory

16

14

12
Nu

10

2
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
1/Gr

Figure 2: Nusselt number variation against inverse of Graetz number.

While the above hypothesis failed, it is a good one. When trying to arrive at an explanation it is
also important to rule out simple guesses. Remember Occams razor: When presented with competing
hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.
While the hypothesis failed, it gave us a clue of where other places we can look for. If decreasing k
had a counter effect of what we wanted, then decreasing D will have the effect we need!

5.3.3 Hypothesis 3: The diameter of the pipe is actually lower than assumed

Since the Nu seems to be shifted “constantly” from the expected value, a decreased diameter can
explain the shift. The measured diameter is not what it is. This can happen due to fouling.
The given diameter of the inside tube is D 0 = 2.5 cm. Assuming a fouling thickness of 0.25 cm,
we get the actual diameter for flow to be D = 2.0 cm. With this the actual Nusselt number can be
estimated as
Nu hD/k D
≡ = 0 = 0.8 (3)
Nu0 hD 0 /k D
where, Nu0 is the initially computed Nusselt number and Nu is the corrected one.
With this the we get Nu∞ = 0.8 × 4.8 = 3.84 ± 0.29. The revised graph is shown in Figure 2.
The empirical curve is within the experimental error.

Conclusion This hypothesis can be accepted.

6
 Though this hypothesis cannot be rejected, as it gets the trend correctly and shows match with the
empirical data. It cannot be strictly accepted as well. This is because the hypothesis cannot be tested
easily. Recall that a hypothesis must be falsifiable as well as its predictions testable.
In principle, we can open up the heat exchanger and find if there is fouling. If there is no fouling,
then the hypothesis becomes falsified. So it is testable and falsifiable. But given that we have not
actually performed the test, it is an acceptable but weak hypothesis.

5.3.4 Hypothesis 4: The flow is not fully developed

We now attempt to explain the deviation of the measured Nu from the theoretical value. The
theoretical Nusselt number 3.66 has been obtained for a fully developed flow. In the present setup,
there is a definite entry region at low Reynolds number, as the flow enters the heat exchanger pipe.
The hydrodynamic entry length is given by

Le
= 0.05 Re. (4)
D
The largest Reynolds number used was Re= 700, this gives an entry length Le = 87.5 cm. However,
the length of the heat-exchange pipe is itself only L = 40 cm. Therefore, in these cases we can
expect Nu to deviate from the theoretical value. This is confirmed by the deviation shown in the
empirical correlation due to Hausen.

Conclusion Hypothesis accepted

We will finally see how to arrive at a hypothesis by inductive reasoning. Since the Nusselt number is
seen to be larger than expected, we break it down and analyse it term by term.
We start at
hD
Nu = . (5)
k
By hook-or-crook, we have already hit upon D and k as possible factors. By inductive reasoning we
should have started here and broken down each term to see how they are related to measured variables
from where the error could have propagated.
Let us take the heat transfer coefficient first. h has been determined by making certain assumptions:

1. There are only three resistances in series.

2. The outside “film” resistance is constant.

Each of these assumptions can be questioned for the particular case we are using. For example, if there
was fouling, the resistance in series model will have an additional component. We can also question
under what assumptions the theoretical (or empirical) expressions have been obtained: constant surface
temperature or constant heat flux. Which approximation is close to the current setup?
Then, we can go on to question the evaluation of overall heat transfer coefficient from the raw
measurements of flow rate and temperature increase.
For each of the above line of logic, we should also come up with mathematical expressions for the
predictions. This is left as an exercise.