Observed Data

Inner tube specifications:

Tube length = 7' 4''
Nominal diameter =1''
Schedule no. 40

Table 01 Observed data for study of double pipe heat exchanger

Observation Steam Water temperature Water flowrate Condensate flowrate
no. pressure, P (oC)
(psig)
Inlet, T1 Outlet, T2 Volume Time (s) Mass (kg) Time (s)
(L)

1 31.00 57.00 10.00 102.00 0.21 30

2 32.00 48.00 10.00 40.00 0.31 30.28

3 5 32.00 45.00 10.00 30.19 0.47 29.9

4 31.00 43.00 10.00 22.05 0.66 30

5 31.00 42.00 10.00 18.50 0.71 30

1 31.00 60.00 10.00 120.00 0.30 40

2 10 31.00 47.00 10.00 38.50 0.39 40

3 31.00 42.00 10.00 24.70 0.49 40

4 31.00 41.00 10.00 18.00 0.69 40

Calculated Data
Table 02 Water properties at average water temperature
Observation Temperature Average Specific Density, ρ Viscosity, Thermal
no difference of water heat, Cpm (kgm-3) μ×104 conductivity,
inlet and temperature (Jkg-1.K-1) (Pa.s) Km (Wm-1K-1)
outlet water (OC)
∆T
(OC)

1 (5 psig) 26.00 44.00 4179.8 990.5 6.074 0.64

2 (5 psig) 16.00 40.00 4179.8 992.21 6.53 0.63

3 (5 psig) 13.00 38.50 4178.8 992.67 6.73 0.63

4 (5 psig) 12.00 37.00 4178.8 993.2 6.81 0.63

5 (5 psig) 11.00 36.50 4178.8 993.43 6.91 0.63

1 (10 psig) 29.00 45.50 4180.8 989.9 5.91 0.64

2(10 psig) 16.00 39.00 4178.8 992.48 6.66 0.63

3(10 psig) 11.00 36.50 4178.8 993.43 7.00 0.63

4(10 psig) 10.00 36.00 4178.8 993.62 7.07 0.62

Table 03 Calculated data for saturation temperature, latent heat of condensation, mass flow rate
of water and condensate, heat given by steam and heat taken by water.
 Obs. no Steam Saturation Latent heat of Mass Mass Heat Heat taken
pressure temperature condensation, flow flow given up up by
(psig) of steam λ (kJ/kg) rate of rate of by steam, water, Qw
Qc (W)
(OC) water, condens
(W)
MW ate, MC
(kg/s) ×102
(kg/s)

1 0.10 0.7 15640.43 10553.18

2 0.25 1.02 22874.75 16585.78

3 5 108.37 2234.3 0.33 1.57 35121.84 17861.85

4 0.45 2.20 49155.63 22582.80

5 0.54 2.37 52879.55 24680.72

1 0.08 0.75 16615.50 9999.88

2 0.26 0.97 21600.15 17233.37

10 115.20 2215.5
3 0.40 1.23 27138.65 18485.56

4 0.55 1.73 38215.65 23064.13

Table 04 Calculated data for Mean rate of heat, experimental overall heat transfer coefficient, Wall
temperature, velocity and Reynolds number.
Obs. Steam Mean LMTD Experiment Wall Velocity Reynolds
no pressure rate of (OC) al overall temperature, v no. Re
(psig) heat, QM heat transfer TW (m/s)
coefficient, (OC)
(W)
UOE
(W/m2.K)

1 13096.80 63.51 875.92 76.20 0.18 7638

2 19730.27 68.08 1230.96 74.20 0.45 18149

3 5 26491.84 69.69 1614.61 73.45 0.59 23339

4 35869.22 71.22 2139.06 72.70 0.81 31592

5 38780.13 71.75 2295.70 72.45 0.97 37134

1 13307.69 68.68 822.98 80.35 0.15 6668

2 19416.76 75.92 1086.32 77.10 0.47 18482

10
3 22812.11 78.57 1233.19 75.85 0.73 27455

4 30639.89 79.09 1645.38 75.60 1.00 37324

Table 05 Calculated data for Prandtl no., Water side heat transfer coefficient, Nusselt no., film
temperature and water density, viscosity, thermal conductivity at film temperature.

Obs. Steam Prandtl Water side Nusselt Film Water Water Thermal
no pressure no. heat transfer no. Temperature, Densit viscosity conductivity
(psig) Pr coefficient, Nu Tf y at Tf, at Tf, μf at Tf, kf
(OC) ρf ×104 (W/m.K)
hi
(kg/m3) (Pa.s)
(W/m2.K)

1 3.99 1111.37 46.62 84.25 968.66 3.35 0.67

2 4.32 2263.59 95.67 82.75 969.77 3.43 0.67

3 5 4.47 2789.06 118.33 82.18 970.14 3.45 0.67

4 4.54 3558.37 151.55 81.62 970.57 3.48 0.67

5 4.62 4065.33 173.36 81.43 970.74 3.49 0.67

1 3.87 989.85 41.40 89.06 965.83 3.18 0.67

2 4.42 2308.30 97.81 86.62 967.19 3.27 0.67

3 10 4.68 3206.66 136.75 85.69 967.71 3.31 0.67

4 4.73 4109.16 175.46 85.50 967.82 3.31 0.67

Table 06 Calculated data for Steam side heat transfer coefficient, theoretical overall heat
transfer coefficient, experimental 1/U, theoretical 1/U, and (1/v) 0.8.

Obs. Steam Steam side heat Theoretical overall Experimental Theoretical (1/v)0.8
no pressure transfer heat transfer 1/UOE 1/UOT (s/m)
(psig) coefficient, hO coefficient, UOT (m2.K/W) (m2.K/W)
×104 ×104
(W/m2.K) (W/m2.K)

1 8315.98 745.92 11.4 13.4 4.02

2 8136.28 1302.93 8.12 7.67 1.90

3 5 8078.20 1506.60 6.19 6.64 1.52

4 8021.14 1763.11 4.67 5.67 1.18

5 8003.12 1910.57 4.36 5.23 1.03

1 8247.27 675.45 12.2 14.8 4.58

2 8007.53 1318.01 9.21 7.59 1.84

10
3 7920.48 1646.06 8.11 6.08 1.29

4 7903.61 1916.89 6.08 5.22 1.00

Graphical Representation

Nusselt number vs Reynolds number for 5 psig

1000
Nusselt number,Nu

f(x) = 0.0259235570675096 x^0.841143799061996

100 R² = 0.999879491789773

10
1000 10000 100000

Reynolds number,Re

Figure 2 Plot of ‘Nu vs Re’ for 5 psig steam pressure.

 Nusselt number vs Reynolds number for 10 psig
1000
Nusselt number,Nu

f(x) = 0.0307490941293324 x^0.824305340667727

100 R² = 0.999815934434995

10
10000 Reynolds number,Re 100000

Figure 3 Plot of ‘Nu vs Re’ for 10 psig steam pressure.

 Nusselt number vs Reynolds number for 15 psig
1000

f(x) = 0.0336895298449292 x^0.813971731164229

R² = 0.999612550018469
Nusselt number,Nu

100

10
10000 Reynolds number,Re 100000

Figure 4 Plot of ‘Nu vs Re’ for 15 psig steam pressure.

 Water side heat transfer coefficient vs velocity for 5 psig
10000

f(x) = 3943.04735733239 x^0.74724649677558

R² = 0.999800086287594
Water side heat transfer coefficient, hi (Wm-2K-1)

1000

100
0.1 1
Velocity, v (m/s)

Figure 5 Plot of ‘hi vs velocity’ for 5 psig steam pressure.

10000 Water side heat transfer coefficient vs velocity for 10 psig
Water side heat transfer coefficient, hi (Wm-2K-1)

f(x) = 3971.19493656783 x^0.767814630241968

R² = 0.99967529024795

1000
Velocity, v (m/s)

Figure 6 Plot of ‘hi vs velocity’ for 10 psig steam pressure.

 Water side heat transfer coefficient vs velocity for 15 psig
10000
Water side heat transfer coefficient, hi (Wm-2K-1)

f(x) = 4062.36422792783 x^0.780018738943368

R² = 0.999266476164878

1000
0.1 1 10
Velocity, v (m/s)

Figure 7 Plot of ‘hi vs velocity’ for 15 psig steam pressure.

 Wilson plot,(1/U) vs. (1/v)0.8 for 5 psig
0.0016
f(x) = 0.000277013295573811 x + 0.000173339891679615
f(x)
R² ==0.999947662896516
0.000198682899741445 x + 0.000531092130684107
0.0014 R² = 0.985308697968831

0.0012

0.001

Theoretical
0.0008
Linear (Theoretical)
Experimental
1/U (m2K/W)

0.0006 Linear (Experimental)

0.0004

0.0002

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

(1/v)0.8 (m/s)0.8

Figure 8 Plot of (1/U) vs. (1/v) 0.8 for 5 psig steam pressure.
 Wilson plot,(1/U) vs. (1/v)0.8 for 10 psig
0.0012

f(x) = 0.000393783310880784 x + 0.000331193287215238

0.001 R² = 0.94054043630326

0.0008

f(x) = 0.00029541464814056 x + 0.000150209040806537

Theoretical
R² = 0.999520036473528
0.0006 Linear (Theoretical)
Experimental
Linear (Experimental)
1/U (m2K/W)

0.0004

0.0002

0
0 1 2

(1/v)0.8 (m/s)0.8

Figure 9 Plot of (1/U) vs. (1/v)0.8 for 10 psig steam pressure.

 Wilson plot,(1/U) vs. (1/v)0.8 for15 psig
0.0012

0.001
f(x) = 0.000313766616301996 x + 0.000363593553461963
R² = 0.908564926988083

0.0008
1/U (m2K/W)

f(x) = 0.000293545328450403 x + 0.000144635206527331

R² = 0.998566180307341
0.0006 Theoretical
Linear (Theoretical)
Experimental
Linear (Experimental)
0.0004

0.0002

0
0 1 2 3

(1/v)0.8 (m/s)0.8

Figure 10 Plot of (1/U) vs. (1/v)0.8 for 15 psig steam pressure.

Sample Calculation
Length of the pipe, L= 7 ft 4 inch = 7.33 ft. = 2.235 m
For nominal size 1 inch and schedule no. 40,
Outer diameter, DO = 1.315 inch = 0.0329 m
Inner diameter, Di = 1.049 inch = 0.0266 m
(Reference: J. P. Holman. ‘Heat Transfer’. McGraw – Hill. 10th Edition. Table A-11, page 665)
Outside surface area, AO = πDOL
= 3.1416 × 0.0329 × 2.235
= 0.231 m2
2
π Di
Water flow area, Ai = = 5.557 × 10-4 m2
4

For observation no. 03 at 5 psig pressure

Water inlet temperature, T1 = 25 oC
Water outlet temperature, T2 = 39 oC
Temperature difference, T2-T1 = (39-25) oC = 14oC = 14 K
Mean temperature, Tm =¿) °C
= 32 oC

At, 32 oC mean temperature,

Specific Heat of capacity, Cpm = 4065 J.Kg-1K-1

Density of water, ρm = 994.57 Kgm-3

Thermal conductivity, km = .622 Wm-1.K-1

Dynamic viscosity, μm = 0.000745 Pa.s

(Reference: J. P. Holman. ‘Heat Transfer’. McGraw – Hill. 10th Edition. Table A-9, page 662)

Collected volume of water = 10 L

Time of collection = 25 s
.01× 994.57
Mass flow rate of water, Mw = = 0.398 Kg/s
25
Collected mass of condensate = 1.2 Kg
Time of collection = 120 s

1.2
Mass flow rate of condensate, Mc = = 0.01 kg/s
120
Rate of heat taken up by water, Qw = MwCpm(T2-T1)
= 0.398 × 4065 × 14
= 22650.18 W
At 5 psig steam pressure,

Saturation temperature of steam, TS = 108.37 0C

Latent heat of vaporization, λS = 2234.38 kJkg-1

Rate of heat given up by steam, Qs = Mcλs

= 0.01 × 2234.38 × 1000
= 22343.8 W
Qw +Qs
Mean rate of heat flow, Qm =
2
22650.18+22343.8
=
2
= 22496 W
Calculation of experimental overall heat transfer coefficient, UOE

Temperature difference at inlet, ∆T1 = TS – T1 = (108.37-25) 0C = 83.37 0C

Temperature difference at outlet, ∆T2 = TS – T2 = (108.37-39) 0C = 69.37 0C

Logarithmic mean temperature difference,

83.37−69.37
=
ln ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
= 76.156 oC
Qm
Experimental overall heat transfer coefficient, UOE =
A o ∆ T lm

22496
=
0.231× 76.156
 = 1278.76 W.m-2.K-1
Calculation of velocity (v), Reynolds number (Re) and Prandtl Number (Pr)
T s+T m
Tube wall temperature, Tw =
2
108.37+32
= 2
= 70.185 oC
Mw
Velocity, v =
ρm A i
0.398
= −4
994.57 ×5.557 ×10
= 0.72 m/s
Di v ρ m
Reynolds Number, Re =
μm
0.0266 ×0.72 × 994.57
=
0.000745
= 25567.79
μ m C pm
Prandtl Number, Pr =
km
0.000745 ×4065
= = 4.869
0.622

Calculation of water side heat transfer coefficient (hi) and Nusselt Number (Nu)
For turbulent flow, according to Dittus-Boelter equation,

hi =

1
0.8 3
= 0.023 ×0.622 ×25567.79 × 4.869
0.0266
= 3061.52 Wm-2K-1
hi D i
Nusselt Number, Nu =
km
 3061.52× 0.0266
= = 130.927
0.622

Calculation of steam side heat transfer coefficient (h O) and theoretical overall heat transfer
coefficient (UOT)
Film temperature, Tf = TS – 0.75(TS-TW)
= 108.37 – 0.75 × (108.37 – 70.185) = 79.731 oC
At 79.731 0C film temperature,
Density of water, ρf = 971.38 Kg/m3
Thermal conductivity, kf = 0.67W/m.K
Dynamic viscosity, μf = 0.000347 Pa.s

( )
k 3 ρ2f gλ s 1/ 4
f
D0 (T s−T w ) μf
Nusselt equation for film type condensation, ho = 0.725
= 0.725 ×

( )
3 2 1/4
0.67 ×971.38 × 9.81× 2234.38 ×1000
0.0329 × (108.37−70.185 ) ×0.000347
= 7311.81 Wm-2K-1

( )
−1
1 D x D
+ o + W o
ho D1 h 1 k M Dlm
Theoretical overall heat transfer coefficient, UOT =
The term for conduction can be neglected, then it can be presented as
1
UOT = 1 Do
+
h o D i hi
1
= 1 0.0329
+
7311.81 0.0266 ×3061.52
= 1879.673 Wm-2K-1
Calculation of dirt factor, Rd
From the graph of Wilson plot i.e. 1/U vs (1/v) 0.8

For 5 psig steam pressure in figure 08

The intercept for dirty tube (experimental overall heat transfer coefficient) = 0.0005 m 2K/W
The intercept for clean tube (theoretical overall heat transfer coefficient) = 0.0002 m 2K/W
Dirt factor, Rd = 0.0005 – 0.0002 = 0.0003 m2K/W

For 10 psig steam pressure in figure 09

The intercept for dirty tube (experimental overall heat transfer coefficient) = 0.0003 m 2K/W
The intercept for clean tube (theoretical overall heat transfer coefficient) = 0.0002 m 2K/W
Dirt factor, Rd = 0.0003 – 0.0002 = 0.0001 m2K/W

For 15 psig steam pressure in figure 10

The intercept for dirty tube (experimental overall heat transfer coefficient) = 0.0004 m 2K/W
The intercept for clean tube (theoretical overall heat transfer coefficient) = 0.0001 m 2K/W
Dirt factor, Rd = 0.0004 – 0.0001 = 0.0003 m2K/W

Determination of applicability of Dittus-Boelter equation

1. For 5 psig steam pressure

Slope of ‘ln (Nu) vs. ln (Re)’ graph = ln ⁡¿ ¿ = 0.85

Slope of ‘ln (hi) vs. ln (v)’ graph = ln ¿ ¿ = 0.74

2. For 10 psig steam pressure

(137 ¿¿ 93¿)
Slope of ‘ln (Nu) vs. ln (Re)’ graph = ln ¿ ¿ = 0.83
ln¿ ¿ ¿ ¿
(3203¿ ¿2190.12¿)
Slope of ‘ln (hi) vs. ln (v)’ graph = ln ¿¿ = 0.74
ln ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿

3. For 15 psig steam pressure

 (231.02¿¿ 86.89 ¿)
ln ¿
Slope of ‘ln (Nu) vs. ln (Re)’ graph = 51927.22 = 0.81
ln
15692.7 ¿
(5407.12¿¿ 2045.49¿)
Slope of ‘ln (hi) vs. ln(v)’ graph = ln ¿ ¿ = 0.91
ln ¿ ¿ ¿ ¿

Results & discussions

The values of experimental heat transfer coefficients ranged from 711.74 to 1805.05 W/m 2.0C,
while that for theoretical range from 719.42 to 2777.78 W/m 2.0C. For steam pressure 5, 10 and
0.8
15 psig dirt factor, Rd was found from the Wilson plot, (1/U) vs. (1/v) to be 0.0003 m2K/W,
0.0001 m2K/W and 0.0003 m2K/W respectively. Slopes of ‘log (hi) vs. log (v)’ graphs were
found to be 0.74, 0.74 and 0.91. Slopes of ‘log (Nu) vs. log (Re)’ graphs were found to be 0.85,
0.83 and 0.81.

Comments on trend
Three graphs were plotted which were the log-log plots of Nusselt Number (Nu) vs. Reynolds
Number and water side heat transfer coefficient (hi) vs. water side velocity and also the Wilson
plots of different pressure were plotted.
1. Figure 02, Figure 03, Figure 04 shows that Nusselt Number increases with Reynold Number
for 5, 10 and 15 psig steam pressure and the increments are of linear manner.
2. Figure 05, Figure 06, Figure 07 shows that water side heat transfer co-efficient increases with
velocity of water for 5, 10 and 15 psig steam pressure. These are also straight lines.
3. In Figure 08, Figure 09, Figure 10 Wilson plot i.e. plot (1/U) vs (1/v) 0.8 were plotted for
theoretical and experimental value for 5, 10 and 15 psig steam pressure. All the lines were found
to be straight lines. Theoretical and experimental lines were found to be different for each steam
pressure.

Comments on analytical behavior

1/U vs. 1/v0.8 plots(Wilson plot) for different pressure for both theoretical and experimental
overall heat transfer coefficients show straight lines in normal coordinate. As the experimental
findings of overall heat transfer coefficients were generally lower than the theoretical ones, the
1/U curve for theoretical values was in below the curve for experimental values. At the times of
calculating the theoretical overall heat transfer coefficients the resistance due to the formation of
scale or dirt was not taken into consideration. Hence, Fouling or other factors are left from the
calculation. In reality, the performance and efficiency of any heat exchanger are subject to these
factors and this is why industrial exchangers are dismantled routinely after operating a certain
period for cleaning dirts that are deposited on the wall.
In connection to the above discussion, the experimental resistance curve should be located above
the theoretical resistance curve and the difference between them should indicate the value of
fouling factor and this is proved well in a Wilson plot.

Comments on error
In this experiment, the experimental values almost satisfied the theoretical values except few
discrepancies. The possible reasons of the discrepancies are mentioned below-
 The steam pressure was expected to be constant during the experiment. But in practical it
was not constant throughout the experiment.
 For heat transfer coefficient determination the vapor pressure was neglected and the
condensation was considered to be laminar and film type. But in the experiment the
assumptions could not be satisfied.
 The unsteady nature of condensate flow might cause some error in the determination of
corresponding condensate weight for a given flow of water.
 Heat lost during the experiment due to convection and conduction were not considered in
the calculation.
 The condensate was collected at a definite time interval. There might be some error in
taking correct time for particular weight.