Baku Higher Oil School

Chemical Engineering Department

SEPARATION PROCESSES B
LAB EXPERIMENT REPORT №1

NAME: Laman Alipashayeva

EXPERIMENT TITLE: Film & Dropwise Condensation
DATE OF EXPERIMENT: 17th of February
DATE OF SUBMISSION: 5th of March

SUPERVISOR: Hajar Nabiyeva

 Table of Contents

Synopsis.............................................................................................3
Introduction.......................................................................................4
Theory...............................................................................................6
Experimental Technique...................................................................11
Health, Safety, and Environment...................................................................11
Equipment & Apparatus................................................................................ 12
Procedure...................................................................................................... 14
Results.............................................................................................15
Vacuum Condensation...................................................................................15
Non-condensable gases.................................................................................18
Discussion........................................................................................20
Conclusion........................................................................................26
References.......................................................................................28

2
 Synopsis
The current laboratory report covers the experiment which was conducted with the
primary objective of studying the mechanism and performance of an industrial
condensation procedure and its behavior in various environments (with vacuum
conditions versus with non-condensable gases) and contrasting surface types. Due to
the critical role of the condensation process in a wide range of chemical, petrochemical,
and other industrial applications, it is essential for chemical engineers to possess the
ability o to perform accurate calculations and draw informed conclusions regarding
process optimization. Accordingly, a thorough understanding of the fundamental
mechanisms and key principles underlying the condensation process is of paramount
importance. To this end, the present experiment has provided a comprehensive
theoretical framework, complete with relevant equations, that can be leveraged to
determine unknown parameters and to achieve the objectives of the experiment.
Two types of condensers were compared to conclude which performs better based on
their heat conduction properties: heat transfer & transition coefficients, and heat flux.
WL 230 experimental unit enabling the simulation of film-wise and drop-wise
condensation processes on copper-coated and gold-coated surfaces, respectively,
evaporation of water through a coil heater, acquisition of process parameters through
sensors and displays.
For the vacuum conditions, the variance between theoretical and experimental heat
transfer coefficients was 8,454 kW /m2 ∙ K and 8,717 kW /m2 ∙ K , accordingly, with a slight
3,055 % error. However, the presence of non-condensable air and regaining
atmospheric conditions contributed to the increase in this deviation to 52,828 %.
Additionally, the performance of both film-wise and dropwise condensation was slightly
better in the vacuum conditions in comparison with non-condensable gases due to their
resistance. The dropwise condensation heat transfer coefficient was 12,239 kW /m2 ∙ K in
the first section, however, it declined to 3,981 kW /m2 ∙ K after the injection of gas. This
downward trend was observed in all properties including heat flux and heat transition
coefficients for both types of the process.
A general insight and theoretical background were provided in the Theory section,
followed by the Experimental Techniques section including Equipment Safety, Setup,
and Experiment Procedure. The results, their compatibility with expectations, reasons
obtained deviations, the validity of made assumptions, and outcomes of the experiment
were covered in the Discussion section.

3
 Introduction
Condensation and evaporation, which are among phase change operations, play a key
role in the present-day technologies present in chemical engineering with an
explanatory standpoint for the capacity of destroying a noteworthy part of heat currents.
In simple terms, physical condensation is the transition of a substance from a gaseous
state to a liquid state. The particular pressure and temperature conditions, known as
condensation points, are required to have the process. Evaporation is the opposite
process of condensation, during which supplied heat for evaporation is released back
into the environment. To permit the transfer of heat into the surrounding air, it is
required to pass the gas along a long tube, commonly, formed in a coil or other close-
packed structures. [14]
Industrial condensers are highly applied in the variable aspects of petroleum,
biochemical, and chemical industries, including power generation, thermal
management, water desalination, and industrial refrigeration systems. Condensation
plays a key role in chemical and petrochemical plants, to provide a proper and smooth
operation both for cooling and heating purposes. To condense top product distillate and
facilitate the reflux process, either partial or total condensers are installed in every
distillation process. [1, 2]
For industrial refrigeration systems, the condenser is one of 4 fundamental refrigeration
cycle components and high temperature, high-pressure vaporized refrigerant coming
out of the compressor must be liquified with the help of a condenser through the
condensation process by removing its heat. [3] In thermal power plants, the steam
surface condenser is a crucial component in the water-steam cycle of the plant and the
heart of the operation. The condenser can adjust the efficiency, which is directly related
to the power generating capacity of the plant influencing operating costs and the bottom
line in its turn. In power plants, condensers act as heat rejection engines while
condensing the steam into water. Significant pressure alteration, which forms a vacuum
pulling the steam along the turbine, is caused by the volume collapse of the steam-to-
water conversion. As the back end of the water-steam cycle is driven by the condenser
heat transfer, the efficiency of that heat transfer process is necessary to optimize the
energy extraction from the steam. [4] Metal and metal oxide particles known as quantum
dots can be manufactured through condensation. Reactive gas condensation, chemical
vapor condensation (CVC), inert gas condensation (IGC), and physical vapor
condensation (PVC) can be examples of this process. [12] Condensation can also be

4
applied in biological areas to condensate DNA and chromosome, which is crucial for the
replication process. [13]
Typically, either shell-and-tube or air-cooled heat exchangers are employed for the
condensation processes in chemical engineering. However, direct contact condensers,
which disperse fluid through an immiscible/miscible liquid environment, such as pools,
cooling towers, and spay condensers have also been found to be efficient in certain
applications because of their high transfer rate/area, lower operation cost, and easy
scaling. [5, 6]
From a general approach, condensation, in which water vapor is converted into liquid,
can be described as the reverse process of evaporation. Condensation is experienced
when a pure vapor or a vapor mixture at the saturation temperature or above saturation
temperature meets with other fluid or a wall at a lower temperature than the saturation
temperature; however, utilization of heat exchange through an adjacent wall for the
vapor condensation process is more common. The generation of liquid droplets
becomes viable along the solid-fluid contact surface when the heat flux gradient is
adequate. This condensation variation is defined as a heterogeneous nucleation
process, which happens at preferential sites such as surfaces (of bottle or container),
phase boundaries, and impurities like dust. The effective surface energy is lower at
such preferential sites; therefore, the free energy barrier is diminished, and nucleation is
facilitated. It is a phase transformation between any two phases of solid, liquid, or gas,
such as bubble formation from liquid, solidification from liquid, and condensation of
gas/vapor. [7] Homogeneous nucleation is responsible for the formation of the liquid
embryo within the subcooled vapor and occurs without preferential nucleation sites. In
comparison with heterogeneous nucleation, homogeneous nucleation takes place with
more difficulties in the uniform substance interior and is encountered rarely.
Homogeneous nucleation occurs spontaneously and randomly, but it requires
superheating or supercooling of the medium. The creation of a nucleus implies the
formation of an interface at the boundaries of a new phase. [8] Based on the wall surface
wettability the heterogeneous condensation process can be categorized into two types:
film-wise and drop-wise condensation. In film-wise condensation, the liquid is removed
with the help of gravitation, while it remains in a stationary state during drop-wise
condensation due to forces at the interface until it grows to a size that is too large to be
considered a drop. The choice between film-wise and drop-wise condensation depends
on the specific requirements of the heat exchanger system and the trade-off between
heat transfer efficiency and maintenance requirements. Global energy consumption can
be reduced, and a more sustainable world can be achieved by rising condensation rates
through the effective utilization of advanced condensing surfaces. Currently, several
studies are conducted with the primary aim of improving cost-effective, and long-lasting
condensers for the advancement of condensation heat transfer. A hybrid wettability

5
contrast mechanism was accomplished in one of the investigations, which enhanced
film and dropwise condensation. [16]
The current laboratory experiment was conducted in two sections with the aim of
determining and comparing the heat transfer and heat transfer coefficient, heat
transition coefficient and heat flux of the mentioned condensation types; film-wise
condensation on a copper surface and drop-wise condensation on a gold-layered
surface. G.U.N.T model WL 230 was applied using two tubular-shaped water-cooled
condensers to simulate the necessary laboratory environment. The water was
simultaneously boiled a refluxed through the condensation system, while the cooling
water was used to achieve appropriate conditions for the condensation on metal
surfaces. To generate a vacuum the glass cylinder tank has been evacuated enhancing
the boiling of distilled water and increasing the temperature of water through a coiled
heat exchanger throughout the experiment. Furthermore, as a last step of the
experiment, the alteration of the heat transfer coefficient is analyzed with the injection of
non-condensable air into the tank and the effect of the air on the heat transfer properties
was determined.

Theory

In the previous section of the experiment, two fundamental mechanisms of the

condensation process used in heat exchangers and cooling systems were discussed.
The main idea behind the condensation phenomenon, basically a phase change
process from vapor to liquid, is the improvement of heat transfer by supplying ambient
subcooled liquid to the heated surface. The removal of heat from vapor is the purpose
of all condensers through liquefaction, which takes place when an adequate amount of
heat is eliminated. The process of droplet formation during condensation necessitates
the subcooling of vapor below its saturation temperature, a phenomenon analogous to
the generation of nucleation bubbles during boiling which requires the superheating of a
liquid beyond its boiling point.
In both types of nucleation process, namely homogeneous and heterogeneous, in terms
of condensing component, the over-saturation condition of the gas phase should be
satisfied. Homogeneous condensation happens when individual gas particles combine
whenever they meet within the gas. Sufficient slow particles should form larger
structures together in the absence of any boundary surfaces to achieve homogeneous
condensation and it is only achievable at a high over-saturation, typically of several

6
hundred percent. In contrast, very low oversaturation, normally below one percent, is
required for the heterogeneous condensation, which happens on present surfaces.
These surfaces typically are solid particles suspended in the gas phase, known as
aerosol particles or condensation nuclei. These act as a particle collectors in terms of
the relevant gas, with the essential chemical properties and radius to determine how
well gas particles adhere to it. [17]
Condensation happens
after the contact of vapor
with a wall at a lower
temperature than the
saturation temperature of
the vapor and it is then
precipitated as a liquid.
The product of the process
referred to as condensate
can be discharged on the
wall as in the individual
droplet form or a closed
liquid film. Film-wise
Figure 1. Condensation on vertical wall - film-wise condensation (left) and condensation is triggered
drop-wise condensation (right) [18]
by wettable surfaces, and
in accordance with the name of the process, an adjacent liquid layer is formed on the
wall. However, drop-wise condensation is caused by non-wettable materials, which is
accompanied by the formation of separate condensate droplets. In industrial equipment
with a film-wise mechanism, heat transfer is prevented by the coating of condensate left
on the surface, which was formed by the condensation of vapor on a cold surface. In
comparison, in dropwise condensation, the subsequent stages of formation,
agglomeration, and runoff of drops leave the surface dry. [15] Practically, in normal cases
film-wise condensation happens, because drop-wise condensation only takes place with
highly smooth hydrophobic surfaces.
The formation of a continuous film over the entire heat exchanger surface as a result of
condensing fluid is known as film-wise condensation. The film helps to transfer heat
from steam to cooling liquid and subsequently condenses into a liquid. Film-wise
condensation is characterized by the advantages of a high heat transfer rate and a
lower temperature gradient between the steam and condensing fluid, leading to high
thermal efficiency. A high heat transfer rate is achieved by the quick and efficient aid of
continuous condensing fluid film to transfer heat from the steam to the cooling medium.
However, the heat transfer can be decreased when a vapor barrier is formed by the
condensing fluid film, especially on contaminated and fouled surfaces. Furthermore, as
the film of condensing fluid provides a well-defined heat transfer boundary, the film-wise
7
condensation is easy to control in comparison with other condensation processes.
Coming to the disadvantages of this process, maintenance requirements and
vulnerability to fouling should be mentioned. The possibility of a vapor barrier formation
gets higher with the contaminated and fouled surfaces, which is an undesired condition
for thermal efficiency and heat transfer rate. This type of condensation requires regular
maintenance, which can be costly and time-consuming.
On the other hand, in drop-wise condensation, the fluid condensated forms droplets,
which separately fall on to heat exchanger surface. Considering the advantage of the
absence of a vapor barrier between the steam and cooling fluid it can be concluded that
the heat transfer rate of drop-wise condensation is higher than film-wise condensation.
The individual droplets of condensing fluid, promoting high thermal efficiency and high
heat transfer rate, transfer heat from the steam to the surface quickly. Although it is a
more efficient condensation type in comparison with film-wise condensation, the
requirements of special treatments and regular, time-consuming, high-priced
maintenance to prevent contamination or fouling make the achievement and
maintenance of a successful process challenging. Less amount of condensate covers
the cold wall interface in the drop-wise condensation reducing the magnitude of the heat
transfer resistance at the vapor-liquid equilibrium, eliminating the resistance of the liquid
layer markedly, and ultimately giving a more favorable heat transfer coefficient.
Stimulation of drop-wise condensation can be conducted by several methods:
 utilizing non-wetting agents in the vapor, which decreases the material's
wettability by eventually settling on the wall surface
 implementing waxing
 greasing organic promoter polymers, such as directly on the Teflon surface or
coating it with a noble metal (a low surface energy metal).
Nonetheless, economically unfavorable conditions of these methods, such as heat
transfer efficiency, high operating cost for sustainable maintenance of organic promoter,
and high capital cost of noble metal walls make film-wise operations more efficient.
[9,10,11]

The comparison of condensation types is based on the heat transfer coefficient.

Although both film-wise and drop-wise condensation demonstrated low heat fluxes,
specifically when they are compared to a nucleate boiling process, during which a
higher heat transfer rate is achieved due to the fierce motility of fluid, it is concluded that
the heat transfer coefficient of drop-wise condensation is approximately 5-10 times
higher than the performance of former one because of its lower thermal resistance. [19]
The theoretical and experimental concepts required for the discussed comparison are
covered in the following paragraphs.

8
The experimental steps for the film condensation should be determined based on the
laminar and turbulent flow mode of the condensate discharge. Given the persistent
condensation of vapor on a vertical surface, a liquid layer is formed and subject to
gravitational forces. As a result, the uppermost portions of this film are considerably thin
and can be treated as laminar. Additionally, due to the small dimensions of the
condenser used in the laboratory-scale experiment, the overall condensate product can
be assumed as laminar flow. To calculate the heat transfer coefficients of condensation
of latent saturated vapor on vertical walls at low pressures through a laminar region, the
relationship equation is given by Nusselt Equation:

α theo=0,943 ∙
√
λ3 ∙ ρ∙ g∙ r
4

ν ∙ h∙ (T s−T w )
(1)

Where:

 α theo−¿ theoretical heat transfer coefficient for laminar flow regime over vertical

wall( W
2
m ∙K)
 λ−¿ thermal conductivity (W
m∙ K )
 ρ−¿ density ( mkg )
3

( )
2
m
 ν−¿ kinematic viscosity of the condensate film
s

 g−¿ gravitational acceleration ( )

m
s
2

 r −¿the enthalpy of evaporation of the liquid ( kJkg )

 h−¿ the height of the wall surface ( m )
 T s and T w −¿ the temperature of the saturated vapor and the surface, respectively
(K)
Generally, in the analysis of fluids, such as simple organic gases or steam, Nusselt’s
method is precise. [20]
Thermodynamic/transfer parameters of liquid, namely viscosity, conductivity, and
density, in Equation (1) should be based on the mean temperature of the saturated
vapor and wall:
T s+ T w
T ref ,1= (2)
2

9
This theoretical approach is only applicable to film-wise condensation, for the drop
condensation it can only be estimated through empirical methods.
For the determination of the heat transfer coefficient experimentally, initially, the
transferred thermal power ( Q̇ ) should be figured out:

Q̇= ṁ∙ C p ∙ ( T out −T ¿ )=ρ ∙ V̇ ∙ C p ∙ ( T out −T ¿ ) (3)

Where:

 T out and T ¿−¿ the outlet and inlet temperature of cooling water, respectively ( K )

 ṁ−¿ the mass flow rate of the cooling water

kg
s ( )
( )
3
m
 V̇ −¿ the volumetric flow rate of the cooling water
s
The heat capacity ( C p ) and density ( ρ ) should be determined at the mean temperature of
the cooling water:
T out + T ¿
T ref ,2= (4)
2
The heat transfer coefficient can be obtained through the equation relating the heat
transfer ( Q̇ ) from the cooling water with the driving force of temperature difference
(T s−T w ) and condensator surface area ( A ) :

Q̇
α exp= (5)
A ∙(T s−T w )

The expected heat transfer coefficient results for film-wise condensation typically vary in
kW
the range of 1 and 10 2 , while, as discussed earlier, for drop-wise condensation it
m ∙K
W
can be up to 100 2 .
m ∙K
The heat transition coefficient is another crucial characteristic parameter for the
assessment of an industrial condenser. Similar to the previously covered heat transfer
coefficient, it correlates the heat flow with the driving force of temperature difference
and surface area; however, for this parameter, in the determination of temperature
gradient, mean cooling water and vapor temperatures are taken as a basis:
Q̇
k= (6)
A ∙(T s −T ref , 2)

10
The last parameter to determine is the heat flux or heat flow density, which is the heat
load concentrated on the surface of the condenser:
Q̇
q̇= (7)
A
Eventually, to measure the deviation between theoretical and experimental heat transfer
coefficient values in film-wise condensation, the following equation can be utilized:

|α theo−α exp|
error = ∙100 % (8)
α theo

Experimental Technique

Health, Safety, and Environment

Adhering to the safety rules and conducting the experiment without any safety-related
issues is aimed for each experiment. Before execution, safety precautions to be
followed in the laboratory and potential risks which might occur are discussed:
 Electric cables exposed to the air (i.e. sensors, rare panels, signal processors)
must be strictly kept away from moisture in order to avoid electrocution.
 It is only allowed to utilize distilled water in the experiment unit. Seals, heater,
and materials can be harmed due to the possibility of deposition on the
condenser. It is not allowed to add detergents to the tank. Moreover, in order to
establish a permanent hydrophilic surface, one of the condensers has been gold-
plated and polished.
 The unit temperature can significantly increase as the heat is used during this
experiment. The equipment (especially, the separator, cooling vessel, and tanks)
should not be touched with bare hands, protective gloves should be used to
prevent burn or skin injuries.
 The pressure safety valve must be regularly monitored to control the pressure
inside the glass cylindrical tank and prevent its accumulation. Burst of the glass
can lead to severe damage to the lab equipment and people as glass particles
can be sharp and cut skin. Glassware integrity also should be controlled to avoid
leakage of any water.
 Cold water should not be utilized to fill the heated empty tank to prevent potential
damage to the equipment due to high-temperature differences. The system
should be only kept in an environment with frost-free conditions. In the case of

11
 the possibility of frost conditions, the water should be drained from the water tank
utilizing a drain valve. It is highly recommended to drain water if the equipment is
not going to be used for a long duration.
 Sensor level should be continuously monitored to have at least 4 cm of water
above the heater. The heater might get overheated if water lacks the desired
level. A high level of water is also dangerous, as it might lead to a sudden and
violent splash onto the condensers. To inspect the water level aligning with
safety rules, the heater should be switched off and the water supply to the
condensers must be stopped.
 Before turning on the heater, the allowable pressure and minimum fill level
should be controlled. It works with a maximum power of 3000W and a
potentiometer located next to the on/off switch can be used to regulate power.

Equipment & Apparatus

G.U.N.T WL 230 Experimental Unit was utilized to achieve the aims of the laboratory
experiment and simulate the environment for film-wise and dropwise condensation
processes. In the following section, the main parts of the unit were described visually.
To create vacuum conditions inside the main condensing tank, the vent valve must be in
a closed state; however, it should be opened to regain the pressure back to the vessel.
Safety valves should be kept open to handle any dangerous pressure accumulation
present in the system. Temperature, pressure, and flow rate values, which were
measured by the sensors are displayed on the control cabinet placed on the left side of
the unit. Coolant inlet water is divided into two lines, one of which goes to the condenser
with a copper surface (W1) for the study of film-wise condensation, and another to the
gold-coated condenser (W2) tube to analyze the dropwise condensation. The cooling
water is raised vertically from the tube bottom edge to the internal surface of the tubes
to maintain the temperature difference and guarantee uniform heat exchanger through
the surface. V1 and V2 valves can adjust the flow rate, which is measured through F1
and F2 flowmeters and displayed on the control cabinet. According to the requirement,
the water level in the B1 tank should be above the coil heater; therefore, the light in the
level sensor appears to be on until the safe point level is achieved. The coil heat
exchanger is turned on through the heater switch to heat the water till the required
temperature and the main switch turns on the whole unit. The power controller of the
heater is used to regulate the power. Cooling and heating power affect the boiling point
and pressure values. Water vapor is produced through a 3000W heater installed
internally, which can be activated once the necessary water level is obtained. The
power of the heater is regulated by a non-linear signal potentiometer, allowing for
adjustment of the power output between 400-3000W. The liquid level sensor and
pressure switch can be employed to switch off the heating mechanism. A water jet

12
pump is installed to empty the tank. The condensed water droplets are gathered within
the B2 separation tank and to send the flow back to the B1 tank V6 is closed and V5 is
opened. Distilled water can be supplied to and removed from the system with the help
of the drain valve. To send the distilled water, a pressure difference must be generated
by propelling air using water flow in the water jet pump and air is sealed with the help of
a check valve to counteract the water backflow. The measured values can either be
read from the digital displays or sent to a PC simultaneously for data collection.

Figure 2. WL 230 Experimental Unit

Table 1. Main components of WL 230 Unit

1. Heater on/off switch 18. W1 Film-wise Condenser Tube

2. Power controller for heater 19. W2 Dropwise Condenser Tube for Drop

3. Main switch 20. Plates to Increase Heat Transfer Area

F1 Volumetric Flow Rate Display for Film-wise

4. 21. B1 Cylindrical Tank
condensation

5. F2 Volumetric Flow Rate Display for Dropwise 22. W4 Heater Coils

13
 condensation

6. P1 Steam Pressure Display 23. V4 Drain or Inlet Valve

7. T3, T6 Wall Surface Temperature Displays 24. V5 Condensate Valve

8. Water Level Sensor 25. V6 Ventilation Valve

9. Light indication for Low Water Level 26. B2 Condensate Separator

10. T2, T5 Outlet Temperature Displays 27. Cooling Water Inlet

11. T1, T4 Inlet Temperature Displays 28. Cooling Water Outlet

12. T7 Steam Temperature Display 29. V3 Jet Pump Valve

13. Information Panel 30 Water Jet Pump

14. Temperature Sensors 31. T1, T4 Temperature Sensors

15. V7 Pressure Safety Valve 32. V1 and V2 Cooling Water Valves

16. Valve for Ventilation 33. W3 Heat Exchanger (Cooler)

17. T7 Temperature Sensor for Steam 34. F1 and F2 Flow Meters

Procedure
To complete the experiment successfully following steps should be taken:
1. After checking and ensuring electrical and hydraulic links in the system, electric
power is given to the system and the main switch was turned on.
2. To provide the experimental setup with distilled water, a pressure difference is
generated by creating a vacuum inside the B1 tank. This is achieved by closing
the ventilation valve is closed, the propellant water line is opened using the V3
valve and finally, the V6 ventilation valve is opened to let the air go to the jet
pump together with water.
3. The airflow and water flow lines are closed, respectively through V6 and V3
valves, once the pressure is reduced to roughly 0,5 bar.
4. Water is introduced to the B1 tank due to the pressure difference via the V4 drain
valve and by immersing a hose in a container full of distilled water. The desired
water level is indicated by a black marker on the equipment. Once the water level
reaches this point, the red light of the water level indicator turns off. As the
amount of air in the B1 tank decreases due to the supply of water from a location
with atmospheric pressure, the pressure of the air inside the condenser gradually
rises.

14
 5. Once the column is filled with the required amount of distilled water, to regain
atmospheric conditions, the ventilation valves were then opened.
6. Once the water is in the system, the heater was adjusted to provide 85% power,
and lines for condensing water were opened to supply a slight inlet flow rate of
cooling water. Flow rate values of the water were observed from F1 and F2
displays.
7. Subsequently, the achievement of 92℃ steam temperature was anticipated, and
waited to turn off the heater together with the ventilation valve, as detected by the
T7 sensor located at the top of the tank, although there was a slight delay due to
the time required for the steam to reach the sensor. After turning off the heater,
the ventilation valves were closed to generate a vacuum of 0,3 bar. To lower
vapor pressure proportionally with boiling point temperature, which in turn leads
to enhanced liquid vaporization, V6 was opened to obtain vacuum conditions.
8. The heater power was then turned on up to 65% while the water flow rates were
maximized. The data was taken for the calculations The temperature difference
between T3 and T7 (wall temperature and steam temperature) was maximum,
which is ideally expected to be approximately 20℃ .
9. In the second part of the experiment, when the pressure was 0,23 bar and there
was no increase in the desired temperature gradient, non-condensable air was
introduced into the condenser tank until pressure reaches 0,86 bar and this data
was recorded for the calculation of heat transfer & transition coefficient, and heat
flux after the effect of air supply.
10. As a final step, the heater should be switched off, water from the tank once it was
cooled down should be drained, and the main switch should be turned off to
disconnect the electrical supply from the operational unit.

Results
As provided earlier, the calculations were carried out at two separate stages, one in vacuum
conditions and another with the non-condensable gases, and for two different types of
condensation.

Vacuum Condensation
The following section of the report outlines the calculations required for determining both heat
transfer and transition coefficients, as well as conducting a comparative analysis of film and
dropwise condensation processes. Additionally, the study of the influence of non-condensable

15
gases on the heat transfer coefficient is of great importance. The calculation steps for film-wise
and drop-wise experiments are the same, except there is no theoretical approach for drop-wise
condensation, so to avoid repetition all the stages will be described for film-wise in detail.
During film-wise condensation, the calculations were based on the point where the temperature
gradient between the condenser surface and steam reached its maximum value, which was 20
℃ . The following temperature, flow rate, and pressure values were determined from control
cabinet indicators at the time spot when a maximum temperature difference of 20 ℃ was
experienced:
Table 2. Temperature, Pressure, and Flow rate values in Vacuum Condensation

Vacuum Condensation Parameters

F 1 ( l/h ) T 1(℃ ) T 2(℃ ) T 3(℃ )

142 13,9 18,4 50,3 T 7(℃ ) P1 ¿

F 2 ( l/h ) T 4 (℃) T 5(℃ ) T 6(℃ ) 70,3 0,23

138 14,1 19,3 54,3

The parameters in the equation considered for determining theoretical heat transfer coefficient
in film-wise condensation should be determined at the average temperature of the liquid film.
Therefore, initially, the mean temperature of the steam and condenser should be determined.
T 7+ T 3 70 ,3 ℃+ 50 ,3 ℃
T avg ,liquid = = =60 ,3 ℃
2 2
Additionally, specific heat capacity and density of water value for experimental heat transfer
coefficient calculations should be taken at the average the temperature of the cooling water.
Therefore, second reference temperature, the mean value of coolant water inlet and outlet
temperatures were determined:
T 1 +T 2 13 , 9 ℃+18 , 4 ℃
T avg ,coolant = = =16 , 15 ℃
2 2
Mainly, appropriate reference books were utilized to determine the required parameter values at
the given temperature and pressure values. In some cases, interpolation was utilized, as the
tables were not providing the exact temperature values. The following table demonstrates all the
determined values required for the calculation stages:
Table 3. Required data for calculations in vacuum condensation

Vacuum Condensation
Temperature difference between
Surface and Steam ( ℃ , K ) 20 16

16
 Pressure ¿ 0,23

Film-wise Drop-wise

Coolant Water Inlet Temperature ( ℃ ) T1 13,9 T 4 14,1

Coolant Water Outlet Temperature ( ℃ ) T2 18,4 T 5 19,3

Wall Surface Temperature ( ℃ ) T 3 or T w 50,3 T 6 or T w 54,3

Coolant Water Flowrate ( l/h ) F1 142 F2 138

Steam Temperature ( ℃ ) T 7 or T s 70,3

Surface Area of Condenser ( m2 ) – provided

0,00426
in the manual As

Height of Condenser (m) – provided in the

0,107
manual H

Heat of Vaporization ( kJ /kg ) r or h fg 2356,96 ∆ H -

Density of Water ( kg /m 3 ) - theoretical case ρtheo 982,96 ρtheo -

Density of Water ( kg /m 3 ) - experimental

998,96 ρexp 998,9
case ρexp

Thermal Conductivity ( W /m∙ K ) λ 0,654 λ -

Kinematic Viscosity of Water ( m2 /s ) ν 4,72∙ 10−7 ν -

Specific Heat Capacity of Water ( kJ /kg ∙ K ) Cp 4,1883 C p 4,19

Mean Liquid Film Temperature ( ℃ ) T avg ,liquid 60,3 T avg ,liquid 62,3

Mean Coolant Water Temperature ( ℃ ) T avg ,coolant 16,15 T avg ,coolant 16,7

Once all the parameters are known, the theoretical heat transfer coefficients can be found from
Eq.1:

√ ( )
−3 W 3 kg m kJ
0,654 ∙10 ∙ 982 , 96 3 ∙ 9 , 81 2 ∙ 2356 , 96
4 m∙K m s kg kW
α th, fw =0,943 ∙ 2
=8,454 2
−7 m m ∙K
4 ,72 ∙ 10 ∙ 0,107 m∙ 20 K
s
As density and specific heat capacity values were also determined, the experimental heat
transfer coefficient values can be figured out from Eq.5, which requires the amount of
transferred heat from steam to wall to be calculated initially:

17
 3
˙ ∙C p ∙ ( T 2−T 1 )=998 , 96 kg l 1h 1m kJ (
Q̇= ρ ∙ V 3
∙142 ∙ ∙ ∙ 4,1883 ∙ 18 , 4−13 , 9 ) K=0,7426 kW
m h 3600 s 1000 L kg ∙K
After calculating heat transfer amount, experimental heat transfer coefficient can be found out:

Q̇ 0,7426 kW kW
α exp= = =8,717 2
A ∙(T s−T w ) 0,00426 m ∙ ( 70 , 3℃−50 , 3 ℃ )
2
m ∙K
Ultimately, heat transition coefficient was obtained from Eq. 6:

Q̇ 0,7426 kW kW
k= = =3 ,22 2
A ∙(T s −T avg ,coolant ) 0,00426 m ∙ ( 70 ,3−16 , 15 ) K
2
m ∙K
Since the temperature gradient in Celsius equals to temperature difference in Kelvin, ℃ has
been easily replaced with K in the calculations.
The last parameter to determine is heat flux with the help of Eq.7:

Q̇ 0,7426 kW kW
q̇= = =174 ,33 2
A 0,00426 m2 m
As can be seen from the results, the experimental heat transfer coefficient has a certain
deviation from the theoretical value, which will be discussed in the next section:

error =
|α theo−α exp|
=
|8,454
kW
2
m ∙K
kW
−8,717 2
m ∙K |
∙ 100 %=3,055 %
α theo kW
8,717 2
m ∙K
The next table demonstrates obtained results for the vacuum condensation. The approach used
to find theoretical film-wise heat transfer coefficient is not applicable for drop-wise condensation,
therefore, any comparison is not conducted for that section.
Table 4. Main calculated values in vacuum condensation

Main Calculated Values

Film-wise Drop-wsie

Theoretical Coefficient of Heat Transfer

α th, fw 8,454 α th, dw -
( kW /m2 ∙ K )
Experimental Coefficient of Heat Transfer
α ex ,dw 8,717 α ex ,dw 12,239
( kW /m2 ∙ K )
Heating Power ( kW ) Q̇fw 0,7426 Q̇dw 0,8342

Heat Flux ( kW /m2 ) q̇ fw 174,331 q̇ dw 195,823

Heat Transition Coefficient ( kW /m2 ∙ K ) k fw 3,219 k fw 3,653

18
 Percentage Error E% 3,055 % E% -

Non-condensable gases
To determine the effect of the non-condensable gases on heat transfer coefficients air was
given to the system, which was observed with achievement to maximum pressure at 0,86 bar,
and after this peak, pressure started to fluctuate.

Table 5. Temperature, Pressure, and Flow rate values in Condensation with air

Non-condensable gases section

F 1 ( l/h ) T 1(℃ ) T 2(℃ ) T 3(℃ )

173 13,9 16,1 36,4 T 7(℃ ) P1 ¿

F 2 ( l/h ) T 4 (℃) T 5(℃ ) T 6(℃ ) 66,7 0,86

168 14 16,3 40,2

All calculation stages both for the theoretical and experimental approaches are identical to the
preceding section; therefore, only the appropriate data collected during the experiment and the
results of the calculations are provided below:

Table 6. Table 3. Required data for calculations in condensation with air

Non-condensable gases
Temperature difference between
Surface and Steam ( ℃ , K ) 30,3 26,5

Pressure ¿ 0,86

Film-wise Drop-wise

Coolant Water Inlet Temperature ( ℃ ) T1 13,9 T 4 14

Coolant Water Outlet Temperature ( ℃ ) T2 16,1 T 5 16,3

Wall Surface Temperature ( ℃ ) T 3 or T w 36,4 T 6 or T w 40,2

Coolant Water Flowrate ( l/h ) F1 173 F2 168

Steam Temperature ( ℃ ) T 7 or T s 66,7

19
 Surface Area of Condenser ( m2 ) –
0,00426
provided in the manual As

Height of Condenser (m) – provided in the

0,107
manual H

Heat of Vaporization ( kJ /kg ) r or h fg 2378,2 ∆ H -

Density of Water ( kg /m 3 ) - theoretical

987,3 ρtheo -
case ρtheo

Density of Water ( kg /m 3 ) - experimental

999,22 ρexp 999,2
case ρexp

Thermal Conductivity ( W /m∙ K ) λ 0,645 λ -

Kinematic Viscosity of Water ( m2 /s ) ν 5,4∙ 10−7 ν -

Specific Heat Capacity of Water

4,19 C p 4,19
( kJ /kg ∙ K ) Cp

Mean Liquid Film Temperature ( ℃ ) T avg ,liquid 51,55 T avg ,liquid 53,45

Mean Coolant Water Temperature ( ℃ ) T avg ,coolant 15 T avg ,coolant 15,5

Table 7. Main calculated values in condensation with air

Main Calculated Values

Film-wise Drop-wsie

Theoretical Coefficient of Heat Transfer

α th, fw 7,269 α th, dw -
( kW /m2 ∙ K )
Experimental Coefficient of Heat Transfer
α ex ,dw 3,429 α ex ,dw 3,981
( kW /m2 ∙ K )
Heating Power ( kW ) Q̇fw 0,443 Q̇dw 0,449

Heat Flux ( kW /m2 ) q̇ fw 104,904 q̇ dw 105,485

Heat Transition Coefficient ( kW /m2 ∙ K ) k fw 2,01 k fw 2,046

Percentage Error E% 52,822 % E% -

20
 Discussion
To provide a comprehensive summary of the experiment, the results and obtained data
should be analysed thoroughly. The primary objective of the experiment was to
investigate the ubiquitous condensation process in industrial engineering. The study
aimed to compare two types of condensation processes, namely film-wise, and drop-
wise, to assess the effectiveness of hydrophilic and hydrophobic construction materials
for condensers. Heat transfer coefficient, heat transition coefficient, and heat flux were
included among the comparison criteria. Additional comparison in the filmwise
condensation process was required to make between experimental and theoretical heat
transfer coefficients through the Nusselt equation.
The laboratory experiment was conducted with the help of the WL 230 operation unit,
which consisted of two water-injected copper and gold-coated tubes, a tank to boil and
condense water, a temperature & pressure sensor, air/water circulation, and ventilation
gadgets. Material selection for condensers varied based on the condensation type;
while copper was used for film-wise condensation, a more polished condenser was
designed for dropwise condensation. To generate a pressure gradient between the
inside and outside of the system, prior to starting the experiment, the air inside the B1
cylindrical tank, where condensation takes place, was evacuated. The removal of air
enabled the flow of the distilled water to the column. The pressure was then increased
again once the tank was filled with sufficient distilled water due to decreasing volume of
air and atmospheric pressure coming with the inlet water. After the heating process of
water, to extend the vaporization process, the pressure was reduced to 0,23 bar. The
last stage of the experiment was to introduce air to the system with the purpose of
observing the effect of non-condensable gas on the heat transfer coefficient of film-wise
and drop-wise condensation processes. As pressure falls, the resistance encountered
by evaporating molecules from a boiling liquid decrease as they collide with air
molecules, enabling them to enter the air more easily. Therefore, this pressure

21
reduction can be regarded as a useful approach to generate enough steam to analyze
the condensation process in both tubes without the risk of excessively high
temperatures. Two distinct experimental conditions were employed, whereby the initial
condition involved the absence of air in the system at 0,23 bar. Subsequently, the
second condition involved the injection of air into the tank leading to a pressure increase
to 0,86 bar.
There were certain expectations that can be verified from the condensation process
theory, as discussed earlier. The first observation to make is regarding the applicability
of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation to determine water vapor pressure. This equation
enables the determination of a vapor temperature-pressure relationship for water as
demonstrated in Figure 3. By analysing
this graph, it can be estimated that the
vapor temperature of water at 0,23 bar
corresponds to approximately 64 ℃ . The
saturation temperature of water at 0,23
bar was calculated using the reverse
Antoine equation, which was derived from
the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, and
was found to be 63,135 ℃ . The
experimental temperature corresponding
to these conditions was 70,3 ℃ , which is
slightly higher than the expectation. The
reasons for this difference will be covered
in the following parts; however, based on Figure[24] 3. Vapor pressure versus saturation temperature
graph
the figures it can be concluded that vapor
was superheated in the boiler. A considerable rise in the steam temperature was
expected after the injection of non-condensable gases including air. However, in the
current experiment, the steam temperature decreased from 70,7 ℃ to 66,7 ℃ , once the
air was introduced to the system. This extraordinary case questions the applicability of
the collected data, which also can explain the significant error in the second stage of the
experiment. It is highly likely that the delayed rise of steam from the bottom of the tank
and the rapid increase in pressure together with minor heat losses caused the problem,
which made it physically impossible for the steam to reach the top of the tank within a
very short period of time.
For film-wise condensation, the Nusselt equation, which provides an analytical solution
for the saturated vapor condensation on vertical surfaces in a laminar vertical flow
regime, was utilized to calculate the theoretical heat transfer coefficient. Several
assumptions should be made, including, laminar flow and no alteration in the liquid
properties on the surface, uniform wall temperature, presence of only conduction heat
transfer, negligible thermal resistance, and shear stress at the interface of condenser
22
and vapor, to apply this equation. [21] Using Nusselt Equation and considering all the
mentioned assumptions valid, the theoretical heat transfer coefficient of the film-wise
process in the vacuum condensation section was determined to be 8,454 kW /m2 ∙ K and
experimental value deviated from it with the negligible error of 3,055% at 8,717
2
kW /m ∙ K . As there is no method to calculate the theoretical heat transfer coefficient of
drop-wise condensation any comparison is not possible with the actual (experimental)
values at both stages of the experiment. In the second part of the experiment conducted
with the introduction of air, the experimental film-wise heat transfer coefficient was
determined to be 3,429 kW /m2 ∙ K containing 52,822% discrepancy from the theoretically
expected value.
It was predicted that the efficiency of dropwise condensation would be a few times
greater than that of filmwise condensation. The increase was noticeable to some extent,
however, lower than anticipated and negligible in the stage of condensation with non-
condensable gases. The heat transfer coefficients were in the expected range for both
condensation methods except in the second stage. Theoretically, it was provided to get
a heat transfer coefficient in the range of 1-10 kW /m2 ∙ K for filmwise condensation, and
the calculated experimental values (8,717 and 3,429 kW /m2 ∙ K ) and theoretical values
(8,454 and 7,269 kW /m2 ∙ K ) satisfied this expectation. Coming to the dropwise
condensation, the limits were designed as 10-100 kW /m2 ∙ K and in the vacuum
condensation, the heat transfer coefficient for dropwise 12,239 kW /m2 ∙ K can be
categorized in the given span. However, this range was disrupted after the injection of
non-condensable gases due to the resistance and disturbance to the laminar flow
regime generated by the air, which will be explained in the following sections.
Looking at dropwise condensation process values from Table 4 and 7, it can be
concluded that heat transfer coefficient values are higher than that of film wise
condensation. This difference is more sensible in the vacuum condensation section, in
which dropwise heat transfer coefficient values are approximately 25% greater.
Additionally, the values of heat flux and heat transition coefficients were also higher in
dropwise condensation process. The difference is more sensible in the first part of the
experiment, the differences were decreased with the addition of air. The primary reason
for this phenomenon is that, during filmwise condensation, the surface of a solid object
is covered with a growing thick liquid film, which acts a barrier in the heat transfer
between the solid surface and the steam. The heat of vaporization (h fg ) generated
during the vapor condensation process must travel through this barrier before being
transferred to the medium on the other side. Conversely, in dropwise condensation,
droplets slide down the surface once they reach a certain size, effectively removing the
liquid coating and exposing the surface to vapor. In this scenario, there is no liquid
barrier to impede heat transfer, resulting in higher rates of heat transfer than those
associated with film condensation.

23
Upon comparing the results presented in Table 4 with those in Table 7, it is intriguing to
observe that the injection of non-condensable air into the tank led to a marked decrease
in both the heat transfer and heat transition coefficients, as well as heat flux. Although
differences in flow rates and temperatures between the first and second parts of the
experiment may initially appear to account for these discrepancies, the primary factor
affecting the results was the presence of non-condensable gases. The presence of air,
which consists of non-condensable gases can significantly impede the condensation
rate. Think about a combination of steam and ait that encounters a cold surface. Initially,
the steam condenses on the surface, causing air to be transferred to the surface and to
be collected. The steam must then find another path to overcome air resistance on the
cold surface and make contact with it, thereby offering additional resistance to steam
condensation. [15]
Once the theoretical analysis of the results is complete, the empirical outcomes can be
examined. An observed consistency is a negative correlation between the flow rate of
the cooling water and heat transfer coefficient. The higher the coefficient of heat
transfer, the quicker the heat transfer occurs, and consequently, less water is required
to retain aa higher percentage of latent heat from the condensate. This leads to an
increase in the outlet temperature and improves the coolant water economy of the
process. However hydrophobic surfaces, which provide high transfer efficiency, are not
desirable due to their higher capital cost. The heat transition coefficient and heat flow
density demonstrate a similar tendency to the heat transfer coefficient, as all 3
parameters depend on total heat transfer. Nevertheless, the degree of correlation varies
depending on the approach taken for each parameter’s temperature gradient
calculation. The heat transfer coefficient exhibits the highest dropwise-filmwise value
ratio in any case, as the driving force contrast’s magnitude is the most reasonable
criterion for this calculation: the difference between steam cooling water driving force
and steam-wall driving force.
The subsequent section examines the potential causes of discrepancies, the validity of
all assumptions made for the calculations, and recommendations for enhancing the
overall results:
 For the vacuum film-wise condensation, the experimentally determined heat
transfer coefficient value deviated from the theoretically calculated one with a
slight error of 3% roughly. This marginal variation can result from the
assumptions made for the application of the Nusselt Equation were not
compatible with conditions present in the laboratory experiment. Nusselt equation
is a simplified model that does not account for the surface texture of the
condenser tube, vapor drags or shear force, and temperature distribution
variations across the condensate film. Furthermore, several other assumptions
were made during the calculations, such as disregarding the lower sections of

24
 the tube, where Nusselt’s equation is not applicable, and using the mean
temperature through the wall as the reference temperature for liquid properties.
However, according to Nusselt’s law, the saturation temperature of the exterior
vapor should be considered, especially when accounting for the heat of
vaporization. Nonetheless, these theoretical oversights had minimal impact on
the accuracy of the approach compared to the experimental results. Creating an
environment that satisfies the assumptions of the Nusselt Equation can be one of
the steps to alleviate the variances.
 However, the deviation between the experimental and theoretical values was
significant at approximately 32%, when the air was given to the system in the
second part of the experiment. The primary reason for this notable difference is
the presence of non-condensable air, which created a resistive layer between the
tube wall and steam and disturbing motion of the air molecules to the laminar
flow regime that was not considered in the assumptions made for the application
of the Nusselt equation. This results in Nusselt’s equation estimating almost 2
times larger value for the theoretical heat transfer coefficient in comparison with
the experimental calculations (7,269 and 3,429 kW /m2 ∙ K ).
 Additionally, slight variations at both parts of the experiment may emerge from
inaccuracies in the values of the property (thermal conductivity, density,
kinematic viscosity, specific heat capacity, heat of vaporization) that was taken
from a variety of reference books and online databases.
 The utilization of latent heat of vaporization in the calculation of theoretical film-
wise heat transfer coefficients can also lead to slight errors, as it only considers
the condensation process, not the subcooling process. Typically, the latent heat
of vaporization denotes the heat that is released when a specific mass of vapor
condenses, and it generally corresponds to the heat transfer per unit mass of
condensate that is generated during condensation. Nevertheless, in a real
condensation process, the condensate is cooled down to a temperature that is
between the wall temperature and saturation temperature, which leads to higher
heat losses during the process. Therefore, actual heat transmission is higher
than the latent heat of vaporization. In 1956, modified latent heat of vaporization
was demonstrated by Rohsenow to explain the cooling of a liquid below
¿
saturation temperature: h fg =hfg +0 , 68 C p (T sat −T wall ). [22] The application of a
modified equation with a correction factor to determine the heat of vaporization
could increase the precision level of the experiment.
 An additional factor contributing to the error can be the variable flow rate of the
coolant water, which prevented the achievement of a steady-state operation,
thereby necessitating the selection of only the spot when the temperature
difference between the steam and condenser wall was highest was chosen. It
was possible to get the ideal maximum temperature difference of 20 ℃ , which

25
 can lead to slightly less deviation in the first part of the experiment. The
deviations could be minimized by ensuring a stable coolant water flow rate
through the condenser.
 Furthermore, if the coolant flows in a downward direction within vertical tubes,
the heat transfer is reduced as a result of the gravitational acceleration, which
causes the coolant to flow at a faster rate and reduces the time available for heat
transfer to occur. Additionally, in the lower parts of the vertical tubes, the
thickness of the film increases because of gravity. Conversely, in a horizontal
tube, the area of the thin film is larger, which enhances the effectiveness of heat
transfer during the condensation process.
 Other potential causes for the reduction in heat transfer rate include the erosion
of the gold surface and fouling of the tubes’ surface. In the distillation process,
the production of completely pure water is not always guaranteed, and the
presence of solid particles or other impurities can lead to the deposition of these
materials on the tubes’ surface. Over time, the accumulation of these impurities
can result in fouling, which can act as an insulating layer that impedes heat
transfer. Additionally, erosion of the gold surface can lead to a rough surface that
reduced the efficiency of heat transfer. Therefore, it is critical to regularly clean
and maintain the distillation system to ensure that it operates at an optimal level.
 Non-metallic fluid tends to spread over clean metal surfaces, leading to filmwise
condensation as the dominant mode of heat transfer. However, achieving
dropwise condensation required the application of non-wetting substances such
as dropwise promoters or polished non-wetting materials. While gold-coated
surfaces were thought to be effective for promoting dropwise condensation,
research has shown that a 40 nm thin film o silicon substrate can lead to higher
nucleation site density and lower droplet departure diameter compared to a
standard gold-coated substrate. This suggests that alternative methods may be
necessary to achieve more realistic dropwise condensation conditions.
 Another possible error source can be the misreading of the temperature,
pressure, and flow rate values. As the values were changing continuously it
should be guaranteed all the values were taken at the same time spot. Several
theoretical inconsistencies have already been highlighted earlier, but it is
essential to also acknowledge the empirical imprecision. The process of value
acquisition can be computerized through the integration of software with WL
equipment; however, however, the values were documented manually, which
introduced a potential margin for discrepancies.
 Moreover, it is highly plausible that the sensors utilized in the experimental setup
may have been subject to excessive use, leading to damage or loss of
calibration, which can significantly impact the experimental outcomes. In terms of
the technical side, to minimize the potential deviation that may arise from these
sensors, it is essential to verify the accuracy and calibration of sensors at regular
26
 intervals. In addition, frequent monitoring and calibration of these sensors can
help detect and correct any issues that could lead to data misinterpretation or
inaccurate reading. [23]
 An area for improvement in the experimental setup is the placement of
temperature sensors in closer proximity to the condenser tubes themselves
rather than the top of the tank, as it is uncertain whether the temperature is
uniformly distributed throughout the steam in the current setup. Additionally, the
positioning of other temperature sensors could be improved, as they are currently
situated at a distance from the point of interest and are susceptible to heat
transfer with the surrounding environment or frictional heating within the hoses.

Conclusion
Chemical engineers are required to conduct appropriate calculations and make
conclusions that aid in enhancing and refining the processes given the broad usage of
the condensation process in the industry. The experiment was conducted to compare
different parameters of two industrially viable condensation types, namely film-wise and
dropwise condensation through the WL 230 experimental unit.
The approaches and their mechanism were analyzed based on 3 key parameters: heat
transfer coefficient, heat transition coefficient, and heat flux. Additionally, for film-wise
condensation 2 heat transfer coefficient values – experimental based on the laboratory
experiment data and theoretical based on Nusselt’s equation were determined to check
its validity and to determine the deviation in the results. In the second section of the
experiment, to study the effect of non-condensable gases, air was introduced to the
system and the same calculations were made for this part.
What is clear from the results (Table 4 and 7) is that both theoretical and experimental
heat transfer coefficient values for film-wise condensation are within the limits.
Regarding drop-wise condensation, although it met the requirements in the vacuum
condensation, after the introduction of air, the heat transfer coefficient was lower than
the minimum boundary of the limit at 3,981 kW /m2 ∙ K . Additionally, dropwise
condensation (12,239 kW /m2 ∙ K ) outperformed the film-wise one slightly (8,717
2
kW /m ∙ K ). Although the water economy of the gold-coated surface is more than copper
one, the comparison of the price of these materials, this slight increase in efficiency
percentage does not satisfy the total economic aspect of industrial application.
Therefore, in industrial applications, materials with hydrophilic properties are typically
preferred due to their lower cost compared to permanent coatings made of expensive
noble metals or the maintenance required to maintain a hydrophobic layer of organic

27
repellent on the material. Generally, decreasing heat transfer properties were observed
in both film-wise and dropwise condensation after the addition of air to the system.
Using Nusselt’s equation it was concluded that the precision level of the experiment in
vacuum conditions was satisfying with a deviation of 3,055%. However, the accuracy
deteriorated after the introduction of non-condensable air and the error increased to
52,822% as the increased air pressure and resistance inside the tanks made the
previous assumptions inapplicable.
As mentioned previously, the efficiency of condensation declined after the addition of
non-condensable gases due to diffusional air resistance to the contact surface between
condenser wall and steam. In this scenario, the additional effect of the gold-coated tube
was negligible, which can be observed from the close heat transfer coefficients of the
two mechanisms. Additionally, the assumed conditions which were no longer valid for
the application of Nusselt’s equation made the estimation of film-wise heat transfer
coefficient therefore, the deviation increased dramatically. To conclude, in industrial
settings, it is more desired to prioritize a significant reduction in capital costs over slight
reductions in operating costs. Furthermore, it is recommended to carry out
condensation operations in the absence of atmospheric air.
The experiment can be regarded as successful, slightly low deviation percentage in the
first part of the experiment, and verification of increased error percentage in the second
stage due to failed assumptions, which were expected. Considering the factor
discussed in the previous section the values of heat transfer coefficients can be
upgraded and the deviations can be minimized.

28
 References
1. Serth, R.W. and Lestina, T.G. (2014) “Condensers.” Process Heat Transfer, pp. 431–508.
2. Mikielewicz, J. and Mikielewicz, D. (2010) “Evaporation and Condensation” Chemical Engineering
and Chemical Process Technology – Vol. II - Evaporation and Condensation, Encyclopedia of
Life Support Systems (EOLSS)
3. https://www.superradiatorcoils.com/blog/4-main-refrigeration-cycle-components#:~:text=The
%20condenser%20removes%20heat%20from,to%20the%20loop's%20expansion%20device.
4. https://www.process-cooling.com/articles/90263-condenser-optimization-for-improved-power-
plant-operations#:~:text=In%20power%20plants%2C%20condensers%20act,pulls%20steam
%20through%20the%20turbine.
5. Sideman, S. and Moalem, D. (1974) “Direct Contact Heat Exchangers: Comparison of Counter
and Co-Current Condensers.” International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 1(4), pp. 555–572.
6. Sideman, S. and Moalem-Maron, D. (1982) “Direct Contact Condensation.” Advances in Heat
Transfer, pp. 227–281.
7. https://my.eng.utah.edu/~lzang/images/lecture-12.pdf
8. https://my.eng.utah.edu/~lzang/images/lecture-10.pdf
9. Faghri, A. and Zhang, Y. (2006) “CONDENSATION.” Transport Phenomena in Multiphase
Systems, pp. 581–677.
10. Rose, J.W. (2002) “Dropwise Condensation Theory and Experiment: A Review.” Proceedings of
the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy, 216(2), pp. 115–
128.
11. El Fil, B., Kini, G. and Garimella, S. (2020) “A Review of Dropwise Condensation: Theory,
Modeling, Experiments, and Applications.” International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 160,
p. 120172.
12. M.A. Virji, A.B. Stefaniak, "Comprehensive Materials Processing," in A Review of Engineered
Nanomaterial Manufacturing Processes and Associated Exposures, G. F. B. C. J. V. T. B. Y.
aleem Hashmi, Ed., Elsevier, 2014, pp. 103-125.
13. N. Higgins, "Gyrase," in Brenner's Encyclopedia of Genetics, 2017, pp. 374-377.
14. "Condensers," Petra International Export Co. (UK) Ltd, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://petra-
uk.com/condensers/.
15. Nik Willoughby, Alan Harper, Seyedeh Fatemeh Mohsenpour, in Chemical Engineering Study
Guide Process Engineering C, Edinburgh EH14 4AS: Heriot-Watt University SCHOLAR, 2014,
pp. 11-13.
16. Karim Egab, Mohammed Alwazzan, Benli Peng, Saad K. Oudah, Zongqi Guo, Xianming Dai,
Jamil Khan, Chen Li, "Enhancing filmwise and dropwise condensation using a hybrid wettability

29
 contrast mechanism: Circular patterns," International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol.
154, p. 1, 2020.
17. I.E. Ivanov; V.S. Nazarov; I.A. Kryukov - application of the Moment Method for Numerical
Simulation Homogeneous-Heterogeneous condensation, 2022
18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/condensate-film
19. Whitaker, S. (1976) “Heat Transfer with Boiling and Condensation.” Elementary Heat Transfer
Analysis, pp. 317–350.
20. Marto, P.J. (1988) “Fundamentals of Condensation.” Two-Phase Flow Heat Exchangers, pp.
221–291.
21. A. Cavallini, "Heat transfer and heat exchangers," in Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) Power
Systems, M. A. Ennio Macchi, Ed., Woodhead Publishing, 2017, pp. 397-470.
22. Y. A. Cengel, "Condensation Heat Transfer," in Heat Transfer a Practical Approach, Second ed.,
pp. 532-534.
23. Amit Goswami, Suresh C. Pillai, Gerard McGranaghan, "Surface modifications to enhance
dropwise condensation," Surfaces and Interfaces, vol. 25, p. 101143, 2021.
24. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/watvap.html

30