Cebu Institute of Technology - University

Chemical Engineering Department

CHE 382 Chemical Engineering Laboratory 1

Data Insights Report

(Appendix 2)

Prepared and submitted by:

Cortez, Yrenne Kaye N. Lumayno, Jaxel P. Macaraya, Emmanuel B.

Salonoy, Neil Bruce C. Salvador, Christian André A. Tecson, Danielle Faith B.

Experiment: Heat Transfer in a Double Pipe Exchanger

Objectives of the Experiment
1. To determine the overall coefficient of heat transfer using steam to water in forced convection.
Results & Discussion

Table 1. Determination of Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient

Overall Heat
Cold water Steam Transfer
Flow Rate Weight 𝑸̇
Type of Flow 𝒌𝒈⁄ Temp, °F Temp, °F Condensate 𝑱⁄ Coefficient
𝒔 kg 𝑺 U
Inlet Exit Inlet Exit 𝑾⁄
𝒎𝟐 ∙ 𝑲
Countercurrent 0.01275 78 198 216.1818 167.4 1.53 1446.4210 236.0820
Countercurrent 0.0130167 78 144.1 228.2727 163 1.5620 1911.3557 233.1502
Parallel 0.01259167 78 195.4 160 139.3 1.5110 1036.6048 120.9613
Parallel 0.01416667 78 140.1 176 175.2 1.7 513.9478 65.4022

Table 1 presents the averaged data collected during the experiment, including water flow rate, inlet
and outlet water temperatures, steam temperature, calculated heat transfer rate (Q), and the overall heat
transfer coefficient (U).

1
 This experiment aimed to determine the overall heat transfer coefficient in a concentric double-pipe
heat exchanger using steam to heat water under forced convection. The primary objective was to
determine how the flow configuration—parallel and countercurrent—affects the rate of heat transfer. To
achieve this, condensate weights, fluid temperature readings, and water meter readings were recorded at
regular intervals for both configurations.

In countercurrent flow, the hot fluid enters the exchanger at one end and flows in the opposite
direction of the cold fluid. This arrangement ensures that the hot fluid is always in contact with the colder
fluid, maintaining a greater temperature difference throughout the length of the exchanger. This maintained
temperature gradient results in more efficient heat transfer, as seen in the calculated values in Table 1
where countercurrent flow exhibited high heat transfer rates (Q) and overall heat transfer coefficients (U).
In contrast, in parallel flow, both the hot and cold fluids flow in the same direction which leads to a decline
in the temperature difference. As the fluids move along the exchanger, their temperatures will gradually
equalize which will slowly diminish the driving force for heat transfer. As seen in the table above, the
temperature of the steam inlet is almost the same as its temperature when it leaves the exchanger and
compared to the overall heat transfer coefficient of the countercurrent flow, the parallel flow is significantly
lower.

Conclusions

The results demonstrated that flow arrangement significantly impacts thermal performance. By
analyzing the recorded steam and water temperature data, it was evident that countercurrent flow achieved
higher outlet water temperatures compared to parallel flow, indicating a more efficient heat transfer
process. This aligns with theoretical expectations, as countercurrent heat exchangers maintain a greater
temperature gradient along the length of the exchanger, resulting in improved heat transfer efficiency.

The calculated heat transfer rates further support this conclusion. For countercurrent flow, the heat
transfer rates were 1446.4210 J/s in trial 1 and 1911.3557 J/s in trial 2, while for parallel flow, the heat
transfer rates were significantly lower at 1036.6048 J/s in trial 1 and 513.9478 J/s in trial 2. Similarly, the
overall heat transfer coefficient was higher in countercurrent flow, with values of 236.0820 W/m²K in trial 1

2
and 233.1502 W/m²K in trial 2, compared to parallel flow, which had values of 120.9613 W/m²K in trial 1
and 65.4022 W/m²K in trial 2.

These findings support the theoretical benefits of countercurrent flow and emphasize its role in
maximizing energy transfer efficiency. Because it maintains a greater and more consistent temperature
difference, countercurrent flow enhances overall heat exchanger performance. This highlights the
importance of flow arrangement in designing energy-efficient thermal systems for industrial applications.

Raw Data

Length of heating section 1: 11.5 ft

Outside diameter of heating tube: 0.875 in.
Inside diameter of heating tube: 0.745 in.
Mass of Pail: 0.35 kg

Table 5. Trial 1
Cold Water Steam
Weight
Meter Temp, °F Gage Temp, °F
Type of Time, Condensate
reading, reading,
Flow min Inlet Exit Inlet Exit kg
L psi.
C 0 - 78 - 41 236 - -
O
U 2 84 78 198 39 224 178 1.94
N
4 84 78 198 38 214 176 1.6
T
E 6 84 78 198 36 213 167 1.59
R
C 8 84 78 198 34 213 166 1.44
U
10 84 78 200 41 213 165 1.4
R
R 12 84 78 198 40 213 165 1.5
E
N 14 84 78 197 39 213 165 1.48
T 16 84 78 197 38 213 164 1.45
F
L 18 84 78 198 35 213 163 1.44
O
W 20 84 78 198 36 213 165 1.46
AVERAGE 84 78 198 37.9091 216.1818 167.4 1.53

P 0 92 78 - 46 210 - -
A
2 92 78 198 45 173 148 1.7
R
A 4 92 78 198 42 164 149 1.68

3
 L 6 92 78 194 42 159 137 1.55
L
E 8 92 78 195 40 153 140 1.54
L
10 92 78 190 40 151 138 1.4
F 12 92 78 197 43 151 138 1.7
L
O 14 92 78 199 46 151 137 1.6
W
16 92 78 198 44 151 136 1.5
18 92 78 193 42 149 135 1.55
20 92 78 192 39 148 135 1.4
AVERAGE 92 78 195.4 42.6364 160 139.3 1.5620

Table 6. Trial 2
Cold Water Steam
Weight
Type of Time, Meter Temp, °F Temp, °F
Gage Condensate
Flow min reading,
Inlet Exit reading, psi. Inlet Exit kg
L
C 0 97 78 - 40 234 - -
O
U 2 97 78 146 41 226 160 1.25
N
4 97 78 143 40 232 164 1.45
T
E 6 97 78 145 38 232 161 1.55
R
C 8 97 78 143 35 225 164 1.5
U
10 97 78 142 38 224 162 1.53
R
R 12 97 78 141 39 225 161 1.45
E
N 14 97 78 145 41 230 164 1.64
T
16 97 78 145 39 228 165 1.63
F
L 18 97 78 146 37 228 164 1.55
O
W 20 97 78 145 35 227 165 1.56
AVERAGE 97 78 144.1 38.4545 228.2727 163 1.5110
P 0 101 78 - 43 213 - -
A
R 2 101 78 152 41 194 176 1.6
A 4 101 78 146 40 182 174 1.86
L
L 6 101 78 142 41 176 175 1.85

4
 E 8 101 78 139 39 171 175 1.8
L
10 101 78 138 37 168 176 1.81
F
L 12 101 78 137 38 167 174 1.82
O 14 101 78 137 40 167 175 1.81
W
16 101 78 137 39 167 173 1.75
18 101 78 136 38 165 178 1.6
20 101 78 137 38 166 176 1.7
AVERAGE 101 78 140.1 39.4545 176 175.2 1.7

Processing of Data

Table 7.
Length Outside Diameter Inside Diameter Alm
ft in in in2
11 0.875 0.745 350.4121

Working Equations:
For log mean Area (Alm)

≫ 𝐴 = 𝜋DL
𝐴2 −𝐴1
≫ 𝐴𝑙𝑚 = 𝐴
ln (𝐴2 )
1

Cold Water Steam Overall

Flow Rate Weight 𝑸̇
Meter Temp, °F Gage Temp, °F ∆𝑻𝒍𝒎 Trans
pe of Flow 𝒌𝒈⁄ Condensate 𝑱⁄
reading, reading, K Coeffic
𝒔 Inlet Exit Inlet Exit kg 𝑺
L psi. U

5
 𝑾⁄
𝒎𝟐
untercurrent 0.01275 84 78 198 37.9091 216.1818 167.4 1.53 89.5704 1446.4210 236.08

untercurrent 0.0130167 92 78 144.1 38.4545 228.2727 163 1.5620 46.9920 1911.3557 233.15

Parallel 0.01259167 97 78 195.4 42.6364 160 139.3 1.5110 37.9071 1036.6048 120.96

Parallel 0.01416667 101 78 140.1 39.4545 176 175.2 1.7 34.7600 513.9478 65.40

Table 8.

Working Equations:

𝑘𝑔
For Mass Flow Rate ( ⁄𝑠)

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑒
≫ 𝑚̇ = 𝑡

For log mean Temperature (∆𝑇𝑙𝑚 )

∆𝑇2 −∆𝑇1
≫ ∆𝑇𝑙𝑚 = ∆𝑇
ln (∆𝑇2 )
1

For Countercurrent Flow;

(𝑇𝐻,𝑂 −𝑇𝐶,𝐼 )−(𝑇𝐻,𝐼−𝑇𝐶,𝑂)

≫ ∆𝑇𝑙𝑚 = 𝑇 −𝑇
ln (𝑇𝐻,𝑂−𝑇 𝐶,𝐼 )
𝐻,𝐼 𝐶,𝑂

For Parallel Flow;

(𝑇𝐻,𝑂 −𝑇𝐶,𝑂 )−(𝑇𝐻,𝐼 −𝑇𝐶,𝐼)

≫ ∆𝑇𝑙𝑚 = 𝑇 −𝑇
ln ( 𝑇𝐻,𝑂−𝑇𝐶,𝑂)
𝐻,𝐼 𝐶,𝐼

For Heat Transfer Rate (𝑄)̇

≫ 𝑄̇ = 𝑚̇ 𝐶𝑝 ∆𝑇

For Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient (𝑈)

𝑄
≫ 𝑈 = 𝐴∆𝑇
𝑙𝑚