Professional Documents
Culture Documents
\
|
2 s
1 s
2 s 1 s
T T
T T
ln
) T (T ) T (T
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
2 s
1 s
1 2
T T
T T
ln
T T
=
|
.
|
\
|
1 3 1 . 07 1
3 2 1 . 07 1
ln
3 2 1 3
= 80.03337223 K
The outside area of a 0.5 inch 16 BWG tube = 0.03991 m
2
/ lin m
Length of each tube = 96 inch = 2.438 m
Number of tubes = 19
Total outside area, A0 = 19 2.4384 0.03991
= 1.849 m
2
Experimental overall heat transfer co-efficient,
UOE =
LMTD A
Q
0
avg
= 3600
143.3259 849 . 1
35.23095
11
= 173.72 J/sec.m
2
. K
Prandtl Number, Pr =
k
C
p
= 5.81645
Flow area of tube, Ai = 0.0000694 m
2
Velocity of water, Vw =
i
w
A
m
=
19 0.0000694 996.517
0.868803
= 0.66119 m/sec
Reynolds number, Re =
v D
w i
= 7118.96
Tube wall temperature (steam side),
Tw =
2
)] T T ( 0.5 [Ts
2 1
+ +
=
2
)] 31 3 2 ( 0.5 [107.1 + +
= 67.07
o
C
12
Using Seider-Tate equation,
Nu =0.027 Re
0.8
Pr
1/3
(f/ w)
0.14
= 0.027 (7118.96)
0.8
(5.81645)
1/3
(0 .00085/0.00042)
0.14
= 32.606
Water side heat transfer co-efficient for turbulent flow,
hi = Nu
i
D
k
= 4206.88 J/ sec. m
2
. K
Film temperature, Tf = Ts 0.75 (Ts-Tw)
= 107.1 0.75 (107.1- 67.05)
= 77.0625
o
C
Properties of condensate at film temperature (77.0625
o
C),
Density, f = 973.61 Kg/m
3
Viscosity, f = 0.00037 Pa-sec
Thermal conductivity, kf = 0.668 Watt/ m-kelvin
Heat of condensation, hfg = c = 2235500 J/Kg
Density of steam, v ~ 0
Saturation temperature, Tg =Ts = 107.1
o
C = 380.1 K
Using Nusselt equation, steam side heat transfer co-efficient,
ho = 0.725
25 . 0
w g f
3
f fg v f f
) T nd(T
k gh ) (
(
(
= 0.725
25 . 0
w g o f
3
f fg
2
f
) T (T D
k gh
(
(
= 4676.52 J/ sec. m
2
.
o
C
13
Theoretical overall heat transfer co-efficient,
UOT =
-1
i i
o
0
h D
D
h
1
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
= 1869.19 J/ sec. m
2
.
K
jH factor calculation, jH = Nu .Pr
-1/3
.
14 . 0
w
|
|
.
|
\
|
= 32.606
Tube side Pressure Drop Calculation,
Specific gravity, s = 1
Internal diameter, D = 0.37 inch = 0.031 ft
Length of the tube, L = 8 ft
No. of pass in tube side, n = 1
The factor, |t =
14 . 0
w
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
14 . 0
0.00042
0.00085
|
.
|
\
|
= 1.10373
Mass velocity, Gt = 658.883 lb/hr.ft
2
For this mass velocity,
2g'
V
2
|
|
.
|
\
|
144
52.5
= 0.03 psi
For Reynolds number of 7118.96,
Friction factor, f = 0.00031ft
2
/in
2
Pressure drop, Api =
t
10
2
t
Ds 10 5.22
Ln G f
= 0.3288 psi
Pressure drop due to velocity head,
Ap r =
|
|
.
|
\
|
2g'
V
s
4n
2
|
|
.
|
\
|
144
52.5
= 0.12042 psi
14
Total theoretical pressure drop, Ap = Api + Apr
= (0.3288 + 0.12042)
= .4493psi
Again,
Manometer reading (left) = 33.4 in
Manometer reading (right) = 35.8 in
Difference = (35.8 33.4) in
= 2.4 in
Experimental pressure drop, Ap = 1.174 psi
15
Results and Discussions
The results are summarized bellows
Heat transfer co-efficient (Shell side), h0 4636.44016-4706.898753 J/sec.m
2
. K
Heat transfer co-efficient (Tube side), hi 3443.354763-7951.092521 J/sec.m
2
. K
Overall heat transfer co-efficient
(Theoretical), UOT
1651.821- 2593.331 J/sec.m
2
.K
Overall heat transfer co-efficient
(Experimental), UOE
173.7199- 290.2413 J/sec.m
2
.K
For the jH Factor vs. NRe plotted on log-log coordinate
1. The slope for 2.5 psig = 0.8 is shown at figure 4
2. The slope for 5 psig = 0.8 is shown at figure 5
All the graphs had shown their expected characteristics. The slope for steam pressure 2.5 psig
is 0.8 and for steam pressure 5.0 is 0.8 whereas the theoretical value is 0.8. Thus, the graphs
establish the validity of Sieder-Tate equation.
The theoretical and experimental results shows some discrepancies. The possible causes are
discussed here-
1. The theoretical values obtained in this experiment are not wholly theoretical. These
values are found based on some parameters that are determined experimentally in one
way or another. Hence, they cannot be said to be purely theoretical.
2. There might be some heat loss through the pipes and wall which was not accounted
during the calculation. This might have brought the discrepancy. The theoretical value
was not a pure literature value. It was calculated by manipulating some data or
parameters.
3. The apparatus was very old and proper maintenance is not taken for several years.
Excess fouling may encounter in tube side which decrease the overall heat transfer co-
efficient.
4. Heat absorbed by water was greater than the heat released by the steam which is
normally impossible. Uses of steam trapper caused this.
16
5. We assumed that the convection heat transfer co-efficient are constant through the heat
exchanger, but experimentally the heat transfer co-efficient were not constant while
operation.
6. The steam pressure was considered constant during operation, but, it was not constant
while operation.
17
NuPr
(-1/3)
(u/uw)
-.014
vs. Reynolds Number (2.5 psig)
Figure 4: Graph of NuPr
(-1/3)
(u/uw)
-.014
vs. Reynolds Number at 2.5 psig pressure
y = 0.027x
0.8
10
100
5000
N
u
P
r
^
(
-
1
/
3
)
(
u
/
u
w
)
^
-
.
0
1
4
Reynold's Number
18
NuPr
(-1/3)
(u/uw)
-.014
vs. Reynolds Number (5 psig)
Figure 5: Graph of NuPr
(-1/3)
(u/uw)
-.014
vs. Reynolds Number at 5 psig pressure
y = 0.027x
0.8
10
100
5000
N
u
P
r
^
(
-
1
/
3
)
(
u
/
u
w
)
^
-
.
0
1
4
Reynold's Number
19
Pressure drop vs. Water velocity (2.5 psig)
Figure 6: Graph of Pressure drop vs. water velocity at 2.5 psig pressure
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
r
o
p
Water velocity
Theoretical
Experimental
20
Pressure drop vs. Water velocity (2.5 psig)
Figure 7: Graph of Pressure drop vs. water velocity at 2.5 psig pressure
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
d
r
o
p
Water velocity
Theoretical
Experimental