DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY

Gokongwei College of Engineering

Chemical Engineering Department

Unit Operations Laboratory 1

Final Laboratory Report

Experiment # 1
Performance of a Double Pipe Heat Exchanger

Group Number 1 Section EA2

NAME SIGNATURE Criteria Score

1. Catapang, Jacen Mariel S. Content (50%)
2. Chan, Cary Albert D. Presentation (25%)

3. Garces, Jerome Ignatius T. Relevance (25%)

4. Lee, Angela Mae T. Total (100%)

5. Liclican, Sephi Marz G. Percentage Equivalent

6. Tiu, Sean Elijah J.

14 January 2019 28 January 2019

Date of performance Date of Submission

Dr. Allan N. Soriano

Instructor
Unit Operations Laboratory 1

Performance of a Double Pipe Heat Exchanger

Jacen Mariel S. Catapang, Cary Albert D. Chan, Jerome Ignatius T. Garces,
Angela Mae T. Lee, Sephi Marz G. Liclican, Sean Elijah J. Tiu
Department of Chemical Engineering, Gokongwei College of Engineering, De La Salle University,
2401 Taft Avenue, Manila 1004, Philippines

I. INTRODUCTION

Heat exchangers are devices that facilitate an exchange of heat energy between two fluids of different temperature;
usually, the transfer is done over a heat-conductive pipe wall [1,2]. According to thermodynamics, the difference in
temperature between two objects or substance is the driving force for the transfer of heat; the double pipe heat exchanger,
like any other heat exchangers, operates using this natural phenomenon, where the temperature difference between the hot
and the cold fluid causes heat energy to be released from the hot fluid and transferred into the cold fluid. In a double pipe
heat exchanger, heat transfer primarily occurs via convection and conduction – heat transfer via radiation is usually small
compared to convection and conduction in a well-designed heat exchanger [3]. Heat is transferred through the hot fluid and
to the film just before the pipe wall via forced convection, through the pipe via conduction, and again through the film and
into the cold fluid via forced convection. It is then important that the pipe wall must be as thin and conductive as possible
(with mechanical constraints in consideration) to allow maximum heat transfer between the two fluids.
The double pipe heat exchanger is the simplest type of heat exchanger used in the industry [2]. In a double pipe heat
exchanger, one fluid flows inside a pipe and the other fluid flows between that pipe and a larger pipe that surrounds the first
[1]. The two pipes are concentric; therefore, the double pipe heat exchanger is sometimes also called the concentric tube
heat exchanger. While double pipe heat exchangers are compact, they are usually not recommended for processes that
required large heating surfaces. Depending on the application, double pipe heat exchangers may be operated in a co-current
and a countercurrent manner [4].

A schematic of the double pipe heat exchanger and the parameters involved in its operation is shown in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1. Schematic of a double pipe/concentric heat exchanger. [2]

Where, mh = Mass flow rate of hot fluid

mc = Mass flow rate of cold fluid
Th = Temperature of cold fluid
Tc = Temperature of hot fluid

The rate of heat transfer for the cold and hot fluid can be calculated using Eq. 1.1 and 1.2 respectively.

q c =mc Cpc ( T c 2−T c 1) (1.1)

q h=mh Cph ( T h 1−T h 2) (1.2)

The rate of heat transfer is can also be expressed in terms of the overall heat transfer coefficient (Ui and Uo) (Eq. 1.3):
[1]
 q=U i A i ∆ T ln=U o A o ∆ T ln (1.3)

Where, ∆ T ln = logarithmic temperature difference

∆ T 1−∆ T 2
∆ T ln =
∆T1 (1.4)
ln
∆T2

Where, ∆ T 1=Temperature approach∈one end

∆ T 2=Temperature approach∈the other end

To calculate for the theoretical overall heat transfer coefficient involving resistances, U i and Uo can be expressed as
Equation 1.5

1 1 x m Do Do
= + + (1.5)
U o ho k m D ave hi D i

Where, xm = thickness of the tube wall

km = thermal conductivity of the metal
Dave = average diameter of the inner tube

In forced convection for fluids having a turbulent flow (NRe >10000), ho may be calculated considering the effect of tube
length by Eq. 1.6.

0.7
D
h Cpμ 0.67
μw 0.14 [ ()]
0.023 1+
L
( C G )( ) ( )
k μ
=
DG 0.2
(1.6)
p
( )
μ

K, Cp, and μ are evaluated based on the arithmetic bulk temperature

If the effect of the tube length can be ignored, the Dittus-Boelter Equation (Eq 1.7) is used.

hD
N Nu=0.023 ( N ℜ )0.8 ( N Pr ) n= (1.7)
K

Cpμ
N Pr= (1.8)
k

Dvp DG
N ℜ= = (1.9)
μ μ
Where, NNu = Nusselts’s Number

Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[2]
 NPr = Prandtl Number
NRe = Reynold’s Number
n = 0.4 when fluid is heated
n = 0.3 when fluid is cooled

Another equation can be used for water for temperature range of 40°F and 220°F is Eq. 1.10.

V 0.8
h=150 1+ 0.011 T́
( )
( )
' 0.2
D
(1.10)

Where, T́ = arithmetic mean temperature of fluid

D’ = diameter of the tube

The objectives of the experiment were the following:

1. To familiarize the students with the characteristics, parameters and problems involved in the operation of a double-
pipe heat exchanger when operated using countercurrent or co-current flow.

2. To determine and compare measured and calculated mean temperature difference between hot and cold water in both
countercurrent and co-current flow.

3. To compare experimental overall heat transfer coefficient obtained using data from direct measurements with the
theoretical overall heat transfer coefficients calculated using available empirical equations.

II. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Materials and Reagents

1. Thermometers
2. Stopwatches

2.2 Equipment

Figure 2.2.1 illustrates the schematic diagram of the actual double pipe heat exchanger set-up used in the experiment,
along with the pipe specifications. This set-up consists of inner and outer pipes welded in series. The inner pipe is made of
brass with an inside diameter of 0.625 in. and an outside diameter of 0.815 in. The outer pipe is made of standard 1¼ steel
pipe. The set-up is composed of 12 sections in series where each section is approximately 50 in. long. The hot water used is
supplied by a neighboring tubular heat exchanger, which is passed through the inner pipe and exits through the red pipe. The
cold water comes from the supply main and is passed through the annular space between the tubes, exiting through the
white pipe. Figures 2.2.2 illustrates the actual equipment as described.

Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[3]
 Figure 2.2.1. Double pipe heat exchanger set-up and specifications [2].

Figure 2.2.2. Actual double pipe heat exchanger set-up.

The set-up provides valves for reversing the direction of the cold stream to obtain either countercurrent or co-current
flow. Valves on both lines are also included for controlling the flow rates of the streams. Additionally, each of the 12
sections are provided with thermometer wells and thermometers to measure the temperature of the streams at different
points along the heat exchanger (Figure 2.2.3). At the exit ends of the pipes, weighing tanks with calibrated levels are
provided for the measurement of flow rates, as shown in Figure 2.2.4.

Figure 2.2.3. Thermometers and thermometer wells for each section.

Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[4]
 Figure 2.2.4. Weighing tank with calibrated levels for measurement of flow rates.

2.3 Experimental Procedure

Since the hot water supply used in the experiment is that of the one discharged from the tubular exchanger, the
experiment is done in coordination with latter to prevent the valve movement that would affect the temperature and flow
rate of the hot water. Experimental data for both countercurrent and co-current flow were obtained from a pressure basis of
40 psi and 50 psi. Three trials were done for measuring the temperatures and flow rates for both hot and cold water supply
in each type of flow.

First, the valves were first adjusted for a co-current flow of hot and cold water for a pressure of 40 psi. Temperatures for
both hot and cold water were taken for each 7 well, together with their flow rates. This was done during the 1 st, 3rd, and 7th
minutes (three trials) of the experiment. The valves were then adjusted to obtain a countercurrent flow of hot and cold water.
Similar to the procedure for the co-current flow, temperatures and flow rates of both the hot and cold water were taken
during the 1st, 3rd, and 7th minutes. Lastly, the pressure was adjusted to 50 psi and the procedure was repeated for both co-
current and countercurrent flow and experimental data were obtained accordingly.

III. RESULTS & DISCUSSION

The experiment entails the temperature measurement of both cold water and hot water along a double pipe heat
exchanger along with their respective flow rates. Both co-current and countercurrent flow operations are conducted at two
different pressures, 40 psi (Trial 1) and 50 psi (Trial 2). For the first set of data, which is at 40 psi, Fig. 4.1(a) and Fig.
4.1(b) below show the temperature profiles along the length of heat exchanger, for co-current operation and countercurrent
operation, respectively. The length of heat exchanger is expressed in terms of well numbers, which are from 1 to 7. On the
other hand, the second set of data is at 50 psi, where Fig. 4.2(a) and Fig. 4.2(b) illustrate the temperature profiles for co-
current operation and countercurrent operation, respectively.

Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[5]
 TH and TC for Co-current Operation TH and TC for Countercurrent Operation
(40
60 psi) (4060psi)
55 55

50 50
Temperature (℃)

Temperature (℃)
45 45
f(x) = − 1.96 x + 47.34
f(x) = − 1.68 x + 45.72
40 R² = 0.78 40 R² = 0.99
35 35

30 f(x) = 0.97 x + 26.1 30 f(x) = − 1.19 x + 34.22

R² = 0.88 R² = 1
25 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Well Number Well Number
Figure 4.1(a). Temperature profile for co-current Figure 4.1(b). Temperature profile for
operation (40 psi). countercurrent operation (40 psi).

TH and TC for Co-current Operation TH and TC for Countercurrent Operation

(50 psi)
60 (50
60 psi)

55 55 f(x) = − 3.08 x + 60.27

R² = 0.99
50 f(x) = − 2.22 x + 54.04 50
Temperature (℃)

Temperature (℃)

R² = 0.93
45 45

40 40

35 f(x) = 1.48 x + 26.31 35 f(x) = − 1.96 x + 39.56

R² = 0.92 R² = 0.99
30 30

25 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Well Number Well Number
Figure 4.2(a). Temperature profile for co-current Figure 4.2(b). Temperature profile for
operation (50 psi). countercurrent operation (50 psi).

Comparing Fig. 4.1(a) to Fig. 4.1(b), as well as Fig. 4.2(a) to Fig. 4.2(b), it can be observed that co-current flow
operation gives opposite temperature profile trends for hot water and cold water, specifically hot water decreases in
temperature and cold water increases in temperature along heat exchanger length. This is opposed to countercurrent flow
operation, wherein it gives similar temperature profile trends for hot water and cold water, specifically both hot and cold
water decrease in temperature along heat exchanger length. These are apparent in the slopes of the trend lines.

The shape of the trends, however, are not the same. As shown by the R2 values, countercurrent operation gives more
linear trends at 40 psi and 50 psi, as in Fig. 4.1(b) and Fig. 4.2(b), than co-current operation, as in Fig. 4.1(a) and Fig.
4.2(a). This linear behavior is possible since the cold water obtains heat from hot water, where the heat transfer is uniform
along the length of the pipe. In other words, since an almost constant heat transfer is achieved and the resistances of the pipe
and the flowing fluids are also constant, the cold water uniformly picks up heat, thus uniformly increasing its temperature.
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[6]
This verifies the transport phenomenon of heat that at constant resistance, as heat increases uniformly, temperature increases
uniformly. Similar is also observed with hot water, but the temperature decreases due to uniform heat loss. Additionally, for
both cases at both 40 psi and 50 psi, the difference between the temperatures of hot and cold water decreases along heat
exchanger length. This can be further verified in Fig. 4.3(a) and Fig. 4.3(b) below, wherein the temperature differences ae
calculated and plotted against the well numbers for co-current and countercurrent operations, respectively.

ΔT for Co-current Operation ΔT for Countercurrent Operation

25 (40 psi and 50 psi) 25 (40 psi and 50 psi)
f(x) = − 3.7 x + 27.73
Temperature Difference (℃)

Temperature Difference (℃)

20 R² = 0.93 20
f(x) = − 1.12 x + 20.71
f(x) = − 2.93 x + 21.24 R² = 0.98
15 R² = 0.82 15

10 10 f(x) = − 0.49 x + 11.5

R² = 0.88
5 5

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Well Number Well Number

Figure 4.3(a). Temperature differences for co- Figure 4.3(b). Temperature differences for
current operation (40 and 50 psi). countercurrent operation (40 and 50 psi).

The disparity between the trends of temperature differences (ΔT) of co-current and countercurrent operations along the
heat exchanger is that the decrease in ΔT is more significant in co-current than in countercurrent flow, which can be
deduced from the slopes. This is due to the previous observation, in which in co-current operation, cold water starts at a cold
temperature and hot water starts at a hot temperature at Well 1, then equilibrates at Well 7 to be around the same
temperature. However, in countercurrent operation, the initial temperatures of hot water and cold water at Well 1 are
observed to be roughly the same as those in co-current operation, but both decrease at the same extent along the heat
exchanger length up to Well 7. Thus, it is reflected in the gradual change in temperature difference. Again, as shown by the
R2 values, countercurrent operation gives more linear trends of temperature differences against heat exchanger length than
co-current operation.

Table 4.1. Evaluation of temperature differences of heat exchanger.

Co-Current Countercurrent
Flow Operation Flow Operation
Parameter
50
40 psi 40 psi 50 psi
psi
10.43 12.49 9.841 16.47
ΔTln (℃)
02 52 1 15
13.37 15.82 9.925 16.67
ΔTa (℃)
50 50 0 50
Percent Difference 24.74 23.51 0.848 1.227
(%) 08 54 9 9

As it is mentioned several times in the paper, the temperature difference of heat exchanger at a given operation (ΔT), is
an important parameter. It is studied as shown in Table 4.1, wherein the arithmetic mean ΔT (ΔT a) or logarithmic mean ΔT
(ΔTln) are compared as alternative values to the theoretical ΔT. From the table, it is observed that ΔT ln values are far from
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[7]
ΔTa values by around 20% for co-current flow, but are much closer to ΔT a values by only 1% for countercurrent flow.
Again, this can be associated with the previous observations, where initial temperature differences are larger for co-current
operation. However, ΔTln values are preferred because they have relatively low percentage errors relative to the theoretical
ΔT. Also, ΔTln is valid for approximately invariant specific heats, which is true for water in the conditions of the experiment.
For convenience and accuracy in calculations, the logarithmic mean ΔT (ΔT ln) is commonly used as the temperature
difference of heat exchanger.

Table 4.2. Comparison of qh and qc values of heat exchanger.

Co-Current Countercurrent
Parameter Flow Operation Flow Operation
40 psi 50 psi 40 psi 50 psi
26970. 20331. 14808. 26855.
qH (J/s)
06 69 45 11
16809. 19803. 13446. 23490.
qC (J/s)
64 81 12 73
10160. 1362.3 3364.8
Difference (J/s) 527.88
42 3 3

On the other hand, the values of q H and qC are compared, as shown in Table 4.2. The differences are below 5000 J/s,
except for the 40 psi trial in co-current flow. The large error in this trial is attributed to erroneous reading of mass flow rate
which is needed for the calculation, which might be caused by the leak in the valve at that time. The rest of the data shows
that there exists a heat loss to the surroundings of the heat exchanger since there has been a heat difference, and these heat
losses or gain are relatively low since the differences shown are low.

Using the inner lateral surface area and the temperature difference (ΔT ln) of hot water, with qH as the heat, the
experimental overall heat transfer coefficients (U i) are calculated through Eq. 1.3. These are tabulated in Table 4.3 below.
The heat from hot water (q H) was used because it is assumed that this value is still before or without heat loss. The U i values
are around the same value at 2000 W/m2-C, except again for the 40 psi trial in co-current flow, which is probably caused by
the same error previously mentioned.

Table 4.3. Experimental Ui values of heat exchanger.

Co-Current Countercurrent
Parameter Flow Operation Flow Operation
40 psi 50 psi 40 psi 50 psi
3402.0 2140.8 1979.7 2145.0
Ui (W/m2-℃)
5 3 8 9

These experimental Ui values were compared to the theoretical U i values in the preceding tables, where the theoretical U i
values are calculated using empirical equations as follows.

Table 4.4. Parameters for theoretical Ui calculation.

Co-Current Countercurrent
Parameter Flow Operation Flow Operation
40 psi 50 psi 40 psi 50 psi
TH,i 42.375 46.95 39.425 48.625
60072. 49312. 42310. 50335.
Rei
961 502 375 064
Pri 4.1436 3.7870 4.4006 3.6675
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[8]
 TH,o 29 31.125 29.5 31.95
94781. 75743. 65679. 71041.
Reo
775 252 357 704
Pro 5.5527 5.2818 5.4868 5.1830

Table 4.4 shows the parameters required for the calculation of theoretical U i values. These parameters are based on the
empirical equations to be used for theoretical U i. These are the Dittus-Boelter equation (Eq. 1.7), where
0.7
k 0.023 [ 1+ ( D/ L ) ] . From h values, the
h= 0.023 ℜ0.8 Prn , and forced convection equation (E.1.6), whereh=C p G
D ℜ0.2 Pr 2 /3
1 1 x m Di Di
Ui is calculated using the Eq. 1.5 = + + . These Ui values are shown in Table 4.5.
U i h i k m D́ h o D o

Table 4.5. Theoretical hi, ho, and Ui values of heat exchanger.

Co-Current Countercurrent
Parameter Flow Operation Flow Operation
40 psi 50 psi 40 psi 50 psi
9853.47 8236.688 7551.498 8309.996
hi (E.1.6)
51 3 9 6
21781.5 17997.19 16199.01 17020.84
ho (E.1.6)
446 36 92 69
5710.11 4939.443 4582.993 4906.165
Ui (E.1.6)
64 1 6 4
9321.26 7815.210 7129.307 7893.204
hi (E.1.7)
61 8 9 3
20442.1 16918.67 15208.94 16010.91
ho (E.1.7)
299 45 75 30
5457.64 4723.311 4364.490 4694.364
Ui (E.1.7)
62 6 9 1

The h values obtained from the empirical equations were compared in Table 4.5. These values were compared to
determine whether the Dittus-Boelter equation (Eq. 1.7) can be applied as an alternative to forced convection equation (Eq.
1.6). It is found out that the h values from Eq. 1.7 are close to that of Eq. 1.6, making Eq. 1.7 to be the possible alternative
to Eq 1.6. The theoretical Ui values are also calculated and similar result is obtained.

The experimental Ui values are compared to theoretical Ui values and the errors are computed for each. The values are
shown in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6. Comparison of theoretical and experimental Ui values.

Co-Current Countercurrent
Parameter Flow Operation Flow Operation
40 psi 50 psi 40 psi 50 psi
3402.0 2140.8 1979.7 2145.0
Experimental Ui
5 3 8 9
5457.6 4723.3 4364.4 4694.3
Theoretical Ui
462 116 909 641
% Error 37.664 54.675 54.638 54.305

Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[9]
 5 2 9 0

The errors range from 37% to 55%. These large errors can be contributed by heat losses possibly to the surroundings, or
accumulation of heat in the steel pipes. While the values exhibit large errors, it can be observed that experimental heat
transfer coefficient values converge at around the same value, and the same is true for theoretical values. This may be
attributed to the consistency of measurement in the runs. It is thus deemed that the experiment was conducted as careful and
as accurate as possible, despite the errors observed.

IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This experiment dealt with the demonstration of the performance of a double pipe heat exchanger. The temperatures of
the hot and cold fluid streams were evaluated at different points along the heat exchanger. The heat exchanger was run in
countercurrent and co-current modes at 2 trials each, one at 40 psi and the other at 50 psi. The heat absorbed by the cold
fluid is calculated and compared with the heat released by the hot fluid. In addition to that, the calculated and measured
mean temperature difference were compared with each other in order to determine the consistency of the theoretical values
with experimental data. Lastly, from the data obtained, the overall heat transfer coefficients were determined and were
compared with the theoretical values computed using empirical equations.

The trends of the temperature of the cold and hot fluids for both co-current and countercurrent systems were found to be
linear at all cases except for the temperature data of the hot fluid on the co-current system operating at 40 psi. The linearity
of the trend proves the fact that the heat transfer between the cold and hot fluid encounters constant resistance along the pipe
length which allows heat transfer to occur uniformly, thereby producing a uniform change in the temperatures of the fluids
involved. Furthermore, it was also observed that the hot fluid temperature decreased with the cold fluid temperature along
the length of the pipe in a countercurrent system. On the other hand, for co-current operation, the cold fluid temperature
increased while the hot fluid temperature decreased along the length of the pipe. Both observations are valid and consistent
with expected theoretical trends. Graphing the temperature differences between the cold and hot fluid at different wells also
depicted a sufficiently linear trend which further supports the uniformity of heat transfer between the fluids involved. In
addition to that, it can also be concluded from the slopes of the graphs that a more pronounced temperature difference
between the hot and cold fluids can be obtained from a co-current system which is consistent with the observation that the
hot fluid starts at a hot temperature and the cold fluid starts at a cold temperature at well 1 and equilibrates at around well 7;
as opposed to the fact that at countercurrent operation, a more gradual temperature change can be encountered along the
pipe length. Analysis of the mean temperature differences of the system and how they compare with the logarithmic mean
and arithmetic mean temperature differences were also accomplished in this experiment. From the data, it can be concluded
that the logarithmic mean temperature differences are better alternatives for the mean temperature differences than the
arithmetic mean temperature differences. Furthermore, the data have shown that the arithmetic mean and logarithmic mean
temperature differences are close to each other for a countercurrent system that they are in a co-current system, which is
consistent with the observation that significant temperature changes can be encountered in a co-current system and a more
gradual temperature change can be found in a countercurrent system.

The heat loss and heat gained by the hot fluid and the cold fluid respectively, were also analyzed in the discussion. Heat
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[10]
loss to the surroundings were encountered in the experiment however, a large error was obtained for the co-current system
operating at 40 psi which can be attributed to the mass flow rate measurement error due to leaks in the system. Lastly, the
overall heat transfer coefficients for all the trials were determined using the temperature profile data obtained from the heat
exchanger. The heat transfer coefficients were found to be around 2000 W/m 2-°C except for the co-current system operating
at 40 psi. This error is consistent with the heat loss error which again, can be attributed to erroneous mass flow rate
measurements due to leaks. These heat transfer coefficient values were compared with computed theoretical values and the
errors were obtained. The theoretical heat transfer coefficients were found to be around 5000 W/m 2-°C, which is distant
from the experimental values. The large percentage errors can be attributed to the heat loss to the environment and to the
inefficiencies of the system. However, the precision of the theoretical values and the precision of the experimental values
computed both deem that the experiment was conducted consistently in every run. Cautiousness in the conduct of the
experiment and awareness of the key concepts led to the achievement of the set objectives.

V. INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION

The use of double pipe heat exchangers is adequately suitable for extreme temperature gradients, high pressure, high
temperature, and low to moderate surface area requirements [9]. For processes that require a hot fluid outlet temperature
below the cold fluid outlet temperature, a hairpin heat exchanger is the most efficient design that results into fewer sections
involved and less surface area. This type of heat exchanger is a modification of a double pipe heat exchanger that optimizes
surface area and the amount of heat transferred [10].

One such application of double pipe heat exchangers is for the pasteurization of milk in food industries. Temperature is
controlled accurately through the use of double pipe heat exchangers in order to provide milk at the desired designated
temperatures for downstream unit operations. With this arrangement, software such as MapleSim [11] can then be used for
modelling both the plant and the controller to properly manipulate the operation and/or the heat exchanger system. Other
applications include digester heating, heat recovery, pre-heating, and effluent cooling across several chemical, food
processing, and oil and gas industries [12].

INDIVIDUAL OBSERVATIONS

[Catapang, J.] I observed that to measure the flow rate should be done carefully because the reading changes quite
fast and the valve must be controlled at the right time to avoid flooding.

[Chan, C.] The temperature gradients were larger for countercurrent configuration. It seems that a change in
pressure had minimal difference between the effectiveness of the two configurations.

[Garces, J.] For parallel configuration or co-current flow, temperatures decreased over time for the thermometers
measuring the hot water while the trend in a countercurrent configuration was the same. For the temperatures measuring
cold water, the temperature increased for parallel and decreased for countercurrent configuration.

[Lee, A.] The equipment was old and I expected that the errors of the values to be calculated would be large,
considering both the well temperatures and the fluid flowrates. There was also a leak in the valve.

[Liclican, S.] It is important to be both fast and accurate in recording the temperatures to avoid errors. Also, the
range of the temperature differences for a countercurrent system is smaller compared to a co-current system.

[Tiu, S.] For both co-current and counter-current flow operations, the temperatures were more stable at the high
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[11]
well numbers, and the difference between initial and final readings were high. Regarding the equipment, the flow rate was
hard to read accurately since the weighing tank is limited.

ANSWERS TO GUIDE QUESTIONS

1. Based on your findings, discuss the applicability of arithmetic mean and logarithmic temperature difference in double
pipe heat exchanger calculations. What affects accuracy?
The temperature profiles for the hot and cold streams in double pipe heat exchangers are exponential, and not
linear. Thus, it also follows that the temperature differences across the pipes are also not linear. Logarithmic mean
temperature difference is used in double pipe heat exchanger calculations to account for this. Arithmetic mean temperature
difference can be used for an easier calculation however, it will not be as accurate as when the logarithmic mean is used.

2. What are the possible causes for the difference in qc and qh? How would you minimize these errors?
One possible cause for the differences in Q c and Qh are caused by the fact that thermal efficiencies are less than 1.
This is because 100% conversion of heat to work does not happen in a real system. To minimize these errors, heat loss due
to the escape of heat from the system can be reduced through the use of an insulator.
3. Give your comments as to the validity of the theoretical and experimental overall heat transfer coefficients you obtained.
The deviation of the experimental overall heat transfer coefficients from the theoretical values may be attributed to
human and instrumental errors such as error in reading the temperature, or wear and tear in the heat exchanger system.

4. What are the problems you encountered in the operation of the double pipe heat exchanger? How did you overcome
these problems and what recommendations can you give to streamline or improve the use of such experiment?
One problem encountered by the group is communication. There were delays in the measurements because there
were instances of miscommunication between group members. A possible solution for this is that each group member
should remain focused and be aware on how much time has passed so that delays can be prevented.

5. Give the physical significance of NRe, NNu, and NPr in relation to heat transfer characteristics.
The Reynold’s number allows one to determine whether the flow of a fluid is laminar or turbulent. The Nusselt
number, defined as the convective to conductive heat transfer across or normal to the boundary, allows the comparison
between the conduction and convection heat transfer rates. The Prandtl number provides information about the thickness of
the thermal boundary layer versus hydrodynamic (velocity) boundary layer.

6. Discuss briefly the relative merits of countercurrent and co-current flow of fluids for the transfer of heat.
In a co-current flow, the hot and cold fluids enter at the same end, flow in the same direction, and leave at the same
end. In this case, the temperature of the cold outlet stream cannot exceed that of the hot outlet stream, and such, the heat
transfer is restricted by the temperature of the cold outlet stream. Meanwhile in countercurrent flow, the temperature of the
cold outlet steam can exceed that of the hot outlet stream and the heat transfer is restricted by the temperature of the cold
inlet stream. This results to a better heat recovery than a co-current design. However, for circumstances where one wants a
faster heat transfer or that the temperature of the cold fluid does not exceed a specific temperature, co-current flow is
preferred.

7. Give a summary of your findings and conclusions and give recommendations if any.
The temperature of both the hot and cold fluid decreases when a countercurrent flow was used. On the other hand,
for co-current flow, the temperature of the hot fluid decreases as the temperature of the cold fluid increased. There were also
differences in the experimental and computed heat transfer coefficients which can be attributed to human and instrumental
error.

Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[12]
REFERENCES

[1] Geankoplis, C. J. Principles of Transport Processes and Separation Processes, New Jersey, Pearson Education, Inc.,
2003.
[2] Olano, S. B. Experiments in Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics, 2 nd Ed. Manila, De La Salle University Press,
2005.
[3] deNevers, N. Fluid Mechanics, McGraw Hill, 1991
[4] Retrieved from https://www.brighthubengineering.com/hvac/64548-double-pipe-heat-exchanger-design/
[5] dela Cruz, J.C., Mabini, A.L. and Rizal, J.M. The youth of tomorrow. 2nd ed. Manila, Rex Bookstore Inc., 2011.
In press citations
[6] Hughes, K. W., Chin, C.S., Shieh, L.S. and Fang, D.G.M. The utilization of SiO 2 in ash as catalyst to lignite
combustion in a thermobalance reactor. Journal of Catalysis A (in press).
[7] Eggen, F.A. and Schack, R.T. Educational Psychology. 2nd Ed. New-York, Prentice-Hall Inc., 2002, pp. 34-48.
From the internet
[8] Available online at www.dost.gov.ph/en/coal.html
[9] Available online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/93197671/Double-Pipe-Heat-Exchanger
[10] Available online at https://www.kochheattransfer.com/products/brown-fintube-hairpin-heat-exchangers
[11] Available online at https://www.maplesoft.com/company/casestudies/Stories/heatexchanger.aspx
[12] Available online at http://allandroidsmart.altervista.org/double-pipe-heat-exchangers-applications-advantages/
[13] Available online at https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-density-specific-weight-d_595.html
[14] Available online at https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-liquid-gas-thermal-conductivity-temperature-
pressure-d_2012.html
[15] Available online at https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-dynamic-kinematic-viscosity-d_596.html
[16] Available online at https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-steam-Prandtl-number-d_2059.html

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Raw Data

Co-Current Flow Operation
Well Trial 1 Trial 2
Number TH (℃) TC (℃) TH (℃) TC (℃)
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[13]
 1 49.0 49.5 26.0 26.0 53.8 53.8 26.5 26.5
2 41.5 42.0 28.0 28.0 49.5 49.5 29.2 29.2
3 39.0 39.1 29.8 29.9 45.6 45.7 32.0 31.9
4 38.0 38.2 31.0 31.0 44.0 44.5 33.2 33.2
5 36.5 37.0 31.0 31.0 42.0 42.0 34.0 34.0
6 36.1 36.0 32.0 32.0 40.5 41.0 35.0 35.0
7 35.5 35.5 32.0 32.0 40.0 40.2 35.5 36.0
Flow Rate (kg/s) 0.4688 0.6696 0.3547 0.5117

Countercurrent Flow Operation

Well Trial 1 Trial 2
Number TH (℃) TC (℃) TH (℃) TC (℃)
1 45.5 43.5 33.0 33.0 58.0 57.5 36.8 39.0
2 43.0 41.7 32.0 31.5 54.8 54.0 36.0 36.0
3 41.0 39.5 31.1 30.8 50.0 50.1 31.8 33.5
4 39.5 38.0 29.8 29.0 48.2 48.0 32.0 32.0
5 37.8 36.5 28.0 28.0 44.0 45.0 29.5 29.5
6 36.1 35.0 27.0 27.0 41.0 42.0 28.0 28.0
7 34.5 34.2 26.0 26.0 39.0 40.0 26.0 26.0
Flow Rate (kg/s) 0.3487 0.4591 0.3517 0.4718

Appendix B. Temperature Parameters vs Length

Co-Current Flow Operation
Well Trial 1 Trial 2
Number T H (℃) T C (℃) T H (℃) TC (℃)
1 49.25 26.00 53.80 26.50
2 41.75 28.00 49.50 29.20
3 39.05 29.85 45.65 31.95
4 38.10 31.00 44.25 33.20
5 36.75 31.00 42.00 34.00
6 36.05 32.00 40.75 35.00
7 35.50 32.00 40.10 35.75
Flow Rate (kg/s) 0.4688 0.6696 0.3547 0.5117

Countercurrent Flow Operation

Well Trial 1 Trial 2
Number TH (℃) TC (℃) TH (℃) TC (℃)
1 44.50 33.00 57.75 37.90
2 42.35 31.75 54.40 36.00
3 40.25 30.95 50.05 32.65
4 38.75 29.40 48.10 32.00
5 37.15 28.00 44.50 29.50
6 35.55 27.00 41.50 28.00
7 34.35 26.00 39.50 26.00
Flow Rate (kg/s) 0.3487 0.4591 0.3517 0.4718

Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[14]
 Co-Current Countercurrent
Well Flow Operation Flow Operation
Numbe ΔT (℃) ΔT (℃)
r Trial Trial Trial Trial
1 2 1 2
1 23.25 27.30 11.50 19.85
2 13.75 20.30 10.60 18.40
3 9.20 13.70 9.30 17.40
4 7.10 11.05 9.35 16.10
5 5.75 8.00 9.15 15.00
6 4.05 5.75 8.55 13.50
7 3.50 4.35 8.35 13.50

Appendix C. Calculation of ΔTln Values of Heat Exchanger

Co-Current Countercurrent
Well Flow Operation Flow Operation
Numbe ΔT (℃) ΔT (℃)
r Trial Trial Trial Trial
1 2 1 2
1 23.25 27.30 11.50 19.85
7 3.50 4.35 8.35 13.50
ΔTln 10.43 12.49 9.841 16.47
(℃) 02 52 1 15

Appendix D. Calculation of qh and qc Values of Heat Exchanger

Co-Current Countercurrent
Flow Operation Flow Operation
Parameter
Trial Trial Trial Trial
1 2 1 2
0.468 0.354 0.348 0.351
mH (kg/s)
8 7 7 7
CP,H (J/kg- 4184. 4184. 4184. 4184.
℃) 0 0 0 0
ΔTH (℃) 13.75 13.70 10.15 18.25
0.669 0.511 0.459 0.471
mC (kg/s)
6 7 1 8
CP,C (J/kg- 4184. 4184. 4184. 4184.
℃) 0 0 0 0
ΔTC (℃) 6.00 9.25 7.00 11.90

Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[15]
Appendix E. Calculation of Experimental Ui Values of Heat Exchanger
Heat
Valu
Exchanger
e
Parameter
0.015
Di (m)
875
0.020
Do (m)
701
0.018
D́ (m) 288
0.004
xm (m)
826
km (W/m-℃) 109
L (m) 15.24

Co-Current Countercurrent
Paramet Flow Operation Flow Operation
er
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 1 Trial 2
26970. 20331. 14808. 26855.
qH (J/s)
06 69 45 11
0.7600 0.7600 0.7600 0.7600
Ai (m2)
61 61 61 61
10.430 12.495 16.471
ΔTln (℃) 9.8411
2 2 5

Appendix F. Calculation of Theoretical Ui Values of Heat Exchanger

Co-Current Countercurrent
Parameter Flow Operation Flow Operation
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 1 Trial 2
Inside Pipe (hot, TH)
Exchanger and Operating Parameters
0.0158 0.0158 0.0158 0.0158
Deq,i (m)
75 75 75 75
Tb,i (˚C) 42.375 46.95 39.425 48.625
mH (kg/s) 0.4688 0.3547 0.3487 0.3517
2368.4 1792.0 1761.7 1776.8
Gi (kg/m2-s)
83 24 11 67
Properties at Tb,i
ρi (kg/m3) 991.32 989.41 992.47 988.67
μi (cP) 0.6259 0.5769 0.6610 0.5604
ki (W/m-K) 0.6314 0.6369 0.6278 0.6389
Pri 4.1436 3.7870 4.4006 3.6675
CP,i (kJ/kg-K) 4.18 4.1809 4.1796 4.1812
Outside Pipe (cold, TC)
Exchanger and Operating Parameters:
Deq,o (m) 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110 0.0110
Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[16]
 49 49 49 49
Tb,o (˚C) 29 31.125 29.5 31.95
mC (kg/s) 0.6696 0.5117 0.4591 0.4718
6983.6 5336.7 4788.1 4920.6
Go (kg/m2-s)
04 84 91 46
Properties at Tb,o
ρo (kg/m3) 995.96 995.33 995.82 995.07
μo (cP) 0.8141 0.7785 0.8055 0.7653
ko (W/m-K) 0.6129 0.6161 0.6137 0.6172
Pro 5.5527 5.2818 5.4868 5.1830
CP,o (kJ/kg-K) 4.1804 4.18 4.1803 4.18

Cruz, Dela Cruz, Francisco(your last names only) Dr. Lawrence P. Belo
[17]