I.

OBJECTIVES
To investigate the principles of heat transfer in a concentric heat exchanger using parallel

and countercurrent flow conditions. Calculations for power emitted by the hot stream and power
absorbed by the cold stream are used to calculate power lost and efficiency of the apparatus. An
overall heat transfer coefficient is calculated and compared at varying liquid flow rates and inlet
hot stream temperatures.

VI.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Experiment A THEORY???:
It should be noted that the density and head capacity is varying with temperature in this
section. As a result, for our calculations for heat power emitted and heat power absorbed, we
used heat capacity and density values based off of the average temperature of their respective
streams.
One of the possible errors in our experimental data could be due to the flowmeters. The cold
stream flow source is the faucets in the lab and as a result the flow rate in the cold stream
fluctuated significantly. The flow rate of the cold stream varied by approximately .1 L/s;
however, if unchecked, overtime the flow rate would slowly increase or decrease by nearly 1 L/s
and as a result the flow rate often had to be readjusted and several trials had to be redone.
Experiment C:
Figure X shows the inlet, mid-point and outlet temperatures for Experiment C. With a
constant hot/cold stream flow rate, the temperature controller for the hot stream is set to 50C
and increased by increments of five degrees for each run up to 65 C.

70

70

60

60
Hot Stream(Hin = 50C)

50

50

Cold Stream (Hin = 50C)

Hot Stream (Hin = 55C)

Temperature (C)
40

40

30

30

Cold Stream (Hin = 55C)

Hot Stream (Hin = 60C)
Cold Stream (Hin = 60 C)
Hot Stream (Hin = 65C)
Cold Stream (Hin = 65 C)

20
0.00

0.75

20
1.50

Distance (m)

Figure X: Average inlet, midpoint, and outlet temperatures for the hot and cold streams at
varying hot inlet stream temperatures.
The variance between the inlet, outlet, and midpoint temperatures in trials 1 and 2 is
minimal, with the average difference in temperature being .15 C. Across both trials, as Hin
increases so do the midpoint and outlet temperatures of the hot and cold streams (Necessary?).
As stated in the theory section, using the temperature differences found in Figure X,
values for heat power emitted, absorbed, and lost are calculated. These values are shown in Table
XX.
Table XX: The average head power emitted, absorbed, and lost as well as the efficiency, log
mean temperatures, and the overall heat transfer coefficient at varying hot inlet temperatures.
H Set
Temperatur
e

Log Mean
Temperatur
e

Heat
Power
Emitted

Heat
Power
Absorbe
d

W
C
50

C
18.38

765.91

Heat
Power
Lost
W

W
957.04

191.13

Heat
Power
Efficienc
y

%
124.96

Overall
Heat
Transfer
Coefficien
t, U
W/m2*K
774.07

55
60
65

22.53
26.04
29.49

943.43
1168.60
1371.28
5

1255.24
1456.36
1664.41
2

311.81
287.77
293.12
7

133.05
124.63
121.38

825.32
828.65
836.18

The heat power emitted and heat power absorbed both increased as inlet hot stream
temperature increased. Given the cold inlet stream is constant, as hot stream inlet temperature
increases, there is a greater temperature gradient between the hot stream and the cold stream. As
a result, the power emitted and absorbed is greater at greater inlet hot stream temperature.
Considering all heat power lost values calculated, there is no noticeable trend among all the heat
power lost values; however, at hot stream inlet temperatures above 50C, as temperature
increases, the heat power lost increases.
Using these power calculations, overall efficiency of the heat exchanger is calculated for
the different hot power inlet temperatures. Similar to previous experiments, the heat power
absorbed is greater than the heat power emitted and as a result, the overall efficiencies are greater
100%. There are no overall trend between efficiency and hot stream inlet temperature; however,
above 55C, efficiency decreased as inlet hot stream temperature increased.
Using the power absorbed and the log mean temperatures shown in Table XX, overall
heat transfer coefficient, U, is calculated and shown in Table XX. At hot inlet stream
temperatures above 55C, the average U value is .83 W/m2*K with a very low variance of
0.00408. For an inlet hot stream of 50C, however, the overall heat transfer coefficient values for
trial 1 and 2 are .76 W/m2*K and .79 W/m2*K. Similar to the previous trends, as inlet hot
stream temperature increases, greater heat transfer occurs and as a result, greater values for U are
calculated.
The temperature efficiencies are calculated for the cold medium and the hot medium and
used to calculate the mean temperature efficiency. These temperature efficiencies are shown in
Table XXX.
Table XXX: The average hot and cold stream efficiencies and the mean temperature efficiency at
hot inlet flow rate varying temperatures.

H Set
Temp
C
50
55
60
65

Cold
Stream
Efficienc
y
C
%
28.11
29.67
29.54
29.63

Hot
Stream
Efficienc
y
H
%
22.61
22.46
23.91
24.69

Mean
Temperatur
e
Efficiency
mean
%
25.36
26.07
26.72
27.16

The average cold stream efficiency is 29.24% and the average hot stream efficiency is
23.42%. The average of mean temperature efficiency values is 26.3275%. Overall, the
temperature difference between the outlet and inlet streams was greatest for the cold stream. As a
result, the cold stream efficiency values were significantly higher than the hot stream efficiency
values. As the temperature of the inlet hot stream temperature increases, the hot and cold stream
efficiencies increased and as a result, the mean temperature efficiencies increase. This trend
holds true for almost all values for trials 1 and 2; however, the hot stream efficiency for trial 1 at
50C has a slightly higher efficiency than the hot stream efficiency at 55C.
ERROR DOES NOT COMPUTE:
There were several noticeable faults in the design of the apparatus that could
result in this error. While most of the exchanger is relatively well insulted, there is copper piping
exposed to the air between the insulated area and the thermometer. For the hot stream in
particular, this uninsulated piping could potentially lose heat to the environment and enter the
heat exchanger at a lower temperature than measured by the thermometer. Another potential
source of error could be due to the inaccuracy of the cold stream flow rate meter. The source of
the colds stream was external and as a result, was frequently fluctuating by +/- .1 L/min.
The greatest observable error in every experiment conducted was the abnormally large
efficiency values. Every efficiency value calculated for every experiment performed is above
100%. There are several possible reasons for this abnormally high efficiency. Given efficiency is
power absorbed divided by power emitted, either the calculated values for power absorbed is
abnormally large, or the calculated power emitted is too small. As stated in the theory section, U

is equal to the heat power absorbed divided by the heat transmission area and the log mean
temperature difference. Given our calculated power value range from 583.366 to 1028.266
W/m2*K and the literature values of U between water and water is 850 to 1700 W/m2*K[], we
conclude that the error in the efficiencies is due to small calculated heat power emitted. It should
be noted that the literature values stray from the calculated values as the literature values do not
take into account the heat transfer across the piping in a heat exchanger.
Assuming that the high efficiency calculation is due to the calculated power emitted and
that the values for heat capacity, density, and change in hot stream temperature are correct, it is
assumed that the error lies with our hot stream flow rate. As seen in Figure , the flow rate is
measured using a rotameter and these devices have inherent disadvantages compared to other
flow measuring devices. As a fluid, in this case water, travels through the rotameter, a float is
pushed upward by the drag force from the fluid against the force of gravity to the calibrated
height that represents the respective flow rate. The density of the float must be properly
calibrated in order to display the correct flow rate. It is possible that the density of the float was
not properly calibrated and therefore and incorrect flow rate is displayed. Another possible fault
in the flow meter readings could be due to the viscosity and density of the water. Given that
viscosity and density are functions of temperature, as temperature increases, the viscosity and
density of water decreases. Drag force is a function of density and viscosity [], and therefore, a
decrease in viscosity leads to a decrease in drag force []. Drag force is the force that counteracts
gravity and pushes the float to the correct flow rate value. The lower force on the float will lead
to a lower observed flow rate than the actual flow rate of the hot stream and therefore a lower
calculated heat power emitted. We were unable to use any other method to measure the actual
flow rate; however, future experiments could use different methods to allow for more accurate
flow rate readings.
Experiment C:
As temperature of the inlet hot stream increases, the heat power absorbed, heat power
emitted, and the overall heat transfer coefficient, U, increases. The greater temperature gradient
between the constant cold inlet stream and the increased hot inlet stream result in a greater
amount of heat transferring between streams; and therefore greater power values. At inlet hot
stream temperatures above 50C, as inlet hot stream temperature increases, heat power lost

increases and efficiency decreases; however, there was no noticeable trend when the values at all
inlet hot stream temperatures are taken into account.