Double Effect Evaporator

Chen 3401W: Junior Chemical

Engineering Laboratory

Section 002, Group 1

Instructor: Raul Caretta

February 6th, 2017

Planner: Alex Karczewski
Experimenter: Macallum Brabender
Analyzer: Cecelia Rivera
Abstract:
The Uni-Minn Development Corporation was approached by a potential client
with the hopes of concentrating their 75,000 gallons of 10 wt% aqueous sodium
hydroxide solution into 40 wt% using our laboratorys double-effect evaporator. To
provide them a time frame for the concentration, data was collected using water as the
working fluid and then applied to the scale-up design with the aqueous sodium
hydroxide.
The evaporation of water on the forward feed, double-effect evaporator was
analyzed by looking at flow rates, pressures, and temperatures to be later to apply to the
sodium hydroxide system. By conducting mass balances for the system, the double-
effect evaporator could be monitored to determine when steady state operation was
reached. The pressures of the disengaging chambers were measured to determine the
change in boiling point in each effect for the sodium hydroxide. The temperatures in and
out of the two effects and condenser were used to calculate their respective overall heat
transfer coefficients. The double-effect evaporator was operated using 25 PSIG steam
and 2.52 0.03 lb/min of water when the evaporator was determined to be approaching
steady state. Also, the condenser was setup so that a cold water entering the condenser
exited about 68F warmer; the operation of the condenser having a large change in
temperature was important in allowing the system to reach steady state operation.
Using the steady state operation data, the overall heat transfer coefficient were
calculated as 219 50 BTU/(ft2Fh), 479 589 BTU/(ft2Fh), 4.47 0.19 BTU/(ft2Fh)
for the first and second effect and the condenser, respectively.
If the eventual task was under taken, the current process would need to be
updated with additional storage tanks, pumps, pipes, and valves. Onsite storage would
be needed for the starting material and the concentrated product. Two, vertical-
standing, stainless steel tanks would have to be placed next to the liquid nitrogen tank
on the north side of Amundson Hall. The first tank would have to be similar to the
75,000 Gallon Wolfe Stainless Steel Tank[1] while the second tank would have to be able
to hold at least 1405.43 gallons of product, such as a 20,000 gallon tank from Heritage
equipment.[2] Two centrifugal pumps would also be added to feed the starting materials
from the storage tank to the first effect and to take product away from the second effect
and into the product storage tank. These pumps were sized as 0.014 hp and 0.00029
hp for the starting material and product respectively. Two sets of stainless steel piping
would also be installed to carry the solutions three stories (about 10 feet) and then
laterally to the double-effect evaporator. Using experimental data gathered for scale-up,
it was determined to take 40.6 days to concentrate the 75,000 gallons of starting
materials to 40 wt% sodium hydroxide solution.
Some recommendations to be applied to the new system would include
increasing the flow feed rate to reach a new steady state operating level. By increasing
the flow rate the sodium hydroxide, not only will the process be completed sooner, but
the risk of the evaporator scaling and fouling from the sodium hydroxide. It is still
recommend to use the forward feed evaporator for its effective use of the steam and
ability to reduce the pressure and energy needed to concentrate the final product in the
second effect. Providing insulation for the double-effect evaporator would also increase
heating efficiency, but new steady state operating conditions would need to be
calculated.

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
1
Table of Contents:
1 Technical Background...3
1.1 Objective..3
1.2 Experimental Theory.3
1.3 Additional Operating Theory.4
1.4 Confirming Steady State Operation4
1.5 Design Theory7
1.6 Error Propagation...8
2 Procedure9
2.1 Description of Apparatus and Experimental Procedure...9
3 Results...15
3.1 Calculated Results...15
3.2 Final Results.17
4 Discussion.19
4.1 Mass Balances and Steady State Determination...19
4.2 Heat Loss..19
4.3 Overall Heat Transfer Coefficients19
4.4 Accuracy and Precision..19
4.5 Conclusions and Recommendations19
5 Scale-up Design...20
5.1 Safety.20
5.2 Apparatus Changes.20
5.3 Steady State Operation..22
5.4 Overall Heat Transfer Coefficients22
6 Nomenclature24
7 References26
Appendix...27
8 Original Data Sheets27
9 Sample Calculations29
10 Error and Uncertainty Analysis38
11 Design Problem Calculations...42
12 Data Transfer Sheet..51

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
2
1 | Technical Background

1.1 | Objective. A client has approached the Uni-Minn Development Corporation with
the task to determine how long it take concentrate 75,000 gallons of 10 wt% aqueous
sodium hydroxide solution in a 40 wt% solution using our double-effect evaporator.
Experimental data was collected using water, but the scaled-up design will take into
account the use of an aqueous sodium hydroxide solution as the working fluid. Other
additions needed to transform the pilot plant into the desired process plant, along with
recommendations, were asked for.

1.2 | Experimental Theory. The double-effect evaporator is commonly used to

concentrate a feed stream by harnessing the energy of a heating element to boil away
solvent. The vapor and liquid are then separated, leaving behind a more concentrated
product. While during the running of the experiment, water is being used and, therefore,
cannot be concentrated, when the scale-up is designed, water will be evaporated from
the sodium hydroxide solution to concentrate it. A basic process flow diagram for the
pilot double-effect evaporation is shown below:

Figure 1.2.1 | Diagram for the Pilot Double-Effect Evaporator. This diagram labels
the major components of the Double-Effect Evaporator being used for collecting data.
This evaporator consists of two heat exchangers, the first vertical and the second
horizontal.

The double-effect evaporator consists of two effects and each effect is made up of a
heat exchange and a disengaging chamber. In the first effect, the heat exchanger is
vertical while the second effects heat exchanger is horizontal. Other relevant pieces of
equipment present include rotameters, recirculating pump, condenser, condensate
receiver, vacuum pump, steam traps on each of the heat exchanges, a liquid level

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
3
controller in the first disengaging chamber, and a calorimeter on the piping near the
steam.
The vertical position of the first effect allows for the use of natural convection to move
the fluid, forcing the flow to go up through the heat exchanger and negating a need for a
pump. Steam is used to boil the liquid in the first heat exchanger before being expelled
from the system using a steam trap. The vapor-liquid mixture then separate in the first
disengaging chamber with the vapor rising and providing the heat in the second heat
exchanger and liquid being separate by natural convection. The liquid that is not
recycled is sent through a rotameter before joining with the liquid from the second
disengaging chamber. A circulating pump is used to this fluid through the second heat
exchanger where the vapor of the first disengaging chamber heats the liquid before
being expelled from the system through another steam trap. Vapor separated in the
second disengaging chamber is then condensed by running it through condenser being
chilled with a separate stream of cold water. This condensate is then stored in a
receiver. When a solution other than water is present in the evaporator, it reaches the
second effect at a higher concentration than the first effect, resulting at an increased
boiling point. Since the vapor from the first disengaging chamber can only provide so
much energy, a vacuum pump was used to decrease the overall pressure in the second
disengaging chamber to lower the boiling point allowing the vapor to boil the liquid. The
rate of condensation was controlled by the operating of the cold water feed to the
condenser. The higher the flow rate through the condenser, the more cold water was
used to condense vapors from the second disengaging chamber, creating a larger
decrease in pressure.
In addition to the water flow rate to the condenser, the flow rate from the first
disengaging chamber into the second heat exchanger and operating pressure of the
steam heating the first effect were able to be controlled to influence changes in the
measured variables of temperature, pressures, and flow rates in and out of the effects
while achieving steady state operating conditions.

1.3 | Additional Operating Theory. The aforementioned liquid level controller (LLC),
steam traps, and calorimeter contribute to the operation of the evaporator.
The LLC controls the liquid level in the first disengaging chamber, using a
pneumatic actuator. The system monitors a difference in the supply of compressed air
and a set output pressure by the level controller, a diaphragm can be depressed to close
the valve to the effect or allow water to pass through to the fill the effect.
There is a steam trap on each of the effects to prevent the steam from flowing
through of the heat exchanger. Instead, it only allows condensate and non-condensable
gases to escape through its automatic dispersal process. By expelling the condensate,
the latent heat of the steam can be used to maintain high heating efficiency between
steam and liquid as well. The liquid from the steam traps can also be measured with a
stop watch and bucket to determine the condensing rate for both heat exchangers.
To determine the useful energy in the steam being added to the first heat
exchanger, an insulated calorimeter is used to calculate its composition. Since the
steam contains some moisture, the dryness was calculated by preforming a Joule-
Thomson expansion by throttling the feed stream through the insulated calorimeter and
into the laboratory. Since this expansion is isenthalpic and an adiabatic process, a heat
balance can be used to calculate the dryness of the steam using the conditions before
the expansion and the measured temperature and pressure of the laboratory.

1.4 | Confirming Steady State Operation. By analyzing the mass flows rates in and out
of the effects, steady state would be able to be observed. By constructing the following

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
4
mass balances and showing that no accumulation was present in either effect, the rate
at which the streams enter the effect must be equal to the rate that they leave:
Accumulation =m3m7m9 (1)
Accumulation =m1+m4 m2m5 (2)
Accumulation =m5m6m7 (3)

where mi indicates the mass flow rate of the stream relating to the process flow diagram.
Equations (1), (2), and (3) are mass balances on the first effect, heat exchanger, and
disengaging chamber respectively. In equation (1), if the system reaches steady state,
the flow rates of m1 and m2 would be equal and therefore not shown in the overall mass
balance for effect one. A similar set of equations was created for the second effect:

Accumulation =m9m13 (4)

Accumulation =m10+m7m11 m12 (5)
Accumulation=m12m13m14 (6)
m10=m9 +m14 (7)

Equations (4), (5), (6), and (7) are mass balances on the second effect, heat exchanger,
disengaging chamber, and the flow into the second heat exchanger where the flow from
the first disengaging chamber and recycle from the second disengaging chamber meet.
Mass balances on the condenser can also be formed, but at steady state the inlets
would equal the outlets as there is no mixing of the streams. By combining the overall
mass balances on each effect, a total system mass balance is formed with quantities
that can be measured if steady state is achieved:

Accumulation=m3m11m17 (9)

Equation (9) states that the total accumulation in the system is equal to the feed flow
entering the first effect subtracted by the vapor flow rates leaving the system.
In addition to mass balances on the effects and their components, energy
balances can be formed. By using steam tables to determine enthalpy values for the
liquid and vapor and various temperatures and pressures of the system and mass flow
rates, heat losses can be determined. For the first effect, the energy balances are as
follows:

m1 H 1 +m3 H 3 =m2 H 2 +m7 H 7 +m9 H 9 +Q1 (10)

m1 H 1 +m4 H 4 =m2 H 2 +m5 H 5 +Q HE 1 (11)
m5 H 5=m6 H 6 +m7 H 7+Q DC 1 (12)
Qi=Q HEi +Q DCi (13)
In the heat balances, the variable H followed by a subscript is the enthalpy at the
temperature and pressure of the stream which the subscript relates, Qi is the total heat
loss of the effect and QHEi and QDCi are the heat losses from the heat exchanger and
disengaging chamber for which the i relates. These balances were likewise created for
the second effect:

m7 H 7 +m9 H 9=m11 H 11 +m13 H 13 +Q2 (14)

m7 H 7 +m10 H 10 =m11 H 11 + m12 H 12+Q HE 2 (15)
m12 H 12=m13 H 13 + m14 H 14 +Q DC2 (16)

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
5
An energy balance was also performed on the condenser:

m13 H 13+ m15 C P , H 2O T 15=m16 C P , H 2 O T 16 +m17 H 17 +QC (17)

For these energy balances, the heat loss from the lengths of pipes connecting the heat
exchangers and disengaging chambers to each other were neglected as their magnitude
would be reasonably small compared to the heat losses from the heat exchanger and
disengaging chamber. Heat losses in the heat exchanger and disengaging chamber
were calculate by:

Q i=Q Conv +Q Rad =Q Conv + hr A Shell (T Surface T Lab ) (18), [3, 304]
T Surface 4 T Lab 4

hr = ( 0.1714)
(100 ) ( )

100
(19), [3, 304]

T Surface T Lab

where the total heat loss of an apparatus is the sum of its convective and radiative heat
losses, QConv and QRad. These heat losses were then calculated by multiplying the
radiative heat transfer coefficients, hr, by the area of the shell, AShell, multiplied by the
difference in temperature between the surface, TSurface, and lab room, TLab. By subtracting
the radiative heat loss from the total heat loss, a proportion relating the surface areas
and convective heat losses was created. Equation (19) was used to calculate the
radiative heat transfer coefficient as a function of temperatures and emissivity of the
apparatus, .
By first preforming an overall energy balance, the heat lost from the effect could
be calculated. Then by substituting the mass balances into combined energy balances
and calculating heat losses, the enthalpy of the flow coming out of the heat exchanger
could be calculated. By comparing the difference of enthalpy values between inlet and
outlet of the working fluid, the heat transferred to the liquid in the heat exchanger could
be calculated:

q HE 1=m 5 (H 5H 4 ) (20)
q HE 2=m12 (H 12H 10 ) (21)
qC =m 15 C P , H 2 O (T 16T 15 ) (22)

where qi is the heat transferred to the liquid entering the heat exchanger. In equation
(22) the approximate heat loss from the condenser is zero due to the hot fluid being on
the tube side and the cold fluid absorbing almost all of the heat lost by the steam. By
determining the heat transferred to the liquid, the overall heat transfer coefficients can be
calculated:

q (23)[3, 294]
U=
A FT T lm
( T hiT co ) (T hoT ci ) (24)[3, 293]
T lm =
T T co
ln [ hi ]
T hoT ci

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
6
where U is the defined as the overall heat transfer coefficient, A is the surface area
available for heat transfer, FT is a correction factor depending on the geometry of the
heat exchanger, and Tlm is the log mean temperature difference across the heat
exchanger. The temperatures in the log mean equation refer to the hot stream and cold
stream, h and c, as well as in and out, i and o. An outside source was consulted to find
a theoretical overall heat transfer coefficients for heat exchangers and condensers,
stating values for heat exchangers using steam as the hot fluid and water for the cold
fluid ranging from 350-750 Btu/(ft2*F*h) and for a condenser using water to condense
steam as 300-600 Btu/(ft2*F*h).[4]
To determine energy available from the steam in the first effect, the dryness of
the steam was calculated from measurements from the calorimeter

H hC P ,Sat Steam (t 2t 1) (25)[5, 129]

X=
L

where X is the weight of moisture in the steam, H is total heat 1 pound steam at boiler
pressure, h is total heat of 1 pound steam at atmospheric pressure, CP,Sat Steam is the
specific heat of saturated steam at atmospheric pressure, t2 is the temperature of
superheated steam at atmospheric pressure, t1 is the temperature of saturated steam at
atmospheric pressure, and L is latent heat of steam at boiler pressure.

1.5 | Design Theory. When factoring in the change to sodium hydroxide, two additional
balances can be made in the form of solute balances on the two effects:

m3 x 3=m 9 x 9 (26)
m9 x 9=mP x P (27)
where x subscript represents the weight percent of sodium hydroxide in the respective
stream. In equation (14) the subscript P represent a stream added after the second
disengaging chamber, but before the addition on m8, where concentrated product can be
taken from the system. The heat transfer coefficients will also change once the working
fluid is changed to sodium hydroxide. However, using the different physical properties of
the two solutions and making engineering approximations, it can be said that:

U NaOH =f (U H 2 O ) (28)

To relate the overall heat transfer coefficients, the individual ones must first be
compared. From approximating the velocity of the water entering the heat exchangers
during the experiment, the flow was determined to be laminar. Despite physical
differences between to the two solutions, the sodium hydroxide solution can be
approximated to express a Reynolds number still within the laminar regime. The
following correlation can then be used to connect the heat transfer coefficients of the
working fluids.

ha D D 1 /3 b
0.14 (29)[3, 261]
N Nu = =1.86(N N Pr ) ( )
k L w

where NNu is the Nusselt number, ha is the average heat transfer coefficient, D is the pipe
diameter, k is the thermal conductivity, NRe and NPr are the Reynolds and Prandtl

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
7
numbers, and b and w are the viscosities of the fluid evaluate for the bulk and at the
wall. The Reynolds and Prandtl numbers can be describe as the following:
Dv (30)[3, 261]
N =

C (31)[3, 261]
N Pr = P
k

where v is the velocity of the liquid, is the density, is the viscosity, and Cp is the
specific heat of the solution. After new U values are calculated with the correlated
sodium hydroxide heat transfer coefficients to determine temperatures of streams and
then used in energy and mass balances to determine flow rates.
The two pumps needed for scale-up will also be sized using an overall mechanical
energy balance for an incompressible liquid:

1 2 P (32), [6, 2]
( 2 )
v + g z + m=

E
W s v

where represents out minus in, g is gravity, h is the height, P is pressure, m is

the mass flow rate, Ws is the shaft work and Ev is the viscous loss. Equation (16) relates
the total shaft needed to change the energy of the fluid, so efficiency will also factor in
when deciding the pump to choose.

1.6 | Error Propagation. As measurements and calculations were made, error was
propagated based on the following series of equations depending on how the values
were used. Standard deviation and mean of a set of values are described as:

(33)
s=

( x x )2
x
n1
(34)
x =
n

where the standard deviation of the samplings, s, is described by the square root, of the
sum of differences between measured values, x, subtracted by x , the mean of data
set, squared, and then divided by n, the number of sample taken, minus one. The mean
of a data set is describe by the summing of all data points, divided by the number of
times sampled. To determine the uncertainty of a measurement:
s (35)
u=
n
where is the uncertainty of a measurements is u. The uncertainty of different calculation
methods was determined as follows:

Where z = f(x), z =|f ' ( x)| x (36)

Where q = F G, q= F 2+ G2 (37)
(38)
Where q = (A*B)/C,

q=q (
A 2 B 2 C 2
A
) +( ) +( )
B C

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
8
 x U (39)
Where X = ln(U), x=
U

In the previous equation is describe as the uncertainty used for a calculation which is
different than the uncertainty of a measurement, u.

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
9
2 | Description of Apparatus and Experimental Procedure

2.1 | Description of Equipment and Fluid Flow. The experimental process that
modeled the concentration of a sodium hydroxide solution occurred in a double effect
evaporator which utilized heat exchangers in series. Two heat exchangers and a
condenser, along with corresponding chambers, are the main components of the
system. The experimental system used water as a working fluid to prevent the corrosion
of pipes and to minimize safety concerns.

Figure 2.1.1 | Experimental Process Flow Diagram. The water and steam enter the
first heat exchanger and vaporized water exits the disengaging chamber and was used
as the heating fluid in the second heat exchanger. Vapor from the second chamber was
cooled in the condenser.

Flow through the system started with superheated steam entering the first heat
exchanger as the heating fluid in the shell side and the steam left the system as a
saturated liquid. The reason the heating fluid was used in the shell instead of the tubes
is due to maintenance of the heat exchanger. Sodium hydroxide solution is corrosive to
metals and when cleaning heat exchangers it is easier to force water through tubes to
clean them instead of cleaning the shell from the inside. The water modeling the sodium
hydroxide solution was feed through a rotameter and a globe control valve that was
controlled via pneumatics and a liquid level controller. The liquid level controller operates
with a float that was set to keep the water level in the first effect constant. Air pressure
into the liquid controller operated the float and output air pressure to the globe control
valve controlled the feed rate to the first effect. The vapor created in the first effect was
used to heat the circulating liquid in the second effect through the shell side due to the
maintenance concerns mentioned before. Once the vapor in the second effect was

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
10
condensed to saturated liquid, it left the system. A second control valve, after the second
effect rotameter, was used to control the amount of liquid leaving the first effect and
entering the second. Vaporized water from the second effect was condensed in the
condenser and was left to accumulate in the condensate receiver. Liquid from the
second condenser was recirculated by the circulating pump, after the stream joined with
the second effect feed. The vapor from the second effect was collected and captured in
the condensate receiver.
The main equipment used in the experiment are a vertical heat exchanger with a
disengaging chamber, a horizontal heat exchanger with a disengaging chamber, and a
condenser which ran in respective order with a forward feed. All the equipment in the
experiment are uninsulated, leading to heat loses. With the valve in stream 8 open, the
first effect ran under natural circulation, which occurs because of current density. Heat
exchanger one had to be in the vertical position for natural circulation to work. The
second effect, because of the horizontal heat exchanger, ran under forced circulation
which used the circulating pump to pump liquid water into the second heat exchanger.
Forced circulation creates a large pressure behind the fluid which was why the second
heat exchanger could be orientated in a horizontal manner. The condenser was used to
saturate and condense the vapor exiting the second effect. The last main piece of
equipment was a vacuum pump which was used to decrease the pressure in the second
effect. Since the vapor from the first effect was used as the heating fluid in the second
heat exchanger, the boiling point of the water in the second effect could not be the same
as in the first effect or no heat transfer would have occurred. Since the heating fluid
temperature could not be increased, and the volume of the reactor was constant, the
only way to change the boiling point of the water in the second effect was to change the
pressure, specifically, to lower the pressure which would induce a lower the boiling point.
The 1750 rpm vacuum pump allowed the system to operate. To analyze the processes
that were modeled in the double effect evaporator experiment, thermocouples were
utilized to in both chambers and in most of the streams as labeled in Figure 2.1.1. The
pressure gauges used were blown before being used to clean out the pressure lines and
to zero the gauges which measure the difference in pressure compared to that of the
atmosphere. The pressure gauges in Figure 2.1.1 were utilized to determine boiling
points of the water. The rotameters were used to find the flow rates into each effect and
the condenser microsystems. Rotameter outputs were then computed to actual flow
rates with the use of calibration curves that were completed by Jake Bates in 2006.

Start-up Procedure. To begin, the water modeling the sodium hydroxide solution
needed to be input into the system, mainly, the two disengaging chambers. For the water
to fill the effects, the valves needed to be correctly position so that no water was lost.
The first thing done was the closure of all the drain valves and to blow the pressure
gauges and close them. Then, the liquid level controller air pressure was opened so that
the controller and the controller valve were both in operation and that the water flow was
routed through the controller globe valve. To fill both disengaging chambers, the first
rotameter was bypassed and the chambers were directly filled with the inlet water. After
the tanks were filled, the inlet stream was routed through the first feed rotameter, which
then connected to the first heat exchanger via the globe controlling valve. The piping
was then arranged to go through the second effect feed rotameter and the valve right
after this rotameter was used to control the flow from the first to the second effect. This
control valve was kept shut to keep the water in each effect. The piping was also
configured to force flow through the condenser rotameter between the condenser and
the condensate receiver.
After the effects were filled and the piping and valves were configured, the steam

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
11
valve was opened and was set to input steam at 25 PSIG. After the steam pressure was
set, the 2 horsepower Underwriters Laboratories circulating pump and the 1750 rpm
vacuum pump were turned on. Keeping the flow from the first to the second effect closed
during the initial startup period was used to get the water to steady state operating
temperatures and to prevent the over accumulation of water in the second disengaging
chamber and having to restart due to overfilling. As the temperatures rose and
evaporation in the second effect began, as determined by the water level in the second
disengaging chamber decreasing, the controlling valve was slowly opened to control the
flow from the first to the second effect. The control valve was slightly increased until the
flow rate into the second effect approximately matched the flow rate of vapor leaving the
second effect. This approached the end of the start-up phase and transitioned to the
operation phase of the system.

Operating adjustments and the Attainment of Steady State. Attainment of steady-

state in a chemical reactor process is never perfectly attainable, so steady state
approximations and criteria were made for equations to be useful and to get the
consumer an estimation on the time it would take to complete his/her order. The first
criterion that was met for steady state to be reached in the system was that the steam
inlet pressure was kept constant at 25 PSIG. Keeping the steam at a constant pressure
keeps the input of steam constant, which in turn keeps the heat transfer in the first effect
constant. If the input of steam was not constant, there would be differences in heat flow
into the system which leads to differences in evaporation and accumulation in the
system. The next criterion was that the flow into and out of each effect and the overall
mass balance was approximately zero. Qualitatively, this was approximated by visually
keeping the level of water in the second effect constant. Quantitatively, the mass
balances were taken and calculated after qualitatively seeing that there was no
accumulation in the second effect. This was calculated by subtracting the measured flow
out from the measured flow in. Steady-state was determined by the calculations
previously stated and the measurements closest to a net balance of zero were used.
Adjustments made during the operation of the double effect evaporator
experiment include adjustments for steady state obtainment and adjustments due to
accumulation in the condensate receiver. The biggest adjustment that was made during
the experiment was to adjust the flow of water from the first to the second effect. This
was done by using the controlling valve located after the second effect feed rotameter.
Slight adjustments needed for the second effect feed rate were done last to account for
all other changes in the system because the flow of vapor out was not controlled in this
experiment. Other adjustments that were made during the lab include emptying the
condensate receiver tank so that water would not accumulate in other areas of the
process. The condensate receiver was emptied through the vacuum pump, which
slightly affected the pressure in the second effect, and a new approximate steady state
needed to be reached.

Variables, Measurements and Sampling Procedure. The system had a lot of

variables that were to be collected, but only a few changed the values of the rest of the
variables. There were three independent variables in the system, the first of which was
the inlet steam pressure which was measured by a pressure gauge. If the inlet steam
pressure was not controlled, the heat transfer in the first effect would not be constant
and the flow rate of vapor out of the first effect would not be constant as well, which
would affect the flow rates in the second effect. A constant inlet steam pressure would
ensure that the heat transfer in the first heat exchanger would be constant. The second
independent variable would be the water flow rate through the condenser, which was

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
12
measured by a water meter. The water flow rate was set to be constant. This was
important to keep constant to keep the heat transfer in the condenser constant. If the
condenser feed rate was not kept constant, then the heat transfer to condense the vapor
from the second effect would not have been constant and it would also have affected the
flow rates in the system. The last independent variable, which was often adjusted in the
experimental setting, was the feed rate to the second effect that was measured by the
second effect feed rotameter. The second effect feed was the biggest determinant in the
steady state operation of the experimental equipment as it was used to keep the
accumulation in the second effect approximately zero. Too little of a flow rate lead to loss
of water and too much flow lead to the overfilling of the second disengaging chamber.
Variables controlled in lab were those that could not be controlled with the setup
of the experiment. The type of circulation used in each affect was mandated by the
setup, such as a horizontal heat exchanger requires forced circulation and the absence
of a pump in the first effect necessitated natural convection. The moisture content of the
steam was that of the inlet steam supplied to the experiment and the inlet water
temperature was that of the supply line. The rate the vacuum pump ran at, which was
set at a half turn of the globe valve, was set by the flow rate of the water as water is
used to mechanically turn the turbine in the pump. The sizes of each of the chambers
and piping were also set by the equipment of the experiment.
All other measurements made in lab were of dependent variables. The
temperature of each of the streams depended on the boiling points, which were affected
by the pull of the vacuum. Temperatures were also dependent on forced circulation to
control pressure in the second effect and the role of natural convection in the first effect.
The pressure in the first effect depended on the vapor lost and the role of natural
circulation and the pressure of the second effect depended mostly on the pull of the
vacuum pump and a little on the forced circulation through the system. The feed rate in
the first effect depends on the vapor lost, which depends on the steam inlet pressure,
and on the liquid feed to the second effect, which was an independent variable.
Measurements collected in lab include temperatures, pressures, and flow rates.
All but two measurements collected in lab are included in Figure 2.1.1 which shows the
device, and where the measurement takes place. For example, thermocouple 3 takes
the temperature in the first heat exchanger, the pressure in the first disengaging
chamber is collected, and the flow rate out of the second effect feed was gathered. The
thermocouples were connected to a read-out screen on the front panel, the pressures
were taken by gauges on the front panel, the temperature displays had an analog face
and hand to give the temperature of the stream, and the rotameters had floats to indicate
flow rates. The two other measurements collected in lab were the mass of the heating
fluid exiting each of the two heat exchangers along with the amount of time over which
they were collected. With the mass and the time of which the buckets filled, the flow
rates were found by taking the mass collected divided by the time over which it was
collected. This was how all the significant data was collected from the operating system.
Sampling during the lab occurred after qualitatively observing steady state. The
sampling first occurred with noting the trial number that the data was taken with and then
taking the temperatures given by each of the thermocouples in Fahrenheit. Then the
pressures from the pressure gauges were taken while noting the pressure units on the
gauge. After this, the flow rates, as given by the rotameters, were taken without looking
at the units on the first and second effect feeds. The condensate rotameter had data
taken from the lb/hr (right) side of the rotameter. Lastly, the temperatures from the
temperature displays were recorded. As this was occurring, the flow rates of the two
streams exiting the first and second heat exchangers were collected by taking the time it
took a weighed mass of water to fill a portion of a bucket. Due to the accumulation of

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
13
condensate in the condensate receiver, only three repetitions of trials with the same
experimental parameters were done. Since the system was only in an approximate
steady state, the equipment was not adjusted between consistent trials and the data was
approximated to be at the same conditions since steady state was to be approximately
zero. From the collected data, the mass balances were calculated to see if steady state
was obtained.

Experimental Concerns. An estimation of variables was thought of before lab to

determine if the collected data was reasonable. The temperature in the first effect was to
be around the boiling point of water since the pressure in the first effect was going to be
approximately air pressure. The temperature in the second effect was predicted to be
lower than the first effect due to the lower pressure, estimated to be much lower than
room atmospheric pressure, caused by the vacuum pump. Temperature ranges were
around 212F for fluids in the first effect, around 100 F inside the second effect, around
40f for the water inlets streams into the experiment, around 30F for the water leaving
the condenser and around 270F for the pressurized steam entering the experimental
system. The pressure of the system was around 25 PSIG for the steam inlet, around 0.5
PSIG for the pressure in the first effect and the vapor leaving the first effect, and around
1 PSI for the pressure in the second effect. The flow rates were between 1 and 3 lb/min
for all flow rates in the system.
Trial conditions were selected by the steady state criteria and by observations
made in lab. It was observed that accumulation in the second effect was occurring so the
flow rate of water fed to the second effect had to be reduced. It was observed that pipes
became cold when the water feed went through pipes and that it could help determine
how the pipes were configured. Hot pipes around the steam and vapor inlets were also
observed and proper safety was ensured. Another observation was that most drain
valves were connected to hoses that emptied into the drain. When the accumulation was
approximately zero in the system, it was seen that the water levels in both effects
remained visually constant. The trial conditions were set by first qualitatively observing
that the system was near steady state. For consecutive trials to be as consistent as
possible, to allow for the comparison of data, none of the equipment could be adjusted
during the collecting period.
Safety is a large concern for any experiment and some precautions were made
to ensure the safety of all participants. A major safety concern was that all the equipment
was uninsulated, so the steam lines were hot and were not to be in contact with for an
extended period. Also, the water coming out of the heat exchangers is coming out at
boiling temperature and needs to be massed with caution. Concerns with the equipment
include the small spaces in which to maneuver and the safety of everyone with the sharp
edges and hanging piping. Another safety issue was that valves and glass were under
pressure and that they had to be opened slowly as to not create too large of a pressure
difference. To maintain safety in the lab, each person had to wear loose fitting pants,
closed toe shoes, eye protection and had to remove electronics since the equipment
was in an explosion proof room.

Shutdown Procedure. Shutdown procedures during the experiment were important to

maintain equipment and to maintain personnel safety. To start the shutdown process, the
steam valve was closed along with the water feed into both effects so that no additional
fluids are entering either effect. The next step was to bypass the condensate rotameter
which opened the condenser to full vacuum to cool and empty the system and to then
turn off the circulating pump. A precautionary step to help with the cooling of the system
was to monitor the condensate receiver water level so that it did not overfill and the

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
14
system could still cool. When the first effect cooled to below 175F it was safe enough to
vent the condenser and second effect to the atmosphere and to shut off the vacuum
pump. Since there was no more need for water in the system, the water main valve and
the water to the vacuum pump were closed. After shutting off everything, it was then safe
to open all drain and interconnecting valves to drain the system of any remaining water.
Then the air supply to the liquid level controller was closed as there was no water
remaining in the system. The pressure gauges were opened so the pressure valves
could be blown and so that the pressure valves were drained of any water that had
accumulated in them. The final valve that was opened was the drain valve on the
vacuum pump supply to drain all the water in the pump.

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
15
3 | Results

3.1 | Calculated Data. Temperature readings in the experiment were taken from each of
the thermocouples and temperature displays shown in Figure 2.1.1, except for
thermocouples eight and nine (TC-8 and TC-9), for each trial per the sampling
procedure. These readings can be found in Table 3.1.1 and Table 3.1.2 and are given in
degrees Fahrenheit. Thermocouples eight and nine were located off the main operating
system and were used to determine the moisture content in the steam since the probes
were part of a calorimeter system. The temperature reading from thermocouple eight
was 213 0.5F and from thermocouple nine was 217 0.5F, while the temperature of
the room was 70.7 0.05F. Temperature display readings were in Celsius and were
converted to Fahrenheit for analysis. The temperatures of trials one to three and four to
six correspond to the same experimental conditions and are thus paired, as is evident
with shading.

Table 3.1.1|Thermocouple Temperature Readings

TC-1 TC-2 TC-3 TC-4 TC-5 TC-6 TC-7
Trial ( 0.5 ( 0.5 ( 0.5 ( 0.5 ( 0.5 ( 0.5 ( 0.5
F) F) F) F) F) F) F)
1 42 179 206 206 95 95 83
2 42 178 207 207 97 95 95
3 42 179 208 207 96 96 95
4 42 178 207 207 97 96 96
5 42 179 207 207 97 96 96
6 43 178 207 207 97 97 96
7 42 179 208 208 97 97 96

Table 3.1.2|Thermocouple and Temperature Display Readings

TC-10 TC-11 TC-12 TC-13 TC-14 TC-15 TD-3 TD-4
Trial ( 0.5 ( 0.5 ( 0.5 ( 0.5 ( 0.5 ( 0.5 ( 0.2 ( 0.2
F) F) F) F) F) F) F) F)
1 103 108 204 96 129 109 35.6 64.4
2 102 111 205 97 131 111 35.6 89.6
3 102 112 204 98 131 112 35.6 89.6
4 102 114 204 98 130 111 35.6 89.6
5 101 113 205 98 130 111 35.6 89.6
6 102 114 204 98 130 110 35.6 89.6
7 101 114 205 98 130 113 35.6 89.6

Pressure readings in the system came from pressure gauges that compare the pressure
of the system to that off the atmosphere around the system, which was 28.47 0.005
mmHg. The pressure recordings are documented in Table 3.1.3 and are converted to
PSI. To differentiate experimental conditions, trials with the same conditions have the
same shading. To calculate pressure in PSI from PSIG all that needs to be added to the
pressure is the pressure of the atmosphere around the experimental system. The
pressure in the second effect was calculated in negative inches of vacuum and was
calculated by the fact that one PSI is the same as 2.036 inches of vacuum.

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
16
Table 3.1.3 | Pressure Gauge Readings
Second Effect
Steam Inlet First Effect Second Effect
Trial Vapor Inlet
( 0.02 PSI) ( .02 PSI) ( 0.02 PSI)
( .02 PSI)
1 39.7 15.2 15 0.94
2 39.7 15.1 15.1 0.94
3 39.7 15.1 15.1 0.94
4 39.7 15.3 15.1 0.94
5 39.7 15.4 15.2 0.94
6 39.7 15.4 15.25 0.94
7 39.7 15.7 15.35 0.94

Flow rates in the experiment were taken via rotameters and via a bucket-and-stopwatch
method. The steam and inlet flow rates were taken as a mass per stopwatch time
because the steam had to be condensed before leaving the system. The rotameters
were read in the tube by looking at the widest surface on the top of the bob. The flow
rate of water into the condenser, as the cooling fluid in the shell, was 18.8 0.2 lb/min.
The rotameter flow rates taken from lab were converted to lb/min per the provided
calibration curves. Steam and vapor flow rates were converted from g/s to using the fact
that one min has 60 seconds and one pound is 453.59 grams. Flow rates in appropriate
units and with uncertainties are provided in Table 3.1.4.

Table 3.1.4 | Flow rates

Second
Second Steam
First Effect Condensate Effect
Effect Outlet
Trial ( 0.03 ( 0.01 Condensate
( 0.006 ( 0.04
lb/min) lb/min) ( 0.01
lb/min) lb/min)
lb/min)
1 2.81 1.072 1.50 2.59 1.80
2 2.89 1.086 1.50 2.72 1.33
3 2.89 1.086 1.47 2.52 1.44
4 2.72 1.030 1.47 2.81 1.31
5 2.72 1.030 1.47 2.64 1.31
6 2.72 1.030 1.47 2.69 1.36
7 2.76 1.115 1.50 2.71 1.39

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
17
3.2 | Final Data and Results. Quantities calculated from the data for this experiment
include the mass accumulated in the system, the amount of heat losses from the
equipment, and the overall heat transfer coefficient for the heat exchangers and the
condenser. Trial three data was chosen to perform analysis. This is because it presented
values closest to steady state.

Mass Balances and Steady State Determination. Mass balances were determined for
both of the effects and the overall system. The results of these measurements are
shown in Table 3.2.1.

Table 3.2.1 | Mass and Percent Accumulation. Presented are values of mass and
percent accumulations from trial three calculated with their respective error. Equations 1,
4, and 9 were used to find accumulation in the first effect, second effect, and overall
respectively.

Mass Accumulation Percent Accumulation

(lb min-1) (%)
First Effect 0.36 0.04 12.38 0.01
Second Effect -0.0283 0.0001 -1.9587 0.0004
Overall -0.03 0.03 -0.99 0.01

In order to claim steady state operation for our system there needed to be zero mass
accumulation. Trial three was chosen of the seven ran because it showed the closest
values for a steady state operation. The first effect has a mass accumulation of 0.36
0.04 (lb min-1) with 12.38 0.01 (%) percent accumulated. The second effect presented
a negative accumulation of -0.0283 0.0001 (lb min-1) with a corresponding percentage
of -1.96 0.01 (%). For the overall system the mass accumulation is -0.03 0.03 (lb min-
1
) with a -0.99 0.01 (%) percent accumulation. Although within error the overall system
numerically presented itself to be operating at steady state one cannot make this
statement. Since system fluctuations were occurring steady state could not be
confirmed. As a result, it is only approximated for the rest of this analysis.

Heat Loss. Since the double effect evaporator was uninsulated heat losses are taken
into account. Additionally, working with high temperatures and metal equipment, known
to have high thermal conductivities, adds to the importance of heat loss. Furthermore,
since the hot fluid from the condenser is on the tube side any heat loss to the
environment is approximated as negligible for this analysis. Of the three main forms of
heat exchange, convection and radiation are considered. Conduction was considered
insignificant since the magnitude of conduction in comparison to radiation and
convection was minimal.

Table 3.2.2 | Heat Losses for the Effects. The amount of heat loss due to convection
and radiation was found using Equations 18 and 19 and the total thermal loss in each
effect was found with Equations 10 and 14.

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
18
 Surface Area Radiative Heat Loss Convective Heat
(ft2) (btu h-1) Loss (btu h-1)
Heat Exchanger 1 11.00 0.25 30 1 74 1
Heat Exchanger 2 11.00 0.25 4.9 0.2 68 2
Disengaging
36.52 0.25 - 246 1
Chamber 1
Disengaging
36.52 0.25 - 224 6
Chamber 2

Thermal losses from the disengaging chambers contributed the most to heat loss in the
system contributing the largest loss of 246 1 (btu h-1). This is most likely due to the
large amount of area available for heat transfer. Additionally, because there was no heat
source in the disengaging chambers radiative heat loss was not considered. Also, the
larger heat losses present for the first effect compared to the second effect is considered
to be a consequence of a higher flow rate of steam into the first effect as compared to
the second.

Overall Heat Transfer Coefficients. For this analysis the overall hear transfer
coefficient for both of the heat exchangers as well as the condenser were found. This
coefficient is dependent on the heat transferred to the liquid, temperature differences
across the heat exchanger as well as, the surface available for heat transfer. In this case
the surface area was taken based on the pipes within the tube. Since the heat
transferred from the steam was being considered.

Table 3.2.3 | Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient Values. Presented are the values for
the heat gained by the liquid and the overall heat transfer coefficient for the heat
exchangers and condenser. These values were found using Equation 23.

Overall Heat
Surface Area Heat Gained by Liquid Transfer
(ft2) (btu h-1) Coefficient
(btu ft-2 F-1 h-1)
Heat Exchanger
9.20 0.25 143929 24231 219 50
1
Heat Exchanger
9.39 0.25 181137 222575 479 589
2
Condenser 598.86 0.25 60952 648 4.47 0.19

The analysis shows a much larger heat transfer coefficient of 479 589 (btu ft-2 F-1 h-1)
for the second heat exchanger in comparison to the first heat exchanger and condenser.
Although the uncertainty is large for the second heat exchanger, one would still expect it
to fall in a range where the heat transfer coefficient for the second heat exchanger would
be larger than the first. Due to the fact that the heat gained by the liquid is still larger in
the second heat exchanger. Given these values it appears that with a larger transfer of
heat to the liquid one would expect a larger overall heat transfer coefficient.

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
19
4 | Discussion of Results.

4.1 | Mass Balances and Steady State Determination. In the mass accumulation
calculations it was concluded that our system did not reach steady state. Although within
uncertainty the accumulation values appear to determine that conclusion to be incorrect,
fluctuations in the liquid level in the system at points during operation support our
conclusion. During operation the second effect did not have the proper control. Initially
the control valve between the two effects was opened completely and this flow in was
faster than the amount of water evaporating, thus the liquid level didnt stay consistent.
Once this valve was adjusted to control the flow from the second effect to the first more
reliable readings were taken. Though, within the allotted time we were unable to allow
for an approximate steady state to establish. Another possible inhibitor of steady state
includes leaky valves, as some of the mass accumulations were negative. However, for
this analysis steady state was approximated in order to allow for calculations to be made
with respect to the flow rates.

4.2 | Heat Loss. In this experiment two of the three main forms of thermal loss are
considered, convection and radiation. Conduction is not considered significant because
at the surface of the equipment the air provides little thermal conductivity. In this system
there are two types of convection occurring, free and forced. However, when considering
the heat lost to the environment at the surface free convection dominates. Since there is
a heat source in the two heat exchangers radiative thermal loss was present. When
evaluating the amount of heat loss due to radiation it is estimated and shown that the
first heat exchanger will have the greatest loss due to the higher flow rate in of steam.
Additionally, when considering the convective heat loss equation (Equation 18) the
amount of loss is proportional to the surface area available for heat transfer. Thus, one
can conclude the disengaging chambers will experience the greatest heat loss, which is
the result seen in the data analysis.

4.3 | Overall Heat Transfer Coefficients. For evaluating the overall heat transfer
coefficients it is important to consider any circulation occurring within the system. Since
the second effect has the forced circulation from the pump the overall heat transfer
coefficient is expected to be greater than the first effect. In this analysis it is shown to be
true. Additionally, the literature values for a heat exchanger using a steam-water system
are 350-750 Btu/(ft2*0F*h) and for a condenser with water as the working fluid to
condense steam the value is 300-600 Btu/(ft2*0F*h).[4] Only the second effect value, with
respect to uncertainty, is within those ranges at 479 589 (ft2*0F*h). The first effect and
condenser values respectively 219 50 (ft2*0F*h) and 4.47 0.19 (ft2*0F*h) were outside
the literature values. Yet, if the equipment was insulated one would expect the overall
heat transfer coefficient to increase as amount of heat transferred to liquid would be
greater due to less loss to the environment.

4.4 | Precision and Accuracy. Since only one case was evaluated its difficult to
comment on the precision of the experiment. Although the system did fluctuate, the data
values for mass flow rates, temperature, and pressure readings stayed in the same
range with no outlying points past start-up. Causing one to estimate the data gathered, if
each run was fully analyzed, would give precise data. However, when looking at the
uncertainties calculated for various values this leads one to believe the data could be
considered imprecise. The accuracy of this analysis, when considering overall heat
transfer coefficients, compared to the literature values would suggest inaccurate data.
Additionally, since steady state operation was approximated some flow rate

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
20
measurements carry a sizeable uncertainty. Pressure and temperature readings have
less uncertainty as they were read from a gauge therefore they have less propagation of
error.

4.5 | Conclusions and Recommendations. One of the largest factors contributing to

heat loss in the analysis was due to having an uninsulated system. Thus, it is
recommended to provide insulation. It should be noted that the steady state operation is
expected to change if there is less heat loss. Another recommendation would be
verifying the system is able to achieve steady state operation by evaluating the system
for any leaks or damaged valves, which may cause a negative accumulation or cause
the liquid levels to be inaccurately controlled. With these improvements implemented
one should be able to obtain more reliable results.

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
21
5 | Scale-Up Design
After obtaining experimental data from water, the pilot-scale double effect evaporator
was modified to handle the concentrating of 10 wt% sodium hydroxide to 40 wt%.

5.1 | Safety. Due to the corrosive nature of sodium hydroxide, the utmost caution to be
observed when working with it in the evaporator, especially the concentrated product.
Eyewear, gloves, and covering bare skin is highly encourage. If sodium hydroxide does
make contact with the skin or eye, remove clothing and flush area with lukewarm water
for at least 60 minutes.[7] Proper safety procedure will limit the changes of permanent
damage being caused to a work.

5.2 | Apparatus Changes. To accommodate for the task of concentrating the sodium
hydroxide, there will be several additions made to the pilot-scale double effect
evaporator. These changes can be seen in the figure below:

Figure 5.2.1 | Scale-up Process Flow Diagram. By adding key additions like storage
tanks, centrifugal pumps, valves and a new rotameter to the pilot-scale double effect
evaporator, the concentrating process would be able to begin.

Two onsite storage tanks need to be added to hold starting materials and concentrated
product. Due to the corrosive nature of sodium hydroxide, the desired material for these
tanks would 304 stainless steel, to resist corrosion from the sodium hydroxide and
exterior forces. The starting materials tank would have to hold a volume of 75,000
gallons while the concentrated product tank would be smaller at 1,505 gallons. Due to

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
22
the immense size of these tanks, they would have to be installed outside the north side
of Amundson Hall near the liquid nitrogen tank. Like the liquid nitrogen tank, they would
benefit from being silo tanks due to the increased stability, structural support, and lack of
space horizontally for them to be installed.
Two pumps will also be installed to move the sodium hydroxide from the
evaporator. Since the starting materials storage tank will be installed on the group level
of Amundson, the pump will have be sized to transport the fluid to the third floor, thirty
feet high, and then the distance to the lab. On the other hand, the product pump will be
used to pump concentrated product from the evaporator to ground level of the lab. By
using gravity to the companys advantage, the product pump will be noticeably smaller
than the first pump. Piping will also need to be considered for transporting the fluid to
and from evaporator. Similar to the storage tanks, 304 stainless steel would be desired.
Two additional pieces of equipment would be useful in monitoring and operating
the scaled-up plant. A product stream tap would have to be installed with a valve after
the second disengaging chamber. Closing this valve would allow the system to reach
steady state, heating up the contents of the two effects before opening the valve to take
off concentrated product. Placing a rotameter after this value allows the product stream
rate to be measured. A second value can be placed after the pump to determine its
operation rate into the product tank.

5.3 | Steady State Operation. Several engineering approximations were made when
moving into the scale-up process. The pressures in both effect were taken to be what
they measured at experimentally. By keeping the operation of the vacuum pump
constant, the pressure in the second effect would remain the pressure that was
previously measured. The quality of steam was also approximated as saturated steam
at 25 PSIG after not being able to calculate the moisture of the experimental steam.
Saturated steam also provides more energy for transferring than steam with some
condensate in it already, making it more ideal for heat transfer. Other changes to steady
state operation included factoring in a boiling point rise in both effects. Since a solute is
present in the fluid, the difference in the boiling point between solution and water is a
function of concentration. By using a Dhring Chart, the change in boiling point will be
determined.[3, 538] The concentration of solute in solution also changed its enthalpy value.
These enthalpies were read off of an enthalpy-concentration chart at their respective
temperatures.[3, 540]

5.4 | Overall Heat Transfer Coefficients. By determining the flow in the pipes of the
double-effect evaporator was laminar with the experimental fluid of water, it was
approximated that the sodium hydroxide solutions would also exhibit laminar flow. This
allowed the heat transfer coefficient of water to be compared with the heat transfer
coefficient for sodium hydroxide using a laminar flow Nusselt number proportion,
equation (29). It was then approximated that by using the overall heat transfer
coefficient value calculated experimentally as waters individual heat transfer coefficient
would approximated the overall heat transfer coefficient of sodium hydroxide.
Justification for this approximation stems from the similarity of operating conditions
between the two designs. With the thickness and material of the tubes being the same
and individual heat transfer coefficient of the heating vapor being very similar between
the two cases, the only accountable difference for a change in overall heat transfer
coefficients comes from the change in working fluid. Furthermore, the difference
between the velocities of water and sodium hydroxide solutions will be small enough to
neglect due to similar physical conditions. Likewise, the viscosity ratio of the bulk to wall

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
23
will also cancel out of the proportion as it is expected that ratio evaluated for each fluid
will show a similar difference at the two conditions.

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
24
6 | Nomenclature

Symbol Definition Units

1 Effect One Dimensionless
2 Effect Two Dimensionless
BPR Boiling point rise F
Ac Cross sectional area ft2
Ai Area of i ft2
C Condenser Dimensionless
ci Cold in stream Dimensionless
co Cold out stream Dimensionless
Conv Convection Dimensionless
CP, i Specific Heat of i BTU/(lbmF)
D Diameter ft
DCi Disengaging Chamber i Dimensionless
Ev Viscous loss term in mechanical energy balance hp
FT Correction factor for log mean temperature difference Dimensionless
g Acceleration due to gravity ft/s
HEi Heat Exchanger i Dimensionless
H Total heat of one pound of steam at boiler pressure BTU
Hi Enthalpy of stream i BTU/lbm
h Total heat of one pound of steam at atmospheric pressure BTU

hi Heat Transfer Coefficient of i BTU/(ft2hrF)

Ha Average Heat Transfer Coefficient BTU/(ft2hrF)
hi Hot in stream Dimensionless
hp Horsepower hp
ho Hot out stream Dimensionless
k Thermal conductivity BTU/(fthrF)
L Latent heat of steam at boiler pressure BTU/lbm
l Length of pipe ft
LLC Liquid Level Control Dimensionless
lm Log mean Dimensionless
mi Mass flow rate of stream i lbm/min
NNu Nusselt number Dimensionless
NPr Prandtl number Dimensionless
NRe Reynolds number Dimensionless
n Number of samples Dimensionless
P Pressure psia
PSIG Gauge pressure lb/in2
Qi Heat loss of apparatus i BTU
qi Heat transfer to liquid in i BTU
Rad Radiative Dimensionless
Ti Temperature of stream i F
t1 Temperature of saturated steam at atmospheric pressure F
t2 Temperature of superheated steam at atmospheric F
pressure
U Overall heat transfer coefficient BTU/(ft2hrF)
u Uncertainty of a measure Dimensionless
V Volume Gallons or ft3

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
25
v Velocity of fluid ft/s
Ws Shaft work hp
X Weight of moisture in steam Dimensionless
x Sample value Dimensionless
x Mean Dimensionless
xi Mass fraction of NaOH in stream i Dimensionless
z Height ft
i Uncertainty in error calculation examples Dimensionless
Emissivity of a material Dimensionless
Viscosity of a fluid lbf s/ft2
b Viscosity of a fluid evaluated at the bulk temperature lbf s/ft2
w Viscosity of a fluid evaluated at the wall temperature lbf s/ft2
Density of a fluid lbm/ft3

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
26
7 | References

1. International Process Plants. International Process Plants.

http://www.ippe.com/Equipment/StockDetails/217484. February 1, 2017.
2. Heritage. Heritage Equipment. http://www.heritage-
equipment.com/new/stainless-steel/storage-tanks.html. February 1, 2017.
3. Geankoplis, Christie John, Transport Processes and Separation Process
Principles, 4th Edition, Prentice Hall, 2003 and Upper Saddle River.
4. Engineers Edge. Engineers Edge.
http://www.engineersedge.com/thermodynamics/overall_heat_transfer-table.htm.
February 1, 2017.
5. Babcock & Wilcox Company, Steam, Its Generation and Use, 35th Edition, The
Babcock & Wilcox CO., 1914 and New York. February 2, 2017
6. Dorfman, Kevin. Exam #2 equation sheet.
https://ay16.moodle.umn.edu/pluginfile.php/1291416/mod_resource/content/0/eq
uation-sheet-exam-2.pdf. February 1, 2017
7. Government of Canada. Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.
https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/sodium_hydroxide.ht
ml. February 5, 2017
8. The Engineering ToolBox. Boiling temperatures of water in vacuum.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-evacuation-pressure-temperature-
d_1686.html February 5, 2017
9. Lauterbach Verfahrenstechink GmbH. Properties of Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH).
http://www.lv-soft.com/software/fachbereiche/stoff/naoh-e.htm. February 5, 2017
10. A Steam Specialist Company. TLV.
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/superheated-steam-table.html. February 5,
2017

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
27
Appendix

8 | Original Data Sheets.

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
28
Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
29
9 | Sample Calculations

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
30
Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
31
Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
32
Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
33
Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
34
Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
35
Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
36
Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
37
Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
38
10 | Error Analysis

10.1 | Sources of Error. Raw data collected in lab occurred in three consecutive trials
of constant system parameters, while a sufficient time was waited to ensure the system
was nearing an approximate steady state. To overestimate the error, the uncertainty in
the measurement method was used to determine uncertainty in the raw data, except for
the two bucket-and-stopwatch flow rates. The uncertainty in from individual
measurements is used because the flow rates and the pressures could have changed,
since the system is not at steady state, from trial to trial and the data would reflect the
changes in the system and not of the measurement method. The bucket-and-stopwatch
method was approximated to have more error in the measurement taken than in the
system parameters because the steam inlet pressure was set at 25 PSIG, so near
steady state (which the system was at), the steam flow in is approximately the saturated
liquid flow out. This approximation yields that the only difference in the flow rates of the
heating fluids out of each heat exchanger is due to measurement errors.
True error in the experiment is unknown, but random error usually appears
around true value. Since the true error in the experiment is not known, the data is given
with the uncertainty of each measurement due to non-steady state flow in the
experimental system. The error in each value is small when using the data to calculate
enthalpies and other values from reputable sources. It is approximated that the
uncertainty in each of the referenced values is nearly zero. This approximation holds
because reputable sources have completed many trials and would report accurate data
with little error, as would be seen in equations 33-35.
Systematic error occurs due to inaccuracies in the experimental equipment and
measurement devices. One of the largest systematic errors would be the inaccuracies
when reading data from a gauge or meter. The user might view the measurement device
and over or under record values because of a wrongly perceived notion on how to read
the device. Other systematic sources of error occurred in both the calibration of
rotameters and the blowing of pressure gauges. Rotameter calibrations were completed
10.5 years ago and over that time, the rotameter has deviated from the original
calibration. These deviations are the same for each trial, but lead to error in the mass
balances, which adds up if rotameters are off in two different directions. To ensure
rotameter calibrations are accurate, repeat calibrations could be made with additional
experimental time. The blown pressure gauges did not go to exactly 0 on the pressure
gauge so the pressure readings were slightly off by the same amount in each direction.
This could be improved by marking this or zeroing the gauge before use and calculating
the absolute difference of the pressure. This only slightly affects data since temperature
and pressure as usually used together and most literature values are more temperature
sensitive than pressure sensitive.
There are three types of error that occur in an experiment, however, the only
error accounted for in error propagation is that of random error. Random error occurs
because of changes in the experimental environment, in the measurement instrument,
and in the measured quantity. Each collected datum was assumed to have random error
and the uncertainty of each measurement was propagated to derive and estimate the
error in the final calculations. One random error that may have occurred is the presence
of residual fluid in the bucket during massing. One way this was reduced was by taking
the before and after mass of the bucket while massing. Other random errors may include
variations in the equipment size that are set as tolerances at the factory.

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
39
10.2 | Calculation Procedure. Uncertainties in each calculation were propagated using
equations 33-39. Equations 33, 34, and 35 relate to the standard deviation and the
uncertainty in multiple trials that are proved to be of the same experimental parameters
as those the data is compared with. These equations were used in calculating the
uncertainty of the bucket-and-stopwatch method of determining flow rates. Functional
uncertainties are calculated via a derivative of the function and then using the
uncertainty in the derivative function. This method of error propagation utilizes equation
36 and was used to propagate uncertainty in the rotameter calibrations. To calculate
addition and subtraction calculations, such as mass balances, equation 37 was used to
propagate uncertainty. If the addition or subtraction was in parenthesis, then it was first
calculated in this manner as well as. Multiplication and division propagation, equation 38,
was utilized in many of the more complex energy balances and can also be seen in the
calculation of the overall heat transfer coefficient. Equation 39, which propagates error
through logarithmic relations was utilized in the log mean temperature error propagation.
Uncertainties in the original data was determined by the uncertainty in each
measurement and the approximate estimation in precision that could be obtained from
each experimental measurement. The flow rates of the heating fluids were approximated
to have more error in timing than in the flow rates changing, so error analysis was
calculated with equations 33-35 and sampling uncertainties. Mass balance uncertainties
were calculated and the trial with the lowest accumulation was used to carry out
calculations in both the analytical and the error analysis sample calculation sections. The
error in the moisture content was estimated and then the heat loss in each of the main
components, along with both effects, were found. Then energy balance and individual
flow rate uncertainties were found and presented with the datum. All the error was
propagated to give the uncertainty in the overall heat transfer coefficients of each of the
heat exchangers and the condenser.

10.3 | Magnitude of Error. The error in the flow rates are all about one percent of the
calculated values, the uncertainty in the pressures is very small and has a minimal
effect, and the temperatures are at most one percent. The magnitude of error in the
calculations is small for the data collected in lab. This means that the data collected in
lab itself doesnt have too many errors, but the propagated error shows the uncertainty
that is associated with calculations for experimental objectives.
Uncertainties in mass balance calculations are small and around those of the
flow rates and are kept because the uncertainty can affect the calculations later in the
analysis. The uncertainty in the moisture content of the steam feed is 3 orders of
magnitude less than the calculated value and can be neglected because other
uncertainties are of a larger degree and when combined the uncertainty of the moisture
is lost. The error in the flow rate of stream 14 is 2.5 times the calculated flow, so any
error associated with other values that are to be calculated with this stream can be
neglected because the error in that stream will dominate.

10.4 | Impact of Error. The uncertainty in the data showed that the overall
accumulation was close to zero and the system was reasonably close to the steady state
criteria. The uncertainty in the heat loss calculations shows that the uncertainty in these
second level calculations is more than those of the raw data. Uncertainty in the energy
balances is way too much to get a reasonable approximation for the client in this scale-
up situation. The error in the energy balances is due to inaccuracies in calculating the
flow rate of each stream of the system. Uncertainty in the energy balances carries over
to the overall heat transfer coefficients and renders the overall heat transfer coefficient of
the second heat exchanger useless because the uncertainty is more than the value

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
40
itself. The approximately 25 percent error for the overall heat transfer coefficient of the
first effect gives a usable value, but it should be used cautiously. The uncertainty in the
overall heat transfer coefficient of the condenser is within a useable limit and the value
can be used based on an error standpoint. Uncertainties in the experiment were small
for collected data but prove to be too much for final values. Rerunning the experiment to
try to collect data that would improve these uncertainties would be the best
recommendation for the company before signing any contracts.

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
41
10.5 | Sample Error Calculations.

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
42
11 | Design Problem Calculations. Calculations are attached as hand written copies
while the reasoning and explanations can be seen here. An initial approximation for the
scale-up design was that the flow seen in the pipes was laminar, [1]. Due to similar
physical properties of sodium hydroxide, it is predicted that the flow will remain laminar.
Another approximation is that the operations of the vacuum pump will remain constant,
pulling the same vapor flow rate from the second disengaging chamber. This also sets
the pressure of the second disengaging chamber as the same seen experimentally, 28
in. Hg. Once the evaporator reaches steady state, the concentration of sodium
hydroxide leaving the second disengaging chamber will be the desired 40 wt%. Using a
Dhring chart, the boiling point for the 40 wt% sodium hydroxide solution can be
calculate.[3,538] The boiling point of water with a vacuum pressure of 28 in. Hg is 101F.[8]
Calculating the boiling point 40 wt% sodium hydroxide using this temperature gives
148F of a BPR2 of 47F. By conducting overall mass and solute balances, and using
the ratio of vapors produced from effect one and two, the concentration leaving the first
effect was determined [3]. Approximating that the temperature in the disengaging
chamber is also the same experimentally, 15.1 psi, the boiling point of water is 213F.[8]
Using the Dhring chart, the boiling of a 17 wt% sodium hydroxide solution is 222F,
resulting in a BPR1 of 9F [4]. Using the BPR values, the total available temperature
drop can be calculated across the system [5]. A total of 108F is available for heat
transfer. The overall heat transfer coefficients for the heat exchangers were then
calculated using equation (29). Based on the flow rates experimentally determined, the
physical properties of the sodium hydroxide solution entering the heat exchangers were
approximated. It was approximated the ratio of viscosities as well as velocities would
not contribute to the calculation of sodium hydroxides overall heat transfer coefficient
since the velocities would be very similar. Likewise with the viscosities: since the ratio of
bulk to wall viscosity would be similar for water and sodium hydroxide [6]. By using a
computational program from Lauterbach Verfahrenstechnik, physical properties of the
sodium hydroxide solutions were calculated.[9] Overall heat transfer coefficients were
then determined to be 229 BTU/(ft2Fh) and 519 BTU/(ft2Fh). Now the individual
temperature drops over the heat exchangers can be calculated using a modified
equation (23) [7]. By using the temperature drops and BPRs on the individual effects,
the temperature of the effect can be calculated. Using these new temperature and the
already solved for pressures, enthalpies of the system can be solved for [8]. The
specific heat of superheated steam was determined from an outside source.[10] By using
an enthalpy-concentration chart, the enthalpy of various weight percentages of sodium
hydroxide were calculated at their respective temperature [9].[3, 540] An energy balance
around the second effect was taken [10]. Using mass balances previously derived, the
energy balance was put into terms of m9 and Q2 [11]. A proportion was used to
determine the overall heat loss in the second effect by comparing the radiative heat loss
to the total heat loss [12]. m9 was then solved and related to the product stream flow
rate [13]. By dividing the total volume of the starting materials by the flow rate in and
multiplying the quantity by the density, the time needed to concentrate the product was
found [14].

Storage Tank Design Calculations

To store the sodium hydroxide solutions on campus, two sizeable storage tanks had to
be sought out. The first tank for the starting materials was picked to be a 75,000 gallon
Wolfe stainless steel tank with a diameter of 148 and 60 tall. The product storage tank
has to hold 1405.43 gallons of concentrated product [15]. Similar to the starting materials

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
43
tank, this tank would be constructed to be taller than it was wide [16]. The final
dimensions would be 10 high with a diameter of 5.

Pump Design Calculations

Equation (32) was used to size the pump. By taking the inlet velocity at zero, along with
the initial height, the entry velocity was determined by an looking at the mass flow rate
divided by its density over the inlet pipes cross sectional area (approximated at a 3 inch
diameter). The pressure inside the effect was set at the experimentally seen
temperature and inside the tank was current pressure in Minneapolis added with the
resting pressure of the fluid in the tank at the height of 60. However, this assumes that
the pressure is constant in the tank, so the pressure will be set at atmospheric pressure
of Minneapolis. The shaft work required was solved for [17]. By approximating the
average pump runs 70% efficiency, the pump work was calculated [18]. A similar
calculation process was followed to determine the pump for the product storage [19].

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
44
Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
45
Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
46
Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
47
Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
48
Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
49
Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
50
12 | Data Transfer Sheet.

Signature:_____________________________________________ P E A
51