Group 12plate Heat Exchanger

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
William G. Lowrie Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering

CBE 3631 Unit Operations
Teaching Assistant: James Kim
Instructor: Dr. Andy Maxson
Plate Heat Exchanger
Group 12
Paul Williger, Leader
Caitlyn Harrington
Peter Eichhorn
Jon Meyers
Due Date: February 18, 2019

Submitted: February 18, 2019
Abstract
In this experiment, we evaluated the effect of stream flow rates and configuration on the
heat transfer and efficiency of a plate heat exchanger. Additionally, we analyzed a closed
loop steam injector system. In the experiment, we performed 90 trials varying the hot and
cold flow rates from 2 gal/min to 12 gal/min. Over those trials, we tested co-current and
counter-current configurations using the steam injector and building hot water loop as hot
water sources.
We used the data gathered in lab to calculate heat transfer rates, overall heat trans-
fer coefficients, hot and cold heat transfer coefficients, fouling resistances, and efficiencies.
From our calculations, we concluded that increasing the flow rates caused statistically sig-
nificant increase in heat transfer properties. To calculate the heat transfer coefficients, we
used one graphical method, the Wilson Plot Method, and three empirical methods, the
Dittus-Boetler, the Sieder-Tate, and the Colburn Methods. The latter three correlations
had similar values for the hot and cold heat transfer coefficients, 13,638 W/m2 ·◦ C and
9464 W/m2 ·◦ C, respectivley. We concluded the the hot stream had higher heat trans-
fer coefficients because hotter fluids have higher heat transfer properties such as thermal
conductivity. Changing the configuration had no statistically significant effect on heat
transfer coefficients. The average heat transfer efficiency for the co-current and counter-
current configuration were 39.6% and 40.7%, respectively. This is contrary to theory which
predicts that the counter-current configuration should have a higher efficiency because of
higher maintained temperature differences between the streams. Our analysis on the steam
injector showed that it is much less effective and efficient as a hot stream source.
Finally, we used our results to scale a plate heat exchanger to cool hot wort with cold
water for a microbrewery. Our total cost opening the microbrewery was $1.2 million, with
the heat exchanger accounting for $53,000 of the investment. Based on sales predictions,
we should be cash flow positive in about 2.62 years.
Contents
1 Purpose 1
2 Introduction 2
2.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2 Scientific Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2.1 Wilson Plot Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.2 Dittus-Boetler Correlation Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.3 Sieder-Tate Correlation Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.4 Colburn Correlation Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.5 Comparison between the Correlation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.6 Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3 Experiment Description 12
3.1 Safety Hazards and Precautions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4 Results and Discussion 18

4.1 Steam Injector Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2 Heat Transfer Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.3 Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.4 Correlation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.4.1 Wilson Plot Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.4.2 Dittus-Boelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.4.3 Sieder-Tate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.4.4 Colburn Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.5 Comparison between Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.6 Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5 Error Analysis 40
5.1 Qualitative Error Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.2 Quantitative Error Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.2.1 Error Propagation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.2.2 Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6 Conclusions 45
7 Recommendations 47
8 Design Extension 49
8.1 Background and Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
8.2 Plate Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
8.3 Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
8.4 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
9 Notation 55
9.1 Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
9.2 Subscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
10 Literature Cited 56
11 Appendix A: Preliminary Assignment 60

11.1 Safety Hazards and Precautions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
11.2 Flow Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
11.3 Material and Supply Check List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
11.4 Experimental Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
11.5 Emergency Shutdown Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
11.6 Introduction Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
11.6.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
11.6.2 Scientific Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
11.7 Data Sheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
12 Appendix B: Experimental Summary Report 90

12.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
12.1.1 Experimental Observations and Difficulties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
12.1.2 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
12.1.3 Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
13 Appendix C: Sample Calculations 105

13.1 Steam Injector Mass and Energy Balances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
13.2 Heat Transfer Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
13.2.1 Co-Current with Steam Injector: Hot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
13.2.2 Co-Current with Steam Injector: Cold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
13.3 Enlargement Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
13.4 Flat Surface Area of One Side of a Plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
13.5 Developed Surface Area of Plate System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
13.6 Logarithmic Mean Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
13.6.1 Co-Current with Steam Injector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
13.6.2 Counter-Current with Hot Water Loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
13.7 Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
13.7.1 Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
13.7.2 Co-Current with Steam Injector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
13.8 Wilson Plot Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
13.8.1 Velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
13.8.2 Channel Equivalent/Hydraulic Diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
13.8.3 Reynolds Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
13.8.4 Overall Thermal Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
13.8.5 Prandtl Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
13.8.6 Convection Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
13.8.7 Component Resistances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
13.9 Dittus-Boetler Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
13.9.1 Heat Transfer Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
13.10 Sieder-Tate Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
13.10.1 Heat Transfer Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
13.11 Colburn Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
13.11.1 Heat Transfer Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
13.12 Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
13.12.1 Co-Current with Steam Injector: Trial 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
13.13 Error Propagation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
13.13.1 Co-Current with Hot Water Loop: Trial 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
14 Appendix D: Raw Data and Calculations 117

14.1 Trials Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
14.2 Steam Injector Balance Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
14.3 Trial Data with Calculated Heat Transfer Rates and Overall Heat Transfer
Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
14.4 Wilson Method Correlation Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
14.5 Dittus-Boelter Correlation Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
14.6 Sieder-Tate Correlation Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
14.7 Colburn Correlation Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
14.8 Efficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
15 Appendix E: Additional Figures 148

15.1 Additional Heat Transfer Coefficient Figure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
15.2 Additional Wilson Correlation Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
15.3 Additional Dittus-Boelter Correlation Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
15.4 Additional Sieder-Tate Correlation Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
15.5 Additional Colburn Correlation Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
List of Figures
1 Flow Configurations and Temperature Profiles [29] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 Steam Injector System Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Plate Heat Exchanger Flow Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4 Plate Dimensions [29] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5 Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient vs. Hot Stream Flow Rates . . . . . . . . 24
6 Wilson Plot for Varied Cold Stream Flow Rates in Co-current Configuration 26
7 Wilson Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Flow Rates for Counter Current Con-
figuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8 Wilson Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Cold Stream Flow Rates . . . . . . . 28
9 Dittus-Boelter Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Flow Rates for Co-Current
Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10 Sieder-Tate Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Flow Rates for Co-Current Con-
figuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
11 Colburn Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Flow Rates for Co-current Configu-
ration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
12 Colburn Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Flow Rates for Co-current Configu-
ration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
13 Actual vs Predicted Plot for the hot stream heat transfer coefficient (W/K/m2 )
using the JMP Fit Model Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
14 Flowsheet of plate heat exchanger and Steam Injection Water Heater [29] . 61
15 Flow Configurations and Temperature Profiles [29] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
16 Flowsheet of plate heat exchanger and Steam Injection Water Heater [29] . 102
17 Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient vs. Cold Stream Flow Rates . . . . . . . 148
18 Wilson Plot for Varied Hot Stream Flow Rates in Co-current Configuration 149
19 Wilson Plot for Varied Cold Stream Flow Rates in Counter Current Config-
uration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
20 Wilson Plot for Varied Hot Stream Flow Rates in Counter Current Config-
uration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
21 Wilson Heat Transfer Coefficients vs Flow Rate in Counter Current Config-
uration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
22 Wilson Heat Transfer Coefficients vs Hot Flow Rate in Counter Current
Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
23 Dittus-Boelter Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Flow Rates for Counter Cur-
rent Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
24 Dittus-Boelter Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Cold Stream Flow Rates . . . 155
25 Dittus-Boelter Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Hot Stream Flow Rates . . . 156
26 Sieder-Tate Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Flow Rates for Counter Current
Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
27 Sieder-Tate Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Cold Stream Flow Rates . . . . 158
28 Sieder-Tate Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Hot Stream Flow Rates . . . . . 159
29 Colburn Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Flow Rates for Counter Current
Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
30 Colburn Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Flow Rates for Counter Current
Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
List of Tables
1 Properties of Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2 Plate Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3 Average Heat Transfer Rates for Each Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4 Average Overall Heat Transfer Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5 Wilson Plot Values for Varied Cold Stream in Co-current Configuration . . 25
6 Average Wilson Correlation Convective Heat Transfer Coefficients . . . . . 25
7 Wilson Average Fouling Resistances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8 Average Dittus-Boelter Correlation Convective Heat Transfer Coefficients . 30
9 Average Sieder-Tate Correlation Convective Heat Transfer Coefficients . . 32
10 Average Colburn Correlation Convective Heat Transfer Coefficients . . . . 34
11 Average Heat Transfer Coefficients for Each Correlation Method . . . . . . 37
12 Average Heat Transfer Efficiencies, η . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
13 Equipment Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
14 Analysis of Variance and Parameter Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
15 Summary of Fit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
16 Design Extension Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
17 Fixed/Start up Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
18 Monthly Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
19 Steam Injector Balance Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
20 Co-Current Trials using Steam Injector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
21 Counter Current Trials using Steam Injector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
22 Co-current Trials using Hot Water Loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
23 Counter Current Trials using Hot Water Loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
24 Properties of Water for Calculations [17] [19] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
25 Equipment Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
26 Co-Current Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
27 Counter-Current Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
28 Steam Injector Balance Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
29 Co-Current Trials using Steam Injector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
30 Counter-Current Trials using Steam Injector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
31 Co-Current Trials using Hot Water Loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
32 Counter-Current Trials using Hot Water Loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
33 Wilson Method Calculations for Co-Current Steam Injector Trials . . . . . 122
34 Wilson Method Calculations for Counter-Current Steam Injector Trials . . 122
35 Wilson Method Calculations for Co-Current Hot Building Water Trials . . 123
36 Wilson Method Calculations for Counter-Current Hot Building Water Trials 124
37 Dittus-Boelter Calculations for Co-Current Steam Injector Trials . . . . . . 125
38 Dittus-Boelter Calculations for Counter Current Steam Injector Trials . . . 126
39 Dittus-Boelter Calculations for Co-Current Hot Water Loop Trials . . . . . 127
40 Dittus-Boelter Calculations for Counter Current Hot Water Loop Trials . . 129
41 Sieder-Tate Calculations for Co-Current Steam Injector Trials . . . . . . . 131
42 Sieder-Tate Calculations for Counter Current Steam Injector Trials . . . . 132
43 Sieder-Tate Calculations for Co-Current Hot Water Loop Trials . . . . . . 133
44 Sieder-Tate Calculations for Counter Current Hot Water Loop Trials . . . 135
45 Colburn Calculations for Co-Current Steam Injector Trials . . . . . . . . . 137
47 Colburn Calculations for Co-Current Hot Water Loop Trials . . . . . . . . 137
48 Colburn Calculations for Counter Current Hot Water Loop Trials . . . . . 139
46 Colburn Calculations for Counter-Current Steam Injector Trials . . . . . . 141
49 Efficiencies for Co-Current Trials using Steam Injector . . . . . . . . . . . 142
50 Efficiencies for Counter-Current Trials using Steam Injector . . . . . . . . . 143
51 Efficiencies for Co-Current Trials using Hot Water Loop . . . . . . . . . . . 144
52 Efficiencies for Counter-Current Trials using Hot Water Loop . . . . . . . . 146
53 Wilson Plot Values for Varied Hot Stream in Co-current Configuration . . 149
54 Wilson Plot Values for Varied Cold Stream in Counter Current Configuration150
55 Wilson Plot Values for Varied Hot Stream in Counter Current Configuration 151
1 Purpose
The purpose of the experiment is to evaluate how varying stream flow rates and config-
urations affects the heat transfer efficacy of the plate heat exchanger, to calculate the
convective heat transfer coefficients of the hot and cold streams, and to analyze a pneu-
matic, closed-loop-controlled steam injector system. To achieve this purpose, we ran the
heat exchanger at varying hot and cold stream flow rates. In the co-current configuration,
we ran 36 trials with the building hot water system and 9 trials with the steam injector
system. Then we repeated the same trials with a counter-current configuration. We used
one graphical method and three empirical correlations that use plate geometry, Reynolds
numbers, Prandtl numbers, and Nusselt numbers to determine convective heat transfer
coefficients, film coefficients, and fouling factors. We then used the results from the exper-
iment to scale-up a plate heat exchanger system for use in a small brewery to cool the hot
wort using a colder city water stream.
1
2 Introduction
2.1 Background
Plate heat exchangers facilitate heat transfer between two fluids and have many applica-
tions in the food, pharmaceutical, polymer, and chemical processing industries. In plate
heat exchangers, hot and cold fluid streams flow on either side of metal plates and heat
transfers from the hot stream to the cold stream via convection. Plate heat exchangers
have many advantages, and are primarily used when there are low flow rates and a rela-
tively low temperature difference [29]. Plate heat exchangers are also much more compact
than tubular heat exchangers and are still able to achieve high heat transfer rates for liq-
uid/liquid duties [30]. Plate heat exchangers also have lower fouling than shell and tube
heat exchangers due to high fluid turbulences which is a ”self-cleaning effect” [28].
In this experiment, several operating conditions on the plate heat exchanger are changed
to monitor the effects on the heat transfer between the hot and cold water streams. Plate
heat exchangers can operate in co-current and counter-current flow configurations, and
both configurations are tested in this experiment. In co-current flow, the hot and cold
streams both flow in and out on the same side. In counter-current flow, the hot and cold
streams enter and exit on opposite sides. Figure 15 shows the two configurations and the
corresponding temperature profiles. In co-current flow, the hot and cold streams approach
the same temperature and the temperature difference between the two streams decreases
over time. This limits the amount of heat that is able to be transferred between the
streams. In counter-current flow, the temperature difference between the streams is able
to be maintained which allows for more effective heat transfer.
In addition to changing configurations, the flow rates of both the hot and cold streams
are varied to investigate their effects on heat transfer. The cold stream is sourced from
Columbus city water and can have flow rates of 2-12 gal/min. The hot stream has two
sources: a steam injector system and the CBEC building’s hot water loop. The steam
2
Figure 1: Flow Configurations and Temperature Profiles [29]
injector system is limited and can only reach flow rates of 2-4 gal/min, while the stream
sourced from CBEC can have flow rates of 3-9 gal/min. The performance of the heat
transfer is evaluated using the flow rate data and other operating conditions to calculate
the effectiveness of the heat exchanger, the overall heat transfer coefficient, and both the
cold and hot stream convective heat transfer coefficients for each configuration. Further
explanation of the important scientific principles behind the plate heat exhanger experiment
can be found in the next section.
2.2 Scientific Principles
In this experiment, there are two sources for the hot water stream. Part of the purpose of
this experiment is to evaluate the pneumatic, closed-loop-controlled steam injector. Figure
3
2 shows the flow diagram of the steam injector system [29].
Figure 2: Steam Injector System Diagram
The quantity and quality of the steam injected into the city water stream are calculated
by performing mass and energy balances on the steam injector system. These balance
equations are found in Equation 1 and 2, respectively.
ṁ1 + ṁ2 = ṁ3 (1)
Q̇1 + Q̇2 = Q̇3 (2)
To calculate the heat transfer rate and the overall heat transfer coefficient between the
hot and cold streams, we measured several important variables during this experiment: the
temperatures of the hot and cold streams entering and exiting the plate heat exchanger
and the flow rates of the hot and cold streams. The effects on the heat transfer rate from
varying the flow rates can be evaluated using Equation 3. Increasing the flow rates while
maintaining all other variables increases the heat transfer rate, which can be shown in
Equation 3. In this equation, Q̇ is the heat transfer rate in W/s, ṁF is the mass flow rate
kJ
in kg/s, cp,F is the specific heat of the water in kg·◦ C
, and the temperature terms, Tin,F and
Tout,F , are in either degrees Celsius or Kelvin.
Q̇ = ṁF · cp,F (Tin,F − Tout,F ) (3)
4
The next equation, Equation 4, can be used to calculate the overall heat transfer co-
W
efficient. The overall heat transfer coefficient is represented by Uo and has units of m 2 ·◦ C
.
The Q̇ term is the same heat transfer rate calculated in Equation 3, Ao is the surface area
of the plates in m2 , and ∆TLM is the logarithmic mean temperature difference in either
degrees Celsius or Kelvin.
Q̇ = Uo · Ao · ∆TLM (4)
The Ao term is calculated by multiplying the developed surface area of one plate by the
total plate surfaces along which heat is transferred. For this equation we want to calculate
the overall area, and so the calculation uses 38 total plate surfaces along which heat is
transferred.
The logarithmic mean temperature difference, ∆TLM , takes into account the inlet and
outlet temperatures of both streams and accounts for the difference in configurations. The
general equation for calculating the logarithmic mean temperature difference is found in
Equation 5. For a co-current configuration, both the cold and hot stream enter and exit on
the same sides. Therefore, for co-current configurations, ∆T 1 = Tin,H − Tin,C and ∆T 2 =
Tout,H − Tout,C . For a counter-current configuration, the cold and hot streams enter and
exit at opposite sides. Therefore, for counter-current configurations, ∆T 1 = Tin,H − Tout,C
and ∆T 2 = Tout,H − Tin,C . For a co-current configuration, the temperature of the hot and
cold streams leaving approach the same value and so ∆T 2 approaches zero. This results
in a smaller ∆TLM over time for co-current configurations compared to counter-current
configurations.
∆T 1 − ∆T 2
∆TLM = ∆T 1
(5)
ln( ∆T 2
)
The overall heat transfer coefficient, Uo , can also be related to the overall thermal
resistance of the system, Rov by Equation 6.
1
Rov = (6)
Uo Ao
5
The overall thermal resistance, Rov , is also equal to the sum of thermal resistances. There-
fore, the overall heat transfer coefficient can be related to the sum of thermal resistances
which account for film coefficients, fouling factors, and convection coefficients.
Four different empirical correlation methods are used to determine the heat transfer
coefficients and fouling resistances for each configuration. These methods are compared
to show trends between the counter and co-current configurations and the hot and cold
streams.
2.2.1 Wilson Plot Method
The first correlation method used is the Wilson plot method, which graphically evaluates
the convection coefficients and allows for the calculation of the fouling resistance [27]. In the
Wilson plot method, the overall thermal resistance can be separated into a sum of thermal
resistances, which account for the hot and cold stream resistances, fouling resistance, and
the plate conduction resistance. The plate conduction resistance can be assumed to be
negligible compared to the other terms to simplify the equation [29]. Combining this
equation with Equation 4 and Equation 6, we get the Wilson Method equation.
1 2 · ∆TLM
Rov = = = RH + Rp + RC + Rf (7)
Uo Ao |Q˙C | + |Q˙H |
1 1
Where, the hot and cold stream resistances are RH = hH AH
and RC = hC AC
, the
1 ∆x
fouling resistance is Rf = hf Ao v
, and the negligible plate conduction resistance is Rp = λA
.
Wilson proposed that if the mass flow rate of one of the streams is varied while the other
remains constant, the change in the overall thermal resistance would be dependent on the
convection coefficient of the varied stream and the other thermal resistance terms would
remain constant [27]. The temperature is changing in both streams which affects Re and
P rs. The average temperatures from the trials are used to evaluate the properties of the
streams because the effects due to temperature changes within a stream are assumed to
be negligible.The flow within the plate is also turbulent which is caused by the chevron
6
patterns on the plates. Using these simplifications, Wilson determined a direct relationship
between the convection coefficient of the varied stream and the Re of that stream, raised
to a constant, m, which can be assumed to be 0.8 [27]. A plot of the Rov versus Re−m is
used to determine the slope, which is equal to a constant, C2 , divided by the hot or cold
area. The value of C2 is used to calculate the convection coefficient of the varied stream
using the following equation.
Re0.8
h= (8)
C2
After calculating the convection coefficients for both the hot and cold streams, the foul-
ing resistance can be calculated by subtracting RH and RC from Rov . Over time, unwanted
buildup from chemical reactions, corrosion, scaling, sedimentation, freezing, or aquatic life
can cause fouling. Fouling can greatly impact a heat exchanger’s thermodynamic perfor-
mance. Fouling can increase a heat exchanger’s thermal resistance and lower the overall
heat transfer coefficient as well as increase the equipment’s pressure drop across it [9].
The following three correlations rely on the fundamental relationship between momen-
tum, heat, and mass transfer. The ratio of the transfer of one quantity in the x direction to
the same quantity in the z direction is equal to the same ratio of the other quantities. By
estimating one value, such as friction factor, we can determine the transfer rates of other
quantities and ultimately estimate their transfer coefficients [31].
2.2.2 Dittus-Boetler Correlation Method
The second correlation method is the Dittus-Boetler method which allows for calculation
of the heat transfer coefficients using a relationship between N u, and Re and P r raised
to constant coefficients determined through experimental data [25]. The following three
correlation methods assume that there is a constant wall temperature and a constant wall
heat flux [35]. These correlations also assume that the flow is turbulent and this should be
accurate for the plate heat exchanger system [7]. The plates are molded with a chevron
7
pattern which causes the flow to be turbulent and increases the heat transfer [29]. For this
correlation method, the following assumptions must be met: 0.7 < P r < 160, Re > 10, 000,
L
and DH
> 10 [35]. Where DH is the channel equivalent diameter or hydraulic diameter and
L is the length of the plate [26][23]. This equation is based on the assumption that there is
not a large temperature difference between the fluid streams, and therefore, the properties
of water for the streams are evaluated at their average temperatures. Another assumption
is that the heat exchanger surface is smooth [7]. The equation used to calculate the heat
transfer coefficient for the hot and cold streams is shown in Equation 9, where n = 0.3 for
the cold stream and n = 0.4 for the hot stream [35].
0.023k 0.8 n
hF = Re P r (9)
de
W
The heat transfer coefficient, hF , is in m2 ·◦ C
, k, the thermal conductivity of water, is in
W
m·◦ C
, and de , the hydraulic diameter, is in m.
2.2.3 Sieder-Tate Correlation Method
The third correlation method is the Sieder-Tate Equation which is very similar to the
Dittus-Boelter method, with the addition of a correction factor to account for large tem-
perature differences [33]. The corrective term takes into account changes in viscosity that
might result from large temperature differences by evaluating the viscosity at the average
stream temperature and the wall temperature. This equation has the same requirements
L
on Re and DH
, but the range of acceptable P r is expanded from 0.7 < P r < 16, 700 [35].
0.023k 0.8 1/3 µ 0.14

hF = Re P r ( ) (10)
DH µw
In Equation 10, all the terms are the same as in Equation 9 except for the last term:
( µµw )0.14 . In this corrective factor, µ is the dynamic viscosity evaluated at the average stream
temperature and µw is the dynamic viscosity evaluated at the wall temperature of the pipe,
8
or in our case, the temperature of the plate surface. This temperature is approximated as
the average temperature between the hot and cold streams.
2.2.4 Colburn Correlation Method
The fourth correlation method is the Colburn correlation method. This method is based
on Reynolds analogy but contains a function of (cµ/k) to account for the differences in the
temperature and velocity distributions [24]. As Colburn points out, the Prandtl equation
is useful from cµ/k = 1 and cµ/k = 10; however, his method is useful for cµ/k greater than
100 [24]. Additionally, this correlation method has the same requirements on P r, Re, and
L
DH
as the Dittus-Boelter method [32].
Equation 11 shows the relationship Colburn proposed. jh is the heat-transfer factor, f
is the friction factor, v is the fluid velocity, cp is the heat capacity, ρ is the density of water,
µ is the dynamic viscosity of water, and k is thermal conductivity.
h cp µ 2/3 f
jh = ( ) = (11)
ρcp v k 2
All these properties are evaluated at the film temperature given by Equation 12, where
Ta is average fluid temperature and Tw is the wall temperature.
Tf = Ta = 0.5(Tw − Ta ) (12)
Assuming a Re greater than 3000, we can use the following ±10% approximation for
the friction factor [24]. Here, water properties are again evaluated at the film temperature,
and the characteristic length is equal to the hydraulic diameter.
1 de ρv −0.32
f = 0.0007 + 0.0625( ) (13)
2 µ
9
2.2.5 Comparison between the Correlation Methods
Theoretically these four methods should calculate similar values, however they will differ
based on the different assumptions used for each correlation. The assumption is made
that the properties of water are evaluated at the same average hot and cold temperatures
for the co-current and counter-current configurations for the steam injector trials and hot
water loop trials. The correlation methods all rely on evaluation of dimensionless values
Re, P r, and N u, which are functions of temperature and Re is also function of flow rate.
The Sieder-Tate and Colburn correlations should be more accurate than the Dittus-Boelter
correlation due to the added corrective factors.
2.2.6 Efficiency
The efficiency of the heat exchanger will be calculated for the different configurations and
flow rates. The efficiency can be calculated by dividing the difference of the cold inlet and
outlet temperatures by the difference of the cold and hot inlet temperatures and multiplying
this result by 100. This basic formula for calculating effectiveness is shown in 14 [34].
TC,in − TC,out
η= · 100 (14)
TC,in − TH,in
In this equation, η is the efficiency of the heat exchanger and is dimensionless, TC,in is
the inlet temperature of the cold stream in degrees Celsius, TC,out is the outlet temperature
of the cold stream in degrees Celsius, and TH,in is the inlet temperature of the hot stream
in degrees Celsius. Since this formula depends only on the inlet and outlet temperatures
and not the area of the plates or their heat transfer coefficients, it can be used for either
configuration.
In the design extension section of the report, the plate heat exchanger is scaled-up for
use in a brewery to cool a hot wort stream using a cold water stream. The results and
theory from the laboratory experiment are used to choose the configuration and flow rates
for the scaled-up system. We provide an in-depth economic analysis of the proposed plate
10
heat exchanger system and include calculations for the heat transfer rate and the overall
heat transfer coefficient.
11
3 Experiment Description
On the first day, we started by setting up the computer software and temperature pro-
grams/devices required for properly taking data during the lab. The temperature program
displays real-time temperature graphs on the computer screen. The device consisted of
a thermocouple temperature measuring device, and a digital readout. The thermocouple
measured to the .01 ◦ C and has an uncertainty of ±0.1◦ C [29]. The digital readout also
measures to the .01 ◦ C and has an uncertainty of ±1.1◦ C [29]. This results in a total
uncertainty of ±1.1◦ C [29].
A flow diagram of the plate heat exchanger system used in this experiment is found in
Figure 3.
On the plate heat exchanger system, the first thing we did was open the steam injector
purge valve, V20, to get rid of any previously purged steam. While purging the steam, we
prepared the cold water stream by adjusting the three way valves: H3,C3,C4, and C5. We
configured these so the cold water from CBEC would return back in CBEC’s closed water
loop, while we discharged the hot water to the drain. After cleaning and closing the drains,
we accessed our cold water stream by first opening the main water valves C1 and C6 and
controlling the rate of flow with C2.
When purging the steam, Peter used thermal gloves to open the valves, as they may be
hot to touch. We started by first opening the green ball valve, H2, then by opening the red
globe valve, H4. After opening those valves, we turned on the compressed air, opened the
ATE valve by setting the temperature knob to a maximum, and opened steam gate V17.
We finished preparing our steam for the experiment by closing V20. Next, we opened the
city-water ball valve, CW1, closed H5, and opened H6 so that the city water would drain.
From here, we started collecting experimental data.
Jon measured the plate dimensions for future heat coefficient calculations. A plate
diagram can be seen in Figure 4 which shows each of the plate parameters [29].
12
Figure 3: Plate Heat Exchanger Flow Sheet
Jon used a tape measure, which measured to the nearest 1 cm, thus leading to an
uncertainty of ±0.5cm which equals ±5mm. He measured the total length along the longer
side from the top edge to the bottom edge. He measured the effective length from center to
center of the inlet/outlet circles along the longer side. He measured the effective width from
edge to edge inside the rubber gasket across the shorter side. He measured the developed
13
Figure 4: Plate Dimensions [29]
length of a channel from peak to peak, finding the total distance. To calculate a flat surface
area of one side of a plate, we approximated the plate to be made of two trapezoids and
a rectangle. Jon measured the shorter base of the trapezoid just above the inlet/outlet
circle and measured the longer base across the width of the plate. He measured the height
14
between the two bases to get the height of one trapezoid. For the rectangle, he took the
length of the longer base of the trapezoid as the width of the rectangle. He measured the
length of the rectangle as the distance between the longer bases of the trapezoids. These
measurements will be used to determine the effective plate area.
Caitlyn controlled the cold water flow stream with valve C2, trying to make sure the
cold water flow rate was between 2 and 12 gal/min. Using thermal gloves, Peter controlled
the steam flow rate with the circuit setter balance valve, V22, trying to make sure the
the steam flow rate was in the range of 2-5 gal/min. We measured the flow rates, the
independent variables in this experiment, using Toshiba electromagnetic flowmeters that
measured to the .01 gal/min [30] leading to a 1.2% uncertainty in flow measurements.
Finally, Paul operated the computer, led each trial, and recorded temperatures and
flow rates. We randomized the order of the trials to minimize nuisance variables and
collect better data for our calculations. Ideally, we would have liked to randomize all the
trials, however, due to time constraints, we blocked the trials based on configuration. In
this experiment, the flow rates and configurations were the independent variables and the
outlet temperatures were the dependent variables.
Before we began the trials, we ensured our valves were configured for co-current flow.
This configuration occurs when C3 is vertical, C4 is closed, and C5 is open. We tested a
total of nine trials in this configuration; the steam injected hot stream ran at 2, 3, and 4
gal/min and the cold building stream ran at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 gal/min, respectively. For
each trial, Paul read off the trial , cold stream flow rate, and the steam flow rate. The two
members in charge of controlling the flow rates, via valves, adjusted the flow rates to match
the trial specifications as close as possible. Once the plate heat exchanger reached steady
state, we recorded the inlet and outlet temperature of each fluid stream as well as the each
streams’ flow rate. After these 9 trials, we adjusted the system to counter-current flow by
making C3 horizontal, opened C4, and closed C5. We changed the configuration because
the purpose of the experiment is to determine the impact of changing configuration Then,
15
we used the same flow rate adjustment process and data collection methods as before for
the next nine trials in the counter-current configuration.
After we completed all eighteen trials, we measured the flow rate and temperature of the
steam injector stream with and without steam at three flow rates: 2.5, 3, and 4 gal/min.
Later we will use these measurements to calculate the steam quantity and quality.
From here we shut down the heat exchanger and steam injector. Using thermal gloves,
we closed V17, turned the temperature control knob to 0 (or ”off”), opened V20, closed
H2, closed CW1, closed V22, and closed H4. After allowing the cold water to flow for 5
minutes, we closed C1, C6, and C2 to stop the flow of cold water. Then we opened D1 and
D2 to purge any cold and hot streams.
On the second day, we followed the procedure from the first day, to set up the cold
stream, this time using CBEC’s hot water supply rather than steam injector system. We
did this by making sure H3 was turned to accept the building’s hot water loop. We then
opened H1 and H5, and closed H6. We were then able to run our trials. Most of us had
responsibilities similar to Day 1. Peter, while using thermal insulated gloves, oversaw the
building hot water flow rate with H4 instead of the steam flow rate, trying to keep the
flow rate this time was between 3-9 gal/min. First, we configured our flow for co-current.
Then, we tested a total of thirty-six trials in this configuration; the building hot water
stream ran at 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 gal/min and the cold building stream ran at 2, 4, 6, 8,
10, and 12 gal/min respectively. Paul read off flow vales and Peter and Caitlyn adjusted
their valves to match the trial flow rates. Once the plate heat exchanger reached steady
state, we collected the same temperature and flow rate data recorded on Day 1. Then, we
shut down the heat exchanger by closing H1 and H5 with thermal insulating gloves. We
then closed C1, C6, and C2 to stop the flow of cold water. Finally, we opened D1 and D2
to purge any cold and hot streams.
On the third day, we followed the start up procedure for Day 2, except using counter-
current flow. Ideally, the trials for the co-current and counter current configurations would
16
have been performed on the same day for consistency but the experiment was time-limited.
We used the same flow rates from Day 2 to run thirty-six trials in the new configuration.
For each trial, Paul read off flow rates, and Peter and Caitlyn adjusted their valves to
match the trial flow rates. After collecting the steady state temperatures and flow rates
from each trials, we followed the same shut down procedure completed in Day 2.
3.1 Safety Hazards and Precautions
One safety hazard we encountered was the steam lines and hot water lines, as they were
very hot and could cause dangerous burns. When we worked around the steam and hot
water systems, we avoided any burns by being extra cautious not to accidentally touch any
hot pipes. Peter wore thermal insulating gloves whenever he had to turn the valves for the
hot or steam streams.
17
4 Results and Discussion
During the experiment, we recorded the inlet and outlet temperatures and flow rates for
the cold and hot streams in tables, which can be found in Appendix D. Calculated values
based on the raw data can also be found in Appendix D. Sample calculations detailing the
equations can be found in Appendix C.
4.1 Steam Injector Balance
We also completed a mass and energy balance on the steam injector system. For the mass,
we know the mass in is equal to the mass out, as by the conservation of mass. This means
that the mass of the cold city water stream in plus the mass of the hot stream from the
steam injector is equal to the mass of the heated water and condensate stream that leaves
the steam injector. For the energy balance, we know the energy of the steam flow is equal
to the mass of the liquid water times the specific heat of the water times the change in
temperature plus the mass of the steam times the latent heat of vaporization. For the city
water stream, the energy is equal to the mass of the water times its sensible heat times
the change in temperature. The outlet energy is equal to these first two energies combined
while assuming no heat loss. This outlet energy is equal to the total mass of the water,
which is the city water plus the condensate, times the latent heat of the water.
After completing these balances, the mass of steam flow coming into the steam injector
was 0.00299 kg/s and the mass of the steam alone in this flow was 3.57 kg/s. From this, we
calculated the quality of the steam as 569.46. Both the mass flow of the steam as well as
the quality of the steam are impossible, since the mass flow of the steam is greater than the
entire flow itself and the quality of the steam is a value greater than one. These illogical
values are probably due to the assumption that no heat is lost to the surroundings, which
is not true, as well as that the steam and the water perfectly mix and have the same heat
capacity as the hot water coming in from the steam flow. A final assumption that has an
18
impact is using the latent heat for the outlet stream since we do not know a temperature
difference for this stream and therefore cannot use the sensible heat equation.
Various properties of water are necessary for all of the calculations and correlations.
All of these properties are dependent on temperature. For this experiment, the average
temperature values for the hot and cold inlet and outlet streams were calculated for both
the experiments using the steam injector system and the CBEC hot water loop. We de-
cided to separate the temperature data from the steam injector system and from the hot
water loop because there was considerable difference between these values. Although the
co-current and counter-current data points using the hot water loop were gathered on two
different days, their temperature values were similar and were combined. Using these tem-
perature averages, the density, specific heat, dynamic viscosity, and thermal conductivity
were calculated using online databases [17][18][19][20]. In the correlation subsection, the
Sieder-Tate correlation uses the dynamic viscosity evaluated at the wall temperature, µW .
The wall temperature used with this correlation was the average temperature of the hot
and cold stream averages. All properties of water used in the calculations can be found in
Table 1.
19
Table 1: Properties of Water
Steam Injector Hot Water Loop
TC (◦ C) 18.47 28.58
cp,C (kJ/(kg·◦ C)) 4.18 4.18
ρC (kg/m3 ) 998.48 996.08
µC (kg/(m·s)) 0.0010393 0.0008211
kC (W/(m·◦ C)) 0.59506 0.61219
TH (◦ C) 26.35 66.84
cp,H (kJ/(kg·◦ C)) 4.18 4.19
ρH (kg/m3 ) 996.70 979.54
µH (kg/(m·s)) 0.0008625 0.0004209
kH (W/(m·◦ C)) 0.60849 0.65688
TW (◦ C) 22.41 47.71
µW (kg/(m·s)) 0.000944 0.000569
The plate geometry and dimensions were also important for calculations. Several pa-
rameters were either provided in the lab manual or were measured in the lab. Table 2
shows the parameters that describe the plate’s geometry; refer to Figure 4 for a diagram
of the plate measurements. There were 20 total plates in our plate heat exchanger, with
10 channels for cold flow and 9 channels for hot flow [29]. This was taken into account
when calculating AH , AC , and Aov . The equation to determine the developed surface area
of one plate, Equation 15, is the flat surface area of one side of the plate, A, measured in
m2 , multiplied by the enlargement factor, φ, which is dimensionless.
Ao = φ · A (15)
φ is calculated as the ratio of the developed length of the channel, pd , measured in

m, to the protracted length of the channel, pc , measured in m. The developed length is
20
the distance traveled from peak to peak through the trough. The protracted length is the
straight-line distance between two peaks.
pd
φ= (16)
pc
To find AH , AC , and Aov , the developed surface area of one plate was multiplied by the
number of plate faces shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Plate Dimensions

pc (m) 0.008
px (m) 0.0095
b (m) 0.002
β (◦ ) 30
δ (m) 0.0005
L (m) 0.452
Lp (m) 0.487
Flat Area (m2 ) 0.05664
w (m) 0.137
φ 1.25
de (m) 0.0032
Plate Faces 38
Hot Side Faces 18
Cold Side Faces 20
AH (m2 ) 1.2744
AC (m2 ) 1.416
Aov (m2 ) 2.6904
21
4.2 Heat Transfer Rate
The heat transfer rate represents rate that heat transfers from the hot stream to the
cold stream and is calculated using Equation 3. Theoretically, the heat lost by the hot
stream is equal to the heat gained by the cold stream, therefore, the heat rates Q˙H and
Q˙C should be equal and opposite. Table 3 shows the average heat transfer rates for the
different configurations and trials. The Q˙H and Q˙C are not exactly equal and opposite.
The experimental system is not perfectly insulated and so some of the heat transferred
from the hot stream may have been lost to the environment.
Table 3: Average Heat Transfer Rates for Each Configuration

Trial Configuration QH (W) QC (W)
SI Co-current 8.72 -6.93
Counter Current 11.23 -10.06
Hot Water Loop Co-current 43.26 -42.92
Counter Current 43.02 -39.04
In the Introduction, it was theorized that the counter current configuration would have
higher heat transfer rates, however this was not seen in our data. There is no clear difference
between the two configurations. Our data did not show a correlation between heat transfer
rate and configuration; however, there was a positive correlation with flow rate and heat
transfer rate. The heat transfer rate increased with increasing flow rate, independent of
whether the stream was hot or cold. This aligns with the theory behind heat transfer
discussed in the Introduction.
4.3 Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient
The overall heat transfer coefficient is calculated using Equation 4. Table 4 shows the
average values for the different configurations. It should be noted that for one of the
22
co-current and counter-current trials using the steam injector, the values for ∆T 2 were
negative. The natural log cannot be taken of a negative value, and so there are errors for
each of these trial data points in Tables 29 and 30. There were significant fluctuations in the
temperature and flow rate readings when using the steam injector which could introduce
inaccuracies in the data values. Figure 5 shows the overall heat transfer coefficient plotted
against the hot stream flow rates to examine the relationship between overall heat transfer
coefficient, flow rate, and configuration. A figure of the overall heat transfer coefficient
versus the cold stream flow rates shows similar trends and is included in Appendix E.
Table 4: Average Overall Heat Transfer Coefficients

Trial Configuration Uov (W/(m2 ·s))
SI Co-current 0.594
Counter Current 0.774
Hot Water Loop Co-current 0.850
Counter Current 0.340
Figure 5 shows that the overall heat transfer coefficient is higher for the co-current
configuration than for the counter-current configuration. This is contrary to the theory
because Uov should not be affected by configuration because it should only be a function
of the film coefficients. This is assuming that the effects of fouling and the effects of
temperature can be neglected. However, because our data presents a difference, these
effects may not be negligible. In our calculation of Uov , the log mean temperature difference
for the co-current configurations were, on average, smaller than that of the counter-current
configuration difference. The heat transfer rates between the configurations were similar,
which means that the Uov had to be larger for the co-current configuration to compensate
for the smaller ∆TLM .
23
1.40
1.20
1.00
Uov (W/m2/℃)
0.80
Counter Current
Counter Current (SI)
0.60
Co-current
Co-Current (SI)
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
Hot Stream Flow Rate (gal/min)
Figure 5: Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient vs. Hot Stream Flow Rates
4.4 Correlation Methods
4.4.1 Wilson Plot Method
The Wilson Plot Method is the only correlation method we used that graphically determines
the convective heat transfer coefficients. In the Wilson Method, one of the stream’s flow
rates are held constant and then the other stream’s flow rates are varied. Then, Rov is
plotted versus Re−m , where m is an experimentally determined constant equal to 0.8 for
our purposes [27]. The slope of this graph is directly related to the convection coefficients.
A constant C2 is calculated as the slope multiplied by the area of the stream that was
24
varied. For example, in Figure 6, the hot stream flow rates were held constant while the
cold stream flow rates were varied for the co-current configuration. The average slope of
all the lines was found to be 9411.5 ◦ C/W, and this value was multiplied by AC to find
the constant value C2 . Then, hC can be calculated using Equation 8, which relates the
Re raised to a constant and C2 . This process was repeated for each configuration, varying
each hot and cold stream for a total of four Wilson Method plots. Figure 6 shows the
Wilson plot for the co-current configuration with the varied cold stream flow rates; the
other Wilson plots and corresponding values are in Appendix E. Table 5 shows the values
that were taken from Figure 6.
Table 5: Wilson Plot Values for Varied Cold Stream in Co-current Configuration
m 0.8
Avg Slope 5709.8
Avg Intercept, C1 0.2522
C2 8085.1
The convective heat transfer coefficients were calculated using the average slope values
from the Wilson Plots and then were averaged and included in Table 6.
Table 6: Average Wilson Correlation Convective Heat Transfer Coefficients

Co-Current hH Counter Current hH Co-Current hC Counter Current hC
(W/(m2 ·◦ C)) (W/(m2 ·◦ C)) (W/(m2 ·◦ C)) (W/(m2 ·◦ C))
SI 0.741 0.76 1.82 1.82
Hot Water Loop 2.35 2.34 2.22 2.24
We calculated the convective heat transfer coefficients using the average slope values
from the Wilson plots and then graphed them against varying flow rates for the two con-
figurations. Figure 7 shows the heat transfer coefficients plotted against the flow rates for
the counter current configuration. The corresponding figure for the co-current configura-
tion can be found in Appendix E. Figure 7 shows there is a slight difference between the
25
1.2
0.8 2 gal/min Hot

4 gal/min Hot
Rov (℃/W)
6 gal/min Hot
0.6 8 gal/min Hot
10 gal/min Hot
12 gal/min Hot
0.4 2 gal/min Hot SI
7 gal/min Hot SI
12 gal/min Hot SI
0.2
0
0 0.00005 0.0001 0.00015 0.0002
Re(Cold)^-0.8
Figure 6: Wilson Plot for Varied Cold Stream Flow Rates in Co-current Configuration
heat transfer coefficients calculated from the hot stream and the cold stream, with the hot
stream coefficients being slightly higher. Theory predicts that the hot stream coefficients
should be slightly higher than the cold stream coefficients at the same flow rates because
the hot stream coefficients are calculated from dimensionless numbers evaluated at a higher
average temperature. This should be consistent with the results from the other three corre-
lation methods as well. The flow rates are directly related to the heat transfer coefficients
for each stream, regardless of the configuration, because they are directly related to Re,
which is part of the Wilson correlation theory [27].
Additionally, the data shows no difference between the configurations as can be seen in
26
4.000
3.500
3.000
2.500
hi (W/℃/m2)
2.000 h_H
h_H (SI)
1.500 h_C
1.000
0.500
0.000
0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000
Flow Rate (gal/min)
Figure 7: Wilson Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Flow Rates for Counter Current Configu-
ration
Figure 8, which plots the heat transfer coefficients for each configuration versus the cold
stream flow rate. The corresponding figure for the hot stream flow rate figure can be found
in Appendix E. The configuration theoretically should make a difference on the heat transfer
coefficient because the counter-current configuration should be more efficient. This would
cause the cold outlet temperature to increase and the hot outlet temperature to decrease
for the counter-current configuration. The properties evaluated at the average temperature
of the streams would therefore be different and affect the heat transfer coefficients. Our
results do not show this due to errors in our data and assumptions. The Error Analysis
27
section has an in-depth analysis of this data and calculations.
3.500
3.000
2.500
hi (W/℃/m2)
2.000
Co-current
1.500 Counter Current
1.000
0.500
0.000
0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000
Cold Flow Rate (gal/min)
Figure 8: Wilson Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Cold Stream Flow Rates
After calculating the convection coefficients for both the hot and cold streams, the
fouling resistance can be calculated by subtracting RH and RC from Rov . The Wilson
method assumes that the plate conduction resistance is negligible. Table 7 shows the
average fouling resistance calculated for each configuration and stream.
Table 7 displays the fouling values we calculated from the Wilson Method. Most fouling
values are negative, which is not possible; however, we expected low values from theory.
The fouling resistance should be low because plate heat exchangers operate at turbulent
flow, which limits the amount of fouling that can build up [28]. The fouling would result
28
Table 7: Wilson Average Fouling Resistances
Co-Current Rf Counter Current Rf
(◦ C/W) (◦ C/W)
SI -1.16 -1.20
Hot Water Loop -0.27 0.56
from the buildup of bio-films or minerals from the water flowing through the plate heat
exchanger. Overtime, this fouling would lower the heat transfer efficiency of the plate heat
exchanger [28]. The plate heat exchanger in the unit operations lab undergoes regular
cleanings, so we expected little buildup and, as a result, low fouling.
4.4.2 Dittus-Boelter
In the Dittus-Boelter correlation, the dimensionless values N u, Re, and P r were related
through experimentally determined constants to solve for the convective heat transfer coeffi-
cients. These dimensionless values are functions of temperature because they are calculated
using properties of water that are dependent on temperature. The equation used to calcu-
L
late the heat transfer coefficient is valid when 0.7 < P r < 160, Re > 10, 000, and DH
> 10,
where de is the channel equivalent diameter and L is the length of the plate. The P r ranged
L
from 2-5 and the ratio of de
is 141, so those assumptions are valid. The Re ranged from
1752 to 15656, which means the assumption that the flow is turbulent was not met in every
trial. This causes inaccuracies in the calculations of the heat transfer coefficients because
the equation is only valid for if Re > 10, 000. This analysis of the assumptions can also be
applied to the Sieder-Tate and Colburn correlations [32]. Additionally, the Dittus-Boetler
method is limited to accuracy for small ranges in temperature and Re. There was large
fluctuations in Re, which could result in inaccuracies in the heat transfer coefficient calcu-
lations using this method. The average values of the heat transfer coefficients calculated
using Equation 9 are included in Table 8.
29
Table 8: Average Dittus-Boelter Correlation Convective Heat Transfer Coefficients
(W/(m2 ·◦ C)) (W/(m2 ·◦ C)) (W/(m2 ·◦ C)) (W/(m2 ·◦ C))
SI 4712 4831 5885 6802
Hot Water Loop 11765 11717 7868 7874
The calculated heat transfer coefficients for the steam injector trials were lower at the
same flow rates than those calculated from the hot water loop trials. This is most likely due
to the lower temperatures that were recorded during the steam injector trials. Additionally,
the fluctuations in the flow meter and thermocouple readings during the steam injector
trials can be a potential source of error.
One assumption we made in this experiment was that the average cold and hot stream
temperatures for the co-current and counter-current configurations were the same for the
trials using the hot water loop. This assumption causes the convective heat transfer co-
efficients to be dependent on stream (hot or cold) and Re (flow rate) and not on the
configuration. We made this assumption about temperatures because the difference in the
average temperatures between the configurations was not considerable. Had we evaluated
the properties of water at each configuration’s average temperature there would have been
a slight difference between the configurations with respect to heat transfer coefficients. The
counter-current hot stream for the hot water loop trials has a slightly larger average tem-
perature compared to the co-current trials, and so if we had considered this when evaluating
the heat transfer coefficients, the hot stream counter-current coefficients would have been
slightly larger than the co-current coefficients. The cold stream values would not have been
as impacted because the average cold temperatures between the streams were very close,
less than a 2% difference.
Figure 9 shows the convective heat transfer coefficients plotted against the flow rates
for the co-current configuration; the error bars in this figure, and all following figures,
represent the standard error. The corresponding counter-current configuration plot is in-
30
18000
16000
14000
12000
hi (W/m2/℃)
10000
h_H
h_H (SI)
8000
h_C
6000 h_C (SI)
4000
2000
0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Flow Rate (gal/min)
Figure 9: Dittus-Boelter Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Flow Rates for Co-Current Config-
uration
cluded in Appendix E along with plots that compare the configurations for the hot and
cold streams. Figure 9 clearly shows the positive relationship between flow rate and the
convective heat transfer coefficient which aligns with theory. The plot also shows that the
hot stream coefficients were higher than the cold stream coefficients at similar flow rates.
This is consistent with the correlation which has higher dimensionless numbers at higher
temperatures and uses a higher exponent n for the hot stream, n = 0.4, than the cold
stream, n = 0.3.
31
4.4.3 Sieder-Tate
The Sieder-Tate method was very similar to the Dittus-Boelter method, with the addition
of a corrective factor to adjust for differences between the viscosity of the fluid at the
average stream temperature and the viscosity of the fluid at the wall temperature. The
average heat transfer coefficients calculated using Equation 10 can be found in Table 9.
Table 9: Average Sieder-Tate Correlation Convective Heat Transfer Coefficients

(W/(m2 ·◦ C)) (W/(m2 ·◦ C)) (W/(m2 ·◦ C)) (W/(m2 ·◦ C))
SI 4133 4236 6373 7366
Hot Water Loop 10559 10516 8771 8778
Similarly to the results from the Dittus-Boelter method, there was not much difference
between the different configurations for the steam injector and hot water loop trials. This is
again most likely due to the assumption that was made to evaluate the properties of water at
the same average temperatures for each configuration. The heat transfer coefficients for the
hot stream would have been slightly higher for the counter-current configuration compared
to the co-current configuration. The average hH is lower and the average hC is higher when
calculated using the Sieder-Tate correlation versus the Dittus-Boelter configuration. This
is a result of the corrective factor ( µµW )0.14 , which accounts for differences in viscosity of the
fluid stream evaluated at the average stream temperature and the viscosity evaluated at the
average wall temperature. This method gives more accurate results because it corrects for
some of the temperature variations that affect the stream properties and the dimensionless
numbers.
Figure 10 shows the calculated heat transfer coefficients versus flow rates for the co-
current configuration. The corresponding figure for the counter current configuration is
included in Appendix E along with the figures that compare the configurations for the hot
and cold streams. It is clear from Figure 10 that the hot stream heat transfer coefficients
32
are higher than the cold stream heat transfer coefficients. This is consistent with the results
from the Dittus-Boelter correlation.
16000
14000
12000
10000
hi (W/m2/℃)
h_H
8000
h_H (SI)
h_C
6000
h_C (SI)
4000
2000
0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Flow Rate (gal/min)
Figure 10: Sieder-Tate Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Flow Rates for Co-Current Configu-
ration
4.4.4 Colburn Method
The Colburn method relates P r, fluid density, fluid heat capcity, fluid velocity, and the heat
transfer coefficient to a heat transfer factor all evaluated at the film temperature. Using
an approximation for the friction factor, we can determine the heat transfer coefficients
for this experiment. As stated earlier, our experiment met almost all the assumptions for
33
Re, P r, and L/de required for the Colburn method. Since Re in our experiment varied
from 1752 to 15656, most trials also met the assumptions necessary for the friction factor
approximation in Equation 13. Due to some lower Re, however, some low flow rate trials
may have an associated error larger than ±10% for their friction factor [24]. The results
calculated using equations 11 and 13 are in Table 10. Complete data tables are available
in Appendix D.
Table 10: Average Colburn Correlation Convective Heat Transfer Coefficients

(W/(m2 ·◦ C)) (W/(m2 ·◦ C)) (W/(m2 ·◦ C)) (W/(m2 ·◦ C))
SI 6469 6628 9715 11220
Hot Water Loop 18671 18640 11695 11796
Similar to previous results, this method did predict similar heat transfer coefficients
for each configuration. This trend is present when comparing hot stream heat transfer
coefficients such as Figure 11. Cold stream comparisons also hold true as seen in Figure 30
in Appendix D. Both figures again use standard error to quantify variance. If we did not
assume the average temperature for each stream was the same for both configurations, the
heat transfer coefficients for the hot stream would have been slightly higher for the counter
current configuration compared to the co-current configuration. Another common trend
present in this data is increasing heat transfer coefficients with increasing flow rate. This
result is consistent with literature that presents a 92% increase in heat transfer coefficients
for a doubling of flow rate [36].
34
30000.0
25000.0
20000.0
hi (W/℃/m2)
15000.0
Co-current
Counter Current
10000.0
5000.0
0.0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
Figure 11: Colburn Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Flow Rates for Co-current Configuration
35
While configuration does not show a difference in heat transfer coefficient, Figure 12
shows the calculated heat transfer coefficient is higher in the hot stream versus the cold
streams at the same flow rate in the co-current configuration. We see the same trend in the
counter-current configuration in Figure 48 in Appendix D. This result is again consistent
with theory because hotter streams have a higher thermal conductivity and, as a result, a
higher heat transfer coefficient [8]. In this regard, the Colburn method reaches the same
conclusion as the previous correlations discussed.
30000.0
25000.0
20000.0
hi (W/℃/m2)
15000.0 h_H
h_H (SI)
h_C
10000.0
5000.0
0.0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Flow Rate (gal/min)
Figure 12: Colburn Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Flow Rates for Co-current Configuration
36
4.5 Comparison between Correlations
We compared the four different correlation methods’ calculations of the heat transfer co-
efficients in Table 11. The data from the steam injector trials are left out for this table
because they had high variation compared to the trials that used the hot water loop. For
comparison purposes it is clearer to see trends when only comparing the hot water loop
trial data.
Table 11: Average Heat Transfer Coefficients for Each Correlation Method
(W/(m2 ·◦ C)) (W/(m2 ·◦ C)) (W/(m2 ·◦ C)) (W/(m2 ·◦ C))
Wilson 2.35 2.34 2.22 2.24
Dittus-Boelter 11764.6 11716.6 7867.5 7873.7
Sieder-Tate 10558.7 10515.6 8771.1 8778.0
Colburn 18671.0 18598.0 11695.2 11796.2
Each correlation method had different assumptions, but the Dittus-Boelter, Sieder-Tate,
and Colburn methods were the most similar, assuming turbulent flow. The assumption of
turbulent flow, Re > 10, 000, was not met in some of the trials, which leads to inaccuracies
in the calculations using these correlation equations. The average heat transfer coefficient
for the hot stream using these methods is 13,652 W/m2 ·◦ C and for the cold stream is 9463
W/m2 ·◦ C. Literature values of the heat transfer coefficient place h between 1,000-4,000
W/m2 ·◦ C [15]. The results from our data differ from literature due to errors discussed in
the Error Analysis section. The Wilson Method uses a graphical approach to determine the
heat transfer coefficients. The average heat transfer coefficient using the Wilson method
for the hot stream was 2.35 W/m2 ·◦ C and the cold stream was 2.23 W/m2 ·◦ C. While the
scale on the heat transfer coefficients varies for the methods, the trends are similar across
the correlation methods. The configuration does not show a strong connection with the
heat transfer coefficient, most likely due to the assumption of the same fluid properties for
37
the co-current and counter-current hot water loop trials. The configuration theoretically
should have an effect due to the increased efficiency of the counter-current configuration.
The hot stream heat transfer coefficients are higher than the cold stream heat transfer
coefficients, on average, which aligns with our scientific principles. As demonstrated in
the error analysis, the flow rate had a significant effect on the heat transfer coefficient.
All correlation methods show the the same positive correlation between the two variables.
We expected this trend based on the positive relationship between Re and heat transfer
coefficient.
4.6 Efficiency
To understand how well the plate heat exchanger transferred heat from the hot stream to
the cold stream, we calculated the efficiency of the overall heat exchanger, of which the
averages for each configuration are given in Table 12. Complete tables of efficiencies for
each hot water stream and configuration are given in Appendix D.
Table 12: Average Heat Transfer Efficiencies, η

Co-Current Counter-Current
SI 32.72% 45.64%
Hot Water Loop 46.52% 35.85%
The efficiency is a ratio of the measured temperature difference to the ideal temperature
difference. Since the rate of heat transfer is proportional to the temperature difference, the
efficiency is, in effect, a ratio of the measured heat transfer to the ideal heat transfer. From
theory, we would then expect the counter-current flow to have a greater efficiency than
the co-current flow. As seen in Table 12, this is true for the steam injector but not for
the hot water loop. When compared to other proportional data such as the overall heat
transfer coefficient, Uo , which was greater for co-current than counter-current (which is
contrary to theory) this indicates that the steam injector having a larger efficiency for the
38
counter-current flow is actually in contrast to the other data. This could have come from
the fact that the steam injector’s flow fluctuated much more than the building hot water
loop.
Beyond theoretical comparisons, the average efficiencies also show how much heat ac-
tually transferred from one stream to the other. In the co-current steam injector, only 33%
of the heat possible to transfer from the hot stream to the cold stream did so while 46%
for the counter-current flow. In the hot water loop, 47% of the heat transferred in the
co-current flow while 36% did so in the counter-current flow. A clear reason for an incom-
plete heat transfer from one stream to the other would is that the plate heat exchanger is
not adiabatic, which means that it is able to move heat between it and its surroundings.
Since the ambient temperature of the room - which one can assume was approximately
between 20 and 25 ◦ C - was less than that of the plate heat exchanger - which had a max
temperature of about 115 ◦ C given the inlet steam pressure of 10 psig - it is favorable for
some heat to dissipate from the heat exchanger to the surroundings in order to reach an
equilibrium between the two. Therefore, while 100% efficiency is never expected, we would
strive to increase the efficiency of heat transfer by making the system adiabatic in order to
decrease the amount of heat lost to the surroundings.
39
5 Error Analysis
5.1 Qualitative Error Analysis
During the experiment, we noted a number of issues that may have contributed to error
in our calculations. One of the first things we noticed about the plate heat exchanger
during Day 1 was the poor accuracy of the steam injector. After leaving the flow rates
untouched for 30 seconds, the temperatures continued to fluctuate greatly. This fluctuation
was especially noticeable in the steam injector hot stream from V22. To minimize this
fluctuation on our calculations, we recorded the highest and lowest temperatures collected
at the hot stream inlet and outlet. For the best results, we used the average of the two
temperatures at the inlet and outlet for our calculations. Despite these efforts, some of our
early calculations were compromised. For example, some hot outlet temperature averages
were lower than the cold outlet temperatures recorded. This discrepancy made calculating
the logarithmic mean temperature impossible. However, building hot water was much more
stable and reached steady state relatively quickly. For this reason, we did not need to take
the average temperature for hot stream measurements.
The hot stream also posed difficulties dialing the proper proper stream flow rates. Valve
type may have played a role in these struggles. The cold stream that we controlled had a
globe valve, which is designed to regulate fluid flow. Consequently, we never had trouble
controlling the flow on the cold side. However, the hot side used a ball valve to regulate
flow, and since a ball valve is only designed to shut flow on and off, it is more difficult to
make incremental changes in flow rate with it.
Furthermore, we hypothesize that some other fluctuations in hot and cold stream flow
rates could have resulted from building conditions. Because the building water was in a
closed loop, disturbances from water usage around the building, such as plumbing, could
have influenced the flow rate.
We also noticed that the outlet temperatures were more likely to fluctuate than the
40
inlet temperatures. This effect likely resulted because the outlet streams from the heat
exchanger experienced more varied conditions before they past the thermocouples. The
inlet streams came from relatively constant pipe conditions, but the outlet streams just
finished going through 38 chevron plates under turbulent flow.
Another possible error source from this experiment was fluctuations in building hot
water temperature. Between Day 2 and Day 3, the inlet building hot water temperature rose
more than 10o C. The change in weather likely caused this increase. Since this fluctuation
confounds with the transition from co-current to counter-current trials, it will be difficult
to distinguish between the two effects.
41
5.2 Quantitative Error Analysis
All the equipment we used in the experiment to take measurements have uncertainty.
We quantified these uncertainties in Table 13. The temperature uncertainties came from
this experiment’s operating procedure while the flow meter uncertainties were based off of
literature. We determined the ruler uncertainty by rule of thumb: uncertainty is one half
the smallest increment of measurement. Using these values, we will determine the error
propagated in our calculations.
Table 13: Equipment Uncertainties

Variable Instrument Smallest Increment Uncertainty Source
Toshiba Electromagnetic
Flow Rate 0.01 gal/min ±2% [30]
Flowmeter
Digital Read Out 0.01 o C ±1.1o C [29]
Temperature Thermocouple 0.01 o C ±0.1o C [29]
Heat Transfer
Ruler 0.01 m ±0.005m Rule of Thumb
Surface Area
5.2.1 Error Propagation
The uncertainty associated with our measurement devices also contributed to error in this
experiment.
s
∂∆Tlm 2 2 ∂∆Tlm 2 2 ∂∆Tlm 2 2 ∂∆Tlm 2 2
δ∆Tlm = ( ) dhTh,i + ( ) dhTh,o + ( ) dhTc,i + ( ) dhTc,o (17)
∂Th,i ∂Th,o ∂Tc,i ∂Tc,o
We used Equation 17 along with the uncertainties in Table 13 to calculate the prop-
agated error associated with the log mean temperature of a trial with a 2 gal/min cold
flow rate and 3 gal/min building hot flow rate in a co-current configuration. The log mean
42
temperature from this trial has an uncertainty of ±0.770o C and a percent error of ±4.17%.
Sample calculations are in Appendix C.
5.2.2 Statistical Analysis
We used the Fit Model Platform in JMP to determine if there is a statistically significant
relationship between the hot stream heat transfer coefficient, the response variable, and a
number of independent variables: hot and cold flow rates and heat exchanger configuration.
For this analysis, we used the hot stream heat transfer coefficients calculated from the
Wilson Plot method. Figure 13 compares our final model with the experimental calculations
we made.
Figure 13: Actual vs Predicted Plot for the hot stream heat transfer coefficient (W/K/m2 )
using the JMP Fit Model Platform
Since the ANOVA p-value of <0.0001 in Table 14 is less than α = 0.05, we can conclude
that at least one of the independent variables we tested had a statistically significant effect
on the hot stream heat transfer coefficient.
The p-values associated with the parameter estimates for cold flow rate and heat ex-
changer configuration were greater than α = 0.05; therefore, they did not have a statis-
43
tically significant effect on the heat transfer coefficient. After removing those terms from
the model, we concluded that one parameter, hot flow rate, had a p-value less than 0.0001.
Since this p-values is less than α = 0.05, this parameter had a statistically significant effect
on the heat transfer coefficient. The positive parameter estimate led us to conclude that the
hot flow rate was positively correlated with the heat transfer coefficient. Table 14 displays
the analysis of variance and parameter estimates for our final model.
Table 14: Analysis of Variance and Parameter Estimates
As seen in Table 15, our model had an R2 value of 0.918 which means the model explains
91.8% of the variation in the calculated heat transfer coefficients.
Table 15: Summary of Fit
44
6 Conclusions
Overall, our experiment reached the goals presented in our purpose. We varied flow rates
and configurations to determine their effect on heat transfer coefficients, calculated con-
vective heat transfer coefficients using one graphical and three empirical correlations, and
performed mass and energy balances on the steam injector system. From our results, we
can conclude that stream flow rate has a statistically significant effect on heat transfer co-
efficients and heat transfer. Furthermore, streams at hotter temperatures have higher heat
transfer coefficients. The heat transfer coefficients of the cold and hot stream averaged out
to be 9464 and 13,638 W/m2 ·K, respectively. These conclusion agree with the scientific
principles in our Introduction.
Additionally, data from our results and error analysis show that configuration, co-
current or counter-current, did not have a statistically significant effect on heat transfer
coefficients. From our background we expected counter-current to have better heat transfer
properties. This could be due to system fluctuations, especially with the hot stream flow
rates or other errors. The building hot water temperature also increased from Day 2 to 3.
By performing all the co-current trials on one day, we may have confounded configuration
with hot stream inlet temperature. For the steam injection hot stream we got, on aver-
age, co-current and counter-current heat transfer coefficients of 0.594 and 0.774 W/m2 ·K
respectively, while those for the hot water’s co-current and counter-current configurations
were 0.850 and 0.340 W/m2 ·K, resulting in average efficiencies of heat transfer for the co-
current and counter current configurations of 39.6% and 40.7% respectively. The hot water
stream should have higher heat transfer coefficients, and the counter-current values should
be higher than the co-current values.
Based on the temperature and flow rate data we collected from the steam injector
system, the steam quality and quantity we used during our experiment were 569.46 and
3.57 kg/s respectively; this system was much less consistent than the building hot water.
45
Steam quality should be a number between 0 and 1, indicating what fraction of the steam
is vapor, so a value of 569.46 is not possible. Analysis from the hot streams show that the
steam injector system was much less effective and efficient than the hot water streams. Low
steam temperatures and flow rates and inconsistent flow are reasons for its inefficiency.
46
7 Recommendations
One recommendation we have for the plate heat exchanger is upgrade the steam injector.
On Day 1, we noticed the poor accuracy of the steam injector. After leaving the flow rates
untouched for 30 seconds, the temperatures continued to fluctuate greatly. This fluctuation
was especially noticeable in the steam injector hot stream from V22. To minimize this
fluctuation on our calculations, we recorded the highest and lowest temperatures collected
at hot stream inlet and outlet. This fluctuation still affected some of our calculations,
as some hot outlet temperature averages were lower than the cold outlet temperatures
recorded. This discrepancy made calculating the logarithmic mean temperature impossible,
as it was a negative value. We also recommend a better control valve for the hot stream.
The current valve is not designed to regulate flow and is better suited as an on/off valve.
With a better control valve there will be less fluctuation in the hot stream, resulting in a
reduction in errors for the calculations.
Another recommendation we have is to update the plate heat exchanger water loop
from CBEC. During our experiment we would reach steady flow rates, then after a minute
or two, the flows steadily decreased or increased as a result of other water usage/plumbing
around CBEC. We recommend for the plate heat exchanger to have a modern control
system to monitor flow rate and make it more precise. Another recommendation is to have
the plate heat exchanger on its only water loop, so CBEC water usage outside the plate
heat exchanger will not affect it.
A final recommendation for the TA or instructor is to allow time in lab/procedure for
switching between counter and co-current configurations more often, rather than running
all of our co-current trials then all of our counter-current trials. We think this would
allow for more distinction about how configuration affects the heat transfer coefficient and
efficiency. We recorded much warmer water temperatures on Day 3 for counter-current
flow than we did on Day 2 with co-current, so testing both configurations on each day may
47
have prevented us from confounding the two variables.
With our recommendations, the plate heat exchanger will hopefully show more signifi-
cant results about the effect of configuration on the heat transfer coefficient and efficiency.
48
8 Design Extension
8.1 Background and Theory
We have decided to open our own microbrewery in German Village. We want to compete
at or around the same volumes of beer as the other local bars and have decided to brew 40
barrels a day, which is 14,600 barrels a year. For us to run our operation we need to excel
in efficiency and quality.
Our brewing process begins with soaking the malted barley in hot water to break the
barley down into sugars. This mash then separates the leftover grain from a sweet hot
liquid known as wort. This wort is then brought to a boil in a kettle before the hops
are added. Remaining particulate is then separated from the wort that goes off to be
cooled. The cooled wort is then put into a fermenter where yeast is added. During this
fermentation, the yeast consumes the sugars and produces carbon dioxide, alcohol, and
flavors. The beer is then matured for days, weeks, or months, so that it may get the right
flavor and smoothness. The beer is then pressurized with carbon dioxide and is ready to
be packaged [4].
One of the main problems our microbrewery faces is finding a way to cool our wort
efficiently and quickly. When chilling the boiling wort, there is a “danger zone” range of
temperatures from about 27-71 ◦ C, that allow for the rapid reproductions of microorgan-
isms and chemicals that can spoil the flavor of the wort; one of these chemicals is dimethyl
sulfide (DMS) [21]. When the wort is cooled, many bacteria start reproducing, so its im-
portant to get the wort at target temperature and in the fermenter quickly, so fermentation
can occur.
For cooling the wort there are a few options. One of the options our team discussed was
having a copper immersion wort chiller and ice bath to cool the wort. This would allow us
to be sure our wort was getting cold fast enough and cost be fully installed for $2000 or
less. Our biggest problems with this is potentially exposing each of our batches to outside
49
bacteria or chemicals that may not necessarily be boiled off. Another problem is controlling
and/or financing the wort temperature needed for our special formula, because water has
a high heat capacity. Another cooling solution we have is a no-chill (no machine cooling)
technique. This would save us a lot of money from reduced water and machine costs. The
issue with the no-chill technique is that it strays away from conventional brew making. As
a result, the hops addition to the boiling wort needs to be postponed [14]; right now we
are not trying to recreate our recipe. Additionally, we risk additional contamination of
DMS. In theory, with the no-chill technique, DMS has more time to reproduce, but since
the wort will be hot for a longer time, it should act as a sanitation method for the wort
[14]. A third option we have is a plate heat exchanger. This would allow for us to cool
the wort quickly and efficiently with city water. Plate heat exchangers have a high unit
cost that would definitely be an investment for our microbrewery. The high start-up price
affects the quantity we are able to produce. Due to capital limitations, we are only able to
invest in one plate heat exchanger system, so if something goes wrong we have to halt all
production and will lose out on profits.
8.2 Plate Statistics
We decided to go with a 112 plate counter current plate heat exchanger with a total heat
transfer area of 15.68m2 (.14m2 per plate [6]), in order to ensure our beer’s top-notch
quality. We decided the opportunity cost was worth eliminating time in the danger zone in
a sanitary environment, allowing for us to have the tastiest and cleanest beer. We decided
it is worth the investment and risk. With this system, the hot wort - around 40 barrels -
will flow in at one direction at 94 ◦ C, and city water, at 15 ◦ C, will flow in at the opposite
direction. The city water we be heated as the wort is cooled to around 21 ◦ C in a quick
30 minutes [6]. We designed our water return system so that the heated water, 85◦ C, will
help power other parts of our microbrewery.
50
Part of setting up our system is figuring out how much water is need for 40 barrels of
kg kJ
hot wort, which has a density of 1060 m3
and a specific heat of 4.05 kgK
[16]. Using
Q̇ = ṁF · cp,F (Tin,F − Tout,F ) (18)
and using the assumption with heat transfer via convection and no fouling, the heat lost
by the wort stream is heat gained by the cold water stream. We got a total heat loss from
the wort stream to be 1471309 kW. Using counter-current flow, we were able to solve that
we would need 42.4 barrels of water for every 40 barrels of hot wort, assuming no heat loss
to environment.
Q̇ = Uo · Ao · ∆TLM (19)
. Where
∆T 1 − ∆T 2
∆TLM = ∆T 1
(20)
ln( ∆T 2
)
Solving and using ∆TLM = 7.3989 ◦ C, we get a heat transfer coefficient of 12682 kW
m2 ·K
.
8.3 Cost Analysis
The cost of the plate heat exchanger itself is $5335 [6], while the total start up cost with
installation is estimated at $52250 [13]. Using Columbus power rates [5], we estimate the
annual power cost of the microbrewery to be $8450. Other costs are provided in Table 17.
After buying and installing the plate heat exchanger, this brings our total estimate
of debt to about 1.2 million dollars. We assume we will be selling the same amount as
our competitors, around 14,600 barrels, or 1,810,400 pints, a year. We plan to sell each
barrel for $167.925, or $1.354 a pint of our special brew. We assume that from each pint
the net profit after all costs (staff, power, materials) to be around 18.5% a month. As
seen from the tables we estimate an annual net profit of around $450,000, resulting in a
breaking-even-point after about 2.615 years, 2 years 7 months and 12 days.
51
Table 16: Design Extension Variables
Variable value
Hot wort Flow Rate 40 bbl/day
Wort inlet temp 94 o C
Wort outlet temp 21 o C

kg
Wort Density 1060 m3
kJ
Wort Specific Heat 4.05 kgK
City Water flow rate 42.4 bbl/day
City water inlet 15 o C
City water outlet temp 85 o C

kg
Water Density 1000 m3
kJ
Water Specific Heat 4.05 kgK
Heat Transfer 1471309 kW
∆TLM 7.3989 o C
Heat Transfer Area 15.68m2

kW
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient 12682 ( m2 ·K )
52
Table 17: Fixed/Start up Costs
Unit Price quantity total price
Property/Lot [2] $895,000 1 $895,000
Plate Heat Exchanger

$52,250 [13] 1 $52,250
(Unit + installation)
Fermentation tanks $9,800 [1] 4 $39,200
Kettles $11,303 [10] 9 $101,727
Storage Tank (50 bbl) $23,790 [12] 1 $23,790
Fermentation Kegs (1/2 bbl) $645 [22] 100 $64,500
Total Cost - - $1,176,467
Table 18: Monthly Expenses

Unit price
Beer Sales +$201,510
Labor -$25,000
Power[5] -$8450
Hops [3] -$27,360
Barley [11] -$103,200
Net Profit +$37,500
8.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
From our design extension, the plate heat exchanger is a great investment. We were able
to go from about 1.2 million in debt to cash flow positive in under 3 years. For small
brewers with low capital, this solution does not economically make sense, as it costs a
53
lot of money for the unit and set up. For these small brewers, we recommend the copper
immersion wort chiller and ice bath, as it is effective and relatively inexpensive. For brewers
without much capital worry, the plate heat exchanger will deliverer the quality and taste
they want. Configuring the heat exchanger counter-currently will provide more effective
heat transfer and will allow for the heated cold stream to power other parts of the plant. A
heat exchnager has a big opportunity cost of capital, but good investments and good beer
will help pay back the plate heat exchanger.
Besides the quality it provides, the heated city water loop can be returned to the brewery
for power purposes. When installing the heat exchanger, install it in counter-current flow
because the temperature difference between the streams is able to be easily maintained,
which allows for more effective heat transfer. An advantage of using plate heat exchangers
is that there is minimal fouling resistance due to turbulent flow. However, because one of
the fluid streams is wort, the plate heat exchanger should be regularly cleaned to prevent
fouling buildup, which would lower the heat transfer efficiency.
54
9 Notation
9.1 Nomenclature T temperature (◦ C)

T average temperature (◦ C)
A flat surface area (m2 )
∆T change in temperature (◦ C)
Ao overall developed surface area (m2 )
u velocity ( ms )
b mean flow channel gap (m) or base of
Uo overall heat transfer coefficient ( mW
2 ·K )
trapezoid (m) gal

V̇ volumetric flow rate ( min )
cp specific heat capacity of water ( kg·J◦C )
w width of plate (m)
de channel equivalent/hydraulic diameter
β chevron angle (◦ )
(m)
η efficiency
h height of trapezoid (m) or convection co-
µ dynamic viscosity at average stream tem-
efficient ( m2W·◦ C ) kg
perature ( m·s )
k thermal conductivity of water ( mW
2 ·◦C ) kg
ρ density of water ( m3)
L length of plate (m)

φ enlargement factor
Lp adjusted length (m)
ṁ mass flow rate ( kg
s
)
N u Nusselt number 9.2 Subscripts
pc protracted length (m)
C cold water feed
pd developed length (m)
H hot water feed
px vertical channel length (m)
in feed entering plate
P r Prandtl number
LM logarithmic mean
Q̇ heat transfer rate (W )
◦ out feed exiting plate
R thermal resistance ( WC )
◦ W wall surface
Rf fouling resistance ( WC )
◦
Rov overall thermal resistance ( WC )
◦
Rp plate conduction resistance ( WC )
Re Reynolds number
55
10 Literature Cited
References
[1] 10 bbl asme conical-bottom fermenter (unitank).

https://www.cedarstoneindustry.com/10-BBL-Conical-Bottom-Fermenter-
Unitank p 256.html?gclid=CjwKCAiAqaTjBRAdEiwAOdx9xoppENet.
[2] 940 s. front st. https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/940-S-Front-St-Columbus-

OH/15188985/. Accessed: 2019-2-18.
[3] Amarillo vgxp01 c.v.- 2017 pellets. https://hopsdirect.com/collections/pellet-

hops/products/amarillo-vgxp01-c-v-pellets?variant=36751448833. Accessed: 2019-2-
18.
[4] Brewing process. http://craftbeertemple.com/videoblog/brewing-process/. Accessed:

2019-2-15.
[5] Columbus, oh electricity statistics. https://www.electricitylocal.com/states/ohio/columbus/.
[6] Cpe60h-xxd stainless steel plate heat exchanger.

https://www.cpesystems.com/collections/heat-exchangers/products/cpe60h-xxd-
ss-plate-heat-exchanger?variant=22513895620. Accessed: 2019-2-13.
[7] Dittus-boelter equation. https://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-engineering/heat-

transfer/convection-convective-heat-transfer/dittus-boelter-equation/. Accessed:
2019-2-14.
[8] Forms of heat transfer. https://www.cradle-cfd.com/tec/column01/010.html,.
[9] Fouling. http://www.hcheattransfer.com/fouling1.html,.
56
[10] Glacier tanks. https://www.glaciertanks.com/commercial-brew-kettles.html. Ac-
cessed: 2019-2-18.
[11] Gw full pint. https://www.williamsbrewing.com/50-Lbs-GW-Full-Pint-Actual-Cost-

Shipping-Item-P3980.aspx. Accessed: 2019-2-18.
[12] Gw kent brite storage tanks. https://www.gwkent.com/bright-tank-jacketed.html.
[13] Instructions for file equipment costs accompanying plant design and eco-
nomics for chemical engineers, 5th edition, peters, timmerhaus, and west.
http://www.mhhe.com/engcs/chemical/peters/data/ce.html. Accessed: 2019-2-18.
[14] No-chill brewing. https://beerandbrewing.com/no-chill-brewing/. Accessed: 2019-2-

15.
[15] Overall heat transfer coefficients in heat exchanger constructions - tubular, plate
or spiral. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heat-transfer-coefficients-exchangers-
d4 50.html. Accessed : 2019 − 2 − 18.
[16] Thermal process engineering for brewers. https://www.mbaa.com/districts/NorthernCalifornia/Docum

3%20F%20Scheer%20Thermodynamics%20for%20Brewers.pdf. Accessed: 2019-2-18.
[17] Water - density, specific weight and thermal expansion coeffi-

cient. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-density-specific-weight-
d5 95.html. Accessed : 2019 − 2 − 7.
[18] Water - dynamic and kinematic viscosity. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-

dynamic-kinematic-viscosity-d5 96.html. Accessed : 2019 − 2 − 10.
[19] Water - heat capacity (specific heat). https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-

heat-capacity-water-d6 60.html. Accessed : 2019 − 2 − 7.
57
[20] Water - thermal conductivity. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-liquid-gas-
thermal-conductivity-temperature-pressure-d2 012.html. Accessed : 2019 − 2 − 10.
[21] Wort chilling and the danger zone. http://beerandwinejournal.com/the-danger-zone/.

Accessed: 2019-2-13.
[22] Yeast fermentation kegs. https://www.gwkent.com/yeast-propagation-keg-

system.html.
[23] Zahid H. Ayub. Plate heat exchanger literature survey and new heat transfer and
pressure drop correlations for refrigerant evaporators. Heat Transfer Engineering,
24(5):3–16, 2003.
[24] Allan P. Colburn. A method of correlating forced convection heat-transfer data and
a comparison with fluid friction. International Journal Heat Mass Transfer, 7:1359–
1384, 1964.
[25] FW Dittus and LMK Boelter. Heat transfer in automobile radiators of the tubular
type. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, 12(1):3–22, 1985.
[26] Dias Ricardo P. Nóbrega João M. Fernandes, Carla S. and Jo ao M. Maia. Laminar
flow in chevron-type plate heat exchangers: Cfd analysis of tortuosity, shape factor
and friction factor. Chemical Engineering and Processing, 46:825–833, 2007.
[27] Jose Fernandez-Seara, Francisco J Uhı́a, Jaime Sieres, and Antonio Campo. A general
review of the wilson plot method and its modifications to determine convection coef-
ficients in heat exchange devices. Applied Thermal Engineering, 27(17-18):2745–2757,
2007.
[28] A.B. Kananeh and Julian Peschel. Fouling in plate heat exchangers: Some practical
experience. Heat Exchangers - Basic Design Applications, pages 533–550, 2012.
58
[29] James Kim. Operating Procedure for Plate Heat Exchanger (PHX), January 2019.
[30] Brian Lamb. Plate and frame heat exchangers. www.thermopedia.com/content/1035/.

Accessed: 2019-1-28.
[31] Department of Chemical Engineering/Lund University. Reynolds analogy and chilton

colburn analogy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YlQ4 jLg s. Accessed : 2019 −
2 − 16.
[32] R.M. Price. Determining mass transfer coefficients.

http://facstaff.cbu.edu/rprice/lectures/mtcoeff.html. Accessed: 2019-2-17.
[33] E.N. Sieder and G.E. Tate. Heat transfer and pressure drop of liquids in tubes. In-
dustrial and Engineering Chemistry, 28(12):1429–1435, 1936.
[34] Chicaiza E.J.D. Gonzalez M.P.C. Ferruzola C.L.V. Tamayo, E.T. and Gustavo Peralta
Landeta.
[35] Ismail Tosun. Modeling in Transport Phenomena. Elsevier Science, 2 edition, 2007.
[36] Alexander M. Wheeler Ondej Chvla Belle R. Upadhyaya. Vikram Singh, Matthew
R. Lish. Dynamic modeling and performance analysis of a two-fluid molten-salt breeder
reactor system. Nuclear Technology, 202(1):15–38, (2018.
59
11 Appendix A: Preliminary Assignment
11.1 Safety Hazards and Precautions
One safety hazard we have to be cautious of is steam lines and hot water lines, as they
will be very hot. When we operate around/on the steam and hot water systems, it is
especially important to wear long sleeve shirt, pants, closed toed shoe, hard hat, chemical
goggles, and thermal insulating gloves. This is because not all the steam is caught by the
insulating foam, this is a burn hazard to the operator —2—. Proper coverage can help
minimize, if any, a steam or hot water burn. We realize it is especially important to wear
the thermal insulating gloves when working with the steam and hot water lines. We will
also be cautious when changing flow valves, changing them slowly and in order, so we can
closely monitor the pressure to ensure that the steam can be fully absorbed. In our lab
we should not see any damaging and excessive bubbles outside the injector, those occur at
large pressure differences and the CBEC pressure is at 10 psig —2—.
60
11.2 Flow Diagram
Figure 14: Flowsheet of plate heat exchanger and Steam Injection Water Heater [29]
11.3 Material and Supply Check List
Materials and Equipment
61
• Utilities
– Hot water and steam utility
– Cold water utility
• Steam Injector (SI) System
• Pneumatic Steam Valve
Instruments
• plate heat exchanger
– Chevron-type plates made of UNS S31600 stainless steel
• Temperature controller
– Set to ¿350 K
• Flowmeters (F1-F3)
• Pressure gauges (P1-P7)
• Thermometers
– Hot stream thermocouple (T1 & T2)
– Cold stream thermocouple (T3 & T4)
– SI outlet (T5)
• Valves
– Hot stream (H1-H6, CS2, D2)
– Cold stream (C1-C6, CS1, D1)
– Main steam gate valve (V17)
62
∗ Open before experiment
– Control steam gate valve (V18)
– Pressure gauge gate valve (V19)
– Steam purge ball valve (V20)
– City water circuit setter balance valve (V22)
PPE [29]
• Long pants
• Long sleeves
• Close-toed and secure footwear
• Hard hat with correct name on front
• Safety glasses
63
11.4 Experimental Procedure
A) Startup Procedure: Steam Injector Purging
1. Ensure the yellow steam injector purge valve (V20) at the bottom of the SI is
open.
2. Ensure that the green city water line valve (CW1) is turned off at the source.
3. Ensure the three-way valves (H3, C3, C4, C5) are in the correct orientation for
both hot water stream and cold-water stream. Cold water stream should form
a closed loop and return to the building, and source of hot water to the plate
exchanger is from the steam injector and the plate exchanger exit hot water is
being discharged to the drain.
4. Open the main water valves (C1, C6) for cold water stream (white ball valves
located above the unit, near ceiling). Open the blue globe valve (C2) to ensure
cold water is flowing (¿5 gal/min).
5. Open green ball valve (H2) downstream of the Steam injector.
6. Completely open the red globe valve (H4) downstream of the hot stream flow
meter.
7. Turn on the compressed air.
8. Open ATE valve by turning the temperature control knob to the maximum
position (counter clockwise).
9. Check the disk indicator located below the green steam regulator to confirm the
ATE steam valve is open (the disk position should be totally up).
10. Once the valve is open, open the steam gate valve (V17) using thermal insulated
gloves.
11. Check the drainage from the yellow purge valve (V20) and both sides of the
64
heat exchanger (D1, D2) by pulling the draining tube out; wait until the water
is clear before proceeding. Then, the SI system will be purged.
B) Steady-State Procedure with Steam Injector
1. After steam line is purged of condensate, close the yellow SI purge valve (V20)
using thermal insulated gloves.
2. Open the green city water ball valve (CW1).
3. Close the ball valve (H5) and open the ball valve (H6) so that the city water
will return to the drain.
4. This will allow water to run through the heat exchanger, and you should see
water being discharged to the drain. If there is no flow, more than likely one of
the valves in the hot water stream line is not in the correct position.
5. Ensure that the temperature controller is set to ¿350 and the pressure on the
pressure gauge immediately after the controller is 15-20 psig.
6. Determine if the heat exchanger is configured for co-current or counter-current

flow; either configuration is acceptable, as both must be tested.
7. Set hot water and cold water flow rates to trial 1 as described in your groups
experimental design. Adjust the red circuit setter balance valve (V22) for hot
stream water flow rate and adjust the blue globe valve (C2) on the cold water side
for cold stream water flow rate. Other valves should be used only for completely
stopping the flow, not adjusting the flow rate.
8. Use the temperature display and flow meter to determine when the system has
reached steady state.
9. Record the flow rate, inlet temperature, and outlet temperature for both streams.
10. Go back to step 7 using the next set of flow rates.
65
11. After all trials are completed, reverse the heat exchanger configuration (switch-
ing co-current to counter-current or vice versa); see D) Changing the Configu-
ration.
C) Steady-State Procedure with CBEC Hot Water Supply
1. Ensure the steam injector has been shut down; see F) Shut Down Procedure.
2. At the hot water side of the plate HX, change the 3-way valve (H3) to accept
the building hot water loop.
3. In general, there are ball valves that are located at the source/return water loops
at the service carrier and 1 globe valve downstream of the volumetric flow meter.
First, open the ball valves (H1, H5), close the ball valve (H6) and then slowly
open the ball valve (H4) to control flow, if there is no flow then a valve is not in
the open position.
4. Note: There are circuit setter valves on the water loop (cold and hot) return line
to the building, which can help control the maximum flow rate in the system,
this can be used to decrease maximum flow rate in the system if desired.
5. Set hot water and cold-water flow rates to trial 1 as described in your groups
experimental design.
6. Wait for the system to reach equilibrium, this can be determined by waiting for
the exit streams to reach steady state.
7. Record the flow rate, inlet temperature, and outlet temperature for both streams.
8. Go back to step 7 using the next set of flow rates.
9. After all trials are completed, reverse the heat exchanger configuration (switch-
ing co-current to counter-current or vice versa); see Changing the Configuration.
D) Changing the Configuration
66
1. Ensure the inlet temperature of the hot stream is stable.
2. Identify the cold stream inlet and exit.
3. At the same time, move valves C3 and C4 from the horizontal to vertical position,
and C5 from the vertical to the horizontal position so that the flow pattern
changes from counter-current to co-current, and vice versa.
4. Verify that correct configuration has been achieved with team members, flow
through pipes, and expected inlet and outlet temperatures in the thermocouple
readings.
5. Go back to Steady-State Procedure and collect the data for the new flow config-
uration.
E) Procedure to Calculate the Steam Flow Rate
1. The steam flow rate can be determined by manually turning the temperature
control valve to 0, which will close the ATE valve so let only the city water
through the flow meter.
2. Wait for the temperatures to stabilize and then record the flow rates and tem-
peratures of water without steam and with steam.
3. Repeat trial to get at least three conditions (between 3 gal/min and 5 gal/min).
F) Shutdown Procedure
When using the building hot water supply
1. Turn off the hot water loop by closing the ball valves (H1, H5) at the service
carrier.
2. Allow residual heat in the pipes to cool down, continue to run the cold-water
loop.
67
3. Close the white ball valves (C1, C6) and red globe valve (C2) to stop water
flowing through the cold side.
4. Open the blue ball valve (D1) to purge the remaining cold water out of the plate
heat exchanger and ensure that the pressure of the inlet and outlet of cold water
are both returned to 0 psig.
5. Open the yellow ball valve (D2) to purge the remaining hot water out of the
plate heat exchanger and ensure that the pressure of the inlet and outlet of hot
water are both returned to 0 psig.
6. Clean-up the equipment and the surrounding area; use a squeegee or paper
towels if any spills occurred.
When using steam injector system as the hot water supply
1. Close the main steam gate valve (V17).
2. Set the air regulator back to 0 psig, turn the temperature controller back to
zero.
3. Turn off the compressed air and ensure that the pressure gauge for the com-
pressed air is returned to 0 psig.
4. Open the steam injector purge valve (V20). Caution: it may be hot! Wear
insulating gloves!
5. Allow residual steam pressure to disperse and the heater to cool down.
6. Close green ball valve (H2) downstream of the Steam injector.
7. Close the city water ball valve (CW1), the red circuit setter balance valve (V22)
and the red ball valve (H4).
8. Let the cold water continue to flow ( 7gal/min) after it reaches room temperature
for another 5 minutes.
68
9. Close the white ball valves (C1, C6) and red globe valve (C2) to stop water
flowing through the cold side.
10. Open the blue ball valve (D1) to purge the remaining cold water out of the plate
heat exchanger and ensure that the pressure of the inlet and outlet of cold water
are both returned to 0 psig.
11. Open the yellow ball valve (D2) to purge the remaining hot water out of the
plate heat exchanger and ensure that the pressure of the inlet and outlet of hot
water are both returned to 0 psig.
12. Clean-up the equipment and the surrounding area; use a squeegee or paper
towels if any spills occurred [29].
69
11.5 Emergency Shutdown Procedure
There are only two essential steps for an emergency shutdown with concerns to safety:
1. Close the main steam gate valve (V17).
2. Set the air regulator back to 0 psig by turning off the air supply [29].
70
11.6 Introduction Outline
11.6.1 Background
*Add sentence about invention of plate heat exchanger*. plate heat exchangers facilitate
heat transfer between two fluids and have many applications in the food, pharmaceutical,
chemical processing, and polymer industries. In plate heat exchangers, hot and cold fluid
streams flow on either side of metal plates and heat transfers from the hot stream to the
cold stream via convection. The large surface area from the plates allows for increased heat
transfer between the streams. The metal plates are patterned with added ridges which
increase the turbulence of the fluid flow between the plates and can increase the heat
transfer. The plates we used during the experiment were patterned with a chevron pattern
to maximize heat transfer.
plate heat exchangers have many advantages and are primarily used when there are low
flow rates and a relatively low temperature difference [29]. plate heat exchangers are also
much more compact than tubular heat exchangers and are still able to achieve high heat
transfer rates for liquid/liquid duties [30]. *Add more about advantages/disadvantages of
plate heat exchangers here*.
In this experiment, several operating conditions on the plate heat exchanger are changed
to monitor the effects on the heat transfer between the hot and cold water streams. plate
heat exchangers can operate in co-current and counter-current flow configurations, and
both configurations are tested in this experiment. In co-current flow, the hot and cold
streams both flow in and out on the same side. In counter-current flow, the hot and cold
streams enter and exit on opposite sides. Figure 15 below shows the two configurations
and the corresponding temperature profiles.
Additionally, the flow rates of both the hot and cold streams are varied to investigate
the effects of the various flow rates on heat transfer. *Add sentence or two about the
steam injector and the two sources for the hot stream*. The performance of the heat
71
Figure 15: Flow Configurations and Temperature Profiles [29]
transfer is evaluated using the flow rate data, and other operating conditions, to calculate
the effectiveness of the heat exchanger, the overall heat transfer coefficient, and both the
cold and hot stream convective heat transfer coefficients for each configuration. Further
explanation of the important scientific principles behind the plate heat exhanger experiment
can be found in section 11.6.2.
11.6.2 Scientific Principles
To calculate the heat transfer rate and the overall heat transfer coefficient between the hot
and cold streams, we need to measure several important variables during this experiment:
the temperatures of the hot and cold streams entering and exiting the plate heat exchanger
and the flow rates of the hot and cold streams.
72
Heat Transfer Rate Equation
Q = ṁF · cp,F (Tin,F − Tout,F ) (21)
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient
Q = Uo · Ao · ∆TLM (22)
Logarithmic Mean Temperature Difference
∆T 1 − ∆T 2
∆TLM = ∆T 1
(23)
ln( ∆T 2
)
Mass and Energy Balance around Steam Injector
ṁ1 + ṁ2 = ṁ3 (24)
Q̇1 + Q̇2 = Q̇3 (25)
Nusselt number
αL
Nu = (26)
λ
• where α is convective heat transfer coefficient, L is representative dimension, and λ

is the thermal conductivity of the fluid
Reynolds number
uLρ
Re = (27)
η
• where u is fluid velocity, ρ is fluid density, η is fluid viscosity, and L is the characteristic
length
Prandtl number
ηcp
(28)
λ
Dittus-Boetler
N u = cRem P rn (29)
73
• where c, m, and n are constants based on experimental data
• *figure out which equation from the paper to use* [25]
Wilson method
• Plot 1
Uo A o
(aka Rov which is the overall resistance) vs. Re−m
F where F is the fluid with
varied velocities and m is assumed to be 0.8. Determine film coefficients and fouling
factor from Wilson plot [29].
Modified Wilson method
• Wilson method, however, do not assume m to be 0.8. Instead, figure out m through
an iterative process [29].
4 methods of analysis with different film coefficients, fouling coefficients, and resistances.
1. Wilson method
2. Modified Wilson method
3. ? figure out from literature
4. ? figure out from literature
Compare in graphical fashion, compare to literature values, analyze theoretically.
74
11.7 Data Sheets
75
Cold Stream
Co-Current
2 (gal/min) 4 (gal/min) 6 (gal/min) 8 (gal/min) 10 (gal/min) 12 (gal/min)
3 (gal/min) Trial 1 Trial 7 Trial 13 Trial 19 Trial 25 Trial 31
Building Hot 6 (gal/min) Trial 3 Trial 9 Trial 15 Trial 21 Trial 27 Trial 33
Steam 7 (gal/min) Trial 4 Trial 10 Trial 16 Trial 22 Trial 28 Trial 34
2 (gal/min) 7 (gal/min) 12 (gal/min)
Steam 2 (gal/min) Trial 73 Trial 76 Trial 79
Injected Hot 3 (gal/min) Trial 74 Trial 77 Trial 80
Stream 4 (gal/min) Trial 75 Trial 78 Trial 81
Cold Stream
Counter-Current
2 (gal/min) 4 (gal/min) 6 (gal/min) 8 (gal/min) 10 (gal/min) 12 (gal/min)
Building Hot 6 (gal/min) Trial 39 Trial 45 Trial 51 Trial 57 Trial 63 Trial 69
Steam 7 (gal/min) Trial 40 Trial 46 Trial 52 Trial 58 Trial 64 Trial 70
Steam 2 (gal/min) Trial 82 Trial 85 Trial 88
Injected Hot 3 (gal/min) Trial 83 Trial 86 Trial 89
Stream 4 (gal/min) Trial 84 Trial 87 Trial 90
Configuration Hot Flow Rate Hot Velocity Hot Mass Flow
Run Order Trial
(co or counter) (gal/min) (m/sec) (kg/sec)
13 73 #DIV/0! 0
14 74 #DIV/0! 0
15 75 #DIV/0! 0
17 76 #DIV/0! 0
12 77 #DIV/0! 0
18 78 #DIV/0! 0
16 79 #DIV/0! 0
8 80 #DIV/0! 0
6 81 #DIV/0! 0
Day 1
9 82 #DIV/0! 0
3 83 #DIV/0! 0
2 84 #DIV/0! 0
11 85 #DIV/0! 0
10 86 #DIV/0! 0
7 87 #DIV/0! 0
5 88 #DIV/0! 0
4 89 #DIV/0! 0
1 90 #DIV/0! 0
82 1 #DIV/0! 0
79 2 #DIV/0! 0
73 3 #DIV/0! 0
62 4 #DIV/0! 0
72 5 #DIV/0! 0
55 6 #DIV/0! 0
23 12 #DIV/0! 0
47 18 #DIV/0! 0
25 24 #DIV/0! 0
52 30 #DIV/0! 0
43 36 #DIV/0! 0
33 7 #DIV/0! 0
35 8 #DIV/0! 0
66 9 #DIV/0! 0
58 10 #DIV/0! 0
51 11 #DIV/0! 0
41 13 #DIV/0! 0
26 14 #DIV/0! 0
53 15 #DIV/0! 0
87 16 #DIV/0! 0
19 17 #DIV/0! 0
32 19 #DIV/0! 0
49 20 #DIV/0! 0
24 21 #DIV/0! 0
70 22 #DIV/0! 0
44 23 #DIV/0! 0
60 25 #DIV/0! 0
88 26 #DIV/0! 0
85 27 #DIV/0! 0
48 28 #DIV/0! 0
27 29 #DIV/0! 0
50 31 #DIV/0! 0
86 32 #DIV/0! 0
69 33 #DIV/0! 0
63 34 #DIV/0! 0
29 35 #DIV/0! 0
Day 2
59 37 #DIV/0! 0
39 38 #DIV/0! 0
80 39 #DIV/0! 0
78 40 #DIV/0! 0
74 41 #DIV/0! 0
90 42 #DIV/0! 0
56 48 #DIV/0! 0
89 54 #DIV/0! 0
83 60 #DIV/0! 0
54 66 #DIV/0! 0
68 72 #DIV/0! 0
30 43 #DIV/0! 0
57 44 #DIV/0! 0
45 45 #DIV/0! 0
67 46 #DIV/0! 0
76 47 #DIV/0! 0
71 49 #DIV/0! 0
65 50 #DIV/0! 0
34 51 #DIV/0! 0
20 52 #DIV/0! 0
81 53 #DIV/0! 0
38 55 #DIV/0! 0
64 56 #DIV/0! 0
84 57 #DIV/0! 0
22 58 #DIV/0! 0
21 59 #DIV/0! 0
42 61 #DIV/0! 0
77 62 #DIV/0! 0
61 63 #DIV/0! 0
75 64 #DIV/0! 0
37 65 #DIV/0! 0
31 67 #DIV/0! 0
46 68 #DIV/0! 0
36 69 #DIV/0! 0
40 70 #DIV/0! 0
28 71 #DIV/0! 0
Inlet Temperature (°C) Outlet Temperature (°C)
Cold Flow Rate Cold Velocity Cold Mass Flow
(gal/min) (m/sec) (kg/sec) Hot Cold Hot Cold
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
Q_H Q_C ΔT_LM R_OV R_H R_p R_C R_f Re (hot)
Re (hot)^-0.8
(J/s) (J/s) (K) (K*s/J) (K*s/J) (K*s/J) (K*s/J) (K*s/J) (K*s/J)
0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
U_ov h_H h_C h_f
Re (cold) Re (cold)^-0.8
(J/K/s/m^2) (J/K/s/m^2) (J/K/s/m^2) (J/K/s/m^2)
#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Wilson Plot (co, hot) Plate Measurements
m 0.8 p_c (m) 0.008

Slope p_x (m) 0.0095
Intercept b (m) 0.002
C1 0 β (°) 30
C2 0 δ (m) 0.0005
L (m)
Wilson Plot (co, cold) L_p (m)
m 0.8 Flat Area
Slope w (m)
Intercept φ
C1 0 de (m) #DIV/0!
C2 0 A_H (m^2) 0
A_C (m^2) 0
Wilson Plot (counter, hot) A_ov 0
m 0.8
Slope Water Properties
Intercept µ (Pa*s)
C1 0 ρ (kg/m^3)
C2 0 C_pH (J/kg/K)
C_pC (J/kg/K)
Wilson Plot (counter, cold)
m 0.8
Slope
Intercept
C1 0
C2 0
Co-Current Wilson Plots Varying Hot Stream
Flow Rates
1
0.8
Rov (k/W)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Re(Hot)^-0.8
Counter-Current Wilson Plots Varying

Cold Stream Flow Rates
1
0.8
Rov (k/W)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Re(Cold)^-0.8
Counter-Current Wilson Plots Varying
Hot Stream Flow Rates
1
0.8
Rov (k/W)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Re(Hot)^-0.8
Co-Current Wilson Plots Varying Cold

Stream Flow Rates
1
0.8
Rov (k/W)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Re(Cold)^-0.8
Without Steam With Steam
Trial
Flow Rate (gal/min) Temperature (°C) Flow Rate (gal/min) Temperature (°C)
SI1
SI2
SI3
Steam Quality Steam Quantity (gal/min)
0
0
0
12 Appendix B: Experimental Summary Report
12.1 Summary
2/1/19 Day 1: After setting up the computer software and programs, we first opened the
steam injector purge valve, V20, to rid any previously purged steam. While doing this, we
prepared the cold water stream by adjusting the three way valves:H3,C3,C4, and C5. We
configured these so the cold water from CBEC would return back in CBEC’s closed water
loop, while we discharged the hot water to the drain. After this, we closed both drains
for the hot and cold water loops. From here, we accessed our cold water stream by first
opening the main water valves C1 and C6, and controlling the rate of flow with C2.
We then prepared the steam by opening the green ball valve H2, then by opening the red
globe valve H4. After opening those valves, we turned on the compressed air and opened
the ATE valve by setting the temperature knob to a maximum. Wearing thermal gloves,
we opened steam gate V17. We then prepared our steam for the experiment by closing
V20. Next, we opened the city-water ball valve (CW1), closed H5, and opened H6 so that
the city water would drain. From here, we started collecting experimental data.
Jon measured the plate dimensions for future heat coeffecient calculations. Caitlyn
controlled the cold water flow stream with valve C2. Peter controlled the steam flow rate
with the circuit setter balance valve (V22). Finally, Paul operated the computer, led each
trial, and recorded temperatures and flow rates.
Before we began the trials, we ensured our valves were configured for co-current flow.
This configuration occurs when C3 is vertical, C4 is closed, and C5 is open. We tested
a total of 9 trials in this configuration; the steam injected hot stream ran at 2, 3, and 4
gal/min and the cold building stream ran at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 gal/min respectively.
For each trial, Paul read off the trial , cold stream flow rate, and the steam flow rate. The
2 members in charge of controlling the flow rates, via valves, adjusted the flow rates to
match the trial specifications as close as possible. Once the plate heat exchanger reached
90
steady state, we recorded the inlet and outlet temperature of each fluid stream as well as
the each streams’ flow rate. After these 9 trials, we adjusted the system to counter-current
flow by making C3 horizontal, opened C4, and closed C5. Then, we used the same flow
rate adjustment process and data collection methods as before for the next 9 trials in the
counter-current configuration.
After we completed all 18 trials, we measured the flow rate and temperature of the
steam injector stream with and without steam at three flow rates: 2.5, 3, and 4 gal/min.
Later we will use these measurements to calculate the steam quantity and quality.
From here we shut down the heat exchanger and steam injector. Using thermal gloves,
we closed V17, turned the temperature control knob to 0 or off, opened V20, closed H2,
closed CW1,closed V22, and closed H4. After allowing the cold water to flow for 5 minutes,
we closed C1,C6,C2,to stop the flow of cold water. Then we opened D1 and D2 to purge
any cold and hot streams.
2/6/19 Day 2: We followed the procedure from Friday, to set up the cold stream, this
time using CBEC’s hot water supply rather than steam injection. We did this by making
sure H3 was turned to accept the building’s hot water loop. We then opened H1 and H5,
and closed H6. We were then able to run our trials. Most of us had responsibilities similar
to day 1; however, Peter oversaw the building hot water flow rate with H4 instead of the
steam flow rate. First, we configured our flow for co-current. Then, we tested a total of 36
trials in this configuration; the building hot water stream ran at 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 gal/min
and the cold building stream ran at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 gal/min respectively. Paul read
off flow vales and Peter and Caitlyn adjusted their valves to match the trial flow rates.
Once the plate heat exchanger reached steady state, we collected the same temperature
and flow rate data recorded on day 1. Then, we shut down the heat exchanger by closing
H1 and H5 with thermal insulating gloves. We then closed C1,C6,C2,to stop the flow of
cold water. Finally, we opened D1 and D2 to purge any cold and hot streams.
2/8/19 Day3: We followed the start up procedure for Day 2, except using counter-
91
current flow. We used the same flow rates from Day 2 to run 36 trials in the new configu-
ration. For each trial, Paul read off flow rates, and Peter and Caitlyn adjusted their valves
to match the trial flow rates. After collecting the steady state temperatures and flow rates
from each trials, we followed the same shut down procedure completed in Day 2.
92
12.1.1 Experimental Observations and Difficulties
One of the first things we noticed about the plate heat exchanger during Day 1 was the poor
accuracy of the steam injector. After leaving the flow rates untouched for 30 seconds, the
temperatures continued to fluctuate greatly. This fluctuation was especially noticeable in
the steam injector hot stream from V22. To minimize this fluctuation on our calculations,
we recorded the highest and lowest temperatures collected at hot stream inlet and outlet.
For future calculations, we will use the average of the two temperatures at the inlet and
outlet. Despite these efforts, some of our early calculations were compromised. For exam-
ple, some hot outlet temperature averages were lower than the cold outlet temperatures
recorded. This discrepancy would make calculating the logarithmic mean temperature im-
possible. However, building hot water was much more stable and reached steady state
relatively quickly. For this reason, we did not need to take the average temperature for hot
stream measurements.
The hot stream also posed difficulties dialing the proper proper stream flow rates. Valve
type may have played a role in these struggles. The cold stream that we controlled had a
globe valve which is designed to regulate fluid flow. Consequently, we never had trouble
controlling the flow on the cold side. However, the hot side used a ball valve to regulate
flow, and since a ball valve is only designed to shut flow on and off, it is more difficult to
make incremental changes in flow rate with it.
Furthermore, we hypothesize that some other fluctuations in hot and cold stream flow
rates could have resulted from building conditions. Because the building water was in a
closed loop, disturbances from water usage, such as plumbing, around the building could
have influenced the flow rate.
We also noticed that the outlet temperatures were more likely to fluctuate than the
inlet temperatures. This effect likely resulted because the outlet streams from the heat
exchanger experienced more varied conditions before they past the thermocouples. The
93
inlet streams came from relatively constant pipe conditions, but the outlet streams just
finished going through 38 chevron plates under turbulent flow.
Another observation from this experiment was fluctuations in building hot water tem-
perature. Between Day 2 and Day 3, the inlet building hot water temperature rose more
than 10o C. The change in weather likely caused this increase. Since this fluctuation con-
founds with the transition from co-current to counter current trials, it will be difficult to
distinguish between the two effects.
While following the operating procedure on Day we ran into some issues with the hot
building water supply. When we opened H1 after opening H3, water rushed into the drain
and caused a small flood. After our TA mopped up the excess water, we decided to alter
the operating procedure when starting up the hot water supply. First, we opened H3 so the
building hot water flows into the heat exchanger. Then we opened H5, closed H6, opened
H1, and finally, opened H4 slowly, so water flows properly. Finally, valve C2 was leaking
on Day 1 first day, and we need to tighten it before proceeding.
94
12.1.2 Data
Table 19: Steam Injector Balance Trials

Flow Rate (gal/min) Avg Temperature (C) Flow Rate (gal/min) Temperature (C)
2.70 6.3 2.80 40.0

3.27 6.4 3.55 31.0
4.05 5.5 4.55 24.5
Table 20: Co-Current Trials using Steam Injector

V˙H V˙C Uo
Tin,H (◦ C) Tin,C (◦ C) Tout,H (◦ C) Tout,C (◦ C) Q˙H (W) Q˙C (W) ∆TLM (◦ C)
(gal/min) (gal/min) ( mW
2 ·K )
1.92 2.01 35.9 15.2 25.4 26.0 5.27 -5.72 error error
3.17 2.01 37.8 15.2 28.5 26.9 7.79 -6.19 7.86 0.331
4.06 2.01 27.6 15.2 23.2 23.1 4.64 -4.18 2.54 0.645
1.84 6.98 36.4 14.8 19.8 18.2 8.05 -6.25 7.61 0.349
3.08 6.97 37.5 15.3 22.2 21.4 12.43 -11.20 6.33 0.693
4.13 7.02 26.9 14.8 19.2 18.5 8.30 -6.84 3.99 0.706
1.80 12.00 35.9 14.9 17.8 17.5 8.56 -8.22 4.87 0.640
2.99 12.01 37.8 15.2 20.1 19.1 13.95 -12.33 6.83 0.715
4.08 1.99 27.0 15.2 18.2 17.9 9.49 -1.41 3.00 0.676
95
Table 21: Counter Current Trials using Steam Injector
V˙H V˙C Uo
2 ·K )
1.96 2.03 35.8 15.1 11.2 28.0 12.67 -6.90 error error
3.21 2.02 36.6 15.0 24.6 33.2 10.12 -9.68 5.97 0.616
4.10 2.03 26.3 15.0 21.1 25.0 5.58 -5.35 3.05 0.665
1.89 7.00 35.6 15.0 16.8 19.5 9.36 -8.29 6.47 0.508
3.27 6.99 36.0 15.1 18.0 23.2 15.48 -14.91 6.67 0.847
3.95 7.00 27.4 15.0 17.2 21.0 10.59 -11.06 3.93 1.023
2.06 11.96 34.3 15.0 16.3 17.5 9.77 -7.87 5.98 0.548
3.31 12.00 35.7 14.9 16.6 20.0 16.66 -16.11 6.24 0.977
4.13 11.98 26.2 14.8 16.3 18.1 10.82 -10.41 3.90 1.011
96
Table 22: Co-current Trials using Hot Water Loop
V˙H V˙C Uo
2 ·K )
2.91 1.97 73.5 15.2 50.1 47.2 17.63 -16.56 18.46 0.34
4.92 1.98 73.0 15.0 56.4 53.7 21.15 -20.13 18.03 0.43
6.03 1.98 73.0 15.0 58.3 55.7 22.95 -21.17 17.84 0.46
6.98 2.02 74.3 15.3 60.5 57.8 24.94 -22.55 18.25 0.48
8.15 1.98 73.0 15.1 61.0 58.3 25.32 -22.47 18.01 0.49
9.00 2.01 74.0 15.8 62.7 60.2 26.33 -23.44 17.70 0.52
9.07 4.00 73.0 14.9 55.4 52.7 41.33 -39.72 18.05 0.83
8.98 6.04 73.5 15.9 51.3 48.0 51.62 -50.93 18.99 1.00
9.07 7.98 72.4 14.9 46.7 43.4 60.36 -59.74 18.97 1.18
9.00 9.98 72.3 14.9 43.8 40.0 66.42 -65.80 19.74 1.24
9.00 12.01 74.4 15.7 43.0 39.1 73.18 -73.82 20.21 1.35
3.18 4.01 72.5 15.6 42.3 39.4 24.87 -25.07 18.14 0.51
4.95 3.98 72.3 15.6 48.0 44.9 31.15 -30.63 18.44 0.62
5.97 4.01 74.1 14.9 51.0 48.1 35.71 -34.97 18.67 0.70
6.90 4.02 72.2 14.7 51.5 48.5 36.98 -35.69 18.45 0.73
7.99 3.97 74.2 16.3 55.3 52.2 39.10 -37.44 18.72 0.76
2.89 6.01 73.0 15.7 36.4 33.4 27.39 -27.94 18.41 0.56
5.13 5.99 73.7 15.0 43.8 40.6 39.72 -40.28 19.08 0.78
6.00 6.01 73.5 16.0 46.1 43.0 42.57 -42.63 18.63 0.85
7.12 6.00 72.2 14.9 47.0 43.8 46.46 -45.55 18.75 0.91
8.06 5.97 73.2 15.0 49.5 46.1 49.46 -48.77 19.30 0.95
3.03 8.01 73.7 15.3 33.3 30.8 31.70 -32.61 17.74 0.67
4.90 8.01 72.5 16.4 39.6 36.7 41.74 -42.71 17.96 0.87
6.16 7.97 72.0 15.0 41.5 38.4 48.65 -48.99 18.51 0.98
7.06 8.03 73.1 15.1 43.8 40.7 53.56 -54.00 18.74 1.07
8.07 7.99 74.2 15.8 46.8 43.1 57.26 -57.30 19.83 1.07
2.92 10.02 73.8 15.3 30.6 27.9 32.66 -33.16 18.14 0.67
4.91 10.05 72.1 14.9 35.5 32.5 46.53 -46.46 18.39 0.94
6.02 10.03 72.4 15.0 38.6 35.2 52.69 -53.22 19.11 1.03
6.93 10.01 72.7 16.4 41.4 38.0 56.17 -56.80 18.85 1.11
7.90 9.99 72.1 15.6 42.4 38.7 60.75 -60.62 19.37 1.16
2.97 11.98 74.0 16.6 29.8 27.8 33.99 -35.25 16.50 0.78
4.93 12.03 72.3 14.8 33.8 30.6 49.15 -49.93 18.80 0.98
5.92 12.00 73.5 14.9 36.7 33.0 56.41 -57.05 19.87 1.06
6.93 12.00 74.1 15.0 39.0 35.2 62.99 -63.67 20.15 1.17
8.10 12.01 73.8 15.4 41.2 37.0 68.38 -68.14 20.59 1.23
Table 23: Counter Current Trials using Hot Water Loop
V˙H V˙C Uo
2 ·K )
7.14 6.03 87.2 14.5 64.5 43.1 41.97 -45.30 46.99 0.35
8.11 8.02 88.1 14.3 60.3 40.8 58.38 -55.83 46.65 0.46
7.05 8.02 88.2 14.2 58.8 37.1 53.67 -48.24 47.78 0.40
8.14 12.00 88.8 14.2 50.2 34.3 81.36 -63.36 44.61 0.60
2.91 4.02 88.0 14.7 56.0 28.5 24.11 -14.57 49.85 0.14
2.92 11.99 87.6 14.8 30.5 19.5 43.17 -14.80 35.71 0.30
6.17 6.01 88.7 15.0 62.5 39.5 41.86 -38.68 48.35 0.31
6.09 11.97 89.2 15.2 44.3 29.3 70.80 -44.33 42.66 0.50
8.10 10.01 88.0 15.2 54.2 37.3 70.89 -58.11 44.59 0.54
2.98 8.02 87.3 15.3 37.8 22.2 38.20 -14.54 40.10 0.24
4.98 2.01 88.9 15.3 81.4 60.2 9.67 -23.71 44.83 0.14
7.07 12.00 89.8 15.2 47.8 32.0 76.89 -52.96 44.00 0.55
2.97 9.99 88.1 15.1 34.1 20.8 41.53 -14.96 38.19 0.27
5.89 4.03 87.5 15.2 71.3 47.5 24.71 -34.19 47.60 0.23
4.92 12.00 90.4 15.6 40.4 25.6 63.70 -31.52 41.65 0.42
9.13 10.02 88.8 15.6 57.5 40.6 74.00 -65.80 44.98 0.58
9.04 4.00 87.2 15.4 76.3 58.4 25.51 -45.18 42.87 0.31
4.02 5.15 87.6 15.6 70.1 44.2 18.22 -38.69 48.74 0.22
2.00 3.00 88.1 15.8 77.2 46.4 5.64 -24.11 50.92 0.11
6.10 10.03 89.0 16.0 49.0 31.7 63.18 -41.36 44.04 0.44
5.00 8.01 88.2 15.8 50.2 30.5 49.20 -30.93 45.05 0.33
5.00 6.02 88.8 15.6 58.2 35.0 39.62 -30.68 47.98 0.27
7.12 4.01 89.3 15.4 76.1 54.1 24.34 -40.77 46.80 0.26
9.02 12.03 88.6 15.6 52.0 37.5 85.48 -69.21 43.34 0.66
2.98 6.03 87.5 15.7 45.2 24.8 32.64 -14.41 44.03 0.20
8.03 1.99 89.0 15.8 84.0 70.5 10.40 -28.59 38.09 0.19
6.99 10.02 89.5 15.5 52.8 34.8 66.43 -50.80 45.45 0.48
8.03 4.01 90.4 15.6 77.4 57.8 27.03 -44.45 45.65 0.29
4.98 10.02 88.4 15.5 44.0 27.7 57.25 -32.11 42.59 0.39
7.12 1.99 87.8 15.4 82.1 67.8 10.51 -27.39 38.77 0.18
6.04 1.96 89.9 15.0 84.1 66.5 9.07 -26.52 42.20 0.16
8.05 6.02 89.5 14.7 68.8 47.7 43.15 -52.18 47.69 0.37
8.93 8.00 88.3 14.6 62.5 43.8 59.66 -61.36 46.18 0.49
6.00 8.01 87.4 14.7 53.5 33.4 52.67 -39.35 45.98 0.37
9.09 5.99 88.5 14.6 70.2 50.4 43.07 -56.33 46.30 0.40
9.11 1.98 89.1 14.8 84.6 72.8 10.62 -30.17 36.78 0.21
12.1.3 Calculations
Heat Transfer Rate To calculate the heat transfer rate between the hot and cold streams,
we measured the temperatures of the hot and cold streams entering and exiting the plate
heat exchanger and the flow rates of the hot and cold streams. In this equation, Q˙F is the
kg
heat transfer rate in Watts, ṁF is the mass flow rate in s
, cp,F is the specific heat of the
J
water in kg·◦ C
, and the temperature terms, Tin,F and Tout,F , are in either degrees Celsius
or Kelvin.
Q˙F = ṁF · cp,F (Tin,F − Tout,F ) (30)
Theoretically, the heat transfer rates for the cold stream and the hot stream should
be equal and opposite because the heat lost by the hot stream should be gained by the
cold stream. However due to heat loss to the environment, these values may not be exact.
The temperature of the water streams changes as the streams flow through the plate heat
exchanger. The specific heat and density of water for the streams were evaluated at the
average temperature of the inlet and outlet for each stream. Their values can be found in
Table 24.
Table 24: Properties of Water for Calculations [17] [19]

Trials TC (◦ C) cp,C (J/(kg·◦ C)) ρC (kg/m3 ) TH (◦ C) cp,H (J/(kg·◦ C)) ρH (kg/m3 )
Steam Injector 18.47 4.18 998.48 26.35 4.18 996.70
Hot Water Loop 28.58 4.18 996.08 66.84 4.19 979.54
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient The next equation, Equation 31, can be used to calcu-
late the overall heat transfer coefficient. The overall heat transfer coefficient is represented
W
by Uo and has units of m2 ·K
. The Q̇ term is the same heat transfer rate calculated in
Equation 30, Ao is the total developed surface area of the plates in m2 , and ∆TLM is the
logarithmic mean temperature difference in either degrees Celsius or Kelvin.
Q̇ = Uo · Ao · ∆TLM (31)
99
The equation to determine the developed surface area of one plate, Equation 32, is the
flat surface area of one side of the plate, A, measured in m2 , times the enlargement factor,
φ, which is dimensionless.
Ao = φ · A (32)
φ is calculated as the ratio of the developed length of the channel, pd , measured in

m, to the protracted length of the channel, pc , measured in m. The developed length is
the distance traveled from peak to peak through the trough. The protracted length is the
straight-line distance between two peaks.
pd
φ= (33)
pc
The Q̇ term used in this equation was the average of the absolute values of the Q̇ terms
calculated using Equation 30. The Ao term is calculated by multiplying the developed
surface area of one plate by the total plate surfaces along which heat is transferred. For
this equation we want to calculate the overall area, and so the calculation uses 38 total
plate surfaces along which heat is transferred. The overall area was found to be 2.6904 m2 .
The logarithmic mean temperature difference takes into account the inlet and outlet
temperatures of both streams and accounts for the difference in configurations. The general
equation for calculating the logarithmic mean temperature difference is found in Equation
34. For a co-current configuration, both the cold and hot stream enter and exit on the
same sides. Therefore for co-current configurations, ∆T 1 = Tin,H − Tin,C and ∆T 2 =
Tout,H − Tout,C . For a counter-current configuration, the cold and hot streams enter and
exit at opposite sides. Therefore for counter-current configurations, ∆T 1 = Tin,H − Tout,C
and ∆T 2 = Tout,H − Tin,C . It should be noted that for one of the co-current and counter
current trials using the steam injector, the values for ∆T 2 were negative. The natural log
cannot be taken of a negative value, and so there are errors for each of these trial data
points in Tables 29 and 30. There were significant fluctuations in the temperature and flow
rate readings when using the steam injector which could introduce inaccuracies in the data
100
values.
∆T 1 − ∆T 2
∆TLM = ∆T 1
(34)
ln( ∆T 2
)
101
Flow Sheet
Figure 16: Flowsheet of plate heat exchanger and Steam Injection Water Heater [29]
102
Systematic and Instrumentation Accuracies
Table 25: Equipment Uncertainties

Variable Instrument Smallest Increment Uncertainty Source
Toshiba Electromagnetic
Flow Rate 0.01 gal/min ±2% [30]
Flowmeter
Digital Read Out 0.01 o C ±1.1o C [29]
Temperature Thermocouple 0.01 o C ±0.1o C [29]
Heat Transfer
Ruler 0.01 m ±0.005m Rule of Thumb
Surface Area
All equipment we used in the experiment to take measurements have uncertainty. We

quantified these uncertainties in Table 25. The temperature uncertainties came from this
experiment’s operating procedure while the flow meter uncertainties are based off of lit-
erature. We determined the ruler uncertainty by rule of thumb: uncertainty is one half
the smallest increment of measurement. Using these values, we will determine the error
propagated throughout our calculations.
103
Notation Nomenclature A flat surface area (m2 )
Ao overall developed surface area (m2 )
J
cp specific heat capacity of water ( kg·K )
ṁ mass flow rate ( kg
s
)
pc protracted length (m)
pd developed length (m)
Q̇ heat transfer rate (W )
T temperature (◦ C or K)
Uo heat transfer coefficient ( mW
2 ·K )
gal
V̇ volumetric flow rate ( min )
φ enlargement factor
Subscripts C cold water feed

H hot water feed
in feed entering plate
LM logarithmic mean
out feed exiting plate
104
13 Appendix C: Sample Calculations
13.1 Steam Injector Mass and Energy Balances
ṁ1 + ṁ2 = ṁ3 (35)
Q̇1 + Q̇2 = Q̇3 (36)
ṁ1 = ṁwater,H,in + ṁsteam = ṁ3 − ṁ2

ṁwater,H,in + ṁsteam = ṁwater,H,out − ṁwater,C,in
ṁwater,H,in = ṁwater,H,out − ṁwater,C,in − ṁsteam
Q̇1 = ṁwater,H,in cp,H ∆T1 + ṁsteam ∆Hvap

Q̇2 = ṁwater,C,in cp,C ∆T2
Q̇3 = ṁwater,H,out ∆Hvap
(ṁwater,H,out −ṁwater,C,in −ṁsteam )cp,H ∆T1 +ṁsteam ∆Hvap +ṁwater,C,in cp,C ∆T2 = ṁwater,H,out ∆Hvap
ṁsteam (∆Hvap − cp,H ∆T1 ) = ṁwater,H,out (∆Hvap − cp,H ∆T1 ) − ṁwater,C,in (cp,H ∆T1 − cp,C ∆T2 )
ṁwater,H,out (∆Hvap −cp,H ∆T1 )−ṁwater,C,in (cp,H ∆T1 −cp,C ∆T2 )
ṁsteam = ∆Hvap −cp,H ∆T1
gal kg kg kJ
Balance 1: V̇2 = 2.7 min , V̇3 = 2.8galmin, ρH = 996.7 m3 , ρC = 998.48 m3 , cp,H = 4.18 kg·K ,
kJ
cp,C = 4.18 kg·K , T1,in = 115◦ C, T1,out = 40◦ C, T2,in = 6.25◦ C, T2,out = 40◦ C, ∆Hvap =
2264.71 kJ
kg
gal 3 kg gal 3
(2.8 min ·0.0037854118 m ·996.7 ·0.016 min )(2264.71 kJ kJ
−4.18 kg·K ·(115◦ C−40◦ C)−(2.7 min ·0.0037854118 m ·998.48 kg3 ·0.016 min
gal m3 s kg gal s
ṁsteam = kJ kJ ◦
2264.71 kg −(4.18 kg·K ·(115 C−40 C)◦
m
ṁsteam = 3.57 kg
s
, which is an illogical amount
ṁsteam
xsteam = ṁ3 −ṁ2
3.57 kg
xsteam = gal m3 kg
s
gal 3
min
(2.8 min ·0.0037854118 gal ·996.7 3 ·0.016 s )−(2.7 min ·0.0037854118 m
gal
·998.48 kg3 ·0.016 min
s
)
m m
xsteam = 596.46, which is impossible, since xsteam cannot be greater than 1
105
13.2 Heat Transfer Rate
Q˙F = ṁF · cp,F (Tin,F − Tout,F ) (37)
13.2.1 Co-Current with Steam Injector: Hot
Trial 8: V˙H = 2.99 min

gal kg
, ρH = 996.70 m J ◦ ◦
3 , cp,H = 4.18 kg·◦ C , Tin,H = 37.8 C, Tout,H = 20.1 C
Q˙H = ṁH · cp,H (Tin,H − Tout,H )

Q˙H = (V˙H · ρH ) · cp,H (Tin,H − Tout,H )
3
Q˙H = [(2.99 min
gal
·0.0037854118 m
gal
·0.016 min
s
kg
)·996.70 m kJ J ◦ ◦
3 ]·(4.18 kg·◦ C ·1000 kJ )·(37.8 C−20.1 C)
Q˙H = 13.95 Js := 13.95W
13.2.2 Co-Current with Steam Injector: Cold
Trial 8: V˙C = 12.01 min

gal kg
, ρC = 998.48 m J ◦ ◦
3 , cp,C = 4.18 kg·◦ C , Tin,C = 15.2 C, Tout,C = 19.1 C
Q˙C = ṁC · cp,C (Tin,C − Tout,C )

Q˙C = (V˙C · ρC ) · cp,C (Tin,C − Tout,C )
3
Q˙C = [(12.01 min
gal
· 0.0037854118 m
gal
· 0.016 min
s
kg
) · 998.48 m kJ J ◦
3 ] · (4.18 kg·◦ C · 1000 kJ ) · (15.2 C −
19.1◦ C)
Q˙C = −12.33 Js := −12.33W
13.3 Enlargement Factor

pd
φ= (38)
pc
0.01m
φ= 0.008m
φ = 1.25
106
13.4 Flat Surface Area of One Side of a Plate
b1 + b2
A = 2[( ) · h] + (l · w) (39)
2
A = 2[( 0.1301m+0.0455m
2
) · 0.0597m] + (0.3548m · 0.1301m)
A = 0.05566m2
13.5 Developed Surface Area of Plate System
Ao = φ · A · # of sides (40)
Ao = 1.25 · 0.05566m2 · 38 sides

Ao = 2.6905m2
13.6 Logarithmic Mean Temperature

∆T 1 − ∆T 2
∆TLM = ∆T 1
(41)
ln( ∆T 2
)
13.6.1 Co-Current with Steam Injector
Trial 8: Tin,H = 37.8◦ C, Tout,H = 20.1◦ C, Tin,C = 15.2◦ C, Tout,C = 19.1◦ C
∆T 1 = Tin,H − Tin,C (42)
∆T 2 = Tout,H − Tout,C (43)
∆T 1 = 37.8◦ C − 15.2◦ C
∆T 1 = 22.3◦ C
∆T 2 = 20.1◦ C − 19.1◦ C
107
∆T 2 = 1.0◦ C
22.3◦ C−1.0◦ C
∆TLM = ln( 22.3
◦C
)
1.0◦ C
∆TLM = 6.83◦ C
13.6.2 Counter-Current with Hot Water Loop
Trial 34: Tin,H = 87.4◦ C, Tout,H = 53.5◦ C, Tin,C = 14.7◦ C, Tout,C = 33.4◦ C
∆T 1 = Tin,H − Tout,C (44)
∆T 2 = Tout,H − Tin,C (45)
∆T 1 = 87.4◦ C − 33.4◦ C
∆T 1 = 54.0◦ C
∆T 2 = 53.5◦ C − 14.7◦ C
∆T 2 = 38.8◦ C
54.0◦ C−38.8◦ C
∆TLM = 54.0◦ C
ln( 38.8◦C )
∆TLM = 45.98◦ C
108
13.7 Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient
Q̇ = Uo · Ao · ∆TLM (46)
13.7.1 Derivation
This derivation is only valid for flows at steady-state and which have a negligible heat
transfer to the plate heat exchanger
dQ̇ = Uo ∆TLM dA
dQ̇
∆TLM
= Uo dA
R Q̇ dQ̇
RA
0 ∆TLM
= 0 o Uo dA
Q̇ Q̇
Ao
∆TLM 0
= Uo A0
Q̇
∆TLM
= Uo Ao
Q̇
Uo = Ao ∆TLM
13.7.2 Co-Current with Steam Injector
Trial 6: Q˙H = 13.95W , |Q˙C | = 12.33W Ao = 2.6905m2 , ∆TLM = 6.83◦ C

13.95W = UH · 2.6905m2 · 6.83◦ C
UH = 0.759 m2W·◦ C := 0.759 mW
2 ·K
12.33W = UC · 2.6905m2 · 6.83◦ C

UC = 0.671 m2W·◦ C := 0.671 mW
2 ·K
UH +UC
Uo = 2
0.759 W
2 +0.671 W
m2 ·K
Uo = m ·K
2
Uo = 0.715 mW
2 ·K
109
13.8 Wilson Plot Method
Values are based on Trial 8 of the co-current loop with steam injector
w = 0.137m, b = 0.002m, V˙H = 2.99 min
gal
, V˙C = 12.01 min
gal kg
, φ = 1.25, ρH = 996.70 m 3,
kg kg kg W 2
ρC = 998.48 m 3 , µH = 0.0008625 m·s , µC = 0.0010393 m·s , Uo = 0.715 m2 ·K , Ao = 2.6905m ,
kg
cp,H = 4.18 kg·kJ◦ C , cp,C = 4.18 kg·kJ◦ C , kH = 0.60849 m·W◦ C kC = 0.59506 m·W◦ C , µW = 0.000944 m·s
13.8.1 Velocity
V̇
u= (47)
wb
gal 3
2.99 min ·0.0037854118 m
gal
·0.016 min
s
uH = 0.137m·0.002m
uH = 0.688 ms
gal 3
12.01 min ·0.0037854118 m
gal
·0.016 min
s
uC = 0.137m·0.002m
uC = 2.77 ms
13.8.2 Channel Equivalent/Hydraulic Diameter

2b
de = (48)
φ
2·0.002m
de = 1.25
de = 0.0032m
110
13.8.3 Reynolds Number
ρude
Re = (49)
µ
kg
996.70 ·0.688 m ·0.0032m
m3 s
ReH = kg
0.0008625 m·s
ReH = 2545.9
kg
998.48 ·2.77 m ·0.0032m
m3 s
ReC = kg
0.0010393 m·s
ReC = 8501.6
13.8.4 Overall Thermal Resistance

1
Rov = (50)
Uo Ao
1
Rov = 0.715 W
·2.6905m2
m2 ·K
K
Rov = 1.92 W
13.8.5 Prandtl Number

cp µ
Pr = (51)
k
kJ J kg
4.18 kg·◦ C ·1000 kJ ·0.0008625 m·s
P rH = 0.60849 m·W◦ C
P rH = 5.9249
kJ J kg
4.18 kg·◦ C ·1000 kJ ·0.0010393 m·s
P rC = 0.59506 m·W◦ C
P rC = 7.3006
111
13.8.6 Convection Coefficient
Re0.8
h= (52)
C2
(2545.9)0.8
hH = 8085.1
hH = 0.0656 mW
2 ·K
(8501.6)0.8
hC = 8085.1
hC = 0.172 mW
2 ·K
13.8.7 Component Resistances
Rov = RH + Rp + RC + Rf (53)
1
RH = (54)
hH AH
1
RH = 0.0656 W
·1.2744m2
m2 ·K
K
RH = 11.96 W
1
RC = (55)
hC AC
1
RC = 0.172 W
·1.416m2
m2 ·K
K
RC = 4.11 W
Since Rp is negligible, Rf = Rov − RH − RC

K K K
Rf = 1.92 W − 11.96 W − 4.11 W
K
Rf = −14.14 W
112
13.9 Dittus-Boetler Method
13.9.1 Heat Transfer Coefficient

0.023k 0.8 n
hF = Re P r (56)
de
0.023·0.60849 m·W◦ C
hH = 0.0032m
· 2545.90.8 · 5.92490.3
hH = 4726.9 m2W·◦ C
0.023·0.59506 m·W◦ C
hC = 0.0032m
· 8501.60.8 · 7.30060.4
hC = 10808.1 m2W·◦ C
13.10 Sieder-Tate Equation
13.10.1 Heat Transfer Coefficient

0.023k 0.8 1/3 µ 0.14
hF = Re P r ( ) (57)
DH µw
kg
0.023·0.60849 m·W◦ C 0.0008625
hH = 0.0032m
· 2545.90.8 · 5.92491/3 · ( 0.000944 m·s
kg )
0.14
m·s
hH = 4145.5 m2W·◦ C
kg
0.023·0.59506 m·W◦ C 0.0010393
hC = 0.0032m
· 8501.60.8 · 7.30060.4 · ( 0.000944 m·s
kg )
0.14
m·s
hC = 11705.1 m2W·◦ C
113
13.11 Colburn Method
13.11.1 Heat Transfer Factor

h f
j= P r2/3 = (58)
ρcp v 2
f
= 0.0007 + 0.0625(Re)−0.32 (59)
2
By combining and rearranging these equations, we get
de ρu −0.32 ρcp u
h = (0.0007 + 0.0625( ) ) cp µ 2/3 (60)
µf ( k )
The µf used must be evaluated at the film temperature tf , which is defined as
Tw − Ta
Tf = Ta + (61)
2
Co-Current with Hot Water Loop: Trial 1

kg
Ta = 66.8◦ C, Tw = 47.7◦ C, de = 0.0032m, ρH = 979.54 m m kJ
3 , u = 22.8 s , cp,H = 4.19 kg·K ,
kg W
µ = 0.000421 m·s , k = 0.65688 m·K
47.7◦ C+66.8◦ C
Tf = 66.8◦ C + 2
Tf = 57.3◦ C
kg
At 57.3 ◦ C, µf = 0.0004857 m·s
kg kg kJ J
0.0032m·979.54 ·22.8 m 979.54 ·4.19 kg·K ·1000 kJ ·22.8 m
hH = (0.0007 + 0.0625( m3
kg
0.0004857 m·s
s
)−0.32 m3
kg
4.19 kJ ·1000 J ·0.000421 m·s
s
kg·K kJ 2/3
( )
0.65688 W
m·K
hH = 4580 mW
2 ·K
114
13.12 Efficiency
TC,in − TC,out
η= · 100 (62)
TC,in − TH,in
13.12.1 Co-Current with Steam Injector: Trial 8
15.2◦ C−19.1◦ C
η= 15.2◦ C−37.8◦ C
· 100
η = 17.26%
13.13 Error Propagation

p
δT = (1.1)2 + (0.1)2 (63)
[29] δT = δTH,in = δTH,out = δTC,in = δTC,out = 1.10◦ C
s
∂∆TLM 2 2 ∂∆TLM 2 2 ∂∆TLM 2 2 ∂∆TLM 2 2
δ∆TLM = ( ) dhTH,in + ( ) dhTH,out + ( ) dhTC,in + ( ) dhTC,out
∂TH,in ∂TH,out ∂TC,in ∂TC,out
(64)
13.13.1 Co-Current with Hot Water Loop: Trial 1
TH,in = 73.5◦ C, TH,out = 50.1◦ C, TC,in = 15.2◦ C, TC,out = 47.2◦ C
∂∆TLM 1 (TH,out −TC,out )−1

∂TH,in
= T −T + TH,in −TC,in
ln( T H,in −TC,in ) TH,out −TC,out
H,out C,out
∂∆TLM 1 1
∂TH,in
= ln( 73.5
◦ C−15.2◦ C
)
+ 73.5◦ C−15.2◦ C
50.1◦ C−47.2◦ C
∂∆TLM
∂TH,in
= 0.350◦ C
∂∆TLM −1 (TH,out −TC,out )−1

∂TH,out
= T −T − TH,in −TC,in
H,out C,out
∂∆TLM −1 1
∂TH,out
= ln( 73.5
◦ C−15.2◦ C
)
− 73.5◦ C−15.2◦ C
50.1 C−47.2◦ C
◦
∂∆TLM
∂TH,out
= −0.350◦ C
115
∂∆TLM −1 (TH,out −TC,out )−1
∂TC,in
= T −T − TH,in −TC,in
H,out C,out
∂∆TLM −1 1
∂TC,in
= ln( 73.5
◦ C−15.2◦ C
)
− 73.5◦ C−15.2◦ C
50.1 C−47.2◦ C
◦
∂∆TLM
∂TC,in
= −0.350◦ C
∂∆TLM 1 (TH,out −TC,out )−1

∂TC,out
= T −T + TH,in −TC,in
H,out C,out
∂∆TLM 1 1
∂TC,out
= ln( 73.5
◦ C−15.2◦ C
)
+ 73.5◦ C−15.2◦ C
50.1◦ C−47.2◦ C
∂∆TLM
∂TC,out
= 0.350◦ C
p
δ∆TLM = ((0.350◦ C)2 + (−0.350◦ C)2 + (−0.350◦ C)2 + (0.350◦ C)2 )(1.10◦ C)2
δ∆TLM = 0.770◦ C
δ∆TLM
% Error = · 100 (65)
∆TLM
0.770◦ C
% Error = 18.46◦ C
· 100
% Error = ±4.17%
116
14 Appendix D: Raw Data and Calculations
14.1 Trials Overview
Table 26: Co-Current Trials

Co-Current Cold Stream
2
4 (gal/min) 6 (gal/min) 8 (gal/min) 10 (gal/min) 12 (gal/min)
(gal/min)
Building Hot Steam 3 (gal/min) Trial 1 Trial 7 Trial 13 Trial 19 Trial 25 Trial 31
Steam Injected Hot Stream 2 (gal/min) Trial 73 Trial 73 Trial 79
3 (gal/min) Trial 74 Trial 74 Trial 80
Table 27: Counter-Current Trials

Counter-Current Cold Stream
2
4 (gal/min) 6 (gal/min) 8 (gal/min) 10 (gal/min) 12 (gal/min)
(gal/min)
Building Hot Steam 3 (gal/min) Trial 37 Trial 43 Trial 49 Trial 55 Trial 61 Trial 67
Steam Injected Hot Stream 2 (gal/min) Trial 82 Trial 88 Trial 79
117
14.2 Steam Injector Balance Trials
Table 28: Steam Injector Balance Trials

Flow Rate (gal/min) Avg Temperature (C) Flow Rate (gal/min) Temperature (C)
2.70 6.3 2.80 40.0

3.27 6.4 3.55 31.0
4.05 5.5 4.55 24.5
118
14.3 Trial Data with Calculated Heat Transfer Rates and Overall
Heat Transfer Coefficients
Table 29: Co-Current Trials using Steam Injector

V˙H V˙C Uo
2 ·K )
1.92 2.01 35.9 15.2 25.4 26.0 5.27 -5.72 error error
3.17 2.01 37.8 15.2 28.5 26.9 7.79 -6.19 7.86 0.331
4.06 2.01 27.6 15.2 23.2 23.1 4.64 -4.18 2.54 0.645
1.84 6.98 36.4 14.8 19.8 18.2 8.05 -6.25 7.61 0.349
3.08 6.97 37.5 15.3 22.2 21.4 12.43 -11.20 6.33 0.693
4.13 7.02 26.9 14.8 19.2 18.5 8.30 -6.84 3.99 0.706
1.80 12.00 35.9 14.9 17.8 17.5 8.56 -8.22 4.87 0.640
2.99 12.01 37.8 15.2 20.1 19.1 13.95 -12.33 6.83 0.715
4.08 1.99 27.0 15.2 18.2 17.9 9.49 -1.41 3.00 0.676
Table 30: Counter-Current Trials using Steam Injector

V˙H V˙C Uo
2 ·K )
1.96 2.03 35.8 15.1 11.2 28.0 12.67 -6.90 error error
3.21 2.02 36.6 15.0 24.6 33.2 10.12 -9.68 5.97 0.616
4.10 2.03 26.3 15.0 21.1 25.0 5.58 -5.35 3.05 0.665
1.89 7.00 35.6 15.0 16.8 19.5 9.36 -8.29 6.47 0.508
3.27 6.99 36.0 15.1 18.0 23.2 15.48 -14.91 6.67 0.847
3.95 7.00 27.4 15.0 17.2 21.0 10.59 -11.06 3.93 1.023
2.06 11.96 34.3 15.0 16.3 17.5 9.77 -7.87 5.98 0.548
3.31 12.00 35.7 14.9 16.6 20.0 16.66 -16.11 6.24 0.977
4.13 11.98 26.2 14.8 16.3 18.1 10.82 -10.41 3.90 1.011
119
Table 31: Co-Current Trials using Hot Water Loop
V˙H V˙C Uo
2 ·K )
2.91 1.97 73.5 15.2 50.1 47.2 17.63 -16.56 18.46 0.34
4.92 1.98 73.0 15.0 56.4 53.7 21.15 -20.13 18.03 0.43
6.03 1.98 73.0 15.0 58.3 55.7 22.95 -21.17 17.84 0.46
6.98 2.02 74.3 15.3 60.5 57.8 24.94 -22.55 18.25 0.48
8.15 1.98 73.0 15.1 61.0 58.3 25.32 -22.47 18.01 0.49
9.00 2.01 74.0 15.8 62.7 60.2 26.33 -23.44 17.70 0.52
9.07 4.00 73.0 14.9 55.4 52.7 41.33 -39.72 18.05 0.83
8.98 6.04 73.5 15.9 51.3 48.0 51.62 -50.93 18.99 1.00
9.07 7.98 72.4 14.9 46.7 43.4 60.36 -59.74 18.97 1.18
9.00 9.98 72.3 14.9 43.8 40.0 66.42 -65.80 19.74 1.24
9.00 12.01 74.4 15.7 43.0 39.1 73.18 -73.82 20.21 1.35
3.18 4.01 72.5 15.6 42.3 39.4 24.87 -25.07 18.14 0.51
4.95 3.98 72.3 15.6 48.0 44.9 31.15 -30.63 18.44 0.62
5.97 4.01 74.1 14.9 51.0 48.1 35.71 -34.97 18.67 0.70
6.90 4.02 72.2 14.7 51.5 48.5 36.98 -35.69 18.45 0.73
7.99 3.97 74.2 16.3 55.3 52.2 39.10 -37.44 18.72 0.76
2.89 6.01 73.0 15.7 36.4 33.4 27.39 -27.94 18.41 0.56
5.13 5.99 73.7 15.0 43.8 40.6 39.72 -40.28 19.08 0.78
6.00 6.01 73.5 16.0 46.1 43.0 42.57 -42.63 18.63 0.85
7.12 6.00 72.2 14.9 47.0 43.8 46.46 -45.55 18.75 0.91
8.06 5.97 73.2 15.0 49.5 46.1 49.46 -48.77 19.30 0.95
3.03 8.01 73.7 15.3 33.3 30.8 31.70 -32.61 17.74 0.67
4.90 8.01 72.5 16.4 39.6 36.7 41.74 -42.71 17.96 0.87
6.16 7.97 72.0 15.0 41.5 38.4 48.65 -48.99 18.51 0.98
7.06 8.03 73.1 15.1 43.8 40.7 53.56 -54.00 18.74 1.07
8.07 7.99 74.2 15.8 46.8 43.1 57.26 -57.30 19.83 1.07
2.92 10.02 73.8 15.3 30.6 27.9 32.66 -33.16 18.14 0.67
4.91 10.05 72.1 14.9 35.5 32.5 46.53 -46.46 18.39 0.94
6.02 10.03 72.4 15.0 38.6 35.2 52.69 -53.22 19.11 1.03
6.93 10.01 72.7 16.4 41.4 38.0 56.17 -56.80 18.85 1.11
7.90 9.99 72.1 15.6 42.4 38.7 60.75 -60.62 19.37 1.16
2.97 11.98 74.0 16.6 29.8 27.8 33.99 -35.25 16.50 0.78
4.93 12.03 72.3 14.8 33.8 30.6 49.15 -49.93 18.80 0.98
5.92 12.00 73.5 14.9 36.7 33.0 56.41 -57.05 19.87 1.06
6.93 12.00 74.1 15.0 39.0 35.2 62.99 -63.67 20.15 1.17
8.10 12.01 73.8 15.4 41.2 37.0 68.38 -68.14 20.59 1.23
Table 32: Counter-Current Trials using Hot Water Loop
V˙H V˙C Uo
2 ·K )
7.14 6.03 87.2 14.5 64.5 43.1 41.97 -45.30 46.99 0.35
8.11 8.02 88.1 14.3 60.3 40.8 58.38 -55.83 46.65 0.46
7.05 8.02 88.2 14.2 58.8 37.1 53.67 -48.24 47.78 0.40
8.14 12.00 88.8 14.2 50.2 34.3 81.36 -63.36 44.61 0.60
2.91 4.02 88.0 14.7 56.0 28.5 24.11 -14.57 49.85 0.14
2.92 11.99 87.6 14.8 30.5 19.5 43.17 -14.80 35.71 0.30
6.17 6.01 88.7 15.0 62.5 39.5 41.86 -38.68 48.35 0.31
6.09 11.97 89.2 15.2 44.3 29.3 70.80 -44.33 42.66 0.50
8.10 10.01 88.0 15.2 54.2 37.3 70.89 -58.11 44.59 0.54
2.98 8.02 87.3 15.3 37.8 22.2 38.20 -14.54 40.10 0.24
4.98 2.01 88.9 15.3 81.4 60.2 9.67 -23.71 44.83 0.14
7.07 12.00 89.8 15.2 47.8 32.0 76.89 -52.96 44.00 0.55
2.97 9.99 88.1 15.1 34.1 20.8 41.53 -14.96 38.19 0.27
5.89 4.03 87.5 15.2 71.3 47.5 24.71 -34.19 47.60 0.23
4.92 12.00 90.4 15.6 40.4 25.6 63.70 -31.52 41.65 0.42
9.13 10.02 88.8 15.6 57.5 40.6 74.00 -65.80 44.98 0.58
9.04 4.00 87.2 15.4 76.3 58.4 25.51 -45.18 42.87 0.31
4.02 5.15 87.6 15.6 70.1 44.2 18.22 -38.69 48.74 0.22
2.00 3.00 88.1 15.8 77.2 46.4 5.64 -24.11 50.92 0.11
6.10 10.03 89.0 16.0 49.0 31.7 63.18 -41.36 44.04 0.44
5.00 8.01 88.2 15.8 50.2 30.5 49.20 -30.93 45.05 0.33
5.00 6.02 88.8 15.6 58.2 35.0 39.62 -30.68 47.98 0.27
7.12 4.01 89.3 15.4 76.1 54.1 24.34 -40.77 46.80 0.26
9.02 12.03 88.6 15.6 52.0 37.5 85.48 -69.21 43.34 0.66
2.98 6.03 87.5 15.7 45.2 24.8 32.64 -14.41 44.03 0.20
8.03 1.99 89.0 15.8 84.0 70.5 10.40 -28.59 38.09 0.19
6.99 10.02 89.5 15.5 52.8 34.8 66.43 -50.80 45.45 0.48
8.03 4.01 90.4 15.6 77.4 57.8 27.03 -44.45 45.65 0.29
4.98 10.02 88.4 15.5 44.0 27.7 57.25 -32.11 42.59 0.39
7.12 1.99 87.8 15.4 82.1 67.8 10.51 -27.39 38.77 0.18
6.04 1.96 89.9 15.0 84.1 66.5 9.07 -26.52 42.20 0.16
8.05 6.02 89.5 14.7 68.8 47.7 43.15 -52.18 47.69 0.37
8.93 8.00 88.3 14.6 62.5 43.8 59.66 -61.36 46.18 0.49
6.00 8.01 87.4 14.7 53.5 33.4 52.67 -39.35 45.98 0.37
9.09 5.99 88.5 14.6 70.2 50.4 43.07 -56.33 46.30 0.40
9.11 1.98 89.1 14.8 84.6 72.8 10.62 -30.17 36.78 0.21
14.4 Wilson Method Correlation Data
Table 33: Wilson Method Calculations for Co-Current Steam Injector Trials
V˙H (gal/min) V˙C (gal/min) RH (K/W ) hH (K/W ) RC (K/W ) hC (W/K/m2) RP (K/W ) RF (K/W ) RO V (K/W )
1.92 2.01 1.51 0.52 1.02 0.69 0.00 -2.53 0.00
3.17 2.01 1.01 0.78 1.02 0.69 0.00 -0.90 1.12
4.06 2.01 0.83 0.95 1.02 0.69 0.00 -1.27 0.58
1.84 6.98 1.56 0.50 0.38 1.88 0.00 -0.87 1.07
3.08 6.97 1.03 0.76 0.38 1.87 0.00 -0.87 0.54
4.13 7.02 0.82 0.96 0.37 1.88 0.00 -0.66 0.53
1.80 12.00 1.58 0.50 0.24 2.89 0.00 -1.25 0.58
2.99 12.01 1.05 0.74 0.24 2.90 0.00 -0.78 0.52
4.08 11.99 0.82 0.95 1.03 0.69 0.00 -1.30 0.55
Table 34: Wilson Method Calculations for Counter-Current Steam Injector Trials
1.96 2.03 1.48 0.53 1.01 0.70 0.00 -2.49 0.00
3.21 2.02 1.00 0.79 1.02 0.70 0.00 -1.43 0.58
4.10 2.03 0.82 0.96 1.01 0.70 0.00 -1.28 0.55
1.89 7.00 1.53 0.51 0.38 1.88 0.00 -1.21 0.69
3.27 6.99 0.98 0.80 0.38 1.88 0.00 -0.93 0.43
3.95 7.00 0.84 0.93 0.38 1.88 0.00 -0.87 0.35
2.06 11.96 1.42 0.55 0.24 2.89 0.00 -1.06 0.61
3.31 12.00 0.97 0.81 0.24 2.89 0.00 -0.85 0.37
4.13 11.98 0.82 0.96 0.24 2.89 0.00 -0.72 0.34
122
Table 35: Wilson Method Calculations for Co-Current Hot Building Water Trials
2.91 1.97 0.62 1.27 0.86 0.82 0.00 -0.39 1.08
4.92 1.98 0.40 1.94 0.86 0.83 0.00 -0.39 0.87
6.03 1.98 0.34 2.28 0.86 0.83 0.00 -0.39 0.81
6.98 2.02 0.31 2.57 0.84 0.84 0.00 -0.38 0.77
8.15 1.98 0.27 2.91 0.86 0.83 0.00 -0.37 0.75
9.00 2.01 0.25 3.15 0.85 0.84 0.00 -0.38 0.71
3.18 4.01 0.57 1.37 0.49 1.45 0.00 -0.33 0.73
4.95 3.98 0.40 1.95 0.49 1.44 0.00 -0.29 0.60
5.97 4.01 0.35 2.27 0.49 1.45 0.00 -0.30 0.53
6.90 4.02 0.31 2.54 0.49 1.45 0.00 -0.29 0.51
7.99 3.97 0.27 2.86 0.49 1.44 0.00 -0.28 0.49
9.07 4.00 0.25 3.17 0.49 1.45 0.00 -0.29 0.45
2.89 6.01 0.62 1.27 0.35 2.01 0.00 -0.31 0.67
5.13 5.99 0.39 2.01 0.35 2.00 0.00 -0.27 0.48
6.00 6.01 0.35 2.27 0.35 2.01 0.00 -0.26 0.44
7.12 6.00 0.30 2.61 0.35 2.00 0.00 -0.25 0.41
8.06 5.97 0.27 2.88 0.35 2.00 0.00 -0.23 0.39
8.98 6.04 0.25 3.14 0.35 2.01 0.00 -0.23 0.37
3.03 8.01 0.60 1.32 0.28 2.52 0.00 -0.32 0.55
4.90 8.01 0.41 1.93 0.28 2.52 0.00 -0.26 0.43
6.16 7.97 0.34 2.32 0.28 2.51 0.00 -0.24 0.38
7.06 8.03 0.30 2.59 0.28 2.53 0.00 -0.23 0.35
8.07 7.99 0.27 2.88 0.28 2.52 0.00 -0.21 0.35
9.07 7.98 0.25 3.17 0.28 2.52 0.00 -0.21 0.32
2.92 10.02 0.61 1.28 0.23 3.02 0.00 -0.30 0.55
4.91 10.05 0.41 1.94 0.23 3.03 0.00 -0.24 0.40
6.02 10.03 0.34 2.28 0.23 3.02 0.00 -0.22 0.36
6.93 10.01 0.31 2.55 0.23 3.02 0.00 -0.21 0.33
7.90 9.99 0.28 2.83 0.23 3.01 0.00 -0.19 0.32
9.00 9.98 0.25 3.15 0.23 3.01 0.00 -0.19 0.30
2.97 11.98 0.61 1.30 0.20 3.48 0.00 -0.33 0.48
4.93 12.03 0.40 1.94 0.20 3.49 0.00 -0.23 0.38
5.92 12.00 0.35 2.25 0.20 3.49 0.00 -0.20 0.35
6.93 12.00 0.31 2.55 0.20 3.49 0.00 -0.19 0.32
8.10 12.01 0.27 2.89 0.20 3.49 0.00 -0.17 0.30
9.00 12.01 0.25 3.15 0.20 3.49 0.00 -0.18 0.28
123
Table 36: Wilson Method Calculations for Counter-Current Hot Building Water Trials
2.00 3.00 0.83 0.94 0.61 1.15 0.00 1.98 3.42
4.98 2.01 0.40 1.96 0.85 0.84 0.00 1.44 2.69
6.04 1.96 0.34 2.29 0.86 0.82 0.00 1.17 2.37
7.12 1.99 0.30 2.61 0.85 0.83 0.00 0.89 2.05
8.03 1.99 0.27 2.87 0.85 0.83 0.00 0.83 1.95
9.11 1.98 0.25 3.18 0.86 0.83 0.00 0.70 1.80
2.91 4.02 0.62 1.27 0.49 1.45 0.00 1.48 2.58
4.02 5.15 0.48 1.65 0.40 1.77 0.00 0.84 1.71
5.89 4.03 0.35 2.24 0.48 1.46 0.00 0.78 1.62
7.12 4.01 0.30 2.61 0.49 1.45 0.00 0.65 1.44
8.03 4.01 0.27 2.87 0.49 1.45 0.00 0.52 1.28
9.04 4.00 0.25 3.16 0.49 1.45 0.00 0.48 1.21
2.98 6.03 0.60 1.30 0.35 2.01 0.00 0.92 1.87
5.00 6.02 0.40 1.97 0.35 2.01 0.00 0.61 1.37
6.17 6.01 0.34 2.33 0.35 2.01 0.00 0.51 1.20
7.14 6.03 0.30 2.61 0.35 2.01 0.00 0.43 1.08
8.05 6.02 0.27 2.88 0.35 2.01 0.00 0.38 1.00
9.09 5.99 0.25 3.17 0.35 2.00 0.00 0.33 0.93
2.98 8.02 0.60 1.30 0.28 2.53 0.00 0.64 1.52
5.00 8.01 0.40 1.97 0.28 2.52 0.00 0.45 1.12
6.00 8.01 0.35 2.27 0.28 2.52 0.00 0.37 1.00
7.05 8.02 0.30 2.59 0.28 2.53 0.00 0.36 0.94
8.11 8.02 0.27 2.89 0.28 2.53 0.00 0.27 0.82
8.93 8.00 0.25 3.13 0.28 2.52 0.00 0.23 0.76
2.97 9.99 0.61 1.30 0.23 3.01 0.00 0.51 1.35
4.98 10.02 0.40 1.96 0.23 3.02 0.00 0.32 0.95
6.10 10.03 0.34 2.30 0.23 3.02 0.00 0.27 0.84
6.99 10.02 0.31 2.57 0.23 3.02 0.00 0.24 0.78
8.10 10.01 0.27 2.89 0.23 3.02 0.00 0.19 0.69
9.13 10.02 0.25 3.18 0.23 3.02 0.00 0.16 0.64
2.92 11.99 0.61 1.28 0.20 3.49 0.00 0.42 1.23
4.92 12.00 0.40 1.94 0.20 3.49 0.00 0.27 0.88
6.09 11.97 0.34 2.30 0.20 3.48 0.00 0.20 0.74
7.07 12.00 0.30 2.59 0.20 3.49 0.00 0.17 0.68
8.14 12.00 0.27 2.90 0.20 3.49 0.00 0.14 0.62
9.02 12.03 0.25 3.15 0.20 3.49 0.00 0.11 0.56
124
14.5 Dittus-Boelter Correlation Data
Table 37: Dittus-Boelter Calculations for Co-Current Steam Injector Trials

P rC ReC HC (W/(m2 ·◦ C) P rH ReH HH (W/(m2 ·◦ C)
7.3006 1422.8 2586.2 5.9249 1634.8 3316.5
7.3006 1422.8 2586.2 5.9249 2699.1 4953.2
7.3006 1422.8 2586.2 5.9249 3456.9 6037.5
7.3006 4941.0 7001.6 5.9249 1566.7 3205.5
7.3006 4933.9 6993.6 5.9249 2622.5 4840.4
7.3006 4969.3 7033.7 5.9249 3516.5 6120.6
7.3006 8494.6 10800.9 5.9249 1532.6 3149.6
7.3006 8501.6 10808.1 5.9249 2545.9 4726.9
7.3006 1408.7 2565.6 5.9249 3474.0 6061.3
125
Table 38: Dittus-Boelter Calculations for Counter Current Steam Injector Trials
7.3006 1437.0 2606.8 5.9249 1668.9 3371.6
7.3006 1429.9 2596.5 5.9249 2733.2 5003.1
7.3006 1437.0 2606.8 5.9249 3491.0 6085.1
7.3006 4955.2 7017.6 5.9249 1609.3 3275.0
7.3006 4948.1 7009.6 5.9249 2784.3 5077.8
7.3006 4955.2 7017.6 5.9249 3363.3 5906.3
7.3006 8466.2 10772.0 5.9249 1754.0 3508.6
7.3006 8494.6 10800.9 5.9249 2818.3 5127.4
7.3006 8480.4 10786.5 5.9249 3516.5 6120.6
126
Table 39: Dittus-Boelter Calculations for Co-Current
Hot Water Loop Trials

5.6064 1760.9 2915.1 2.6848 4990.0 6369.5
5.6064 1769.8 2926.9 2.6848 8436.6 9695.3
5.6064 1769.8 2926.9 2.6848 10340.0 11408.9
5.6064 1805.6 2974.1 2.6848 11969.1 12825.5
5.6064 1769.8 2926.9 2.6848 13975.3 14518.3
5.6064 1796.6 2962.3 2.6848 15432.9 15717.5
5.6064 3575.4 5137.2 2.6848 15552.9 15815.2
5.6064 5398.8 7143.4 2.6848 15398.6 15689.6
5.6064 7132.8 8926.5 2.6848 15552.9 15815.2
5.6064 8920.5 10675.3 2.6848 15432.9 15717.5
5.6064 10735.0 12379.7 2.6848 15432.9 15717.5
5.6064 3584.3 5147.5 2.6848 5452.9 6838.0
5.6064 3557.5 5116.6 2.6848 8488.1 9742.6
5.6064 3584.3 5147.5 2.6848 10237.1 11318.0
5.6064 3593.2 5157.7 2.6848 11831.9 12707.8
5.6064 3548.5 5106.3 2.6848 13701.0 14289.8
5.6064 5372.0 7115.0 2.6848 4955.7 6334.4
5.6064 5354.1 7096.1 2.6848 8796.7 10025.0
5.6064 5372.0 7115.0 2.6848 10288.6 11363.5
5.6064 5363.0 7105.6 2.6848 12209.1 13030.9
5.6064 5336.2 7077.1 2.6848 13821.0 14389.9
5.6064 7159.6 8953.3 2.6848 5195.7 6578.8
127
Table 39 continued from previous page
5.6064 7159.6 8953.3 2.6848 8402.3 9663.8
5.6064 7123.9 8917.5 2.6848 10562.9 11605.3
5.6064 7177.5 8971.2 2.6848 12106.2 12943.0
5.6064 7141.8 8935.4 2.6848 13838.1 14404.2
5.6064 8956.3 10709.6 2.6848 5007.1 6387.0
5.6064 8983.1 10735.2 2.6848 8419.5 9679.6
5.6064 8965.2 10718.1 2.6848 10322.9 11393.8
5.6064 8947.3 10701.0 2.6848 11883.3 12752.0
5.6064 8929.5 10683.9 2.6848 13546.6 14160.9
5.6064 10708.2 12355.0 2.6848 5092.8 6474.3
5.6064 10752.9 12396.2 2.6848 8453.8 9711.1
5.6064 10726.1 12371.5 2.6848 10151.4 11242.1
5.6064 10726.1 12371.5 2.6848 11883.3 12752.0
5.6064 10735.0 12379.7 2.6848 13889.6 14447.0
128
Table 40: Dittus-Boelter Calculations for Counter Cur-
rent Hot Water Loop Trials

5.6064 5389.8 7134.0 2.6848 12243.4 13060.2
5.6064 7168.6 8962.2 2.6848 13906.7 14461.3
5.6064 7168.6 8962.2 2.6848 12089.1 12928.3
5.6064 10726.1 12371.5 2.6848 13958.2 14504.1
5.6064 3593.2 5157.7 2.6848 4990.0 6369.5
5.6064 10717.1 12363.3 2.6848 5007.1 6387.0
5.6064 5372.0 7115.0 2.6848 10580.1 11620.3
5.6064 10699.3 12346.7 2.6848 10442.9 11499.6
5.6064 8947.3 10701.0 2.6848 13889.6 14447.0
5.6064 7168.6 8962.2 2.6848 5110.0 6491.8
5.6064 1796.6 2962.3 2.6848 8539.5 9789.8
5.6064 10726.1 12371.5 2.6848 12123.4 12957.6
5.6064 8929.5 10683.9 2.6848 5092.8 6474.3
5.6064 3602.2 5168.0 2.6848 10100.0 11196.5
5.6064 10726.1 12371.5 2.6848 8436.6 9695.3
5.6064 8956.3 10709.6 2.6848 15655.8 15898.9
5.6064 3575.4 5137.2 2.6848 15501.5 15773.4
5.6064 4603.3 6288.2 2.6848 6893.4 8248.4
5.6064 2681.5 4081.1 2.6848 3429.5 4718.6
5.6064 8965.2 10718.1 2.6848 10460.1 11514.7
5.6064 7159.6 8953.3 2.6848 8573.8 9821.2
5.6064 5380.9 7124.5 2.6848 8573.8 9821.2
129
5.6064 3584.3 5147.5 2.6848 12209.1 13030.9
5.6064 10752.9 12396.2 2.6848 15467.2 15745.5
5.6064 5389.8 7134.0 2.6848 5110.0 6491.8
5.6064 1778.7 2938.7 2.6848 13769.6 14347.0
5.6064 8956.3 10709.6 2.6848 11986.2 12840.2
5.6064 3584.3 5147.5 2.6848 13769.6 14347.0
5.6064 8956.3 10709.6 2.6848 8539.5 9789.8
5.6064 1778.7 2938.7 2.6848 12209.1 13030.9
5.6064 1751.9 2903.2 2.6848 10357.2 11424.0
5.6064 5380.9 7124.5 2.6848 13803.8 14375.6
5.6064 7150.7 8944.4 2.6848 15312.8 15619.7
5.6064 7159.6 8953.3 2.6848 10288.6 11363.5
5.6064 5354.1 7096.1 2.6848 15587.2 15843.1
5.6064 1769.8 2926.9 2.6848 15621.5 15871.0
130
14.6 Sieder-Tate Correlation Data
Table 41: Sieder-Tate Calculations for Co-Current Steam Injector Trials

P rC µC /µW ReC HC (W/(m2 ·◦ C) P rH µH /µW ReH HH (W/(m2 ·◦ C)
7.3006 1.1010 1422.8 2800.9 5.9249 0.9137 1634.8 2908.5
7.3006 1.1010 1422.8 2800.9 5.9249 0.9137 2699.1 4343.9
7.3006 1.1010 1422.8 2800.9 5.9249 0.9137 3456.9 5294.9
7.3006 1.1010 4941.0 7582.7 5.9249 0.9137 1566.7 2811.2
7.3006 1.1010 4933.9 7574.0 5.9249 0.9137 2622.5 4245.0
7.3006 1.1010 4969.3 7617.4 5.9249 0.9137 3516.5 5367.8
7.3006 1.1010 8494.6 11697.3 5.9249 0.9137 1532.6 2762.2
7.3006 1.1010 8501.6 11705.1 5.9249 0.9137 2545.9 4145.5
7.3006 1.1010 1408.7 2778.6 5.9249 0.9137 3474.0 5315.7
131
Table 42: Sieder-Tate Calculations for Counter Current Steam Injector Trials
7.3006 1.1010 1437.0 2823.2 5.9249 0.9137 1668.9 2956.9
7.3006 1.1010 1429.9 2812.0 5.9249 0.9137 2733.2 4387.7
7.3006 1.1010 1437.0 2823.2 5.9249 0.9137 3491.0 5336.6
7.3006 1.1010 4955.2 7600.1 5.9249 0.9137 1609.3 2872.1
7.3006 1.1010 4948.1 7591.4 5.9249 0.9137 2784.3 4453.2
7.3006 1.1010 4955.2 7600.1 5.9249 0.9137 3363.3 5179.8
7.3006 1.1010 8466.2 11666.1 5.9249 0.9137 1754.0 3077.0
7.3006 1.1010 8494.6 11697.3 5.9249 0.9137 2818.3 4496.7
7.3006 1.1010 8480.4 11681.7 5.9249 0.9137 3516.5 5367.8
132
Table 43: Sieder-Tate Calculations for Co-Current Hot
Water Loop Trials

5.6064 1.4420 1760.9 3249.9 2.6848 0.7392 4990.0 5716.6
5.6064 1.4420 1769.8 3263.0 2.6848 0.7392 8436.6 8701.5
5.6064 1.4420 1769.8 3263.0 2.6848 0.7392 10340.0 10239.5
5.6064 1.4420 1805.6 3315.7 2.6848 0.7392 11969.1 11510.8
5.6064 1.4420 1769.8 3263.0 2.6848 0.7392 13975.3 13030.1
5.6064 1.4420 1796.6 3302.5 2.6848 0.7392 15432.9 14106.4
5.6064 1.4420 3575.4 5727.1 2.6848 0.7392 15552.9 14194.1
5.6064 1.4420 5398.8 7963.8 2.6848 0.7392 15398.6 14081.3
5.6064 1.4420 7132.8 9951.6 2.6848 0.7392 15552.9 14194.1
5.6064 1.4420 8920.5 11901.3 2.6848 0.7392 15432.9 14106.4
5.6064 1.4420 10735.0 13801.5 2.6848 0.7392 15432.9 14106.4
5.6064 1.4420 3584.3 5738.6 2.6848 0.7392 5452.9 6137.1
5.6064 1.4420 3557.5 5704.2 2.6848 0.7392 8488.1 8743.9
5.6064 1.4420 3584.3 5738.6 2.6848 0.7392 10237.1 10157.9
5.6064 1.4420 3593.2 5750.0 2.6848 0.7392 11831.9 11405.2
5.6064 1.4420 3548.5 5692.8 2.6848 0.7392 13701.0 12825.1
5.6064 1.4420 5372.0 7932.1 2.6848 0.7392 4955.7 5685.1
5.6064 1.4420 5354.1 7911.0 2.6848 0.7392 8796.7 8997.4
5.6064 1.4420 5372.0 7932.1 2.6848 0.7392 10288.6 10198.7
5.6064 1.4420 5363.0 7921.6 2.6848 0.7392 12209.1 11695.2
5.6064 1.4420 5336.2 7889.9 2.6848 0.7392 13821.0 12914.9
5.6064 1.4420 7159.6 9981.5 2.6848 0.7392 5195.7 5904.4
133
5.6064 1.4420 7159.6 9981.5 2.6848 0.7392 8402.3 8673.2
5.6064 1.4420 7123.9 9941.6 2.6848 0.7392 10562.9 10415.7
5.6064 1.4420 7177.5 10001.5 2.6848 0.7392 12106.2 11616.3
5.6064 1.4420 7141.8 9961.6 2.6848 0.7392 13838.1 12927.7
5.6064 1.4420 8956.3 11939.5 2.6848 0.7392 5007.1 5732.3
5.6064 1.4420 8983.1 11968.0 2.6848 0.7392 8419.5 8687.4
5.6064 1.4420 8965.2 11949.0 2.6848 0.7392 10322.9 10225.9
5.6064 1.4420 8947.3 11929.9 2.6848 0.7392 11883.3 11444.8
5.6064 1.4420 8929.5 11910.9 2.6848 0.7392 13546.6 12709.4
5.6064 1.4420 10708.2 13773.9 2.6848 0.7392 5092.8 5810.7
5.6064 1.4420 10752.9 13819.8 2.6848 0.7392 8453.8 8715.7
5.6064 1.4420 10726.1 13792.3 2.6848 0.7392 10151.4 10089.7
5.6064 1.4420 10726.1 13792.3 2.6848 0.7392 11883.3 11444.8
5.6064 1.4420 10735.0 13801.5 2.6848 0.7392 13889.6 12966.1
134
Table 44: Sieder-Tate Calculations for Counter Current
Hot Water Loop Trials

5.6064 1.4420 5389.8 7953.2 2.6848 0.7392 12243.4 11721.5
5.6064 1.4420 7168.6 9991.5 2.6848 0.7392 13906.7 12979.0
5.6064 1.4420 7168.6 9991.5 2.6848 0.7392 12089.1 11603.1
5.6064 1.4420 10726.1 13792.3 2.6848 0.7392 13958.2 13017.3
5.6064 1.4420 3593.2 5750.0 2.6848 0.7392 4990.0 5716.6
5.6064 1.4420 10717.1 13783.1 2.6848 0.7392 5007.1 5732.3
5.6064 1.4420 5372.0 7932.1 2.6848 0.7392 10580.1 10429.2
5.6064 1.4420 10699.3 13764.7 2.6848 0.7392 10442.9 10320.9
5.6064 1.4420 8947.3 11929.9 2.6848 0.7392 13889.6 12966.1
5.6064 1.4420 7168.6 9991.5 2.6848 0.7392 5110.0 5826.3
5.6064 1.4420 1796.6 3302.5 2.6848 0.7392 8539.5 8786.3
5.6064 1.4420 10726.1 13792.3 2.6848 0.7392 12123.4 11629.4
5.6064 1.4420 8929.5 11910.9 2.6848 0.7392 5092.8 5810.7
5.6064 1.4420 3602.2 5761.5 2.6848 0.7392 10100.0 10048.8
5.6064 1.4420 10726.1 13792.3 2.6848 0.7392 8436.6 8701.5
5.6064 1.4420 8956.3 11939.5 2.6848 0.7392 15655.8 14269.2
5.6064 1.4420 3575.4 5727.1 2.6848 0.7392 15501.5 14156.6
5.6064 1.4420 4603.3 7010.3 2.6848 0.7392 6893.4 7402.9
5.6064 1.4420 2681.5 4549.8 2.6848 0.7392 3429.5 4234.9
5.6064 1.4420 8965.2 11949.0 2.6848 0.7392 10460.1 10334.4
5.6064 1.4420 7159.6 9981.5 2.6848 0.7392 8573.8 8814.5
5.6064 1.4420 5380.9 7942.7 2.6848 0.7392 8573.8 8814.5
135
5.6064 1.4420 3584.3 5738.6 2.6848 0.7392 12209.1 11695.2
5.6064 1.4420 10752.9 13819.8 2.6848 0.7392 15467.2 14131.5
5.6064 1.4420 5389.8 7953.2 2.6848 0.7392 5110.0 5826.3
5.6064 1.4420 1778.7 3276.2 2.6848 0.7392 13769.6 12876.4
5.6064 1.4420 8956.3 11939.5 2.6848 0.7392 11986.2 11524.0
5.6064 1.4420 3584.3 5738.6 2.6848 0.7392 13769.6 12876.4
5.6064 1.4420 8956.3 11939.5 2.6848 0.7392 8539.5 8786.3
5.6064 1.4420 1778.7 3276.2 2.6848 0.7392 12209.1 11695.2
5.6064 1.4420 1751.9 3236.6 2.6848 0.7392 10357.2 10253.0
5.6064 1.4420 5380.9 7942.7 2.6848 0.7392 13803.8 12902.1
5.6064 1.4420 7150.7 9971.5 2.6848 0.7392 15312.8 14018.6
5.6064 1.4420 7159.6 9981.5 2.6848 0.7392 10288.6 10198.7
5.6064 1.4420 5354.1 7911.0 2.6848 0.7392 15587.2 14219.2
5.6064 1.4420 1769.8 3263.0 2.6848 0.7392 15621.5 14244.2
136
14.7 Colburn Correlation Data
Table 45: Colburn Calculations for Co-Current Steam Injector Trials

f f
2C 2H
hC (W/(o C/m2 )) hH (W/(o C/m2 ))
0.002426 0.002277 4322 4578
0.002426 0.002043 4322 6788
0.002426 0.001940 43227 8269
0.001859 0.002299 11501 4429
0.001860 0.002055 11488 6635
0.001857 0.001934 11554 8375
0.001675 0.002309 17810 4363
0.001674 0.002067 17822 6490
0.002432 0.001938 4289 8294
Table 47: Colburn Calculations for Co-Current Hot Wa-

ter Loop Trials
f f
2C 2H
hC (W/(o C/m2 )) hH (W/(o C/m2 ))
0.001920 0.001701 10492 22853
0.002086 0.001664 7640 25155
0.001812 0.001791 13220 18389
0.001811 0.001664 13234 25155
137
0.001918 0.001857 10520 15877
0.001734 0.001708 15862 22484
0.001675 0.001700 18419 22945
0.001810 0.002069 13274 10450
0.002085 0.002048 7655 10856
0.002089 0.001870 7610 15429
0.001917 0.002090 10548 10067
0.001675 0.001666 18419 24997
0.001811 0.001701 13247 22876
0.001915 0.001667 10589 24952
0.001734 0.001751 15888 20221
0.001810 0.001874 13274 15305
0.001676 0.002078 18381 10286
0.002090 0.001704 7595 22691
0.001917 0.001800 10548 18004
0.002428 0.001666 4468 24997
0.001733 0.002085 15901 10150
0.002425 0.001748 4485 20339
0.001675 0.001751 18406 20221
0.002085 0.001802 7655 17931
0.001675 0.001805 18406 17810
0.001809 0.001745 13300 20527
0.002436 0.001698 4416 23060
0.002436 0.001799 4416 18076
0.002436 0.001872 4416 15354
138
0.002439 0.002087 4399 10122
0.001733 0.001799 15913 18052
0.001675 0.001872 18443 15379
0.001918 0.001742 10534 20668
0.001732 0.001873 15939 15330
0.001735 0.001666 15849 24997
0.002084 0.001752 7670 20151
Table 48: Colburn Calculations for Counter Current Hot

Water Loop Trials
f/2 Cold f/2 Hot h C (W/K/mˆ2) h H (W/K/mˆ2)

0.001916 0.001741 10575 20715
0.001810 0.001699 13287 22968
0.001810 0.001745 13287 20504
0.001675 0.001698 18406 23037
0.002084 0.002087 7670 10122
0.001676 0.002085 18394 10150
0.001917 0.001791 10548 18413
0.001676 0.001795 18369 18221
0.001734 0.001700 15888 22945
0.001810 0.002077 13287 10314
0.002428 0.001868 4468 15504
0.001675 0.001744 18406 20551
0.001734 0.002078 15862 10286
0.002083 0.001807 7685 17738
139
0.001675 0.001872 18406 15354
0.001733 0.001662 15901 25291
0.002086 0.001665 7640 25087
0.001979 0.001951 9329 13070
0.002220 0.002264 6097 7546
0.001733 0.001795 15913 18245
0.001810 0.001866 13274 15554
0.001916 0.001866 10562 15554
0.002085 0.001742 7655 20668
0.001675 0.001666 18443 25042
0.001916 0.002077 10575 10314
0.002433 0.001702 4433 22784
0.001733 0.001748 15901 20363
0.002085 0.001702 7655 22784
0.001733 0.001868 15901 15504
0.002433 0.001742 4433 20668
0.002442 0.001798 4382 18100
0.001916 0.001702 10562 22830
0.001811 0.001669 13260 24839
0.001810 0.001800 13274 18004
0.001918 0.001663 10520 25200
0.002436 0.001663 4416 25246
140
Table 46: Colburn Calculations for Counter-Current Steam Injector Trials
f f
2C 2H
hC (W/(o C/m2 )) hH (W/(o C/m2 ))
0.002421 0.002267 4355 4652
0.002424 0.002037 4339 6864
0.002421 0.001936 4355 8334
0.001858 0.002285 11528 4522
0.001859 0.002029 11514 6957
0.001858 0.001951 11528 8083
0.001676 0.002242 17762 4837
0.001675 0.002024 17810 7024
0.001675 0.001934 17786 8375
141
14.8 Efficiencies
Table 49: Efficiencies for Co-Current Trials using Steam Injector
Tin,H (◦ C) Tin,C (◦ C) Tout,H (◦ C) Tout,C (◦ C) η

35.9 15.2 25.4 26.0 52.30
37.8 15.2 28.5 26.9 51.78
27.6 15.2 23.2 23.1 63.97
36.4 14.8 19.8 18.2 15.74
37.5 15.3 22.2 21.4 27.48
26.9 14.8 19.2 18.5 30.71
35.9 14.9 17.8 17.5 12.38
37.8 15.2 20.1 19.1 17.26
27.0 15.2 18.2 17.9 22.88
142
Table 50: Efficiencies for Counter-Current Trials using Steam Injector

35.8 15.1 11.2 28.0 62.32
36.6 15.0 24.6 33.2 84.26
26.3 15.0 21.1 25.0 88.89
35.6 15.0 16.8 19.5 21.84
36.0 15.1 18.0 23.2 38.74
27.4 15.0 17.2 21.0 48.39
34.3 15.0 16.3 17.5 12.95
35.7 14.9 16.6 20.0 24.52
26.2 14.8 16.3 18.1 28.85
143
Table 51: Efficiencies for Co-Current Trials using Hot
Water Loop

73.5 15.2 50.1 47.2 54.89
73.0 15.0 56.4 53.7 66.72
73.0 15.0 58.3 55.7 70.17
74.3 15.3 60.5 57.8 72.03
73.0 15.1 61.0 58.3 74.61
74.0 15.8 62.7 60.2 76.29
73.0 14.9 55.4 52.7 65.06
73.5 15.9 51.3 48.0 55.73
72.4 14.9 46.7 43.4 49.57
72.3 14.9 43.8 40.0 43.73
74.4 15.7 43.0 39.1 39.86
72.5 15.6 42.3 39.4 41.83
72.3 15.6 48.0 44.9 51.68
74.1 14.9 51.0 48.1 56.08
72.2 14.7 51.5 48.5 58.78
74.2 16.3 55.3 52.2 62.00
73.0 15.7 36.4 33.4 30.89
73.7 15.0 43.8 40.6 43.61
73.5 16.0 46.1 43.0 46.96
72.2 14.9 47.0 43.8 50.44
73.2 15.0 49.5 46.1 53.44
73.7 15.3 33.3 30.8 26.54
144
72.5 16.4 39.6 36.7 36.19
72.0 15.0 41.5 38.4 41.05
73.1 15.1 43.8 40.7 44.14
74.2 15.8 46.8 43.1 46.75
73.8 15.3 30.6 27.9 21.54
72.1 14.9 35.5 32.5 30.77
72.4 15.0 38.6 35.2 35.19
72.7 16.4 41.4 38.0 38.37
72.1 15.6 42.4 38.7 40.88
74.0 16.6 29.8 27.8 19.51
72.3 14.8 33.8 30.6 27.48
73.5 14.9 36.7 33.0 30.89
74.1 15.0 39.0 35.2 34.18
73.8 15.4 41.2 37.0 36.99
145
Table 52: Efficiencies for Counter-Current Trials using
Hot Water Loop

87.2 14.5 64.5 43.1 39.34
88.1 14.3 60.3 40.8 35.91
88.2 14.2 58.8 37.1 30.95
88.8 14.2 50.2 34.3 26.94
88.0 14.7 56.0 28.5 18.83
87.6 14.8 30.5 19.5 6.46
88.7 15.0 62.5 39.5 33.24
89.2 15.2 44.3 29.3 19.05
88.0 15.2 54.2 37.3 30.36
87.3 15.3 37.8 22.2 9.58
88.9 15.3 81.4 60.2 61.01
89.8 15.2 47.8 32.0 22.52
88.1 15.1 34.1 20.8 7.81
87.5 15.2 71.3 47.5 44.67
90.4 15.6 40.4 25.6 13.37
88.8 15.6 57.5 40.6 34.15
87.2 15.4 76.3 58.4 59.89
87.6 15.6 70.1 44.2 39.72
88.1 15.8 77.2 46.4 42.32
89.0 16.0 49.0 31.7 21.51
88.2 15.8 50.2 30.5 20.30
88.8 15.6 58.2 35.0 26.50
146
89.3 15.4 76.1 54.1 52.37
88.6 15.6 52.0 37.5 30.00
87.5 15.7 45.2 24.8 12.67
89.0 15.8 84.0 70.5 74.73
89.5 15.5 52.8 34.8 26.08
90.4 15.6 77.4 57.8 56.42
88.4 15.5 44.0 27.7 16.74
87.8 15.4 82.1 67.8 72.38
89.9 15.0 84.1 66.5 68.76
89.5 14.7 68.8 47.7 44.18
88.3 14.6 62.5 43.8 39.62
87.4 14.7 53.5 33.4 25.72
88.5 14.6 70.2 50.4 48.44
89.1 14.8 84.6 72.8 78.06
147
15 Appendix E: Additional Figures
15.1 Additional Heat Transfer Coefficient Figure
1.40
1.20
1.00
Uov (W/m2/℃)
0.80
Counter Current
Counter Current (SI)
0.60
Co-current
Co-current (SI)
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Cold Stream Flow Rate (gal/min)
Figure 17: Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient vs. Cold Stream Flow Rates
148
15.2 Additional Wilson Correlation Figures
Table 53: Wilson Plot Values for Varied Hot Stream in Co-current Configuration
m 0.8
Avg Slope (◦ C/W) 9411.5
Avg Intercept, CI (◦ C/W) -0.0307
C2 (◦ C·m2 /W) 11994.0
1.2
0.8 2 gal/min Cold

4 gal/min Cold
Rov (℃/W)
6 gal/min Cold
0.6 8 gal/min Cold
10 gal/min Cold
12 gal/min Cold
0.4 2 gal/min Cold SI
7 gal/min Cold SI
12 gal/min Cold SI
0.2
0
0 0.00002 0.00004 0.00006 0.00008 0.0001 0.00012 0.00014 0.00016 0.00018
Re(Hot)^-0.8
Figure 18: Wilson Plot for Varied Hot Stream Flow Rates in Co-current Configuration
149
Table 54: Wilson Plot Values for Varied Cold Stream in Counter Current Configuration
m 0.8
Avg Intercept, CI (◦ C/W) 0.2858
C2 (◦ C·m2 /W) 15977.2
3.5
2 gal/min Hot
2.5 4 gal/min Hot
Rov (℃/W)
6 gal/min Hot
2 8 gal/min Hot
10 gal/min Hot
1.5 12 gal/min Hot
2 gal/min Hot SI
7 gal/min Hot SI
1
12 gal/min Hot SI
0.5
0
0 0.00005 0.0001 0.00015 0.0002
Re(Cold)^-0.8
Figure 19: Wilson Plot for Varied Cold Stream Flow Rates in Counter Current Configura-
tion
150
Table 55: Wilson Plot Values for Varied Hot Stream in Counter Current Configuration
m 0.8
Avg Intercept, CI (◦ C/W) 0.3123
C2 (◦ C·m2 /W) 20908.2
3.5
2 gal/min Cold
2.5 4 gal/min Cold
Rov (℃/W)
6 gal/min Cold
2 8 gal/min Cold
10 gal/min Cold
1.5 12 gal/min Cold
2 gal/min Cold SI
7 gal/min Cold SI
1
12 gal/min Cold SI
0.5
0
0 0.00002 0.00004 0.00006 0.00008 0.0001 0.00012 0.00014 0.00016 0.00018
Re(Hot)^-0.8
Figure 20: Wilson Plot for Varied Hot Stream Flow Rates in Counter Current Configuration
151
4.000
3.500
3.000
2.500
hi (W/℃/m2)
2.000 h_H
h_H (SI)
1.500 h_C
1.000
0.500
0.000
0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000
Flow Rate (gal/min)
Figure 21: Wilson Heat Transfer Coefficients vs Flow Rate in Counter Current Configura-
tion
152
4.000
3.500
3.000
2.500
hi (W/℃/m2)
2.000
Co-current
Counter Current
1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000
Hot Flow Rate (gal/min)
Figure 22: Wilson Heat Transfer Coefficients vs Hot Flow Rate in Counter Current Con-
figuration
153
15.3 Additional Dittus-Boelter Correlation Figures
18000
16000
14000
12000
hi (W/m2/℃)
10000
h_H
h_H (SI)
8000
h_C
6000 h_C (SI)
4000
2000
0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Flow Rate (gal/min)
Figure 23: Dittus-Boelter Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Flow Rates for Counter Current
Configuration
154
14000
12000
10000
hi (W/m2/℃)
8000
Counter
Counter SI
6000
Co
Co SI
4000
2000
0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Figure 24: Dittus-Boelter Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Cold Stream Flow Rates
155
18000
16000
14000
12000
hi (W/m2/℃)
10000
Counter
Counter SI
8000
Co
6000 Co SI
4000
2000
0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
Figure 25: Dittus-Boelter Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Hot Stream Flow Rates
156
15.4 Additional Sieder-Tate Correlation Figures
16000
14000
12000
10000
hi (W/m2/℃)
h_H
8000
h_H (SI)
h_C
6000
h_C (SI)
4000
2000
0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Flow Rate (gal/min)
Figure 26: Sieder-Tate Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Flow Rates for Counter Current
Configuration
157
16000
14000
12000
10000
hi (W/m2/℃)
Counter
8000
Counter SI
Co
6000
Co SI
4000
2000
0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Figure 27: Sieder-Tate Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Cold Stream Flow Rates
158
16000
14000
12000
10000
hi (W/m2/℃)
Counter
8000
Counter SI
Co
6000
Co SI
4000
2000
0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
Figure 28: Sieder-Tate Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Hot Stream Flow Rates
159
15.5 Additional Colburn Correlation Figures
30000.0
25000.0
20000.0
hi (W/℃/m2)
15000.0 h_H
h_H (SI)
h_C
10000.0
5000.0
0.0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Figure 29: Colburn Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Flow Rates for Counter Current Config-
uration
160
25000.0
20000.0
15000.0
hi (W/℃/m2)
Co-current
10000.0
Counter Current
5000.0
0.0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Flow Rate (gal/min)
Figure 30: Colburn Heat Transfer Coefficients vs. Flow Rates for Counter Current Config-
uration
161

Group 12plate Heat Exchanger

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Group 12plate Heat Exchanger

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

William G. Lowrie Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering

Plate Heat Exchanger

Due Date: February 18, 2019

4 Results and Discussion 18

11 Appendix A: Preliminary Assignment 60

12 Appendix B: Experimental Summary Report 90

13 Appendix C: Sample Calculations 105

14 Appendix D: Raw Data and Calculations 117

15 Appendix E: Additional Figures 148

1 Flow Configurations and Temperature Profiles [29] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.2 Scientific Principles

Figure 2: Steam Injector System Diagram

ṁ1 + ṁ2 = ṁ3 (1)

Q̇1 + Q̇2 = Q̇3 (2)

Q̇ = ṁF · cp,F (Tin,F − Tout,F ) (3)

2.2.1 Wilson Plot Method

2.2.2 Dittus-Boetler Correlation Method

2.2.3 Sieder-Tate Correlation Method

0.023k 0.8 1/3 µ 0.14

2.2.4 Colburn Correlation Method

3.1 Safety Hazards and Precautions

4.1 Steam Injector Balance

φ is calculated as the ratio of the developed length of the channel, pd , measured in

Table 2: Plate Dimensions

Table 3: Average Heat Transfer Rates for Each Configuration

4.3 Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient

Table 4: Average Overall Heat Transfer Coefficients

4.4 Correlation Methods

4.4.1 Wilson Plot Method

Table 6: Average Wilson Correlation Convective Heat Transfer Coefficients

0.8 2 gal/min Hot

Table 9: Average Sieder-Tate Correlation Convective Heat Transfer Coefficients

4.4.4 Colburn Method

Table 10: Average Colburn Correlation Convective Heat Transfer Coefficients

Table 12: Average Heat Transfer Efficiencies, η

5.1 Qualitative Error Analysis

Table 13: Equipment Uncertainties

5.2.1 Error Propagation

5.2.2 Statistical Analysis

Table 14: Analysis of Variance and Parameter Estimates

Table 15: Summary of Fit

8.1 Background and Theory

8.2 Plate Statistics

Q̇ = ṁF · cp,F (Tin,F − Tout,F ) (18)

8.3 Cost Analysis

Wort inlet temp 94 o C

Wort outlet temp 21 o C

City Water flow rate 42.4 bbl/day

City water inlet 15 o C

City water outlet temp 85 o C

Heat Transfer 1471309 kW

Heat Transfer Area 15.68m2

Plate Heat Exchanger

Fermentation tanks $9,800 [1] 4 $39,200

Kettles $11,303 [10] 9 $101,727

Storage Tank (50 bbl) $23,790 [12] 1 $23,790

Fermentation Kegs (1/2 bbl) $645 [22] 100 $64,500

Total Cost - - $1,176,467

Table 18: Monthly Expenses

Hops [3] -$27,360

Barley [11] -$103,200

Net Profit +$37,500