Mindanao State University- Iligan Institute of Technology

Department of Chemical Engineering

College of Engineering

Unit Operations Laboratory No. 3

Experiment on Reynolds Analogy for Mass transfer: Determination of the Convective Heat and Mass
Transfer Coefficient Ratio for the Cooling of Water with and without Evaporation

Submitted by:

Bahinting, Sandra Enn

Cano, Rozen
Dumaog, Mary Bernadine
Duquilla, Russil John C.
Mutia, Nicel Mae
Ondoy, Karl
Gorre, Regino jr
Suyat, Rowena

Submitted to:

Engr. Arniel Ching O. Dizon

July 15, 2010

 Abstract

Simultaneous molecular heat and mass transfer occur in a system due to temperature gradient
in such a way that the system and the surroundings reach thermal equilibrium. This experiment aims to
determine the ratio of the convective heat and mass transfer coefficients for the evaporation of water by
applying the Reynolds analogy relating the said coefficients and through the energy conservation
principle. Wet and dry bulb temperatures were first determined. Then two cups of evaporating water
were simultaneously exposed to the same air stream, one cup with evaporation and the other added
with oil forming thin film which hindered the evaporation through molecular mass transfer. Their rates
of cooling were measured by recording temperature deviations as a function of time. Time constants for
both systems were then evaluated by means of these transient temperature measurements which gave
the value of the ratio h D /h - the convective mass-transfer coefficient to the convective heat-transfer
coefficient. The ratio of the convective mass transfer coefficient to the convective heat transfer
coefficient was found to be 1.941x10 -4 m3·K/J. The h D /h predicted by Reynolds analogy is 5.95 times
higher and differs by 83% from the experimental ratio.
 Table of Contents

Introduction..................................................................................................................................................1
Methodology................................................................................................................................................3
Sample Preparation.........................................................................................................................2

Data Gathering...............................................................................................................................2

Data Treatment..............................................................................................................................2

Results..........................................................................................................................................................4
Reynolds Analogy............................................................................................................................4

Prantdl Number...............................................................................................................................4

Convective Heat and Mass Transfer..................................................................................................4

Discussion.....................................................................................................................................................6
Conclusions and Recommendations.............................................................................................................7
References....................................................................................................................................................8
Appendix A...................................................................................................................................................9
Appendix B..................................................................................................................................................10
Appendix C..................................................................................................................................................11
INTRODUCTION

Background

Convection is one of the major modes of heat transfer and mass transfer in fluids i.e. liquids
and gases. In heat transfer, convection is a process by which heat is transferred by movement of a
heated fluid such as air or water. Mass transfer by convection involves the transport of material
between a boundary surface such as liquid surface and a moving fluid or between two relatively
immiscible moving fluids.

The concept of convective heat- and mass- transfer in terms of its coefficients are related by the
Reynolds analogy. It suggests a simple relation between different transport phenomena in which the
relation should be accurate when transport occurs by means of turbulent eddies. In addition, it can
estimate mass transfer coefficients from heat transfer coefficient.

In this particular activity, Reynolds analogy was used to present the relation of the convective
heat- and mass- transfer coefficients in the evaporation of water.

Energy Conservation Principle

In a system, with initial water temperature T i greater than the ambient air temperature T 0,
convectively losing heat and mass to the air only from the open top, the difference of water
temperature T with time t elapsed is described from the conservation of energy principle as:

mC p dT /dt=−hA ( T −T o ) −hfg ρ h D A ( ω1 w −ω 10 ) / ( 1−ω 1 w ) Eq. 1

The initial condition isT ( t=0 )=T i. Taking water vapor of the air side of the liquid-water-air
interface as species 1, with subscript w referring to conditions on the air side of the liquid-water-air
interface, and subscript o referring to ambient conditions and rearranging, assumingT −T o=T i−T o,
gives:
τ dθ /dt =−θ, θ ( t=0 ) =1 Eq. 2
Where
θ=( T −T o ) / ( T i −T o ) Eq. 3
And the time constant τ is:

τ =τ h / {1+ ρ hfg ( h D /h ) ( ω 1 w −ω 1o ) / [ ( 1−ω 1 w )( T i−T o ) ] } Eq. 4

Here, τ h=mC p /hA is the time constant for the cooling process without evaporation, as would
be the case if the liquid water were covered with a thin film of oil.

1
 The mass fraction ω 1 of the water vapor is related to the partial pressure of the water vapor, p 1
by:
ω 1= p1 ( M 1 / M 2 ) / [ p− p1 ( 1−M 1 / M 2) ] Eq. 5

Where M 1 is the molecular weight of water, M 2 is the molecular weight of air, and p is the total
atmospheric pressure. And p1 is:
p1=pv(T) for saturated conditions Eq . 6
p1= φpv(T) for ambient conditions Eq. 7

From Eq. 4, the ratio of the convective mass transfer coefficient to convective heat transfer coefficient
is:
Ʈ

h /h=
( Ʈ
−1) ( 1−ω
h
1w ) (T i−T o) Eq. 8
D
ρh fg (ω1 w −ω10 )

Reynolds Analogy
Reynolds analogy relates heat and mass transfer. Reynolds analogy holds true when N pr=1 and
NSc≅ 1. From Reynolds analogy, the ratio h D /h of the convective mass-transfer coefficient to the
convective heat-transfer coefficient evaluated by means of transient temperature measurements is
given by:
h D /h=( Sc / Pr )1/ 3 D 12 / k Eq. 9

where Sc is the Schmidt number , Pr is the Prandtl number, D 12 is the mass diffusivity of water vapor
and k is the air thermal conductivity. Simplifying, equation 9 becomes:

h D /h=( D 12 /v )1 /3 D 12/k Eq. 10

The main objective of this activity is to determine the ratio of the convective heat-and mass-
transfer coefficients by measuring the rates of cooling of two cups of water simultaneously exposed to
the same air stream, one cup with evaporation and one without evaporation. Moreover, the obtained
values of the ratio of the convective mass transfer to the convective heat transfer from the conservation
of energy principle and Reynolds analogy will be compared.

2
METHODOLOGY

Materials

The equipments used in the experiment were six paper cups i.e. three for the cooling with
evaporation and three for the one without evaporation, milliliter measuring beaker, two thermometers,
light oil, electric fan and gauze.

Data Gathering

The wet-bulb and ambient air temperatures were first determined using two thermometers. One
thermometer for the ambient and the other is for the wet bulb. For the wet-bulb temperature, the bulb
of the thermometer was covered with a piece of wet gauze whose other end was immersed in a beaker
full of water. This served as a wick to allow the water to reach the thermometer's bulb thus maintaining
a wet bulb. The two thermometers were clipped in an iron stand and the beaker was placed around an
inch below the thermometer for the wet bulb temperature. A small fan was then used to blow air on the
two thermometers until a constant temperature was reached. The temperature readings for dry and
wet bulb were then recorded.

Using Styrofoam cups, the bottom and side of a cup was insulated by stacking it with two other
cups. The same thing was done to make the second insulated cup. Both cups were filled from the beaker
with equal known volumes of water about 10-20°C warmer than the ambient air. Enough oil was added
to one cup to form a thin oil film on the water surface. Each cup was then inserted with a thermometer
and the time was recorded for every 0.5°C drop in temperature. Between measurements, each cup was
gently stirred to assure even temperature distribution in the liquid.

Data Treatment

From the data on the dry and wet bulb temperatures, the relative humidity was determined
using a psychrometric chart. Also, from the temperature and time data, a graph of lnƟ versus time was
generated. The numerical value of Ʈ was then determined by getting the negative inverse of the slope of
the plot. In a similar manner, the time constant τ h was also determined from the plot for the water with
an oil film. From these values, the hD/h was calculated.

3
RESULTS

Reynolds Analogy

The theoretical hD/h is given by:

h D /h=( Sc / Pr )1/ 3 D 12 / k

Or
h D /h=( D 12 /v )1 /3 D 12/k

T ( K )2.072
Where D12=1.87 x 10−10( )
P ( atm )

Using values from appendix A at 30oC for trial 1,

1/ 3
2.5932 x 10−5 m2 /s 2.5932 x 10−5 m2 /s
h D /h=( 16.04 x 10−6 m2 /s ) .0264
W
m·K
= 1.15x10-3 m3·K/J

For trial 2 at 31oC, hD/h = 1. 158x10-3 m3·K/J thus, hD/have = 1.155x10-3 m3·K/J

Prantdl Number
The Prantdl number is given by:
Pr=v /α
Thus for trial 1, from table A of appendix A,
Pr = (16.04x10-6m2/s   /  24.43x10^-6m2/s )
  = 0.657

Similarly, for trial 2, Npr= 0.656 and Npr,ave= 0.6565

Convective Heat and Mass Transfer

The experimental ratio of the convective mass transfer coefficient to heat transfer coefficient is
given by:

4
 Percent
Trial 1 Trial 2
Difference
Ʈ 2500 2500 0%

Ʈh 5000 5000 0%
Table A: Time Constant.
Note: See Appendix C for the Plot of lnƟ versus time.
Ʈh

h D /h=
(
Ʈ )
−1 ( 1−ω1 w ) (T i−T o)

ρh fg (ω1 w −ω10 )

Using Eq. 5, Eq. 6, Eq. 7 and tables A and B of appendix A for trial 1,

p1w= pv(40.75oC) p10= φpv(30oC) : φ =.7622

p1w = 57.48 p10 = 31.687

ω 1 w =57.48 (18 /28.8 ) / [ 760−57.48 ( 1−18 /28.8 ) ]

ω1w = .0486

ω 1 o=(0.7622) 31.687 (18 /28.8 ) / [ 760−(0.7622) 31.687 ( 1−18/28.8 ) ]

ω1o = .0201

From the calculated values above, from table A, from Figures A and B of appendix B and table 1
of appendix A,

5000
hD
=
( 2500
−1 ) ( 1−.0486 ) (320−303) K

h
( 1.166 kg
m3 )
J
(2429 x 103 )(.0486−0.201)
kg

5
hD −4 3
=2.004 x 10 m · K /J
h
Similarly for trial 2, ω1w = .0467, ω10 = .0197 and hD/h = 1.878x10-4m3·K/J.

Thus, hD/have = 1.941x10-4 m3·K/J.

DISCUSSION

From the results, the value of the time constant for cooling with evaporation was found to be
2500 for trial 1 and trial 2. And for cooling without evaporation, the time constant was found to be 5000
for the two trials (see table 1). The values represent zero percent relative error for both set-ups.
Moreover, from these values, the ratios of the convective mass transfer to the convective heat transfer
were calculated. The hD/h values are 2.004x10-4m3·K/J and 1.878x10-4m3·K/J for trial 1 and trial 2,
respectively. This represents a relative error of just around 6%. Thus, as expected, the two independent
trials agree with each other.

While the two trials did agree, this wasn’t the case with that predicted from Reynolds analogy.
From the calculations, the value of the ratio of the convective mass transfer coefficient to the convective
heat transfer coefficient, h D/h from Reynolds analogy was found to be 1.155x10 -3 m3·K/J. Comparing this
to the hD/h value from the conservation of energy principle, which was found to be 1.941x10 -4 m3·K/J,
the theoretical value predicted by Reynolds analogy differed significantly and in fact, the ratio from
Reynolds analogy was found to be 5.95 times larger giving a relative error of 83%.

Reynolds analogy predicts similarities in transport processes, but its application is limited. And it
is valid only if the Prantdl number is equal to 1 [1]. From the calculations above, the Prantdl number of air
for the conditions on the experiment was 0.6565. And for which, Reynolds analogy cannot be used while
expecting precision. This contributes to the disagreement in the h D/h.

Therefore, on the conditions of the experiment the mechanism of mass transfer and heat
transfer are not identical. Consequently, heat dissipation was not significantly contributed by convection
alone but also by conduction. In turn, the stacked Styrofoam cups did not serve well as insulation and
the expanded fibreglass insulation should not have been replaced by Styrofoam cups.

Answers to questions:

1. Is the time constant actually constant for either of the two cups?

Ans.: No , because the obtained values of τ were different for either of the two cups.

6
 2. Would a different value of the ration h D /h be obtained if the initial temperature of the water
were increased to 30-40°C above the ambient temperature?

Ans.: Yes, based from equation 8, one can evaluate that the ration h D /h is temperature dependent.
Thus, they are directly proportional to each other.

3. Is it possible to determine the numerical value of the convective heat-transfer coefficient h from
the data for the cup with an oil film? If so, how could this result be used to determine the
numerical value of the convective mass-transfer coefficient h D?

Ans.: Yes, the numerical value of the convective heat-transfer coefficient h can be determined using
the equation below with Cp obtained from published data, surface area A, measured from the
diameter of the cup, and m from the product of the density and the measured volume of water.

τ h=mC p /hA

After that, the obtained value of h can be substituted to eqn. 8.Hence, h D can be determined.

4. How important is the 1−ω1 w term, representing the effect of water vapor “blowing” into the air
at the liquid-water-air interface, in Eq. 8.2

Ans.: It serves as a correction factor accounting for the effect of the “blowing” of the water vapor
which is faster temperature changes resulting to lower time constant value.

CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATIONS

From the results of the experiment, the ratio of the convective mass transfer coefficient to the
convective heat transfer coefficient is 1.941x10 -4 m3·K/J. Moreover, the h D /h predicted by Reynolds
analogy is 5.95 times higher and differs by 83% from the experimental ratio.

Additionally, the use of Styrofoam cup as an insulation is not effective to allow only convective
heat transfer to the air in the open top. As such, we recommend the use of other insulating material
such as fiberglass, kapton and melamine.

7
REFERENCES

[1]Foust, A.S., et al. Principles of Unit Operations, 2 Edition. New York: John Wiley. 1980
nd

[2]Geankoplis, Christie J. Transport Processes and Unit Operations, Third Edition.

Singapore: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1995

[3]McCabe W., Smith C., and Harriott P. Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering, 5 Edition.
th

New York: McGraw-Hill Book Corporation. 1993

[4]Perry, R.H., and Green D. Perry’s Chemical Engineers Handbook, 7 Edition. New York:
th

McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1999s

[5]Natural convection. Retrieved from

http://www.google.com.ph/#hl=tl&source=hp&q=natural+convection&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=
&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=1&cad=b

[6]Michon, G. Physics of Gases and Fluids. Rerieved from

http://www.numericana.com/answer/gas.htm.

[7]Air Properties. Retrieved from http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-properties-

d_156.html.

[8]Mass Convection. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/12937589/HT3eChap14122.

8
 Appendix A

Trial 1 Trial 2
D12 2.5932x10-5 m2/s 2.6110x10-5 m2/s
K .0264 W/m-K .02647W/m-k
Ν 16.04x10-6m2/s 16.13x10-6m2/s
Ρ 1.166kg/m3 1.1621kg/m3
hfg 2429x103 J/kg 2427x103 J/kg
v(air) 16.04x10-6m2/s 16.13x10-6m2/s
α(air) 24.43x10-6m2/s 24.57x10-6m2/s
φ(Relative Humidity) 76.22% 70.54%
Table A: Table of Values

Temp(oC) 30 31 40 40.75
pv(mmHg) 31.687 33.562 55.226 57.48
Table B: Vapor Pressure

9
 Appendix B

Figure 1: Trial 1 Experimental Values

Figure 2: Trial 2 Experimental values

10
 Appendix C

Figure 1: Trial 1 lnƟ vs Time Plot for Water without Oil Film

Figure 2: Trial 1 lnƟ vs Time Plot for Water Oil Film

11
 Appendix C

Figure 3: Trial 2 lnƟ vs Time Plot for Water without Oil Film

Figure 4: Trial 2 lnƟ vs Time Plot for Water with Oil Film

12