1 ABSTRACT

This experiment aims to study effect of flow rate of hot and cold water, direction of flow, and model
on the pressure drop and heat transfer within a heat exchanger. Heat exchangers are devices used to
conduct heat exchange between two designated mediums without physical mixing of said mediums,
with this property providing utility to many commercial and operational processes and hence
justifying their study. This study was conducted through the measurement of varying cold water flow
rates against a constant hot water flow rate that would be adjusted once measuring equipment would
reach a limit, hot water flow rates were determined by the same metric, indicating the fullest data set
that could be acquired was. This would be done for each flow direction (co-current or counter current)
and each model of heat exchanger (shell and tube or plate), with the measurements from these runs
being analysed through the theoretical framework of the equations stipulated in the report,
predominantly a simplified heat balance equation and a variety of pressure drop equations gathered
from literature and SOLTEQ operating Manual for HE158C, many values for equipment not
measured in experimentation were also obtained from this source. This equations also serving to
provide theoretical predictions to compare observed results against. The report found that while
theoretical heat exchange and tube side pressure drop were congruent with theory, shell side pressure
drop saw orders of magnitude deviation from expected results, this is indicative of systematic error in
the experimentation or calculation of shell pressure drop.

2 BACKGROUND
Heat exchangers broadly describe any device designed to facilitate the transfer of heat from one
region to another following the temperature differential. This is vital to the control of both physical
and chemical properties of a medium. As a result, heat exchangers are used in prevalent processes
such as heating, food processing, and evaporators [1].
The chosen heat exchanger models for this experiment are a shell-and-tube heat exchanger and a plate
heat exchanger. These operate on the principle of a cold fluid flowing past a hot fluid without these
fluids mixing via physical separation. Examples of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger and a plate heat
exchanger can be seen in Figures 3 and 4 respectively.

Figure 1: Diagram of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger,

sourced from [4]. In this model, hot fluid flows through the
inner tubes to heat the cold fluid in the shell surrounding
Figure 2: Example of a plate heat exchanger, sourced
them. The shell contains baffles to increase mixing and
from [5]. The red arrows indicate hot fluid flow and the
ensure uniform heating. The system pictured is operating
blue arrows indicate cold fluid flow. In this diagram, the
under counter-current conditions, but co-current operation
system is in counter-current operation but co-current
is also possible.
operation is also possible.

The heat transfer between the two fluids can be described through Equation 1 and equation 2 in both
heat exchangers.

q=mc C p ( T 2 , c −T 1, c )=mh C p (T 1 ,h −T 2 , h)
Equation 1: description of total heat transfer between two fluids. T represents temperature, with the numerical subscripts
indicating ‘1’ for the inlet and ‘2’ for the outlet. ‘m’ represents mass, and Cp represents specific heat capacity, which is
assumed to be constant for liquid. The subscripts c and h indicate the cold and hot fluids respectively.

q=U 0 A0 Δ T m=U i Ai Δ T m
Equation 2: Description of heat transfer of a pipe, U represents heat transfer coefficient, A represents area, ΔTm¬
represents the mean temperature difference, I subscript denoting inside of pipe, 0 subscript representing exterior of pipe

An influence on the total heat exchanged is the direction of flow of the hot and cold liquids. Heat
exchangers can operate under two different flow conditions: co-current or counter-current [2] in
which the cold and hot fluids flow in opposite directions or the same direction respectively. The
temperature changes observed under these different conditions are visually represented in Figure 1.

Figure 3: Temperature profiles of generic heat exchanger in counter-current and co-current operation respectively. Source
[3]

Pressure drop is also experienced inside heat exchangers due to friction from the piping of the heat
exchanger. Accurate descriptions of this pressure drop is essential to effective modelling and design
of relevant equipment for a given heat exchanger, and whose equations will be discussed here to
outline the factors that affect pressure drop. Pressure drop is described by numerous equations
depending on the geometry of the heat exchanger, for the tube side pressure drop in a shell-and-tube
model, this is described numerically through Equation 3.
Δ P t=N t ¿

Equation 3: description of pressure drop on tube side, Δ P t represents tube side pressure drop (N/m2), N t represents
number of tube side passes, jf represents the tube dimensionless friction factor, L represents length of one tube (m), m is a
real number being 0.25 for laminar flow defined as Re<2100, and 0.14 for turbulent in which Re>2100, μw is the fluid
viscosity of the wall and μ is the viscosity of bulk of the fluid. d i represents the internal tube diameter, ρt represents the
density of the fluid, and ut represents the velocity of the fluid

For ease of calculations, it is assumed μ and μW are the same in this experiment. This reduces the
theoretical pressure drop to that in Equation 4.
2
L ρt u t
Δ P t=N t [8 j f ( )+2.5 ]
di 2
Equation 4: Equation 3 simplified under the assumption that the viscosity of the fluid is uniform across the tube profile.

The shell-side pressure drop is calculated using Equation 5.

2
Ds L ρ us
Δ P s= j f ( )( ) ¿
d e lB 2
Equation 5: description of pressure drop on shell side, ΔP_s represents shell pressure drop (N/m2), j f is the shell
dimensionless friction factor, lB is the distance between baffles (m), us is shell side velocity (m/s), d e is the equivalent shell
diameter (m)

Similar to the modification of Equation 3 for ease of calculations, it is assumed that the viscosity of
the water is constant within the shell and Equation 5 is simplified to Equation 6.
2
Ds L ρ us
Δ P s= j f ( )( )
d e lB 2
Equation 6: Equation 5 simplified under the assumption that the viscosity of the fluid is uniform across the tube profile.

A theoretical pressure drop can also be calculated for a plate heat exchanger using Equation 7 [2].

∆ P=
8 jf
( )
Lp
de
ρ u2p

2
Equation 7: Pressure drop for a plate heat exchanger. Here, ΔP is he pressure drop, jf is the friction factor, Lp is the length
of the plate, deis the equivalent hydraulic diameter (or twice the gap between the plates), ρ is the density of the fluid and up is
the equivalent water velocity, calculated by the mass flow over the cross-sectional area over de.

The friction factor in Equation 7 (jf) is calculated via Equation 8 for turbulent flow (when Re > 400
for a plate exchanger). Turbulent flow is easily achieved in a plate exchanger due to the small design
of a plate exchanger [2].
−0.3
j f =1.25 R e
Equation 8: Friction factor calculations for a plate heat exchanger. Re is Reynolds number, which is calculated by diving
the mass flow rate by the cross-sectional area of the flow, multiplying by de and dividing by the viscosity of the water.

There are clearly numerous factors and considerations related to the functionality of heat exchangers.
This experiment explores the effect of several factors. Radiation and heat exchange with the
environment are also factors in all of these exchangers however aren’t measured by this experiment
and instead contribute to error estimates.

3 AIM
This experiment aims to measure the effect of varying several parameters, including the flow rate of
hot and cold water, the direction of flow and the type of heat exchanger, on the pressure drop and heat
transfer rate.

4 METHODOLOGY
The methodology goes as follows for each heat exchanger, with each one having a test for co-current
and counter current flow, all data collected is of the same categories for each heat exchanger and each
flow regime.
The experiment began with allowing the hot water (50C˚) and cold water (room temperature) to flow
through the system to reach steady state, as indicated by the stabilization of heat and differential
pressure (dpt) values. The pressure drop lines were purged of air bubbles to negate any random errors
related to this. The effect of varying cold and hot water flow rates on the pressure and temperature
differentials are then measured concurrently.
Following data collection, the heat transfer was calculated based on Equation 1 due to difficulty
finding the overall heat coefficients for each set of operating conditions. This required the inlet and
outlet temperatures for both the hot and cold water streams for all operating conditions, as well as the
rate of mass flow. The pressure differential for the shell-and-tube heat exchanger was compared to the
theoretical values.

5 RESULTS
5.1 SHELL AND TUBE COUNTER FLOW RESULTS
The shell-and-tube heat exchanger was initially operated under counter-current flow conditions.
Figures 4 and 5 show the rate of heat transfer for the cold and hot water streams as calculated by
Equation 1 at different cold water flow rates at constant hot water flow rates of 4.9 L/min and 7 L/min
respectively.

8 10

7.5 9
f(x) = 0.516433156359133 x + 2.16247567608449
7 f(x) = 0.142175341445691
0.705719216099045 x + 7.09042452561972
1.43456333826657
8
6.5
7
6
Heat transfer (kJ/s)
Heat transfer (kJ/s)

6
5.5 f(x) = 0.070474752258672 x + 5.02402155419319
5
5

4.5 4

4 3
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Cold water flow rate (L/min) Cold water flow rate (L/min)

Hot water heat transfer Linear (Hot water heat transfer) Hot water heat transfer Linear (Hot water heat transfer)

Cold water heat transfer Linear (Cold water heat transfer) Cold water heat transfer Linear (Cold water heat transfer)

Figure 4: Heat balance for shell and tube counter flow at Figure 5: Heat balance for shell and tube counter flow at
different cold (shell-side) flow rates and at a constant hot different cold (shell-side) flow rates and at a constant hot
(tube-side) flow rate of 4.9 L/min. (tube-side) flow rate of 7 L/min.

Both Figures 4 and 5 shows a positive correlation between heat transfer and the cold water flow rate,
as expected by the linear relationship between heat transfer and mass flow rate predicted by Equation
1. For this same reason increased hot water flow rate results in greater heat transfer.
The pressure drops across both the shell and the tubes measured at various cold water flow rates can
be seen in Figures 6 and 7, with Figure 6 being at a constant hot water flow rate of 4.9 L/min and
Figure 7 being at a constant hot water flow rate of 7 L/min. The observed values are compared to the
theoretical pressure drops predicted by Equations 4 and 5 for the tubes and the shell respectively.
 5000 5000
4500 4500
4000 4000
f(x) = 917.280086660894 x − 5146.15622602749 f(x) = 922.188082317889 x − 5144.44567847786
3500 3500

3000 3000

Pressure drop (Pa)

2500 2500
Pressure Drop (Pa)

2000 2000

1500 1500

1000 1000

500 500

0 0
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Flow Rate (L/min) Flow Rate (L/min)

Observed tube-side pressure drop Observed shell-side pressure drop

Observed tube-side pressure drop Observed shell-side pressure drop Linear (Observed shell-side pressure drop)
Linear (Observed shell-side pressure drop) Theoretical tube-side pressure drop
theoretical tube-side pressure drop theoretical shell-side pressure drop Theoretical shell-side pressure drop

Figure 6: Pressure drop (observed and theoretical as Figure 7: Pressure drop (observed and theoretical as
described in Equations 4 and 6) dependence on shell-side described in Equations 4 and 6) dependence on shell-side
flow rate with a constant tube side flow rate of 4.9 L/min. flow rate with a constant tube side flow rate of 7 L/min.

It is evident from Figures 6 and 7 that there is a strong dependence of the pressure drop across the
shell on the cold water flow rate, however minimal correlation in this pressure drop with hot water
flow rate evident in the similar gradients in Figures 6 and 7. The tube-side pressure changes are
significantly less correlated with cold water flow rate and are more congruent with theoretical
expectations. The shell-side pressure drop demonstrates a big discrepancy between the observed and
theoretical values. However, as shown in Figure 8, there is still a theoretical dependence of the
pressure drop on the flow rate, though to five orders of magnitude less.

5000 0.45

Theoretical pressure drop (Pa)

4500 0.4
Observed pressure drop (Pa)

4000 f(x) = 0.055793194751485 x − 0.168852927911827 0.35

f(x) = 917.280086660894 x − 5146.15622602749
3500 0.3
3000
0.25
2500
0.2
2000
1500 0.15
1000 0.1
500 0.05
0 0
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Flow rate (L/min)
Observed shell-side pressure drop Linear (Observed shell-side pressure drop)
Theoretical shell-side pressure drop Linear (Theoretical shell-side pressure drop)

Figure 8: Theoretical and observed shell-side pressure drops on different axes at a constant tube-side flow rate of 4.9 L/min.
Clearly, there is an expectation for an increase in pressure drop as the flow rate increases, although there is an error to any
orders of magnitude. A similar trend was observed for a constant tube-side flow rate of 7 L/min.

5.2 SHELL AND TUBE CO-CURRENT FLOW RESULTS

The following data was produced for the shell-and-tube operating at co-current flow conditions.
Figure 9 shows the rate of heat transfer for the cold and hot water streams as calculated by Equation 1
at different cold water flow rates at a constant hot water flow rates of 9 L/min.
 14
12
Heat balance (kJ/s)

10
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Cold water flow rate (L/min)

Hot water heat transfer Cold water heat transfer

Figure 9: Heat transfer for shell and tube co-current flow at different cold (shell-side) flow rates and at a constant hot
(tube-side) flow rate of 9 L/min.

It is clear for a co-current flow that there is not as strong a dependence of the cold water heat transfer
on the cold water flow rate. The hot water heat transfer values are consistently higher due to the high
flow rate, which is expected according to Equation 1.
Figure 10 shows the pressure drop across both the shell and the tubes for a co-current flow operation,
as well as the theoretical pressure drops calculated using Equations 4 and 5.

4500
4000
3500
Pressure drop (Pa)

f(x) = 533.564617010711 x − 1119.91340449216

3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Cold water flow rate (L/min)

Observed tube-side pressure drop Observed shell-side pressure drop
Linear (Observed shell-side pressure drop) Theoretical tube-side pressure drop
Theoretical shell-side pressure drop

Figure 10: Pressure drop (observed and theoretical as described in Equations 4 and 6) dependence on co-current shell-side
flow rate with a constant tube side flow rate of 9 L/min.

As with the pressure drop observed in the shell-and-tube rig in counter-current operation, there is
limited dependence of the tube-side pressure drop on the various cold water flow rates. The observed
tube-side pressure drop values follow a similar trend to the theoretical values but are consistently
lower, indicating a systematic error. Similar to the counter-current flow, there is great dependence of
the shell-side pressure drop on the cold water flow rate. Figure 11 reveals this is expected to some
extent, with a corrected secondary y-axis, but the observed values are five orders of magnitude
greater.
 4500 0.35

Theoretical pressure drop (Pa)

Observed pressure drop (Pa) 4000 0.3
3500 f(x) = 0.0437043520530639 x − 0.0902737896803701
f(x) = 533.564617010711 x − 1119.91340449216 0.25
3000
2500 0.2
2000 0.15
1500
0.1
1000
500 0.05
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Flow rate (L/min)

Observed shell-side pressure drop Linear (Observed shell-side pressure drop)

Theoretical shell-side pressure drop Linear (Theoretical shell-side pressure drop)

Figure 11: Theoretical and observed shell-side pressure drops on different axes at a constant tube-side flow rate of 9 L/min.
Clearly, there is an expectation for an increase in pressure drop as the flow rate increases, although there is an error to
many orders of magnitude.

5.3 PLATE EXCHANGER COUNTER-CURRENT FLOW RESULTS

After completing the studies with the shell-and-tube heat exchanger in both operating conditions, the
plate exchanger was set up, initially in counter-current operation. Figures 12 and 13 show the
dependence of the hot and cold water streams’ heat transfer on the cold water flow rate at two
different hot water flow rates.
6 14

5 12
f(x) = 0.640243291044144 x + 1.51126362361814 f(x) = 0.938208431206165 x + 6.57844119242363
10
4
Heat transfer (kJ/s)

8
Heat transfer (kJ/s)

f(x) = 0.0842976609160263 x + 3.07023751688903 f(x) = 1.31214542590303 x + 1.24766560926348

3
6
2
4

1 2

0 0
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

Cold water flow rate (L/min) Cold water flow rate (L/min)

Hot water heat balance Linear (Hot water heat balance) Hot water heat balance Linear (Hot water heat balance)
Cold water heat balance Linear (Cold water heat balance) Cold water heat balance Linear (Cold water heat balance)

Figure 12: Heat transfer for plate counter-current flow at Figure 13: Heat transfer for plate counter-current flow
different cold flow rates and at a constant hot flow rate of 1.4 at different cold flow rates and at a constant hot flow
L/min. rate of 6.8 L/min.

As expected, there is a greater dependence of the cold water heat transfer on the cold water flow rate
than that of the hot water heat transfer for both constant hot water flow rates. However, there is a
greater than expected dependence of the hot water heat transfer on the cold water flow rate in Figure
13. This is likely due to the higher hot water flow rate of 6.8 L/min, increasing the overall heat
transfer.
Figures 14 and 15 show the pressure drop of the cold and hot water streams against the cold water
flow rate at constant hot water flow rates of 1.4 and 6.8 L/min respectively.
 25000 25000
f(x) = 5372.59457522733 x − 7738.88900044518
20000 20000
f(x) = 5123.41032095009 x − 6774.42758070819

15000 15000
Pressure drop (Pa)

Pressure drop (Pa)

10000 10000

5000 5000

0 0
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
Cold water flow rate (L/min)
Cold water flow rate (L/min)
Observed hot pressure drop Observed cold pressure drop Linear (Observed cold pressure drop)
Observed hot pressure drop Observed cold pressure drop Linear (Observed cold pressure drop)
Theoretical hot pressure drop Theoretical cold pressure drop
Theoretical hot pressure drop Theoretical cold pressure drop

Figure 14: Pressure drop (observed and theoretical as Figure 15: Pressure drop (observed and theoretical as
described in Equation 7) dependence on counter-current described in Equation 7) dependence on counter-current
plate exchanger cold water flow rate with a constant hot plate exchanger cold water flow rate with a constant hot
water flow rate of 1.4 L/min. water flow rate of 6.8 L/min.

As with both the counter- and co-current operating conditions for the shell-and-tube heat exchanger,
the cold water pressure drop is highly dependent on the cold water flow rate and is much higher than
the theoretical values. Unlike previous trials, the observed hot water pressure drop values are
consistently much higher than the theoretical values, which is likely due to an error in calculations.
The plate heat exchanger is much more sensitive to pressure changes with changing flow rates and
experienced pressure drops approximately ten times greater than those in the shell-and-tube model.

5.4 PLATE EXCHANGER CO-CURRENT FLOW RESULTS

The thermometers on the plate heat exchanger for the co-current flow trial reported that the cold water
outlet temperature was consistently higher than the hot water outlet temperature, as in Figure 16.

60

50
Temperature (oC)

40

30

20

10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

time (s)

Hot Inlet Temp Hot Outlet Temp Cold Outlet Temp Cold Inlet Temp

Figure 16: Temperatures recorded at inlets and outlets as indicated over time. The cold water outlet consistently records a
temperature greater than that of the hot water outlet, which does not align with the 0th law of thermodynamics.

This defies the zeroth law of thermodynamics regarding thermal equilibrium [6], which implies that,
at its most efficient operation, the outlet temperatures would be the same. Thus, it can be assumed that
there is an error associated with the thermometers and that this data is invalid. Further data analysis is
not possible.
6 RESULTS SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Both counter-current trials for both heat exchangers presented a strong correlation between the cold
water stream heat transfer and the cold water flow rate, as expected according to Equation 1.
Additionally, both trials showed a smaller dependence of the hot water stream heat transfer on the
cold water flow rate, which is also expected. The co-current flow operation of the shell-and-tube heat
exchanger showed little dependence of either the shell-side or the tube-side heat transfer on the cold
water flow rate, which defies expectations. This may be indicative of an error of the system, which is
further explored below. The pressure drop values of the cold water streams for both heat exchangers
were consistently higher and more dependent on the cold water flow rate than the theoretical values.
The pressure drops for the hot water streams tended to follow the trend predicted by the theoretical
values in all trials, although there was a large discrepancy in observed and theoretical hot water
pressure drop values for the plate heat exchanger under counter-current conditions.
There were several instrumental issues with the heat exchangers, which decreases the overall validity
of the experimental data. In the shell-and-tube trial under co-current flow conditions, it was observed
that for large parts of the experiment, the cold outlet temperature was consistently lower than the cold
inlet temperature, which breaks the zeroth law of thermodynamics [6] (see Appendix A). This
indicates a critical issue with the thermometers; given the insulation around the lines, it is unlikely to
be due to heat loss to the environment and, given the consistency of the lower values (Appendix A), it
is unlikely to be due to random influences, such as air bubbles. There were also issues in the data
analysis for the plate heat exchanger under co-current flow conditions (see Figure 16 above) indicates
an ongoing error for experiments undergoing co-current flow operation.
The consistently higher pressure drop values for the cold water streams (the shell-side for the shell-
and-tube model) for both heat exchangers than the theoretical values is indicative of a systematic error
in the system. This is likely a product of any kinks or other sources of minor losses in the tubes used
to measure the pressure differential. Furthermore, the consistently lower pressure drop values
observed for the tube-side compared to the theoretical values are indicative of this same systematic
error. If both tubes were equally subject to the same minor losses, the differential would have been the
same, so it is reasonable to assume one of the tubes possessed more areas for minor pressure losses,
leading to a smaller pressure differential value. Further investigations should be taken to investigate
the effect of manipulating these tubes on the recorded pressure differential. Alternatively, employing
greater care to ensure these tubes are as straight as possible would have made this study more valid.
Theoretically, as in Equation 1, the heat transfer values should be the same for the hot and cold
streams in all operating modes and heat exchangers. This critically operates under the assumption that
the heat transfer is unidirectional; that is, all of the heat lost out of the hot water stream is transferred
to the cold water stream. All figures related to heat transfer in all operations (Figures 4 and 5 for shell-
and-tube, counter current, Figure 9 for shell-and-tube, co-current operation, and Figures 12 and 13 for
plate, counter-current) indicate that this is not the case as the heat transfer values would be the same.
This can be attributed to heat losses to the environment (from the shell for the shell-and-tube
exchangers) as well as the heat absorbed by machinery, such as the tubes themselves in the shell-and-
tube operation. Considering various heat losses can be attributed to both the cold and hot water
streams, it is difficult to fully quantify the extent of heat loss from each stream. However, these results
are congruent with the example data found by SOLTEQ in their preliminary trials, both in terms of
the discrepancy in heat values and in the positive trends with flow rate [2].
This experiment could have been improved by calculating the specific heat transfer coefficients for
the given heat exchanger, which would have made the heat transfer values more accurate as they
consider the particular convection/conduction characteristics of the system. This proved too difficult
with the means available to this study but is an area for further investigation.
7 CONCLUSION
There is clearly a correlation between heat transfer and cold water flow rate for both the shell-and-
tube and plate heat exchangers in counter-current operation. The co-current operation for the shell-
and-tube model produced no evidence of such a correlation, which defies expectations, though this
may be due to errors in the rig. Pressure drop values in the cold water streams for all trials were
strongly correlated to the cold water flow rate, with correlations four or five orders of magnitude
greater than expected according to the relevant theoretical equations. Pressure drop values for the hot
water streams tended to follow the theoretical values well, though were significantly higher for the
plate heat exchanger in counter-current operation.
Some of the errors associated with these results can be attributed to heat losses and minor losses in the
pressure differential measuring equipment. However, it is overwhelmingly clear that there are critical
issues with the rig (particularly pertaining to the thermometers and the pressure differential
barometers). These require further investigation to fully quantify the extent of error and uncertainty
they contribute to the experiment. This became particularly evident when the cold water outlet value
was higher than the hot water outlet value in the plate heat exchanger under co-current conditions.
There were also issues with temperature readings in the shell-and-tube co-current trial (Appendix A).
Thus, though general trends mostly followed expectation, the error associated with the rig is high
enough to require further investigation.

8 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] C. Balaji, B. Srinivasan and S. Gedupudi, “Heat exchangers,” in Heat Transfer Engineering, N/A,
Elsevier Science, 2020, pp. 199-231.

[2] SOLTEQ, Heat Exchanger Training Apparatus Manual (Model: HE158C), SOLTEQ, n.d.

[3] UNILAB Heat Transfer Software, “Evaporators and condensers: counter-current or co-current
arrangement?,” UNILAB Heat Transfer Software, N/A N/A N/A. [Online]. Available:
https://www.unilab.eu/articles/technical-articles/thermodynamic-engineering-articles/counter-
current-co-current-arrangement/. [Accessed 31 10 2023].

[4] I. Alabi, K. Olaiya and O. I. Alonge, “Parametric and Quantitative Analysis on the Development
of Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger,” 1 June 2018. [Online]. Available:
file:///C:/Users/huonp/Downloads/Olaiyaetal4-IJAEMS-FEB-2018-7-Parametric.pdf. [Accessed
31 10 2023].

[5] Industrial Quick Search, “Plate Heat Exchanger,” Industrial Quick Search, N/A N/A N/A.
[Online]. Available: https://www.iqsdirectory.com/articles/heat-exchanger/plate-heat-
exchangers.html. [Accessed 2023 10 31].

[6] UNSW CEIC2005, “Week 1 Lectures,” UNSW, Sydney, 2022.

[7] EnggCylclopedia, “EnggCylclopedia,” N/A, N/A 7 2016. [Online]. Available:

https://enggcyclopedia.com/2023/02/spiral-heat-exchanger/. [Accessed 31 10 2023].

[8] D. R. Lide, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 86 ed., Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC 2,
2005.
9 APPENDIX
9.1 APPENDIX A – THERMOMETER ERROR EVIDENCE
60

50
temperture (oC)

40

30

20

10

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

time (s)

Hot Inlet Temp Hot Outlet Temp Cold Outlet Temp Cold Inlet Temp

Figure 17: Temperature vs time for the shell-and-tube heat exchanger under co-current flow conditions. The cold outlet
temperature clearly dips below the cold inlet temperature on many occasions, indicating instrumentational error.