Department of Chemical Engineering

University of San Carlos Technological Center

Nasipit, Talamban, Cebu City 6000



ChE 512L
Chemical Engineering Laboratory 2



Evaporation
(The Climbing Film Evaporator)


An initial laboratory report submitted to
Engr. Ramir Jarabis
Instructor, ChE 512L



By
Ducay, Beverly A.
Tanjay, Queenie Lee P.
Ybaez, Kim T.



July 14, 2012



Objectives:
1. Investigate the effect of the feed rate on the evaporator product concentration.
2. Investigate the effect of the operating steam pressure on the rate of evaporation.
3. Determine the overall heat transfer coefficient of the calandria and compare with
values predicted from empirical correlations.
4. Perform steady-state mass balance over the evaporator system to estimate mass
losses during the evaporation operations conducted.

Effect of the Feed Rate on the Evaporator Product Concentration

The effect of the feed rate on the evaporator product concentration was investigated through
two trials with varying feed flow rate while keeping the pressure. In both cases, a pressure of 5
psig registered on the regulated steam pressure gauge. The feed flow rate is increased through
adjusting of the feed inlet valve. The table below shows the product concentrations from both
trials.
Table 1. Evaporator Product Concentration of Varying Feed Rates





Table 1 shows that at any given pressure, when the feed flow rate is increased the percentage
sugar in the product decreases. This then also shows that as the feed flow rate is increased the
concentrate becomes more diluted. The liquid being evaporated is introduced from the bottom
into long tube and is heated with the steam condensing on the outside of the tube from the shell
side. The decrease in the evaporator product concentration happens because when the steam
pressure is held constant and feed flow rate is increased more of the heat transfer from the
steam is required to heat the feed to the boiling point and less is available for evaporation.
Moreover, as the feed is introduced at a higher flow rate, the contact time between the feed and
the steam is decreased. The contact time may not be enough to exchange heat from the steam
to the feed and vice versa to bring the liquid from the feed to evaporation point. This allows only
Trial
Feed flow rate
(mL/min)
Product concentration
(mass fraction)
1 90.67 0.146
3 143.33 0.070
very small amount of water to evaporate making the product concentration smaller for a
considerable amount of water from the feed remains unevaporated and stays with the
concentrate. This phenomenon is observable in the trials presented.
The product concentration variation may also be noted in the densities of the resulting
concentrates. As presented in the appendices, the density of the concentrate from trial 1 and
trial 3 are 1.035 g/mL and 1.0217 g/mL, respectively.
Effect of the Operating Steam Pressure on the Rate of Evaporation

Table 2. Steam Pressure on the Rate of Evaporation





Experiment shows that increasing the steam pressure with the flow rate held constant
cannot be achieved by merely not adjusting the feed valve. Experiment shows that lower feed
flow rate is achieved when steam pressure is increased. This is understood because feed
solution tends to become more viscous at higher pressure, equivalently at higher temperature
thereby becoming more resistant to flow. Because of the lack of instrument to measure flow
rate, estimation is hard to apply so as the regulation and control.

Table 2 shows that the increase of steam pressure is accompanied by the increase of
the amount of water removed from the feed. As steam pressure increases, the steam flow rate,
condensate and product concentration also increases. High steam pressure is equivalent to
higher energy given transferred to concentrate the solution. Higher energy means adding more
energy to break the bonds between the components of the feed solution. With higher energy
attribute, more volatile components such as water will be removed from heavy components that
comprise the concentrate. The concentrate then consists now of mostly heavy components
relative to that of lower steam pressure applied. Because volatile components is removed more
at higher pressure, the amount of concentrate is expected to decrease and the vapor
condensate to increase because of the transfer of those volatile components. This is governed
by the general law of conservation of mass.
Steam Pressure
(psi)
Rate of Evaporation
(g/min)
5 7.44
10 28.93
The steam helps remove more water from the feed, thus yielding to a higher amount of
condensate. This leaves less water in the product steam and increasing higher sugar
concentration. This is primarily confirmed in the product density where higher pressure yields to
higher density.
The rate of evaporation then, defined as the rate of vapor condensed per unit time is
increased due to the increase of vapor recovered. This is due to increase in the driving force for
heat transfer in the evaporator T
lm
from corresponding increase in pressure. Temperature has
a direct proportion to pressure which means an increase pressure increases the temperature
and vice versa.

Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient Determination and Comparison with Empirical
Correlation Values
Table 3: Comparison of Experimental and Theoretical Values of the Overall Heat Transfer
Coefficient
Trial U
exp
(kW/m
2
*C) U
theo
(kW/m
2
*C) %difference
1 0.195 0.0793 146.222
2 0.189 0.0964 96.186
3 0.223 0.0765 191.819

Table 3 shows the values for the overall heat transfer coefficient for both experimental and
empirical calculations. The result shows that the values solved based on empirical equations
are much lower than the values solved based on experimental data. The percent differences are
on the range from 96 to 191. Human error in getting raw data or the error in the equipment itself
might be the reason behind these large differences.
Values based on empirical equations are expected to be lower than the experimental values
because these values are based on the idealized situations while the experimental values are
based on the actual set-up. Actual values account the heat losses and mass losses but these
large differences were not expected.
With dissolved solids in increasing quantities as evaporation proceeds leading to increased
viscosity and poorer circulation, heat transfer coefficients are expected to be lower than the
actual. As evaporation proceeds, the remaining liquors become more concentrated and
because of this the boiling temperature rises. The rise in the temperature of boiling reduces the
available temperature drop, assuming no change in the heat source.
Steady State Mass Balance & Mass Losses Estimation

The mass balance over the system is obtained through the general mass balance formula:
M
Accumulated
= M
In
M
Out
+ M
Generation
- M
Consumption
= 0

with M
Generation
and M
Consumption
equal zero.

In the experiment, the inlet mass is composed of the mass of the feed while the outlet mass
is composed of both the mass of the concentrate and condensate.

Table 4. Mass Balance
Trial v
F
(ml/min) m
F
(g/min) m
C
(g/min) m
W
(g/min) m
S
(g/min) P
S
(psig) m
L
(g/min)
1 90.667 92.426 98.325 7.441 64.641 5 -13.340
2 35.333 36.019 15.714 28.930 68.002 5 -8.625
3 143.333 146.114 132.821 24.201 69.600 10 -10.908


As shown in Table 4, the values of the mass losses which were expected to be positive are
otherwise. This may be because of the entrainments of the liquid in the pipe that were not
removed prior to the performance of the experiment. The calibrations of the apparatus used
during the experiment are in big intervals. This might have caused a human error on the
judgment and reading of liquid levels for both the feed and the concentrate. It is observed that
the amount of mass gained decreases as the experiment proceeds which may be due to the
removal of some entrainment while performing the experiment.











Appendices:
Table 1. Feed Preparation
Mass of Sugar (g) 1000 Density of Water at 60.7C (g/ml) 0.98286
Volume of Water (L) 15 Mass of Water (g) 14742.9
Temperature of Water (C) 60.7 Mass of Solution (g) 15742.9
Density of Solution (g/ml) 1.0194 Feed concentration 0.063520698

Table 2. Data from Steam Pressure of 5 psig

()

( )

(

)

( )

Temperature
(C)
Volume
(ml)
Time
(min)
Density (g/ml)
Flow Rate
(ml/min)
Mass (g)
Mass
Fraction
Feed 63.3 1360 15 1.0194 90.67 1386.384 0.0635
Concentrate 47 1425 15 1.035 95 1474.875 0.0597
Condensate 33 112 15 0.9965 7.47 111.608 0
Steam Out 84 980 15 0.9894 65.33 969.612 0
Vapor 62 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Table 3. Data From Steam Pressure of 10 psig

Table 4. Data at Higher Flow Rate with Steam Pressure of 5 psig

Temperature
(C)
Volume
(ml)
Time
(min) Density (g/ml)
Flow Rate
(ml/min) Mass (g)
Mass
Fraction
Feed 60.8 530 15 1.0194 35.33 540.282 0.0635
Concentrate 44 225 15 1.0476 15 235.71 0.1456
Condensate 32 436 15 0.9953 29.07 433.9508 0
Steam Out 87 1040 15 0.9808 69.33 1020.032 0
Vapor 71 --- --- --- --- --- ---

Table 5. Experimental Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient
Trial
Saturated steam
to saturated liquid
Saturated liquid to
subcooled liquid
Heat Transfer
Rate,Q (kJ/s)
A (m
2
) Tlm (C)
U
exp
(kW/m
2
*C) Latent Heat of
Vaporization (kJ/g)
Heat Capacity
of Water
(kJ/gC)
T
sat. liq
-T
sub

(C)
1
2.235 4.21E-03
24.33 2.518
0.324
39.788 0.195
2 21.33 2.635 42.998 0.189
3 24.33 2.712 37.509 0.223

Heat Transfer Rate:

)
(

) ((

) ( )

)
(

) (

Experimental Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient:

Temperature
(C)
Volume
(ml) Time (min)
Density
(g/ml)
Flow Rate
(ml/min) Mass (g)
Mass
Fraction
Feed 62.4 2150 15 1.0194 143.333 2191.71 0.06352
Concentrate 53 1950 15 1.0217 130 1992.315 0.06987
Condensate 33 358 15 1.014 23.867 363.012 0
Steam Out 84 1060 15 0.9849 70.667 1043.994 0
Vapor 59

Table 6. Reynolds Number
Feed side Steam side
m
F
(kg/s) A (m
2
) (Pa*s) N
Re
m
S
(kg/s) A (m
2
) (Pa*s) N
Re

0.001540427
0.000491 4.67E-04
167.994 1.08E-03
1.09E-03
2.90E-04
85.415
0.000600313 65.468 1.13E-03 89.856
0.002435233 265.579 1.16E-03 2.53E-04 105.584

Table 7. Theoretical Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient
Trial
Feed side Steam side
N
Re
N
Pr
k (W/mK) hi N
Re
N
Pr
K(W/mK) ho U
theo
(kW/m
2
*K)
1 167.994
3.08 0.656
193.679 85.415
1.809 0.681
134.390 0.0793
2 65.468 229.465 89.856 166.263 0.0964
3 265.579 210.908 105.584 1.579 0.683 119.935 0.0765

) (

) (

Theoretical Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient

Percent Difference