Result and Discussion

Table 4.1: Filmwise condensation result table

Flow Tout(T2), Tsat , Tsurf , Tsat - Power, Tm, , U,

Tin(T1), C C C Tsurf, W C W/m2 W/m2.K
/
C C
LPM
0.10 28.80 29.20 91.80 29.20 62.60 2.79 62.80 691.23 11.01
0.20 29.00 29.20 93.30 29.20 64.10 2.79 64.20 691.23 10.77
0.30 29.10 29.30 93.60 29.40 64.20 4.19 64.40 1036.85 16.10
0.40 29.30 29.60 93.90 29.10 64.80 8.37 64.45 2073.70 32.18
0.50 29.30 29.60 94.20 29.20 65.00 10.47 64.75 2592.13 40.03
0.60 29.30 29.60 95.70 29.20 66.50 12.56 66.25 3110.55 46.95

Table 4.2: Dropwise condensation result table

Flo Tout(T2) Tsat , Tsurf , Tsat - Power, Tm, , W/m2 U,

w/ Tin(T1) , C C C Tsurf , W C W/m2.
LP , C C K
M
29.20 51.10 91.0 29.2 61.8 50.0 151380.1
0.40 611.16 3024.33
0 0 0 5 6
0.60 29.20 50.80 91.7 29.0 62.7 50.9 223959.6
904.18 4396.62
0 0 0 4 9
0.80 29.20 50.80 92.8 29.1 63.7 1205.5 52.0 298612.9
5736.46
0 0 0 7 6 2
1.00 28.80 50.70 94.3 28.9 65.4 1527.8 53.8 378450.4
7033.18
0 0 0 9 1 0
1.20 27.70 51.50 94.6 29.2 65.4 1992.5 54.1 493540.8
9117.56
0 0 0 4 3 0
1.40 28.90 50.70 95.6 29.0 66.6 2129.2 55.0 527411.2
9574.86
0 0 0 8 8 5

3500.00
3000.00
2500.00
2000.00
Heat flux, 1500.00
1000.00
500.00
0.00
62.00 64.00 66.00 68.00

Tsat - Tsurf

(a)
 50.00

40.00

30.00
Heat Transfer Coefficient, U
20.00

10.00

0.00
60.00 65.00 70.00

Tsat-Tsurf

(b)
Figure 4.1: Graph of (a) Heat flux and (b) heat transfer coefficient against

temperature difference (Tsat-Tsurf) for filmwise condensation

600000.00

500000.00

400000.00

Heat flux, 300000.00

200000.00

100000.00

0.00
60.00 62.00 64.00 66.00 68.00

Tsat-Tsurf

(a)

12000.00

10000.00

8000.00

Heat Transfer Coefficient, U 6000.00

4000.00

2000.00

0.00
60.0065.0070.00

Tsat-Tsurf

(b)
 Figure 4.2: Graph of (a) Heat flux and (b) heat transfer coefficient against

temperature difference (Tsat-Tsurf) for dropwise condensation

As shown in Figure 4.1(a) and Figure 4.2(a), heat flux, generally,

increases with the temperature difference between the saturated steam and the

condenser surface. Similarly, the heat transfer coefficient also increases with the

temperature difference, as shown in Figure 4.1(b) and Figure 4.2(b). When

the temperature of the surface of the condenser and the saturated surrounding

air differ greatly, transfer of heat is done faster. Referring to both the graph of

heat flux and heat transfer coefficient, the same trend can be observed as they

increase with the temperature difference (T saturated - Tsurface). This is expected due

to that heat transfer coefficient is directly proportional to the heat flux.

Unfortunately, desirable, theoretically accurate trends are unable to be obtained

due to errors during the experiment.

550000.00

55000.00

Flimwise
Heat flux
Linear (Flimwise)
5500.00 Dropwise
Linear (Dropwise)

550.00
60.00 62.00 64.00 66.00 68.00

Tsat-Tsurf

Figure 4.3: Graph of heat flux against temperature difference (Tsat-Tsurf) for

different types of condensation

 10000.00

1000.00

Filmwise
Heat Transfer Coefficient
Linear (Filmwise)
100.00 Dropwise
Linear (Dropwise)

10.00
60.00 65.00 70.00

Tsat-Tsurf

Figure 4.4: Graph of heat transfer coefficient against temperature difference

(Tsat-Tsurf) for different types of condensation

RECOMMENDATIO
As shown in Figure 4.3, the values for heat flux are far higher in

dropwise condensation than in filmwise condensation at the same condition.

Theoretically, at atmospheric pressure, dropwise condensation can give heat flux

of about twenty times larger than that in filmwise. The vapour droplets in

dropwise condensation are discrete and continually formed at an acute angle to

the surface. They will then be released, which means that the surface of the

condenser is continually exposed to surrounding air. In contrast, in filmwise

condensation, a laminar film is created where it always covers the surface of the

condenser. This film then flow downwards, increasing in thickness as additional

vapour is picked up along the way. This film is relatively a poor conductor of

heat, where it creates a thermal resistance and thus gives lower values of heat

flux as compared to dropwise condensation. This gives the conclusion that

dropwise condensation is a more effective method of heat transfer.

Recommendation

Desirable, theoretically accurate trends are unable to be obtained due to

some errors. It is predicted that one of the error is due to the fluid medium
involves in the condensation unit. The impurities content of the fluid medium

might affect its density and boiling temperature. Thus, condensation might have

occurred at a less precise order and led to the inaccurate data. Therefore,

distilled water is suggested to be used as the medium. Other precaution steps

that can be practised are avoid parallax error while taking reading and allow the

cooling water to flow at the end of the experiment before the equipment is shut

down to avoid the cracking of cylindrical tube.

Conclusion

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, at constant pressure, dropwise condensation propose

continuous exposure of its surface to the surrounding, thus allowing higher heat

flux. This is the contrast to filmwise condensation, where at the same condition,

it gives a laminar film creating a thermal resistance. Therefore, dropwise

condensation is more effective in heat transfer as compared to filmwise

condensation.

Reference

P.A.Hilton Ltd (2011). H102K Film and Dropwise Condensation.

Retrieved from:

http://www.p-a-hilton.co.uk/products/H102K-Film-and-Dropwise-Condensation.

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 3,

Issue 4, April-2012 1 ISSN 2229-5518

Dropwise and filmwise condensation Saurabh pandey