Adiabatic

Humidification
(UO20)
(H82SP1 Separation Processes 1)

Name: Ee Zhi How

Student I.D: 4147541

Date of experiment: 1/11/2010

Date of submission: 8/11/201
Summary
The main aim of humidification is to increase the water content or humidity level by
contacting air and water in a packed column adiabatically. Water flow rates of 6 l/min and 12
l/min together with gas flow rates of 800 l/min – 650 l/min are used. Temperature at 5
different points and the air inlet and outlet temperature are recorded while both heat and mass
transfer coefficient are calculated. Using data obtained and calculated values, it is found that
the adiabatic temperature differ from the bulk water temperature. However, the experiment
apparatus is found to be not functioned adiabatically due to large calculated heat loss to the
surroundings. Log-log graph of mass and heat transfer coefficient is plotted against gas flow
rates at a constant liquid flow rates. Lewis relationship is then used to test on these results and
the percentage error is larger than 100%. Thus, results from the Lewis relationship shows that
the data obtained from the experiment is not reliable and is different from theoretical values.
Results

Table 1: Humilities and Air Humid Heat for each run

Relative Humidity Humidity

Water Flow Air Flow Inlet air Outlet air Inlet air Outlet air Air Humid heat,S
(l/min) (l/min) (%) (%) (kg/kg) (kg/kg) (kJ/kg)
6 800 14.5 45.7 0.0024 0.029 1.02
6 750 14.5 51.1 0.0024 0.031 1.022
6 700 14.5 50.8 0.0025 0.029 1.022
6 650 14.5 54.2 0.0025 0.030 1.023
12 800 14.5 51.3 0.0025 0.030 1.021
12 750 14.5 52.7 0.0025 0.029 1.022
12 700 14.5 54.1 0.0025 0.029 1.022
12 650 14.5 59.4 0.0025 0.031 1.023

Table2: Percentage difference between wet bulb temperature from IHVE and temperature
obtained

Water Air Average water Wet Bulb Temperature

Flowrates Flowrates Temperature Temperatur difference Percentage
(l/min) (l/min) (0C) e (0C) (0C) Error (%)
6 800 34.3 31.6 2.7 7.9
6 750 34.2 31.6 2.6 7.6
6 700 34.1 31.5 2.6 7.6
6 650 34.1 31.5 2.6 7.6
12 800 34.0 31.7 2.3 6.8
12 750 34.1 31.7 2.4 7.0
12 700 34.1 31.8 2.3 6.7
12 650 34.1 31.6 2.5 7.3

Table 3: Water flowrate, L (kg/m2s), Air flow rate G (kg/m2s)

Water Density of
Flow Air Flow supply air Mass flow rate G, Dry air flow L, Water mass
(l/min) (l/min) (kg/m3) of air (kg/sec) rate (kg/m2s) flow rate (kg/m2s)
6 800 1.1951 0.0161 0.914 5.659
6 750 1.1935 0.0151 0.856 5.659
6 700 1.1931 0.0141 0.799 5.659
6 650 1.1931 0.0131 0.742 5.659
12 800 1.1919 0.0161 0.913 11.319
12 750 1.1915 0.0151 0.855 11.319
12 700 1.1915 0.0141 0.798 11.319
12 650 1.1915 0.0131 0.741 11.319
Table 5: Heat balance around humidifier and percentage heat loss to the surroundings

Wet Bulb Heat of

Temperature Latent Heat, λ Heat Released Vaporization Heat Loss to
(0C) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) surroundings (%)
31.6 2426.24 67.84 45.43 33.04
31.6 2426.24 67.74 49.03 27.62
31.5 2426.48 68.07 50.21 26.24
31.5 2426.48 68.24 52.64 22.87
31.7 2426.01 67.70 47.85 29.33
31.7 2426.01 67.84 49.04 27.71
31.8 2425.77 68.25 48.98 28.23
31.6 2426.24 68.21 51.36 24.71

Table 6: Values of heat and mass coefficients.

Water
Flowrates Gas Flowrates Density of air, ρ
(kg/m2s) (kg/m2s) (kg/m3) hG aH (kJ/m3 s K) hD aM (kJ/m3 s K)
5.730 0.897 1.147 18.36 7.282
5.730 0.844 1.148 17.17 7.152
5.730 0.793 1.149 16.68 7.048
5.730 0.741 1.149 16.05 6.590
9.549 0.897 1.149 18.01 7.245
9.549 0.845 1.149 17.20 7.160
9.549 0.793 1.149 16.91 6.713
9.549 0.741 1.149 16.15 6.919

Table7: Lewis Relationship and percentage difference compared with humid heat

Water Lewis Air humid Percentage

Flowrates Air Flowrates (hG aH)/( hD relationship, heat, s Difference
(l/min) (l/min) aM) hG/hDρ (kJ/kg) (%)
6 800 2.521 2.198 1.020 115.5
6 750 2.401 2.091 1.022 104.6
6 700 2.366 2.059 1.022 101.5
6 650 2.435 2.120 1.023 107.2
12 800 2.486 2.164 1.021 111.9
12 750 2.401 2.090 1.022 104.5
12 700 2.519 2.192 1.022 114.5
12 650 2.334 2.031 1.023 98.5
Figure1: Graph of Log hGaH and hDaM vs Log G at 6 l/min water flow rate

Graph of Log hG aH and hD aM versus Log G at 6 L/min water flowrate

1.4
Log heat and mass transfer coefficient

f(x) = 0.68 x + 1.29 1.2

1
Log hG aH
f(x) = 0.45 x + 0.89 0.8 (Log hG aH)
Linear
Log hD aM
0.6
Logarithmic (Log hD aM)
Linear
0.4 (Log hD aM)

0.2

0
-0.14 -0.13 -0.12 -0.11 -0.1 -0.09 -0.08 -0.07 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04
Log G (gas flow rates)

log (hG aH) = log (CH Gm Ln) log ( hD aM) = log (CM Gp Lq)
= log CH + log Gm + log Ln = log CM + log Gp + log Lq
= m log G + constants = p log G + constants
m = 0.679 p = 0.4532
Figure2: Graph of Log hGaH and hDaM vs Log G at 12 l/min water flow rate

Graph of Log hG aH and hD aM versus Log G at 12 L/min water flowrate

1.4
Log heat and mass transfer coefficient

f(x) = 0.54 x + 1.28 1.2

1
Log hG aH
f(x) = 0.32 x + 0.87 0.8 (Log hG aH)
Linear
Log hD aM
0.6
Logarithmic (Log hD aM)
Linear
0.4 (Log hD aM)

0.2

0
-0.14 -0.13 -0.12 -0.11 -0.1 -0.09 -0.08 -0.07 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04
Log G (gas flow rates)

log (hG aH) = log (CH Gm Ln) log ( hD aM) = log (CM Gp Lq)
= log CH + log Gm + log Ln = log CM + log Gp + log Lq
= m log G + constants = p log G + constants
m = 0.5424 p = 0.3152

Discussion
 In this experiment, the outcome was expected that of only a small and negligible
difference in the web bulb temperature obtained from the psychometric chart and the
temperature of outlet air. The fluctuating water flow rates has made it difficult for the system
to archive a steady-state process resulting in frequent adjustment of water flow rate that takes
up a lot of time to enable the system to return to steady-state. The pressure drop also does
fluctuates with time consequently forcing a few readings to be taken to get a average value.
Figure 1 and 2 of graph (hG aH) and (hD aM) versus log air flow rates at constant water
flow rate of 6 l/min and 12 l/min are plotted to determine the relationship between them. The
mass and heat coefficient was determine from the gradient of the graph that was drawn and is
obtained to be 0.679 and 0.5424 for m while p has a value of 0.4532 and 0.3152.From the
experimental results, water flow rates has higher influences on the transfer coefficients. This
is because at a given relatively low flow rate, Relative humidity increases with decreasing air
flow rate. There is more contact time with air and more amounts diffuses/vaporise at a higher
transfer rate. The increase in water flow rate made the contact time with air shorter, thus,
lower transfer rate and amount vaporised. This effect could clearly be seen through the
gradient of both the log-log graphs.
Lewis relationship [ (hG / hD ρ) = s ]is used to prove the mass and heat transfer
coefficient relationship. The left hand side of the equation should be equal or near to the
humid heat. (1Humid heat is the heat required to raise the temperature of unit mass of gas and
its accompanying vapour one degree at constant pressure.)However, the LHS of the equation
calculated from this experiment has a large percentage error of more than 100%. This made
the Lewis relationship less reliable in this experiment. An assumption of a H = aM is carried
out while undergoing calculations. But, in this set of equipment, a H is actually different from
aM. The contact area for heat transfer in the column might not be the same as the contact area
for mass transfer to take place. This has affected the experimental results.
It is important to have air supply with low humidity level so that it has more space to
hold more water vapour while contacting with flowing water. During compression, vapour
pressure increases with increasing total pressure, and the condensation of vapour take place
when saturation level is achieved. Thus, compressed air has lower humidity than the
surroundings.
The outlet air is pre-heated to a considerably high temperature to keep it away from
saturation and provides enough latent heat of vaporisation. The main reason behind this is to
keep the air from reaching its maximum water vapour content, which will lead to
simultaneous condensation. At saturation, the water vapour might not be diffused into
flowing air. Diffusion of water vapour might not occur at saturation air conditions.
The heat and mass transfer coefficient, (h G aH )and (hD aM) has high dependence on L,
water flow rates. Higher flow rates of water increase both the heat and mass transfer
coefficient. This is supported by the graphs shown in figure 1 and figure 2.

Conclusion

1
Robert E. Treybal. Mass-Transfer Operations. 3 rd Edition. Chapter 7. Mc-Graw Hill.
The data and results obtained from this experiment is somehow not reliable compare to the
literature ones. Better lab equipments and avoidance of unnecessary human error could help
getting better results. Humid heats, is calculated to be 1.02kJ/kg. Lewis relationship does not
agree with the calculated data of heat and mass transfer coefficient, which is different from
the humid heat. Water flow rates were found to have higher effects on both mass and heat
transfer. Heat loss calculated from this experiment indicated that the laboratory equipment
needs to be lagged and insulated. Used of compressed air with lower humidity and away
from saturation is necessary to allow mass transfer to take place.

Reference
Coulson and Richardson, Chemical Engineering, volume 1. 6th edition, Chapter 13, 1999.
Lab manual: Humidification of hot air. 2009
Robert E. Treybal. Mass-Transfer Operations. 3 rd Edition. Chapter 7. Mc-Graw Hill.