Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
Heat Transfer to a Fluid in a CSTR
Final Report
Unit Operations Lab 1
February 2, 2011
Group 3
Russel Cabral
Jay Gulotta
Scott Morgan
Brian Mottel
Mrunal Patel
Frank Perez
Sukhjinder Singh
1
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
1. Summary
The purpose of this experiment is to measure the heat transfer coefficient
between the fluid and the inside vessel wall. These measurements can then be
examined to determine its dependence on impeller speed and fluid properties. The
agitated tank is important for various processes including chemical reactions, blending,
dispersions, and leaching. The apparatus used in this experiment, includes a jacketed
agitated vessel with a recirculation stream and internal cooling coil. This apparatus is
used to study a range of heat transfer processes in the two-part procedure.
The results in the steady state experiment show the heat transfer coefficient
increases with an increase in temperature. This definitely shows when comparing runs
one and two during steady state. Run one had a vessel temperature of 143 °F leading to
a heat transfer coefficient of 46.47 kJ/min*m2*K. Likewise, run two had a vessel
temperature of 157 °F leading to a heat transfer coefficient of 71.49 kJ/min*m 2*K. In
the unsteady state experiment, the overall heat transfer coefficient increases
exponentially with an increase in temperature and an increase in time. An increase in
impeller speed results in the heat transfer coefficient increasing faster with time. This
trend can be seen by the Temp vs. RPM graph. In an increase in impeller speed resulted
in an increase in temperature. As far as the baffles are concerned, the experimental
data did not show any significant improvement in the heat transfer rate with or without
the baffles. Even though the baffles should theoretically enhance the mixing and lead to
an increase the heat transfer rate. This was most likely due to the fact that the top of
2
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
the tank is not insulated. There is definitely a significant amount of heat loss through
the top of the tank and by fixing this problem will lead to better relationships and
results.
3
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
2. Results
The purpose of this lab was to study a range of heat transfer processes involving
a stirred tank reactor. From performing various experiments and gathering appropriate
data, the measurement of the heat transfer coefficient between the inner vessel wall
and fluid was obtained in this experiment. This experiment also allowed the
dependence of the heat transfer coefficient on the impeller speed, fluid properties, and
the presence of baffles to be experimentally determined and analyzed.
For the first part of the experiment the heat transfer coefficient was measured
from data gathered for an un-baffled agitated tank. . For the unbaffled portion of the
experiment increasing the impeller speed caused the heat transfer coefficient at inner
wall to increase. The trend seems to be linear if run number three is discarded, shown in
the attached graphs. As it can be seen from figure 2.1 below, adding baffles to the
agitated tank and increasing the impeller speed had a small effect on the heat transfer
coefficient at inner wall.
4
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
heat transfer coefficient (kJ/min*m^2*K)
HTC vs impeller speed
80
70
60
50
40
unbaffled
30
baffled
20
10
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Impeller speed (RPM)
Figure 2.1 hi vs. Impeller speed for trials 1-6 at steady state.
During this experiment it was observed that increasing the impeller speed in the
un-baffled tank caused the temperature inside the tank to increase. Adding the baffles
to the tank increased the temperature inside the vessel but increasing the impeller
speed caused very little change. This trend in the heat transfer coefficient as can be
seen in figure 2.2 below.
5
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
Temperature vs Impeller speed
346
Temperature (K)
344
342
340
baffled
338
unbaffled
336
334
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
impeller speed (RPM)
Figure 2.2 Temperature vs. Impeller speed for trials 1-6 at steady state.
For the third part of the experiment the unsteady state heat transfer was
measured as a function of time. For this part three different impeller speeds were used
but the temperature of the tank was kept the same throughout the three runs. From the
data gathered, three graphs of temperature as a function of time were obtained. As it
can be seen from figure 2.3 below, the R2 value for run 1 is .9982 and the slope is
0.1997. The slope for run 2 and run 3 are 0.2008 and 0.2065 respectively. Since the
three slopes seem to be close, it can be safe to assume that the impeller speed has little
effect on the rate of heat transfer from the steam to the fluid. Run 2 and run 3 are
shown as figures 2.4 and 2.5 respectively, below.
6
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
Temperature (K)
Unsteady State Temp. vs Time
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
y = 0.1997x + 71.343
R² = 0.9982
RPM = 128.6
Linear (RPM = 128.6)
0
200
400
600
Time (Seconds)
Figure 2.3 Temperature vs. time for run 1.
Temperature (K)
Unsteady State Temp. vs Time
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
y = 0.2008x + 72.671
R² = 0.9984
RPM = 370
Linear (RPM = 370)
0
200
400
600
Time (Seconds)
Figure 2.4 Temperature vs. time for run 2.
7
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
Temperature (K)
Unsteady State Temp. vs Time
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
y = 0.2065x + 72.6
R² = 0.9982
RPM = 450
Linear (RPM = 450)
0
200
400
600
Time (Seconds)
Figure 2.5 Temperature vs. time for run 3.
From the three runs it can be seen that the overall heat transfer coefficient increases
almost exponentially as temperature increases. Figure 2.6 represents the overall heat
transfer coefficient as a function of temperature for a unsteady state tank. It can be
seen that as the temperature of the tank increase and smooth exponential increase in
the heat transfer coefficient occurs.
U (KJ/min*m^2*K)
U vs Temp Unsteady State
10.00000
9.00000
8.00000
7.00000
6.00000
5.00000
4.00000
3.00000
2.00000
1.00000
280.000 300.000 320.000 340.000 360.000 380.000
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Temperature (K)
Figure 2.6 Overall heat transfer coefficient vs. Temperature at unsteady state.
8
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
3. Discussion
In the first section of this experiment, the apparatus was run under steady
state conditions in an un-baffled agitated tank. Overall, the trends from the data and
the calculated heat transfer coefficient seemed to be in general agreement. The
trends of the experimental values showed slight increases with temperature. The
overall heat transfer coefficient had values which ranged from 37.12 to 51.24
kJ/min*m^2*K. The increase due to temperature is because the specific heat of the
water will increase with increasing temperature, while the density and viscosity
decrease. Impeller speed had little to no effect on the temperature of the unbaffled
tank. The impeller speed, however, did seem to have an effect on the heat transfer
coefficient, which increased with increasing impeller speed up to about 350 rpm,
then slightly dropped off.
In the second section of the experiment, the first part was repeated with
baffles placed in the tank. The data taken from this section didn’t change much from
the data taken from the un-baffled tank. It was shown, however, that the
temperature within the tank did increase almost linearly with increasing the
impeller speed. This could be because the baffles helped to better stir the system, so
increases in the impeller speed greatly increased the turbulence of the system,
which allowed for better heat transfer.
In the final section of the experiment, the unsteady state heat transfer was
measured. The baffles were removed, the starting temperature for each run was the
same, the cooling coil and recirculation valves were closed, and the impeller speed
9
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
was changed. The data showed that the impeller speed had little effect on the
temperature of the system because the temperature vs. time graphs all appear
essentially the same although the impeller speed was changed for each of the three
runs, from 128.6 to 450 rpm. The heat transfer coefficient in this section increased
exponentially as a function of temperature.
There were some issues with the apparatus, which could have significantly
affected the data and results of the experiment. It was difficult to control the
impeller speed using the speed controller. The motor, which drives the impeller
would often speed up to a level quite different from that which it was originally set.
It was discovered that there is a brake lever on the motor, which we used to control
the variance within the voltage sent by the controller. This greatly improved the
accuracy of the impeller speed. We also encountered issues with the inlet flow rate
to the cooling coil. It was difficult to set the flowrate because slight adjustments of
the valve would show great changes in the rotameter. We were unable to determine
whether it was due to the valve or the rotameter, and therefore, we cannot be
certain that the cooling coil flowrates were the correct values.
3.Conclusions
During this lab the heat transfer coefficient’s dependence on temperature as
well as impeller speed was calculated for a constantly stirred tank reactor (CSTR). The
CSTR used in this lab has an internal cooling coil inside of a jacketed agitated vessel with
surrounding steam to supply the wall heat. This apparatus will be utilized to gain
10
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
information on various heat transfer processes conducted during the two-part
procedure.
During the steady state portion of the procedure, it was found that as the
temperature increases, so too does the heat transfer coefficient. This can be seen in the
first two runs for the steady state portion of the lab. For the first run the temperature
was 143 °F and the heat transfer coefficient was calculated to be 46.47 kJ/min*m 2*K.
The difference can be seen when comparing the values obtained for the second run
where the temperature was 157 °F leading to a heat transfer coefficient of 71.49
kJ/min*m2*K. During the unsteady state portion of the lab the heat transfer coefficient
increased exponentially as temperature increased. Also an increase in impeller speed
increases the heat transfer coefficient. This trend is seen on the temperature versus
RPM (impeller speed) graph.
As for the baffles that are used in conjunction with the steady state portion of
the lab, the data did not show any significant change with their use. Although
theoretically it should allow for better mixing and thus increase the heat transfer
coefficient, thus the hypothesis was not supported with experimental data, possibly due
to the lack of insulation for the tank.
All the changes made in lab made the heat transfer coefficient increase, whether
it be increasing the temperature or impeller speed.
11
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
5. References
1. Bird, R. B., Warren E. Stewart, and Edwin N. Lightfoot. Transport Phenomena. 2nd ed.
New York, NY: Jonh Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002
2. "Heat Transfer Coefficient." Wikipedia. 19 Jay. 2011
3. Perry, Robert H., and Don W. Green. Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook. New
York: McGraw-Hill Professional, 2007.
4. University of Illinois at Chicago - UIC. Web. 13 Sept. 2010.
<http://www.uic.edu/depts/chme/UnitOps/entry.html>.
12
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
6. Appendix I: Data Tabulation/Graphs
Measured Constants
Height of Tank (cm)
Diameter of Tank (cm)
Radius of Tank (cm)
Volume of tank (cm^3)
Diameter of Impeller (cm)
41 (+/- 1)
22.8 (+/- 1)
11.4 (+/- 1)
16739 (+/- 1)
10 (+/- 0.5)
Figure 6.1 Measured Constants for CSTR
Experimental Data for Part 1 of 2
Height of water (cm)
RPM (rev/min)
Flow rate of steam (%)
Flow rate of cooling water (%)
T1 (°F)
T2 (°F)
T3 (°F)
T4 (°C)
T5 (°C)
T6 (°F)
T7 (°F)
Condensate volume (mL)
Time (sec)
No Baffles Steady State
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
(+/- 1)
(+/- 1)
(+/- 1)
35.5
35.5
35.5
128.6
360
460
48
48
44.5
26
21.5
22.5
143
157
161
31
31
31
99
121
123
38
42
42
64
70.5
73
40
39
38
31
31
31
100
100
100
22.1
20.8
18.75
With Baffles Steady State
Run 4
Run 5
Run 6
(+/- 1)
(+/- 1)
(+/- 1)
35.5
35.5
35.5
128.5
360
497
44.4
47
46
22.5
23
23
161
160
160
31
31
31
123
120
120
42
42
41
73
70
71
38
40
40
31
31
30
100
100
100
28.95
20.13
19.45
Figure 6.2 Measured data for part 1 of 2 for a baffled and un-baffled CSTR.
13
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
Calculated Experimental Data Part 1 of 2
No Baffles at Steady State
Run 2
Run 3
0.78
0.65
0.68
1.45
1.45
1.34
0.27
0.28
0.31
334.82
342.59
344.82
272.59
272.59
272.59
310.37
322.59
323.71
311.15
315.15
315.15
337.15
343.65
346.15
277.59
277.04
276.48
272.59
272.59
272.59
148.63
172.36
172.73
128.51
140.65
150.46
37.12
51.25
50.13
184.65
180.96
174.80
46.47
71.49
70.28
Run 1
Mc (kg/min) (+/- 0.01)
Mhx (kg/min) (+/- 0.01)
Mst (kg/min) (+/- 0.01)
T1 (K) (+/- 1)
T2 (K) (+/- 1)
T3 (K) (+/- 1)
T4 (K) (+/- 1)
T5 (K) (+/- 1)
T6 (K) (+/- 1)
T7 (K) (+/- 1)
Qhx (kJ/min) (+/- 1)
Qc (kJ/min) (+/- 1)
U (kJ/min*m^2*K) (+/- 1)
H0 (kJ/min^2*K) (+/- 1)
hi (kJ/min*m^2*K) (+/- 1)
With Baffles at Steady State
Run 5
Run 6
0.68
0.69
0.69
1.34
1.42
1.39
0.20
0.29
0.30
344.82
344.26
344.26
272.59
272.59
272.59
323.71
322.04
322.04
315.15
315.15
314.15
346.15
343.15
344.15
276.48
277.59
277.59
272.59
272.59
272.04
172.34
179.01
181.22
150.46
148.79
148.79
50.07
48.30
48.63
202.04
178.99
176.95
66.56
66.15
67.05
Run 4
Figure 6.3 Calculated data for part 1 of 2 for a baffled and un-baffled CSTR.
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
RPM (rev/min)
(+/- 15)
128.6
370
450
Ht of water (cm)
(+/- 1)
36
36
36
Figure 6.4 Experimental Data for Part 2 of 2
14
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
Experimental Data and Calculated U for Un-baffled CSTR at
Unsteady State
Time (sec)
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
360
390
420
450
480
510
540
570
Temperature in Tank (K)
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
294.26
294.82
294.26
297.59
298.71
298.71
300.93
302.04
301.48
304.26
304.82
305.93
308.71
308.71
309.26
311.48
312.04
313.71
314.82
316.48
316.48
318.71
319.82
320.37
322.04
323.15
323.71
325.93
327.59
327.59
329.82
330.37
330.93
332.59
333.15
334.26
335.93
336.48
337.59
338.71
339.26
342.04
342.04
343.15
344.26
344.82
345.93
347.59
348.71
349.26
350.37
350.37
351.48
353.15
354.26
355.37
356.48
356.48
358.15
359.82
Run 1
1.51
1.57
1.64
1.72
1.84
1.93
2.04
2.18
2.33
2.52
2.74
2.93
3.20
3.46
3.83
4.21
4.88
5.24
6.33
7.18
U (KJ/min*m^2*K)
Run 2
1.52
1.60
1.67
1.74
1.84
1.94
2.10
2.23
2.38
2.61
2.78
2.97
3.25
3.51
3.97
4.38
4.99
5.51
6.72
7.98
Run 3
1.51
1.60
1.66
1.77
1.86
2.00
2.10
2.25
2.40
2.61
2.82
3.06
3.35
3.83
4.12
4.67
5.24
5.97
7.18
8.99
Figure 6.5 Experimental and Calculated U for Part 2 of 2 for a Un-baffled CSTR
15
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
7. Appendix II: Error Analysis
There are 5 readings taken, each with varying errors.
The first reading is from the water flow meter. The readings go from 0 to 100
percent. The meter seemed inaccurate at times. When adjusting the flow rate the flow
had to be shut down completely, or to 0, then increased in order to get an accurate
reading. After setting the flow rate it was still difficult to get an accurate reading
because of the bobble of the meter. At high flow rates (greater than 50 percent) the
bobble occurred even more. It is then concluded that the flow rate error is + 2% for
readings less than 50 % and + 3% for readings greater than 50%.
The second reading is from the temperature gauge. There are three different
temperature gauges used in this experiment: 1) Reads 0 to 300o F in intervals of 2 o F, 2)
Reads from 0 to 250 o F in intervals of 2 o F, 3) Reads from 0 to 105 o C in intervals of 1 o C.
These gauges were easy to read and measurements could be taken every 1 o C, with a
estimated error is + .5 o F/ o C.
The next reading is from the display box that gives the RPM of the impeller.
Although it displays one significant figure and the accuracy should be ± 0.05, although
during the measurements, the reading was constantly fluctuating. Therefore a
estimated error ±15 RPM associated with this instrument.
The next reading is from the 500 mL graduated cylinder used to calculate the
volumetric flow rate of the fluid. It has markings every 5mL and they are far apart to
take the reading every 2mL, so we estimated an error associated with this instrument to
16
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
be ±1mL. The volumetric flow rate of the fluid was used to calculate the maximum flow
rate of the recycled water and the flow rate of the steam. These readings are important
as they are used to calculate the experimental and overall heat transfer coefficients.
The last reading is from the ruler used to measure the length and the diameter
of the tank and the impeller. The ruler has markings every 0.001 m and the grading’s
are too close to take readings every 1mm so we estimated an error associated with this
instrument to be ±0.001 m. The dimensions of the tank and the impeller are important
because they will be used in many calculations throughout the experiment.
17
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
8. Appendix III: Sample Calculations
Sample Calculations for Unbaffled CSTR Run1
Temperature of the fluid entering the cooling coil : Tincc = 334.8 ±1 K
Temperature of the fluid leaving the cooling coil: Toutcc = 272.6 ±2 K
Temperature of the tank = 310.3 ±1 K
Mass flow rate of the heat exchanger mhx = 1.44 kg/min
Mass flow rate of the cooling coil mcc = 0.78 kg/min
error (+/- 1)
Height of tank
41cm
Diameter(inner)
22.8 cm
Diameter(outer)
Diameter of impeller
30 cm
10 cm
The maximum flow rate of the recycled water was calculated using data collected at
26% flow.
In 1 minute 100 mL of water was collected.
Volumetric flow rate = 270.8 mL/min
270.8𝑚𝑙
1𝐿
1𝑔𝑎𝑙
(
)∗(
)∗(
= 82.43𝐺𝑃𝑀
(3.285 ∗ 10−3 )
min
1000𝑚𝐿
0.342GPM at 26% with a max cooling for the rotometer of 0.810GPM from the
manufacturer.
Calculation of QHX ( heat exchanger)
Qhx=mhxCp(Thx-TR), where Cp = 4.34kJ/kg*K
Qhx=mhxCp(Thx-TR)=
1.44𝑘𝑔
𝑚𝑖𝑛
∗
4.34𝑘𝐽
𝑘𝑔∗𝐾
(334.8 − 311.15)𝐾 = 147.8kJ/min
Calculation of Qcc (cooling coil)
Qcc=mcCp(Tout-TRin), where Cp = 4.34kJ/kg*K
Qcc=mcCp(Tout-Tin)=
0.78𝑘𝑔
𝑚𝑖𝑛
∗
4.34𝑘𝐽
𝑘𝑔∗𝐾
(310.37 − 272.6)𝐾= 128.5kJ/min
18
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
Calculation of U i, wall
Ui, wall=(Qhx-Qc)/A(T3-T1)
147.8𝑘𝐽 128.5𝑘𝐽
+ min
𝑚𝑖𝑛
Ui, wall=(Qhx-Qc)/A(T3-T1)=
0.3054𝑚2 ∗(334.8𝐾−310.37𝐾)
= 37.12 kJ/((min*m2*K)
Calculation for h0
h0 = 2960 ∗(DT,o/mst)=2960*(0.3/0.266)(1/3) (W/m2K)(1kJ/1000J)(60s/1min)
h0=184.7(kJ/min*m2 K)
Calculation for hi,(experimental)
hi,exp =
𝑈𝑖𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙
𝑈
1− 𝑖𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙
ℎ𝑜
hi,exp = 37.12 kJ/((min*m2*K)/(1-((37.12 kJ/((min*m2*K))/( 184.7(kJ/min*m2 K))
hi,exp= 46.45(kJ/(min*m2*K)
Calculation of U using run 1 data at 294.26 K. with a mass of 46 kgs of fluid;
∆𝑡3
U = (𝑚𝑣 ∗ 𝐶𝑝 ∗ (
∆Θ
))/𝐴(𝑇3 − 𝑇1 )
𝑘𝐽
60𝑠
U = (46𝑘𝑔 ∗ 4.34 (𝑘𝑔𝐾) ∗ (min ) ∗ 0.1997)/(1000 ∗ 0.7373𝑚2 ∗ (373 − 294.26)𝐾
U = 1.50(kJ/(min*m2*K)
19
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
9. Appendix IV: Individual Team Contributions
Name: Jay Gulotta
Operator (both Lab days)
Pre-Lab Editing
Final Lab Editing
Summary
Introduction
Literature Review/Theory
Apparatus
Materials And Supplies
Procedure
Anticipated Results
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
References
Data Tabulation/ Graphs
Error Analysis
Sample Calculations
Job Safety Analysis
Power Point Presentations
Total Hours
Time
(hours)
3
3.5
4
6
.5
2
2
21
Description
Basic understanding
Proofreading, Editing, and Formatting
Proofreading, Editing, and Formatting
Research and Derivations
References
Sample Calculations for Part 1 and 2
Objective, measured variables, safety, etc..
20
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
Name: Mrunal Patel
Operator (both Lab days)
Time
(hours)
7
Pre-Lab Editing
Final Lab Editing
Summary
Introduction
Literature Review/Theory
Apparatus
Materials And Supplies
Procedure
Anticipated Results
3
Based on the equations given in the lab
manual, made
2
Concluded the data found during the lab
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
References
Data Tabulation/ Graphs
Error Analysis
Sample Calculations
Job Safety Analysis
Power Point Presentations
Total Hours
Description
Helped conduct the experiment during the
two lab periods
13
21
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
Name: Frank Perez
Operator (both Lab days)
Pre-Lab Editing
Final Lab Editing
Summary
Introduction
Literature Review/Theory
Apparatus
Materials And Supplies
Procedure
Anticipated Results
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
References
Data Tabulation/ Graphs
Error Analysis
Sample Calculations
Job Safety Analysis
Power Point Presentations
Total Hours
Time
(hours)
7
Description
2
I wrote the results section.
1
I graphed some of the graphs used in the
results section.
.5
I wrote the safety analysis section of the
prep lab.
10.5
22
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
Name: Sukhjinder Singh
Operator (both Lab days)
Pre-Lab Editing
Final Lab Editing
Summary
Introduction
Literature Review/Theory
Apparatus
Materials And Supplies
Procedure
Anticipated Results
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
References
Data Tabulation/ Graphs
Error Analysis
Sample Calculations
Job Safety Analysis
Power Point Presentations
Total Hours
Time
(hours)
7
Description
Helped both days with operation of lab
2
2
Wrote Section
Wrote Section
11
23
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
Name: Russ Cabral
Operator (both Lab days)
Time
(hours)
7
Pre-Lab Editing
Final Lab Editing
Summary
Introduction
Literature Review/Theory
Apparatus
Materials And Supplies
1
Created table that included materials and
supplies and they’re uses.
2
Analyzed possible error.
Procedure
Anticipated Results
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
References
Data Tabulation/ Graphs
Error Analysis
Sample Calculations
Job Safety Analysis
Power Point Presentations
Total Hours
Description
Helped to operate flow rate, temperature,
and impeller speed.
10
24
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
Name: Scott Morgan
Operator (both Lab days)
Pre-Lab Editing
Final Lab Editing
Summary
Introduction
Literature Review/Theory
Apparatus
Materials And Supplies
Procedure
Anticipated Results
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
References
Data Tabulation/ Graphs
Error Analysis
Sample Calculations
Job Safety Analysis
Power Point Presentations
Total Hours
Time
(hours)
7
Description
4
3
2
16
25
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
Name: Brian Mottel
Operator (both Lab days)
Pre-Lab Editing
Final Lab Editing
Summary
Introduction
Literature Review/Theory
Apparatus
Materials And Supplies
Procedure
Anticipated Results
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
References
Time
(hours)
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.5
0
0
0
0
5
Data Tabulation/ Graphs
Error Analysis
Sample Calculations
Job Safety Analysis
Power Point Presentations
Total Hours
0
0
0
0
13.5
7
Description
In charge of running equipment
Wrote the procedure for this experiment
Wrote down all the data collected in lab,
completed all necessary calculations, and
constructed the graphs
In charge of running equipment
26
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011
Heat Transfer To a Fluid in a CSTR
University Of Illinois
I have read relevant background material for the Unit Operations Laboratory entitled: “
Heat transfer to a Fluid in a CSTR” and understand the hazards associated with
conducting this experiment. I have planned out my experimental work in accordance to
standards and acceptable safety practices and will conduct all of my experimental work
in a careful and safe manner. I will also be aware of my surroundings, my group
members, and other lab students, and will look out for their safety as well.
Signatures: First & Last Name 1____electronic_signature___________
Jay Gulotta__________________________________________________
Mrunal Patel _______________________________________________
Brian Mottel________________________________________________
Frank Perez_________________________________________________
Sukhjinder Singh________________________________
Russell Cabral________________________________________________
Scott Morgan_________________________________________________
27
Unit Operations CHE-381 Group No. 3
Cabral, Gulotta, Morgan, Mottel, Patel, Perez, Singh
Spring 2011 2/02/2011