View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by AUT Scholarly Commons

The analogy between heat and mass transfer in low temperature crossflow evaporation

Reza Enayatollahi*, Roy Jonathan Nates, Timothy Anderson

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Auckland University of Technology,
Auckland, New Zealand.
Corresponding Author: Reza Enayatollahi
Email Address: renayato@aut.ac.nz
Postal Address: WD308, 19 St Paul Street, Auckland CBD, Auckland, New Zealand
Phone Number: +64 9 921 9999 x8109

Abstract
This study experimentally determines the relationship between the heat and mass
transfer, in a crossflow configuration in which a ducted airflow passes through a planar water
jet. An initial exploration using the Chilton-Colburn analogy resulted in a coefficient of
determination of 0.72. On this basis, a re-examination of the heat and mass transfer processes
by Buckingham’s-π theorem and a least square analysis led to the proposal of a new
dimensionless number referred to as the Lewis Number of Evaporation. A modified version of
the Chilton-Colburn analogy incorporating the Lewis Number of Evaporation was developed
leading to a coefficient of determination of 0.96.

1. Introduction
Heat and mass transfer devices involving a liquid interacting with a gas flow have a wide
range of applications including distillation plants, cooling towers and aeration processes and
desiccant drying [1-5]. Many studies have gone through characterising the heat and mass
transfer in such configurations [6-9]. The mechanisms of heat and mass transfer are similar and
analogical. Therefore, in some special cases where, either the heat or mass transfer data are not
reliable or may not be available, the heat and mass transfer analogy can be used to determine
the missing or unreliable set of data. In this regards, the Reynolds analogy is the simplest
correlation and is applicable only for the special case where the Prandtl and Schmidt numbers
are both equal to unity. Chilton and Colburn in 1934 [10] introduced a correlation to predict
the coefficient of mass transfer from the experimental data of heat transfer and fluid friction,
which is applicable for fully developed flow inside the tubes or between parallel plates with;
0.6 < Prandtl <60 and 0.6 < Schmidt <3000.
However, both of these analogies characterise the “convectional” transport phenomena
and may not be applicable for some special cases and geometries. Therefore a number of studies
have examined the applicability of these analogies to other configurations [11-13]. Steeman et
al. [12] employed CFD to investigate the validity of the heat and mass transfer analogy for a
particular case of indoor airflows and when the analogy conditions are not met. Similarly,
Tsilingiris [14] experimentally developed a heat and mass transfer analogy model in solar
distillation systems based on the Chilton-Colburn analogy.
This study investigates the analogy between the intensities of heat and mass transfer in
low temperature evaporation processes with crossflow configuration, in which a ducted stream
of air passes through a falling sheet of water. The interaction in such a configuration has the
potential to significantly improve the transfer phenomenon.
 2. Experimental Setup
In this experiment, a planar jet of water was directed perpendicular to a ducted air
crossflow, as shown in Figure 1. A water tank with adjustable height was used to provide a
constant pressure head to drive the water flow at different flow rates and a variable speed axial
flow fan with a maximum capacity of 280 m3/hr was employed to drive airflow at various
steady flow rates. The flow rates of water were determined by measuring the time taken for a
known volume of water to pass through the nozzle, and the exact airflow rate was determined
from measurements made using a pitot static probe traversed across the duct and differential
manometer.

Figure 1. Experimental apparatus

In order to measure the humidity and temperature, a set of three humidity/temperature

sensors, (Sensirion SHT71) with an accuracy of ±3% for humidity and ±0.3K temperature at
standard room condition were used. Sensors were placed on either side of the side the sheet to
measure the change in humidity and temperature of the air stream as it crossed the water sheet,
as seen in Figure 1. A third sensor was placed outside the experiment to monitor the room
conditions. A set of two thermocouples (type T) with an accuracy of ±0.3 K were used to record
the water temperature before and after contact with the air stream. An auxiliary water heater
was used to maintain the inlet water temperature at a constant temperature and thereby reduce
the relative error of measurements.

3. Testing the Chilton-Colburn Analogy

In considering the heat transfer, the total rate of heat transfer (Q̇t) is the sum of
convective, evaporative and radiative rates of heat transfer. Assuming that the radiation heat
transfer is negligible this can be determined from Equation 1.

𝑄̇𝑡 = 𝑄̇𝑐𝑣 + 𝑄̇𝑒𝑣 = 𝑚̇𝑎 (ℏ𝑎,𝑜 − ℏ𝑎,𝑖 ) (1)

Where Q̇cv is the convective rate of heat transfer and Q̇ev is the rate of heat transfer through
evaporation. ṁa is the mass flow rate of air and ℏa,i and ℏa,o are the enthalpies of the air at the
inlet and outlet conditions, respectively. The rate of evaporation can be determined from
Equation 2.

𝑄̇𝑒𝑣 = 𝑚̇𝑒𝑣 ℏ𝑓𝑔 (2)

 Where ℏfg is the enthalpy of vaporization and ṁev is the rate of evaporation, which can be
calculated by measuring the specific humidity (ω) of air at inlet and outlet conditions and the
mass flow rate of the air stream as given in Equation 3.

𝑚̇𝑒𝑣 = 𝑚̇𝑎 (𝜔𝑎,𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝜔𝑎,𝑖𝑛 ) (3)

On the mass transfer side the experimental value of the coefficient of mass transfer can
be determined from Equation 4.

𝑚̇𝑒𝑣
𝑗= (4)
𝐴𝑐,𝑎 (𝜌𝑣,𝑓 − 𝜌𝑣,𝑏 )

Where, ρv,∞ is the density of vapour at the free stream conditions and ρv,f is the vapour
density at film condition, which is considered to be saturated air at the average temperature of
the two phases.
The experimental value of the coefficient of convective heat transfer can be calculated
from Equation 5.

𝑄̇𝑐𝑣
ℎ= (5)
𝐴𝑐,𝑎 (𝑇𝑓 − 𝑇∞ )

Where Ac,a is the cross sectional area of air stream, T∞ is the bulk stream temperature and
Tf is the film temperature. The convective heat transfer rate can be determined from Equation
1.
The existence of an analogy was first assessed by examining the relationship between the
heat transfer coefficient determined from Equation 5 and the mass transfer coefficient
calculated by Equation 4, as shown in Figure 2.
 Mass transfer coefficient (m/s) 2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
2
Heat transfer coefficient (W/m K)
Figure 2. The experimental values of convective heat transfer coefficient versus experimental values of mass transfer
coefficient

As seen in Figure 2, the experimental values of the heat and mass transfer coefficients
are correlated with a reasonable accuracy, with a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.72.
The heat and mass transfer are analogues, in circumstances where the thermal and
concentration boundary layers are of the same type [15]. For the conditions tested by Chilton
and Colburn, the empirical correlations of Nusselt and Sherwood numbers were determined
as given in Equations 6 and 7 [16].

𝑁𝑢 = 𝑎 𝑅𝑒 𝑚 𝑃𝑟 1/3 (6)

𝑆ℎ = 𝑎 𝑅𝑒 𝑚 𝑆𝑐 1/3 (7)

Based on the Reynolds analogy the heat transfer Stanton number is equivalent to the
mass transfer Stanton number. Where the heat transfer Stanton number is the ratio of the
Nusselt number to the product of the Reynolds and Prandtl numbers, and the mass transfer
Stanton number is the ratio of the Sherwood number to the product of the Reynolds and
Schmidt numbers, as given in Equations 8 and 9 [15].

ℎ 𝑁𝑢
𝑆𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 = = (8)
𝜌𝑉𝑐𝑝 𝑅𝑒 𝑃𝑟

𝑗 𝑁𝑢
𝑆𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 = = (9)
𝑉 𝑅𝑒 𝑃𝑟
Now, substituting the empirical correlation for the Nusselt and Sherwood numbers,
results in Equations 10 and 11.
 ℎ 𝑎 𝑅𝑒 𝑚 𝑃𝑟 1/3
𝑆𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 = = (10)
𝜌𝑉𝑐𝑝 𝑅𝑒 𝑃𝑟

𝑗 𝑎 𝑅𝑒 𝑚 𝑆𝑐 1/3
𝑆𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 = = (11)
𝑉 𝑅𝑒 𝑆𝑐
From these, Chilton and Colburn had derived a “J” factor for heat and mass transfer as
given in Equations 12 and 13 [10].

ℎ
𝐽ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 = 𝑎 𝑅𝑒 𝑚−1 = 𝑃𝑟 2/3 (12)
𝜌𝑉𝑐𝑝

𝑗
𝐽𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 = 𝑎 𝑅𝑒 𝑚−1 = 𝑆𝑐 2/3 (13)
𝑉
Since the “J” factor is equal for both heat and mass transfer, the Chilton-Colburn
analogy was determined as given in Equation 14 [10].

ℎ 2 𝑗 2
𝑃𝑟 3 = 𝑆𝑐 3
𝜌𝑉𝑐𝑝 𝑉
ℎ 𝑆𝑐 2/3
or = 𝜌𝑐𝑝 ( ) = 𝜌𝑐𝑝 𝐿𝑒 2/3 (14)
𝑗 𝑃𝑟

As mentioned earlier the Chilton-Colburn analogy, seen in Equation 14, is valid for a
fully developed flow inside a pipe, and for flow parallel to plane surfaces, when 0.6 < Prandtl
<60 and 0.6 < Schmidt <3000.
The applicability of the Chilton-Colburn analogy to other configurations and conditions
may be validated for the particular geometry and conditions of the experiment.
Figure 3 shows the experimental values of the convection heat transfer coefficient from
Equation 5 compared to the calculated value from the Chilton-Colburn analogy, given in
Equation 14 using the experimental mass transfer data. This figure shows some correlation
for predicting the heat transfer coefficient from the mass transfer data, but with quite a large
scatter.
Experimental heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K) 2500

2250

2000 +30%

1750

1500

1250
-30%
1000

750

500

250

0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500
2
Heat transfer coefficient from Chilton-Colburn analogy (W/m K)
Figure 3. Comparison of experimental heat transfer coefficient with the calculated values from the Chilton-Colburn
analogy

From this, it could be considered that, the Chilton-Colburn analogy is reasonably valid
for these geometries and conditions. However, considering that in low temperature evaporation
processes a considerable fraction of the supplied energy will be consumed to overcome the
latent heat of vaporization, it is reasonable to expect that the relationship between heat and
mass transfer should account for this. Therefore, this work aims to find an analogy between the
overall heat transfer coefficient and mass transfer coefficient, in that it accounts for both
convection and evaporation.

4. Dimensional analysis
In an attempt to describe the analogy between heat and mass transfer, for this complex
flow interaction, Buckingham’s-π theorem was employed to define the dimensionless
parameters. In doing so it was considered that the variables describing the heat and mass
transfer were: air velocity, characteristic length, enthalpy of evaporation, thermal conductivity
of air, density of air, viscosity of air, specific heat of air, rate of diffusion, the enthalpy content
of the air stream at film conditions and the temperature difference between two phases. As such
a general relation as shown in Equation 15 can be formed.

𝑓(𝜌𝑎 , 𝑘𝑎, 𝑉𝑎 , 𝐿𝑎 , ℎℎ , , 𝜇𝑎 , 𝑐𝑝𝑎 , ∆𝑇, 𝐷𝐴𝐵 , ℎ𝑚 , ℎ𝑓𝑔 , 𝑇𝑓 ) = 0 (15)

where f is an unknown function. The dimensions of these variable are based on four basic
physical units of mass (M), temperature (T), time (t) and length (L).
As there are twelve quantities and four basic units, according to Buckingham’s-π theorem
[17], eight dimensionless groups can be developed, as shown in Equation 16.
 𝑓 ′ (𝜋1 , 𝜋2 , 𝜋3 , 𝜋4 , 𝜋5 , 𝜋6 , 𝜋7 , 𝜋8 ) = 0 (16)

Where f′ is also an unknown function. Choosing ρa, ka, Va and La as the repeating
parameters, the seven independent dimensionless group can be determined as given in Table 1.
Table 1. Independent dimensionless groups

Where, π1 is the Nusselt number (Nu) and product of π6 and π5-1 forms the Sherwood
number (Sh), π2-1 is the Reynolds number (Re), π3 is the Peclet number (Pe) and π7-1 is the
Evaporation number (Nev). Grouping π2 and π3 delivers the Prandtl number (Pr) and
combination of π2 and π5 gives the Schmidt number (Sc). The Lewis number (Le) can also be
determined as the ratio of Prandtl to Schmidt number, which is the ratio of thermal to mass
diffusivity.

5. Analogy between the Coefficient of Total Heat Transfer and Mass Transfer
Coefficient
As mentioned earlier, the Chilton-Colburn analogy characterises only the convectional
transfer phenomenon and since in low temperature evaporation processes a significant fraction
of the entire heat transfer is through evaporation, it is logical to present a correlation to predict
the overall heat transfer coefficient from the mass transfer data. In this respect, the experimental
value of the overall heat transfer coefficient can be calculated by substituting Q̇cv in Equation
5 with Q̇t as shown in Equation 17.

𝑄̇𝑡
ℎ𝑡 = (17)
𝐴𝑐,𝑎 (𝑇𝑓 − 𝑇∞ )

In order to assess the existence of any similarity between the coefficient of total heat
transfer and the mass transfer coefficient, the calculated values from Equation 17 were plotted
against the experimental values of mass transfer coefficient from Equation 4, as shown in
Figure 4.
Mass transfer coefficient (m/s) 2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
2
Coefficient of total heat transfer (W/m K)
Figure 4. the coefficent total heat transfer versus the mass transfer coefficient

In Figure 4, it can be seen that the mass transfer coefficient is analogous with the
coefficient of total heat transfer with a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.95.
On this basis, the overall heat transfer coefficient can be expressed as a function of the
density and the specific heat of the air stream as well as the dimensionless groups derived from
Buckingham’s π theorem, as given in Equation 18.

ℎ𝑡 = 𝑗 𝜌 𝑐𝑝 × 𝑃𝑒 𝑏 𝐵𝑑 𝑐 𝜋4 𝑑 𝜋7 𝑒 𝜋8 𝑓 (18)

In order to define the exponent of the dimensionless groups in Equation 18, a least
squares analysis results in Equation 19.

ℎ𝑡 = 𝑗 𝜌 𝑐𝑝 × 𝑃𝑒 −0.575𝐵𝑑 0.575 𝜋4 0.00012 𝜋7 0.575 𝜋8 −0.575 (19)

The exponents of the Peclet and Bodenstein numbers are identical but with different signs
and therefore, can be presented in a fractional form. As mentioned earlier the Bodenstein is the
product of the Reynolds and Schmidt numbers and similarly, the Peclet number is the product
of the Reynolds and Prandtl numbers. Therefore, the ratio of Bodenstein to Peclet numbers is
in fact the ratio of Schmidt to Prandtl number, or the Lewis number (Le), as given in Equation
20.

𝐵𝑑 0.575 𝐵𝑑 0.575 𝑆𝑐 0.575

0.575
= ( ) =( ) = 𝐿𝑒 0.575 (20)
𝑃𝑒 𝑃𝑒 𝑃𝑟
 Similarly, the exponents of π7 and π8 are identical but with opposite signs and can be
presented in a fractional form, as given in Equation 21.

𝜋7 ℏ𝑓𝑔 /𝑉𝑐ℎ 2 ℏ𝑓𝑔

= = (21)
𝜋8 ℏ𝑓 /𝑉𝑐ℎ 2 ℏ𝑓

The ratio of π7 to π8 is in fact the ratio of enthalpy of vaporization to the enthalpy content
of the air stream at the film conditions, which in this context referred to as the enthalpy ratio.
The enthalpy ratio characterises the low temperature evaporation processes with respect to
required heat of evaporation and the supplied energy by the bulk stream.
It can be seen that the exponents of the Lewis number and the enthalpy ratio are equal
and hence, Equation 19 can now be rewritten as Equation 22.
0.575
ℏ𝑓𝑔
ℎ𝑡 = 𝑗𝜌𝑎 𝑐𝑝𝑎 (𝐿𝑒 ) (22)
ℏ𝑓

The product of Lewis number and the enthalpy ratio is therefore referred to as the Lewis
Number of Evaporation (Leev) and Equation 22 can be rewritten as Equation 23.

ℎ𝑡 = 𝑗𝜌𝑎 𝑐𝑝𝑎 𝐿𝑒𝑒𝑣 0.575 (23)

Shown in Figure 5 is the coefficient of total heat transfer calculated by Equation 23 versus
the experimental values calculated from Equation 17.
25000
Overal Heat Transfer Coefficient

+16%
from Experiment (W/m2K)

20000

-16%
15000

10000

5000

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Overal Heat Transfer Coefficient from Modified
2
Chilton-Colburn analogy (W/m K)
Figure 5. Corrected Chilton-Colburn Analogy for heat and mass transfer with phase change
 This figure clearly shows a much stronger correlation, with a coefficient of determination
2
(R ) of 0.98, when accounting for the phase change process and incorporating the Lewis
Number of Evaporation.

6. Conclusion
An experimental study was performed in order to examine the relationship between heat
and mass transfer coefficients in a low temperature crossflow evaporation process. In this
regard, the Buckingham-π theorem as well as a least squares analysis were employed. Eight
dimensionless group were determined from the Buckingham-π analysis. Performing the least
squares analysis on these dimensionless parameters showed a strong correlation between the
overall heat transfer coefficient and the enthalpy ratio. This led to the correlation of a modified
Chilton-Colburn analogy that includes the enthalpy ratio to account for the low temperature
evaporation processes (referred to as the Lewis Number of Evaporation). As a result of this
work, the heat and mass transfer can now be quantified by the measurement and determination
of only one of these parameters.

References

[1] R. Enayatollahi, T. Anderson, R. Nates, Mathematical modeling of a solar powered

humidification dehumidification desalination prototype, in: Solar 2014: The 52nd Annual
Conference of the Australian Solar Council, Solar 2014 Conference & Expo, Melbourne, 2014.

[2] V.D. Stevanovic, An analytical model for gas absorption in open-channel flow,
International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, 24 (1997) 1187-1194.

[3] P. Naphon, Study on the heat transfer characteristics of an evaporative cooling tower,
International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, 32 (2005) 1066-1074.

[4] A. Klimanek, R.A. Biatecki, , Solution of heat and mass transfer in counterflow wet-cooling
tower fills, International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, 36 (2009) 547–553.

[5] Z. Huang, P. Jiang, Theoretical Analysis and Numerical Simulation of Coupled

Relationship of Heat and Mass Transfer Between Air and Desiccant in Liquid Desiccant
Dehumidification, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Heating, Ventilation
and Air Conditioning, Springer, 2014, pp. 829-839.

[6] A. Ali, K. Vafai, A.R.A. Khaled, Analysis of heat and mass transfer between air and falling
film in a cross flow configuration, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 47(4)
(2004) 743-755.

[7] D. Metzger, L. Florschuetz, D. Takeuchi, R. Behee, R. Berry, Heat transfer characteristics

for inline and staggered arrays of circular jets with crossflow of spent air, Journal of Heat
Transfer, 101(3) (1979) 526-531.

[8] Y. Yin, B. Zheng, T. Chen, B. Shao, X. Zhang, Investigation on coupled heat and mass
transfer coefficients between compressed air and liquid desiccant in a packed dryer,
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 93 (2016) 1218-1226.

[9] Y. Wu, Simultaneous heat and mass transfer in laminar falling film on the outside of a
circular tube, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 93 (2016) 1089-1099.
[10] T.H. Chilton, A.P. Colburn, Mass Transfer (Absorption) Coefficients Prediction from
Data on Heat Transfer and Fluid Friction, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry, 26(11) (1934)
1183-1187.

[11] D. Bond, M.J. Goldsworthy, V. Wheatley, Numerical investigation of the heat and mass
transfer analogy in rarefied gas flows, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 85
(2015) 971-986.

[12] H.J. Steeman, A. Janssens, M. De Paepe, On the applicability of the heat and mass transfer
analogy in indoor air flows, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 52(5–6) (2009)
1431-1442.

[13] G. Caruso, D. Vitale Di Maio, Heat and mass transfer analogy applied to condensation in
the presence of noncondensable gases inside inclined tubes, International Journal of Heat and
Mass Transfer, 68 (2014) 401-414.

[14] P.T. Tsilingiris, The application and experimental validation of a heat and mass transfer
analogy model for the prediction of mass transfer in solar distillation systems, Applied Thermal
Engineering, 50(1) (2013) 422-428.

[15] Y.A. Cengel, Heat and Mass Transfer. 3rd, in, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007.

[16] A.P. Colburn, A method of correlating forced convection heat-transfer data and a
comparison with fluid friction, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 7(12) (1964)
1359-1384.

[17] E. Buckingham, Model experiments and the forms of empirical equations, 1915.