H e a t Transfer Coefficients in

AGITATED VESSELS
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, INC., WILMINGTON, DEL.

7 A n extension of the general method for correlating forced-
convection heat transfer data i s proposed for the case of a coil and
the inside surface of a vessel w i t h the fluid agitated by a flat paddle.
The method of correlation for conduits and for plane surfaces pro-
posed by Colburn ( 2 ) and later modified by Sieder and Tate (9)
has been found applicable to agitated vessels. The correlation i s
found suitable for the turbulent region of agitation, u p to the point
where gas i s drawn into the liquid. Four liquids-water, two oils,
and glycerol-were used, and the temperature difference across the
the heat transFer surface was varied over a w i d e range. The corre-
lations obtained approximate the data of several investigators for
agitated systems considerably different from those used in this study.
VER-ALL heat transfer coefficients in agitated vessels have
jacket could be cooled with water or heated by steam at pressure*
up to 100 pounds per square inch gage. Inside the vessel a coil
of llrinch 0.d. copper tubing wound 7.7 turns on 0.8-foot meani
diameter could be readily installed. This coil had an over-all
height of 5.75 inches and an outside area of 2.42 square feet
The lower edge of the coil was held on the same level as the lower
edge of the straight side of the vessel. A flat paddle, 0.6 foot
long and 0.1 foot wide, of No. 14 gage metal was used for agitrt-
tion. The lower edge of the paddle and the coil were spaced ab
the same level, at the top of the curved portion of the dished bot-
tom. Agitation speeds from 50 to 1000 r.p.m. were available
with the drive provided.
Eight thermocouples were placed as shown in Fi ure 1. Three
were used to measure the surface temperature of &e coil (0, 10,
and 9), one read the surface temperature of the jacket (7 or 8)
and four read the temperature of the fluid ( 5 , 4, 3, and 2). The
readings used in the temperature difference values were the arith-
metic mean of those obtained for each group, Thermocouples in

0- been reported for a particular arrangement of vessel,

agitator. and coil or jacket. Pierce and Terry (7) and
Rhodes (8) have reported over-all coefficients
the steel vessel were placed in a l/srinch hole, drilled approxi-
mately 1/4 inch deep, parallel to the surface of the vessel where
the dished head protruded inside the side walls of the vessel

for special tank and coil arrangements with

liquids agitated by a flat paddle and by a draft
tube with a propeller agitator, respectively.
King and Howard (6) reported high film heat
transfer coefficients (5000-6000) when heating
water and sugar solutions with a fine wire and
using a cylinder for an agitator. More recently
Hixson and Baum (6) reported film heat transfer
coefficients for melting solids in liquids of the
same material. Gordon (4) determined film
heat transfer coefficients for the inside metal
surface of a tank when heating batches of water
and oil.
None of the above workers, however, at-
tempted to present a general correlation which
could be used to predict heat transfer coefficients
for vessels stirred by the common, flat, paddle
agitator. An experimental program was under-
taken here in which a 1-foot diameter steel
vessel was used to determine the effect of the
physical properties of the liquid and the speed
of the agitator upon the film heat transfer co-
efficient for both a coil and the inside surface
of a vessel. Tests were made by heating and
cooling water, glycerol, and oils under steady-
state and batch conditions. From the results
it was possible to obtain a general correlation
involving the usual dimensionless ratios em-
ployed for presenting heat transfer data for
forced convection inside tubes.

EQUIPMENT
A standard arrangement of equipment (Fig-
ure 1) was used in all tests. A jacketed, 1-foot
diameter, steel dish-bottomed vessel was made up
of 12-and 14inch, Schedule 40 steel pipe. The Figure 1. Semiworks Equipment
510
lune, 1944
The thermocouples placed in the llrinch copper tubing in the
top, center, and bottom turns were embedded in a '/rpinch
groove under solder. The leads were wrapped around the pipe
in a shdlow groove. Thermometers were used to read the tem-
perature of the cooling water to and from the equipment, and the
temperature of the steam and condensate. The thermometers
and thermocouples were calibrated against one another in water
et room temperature and a t 60" C. After the thermocouples
511
air. This practice helped to carry out air which might have been
in the steam. The loss of condensate by flashing was considered
negligible.
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF LIQUIDS
The physical properties of the liquids used are given in Table
I. Density and viscosity, except for water, were determined in

Figure 9. Effect of Agitator Speed on Heat Transfer Coefficients

L - 0.61 E 3 0.151 Z - 0.831 W = 0.1, D - 1

were calibrated, each of the junctions was lightly touched by a the laboratory with a pycnometer and Saybolt viscometer, re-
heated soldering iron. An immediate response by the potenti- spectively. The thermal conductivity and specific heat of the
ometer indicated that the thermocou le junction was a t the de-
eired point and not too deeply embedled in the metal, and that a oils were obtained from correlations given by Cragoe (3). The
secondary junction was not registerin during the calibration. thermal conductivity of water and the specific heat of water
Cooling-water flow rates to the ja&et or coil were measured and glycerol were obtained from Perry's Chemical Engineers'
b collecting the water in a pail for periods of 1 or 2 minutes. Handbook. The thermal conductivity of glycerol was obtained
7% ensure dry steam, the steam flow was split before the reducin
valve. Approximately 50 pounds per hour of steam W M ble2 from data given by Bates (1).
down through a tee and carried condensate with it. The steam
wed in the tests assed up through the tee and was relatively PROCEDURE
when it reac%ed the reducing valve. After the reducing
v ve, the steam pressure and temperature were measured Initial tests were made under steady-state conditions; i.e.,
The steam temperature was controlled to give 3' or 4' C. super- liquid in the vessel was heated by steam in the jacket while
b a t after the reducin valve by adjusting the bleed valve being cooled by water flowing in the coil. A blank heat loss
athead of the reducing vafve. The steam condensate was weighed
m a springless indicating scale graduated to 0.01 pound. A con- value was obtained by measuring the heat required t o keep the
stant flow of excess steam was maintGned through the jacket by jacket hot witE no liquid in the vessel. This heat loss, meas-
passing the condensate from the equipment through a variable- ured for the various steam pressures used, was subtracted from
orifice steam trap and allowing excess steam to pass off into the the heat quantity measured from the steam condensate. The
amount of heat transferred was also obtained from the tem-
perature rise and quantity of cooling water used: these values
Table 1. Physical Properties of Liquids generally checked with each other within 5'%.
92% L-M A-12 When the amount of condensate collected per unit time had
Water Glycerol 0
11 Oil
a,P.c.u./(hr.)(aq.ft.)(' C./ft.) become constant, readings were taken of the liquid temperatures,
200 c. 0.346 0.17 0.076 0.078 metal surface temperatures, steam pressure, steam Condensate,
1000 c. 0.415 0.175 0.065 0.075
Y. lbJ(hr.1 (ft.) cooling water temperatures, agitator speed, and height of liquid
200 c. 2.42 740 270 3300
60' C. 1.14 39 350 on the vessel wall. Heat transfer coefficients, both over-all
1000 c. 0.64 76
21 12 68 and liquid-side surface film, were calculated for the coil and
P , Ib./ou. ft.
200 c. 62.2 77.1 67.4 66.7 jacket. From the over-all coefficients i t was also possible to
1000 c. 59.6 74.0 64.0 52.3
e. P.c.u./(lb.)(' C . ) calculate the surface film coefficients as a check.
200 c. 1.00 0.60 0.435 0.46
1000 c. 1.02 0.70 0.505 0.615 Because of the general agreement between the surface film co-
efficients as obtained from the measured surface temperature and
512 INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY Vole 36, No. 6
Figure 3. Correlation of Jacket Date
for a $-Foot Dish Bottomed Vessel
and a Number 1 Coil, WhereL =0.6,
w = 0.1,5 = 0.1 5, and = 0.83 z
A. Nusselt v5. Reynolds srow.
B. (Revno
_ N u r s eId%E)v I , Prendtl.
Nusselt
__--
6. (Prancltl) vs. Reynolds.
213

D, ________
Nusselt P W
(Reynolds)*/3 (Prandtl)'/j "" -;

those calculated from the over-all

coefficients, the dirt-film coef-
ficients are believed to h a w
been negligible. Tests made Iyith
water in the vessel over a period
of 1.5 gears showed little change
in the surface film 'coefficient*.
provided the metal surfaces were
reasonably clean but not poli,4~cd
The steel equipment n-as initially
given a n inhibited acid treat-
ment on bot,h sides of the metal
to remove, mill scale. After pack.
shutdown of more than a n-n-eclr,
both the inside of the coil and
the steam side of t'hc jacket
were given an acid treatment
to remove rust and algae. The
water used in the vessel dlwing
tejts contained 20 p.p.m. of sodiulr.
dichromate to prevent corrosion
STEADY-STATE CONDlTlONS

Steady-stat>e tests were first

made with water in the vesscl,
heating by means of steam in the
jacket, and cooling with water
in the coil. The speed of the
agitator w2s varied from 50 to 200
r.p.m. The results of these test?
are given in Table 11, runs 1 t o
19. Tests were also made with
92% glycerol (runs 20 to 25)i
light medium lubricating oil, L-M
(runs 26 to 31), and a head,
transfer oil, A-12 (runs 32 to 39).
I n tests made with water,
agitator speeds above 200 r.p.m.
sucked air into the water. These
results at high agitator speeds,
(Figure 2, left-hand graph) did
not, fall in line with those ob-
tained with unaerated liquids.
For evaluation of heat transfer
coefficients, the agitator speeds
were kept in the range between
75 r.p.m. and the speed that,
aerated the liquid. At agitator
speeds less than 75 r.p.m., pas-
ticularly with a low-temperature
difference between the wall and
liquid, the temperature of the
liquid was not uniform. The
temperature of the liquids in the
vessels, when measured at the
points indicated in Figure I,
June, 1944 513

Table
(Z - II.
0.83; L 0.6: W -
Results of Steady-State Tests
0.1; B - 0.12) g j (y)" 14 hiDj(),O',.

Liquid
Run
No.
Speed,
R.P.M. t!
Temperature,
to
C.
ti hc hi
h
k
s hjD,
k
(z)
k
l/a
k
(T) '18 L"Np
P
Water 1 50 63.0 31.0 96.0 386 288 1014 755 768 501 60,500
2 75 62.0 35.0 92.0 580 422 1520 1,110 1,143 730 89 000
3 75a 65.1 42.3 90.2 508 408 1323 1,063 1,016 730 I94'200
4 75" 64.7 51.9 90.9 570 400 1485 1,100 1,100 713 93:300
5 100 62.0 37.0 88.0 710 558 1865 1.466 1,405 981 119,000
6 100" 65.8 47.0 89.7 605 515 1580 1,342 1,225 936 129,300
7 125 65.0 52.7 87.6 765 592 1990 1,544 1,480 1070 157,000
8 125a 65.2 49.7 88.0 763 617 1988 1,608 1,510 1130 159,000
9 1255 64.0 52.4 87.8 86 1 592 2250 1,548 1,660 1065 154,000
10 135 63.0 41.0 84.5 757 720 1988 1,890 1,490 1290 163,500
11 140 61.0 39.0 84.0 870 600 2290 1,580 1,700 1062 164,000
12 140n 64.5 54.4 86.0 927 641 2420 1,676 1,780 1160 174 000
13 180 04.2 53.8 86.2 1177 781 3070 2,040 2,260 1410 222:ooo
14 199 61.0 42.5 80.0 1155 781 3040 2,060 2,220 1380 232,000
15 200 61.5 44.0 80.5 1160 746 3050 1,965 2 220 1320 236,000
16 200a 01.5 43.0 80.0 1170 840 3080 2,210 2'260 1480 236,000
17 200a 64.8 52.1 85.8 1030 752 2680 1,960 1:990 1340 249 000
18 2000 64.0 49.0 84.5 1280 848 3340 2,220 2,480 1530 247:OOO
19 2000 67.4 52.0 85.4 1060 642 2750 1,660 2.060 1160 258,000
Glycerol 20 75 65.5 18.3 98.6 68.1 69.5 390 397 102.7 60.3 2 170
21 75 91.7 23.7 131.6 83.2 99.6 476 569 135.0 .89.0 3:020
22 125 65.5 20.5 96.5 113.0 103.0 646 688 160 85.1 3,400
23 125 92.5 27.5 130.0 108.0 136.5 618 780 167 124.6 5,180
24 300 66.4 26.3 93.0 171 174 978 993 220 148 3,800
25 300 92.0 36.7 123.2 224 280 1280 1,600 309 256 12,140
L-M oil 26 75 66.9 14.4 100.4 30.2 34.2 428 482 113 72.6 3,040
27 75 117.3 19.7 153.8 43.7 77.5 643 1,140 276 262 10,150
28 125 67.6 16.9 98.8 41.5 47.9 585 675 149 101.3 5,030
29 125 116.4 23.5 154.2 68.5 121.7 1050 1,790 412 406 16,700
30 300 70.3 19.3 97.6 73.5 92.5 1050 1,322 275 211 13,500
31 300 116.6 30.9 147.4 103 174 1517 , 2,560 566 586 40,000
A-12 oil 32 75 63.1 11.7 101.2 20.1 19.3 272 261 29.6 15.4 286
33 75 107.6 15.7 156.5 27.0 35.7 365 483 98.0 56.7 1,620
34 100 64.1 23.7 103.6 30.8 24.0 416 326 47.2 21.6 408
35 125 108.7 16.5 156.8 40.4 55.5 546 750 148.0 90.5 2,810
36 128 65.9 12.0 100.5 26.0 28.1 352 380 45.8 26.5 560
37 200 66.1 25.2 103.0 37.0 32.0 500 433 58.8 30.1 890
38 300 66.2 14.8 99.7 37.5 39.5 507 534 64.5 37.5 1,330
39 300 111.0 22.7 153.2 61.4 84.8 830 1,148 223.0 145.5 7,300
Water 40 125 99.9 102.6 81.4 560 5500 1350 13,280 11,500 1218-' 251,000
41 300 100.7 96.8 ... 2660 5850 6410 14,100 12,050 5950 602,000
L-M oil 42 75 83.5 102.4 34.2 70.7 23.1 982 321 204 92.8 4,760
43 125 83.0 102.2 36.8 101.0 29.7 1403 412 293 118.0 7,920
44 175 83.0 102.2 40.5 131.0 53.0 1820 737 380 205.0 11,100
45 225 83.0 97.4 42.6 163.0 59 7 2265 829 481 227.0 14,300
46 300 82.5 91.5 44.5 189.0 71 0 2630 987 574 266.0 19,040
A-12 oil 47 125 85.6 100.4 28.8 69.3 15.3 950 21.0 '94.3 33.3 1,225
48 175 85.8 100.2 31.8 86.2 20.6 1180 28.2 120 44.4 1730
49 225 86.3 99.6 33.2 100.5 23.0 1380 31.5 123 42.8 1:975
50 300 85.8 95.4 35.4 115.5 32.0 1582 43.8 144 58.3 2.590
4 Duplicate tests,

varied from point to point in specific runs by as much as the
following: water, 62-65' C.; 92% glycerol, 65-66' C.; L-M oil,
66.5-67" C.; A-12 oil, 65-68.5' C. I n runs a t higher agitator
speeds the variation was less.
The heat flow was then reversed (i.e,, steam was used in the
coil and water in jacket), and data were obtained with the same
agitator on water, L-M oil, and A-12 oil. The results are given
in Table 11,runs 40 to 50.
The results of these fifty runs were used to obtain a correlation
involving the physical properties of the fluids and the dimensions
of the equipment with the heat transfer coefficients for the
jacket (Figures 3 and 4). A similar correlation was made for the
coil; the final correlation for the coil is also given in Figure 4.
CHECK WITH BATCH TESTS
The batch tests were made t o see what the coefficients would be
without the coils in place, in order to represent the case where
heat of reaction or sensible heat is removed or supplied through a
jacket. The results of the batch tests are given in Table I11
(runs 51 through 82) and are plotted in Figure 5. Water and
A-12 oil were heated or cooled in the same agitator and coil used
in the steady-state tests.
For the batch tests it was difficult t o obtain consistent results
because of the rapid change of temperature of liquids in the ves-
sel. For water this rate was 12' t o 14" C. per minute a t the end
of the test period, when the steam or water flow rates had be-
come sufficiently steady to measure. Further, a considerable
time lag existed in the heat quantities obtained from the cooling
water or the steam, so that it was impossible t o check the data.
All results given are based on the temperature rise or fall of the
liquid as a measure of the quantity of heat transferred.
I n the batch heating tests, difficulty was encountered in keep-
ing the steam pressure constant. The results in Figure 5 were
not so consistent as for the steady-state tests. An air-actuated
steam valve was installed which maintained a constant pressure
in the steam jacket. Three tests were made a t different agitator
speeds (runs 80 to 82) which gave good agreement with the
steady-state tests. Apparently, reproducible results can be
obtained with batchwise heating if the steam pressure can be
controlled accurately through sufficiently large reducing valves.
To confirm the correlation, data were obtained from large-
scale equipment. Two pieces of plant equipment five times the
dimensions of the test equipment were available. The results
(runs 83 to 85) are also shown in Figure 5. The result for the
coil is in good agreement; however, as in the small-scale batch
tests, the results obtained for the jacket were only fair. For the
tests with the jacket it was difficult to keep the steam pressure
constant because of the large volume in the jacket. The results
from all the batch tests indicate that the coil does not influence
the magnitude of the heat transfer coefficient obtained for the
jacket, within the range of conditions tested.
514 INDUSTRIAL A N D ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY Vol. 36, No. 6

3 000
2 000

I000
80 0
600
400
30 0

20 0

6 00
80
60
40
30
20

IO

Figure 4. Final Correlation for Coil and Jacket Heat Transfer Coefficients

DISCUSSION
Initial tests with water under steady-state conditions indicated
that there is some variation in the liquid temperature when agi-
‘ and the coil and jacket heat transfer coefficients are of the same
tated at nominal speeds, Le., from 75 r.p.m. to the highest speed
possible without sucking air into the liquid. While time might
have been taken to explore the temperatures of the liquid to ob-
tain a n average temperature in each test, it was felt that tem-
peratures taken a t fixed points (locations generally used in large
equipment) would be sufficient.
The steady-state test data were used as the basis for correla-
tion because this method was fairly reproducible and the physical
properties of the liquid were kept constant. With a particular
liquid the temperature was practically constant for all agitator
speeds used. The results in Table 11, which were made at 200
r.p.m. with water, show variations as much as 17.5% from the
average. The tests with water are the only ones in whirh the
results from duplicate tests are given, because they showed the
greatest variation. This was expected because “dirt film coef-
ficients” would affect the highest coefficients most; further, the
cooling water and condensing steam coefficients in the coil and
jacket were the same order of magnitude as coefficients expected
for the outside of the coil and the inside surface of the vessel,
Figure 2 shows how the heat transfer coefficients change witb
agitator speeds when heating or cooling liquids. I n general the
coefficients increase in value for agitator speeds up to 300 r.p.m.,
order of magnitude. The tests with high-pressure steani shoa
that, under certain conditions resulting from high temperature
difference and surface temperatures above the boiling point, the
coefficients obtained are better than can be secured by agita.
tion with a flat paddle. I n the tests with SO-pound per square
inch steam in the jacket, steam bubbles formed which circu-
b t e d the water down the inside of the coil. The correlation of
heat transfer coefficients in this paper does not include the tests
where a gas was entrained in the liquid, as would be the case at
high agitator speeds or with the temperature of the surface above
the normal boiling point.
A plot of the Reynolds dimensionless group for agitation,
L2Np/r, against the Nusselt dimensionless group, hD& dernon-
strates the influence that both agitator speed and liquid tempera-
ture have on the surface heat transfer coefficient. These re-
sults are shown in Figure 3A for runs 1 to 39 and 42 to 50; the
lines have a slope of 2/a. All the factors but N in these di.
mensionless groups were held practically constant for each of the
groups of data shown. The data for A-12 oil also show the effect
June, 1944 51%

Table 111. Results of Batch Teats

Liquid Paddle Dimensions,

Run De th Ft. Speed, Coil Temperature, O C. h a hjDi
No. 2.h. L W B R.P.M. No. 11 tc tj hi ho k k P
- -
Small-Scale EauiDment. A-12 Oil
51
62
0.83 0.60 0.10 0.15 125
125
1 86.0 103.2 * ..
46.j
...
22.9
...
... 627
323 ..* 59.7
24.2
...
... 1,183
200
63
64
200
300
45.0 16.8
86.2 101.3
79.2 91.8
...
31.6
...
144.0
...
... 433
1970
...
... 44.2
178.5
...
...
2.030
2,280
66
66 0.83 0.60 0.10 0.15
350
125 Np. .l
76.7 93.1
56.6 ... 21
...
40.8
...
11.9
... 559
... 163:6
48.8
....
.. i5:7
2,485
361
67
68
125
125
0011in
place
61.0
74.2
...
...101
102.4
*.. 30.0
...
28.6
...
... 400
392 ...
19.6
31.4
270
786
69
60
200
300
44.0
46.1
...
... 18.3
18.2
...
16.3
...
12.0
...
...
223
164
...
...
16.2
12.6
306
508
61 350 38.7 ... 19 .., 16.8 ,.. 230 .. 1 14.6 418
Small-Scale Equipment, Water
69
63
0.83 0.60 0.10 0.16 100
100
1 27.6 16.0
39.0 20.9
...
602
...
626
...
... 1440
1240
...
... 988
922
....
.. 65,000
%0,800
64
66
100
275
21.0 13.5 ...
944
...
1350
...
... 3050
3060
...
... 1486
2180
...
... 67,100
184,000
66 276
29.0 24.1
21.0 17.6 ...
900 ... 2620 ... 1400 ... 157,000
67
68
0.83 0.60 0.10 0.16 100
100
Np. 1
in
83.5
73.0
...
...104
123
321
585
...
...
...
... 803
1494
...
... 606
1022
163 300
141:OOO
69
70
100
276
plaoe 60.0
89.6
...
121
...103
424
1100
...
... ..
... * 935
2710
...
... 700
2130
116,000
475,000
71 275 75 ...116.5 764 ... ... 1950 ... 1357 396,000
72
.-
7.1
0.83 0.60 0.10 0.15 100
1 no
None ...
...130.9
21.3
564
516
...
... ...
... 1420
1382
...
... 1020
998
158,700
104,500
74 ...
...111.2 391 ...
...
...
...
1017 ... 930 127,000
76
Eii ...
...
115.6
128.3
96.1
764
1370
675
...
.. .. ..
...
...
1950
3500
1710
,..
...
...
1357
2370
1240
396,000
392,000
402,000
79
448
448
.*.
...
22.6
82.1
840
990 ...
.. ,
...
2260
2580
...
...
1590
1780
446,000
666,000
80
81
1.0 0.60 0.10 0.17 131
125
None ...
. 86.9
... 80.3
621.5
. . . 775.0
652.0
... ...
..... . 1572
1705 ...
I . . 1170
1165
193,300
155,000
82 200 ... 79.6 ... 2015 ... 1457 282,000
Plant Equipment, Water
83
84
4.16 3.00 0.50 0.75 70 ....
.... 76.0 140 ...
1190
... ...
...
15.100
.. ...
...
10,170
.. .. .. ...
3490
3,150,000
2,370,000
85O .... 136:s ::: is6 ... 175 .. 8310 1560 120,300
a m-Phenylene diamine was the liquid used in run 85.

that temperature and temperature difference have on the surface
heat transfer coefficients.
T o obtain the relation of coefficients to physical properties of
the fluids, a graph was made of the Nusselt group divided by the
Reynolds group to the */s power plotted against the Prandtl
group, cp/k. Figure 3B indicates that, although there appears to
be a rough variation with (cp/k)'la, some additional factor must
be allowed for. The greatest discrepancy seems to be between
the data for heating and for cooling. To bring these into agree-
ment a graph (Figure 30) was made of the Nusselt group divided
by the Prandtl group to the I/* power and the Reynolds group to
the power, plotted against the viscosity ratio, pe/p, of the
liquid a t the temperature of the wall and of the main body of the
liquid. This plot indicates that a slope of -0.14, as found by
Sieder and Tate (9) for flow inside pipes, is a fair value for the
data obtained in this work.
The data for both heating and cooling the different liquids
seem to correlate fairly well when plotted as shown in Figure 4
and are represented by the line:
The equation obtained for the coil by a similar treatment of the
data is:
Figure 5 shows the agreement of these equations with the re-
sults obtained for the batch tests. The results with and without
the coil in place are equally in agreement. As a further check the
points obtained on the large-scale equipment are shown; the
agreement is as good as that obtained with the small-batch tests.
In both of these correlations the diameter of the jacket and the
length of the paddle were chosen as length dimensions. Other
factors could have been chosen, such as liquid depth, width of
paddle, diameter of coil, or diameter of pipe in coil, and the same
typical cprrelation obtained. It remains to be seen how each of
these factors may change the correlation. It is not unlikely that
ratios of some of -them can be used for correlating data, as done in
regard to power required for agitation. The correlations pro-
posed apply to the vessel and agitator arrangements geometrically
similar to those used in these tests. Further work would be re-
quired to determine the effect of changing these ratios.
COMPARISON WITH OTHER DATA
It is interesting to compare the results obtained for this one
agitator arrangement with those reported several years ago by
Hixson and Baum (6). These tests on the rate of fusion of solids
in their own melts were with four-bladed, 45" pitched agitators,
in vessels covering a sixfold range of sizes. The length of the
four-bladed agitator was only one third the diameter of the ves-
sel. Further, the heat transfer surfaces were not fixed a t a defi-
nite location, but were moving with the liquid. With assump-
tions as to the average position and size of the suspended solids,
similar to those made by Hixson and Baum, the coefficients cal-
culated from their results were found to be in reasonable agree-
ment with the correlation for coil coefficients of Figure 4 and
Equation 2.
The extensive unpublished data of Gordon (4) are more nearly
comparable with those of the present investigation, since he
measured jacket coefficients in a 2-foot diameter vessel. After
adjustment of his values for different agitator dimensions (by
methods not reported here), his data on water and two oils were
516 INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY Vol. 36, No. 6

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
" g
0 0 0
82 8
0 0 0 0
$
0 0
N t loooo.
- 9
r.! q
0 0
i d 6
0
-
0-
0 0
9
0
?
0
9 9
N
-
0 0
r\l
a o
v a
o
al
o
9
-
0
0
0
0
9
0

N 2)

Figure 5. Batch Test Checks of Flat Paddle Correlation

found to be in good agreement with the correlation of jacket
coefficients of Figure 4 and Equation 1.
The data of Rhodes (8) are not easily comparable, since his
agitator consisted of a propeller and draft tube arrangement.
Those of Pierce and Terry (7) were obtained on the cooling of
water by a lead coil lying against the yall of a 200-gallon tank.
I17ith a reasonable assumption as t o the dimensions of their pad-
dle agitator and adjustment for them, t h r roil coefficients re-
ported are about 65y0of those predicted by Equation 2, in line
with the fact that not all of the coil surface was freely exposed to
the watel-.
The data of King and Howard (6),obtained with a fine wire in
a 1000-cc. beaker, require severe adjustment for variation in
dimensions from those employed in this study, but could never-
theless be brought into close agreement.
As mentioned above, more work will have to be done to deter-
mine the exact effect of changing each of the possible dimensions
of agitator and vessel, and the type of agitator employed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to thank W. H. McAdams for advice and
assistance.
NOMENCLATURE
B = clearance of paddle from center to bottom of vessel, ft.
c = specific heat, P.c.u./(lb.)(" C.)
D, Di = inside diameter of vessel, ft.
h,, hj = film coefficient of heat transfer for coil and jacket, re-
spectively, P.c.u./(hr.)(sq. ft.)(" C.)
k = thermal conductivity, P.c.u./(hr.)(sq. ft.)(' C./ft.)
L = length of paddle, ft.
m = slope of lines in figures
N = shaft speed, revolytions/hr.
t1 = av. liquid temp., C.
tc = temp. of surface of coil, ' C.
t, = temp. of surface of jacket, C.
W = width of paddle, ft.
2 = liquid depth, ft.
/J. = viscosity at av. temp., lb./(hr.)(ft.)
po pi = viscosity at surface temp. of coil and jacket respec-
tively, lb./(hr.)(ft.)
pW = viscosity at surface temp., lb./(hr.)(ft.)
p = density at av. temp., Ib./cu. ft.
LITERATURE CITED
(1) B a t e s , 0 . K.,
IND. E N G . C H E X . , 28, 494-8 (1936).
( 2 ) Colburn, A. P., Trans. Am. Inst. Chem. Engrs., 29, 174-211
(1933).
(3) Cragoe, C . S., N a t l . Bur. S t a n d a r d s , M i s e . P u b . 97 (1929).
(4) Gordon, Moses, Univ. of Minn., Ph.D. thesis, J u n e , 1941.
(5) Hixson, A. W., a n d Baum, S. J., IND.ENG.CHEM., 33, 1433-9
(1941).
(6) K,ing, C. V., and Howard, P. L., Ibid.,29, 75-8 (1937).
(7) Pierce, D. E., a n d T e r r y , P. B., Chem. & M e t . Eng., 30, 872-3
(1924).
(8) Rhodes, F. H., IND.E N G . CHEM.,26, 944-6 (1934).
(9) Sieder, E. N., a n d T a t e , G. E., Ibid.,28, 1429-35 (1936).