Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne: Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur Et de Masse
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne: Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur Et de Masse
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
1
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
100
Heat Flux (kW/m2)
Nucleate Boiling
Film Boiling
10
MFB
IB
Natural convection
1
1 10 100 1000
Wall Superheat (K)
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
2
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
Rohsenow (1962) proposed one of the first nucleate pool boiling correlations, based on the
bubble agitation mechanism and formulated as a single phase forced convection correlation:
Nu = C1 Re x Pr y [9.3.1]
The Nusselt number for boiling was defined as follows where the bracketed term is the bubble
departure diameter, designated as the characteristic length:
1/ 2
nb
Nu = ( [9.3.2]
k L g L G )
In this expression, nb is the nucleate pool boiling heat transfer coefficient. His Reynolds
number was defined in terms of the superficial velocity of the liquid as
1/ 2
q L
Re = [9.3.3]
h LG L g( L G ) L
where hLG is the latent heat and L is the liquid dynamic viscosity.
Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
An empirical constant Csf was introduced to account for the influence of the liquid-surface
combination observed in his database as follows:
1
Nu = Re(1 n ) Pr m [9.3.4]
Csf
n
c pL T q
1/ 2
= C
m +1
PrL [9.3.5]
L h LG g ( L G )
sf
h LG
The specific heat of the liquid is cpL and PrL is the liquid Prandtl number; nb is obtained from the
definition of the heat transfer coefficient, that is nb = q/T. The values of the exponents are
m=0.7 and n=0.33 (equivalent to q T3) for all fluids except for water for which Rohsenow
recommended setting m=0. Values of Csf for various surface-fluid combinations of Rohsenow
and additional values proposed by Vachon, Nix and Tangor (1967) are listed in Table 9.1. This
method is now mostly of historical value, pointing to the importance of the micro-topology of
the boiling surface on nucleate boiling heat transfer.
Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse
3
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
Mostinski (1963) ignored surface effects and applied the principle of corresponding states to
nucleate pool boiling heat transfer, correlating data as a function of the reduced pressure of the
fluid pr and its critical pressure pcrit. His dimensional reduced pressure correlation gives nb in
W/m2K as:
The correlation must be used with q in W/m2 and pcrit in kN/m2 (i.e. in kPa, not in N/m2). FP is a
non-dimensional pressure correction factor that characterizes pressure effects on nucleate boiling
as
This correlation gives reasonable results for a wide range of fluids and reduced pressures.
4
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
Stephan and Abdelsalam (1980) proposed four specific correlations applying a statistical
multiple regression technique to the following fluid classes: water, organics, refrigerants and
cryogens. Their organic fluid correlation is the most widely quoted and it is given as:
0.67
nb d bub 1/ 2
qd bub h LG d 2bub
0.248
L G
4.33
= 0.0546 G [9.3.8]
L L
2
kL k L Tsat aL
The expression to the left of the equal sign is a Nusselt number and their bubble departure
diameter dbub is obtained from
1/ 2
2
d bub = 0.0146 [9.3.9]
g( L G )
The contact angle is assigned a fixed value of 35 irrespective of the fluid, Tsat is the saturation
temperature of the fluid in K, and aL is the liquid thermal diffusivity.
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
Cooper (1984) proposed a new reduced pressure form of pool boiling correlation including the
surface roughness of the boiling surface as a variable:
0.12 0.4343 ln R p
nb = 55p r ( 0.4343 ln p r )0.55 M 0.5q 0.67 [9.3.10]
This is a dimensional correlation in which nb is in W/m2K, the heat flux q is in W/m2, M is the
molecular weight of the fluid and Rp is the surface roughness in m. When Rp is unknown, it is set
to 1.0 m. He recommended multiplying the above heat transfer coefficient by 1.7 for horizontal
copper cylinders; however, the correlation seems to be more accurate for boiling of refrigerants on
copper tubes without this correction and that is the approach recommended here. The Cooper
correlation covers reduced pressures from about 0.001 to 0.9 and molecular weights from 2 to
200.
5
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
Gorenflo (1993) proposed a fluid specific reduced pressure correlation and included the effect
of surface roughness. His method uses a reference heat transfer coefficient, o, specified for
each fluid at the following fixed reference conditions of pro=0.1, Rpo=0.4 m and qo=20,000
W/m2. His values of o are listed in Table 9.2 for selected fluids. The nucleate boiling heat
transfer coefficient nb at other conditions of pressure, heat flux and roughness is then
calculated relative to the reference heat transfer coefficient using the following expression:
(
nb = o FPF (q / q 0 )nf R p / R po )0.133 [9.3.11]
pr
His pressure correction factor FPF is FPF = 1.2p 0r.27 + 2.5p r + [9.3.12]
1 pr
The effect of reduced pressure on his exponent nf for the heat flux term is given by:
Its value decreases with increasing reduced pressure, which is typical of experimental data. The
surface roughness is Rp in m and is set to 0.4 m when unknown.
Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
The above method is for all fluids except water and helium; for water the corresponding
equations are:
0.68 2
FPF = 1.73p 0r.27 + 6.1 + p r [9.3.14]
1 p r
and
This method is applicable over the reduced pressure range from about 0.0005 to 0.95. For fluids
not listed, experimental values can be input at the reference conditions, or another correlation can
be used to estimate o. For fluids on the list, this method gives accurate results over a very wide
range of heat flux and pressure and is probably to most reliable of those presented.
6
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE Fluid pcrit M o
Methane 46.0 16.04 7000
Ethane 48.8 30.07 4500
Propane 42.4 44.10 4000
n-Butane 38.0 58.12 3600
n-Pentane 33.7 72.15 3400
i-Pentane 33.3 72.15 2500
n-Hexane 29.7 86.18 3300
n-Heptane 27.3 100.2 3200
Benzene 48.9 78.11 2750
Toluene 41.1 92.14 2650
Diphenyl 38.5 154.2 2100
Ethanol 63.8 46.07 4400
n-Propanol 51.7 60.10 3800
i-propanol 47.6 60.10 3000
n-Butanol 49.6 74.12 2600
i-Butanol 43.0 74.12 4500
Acetone 47.0 58.08 3950
R-11 44.0 137.4 2800
R-12 41.6 120.9 4000
Table 9.2. References values of R-13 38.6 104.5 3900
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
Example Calculation: Determine the nucleate pool boiling heat transfer coefficient for n-pentane
boiling on a polished copper surface (1.0 m roughness) at a pressure of 1.01 bar and a heat flux
of 30 kW/m2 using the Gorenflo method.
Solution: From Table 9.2, we see that o = 3400 W/m2K, pcrit = 33.7 bar and M = 72.15. Thus, pr
= psat/pcrit= 1.01/33.7 = 0.030 and thus
0.68
FPF = 1.73(0.030)0.27 + 6.1 + (0.030) = 0.677
2
1 0.030
and
nf = 0.9 0.3(0.030)0.3 = 0.795
7
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
The maximum heat flux attainable in the nucleate pool boiling regime of the pool boiling curve
illustrated in Figure 9.5 is the DNB point. This heat flux is called qDNB and is also often referred
to as the critical heat flux. The maximum in heat transfer rate occurs at the point of onset of a
hydrodynamic instability occurring close to the heater surface, which was first explained by
Zuber (1959) to be governed by the Taylor and Helmholtz instabilities. His model has since been
refined by Lienhard and Dhir (1973) for an infinite surface.
The Taylor instability governs the collapse of an infinite, horizontal planar interface of liquid
above a vapor or gas. The Taylor wavelength is that which predominates at the interface during
such a collapse. In the present case at the DNB, vapor jets formed above a large, flat horizontal
heater surface occur at spacings corresponding to the wavelength of the Taylor instability. The
Helmholtz instability, instead, describes the point at which a planar liquid interface goes unstable
when the velocity of a vapor or gas flowing parallel to their interface reaches some critical value.
Essentially, a small perturbation of the interface creates a low pressure zone on the convex side
and a high pressure zone on the concave side. The imbalance of the opposing pressure forces
acting on the vapor-liquid interface induces an instability, which is attenuated by interfacial
surface tension.
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
According to Zuber, it is the liquid interface of the rising vapor jets that go unstable. The resulting
expression for qDNB from such an analysis is:
2 1 g( L G )
q DNB = G h LG [9.3.16]
G 2 3 16
This equation is valid for flat infinite heaters facing upwards, by Lienhard and Dhir (1973), who
observed good agreement as long as the diameters or widths of the heaters were sufficiently large.
Kutateladze (1948) arrived at nearly the same expression using dimensional analysis:
8
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
Example Calculation: Determine the value of the heat flux at the DNB for water at 1.01 bar on a
horizontal tube where the required fluid physical properties are: L = 958.25 kg/m3; G = 0.6
kg/m3; hLG = 2256120 J/kg; = 0.05878 N/m.
Solution: The value of qDNB is first calculated and then that for the tube applying a correction of
0.9 as follows:
Therefore, the heat flux at DNB for the tube is 998100 W/m2 (or 998.1 kW/m2).
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
Nucleate pool boiling of zeotropic mixtures is similar to boiling of pure fluids and azeotropic
mixtures, except for two additional complications: mass transfer effects and estimating the
mixture physical properties or the mixture critical pressure. Mass transfer occurs in
evaporation of zeotropic mixtures since they have different compositions in their liquid and
vapor phases, but not azeotropic mixtures since they have the same composition in each phase.
Mass transfer tends to reduce nucleate boiling heat transfer coefficients and, in some cases,
may reduce the value of the heat transfer coefficient by up to 90%. Detailed reviews of mixture
boiling are given by Thome and Shock (1984) and by Collier and Thome (1994).
The mass transfer effect on bubble growth can be explained in simple terms as follows.
Since the equilibrium composition of the more volatile component is larger in the vapor phase
than in the liquid phase, the more volatile component preferentially evaporates at the bubble
interface, which in turn reduces its composition there and induces the formation of a diffusion
layer in the liquid surrounding the bubble. The partial depletion of the more volatile component
at the interface increases that of the less volatile component, which increases the bubble point
temperature at the interface. This incremental rise in the local bubble point temperature can be
denoted as . Hence, to evaporate at the same rate as in a pure fluid, a larger superheat is
required for a mixture.
9
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
The effect of mass transfer on nucleate pool boiling heat transfer can therefore be explained by
introducing the parameter , which represents the increase in the bubble point temperature at
the surface due to preferential evaporation of the more volatile component. At a given heat
flux, the boiling superheat of the mixture is TI+ while that for an ideal fluid with the same
physical properties as the mixture is TI. Thus, the ratio of the mixture boiling heat transfer
coefficient nb to that of the ideal heat transfer coefficient nb,I at the same heat flux is:
nb TI
= [9.4.1]
nb , I TI +
The value of TI is the wall superheat that corresponds to nb,I, which is determined for
instance using the Cooper correlation with the molecular weight and critical pressure of the
mixture. Hence, as the value of increases, the ratio nb/nb,I decreases, which means that a
larger wall superheat is required in a mixture to transfer the same heat flux. As exploited in an
early mixture boiling prediction by Thome (1983), the maximum value of is the boiling
range of the mixture bp, which is equal to the difference between the dew point and the
bubble point temperatures at the composition of the liquid [bp is also referred to as the
temperature glide for refrigerant mixtures]. In fact, the actual value of varies from zero at
the inception of boiling, since no mass transfer occurs until evaporation takes place, up to bp
at the DNB, where all the liquid is assumed to be converted to vapor.
Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
Starting from a mass transfer balance around an evaporating bubble and simplifying with an
approximate slope of the bubble point curve, the following expression was obtained to predict heat
transfer in the boiling of mixtures
1
nb nb ,I q
= 1 + bp 1 exp [9.4.2]
nb ,I q L h LG mL
where mL is the mass transfer coefficient in the liquid (set to a fixed value of 0.0003 m/s). The
value of nb,I is determined with one of the pure fluid correlations presented earlier (with the
exception of the Gorenflo method that is not adapted to this). This method was proposed in 1985
and later published by Thome (1989). It is applicable to organic, refrigerant, aqueous,
hydrocarbon, and cryogenic multi-component mixtures (i.e. with two or more components) for
boiling ranges up to 30 K.
10
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
Example Calculation: Assuming an ideal heat transfer coefficient of 3000 W/m2K, determine
the mixture boiling coefficient at 50 kW/m2 for a mixture with a boiling range of 15 K, a liquid
density of 700 kg/m3 and a latent heat of 300000 J/kg.
1
nb 3000 50000
= 1 + (15)1 exp = 0.670
3000 50000 700 (300000 )( 0 . 0003)
nb = 0.67(3000 ) = 2009 W m 2 K
Thus, nb for the mixture is 2009 W/m2K, which is 33% lower than that of the equivalent pure
fluid.
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
Figure 9.1
Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse
11
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
Figure 9.2 depicts a photograph of a Turbo-Chil low finned tube made by Wolverine Tube Inc.
Figure 9.2
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
By mechanically deforming low finned tubes, it is possible for create a high density of re-
entrant channels and pores on a tubes surface, which increases heat transfer performance
significantly. Figure 9.3 shows several diagrams of the Turbo-B tube made by Wolverine
Tube Inc. that is widely used in refrigerant flooded evaporators, showing its external
enhanced boiling geometry and its internal helical fins for augmenting heat transfer to
chilled water.
Figure 9.3
12
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
Figure 9.8
Compared to a plain tube, enhanced nucleate boiling surfaces have significant performance
advantages. For instance, the enhancement ratio at the same wall superheat relative to that of a
comparable plain tube range from about 2-4 for low finned tubes but increase up to 15 times for
mechanically deformed low finned tubes such as for the Turbo-B tubes of Wolverine Tube Inc. or
Gewa-B tube of Wieland. Evaporation and convection occur both on the outside surface of an
enhanced boiling surface and inside its re-entrant passageways. There are four possible paths by
which heat can leave an enhanced surface:
1. As latent heat in vapor formed within the enhancement passageways (primary importance);
2. As latent heat in bubbles growing on the exterior of tube or while they are emerging from re-
entrant channels (secondary importance);
3. As sensible heat to liquid pumped through the re-entrant passageways (primary importance);
4. As sensible heat to liquid on exterior of tube (secondary importance).
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
The principal factors contributing to the high thermal performance of enhanced surfaces
have been identified by Thome (1990) as follows:
Nucleation superheat. Enhanced surfaces have re-entrant nucleation cavities (except for low
finned tubes) that are able to nucleate at very low wall superheats with respect to plain surfaces,
see Figure 9.9.
Wetted surface area. Low finned tubes have from 2 to 4 times the surface area of a plain tube
while complex enhancements have area ratios from 4 to 10 times those of plain tubes.
Thin film evaporation. Thin evaporating liquid films form on the extensive inner surfaces of the
re-entrant passageways.
Capillary evaporation. In corners, liquid menisci evaporate as heat is conducted into the liquid.
Internal convection. Liquid is pumped in and then back out of the re-entrant channels by the
action of the departing bubbles.
External convection. The high density and departure frequency of the bubbles emerging from
the re-entrant channels accentuates the external convection mechanisms, i.e. bubble agitation and
thermal boundary layer stripping.
13
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
14
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
100
Figure 9.14
26 fpi low fin tube
K)
10
R-11
R-12
R-134a
R-22
R-123
1
1 10 100
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
60
Turbo B
50
Finned tube
Smooth
40
Heat Flux (kW/m 2)
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Wall Superheat (K)
15
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
dbfig.9.16
100000
Turbo B
Plain
Heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K)
10000
1000
R-123
100
1000 10000 100000
Heat flux (W/m 2)
Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
dbfig 9.17
200
R-123 at 4 C
180
Turbo Bii LP tube
140
Heat Flux (kW/m 2)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Wall Superheat (K)
16
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
dbFig 9.18
40000
Tsat = 40F (4.4 C)
35000
30000
Heat transfer coefficient (W/m 2K)
25000
20000
15000
10000 R22
R134a
R32/R125(60/40)
5000
R32/R125/R134a(30/10/60)
R32/R134a(25/75)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Heat Flux (kW/m 2)
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
REFRIGERANT
OUTLET PRESSURE TAP OUTLET
LIQUID
FILM CONVECTION
THROUGH
LIQUID LIQUID FILM
REFRIGERANT (SPRAY FLOW)
DROPLETS
VAPOR
REFRIGERANT SLIDING
THERMOCOUPLES
BUBBLE
EVAPORATION
HEAT SOURCE (CHUGGING FLOW)
WATER
DUMMY
TUBES
SATURATED
NUCLEATE
BOILING
FLOW DISTRI-
(BUBBLY FLOW/
BUTING PLATE
BUBBLE JET FLOW)
LIQUID
REFRIGERANT
INLET
PRESSURE REFRIGERANT
TAP INLET
Figure 9.20
Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse
17
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
Figure 9.21
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
dbFig 9.24
6000
4000
34 kW / m2
25 kW / m2
3000
9 kW / m2
3 kW / m2
2000
1000
0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Vapor quality
Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse
18
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
dbFig 9.22
12000
10000
45 kW / m2
9000
Heat Transfer Coefficient (W/m 2K)
35 kW / m2
25 kW / m2
8000
15 kW / m2
7000
45 kW / m2
6000
35 kW / m2 Nucleate boiling
coefficient
5000
2
25 kW / m
4000
15 kW / m2
3000
2000
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
Vapor quality
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
dbFig 9.25
11000
R - 123 at 4.4 C
Turbo - B tube
19-25 kg/m2s
44 kW / m2
10000
Heat Transfer Coefficient (W/m 2K)
36 kW / m2
Nucleate boiling
coefficient
9000
23 kW / m2
8000
44 kW / m2
36 kW / m2 14 kW / m2
7000
23 kW / m2
14 kW / m2
6000
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5
Vapor quality
19
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
1. Determine the nucleate pool boiling heat transfer coefficient for R-134a
at 4C using the methods of Mostinski, Cooper, Stephan-Abdelsalam and
Gorenflo at a heat flux of 10 kW m-2 and surface roughness of 0.5 micron.
20