Nuclear Engineering and Design 253 (2012) 86–97

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Nuclear Engineering and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/nucengdes

Short communication

Evaluation of frictional pressure drop correlations for two-phase flow in pipes

Yu Xu, Xiande Fang ∗ , Xianghui Su, Zhanru Zhou, Weiwei Chen
Institute of Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 29 Yudao St., Nanjing 210016, China

h i g h l i g h t s

 We investigate extensive correlations and experimental data sets for evaluation.

 We verify the correlations under various classifications of conditions.
 Two correlations which can give the best predictions are found.
 Factors that affect the predictions are analyzed systematically.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The calculation of frictional pressure drop for two-phase flow in pipes is required by a variety of design
Received 23 February 2012 practices. In the past six decades, many correlations for two-phase frictional pressure drop were proposed,
Received in revised form 27 July 2012 and some evaluations were provided. However, both the correlations and the experimental data included
Accepted 9 August 2012
in the existing evaluation literature are limited, which makes the evaluation results inconsistent and
inaccurate. This work conducts a comprehensive survey of correlations and experimental investigations
of two-phase frictional pressure drop. There are 29 correlations reviewed, and 3480 experimental data
points are obtained from the open literature, with the experimental range of hydraulic diameters from
0.0695 to 14 mm, and mass flux from 8 to 6000 kg/m2 s. The reviewed correlations are evaluated against
the experimental data, and two correlations which can present the most agreeable predictions are found.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The calculation of frictional pressure drop for two-phase flow
in pipes is important in various industrial applications such as heat
exchangers, pipeline network systems, refrigeration and air con-
dition systems, environmental control and life-support systems,
and oil and gas exploitation. Two-phase flow has been applied to
more and more fields in recent years because of its higher energy
efficiency in comparison with single-phase flow. Therefore, under-
standing the hydrodynamic characteristics of two-phase flow is of
considerable necessity.
Two-phase frictional pressure drop has been a research sub-
ject for six decades. Extensive theoretical and experimental study
has been implemented, and a number of correlations have been
proposed. The methods developed so far can be divided into two
groups: homogeneous and separated flow approaches. The former
treats two-phase flow as a pseudo-fluid characterized by suitably
averaged properties of the liquid and vapor phase (McAdams et al.,
1942; Cicchitti et al., 1960; Beattie and Whalley, 1982; Lin et al.,
1991; Shannak, 2008). The latter deems the two-phase flow to be
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 25 8489 6381; fax: +86 25 8489 6381.
E-mail address: xd fang@yahoo.com (X. Fang).
artificially separated into two streams, each flowing in its own pipe,
with the assumption that the velocity of each phase is constant
in the zone occupied by the phase (Lockhart and Martinelli, 1949;
Friedel, 1979; Souza and Pimenta, 1995; Mishima and Hibiki, 1996;
Chen et al., 2001; Cavallini et al., 2002). A majority of correlations
were propounded on the basis of the two-phase friction multi-
pliers proposed by Lockhart and Martinelli (1949) and the fitting
correlation of the multipliers from Chisholm (1967).
Some researchers have assessed a few correlations by using
limited experimental data. Ould Didi et al. (2002) evaluated
7 models using the experimental data of the evaporation of
R134a, R123, R402A, R404A and R502 in two horizontal test
sections of 10.92 and 12.0 mm ID, with mass flux from 100 to
500 kg/m2 s and vapor quality from 0.04 to 1.0. Overall, the method
of Muller-Steinhagen and Heck (1986) and that of Gronnerud
(1979) were found to provide the most accurate predictions while
the widely quoted method of Friedel (1979) gave the third-best
prediction.
Choi et al. (2008) verified 15 equations based on the experimen-
tal data of convective boiling of R410A in two pipes of 1.5 and 3 mm
ID, with inlet saturation temperature of 10 ◦ C, mass flux from 300
to 600 kg/m2 s, and heat flux from 10 to 40 kW/m2 . They found that
homogeneous approach could well predict the frictional pressure
drop.

0029-5493/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2012.08.007
 Y. Xu et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 253 (2012) 86–97 87

two-phase frictional pressure drop under microgravity. There

Nomenclature were 23 two-phase frictional pressure drop correlations reviewed
and compared with the experimental data from microgravity
Bo Bond number conditions.
C Chisholm parameter The above evaluations using normal gravity experimental data
D hydraulic diameter (m) presented inconsistent results. Choi et al. (2008), Dalkilic et al.
f Darcy–Weisbach friction factor (2010) and Zhang et al. (2010) recommended the homogeneous
Fr Froude number model, Chen et al. correlation, and Zhang et al. equation, respec-
g gravity (m/s2 ) tively, while Ould Didi et al. (2002), Sun and Mishima (2009), and Li
G mass flux (kg/m2 s) and Wu (2010) indicated that Muller-Steinhagen and Heck (1986)
La Laplace constant correlation could give the best prediction. The experimental data
L channel length (m) used for their evaluations are not abundant, which might be the
p pressure (Pa) main reason that caused the inconsistence. Furthermore, the num-
q heat flux (W/m2 ) ber of the correlations reviewed in each paper is relatively few, no
Re Reynolds number more than 15. Fang et al. (2011a,b) assessed 23 models, but the
We Weber number experimental data used were from microgravity. Hence, a compre-
x vapor quality hensive evaluation is necessary. This paper will conduct an overall
X Lockhart–Martinelli parameter review of the published literature pertaining to two-phase fric-
p/L pressure gradient (Pa/m) tional pressure drop correlations and perform an up-to-date survey
of the experimental study. Based on various experimental data sets,
Greek symbols
a rounded evaluation is carried out.
 dynamic viscosity (Pa s)
 density (kg/m3 )
 surface extension (N/m)
2. Review of two-phase frictional pressure drop
2 two-phase friction multiplier
correlations
Subscripts
2.1. Separated flow approach
g gas
go gas only
The separated flow approach can be classified into two cate-
l liquid
gories: the l2 , g2 based method and the lo
2 , 2 based method. 2 ,
go l
lo liquid only
2 and 2 are two-phase friction multipliers.
g2 , lo
tp two-phase go

2.1.1. The l2 , g2 based method

Sun and Mishima (2009) compared 11 correlations against the
Lockhart and Martinelli (1949) proposed the concept of two-
experimental data of R123, R134a, R22, R236ea, R245fa, R404A,
phase friction multipliers l2 , g2 . l2 is defined as the ratio of the
R407C, R410A, R507, CO2 , water and air, in which the hydraulic
two-phase frictional pressure gradient to the frictional pressure
diameters range from 0.506 to 12 mm, the Rel from 10 to 37,000,
gradient which would exist if the liquid phase is assumed to flow
and Reg from 3 × 105 to 4 × 105 . The results indicated that Lockhart
alone. g2 is defined as the ratio of the two-phase frictional pressure
and Martinelli (1949), Mishima and Hibiki (1996), Zhang et al.
gradient to the frictional pressure gradient which would exist if the
(2010), and Lee and Mudawar (2005) correlations had similar per-
gas phase is assumed to flow alone.
formances in the viscous region, while the Muller-Steinhagen and
Heck (1986) correlation showed the best predictive accuracy in the
(p/L)tp
turbulent region. l2 = (1)
Dalkilic et al. (2010) assessed 11 models using the experimen- (p/L)l
tal data of the condensation of R600a in a horizontal tube with
4 mm ID and R134a in a vertical tube with 8.1 mm ID, with different (p/L)tp
g2 = (2)
vapor quality (0.45–0.9 for R600a and 0.7–0.95 for R134a), vari- (p/L)g
ous mass flux (75–115 kg/m2 s for R600a and 300–400 kg/m2 s for
R134a) and different condensing temperatures (30–43 ◦ C for R600a  p  [Gtp (1 − x)]2
and 40–50 ◦ C for R134a). The correlation of Chen et al. (2001) was = fl (3)
able to predict condensation frictional pressure drop fairly well for L l 2Dl
both R134a and R600a.
Zhang et al. (2010) evaluated 10 correlations based on sepa-
 p  (Gtp x)2
= fg (4)
rated flow approach against a variety of experimental data sets. The L g 2Dg
results revealed that Zhang et al. (2010) and Mishima and Hibiki
(1996) correlations had the best accuracies. where f is calculated with a single-phase friction factor correlation
Li and Wu (2010) compared 6 correlations based on separated using the single-phase properties and mass flux.
flow approach with 9 experimental data sets. It was found that All two-phase frictional pressure drop correlations evalu-
Muller-Steinhagen and Heck (1986) correlation displayed the best ated in this paper were derived from the experimental data of
prediction and Friedel (1979) correlation gave the second best smooth pipes. For fully developed turbulent flow in smooth pipes,
prediction. Meanwhile, they verified 5 correlations based on homo- Nikuradse (1933) proposed the following equation:
geneous approach, and found that Cicchitti et al. (1960) correlation
was the best. 1 
Fang et al. (2011a,b) evaluated the feasibility of using two-phase  = 2 log(Re f ) − 0.8 (5)
frictional pressure drop correlations for normal gravity to calculate f
88 Y. Xu et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 253 (2012) 86–97

Colebrook (1938–1939) developed the following equation that Eleven l2 and g2 based correlations are found out, as summa-
combines experimental results of studies of turbulent flow in rized in Table 1.
smooth and rough pipes:
  2 , 2 based method
2.1.2. The lo lo
1 Rr 2.51 2 is defined as the ratio of the two-phase frictional pressure
lo
 = −2 log +  (6)
f 3.7 Re f gradient to the frictional pressure gradient which would exist if the
total mixture is assumed to be liquid, as shown by Eq. (12). go2 is
where Rr is the relative roughness. defined as the ratio of the two-phase frictional pressure gradient
When Rr = 0, the Colebrook equation is identical to the Niku- to the frictional pressure gradient which would exist if the total
radse equation. The Nikuradse equation is the base for the turbulent mixture is assumed to be gas, as given by Eq. (13).
smooth portion of the Moody diagram (Moody, 1944), while the
Colebrook equation is the base for the turbulent rough portion of 2
(p/L)tp
lo = (12)
the Moody diagram. However, the two equations are implicit for f, (p/L)lo
thus need iteration that is not convenient. Therefore, many explicit
2
(p/L)tp
equations are proposed to approximate the Nikuradse equation and go = (13)
the Colebrook equation. Recently, Fang et al. (2011a,b) and Brkic (p/L)go
(2011) conducted detailed reviews in this aspect.  p  2
Gtp
For flow in smooth pipes, the previously widely used explicit = flo (14)
approximations of single-phase frictional factor equations are the L lo 2Dl
Filonenko Eq. (7) and the Blasius Eq. (8) (Fang et al., 2011a,b;  p  2
Gtp
Incropera and DeWitt, 2001). Recently, Fang et al. (2011a,b) pro- = fgo (15)
L go 2Dg
posed a much more accurate explicit form Eq. (9).
where flo can be calculated with Eq. (9) using Gtp and the liquid
f = (0.79 ln Re − 1.64)−2 (7)
phase properties, and fgo can be calculated with Eq. (9) using Gtp

0.316/Re1/4 for Re ≤ 2 × 104 and the gas phase properties.
f = (8) 2 and 2 based correlations are searched, which are sum-
Ten lo go
0.184/Re1/5 for Re > 2 × 104 marized in Table 2.
  150.39 152.66
 −2
f = 0.25 log − (9) 2.2. Homogeneous model
Re0.98865 Re
Eq. (9) has the mean absolute relative deviation of 0.02% and A homogeneous model determines two-phase frictional pres-
the maximum relative deviation of −0.05% in the range of sure drop using the following equation:
Re = 3000–108 compared with the Nikuradse equation. Evaluations  p  2
Gtp
by Brkic (2011) and Xu and Fang (2012) show that Eq. (9) is the = ftp (16)
most accurate explicit single-phase friction factor equation for tur- L tp 2Dtp
bulent flow in smooth pipes. Eq. (9) also has a simple form, and thus where tp is commonly calculated with Eq. (17), and ftp can be cal-
it is used to determine the single-phase friction factor appearing in culated with Eq. (9) using Gtp and the two-phase properties. The
two-phase friction pressure drop correlations in this work. main differences among homogeneous correlations are the ways
Lockhart and Martinelli (1949) found that l2 and g2 are func- to determine the two-phase viscosity, as can be seen from Table 3.
tions of the dimensionless variable X. Based on experimental data of
air and liquids including benzene, kerosene, water and various oils 1 x 1−x
= + (17)
in pipes varying in diameters from 1.5 to 25.8 mm, they provided tp g l
coordinates of 2 of four flow types (turbulent liquid–turbulent gas There are eight homogeneous models found out, as summarized in
(tt), turbulent liquid–viscous gas (tv), viscous liquid–turbulent gas Table 3.
(vt), viscous liquid–viscous gas (vv), where the regimes of Re > 2000,
Re < 1000, and 1000 < Re < 2000 were considered to be turbulent, 3. The available experimental data for two-phase flow in
viscous, and transitional, respectively) vs. parameter X. Broadly pipes
speaking, the Lockhart–Martinelli methodology is the foundation
of the l2 and g2 based method. Twenty-six available experimental data sources from a litera-

ture search are listed in Table 4, which contains 3480 data points
(p/L)l
X= (10) and covers 14 fluids flowing in a wide range of test geometries and
(p/L)g operation conditions.
Graphs are inconvenient for users to calculate. Therefore, many Based on heat transfer types including adiabatic and diabatic and
investigations have been conducted to generate correlations of components of fluids such as refrigerants and water–air, all exper-
two-phase friction multipliers and X. A milestone of the l2 and imental data are classified into 4 categories: adiabatic liquid–gas
g2 based method is the Chisholm (1967) method, in which the l2 flow, adiabatic liquid–vapor flow, evaporation, and condensation.
is expressed as the function of X and C. Similar assortment has been conducted by Zhang et al. (2010). Adi-
abatic liquid–gas flow and evaporation occupy the majority, about
C 1 40.8% and 37.1%, respectively.
l2 = 1 + + 2 (11)
X X The collected data cover 41 different channel diameters, range
Chisholm (1967) proposed four constants for different flow pat- from 0.0695 to 14 mm, and can be divided into macro-scale and
terns, as shown in Table 1. The Chisholm model is a big step forward micro-scale channels data based on the classification of Kandlikar
from the Lockhart and Martinelli method. However, for each flow (2002) using 3 mm as the threshold. There are 1357 data points of
pattern the Chisholm parameter C is affected by the flow conditions macro-channels and 2123 of micro-channels. In addition, the test
and thus not a constant. Numerous researches have been carried channels include circular, rectangular, square, annular, and flat-
out to find correlations of C for particular applications. tened cross sections, with circular ones containing 2560 points and
 Y. Xu et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 253 (2012) 86–97 89

Table 1
Correlations: l2 and g2 based method.

Author Correlation Comments

Lockhart and Martinelli (1949) 2 -X Chart containing curves for four flow types Based on experimental data of air and liquids including
benzene, kerosene, water and various oils in 1.5–25.8 mm
pipes
Chisholm (1967) l2 = 1 + XC + 12 Developed in terms of the Lockhart–Martinelli graphs
X
C = 5 for vv, C = 10 for tv, C = 12 for vt, and C = 20 for tt
Mishima and Hibiki (1996) C = 21[1 − exp(−0.319D)] For viscous liquid, viscous gas flow
Wang et al. (1997) For G = 50–100 kg/m2 s: Based on experimental data of R22, R134a and R407C inside a
6.5 mm smooth tube
−2.15
C = 4.566 × 10−6 X 0.128 Re0.938
5.1
lo
(l /g ) (l /g )
For G ≥ 200 kg/m2 s:
ϕg = 1 + 9.397X
2 0.62
+ 0.564X 2.45
Lee and Lee (2001) C = Aq R ReSlo Based on 305 experimental data points of horizontal
rectangular channels with small heights
where  = l /(l D), = l j/

  g 0.5  1−x  Reg0.1 −1.9

Yu et al. (2002) l2 = 18.65 l x
Based on experimental data of water in a horizontal tube of
Re0.5
l 2.98 mm inside diameter
2.16Re0.047
lo
We0.6 for vv
Lee and Mudawar (2005) C= lo Based on experimental data of R134a in a micro-channel of
1.45Re0.25 We0.23 for vt
lo lo 231 ␮m wide × 713 ␮m deep groove at high heat flux of
q = 31.6–93.8 W/cm2.
where Relo = Gtp D/l , Welo = Gtp2
D/(l )
Hwang and Kim (2006) C = 0.227 Re0.452
lo
X −0.32 La−0.82 Based on experimental data of R134a in 0.244, 0.430 and
√ 0.792 mm pipes
l /[g( −g )]
where La = D
Sun and Mishima (2009) For viscous flow: Based on 2092 experimental data points of R123, R134a, R22,
R236ea, R245fa, R404A, R407C, R410A, R507, CO2 , water and
 Rel
  −0.153
 air in 0.506–12 mm tubes
C = 26 1 + 1000
1 − exp 0.8+0.27 La
For turbulent flow:
C 1
 Reg 0.4  1−x
ϕl2 = 1 + + , C = 1.79 Rel x
X 1.19 X2

⎧Reg = Gtp xD/g , Rel = Gtp(1 − x)D/l

where
⎨ 21 1 − exp(−0.674/La) adiabatic gas–liquid
Zhang et al. (2010) C= 21 1 − exp(−0.142/La) adiabatic vapor–liquid For viscous liquid, viscous gas flow
⎩ 21 1 − exp(−0.358/La) flow boiling
Pamitran et al. (2010) C = 3 × 10−3 We−0.433
tp Re1.23
tp Based on experimental data of R-22, R-134a, R-410A, R-290
and R-744 in horizontal tubes of 0.5, 1.5 and 3.0 mm inside
diameter
where Wetp = Gtp
2
D/(tp ), Retp = Gtp D/tp

920 points of noncircular ones. The flow orientation is also taken 4. Comparison of the model predictions with the
into account as an important factor. Since few experiments on ver- experimental data
tical flow have been performed, only 235 data points are gathered
from Liu et al. (2005) and Huo et al. (2007), and the other 24 data The identified 29 two-phase frictional pressure drop corre-
sets are all pertaining to horizontal flow. lations are compared with the 3480 experimental data. The
The frictional pressure drop data of 14 working fluids are correlation predictions are listed in Table 5, where the MARD is the
collected, where almost 30.6% focus on R134a, 13.7% concern mean absolute relative deviation and the MRD is the mean relative
water–air, and the proportions of the frequently used refrigerants deviation.
regulated from the most to least are R134a, CO2 , R410A, R22, and  
1   y(i)pred − y(i)exp 
N
ammonia. Besides, the whole database are also compiled in terms of
MARD = (18)
vapor quality, and since few frictional pressure drops on high vapor N  y(i)exp 
quality have been achieved in various experiments, only 456 points i=1

ranging from 0.8 to 1.0 are gathered. Furthermore, on the strength

1  y(i)pred − y(i)exp
N
of flow regimes expounded by Lockhart and Martinelli (1949), a MRD = (19)
plot of Reg versus Rel is presented as Fig. 1, which illustrates that N y(i)exp
i=1
most of the data are located in tt and vt conditions, and the fol-
lowing statistics evince that the proportions of tt, vt, vv and tv are where the subscripts pred and exp denote predicted value and
47.6%, 21.4%, 8.7%, and 4.4%, respectively. experimental value, respectively.
It should be noted that the data of evaporation or condensation Since the correlations of Mishima and Hibiki (1996) and Zhang
experiments which only take the total pressure drop as an object et al. (2010) are limited to their respective applicable ranges, within
are not included. which only few experiment data are available, thus they are not
90 Y. Xu et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 253 (2012) 86–97

Table 2
Correlations: lo
2
and go
2
based method.

Author Correlation Comments

0.875
ϕlo
2
= 1 + (Y 2 − 1){B[x(1 − x)] + x1.75 }
Chisholm (1973) (p/L)go Transformed from the graphical procedure of Baroczy (1966)
Y =
2
(p/L)lo and equations for predicting pressure drop during the
turbulent flow of two-phase mixtures in smooth tubes to
 55/G0.5
Gtp ≥ 1900 kg/m2 s
enable their more convenient applications to evaporating flow
tp
If 0 < Y< 9.5, B = 2400 500 < Gtp < 1900 kg/m2 s
4.8 Gtp ≤ 500 kg/m2 s
520/(YGtp 0.5
) Gtp ≤ 600 kg/m2 s
If 9.5 < Y < 28, B =
21/Y Gtp > 600 kg/m2 s
If Y > 28, B = 15, 000/(Y 2 Gtp
0.5
)
f 3.24x0.78 (1−x)0.224 H
= (1 − x) + x2 l fgo +
2
Friedel (1979) lo
2
Based on 25,000 experimental data points. It considers the
g lo Fr0.045 We0.035
tp tp
effects of the gravity and surface tension
 l 0.91  g 0.19  
g 0.7
H= g l
1− l
G2
tp 1 x 1−x
Frtp = , = +
 p   l   g 0.25
gD2 tp g l
tp

Gronnerud (1979) lo

2
=1+ g l
−1
 p 
L
 Fr

=f x + 4(x1.8 − x10 fFr0.5 )
 Fr
L Fr

1 Frlo ≥ 1
   2
fFr = 1
Fr0.3
lo
+ 0.0055 ln Frlo < 1
Frlo
G2
tp
where Frlo =
gD2
l
1/3
Muller-Steinhagen and Heck (1986) lo
2
= Y 2 x3 + (1 − x) [1 + 2x(Y 2 − 1)] It is essentially an empirical two-phase extrapolation between
all liquid flow and all vapor flow
Souza and Pimenta (1995) lo
2
= 1 + ( 2 − 1)x1.75 (1 + 0.9524 Xtt0.4126 ) Based on experimental data of R12, R22, R134a, MP39, and
R32/125
 l 0.5  g 0.125 1

1−x
0.875
= g l
, Xtt = x
0.875
Tran et al. (2000) lo
2
= 1 + (4.3Y − 1){[x(1 − x)]
2
La + x1.75 } Applicable for R134a, R113 and R12 in smooth tubes, with p
from 138 to 864 kPa, G from 33 to 832 kg/m2 s, q from 2.2 to
90.8 kW/m2 , and x from 0 to 0.95
2
 p −1 0.25
 p −1.64
Zhang and Webb (2001) lo
2
= (1 − x) + 2.87x2 pc
+ 1.68x0.8 (1 − x) pc
Based on experimental data of R134a, R22 and R404A flowing
in a multi-port extruded aluminum tube with diameter of
2.13 mm, and in two cooper tubes having diameter or 6.25 and
3.25 mm
  pc is the
where
p
 critical
 pressure p
Chen et al. (2001) =˝ Modified the Friedel correlation for D ≤ 10 mm. (p/L)tp,Friedel
L
⎧
tp L tp,Friedel
is the two-phase friction pressure gradient predicted using the
0.0333Re0.45
⎨ lo
Bo < 2.5 Friedel correlation, and the ˝ correlation is obtained from the
˝= Re0.09
g [1 + 0.4 exp(−Bo)] measured data of air–water and R410A
⎩ We0.2
tp
Bo ≥ 2.5
2.5 + 0.06Bo
2
where Bo = g(l − g )(D/2) /
f 1.262x0.6978 H
= (1 − x) + x2 l fgo +
2
Cavallini et al. (2002) lo
2
0.1458 Based on experimental data of condensation of halogenated
g lo Wego
refrigerants inside smooth tubes
 l 0.3278  g −1.181  
g 3.477
H= g l
1− l
G2 D
tp
Wego = g 
X −1.47
1.8
Wilson et al. (2003) lo
2
= 12.82(1 − x) Based on experimental data of R134a and R410A in horizontal
 1−x 0.9  g 0.5tt l 0.1 flattened tube, with G from 75 to 400 kg/m2 s and x from 0.1 to
Xtt = x l g 0.8

included in Table 5. The correlations of Lee and Lee (2001), Hwang that although the correlation of Souza and Pimenta (1995) predict
and Kim (2006), Pamitran et al. (2010), Tran et al. (2000), and effectively, it is not contained in the top rank, as it is only useable in
Wilson et al. (2003) are also invisible in Table 5, because their tt condition. Xu and Fang (2012) compared the four definitions pro-
MARDs are greater than 100% for most of the 26 data sources. posed by Awad and Muzychka (2008) and found that definition 3
From Table 5, it is found that with regard to all collected data, could perform best for evaporating flow. However, it is found that
the correlations with the prediction MARD less than 40% and definition 4 has the smallest MARD for all kinds of experimental
MRD within ±30% are Muller-Steinhagen and Heck (1986), Sun data including adiabatic and diabatic data in this work, thus, not
and Mishima (2009), Beattie and Whalley (1982), McAdams et al. definition 3 but definition 4 of Awad and Muzychka (2008) is listed
(1942), and Awad and Muzychka (2008) correlations, among which in Table 5.
Muller-Steinhagen and Heck (1986) and Sun and Mishima (2009) All homogeneous correlations present stable predictions with
correlations perform best with MARD less than 30% and MRD within MARDs around 40% except the Cicchitti et al. (1960) correlation
±20%. For further illustration, comparisons of the predicted fric- whose MARD exceeds 55%. Actually, the Cicchitti et al. (1960)
tional pressure drop by these top four correlations to the entire data correlation can give suitable prediction for data of refrigerants,
sources are shown from Figs. 2–5 in sequence. It should be noted MARD = 35.6%, but it fails to predict the frictional pressure drop
 Y. Xu et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 253 (2012) 86–97 91

Table 3
Correlations: homogeneous approach.

Author Correlation Comments

1 x 1−x
McAdams et al. (1942) tp
= g
+ l
Proposed by an analogy to the expression for the two-phase flow
density
Cicchitti et al. (1960) tp = xg+ (1 − x)l 
xg (1−x)l
Dukler et al. (1964) tp = tp g
+ l
Based on the averaged value of kinematic viscosity
Beattie and Whalley (1982) tp = l (1 − ˇ)(1 + 2.5ˇ) + g ˇ The structure of this equation is consistent with the form that might
be expected for some gravity dominated flows
ˇ = x/[x + (1 − x)g /l ]
l g
Lin et al. (1991) tp = Based on experimental data of vaporization of R12 in capillary tubes
 p  g +x (l −gp
1.4 ) 

Chen et al. (2001) = ˝hom L For D ≤ 10 mm. (p/L)tp,hom is the two-phase friction pressure
L tp
 tp,hom
gradient predicted using a homogeneous model, and the ˝ correlation
1.2 − 0.9 exp(−Bo) Bo < 2.5 is obtained from the measured data of air–water and R410A
˝hom = We0.2
1+ − 0.9 exp(−Bo) Bo ≥ 2.5
exp(Bo0.3 )
 2
where Bo = g(l − g ) D/2
2l +g −2(l −g )x
Awad and Muzychka (2008) tp = l 2l +g +(l −g )x
(definition 3)
2g +l −2(g −l )(1−x)
tp = g 2g +l +(g −l )(1−x)
(definition 4)
Gtp D[x2 +(1−x)2 (g /l )]
Shannak (2008) Retp = g x+l (1−x)(g l )
of liquid–gas flow reasonably. Some previous studies, such as Li
and Wu (2010) and Ribatski et al. (2006), have recommended the
Cicchitti et al. (1960) correlation, but subject to their experimen-
tal data they have not pointed out its invalidity for liquid–gas
flow. Although homogeneous equations are feasible under a vari-
ety of conditions, their predictive accuracies are inferior to that of
Muller-Steinhagen and Heck (1986) and Sun and Mishima (2009)
correlations and difficult to be mended. Consequently, correlations
proposed based on separated flow method are much more than
those of homogeneous model.
Some correlations can provide acceptable predictions under
restricted circumstances, for instant, Friedel (1979), Gronnerud
(1979), and Cavallini et al. (2002) correlations are effective for evap-
oration data, with MARDs of 29.9%, 36.3% and 35.3%, respectively.
Moreover, the correlation of Souza and Pimenta (1995) is also use-
able for tt condition.
Among the top four correlations, Muller-Steinhagen and Heck
(1986), Sun and Mishima (2009) and McAdams et al. (1942)
Fig. 1. Distribution of the experimental data by flow regimes.
/
Proposed using an analogy between thermal conductivity of porous
media and viscosity of two-phase flow
Given as the ratio of the sum of inertial force of each phase and that of
the sum of viscous force of each phase
correlations have the biggest deviations for adiabatic liquid–gas
flow, while the predictive ability of Beattie and Whalley (1982)
correlation is relatively weak for evaporation. Meanwhile, all of
these four correlations under-predict the entire experimental data.
As can be seen in Fig. 6, the larger the diameter, the lower the
frictional pressure drop is. Meanwhile, the frictional pressure drop
increases with mass flux. Table 6 summarizes the performances
of nine preferred correlations against different hydraulic diameter
scales, shapes of cross sections, and flow orientations. It can be seen
that all the correlations perform worse in vertical flow than those in
horizontal flow except the Gronnerud (1979) correlation. In addi-
tion, all the top four correlations basically remain level for different
channel sizes and shapes, while the rest five correlations display
much better predictions for macro- or circular channels. Chen et al.
(2001) considered the influence of channel sizes, and proposed two
modifications based on Friedel (1979) correlation and homoge-
neous model for pipes with diameter less than 10 mm. Based on
Fig. 2. Comparison of the Muller-Steinhagen and Heck (1986) correlation with the
entire data.
 92
Table 4
Conditions of experimental data.

Reference Size (mm)/shape/orientation Working fluids Mass flux Heat transfer Heat flux Vapor Data
(kg/m2 s) (kW/m2 ) quality points

Ekberg et al. (1999) 2/annular/horizontal Water–air 90–5500 Adiabatic – 0–0.24 139

Y. Xu et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 253 (2012) 86–97

Triplett et al. (1999) 1.1, 1.45, 1.09/circular, semi-rectangular/horizontal Water–air 23–6000 Adiabatic – 0–0.77 182
Nino (2002) 1.02, 1.54/rectangular/horizontal Water–air 55–220 Adiabatic – 0.1–0.92 58
Liu et al. (2005) 0.91, 0.99, 2, 2.89,3.02/circular, square/vertical Water–air, ethanol–air 8–663 Adiabatic – 0–0.03 161
Zhang and Webb (2001) 3.25, 2.13/circular/horizontal R134a, R22, R404A 200–1000 Adiabatic – 0.2–0.89 68
Nino (2002) 1.02, 1.54/rectangular/horizontal R134a, R410A 50–300 Adiabatic – 0–1 165
Yang et al. (2002) 3/circular/horizontal R125, R407C 300–1000 Adiabatic – 0.11–0.91 83
Jang and Hrnjak (2004) 6/circular/horizontal CO2 200–400 Adiabatic – 0.1–0.9 132
Tu and Hrnjak (2004) 0.0695, 0.1041, 0.1411, 0.15, 0.3047/rectangular/horizontal R134a 101.7–793.8 Adiabatic – 0.02–0.98 252
Park and Hrnjak (2007) 6.1/circular/horizontal R22, R410A, CO2 100–400 Adiabatic – 0.1–0.8 56
Revellin and Thome (2007) 0.509, 0.79/circular/horizontal R134a, R245fa 200–2000 Adiabatic – 0.0–0.95 299
Rosato et al. (2009) 3/circular/horizontal R422D 198–350 Adiabatic – 0.13–0.99 94
Ducoulombier et al. (2011) 0.529/circular/horizontal CO2 200–1400 Adiabatic – 0–1 272
Tran et al. (2000) 2.46/circular/horizontal R134a 52–475 Evaporation Not specified 0.24–0.9 75
Ould Didi et al. (2002) 10.92, 12/circular/horizontal R134a, R123 100–500 Evaporation Not specified 0.04–1 71
Bandarra Filho et al. (2004) 6.24, 8.76/circular/horizontal R134a 70–1100 Evaporation Not specified 0.05–0.95 82
Greco and Vanoli (2004) 6/circular/horizontal R22, R507 250–286 Evaporation 10.6–17.0 0.03–0.98 79
Moreno Quiben (2005) 8.0, 13.8/circular/horizontal R134a, R22, R410A 70–700 Evaporation 6.0–57.5 0–1 471
Huo et al. (2007) 4.26/circular/vertical R134a 100–500 Evaporation 13–150 0.1–0.9 74
da Silva Lima et al. (2009) 14/circular/horizontal Ammonia 50–160 Evaporation 12.0–25.0 0.05–0.6 47
Moreno Quiben et al. (2009) 3.71, 4.88, 5.35/flattened/horizontal R22, R410A 150–500 Evaporation 6–40 0.05–0.97 190
Wu et al. (2011) 1.42/circular/horizontal CO2 300–600 Evaporation 7.5–29.8 0–1 202
Vollrath et al. (2003) 7.52/circular/horizontal Ammonia 20–270 Condensation 2–10 0–1 63
Nualboonrueng and Wongwises (2004) 8.12/circular/horizontal R134a 400–800 Condensation 20 0.11–0.78 27
Shin and Kim (2004) 0.691/circular/horizontal R134a 100–600 Condensation 5–20 0.1–0.92 73
Komandiwirya et al. (2005) 8.1/circular/horizontal Ammonia 20–270 Condensation 2–10 0–1 65
 Y. Xu et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 253 (2012) 86–97 93

Table 5
MARD and MRD of correlation predictions against experimental data.

Model Adiabatic liquid–gas Adiabatic liquid–vapor Evaporation Condensation Refrigerant All

Aa Bb A B A B A B A B A B

Lockhart–Martinelli 51.2 78.2 82.7 83.2 46.1 51.1 60.0 61.4 63.9 66.5 61.9 68.3
Chisholm (1967) 12.7 38.6 94.7 95.9 54.0 62.5 68.2 73.1 73.7 78.5 64.3 72.4
Wang et al. 32.2 71.2 63.7 70.6 10.3 26.8 19.2 33.8 38.7 50.1 37.7 53.3
Yu et al. −91.2 91.2 −63.2 64.6 −41.7 55.8 −44.6 50.3 −52.3 59.6 −56.7 63.2
Lee–Mudawar −10.7 34.9 87.4 90.2 25.4 36.2 42.1 48.6 66.7 72.0 48.6 63.3
Sun–Mishima −8.5 34.9 −14.6 23.5 −26.5 31.2 −20.6 28.1 −21.4 27.9 −19.4 29.0c
Chisholm (1973) 35.1 69.4 51.1 63.0 62.6 69.4 77.4 80.1 58.2 67.1 54.6 67.5
Friedel 225.2 229.2 51.3 64.2 5.1 29.9 22.8 35.7 28.8 46.9 59.3 75.2
Gronnerud 176.3 222.2 116.9 133.5 16.1 36.3 54.4 60.8 67.8 85.2 84.6 106.5
Muller–Steinhagen–Heck −5.6 34.2 2.2 26.1 −8.8 25.9 2.2 22.1 −2.6 25.7 −3.1 27.0
Souza–Pimenta −49.6 49.6 −28.1 35.0 −17.2 30.0 −5.8 26.5 −20.2 31.5 −20.3 31.5
Zhang–Webb − − 72.8 96.4 20.4 44.4 15.1 35.1 45.3 68.8 45.3 68.8
Chen et al. −30.6 35.3 −18.4 62.6 −8.5 33.4 7.1 52.3 −12.1 49.0 −14.9 46.9
Cavallini et al. 486.4 490.3 136.7 147.9 13.5 35.3 28.4 47.5 74.2 90.6 138.2 152.7
McAdams et al. 12.9 41.7 −30.1 33.9 −39.7 41.5 −32.5 36.6 −34.5 37.5 −27.2 38.1
Cicchitti et al. 148.3 172.7 6.4 42.1 −20.6 29.9 −14.4 26.9 −7.1 35.6 17.0 56.9
Dukler et al. −26.5 31.5 −34.9 37.2 −44.3 45.0 −37.5 38.7 −39.3 40.7 −37.3 39.3
Beattie–Whalley 3.4 34.7 −22.1 31.7 −37.2 39.3 −30.4 34.5 −29.4 35.2 −24.3 35.2
Lin et al. 37.5 63.7 −23.7 32.7 −35.9 39.0 −28.8 35.3 −29.4 35.7 −19.1 40.0
Chen et al.-homogeneous −57.1 60.3 −35.9 63.2 −21.6 31.3 −9.9 44.5 −27.6 47.8 −32.1 49.7
Awad–Muzychka 37.1 63.2 −20.3 32.0 −33.5 37.1 −26.7 33.7 −26.6 34.4 −16.7 38.8
Shannak 40.6 66.1 −15.5 33.8 −33.1 37.4 −25.7 34.4 −24.0 35.4 −14.0 40.2
a
A means MRD (%), which also applies to Tables 6–9.
b
B means MARD (%), which also applies to Tables 6–9.
c
Bold number means the predictions with MARD < 40% and MRD < ±30% for all data.

Table 6
Predictions of preferred correlations against three different classifications.

Model Micro- Macro- Circular Non-circular Horizontal Vertical

A B A B A B A B A B A B

Muller-Steinhagen–Heck −1.8 22.8 −5.2 24.2 −5.4 26.5 3.4 28.4 −1.8 26.6 −20.6 33.4
Sun–Mishima −12.2 27.3 −25.4 30.4 −20.7 28.5 −13.9 30.7 −20.9 27.8 −6.4 39.0
Beattie–Whalley −17.4 33.5 −35.0 37.8 −28.3 35.5 −13.0 34.3 −26.8 33.3 10.0 60.5
McAdams et al. −20.8 37.2 −37.2 39.6 −31.4 38.8 −15.3 36.4 −29.1 36.8 0.2 56.8
Souza–Pimenta −31.0 38.9 −15.6 28.3 −18.9 31.2 −33.8 34.3 −19.0 30.8 −47.7 47.7
Cicchitti et al. 39.3 75.1 −17.7 28.3 −5.9 38.9 80.8 106.9 17.1 56.5 16.3 62.2
Friedel 91.6 104.8 8.7 28.9 25.3 44.3 153.9 161.3 55.9 71.5 106.6 126.3
Gronnerud 126.4 150.9 19.2 37.0 32.9 55.4 228.5 248.6 91.0 111.6 −3.0 35.9
Cavallini et al. 221.1 231.3 8.5 29.6 49.6 67.1 384.7 390.8 133.0 147.6 209.4 222.5

Fig. 3. Comparison of the Sun and Mishima (2009) correlation with the entire data. Fig. 4. Comparison of the Beattie and Whalley (1982) correlations with the entire
data.
94 Y. Xu et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 253 (2012) 86–97
Fig. 5. Comparison of the McAdams et al. (1942) correlation with the entire data.
Table 5, it can be known that for all experimental data the mod-
ification of Friedel (1979) correlation takes effect and the MARD
drops from 75.2% to 46.9%, while the correction of homogeneous
model does not work effectively.
The influence of mass flux on frictional pressure drop predic-
tions can be seen from Table 7, which does not include the top
four correlations, since their predictive abilities mainly keep con-
stant. The listed five correlations except Souza and Pimenta (1995)
present better accuracies when mass flux is larger than 800 kg/m2 s.
Thermophysical properties of working fluids are important fac-
tors in two-phase flow. Fig. 7 shows that the frictional pressure
drop of R134a is greater than that of R410A. This is because of a
higher l /g of R134a which leads to a higher vapor velocity. The
results of Moreno Quiben (2005) indicate the same tendency. For
the same reason, it should be mentioned that the frictional pressure
drop increases with a decrease of saturation temperature, and the
results of Zhang and Webb (2001), Greco and Vanoli (2004), and Wu
et al. (2011) depict the similar trend. Although more experiments
Fig. 6. Data from Bandarra Filho et al. (2004) predicted by the Muller-Steinhagen
and Heck (1986) correlation.
Fig. 7. Data from Nino (2002) predicted by the Muller-Steinhagen and Heck (1986)
correlation.
on R134a have been carried out than other refrigerants, the predic-
tions of the top four correlations do not bespeak obvious changes on
R134a, CO2 , R410A, R22, ammonia. The same phenomenon occurs
in the studies of the influence of mass flux mentioned above. This is
due to the stability of homogeneous model and the basis of exten-
sive data sets of Muller-Steinhagen and Heck (1986) and Sun and
Mishima (2009) correlations.
Table 8 presents that the top four correlations give basically
consistent predictions except the Beattie and Whalley (1982) and
McAdams et al. (1942) correlations for vv condition. The rest five
correlations cannot predict the frictional pressure drop of vv and
vt conditions acceptably, since most of the liquid–gas flow data
are located in these two areas. In contrast, these five correlations
display suitable predictive results for tv and tt regimes.
According to Figs. 6–8, it is found that the frictional pressure
drop increases with vapor quality before a peak and then subse-
quently decreases. The location of the peak is related to the onset
of dryout. When the dryout comes up, a lower vapor velocity due
to large liquid droplet entrainment into vapor core and a thin-
ner liquid film result in a lower frictional pressure drop. Table 9
depicts the predictions of the preferred correlations under various
vapor quality categories. It is found that the top four correlations
Fig. 8. Data from Wu et al. (2011) predicted by the Muller-Steinhagen and Heck
(1986) correlation.
 Y. Xu et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 253 (2012) 86–97 95

Table 7
Predictions of preferred correlations against different mass flux (G: kg/m2 s).

Model 0 < G ≤ 200 200 < G ≤ 400 400 < G ≤ 600 600 < G ≤ 800 800 < G ≤ 1000 1000 < G

A B A B A B A B A B A B

Souza–Pimenta −2.5 23.8 −20.0 33.1 −26.9 31.3 −12.7 25.6 −22.4 29.1 −40.1 40.6
Cicchitti et al. 78.6 102.6 −7.4 40.7 −7.7 44.0 26.7 51.8 −14.7 20.6 −22.8 23.6
Friedel 152.5 157.8 21.3 43.4 27.5 51.6 69.4 78.7 6.7 18.2 −2.2 15.3
Gronnerud 160.7 176.3 54.2 72.7 83.4 99.9 136.7 154.5 30.8 54.9 −12.4 38.3
Cavallini et al. 333.1 339.0 55.8 75.0 80.8 105.3 174.8 184.2 10.5 26.2 1.5 13.3

Table 8
Predictions of preferred correlations against different flow regimes.

Model vv tv vt tt Others

A B A B A B A B A B

Muller-Steinhagen–Heck −5.7 31.2 −22.5 22.8 15.7 29.0 −9.4 25.1 −2.8 28.7
Sun–Mishima 4.4 31.6 – – – – −23.3 28.7 −22.3 26.3
Beattie–Whalley 33.7 54.6 −17.7 18.5 −26.5 31.8 −33.2 36.1 −27.5 31.5
McAdams et al. 38.1 56.8 −18.9 19.4 −27.3 33.2 −37.3 39.7 −33.4 35.5
Souza–Pimenta – – – – – – −20.0 31.3 – –
Cicchitti et al. 188.1 199.8 −18.5 19.2 27.0 62.1 −18.0 28.4 24.2 66.2
Friedel 319 319.8 10.0 14.9 85.8 94.6 5.4 27.2 56.9 75.8
Gronnerud 93.4 120.0 −31.4 31.5 244.5 245.9 12.7 37.1 108.4 135.7
Cavallini et al. 588.2 588.8 8.3 13.5 264.7 267.3 3.9 27.6 156.4 169.5

Table 9
Predictions of preferred correlations against different vapor qualities.

Model 0.0 ≤ x ≤ 0.2 0.2 < x ≤ 0.4 0.4 < x ≤ 0.6 0.6 < x ≤ 0.8 0.8 < x ≤ 1.0

A B A B A B A B A B

Muller-Steinhagen–Heck −13.8 29.7 −5.3 25.2 −1.2 24.3 3.4 26.1 14.7 28.3
Sun-Mishima −12.8 29.7 −19.3 25.7 −24.7 29.7 −30.3 32.5 −25.9 27.6
Beattie–Whalley −7.8 35.0 −28.7 33.2 −33.4 35.5 −35.6 37.9 −29.2 34.7
McAdams et al. −9.9 39.1 −33.9 36.7 −37.0 38.6 −37.5 39.6 −30.2 35.5
Souza–Pimenta −39.8 44.7 −21.2 30.8 −8.7 24.3 −4.4 21.0 6.2 20.1
Cicchitti et al. 35.7 72.1 27.2 63.1 12.4 50.6 −0.4 46.2 −14.3 33.0
Friedel 92.2 103.8 48.9 68.0 41.9 62.0 43.8 62.7 41.9 53.4
Gronnerud −3.6 50.9 60.5 79.5 116.3 119.5 186.2 187.1 156.6 158
Cavallini et al. 157.0 169.3 112.5 133.0 118.1 138.8 143.7 157.2 153.3 156.5

basically remain unchanged. The correlations of Gronnerud (1979)
and Cavallini et al. (2002) show larger errors under the entire
scope.
Generally, the correlations of Muller-Steinhagen and Heck
(1986) and Sun and Mishima (2009) reasonably predict the
entire database under various conditions. Meanwhile, the Muller-
Steinhagen and Heck (1986) correlation was recommended by Ould
Didi et al. (2002), Sun and Mishima (2009), and Li and Wu (2010)
successively in the past ten years. Nonetheless, new correlations
are still necessary for more accurate predictions.
5. Conclusions
An integrated survey of frictional pressure drop correlations for
two-phase flow in pipes is carried out, 29 correlations are reviewed,
and 3480 data points are collected from experiments with channels
having inner diameters from 0.0695 to 14 mm, and mass flux from
8 to 6000 kg/m2 s. By comparing the correlations and experimental
data and discussing the performances such as the effect of chan-
nel diameter, mass flux, working fluids, and flow regimes on the
frictional pressure drop and their influence on the pressure drop
prediction, the following conclusions can be seen:
(1) The Muller-Steinhagen and Heck (1986) and Sun and Mishima
(2009) correlations based on separated flow model, and Beattie
and Whalley (1982) and McAdams et al. (1942) correlations
based on homogeneous model perform best for the entire
database.
(2) All the homogeneous correlations can predict wide ranges of
applications except the Cicchitti et al. (1960) correlation for
liquid–gas flow, but their prediction accuracies are difficult to
be improved.
(3) Some correlations can provide acceptable predictions under
certain conditions. Friedel (1979), Gronnerud (1979), and
Cavallini et al. (2002) correlations are effective for evaporation
data, and the correlation of Souza and Pimenta (1995) is suitable
for turbulent flow regime.
(4) The correlations of Muller-Steinhagen and Heck (1986) and Sun
and Mishima (2009) predict the entire experimental data under
various conditions appropriately and are recommended for use
in two-phase pipe flow.
(5) The improvement of present correlations and development of
new correlations are needed for more accurate predictions of
two-phase frictional pressure drop.
Acknowledgements
This study is supported by National Natural Science Founda-
tion of China (51176074), Funding of Jiangsu Innovation Program
for Graduate Education (CXZZ12 0172), Funding for Outstanding
Doctoral Dissertation in NUAA (BCXJ12-01), and the Fundamental
Research Funds for the Central Universities.
96 Y. Xu et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 253 (2012) 86–97
References
Awad, M.M., Muzychka, Y.S., 2008. Effective property models for homogeneous two-
phase flows. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 33, 106–113.
Bandarra Filho, E.P., Saiz Jabardo, J.M., Barbieri, P.E.L., 2004. Convective boiling pres-
sure drop of refrigerant R-134a in horizontal smooth and microfin tubes. Int. J.
Refrigeration 27, 895–903.
Baroczy, C.J., 1966. A systematic correlation for two-phase pressure drop. Chem. Eng.
Prog. Symp. Ser 62, 232–249.
Beattie, D.R.H., Whalley, P.B., 1982. A simple two-phase frictional pressure drop
calculation method. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 8, 83–87.
Brkic, D., 2011. New explicit correlations for turbulent flow friction factor. Nucl. Eng.
Des. 241, 4055–4059.
Cavallini, A., Censi, G., Del Col, D., Doretti, L., Longo, G.A., Rossetto, L., 2002. Con-
densation of halogenated refrigerants inside smooth tubes. HVAC&R Res. 8,
429–451.
Chen, I.Y., Yang, K.S., Chang, Y.J., Wang, C.C., 2001. Two-phase pressure drop of
air–water and R-410a in small horizontal tubes. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 27,
1293–1299.
Chisholm, D., 1967. A theoretical basis for the Lockhart–Martinelli correlation for
two-phase flow. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 10, 1767–1778.
Chisholm, D., 1973. Pressure gradients due to friction during the flow of evaporating
two-phase mixtures in smooth tubes and channels. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 16,
347–348.
Choi, K.I., Pamitran, A.S., Oh, C.Y., Oh, J.T., 2008. Two-phase pressure drop of R-410A
in horizontal smooth minichannels. Int. J. Refrigeration 31, 119–129.
Cicchitti, A., Lombardi, C., Silvestri, M., Solddaini, G., Zavalluilli, R., 1960. Two-phase
cooling experiments—pressure drop, heat transfer, and burnout measurements.
Energia Nucl. 7, 407–425.
Colebrook, C.F., 1938–1939. Turbulent flow in pipes, with particular reference to the
transition region between the smooth and rough pipe laws. J. Inst. Civil Eng. 11,
133.
da Silva Lima, R.J., Moreno Quiben, J., Kuhn, C., Boyman, T., Thome, J.R., 2009. Ammo-
nia two-phase flow in a horizontal smooth tube: flow pattern observations,
diabatic and adiabatic frictional pressure drops and assessment of prediction
methods. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 52, 2273–2288.
Dalkilic, A.S., Agra, O., Teke, I., Wongwises, S., 2010. Comparison of frictional pressure
drop models during annular flow condensation of R600a in a horizontal tube at
low mass flux and of R134a in a vertical tube at high mass flux. Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer 53, 2052–2064.
Ducoulombier, M., Colasson, S., Bonjour, J., Haberschill, P., 2011. Carbon dioxide flow
boiling in a single microchannel—part I: pressure drops. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci.
35, 581–596.
Dukler, A.E., Wicks, W., Cleveland, R.G., 1964. Friction pressure drop in two-phase
flow. AIChE J. 10, 38–43.
Ekberg, N.P., Ghiaasiaan, S.M., Abdel-Khalik, S.I., Yoda, M., Jeter, S.M., 1999.
Gas–liquid two-phase flow in narrow horizontal annuli. Nucl. Eng. Des. 192,
59–80.
Fang, X.D., Xu, Y., Zhou, Z.R., 2011a. New correlations of single-phase friction factor
for turbulent pipe flow and evaluation of existing single-phase friction factor
correlations. Nucl. Eng. Des. 241, 897–902.
Fang, X.D., Zhang, H.G., Xu, Y., Su, X.H., 2011b. Evaluation of using two-phase fric-
tional pressure drop correlations for normal gravity to microgravity and reduced
gravity. Adv. Space Res. 49, 351–364.
Friedel, L., 1979. Improved friction pressure drop correlation for horizontal and ver-
tical two-phase pipe flow. In: European Two-Phase Flow Group Meeting, Ispra,
pp. 485–492.
Greco, A., Vanoli, G.P., 2004. Evaporation of refrigerants in a smooth horizontal tube:
prediction of R22 and R507 heat transfer coefficients and pressure drop. Appl.
Therm. Eng. 24, 2189–2206.
Gronnerud, R., 1979. Investigation of liquid hold-up, flow resistance and heat trans-
fer in circulation type evaporators, part IV: two-phase flow resistance in boiling
refrigerants. Annexe 1972-1, Bulletin, de l’Institut du Froid.
Hwang, Y.W., Kim, M.S., 2006. The pressure drop in microtubes and the correlation
development. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 49, 1804–1812.
Huo, X., Shiferaw, D., Karayiannis, T.G., Tian, Y.S., Kenning, D.B.R., 2007. Boiling
two-phase pressure drop in small diameter tubes. In: Sixth International Con-
ference on: Enhanced, Compact and Ultra-Compact Heat Exchangers: Science,
Engineering and Technology, Potsdam, Germany.
Incropera, F.P., DeWitt, D.P., 2001. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, 5th ed.
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Jang, J., Hrnjak, P.S., 2004. Condensation of CO2 at Low Temperatures. ACRC CR-56.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA.
Kandlikar, S.G., 2002. Fundamental issues related to flow boiling in minichannels
and microchannels. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 26, 389–407.
Komandiwirya, H.B., Hrnjak, P.S., Newell, T.A., 2005. An Experimental Investigation
of Pressure Drop and Heat Transfer in an In-tube Condensation System of Ammo-
nia with and without Miscible Oil in Smooth and Enhanced Tubes. ACRC CR-54.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA.
Lockhart, R.W., Martinelli, R.C., 1949. Proposed correlation of data for isother-
mal two-phase, two-component flow in pipes. Chem. Eng. Prog. 45,
39–48.
Lee, H.J., Lee, S.Y., 2001. Pressure drop correlations for two-phase flow within hor-
izontal rectangular channels with small heights. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 27,
783–796.
Lee, J., Mudawar, I., 2005. Two-phase flow in high-heat-flux micro-channel heat sink
for refrigeration cooling applications. Part I—pressure drop characteristics. Int.
J. Heat Mass Transfer 48, 928–940.
Li, W., Wu, Z., 2010. A general correlation for adiabatic two-phase pressure drop in
micro/mini-channels. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 53, 2732–2739.
Lin, S., Kwork, C.C.K., Li, R.Y., Chen, Z.H., Chen, Z.Y., 1991. Local frictional pressure
drop during vaporization of R12 through capillary tubes. Int. J. Multiphase Flow
17, 95–102.
Liu, H., Vandu, C.O., Krishna, R., 2005. Hydrodynamics of Taylor flow in vertical
capillaries: flow regimes, bubble rise velocity, liquid slug length, and pressure
drop. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 44, 4884–4897.
McAdams, W.H., Wood, W.K., Bryan, R.L., 1942. Vaporization inside horizontal tubes-
II-benzene–oil mixtures. Trans. ASME 66, 671–684.
Mishima, K., Hibiki, T., 1996. Some characteristics of air–water two-phase flow in
small diameter vertical tubes. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 22, 703–712.
Moody, L.F., 1944. Friction factors for pipe flow. Trans. ASME, 671–684.
Moreno Quiben J., 2005. Experimental and analytical study of two-phase pressure
drops during evaporation in horizontal tubes. Ph.D. Dissertation, Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Moreno Quiben, J., Cheng, L., da Silva Lima, R.J., Thome, J.R., 2009. Flow boiling in
horizontal flattened tubes. Part I–two-phase frictional pressure drop results and
model. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 52, 3634–3644.
Muller-Steinhagen, H., Heck, K., 1986. A simple friction pressure drop correlation
for two-phase flow in pipes. Chem. Eng. Prog. 20, 297–308.
Nikuradse, J., 1933. Stroemungsgesetze in rauhen Rohren. Ver. Dtsch. Ing. Forsch.
361, 1–22.
Nino, V.G., 2002. Characterization of two-phase floe in microchannels. Ph.D. Disser-
tation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA.
Nualboonrueng, T., Wongwises, S., 2004. Two-phase flow pressure drop of HFC-134a
during condensation in smooth and micro-fin tubes at high mass flux. Int. Comm.
Heat Mass Transfer 31, 991–1004.
Ould Didi, M.B., Kattan, N., Thome, J.R., 2002. Prediction of two-phase pres-
sure gradients of refrigerants in horizontal tubes. Int. J. Refrigeration 25,
935–947.
Pamitran, A.S., Choi, K.I., Oh, J.T., Hrnjak, P., 2010. Characteristics of two-phase flow
pattern transitions and pressure drop of five refrigerants in horizontal circular
small tubes. Int. J. Refrigeration 33, 578–588.
Park, C.Y., Hrnjak, P.S., 2007. CO2 and R410A flow boiling heat transfer, pressure
drop, and flow pattern at low temperatures in a horizontal smooth tube. Int. J.
Refrigeration 30, 166–178.
Revellin, R., Thome, J.R., 2007. Adiabatic two-phase frictional pressure drops in
microchannels. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 31, 673–685.
Ribatski, G., Wojtan, L., Thome, J.R., 2006. An analysis of experimental data
and prediction methods for two-phase frictional pressure drop and flow
boiling heat transfer in micro-scale channels. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 31,
1–19.
Rosato, A., Mauro, A.W., Mastrullo, R., Vanoli, G.P., 2009. Experiments during flow
boiling of a R22 drop-in: R422D adiabatic pressure gradients. Energy Convers.
Manage. 50, 2613–2621.
Shannak, B.A., 2008. Frictional pressure drop of gas liquid two-phase flow in pipes.
Nucl. Eng. Des. 238, 3277–3284.
Shin, J.S., Kim, M.H., 2004. An experimental study of condensation heat transfer
inside a mini-channel with a new measurement technique. Int. J. Multiphase
Flow 30, 311–325.
Souza, A.L., Pimenta, M.M., 1995. Prediction of pressure drop during horizontal two-
phase flow of pure and mixed refrigerants. In: Proc. ASME Conf. FED-210, pp.
161–171.
Sun, L., Mishima, K., 2009. Evaluation analysis of prediction methods for two-
phase flow pressure drop in mini-channels. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 35,
47–54.
Tran, T.N., Chyu, M.C., Wambsganss, M.W., France, D.M., 2000. Two-phase pressure
drop of refrigerants during flow boiling in small channels: an experimen-
tal investigation and correlation development. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 26,
1739–1754.
Triplett, K.A., Ghiaasiaan, S.M., Abdel-Khalik, S.I., LeMouel, A., McCord, B.N., 1999.
Gas–liquid two-phase flow in microchannels. Part II: void fraction and pressure
drop. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 25, 395–410.
Tu, X., Hrnjak, P.S., 2004. Flow and Heat Transfer in Microchannels 30 to 300 Microns
in Hydraulic Diameter. ACRC CR-53. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Illinois, USA.
Vollrath, J.E., Hrnjak, P.S., Newell, T.A., 2003. An Experimental Investigation of
Pressure Drop and Heat Transfer in an In-tube Condensation System of Pure
Ammonia. ACRC CR-51. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA.
Wang, C.C., Chiang, C.S., Lu, D.C., 1997. Visual observation of two-phase flow pattern
of R-22, R-134a, and R-407C in a 6.5-mm smooth tube. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 15,
395–405.
Wilson, M.J., Newell, T.A., Chato, J.C., Infante Ferreira, C.A., 2003. Refrigerant charge,
pressure drop, and condensation heat transfer in flattened tubes. Int. J. Refrig-
eration 26, 442–451.
Wu, J., Koettig, T., Franke Ch Helmer, D., Eisel, T., Haug, F., Bremer, J., 2011. Investi-
gation of heat transfer and pressure drop of CO2 two-phase flow in a horizontal
minichannel. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 54, 2154–2162.
Xu, Y., Fang, X.D., 2012. A new correlation of two-phase frictional
pressure drop for evaporating flow in pipes. Int. J. Refrigeration,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2012.06.011.
 Y. Xu et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 253 (2012) 86–97 97

Yang, K.S., Chen, I.Y., Hu, R., Wang, C.C., 2002. Some observations of the two-phase
flow characteristics of R-125 and R-407C within a 3-mm diameter tube. ASHRAE
Trans. 108, 529–534.
Yu, W., France, D.M., Wambsganss, M.W., Hull, J.R., 2002. Two-phase pressure drop,
boiling heat transfer, and critical heat flux to water in a small-diameter hori-
zontal tube. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 28, 927–941.
Zhang, M., Webb, R.L., 2001. Correlation of two-phase friction for refrigerants in
small-diameter tubes. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 25, 131–139.
Zhang, W., Hibiki, T., Mishima, K., 2010. Correlations of two-phase frictional pres-
sure drop and void fraction in mini-channel. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 53,
453–465.