Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 18–29

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

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

Research Paper

Experimental study of two-phase frictional pressure drop of steam-

water in helically coiled tubes with small coil diameters at high pressure
Yao Xiao ⇑, Zhenxiao Hu, Shuo Chen, Hanyang Gu
School of Nuclear Science and Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China

h i g h l i g h t s

Frictional pressure drops in helical coils with small coil diameters are investigated.

The frictional pressure drop multiplier is insensitive to the curvature ratio.

Impact of heat flux on the flow boiling frictional pressure drop is not significant.

Correlations for single and two-phase frictional pressure drops in helical coils are proposed.

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

Article history: The pressure drop characteristics of helical coils are important to the design optimization of helically
Received 29 October 2017 coiled steam generators. Single-phase and two-phase flow pressure drop characteristics have been exper-
Revised 20 December 2017 imentally investigated in coiled tubes of inner diameters of 12.5 mm and 14.5 mm. The helical diameters
Accepted 20 December 2017
of the helical coils are 180, 280 and 380 mm and the system pressure range from 2 to 8 MPa. The effects
Available online 21 December 2017
of flow and geometry parameters on two-phase frictional pressure drop multiplier are discussed. For flow
parameters, the two-phase frictional pressure drop multiplier decreases with higher system pressure and
Keywords:
is insensitive to mass flux and heat flux. For geometric parameters, the two-phase frictional pressure drop
Helically coiled tube
Small coil diameter
multiplier is insensitive to the curvature ratio under the investigated conditions. Comparison with corre-
Two-phase flow lations reported in the literature is performed. A single-phase friction factor correlation and a two-phase
Frictional pressure drop frictional pressure drop multiplier correlation for helical coils with small coil diameters at high pressure
Two-phase frictional pressure drop are proposed and give good agreements with the experimental data.
multiplier Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Coiled tube heat exchangers were used in a wide variety of
industries. In particular, helically coiled once-through steam gen-
erators have been used widely during the past several decades in
the nuclear industry, especially in small modular reactors. The
main advantages of helically coiled heat exchangers as compared
with straight tube heat exchangers are heat transfer efficiency
[1–7], compact design [8–10], and ease of manufacture [7,11]. In
helical coils, the geometry induced centrifugal force exerts upon
the fluid, and vortices arise. The vortices format a secondary flow,
which is one of the most important differences between the flow in
coiled tubes and that in straight tubes. The secondary flow has
been found to exist in both single and two-phase flows, which
enhances the heat transfer in helical coils. Enhancement ratio as
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yxiao@sjtu.edu.cn (Y. Xiao).
high as 1.37 has been reported for flow boiling in helical coils by
Wongwises and Polsongkram [12] for vertical helical coils.
The pressure drop characteristics of helical coils are important
to the design optimization of helically coiled steam generators.
Many researchers have conducted experimental studies for a wide
range of system parameters and a number of correlations for the
frictional pressure drop in helical coils are reported in the litera-
ture [11,13]. Fsadni et al. conducted a review of the two-phase
pressure drop characteristics and correlations. He concluded that
the curvature ratio does not appear to have a significant influence
on the two-phase frictional pressure drop multiplier whilst there is
some controversy surrounding the influence of the coil orientation
and heat flux [11].
For the range of experimental parameters of the correlations for
two-phase frictional pressure drop of steam-water in helically
coiled tubes, most correlations, such as Owhadi et al. [14], Kozeki
et al. [15], Nariai et al. [16], Guo et al. [17] and Hardik et al. [18],
are developed for low system pressure (P < 3.5 MPa). For the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.12.074
1359-4311/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Y. Xiao et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 18–29 19

Nomenclature

cp specific heat at constant pressure (J/kg K) Abbreviation

D diameter of tube (m) Avg average
Dc Dean number (m) HTC heat transfer coefficient
f friction factor RMS Root Mean Square
f’ fanning friction factor
g gravitational acceleration (m/s2), gas Dimensionless number
G mass flux (kg/m2 s) De Dean number De = Re(D/Dc)0.5
h heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K), enthalpy (kJ/kg) Nu Nusselt number Nu = hD/k
k thermal conductivity (W/m K) Pr Prandtl number Pr = lcp/k
L length (m) Re Reynolds number Re = GD/l
P pressure (MPa) Xtt Lockhart Martinelli parameter
q heat flux (kW/m2)
T temperature (°C) Subscripts
v specific volume (m3/kg) cal calculation
x equilibrium quality of fluid
cr critical
e equilibrium state
Greek symbols exp experiment
a void fraction g gas
d curvature ratio d = D/De l liquid
q density (kg/m3) lo liquid-only
l viscosity (Pa s) m mixture
r surface tension (N/m) tp two-phase
h helix angle (◦) 0
saturated liquid
w equation coefficient 00
saturated vapor
U2 two-phase frictional pressure drop multiplier

correlations developed for high system pressures (P > 3.5 MPa),
such as Ruffell [19], Unal et al. [20], Chen and Zhou [21], Santini
et al. [22], Ju et al. [23] and Colombo et al. [24], most coil diameters
of their helical coils are greater than 400 mm.
As mentioned above, only few experiments have been per-
formed to investigate the two-phase frictional pressure drop in
helical coils with small coil diameters less than 400 mm at system
pressure in excess of 3.5 MPa. In this study, various experiments
are performed to investigate two-phase flow frictional pressure
drop characteristics in helically coiled tubes with small coil diam-
eters at high pressure. The helical diameters of the helical coils,
having inner diameters of 12.5 mm and 14.5 mm, are 180, 280
and 380 mm and the system pressure range from 2 to 8 MPa. The
effects of flow and geometry parameters on two-phase frictional
pressure drop multiplier are discussed in detail. A single-phase
friction factor correlation and a two-phase frictional pressure drop
multiplier correlation for helical coils with small coil diameters at
high pressure are proposed and give good agreements with the
experimental data.
2. Experimental apparatus and test section
Fig. 1 shows a schematic diagram of the test facility SWAMUP-II
at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, which is designed to perform
heat transfer tests with a supercritical water or steam-water
two-phase flow. The design pressure of the SWAMUP-II is 35
MPa. Distilled and deionized water from the water tank is driven
through a filter by two high pressure plunger-type pumps. The
main flow goes through the re-heater to absorb the heat of the
hot fluid coming from the test section. It passes the pre-heater
where it is heated up to a pre-defined temperature and enters into
the test section. It exits the test section with a high temperature up
to 550 °C. The pre-heater 1 is directly heated by AC power with a
maximum heating capability of 600 kW. The pre-heater 2, which
power is accurately measured, is directly heated by AC power with
a maximum heating capability of 200 kW. The outer wall of the
pre-heater 2 is carefully insulated with rock wool, and the small
thermal losses were determined by dedicated calibration experi-
ments. The inlet enthalpy of pre-heater 2 is keeping subcooled in
the tests. Thus, the inlet enthalpy of test section can be obtained
accurately even under two-phase condition. Another flow is led
through the bypass line to the mixing chamber. The water temper-
ature is reduced after relieving heat in the reheater and mixing
with the low temperature fluid from the bypass line before it
enters into the heat exchanger. The water exiting the heat exchan-
ger goes back to the water tank. Two Venturi flow meters with dif-
ferent ranges are installed in parallel in the main flow loop to
measure the mass flow rate of water entering the test section.
The pressure at the inlet of the test section is controlled by adjust-
ing the pressure regulator valve at the exit of the main loop. The
pressure at the inlet of the test section is measured by a
capacitance-type pressure transducer. The pressure drop over the
test section is obtained using a capacitance-type differential pres-
sure transducer. Fluid temperatures at the inlet and the outlet of
the test section are measured by two ungrounded N-type thermo-
couples with a sheath outer diameter of 0.5 mm. All data are col-
lected and recorded using a National Instrument data acquisition
system.
As shown in Fig. 2, the helically coiled tubes were made of
stainless steel pipes having heated lengths about 8000 mm. The
coil diameters of the six test sections were 180, 280 and 380
mm, and the inner diameters were 12.5 and 14.5 mm. The helically
coiled tubes were vertical in the tests. Table 1 shows the dimen-
sions of the test sections in detail. The design pressure and temper-
ature of the test sections were 10 MPa and its saturation
temperature, respectively. The outer wall of the test section was
carefully insulated with rock wool, and the small thermal losses
were determined by dedicated calibration experiments.
A group of differential pressure transducers was employed to
measure the pressure drop of the test sections. To determine pres-
sure drops at different qualities, the inlet quality was increased at a
20 Y. Xiao et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 18–29

Test DP Cooling
section water tank

T
P

Cooling pump

Pressure regulator

Heat exchanger
Pre-heater 2 Deionized
water tank
Mixer

Bypass way

Pre-heater 1

Re-heater
Piston pump

Venturi flowmeter

Fig. 1. Scheme of the SWAMUP-II test facility.

Table 1
Dimensions of the test section.

Parameters Symbol Values Units

Coil diameter Dc 180, 280, 380 mm
Inner diameter D 12.5, 14.5 mm
Curvature ratio d 0.033–0.081 /
Wall thickness / 3.5 mm
Helical angle h 6.0 °
Design pressure P 10 MPa

Fig. 2. Scheme of the helically coiled tube test sections.
constant inlet mass flow rate and system pressure step by step.
After steady-state conditions had been reached for each inlet qual-
ity level, all measurements were collected. Tests were carried out
systematically for different inlet qualities and mass flow levels at
different system pressure levels. The uncertainty of different
parameters used in the experimental analysis is presented in
Table 2. The uncertainties in the diameter and length of the test
section are obtained by measuring the values at different locations.
The uncertainties of heat flux depend on the accuracy of the
ampere and volt meters. The uncertainties of mass flow rate are
obtained by the accuracy of the Venturi flow meter, having a max-
imum error of 0.4%, in the range of the explored flow rates. Bulk
temperatures are measured with thermocouple, having a maxi-
mum error of 0.7 °C. The inlet pressure is measured by an absolute
pressure transducer with a 10 MPa range, and a maximum error of
 Y. Xiao et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 18–29 21

Table 2 5
Uncertainties of primary parameters.

Calc. frictional pressure drops (kPa)

Parameters Maximum uncertainty
Pressure ±0.2% 4
Mass flow rate ±0.4%
Fluid temperature ±0.7 °C
DC current ±1.0%
DC voltage ±1.0% 3
Tube diameter ±0.04 mm
Tube thickness ±0.04 mm +5%
Quality 2.6%
Single-phase friction factor 5.1%
2
-5%
Two-phase pressure drop 8.7%

about 0.2%. The pressure drops between the taps are measured by a 0
group of differential pressure transducers with a 500 kPa range and 0 1 2 3 4 5
a maximum error of about 0.1%. The uncertainties of local equilib-
Exp. frictional pressure drops (kPa)
rium quality are derived from the uncertainty analysis of heat flux
and temperature measurement. Uncertainty of friction factor is Fig. 3. Comparison of experimental single-phase frictional pressure drop results
analyzed based on the method reported in Ref. [25] and the error with Blasius’s correlation.
propagation theory [26].
3.1. Single-phase frictional pressure drop and geometry parameter
effects

3. Results and discussion
Experiments of helically coiled tube were carried out with
test parameters shown in Table 3. In the single-phase tests,
the properties of local bulk fluid were derived by the inlet
enthalpy of the test sections, system pressure and the heat loss.
In the two-phase tests, the saturated properties of local bulk
fluid were calculated using the system pressure. The local
enthalpies in the two-phase tests were calculated by the mass
flow rate, the inlet enthalpy, the heating power and the heat
loss. In the present work, the heat losses were accurately cali-
brated for each two-phase test by performing a single-phase test
with an outlet temperature near the saturation temperature at
the same system pressure. Then, the losses were derived by
the flow rate and the temperature drop of hot pressurized water
flowing into the helical coils and the values were correlated with
the outer wall temperature. The heat losses were subsequently
incorporated into the data reduction process. Finally, the local
equilibrium qualities in a two-phase test were calculated by
the local enthalpies of the mixture and the system pressure.
The thermo-physical properties used in data reduction were cal-
culated from the tabulated values of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST).
Besides, single-phase frictional pressure drop data measured in
Accuracy single-phase frictional pressure drop data is the basis
for the investigation of two-phase frictional pressure drop. The
friction factor is calculated by following equation in this work:
2Dq
f ¼ DP f ð1Þ
G2 L
In helical coiled tubes, the critical Reynolds number is much
greater than that in straight tubes and is a function of De (De =
Re(D/DC)0.5) [27]. In the present work, the Re number ranges from
2  105–10  105 and the entire test conditions are in the turbu-
lent flow region. Figs. 4 and 5 indicate the effects of geometry
parameters, the tube diameter and coil diameter, on single-phase
friction factor. The presence of secondary flow in the helical coils
dissipates kinetic energy, thus increasing the resistance to flow.
As a result, the friction factor in a helically coiled tube is much
higher than that in the straight tube with the same hydraulic diam-
eter. Increase in hydraulic diameter or decrease in coil diameter
increases the curvature ratio (D/De) and the secondary flow
induced by the centrifugal force, which increases the energy dissi-
0.045
Dc=280 mm
D=12.5 mm
Single-phase friction factor

a straight tube having inner diameter 14.5 mm were firstly com-

D=14.5 mm
0.040
pared with the well know Blasius’s correlation to validate the cor-
rectness of the present experimental system and testing method,
as shown in Fig. 3. The comparison of the single-phase frictional
pressure drops shows a good agreement (98% data were in ±5%), 0.035
which establishes the validity of the measurements and the data
reduction method.

0.030

Table 3
Thermal-hydraulic conditions for pressure drop measurements.

Parameters Values Units 0.025

20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
Pressure 2.0–8.0 MPa
Mass flux 300–1100 kg/m2 s Re
Inlet quality 0–0.9 /
Fig. 4. Effects of hydraulic diameter on single-phase friction factor.
22 Y. Xiao et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 18–29

0.045 3.2. Comparison of experimental single-phase pressure drop with the

available correlations
D=14.5 mm
Dc=180 mm Comparison with reported correlations is performed to avoid a
Single-phase friction factor

0.040 Dc=280 mm straight forward application of those correlations to the present

Dc=380 mm experimental database. The correlations adopted in this study are
listed in Table 4. The Blasius’s correlation is developed for straight
tube and the others are developed for helical tubes. Fig. 6 shows
0.035 the comparison under a specific test condition. It can be seen that
Blasius’s correlation is significantly lower than our data, while Ju’s
correlation is significantly higher than our data. The other correla-
tions are concentrated and a little lower than the measured data.
0.030 Table 5 summarizes the comparison results, and Fig. 7 shows the
comparison of correlations and measured data for the friction fac-
tor. All of the correlations show good concentrations, but the sym-
metry is not so good. The Ruffle’s correlation gives the best
0.025
prediction with the test data among all the correlations, but still
20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
has an average error about 10%. The comparison indicates that
Re these correlations cannot efficiently reflect the effect of coil diam-
Fig. 5. Effects of coil diameter on single-phase friction factor.
eter in the investigated range.
Most of these friction factor correlations are based on straight
pation and the resistance to flow. Thus, it is seen that the friction pipe correlations and introduce a correction factor to consider
factor increases with the increase in hydraulic diameter and the the effects of geometry parameters. Based on the theoretic analy-
decrease in coil diameter. This phenomenon is also consistent with sis, following new correlation is obtained considering our experi-
the fact that the values of friction factors in helical coils are much mental data:
higher than that in straight tubes, a kind of helical coil with an infi-
0:404 !
0:3164 0:053 D
nite coil diameter. Besides, it should be noted that the thicknesses f ¼ 1 þ Re ð2Þ
of the viscous sublayer were calculated as about 101, 45, and 24 Re0:25 Dc
lm for Reynolds numbers of 2  105, 5  105, and 10  105,
respectively. Since the wall roughness of the tubes were about
20 lm, 0.5 times of the maximum uncertainty of the tube wall 0.060
thickness, the effect of the wall roughness on the pressure drop D=14.5 mm Experiment
of single-phase turbulent flow could be neglected in this study. 0.055 Dc=280 mm Blasius
Ito
Single-phase friction factor

Table 4 0.050
Srinivasan
Single-phase friction factor correlations reported in the literature.
0.045
Ruffel
No. Authors Correlation Reference Schmidt
1 Blasius f ¼ 0:3164 [28] 0.040 Ju
Re0:25
2 Ito  0:5 [29]
0
f ¼ Re 0:25 þ 0:00725 D
0:076 D
c 0.035
3 Srinivasan  0:1 [30]
0
f ¼ Re0:2 Dc
0:084 D

 0:275 0.030
4 Ruffel [19]
f ¼ 0:015 þ Re 2:53 D
0:4 Dc
 0.025
5 Schmidt  0:45  [31]
Rec ¼ 2300 1 þ 8:6 DDc
0.020
When Re < Rec
  0:97 
f ¼ 1 þ 0:14 DDc Rea 64
Re
0.015
 0:312 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
a ¼ 1  0:644 DDc
Re
When Rec  Re  22000,
  0:62 
f ¼ 1 þ 28800 D 0:3164 Fig. 6. Comparison of measured data with single-phase friction factor correlations.
Re Dc Re0:25

Re ＞ 22000
   0:53 
f ¼ 1 þ 0:0823 1 þ DDc DDc Re0:25 0:3164
Re0:25
Table 5
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Results of comparison with single-phase friction factor correlations reported in the
6 Ju et al. De ¼ Re D=Dc [23]
  0:45  literature.
Rec ¼ 2300 1 þ 8:6 DDc
No. Authors Average error (%)* RMS (%)*
When De < 11.6,
0 1 Blasius 36.5 4.2
f s ¼ 16
Re , f =f s ¼ 1
2 Ito 18.9 3.1
When De > 11.6, Re < Rec
 0:4 3 Srinivasan 13.8 3.7
0 0:75
f s ¼ 16
Re , f =f s ¼ 1 þ 0:015Re
D
Dc 4 Ruffel 10.4 3.2
When De  11.6, Re > Rec, 5 Schmidt 19.1 3.0
6 Ju 20.6 7.0
0:25 ;
0:0791
smooth tube
f s ¼ Re
0:25 Pn
0:025 1:46 DD þ 100
Re ; rough tube error ¼ f cal =f exp  1 Av g:error ¼
*
i¼1
error i
n  100%.
 0:14 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0
f =f s ¼ 1 þ 0:11Re0:23 DDc Pn ðerrori Av g:errorÞ2
RMS ¼ i¼1 n1  100%.
 Y. Xiao et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 18–29 23

0.045 0.045

0.040
0.040

0.035
0.035
fcal

0.030

fcal
0.030
0.025

0.020 0.025

0.015 0.020
0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045
fexp fexp

(a) Blasius’s correlation (b) Ito’s correlation

0.045 0.045

0.040 0.040

0.035 0.035
fcal

fcal

0.030 0.030

0.025 0.025

0.020 0.020
0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045
fexp fexp

(c) Srinivasa’s correlation (d) Ruffel’s correlation

0.045 0.050

0.045
0.040

0.040
0.035
fcal

fcal

0.035

0.030
0.030

0.025
0.025

0.020 0.020
0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045 0.050
fexp fexp

(e) Schmidt’s correlation (f) Ju’s correlation

Fig. 7. Comparison of single-phase friction factor correlations and measured data.
24 Y. Xiao et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 18–29

0.045 1000
P=4.8 MPa
G=600 kg/m2s
0.040 q=200 kW/m2
q=300 kW/m2
100 q=400 kW/m2
0.035
+10% q=500 kW/m2
fcal

lo
2
0.030
-10%
10

0.025

0.020
0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045 1
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
fexp
x
Fig. 8. Comparison of the new friction factor correlation and measured data.
Fig. 11. Effects of heat flux on two-phase frictional pressure drop multiplier.

1000 1000
2
G=600 kg/m s P=4.8 MPa
P=2.0 MPa G=600 kg/m2s
P=4.8 MPa Dc=180 mm
P=7.6 MPa D=12.5 mm
100 100 D=14.5 mm
lo

lo
2

10 10

1 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
x x
Fig. 9. Effects of system pressure on two-phase frictional pressure drop multiplier. Fig. 12. Effects of hydraulic diameter on two-phase frictional pressure drop
multiplier.

1000 1000
P=4.8 MPa P=4.8 MPa
G=400 kg/m2·s G=600 kg/m2s
G=600 kg/m2·s D=12.5 mm
G=800 kg/m2·s Dc=180 mm
100 G=1000 kg/m2·s 100 Dc=280 mm
Dc=380 mm
lo

lo
2

10 10

1 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
x x

Fig. 10. Effects of mass flux on two-phase frictional pressure drop multiplier. Fig. 13. Effects of coil diameter on two-phase frictional pressure drop multiplier.
 Y. Xiao et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 18–29 25

The available range is the range of our experimental parame-
ters. The comparison of the new correlation with our measured
data is shown in Fig. 8. It fits 100% of the data within ±10%. The
average error and root mean square of the new correlation are
0.2% and 5.3%, respectively.
3.3. Two-phase frictional pressure drop and parameter effects
There is a general agreement amongst the previous researchers
that the two-phase flow boiling frictional pressure drop increases
with the equilibrium quality and mass flux whilst it decreases with
higher system pressure [11]. Thus, the present work focuses on the
effects of various flow parameters and geometry parameters on
two-phase frictional pressure drop multiplier. The liquid-only
two-phase frictional pressure drop multiplier is defined as:
DPf ;tp
/2lo ¼ ð3Þ
DPf ;lo
where DPf,tp is the two-phase frictional pressure drop. DPf,lo is
the liquid-only single-phase frictional pressure drop, which con-
siders the fluid as entirely liquid at the mass flow rate. The friction
factor in DPlo processing is obtained by the previous new fiction
factor correlation as shown in Eq. (2). Fig. 9 indicates the effects
of system pressure on the two-phase frictional pressure drop mul-
tiplier. Increase in system pressure increases the vapor density and
the average density of the bulk fluid. Thus, at a specific equilibrium
quality, the volume fraction and mean flow velocity of the bulk
fluid both decrease with the increase in system pressure, which
causes a remarkable decrease of the two-phase pressure drop.
Although the reference single-phase liquid-only frictional pressure

Table 6
Correlations of two-phase frictional pressure drop multiplier reported in the literature.

No. Authors Correlation* Reference

h  i
1 Chen Dpf ¼ wf DL 2Gq0 1 þ x qq000  1
2
[32]
8
>
> 1 ; G ¼ 1500 kg=m2  s
>
> xð1xÞð1500
 G Þq00 ; G < 1500 kg=m2  s
> 1 q0
>
<1 þ q0
w¼ 1þx q00 1
>
> xð1xÞð1500
G Þq00 ; G > 1500 kg=m2  s
q0
>
>1 þ 1
>
>
: q0
1þð1xÞ q00 1
h  i
/2lo ¼ w 1 þ x qq000  1

2 Chisholm Dpf ¼ /2L f L ½Gð1xÞ

2
[33]
D 2q0
DPtp;f
/2L¼ ¼1þ þ
DPl
C
X tt
1
X 2tt
    0:5  0:5 
m v 0:5
þ mvgl
mg
C ¼ C 1 þ ðC 2  C 1 Þ gmg l vl
C 1 ¼ 0:75; C 2 ¼ 2000
G
/2lo ¼ /2L ð1  xÞ2
h  i
3 Ju et al. Dpf ¼ wf DL 2Gq0 1 þ x qq000  1
2
[23]
     
P 00 0:25
w ¼ 1:29 þ 4i¼1 Ai xi 1 þ x ll0 1

where A1 ¼ 2:19; A2 ¼ 3:16; A3 ¼ 7:35; A4 ¼ 5:93

h  i
/2lo ¼ w 1 þ x qq000  1
h  i
4 Guo et al. Dpf ¼ w1 wf DL 2Gq0 1 þ x qq000  1
2
[17]
8
>
> 1 ; G ¼ 1000 kg=m2  s
>
> xð1xÞð1000 1Þqq000
>
> þ  G
 ; G < 1000 kg=m2  s
< 1
q0
w¼ 1þx q00 1
>
>
> 1 þ xð1xÞð G 1Þq00 ; G > 1000 kg=m2  s
0
> 1000 q
>
>
: 1þð1xÞ
q0
1 q00
 0:62  1:04
w1 ¼ 142:2 PPcr D
Dc
h  i
2 q0
/lo ¼ w1 w 1 þ x q00  1

5 Chen and Zhou DP f ¼ /2lo DP f ;lo [21]

h  00 i0:8 h  i1:8 h  00 i0:2
/2lo ¼ 2:06d0:05 Re0:025
tp 1 þ a qq0  1 1 þ x qq000  1 1 þ a ll0  1
 
6 Santini et al. G1:91 v m [22]
DP f ¼ K D1:2
L
K ¼ 0:0373x þ 0:0387x  0:00479x þ 0:0108
3 2

DP
/2lo ¼ DPf ;lo
f

7 Colombo et al. DP f ¼ /2l DP f ;l [24]

 0:40
qm
/2l ¼ 0:0986/2LM De0:19
l q0
/2LM ¼ 1 þ XC þ X12
where C is a constant dependent on the gas and liquid Reynolds numbers

1:8 q00  l0 0:2
X ¼ 1x
x q0 l00
DP
/2lo ¼ DPf ;lo
f

 0 
8 Zhao et al. /2lo ¼ 1 þ qq00  1 ½0:303x1:63 ð1  xÞ0:885 Re0:282 þ x2  [2]
lo

*
The single-phase friction factor is given by the new single-phase friction factor correlation proposed in Section 3.2.
26 Y. Xiao et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 18–29

Experiment drop also decreases with the increase in system pressure, due to
Chen Chen and Zhou the decreases of single-phase liquid friction factor and flow veloc-
Chisholm et al. Santini et al. ity, the total effect is negative to the two-phase friction pressure
100 Ju et al. Colombo et al. drop multiplier. Thus, the two-phase friction pressure drop multi-
Guo et al. Zhao et al.
plier decreases with the increase in system pressure, as shown in
Fig. 9.
Fig. 10 shows the effects of mass flux on the friction pressure
drop multiplier. Increase in mass flux increases both of the
lo
2

single-phase drop and two-phase pressure drop. The secondary

flow is also increased by the higher mass flux. But for the friction
pressure drop multiplier, the results show it is insensitive to the
mass flux, as shown in Fig. 10. Fig. 11 indicates the effects of heat
P=4.8 MPa
flux. The test sections were heated using Joule heating under the
10 G=600 kg/(m2 s)
test conditions with heat flux. The equilibrium quality increases
D=12.5 mm
along the flow direction and the average quality of two pressure
Dc=180 mm
taps was adopted as the qualitative quality. Increase in heat flux
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 does not affect the local two-phase average flow velocity, volume
fraction and corresponding liquid-only single-phase pressure drop,
Xe
but the surface evaporation characteristics of the tube wall. The
Fig. 14. Comparison of measured data with two-phase frictional pressure drop
experimental data indicate that the surface evaporation character-
correlations.

100 100

80 80

60 60
lo,cal

lo,cal
2

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
2 2
lo,exp lo,exp

(a) Chen’s correlation (b) Chisholm’s correlation

100 150

125
80

100
60
lo,cal

lo,cal

75
2

40
50

20
25

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 25 50 75 100 125 150
2 2
lo,exp lo,exp

(c) Ju’s correlation (d) Guo’s correlation

Fig. 15. Comparison of two-phase frictional pressure drop correlations and measured data.
 Y. Xiao et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 18–29 27

istics have little influence on the two-phase frictional pressure
drop multiplier.
Figs. 12 and 13 show the effects of tube diameter and coil diam-
eter on the friction pressure drop multiplier. Increase in hydraulic
diameter or decrease in coil diameter increases the secondary flow
induced by the centrifugal force, and both of the single-phase and
two-phase pressure drop increase. But for the friction pressure
drop multiplier, it is insensitive to the tube diameter and coil diam-
eter in the investigated experiment range, which confirms the con-
clusion of Fsadni that the curvature ratio does not appear to have a
significant influence on the two-phase flow boiling frictional pres-
sure drop multiplier [11].
3.4. Comparison of experimental two-phase pressure drop with the
available correlations
The experimental conditions investigated in the present work
are quite different from the previous works reported in the litera-
ture, thus comparison with reported correlations is performed. The
two-phase correlations adopted in this study are shown in Table 6.
The Chen’s correlation and Chisholm’s correlation are developed
for straight tube and the others are for helical coils. It should be
noted that the new single-phase friction factor correlation is
adopted as the reference single-phase friction factor formula to
derive the liquid-only two-phase frictional pressure drop multi-
plier in the comparison, both for the experimental data and the
correlations reported in the literature. Besides, the multipliers of
some correlations are transformed into liquid-only for the original
multipliers are only-liquid.
Fig. 14 illustrates the comparison under a specific two-phase
test condition. It can be seen that Chen’s correlation meets well
with the experimental data in the low quality region, but under
predicts the data significantly in the high quality region. The
Chisholm’s correlation over predicts the experimental data in the
low quality region, but under predicts in the high quality region.
The Ju’s correlation shows good prediction, which meets well with
measured data in the low quality region and is a little lower in the
high quality region. The Guo’s correlation and Zhao’s correlation

400 100

350
80
300

250 60
lo,cal
lo,cal

200
2
2

40
150

100
20
50

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 20 40 60 80 100
2 2
lo,exp lo,exp

(e) Chen and Zhou’s correlation (f) Santini’s correlation

150 150

125 125

100 100
lo,cal
lo,cal

75 75
2
2

50 50

25 25

0 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 25 50 75 100 125 150
2 2
lo,exp lo,exp

(g) Colombo’s correlation (h) Zhao’s correlation

Fig. 15 (continued)
28 Y. Xiao et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 18–29

Table 7 L G2
Results of comparison with two-phase friction multiplier correlations reported in the Dpf ¼ /2lo f
literature.
D 2q0

00 0:25 
0 
l q
No. Authors Average error (%)* RMS (%)* /2lo ¼ ð0:377 þ 6:79x  5:66x2 Þ 1 þ x 0  1 1 þ x 00  1
l q
1 Chen 24.0 21.2
0:404 !
2 Chisholm et al. 16.7 48.9 0:3164 D
3 Ju et al. 4.8 13.5 f¼ 1 þ Re0:053
lo
4 Guo et al. 70.0 85.3
Re0:25
lo
D c

5 Chen and Zhou 80.9 66.4 ð4Þ

6 Santini et al. 34.3 8.7
7 Colombo et al. 110.9 41.6 The available range is the range of our experimental parame-
8 Zhao et al. 47.8 22.0 ters. The comparison of this formula with our measured data is
Pn shown in Fig. 16. It fits 83% of the data within ±20%. The average
*
error ¼ /2lo;cal =/2lo;exp  1 Av g:error ¼ i¼1
error i
n  100%.
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn ðerrori Av g:errorÞ2
error and root mean square of the new correlation are 2.5% and
RMS ¼ i¼1 n1  100%. 12.8%, respectively.

over predict the measured data because the system pressures of
the experimental data deriving the two correlations are less than
3.5 MPa, which indicates that the two correlations do not apply
at high system pressure. The Santini’s correlation under predicts
the experimental data remarkably because Santini’s test section
has a very small curvature ratio. The Colombo’s correlation is
developed based on the experimental data from Santini et al.
[22] and Zhao et al. [2]. It also over predicts the present
measured data. Chen and Zhou’s correlation is developed
based on an air-water experiment and over predicts the
experiment data too.
Liquid-only two-phase friction pressure drop multiplier predic-
tions are compared in Fig. 15 and Table 7. The Chen’s correlation
and Chisholm’s correlation show significant asymmetry, which
indicates that the geometry effect of helical coiled tubes on the
two-phase flow pressure drop multiplier cannot be neglected.
The correlations show significant differences in the predictions,
which illustrates that it is difficult to predict two-phase friction
pressure drops in helical coils out of the range of explored experi-
mental conditions. The Ju’s correlation gives the best prediction
with the test data among the correlations, which has a small aver-
age error about 5%.
Based on the correction method of Ju’s correlation, a correla-
tion for two-phase frictional pressure drop multiplier in helical
tubes with small coil diameters was obtained by regression
analysis:
4. Conclusion
The single-phase and two-phase steam-water frictional pres-
sure drop in helical coiled tubes, having inner diameters of 12.5
mm and 14.5 mm and coil diameter of 180, 280 and 380 mm, were
investigated under conditions of 2–8 MPa in system pressure and
300–1000 kg/m2 s in mass flux. The effects of flow parameters
and geometry parameters on the frictional pressure drop are eval-
uated. The single-phase experimental results indicate that the fric-
tion factor increases with curvature ratio. For flow parameter
effects on the two-phase friction pressure drop multiplier, the
results show that the multiplier decreases with higher system
pressure whilst the mass flux and heat flux does not appear to have
a significant influence. For the geometry effects, the friction pres-
sure drop multiplier is insensitive to the curvature ratio in the
investigated experiment range. Comparison with correlations
available in the literature is performed. A single-phase friction fac-
tor correlation and a two-phase frictional pressure drop multiplier
correlation for helical coils with small coil diameters at high pres-
sure are proposed and give good agreements with the experimen-
tal data. The proposed correlations can be used for helically coiled
steam generators design.
Acknowledgement
Acknowledge the financial support of Shanghai Sailing Program
(16YF1405600).

100 References

[1] M. Styrikovich, V. Polonsky, V. Reshetov, Experimental investigation of the

critical heat flux and post-dryout temperature regime of helical coils, Int. J.
80
Heat Mass Transf. 27 (1984) 1245–1250.
[2] L. Zhao, L. Guo, B. Bai, Y. Hou, X. Zhang, Convective boiling heat transfer and
two-phase flow characteristics inside a small horizontal helically coiled tubing
once-through steam generator, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 46 (2003) 4779–4788.
60
[3] V. Kumar, S. Saini, M. Sharma, K.D.P. Nigam, Pressure drop and heat transfer
lo,cal

study in tube-in-tube helical heat exchanger, Chem. Eng. Sci. 61 (2006) 4403–
+20% 4416.
2

[4] C.-N. Chen, J.-T. Han, T.-C. Jen, L. Shao, Thermo-chemical characteristics of
40
R134a flow boiling in helically coiled tubes at low mass flux and low pressure,
-15% Thermochim. Acta 512 (2011) 163–169.
[5] H. Aria, M.A. Akhavan-Behabadi, F.M. Shemirani, Experimental investigation
on flow boiling heat transfer and pressure drop of HFC-134a inside a vertical
20 helically coiled tube, Heat Transf. Eng. 33 (2012) 79–87.
[6] J. Gou, H. Ma, Z. Yang, J. Shan, An assessment of heat transfer models of water
flow in helically coiled tubes based on selected experimental datasets, Ann.
Nucl. Energy 110 (2017) 648–667.
0 [7] A.M. Fsadni, J.P.M. Whitty, A review on the two-phase heat transfer
0 20 40 60 80 100 characteristics in helically coiled tube heat exchangers, Int. J. Heat Mass
2 Transf. 95 (2016) 551–565.
lo,exp [8] M. Mozafari, M.A. Akhavan-Behabadi, H. Qobadi-Arfaee, M. Fakoor-Pakdaman,
Condensation and pressure drop characteristics of R600a in a helical tube-in-
Fig. 16. Comparison of the new two-phase frictional pressure drop correlations and tube heat exchanger at different inclination angles, Appl. Therm. Eng. 90
measured data. (2015) 571–578.
 Y. Xiao et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 132 (2018) 18–29
[9] J.M. Gorman, E.M. Sparrow, J.P. Abraham, G.S. Mowry, Operating
characteristics and fabrication of a uniquely compact helical heat exchanger,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 50 (2013) 1070–1075.
[10] J. Gorman, E. Sparrow, G. Mowry, J. Abraham, Simulation of helically wrapped,
compact heat exchangers, J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 3 (2011) 043120.
[11] A.M. Fsadni, J.P.M. Whitty, A review on the two-phase pressure drop
characteristics in helically coiled tubes, Appl. Therm. Eng. 103 (2016) 616–638.
[12] S. Wongwises, M. Polsongkram, Evaporation heat transfer and pressure drop of
HFC-134a in a helically coiled concentric tube-in-tube heat exchanger, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transf. 49 (2006) 658–670.
[13] A. Cioncolini, L. Santini, Two-phase pressure drop prediction in helically coiled
steam generators for nuclear power applications, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 100
(2016) 825–834.
[14] A. Owhadi, K.J. Bell, B. Crain, Forced convection boiling inside helically-coiled
tubes, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 11 (1968) 1779–1793.
[15] M. Kozeki, H. Nariai, T. Furukawa, K. Kurosu, A study of helically-coiled tube
once-through steam generator, Bull. JSME 13 (1970) 1485–1494.
[16] H. Nariai, M. Kobayashi, T. Matsuoka, Friction pressure drop and heat transfer
coefficient of two-phase flow in helically coiled tube once-through steam
generator for integrated type marine water reactor, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 19
(1982) 936–947.
[17] L. Guo, Z. Feng, X. Chen, An experimental investigation of the frictional
pressure drop of steam–water two-phase flow in helical coils, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf. 44 (2001) 2601–2610.
[18] B.K. Hardik, S.V. Prabhu, Boiling pressure drop and local heat transfer
distribution of helical coils with water at low pressure, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 114
(2017) 44–63.
[19] A. Ruffell, The application of heat transfer and pressure drop data to the design
of helical coil once-through boilers, in: IChemE. Symp. Ser, vol. 38, 1974, pp. 1–
22.
[20] H. Ünal, M. Van Gasselt, P. Van’t Verlaat, Dryout and two-phase flow pressure
drop in sodium heated helically coiled steam generator tubes at elevated
pressures, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 24 (1981) 285–298.
29
[21] X. Chen, F. Zhou, An investigation of flow pattern and frictional pressure drop
characteristics of air-water two-phase flow in helical coils, in: Proceedings of
4th Miami International Conference on Alternate Energy Sources, 1981, pp.
120–129.
[22] L. Santini, A. Cioncolini, C. Lombardi, M. Ricotti, Two-phase pressure drops in a
helically coiled steam generator, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 51 (2008) 4926–
4939.
[23] H. Ju, Z. Huang, Y. Xu, B. Duan, Y. Yu, Hydraulic performance of small bending
radius helical coil-pipe, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 38 (2001) 826–831.
[24] M. Colombo, L.P. Colombo, A. Cammi, M.E. Ricotti, A scheme of correlation for
frictional pressure drop in steam–water two-phase flow in helicoidal tubes,
Chem. Eng. Sci. 123 (2015) 460–473.
[25] S. Zhang, H. Gu, X. Cheng, Z. Xiong, Experimental study on heat transfer of
supercritical Freon flowing upward in a circular tube, Nucl. Eng. Des. 280
(2014) 305–315.
[26] P.R. Bevington, D.K. Robinson, J.M. Blair, A.J. Mallinckrodt, S. McKay, Data
reduction and error analysis for the physical sciences, Comput. Phys. 7 (1993)
415–416.
[27] A.M. Fsadni, J.P.M. Whitty, M.A. Stables, A brief review on frictional pressure
drop reduction studies for laminar and turbulent flow in helically coiled tubes,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 109 (2016) 334–343.
[28] L.S. Tong, J. Weisman, Thermal Analysis of Pressurized Water Reactors, 1996.
[29] H. Ito, Friction factors for turbulent flow in curved pipes, Trans. ASME, J. Basic
Eng., D 81 (1959) 123–134.
[30] P.S. Srinivasan, Pressure drop and heat transfer in coils, Chem. Eng. 218 (1968)
CE113–CE119.
[31] D.I.E.F. Schmidt, Wärmeübergang und Druckverlust in Rohrschlangen, Chem.
Ing. Tech. 39 (1967) 781–789.
[32] L. Chen, Prediction of frictional pressure drop for two-phase flow, 1990.
[33] D. Chisholm, L. Sutherland, Prediction of pressure gradients in pipeline
systems during two-phase flow, in: Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Conference Proceedings, Vol. 184, SAGE Publications
Sage UK: London, England, 1969, pp. 24–32.