he WATER d David S. Dickey, ‘American Reactor Corp." were presented for the vapor pres- sure, boiling point and liquid specific volume of water, as functions of pres- sure or temperature. These equations éderived using data from Table 3302 “of Perry's Chemical Engineers’ Hand- book, 6th ed., regression analysis, and ‘exponent-based correlation equations. ‘Tab regression analysis is done with the mathematical capabilities of spread- sheet programs on personal computers. is continuation of the article pre- sefits equations for a host of other im- it physical and transport proper- eof water and steam A table (p. 236) shows maximum errors and standard deviations for the correlations, which provide the user with a feel for their accuracy. !An important proviso of the correla- tions is that they apply in the tempera- + tre range of 273.15 K (82F) to 500 K |, (440.57). Note also that they are pre- } sented in English units. I: Part 1 of this article,t equations fe tna incr at Aneinn ear Pn Dan Die New care, OH stu 10) Soha” 305 Sept, p.m. PLANT NOTEBOOK PRACTICAL FORMULAS CALCULATE PROPERTIES Part 2 Thermal expansion coefficient hig = 2-1TSTX1074.2.8876x 10° T + 13018 x 104 79)/ 74 (5) This equation is obtained by taking the derivative of liquid specific vol- ume, Equation 4, with respect to ter perature and dividing by liquid specif- ic volume, Vig. While Equation 5 is only moderately accurate with re- spect toa few values found in Perry's, it does provide a reasonable relation- ship with temperature dependence for use in correlations for natural-convec- tion heat transfer. ‘The specific volume (liquid) can be | inverted to provide a density function: Liquid density (\b/t°) Pig = 62.7588 - 8.5847 x 10° = 48198 x 10577 © ‘The correlation for vapor specific vol- ume can be developed using similar tabulation and regression techniques: Vapor specific volume (ft*/1b) Vi = exp(9.8289 - 4.1055 10° 7 + T1159 x 1087? ~ 5.7089 x 10° 7) Because of the form of this correlation, the inverse for vapor density is ob- @ Simplified equations approximate most key water and steam properties tained by changing the signs of the coefficients: Vapor density (Ib/tt®) Pr = exp(-9.3239 + 4.1055 x 1077 1.1159 x 1047? + 5.7089 x 10°79) ® | Both liquid and vapor enthalpy are im- portant thermodynamic properties. The correlation for liquid enthalpy can be handled by a second-order polynomial: Liquid enthalpy (Btu/'b) Hyg = -S1.1247 +. 0.96008 7 + 1.1301 x 1047? @ ‘This expression is not the” least squares regression for the available data. The constant term should be - 80.8128, but at 82°F the original equa- tion has a nonzero value of 0,812. By altering the constant, a value less than 0.009 is obtained. For design calcula tions, the constant 0.8 offset in the correlation has an inconsequential ef fect on the standard deviation, while substantially redueing the maximum percentage error and closely ap- proaching zero at freezing. ‘The next formula to consider is that of latent heat of vaporization, which is established by regression analysis: CHEMICAL ENGINEERING/NOVEMBER 1991 235PLANT NOTEBOOK Latent heat of vaporization Btu/\b) | ‘AH, = 1,087.54 - 0.48110 7 | 5440x1047? (10) ‘The correlation for latent heat is partic- ularly usefal for heat exchanger design calculations where condensing steam is the heat souree. The same correlation may be appropriate for evaporation in boiler design. Now consider the correlation for vax por enthalpy. An independent correla tion could be developed by regression analysis, or physical considerations could lead to an expression of it as the sum of the correlations for liquid en- thalpy and latent heat: | Vapor enthalpy (Btu/lb) Hy = 1,056.42 + 0.53798 7 = 4.4187 x 104 72 ay Because of the relatively large values for vapor enthalpy, the standard devi ation is the same as that for the regres- sion expression. Equation 11, however, retains the physical significance of the relationship between vapor-liquid en- thalpy and latent heat. A correlation for liquid specific heat is developed using the availatle data and regression analysis: Liquid specific heat (Btu/Ib -'F) pig = 1.0070 ~ 1.1788 x 107 +3.0005 x 10-772 + 11854 x 10°73) a) Even a cubic expression does not pro- vide an adequate correlation. By plot- ting the original data and the correla- tion, it had become apparent that at higher temperatures, the specific heat had begun to change at a different rate. Since many heat-transfer ealeu- Jations for water are done at atmo- spheric or low pressures, and tem- peratures below 250, another specific heat correlation’ has been developed: Liquid specific heat (T < 250°) tu/b-*F) Chiig = 1.0152 - 3.6171 x 1047 +.2.1709 x 1072 =2.9881 x 1097!) 8) ‘The appropriate correlation to use de- pends on the range of temperatures ‘and the accuracy appropriate for a giv- | en engineering application. 236 CHEMICAL ENGINECAING/NOVEMBER 1991 Maximum Sample standard ‘error (n) “dovlaton (3) 2 364 | Boiting point 3 266 143 | Liquid specine volume 4 ona oo | Thermal expansion cooficient 5 Uquid density (ib/t) 6 026 10 | Vapor specie volume (tb) 7 a7 205 Vapor density Riss Fe ae 19 Uguid.enthatpy (Bru/lby £9. 086 | Nepotoron @iuip) 1 63 a9 Vapor enthalpy (Bh/15) ” 026 ona Lguld specific 2 025 rs Hoult spect as oat aos | Vapor specitic heat (allo) Aa 049 ons 2023 os 037 049 0.43 020 | 109 029 48.40 687. 3.44” 5e a p76 ‘TABLE 1: The accuracy of the derived correlations is generally quite good Next, a correlation for vapor specific heat is obtained: 00097982 + 2.2508 x 107" = 8.3841 x 10% 72 + 1.8158 x 1078 (18) Vapor specific beat (Bta/lb “F) | 10 raany emphical heattranstescaleo- Con = OEE, + LEME XIO*T | tions, iis convenient to have a core + 46614 10°73) (14) | lation for the Prandt! number: Remember that this specificheat caleu- | Liquid Prandt! number lation is for saturated steam and not superheated steam. ‘The correlation for liquid viscosity is better handled by a slightly different Nevin) = ~0.25229 + 458.247 (19) A correlation for intermediate empera- tures (63.3 to 260.3°F) is found to be rete ficia: more accurate within that ranze: |, + ‘ fa Liquid viscosity (Ib/h ft) Liquid Prandé! num ‘al fig = ~ 0.28585 + 208,65/ 7 intermediate T) . = 2,074.8/ T? as) Regression correlations were devel- oped for other transport properties — vapor viscosity, liquid conductivity and vapor conductivity: Nn = 007881 + 5140/7 Go ‘The correlation for the vapor versii returns to the polynomial form: 2 Vapor Prandtl number 3 Npqs) = 0.79579 + 6.8990 10+ 7 Vapor viscosity (Ib/h ft) +9.0570 x 10-7 72 & Py = 0.017498 + 5.7455 x10 7 13717 x 108 7? (16) | The accuracy of these correlations jis fe ivity summarized in the Table, as well as oo. maximum error and sample standa deviation. The latter two comparis are relative to the tabulated valu from Perry's (Table 3.902) for temper’ tures from 320 to 440.3. E Edited by Nicholas Bas| } iq = 0.8171 + 6.2278 x 10477 = 1.1169 x 1047? Vapor thermal conductivity (Btu/h fF) an