International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 89 (2015) 522–538

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

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

Local heat transfer coefficient in helical coils with single phase flow
B.K. Hardik, P.K. Baburajan, S.V. Prabhu ⇑
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, India

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

Article history: The objective of the present work is to study the influence of curvature and Reynolds number on local
Received 11 March 2015 heat transfer coefficient in a helical coil with water as the working medium. The local wall temperature
Received in revised form 7 May 2015 is measured not only in the axial direction (along the length of coil) but also in the circumferential direc-
Accepted 15 May 2015
tion using infrared thermal imaging technique. The test sections are made of thin walled stainless steel
(SS 304) tubes having an inner diameter varying from 5.4 to 7.5 mm with a thickness of 0.2 and 0.25 mm.
The coil diameter to the tube diameter ratio ranges from 13.1 to 67 and coil pitch is 50 mm. The exper-
Keywords:
imental results of friction factor and overall averaged total Nusselt number are compared with the avail-
Local heat transfer coefficient
Circumferentially averaged Nusselt number
able correlations in the literature. Correlations are suggested for overall averaged and local
Thermal infrared imaging circumferentially averaged Nusselt number for inner side, outer side and total surface (inner side and
Helical coil outer side) of a helical coil.
Curvature ratio Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Heat transfer enhancement in single phase flow is realized
through various heat transfer augmentation techniques. One of
the techniques involves the use of helical coils. Major advantage
of helical coils is that it provides more surface area for a given vol-
ume (compactness). Heat transfer applications in a straight tube
create many mechanical problems due to thermal expansion which
can be minimized by the use of helical coil. The secondary flows
are generated in helical coils. These secondary flows are essentially
responsible for the increase in the heat transfer. The secondary
movement of fluid particles in helical coils increases the pumping
power requirement compared to the straight channel. Detailed
review on fluid flow and heat transfer in curved tubes along with
their potential applications in process industries is reported by
Vashisth et al. [1].
Research in helical coils is directed toward gaining fundamental
understanding of flow and towards obtaining experimental results.
Fundamental studies clearly bring out secondary flow mechanism
inside curved tubes. In helical coils, the geometric parameters like
pipe diameter, coil diameter and coil pitch (curvature and torsion)
affect the heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop. The sec-
ondary flows in helical coils create complexity in the measurement
of heat transfer coefficient due to circumferential variation in the
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology, Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400 076, India. Tel.: +91 22
25767515; fax: +91 22 25726875.
E-mail address: svprabhu@iitb.ac.in (S.V. Prabhu).
wall temperature (Seban and Mclanghlin [2], Xin and Ebadian [3]
and Bai et al. [4]).
Tables 1 and 2 provide the summary of the investigations
reported in the literature on pressure drop and heat transfer in
helical coils respectively. A comprehensive collection of published
correlations of single-phase friction factors and heat transfer coef-
ficients are given in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. Flow may be clas-
sified as laminar and turbulent depending on Reynolds number,
coil curvature and tube diameter. Several correlations are available
for single phase pressure drop. Pressure drop in helical coils are
dependent on curvature ratio. Curvature ratio changes the strength
of the secondary flow which stabilises the flow and causes delay in
inception of turbulence. When the pitch of helical coil is smaller
than diameter of coil it does not influence the flow. However, when
the pitch is higher than diameter of helical coil its effect is counted
in coil curvature [5]. Among all the correlations listed in Table 1,
Ito’s [6] and Ito’s [7] correlations are most widely accepted for sin-
gle phase pressure drop in curved tube for laminar and turbulent
flow respectively.
Less information is available for heat transfer coefficient in heli-
cal coil with water as fluid. Seban and Mclanghlin [2] correlation is
obtained based on the measurement of temperature by placing ten
thermocouples circumferentially at one axial location. Rogers and
Mayhew [8] measured average heat transfer coefficient and con-
cluded that Seban and Mclanghlin [2] correlation provided satis-
factory results with the properties of fluid calculated at mean
bulk fluid temperatures. Several investigators [2–3,9–13] suggest
correlations for heat transfer for their own range of Reynolds num-
ber or Dean number which is either higher than the critical

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2015.05.069
0017-9310/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 B.K. Hardik et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 89 (2015) 522–538 523

Nomenclature

Symbol Definition t thickness mm

AMTD average mean temperature difference °C x, z local length mm
Cp specific heat at constant pressure kJ/kg K
d diameter of tube mm Subscripts
d/D curvature ratio b bulk
D diameter of coil mm cir circumferential averaged
D/d coil to tube diameter ratio cr critical
fc friction factor for coil f film
fs fanning friction factor for straight tube H heated
h heat transfer coefficient W/m2 K loc local
k thermal conductivity W/m K max maximum
L, l total length mm min minimum
LMTD logarithmic mean temperature difference °C w wall
_
m, mass flow rate kg/s
l dynamic viscosity Pa s
Dimensionless number pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
p pitch mm Dn Dean number Re d=D
Q heat supply kW Eu Euler number DP=2qV 2
q00 heat flux kW/m2 2 2
Gn Germano number Rep2 ðD=dÞ=f½pðD=dÞ þ ðp=dÞ g
R, r radius mm Gz _ p =KL
Graetz number mC
RMS root mean square Nu Nusselt number hd=k
q density kg/m3 Pr Prandtl number lC p =k
T temperature °C _ pdl
Re Reynolds number 4m=

Reynolds number or not dependant on critical Reynolds number.
This suggests that there may be no observable discontinuity in
Nusselt number to identify transitional Reynolds number.
Major difficulty in measuring the local heat transfer coefficient
is placing several thermocouples at different circumferential loca-
tions for a given axial location. Because of this, only pressure drop
and average heat transfer coefficient results are reported in the lit-
erature. However, there is a need to measure the local heat transfer
distribution in helical coils for identifying the hot spots. Hence, in
the present study, local wall temperature distribution is measured
using non-intrusive infrared thermal imaging technique with a res-
olution of around 0.5 mm.
The objective of the present study is to investigate the pressure
drop and local heat transfer distribution in a helical coil with water
as the working medium. The coil diameter to the tube diameter
ratio ranges from 13.1 to 67 and coil pitch is 50 mm.
Measurement methodology is validated by comparing the experi-
mental results of friction factor and overall averaged total
Nusselt number with the available correlations in the literature.
Correlations are suggested for overall averaged and local circum-
ferentially averaged Nusselt number for inner side, outer side
and total surface (inner side and outer side) of a helical coil.
2. Description of the experimental set-up
Fig. 1 shows a schematic diagram of the experimental facility. It
is an open loop flow system with water serving as working fluid.
The system consists of an insulated water sump, magnetically cou-
pled sealless gear pump, ball valves, bypass valves, vertical ori-
ented helical coil test section and straight horizontal tube test
section and insulated water mixing flask. The gear pumps (make:
micropump, model: GL-H25 JSFC) with a mass flow rate range from
0 to 360 gm/s is driven by a D. C. motor. The speed of the motor is
varied between 0 and 3500 rpm by a motor controller.
The test facility is instrumented by temperature, pressure and
flow rate measuring devices to measure the pressure drop and heat
transfer coefficient in the test sections. K-type thermocouples are
used to measure the inlet and outlet fluid bulk temperatures.
Five thermocouples are used to measure the outlet bulk tempera-
ture of water in the insulated thermos flask and three
thermocouples are utilized to measure the inlet temperature of
water in the insulated water sump. The wall temperature of test
section is measured using Themoteknix – VisIR 640 Infra-Red ther-
mal camera. Thermal camera measures the intensity of radiation
emitted by the test section wall. The intensity depends on the tem-
perature and the emissivity of the surface. The test section is
painted with a thin coat of black board paint to have an emissivity
of 0.88. The differential pressure transmitters (make: Rosemount,
model: 3051CD2A22A1AB4M5K5DF) are used to measure the pres-
sure drop across the test sections and the pressure transmitter to
measure the absolute pressure at the inlet of the test section. The
range of the differential pressure transmitters is 0–6.22 kPa and
6.22–62.2 kPa. The range of pressure transmitter is 0–5 bar.
Electromagnetic flow meter (make: Rosemount, model:
8711ASA30FU1NAD1) is used to measure the mass flow rate of
water. Two different range of this flow meter 0–50 and 50–
500 gm/s are set to measure low flow rate and high flow rate accu-
rately. All the test sections are heated electrically by passing DC
current through the tube wall maintaining the uniform heat flux
condition. DC power supply (Aplab make – CVCC 50 kW; 0–
1250 amp current and 0–40 volt voltage) is used to supply power
through the test section. The rate of power supplied is determined
from the measured current and voltage across the coil. The DC cur-
rent is measured using the power supply digital reading, while the
voltage is measured using power supply digital reading and multi-
meter. These are recorded manually.
All the instruments are connected to Atomberg – AB 4001 Data
Acquisition system (DAS) which is in turn connected to a personal
computer. DAS contains 8 thermocouple ports which are con-
nected to thermocouple connections fitted at the open end of the
thermocouples. The pressure transmitters and flowmeter are con-
nected to DAS through 100 ohms registers to convert current signal
into readable voltage signal (0–2 V). All the readings are taken after
the reaching of steady state.
2.1. Description of the test section
Helical coils and straight tubes used for testing are made of
stainless steel SS304 as shown in Fig. 1. Care is taken to produce
524 B.K. Hardik et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 89 (2015) 522–538

Table 1
Available pressure drop correlations for single-phase flow.

Authors D/d, d (mm), D (mm), L (mm), Correlation Remark

(year) P (mm), t (mm)
 h 1
White [14] D/d = 15, 50, 2050;
fc  0:45 i0:45
1 11:6 < Dn < 2000
(1929) d = 6.3, 10.3, 0.3; fs
¼ 1  1  11:6
Dn

White [15] (1932) D = 156, 317, 6105 0:5 15000 < Re < 100000
f c =2 ¼ 0:04Re0:25 þ 0:006ðd=DÞ

Ito [6] (1959) D/d = 16.4–648; 1=2 2 0:25 2

300 > Reðd=DÞ > 0:034
4f c ðD=dÞ ¼ 0:029 þ 0:304ðReðd=DÞ Þ
d = 16, 35;
One seventh power law
D = 260, 1400, 1600, 4000, 1=2 0:079 2
f c ðD=dÞ ¼ Reðd=DÞ > 6
10,400 ðReðd=DÞ Þ
2 0:2

1 2
f c =f s ¼ ðReðd=DÞ Þ
2 20 Reðd=DÞ > 6
0:25
f s ¼ 0:079Re

1:27 1
Y 2 ðd=DÞ2 < 12
1
1=2
4f c ðD=dÞ ¼ 0:0323 þ 1:6ðY 2 ðd=DÞ2 Þ
1
3 Y
Y e ¼ ReðD=dÞ 2

Logarithmic velocity distribution law

1:186 1
Y 2 ðd=DÞ2 > 5:3
4f c ¼
Y2
Ito [7] (1969) fC
¼ 0:1008Dn0:5 ½ð1 þ 1:729=DnÞ0:5  1:315=Dn0:5 
3 30 < Dn < Recr
fS

Theoretical laminar fC
¼ 0:1033Dn0:5 ½ð1 þ 1:729=DnÞ0:5  1:315=Dn0:5 
3
fS

Kubair and Varrier D/d = 9.7–2000 f C ¼ 0:7716e3:554 ðd=DÞRe0:5 2000 < Re < 9000
[16] (1961)
Mori and Nakayama Theoretical laminar ðf =f Þ ¼ 0:108Dn0:5 Dn = Large
[17] (1965)  c s 1  
fC
f
¼ ff C 13:253Dn
1
0:5
S 2 S 1

( )
Mori and Nakayama Theoretical turbulent 0:5
2
300 > ReðDd Þ > 0:034
0:3 0:112
[18] (1967) ðf C Þ4 ðD=dÞ ¼ 1 1þ 1
2
½Reðd=DÞ 5
2
½Reðd=DÞ 5 0:5
( ) Re > 650000  ðDd Þ
0:5 0:192 0:068
ðf C Þ5 ðD=dÞ ¼ 1 1þ 1
½Reðd=DÞ2:5 6 ½Reðd=DÞ2:5 6



Schmidt [19] (1967) D/d = 4.91–81.1; 0:97 d 0:312 100 < Re < Recr
f C ¼ 1 þ 0:14ðDd Þ Re 10:644ðDÞ 16
Re
d = 8;
h   i
D = 39, 81, 162, 325, 650; f C ¼ 1 þ 28800 d 0:62 0:079 Recr < Re < 22000
Re D 0:25
Re
L = 1948–5761
0:53
f C ¼ ½1 þ 0:0823ð1 þ d=DÞðd=DÞ Re0:25  Re
0:079
0:25 20000 < Re < 150000

Srinivasan et al. [20] D/d = 7.4–103; fC 8

¼ Re Dn < 30
2
(1970) d = 12.5; 0:5
fC 3:35ðd=DÞ
L = 12,000; 2 ¼ Dn0:725
30 < Dn < 300
p = 38.1, 50.8, 101, 203; 0:5
fC 0:9ðd=DÞ
t = 1.4 2 ¼ Dn0:5 300 < Dn < Recr

Rao and Sadasivudu D/d = 18–63;
[21] (1974) d = 6.35, 8, 9.5;
p = 6.3, 25.4, 50.8, 76.2;
D = 165, 305, 400;
L = 3023, 3467, 4280, 4775
0:2
fC
2 ¼ 0:042ðd=DÞ
Dn0:2
Recr < Dn < 14000
f C ¼ 1:55e14:12ðd=DÞ Re0:64 1200 < Re < Recr
0:94
Recr < Re < 27000
f C ¼ 0:1065 dD0:1 Re0:2
f C ¼ 0:0382e11:17ðd=DÞ Re0:2

Mujawar and Rao D/d = 14.39, 21, 50.5, 100; f C =f S ¼ 0:26Dn0:36 35 < Dn < 2200
[22] (1978) d = 12.1; 14 6 D=d 6 100
p = 19, 26, 57, 136;
L = 4370, 4800, 7660, 7700
Mishra and Gupta D/d = 6.66–333.33; fC
 1 ¼ 0:033ðlog DnÞ
4 1 < Dn < 3000
fS
[5] (1979) d = 6.2, 7.8, 11.65, 17.35; 2
Dc ¼ D½1 þ ðp=pdÞ 
p = 80–2000;
D = 78–8000
0:5 4500 < Dn < 100000
f C  f ST ¼ 0:0075ðd=DC Þ
0:25
f ST ¼ 0:079Re

Austen and Soliman D/d = 29, 49; Compared experimental results for friction factor with Mishra and Gupta [5] and For 50 < Re < 7000
[23] (1988) d = 4.57; t = 0.885; Nusselt number with Manlapaz and Churchill [24] 3 < Pr < 6
p = 22.85, 265, 274.2;
D = 132.5, 223.9
 B.K. Hardik et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 89 (2015) 522–538 525

Table 1 (continued)

Authors D/d, d (mm), D (mm), L (mm), Correlation Remark

(year) P (mm), t (mm)
Ali [25] (2001) D/d = 19.3, 25, 37.2; Eu  Grhc ¼ 38Re1 Re > 500
d = 6.03, 4.64; 2 500 < Re < 6300
Eu  Grhc ¼ 5:25Re3
p = 10, 50; 1 6300 < Re < 10000
L = 1120, 2250, 4260; Eu  Grhc ¼ 0:31Re3 Re > 10000
1
D = 116.225, 224.48 Eu  Grhc ¼ 0:045Re8
0:85 0:15
Grhc ¼ d D =L

Gupta et al. [26] D/d = 11.66–105.48; f C ¼ f S ð1 þ 0:903Gn0:227 Þ Gn P 70

(2011) f C ¼ f S ð1 þ 0:525Gn0:516 Þ Gn 6 70

Pimenta and Campos D/d = 40.19; d = 4.32; f C ¼ 16 0:028Dn 1:68

80 < Re < 6300
Re ð1 þ 70þDn Þ
[27] (2012) L = 5500; p = 11.34;
D = 173.63;
Ito [6] (1959) D/d = 15–860 Recr ¼ 20000ðd=DÞ
0:32

Kubair and Varrier D/d = 9.7–2000 Recr ¼ 10000ð1:273Þðd=DÞ

0:2 2000 < Re < 9000
[16] (1961)
Schmidt [19] (1967) D/d = 4.91–81.1 Recr ¼ 2300ð1 þ 8:6ðd=DÞ
0:45
Þ 20000 < Re < 150000

Srinivasan et al. [28] 0:5 Curve fit based on

Recr ¼ 2100ð1 þ 12ðd=DÞ Þ
(1968) reported results
Cioncolini and Santini D/d = 6.9–369 Recr ¼ 30000ðD=dÞ
0:47

[29] (2006) 0:31 D=d 6 24

Recr1 ¼ 12500ðD=dÞ
0:57 30 6 D=d 6 110
Recr2 ¼ 120000ðD=dÞ
30 6 D=d 6 110
1:12
Recr ¼ 2300ð1 þ 210ðD=dÞ Þ D=d P 150

coils with a minimum deformation of the tube diameter. The thick-
ness of all helical coils is less than 0.25 mm.
Pressure taps are drilled at disturbance-free part of the straight
lengths before and after coils. Pressure drop occurred in straight
length is subtracted from the pressure drop data of the
coil-straight length combination so as to give the pressure drop
data for the coiled portion only. The geometric details of the five
coils tested are listed in Table 3. The geometry of the coils is char-
acterized by the ratio of coil to the tube diameter (inverse of cur-
vature ratio). Table 4 shows the range of geometric and
operating parameters covered in the present study.
3. Data reduction
3.1. Friction Factor
The fluid properties in the above calculation are calculated at mean
bulk fluid temperature.
3.2. Nusselt number
The heat supplied to the helical coil is calculated from the elec-
tric current measured by the current supply from power supply
multiplied by the voltage across the test coil measured by the
multimeter.
Q ¼ VI ð6Þ
The water temperature difference is measured to calculate the heat
transfer from coil to water at a given heat load and then divided by
the surface area of the coil to determine the heat flux as shown in
Eqs. (7) and (8):

The friction factor is calculated from the measured pressure _ p ðT bout  T bin Þ
Q conv ¼ mC ð7Þ
drop. The friction factor for helical coil and straight tube is calcu-
lated by Q conv
q00 ¼ ð8Þ
5
pdLH
1 d p2 q d
f C ¼ DP 2 L
¼ DP ð1Þ The heat loss due to convection and radiation in atmosphere is cal-
2qV 32 _2 L
m
culated by subtracting heat supplied to helical coil and heat sup-
The Reynolds number is given by plied to water as shown in Eqs. (6) and (7). In all the experiments,
heat loss to the atmosphere is found to be less than 6%. Thermal
qVd 4 m_ images of infrared thermal camera give pixel by pixel temperature
Re ¼ ¼ ð2Þ
l p dl of test section wall. The temperature distribution of the helical coil
Critical Reynolds number for transition from laminar flow to turbu- is obtained by averaging five thermal images for each configuration.
lent flow is calculated from Fig. 2 shows the cross section of helical coil test section. Local points
0:32 show the circumferential temperature points of thermal image.
d Circumference from 90°–180°–270° is considered as inner side
Recr ¼ 20000 suggested by Ito ½6 ð3Þ
D and 270°–0°–90° is considered as outer side and complete circum-
ference as total.
Friction factor for straight tube is calculated from;
The local heat transfer coefficient and local Nusselt number for
16 the surface are calculated by;
For laminar flow : f S ¼ ð4Þ
Re
q00
hlocal ¼ ð9Þ
14 Tw local  T b local
For turbulent flow : f S ¼ 0:079Re ð5Þ
526 B.K. Hardik et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 89 (2015) 522–538

Table 2
Available single phase heat transfer correlations.

Authors D/d, d (mm), D (mm), Re, Dn, Pr Correlation Boundary and flow condition;
(year) L (mm), p (mm), t Calculation method;
(mm) Properties’ temperature
Seban and D/d = 17, 104; Re = 12–5600 0:33
Nu ¼ 0:065f C Re0:66 Pr 0:33 Constant heat Flux;
Mclanghlin [2] d = 7.37; Pr = 100–657 f C from White ½14 Correlation Peripheral average;
(1963) t = 0.3; Film Temperature
D = 125, 764.5 Re = 6000–65600 0:1
Nu ¼ 0:023Re0:85 Pr 0:4 ðd=DÞ
Pr = 2.9–5.7 (Water)
Rogers and D/d = 10.8, 13.3, 20.1; Re 6 50000 Nuf ¼ 0:021Re0:85 Pr 0:4 ðd=DÞ
0:1 Constant wall temperature;
Mayhew [8] d = 9.5; p = 38.1; Pr for water 0:85 0:4 0:1 Base on LMTD method;
Nub ¼ 0:023Re Pr ðd=DÞ
(1964) L = 2712; f = Film temperature; b = Bulk
D = 102, 125, 190 temperature
   qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Mori and Dn = Large NuC 0:5
¼ 0:1979 Dnx ; NuS ¼ 4:11; x ¼ 112
1 þ 1 þ 77 1 Constant heat flux;
NuS 1 4 Pr2
Nakayama [17] Pr P 1     For laminar region;
NuC NuC 1
(1965) Bulk temperature
NuS 2 ¼ NuS 1 1 1  1
0:5
1 þ 37:05
x
17 13
40  120 x þ 10x þ 30 10Pr Dn
Kubair and Kuloor D/d = 10.3, 13.5, 17.9, Re = 80–6000 Nu ¼ ð1:98 þ 1:8d=DÞGz0:7 Constant wall temperature;
[11] (1966) 27.0; d = 6.5, 9.5, Pr = 20–100 Base on AMTD method;
12.7; Bulk temperature
L = 4700;
D = 114.4, 130, 177
( )
Mori and 4

Nakayama [18] Pr  1 NuC ¼  Pr

2  Re5 ðd=DÞ0:1 1 þ 0:098
1 Constant heat flux;
26:2 Pr3 0:074 ½Reðd=DÞ2 5
(1967) For turbulent region;
( )
Pr for Liquid 5 1 Bulk temperature;
NuC Pr 0:4 ¼ 41
1
Re6 ðd=DÞ12 1 þ 0:061
1
2
½Reðd=DÞ 6

Schmidt [19] D/d = 4.91–81.1; 100 < Re < Recr Nu ¼ 3:65 þ 0:08½1 þ 0:8ðd=DÞ Re½0:5þ0:2903ðd=DÞ  Pr 3
0:9 0:194 1
Constant wall temperature;
(1967) d = 8; h i Base on LMTD method;
Recr < Re < 22000 1 0:1
Nu ¼ 0:023 1 þ 14:8ð1 þ d=DÞðd=DÞ3 Re½0:80:22ðd=DÞ  Pr3
1

D = 39, 81, 162, 325, Bulk temperature

650; 20000 < Re < 150000 Nu ¼ 0:023½1 þ 3:6ð1  d=DÞðd=DÞ0:8 Re0:8 Pr 13
L = 1948–5761;

Dravid et al. [9]

D/d = 18.67; Dn = 50–2000 Nu ¼ ð0:76 þ 0:65Dn0:5 ÞPr 0:175 Constant heat flux;
(1971) d = 7.34; t = 6.35; Pr = 5–175 Average of local Nu;
D = 137.16; Bulk temperature;
Janssen and D/d = 12.5–100; 20 < Dn < 830  ¼ ð0:32 þ 3d=DÞRe0:5 Pr0:33 ðd=zÞð0:14þ0:8d=DÞ
Nuz Constant heat flux;
Hoogenwdoorn d = 5, 10; For Thermal Entry Region Peripheral average;
[10] (1978) L = 4.5, 5.5, 5.8; 0 < Dn < 20  ¼ 1:7ðDn2 PrÞ1=6 Bulk temperature
Nu
D = 120, 420, 500,
20 < Dn < 100  ¼ 0:9ðRe2 PrÞ1=6
Nu
620;
100 < Dn < 830  ¼ 0:7Re0:43 Pr 1=6 ðd=DÞ0:07
Nu
0 < Dn < 830 ð0:14þ0:8d=DÞ Constant wall temperature;
ð0:32 þ 3d=DÞ d
For all, Pr = 20–450 hNui ¼ Re0:5 Pr 0:33 Integration of peripheral
ð0:86  0:8d=DÞ L
average
Xin and Ebadian D/d = 11.3–37.5; Dn = 20–2000 Nu ¼ ð2:153 þ 0:318Dn0:643 ÞPr 0:177 Constant heat flux;
[3] (1997) d = 10.16, 22.9; Pr = 0.7–175 Peripheral average;
L = 5500;   Local bulk temperature
5000 < Re < 100000 Nu ¼ 0:00619Re0:92 Pr0:4 1 þ 3:455 Dd
p = 62.5, 76, 325, 381; Pr = 0.7–175
t = 1.27; D = 127, 259,
381
Bai et al. [4] D/d = 23.27; Re = 45,000–190000 Nu ¼ 0:328Re0:58 Pr 0:4 ðlb =lw Þ0:11 Average of local Nu
(1999) d = 11; Pr of Water Nuloc =Nu ¼ 0:22ð104 RePrÞ
0:45
ð0:5 þ 0:1h þ 0:2h2 Þ Local peripheral distribution;
t = 2; For 0 < h 6 p Constant heat flux; Bulk
L = 6448; temperature; turbulent;
p = 60 Horizontally oriented
Cioncolini and D/d = 26.1, 64.1, 93.3; Re 6 63000 Recr ¼ 120000ðD=dÞ
0:57 Constant heat flux, turbulent;
Santini [30] d = 4.03, 4.98; Pr = 2.9–5.7 (Water) Compared experimental results with existing correlation [31] Peripheral average;
(2006) p = 40; 0:11 Local bulk temperature;
ðf =2ÞRePr 0:34 0:68 lb
t = 0.5; Nu ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ½1 þ 0:059Re ðD=dÞ 
1:07 þ 12:7 f =2ðPr 0:667  1Þ lw
D = 130, 319, 376
2
f ¼ ð1:58loge Re  3:28Þ

Aly et al. [32] D/d = 22.2, 37.5, 55.6; Re = 1000–100,000 Results compared with Mori and Nakayama [18] for turbulent region Constant heat flux;
(2006) d = 14.4; t = 0.8; Pr of Water and Manlapaz and Churchill [24] for Laminar region. Bulk temperature;
D = 320, 540, 800; 20 13 31=3 Average of local by setting
L/d = 694, 1180, 1746  3=2 thermocouple at top position;
6B 51=11 C 7
Nu ¼ 4@4811 þ   2A þ 1:816 He
1þ1:15
5
1342 Pr
1þ
PrHe2

2 1=2
He ¼ Dn=½1 þ ðp=pDÞ 
[24]
 B.K. Hardik et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 89 (2015) 522–538 527

Table 2 (continued)

Authors D/d, d (mm), D (mm), Re, Dn, Pr Correlation Boundary and flow condition;
(year) L (mm), p (mm), t Calculation method;
(mm) Properties’ temperature
Pawar and Vivek D/d = 13.2, 15.6, 18.2; Dn = 586–4773 Nu ¼ 0:0472Dn0:8346 Pr 0:4 Constant wall temperature;
[12] (2013) d = 20.8; p = 29.15; Pr = 3.83–7.3 Based on avg. liquid and avg.
t = 2.3; wall temperature; Bulk
L = 8195, 9688, temperature
11,180;
D = 287.3, 337.3,
387.3
Pimenta and D/d = 40.19; d = 4.32; Re = 91–6293 Nu ¼ ð0:5Dn0:481  0:465ÞPr0:367 Constant wall temperature;
Campos [13] L = 5500; p = 11.34; Pr = 10–353 Base on LMTD method; Bulk
(2013) t = 2; Temperature
D = 173.63

Fig. 1. Schematic of the experimental set-up.

Table 3
Geometrical parameters of the test sections studied.

Coil no Tube characteristics Coil characteristics Length

Inner diameter Outer diameter Thickness Mean diameter Pitch No of turns Total Heated
d (mm) do (mm) t (mm) D (mm) p (mm) N LT (mm) LH (mm)
1 7.5 8.0 0.25 98.21 50 6 2091.2 1931.2
2 7.5 8.0 0.25 150.00 50 4 2012.66 1898.73
3 5.4 5.8 0.20 150.00 50 4 2067.31 1905.77
4 5.5 6.0 0.25 250.45 50 3 2576 2311
5 5.5 6.0 0.25 368.65 50 2 2524.5 2330
S1* 7.5 8.0 0.25 – – – 800 550
S2* 5.5 6.0 0.25 – – – 1000 750
*
S1 and S2 are straight tubes.
528 B.K. Hardik et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 89 (2015) 522–538

Table 4
Geometric and operating parameters.

Coil Diameter ratio Pitch Ratio Mass flux Heat flux Pr Re

2 2
D/d p/d G (kg/m ) q’’ (kW/m )
1 13.1 6.67 67–2082 15–123 3.0–5.6 606–18,350
2 20.00 6.67 115–1375 15–95 3.0–5.6 1000–13,000
3 27.78 9.26 233–2200 18–120 3.0–5.6 1400–14,000
4 45.55 9.09 33–2950 15–75 3.0–5.6 217–19,100
5 67.0 9.09 78–2871 15–75 3.0–5.6 462–18,550
S1 – – 115–1375 15–95 3.0–5.6 1000–13,000
S2 – – 78–2871 15–75 3.0–5.6 462–18,550

Nulocal ¼
hlocal d
ð10Þ l ¼ 1:12729  109 T 3 þ 3:0075  107 T 2  3:09368
klocal
 105 T þ 1:4825  103 ð13Þ
llocal C p local
Prlocal ¼ ð11Þ k ¼ 2:4471  108 T 3  1:44359  105 T 2 þ 2:44308
klocal
 103 T þ 5:54423  101 ð14Þ
4 m_
Relocal ¼ ð12Þ
p d  llocal
C p ¼ 1:13606  109 T 4  2:89784  107 T 3 þ 3:49863
 105 T 2  1:61339  103 T þ 4:20385 ð15Þ

90º Local points

i1 o1
i2 o2
o3 Table 5
i3
Axis of the helical coil

Experimental uncertainties.
i4 o4
Parameter Relative Parameter Relative
i5 Secondary flows o5 uncertainty (%) uncertainty (%)

o6 Pipe diameter 0.9 Density 1

i6
Coil diameter 1.4 Viscosity 3
i7 o7 Pipe length 1 Conductivity 1
Current 1.7 Specific Heat 1
i8 o8 Voltage 1.7 Prandtl number 3.3
i9 o9 Mass flow rate 1 Reynolds number 3.3
i10 o10 Temperature 3.4 Friction factor 5.6
i11 o11 Pressure 2.3 Nusselt number 7.8

270º
Fig. 2. Indication of local point for wall temperature measurement on circumfer-
ence of helical coil.

Fig. 4. Comparison of local Nusselt number with Dittus–Boelter correlation for

Fig. 3. Wall temperature distribution along the length of straight tube. straight tube.
 B.K. Hardik et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 89 (2015) 522–538 529

Fig. 5. Comparison of measured friction factor with the existing correlations in the literature.

Table 6 Inner side and outer side local circumferential average Nusselt
Comparison of experimental critical Reynolds number with the value obtained from
number is calculated by averaging Nusselt number measured at
the correlations reported in the literature.
local points shown in Fig. 2 at inner side and outer side of the heli-
Coil 1 Coil 2 Coil 3 Coil 4 Coil 5 cal coil respectively, as shown below
Present experimental 8639 7316 6538 5760 5091 P270
Ito [6] 8781 7668 6903 5893 5207 90 Nulocal
Nucir:inner ¼ ð17Þ
Kubair and Varrier [16] 7610 6992 6548 5931 5490 n
Schmidt [19] 8516 7438 6732 5848 5281
Srinivasan et al. [28] 9064 7735 6881 5834 5178 P90
270 Nulocal
Cioncolini and Santini [29] 8955 7339 6289 3827 3394 Nucir:outer ¼ ð18Þ
n
Total circumferentially averaged local Nusselt number is calcu-
lated by averaging circumferentially averaged local inner side and
q ¼ 1:003557  105 T 3  4:80838  103 T 2  4:56111 outer side Nusselt number as given below.
 102 T þ 1:001045  103 ð16Þ Nucir:outer þ Nucir:inner
Nucir:total ¼ ð19Þ
2
The fluid properties are calculated at local bulk fluid temperature. Overall averaged Nusselt number is calculated by averaging cir-
The local bulk fluid temperature is estimated by the linear interpo- cumferential averaged Nusselt number along the axial length for
lation of inlet and outlet bulk fluid temperature. inner side, outer side and total as shown below;
530 B.K. Hardik et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 89 (2015) 522–538

Fig. 6. Wall temperature distribution at different circumferential points along the axial length of a helical coil of D/d = 13.1.

Fig. 7. Wall temperature distribution along the axial length of the helical coil.

PLH
0 Nucir:av erage Local Nusselt number for straight tube is calculated from
Nu ¼ ð20Þ Dittus–Boelter correlation as given below
n
Nu ¼ 0:023Re0:8 Pr 0:4 ð21Þ
 B.K. Hardik et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 89 (2015) 522–538 531

3.3. Uncertainties in the measured and computed parameters

The uncertainty of different parameters used in experimental

analysis is shown in Table 5. The uncertainties in the geometrical
parameters of the test section are obtained by measuring the val-
ues at different locations. The uncertainties of mass flow rate, tem-
perature, and pressure are calculated by comparing the reading of
data acquisition system with the value obtained from standard
instruments. The uncertainties of heat flux resulted from the accu-
racy of the ampere/volt meters. The thermo-physical properties
correlations used in data reduction are calculated from the tabu-
lated values of National Institute of Standards and Technology.

4. Results and discussion

Measuring methodology of pressure drop is validated by mea-

suring single phase friction factor for horizontal straight tubes.
Thermal imaging technique is validated for straight tube Nusselt
number by comparing experimental Nusselt number with that of
Dittus–Boelter correlation. The friction factor for different helical
coils is compared. The wall temperature distribution of helical coils
in the circumferential and axial direction is measured. The fully
developed overall averaged Nusselt number, circumferentially
averaged local Nusselt number for total, inner side and outer side
of helical coils are presented.

4.1. Validation of the experimental methodology

Pressure drop of all straight tubes (diameter of 5.5 mm for a

length of 1 m and diameter of 7.5 mm for a length of 0.8 m) is mea-
sured for a Reynolds number ranging from 400 to 18,500. The fric-
tion factor measurements from straight tube are in close
agreement with the correlations for smooth straight pipes as given
by Eqs. (4) and (5) for laminar and turbulent flow respectively. The
maximum deviation between the experimental results and those
obtained from correlations is around 10%.
The validation of circumferential as well as axial wall temper-
ature measurement using thermal camera is done by conducting
single phase heat transfer experiments in straight tube. Details
of straight tubes used for experiments are given in Table 3.
The axial temperatures along the length are measured at differ-
ent circumferential location of tube. Fig. 3 shows the axial tem-
peratures along the length of straight tube at 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11
circumferential points as shown in Fig. 2. The inner wall temper-
atures are computed from the measured outer wall temperatures
using one dimensional heat conduction equation under steady
state conditions. The details of this correction methodology are
given in Baburajan et al. [33]. The local axial heat transfer coef-
ficients at circumferential locations are calculated from these
wall temperatures and local bulk fluid temperatures. Fig. 4
shows the comparison of local axial Nusselt number calculated
at different circumferential locations with Dittus–Boelter correla-
tion given by Eq. (21). The maximum deviation between the
experimental results and those predicted by Dittus–Boelter cor-
relation is around 10%.

4.2. Pressure drop measurements in helical coils

Single phase pressure drop experiments conducted for water

under adiabatic condition for all five helical coils in the vertical ori-
entation for a range of Reynolds number from 200 to 19,000 and
Fig. 8. Circumferential wall temperature distribution at different axial points of Dean number from 30 to 4550. The friction factors are obtained
coil. from the measured pressure drop using Eq. (1). The results
532 B.K. Hardik et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 89 (2015) 522–538
Fig. 9. Phenomenal chart for wall temperature and Nusselt number distribution.
obtained for the helical coils are presented as friction factor against
Reynolds number in Fig. 5. The experimental friction factors of all
coils are compared with Ito [6,7] White [14,15] and Mishra and
Gupta [5]. Similarly, comparisons for all coils friction factors with
available correlations are carried out (not shown here because
deviations are significantly high). It is seen that Ito’s, White’s and
Mishra’s experimental correlations and Mori’s theoretical correla-
tions [18] match reasonably well with the experimental data for
all helical coils within a maximum deviation of 10%.
Table 6 shows the comparison of experimental critical Reynolds
number and value obtained from the available correlations in the
literature for all helical coils. The value of experimental critical
Reynolds number is nearer to the values reported by Ito [6] and
Schimdt [19].
4.3. Wall temperature distribution
Many authors in the literature reported the variation (non uni-
formity) in Nusselt number on outer half circumference and inner
half circumference of the helical coil. Among these, Seban and
Mclanghlin [2], Xin and Ebadian [3] and Bai et al. [4] reported
the circumferential Nusselt number distribution of the helical coil
by placing ten thermocouples at only one axial location [2], only
eight thermocouples on the circumference of the helical coil at four
different axial locations [3] and eight thermocouples at every quar-
ter turn for first three turn [4]. Hence, there is lack of information
of local temperature distribution/local Nusselt number distribution
for the complete helical coil. Hence, local temperature distribution
is measured for helical coils with different curvature ratios and
Reynolds number.
Axial wall temperature along the length of the helical coil at dif-
ferent circumferential locations is taken from thermal images.
These circumferential locations are divided as inner side and outer
side of helical coil as shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 6 shows the axial wall
temperature distribution at different circumferential points for
inner side and outer side of helical coil 1 (D/d = 13.1). The inner
side and outer side wall temperature is calculated at eleven differ-
ent circumferential locations (i1 to i11 and o1 to o11) as shown in
Fig. 2. Similar temperature distribution is observed in all the helical
coils covered in this study.
The flow within the coils is fully developed after a distance of 50
tube diameters from the entrance of the curved portion.
Temperature distribution on the inner side is non-uniform while
it is more uniform on the outer side compared to the inner side.
The non-uniformity on the inner side temperature difference
(maximum temperature – minimum temperature) is around
20 °C while that of the outer side is around 3 °C for a helical coil
of D/d = 13.1. Fig. 6 appears cluttered as there is significant
non-uniformity in the temperature distribution. Hence, contours
of the wall temperature (inner side and outer side) for helical coil
1 (D/d = 13.1) and helical coil 5 (D/d = 67) are shown in Fig. 7. It can
be observed that the outer side wall temperature remains almost
uniform in comparison with inner side wall temperature. This is
because of the secondary flow occurring in the helical coil.
To bring out clear understanding about the wall temperature
distribution, the circumferential wall temperatures at different
axial locations are shown in Fig. 8 for helical coils 1, 3 and 5
(D/d = 13.1, 27.8 and 67). The wall temperature distribution indi-
cates that inner side wall temperature follows sinusoidal path
and gives maximum temperature at the inner center. The inner
side wall temperature distribution is symmetric about the center-
line from the inner coil wall (from 180°). The overall circumferen-
tial temperature distribution is almost symmetric in top half wall
(0°–180°) and bottom half wall (180°–360°) of the tube. The peak
value of the inner side wall temperature decreases with the
decrease in the curvature ratio. The ratio of maximum to minimum
 B.K. Hardik et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 89 (2015) 522–538
Fig. 10. Circumferential Nusselt number distribution at different axial locations of a
helical coil.
533
circumferential temperature decreases with the decrease in the
curvature ratio of the helical coil.
Centrifugal force moves cold fluid towards the outer side of the
helical coil and hot fluid moves towards the inner side. Hence, wall
temperature on the outer side is less than that of the inner side. This
temperature difference decreases with the decrease in centrifugal
force. Centrifugal force of the coil having high curvature (low coil
to tube diameter ratio) is higher than the coil having less curvature.
Hence, the temperature difference between inner side and outer
side is higher in helical coil 1 (D/d = 13.1) and lower in helical coil
5 (D/d = 67). Non-uniformity of temperature on the inner side and
outer side can be attributed to the secondary flow. This phe-
nomenon of non-uniform temperature distribution is depicted in
Fig. 9. The strength of secondary flows depends on the curvature
ratio. The helical coil 1 having high curvature ratio has high sec-
ondary flow strength that makes temperature profile steeper.
While helical coil 5 having low curvature ratio has low secondary
flow strength that make temperature profile less steeper.
4.4. Nusselt number distribution
Circumferential distribution of Nusselt number calculated from
local wall temperature and local bulk fluid temperature is shown in
Fig. 10 for helical coil 1, 3 and 5. The general observation of these
distributions is in agreement with Xin and Ebadian [3] research
work. The Nusselt number varies sinusoidally along the circumfer-
ential direction. Inner side Nusselt number distribution is the mir-
ror image of wall temperature distribution. Outer wall temperature
is nearer to bulk fluid temperature. Hence, a small difference in the
outer wall temperature results in significant difference in Nusselt
number. Outer side Nusselt number varies in sinusoidal form.
Nusselt number is maximum at the outer most side at 0° and min-
imum at the inner most side at 180°. Variation in the outer side
Nusselt number is higher than inner side Nusselt number for the
same variation in Reynolds number and Prandtl number. Nusselt
number distribution along the axial length of helical coil is shown
by contour plots in Fig. 11 for the largest and the smallest curva-
ture ratio. Difference in inner side Nusselt number and outer side
Nusselt number is higher in coil having small coil to tube diameter
ratio (D/d = 13.1). Nusselt number distribution of outer side for
smallest curvature helical coil (D/d = 67) is uniform along the
circumference.
4.5. Local circumferentially averaged Nusselt number measurements
Heat transfer coefficient at local points is calculated using Eq.
(9). The properties of water measured from bulk temperature vary
with axial distance. Hence, Reynolds number and Prandtl number
vary with axial length. Local Nusselt number is calculated from
local heat transfer coefficient using Eq. (10). Fig. 12 shows circum-
ferentially averaged local Nusselt number for the inner side, outer
side and total at different axial locations and corresponding local
Reynolds number. These Nusselt numbers of the coils are com-
pared with the straight tube Nusselt number predicted by
Dittus–Boelter correlation. The Nusselt number on the outer side
of coil is higher compared to that of the inner side.
The ratio of the outer to the inner surface Nusselt number varies
in between 1.5 and 3. The Nusselt number on the outer surface of
coil is higher than the straight tube. However, the Nusselt number
on the inner surface is lower than the straight tube for all helical
coils investigated. The Nusselt number on the outer periphery var-
ies largely compare to the inner periphery.
534 B.K. Hardik et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 89 (2015) 522–538

Nusselt Number D/d = 13.1

Flow direction; Inner side; D/d = 13.1; Re = 5350

Flow direction; Outer side; D/d = 13.1; Re = 5350

Nusselt Number D/d = 67.0

Flow direction; Inner side; D/d = 67.0; Re = 3700

Flow direction; Outer side; D/d = 67.0; Re = 3700

Fig. 11. Nusselt Number distribution along the axial length of a helical coil.

4.6. Overall averaged total Nusselt number measurements 4.7. Correlations for Nusselt number

The overall averaged total Nusselt numbers for all five coils
mentioned in Table 4 are calculated. The variation of measured
overall averaged total Nusselt numbers with the Reynolds num-
ber is shown in Fig. 13. These results are compared with the
0:16
Dittus–Boelter correlation. Nusselt number decreases with the
decrease in the curvature ratio and remains almost same as
that of Nusselt number obtained by Dittus–Boelter correlation
for a large curved pipe (D/d = 67). There is no observable
discontinuity in Nusselt number to identify transitional
Reynolds number. This statement agrees well with the graphical
representation of Cioncolini and Santini [30], and Xin and
Ebadian [3] results.
Regression analysis of the measured overall averaged total
Nusselt number in the present study is given by Eq. (22).
D
NuTotal ¼ 0:0456 Re0:8 Pr 0:4 ð22Þ
d
The experimental results of the present study for overall aver-
aged total Nusselt number are compared with the present correla-
tion and with all correlations given in Table 2. Percentage deviation
of overall averaged total Nusselt number predicted by different
correlations from the present experimental results are given in
Table 7. Comparison shows that present correlation given by Eq.
 B.K. Hardik et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 89 (2015) 522–538 535

Fig. 12. Circumferentially averaged Nusselt number distribution along the axial length of helical coil.
536 B.K. Hardik et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 89 (2015) 522–538

(22) and the correlation suggested by Seban and Mclanghlin [2]

with properties taken at bulk fluid temperature fit well. Rogers
and Mayhew [8] suggested that the correlation recommended by
Seban and Mclanghlin [2] works well with the properties taken
at bulk fluid temperature, although it was initially suggested with
properties taken at film temperature. Mori and Nakayama [18] the-
oretical correlation fits well to the experimental data. Seban and
Mclanghlin [2] correlation with properties measured at mean film
temperature deviates more with experimental data. Comparison
shows that general correlation derived for large range of Prandtl
number fails to predict the Nusselt number for water.
The goodness of the helical coil is quantified by an augmenta-
tion factor. Augmentation factor is the Nusselt number of the heli-
cal coil normalized with the Nusselt number of the straight tube at
the same Reynolds number and Prandtl number. The Nusselt num-
ber of the straight tube is computed using Dittus–Boelter correla-
tion. Table 8 compares the augmentation factor of the present
study with that reported in the literature (Jeschke [34] and Seban
and Mclanghlin [2]). The augmentation factor of the present results
matches reasonably well with that reported in the literature.
Correlations for circumferentially averaged local Nusselt num-
Fig. 13. Variation of overall averaged Nusselt number with Reynolds number for
different helical coils studied.
ber and overall averaged Nusselt number of total, outer side and
inner side are given in Table 9. The maximum deviation of the cor-
relations for local circumferentially averaged Nusselt number is
21% for 100% of experimental data and 10% for 80% of the experi-
mental data. The maximum deviation of the correlations for overall
Table 7 averaged Nusselt number is 15% for 100% of experimental data and
Deviation of correlation from experimental overall averaged total Nusselt number. 10% for 86% of the experimental data. The bulk temperature
increases along the axial direction. Fluid properties depend on
Author Deviation the bulk fluid temperature. Hence, the properties vary along the
RMS Average Max Range axial direction and are taken into account while calculating local
Present correlation Eq. (22) 6.7 1.4 13 to 15
circumferentially averaged Nusselt number. However, during the
Seban and Mclanghlin [2] 7.9 3.9 15 to 17 calculation of overall averaged Nusselt number, the properties
Properties at bulk temp are calculated at the average of the inlet and outlet bulk fluid tem-
Mori and Nakayama [18] 8.5 4.4 16 to 9 perature. It is interesting to note that, in spite of this different
Cioncolini and Santini [30] 11 5.5 9 to 26
approach in taking fluid properties for circumferentially averaged
Seban and Mclanghlin [2] 12 5.3 16 to 28
– Properties at film temp and overall averaged Nusselt numbers, the correlations for both
Schmidt [19] 12 7.3 19 to 24 remain same.
Xin and Ebadian [3] 18 15 31 to 5 The correlations for inner side, outer side and total Nusselt
Manlapaz and Churchill [24] 26 23 51 to 6 number suggest that the influence of Reynolds number and
Janssen and Hoogenwdoorn [10] 26 25 32 to 2
Bai et al. [4] 28 26 38 to 5
Prandtl number is same. However, the influence of curvature on
Kubair and Kuloor [11] 28 26 43 to 9 Nusselt number is more pronounced on the outer side compared
Mori and Nakayama [17] 29 20 13 to 88 to that of the inner side. On the outer side, the Nusselt number
Pawar and Vivek [12] 42 41 58 to 18 decreases with the increase of coil to tube diameter ratio (D/d)
Dravid et al. [9] 43 41 61 to 15
because the strength of the secondary flow is decreasing and tend-
Pimenta and Campos [13] 53 52 67 to 33
ing towards straight tube configuration. This decrease varies from
rnffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
o
P 100% to 20% with the increase in D/d for outer side. However, on
RMS deviation = 1=N N i¼1 ½ðX cal  X exp Þ=X exp 
2
.
P the inner side, the Nusselt number increases mildly with the
Average deviation = 1=N N i¼1 ½ðX cal  X exp Þ=X exp .
increase of coil to tube diameter ratio (D/d). This increase varies
Max range of deviation = MinN N
i¼1 ½ðX cal  X exp Þ=X exp to Maxi¼1 ½ðX cal  X exp Þ=X exp . from 25% to 35% only with the increase in D/d for inner side.

Table 8
Comparison of augmentation factor of Nusselt number.

Sr. no. D/d Jeschke [34] Seban and Mclanghlin [2] (Re = 10,000) Present
(1 + 3.5 d/D) Re0.05 (d/D)0.1 1.983(D/d)0.16
Coil 1 13.10 1.267 1.225 1.314
Coil 2 20.00 1.200 1.190 1.228
Coil 3 27.80 1.126 1.137 1.165
Coil 4 45.54 1.077 1.082 1.076
Coil 5 67.03 1.052 1.041 1.012
 B.K. Hardik et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 89 (2015) 522–538
Table 9
Correlations for circumferentially averaged local Nusselt number and overall averaged Nusselt number.
Location Correlation
Circumferentially averaged local Nusselt number
Total  0:16 0:8 0:4
Nux;cir:Total ¼ 0:0456 Dd Rex Pr x
Outer side  0:315 0:8 0:4
Nux;cir:Outer ¼ 0:104 Dd Rex Pr x
Inner side  0:088 0:8 0:4
Nux;cir:Inner ¼ 0:012 Dd Rex Prx
Overall averaged Nusselt number
Total  0:16 0:8 0:4
NuTotal ¼ 0:0456 Dd Re Pr
Outer side D0:315 0:8 0:4
NuOuter ¼ 0:104 d Re Pr
Inner side  0:088 0:8 0:4
NuInner ¼ 0:012 Dd Re Pr
5. Conclusions
Experiments are conducted to study the effect of the curvature
of the helical coil, Reynolds number and Prandtl number on friction
factor and local Nusselt number with water as the working med-
ium. Curvature of the helical coil is studied for different coil to tube
diameter ratios of 13.1, 20, 27.8, 45.6 and 67. Reynolds number is
varied between 300 and 19,000. Local temperature and Nusselt
number distribution is obtained by thermal infrared imaging tech-
nique. Following are the conclusions that may be drawn from the
present study
 Pressure drop in the helical coil for both laminar and turbulent
regions is dependent on the curvature of the coil.
 The transition from laminar flow to turbulent flow in helical
coils is smoother than straight tube.
 Circumferential wall temperature on inner side of coil is varying
in sinusoidal from. Compared to inner side, the outer side wall
temperature remains almost constant. Amplitude of the sinu-
soidal temperature distributions decreases with the decrease
in the curvature ratio.
 Circumferential Nusselt number varies in sinusoidal from in
both outer side and inner side. The Nusselt number is maximum
at outer most side and minimum at inner most side.
 Correlations are suggested for fully developed overall averaged
inner side, outer side and total Nusselt numbers. The same cor-
relations are used to measure circumferentially averaged local
Nusselt number along the axial length of coil by using the local
value of Reynolds number and Prandtl number.
 The form of all three correlations are same as straight tube
Dittus -Boelter Nusselt number correlation except that the cur-
vature ratio (D/d) plays a significant role which otherwise
would not have been there for straight tube.
 Total Nusselt number and Nusselt number for outer side of heli-
cal coil decrease (from 100% to 20%) with decrease in curvature
ratio. However, on the inner side, the Nusselt number increases
mildly (from 25% to 35%) with the increase of coil to tube diam-
eter ratio (D/d).
6. Contributions of the present work
The present work presents a comprehensive literature review
on single phase pressure drop and heat transfer coefficient in heli-
cal coils. Correlations used to predict pressure drop and transition
Reynolds number are identified. Local distribution of wall temper-
ature along the axial length aids in identifying hot spots in a helical
coil. Correlations for inner and outer side Nusselt number along the
axial length are presented to bring out the effect of curvature ratio.
537
RMS error (%) Range of application
8.2 Fully developed flow,
11.5 Uniform wall heat flux,
1000 < Rex < 17,500,
10.2
3 < Prx < 6,
13.1 < D/d < 67.0
6.7 Fully developed flow,
8.4 Uniform wall heat flux,
1700 < Re < 14,000,
7.3
3 < Pr < 6,
13.1 < D/d < 67.0
Local Nusselt number distribution presented in this study would
serve as benchmark data for validation of numerical results of heli-
cal coils.
Conflict of interest
None declared.
Acknowledgements
Authors hereby acknowledge the financial support given by
Ministry of Defence (R and D). Authors wish to acknowledge the
support given by Captain Binduraj from Ministry of Defence (R
and D) and Shri K.N. Vyas and Shri Joe Mohan from Bhabha
Atomic Research Centre.
References
[1] S. Vashisth, V. Kumar, K.D.P. Nigam, A review on the potential applications of
curved geometries in process industry, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 47 (2008) 3291–
3337.
[2] R.A. Seban, E. Mclanghlin, Heat transfer in tube coils with laminar and
turbulent flow, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 6 (1963) 387–395.
[3] R.C. Xin, M.A. Ebadian, The effects of Prandtl numbers on local and average
convective heat transfer characteristics in helical pipes, J. Heat Transfer 119
(1997) 467–473.
[4] B. Bai, L. Guo, Z. Feng, X. Chen, Turbulent heat transfer in a horizontal helically
coiled tube, Heat Transfer Asian Res. 28 (1999) 395–403.
[5] P. Mishra, S.N. Gupta, Momentum transfer in curved pipes. 1. Newtonian fluids,
Indust. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 18 (1979) 130–137.
[6] H. Ito, Friction factors for turbulent flow in curved pipes, Trans. Am. Soc. Mech.
Eng. D81 (1959) 123–134.
[7] H. Ito, Laminar flow in curved pipes, J. Appl. Math. Mech. (ZAMM) 11 (1969)
653–663.
[8] G.F.C. Rogers, Y.R. Mayhew, Heat transfer and pressure loss in helically coiled
tubes with turbulent flow, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 7 (1964) 1207–1216.
[9] A.N. Dravid, K.A. Smith, E.W. Merrill, P.L.T. Brain, Effect of secondary fluid on
laminar flow heat transfer in helically coiled tubes, Am. Inst. Chem. Eng. J. 17
(1971) 1114–1122.
[10] L.A.M. Janssen, C.J. Hoogenwdoorn, Laminar convective heat transfer in helical
coiled tubes, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 21 (1978) 1197–1206.
[11] V. Kubair, N.R. Kuloor, Heat transfer to newtonian fluids in coiled pipes in
laminar flow, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 9 (1966) 63–75.
[12] S.S. Pawar, K.S. Vivek, Experimental studies on heat transfer to Newtonian and
non-newtonian fluids in helical coils with laminar and turbulent flow, Exp.
Thermal Fluid Sci. 44 (2013) 792–804.
[13] T.A. Pimenta, J.B.L.M. Campos, Heat transfer coefficients from Newtonian and
non-newtonian fluids flowing in laminar regime in a helical coil, Int. J. Heat
Mass Transfer 58 (2013) 676–690.
[14] C.M. White, Streamline flow through curved pipes, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A: 64
(1929) 123–138.
[15] C.M. White, Fluid friction and its relation to heat transfer, Trans. Inst. Chem.
Eng. 10 (1932) 66–80.
[16] V. Kubair, C.B.S. Varrier, Pressure drop for fluid flow in helical coils, Trans.
Indian Inst. Chem. Eng. 14 (1961) 93–97.
[17] Y. Mori, W. Nakayama, Study on forced convective heat transfer in curved
pipes, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 5 (1965) 67–82.
538 B.K. Hardik et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 89 (2015) 522–538
[18] Y. Mori, W. Nakayama, Study on forced convection heat transfer in curved
pipes, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 10 (1967) 681–694.
[19] E.F. Schmidt, Warmeubergang and druckverlust in rohrschbugen, Chem. Eng.
Tech. 13 (1967) 781–789.
[20] P.S. Srinivasan, S.S. Nandapurkar, F.A. Holland, Friction factors for coils, Trans.
Inst. Chem. Eng. 48 (1970) T156–T161.
[21] M.V.R. Rao, D. Sadasivudu, Pressure drop studies in helical coils, Indian J.
Technol. 12 (1974) 473–479.
[22] B.A. Mujawar, M.R. Rao, Flow of non-Newtonian fluids through helical coils,
Indust. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 17 (1978) 1–9.
[23] D.S. Austen, H.M. Soliman, Laminar flow and heat transfer in helically coiled
tubes with substantial pitch, Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 1 (1988) 183–194.
[24] R.L. Manlapaz, S.W. Churchill, Fully developed laminar convection from a
helical coil, Chem. Eng. Commun. 9 (1981) 185–200.
[25] S. Ali, Pressure drop correlations for flow through regular helical coil tubes,
Fluid Dyn. Res. 28 (2001) 295–310.
[26] R. Gupta, R.K. Wanchoo, T.R.M.J. Ali, Laminar flow in helical coils: a parametric
study, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 50 (2011) 1150–1157.
[27] T.A. Pimenta, J.B.L.M. Campos, Friction losses of Newtonian and non-
Newtonian fluids flowing in laminar regime in a helical coil, Exp. Thermal
Fluid Sci. 36 (2012) 194–204.
[28] P.S. Srinivasan, S.S. Nandapurkar, F.A. Holland, Pressure drop and heat transfer
in coils, Chem. Eng. (Lond.) 218 (1968) 113–119.
[29] A. Cioncolini, L. Santini, An experimental investigation regarding the laminar
to turbulent flow transition in helically coiled pipes, Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 30
(2006) 367–380.
[30] A. Cioncolini, L. Santini, On the laminar to turbulent flow transition in diabatic
helically coiled pipe flow, Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 30 (2006) 653–661.
[31] ‘‘ESDU, Internal forced convective heat transfer in coiled pipes, Engineering
Science Data Unit, Item No. 78031, London, 2001’’.
[32] W.I.A. Aly, H. Inaba, N. Haruki, A. Horibe, Drag and heat transfer reduction
phenomena of drag-reducing surfactant solutions in straight and helical pipes,
J. Heat Transfer 128 (2006) 800–810.
[33] P.K. Baburajan, G.S. Bisht, S.K. Gupta, S.V. Prabhu, Measurement of subcooled
boiling pressure drop and local heat transfer coefficient in horizontal tube
under LPLF conditions, Nucl. Eng. Des. 255 (2013) 169–179.
[34] W.H. McAdams, Heat Transmission, Third Asian students’ edition., McGraw-
Hill book company inc., 1954. pp. 228 (D.Z. Jeschke, ver. deut. Ing., 69, 1526
(1925); Z. Ver. deut. Ing. Enganzungsheft, 24, 1 (1925)).