See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225565653

Heat transfer and pressure drop of R-134a condensation in a coiled, double

tube

Article  in  Heat and Mass Transfer · June 2009

DOI: 10.1007/s00231-009-0484-y

CITATIONS READS

26 203

4 authors, including:

Mohamed Mosaad
Mansoura University
40 PUBLICATIONS   294 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohamed Mosaad on 30 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Heat Mass Transfer (2009) 45:1107–1115
DOI 10.1007/s00231-009-0484-y

ORIGINAL

Heat transfer and pressure drop of R-134a condensation

in a coiled, double tube
M. El-Sayed Mosaad Æ M. Al-Hajeri Æ
R. Al-Ajmi Æ Abo. M. Koliub

Received: 10 April 2008 / Accepted: 26 March 2009 / Published online: 9 April 2009
Ó Springer-Verlag 2009

Abstract An experimental study was carried out to dc Coil diameter (m)

investigate condensation heat transfer and pressure drop Dew Waterside Dean number Rew [(di - do)/dc]0.5
characteristics of R-134a in a coiled double tube oriented hfg Condensation latent heat (J/kg)
with its helix axis in the vertical direction. Measurements k Thermal conductivity (W/m °C)
were obtained at inlet pressure of 815 kPa for refrigerant M_ Mass flux (kg/m2s)
mass flux ranging from 95 to 710 kg/m2s and cooling water m_ cw Cooling water mass flow rate (kg/s)
Reynolds number varying from 1000 to 14000. Presented Nu Nusselt number ad/k
results illustrate the effects of refrigerant mass flux and p Pressure (kPa)
average condensation temperature difference on the con- Pr Prandtl number Cpl/k
densation heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop. Q_ L Condensation load (W) M_ r hfg
Comparison with relevant data from other sources indicates Q_ cw Heat rate absorbed by cooling water (W), defined by
a reasonable agreement. An empirical correlation was Eq. 1
obtained for predicting condensation heat transfer coeffi- Rt Thermal resistance of inner tube wall
cient. The present study may be considered of a practical

(m2 °C/W)
and theoretical interest for the design of the helical double- Rerr Refrigerant Reynolds number, cf., Eq. 6
tube condensers using R-134a as the working fluid. Rew Water Reynolds number M_ w ðdo  di Þ=lw
T Temperature (°C)
Abbreviations Ts Refrigerant saturation temperature (°C)
CFC Chlorofluorocarbon Tcw Average cooling water temperature
HCFC Hydro chlorofluorocarbon (°C) (Tcwi ? Tcwo)/2
HTC Heat transfer coefficient xm Mean vapour quality

List of symbols Greek symbols

A Heat transfer surface area (m2) a Heat transfer coefficient (W/m2°C)
Cp Specific heat at constant pressure (J/kg °C) l Dynamic viscosity (kg/m s)
do Outer diameter of inner coil tube (m) q Density (kg/m3)
di Inside diameter of external coil tube (m) DP Refrigerant pressure drop across the test section
(kPa/m)
DTs Average vapour-to-water temperature difference
M. El-Sayed Mosaad is on leave from Mechanical Engineering (°C) (Ts - Tcw)
Department, Mansoura University, Egypt.
DTm Logarithmic mean temperature difference (°C),
M. El-Sayed Mosaad (&)  M. Al-Hajeri  R. Al-Ajmi  defined by Eq. 3
Abo. M. Koliub
Subscripts
Mechanical Power and Refrigeration Department, Faculty of
Technological Studies, P.O. Box 64268, 7045 Shuwaikh, Kuwait c Condensation
e-mail: mosaad77@hotmail.com w Water

123
1108
cwi Inlet cooling water
cwo Outlet cooling water
i Inlet or inner
l Liquid
o Outlet/overall
s Saturation
r Refrigerant
v Vapour
1 Introduction
The depletion of atmospheric ozone layer by CFC and
HCFC refrigerants has generated a worldwide concern
reflected in a number of new international rules to safe the
earth atmosphere [1]. Therefore, some ozone-safe refrig-
erants have recently been developed and introduced in
many refrigeration and air conditioning systems. Among
those new alternative refrigerants is R-134a; the substitute
to CFC-12. The present paper deals with condensation heat
transfer characteristics of R-134a in a helical annular pipe.
Numerous experimental works were done to investigate
flow and heat transfer characteristics of R-134a condensation
inside straight plain tubes (e.g., Yan and Lin [2], Coleman
and Garimella [3], and Jung et al. [4]). Other studies exam-
ined the effects of enhanced tube surfaces (e.g., Samuel and
Maltais [5], Liu [6], Nualboornueng [7, 8]).
Contrary to the large number studies conducted on
condensation of R-134a inside straight tubes with smooth
and enhanced surfaces, only few works were done on the
helical tubes, which are considered of a higher heat transfer
performance compared with the straight tubes. The sec-
ondary flow created in the helical tube by the centrifugal
force due to its curvature mixes the two phases of con-
densing fluid, and enhances the heat transfer. Therefore,
helically coiled tube-in-tube heat exchangers are used in
many engineering applications due to their high heat
transfer performance and volume compactness.
Unfortunately, most studies on the helical tubes were
conducted on the single-phase liquid-to-liquid heat transfer
(e.g., Kumar et al. [9], Rennie and Raghavan [10]). Only
few studies have recently been reported on the two-phase
heat transfer of R-134a condensation inside helical tubes.
Uddin et al. [11] experimentally proved that the conden-
sation HTC of R-134a in a helical tube enhances with the
decrease of coil and tube diameters. Kang et al. [12]
experimentally investigated R-134a condensation in a
helical tube of 12.7-mm inner diameter for mass flux
ranging from 95 to 400 kg/m2s. They found that the con-
densation HTC and pressure drop of R-134a are higher
in the helical tube than in an equivalent straight tube.
Han et al. [13] found that the condensation saturation
123
Heat Mass Transfer (2009) 45:1107–1115
temperature of R-134a has a considerable effect on the
condensation HTC and pressure drop. Yu et al. [14] carried
out experimental tests on condensation of saturated R-134a
vapour in a helical pipe with 9.4-mm inner diameter for the
same limited mass flux range investigated by Kang et al.
and Han et al. They proved that the helical pipe orientation
significantly affects the condensation HTC. In a more
recent work, Wongwises and Polsongkram [15] experi-
mentally investigated the two-phase flow condensation of
R-134a inside a helically coiled tube-in-tube heat exchan-
ger at different fixed saturation temperatures from 40 to
50°C for high mass fluxes from 400 to 800 kg/m2s. They
compared their data with straight tube data from another
source indicating that at the same mass flux and test satu-
ration temperature, the condensation HTC and pressure
drop of the helical tube are higher by 33–55 and 29–46%,
respectively, than those of the straight tube.
Based on our knowledge, the few studies mentioned
above on condensation of R-134a in helical pipes are the
only ones reported in the open literature. Therefore,
available heat transfer and pressure drop data are still
scarce and cover narrow ranges of main controlling
parameters. Therefore, further experimental investigations
are still needed to build up a broad and more reliable
database required for the optimal design of helical double-
tube condensers using R-134a as the working fluid.
Therefore, the present experimental work has investigated
condensation heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics
of saturated R-134a vapour in a double-pipe helical coil for
a wide mass flux range from 95 to 710 kg/m2s.
2 Experimental apparatus
A test facility has been built to investigate the condensation
heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics of some new
refrigerants. The refrigerant-134a was the one tested in this
work. A schematic diagram of this test facility is shown in
Fig. 1. The system consists mainly of three closed fluid cir-
culating loops, a test section, and a data acquisition system.
The three closed fluid loops are the refrigerant loop, the hot
water loop and the cooling water loop. A detailed description
of these main system components is given below.
2.1 Refrigerant loop
It contains a refrigerant storage tank, a refrigerant pump, a
filter, a coiled double-tube evaporator, an auxiliary elec-
trical heater, a test section, an air-cooled post-condenser, a
flow meter, and a number of control and relief valves. Sight
glasses are installed before and after the evaporator and test
section to identify the phase state of flowing refrigerant
at these locations. A variable speed pump drives the
Heat Mass Transfer (2009) 45:1107–1115 1109

Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of T

test apparatus
T
P

Test Section
Cold –Water
Thermostat
Cold Water
Flow T

P
T

Electrical Heater
Post Condenser
W

Refrigerant
T P Flow

Storage
Tank p
T T
Ref. Pump
Evaporator

T
T

Thermostat
Hot –water
W Watt Meter Filter

Hot water
Sight Glass
T Thermocouple
Flow Meter
P Pressure Gauge Pump

refrigerant from the storage tank into the inner tube of
evaporator. A bypass system is built around the pump to
regulate the flow rate.
2.2 Heating water loop
This loop supplies the evaporation load to the evaporator. It
consists of a 710-l hot-water thermostat provided with
three 1,500-W electrical heaters. A 1,200-W centrifugal
pump provided with bypass to control the flow rate drives
the heating water into the evaporator annulus to evaporate
the refrigerant flowing inside.
test section layout is presented in Fig. 2. The inner
(refrigerant) tube is a copper tube with 9.54-mm outer
diameter and 7.39-mm inner diameter. The external tube is
also made from copper with 19.05-mm outer diameter and
16.92-mm inner diameter. The coil consists of nine turns
with 216-mm outer diameter and 25.6-mm pitch. The heat
transfer surface area of this test section is 0.18 m2. The
cooling water flows upwards through the test section
annulus with the refrigerant flowing downwards in the
inner tube. A post-air-cooled condenser is installed after
the test section to cool down the returning refrigerant to

2.3 Cooling water loop

It removes the condensation load from the test section. This

loop consists of a 710-l cold-water thermostat provided
with air-cooled refrigeration unit of cooling capacity of
7 kW. A 1,200-W centrifugal pump circulates the cooling
water through the test section annulus to condense the
refrigerant flowing in the inner tube. A bypass system is
built around the pump to regulate the water flow rate.

2.4 Test section

It is a standard double-tube helical coil of 3-m length

mounted with its helix axis in the vertical direction. The Fig. 2 Test section

123
1110
nearly its initial temperature in the storage tank. This is to
avoid heat storage in the system.
2.5 Measurement instruments
The locations of the measurement instruments used are
indicated by circular symbols in the facility layout pre-
sented in Fig. 1. Copper-constantan thermocouples from
T-type, calibrated in the temperature range 10–60°C against
a standard digital thermometer of ±0.1°C uncertainty, are
fixed at the inlet and outlet of both the evaporator and test
section to measure the inlet and outlet temperature of both
the refrigerant and water. Three turbine flow meters with
±0.4% uncertainty are used for measuring the flow rates of
the refrigerant, cold water and hot water. The measuring
range is 2–30 l/min for the water meters and 0.2–2 l/min for
the refrigerant meter. Absolute pressure gauges with reso-
lution of ±5 kPa are installed at the top of storage tank, as
well as at the inlet and outlet of test section. Two additional
pressure transducers of ±0.2% accuracy are connected
across the test section to measure the refrigerant pressure
drop. The test rig is thermally insulated from surroundings
by a 40-mm thick glass fibre layer.
3 Experimental procedure
At first, the refrigerant loop is evacuated and then charged
by a small amount of R-134a. This charging process fol-
lowed by a vacuum process is repeated two times to reject
all air and gases. After a leak inspection, a proper amount of
R-134a is charged into the loop. The coolant water is cooled
to a preset temperature in the range 5–10°C, while the
heating water is heated to a preset temperature in the range
40–60°C. The test is started by turning on the refrigerant
pump, hot-water pump and cold-water pump. Now, the
desired refrigerant flow rate is adjusted. In the same time,
the hot water flow rate is regulated until the refrigerant
leaves the evaporator as a saturated vapour. The electrical
heater power is controlled to superheat slightly the refrig-
erant vapour by \1°C before entering the test section to
make it free from suspended liquid droplets. The cold-water
flow rate is gradually varied until a full condensation occurs
and refrigerant leaves the test section with a slight subco-
oling \1°C. Once steady-state test conditions are attained,
the readings of temperature, flow rate and pressure are
recorded by data acquisition system ‘‘WebDAQ/100’’ for a
period time of 3 min. The test can be repeated to conduct a
new run with a different refrigerant flow rate.
In all test runs, steady-sate conditions are considered
attained when the difference between the evaporation load,
gained in the evaporator and auxiliary electrical heater, and
the condensation load absorbed in the test section is found
123
Heat Mass Transfer (2009) 45:1107–1115
B±5%. During the test, the inlet and outlet temperatures of
water and refrigerant as well as the difference between
evaporation and condensation loads are displayed to
ascertain when steady state conditions are achieved. The
refrigerant states at the test section inlet and outlet,
respectively, can be recognized through the installed slight
glasses, and with the help of the temperatures and pressures
displayed continuously at these locations during the test by
the data acquisition system.
After the test, the recorded data were filtered to select
only those of slight inlet superheat and exit subcooling. In
this filtration process, the refrigerant temperatures mea-
sured at the test section inlet and outlet are compared with
the corresponding saturation temperature predicted as a
function of the measured pressure via properties software.
When calculated inlet superheat or outlet sucooling is
found outside the range ±0.5°C, the data point is elimi-
nated. In addition, as the inlet pressure fluctuates slowly
during the test, the data of condensation inlet pressur-
e = 815 ± 5 kPa are only evaluated.
In this work, a series of test runs were conducted at inlet
pressure of 815 kPa (equivalent to R-134a saturation
temperature of 32°C). The measured data cover refrigerant
mass flux ranging from 95 to 710 kg/m2 s and cooling
water Reynolds number varying from 1000 to 14000 for
average cooling water temperature between 12 and 20°C.
4 Data reduction
The overall heat transfer coefficient between the water and
refrigerant sides can be calculated from the cooling load
absorbed by the coolant water in the test section as
ao ¼ Q_ cw =ðAo :DTm Þ ð1Þ
The symbol Ao is the heat transfer surface area, DTm is
the logarithmic mean temperature difference between the
water and refrigerant sides, and Q_ cw is the rate of heat
absorbed by the cooling water in the test section, which is
defined by
Q_ cw ¼ m_ cw Cpcw ðTcwo  Tcwi Þ ð2Þ
where m_ cw , Cpcw, Tcwo, and Tcwi are the cooling water mass
flow rate, water specific heat at constant pressure, and
cooling-water temperatures at the test section outlet and
inlet, respectively. Here it is important to point out that
Eq. 2 yields results more accurate than those calculated
from multiplying the refrigerant mass flow rate by the
condensation latent heat with taking into account the slight
superheat and subcooling at the test section inlet and exit,
respectively. This is because the measurement stability and
accuracy are higher on the waterside of single liquid phase
than on the refrigerant condensation side of two phases.
Heat Mass Transfer (2009) 45:1107–1115 1111

The difference between the two results was found about
±3%.
The circulated refrigerant is considered of slight super-
heat at the test section inlet and slight subcooling at the
exit, thus, the effect of a single-phase heat transfer can
be neglected. Hence, the logarithmic mean temperature
difference can be approximated by
DTm  ½ðTro  Tcwi Þ  ðTri  Tcwo Þ=lnððTro  Tcwi Þ=
ðTri  Tcwo ÞÞ ð3Þ
where Tri and Tro are, respectively, the refrigerant satura-
tion temperatures at the test section inlet and exit, which
are defined according to the measured inlet and outlet
5 Results and discussion
All test runs were conducted at inlet pressure of
815 ± 5 kPa (equivalent to refrigerant mean saturation
temperature of 32°C) for refrigerant mass flux varying
from 95 to 710 kg/m2s at fixed average vapour–water
temperature difference, DTs between 12 and 20°C. The
results deduced from measured data are presented in
Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
Rer
400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800
7 7
∆Ts C o

refrigerant pressures. The difference between these two ∆Ts : 12-20 oC

6 12 6
pressures represents the refrigerant pressure drop across the 14
17
test section. 5 20 5
Substituting Eqs. 2 and 3 into Eq. 1 yields the overall
heat transfer coefficient relation:

QL (kW)
4 4
m_ cw Cpcw
ao ¼ f lnððTro  Tcwi Þ=ðTri  Tcwo ÞÞ;
Ao ð4Þ 3 3
f ¼ ½1 þ ðTro  Tri Þ=ðTcwo  Tcwi Þ1
2 2
The condensation heat transfer coefficient, ac, can be
calculated from
1 1
1 1 1
¼   Rt ð5Þ
Ai ac Ao ao Ao acw 0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
where acw, Ai and Rt are the waterside heat transfer coef-
Mr (kg/m2 s)
ficient, inside surface of the inner tube, and tube wall
thermal resistance, respectively. Fig. 3 Condensation load versus refrigerant mass flux
The term 1/acw in Eq. 5 is calculated by using the cor-
relations of the helically coiled tube proposed by Garimella Rer
et al. [16] for the laminar flow and those found by
400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800
Gnielinski [17] for the transition and turbulent flows. The 300
laminar flow correlation is valid for water Dean number,
Dew \ 350, the transition correlation is applied for
350 \ Dew \ 800, while the turbulent flow correlation is 250
used for Dew [ 800. Kang et al. [12] and Han et al. [13]
15%
used the same correlations to predict the waterside heat 200
transfer coefficient in their experiments of similar test
h fg (kJ/kg)

sections. For more details on these correlations, one can

150
return to [12]. Validity of these correlations was also tested
in the present investigation. The validation test was con- -15%
ducted on water flowing in both the internal coil tube and 100 ∆Ts °C
12
annulus. The waterside heat transfer coefficients deduced 14
from the Wilson plot data at different mass fluxes were 50
17
20
compared with the prediction of these correlations. The
comparison indicated that these correlations predict the
0
experimentally deducted values within ±5%. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
An error analysis executed by employing the sequence (kg/m2s)
Mr
disturbances method of Moffat [18] indicates that con-
densation and overall heat transfer coefficients have Fig. 4 Experimentally calculated condensation latent heat versus
relative uncertainties of around ±20 and 15%, respectively. refrigerant mass flux

123
1112 Heat Mass Transfer (2009) 45:1107–1115

Rer Rer
400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800
400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800
7000
7000
∆Ts oC o
12
∆ Ts = 12 C
6000 14 6000
17
20
5000
5000
αc (W/m2 oC)

α c (W/m2 oC)
4000
4000

3000
3000

2000
2000
Present data
Wangwises & Polsongkram : Helical tube
1000 Cavallini et al.: Straight tube
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
1000
Mr (kg/m2s) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Mr kg/m2 s
Fig. 5 Effect of refrigerant mass flux on condensation HTC at
different DTs
Fig. 7 Comparison of present average condensation HTCs with those
from other studies
9000
8000 Rer
7000 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800
24
6000
Present heical tube
21 Han et al. helical pipe
α c (W/m2 oC)

5000 Cavallini et al.: straight tube

18
4000
15
∆P (kPa / m)

Mr (kg/m2s)
3000 700 12
500
300
9

2000 6
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
∆ Ts oC
3
Fig. 6 Effect of average condensation temperature difference on
condensation HTC at various mass fluxes 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Figure 3 illustrates the effects of the refrigerant mass 2
M r (kg/m s)
flux on the condensation load QL calculated by Eq. 2 for
different DTs. The condensation load increases approxi- Fig. 8 Pressure drop as a function of refrigerant mass flux
mately linear with the increase of mass flux. This indicates
that the refrigerant mass flux should be increased in order The experimentally calculated latent heat is plotted
to increase the condensation load. The displayed results versus the refrigerant mass flux in Fig. 4. The experimental
also show that the condensation load is not affected sig- hfg is calculated by dividing the cooling load calculated by
nificantly with the change in DTs. Eq. 2 over the measured refrigerant mass flow rate. The

123
Heat Mass Transfer (2009) 45:1107–1115
800
700
+ 20%
Predicted Nusselt number
600
500
- 20 %
400
300
200
100
0 Wongwises and Polsongkram [15] were measured in a
0 200 400 600
Experimental Nusselt number
Fig. 9 Comparison of present data and proposed correlation (6)
solid line plotted in the graph represents the exact latent
heat of R-134a at the condensation pressure of 815 kPa.
The displayed results show how much the present mea-
surements are well calibrated. The deviation between the
experimental and exact values is of an average value of
±12%. The relatively higher discrepancy of ±15% noted at
the lowest and highest mass fluxes may be attributed to the
relatively higher measurement errors encountered fre-
quently at these extreme flow conditions [19, 20]. This
higher discrepancy at the lowest and highest mass fluxes
may explain the slight non-linear dependence between QL,
and M_ r shown in Fig. 3 at the two ends of the plotted data
set.
Figure 5 shows the variation in the condensation HTC,
ac, with the refrigerant mass flux, M_ r ; at various conden-
sation temperature differences, DTs. It is evident that at the
same value of DTs, the condensation HTC increases with
the increase of M_ r : For instance, at DTs = 12°C, ac
enhances by a factor of about two as M_ r rises from 100 to
700 kg/m2s. In the fact, for a high refrigerant mass flux, the
vapour velocity is also high. Hence, the vapour shear on the
condensate layer formed on the tube wall becomes high
resulting in a high condensation HTC. In addition, as the
mass flux rises, the secondary flow created by the centri-
fugal force due to the tube curvature becomes more
effective in mixing the two refrigerant phases, and
enhances the condensation HTC.
The results of Fig. 6 show that condensation HTC de-
pendences on average condensation temperature difference
DTs. At the same mass flux, ac decays with a rise in DTs.
Similar trend for the effect of wall subcooling was
1113
observed by Honda et al. [21] among others. This may be
due to the increase in the condensate layer thickness, the
main thermal resistance on the tube side facing the
refrigerant, with the increase in DTs. At a fixed condensa-
tion temperature, when the cooling water temperature
decreases, the wall temperature also decreases. Hence, both
the wall subcooling (=(Ts - Tw)) and condensation tem-
perature difference (DTs = (Ts - Tcw)) increase. Thus,
when DTs rises, the wall subcooling, the temperature
potential driving the condensation process, also rises
resulting in increasing condensate layer thickness and
decreasing condensation HTC. Jung et al. [4] reported a
similar explanation for the effect of wall subcooling on
condensation HTC.
A comparison of present data with relevant data from
other studies is shown in Fig. 7. These external data of
800
5.7-m long helical tube of six coils with inner tube of 8.3-
mm inner diameter at test saturation temperature of 40°C
and mass flux from 400 to 800 kg/m2s. The compared
data of Wongwises and Polsongkram are average con-
densation HTCs calculated from measured local values.
Here, it is important to point out that in the present
investigation; the variation of vapour quality was from 1
at the test section inlet to 0 at the exit. Thus, the present
data are considered of mean vapour quality = 0.5.
Therefore, only data from this external source measured at
low condensation heat flux of 5 kW/m2 and mean quality
of 0.5 are compared with present data of low DTs = 12°C
in Fig. 7. This comparison shows that the data of Won-
gwises and Polsongkram intersection the present data.
Uddin et al. [11] experimentally explored that condensa-
tion HTC of R-134a in a helical tube enhances with the
decrease in coil and tube diameters. Wongwises and
Polsongkram [15] experimentally found that the average
HTC decreases with the increase in test saturation tem-
perature. In view of this, the discrepancy between the two
compared results may be attributed to differences in the
test saturation temperature, measurement accuracy and
test section dimensions. It is considered of a practical and
theoretical interest to compare the present data with
straight tube data. For this purpose, data measured by
Cavallini et al. [22] in a straight plain tube at test satu-
ration temperature of 40°C are plotted in the same Fig. 7.
Here, it is important to point out that the data of Cavallini
et al. are average values calculated from local data mea-
sured at mean vapour quality of 0.5. The comparison
indicates that the helical tube gives a relatively higher
condensation HTC by about 30–50% compared with the
straight tube. This may be attributed to the fact that the
condensation flow mechanism in a helical tube is different
from that in a straight tube. The secondary flow created in
the helical tube due its curvature increases the dynamic
123
1114
interaction between the vapour phase flowing in the tube
core and the condensate film formed on the wall. This
means that the secondary flow generated in the helical
tube acts as a turbulence source, which increases the
interfacial heat transfer surface between the two fluid
phases and, consequently, enhances the condensation heat
transfer coefficient compared with an equivalent straight
tube.
The pressure drop of R-134a across the test section is
plotted versus the refrigerant mass flux in Fig. 8. It is clear
that the pressure drop rises by a factor of about two as M_ r
increases from 100 to 710 kg/m2s. A comparison of present
data with other relevant data measured by Han et al. [13] in
a helical tube of 9.4-mm inner diameter at a relatively
higher saturation temperature of 45°C is displayed in the
same graph. The comparison indicates that the present data
are somewhat higher than those of Han et al. Zaki et al.
[23] experimentally proved that the pressure drop decays as
the condensation temperature rises. It is also considered of
a practical interest to compare the present helical-tube data
with straight-tube data. For this purpose, the total pressure
drops per 1-m tube length measured by Cavallini et al. [22]
in a straight smooth tube at test saturation temperature of
40°C and mean vapour quality of 0.5 are plotted in the
same figure. The comparison indicates that the pressure
drop in the helical tube is much higher than that in the
straight tube because the flow pattern in a helical tube is
different from that in a straight tube. For the same mass
flux and tube diameter, the secondary flow generated in a
helical tube creates swirls and turbulence raising the
pressure drop compared with a straight tube.
The mean condensation Nusselt numbers, Nuð¼ac di =kl Þ,
calculated for 283 data points, could be fitted within ±20%
by
"
 #
Nu DTs 0:9
¼ 6:39 1  0:85 ;

0:4 1=3 Ts
Re Prl
DTs
0:3  Ts  0:6
for ð6Þ


1200  Re  95000

 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where Re¼M_ r ð1xm Þþxm ql =qv di =ll and Pr¼Cpl ll =kl :
The symbol DTs is the average condensation tempera-
ture difference, and xm refers to the mean vapour quality.
The above helical-tube correlation is based on own data,
and does not explain for the effects of condensation
pressure and coil dimensions. Therefore, other studies are
still need to extend this correlation to account for these
effects. Figure 9 displays the comparison between present
experimental and predicted Nusselt numbers. Here, it is
important to point out that correlation (6) is only valid for
the studied configuration and cannot be considered as
universal.
123
Heat Mass Transfer (2009) 45:1107–1115
6 Conclusions
In this study, the condensation heat transfer and pressure
drop characteristics of saturated R-134a vapour in a coiled
double tube were investigated at inlet pressure of
815 ± 5 kPa. All test runs were carried out under the
condition that the refrigerant enters the test section as
saturated vapour and leaves as saturated liquid. The
obtained results show that the condensation and overall
heat transfer coefficients increase with the increase of
refrigerant mass flux, and decrease with the rise of con-
densation temperature difference. Similar to the behaviour
of condensation HTC, the pressure drop across the test
section rises with the increase of refrigerant mass flux.
Condensation Nusselt number correlation was obtained by
fitting experimental data set of 283 points within ±20%.
However, further investigations are still needed to extend
this correlation to account for the effects of condensation
pressure and coil dimensions. In addition, studying the flow
and condensation heat transfer characteristics of R-407C in
helical double-tube condensers can be recommended for a
future work.
Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Public
Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET) of Kuwait
through a research grant number: Ts 03-06. This financial support is
greatly appreciated.
References
1. Copenhagen Amendments to Montreal Protocol, 25 Nov 1992
2. Yan Y-Y, Lin T-F (1999) Condensation heat transfer and pressure
drop of refrigerant R-134a in a small pipe. Int J Heat Mass Transf
42:697–708
3. Coleman JW, Garimella S (2003) Two-phase flow regimes in
round, square and rectangular tubes during condensation of
refrigerant R-134a. Int J Refrig 26:117–128
4. Jung D, Song K, Cho Y, Kim S (1972) Flow condensation heat
transfer coefficients of pure refrigerants. Int J Refrig 26:4–11
5. Samuel MS, Maltais H (2000) Experimental investigations of two
phase flow condensation inside enhanced surface tubing. Appl
Therm Eng 20:1113–1126
6. Liu X (1997) Condensing and evaporating heat transfer and
pressure drop characteristics of HCF-134a and HCF-22. ASME J
Heat Transf 119:158–163
7. Nualboornueng T (2004) Two-phase condensation heat transfer
coefficients of HFC-134a in smooth and micro-fin tubes at high
mass flux. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 31:991–1004
8. Nualboornueng T, Wongwises S (2003) Two-phase flow pressure
drop of HFC-134a during condensation at high mass flux in
smooth and micro-fin tubes. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf
30:577–590
9. Kumar R, Gupta A, Vishvakarma S (2005) Condensation of
R-134a vapour over single horizontal integral-fin tubes: effect of
fin height. Int J Refrig 28:428–435
10. Rennie JT, Raghavan GSV (2005) Experimental studies of a
double-pipe helical heat exchanger. Exp Therm Fluid Sci J
29:919–924
Heat Mass Transfer (2009) 45:1107–1115
11. Uddin M, Patrik J, Newlin A (1994) Variation of local conden-
sation heat transfer for R-134a in helically coiled tubes. In:
International mechanical engineering congress and exhibition,
Winter Annular Meeting, Chicago, pp 6–11
12. Kang HJ, Lin CX, Ebadian MA (2000) Condensation of R-134a
flowing inside helical pipes. Int J Heat Mass Transf 43:2553–2564
13. Han JT, Lin CX, Ebadian MA (2000) Experimental investigation of
condensation heat transfer of refrigerant R-134a in helicoidal pipe.
In: Proceeding of ASME heat transfer division, HTD-4, pp 95–101
14. Yu B, Han JT, Kang HJ, Lin CX, Awwad A, Ebadian MA (2003)
Condensation heat transfer of R-134a flow inside helical pipes at
different orientations. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 30:745–754
15. Wongwises S, Polsongkram M (2006) Condensation heat transfer
and pressure drop of HFC-134a in a helically coiled concentric
tube-in-tube heat exchanger. Int J Heat Mass Transf 49:4386–4398
16. Garimella S, Richerds DE, Christensen RN (1998) Experimental
investigation of heat transfer in coiled annular ducts. ASME J
Heat Transf 110:329–336
17. Gnielinski V (1986) Heat transfer and pressure drop in helically
coiled tubes. In: Proceeding of international meeting on reactor
heat transfer, Karlsruhe, pp 351–372
View publication stats
1115
18. Moffat RJ (1988) Describing uncertainties in experimental
results. Exp Therm Fluid Sci J 1:3–7
19. Cavallini A, Del Col D, Doretti L, Longo GA, Ressetto L
(2000) Heat transfer and pressure drop during condensation
of refrigerants inside horizontal enhanced tubes. Int J Refrig
23:4–25
20. Longo GA, Gasparella A, Sartori R (2004) Experimental heat
transfer coefficients during refrigerant condensation inside her-
ringbone-type plate heat exchangers with enhanced surfaces. Int J
Heat Mass Transf 47:4125–4136
21. Honda H, Takata N, Takamatsu H, Kim JS, Usami K (2002)
Condensation of downward-flowing HFC134a in a staggered
bundle of horizontal finned tubes. Int J Refrig 25:3–10
22. Cavallini A, Censi G, Del Col D, Doretti L, Longo GA, Ressetto
L (2001) Experimental investigation on condensation heat
transfer and pressure drop of new HFC refrigerants (R134a,
R125, R32, R410A, R236ea). Int J Refrig 24:73–87
23. Zaki M, Liu YZ, Dong ZF, Ebadian MA (1997) Condensation
heat transfer of R-134a in helical pipes. In: Proceeding of ASME
heat transfer division, HTD-351, pp 141–148
123