This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois Chicago]

On: 17 May 2012, At: 07:29

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Heat Transfer Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhte20

On Recent Advances in Modeling of Two-Phase Flow

and Heat Transfer
a
John R. Thome
a
Laboratory of Heat and Mass Transfer, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne,
Lausanne, Switzerland

Available online: 21 Jun 2010

To cite this article: John R. Thome (2003): On Recent Advances in Modeling of Two-Phase Flow and Heat Transfer, Heat
Transfer Engineering, 24:6, 46-59

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/714044414

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Heat Transfer Engineering, 24(6):46–59, 2003
Copyright C Taylor & Francis Inc.
ISSN: 0145-7632 print / 1521-0537 online
DOI: 10.1080/01457630390232915

On Recent Advances in
Modeling of Two-Phase
Flow and Heat Transfer
JOHN R. THOME
Laboratory of Heat and Mass Transfer, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne,
Lausanne, Switzerland
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 07:29 17 May 2012

General thermal design methods for two-phase heat exchangers are emerging that are based on
local two-phase flow patterns and the flow structure of the two-phases. These methods promise to be
much more accurate and reliable for predicting two-phase heat transfer coefficients and pressure
drops than the older, statistically-derived empirical design methods that completely ignore flow
regime effects or simply treat flows as stratified (gravity-controlled) or nonstratified
(shear-controlled) flows, which greatly limits their accuracy, validity, and reliability and often
results in prediction errors surpassing 100% within their supposed range of application. These new
flow pattern and flow structure types of design methods are particularly suited for use in modern
heat exchanger design software, which are typically incremental and hence require local methods
that capture the real trends in experimental data. The status of these new developments is reviewed
here for intube two-phase flow and heat transfer processes.

The objectives of the present review are twofold: to
discuss both the new methods for two-phase heat ex-
changers and what is wrong with continuing the status
quo of older methods. The term wrong here might im-
ply that some concept, some simplification, or some
empirical expediency may be incorrect, incomplete, or
inopportune. Such a judgment is naturally subjective;
hence, the present review represents primarily my own
views and experience. It is offered here not to give a ver-
dict on this method or that method but instead to provide
testimony and thus open the door toward a more fruitful
discussion of future research in this domain. As such,
Preparation of this review was sponsored in part by the Swiss National
Science Foundation under contract no. 21/57210.99.
Address correspondence to Dr. John R. Thome, Laboratory of Heat and
Mass Transfer, Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology, Swiss Fed-
eral Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzer-
land. E-mail: john.thome@epfl.ch
it is not the objective of this review to document all the
various recent prediction methods for boiling, conden-
sation, and two-phase flows but instead to raise issues
about what makes engineering sense and what does not.
Therefore, the focus here will be to look at the building
blocks used to construct two-phase flow pattern-based
models for heat transfer and two-phase pressure drops—
flow pattern maps and/or flow pattern transition criteria,
void fraction models, two-phase flow structures, heat
transfer mechanisms and pressure drop models them-
selves, appropriate test data, and so forth. The tube-
side flow processes that will be addressed are two-phase
pressure drops, evaporation, and condensation.
Modern thermal design software for two-phase heat
exchangers typically has incremental design loops that
break a shell-and-tube or compact heat exchanger down
into numerous (sometimes even 100) thermal elements
and simulate the performance of all these individual

46
 elements to find the overall performance. This is clearly
more accurate than using a global design approach.
Similarly, in air conditioning and heat pump heat ex-
changers, the two-phase pressure drops are a signifi-
cant parameter in optimizing their size and configura-
tion. Hence, accurate design methods that really capture
the trends in two-phase heat transfer coefficients and
pressure drops are needed such that these optimization
programs really find the true optimum. Furthermore,
designing based on a flow pattern map allows the de-
signer to clearly see which flow regimes the process
will pass through and where the transitions to undesir-
able regimes, such as mist flow, are located in order to
avoid them. These new flow pattern and flow structure
types of methods promise to be very useful in advanced
thermal design software.
This study first considers the pioneering work of
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 07:29 17 May 2012
Chen [1] on flow boiling inside vertical tubes. He pro-
posed a new heat transfer model including nucleate
boiling with flow-induced boiling suppression together
with liquid-phase convection augmented by a two-phase
multiplier, an innovative phenomenological approach
that has been influential now for nearly forty years. This
model has given us our primary physical interpretation
of what is dominating heat transfer during evaporation
inside tubes, yet, since its introduction, numerous pub-
lications with reformulations of his method have been
(and continue to be) proposed that have already reached
their natural limitation with respect to accuracy and re-
liability but have added little new to Chen’s heat transfer
model. They typically only reformulate his method us-
ing a new experimental database to find new empirical
constants for adjusting a new mix of parameters; from
a statistical point of view, they have reached a threshold
where little further improvement can be obtained unless
some significant new ideas are added. An example of
such a positive step forward is the asymptotic approach
of Steiner and Taborek [2] and their introduction of an
onset of nucleate boiling criterion for modeling flow
boiling inside vertical tubes. The challenge at hand to-
day is to include the effects of flow pattern and two-
phase flow structure on the process and in the prediction
model, which essentially means proposing a marriage
between two-phase flow (fluid flow experts primarily
interested in predicting adiabatic flow transitions) and
two-phase heat transfer (heat transfer experts primarily
interested in predicting condensation and evaporation
heat transfer coefficients).
Intube condensation is also a good example of where
local flow regime is important. Many methods have been
proposed for gravity-controlled and shear-controlled
condensation inside horizontal tubes. The effect of the
flow regime is important but has nevertheless largely
been ignored, where simplified criteria have often been
heat transfer engineering
proposed to delineate stratified and nonstratified flows
based on a statistical analysis of the heat transfer
database rather than flow pattern observations. For ex-
ample, the quoted and emulated approach of Akers,
Deans, and Crosser [3] for predicting intube conden-
sation relies only on an equivalent Reynolds number,
which they defined as
DG e
Ree = (1)
µL
where the equivalent mass velocity G e is
  1/2 
ρ
G e = G (1 − x) + x L (2)
ρV
and G is the total mass velocity of liquid plus vapor
through the channel. Thus, nothing in this criterion is
related to the flow instability encountered when passing
from an annular flow to stratified-wavy flow. This point
leads to yet another important issue: prediction methods
that give step changes in heat transfer coefficients across
a transition boundary. For instance, the heat transfer
correlation of Akers, Deans, and Crosser gives the local
condensation heat transfer coefficient as
αc D 1/3
= C Rene Pr L (3)
λL
where the values of the parameters C and n are as
follows:
• for Ree > 50000, C = 0.0265 and n = 0.8;
• for Ree < 50000, C = 5.03 and n = 0.33.
Hence, at a value of Ree = 50000, we have a ratio
of 1.217 for the second criterion relative to the first,
which represents a step change increase in heat transfer
for a small decrease in vapor quality. In this case, the
step change is not that large—only 22%—but it is not
observed experimentally, which means that the trends in
the experimental data are not correctly reflected in the
prediction method. Furthermore, this step change may
result in a thermal optimization program simulation that
cycles without finding a solution.
In this light, rather than reformulating new meth-
ods based on old ideas, there is significant potential for
progress by creating new heat transfer models that in-
clude more physics of the actual flow structure. To do
this, one must first predict (identify) the local two-phase
flow pattern based on the local flow conditions, which
requires a reliable two-phase flow pattern map. Second,
some simplified but realistic geometrical formulation of
vol. 24 no. 6 2003 47
 the flow structure must be assumed for physically de-
scribing the flow. In order to quantify an annular flow
structure assumed to be an annular ring, for instance, at
the minimum a void fraction model is required to pre-
dict the relative cross-sectional areas occupied by the
two phases. The heat transfer or pressure drop model
can also be formulated to represent the appropriate heat
transfer and frictional mechanism(s) occurring around
the perimeter of the tube, which may be locally wet or
dry, depending on the flow regime. Thus, a stratifica-
tion angle or dry angle is required to represent these
two respective perimeters. The interaction between the
two phases may also be important, such as the effect
of interfacial waves on friction and transition or vice-
versa. This flow pattern type of approach is not new,
but in the past, it was primarily implemented with just
one flow pattern in mind, resulting in a patchwork of
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 07:29 17 May 2012
methods with conflicting transition criteria and step
changes in predicted values from one flow pattern to
another.
Furthermore, it is common in heat exchanger design
codes to find that more than one void fraction model is
used for predicting the static pressure drop, the momen-
tum pressure drop, the frictional pressure drop, and the
heat transfer coefficient, which is not very consistent
to say the least. Thus, the idea is now to work towards
a unified method that avoids these inconsistencies and
is applicable for a representative number of the flow
regimes in order to arrive at a general unified prediction
method for both two-phase heat transfer and two-phase
pressure drops.
FLOW PATTERN MAPS AND TRANSITION
CRITERIA
Numerous flow pattern maps have been proposed
over the years for predicting two-phase flow regime
transitions in horizontal and vertical tubes under adi-
abatic conditions. The maps of Taitel and Dukler [4]
and Baker [5] are widely quoted for horizontal tubes.
Specifically for condensation, flow pattern maps have
been proposed by Breber, Palen, and Taborek [6],
Tandon, Varma, and Gupta [7], and Cavallini et al. [8]. In
addition, numerous methods have been proposed to dif-
ferentiate between stratified and nonstratified conden-
sation, such as those by Sardesai, Owen, and Pulling
[9], Shah [10], and Dobson and Chato [11]. Another
new map has been proposed by Kattan, Thome, and
Favrat [12] for adiabatic and evaporating flows in hori-
zontal tubes, backed by over 1000 flow pattern observa-
tions for seven different refrigerants. For vertical tubes,
the maps of Fair [13] and Hewitt and Roberts [14] are
widely cited. Barnea [15] has proposed a general map
48 heat transfer engineering
for adiabatic upward, downward, or horizontal flow in-
side tubes of any of those orientations. With respect to
our present topic, the long term goal is to arrive at a
unified flow pattern map for modeling heat transfer and
pressure drops during evaporation, condensation, and
adiabatic flows within horizontal, vertical, and inclined
tubes while still accounting for the evident differences
in these processes.
The first problem one confronts in proposing a flow
pattern-based heat transfer or pressure drop model is
choosing the most appropriate flow pattern map. Kattan,
Thome, and Favrat [12], for instance, found that the
Taitel and Dukler map was only able to correctly identify
about 50% of their flow pattern observations. Similarly,
criteria for horizontal flows to distinguish stratified from
nonstratified flows in boiling, typically with the liquid
Froude number, defined as
G2
Fr L = (4)
ρ2L g D
were proven experimentally to also be particularly unre-
liable, with the Fr L threshold sometimes off by an order
of magnitude. Hence, in the end, they proposed a new
version of the Steiner [16] flow pattern map, which in
turn is a modified version of the original Taitel-Dukler
map. Figure 1 illustrates this map, in which the tran-
sition equations are evaluated to present the map in a
G vs. x format that is easier to read than the prior log-
log maps, showing the new updated version of this map
by Thome and El Hajal [17] applied to R-134a with its
properties at 4◦ C for two diameters of tube.
In general, the problems and challenges arising from
use of flow pattern maps can be summarized as follows:
1. there are a large number of existing maps to choose
from, and it is difficult to know which is the best
since no “blind taste tests” exist
2. many different flow regime names, subcategories,
and definitions of what constitutes a particular flow
regime are used, which makes a quantitative com-
parison of competing flow pattern maps essentially
impossible
3. flow pattern identification from flow observations is
subjective, even when using one set of flow regime
names with clearly stated qualitative descriptions of
each; this leads to uncertainty from one observer
to another, especially near transitions where reliable
data are most critical
4. some flow pattern maps include flow transition zones
between the stable regimes while others do not, mak-
ing comparison between such transition equations
possible only on a very qualitative basis
vol. 24 no. 6 2003
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 07:29 17 May 2012

Figure 1 Two-phase flow pattern map evaluated for R-134a.

5. the transition zone around transition curves predicted the simplified flow structure is assumed to be an annu-
on maps can be quite large (±50 kg/m2 s for the lar liquid ring of uniform thickness without interfacial
annular to stratified-wavy transition is typical), anal- waves and liquid entrainment in the central vapor core,
ogous to the transition zone between laminar and tur- and assuming that δ D, the thickness of the liquid
bulent single-phase flows, and often is characterized ring is:
by the flow cycling between the two flow patterns
until one finally dominates
D(1 − ε)
6. flow pattern transitions may exhibit hysteresis de- δ= (5)
pending on whether the flow rate is increased or de- 4
creased from one steady-state condition to the next
7. representative flow pattern observations for all the where δ is the liquid film thickness, D is the internal
important transitions from one flow pattern to its bor- tube diameter and ε is the cross-sectional void fraction
dering patterns are not usually available; hence, the of the vapor. Void fraction models may be classified as
location of the border is well defined follows:
8. existing maps are primarily for adiabatic flows; hence
diabatic effects must be added to them
• homogeneous model—assumes the two phases travel
Thus, a long list of issues can be quickly identified that at same velocity
• momentum models—they minimize some parameter,
have no simple solutions. However, the choice or de-
velopment of the flow pattern map has a particularly such as momentum or kinetic energy
• drift flux models—they account for the radial velocity
important influence on the accuracy and reliability of
the resulting heat transfer or pressure drop model. Con- distribution in the two phases
• models for specific flow regimes
sequently, including flow pattern observations as part
• empirical methods
of experimental studies on two-phase heat transfer and
pressure drops is vital and should be included.
The homogeneous model is applicable when the vapor
and liquid phases travel at nearly the same velocity, such
VOID FRACTION as near the critical point, or at very high mass velocities
where the flow regime is either bubbly flow or mist flow.
Void fraction is defined as the cross-sectional area The homogeneous void fraction is given by
occupied by the vapor or gas phase relative to that of
the flow channel, which because of the different densi-
1
ties and velocities of the respective phases is not equal ε=  1−x  ρV (6)
to the vapor quality. In an annular flow, for instance, if 1+ x ρL S
heat transfer engineering vol. 24 no. 6 2003 49
 where the velocity ratio S is

uV
S= (7)
uL

For equal velocities of the gas phase u V and the liquid

phase u L , this expression reverts to the homogeneous
void fraction, i.e., when S = 1. For upward and hori-
zontal cocurrent flows, u V is nearly always greater than
u L such that S ≥ 1. In this case, the homogeneous void
fraction is the upper limit on possible values of ε. For
vertical down flows, u V may be larger or smaller than
u L , such that when S < 1, the homogeneous void frac-
tion is the lower limit on the value of ε. Some widely
quoted models are those of Zivi [18], Chisholm [19],
and the various drift flux models. For example, the Zivi
void fraction equation is used in numerous condensation
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 07:29 17 May 2012

Figure 2 Comparison of void fraction equations for R-410a.

heat transfer models over the years, where the velocity
ratio S is
 1/3 film twice as thick as a value of 0.98. Hence, the void
uG ρL fraction model selected as the basis for a two-phase heat
S= = (8)
uL ρG transfer or pressure drop model has a very big influence
on the film. For instance, the Kattan, Thome, and Favrat
and hence, the Zivi void fraction expression is [21] annular film expression for the convective boiling
contribution to flow boiling heat transfer is
1
ε=   (9) λL
1−x ρG 2/3
1+ x ρL αcb = cRenL Pr0.4
L (11)
δ
The Rouhani and Axelsson [20] drift flux type of void where the liquid film Reynolds number Re L is based on
fraction model gives the following expression for ε for the mean liquid velocity of the liquid:
horizontal flows:
   4G(1 − x)δ GD(1 − x)
x x 1−x Re L = = (12)
ε= (1 + 0.12(1 − x)) + (1 − ε)µ L µL
ρV ρV ρL
−1 which reduces to the second term for annular flows. The
1.18(1 − x)[gσ(ρ L − ρV )]0.25 convective boiling heat transfer coefficient in annular
+ (10)
Gρ0.5
L flow is thus very sensitive to void fraction, such that
αcb is proportional to (1 − x)n /(1−ε), where ε > x for
Hence, in addition to the effects of x and the ratio of x = 0. Hence, at fixed G and heat flux q, the slopes
ρG /ρ L in the Zivi model, this drift flux model includes of experimental curves with αcb versus x are in fact
the effects of mass velocity, surface tension, and buoy- determined only by the variation in x and ε. Thus, void
ancy. fraction is clearly the central parameter in this and other
Void fractions ranges in value from ε = 0 at x = 0 two-phase models. The values of c and n in Eq. (11) are
to ε = 1 at x = 1. Typically, ε rises very rapidly at obtained from the regression of this expression versus
low vapor qualities and then progresses towards the fi- heat transfer data and thus are influenced by the choice
nal value of unity, although not all void fraction models of the void fraction model.
correctly go to 1.0 in their limit. Figure 2 depicts a com- In summary, drift flux void fraction models are par-
parison among the above three methods and illustrates ticularly attractive because they account for the velocity
the important effect of G on ε. Hence, there is a big distributions in the vapor and liquid phases and thus in-
difference in ε depending on the method chosen at low clude the effect of mass velocity on void fraction, which
vapor qualities, but little absolute difference at large va- the other methods do not. They are also available specif-
por qualities. Even so, from the above expression for δ, ically for particular flow patterns, although using differ-
it is clear that a void fraction of 0.96 produces an annular ent methods for different flow regimes, such as in the
50 heat transfer engineering vol. 24 no. 6 2003
 most recent heat transfer model of Zürcher, Favrat, and
Thome [22], must be done without a step change in void
fraction across a flow transition boundary. The Zivi ex-
pression is not a function of G, which is its biggest
limitation to general use.
TWO-PHASE PRESSURE DROPS
The two-phase pressure drops for flows inside tubes
are the sum of three contributions: the static pressure
drop pstatic , the momentum pressure drop pmom , and
the frictional pressure drop pfrict :
ptotal = pstatic + pmom + pfrict
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 07:29 17 May 2012
the flow patterns of interest. The following issues are
important:
• many existing frictional pressure drop prediction
methods do not go to the correct limits at x = 0
and/or x = 1
• experimental data show that the frictional pressure
gradient goes through a maximum at high vapor qual-
ities and then declines toward the all-vapor gradient,
an important trend that only some methods capture
• often one void fraction method is used for calculat-
ing pstatic and pmom while another is used within
the methods for pfrict , which is often an overlooked
inconsistency
• there may be an effect of the heat transfer process on
(13)
pfrict not present for an adiabatic flow, such as the

condensate film in the stratified-wavy regime on the

The static pressure drop is given by
top perimeter of the tube that would otherwise be dry

pstatic = ρtp g H sin θ (14)

where the two-phase density ρtp is
ρtp = ρ L (1 − ε) + ρV ε (15)
For a horizontal tube, there is no change in static head,
so H = 0 and pstatic = 0 while sin θ is equal to 1.0 for
a vertical tube. The momentum pressure drop reflects
the change in kinetic energy of the flow and is given
here by:
  apply to vertical tubes.
(1 − x)2 x2
pmom = G 2
+ Evaporation inside horizontal tubes is a complex
ρ L (1 − ε) ρV ε out
  heat transfer to the liquid and vapor phases; thin film
(1 − x)2 x2
− + (16)
ρ L (1 − ε) ρV ε in
Thus, the static and momentum pressure drops are
clearly dependent on the choice of void fraction model,
especially at low vapor qualities where void fraction
values rise rapidly.
Regarding the frictional pressure drop, these are
known to be flow regime dependent, and specific mod-
els for some regimes have been proposed. On the other
hand, most of the methods used in practice are em-
pirical approaches applied broadly to numerous flow
patterns, such as those of Lockhart and Martinelli
[23], Friedel [24], Grönnerud [25], Chisholm [26], and
Müller-Steinhagen and Heck [27]. Standard and mean
deviations of these approaches are still uncomfortably
large. The difficult challenge is to put together one com-
prehensive model based on a flow pattern map for pre-
diction of two-phase pressure drops encompassing all
heat transfer engineering
INTUBE EVAPORATION
Before discussing advances being made on flow
regime-based flow boiling models, it is instructive to
discuss the limitations posed by existing methods, many
of which are widely used for the thermal design of heat
transfer equipment. Since there is a considerable inertia
toward continued use of these methods, it is particularly
important to challenge their real usefulness. As an ex-
ample, the limitation on intube evaporation in horizontal
tubes is highlighted below, and some of these issues also
physical process involving nucleate boiling; convective
evaporation along the top of the tube, where it is wetted
by intermittent large amplitude waves; dryout of liquid
films; and interaction of the two phases at their inter-
face. Figure 3 from Collier and Thome [28] depicts a
composite diagram of all these processes.
Numerous methods have been proposed over the
years for predicting local flow boiling heat transfer co-
efficients for evaporation inside tubes. Since Chen [1]
proposed his model for vertical tubes, a myriad of refor-
mulations of his method have been proposed for verti-
cal and horizontal tubes. Furthermore, most horizontal
tube methods are actually vertical tube methods fit to
horizontal test data by introducing only a flow stratifi-
cation criterion to delineate between stratified and non-
stratified flows without any reference to the two-phase
flow structure itself.
For example, Shah [29] applied his vertical tube
method to horizontal tubes by adjusting his two-phase
convection multiplier Co to add a correction factor
vol. 24 no. 6 2003 51
 Figure 3 Flow patterns during evaporation in a horizontal tube from Collier and Thome [28].
based on the liquid Froude number, defined so that
it is 0.38 Fr−0.3
L C o when Fr L < 0.04 (i.e., for strati-
fied types of flow), while for nonstratified flows, when
Fr L ≥ 0.04, he applied his vertical method using the
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 07:29 17 May 2012
value of Co without change. Others have since set this
Froude threshold value to 0.5 and more recently 0.25
in their correlations. Classifying flow boiling data by
flow regime using the Kattan, Thome, and Favrat [12]
map, Kattan, Thome, and Favrat [21] found that these
older methods did not predict flow boiling data in the
stratified-wavy regime as accurately as they did for an-
nular flow data; in fact, the errors were about twice as
large or more. Alternatively, Klimenko and Fyodorov
[30] proposed a modified Chen correlation for horizon-
tal tubes with a new stratification criterion, albeit empir-
ically fit to heat transfer data and not flow pattern obser-
vations. Subsequently, Kattan, Thome, and Favrat [31]
found that the Klimenko-Fyodorov stratification crite-
rion only correctly identified their observations of strat-
ified and unstratified flows about half the time, similar
to what they also observed for the Fr L criterion above.
The drawbacks of these older methods have been de-
scribed earlier by Thome [32]:
• adapting vertical tube methods to horizontal tubes is
risky—vertical tube databases include few test data
at high vapor quality since dryout is reached at vapor
qualities from 50–75%, while high vapor qualities are
an important design condition in horizontal tube ap-
plications (direct-expansion evaporators)
• they utilize a single-phase tubular flow correlation
(Dittus-Boelter) as their starting point to predict an-
nular liquid film flow heat transfer, which is not phys-
ically logical
• these methods do not recognize the different flow
patterns occurring in horizontal flow boiling except
for stratification, and they tend to poorly predict the
threshold from stratified to unstratified types of flow
• for stratified types of flows, single-phase heat transfer
to the vapor phase is also present, which these methods
ignore
52 heat transfer engineering
• these methods are blind to the onset of dryout and thus
do not predict the subsequent sharp decline in αtp as
dryout progresses around the tube from top to bottom
in annular flows at high vapor qualities (partial dryout
is depicted in Figure 3 at high vapor qualities)
• some methods introduce two-phase multipliers based
on interfacial parameters, such as the Martinelli pa-
rameter X tt , on the convective heat transfer coeffi-
cient, which has only a tenuous relationship to the
turbulent boundary sublayer at the heated wall that
controls single-phase convection
• their predictions of local flow boiling coefficients αtp
versus local vapor quality x at a fixed heat flux typi-
cally do not give a good representation of the observed
experimental trends nor slope in plots of αtp versus x
Kattan, Thome, and Favrat [12, 21] recently proposed a
flow regime-based flow boiling model for evaporation
inside horizontal tubes. They began by assuming sim-
plified geometries representative of the two-phase flow
structures for the various flow patterns and developed a
new flow pattern map for identifying when a particular
flow regime would occur. Their simplified flow struc-
ture geometries for describing annular, stratified-wavy
and fully stratified-wavy flows are shown in Figure 4.
Annular flows with partial dryout around the top of the
tube were classified as stratified-wavy flows and are thus
modeled accordingly. Flow structures for the intermit-
tent, mist flow, and bubbly flow regimes have yet to be
proposed (their development is the topic of ongoing re-
search). Intermittent flows (i.e., stratified flow with large
amplitude waves continuously wetting the top perime-
ter of the tube) are currently modeled using the annular
flow structure.
In Figure 4, for annular flow in the lower left dia-
gram, the variation in the thickness of the film from top
to bottom is ignored for the sake of simplicity and a
uniform thickness is assumed. Utilizing a void fraction
equation, the area occupied by the vapor phase is deter-
mined, and hence that too of the liquid phase, such that
the film thickness is calculable from the cross-sectional
vol. 24 no. 6 2003
 mean liquid and vapor velocities. The evaporation heat
transfer coefficient is applied to the wetted perimeter
while a single-phase vapor heat transfer coefficient is
calculated for the dry perimeter. Thus, while ignoring
numerous details of the flow structure, the present ge-
ometries represent the principal features. Annular flow
with partial dryout of the upper perimeter of the tube is
thus modeled as stratified-wavy flow because of its sim-
ilarity to this simplified flow structure. These simplified
flow structure geometries were selected to make them
geometrically continuous at the transition from one flow
pattern to another and hence not introduce a step-change
in the local heat transfer coefficient when passing from
one regime to another.
The general expression of the Kattan-Thome-Favrat
model for the local flow boiling coefficient αtp for a tube
Figure 4 Flow structures for annular, stratified-wavy, and fully with an internal radius R is
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 07:29 17 May 2012

stratified flows (left to right in bottom three diagrams) and for fully
stratified flow and its film flow equivalent (top two diagrams).
Rθdry αV + R(2π − θdry )αwet
αtp = (17)
2πR
area of the tube. Knowing the total flow of liquid plus
vapor and the local vapor quality, the mass flow rate The heat transfer coefficient αwet on the wetted tube
of the liquid is easily calculated, together with its den- perimeter of R(2π−θdry ) is obtained with an asymptotic
sity, the mean velocity of the liquid can be determined in equation that combines the nucleate boiling coefficient
the film. Hence, turbulent flow, heat transfer to the film αnb and the convective boiling coefficient αcb as:
can be correlated based on the mean velocity of the liq-
uid film and film thickness. Thus, film flow is modeled  1/3
rather than tubular flow, as in the previous methods. αwet = α3nb + α3cb (18)
The actual geometry for fully stratified flow is shown
in the upper left in Figure 4 (without bubbles originating where αnb is determined with the correlation of Cooper
from nucleate boiling), while its equivalent geometry is [33]:
assumed to be a truncated annular ring as shown in the
upper and lower diagrams at the right. The stratified
angle θstrat is calculated from the cross-sectional area αnb = 55 pr0.12 (− log10 pr )−0.55 M −0.5 q 0.67 (19)
occupied by the liquid in the upper left diagram and is
then used to determine the wetted angle in the diagram at setting the surface roughness to 1 micron while αcb is
the right, where for simplicity the liquid film is assumed for annular liquid film flow:
to have a uniform thickness. The liquid film thickness
can be calculated for the truncated annular ring using  0.69
4G(1 − x)δ λL
the same area as in the upper left diagram, which also αcb = 0.0133 Pr0.4
L (20)
then allows the mean liquid velocity to be determined. (1 − ε)µ L δ
For stratified-wavy flow, the liquid waves are small
in amplitude and do not reach the top of the tube. Hence The above equation includes the liquid film Reynolds
the top perimeter of the tube is continuously dry, similar number Re L , based on the mean liquid velocity in the
to fully stratified flow. For simplicity, the liquid is again annular film, which is a local function of the vapor qual-
assumed to be distributed uniformly in an annular trun- ity, annular liquid film thickness δ, and vapor void frac-
cated ring, as shown in the middle diagram at the bottom tion ε. Notice in particular that modeling the liquid
of Figure 4. The dry angle θdry varies between its max- flow as a film flow eliminates the need for the empir-
imum value of θstrat at the threshold to fully stratified ical two-phase multiplier found in other methods. Also,
flow and its minimum value of zero at the threshold to an asymptotic method weighs the relative importance
annular flow, where the wall is always all wet. Hence, of αnb and αcb , so no boiling suppression factor was in-
these three simple geometries have a smooth geomet- cluded. The vapor-phase heat transfer coefficient αV is
rical transition from one flow structure to another and obtained with the Dittus-Boelter correlation assuming
also allow the heat transfer models to be based on the tubular flow over the dry perimeter of the tube (Rθdry )
heat transfer engineering vol. 24 no. 6 2003 53
 in Figure 4, so that:
 0.8  0.4
GxD c pV µV λV
αV = 0.023
εµV λV D AL
The Rouhani-Axelsson [20] drift flux void fraction
model, Eq. (10), is used for ε. The cross-sectional area
of the tube occupied by the liquid-phase A L is
A L = A(1 − ε)
where A is the total cross-sectional area of the tube. For
the fully stratified flow regime illustrated at the top left
in Figure 4, the stratified angle θstrat of the liquid layer in
the lower part of the tube is obtained from the following
implicit geometrical expression:
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 07:29 17 May 2012
A L = 0.5R 2 [(2π − θstrat ) − sin(2π − θstrat )]
The dry angle θdry in Eq. (17) is the radial angle of
the tube wall that is assumed to be constantly dry for
stratified types of flows and annular flows with partial
dryout. For annular and intermittent flows, θdry is equal
to zero, and thus αtp is equal to αwet . As illustrated in
Figure 5, the dry angle θdry varies from its lower limit
of zero for annular flow at G high to its maximum value
equal to θstrat for fully stratified flow at G low , which
themselves are functions of vapor quality, hence, θdry is
a function of G and x. A simple linear expression for the
variation in θdry between G high and G low was assumed
for simplicity:
(G high − G)
θdry = θstrat
(G high − G low )
The annular liquid film thickness δ is determined by
equating the cross-sectional area occupied by the liquid
Figure 5 Two-phase flow pattern map illustrating values of G low and G high .
54 heat transfer engineering
phase to that of a segment of an annular liquid ring as
shown in Figure 4, so that:
(21)
πD(1 − ε)
δ= = (25)
R(2π − θdry ) 2(2π − θdry )
For additional details, refer to the original publication.
Figure 6 illustrates a simulation of the new heat trans-
(22) fer model for R-134a in a 12.0 mm internal diameter tube
at several different mass velocities and heat fluxes. At
the lowest mass velocity (G = 100 kg/m2 s), the flow
is in the stratified-wavy regime over the entire range
of vapor qualities shown. Hence, the local heat transfer
coefficient rises slowly as the convective contribution
increases with increasing vapor quality, while the wet-
ted perimeter of the tube slowly decreases. An increase
(23) in the heat flux from 5 to 10 kW/m2 illustrates that the
contribution of nucleate boiling increases with heat flux
as expected, except at high vapor qualities, where it
tends to reduce the wetted angle. At the highest mass
velocity (G = 400 kg/m2 s), the flow begins in the inter-
mittent regime at x = 0.15, converts into annular flow
at x = 0.32, and goes on to reach its peak in heat trans-
fer at the onset of dryout, after which the flow reverts to
stratified-wavy flow and the heat transfer coefficient de-
clines rapidly in value as θdry decreases as x increases.
The increase in heat flux from 10 to 20 kW/m2 in the
intermittent and annular flow regimes results in higher
heat transfer coefficients as expected, with less influ-
ence as the peak is approached because convection be-
comes more and more dominant. The higher heat flux
causes the onset of dryout to occur at a lower vapor
(24)
quality, and hence the peak for 20 kW/m2 is reached
first. Because of the lower coefficients after the peak,
the mean thermal performance is higher for the lower
heat flux curve than for the higher one, something that
vol. 24 no. 6 2003
 Figure 6 Simulation of Kattan-Thome-Favrat model for R-134a at 4◦ C.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 07:29 17 May 2012
would not be evident without this detailed heat transfer
model. The comments regarding the intermediate mass
velocity (G = 200 kg/m2 s) are similar to those for
G = 400 kg/m2 s.
Still, there are many unresolved issues for predicting
intube flow boiling heat transfer, such as:
• the development of a mist flow heat transfer model
• the development of a heat transfer model specifically
for intermittent flow
• the development of a bubbly flow heat transfer model
• the extension of the heat transfer model to high re-
duced pressures
• the determination if there should be boiling suppres-
sion factor acting on αnb in an asymptotic method
• the variation of the dry angle as a function of flow
conditions
• the requirement of a broader database for continued
development of the method
For evaporation in vertical upflow in tubes, many of the
earlier comments on the older methods are also appli-
cable. Flow patterns typically confronted in these appli-
cations are bubbly, slug, churn, annular, and mist flows.
Yet, none of the methods are based on the local flow
regime. The flow boiling methods only apply to wet wall
regimes, although none include a criterion for predict-
ing the onset of dryout. Only the Steiner and Taborek [2]
method specifically limits itself to vapor qualities below
50% for this reason while providing another method for
evaporation without nucleate boiling nor dryout up to
complete evaporation. Many of these methods in prac-
tice are applied to vertical downflow without correction.
Kattan, Thome, and Favrat [34] have shown that flow
boiling data differ significantly in the same test section at
the same test conditions for vertical upward and vertical
downward flows. The author is not aware of any general
heat transfer engineering
flow regime-based flow boiling model for vertical tubes
in the open literature, although methods for predicting
heat transfer in single regimes, such as bubbly flow or
annular flow, exist.
INTUBE CONDENSATION
Figure 7 depicts flow patterns typically encountered
for condensation inside horizontal tubes according to
Palen, Breber, and Taborek [35]. At high flow rates,
the condensate immediately forms an annular film with
some liquid entrained from interfacial waves into the
high velocity vapor core. Slug flow is then encountered,
and eventually all the vapor is converted to liquid. How-
ever, at low flow rates, rather than their identification of
the flow as annular at the entrance region, it is probably
in fact a stratified-wavy flow with Nusselt film con-
densation from around the top of the tube towards the
stratified layer in the bottom. The flow continues as a
stratified-wavy flow until stratified flow is reached at
low vapor qualities. Since the Nusselt film thickness
is very thin, the upper liquid film may not bridge the
cross-section of the tube, and some vapor may leave the
opposite end without condensing.
Turning to heat transfer methods without referring to
particular studies, the following shortcomings of con-
ventional “flow patternless” methods for predicting lo-
cal condensation heat transfer coefficients inside hori-
zontal and vertical tubes can be identified:
• They are developed auspiciously for the annular flow
regime without actually modeling the flow as an an-
nular liquid film, i.e., they typically apply a vapor
fraction correction to the liquid Reynolds number in
the Dittus-Boelter single-phase turbulent flow corre-
lation, which is for tube flow and not film flow
vol. 24 no. 6 2003 55
 Figure 7 Flow patterns encountered for condensation inside horizontal tubes.

• Many annular flow correlations do not know where following expression with a proration between the Nus-
the actual boundaries of annular flow are selt film condensation coefficient on the top perimeter
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 07:29 17 May 2012

• Other methods attempt to cover the complete range of the tube and the forced convective heat transfer co-
of flows by categorizing the flow as stratified or non- efficient on the stratified perimeter:
stratified, using an unreasonably simplistic approach
from a two-phase flow transition point of view, such as  
0.23 Re0.12 Ga L Pr L 0.25
only an equivalent Reynolds number (as noted earlier Nu(x) = vo

in the Introduction) 1 + 1.11X tt0.58 Ja L

• The trends in local experimental heat transfer data
+ (1 − θstrat /π)Nustrat (29)
plotted versus vapor quality are often not respected

Recently, Dobson, and Chato [11] have proposed a Film condensation is represented by the left term, while
flow regime-based prediction method that covers two the forced convection in the stratified liquid (based on
regimes: stratified-wavy flow (with film condensation the liquid fraction flowing alone in the tube and not as
from the top towards the liquid at the bottom of the tube) a stratified film) is correlated as
and annular flow. Their correlation for annular flow is
 1/2
  c1
αc D 2.22 Nustrat = 0.0195 Re0.8 0.4
LS Pr L 1.376 + c2 (30)
Nu(x) = LS Pr L 1 +
= 0.023 Re0.8 0.4
(26) X tt
λL X tt0.89
They used the Soliman [36] criterion to determine the
where the superficial liquid Reynolds number ReLS is
transition from annular flow to stratified-wavy flow, of
which the Froude transition number Frso for ReLS ≤
GD(1 − x)
ReLS = (27) 1250 is
µL
 1.5
1 + 1.09X tt0.039 1
and X tt is the Martinelli parameter for turbulent flow Frso = 0.025 Re1.59
LS (31)
in both phases. For stratified-wavy flow, first the void X tt Ga0.5
L
fraction ε is calculated using the Zivi [18] void fraction
model, Eq. (9). The angle from the top of the tube to the while the corresponding expression for ReLS > 1250 is
stratified liquid layer in the bottom θstrat is then deter-
mined, assuming all the liquid is stratified in the bottom  1.5
1 + 1.09X tt0.039 1
(neglecting that on the walls), as Frso = 1.26 Re1.04
LS (32)
X tt Ga0.5
L
θstrat ∼ arc cos(2ε − 1)
1− = (28) Soliman concluded that the transition to wavy flow oc-
π π
curs for Frso < 7 and to annular flow for Frso > 7. Dob-
which includes a simplification of the actual implicit son and Chato noted that this criterion worked quite
geometric expression to avoid iteration. The stratified- well based on their observations, although a symmetric
wavy heat transfer coefficient is then obtained from the annular flow was not reached until values of about 18
56 heat transfer engineering vol. 24 no. 6 2003
 (they set their threshold to Frso = 20 to better fit their NOMENCLATURE
heat transfer data).
There are several drawbacks with this method. First, A cross-sectional area of flow channel, m2
there is not a smooth transition in the heat transfer co- AL cross-sectional area occupied by liquid-
efficient from annular flow to stratified-wavy flow but phase, m2
instead a significant step change in its value. Second, c empirical constant
the flow regime transitions have been rather simplified, Co two-phase convection multiplier
for instance, ignoring fully stratified flow at low val- cpL specific heat of the liquid, J/kg s
ues of G. Even so, this method is a good step toward cpv specific heat of the vapor, J/kg s
a complete flow regime-based heat transfer model for c1 empirical constant
condensation in horizontal tubes. c2 empirical constant
Several newer flow pattern-based methods have also D tube diameter, m
been proposed since then. Shao and Granryd [37] pro- Fr L liquid Froude number
posed a stratified/nonstratified condensation prediction Frso Soliman Froude transition number
method that also used the Soliman transition criterion G mass velocity of liquid plus vapor, kg/m2 s
and observed that the best transition value based on heat Ge equivalent mass velocity, kg/m2 s
transfer observations was between 15 and 20. Cavallini G high transition mass velocity into stratified-wavy
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 07:29 17 May 2012

et al. [8] proposed a new heat transfer model and flow flow, kg/m2 s
pattern map that categorizes the flow into annular flow, G low transition mass velocity into fully stratified
transition and wavy-stratified flow, and slug flow, and flow, kg/m2 s
predicted a large database very well. An even newer Ga L Galileo number of liquid
method by Thome and coworkers [38, 39], which adapts g gravitational acceleration, 9.81 m/s2
the Kattan-Thome-Favrat flow pattern map and sim- H vertical height, m
plified two-phase flow structure approach from flow Ja L Jakob number of the liquid
boiling to condensation, has just been completed and M molecular weight
submitted for publication; it accurately predicts conden- Nustrat Nusselt number for stratified flow
sation data in the annular, intermittent, stratified-wavy, Nu(x) Nusselt number
and stratified flow regimes for nineteen different flu- Pr L liquid Prandtl number
ids and includes a new logarithmic mean void fraction pr reduced pressure
method to handle void fractions from low to high re- pfrict frictional pressure drop, N/m
duced pressures (0.02 to 0.8) and interfacial roughness pmom momentum pressure drop, N/m
effects. It has a smooth transition in the heat transfer pstatic static pressure drop, N/m
coefficient from each flow regime to the next. ptotal total pressure drop, N/m
q heat flux, W/m2
R radius of tube, m
SUMMARY Ree equivalent Reynolds number
Re L liquid Reynolds number
Recent developments in flow regime-based models ReLS superficial liquid Reynolds number
for predicting two-phase heat transfer coefficients have Revo vapor only Reynolds number
been reviewed and constructive comments made about S velocity ratio
the shortcomings of the continued use of older flow uL mean velocity of liquid, m/s
patternless methods. In addition, useful comments are uV mean velocity of vapor, m/s
made about key aspects that should be considered, with X tt Martinelli parameter
some thought given as to what future methods should x vapor quality
try to include. Heat transfer models based on simple αc convective condensation heat transfer coeffi-
geometric representations of the various flow regimes cient, W/m2 K
combined with the local flow regime identified, utilizing αcb convective boiling heat transfer coefficient,
a reliable and accurate flow pattern map, are notably W/m2 K
better that the older flow patternless methods. These αnb nucleate boiling heat transfer coefficient,
new flow regime methods are also typically able to better W/m2 K
capture the trends in the experimental data, making them αtp two-phase boiling heat transfer coefficient,
more useful for optimizing heat exchanger layouts. Even W/m2 K
so, many issues still need to be addressed to improve αV vapor-phase heat transfer coefficient, W/m2
modeling of these two-phase processes. K
heat transfer engineering vol. 24 no. 6 2003 57
 αwet heat transfer coefficient on wet perimeter,
W/m2 K
δ thickness of annular liquid film, m
ε vapor void fraction
λL liquid thermal conductivity, W/m K
λV vapor thermal conductivity, W/m K
µL liquid dynamic viscosity, Ns/m2
µV vapor dynamic viscosity
θ angle with respect to horizontal, rad
θdry dry angle of tube perimeter, rad
θstrat stratified flow angle of tube perimeter, rad
ρL liquid density, kg/m3
ρV vapor density, kg/m3
ρtp two-phase density, kg/m3
σ surface tension, N/m
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 07:29 17 May 2012
REFERENCES
[1] Chen, J. C., A Correlation for Boiling Heat Transfer to Sat-
urated Fluids in Convective Flow, ASME Paper 63-HT-34,
Boston, 1963.
[2] Steiner, D., and Taborek, J., Flow Boiling Heat Transfer in Ver-
tical Tubes Correlated by an Asymptotic Model, Heat Transfer
Engng., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 43–69, 1992.
[3] Akers, W. W., Deans, H. A., and Crosser, O. K., Condensa-
tion Heat Transfer within Horizontal Tubes, Chem. Eng. Prog.
Symp. Ser., vol. 55, pp. 171–176, 1959.
[4] Taitel, Y., and Dukler, A. E., A Model for Predicting Flow
Regime Transitions in Horizontal and Near Horizontal Gas-
Liquid Flow, AIChE J., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 43–55, 1976.
[5] Baker, O., Design of Pipelines for Simultaneous Flow of Oil
and Gas, Oil and Gas J., p. 26, 1954.
[6] Breber, G., Palen, J. W., and Taborek, J., Prediction of Hor-
izontal Tube-Side Condensation of Pure Components Using
Flow Regime Criteria, J. Heat Transfer, vol. 102, pp. 471–476,
1980.
[7] Tandon, T. N., Varma, H. K., and Gupta, C. P., A New Flow
Regime Map for Condensation inside Horizontal Tubes, J.
Heat Transfer, vol. 104, pp. 763–768, 1982.
[8] Cavallini, A., Censi, G., Del Gol, D., Doretti, L., Longo, G. A.,
and Rossetto, L., Intube Condensation of Halogenated Refrig-
erants, ASHRAE Trans., part 1, vol. 108, Paper 4507, 2002.
[9] Sardesai, R. G., Owen, R. G., and Pulling, D. J., Flow Regimes
for Condensation of a Vapour inside a Horizontal Tube, Chem.
Eng. Sci., vol. 36, pp. 1173–1180, 1981.
[10] Shah, M. M., A General Correlation for Heat Transfer during
Film Condensation inside of Pipes, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer,
vol. 22, pp. 547–556, 1979.
[11] Dobson, M. K., and Chato, J. C., Condensation in Smooth
Tubes, J. Heat Transfer, vol. 120, no. 1, pp. 193–213, 1998.
[12] Kattan, N., Thome, J. R., and Favrat, D., Flow Boiling in Hor-
izontal Tubes, Part 1: Development of a Diabatic Two-Phase
Flow Pattern Map, J. Heat Transfer, vol. 120, no. 1, pp. 140–
147, 1998.
[13] Fair, J. R., What You Need to Know to Design Thermosyphon
Reboilers, Petroleum Refiner, vol. 39, no. 2, p. 105, 1960.
[14] Hewitt, G. F., and Roberts, D. N., Studies of Two-Phase
Flow Patterns by Simultaneous X-ray and Flash Photography,
AERE-M 2159, HMSO, UKAEA, Harwell, U.K., 1969.
58 heat transfer engineering
[15] Barnea, D., A Unified Model for Prediction of Flow Pattern
Transitions in the Whole Range of Pipe Inclination, Int. J.
Multiphase Flow, vol. 13, pp. 1–12, 1987.
[16] Steiner, D., Heat Transfer to Boiling Saturated Liquids,
VDI-Wärmeatlas (VDI Heat Atlas), Verein Deutscher Inge-
nieure (VDI), Gessellschaft Verfahrenstechnik und Chemie-
ingenieurwesen (GCV), ed., J. W. Fullarton, trans., Düsseldorf,
1993.
[17] Thome, J. R., and El Hajal, J., Two-Phase Flow Pattern Map
for Evaporation in Horizontal Tubes: Latest Version, 1st Int.
Conf. on Heat Transfer, Fluid Mechanics, and Thermodynam-
ics, Kruger Park, South Africa, April 8–10, vol. 1, pp. 182–188,
2002.
[18] Zivi, S. M., Estimation of Steady-State Steam Void-Fraction
by Means of the Principle of Minimum Entropy Generation,
J. Heat Transfer, vol. 86, pp. 247–252, 1964.
[19] Chisholm, D., An Equation for Velocity Ratio in Two-Phase
Flow, NEL Report 535, National Engineering Laboratory,
Scotland, 1972.
[20] Rouhani, Z., and Axelsson, E., Calculation of Volume Void
Fraction in the Subcooled and Quality Region, Int. J. Heat
Mass Transfer, vol. 13, pp. 383–393, 1970.
[21] Kattan, N., Thome, J. R., and Favrat, D., Flow Boiling in Hor-
izontal Tubes, Part 3: Development of a New Heat Transfer
Model Based on Flow Patterns, J. Heat Transfer, vol. 120,
no. 1, pp. 156–165, 1998.
[22] Zürcher, O., Favrat, D., and Thome, J. R., Evaporation of
Refrigerants in a Horizontal Tube: An Improved Flow Pat-
tern Dependent Heat Transfer Model Compared to Ammonia
Data, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 303–317,
2002.
[23] Lockhart, R. W., and Martinelli, R. C., Proposed Correlation
of Data for Isothermal Two-Phase Two-Component Flow in
Pipes, Chem. Eng. Progr., vol. 45, pp. 39–45, 1949.
[24] Friedel, L., Improved Friction Pressure Drop Correlations for
Horizontal and Vertical Two-Phase Flow, European Two-Phase
Flow Group Meeting, Ispra, Paper E2, 1979.
[25] Grönnerud, R., Investigation of Liquid Hold-Up, Flow-
Resistance and Heat Transfer in Circulation Type Evaporators,
Part IV: Two-phase flow resistance in boiling refrigerants, An-
nexe 1972-1, Bull. de l’Inst. du Froid, International Inst. of
Refrigeration, Paris, 1979.
[26] Chisholm, D., Pressure Gradients Due to Friction During the
Flow of Evaporating Two-Phase Mixtures in Smooth Tubes
and Channels, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, vol. 16, pp. 347–
358, 1973.
[27] Müller-Steinhagen, H., and Heck, K., A Simple Frictional Pres-
sure Drop Correlation for Two-Phase Flow in Pipes, Chem.
Eng. Process, vol. 20, pp. 297–308, 1986.
[28] Collier, J. G., and Thome, J. R., Convective Boiling and Con-
densation, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994.
[29] Shah, M. M., Chart Correlation for Saturated Boiling Heat
Transfer: Equations and Further Study, ASHRAE Trans.,
vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 185–196, 1982.
[30] Klimenko, V. V., and Fyodorov, M., Prediction of Heat Transfer
for Two-Phase Forced Flow in Channels of Different Orien-
tation, Proc. 9th Int. Heat Transfer Conf., Jerusalem, vol. 5,
pp. 65–70, 1990.
[31] Kattan, N., Thome, J. R., and Favrat, D., Measurement and
Prediction of Two-Phase Flow Patterns for New Refrigerants
inside Horizontal Tubes, ASHRAE Trans., vol. 101, part 2,
Paper SD-95-17-4, 1995.
[32] Thome, J. R., Boiling of Refrigerants: A State-of-the-Art Re-
view, Int. J. Refrig., vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 435–457, 1996.
vol. 24 no. 6 2003
 [33] Cooper, M. G., Saturated Nucleate Pool Boiling: A Simple
Correlation, Proc. 1st U.K. National Heat Transfer Conference,
vol. 2, pp. 785–793, 1984.
[34] Kattan, N., Thome, J. R., and Favrat, D., Boiling of
R-134a and R-123 in a Microfin Tube, Proc. 19th Int.
Congr. of Refrigeration, The Hague, vol. IVa, pp. 337–344,
1995.
[35] Palen, J. W., Breber, G., and Taborek, J., Prediction of Flow
Regimes in Horizontal Tube-Side Condensation, Heat Transfer
Engng., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 47–57, 1979.
[36] Soliman, H. M., On the Annular-to-Wavy Flow Pattern Transi-
tion during Condensation inside Horizontal Tubes, The Cana-
dian Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 60, pp. 475–481,
1982.
[37] Shao, D. W., and Granryd, E. G., Flow Pattern, Heat Transfer
and Pressure Drop in Flow Condensation, Part 1: Pure and
Azeotropic Refrigerants, Int. J. HVAC&R Research, vol. 6,
no. 2, pp. 175–195, 2000.
[38] El Hajal, J., Thome, J. R., and Cavallini, A., Condensation in
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 07:29 17 May 2012
Horizontal Tubes, Part 1: Two-Phase Flow Pattern Map, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transfer, in review, 2003.
heat transfer engineering
[39] Thome, J. R., El Hajal, J., and Cavallini, A., Condensation in
Horizontal Tubes, Part 2: New Heat Transfer Model Based on
Flow Regimes, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, in review, 2003.
John R. Thome is Professor of Heat and Mass
Transfer at the Swiss Federal Institute of Tech-
nology in Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland, since
1998, where his primary interests of research are
two-phase flow and heat transfer. He received
his Ph.D. at Oxford University, England, in 1978
and was formerly a professor at Michigan State
University; from 1984 to 1998, he set up his
own international engineering consulting com-
pany. He is the author of several books, including
Enhanced Boiling Heat Transfer (1990) and Con-
vective Boiling and Condensation (1994), and is working on two new books,
one be available on the Internet and the other a textbook on the principles
of two-phase flow and heat transfer. He received the ASME Heat Transfer
Division’s Best Paper Award in 1998 for a 3-part paper on flow boiling heat
transfer published in the Journal of Heat Transfer. He is European Editor of
the Journal of Enhanced Heat Transfer and for Heat Transfer Engineering.
vol. 24 no. 6 2003 59