Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 34 (2010) 234–245

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science

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

Flow boiling of halogenated refrigerants at high saturation temperature

in a horizontal smooth tube
Davide Del Col *
Dipartimento di Fisica Tecnica, University of Padova, Padova, Italy

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

Article history: Several correlations are available in the open literature for computing the heat transfer coefficient during
Received 28 April 2009 flow boiling inside plain channels. With respect to halogenated refrigerants, these correlations are usually
Received in revised form 31 October 2009 compared to data taken in a limited range of evaporation temperature and reduced pressure. More
Accepted 31 October 2009
recently, the adoption of new refrigerants, such as high pressure HFCs and carbon dioxide, requires to lar-
gely extend the pressure range of application of such correlations. Besides, the design of evaporators for
some heat pumping applications, where temperatures are set at higher values as compared to usual evap-
Keywords:
orating temperatures in air-conditioning equipment, requires proper validation of the computing meth-
Flow boiling
Refrigerants
ods.
High pressure The present paper aims at comparing four well-known predicting models to a new database collected
Smooth tube during flow boiling of HCFC (R22) and HFC refrigerants (R134a, R125 and R410A) in a horizontal 8 mm
internal diameter tube. This database is characterized by saturation temperature ranging between
25 °C and 45 °C, reduced pressure spanning between 0.19 and 0.53. Mass velocity ranges between 200
and 600 kg m2 s1 and heat flux between 9 and 53 kW m2.
Evaporating heat transfer coefficients of halogenated refrigerants at such high temperatures have not
been reported in the open literature so far. The discussion of the results will enlighten some similarities
with experimental trends presented in the literature for evaporating carbon dioxide.
Two models tested here show good prediction capabilities of the present experimental data, but not for
all the data sets in the same way. For the purpose of practical use, a simple modification of the correlation
by Gungor and Winterton [1] is proposed, showing that this is able to catch the experimental trends of
the present database with good agreement.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction pump dryers due to the significant energy savings compared to

Much research has been done in the field of in-tube flow boiling
in the last decades and much experimental data regarding flow
boiling in plain channels is now available, covering a large number
of fluids. Nevertheless, with regard to halogenated refrigerants,
most flow boiling data sets refer to a narrow range of saturation
temperatures, which is typical of common refrigeration and air-
conditioning applications. This also leads to a limited range of re-
duced pressure in the evaporation databases of halogenated
refrigerants.
An example of higher evaporating temperature application of
HFC refrigerants is represented by the heat pump clothes dryers,
where the evaporating refrigerant subtracts heat from the hot air
stream and thus the evaporating temperature can reach much
higher values as compared to conventional air-conditioning appli-
cations. In the recent years, there is an increasing interest on heat
* Tel.: +39 049 8276891; fax: +39 049 8276896.
E-mail address: davide.delcol@unipd.it
standard electric resistance dryers.
Beside these practical applications, extending the range of oper-
ating temperatures and pressures in flow boiling data sets is of
great interest for validating models in a wider range of operating
conditions. In fact, even though heat transfer coefficient databases
for flow boiling of halogenated refrigerants are extensive, most
data refer to the range between 15 °C and 20 °C.
The adoption of high pressure refrigerants, such as carbon diox-
ide, displaying different thermodynamic and thermophysical prop-
erties, represents a challenge to the capability and accuracy of
previous established correlations. In the case of carbon dioxide,
for instance, 0 °C saturation temperature corresponds to
3485 kPa saturation pressure and 0.47 reduced pressure, which is
far higher as compared to conventional halogenated refrigerants
(0.07 for R134a and 0.16 for R410A, at the same saturation temper-
ature). A higher operating saturation pressure results in high va-
pour density, low surface tension, high vapour viscosity and low
liquid viscosity, and thus yields flow boiling heat transfer and
two-phase flow characteristics quite different from those of

0894-1777/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2009.10.035
 D. Del Col / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 34 (2010) 234–245
Nomenclature
A heat transfer area (m2)
a, HTC heat transfer coefficient (W m2 K1)
Bo boiling number (=q/(G hlv))
c specific heat (J kg1 K1)
e per cent deviation (=[(aCALC  aEXP)/aEXP]100)
eAB mean abs. deviation (=(1/Np) R[|aCALC  aEXP|/aEXP]100)
eR average deviation (=(1/Np) R[(aCALC  aEXP)/aEXP]100)
G mass velocity (kg m2 s1)
hlv latent heat (kJ kg1)
m_ mass flow rate (kg s1)
Np number of data points
pRED reduced pressure
q heat flux (kW m2)
Q_ heat flow rate (W)
conventional data. High pressure and low surface tension have ma-
jor effects on nucleate boiling heat transfer characteristics.
Recent flow boiling papers [2–6] reporting data on halogenated
refrigerants display limited values of reduced pressure, up to 0.2.
Seo and Kim [2] measured heat transfer coefficients during the
evaporation of R22 from 15 to 5 °C saturation temperature, while
Saiz Jabardo and Bandarra Filho [3] performed an experimental
study of convective boiling with R22, R134a and R404A at 8 °C
and 15 °C. Kim et al. [4] measured the R410A flow boiling heat
transfer coefficients in smooth and microfin tubes at 15, 5
and 5 °C saturation temperature. Park and Hrnjak [5] reported
and compared heat transfer coefficients of R410A and CO2 in a
6.1 mm inner diameter smooth tube during evaporation at low
temperature (15 °C and 30 °C).
Silva Lima et al. [6] reported heat transfer coefficients taken
during flow boiling of R134a in a 13.8 mm internal diameter tube
at saturation temperature ranging between 5 and 20 °C, mass
velocity of 300 and 500 kg m2 s1, heat flux of 7.5 and
17.5 kW m2. The influence of saturation temperature is discussed
at different values of heat flux and mass flux.
A wider range of reduced pressure can be found in [7,8]. Greco
and Vanoli [7] reported heat transfer coefficients in a 6 mm tube
with R22, R134a, R404A, R410A and R507A in a wide range of
evaporating pressure, between 3 bar and 12 bar. Maximum evapo-
rating temperatures were reached for R404A and R134a, corre-
sponding to 23.5 and 28.6 °C, respectively. In [8] the same
authors discussed the effect of the evaporating pressure on the
heat transfer coefficients for R410A and R404A, with reduced pres-
sure up to 0.24 and 0.32 respectively.
No data at higher reduced pressure is available for halogenated
refrigerants, but higher reduced pressure values can be found in
flow boiling studies with carbon dioxide. Yun et al. [9] and Oh
et al. [10] have reported CO2 evaporating heat transfer coefficients
and compared them to the values measured with halogenated
refrigerants. Those comparisons are usually made with R134a or
R22 at the same saturation temperature as CO2, which means far
different pressure and much different thermophysical properties
between the carbon dioxide and the halogenated refrigerant.
Therefore, in the graphs of heat transfer coefficient, carbon dioxide
and R134a usually display opposite trends, with CO2 heat transfer
coefficient decreasing while R134a coefficient increasing with
vapour quality [9].
The aim of the present paper is to report new data measured
during flow boiling of halogenated refrigerants at high saturation
temperature, which allow to cover a range of reduced pressure
from 0.2 to 0.5, which is usually not covered by experimental dat-
abases and thus can be used for assessment of predicting models.
235
q density (kg m3)
rN standard deviation (={[R(e  eR)2]/(Np  1)}1/2)
T temperature (°C)
x vapour quality
Subscripts
in inlet
l liquid
nb nucleate boiling
out outlet
s saturation
v vapor
w wall
wat water
The heat transfer coefficients are measured during flow boiling
of halogenated refrigerants inside a 8 mm plain copper tube. The
test section is a counter flow tube-in-tube evaporator, where the
refrigerant flows in the inner tube while the heating water flows
in the annulus.
This new data is compared against some models available in the
literature with the aim of discussing the capability and the accu-
racy of those models in the prediction of the heat transfer coeffi-
cient. They are the correlations by Gungor and Winterton [1], Liu
and Winterton [11], Kandlikar [12] and Wojtan et al. [13,14].
2. Experimental apparatus and procedure
2.1. Flow boiling apparatus
A schematic of the experimental setup is provided in Fig. 1. The
experimental facility consists of two loops: the refrigerant loop and
the water loop. In the first loop the refrigerant is pumped as sub-
cooled liquid and then it is heated – and in some cases partially
evaporated – in the preheater to achieve the desired conditions
at the inlet of the test section. The refrigerant enters the tube side
of the test section as subcooled liquid or saturated vapor and then
it is vaporised against the hot water flowing in the annulus. After,
the two-phase mixture leaves the test section and goes to a braised
plate condenser, where it is fully condensed and subcooled. A blad-
der accumulator connected to a nitrogen bottle is installed in the
refrigerant loop. The refrigerant flow can be independently con-
trolled by a magnetic coupled gear pump.
The thermodynamic conditions at the inlet of the test section
are determined from pressure and temperature if the liquid is sub-
cooled. In the case of saturated vapor, the inlet vapor quality to the
test section is determined from the heat extracted in the preheater,
which can be controlled varying water temperature and flow rate.
In the same way, the heat transfer rate in the test section can be
varied by adjusting water temperature and flow rate. Thus vapor
quality, mass velocity, and heat flux can be independently
controlled.
The preheater and the test section are coaxial tube-in-tube heat
exchangers, in which the refrigerant flowing inside the tube is
heated and vaporised by hot water flowing in the annulus side.
In the hot water circuit, an electrical heater supplies the water with
the power transferred to the refrigerant.
The temperature of the hot water entering the preheater and
the test section is controlled by a secondary water circuit. The
water from the test section and from the electric boiler are mixed
together in a storage tank, where the water temperature is
236 D. Del Col / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 34 (2010) 234–245
Fig. 1. Sketch of the test rig.
maintained constant. Thermostatic control of the water is accom-
plished by adjusting the electrical power supplied to the heater.
The experimental setup used for the present experiments is the
same as used for condensation tests [15].
2.2. Test section and data reduction
The test section is divided into two different sectors: a pre-con-
ditioning section around 300 mm long, where the refrigerant flow,
under vaporisation, achieves a fully developed flow regime, and
the measuring section, around 1.0 m long, in which the heat trans-
fer coefficient is measured. This structure is obtained using a single
1.6 m long inner tube and two separate heating water jackets, con-
nected in series on the water side.
The inner tube, which is the test tube, is instrumented with
eight copper-constantan (type T) thermocouples embedded in its
wall to measure the surface temperature. The thermocouples are
inserted and soldered into four equidistant axial grooves. Four
thermocouples are located 100 mm past the inlet of the measuring
section. The other four thermocouples are located 100 mm before
the outlet.
The water temperature change in the test tube is measured by a
four junction copper-constantan thermopile inserted into appro-
priate mixing chambers. A metal helix is wound around the test
tube inside the annulus, in order to avoid stratification in the water
flow and to get high heat transfer coefficient on the water side to-
gether with appropriate values for the water temperature
decrease.
Two digital strain gauge pressure transducers (absolute and dif-
ferential transducers) are connected to manometric taps to mea-
sure the vapour pressure upstream and downstream of the test
tube. Refrigerant temperatures at inlet and outlet of the test sec-
tion are measured by means of adiabatic sections, with thermocou-
ples inserted into both the refrigerant flow and the tube wall.
The heat flow rate transferred in the test tube is derived from an
enthalpy balance on the heating water side. The average heat
transfer coefficient a is obtained from the following equation:
Q_
a¼
ADtml
ðT w;in  T w;out Þ
Dtml ¼ T T s
w;in
ln T w;out T s
where Q_ is the heat flow rate exchanged in the tube, A is the heat
transfer surface area, Ts is the mean saturation temperature, Tw,in
and Tw,out are the wall temperatures at inlet and outlet. The heat
flow rate is obtained from the energy balance on the water side:
Q_ ¼ m
_ wat  cwat ðT wat;in  T wat;out Þ ð3Þ
Enthalpy change and vapour quality change in the test section
are obtained from the heat flow rate and the refrigerant mass flow
rate, which is measured by a Coriolis effect mass flow meter, in-
serted downstream of the pump. Measured heat transfer coeffi-
cients can be looked at as quasi-local values, since the vapour
quality change is in the range 15–25% for most of the data.
For each test run, the refrigerant mass flux is controlled by set-
ting the gear pump. Saturation temperature can be controlled by
varying the pressure in the apparatus using the bladder accumula-
tor. During test runs, saturation temperature variation within ±1 K
around the target value was allowed. Since no electrical heating is
used in the present apparatus, the heat flux can be varied by set-
ting the water temperature at the inlet of the test section.
As previously stated, the experimental heat transfer coefficients
are reduced from the measured values of saturation temperature
and wall temperature. The saturation temperature is obtained
from the pressure, which in turn is determined as a linear interpo-
lation between the values measured at inlet and outlet of the test
section: because of the low pressure drop in the tube, this assump-
tion leads to negligible error in the data reduction.
The pressure measurement at the inlet of the test tube is com-
pared to the refrigerant temperature directly measured in the adi-
abatic sector before the test section. When saturated refrigerant
flows in the tube, the difference between saturation temperature
determined from pressure and directly measured refrigerant tem-
perature is within the experimental uncertainty of the two sen-
sors. For pure fluids, the two values differ by less than 0.15 K at
high mass velocity. Higher deviations are found at low vapour
quality, and are probably due to non-equilibrium in the flow
and to local sub-cooling at the inlet of the test section. Since an
important contribution to the experimental uncertainty is associ-
ated to the determination of the saturation temperature, the sat-
uration-to-refrigerant temperature difference has been compared
ð1Þ
to the wall superheat for each test run: the data points character-
ized by ratios of temperature difference (saturation minus refrig-
ð2Þ erant) to wall superheat higher than 5% have not been considered
in the present work.
 D. Del Col / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 34 (2010) 234–245 237

Table 1 coefficient are reported in Table 2. The average uncertainty for

Accuracy for sensors and parameters. the heat flux is around 4% while the average uncertainty for the
Temperature ±0.05 °C heat transfer coefficient is around 6.5%.
Temperature difference ±0.03 K
Refrigerant flow rate ±0.4%
Water flow rate ±0.5%
3. Heat transfer results
Absolute pressure ±4 kPa
Differential pressure ±0.06 kPa The present experimental data were measured during flow boil-
ing of halogenated refrigerants inside a 8 mm plain copper tube.
These data refer to saturated flow boiling of R134a, R22, R125
and R410A, following the order of increasing reduced pressure in
Table 2 the tests. Mass velocity ranges from 200 up to 600 kg m2 s1,
Range of experimental uncertainties for heat flux, vapour quality and heat transfer
the heat flux goes from 9 to 53 kW m2 while the reduced pressure
coefficient.
spans between 0.19 and 0.53.
q (%) x HTC (%) The main experimental operating conditions in the present
R134a ±3.5–4.7 ±0.003–0.01 ±4.7–7.8 database are reported in Table 3, along with the range of parame-
R22 ±3.6–4.8 ±0.004–0.01 ±5.6–7.7 ters in the measurements.
R125 ±3.2–4.8 ±0.004–0.012 ±5.0–9.1 Some experimental results are plotted in Figs. 2–6. These results
R410A ±3.8–4.5 ±0.006–0.009 ±5.7–6.9
are here discussed with reference to the map by Wojtan et al. [13],
since no experimental visualization has been specifically carried
out. Nevertheless, one should remind that the reduced pressure
2.3. Uncertainty analysis values in the present database are higher than the ones in the data-
base used by Wojtan et al. [13] to validate their map.
The analysis of the experimental uncertainty has been per- The graph in Fig. 2 reports the heat transfer coefficients mea-
formed in agreement with the guidelines provided in [16]. For each sured with R134a at 400 kg m2 s1 mass velocity, at roughly con-
test run, both Type A and Type B evaluations of standard uncertain- stant heat flux but two different values of saturation temperature,
ties have been performed. 31 and 43 °C. At low vapour quality, the heat transfer coefficient is
Type A evaluation has been made from the standard deviation higher at higher evaporating temperature. As the vapour quality
acquired during recording of each data point. increases, the difference between high and low saturation temper-
For the Type B evaluation, both specifications from manufactur- ature heat transfer coefficients decrease and the curves merge
ers and data provided from calibration have been used. A list of together.
accuracies for sensors and parameters is reported in Table 1. At the lower temperature, and low vapour quality, the heat
The Coriolis effect mass flow meter has an accuracy of 0.4%. All transfer coefficient displays a minimum and then increases. As
the thermocouples were calibrated using a bath with a Kaye refer- the vapour quality increases, the pattern evolves from intermittent
ence thermometer (accuracy 0.02 °C). The average accuracy for the to annular, as it can be found by comparing the present test runs
thermocouples is estimated to be equal to 0.05 °C. For the thermo- with the map by Wojtan et al. [13]. In this region, when vapour
piles, the average accuracy is around 0.03 K. quality increases, the liquid film thickness decreases and the va-
The refrigerant pressure is measured at the inlet of the test sec- pour velocity increases. Both these phenomena promote heat
tion by a digital strain gauge transducer with an accuracy of 4 kPa. transfer increase.
Water flow rates in the test section and the preheater are mea- At the higher evaporating temperature, the heat transfer coeffi-
sured by magnetic-type flow meters with an average accuracy cient first decreases with vapour quality and then increases again.
around 0.5% of the measured value. Again, there is a local minimum which is the result of the compe-
By combining the two procedures, an expanded uncertainty tition between nucleate and convective boiling mechanisms. In
with 95% confidence level has been computed for each data point. fact, at higher evaporating temperature the heat transfer is
Uncertainty ranges for heat flux, vapour quality and heat transfer predominantly influenced by the nucleate boiling, since, with

Table 3
Experimental conditions of the present database (the width of range for evaporating temperature and heat flux in each data set is also reported).

Np pRED Tev G q x
(/) (/) (°C) (kg m2 s1) (kW m2) (/)
R134a 36 0.19–0.29 31 (0.5, +1.0) 400 28.5 (3%, +4%) 0.07–0.87
43 (0.1, +1.0) 400 14.0 (7%, +4%)
43 (1.0, +1.0) 400 26.5 (3%, +3%)
43 (0.5, +0.5) 600 30.0 (2%, +2%)
45 (0.5, +0.5) 200 14.0 (6%, +6%)
R22 15 0.26–0.29 35 (1.0, +1.5) 400 26.5 (3%, +4%) 0.21–0.72
35 (2.5, +2.0) 400 52.5 (1%, +1%)
R125 37 0.37–0.41 26 (1.5, +1.0) 200 9.0 (7%, +7%) 0.16–0.91
26 (1.0, +1.0) 200 14.5 (3%, +2%)
26 (2.0, +0.5) 400 12.0 (7%, +6%)
26 (1.0, +1.5) 400 21.0 (8%, +8%)
R410A 20 0.49–0.53 40 (1.0, +1.0) 200 15.0 (1%, +1%) 0.12–0.95
41 (0.5, +1.0) 200 23.0 (8%, +5%)
41 (1.0, +2.0) 400 24.0 (6%, +6%)

The wall superheat goes from 2.5 to 8 K.

The vapour quality change ranges between 15% and 25% except for three data sets: with R125 at G200, q14.5 and R410A at G200, q23 it can reach up to 40%; with R22 at G400,
q52.5 it goes up to 50%.
238 D. Del Col / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 34 (2010) 234–245
Fig. 2. R134a heat transfer coefficients vs. vapour quality at 31 and 43 °C saturation
temperature Ts. Average values of mass velocity G and heat flux q are reported for
each set.
Fig. 3. R134a heat transfer coefficients vs. vapour quality. Average values of
saturation temperature Ts, mass velocity G and heat flux q are reported for each set.
Fig. 4. R22 heat transfer coefficients vs. vapour quality at 35 °C saturation
temperature and 400 kg m2 s1 mass velocity G at two different values of heat
flux q (kW m2).
Fig. 5. R125 heat transfer coefficients vs. vapour quality at 26 °C saturation
temperature (Ts). Average values of mass velocity G and heat flux q are reported for
each set.
Fig. 6. R410A heat transfer coefficients vs. vapour quality. Average values of
saturation temperature Ts, mass velocity G and heat flux q are reported for each set.
increasing temperature and pressure, the vapour density increases
and the surface tension decreases. Similar trend of the heat transfer
coefficient with saturation temperature was found by Silva Lima
et al. [6] and Greco and Vanoli [8]. Silva Lima et al. [6], discussing
the dependence of the heat transfer coefficients on saturation tem-
perature (ranging between 5 and 20 °C in their data), have shown
that the experimental trend of the heat transfer coefficient vs. va-
pour quality becomes more flat when increasing saturation tem-
perature. In their data, the vapour quality at which the local
minimum heat transfer coefficient occurs is located nearby the
slug-to-intermittent transition region. Greco and Vanoli [8] have
shown that the value of vapour quality at which the minimum heat
transfer coefficient is measured significantly increases with evapo-
rating pressure, as it is found in the present results.
When increasing vapour quality, the flow pattern becomes
annular: the heat transfer coefficient increases until inception of
dryout is attained and then it abruptly decreases. Dryout occurs
at the top of the tube first, where the liquid film is thinner, and
then progresses downward around the perimeter until reaching
the bottom. Wojtan et al. [13] name as dryout regime the regime
that starts when the liquid film disappears at the top of the tube
 D. Del Col / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 34 (2010) 234–245 239

and lasts until the liquid remains at the bottom of the tube. For the tension. The important role of these parameters will be discussed
two test runs depicted in Fig. 2 the dryout inception is predicted at in the following.
0.75–0.77 vapor quality by the Wojtan et al. [13] map, in agree- In Fig. 5, at 200 kg m2 s1 mass velocity the inception of dryout
ment with the present experimental trends. occurs at vapour quality between 0.8 and 0.9, depending on the
Fig. 3 reports the heat transfer coefficients measured during heat flux. At 400 kg m2 s1 mass velocity, dryout inception is
flow boiling of R134a at 43–45 °C saturation temperature, corre- found before 0.8 vapor quality. Being the surface tension much
sponding to around 0.3 reduced pressure. Mass velocity G is equal lower in comparison with R134a and R22, the liquid film may be
to 200 and 400 kg m2 s1, while heat flux q goes from 14 to entrained more easily into the vapour core and the dryout incep-
26.5 kW m2. tion can be encountered at lower quality.
As previously shown, the heat transfer coefficient first decreases The heat transfer coefficients measured with R410A at around
and then increases with quality, with the presence of a local min- 40 °C saturation temperature are plotted in Fig. 6. R410A is a nearly
imum both at G = 200 kg m2 s1, q = 14 kW m2 and at azeotropic mixture, displaying a pressure of 24.3 bar at 40 °C. Test
G = 400 kg m2 s1, q = 26.5 kW m2. The positive effect of the heat results are reported for two data sets, at different values of mass
flux on the heat transfer coefficient can be seen here by comparing velocity and heat flux.
data sets at same mass velocity but different heat flux. For both data sets, the experimental heat transfer coefficient
At the same heat flux, at low vapour quality, the difference be- diminishes when increasing vapour quality, for the entire range
tween heat transfer coefficients at different mass velocities, of vapour quality. This trend is clearly different from the one plot-
200 kg m2 s1 and 400 kg m2 s1, is limited, since nucleate boil- ted in Fig. 3 for R134a, at roughly the same operating conditions.
ing is expected to be dominant in this region. R134a and R410A present different thermophysical properties (Ta-
R22 displays a higher pressure than R134a at the same evapo- ble 4): at 40 °C saturation temperature the reduced pressure is con-
rating temperature. Heat transfer coefficients taken during flow siderably higher for R410A, leading to a much higher vapor density
boiling of R22 at 400 kg m2 s1 mass velocity, 26.5 kW m2 aver- (103 kg m3 for R410A vs. 50 kg m3 for R134a) and much lower
age heat flux and 35 °C saturation temperature, are plotted in vapour velocity in the tube, at the same mass flux.
Fig. 4, for vapour quality between 0.2 and 0.7. The heat transfer With halogenated refrigerants, an increase of the heat transfer
coefficients display a constant trend with vapour quality. When coefficient with vapour quality is expected at usual evaporating
increasing the heat flux to 52 kW m2, higher heat transfer coeffi- temperatures. Therefore, this experimental trend of R410A is unu-
cients by around 15% are measured. On average, the heat transfer sual in the literature. Nevertheless, this decreasing profile is similar
coefficient at the high heat flux seems constant with quality and to the one measured for carbon dioxide [9,10]. The authors in both
to some extent it seems to decrease. From the map by Wojtan papers [9,10] have shown that the effect of mass velocity on the
et al. [13], the inception of dryout at 52 kW m2 heat flux should heat transfer coefficient of CO2 is not important at low vapour
be at 0.7 vapor quality, which seems to be in agreement with the quality (up to 0.4), while the heat transfer is heat flux dependent,
data. However, the data set at 52 kW m2 heat flux is characterized suggesting that the nucleate boiling mechanism is dominant in this
by high vapour quality change, up to 50%; therefore, no precise region. Also Pettersen [17] reported heat transfer coefficients mea-
information on the dryout inception can be obtained. sured with carbon dioxide, at constant heat flux and mass velocity,
A trend of the heat transfer coefficient roughly constant with showing that the higher the evaporating temperature the stronger
vapour quality is measured also with R125 at 400 kg m2 s1 mass the heat transfer decrease vs. vapour quality.
velocity, 21 kW m2 average heat flux and 26 °C saturation tem- Similarities with carbon dioxide can explain the experimental
perature, as plotted in Fig. 5. In the data set at 200 kg m2 s1 mass trend found here for R410A. Therefore, for the sake of comparison,
velocity and 9 kW m2 average heat flux, the heat transfer coeffi- thermophysical properties of carbon dioxide at 5 °C are also re-
cient slightly decreases with vapour quality, suggesting a weak role ported in Table 4.
of the convective boiling. This is due to the thermophysical proper- For carbon dioxide [9] and here for R410A, the drop in heat
ties of this fluid, which is a component of R410A. Although the transfer coefficient is due to the large dominance of nucleate boil-
average evaporating temperature is only 26 °C, it corresponds to ing at low vapour qualities and to partial dryout of the liquid film.
14.1 bar and 0.39 reduced pressure. As reported in Table 4, R125 The dominance of nucleate boiling at low qualities is caused by the
displays a significantly lower liquid-to-vapour density ratio as thermophysical properties of the fluid, such as low surface tension
compared to R134a, for example, and a significantly lower surface and low liquid-to-vapour density ratio.
As the evaporating temperature increases, at low vapour qual-
ity, the nucleate boiling becomes more active because of the lower
Table 4 surface tension as compared to other refrigerants, which means
Properties of saturated vapour.
that more active nucleation sites at a specified heat flux exist. A
R134a R22 R125 R410A* CO2 lower surface tension would also increase the probability of liquid
Temperature (°C) 40 35 25 40 5 entrainment in the vapour core.
Pressure (bar) 10.17 13.55 13.78 24.22 39.70 Furthermore, due to a higher vapour density and thus a lower
Latent heat (kJ kg1) 163.0 172.3 110.4 158.9 214.9 vapour velocity, the suppression of the nucleate boiling will be de-
Liquid density (kg m3) 1146.7 1150.1 1189.4 975.3 896.0 layed. In order to show the increasing relative importance of nucle-
Vapour density (kg m3) 50.09 57.99 90.56 103.27 114.62
Liquid to vapor density ratio 22.9 19.8 13.1 9.4 7.8
ate boiling with pressure, Greco and Vanoli [8] have calculated for
Liq. thermal conductivity 74.72 78.91 59.41 85.67 104.31 R410A the vapour quality at which nucleation is fully suppressed
(W m1K1  103) by using the correlation by Sato and Matsumara [18]. At constant
Vap. thermal conductivity 15.45 12.28 15.18 19.52 21.60 mass flux, in fact, the quality at which nucleation is suppressed
(W m1K1  103)
strongly increases with pressure.
Liq. viscosity (Pa s  106) 161.45 146.92 139.72 98.08 90.82
Vap. viscosity (Pa s  106) 12.37 13.01 13.77 16.01 15.36 As the evaporating temperature increases, at higher quality, the
Surface tension 6.13 6.70 3.83 3.23 3.62 heat transfer coefficient is more rapidly reduced because of the for-
(N m3  103) mation of dryout patches in the annular mist flow.
*
R410A is a nearly azeotropic mixture (the difference of dew to bubble tempera-
Finally, it may be interesting to point out that the tube inclina-
ture at 24 bar is equal to 0.12 K). In this table average values for pressure and for tion has also a different effect on the dryout when changing evap-
surface tension are reported. orating temperature. In the present tests with R410A carried out in
240 D. Del Col / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 34 (2010) 234–245

Table 5 fer et al. [19] explained the effect of tube orientation on the dryout
Comparison between experiments and models by Gungor and Winterton [1], Liu and by using the Froude number defined as follows:
Winterton [11], Kandlikar [12] Wojtan et al. [14].
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
xcr G= qv
Gungor and Winterton Liu and Winterton Fr ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi ð4Þ
eR (%) eAB (%) rN (%) eR (%) eAB (%) rN (%)
gðcos uÞdðql  qv Þ
R134a 21.2 21.2 10.5 14 14.2 9 where u is the tube inclination and xcr is the mean quality in the
R22 13.4 13.9 9.7 13.5 17.4 18.1 transition region from completely wetted to completed dry heating
R125 19.1 19.1 8.2 5.5 14.2 17.6
surface. They found pronounced stratification effects and thus an
R410A 18.7 18.7 8.9 22.4 24.3 20.7
All 18.89 18.97 9.56 2.40 16.28 20.56 extended transition range for Fr < 7. The lower the Froude number,
the stronger the influence of tube inclination on the boiling crisis: in
Kandlikar Wojtan et al.
their experiments, they found that the vapour quality change
R134a 4.4 14.7 18.7 12.3 16.4 14
among these two points (completed wetted and completed dry)
R22 27.9 30.8 29.7 19.1 21.7 19.6
R125 22.6 28.4 27.3 5.2 16.9 20.7
was well interpolated by the equation:
R410A 7.7 25.4 31.1 27.3 28 22.1
16
All 11.88 23.88 29.02 4.88 19.20 23.54 Dxcr ¼ ð5Þ
ð2 þ FrÞ2
When comparing R410A at 5 °C and 40 °C evaporating temper-
atures, assuming the same mean quality in the transition region, at
a horizontal tube, the annular flow must be asymmetric from a cer- 40 °C the Froude number (Eq. (4)) is reduced by more than 30%
tain quality, due to the tube orientation. The influence of the tube while the Dxcr (Eq. (5)) is increased by 70% as compared to 5 °C
orientation on the occurrence of the dryout may be significant. Ke- temperature.

Fig. 7. Comparison of experiments with models by Gungor and Winterton [1], Liu and Winterton [11], Kandlikar [12], Wojtan et al. [14].
 D. Del Col / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 34 (2010) 234–245 241

4. Assessment of correlations By replacing the nucleate boiling term Sap they obtained a cor-
relation in the form:
4.1. Predicting methods !
h x i0:75  q 0:41
0:86 l
a ¼ al 1 þ 3000Bo þ 1:12 ð7Þ
As a result of the present experimental data, it has been found 1x qv
that an evaporating temperature increase leads to an enhanced
contribution of nucleate boiling while convective mechanism is where al is the single phase liquid heat transfer coefficient, Bo is the
penalized and partial dryout may occur earlier. boiling number, ql and qv are densities of liquid and vapour,
In the following the experimental data is compared against four respectively.
well-known correlations available in the open literature. They are Liu and Winterton [11] proposed a general correlation for satu-
the models by Gungor and Winterton [1], Liu and Winterton rated and subcooled flow boiling in tubes and annuli, using the ap-
proach of an asymptotic model with exponent n = 2:
[11], Kandlikar [12] and Wojtan et al. [14].
All these methods consider the Chen’s basic postulate, which a ¼ ½ðSanb Þn þ ðF al Þn 1=n ð8Þ
associates convective and nucleate boiling heat transfer mecha-
nisms in the flow boiling heat transfer coefficient prediction. where F is the convective enhancement factor, and is expressed as a
Gungor and Winterton [1] proposed a simplified general corre- function of vapour quality, Prandtl number and vapour and liquid
lation for saturated flow boiling inside tubes and annuli based on density; S is the suppression factor which depends on the liquid
the superposition model, which assumes that the heat transfer Reynolds number; al is the liquid single phase heat transfer
coefficient is the sum of a nucleate boiling and a convective boiling coefficient.
contribution. The method by Wojtan et al. [14] is a flow pattern based meth-
od; the prediction of the heat transfer coefficient is based on a dia-
a ¼ Eal þ Sanb ð6Þ
batic two-phase flow pattern map [13], which was updated from

Fig. 8. Ratio of calculated to experimental heat transfer coefficient plotted vs. vapour quality. Predictions are made with models by Gungor and Winterton [1], Liu and
Winterton [11], Kandlikar [12], Wojtan et al. [14].
242 D. Del Col / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 34 (2010) 234–245

the previous work by Kattan et al. [20]. The stratified-wavy region
has been subdivided into sub-zones and the annular-to-dryout and
dryout-to-mist transition curves have been added. The heat trans-
fer coefficients are calculated from the evaluation of wet and dry
perimeters, obtained from the relative flow pattern:
hdry av þ ð2p  hdry Þawet
a¼
2p
The authors have proposed an asymptotic model with exponent
n = 3 for convective and nucleate boiling terms of the heat transfer
coefficient for the wet perimeter. The heat transfer coefficient for
the dry perimeter is calculated as for vapour flow forced
convection.
An additional method, the correlation proposed by Kandlikar
[12] for saturated two-phase flow boiling heat transfer inside hor-
izontal and vertical tubes, is used in the present comparison. It
incorporates a fluid-dependent parameter FFL in the nucleate boil-
ing term. The fluid-dependent parameter was given by Kandlikar
for a limited number of tested fluids, but the author stated the cor-
relation can be extended to other fluids by evaluating the fluid-
dependent parameter for each fluid.
Kandlikar [21] provided the fluid-dependent parameter for
R134a and R22, which is equal to 1.63 and 2.2 respectively. Addi-
tional values of the parameter FFL for a wide range of refrigerants
were provided by Melin [22] as reported in [21]: for R125 the value
recommended by Melin is 2.27. Finally, the value of FFL for the aze-
otropic mixture R410A is taken from Wattelet et al. [23]: they
determined a value of 3.3 using their data set.
transfer coefficients at higher quality and above all those referred
to R410A.
The model by Wojtan et al. [14] shows a similar behaviour as
the Liu and Winterton correlation; it tends to underpredict low va-
pour quality data points and overpredict high quality ones.
With the methods by Liu and Winterton [11] and Wojtan et al.
[14], most of the data points referred to R134a, R22 and R125 are
ð9Þ
predicted with an agreement within ±30%. In the case of R410A,
on the other hand, the calculated values are on average higher than
the experiments by 22% using the first method and 27% using the
second one.
When considering the Kandlikar correlation, the ratio of calcu-
lated to experimental values shows that the present model is able
to catch the experimental trend vs. vapour quality only for the
R134a data set. For the data sets referred to the other fluids, heat
transfer coefficients are overpredicted at low vapour quality.
The ratio of calculated to experimental heat transfer coefficient
is plotted vs. heat flux in Fig. 9, vs. mass flux in Fig. 10 and vs. re-
duced pressure in Fig. 11. It may be noted that the deviations be-
tween experiments and predictions do not depend either on heat
flux or mass flux or reduced pressure when applying the Gungor
and Winterton [1] correlation. With regard to the predictions plot-
ted vs. reduced pressure (Fig. 11), Wojtan et al. [14] and Liu and
Winterton [11] correlations display a similar trend. Instead, the
model by Kandlikar [12] presents the same deviations for the
whole range of reduced pressure.

4.2. Comparisons

The comparison with the above correlations was made for all
the data points excluding those at high quality presenting a sharp
decrease of the heat transfer coefficient due to the dryout. The
determination of these points was done by looking both at the
experimental trend of the heat transfer coefficients and at the pre-
dicted flow regime by means of the map by Wojtan et al. [13]. As a
consequence, eight data points have been excluded from these
comparisons, since those methods, except the one by Wojtan
et al. [14], are not applicable to the dryout zone. In total, 34 runs
with R134a, 15 with R22, 35 with R125 and 16 with R410A are
compared against the models. It should be noted here that, apart
from the dryout characteristics, no other filter has been applied
to the data in the comparisons.
Table 5 reports average, mean absolute and standard deviations
obtained from the comparison between experimental and calcu-
lated heat transfer coefficients for each data set.
Calculated vs. experimental heat transfer coefficients are plot-
ted in Fig. 7 for all the models. On average, the correlation by Gun-
gor and Winterton [1] underpredicts the experimental data by 20%
(average deviation is equal to 19%). The other models show better
agreement with data, although their prediction accuracy depends
on the data set. On average, the model by Liu and Winterton [11]
provides the best value of average and mean deviations, equal to
2.4% and 16.3% respectively. The second method providing the best
agreement is the one by Wojtan et al. [14], with 4.9% average devi-
ation and 19.2% mean deviation. Predictions by Kandlikar [12] are
highly scattered leading to a standard deviation equal to 29%.
In Fig. 8 the ratio of calculated to experimental heat transfer
coefficient is depicted and plotted vs. vapour quality for the four
models. The correlation by Gungor and Winterton can catch the
trend with vapour quality but it severely underestimates present
data. The correlation by Liu and Winterton [11] displays much bet- Fig. 9. Ratio of calculated to experimental heat transfer coefficient plotted vs. heat
ter average agreement with data and is able to follow the experi- flux. Predictions are made with models by Gungor and Winterton [1] and Liu and
mental trend for some fluids, but it tends to overpredict the heat Winterton [11].
 D. Del Col / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 34 (2010) 234–245 243

4.3. Modified Gungor and Winterton correlation the experimental heat transfer coefficients measured for R134a
at 43 °C saturation temperature, 400 kg m2 s1 mass velocity
As shown in the previous graphs, the prediction accuracy of the
Gungor and Winterton [1] correlation is not significantly affected
by any parameter (vapour quality, heat flux, mass velocity, reduced
pressure), as it is also suggested by the low value of standard devi-
ation for each data set. The standard deviation for all the data
points is less than 10%.
For this reason, as a tool for practical applications, the heat
transfer coefficient provided by Gungor and Winterton [1] can be
multiplied by 1.2 in order to get a much closer agreement with
data:

amod GW ¼ 1:2aGW ð10Þ

where aGW is calculated with Eq. (7). This modified correlation is

not proposed as a general tool for flow boiling prediction; instead
it can be used within the operating conditions of the present data-
base, and particularly with halogenated refrigerants at high reduced
pressure.
The graph in Fig. 12 shows the comparison between calculated
and experimental heat transfer coefficients using Eq. (10). The
average deviation is equal to 2.7% while the mean deviation is
equal to 9%. In this case 92 over 100 data points are predicted with-
in ±20%.
The prediction accuracy of some models used in the present
work is shown in Figs. 13 and 14. The graph in Fig. 13 reports

Fig. 11. Ratio of calculated to experimental heat transfer coefficient plotted vs.
reduced pressure. Predictions are made with models by Gungor and Winterton [1]
and Wojtan et al. [14].

Fig. 10. Ratio of calculated to experimental heat transfer coefficient plotted vs.
mass flux. Predictions are made with models by Gungor and Winterton [1] and Fig. 12. Comparison of experiments with model by Gungor and Winterton [1]
Kandlikar [12]. modified as in Eq. (10).
244 D. Del Col / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 34 (2010) 234–245
Fig. 13. Experimental and calculated heat transfer coefficients vs. vapour quality
for R134a.
Fig. 14. Experimental and calculated heat transfer coefficients vs. vapour quality
for R410A.
and 26.5 kW m2 heat flux: the experimental uncertainty band and
the predictions by means of Liu and Winterton [11] correlation,
Wojtan et al. [14] model and the modified correlation from Eq.
(10) are also reported. The graph in Fig. 14 reports experimental
and predicted values for R410A at 41 °C saturation temperature,
400 kg m2 s1 mass velocity and 24 kW m2 heat flux.
5. Conclusions
New heat transfer data measured during flow boiling of R134a,
R22, R125 and R410A at high saturation temperature, and thus
high reduced pressure, are presented in this paper. Reduced pres-
sure covers a range between 0.2 and 0.5. Experimental trends of
heat transfer coefficient vs. vapour quality vary depending on fluid
and experimental conditions: the heat transfer coefficient in-
creases with vapour quality (for R134a), is roughly constant (for
R134a, R22, R125) or even decreases with vapor quality (in the case
of R410A). The discussion of results have evidenced that nucleate
boiling plays a key role at high evaporating pressure. Besides, the
decreasing heat transfer coefficients measured for R410A vs. va-
pour quality have been explained by discussing similarities with
carbon dioxide data available in the literature.
Experiments have been compared against four well-known pre-
dicting methods. The best agreement with experiments is given by
the models of Liu and Winterton [11] and Wojtan et al. [14],
although both those procedures overpredict R410A heat transfer
coefficients, which are the ones taken at the highest values of sat-
uration pressure. Neither of these two models predicts the heat
transfer coefficient decrease with vapour quality.
The predictions provided by the Gungor and Winterton [1]
correlation show little scattering but display a severe disagree-
ment with experimental data. Nevertheless, it is possible to
achieve a better prediction of the present database by multiplying
the Gungor-Winterton coefficient by a factor of 1.2. This method
allows to predict all data sets with 2.7% average deviation and
9% mean absolute deviation. It is able to reproduce the experi-
mental trend of the present data vs. vapour quality, heat flux,
mass velocity and reduced pressure; thus it may be used for pre-
diction within the operating conditions range of the present
database.
References
[1] K.E. Gungor, R.H.S. Winterton, Simplified general correlation for saturated flow
boiling and comparisons of correlations with data, Chemical Engineering
Research and Design 65 (2) (1987) 148–156.
[2] K. Seo, Y. Kim, Evaporation heat transfer and pressure drop of R-22 in 7 and
9.52 mm smooth/micro-fin tubes, International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer 43 (2000) 2869–2882.
[3] J.M. Saiz Jabardo, E.P. Bandarra Filho, Convective boiling of halocarbon
refrigerants flowing in a horizontal copper tube – an experimental study,
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 23 (2000) 93–104.
[4] Y. Kim, K. Seo, J.T. Chung, Evaporation heat transfer characteristics of R-410A in
7 and 9.52 mm smooth/micro-fin tubes, International Journal of Refrigeration
25 (2002) 716–730.
[5] C.Y. Park, P.S. Hrnjak, CO2 and R410A flow boiling heat transfer, pressure drop,
and flow pattern at low temperatures in a horizontal smooth tube,
International Journal of Refrigeration 30 (2007) 166–178.
[6] R.J. Silva Lima, J.M. Quibén, J.R. Thome, Flow boiling in horizontal smooth
tubes: new heat transfer results for R-134a at three saturation temperatures,
Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009) 1289–1298.
[7] A. Greco, G.P. Vanoli, Flow-boiling of R22, R134a, R507, R404A and R410A
inside a smooth horizontal tube, International Journal of Refrigeration 28
(2005) 872–880.
[8] A. Greco, G.P. Vanoli, Flow boiling heat transfer with HFC mixtures in a smooth
horizontal tube. Part I: experimental investigations, Experimental Thermal and
Fluid Science 29 (2005) 189–198.
[9] R. Yun, Y. Kim, M.S. Kim, Y. Choi, Boiling heat transfer and dryout phenomenon
of CO2 in a horizontal smooth tube, International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer 46 (2003) 2353–2361.
[10] H.-K. Oh, H.-G. Ku, G.-S. Roh, C.-H. Son, S.-J. Park, Flow boiling heat transfer
characteristics of carbon dioxide in a horizontal tube, Applied Thermal
Engineering 28 (2008) 1022–1030.
[11] Z. Liu, R.H.S. Winterton, General correlation for saturated and subcooled flow
boiling in tubes and annuli, based on a nucleate pool boiling equation,
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 34 (1991) 2759–2766.
[12] S.G. Kandlikar, A general correlation for saturated two-phase flow boiling heat
transfer inside horizontal and vertical tubes, Journal of Heat Transfer 112
(1990) 219–228.
[13] L. Wojtan, T. Ursenbacher, J.R. Thome, Investigation of flow boiling in
horizontal tubes: part I – a new diabatic two-phase flow pattern map,
International Journal of Heat Mass Transfer 48 (2005) 2955–2969.
[14] L. Wojtan, T. Ursenbacher, J.R. Thome, Investigation of flow boiling in
horizontal tubes: part II – development of a new heat transfer model for
stratified-wavy, dryout and mist flow regimes, International Journal of Heat
Mass Transfer 48 (2005) 2970–2985.
[15] A. Cavallin, G. Censi, D. Del Col, G.A. Longo, L. Rossetto, Experimental
investigation on condensation heat transfer and pressure drop of new HFC
refrigerants (R134a, R125, R32, R410A, R236ea) in a horizontal smooth tube,
International Journal of Refrigeration 24 (1) (2001) 74–88.
[16] ISO, Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement, 1995.
[17] J. Pettersen, Flow vaporization of CO2 in microchannel tubes, Experimental
Thermal and Fluid Science 28 (2004) 111–121.
[18] T. Sato, H. Matsumura, On the conditions of incipient subcooled-boiling with
forced convection, Bulletin of JSME 7 (26) (1964) 392–398.
[19] V. Kefer, W. Kohler, W. Kastner, Critical heat flux and post-CHF heat transfer in
horizontal and inclined evaporator tubes, International Journal of Multiphase
Flow 15 (3) (1989) 385–392.
[20] N. Kattan, J.R. Thome, D. Favrat, Flow boiling in horizontal tubes: part 3 –
development of a new heat transfer model based on flow pattern, Journal of
Heat Transfer 120 (1998) 156–165.
 D. Del Col / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 34 (2010) 234–245 245

[21] S.G. Kandlikar, Flow boiling in circular tubes, in: Handbook of Phase Change,
Boiling and Condensation, London, 1999, p.367–402.
[22] M. Melin, Measurements and modelling of convective vaporization for
refrigerants in a horizontal tube, Ph.D. Thesis, Chalmers University of
Technology, Goteborg, Sweden, 1996.
[23] J.P. Wattelet, J.C. Chato, B.R. Christoffersen, J.A. Gaibel, M. Ponchner, P.J. Kenny,
R.L. Shimon, T.C. Villaneuva, N.L. Rhines, K.A. Sweeney, D.G. Allen, T.T.
Heshberger, Heat Transfer Flow Regimes of Refrigerants in a Horizontal Tube
Evaporator, ACRC TR-55, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1994.