AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF

Lounes Oufer for the degree of Master of Science in

Chemical Engineering presented on August 22, 1986 .

Title: Nucleate Boiling of Various Fluids in a Thermosiphon

Reboiler

Abstract approved:
Redacted for Privacy
Dr. James Gi. Knudsen

A study of nucleate boiling of water, four alcohols and

three ethanol-water mixtures was conducted in a vertical

thermosiphon reboiler. The test section consisted of a 1/2-

inch diameter electrically heated stainless-steel rod

jacketed by a 15-inch long pyrex glass tube. Two different

inside diameters of the glass tube corresponding

respectively to annuli of equivalent diameters 0.225 and

0.750 inch were used.

The purpose of the study was to investigate whether or

not there was an effect of the annulus gap on heat transfer

to the boiling liquids. Heat fluxes ranged from 17,000 to

91,000 Btu/hr.ft2. Velocities were measured in an attempt

to simulate the natural-circulation data by means of a

micro-pump and a rotameter. The velocities so determined

varied from 0.093 to 1.171 ft/sec. Calculations have shown

wall superheats (wall-minus-saturation temperature) from

17.4 to 58.6°F, vapor qualities from 0.9 to 7.6% and heat
transfer coefficients from 518 to 2473 Btu/hr.ft2. 0F.

An equation expressing the relationship between the

heat flux and the wall superheat raised to a power n was

developed for each fluid-diameter combination following a

statistical analysis of the data. It was observed that for

each fluid, the value of the exponent n was less for the

smaller diameter of the annulus and approached a value of

three for the larger diameter. This was attributed to a

much lower contribution of the convective heat transfer

component compared to the nucleate boiling heat transfer

component for the larger tube.

It was also observed that for the pure organic liquids,

no significant effect of the diameter was observed whereas

for water an increase in the annular width noticeably

decreased the heat transfer coefficient at a given degree of

saturation. For ethanol-water mixtures, it was observed

particularly at high heat flow rates, that the diameter

effect tended to disappear as the weight fraction of ethanol

in the solution was increased. However, although consistent

within itself, this result probably needs further

investigation.

To check the validity of the experimental data,

comparisons were made with two commonly used equations in

boiling heat transfer: Chen's correlation and Rohsenow's

correlation. It was found that Chen's correlation usually

predicted higher heat transfer rates than the experimental

values. On the other hand, Rohsenow's correlation mostly

predicted lower heat fluxes at De = 0.225 inch and mostly
higher heat fluxes at De = 0.750 inch than the experimental
data. Mean deviations for Rohsenow's equation were always
lower than those from Chen's equation for both diameter

sizes.
NUCLEATE BOILING OF VARIOUS FLUIDS IN
A THERMOSIPHON REBOILER

by

Lounes Oufer

A THESIS

submitted to

Oregon State University

in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of

Master of Science

Completed August 22, 1986

Commencement June 1987

APPROVED:

Redacted for Privacy

Professor jof Chemical Engineering in charge of major

ma.
Redacted for Privacy
Head of department of Cl/linical Engineering

Redacted for Privacy

Dean of Gradua School'
Q-

Date thesis is presented August 22, 1986

Typed by Adeline McKim for Lounes Oufer

 ACKNOWLEDGMENIS

The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to

the following individuals and organizations:

Dr. James G. Knudsen for his guidance and patience

during the course of this work.

The Algerian Government for its financial support in

the form of a scholarship.

The Milne Computer Center of Oregon State University

for providing the necessary computer funds.

Dr. C.E. Wicks, Dr. R. Mrazek, Dr. 0. Levenspiel,

Dr. W.J. Frederick, and Dr. K. Levien for either their

important suggestions or any kind of help provided for the

accomplishment of this work.

Dr. D.R. Thomas for his useful recommendations during

the statistical analysis of the data.

Dr. D. Schafer and Dr. W.L. Harrison for serving on his

graduate committee.

Nick Wannenmacher for his valuable assistance and

enthusiastic encouragement in construction of the

experimental equipment.
A.G. McKim for typing this thesis in such a short

period of time, C. Kambitsis and B. Mahiou for their moral

support whenever it was needed.

To my mother and my brother
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I INTRODUCTION 1

II BACKGROUND 4

1. The boiling curve 4

2. Flow pattern in boiling 6
3. Bubble formation on a heated surface 9
4. Factors affecting boiling 10

III LITERATURE SURVEY 11

IV EXPERIMENTAL EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURE 20

V PROCESSING OF DATA 31

1. Calculation procedure 31
2. Uncertainty analysis 33
3. Statistical analysis 35
4. Chen's correlation 36
5. Rohsenow's correlation 42

VI RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 44

VII CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 60

VIII NOMENCLATURE 62

IX BIBLIOGRAPHY 66

X APPENDICES 70

A - Experimental data 70
B1 - Sample calculation of superheat 87
B2 - Sample calculation of experimental
uncertainty 88
B3 - Sample calculation of the heat flux
predicted by Chen's equation 90
B4 - Sample calculation of the heat flux
predicted by Rohsenow's equation 92
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1 Shape of the boiling curve. 5

2 Variation of a two-phase flow pattern in a

vertical tube. 7

3 Growth of a vapor bubble from the vavity of

a heated surface. 9

4 Experimental apparatus. 21

5 Flow diagram of the thermosiphon reboiler

plus the pump and rotameter. 22

6 Specifications of the heater rod. 24

7a Orientation of wall thermocouples. 25

7b Diagram of a buried wall thermocouple. 25

8 Temperature profile in the wall vicinity. 31

9 Experimental heat flux vs. superheat for

De = 0.225 in. 46

10 Experimental heat flux vs. superheat for

De = 0.750 in. 47

11 Effect of diameter on experimental heat

transfer coefficients. 49

12 Velocity vs. heat flux for De = 0.225 in. 51

13 Velocity vs. heat flux for De = 0.750 in. 52

14 Comparison of experimental data with Chen's

equation for De = 0.225 in. 54

15 Comparison of experimental data with Chen's

equation for De = 0.750 in. 55

16 Comparison of experimental data with

Rohsenow's equation for De = 0.225 in. 57

17 Comparison of experimental data with

Rohsenow's equation for De = 0.750 in. 58
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Values of the wall thermal resistances 32

2 Summary of physical and thermodynamic properties

of the fluids (atmospheric pressure). 41

3 Values of Csf for the eight fluids used in

combination with a stainless-steel surface. 42

4a Correlation of experimental data by use of

Eq. 26, De = 0.225 in. 45

4b Correlation of experimental data by use of

Eq. 26, De = 0.750 in. 45
 NUCLEATE BOILING OF VARIOUS FLUIDS IN
A THERMOSIPHON REBOILER

I. INTRODUCTION

Although it has been extensively studied for more than

fifty years, nucleate boiling is still considered as one of

the most obscure subjects of heat transfer. Its complexity

is mainly a result of the many simultaneous interactions

between processes involving the areas of thermodynamics,

fluid mechanics, mass transfer and heat transfer.

The understanding of bubble formation and growth on a

heated metal surface seems to be a major step in solving the

problem. However, most of the research has involved a

single bubble instead of a large number of bubbles which is

really what the process industries are interested in.

Vertical thermosiphon reboilers are commonly used in

many industrial fields such as distillation, food science,

pharmacy, etc.. They rely on the natural-circulation of

fluids promoted by the generation of vapor in one side of

the heat exchanger thus creating a density difference in the

loop. Since no external pumping exists, the velocities

reached in natural-circulation boiling of liquids are

usually small. Therefore, thermosiphon reboilers must be

designed in association with the pipe work to insure minimum

restrictions to flow. If present, such restrictions can

considerably reduce the recirculation rates and can also

create high instabilities in the flow.

 2

Natural-circulation reboilers are usually used for low

to moderately fouling, low viscosity, non-crystallizing

fluids. Among these factors and many others, viscosity is

perhaps the most important in design of such equipment.

Mehra [28] suggests that natural-circulation evaporators can

be used for viscosities not greater than 20 centipoises.

For non-viscous fluids, fouling-layer buildup on the heating

surface might be the controlling resistance to heat

transfer.

Nucleate boiling of a fluid is also affected by many

other parameters. These include the physical and

thermodynamic properties of the fluid itself such as

density, surface tension and latent heat, and many other

factors like pressure, nature of surface and geometry.

This report describes an investigation of the effect of

the diameter of an annulus on heat transfer to boiling

liquids at atmospheric pressure. Distilled water, ethanol,

n-propanol, i-propanol, n-butanol and three ethanol-water

mixtures of respectively 70, 44 and 21 mass percent ethanol

were used along with two different glass tube inside
diameters corresponding to equivalent diameters of the

annulus of 0.225 in and 0.750 in. Heat fluxes ranged from

17,000 to 91,000 Btu/hr.ft2.

This work was divided into ten major parts. Following

the introduction, some background information about nucleate

boiling phenomena is presented in part two. The third part

is an attempt to describe some of the most important

 3

reported studies in this area of heat transfer. Description

of the experimental equipment and procedure follows in part

four. Part five describes how the experimental data were

processed and compared to existing equations found in the

literature. The results are then discussed in part six

followed by a conclusion and some recommendations for future

work in part seven. Nomenclature, bibliography and

appendices are presented respectively in parts eight, nine

and ten.
 4

II. BACKGROUND

1. The boiling curve

Although known for centuries, the study of the

nucleate boiling phenomena had not really begun in detail

until the year 1934 when Nukiyama [29] first introduced the
idea of an electrically heated wire submerged into a pool of

distilled water. His very important findings were expressed

in terms of a so-called boiling curve of the shape shown in

Figure 1 where the heat flux Q/A is plotted against the

temperature difference ATs between the heated surface and

the saturation point of the liquid.

Moving along this curve starting from the origin where

as expected, a zero superheat is obtained for zero heat

flux, different regions are encountered. At low heat inputs

(region OA), the temperature of the heated surface is not

high enough to initiate boiling. In this case, heat is

transferred by natural-convection. At point A, some

nucleation sites are activated producing vapor bubbles.

Between A and B, more sites become active and boiling begins

clearly at point B. The section AB of the curve is usually

referred to as the transition region between pure convective

heat transfer and nucleate boiling heat transfer. The

relatively steep line BC defines the pure nucleate boiling

region characterized by a very good heat transfer mainly due

to the high agitation created by the bubble formation,

growth and departure from the heated surface. This

0 0/A
Natural Convection

Transition region
Nucleate
boiling
C)
unstable
film-boiling

stable film
boiling-
radiation
 6

turbulence has the effect of breaking down the laminar

liquid sublayer present next to the wall. As point C is
approached, bubble formation becomes more and more intense

and when point C is reached, the surface is completely

covered by a vapor film that inhibits the heat transfer by

keeping fresh liquid away from the surface. A maximum value

of the heat flux commonly called the critical heat flux

(CHF) is observed at this point. Above the CHF, the heat

transfer coefficient decreases and the temperature

difference suddenly jumps to its value at point E. Parts CD

and DEF of the boiling curve, separated by point D named the

Leidenfrost point, correspond respectively to unstable and

stable film boiling. In case of pool or natural-circulation

boiling, point E results in the burnout of the electrical

heater if the power input is not instantly reduced.

However, if the flow is high enough as it is in forced-

circulation boiling, then the heater may survive the

exceeded CHF. To avoid any destruction by melting of the

heated surface, it is therefore strongly recommended to work

at heat fluxes below the critical value.

2. Flow pattern in boiling

During convecting boiling, many different flow regimes

can exist. A possible variation of the flow pattern in a

vertical tube is illustrated in Figure 2. Since heat

transfer is maximized in the nucleate boiling region as

discussed before, the goal in both natural and forced-

 7

single-phase Convective heat transfer

vapor to vapor

Mist flow dry wall

Annular/ Two-phase
Annular- Forced convective
Mist flow heat transfer through
liquid film

a c)i
Slug flow saturated
OCiP nucleate boiling

0 0 Bubbly
flow subcooled boiling
al'

Single- convective
phase heat transfer
liquid to liquid

Figure 2. Variation of a two-phase flow pattern

in a vertical tube.
 8

circulation reboilers is to attain bubbly and slug flow

regimes because of the combined presence of nucleate boiling
and convection. In design of such equipment, going above
the annular flow regime should be avoided. The boundary

between convective heat transfer to the single liquid phase

and subcooled boiling is called the onset of nucleate

boiling (ONB). This point can be easily predicted by

several equations such as that of Davis and Anderson [13] or

that of Bergles and Rohsenow [4]. These equations are given

by:

Davis and Anderson

kLX ply )2
(1)
(Q/A) ONB s ONB
8 aT
s

where (Q/A) ONB is the heat flux in Btu/hr.ft2 necessary to

cause nucleation at a wall superheat (ATs) ONB in °F.

Bergles and Rohsenow (for water only)

0.0284
1.156 )
15.60 p (AT ) ONB.3/p (2)
(Q/A)ONB s

where p is the pressure in psia and both the flux and the

superheat have the same units as in Equation 1. Hence for a

given heat flux, if the temperature difference is less than

the one predicted by Equation 1 or Equation 2, boiling

cannot occur on the surface.

 9

3. Bubble formation on a heated surface

For a liquid to start boiling, it is necessary to have

nucleation sites, as well, in addition to heating the liquid

to its saturation temperature. A vapor bubble of radius R

can grow only if the condition expressed by Equation 3 is

satisfied, that is:

Ps > P + fe (3)

with ps being the vapor pressure inside the bubble, p the

external pressure and a the surface tension. A well

accepted postulate stated in the literature is that bubbles

emerge from cavities of a heated surface in which a vapor is

trapped. Assuming this postulate is correct, the steps

describing the growth of a vapor bubble are as shown in

Figure 3:

P > Ps P < Ps
liquid

7-7-17-vapor -1-7-7M7f77-71.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 3. Growth of a vapor bubble from the cavity of a

heated surface.

In Figure 3(a), the meniscus is concave on the liquid side

because p > ps. This phenomena is reversed in Figure 3(b)

where the surface tension forces now oppose the entry of the

liquid into the cavity. The bubble is then able to grow

 10

through step (c) and step (d) before it gets swept from the
surface. Some vapor is thus trapped and the process repeats
itself with another forming bubble.

4. Factors affecting boiling

The nucleate boiling process of a liquid is complicated

because of the influence of so many factors. The effects of

most of those factors have been thoroughly investigated.

They include- nature of surface, superheat, pressure,

velocity, scale deposits, addition agents, nature of fluid,

geometry, etc.. However, even though the same trends were

sometimes observed by different workers on the effect of

these factors, the degree with which they affect boiling is

rarely found to be identical. As a matter of fact, it is

very common to encounter in the nucleate boiling literature

different and even opposite predictions of heat transfer

when some of the above factors were studied.

 11
III. LITERATURE SURVEY

According to Van Stralen [44, p.19], at the time his

book was published in 1977, more than a thousand papers had

been published about the behavior of boiling liquids. Since

then developments in technical applications in refrigeration

and nuclear engineering has even increased this number by a

large amount in addition to many books treating the problem

of boiling phenomena.

In the early 1930's, Nukiyama [29] for the first time

investigated thoroughly boiling of a liquid at atmospheric

pressure by means of an electrically heated wire immersed in

a pool of water. Today, although the general shape of this

boiling curve (see Figure 1) is still agreed on, the slope

of the different lines, especially the nucleate boiling

line, is not certain. As pointed out by Cooper [10] in a

keynote paper on nucleate boiling presented at the sixth

international heat transfer conference in Toronto (1978),

the heat flux predicted by one proposed correlation can be

up to 30 times the heat flux predicted by another

correlation.

In 1949, McAdams et al. [26] studied boiling of water

flowing in annuli at high heat flow rates. Their data were

correlated by the equation

n
Q/A = C AT (4)
s

where n = 3.86 and C is a particular constant for each

liquid, surface, and pressure. It was also shown by the

 12

same authors that for a given degree of subcooling, the

water velocity did not affect heat transfer. Thom et al.

[42] in a study of boiling water in heated tubes and annuli

at relatively low heat fluxes proposed:

Q/A = 192.9 eP/63° ATn

(5)
s

where n = 2 and p is in psia. Rohsenow [35, p. 12-44]

suggests values of the exponent n ranging from 1 for non-

boiling heat transfer through 2 to 3 for fully developed

nucleate boiling at very high heat flow rates.

In 1952, Rohsenow [34] developed an equation that found

wide applications in correlating heat transfer data during

nucleate pool boiling of liquids. This equation was given

in the form:

C AT C Q/A g o 1/2 0.33 p

pL s = sf c pL L (6)
A U kL
L g( PL- PV)) j

where Csf is a parameter depending on the fluid-surface

combination. The exponent 1.7 on the Prandtl number was

later suggested by Rohsenow [35, p.12-31] to be equal to 1

for water and 1.7 for all other fluids. In 1954, Piret and

Isbin [31] while studying natural-circulation evaporation of

water and some alcohols in a 1-inch electrically heated

vertical tube correlated most of their data by either using

Equation 6 with Q/A = (Q/A)b corresponding to the boiling

 13

heat flux or by the equation:

0.8 r 0.6 0.33

h D = 0.0086 (DUml (-L\ L) (7)
kL (14;)

where Um is the log mean velocity between the inlet and

outlet of the test section and ow/a the ratio of surface

tension of water to that of fluid both evaluated at their

saturation temperatures.

Guerrieri and Talty [16] investigated boiling of

organic liquids in natural-circulation boilers. They

reported that heat transfer occurred by two simultaneous

processes: Convection and nucleate boiling. The first was

found to predominate at high vapor qualities whereas the

latter decreased in importance as the quantity of vapor

produced increased. The same conclusion was reached by

Dengler and Addoms [14]. However, the empirical

correlations were different in form. Dengler's equation for

the prediction of the two-phase heat transfer coefficient

was presented as:

h
TP = F x 3.5 (8)
0.5
X0
hL tt

where F is a correction factor to allow for nucleate boiling

and is given by:

F = 0.67 [WI' s -
ONB
) (51) D (9)
(ST
s
 14

Following the same idea, Bennett et al. [3] studied heat

transfer to steam-water mixtures in annuli. They located

three major regions depending on the vapor quality x. At

qualities below 12-15% corresponding to the nucleate boiling

region, their data was well correlated by Rohsenow's

correlation (Equation 5). Then a convective heat transfer

region was correlated by the equation:

h 0.11 0.74
TP = 0.64 (Q/A) (l/Xtt) (10)
h
L

and finally a third region marked by a high liquid

deficiency and low heat transfer coefficients was observed.

In 1966, Chen [5] developed important equations for the

prediction of heat transfer coefficients during boiling of

liquids:

h = hFC F + hNB S (11)

10.8 0.4 k
(12)
where, hFC = 0.023 [G(1-X)D PrI, L
P L D

and

0.79 0.45 0.49 0.25

k C P g 0.24 Gp 5.75 (13)
h = 0.00122 L pL L c ,Yr
NB 0.5 0.29 0.24 0.24
a
.IL A PV

The factors F and S are respectively a Reynolds number

coefficient and a boiling suppression factor. They were

 15

determined empirically from a fairly large amount of

experimental data taken from various sources and they were

presented by Chen in a graphical form as functions of the

Lockart-Martinelli coefficient and the two-phase Reynolds

number respectively. However, attempts to put them into
equation forms were made by Collier [8, p.250] for both F
and S and by Polley [32, p.51] for F.

So far a fairly large amount of research work has been

devoted to boiling of liquids in annuli among which those

works reported in references [3; 25, pp.219-235; 42; etc.].

McAdams et al. [26] showed that the boiling curves of water

for annuli diameters of 0.77, 0.73 and 0.43 inch merged

asymptotically into a common curve as nucleate boiling

became more intense. Their study was done at pressures

between 30 and 90 psia and velocities between 1 and 12

ft/sec. The same result was reached by Bergles and Rohsenow

[4].

In 1956, Chernobylskii et al. [6] carried out an

investigation on the effect of annular width cS on heat

transfer during natural-circulation boiling of water, a 10%

NaCl solution and ethanol. Heat fluxes ranged from 7,370 to

40,550 Btu/hr.ft2 and annular gaps from 0.049 to 0.551 inch.

The authors found that as (5 decreased, the heat transfer

coefficient first remained constant and then increased.

This was explained by a bubble size reduction and by an

increase in the vapor content which promotes the turbulence

in the channel. Alferov et al. [1, pp.115-134] studied

 16

boiling of water in annuli with widths varying from 0.039 to

0.197 inch and found no apparent effect of 6 on heat

transfer.

Tarasova et al. [39, pp.135-156] observed that for

widths below 0.305 inch, the heat transfer coefficient to

boiling water at atmospheric pressure increased as 6 was

decreased. Moreover, this increase was found to be more

pronounced reaching 50% when 6 was in the order of the break

off diameter of a bubble (6 = 0.049 inch). Rassokhin et al.

[36, pp. 163-169] arrived to the same conclusion about the

effect of 6 on h.

In 1983, Shah [38] in a study of boiling water,

methanol and R-113 in annular channels having widths between

0.039 and 0.260 inch also predicted a decrease of the heat

transfer coefficient with increasing 6. The author claimed

that his correlation can be used for a wide variety of

fluids and for all kinds of heatings. However, for widths

less than 0.157 inch, the equivalent diameter of the annulus

should be taken as four times the cross-sectional area

divided by the heated perimeter instead of the wetted

perimeter. Clearly then, it can be seen that reported

experimental data do not always agree with each other. The

great variety of equipment and procedures used might be some

of the reasons for the existence of discrepancies.

Variation in condition of the heated surface is probably the

major cause of the differences.

 17

A great deal of work has been accomplished in boiling

of binary mixtures. Among these studies are the ones done
by Schlunder [37, pp. 589-599], Tolubinskiy et al. [40, pp.

66-68], Tolubinskiy et al. [41, pp.6-11], Happel [17,

pp.207-216) and Van Stralen [44, pp.33-65, pp.197-271,

pp.293-337 and pp.337-373]. In general, it was found by

those authors that the heat transfer coefficients obtained

in boiling of mixtures were lower than those obtained in

boiling pure liquids. It was also observed that when

plotting the heat transfer coefficient h against the mole

fraction x, h was first seen to decrease to reach a minimum

usually around x=50% and then increased as x kept

increasing. This phenomena was in most cases interpreted as

being mainly due to the presence of an additive resistance

to mass transfer of the more volatile component to the

bubble interface. Besides that, it is also known that for

evaporation to occur, the mixture needs first to be

separated which of course requires additional energy in the

form of heat. Experience has shown that mixture boiling

heat transfer coefficients cannot be predicted by a simple

linear mixing law-relationship using the single coefficients

of the pure components.

Almost all the work done on boiling of binary mixtures

is purely empirical. In 1981, Thome [43] proposed an

analytical expression for the prediction of nucleate boiling

heat transfer coefficients of binary mixtures. When

comparing his equation to other workers' experimental data,

 18

Thome reported deviations of about t 25%. However, although

his expression seems to account for many important factors
such as film thickness, bubble growth rate, etc. involved
during the boiling process, both the assumptions and

equations used to make its development possible need to be

revised and improved before a more reliable equation can be

obtained.

In 1982, Hughmark [18] developed a model for the

nucleate boiling contribution to heat transfer from single-

phase heat transfer data. The author claimed that his model

can be used for vertical, horizontal, upward and downward

flows. Moreover, for mixtures, no effect on the heat

transfer coefficient other than that accounted for by a

change in the physical properties was observed. A simple

relation to predict the point of boiling incipience was also

given as:

DTs CpL > 0.025 (14)

A

While the nucleate boiling heat transfer coefficient was

found to be well represented by Chen's equation (see

Equation 13) with a constant equal to 0.000305 rather than

0.00122, relatively large deviations from reported

experimental data were observed for the proposed model.

It can be said than that a lot of research work has

been accomplished in nucleate boiling of pure liquids and

 19

binary mixtures. However, the results from one investigator

to another can vary widely for different reasons among which
the wide variety of experimental equipment used, the

difference in research procedures and the strong effect of

minor variables that are not easily and readily controlled.

Mastering the nucleate boiling phenomena is probably the

goal of many scientists in the fields of heat and mass

transfer. More and more experimental data is being

published and extensive bibliographies can be found

elsewhere. Bibliographies by Collier [7, pp.241-244] and by

Rohsenow [35, pp.12-82 -12-91] deserve to be mentioned.

 20

IV. EXPERIMENTAL EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURE

Equipment

The apparatus used in this study consists of a vertical

natural-circulation reboiler commonly called a vertical

thermosiphon reboiler. Figure 4 and Figure 5 show

respectively a picture and a flow diagram of the apparatus.

The thermosiphon is mounted onto a 46 by 32 by 5/8 inch

plywood sheet. The major parts of the equipment are

described in the following:

a. Test section

The test section is made up of a vertical annulus

formed by a stainless steel heater rod, 1/2-inch in

diameter, jacketed by a 15-inch long pyrex glass tube having

various inside diameters. Two different sizes of the glass

tube were used: 0.725 inch I.D. and 1.250 inch I.D.. The

glass tube is supported by two brass flanges grooved on each

side to match glass and joined by four 18-inch long, 1/2-

inch diameter aluminum rods. A cross section of the

electrically heated rod is shown in Figure 6. The heated

length is 5 1/2 inches. The heater includes four chromel-

constantan thermocouples that indicate the inside wall

temperatures. Those thermocouples are buried in the

stainless-steel sheath of the heater as shown in Figures 7a

and 7b. Temperatures of the fluid at inlet and exit of the

test section are measured by two chromel-constantan

 21

Figure 4. Experimental apparatus.

 22

Figure 5. Flow diagram of the thermosiphon reboiler plus

the pump and rotameter.

1. Heater rod
2. Glass tube
3. Liquid-vapor separator
4. Glass tube condenser plus copper tubing
5. Reservoir
6. Three-inch tee
7. One-inch tee
8. One-inch cross
9. Three-to-one-inch bell reducer
10. One-inch I.D. stainless-steel pipes
11. One-inch unions
12. Perforated plate
13. Aluminum rods
14. Pump
15. Air regulator for pump
16. Rotameter
17. Thermocouples
18. Digital thermometer
19. Thermocouple switch
20. ON/OFF switch for 18
21. Wattmeter
22. Variable transformer
23. Electric cord
24. Thermocouple connectors
V. Valves
 23

L, 20"
vent

18 Ea
01 21
19 a 22
20 CI

10 12

_17

V4 V5
elt A ...
air out
15 16
V3

air in ../--- VP
14

Figure 5.
 Heater
leads 3/4" Thermocouple

111111
MI
URNS
-- ...... ,, I ...11
gimunmEggimmllp
N'."
Heated length

Bushing
LUnheated length 1"

c77.1 Packed Pearlite granules.

cm Stainless Steel Sheath.
mg Magnesium Oxide insulation.
3
Nickel-chromium wire on Supporting Core.

Figure 6. Specifications of the heater rod.

 25

Stainless Steel Sheath

Surface of heater 1" diameter

Figure 7a. Orientation of wall thermocouples.

Stainless-steel tube

Chromel-constantan wire

wire soldered at bottom of hole

stainless steel heater wall

Figure 7b. Diagram of a buried wall thermocouple.

 26

thermocouples. All temperatures are recorded on a Visipak

digital thermometer connected to a twenty-pole thermocouple
selector switch. At the lower brass flange supporting the

glass tube, is a perforated copper plate that centers the

heater rod and maintains a uniform flow around its
periphery. The power input to the heating element is

directly measured by a 0-2000 watts wattmeter which is

controlled by a variable transformer.

b. Liquid-vapor separator

The liquid-vapor separator is a pyrex glass tube 6-inch

long, 4-inch 0.D. and 3 1/2-inch I.D.. It is supported by

two brass flanges grooved on each side to match glass and

joined by four 14-inch long, 1/2-inch diameter aluminum

rods.

c. Condenser

The condenser is made up of a 12-inch long, 4-inch 0.D.

and 3 1/2 inch I.D. pyrex glass tube supported by two brass
flanges grooved on each side to match glass and joined by

four 14-inch long, 1/2-inch diameter aluminum rods. Inside

the glass tube is a coiled copper tubing 35 feet long, 3/16 -

inch diameter in which flows cooling tap water. The upper

flange is closed by a threaded brass cap on the top of which

three holes were drilled and fittings accommodated for the

water inlet and outlet and for the 1/4-inch diameter copper

tube which forms the vent.

 27

d. Return leg

The return leg includes all the piping between the

combined separator-condenser system and the test section.
The connection between the separator, the condenser and the

return leg is made by the reservoir via a 3-inch diameter

brass tee. Following the direction of flow-starting from
the condenser are encountered:

_ a 6-inch long, 3-inch diameter brass cylinder (reservoir)

_ a 3 to 1-inch brass bell reducer
_ a 9 1/2 -inch long, 1-inch diameter stainless-steel pipe
_ a 1-inch diameter brass tee
_ a 12-inch long, 1-inch diameter stainless-steel pipe
_ a 1-inch diameter brass tee

When forced-circulation is used, the return leg also

includes a micro-pump and a rotameter as shown in Figure 5.

e. Insulation

The whole system excluding the condenser was insulated

by the use of a carton surrounding the equipment in which

flakes of polystyrene were poured to completely bury the

loop. This insulation proved to be efficient since the

temperature difference between the outlet and the inlet of

the test section did not exceed 3 °F for the range of heat

fluxes used.

Procedure

Before each run, a 5% hydrochloric acid solution was

circulated in the loop for about three minutes. This

solution was then drained and the system was flushed by a

 28

flow of tap water for about 10 minutes for the removal of

all the acid and then rinsed twice with distilled water. In

addition, to avoid any deposits on the heating surface, the

heater was taken out and dipped in a long cylinder

containing a clean 5% HC1 solution. It was then flushed

with tap water and finally rinsed with distilled water.

When the cleaning of the system was completed, the

system was filled by 3 liters (about 0.793 gal.) of the

liquid to be studied via the inlet of the heater assembly

which was then re-installed. The water supply to the

condenser was also opened. When studying natural

circulation alone, valve no. 1 was kept open while all other

valves were closed (see Figure 5). The power input was then

set to a value between 500 and 800 w until the liquid began

boiling at which time the power was reduced to the starting

value of the run. When steady state was reached, the

temperatures were all recorded and the power input

incremented by 50 w corresponding to a heat flux of 2840

Btu/hr.ft2, for a second data point. The temperatures were

then recorded again and the method continued until the final

value of the desired power input was reached.

To check the reproducibility of the experimental data,

each run was repeated at least once. The temperatures thus

obtained were within 2°F. However, it should be noted that

in some cases, this reproducibility was very hard to attain

and three or even four runs were needed. This was to be

expected though considering the complicated phenomena of

 29

nucleate boiling.

Experiments were conducted under natural circulation

conditions and forced circulation conditions. In the first

case, the flow of fluids in the loop was only due to a

density difference between the two-phase liquid-vapor

mixture developed by boiling in the test section and the

liquid phase in the return leg. The liquid-vapor mixture

generated in the test section was separated in the glass

tube separator, the liquid flowing to the reservoir and the

vapor to the condenser where it was condensed on the surface

of the copper tubing. Since maintaining the same quantity

of liquid in the thermosiphon was important, condensation of

all vapor resulting from boiling was necessary. Hence the

flow of cooling water was kept high enough and the surface

cooling area of the condenser was designed for that purpose.

The liquid level during all experiments was always checked

to remain constant. The condensate returned to the

reservoir after mixing with the liquid coming from the

separator.

Once all data for the given fluid flowing by natural

circulation was obtained, the run was repeated using forced

circulation in an attempt to predict the velocities of the

fluid during natural circulation boiling of the previous

run. To do so, valves no. 3 and 4 were opened while valve

no. 1 was closed (see Figure 5). However, to avoid

unexpected burnout of the heater due to low flow, the pump

was first operated at its maximum capacity. The power input

 30

to the heater was again adjusted to the lowest desired value

and the flow rate decreased until the temperatures matched

those obtained in natural circulation for the given heat

input. The temperatures and the flow rate measured by the

calibrated rotameter are then recorded. Similar data were

taken at increments of 50 w in the power input after the

flow rate was adjusted each time. The experiment was

terminated by first reducing the power input to a zero value

and secondly by draining the system after it was cooled.
 31

V. PROCESSING OF DATA

All calculations performed in the course of this work

were done in English units and with the following

assumptions:

a. No fouling or scaling on the heated surface occurs.

b. Uniform heat flux along the heated length.

c. Negligible heat transfer losses.

1. Calculation Procedure

The temperature profile in the vicinity of the heated

wall is as shown in Figure 8 below:

To moving fluid
thermocouple

Figure 8. Temperature profile in the wall vicinity

where, To = Temperature at wall thermocouple location

Tw = Temperature at wall surface

Ts = Saturation temperature

L = Distance between thermocouple location and

wall surface.

The overall heat transfer coefficient U is given by:

1 = 1 4. L = 1 4. RW (15)
U h kw h

where h is the local heat transfer coefficient and RW = L/kw

is called the wall resistance to heat transfer which

 32

accounts for the fact that the thermocouples are located

inside the wall rather than at its surface. kw is the wall
thermal conductivity. Values of RW might differ for each
wall thermocouple. They were determined experimentally by a

calibration method proposed by Knudsen [21, pp.143-168] for

non-boiling heat transfer using a Wilson type plot. The

thermal resistances so obtained are given in table 1 for

each thermocouple. Those values were reproduced within 4%
error.

Thermocouple RW x 104
number (hr.ft2. °F /Btu)

1 10.00
2 9.40
3 8.71
4 8.85

Table 1. Values of the wall thermal resistances

The overall heat transfer coefficient is also expressed as

the ratio of the heat flux to the temperature driving force,

that is :

U = Q/A (16)
AT

where, AT = To - Ts (see figure 8)

Equation 16 can be rewritten as:

1 = AT (17)
Q/A
 33

Combining equation 15 and 17,

1 + RW = AT (18)
h Q/A

And solving for h,

h =t AT - RW-1 (19)
WA /

Since Q/A, AT and RW are all known, h can be easily

calculated. Once this is done, the desired superheat equal

to the difference between the temperature at the wall

surface and.the liquid saturation is simply determined using

the relation:

Q/A = h ATs (20)

from which

ATs = Q/A (21)

h

A sample calculation of this superheat is given in appendix

B-1. The results for each run and for each thermocouple are
reported in Column 3 through Column 6 of the tables

presented in Appendix A.

2. Uncertainty analysis

The method of uncertainty analysis used here is that of

Kline and McClintock [20] recommended by Colman [9, p.50].

The method suggests that the uncertainty on a dependent

 34

variable y can be found from the uncertainties of the

independent variables xi, x2, ..., xn by the relation

w = !)N,, wi) 2 + (pay 2 4. + wn) 2] 1/2

Y
xi x2 a xn
(22)

where W stands for uncertainty.

Substitution of Equation 19 into Equation 21 yields:

ATs = AT - (Q/A) x RW (23)

and applying Equation 22 to equation 23 give:

wAT =[(aATs wAT)2 4.0ATs 140)2 4(;ATs + OATs wRw)11/2

s 6,11 \ ;Q A \ DRW
(24)

Differentiation of Equation 24 with respect to each of the

variables T, Q, A and RW results in

.6,irs = 1 (25.a)
AT
;ATs = - RW (25.b)
;C) A

BA Ts = - QRW (25.c)
.1 A2
aATs = - Q/A (25.d)
;RW

Furthermore, the related uncertainties on each variable were

evaluated as follows:

WAT = 2°F from reproducibility of experimental data

WQ = 50 Btu/hr from wattmeter calibration and
fluctuation
WA = 0.0014 ft2 from heater specifications
WRw = 0.41 x 10 -4 hr.ft2. °F /Btu from heater calibration
 35

The heat transfer area A is calculated by

A= 7 x Di x 1

where Di is the diameter of the heater rod and 1 the heated

length. Hence

A = (7 x 0.5 x 5.5)/144 = 0.06 ft2

The uncertainty on ATs is found by evaluation of the partial

derivations given by Equations 25.a through d. Knowing the

values of Q, A and RW, and then by substitution of the

obtained results along with the uncertainty values into

Equation 24. A sample calculation of this method is shown

in appendix B-2. The overall mean deviation for the whole

set of experimental data is 7%.

3. Statistical analysis

A statistical analysis of the experimental data was

carried out. For each fluid-diameter combination, a linear

regression analysis using logarithmic transformations on

both the heat flux and the superheat was performed to fit

the data. This resulted in equations of the type

Q/A = C ATsn (26)

where n is a measure of the slope of the line when Q/A is

plotted versus ATs on a log-log scale and C is a constant

characteristic of the fluid, surface and pressure. The

results from this analysis are given in Table 4a and 4b for

 36

De = 0.225.inch and for De = 0.750 inch respectively. In

addition to the values of C and n are presented values of

the coefficient of determination r2 in each case.

A second linear regression analysis where ATs was taken

as the dependent variable rather than as the independent

variable showed a maximum standard deviation of 16% in the

values of ATs. The resulting superheats that best fit the

data for given heat fluxes are summarized in columns number

7 of the tables given in Appendix A. Those values combined

with the corresponding heat fluxes and the measured

velocities were then used for comparison with two of the

most accepted correlations for boiling heat transfer in

liquids. Because of their importance, those two

correlations which are known as Chen's equation [5] and

Rohsenow's equation [34] are here treated explicitly.

4. Chen's Correlation

As mentioned by many authors [7, p.215], [8, p.246],

[32, p.51] and [35, p.12-46], Chen's equation is probably

the most used correlation in predicting convective boiling

heat transfer in liquids. In his paper, Chen expressed the

total heat transfer coefficient, h, as a sum of two terms

that he called macroconvective and microconvective heat

transfer coefficients:

(27)
h = hmac hmic

The term hmac accounts for the heat transfer due to the
 37

moving fluid and was developed from a Dittus-Boelter type

equation. It was given by the relation

hmac = 0.023 ReL0-8 FrL0.4 kL F (28)

D

where, ReL = DG(1-X) (29)

L

is the Reynolds number based on the liquid phase alone and

PrL = CpL 1-1L (30)

kt,

is the liquid Prandtl number.

The parameter F in Equation 28 is a Reynolds number

coefficient given by Chen as equal to the ratio of the two-

phase Reynolds number to the liquid Reynolds number all

raised to the power 0.8. The term hmic on the other hand,

accounts for the heat transfer due to bubble formation on

the heated surface. It was developed on the basis of the

Forster and Zuber's formulation to represent heat transfer

at the molecular level [15]. Its expression was given in

the form

0.45 0.49 g
0.25 0.24 0.75
hmic
mic
0.00122 kL C
pL c DTs
A S

0.5 0.29 0.24 0.24

A
PV
(31)

where Os is equal to the vapor pressure difference

corresponding to Yrs and S is a nucleate boiling suppression

factor which has a value of zero for non-flow and a value of

 38

one for infinite flow.

The parameters F and S appearing in Equations 28 and 31
were presented graphically by Chen as functions respectively
of the inverse of the Lockart-Martinelli parameter, 1/Xtt,

and the two-phase Reynolds number, ReTp. However, for their

evaluation in the present study, it was thought to be more
efficient to use the approximating equations proposed by

Collier [8, p.250] which are

F = 1.0 for 1/Xtt < 0.1 (32)

F = 2.35 (l/Xtt + 0.213) for 1/Xtt > 0.1 (33)

and

S = (1+ 3.31 x 10-6 ReTp)-1 for ReTp < 32.5 x 104 (34)

S = (1+ 3.31 x 10-6 R144)-ifor ReTp > 32.5 x 104 or

ReTp < 70.0 x 104 (35)

S = 0.1 for ReTp > 70.0 x 104 (36)

where, 1/Xtt = ( x \ 0.9 ( PL 0.5 (1-Lv (1:1.1

(37)
1-X ) PV ) 1-1 L )

and ReTp = ReL x F 1.25 (38)

All physical properties appearing in the development of

Chen's equation were evaluated at saturation conditions.

Table 2 is a summary of all physical and thermodynamic

properties of the eight fluids used in this work. The given

data were either taken from references [2,12,19,30,33]

 39

when available, or estimated by use of empirical equations

recommended by references [11,30 or 33].

The method used to determine the heat flux predicted by

Chen's equation given the heat input Q in Btu/hr, the

superheat, pTs in °F, the inner and outer diameters of the

annulus, Di and Do, in ft, the velocity u in ft/hr and the

various physical and thermodynamic properties of the liquid

and vapor, is as follows:

a. Calculate the mass flow rate in lb/hr

m = u PL Acs (39)

where, Acs = 7 (D02 - Di2) (40)

4

b. Calculate the quality from an enthalpy balance

X = Q - CpL (Ts - TB) (41)

th), X

but since TB = TS, Equation 41 reduces to

X = Q (42)
thn

c. Calculate the liquid Reynolds number by Equation 29 with

G = m/Acs (43)

where G is the mass flow velocity in lb/hr.ft2

d. Evaluate the inverse of the Lockart-Martinelli parameter

using Equation 37.
 40

e. Deduce the value of the Reynolds number coefficient F

using Equation 32 or Equation 33 as needed.
f. Calculate the Prandtl number by Equation 30.
g. Calculate hmac in Btu/hr.ft2.°F using Equation 28 with D
taken as the equivalent diameter of the annulus which is
equal to:

De = 4 As = Do - Di (44)
Pw

where, pw = wetted perimeter = 7(Do + Di)

h. Calculate the two-phase Reynolds number as given by

Equation 38.

i. Deduce the nucleate boiling suppression factor S by

either Equation 34, 35 or 36 as needed.

j. Calculate hmic in Btu/hr.ft2.°F by use of Equation 31.

k. Deduce the value of the total heat transfer coefficient

h in Btu/hr.ft2.°F by summing hmac and hmic.

1. Use Equation 21 to finally determine the heat flux in

Btu/hr.ft2.

The deviation of a data point is calculated as:

Deviation % = Predicted flux - Experimental Flux x 100

Experimental flux

The mean deviation of a data set is defined as:

Mean Deviation % = Sum of absolute single deviations

Number of data points

A sample calculation of the method described above follows

in Appendix B-3.
Compound MW B.P. pi, PV , PL PV kr, Col,
A 0)104
°F lb/ft3 lb/ft-, lb/ft.hr. lb/ft.hr. Btu/ft.hr.°F Btu/lb.°F Btu/lb lbf/ft

Water 18.0 212 59.8 .0367 0.673 0.0300 0.394 1.0076 972.9 41.83

Ethanol 100% 46.0 173 47.2 .0997 1.135 0.0250 0.087 0.7346 367.7 12.20

Ethanol 70% 31.4 176 49.2 .0685 0.958 0.0258 0.103 0.8193 489.9 16.40

Ethanol 44% 24.6 180 53.6 .0671 0.879 0.0264 0.128 0.8910 674.6 22.40

Ethanol 21% 20.6 188 56.7 .0663 0.791 0.0273 0.175 0.9531 835.1 30.30

n-propanol 60.1 207 46.5 .1236 1.123 0.0230 0.083 0.7826 295.8 11.96

i-propanol 60.1 180 46.2 .1288 1.166 0.0220 0.084 0.8231 286.8 11.01

n-butanol 74.1 244 45.2 .1444 1.038 0.0210 0.074 0.7896 254.3 11.06

Table 2. Summary of physical and thermodynamic properties of the fluids.

(atmospheric pressure)
 42

5. Rohsenow's Correlation

This correlating was developed for surface pool boiling

of liquids. It was given in the form:

r
Cpr, ATs = Csf [ VA ( gc G 11/2 S (45)
x 7-17-4 9 ( GL PV)) kr,

where the exponents r and s were originally found to be

equal to 0.33 and 1.7 respectively. However, Rohsenow [35,

p.12-31] later suggested a value of s equal to 1 for water

and 1.7 for all other fluids. The parameter Csf is

dependent upon the fluid-surface combination and must be

experimentally determined for each situation. Experimental

values of this coefficient for the different liquids used

are reported in Table 3 with the surface being stainless-

steel in all cases.

Fluid Csf

Water 0.020
Ethanol 0.002
Ethanol 70% wt 0.002
Ethanol 44% wt 0.003
Ethanol 21% wt 0.004
n - propanol 0.002
i - propanol 0.002
n - butanol 0.002

Table 3. Values of Csf for the eight fluids used in

combination with a stainless-steel surface.
 43

Equation 45 was rearranged in a suitable form that enabled

the calculation of the heat flux given the superheat and the
properties of the fluids:

Q/A = ( CpL PO ATs 3.03 (46)

Csf PrS gCa
lig ( PL -PV)

Again, Deviation of a data point is calculated as:

Deviation % = Predicted flux - Experimental flux x 100

Experimental flux

and the mean deviation of a data set as:

Mean Deviation % = Sum of absolutes single deviations

number of data points

A sample calculation of this method is given in Appendix

B-4.
 44

VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The experimental data obtained during nucleate boiling

of all eight fluids flowing by natural circulation are shown

in Figure 9 and Figure 10. On these plots, the heat flux is

plotted against the wall superheat on log-log scale for

De = 0.225 in and for De = 0.750 in respectively.

Figure 9 and Figure 10 both show a relative sharp

increase in the heat flux with an increase in the

temperature difference which is a known characteristic of

the nucleate boiling phenomenon. However, the degree of the

increase defined by the exponent n in Equation 26 differs

from author to author. For instance, McAdams [27, p.378]

proposed a value between 3 and 4. Thom et al. [40], on the

other hand, correlated their data with an exponent n equal

to 2 when studying boiling of water in tubes and annuli at

heat fluxes below 200,000 Btu/hr.ft2. Rohsenow[35,p.12-44]

suggested that n could vary from 1 for non-boiling through 2

to a value of 3 for very strong nucleate boiling at high

heat fluxes. This could probably explain the relatively

high value of n=3.86 found by McAdams et al. [26] when using

heat fluxes sometimes exceeding 106 Btu/hr.ft2 for water

boiling in annuli.

As given in Table 4a and Table 4b, the values of n

determined in the present experimental study ranged from

1.56 to 3.09 depending on the fluid and the equivalent

diameter of the annulus used. It is observed that for each

 45

LIQUID C n r2

Water 332.83 1.56 .939

Ethanol 100% 41.49 1.96 .920
Ethanol 70% wt 137.31 1.62 .942
Ethanol 44% wt 67.61 1.82 .946
Ethanol 21% wt 3.93 2.70 .824
n - propanol 4.99 2.48 .952
i - propanol 3.57 2.62 .920
n - butanol 19.39 2.01 .958

Table 4.a - Correlation of experimental data by use of Eq. 26

De = 0.225 in

LIQUID C n r2

Water 15.11 2.33 .855

Ethanol 100% 7.58 2.40 .882
Ethanol 70% wt 7.35 2.37 .952
Ethanol 44% wt 15.66 2.11 .968
Ethanol 21% wt 2.06 2.74 .904
n - propanol 2.18 2.68 .908
i - propanol 0.66 3.09 .893
n - butanol 3.95 2.40 .949
4_

Table 4.b - Correlation of experimental data by use of Eq. 26

De = 0.750 in
 46

"cp
V".

co a
A A 0 e,:4
A
A
.1",
**, De= 0.225 in
6.-..
.07.. +
co
+ (Mater
-.1'
ea- ++ .',.:1
e4. ' ,...)gr
A 'V
Ln

A
A
MIS' +
+ °Ethanol
ER 7

A MK V + gEthano170tia

A DX V +
4,13B XV + OEthano144%
t) A OR X V -14

A IIIE ACV + Ethano121%

ID x 7 + Dn-Propanol
11111 X V +
®E3 Xe X i-Propanol

30 ><V + +n-Butanol

0
10 20 30 40 50 60

TwT, (degF)

Figure 9. Experimental heat flux vs. superheat for

De = 0.225 in.
 47

a
a
op
.:..!:' De=0.750 in
a 1*.
VC:Xf.
or;t:
.a :c.:. 1
6Water
cll.:. o +
:re o + °Ethanol
A X21337 0 +
A
A
MK'
MEC 00++ ao Ethanol 70%
L ENEF6 i-
A OW 0 + OEthano144%
A EIPO +
A 3111170 + Ethanol 21%
A DI/60 +
DOW + Vn-Propanol
EM +
x i-Propanol
OW? +
037 + +n-Butanol

0
10 20 30 40 50 60

TwT, (degF)

Figure 10. Experimental heat flux vs. superheat for

De = 0.750 in.
 48

fluid, n is higher for the higher diameter. This result is

in good agreement with the findings of several authors who

stipulate that in nucleate pool boiling, the governing

factor is the temperature driving force ATs. Therefore, as

the width of the annulus increases which means approaching

pool boiling, the dependence of the heat flux on LTs

increases and results in a higher value of the exponent n.

Figures 9 and 10 also show better heat transfer in the case

of water than the organic fluids or the water-alcohol

mixtures.

What seems to be a paradox in Figures 9 and 10,

however, is the fact that for ethanol-water mixtures, the

data do not always fall between the lines corresponding to

the pure components. This result does not seem to agree

with reported investigations by several workers who predict

lower heat transfer rates for mixtures than for their pure

constituents. This is due to an additive mass transfer

resistance against the more volatile component during its

diffusion toward the heating surface where evaporation

occurs. It can be noticed though, that the observed

discrepancy in the present experimental data is not very

large. Considering the experimental error involved (average

of 7%), the differences might be actually very small or even

insignificant.
Figure 11 shows a comparison plot of the experimental

heat transfer coefficients obtained for the two diameters

under study. There seems to be no or very little effect of

 49

2.50

2.00

1.50
a Water
o Ethanol
x Ethanol 70%
Ethanol44%
1.00 O Ethanol 21%
v n-Propanol
i-Propanol
+ n-Butanol

.50
.50
silt
1.00
I I

1.50
4 I

2.00
, ,

2.50

h,(*10-3Btu/hr ft2 F) , De=0.750in

Figure 11. Effect of diameter on experimental heat

transfer coefficients.
 50

the diameter in the case of pure organics. In contrast, it

clearly appears that higher heat transfer coefficients are

obtained for the smallest diameter in the case of water.

Moreover, the ethanol-water mixtures seem to play a

transitory role between water and the pure alcohols since a

decrease of the diameter effect is noted as the weight

fraction of ethanol in the mixture increases. This quite

surprising and unexpected result implies a different

behavior between the boiling process of water and that of

the alcohols. No doubt, however, that such a conclusion

cannot be drawn at first sight and verification with more

data is really needed. It is therefore suggested that more

diameter sizes and different intermediate concentrations of

ethanol and other compounds be used to clarify this

observation.
The variation of the diameter has a direct effect on

the flow velocity which should increase as the diameter

decreases. Velocities corresponding to natural-circulation

of the fluids, due to a density difference in the loop, were

measured by the inclusion of a pump and a rotameter. Those

velocities reported in Columns 8 of the tables given in

appendix A are plotted against the heat fluxes as shown in

Figure 12 and 13. As expected, higher velocities are

obtained for De = 0.225 inch than for De = 0.750 inch at

given values of the heat flux. Observation of these plots

also shows a rather rapid increase in the velocity at low

heat fluxes. This increase does not however persist too

 51

1.20 X**yx
11;0001ft4bc
6 0065h 0000
6
1.00 O4 ficieili*,"
+ era° Oit, prbtx .--0--t&A
rgo AA
0 41(p
cil
x w
.80 o A
00 of A
*
ti:
23

o
f De = 0.225 in
.60
oe A 6, Wate r
ci Ethanol
A
A Isi Ethanol 70%
.40
A 0 Ethanol 44%
A
*Ethanol 21%
A
V n-Propanol
.20
x i-Propanol
-I- n-Butanol
.00 111till If.411 I

.00E+00 .25E+02 .50E+02 .75E+02 .10E+03

Heat flux ( *1 0- 'Btu /hr ft2)

Figure 12. Velocity vs. heat flux for De = 0.225 in.

 52

.40

Dotex
00 P,O4T+YEI ,.,, So
0 ,,,181,4, 2. ..12310
X
0
.30 - 0 x
X+ .0 01°'<>
wv
owe
11.4;0
AstAAA6
0 XV- ca
ra
$ 4' AA
0 + 0 A
A6
40
0 00o,o A
Ox+ x+ se w
.20 DX
x 4.
rge
oF A
A
A De= 0.750 in
&Water
OW A
+ so A 0 Ethanol
+else.ow . A
A
@ Ethanol 70 %
ta A
A
*Ethanol 44%
.10 A Ethanol 21%
A
V n-Propanol
X i-Propanol
+ n-Butanol
.00 I I I f000llosItforn
.75E+02 .10E+03
.00E+00 .25E+02 .50E+02

Heat flux (*1 0-3Btu/hr ft2)

Figure 13. Velocity vs. heat flux for De = 0.750 in.

 53

long since the velocity reaches a maximum and then begins to

decrease. This can be explained by the fact that at low
heat fluxes, the generation of vapor noticeably accelerates

the flow but when the velocity becomes high enough, the

pressure drop developed in the system due to friction

reaches a maximum and slows down the flow considerably.

This pressure drop is known to be proportional to the

average velocity for laminar flow in annuli [22, p.96] and

about proportional to the square of the average velocity for

turbulent flow in smooth annuli [22, p.198].

The comparison of experimental data with Chen's

equation is expressed in Figure 14 and Figure 15 where the

predicted heat flux on the y-axis is plotted against the

experimental heat flux on the x-axis. Analysis of these two

plots shows that almost all data falls above the 45° line

meaning higher predicted values than the experimental ones.

For De = 0.225 inch, a maximum absolute deviation of 48.7%,

a minimum absolute deviation of 1.2% and an average absolute

deviation of 26.0% are observed. For De = 0.750 inch, the

corresponding deviations are respectively 55.0%, 3.2% and

30.7%.

It is also observed that small deviations are obtained

at low heat fluxes but they increase markedly as the heat

flux increases. The same trend occurs for both diameters

employed. Calculations of Chen's equation although not

totally reported here, showed relatively small values of the

term hmac due to convective flow than the values of the term
 54

.15E+02
O A

o Er

.10E+02 -

De=0.225 in
AWater
o Ethanol
Ethanol 70 %
.50E+01 - O Ethanol44%
Ethanol 21 %
Vn-Propanol
i-Propanol
+n-Butanol

.00E+.00
00E+00 .50E+01 .10E+02 .15E+02

EXP. HEAT FLUX(*1 0-4Btu/hr ft2)

Figure 14. Comparison of experimental data with Chen's

equation for De = 0.225 in.
 55

.15E+02

.10E+02 -

De= 0.750 in
ilWater
O Ethanol
0 Ethanol 70%
.50E+01 - OEthanof 44%
OEthanol 21%
7 n-Propanot
Xi-Propanol
+n-Butanol

.00E+Q 1
.
1

.0Q0E+00 .50E+01 .10E+02 .15E+02

EXP. HEAT FLUX(*1 0-4Btu/hr ft2)

Figure 15. Comparison of experimental data with Chen's

equation for De = 0.750 in.
 56

hmic due to nucleate boiling. This result can be

interpreted in the way that during nucleate boiling of a

liquid, heat transfer occurs mainly due to the high

turbulence induced by bubble formation on the heated

surface. Hence, the turbulence created by fluid motion is
only of secondary importance. Considering this result, it
was judged useful to determine how the data compared with an
equation developed for pool boiling where flow is completely
absent.

For that comparison to be made, Rohsenow's equation was

used. The results are shown in Figure 16 and Figure 17

where the heat flux predicted by Equation 46 is plotted

versus the experimental heat flux. For De = 0.225 inch, it

is seen that most of the data lie below the 45° line showing

higher experimental values in the heat flux than the ones

predicted by Rohsenow's correlation. The maximum, minimum

and average absolute deviations are respectively equal to

60.4, 0 and 19.3%. In contrast, for De = 0.750 inch, most

of the data lie above the 45° line which now means that

lower values of the experimental heat flux are obtained

compared to the predicted one. In that case the maximum,

minimum and average deviations are respectively 72.6, 0 and

22.9%. From this analysis, it can be concluded that the

size of the annulus gap seems to have an effect on heat

transfer to the fluid since as pool boiling is approached

when De goes from 0.225 inch to 0.750 inch, the deviations

in the experimental heat flux from that predicted by

 57

.15E+02

.10E+02

De=0.225 in
Water
o Ethanol
g Ethanol 70 %
.50E+01 0 Ethanol 44%
°Ethanol 21%
V n-Propanol
X i-Propanol
+n-Butanol

.00E+00
.00E+00 .50E+01 .10E+02 .15E+02

EXP. HEAT FLUX(*1 0-4Btu/hr ft2)

Figure 16. Comparison of experimental data with Rohsenow's

equation for De = 0.225 in.
 58

.15E+02

.10E+02

De= 0.750 in
&Water
a Ethanol
al Ethanol 70%
.50E+01 <>Ethanol 44 %
*Ethanol 21%
on-Propanol
x i-Propanol
+n-Butanol

.00E+00 1

.00E+00 .50E+01 .10E+02 .15E+02

EXP. HEAT FLUX(*1 0-4Btu/hr ft2)

Figure 17. Comparison of experimental data with Rohsenow's

equation for De = 0.750 in.
 59

Rohsenow's equation go from positive to negative values.

Comparing the mean deviations from the experimental

data obtained with both Chen's and Rohsenow's Correlations,

it is noticed that there is better agreement of the data

with Rohsenow's Correlation for pool boiling heat transfer.

For De = 0.225 inch, the deviation was 19.3% for Rohsenow's

against 26% for Chen's and for De = 0.750 inch, the

deviation was 22.9% for Rohsenow's against 30.7% for Chen's.

This result maybe explained by the low velocities obtained

during natural circulation boiling which do not affect

significantly the heat transfer.

 60

VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Nucleate boiling of water, four different alcohols and

three ethanol-water mixtures flowing in an annulus by

natural-circulation was studied. An equation of the form

Q/A = C LsTsn was derived for each liquid-diameter

combination. Values of n ranged from 1.56 to 2.70 for De =

0.225 inch and from 2.11 to 3.09 for De = 0.750 inch. For

each liquid, the corresponding exponent n was found to be

lower for the smaller equivalent diameter and approached 3

at De = 0.750 inch which was believed to be close to pool

boiling situation. This result was found to be in good

agreement with some reported data on fully-developed

nucleate boiling heat transfer and was explained by a very

slight or even insignificant effect of the flow velocity on

heat transfer in that region due to the high turbulence

created by bubble formation on the heated surface.

A comparison of the experimental data obtained for the

two diameter sizes used showed that for water higher heat
transfer coefficients were found as the diameter decreased.
However, no apparent effect of the diameter on heat transfer

to the boiling organic liquids was noticed.

A comparison with Chen's and Rohsenow's correlations

has proven to be very helpful in supporting the experimental

findings. This was shown by the fact that while Chen's

equation always predicted higher heat fluxes than the

experimental values, Rohsenow's equation usually predicted

 61

higher heat fluxes for De = 0.750 inch and lower heat fluxes
for De = 0.225 inch. Lower mean deviations from the
experimental data were observed in the comparison with

Rohsenow's equation than with Chen's equation.

Further experimental work is needed to test the nature

and validity of the results reported in this study. In case

further research work is to be done on the same equipment,

the following recommendations are judged to be worthwhile:

1. First improve the experimental error by replacing

the digital thermometer and the wattmeter with more
accurate devices.
2. Always check the purity of the liquids before and
after each run.

3. Include an external pre-heater to make sure the

inlet liquid to the test section is at its
saturation temperature.

4. Find a better way of drying the system to totally

avoid contamination of the fluid if other than
water.

5. Use intermediate and high diameter sizes of the

glass tube than the ones used in the present study.
The use of heaters having diameters other than 1/2
inch would be desirable.

6. Increase the heat flux range to higher values if

possible.
 62

VIII. NOMENCLATURE

Symbol Definition Units

A Heat transfer area ft2

2
A Flow area ft
cs

C Constant

C Specific heat Btu/lb.°F

P

C Constant
sf

D Diameter of tube ft

D Annulus equivalent diameter ft

e

D. Annulus inner diameter ft

1

D Annulus outer diameter ft

0

F Correction factor
2
g Gravitational acceleration ft/hr

2
Conversion factor lb.ft/lb f .hr
gc
2
G Mass flow velocity lb/hr.ft

h Heat transfer coefficient Btu/hr.ft2.°F

k Thermal conductivity Btu/hr.ft.°F

1 Heated length ft

L Distance between
buried thermocouple and heater
surface ft

m Mass flow rate lb/hr

n Constant
 63

2
P Pressure lb/ft

Pw Wetted perimeter ft

P
r
Prandtl number

4 Power input Btu/hr

Q/A Heat flux Btu/hr.ft2

Constant

2
r Coefficient of determation

R Bubble radius ft

R Reynolds number
e

RW Wall resistance to heat flow ft2.hr. °F /Btu

s Constant

S Boiling suppression factor

o
T Temperature F

T
o
Temperature at wall thermocouple o
location F

u flow velocity ft/hr

u logmean velocity between inlet

m
and outlet of test section ft/hr

U Overall heat transfer

coefficient Btu/hr.ft2.0F

w uncertainties in xl, x2, ...

1, w2,

X weight fraction of vapor

 64

X
tt
Lockart-Martinelli parameter

X
1,
x2, ... Arbitrary independent variables

Y Arbitrary dependent variable

Greek Symbols:

Symbol Definition Units

(5
Annular width ft

6p/dTs Annular width lb/ft2.°F

AT Temperature difference between

location of thermocouple and o
saturation F

AT s Temperature difference between of

heater surface and saturation

E Percent error

X Latent heat of vaporization Btu/lb

1-1 Viscosity lb/ft.hr

3
P Density lb/ft

a Surface tension lb/ft

a Surface tension of water lb/ft

w

Subscripts:
b Boiling

B Bulk

FC Forced circulation

i Refers to inside diameter of annulus

 65

L Liquid

NB Nucleate boiling

O Refers to outside diameter of annulus

ONB Onset of nucleate boiling

S Refers to saturation conditions

TP Two-phase

Vapor

W Refers to wall surface conditions

1,2,3,4 Refers to thermocouple No.1,2,3,4

 66

IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Alferov, N.S. and Rybin, R.A., 'Heat Transfer in

Annular Channels', Convective Heat Transfer in
Two-Phase and One-Phase Flows, Eds. Borishanskii,
V.M. and Paleev, I.I., Israel Programs for
Scientific Translations, pp. 115-134, 1969.

2. American Institute of Physics Handbook, 2nd. ed.,

McGraw-Hill, 1963.

3. Bennett, J.A.R., Collier, J.G., Pratt, H.R.C. and

Thornton, J.D., 'Heat Transfer to Two-Phase Gas-
Liquid Systems. Part I: Steam/Water Mixtures in
the Liquid Dispersed Region in an Annulus', Trans.
Inst. Chem Engrs, Vol. 39, pp. 113-126, 1961.

4. Bergles, A.E. and Rohsenow, W.M., 'The Determination of

Forced Convection Surface Boiling Heat Transfer',
Trans. ASME, J. Heat Transfer, Vol. 86, pp. 305-
311, 1964.

5. Chen, J.C., 'Correlations for Boiling Heat Transfer to

Saturated Fluids in Convective Flow', I.E.C.
Process Des. Dev., Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 322-329,
1966.

6. Chernobyl'skii, I.I. and Tananaiko, I.M., 'Heat

Exchange during Boiling of Liquids in Narrow
Annular Tubes', Sov. Phys. Techn. Phys., pp. 2244-
2249, 1956.

7. Collier, J.G., Convective Boiling and Condensation, 2nd

Ed., McGraw-Hill, pp. 206-247, 1972.

8. Collier, J.G., 'Forced Convective boiling', Two-Phase

Flow and Heat Transfer in the Power and Process
Industries, Eds. Bergles, A.E., Collier, J.G.,
Delhaye, J.M., Hewitt, G.F. and Mayinger, F.,
Hemisphere, pp. 226-255, 1981.

9. Colman, J.P., Experimental Methods for Engineers, 4th

Ed., McGraw-Hill, pp. 50-57, 1984.

10. Cooper, M.G., 'Nucleate Boiling', Proc. of the Sixth

Int. Heat Transfer Conf., Vol. 6, Toronto, Canada,
Aug. 1978, pp. 463-469.

11. Coulson, J.M. and Richardson, J.F., Chemical

Engineering, Vol. 6, Pergamon Press, pp. 234-273,
1983.
 67

12. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and physics, 64th Ed., CRC

Press, 1983.

13. Davis, E.J. and Anderson, G.H., 'The Incipience of

Nucleate Boiling in Forced Convection Flow', AIChE
J., Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 774-780, 1966.
14. Dengler, C.E. and Addoms, J.N., 'Heat Transfer
Mechanism for Vaporization of Water in a Vertical
Tube', Chem. Eng. Prog. Symp. Series, Vol. 52, No.
18, pp. 95-103, 1956.

15. Forster, H.K. and Zuber, N., AIChE J., Vol. 1, No. 4,
pp. 531-535, 1955.

16. Guerrieri, S.A. and Talty, R.D., 'A Study of Heat

Transfer to Organic Liquids in Single-Tube,
Natural Circulation, Vertical-Tube Boilers', Chem.
Eng. Prog. Symp. Series, Vol. 52, No. 18, pp. 69-
77, 1956.

17. Happel, 0., 'Heat Transfer during Boiling of Binary

Mixtures in the Nucleate and Film Boiling Ranges',
Heat Transfer in Boiling, Eds. Hahne, E. and
Grigull, U., Hemisphere, pp. 207-216, 1977.

18. Hughmark, G.A., 'Heat Transfer with Phase Change in

Vertical Upward, Horizontal and Vertical Downward
Tube Flow, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., Vol. 21, No.
1, pp. 339-343, 1982.

19. Jasper, J.J., 'Surface Tension of Liquids', J. Phys,

Chem. Ref Data, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 948-975, 1972.

20. Kline, S.J. and McClintock, F.A., 'Describing

Uncertainties in Single-Sample Experiments', Mech.
Eng., pp. 3-8, Jan. 1953.

21. Knudsen, J.G., 'Apparatus and Techniques for

Measurement of Fouling of Heat Transfer Surfaces',
Condenser Biofouling Control, eds. Garey, J.F.,
Jorden, R.M., Aitken, A.H., Burton, D.T. and Gray,
R.H., EPRI Symp. Proc., Atlanta, Georgia, March
25-29, 1979, Ann Arbor Science, pp. 143-168, 1980.

22. Knudsen, J.G. and Katz, D.L., Fluid Dynamics and Heat
Transfer, McGraw-Hill, 1958.

23. Kreith, F., Principles of Heat Transfer, Int. Textbook

Co., pp. 398-438, 1958.
 68

24. Lockart, R.W. and Martinelli, R.C., 'Proposed

Correlation of Data for Isothermal Two-Phase,
Two-Component Flow in Pipes', Chem. Eng. Prog.,
Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 39-48, 1949.
25. Lung, H., Latsch, K. and Rampf, H., 'Boiling Heat
Transfer to Subcooled Water in Turbulent Annular
Flow', Heat Transfer in Boiling, Eds. Hahne, E.
and Grigull, U., Hemisphere, pp. 219-235, 1977.

26. McAdams, W.H., kennel, W.E., Minden, C.S., Carl, R.,

Picornell, P.M. and Dew, J.E., 'Heat Transfer at
High Rates to Water with Surface Boiling', Ind.
Eng. Chem., Vol. 41, pp. 1945-1953, 1949.

27. McAdams, W.H., 'Heat Transmission', 3rd. Ed., McGraw

-Hill, pp. 368-409, 1954.

28. Mehra, D.K., 'Selecting Evaporators', Chem. Eng., Vol.

93, No. 3, pp. 56-72, 1986.

29. Nukiyama, S., 'The Maximum and Minimum Values of the

Heat Flux Transmitted from Metal to Boiling Water
Under Atmospheric Pressure', Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer, Vol. 9, pp. 1419-1433, 1966 (Originally
J. Japan Soc. Mech. Engrs., Vol. 37, pp. 367-374,
1934).

30. Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook, 6th. Ed., McGraw

-Hill, 1984.

31. Piret, E.L. and Isbin, H.S., 'Natural-Circulation

Evaporation', Chem. Eng. Prog., Vol. 50, No. 6,
pp. 305-311, 1954.

32. Polley, G.T., 'Reboilers', Developments in Heat

Exchanger Technology-1, Ed. Chisholm, D., Applied
Science, pp. 41-70, 1980.

33. Reid, R.C., Prausnitz, J.M. and Sherwood, T.K.,

Properties of Gases and Liquids, 3rd. Ed.,
McGraw-Hill, 1977.

34. Rohsenow, W.M., 'A Method of Correlating Heat Transfer

Data for Surface Boiling Liquids', Trans. ASME,
Vol. 74, pp. 969-975, 1952.

35. Rohsenow, W.M., Hartnett, J.P. and Ganic, E.N., Heat

Transfer Fundamentals, 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill,
Chap.12, 1985.
 69

36. Rossokhin, N.G., Tsang-Wen, and Mel'nikov, V.M., 'Some

Experimental Data on Heat Transfer During surface
Boiling of Water in Narrow Annular Channels',
Convective Heat Transfer in Two-Phase and One
-Phase Flows, Eds. Borishanskii, V.M. and Paleev,
I.I., Israel Programs for Scientific
Translations, pp. 163-169, 1969.

37. Schlander, E.U., 'Heat Transfer in Nucleate Boiling of

Mixtures', Int. Chem. Eng., Vol. 23, No. 4, pp.
589-599, 1983.

38. Shah, M.M., 'Generalized Prediction of Heat Transfer

During Subcooled Boiling in Annuli', Heat
Transfer Eng., Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 24-31, 1983.

39. Tarasova, N.V. and Orlov, V.M., 'Heat Transfer and

Hydraulic Resistance During Surface Boiling of
Water in Annular Channels', Convective Heat
Transfer in Two-Phase and One-Phase Flows, Eds.
Borishanskii, V.M. and Paleev, I.I., Israel
Programs for Scientific Translations, pp. 135
-156, 1969.

40. Tolubinskiy, V.I., Kriveshko, A.A., Ostrovskiy, Y.N.

and Pisarev, V.Y., 'Effect of Pressure on the
Boiling Heat Transfer Rate in Water-Alcohol
Mixtures', Heat Transfer-Soviet Research, Vol. 5,
No. 3, pp.66-68, 1973.

41. Tolubinskiy, V.I. and Ostrovskiy, Y.N., 'Mechanism of

Heat Transfer in Boiling of Binary Mixtures',
Heat Transfer-Soviet Research, Vol. 1, No. 6, pp.
6-11, 1969.

42. Thom, J.R.S., Walker, W.M., Fallen, T.A. and Reising,

G.F.S., 'Boiling in Subcooled Water During Flow
up Heated Tubes or Annuli', Proc. Inst. Mech.
Eng., Vol. 180, Pt. 3C, pp. 226-246, 1965-1966.

43. Thome, J.R., 'Nucleate Pool Boiling of Binary

Mixtures', Nat'l Heat Transfer conf., Milwaukee,
AIChE, Vol. 77, No. 208, pp. 238-250, 1981.

44. Van Stralen, S. and Cole, R. Boiling Phenomena, Vol. 1,

McGraw-Hill, pp. 17-65, 1979.
X. APPEND ICES
 70

APPENDIX A

Experimental data

The following tables report the experimental data obtained

during this study. The various quantities and their units
are as follows:

Q : Power input in watts

Q/A : Heat flux in Btu/hr.ft2

ATs1 : Superheat from wall thermocouple no. 1 in deg F

ATs2: Superheat from wall thermocouple no. 2 in deg F

ATs3: Superheat from wall thermocouple no. 3 in deg F

ATs4: Superheat from wall thermocouple no. 4 in deg F

ATs : Resulting superheat from statistical analysis of

experimental data in deg F
u : Velocity in ft/sec
 71

WATER De = 0.225 in

4 Q/A ATsi iTs2 ATs3 ATs4 LTs u

500 28440 19.6 16.3 17.4 18.7 17.4 0.267

550 31280 20.7 17.6 17.6 20.2 18.5 0.322

600 34130 20.9 17.9 18.9 19.7 19.6 0.358

650 36970 23.0 19.2 20.1 21.1 20.6 0.431

700 39820 24.2 20.6 22.3 21.6 21.6 0.468

750 42660 25.3 21.9 23.6 22.1 22.6 0.595

800 45510 26.5 23.2 24.8 23.5 23.6 0.723

850 48350 26.7 23.6 26.1 24.0 24.5 0.796

900 51190 26.8 23.9 26.3 24.5 25.4 0.905

950 54040 28.0 25.2 27.5 25.0 26.3 0.960

1000 56880 29.1 25.5 28.8 25.4 27.2 1.015

1050 59730 29.3 26.9 30.0 25.9 28.1 1.015

1100 62570 30.4 28.2 30.2 27.4 28.9 1.015

1150 65410 30.6 28.5 30.5 27.8 29.8 1.015

1200 68260 30.7 28.8 31.7 28.3 30.6 1.015

1250 71100 31.9 30.2 33.0 28.8 31.4 0.996

1300 73950 32.1 31.5 34.2 30.3 32.2 0.996

1350 76790 33.2 31.8 34.4 30.7 33.0 0.978

1400 79630 33.4 33.1 35.7 32.2 33.8 0.960

1450 82480 34.5 33.5 35.9 32.7 34.5 0.960

1500 85320 34.7 34.8 36.2 33.1 35.3 0.960

1550 88170 34.8 35.1 36.4 34.6 36.1 0.923

1600 91010 36.0 36.4 37.6 35.1 36.8 0.905

 72

ETHANOL 100% De = 0.225 in

Q/A LTsi LTs2 LTs3 ZTs4 LTs u

300 17060 23.9 24.0 25.4 22.8 21.6 0.980

350 19910 24.1 24.3 26.7 23.3 23.4 1.000

400 22750 25.2 25.6 27.9 24.8 25.1 1.020

450 25600 26.4 26.9 28.1 25.2 26.6 1.062

500 28440 27.6 27.3 29.4 26.7 28.1 1.103

550 31280 28.7 28.6 30.6 27.2 29.5 1.124

600 34130 29.9 29.9 31.9 27.7 30.8 1.124

650 36970 32.0 31.2 34.1 29.1 32.1 1.124

700 39820 33.2 32.6 34.3 29.6 33.3 1.114

750 42660 34.3 33.9 35.6 31.1 34.5 1.103

800 45510 35.5 34.2 36.8 32.5 35.7 1.093

850 48350 37.7 36.6 39.1 34.0 36.8 1.073

900 51190 38.8 36.9 40.3 34.5 37.9 1.021

950 54040 39.0 38.2 41.5 36.0 39.0 0.980

1000 56880 40.1 39.5 42.8 36.4 40.0 0.960

1050 59730 42.3 40.9 44.0 37.9 41.0 0.939

1100 62570 42.4 41.2 45.2 39.4 42.0 0.918

1150 65410 43.6 42.5 46.5 39.8 43.0 0.898

1200 68260 44.7 43.8 47.7 41.3 43.9 0.877

 73

ETHANOL 70% wt, De = 0.225 in

4 Q/A ATsi LTs2 ATs3 AT54 ATs u

300 17060 21.9 21.0 22.4 21.8 19.8 0.650

350 19910 24.1 23.3 24.7 23.3 21.8 0.679

400 22750 25.2 24.6 25.9 23.8 23.7 0.738

450 25600 27.4 25.9 27.1 25.2 25.5 0.777

500 28440 28.6 26.3 28.4 26.7 27.2 0.856

550 31280 29.7 27.6 29.6 27.2 28.8 0.934

600 34130 30.9 28.9 30.9 28.7 30.4 0.974

650 36970 32.0 29.2 32.1 29.1 32.0 0.993

700 39820 33.2 30.6 33.3 30.6 33.5 1.013

750 42660 34.3 30.9 35.6 31.1 34.9 1.052

800 45510 35.5 33.2 36.8 32.5 36.3 1.052

850 48350 36.7 34.6 39.1 33.0 37.7 1.072

900 51190 38.8 35.9 41.3 34.5 39.1 1.062

950 54040 40.0 37.2 43.5 36.0 40.4 1.052

1000 56880 42.1 39.5 44.8 37.4 41.7 1.042

1050 59730 43.3 40.9 46.0 39.9 43.0 1.032

1100 62570 44.4 43.2 48.2 41.4 44.3 1.023

1150 65410 45.6 44.5 49.5 41.8 45.5 1.013

1200 68260 47.7 46.8 50.7 44.3 46.7 0.993

1250 71100 48.9 48.2 53.0 45.8 47.9 0.974

1300 73950 50.1 49.5 54.2 47.3 49.1 0.954

1350 76790 51.2 51.8 56.4 48.7 50.2 0.934

1400 79630 52.4 52.1 57.7 50.2 51.4 0.925

 74

ETHANOL 44% wt, De = 0.225 in

Q Q/A A Ts1 A Ts2 A Ts3 A Ts4 p Ts u

400 22750 26.2 23.6 25.9 25.8 24.5 0.554

450 25600 27.4 24.9 27.1 27.2 26.1 0.573

500 28440 28.6 26.3 29.4 28.7 27.7 0.610

550 31280 30.7 27.6 30.6 30.2 29.2 0.648

600 34130 31.9 28.9 32.9 30.7 30.6 0.704

650 36970 34.0 30.2 34.1 33.1 32.0 0.760

700 39820 35.2 31.6 35.3 33.6 33.3 0.816

750 42660 35.3 31.9 35.6 34.1 34.6 0.891

800 45510 36.5 33.2 36.8 35.5 35.8 0.928

850 48350 37.7 33.6 38.1 36.0 37.0 0.966

900 51190 38.8 34.9 39.3 36.5 38.2 0.984

950 54040 40.0 36.2 40.5 37.0 39.4 0.003

1000 56880 41.1 37.5 41.8 38.4 40.7 0.003

1050 59730 42.3 38.9 43.0 38.9 41.6 0.040

1100 62570 43.4 40.2 44.2 40.4 42.7 0.078

1150 65410 43.6 42.5 45.5 40.8 43.7 0.078

1200 68260 44.7 43.8 46.7 42.3 44.8 0.068

1250 71100 45.9 45.2 48.0 43.8 45.8 0.059

1300 73950 47.1 46.5 49.2 44.3 46.8 0.040

1350 76790 48.2 47.8 51.4 45.7 47.8 0.031

1400 79630 49.4 49.1 52.7 47.2 48.4 1.021

 75

ETHANOL 21% wt, De = 0.225 in

4 Q/A ATsi iTs2 ATs3 LTs4 ATs u

400 22750 28.2 27.6 25.9 28.8 24.8 0.519

450 25600 28.4 28.9 27.1 30.2 25.9 0.556

500 28440 28.6 29.3 27.4 30.7 26.9 0.575

550 31280 28.7 29.6 27.6 30.2 27.9 0.650
600 34130 28.9 29.9 27.9 30.7 28.8 0.688

650 36970 29.0 29.2 29.1 30.1 29.6 0.744

700 39820 29.2 29.6 29.3 30.6 30.5 0.782

750 42660 30.3 29.9 29.6 30.1 31.3 0.839

800 45510 30.5 30.2 29.8 30.5 32.0 0.876

850 48350 30.7 30.6 31.1 31.0 32.7 0.914

900 51190 31.8 30.9 31.3 31.5 33.4 0.970

950 54040 33.0 32.2 32.5 32.0 34.1 0.008

1000 56880 33.1 32.5 33.8 32.4 34.8 0.027

1050 59730 34.3 33.9 35.0 32.9 35.4 0.046

1100 62570 35.4 35.2 36.2 34.4 36.0 0.046

1150 65410 35.6 35.5 37.5 34.8 36.6 0.046

1200 68260 36.7 36.8 38.7 36.3 37.2 1.027

1250 71100 36.9 38.2 40.0 36.8 37.8 1.027

1

1300 73950 38.1 39.5 41.2 38.3 38.3 1.008

1350 76790 39.2 40.8 41.4 38.7 38.9 0.989

1400 79630 40.4 42.1 42.7 39.2 39.4 0.970

 76

n-PROPANOL , De = 0.225 in

Q Q/A ATsi iTs2 1Ts3 ATs4 ATs u

300 17060 27.9 27.0 29.4 26.8 26.6 0.741

350 19910 29.1 28.3 30.7 27.3 28.4 0.849

400 22750 30.2 29.6 31.9 28.8 29.9 0.957

450 25600 31.4 30.9 33.1 30.2 31.4 1.021

500 28440 32.6 32.3 34.4 30.7 32.7 1.064

550 31280 33.7 32.6 35.6 32.2 34.0 1.108

600 34130 35.9 34.9 36.9 33.7 35.2 1.108

650 36970 37.0 36.2 38.1 35.1 36.4 1.108

700 39820 38.2 37.6 39.3 35.6 37.5 1.086

750 42260 39.3 37.9 39.6 36.1 38.6 1.086

800 45510 40.5 39.2 40.8 37.5 39.6 1.086

850 48350 41.7 40.6 42.1 39.0 40.6 1.064

900 51190 41.8 40.9 43.3 39.5 41.5 1.043

950 54040 43.0 42.2 43.5 40.0 42.4 1.021

1000 56880 44.1 42.5 44.8 41.4 43.3 1.000

1050 59730 44.3 43.9 45.0 41.9 44.2 0.978

1100 62570 45.4 44.2 46.2 42.4 45.0 0.957

1150 65410 46.6 45.5 47.5 43.8 45.8 0.957

1200 68260 46.7 45.8 47.7 44.3 46.6 0.968

 77

i-PROPANOL , De = 0.225 in

Q Q/A ATs1 iTs2 ATe3 ATe4 LTs u

300 17060 26.9 25.0 28.4 25.8 25.2 0.826

350 19910 28.1 26.3 29.7 26.3 26.7 0.968

400 22750 29.2 27.6 30.9 27.8 28.1 1.049

450 25600 30.4 28.9 32.1 28.2 29.4 1.090

500 28440 31.6 30.3 32.4 29.7 30.6 1.171

550 31280 31.7 30.6 33.6 30.2 31.0 1.171

600 34130 32.9 31.9 34.9 30.7 32.8 1.171

650 36970 34.0 33.2 35.1 32.1 33.9 1.150

700 39820 35.2 34.6 36.3 32.6 34.8 1.150

750 42260 35.3 34.9 36.6 33.1 35.8 1.130

800 45510 36.5 35.2 37.8 34.5 36.7 1.130

850 48350 37.7 36.6 38.1 35.0 37.5 1.110

900 51190 37.8 36.9 39.3 35.5 38.3 1.090

950 54040 39.0 38.2 40.5 37.0 39.1 1.069

1000 56880 40.1 39.5 40.8 37.4 39.9 1.008

1050 59730 41.3 39.9 42.0 37.9 40.7 0.988

1100 62570 41.4 41.2 43.2 39.4 41.4 0.988

1150 65410 42.6 42.5 44.5 39.8 42.1 0.968

1200 68260 43.7 43.8 45.7 41.3 42.8 0.968

 78

n-BUTANOL , De = 0.225 in

4 Q/A Aire]. ATe2 ATe3 ATe4 Al's u

300 17060 28.9 27.0 30.4 26.8 29.1 0.950

350 19910 32.1 30.3 33.7 30.3 31.5 0.992
400 22750 34.2 32.6 35.9 32.8 33.6 1.034

450 25600 37.4 35.9 39.1 35.2 35.7 1.118

500 28440 39.6 37.3 41.4 36.7 37.6 1.139

550 31280 40.7 39.6 42.6 38.2 39.4 1.160

600 34130 42.9 41.9 44.9 40.7 41.1 1.160

650 36970 44.0 43.2 46.1 42.1 42.8 1.118

700 39820 45.2 44.6 46.3 43.6 44.4 1.118

750 42660 46.3 45.9 47.6 44.1 46.0 1.139

800 45510 47.5 47.2 48.8 45.5 47.5 1.118

850 48350 48.7 48.6 50.1 46.0 48.9 1.097

900 51190 50.8 49.9 51.3 47.5 50.3 1.076

950 54040 52.0 50.2 52.5 48.0 51.7 1.055

1000 56880 53.1 51.5 54.8 49.4 53.0 1.013

1050 59730 54.3 52.9 56.0 50.9 54.3 0.950

1100 62570 55.4 54.2 57.2 52.4 55.6 0.930

1150 65410 56.6 55.5 58.5 52.8 56.9 0.887

1200 68260 57.7 56.8 59.7 54.3 58.1 0.866

 79

WATER , De = 0.750 in

Q/A ATs1 ATs2 ATs3 ATs4 ATs u

500 28440 26.6 27.3 28.4 24.7 25.6 0.093

550 31280 27.7 28.6 29.6 26.2 26.7 0.101
600 34130 28.9 28.9 30.9 26.7 27.7 0.112
650 36970 30.0 30.2 32.1 27.1 28.6 0.124
700 39820 30.2 30.6 32.3 27.3 29.6 0.137
750 42660 31.3 30.9 32.6 28.1 30.5 0.154
800 45510 31.5 32.2 32.8 28.5 31.3 0.166
850 48350 32.7 32.6 34.1 29.0 32.1 0.177
900 51190 32.8 32.9 34.3 30.5 32.9 0.188

950 54040 34.0 34.2 35.5 31.0 33.7 0.200

1000 56880 34.1 35.5 35.8 31.4 34.5 0.215

1050 59730 35.3 35.9 37.0 32.9 35.2 0.228

1100 62570 35.4 37.2 37.2 33.4 35.9 0.238

1150 65410 36.6 37.5 38.5 33.8 36.6 0.245

1200 68260 36.7 38.8 38.7 34.3 37.3 0.257

1250 71100 36.9 39.2 40.0 34.8 37.9 0.264

1300 73950 37.1 40.5 40.2 35.3 38.6 0.276

1350 76790 38.2 40.8 40.4 35.7 39.2 0.285

1400 79630 38.4 41.1 40.7 36.2 39.8 0.291

1450 82480 39.5 41.5 40.9 36.7 40.4 0.291

1500 85320 39.7 41.8 41.2 37.1 41.0 0.294

1550 88170 39.8 42.1 42.4 37.6 41.6 0.294

1600 91010 40.0 42.4 42.6 38.1 42.2 0.296

 80

ETHANOL 100% , De = 0.750 in

Q/A ATs1 LTs2 ATs3 LTs4 ATs u

300 17060 25.9 24.0 27.4 24.8 24.7 0.204

350 19910 28.1 25.3 28.7 25.3 26.4 0.221
400 22750 30.2 26.6 30.9 27.8 27.9 0.238
450 25600 31.4 28.9 32.1 29.2 29.3 0.255
500 28440 32.6 29.3 33.4 29.7 30.6 0.268
550 31280 33.7 30.6 34.6 31.2 31.8 0.290
600 34130 34.9 31.9 35.9 31.7 33.0 0.307
650 36970 36.0 33.2 37.1 33.1 34.8 0.320
700 39820 36.2 33.6 37.3 33.6 35.2 0.333
750 42660 37.3 34.9 38.6 34.1 36.2 0.337

800 45510 38.5 35.2 39.8 34.5 37.2 0.350

850 48350 38.7 35.6 40.1 35.0 38.2 0.343

900 51190 39.8 36.9 41.3 36.5 39.1 0.341

950 54040 40.0 37.2 41.5 37.0 40.0 0.354

1000 56880 41.1 37.5 42.8 37.4 40.8 0.350

1050 59730 42.3 38.9 44.0 38.9 41.7 0.348

1100 62570 43.4 39.2 44.2 39.4 42.5 0.343

1150 65410 44.6 40.5 45.5 39.8 43.3 0.337

1200 68260 44.7 40.8 45.7 40.3 44.0 0.332

 81

ETHANOL 70% wt , De = 0.750 in

Q QUA ATsi iTs2 iTs3 ATe4 ATs u

300 17060 27.9 27.0 28.4 25.8 26.2 0.129

350 19910 30.1 28.3 29.7 27.3 27.9 0.141
400 22750 31.2 29.6 30.9 28.8 29.5 0.149
450 25600 32.4 30.9 32.1 30.2 31.1 0.160
500 28440 33.6 32.3 34.4 31.7 32.5 0.174
550 31280 35.7 33.6 35.6 33.2 33.8 0.182
600 34130 36.9 33.9 36.9 33.7 35.1 0.211

650 36970 38.0 35.2 38.1 34.1 36.3 0.223

700 39820 39.2 35.6 38.3 35.6 37.4 0.235

750 42660 39.3 36.9 38.6 36.1 38.5 0.256

800 45510 40.5 37.2 38.8 36.5 39.2 0.266

850 48350 41.7 38.6 40.1 38.0 40.6 0.276

900 51190 41.8 38.9 41.3 38.5 41.6 0.288

950 54040 43.0 40.2 42.5 39.0 42.5 0.296

1000 56880 44.1 41.5 43.8 40.4 43.5 0.305

1050 59730 45.3 42.9 45.0 40.9 44.4 0.309

1100 62570 46.4 44.2 46.2 42.4 45.2 0.317

1150 65410 46.6 45.5 47.5 43.8 46.1 0.321

1200 68260 47.7 46.8 47.7 45.3 46.9 0.325

1250 71100 48.9 48.2 49.0 46.8 47.8 0.327

1300 73950 50.1 49.5 50.2 48.3 48.5 0.323

1350 76790 51.2 49.8 51.4 48.7 49.3 0.319

1400 79630 52.4 51.1 52.7 49.2 50.1 0.317

 82

ETHANOL 44% wt , De = 0.750 in

4 Q/A ATsi ATs2 ATs3 ATs4 ATs u

400 22750 31.2 28.6 31.9 31.8 31.5 0.135

450 25600 33.4 29.9 34.1 33.2 33.3 0.146

500 28440 35.6 33.3 36.4 35.7 35.0 0.162

550 31280 36.7 34.6 37.6 37.2 36.6 0.177

600 34130 38.9 36.9 39.9 39.7 38.2 0.201

650 36970 40.0 39.2 41.1 41.1 39.7 0.213

700 39820 42.2 41.6 43.3 42.6 41.1 0.224

750 42660 43.3 42.9 44.6 44.1 42.4 0.232

800 45510 44.5 44.2 44.8 44.5 43.8 0.236

850 48350 45.7 45.6 46.1 45.0 45.0 0.243

900 51190 46.8 46.9 47.3 46.5 46.3 0.252

950 54040 48.0 48.2 47.5 48.0 47.5 0.263

1000 56880 49.1 48.5 49.8 48.4 48.6 0.280

1050 59730 50.3 49.9 50.0 48.9 49.8 0.290

1100 62570 50.4 51.2 52.2 49.4 50.9 0.302

1150 65410 51.6 52.5 53.5 50.8 52.0 0.312

1200 68260 52.7 52.8 54.7 51.3 53.0 0.318

1250 71100 52.9 53.2 55.0 51.8 54.1 0.316

1300 73950 54.1 53.5 56.2 52.3 55.1 0.310

1350 76790 54.2 53.8 56.4 52.7 56.1 0.304

1400 79630 54.4 54.1 56.7 53.2 57.0 0.302

 83

ETHANOL 21% wt , De = 0.750 in

Q Q/A LTs1 LTs2 1Ts3 ITs4 ATs u

400 22750 31.2 30.6 30.9 28.8 29.9 0.116

450 25600 33.4 30.9 32.1 30.2 31.2 0.135

500 28440 34.6 32.3 33.4 31.7 32.4 0.147

550 31280 35.7 33.6 34.6 32.2 33.6 0.174

600 34130 36.9 34.9 35.9 33.7 34.7 0.188

650 36970 38.0 35.2 37.1 35.1 35.7 0.198

700 39820 39.2 36.6 38.3 35.6 36.7 0.206

750 42660 40.3 36.9 38.6 36.1 37.4 0.214

800 45510 41.5 37.2 39.8 36.5 38.5 0.221

850 48350 41.T 38.6 40.1 37.0 39.4 0.233

900 51190 42.8 38.9 41.3 38.5 40.2 0.249

950 54040 44.0 40.2 41.5 39.0 41.0 0.260

1000 56880 44.1 40.5 41.8 39.4 41.8 0.274

1050 59730 44.3 41.9 43.0 39.9 42.5 0.280

1100 62570 44.4 42.2 43.2 40.4 43.2 0.286

1150 65410 45.6 42.5 43.5 40.8 43.9 0.292

1200 68260 45.7 42.8 44.7 41.3 44.6 0.303

1250 71100 46.9 44.2 45.0 41.8 45.3 0.308

1300 73950 47.1 44.5 46.2 43.3 46.0 0.305

1350 76790 48.2 45.8 46.4 43.7 46.6 0.300

1400 79630 48.4 46.1 47.7 44.2 47.2 0.290

 84

n-PROPANOL , De = 0.750 in

Q Q/A ATs1 ITs2 ATs3 iTs4 ATs u

300 17060 28.9 27.0 30.4 27.8 28.2 0.208

350 19910 31.1 28.3 32.7 29.3 29.8 0.217

400 22750 32.2 30.6 34.9 30.8 31.3 0.235

450 25600 34.4 31.9 35.1 32.2 32.7 0.249

500 28440 35.6 33.3 36.4 32.7 34.1 0.276

550 31280 36.7 34.6 37.6 34.2 35.3 0.298

600 34130 37.9 35.9 38.9 35.7 36.4 0.325

650 36970 39.0 37.2 40.1 36.1 37.5 0.334

700 39820 40.2 37.6 40.3 36.6 38.6 0.347

750 42660 40.3 38.9 41.6 37.1 39.6 0.365

800 45510 41.5 39.2 42.8 38.5 40.6 0.379

850 48350 42.7 40.6 43.1 39.0 41.5 0.388

900 51190 43.8 40.9 44.3 39.5 42.4 0.381

950 54040 44.0 42.2 45.5 40.0 43.2 0.379

1000 56880 45.1 42.5 45.8 41.4 44.1 0.377

1050 59730 45.3 42.9 46.0 41.9 44.9 0.374

1100 62570 46.4 44.2 47.2 42.4 45.7 0.370

1150 65410 46.6 44.5 47.5 42.8 46.4 0.365

1200 68260 46.7 44.8 47.7 43.3 47.2 0.363

 85

i-PROPANOL , De = 0.750 in

4 Q/A ATsi ATs2 1Ts3 1Ts4 ATs u

300 17060 27.9 26.0 29.4 25.8 26.7 0.189

350 19910 29.1 28.3 30.7 27.3 28.0 0.202

400 22750 30.2 29.6 31.9 28.8 29.2 0.219

450 25600 31.4 30.9 33.1 29.2 30.4 0.227

500 28440 32.6 31.3 33.4 30.7 31.4 0.236

550 31280 33.7 31.6 34.6 31.2 32.4 0.248

600 34130 34.9 32.9 34.9 32.7 33.3 0.270

650 36970 35.0 33.0 36.1 33.1 34.2 0.278

700 39820 35.2 33.6 36.3 32.6 35.1 0.293

750 42660 36.3 34.9 36.6 33.1 35.8 0.303

800 45510 36.5 35.2 37.8 34.5 36.6 0.316

850 48350 37.7 35.6 38.1 35.0 37.3 0.329

900 51190 37.8 36.9 39.3 35.5 38.0 0.337

950 54040 39.0 37.2 39.5 36.0 38.7 0.344

1000 56880 40.1 38.5 40.8 36.4 39.3 0.346

1050 59730 41.3 38.9 41.0 37.9 40.9 0.350

1100 62570 41.4 39.2 42.2 38.4 40.6 0.358

1150 65410 41.6 40.5 42.5 38.8 41.2 0.352

1200 68260 42.7 40.8 43.7 39.3 41.7 0.342

 86

n-BUTANOL , De = 0.750 in

4 Q/A ITs1 ATs2 LTs3 ATs4 ATs u

300 17060 31.9 32.0 34.4 30.8 32.9 0.150

350 19910 34.1 34.3 36.7 33.3 35.0 0.163

400 22750 36.2 36.6 39.9 35.8 37.0 0.185

450 25600 39.4 38.9 42.1 38.2 38.9 0.207

500 28440 41.6 41.3 44.4 39.7 40.7 0.228

550 31280 43.7 42.6 46.6 42.2 42.3 0.246

600 34130 45.9 44.9 47.9 43.7 43.9 0.257

650 36970 47.0 46.2 49.1 45.1 45.4 0.272

700 39820 48.2 46.6 49.3 46.6 46.8 0.281

750 42660 49.3 47.9 50.6 47.1 48.2 0.296

800 45510 49.5 49.2 50.8 47.5 49.6 0.316

850 48350 50.7 49.6 52.1 49.0 50.7 0.324

900 51190 51.8 50.9 53.3 49.5 52.0 0.337

950 54040 53.0 52.2 54.5 51.0 53.2 0.342

1000 56880 54.1 52.5 55.8 51.4 54.3 0.340

1050 59730 55.3 53.9 56.0 51.9 55.4 0.337

1100 62570 56.4 54.2 57.2 53.4 56.5 0.337

1150 65410 57.6 55.5 58.5 53.8 57.6 0.335

1200 68260 57.7 56.8 58.7 54.3 58.6 0.333

 87

APPENDIX B-1

Sample calculation of wall superheat

Case of water, De = 0.225 in, wall thermocouple no. 1:

Given: Q/A = 28440 Btu/hr.ft2
AT = 48 °F

RW = 10.00 x 10 -4 hr.ft.20F/Btu

By equation 19:

h = 1/( 48 - 10.00 x 10 -4) = 1454 Btu/hr.ft.20F

28440

and by equation 21:

AT
s = 28440 = 19.6 °F
1454
 88

APPENDIX B-2

Sample calculation of experimental uncertainty

Case of water, De = 0.225 in, wall thermocouple no. 1:

Given: A = 0.06 ft2

Q = 500 w = 1706 Btu/hr

AT = 10.00 x 10-4 hr.ft2. °F /Btu

Uncertainties on RW, A, AT and Q (see p.33)

By equations 25.a through 25.d

9,A1
7Ts =

3T s = - 10.00 x 10
-4
= -1.67 x 10
-2
8Q 0.06

aTs (1706)(10.00 x 10
-4
= 474
=
2
3A (0.06)

3LT
s = - 1706 = -28440
TETT- 0.06

then by equation 23:

-4
AT = 48 - (28440)(10.00 x 10 ) = 19.6 °F
s

and finally by equation 24:

2 -2 2 2
W AT = [(1 x 2.5) + (-1.67 x 10 x 50) + (474 x 0.0014)

-4 2 1/2
+ (-28440 x 0.41 x 10 ) ]

= 2.5°F
 89

Experimental error:

E% = 2.5 x 100 = 12.7%

19.6
 90

APPENDIX B-3

Sample calculation of the heat flux predicted by Chen's

equation

Case of water, De = 0.225 in = 0.01875 ft, Acs = 0.0015 ft2

Given: Q = 500 w = 1706 Btu/hr

ATs = 17.4°F

u = 0.276 ft/sec = 961.2 ft/hr

Physical properties of fluids (see table 3, p.41)

Following the calculation procedure on p.39:

a. m = (961.2)(59.8)(0.0015) = 86.2 lb/hr

b. x = 1706 = 0.02
(82.2) (972.9)

c. Re = (0.01875)(86.2/0.0015)(1-0.02) = 1569
L
(0.673)

9 5 1
1 0.02 59.8 = 0.89
d.
X 1-0.02 0.0367 0.673
tt

e. F = 2.35(0.89 + 0.213).736 = 2.52

f. Pr = (1.0076) (0.673) = 1.72

L
(0.394)

.8 .4
g. h = 0.023(1569) (1.72) ( 0.394 1 (2.52)
mac 0.01875)

= 545 Btu /hr.ft2. °F

h. Re = (1569)(2.52)1'25 = 4982
TP
 91

h
1. mic=0.00122 (0.394) .79 (1.0076) .45 (59.8) .49 (4.17x10 8 .25 )

-4 .5 .29 .24 .24

(41.83x10 ) (0.673) (972.9) (0.0367)

x (17.4)'24(750.24).75(0.948)

= 1234 Btu /hr.ft2. °F

J h = 545 + 1234 = 1779 Btu/hr.ft2.°F

k. (1779)(17.4) = 30954 Btu/hr.ft2

(Q/A)Chen

Deviation from the experimental heat flux value (28440

2
Btu/hr.ft ):

Deviation % = 30954 - 28440 x 100 = 8.8%

28440
 92

APPENDIX B-4

Sample calculation of the heat flux predicted by Rohsenow's

equation

Case of water, De = 0.225 in

Given: Q = 500 w = 1706 Btu/hr

Ts = 17.4°F

Prr, = 1.72

Csf = 0.020

s = 1.0

By equations 46:

(Q/A) Rohs. = 3.03

1.0076
(972.9) (0.020) (1.72)

x (4.17x108)(59.8-0.0997) 0.5
8 -4
[ (4.17x10 )(41.83x10 )

3.03
x (0.673)(972.9)(17.4)

2
= 11254 Btu/hr.ft

Deviation from the experimental heat flux value (28440

2
Btu/hr.ft ) :

Deviation = 11254 - 28440 x 100 = -60.4%

28440