Chapter - 9 Fundamental On Boiling Tube PDF

ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE
Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
Pool boiling curve.

Heat transfer mechanisms in pool boiling.
Nucleate pool boiling correlations.
Departure from nucleate boiling (DNB).
Nucleate boiling of zeotropic mixtures.
Enhanced nucleate pool boiling.
Boiling on horizontal tube bundles.
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
Figure 9.6
dbfig 9.5
Figure 9.5
1000
IB - Incipience of Boiling
DNB - Departure from Nucleate Boiling
MFB - Minimum Film Boiling
DNB
Heat Flux (kW/m2)
100
Nucleate Boiling
Film Boiling
10
MFB
IB
Natural convection
1
1
10
100
1000
Wall Superheat (K)
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
Figure 9.7
Intense
Bubble
agitation
mechanism.
convection in the liquid adjacent to the heated
wall is induced by the lateral pumping motion
of growing and departing bubbles, which
transforms the natural convection process into
a localized forced convection process.
Vapor-liquid exchange mechanism. Transient
conduction from the hot wall into the liquid
forms a superheated layer on the surface and
its removal by departing bubbles gives rise to a
cyclic thermal boundary layer stripping
phenomenon.
Evaporation mechanism. Vapor bubbles grow
in the superheated layer formed on the heated
surface. Macro-evaporation occurs over the
top of the bubble surrounded by the thermal
boundary layer while micro-evaporation
occurs underneath the bubble across the thin
layer of liquid trapped between a rapidly
growing bubble and the surface, referred to as
microlayer evaporation.
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
Rohsenow (1962) proposed one of the first nucleate pool boiling correlations, based on the
bubble agitation mechanism and formulated as a single phase forced convection correlation:
Nu = C1 Re x Pr y
[9.3.1]
The Nusselt number for boiling was defined as follows where the bracketed term is the bubble
departure diameter, designated as the characteristic length:
Nu =
nb
k L g L G )
1/ 2
[9.3.2]
In this expression, nb is the nucleate pool boiling heat transfer coefficient. His Reynolds
number was defined in terms of the superficial velocity of the liquid as
Re =
h LG L g( L G )
1/ 2
L
L
[9.3.3]
where hLG is the latent heat and L is the liquid dynamic viscosity.
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
An empirical constant Csf was introduced to account for the influence of the liquid-surface
combination observed in his database as follows:
Nu =
1
Re(1 n ) Pr m
Csf
[9.3.4]
The Rohsenow correlation is normally presented in the following form:

n
1/ 2
q
c pL T

m +1
=
C
sf
PrL
L h LG g ( L G )
h LG
[9.3.5]
The specific heat of the liquid is cpL and PrL is the liquid Prandtl number; nb is obtained from the
definition of the heat transfer coefficient, that is nb = q/T. The values of the exponents are
m=0.7 and n=0.33 (equivalent to q T3) for all fluids except for water for which Rohsenow
recommended setting m=0. Values of Csf for various surface-fluid combinations of Rohsenow
and additional values proposed by Vachon, Nix and Tangor (1967) are listed in Table 9.1. This
method is now mostly of historical value, pointing to the importance of the micro-topology of
the boiling surface on nucleate boiling heat transfer.
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
Table 9.1 Values of Csf for Rohsenow correlation.

Liquid-surface combination
n-Pentane on polished copper
n-Pentane on polished nickel
Water on polished copper
Carbon tetrachloride on polished copper
Water on lapped copper
n-Pentane on lapped copper
n-Pentane on emery polished copper
Water on scored copper
Water on ground and polished stainless steel
Water on PTFE pitted stainless steel
Water on chemically etched stainless steel
Water on mechanically polished stainless steel
Csf
0.0154
0.0127
0.0128
0.0070
0.0147
0.0049
0.0074
0.0068
0.0800
0.0058
0.0133
0.0132
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
Mostinski (1963) ignored surface effects and applied the principle of corresponding states to
nucleate pool boiling heat transfer, correlating data as a function of the reduced pressure of the
fluid pr and its critical pressure pcrit. His dimensional reduced pressure correlation gives nb in
W/m2K as:
nb = 0.00417q 0.7 p0crit.69 FP
[9.3.6]
The correlation must be used with q in W/m2 and pcrit in kN/m2 (i.e. in kPa, not in N/m2). FP is a
non-dimensional pressure correction factor that characterizes pressure effects on nucleate boiling
as
FP = 1.8p 0r.17 + 4p1r.2 + 10p10

r
[9.3.7]
This correlation gives reasonable results for a wide range of fluids and reduced pressures.
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
Stephan and Abdelsalam (1980) proposed four specific correlations applying a statistical
multiple regression technique to the following fluid classes: water, organics, refrigerants and
cryogens. Their organic fluid correlation is the most widely quoted and it is given as:

nb d bub
= 0.0546 G
kL
L
1/ 2
qd bub
k L Tsat
0.67
h LG d 2bub
2
aL
0.248
L G
4.33
[9.3.8]
The expression to the left of the equal sign is a Nusselt number and their bubble departure
diameter dbub is obtained from
2
d bub = 0.0146
g( L G )
1/ 2
[9.3.9]
The contact angle is assigned a fixed value of 35 irrespective of the fluid, Tsat is the saturation
temperature of the fluid in K, and aL is the liquid thermal diffusivity.
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
Cooper (1984) proposed a new reduced pressure form of pool boiling correlation including the
surface roughness of the boiling surface as a variable:
0.12 0.4343 ln R p
nb = 55p r
( 0.4343 ln p r )0.55 M 0.5q 0.67
[9.3.10]
This is a dimensional correlation in which nb is in W/m2K, the heat flux q is in W/m2, M is the
molecular weight of the fluid and Rp is the surface roughness in m. When Rp is unknown, it is set
to 1.0 m. He recommended multiplying the above heat transfer coefficient by 1.7 for horizontal
copper cylinders; however, the correlation seems to be more accurate for boiling of refrigerants on
copper tubes without this correction and that is the approach recommended here. The Cooper
correlation covers reduced pressures from about 0.001 to 0.9 and molecular weights from 2 to
200.
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
Gorenflo (1993) proposed a fluid specific reduced pressure correlation and included the effect
of surface roughness. His method uses a reference heat transfer coefficient, o, specified for
each fluid at the following fixed reference conditions of pro=0.1, Rpo=0.4 m and qo=20,000
W/m2. His values of o are listed in Table 9.2 for selected fluids. The nucleate boiling heat
transfer coefficient nb at other conditions of pressure, heat flux and roughness is then
calculated relative to the reference heat transfer coefficient using the following expression:
nb = o FPF (q / q 0 )nf R p / R po
His pressure correction factor FPF is
)0.133
FPF = 1.2p 0r.27 + 2.5p r +
[9.3.11]
pr
1 pr
[9.3.12]
The effect of reduced pressure on his exponent nf for the heat flux term is given by:
nf = 0.9 0.3p 0r.3
[9.3.13]
Its value decreases with increasing reduced pressure, which is typical of experimental data. The
surface roughness is Rp in m and is set to 0.4 m when unknown.
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
The above method is for all fluids except water and helium; for water the corresponding
equations are:
0.68 2
p r
FPF = 1.73p 0r.27 + 6.1 +
1 p r
[9.3.14]
nf = 0.9 0.3p 0r.15
[9.3.15]
and
This method is applicable over the reduced pressure range from about 0.0005 to 0.95. For fluids
not listed, experimental values can be input at the reference conditions, or another correlation can
be used to estimate o. For fluids on the list, this method gives accurate results over a very wide
range of heat flux and pressure and is probably to most reliable of those presented.
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
Table 9.2. References values of

Gorenflo (1993) with o in W/m2K
at pro = 0.1, qo = 20,000 W/m2 and
Rpo = 0.4 m with pcrit in bar.
Fluid
Methane
Ethane
Propane
n-Butane
n-Pentane
i-Pentane
n-Hexane
n-Heptane
Benzene
Toluene
Diphenyl
Ethanol
n-Propanol
i-propanol
n-Butanol
i-Butanol
Acetone
R-11
R-12
R-13
R-13B1
R-22
R-23
R-113
R-114
R-115
R-123
R-134a
R-152a
R-226
R-227
RC318
R-502
Chloromethane
Tetrafluoromethane
Hydrogen (on Cu)
Neon (on Cu)
Nitrogen (on Cu)
Nitrogen (on Pt)
Argon (on Cu)
Argon (on Pt)
Oxygen (on Cu)
Oxygen (on Pt)
Water
Ammonia
Carbon Dioxide *
Sulfur Hexafluoride
* At triple point.
pcrit
46.0
48.8
42.4
38.0
33.7
33.3
29.7
27.3
48.9
41.1
38.5
63.8
51.7
47.6
49.6
43.0
47.0
44.0
41.6
38.6
39.8
49.9
48.7
34.1
32.6
31.3
36.7
40.6
45.2
30.6
29.3
28.0
40.8
66.8
37.4
12.97
26.5
34.0
34.0
49.0
49.0
50.5
50.5
220.6
113.0
73.8
37.6
16.04
30.07
44.10
58.12
72.15
72.15
86.18
100.2
78.11
92.14
154.2
46.07
60.10
60.10
74.12
74.12
58.08
137.4
120.9
104.5
148.9
86.47
70.02
187.4
170.9
154.5
152.9
102.0
66.05
186.5
170.0
200.0
111.6
50.49
88.00
2.02
20.18
28.02
28.02
39.95
39.95
32.00
32.00
18.02
17.03
44.01
146.1
7000
4500
4000
3600
3400
2500
3300
3200
2750
2650
2100
4400
3800
3000
2600
4500
3950
2800
4000
3900
3500
3900
4400
2650
2800
4200
2600
4500
4000
3700
3800
4200
3300
4400
4750
24000
20000
10000
7000
8200
6700
9500
7200
5600
7000
5100
3700
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
Example Calculation: Determine the nucleate pool boiling heat transfer coefficient for n-pentane
boiling on a polished copper surface (1.0 m roughness) at a pressure of 1.01 bar and a heat flux
of 30 kW/m2 using the Gorenflo method.
Solution: From Table 9.2, we see that o = 3400 W/m2K, pcrit = 33.7 bar and M = 72.15. Thus, pr
= psat/pcrit= 1.01/33.7 = 0.030 and thus
0.68
2
FPF = 1.73(0.030)0.27 + 6.1 +
(0.030) = 0.677
1 0.030
and
nf = 0.9 0.3(0.030)0.3 = 0.795

Substituting these values into his heat transfer correlation:
nb = 3400(0.677)(30000 / 20000)0.795 (1.0 / 0.4)0.133 = 3590 W m 2 K
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
The maximum heat flux attainable in the nucleate pool boiling regime of the pool boiling curve
illustrated in Figure 9.5 is the DNB point. This heat flux is called qDNB and is also often referred
to as the critical heat flux. The maximum in heat transfer rate occurs at the point of onset of a
hydrodynamic instability occurring close to the heater surface, which was first explained by
Zuber (1959) to be governed by the Taylor and Helmholtz instabilities. His model has since been
refined by Lienhard and Dhir (1973) for an infinite surface.
The Taylor instability governs the collapse of an infinite, horizontal planar interface of liquid
above a vapor or gas. The Taylor wavelength is that which predominates at the interface during
such a collapse. In the present case at the DNB, vapor jets formed above a large, flat horizontal
heater surface occur at spacings corresponding to the wavelength of the Taylor instability. The
Helmholtz instability, instead, describes the point at which a planar liquid interface goes unstable
when the velocity of a vapor or gas flowing parallel to their interface reaches some critical value.
Essentially, a small perturbation of the interface creates a low pressure zone on the convex side
and a high pressure zone on the concave side. The imbalance of the opposing pressure forces
acting on the vapor-liquid interface induces an instability, which is attenuated by interfacial
surface tension.
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
According to Zuber, it is the liquid interface of the rising vapor jets that go unstable. The resulting
expression for qDNB from such an analysis is:
q DNB = G h LG
which is equivalent to
2 1
G 2 3
g( L G )
16
q DNB = 0.149 1G/ 2 h LG 4 g(L G )
[9.3.16]
[9.3.17]
This equation is valid for flat infinite heaters facing upwards, by Lienhard and Dhir (1973), who
observed good agreement as long as the diameters or widths of the heaters were sufficiently large.
Kutateladze (1948) arrived at nearly the same expression using dimensional analysis:
q DNB = C1G/ 2 h LG 4 g( L G )
[9.3.18]
His empirical factor C was set to 0.131 based on comparison to experimental data. Zubers
analysis yielded a value of C = /24 = 0.1309, which is nearly identical to Kutateladzes value.
The Lienhard and Dhir solution for an infinite flat surface facing upwards gives C = 0.149, which
is 15% higher. The recommended expression for large surfaces is C = 0.1309 while for tubes this
value is corrected by a factor of 0.9.
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
Example Calculation: Determine the value of the heat flux at the DNB for water at 1.01 bar on a
horizontal tube where the required fluid physical properties are: L = 958.25 kg/m3; G = 0.6
kg/m3; hLG = 2256120 J/kg; = 0.05878 N/m.
Solution: The value of qDNB is first calculated and then that for the tube applying a correction of
0.9 as follows:
q DNB, tube = 0.9( / 24)(0.6 )
1/ 2
(2256120)4 9.81(958.25 0.6)(0.05878)
q DNB, tube = 998100 W m 2

Therefore, the heat flux at DNB for the tube is 998100 W/m2 (or 998.1 kW/m2).
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
Nucleate pool boiling of zeotropic mixtures is similar to boiling of pure fluids and azeotropic
mixtures, except for two additional complications: mass transfer effects and estimating the
mixture physical properties or the mixture critical pressure. Mass transfer occurs in
evaporation of zeotropic mixtures since they have different compositions in their liquid and
vapor phases, but not azeotropic mixtures since they have the same composition in each phase.
Mass transfer tends to reduce nucleate boiling heat transfer coefficients and, in some cases,
may reduce the value of the heat transfer coefficient by up to 90%. Detailed reviews of mixture
boiling are given by Thome and Shock (1984) and by Collier and Thome (1994).
The mass transfer effect on bubble growth can be explained in simple terms as follows.
Since the equilibrium composition of the more volatile component is larger in the vapor phase
than in the liquid phase, the more volatile component preferentially evaporates at the bubble
interface, which in turn reduces its composition there and induces the formation of a diffusion
layer in the liquid surrounding the bubble. The partial depletion of the more volatile component
at the interface increases that of the less volatile component, which increases the bubble point
temperature at the interface. This incremental rise in the local bubble point temperature can be
denoted as . Hence, to evaporate at the same rate as in a pure fluid, a larger superheat is
required for a mixture.
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
The effect of mass transfer on nucleate pool boiling heat transfer can therefore be explained by
introducing the parameter , which represents the increase in the bubble point temperature at
the surface due to preferential evaporation of the more volatile component. At a given heat
flux, the boiling superheat of the mixture is TI+ while that for an ideal fluid with the same
physical properties as the mixture is TI. Thus, the ratio of the mixture boiling heat transfer
coefficient nb to that of the ideal heat transfer coefficient nb,I at the same heat flux is:
TI
nb
=
nb , I TI +
[9.4.1]
The value of TI is the wall superheat that corresponds to nb,I, which is determined for
instance using the Cooper correlation with the molecular weight and critical pressure of the
mixture. Hence, as the value of increases, the ratio nb/nb,I decreases, which means that a
larger wall superheat is required in a mixture to transfer the same heat flux. As exploited in an
early mixture boiling prediction by Thome (1983), the maximum value of is the boiling
range of the mixture bp, which is equal to the difference between the dew point and the
bubble point temperatures at the composition of the liquid [bp is also referred to as the
temperature glide for refrigerant mixtures]. In fact, the actual value of varies from zero at
the inception of boiling, since no mass transfer occurs until evaporation takes place, up to bp
at the DNB, where all the liquid is assumed to be converted to vapor.
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
Starting from a mass transfer balance around an evaporating bubble and simplifying with an
approximate slope of the bubble point curve, the following expression was obtained to predict heat
transfer in the boiling of mixtures
nb nb ,I
q
= 1 +
bp 1 exp
nb ,I
L h LG mL
q
[9.4.2]
where mL is the mass transfer coefficient in the liquid (set to a fixed value of 0.0003 m/s). The
value of nb,I is determined with one of the pure fluid correlations presented earlier (with the
exception of the Gorenflo method that is not adapted to this). This method was proposed in 1985
and later published by Thome (1989). It is applicable to organic, refrigerant, aqueous,
hydrocarbon, and cryogenic multi-component mixtures (i.e. with two or more components) for
boiling ranges up to 30 K.
10
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
Example Calculation: Assuming an ideal heat transfer coefficient of 3000 W/m2K, determine
the mixture boiling coefficient at 50 kW/m2 for a mixture with a boiling range of 15 K, a liquid
density of 700 kg/m3 and a latent heat of 300000 J/kg.
Solution: Substituting values into the above expression,
1
nb
3000
50000
= 0.670
= 1 +
(15)1 exp
3000 50000
700
(
300000
)(
0
.
0003
)
nb = 0.67(3000 ) = 2009 W m 2 K
Thus, nb for the mixture is 2009 W/m2K, which is 33% lower than that of the equivalent pure
fluid.
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
Figure 9.1
11
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
Figure 9.2 depicts a photograph of a Turbo-Chil low finned tube made by Wolverine Tube Inc.
Figure 9.2
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
By mechanically deforming low finned tubes, it is possible for create a high density of reentrant channels and pores on a tubes surface, which increases heat transfer performance
significantly. Figure 9.3 shows several diagrams of the Turbo-B tube made by Wolverine
Tube Inc. that is widely used in refrigerant flooded evaporators, showing its external
enhanced boiling geometry and its internal helical fins for augmenting heat transfer to
chilled water.
Figure 9.3
12
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
Figure 9.8
Heat Transfer Mechanisms

Compared to a plain tube, enhanced nucleate boiling surfaces have significant performance
advantages. For instance, the enhancement ratio at the same wall superheat relative to that of a
comparable plain tube range from about 2-4 for low finned tubes but increase up to 15 times for
mechanically deformed low finned tubes such as for the Turbo-B tubes of Wolverine Tube Inc. or
Gewa-B tube of Wieland. Evaporation and convection occur both on the outside surface of an
enhanced boiling surface and inside its re-entrant passageways. There are four possible paths by
which heat can leave an enhanced surface:
1. As latent heat in vapor formed within the enhancement passageways (primary importance);
2. As latent heat in bubbles growing on the exterior of tube or while they are emerging from reentrant channels (secondary importance);
3. As sensible heat to liquid pumped through the re-entrant passageways (primary importance);
4. As sensible heat to liquid on exterior of tube (secondary importance).
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
The principal factors contributing to the high thermal performance of enhanced surfaces
have been identified by Thome (1990) as follows:
Nucleation superheat. Enhanced surfaces have re-entrant nucleation cavities (except for low
finned tubes) that are able to nucleate at very low wall superheats with respect to plain surfaces,
see Figure 9.9.
Wetted surface area. Low finned tubes have from 2 to 4 times the surface area of a plain tube
while complex enhancements have area ratios from 4 to 10 times those of plain tubes.
Thin film evaporation. Thin evaporating liquid films form on the extensive inner surfaces of the
re-entrant passageways.
Capillary evaporation. In corners, liquid menisci evaporate as heat is conducted into the liquid.
Internal convection. Liquid is pumped in and then back out of the re-entrant channels by the
action of the departing bubbles.
External convection. The high density and departure frequency of the bubbles emerging from
the re-entrant channels accentuates the external convection mechanisms, i.e. bubble agitation and
thermal boundary layer stripping.
13
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
With an end (cross-sectional) view of the

process in re-entrant channels of circular,
triangular and rectangular shape, Arshad and
Thome (1983) used a motor driven still camera
to observe the formation and dryout of the thin
liquid films. Figure 9.10 shows their
experimental setup and Figure 9.11 shows some
of their photographs of the process. Figure 9.12
illustrates a schematic sequence of nucleation,
formation and dryout of a liquid film in a
triangular re-entrant channel upon application
of a high heating rate.
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
Figure 9.13 Figure 9.13 illustrates a thin film

evaporation model hypothesized
by Xin and Chao (1985) for
rectangular re-entrant channels
with a slit opening. Hence, thin
evaporating films were seen to be
an important heat transfer
mechanism, analogous to the
microlayers formed underneath
rapidly growing bubbles on plain
surfaces, and are active over a
large surface area. Refer to
Thome (1990) for a complete
treatment of this subject.
14
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
100
Figure 9.14
Heat transfer coefficient (kW/m
K)
26 fpi low fin tube

tests at 4.4 C (40F)
10
R-11
R-12
R-134a
R-22
R-123
1
1
10
100
Heat Flux (kW/m 2)
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
dbfig 9.15 top

60
Turbo B
50
Finned tube
Smooth
Heat Flux (kW/m 2)
40
30
20
10
R-134a at 3.0 bar
0
0
Wall Superheat (K)
15
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
dbfig.9.16
100000
Turbo B
Heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K)
Plain
10000
1000
R-123
100
1000
10000
100000
Heat flux (W/m 2)
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
dbfig 9.17
200
R-123 at 4 C
180
Turbo Bii LP tube

Low Fin tube
160
Heat Flux (kW/m 2)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
Wall Superheat (K)
16
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
dbFig 9.18
40000
Tsat = 40F (4.4 C)
35000
Heat transfer coefficient (W/m 2K)
30000
25000
20000
15000
R22
10000
R134a
R32/R125(60/40)
R32/R125/R134a(30/10/60)
5000
R32/R134a(25/75)
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Heat Flux (kW/m 2)
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
CROSS-SECTIONAL VIEW ALONG AXIAL LENGTH OF TEST SECTION
COPPER TUBE BEARING HEAT SOURCE WATER WITH STAINLESS STEEL
ROD POSITIONED CONCENTRICALLY WITHIN THE COPPER TUBE
COPPER TUBE BEARING HEAT SOURCE WATER WITH STAINLESS STEEL
TUBE POSITIONED CONCENTRICALLY WITHIN THE COPPER TUBE
OUTLET PRESSURE TAP
REFRIGERANT
OUTLET
LIQUID
FILM
THERMOCOUPLES
LIQUID
REFRIGERANT
DROPLETS
CONVECTION
THROUGH
LIQUID FILM
(SPRAY FLOW)
VAPOR
REFRIGERANT
SLIDING
BUBBLE
EVAPORATION
HEAT SOURCE (CHUGGING FLOW)
WATER
DUMMY
TUBES
FLOW DISTRIBUTING PLATE
SATURATED
NUCLEATE
BOILING
(BUBBLY FLOW/
BUBBLE JET FLOW)
LIQUID
REFRIGERANT
INLET
PRESSURE
TAP
REFRIGERANT
INLET
Figure 9.20
17
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
Figure 9.21
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
dbFig 9.24
6000
Mass velocity = 14.5 kg /m2s
Pressure = 1.3 bar
Heat Transfer Coefficient (W/m 2K)
5000
4000
34 kW / m2
25 kW / m2
3000
9 kW / m2
3 kW / m2
2000
1000
0
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Vapor quality
18
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
dbFig 9.22
12000
Low Finned tube

R - 11 at 4.4 C
12 - 15 kg/m2s
11000
10000
45 kW / m2
9000
35 kW / m2
25 kW / m2
8000
15 kW / m2
7000
45 kW / m2
6000
35 kW / m2
Nucleate boiling
coefficient
5000
25 kW / m
4000
15 kW / m2
3000
2000
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
Vapor quality
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
dbFig 9.25
11000
R - 123 at 4.4 C
Turbo - B tube
19-25 kg/m2s
44 kW / m2
10000
36 kW / m2
Nucleate boiling
coefficient
9000
23 kW / m2
8000
44 kW / m2
14 kW / m2
36 kW / m2
7000
23 kW / m2
14 kW / m2
6000
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
Vapor quality
19
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE
For R-134a at 4C (psat = 337.7 kPa), the physical properties are:

M = 102.03, L = 1281 kg/m3; G = 16.56 kg/m3; L = 0.0002576 Ns/m2;
G = 0.0000109 Ns/m2; hLG = 195500 J/kg; kL = 0.0902 W/m K;
cpL = 1352 J/kg K; = 0.011 N/m; PrL = cpLL/kL =3.861; pr = 0.08320.
1. Determine the nucleate pool boiling heat transfer coefficient for R-134a
at 4C using the methods of Mostinski, Cooper, Stephan-Abdelsalam and
Gorenflo at a heat flux of 10 kW m-2 and surface roughness of 0.5 micron.
2. Calculate the heat flux at DNB for R-134a at 4C for a horizontal
cylinder of 5 mm diameter.
20

Chapter - 9 Fundamental On Boiling Tube PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Chapter - 9 Fundamental On Boiling Tube PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

Pool boiling curve.

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Wall Superheat (K)

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

The Rohsenow correlation is normally presented in the following form:

Table 9.1 Values of Csf for Rohsenow correlation.

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

nb = 0.00417q 0.7 p0crit.69 FP

FP = 1.8p 0r.17 + 4p1r.2 + 10p10

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

( 0.4343 ln p r )0.55 M 0.5q 0.67

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

nf = 0.9 0.3p 0r.3

nf = 0.9 0.3p 0r.15

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

Table 9.2. References values of

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

nf = 0.9 0.3(0.030)0.3 = 0.795

nb = 3400(0.677)(30000 / 20000)0.795 (1.0 / 0.4)0.133 = 3590 W m 2 K

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

q DNB = 0.149 1G/ 2 h LG 4 g(L G )

q DNB, tube = 0.9( / 24)(0.6 )

(2256120)4 9.81(958.25 0.6)(0.05878)

q DNB, tube = 998100 W m 2

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

Heat Transfer Mechanisms

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

With an end (cross-sectional) view of the

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

Figure 9.13 Figure 9.13 illustrates a thin film

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

26 fpi low fin tube

Heat Flux (kW/m 2)

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

dbfig 9.15 top

Heat Flux (kW/m 2)

Wall Superheat (K)

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

Heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K)

Heat flux (W/m 2)

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

Turbo Bii LP tube

Heat Flux (kW/m 2)

Wall Superheat (K)

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

Heat transfer coefficient (W/m 2K)

Heat Flux (kW/m 2)

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

Heat Transfer Coefficient (W/m 2K)

Laboratoire de Transfert de Chaleur et de Masse

Low Finned tube