International Journal of Refrigeration 30 (2007) 591e600

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrefrig

Model for absorption of water vapor into aqueous LiBr

flowing over a horizontal smooth tube
Icksoo Kyunga,1, Keith E. Herolda,*, Yong Tae Kangb,**
a
Center for Environmental Energy Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20742, USA
b
School of Mechanical and Industrial System Engineering, Kyung Hee University, Yong-In,
Kyung-Gi 449-701, Republic of Korea
Received 14 September 2006; received in revised form 7 November 2006; accepted 7 November 2006
Available online 19 December 2006

Abstract
A model for absorption of water vapor into aqueous LiBr flowing over a horizontal smooth tube is developed. The flow is
divided into three regimes: (1) falling film in contact with the tube, (2) drop formation at the bottom of the tube, and (3) drop fall
between the tubes. Governing equations are formulated for each flow regime, and the variations of solution temperature, LiBr
mass fraction, mass absorption rate and heat transfer rate are discussed including the effect of inlet subcooling. It is shown that
the temperature variation across the film exhibits a nonlinear profile near the top of the tube and this effect leads to the necessity
of a two-dimensional formulation in the falling film regime for accurate prediction. As has been observed previously, the mass
fraction boundary layer at the vapor/liquid interface is found to be very thin and this explains the low absorption flux. The model
predicts that significant absorption takes place in the drop formation regime with a considerable variation of temperature and
mass fraction.
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Refrigeration; Absorption system; Water; Lithium bromide; Modelling; Absorption; Horizontal tube; Smooth tube; Falling film

Modèle pour l’absorption de la vapeur d’eau par une

solution aqueuse de LiBr en écoulement à l’extérieur d’un
tube horizontal lisse
Mots clés : Froid ; Système à absorption ; Eau ; Bromure de lithium ; Modélisation ; Absorption ; Tube horizontal ; Tube lisse ; Film tombant

1. Introduction
* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author. Tel./fax: þ82 31 201 2990.
E-mail addresses: iskyung@verizon.net (I. Kyung), herold@ A comprehensive review of coupled heat and mass trans-
eng.umd.edu (K.E. Herold), ytkang@khu.ac.kr (Y.T. Kang). fer models for falling film absorption was done by Killion
1
Current address. Energy Concepts Co., 627 Ridgely Avenue, and Garimella [1] including vertical and horizontal configu-
Annapolis, MD 21401, USA. rations. They suggested that the hydrodynamics should be
0140-7007/$35.00 Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2006.11.001
592 I. Kyung et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 30 (2007) 591e600

Nomenclature
cp specific heat (J kg1 K1) v velocity in film thickness direction (m s1)
Dab mass diffusivity (m2 s1) V volume (m3)
g gravitational acceleration (m s2) X LiBr mass fraction (%)
ha heat of absorption (including heat of mixing) x flow directional coordinate
(J kg1) y coordinate perpendicular to flow direction
hcw cooling water side heat transfer coefficient
Greek letters
(W m2 K1)
a thermal diffusivity (m2 s1)
hl enthalpy of liquid LiBr solution (J kg1)
d film thickness (m)
hv enthalpy of water vapor (J kg1)
G specific film flow rate (kg m1 s1)
hw,l partial enthalpy of water in the liquid LiBr
l average distance between drop formation
solution (J kg1)
sites (m)
Kfall mass transfer coefficient in drop fall regime
m dynamic viscosity (kg m1 s1)
(m s1)
g kinematic viscosity (m2 s1)
Kform mass transfer coefficient in drop formation
r density (kg m3)
regime (m s1)
q angle (radian)
k thermal conductivity (W m1 K1)
Dq differential element
L length (m)
s surface tension (N m1)
m mass (kg)
x non-dimensional coordinate in x-direction
m_ mass flow rate (kg s1)
z non-dimensional coordinate in y-direction
Nd number of dripping sites
P pressure (Pa) Subscripts
r radius (m) a absorbed
Re Reynolds number (¼ 4G/m) b bulk
s spacing between tubes (m) cw cooling water
t time (s) d drop
tfall drop fall time (s) i inlet or inner
tform drop formation time (s) if interface
T temperature (K) k mesh number in x
U overall heat transfer coefficient between cool- o outer
ing water and tube (W m2 K1) sub subcooling
u velocity in flow direction (m s1) t tube

considered simultaneously in a coupled manner with the
heat and mass transfer processes. An early model for absorp-
tion of water vapor into aqueous LiBr flowing over horizon-
tal tubes was developed by Andberg and Vliet [2,3], who
simultaneously solved the momentum, energy and mass dif-
fusion equations and also provided a simple model using an
assumed mass fraction profile across the film. The simple
model [3] showed 10% deviation at the tube bottom com-
paring with the comprehensive model [2]. For the same
problem, Choudhury et al. [4] solved the energy and
mass diffusion equations. Both Andberg and Vliet [3] and
Choudhury et al. [4] used Nusselt’s theory for the thin film
hydrodynamics rather than solving the momentum equation.
Lu et al. [5] formulated a semi-empirical model of absorption
over horizontal tubes introducing two empirical parameters,
effective area coefficient and mass transfer enhancement fac-
tor, instead of actual tube surface area and mass diffusivity of
solution. The two parameters were determined from the
comparison of measured data with calculation and were
shown as a function of Reynolds number of the solution film.
Kirby and Perez-Blanco [6] and Atchley et al. [7] devel-
oped a model for absorption on horizontal tubes considering
three flow regimes: (1) falling film regime over cooled tube,
(2) drop formation regime at the bottom of the tube, and
(3) drop fall regime between the tubes. In the falling film
regime, the energy and mass diffusion equations were not
solved, but a simple 1D energy balance equation was formu-
lated on the falling film to solve for the bulk temperature.
The interface temperature was obtained from a formulation
derived using the assumption of a linear temperature profile
across the film, and absorption rate was calculated using
a mass transfer coefficient correlation. Kirby and Perez-
Blanco [6] studied the effect of cooling water flow rate,
solution flow rate, cooling water inlet temperature and ab-
sorber pressure on absorber outlet subcooling and absorber
heat load. Their model highlighted the importance of drop
formation in the overall performance of the absorber. Re-
cently, Jeong and Garimella [8] developed a combined
heat and mass transfer model for a horizontal tube absorber.
They studied in detail the effect of incomplete wetting on the
 I. Kyung et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 30 (2007) 591e600 593

absorption performance by introducing the wetting ratio. LiBr Solution

They found that the optimum solution flow rate ranged From Distributor
from 0.02 to 0.04 kg/ms without the incomplete wetting
problem. Killion and Garimella [9] studied the gravity-
y
driven flow of liquid films and droplets in horizontal tube
banks to identify the combined heat and mass transfer pro- x (x)
cess for each flow. Killion and Garimella [10] also studied
the pendant droplet motion for absorption on horizontal Falling
Film
tube banks and found that the surface area and volume of
a droplet between the tubes increased until the primary drop-
let impacted the tube beneath and both dropped sharply after
Drop
impact. Formation
The primary objective of the current study is to develop
an improved absorption model for use in absorber design. Drop Water
The approach was to use the model of Kirby and Perez- Fall Vapor
Blanco [6] for drop formation and drop fall regimes as
a starting point. The falling film model used by Kirby and
Perez-Blanco exhibits reduced accuracy when the solution
enters subcooled. In the improved model discussed here,
two-dimensional governing equations are formulated and Falling
solved for the falling film regime. The resulting three regime Film
model is found to have all the features needed to assemble
a tube bundle model.

2. Problem geometry and assumptions

Fig. 1 shows the geometry of the problem and the flow
regimes on a representative absorber tube. The flow regimes
are divided into three like the Kirby [11] model: (1) falling
film, (2) drop formation, and (3) drop fall regimes. LiBr
solution injected from a distributor at the absorber inlet is in-
troduced on the first tube as a planar jet and flows down by
gravity forming a thin film over the horizontal tube. The fall-
ing film is cooled by water flowing inside the tube and
absorption of water vapor takes place at the interface of the
falling film. The film forms drops at the bottom of the
tube, which fall to the next tube. During the drop formation
and the drop fall, adiabatic absorption takes place without
heat transfer to the cooling water, which causes an increase
of solution temperature and a decrease of LiBr mass fraction.
The assumptions made for this model are as follows:
- Film flow is two-dimensional and laminar.
- Falling film is thin and non-wavy flow.
- Falling film completely wets the tube wall.
- Thermodynamic equilibrium exists at the vapor/liquid
interface.
- Physical properties of LiBr solution are constant in
falling film regime.
- No shear stress is exerted at the vapor/liquid interface.
- No non-condensable gas exists in the vapor space.
- No heat transfer takes place between the liquid film
and the vapor.
Fig. 1. Geometry and flow regimes for horizontal absorber tube model.
an increase of the film Reynolds number. The current droplet
model covers a part of whole flow patterns in horizontal
absorber bundle.
3. Governing equations for falling film regime
In the falling film regime, Kirby and Perez-Blanco [6]
derived a 1D energy balance equation from a control volume
to predict the bulk temperature of the falling film. Andberg
and Vliet solved the energy equation with an assumed mass
fraction profile across the film [2] and also solved the mo-
mentum and energy equation simultaneously [3]. In Jeong
and Garimella’s model [8], it is assumed that the difference
between the interface and bulk temperature remain constant
as the solution flows over the tube. In the present study, how-
ever, the energy and mass diffusion equations are solved
simultaneously for the two-dimensional domain using a
dimensionless transformation, resulting in a nonlinear
temperature profile within the liquid film. The present 2D
analysis model gives more accurate heat and mass transfer
characteristics than the simplified 1D approach of Kirby
and Perez-Blanco [6].
The equations to be solved for the falling film regime are
continuity, momentum, energy and mass diffusion as
follows:

Hu and Jacobi [12] reported that the flow mode between vu vv

þ ¼0 ð1Þ
tubes changes from droplet to droplet/jet and jet modes with vx vy
594 I. Kyung et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 30 (2007) 591e600

v2 u expressed as the product of the heat of absorption (including

m 2 ¼ rg sin q ð2Þ the heat of mixing) and absorbed mass flux. The absorbed
vy
mass flux is given by Kays and Crawford [13] as mass frac-
vT vT v2 T tion gradient at the vapor/liquid interface by invoking Fick’s
u þv ¼a 2 ð3Þ law. The heat of absorption, ha, is defined in Eq. (8).
vx vy vy
 
vhl
vX vX v2 X ha ¼ hv  hw;l ¼ hv  hl þ X ð8Þ
u þ v ¼ Dab 2 ð4Þ vX T;P
vx vy vy
The inlet conditions at the top of the tube are given as Equilibrium conditions in Eq. (7c) and enthalpy of LiBr
specific film flow rate (Gi), temperature (Ti) and mass solution in Eq. (8) are given in ASHRAE handbook of fun-
fraction (Xi), where inlet specific film flow rate is defined as: damentals [14]. Mass diffusivity in Eq. (7b) is obtained from
Kashiwagi [15] and density, viscosity, thermal conductivity
m_ i from Uemura and Hasaba [16].
Gi ¼ ð5Þ
2Lt
The appropriate boundary conditions at the wall are as 4. Falling film description
follows:
The solution of Eq. (2) yields the Nusselt model (Bird
No slip at the wall: et al. [17]). The x component of velocity is derived using
boundary conditions at the wall and the interface, Eqs.
uy¼0 ¼ vy¼0 ¼ 0 ð6aÞ
(6a) and (7a), as:
Conduction at the wall:  
g y2
 uðx; yÞ ¼ sin q dy  ð9Þ
vT    g 2
k  ¼ U Ty¼0  Tcw ð6bÞ
vy y¼0
The y component of velocity, v, is derived from continuity
where (Eq. (1)) using Eqs. (9) and (6a).
1  2 
U¼ g dy y3 g dd
ro ro lnðro =ri Þ vðx; yÞ ¼  cos q   sin q y2 ð10Þ
þ ro g 2 6 2g dx
hcw ri kt
The film thickness, d, is derived from mass conservation on
Impermeable wall: the film.

vX  1=3
¼0 ð6cÞ 3gG
vy y¼0 dðxÞ ¼ ð11Þ
rg sin q

In Eq. (6b), the DittuseBoelter’s equation was used for The rate of change of film thickness in the x direction, in
the cooling water side heat transfer coefficient (hcw). The Eq. (10), is derived from Eq. (11).
boundary conditions at the vapor/liquid interface are:  1=3
dd gG 1 1
¼ ð12Þ
No shear: dx 9rg ro sin1=3 q tan q

vu
¼0 ð7aÞ
vy y¼d 5. Transformation of the falling film governing
equations
Interface energy balance:
  Since the film thickness is thin compared to the tube
vT  rDab vX
k  ¼ ha ð7bÞ
vy y¼d Xy¼d vy y¼d circumference, the following dimensionless variables are
used to transform the calculation domain into a square.
Saturated interface: This transformation normalizes the spatial derivatives in
  the two coordinate directions and minimizes truncation error
Xy¼d ¼ f P; Ty¼d ð7cÞ in the finite difference representations.

The term on the right hand side in Eq. (7b) is the energy q x y
x¼ ¼ ; z¼ ð13Þ
released at the interface due to absorption of water vapor p pro dðxÞ
 I. Kyung et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 30 (2007) 591e600 595

Eqs. (9)e(12) are transformed as Calculation of properties

  from inlet temperature and mass fraction
g z2
uðx; zÞ ¼ sinðpxÞd2 z  ð14Þ
g 2
i=i+1
3 2 
gd z z3 gd2 dd
vðx; zÞ ¼  cosðpxÞ   sinðpxÞ z2
ro g 2 6 2pro g dx d
Calculation of u, v, and
ð15Þ d
 1=3
3gG
dðxÞ ¼ ð16Þ Assumption of Xif
rg sinðpxÞ
 1=3
dd gG p
¼ 1=3
ð17Þ Calculation of diffusion equation (eq. (19))
dx 9rg sin ðpxÞtanðpxÞ

The energy and mass diffusion equations are transformed Calculation of energy equation (eq. (18))
by the application of the chain rule for partial derivatives.
  Xif,new f(Tif , P)
vT v pro z dd vT a pro v2 T
þ   ¼0 ð18Þ
vx u d d dx vz d2 u vz2
No
  Xif Xif,new 10-9
vX v pro z dd vX Dab pro v2 X
þ   ¼0 ð19Þ
vx u d d dx vz d2 u vz2 Yes
Calculation of a, Tb and Xb
Transformed boundary conditions required for the
from eqs. (21)~(23)
energy and mass diffusion equations are:
 No
k vT  i = last step
At z ¼ 0; ¼ UðTz¼0  Tcw Þ ð20aÞ
d vz z¼0
 Yes
vX  Calculation of drop formation regime
¼0 ð20bÞ
vz z¼0
 
vT  rDab vX  Calculation of drop fall regime
At z ¼ 1; k  ¼ ha ð20cÞ
vz z¼1 Xz¼1 vz z¼1
Xz¼1 ¼ f ðP; Tz¼1 Þ ð20dÞ Stop

The transformed energy and mass diffusion Eqs (18) and Fig. 2. Flow chart for calculation.
(19) are solved in a finite difference form using an implicit
method. This allows use of the very efficient tri-diagonal diameters of the tube are 15.875 and 19.05 mm, respectively,
algorithm. and the tube material is copper.
The rate of mass absorbed per tube length on a differential
element Dq is calculated as: 6. Model for drop formation and drop fall regimes

rDab vX 
Ga;k ¼  ðro þ dÞDq ð21Þ Kirby and Perez-Blanco [6] developed absorption models
Xif d vz z¼1 for the drop formation and drop fall regimes and these
models are used here as well. In the drop formation regime,
Bulk temperature and mass fraction at each location
they adapted a ‘‘fresh surface’’ model developed by Clift
around the tube are calculated as:
et al. [18] assuming that the solution reaching the drop forms
Ð1 Ð1 a spherical layer continuously around the drop surface. The
0
ðruTÞk dz ðruTÞk dz drop surface is always at the condition of the solution leaving
Tb;k ¼ ¼ Ð01 ð22Þ
Gk ðruÞk dz the falling film regime. The following two equations were
0

Gk1 Xb;k1 derived (Kirby and Perez-Blanco [6]) from an energy

Xb;k ¼ ð23Þ balance and a mass transfer rate law.
Gk

The calculation flow chart for the falling film regime is dTs dmd  Tb  Tif
md cp ¼ ha þ k 4prd2 ð24Þ
shown in Fig. 2. In all the calculations, inner and outer dt dt rd
596 I. Kyung et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 30 (2007) 591e600

dmd    Dab
¼ Kform r 4prd2 Xb  Xif ð25Þ Kfall ¼ 35 ð31Þ
dt 2rd

In Eq. (25), the surface area of drop is assumed to be in The relation between the interface and bulk solution
a spherical shape. The mass transfer coefficient for the temperatures is derived assuming a linear temperature
drop formation is given by Skelland and Minhas [19], profile over the drop radius.
which is based on liquideliquid extraction in spherical
droplets. ha dmd
Tif ¼ þ Tb ð32Þ
16pkrd dt
 0:089  0:334 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi0:601
rd u2 tform Dab 2rrd s
Kform ¼0:0864
tform 2grd 4rd2 m 7. Results for the falling film regime
ð26Þ
Figs. 3 and 4 show the profiles of the temperature and the
where LiBr mass fraction across the film thickness at various posi-
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi tions around the tube. As the flow passes over the tube, the
 3
s temperature of the film decreases due to heat transfer to
Vd ¼ 14 the cooling water. Fig. 3 shows that the temperature profile
rg
sffiffiffiffiffiffi is very nonlinear near the top of the tube. This is because
2s it takes some time for the effect of the low temperature of
l ¼ 2p the tube wall to propagate through the film. At the conditions
rg
represented in Fig. 3, the temperature at the interface starts
Lt to decrease after around 15 and the profile becomes essen-
Nd ¼ þ1
l tially linear for angles above approximately 45 .
 1=3
3Vd The LiBr mass fraction profiles in Fig. 4 show that the
rd ¼ mass fraction drops sharply at the interface due to absorption
4p
and the mass fraction at the interface decreases as the flow
ðrVd ÞNd passes over the tube. However, the mass fraction boundary
tform ¼
2Gs Lt layer does not propagate deeply into the film. This is the result
0:8307Gq¼p of the very low mass diffusivity in the order of 109 m2/s.
u¼
rdq¼p It can be seen that the mass fraction remains at the inlet value
over much of the film thickness except near the vapor/liquid
In Eq. (26), the average drop volume (Vd) and the interface. This narrow mass fraction boundary layer is a
average distance between the drop formation sites (l) primary focus of efforts to enhance absorption.
are reported by Taghavi-Tafreshi and Dhir [20]. The In contrast to the current model, Kirby and Perez-
drop formation time (tform) is derived from the solution Blanco’s 1D falling film model [6] calculates the bulk tem-
mass balance at the tube bottom and u is the mean veloc- perature from the energy balance equation, from which the
ity of the solution at the tube bottom. The drop formation interface temperature is calculated assuming a linear tem-
regime is calculated with a number of time steps and at perature variation across the film thickness. They calculate
the end of each time step, it is assumed that the drop is
well mixed.
In the drop fall regime, the drop fall time (tfall) is obtained
from free fall over the distance between the tubes. 50

sffiffiffiffiffi 45
2s
Temperature, ºC

tfall ¼ ð27Þ 40
g
35
The energy balance and mass transfer equations for the Flow Direction θ=1º
30
P=8.1 mmHg θ=15º
drop fall regime are -1 -1 θ=30º
25 i=0.0211 kgm s (Re=15.8)
θ=45º
Xi=60 LiBr
dTs dmd θ=90º
20 Tcw=30ºC θ=135º
md cp ¼ ha ð28Þ Tsub,i=0.0 K
dt dt θ=179º
15
dmd    0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
¼ Kfall r 4prd2 Xb  Xif ð30Þ
dt y/δ

The mass transfer coefficient in the drop fall regime is Fig. 3. Variation of temperature versus film thickness at zero inlet
given by Clift et al. [18]. subcooling.
 I. Kyung et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 30 (2007) 591e600 597

61 61
Bulk
60 60
LiBr Mass Fraction,

LiBr Mass Fraction,

59 59 Tsub,i=0.0 K
Flow Direction
Tsub,i=5.0 K
58
θ=1º 58
P=8.1 mmHg θ=15º Interface
57 -1 -1 θ=30º
i=0.0211 kgm s (Re=15.8) 57
Xi=60 LiBr θ=45º
P=8.1 mmHg
56 θ=90º -1 -1
Tcw=30ºC i=0.0211 kgm s (Re=15.8)
θ=135º 56
Tsub,i =0.0 K θ=179º Xi=60 LiBr
55 Tcw=30°C
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 55
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
y/δ
Angle, degree
Fig. 4. Variation of LiBr mass fraction versus film thickness at zero
inlet subcooling. Fig. 6. Variation of LiBr mass fraction along flow direction in
falling film regime.

the absorption rate from the mass fraction difference

between the bulk and the interface using a mass transfer co-
efficient correlation. In the current study, it was found that
the temperature profile across the film thickness is highly
nonlinear near the top of the tube. The linear temperature
profile that Kirby and Perez-Blanco [6] assumption is not
accurate near the tube top and this inaccuracy is more pro-
nounced at a higher flow rate because of more nonlinear
temperature profile.
When the inlet subcooling is zero, the interface temper-
ature and mass fraction remain almost constant at the inlet
saturation values until approximately 15 , as shown in
Figs. 5 and 6, caused by the lag in heat transfer through
the film as shown in Fig. 3. Thus, the mass absorption rate
is very low in this region (Fig. 7) and the specific film
flow rate remains at the inlet value (Fig. 8). However,
Fig. 5 shows that in this range (0 < q < 15 ) the bulk and
wall temperatures decrease significantly due to heat transfer
to the cooling water, which can also be seen in Fig. 3. This
continuous decrease in the wall temperature causes the wall
heat flux to decrease as shown in Fig. 9. As q increases
beyond 15 , the interface temperature becomes lower than
the saturation temperature (Fig. 5) and this induces absorp-
tion at the interface (Fig. 7). As the result, the interface mass
fraction starts to decrease as shown in Fig. 6. The decrease in
temperature and mass fraction continues from there to the
bottom of the tube. However, after 90 the film thickness
begins to increase which eventually causes the absorption
rate to decrease after approximately 115 as shown in
Fig. 7. The interface temperature and mass fraction begin
to level off in the tube bottom region. The heat transfer at
the wall falls off more sharply as shown in Fig. 9. The de-
crease in heat transfer causes a noticeable decrease of wall
temperature very close to the tube bottom as shown in Fig. 5.
When the inlet solution temperature is below saturation,
i.e. positive subcooling, absorption occurs immediately after
the solution enters the tube as shown in Fig. 7, and the inter-
face mass fraction assumes the saturated value of 57.6% LiBr
as shown in Fig. 6. The interface temperature increases due to
the heat of absorption (0 < q < 17 in Fig. 5), but finally rea-
ches a maximum and begins to decrease due to heat transfer
to the cooling water. Fig. 7 shows that the mass absorption

48
P=8.1 mmHg 0.0020
Interface -1 -1
Mass Absorption Rate, kgm-2s-1

i=0.0211 kgm s (Re=15.8)

45 Xi=60 LiBr
Tcw=30ºC 0.0015
Temperature, ºC

42
0.0010
39 Current Model
Bulk Tsub,i=0.0 K
0.0005 P=8.1 mmHg
36 Wall Tsub,i=5.0 K
-1 -1
i=0.0211 kgm s
Re=15.8 Kirby [11]
33 Tsub,i=0.0 K
0.0000 Xi=60 LiBr Tsub,i=0.0 K
Tsub,i=5.0 K Tcw=30ºC Tsub,i=5.0 K
30
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Angle, degree Angle, degree

Fig. 5. Variation of temperature along flow direction in falling film Fig. 7. Variation of mass absorption rate along flow direction in
regime. falling film regime.
598 I. Kyung et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 30 (2007) 591e600

0.02115 48
Specific Film Flow Rate, kgm-1s-1

Current Model P=8.1 mmHg

-1 -1
0.02114 Tsub,i=0.0 K 46 i=0.0211 kgm s
Re=15.8 Tsub,i=0.0 K
Tsub,i=5.0 K

Bulk Temperature, ºC
0.02113 Xi=60 LiBr Tsub,i=5.0 K
44 Tcw=30ºC
Kirby [11]
0.02112 Tsub,i=0.0 K Spacing=0.0254 m
Tsub,i=5.0 K
42
0.02111
P=8.1 mmHg 40
0.02110 -1 -1
i=0.0211 kgm s
Re=15.8 38
0.02109 Xi=60 LiBr
Tcw=30ºC 36 Drop
0.02108 Falling Film Drop Formation Fall
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
34
Angle, degree 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Time, sec
Fig. 8. Variation of specific film flow rate along flow direction in
falling film regime. Fig. 10. Variation of bulk temperature over flow regimes.

rate for the subcooled case is much higher than that at zero a nonlinear temperature profile within the film. These
subcooling. Fig. 8 also shows a larger specific film flow improvements add complexity to the model and it is found
rate for the subcooled case over the whole falling film regime. that the 1D model is very sensitive to the mass transfer co-
However, although the absorption rate (or specific film flow efficient correlation. These characteristics led to 2D model
rate) is larger for the subcooled case, the heat transfer to which is only slightly more complex and which does not re-
the cooling water becomes smaller, as shown in Fig. 9, be- quire a mass transfer coefficient. Overall, it is observed that
cause the temperature difference between the solution and the 1D approach is too simplistic to capture the detail in such
the cooling water is smaller for the subcooled case. a laminar film. This limitation is even more pronounced
The comparisons of the current model with Kirby’s when the subcooled inlet conditions are considered.
model [11] are shown in Figs. 7 and 8 for mass absorption
rate and specific film flow rate. Generally speaking, Kirby’s 8. Calculation over three flow regimes
1D model predicts the trends reasonably well, but significant
deviations with the current 2D model are seen in the absolute Figs. 10 and 11 show the variations of bulk temperature
values. In the case of zero subcooling, Kirby’s model pre- and subcooling with time over the three flow regimes. Dur-
dicts that absorption takes place immediately at the top of ing the falling film regime, the bulk temperature decreases
the tube as shown in Fig. 7. This is due to his assumption steadily due to heat transfer to the cooling water and the sub-
of a linear temperature profile across the film, which prema- cooling increases steadily. It is shown in Fig. 11 that the sub-
turely connects the interface mass fraction process to the cooling increases up to 9.4 K for the case of zero inlet
wall heat transfer process. By comparing with the 1D model, subcooling at the end of the falling film regime. During
it is realized that it could be improved significantly with the process of drop formation, the highly subcooled liquid
leaving the falling film regime is brought to the drop surface

30
P=8.1 mmHg 15
-1 -1
i=0.0211 kgm s Tsub,i=0.0 K P=8.1 mmHg
25 Re=15.8 -1 -1
i=0.0211 kgm s
Wall Heat Flux, kWm-2

Tsub,i=5.0 K
Xi=60 LiBr 12 Re=15.8
20 Tcw=30ºC Xi=60 LiBr
Tcw=30ºC
Subcooling, K

9 Spacing=0.0254 m
15

10 6
Drop
Tsub,i=0.0 K Falling Film Drop Formation Fall
5
3
Tsub,i=5.0 K
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 0
Angle, degree 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Time, sec
Fig. 9. Variation of wall heat flux along flow direction in falling
film regime. Fig. 11. Variation of subcooling over flow regimes.
 I. Kyung et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 30 (2007) 591e600 599

60.05 tubes. However, in the drop fall regime, almost no change in

P=8.1 mmHg
60.00 -1 -1
i=0.0211 kgm s
bulk temperature, mass fraction and flow rate are calculated,
Re=15.8 which seems reasonable due to the high solution temperature
Bulk LiBr Mass Fraction,

59.95 Xi=60 LiBr

59.90
59.85
59.80
59.75
59.70
59.65
59.60
0.0 0.2
Fig. 12. Variation of bulk LiBr mass fraction over flow regimes.
according to the ‘‘fresh surface’’ model, described in the pre-
vious section, and this low temperature at the drop surface
induces high absorption flux. It is assumed in this study
that no heat is transferred to the cooling water during drop
formation. Thus, the bulk temperature increases and the sub-
cooling decreases while the solution forms a drop as shown
in Figs. 10 and 11. Fig. 11 also shows that the solution finally
reaches a subcooling of 5.1 K at the end of the drop forma-
tion regime for zero inlet subcooling.
Fig. 12 shows that the bulk LiBr mass fraction keeps de-
creasing throughout the drop formation. It is very interesting
that the change in bulk mass fraction during drop formation
(0.15% LiBr at DTsub ¼ 0.0 K in Fig. 12) is larger than that
during the falling film regime (0.10% LiBr at DTsub ¼ 0.0 K
in Fig. 12). Jeong and Garimella [8] also pointed out the im-
portance of the drop formation regime, and found that the
mass transfer coefficient in the drop formation regime was
higher than that in the other regimes. Consistent with that,
Fig. 13 shows that the increase of the specific film flow
rate during drop formation is larger than that during the
falling film regime. Nomura et al. [21] measured a large in-
crease of the solution temperature in the space between the
0.02121
Specific Film Flow Rate, kgm-1s-1
Tcw=30°C for a short time. The large variation of temperature, mass
Spacing=0.0254 m fraction and flow rate during the drop formation indicates
the importance of this study in determining the overall
Tsub,i=0.0 K
Tsub,i=5.0 K
absorption rate.
9. Conclusions
Drop
Falling Film Drop Formation
Fall
A model for absorption on a horizontal smooth tube was
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 developed using three different flow regimes for falling film
Time, sec around the tube, drop formation at the tube bottom and drop
fall between the tubes. The variation of solution tempera-
ture, LiBr mass fraction, absorption rate and heat transfer
rate across the film thickness and along the flow direction
was studied along with the effect of inlet subcooling. The
effect of inlet subcooling is emphasized because as the solu-
tion flows down through the absorber bundle, consisting of
multiple horizontal tubes, the solution subcooling increases
due to heat transfer to the cooling water flowing inside the
tubes.
In the falling film regime, the temperature variation
across the film exhibits a highly nonlinear profile, especially
near the top of the tube for large values of inlet flow rate. The
mass fraction profile across the film shows that the mass
fraction boundary layer at the interface is very thin, which
is more pronounced at a larger value of solution inlet flow
rate. The calculation around the tube shows that for the sub-
cooled case absorption takes place immediately once the
solution enters the tube. However, when the inlet subcooling
is zero, absorption starts to occur only after the temperature
profile approaches a fully developed condition. Absorption
rate and specific film flow rate are found to be higher at pos-
itive inlet subcooling than those at zero inlet subcooling.
However, the heat transfer rate to the cooling water is lower
at positive inlet subcooling because of the smaller tempera-
ture difference between the solution and the cooling water.
The calculation over the three flow regimes indicates the im-
portance of the drop formation regime for the prediction of
absorber performance in that temperature, mass fraction and
flow rate vary considerably in the drop formation regime.

P=8.1 mmHg Tsub,i=0.0 K

0.02119 -1 -1
i=0.0211 kgm s Tsub,i=5.0 K
Re=15.8 Acknowledgments
0.02117 Xi=60 LiBr
Tcw=30ºC
0.02115 Spacing=0.0254 m This work was done under the Sorption Systems Consor-
tium with support from Carrier Corp., Trane Co., Wolverine
0.02113
Tube Co., and York International. That support is gratefully
0.02111 acknowledged.
0.02109 Drop
Falling Film Drop Formation
Fall References
0.02107
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Time, sec [1] J.D. Killion, S. Garimella, A critical review of models of
coupled heat and mass transfer in falling-film absorption,
Fig. 13. Variation of specific film flow rate over flow regimes. International Journal of Refrigeration 24 (2001) 755e797.
600 I. Kyung et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 30 (2007) 591e600
[2] J.W. Andberg, G.C. Vliet, Absorption of vapors into liquid
films falling over cooled horizontal tubes, In: 2nd
ASMEeJSME Thermal Engineering Joint Conference, Hono-
lulu, Hawaii, March 22e27, 2 (1987) No. 0, pp. 533e541.
[3] J.W. Andberg, G.C. Vliet, A simplified model for absorption
of vapors into liquid films flowing over cooled horizontal
tubes, ASHRAE Transaction 93 (Part 2) (1987) 2454e2466.
[4] S.K. Choudhury, D. Hisajima, T. Ohuchi, A. Nishiguchi,
T. Fukushima, S. Sakaguchi, Absorption of vapors into liquid
films flowing over cooled horizontal tubes, ASHRAE Trans-
action Research 99 (Part 2) (1993) 81e89.
[5] Z. Lu, D. Li, S. Li, B. Yu-Chi, A semi-empirical model of the
falling film absorption outside horizontal tubes, Proceedings
of International Ab-soption Heat Pump Conference 2 (1996)
473e480.
[6] M.J. Kirby, P. Perez-Blanco, A design model for horizontal
tube water/lithium bromide absorbers, in: Heat Pump and
Refrigeration Systems Design, Analysis and Applications,
ASME, AES-32, 1994, pp. 1e10.
[7] J.A. Atchley, H. Perez-Blanco, M.J. Kirby, W.A. Miller, An
experimental and analytical study of advanced surfaces for
absorption chiller absorbers, in: Gas Research Institute Report
GRI-95/0498, 1998.
[8] S. Jeong, S. Garimella, Falling film and droplet mode heat and
mass transfer in a horizontal tube LiBr/water absorber, Inter-
national Journal of Heat and Mass transfer 45 (2002)
1445e1458.
[9] J.D. Killion, S. Garimella, Gravity-driven flow of liquid films
and droplets in horizontal tube banks, International Journal of
Refrigeration 26 (2003) 516e526.
[10] J.D. Killion, S. Garimella, Pendant droplet motion for absorp-
tion on horizontal tube banks, International Journal of Heat
and Mass Transfer 47 (2004) 4403e4414.
[11] M.J. Kirby, A computational model of falling film absorp-
tion in horizontal tube LiBr absorbers. Master Thesis,
Mechanical Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University,
1995.
[12] X. Hu, A.M. Jacobi, The intertube falling film: Part 1 - flow
characteristics, mode transitions, and hysteresis, ASME
Transaction 118 (1996) 616e625.
[13] W.M. Kays, M.E. Crawford, Convective Heat and Mass
Transfer, second ed. McGraw-Hill Inc., 1980, p. 345.
[14] ASHRAE Handbook of fundamentals, 1997.
[15] T. Kashiwagi, Heat and mass diffusion in the absorption of
water vapor by aqueous solution of lithium bromide, Transac-
tions of the Japanese Association of Refrigeration 1 (1984)
89e98.
[16] T. Uemura, S. Hasaba, Studies on the lithium bromide-water
absorption refrigerating machine, Technology Reports of
Kansai University 6, Osaka, Japan, 1964.
[17] R.B. Bird, W.E. Stewart, E.N. Lightfoot, Transport Phenom-
ena, Wiley International ed., Wiley & Sons Inc., 1960,
pp. 34e41.
[18] R. Clift, J.R. Grace, M.E. Weber, Bubbles, Drops and Parti-
cles, Academic Press, 1978, pp. 335e337.
[19] A.H.P. Skelland, S.S. Minhas, Dispersed phase mass transfer
during drop formation and coalescence in liquideliquid
extraction, AICHE Journal 17 (1971) 1316.
[20] K. Taghavi-Tafreshi, V.K. Dhir, Taylor instability in boiling,
melting and condensation or evaporation, International
Journal of Heat Mass Transfer 23 (1980) 1433e1445.
[21] T. Nomura, N. Nishimura, S. Wei, S. Yamaguchi, Heat and
mass transfer mechanism in the absorber of water/LiBr con-
ventional absorption refrigerator: experimental examination
by visualized model, in: International Absorption Heat
Pump Conference, AES-31, 1993, pp. 203e208.