Sie sind auf Seite 1von 62

Heat Transfer and Friction in Turbulent Pipe Flow with Variable Physical Properties


High Temperature Institrite. Acudcrr~yof Science of the USSR. Moscoqc USSR

I. Introduction


I1. Analytical Method


A. Basic Equations



Eddy Diffusivities of Heat and Momentum


C. &4nalyticalExpressions for lemperature and Velocity Profiles, Heat Transfer. and Skin Friction



Heat Transfer uith Constant Ph?sical Properties 521


A. Analytical Results


B. Experimental Data


I\’. Heat Transfer and Skin 1:riction for Liquids with Variablc Viscosity




Theoretical Results



Experimental Data and Ihpirical Equations



Heat Transfer and Skin Friction for Gases with Variable Physical Properties



Analytical Results



Experimental Data and Ihpirical Equations


VI . Heat Transfer and Skin 1;riction for Single-Phase Fluids at Subcritical States


A. Analytical Results


B. Experimental Data and I<mpiricalEquations for Normal I Iwt Transfer Regimes



Experimental Data for Hcgimcs with Diminished and Enhanced Heat Transfur


VI1. Conclusion









I. Introduction

Heat transfer in turbulent pipe flow has been investigated for almost 60 years. Nusselt’s paper published in 1910 was probably the first one analyzing this problem on a scientific basis (2). In this paper devoted to the heat transfer of turbulent gas flow in tubes, the similarity method was originally used for the correlation of experimental data on heat transfer. This is the reason for the continued interest in Nusselt’s paper. During subsequent years different investigators performed numerous experimental studies on heat transfer processes in turbulent pipe flow for various fluids including liquid metals. As a result they formulated relations for the Nusselt number versus the Reynolds and Prandtl numbers for a wide range of Re and Pr. Reynolds (2) was the first who theoretically studied heat transfer in turbulent pipe flow. The relationship obtained between heat flux and wall shear stress, known as the Reynolds analogy, is valid only for Pr = 1. Some investigators have improved upon Reynolds analysis. For example, Taylor (3) and Prandtl (4,5)took into account approximately the influence of fluid flow peculiarities at the wall on heat transfer, assuming the flow to consist of a turbulent core and viscous (laminar) sublayer. Karman (6) improved this model by the introduction of an intermediate layer between a laminar sublayer and a turbulent core. The expressions for heat transfer obtained by Karnian and Prandtl are true for constant physical properties over the range 0.7 to 10-20 for Pr. The last restriction concerns the fact that they neglected turbulent heat transfer in a viscous sublayer (this leads to essential errors when Pr is large) and heat transfer by conduction in the turbulent core (this is not true for low Pr numbers). Further development of analytical methods for heat transfer in a turbulent pipe flow with constant physical properties was achieved when investigators digressed from the above assumptions and began to use more accurate relationships for the distributions of velocity and eddy diffusivities of heat and momentum along the pipe cross section (7-24). For example, Lyon (8) obtained an expression for the Nusselt number in the case of constant heat flux at the wall. This expression predicts the heat transfer rate, if the distributions of velocity and turbulent diffusivity of heat are known. The use of more accurate relationships for distributions of velocity and eddy diffusivities of heat and momentum require the application of numerical methods. Numerical calculations of heat transfer in turbulent pipe flow for constant physical properties were carried out in (8-12,

predictions covering a wide range of Re and

Pr numbers as a rule are in good agreement with experimental data. Thus, nowadays the problem of heat transfer in a turbulent quasi-

13, 14). The results of these


steady fluid flow with constant physical properties in circular tubes has been rather fully investigated. In reality, fluid physical properties depend on temperature. That is why heat transfer relations obtained with the assumption of constant physical properties can only be used in practice either at small temperature differences in a flow or with physical properties changing slightly in the temperature range considered. In this case the effect of changing physical properties can be approximately accounted for by choosing the properties at a certain average fluid temperature. In heat transfer systems used in different fields of engineering, large temperature drops and high heat fluxes are often realized. In this case the large temperature gradients occur in a fluid flow. For example, in nuclear reactors the heat flux (E;cal./m2hr) may be as high as several millions. In cooling systems for jet propulsion engines it may rise to several score of millions while a heat flux of hundreds of millions may occur in some special kinds of apparatus. Liquids and gases whose physical properties are very responsive to temperature changes are often used as heat transfer fluids. Gases flowing at large temper- ature differences or some liquids (single-phase fluid) at subcritical states serve as examples. In these cases it is impossible to consider physical properties constant, because great errors would otherwise result. Under such conditions the analysis of the flow and heat transfer should include the dependence of physical properties on temperature. For various types of fluids and for a given fluid the variation of the physical properties with temperature and pressure is not the same over different ranges of the state parameters. For such a fluid under these varying conditions it is presently impossible to describe the fluid flow and heat transfer by a single relationship valid for all conditions. As a consequence, the problem of a fluid flow and heat transfer with variable physical properties divides into several problems, and each problem corresponds to a certain type of dependence of physical properties on temperature and pressure. Therefore, the analytical expressions for fluids with constant physical properties are not universal in the case of variable physical properties. Theoretical studies of flow and heat transfer in fluids nith variable physical properties are hindered by different mathematical and physical difficulties. The mathematical difficulties can be explained by the fact that the momentum and energy equations in the case of variable physical properties are coupled and nonlinear. However, these difficulties can be overcome, e.g., by using numerical methods and with the help of computers. The difficulties of a physical nature are more serious. They may be attributed to the inability to prescribe analytical expressions for the turbulent diffusivities of heat



and momentum for fluids possessing variable physical properties.

These expressions have been more or less studied for fluids with constant physical properties only; consequently, in the case of variable properties we have only a few theories which have not been verified experimentally. That is why analytical solutions of heat transfer in

a turbulent flow with variable physical properties are not so accurate,

e.g., in the case of a laminar flow. They must be verified by comparison with experimental data. Experimental study of fluid flow and heat transfer for variable physical properties is also a very difficult problem because experiments at high

temperatures, large heat fluxes, and high pressures are not easy to perform. Other aspects of the problem are the difficulties of interpretation and correlation of experimental data, because heat transfer and skin friction at variable physical properties depend on many parameters. That

is why the dynamics and the heat transfer of turbulent flow with variable

physical properties have not been studied in full. Nevertheless during the last 10-15 years striking progress has been made in this field. Several theoretical papers are devoted to the fluid mechanics and heat transfer of turbulent pipe flow with variable physical properties. Kutateladze (15-17) studied a gas flow at large temperature differences and small subsonic velocities. He obtained a correlation between the friction factor and the temperature ratio parameter (the wall temperature to the bulk gas temperature ratio) for the limiting case of Re + 00. And for a gas Pr m 1, it was assumed that the same relationship was valid for

the heat transfer coefficient. These relationships are also approximately valid for the finite values of Re.

developed methods for

the calculation of heat transfer and skin friction for an incompressible fluid with an arbitrary temperature dependence of its properties. The essence of their methods is in the simultaneous numerical integration of the energy and momentum equations formulated on the assumption that heat flux and shear stress are constant (or changing linearly) along the pipe radius. The methods of Deissler and Goldmann differ with respect to the calculation of the eddy diffusivities of heat and momentum for constant and variable fluid properties. Deissler performed calculations of heat transfer and skin friction for some gases and a liquid; Deissler and Goldmann performed these calculations for water above the critical point. Petukhov and Popov (14)have developed another method of calculating the heat transfer and skin friction for an incompressible fluid with an

arbitrary temperature dependence of its properties. Analytical expressions for both heat transfer and skin friction and also for velocity and temperature profiles obtained from the energy and momentum

Deissler (10, 11, 18) and Goldmann (19) have


equations are the basis of this method. With the help of these expressions we can calculate heat transfer and friction using the method of successive approximations. Later on this method was used for calculation of heat transfer and friction of some gases with and without dissociation, and also for carbon dioxide at supercritical state parameters. The fluid mechanics and heat transfer of turbulent pipe flow with variable physical properties have been studied both theoretically and experimentally. Published papers are available which contain many experimental results. In particular they present data obtained on heat transfer and skin friction for liquids under the conditions of substantial changes in viscosity, for some gases at large temperature differences, and for water, carbon dioxide, and some other substances at supercritical states. Some of the papers contain empirical equations correlating the experimental results. In this paper we shall consider heat transfer and skin friction in turbulent pipe flow with variable physical properties. The constant properties solution will be considered only so far as is necessary for the flow and heat transfer analysis with variable physical properties.

11. Analytical Method


Turbulent flow is, of its nature, transient. Velocity, temperature, and other properties change continuously in time at every point of a turbulent flow. These changes are irregular fluctuations with respect to some temporal mean. This behavior allows us to represent different turbulent flow properties as the sum of the mean value, in time, and a pulsation of this value. So we can describe the field of real (instantaneous) velocities as a field of averaged (in time) velocities and the superimposed field of velocity fluctuations. We can do the same with temperature, pressure, and density fields and with other dependent variables. With this approach, transfer processes in a turbulent flow are controlled by two mechanisms: molecular and convective (turbulent). The first mechanism results in the appearance of viscous stresses proportional to the gradients of the averaged velocity and heat fluxes due to heat conduction which are proportional to the averaged temperature gradients. The second mechanism gives rise to turbulent stresses caused by momentum transfer due to velocity fluctuations and turbulent heat fluxes caused by heat transfer resulting from velocity and temperature fluctuations. This approach suggested by Reynolds allows us to pass from energy, momentum, and continuity equations for instantaneous values to the



corresponding equations for the averaged values. Hence, the solution of turbulent flows is reduced to the analysis of the averaged equations in combination with analytical expressions for turbulent diffusivities arising from some physically motivated assumptions in accordance with experimental data. Furthermore, we shall consider a quasi-steady1 axisymmetric turbulent flow of an incompressible fluid with variable physical properties. We shall restrict our problem to the analysis of the fluid flow and heat transfer in circular pipes far from the entrance, i.e., in that region where thermal and velocity boundary layers coincide. At present it is possible to analyze this problem only approximately. Therefore we shall make the following assumptions:

1. Flow velocities are not large, so the energy dissipation can be neglected. 2. The effect of body forces is small in comparison with that of viscosity and inertia forces. 3. Physical properties change weakly over the range of temperature fluctuations (i.e., from T to T + T',where T is the averaged temperature value, T' is the temperature fluctuation); therefore, the physical properties at a given point can be considered constant and equal to the physical properties at the averaged temperature for this point. 4. Change of heat flux along the axis caused by thermal conductivityand turbulent diffusivity is small compared with its change along the radius. 5. Change of normal stresses (viscous and turbulent) along the coordinate axes is small in comparison with the change in the shear stresses.

The averaged energy, momentum, and continuity equations for the conditions we have formulated can be written in a cylindrical coordinate system:

A turbulent flow in which averaged properties do not change with time.


where x and r are the axial and radial coordinates (x coincides with the pipe axis); W, and W, are the averaged (in time) values of the axial and radial components of the velocity vector, respectively; p, h, T, and P are the averaged density, enthalpy, temperature, and pressure; WE,W,,h, and T‘ are the fluctuations of velocity (in the axial and radial directions), enthalpy, and temperature, respectively; h and p are the thermal conductivity and dynamic viscosity at temperature T and pressure P. Since fully developed flow is being considered, it can be assumed that the change in the axial component of the mass velocity along the axis x is small, ix.,

tI(pwT)/aYw 0

Therefore, from Eq. (4), the radial velocity component IY, = 0. In addition, if we assume that the change of viscous and turbulent shear stresses along the x axis is small, i.e.,

i: (.2;

- p?W) w 0

then it is seen from Eq. (3) that a€‘/& = 0, i.e., pressure P is constant over the cross section. With these assumptions the set of Eqs. (1)-(4) is reduced to the following two equations:

On the right-hand side of Eq. (5), in parentheses, the expression for the heat flux is given by


q = A(;iT/ar) - pWT’h’


The first term of this sum is the heat flux due to conductivity, while the second item is accounted for by the eddy diffusivity of heat. On the right-hand side of Eq. (6), the expression for shear stress is given by

u = - [p(iiW,/ar) - pW,‘ W,.’]


Here the first term is the viscous stress and the second term is the turbulent stress.

5 10


In theoretical investiagations t;.e assumption is often made that the heat flux and shear stress vary linearly with respect to r, i.e.,

q = qwR


u = uwR


or it is supposed that these quantities are constant along the radius

q = qw


u = uW


Here qw and ow are the heat flux and the shear stress at the pipe wall, respectively; R = r/ro is the dimensionless radius; ro is the pipe radius. We can see that the first assumption from (9) is fulfilled only in the case of slug2 flow, and the second assumption only for fully developed flow with constant physical properties. As for assumption (lo), it is not fulfilled for pipe flow. However, in a number of cases assumption (9) and even (10) do not introduce great errors into our analysis. This may be attributed to the fact that in calculations of heat transfer and skin friction a correct description of the flow near the wall is the most essential, and in this region assumptions (9) and even (10) are fulfilled approx- imately. Quantitative error estimations are given in Section 111,p. 521 (see Table I, p. 522). Assumptions (9) and (10) allow us to replace Eqs. (5) and (6) by simpler ones which can be obtained from Eqs. (7) and (8) as a result of the substitution of q and u from (9) and (10). For calculations with the help of Eqs. (5) and (6) it is necessary to express the turbulent heat flux pW,’h’ and the turbulent shear stress p Wz’W,’ as functions of the independent variables and the averaged flow properties. Then it is convenient to introduce the coefficients of the eddy diffusivities of heat and momentum.


By the definition, the eddy diffusivity of heat is


- W,’h’

Eq =


and the eddy diffusivity of momc iltum is

- W,’Wrt

E, =


A slug flow is a flow ~vitliil uniform (over the pipe cross section) velocity profile.



If in Eqs. (7) and (8) we express W,’h’ and W,‘W,’ in terms

of E~

and E, and consider that &/ir ~ C,, aT/& (as pressure is constant over the cross section), then the expressions for heat flux and shear stress


q = (A +pCDcO)aT/ar


Though we have introduced eddy diffusivities of heat and momentum it is still very difficult to determine pW,’h’ and pWs’Wr’.These diffi- culties remain in the determination of eq and E, which should be considered as unknown functions of the independent variables and the averaged flow properties. We might detertnine the eddy diffusivities of heat and momentum from semi-empirical turbulence theories such as Prandtl’s mixing length theory or Karman’s local similarity theory. But the relations arising from the semi-empirical turbulence theory do not give the correct description of the eddy diffusivities of heat and momentum near the wall and near the pipe axis. More reliable information on the eddy diffusivities of heat and momentum may be obtained on the basis of experimental data correlations in light of the semiempirical turbulence theory. In the case of fully developed flow with constant physical properties, as is seen from Eq. (6), the shear stress changes linearly along the radius, i.e., u = a,R. Substituting this relation into (14) and transforming to universal coordinates while nondimensionalizing, we obtain


where q = W,/Z,* is the dimensionless velocity, ’1 = v*y/v is the universal independent variable, E* = (~,/p)l’~is the so-called friction velocity,y = (yo - Y) is the coordinate reference point at the wall, and

’10 = 71*r,/v.

Thus, for the experimental determination of the eddy ditfusivity of momentum E, we need to measure only the velocity distribution along the tube section. Many investigators have measured velocity profiles in circular and plane tubes in a turbulent isothermal flow. The surveys of these investigations can be found in :I number of books and articles (20-23). The results of measurement show that the dimensionless velocity p and the dimensionless eddy diffrisivity of momentum EJV are continuous



functions of 7, and near the axis they are also functions of the radius R (or of the Reynolds n~mber)~:

v = drl, R) = d17,Re)

EuiV = (Eo/V)(%

R) = (~U/V)(%


For 7 -0, y = 7 and ~~-0.At small 7, E, -qm, where m 2 3. Within a range of 71 > 30 and R > 0.85, Prandtl's logarithmic law of velocity distribution is valid:

v = (l/~)In 7 +A


(K and A are constant) and consequently E, - 7. Finally, when 7 > 30

and R < 0.85, y and E, depend both on 7

E, passes through a maximum and tends to some constant quantity

while approaching the axis.

Some authors suggested empirical and semi-empirical relations for the eddy diffusivity of momentum for an isothermal pipe flow. These relationships take into account the above-mentioned aspects of the

variation in E,

and R; when R m 0.5,

. We shall discuss only those which will be of use in further

investigation. In the range 0 < 77 < 26 Deissler (ZZ, 24) suggested the equation

E,/V = n2qy[l - exp(--n2~7)]


where n = 0.124. For 7 > 26 he recommends using Karman's equation obtained with the assumption of local similarity of the velocity field:

where K = 0.36 Deissler has noted that the velocity profile in a turbulent core calculated from (18) for E<,/vis described by logarithmic relationships (I 6) when K = 0.36. Therefore we can approximate (,/v with the following equation instead of (18):

C,/V = 0.36(1 - 7/70) 7 - 1

which is obtained from the substitution of (16) into (15). Reichardt (7) has suggested two equations:


We should notice that R

5 ~ [(Re) is the friction factor.

r/ro = 1 - T/T~, and T~ = zi*r,/v = $ Re([/8)'/* where


For 0 < q < 50:

For q > 50:

where K 1 0.4 and qr1= 11. With large Prandtl numbers the main temperature change occurs directly in the vicinity of the wall. In this case, for the calculation of heat transfer, it is very important to describe turbulent transfer processes near the wall correctly. shall analyze Eqs. (17) and (20) from this point

of view.

.At small q Eqs. (17) and (20) can be simplified by series

expansions of the exponential function and hyperbolic tangent, and by considering only the first t\no terms of the series. In addition, we can take - 71 in (17) which results in


c,,'u = c174

E,,/U = Cn'73

where ~ n4 = 2.365 )i and f2 = K/3qn2 = 1.102 \I' lo--3. Thus, at small 71, according to Deissler co- q4, and according to Reichardt E, - qB; also Eq. (17a) gives lower E, values than those predicted by Eq. (20a). In the literature there is no consensus on the value of the exponent rn

in the equation for the region close to the wall i, = cq"' (here i,, = E,,/u). We can only say from theoretical considerations that m :: 3.4 Being inaccurate, measurements near the wall do not produce a reliable value

indirectly infer m values from comparisons ofthe predicted

values of heat and mass transfer mith experimental data at large Pr or Sc.

Such a comparison was made in (25)on the basis of a statistical analysis of the experimental data on heat and mass transfer which shows that m ranges from 3 to 3.2. Apparently, this is close to reality. Thus, Eq. (20) which gives m -~ 3 is more likely to describe the mechanisms of turbulent transfer near the wall than Eq. (17).

for m. \Ye can

Eqs. (1 7)-( 19).

The relationship for c,:!~,suggestccl by Reichardt, has no discontinuities in the range q -. 50 Lvhich is important for the calculation of heat

Equations (20) and (2I ) have some

other advantages over

* Lye can show by thi. continuity c.cluation that the function <Jq) and its first t\vn

derivatii-cs go to zero \\iicii 71

0 :ind thus ,it

. 3 [see (2/)].

5 14


transfer and skin friction. Besides, Eq. (21)takes into account changes in EJv with R (and with Re) in the central part of the tube, and on the tube axis it gives a nonzero value of E, which varies with Re that is in full agreement with experimental data. This means that the velocity gradient calculated from Eq. (21) is zero along the tube axis. Therefore, we shall use mainly Eqs. (20) and (21). In Fig. 1, E,/V versus 7 is plotted for

FIG. 1. c,/u 1’s 7 and Re according to Reichardt’s data.

various Re numbers as calculated from Eqs. (20) and (21). Nevertheless, it should be noted that, with small Pr numbers, calculations of heat transfer (in the case of constant physical properties) using Eqs. (17) and (18) and (20) and (21) give similar results (see Section 111).The problem of heat diffusivity in a turbulent flow has been investigated less than that of momentum diffusivity. If we proceed from Reynolds’ concept that the turbulent diffusivities of heat and momentum are identical, we should take the ratio of the eddy diffusivities p = e,/~,= 1. As a matter of fact, Prandtl’s mixing length theory gives the same result. Reichardt (7) made an assumption that the p value near the wall equals unity, and it increases as the distance from the wall increases. Having measured velocity and temperature profiles in a flow, and using Eq. (5) and relation (I l), we can determine the eddy diffusivity of heat cq from this experinwntal data. Unfortunately such measurements


are not numerous. Resides, the accuracy of experimental values of eq is rather poor (especially in the wall region). The majority of measurements was carried out with liquid nictals and seldom with air. In this paper we shall not discuss the problems of eddy diffusivity and heat transfer for liquid metals. The measurements with air (26-29) show that at some small distance from the wall /3 : 1.2-1.5, but it decreases when the distancc from the wall and Re increase. However, some other workers (30) report that ,B is approximately unity near the wall and it increases with the distance from the wall. Lack of experimental data has as yet prevented us for determining the general relations for eq or p over a wide range of Re and Pr. Presently, in predicting heat transfer, ,Bis usually taken as one (at least for Pr 2 I) due to the ambiguity of estimating 8. This is justified since the results at constant properties predicted with such an assumption are in good agreement with experimental data. If the physical properties change with temperature, it becomes necessary to take into account the influence of variable physical properties on the turbulent diffusivity expressions. As is known, this problem has not yet been systematically investigated. Therefore, a solution is usually based on some assumptions, and their validity can be confirmed only indirectly by comparing predicted values of heat transfer and skin friction with experimental data. Deissler (11,24) assumed that, to calculate the eddy diffusivity of momentum with variable physical properties, relations (17) and (18) may be used although they were obtained at constant physical properties. In these relations the kinematic viscosity is considered a variable. In accordance with such an assumption the equation for E,!V takes the form


e7.r = H'3!zw*,


z'w*y;vu., vw* = (aw'p,)' '"

Constants n and K have the samc values as in the case of constant physical properties. Equation (22) is recommended when vw < 26, and Eq. (23) is used when rlW .:' 26. Goldmann (29) suggested a method of calculating E,, with variable physical properties using the hypothesis that local turbulence charac- teristics at a given point depcncl on physical properties at that point and do not depend on physical properties changing in the vicinity of that point. In light of this hypothesis, Goldmann has come to the conclusion



that the velocity distribution with variable physical properties is described by the same relations between the generalized variables y+ and T+ as those between the variables cp and q with constant physical properties. The generalized variables are described by

If p and v are constants, then cp+ = y and q+ = 11. Transforming in Eqs. (1 5), from variables y and q to y+ and q+ we can see that for the determination of E,/U with variable properties we can use the same relations as in the case of constant properties provided y and q are substituted for y+ and q+, respectively. The comparison of predicted heat transfer results for a gas at high T,/T, values with experimental data shows that the calculation method for c0 with variable properties suggested by Goldmann produces better agreement with experimental heat transfer values than Deissler's method. The ratio of the diffusivities of heat and momentum at variable properties, as in the case of constant properties, is usually taken to be

one (/3 = 1).


Considcr the problem of turbulent fully developed quasi-steady flow and heat transfer in a circular tube, assuming that the fluid is incompressible and its physical properties display some arbitrary temperature dependence. The problem is analyzed for the case of constant heat flux which is prescribed at the wall (qw = const) (14). If the assumptions of Section 11, A are applied, this problem may be described by the energy and momentum equations (5) and (6). The left-hand side of Eq. (6) can be written as

As earlier, a@W,)/ax w 0 was assumed (see Section 11, A). Taking all this into account and also using relationships (13) and (14) we obtain the equations




1 a

= --( r ar r!?)

-a (P +pW2) = -


- la - (ra)

r ar



In order to transform Eqs. (25)and (26)to ordinary differential equations, we shall make the additional assumption that the derivatives with respect to .x' on the left-hand side of Eqs. (25) and (26) are constant across the tube cross section, i.e.,

?k?1,Y = f@)


?(P 1 pIIl,Z) i'.v = f&)


M'ith variable physical properties and especially with variable heat capacity and constant heat flus at the wall, assumption (27) holds to a greater degree than the usual assumptions of linear change of q along the radius or of uniform (over the section) longitudinal temperature gradient

[aTjax = f(.)].

For liquids and gases flowing at sniall subsonic velocities, the pressure gradients due to longitudinal density changes a/ax(pW.,.P)are, by far, smaller than the total pressure gradient dP/dx. Since P does not change along the tube section assumption (28) is also well founded under these conditions. First, analytical expressions must be found for the enthalpy and temperature fields and the Nusselt number. Multiplying Eq. (25) by Y dr, taking into account assumption (27), and integrating with respect to the radius from 0 to ro , we obtain



where gvz is the (over the section) bulk velocity. Substituting (29) into (25) and integrating from 0 to Y ~veobtain the expression for the heat flux distribution along the radius

lll/t,V 2qw/pW,ro

where R

r/r, .

Since the pressure P is uniform over the tube section, we have

dh/& = CDaTpr

Using this relationship, we can write Eq. (13) in the form

q = (A/C',])(l

! .,/a) ah/&






~ (WXl +P Pr %/V)



= en/c0 . Simultaneous solution of (30) and (32) gives

where d = 2r0 is the tube diameter. Having integrated (33) from R to 1, we obtain an enthalpy distribution equation

where h, is the enthalpy at the wall. Solving (30) and (13) simultaneously and integrating from R to 1, we find the analogous temperature distribution equation

Now we shall calculate the bulk enthalpy (A,,), or, to be more exact, the enthalpy difference h, - h, , By definition,

Substituting h, - h from (34) into (36) and integrating by parts, we obtain

Now let us introduce the heat transfer coefficient from the definition

and the Nusselt number

where T,.and T,,are the wall temperature and the bulk temperature,


respectively; A, is the value at temperature T, ; cp is the average specific heat of the fluid within the temperature range Tb to T, ,

Substituting h, - 12, from (37) into (39), we obtain the expression for the Nusselt number

For constant physical properties, wc can reduce Eq. (41) to the well- known Lyon integral (8)

Now we shall deduce analytical expressions for the velocity profile and the friction factor. Having multiplied Eq. (26) by r dr and taking into account assumption (28), we integrate first with respect to r from 0 to r, and second from 0 to r,, . Dividing the first of the obtained expressions by the second we get

a = o,R

This result is the consequence of assumption (28) and it essentially means that we approximated the real shear stress distribution (along the radius) by a linear one. Having substituted u into (14) and integrated from R to 1 we get the velocity distribution equation

where pw is the dynamic viscosity at temperature T, . The bulk velocity over the section is

pwx - 2 1' pWrR dR


After having substituted W, from (43) we obtain



By definition, the friction factor is

5fw = 8~wPw/(Pw,)2


Substituting Fzfrom (44) into (45),we obtain the expression


Rew = p, d/pW

If the physical properties of the fluid are constant, expression (46) takes the form


Re = Pd/p

Using the equations derived and the successive approximation method, we can calculate the Nusselt number and friction factor for a fluid with variable physical properties. For convenience of calculation in Eqs. (35), (41), (43), and (46) we should transform from the dimensionless radius R to the universal coordinate qw . The terms R and qw are connected by the following relation:

R = 1 - VW/VOW


TW = .w*y/vw,

Tow = ~W*~O/~W, vw* = (.w/f w)1’2

The procedure used to calculate is as follows:

1. Values of ?low, q,vd, T, , and P are prescribed.

2. Having chosen one of the relationships for E,/v, the first approxima-

tion of the velocity and tcmperature profiles is calculated from Eqs. (43) and (35). Physical properties of the fluid are assumed constant and equal to their values at the wall temperature. 3. The distribution of the physical properties over the pipe section is calculated from the obtained (in the first approximation) temperature profile. Then the same equations determine co/v and the velocity and temperature profiles for the second approximation, physical properties variation being taken into account. Then, in the same way, the temperature profile is again calculated for the third approximation and all


higher approximations. The calculation is performed till the difference

of the (n + 1)th and nth approximations

becomes smaller than some prescribed value within the range of which we can neglect the change of the physical properties. 4. E,/Y and the velocity distribution are calculated from the physical properties distribution obtained in the last approximation. Then from Eq. (41) we can find the value

in temperature distribution

Since q\,,d and T, are prescribed, then from the last relation we can find the average bulk enthalpy h,)and the appropriate bulk temperature T,, . After that the number Nu, = qwd/X(Tw- Tb)is determined. Using Eq. (46) we can calculate the friction factor ew.

The procedure is simplified in the case of constant physical properties, where the distribution of E,/V and a velocity profile are calculated, and Nu and [ obtained from Eqs. (42) and (47). Naturally, numerical calculation demands the use of computers.

111. Heat Transfer with Constant Physical Properties


Consider the heat transfer solution for the case of a fully developed

flow with constant properties in a circular tube with constant heat flux at the wall. The calculation has been done by Petukhov and Popov (14)by the method discussed in Section 11, C. The eddy diffusivity of momentum was calculated from Keichardt’s Eqs. (20) and (21); j? = E,J~~was taken

to be one. The calculation was done for Re

Pr - 0-2000. The method of calculation takes into account the variation of the heat flux q and shear stress u along the radius. In order to estimate the errors which could appear with the assumption of uniform q and u

along the radius, several values of Nu and E were calculated for q = qw and u = u, . The ratios of thc corresponding values of Nu and 5 for varying q and u to these values for q = qw and u = a, are tabulated and presented in Table I. As can he seen from the table, the assumption of uniform q and u produces noticeable errors in Nu and [ values, especially for low Re and Pr. Nu vs Pr for various lie, according to the predicted values, is plotted in Fig. 2 (for Pr 3, 0.5). The calculations over the range Re and

- 104-5 x lo6 and































FIG.2. Nu vs Re and Pr from predictions by Petukhov and Popov (solid lines) and Deissler (dotted lines).


Pr - 104-5 x lo6 and 0.5-2000, respcctively, are described by the interpolation equation


5 = (1.82 log Re - 1.64)~’

Kl([) = 1 + 3.45,

k’,(Pr) = 11.7 + 1.8Prr1I3


The disagreement of the predicted Nu with Eq. (48) is within 1yo except for the ranges 5 J lo5 ~:c Re < 5 x lo6 and 200 < Pr < 2000 where it is 1-2 yo. If in Eq. (48) K, and K, are taken constant and equal to 1.07 and 12.7, respectively, the equation becomes simpler:

Nu =

((it%)Re Pr

1.07 + 12.7(t/8)1/2(Pr2I3- 1)

This equation suggested in paper (13) describes the predicted results with an accuracy of 5-6% over a range of 104-5 x lo6 for Re and

0.5-200 for Pr, and with loo/;, accuracy for 0.5 < Pr

same range of Re. With very large Pr number an analytical expression for Nu (or Sh)5 may be obtained. In this case the integrand in Eq. (42) decreases rapidly when the distance from the wall increases and it becomes negligibly small at low q = z*y/v. Expression (20a) for E,/V is true for low +I. Substituting E,/Y from (20a) into Eq. (42), assuming R w 1 in the integrand expression, and making a change of variables from R to q,we obtain

< 2000 and the

Performing the indicated integration yields

In calculation of mass transfer instcad of Nu and Pr numbers. thett- ditriisional

analogies Shcr\vood (Sh) and Schmidt (Sc) numbers are used.




E(=- 343


4’’ = 0.0855

At Pr 3 100, Eq. (51) agrees with the results of more accurate numerical calculations to within an error of 10% and within 2% for Pr 3 1000. For small Prandtl numbers Eq. (51) produces overestimated Nusselt numbers which increase with decreasing Pr and increasing Re. It is of interest to compare the results of this analysis with similar calculations of other authors. Deissler (22, 24) calculated the heat transfer for constant properties over the ranges 4 x lo3 < Re < 2 x lo5 and 0.73 < Pr < 3000 by using Eqs. (1 3) and (14) and assuming q = pw and cr = a,. From Eqs. (17) and (18) he calculated an eddy diffusivity assuming p = I. Sparrow et al. (31)calculated the heat transfer over the range lo4 < Re < 5 x lo5 and 0.7 < Pr < 150 by directly solving the energy equation. Here they used Deissler’s expression for the velocity profile and eddy diffusivities, Eqs. (17) and (19), assuming p = 1. Deissler and Sparrow et al. produced similar results (it is natural since actually they used the same expressions for E~/v).Therefore in Fig. 2 the results of the analysis discussed earlier are compared only with the results of Deissler obtained over a wider range of Prandtl numbers. With Pr < 10-20 the results of the earlier analysis are in good agreement with the results of Deissler. However, for higher Prandl number the results disagree. When Pr = 100 the Nusselt number according to Deissler is 15 yo lower and when Pr = 1000 it is 25 yo lower its value calculated by Eq. (48). For very large Pr (or Sc) [Pr (or Sc)- 2001 Deissler recommends the equation

Ku = KD(f/8)1/2Re Pr1/4



KD = 2 42nI.rr = 0.112

was obtained with the assumption that the eddy diffusivity of momentum eo/v is described by Eq. (17a). Unlike Eq. (51), the expression (52) gives a weaker dependence of Nu on Pr. That is why at very large Prandtl numbers (or Sc) Nu (or Sh) calculated from (52) appears to be lower than that calculated from Eq. (51) (at Sc = lo5 it is lower by approximately a factor of two). Only by comparing the predicted results with the experimental data can we solve the problem to the extent that the predicted results correspond to reality. Before the discussion of the experimental data we shall note a very important fact.


The predicted results listed in this paragraph refer to the case of heat transfer with constant heat flux at the wall (q, = const, Nu =- Nu,). If heat transfer occurs at a constant wall temperature (t,%- const, Nu = Nu,) the relation of Nu with Re and Pr differs from that for the case when qw = const. However, theoretical analysis carried out in (9,32,33) reveals the following: the difference in Nu, and Nu, (when Re and Pr are the same) takes place only when Pr numbers are small, i.e., mainly for liquid metals. When both Pr and Re increase this difference decreases rapidly. When Pr ~ 0.7 and Re = lo4, Nu, is already only

4% greater than Nu, . \Then lie increases to lo5this difference decreases to ~2')~))and at Pr ~ 10 and K 2 lo5the difference is less than 1 o/o.6

2 lo4 the results of the heat transfer

Thus, when Pr 2 0.7 and Re

calculations both at q,, ~ const and at t, = const are valid.


A great number of experimental papers on heat transfer in turbulent

pipe flow have been published. LJnfortunately, in many cases measure- ment accuracy was not high; therefore, heat transfer coefficients obtained experimentally often contain substantial errors which are difficult to estimate. Little experimental data of rather high accuracy have been


flow has been measured, i.e., approximately over a range of 0.7-10 for Prandtl numbers. Only a few authors have obtained heat transfer data at Pr from 10 to 100-150 and a little higher. Heat transfer measurements were not performed for Pr - 1000 because of the great experimental difficulties. Therefore mass transfer experimental data were used over the range of Pr (Sc to be more exact) for which the exact analogy between heat and mass transfer processes was valid. For comparison with the predicted results the most reliable experimental data have been chosen. The main characteristics of the data are given in Table 11. The heat transfer experimental data were extrapolated to the zero wall and flow temperature difference to avoid the affect of the dependence of the fluid physical properties upon the temperature. In some cases such extrapolation was performed rather accurately, while in other cases only approximately. Naturally the mass transfer experimental data need not be extrapolated because all the measurements were performed under isothermal conditions. In Fig. 3 the predicted results described by Eq. (48) are compared with

in recent years (34-37). Mainly heat transfer for air and water

All the listed results are for the case of fully developed Nu number. The difference between Nu,, and Nu, can be larger at the thermal entrance region.











Pr or Sc

Volkov and






Ivanova (38)

Petukhov and






Roizen (39)

Sukomel and

Air. helium






Allen and






Eckert (34)

Dipprey and






Sabersky (37)

Yakovlev (36)






Malina and

Water, oil




3,48, 75

Sparrow (35)

Sterman and


0, 30




Petukhov (40)


Hamilton (4f)b

Water and





water solutions

of glycerine

and metaxyl

a lo/dand l/d are relative lengths of calming nonheated and heated sections.

In Hamilton (41) an experimental phase.

tube wall made of benzoic acid served as a solid

the experimental data. The ordinate represents the ratio of the experimental Nusselt numbers to Nu,, predicted by Eq. (48) both at the same Re and Pr. The abscissa represents Re or Pr. As seen in the figure, experimental and predicted data are in good agreement. The divergence


Nu0 1.0















FIG.3. Experimental Nusselt numbers (Nu), predicted Nusselt numbers (Nuo):


of the experimental data from predictions does not exceed 5-6(), (except for a few points), this being ivithin the range of accuracy for both predicted and experimental data. In Fig. 4 the predicted results are compared with the mass transfer

4 the predicted results are compared with the mass transfer F I G . 4 .

FIG. 4. Comparison

of niass transfer rxperimental data (circles) nith the analytical

results of Petukhov and Popuv (solid lines) and Deissler (dotted lines).

experimental data at large Sc. ’I’he solid curve in the lower plot corre- sponds to Eq. (48) (when Sc . lo3) and to Eq. (51) (when Sc .> 10”. In the upper plot the solid curve corresponds to Eq. (51). ‘The dotted lines show Deissler’s calculations (when Sc is approximately lo3 and higher, the curves being drakvn according to Eq. (52)). From this figure, Eqs. (48) and (51) are in quite good agreement with the cxpcrimental data over a wide range of Sc (up to 10“. In comparison with the experimental data Ileissler’s calculations produce lower Sh numbers. Therefore, when Sc =- lo3,the difference is approximately 20”,,, and when Sc = lo5,the differencc increases to 50%. The analysis shows that, for practical heat and mass transfer calcula-

tions over a range of Pr or Sc - 0.5-IO3, Eq. (48) should be used, but for calculations in the range of Pr or Sc - 103-10”, Eq. (51) is valid. Equation (50) may also be used for Pr or Sc ranging from 0.5 to 200. As mentioned above, these equations describe the range of Reynolds

numbers from lo4 to 5 x


With high Re and simultaneously hiah Pr or Sc, t he validity of Eqs. (48). (50). and (51) has not yet been verified experimentally due to the absence of experimental data. I-loweTw, from the theoretical considerations \ve can assume that with high Re they ‘+re also in good agreement with expcrimental data.



Empirical equations of the following type are widely used in practice:

Nu = c RemPrn

Comparing Eq. (53) with Eqs. (48) and (51) it is easy to see that with Eq. (53) at constant c, m,and n it is impossible to describe to a reasonable accuracy the change of Nu number with Re and Pr over a wide range of

these parameters. A direct comparison of Eq. (53) with experimental data

leads to the same conclusion. Allen and Eckert

for Re - 1.3

m = 0.8, and n = 0.4) produces an error of up to 20%. An equation of the type (53) can be used for Nu = Nu (Re, Pr) only assuming that c, m, and n are functions of Re and Pr. For Re - 104-5.106 and Pr (or Sc) -0.5-105, m changes from 0.79 to 0.92, while n varies from

0.33 to 0.6.


(34) have shown that

x 104-11 x lo4 and Pr = 8, Eq. (53) (when c = 0.023,

IV. Heat Transfer and Skin Friction for Liquids with Variable Viscosity


For liquids (condensed medium) far from their critical point only dynamic viscosity varies greatly with temperature; all the other physical properties (p, C, , A) depend on temperature rather weakly. Therefore while investigating nonisothermal liquid flow, a model with variable viscosity may be used as a good approximation, other physical properties being assumed constant. Deissler’s paper (I I) should be noted as one of the papers devoted to the analysis of flow and heat transfer for liquids with variable viscosity. His analysis reduces to the simultaneous solution of Eqs. (13) and (14) in dimensionless form by means of the successive approximations method. As in the case of constant properties, q = qw and u = uw are assumed. The eddy diffusivity of momentum is calculated from Eqs. (22) and (23), and /3 is taken to be one. The variation of viscosity with temperature is taken into account only near the wall (7 < 26). The temperature dependence of viscosity is formulated as

where K is a constant; K varies from - 1 to -4. As for the turbulent core viscosity, it is considered constant here. Deissler has calculated heat transfer and skin friction over the range of 1-103 for Pr and 4 Y 103-2 x lo5 for Re. His results are given as Nu = Nu (Re,Pr,.) [where the subscript x means that the physical


properties are evaluated at the characteristic temperature as defined below] and 5 = ((Re,) for constant physical properties, if in calculating Re, and Pr,r the values of dynamic viscosity are taken at the reference temperature:

t, = .l(tw ~

tb) + tb


Pr vs x is plotted in Fig. 5 for tmth heating and cooling of the fluid. The upper plot may he used for the calculation of heat transfer, the plot



II 1


I Ill




I Ill

I Ill






FIG.5. Reference temperature for heat transfer (a) and friction (b) calculations by Deissler's method for fluids with vari;lhlc viscosity. Key: solid line, heating of fluid; dashed line, cooling of Ruid.

below is for the calculation of skin friction. The values of .y: in Fig. 5

correspond to K ~ 1.O to

The exponent K does not affect strongly the shape of the curves x(Pr);

nevertheless, the curves appear to be quite different in the cases of liquid heating and cooling. Thus, according to Deissler's theory the effect of variable viscosity on heat transfer and skin friction does not depend on Re and changes only

with Pr. However, when Pr : . 10, the reference temperature for

calculation of heat transfer varies weakly with Pr and is close to the arithmetic mean of t,, and tII.

In the following paragraph we shall discuss the agreement between the predicted results and the experimental data.

-4.0 and pl,,/po-0.5-2.0 (approximately).





Heat transfer and skin friction experimental data obtained under the conditions of essentially varying viscosity are not numerous; with rare exception they are not accurate and often do not agree well with each other. Therefore we shall use only that small amount of data which may be considered the most reliable. Analyzing the experimental data we assume that the relation of Nu with Re and Pr, and the relation between 5 and Re at variable physical properties (in this case at variable viscosity) is the same as in the case of constant properties. This assumption is confirmed by the experimental data for liquids with variable viscosity, gases with variable physical properties, and certain other cases (see the following sections). Of course, assuming a similar variation of Nu with Re and Pr, and 8 with Re for both constant and variable physical properties is only approximate. For example, Allen and Eckert discovered experimentally (34) (see Fig. 6) that variable viscosity affected heat transfer to a greater






\ 1.i





f.3 1.4







FIG. 6. Variable viscosity influence on the heat transfer in heated water: 0, 0,

A, v, and

62,500, and 110,000 at I'r

water: 0, 0, A, v, and 62,500, and 110,000 at I'r are Allen and Ikkert's experimental

are Allen and Ikkert's experimental data for Re = 13,000, 20,500, 35,500,

8. I, Deissler's predictions; 11, Nu/Nu, = (pb/pW)O.'*;

111, Nu/Nu,


or lesser degree depending on Re. This result is of great interest and deserves to be studicd in more detail. However, the error in Nu arising from not including the influence of Re on Nu and p,,/pwis several percent. Because of the absence of systematic data it is impossible at present to take into consideration such effects. If we proceed from the given assumption, the effect of variable


viscosity on heat transfer and skin friction can be estimated from the following relationships:


= fNu(Pw/Pbh

6/60 f&w/Pb)


where Nu and [ are the Nusselt number and the friction factor at variable viscosity obtained experimentally; Nu,, and so are the same numbers calculated by assuming constant physical properties with Re and Pr the same as for the corresponding Nu and [; pw and pb are the dynamic viscosities at T, and T,, , respectively. All the physical properties (except pw) in the expressions for the dimensionless numbers are calculated at the bulk temperature t,, for the given tube section. In Fig. 6, Allen and Eckert’s experimental data (34) on heat transfer for the case of water heating are compared with Deissler’s predicted results and some empirical relationships. As is readily seen, the predicted results describe qualitatively the effect of variable viscosity on heat transfer but produce quantitatively overestimated values. The relative change of heat transfer due to viscosity dependence on temperature can be expressed by the equation

WNu, = (Pb/PWY


where Nu, is calculated from Eq. (48) or (50) and the n expression is determined from the experimental data. As we can see from Fig. 6, n = 0.14 as suggested by Sieder and Tate (42)is overstated; n = 0.11 as suggested in (13,43)corresponds to experimental data for liquid heating better than n = 0.14. To choose the correct value of n in Eq. (56) the heat transfer experi- mental data corresponding to heating and cooling for several liquids over a wide range of values pw/pl, (the main characteristics of these data are presented in Table 111) where treated. The results of the treatment are










Yakovlev (36)





2-12 0.19-0.77

Kreith and

Butyl alcohol



23-30 0.08-0.45

Summerfield (45)



(I 3)

Petukhov (I 3) ‘I’ransformci- oil 88 5-44 39-61 I .2-8.6

‘I’ransformci- oil




I .2-8.6

Petukhov (13)


011 MS







FIG.7. Variable viscosity influence on the heat transfer in different fluids for heating and cooling (for symbols see Table 111).

given in Fig. 7. The averaging curves drawn through the experimental points correspond to n = 0.11 when the fluid is heated (pw/pb< 1) and

n = 0.25 when the fluid is cooled (pw/&,> 1). The value n = 0.25 is in

agreement with Mikheev's recommendation (44).He suggested that one should take into account the effect of variable physical properties by

means of (Prb/Prw)0.25which takes the form (pb/pw)0'25in the case of varaible viscosity and constant C, and A. Thus, to calculate heat transfer in a turbulent flow with variable

viscosity we can use Eq.

n = 0.25 for the case of cooling. Equation (56) is valid over a range of

0.0840 for pw/pb, 104-1.25 x lo5 for Re, and 2-140 for Pr.

Figure 8 illustrates the effect of variable viscosity on the friction factor

where the measured values of Allen and Eckert (34) and Rohonczy (46) are presented. The former are obtained with heated water and the latter with cooled water. Deissler's predicted results and some empirical relationships are given in this figure. Both the predicted results and the empirical equation suggested by Sieder and Tate (42)

(56) with n = 0.1 1 for the case of heating and

5/60 = (CLW/P~)O"~

in comparison with experimental data produce a weaker dependence of the friction factor on pw/pb. The experimental data plotted in Fig. 8 are well described by the following simple equations:

Under heating (pw/pb< 1):

5/50 = &(7 - Pb/Pw)

Under cooling (pw/pb> 1):



pw ’pb

FIG.8. Variable viscosity influence on friction in water for both heating and cooling:

(0)Allen and Eckert experiments (Re : 13,000-110,000, Pr = 8); 0 Rohonczy’s experiments (Re = 33 . 103-225 . loJ,Pr = 1.3-5.8). I, Deissler’s calculation (when Pr = 8 for heating and Pr = 2.3 for cooling); 11, f/[”: (fL~/ph)~”~;111, (/to= 1/6(7 - ph/pW);

Iv, f/fo


The friction factor in an isothermal flow tois calculated from Eq. (49). Equations (57) and (58) are true over a range of 0.35-2 for pw/pb, 104-23 x 104 for Re, and 1.3-10 for Pr. They are probably true over an even wider range of these parameters. However, this should be verified experimentally.

V. Heat Transfer and Skin Friction for Gases with Variable Physical Properties


Consider the analysis of the heat transfer and skin friction for a turbulent gas flow in a circular tube, far from the entrance with constant heat flux at the wall. The solution was obtained by Petukhov and Popov (14) using the method described in Section 11, C. The physical gas properties p, C, , A, p were considered as given functions of temperature. The variation of density with pressure and the energy dissipation in the flow was neglected. Therefore the analysis is valid only for gas flows with small subsonic velocities. The eddy diffusivity of momentum was determined according to Eqs.(20)and(21)and was extended to the case of



variable properties by introducing Goldmann's variable (24).The eddy diffusivity of heat eg was taken equal to E, (i.e., p = 1).

The calculations were carried out for air and hydrogen over the following ranges of the characteristic parameters: 104-4.3 X lo6 for Re,

and 0.37-3.1 for T,/T,, in air, lo4-5.8 X lo6 for T,,,/Tb in hydrogen (here Re, = pd/pb).

Re, and 0.37-3.7 for












0 2

0.4 0.6 0.8

I 0


0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

FIG.9. Distribution (dong radius) of dimensionless flow variables at variable (solid lines) and constant (dotted lines) air properties for Rew N 43 . lo3 and Pr N 0.70-0.71:

(1) Tw = 1000"K, To == 154"K, Tw/Tb = 3.11; (2) Tw = 300"K, To = 902"K, Tw/Tb= 0.383.

Figure 9 illustrates how variable physical properties affect the distribution of the dimensionless flow parameters along the radius:

temperature, velocity, mass velocity, heat flux, and eddy diffusivity of momentum. All the curves correspond to Pr, and Re, = pWdip, (these numbers have approximately the same values). Due to the variation of physical properties the temperature profile appears more concave for cooling than for heating. The property variation doesn't affect the velocity profile so strongly as it does the mass velocity profile. For the case of the fluid being heated, the mass velocity profile is flatter than for the cooled fluid. As is seen from Eq. (30) a change in the mass velocity profile results in a redistribution of the relative heat flux along the radius. For heating, when pW, decreases at the wall and, consequently, convective heat transfer along the axis decreases too, a maximum occurs


in the q/q, distribution. For cooling, when the mass velocitv profile is more full, the pip, distribution becomes nearly linear. The property variation also affects greatly the distribution (along the radius) of the relative eddy diffusivity of monientum.

FIG. 10.

Heat transfer versus tcmperaturc ratio parameter according to the analys~s.

Figure 10 represents the results of the heat transfer calculations as NuI,/NuO1,vs 8, where Nul, and Nu,,, are the Nusselt numbers for variable and constant gas properties, respectively and the same Re,, and Pr, 8; t9 = Tw/Tl,is the temperature ratio parameter. From Fig. 10, the predicted points diverge to a degree depending on the type of gas, wall temperature, and Reynolds number Re,,* = Re, ~,~/p,,. This divergence is not surprising because we cannot take into account the influence of

variable physical properties on heat transfer by means of only one temperature ratio parameter. Even so, the divergence of the points is not great. Other things being equal, the error. in Nul, for air and hydrogen does not exceed 1 (I:,; Nu,, for hydrogen at T,. = 2000°K is only 3-54/, greater than at T,. = 10OO"Ii; the error in Nu,, for air and hydrogen


Re,* = 14 ,( lo3 and 10'; is 3('{,.

* From here on, the suhscripts 1) and w mcan that the physical gas properties are evaluated at temperatures Tt, and T,, \\lien calculating the corresponding dimensionless numbers.



If the above-mentioned small errors in Nu, are neglected, the analytical results can be correlated by the equation

NUb/NU,b = 8"


u = -(a log 8 +0.36)

For cooling, a = 0. For heating, a = 0.3, and consequently n decreases with increasing 6. With these values for n, Eq. (59) describes the solution for air and hydrogen with an accuracy of f4%. For simplicity we can take n to be constant for heating also. Then, when n = -0.47, Eq. (59) describes the analytical results within &6y0.In the case of heated air, n = -0.5 produces slightly better results.


FIG. 11. Friction versus temperature ratio parameter (dots denote Petukhov and Popov's predictions; for symbols see Fig. 10).

In Fig. 11 the predicted friction factor is plotted as tl)'to,,vs 8. Here [,) = Suwpl,/(~~z)2and to,)are the friction factors at variable and constant physical gas properties and at the same Re,, , respectively. It should be noted that, contrary to the case of heat transfer, Re,* greatly affects the shape of thc curve f,,/fo,,vs 8, but as for the wall temperature and the type of gas, their influence is not very significant. The solutions for air and hydrogen are presented by the equation

tb/t"b = 8"


II = -0.6

-1- 5.6(Re,*)-0,3s


for heating and

n = -0.6 + 0.79(Rew*)-0.11

for cooling. Equation (60) describes the calculated results within 2-3 010 over the

range 0.37-3.7 for 0 and 14 x 10"-1O6 for Re,*. As Re,* varies over the

indicated range, n goes from -0.44 to -0.58 for the case of heating and from -0.32 to -0.42 for the case of cooling. If in Eq. (60) n is taken as -0.52 for heating and -0.38 for cooling, this equation describes the calculated data to within 700 accuracy in the first case and 4", in the second. Kutateladze and Leontiev (17) have obtained an analytical expression for the functions describing the influence of variable physical properties on heat transfer and skin friction in a turbulent gas flow when Re + 00. By making some assuniptions (u and q, vary identically with respect to the radius for both constant and variable properties, the velocity and temperature fields are similar, C,, = const) they obtained the following


The authors also recommend this expression for finite Re values, based on the empirical fact that the influence of varying physical properties on heat transfer and skin friction depends weakly on Re. Equation (61) produces stronger dependence of heat transfer and skin friction on the temperature ratio parameter than Petukhov and Popov's analysis, but the difference is not more than 10% (see Figs. 10 and 11). At large Re Eq. (61) is in good agreement with Eq. (60).

(47) analyzed the heat transfer for a number of

gases (argon, helium, air, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide), taking into account the temperature dependence of their physical properties. They used the same method (Deisslcr's method) as for fluids with variable viscosity (see Section IV, A), the only difference being in considering all the physical properties of the fluid (p, C,, , p, A) as functions of temperature. The results are given by the equation

Deissler and Presler

Nu, = Re;l4/31


The subscript x denotes that the physical properties in Xux and Re, are evaluated at the temperature

r. I,. = X(Tw - Tb) + Tb







Reb .


Method of accounting variable properties influence



Il'in (48)


59, 62




Humble, Lowdermilk, and


30-1 20



Desmon (49)

Bialokoz nnd Saunders (50)





Weight and Walters (51)



Taylor and Kirchgessner (52)





McCarthy and

Wolf (53)


43, 67



McCarthy and Wolf (54)



5-1 500




c Rc".~8"


B 0.5-0.9



c 0.0218










Nub = 0.023 Ret8Prt4B (for x/d > 60)




= Oat0 < 1






= -0.55 at 0 > 1





Nub - 0.022

Pr;,' 0-".5

Nub = 0.021 Re:,8Prr 6-0.575

at great I/d

Nu = 0.021

Pr?' at great Z/d

p~~~ - 0,023 K~o




Nu = 0.045


Prt4 -



(b) Local heat transfer:

Wieland (55)




Nuf = 0.021






far from the entry


Taylor (56)




Nuf = 0.021



McEligot, Magee, and

Air, helium,



Leppert (57)



far from the entry



Kirillov and Malugin (58)



7- 160