Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 44 (2013) 792–804

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science

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

Experimental studies on heat transfer to Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids

in helical coils with laminar and turbulent flow
S.S. Pawar ⇑, Vivek K. Sunnapwar
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Lokmanya Tilak College of Engineering, Sector-04, Vikas Nagar, Koparkhairane, Navi Mumbai 400 709, India

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

Article history: Experimental studies on isothermal steady state and non-isothermal unsteady state conditions were car-
Received 17 July 2012 ried out in helical coils for Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids. Water, glycerol–water mixture as New-
Received in revised form 20 September 2012 tonian fluids and dilute aqueous polymer solutions of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (SCMC), sodium
Accepted 23 September 2012
alginate (SA) as non-Newtonian fluids were used in this study. These experiments were performed for
Available online 4 October 2012
coils with curvature ratios d = 0.0757, 0.064 and 0.055 in laminar and turbulent regimes. An innovative
approach of correlating Nusselt number to dimensionless number ‘M’ for Newtonian fluids based on
Keywords:
experimental data is presented which is not available in the literature. Several correlations for the first
Helical coil
Heat transfer
time are proposed based on heat transfer data generated from the experiments performed for Newtonian
Newtonian fluid fluids under isothermal and non-isothermal conditions (total 138 tests). These developed correlations
Non-Newtonian fluid were compared with the work of earlier investigators and were found in good agreement. Further, com-
parison of overall heat transfer coefficient Uo, and Nusselt numbers for Newtonian and non-Newtonian
fluids under isothermal and non-isothermal conditions (total 276 tests) is presented in this paper. From
the experimental results, it was found that overall heat transfer coefficient and Nusselt numbers for
water are higher than glycerol–water mixture and non-Newtonian fluids. It was also observed from
experimental results that as helix diameter increases, overall heat transfer coefficient and Nusselt num-
bers of both fluids decreases for the same flow rates.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction of nanofluid, Brownian motion of particles and better fluid mixing

Passive heat transfer enhancement techniques in helical coiled
tubes are used in several industrial applications. The use of addi-
tives is a technique applied to enhance the heat transfer perfor-
mance of base fluids. Recently, as an innovative material,
nanometer-sized particles have been used in suspension in con-
ventional heat transfer fluids. The fluids with these solid-particle
suspended in them are called ‘nanofluids’. The suspended metallic
or non-metallic nanoparticles change the transport properties and
heat transfer characteristics of the base fluid. Based on the previous
studies, nanofluids are proposed for various applications in heat
energy transport fields such as cooling of electronic components,
transportation, medical, heat exchanger, nuclear reactor and HAVC.
This investigation is a kind of compound heat transfer enhance-
ment techniques, because two passive techniques such as helical
coil and nanofluids are taken together to enhance heat transfer.
The secondary flow provides proper mixing to enhance heat trans-
fer. The main reason is due to higher effective thermal conductivity
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 9930662311; fax: +91 22 2754 7793.
E-mail address: sspawar_ltcoe@yahoo.co.in (S.S. Pawar).
[1,2].
Due to the compact size and high heat transfer coefficient as
compared to straight tube, helical coil heat exchangers are fre-
quently used in power generation, nuclear industries, refrigeration
and air-conditioning systems, heat recovery systems, food and
dairy processes and other thermal processing plants. A secondary
flow induced by centrifugal force has significant ability to enhance
heat transfer rate in helical coils. There are many industrial appli-
cations of helical coils for heat transfer such as: (1) in small non-
industrial boiler regulation, the steam is generated by passing
the water in helical coil and heat is transferred by burning the li-
quid fuel like light diesel oil, (2) polyethylene is manufactured by
oxidation of ethylene in the helical coil in which heat of reaction
is taken out from helical coil to outside cold fluid, (3) many indus-
trial applications are condensing steam in helical coils for heating
the vessel fluid under isothermal or non-isothermal process, and
(4) the molasses is fermented in big vessel (reactor) and the heat
of reaction (exothermic) is removed by passing cold water through
helical coils to maintain the reactor temperature in isothermal con-
ditions for continuous fermentation and non-isothermal condi-
tions for batch reactor. There are many such applications seen for
last 3–4 decades.

0894-1777/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2012.09.024
 S.S. Pawar, V.K. Sunnapwar / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 44 (2013) 792–804
Nomenclature
a inner radius of tube (m)
a0 , b0 correlation constants
cp specific heat at constant pressure (J/kg K)
d inner diameter of coil (m)
D mean helix diameter of coil (m)
De Dean number, De = Re (a/R)1/2
hi inside convective heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K)
ho outside convective heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K)
k thermal conductivity of water (W/mK)
Lc length of coil (m)
m_ mass flow rate of cold water (kg/s)
0:64
M dimensionless number, M ¼ Re 0:18
0:26ða=RÞ
N number of coil turns
Nu Nusselt number, hidi/k
Pr Prandtl number, m/a
Q heat transferred to cold water (W)
R mean helical radius of the coil (m)
Re Reynolds number, vdi/m
In spite of their abundant use in industrial applications, there is
limited experimental information and correlations available in lit-
erature on fluid-to-fluid heat transfer under non-isothermal condi-
tions in case of Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids [35]. Table 1
gives the correlations developed for helical coils by earlier investi-
gators for different experimental parameters.
A first comprehensive review on heat transfer and flow through
a curved tube is presented by Berger et al. [11]. The latest review of
flow and heat transfer characteristics is provided by Naphon and
Wongwises [12] and recently, a critical review of heat transfer
through helical coils of circular cross section is presented by Pawar
et al. [13].
Aqueous glycerol solutions are widely used in experimental
studies of flow phenomena. Experimentation with glycerol solu-
tions facilitates investigation of flows in a wide range of Reynolds
numbers. Though glycerine has over 1500 known end uses, very
limited published experimental data on heat transfer is available
in the literature. Cheng [14] proposed an empirical formula for
the calculation of the viscosity of glycerol–water mixture for mass
concentrations in the range of 0–100% and temperatures varying
from 0 to 100 °C. It is simple to use as compared with similar rela-
tions developed by earlier investigators [15–17]. Various analytical
and experimental treatments for the flow of non-Newtonian fluids
in helical coils have been reported [18–22] in the literature. Rao
[21] reported the friction factors and heat transfer for turbulent
flow with power-law fluids having a flow behavior index from
0.78 to 1.0. Rajasekharan et al. [23] performed experimental stud-
ies for laminar flow in coiled pipes with pseudo-plastic and dila-
tants fluids. They correlated Nusselt number to the curvature
ratio, the flow behavior index and a modified Graetz number,
and also measured the diametrical pressure drop at different loca-
tions along the coil.
Critical literature review reveals that there is no evidence of
Nusselt number correlation with M number in the present research
work available. Also, limited experimental information is available
in the literature on heat transfer coefficients for non-Newtonian
fluids in helical coil heat exchangers of fluid-to-fluid type heat
transfer. The determination of these heat transfer coefficients for
isothermal steady state and non-isothermal unsteady state
conditions is important step in the design of helical coil heat
exchangers.
793
Recr critical Reynolds number
Gz Graetz number, (mc_ p)/(kb L)
T temperature (°C)
t temperature (°C)
Uo overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K)
v water velocity inside the coil (m/s)
Greek symbols
d coil curvature ratio, a/R
a thermal diffusivity (m2 s1)
m kinematic viscosity (m2 s1)
Subscripts
c coil
cr critical
i inner
o outer
s straight
2. Objective
The main objectives of this experimental study were:
(1) To develop for the first time, new correlations correlating
Nusselt number to dimensionless ‘M’ number and validation
of these heat transfer correlations with the works of earlier
investigators. Also to develop correlations such as: Nu/Pr0.4
vs. De, Nu/Pr0.4 vs. Gz for Newtonian fluids under isothermal
steady state and non-isothermal unsteady state conditions.
(2) To compare experimental Nusselt numbers of various non-
Newtonian fluids and comparison of Nusselt numbers in
helical coil for water with straight pipe using Pigford’s
correlation.
(3) To compare experimental overall heat transfer coefficient
under isothermal steady state and non-isothermal unsteady
state conditions for Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids.
2.1. Dimensionless number ‘M’
In helical coil, a complex flow pattern exists in laminar as well
as turbulent flow regimes which are responsible for the enhance-
ment of heat transfer coefficient. Due to mixing of primary and sec-
ondary flow pattern simultaneously in helical coil, it becomes
difficult to characterize the hydrodynamics of fluid flow. Neither
the Reynolds number nor the Dean number could characterize
the hydrodynamics of flow through helical coils. Therefore, Muja-
war and Rao [7] established for the first time, the criteria for lam-
inar flow in coiled tubes on the basis of a new dimensionless
number, M, deduced from a knowledge of the effect of coil curva-
ture ratio on the flow curves. Based on their experimental results,
the criteria for laminar flow in coiled tubes for any type of fluid,
either Newtonian or non-Newtonian and for any curvature ratio
is given in generalized form as:
Re;genc
M¼ 0 6 2100 ð1Þ
ða=RÞmC
For Newtonian fluids, Eq. (1) is simplified to set the criteria for
laminar flow based on their experimental data as:
794 S.S. Pawar, V.K. Sunnapwar / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 44 (2013) 792–804

Table 1
Various correlations developed by earlier investigators under different experimental conditions.

Author d = a/R Range of Re or De Range of Pr Remarks

Jeschke [3]
Seban and McLaughlin [4]
Rogers and Mayhew [5]
Mori and Nakayama [6]
Mujawar and Rao [7]
Pawar et al. [8]
Xin and Ebadian [9]
Jayakumar et al. [10]
0.0549, 0.1639 150,000 0.7 Nuc = Nus [1 + 3.5 (a/R)]. He showed for the first time the difference between
the heat transfer coefficient in coiled tubes and straight tubes is significant.
The work was for a limited range of parameters
0.0096, 0.0588 6000 6 Re 6 65,000 2.9 6 Pr 6 5.7 Nu ¼ 0:023Re0:85 Pr0:4 d0:1 applicable for: Re (a/R) > 6. The fluid was heated
by electrical dissipation through tube wall instead of steam. Their studies
showed that the factor [1 + 3.5 (a/R)] is not accurate and even greater
enhancement in the heat transfer coefficient is achieved in helical coil over
straight tube
0.0926, 0.075 10,000 6 Re 6 100,000 – Nu ¼ 0:023Re0:85 Pr0:4 d0:1 . It is similar to correlation developed by [4].
and 0.05 However, they heated fluid flowing in helical tubes by steam and fluid
properties were estimated based on mean bulk temperature
h i
0.025, 0.0534 10,000 6 Re 6 200,000 Pr > 1 1
Nuc ¼ 41:0 1þ 0:061 5=6
ða=RÞ1=12 Pr0:4 valid for: Re (a/R)2.5 > 0.4.
2:5 1=6 Re
fReða=RÞ g
They found that the increase in heat transfer rate is not as significant as that
under laminar flow condition. They further stated that there is no significant
difference in heat transfer coefficient for constant wall temperature and
constant heat flux boundary condition.
0.0695, 0.0476, 35 6 De 6 2200 – M¼ Re0:64
0:18 6 2100. They established for the first time, the criteria for
0:26ðRaÞ
0.0198 and
0.0100 laminar flow in coiled tubes on the basis of a new dimensionless number ‘M’
deduced from a knowledge of the effect of coil curvature ratio on the flow
curves. For Newtonian fluid, the criterion for laminar flow in helical coil is
given by above correlation
0.0685 5788 6 Re 6 16,177 4.86 No correlation was developed by authors. Their results for rectangular cross
section showed 24.8% average enhancement in heat transfer coefficient over
coil of circular cross section
0.0267, 0.0884 5000 6 Re 6 105 0.7 6 Pr 6 5 Nu ¼ 0:00619Re0:92 Pr0:4 ½1 þ 3:455d. This correlation is based on their
experimental results for vertical orientation of coil for water and air. They
carried out experimental work for three different fluids-air, water and
ethylene glycol on five uniformly heated helical pipes
0.0333 2000 6 De 6 12,000 1.0 6 Pr 6 3.5 Nu ¼ 0:025De0:9112 Pr0:4 . Authors compared their experimental results with
the CFD results and they developed above correlation to calculate inner heat
transfer coefficient in helical coil. They observed that the use of constant
values for the thermal and transport properties of the heat transport
medium results in prediction of inaccurate heat transfer coefficient

Re0:64 2.2. Critical Reynolds number

M¼ 6 2100
0:26ða=RÞ0:18
The criterion for laminar flow in coiled tubes given by Eq. (1)
was satisfactorily tested with the results of their work. However,
they could not develop heat transfer correlations relating Nusselt
number to M number in their research work. Hence, this present
work was undertaken to develop generalized heat transfer correla-
tions in terms of M number and validation of these developed cor-
relations with work of earlier investigators.
When helix diameter tends to infinity, it becomes horizontal
straight pipe flow, and when helix diameter tends to zero, it be-
comes vertical straight pipe. In helical coil, Reynolds number is a
particular case of M number. The physical significance of M num-
ber in helical coil is inertia force (primary and secondary force)
by viscous force.
ð2Þ
Secondary flow in helical coil is inversely proportional to the ra-
dius of helix and directly proportional to the square of velocity (v2/
R) whereas Reynolds number is directly proportional to velocity.
Hence, the significance of secondary flow will be very high at
low radius of helix though Reynolds number is not affected by ra-
dius of the helix. It may be pointed out that any Reynolds number
is not in a position to reveal the flow pattern such as laminar, tran-
sition and turbulent in helical coils.
The critical Reynolds number has been introduced by few inves-
tigators [24–29] to identify the transition from laminar to turbu-
lent flow in helical coils. Out of all these correlations developed
for critical Reynolds number, correlation developed by Mujawar
and Rao [7] gives close results with Ito [27] and Schmidt [28] as
shown in Table 2 for any coil curvature ratios which is of practical
interest.

Table 2
Comparison of critical Reynolds number in helical coils (values of d are assumed).

d Ito-1959 Srinivasan Cioncolini Ito-1987 M and Rao Schmidt

0.01 3665.727 4620 3444.461 4581.735 5210.174 4790.154
0.03 5220.154 6464.768 5772.557 6511.916 7086.735 6382.544
0.05 6375.079 7734.891 7339.005 7668.323 8176.433 7437.63
0.07 7353.807 8767.293 8596.414 8540.069 8984.20 8277.511
0.09 8225.144 9660 9674.204 9255.238 9639.182 8993.225
0.1 8631.38 10068.9 10165.32 9572.60 9927.783 9318.209
0.15 10457.82 11859.92 12299.41 10898.81 11121.36 10723.01
0.20 12051.29 13369.78 14080.09 11949.77 12054.26 11887.16
0.25 13491.27 14,700 15636.99 12834.26 12831.44 12899.84
0.30 14819.67 15902.61 17036.02 13605.32 13503.5 13806.17
 S.S. Pawar, V.K. Sunnapwar / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 44 (2013) 792–804 795

Correlations developed for calculating critical Reynolds number inserting thermocouple probe in the wall, it was tightly covered by
by [24–29] are applicable for Newtonian fluids only whereas Eq. stainless steel strip so that it could not leave the contact of the wall
(1) developed by Mujawar and Rao [7] in their research article to surface. Then it was tightly covered by five turns of thick Teflon
calculate M number are applicable to Newtonian as well as non- tape which has low thermal conductivity, to avoid penetration of
Newtonian fluids, is significant. Therefore, it is essential to develop water in the junction. There was no evidence of opening of Teflon
Nusselt number correlations in terms of M number and tests the tape even at 80 °C temperature of water in vessel and it was for
same with published correlations. sure that the thermocouple junctions were properly secured with
these tapes even for repeated readings. This is because as there is
no any disturbance of fluid coming in contact (like fluid movement
3. Materials and methods
due to agitation, etc.) with the thermocouple junctions, as heat
transfer from outside hot water to wall takes place by natural con-
3.1. Experimental setup
vection. Hence, there is no possibility of penetration of water into
the thermocouple junction which will disturb the thermocouple
A schematic diagram of the experimental setup is as shown in
readings. Thus, sufficient care was taken while attaching or fixing
Fig. 1. The physical dimensions of helical coils used in the present
thermocouples on the surface of tube wall to reduce uncertainties
investigation are given in Table 3.
in the wall temperature measurements.
The coil length is calculated by using Lc = pDN. Inside helical
Five thermocouples as shown in Fig. 1 and one thermometer
coil surface is plain and smooth, and therefore roughness has al-
were used to measure hot water vessel temperature. Digital tem-
most insignificant effect. It will not have much bearing on heat
perature indicator was used to record all these thermocouple tem-
transfer phenomenon. Few experiments were repeated to check
peratures whose least count is 0.1 °C and was calibrated to meet
the reproducibility of results and it was found to be excellent.
limits of error ±0.1 °C.
An insulated hot water vessel of size 550 mm diame-
ter  700 mm height with 4 mm thickness of mild steel material
3.2. Experimental procedure
of construction was used to house the coils. Outside surface of
the entire hot water vessel was provided with insulation of
The test fluids were pumped through the coils using 1 HP cen-
50 mm thickness of thermocol covered by asbestos material. Insu-
trifugal pump (Single phase, 2800 RPM, Head-30 m, Discharge-
lation to the helical coil to the downside of the test section was also
3600 LPH, Laxmi Make) at different inlet temperatures starting
provided for safety while taking readings. The radiation loss at the
from 32 ± 2 °C and it went on increasing maximum up to
exit thermometer is estimated to be less than 0.1% of the total area
42 ± 2 °C for last reading. This happens due to change in helix
of the test section (helical coil). At inlet, there is obviously negligi-
diameter of the helical cooling coil in cold water tank. The test fluid
ble heat loss by radiation as cold water is entering in the coil.
was taken from a solution tank of size 500  500  500 mm3
Hence, there will not be any practical significance on the readings
which is made of mild steel material. All the test fluids were heated
taken by thermometer at inlet and outlet. The water in the vessel
in hot water vessel while passing through helical coil. The test flu-
outside the coil is in a natural convection heat transfer mode and
ids were cooled in helical coil placed in cold water tank of size
it does not have any significant stratified flow pattern. Hence, the
700  600  1500 mm3 and then recirculated through solution
effect of stratification in the water vessel is ignored.
tank as shown in Fig. 1.
Three electrical heaters were used in hot water vessel out of
The constant cold water (at 30 ± 1 °C) flow rate –
which two heaters of total power 8 KW (5 KW and 3 KW) fixed at
32.92  105 m3/s was supplied while entering in cooling tank to
the bottom were switched on for all the time and third heater of
cool the test fluids in helical coil and same flow rate of water
power 3 KW fixed at side was switched on and off as and when
was leaving cooling tank at different temperatures. The flow rate
needed to maintain a constant hot water vessel temperature
of test fluid was measured by two rota meters (Capacity 0 to
62.5 ± 0.2 °C. For non-isothermal unsteady state condition, all the
10 lpm and 10–100 lpm, Star Make, Sr. No. 238). It was verified
three heaters were switched on continuously until maximum possi-
for each experiment by noting the time taken to fill a bucket of
ble temperature of vessel was attained for maximum possible flow
known volume located at the exit of the system to reduce uncer-
rate of corresponding test fluids. For each experiment, the required
tainty in the flow measurements. The purpose of using different
coil was mounted on supporting platform made of angle
flow rates was to change the temperature distribution along the
(25  25 mm) and was fixed to the hot water vessel. The threaded
tube wall and to change the inside heat transfer coefficient.
connections for inlet and outlet of coil ends as shown in Fig. 1 were
Inlet and outlet temperatures of heating and cooling coils were
used to connect suction and discharge pipes. The inner diameter of
measured by mercury thermometers having a range of 10 to
the fittings was kept equal to the inner diameter of the test coil (coil
150 °C and were calibrated to meet limits of error ±0.1 °C. The sys-
wall thickness = 2.3 mm) to prevent disturbance of the flow pattern
tem was allowed to come to a steady state condition (approximate
of the fluid when entering and leaving the coils. The first and the last,
time taken for each flow rate to come to steady state condition was
two turns of the helical coils were provided respectively as upstream
15–20 min for isothermal steady state conditions) before the tem-
and downstream calming sections in accordance with the equation
peratures were noted. For non-isothermal unsteady state condi-
of Austin and Seader [30] to get fully developed flow given by:
tion, the first reading was taken when vessel temperature
reached at 54 ± 0.2 °C and then remaining all readings were taken
cD ¼ 49½Deða=RÞ1=3 ð3Þ
for every 15 min of time interval. For each test fluid, the experi-
Temperature measurements were made using type K (nickel– ment was repeated for few readings to minimize the uncertainty
chromium) thermocouples of 14-gauge extension wire, tempera- in measured experimental parameters and reproducibility were
ture range 50 to 300 °C, (Digital System and Automation Make, found to be within (an average) ±1.57% for temperatures, ±5.6%
SE-221) and were calibrated to meet limits of error ±0.1 °C. Six for flow rates of test fluids.
thermocouples were attached to measure the wall temperatures
of the coils at six different locations. These six thermocouples were 3.3. Preparation of non-Newtonian solutions
attached opposite to each alternate coil turn opposite to inner and
outer side of coil. Holes up to 0.5 mm depth were drilled in the wall Non-Newtonian test solutions which were prepared in water by
to the size of thermocouple probe to be inserted into the wall. After dissolving a known amount of powders SCMC and Sodium Alginate
796 S.S. Pawar, V.K. Sunnapwar / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 44 (2013) 792–804

Fig. 1. Schematic layout of experimental setup.

Table 3
Physical dimensions of helical coils used.

Helical coils d L (mm) Do (mm) Di (mm) di (mm) do (mm) N Pitch (mm)

Coil-I 0.0757 8195.47 300 274.6 20.8 25.4 9.5 29.15
Coil-II 0.064 9687.73 350 324.6 20.8 25.4 9.5 29.15
Coil-III 0.055 11179.98 400 374.6 20.8 25.4 9.5 29.15
 S.S. Pawar, V.K. Sunnapwar / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 44 (2013) 792–804 797

Table 4
Types of coils, test fluids, flow rates and experimental conditions used in this experimental work.

Newtonian fluids Non-Newtonian fluids

3 5
Helical coils Test fluids Flow rates (m /s  10 ) Experimental conditions Helical coils Test fluids Flow rates (m3/s  105) Experimental conditions
Coil-I Water 3.3967–16.8350 Isothermal Coil-I 0.5% SCMC 2.41–14.879 Isothermal
Coil-II Coil-II
Coil-III Coil-III
Coil-I Water 3.41–25.97 Non-isothermal Coil-I 1% SCMC 2.2419–28.977 Non-isothermal
Coil-III Coil-III
Coil-I 10% Glycerol 3.3967–16.8350 Isothermal Coil-I 0.5% SA 2.4219–14.879 Isothermal
Coil-II Coil-II
Coil-III Coil-III
Coil-I 20% Glycerol 3.62–26.11 Isothermal Coil-I 1% SA 2.421–13.60 Isothermal
Coil-I 20% Glycerol 3.62–26.11 Non-isothermal Coil-I 1% SA 2.2419–28.977 Non-isothermal
Coil-III Coil-III

in the concentration range of 0.5–1% (w/w) as shown in Table 4 are Q

Uo ¼ ð7Þ
used as the test fluids. The water in the reservoir was heated up to A O DT o
60 °C and 45 °C temperatures to dissolve powders of SCMC and SA
Ao is the outside surface area of the coil and DTo be an average tem-
at faster rate respectively, and the mixture was stirred continu-
perature difference between the bulk fluid in the coil (an average of
ously for 2 h to get homogeneous solutions. Sodium benzoate of
the inlet and outlet temperatures) and the fluid in the vessel. Inside
0.5% by volume with SCMC was added in water as a stabilizer.
heat transfer coefficient hi is calculated by using following relation
The hot water was used to clean the inside surface of the helical
as:
coil after use of every test fluids for about 1 h.
Q
hi ¼ ð8Þ
3.4. Calculation of heat transfer coefficients Ai DT i
Ai is the inside surface area of the coil and DTi is an average tem-
Thermo-physical properties of test fluids inside the helical coil
perature difference between the bulk fluid in the coil and the aver-
test section are assumed constant along the coil length and evalu-
age wall temperature (an average of six thermocouple readings
ated at an average bulk temperature. Physical properties of non-
attached at the six different locations on the surface of the coil).
Newtonian fluids such as thermal conductivity, density and spe-
Inner Nusselt number is then calculated from:
cific heat were taken to be the same as those of water, as taken
by Rajasekharan et al. [23] in their work at an average bulk temper- hi di
Nui ¼ ð9Þ
ature. Dynamic viscosity, kinematic viscosity and density of glyc- k
erol–water mixture were taken from Cheng [14]. The thermal
Outside heat transfer coefficient is calculated by using:
conductivity is calculated from Eqs. (4) and (5) given by Bates
[32] and specific heat of glycerol from CINDAS [31]. Specific heat Q
ho ¼ ð10Þ
of glycerol–water mixture is then calculated by interpolation. A o DT o

K t ¼ 0:00127 þ 0:00000317ðtÞ for 10% glycerol
K t ¼ 0:00118 þ 0:00000284ðtÞ for 20% glycerol
t is the temperature of mixture. The thermo-physical properties of
mixtures used in this experimental work are given in Table 5.
Heat loss from the hot water in the vessel to the cold water
flowing in the coil is calculated from:
_ p ðT out  T in Þ
Q ¼ mC
All quantities were known except the heat transfer rate. The
heat transfer rate calculated from above equation was then used
to calculate the overall heat transfer coefficient, Uo as:
ð4Þ DTo is the temperature difference between the vessel temperature
and an average wall temperature of the coil.
ð5Þ
4. Results and discussion
Results and discussion is divided into two main sections such
as: (1) results and discussion for Newtonian fluids and (2) heat
transfer results and discussion for non-Newtonian fluids.
ð6Þ
4.1. Results and discussion for Newtonian fluids
4.1.1. Development of correlations based on experimental data
Total 138 experiments were conducted for Newtonian fluids
under isothermal steady state and non-isothermal unsteady state

Table 5
Thermo-physical properties of the mixtures at mean bulk temperature of test fluids.

Type of mixture Tbulk (°C) k (W/mK) cp (J/kg k) q (kg/m3) m (m2/s) Experimental conditions
10% Glycerol 47 0.5499 4010 1021 7.49e7 Isothermal
20% Glycerol 46.77 0.549 3838 1051 9.94e7 Isothermal
50 0.5526 3845.6 1049.8 9.42e7 Non-isothermal
0.5% and 1% SCMC, 47 0.6368 4177 989 – Isothermal
50 0.6474 4178 988 – Non-isothermal
0.5% and 1% S.A 47 0.6376 4175 989 – Isothermal
50 0.6474 4178 988 – Non-isothermal
798 S.S. Pawar, V.K. Sunnapwar / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 44 (2013) 792–804
conditions with laminar to turbulent flow regimes as given in Ta-
ble 4. The desired form of the correlation is as follows:
0
Nu ¼ a0 ðMÞb
0 0
where a and b are constants to be evaluated experimentally by
using least-squares method of curve fitting based on experimental
data. The experimental data points of three coils (total 90 tests)
for water and glycerol–water mixture (10% and 20% glycerol in
water) under isothermal steady state temperature condition in ves-
sel are presented in Fig. 2, by plotting Nu against M on a logarithmic
scale that results the following correlation; where the correlation
coefficient is R = 92.83%.
Nu ¼ 0:0065ðMÞ1:1798
applicable for the range of: 907 6 M 6 3348, 3.83 6 Pr 6 7.3 and
0.055 6 d 6 0.0757.
The solid line presents the fitting curve through experimental
data points using a least-squares power law fit. This correlation
is proposed without considering the effect of Prandtl number as
a heat transfer parameter which is important when test fluid is
highly viscous. Hence, Nusselt number is correlated for the same
condition and same test data to M number and Prandtl number
by plotting M on x-axis and Nu/Pr0.4 on y-axis using logarithmic
scale as shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 2. Plot of Nu vs. M for 90 tests data obtained from water and glycerol–water mixture under isothermal condition to develop correlation (12).
Fig. 3. Plot of Nu/Pr0.4 vs. M for 90 tests data obtained from water and glycerol–water mixture under isothermal condition to develop correlation (13).
The least-squares power-law fit on experimental data points
yields the following correlation where the correlation coefficient
R = 94.94%.
ð11Þ
Nu ¼ 0:0023ðMÞ1:2354 Pr0:4 ð13Þ
applicable for the range of: 907 6 M 6 3348, 3.83 6 Pr 6 7.3 and
0.055 6 d 6 0.0757. Exponent of Prandtl number is assumed 0.4
for heating process which is also used by most of the earlier inves-
tigators. Both Eqs. (12) and (13) are developed for isothermal steady
state temperature condition in heating vessel whereas Eq. (14) is
developed for combination of isothermal steady state and non-iso-
thermal unsteady state conditions. Total 138 (90 tests for isother-
mal steady state and 48 tests for non-isothermal unsteady state)
experimental data points are presented in Fig. 4, by plotting Nu
ð12Þ against M on a logarithmic scale which is resulted into following
correlation; where the correlation coefficient is R = 89.43%.
Nu ¼ 0:0096ðMÞ1:1202 ð14Þ
applicable for the range of: 880 6 M 6 4642, 3.54 6 Pr 6 7.3 and
0.055 6 d 6 0.0757.
Here value of correlation coefficient R is lower as compared to
Eqs. (12) and (13) due to lower values of Nusselt numbers for
non-isothermal unsteady state condition. Fig. 5 presents the plot
of Nu/Pr0.4 vs. Gz for experimental data points obtained from 78
tests of water and 10% glycerol–water mixture under isothermal
 S.S. Pawar, V.K. Sunnapwar / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 44 (2013) 792–804 799

Fig. 4. Plot of Nu vs. M for 138 tests data obtained for water and glycerol–water mixture under isothermal and non-isothermal conditions to develop correlation (14).

Fig. 5. Plot of Nu/Pr0.4 vs. Gz for 78 tests data obtained for water and 10% glycerol–water mixture under isothermal condition to develop correlation (15).

condition to get Eq. (15) by least-squares power-law fit on log–log
scale as:
Nu ¼ 0:9366ðGzÞ0:8177 Pr0:4
applicable for the range of: 3.83 6 Pr 6 5.149, 0.055 6 d 6 0.0757
and 19 6 Gz 6 152. Coiled tubes are usually characterized by Dean
number. Fluid flow and heat transfer data analysis is done in liter-
ature using Dean number which is: De = Re (a/R)1/2. The physical
significance of Reynolds number is inertia force by viscous force
and clearly gives the idea of fluid flowing through straight pipe
about its flow pattern such as laminar, transition and turbulent.
However, Dean number does not give any idea about the flow pat-
tern of the fluid flowing through helical coils. When a/R tends to
zero, the pipe becomes horizontal and when a/R tends to infinity,
the pipe becomes vertical. Hence, based on the nature of the corre-
lations available in the present literature, it is proposed to develop a
ð15Þ correlation based on experimental data of three coils for Newtonian
fluids. Experimental data points of all coils (90 tests) are presented
in Fig. 6, by plotting Nu/Pr0.4 against De on a logarithmic scale. The
solid line presents the fitting curve through the experimental data
points using a least-squares power law fit that results the following
correlation; where the correlation coefficient is R = 98.15%.
Nu ¼ 0:0472De0:8346 Pr0:4 ð16Þ
valid for the range of: 586 6 De 6 4773, 0.055 6 d 6 0.0757, and
3.83 6 Pr 6 7.3.
800 S.S. Pawar, V.K. Sunnapwar / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 44 (2013) 792–804

Fig. 6. Plot of Nu/Pr0.4 vs. De for 90 tests data obtained for water and 10%, 20% glycerol–water mixture under isothermal condition to develop correlation (16).

Fig. 7. Plot of Nu vs. M for 48 tests data obtained for water and 20% glycerol–water mixture under non-isothermal condition to develop Eq. (17).

Fig. 8. Plot of Nu vs. Re for comparison of developed correlations (Eqs. (12)–(17)) based on present experimental data (for Re = 3498–17347, Pr = 3.83 and d = 0.0757) with
works of earlier researchers for coil-I.
 S.S. Pawar, V.K. Sunnapwar / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 44 (2013) 792–804
A correlation for Newtonian fluids under non-isothermal un-
steady state conditions, Eq. (17) is developed by using least-
squares power-law fit on log–log scale as shown in Fig. 7 for 48
tests of water and 20% glycerol which is resulted as:
Nu ¼ 0:0062ðMÞ1:1631
applicable for the range: 880 6 M 6 4642. Comparison of this corre-
lation is shown in Fig. 8. It predicts lowest values of Nusselt num-
bers as compared to developed correlations (12)–(16) and with
the works of earlier researchers. All the developed correlations
(12)–(17) are having reliability margins within ±10%.
The correlations developed from Eqs. (12)–(16) based on vari-
ous experimental data which are generated for Newtonian fluids
covering Reynolds number range from 2227 to 17,347 under iso-
thermal steady state condition and from 2351 to 28,904 for 48
tests under non-isothermal unsteady state condition. Fig. 8 pre-
sents a comparison of the Nusselt numbers predicted by Eqs.
(12)–(17) with (i) Xin and Ebadian [9] and (ii) Jayakumar et al.
[10]. It can be seen from Fig. 8 that present correlations devel-
oped are in good agreement with Nusselt numbers predicted by
correlations by [9,10]. It is also observed from Fig. 8 that, the
present correlation (16) gives almost same values of Nusselt
numbers with correlation developed by Jayakumar et al. [10] for
all the range of Reynolds number. However, there is a marginal
difference of Nusselt numbers in turbulent regime as compared
to laminar regime for all the correlations except Eq. (16) and
Jayakumar et al. [10]. In this experimental work, critical Reynolds
number is calculated as per criteria given by Mujawar and Rao
[7]. Similarly, comparisons for other coils and conditions have
been done (not shown here). The range of M number of Newto-
nian fluids, for all experiments (138 tests) lies in between 850
and 4642 which correspond to Reynolds number 2227 to
28,904. Measurements up to M = 2100 correspond to laminar flow
regimes and, M > 2100 or Re > 10,000 as per Ito [24,27] measure-
ments correspond to turbulent flow as seen from earlier correla-
tions developed by investigators.
The values of Nusselt numbers predicted by Xin and Ebadian [9]
are 9.18%, 15.74%, 15.55%, 14.4%, 6.01%, and 23.71%. However,
Fig. 9. Comparison of overall heat transfer coefficients for Newtonian fluids as a function of Reynolds number under isothermal and non-isothermal conditions (86 tests
data).
801
Jayakumar et al. [10] had the prediction of 0.32%, 7.52%, 6.81%,
3.18%, 3.15%, and 16.27% for the same. It can be noted that all
these predicted values stand higher than the corresponding values
calculated by developed Eqs. (12)–(17). Developed correlations
from Eqs. (12)–(16) based on experimental data under isothermal
ð17Þ steady state condition shows acceptable range of deviations within
±10%. Eq. (17) which is developed under non-isothermal unsteady
state condition gives little higher deviation as compared to Eqs.
(12)–(16). Hence, all these correlations are recommended for the
design of industrial helical coil heat exchangers for Newtonian
fluids.
4.1.2. Comparison of overall heat transfer coefficient
Overall heat transfer coefficient of three helical coils for Newto-
nian fluids under isothermal steady state and non-isothermal un-
steady state conditions is shown in Fig. 9. It is observed from
Fig. 9 that as Reynolds number increases, overall heat transfer coef-
ficient increases for water as well glycerol–water mixture but it de-
creases as helix diameter of coil increases. From Eq. (7), overall
heat transfer coefficient is directly proportional to heat transfer
rate, Q and inversely proportional to outer surface area of coil, Ao
and DTo. Though there is increase in heat transfer rate (due to more
residual time for temperature penetration from hot fluid in vessel
to cold fluid flowing in coil for higher length of coil) as coil length
increases but this is dominated by larger outer surface area of coil
which decreases value of Uo for higher helix diameter. For coil-I,
outer surface area is 0.65396 m2 and for coil-III, it is
0.89212 m2. Value of DTo also increases as helix diameter in-
creases. Value of outside heat transfer coefficient is inversely pro-
portional to the length of coil. Also, secondary motion becomes
weaker for higher helix diameter (which decreases value of inner
heat transfer coefficient, hi) due to decrease in centrifugal force act-
ing on moving fluid element inside the coil. Due to all these rea-
sons, overall heat transfer coefficient decreases as helix diameter
increases. Also, it is observed from results that, for coil-I, an aver-
age value of Uo of water is found to be 15.51% higher than 10% glyc-
erol–water mixture and 16.73% for 20% glycerol–water mixture
under isothermal steady state condition.
802 S.S. Pawar, V.K. Sunnapwar / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 44 (2013) 792–804

Fig. 10. Comparison of experimental Nusselt numbers for coil-I with straight pipe using Pigford’s Eq. (18).

Fig. 11. Comparison of Nusselt numbers vs. Gz numbers for non-Newtonian fluids under isothermal and non-isothermal conditions with coil-I.

4.1.3. Comparison of Nusselt number
Comparison of Nusselt numbers for coil-I with Pigford’s correla-
tion [33] applicable for Newtonian fluids for straight pipes given by
Eq. (18) is presented in Fig. 10.
Nu ¼ 1:75½ð3n þ 1Þ=4n1=3 Gz1=3
For water, n = 1.
Enhancement in Nusselt numbers for helical coil over straight
pipe by using Eq. (18) is found to be 30.84%. Similarly, comparison
for other coils and fluids are done (not shown here).
4.2. Heat transfer results and discussion for non-Newtonian fluids
For non-Newtonian fluids, Graetz number is the correct charac-
teristic dimensionless group to correlate the heat transfer coeffi-
cients (Rajasekharan et al. [23]). From Fig. 11, it can be seen that
Nusselt numbers for 0.5% and 1% sodium alginate are higher than
SCMC solutions having same content in water under isothermal
and non-isothermal conditions. Also, increase in percentage of
non-Newtonian powders in water decreases heat transfer coeffi-
cients as viscosity of mixture increases. In isothermal condition,
ð18Þ heat transfer coefficients are higher than non-isothermal condition
for the same type of fluids because of temperature difference at
starting of an experiment. Similar plots of Nu vs. Gz are plotted
for other two coils, d = 0.064 and d = 0.055 (not shown here). From
all these plots of different coil curvature ratios for non-Newtonian
fluids, it is observed that the heat transfer coefficient decreases as
helix diameter increases.
Fig. 12 presents comparison of overall heat transfer coefficient
of three coils for non-Newtonian fluids under isothermal steady
state as well as non-isothermal unsteady state conditions. Overall
heat transfer coefficient increases for all non-Newtonian fluids
shown in Fig. 12 as Graetz number increases. From experimental
 S.S. Pawar, V.K. Sunnapwar / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 44 (2013) 792–804
Fig. 12. Comparison of overall heat transfer coefficients for non-Newtonian fluids as a function of Gz number under isothermal and non-isothermal conditions (120 tests).
results, it is observed that overall heat transfer coefficient of non-
Newtonian fluids is lower than Newtonian fluids for same condi-
tions. This is due to higher viscosities of non-Newtonian fluids than
Newtonian fluids. Higher viscosity fluid forms thicker thermal
boundary layer. This increases thermal resistance which reduces
inner heat transfer coefficient and subsequently overall heat trans-
fer coefficient. An average overall heat transfer coefficient for So-
dium Alginate solution was found to be higher than SCMC
solution for same experimental conditions.
The determination of overall heat transfer coefficient is an
important step to calculate surface area required for process heat
transfer in the design of helical heat exchangers. In future analysis,
Nusselt number need to be correlated to M number for non-New-
tonian fluids based on experimental data and shall be validated
with the published work.
4.3. Uncertainty analysis of the results
Experimental uncertainty was calculated by using Eq. (3.2) gi-
ven in Holman [34]. Probable uncertainties involved in the mea-
surement of various parameters are taken into consideration. To
verify the repeatability of the experiments, few runs for each test
fluids were repeated which yielded excellent results. The calcula-
tions made showed that the uncertainties taking part in the mea-
surements were approximately ±(3–5)% for heat transfer rate,
overall heat transfer coefficient, volumetric flow rate and ±3% for
Nusselt number respectively. Hence, it will be insignificant effect
on the correlations deduced from the experimental data.
5. Conclusion
An experimental setup is fabricated to study fluid to fluid heat
transfer in a helically coiled heat exchanger in laminar to turbulent
regime under isothermal steady state and non-isothermal unstea-
dy state conditions for Newtonian as well as non-Newtonian fluids.
For the first time, an innovative approach of correlating Nusselt
number to dimensionless number ‘M’ for Newtonian fluids based
on experimental data is presented which is not available in the lit-
erature. Correlations developed based on experimental data (Eqs.
(12)–(17)) are compared with work of earlier researchers and the
results predicted by these equations are found to be satisfactory.
803
Hence, these developed correlations are recommended in the de-
sign of industrial helical coil heat exchangers for said conditions.
M number is found to be significant to characterize the hydrody-
namics of flow in helical coil for Newtonian fluids for any coil cur-
vature ratios and heat transfer phenomena. The results in this work
showed that overall heat transfer coefficient is higher for smaller
helix diameter as compared to larger helix diameter due to signif-
icant effect of centrifugal force on secondary flow in coil. It is also
observed from results that heat transfer coefficients for pure water
are higher than glycerol–water mixture and non-Newtonian fluids
for the same conditions. In future work, Nusselt number need to be
correlated to M number based on experimental data for any type of
power-law fluids and any coil curvature ratios, and shall be vali-
dated with the work of earlier investigators.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their cordial thanks to Dr. B.A.
Mujawar for introducing the problem and his excellent help during
experimentation and data analysis. Authors also acknowledge Uni-
versity of Mumbai and the Management of Lokmanya Tilak College
of Engineering, Navi-Mumbai for the financial support to this re-
search work. Further, the authors would like to gratefully acknowl-
edge assistance provided by Dr. V.K. Yakkundi in editing and proof
reading.
References
[1] P.C. Mukesh Kumar, J. Kumar, S. Suresh, Heat transfer and friction factor
studies in helically coiled tubes using Al2O3/water nanofluid, European Journal
of Scientific Research 82 (2012) 161–172.
[2] S.K. Das, N. Putra, P. Thiesen, W. Roetzel, Temperature dependence of thermal
conductivity enhancement for nanofluids, ASME Transactions, Journal of Heat
Transfer 125 (2003).
[3] H. Jeschke, Warmeubergang un Druckverlust in Rohrschlagen, VDI Zeitschrift
VDI 69 (1925) 24–28.
[4] R.A. Seban, E.F. McLaughlin, Heat transfer in tube coils with laminar and
turbulent flow, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 6 (1963) 387–
395.
[5] G.F.C. Rogers, Y.R. Mayhew, Heat transfer and pressure loss in helically coiled
tubes with turbulent flow, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 7
(1964) 1207–1216.
[6] Y. Mori, W. Nakayama, Study on forced convective heat transfer in curved
tubes, (3rd report, theoretical analysis under the conditions of uniform wall
804 S.S. Pawar, V.K. Sunnapwar / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 44 (2013) 792–804
temperature and practical formulae), International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer 10 (1967) 681–695.
[7] B.A. Mujawar, M. Raja Rao, Flow of non-Newtonian fluids through helical coils,
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Development 17
(1978) 22–27.
[8] S.S. Pawar, V.K. Sunnapwar, B.A. Mujawar, Experimental determination of heat
transfer coefficient of turbulent flow in helical coil with circular c/s and its
comparison with rectangular c/s, Journal of Cooperation Among University,
Research and Industrial Enterprises 3 (2010) 13–22.
[9] R.C. Xin, M.A. Ebadian, The effects of Prandtl numbers on local and average
convective heat transfer characteristics in helical pipes, Journal of Heat
Transfer 119 (1997) 467–474.
[10] J.S. Jayakumar, S.M. Mahajani, J.C. Mandal, P.K. Vijayan, R. Bhoi, Experimental
and CFD estimation of heat transfer in helically coiled heat exchangers,
Chemical Engineering Research and Design 86 (2008) 221–232.
[11] S.A. Berger, L. Talbot, L.S. Yao, Flow in curved pipes, Annual Review Fluid
Mechanics 15 (1983) 461–512.
[12] P. Naphon, S. Wongwises, A review of flow and heat transfer characteristics in
curved tubes, Renewable Sustain Energy Review 10 (2006) 463–490.
[13] S.S. Pawar, V.K. Sunnapwar, B.A. Mujawar, A critical review of heat transfer
through helical coils of circular cross section, Journal of Scientific and
Industrial Research 70 (2011) 835–843.
[14] N.S. Cheng, Formula for viscosity of glycerol–water mixture, Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry Research 47 (2008) 3285–3288.
[15] J.B. Segur, H.E. Oberstar, Viscosity of glycerol and its aqueous solutions,
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 43 (1951) 2117–2120.
[16] P.N. Shankar, M. Kumar, Experimental-determination of the kinematic
viscosity of glycerol water mixtures, Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London Series a-Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences 444 (1994)
573–581.
[17] F. Chenlo, R. Moreira, G. Pereira, B. Bello, Kinematic viscosity and water activity
of aqueous solutions of glycerol and sodium chloride, European Food Research
and Technology 219 (2004) 403–408.
[18] J.R. Jones, Flow of a non-Newtonian fluid in a curved pipe, Quarterly Journal of
Mechanics and Applied Mathematics 13 (1960) 428–443.
[19] S. Rajasekharan, V. Kubair, N.R. Kuloor, Secondary flow of non-Newtonian
fluids in helical coils, Indian Journal of Technology 4 (1966) 33–35.
[20] A.B. Metzner, J.C. Reed, Flow of non-Newtonian fluids—Correlations of laminar,
transition and turbulent flow regions, A.I.Ch.E. Journal 1 (1955) 434–440.
[21] B.K. Rao, Turbulent heat transfer to power-law fluids in helical passages,
International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 15 (1994) 142–148.
[22] T.J. Rennie, G.S.V. Raghavan, Thermally dependent viscosity and non-
Newtonian flow in a double-pipe helical heat exchanger, Applied Thermal
Engineering 27 (2007) 862–868.
[23] S. Rajasekharan, V.G. Kubair, N.R. Kuloor, Heat transfer to non-Newtonian
fluids in coiled pipes in laminar flow, International Journal of Heat Mass
Transfer 13 (1970) 1583–1594.
[24] H. Ito, Friction factors for turbulent flow in curved pipes, Journal of Basic
Engineering Transactions of the ASME 18 (1959) 123–134.
[25] P.S. Srinivasan, S.S. Nandapurkar, F.A. Holland, Friction factor for coils,
Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers 48 (1970) T156–T161.
[26] A. Cioncolini, L. Santini, An experimental investigation regarding the laminar
to turbulent flow in helically coiled pipes, Experimental Thermal and Fluid
Science 30 (2006) 367–380.
[27] H. Ito, Flow in curved pipes, JSME International Journal 30 (1987) 543–552.
[28] E.F. Schmidt, Warmeubergang and Druckverlust in Rohrschbugen, Chemical
Engineering Technology 13 (1967) 781–789.
[29] V. Kubair, N.R. Kuloor, Flow of Newtonian fluids in Archimedian spiral tube
coils: correlation of the laminar, transition and turbulent flows, Indian Journal
of Technology 4 (1966) 3–8.
[30] L.R. Austin, J.D. Seader, AICHE Journal 20 (4) (1974) 820.
[31] CINDAS, Properties of inorganic and organic fluids, in: C.Y. Ho (Ed.), CINDAS
data series on material properties, Hemisphere publishing corporation, New
York, London, vol. V-1, 1988.
[32] O.K. Bates, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 28 (1936) 494–498.
[33] R.L. Pigford, Non-isothermal flow and heat transfer inside vertical tubes,
Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series 51 (1955) 79–92.
[34] J.P. Holman, Experimental Methods for Engineers, fifth ed., McGraw Hill,
Singapore, 1989 (Chapter 3).
[35] C. Pablo, K.P. Sandeep, Heat transfer coefficients in helical heat exchangers
under turbulent flow conditions, International Journal of Food Engineering 4
(2008) 1–12.