International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 96 (2016) 256–266

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

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

Heat transfer and thermal stresses in a circular tube with a non-uniform

heat flux
C. Marugán-Cruz a,⇑, O. Flores b, D. Santana a, M. García-Villalba b
a
Ing. Térmica y Fluidos, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain
b
Bioing. e Ing. Aeroespacial, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain

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

Article history: This paper presents a thermal analysis of thin-wall pipes under non-uniform heat flux in the circumfer-
Received 9 October 2015 ential direction, with a turbulent flow in statistically stationary state inside. The temperature distribution
Received in revised form 9 December 2015 in the solid and in the fluid is obtained using an spectral method that solves the conjugate heat transfer
Accepted 12 January 2016
problem. Special attention is paid to the inner wall fluid temperatures and the thermal stresses on the
Available online 29 January 2016
solid, that are compared to predictions based on 1D models in which the circumferential heat transfer
is neglected. The comparison shows that, even if at sufficiently large Biot numbers (Bi J 0:3) the 1D
Keywords:
model gives a reasonable prediction of the inner wall fluid temperatures (less than 5% of error), the 1D
Temperature distribution
Thermal stresses
model for the thermal stresses is only appropriate for very large Biot numbers (Bi J 10), giving qualita-
Non-uniform heat flux tively wrong results for Biot numbers below 0.3.
Biot number Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction tube, resulting as well in a circumferentially-varying heat flux on

Cumulative fatigue damage plays a key role in life prediction of
tubular heat exchangers subjected to time varying heat fluxes. To
estimate the tube thermal fatigue, the maximum thermal stress
must be obtained for different operating cycles [1]. Therefore, the
effect that the operating conditions and fluid properties have on
the tube temperature profiles is of paramount importance from
an engineering point of view.
There are many circumstances under which the tube thermal
stress determination is straightforward. Such is the case of pipes
under uniform heat flux, where the mean temperatures of the fluid
and pipe wall vary linearly along the axial direction [2], while the
temperature in a section of the pipe is a function of only the radial
direction. In such situations the thermal stress problem becomes a
one-dimensional problem, and the effective stress can be obtained
knowing the heat flux and the thermo-mechanical properties of
the pipe [3].
On the other hand, there are applications where uniformity is
not found. Concentrating solar power is a good example of such
applications. In solar central receivers, for example, the front-
tube section must withstand high heat flux (around 1 MW/m2)
whereas the rear-tube section is almost adiabatic, resulting in a
circumferentially-varying heat flux on the outer wall of the pipe.
That heat flux is transferred to the molten salt flowing inside the
⇑ Corresponding author.
the inner wall of the pipe. This asymmetry precludes, in principle,
the use of one-dimensional solutions to obtain the peak thermal
stress.
Similar working conditions can be found in other industrial
applications, like parabolic trough collectors, space-vehicle heat-
exchangers or in the cooling system of nuclear reactors. In all these
cases, the non-uniform heat fluxes produce radial and circumfer-
ential temperature gradients in the tube walls, which result in
thermal stresses on the solid and circumferential variations of
the fluid temperature at the wall. Both, thermal stresses and inner
wall fluid temperature, are extremely important from an engineer-
ing point of view, since the former can produce mechanical failure
of the pipe and the latter controls the chemical degradation of the
heat transfer fluid [4].
The prediction of heat transfer for non-uniform configurations
has been the subject of many research studies in the past, using
analytical methods, experiments and numerical simulations. First
Reynolds [5] and later Rapier [6] studied the case of a thermally
developed flow with circumferential varying heat flux from an ana-
lytical point of view. They assumed a fully developed turbulent
flow in the pipe, and prescribed a heat flux that was expressed as
a sine or cosine series with zero mean value. The resulting temper-
ature profiles in the fluid were obtained as a series of sines or cosi-
nes, whose coefficients vary with the Reynolds and Prandtl number
of the flow. Comparing theinner wall fluid temperatures predicted
by Reynolds [5] for a sinusoidal heating with the inner wall fluid

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2016.01.035
0017-9310/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 C. Marugán-Cruz et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 96 (2016) 256–266
temperatures obtained from applying the Dittus and Boetter
correlation yields a difference on the maximuminner wall fluid
temperatures of about 50% for the typical working conditions
of concentrating solar power receivers (Reynolds number
Re = 30,000, Prandtl number Pr ¼ 10).
Although Reynolds [5] and Rapier [6] did not take into account
the fluid-wall interaction, the thermal interaction inside ducts has
been the interest of many other investigations. Several aspects of
this problem have been studied in the context of laminar flows, like
the effect of unsteadiness in the heat flux [7–9], or the effect of spa-
tial inhomogeneity in the axial direction [10,11]).
Painstaking experimental studies have also been carried out in
the past. Black and Sparrow [12] investigated the local and average
heat transfer coefficients of an air flow through a tube with
circumferential varying wall heat flux. More recently, Yang and
co-workers [13] measured the heat transfer performance of spiral
tubes with molten salts as heat transfer fluid. The results from
these investigations also show differences between the experimen-
tal values of the Nusselt number and the correlations generally
used in literature.
Other researchers have tried to tackle the problem of non-
uniform heating in turbulent flows from a numerical point of view,
in more or less idealized configurations (fully developed turbulent
flow, relatively low Reynolds and Prandtl numbers, constant fluid
properties, etc.). Weingand and Gassner [14] analyzed the conju-
gate heat transfer problem showing that axial heat conduction
effects in the fluid are important for low Peclet numbers and that
these effects might drastically influence the heat transfer behavior
for short heating sections even at higher Peclet numbers. Some
studies focus on the evaluation of the eddy-diffusivity associated
to the non-uniformity of the heat flux [15,16]. Other studies are
concerned with the evaluation of thermal field and thermal stres-
ses along the solid wall [17].
There are also numerical studies of more applied cases, typically
using Reynolds-Averaged Navier Stokes simulations to solve the
heat transfer in the fluid. For instance, Flores and co-workers
[18] report an analysis of thermal stresses on the collector of a
solar thermal plant for different configurations, and Rodríguez-
Sánchez et al. [19] compares two simplified 2D models using a
RANS calculation with a commercial software for the evaluation
of inner wall fluid temperatures and thermal stresses on a solar
external receiver. In the same vein, Kim et al. [20] proposed a
correlation for the convection losses in tower solar receivers using
CFD simulations. Wang and co-workers [21] analyzed the
conjugate heat transfer problem in a parabolic trough collector
showing that asymmetric heat flux has a significant influence on
the local heat transfer process.
In view of the above results, it is clear that the prediction of the
thermal stress history for a tubular heat exchanger heated
non-uniformly is a difficult problem. While simulations solving
the conjugate heat transfer problem provide accurate results, they
typically require additional simplifications regarding flow proper-
ties, geometries, etc. On the other hand, experimental measure-
ment can be extremely expensive and time consuming. However,
the engineering approaches used to determine theinner wall fluid
temperatures and thermal stresses are usually based on empirical
correlations derived from uniform heat flux conditions. The ratio-
nale for that simplification is that locally the conditions are uni-
form, with stronger temperature gradients in the radial direction
than in the axial or circumferential directions. For instance,inner
wall fluid temperatures are usually estimated using Nusselt num-
ber empirical correlations (e.g., Kolb [22] uses the Gnielinski corre-
lation and Jianfeng and co-workers [23] use the Dittus and Boelter
correlation). Thermal stresses are customarily obtained using
257
formulas derived for a circular tube with a radial temperature
distribution (i.a, uniform heat flux in the circumferential direc-
tion),which can be found in specialized books [24–26].
In principle, the parameter that controls whether a local
approach is valid is the Biot number: the ratio between the charac-
teristic heat flux in the radial direction and the characteristic heat
flux in the circumferential direction. If we consider the conjugate
heat transfer problem (solid + fluid), the heat fluxes in the radial
direction (r) are controlled by the heat transfer in the solid–fluid
boundary, and the heat fluxes in the circumferential direction (h)
by the conductivity of the solid. The definition of the Biot number
is then
he
Bi ¼ ; ð1Þ
js
where h is the convective heat transfer coefficient between the fluid
and the solid, e is the thickness of the tube wall and js is the con-
ductivity of the solid. For large values of Bi, the radial heat flux is
dominant, and one can expect the correlations and methods based
on uniform (radial) heat fluxes to be applicable locally. However,
when the Bi is small these methods should be expected to fail.
The objective of the present work is to establish the range of
Biot numbers where the local approach is applicable in pipes with
non-uniform heating in the circumferential direction. When the
local approach is applicable, the solution of the conjugate heat
transfer problem can be avoided, thereby simplifying the stress
analysis. To achieve this, the conjugate heat transfer problem for
a circular pipe with a circumferentially varying heat flux and a fully
developed turbulent flow inside is solved using a simple eddy dif-
fusivity model and constant fluid properties.
Different fluid velocities, tube diameter and thickness have
been studied, in order to analyze a range of Biot numbers spanning
two orders of magnitude. Particular attention is paid to the effect of
the Biot number on the inner wall fluidtemperature and thermal
stresses, and to our ability to estimate them using simple 1D
models.
To some extent, the present numerical work can be considered
as a continuation of previous works that only considered the heat
transfer in the fluid part [5,6,27]. Here we add also the heat trans-
fer problem on the solid part.
The paper is structured as follows. First, Section 2 describes the
formulation of the conjugate heat transfer problem, and the details
of the numerical solver. Section 3 presents the results obtained in
the calculations, discussing the inner wall fluid temperature
(Section 3.2) and the thermal stresses on the solid (Section 3.3)
in terms of the Biot number. Finally, conclusions are offered in
Section 4.
2. Physical, mathematical and numerical model
2.1. Physical model
We consider the conjugate heat transfer problem of a circular
pipe subject to homogeneous heating along the axial/streamwise
direction (x) and non-homogeneous heating in the circumferential
direction (h). The inner radius (diameter) of the pipe is denoted
Ri (Di ), while the outer radius (diameter) is denoted Ro (Do ). The
wall-thickness is e ¼ Ro  Ri , and r is the radial coordinate.
A sinusoidal heat flux is imposed on one half of the wall of the
pipe, while the other half is considered adiabatic, resulting in a
heat flux on the outer surface


qmax sin h if 06h6p
qo ðhÞ ¼ ð2Þ
0 if h>p
258 C. Marugán-Cruz et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 96 (2016) 256–266

It is also convenient to define the total heat flux (per unit If we model the turbulent heat flux using the concept of turbu-
length) applied to the outer surface, lent eddy conductivity, we can write the Reynolds-Averaged equa-
Z p tion for the cross-plane temperature fluctuation
Q¼ qo ðhÞRo dh ¼ 2qmax Ro : ð3Þ dT b
0 qC p UðrÞ ¼ r  jT rH
dx
As discussed in Section 2.5, the total heat flux (Q) is kept con-    
1 @ @H 1 @ 1 @H
stant for all the cases presented here, so that the maximum heat ¼ r jT ðrÞ þ jT ðrÞ ; ð7Þ
r @r @r r @h r @h
flux (qmax ) is inversely proportional to the outer radius.
The fluid inside the tube is assumed to be flowing in a fully where jT is the turbulent eddy conductivity. In principle, jT is a
developed turbulent regime, both in terms of velocity and temper- function of r and h . However, it has been shown that the effect of
ature. Moreover, it is assumed that the fluid has constant density the circumferential variation of jT is small compared to its radial
(q), viscosity (l), specific heat (C p ) and thermal conductivity (j). variation [33,27,16]. Hence, in the present paper we assume
Under these conditions, the hydrodynamic problem (fluid) is jT ¼ jT ðrÞ. Moreover, we assume that the turbulent Prandtl number
decoupled from the thermal problem (fluid + solid). PrT ¼ qC p mT =jT is equal to 1. Schwertfirm and Manhart [34] show
that this approximation is appropriate when the Prandtl number
Pr ¼ C p l=j is in the range 0.1–10, which is the case for the database
2.2. Mathematical formulation
presented here (see Table 1). With these approximations,the turbu-
lent eddy conductivity becomes
In this section we briefly describe the mathematical formula-
tion of the problem, which is similar to that used by Reynolds [5] jT l
¼ Pr T ; ð8Þ
and Rapier [6], except that we consider the conjugate heat transfer j l
problem to analyze the flux and temperature distributions in both where lT =l is given in Eq. (4).
the fluid and the tube.
The temperature field in the solid T ðsÞ ðx; r; h; tÞ can also be
With the assumptions detailed in the previous section (fully ðsÞ
developed flow, constant fluid properties), the hydrodynamic decomposed in bulk (T b ¼ T b ), cross-averaged temperature (HðsÞ )
problem in the fluid is decoupled from the thermal problem. In and fluctuation (HðsÞ0 ). Again, the energy conservation equation
particular the mean velocity and the Reynolds stresses are func- yields a linear variation of the bulk temperature with the axial
tions of r, only, and depend on the Reynolds number, coordinate, and the energy conservation in the cross plane yields
Re ¼ qU b Ri =l, where U b is the bulk velocity (i.e. mean velocity the following equation for the cross-averaged temperature
averaged in time and in the cross-section of the pipe). For conve- fluctuations,
nience, we use the analytic expressions given by Cess [28] for the
mean velocity profile (UðrÞ) and for the turbulent eddy viscosity
(mT ), which is given by
2 3
  2 !1=2 Table 1
lT 1 4 2
k Re2s ðg  1ÞRes
¼ 1þ 2 2 2 2
ð1  g Þ ð1 þ 2g Þ 1  exp þ 15 Summary of the parameters of the simulations. Re ¼ qU b Ri =l is the Reynolds
l 2 9 A number, Res ¼ qus Ri =ls is the turbulent Reynolds number, Pr ¼ C p l=j is the Prandtl
number, e=Ri is the wall thickness non-dimensionalized with the inner radius and Bi is
ð4Þ the average Biot number, calculated using the correlation proposed by Gnielinski [40].

where g ¼ r=Ri , and the friction Reynolds number Res is a known Case Re Res Pr e=Ri Bi
function of the Reynolds number (Re). In the present calculations, i 2532 180 0.7 0.085 0.019
the tunable parameters of the model have been chosen to be ii 0.183 0.041
k ¼ 0:42 and A ¼ 27. This model is robust and has been used by sev- iii 3 0.085 0.034
iv 0.183 0.073
eral authors over the last 50 years in various applications [5,29–31], v 10 0.085 0.053
spanning a range of Reynolds number 2:5  103  5  105 . It should vi 0.183 0.114
be noted that similar results are obtained when profiles from DNS vii 5815 360 0.7 0.085 0.038
[32] are used instead of the Cess profiles. viii 0.183 0.082
For a fully developed thermal problem, it is possible to show ix 3 0.085 0.074
x 0.183 0.160
that the temperature of the fluid Tðx; r; h; tÞ can be decomposed in
xi 10 0.085 0.118
0 xii 0.183 0.255
Tðx; r; h; tÞ ¼ T b ðxÞ þ Hðr; hÞ þ H ðx; r; h; tÞ
xiii 8528 500 0.7 0.085 0.051
dT b
¼ T0 þ x þ Hðr; hÞ þ H0 ðx; r; h; tÞ ð5Þ xiv 0.183 0.111
dx xv 3 0.085 0.103
xvi 0.183 0.223
where the bulk temperature, T b ðxÞ, is the time and cross-plane xvii 10 0.085 0.167
ðr  hÞ averaged temperature, Hðr; hÞ is the time averaged tempera- xviii 0.183 0.361

ture fluctuation in the cross-plane, and H0 ðx; r; h; tÞ is the remaining xix 18,863 1000 0.7 0.085 0.095
xx 0.183 0.205
fluctuation. For the case considered here, the bulk temperature
xxi 3 0.085 0.202
increases linearly with x, and the bulk temperature gradient xxii 0.183 0.437
dT b =dx is univocally determined by the total heat flux received xxiii 10 0.085 0.337
through the fluid–solid interface, xxiv 0.183 0.729

Z 2p xxv 41,184 2000 0.7 0.085 0.174

dT b 2
qC p U b p Ri ¼ j@ r HðRi ; hÞRi dh ¼ Q; ð6Þ
xxvi
xxvii 3
0.183
0.085
0.375
0.389
dx 0
xxviii 0.183 0.841
xxix 10 0.085 0.666
which has to be equal to the total heat flux received in the outer
xxx 0.183 1.440
surface of the pipe, Q (defined in Eq. (3)).
 C. Marugán-Cruz et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 96 (2016) 256–266 259

! !
1 @ @ HðsÞ 1 @ js @ HðsÞ are found to be in good agreement with the DNS data. The relative
0 ¼ r  js rHðsÞ ¼ r js þ ð9Þ error is smaller than 4%.
r @r @r r @h r @h
A second set of validation tests consists of the calculation of the
where js is the thermal conductivity of the tube material. conjugate heat transfer problem with homogeneous heating, for a
In order to solve the conjugate heat transfer problem, we solve broad range of Re and Pr. Despite the strong assumptions in our
method (constant fluid properties, simple model for the turbulent
Eq. (7) for Hðr; hÞ in 0 < r < Ri and Eq. (9) for HðsÞ ðr; hÞ in
eddy diffusivity), the values obtained for the Nusselt number
Ri < r < Ro . At the outer boundary of the solid pipe, the non-
(Nu ¼ hDi =j, defined in terms of the heat transfer coefficient h),
homogeneous heat flux conditions yields
are in good agreement with the usual correlations found in the lit-
@ HðsÞ erature [38,39]: Gnielinski and Ditus-Boetter. This is shown in
js ðRo ; hÞ ¼ qo ðhÞ ð10Þ Fig. 1(b). In addition, some of the cases computed by Reynolds
@r
for sinusoidal heating in the circumferential direction [5] have
At the solid–fluid interface, the following coupling conditions been recomputed using the present method. Our results agree with
apply Reynolds data with an error smaller than 2% for ReDi ¼ 10; 000 and
Pr ¼ 0:7  10. The simulations are run using 60 collocation points
@ HðsÞ @H
js ðRi ; hÞ ¼ j ðRi ; hÞ ð11Þ in the circumferential direction, and 150 collocation points in the
@r @r
radial direction. Further refinement of the grid did not result in
HðsÞ ðRi ; hÞ ¼ HðRi ; hÞ ð12Þ any appreciable variation of the results.

2.3. Numerical method 2.4. Simplified 1D model

The coupled system of Eqs. (7)–(12) is solved using a spectral
method. We use a collocation method in which a Fourier expansion
is used in the circumferential direction, and a Chebychev expan-
sion in the radial direction. The method is implemented in
MATLAB, using the formulation described by Trefethen [35] (chap-
ter 11). We employ the Chebychev differentiation matrices from
Weideman and Reddy [36], that are more accurate than those from
Trefethen [35]. The resulting linear systems of equations are solved
using the MATLAB backslash operator.
We have performed extensive validations of the numerical
code, and three of them are discussed in the following lines. First,
we have used data of a DNS of forced convection in a pipe with uni-
form heating at Re ¼ 5300 and Pr ¼ 0:7 [37]. This simulation did
not consider the wall-fluid interaction, so that only the fluid part
was considered in the validation test. Using 20 modes in the cir-
cumferential direction and 51 modes in the radial direction, we
performed two calculations. In the first one the tunable parameters
of the model we set as discussed above, A ¼ 0:27 and k ¼ 0:42. For
the second one, we have selected the values employed by Reynolds
[5], namely A ¼ 0:26 and k ¼ 0:4. The mean temperature distribu-
tion is shown in Fig. 1(a) and the results of the present calculations
As noted in the introduction, we are interested in comparing the
results obtained from solving the complete 3D conjugate heat
transfer problem with the results obtained from a simplified model
based on a local approach, that accounts only for conduction on the
radial direction. For that model we will use the Gnielinski (exper-
imental) correlation [40] for the convective heat transfer coeffi-
cient, h:
h Di f =8 ðReDi  1000Þ Pr
Nu ¼ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2=3 ; ð13Þ
j 1 þ 12:7 f =8 ðPr  1Þ
where Nu is the Nusselt number and ReDi is the Reynolds number
based on the bulk velocity and the inner diameter of the pipe. The
Darcy friction factor, f, can be obtained using the Petukhov correla-
tion [41]:
 2
f ¼ 0:790 logðReDi Þ  1:64 : ð14Þ
The determination of the model temperature H1D is performed
as follows. Once Nu is known from Re and Pr, it is possible to relate
the inner wall fluid temperature in the fluid (HðRi ; hÞ) to the heat
flux in the outer wall (qo ðhÞ). To that end, we use the convection

Fig. 1. (a) Temperature distribution Hþ þ þ

w  H as a function of the distance to the wall Ri  r (the superscript + indicates standard wall scaling) for a case with homogeneous
þ

heating, Re ¼ 5300, Pr ¼ 0:7. Symbols, DNS data of Piller [37]. Blue, present calculation. Red, present calculation with tunable parameters in Eq. (4), A ¼ 26; k ¼ 0:4 as selected
by [5]. (b) Nusselt number, Nu, as a function of the Reynolds number, ReDi , computed with homogeneous heating. Squares, e=Ri ¼ 0:085. Circles, e=Ri ¼ 0:183. Black, Pr ¼ 0:7.
Red, Pr ¼ 3. Blue, Pr ¼ 10. Solid lines, Dittus–Boetter correlation. Dashed lines, Gnielinski correlation. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
260 C. Marugán-Cruz et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 96 (2016) 256–266

coefficient h ¼ qi ðhÞ=HðRi ; hÞ appearing in the definition of Nu,

where qi ðhÞ is the heat flux through the fluid–solid interface. Note
that the energy conservation in the solid implies that
Z 2p Z 2p
qo ðhÞRo dh ¼ qi ðhÞRi dh: ð15Þ
0 0

Then, the assumption of conductive heat transfer in the radial

direction only implies that qo ðhÞRo ¼ qi ðhÞRi , so that the inner wall
fluid temperature of the 1D model is
qi ðhÞ qo ðhÞRo =Ri
H1D ðRi ; hÞ ¼ ¼ ; ð16Þ
h h
with h given by Eq. (13) and qo ðhÞ by Eq. (2).
Note that in Eq. (16) the variation of H1D with the circumferen-
tial coordinate is given by the circumferential variation of qo ðhÞ,
while the convective heat transfer coefficient h is constant. In that
sense, the present 1D (o local) model can also be understood as a
model based on the averaged heat transfer of the pipe.

2.5. Cases studied

Fig. 2. Ratio between the local Biot number, Bimax , and the average Biot number, Bi.
Black symbols, Pr ¼ 0:7. Red symbols, Pr ¼ 3. Blue symbols, Pr ¼ 10. Circles, thick
We consider the heat transfer and absorption characteristics for
wall, e=Ri ¼ 0:183. Squares, thin wall, e=Ri ¼ 0:085. Closed symbols, D1 > 0. Open
different fluids (Pr numbers range from 0.7 to 10), different flow symbols, D1 < 0. See Section 3.3 for the definition of D1 . Reynolds numbers increase
regimes (Re numbers vary from 2500 to 42,000) and different wall from left to right for each serie. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this
thickness (e=Ri ¼ 0:085 and 0:183). In all cases we consider a ratio figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
of thermal conductivity between fluid and solid equal to
ks =k ¼ 37:5, typical of concentrating solar power applications.1It
should be noted that the results presented in Section 3 are qualita-
tively similar when smaller conductivity ratios are considered, i.e.
ks =k ¼ 18:75, suggesting that the conclusions of the present work
are not strongly dependent on the conductivity ratio. As mentioned
in the introduction, the total heat rate imposed on the outer wall has
been kept constant in order to maintain the same bulk temperature
gradient dT b =dx in all cases (see Eq. (6)).
Table 1 shows the main parameters of all the cases computed.
The table also includes the values of the average Bi number, where
the h in Eq. (1) has been estimated using the 1D model (Gnielinski
correlation for Nu [40]). Note that, for the range of Re; Pr and e=Ri
considered here, the average Biot number Bi varies by roughly
two orders of magnitude (between 0.019 and 1.44).
It is also possible to define a local Biot number, using the value
of h obtained from the present calculations at the position of max-
imum incident heat flux,
 
ehjh¼p=2 e j @H
Bimax ¼ ¼ ð17Þ
js js Hðr; hÞ @r r¼Ri ;h¼p=2
Fig. 3. Circumferential variation of heat flux on the outer and inner walls of the
The comparison between these two numbers is shown in Fig. 2, tube. The heat flux imposed on the outer surface, qo =qmax , is the red solid line. The
where it can be observed that the difference between them is rel- filled symbols correspond to the thicker tube (case xxx) and the empty symbols to
atively small (less than 30%) and decreases as Pr increases. Since the thinner tube (case i). The squares are the heat flux distribution in the inner wall
obtained with the spectral method, qi ðRi ; hÞ=qmax , and the circles correspond to the
from an engineering point of view the average Bi number is more inner distribution of the heat flux assuming no conduction in the circumferential
accessible (i.e., easier to compute), we will mainly use that Biot direction in the tube wall, qi;r =qmax . (For interpretation of the references to colour in
number in the rest of the paper. In any case, the use of Bimax does this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
not qualitatively change the results presented, nor the conclusions.

3. Results and discussion
3.1. Heat flux
As was previously explained, a sinusoidal heat flux was
imposed on one half of the wall of the pipe (front side), while the
other half was considered adiabatic (rear side) (see Eq. (6)). That
heat flux is shown in Fig. 3 (red solid line), non-dimensionalized
1
ks =k ¼ 37:5 corresponds to using HITEC (molten nitrate salt, 7% NaNO3, 53% KNO3,
40% NaNO2 as heat transfer fluid in a stainless steel pipe.
with the maximum heat flux qmax . Note that this maximum heat
flux depends on the case: for two cases with the same Reynolds
and Prandtl number and different wall thickness, the magnitude
qmax will be affected by a factor of Ri =Ro .
The heat flux distribution on the inner wall, qi ðRi ; hÞ, obtained
from the present calculations is also shown in Fig. 3 for two cases
wih extreme Biot numbers: the blue empty-squares for case i
(ReDi ’ 5000; Pr ¼ 0:7, thin wall e=Ri ¼ 0:085, low Bi ¼ 0:019),
while the blue filled-squares correspond to the case xxx
(ReDi ’ 82; 000; Pr ¼ 10, thick wall e=Ri ¼ 0:183, large Bi ¼ 1:44).
It is worth noting that for the lowest Bi, the maximum heat flux
 C. Marugán-Cruz et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 96 (2016) 256–266
through the inner wall is actually smaller than qmax , due to the
redistribution of heat towards the adiabatic side of the tube. In
the case of high Bi most of the heat transfer on the tube occurs
in the radial direction, and the heat flux in the inner wall is larger
by a factor close to Ro =Ri ¼ 1 þ e=Ri  1:2.
Fig. 3 also includes the heat flux distribution in the inner wall
using the simplified 1D model (black circles in the figure), to com-
pare it with the present results. As expected, assuming that there is
no heat conduction on the circumferential direction leads to an
overestimation of the maximum heat flux on the inner wall and
to an underestimation of the heat flux on the opposite side. This
difference is larger for the low Bi case.
3.2. Temperature profile
The importance of the Biot number on the temperature distri-
bution is analyzed in this section, paying special attention to its
effect on the inner wall fluid temperature.
Fig. 4 shows the time averaged temperature fluctuation in the
cross-plane in the fluid, H, and in the solid, HðsÞ . In both panels,
the temperature fluctuations have been non-dimensionalized
using the reference temperature proposed by [5],
@ H
Ri q i
T ref ¼ Ri
¼ ; ð18Þ
@r
j
r¼Ri
where H and qi are the circumferentially averaged temperature
fluctuation and heat flux at the inner wall, respectively.
As in Fig. 3, the left panel of Fig. 4 corresponds to the lowest Biot
number (case i, thin wall), whereas the right panel corresponds to
the highest Biot number (case xxx, thick wall). The color scale is
different in each panel, which for the same incident heat flux it
would result in a higher temperature in the left panel (where the
Re, and hence the flow velocity, is smaller).
In both cases the temperature on the solid is maximum where
the incident heat is maximum in the outer wall. Also, there are
important temperature gradients in the circumferential direction
within the solid. However, for the high Bi case, those gradients
are small compared to the temperature gradient in the radial direc-
tion (between the inner and outer wall of the pipe). Temperatures
in the fluid are roughly uniform, except in the thermal boundary
layers near the hot side of the pipe. It is clear from the figure that
the thermal boundary layers are much larger in case i (Fig. 4a) than
in case xxx (Fig. 4b), consistent with the variation in Re and Pr
between the two cases. Since the heat flux is roughly the same in
Fig. 4. Non-dimensional mean temperature, H=T ref , in the cross plane for (a) case i Re ’ 2500 (Res ¼ 180), Pr ¼ 0:7 and e=Ri ¼ 0:085; Bi ¼ 0:038 (b) case xxx ReR ’ 41; 000
(Res ¼ 2000), Pr ¼ 10 and e=Ri ¼ 0:183; Bi ¼ 2:879. Note that the scale is different in each panel.
261
both cases, this yields a larger temperature jump in the fluid for
the case with the thicker thermal boundary layer.
Fig. 5 compares the inner wall fluid temperature from the pre-
sent calculations (dashed lines) with the simplified model (solid
lines), Eq. (16). The difference between the inner wall fluid temper-
ature, Tðr ¼ Ri Þ, and the bulk temperature, T b , at that section,
Tðr ¼ Ri Þ  T b has been non-dimensionalized with T ref . It can be
noticed that in general, the 1D model underestimates the inner
wall fluid temperature on the hot side, while it overestimates it
on the adiabatic side (note that for the 1D model, the inner wall
fluid temperature in the adiabatic side has to be equal to the bulk
temperature). The only exception are the cases with the lowest
Reynolds numbers, Re ¼ 2532, in which the inner wall fluid tem-
perature is overestimated by the 1D model also in the hot side.
Interestingly, Figs. 5(a–c) show that the difference between the
inner wall fluid temperatures predicted by the 1D model and
the spectral method decreases as the Re and Pr increases, even if
the Gnielinski correlation is expected to work for the whole range
of Re and Pr considered here [42]. Note that as Re and Pr increase,
the Bi also increases, suggesting that the improvement of the
agreement in the prediction of the inner wall fluid temperature
is indeed related to the increasing dominance of the radial heat
flux over the circumferential heat flux. This is confirmed in Fig. 5
(d), where the relative differences between the peak inner wall
fluid temperatures predicted by the spectral and 1D models are
plotted for all the cases in Table 1 as a function of the Biot number.
It can be observed that for Bi J 0:2 the error between the spectral
model and the 1D model is smaller than 5%, which provides a rule
of thumb for the applicability of 1D models to the prediction of
inner wall fluid temperatures.
3.3. Thermal stresses
In order to evaluate the thermal stresses on the walls it is com-
mon in the recent literature [43–46,18] to use the expressions pro-
vided by Faupel and Fisher [24] for a circular pipe with a radial
temperature distribution (i.a, as when the heat flux is uniform in
the circumferential direction). These thermal stresses tensor com-
ponents are reproduced here for completeness:
!
Z Z
C r 2  R2i Ro r
rrr ¼ HðsÞ rdr  HðsÞ rdr ; ð19Þ
r2 R2o  R2i Ri Ri
Z Z !
C r 2 þ R2i Ro r
rhh ¼ HðsÞ rdr þ HðsÞ rdr  HðsÞ r2 ; ð20Þ
r2 R2o  R2i Ri Ri
262 C. Marugán-Cruz et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 96 (2016) 256–266

where C ¼ aE=ð1  mÞ; E is Young’s modulus, m is Poisson’s ratio, a is

the coefficient of thermal expansion and the cross term rrh is zero.
The longitudinal stress, rxx , is obtained from (19) and (20) by
imposing the condition of plane strain,
1
½rxx  mðrhh þ rrr Þ þ aHðsÞ ¼ 0; ð21Þ
E
yielding2
Z !
2m Ro
rxx ¼ C HðsÞ rdr  HðsÞ ; ð22Þ
R2o  R2i Ri

These expressions were originally developed for a temperature

distribution which is a function of the radius only, that is
HðsÞ ¼ HðsÞ ðrÞ, and they are often used in the literature. The ratio-
nale for the application of these formulas to non-uniform problem
has already been explained in the introduction: if the circumferen-
tial gradients of temperature are small compared to radial gradi-
ents, a 1D model with conduction only in the radial direction
might be applicable. However, it is apparent from Fig. 4 that in
all the cases presented in Table 1 the circumferential gradients
are comparable to the radial gradients, which would prevent the
application of these formulas.
A more general solution for the thermal stresses on a circular
pipe was obtained by Gatewood [47]. First, the temperature distri-
bution on the pipe is expressed as a series of sines and cosines,
X
1
HðsÞ ðr; hÞ ¼ A0 þ E0 log r þ ðAn r n þ C n rn Þ cos nh
n¼1
X
1
þ ðBn r n þ Dn r n Þ sin nh; ð23Þ
n¼1

which corresponds to the most general solution of the Laplace

equation in cylindrical coordinates. Then, the thermal stresses
are obtained from the temperature distribution by solving the
Duhamel–Neumann law, together with the equilibrium condition
for the solid and the boundary conditions of no surface forces.
Gatewood [47] obtained the remarkable result that the thermal
stresses only depend on the coefficients E0 ; C 1 and D1 of the temper-
ature distribution:
"    #
CE 0 Ro R2i R2o  r 2 Ro
rrr ðr; hÞ ¼ log  2 2 log
2 r r Ro  R2i Ri
C ðR2o  r 2 Þðr 2  R2i Þ
 ðC 1 cos h þ D1 sin hÞ; ð24Þ
2r 3 ðR2o þ R2i Þ
"     #
CE 0 Ro R2i R2o þ r 2 Ro
rhh ðr; hÞ ¼ log þ 2 2 log 1
2 r r Ro  R2i Ri
C 4R2i r 2  ð3r2  R2o Þðr 2 þ R2i Þ
 ðC 1 cos h þ D1 sin hÞ;
2r 3 ðR2o þ R2i Þ
ð25Þ

C ðR2o  r 2 Þðr 2  R2i Þ

rrh ðr; hÞ ¼  ðC 1 sin h  D1 cos hÞ: ð26Þ
2r 3 ðR2o þ R2i Þ
The computation of these coefficients (E0 ; C 1 and D1 ) once the
Fig. 5. (a–c) Circumferential variation of the inner wall fluid temperature for thermal field on the solid is known is trivial. Note also that for
different Reynolds number at a fixed thickness (e=Ri ¼ 0:0848). (a) Pr = 0.7. (b)
Pr = 3. (c) Pr = 10. Dashed lines correspond to the spectral method and solid lines to
the present configuration, coefficient C 1 ¼ 0 due to symmetry con-
1D model. (d) Error between the spectral model and the 1D model for the inner wall siderations. As with Faupel and Fisher’s solution, the longitudinal
fluid temperature at the location of maximum temperature (h ¼ p=2; r ¼ Ro ), as a stress rxx can be obtained from the cross-plane stresses by impos-
function of the Bi number. Circles correspond to e=Ri ¼ 0:1833, squares to ing the condition of plane strain, Eq. (21).
1
e=Ri ¼ 0:0848, dashed line correspond to a power law of Bi .

2
Please note that the formula given by Faupel and Fisher [24] for rxx contains a
typo.
 C. Marugán-Cruz et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 96 (2016) 256–266 263

Comparing Eqs. (19) and (20) to (24)–(26), we can observe a few
important differences. First, [47] gives a non-zero cross stress term,
Eq. (26), which implies the existence of bending moments on the
wall of the pipe. Also, when C 1 and D1 are zero, Gatewood’s solu-
tion coincides with Faupel and Fisher’s. That is the case when the
temperature on the solid depends on the radial coordinate only.
Note that, if the temperature is n-periodic in the circumferential
direction with n P 2, Faupel and Fisher solution would yield the
appropriate values for the stress if (and only if) the circumferen-
tially averaged temperature is used in Eqs. (19)–(22).
As an illustration, Fig. 6 shows the components of thermal stres-
ses tensor calculated using the formulas proposed by Gatewood
[47] for cases ii (low Biot) and xxx (high Biot). The stresses are
normalized with CT ref , and the figure shows from top to bottom
the components rrr ; rhh and rrh .
First, it is important to note that the scale is not the same for all
the panels: the magnitude of the tangential component, rhh , is con-
siderably larger than the other two. Second, the shape of the ther-
mal stresses presents clear differences as the Bi number changes.
When the Biot is small, the temperature gradients are larger in h.
As a consequence, the thermal expansion of the solid is roughly
uniform in the radial direction. Under this condition, the dilatation
of the front part of the pipe results in inward bending stresses in
the front half of the pipe (compression inside, traction outside),
and outward bending stresses on the rear side of the pipe (traction
inside, compression outside).

Fig. 6. Components of the thermal stresses tensor for different Biot numbers. (a) and (b) rrr =CT ref . (c) and (d) rhh =CT ref . (e) and (f) rrh CT ref . (a), (c) and (e) case ii. (b), (d) and
(f) case xxx.
264 C. Marugán-Cruz et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 96 (2016) 256–266

On the other hand, when the Biot is large the radial temperature Note that for the present configuration, the rhh component of
gradients are dominant. As a consequence, there is a large temper- the stress tensor dominates the effective stress. Fig. 7 shows this
ature difference between the outer and inner walls of the pipe, effective stress for three cases of the database, corresponding to
with the former suffering larger thermal expansion than the latter. low, intermediate and large values of the Biot number. The shape
This produces outward bending stresses in the front side of the of the effective stress obtained with the Faupel and Fischer’s solu-
pipe, and smaller thermal stresses on the rear side of the pipe. tion, Fig. 7(b), (d) and (f), is very similar for all Bi numbers,
In order to compare the thermal stresses obtained with the although their magnitude changes considerably. A large stress is
solutions of Faupel and Fischer and Gatewood, it seems convenient predicted where the heating is applied and a negligible stress is
to use the effective stress defined as predicted along the adiabatic part.
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi On the other hand, Gatewood’s solution (Fig. 7(a), (c) and (e))
ref ¼ ðrxx  rrr Þ2 þ ðrrr  rhh Þ2 þ ðrhh  rxx Þ2 þ 6ðr2rh þ r2rx þ r2xh Þ: shows a strong dependence of the thermal stresses on the Biot
ð27Þ number, as already observed in Fig. 6. The maximum thermal
stresses occur on the hot side for high Bi, while they occur on the

Fig. 7. Effective thermal stress, ref =CT ref , (a), (c) and (e) using Gatewood formulas. (b), (d) and (f) using Faupel and Fischer formulas. (a) and (b) case ii. (c) and (d) case xvi. (e)
and (f) case xxx.
 C. Marugán-Cruz et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 96 (2016) 256–266 265

Fig. 8. (a) D1 coefficient as a function of the Biot number, for all cases studied. Circles, thick wall, e=Ri ¼ 0:183. Squares, thin wall, e=Ri ¼ 0:085. (b) Maximum effective
thermal stress at the hottest point in the wall (h ¼ p=2 at the outer wall), as a function for the Bi number. Black symbols, Pr ¼ 0:7. Red symbols, Pr ¼ 3. Blue symbols, Pr ¼ 10.
Circles, thick wall, e=Ri ¼ 0:183. Squares, thin wall, e=Ri ¼ 0:085. Close symbols, D1 > 0. Open symbols, D1 < 0. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

adiabatic side for low Bi. It is interesting to note that for interme-
diate Bi numbers (Bi  0:2), a roughly homogeneous distribution of
effective thermal stress is obtained.
In order to analyze in more detail the effective stresses from
Gatewood’s solution, lets consider the equation for the tangential
stresses (Eq. (25)), the largest contributors to ref , for the particular
case of C 1 ¼ 0:

rhh ¼ E0 f 0 ðrÞ þ D1 f 1 ðrÞ sin h: ð28Þ

In this equation f 0 and f 1 are functions of r only. It is clear that
the shape of the rhh (and hence ref ) is governed by the sign of coef-
ficient D1 . When D1 is close to zero, the thermal stresses are essen-
tially axisymmetric, as it happens for the intermediate Bi shown in
Fig. 7(c). Note that D1 ¼ 0 does not imply that the temperature dis-
tribution is axisymmetric since D2 ; D3 ; . . . ; DN , might all be non-
zero. When D1 is positive the maximum effective stress tends to
be in the adiabatic region, while when D1 is negative the maximum
effective stress occurs in the region where the heating is applied.
Fig. 9. Relative difference between the tangential stresses at the point of maximum
Fig. 8(a) shows the dependence of D1 with the Biot number, for temperature (h ¼ p=2 and r ¼ Ro ), computed using Faupel and Fisher formulas (rhh )
ðFÞ

all the cases considered here. We can observe that as Bi increases, and Gatewood’s formulas (rhh ). The relative error is plotted as a function of the Biot
ðGÞ

D1 decreases and eventually change signs, at Bi  0:1  0:2. The
plot suggest that the actual threshold depends on the tube thick-
ness. This is clearer when D1 is plotted against the local Bi (not
shown here), based on the convective coefficient computed from
the spectral simulations at the location of the peak heat flux.
An interesting consequence of the change of sign of D1 is that
the effective stress becomes minimal when D1 is zero. This is
hinted in Fig. 7, but becomes clear in Fig. 8(b), where the maximum
ref obtained with Gatewood’s formula is plotted as a function of
the Bi number. In general, the smallest thermal stresses are
obtained for Bi  0:1  0:2 (where D1 crosses zero and the effective
stresses on the pipe are uniform), although there are three cases
with thin walls with minimum thermal stresses at Bi  0:05  0:1.
Finally, the results of Fig. 7 shows that for small Bi numbers
Faupel and Fisher formulas predict qualitatively wrong thermal
stresses. Moreover, even if at large Bi the thermal stresses seem
to be qualitatively right, they are still quantitatively wrong: while
ref ;max ¼ 3:9  103 C T ref in Fig. 7(e), it is ref ;max ¼ 5:3  103 C T ref
in Fig. 7(f). This is emphasized in Fig. 9, where the relative differ-
ence between the rhh obtained with Gatewood’s and Faupel and
Fisher formulas is plotted as a function of the Biot number. It is
number. Black symbols, Pr ¼ 0:7. Red symbols, Pr ¼ 3. Blue symbols, Pr ¼ 10.
Circles, thick wall, e=Ri ¼ 0:183. Squares, thin wall, e=Ri ¼ 0:085. Close symbols,
D1 > 0. Open symbols, D1 < 0. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
clear that, even for Bi J 0:2 (which was the limit for obtaining rea-
sonable predictions for the inner wall fluid temperature with the
local 1D model), the errors in the thermal stresses are large
( 50%). The plot suggests that, for Faupel and Fisher’s formulas
to provide an error smaller than 5%, the Bi must be at least  10.
4. Conclusions
A conjugate heat transfer numerical study on thin-walled pipes
subjected to a non-uniform heat flux has been carried out. Differ-
ent operation conditions have been imposed to study the role of
the Reynolds, Prandtl and Biot number. The results of the present
calculations have been compared to the estimations based on
empirical correlations for the Nusselt number, where the heat
transfer is assumed to occur only in the radial direction (1D
model).
266 C. Marugán-Cruz et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 96 (2016) 256–266
As expected, the higher inner wall fluid temperatures are found
near the maximum heat flux. The agreement between the spectral
method and the 1D model increases as the Bi number increases,
although there is in general an underestimation of the maximum
inner wall fluid temperature in the 1D model. As a rule of thumb,
for Bi J 0:3 the difference between spectral and 1D models is neg-
ligible (smaller than 5%).
From the point of view of the thermal stresses, Gatewood’s for-
mulas should be used to compute the thermal stresses in non-
uniform configurations, when HðsÞ depends on r and h. The results
show that the stress distribution on the pipe depends strongly on
the Biot number: for Bi < 0:1, the maximum thermal stresses are
concentrated in the adiabatic side of the pipe. For Bi > 0:3, the
maximum thermal stresses appear near the peak heat flux, in the
hot side of the pipe. For Bi  0:1  0:3, the distribution of thermal
stresses is roughly uniform in the circumferential direction.
Indeed, for that range of Bi the maximum thermal stress seems
to be minimum.
Finally, the thermal stresses obtained from Gatewood’s and
Faupel and Fisher’s formulas are compared. It is concluded that
Faupel and Fisher’s formulas do not provide quantitatively correct
results for Bi K 10, and provide qualitatively wrong results for
Bi K 0:3. This implies that, while 1D (local) models can provide rea-
sonable good estimations of the inner wall fluid temperature in the
fluid, a proper estimation of the thermal stresses on the solid
requires obtaining the temperature distribution on the whole tube
and using Gatewood’s formulas.
It should be noted that, even if the present results have been
obtained for a conductivity ratio ks =k ¼ 37:5, qualitatively similar
results are obtained for ks =k ¼ 18:5, supporting the present conclu-
sions for (at least) lower conductivity ratios.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy
and Competitiveness through the Grant ENE2012-34255. O.F. and
M.G.-V. were partially supported by Grant TRA2013-41103-P of
the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. The latter
grant includes FEDER funding.
References
[1] A. Fatemi, L. Yang, Cumulative fatigue damage and life prediction theories: a
survey of the state of the art for homogeneous materials, Int. J. Fatigue 20 (3)
(1998) 9–34.
[2] A. Bejan, 4th ed., Convection Heat Transfer, John Wiley and Sons, 2013.
[3] D. Johns, B. Neal, Thermal Stress Analyses, Pergamon Press, 1965.
[4] M.J. Lata, M. Rodŕguez, M.A. de Lara, High flux central receivers of molten salts
for the new generation of commercial stand-alone solar power plants, J. Solar
Energy Eng. 130 (2008). 021002-1-5.
[5] W. Reynolds, Turbulent heat transfer in a circular tube with variable
circumferential heat flux, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 6 (1963) 445–454.
[6] A. Rapier, Forced convection heat transfer in a circular tube with non-uniform
heat flux around the circumference, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 15 (1972) 527–
537.
[7] E.M. Sparrow, F.N.D. Farias, Unsteady heat transfer in ducts with time varying
inlet temperature and participating walls, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 11 (1968)
837–853.
[8] R.M. Cotta, D. Mikhailov, M.N. Osizik, Transient conjugated forced convection
in ducts with periodically varying in inlet temperature, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer 30 (10) (1987) 2073–2082.
[9] A. Hadiouche, K. Mansouri, Analysis of the effects of inlet temperature
frequency in fully developed laminar duct, J. Eng. Phys. Thermophys. 83
(2010) 380–392.
[10] S. Bilir, Transient conjugated heat transfer in pipes involving two-dimensional
wall and axial fluid conduction, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 45 (2002) 1781–
1788.
[11] O. Aydin, M. Avci, T. Bali, M.E. Arici, Conjugate heat transfer in a duct with an
axially varying heat flux, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 76 (2014) 385–392.
[12] A. Black, E. Sparrow, Experiments on turbulent heat transfer in a tube with
circumferentially varying thermal boundary conditions, J. Heat Transfer 89 (3)
(1967) 258–268.
[13] M. Yang, X. Yang, X. Yang, J. Ding, Heat transfer enhancement and performance
of the molten salt receiver of a solar power tower, Appl. Energy 87 (2010)
2808–2811.
[14] B. Weingand, G. Gassner, The effect of wall conduction for the extended Graetz
problem for laminar and turbulent channel flows, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 50
(2007) 1097–1105.
[15] K. Matsubara, M. Kobayashi, H. Maekawa, Direct numerical simulation of a
turbulent channel flow with a linear spanwise mean temperature gradient, Int.
J. Heat Mass Transfer 41 (1998).
[16] A. Antoranz, A. Gonzalo, O. Flores, M. Garća-Villalba, Numerical simulation of
heat transfer in a pipe with non-homogenous thermal boundary conditions,
Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 55 (2015) 45–51.
[17] M.A. Irfan, W. Chapman, Thermal stresses in radiant tubes due to axial,
circumferential and radial temperature distributions, Appl. Thermal Eng. 29
(2009) 1913–1920.
[18] O. Flores, C. Marugán-Cruz, D. Santana, M. Garća-Villalba, Thermal stresses
analysis of a circular tube in a central receiver, Energy Procedia 49 (2014) 354–
362.
[19] M. Rodŕguez-Sánchez, C. Marugán-Cruz, A. Acosta-Iborra, D. Santana,
Comparison of simplified heat transfer models and CFD simulations for
molten salt external receiver, Therm. Eng. 73 (2014) 991–1003.
[20] J. Kim, J. Kim, W. Stein, Simplified heat loss model for central tower solar
receiver, Solar Energy 116 (2015) 314–322.
[21] P. Wang, D.Y. Liu, C. Xu, L. Zhou, L. Xia, Conjugate heat transfer modelling and
asymmetric characteristic analysis of the heat collecting element for a
parabolic trough collector, Int. J. Therm. Sci 101 (2007) 68–84.
[22] G. Kolb, An Evaluation of Possible Next-Generation High-Temperature Molten-
Salt Power Towers, Sandia Report. SAND2011-9320, 2011.
[23] L. Jianfeng, D. Jing, Y. Jianping, Heat transfer performance of an external
receiver pipe under unilateral concentrated solar radiation, Solar Energy 84
(2010) 1879–1887.
[24] J. Faupel, F. Fisher, Engineering Design: A Synthesis of Stress Analysis and
Material Engineering, John Wiley and Sons, 1981.
[25] W.C. Young, R.G. Budynas, Roark’s Formulas for Stress and Strain, McGraw-
Hill, 2002.
[26] M. Eslami, R. Hetnarski, J. Ignaczak, N. Noda, Y. Tanigawa Sumi, Theory of
Elasticity and Thermal Stresses Explanations, Problems and Solutions,
Springer, 2013.
[27] D. Gartner, K. Johannsen, H. Ramm, Turbulent heat transfer in a circular tube
with circumferentially varying thermal boundary conditions, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer 17 (1974) 1003–1018.
[28] R. Cess, A survey of the literature on heat transfer in turbulent tube flow.
Report 8-0529-R24, Westinghouse Research, 1958.
[29] W.C. Reynolds, A.K.M.F. Hussain, The mechanics of an organized wave in
turbulent shear flow. Part 3. Theoretical models and comparisons with
experiments, J. Fluid Mech. 54 (2) (1972) 263–288.
[30] J.C. del Álamo, J. Jiménez, Linear energy amplification in turbulent channels, J.
Fluid Mech. 559 (2006) 205–213.
[31] G. Pujals, M. Garća-Villalba, C. Cossu, S. Depardon, A note on optimal transient
growth in turbulent channel flows, Phys. Fluids 21 (2009) 015109.
[32] X. Wu, P. Moin, A direct numerical simulation study on the mean velocity
characteristics in turbulent pipe flow, J. Fluid Mech. 608 (2008) 81–112.
[33] A. Quarmby, R. Quirk, Measurements of the radial and tangential eddy
diffusivities of heat and mass in turbulent flow in a plain tube, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer 15 (1972) 2309–2327.
[34] F. Schwertfirm, M. Manhart, DNS of passive scalar transport in turbulent
channel flow at high Schmidt numbers, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 28 (2007) 1204–
1214.
[35] L.N. Trefethen, Spectral methods in MATLAB, Siam, 2000.
[36] J.A. Weideman, S. Reddy, A MATLAB differentiation matrix suite, ACM Trans.
Math. Software (TOMS) 26 (4) (2000) 465–519.
[37] M. Piller, Direct numerical simulation of turbulent forced convection in a pipe,
Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 49 (2005) 583–602.
[38] Esdu, 92003: Forced convection heat transfer in straight tubes: Part 1:
turbulent flow, ESDU, 1981.
[39] F.P. Incropera, D.P. Dewitt, T.L. Bergman, A.S. Lavine, 6th ed., Fundamentals of
Heat and Mass Transfer, John Wiley and Sons, 2007.
[40] V. Gnielinski, New equation for heat and mass transfer in turbulent pipe and
channel flow, Int. Chem. Eng. 16 (1976) 359–368.
[41] B.S. Petukhov, Heat transfer and friction in turbulent pipe flow with variable
physical properties, Adv. Heat Transfer 9 (6) (1966) 539–565.
[42] V. Gnielinski, On heat transfer in tubes, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 63 (2013)
134–140.
[43] I. Alzahrnah, M.S. Hashmi, B. Yilbas, Thermal stresses in thick-walled pipes to
fully developed laminar flow, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 118 (2001) 50–57.
[44] H. Yapc, B. Albayrak, Numerical solutions of conjugate heat transfer and
thermal stresses in a circular pipe externally heated with non-uniform heat
flux, Energy Convers. Manage. 45 (6) (2004) 927–937.
[45] F. Wang, Y. Shuai, Y. Yuan, G. Yang, H. Tan, Thermal stress analysis of eccentric
tube receiver using concentrated solar radiation, Solar Energy 84 (10) (2010)
1809–1815.
[46] F. Wang, Y. Shuai, Y. Yuan, G. Yang, L. B., Effects of material selection on the
thermal stresses of tube receiver under concentrated solar irradiation, Mater.
Des. 33 (2012) 284–291.
[47] B.E. Gatewood, Thermal stresses in long cylindrical bodies, London Edinburgh
Dublin Philos. Mag. J. Sci. 32 (213) (1941) 282–301.