international journal of refrigeration 31 (2008) 633–642

available at www.sciencedirect.com

w w w . i i fi i r . o r g

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

Review

A review of hydrocarbon two-phase heat transfer in

compact heat exchangers and enhanced geometries

Bernard Thonon
Greth, 50 av du Lac Léman, BP302, 73375 Le Bourget du Lac, France

article info abstract

Article history: Hydrocarbons are considered as alternative fluids for refrigeration, air-conditioning and
Received 9 July 2007 heat pump applications. Pure butane, propane or their mixtures can be adopted, but due
Received in revised form to their flammable properties, the systems have to be designed in such a way that the re-
13 February 2008 frigerant charge is minimized. Therefore, compact heat exchangers and enhanced geome-
Accepted 17 February 2008 tries are adopted in such systems. In this paper, the current state of the art for two-phase
Published online 29 February 2008 heat transfer calculations for pure hydrocarbons and their mixtures is reviewed and ana-
lysed. Recommendations are proposed for estimating evaporation and condensation heat
Keywords: transfer in various geometries including enhanced tubes as well as compact heat
Refrigerant exchangers.
Hydrocarbon ª 2008 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.
Survey
Heat transfer
Two-phase flow
Heat exchanger
Enhanced surface

Transfert de chaleur diphasique des hydrocarbures dans les

échangeurs de chaleur compacts aux géométries améliorées :
article de synthèse
Mots clés : Frigorigène ; Hydrocarbure ; Enquête ; Transfert de chaleur ; Écoulement diphasique ; Échangeur de chaleur ; Surface
augmentée

1. Introduction For the EU, CFCs (Chloro-Fluoro-Carbons) are first concerned

and their use is now prohibited, the HCFCs (Hydro-Chloro-
The Montreal protocol in 1987 and its amendments have reg- Fluoro-Carbons) will be progressively concerned and their
ulated the use of fluids having an impact on the Ozone Layer. use will be definitely prohibited on 1 January 2015. The HFCs

E-mail address: bernard.thonon@greth.fr

0140-7007/$ – see front matter ª 2008 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2008.02.006
634 international journal of refrigeration 31 (2008) 633–642

Nomenclature Xc convective number [–]

Xtt Lockhart–Martinelli number [–]
Latin letters Z correction factor [–]
cp heat capacity [J/kg K]
Greek letters
d diameter [m]
a heat transfer coefficient [W/m2 K]
dh hydraulic diameter [m]
l thermal conductivity [W/m K]
f enhancement factor [–]
m dynamic viscosity [Pa s]
FFL physical property factor [–]
r density [kg/m3]
H enthalpy [J/kg]
J superficial velocity [m/s] Subscripts
m _ mass velocity [kg/m2 s] cr critical
Nu Nusselt number [–] cv convective boiling
Re Reynolds number [–] e external
Reeq Equivalent Reynolds number [–] G gas or vapour
P pressure [Pa] i internal
Pr Prandtl number [–] L liquid
P* reduced pressure Psat/Pc [–] LO liquid only
T temperature [K] nb nucleate boiling
V velocity [m/s] sat saturation
x vapour quality [–]

(Hydro-Fluoro-Carbons) are concerned by the Kyoto protocol options as they combine good environmental criteria and high
as gases contributing to the global warming. HFCs are also thermodynamic performances.
concerned by the EC regulation on fluorinated gases (EC, Hydrocarbons as refrigerant are considered and used in
2006). Within this context, natural refrigerants are sustainable many applications: domestic refrigerators, air-conditioning

Table 1 – Summary of studies on hydrocarbon evaporation and condensation for enhanced tubes and compact heat
exchangers
Reference Fluid Geometry Diameter Heat transfer
mode

Aprin et al. (2002) n-Pentane and propane Plain tube bundle d ¼ 19.5 mm Pool boiling
Aprin (2003) n-Pentane and propane Plain tube bundle d ¼ 19.5 mm Pool boiling
Beaugeois et al. (2004) Butane, propane and Plain and low-finned tube d ¼ 14.7 mm In-tube
butane–propane mixture condensation
Chen et al. (2005) Propane, iso-butane and Plain and enhanced d ¼ 19.5 mm Pool boiling
their mixtures
Corberan et al. (2000) Propane Compact HX dh ¼ 6 mm Evaporation and
condensation
Mertz et al. (2001) Propane Plain and enhanced tubes d ¼ 19.5 mm Pool boiling
Mertz et al. (2002) Butane Plain and enhanced tubes d ¼ 19.5 mm Pool boiling
Nan and Infante Ferreira Propane Plain and enhanced tubes d ¼ 9 mm In-tube evaporation
(2000) and condensation
Neeras (2001) Propane and propane– Plain and enhanced tubes d ¼ 14.5 mm In-tube
ethane mixture condensation
Pelletier (1998) Various hydrocarbons and Compact HX dh ¼ 6 mm Evaporation and
R22 condensation
Roser et al. (1999) n-Pentane Plain tube bundle d ¼ 19.5 mm Pool boiling
Setaro and Boccardi (2000) Propane Compact HX dh ¼ 6 mm Evaporation and
condensation
Thonon and Bontemps Pentane, butane, propane Compact HX dh ¼ 10 mm Condensation
(2002) and two butane–propane
mixtures
Thonon (2005a) Various pure and mixture of Plain and enhanced tubes d ¼ 14.6 mm Pool boiling and in-
hydrocarbons d ¼ 19.5 mm tube condensation
Vasiliev et al. (1998) Propane Plain and enhanced tubes Pool boiling
Watel and Thonon (2002) Propane Plate–fin heat exchanger dh ¼ 3 mm Flow boiling
 international journal of refrigeration 31 (2008) 633–642 635

Table 2 – Critical and transport properties at 0 8C (source Refprop 7.0 (2002))

Fluid R22 R134a Propane Iso-butane Units

Molar mass 86.47 102.03 44.10 58.12 kg/mol


T critical 96.15 101.06 96.68 134.67 C
P critical 49.90 40.59 42.47 36.40 bar
P saturation 4.98 2.93 4.75 1.57 bar
P reduced 0.100 0.072 0.112 0.043 –
Density liquid 1281.52 1294.78 528.71 580.46 kg/m3
Density vapour 21.23 14.43 10.36 4.25 kg/m3
Density ratio 60.42 89.73 51.03 136.58 –
cp Liquid 1169.23 1341.04 2508.91 2299.09 J/kg K
cp Vapour 738.97 897.23 1786.86 1634.01 J/kg K
Viscosity liquid 0.000216 0.000267 0.000126 0.000198 Pa s
Viscosity vapour 0.000011 0.000011 0.000007 0.000007 Pa s
Conductivity liquid 0.094743 0.092013 0.106040 0.098600 W/m K
Conductivity vapour 0.009407 0.011514 0.015745 0.014299 W/m K
Prandtl liquid 2.67 3.88 2.97 4.63 –
Prandtl vapour 0.89 0.84 0.85 0.78 –
Latent heat 205,047.91 198,603.47 374,672.53 355,034.34 J/kg
Surface tension 0.0117 0.0116 0.0101 0.0130 N/m

systems, domestic heat pumps (small capacity) or Liquefied

Natural Gas (LNG) chilling train multi-component refrigerant
(MCR) cycles. For domestic applications the key issues con-
cern the safety aspects and performance level. For LNG pro-
cesses, the energy required for liquefaction and the size of
the unit are critical. For these reasons, enhancement technol-
ogies and more accurate design methods are essential for the
development of such applications.
Even if there are several studies concerning the use of hy-
drocarbons as refrigerant (Colbourne and Suen, 2000; Granryd,
2001; Pelletier, 1998; Purkayastha and Bansal, 1998; Sekhar and
Lal, 2005; Primal et al., 2004; Wongwises and Chimres, 2005),
there are only limited number of studies dedicated to evapora-
tion and condensation heat transfer, and which provide local
heat transfer coefficients. The various studies related to en-
hanced tubes and compact heat exchangers are summarised
in Table 1.
2. Fluid properties
Hydrocarbons are quite different from CFC or HFC refriger-
ants, and their main critical and transport properties are sum-
marised in Table 2 for a temperature of 0  C and in Table 3 for
a temperature of 40  C (source Refprop 7.0 (2002) from NIST).
The major difference is that the latent heat of hydrocarbons
is almost twice that of CFC or HCF. This means that for an
equivalent heat duty of the system, the mass flow rate will
be divided by a factor two. Propane has a lower liquid viscosity
than all the other fluids. For all the fluids, the important ther-
mal properties (conductivity and Prandtl number) are rela-
tively similar.
The consequence is that, for a given system, the operating
conditions in terms of flow rate, pressure drop and heat trans-
fer will be significantly different compared to those obtained

Table 3 – Critical and transport properties at 40 8C (source Refprop 7.0 (2002))

Fluid R22 R134a Propane Iso-butane Units

Molar mass 86.47 102.03 44.10 58.12 kg/mol


T critical 96.15 101.06 96.68 134.67 C
P critical 49.90 40.59 42.47 36.40 bar
P saturation 15.34 10.17 13.70 5.31 bar
P reduced 0.307 0.250 0.322 0.146 –
Density liquid 1128.53 1146.74 467.07 530.00 kg/m3
Density vapour 66.19 50.09 30.20 13.67 kg/m3
Density ratio 17.05 22.91 15.47 38.77
cp Liquid 1338.94 1498.41 2926.74 2553.49 J/kg K
cp Vapour 994.83 1144.51 2316.99 1949.22 J/kg K
Viscosity liquid 0.000139 0.000161 0.000083 0.000128 Pa s
Viscosity vapour 0.000013 0.000012 0.000009 0.000008 Pa s
Conductivity liquid 0.076604 0.074716 0.086802 0.083688 W/m K
Conductivity vapour 0.012838 0.015446 0.021451 0.018529 W/m K
Prandtl liquid 2.42 3.24 2.79 3.91 –
Prandtl vapour 1.03 0.92 0.96 0.83 –
Latent heat 166,599.70 163,019.28 306,513.34 311,393.22 J/kg
Surface tension 0.0060 0.0061 0.0052 0.0084 N/m
636 international journal of refrigeration 31 (2008) 633–642

with artificial refrigerants. It implies that the geometry has to

be optimised and that design rules have to be established spe-
cifically for hydrocarbons.

3. Boiling and evaporation

3.1. Pool boiling

3.1.1. Plain tubes

Pool boiling is encountered in the chilling train of LNG pro-
cesses and in large chillers of refrigeration units. Single plain
tube pool boiling has been studied by several authors and the
experimental data have been used for developing or validating Fig. 1 – Shell-side boiling of iso-butane on plain tubes from
heat transfer correlations. The most commonly used correla- Aprin (2003).
tions are those of Cooper (1984) and of the VDI Heat Atlas (Gor-
boiling is dominant (Figs. 1 and 2). Furthermore, this implies
enflo, 1993). Recently, Gorenflo et al. (2004) have analysed and
that heat transfer coefficients from single tube pool boiling ex-
compared several data together with new data sources, and
periments can be used for the design and tube bundles only
this study confirms that the VDI method is suitable for pre-
for high-pressure fluids.
dicting pool boiling with various hydrocarbons. A detailed pre-
sentation of pool boiling heat transfer with hydrocarbons can
3.1.2. Enhanced tubes
be found in this issue of the International Journal of
The subject of enhanced heat transfer tubes has grown to the
Refrigeration.
stage that it is of serious interest for a whole range of indus-
But, single tube pool boiling correlations cannot be used
tries. The air-conditioning and refrigeration as well as auto-
alone for the design heat exchanger as the ‘‘bundle effect’’ has
motive industry routinely use enhanced heat transfer tubes
to be taken into account. The ‘‘bundle effect’’ is due to the rising
in their heat exchangers. The substantial development of
vapour produced by the lower tubes and the natural convection
low-finned and double enhanced tubes over the years is
flow which is generated within the shell. There are only a few
shown in Fig. 3. Several enhanced tubes have been tested us-
studies dealing with boiling of hydrocarbons on a tube bundle.
ing hydrocarbons, including low-fin tubes and re-entrant cav-
Roser et al. (1999) and then Aprin et al. (2002, 2003, 2007) have
ities structured tubes.
measured the boiling heat transfer coefficient on a bundle of
Vasiliev et al. (1998) have compared pool boiling of propane
45 horizontal tubes, and have developed a correlation based
on a plain and a porous coated tube. The porous coating was
on flow pattern maps, which takes into account both nucleate
obtained by gas-thermal spraying of steel, with a deposit
and convective boiling. The flow pattern map identifies three
thickness of 0.1–0.3 mm and a mean porosity between 1 and
main boiling regimes (Aprin, 2003; Aprin et al., 2007):
17%. The tests were carried out for a saturation pressure rang-
ing from 3.45 to 13.8 bar and heat fluxes between 102 and
 bubbly flow (JG < 0.15 m/s), where a single tube pool boiling
105 W/m2. A remarkable heat transfer enhancement of up to
correlation is adopted;
2.5–3 times was observed for the porous coated horizontal
 annular-dispersed flow (JG > 0.35 m/s), where a convective
tube compared to the plain tube.
boiling correlation is proposed;
Three research teams have been very active in developing
 intermittent flow (0.15 m/s < JG < 0.35 m/s), where the max-
or testing enhanced tubes with various hydrocarbons. Both
imum of the pool and convective boiling heat transfer coef-
single tube experiments (Mertz et al., 2001, 2002; Chen et al.,
ficients are taken.

The convective boiling term is calculated from a forced

convective flow correlation:
ade 0:19
Nu ¼ ¼ 367P Re0:34
G (1)
lG
where the Reynolds number is calculated with the actual liq-
uid velocity. This latter is calculated with a specific void frac-
tion correlation for tube bundles (Aprin et al., 2007).
VG rG de
ReG ¼ (2)
mG

For the three hydrocarbons tested (pentane, butane and pro-

pane), 92% of the data are predicted within 20%.
Aprin et al. (2002, 2003) have also shown that for low pres-
sure boiling fluids (pentane), the convective effects are domi- Fig. 2 – Shell-side boiling of iso-butane on plain tubes from
nant; while for high pressure boiling fluids (propane), nucleate Aprin (2003).
 international journal of refrigeration 31 (2008) 633–642
Fig. 3 – Low-finned and double enhanced tubes.
2005) and bundle experiments (Aprin, 2003; Aprin et al., 2007)
have been carried out. The main conclusions of these studies
are (Thonon, 2005a):
 the enhancement factors range from 1.3 for the low-fin tube
up to 8 for special re-entrant cavities tubes;
 the enhancement factor is more pronounced at low heat
fluxes;
 for high heat fluxes, the heat transfer coefficient tends to
level off;
 for boiling of mixtures, enhanced tubes are more sensitive
to the ‘‘mixture effect’’, which reduces heat transfer;
 for enhanced tube bundle, the ‘‘bundle effect’’ is less pro-
nounced and single-tube and bundle experiments have sim-
ilar performances (Figs. 4 and 5).
Such enhanced boiling tubes are presently used in large
LNG chillers and have proven their efficiency and their capac-
ity for transferring heat even at very low heat fluxes (Thonon,
2005a).
Fig. 4 – Comparison of single tube and tube bundle
experiments.
637
3.2. In-tube flow boiling
For air-conditioning systems and heat pumps using hydrocar-
bons, in-tube flow boiling will be frequently encountered as
this heat exchanger configuration minimises the fluid inven-
tory compared to shell-side boiling. A detailed evaluation of
flow boiling heat transfer with hydrocarbons is provided in
this issue of the International Journal of Refrigeration by
Thome et al. For enhanced tubes there is only limited data
published. Nan and Infante Ferreira (2000) have tested two mi-
cro-fin tubes and have found an enhancement factor com-
pared to the smooth tube over 50% (including the surface
extension). There is a clear need for more data specific to in-
tube flow boiling of pure hydrocarbons and their mixtures.
3.3. Cross corrugated heat exchangers
Compact brazed heat exchangers have been used for heat
pumps and refrigeration systems with various hydrocarbons
as working fluids. Such heat exchangers are adopted due to
Fig. 5 – Tube bundle experiments.
638 international journal of refrigeration 31 (2008) 633–642
high heat transfer performances, low fluid inventory and re-
duced volume and cost.
Experimental results on boiling and condensation heat
transfer in small brazed plate heat exchangers have been pub-
lished by Pelletier (1998). Four different heat exchangers were
tested with R22, propane, propylene and a commercial mix-
ture of propane and ethane. Three heat exchangers were
tested as evaporators. Two of these, A and B had the same ex-
ternal dimensions but had different chevron angles and dif-
ferent inlets to the individual channels. The third, model C,
was shorter and less wide than the other two but had a larger
number of plates giving it a heat transfer surface area approx-
imately equal to the other two. All evaporators were tested at
heat fluxes between 6000 and 10,000 W/m2, which is in a com-
mon range for refrigeration applications. Of the three heat ex-
changers tested as evaporators the tests showed that for
designs A and B the heat transfer coefficient increased with
increasing heat flux, while for model C no such influence
was found. This indicates that nucleate boiling was important
for models A and B but not for C.
Pelletier (1998) has reported heat transfer coefficients for
propane (R290) and propylene (R1270) in the range of 1700–
2500 W/m2 K. For these experiments it was found that the
Cooper pool boiling correlation (Cooper, 1984) was overesti-
mating the data by 15–20%. These heat transfer coefficients
are 35% higher than those measured using R22 (similar oper-
ating conditions).
Corberan et al. (2000) have reported heat transfer co-
efficients in the range of 2000–2750 W/m2 K (heat flux 6000–
13,000 W/m2) and they suggest using a modified Cooper
correlation for predicting the heat transfer coefficients, as the
original correlation overpredicts the measurements by 65%.
Setaro and Boccardi (2000) have compared the overall per-
formances of a plate heat exchanger installed on a reversible
heat pump using R22 and propane. No detailed data can be
extracted from their measurements and only the overall
heat transfer can be compared. The results indicate that for
a drop-in of propane in a system designed for R22, both the ca-
pacity and the overall heat transfer are lower. This is mainly
due to the much higher latent heat of vaporisation of propane,
which implies a lower flow rate. By the same time, the pres-
sure drop with propane is much lower. This study outlines
the fact that compact heat exchangers have to be optimised
and designed specifically for hydrocarbons due to their spe-
cific physical properties.
One predictive method has been proposed by Thonon et al.
(1995). It must be noticed that this correlation was deduced
only from measurements with artificial refrigerants. As
shown by the previous studies, in such corrugated channels
nucleate boiling (nb) and convective boiling (cv) can occur dur-
ing vaporisation. For nucleate boiling, the heat transfer coeffi-
cient is a function of the heat flux and of fluid properties. Pool
boiling correlations such as the Cooper (1984) or the Gorenflo
(1993) correlation can be used for estimating the nucleate boil-
ing term anb.
To estimate the convective term, an enhancement factor F
is introduced. This factor characterises the heat transfer en-
hancement due to the liquid vapour interaction.
acv ¼ FaL (3)
The liquid heat transfer coefficient is calculated with an
appropriate correlation for corrugated channels.
   
_  xÞdh b mL cpL c lL
mð1
aL ¼ a (4)
mL lL dh
The enhancement factor F is calculated from:
1:8
F¼ 1þ (5)
X0:79
tt
where Xtt is Lockhart–Martinelli number:
 0:9  0:5  0:1
1x rG mL
Xtt ¼ (6)
x rL mG
The two-phase heat transfer coefficient is taken as the greater
value of the nucleate boiling term and the convective boiling
term.
a ¼ Maxðanb ; acv Þ (7)
As it is based on dimensionless numbers, this correlation is
relatively general. But it should be used only for a first estima-
tion, as its generalisation to a large range of fluids has not been
validated.
3.4. Compact plate–fin heat exchangers
Watel and Thonon (2002) have characterised upward flow boil-
ing of propane in an offset strip fin compact heat exchanger.
The data were extracted from a local energy balance and
wall temperature measurements. The hydrocarbon was enter-
ing sub-cooled and was only partly vaporised into the heat ex-
changer by the heating fluid. Watel and Thonon (2002) have
reported heat transfer coefficients between 4000 and 7000 W/
m2 K (mass flux 12–70 kg/m2 s and heat flux 1000–8000 W/m2),
but no correlation is proposed by the authors.
Desrats (2006) has tested a compact plate–fin heat ex-
changer during up-flow boiling of propane. Local heat transfer
coefficients were measured as well as local void fraction. For
the boiling heat transfer coefficients, convective boiling is
found to be the dominant mechanism. The data have been
compared to several flow boiling correlations for tubes and
compact heat exchangers, and the most suitable is found to
be the correlation developed by Kandlikar and Steinke (2002)
for mini-channels. The empirical physical property number
FFL has been adjusted to 1.63, which is close to the value for
R134a (FFL(R134a) ¼ 1.60). The single phase heat transfer coeffi-
cient is calculated with specific correlations for the laminar
and turbulent regimes. With these adaptations of the original
correlation, all the data fall within 20%.
4. Condensation
4.1. In-tube condensation
For air-cooled condensers, in-tube condensation will be adop-
ted, and several studies have reported heat transfer coeffi-
cients for plain and micro-fin tubes. Nan and Infante
Ferreira (2000) have studied in-tube condensation of propane
 international journal of refrigeration 31 (2008) 633–642 639

Table 4 – Comparison of in-tube condensation with the Cavallini et al. (2003), Chang et al. (2000) and Thome et al. (2003)
correlations
Cavallini et al. (2003) Chang et al. (2000) Thome et al. (2003)

E-mean (%) E-abs (%) E-mean (%) E-abs (%) E-mean (%) E-abs (%)

Propane þ28 28 14 15 2 15

Butane þ49 49 þ1 22 þ48 49
Butane–propane mixture þ79 79 þ15 20 þ47 47

in plain, micro-fin and cross-hatched tubes and have com- For mixtures, the Chang correlation is corrected using the con-
pared their results to correlations from the open literature. densation curve method (Silver, 1947) and (Bell and Ghaly, 1972):
Chang et al. (2000) have studied in-tube condensation of vari-
1 1 Z
ous hydrocarbons (pure and binary mixture) and have pro- ¼ þ (11)
amixture apure aG
posed a new correlation. Beaugeois et al. (2004) have studied
condensation of butane and propane and one mixture in plain
with
and micro-fin tubes. Reszewski (2003) or Wongwises and
Chimres (2005) have studied propane–butane mixtures for do- dT
Z ¼ xcp;G (12)
mestic refrigerators. For LNG processes, Neeras (2001) has dh
studied in-tube condensation of propane and a propane–
where aG is the heat transfer coefficient corresponding to the va-
ethane mixture.
pour fraction flowing alone in the tube. No correction of the hy-
The Beaugeois et al. (2004) database has been used for com-
draulic diameter, due to the condensation film thickness, is
parison with various existing prediction methods for pure
made.
fluid condensation (Table 4). For plain tube condensation,
Thonon (2005b) and Lee et al. (2006) have compared con-
the Cavallini et al. (2003) correlation overpredicts the data by
densing heat transfer coefficients for various refrigerants. For
30% (Fig. 6), and the Thome et al. (2003) correlation gives
similar operating conditions, hydrocarbons give higher heat
good accuracy for propane, but overpredicts by 30% the data
transfer coefficients compared to those obtained with R22.
for butane (similar observations are reported by Thome et al.
For micro-fin tubes, both the Nan and Infante Ferreira
(2003) correlation in their paper). The Chang et al. (2000) corre-
(2000) and the Beaugeois et al. (2004) studies have shown
lation has the best accuracy (Fig. 7).
that the Cavallini et al. (2003) correlation for micro-fin tubes
For pure fluids the original Chang correlation is defined as
has a good accuracy (Fig. 8). When using hydrocarbon mix-
follows:
tures, for both plain and enhanced tubes, the condensation
acond 2:5
¼ 1 þ 0:912 (8) curve method gives satisfactory results. Compared to plain
a Xc
tubes, enhancement factors from 50 to 100% (including sur-
with face extension) are reported.
 0:8  0:5
1x Psat
Xc ¼ (9) 4.2. Compact heat exchangers
x Pcr

and
Pelletier (1998) and Corberan et al. (2000) have reported heat
lL transfer coefficients in brazed plate heat exchangers with var-
a ¼ 0:023 Re0:8 0:4
L PrL (10)
di ious hydrocarbons. The values are between 2000 and 3000 W/
m2 K and relatively constant over the operating conditions.
Predicted heat transfer coefficient
Predicted heat transfer coefficient

20000 12000

16000

8000
12000

8000
4000
Propane Propane
4000 Butane Butane
Mixture Mixture
0 0
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 0 4000 8000 12000
Experimental heat transfer coefficient (W m-2 K-1) Experimental heat transfer coefficient (W m-2 K-1)

Fig. 6 – Comparison of the Greth data for butane, propane Fig. 7 – Comparison of the Greth data for butane, propane
and butane–propane mixture with Cavallini et al. (2003) and one butane–propane mixture with Chang et al. (2000)
model. models.
640 international journal of refrigeration 31 (2008) 633–642

20000 This new correlation gives satisfactory result for the three
Calculated heat transfer coefficient

+ 30 % pure fluids tested, 80% of the data are predicted within

16000 20%.
For mixtures, their experimental data (Fig. 9) suggest two
- 30 %
heat transfer mechanisms: (1) a laminar regime where the
12000
mass transfer resistance is the dominant resistance; and
(2) a turbulent regime where heat transfer is controlled by
8000
the liquid film. The condensation curve method has been
applied to these results. The calculation is carried out using
4000 Propane
an average vapour quality of x ¼ 0.5. The physical properties
Butane
Mixture are estimated at the dew temperature for the vapour phase
0 and at the bubble temperature for the liquid phase. The ex-
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 perimental trends are well predicted by this model. For the
Experimental heat transfer coefficient (W m-2 K-1) turbulent regime (Re > 1500) there is a very good agreement,
but for the laminar regime the heat transfer coefficient is
Fig. 8 – Comparison of Greth data with Cavallini et al. (2003)
overpredicted.
model. E-mean [ D3% and E-absolute [ 24%.

5. Conclusions
Thonon and Bontemps (2002) have studied condensation of
propane, butane and pentane and two butane/propane mix- In this paper, a literature review for two-phase heat transfer
tures in compact welded heat exchangers and have proposed has been realised for enhanced tubes and compact heat ex-
a new correlation. This correlation is based on film condensa- changers, and a number of papers have been analysed. The
tion and introduces a corrective term taking into account the following recommendations are proposed:
geometry of the corrugated channel. The effect of the geome-
try is introduced by the heat transfer coefficient of the liquid Tubular geometries
phase (aLO). The use of the equivalent Reynolds number Shell-side and pool boiling
(Reeq) rather than the liquid Reynolds number (ReL) gives better  single smooth tube / VDI method: Gorenflo (1993)
results.  enhanced tubes / no general correlation
a  smooth tube bundle / single tube correlation for high
0:76
F ¼ 1564 Reeq ¼ (13) pressure applications
aLO
 enhanced tube bundle / single tube data
where the equivalent Reynolds number is given by:
In-tube evaporation
  r 0:5 
_ ð1  xÞ þ x L
m dh  smooth tube / conventional correlation are adopted
rG  micro-fin tube / no general correlation
Reeq ¼ (14)
mL Shell-side condensation
 single smooth tube / Nusselt theory
2400  tube bundle / no data reported
pure Propane In-tube condensation
2200
Mixture 28/72%  smooth tube / Chang et al. (2000) best accuracy
2000 Mixture 49/51%  micro-fin tube / Cavallini et al. (2003) best accuracy
Heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K)

1800  mixtures / condensation curve method

1600
Compact heat exchangers
1400 Evaporation
 propane / heat transfer coefficient 1700–2750 W/m2 K
1200
Condensation
1000  propane / average heat transfer coefficient 2000–3000
800 W/m2 K
 various HC / data and correlation proposed for low
600
Reynolds
400

200 For tubular geometries, except for in-tube evaporation in

0
0 500
Reynolds LO
Fig. 9 – Comparison of condensation heat transfer of pure
propane and two butane–propane mixtures in a compact
heat exchanger from Thonon and Bontemps (2002).
enhanced and micro-fin tubes, several correlations and ex-
periments are available in the open literature. For in-tube
1000 1500 2000
condensation, correlations exist for both plain and micro-
fin tube. Compact heat exchangers have been tested using
various hydrocarbons and some data are reported, but the
correlations proposed are limited to the specific geometry
tested.
 international journal of refrigeration 31 (2008) 633–642
Acknowledgment
The review has been realised for the SHERHPA project on ‘Nat-
ural refrigerant heat pumps’ (Project no.: COLL-CT-2004-
500229), which is supported by the European Commission.
references
Aprin, L., Mercier, P., Tadrist, L., 18–23 August 2002. Analysis of
experimental results of n-pentane and propane boiling across
a horizontal tube bundle. In: Proceedings of the 12th
International Heat Transfer Conference, Grenoble, France.
Aprin, L., 7 November 2003. Etude expérimentale de
l’ébullition d’hydrocarbures sur un faisceau de tubes
horizontaux. Influence de la nature du fluide et de l’état de
surface. Ph.D. thesis, Université de Provence Aix-Marseille
1, France.
Aprin, L., Mercier, P., Tadrist, L., 2007. Experimental analysis of
local void fractions measurements for boiling hydrocarbons in
complex geometry. International Journal of Multiphase Flow
33, 371–393.
Beaugeois, O., Thonon, B., Bontemps A., 29 August –1 September
2004. Condensation of pure butane and propane and a 44/56%
mixture in a plain and a micro-finned tube. In: Proceedings of
the Gustav Lorentzen Conference on natural working fluid
conference, Glasgow, UK.
Bell, K.J., Ghaly, M.A., 1972. An approximate generalized design
method for multicomponent/partial condensation.
American Institute of Chemical Engineers Symposium
Series 39, 72–79.
Colbourne, D., Suen, K.O., 2000. Assessment of performance of
hydrocarbon refrigerants. In: Proceedings of the Fourth IIR
Gustav Lorentzen Conference on Natural Working Fluids,
Purdue, 149–156.
Cooper, M.G., 1984. Saturation nucleate pool boiling – a simple
correlation. IChemE Symposium Series 86, 785–793.
Chen, Y., Groll, M., Mertz, R., Kulenovic, R., 2005. Pool boiling heat
transfer of propane, isobutane and their mixtures on
enhanced tubes with reentrant channels. International
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 48, 2310–2322.
Corberan, J., Urcheguia, J., Gonzalvez, J., Setaro, T., Boccardi, G.,
Palm, B., 2000. Two-phase heat transfer in brazed plate heat
exchangers evaporators and condensers for R22 and propane.
In: Proceedings of the Third European Thermal Science
Conference, vol. 2, pp. 1193–1198.
Chang, Y.S., Kim, M.S., Ro, S.T., 2000. Performance and heat
transfer characteristics of hydrocarbon refrigerants in a heat
pump system. International Journal of Refrigeration 23,
232–242.
Cavallini, A., Censi, G., Del Col, D., Doretti, L., Longo, G.A.,
Rossetto, L., Zilio, C., 2003. Condensation inside and outside
smooth and enhanced tubes – a review of recent research.
International Journal of Refrigeration 26, 373–392.
Desrats, C., 7 November 2006. Etude expérimentale de l’ébullition
d’hydrocarbures dans les échangeurs à plaques et ailettes.
Analyse des écoulements et des transferts de chaleur par une
approche locale. Ph.D. thesis, Université de Provence Aix-
Marseille 1, France.
Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 of the European Parliament and of
the Council on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases. Official
Journal of the European Union, 14.6.2006.
Granryd, E., 2001. Hydrocarbons as refrigerants an overview.
International Journal of Refrigeration 24, 15–24.
Gorenflo, D., 1993. Pool boiling. VDI Heat Atlas, Chapter Ha.
641
Gorenflo, D., Chandra, U., Kotthoff, S., Luke, A., 2004. Influence
of thermophysical properties on pool boiling heat transfer
of refrigerants. International Journal of Refrigeration 27,
492–502.
Kandlikar, S.G., Steinke, M., 18–23 August 2002. Flow boiling heat
transfer coefficient in mini-channels – correlation and trends.
In: Proceedings of the 12th International Heat Transfer
Conference, Grenoble, France.
Lee, H.S., Yoon, J.I., Kim, J.D., Bansal, P.K., 2006. Condensing heat
transfer and pressure drop characteristics of hydrocarbon
refrigerants. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer
49, 1922–1927.
Mertz, R., Kulenovic, R., Groll, M., 24–28 September 2001.
Enhanced boiling tubes with subsurface structures:
investigation, visualization and industrial application. In: Fifth
World Conference on Experimental Heat Transfer, Fluid
Mechanics and Thermophysics, Thessaloniki.
Mertz, R., Kulenovic, R., Chen, Y., Groll, M., 18–23 August 2002.
Pool boiling of butane from enhanced evaporator tubes.
In: Proceedings of the 12th International Heat Transfer
Conference, Grenoble, France.
Nan, X.H., Infante Ferreira, C.A., 2000. In-tube evaporation and
condensation of natural refrigerant (R290) propane. In:
Proceedings of the Fourth IIR Gustav Lorentzen Conference on
Natural Working Fluids, Purdue, pp. 248–253.
Neeras, B., 10–13 March 2001. Condensation of hydrocarbons in
microfin tubes. AICHE Spring Meeting, New Orleans, Paper
120e.
Pelletier, O., 1998. Propane as refrigerant in residential heat
pumps. Eng. Licentiate thesis, RIT, Stockholm, Sweden.
Purkayastha, B., Bansal, P.K., 1998. An experimental study on
HC290 and a commercial liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) mix as
suitable replacements for a HCFC22. International Journal of
Refrigeration 21, 3–17.
Primal, F., Palm, B., Lundqvist, P., Granryd, E., 2004. Propane heat
pump with low refrigerant charge: design and laboratory tests.
International Journal of Refrigeration 27, 761–773.
Refprop 7.0. NIST Standard Reference Database 23. Version 7.0,
2002.
Roser, R., Thonon, B., Mercier, P., 1999. Experimental
investigations on boiling of n-pentane across an horizontal
tube bundle: two-phase flow and heat transfer
characteristics. International Journal of Refrigeration 22,
536–547.
Reszewski, S., 2003. Propane–n-butane mixture condensation
process in a heat exchanger’s internal surface of
a household refrigerator. In: Proceedings of the 21st
International Congress of Refrigeration, Washington D.C.,
Paper ICR0396.
Sekhar, S.J., Lal, D.M., 2005. HFC134a/HC600a/HC290 mixture
a retrofit for CFC12 systems. International Journal of
Refrigeration 28, 735–743.
Setaro, T., Boccardi, G., 2000. Comparative study of evaporation
and condensation of propane and R22 in a brazed plate heat
exchanger and tube–fin coil. In: Proceedings of the Fourth IIR
Gustav Lorentzen Conference on Natural Working Fluids,
Purdue, pp. 242–247.
Silver, L., 1947. Gas cooling with aqueous condensation.
Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers 25,
30–42.
Thonon, B., 2005. Advanced and high performances heat
exchangers for the gas processing industries. Heat Transfer
Engineering 25, 73–84.
Thonon, B., 31 August–02 September 2005b. A review of
hydrocarbon two-phase heat transfer in compact heat
exchangers and enhanced geometries. In: Proceedings of the
IIR Conferences: Thermophysical Properties and Transfer
Processes of Refrigerants, Vicenza, Italy.
642 international journal of refrigeration 31 (2008) 633–642
Thonon, B., Vidil, R., Marvillet, C., 1995. Recent research and
developments in plate heat exchangers. Journal of Enhanced
Heat Transfer 2, 149–155.
Thome, J.R., El Hajal, J., Cavallini, A., 2003. Condensation in
horizontal tubes, part 2: new heat transfer model based on
flow regimes. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer
46, 3365–3387.
Thonon, B., Bontemps, A., 2002. Condensation of pure
hydrocarbons and their mixtures in cross corrugated heat
exchangers. Heat Transfer Engineering 23, 3–17.
Vasiliev, L.L., Khrolenok, V.V., Zhuravlyov, A.S., 1998.
Intensification of heat transfer at propane pool boiling on
single horizontal tubes. Revue Générale de Thermique 37,
962–967.
Wongwises, S., Chimres, N., 2005. Experimental study of
hydrocarbon mixtures to replace HFC-134a in a domestic
refrigerator. Energy Conversion and Management 46, 85–100.
Watel, B., Thonon, B., 2002. An experimental study of flow boiling
of propane in a plate fin heat exchanger. Journal of Enhanced
Heat Transfer 9, 1–15.