Proceedings of the ASME 2018

International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition

IMECE2018
November 9-15, 2018, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

IMECE2018-86589

GENERAL CORRELATION FOR HEAT TRANSFER DURING TWO-COMPONENT

GAS-LIQUID FLOW IN HORIZONTAL PIPES
Mirza M. Shah
Engineering Research Associates
10 Dahlia Lane, Redding, CT 06896, USA
Mshah.erc@gmail.com

ABSTRACT which covered a wider range of parameters. Some modifications

Heat transfer to two-component gas-liquid mixtures is were made to improve agreement with data. The final correlation
needed in many industries but there is lack of a well-verified had mean absolute deviation of 19.2 % with 946 data points from
predictive method. A correlation is presented for heat transfer 18 studies covering a very wide range of parameters.
during flow of gas-liquid non-boiling mixtures in horizontal In the following, previous research by others is discussed, the
tubes. It has been verified with a wide range of data that includes: development of the new correlation is described, comparison of
tube diameters 4.3 to 57 mm, pressures from 1 to 4.1 bar, the present and other correlations with data is presented, and the
temperatures from 12 to 62 oC, gravity < 0.1 % to 100 % earth results are discussed.
gravity, liquid Reynolds number from 9 to 1.2E5, and ratio of gas
and liquid velocities from 0.24 to 9298. The 946 data points from .NOMENCLATURE
18 sources are predicted with mean absolute deviation of 19.2 %.
The same data were compared to several other correlations; they AVD Average deviation, defined by Eq. (17), (-)
had much larger deviations. D Inside diameter of tube, m
Ffp Flow pattern factor in present correlation, (-)
1. INTRODUCTION
Heat transfer to mixtures of permanent gases with liquid Fg Correction factor for effect of gravity, (-)
flowing in tubes/pipes is frequently encountered in petroleum, Fp Flow pattern factor, (-)
nuclear power, chemical, food, and pharmaceutical industries. FrL Liquid Froude number, = uLS2(ge D)-1, (-)
Injection of gas into liquid is also used for enhancing heat G Mass flux, kg m-2s-1
transfer. Due to its practical importance, many experimental g Acceleration due to gravity, m s-2
studies on such heat transfer have been done and many predictive
ge Acceleration due to gravity at earth, m s-2
techniques theoretical and empirical have been proposed. The
present author, Shah [1] had given general correlations for heat h Heat transfer coefficient, W m-2 oC-1
transfer in both horizontal and vertical tubes. This paper is hL Heat transfer coefficient of liquid phase, W m-2 oC-1
concerned only with horizontal tubes. Several researchers have hLS Heat transfer coefficient assuming liquid phase
reported good agreement of this correlation with their test data. flowing alone in the tube, Wm-2 oC-1
The correlation is in graphical form which makes it difficult to hTP Two-phase heat transfer coefficient, W m-2 oC-1
use it for computerized calculations. The author therefore
k Thermal conductivity, W m-1 oC-1
decided to convert it to equation form and to verify/improve it
by comparison with additional data. L Length of tube, m
The graphical correlation for horizontal tubes was converted MAD Mean absolute deviation, defined by Eq. (16), (-)
to equation form and then compared to the original database as N Number of data points
well as additional data for macro channels (diameter > 3 mm) P Pressure of mixture, bar

1 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/22/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Pr Prandtl number, (-) Koviri et al. [13] in a 12.5 mm ID tube. Measurements on larger
RL Liquid holdup = (1 – α), (-) tubes from 50 to 57 mm ID have been done by Noville and
Bannawart [14], Ruppert [6], and Deshpande et al. [15]. Most of
ReGS Reynolds number of gas flowing alone in tube, =
these studies include observation of flow patterns. Special
GGDμG-1, (-)
mention may be made of the study by Witte et al. [16] which was
ReLS Reynolds number assuming liquid phase flowing done at gravity level less than 0.1 % of earth gravity. Note that
alone, = GLDμL-1 , (-) boiling did not occur in any of these studies though evaporation
ReL Reynolds number of liquid at in-situ velocity, of water into air occurred in tests with air-water mixtures.
defined by Eq. (9), (-) The experimental studies generally show that at a fixed liquid
S Fraction of surface of tube in contact with liquid, (-) flow rate, heat transfer coefficient increases with increasing gas
T Temperature of mixture, oC flow rate, reaches a maximum, and then falls. The increase in
uLS Superficial velocity of liquid phase, ms-1 heat transfer coefficient is due to the increase in liquid velocity
caused by the increase of void fraction with increasing gas flow.
uGS Superficial velocity of gas phase, ms-1
The decrease following a maximum is attributable to partial or
ur Ratio of superficial velocities of gas and liquid, full dryout of the tube surface caused by the tearing away of
defined by Eq. (11), (-) liquid film by gas shear and effect of gravity which pushes the
ur,tr Value of ur at transition, (-) liquid (being heavier than vapor) towards the bottom of tube.
ured Reduced velocity, defined by Eq. (10), (-)
W Mass flow rate, kg s-1 2.2 Predictive Techniques
WeG Weber number, = GG2 D ρG-1 σ-1, (-) Many predictive techniques, empirical and analytical, have
been proposed. Many of these are exclusively for slug flow.
x Quality, WG . (WG + WL)-1, (-) Examples are Franca et al. [8], Deshpande et al. [15], and
Greek Shoham et al. [17]. Kim and Ghajar [18] presented correlations
α Void fraction (-) specific to each flow pattern with flow patterns identified by their
μ Dynamic viscosity, Pa. s own correlation. The problem in using such correlations is that
ρ Density, kg m-3 accurate prediction of flow patterns is difficult. The definitions
of flow patterns vary considerably and large differences are often
ΦL = (Mixture pressure drop/liquid pressure drop) 0.5, (-)
seen between the predictions of various flow pattern maps. For
Ψ = hTP . hLS-1 , (-) example, Kim [12] found large differences between his own flow
Subscripts pattern observation and the predictions of the Taitel and Dukler
L liquid [19] map. Correlations applicable to all flow patterns are
G gas discussed in the following.
tr at transition Some correlations which have been applied to heat transfer
in horizontal tubes are listed in Table 1.
w at wall temperature
In the Kim and Ghajar correlation, void fraction is obtained
by the Chisolm [24] correlation which is:
2. PREVIOUS WORK
−1
𝜌𝐿 0.5 1−𝑥 𝜌
Numerous experimental studies have been done and 𝛼 = [1 + (1 − 𝑥 + ) ( ) ( 𝐺 )] (1)
𝜌𝐺 𝑥 𝜌𝐿
many predictive techniques have been proposed for heat transfer
during flow of two-component gas-liquid mixtures in horizontal
tubes. These are briefly discussed in the following. In the Tang and Ghajar correlation, void fraction is calculated by
the Woldesemayat and Ghajar [25] correlation. In these two
2.1 Experimental Studies correlations, hL is calculated for liquid flowing at the in-situ
There have been numerous studies on mini channels (D ≤ 3 velocity with Reynolds number defined as:
mm) in recent years. Those are not discussed here as this paper 4𝑊𝐿
is exclusively for macro size tubes. Further, orientations other 𝑅𝑒𝐿 = (2)
𝜋(1−𝛼)0.5 𝜇𝐿𝐷
than horizontal are excluded.
Pioneering experimental studies on horizontal tubes include In the correlations listed in Table 1, transition from laminar to
those by Johnson and Abousabe [2], King [3], Fried [4], Pletcher turbulent flow is specified to occur when ReL or ReLS exceeds
and MacMannus [5], Ruppert [6], and Oliver and Wright [7]. 2100; hL and hLS are calculated using single phase heat transfer
Among other experimental studies are those of Franca et al. [8], equations appropriate for the regime.
Vaze and Bannerji [9], Nada [10], and Wang et al. [11]. Many Vaze & Bannerji [9] and Nada [10] have given correlations
experimental studies on air-water mixtures have been done at the that agree with their own data which have very limited ranges.
Oklahoma State University in horizontal as well as many other The present author, Shah [1], gave the following correlation
inclinations. Examples are Kim [12] in a 27.7 mm ID tube and for horizontal tubes:

2 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/22/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 For ReL < 170, Further, for 28 < D < 50 mm, Ffp =1 for annular flow but is
unknown for other flow patterns.
ℎ 𝑇𝑃 = ℎ𝐿𝑆 (1 + 𝑢𝐺𝑆 ⁄𝑢𝐿𝑆 )0.25 (3) As the flow pattern factor Ffp was developed using the map of
Mandhane et al. and as definitions of flow patterns used and their
For ReLS > 170, the correlation is presented in the form of a predictions by other correlations may be different, only the
graph. It has the following functional form: Mandhane et al. correlation (version without fluid properties) is
to be used.
Ψ = ℎ 𝑇𝑃 ⁄ℎ𝐿𝑆 = 𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛(𝑢𝐺𝑆 ⁄𝑢𝐿𝑆 , 𝐹𝑟𝐿 ) (4)
The gravity correction factor Fg = 1 except for annular flow
At any particular Froude number FrL, ψ increases with increasing where it is given by:
velocity ratio till a transition velocity ratio ur,tran is reached. At
velocity ratios higher than ur,tran , ψ decreases. Shah [1] verified 𝐹𝑔 = 1 + 0.5 (1 −
𝑔
) (13)
𝑔𝑒
this correlation with data from seven sources which included a
wide range of parameters. Good agreement of this correlation
with their own data has been reported by Wang et al. [11] for air- The flow pattern is to be determined by a map suitable for the
water and air-oil in a 26 mm diameter tube, and Noville & actual gravitational acceleration g.
Bannawart [14] for air-water in a 50 mm diameter tube. The single phase heat transfer coefficient for liquid hLS is
Some researchers have presented numerical simulation calculated by the following relations.
models for prediction of heat transfer. For example, Perea et al.
[26] developed a numerical model for heat transfer during slug ReLS < 170,
flow in horizontal tubes. They compared it to the data of Lima
[27] for air-water flow in a 52 mm diameter tube. Their model ℎ𝐿𝑆 = 1.86(𝑅𝑒𝐿𝑆 𝑃𝑟𝐿 𝐷/𝐿)1/3 (𝜇𝐿 ⁄𝜇𝑤 )0.14 𝑘𝐿 /𝐷 (14)
predicted the data within ±30%. The predictions of the Shah
correlation were within 15 % of the model predictions. No ReLS ≥ 170,
numerical model has been verified with a wide range of test data.
ℎ𝐿𝑆 = 0.023𝑅𝑒𝐿𝑆 0.8 𝑃𝑟𝐿 0.4 𝑘𝐿 /𝐷 (15)
3. THE NEW CORRELATION
The new correlation is as given below. Eq. (14) is the correlation of Sieder and Tate [30]. Eq. (15) is the
For ReLS < 170, all flow patterns, correlation of Dittus and Boelter [31].
Figure 1 shows the correlation as given by the above
ℎ 𝑇𝑃 = ℎ𝐿𝑆 (1 + 𝑢𝐺𝑆 ⁄𝑢𝐿𝑆 )0.25 (5) equations for ReLS > 170 at earth gravity with Ffp =1

For ReLS ≥ 170, when ur ≤ ur,tr , 3.1 Development of the New correlation
Development of the new correlation is now briefly described.
(414+89.4𝑢𝑟0.49 ) Equations were fitted to the graphical correlation in [1]. These
Ψ = 𝐹𝑓𝑝 𝐹𝑔 (365+𝑢𝑟 0.49 )
(6) equations were then compared to the original database as well as
new data. The maximum diameter in the original data base was
For ReLS ≥ 170, when ur > ur,tr 25.4 mm. The new data included diameters up to 57 mm. The
data for the larger tubes showed influence of flow patterns as
Ψ = 𝐹𝑓𝑝 𝐹𝑔 Ψ𝑡𝑟 (1+0.15𝑢
(0.97+0.22𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 )
(7) determined by the map of Mandhane et al. [28]. This led to the
2
𝑟𝑒𝑑 +0.038𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 ) factor Ffp.
. Witte et al. [16] performed tests during parabolic flights in
𝑢𝑟,𝑡𝑟 = 58⁄𝐹𝑟𝐿 0.61 (8) aircraft with gravity less than 0.1 % of earth gravity. The paper
by Fore et al. [29] is also based on the same data. For all data
(414+89.4𝑢𝑟,𝑡𝑟 0.49 ) flow pattern observed by them was either annular or slug. When
Ψ𝑡𝑟 = (9)
(365+𝑢𝑟,𝑡𝑟 0.49 )
these data were compared to the present correlation without Fg,
it was found that all the data for slug flow were in satisfactory
𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 = 𝑢𝑟 ⁄𝑢𝑟,𝑡𝑟 (10) agreement but the data for annular flow were greatly
underpredicted. Most of these annular flow data were predicted
𝑢𝑟 = 𝑢𝐺𝑆 ⁄𝑢𝐿𝑆 (11) to be in the slug or wave flow regimes by the Mandhane et al.
map which is based on data at earth gravity. Thus the higher heat
The flow pattern factor Ffp = 1 except as follows: transfer coefficients at low gravity appear to be due to the change
For D ≥ 50 mm when flow pattern is stratified, slug, or wave, in flow pattern. In wave and slug flow, part or all of the tube
surface is in contact with gas which has low thermal conductivity
Ffp = 0.5 (12) while in annular flow, all the surface of the tube is in contact with

3 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/22/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 liquid which has high thermal conductivity. This results in heat
transfer coefficient being higher with annular flow at low gravity
0.001
10
ψ = hTP/hLS
0.01
0.1
1 MAD =
10
FrL = 100
1
0.1 1 10
uGS/uLS
100 1000
Figure 1: The new correlation for Re LS > 170
when comparable flow rates at earth gravity produce slug or
wave flow.
No other heat transfer data for horizontal tubes at low gravity
were found. As the body force which produces flow asymmetry
decreases linearly with gravity, it was decided to assume a linear
increase in heat transfer with decreasing gravity. The correction
factor for gravity Fg was developed accordingly.
.
4. DATA ANALYSIS
In addition to the data analyzed in Shah [1], more data were
obtained through literature search. The complete range of data
analyzed is given in Table 2. So that the performance of the
present correlation be viewed in perspective, some other
correlations were evaluated together with the present correlation.
All the correlations listed in Table 1 were evaluated. Another
correlation evaluated is a modified form of the Shah [1]
correlation in which its formula for Re LS < 170, Eq. (5), is also
used at higher Reynolds number with hLS calculated with
turbulent heat transfer correlation. This modified Shah
correlation was compared by several authors to a wide range of
data with good results. These authors include Koviri et al. [13],
Kim and Ghajar [18], Hossainy [33], and Kalapatapu [34].
For several data sets, pressure and/or temperature were not
explicitly stated in the papers. In such cases, these were
estimated from related information such as test setup description,
given values of parameters such as Prandtl number, etc. In
calculations with the correlations of Johnson & Abousabe and
Kaminsky, void fraction was calculated by the Chisolm
correlation, Eq. (1), and ΦL was calculated with the Lockhart
Martinelli [35] correlation. Properties of gases and water were
calculated with REFPROP 9.1, Lemmon et al. [36] except as
noted in the following. Properties of glycerol solution were taken
from Vargaftik [37]. If properties of other liquids were given in
the papers from which the test data were taken, they were used.
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/22/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Otherwise various other sources were used. Flow patterns used
for analyzing the data of Witte et al. [16] were as listed in their
data tables. They have given a flow pattern map based on Weber
number. For all their annular flow pattern data, WeG was greater
than 6. In fact for all except a few data point, We G was greater
than 10 for annular data points.
4.4 Results of Data Analysis
The results of data analysis are listed in Table 3. The
deviations listed therein are defined below.
Mean absolute deviation (MAD) is given by:
 ABS ((h − hmeasured ) / hmeasured )
N
1
predicted
N 1 (16)
10000 Average deviation (AVD) of a data set is defined as:
 ((h − hmeasured ) / hmeasured )
N
1 (17)
AVD = predicted
N 1
It is seen that the MAD of the present correlation with all 911
data points is 19.7 % while the MAD of other correlations varies
from 26.1 % to 95.1 %. Hence the present correlation is
considerably more accurate than other correlations.
5 DISCUSSION
5.1 Accuracy of the Present and Other Correlation
As seen in Table 3, the MAD of the present correlation is 19.7
% for the 911 data points from 18 sources. These cover a very
wide range of parameters that includes tube diameters 4.3 to 57
mm, pressures from 0.48 to 4.1 bar, temperatures from 12 to 62
o
C, gravity < 0.1 to 1 g, ReLS from 9 to 1.2E5, ReGS 6 to 4.7E5,
and uGS/uLS from 0.24 to 9298.
The correlation with the next lowest deviation is the modified
Shah correlation with MAD of 26.7 %. The MAD of other
correlations varies from 33.2 to 92.8 %. These correlations show
good agreement with some data sets but large deviations with
other data sets. Hence none of these can be considered suitable
for general use.
5.2 Recommendations for Use
The present correlation can be used with confidence for macro
tubes up to 28 mm diameter at earth gravity as there were 14 data
sets in this range. There were only three data sets for larger
diameters; these were in the range 50 to 57 mm. Hence it has to
be used cautiously for diameters greater than 28 mm. Extreme
caution is needed for use at low gravity conditions as the data for
low gravity analyzed were only from one source.
To what extent this correlation can be used for mini channels
(D ≤ 3 mm) is unknown. The limit of applicability needs to be
4 Copyright © 2018 ASME
 determined through data analysis. Until this limit is known, this
correlation should not be used for minichannels.
6. CONCLUSIONS
1. A correlation has been presented which shows good
agreement with a wide range of data for heat transfer to
permanent gas-liquid mixtures flowing in horizontal tubes. The
data include tube diameters from 4.3 mm to 57 mm and a very
wide range of flow rates, gas and liquid Reynolds number,
pressures, temperatures, and extremely low gravity to normal
gravity. The MAD for 946 data points from 18 studies is 19.2 %.
2. The same database was also compared to six other
correlations. Their MAD ranged from 26.7 % to 92.8 %. Hence
the present correlation is much more reliable than others.
3. Further verification with data for tubes of large diameters is
desirable as the amount of such data was limited. It is also
desirable to compare it with data for small diameter tubes in the
mini range to find its limit of applicability.
4. Comparison with additional data at very low gravity is
needed. Such data for horizontal tubes is presently not available.
FUNDING
This work did not receive any funding from any source.
REFERENCES
[1] Shah, M.M. “Generalized Prediction of Heat Transfer During
Two Component Gas-Liquid Flow in Tubes and Other
Channels,” AIChE Symp. Series, Vol. 77, No. 208 (19810: pp.
40-151.
[2] Johnson, H. A., and Abou-Sabe, A. H. “Heat Transfer and
Pressure Drop for Turbulent Flow of Air-Water Mixtures In a
Horizontal Pipe,” Trans. ASME, Vol. 74 (1952): pp. 977-987.
[3] King, C. D. G. “Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop for an Air-
Water Mixture Flowing In a 0.737 Inch I.D. Horizontal Tube,”
M.S. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, California
(1952)..
[4] Fried, L. “Pressure Drop and Heat Transfer for Two-Phase,
Two-Component Flow,” Chem. Eng. Prog. Svmp. Series, Vol. 50,
No. 9 (1954): pp. 47 - 51.
[5] Pletcher, R. H., and McManus, H. N. “Heat Transfer and
Pressure Drop in Horizontal Annular Two-Phase, Two-
Component Flow,” International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer, Vol. 11, No. 7 (1968): pp. 1087-1104.
[6] Ruppert, K. A. “Druckverlust und Warmeubergang bei der
Verdampfung in durchstromten glatten und Rauhen Rohren in
Gegenwart von Inertgassen,” Dr. Ing. Dissertation, Karlsruhe
University, Germany (1975).
[7] Oliver D. R., and Wright, S. J. “Pressure Drop and Heat
Transfer in Gas-Liquid Slug Flow in Horizontal Tubes,” British
Chemical Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 9 (1964): pp. 590-596.
[8] Franca, F. A., Bannwart, A. C., Ricardo M. T., Camargo, R.
M., and Gonçalves, M. A. L. “Mechanistic Modeling of the
Convective Heat Transfer Coefficient in Gas-Liquid Intermittent
Flows,” Heat Transfer Engineering,” Vol 29, No. 9 (2008): pp.
984-998.
5 Copyright © 2018 ASME
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/22/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[9] Vaze, M.J., and Banerjee, J. “A Modified Heat Transfer
Correlation for Two-Phase Flow,” J. Heat Mass Transfer, Vol. 47
(2011): pp. 1159- 1165.
[10] Nada, S. A. “Experimental Investigation and Empirical
Correlations of Heat Transfer in Different Regimes of Air–Water
Two-Phase Flow in a Horizontal Tube,” J. Thermal Science and
Engineering Applications, Vol. 9 (2017): pp. 021004-1 to
021004-9.
[11] Wang, X., Wang, Z., Zhang, X., and Limin, H. E. “Heat
Transfer of Oil-Gas Slug Flow in Horizontal Pipe,” CISE
Journal, Vol. 68, No. 6 (2017): pp. 2306-2314.
[12] Kim, D. “An Experimental and Empirical Investigation of
Convective Heat Transfer for Gas–Liquid Two-Phase Flow In
Vertical and Horizontal Pipes, Ph.D. Thesis, School of
Mechanics and Aerospace Engineering, Oklahoma State
University, Stillwater, OK (2000).
[13] Koviri, R. N. K., Bhagwat, S. M., and Ghajar, A. J. “Heat
Transfer Measurements and Correlations Assessment for
Upward Inclined Gas-Liquid Two Phase Flow,” Proceedings of
the 1st Thermal and Fluid Engineering Summer Conference,
TFESC, August 9-12 (2015), New York City, NY.
[14] Noville, I., and Bannwart, A. C. “Experimental Study of
Heat Transfer in Horizontal Gas-Liquid Intermittent Flow,”
Proc. 14th Int. Heat Transfer Conf., Washington, DC, USA
(2010)..
[15] Deshpande, S., Bishop, A., and Karandikar, B. “Heat
Transfer to Air-Water Plug-Slug Flow in Horizontal Pipes,”
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, Vol 30, No. 9
(1991): pp. 2172- 2180.
[16] Witte, L. C., Bousman, W. S., and Fore, L. B., 1996,
“Studies of Two-Phase Flow Dynamics and Heat Transfer at
Reduced Gravity Conditions,” NASA Contractor Report
198459, NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio (1996).
[17] Shoham, 0., Dukler, A. E., and Taitel, Y. 1982, “Heat
Transfer During Intermittent/Slug Flow in Horizontal Tubes,”
Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., Vol. 21 (1982): pp. 312-319.
[18] Kim, D., and Ghajar, A. J. “Heat Transfer Measurements
and Correlations for Air-Water Flow of Different Flow Patterns
in a Horizontal Pipe,” Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science,
Vol. 25 (2002): pp. 659–676.
[19] Taitel, Y. and Dukler, A. E. “A Model for Predicting Flow
Regime Transitions in Horizontal and Near Horizontal Gas-
Liquid Flow,” AIChE Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1976): pp. 47-54.
[20] Knott, R. F., Anderson, R. N., Acrivos, A., and Petersen, E.
E., 1959, “An Experimental Study of Heat Transfer to Nitrogen-
Oil Mixtures,” Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Vol. 51,
No. 11 (1959): pp.1369-1372. (Data tables obtained from
National Technical Information Service, Washington, DC.)
[21] Kaminsky, R. D. “Estimation of Two-Phase Flow Heat
Transfer in Pipes,” J. Energy Resour. Technol, Vol. 121, No. 2
(1999): pp. 75-80.
[22] Kim, J. and Ghajar, A. “A General Heat Transfer Correlation
for Non-Boiling Gas-Liquid Flow with Different Flow Patterns
in Horizontal Pipes,” International Journal of Multiphase Flow,
Vol. 32 (2006): pp. 447-465.
 [23] Tang, C. C., and Ghajar, A. J. “Validation of a General Heat
Transfer Correlation for Non-Boiling Two-Phase Flow with
Different Flow Patterns and Pipe Inclination Angles,”
Proceedings of the 2005 ASME-JSME Thermal Engineering
Heat Transfer Conference, Vancouver, Canada, July 8-12 (
2007). Quoted in Hossainy [33].
[24] D. Chisholm, 1973, “Void Fraction During Two-Phase
Flow,” Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, Vol. 15
(1973): pp. 235-236. Quoted in Kim and Ghajar [22].
[25] Woldesemayat, M. A. and Ghajar, A. J. “Comparison of
Void Fraction Correlations for Different Flow Patterns in
Horizontal and Upward Inclined Pipes,” International Journal of
Multiphase Flow, Vol. 33 (2007): pp. 347-370.
[26] Perea, C. D., Bassani, C. L., Cozin, C., Juquueira, and
Morales, R. E. M. “Numerical Simulation of Heat Transfer in
Two-Phase Slug Flow Using a Slug Tracking Method, 14th
Brazilian Congress of Thermal Sciences and Engineering,
November 18-22 (2012), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
[27] Lima, I. N. R. C. “Estudo Experimental da Transferência de
Calor No Escoamento Bifásico Intermitente Horizontal,” MS
Thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Sau Paulo, Brazil
(2009). Quoted in Perea et al. [26].
[28] Mandhane, J. M., Gregory, G. A., and Aziz, K. “A Flow
Pattern Map for Gas-Liquid Flow in Horizontal Pipes,”
International Journal of Multiphase Flow, Vol. 1 (1974): pp.
537-553.
[29] Fore, L. B., Witte, L. C., and McQuillen, J. B. “Heat
Transfer to Two-Phase Slug Flows Under Reduced-Gravity
Conditions,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, Vol. 23, No. 2 (1997): pp.
301-311.
[30] Sieder, E. N. and Tate, G. E. “Heat Transfer and Pressure
Drop of Liquids In Tubes,” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry,
Vol. 28 (1936): pp.1429-1435.
[31] Dittus, F.W. and Boelter, L.M.K. “Heat Transfer in
Automobile Radiators of the Tubular Type,” University of
California Publications in Engineering, Vol. 2 (1930): pp. 443-
461.
[32] Nino, E and Ruocco, G. “Experimental Investigation of The
Heat Exchange to a Compartmentalized Plug
Flow,” International Journal of Thermal Sciences, Vol. 38, No.
11: pp. 955-959.
[33] Hossainy, T. A. “Non-Boiling Heat Transfer in Horizontal
and Near Horizontal Downward Inclined Gas-Liquid Two Phase
6 Copyright © 2018 ASME
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/22/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Flow,” MS Thesis, Oklahoma State University, School of
Mechanics and Aerospace Engineering, Oklahoma State
University, Stillwater, OK (2014).
[34] Kalapatapu, S. B. “Non-Boiling Heat Transfer in Horizontal
and Near Horizontal Upward Inclined Gas-Liquid Two Phase
Flow,” MS Thesis, Oklahoma State University, School of
Mechanics and Aerospace Engineering, Oklahoma State
University, Stillwater, OK (2014}.
[35] Lockhart, R. and Martinelli, R. C. “Proposed Correlation of
Data for Isothermal Two-Phase, Two-Component Flow In
Pipes,” Chem. Eng. Prog., Vol. 45, No. 1 (1949): pp. 39-48.
[36] Lemmon, E. W., Huber, M. L., and McLinden, M. O. “NIST
Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport Properties,”
REFPROP version 9.1, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD (2013).
[37] Vargaftik, N. B. Tables on the Thermophysical Properties of
Liquids and Gases, 2nd edition. Hemisphere Publishing,
Washington, DC, (1975).
[38] Ghajar, A. J. and Tang, C.C. “Heat Transfer Measurements,
Flow Pattern Maps, and Flow Visualization for Non-Boiling
Two-Phase Flow in Horizontal and Slightly Inclined Pipe,” Heat
Transfer Engineering, Vol. 28, No. 6 (2007): pp. 525–540,
[39] Kosorotov, M. A. 1974, “Heat Transfer to Water/Air Flow
with Low Air Content,” Teploenergetica, Vol. 21, No. 9 (1974):
pp. 29-31.
[40] Wright, S. J. PhD Thesis, University of Birmingham, UK
(1962). Quoted in Oliver and Wright [7]. Data tables from the
thesis kindly provided by D. R. Oliver.
[41] Johnson, H. A. “Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop for
Viscous-Turbulent Flow of Oil-Air Mixtures in a Horizontal
Pipe," ASME Trans., Vol. 77 (1955): pp. 1257-1264.
[42] Pletcher, R. H. “An Experimental and Analytical Study of
Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop in Horizontal Annular Two-
Phase Two-Component Flow,” PhD Thesis, Cornell Univ.,
(1966).
[43] Durant, W. B. “Heat Transfer Measurement of Annular Two-
Phase Flow in Horizontal and a Slightly Upward Inclined Tube,”
M.S. Thesis, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma
(2003).
 Table 1: Some correlations that have been used for heat transfer in horizontal channels.

Author Correlation Basis

Johnson & Abou- ℎ𝐿𝑆 (1−∝)−0.5 ∅𝐿 0.33 Own air-water data for
Sabe [2] ℎ 𝑇𝑃 = horizontal tube
1 + 0.006𝑅𝑒𝐺𝑆 0.5
Knott et al. [20] ℎ 𝑇𝑃 = ℎ𝐿𝑆 (1 + 𝑢𝐺𝑆 ⁄𝑢𝐿𝑆 )1/3 Own data for nitrogen-oil
in vertical upflow in
tubes, also verified with
horizontal tube data.
Kaminsky [21] For turbulent flow, Data for horizontal and
ℎ 𝑇𝑃 = ℎ𝐿𝑆 ∅𝐿 𝑆 0.5 vertical pipes from
For laminar flow, several sources.
ℎ 𝑇𝑃 = ℎ𝐿𝑆 (2 − 𝑅𝐿 )/𝑅𝐿 2/3

𝑅𝐿 = 𝑆 − 𝑆 𝑙𝑛(2𝜋𝑆)/2𝜋

0.08 1−𝐹 0.39 𝑃𝑟 0.03 0.01

Kim & Ghajar ℎ 𝑇𝑃 = 𝐹𝑃 ℎ𝐿 {1 + 0.82 [(
𝑥
) ( 𝑃
)𝐺
( )
𝜇
( 𝐿) ]} Data for horizontal and
[22] 1−𝑥 𝐹𝑃 𝑃𝑟𝐿 𝜇𝐺 vertical flow from several
sources
Tang & Ghajar ℎ 𝑇𝑃 = 𝐹𝑃 ℎ𝐿 {1 + 0.55 [(
𝑥
)
0.1 1−𝐹 0.4 𝑃𝑟 0.25
( 𝑃
) 𝐺
( )
𝜇
( 𝐿)
0.25
(𝐼)0.25 ]} Data for horizontal and
[23] 1−𝑥 𝐹𝑃 𝑃𝑟𝐿 𝜇𝐺 vertical flow from several
sources

Table 2: Range of data with which the present correlation was verified.

Range
Mixtures Air-water, N2-88% glycerine, air-oil
Tube diameter (L/D) 4.3 to 57.0 (20 to 244)
Heat transfer method Cooling by liquid, heating by liquid/steam/electricity
Mixture pressure, bar 0.48 to 4.1
Mixture temperature, oC 12 to 62
Gravity < 0.1 % earth gravity to earth gravity
ReLS 9 to 1.23E5
ReGS 6 to 4.7E5
FrL 0.0001 to 49
uGS/uLS 0.24 to 9298
Number of sources 18

7 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/22/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 3: Comparison of test data with the present and other correlations

Source D, mm Heating Mixtur P T ReLS ReGS FrL uGS/uL N Deviation, %

oC
(L/D) or e Bar S Mean Absolute/Average
Cooling Kim Tang Knot Johns Kami Shah Present
Method & & t et on & nsky Mod.
Ghaja Ghaja al. Abou
r r sabe
Nino & 4.3 Liquid Air + 1 26 857 20 0.87 0.19 7 39.9 47.1 49.8 47.7 36.6 25.1 13.9
Ruocco [32] (46.5) cooled water 1926 4.4 0.42 -39.9 -47.1 -49.8 -47.7 -36.6 -25.1 -11.1
Kosorotov 6 Electric Air- 1 40 1566 6 0.10 0.50 41 25.8 28.5 239.5 27.7 28.3 17.0 13.6
et al. [39] (167) Heat water 1.2 4110 2060 49.2 3.5 -17.8 -28.5 230.6 13.6 -6.9 -5.7 4.5

Wright [40] 6.3 Liquid N2 + 1* 20 14 5290 0.77 0.41 21 25.1 46.0 3.9 3.5 82.4 6.6 6.6
(144) heated 88% 35 51 27100 13.0 8.8 -20.3 -46.0 2.2 2.0 82.4 -6.5 -6.5
Liquid glycerol 10 9 5470 2.2 0.48 9 17.8 24.1 26.3 29.1 138.0 15.6 15.6
cooled 21 35 27300 47 51 6.8 -22.5 26.3 29.1 138.0 15.6 15.6
Kalapatitu 12.5 Electric Air + 1.1* 30* 1874 300 0.12 0.46 27 20.7 30.1 118.3 20.2 24.8 12.5 12.1
[34] (80) heating Water 10642 20000 4.9 197 -20.0 -30.1 109.9 12.2 4.3 -3.2 4.8
Hossainy 12.5 Electric Air + 1.1* 30* 2606 300 0.23 0.56 15 29.9 34.1 38.5 32.1 32.1 22.2 21.0
[33] (110) heating Water 9834 20000 3.2 1142 -27.3 -34.1 29.4 23.2 10.5 4.7 11.0
King [3] 18.7 Stem Air + 1.1 53 25232 1573 2.3 0.48 21 40.0 40.3 29.5 26.5 36.0 23.8 18.4
(256) heated water 3.7 62 1.18E5 2.6E5 49 52 -12.9 -25.6 13.5 -17.6 7.0 5.1 -1.1
Johnson 18.7 Steam Air + 1.02 52 322 1888 0.91 1.1 39 29.6 28.6 421.6 21.3 23.4 25.8 21.2
[41] (244) heated oil 4.1 62 2224 1.2E5 37 127 -5.2 -24.2 418.7 -10.3 -2.3 -19.3 -5.9
Fried [4] 18.7 Steam Air + 1.3 53 17297 3227 1.2 0.29 30 22.6 25.2 20.1 25.6 23.3 14.1 13.3
(256) Heated water 3.7 85 2.96E5 87291 208 88 -5.5 -22.4 8.6 -25.1 4.2 -7.8 -1.3
Johnson & 22.1 Steam Air + 1.08 48 12470 1618 0.49 0.32 24 28.7 28.7 23.4 10.8 25.5 11.2 14.2
Abousabe (216) Heated water 3.7 55 1.23E5 74801 42 101 -12.6 -24.5 22.4 -9.5 13.1 1.5 7.8
[2]
Nada [10] 24.5 Steam Air + 1 50* 3488 1034 0.023 2.1 41 63.3 59.9 20.2 15.4 18.1 13.1 12.4
(40) heated water 15603 15530 0.47 136 -63.3 -59.9 17.0 7.8 0.1 -9.6 -6.2
Pletcher 25.4 Electric Air + 1.1* 19 1726 35809 0.016 72 48 77.0 32.4 389.5 39.7 161.0 38.3 23.4
[42] (60) heated water 38 11402 3.2E5 0.47 3019 70.3 12.3 389.5 36.3 161.0 34.1 21.6
Witte et al. 25.4 Electric Air + 1.0 17 620 297 0.003 0.33 68 52.6 54.6 16.6 23.0 24.9 28.9 14.2
[16] (22) heated water 1.6 38 17874 36818 1.4 183 -50.7 -54.6 -15.5 -22.0 -21.6 -28.7 -7.0
Air + 50 1.04 24 194 643 0.004 0.21 35 57.6 63.4 - 29.8 39.4 34.0 42.0 25.0
% 2.05 31 3520 58112 1.4 716 -55.0 63.4 -29.8 -39.4 -5.7 -42.0 -22.6
glycerol
Ghajar & 26.6 Electric Air + 1.1* 25* 7026 796 0.21 0.49 15 10.8 10.1 89.2 48.2 62.3 53.4 62.8
Tang [38] (99) heated water 26210 39975 2.9 91 5.8 -4.3 89.2 48.2 60.9 53.4 62.8
Ruppert [6] 26.0 Electric Air + 1.01 20 160 9795 0.001 49 99 29.3 44.0 529.7 30.9 244.8 45.8 20.4
(15.4) heat water 1.38 62 13950 5.0E5 0.56 9298 -11.7 -44.0 527.8 11.5 241.6 -7.2 -7.5

8 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/22/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Kim [12] 27.9 Electric Air + 1.04 12 628 527 0.002 0.47 164 23.3 55.1 68.0 25.9 17.7 24.9 23.3
(100) heated water 2.2 34 30714 19200 3.6 196 -14.7 -55.0 57.1 -14.5 -12.5 -20.0 -14.7
Durant [43] 27.9 Electric Air + 1* 25* 2836 27263 0.030 62 30 44.1 48.7 36.6 5.1 36.6 8.6 7.0
(95) heated water 8044 37177 0.25 195 -44.1 -48.7 36.6 -0.6 -36.6 6.0 -1.0
Deshpande 28.0 Electric Air + 1.1* 30* 10889 564 0.35 1 3 13.0 15.2 23.8 23.7 5.8 13.1 26.4
et al. [15] (61) heated water 1791 3 -7.6 -15.2 23.8 23.7 1.6 13.1 26.4
57.0 21247 1144 0.16 1.0 12 21.7 28.8 10.8 11.8 17.7 10.6 7.0
(30) 35504 2861 0.44 3.5 -21.7 -28.8 -0.1 -7.8 -17.7 -8.0 3.5
Ruppert [6] 50.0 Electric Air + 1 14 274 11316 0.0001 49 181 31.7 41.7 353.2 30.7 212.1 34.9 18.8
(12.2) heated water 1.3 20 24907 4.7E5 0.63 9298 -17.0 -41.6 352.3 8.8 211.1 -0.9 9.8
Noville & 50 Liquid Air + 1* 40* 45541 861 0.72 0.24 20 13.1 22.9 16.7 21.8 26.8 17.9 13.9
Bannawart (120) cooled water 1.05E5 2060 4.0 7.2 -3.9 =22.6 -3.6 -21.6 -26.8 -16.5 -1.6
[14]
All sources 4.3 – 57 0.48 12 9 6 0.0001 0.24 946 41.6 45.2 41.2 33.2 92.8 26.7 19.2
(12.2 - 4.1 62 1.23E5 4.7E5 49 9298 -26.0 -42.1 21.1 -2.3 72.4 -9.7 -1.1
244)

*Estimated

9 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/22/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use