International Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 935–947
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrefrig
Prediction of twophase pressure gradients of refrigerants in horizontal tubes
M.B. Ould Didi, N. Kattan, J.R. Thome*
Laboratory of Heat and Mass Transfer (LTCM), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL), CH1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
Received 19 March 2001; received in revised form 17 September 2001; accepted 26 October 2001
Abstract
Twophase pressure drop data were obtained for evaporation in two horizontal test sections of 10.92 and 12.00 mm diameter for ﬁve refrigerants (R134a, R123, R402A, R404A and R502) over mass velocities from 100 to 500 kg/m ^{2} s and vapor qualities from 0.04 to 1.0. These data have then been compared against seven twophase frictional pressure drop prediction methods. Overall, the method by Mu¨llerSteinhagen and Heck (Mu¨llerSteinhagen H, Heck K. A simple friction pressure drop correlation for twophase ﬂow in pipes. Chem. Eng. Process 1986;20:297–308) and that by Gro¨nnerud (Gro¨nnerud R. Investigation of liquid holdup, ﬂowresistance and heat transfer in circulation type eva porators, part IV: twophase ﬂow resistance in boiling refrigerants. Annexe 19721, Bull. de l’Inst. du Froid, 1979) were found to provide the most accurate predictions while the widely quoted method of Friedel (Friedel L. Improved friction drop correlations for horizontal and vertical twophase pipe ﬂow. European Twophase Flow Group Meeting, paper E2; June 1979; Ispra, Italy) gave the third best results. The data were also classiﬁed by twophase ﬂow pattern using the KattanThomeFavrat (Kattan N, Thome JR, Favrat D. Flow boiling in horizontal tubes. Part 1: development of a diabatic twophase ﬂow pattern map. J. Heat Transfer 1998;120:140–7; Kattan N, Thome JR, Favrat D. Flow boiling in horizontal tubes. Part 2; new heat transfer data for ﬁve refrigerants. J Heat Transfer 1998;120:148–55; Kattan N, Thome JR, Favrat D. Flow boiling in horizontal tubes. Part 3: development of a new heat transfer model based on ﬂow pat terns. J. Heat Transfer 1998;120:156–65) ﬂow pattern map. The best available method for annular ﬂow was that of Mu¨llerSteinhagen and Heck. For intermittent ﬂow and stratiﬁedwavy ﬂow, the best method in both cases was that of Gro¨nnerud. It was observed that the peak in the twophase frictional pressure gradient at high vapor qualities coin cided with the onset of dryout in the annular ﬂow regime. # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Refrigerant; Twophase ﬂow; Pressure drop; Horizontal tube; Calculation; R134a; R123; R402A; R404A; R502
Pre´vision des gradients de pression des frigorige`nes en e´coulement diphasique dans des tubes horizontaux
´
Mots cle´s : Frigorige`ne ; E coulement diphasique ; Chute de pression ; Tube horizontal ; Calcul ; R134a ; R123 ; R402A ; R404A ;
R502
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +41216935981; fax: 41216935960. Email address: john.thome@epﬂ.ch (J.R. Thome).
01407007/02/$22.00 # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved. PII: S01407007(01)000998
936
M.B. Ould Didi et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 935–947
Nomenclature
a parameter in Eq. (36) (Pa m ^{} ^{1} )
b parameter in Eq. (36) (Pa m ^{} ^{1} )
B parameter of Chisholm
C
d _{i}
E parameter of Friedel
F parameter of Friedel
constant of Lockhart and Martinelli (m) tube internal diameter
f
f _{F}_{r}
g
G
H
L
:
m _{t}_{o}_{t}_{a}_{l}
friction factor Froude friction factor
acceleration due to gravity (m s ^{} ^{2} )
factor in Eq. (36) (Pa m ^{} ^{1} )
factor of Friedel
tube length (m)
total mass velocity of liquid plus vapor
Greek symbols
vapor quality vapor void fraction density (kg m ^{} ^{3} ) twophase multiplier for liquid only twophase multiplier for vapor only twophase multiplier of Martinelli relative to liquid twophase multiplier of Martinelli relative to vapor
twophase multiplier of Gro¨nnerud dynamic viscosity (N s m ^{} ^{2} ) surface tension (N m ^{} ^{1} )
_{L}_{o}
_{G}_{o}
_{L}_{t}_{t}
_{G}_{t}_{t}
_{g}_{d}
Dimensionless numbers
n 
exponent (kg m ^{} ^{2} s ^{} ^{1} ) 
Fr 
Froude number 
p 
pressure (Pa) 
Re 
Reynolds number 
dp/dz 
frictional pressure gradient (Pa m ^{} ^{1} ) 
We 
Weber number 
p _{t}_{o}_{t}_{a}_{l} total pressure drop (Pa)
p _{s}_{t}_{a}_{t}_{i}_{c} _{m}_{o}_{m} _{f}_{r}_{i}_{c}_{t} _{G} 
static head pressure drop (Pa) 
Subscripts 
p 
twophase momentum pressure drop (Pa) 

p 
twophase frictional pressure drop (Pa) 

p p _{L} 
vaporphase pressure drop (Pa) liquidphase pressure drop (Pa) 
T _{s}_{a}_{t} saturation
X _{t}_{t} Martinelli parameter
Y Chisholm parameter
temperature ( ^{} C)
G 
vapor or gas 
Go 
vapor only (all ﬂow as vapor) 
h 
homogeneous 
L 
liquid 
Lo 
liquid only (all ﬂow as liquid) 
tp 
twophase 
1. Introduction
Prediction of twophase pressure drops in direct expansion evaporators, condensers and twophase refrigerant transfer lines is important for accurate design and optimization of refrigeration, aircondition ing and heat pump systems. Taking, for example, direct expansion evaporators, the optimal use of the twophase pressure drop to obtain the maximum ﬂow boiling heat transfer performance is one of the primary design goals. In these evaporators, typically a twophase pressure drop equivalent to a loss of 1.4 ^{} C (2.5 ^{} F) in saturation temperature from inlet to outlet is set as the design limit. Yet, pressure drops predicted using leading methods diﬀer by up to 100%. Putting this into perspective, if an evaporator is inaccurately designed with a twophase pressure drop only onehalf the real value, then the sys tem eﬃciency will suﬀer accordingly from the larger than expected fall in saturation temperature and pres sure through the evaporator. On the other hand, if the predicted pressure drop is too large by a factor of two, then fewer tubes of longer length could have been uti lized to obtain a more compact unit. Hence, accurate prediction of twophase pressure drops is a particularly
important aspect of ﬁrst law and second law optimiza tions of these systems. In the present study, experimental test data available from Kattan [1] have been compared to the following seven widely quoted prediction methods for the fric tional pressure drop in twophase ﬂows: Lockhart and
Martinelli [2], Friedel [3], Gro¨nnerud [4], Chisholm [5],
Bankoﬀ [6], Chawla [7] and Mu¨llerSteinhagen and
Heck [8]. Of these methods, that of Friedel is often the most recommended for use, i.e. refer to Whalley [9] and Collier and Thome [10], based on its comparion to a database of more than 40,000 points. In contrast, in a recent study conducted on a large diversiﬁed database, Tribbe and Mu¨llerSteinhagen [11] found that the
method proposed by Mu¨llerSteinhagen and Heck [8]
provided the best accuracy. The twophase pressure drop test data of Kattan cover ﬁve refrigerants: two pure ﬂuids (R134a and R123), one azeotropic mixture (R502) and two zeotropic mixtures (R402A and R404A) over mass velocities from 100 to 500 kg/m ^{2} s for saturation pressures ranging from 0.112 to
0.890 MPa. While obtained during the heat transfer stud ies described in Kattan [1], these data were not reported there and are hence presented here for the ﬁrst time.
M.B. Ould Didi et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 935–947
2. Twophase pressure drops
p _{L} ¼ 4f _{L} ðL=d _{i} Þm ^{:} _{t}_{o}_{t}_{a}_{l} ð1 Þ ^{2} ð1=2 _{L} Þ
2
937
ð5Þ
The twophase pressure drops for ﬂows inside tubes are the sum of three contributions: the static pressure drop p _{s}_{t}_{a}_{t}_{i}_{c} , the momentum pressure drop p _{m}_{o}_{m} and the frictional pressure drop p _{f}_{r}_{i}_{c}_{t} as:
p total
¼ p static þ p mom þ p frict
ð1Þ
For a horizontal tube, there is no change in static head so p _{s}_{t}_{a}_{t}_{i}_{c} = 0. The momentum pressure drop reﬂects the change in kinetic energy of the ﬂow and is for the present case given by:
p mom ¼
:
m
2
total
ð1 Þ
2
2
L
ð1 "Þ
G
"
þ
out
ð1 Þ
2
2
L
ð1 "Þ
G
"
þ
in
ð2Þ
where m _{t}_{o}_{t}_{a}_{l} is the total mass velocity of liquid plus vapor and is the vapor quality. In the present study, the void fraction E is obtained from the Steiner [12] ver
sion of the drift ﬂux model of Rouhani and Axelsson [13] for horizontal tubes:
:
" ¼
^{} G ð1 þ 0:12ð1 ÞÞ
_{þ} 1:18ð1 Þ g _{L} _{G}
:
m
½
ð
þ
1
L
^{} 1
G
_{Þ} _{} ^{0}^{:}^{2}^{5}
2
total ^{} ^{0}^{:}^{5}
L
ð3Þ
Using the experimental values for the inlet and outlet vapor quality, the momentum pressure drop is calcul able. Hence, the experimental twophase frictional pres sure drop is obtainable from Eq. (1) by subtracting the calculated momentum pressure drop from the measured total pressure drop.
The liquid friction factor and liquid Reynolds number are obtained from
_{f} _{¼} 0:079 Re
0:25
:
Re ¼ ^{m}
total d i
^{ð}^{6}^{Þ}
ð7Þ
using the liquid dynamic viscosity _{L} . His twophase multiplier is correlated as:
^{2}
_{L}_{o}
¼ E þ
3:24FH
Fr
0:045 _{W}_{e} 0:035
h
L
ð8Þ
where Fr _{h} , E, F and H are as follows:
:
Fr _{h} ¼ ^{m}
gd _{i}
2
h
2
total
E
F
¼
ð1 Þ ^{2} þ ^{2} ^{} ^{L} ^{f} ^{G} G f L
¼ ^{0}^{:}^{7}^{8} ð1 Þ ^{0}^{:}^{2}^{2}^{4}
H
¼
L
G
^{} 0:91
G
L
^{} 0:19
1 ^{} ^{G} L
^{} 0:7
ð9Þ
ð10Þ
ð11Þ
ð12Þ
The liquid Weber We _{L} is deﬁned as:
:
We _{L} ¼ ^{m}
2
total ^{d} i
_{h}
ð13Þ
and the homogeneous density _{h} is used:
h ¼
_{þ} 1 L
G
^{} 1
ð14Þ
3. Frictional twophase pressure drop correlations
Friedel’s method is typically that recommended when the ratio of ( _{L} / _{G} ) is less than 1000.
The twophase frictional pressure drop correlations of the seven methods compared to the present experi mental data are described in this section.
3.1. Friedel [3] correlation
3.2. Lockhart and Martinelli [2] correlation
This method [2] gives the twophase frictional pres sure drop based on a twophase multiplier for the liquidphase or vaporphase, respectively, as:
This method [3] is for vapor qualities from 0 4 < 1 and utilizes a twophase multiplier as:
p frict ¼ p L ^{2} _{L}_{o}
ð4Þ
p frict ¼ ^{2} _{L}_{t}_{t} p _{L}
p frict ¼ ^{2} _{G}_{t}_{t} p _{G}
ð15Þ
ð16Þ
where p _{L} is calculated for the liquidphase as
where Eq. (5) is used for p _{L} and p _{G} is obtained from
938
M.B. Ould Didi et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 935–947
p _{G} ¼ 4f _{G} ðL=d _{i} Þm ^{:} _{t}_{o}_{t}_{a}_{l} ^{2} ð1=2 _{G} Þ
2
ð17Þ
The singlephase friction factors of the liquid and vapor, f _{L} and f _{G} are calculated using Eq. (6) with their respective physical properties. The corresponding two phase multipliers are
Ltt ^{2} ^{¼} ^{1} ^{þ}
^{C}
X tt
þ
^{1}
^{2}
X tt
; for Re _{L} > 4000
^{2} _{G}_{t}_{t} ¼ 1 þ CX _{t}_{t} þ X _{t}_{t} ^{2} ; for Re _{L} < 4000
ð18Þ
ð19Þ
where X _{t}_{t} is the Martinelli parameter for both phases in the turbulent regimes deﬁned as
X tt ¼
1
^{} 0:9
G
L
^{} 0:5
L
G
^{} 0:1
ð20Þ
The value of C in Eqs. (18) and (19) depends on the regimes of the liquid and vapor. For both ﬂuids turbulent, C is equal to 20, as is always the case in the present database. The correlation of Lockhart and Martinelli [2] is applicable to the range of vapor qualities from 0 < 4 1:
3.3. Gro¨nnerud [4] correlation
This method [4] was developed speciﬁcally for refrig erants and it is as follows:
p frict ¼ gd p L
and
_{g}_{d} ¼ 1 þ
dp
dz
Fr
2
6
6
6
4
L
G
L
G
0:25 ^{} ^{1}
3
7
7
7
_{5}
ð21Þ
ð22Þ
where Eq. (5) is used for p _{L} and his twophase multi plier is a function of
dp
dz
Fr
¼ f Fr
þ 4
_{} 1:8 _{} _{} 10 _{f} 0:5 Fr
^{}^{}
ð23Þ
:
Fr _{L} ¼ ^{m}
2
total
gd _{i} ^{2}
L
ð25Þ
The correlation of Gro¨nnerud is applicable to vapor qualities from 0 4 < 1.
3.4. Chisholm [5] correlation
Chisholm proposed a detailed empirical method [5] for a wide range of operating conditions. His twophase frictional pressure drop gradient is given as
dp
dz
frict
¼
dp
dz
Lo
^{2}
_{L}_{o}
ð26Þ
The monophase frictional pressure gradients are taken from the standard expressions for the liquid and vapor phases:
dp
dz
dp
dz
Lo
Go
¼
¼
f _{L}
f _{G}
2m ^{:}
2
total
d i L
2m ^{:}
2
total
d i G
ð27Þ
ð28Þ
where the friction factors are obtained with Eq. (6) using Eq. (7) and the respective dynamic viscosities of the liquid and the vapor.
For laminar ﬂows (Re< 2000)
16
f ¼ _{R}_{e}
ð29Þ
and for turbulent ﬂows (assumed to be at Re 52000 to avoid an undeﬁned interval in his method) the
expression of Blasius [Eq. (6)] is used. These expressions
are applied using either the liquid phase or the vapor phase Reynolds numbers. The parameter Y is obtained from the ratio of the monophase frictional pressure gradients:
_{Y} _{2} _{¼} ðdp=dzÞ _{G}_{o} ðdp=dzÞ
_{L}_{o}
ð30Þ
If the liquid Froude number Fr _{L} is greater than or equal to 1, then the friction factor f _{F}_{r} is set to 1.0; if Fr _{L} is less than 1, then:
f _{F}_{r} ¼ Fr ^{0}^{:}^{3}
L
where
þ 0:0055 ln
^{1}
Fr _{L}
2
ð24Þ
His twophase multiplier is then determined as:
^{2}
_{L}_{o}
¼ 1 þ ðY ^{2} 1Þ
_{B} _{} ð2 nÞ=2 _{ð}_{1} _{} _{x}_{Þ} ð2 nÞ=2 _{þ} _{} 2 n
^{}
ð31Þ
where n is the exponent from the friction factor expres sion of Blasius (n=0.25). If 0 < Y< 9.5, then the para meter B is calculated as follows depending on the mass velocity:
M.B. Ould Didi et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 935–947
939
B ¼
^{5}^{5}
:
m
1=2
total
for m
:
_{t}_{o}_{t}_{a}_{l} 5
1900 kg=m ^{2} s
_{B}
_{¼} 2400
:
m
total
for 500 < m _{t}_{o}_{t}_{a}_{l} < 1900 kg=m ^{2} s
:
B ¼ 4:8 for m _{t}_{o}_{t}_{a}_{l} 4 500 kg=m ^{2} s
:
If 9.5 < Y< 28, then
_{B} _{¼}
520
Ym ^{:}
1=2
total
for m _{t}_{o}_{t}_{a}_{l} 4 600 kg=m ^{2} s
:
B
¼ ^{2}^{1}
_{Y} for m _{t}_{o}_{t}_{a}_{l} > 600 kg=m ^{2} s
:
If Y >28, then
_{B}
_{¼} 15000
Y ^{2} m
:
1=2
total
ð32Þ
ð33Þ
ð34Þ
The correlation of Chisholm is applicable to vapor qualities from 0 4 4 1:
3.5. Bankoﬀ [6] correlation
This method [6] is an extension of the homogeneous model (not shown here).
3.6. Chawla [7] correlation
Chawla [7] suggested a correlation based on the velo city ratio between the vapor and liquid phases (not shown here).
3.7. Mu¨llerSteinhagen and Heck [8] correlation
This twophase frictional pressure gradient correla tion is [8]:
dp
dz
frict
¼
Gð1 Þ ^{1}^{=}^{3} þb ^{3}
where the factor G is
G ¼ a þ 2ðb aÞ
ð35Þ
ð36Þ
where a and b are the frictional pressure gradients for all the ﬂow liquid (dp/dz) _{L}_{o} and all the ﬂow vapor (dp/ dz) _{G}_{o} , obtained respectively from Eqs. (27) and (28). This model is essentially an empirical twophase extrapolation between all liquid ﬂow and all vapor ﬂow and as such is applicable for 0 4 4 1. Recently, Tribbe and Mu¨llerSteinhagen [11] have shown that this method gave the best results from a comparison of competing methods against a database covering airoil, airwater, watersteam and several refrigerants.
4. Experimental test sections and measurement methods
New experimental data for twophase pressure drops
were obtained for two 3.013 m long horizontal test sec tions of 10.92 and 12.00 mm diameter covering ﬁve refrigerants (R134a, R123, R402A, R404A and R502) over mass velocities from 100 to 500 kg/m ^{2} s and vapor qualities from 0.04 to 1.0. R134a is a new refrigerant that has replaced R12 and in part R22. R123 is a new refrigerant that has replaced R11. R402A and R404A are new refrigerant mixtures that are nearazeotropes that are replacing R502. The test data were obtained for evaporating conditions inside horizontal, copper tube test sections of 3.013 m length that were heated by countercurrent ﬂow of hot water. Two identical test sections were connected in series in the test loop, one located above the other (referred to later as the upper and lower test sections). Two internal tube diameters were tested: 10.92 and 12.00 mm. The twophase pressure drops were measured with a choice of two diﬀerent diﬀerential pressure transducers, the ﬁrst operating over the range from 0–10 kPa and the second from 0–20 kPa. Each had an accuracy of 0.5% FS and they were calibrated in the laboratory before use. The ﬂow rate of subcooled refrigerant before the preheater was measured with a Coriolis meter, which was calibrated in the laboratory and accurate to 0.2% of the reading. The saturation pressures at the inlet and outlet of the test sections were measured with absolute pressure gauges that were accurate to 0.05% FS (1000 kPa) and the mean of these two pressures was used to determine the saturation temperature and hence the physical properties of the refrigerants. The physical properties of the refrigerants were obtained using REFPROP [14]. The test sections were set to the hor izontal using a special high sensitivity level. The inlet vapor qualities of the refrigerant were obtained from energy balances on the electrical pre heater. Inlet vapor qualities were 0.04 or greater. The outlet vapor qualities were obtained from an energy balance on the hot water, which from liquid–liquid tests were found to be accurate to 1% on average with a maximum deviation of 2%. The inlet and outlet vapor qualities were thus accurate to about 0.01 and 0.02, respectively. A complete description of the experimental test facility and the associated heat transfer data are described in Kattan et al. [15,16,17]. The measured twophase pressure drops are a combi nation of the frictional pressure drop and the momen tum pressure drop of the evaporating ﬂuid. Hence, the momentum pressure drop was calculated using the inlet and outlet vapor qualities together with Eqs. (2) and (3) and subtracting its value from the measured pressure drop to obtain the frictional pressure drop. The momentum pressure drops were about 5 to 15% of the measured pressure drops for the present test conditions.
940
M.B. Ould Didi et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 935–947
5. Experimental results and discussion
The experimental frictional pressure drops have been compared to all seven methods described earlier. The calculated frictional pressure drops were obtained using the mean vapor quality for each data set at the test conditions. The in the test data from inlet to outlet of the test section were on the order of 0.05 to 0.20. The experimental frictional pressure drops were then con verted into frictional pressure gradients by dividing by the test section length. The methods of Bankoﬀ [6] and Chawla [7] gave particularly poor predictions, in part because the test conditions are distant from their range of application. Hence, the results for these two methods are not presented here. A selection of test data, com pared graphically to the ﬁve remaining methods, are shown below. Fig. 1 depicts the R134a data in the 10.92 mm tube at a mass velocity of 300 kg/m ^{2} s at T _{s}_{a}_{t} =4 ^{} C. These test data for the lower test section span nearly the entire range of vapor quality. The experimental values go through a maximum at a vapor quality of 0.85, which corresponds to the transition from annular ﬂow to annular ﬂow with partial dryout (i.e. annular ﬂow to stratiﬁedwavy ﬂow transition) predicted by the Kattan et al. [15] ﬂow pattern map (described in Section 7). The Gro¨nnerud method [4] predicts these data best and notably also predicts the peak in the data. The bottom graph shows the experimental values normalized by the predicted values for each method. As can be seen, the
Fig. 1. R134a data for lower 10.92 mm tube at 300 kg/m ^{2} s and T _{s}_{a}_{t} =4 ^{} C.
Fig. 1. R134a data for upper 10.92 mm tube at 300 kg/m ^{2} s and T _{s}_{a}_{t} =4 ^{} C.
Fig. 2. R134a data for upper 10.92 mm tube at 300 kg/m ^{2} s and T _{s}_{a}_{t} =4 ^{} C.
experimental values range from as low as 50% and as high as 250% of the predicted ones. Fig. 2 depicts similar R134a data obtained for the same test conditions for the upper test section. Once again the Gro¨nnerud method [4] gives the best predic tion and also closely follows the slope of the test data. The peak in the pressure gradient at high vapor qualities is again evident, although not as marked as in Fig. 1. Fig. 3 shows R134a test data for the 12.0 mm tube obtained at 300 kg/m ^{2} s and T _{s}_{a}_{t} =2 ^{} C in the upper test section at low vapor qualities ranging from 0.04 to 0.095. The variation in pressure gradient with vapor quality is ﬂat with some scatter in the data, where the ﬂow pattern is predicted to be going through the transi tion from stratiﬁedwavy ﬂow into intermittent ﬂow in this range. Fig. 4 presents R134a test data for the 12.0 mm tube obtained at 300 kg/m ^{2} s and T _{s}_{a}_{t} =2 ^{} C in the lower evaporator test section at vapor qualities ranging from 0.11 to 0.37. As opposed to Fig. 3, these data (some data points are superimposed by the predicted values in the upper graph) now have a signiﬁcant upward slope. The ﬂow pattern is predicted to be going from the inter mittent regime at the lower qualities into the annular regime at the high end of this range. Fig. 5 presents R134a test data for the 12.0 mm tube obtained at the lowest mass velocity tested, namely 100 kg/m ^{2} s, at T _{s}_{a}_{t} =10 ^{} C in the lower evaporator test section at qualities ranging from 0.22 to 0.77. The ﬂow
M.B. Ould Didi et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 935–947
941
Fig. 3. Low vapor quality data for R134a in 12 mm tube at 300 kg/m ^{2} s and T sat =2 ^{} C.
Fig.
4. R134a data in
12 mm
tube at 300 kg/m ^{2}
s
and
pattern is predicted to be stratiﬁedwavy over the entire range. Inevitably, there is more scatter in these data at lower mass velocity as the pressure gradients are quite small. For R134a, limited sets of data were also obtained at mass velocities of 200, 400 and 500 kg/m ^{2} s.
Fig.
T _{s}_{a}_{t} =10 ^{} C.
5. R134a data
in
12
mm tube at
100
kg/m ^{2}
s
and
Fig. 6. R123 data in the 12 mm tube at 300 kg/m ^{2} T _{s}_{a}_{t} =30 ^{} C.
s and
Fig. 6 shows the R123 data in the 12 mm tube at a mass velocity of 300 kg/m ^{2} s at T _{s}_{a}_{t} =30 ^{} C. These test data for the lower test section cover only a narrow range of vapor quality. The Gro¨nnerud [4] and Mu¨llerStein
942
M.B. Ould Didi et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 935–947
Fig. 7. R402A data in the 12 mm tube at 318 kg/m ^{2} s and T _{s}_{a}_{t} =2.4 ^{} C.
Fig. 7. R402A data in the 12 mm tube at 318 kg/m ^{2} s and T _{s}_{a}_{t} =2.4 ^{} C.
Fig. 8. R404A data in the 12 mm tube at 318 kg/m ^{2} s and T _{s}_{a}_{t} =2.5 ^{} C.
hagen and Heck [8] methods best predict these data. The bottom graph shows that the experimental values range from as low as 20% and as high as 138% of the pre dicted ones. Hence, for example, the Chisholm method over predicts these data by about three times. Fig. 7 depicts the R402A data in the 12 mm tube at
318 kg/m ^{2} s at T _{s}_{a}_{t} =2.4 ^{} C. These test data for the
lower test section span vapor qualities from 0.13 to 0.47. The Friedel method [3] is most eﬀective for these data,
although none of the methods capture the slope in the experimental data. Fig. 8 displays the R404A data in the 12 mm tube at
318 kg/m ^{2} s at T _{s}_{a}_{t} =2.5 ^{} C. These test data for the
lower test section span vapor qualities from 0.12 to 0.59. The Gro¨nnerud method [4] best predicts these data.
Fig. 9 presents the R502 data in the 12 mm tube at
300 kg/m ^{2} s at T _{s}_{a}_{t} =2.5 ^{} C. These test data for the
lower test section span vapor qualities from 0.12 to 0.62.
Once again the Gro¨nnerud method [4] best predicts these data followed by that of Friedel [3] and then Mu¨llerSteinhagen and Heck [8]. As for all these graphs, the Chisholm method [5] typically tends to signiﬁcantly over predict the experimental values. The Lockhart and Martinelli method [2] also does not provide a satisfac tory description of the data in these graphs.
Fig. 9. R502 data in the 12 mm tube at 300 kg/m ^{2} T _{s}_{a}_{t} =2.5 ^{} C.
Fig.
T _{s}_{a}_{t} =2.5 ^{} C.
s and
9.
R502 data in
the
12 mm
tube
at 300 kg/m ^{2} s and
M.B. Ould Didi et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 935–947
943
Fig. 10. Twophase ﬂow pattern map of Kattan et al. [15–17] for R134a at conditions indicated (dashed lines show the pro gression in the ﬂow pattern from a vapor quality of 0.01 to 0.99 for a ﬁxed mass velocity).
6. Statistical comparison to experimental results
Since the twophase pressure drops at the lowest mass velocity tested (100 kg/m ^{2} s) resulted in very small pres sure drops at low vapor qualities, some of these are not accurately measured with the present transducers. Hence, starting from an initial total of 868 measured
pressure drops, the statistical comparison of the stan dard, the mean and the average deviations was carried out ﬁrst for all those test data greater than 0.5 kPa (788 points) and then for all test data greater than 1.0 kPa (691 points). Table 1 depicts the statistical comparion of the meth ods to the data greater than 0.5 kPa with the various test conditions shown at the bottom. More than half of the data are for R134a for which numerous heat trans fer data were taken. The ranking of the methods are shown in the rightmost column. The Gro¨nnerud method [4] gives the best overall results, with rankings of 1/1/2 for the three types of deviation. The method of Mu¨llerSteinhagen and Heck [8] comes in a close second with rankings of 2/2/1. In third place is the method of Friedel [3] which always ranks third in all categories. The Lockhart and Martinelli method [2] always ranks fourth while that of Chisholm consistently ranks ﬁfth. As a second test of the methods, Table 2 depicts the statistical comparion of the methods to the data greater than 1.0 kPa. The deviations are now smaller as the scatter in experimental data at low pressure drops has been eliminated by their exclusion. The ranking of the methods are shown in the rightmost column, which are
Table 1 Comparison to all data for pressure drops larger than 0.5 kPa
Correlation 
Deviation Refrigerants 
All 
Rank 

(%) 
R134a 
R134a ^{a} 
R123 
R402a 
R404a 
R502 

Lockhart and Martinelli [2] Standard Mean Average 
311.24 
73.58 
58.97 
100.33 
121.75 
97.29 
121.85 4 

123.64 
45.12 
45.44 
76.00 
88.89 
71.14 
89.94 
4 

142.18 
8.57 
43.93 
91.34 
124.68 
99.57 
83.86 
4 

Friedel [3] 
Standard 
201.53 
47.77 
50.14 
55.21 
66.23 
53.64 
74.55 
3 
Mean 
83.06 
28.79 
40.07 
40.31 
48.67 
40.40 
52.38 
3 

Average 
68.34 
12.53 
39.99 
11.75 
30.49 
35.09 
26.46 
3 

Gro¨nnerud [4] 
Standard 
111.59 
41.31 
34.47 
40.76 
32.89 
30.61 
40.07 
1 
Mean 
37.20 
31.41 
24.74 
29.62 
24.30 
26.16 
29.89 
1 

Average 
0.14 
2.57 
1.41 
24.96 
10.47 
7.39 
8.35 
2 

Chisholm [5] 
Standard 
387.40 
97.81 
119.73 
91.85 
115.61 
94.58 
144.01 5 

Mean 
156.35 
58.75 
92.83 
68.07 
85.88 
67.14 
102.74 5 

Average 
213.47 
28.83 
181.63 
67.20 
117.85 
111.21 
113.44 5 

Mu¨llerSteinhagen and Heck [8] 
Standard 
144.33 
35.02 
44.13 
33.07 
40.47 
35.04 
48.00 
2 
Mean 
52.25 
19.91 
32.55 
24.69 
28.54 
26.54 
32.14 
2 

Average 
17.74 
22.75 
26.75 
24.00 
7.32 
0.63 
6.87 
1 

Number of experimental points T _{s}_{a}_{t} ( ^{} C) (%) Mass ﬂux (kg/m ^{2} s) P _{s}_{a}_{t} (bar) P _{c}_{r}_{i}_{t} (bar) s _{L} (mN/m) 
249 
178 
25 
150 
130 
56 
788 

1.3 to 10.3 4 to 80 100 to 500 2.8 to 4.2 
4.44 
30.7 
1.3 to 10.3 6 to 74 100 to 318 6.3 to 8.9 
1.3 to 10.3 7 to 84 100 to 318 5.9 to 8.4 
2.5 

18 to 100 100 to 400 
7 to 70 100 to 300 
7 to 84 100 to 300 

3.42 
1.12 
6.19 

41.35 
41.35 
36.07 
41.35 
37.32 40.75 

11.87 to 10.2 11.04 
14.5 
9.2 to 7.67 
7.95 to 6.41 
9.3 
^{a} tube diameter is 10.92 mm.
944
M.B. Ould Didi et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 935–947
Table 2 Comparison to all data for pressure drops larger than 1.0 kPa
Correlation 
Deviation 
Refrigerants 
All 
Rank 

(%) 

R134a 
R134a ^{a} 
R123 
R402a 
R404a 
R502 

Lockhart and Martinelli [2] 
Standard 
88.00 
61.42 
58.97 
82.32 
70.60 
51.24 
86.24 
4 
Mean 
75.35 
37.96 
45.44 
67.03 
64.37 
49.98 
72.28 
4 

Average 
97.32 
14.83 
43.93 
84.35 
95.64 
77.84 
63.44 
4 

Friedel [3] 
Standard 
56.29 
40.01 
50.14 
46.53 
36.53 
24.21 
49.41 
3 
Mean 
48.38 
24.25 
40.07 
37.20 
32.37 
21.88 
39.05 
3 

Average 
36.54 
16.56 
39.99 
7.14 
13.39 
11.56 
12.79 
2 

Gro¨nnerud [4] 
Standard 
28.25 
40.69 
34.47 
37.92 
21.03 
19.46 
32.81 
2 
Mean 
22.95 
31.30 
24.74 
29.52 
19.04 
21.30 
26.95 
2 

Average 
11.03 
2.68 
1.41 
23.86 
13.90 
15.95 
10.25 
1 

Chisholm [5] 
Standard 
109.63 
81.55 
119.73 
81.28 
69.87 
49.35 
101.48 
5 
Mean 
94.28 
49.15 
92.83 
65.66 
63.22 
47.76 
83.05 
5 

Average 
155.97 
20.51 
181.63 
62.95 
90.79 
86.40 
91.36 
5 

Mu¨llerSteinhagen and Heck [8] 
Standard 
33.64 
31.26 
44.13 
27.35 
22.24 
15.29 
31.48 
1 
Mean 
27.67 
17.92 
32.55 
22.54 
19.44 
13.31 
23.97 
1 

Average 
2.85 
25.00 
26.75 
26.59 
16.43 
16.56 
14.67 
3 

Number of experimental points 
215 
173 
25 
130 
109 
39 
691 
^{a} Tube diameter of 10.92 mm.
similar to those in Table 1. Here the method of Mu¨ller Steinhagen and Heck [8] just outperforms the Gro¨n nerud method [4] with rankings of 1/1/3 versus 2/2/1 for the three types of deviation. The method of Friedel [3] comes in third with rankings of 3/3/2. The Lockhart and Martinelli method [2] again always ranks fourth while that of Chisholm [5] consistently ranks ﬁfth. Looking at the best method, it has statistical deviations of 31.5%, 24 and 14.7%, respectively, which are quite poor from a thermal design point of view.
7. Statistical comparison by ﬂow pattern
Kattan et al. [17] showed that classifying ﬂow boiling heat transfer data by ﬂow regime and then developing a simpliﬁed ﬂow structure and heat transfer model for each regime, a very signiﬁcant increase in accuracy could be obtained compared to methods oblivious to ﬂow pat tern. Therefore, it makes sense to classify the twophase frictional pressure drop data by ﬂow regime too, although the above empirical methods do not model any particular regime, in order to determine which is most appropriate for a particular ﬂow pattern. In this light, Fig. 10 depicts their ﬂow pattern map prepared for the case of a 12 mm diameter tube for R 134a at a saturation temperature of 10 ^{} C and a heat ﬂux of 10 kW/m ^{2} . Their map shows the calculated
transition curves plotted on an easy to read graph of mass velocity vs. vapor quality, where I refers to Inter mittent ﬂow, A refers to Annular ﬂow, SW refers to StratiﬁedWavy ﬂow, S refers to Stratiﬁed ﬂow and MF refers to Mist ﬂow. In this study, such a map was cal culated for all the ﬂuids at their test conditions to determine the local ﬂow pattern at the inlet and at the outlet of the test section for each data point. Then, only data points for which the ﬂow pattern at the inlet was the same as at the outlet were selected. This resulted in a database of twophase frictional pressure drops for annular ﬂows, intermittent ﬂows and stratiﬁedwavy ﬂows but none in the stratiﬁed and mist ﬂow regimes. Table 3 depicts the statistical results for pressure drops larger than 0.5 kPa where there are now 283 points total with 100 for annular ﬂow, 96 for intermittent ﬂow and 87 for stratiﬁedwavy ﬂow. These results conﬁrm the following:
Annular ﬂow. The best method is that of Mu¨ller Steinhagen and Heck [8] with rankings of 1/1/4 and for which the deviations are 18.1, 11.5 and 32.5%. The second best method is that of Friedel [3] with rankings of 2/2/3. The method of Gro¨nnerud [4] is in this case in a tie for the fourth and ﬁfth positions. Intermittent ﬂow. The best method is that of Gro¨n nerud [4] with very high rankings of 1/1/2 but with deviations of 34.9, 27.0 and 32.5%. The second best method is that of Mu¨llerSteinhagen and Heck [8] with
M.B. Ould Didi et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 935–947
945
rankings of 2/2/1 and deviations just slightly worse than Gro¨nnerud [4]. The method of Friedel [3] here comes in third with rankings of 3/3/3. Stratiﬁedwavy ﬂow. The best method is a tie between that of Gro¨nnerud [4] with rankings of 1/1/4 and that of Mu¨llerSteinhagen and Heck [8] with rankings of 2/2/2. The deviations for the Gro¨nnerud method [4] are 28.8, 23.5 and 25.5% while those of Mu¨llerSteinhagen and Heck [8] are 33.1, 26.9 and 13.1%. The method of Friedel [3] here comes in third with rankings of 3/3/3. Similarly, Table 4 depicts the statistical results for pressure drops larger than 1.0 kPa where there are now 263 points total with 100 for annular ﬂow, 95 for inter mittent ﬂow and 68 for stratiﬁedwavy ﬂow. These results demonstrate the following:
Annular ﬂow. The results are exactly the same as for Table 3. Intermittent ﬂow. The results are the same as for Table 3 but based on one fewer data point. Stratiﬁedwavy ﬂow. The best method is that of Gro¨nnerud [4] with rankings of 1/1/4 and deviations of 21.6, 29.8 and 4.0%. The method of Mu¨llerSteinha gen and Heck [8] with rankings of 2/2/3 is now tied with the method of Friedel [3] whose rankings are now 3/3/1. Overall, classifying the ﬂow by local ﬂow pattern and then using the best twophase frictional pressure method for that particular ﬂow pattern results in a signiﬁcant improvement in accuracy as illustrated by the smaller statistical deviations. For example, the top ranked method for annular ﬂow (Mu¨llerSteinhagen and Heck [8]) gives a standard deviation of 18.1% in Table 3 compared to its overall value of 48% for all data in
Table 1. Similarly, the top ranked method for Inter mittent ﬂow and stratiﬁedwavy ﬂow (Gro¨nnerud [4]) gives standard deviations of 34.9 and 28.8% in Table 3, respectively, compared to its overall value of 40.1% for all data in Table 1. Even so, the accuracies of these methods are still rather poor for thermal design considering that the two phase pressure drop is only predicted to within 18.1 to 28.8% standard deviation. For the future, new tests are getting underway to extend the present database to other ﬂow regimes and a larger range of tube diameters. Then, new prediction methods speciﬁc to the particular ﬂow structure of each ﬂow regime will be developed similar to the Kattan et al. ﬂow boiling heat transfer model [15–17].
8. Conclusions
The conclusions of the present study are the following:
An extensive new twophase pressure drop database for ﬁve refrigerants originating from the study of Kattan [1] is presented here for the ﬁrst time. Comparing seven of the most quoted methods in the literature to this database irrespective of ﬂow pattern (788 data points), the method of Mu¨llerSteinhagen and Heck [8] and the method of Gro¨nnerud [4] consistently gave the best pre dictions while that of Friedel [3] was only third best.
Table 3 Comparison by ﬂow pattern for pressure drops larger than 0.5 kPa
Correlation 
Deviation 
Regimes 
All 

(%) 

A 
Rank 
I 
Rank 
SW 
Rank 

Lockhart and Martinelli [2] 
Standard 
29.13 
3 
85.63 
4 
67.41 
4 
57.14 
Mean 
21.47 
3 
65.75 
4 
46.31 
4 
74.71 

Average 
32.54 
5 
132.05 
4 
17.72 
3 
38.29 

Friedel [3] 
Standard 
20.98 
2 
57.02 
3 
45.43 
3 
31.54 
Mean 
13.08 
2 
44.48 
3 
34.44 
3 
38.39 

Average 
28.59 
3 
40.69 
3 
10.10 
1 
6.62 

Gro¨nnerud [4] 
Standard 
37.70 
4 
34.92 
1 
28.83 
1 
22.56 
Mean 
29.42 
5 
27.03 
1 
23.54 
1 
30.07 

Average 
11.70 
2 
1.96 
2 
25.48 
4 
4.42 

Chisholm [5] 
Standard 
37.95 
5 
114.52 
5 
82.36 
5 
64.49 
Mean 
27.22 
4 
86.75 
5 
62.89 
5 
82.82 

Average 
2.31 
1 
156.35 
5 
55.63 
5 
68.89 

Mu¨llerSteinhagen and Heck [8] 
Standard 
18.11 
1 
37.69 
2 
33.06 
2 
20.33 
Mean 
11.54 
1 
27.59 
2 
26.85 
2 
23.74 

Average 
32.52 
4 
0.46 
1 
13.11 
2 
15.50 

Number of experimental points 
100 
96 
87 
283 
946
M.B. Ould Didi et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 935–947
Table 4 Comparison by ﬂow pattern for pressure drops larger than 1.0 kPa
Correlation 
Deviation 
Regimes 
All 

(%) 

A 
Rank 
I 
Rank 
SW 
Rank 

Lockhart and Martinelli [2] 
Standard 
29.13 
3 
79.13 
4 
47.73 
4 
53.23 
Mean 
21.47 
3 
62.21 
4 
33.65 
4 
73.23 

Average 
32.54 
5 
128.64 
4 
3.85 
2 
34.78 

Friedel [3] 
Standard 
20.98 
2 
54.54 
3 
30.04 
3 
28.46 
Mean 
13.08 
2 
42.63 
3 
25.74 
3 
35.50 

Average 
28.59 
3 
38.96 
3 
1.95 
1 
2.62 

Gro¨nnerud [4] 
Standard 
37.70 
4 
34.01 
1 
23.06 
1 
21.58 
Mean 
29.42 
5 
26.31 
1 
21.56 
1 
29.76 

Average 
11.70 
2 
2.79 
2 
28.78 
4 
4.00 

Chisholm [5] 
Standard 
37.95 
5 
114.24 
5 
57.98 
5 
61.76 
Mean 
27.22 
4 
87.04 
5 
52.08 
5 
82.33 

Average 
2.31 
1 
157.19 
5 
39.93 
5 
66.00 

Mu¨llerSteinhagen and Heck [8] 
Standard 
18.11 
1 
36.04 
2 
25.61 
2 
18.52 
Mean 
11.54 
1 
26.36 
2 
23.29 
2 
21.80 

Average 
32.52 
4 
0.69 
1 
19.90 
3 
17.81 

Number of experimental points 
100 
95 
68 
263 
Comparing the seven methods to pressure drop data classiﬁed by twophase ﬂow pattern, the method of Mu¨llerSteinhagen and Heck [8] was best for annular ﬂows while the method of Gro¨nnerud [4] gave the best predictions for both intermittent and stratiﬁedwavy ﬂows. The statistical deviations of the best methods still remain quite large with respect to the accu racy desired for reliable thermal design of eva porators and condensers. The peak in the experimental twophase fric tional pressure gradient was observed to coin cide with the onset of dryout in annular ﬂows at high vapor qualities, similar to the equivalent peak in the ﬂow boiling heat transfer coeﬃcient.
Acknowledgements
This project was supported by a grant from Swiss National Science Foundation under contract 21/
57210.99.
References
[1] Kattan N. Contribution to the heat transfer analysis of substitute refrigerants in evaporator tubes with smooth or enhanced tube surfaces. PhD thesis No 1498, Swiss Fed eral Institute of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1996.
[2] Lockhart RW, Martinelli RC. Proposed correlation of data for isothermal twophase twocomponent ﬂow in pipes. Chem Eng Progr 1949;45:39–45.
[3] Friedel L. Improved friction pressure drop correlations for horizontal and vertical twophase pipe ﬂow. European TwoPhase Flow Group Meeting, Paper E2; 1979 June; Ispra, Italy. [4] Gro¨nnerud R. Investigation of liquid holdup, ﬂowresis tance and heat transfer in circulation type evaporators, part IV: twophase ﬂow resistance in boiling refrigerants. Annexe 19721, Bull. de l’Inst. du Froid, 1979. [5] Chisholm D. Pressure gradients due to friction during the ﬂow of evaporating twophase mixtures in smooth tubes and channels. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 1973;16:
347–58.
[6] Bankoﬀ SG. A variable density singleﬂuid model for two phase ﬂow with particular reference to steamwater ﬂow. J Heat Transfer 1960;11:265–72. [7] Chawla JM. Wa¨rmeu¨bergang und Druckabfall in waager echten Rohren bei der Stro¨mung von verdampfenden Ka¨ltemitteln. VDIForschungsh 1967;523 Lg1–Lg2. [8] Mu¨llerSteinhagen H, Heck K. A simple friction pressure drop correlation for twophase ﬂow in pipes. Chem Eng Process 1986;20:297–308. [9] Whalley PB. Twophase ﬂow and heat transfer. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1996. [10] Collier JG, Thome JR. Convective Boiling and Condensation. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1994.
[11] Tribbe C, Mu¨llerSteinhagen H. An evaluation of the performance of phenomenological models for predicting pressure gradient during gasliquid ﬂow in horizontal
pipelines. Int J Multiphase Flow 2000;26:1019–36.
M.B. Ould Didi et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 935–947
947
[12] Steiner D, VDIWa¨rmeatlas (VDI Heat Atlas), Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, VDIGesellschaft Verfahren stechnik und Chemieingenieurwesen (GCV), Du¨sseldorf, 1993, Chapter Hbb. [13] Rouhani Z, Axelsson E. Calculation of void volume frac tion in the subcooled and quality boiling regions. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 1970;13:383–93. [14] REFPROP. NISTRefrigerant Properties Database 23, Gaithersburg, MD, 1998, Version 6.01.
[15] Kattan N, Thome JR, Favrat D. Flow boiling in hor izontal tubes. Part 1: development of a diabatic twophase ﬂow pattern map. J Heat Transfer 1998;120:140–7. [16] Kattan N, Thome JR, Favrat D. Flow boiling in hor izontal tubes. Part 2: new heat transfer data for ﬁve refrigerants. J Heat Transfer 1998;120:148–55. [17] Kattan N, Thome JR, Favrat D. Flow boiling in horizontal tubes. Part 3: development of a new heat transfer model based on ﬂow patterns. J Heat Transfer 1998;120:156–65.
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.