Experimental Heat Transfer

A Journal of Thermal Energy Generation, Transport, Storage, and

Conversion

ISSN: 0891-6152 (Print) 1521-0480 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueht20

Heat Transfer Characteristics for Condensation of

R134a in a Vertical Smooth Tube

G. Arslan & N. Eskin

To cite this article: G. Arslan & N. Eskin (2015) Heat Transfer Characteristics for Condensation
of R134a in a Vertical Smooth Tube, Experimental Heat Transfer, 28:5, 430-445, DOI:
10.1080/08916152.2014.926430

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08916152.2014.926430

Accepted author version posted online: 11

Jun 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 108

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueht20

Download by: [Mersin Universitesi] Date: 12 January 2016, At: 01:25

 Experimental Heat Transfer, 28:430–445, 2015
Copyright q Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0891-6152 print/1521-0480 online
DOI: 10.1080/08916152.2014.926430

HEAT TRANSFER CHARACTERISTICS FOR

CONDENSATION OF R134A IN A VERTICAL
SMOOTH TUBE

G. Arslan1 and N. Eskin2

1
Mechanical Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Mersin University,
Çiftlikköy Campus, Mersin, Turkey
2
Mechanical Engineering Faculty, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
Downloaded by [Mersin Universitesi] at 01:25 12 January 2016

In this study, condensation of pure refrigerant R134a vapor inside a smooth vertical tube was
experimentally investigated. The test section was made of a copper tube with inside diameter
of 7.52 mm and length of 1 m. Experimental tests were conducted for mass fluxes in the range
of 20–175 kg/m2s with saturation pressure ranging between 5.8 and 7 bar. The effects of
mass flux, saturation pressure, and temperature difference between the refrigerant and tube
inner wall (DT) on the heat transfer performance were analyzed through experimental data.
Obtained results showed that average condensation heat transfer coefficient decreases with
increasing saturation pressure or temperature difference (DT). In addition, for the same
temperature difference (DT), heat can be removed from the refrigerant at a higher rate at
relatively low pressure values. Under the same operating conditions, it was shown that
average condensation heat transfer coefficient increases as mass flux increases. Finally, the
most widely used heat transfer coefficient correlations for condensation inside smooth tubes
were analyzed through the experimental data. The best fit was obtained with Akers et al.’s
(1959) correlation with an absolute mean deviation of 22.6%.

Keywords R134a, condensation, heat transfer coefficient, correlation

INTRODUCTION
Condensation inside tubes is an important multiphase phenomenon, which is
generally observed in refrigeration and air-conditioning systems. By attributing to the
International Institute of Refrigeration’s report [1], Parise and Marques [2] stated that
approximately 15% of the world’s electricity is consumed in refrigeration and air-
conditioning applications. For that reason, the accurate design of these systems is
important for better performance with less energy usage. Moreover, determination of
operating limits for safety conditions is required. To meet these requirements, detailed
theoretical and experimental knowledge about condensation is necessary. During
condensation inside tubes, different flow patterns occur one after the other, and the
condensation heat transfer rate changes depending on those flow patterns. Mathematical

Received 9 October 2013; accepted 14 May 2014.

Address correspondence to Dr. Gökhan Arslan, Mersin University, Mechanical Engineering Department,
33343, Mersin, Turkey. Tel.: þ 903243610001, #7448; Fax: þ 903243610258. E-mail: garslan@mersin.edu.tr.

430
 CONDENSATION OF R134A IN A VERTICAL SMOOTH TUBE 431

NOMENCLATURE
A heat transfer area, pDiL (m2) DT temperature difference (Tsat 2 Tw,i)
cp specific heat capacity (Jkg21K21) 1 mean deviation
Di tube inner side diameter (m)
Do tube outside diameter (m) Subscripts
abs absolute
G mass flux (kg/m2s)
h heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K) avg average
hfg latent heat (jkg21) i inlet
k thermal conductivity (W/mK) L liquid
o outlet
L length of the test section (m)
_
m mass flow rate (kg/s) r refrigerant, R134a
P pressure (Pa) s sensible
_ sat saturated
Q heat removal rate (W)
T temperature (8C) st standard
Downloaded by [Mersin Universitesi] at 01:25 12 January 2016

x vapor quality T total

wall tube wall
Greek Letters wt water
Dx vapor quality change

models developed to define condensation heat transfer are restricted with certain flow
patterns. For that reason, researchers have focused on experimental studies.
Condensation heat transfer performance has been investigated under different
operating conditions. Based on the experimental data, new heat transfer coefficient
correlations have been developed or the consistency of existing correlations investigated.
In the literature, there have been extensive experimental studies dealing with condensation
of refrigerants inside smooth horizontal and vertical tubes. Most of these studies have
involved condensation inside smooth tubes. A detailed experimental study about
condensation heat transfer and pressure drop of refrigerants was reported by Cavallini et al.
[3]. On the basis of their experimental data, they hypothesized that heat transfer coefficient
increased with increasing vapor quality or mass flux. At low mass flux (G ¼ 100 kg/m2s),
the effect of the temperature difference between the refrigerant and the tube wall was very
important for the heat transfer coefficient. As temperature difference decreases, heat
transfer coefficient increases. Finally, it was stated that at low saturation pressures, the
obtained heat transfer coefficient was higher than that obtained at high saturation pressure.
The results of Jung et al. [4] were in parallel with the above-mentioned study. Obtained
experimental data were compared with heat transfer coefficient correlations. It was stated
that Dobson and Chato’s [5] correlation under-predicted the experimental data in the low
quality and mass flux regime, while it over-predicted in the high quality and mass flux
regime. For that reason, Dobson and Chato’s [5] correlation was modified.
Park et al. [6] obtained experimental data for heat transfer coefficients and pressure
drop while condensing R22, propylene, propane, dimethyl ethyl (DME), and isobutene
inside a horizontal plain tube. Flow condensation heat transfer coefficients increased as the
quality and mass flux increased for all refrigerants tested. The correlation of Jung et al. [4]
showed the best prediction capability with a mean deviation of 11.5%. Agra and Teke [7]
experimentally investigated condensation of R600a refrigerant inside a horizontal smooth
copper tube; their results showed that the condensation heat transfer coefficient drops with
a reduction in vapor quality.
 432 G. ARSLAN AND N. ESKIN

More recently, there has been considerable interest in studies of condensation of

refrigerants inside vertical tubes. Most of the experiments were about water vapor
condensation. Al-Shammari et al. [8] experimentally investigated water vapor
condensation inside a vertical tube. Heat flux distribution along the test tube was
determined. Experiment results showed that heat flux decreases at the bottom section of the
tube. Increasing liquid film thickness along the test tube due to condensation led to an
increase in thermal resistance of the film. Oh and Revankar [9] set up an experimental rig
to investigate complete condensation of water vapor inside a vertical tube; experimental
results showed that condensation heat transfer coefficient decreases depending on
increasing system pressure. In addition, increasing temperature difference between
saturated vapor and tube wall led to a reduction in condensation heat transfer coefficient.
The obtained results showed a 15% deviation when compared with classical Nusselt [10]
analysis. Kim and No [11] experimentally studied high-pressure steam condensation heat
Downloaded by [Mersin Universitesi] at 01:25 12 January 2016

transfer in a large-diameter condenser tube. A new turbulent annular film condensation

model was developed. The local heat fluxes and heat transfer coefficients were analyzed as
a function of system pressure. It was stated that heat fluxes increase with an increase of
system pressure. However, the heat transfer coefficients are within a range of 4,000 –
7,000 W/m2 K, regardless of the system pressure.
Condensation of R134a inside a vertical smooth tube was studied experimentally by
Dalkilic et al. [12], and it was found that condensation heat transfer coefficient decreases
along the test tube. Similar to previously mentioned researchers’ results, the condensation
heat transfer coefficient decreased depending on the increasing saturation pressure. Meyer
et al. [13] experimentally investigated heat transfer during condensation of R134a in an
inclined smooth tube, where inclination angles ranging from 2 908 (vertical downward) to
þ 908 (vertical upward). Obtained results showed that the condensation heat transfer
coefficient is strictly dependent on the saturation temperature and inclination angle.
Experiments conducted at different mass fluxes (200, 300, and 400 kg/m2s) and saturation
temperatures (308C–508C) showed that increasing saturation temperature led to a decrease
in condensation heat transfer coefficient. Similarly, it was stated that inclination angle was
also effective on condensation heat transfer coefficient. When inclination angle was
changed, observed flow patterns also changed. That changing led to an increase or decrease
in film thickness, and that affects the thermal resistance in liquid film thickness.
Researchers have analyzed experimental data obtained at different inclination angles and
different mass fluxes. At low mass flux, the highest heat transfer coefficient occurred at
inclination angle values between 2 308 and 2 158. It was stated that stratifying effects of
gravity was the main reason of the increase in condensation heat transfer coefficient.
Cavallini et al. [14] reviewed the results in the open literature about in-tube and
bundle condensation. For condensation inside plain round tubes, they emphasized that flow
regimes strongly influence the heat and momentum transfer process. Flow regime maps
and transition criteria between flow patterns were discussed in detail. It was stated that very
few models published in literature were general and covered the entire map of two-phase
regimes. Researchers have discussed the condensation heat transfer model developed by
Cavallini et al. [15], which covers all flow regimes in detail. Heat transfer coefficients
calculated with that model for condensation of R134a, R22, R410A, and R32 were
compared against the correlation predictions of Shah [16], Haraguchi et al. [17], and
Dobson and Chato [5]. It was noted that correlation developed by Haraguchi et al. [17]
could not be applied at all operating conditions. Dobson and Chato’s [5] correlation was
 CONDENSATION OF R134A IN A VERTICAL SMOOTH TUBE 433

unsatisfactory for high-pressure fluids. Shah’s [16] correlation over-predicted data relative
to high-pressure fluids. Valladares [18] summarized the condensation heat transfer
coefficient correlations widely used in literature. Experimental data of several researchers
published in literature were compared with different correlations, and under different
operating conditions, Dobson and Chato’s [5] and Cavallini et al.’s [3] correlations have
given the best results.
In this study, condensation of R134a vapor inside a smooth vertical tube is
investigated experimentally. A literature search shows that most of the experiments about
condensation of refrigerants inside tubes are valid for horizontal tube flow at high mass
fluxes, and condensation of refrigerants inside vertical tubes has not been studied
extensively. For condensation inside vertical tubes, experimental studies focused on water
vapor flow. Based on these facts, the main purpose of this study is to clarify the parameters
that affect the refrigerant R134a condensation heat transfer inside a vertical tube. These
parameters are determined as mass flux (20 –175 kg/m2s), saturation pressure (5.8 – 7 bar),
Downloaded by [Mersin Universitesi] at 01:25 12 January 2016

and temperature difference between saturated vapor and tube inner wall (1 –7 K).
The range of the vapor quality change in the test section is between 0.1 and 0.4. Moreover,
experimental data are compared with condensation heat transfer coefficient correlations.

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
A test facility was designed and constructed in which condensation heat transfer
characteristics of refrigerant R134a vapor flowing downward inside a smooth tube could
be determined. A schematic drawing of the system is shown in Figure 1.
The test facility consisted of two leak-proof and closed loops. One was for R134a
refrigerant, and the other was for heating and cooling water. The equipment in the
refrigerant loop is also given in Figure 1. During the experiments, the storage tank (point 1)
was cooled to control the system pressure and liquid level in the tank. Liquid refrigerant
was circulated by using a variable-speed pump (point 2). A flow meter (point 3) was
mounted at the exit of the pump to measure the mass flow rate. After that, liquid refrigerant
was directed to the evaporator (point 4); this evaporator was a plate-type heat exchanger.
Hot water was used to evaporate the liquid refrigerant. Refrigerant vapor was directed to
the test section (point 5), and condensation process occurred here. A liquid vapor separator
(point 7) was mounted at the exit of the test section. A scaled glass tube (point 8) was
mounted at the liquid-side exit of the separator. During the experiments, valves at the inlet
end exit of the scaled tube were used to collect the separated liquid in a scaled tube to
determine the vapor quality of the refrigerant at the exit of the test tube. First, volumetric
flow rate of the liquid collected in the scaled tube was measured by using a chronometer.
Then the mass flow rate of the liquid was determined by using the density of the
refrigerant, which was calculated according to the measured pressure and temperature
data. In that way, vapor quality at the exit of the test section was determined. Separated
vapor was cooled in a condenser (point 9), and the loop was completed at the storage tank.
The other loop in the experimental facility was used for supplying hot water to the
evaporator and cold water to the test section and condenser. The equipment in that cycle
consisted of heating/cooling baths, a turbine-type mass flow meter, and temperature
probes. The temperature of water in heating/cooling baths could be controlled sensitively;
in that way, the temperature difference of the saturated vapor and tube wall could be
controlled effectively. All sensors used for measuring temperature, pressure, and mass
 434 G. ARSLAN AND N. ESKIN
Downloaded by [Mersin Universitesi] at 01:25 12 January 2016

Figure 1. Schematic of experimental set-up.

flow rate were connected to a data logger. Before collecting experimental data, the test
facility was allowed to run for 2 – 3 h to allow time for conditions to become constant.
Approximately 15 min were required to take a complete set of readings.

Test Section
The test section was built as a double-pipe heat exchanger with a counter-flow
arrangement. It was mounted vertically with refrigerant flowing downward. The outside
diameter and wall thickness of the inner cupper tube were 9.52 and 1 mm, respectively.
The inner diameter of the outside cupper tube was 16 mm. The gap between the tubes
where cooling water circulated was approximately 3.2 mm. A detailed schematic
representation of the test section is given in Figure 2.
 CONDENSATION OF R134A IN A VERTICAL SMOOTH TUBE 435
Downloaded by [Mersin Universitesi] at 01:25 12 January 2016

Figure 2. Test section.

In the test section, refrigerant and cooling water temperatures (T) at the inlet and
exit, tube wall temperatures, refrigerant pressure (P) at the inlet and exit, cooling water
mass flow rate (M), and differential pressure of the refrigerant are measured. Sight
glasses were mounted at the inlet and exit of the test section for visual observation.
As already mentioned, test section was 1 m long, and the surface temperatures were
measured at six different points. At each point, two thermocouples were soldered into
the sockets placed outside of the inner tube. The depth of the socket was 0.3 mm, so
soldered thermocouples were put at the same level as possible as the tube outside
surface; this was an attempt to minimize the effect of water flow on wall temperature
measurement.
For temperature calibrations, a reference resistance temperature detector (RTD) with
an accuracy of ^ 0.038C was used. Calibration data for temperature probes were collected
between 08C and 328C at 12 different points. Pressure calibration data were collected
between 0 and 15 bars at 24 different points. The standard error propagation method was
used to determine the uncertainty of the calculated quantities. The uncertainties of the
apparatus, instrument, and calculated quantities are given in Table 1.

Data Reduction
Experiments were conducted at the saturation pressure about 5.8 –7 bar, mass flux
about 20– 175 kg/m2s, temperature difference between saturated vapor and wall (DT)
about 1– 7 K in the test section. At the inlet and exit of the test tube, K-type thermocouples
were mounted to measure the temperature change of the cooling water; a turbine-type mass
flow meter was used to measure mass flow rate.
The total heat removal rate determined by measuring the mass flow rate and
temperature increase of cooling water flowing inside the annulus of the test section is given
by Eq. (1):


_T ¼ m
Q _ wt cp;wt T wt;o 2 T wt;i : ð1Þ
During the experiments, an evaporator was used to obtain saturated vapor at the inlet of the
test tube. Due to the fluctuations in system pressure and the uncertainty of the measuring
 436 G. ARSLAN AND N. ESKIN

Table 1. Experimental uncertainties

Measured parameters ^

RTD 0.058C
Thermocouple 0.058C
Pressure 0.5%
Coriolis flowmeter 0.25%
Turbine type flowmeter 1%
_ (W)
Q 10–20%
Dx (Eq. (3)) 8–20%
h (W/m2K) 7–18%

devices, it was difficult to obtain and maintain the saturated vapor flow conditions at the
inlet of the test section. For that reason, experiments in which refrigerant was superheated
Downloaded by [Mersin Universitesi] at 01:25 12 January 2016

with a temperature difference of 1 – 28C above saturation temperature at the inlet of the test
section were selected in this study. Webb [19] analyzed the effect of superheat on
condensation heat transfer; that study emphasized that at a high degree of superheat, forced
convection heat transfer was also important, as condensation heat transfer and the
composite heat transfer coefficient must be defined in this situation. Li et al. [20] used a
preheater to get an inlet condition of x ¼ 1 in their experimental study. They controlled the
vapor superheating in the range of 2 –38C and assumed that sensitive heat was negligible in
heat transfer.
According to those facts, the ratio of sensible heat in total heat transfer was
investigated. The basic condition for the formation of condensate is that tube inner wall
temperature must be below the vapor saturation temperature. Since the surface temperature
was lower than the saturation temperature for all experiments, condensate formation started
at the inlet of the test section. Some portion of the total heat removal rate was used to convert
superheated vapor to saturated vapor, which was defined as sensible heat, and the remaining
portion was defined as latent heat. Sensible heat was calculated using Eq. (2):


Q_s ¼ m
_ r cp;r T r;i 2 T r;sat : ð2Þ

Mass flow rate of the refrigerant was measured by using a coriolis-type flow meter. At the
inlet and exit of the test tube, temperatures of the refrigerant were measured by using RTDs.
At the same points, gauge pressure transmitters were mounted to measure the saturation
pressure. For all experiments, the sensible heat removal rate calculated by using Eq. (2) was
lower than 5% of the total heat removal rate on average, and it was assumed that the sensible
heat removal rate was negligible on heat transfer. According to that, the change in vapor
quality of the refrigerant in test section was calculated by using Eq. (3):

Q_T
Dx ¼ : ð3Þ
_ r hfg
m

The experimental set-up was designed and constructed to measure the vapor quality at the
exit of the test section. In that way, vapor quality change obtained from the heat balance
equation could be checked with experimental data. Due to the nature of experimental study,
temperature and pressure at the inlet and exit of the test section were measured with a certain
uncertainty. Saturation temperature was determined according to the measured pressures at
 CONDENSATION OF R134A IN A VERTICAL SMOOTH TUBE 437

the inlet and exit of the test section and compared with the measured temperature at those
points. Since pure vapor without droplets was observed at sight glass section, and
uncertainties of the temperature and pressure were known, the state of the vapor at the inlet
was determined. Agreement of the measured temperature and pressure was checked by
using the measured vapor quality at the exit of the test section.
For all experiments, an inlet condition of x ¼ 1 was maintained, and average vapor
quality was calculated by using Eq. (4):

Dx
xavg ¼ 1 2 : ð4Þ
2
As previously mentioned, the test section was 1 m in length and outside wall temperature
was measured at six different points by thermocouples. By using these experimental data,
inner wall temperature of the test section was calculated by using Eq. (5):
Downloaded by [Mersin Universitesi] at 01:25 12 January 2016

 
_ T ln Do
Q Di
T wall;i ¼ T wall;o þ : ð5Þ
2pLktube
Finally, the average condensation heat transfer coefficient was calculated by using the
average values of thermocouples mounted on the tube surface and the saturation
temperature of the refrigerant as given in Eq. (6):


QT =A
havg ¼
: ð6Þ
T sat 2 T wall;i;avg

To validate the accuracy of the measurements in the test section, refrigerant vapor flowing
at low mass flux (G ¼ 12.5 kg/m2s) was completely condensed (Dx ¼ 1) in the test section
at a saturation pressure of 5.9 bar.
An energy balance between the heat loss of the refrigerant and the heat gain of the
water in the test section was checked, and the average deviation between the two was less
than 2.0%. As stated before, vapor quality of the refrigerant at the exit of the test section
was measured by using a liquid – vapor separator and scaled tube. Complete condensation
at this situation was also validated by measuring the exit vapor quality. Based on this
application, inspection of the heat balances for all experiments showed very fair agreement
between the rate of heat transfer to the cooling water and heat transfer from the refrigerant.
The average deviation was less than 6%, which is satisfactory for this type of study.
For all experiments, the uncertainty of condensation heat transfer coefficient was
calculated as ^ 7 –18%. As the heat removal rate increased, uncertainties’ of calculated
quantities decreased. Finally, thermo-physical properties of the refrigerant and water were
evaluated by using NIST Standard Reference Database 23.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Condensation heat transfer characteristics of R134a vapor flowing inside a vertical
smooth tube was investigated experimentally. Thirty-nine experimental runs were made
with refrigerant R134a for saturation pressures between 5.8 and 7 bar and mass fluxes
between 20 and 175 kg/m2s. According to the measured variables, such as temperature,
 438 G. ARSLAN AND N. ESKIN
Downloaded by [Mersin Universitesi] at 01:25 12 January 2016

Figure 3. Comparison of measured and calculated vapor quality change in test section.

pressure, and mass flow rate, parameters that affect the condensation heat transfer
coefficient were determined as saturation pressure, mass flux, temperature difference
between saturated vapor, and tube inner wall (DT) of the test section. For all experiments,
inlet vapor quality was unity, and the range of the vapor quality change in the test section
was between 0.1 and 0.4. According to Eq. (4), the range of the average vapor quality was
between 0.95 and 0.8. Vapor quality change in the test section was measured at the exit of
the test section. In Figure 3, calculated and measured vapor quality change data are
compared. It is found that all calculated vapor quality change data are in ^ 25% deviation
band when compared with the experimental data. The range of uncertainty of the
calculated vapor quality change is between 8 and 20% according to the standard error
propagation method. By using that method, vapor quality change obtained from the heat
balance equation could be checked with experimental data.

Effect of Temperature Difference (DT), Mass Flux, and Saturation

Pressure
Figure 4 represents the heat transfer data obtained from this experimental study.
These data points clearly illustrate the general effects of temperature difference (DT) on
the condensation heat transfer coefficient. As the temperature difference increased, the
condensation heat transfer coefficient showed a tendency to decrease. The slope of the
curve at a high temperature difference became flat. That means condensation heat transfer
is independent from temperature difference after a certain limit.
It can be seen from this figure that heat transfer data are collected between certain
temperature difference values. At similar temperature difference values, higher
condensation heat transfer coefficients were obtained. This situation states that parameters
different from the temperature difference are also effective on the condensation heat
transfer coefficient. To clarify the parameters that affect the condensation heat transfer
 CONDENSATION OF R134A IN A VERTICAL SMOOTH TUBE 439
Downloaded by [Mersin Universitesi] at 01:25 12 January 2016

Figure 4. Test results of refrigerant R134a vapor condensation.

coefficient, experimental data were classified according to temperature difference DT (8C),

saturation pressure Psat (bar), mass flux G (kg/m2s), and average vapor quality xavg.
In Figure 5, experimental data points were classified according to similar
temperature difference values, and the effect of mass flux on the condensation heat transfer
coefficient was analyzed. It was found that at the same mass flux, higher average
condensation heat transfer coefficients are obtained at low temperature differences.
Adding to that, increasing mass flux led to an increase in the condensation heat transfer
coefficient.

Figure 5. Relation between mass flux and average condensation heat transfer coefficient.
 440 G. ARSLAN AND N. ESKIN

In Figure 6, experimental data with similar mass flux and saturation pressure were
collected, and the effect of temperature difference on the condensation heat transfer
coefficient were analyzed. It is found that at the same temperature difference, higher
average condensation heat transfer coefficients are obtained at high mass fluxes.
At constant mass flux, the average condensation heat transfer coefficient decreased with
increasing temperature differences.
For condensation inside vertical smooth tube, the dominated flow pattern is an
annular flow. At the center of the tube, vapor core flows downward and liquid
film forms inside the tube wall periphery. Despite this, the thickness of the liquid film is
very small when compared with tube diameter, and heat removal rate is strictly
related with film thickness. During the experiments, it was observed that heat removal
rate is directly proportional to the temperature difference. When temperature difference
increased, heat removal rate, condensation rate, and liquid film thickness increased.
Downloaded by [Mersin Universitesi] at 01:25 12 January 2016

Especially at low mass flux, the main heat transfer mechanism is conduction through the
film thickness. Thermal resistance increases with increasing liquid film thickness, and as
a result, that process led to a reduction in average condensation heat transfer
coefficient. At the same temperature difference and saturation pressure, increasing mass
flux results in an increase in average condensation heat transfer coefficient. At this
situation, average vapor qualities of the experiments are similar, so condensation rate
and vapor velocity is higher for the experiments conducted at high mass fluxes. It is
known that at high vapor velocities, interfacial stress and mass transfer effects on
heat transfer are remarkable. High interfacial shear stress makes the liquid film
thinner; for that reason, an increase in average condensation heat transfer coefficient is
observed.
Another parameter that affects condensation heat transfer inside tubes is the
saturation pressure. In Figure 7, the relation between the average condensation heat

Figure 6. Relation between temperature difference and average condensation heat transfer coefficient.
 CONDENSATION OF R134A IN A VERTICAL SMOOTH TUBE 441
Downloaded by [Mersin Universitesi] at 01:25 12 January 2016

Figure 7. Effect of saturation pressure on condensation heat transfer coefficient.

transfer coefficient and temperature difference for different saturation pressures is given.
Since thermo-physical properties’ of R134a, such as thermal conductivity, viscosity, etc.,
are inversely proportional to the saturation pressure, a higher average condensation heat
transfer coefficient is obtained for the experiments conducted at low saturation pressures.
Adding to that, Dalkilic et al. [12] compared the average condensation heat transfer
coefficients for the mass flux of 29 kg/m2s at saturation pressures of 7.7– 9 bar. The
represented heat transfer coefficient data range was between 1,100 –800 W/m2K, and
average vapor quality change was given as 0.9. That result verifies trends of experimental
data obtained in the current study.

Correlations
Several correlations from the literature were selected for comparison with the
experimental data. These correlations were developed by Jung et al. [4], Akers et al. [21],
Shah [16], Traviss et al. [22], Chen et al. [23], Haraguchi et al. [17], Tandon et al. [24],
Jaster and Kosky [25], Dobson and Chato [5], Fujii [26], Rosson and Meyers [27],
Cavallini and Zecchin [28], and Cavallini et al. [29]. Some of those correlations were
developed for the condensation inside horizontal tube. Since the dominated flow pattern is
an annular flow for high flow rates in horizontal tubes and for all flow rates in vertical
tubes, the general success of the correlations in a vertical flow arrangement was
investigated in that study. Correlations developed for estimating local heat transfer
coefficient were also compared with experimental data. Here, linear vapor quality change
along the test section was assumed, and local heat transfer coefficient was calculated by
using correlations. Finally, the average value of the heat transfer coefficient was obtained
by using the local data.
For each experimental dataset, the obtained condensation heat transfer coefficient
was compared with one obtained from correlations, and results are given in Table 2. When
 442 G. ARSLAN AND N. ESKIN

Table 2. Comparison of correlations with experimental data

1abs 1 1st

1 Akers et al. [21] 22.6 216.7 24.6

2 Cavallini et al. [29] 25.8 26.2 31.3
2 Shah [16] 26.0 1.5 30.8
3 Traviss et al. [22] 26.5 24.0 31.8
4 Jung et al. [4] 27.1 211.2 33.3
5 Dobson and Chato [5] 27.5 27.5 9.5
6 Chen et al. [23] 28.0 23.2 23.1
7 Haraguchi et al. [17] 28.5 8.9 31.2
8 Tandon et al. [24] 30.8 230.8 15.9
9 Cavallini and Zecchin [28] 32.4 215.1 37.7
10 Jaster and Kosky [25] 34.2 253.8 16.6
11 Rosson and Meyers [27] 54.9 254.8 23.8
Downloaded by [Mersin Universitesi] at 01:25 12 January 2016

12 Fujii [26] 59.7 259.7 24.2

all experiments are taken into account, Akers et al.’s [21], Cavallini et al.’s [29], and
Shah’s [16] correlations estimated experimental condensation heat transfer coefficient
with an absolute mean deviation of 22.6, 25.8, and 26%, respectively. In Figure 8, results
obtained from most successful correlations (Akers et al. [21], Cavallini et al. [29], Shah
[16], Traviss et al. [22], Jung et al. [4], Dobson and Chato [5], and Chen et al. [23]) are
given. Most of the correlations mentioned here were developed for an annular flow inside a
horizontal tube at high mass flux. For condensation inside a vertical tube, the dominated

Figure 8. Comparison of the heat transfer coefficient correlations with experimental data.
 CONDENSATION OF R134A IN A VERTICAL SMOOTH TUBE 443

flow regime is an annular flow, and it is independent of the mass flux. Interfacial shear
stress and gravitational forces are in the same direction. For that reason, nearly all of the
data were predicted by the correlations within ^ 30% except Fujii’s [26] and Rosson and
Meyers’s [27] correlations.
Akers et al. [21] developed their correlation based on the equivalent liquid flow
approach. The main idea of this approach is that when the two-phase flow is replaced by an
equivalent all liquid flow, an equivalent Reynolds number can be obtained and a single-
phase condensation heat transfer coefficient expression will predict the condensation heat
transfer coefficient. This correlation is more successful than others because vapor quality
change in the test section is low and the equivalent liquid vapor flow approach can be
applied. In Figure 8, the obtained results are classified according to the saturation pressure.
For the high-pressure region, it is seen that the general behavior of the correlations differ,
and the most successful correlations are determined as Dobson and Chato’s [5] and Chen
Downloaded by [Mersin Universitesi] at 01:25 12 January 2016

et al.’s [23] correlations.

CONCLUSION
There are numerous theoretical and experimental studies in the literature about in-
tube condensation. Since the theory of condensation is complicated, experimental studies
gain importance to determine heat transfer characteristics of condensation inside tubes.
Under different operating conditions, parameters that effect condensation heat transfer
inside tubes have been investigated.
In this study, condensation of R134a vapor inside a smooth vertical tube was
investigated experimentally. According to the obtained results, a decrease in the average
condensation heat transfer coefficient is observed when the temperature difference
between the saturated vapor and tube inner wall increased. After a certain temperature
difference value, the condensation heat transfer coefficient is not affected from the change
of temperature difference. Another result obtained from this experimental study is that
average condensation heat transfer coefficient increases with increasing mass flux at the
same saturation pressure and temperature difference. Moreover, saturation pressure is very
effective on the average condensation heat transfer coefficient. At low saturation pressures,
a higher average condensation heat transfer coefficient is obtained. Finally, heat transfer
coefficient correlations are compared with experimental data, and best result is obtained
from Akers et al.’s [21] correlation with an absolute mean deviation of 22.6%.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Experiments were conducted in Istanbul Technical University, Mechanical
Engineering Faculty, Heat and Mass Transfer Laboratory, for which the authors are
grateful.

FUNDING
This study was financially supported by Turkish Scientific and Technical Research
Foundation (TUBITAK; project number MAG 108M262) and Istanbul Technical
University, Science and Technology Institute.
 444 G. ARSLAN AND N. ESKIN

REFERENCES
1. International Institute of Refrigeration, How to Improve Energy Efficiency in Refrigerating
Equipment, 17th Informatory Note on Refrigerating Technologies, Institut International du
Froid, Paris, France, November 2003.
2. J. A. R. Parise and R. P. Marques, The Role of Heat Transfer in Refrigeration, Heat Transf. Eng.,
vol. 26, pp. 1– 4, 2005.
3. A. Cavallini, G. Censi, D. Del Col, L. Doretti, G. A. Longo, and L. Rossetto, Experimental
Investigation on Condensation Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop of New HFC Refrigerants
(R134a, R125, R32, R410A, R236ea) in a Horizontal Smooth Tube, Int. J. Refrigerat., vol. 24,
pp. 73 – 87, 2001.
4. D. Jung, K. Song, Y. Cho, and S. Kim, Flow Condensation Heat Transfer Coefficients of Pure
Refrigerants, Int. J. Refrigerat., vol. 26, pp. 4 – 11, 2003.
5. M. K. Dobson and J. C. Chato, Condensation in Smooth Horizontal Tubes, J. Heat Transf., vol.
120, pp. 193– 213, 1998.
Downloaded by [Mersin Universitesi] at 01:25 12 January 2016

6. K.-J. Park, D. Jung, and T. Seo, Flow Condensation Heat Transfer Characteristics of
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants and Dimethyl Ether inside a Horizontal Plain Tube, Int. J. Multiphase
Flow, vol. 34, pp. 628– 635, 2008.
7. O. Agra and I. Teke, Experimental Investigation of Condensation of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants
(R600a) in a Horizontal Smooth Tube, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf., vol. 35, pp. 1165– 1171,
2008.
8. S. B. Al-Shammari, D. R. Webb, and P. Heggs, Condensation of Steam with and without the
Presence of Non-Condensable Gases in a Vertical Tube, Desalination, vol. 169, pp. 151– 160,
2004.
9. S. Oh and S. T. Revankar, Complete Condensation in a Vertical Tube Passive Condenser, Int.
Commun. Heat Mass Transf., vol. 32, pp. 593– 602, 2005.
10. W. Nusselt, The Surface Condensation of Water Vapor, Z. Vereines Dtsch. Ing., vol. 60,
pp. 541– 546, 1916.
11. S. J. Kim and H. C. No, Turbulent Film Condensation of High Pressure Steam in a Vertical Tube,
Int. J. Heat Mass Transf., vol. 43, pp. 4031 –4042, 2000.
12. A. S. Dalkilic, S. Yildiz, and S. Wongwises, Experimental Investigation of Convective Heat
Transfer Coefficient During Downward Laminar Flow Condensation of HFC-134a in a Vertical
Smooth Tube, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf., vol. 52, pp. 142–150, 2009.
13. J. P. Meyer, J. Dirker, and A. O. Adelaja, Condensation Heat Transfer in Smooth Inclined Tubes
for R134a at Different Saturation Temperatures, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf., vol. 70, pp. 515– 525,
2014.
14. A. Cavallini, G. Censi, D. Del Col, L. Doretti, G. A. Longo, L. Rossetto, and C. Zilio,
Condensation Inside and Outside Smooth and Enhanced Tubes—A Review of Recent Research,
Int. J. Refrigerat., vol. 26, pp. 373– 392, 2003.
15. A. Cavallini, G. Censi, D. Del Col, L. Doretti, G. A. Longo, and L. Rossetto, Intube
Condensation of Halogenated Refrigerants, ASHRAE Trans., vol. 108, Paper H-1718, 2002.
16. M. M. Shah, A General Correlation For Heat Transfer During Film Condensation Inside Pipes,
Int. J. Heat Mass Transf., vol. 22, pp. 547– 556, 1979.
17. H. Haraguchi, S. Koyama, and T. Fujii, Condensation of Refrigerants HCFC22, HFC134a, and
HCFC123 in a Horizontal Smooth Tube (2nd Report, Proposal of Empirical Expressions for
Local Heat Transfer Coefficient), Trans. JSME, vol. 60, pp. 245– 252, 1994 (in Japanese).
18. O. G. Valladares, Review of In-Tube Condensation Heat Transfer Correlations for Smooth and
Micro-Fin Tubes, Heat Transf. Eng., vol. 24, pp. 6 –24, 2003.
19. R. L. Webb, Convective Condensation of Superheated Vapor, Trans. ASME, vol. 120,
pp. 418– 421, 1998.
 CONDENSATION OF R134A IN A VERTICAL SMOOTH TUBE 445

20. P. W. Li, M. Chen, and W. Q. Tao, Theoretical Analysis and Experimental Investigation on
Local Heat Transfer Characteristics of HFC-134a Forced-Convection Condensation Inside
Smooth Horizontal Tubes, Heat Transf. Eng., vol. 21, pp. 34 –43, 2000.
21. W. W. Akers, H. A. Deans, and O. K. Crosser, Condensing Heat Transfer Within Horizontal
Tubes, Chem. Eng. Progr. Symp. Ser., vol. 55, pp. 171– 176, 1959.
22. D. P. Traviss, W. M. Rohsenow, and A. B. Baron, Forced-Convection Condensation Inside
Tubes: A Heat Transfer Equation for Condenser Design, ASHRAE Trans., vol. 79, pp. 31– 39,
1973.
23. S. L. Chen, F. M. Gerner, and C. L. Tien, General Film Condensation Correlations, Exp. Heat
Transf., vol. 1, pp. 93 – 107, 1987.
24. T. N. Tandon, H. K. Varma, and C. P. Gupta, Heat Transfer During Forced Convection
Condensation Inside Horizontal Tube, Int. J. Refrigerat., vol. 18, pp. 210– 214, 1995.
25. H. Jaster and P. G. Kosky, Condensation Heat Transfer in a Mixed Flow Regime, Int. J. Heat
Mass Transf., vol. 19, pp. 95 – 99, 1976.
26. T. Fujii, Enhancement to Condensing Heat Transfer—New Developments, J. Enhanced Heat
Downloaded by [Mersin Universitesi] at 01:25 12 January 2016

Transf., vol. 2, pp. 127– 137, 1995.

27. H. F. Rosson and J. A. Meyers, Point Values of Condensing Film Coefficients Inside a
Horizontal Tube, Chem. Eng. Progr. Symp. Ser., vol. 61, pp. 190– 199, 1965.
28. A. Cavallini and R. Zecchin, A Dimensionless Correlation for Heat Transfer in Forced
Convection Condensation, 6th Int. Heat Transfer Conf., vol. 3, pp. 309– 313, 1974.
29. A. Cavallini, D. Del Col, L. Doretti, M. Matkovic, L. Rossetto, C. Zilio, and G. Censi,
Condensation in Horizontal Smooth Tubes: A New Heat Transfer Model for Heat Exchanger
Design, Heat Transf. Eng., vol. 27, pp. 31 –38, 2006.