International Journal of Refrigeration 88 (2018) 58–66

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Refrigeration

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

Experimental investigation on heat transfer characteristics of

two-phase propane flow condensation in shell side of helically baffled
shell-and-tube condenser
Guocheng Yang a, Haitao Hu a, Guoliang Ding a,∗, Jie Chen b, Wengang Yang b, Suyang Hu b,
Xiaodong Pang a
a
Institute of Refrigeration and Cryogenics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
b
R&D Center, CNOOC Gas & Power Group, Beijing 100007, China

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

Article history: For designing helically baffled shell-and-tube heat exchangers (HBHXs) used liquefied natural gas (LNG)
Received 27 June 2017 process, the condensation heat transfer mechanism in the shell side of HBHXs should be known. In the
Revised 11 December 2017
present study, the condensation heat transfer characteristics and flow patterns of propane spirally flowing
Accepted 26 December 2017
in shell side of horizontal HBHXs were experimentally investigated. Experimental conditions cover mass
Available online 28 December 2017
flux of 20–40 kg (m2 s)−1 , heat flux of 3.0–7.0 kW m−2 , and vapor quality from 0.1 to superheated. The
Keywords: results show that, the heat transfer coefficient decreases with the increase of heat flux, and it initially
Helical baffle increases and then decreases with the increase of vapor quality. As the vapor quality increases, the strat-
Condensation ified flow, stratified-spray flow and spray flow were observed in sequence. A correlation was developed
Heat transfer to predict the heat transfer coefficient, and it can agree with 86% of experimental data within a deviation
Propane of ±10%.
Two-phase
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.
Flow pattern

Étude expérimentale sur les caractéristiques du transfert de chaleur de la

condensation du propane en écoulement diphasique du côté calandre d’un
condenseur à tubes et calandre à chicane hélicoïdale

Mots-clés: Chicane hélicoïdale; Condensation; Transfert de chaleur; Propane; Diphasique; Configurations d’écoulement

1. Introduction cycle of propane precooling mixed refrigerant (C3MR) LNG plant

Shell-and-tube heat exchangers (STHXs) have been wildly used
in natural gas liquefaction (LNG) plants due to the advantages of
reliability and maintainability (Bell, 2004; Master et al., 2006). Baf-
fles (e.g. helical baffle and segmental baffle) are usually installed
to enhance the turbulent flow in the shell side of STHXs (Stehlík
and Wadekar, 2002). The helically baffled shell-and-tube heat ex-
changer (HBHX) shows better comprehensive performance and less
fluid-induced vibration than the segmentally baffled one (Lutcha
and Nemcansky, 1990; Salahuddin et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2010),
and is widely used as the condensers in the propane precooling
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: glding@sjtu.edu.cn (G. Ding).
(Alabdulkarema et al., 2011; Mortazavi et al., 2012; Paradowski et
al., 2004). In the HBHX of the propane precooling cycle, the shell
side propane is condensed by the tube side cooling water (Thomas
and Burlingame, 2010). During the flow and condensation process
of propane in shell side of HBHXs, the refrigerant flows spirally
(Chen et al., 2013; Wen et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2015), and the flow
pattern varies with the decrease of vapor quality, leading to com-
plex heat transfer characteristics. In order to design and optimize
HBHX condensers, the heat transfer characteristics of two-phase
propane flow condensation in the shell side of HBHXs should be
known.
The existing researches about the heat transfer characteristics
of two-phase flow condensation in shell side of HBHXs only cov-
ered steam (Chen et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2016)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2017.12.014
0140-7007/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.
 G. Yang et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 88 (2018) 58–66 59

The existing researches about the two-phase propane flow con-

Nomenclature densation in shell side of HBHX only covered tube bundle with-
out considering the helical baffle structure (Al-Badri et al., 2013;
A heat transfer surface area (m2 ) Gebauer et al., 2013; Jung et al., 2004; Park and Jung, 2005), and
Cp specific heat at constant pressure (J (kg·K)−1 ) these experimental results are only used to verify the existing cor-
d diameter (m) relations (Gebauer et al., 2013; Jung et al., 2004). The research
g gravitational acceleration (m s−2 ) results of heat transfer characteristics show that, the heat trans-
G mass flux (kg (m2 ·s)−1 ) fer coefficient decreases with the increase of subcooling degree of
h specific enthalpy (J kg−1 ) tube wall (Al-Badri et al., 2013; Gebauer et al., 2013; Jung et al.,
ifg latent heat of condensation (J kg−1 ) 2004), and it decreases with the increase of heat flux on tube wall
L tube length (m) (Gebauer et al., 2013); the propane presents about 9–59.6% lower
m mass flow rate (kg s−1 ) heat transfer coefficient than refrigerant R22 (Jung et al., 2004;
V volume flow rate of water (m3 s−1 ) Park and Jung, 2005); the high performance tubes have a larger
n thermocouple number bundle effect than the standard finned tubes (Gebauer et al., 2013).
N total number The verification results of correlations show that, the deviations of
P pressure (MPa) the classic Nusselt correlation are within ±10% (Jung et al., 2004)
q heat flux (W m−2 ) and −40% to +1% (Gebauer et al., 2013), respectively. However, the
T temperature (°C) flow in shell side of HBHX has various inclined directions at differ-
x vapor quality ent locations (Chen et al., 2013; Wen et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2015),
Pr Prandtl number and the heat transfer mechanism is much different from those for
Ref film Reynolds number propane downward flow condensation outside tube, thus the exist-
ing correlations for flow condensation on tube bundle may not be
Greek symbols
directly used to predict heat transfer of propane condensation in
α heat transfer coefficient (W (m2 ·K)−1 )
HBHX shell side.
β helical baffle angle (°)
The existing correlations for flow condensation on tube bun-
λ thermal conductivity (W (m·K)−1 )
dle can be classified into two categories, i.e. laminar type model
μ dynamic viscosity (Pa·s)
(Nusselt, 1916; Vera-García et al., 2010) and laminar-turbulent type
ρ density (kg m−3 )
model (Belghazi et al., 2001; Gstoehl and Thome, 2006; Honda
 film linear mass flow rate (kg (m·s)−1 )
et al., 1989). The laminar type model was derived from conden-
δ uncertainty
sation formula on vertical plate by Nusselt (Nusselt, 1916; Vera-
Subscripts García et al., 2010), and it has a limited applicability range for low
L liquid film Reynolds numbers (Gstoehl and Thome, 2006); the laminar-
G gas turbulent type model was proposed for high film Reynolds num-
s shell bers by adding a turbulence term to the laminar type flow model
t tube (Belghazi et al., 2001; Kutateladze and Gogonin, 1979). These ex-
thermo thermocouple isting correlations have geometry factor for the enhanced tubes
r refrigerant (propane) (Vera-García et al., 2010), but the geometry factor is not applica-
in inlet ble for the HBHX with smooth tubes. For the two-phase flow con-
out outlet densation in HBHX shell side, the vapor quality varies at different
tw tube wall locations in shell side, which cannot be reflected by the existing
i inside surface correlations (Belghazi et al., 2001; Cavallini et al., 2003; Gstoehl
o outside surface and Thome, 2006). Therefore, a new correlation of two-phase flow
cw cooling water condensation in HBHX shell side should be developed.
cal calculated value The purpose of the present study is to obtain the heat transfer
exp experimental value characteristics of propane flow condensation in HBHX shell side,
pre pre-condenser to investigate the influence of working conditions, to compare the
experimental data with the existing correlations, and to develop a
correlation for propane flow condensation in shell side of HBHX.

and R407C (Zhang et al., 2012). For the steam flow condensation in
shell side of HBHXs, the average heat transfer coefficient is larger
by 50–150% than that in the segmentally baffled condensers due
to the even flow and the small dead zones (Lin et al., 2016; Wu et
al., 2016); the heat transfer coefficients increase with the increase
of refrigerant mass flux (Lin et al., 2016) or the decrease of cooling
water flow rate (Chen et al., 2017). For R407C flow condensation in
HBHX, the heat transfer coefficients increase with the increase of
heat flux (Zhang et al., 2012), and the petal-shaped finned HBHX
provides better heat transfer performance by 56% than the low
finned HBHX (Zhang et al., 2012). However, for the propane flow
condensation in the shell side of HBHX, the flow pattern transition
criterions and heat transfer characteristics are much different from
those of non-hydrocarbons due to the large difference of thermo-
physical properties (Miyara, 2008). Therefore, the existing results
of steam and R407C flow condensation may not be extended to
propane flow condensation in shell side of HBHX.
2. Experimental rig and test section
2.1. Experimental rig
The experimental rig for investigating the heat transfer charac-
teristics of propane flow condensation in shell side of HBHX should
meet the requirements for regulating the experimental conditions,
including the mass flow rate, vapor quality and heat flux of the
propane flow in shell side. Based on the above requirements, the
experimental rig was built, consisting of a refrigerant loop and a
cooling water loop, as shown in Fig. 1.
The refrigerant loop is composed of a diaphragm compressor,
a pre-condenser, a test section, a post-condenser, two expansion
valves and an evaporator. The gaseous refrigerant is compressed to
high pressure gas by the compressor, and is cooled and condensed
to two-phase refrigerant in the pre-condenser. The two-phase re-
frigerant enters the test section, and is further condensed by the
60 G. Yang et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 88 (2018) 58–66
Fig. 1. Experimental rig.
tube side cooling water of the test section. After leaving the test
section, the two-phase refrigerant goes into the post-condenser,
and is fully condensed and subcooled. The subcooled refrigerant
passes through the pneumatic control valve, and enters the elec-
tric heating water bath vaporizer, where it is fully evaporated and
superheated; then the superheated vapor returns to the suction in-
let of compressor. The main components in the refrigerant loop are
well insulated with rubber foam, and the heat losses from the pre-
condenser and the test section are estimated to be within ±3%.
The cooling water loop consists of a chiller, a water tank and
three water branches, and it is used to provide the cooling water
for the pre-condenser, the test section and the post-condenser. In
each of the three water branches, it contains an independent wa-
ter pump, an electromagnetic flowmeter and a pneumatic control
valve. The chiller with the water tank can maintain the water tem-
perature at a certain constant value within 5–20 °C.
During the experimental process, the condensation pressure
and the mass flow rate of refrigerant are adjusted by the valves in-
stalled in the main and bypass refrigerant branches, and the mass
flow rate is measured by a high precision Coriolis-effect flowme-
ter (±0.25% FS). The pressure is very important factor for the heat
exchanger (Vera-García et al., 2007); during the experimental pro-
cess, the pressure of the test section inlet is measured by a pres-
sure transducer (±0.15% FS), and the pressure drop from the test
section inlet to outlet is measured by a pressure difference trans-
mitter (±0.09% FS). The heat transfer rate in the test section is ad-
justed by the valve in the cooling water branch. The vapor quality
of the propane at the inlet of test section is adjusted by the heat
transfer rate of the pre-condenser, and it is calculated based on the
pressure, the mass flow rate and the enthalpy of refrigerant at the
inlet of test section by NIST-REFPROP Version. 8.0 (Lemmon et al.,
2007).
All signals of experimental parameters are collected by a data
acquisition system and transmitted to a computer after the system
reaches a steady state.
2.2. Test section and conditions
Fig. 2 shows the integral structure of test section. The objec-
tive of the present study is to investigate the influence of oper-
ation conditions on the shell side of HBHX, and so one heat ex-
changer with the same geometry as the most commonly used ones
in real applications. For visualizing the propane flow patterns, an
observation window with high borosilicate sight glass is embed-
 G. Yang et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 88 (2018) 58–66 61

Fig. 2. Integral structure of test section.

Fig. 3. Internal structure of test section.

ded on the shell side of test section. The observation results are Table 1
Test conditions.
recorded in the computer as a flow pattern video, which will be
used to conveniently analyze the flow pattern transition. All the Mass flux, G (kg (m2 s)–1 ) Heat flux, q (W m–2 ) Vapor quality, x
components of the test section are made of 304 stainless steel. The 20 30 0 0, 40 0 0, 50 0 0,60 0 0 0. 1–superheated
test section is insulated with rubber foam and the heat loss is less 30 30 0 0, 40 0 0, 50 0 0, 60 0 0, 70 0 0 0. 1–superheated
than 3%. 40 30 0 0, 40 0 0, 50 0 0, 60 0 0, 70 0 0 0. 1–superheated
Fig. 3 shows the internal structure of test section. Fig. 3(a)
schematically gives the main internal structure parameters, includ-
ing tube outside diameter of 14 mm, helical baffle angle of 40° 3. Data reduction and uncertainty
(β = 40°), baffle overlap proportion of 50% and baffle distance of
117.5 mm. T-type thermocouples are installed in the thermocou- 3.1. Data reduction
ple wells at two sides of tubes to measure the temperatures of
tube walls. During the installation process of thermocouples, the The shell side heat transfer coefficient α s was calculated based
thermal conductive silicone is used to reduce the contact ther- on the measured temperatures by thermocouples installed in ther-
mal resistance. There are totally 16 thermocouples installed in 8 mocouple wells of the tube wall, and the wall temperature was
tubes, and the average temperature obtained by the 16 thermo- affected by the cooling water side condition, as shown in Eqs. (1)–
couples will be used to calculate the heat transfer coefficient of (3). Therefore, the heat transfer coefficient was consistent with the
shell side. Fig. 3(b) shows the photo of internal structure of test cooling water side condition, and its accuracy can be guaranteed.
section.
q
In order to quantitatively analyze the heat transfer characteris- αs = (1)
tics of propane in shell side of HBHX, the experimental data un- (Tr − Ttw,o )
der various experimental conditions according to the practical op-
eration conditions should be obtained. For the practical HBHX, the qdtw,o ln(dtw,o /dtw,i )
Ttw,o = Ttw,i − (2)
saturation pressure of propane is close to 1.0 MPa (Alabdulkarema 2 · λtw
et al., 2011; Mortazavi et al., 2012; Paradowski et al., 2004), and
thus the experimental pressure is determined as 1.0 MPa. The 1 
Nthermo
Ttw,i = Ttw,i,n (3)
experimental conditions were determined corresponding to the Nthermo
n=1
practical operation conditions, including the heat flux of 3.0–
7.0 kW m−2 , the mass flux of 20–40 kg (m2 s)−1 and the vapor where, q is the average heat flux for the test section, W m−2 ; Ts
quality from 0.1 to superheated, as shown in Table 1. is the temperature of the shell-side propane, °C; Tt w,o is the av-
erage temperature of outside surface of the tubes, °C; Ttw,i is the
62 G. Yang et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 88 (2018) 58–66

Table 2
Uncertainties of instruments and heat transfer coefficient.

Parameters Instrument Rang Max. uncertainty

Refrigerant mass flow rate Coriolis-effect flowmeter 0–1800 kg h–1 ±0.25% FS

Water volume flow rate Electromagnetic flow meter 0–20 0 0 L h–1 ± 0.1% FS
Refrigerant pressure Pressure transducer 0–5 MPa ± 0.15% FS
Refrigerant temperature Platinum resistance thermometer 0–180 °C ± 0.1 °C
Water temperature T-type thermocouple –20 0–20 0 °C ± 0.1 °C
Mass flux Calculated 20–40 kg (m2 s)–1 ± 1.4%
Heat flux Calculated 3–7 kW m–2 ± 7.69%
Heat transfer coefficient ± 11.72%

average temperature of inside surface of the tubes, °C; λtw is the

conductivity of the tube wall, W (m K)−1 ; Nthermo is the number
of thermocouples; Tt w,i,n is the temperature of tube inside surface
obtained by number n thermocouple, °C.
The average heat flux q is calculated by the following equations:

Cp,cwVcw ρcw (Tcw,out − Tcw,in )

q= (4)
Atw,o

Atw,o = π dtw,o Nt L (5)

where, Cp,cw is the specific heat at constant pressure of cooling wa-

ter, J (kg K)−1 ; Vcw is the cooling water volume flow rate of the test
section, m3 s−1 ; ρ cw is the density of cooling water, kg m−3 ; Tcw,in
and Tcw,out are the inlet and outlet temperatures of the cooling wa-
ter in the test section, respectively,°C; Atw,o is the total area of out
surface of tubes, m2 ; dtw,o is the outside diameter of the tube, m;
Nt is the total number of tubes.
The vapor quality of propane in the test section was calculated
based on the average enthalpy and the shell side pressure by NIST-
REFPROP software, as shown in Eq. (6). The average enthalpy and
the inlet enthalpy of the test section were respectively calculated
by the inlet enthalpy and the heating capacity in the test section
and the pre-condenser, as shown in Eqs. (7) and (8).

x = Nist(hr ,Pr ) (6)

Cp,cwVcw ρcw (Tcw,out − Tcw,in )

hr = hr,in − (7)
2mr

Cp,cwVcw,pre ρcw (Tcw,pre,out − Tcw,pre,in )

hr,in = hr,pre,in − (8)
mr
where, x is the vapor quality of propane in test section; hr is the
average vapor enthalpy of test section, kJ kg−1 ; Pr is the pressure
Fig. 4. Images of flow patterns in the shell side of the test section.
of propane in test section, MPa; hr,in is the inlet vapor enthalpy of
test section, kJ kg−1 ; mr is the refrigerant mass flow rate, kg s−1 ; The uncertainty of heat transfer coefficient is given by
hr,pre,in is the inlet vapor enthalpy of pre-condenser, kJ kg−1 ; Vcw,pre  2  2 1/2
is the cooling water volume flow rate of pre-condenser, m3 s−1 ; δαs δq δ(Tr −Ttw,o )
= +
Tcw,pre,in is the inlet cooling water temperature of pre-condenser; αs q (Tr − Ttw,o )
Tcw,pre,out is the outlet cooling water temperature of pre-condenser.
 2  2 1/2
δq δ(Tr −Ttw,i ) δq
3.2. Uncertainties = + + ≈ 11.72% (10)
q (Tr − Ttw,i ) q
Uncertainties of instruments and heat transfer coefficient are
shown in Table 2. The uncertainties of heat flux and heat transfer 4. Experimental results and analysis
coefficient are determined by Moffat’s method of sequential dis-
turbances (Moffat, 1988). The maximum uncertainty of heat flux is 4.1. Flow pattern observation
about 7.69%, and the maximum uncertainty of heat transfer coeffi-
cient is around 11.72%. The flow patterns observed by the camera through the obser-
The uncertainty of heat flux is given by vation window on the test section are shown in Fig. 4. During the
flow pattern observation, the water inlet and water outlet of test
 2  2 1/2
δ(Tcw,out −Tcw,in ) section are shut down, and there is no heat transfer between the
δq δVcw
= + ≈ 7.69% (9) shell side propane and the tube side cooling water to avoid the
q Vcw (Tcw,out − Tcw,in )
 G. Yang et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 88 (2018) 58–66
Fig. 5. The flow pattern map of propane in shell side of test section.
heat flux effect. The spray flow, stratified-spray flow and strati-
fied flow were observed in sequence as the vapor quality increases
from 0.2 to 0.9 at mass flux of 30 and 40 kg (m2 s)−1 , and only
the stratified-spray flow and the stratified flow existed at mass
flux of 20 kg (m2 s)−1 . Besides the quality effect, the increment of
mass flux also promotes the flow pattern transition from stratified
flow to stratified-spray flow, and from stratified-spray flow to spray
flow.
At the stratified flow shown in Fig. 4(a), the liquid and the va-
por separate significantly in the shell side due to the small shear
and entrainment effects of gas under low vapor quality conditions.
The increase of vapor quality causes a lower gas–liquid interface,
which leads to more tubes exposed out of the stratified liquid. At
stratified-spray flow shown in Fig. 4(b), the vapor entrains liquid
droplets above the stratified liquid in the shell because the shear
effect of vapor flow increases; more liquid droplets are entrained
by vapor with the increase of mass flux. At the spray flow shown
in Fig. 4(c), the liquid droplets are entrained by vapor in shell side,
and no stratified liquid exists.
The observed flow patterns are plotted in a flow pattern map,
as shown in Fig. 5. The flow pattern transition from stratified flow
to stratified-spray flow is distinguished by the occurrence of liq-
uid droplets carried by the spiral flow, and the transition from
stratified-spray flow to spray flow is distinguished by the disap-
pearance of the stratified liquid. The flow pattern transition has
influence on the heat transfer, because the stratified liquid reduces
and the entrained droplets increase during the flow pattern tran-
sition. The flow pattern map shows that, the flow pattern transi-
tion is mainly influenced by the vapor quality and mass flux. The
stratified flow transforms to stratified-spray flow at around vapor
quality of 0.7 for mass flux of 20 kg (m2 s)−1 . The increasing va-
por quality and mass flux promotes the transition from stratified
flow to stratified-spray flow, and the transition vapor qualities are
0.45 and 0.7 for mass flux of 30 and 40 kg (m2 s)−1 , respectively.
The increasing vapor quality and mass flux also promote the flow
pattern transition from stratified-spray flow to spray flow, and the
transition vapor qualities are about 0.85 and 0.7 for mass flux of
30 and 40 kg (m2 s)−1 , respectively. The reason for the flow pat-
tern transitions is the increase of superficial gas velocity (Grant
and Chisholm, 1979). The superficial gas velocity increases with
the increasing vapor quality and mass flux, promoting the flow
pattern transition from stratified flow to stratified-spray flow, and
from stratified-spray flow to spray flow.
63
Fig. 6. Verification results of experimental data with predicted results by Nusselt
correlation (Nusselt, 1916).
4.2. Experiment results of condensation heat transfer coefficient
The experimental verification has been performed by the pri-
mary condensation heat transfer experiment of saturated R22 on
single horizontal smooth tube, as shown in Fig. 6. The deviations
between the obtained experimental data and the prediction values
of Nusselt correlation (Nusselt, 1916) are within ±5%, which means
that the experimental rig is reliable. The pressure drop from the
test section inlet to outlet is measured within 1 kPa, so the influ-
ence of pressure on physical properties can be neglected.
The heat transfer coefficients of propane flow condensation in
shell side of HBHX are shown in Fig. 7. Both the vapor quality
and the heat flux have large influence on heat transfer coefficient,
but the influence of mass flux on heat transfer coefficient is much
smaller than that of vapor quality and heat flux under the experi-
mental conditions.
As the vapor quality increases, the heat transfer coefficient
initially increases and then decreases, presenting a peak of heat
transfer coefficient at the vapor quality of 0.8–0.9. From vapor
quality of 0.1 to vapor quality of 0.8–0.9, the heat transfer coef-
ficient increases within 54.2–79.3%, 32.5–49.4% and 52.8–62% for
mass flux of 20, 30 and 40 kg (m2 s)−1 , respectively. And from va-
por quality of 0.8–0.9 to superheated, the heat transfer coefficient
decreases within −88.7% to −83.3%, −89.6% to −82.9%, −86.7% to
−81.1% for mass flux of 20, 30 and 40 kg (m2 s)−1 , respectively.
This phenomenon can be explained as follows.
When the vapor quality is below 0.8–0.9, the increase of heat
transfer coefficient attributes to the reduction of stratified liquid
and the enhancement of droplet entrainment. When the vapor
quality is above 0.8–0.9, the decrease of heat transfer coefficient
results from the replacement of condensation heat transfer by con-
vection in the shell side.
As the heat flux increases, the heat transfer coefficient
monotonously decreases under vapor quality below 0.8–0.9, and
it is almost constant at superheated conditions. From heat flux of
3.0 kW (m2 s)−1 to heat flux of 6.0 kW, under vapor quality be-
low 0.8–0.9, the heat transfer coefficient decreases within −24.6%
to −16.2%, −20% to −6.7% and −14.2% to −7.2% for mass flux of
20, 30 and 40 kg (m2 s)−1 , respectively. This phenomenon can be
explained as follows.
The decreasing trend of heat transfer coefficient with the in-
crease of heat flux under vapor quality below 0.8–0.9 is caused
by the thickening of liquid film, which increases thermal resis-
tance and deteriorates heat transfer performance. At the super-
heated conditions, the heat transfer process in the shell side is in
64 G. Yang et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 88 (2018) 58–66

Fig. 7. Heat transfer coefficients of propane flow condensation in test section as a function of vapor quality at three mass fluxes.

the form of convection, and the heat transfer coefficient is deter-

mined by the mass flux. Then the measured heat transfer coeffi-
cient keeps constant at the same mass flux condition.
The experimental data obtained in the present study were com-
pared with those for saturated propane condensation on single
tube obtained by Gebauer et al. (2013), as shown in Fig. 8. The heat
transfer coefficients of propane flow condensation in HBHX shell
side are much smaller than those results of saturated vapor con-
densation. The possible reason for these differences is that, for the
two-phase flow, the stratified liquid prevents vapor condensation
on the immersed tubes, and the entrained liquid droplets increase
the thickness of liquid film on tubes, which deteriorates the heat
transfer performance. Fig. 8 also illustrate that, as the vapor quality
increases, the deviation of the heat transfer coefficients between
two-phase propane in HBHX shell side and saturated propane on
single tube decreases. The possible reason is that, with the increas-
ing vapor quality, the stratified liquid amount in shell side of HBHX
decreases, resulting in smaller deviation of heat transfer coefficient
Fig. 8. Comparison of the experimental data of two-phase propane with those ex-
shown in Fig. 8.
isting data of saturated propane.

5. Heat transfer coefficient correlation for propane flow
condensation in shell side of HBHX
5.1. Predictability verification of existing correlations for propane
condensation in HBHX shell side
The existing heat transfer correlations for flow condensation on
tube bundle are listed in Table 3. The comparison between the ex-
perimental data and the predicted results of these existing correla-
tions is shown in Fig. 9. The predicting deviations of Nusselt (1916),
Vera-García et al. (2010), Honda et al. (1989), Belghazi et al. (2001)
and Gstoehl and Thome (2006) are within +20% to +120%, ±20% to
±120%, 0% to +80%, +20% to +120% and 0% to +80%, respectively.
The large positive deviations are resulted from the vapor qual-
ity effect in present study. At vapor quality of 0.1 and 0.2, the de-
viations of Nusselt (1916), Vera-García et al. (2010), Honda et al.
(1989), Belghazi et al. (2001), and Gstoehl and Thome (2006) are
within +77% to +120%, ±77% to ±120%, +53% to 80%, 53% to +80%
and +89% to +120%, respectively. At vapor quality of 0.8–0.9, the
deviations of Nusselt (1916), Vera-García et al. (2010), Honda et al.
(1989), Belghazi et al. (2001) and Gstoehl and Thome (2006) are
within +13% to +38%, ±13% to ±38%, +0% to +17%, 0% to +17%
 G. Yang et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 88 (2018) 58–66 65

Table 3
Existing heat transfer correlations for flow condensation on tube bundle.

Author Correlation

α = 0.728[ ρLμ(ρL dL −(TρsatG −T

)gifg λL 1/4
3
Nusselt (1916) tw )
]
α [ μ2L .3 4 4
Honda et al. (1989) λL ρL (ρL −ρG )g ] 1/3
= [(1.2Re−0 f
) + (0.072Re0f .2 ) ]1/4
α μ 2 4 4
Belghazi et al. (2001) λL [ ρL (ρL −ρG )g ]
L 1/3
= [(1.2Re−0 f
.3
) + (0.062Re0f .2 ) ]1/4
α [ μ2L −0.3 4 1/3 4 1/4
Gstoehl and Thome (2006) λL ρL (ρL −ρG )g ]
1/3
= [(1.2Ref ) + (0.04Ref PrL ) ] 0.2

Vera-García et al. (2010) α = 0.725[ ρLμ(LρdL(−TsatρG )gifg λ3L 1/4

−Ttw )
]

Fig. 9. Comparison of predicted value of existing correlations with experimental data of propane flow condensation in HBHX shell side.

and +22% to +45%, respectively. The deviations of the existing cor- where,  is the liquid film linear mass flow rate on tubes, kg
relations at low vapor quality are much larger than those at high (m s)−1 ; λL is the thermal conductivity of liquid-phase propane,
vapor quality. W (m K)−1 ; ifg is the latent heat of propane condensation, J kg−1 ;
μL is the dynamic viscosity of liquid-phase propane, kg (m s) −1 ;
5.2. Development of heat transfer correlation of propane flow a and b are the coefficients.
condensation in HBHX shell side The key for developing the correlation is to obtain the value of
coefficient a and coefficient b in Eq. (11). The development of cor-
Since the existing correlations cannot predict the heat transfer relation is based on the experimental data obtained in the present
coefficient of two-phase propane flow condensation in HBHX shell study, covering the mass flux of 20–40 kg (m2 s)−1 , heat flux of
side, a new correlation will be developed in the present study. 3.0 to 7.0 kW m−2 and the vapor quality of 0.1 to 0.9. By using the
The new heat transfer correlation is based on the Belghazi et al. nonlinear programming solution, the fitting constants of a and b
(2001) correlation by taking the vapor quality effect into account are obtained as 1.11 and 0.068, respectively.
to calculate the liquid film Reynolds Number Ref . The new correla- Through Eqs. (11) and (12), the heat transfer coefficient of
tion is expressed as follows: propane flow condensation in shell side of HBHXs can be pre-
 1 / 3 dicted. The comparison between the prediction values and the ex-
αs μ2L
= [(a · Ref −0.3 )4 + (b · Ref 0.2 )4 ]1/4 (11) perimental data is shown in Fig. 10. The new correlation agrees
λL ρL (ρL − ρG )g with 86% of experimental data with a deviation of ±10%.
4 4π dt q
Ref = = (12)
x μL xμL ifg
66 G. Yang et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 88 (2018) 58–66
Fig. 10. Comparison of predicted heat transfer coefficients with experimental data.
6. Conclusion
In the present study, the heat transfer characteristics of propane
flow condensation in shell side of HBHX were investigated experi-
mentally. The experimental conditions cover the mass flux of 20–
40 kg (m2 s)−1 , heat flux of 3.0–7.0 kW m−2 and vapor quality from
0.1 to superheated. The following conclusions are obtained:
(1) As the vapor quality or the mass flux increases, the flow pattern
of the stratified flow, the stratified-spray flow and the spray
flow occur in sequence.
(2) As the heat flux increases, the heat transfer coefficient of HBHX
shell side decreases. From heat flux of 3.0 kW (m2 s)−1 to heat
flux of 6.0 kW, the heat transfer coefficient respectively de-
creases within −24.6% to −16.2%, −20% to −6.7% and −14.2% to
−7.2% for mass flux of 20, 30 and 40 kg (m2 s)−1 under vapor
quality below 0.8–0.9.
(3) With the increase of vapor quality, the heat transfer coefficient
initially increases and then decreases, presenting a maximum
at a vapor quality of 0.8–0.9. From vapor quality of 0.1 to vapor
quality of 0.8–0.9, the heat transfer coefficient increases within
54.2–79.3%, 32.5–49.4% and 52.8–62% for mass flux of 20, 30
and 40 kg (m2 s)−1 , respectively.
(4) A new heat transfer correlation for propane flow condensation
in HBHX shell side is developed based on laminar-turbulent
model by reflecting vapor quality effect, and can agree with 86%
of experimental data within a deviation of ±10%.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the supports from National
Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no. 51674165 and
Grant no. 51504149), the Program of Shanghai Academic Research
Leader (No. 16XD1401500), and Foundation for Innovative Research
Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.
51521004).
References
Alabdulkarema, A., Mortazavi, A., Hwang, Y., 2011. Optimization of propane pre–
cooled mixed refrigerant LNG plant.. Appl. Therm. Eng. 31 (6–7), 1091–1098.
Al-Badri, A.R., Gebauer, T., Leipertz, A., Fröba, A.P., 2013. Element by element predic-
tion model of condensation heat transfer on a horizontal integral finned tube..
Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 62 (1), 463–472.
Belghazi, M., Bontemps, A., Signe, J.C., Marvillet, C., 2001. Condensation heat transfer
of a pure fluid and binary mixture outside a bundle of smooth horizontal tubes.
Comparison of experimental results and a classical model. Int. J. Refrig. 24 (8),
841–855.
Bell, K.J., 2004. Heat exchanger design for the process industries. J. Heat Transf. 126
(6), 877–885.
Cavallini, A., Censi, G., Del Col, D., Doretti, L., Longo, G.A., Rossetto, L., Zilio, C., 2003.
Condensation inside and outside smooth and enhanced tubes – a review of re-
cent research. Int. J. Refrig. 26 (4), 373–392.
Chen, Y.P., Yang, S.F., Wu, J.F., Zhou, J.H., 2017. Impact of helical baffle structure on
heat transfer performance of vertical condensers. Appl. Therm. Eng. 115, 9–16.
Chen, Y.P., Sheng, Y.J., Dong, C., Wu, J.F., 2013. Numerical simulation on flow field
in circumferential overlap trisection helical baffle heat exchanger. Appl. Therm.
Eng. 50 (1), 1035–1043.
Gebauer, T., Al-Badri, A.R., Gotterbarm, A., Hajal, J.El, Leipertz, A., Fröba, A.P., 2013.
Condensation heat transfer on single horizontal smooth and finned tubes and
tube bundles for R134a and propane. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 56 (56), 516–
524.
Grant, I.D.R., Chisholm, D., 1979. Two-phase flow on the shell-side of a segmentally
baffled shell-and-tube heat exchanger. J. Heat Transf. 101, 38–42.
Gstoehl, D., Thome, J.R., 2006. Film condensation of R-134a on tube arrays with
plain and enhanced surfaces: Part II—empirical prediction of inundation effects.
J. Heat Transf. 294 (8), 615–617.
Honda, H., Fujii, T., Uchima, B., Nozu, S., Nakata, H., 1989. Condensation of down-
ward flowing R-113 vapor on bundles of horizontal smooth tubes. Heat Transf.
Jpn. Res. 18 (6), 31–52.
Jung, D., Chae, S., Bae, D., Oho, S., 2004. Condensation heat transfer coefficients of
flammable refrigerants. Int. J. Refrig. 27 (3), 314–317.
Kutateladze, S.S., Gogonin, I.I., 1979. Heat transfer in film condensation of slowly
moving vapour. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 22 (12), 1593–1599.
Lemmon, E.W., Huber, M.L., McLinden, M.O., 2007. NIST Standard Reference
Database 23: Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport Properties–
REFPROP, Version 8.0. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithers-
burg, MD.
Lin, L., Chen, Y., Wu, J., Guo, Y., Dong, C., 2016. Performance of flow and heat transfer
in vertical helical baffle condensers. Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 72, 64–70.
Lutcha, J., Nemcansky, J., 1990. Performance improvement of tubular heat exchang-
ers by helical baffles. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 68 (3), 263–270.
Master, B.I., Chunangad, K.S., Boxma, A.J., Kral, D., Stehlík, P., 2006. Most frequently
used heat exchangers from pioneering research to worldwide applications. Heat
Transf. Eng. 27 (6), 4–11.
Miyara, A., 2008. Condensation of hydrocarbons – A review. Int. J. Refrig. 31 (4),
621–632.
Moffat, R.J., 1988. Describing the uncertainties in experimental results. Exp. Therm.
Fluid Sci. 1 (1), 3–17.
Mortazavi, A., Somers, C., Hwang, Y., Radermacher, R., Rodgers, P., Al-Hashimi, S.,
2012. Performance enhancement of propane pre-cooled mixed refrigerant LNG
plant. Appl. Energ. 93, 125–131.
Nusselt, W., 1916. Die Oberflachenkondensationdes Wasserdamfes. Z. Ver. deut. lng
4, 569–575.
Paradowski, H., Bamba, M.O., Bladanet, C., 2004. Propane precooling cycles for in-
creased LNG train capacity. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference
Exhibition on LNG, pp. 107–124.
Park, K.J., Jung, D., 2005. Condensation heat transfer coefficients of flammable re-
frigerants on various enhanced tubes. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 28 (10), 451–455.
Salahuddin, U., Bilal, M., Ejaz, H., 2015. A review of the advancements made in he-
lical baffles used in shell and tube heat exchangers. Int. Commun. Heat Mass
Transf. 67, 104–108.
Stehlík, P., Wadekar, V.V, 2002. Different Strategies to improve industrial heat ex-
change. Heat Transf. Eng. 23 (6), 36–48.
Thomas, C., Burlingame, I.R., 2010. Direct seawater cooling in LNG liquefaction
plants. In: Proceedings of the LNG–16 Conference on London International Trade
Events Gr. P1c 1–13.
Vera-García, F., García-Cascales, J.R., Corberán-Salvador, J.M., Gonzálvez-Maciá, J.,
Fuentes-Díaz, D., 2007. Assessment of condensation heat transfer correlations
in the modelling of fin and tube heat exchangers. Int. J. Refrig. 30, 1018–1028.
Vera-García, F., García-Cascales, J.R., Gonzálvez-Maciá, J., Cabello, R., Llopis, R.,
Sanchez, D., Torrella, E., 2010. A simplified model for shell-and-tubes heat ex-
changers: practical application. Appl. Therm. Eng. 30, 1231–1241.
Wang, Q., Chen, G., Chen, Q., Zeng, M., 2010. Review of improvements on shell-and–
tube heat exchangers with helical baffles. Heat Transf. Eng. 31 (10), 836–853.
Wen, J., Yang, H., Wang, S., Gu, X., 2017. PIV experimental investigation on shell-side
flow patterns of shell and tube heat exchanger with different helical baffles. Int.
J. Heat Mass Transf. 104, 247–259.
Wu, J., Zhou, J., Chen, Y., Wang, M., Dong, C., Guo, Y., 2016. Experimental investi-
gation on enhanced heat transfer of vertical condensers with trisection helical
baffles. Energ. Convers. Manag. 109, 51–62.
Yang, J.F., Zeng, M., Wang, Q.W., 2015. Numerical investigation on combined single
shell-pass shell-and-tube heat exchanger with two-layer continuous helical baf-
fles. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 84, 103–113.
Zhang, Z., Li, Q., Xu, T., Fang, X., Gao, X., 2012. Condensation heat transfer character-
istics of zeotropic refrigerant mixture R407C on single, three-row petal-shaped
finned tubes and helically baffled condenser. Appl. Therm. Eng. 39 (1), 63–69.