Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 13

International Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 935–947www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrefrig Prediction of two-phase pressure gradients of refrigerants in horizontal tubes M.B. Ould

International Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 935–947 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrefrig Prediction of two-phase

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrefrig

Prediction of two-phase 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), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland

Received 19 March 2001; received in revised form 17 September 2001; accepted 26 October 2001

Abstract

Two-phase pressure drop data were obtained for evaporation in two horizontal test sections of 10.92 and 12.00 mm diameter for five refrigerants (R-134a, R-123, R-402A, R-404A and R-502) 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 two-phase frictional pressure drop prediction methods. Overall, the method by Mu¨ller-Steinhagen and Heck (Mu¨ller-Steinhagen H, Heck K. A simple friction pressure drop correlation for two-phase flow in pipes. Chem. Eng. Process 1986;20:297–308) and that by Gro¨nnerud (Gro¨nnerud R. Investigation of liquid hold-up, flow-resistance and heat transfer in circulation type eva- porators, part IV: two-phase flow resistance in boiling refrigerants. Annexe 1972-1, 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 two-phase pipe flow. European Two-phase Flow Group Meeting, paper E2; June 1979; Ispra, Italy) gave the third best results. The data were also classified by two-phase flow pattern using the Kattan-Thome-Favrat (Kattan N, Thome JR, Favrat D. Flow boiling in horizontal tubes. Part 1: development of a diabatic two-phase 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¨ller-Steinhagen and Heck. For intermittent flow and stratified-wavy flow, the best method in both cases was that of Gro¨nnerud. It was observed that the peak in the two-phase 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; Two-phase 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

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 Fr

g

G

H

L

:

m total

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 ) two-phase multiplier for liquid only two-phase multiplier for vapor only two-phase multiplier of Martinelli relative to liquid two-phase multiplier of Martinelli relative to vapor

two-phase multiplier of Gro¨nnerud dynamic viscosity (N s m 2 ) surface tension (N m 1 )

Lo

Go

Ltt

Gtt

gd

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 total total pressure drop (Pa)

p

static

mom

frict

G

static head pressure drop (Pa)

Subscripts

p

two-phase momentum pressure drop (Pa)

p

two-phase frictional pressure drop (Pa)

p p L

vapor-phase pressure drop (Pa) liquid-phase pressure drop (Pa)

T sat saturation

X tt 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

two-phase

1. Introduction

Prediction of two-phase pressure drops in direct- expansion evaporators, condensers and two-phase refrigerant transfer lines is important for accurate design and optimization of refrigeration, air-condition- ing and heat pump systems. Taking, for example, direct- expansion evaporators, the optimal use of the two-phase pressure drop to obtain the maximum flow boiling heat transfer performance is one of the primary design goals. In these evaporators, typically a two-phase 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 two-phase pressure drop only one-half 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 two-phase 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 two-phase flows: Lockhart and

Martinelli [2], Friedel [3], Gro¨nnerud [4], Chisholm [5],

Bankoff [6], Chawla [7] and Mu¨ller-Steinhagen 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¨ller-Steinhagen [11] found that the

method proposed by Mu¨ller-Steinhagen and Heck [8]

provided the best accuracy. The two-phase pressure drop test data of Kattan cover five refrigerants: two pure fluids (R-134a and R-123), one azeotropic mixture (R-502) and two zeotropic mixtures (R-402A and R-404A) 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. Two-phase pressure drops

p L ¼ 4f L ðL=d i Þm : total ð1 Þ 2 ð1=2 L Þ

2

937

ð5Þ

The two-phase pressure drops for flows inside tubes are the sum of three contributions: the static pressure drop p static , the momentum pressure drop p mom and the frictional pressure drop p frict 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 static = 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 total 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 0:25

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 two-phase 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

ð6Þ

ð7Þ

using the liquid dynamic viscosity L . His two-phase multiplier is correlated as:

2

Lo

¼ E þ

3:24FH

Fr

0:045 We 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 0:78 ð1 Þ 0:224

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 two-phase pressure drop correlations

Friedel’s method is typically that recommended when the ratio of ( L / G ) is less than 1000.

The two-phase 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 two-phase frictional pres- sure drop based on a two-phase multiplier for the liquid-phase or vapor-phase, respectively, as:

This method [3] is for vapor qualities from 0 4 < 1 and utilizes a two-phase multiplier as:

p frict ¼ p L 2 Lo

ð4Þ

p frict ¼ 2 Ltt p L

p frict ¼ 2 Gtt p G

ð15Þ

ð16Þ

where p L is calculated for the liquid-phase 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 : total 2 ð1=2 G Þ

2

ð17Þ

The single-phase 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 Gtt ¼ 1 þ CX tt þ X tt 2 ; for Re L < 4000

ð18Þ

ð19Þ

where X tt 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

gd 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 two-phase 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 two-phase frictional pressure drop gradient is given as

dp

dz

frict

¼

dp

dz

Lo

2

Lo

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 Re

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 Go ðdp=dzÞ

Lo

ð30Þ

If the liquid Froude number Fr L is greater than or equal to 1, then the friction factor f Fr is set to 1.0; if Fr L is less than 1, then:

f Fr ¼ Fr 0:3

L

where

þ 0:0055 ln

1

Fr L

2

ð24Þ

His two-phase multiplier is then determined as:

2

Lo

¼ 1 þ ðY 2 1Þ

B ð2 nÞ=2 ð1 xÞ 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

55

:

m

1=2

total

for m

:

total 5

1900 kg=m 2 s

B

¼ 2400

:

m

total

for 500 < m total < 1900 kg=m 2 s

:

B ¼ 4:8 for m total 4 500 kg=m 2 s

:

If 9.5 < Y< 28, then

B ¼

520

Ym :

1=2

total

for m total 4 600 kg=m 2 s

:

B

¼ 21

Y for m total > 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¨ller-Steinhagen and Heck [8] correlation

This two-phase 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) Lo and all the flow vapor (dp/ dz) Go , obtained respectively from Eqs. (27) and (28). This model is essentially an empirical two-phase extrapolation between all liquid flow and all vapor flow and as such is applicable for 0 4 4 1. Recently, Tribbe and Mu¨ller-Steinhagen [11] have shown that this method gave the best results from a comparison of competing methods against a database covering air-oil, air-water, water-steam and several refrigerants.

4. Experimental test sections and measurement methods

New experimental data for two-phase 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 (R-134a, R-123, R-402A, R-404A and R-502) over mass velocities from 100 to 500 kg/m 2 s and vapor qualities from 0.04 to 1.0. R-134a is a new refrigerant that has replaced R-12 and in part R-22. R-123 is a new refrigerant that has replaced R-11. R-402A and R-404A are new refrigerant mixtures that are near-azeotropes that are replacing R-502. The test data were obtained for evaporating conditions inside horizontal, copper tube test sections of 3.013 m length that were heated by counter-current 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 two-phase 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 two-phase 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 R-134a data in the 10.92 mm tube at a mass velocity of 300 kg/m 2 s at T sat =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 stratified-wavy 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

by the predicted values for each method. As can be seen, the Fig. 1. R-134a data

Fig. 1. R-134a data for lower 10.92 mm tube at 300 kg/m 2 s and T sat =4 C.

Fig. 1. R-134a data for upper 10.92 mm tube at 300 kg/m 2 s and T sat =4 C.

mm tube at 300 kg/m 2 s and T s a t =4 C. Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. R-134a data for upper 10.92 mm tube at 300 kg/m 2 s and T sat =4 C.

experimental values range from as low as 50% and as high as 250% of the predicted ones. Fig. 2 depicts similar R-134a 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 R-134a test data for the 12.0 mm tube obtained at 300 kg/m 2 s and T sat =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 stratified-wavy flow into intermittent flow in this range. Fig. 4 presents R-134a test data for the 12.0 mm tube obtained at 300 kg/m 2 s and T sat =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 R-134a test data for the 12.0 mm tube obtained at the lowest mass velocity tested, namely 100 kg/m 2 s, at T sat =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

Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 935–947 941 Fig. 3. Low vapor quality data for R-134a in

Fig. 3. Low vapor quality data for R-134a in 12 mm tube at 300 kg/m 2 s and T sat =2 C.

in 12 mm tube at 300 kg/m 2 s and T sat =2 C. Fig. 4.

Fig.

4. R-134a data in

12 mm

tube at 300 kg/m 2

s

and

pattern is predicted to be stratified-wavy over the entire range. Inevitably, there is more scatter in these data at lower mass velocity as the pressure gradients are quite small. For R-134a, limited sets of data were also obtained at mass velocities of 200, 400 and 500 kg/m 2 s.

at mass velocities of 200, 400 and 500 kg/m 2 s. Fig. T s a t

Fig.

T sat =10 C.

5. R-134a data

in

12

mm tube at

100

kg/m 2

s

and

=10 C. 5. R-134a data in 12 mm tube at 100 kg/m 2 s and Fig.

Fig. 6. R-123 data in the 12 mm tube at 300 kg/m 2 T sat =30 C.

s and

Fig. 6 shows the R-123 data in the 12 mm tube at a mass velocity of 300 kg/m 2 s at T sat =30 C. These test data for the lower test section cover only a narrow range of vapor quality. The Gro¨nnerud [4] and Mu¨ller-Stein-

942

M.B. Ould Didi et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 935–947

/ International Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 935–947 Fig. 7. R-402A data in the 12 mm

Fig. 7. R-402A data in the 12 mm tube at 318 kg/m 2 s and T sat =2.4 C.

Fig. 7. R-402A data in the 12 mm tube at 318 kg/m 2 s and T sat =2.4 C.

12 mm tube at 318 kg/m 2 s and T s a t =2.4 C. Fig.

Fig. 8. R-404A data in the 12 mm tube at 318 kg/m 2 s and T sat =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 R-402A data in the 12 mm tube at

318 kg/m 2 s at T sat =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 R-404A data in the 12 mm tube at

318 kg/m 2 s at T sat =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 R-502 data in the 12 mm tube at

300 kg/m 2 s at T sat =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¨ller-Steinhagen 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.

a satisfac- tory description of the data in these graphs. Fig. 9. R-502 data in the

Fig. 9. R-502 data in the 12 mm tube at 300 kg/m 2 T sat =2.5 C.

Fig.

T sat =2.5 C.

s and

9.

R-502 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

Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 935–947 943 Fig. 10. Two-phase flow pattern map of Kattan et

Fig. 10. Two-phase flow pattern map of Kattan et al. [15–17] for R-134a 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 two-phase 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 R-134a for which numerous heat trans- fer data were taken. The ranking of the methods are shown in the right-most 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¨ller-Steinhagen 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 right-most 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¨ller-Steinhagen 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 sat ( C) (%) Mass flux (kg/m 2 s) P sat (bar) P crit (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

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¨ller-Steinhagen 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 two-phase 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 Stratified-Wavy 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 two-phase frictional pressure drops for annular flows, intermittent flows and stratified-wavy 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 stratified-wavy 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¨ller-Steinhagen 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. Stratified-wavy flow. The best method is a tie between that of Gro¨nnerud [4] with rankings of 1/1/4 and that of Mu¨ller-Steinhagen 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¨ller-Steinhagen 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 stratified-wavy 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. Stratified-wavy 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¨ller-Steinha- 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 two-phase 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¨ller-Steinhagen 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 stratified-wavy 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 two-phase 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¨ller-Steinhagen 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¨ller-Steinhagen 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¨ller-Steinhagen 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 two-phase flow pattern, the method of Mu¨ller-Steinhagen and Heck [8] was best for annular flows while the method of Gro¨nnerud [4] gave the best predictions for both intermittent and stratified-wavy 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 two-phase 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 two-phase two-component flow in pipes. Chem Eng Progr 1949;45:39–45.

[3] Friedel L. Improved friction pressure drop correlations for horizontal and vertical two-phase pipe flow. European Two-Phase Flow Group Meeting, Paper E2; 1979 June; Ispra, Italy. [4] Gro¨nnerud R. Investigation of liquid hold-up, flow-resis- tance and heat transfer in circulation type evaporators, part IV: two-phase flow resistance in boiling refrigerants. Annexe 1972-1, Bull. de l’Inst. du Froid, 1979. [5] Chisholm D. Pressure gradients due to friction during the flow of evaporating two-phase mixtures in smooth tubes and channels. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 1973;16:

347–58.

[6] Bankoff SG. A variable density single-fluid model for two- phase flow with particular reference to steam-water 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. VDI-Forschungsh 1967;523 Lg1–Lg2. [8] Mu¨ller-Steinhagen H, Heck K. A simple friction pressure drop correlation for two-phase flow in pipes. Chem Eng Process 1986;20:297–308. [9] Whalley PB. Two-phase 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¨ller-Steinhagen H. An evaluation of the performance of phenomenological models for predicting pressure gradient during gas-liquid 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, VDI-Wa¨rmeatlas (VDI Heat Atlas), Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, VDI-Gesellschaft 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 two-phase 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.