Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
HT2005-72025
HT2005-72025
Evaluation of General Correlations for Heat Transfer During
Boiling of Saturated Liquids in Tubes and Annuli
M. Mohammed Shah
Engineering Research & Consultation
8I Talcott Forest Road
Farmington, CT 06032
mmshahpe@hotmail.com
860-869-1328
ABSTRACT
Six of the most verified correlations for boiling heat transfer
were compared to data for horizontal and vertical tubes and
annuli. The correlations evaluated were: Chen (1966), Shah
(1982), Gungor and Winterton (1986), Liu & Winterton (1991),
Kandlikar (1990), and Steiner and Taborek (1992). The
database used to evaluate these correlations included 29 fluids:
water, refrigerants, cryogens, organic and inorganic chemicals.
The data cover reduced pressures from 0.005 to 0.783, mass
flux from 28 to 11071 kg/m2s, vapor quality from 0 to 0.95,
and boiling number from 0.000026 to 0.00742. The correlations
of Shah and Gungor & Winterton gave the best agreement with
data with a mean deviation of about 17.5%, only a couple of
data sets showing large deviations. The paper presents and
discusses the results of this study. Included are tables giving the
range of dimensional and non-dimensional parameters covered
by each experimental study.
Keywords: boiling, heat transfer, evaporation, tubes,
correlations
.
INTRODUCTION
Hundreds of correlations have been proposed for the
calculation of heat transfer during boiling of saturated liquids
inside tubes and annuli. Most of them have been compared to
only a limited amount of data. However, some of them have
been shown to agree with a wide range of data with many fluids
and are therefore considered as general correlations. It is
desirable to know their comparative accuracy and limitations so
that the most reliable ones may be used for practical
calculations. This paper reports the results of such a study in
which six of the best known general correlations were
compared to a very wide range of data for 29 fluids. Included
are tables giving the range of dimensional and non-dimensional
parameters covered by each experimental study.
NOMENCLATURE
Bo
D
Dhp
( g / L ) 0.5
Co
Convection number, = (1 / x 1)
Fchen
FST
FrL
G
G
hfg
hLO
hLT
hmeas
hpb
hpred
hTP
k
Pr
pr
q
S
0.8
Froude number, = G / L gD
Total mass flux (liquid plus vapor)
Acceleration due to gravity
Latent heat of vaporization
Heat transfer coefficient assuming liquid phase
flowing alone
Heat transfer coefficient assuming all mass flowing
as liquid
Measured heat transfer coefficient
Pool boiling heat transfer coefficient
Predicted heat transfer coefficient
Two-phase heat transfer coefficient
Thermal conductivity of liquid
Prandtl number of liquid
Reduced pressure
Heat flux
Nucleate boiling suppression factor in Chen
correlation
2
Greek
Viscosity of liquid
Density of liquid
L
Density
of vapor
g
AVAILABLE CORRELATIONS
(1)
The reason for using the Cooper pool boiling correlation with
the Chen correlation is that the Cooper correlation has been
verified with an extremely wide range of data while the pool
boiling correlation originally used by Chen has had very little
verification. It was felt that this change will improve the
accuracy of the Chen correlation. Henceforth, the Chen
correlation with this change is called the Chen-Cooper
correlation. Note that the Cooper correlation has been used
without the factor 1.7 for copper tubes which Cooper stated to
be a possibility and assuming tube roughness to be 1 m.
The Gungor & Winterton correlation [3] was not tested as Liu
& Winterton (4) has been tested and they showed that their
correlation gave better agreement with data.
All of the above correlations require the calculation of singlephase liquid heat transfer coefficient. For use with the Steiner
and Taborek correlation, the formula of Pethukov and Krillov
[10] was used in accordance with their recommendation. For all
other tested correlations, liquid convective heat transfer was
calculated by the McAdams equation [12]:
(2)
3 1/ 3
(3)
CORRELATIONS TESTED
The following correlations were tested:
Chen [1] with pool boiling component calculated by the
Cooper correlation [9]; Steiner and Taborek [6]; Shah [8];
Kandlikar [2]; Liu and Winterton [4]; Gungor & Winterton [5].
hLT D
GD
= 0.023
k
0.8
Pr 0.4
(4)
(h pred hmeas )
hmeas
avg
(5)
avg = ( ) / N
(6)
mean = Abs.( ) / N
(7)
sources [19, 21, 22] agree well with this correlation. The
Steiner & Schlunder data are also much higher than the
Gungor-Winterton and Liu-Winterton correlations. Hence
these data are apparently unique.
The Liu-Winterton correlations performance is erratic.
While it agrees well with many data sets, it shows large
deviations with many data sets, for example the data of Muller
for Argon [23]. cyclohexane data of Talty [13], data of Piret
and Isbin [24] for water, CCl4, n-butanol, and iso-propanol.
The Steiner and Taborek correlation did not perform well in
predicting horizontal tube data. Indeed these authors have
recommended it only for vertical channels. Even with vertical
channels, it shows large deviations with some data sets.
The Chen-Cooper correlation works fairly well with both
horizontal and vertical tubes but its accuracy is significantly
less than the correlations of Shah and Gungor-Winterton.
The Kandlikar correlation could be compared with data for
only those fluids for which he gave the nucleate boiling
multiplying factors. Even among those fluids, it performed
poorly with data for R-22, nitrogen, and neon. If the data for
these three fluids are deleted, the mean deviation of Kandlikar
correlation becomes 16.8% instead of 32.2% if data for these
three fluids are included. The apparent reason is that the
nucleate boiling multiplying factors for these fluids were
determined by Kandlikar from abnormally high data. Those
data might have been high because of the surfaces of those test
sections having unusually favorable microstructure as discussed
later in this paper. The effect of Kandlikars multipyling factor
is highest at zero vapor quality; hence the +436% deviation
with the nitrogen data of Pappel and Hendricks which is at zero
vapor quality, the multiplying factor for nitrogen being 4.7 (it is
1 for water).
Tube Material
The data analyzed include many types of tube materials
including copper, stainless steel, monel, brass, and nickelcoated glass. All the test sections were made from commercial
grade tubes except the nickel-coated glass used by Gouse and
Coumou [32]. There is no indication that the accuracy of the
correlations is affected by the type of material.
Tube Surface Characteristics
It is generally accepted that the intensity of nucleate boiling
depends on the shape snd population densities of cavities in the
surface. This has been demonstrated by pool boiling tests on
surfaces with artificially made cavities. Information on cavity
size and cavity population density is not available for any of the
test data evaluated here. The fact that almost all data sets are in
reasonable agreement with the correlations of Shah and Gungor
& Winterton (which do not have any factor for surface
microstructure) indicates that the variations in microstructures
of commercial tubes are normally small. It may be noted that
the most successful general pool boiling correlations (Cooper
[9], Stephan and Abdeksalam [62]) do not have any factor for
surface microstructure. It is possible that some commercial
tubes may have a microstructure very favorable to nucleate
boiling. This may be the explanation for the data of Steiner &
Schlunder and Mohr and Runge being much higher than
predictions of almost all tested correlations.
It should be noted that the designer of heat exchanger has no
way of knowing the microstructure of the tubes that will be
used in fabrication. It is therefore fortunate that heat transfer
REFERENCES
[1] Chen, J. C., 1966, A Correlation for Boiling Heat Transfer
to Saturated Fluids in Convective Flow,. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Process Design and Development, 5, pp. 322-329
[2] Kandlikar, S. G.,1990, A General Correlation for Saturated
Two-Phase Flow Boiling Heat Transfer Inside Horizontal and
Vertical Tubes, ASME J. Heat Transfer, 112, pp. 219-228
[3] Gungor, K. E. and Winterton, R. H. S., 1986,A General
Correlation for Fow Boiling in Tubes and Annuli, Int. J. Heat
Mass Transfer, 29, pp. 351-358.
[4] Liu, Z. and Winterton, R. H. S. 1991, A General
Correlation for Saturated and Subcooled Flow Boiling in Tubes
and Annuli Based on a Nucleate Pool Boiling Equation, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transfer , 34, pp. 2759-2766
[5] Gungor. K. E. and Winterton, R. H. S., 1987, Simplified
General Correlation for Saturated Flow Boiling and
Comparisons of Correlations with Data, Chem. Eng. Res Des.,
65, pp. 148-156.
[6] Steiner, D. and Taborek, J., 1992, Flow Boiling Heat
Transfer in Vertical Tubes Correlated by an Asymptotic
Model, Heat Transfer Engineering 13: 43-68
[60] Yoon, S. H., Cho, E. S., Hwang, Y. W., Kim, M. S., Min,
K, and Kim, Y,. 2004, Charecteristics of Evaporative heat
Transfer and Pressure Drop of Carbon Dioxide and Correlation
Development, International J. Refrigeration, 27, pp. 111-119
[61] Knudsen, H. J. H and Jensen, P. H., 1997, Heat Transfer
Coefficients for Boiling Carbon Dioxide, In Workshop
Proceedings Carbon Dioxide Technology in Refrigeration,
Heat Pump and Air Conditioning Systems. Trondheim,
Norway, pp. 319-328
[62] Stephan, K. and Abdelsalam, M., 1980, Heat Transfer
Correlations for Natural Convection Boiling,Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer, 23, pp. 73-87
[63] Kandlikar, S. G., 1991, Development of Flow Boiling
Map for Subcooled and Saturated Flow Boiling of Saturated
Fluids in Circular Tubes, ASME. J. Heat Transfer, 113, pp.
190-200
[64] Jallouk, P.A., 1974., Two-Phase Flow Pressure Drop and
Heat Transfer Characteristics of Refrigerants in Vertical
Tubes, PhD Dissertation, Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville,
USA. Quoted in Kandlikar [63]
Jung et al.
[37, 38]
Johnston &
Chaddock,
[36] *
Muzzio et
al. [47]*
Pierre [49]*
Uchida et al.
[54]
Chaddock &
Noerager,
[28]*
Ebisu, &
Torikoshi
[31]
Mathur [45]
Haynes &
Fletcher [34]
Wattalet et
al. [55]
9.0
12.0
18.0
8.9
Copper
(Electr.)
Copper
(Liquid)
Copper
(Liquid)
Copper
(Electr.)
Copper
(Electr.)
9.5
11.6
Copper
(Liquid)
SS
(Electr.)
SS
(Elect.)
6.4
11.7
6.4
7.0
1.95
Copper
(Elect.)
Copper
(Electr.)
0.080
0.081
0.08
R-114
R-152a
0.049
0.071
0.117
0.097
0.16
0.0134
0.0581
0.11
0.1098
R-22
R-22
R-22
R-22
R-22
R-22
R-12
0.097
0.086
R-134a
R-12
0.088
R-12
R-11
0.014
0.0624
0.0135
0.0089
0.0198
0.0987
R-11
Water
pr
25.0
6.0
Chawla [29]
SS
(Electr.)
Copper
(Electr.)
Fluid
0.0135
11.8
Mumm [45]
Material
(Heating
By)
14.0
Dia.
mm
Data of
2
90
400
52
178
132
225
362
516
362
516
367
146
877
15
571
300
345
518
122
585
25
130
22
74
150
420
50
300
300
345
1382
40
252
Kg/m
s
5.2
24.0
3.5
11.7
12.8
21.5
17.0
44.0
10.0
36.4
17.0
36.2
7.7
40.5
1.7
21.5
7.5
2.0
20.0
50
300
14.4
27.9
3.5
35.2
1.2
23.3
1.8
11.6
53.0
157
788
2.3
69.9
q
2
kW/m
10.0
70.0
12.0
70.0
5.0
68.0
0.55
0.45
0.45
3.0
80.0
9.7
38.5
20.0
80.0
10.0
90.0
10
90
0.00
17.0
10.0
92.0
5.0
90.0
0.00
95.0
26.1
54.5
0.00
52.0
10.0
90.0
x, %
Table 1: Results of comparison of data for horizontal tubes with various correlations..
4.4
4.8
2.2
4.1
1.5
4.1
1.5
4.0
2.9
3.0
3.1
2.5
6.8
3.2
13.3
1.2
0.51
24.3
1.3
28.0
7.75
21.7
1.1
6.7
0.85
5.1
1.9
5.7
0.99
7.94
0.53
11.0
2.0
26.7
Bo
4
10
0.06
0.66
0.05
0.56
0.06
0.44
0.08
0.13
0.16
0.03
2.7
0.09
0.28
0.04
0.41
0.058
1.14
0.009
0.103
0.082
0.232
0.87
1.8
0.69
1.4
2.1
0.14
5.8
0.0016
0.0147
0.88
0.002
0.045
8E-4
0.099
0.63
4.93
0.019
0.62
0.022
0.80
0.25
2.5
0.071
1.63
1.1
20.0
0.025
0.46
Fr
19
20
12
22
69
19
40
52
50
52
29
57
184
No.
of
data
26.7
-26.7
8.2
-1.3
5.1
5.1
13.4
-12.7
7.8
3.4
9.7
-9.7
17.1
-8.7
13.8
-1.7
20.2
-20.2
11.7
8.2
18.8
15.8
27.0
-23.1
12.9
-12.3
16.3
-8.5
21.8
-21.5
16.4
-13.6
11.4
-5.6
14.8
-14.8
Shah
1982
17.8
-10.4
11.6
0.3
6.9
6.9
14.5
-8.9
14.7
10.4
13.0
-3.6
18.4
-2.8
21.4
-20.4
22.5
-22.5
14.6
-4.7
12.5
1.2
13.2
-5.2
15.5
-12.8
13.3
-12.0
20.8
-19.9
13.0
-5.5
10.9
-0.2
19.9
-15.1
G-W
Deviation, %
0.01
0.28
0.01
0.34
0.46
1000
0.01
0.72
0.02
1.2
0.01
1000
0.16
0.36
0.04
1000
0.02
0.28
Co
17.6
-10.4
22.3
-2.9
8.0
8.0
13.7
-10.5
14.4
13.7
60.2
60.2
18.4
3.4
50.1
-50.1
17.5
-17.5
19.0
-3.4
17.3
-0.9
35.3
-35.3
16.2
-10.4
13.5
-7.2
15.6
-11.7
15.6
2.3
13.2
-6.1
28.3
-28.3
9.1
9.1
41.7
41.7
41.8
41.8
37.0
33.0
12.5
10.7
9.3
-7.0
48.0
43.5
86.3
86.3
20.6
-3.9
15.7
=10.4
12.8
-2.4
12.0
10.9
17.9
13.2
19.2
10.6
11.8
-2.7
NA
13.3
-10.1
13.9
-7.6
Mean
Average
L-W
Kandlikar
10.9
-7.4
34.2
34.2
30.0
30.0
12.3
-2.7
29.9
29.9
35.9
35.9
22.7
1.3
18.5
-15.4
12.2
4.1
58.7
51.4
105.4
103.6
73.8
-73.8
20.2
2.4
25.1
14.5
18.3
-19.2
11.6
-7.9
31.8
-31.1
36.1
-34.1
S- T
19.6
-16.5
2.3
1.9
1.8
-0.8
25.3
-18.3
5.6
-4.8
10.4
-9.7
16.9
-10.4
25.9
25.3
16.5
-16.5
30.0
24.7
54.8
54.8
25.1
-25.1
8.5
-3.7
12.7
-3.4
18.3
-18.1
21.7
-17.1
32.2
-30.9
21.2
-20.7
ChenCooper
Copper
(liquid)
SS
(liquid)
Copper
(elect.)
Copper
(electr.)
Copper
(electr.)
Copper
(elect.)
Copper
(Elect.)
12.0
12.0
12.0
Hambreaus
[33]
Chaddock &
Buzzard
[27]
Kattan et al ,
[39]
Zurcher et al
[58]
Steiner &
Schlunder
[20]
Klein [21]
0.20
0.109
0.158
0.065
R-32
R-134a
Propane
IsoButane
R-113
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
NH3
R-502
R-502
0.0873
0.186
0.461
0.044
0.15
0.0085
0.059
0.049
0.0546
R-123
R-134a
0.061
R-114
0.031
0.035
0.145
0.117
pr
R-22
R-113
Fluid
100
300
10
140
44
460
45
358
100
300
137
300
424
742
424
583
424
583
424
583
424
583
517
699
248
Kg/m
s
8.0
10.0
8.0
71.6
0.5
34.6
3.8
23.7
10.0
30.0
6.0
30.0
12.9
22.1
30.0
30.0
30.0
18
30
30.0
18.4
q
2
kW/m
3.0
54.0
0.03
0.90
5.0
75.0
20.0
80.0
20.0
92.0
30.0
90.0
20
70
3.0
75.0
10
79
5.0
50.0
10.0
79.0
10.0
68.0
1.0
68.0
2.2
36.6
x, %
2.1
6.2
0.76
6.5
1.0
9.2
4.2
5.2
2.1
18.5
2.1
4.1
0.69
3.64
1.7
2.4
2.7
3.7
1.44
1.98
1.5
2.1
1.3
2.9
5.8
Bo
4
10
0.14
2.61
0.01
1.36
0.05
2.2
0.08
0.66
0.01
0.28
0.02
0.17
0.04
0.36
0.06
2.24
0.05
0.91
0.18
1.9
0.05
0.6
0.09
0.98
0.06
4.1
2.2
36.6
Co
0.049
0.442
0.0024
0.473
0.031
3.3
0.008
0.567
0.05
0.45
0.09
0.39
1.54
4.74
2.3
4.4
1.52
2.9
9.1
17.1
7.4
14.0
1.05
1.91
0.362
Fr
1086
33
18
15
21
42
106
15
26
21
26
10
13
12
16
12
35
No.
of
data
29.3
-19.7
48.4
-48.4
17.6
2.0
23.4
-0.3
17.5
-6.4
19.0
-17.1
21.9
1.7
58.6
-58.6
13.0
-13.0
13.0
-12.3
18.9
11.5
12.3
5.4
19.9
-19.5
8.5
-4.7
9.6
-9.4
8.5
1.2
5.9
3.8
16.8
16.8
8.4
7.6
Shah
1982
33.8
-17.5
40.4
-40.4
18.5
11.5
38.4
24.5
18.9
-4.9
15.5
-7.0
23.4
-4.7
52.2
-52.2
9.1
-9.1
14.0
-11.2
17.3
1.3
15.2
6.1
13.5
-11.4
13.4
4.9
9.0
3.0
14.3
7.3
16.3
14.2
20.2
18.4
18.8
18.8
G-W
Deviation, %
154
1.0
10
0.26
0.02 0.35
209
50.0
90
17.4
0.74 0.61
Mohr &
4.0
Neon
0.0564 78
1.0
13.0
6.0
0.05 0.11
Runge[18]
125
20.0
70.0
34.7
0.49 00.28
Wright &
6.3
Para H2
0.0175 412
10.0
2.6
0.42
1.88 587
Walters[57]
1180 99.7
5.2
2.5
4.15 4822
Muller et al. 14.0
Argon
0.036
120
1.8
0.1
0.36
0.05 0.064
[23]
0.413
460
97.0
0.9
74.2
1.79 1.35
All data
1.95
0.0134 10
1.0
0.0
0.26
0.01 0.0008
25.0
0.413
1382 788
95.0
74.2
1000 4822
* Reported heat transfer coefficients are mean for the tube length. All other data are local heat transfer coefficients
14.0
14.0
7.7
Copper
(elect.)
Copper
(electr.)
10.3
Murata &
Hashizume
[46]
Glass, Ni
-coated
(electr.)
Copper
10.9
SS
(Electr.)
7.7
Gouse &
Coumo [32]
(Electr.)
8.7
Reid et al.
[50]
Shin et al.
[52]
Material
(Heating
By)
Dia.
mm
Data of
29.2
--16.1
63.4
-63.4
27.0
-27.0
116.2
114.9
26.0
-4.9
26.5
-9.8
25.5
-9.7
44.4
-42.1
14.1
-14.1
11.1
-4.1
20.6
14.2
16.3
4.7
14.5
-9.9
12.7
9.0
13.6
10.6
14.2
9.9
26.9
26.9
33.2
33.2
41.4
41.4
27.8
+6.6
NA
120.2
106.1
52.4
43.6
NA
51.4
45.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.2
-9.2
NA
23.6
23.6
NA
NA
NA
9.9
-8.8
51.5
50.9
NA
Mean
Average
L-W
Kandlikar
23.0
6.4
56.8
-56.8
13.2
-4.3
169.7
164.7
36.8
+9.8
32.7
-22.2
29.8
17.9
26.0
-6.8
18.6
-13.4
16.1
-1.4
40.3
40.2
29.4
28.5
25.7
-24.1
23.4
17.9
22.7
1.2
28.4
20.3
32.6
32.5
46.5
43.5
24.6
21.4
S- T
29.0
-29.0
60.0
-60.0
45.7
-46.7
38.0
28.5
23.7
-7.5
8.7
-7.0
27.5
13.5
46.6
-44.9
27.7
-27.7
17.1
-17.1
12.3
2.3
9.7
3.3
18.4
-18.4
6.5
-6.2
8.3
-8.3
7.3
-7.1
1.9
0.8
3.7
3.2
9.2
-9.2
ChenCooper
18.2
Wright [56]
Robertson &
Wadekar
[51]
Staub &
Zuber [53]
Lazarek &
Black [42]
Johannes
[35]
Keilin [40]
Morozov [44]
Adorni et al
[25]
Dengler &
Addoms [30]
Piret & Isbin
[24]*
16.5
Naitoh [48]
Copper
(Electr.)
SS
(Electr.)
Monel
(Electr.)
Copper
(Electr.)
SS
(Electr.)
10.0
1.1
2.0
2.1
3.15
SS
(Electr.)
Copper
(Electr.)
SS
(Electr.)
Copper
(Steam)
Copper
(Electr.)
SS
(Liquid)
SS
(Electr.)
Material
(Heating
by)
13.8
d
10.0
8.5
c
3.2
a
3.2
b
27.1
25.4
12.0
Dia.
mm
Data of
0.011
0.32
Isopropyl
Alcohol
Water
Helium
Helium
Helium
R-113
0.57
0.68
0.477
0.477
0.121
0.0244
Ethanol
R-22
0.228
water
0.32
28
96
87
130
153
896
502
6085
11071
145
290
1010
2954
0.0204
n-butanol
0.32
681
779
980
3000
980
3800
0.022
CCl4
394
822
347
943
555
706
434
796
666
2437
721
1250
G
2
Kg/m s
0.0046
0.0053
0.0078
0.0068
0.014
0.011
0.783
pr
Water
Water
Water
Water
Fluid
0.5
1.5
0.1
3.0
0.2
1.4
261
375
25.5
104.
6
12.1
70.7
64.0
137
812
10.8
85.7
420
1250
91
688
100
523
99
154
118
274
95
448
19.4
165
5.9
55.3
16.9
70.0
q
kW/
2
m
4.0
21.0
4.0
60.0
3.2
25.0
1.3
39.4
2.0
40.0
0.0
20.0
3.0
56.0
21.0
70.1
0.26
1.6
14.0
69.6
7.4
70.1
0.0
60.0
1.0
11.8
1.4
10.0
1.7
13.5
0.19
0.45
0.64
2.4
0.4
1.5
x, %
3.95
3.98
16.1
25.2
2.0
5.8
1.3
40.3
0.9
8.1
0.24
0.26
2.1
7.0
0.9
2.34
0.29
1.8
0.66
5.9
0.65
4.5
0.96
5.02
0.56
1.5
0.52
1.07
0.6
2.83
0.22
0.84
0.29
0.99
0.51
1.73
Bo x
4
10
Table 2: Results of comparison of data for vertical tubes and annuli with various correlations
0.41
1.12
0.06
1.14
0.92
5.86
0.49
11.0
0.53
8.62
0.55
1000
0.05
0.90
0.11
0.63
1.02
4.43
0.18
1.68
0.11
1.68
0.34
1000
0.15
1.0
0.18
6.4
0.15
0.98
1.27
3.4
1.17
3.43
1.62
4.6
Co
40.0
-40.0
10.4
5.4
27.2
19.2
28.5
9.5
11.2
-5.5
20.9
4.4
21.3
-21.3
46.8
-46.8
6.5
-6.5
22.2
-14.7
18.1
-11.2
8.8
-8.8
10.1
1.4
21.5
19.8
11.5
8.8
9.7
9.7
9.1
-8.5
7.8
-7.8
Shah
33.8
-33.8
32.5
32.5
35.6
31.6
41.1
41.1
12.3
9.1
28.6
25.5
17.7
-17.7
42.3
-42.3
7.8
7.8
15.0
-4.2
14.9
5.9
8.0
-0.2
11.4
-8.6
24.0
21.9
21.3
21.3
40.9
40.9
13.5
13.5
3.7
-1.5
G-W
Deviation, %
14
15
10
51
38
39
37
71
No. of
data
points
34.8
-34.8
23.1
-23.1
35.1
-35.1
24.8
-24.8
15.1
-14.1
16.7
9.6
23.3
23.3
41.7
-40.6
90.7
90.7
15.4
-5.5
19.5
-0.2
110.8
110.8
14.5
11.2
37.1
36.8
34.7
34.7
88.3
88.3
80.8
80.8
47.9
47.9
NA
NA
33.5
33.4
38.2
37.6
NA
30.5
-17.5
NA
50.3
-50.3
24.5
-15.2
19.5
-13.8
NA
NA
15.9
-15.2
8.7
-6.6
15.1
12.3
13.1
9.9
10.2
10.2
NA
Mean
Average
L-W
Kandlikar
57.5
-57.7
54.5
-54.5
25.9
-25.9
19.5
-13.5
14.7
11.3
58.5
32.0
20.6
-19.6
38.9
-38.9
10.3
8.0
29.3
-22.2
22.7
-0.5
28.8
-28.8
25.0
23.0
43.9
42.8
40.1
40.1
53.4
53.4
26.9
26.9
13.0
-12.2
S- T
45.2
-45.2
24.4
-24.4
51.5
-51.5
39.7
-39.7
29.5
-29.4
35.9
11.8
9.4
-6.6
45.4
-45.4
12.9
-12.9
32.2
-27.4
17.0
-11.7
38.4
-38.4
12.6
12.3
10.8
0.0
12.2
12.2
6.4
-3.6
5.6
0.2
22.8
-22.8
ChenCooper
SS
(Electr.)
Brass
(Liquid)
9.0
19
1.1
27.1
19.0
25.4
19.0
25.4
25.3
19.0
25.3
19.0
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Methanol
Pentane
Heptane
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Fluid
0.0053
0.783
.0203
0.025
0.0156
0.030
0.037
0.14
0.26
0.64
pr
All data
SS
(Electr)
2.0
Pappel &
Hendricks
[19]
Klimenko &
Sudar-chikov
[22]
Talty [15]
25.3
Material
(Heating
by)
Dia.
mm
Data of
0.2
1250
13.6
38.4
26.2
49.7
20.3
53.5
10.1
41.6
7.9
24.1
12.7
41.4
16.5
43.1
13.6
35.6
9.1
22.9
7.7
31.7
9.0
27.0
212
q
kW/
2
m
0.00
70.1
0.61
11.7
0.12
4.3
0.19
4.3
0.5
10.0
0.36
6.1
0.20
8.5
0.26
8.7
0.20
5.00
0.28
8.3
0.14
8.1
2.0
70.0
0.00
x, %
0.22
40.3
1.11
3.74
0.85
1.40
0.60
1.09
0.58
3.02
0.46
1.86
0.59
2.58
1.34
2.75
0.69
1.59
0.85
2.16
0.99
1.73
2.35
7.05
9.2
Bo x
4
10
0.09
1000
0.35
16.7
0.48
7.3
0.65
5.5
0.37
4.46
0.57
5.71
0.39
8.4
0.4
6.8
0.77
3.98
0.48
16.6
0.53
6.9
0.09
7.05
1000
Co
773
48
55
23
52
54
22
54
51
28
33
20
No. of
data
points
17.6
-9.2
11.3
-10.6
25.9
-25.9
35.2
-35.2
15.9
-15.9
8.9
-5.2
13.7
-11.2
11.7
-5.9
16.9
-15.5
13.1
-0.9
18.6
0.8
13.9
-3.7
0.10
-0.10
Shah
14.9
+20.5
5.4
-2.1
16.7
-16.7
21.9
-21.9
6.8
-6.4
9.8
9.1
9.3
-0.3
8.2
1.2
10.5
-6.8
11.4
9.1
18.6
8.9
19.7
6.8
19.6
19.6
G-W
Deviation, %
10
28
11071
266
399
280
459
314
553
335
488
390
482
347
600
293
521
266
391
251
408
231
454
220
2210
G
2
Kg/m s
25.2
10.9
7.5
38.8
38.8
33.6
33.6
24.0
24.0
51.4
51.4
24.7
24.6
17.2
16.8
17.1
7.9
24.5
24.0
19.7
17.4
16.1
7.8
14.3
-14.3
47.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
269.8
269.8
436.3
436.3
Mean
Average
L-W
Kandlikar
20.4
17.4
-16.5
18.7
-17.0
12.1
-10.7
16.8
-15.6
15.4
6.0
9.9
-3.6
16.6
-16.3
18.9
-16.1
12.2
-1.8
13.6
-9.1
32.3
31.3
12.5
12.5
S- T
22.7
36.4
-36.4
13.3
-1.4
22.2
-22.2
26.0
-26.0
9.6
-9.2
28.0
-28.0
22.0
-21.3
34.3
34.3
20.5
-20.0
27
-27
14.7
-7.2
52.0
-52.5
ChenCooper
Correlation
of
Shah
Gungor &
Winterton
ChenCooper
Liu &
Winterton
Steiner &
Taborek
Kandlikar
a.
b.
c.
)] h
))
exp 2.47(Co (0.38 Fr
Mean Dev. %
a
b
17.5
17.3
17.3
18.6
hTP
23.2
22.4
25.7
37.5
30.0
36.5
32.2 c
46.0
hTP
0.8
0.3 n
LO
(A2)
hLO (A3)
0.1
hLO (A4)
0.15
0.3 n
0.3
= hLT
))
n
(A5)
Test channels
Heating method
Diameter, mm
Reduced pressure
G, kg/m2s
q, kW/m2
x, percent
Box104
Range of data
water, R-11, R-12, R-22, R-32, R-113, R114, R-123, R-134a, R-152a, R-502,
ammonia, propane, isobutane, carbon
tetrachloride, isopropyl alcohol, ethanol,
methanol, n-butanol, cyclohexane,
benzene, heptane, pentane, nitrogen,
argon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and helium
Tubes and annuli (heated on inside,
outside, and bilateral). Horizontal and
vertical
Electric, steam, liquid
1.1 to 27.1
0.0053 to 0.78
10 to 11,071
0.2 to 1,250
0 to 95
0.22 to 74.2
APPENDIX
The Shah Correlation
The Shah correlation is given by the following equations:
(A1)
11