Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 92 (2018) 402–408

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science

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

Experimental study on single-phase flow in horizontal internal helically- T

finned tubes: The critical Reynolds number for turbulent flow
⁎
Yong-Hui Wang, Ji-Li Zhang, Zhi-Xian Ma
Institute of Building Energy, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, PR China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A correlation of the critical Reynolds number for turbulent flow in horizontal helically finned tubes is proposed
Internal helically finned tube in this study based on the analysis of experimental data from the current and six previous studies. In the ex-
Friction factor periment, the main parameters of the two tubes (Tube-1 and Tube-2), include the number of fin (Ns), helix angle
Single-phase (α), and the ratio of fin height to diameter (e/Di), which are 38 and 60, 60° and 45°, and 0.0534 and 0.0222,
Critical Reynolds number
respectively. Aqueous ethylene glycol was used as the test fluid. Pressure drop data were obtained under iso-
thermal condition with Reynolds number spanning from 3100 to 39,500 and Prandtl number spanning from 13.8
to 49.2. Results showed that the critical Reynolds numbers for turbulent flow in Tube-1 and Tube-2 were 11,000
and 17,000, respectively. The proposed correlation, which correlated the critical Reynolds number with four
parameters (i.e., e, Di, α, and Ns) and a constant, predicted all the 14 groups of critical Reynolds number within
10% and could be applicable to internal helically finned tubes with 0.01 < e/Di < 0.0534, 18° < α < 60°,
and 25 < Ns < 82. This work offers a reference for the general correlation for heat transfer coefficient and
friction factor of the internal helically finned tubes.

1. Introduction exhibited a smooth secondary increase with the Reynolds number.

Enhanced tubes with internal helical fins are well-known passive
heat transfer enhancement techniques that are extensively used in the
water-side of large shell and tube evaporators and condensers in the
refrigeration industry [1]. Efficient design of these heat exchangers
requires detailed knowledge of the complex single-phase flow in in-
ternal helically finned tubes. Therefore, many experimental works have
been dedicated to the single-phase flow characteristics of internal he-
lically finned tubes.
Friction factors of internal helically finned tubes have been reported
by numerous investigators [2]. For Re > 20,000, the friction factor of
internal helically finned tubes, as well as that of a smooth tube, de-
creased with Reynolds number; however, its value was considerably
higher than that of a plain tube [3–6]. For Re < 3500, which covered
the laminar flow, most of the results showed that the friction factor of
the internal helically finned tube was slightly higher than that of a plain
tube [7,8]. For 3500 < Re < 20,000, a significant discrepancy was
observed between the friction factor of the internal helically finned
tube and that of plain tubes. Meyer and Olivier [9] found that a con-
siderably stable “secondary transition” existed in friction factors for the
internal helically finned tubes for 3000 < Re < 10,000. Similar re-
sults were also obtained in Refs. [10–15], where friction factors
However, as the authors discussed in the published paper [15], the
critical Reynolds number (Recr,2) that acted as the secondary transition
ending point remains unclear.
To extend the application of the former experimental results on the
friction factors of internal helically finned tubes, many investigators
have developed an analytical model of the single-phase flow phenom-
enon. Kim and Webb [16] and Kim et al. [17] conducted analytical
studies on the theoretical models of the turbulent flow in internal he-
lically finned tubes. Brognaux et al. [13], Han and Lee [18], and Wang
et al. [19] developed correlations as functions of the roughness Rey-
nolds number. Some simple correlations of Blasius type were developed
[4,11,20,21], and other correlations as function of Reynolds number
and geometric parameters were also formed [3,22–27]. Existing theo-
retical models are specific to certain geometries and Reynolds numbers.
For Re < 3500, Meyer and Olivier [9] developed a correlation for la-
minar flow. Several correlations are available for Re > 20,000
[3,5,11,13,16,17,23–27]. However, no correlations are found suitable
for the complex secondary transition for 3500 < Re < 20,000.
The critical Reynolds number (Recr,2) for the secondary transition
point showed great influence on the application of internal helically
finned tubes. For Re > Recr,2, the friction factors of internal helically
finned tubes are similar with that of plain tubes in the turbulent flow

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mazhixian@dlut.edu.cn (Z.-X. Ma).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2017.11.003
Received 6 April 2017; Received in revised form 4 November 2017; Accepted 5 November 2017
Available online 06 November 2017
0894-1777/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Y.-H. Wang et al.
Nomenclature
a coefficients in six-order polynomial, a0–a6, listed in Table
3 (–)
Ac sectional area (mm2)
cp specific heat capacity (J·kg−1·K−1)
D diameter (m)
e fin height (m)
f friction factor (–)
l tube total length (m)
L test section length (m)
Ns Number of fin starts (–)
Pr Prandtl number (–)
Re Reynolds number (–)
Re1 start point of the steep increase of friction factor (–)
Recr,1 critical Reynolds number for laminar to transition (–)
Recr,2 critical Reynolds number for turbulent flow (–)
ReI initial Reynolds number in the experimental data (–)
s fin base width (m)
regime. Recr,2 can be properly defined as the critical Reynolds number
for turbulent flow. For Re < Recr,1 (that is, the critical Reynolds
number from laminar to transition), friction factors of internal helically
finned tube can also be characterized similar to that of plain tubes. For
Recr,1 < Re < Recr,2, the uniform whole trend that friction factor in-
creases with Reynolds number can be correlated easily once the Recr,2 is
determined. The criterion for laminar to transitional flow (Recr,1) can be
predicted by the correlation in Ref. [9], whereas the criterion for
transition to turbulent flow (Recr,2) has yet to be determined.
Reynolds number below 4000 has been recently observed in the ice
storage system or the variable flow air conditioning systems. Therefore,
a critical requirement should be satisfied in identifying the variation of
the critical Reynolds number (Recr,2) to extend our knowledge of the
characteristics of the single-phase transitional flow. To the best of our
knowledge, this critical Reynolds number might be affected by two
aspects. The first aspect is the type of inlet, which can be inferred from
Meyer and Oliver [9] and Tam et al. [12] who discussed the type of
inlet effect on the critical Reynolds number for transition (Recr,1).
Meyer and Olivier [9] noted that the re-entrant and square-edged inlets
did not show an obvious influence on the end of the transition while the
bell-mouth inlet delayed the end of the secondary transition. Tam et al.
[12] observed that the internal helically finned tube with re-entrant
inlet received the first Reynolds number for the end of transition
compared with the square-edged inlet. The second aspect is the geo-
metric parameters, with reference to [9–15] showing different critical
Reynolds numbers for the varied geometric parameters.
Internal helically finned tube with large number of starts and high
helix angle was introduced with the development of the manufacture
technique. Despite of the inlet type effect, the experimental data of the
novel internal helically finned tube should be considered to gain the
variation rule of the critical Reynolds number for turbulent flow.
The current study aims to propose a correlation of the critical
Reynolds number for turbulent flow for internal helically finned tubes.
The friction factors for single-phase flow in two novel internal helically
finned tubes were experimentally investigated under the same tube
inlet condition, and a correlation of the critical Reynolds number for
turbulent flow was proposed based on the analysis of experimental data
from the current and six previous studies. This study could offer re-
ference for the general correlation for heat transfer coefficient and
friction factor of internal helically finned tubes.
403
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 92 (2018) 402–408
T temperature (K)
u flow velocity (m·s−1)
V volumetric flow rate (m3·h−1)
Greek symbols
α helix angle (°)
θ fin apex angle (°)
ρ fluid density (kg·m−3)
μ specific heat capacity (J·kg−1·K−1)
λ thermal conductivity (W·m−1·K−1)
ΔP pressure drop (Pa)
Subscripts
exp experiment data
i inside
o outside
pre predicted by the equations
Fig. 1. Schematic of the experimental system.
2. Experiments
2.1. Experimental system
The experimental system shown in Fig. 1 is part of our previous
study [15]. The system was established to obtain the friction factor for
adiabatic single-phase flow in internal helically finned tubes. The
working medium flowed through the test tubes. The temperature de-
creased after flowing through a 5 kW cooling capacity chiller unit and
then flowed back to the tank. Six electric heaters each with 2 kW ca-
pacity were immersed in the tank and controlled with a PID controller
to maintain the constant temperature of the working medium. Turbine
flowmeters (0.6–6 m3/h, 0.5% of measured value) were used to mea-
sure flow rates. Pressure drop data were obtained using five differential
pressure transducers, with ranges of 0–10, 0–20, 0–40, 0–60, and
0–100 kPa and accuracy at 0.1% full scale. When the measured differ-
ential pressure value exceeded the span (e.g., 10 kPa), the differential
pressure transducer with larger span (e.g., 20 kPa) was adopted to
guarantee the accuracy of the measured pressure drop data. The inlet
and outlet temperatures of fluid flowing in the test tube were measured
by a total of six four-wire PT-100 temperature sensors with a calibrated
accuracy of 0.05 °C. A Keithley 2700 digital multimeter equipped with
7708 board and connected to a personal computer was used to record
measurement values.
In the experiment, once the inlet temperature of the flowing fluid
became stable within the set temperature of ± 0.1 °C, values of the
differential pressures, temperatures, and flow rates were recorded for
20 min. Subsequently, we adjusted the valve opening to obtain the next
flow rate. The set flow rates were obtained from the set flow velocities
Y.-H. Wang et al. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 92 (2018) 402–408

in the tube ranging from 0.5 m/s to 3.5 m/s with an interval of 0.25 m/ 20%, 25%, or 30% volume fraction (Refs. [3,8,13] also used ethylene
s. glycol or aqueous ethylene glycol as the working fluid) was used as the
Two internal helically finned tubes and one plain tube were tested. working fluid. The inlet fluid temperature ranged between −6 °C and
Square-edged inlets were used to eliminate the effect of the inlet type 12 °C. The corresponding Pr and Re ranged from 13.8 to 49.2 and 3100
on the experimental data. Several 1-mm-diameter copper tubes inserted to 39,500, respectively.
at the inlet and outlet of each test tube were connected with the pres-
sure differential transducers. The internal helically finned tubes are 2.2. Data reduction
shown in Fig. 2. The cross-sectional fin shape of Tube-1 was triangle
and that of the Tube-2 was trapezoid. Table 1 shows the main geometric The friction factor was obtained using Darcy–Weisbach equation, as
parameters describing the profile, including the fin base width s, fin shown as follows:
apex angle θ, fin pitch p, and fin height e, and the important geometric 2ΔPDi
parameters of the internal helically finned tube, including inside dia- f=
ρLu2 (1)
meter (Di), helix angle (α), and number of fins (Ns). The total length of
the tube l was 3.045 m and the length in test section L was 2.945 m. The where ΔP is the measured pressure drop across the test section length L,
inside diameter of the plain tube was 16.34 mm. All the test tubes were ρ is the density of the working fluid, and u is the flow velocity. The flow
made of copper. velocity was determined as follows:
The test section was thoroughly isolated to prevent possible heat u = V /3600/ Ac (2)
transfer from the surroundings, and the temperature difference between
the inlet and outlet was < 0.1 °C. Aqueous ethylene glycol with 15%, where V is the flow rate of the working fluid, and the sectional area Ac is
based on the nominal inside diameter Di. Ac = πDi2/4.

Fig. 2. Internal helically finned tubes.

404
Y.-H. Wang et al. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 92 (2018) 402–408

Table 1 The dimensionless parameter Re is defined as

Geometric parameters of tested internal helically finned tubes.
Re = ρuDi / μ (3)
Tube-# Di/mm Ns p/mm e/mm α/° s/mm θ/°
where μ is the viscosity of the working fluid.
Tube-1 16.66 38 1.38 0.89 60 0.72 43.8 The dimensionless parameter Pr is defined as
Tube-2 22.48 60 1.18 0.5 45 0.61 43.1
Pr = ρc p/ λ (4)
where cp and λ are the specific heat capacity and thermal conductivity
Table 2 of the working medium, respectively.
Experimental range and uncertainties.

Value Uncertainty 2.3. Uncertainty analysis and validation experiments

V (m3/h) 0.905–4.757 0.53–0.58% Uncertainty analysis was conducted on the experimental system
T (°C) −6 to 12 ± 0.05 °C
ΔP (kPa) 2.83–90.59 0.80–0.96%
using the method suggested by Kline and Mclintock [28]. The accuracy
Re 3100–39,500 0.73–0.76% of the measured and calculated parameters is shown in Table 2. The
f 0.022–0.080 1.1–1.45% uncertainties included not only the propagation error but also the
random errors of the measured values. The uncertainties of the mea-
sured parameters V, T, and ΔP were determined with a confidence in-
terval of 95%. According to Eq. (1), the uncertainty of friction factor
was determined as follows:
2 2 2 2 2
δf ⎛ δ ΔP ⎞ + ⎛ δDi ⎞ + ⎜⎛ δρ ⎟⎞ + ⎛ δL ⎞ + ⎛ δu ⎞
= ⎜ ⎟

f ⎝ ΔP ⎠ ⎝ Di ⎠ ⎝ ρ⎠ ⎝ L⎠ ⎝u ⎠ (5)
Friction factors in the plain tube were obtained to validate the ex-
perimental system. Experimental Re spanned from 5400 to 39,500. The
experimental friction factors agreed with Filonenko equation with a
maximum deviation of 2.5%, as shown in Fig. 3. The Filonenko equa-
tion [29] is expressed as follows:
f = (1.82logRe−1.64)−2 (6)

3. Results and discussions

3.1. Friction factor

Fig. 3. Experimental friction factors of the plain tube.
Fig. 4. Friction factors for the test tubes.
Fig.4 shows the 254 and 132 data points for Tube-1 and Tube-2,
respectively. The Reynolds numbers of Tube-1 ranged from 3100 to
37,700 and that of Tube-2 ranged from 4500 to 39,000.
Two six-order polynomials were provided for the convenient use of
our experimental data, as shown in the following form:
f = a0 + a1Re + a2Re 2 + a3Re3 + a4Re 4 + a5Re5 + a6Re6 . These poly-
nomials could predict the friction factors for the two tubes with the
mean deviation of 1.32% and 0.683%. In addition, the applicable range
of the correlation for Tube-1 was 3100 < Re < 37,700 and that for
Tube-2 was 4500 < Re < 39,000. The coefficients of the two six-order
polynomials are shown in Table 3.
The friction factors for Tube-1 were significantly larger than those
for Tube-2, which could be analyzed from two aspects. In view of the
attribute of an internally finned tube [25], fluid attached to fins flowed
longer in Tube-1 with higher helix angle than Tube-2. The corre-
sponding pressure drop in Tube-1 was greater than that in Tube-2, as
well as the friction factors. Moreover, in terms of the attribute of a
rough tube [25], Tube-1 with larger fin height-to-diameter ratio pro-
vided stronger resistance to the flowing fluid. Generally, the high fric-
tion factor values of Tube-1 were due to the main geometric para-
meters.
Fig. 4 shows the distinct difference existing in the friction factors of
each tube. No evident characteristics of laminar flow were observed;

Table 3
Coefficients of the two six-order polynomials.

Tube-# a0 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6

Tube-1 0.05288 −7.383E−06 3.261E−09 −3.791E−13 1.960E−17 −4.768E−22 4.442E−27

Tube-2 0.09908 −2.327E−05 3.538E−09 −2.453E−13 8.724E−18 −1.557E−22 1.108E−27

405
Y.-H. Wang et al. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 92 (2018) 402–408

slightly compared with the those for Tube-1, which may be due to the
effect of the relative roughness (fin height-to-diameter ratio). In this
region, the internal helically finned tube behaved like a tube with
Nikuradse roughness. The tube with a low relative roughness behaved
similarly with the plain tubes. The relative roughness of Tube-2 was
lower than that of Tube-1, which may be the reason for the decrease in
friction factor for Tube-2 and the increase of that for Tube-1.

3.2. Critical Reynolds number for turbulent flow

The critical Reynolds number for the turbulent flow (Recr,2) in the
current study was the Reynolds number beyond which friction factors
were similar to that of a plain tube in turbulent flow. The adverse
varying trend of the experimental friction factor existed on
Re1 < Re < Recr,2 and Re > Recr,2.
For Re1 < Re < Recr,2, the steep increase of friction factors was
possibly due to the fins that provided fluid rotation. The rotating fluid
Fig. 5. Database from the literature and current study.
would flow between two fins, and the flow length was larger than the
test section length L (approximately L/cosα). The corresponding friction
Table 4 factor would be enhanced. Moreover, the rotation could probably de-
Database for the critical Reynolds number for turbulent flow. stroy the boundary layer formed on the fin surface not on the tube
surface between two neighboring fins. The destruction of the boundary
Reference Di/mm e/Di α/° Ns Recr,2 Pr
layer would generate intense disturbance in the flowing fluid, which
Meyer and Olivier [9] 14.83 0.0236 20 78 15,327 4.17–5.06 may contribute to the increase of the friction factor.
14.83 0.0236 27 78 12,224 For Re > Recr,2, the friction factor decreased with the Reynolds
Li et al. [10] 17.5 0.0171 25.5 82 16,113 3.2–5.8 number. This result was possibly due to the stable boundary layer
Siddique and Alhazmy 7.38 0.0271 18 50 11,500 2.9–4.7 formed on all the tube surface, including the fins, and the destruction of
[11] the rotation fluid on the boundary layer, which could be ignored. The
Tam et al. [12] 14.9 0.0336 18 25 8800 4.8–51.9 boundary layer became thinner and more stable with the increase of the
14.9 0.0336 25 25 8359 Reynolds number. The internal helically finned tube with fins entirely
14.9 0.0336 35 25 8302 covered by the boundary layer was similar to a plain tube. The friction
Jensen and Vlakancic 22.10 0.00995 45 54 19,686 Not mentioned factor for the internal helically finned tube would certainly show si-
[13] 24.13 0.0137 45 54 15,815 milar characteristics with that of a plain tube in the turbulent flow.
22.08 0.0199 45 54 14,522 Aside from the current study, several researchers [9–14] have es-
Brognaux et al. [14] 14.83 0.0236 20 78 15,327 0.70–7.85 tablished experimental results on the critical Reynolds number for
14.83 0.0236 27 78 12,224 turbulent flow. Fig. 5 shows the fitted lines for the data from the lit-
Current study 16.66 0.0534 60 38 11,000 13.8–49.2 erature and the current study. The inlets of tubes in the selected studies
22.48 0.0222 45 60 17,000 and those of the current study were square-edged. The Recr,2 in the
previous studies were marked with different symbols. The friction
factors peaked at the critical Reynolds number for the turbulent flow
and then decreased with the Reynolds number. For all square-edged
inlets, the discrepancy of Recr,2 of the two test tubes in the current study
was due to the main geometric parameters, which was further verified
by the prior studies. Notably, the values for those points were changed
due to the different tube geometric parameters from different re-
searchers.

3.3. Effect of the main geometric parameters and Prandtl number on Recr,2

Former experimental results on Recr,2 were obtained with the tube

Fig. 6. Critical Reynolds number for turbulent flow versus helix angle.
thus, Recr,1 did not exist in the friction factors. We defined the initial
Reynolds number in the experimental data as ReI, the start point of the
steep increase of the friction factor as Re1, and the critical Reynolds
number for turbulent flow as Recr,2. ReI, Re1, and Recr,2 for Tube-1 were
3100, 4200, and 11,000 and those for Tube-2 were 4500, 7300, and
17,000, respectively.
For ReI < Re < Re1, the friction factors for Tube-2 decreased
with specific geometric parameter; thus, the experimental data from
one research could not provide the variation analysis of Recr,2. On the
basis of the former experimental results and the current study, the
analysis of the variation of the critical Reynolds number for turbulent
flow was conducted. A total of 14 groups of the critical Reynolds
number for turbulent flow from the previous studies and the current
work are listed in Table 4. Data in Fig. 6 from Tam et al. [12] and
Brognaux et al. [14] showed that the discrepancy of the critical Rey-
nolds numbers was due to the helix angle. The critical Reynolds number
decreased with the helix angle for the tubes with same e/Di and Ns. In
addition, the critical Reynolds number decreased more rapidly with the
helix angle than that with higher e/Di and lower Ns. In Fig. 7, the cri-
tical Reynolds numbers decreased with the fin height-to-diameter ratio
for data with same α and Ns from Jensen and Vlakancic [13]. This result
was also verified through the comparison of the data from Tam et al.
[12] and Meyer and Oliver [9]. Moreover, the critical Reynolds

406
Y.-H. Wang et al.
Fig. 7. Critical Reynolds number for turbulent flow versus fin height-to-diameter ratio.
Fig. 8. Predicted error from the correlations.
numbers decreased considerably slower with e/Di than that with lower
α and Ns. These results indicated that the main geometric parameters
had a close but not persistent influence on Recr,2.
Prandtl numbers in seven studies are listed in Table 4. Jensen and
Vlakancic [13] specifically used water or ethylene glycol as the working
fluid but did not provide the Prandtl number range. From the data,
except for Ref. [13], Prandtl number did not show significant influence
on Recr,2.
3.4. Correlations of the critical Reynolds number
Although the critical Reynolds number for turbulent flow could be
found in previous studies, no correlation was found to describe its
variation. Authors have attempted to correlate the critical Reynolds
number with the main geometric parameters of internal helically finned
tubes. The parameters that describe the structure of an internal heli-
cally finned tube were e, Di, α, and Ns. The critical Reynolds number
was concluded to be a function of the dimensionless numbers e/Di, α/
90, and Ns. Based on the database listed in Table 4, a correlation was
established using least-squares regression, as shown as follows:
Recr,2 = 310.9(e / Di)−0.6096 (α /90)−0.2531Ns0.2631
for 0.0171 < e/Di < 0.0358, 18° < α < 27°, 25 < Ns < 82, and
0.70 < Pr < 51.9; and
Recr,2 = 1029(e / Di)−0.3094 (α /90)0.5654Ns0.4706
for 0.01 < e/Di < 0.0534, 27° < α < 60°, 25 < Ns < 78, and
0.70 < Pr < 51.9.
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 92 (2018) 402–408
Fig. 8 shows that the correlation predicts the database within 10%.
The mean deviation was 4.74%, and the root mean deviation was
5.45%. According to our previous study [15], the previous studies fo-
cused on the tubes with 0.15 mm < e < 2.06 mm, 6.46 m m <
Di < 24.41 mm, 8° < α < 49°, and 6 < Ns < 78. Eqs. (7) and (8)
could be applied to the majority of the previous studies.
4. Conclusions
This study provides the isothermal friction factors of two internal
helically finned tubes. The results revealed that the friction factors of
the tube with higher fin height-to-diameter ratio and helix angle ob-
tained higher values.
With the same square-edged inlets, the discrepancy of the critical
Reynolds numbers for the turbulent flow in the current study was due to
the main geometric parameters. The critical Reynolds numbers for the
test tubes (Tube-1 and Tube-2) were 11,000 and 17,000.
A database was presented, which covered 14 groups of critical
Reynolds numbers for the turbulent flow of internal helically finned
tubes with different geometric parameters. The critical Reynolds
numbers for the turbulent flow decreased with α or e/Di in a certain
range of the geometric parameters. Moreover, the critical Reynolds
number varied with α or e/Di as diverse rate in a different range of
geometric parameters. Prandtl number did not show significant influ-
ence on the critical Reynolds number.
A correlation for this critical Reynolds number for turbulent flow
was developed to predict the database from six previous studies and the
current work within 10%.
Acknowledgment
The support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(51606029) is greatly acknowledged.
References
[1] H.S. Wang, J.W. Rose, Prediction of effective friction factors for single-phase flow in
horizontal microfin tubes, Int. J. Refrig 27 (8) (2004) 904–913.
[2] W.T. Ji, A.M. Jacobi, Y.L. He, W.Q. Tao, Summary and evaluation on single-phase
heat transfer enhancement techniques of liquid laminar and turbulent pipe flow,
Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 88 (2015) 735–754.
[3] T.C. Carnavos, Heat transfer performance of internally finned tubes in turbulent
flow, Heat Transf. Eng. 1 (1980) 32–37.
[4] S.F. Al-Fahed, Z.H. Ayub, A.M. Al-Marafie, B.M. Soliman, Heat transfer and pressure
drop in a tube with internal microfins under turbulent water flow conditions, Exp.
Therm. Fluid Sci. 7 (3) (1993) 249–253.
[5] G.J. Zdaniuk, L.M. Chamra, P.J. Mago, Experimental determination of heat transfer
and friction in helically-finned tubes, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 32 (3) (2008) 761–775.
[6] W.T. Ji, D.C. Zhang, Y.L. He, W.Q. Tao, Prediction of fully developed turbulent heat
transfer of internal helically ribbed tubes - an extension of Gnielinski equation, Int.
J. Heat Mass Transf. 55 (4) (2012) 1375–1384.
[7] L.M. Tam, A.J. Ghajar, Effect of inlet geometry and heating on the fully developed
friction factor in the transition region of a horizontal tube, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 15
(1) (1997) 52–64.
[8] R. Raj, N.S. Lakshman, Y. Mukkamala, Single phase flow heat transfer and pressure
drop measurements in doubly enhanced tubes, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 88 (2015)
215–227.
[9] J.P. Meyer, J.A. Olivier, Transitional flow inside enhanced tubes for fully developed
and developing flow with different types of inlet disturbances: Part I - adiabatic
pressure drops, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 54 (7–8) (2011) 1587–1597.
[10] X.W. Li, J.A. Meng, Z.X. Li, Experimental study of single-phase pressure drop and
heat transfer in a micro-fin tube, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 32 (2) (2007) 641–648.
[11] M. Siddique, M. Alhazmy, Experimental study of turbulent single-phase flow and
heat transfer inside a micro-finned tube, Int. J. Refrig. 31 (2) (2008) 234–241.
[12] H.K. Tam, L.M. Tam, A.J. Ghajar, C. Sun, H.Y. Leung, Experimental investigaton of
(7) the single-phase friction factor and heat transfer inside the horizontal internally
micro-fin tubes in the transition region, in: ASME-JSME-KSME Joint Fluids
Engineering Conf., Hamamatsu, Japan, 2011, pp. 24–29.
[13] M.K. Jensen, A. Vlakancic, Experimental investigation of turbulent heat transfer
and fluid flow in internally finned tubes, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 42 (7) (1999)
1343–1351.
(8) [14] L.J. Brognaux, R.L. Webb, L.M. Chamra, B.Y. Chung, Single-phase heat transfer in
micro-fin tubes, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 40 (18) (1997) 4345–4357.
[15] Y.H. Wang, J.L. Zhang, Z.X. Ma, Experimental determination of single-phase pres-
sure drop and heat transfer in a horizontal internal helically-finned tube, Int. J. Heat
407
Y.-H. Wang et al.
Mass Transf. 104 (2017) 240–246.
[16] N.-H. Kim, R.L. Webb, Analytic prediction of the friction and heat transfer for
turbulent flow in axial internal fin tubes, J. Heat Transf. 115 (1993) 553–559.
[17] J.-H. Kim, K.E. Jansen, M.K. Jensen, Analysis of heat transfer characteristics in
internally finned tubes, Numerical Heat Transf., Part A: Appl. 46 (2004) 1–21.
[18] D.H. Han, K.-J. Lee, Single-phase heat transfer and flow characteristics of micro-fin
tubes, Appl. Therm. Eng. 25 (11–12) (2005) 1657–1669.
[19] C.C. Wang, C.B. Chiou, D.C. Lu, Single phase heat transfer and flow friction cor-
relations for microfin tubes, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 17 (5) (1996) 500–508.
[20] A. Celen, A.S. Dalkilic, S. Wongwises, Experimental analysis of the single phase
pressure drop characteristics of smooth and microfin tubes, Int. Commun. Heat
Mass Transf. 46 (2013) 58–66.
[21] L.X. Cheng, T.K. Chen, Study of single phase flow heat transfer and friction pressure
drop in a spiral internally ribbed tube, Chem. Eng. Technol. 29 (5) (2006) 588–595.
[22] Y. Mukkamala, R. Sundaresan, Single-phase flow pressure drop and heat transfer
measurements in a horizontal microfin tube in the transition regime, J. Enhanced
Heat Transf. 16 (2) (2009) 141–159.
408
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 92 (2018) 402–408
[23] G.J. Zdaniuk, R. Luck, L.M. Chamra, Linear correlation of heat transfer and friction
in helically-finned tubes using five simple groups of parameters, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf. 51 (13–14) (2008) 3548–3555.
[24] G.J. Zdaniuk, L.M. Chamra, D. Keith, Walters, Correlating heat transfer and friction
in helically-finned tubes using artificial neural networks, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf.
50 (23–24) (2007) 4713–4723.
[25] R.L. Webb, R. Narayanamurthy, P. Thors, Heat transfer and friction characteristics
of internal helical-rib roughness, ASME J. Heat Transf. 122 (1) (2000) 134–142.
[26] T.S. Ravigururajan, A.E. Bergles, General correlations for pressure drop and heat
transfer for single-phase turbulent flows in ribbed tubes, ASME J. Heat Transf. 52
(1985) 9–20.
[27] T.S. Ravigururajan, A.E. Bergles, Development and verification of general correla-
tions for pressure drop and heat transfer in single-phase turbulent flow in enhanced
tubes, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 13 (1) (1996) 55–70.
[28] S.J. Kline, F.A. McClintock, Describing uncertainties in single-sample experiments,
Mech. Eng. 75 (1953) 3–8.
[29] G.K. Filonenko, Hydraulic resistance in pipes, Teplo 1 (4) (1954) 40–44.