31295002395233

FORCED CONVECTION HEAT TRAJISFER TO A
SINGLE AND TWO-PHASE STEAM/WATER
MIXTURE IN A HELICAL COIL WITH
RADIANT HEATING
by
FOAD N. VAFAIE, 3.S. in Farm Mach., M.S. in M.E.
A DISSERTATION
IN
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSGFirf
Approved
December, 1981
73
Iff:I
ry^^ /A ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to thank and commend Dr. Jerry R. Dunn, chairman of the
advisory committee, for his kindness, patience and outstanding guidance
throughout the supervision of this work. Without his uninterrupted
encouragements, the success of this work would have never been possible.
I am deeply indebted to Dr. Ronald J. Pederson, Dr. Herbert J-
Carper and Dr. Luther D. Clements for their constructive criticism and
support during the preparation of this dissertation. I would also like
to express my appreciation to other members of my committee for their
cooperation as committee members.
Thanks are also extended to Dr. James H. Lawrence, Jr., Chairman
of the Mechanical Engineering Department, for his continuing support
during the period of my study at Texas Tech University.
Special thanks goes to Mrs. Judy Pearce for her beautiful typing
of this manuscript.
Finally, I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my wife, Mehrnaz,
who made my graduate studies possible by her immense sacrifice and moral
support.
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
ABSTRACT v
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS viii
NOMENCLATURE xi
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. LITERATURE SURVEY 13
III. DISCUSSION OF EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS 22
3.1 Equipment Controlling the Fluid Condition at
the Test Section Inlet 26
3.2 Heat Exchanger 28
3.3 Test Section 29
3.4 Solar Simulator 33
3.5 Condenser 36
3.6 Supporting Instrumentation 41
3.6.1 Flow Measuring Instruments 41
3.6.2 Temperature Sensors 42
3.6.3 Pressure Sensors 42
IV. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE 46
4.1 Introduction 46
4.2 Single-Phase Runs 51
4.3 Two-Phase Runs 52
V. THER14AL ANALYSIS 54
5.1 Calculation of Total Heat Input 56
iii
5.2 Solution to the Problem of Heat Conduction
in Tube Wall 61
5.3 Functions Representing Heat Flux and

Temperature Distributions 67
5.4 Calculation of Local Fluid Properties and
Heat Transfer Coefficients 71
VI. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 78
6.1 Single-Phase Heat Transfer Results 78
6.2 Two-Phase Heat Transfer Results 88
6.3 Comparison of Results 112
VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 123
REFERENCES 127
APPENDICES
A. Sample Calculation 130
B. Uncertainty Analysis 150
C. Test on Solution Method 161

D. Two-Phase Heat Transfer Data 1^8
IV
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study has been to perform an analytical and
experimental investigation into the heat transfer characteristics for
a once-through steam generator with a helical flow geometry. The
application is the receiver for a fixed hemispherical mirror solar
concentrator on the Crosbyton Solar Power Project. In this design,
the working fluid, water, goes successively through the single-phase
liquid, two-phase and super-heated vapor regimes in a once-through,
helically wrapped tube bundle subjected to nonuniform, asymmetrical
radiant heating.
Individual segments of the radiation profile for the receiver were
simulated using high intensity, line source quartz lamps providing con-
centrations of up to 240 suns. A segment of the helical coil was
instrumented and mounted in the radiation field. Test section instru-
mentation included inlet fluid flow rate, inlet and exit fluid pressure
and temperature, and 42 type K thermocouples welded to the surface of
the coil. The incident radiation field was mapped using a Gordon type
heat flux transducer calibrated for the quartz lamp spectrum. An up-
stream hot oil heat exchanger provided inlet fluid conditions to the
test section consistent with the segment of the receiver being simulated
e.g., single-phase or two-phase. The range of test conditions included

2
an incident radiation flux of 6,000 to 27,000 Btu/hr-ft , a flow rate
of 100 to 500 Ibm/hr, an inlet pressure of 100 to 500 psia, and an
inlet quality of 0 to 70 percent.
V
A numerical analysis was developed to predict the local internal
heat transfer coefficients and fluid state based on the measurements
obtained in the test procedure discussed above. The analysis included
consideration of the externally applied radiation field, convective
and radiative heat losses, two-dimensional conduction through the tube
wall, and.convection to the internal fluid.
The results show that there is a significant change in the angtilar
variation of the internal heat transfer coefficient at low quality when
compared with values for high quality. At low quality, the highest
internal heat transfer coefficients are obtained on the tube surface
farthest from the axis of the coil. At high qualities, this changes to
yield the highest coefficients on the tube surface closest to the coil
axis. Factors contributing to this phenomena include radial accelera-
tion, induced secondary flow, flow acceleration along the flow axis,
and the onset of film boiling.
The integrated average values of the heat transfer coefficient
for the subcooled liquid and two-phase were correlated against dimension-
less parameters of the flow such as the Reynolds number, Prandtl number,
boiling number and tube-to-coil diameter ratio.
VI
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3-1 Equipment Identification 24
3-2 Location and Number of Thermocouples at
Different Stations 32
6-1 Experimental Conditions for Single-Phase Runs 79
6-2 Coefficients of the Correlation Equations 85
6-3 Experimental Conditions for Two-Phase Runs 89
6-4 Coefficients of the Correlation Equation 111
C-1 Temperature Distribution Inside Tube Wall Thickness 166

C-2 Temperature Distribution Inside Tube Wall Thickness 167
Vll
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1-1 Schematic of Flow Patterns and Heat Transfer
Regions in a Heated Vertical Tube 3
1-2 Location of Dryout for Flow in Helical Coil 7
1-3 Photograph of the Fixed Mirror Distributed

Focus (FMDF) System 9
1-4 Variations of Incident Energy Upon the Receiver
as a Function of Location 12
3-1 Schematic Diagram of the Test Loop 23
3-2.a,b Circumferential Location of Thermocouples 31
3-3.a,b Coiled Tube Test Section and Thermocouple Connections 34
3-4 Schematic Diagram of Lamp Panel Representing the

Cooling Channels 37
3-5.a,b Triangular and Open Position Arrangement of
Lamp Panels 38
3-6 Photograph of Test Facility 40
3-7 Instrument Panel 44
3-8 Radiant Test Facility Plan View Schematic 45
4-1 Photograph of Experimental Flux Plot Configuration 48
4-2 Symmetric Flux Plot 49
4-3 Asymmetric Flux Plot 50
5-1.a,b Heat Flux Distribution for Sjmraietrical and
Asymmetrical Heating 58
5-2 General Form of Heat Flux Function 60
5-3 Tube Cross Section Representing Boundary Conditions 62

5-4 Tube Wall Discretized Model 65
Vlll
5-5.a,b Cosine and Circular Incident Flux Distributions 69
5-6 Relative Locations of Pressure and Temperature

Measurement Points at the Inlet and Exit to the Coil 75
6-1 Axial Distribution of Heat Transfer Coefficients,

Run 93 80

Run 8 81
6-3 Circumferential Distribution of Nusselt Number,

Run 93 83

Run 8 84
6-5 Comparison Between the Experimental and the Computed

Data, Subcooled Liquid Runs 86
6-6 Comparison Between the Experimental and the Computed

Data, Subcooled Liquid Runs 87

Run 105 92

Run 105 93

Run 104 94

Run 104 95

Run 102 96

Run 102 97

Run 98 99

Run 98 100
6-15 Model Representing the Variation of Heat Transfer

Coefficients 103
IX
Run 100 105

Run 6 107

Run 71 108

Run 50 109

Run 78 110
6-21 Comparison Between the Experimental and Computed

Data, Two-Phase Runs 113
6-22 Comparison Between Experimental Data and Seban-

McLaughlin, Single-Phase Runs 115
6-23 Comparison Between Local Values of Nusselt Number,

Station 1, Run 9, (Single-Phase) 117
6-24 Averaged Values of Nusselt Number, Run 9, (Single-

Phase) 119
6-25 Comparison of Two-Phase Results with Results of

Owhadi and Crain 121
A-1 Junction of Fluid Streams at the Test Section Inlet 133
A-2 Condenser 138
A-3 Boundary Condition Designator 145
B-1 Experimental Results, Run 51 159
B-2 Experimental Results, Run 71 160

NOMENCLATURE
A area, ft 2
BO boiling number, = q/(G H^ ) , dimensionless
C heat capacity, Btu/lbm-^R
d tube diameter, ft
dr differential element in radial direction, ft
dz differential element in axial direction, ft
D coil diameter, ft
2
D dimensionless flow parameter = Re(d/D)
DNB Departure From Nucleate Boiling
f friction factor, dimensionless

2
G mass velocity, Ibjjj/hr-ft
2
h heat transfer coefficient, Btu/hr-ft -"F
— 2
h circumferential average heat transfer coefficient, Btu/hr-ft -°F
H fluid enthalpy, Btu/lb^
k thermal conductivity, Btu/hr-ft-^'F
m mass flow rate, Ib^/hr
N number of differential elements in axial direction
Nu Nusselt number, dimensionless
Nu circumferential average Nusselt number
P pressure, psia
P, heated perimeter, ft
h
Pr Prandtl number, dimensionless
2
q heat flux, Btu/hr-ft
XI
— 2
q integrated average wall heat flux, Btu/hr-ft
Q total absorbed heat, Btu/hr
r tube radius, ft
R tube radius, ft
RA radial acceleration, dimensionless
Re Reynolds number, dimensionless
S standard deviation
T temperature, °F
T integrated average wall temperature

3
V specific volume, ft /lb
V velocity, ft/hr
X quality, dimensionless
h_^^0.9.vf]0.5r..^0.1
^yf^
X Lockhart-Martinelli parameter, dimensionless
yg
axial direction
Subscripts (except as noted above)
AMB ambient
B bulk fluid properties
C critical
c coil
calc calculated
conv convective losses
cr critical or transition
d bubble departure
ex exit
Xll
f saturated liquid properties
flux incident flux
g saturated vapor properties
hom homogeneous model
i coil inlet
i tube inner surface
inc incident
i liquid
m average
o tube wall outer surface
rad radiative losses
S straight pipe
sat saturated
sb significant boiling length
TP two-phase
w wall
z axial location z
Greek Symbols
e emissivity
Tj viscosity
p density
a Stephen-Boltzman constant
9 circumferential direction
Xlll
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Recent advances in engineering technology have attracted the
interest of scientists around the world working in different fields
related to atomic energy, jet propulsion, space exploration, electric
power generation (including solar electric power generation), and others
to many specialized topics of heat transfer. One of the main areas of
interest, however, has been boiling heat transfer and two-phase flow.
This subject provides the scientist a broad and interesting field of
study as it involves the combined transport of mass, heat, and momentum
between the different phases present.
Pressure drop of a two-phase flow through a pipeline was the subject
of study of early investigators in this field. These studies usually in-
volved the consideration of momentum transfer between the phases. Later,
heat transfer in two-phase flow received more attention as it was
noticed that boiling is an extremely efficient mode of heat transfer [15].'
The state of the art is still far from being established and very few
general correlations are available in the literature, but it is realized
that in the process of convective boiling, which can be defined as the
addition of heat to a flowing liquid and generation of vapor, the hydro-
dynamic and heat transfer mechanisms are very closely related, and have
a much more profound effect on each other than in a single-phase flow.
The pressure drop in two-phase flow depends upon the flow pattern
or topology of the flow, which is in turn affected by the variations in
*Numbers in [ ] refer to list of references

the amount and distribution of each phase. This is in turn a function
of the amount of heat being added to or removed from the flow. The
changes in flow pattern will also cause variations in local heat trans-
fer coefficient.
Because of this coupling effect between the hydrodynamic and thermal
properties of a convective boiling system, the situation at any axial
location in the channel can never become either thermally or hydrody-
namically fully developed. These, along with the effect of time varying
properties that one may encounter, make the problem very difficult if
not intractable to solve analytically, which explains why the subject
to date is largely empirical [10].
To gain a better knowledge of how the addition of heat will change
the flow pattern in a two-phase flow system, consider a vertical tube
heated uniformly over its entire length with a low heat flux. Subcooled
liquid is pumped from the bottom of the tube at such a rate that the
effluent is entirely steam. Figure 1-1 is a schematic diagram of such
a system. As the figure represents, a wide range of local conditions
and different flow regimes exist along the heated channel.
In the entrance region of the tube, both tube wall and liquid
temperature increase, but they are still below the value required for
nucleation. In this region, heat transfer is entirely by single-phase
forced convection. At point B the wall temperature has reached a value
high enough to start the nucleation process, after which the wall temper-
ature begins to decrease. At this point the bulk liquid temperature is
still well below the local saturation temperature and, therefore, the
bubbles collapse as they separate from the wall. This is the subcooled
"î^'i^'aîi^
Single-phase Convective heat

vapor transfer to vapor
Drop Liquid
flow deficient region
Forced
Annular convective heat
flow transfer through liquid
film
i;
Slug
flow
Saturated
nucleate
boiling
Bubbly
9*
•*
«C
• flow
I
Subcooled boiling
B
Single-phase Convective
liquid heat transfer
to liquid
Temperature tSubcooled Liquid
Figure 1-1 Schematic of Flow Patterns and Heat

Transfer Regimes in a Heated Verti-
cal Tube [6,9,10]
boiling region. Farther along the channel, the bulk fluid temperature
reaches a value which, though still below the saturation temperature,
is high enough to prevent the bubbles from collapsing. The bulk fluid
temperature increases until it reaches the local saturation temperature,
and from this point on it decreases gradually corresponding to the
decreasing pressure. The tube wall temperature also decreases gradually,
but it always stays a few degrees above the bulk liquid temperature.
Now the tube is filled with a bubbly flow, and coalescence of these
bubbles leads to slug flow and annular flow farther downstream.
From point C to E, the process of heat transfer is saturated
nucleate boiling. In the annular flow region, from point E to G, the

{
process of boiling is replaced by evaporation as the thickness of the
thin liquid film attaching to the inner tube wall is such that the heat I
is carried away to the liquid-vapor interface by conduction through
liquid and causes evaporation of liquid film at this interface. This
region is the so-called two-phase forced convective region.
Finally, liquid deficiency occurs as the thin liquid film evaporates.
As a result of this, there will be a sudden decrease in heat transfer
coefficient with a corresponding rise in wall temperature. This is
known as "dry out" and the region between this and the dry saturated
vapor is the liquid deficient region.
The dry out point represents the effective limit on the amount of
evaporation in a boiler tube and its specification is a very important
part of the design of evaporator tubes.
Note that the gradual decrease in AT , the difference between the

o w
wall temperature and the bulk fluid temperature from point B to G,
represents an increase in heat transfer coefficient over this range.
The definitions of a few terms that will be used later during the
course of this study are worth mentioning here. These are the pre-
viously mentioned term "dry out" and the term "departure from nucleate
boiling" (DNB).
Consider the uniformly heated tube of Figure 1-1 again. If the
heat flux imposed on the tube surface is increased gradually, the posi-
tion of the point where complete evaporation of liquid film occurs (the
dry out point) will move downward along the tube. As long as this point «
is located after an annular flow pattern section in the tube, it is
called the dry out point. But if the imposed heat flux is increased
such that the complete evaporation of the liquid film on the wall occurs
when the process of heat transfer in the tube is nucleate boiling, then
it is called "departure from nucleate boiling." That is, by increasing
the heat flux, the bubble population on the wall increases so much that
these bubbles form a thin blanket of vapor on the wall, preventing the
liquid from wetting the wall. This will change the mechanism of heat
transfer to film boiling. It can occur either in the subcooled or
saturated nucleate boiling region. In any event, the pressure of DNB
or dry out will cause a sudden decrease in heat transfer coefficient
and a corresponding increase in wall temperature.
Boiling in a helically coiled tube, which is the subject of this
study, offers advantages over that in a straight tube especially where
the effluent is to be saturated or superheated steam. Helical coil
evaporators have been used in a variety of systems such as nuclear steam

generators, cryogenic evaporators, and are currently being evaluated
for use in solar power generators.
In the flow in a helical coil, due to the large radial accelera-
tions induced by the helical path, there will be a secondary flow
present which at lower pressures causes the liquid at the center of each
tube cross section to be driven outward (farther from the coil axis) in
the center section of the tube and toward the center of curvature along
its outer walls. Figure 1-2 illustrates the effect of pressure and
mass velocity on the flow pattern and the location of dry out in two-
phase, helical coil flow. It has been shown that at high pressures of I
13 I
more than 160 atm, mass velocity will be the major factor affecting the
Iti B f.
location of dry out and local flow pattern [6]^ At low mass velocity,
the liquid will be flowing in the bottom of the tube due to the effect
of gravity, while at higher mass velocities the liquid will move radi-
ally outward attaching to the wall of the tube farthest from the center
of the curvature. At lower pressure, the secondary flow takes over.
This effect is especially important in the annular flow regime, where
secondary flow in the gas core causes a circulation in the liquid film.
Liquid film is carried with the gas flow from the channel wall close to
the center of curvature across the tube center and is deposited on the
opposite wall some distance downstream. The liquid is then returned to
the wall close to the center of curvature due to the circulation in the
liquid film further downstream. This peripheral circulation of liquid
film and separation of liquid droplets from the gas core due to centri-
fugal force maintains the inner tube wall wet up to very high qualities,
causing the critical heat flux to be higher in coils than in straight

Burnout
CO
E
CO
O
Q.
iJ
Low mass velocity
Q.
J-l
OJ
5-1
GO
•H
PS
Burnout
L High mass velocity
0)
00
u
03
O
Q.
Q.
0)
Burnout
u
3
0)
u
PL,
o
t-1
Axis of
helix
Figure 1-2 Location of Dryout for Flow

in Helical Coil [6]
8
tubes. That is, the transition to the liquid deficient condition
occurs at higher average steam quality and, therefore, it can be said
that at the same conditions an evaporator tube using a helical coiled
tube will be more efficient than one with a straight tube.
This concept is being used in the Crosbyton Solar Power Project.
The system consists of a solar radiation collector with a large fixed
spherical mirror which focuses the incident solar energy on a linear
receiver. The receiver consists of a cylinder with tube bundles heli-
cally coiled around it. This receiver functions as a linear, once-
through boiler, converting the compressed liquid to saturated or super-
heated steam, by transferring the energy from the solar flux incident
upon its outer surface to the working fluid (water/steam). The effluent
steam is then taken to the power plant for the generation of electricity,
To efficiently convert this thermal energy into electrical energy in a
Rankine thermodynamic cycle, the output of the receiver must be a high
temperature, high pressure steam.
Figure 1-3 is a picture of the system currently being tested using
this concept. The receiver system is supported from the top and is
built such that it is always aligned in the direction of the radiation
from the sun. At or near solar noon and zero incidence angle for the
dish collector, the receiver will be located such that at any specified
axial location, any differential area around its periphery can see the
same amount of mirror surface. Thus, the flux distribution around the
circumference of the receiver will be uniform, although it varies along
the length.
\
Figure 1-3 Photograph of the rixed Mirror

Distributed Focus (FMDF) System
10
At times other than solar noon, however, differential areas, around
the circumference of the receiver at a given axial location, will see
different amounts of mirror surfaces and, thus, the flux distribution
around the periphery of the receiver will not be uniform.
It is obvious that the heat transfer characteristics of the above
mentioned helical receiver are an important aspect in the operation of
the system. The knowledge and understanding of the behaviour of this
receiver under the actual working condition will be helpful in develop-
ing a final evaluation of the performance of the system as a whole.
After a careful examination of the literature, it was noticed that
most of the existing correlations for forced convective boiling are
valid for flow in channels with direct, uniform heating, while the
receiver in the model under investigation is subjected to a radiant
asymmetrical heat flux.
•Thus, it was felt that a series of tests on a receiver system sub-
jected to a radiant heat flux would not only be helpful in understanding
the behaviour of this specific receiver system, but the information so
obtained could also be useful in the design of other once-through steam
generators that use the same concept.
However, in order to simulate the actual conditions that system
experiences, one would need to have a long coil and some means of pro-
viding the incident radiation for the whole length of the receiver coil.
This radiation facility should be such that it would reproduce the
variations of the incident radiation on the actual receiver.
Such a test facility would be a very complicated and costly appara-
tus. Therefore, as it will be discussed in more detail in later chapters.

'*•» ^m'm'm
11
it was decided that a test facility be built that could be used to test
different segments of the receiver. Using this method, it would be
possible to investigate individual regions of the receiver, for example
the liquid heating region, the boiling region, the superheated region,
and even the transition region.
This test facility should also have the characteristic that would
allow the testing of the performance of the receiver under the conditions
of asymmetrical heating. This is of considerable interest as a great
deal of the actual performance of the system will be under such
conditions.
Figure 1-4 represents a typical variation of incident energy on the
receiver in terms of the number of suns as a function of axial location
along the receiver at solar noon and zero degree incidence angle, where )
mirror surfaces are assumed to have a perfect reflectivity of 1.0. This

I
figure also shows how the incident flux is subdivided into small segments, !
to be reproduced individually in the test facility. Under the conditions
of these tests, the best that could possibly be done was to average the
flux requirement for each subsection.

12
No. of segments
4 5 6 7
700
600
500
C
3
CO 400
c
o
CO
•u
c
a; 300
•J
c
o
o
i
200
100
X/R (Length along Receiver)
Figure 1-4 Variations of Incident Energy Upon

Receiver vs. Location [37]
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE SURVEY
Due to the ever increasing use of the concept of the evaporator
tubes in different applications in the industry in recent years,
boiling inside conduits under natural or forced circulation has been
the subject of the study of many investigators. Although these studies
have been mostly related to boiling inside the straight tubes, their
results have been very helpful in understanding the flow patterns and
heat transfer characteristics of flow in other tube configurations such
as orifices, bends, spirals, and helical coils.
Following is a brief review of a few of the papers and articles
published in this field. This is by no means a complete listing of
these papers, but these are the major works that are relevant to the
present study.
One of the most important of these studies is that of Lockhart-
Martinelli [18]. These authors correlated the pressure drop and liquid
hold up (the volume fraction of the flow conduit which is occupied by
the liquid phase) in isothermal two-phase, two component flow in pipes.
They obtained their data for simultaneous flow of air and liquids,
including benzene, kerosene, water, and oil at atmospheric pressure in
pipes with diameters ranging from 0.0586 to 1.017 inches. They concluded
that, depending on whether each phase is laminar or turbulent, four types
of flow exist. The two-phase pressure drop for each of these four flow
types was correlated by means of a parameter X, where X is the square
root of the ratio of the single phase pressure drop in the pipe if the
liquid was flowing alone to the single phase pressure drop if the gas
13
14
was flowing by itself. Liquid holdup was also correlated for all of
these four flow regimes by means of the parameter X.
Later, Martinelli, Nelson, and Schenectady [19] studied the effect
of boiling on two-phase pressure drop in pipes. They developed some
curves by means of which the pressure drop during boiling can be esti-
mated once the exit quality, the boiling pressure, and the pressure drop
for 100 percent total liquid flow are known.
Chen [9] obtained a correlation for boiling heat transfer to satu-
rated fluids in convective flow. He assumed that convective boiling
heat transfer is an additive mechanism of micro- and macroconvective
heat transfer. An effective two-phase Reynolds number function F was
calculated as a function of the Martinelli parameter X. A bubble
supression function S was obtained as an empirical function of the two-
phase Reynolds number. Then using these two functions, he was able to
calculate a heat transfer coefficient which when compared to experimental
results (over 600 data points) showed an average deviation of ±12 percent.
There are also a number of studies in which the effect of tube
curvature on single phase flow is the main concern of the authors.
The effect of pipe curvature on pressure drop in turbulent, single-
phase flow was the subject of an investigation by Ito [16]. His experi-
mental data were obtained from measurements of the pressure drop for
turbulent flow through curved pipes of different pipe diameters and
radius of curvatures. Based on these data points, Ito proposed empirical
correlations for calculating pressure drop for turbulent flow of single-
phase fluids in curved tubes.

15
Seban and McLaughlin [33] presented the results of their experi-
ments on friction factor and heat transfer for the laminar flow of oil
and the turbulent flow of water in tube coils having ratios of coil to
tube diameter of 17 and 104. The ranges of Reynolds numbers varied from
12 to 65000. They concluded that their results for the friction factors
for laminar and turbulent flow are predictable by Ito's correlations
when for non-isothermal flow the properties are evaluated at the mean
film temperature. Circumferential average heat transfer coefficients
for both laminar and turbulent flow were correlated with the Reynolds
number.
Experimental results for forced convection heat transfer and the
friction factor for turbulent flow of water through steam heated, coiled
tubes is reported by Rogers and Mayhew [30]. Three coils with ratios
of coil to tube diameters of 10.8, 13.3, and 20.12 were constructed from
0.5 inch O.D. copper tubing. The range of Reynolds numbers covered was
3 X 10 to 5 X 10^. The results of their experiments are compared to
the existing correlations and heat transfer coefficients were correlated
against Reynolds numbers.
Mori and Nakayama conducted a theoretical and experimental study of
forced convective heat transfer in curved pipes with laminar [22] and
turbulent [23] flow under the condition of uniform heat flux. They
obtained the resistance coefficient (friction factor) and heat transfer
coefficient in fully-developed regions of the flow. Their theoretical
and experimental results showed good agreement. Their results for
Nusselt numbers in both laminar and turbulent flow were correlated
against Dean number and Reynolds number. They also studied the effect
16
of replacing the condition of uniform heat flux with uniform wall
temperature [24]. They showed that in the first order approximation,
the Nusselt number for heat transfer in a curved pipe does not differ
for uniform wall temperature or uniform heat flux.
The effect of coil diameter, pitch, and the diameter of the tubing
used on the friction loss for Newtonian fluids flowing through helical
coils was studied by Mishra and Gupta [21]. A wide range of variables
were included. Pressure drop data in the laminar and turbulent region
for flow through 60 different helical coils was reported and correlations
representing their data in these flow regimes were obtained.
Srinivasan, et al [35] have examined the various published correla-
tions for pressure drop and heat transfer for the flow of fluids in coils
with a constant curvature (helices) and in those with a variable curvature
(spirals). The curvature is defined as the ratio of the tube diameter to
the diameter of the circle into which the tubing is bent. They also
reviewed the existing correlation for critical Reynolds number and pro-
posed new equations for critical Reynolds number in coils.
Two-phase flow inside coils has very interesting features, as it
combines the effect of the secondary flow due to self-induced radial
acceleration with the various aspects of the interactions between the
two phases.
Davidson, et al [13] studied the heat transfer and pressure drop in
spirally coiled steam generating tubes at pressures from 500 to 3300 PSI.
The tubes were exposed to furnace heat and were heated on only one side
of the spiral. The influence of variations of steam-water ratio and of
tube dimensions on heat transfer and pressure drop was investigated.

17
The effect of tube curvature on departure from nucleate boiling
was the subject of a study by Carver, et al [7]. Their experiments
were performed with water boiling in helical coils at 2600 PSI. Two
helical coils with ratios of coil to tube diameter of 16 and 65 were
constructed from 0.42 inch I.D. stainless steel tubing and were heated
uniformly by using them as resistance elements in an electric circuit.
The results of their experiments were stated as:
I. DNB in coiled tube occurs at different steam qualities for
different position around the circumference of the tubes; whereas, for
a straight vertical tube, DNB occurs around the complete circumference
of the tube at one steam quality.
II. Coiled tubes have higher average DNB steam qualities than do
)
i
straight vertical tubes.
III. Surface temperature fluctuations at the DNB point are much
lower than those in a straight vertical tube.
IV. In the coil with the smaller coil to tube diameter ratio, DNB
occurs at higher steam qualities than in the coil with the larger ratio
of coil to tube diameter.
V. Increase in mass velocity increases the steam quality at DNB.
Rippel, et al [29] measured the pressure drop, holdup, and liquid
phase axial mixing in coils constructed by winding 0.5 inch I.D. tubing
around a cylinder 8 inches in diameter. Measurements were made for
concurrent flow of air-water, helium-water, Freon 12-water, and air-
2 propanol. Liquid holdup was measured by both the tracer method and
trapping method. They concluded that the pressure drop in two-phase

18
flow can be predicted with reasonable accuracy by a two-phase flow
correlation derived for straight horizontal pipe.
In a number of experiments by Owhadi, et al [4,25,26,27], the
circumferential average and local heat transfer coefficient for forced
convective boiling inside helically coiled tubes at near atmospheric
pressure was correlated against the Lockhart-Martinelli parameter. Two
coils of 9.86 and 20.5 inches in diameter with tube inside diameter of
0.492 inches were uniformly heated by an electric current. Flow rate

4 5
ranges of 5.83 x 10 to 2.32 x 10 lb /(hr-sq ft) were investigated.
The exit conditions ranged from 1.4 percent quality mixture to SO^F \
\
superheated steam. !
Following the above experiments by Owhadi, Crain, et al [11,12]
correlated the local heat transfer coefficient against the Lockhart- i
Martinelli parameter for higher qualities, using almost the same experi- ,
mental set up. The range of the pressure in these experiments was
0-35 PSI.
The results of the above experiments are quite similar in nature
and indicate that the effect of the secondary flow in distributing
liquid to the surface of the tube is very important and due to this,
heat transfer coefficients at all circumferential locations remains high
up to qualities of approximately 90 percent, after which the heat trans-
fer coefficient at points other than the stagnation points of the
secondary flow decreases sharply. At qualities slightly above 90 per-
cent, the heat transfer coefficient at the location on the tube farthest
from the axis of the helix decreases, but it essentially remains high at
19
the location closest to the axis of the helix even up to qualities close
to 100 percent.
Crain also conducted visual flow observations by wrapping 5/8-inch
O.D. X 1/2-inch I.D, Tygon tubing around a mandrel. This experiment
confirmed the existence of the secondary flow and its effect on distri-
buting the liquid on the tube wall.
Banerjee, et al [2] investigated the effect of the tube and coil
diameter, helix angle and liquid viscosity on flow pattern, pressure
drop and holdup for concurrent gas liquid flow in helical coils. Nine
helical coils with coil diameters of 6, 9, and 12 inches and helix angles
of 2, 5, and 8 degrees were constructed from 5/8-inch I.D. vinyl tubing.
To investigate the effect of tube diameter on pressure drop and holdup,
four other coils were constructed from stainless steel tubes of diameters
up to 2 inches. Air-water and air-oil mixtures were run through these
coils. They found that small helix angles had no effect on pressure drop
and holdup in coiled tubes and both pressure drop and holdup could be
adequately correlated using modified Lockhart-Martinelli parameters.
Bianchi and Cumo [5] reported the results of their study on heat
transfer and pressure drop in once through steam generators. A straight
vertical test section (11 m long, 12 mm in inside diameter) and a helical
coil (83 cm coil diameter, 15 mm tube inside diameter, heated over 62.8
m ) , both uniformly heated by electric current were used. They reported
that no correlation has been found that accurately correlates their heat
transfer data, but Thom's correlation gives the best result. They found
that pressure drop in a coil can be calculated by the homogeneous model

20
with a correction factor. Using this approach, the authors were able to
predict their experimental pressure drop results to within ± 10 percent.
In another experiment on once through boilers, Campolunghi, et al
[8] constructed a helical coil with 0.836 m coil diameter from 0.0155 m
I.D. tubing. Subcooled liquid water entered the tube at the bottom and
superheated steam exited at the top. Ranges of pressure and mass velocity
2
covered were 80-170 bar and 1000-2500 kg/m -sec, respectively. They
found that for the ratios of heat transfer to mass velocities of less
than 0.13 KJ/kg, no DNB occurs and, thus, one may consider a boiling
length extended up to 100 percent quality for this range. A mean boiling
heat transfer coefficient for the entire length is suggested by the
authors which predicts their results within a ± 30 percent error margin.
From this brief review of the available pertinent literature, it
becomes evident that most of the work done so far has been related to
flow inside straight conduits or helical coils where the test section
was heated uniformly by using it as a resistance in an electric current

i
circuit. At present the only study that the author is aware of in which
indirect radiant heating has been used is due to Davidson, et al [13]
which was done on flow in spirals heated by flame in a furnace, which
was reported in 1943.
Although the bulk of data and correlations obtained from these
studies are very helpful in understanding the general behaviour of the
system under investigation, it is felt that in order to be able to
accurately analyze the effects of asymmetry of the flux field around
the circumference of the tube cross section (as well as around the
21
periphery of the coil itself in some cases) on the thermodynamic and heat
transfer characteristics of the receiver system, a new set of experiments
is needed.
These experiments could include the effect of heat flux variations
around the circumference of the tube cross section, as well as the change
in parameters such as mass velocity, pressure, temperature and the quality
of the working fluid. A flow loop, designed to simulate these conditions
will be described in detail in the next chapter.
I
CHAPTER III
DISCUSSION OF EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS
As it was mentioned earlier, in order to simulate the actual
working conditions of the receiver system in the FMDF Solar Thermal
Power system, it was decided to construct a test section, a helically
coiled tube, similar to the actual receiver. Then by changing the
incident flux and the state of the working fluid at the test section
inlet, one would be able to test the performance of different segments
of the receiver under various conditions of symmetrical or asymmetrical
heating. The flow loop must have the ability to provide the test section
with a working fluid ranging from subcooled liquid to a water-steam
mixture with different qualities, or superheated steam, corresponding to
the pressure at the inlet to the test section. The radiant testing
facility used in this study was designed to perform these functions.
A schematic diagram of the flow loop is presented in Figure 3-1.
It can be divided into the following major subsections, which will be
explained individually later in this chapter:
1. Equipment controlling the fluid conditions at the test
section inlet.
2. Heat exchanger.
3. Test section.
4. Solar simulator.
5. Condenser
6. Supporting instrumentation.
A summary of the major instruments used in this investigation along
with their stated accuracy are tabulated in table 3-1.
22
23
Test Section
i.Lt-i.
—@H-
C.V c.v
Condenser
©-<T) (P><T)
Hot O i l
Heater
©- H.X.
Pump
.-O ®-<T)
Cooling
Water
P.R.V. Pressure Relief Valve

P.D. Pulsation Dampener
H.X. Heat Exchanger
C.V. Check Valve V.8
V Valve
T
P
Temperature Sensor
Pressure Sensor 'Discharge i
'•>X V •^x m Flow Rate Monitor
Circuits By-Pass Line

(B) (A)
Water Supply
Tank
P.D. JT"" I
V.3 P.R.V.
Strainer
Figure 3-1 Schematic Diagram of the Test Loop

24
B^
in
r>« CO
• -H
o S^ ^s &«5 B«« o u fe
o
cd • in m O un
u 1)
U u Q)
u < o o iH o o Q)
> Q)
CC in <:
3
CJ
• • • • • •
2 o o O o fe Xi U «N
q +1 +1 +1 +1 0 O 60 +1
< O -H
• 4=
•<r >
+1
T3 <v Q iH
0) oo cn 1 -d-
<d
CM
iH 3 1 Q #t CM
iH Cd cu U ^ 1
•H
A V.I
o
iH iH Pi^ o r-i iH 0)
.c
4-1 ON
in
:s
<r1 0)
M
1
M
1
iH
•p d) (U a -H a\ CO
o CO 13 -o iH 0
H 3 P£S 0^ •H (U O o ^ ^
ft, CO H
M
TS PM O S S CO rH rH
cn = 0) (U
u (U
0) iH C iH iH A n A A C» • H X3 0 TD
S-i (U Cd (U (U &0 00 CO CO •->^ r H 0 4-1 0
TS M XI T3 •H •H +J 4-1 S S
3 '-' -9 Cd
u O H o O CO
Pu
CO
o a 6 a n
o s S S Pu 3 3 « Q)
*^ • H
cfl
:s n
T3 XI • CO • T3 •
4-1 «\ o A
O o O 0 0
• iH
o a CO
C M
c
3 • • O o U M
PL.
c <c
M M
C
l-H
C a fe o o O o P-i
C cd c c c iH iH (U cu OJ
o Is M t H M
U A
•H c O o (U
c a) 00 Oi 00 3 00
•u «4J ^ •H 0i
.< a cd o C 3 4J C 4J c
cfl >^.0 >. >^ A A 3 4J 3 •H O 0 T\ Cd •H
a iH ao M3 00 t>0 (U (U T3
CO
O XI
CO
V4
OJ
a Q)
o C
!-i $-1
-i
fcc 4:: CO 00 H 00 5
x; J2 H H
o s
C J=
(U 4.) tu H •H C CO
0) H o o $-1
iH
C
rH c
iH 0) fe vO 5 5 o CO (U •H 
 CJ 0
o- 0 0 0 pu
p.
•H
3
cr
w
/-N 0
p.. CO
<
^w/
1 #\
U-)
P^
u j-i
H
A
0 /—s $-1 X
ro 4-1 0) <1-
4J . X) XI
00
QJ CD H
x:
0
.H •B PH a< CO
CO n 4->
CO /"-N A A A
3 C
cd CN •H
OJ rH CN <r vD cd 3
S-i
0 f-i 1 1 pL. PH
u H 5
1 rH rH #1 A
H ^ H M CO
•6 0 rH
C ro 'B
v-^
CO
PH
rH
(U 14-J (U 5-1 5-1
0 PH
v,^
H 0 0
• H (U >«-' M U ^^-^
•P M S-4 }-l 3 !-i 3 4-1 4-1
CD 0 CO U Cd
cd 3 0 0 M V4
CO 4-1 CD 0 0
a
a 00 !-i u 4-1 0
4J
0
4-1 (U Cd (U CO •H
<u
0 -H 0 cd Cd
r-{ T3
^(U
a 5-1 pi
HJ C^ 4-1 0 Cd Cd v^
PH (U CO
•H ^H •H 0 a 3 PH
CO M
3
<^ c •H XI
c
0
X3 XI •H
XI -0 r-\ 0 ^ cu
0 c Mc Cd B •cd (U CU rH
c
0 s M
Mc Hu •H H
cu 4J 5-1 5-1 O.
•H 0) (U 0) 4-1 Q 3 3 3
4-1 4-» 4J 4-1 (U (U C C 4J 4-1 0
0 cd Cd Cd }-i 5-1 (U J-i (U Cd Cd 0
(3 P^ pts (ii 3 3 ^ (U 5-1 U / ^ 5-1 0
•H (U 0) r^
3 CD CO cu cu e
5-1
1
r-l
5
0
rH
5
0
rH
CO
0)
l-l
CD
0)
>-i
14-1
l4-(
•rl
U
U
cd
14-^
U-i
•H
P-
6
cu
H
•>
vo
a
6
cu
cu
f=M fe fe PH PH 0 0 0 H H H ^
25
(U
(U
>% i H
4-» a g
;>> 3 4J
o ^ u O U a
cd tH
• < < < < <: <: < <3 <3
o o o cu
14H 0 14-1
u O • • • • • e
3 • • • • 6 cu
O +1 z 3 Z z z z z Z Z PH 5-1 6>5 5^
o 0 (U r H 3
0.0
leas
1.5
<
•M
+1 ts^ +1 B
X j-i
O crt
CD 4-> g >.
•U •H 5^ 5-1 4-1
rH :$ CU 
O CO
>%
g j - \
rH •P
cd
O
CO
P.
r-{
.Q
U 5.4
o cd
53
& 5-1 cu B
o cd 4-1 « a
4J cu C 5-1 Cd
4-J cu O 5.4
o
in
o
psJ rH
o
CJ J3 e
3 •P 00
CX3 3 3 6 cd o
M cs r-\ PH < (U H •H r-{ 5-1
CU O 1 M >< 3 5-1 PH
5-1 rH A
O 3 X3 Cd o
3
T-^
CU CM 4J C S e
3 p A
4-* X3 1-^ c
o in Cd cd a cd <t
a O CU •H o 5.4 ,C o r-{ vP
cd S X3 4-1 1 CU rH 4-1 <: 3 o B
(4-1 O cd EH P. rH •H •H 00 CM CU
3 A
S u ^ B CU 15 CO o cu 1 P
d • o cu X fl4
o Pi Q CD
C p. rH H CO O • dn >i
cd O A
•
o cu P. CO
XI
O
•H s CJ
u Xcu m
CO o
vP
5-1 rH
P. o I O #t
o o 5-4
CU 3
(U 4-1 oa o 5^ u o in • o 3 O
3 cd •H O
s in
o rH T-ll r-\ CD CJ 3 X) o
o CJ CU CD •H O 'H
Mc
rH M rH CU
•H •H CU 4-1 Cd «k CO X I 4-> X3 cu CD <4-l S P
4J cu CU •H •H
>4H Ti a r-^ B 5-1 o Cd 0 5-1
3 •H o cu O 5-1 CU •H •1
S s P-. > 3 " CD
O 4-1 rH 5.4 (U 4J 5.1 S T-\ 3 CU "H
s 43
W
g P3cdcu PH «v
A
3 4J ffi •H cr
c Pu CU
a a p.
XI c O 1 00 B o E e 1 rH O
P rH C 3 -^ 3 3 >^ 5-1 5-1 < :
O U o1 • PH CU
I CO o
X) Cd cd (i4 PH cu
p
cu
4-J Cd
CO P' CU 4-1 • H ^ 4-> . 3
o .i»i
C B > ^ 3 C CD o 4-1 P p •H 5-1 CD P
cu
i
Pu
•H
CO
o
1-4 Pt^
3 rH cu
PH
3
CJ ^
Cd M-l
CJ 0
cd
CJ
cd
CJ § cd
PH
Cd
P4
Cd
o
cd •H
H 3
cr
w
5-1
O
P
cd cu
C rH
00
•H O
CD
p
u PS
CU .P PH
O rH a 3 /—V N»^
1 p O
Q
3 CO •H a
Ive
P-i
O 5
• H CU CO o
4-t 5-1 •H
M p 5-1 cd
cd 3
O 00 M O cd CU >
O -H CU 4-1 S 3
CU M-l
HJ PU 4-1 CJ o
p U P. CU
^
r-i
cu 3 CU B •H
â 3 p
B
CU < 00 cd rH
3
o rH CO 3 Q CU CU 5-1
5-1 5-1 cd Cu Pi > CU
o o CU .3 B 3 r-li 5-1 00
•H > 5-1 CU
O CU Cd O 00
p CU P P o 3
P cd •H 5-1 > CD
o
o r-^ cd
cu ^
PH P 3 3 hJ
3 Cd 9J cu CO
3 p 6 33 DS 5-1 Cd ^ cu
p p CU CD CO o XI cd
Pu •H
p
00 j - ^ rH :-^ cd P j-i cu cu 3
•H 0 •H •H cu cd 3 5-1 -3 O Cd
Q > O X IS PU PH CJ O O
o
26
3.1 Equipment Controlling the Fluid Condition
at the Test Section Inlet
Deionized water stored in a water supply tank was drawn by a
positive displacement pump through a strainer. The pump was a Cat
pump model 330 which was capable of delivering 4.0 GPM at 1000 psi. This
pump provides a relatively uniform flow, but to insure that even these
minor pump pulsations will not result in any kind of flow instability
in the system, two pulsation dampeners or accumulators with different
amounts of charges were installed. It was determined experimentally
that one of these would dampen any pressure fluctuations when the pump
discharge pressure was below 300 psi and the other which had a higher
charge pressure would dampen the fluctuations for pressures above 300
psi. Both of these accumulators had a maximum working pressure of 1000
psi and a safety factor of 4 to 1.
An adjustable pressure relief valve was installed after the pulsa-
tion dampeners to keep the pump and the other components of the flow
loop below a safe pressure.
In order to adjust the total mass flow rate to a desired level, a
bypass line was provided. This line would return the excess deionized
water back to the supply tank. The flow then passed through one of the
two flow rate monitors with different ranges of flow measuring capability.
The smaller one had a range of 0.05 to 0.5 GPM, while the larger one had
a range of 0.5 to 4.5 GPM.
After measuring the total mass flow rate, temperature and pressure
of the fluid, it was delivered to one of the two lines which hereon will
be called the superheated vapor line (line A) and the subcooled liquid
27
line (line B). Each line was equipped with a micrometer needle valve.
The amount of fluid flowing through the subcooled liquid line was
measured by another flow meter with a range of 0.25 to 2.5 GPM. The
difference between the total flow rate and the flow rate through the
subcooled liquid line represents the flow rate through the superheated
vapor line.
The fluid passing through the superheated vapor line was passed
through a shell and tube heat exchanger where it was converted to super-
heated steam.
During the course of the experiments, it was noticed that after
the system was shut down, the steam or hot water in the heat exchanger
tends to flow backward through the system. As this would possibly result
in damage to the pump, a check valve was installed before the heat
exchanger.
After the temperature and pressure of the steam leaving the heat
exchanger was measured, the subcooled and the superheated vapor flows
were combined. Each of the lines were provided with a check valve before
this connection was made, as the higher pressure in any one of these
lines might force the fluid in the other line to flow in the reverse
direction or probably would tend to stop the flow in the other line.
The temperature and pressure of the mixture was measured after
this junction. Using these measured quantities, i.e., the total flow
rate, the subcooled liquid flow rate and pressures and temperatures
measured at three different locations before and after the connection
was made, and by a simple energy balance on the system, the enthalpy of
the mixture at the inlet to the coil was calculated. If the state of
28
the system at this point was saturated, the quality would also have to
be calculated.
By changing the total flow rate, subcooled liquid flow rate and
the pressure and the temperature of the discharge steam from the heat
exchanger, a mixture of steam and water with different qualities as
desired was obtained. It was also possible to send the fluid through
only one of the lines, to get a superheated steam or subcooled liquid
with different temperatures corresponding to the pressure at the inlet
to the coil.
3.2 Heat Exchanger
To be able to simulate the actual working conditions of individual
sections of the main receiver system in the FMDF system, the test ^
i
facility must be able to provide the test section with a working fluid
I
ranging in temperature from a compressed liquid to a two-phase mixture i
of steam and water or superheated vapor.
A gas-fired oil heater with an oil to water shell and tube heat
exchanger provided the thermal energy necessary to meet these ranges of
conditions. The heat transfer oil (Exxon Calora HT43) in the system was
heated by a Fulton's "Fultemp" gas-fired oil heater up to a desired
temperature with an upper limit of 650°F, which is the maximum tempera-
ture that this oil can stand without being degraded. The oil heater was
equipped with an automatic temperature controller, a Fenwel series 550,
which would shut off the flow of gas to the oil heater as soon as the oil
temperature was within a few degrees of a preset value, while the oil was
continuously being recirculated through the heat exchanger.

29
The heat exchanger was a Cust-0-Fab, Inc. shell and tube heat
exchanger with a counter flow, one-shell pass, one-tube pass design with
18 rows of 3/4-inch O.D. tubing. It had a design temperature of 600*'F
on the tube side.
3.3 Test Section
The helically coiled tube test section used in these experiments
was made from 14.7 feet of type 304 seamless stainless steel tubing with
a 3/8-inch outside diameter and 0.049-inch wall thickness. The coil was
made by wrapping the tubing around a cylindrical mandrel in such a manner
that consecutive turns of the coil were in close contact as was dictated
by the design of the receiver in the FMDF system. The diameter of the
coil, from tube center to center, was 2.74 inches and the coil had a
total number of 20 turns. No measurable flattening of the tube during
this process was noticed.
In order to measure the variations of tube wall temperature along
the axis of the tube as well as its circumferential direction, a total
number of 42 type K (Chromel-Alumel), 20-guage thermocouples were located
on the outside surface of the tube in a special arrangement such that
there was one thermocouple station at each 1 1/3 turns of the coil. At
each thermocouple station, either two or four thermocouples were arc
welded or silver soldered to the tube surface. At the stations with
two thermocouples, one was arc welded on the location of the tube wall
farthest from the coil axis (location A, 6 = 0 ° ) and one was silver
soldered on the location nearest to the coil axis (location C, 9 = ISO**).
At the stations with four thermocouples, two more thermocouples were

30
silver soldered at 90-degree angles from locations A and C mentioned
above (locations B and D counterclockwise). A schematic diagram of
thermocouple arrangements around the circumference of the tube cross
section is shown in Figures 3-2.a and 3-2.b.
Arranged in this manner, the coil as a whole had three rows of
thermocouples along the axis of the coil located 120 degrees apart.
There were a total number of 15 thermocouple stations along the coiled
tubing, located at intervals of approximately 0.98 feet. This arrange-
ment would allow the measurement of the temperature variation around the
circumference of the tubing, as well as in the axial and circumferential
directions of the coil itself.
The lead wires of all of these thermocouples were connected to a
data logger for readout and recording of the temperatures at each thermo-
couple location on the coil. This data acquisition system scanned and
recorded all of the temperatures and. flow rates measured along the flow
loop. It was an Esterline Angus model PD-2064 which was programmable
with 64-channel recording capability.
Thermocouple station numbers, number of thermocouples at each
station, and the distance between each thermocouple station and the coil
inlet are given in Table 3-2.
After the thermocouples were connected, the coil surface was wire
brushed and then coated with Tempil Corporation "Pyromark 2500" flat
black paint. This special paint is reported [371 to have a high absorp-
tance in the solar spectrum (a = 0.90) and to be able to withstand
temperatures up to 2500**F when properly applied, cured, and vitrified.

31
^^' ^'
-x-'y^
Ci(^
Coil Axis
Figure 3-2.a Figure 3-2.b
Figure 3-2 Circumferential Location of Thermocouples;

3-2.a: Stations with two thermocouples
3-2.b: Stations with four thermocouples
32
Table 3-2
Location and Number of Thermocouples

at Each Station
Distance
Station Number of
from
Number Thermocouples
Coil Inlet
(inches)
1 2 4.4
2 4 16.2
3 2 27.9
4 2 39.7
5 2 51.5
6 4 63.3
7 2 75.0
8 2 86.8
9 2 98.6
10 4 110.3
11 2 122.1
12 2 133.9
13 2 145.6
14 4 157.4
15 2 169.2
33
After the paint was dry, it was cured in the oven for one hour at 480''F
and for one hour at 1000**F,
Figures 3-3.a and 3-3.b show pictures of the coil and the thermo-
couple wires before the coil surface was painted.
The pressure drop across the coil was measured by a Celesco model
P-3D differential pressure transducer which was capable of measuring
differential pressures in the range of ± 0.1 to ± 5000 psi at high line
pressures by the use of interchangeable diaphragms. This transducer
operates in combination with a Celesco model CD-10 carrier-demodulator
with 10 volts DC output. The output of this demodulator was connected
to a Simpson model 2850 DC digital voltmeter through a rotary selector
switch.
There were also two precision type pressure gauges, Ashcroft 0-1000
psig oil filled gauges, placed at the inlet and exit to the coil. The
combination of the test gauge at the inlet to the coil and the differ-
ential pressure transducer across the coil provided the pressure at the
test section exit with the second pressure gauge at the exit giving a
check on the performance of the differential pressure transducer and also
acting as a back-up system during the tests.
3.4 Solar Simulator
As it was mentioned earlier, in order to investigate the performance
of the receiver coil, it was necessary to simulate the intensity of the
incident radiation along the actual receiver in a segment by segment
fashion. The radiative fluxes that this solar simulator must provide
were defined by previous analyses performed by both Texas Tech University

34
Figure 3-3.a Close-up view of the thermocouple

j u n c t i o n s on the c o i l
</
&j^^
Figure 3-3.b Coiled tube test section before

it was painted
35
and E-Systems Corporation [36,37]. For example, at solar noon and a
zero degree incidence angle, assuming a perfect reflectivity of 1.0 for
the mirror surfaces, the incident flux upon the receiver ranges from
30 suns at the bottom of the receiver to 650 suns at the top. Each sun
is generally defined as the amount of incident flux upon the surface of
the earth on a clear day and is taken to be 1000 w/m^. The distribution
of the incident flux at solar noon was presented earlier in Figure 1-4.
This figure also shows how the axial length of the receiver was sub-
divided into nine different segments. The average incident flux for
some of these segments was reproduced by using a solar simulator
described below. Asymmetrical incident flux distribution at times
other than solar noon is given in reference [36].
Sandia Laboratories had fabricated a series of infrared lamp panels
for use in solar receiver testing. These panels were made available to
Texas Tech University for the period of these experiments.
The panels had a polished aluminum reflector and were designed to
hold up to 17 pairs of T-3 quartz lamps with a distance of 0.5 inches
between the center of the lamps. The panels were approximately 18 inches
square and were composed of a main reflecting panel and two electrical
busbars. Each of these three components had a separate water cooling
jacket as it was required to keep the panel temperature below 160°F
during the period when the lamps were on. To achieve this, a cooling
water system was designed to deliver approximately 3.0 GPM of water to
the reflecting panel and 0.5 GPM to each of the busbars. During each
experiment, water flowed continuously through the cooling jackets. A

36
schematic diagram of one of the panels is reproduced from [34] in
Figure 3-4.
In order to be able to approximate a uniform circumferential
radiant flux incident upon the test section, three of these panels were
arranged in a triangular fashion. These panels were mounted on a frame
in such a manner that the panel in the bottom was fixed and the two side
panels were hinged at the bottom. This arrangement allowed the repro-
duction of the symmetrical flux distributions when the two side panels
were brought together, with the simulation of asymmetrical flux distri-
bution possible by opening the two side panels.
The electric power required for the lamp panels was provided by a
300 KVA, 400 A, three phase dry transformer.
Figure 3-5.a represents a typical triangular arrangement of the
lamp panels and the location of the test section at the center of the
triangle, while Figure 3-5.b shows a typical lamp panel arrangement when
the side panels are open.
3.5 Condenser
In cases where the pressure and temperature of the effluent frc:om
the test section indicates that saturation conditions exist at the out-
let, the quality of the mixture must be determined.
One of the methods of calculating this exit quality is to condense
this two-phase mixture into a subcooled liquid and measure the amount of
heat released during this process. A simple energy balance on the system
will then reveal the exit quality.

37
Panel Cooling
Serpentine Reflective Back
Panel
ih 'I !! 'i !i ii It!! lull i! i| iM iinN n n i li i li ji ii ii / •rv^
«>~'i /
o r
/
I
I
I
/ » (.--. i /
i f
/
' I 1
I 1 I
i!«
I
I
I I
1 1 '
I I .
/ >«.
--^ u
"!! :i !| :! i| î il 11 'I '!lii ! !! |l i: 'I ii zM

Electrical Teflon
Busbars Instilator
nnOinJ]J!y]rtnOr^^^ Busbar Cooling Channel

• • ,
TET
i :
nu \ r
Teflon Insulator
1 r Cooling
Cooling Water
Water
Figure 3-4 Schematic Diagram of Lamp Panel

Representing the Cooling Channels
38
Figure 3-5.a Triangular Position of Lamp Panels
^^jj^^j^^^^^J^^Jj^^^^^^^y^ln^y,
Figure 3-5.b Open Position of Lamp Panels

39
Therefore, a condenser unit was placed in the flow loop after the
test section. The unit provided was a compact heat exchanger made of a
helically coiled annulus. The outer tube which carried the cooling
water was copper, while the inner passage was made of stainless steel
tubing to withstand the higher pressures. The unit was capable of
removing 400,000 Btu/hr at 7 GPM of cooling water flow. The condenser
was tightly wrapped in several layers of insulating material and was
then placed in an insulated box to minimize the heat loss.
The cooling water flow rate was measured by an in-line turbine
flow transducer with a flow measuring range of 5 to 60 GPM. The pressure
and temperature of the cooling water at the inlet and exit of the con-
denser and the temperature and pressure of the working fluid at the exit
from the condenser were also measured. Assuming that all of the heat
being removed from the working fluid during the condensation process
was transferred to the cooling water, the quality of the mixture entering
the condenser (leaving the test section) was calculated by an energy
balance on the condenser. In cases where the entering fluid was not
saturated, the enthalpy of the fluid calculated in this manner provided
a measure of accuracy for the measured temperature and pressure at the
exit of the test section, as well as the amount of incident flux upon
the test section.
Figure 3-6 is a photograph of the test facility which shows the
arrangement of the lamp panel cooling water lines, the condenser unit,
and the lamp panels in their open position.

40
Figure 3-6 Photograph of the

Test Facility
41
3.6 Supporting Instrumentation
The instruments that were used to measure any one of the different
quantities during this experiment comprise a major part of the equipment
used. Although some of these instruments were mentioned briefly in pre-
vious sections while describing other major components of the flow loop,
it is thought that a more precise description of some of the more impor-
tant ones under a separate heading would serve the purpose better. These
instruments can be classified as follows.
3.6.1 Flow Measuring Instruments
Four flow rate monitor units with different ranges of flow measuring
capabilities were used. These units were each composed of a Flow
Technology, Inc. standard line, turbine flow transducer, and an econo-
line indicator.
Flow through the turbine-type flow transducer produces electrical
pulses which are transmitted to the econo-line indicators. These
indicators have an analog readout device which represents the flow rate
as the percentage of the maximum flow. The indicators also provide an
analog output of 0-10 VDC. This voltage output was connected to a
digital voltmeter via a rotary switch for instantaneous readout and also
to the data logger for recording of the flow rates during each run.
These flow meters were calibrated in the factory at the time of
the purchase and were also frequently checked against each other or re-
calibrated using a graduated container to measure the effluent liquid
during a certain time interval.

42
3.6.2 Temperature Sensors
The temperature of the fluid flowing through the flow loop was
measured at eight different locations by placing type K, sheathed thermo-
couples in the direction of the flow. The output of these thermocouples
was connected to a digital temperature indicator via a rotary switch and
also to the data logger. This procedure proved to be very helpful as it
was very easy to check the fluid temperature at any desired location
along the flow loop, while other variables were changing.
Another thermocouple was used to measure the temperature of the
lamp panel cooling water. If the temperature of the cooling water after
circulating through the cooling jacket on the panels rose above a pre-
scribed limit, an automatic switch would be activated to cut off the
electric power to the lamps. The sound of a buzzer and an indicator
light on the instrument panel would inform the operator of the problem
in the system.
3.6.3 Pressure Sensors
The pressure of the fluid flowing through the test section was
controlled by a valve located after the condenser unit. Pressure was
monitored at seven different locations along the flow loop. Precision
type pressure gauges with a range of 0 to 1000 psi and 5 psi graduations
were used.
At the heat exchanger exit and inlet and at the exit of the test
section, the gauges were oil filled to further increase the accuracy of
the measurements. Pressure drop across the coil was also measured by a
differential pressure transducer and compared with the gauge readings.

43
An automatic pressure monitoring device was placed at the exit
from the test section. If the pressure in the system due to any mal-
functioning of the instruments or human error rose above the preset
value, this device would automatically turn the pump off and inform
the operator by the sound of a buzzer and the indicator light on the
instrument panel. Figure 3-7 is a picture of the instrument panel.
The radiant test facility, composed of the lamp panels and the
frame structure, the test section, and the flow lines, was located in
an area surrounded by a 12-foot high concrete block wall. This pre-
caution was taken to avoid any personal injury due to exposure to high
pressure steam leaks or high heat fluxes. Figure 3-8 shows the relative
location of different components of the test facility.

44
Figure 3-7 Instrument Panel

45
1.
.y
>s u cu
U (U
a B u
u U 3
< a a OJ u
> U4
•^ o
^ CO
C r-t
c
C8 •H O s
o M U C 0)
o
cn e- VM CJ "a
O CO
CN r-t
^ S3 3
5.1 0)
<U
1/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 7 CO
c c
CO ns
rr 1-1
^ U
X
/ / ctj
(U
u u
<v
Su p
0 CC
iJ / 3 CD
31 c I
r-l
W4 o
•H
E ^
.p^ O C
CO CU C8
CO •art
5-1
Cd 4_i
f-i OJ
o a
cn H
00
I
CO
/ cu
1/ 5-1
3
/ / / / / / / / / / / // / / 00
•H
CHAPTER IV
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
4.1 Introduction
Instruments installed in the test facility were chosen based on
the desired measurement range, application, and accuracy requirements.
On-site calibration was also performed on all flow meters, pressure
gauges, and selected thermocouples before installation in the test loop.
Pressure gauges were checked against dead weight tester and, in
all cases, showed no more than ± 2 psi deviation. On the flow meters,
the turbine flow transducers were checked for cleanliness and free
rotation of the turbine rotor.
The instruments were then placed in the flow loop. At places
where the temperature of the flowing fluid was to be measured, a sheathed
thermocouple probe type K, 1/8 inch in diameter was inserted against the
flow direction in an effort to measure the bulk temperature of the fluid
as close as possible. The flow meter transducers were placed in horizon-
tal sections of the flow loop, upstream of any flow control valves and
bypasses. The calibration of these flow meters were checked several
times during the period of the tests by collecting the effluent of the
system in a graduated container.
For each series of test runs that were executed, the main variable
could be considered to be the heat flux intensity which was set to a
predetermined level by arranging the lamps in the lamp panel into a
specific configuration. These lamp configurations were determined by a
previous investigation [34] so as to reproduce the average radiation
46
47
intensity at successive segments of the receiver. The average intensity
of radiation for different segments of the receiver for the case of
solar noon at a zero degree angle of incidence was shown in Figure 1-4.
At this time of the day the distribution of radiant flux around the
circumference of the receiver is symmetrical, but in the early morning
and late afternoon the receiver will be subjected to both axially and
circumferentially asymmetric radiant fluxes.
Both symmetric and asymmetric radiant fields were mapped [34] by
manipulating lamp and panel configurations to most closely simulate the
actual radiant conditions the receiver would encounter in the field.
In order to measure the intensity of radiation from the lamps, a
fluxmeter was constructed consisting of a Gordon gauge calorimeter
placed in a replacement receiver. This calorimeter was calibrated by
the manufacturer using quartz filters in an effort to accurately repro-

•i
duce the radiant spectrum of the T-3 quartz lamps. l
Using this approach, symmetric flux plots of intensities ranging
from 24.2 to 156 suns and ass3rmmetric flux plots of intensities ranging
from 15 to 220 suns at the peak were mapped. Figure 4-1 is a photograph
of the fluxmeter in the test section. Figures 4-2 and 4-3 are two
examples of the symmetrical and asymmetrical incident fluxes that were
mapped by using this fluxmeter [34].
At the beginning of each series of tests, the magnitude of the
heat flux for those tests was chosen and the lamps were placed in the
lamp panels according to the lamp panel configuration corresponding to
the desired heat flux level. The oil heater was then ignited and the
48
Figure 4-1 Photograph of Experimental Flux Plot Configuration

49
160-
1501
140-
CN 130-
^ 120-
•J
"^^ 110.
c:
0
100-
u
CO
5a 90-
4J
80-
o
c 70-
CJ
u 60j
cu
3 50-
0
A4
4J 40.
c.•3
-H
30-
5J
06
20-
101
0
-r
—r 90 120 150 130 210 240 270 300 330 360
0 30 60
Caloriineter P o l a r P o s i t i o n (")
Figure 4-2 Symmetric Flux Plot
50
rM
I
5. 13C4
120 ii
UO
u 100
u
3
90'
80 •
70-
60 .
50.
40,
30-
20-
10 -
0 30 60 90 120 130 180 210 240 270 300 230 360
Calcriaecar Polar Position ('')

Figure 4-3 Asymmetric Flux Plot
51
flow of the working fluid through the coiled tube test section was
started.
When the temperature of the steam at the heat exchanger exit was
about 500**F, the flow of the cooling water through the condenser and the
lamp panel was started.
The total flow rate and the subcooled liquid flow rate was then
adjusted to give the desired flow rate through the heat exchanger. At
this point the power line to the quartz lamps was connected. The temper-
ature of the fluid entering the test section was always a good indicator
of when the existing conditions were close to steady state, as otherwise
temperature fluctuations were noticed.
4.2 Single-Phase Runs
Experimental runs during which only single phase fluid was flowing
through the test section was performed for both subcooled liquid and
superheated vapor states.
The subcooled liquid runs were usually the first experiments that
were performed during each day that the system was operated. A few runs
with the liquid at the temperature of the supply tank, but with various
flow rates and different inlet pressures, were performed first. The oil
heater was then ignited and the process of heating the fluid through the
heat exchanger was started. At any point during this process, fluids
with different degrees of subcooling were obtained by keeping the inlet
pressure above the saturation pressure for the existing temperature.
The superheated vapor runs were executed in the same manner as the
subcooled liquid runs, except that the inlet pressure was kept below the
52
saturation value. By increasing the flow rate through the superheated
vapor line, steam with different degrees of superheat was obtained.
4.3 Two-Phase Runs
For tests involving two-phase conditions, it was necessary to mix
two streams of fluid, one superheated steam and the other subcooled
liquid, both with known pressure, temperature, and flow rate. Having
these measured properties, one could easily calculate the enthalpy and
hence the quality and other properties of the mixture by a simple energy
balance at the junction of the two inlet streams of fluid. A sample
calculation will be presented in the appendix.
After the desired mixture of liquid and vapor at the test section
inlet was reached and it was assured that the conditions were such that
the assumption of steady state condition was applicable, a set of data
was taken. The next step then was to either change the pressure or the
flow rates in an effort to establish a two-phase mixture.
Initially, the superheated vapor flow rate was slightly decreased
while the subcooled liquid flow was gradually increased such that the
total flow rate would stay constant. In this manner, at a given total
flow rate, the state of the fluid entering the test section would vary
from a high quality mixture to one with a low quality. Then, the total
flow rate was either increased or decreased and the same process was
repeated in a reverse fashion, such that the compressed liquid flow rate
was decreased and the superheated vapor flow rate was increased while
the total flow rate was constant.

53
It should be mentioned here that in some cases when the two-phase
runs were being executed, at special combinations of mass flow rates
instability in the system was noticed. Rapid fluctuations in the
pressure and temperature of the fluid at the inlet and exit to the test
section were an indication of the unstable condition present. The range
of temperature fluctuations were sometimes in the order of ± 30*'F in
less than 30 seconds. Parallel channel instabilities are thought to be
the cause of these unstable conditions. No special instrument for
recording of these fluctuations was considered and, thus, no data were
taken. A change in the pressure at the coil inlet or change in the mass
flow rate combination was found to resolve the problem.

CHAPTER V
THERMAL ANALYSIS
In previous chapters, it was mentioned that in the process of
convective boiling, the hydrodynamic and heat transfer mechanisms are
very closely interrelated. The existence of the complex flow patterns,
the unknown slip ratio (ratio of the gas phase velocity to the liquid
phase velocity) between the phases and the uncertainty about the local
conditions existing at any point in the channel render the problem very
difficult to be solved analytically.
For flow of a two-phase mixture in a coiled tube, in addition to
the above mentioned difficulties, one encounters the effects of the
secondary flow in the vapor core which constantly exerts a drag on the
liquid droplets in the flow, causing them to move outward from the
center section of the tube to the outer wall and then circulating along
the tube wall back to the wall closest to the center of the curvature.
In the problem under investigation, the combination of the factors
mentioned above, along with the fact that the incident flux around the
circumference of the tube is asymmetrical, causes the problem to be very
difficult, if not impossible, to be solved analytically, thus necessi-
tating this experiment.
The succeeding will present the development of an analysis for the
heat transfer characteristics in two-phase helical flow for the case of
both symmetric and assjnranetric radiant heating of the helical coil.
Results will be presented in Chapter VI from the experimental test
program for the case of symmetrical heating for a range of flow rates,
54
55
heat transfer rates, and inlet thermodynamic conditions to the test
section.
The quantities necessary for the calculation of the heat transfer
coefficient at the inner surface of the tube are:
q^ = Heat flux at the inner surface of the tube,
Btu/ft^-hr.
T^ = Wall temperature at the inner surface of the tube,
Tg = Bulk temperature of the fluid at the axial loca-
tion considered, "F.
In this chapter, the method of calculation of each of these
quantities is described. In section 5.1, total heat absorbed at the
outer surface of the tube is calculated. Radiative and convective heat
losses from the coil to the ambient air are also considered. In sections
5.2 and 5.3, the general form of the functions representing the circum-
ferential temperature and heat flux distribution of the outer tube sur-
face are discussed. Using these boundary conditions, the heat conduction
equation is solved in the interior of the tube wall. As the final result
of this solution, the heat flux and temperature distribution around the
periphery of the inner wall of the tube cross section is found. Deter-
mination of the bulk temperature of the fluid at the specified axial
location is the objective of section 5.4.
When all of the necessary quantities for any given axial location
are calculated, the local values of heat transfer coefficient are found
according to:
56
^'R.,9
i'
(R^.e) T^ - T
R.,e ^
1
5.1 Calculation of Total Heat Input
Previously, it was explained that the lamp panels were mounted on
a frame such that the two side panels were hinged at the bottom edge.
When these two side panels were brought together, the three panels would
form an equilateral triangular prism. This arrangement of the panels
with the coiled tube test section in the center was used for the cases
where heat flux around the circumference of the coil was symmetrically
distributed. With this arrangement, the case of asymmetrical distribu-
tion of incident flux could also be tested by moving the coil off-center
or by opening the side panels to form a three-sided rectangular prism.
Considering the geometry of the helically coiled test section and
the variations of the incident flux around it, the problem of the calcu-
lation of the heat input into the test section can be divided into two
general catagories: one with symmetrical heating over the outer surface
of the coil and one with asymmetrical heating. Now, since only half of
the perimeter of the coiled tube can see the radiation source, there
will always be a variation of incident flux around the circumference of
the tube, regardless of whether the distribution of flux around the
periphery of the coil is symmetrical or asymmetrical.
If a portion of the coiled tube test section equal in length to
one turn of the coil under actual working conditions could be unwrapped,
it would be noticed that when the incident flux around the coil is
57
symmetrical, there would be a uniform incident flux along the axis of
the tube section while there is a non-uniform distribution around the
circumference of the tube. On the other hand, when the flux around the
coil is asymmetrically distributed, there is a non-uniform flux along
the axis as well as along the periphery of the tube section. These two
types of incident flux distribution are shown in Figure 5-1.
As it was mentioned in previous chapters, the variations of
incident flux around the circumference of the coil for special lamp
configurations were previously measured and reported [34]. This distri-
bution of flux is the same as that shown along the axis of the tube
section in Figure 5-1. Based on this for both symmetrical or asymmetri-
cal cases, a function q. (6) can be found to represent the circumferen-

mc
tial variation of incident flux around the tube cross section at each
specific axial location. The form of this function will be discussed
in more detail in a later section.
The heat losses from the outer surface of the coil are due to con-
vection and radiation to the outside environment. These heat losses will
also be a function of the circumferential position around the tube cross
section, as the tube surface temperature is not uniform. These heat
losses are represented by q ^^Ô) fo^ convective losses and q^^^C©) for
radiative losses.
If the heat conduction to the adjacent tube and central support is
neglected, the net heat absorbed by the tube surface at any specific
axial location along the coil and at angular position 0 is given by:
q (6) = q. (6) - q (6) - q ,(9) (5.1)
ô înc ^conv rad
58
V.
Figure 5-1.a
Symmetrical Heating: Uniform in axial direction,
non-uniform in circumfer-
ential direction
Figure 5-1.b
Asymmetrical Heating: Non-uniform in axial and
circumferential directions
59
where:
2
q. (9) - incident heat flux, Btu/ft -hr
inc
2
qconv (9) = convective heat loss, Btu/ft -hr
2
q ,(9) = radiative heat loss, Btu/ft -hr
= a£{[TQ(9) + 460]^ - [T^^^ + 460]^}
The form of the function representing T-j(9) will be discussed in
section 5.3.
Consider the problem in a general form that would include both
cases of symmetrical and asymmetrical flux distribution. Assume that
the distribution of flux in the axial direction of the tube section in
Figure 5-1 is given by a function, f(z). At a point z along the axis
of the tube, let f (z^.) = b-
If the shape of the function representing the distribution of the
flux around the circumference of the tube cross section is known, then
q. (9) for each angular position can be calculated. If T^(9) is known,

inc ^ ' ° u
the convective and radiative losses can also be found. Then, the general
form of the function qQ(9) representing the net absorbed heat flux can
be evaluated.
The total heat input up to any axial location z is then calculated
by dividing z into small differential elements with equal length Az and
then integrating qA^) around the circumference of the tube, multiplying
by Az and summing these integral values. Assuming steady-state condi-
tions, this also represents the total heat added to the fluid up to this
axial location.
60
If the amplitude of qQ(9) in each differential element with length
/Az is taken as the average value of f(z) in that interval, then:
N '2TT
Qn(z) = S {[ qQ(9)d9]Az} (5.2)
i=l >'0
where N, the number of elements of length Az in z is given by
N = Az (5.3)
In the special case of uniform distribution of incident flux
around the coil circumference, f(z) = b, for all points along the tube
axis.
The general form of the function f(z) is shown in Figure 5-2.
length of one turn of the coil
Figure 5-2 General Form of Heat Flux Function

61
5.2 Solution to the Problem of Heat Conduction
in Tube Wall
In the cases of both symmetrical and asymmetrical flux distribu-
tion described in the previous section, the temperature gradient around
the circumference of the tube cross section is larger than that in the
axial direction and, therefore, the effect of axial heat conduction in
the tube wall can be neglected. The problem at hand thus reduces to a
two-dimensional heat conduction problem in cylindrical coordinates with
the appropriate differential equation stated as:
Considering the tube cross section in Figure 5-1 or 5-2, it is
seen that the distribution of flux around the circumference of the tube
is symmetrical with respect to a vertical line through the center of
the tube. Therefore, the solution to only one-half of the tube cross
section is needed. The boundary conditions necessary for solving the
above partial differential equation are obtained by the following
procedure.
Consider the left half of the cross section of the tube as shown
in Figure 5-3.
Due to the symmetry of the problem, there is no heat transfer
across the sides, 1 and 2. On the outer surface of the tube at r = R^,
two functions representing heat flux and temperature distribution are
known. The function representing heat flux is the function qQ(9)
represented by equation 5.1. The other function representing the

62
l9 = 0 ^^ 1
T^(0) and q^(e) ^
known at 3
9T ^ ^
33 = 0 at 2
Figure 5-3 Tube Cross Section Representing

Boundary Conditions
temperature distribution as a function of angular position is obtained
by a curve fit through the experimentally measured temperatures at three
different peripheral locations (9 = 0, Tr/2, TT) . The precise form of
these functions will be discussed in a later section.
Thus, the boundary conditions are
= 0 (5.5)
99
9=0
= 0 (5.6)
9=TT
k^ = qÔ) (5.7)
^9r
r=R,0
(5.8)
^ lr=RQ = ^0^^>
63
At this point the problem is to determine the solution to a
second order partial differential equation, equation 5.4, subject to
boundary conditions 5.5 through 5.8. It is noted that both boundary
conditions on r are at the outer surface, r=R_^. Using a procedure
utilized by references [8] and [28], a finite difference method was
used to determine the temperature distribution through the tube wall
and, subsequently, the heat flux at r=R..
To evaluate the accuracy and uniqueness of this procedure, two
arbitrary temperature distributions for the outer surface and the inner
surface of the tube was assumed and the temperature distribution inside
the tube wall thickness was calculated. Based on this temperature pro-
file, the heat flux at both surfaces was found. Then, the same tempera-
ture distribution and the calculated heat flux, both at the outer surface,
were used to once again solve for the temperature distribution inside the
tube wall thickness and also the heat flux at the inner surface. The
results of one such calculation is 'shown in appendix C.
Using different arbitrary temperature distributions, this procedure
was repeated several times and the results were compared. The average
standard deviation of the differences in nodal temperatures at the inner
surface of the tube, for these test runs was 0.19. Standard deviation
was calculated according to:
M
r Z (T,-TT)^1/2
J=l ^ ^
S =
M
where:
T = flcalculated - Tassumed)
1
^noae i
64
M = Number of nodal points around the circumference of the
tube cross section.
After the P.D.E. and the related boundary conditions were deter-
mined, the finite difference method was used to solve for the temperature
distribution in the tube wall thickness. The domain of the problem was
subdivided into a number of small elements with nodal points at the
center of each element. An initial temperature distribution throughout
the domain was assumed and the thermal conductivity for each node at its
corresponding temperature was calculated. At the boundaries, equations
5-5 through 5-8 were applied.
Starting from the outer surface of the tube, the steady-state
energy balance equation was written for each node. Since, at the out-
side surface of the tube, the nodal temperatures and also the incoming
flux are known, the temperatures of the nodes on the second ring from the
outer surface can be calculated from these equations. Then, the energy
balance equations for the nodes on the second row are written. Again,
since the temperature of the nodes on the first and second row are known,
the temperatures of the nodes on the third row are calculated. Continu-
ing this process, the temperature distribution throughout the solution
region will be found.
After completion of this first iteration, new values of thermal
conductivity for each node at its new temperature are calculated and in
a second iteration a new set of nodal temperatures is found. At the
end of this iteration, the rate of convergence is calculated and the
process is terminated if the absolute value of the difference between
the new and old temperature at each node is less than 1 percent of the
65
present value of the nodal temperature.. Otherwise, a new iteration is
started and at the end of each iteration, the convergence of the solution
is checked.
When the converged solution is found, the energy balance for the
inner surface nodes is used to calculate the local rate of heat transfer
to the fluid at each specific angular location.
Figure 5-4 represents a section of the tube wall with nodal points
and corresponding elements. The energy balance for node (i,j) on the
outside surface of the tube following the sign convention that heat
added to this element is positive is written as follows:
i,j-l
dr
i,j-l
•d9
Figure 5-4 Tube Wall Discretized Model

66
NiJ)(i,j-l) * fT(i,j-l)-T(i,j)] *C1
^Ni,j)(i,j+1) * tT(i,j+l)-T(i,j)] *C1
^Ni.J)(i+l,j) * tT(i+l,j)-T(i,j)] *C2
+ Qo = 0 (5.9)
where
^ , (dr/2) * dz
o
C2 = (Rn-dr/2)^* de * dz ^^^^^^
dz = depth of each element
Q = net heat transfer at R=R , Btu/hr

o o
= q R d9dz
ô o
Since all of the quantities, except T(i+l,j), in the above equation
are known, this nodal temperature can be easily calculated.
For the nodes in the interior of the domain, the term representing
Q in the above equation is replaced by another term corresponding to J
conduction from the node on the previous ring. In this manner, all of
the nodal temperatures are calculated.
The energy balance for the nodes on the interior surface of the
tube wall is written as:
- Q. = 0 (5.12)
67
where
_„ (dr/2) * dz
^^ = R. * d9 (5.13)
1
n,. - (Ri+cir/2) * d9 * dz .^ ^,.
C4 -^ (5.14)
Q. = net heat transfer at R=R., Btu/hr

1 1
= q.R.d9dz
^1 1
The heat flux to the fluid at this location is thus given by:
q.(9) = Q./R.d9dz
1 1 1
In addition to equation 5-2, another way of calculating the total
heat input to the fluid along the length of the heated coil is to sum
up all of the values of the Q. for each and every node at the interior
surface of the tube cross section and repeat the process at different
sections of the tube with equal length dz. Then,
N M
Q , = Z Z Q. (5.15)
^total . , . , ^1
1=1 J=l
where M is the number of nodal points in the circumference of the tube
cross section and N is the number of increments with length dz along
the axis of the tube. This total heat input, considering the steady
state assumption of the problem, must equal the quantity calculated in
section 5.1.
5.3 Functions Representing Heat Flux and
Temperature Distributions
The last two boundary conditions, equations (5.7) and (5.8) in the
previous section, and also the equations for calculation of total heat
68
flux in section 5.1, all require a function representing either the heat
flux or the temperature distribution on the outer surface of the tube.
From the geometry of the helically coiled test section, it is
obvious that only one-half of the perimeter of each tube cross section
receives the incident radiation and the other half remains in the
shadow and will not see the radiation source.
Two different types of heat flux distribution on the outside sur-
face of the tube were considered. The first method was to assume that
the distribution of the heat flux can be represented by a cosine func-
tion. For this case, nodal elements on the tube outer surface receive
an amount of heat input proportional to the projected area of their
exposed surface. This function is given by:
q. (9) = b cos 9 for -TT/2 < 9 < TT/2 (5.16)
mc — — '
where b is the quantity described earlier as the value of f(z ) = b in
section 5.1 and shown in Figure 5-2.
The second choice was to assume that equal segments of the tube
perimeter on the side of the tube that can see the radiation source will
receive the same amount of radiation. This is the so-called circular
distribution of the flux which is represented by:

q. (9) = b for -7T/2 < 9 < TT/2 (5.17)
inc — ~
In either case, for the back side of the tube, where the tube wall
is in the dark, it is assumed that the tube wall is insulated.
These two types of flux distribution are shown in Figures 5-5.a and
5-5.b.
69
TT/2 -TT/2
-TT/2
Figure 5-5.a Figure 5-5.b

Cosine D i s t r i b u t i o n Circular Distribution
of Flux of Flux
In order to evaluate which of these two proposed types of flux
distribution would more closely simulate the actual condition of flux
distribution upon the tube external surfaces, a number of test runs
were executed in which the entering fluid was a compressed liquid. The
amount of heat that was theoretically added to this fluid was calculated
by using the two above models by integrating the function representing
q (9) around the tube perimeter and multiplying by the appropriate area
(projected area of the exposed tube surface in case of cosine distribu-
tion and the total exposed surface in case of circular distribution of
flux). This procedure is the same as using equation 5.2 described
earlier.
The total amount of heat that was actually added to the fluid was
also calculated by an energy balance on the test section. That is, by

70
measuring the temperature and pressure of the subcooled liquid at the
inlet or exit to the coil and thereby calculating the fluid inlet and
exit enthalpy, the total heat added to the fluid is found from:
Q ^ , ., = m(H -H. ) (5.18)
actual, coil ex in
The actual heat added to the fluid was then compared with the
results of the theoretical calculations for the two flux distribution
models. The circular distribution model was found to be within 5-12
percent of the actual heat as compared to 10-20 percent for the cosine
distribution.
Obviously, one would think that the part of the tube surface which
is closer to the radiation source must receive more radiation flux than
the parts ± 90 degrees apart from this location. But considering that
the tube radius is only 0.1875 inches, it seems like this dimension
compared to the distance between the tube center and the radiation
source is just too small to have any significant effect. In addition
to this, part of the reflected radiation from adjacent tubes will also
be absorbed by the tube surface which will render the distribution of
incident flux around the tube cross section more uniform. In fact, it
is thought that the radiation intensity remains constant over an angle
of about 75 to 80 degrees from the point closest to the radiation source
and then reduces sharply from this point to a very small intensity at
90 degrees, resembling a circular distribution profile.
For each experimental run, the actual and theoretical heat trans-
ferred to the fluid were calculated and compared as a measure of accuracy
of the test measurements.

71
As for the temperature distribution on the outer surface of the
tube, the necessary function was obtained by a curve fit through the
measured temperatures at two or four peripheral locations around the
tube cross section at each thermocouple station. The function which
would best fit the existing data was found to have the general form:
T(9) = a + b cos 9 (5.19)
where
a = (T^+T^)/2
b = (V^C^/^
with points A and C as shown in Figure 5-3.
5.4 Calculation of Local Fluid Properties
and Heat Transfer Coefficients
The method of calculation for local heat flux and temperature at
the inner surface of the tube was discussed in previous sections of this
chapter. Having these quantities, the local internal heat transfer
coefficient at any peripheral and axial location can be calculated once
the fluid bulk temperature at any axial location is found.
Fluid bulk temperature at any axial location in the test section
can be specified if two independent properties at that location are
known. Normally, pressure is chosen as one of these properties.
Local pressure at any axial location was calculated by using the
assumptions of the so-called "homogeneous model" [10]. Since this
model was not consistently predicting the total experimentally measured
pressure drop across the test section, the local values so calculated
72
were corrected for the difference between the experimentally measured
and the theoretically calculated exit pressure. This procedure is
described in more detail in the sample calculation of appendix A.
Enthalpy of the fluid was chosen as the second required property.
Local values of enthalpy along the length of the heated tube were found
by calculating the total heat added to the fluid up to the specific
location desired and by an energy balance on that segment of the coil
as:
Q. . 1 V.2 V ^
H =H. ^ ^ + _ t £ t a l + 1 ^ ^ (5.20)
local inlet m Zg
where
H^ , = local value of enthalpy in Btu/lb^

local
H = enthalpy of the fluid at the coil inlet in Btu/lbm
inlet ^^
mii = total mass flow rate in lb m /hr

0 , = absorbed heat by the fluid in Btu/hr
^total
V , V = mean flow velocities in ft/hr
i e
Having these two local properties (pressure and enthalpy), the local
bulk temperature is found by referring to steam tables. The local in-
ternal heat transfer coefficient at this axial location is then calculated
from:
q,(e)
h. "• - (5.21)
1 z,9
A T,(9)-T
1 B
where
h = heat transfer coefficient at axial location z, and

z.e 2 o
angular position 9, in Btu/hr-ft - F
73
qÔ) local value of heat flux at the inner surface of

2
tube in Btu/hr-ft
T^(9) local value of wall temperature in °F
B bulk temperature at axial location z in °F
The circumferential average heat transfer coefficient and Nusselt
number at any axial location were then calculated by evaluating the
integrated average wall temperature:
2TT
T.(9)d9 (5.22)
î 2TT 1
0
and the integrated average wall heat flux:
'2TT
qi(9)d9 (5.23)
î = 2^
0
and utilizing the equations
h. = (5.24)
1
î-^B
and
h.d
Nu = 1
(5.25)
This method was used in all cases of different flow conditions
except when the situation in the channel was such that the deviation
from thermodynamic equilibrium was thought to be significant. In such
instances, a different method proposed by Ahmad [1] was used in which
the axial bulk temperature distribution is given by:
,^ -(c,z*-K:^z*^/^)
AT'' = e (5.26)
74
in which
AT* = AT/ATJ
d
AT = subcooling at axial location z, = T - T^
sat B
AT^ = subcooling at the onset of bubble detachment,
= T ^ - T,
sat d
T^ = bulk temperature at the onset of detachment
h„P Z
C = heat transfer parameter, = -rr-r—p—
f P
_ K H- Z ,
n J ^• ^ 2 f g sb
CT = condensation parameter, = — „ , „
2 ^ ' 3 G A^ C
f P
If the effect of post-detachment bubble condensation is negligible,
the above equation reduces to:

*
AT* = e ^1^ (5.27)
The pressure and temperature before and after the test section were
not measured exactly at the start and the end point of the coiled tube
itself. Therefore, these values had to be corrected for the straight
pipe sections between the measurement points and the test section inlet
or exit.
At the inlet side of the test section, temperature was measured at
19.5 inches before the start of the coil and pressure was measured at
11.75 inches before the coiled section starts. At the exit side,
pressure was measured at 12.125 inches and temperature at 17.75 inches
after the coil ends. Figure 5-6 is a schematic diagram of the test
section, representing the corresponding locations of pressure and temper-
ature measurements.
75
©
©
f-11.75"
19.5"
Figure 5-6 Relative Locations of Pressure and

Temperature Measurement Points at
the Inlet and Exit to the Coil
The corrections were made by the following procedure:
The pressure at the site of temperature measurement was calculated.
If this pressure was close to saturation pressure corresponding to the
indicated temperature, it was set equal to the saturation pressure value.
Using this value of local pressure, the actual pressure at the coil inlet
or exit was calculated. The bulk fluid temperature at the test section
inlet or exit was then taken as the saturation temperature for the cal-
culated pressure.
If the calculated pressure at the site of temperature measurement
was not close enough to saturation pressure at this point to justify the
assumption of saturation state, then the value of enthalpy at this loca-
tion was found. Minor errors that might have occurred during pressure
measurements will not have a significant effect on this value of enthalpy.
Since the straight pipe sections before and after the test section were
thoroughly insulated, the calculated enthalpy will actually be equal to

76
the enthalpy at the inlet or exit to the test section. The test section
inlet or exit pressure was then calculated.
Pressure drop in straight pipe section before or after the test
section was calculated by single-phase or two-phase pressure drop equa-
tions as follows.
1 - Single-phase Flow: The frictional pressure drop for flow in
a straight pipe is related to the friction factor by:
where for laminar flow
f^ = 16/Re (5.29)
and for turbulent flow, from Blasius equation:
f = 0.0791(Re)-°-" (5.30)
2 - Two-Phase Flow: The frictional pressure drop for adiabatic
two-phase flow in a straight pipe is calculated from the following
equation, derived by utilizing the assumptions of the homogeneous model
[10].
2f G^LV. V^
ô = — ^ tl + X ^ ] (5.31)
S D V^
where the two-phase friction factor is given by
-1-0.25
GD (5.32)
f^„, = 0.0791
TPS
_^TP-
and the two-phase viscosity is defined by:
"^ + i ^ (5.33)
^TP ^g ^f
77
Frictional pressure drop in the helical coil was calculated from
equations (5.28) and (5.31) where in both of these equations the fric-
tion factor for the straight pipe was replaced by the corresponding
friction factors for the flow in coils.
For the single-phase laminar flow, the following equation derived
by Mori and Nakayama [20] was used:

0.5
.,^0.5
a
1^ = 0.1080 Re (5.34)
fs
For the single-phase turbulent flow, the effect of curvature was
accounted for by Ito's relation [15]:
f^(d^/D)"°*5 = 0.316[Re(d/D)2]"°-^ (5.35)
which holds true for
Re(d/D)^ > 6
The increase in the friction factor for two-phase flow in coil
was allowed for by the following equation [10]:
^TPC^^TPS = [Re(d/D)^]°-°^ (5.36)
for
Re(d/D)^ > 6
in which fT,^^, the two-phase friction factor for straight pipe flow,
was estimated from equation (5.32).
The sample calculation presented in Appendix A will clarify the
calculation procedure discussed in this chapter.

CHAPTER VI
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter will present the results from the experimental test
program and data analysis discussed in previous chapters. These results
correspond to circumf erentially uniform heat flux.
A total number of 77 experimental runs, composed of the single-
phase and two-phase states, were completed. For all of the two-phase
runs and all but three of the single-phase runs, the estimated
Reynolds number, based on the assumption that only liquid was flowing
in the test section, was larger than the transition or critical
Reynolds number for flow in helical coils. The transition Reynolds
number is given by Ito [16] as:
0.32
(Re)
cr = 2 X 10^(DJ
[^ (6.1)
The critical Reynolds number for the test section under study
is 9606.
6.1 Subcooled Liquid Heat Transfer Results
Twelve of the experimental runs were made with only subcooled
liquid flowing in the coil. Although the total liquid flow rate and
incident heat flux were adjusted such that the possibility of subcooled
liquid boiling in the test section was remote, Ahmad's method [1] was
also used as a check on the validity of the assumptions.
A summary of the experimental conditions for the single-phase
runs is presented in Table 6-1. Local heat transfer coefficient results
for runs 8 and 93 are shown in Figures 6-1 and 6-2. The variation of
78
79
bu jj -3- r~ ^ o r^ 00 • * -3- in in in
0 •H CN po I-H CN 00 •<r O in O
1 X
•—" in m -3- in CN CO ro r-4 ro ro
-3-
ro
u IK m
1
•kJ
«^
3 i-l
u (U fn CN r^ ro CN O ro O
OQ 1—1 (N CO CO
^- ro l-H
CN
r~ CN
^^ in
in
cn CN o
ro >3-
•<r
CN ro CN
00
CN
-3-
CN rM
1^ c < •
4-1 -H o- vO OO p~ CT\ r^ ro -3- in .—1 r~

•H a> 00 n f^ l-H in ro
X CN CN rH <r
CM CN rvl CN
l-H
CN
,—1
--. o
01
1—1
,_, , M
^^
0
H
u
01 CO r-1 cr ro O 1—1 m r^ ro ro ro ro
vO t» O in f-H cr ~3- cr cr a^ cr
— CN ^
CN CSI CN l-H ^H
cT^ ^^
CO
^J in NC c» O r^ r-» -3- • ^ cr a\ o m
r~ CN r^ -3- -3- ro in
.X-^ s^ ^ CN ^ <• ro •3- CO m
CO
cu ^-N 0) ^^
r7
CO
cd '^v.'
CU 4.J
I 1) CN
-- CN ro ^- 00 \D vO
^- ^- ro cr
CU r~ OO CO r~ va- •<T in in
^c^ o
l-H CN
• ^
ro
<• ro
m
ro
.H •H
1—t
<r
00
3
•H r~ cn <r cr in in r» < • in
u CJ\ ON O m in 00 CN -3- \C CM r—
r-.
•H CN -3- CN 1— 00 00 O ^H
5-1 X ^ ^^ <r ^-
I O 01
— l-H ro l-H
•^ f—t 1—1
'^ ro ro -3- ~T
SO
CO
a.
CU
rH 3 4.1 -a- m 00 -3- CN in in OO rM vO cr in
O OJ <^ ro -3- o o ro O CM
»— -3- in <£!
CO •H CN 00 vT OO OO 00 00 00
'2 cn O cr r^
H 4-1 •H — — m .H CO '"' CM <T ~3- ~3- -3-
•H •"•
c
o
a 4J r-.
O
m CN
00
CO
in
in
CN
-3-
r^
r~
r^
OO <
cr
• vO
-3-
in <r
vC
•H
m •^ CN O cr O 00
• ^
O r~» <•
r~- ro
X
r~
<r OO o u-l CO o
M3 o C3V -3-
0) cr
vO cr
ro vD CO CN ^^
cd CX> — •— — —
4-> 0)
3 a:
cu 4-1 -3- in o in ro o O P~ r^ p~. 00 00
B a < • r~. CJN r- vO CM r^ CO in
^ r^ o
r~ in r^ ~3 -3- 00 00 in
•H
c
CO o
CN ro r** in o
00
1 —
-3- 1— cr rM
5-1 •H
<JN
r» v£)
^-
ro cr CN
CU in
a ^
X
w >^
4-1
•H l-l
O ro
0
T CTv vD CO
CN
r-«
in
CJV -3-
\D
CO
00
vC
CN
00 vO
-3-
C
i-H CSI ON in F —
cr <r c
OJ CN -3- r~ r-^ CN CN vO O 00 ~3- in
4J o CN \D in in P-.
> 14-1 -3- in vO
in vO ^-^ in «
l-H
1 ^
I-H ^H o in in
^
r»
e3>
m
1 —
-3- -3- cc 00 ro
o
\0 r-» CTv
w
U) "ê
Xi r-^ l-H
cr cr 1—^
(0
^^
S
u
X SI
3 1 f-^ OO
<r 00
tL.
CM
4J
o ^ CO
ID
CN CN C
i-l
^3.^ 3
n
OJ 4-J
0^
CO
* * *
Run
::5j^ , 1 CN 00 cr \D CN r-' <r CO <r in vC

in vC CTv 3^ 0^ o^
^
80
0 6=0''
t> e = 180
250 •
o
I
c>4
4-1
14-
I
U
220
pa
CD
190
Mass Velocity 315143 Ib^/(hr-sq.ft)
Pressure 351-349 psia
Temperature 93-134°F
Incident Heat Flux 24.2 Suns
160
CO
CO
cu
3:
130
100
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Station Number
Figure 6-1 Axial Distribution of Heat Transfer

Coefficients at 0 = 0° and 9 = 180°,
Run 93
81
O e = 0'
360
V e = 180
330
o
I
T 300
CQ
270
240
D
X
!-
210
<U
PS
180
150
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Station Number

Coefficient at 9 = 0° and 9 = 180°,
Run 8
82
the local Nusselt number around the periphery of the tube cross section
at three thermocouple stations (stations 2, 7 and 14) for these runs
is shown in Figures 6-3 and 6-4. These stations along the coil are
chosen such that each figure represents the circumferential variation
of Nusselt number as the flow progresses through the test section from
inlet to exit.
As is seen from these figures, the heat transfer coefficient at
location A (6 = 0*') is higher than that of location C (6 = 180°)
throughout the coil. Location A corresponds to the side of the tube
cross section which is directly subjected to radiant flux, while
location C receives heat only by conduction through the wall. As the
bulk fluid temperature gradually increases and as fluid properties
approach the saturated liquid values, the heat transfer coefficient
at both locations steadily increases.
The circumferential average heat transfer coefficient at each
thermocouple station along the coil was calculated according to the
procedure outlined in Chapter 5. The average Nusselt number so calcu-
lated was correlated against dimensionless parameters of the flow.
For three of the subcooled liquid runs, the calculated Reynolds
number at the test section inlet was less than the critical Reynolds
number. Only one run was completely laminar throughout the coil and
for the other two, the Reynolds number at the coil exit was greater
than the critical value.
Two correlations were derived for the average Nusselt number for
the subcooled liquid runs. For the first correlation, all of the
laminar and turbulent data were used. The second correlation was
83
17 Station 2
Station 7 /
\
16
Station 14
15
14
Nu
6
Mass Velocity 315143 Ib^/(hr-sq.ft)
5 . Pressure 351-349 psia
4 Incident Heat Flux 24.2 Suns
3 X
0 90 180 270 360
9 (Degrees)
Figure 6-3 Circumferential Distribution

of Nusselt Number, Run 93
84
Nu
11
Mass Velocity 956169 ibm/(hr-sq.ft)
10 Pressure 282-278 psia
9
8
7
0 90 180 270 360
0 (Degrees)

85
derived using the turbulent data only. The correlating equation for
both cases has the general form:
Nu = a(Re)^(Pr)^ T P
(Dn) (6.2)
T-J lp
The coefficients of the above equation for the two previously
mentioned cases are given in Table 6-2. In Figures 6-5 and 6-6, the
predictions of the above models are compared with the results of the
analytical calculations. In both figures, the data points correspond-
ing to laminar runs are specified. Although the equation for Figure
6-6 was derived for turbulent data only, it is used to predict the
results of laminar runs for comparison.
Table 6-2 Coefficients of the Correlation Equations
Laminar and Turbulent Data Turbulent Data Only
a = 5.6484 a = 1247.46
b = 0.80 b = 0.8
c = 4.004 c = 6.7493
d = 4.6213 d = 8.3782
e = 0.06126 e = 0.1452
f = -0.5941 f = -0.8644
The properties required for the evaluation of the Reynolds number,
Prandtl number, and the average Nusselt number in the above equation
were estimated at the local values of pressure and bulk temperature.

86
CN
'o 5
(i4
^ 4
C>4
4-1
«4-l
I
u
Xi
3
4J
PQ
3 -
CO
4J
3
cu
6
•H
5-1
CU Equation Based on All Data
3.
X
W
O Re > Recritical
.^. T
1^ 2
Re < Re .^. ,
critical
-2
h, Calculated (Btu/hr-ft -''F) * 10
Figure 6-5 Comparison Between the Experimental and

the Computed Data, Subcooled Liquid Runs
87
Equation Based on Turbulent Data
O Re > Re
CM critical
'o 5
Re < Re critical
O
I
CM
4->
<4-l
I
5-1
,C
3
4-1
Cd
4->
3
cu
e
•H
5-1
CU
a
X
w
-2
h. Calculated (Btu/hr-ft -''F) * 10

the Computed Data, Subcooled Liquid Runs
88
6.2 Two-Phase Heat Transfer Results
Sixty-five two-phase runs were completed. These runs were com-
posed of cases where an established two-phase mixture entered the coil.
In all cases, the effluent from the coil was also a two-phase mixture.
During these tests, inlet quality was varied from 2.3 to 65 per-
cent, while exit qualities varied from 6 to 70 percent. The range of
mass flow rates investigated were from 125 to 500 lb /hr, while coil
m
inlet pressure was varied from 60 to 525 psia. Incident heat flux
ranged from 6300 to 26600 Btu/(ft^-hr).
Because of the large number of two-phase runs made, presentation
of all of the results is not feasible. Therefore, a number of runs
which are thought to be representative of the heat transfer behavior
of the model are chosen. The experimental conditions for these selected
runs are given in Table 6-3. The results of the experiments for these
runs are presented in Figures 6-7 through 20. The experimental condi-
tions for all of the two-phase runs are given in appendix D.
Figures 6-7 through 14 correspond to a series of runs for which
the incident flux was kept at a fairly low value of 6300 Btu/(sq.ft-hr) ,
corresponding to 24.2 suns of incident radiation upon the receiver in
the FMDF system. This low heat flux was chosen in an effort to allow
all of the regions of the flow and heat transfer to develop.
For each run included in this group, the axial variation of the
internal heat transfer coefficient at two locations ( 0 = 0 ° and 0 =
180°), as well as the variation of the local Nusselt number around the
periphery of the tube cross section at three thermocouple stations
(stations 2, 7 and 14) along the tube axis, are presented.

89
/—\
CO
^
60
>w' 4-1 iH >3- a\ O
•H CX3 rH <f
o o o O o
r^ rH o o o in 00
3 CX> so a\ o r-i
o «^ ,-^
^ iH 00 00 CM CO
o
•H m rH o
f-i r-{ o> r-i rH
4_l
Cd
ler
cu
CJ
<o 4J
CU O m f^ 1-i CTi .00 r^ in o
iH tH a\ CTi in CM 00 O •<r CJ\ SO
Cd 3 O p>. O O CO cs) CO
•H IH m iH CN SO
<
in
•
r-^
T3 <r CO
Cd
PH
CO
3
3 o
Exit
CN 00 O CO ^ CO C3^ CO
(^
<U
CSI o vO r^ in in in in <r
CN CO <3- vO in in 1-i CM CO
ity
CO
cd
x: iH 4-1 O in SO p^ so un CO
I Cd CU o <r
3 iH CTv sC CN CN CO r^
o CD^ 3 iH CN SO o
in
r^
<!•
CN
r-{ CM
M <r
5-1
m O
I /—\ in
vO Cd 4-J O CO r-{ SO so SO SO •
CO •H •H CT\ C3^ in c^^ r-{ so in
CU 3 CO CN CN CM
r^
r-i
o
CM CO
<r r-i
I—I O X
<-i
x>
cu w
H
CO cu
u
d 3 4-)
o CO CU O vO O o\ o 00 o r^ T-i
a CO I-H iH CN CN
o o Csl so o CM
3 CO CO CO CO in r-i CN
c-u
5 1 h-l ro
CO flH
XJ
3
CU
/—s
e 5-1
•H >< x:
5-1 3 1
CU rH CN CTi C^ cTi C3^ a^ r^ «d- <t- 00
fe 4-» 00 00 00 00 00 O so SO 00
a U-(
v^ on CO CO CO CO
r^ so SO CO
4-1 vO vD vO so so CO so so so
Cd ">«.» CN CM CN
cu 3
X 4-»
>.
4-1 /—\
•H CM
O 4->
M-4 00 CT> \0 CM CM in CN O SO
o
1-i 1 CN CO CN O o\ O
CU 5-1 VO <t <r
CO vt
<
00
! •
in o r^
> X a\ O <r
in CO 00 00 in o in
s^ in 00 r^ so in so so
o
so »3-
in in in in in r-H vO
CO • — ^
rH
<r <r
CO B
iS x>
rH
S
3 in <r CNJ 00 o SO rH o 00
3 =ite CT. r-> in r>.
Pd o
rH o
rH o
iH o
r-\
90
Since the flow patterns and the regimes of the heat transfer for
the asymmetrically heated coil under the experimental conditions in-
vestigated are unknown, the discussion concerning the heat transfer
characteristics of the system given here should merely be considered
as the opinion of the author, based on the experimental results and
not proven facts.
At relatively low mass flow rate and low qualities, the two phases
occupying the tube cross section are flowing at relatively low
velocities and, as a result, the generated secondary flow will not be
strong enough to remove all of the vapor bubbles from the tube wall as
they are formed. Therefore, if the incident heat flux is high enough
to generate any vapor bubble, it will remain attached to the tube wall
until its size becomes large enough that it is swept away from the
wall by the main flow. Since location A (0 = 0°) on the tube wall is
exposed to the incident radiation, it is assumed that the first vapor
bubbles will be formed on the tube wall at this position. If the
bubble population at this point is large enough, it will form a local
vapor blanket, resulting in a lower heat transfer coefficient and
higher wall temperatures. At the same time, the departure of the
bubbles from the hot tube wall will result in agitation of the liquid
especially close to the wall, and this will tend to lower the tube
wall temperature and, as a result, increase the heat transfer coeffi-
cient. The result of these two counter acting occurances at location
A (0 = 0°) is such that although the heat transfer coefficient at A,
h , continues to increase, h^ approaches h^ and will eventually become
greater than h^.

91
Figures 6-7 and 6-8 represent a situation corresponding to this
phenomena. In the beginning h > h , continuing the trend from the
subcooled liquid region as was seen from Figures 6-1 and 6-2. In
this low quality region, h and h are both increasing, but probably
due to the effect of the local vapor blanketing at A, h approaches
h^ as the flow approaches the coil exit. The radial acceleration for
this run ranges from 590 to 880 g's, representing a very weak secondary
flow in the coiled tube cross section.
Figures 6-9 and 6-10 correspond to run number 104 for which radial
acceleration ranges from 1093 to 1674 g's. As the radial acceleration
increases, both the stronger secondary flow and increased "g" force
will remove the vapor bubbles from the outer tube wall probably as fast
as they are formed. As a result of this process, the slope of the line
representing h becomes greater than that of h , such that close to the
end of the coil the Nusselt number variation around the circumference
of the tube is represented by a straight line. At still higher quali-
ties (outside the quality range of this run), h will assume values
greater than h .
Figures 6-11 and 6-12 show the results for run number 102 for
which radial acceleration increases from 2757 to 5119 g's and the mass
quality ranges from 42.5 to 46.8 percent. Close to the test section
inlet, h is greater than h^. The flow pattern in this region is

A ^
probably an annular flow, with liquid forming a thin layer on the tube
wall, possibly much thicker at location C (0 = 180°) than at A (0 =
0°), such that except for the liquid droplets that are carried by the
secondary flow from the core section of the tube to the location A,
92
Quality (%)

Run 105
93
- — " — - ^
* ^ II _ ^ * — ^
40
Mass Velocity 559628 lb /(hr-sq.

39 m
38 Quality 19-22%
Radial Acceleration (590-881) g's
37 .
36
35 -
34 •
Nu
33 "" ^ -. ^ — -
•^ ^^ ^ "^
*^
^ ^ ^ ^
32
31
•^0
29
€^4-^4--:^^ o ^v
28
Station 7
27
Station 14
26
0 90 180 270 360
0 (Degrees)

94
0 0 = 0'
[> Q = 180"
700
Uu
o
Csl
14.H
I
i-l 650 •
3
4-1
pa
3
<U
•ri
u 600
(U
CO
550
5-1
CO
OJ
X
Mass Velocity 580439 lb /(hr-sq.ft)

500 m
Pressure
326-293 psia
Radial Acceleration
(1093-1674) g's
Incident Heat Flux
24.2 Suns
450
26.6 27.2 27.8 28.4 29.0 29.6 30.2
Quality (%)

Run 104
95
42
41
40
Station 2
39 Station 7
38
37 -
36
Nu
35
34
33
32
31 Lss Velocity 580439 I b ^ (hr-sq. ft)

30
Quality 26.6-30.2%
29 Radial Acceleration (1093-1674) g's
28
0 90 180 270 360
0 (Degrees)
Figure 6-10 Circumferential Variation

96
O 0 = 0°
> 0 = 180°
650 •
o
I
CN
4-1
>4-H
I
5-1 600 •
X.
4-i
P3
3
CU
•H
u 550 •
cu
o
a
(U
CO
3
CO 500 •
!-i
H
CO
•^—O Mass Velocity 573408 lb^/(hr-sq.ft)

450 Pressure 320-251 psia
400
42.5 43.5 44.5 45.5 46.5
Quality (%)

Run 102
97
40
39
38
37
Station 2
36 Station 7
•- Station 14
35
34
Nu
33
32
31
Mass Velocity 573408 lb /(hr-sq.ft)
30 m
29 Quality 42.5-46.8%
28 Incident Heat Flux 24.2 Suns
27
26
0 90 180 270 360
9 (Degrees)

98
the heat transfer at this position is mainly to saturated vapor.
Because of the higher heat fluxes at this location, the liquid drop-
lets evaporate as soon as they reach this location. The result of
this combined process of evaporation of the liquid droplets and heat
transfer to saturated vapor is such that h^ is still increasing, but
with a smaller slope than h^, which is transferring heat through
evaporation at the liquid vapor interface. Soon after this, as the
quality still increases, the transition to dryout at location A will
take place, after which h will rapidly decrease.
Figures 6-13 and 6-14 correspond to run number 98, for which the
quality ranges from 62.3 to 67.1. Due to the dryout at 9 = 0°, h
has dropped to a low value, possibly corresponding to heat transfer to
saturated vapor. At 0 = 180°, h^ increases to its highest value at a
quality around 64.5 percent, at which point it will experience a rapid
drop, possibly because of the complete evaporation of the liquid film
and transition to dryout at this location.
If the effect of the coil geometry on the flow and, as a result,
the secondary flow pattern in the tube cross section is momentarily
neglected, one would expect h and h to follow the same pattern as
the heat transfer coefficient for a two-phase flow in a uniformly
heated straight pipe.
In a qualitative description of the progressive variation of the
local heat transfer coefficient along the length of a uniformly heated
vertical tube. Collier [10] suggests that for a given heat flux, the
forced convective heat transfer coefficient will experience the

99
650 •
600 •
o
I
CN
4-1
y-i
I
S-i
550 •
PQ
3
lU
500 B /
•rH 0 9 = 0° \
CU
[> 9 = 180° n^"''^^\0'''''^—^
o
450 •
u
cu
M-H
cn
3
CO
5-1
H
400 »
CO
CU
3:
/Mass Velocity 563930 lb /(hr-sq. ft) \

/ m \
350 0 Pressure 309-176 psia \
Radial Acceleration (6021-18940) g's \
Incident Heat Flux 24.2 Suns ^
300
62.2 63.0 64.0 65.0 66.0 67.0
Q u a l i t y (%)

Run 98
100
station 2
•- Station 7
40 Station 14 / s
35
30
Nu
25
20
Mass Velocity 563930 Ibî/(hr-sq. ft)
Quality 62.6-67%
15
0 90 180 270 360
9 (Degrees)

101
following changes as the flow passes through the subcooled liquid,
mixed phase and the superheated vapor region.
a - In the highly subcooled region, where heat transfer is due to
convection to single-phase liquid only, the heat transfer coefficient
experiences a slight increase due to the effect of the increase in bulk
temperature on the liquid physical properties.
b - In the subcooled nucleate boiling region, the heat transfer
coefficient increases linearly with length as the bulk fluid temperature
approaches the wall temperature.
c - In the saturated nucleate boiling region, the heat transfer
coefficient remains constant as the total heat flux is utilized in the
formation of vapor.
d - In the two-phase force convective region, heat transfer from
the tube wall is by conduction through the liquid layer at the wall
(flow regime in this region is primarily annular flow) and subsequently
by evaporation of liquid at the liquid-vapor interface. As a result,
the heat transfer coefficient increases as the liquid layer thickness
decreases or, in other words, as the quality increases.
e - At the dryout point, where the liquid layer on the wall is
completely evaporated, the heat transfer coefficient will suddenly
decrease to a low value corresponding to the heat transfer to dry
saturated vapor at the local conditions. From then on as the vapor
velocity increases, h will also gradually increase to the value cor-
responding to the heat transfer to a single-phase vapor.
For an asymmetrically heated pipe, where one side of the tube is
receiving a higher heat flux than the other, one would expect that the
102
heat transfer coefficients at both sides of the tube would follow the
pattern previously explained, with the heat transfer coefficient at
the back side (location C) being less than that at the front side
(location A), This model is shown in Figure 6-15.
As is seen from this figure, in subcooled and part of the nucleate
boiling region, h at any axial location is greater than h„ until some-

A C
where in the two-phase region at high quality, at dryout point, h
decreases sharply. Soon afterwards at still higher qualities, h will
experience this sudden drop. Later on, heat transfer at both locations
will gradually recover, but since at location A the tube wall is
exposed to the incident radiation, the tube wall temperature at this
location will be higher than that of location C (AT at A will be

sat
greater than AT at C) and, as a result, the heat transfer coeffi-
S Ol U
cient at C will become larger.
Although this model does not consider the effect of the secondary
flow, the experimental results indicate that in most cases the trends
of this model are close to the actual behavior of the system under
study. The principle differences between the model and the behavior
of the results can be attributed to the fluid dynamic and heat trans-
fer effects associated with the radial acceleration and secondary
flow in the coiled tube. These effects are expected to be small at
low mass velocities, large coil diameters and high pressures. However,
as mass velocity increases and coil diameter and pressure decrease,
the strength of the secondary flow would be expected to increase with
the result that the model of Figure 6-15 would tend to shift to the
right and increase the quality at which dryout occurs.

103
cu
CO 5H 3
O
CU O •H
X CO 0
a
00
5-1 CO CU cu O
cu > 33 0 0
3- Pi
^
3 CU
cy3 X II
4J
CD
14-4
0 -o
3
CO CO
3
Q 0
•H O
4-1
CO 11
•H
i-l CD
CO
> 4-1
CO
cu CU
CO X cn
CO •u 4-1
3
X O 3
00 CU
•H
00 3 •H
PH • H CJ
cu 4-) • H
3 <4-l
CU cu 14-1
cn CU
cu o
u CJ
a
cu
PS
5-1
CU
M-l
r-^ CO
CU 3
TJ CO
O U
S H
in
I
sO
TD
CU T3 c CU
rH •H
c
•H
S-I
3
o 3
00 00
0 cr
CJ • H (V
Xi X PC
3
C/2
104
As the heat flux increases, the lines representing h and h in
Figure 6-15 will shift to the left, resulting in an earlier transition
to dryout. Very high incident heat fluxes may result in burnout even
in the low quality regions of the flow. Under special circumstances
of low radial acceleration and high radiation intensities, the flow
may not be able to remove the local, low quality vapor blanketing
described earlier corresponding to Figures 6-7 and 6-9. As the heat
transfer coefficient as a result of this phenomena decreases, the tube
wall temperature will rise, causing a steeper decrease in the heat
transfer coefficient. This cyclic effect may finally result in
burnout.
Increase in pressure and decrease in mass flow rate will have a
similar effect as that of increasing the incident flux. This is at
least partly because both increasing the pressure and decreasing the
mass flow rate will reduce the strength of the radial acceleration.
At relatively high pressures as p^ approaches p , the radial accelera-
tion will effectively lose its importance in the flow in the coiled
tube.
Figure 6-16 represents the results of the experiment for run 100.
The behavior of the heat transfer coefficients at 0 = 0° and 0 = 180°
is quite similar to run 98 (Figure 6-13), except that the sudden drop
in h at 9 = 180° occurs at a lower value of quality. For this run,
the mass velocity was lower than that of run 98 while the exit pressure
was slightly higher, both contributing to earlier transition to dryout
at the 0 = 180° location.

105
650 • O 0 = 0
600
tlH
o
I
CN
I
X 550
3
CU
500
CU
5-1
0)
14-4
cn
3
CO
5-1 450
e-H
CO Mass Velocity 558403 lb^/(hr-ft^)

CU
X Pressure 300-202 psia
400
50.4 51.1 51.8 52.5 53.2 53.9 54.6 55.3
Quality (%)

Run 100
106
Figure 6-17 shows the location of transition to dryout at 0 = 180°
for run 6. For this run heat flux, pressure, and mass valocity have
much higher values than in runs 98 and 100. Increase in heat flux and
pressure will tend to decrease the quality at dryout point while in-
crease in mass velocity will result in a delay in transition to dryout.
The effect of the combination of these three factors on flow is such
that the transition to dryout at 0 = 180° occurs at about 52 percent
quality.
In run 71, because of the effect of the local vapor blanketing
at 0 = 0 ° , h^ has values lower than that of h , but as the quality
and, as a result, radial acceleration increases, h approaches h . At
higher qualities in run 50, h will become larger than h . Results for
A C
these two runs are shown in Figures 6-18 and 6-19, respectively. The
same type of behavior was noticed in run 78 where as is shown in
Figure 6-20, as a result of increase in mass velocity, the change over
between h. and h„ takes place at a higher quality than in run 50.
Along with the local values of heat transfer coefficient around
the periphery of the tube cross section, circumferential average values
for each thermocouple station were also calculated. These average
values for all two-phase runs were correlated against different para-
meters of the flow.
Previous investigations on the subject of single-phase heat trans-
fer in coils have revealed that the Nusselt number for this type of
flow can be correlated as a function of dimensionless parameters of
the flow such as Reynolds number, Prandtl number, and tube to coil
diameter ratio.
107
0 0 = 0
700
^ 0 = 180
650
o
I
CN
I
5-1
X
600
pa
3
lU
CM
CU
550
o
c^J
5-1
CU
X
C
CO
S-I
H 500
CO
cu
X 1168845 lbm /(hr-ft )
Mass Velocity
450 Radial Acceleration (5408-18100) g's
47.7 78.7 49.8 50.8 51.9 53.0 54.0 55.1

Quality (%)

Run 6
108
550
500
o
I
CN
I
5-1
X
450
pq
3
CU
<4-t
cu 400 •
o
CJ
5-1
CU
cn
3
CO
i-l
H
350 Mass Velocity 465592 lb /(hr-ft )
m
CO
X
(U Pressure 60-46 psia
Incident Heat Flux 101 Suns
300
X li
3.6 5.28 6.96 8.64 10.32 12.0 13.68 15.36

Quality (%)

Run 71
109
550
iii
o
I 500
CN
4-)
M-l
I
5-1
X
3
4J
pa
450
3
CU
ij-i
u-
0)
o
u 400
5-1
CU
<4-l
cn
3 Mass Velocity 460000 Ib^/(hr-ft )
CO
S-I
H
4-t
CO
<U
350
X Radial Acceleration (1295-12450) g's
Incident Heat Flux 101 Suns
300
12.5 14.4 16.3 18.2 20.2 22.1 24.0 25.9

Quality (%)

Run 50
110
550 • Mass Velocity 645706 lb /(hr-ft^)

m ^
Pressure
213-120 psia
Radial Acceleration
(3360-13180) g's
500 . Incident Heat Flux
o 24.2 Suns
I
CM
4-1
14-1
I
5-1
X
3
4J 450
pa o-^
3
cu
•H
CU 400
o
CJ
S-I
 0 = 180'
27.8 28.6 29.4 30.2 31.0 31.8 32.6 33.4

Quality (%)

Coefficient at = 0° and 0 = 180'
Run 78
Ill
Schrock and Grossman [32] in their study of boiling heat transfer
in a straight tube suggested that the Nusselt number can be expressed
by a functional relationship of the form:
Nu = f(Re,Pr,X^^,B0)
tt
In correlating the results of the two-phase runs for this study,
a combination of the dimensionless groups mentioned above seemed to
be the appropriate choice. Also because of the profound effect of the
local pressure on the behavior of the heat transfer coefficient as was
evident from the results of the analytical model, it was decided to

p
include a pressure term, namely — in the model.
c
In the model proposed, the circumferential average Nusselt number
is correlated against different dimensionless groups in an equation of
the form: . ,^b e

Nu (6.3)
T, 0.8^Pr 0.4 = a X.
Re tt
Coefficients of this model obtained through a stepwise multiple
regression on the data of the two-phase runs are given in Table 6-4.
Table 6-4 Coefficients of the Correlation Equation
a ^ 4.1128
b = 5386 * 10-=
c = 10917 * 10"^
d = -794 * 10-3
e = 27855 * 10"^
112
In the above model, the properties necessary for the evaluation of
the different dimensionless groups are taken as the saturated liquid
values at the local pressure in the channel.
A comparison between the average values of the heat transfer co-
efficient as predicted by the above model and the analytical results
of the study is made in Figure 6-21. As this figure shows, the devi-
ation limits of ± 30 percent covers most of the experimental results.
The discrepancies mostly occur in the region corresponding to low levels
of incident heat flux, where a minor error in measurement of these
fluxes or the surface temperatures will result in a higher percentage
of error as compared to the higher heat flux regions.
6.3 Comparison of Results
In comparing the heat transfer results of the present analysis to
the available analytical and experimental data in the literature, three
important facts will become evident. First of all, no experimental
results for flow in coils with small diameters and tightly wrapped turns
are available. Secondly, the available correlations for flow in coils
were mainly derived for single-phase flow of liquids or gases in coils
with diameters and coil pitches several times that of the test section
used in this study. Thirdly, all of these studies were done on uni-
formly heated coils, and results for non-uniformly heated coils do not
exist.
To separate the effects of coiling and asymmetrical heating on the
results of the present work, it is suitable to compare these results

113
CM
I
o
/-\
o
I
CM
4J
14H
I
u
X
3
4J
pa
cd
4J
3
cu
e
•H
U
CU
1.^
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
h . Calculated ( B t u / h r - f t ^ - ° F ) x lO"^

the Computed Data, Two-Phase Runs
114
with the available data for flow in uniformly heated coils and also with
the available analytical results for flow in asymmetrically heated
straight pipes.
In Figure 6-22 the experimental results for single-phase runs have
been plotted as N^ vs. (Re * Pr°*^). Also shown in this figure is the
line representing the Seban-McLaughlin correlation [33] for turbulent
flows of water in uniformly heated coils:
1^=0.023 Re°-«Pr°-^Re(f)2]0-05 (6.4)
Required properties for calculation of Re and Pr in Figure 6-22
are evaluated at the local film temperature.
As is noted from this figure, the experimental results fall sub-
stantially below those predicted by Seban-McLaughlin.
In Figure 6-22, results have also been compared to those for single-
phase flow of fluids in asymmetrically heated straight pipes. Available
analytical solutions by Gartner, et al and Reynolds [14,28] predict the
variations in the Nusselt number around the periphery of the tube for a
given heat flux distribution around the tube circumference. In both of
these methods, the convective turbulent energy equation for flow of a
single-phase fluid in a circular tube subjected to an arbitrary wall
heat flux is solved. The flow is assumed to be hydrodynamically and
thermally fully developed. In solving this equation, Reynolds makes
the assumption that the diffusivities for heat in the radial and cir-
cumferential directions are identical, while Gartner, et al take into
account the anisotropy of the turbulent energy transport. The resulting
solution in both cases gives Nu(0) in the form of a series solution.

115
100
1 1 r
9
O Reynolds
8 O -
^ Gartner
7
D Experiment
Seban-McLaughlin
Correlation
Nu 3
a
A D° °
a ° n°
1
D D
O
10 L J L
8 9 10
.^ 0.85^ 0.4. . T^-3
(Re Pr ) * 10
Figure 6-22 Comparison Between Experimental

Data and Seban-McLaughlin [33],
Single-Phase Runs
116
with the coefficients of the series tabulated as a function of Reynolds
number and Prandtl number.
Both methods have been shown to yield expected results for laminar
or turbulent flow for the special case of constant heat flux around the
periphery of the tube. Gartner, et al also compare the predicted results
from their method to that of Reynolds and also to the available experi-
mental data. For the cases shown, the agreement is satisfactory.
For the purpose of this comparison, a Fourier series was fitted
through the discrete heat flux values at the interior surface of the
tube at each thermocouple station. The function so obtained was then
used as an input to the solution methods given by both Reynolds and
Gartner, et al. Using the appropriate coefficients for the series
solution given, the Nusselt number at different peripheral locations
was found.
Figure 6-23 is a comparison between the local values of Nusselt
number obtained from the experiment and those calculated from the above
mentioned methods. As is seen from this figure, the effect of circum-
ferentially varying heat flux on Nusselt number for flow in straight
pipe is much more pronounced than in coiled tubes. Reynolds' method
predicts values as high as 369 at one angular location and values as
low as -130 at another. Predictions from the method by Gartner, et al
ranges from -587 at one angular position to 150 at another. Values of
the Nusselt number for flow in the coil, however, do not change drasti-
cally around the tube circumference. It appears that the effects of
the secondary flow in the tube cross section are such that it effectively
smooths these local values to a level close to an average value for the
117
O Reynolds
369 O
A Gartner
• Experiment
160
O Dittus-Boelter (Nu = 0.023 Re Pr * )
140 - (Dark symbols represent averaged values)
120 h
100
I
80-
X
60- 6 ^
^
40-
Nu(0)
20- A • a-
O D
0 D
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120 O -130
-587 A • -383^
-J J—
-140 112.5 135 157.5 180
0 22.5 45 67.5 90
0 (Deg.)
Figure 6-23 Comparison Between Local Values of

Nusselt Number, Station 1, Run 9,
(Single-Phase)
118
the cross section. In Figure 6-23, the arithmatic average values of
the Nusselt number for each method, as well as the predicted value from
the Dittus-Boelter equation, are also given. Reynolds' method predicts
an average value which is much closer to the experimental result than
the method of Gartner, et al. The value predicted by the Dittus-Boelter
equation is much higher than the experimental results and predicted
values from the other two methods.
Average heat transfer coefficient results for run number 9, as
obtained from the experiment as well as those calculated from Reynolds'
and also Gartner's method, are compared in Figure 6-24. The method by
Reynolds predicts values which are close to the experimental results
near the coil inlet, but deviates from them as the flow approaches the
test section exit. The reverse is true for Gartner's method as it
approaches the experimental results as the flow progresses in the test
section. For most other experimental runs, the values predicted by
Gartner, et al become greater than the experimental results somewhere
along the coil.
It should be noted, however, that as was shown in Figure 6-23, the
local values of Nusselt number calculated from Gartner's method are
usually higher than the experimental results and, in most cases, com-
patible with predictions of Reynolds. But, at two angular positions,
0 = 135° and 0 = 180°, the values predicted by these two models are
usually very much apart from the rest of the local values such that,
depending on their sign, the local values at these two angular positions
can bring the average Nusselt number down to a negative value. The
reason for predicting such large values of local Nusselt numbers at

119
1 1 1 r "I T 1 1 r
P < _ m
CT>
3
CO
D CN cu
<3
•
3
i
5S
D <
CU
D
i2 CO
CO
5-1
CU
S
D as
•n3
z CO
D < - 00 cu
3 3
O
•H cd
D 4J >
Cd
4J
CU
00
C vO
cd
u
cu
D < - in
5
CO D <1 CN
3 SO
CO cu
T5 D CO
^ e < CU
rH CU •H U
o 3 M 3
3 4J CU 00
>, i-l a D csl •H
CU CO <
X (ii
0£i O Cd
O < D D <
_L _L JL
O O o o o o o o O o o
so
CN
o so CN <r vo
00 I I I
^
2
120
these two locations is that both models predict very small wall to
fluid temperature difference at these angular positions.
In summary, the experimentally predicted single-phase heat trans-
fer results are much lower than the values predicted by either the
Seban-McLaughlin equation for flow in helical coils or by the available
methods for flow in asymmetrically heated straight pipe. The compari-
sons show that part of the reason for having low values of heat transfer
coefficient are due to the effect of circumferentially varying heat
flux. They also show that although the local values of Nusselt number
at some peripheral locations in an asymmetrically heated straight pipe
can be quite large, and as a result contribute to a higher average
Nusselt number for the cross section, the secondary flow present in
coils will have a dampening effect on these values.
As for the comparison of the two-phase heat transfer results,
because of the unavailability of any asymmetrically heated two-phase
correlations, the only possibility is to compare the experimentally
determined heat transfer coefficients to that of previous works on
coils with uniform heating. From the bulk of results available, those
of Owhadi [27] and Crain [2] were chosen for comparison. Figure 6-25
presents this comparison. In this figure, the ratio of the circumfer-
entially averaged two-phase heat transfer coefficient, h^^, to that
predicted by Seban-McLaughlin for single-phase flow, h^^, is shown as
a function of 1/X^^. In calculating h^^ by the Seban-McLaughlin
equation, the Reynolds number was based on superficial liquid velocity
[G(l-x)v ]. The present experimental results have values much lower
than those measured for uniformly heated coils.

121
100.0 T I 1 — I I 1 II I T 1—I I II I T 1 — I — I I I 11:
6ô
oo-
o ^ ^<) Ooo 8
10.0 ocoo
T.P.
ilc
1.0
Data of Owhadi [27]
O Data of Crain [11]

A Experimental Results'
0.1 I f I I I II11 I 1 — I I I III i I I I I I I iJ

10 100 1000
1/X
tt
Figure 6-25 Comparison of Results with Data

of Owhadi and Crain
122
If the conclusions derived from comparing the single-phase heat
transfer results to that of the literature is extended to the two-phase
results, one could propose that, here again because of the effect of
asymmetry in heat flux, local values of Nusselt number at different
angular locations around the tube cross section, except at a few points,
are usually lower than those for a uniformly heated tube. In addition
to this, the secondary flow in the tube cross section causes all of
these local values to remain in the neighborhood of some average value.
One point that is worth mentioning here is that the heat flux
values for these experiments, especially considering that only half of
the tube cross section is heated, are much lower than values used in
most of the previous investigations related to this investigation. The
effect of heat flux on the heat transfer coefficient has also been noted
by other investigators such as Schrock and Grossman [32] who have
included heat flux in their correlation. Crain [11] also reports that
there appears to be an effect of heat flux on the heat transfer coeffi-
cients, which indicates a decrease in measured heat transfer coefficients
as heat flux is decreased.

CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Local values of heat transfer coefficient and Nusselt number were
calculated for single-phase or two-phase flow of water/steam in a
coiled tube subjected to asymmetrical radiant heating. The integrated
average values of heat transfer coefficient for all subcooled liquid
data and two-phase data were correlated for a wide range of heat flux,
pressure, mass velocity, and quality by equations (6.2) and (6.3).
These equations were derived for flow through a 2.74-inch diameter
coil constructed of 0.277-inch I.D. stainless steel tubing subjected
to the radiant heating from T-3 quartz lamps. The experimental set up
was designed to simulate the performance of the receiver in the Fixed
Mirror Distributed Focus (FMDF) concentrating solar thermal system.
Measured heat transfer coefficients were found to be much lower
than the predicted values for the uniformly heated coils. A part of
the reason for having low values of heat transfer coefficient are
believed to be due to the effect of circumferentially varying heat
flux. It was also found that due to the dampening effect of the pre-
sent secondary flow in the tube cross section, local values of Nusselt
number at different angular locations do not vary drastically from the
average value for the cross section, while in a non-uniformly heated
straight pipe the local values at some angular positions can take on
very large positive or negative values. The very small coil diameter
of the test section (as compared to other investigators' test appara-
tus) is also believed to have had some adverse effect on heat transfer
results, although this apparently contradicts many earlier works.
123
124
Pressure and mass velocity were found to be two of the major con-
trolling factors in defining the location of transition to dryout.
Increase in pressure, decrease in mass velocity, and increase in heat
flux were all found to decrease the quality at which transition to
dryout occurs, while as pressure decreases, mass velocity increases
and heat flux decreases, the quality at transition point increases.
The effects of pressure and mass velocity on the behavior of the
system can be attributed to their effect on the radial acceleration
in the coiled tube which in turn defines the strength of the secondary
flow in the tube cross section. As the secondary flow becomes
stronger, the generated bubbles at the tube wall are removed faster,
reducing the possibility of local vapor blanketing in the subcooled
boiling and low quality nucleate boiling regions. In high quality
regions, the secondary flow removes the entrained liquid droplets from
the channel core distributing the liquid to the tube surface.
The local fluid pressure through the coiled test section was
estimated using results from a homogeneous flow model derived for
straight pipe flow [10]. While this procedure has been successfully
used by prior investigators [5,29] for helical flow with large coil
to tube diameter ratios, the conditions of this investigation required
a linear correction procedure to be applied to the pressure drop
predictions.
Further studies are recommended to define the effects of (1)
indirect heating and (2) asymmetrical heating on pressure drop in both
straight and helical pipe flows. Such a study could result in much
125
better understanding of the processes involved, if it is coupled with
flow regime studies.
Another aspect of the flow which requires additional studies is
that of the effect of the hydrodynamic and thermal entrance regions on
the flows. Although for straight pipe flow it is believed that
entrance effects can lead to flow patterns that may take considerable
lengths to reach equilibrium [3], for flow in coiled tubes the effects
of entrance region is considered to be very small [22,23,24]. But,
of course, again these might be true for uniformly heated channels,
while asymmetry in heating could result in non-equilibrium conditions
at the channel entrance.
As it was mentioned earlier, the experimental set up for the
present study was designed to simulate the receiver operation in a
FMDF system. The T-3 quartz lamps provided can only be used in a hori-
zontal position, as the high temperature attained by the resistance
filament in the lamps will result in melting of the filament if posi-
tioned vertically. As a result, it was decided to position the coil
in a horizontal direction, whereas the receiver in FMDF system is
usually in near vertical position.
It is recommended that the system be redesigned such that although
the lamps are still in a horizontal position, the coil itself could be
positioned vertically. This could be achieved by constructing a tri-
angular prism with the three available lamp panels in such a way that
the triangular surfaces of the prism are placed in a horizontal position
and the lamp panels are placed on the sides in such a manner that the
126
lamps are in a horizontal position also. At present, one of the lamp
panels forms the base of the triangular prism.
Coiled tubes are used extensively in different forms of heat
exchangers. With the advent of high concentrating solar power systems,
the use of asymmetrically heated coiled tubes is increasing. Under-
standing of the thermal and flow characteristics of this component of
the system will definitely have an impact on successful design of the
overall system.
REFERENCES
1. Ahmad, S.Y., "Axial Distribution of Bulk Temperature and Void

Fraction in a Heated Channel with Inlet Subcooling," Trans.
ASME, J. Heat Transfer, 595-606, November 1970.
2. Banerjee, S., E.A. Rhodes and D.S. Scott, "Studies on Concurrent

Gas-Liquid Flow in Helically Coiled Tubes," Can. J. Chem. Engr.,
47, 445-453, 1969.
3. Banerjee, S., "Experimental Techniques in Two-Phase Flow,"

Stanford University, Dept. of Chemical Engr., Two-Phase Short
Course Notes, Summer 1980.
4. Bell, K.J. and A. Owhadi, "Local Heat Transfer Measurements

During Forced Convection Boiling in a Helically Coiled Tube,"
Proceedings, Symposium on Fluid Mechanics and Measurements
in Two-Phase Flow Systems, Vol. 184, Pt. 3C, 1969-70.
5. Bianchi, G. and M. Cummo, "Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop in

Once-Through Steam Generators," Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 15,
120-133.
6. Butterworth, D. and G.F. Hewitt, "Two-Phase Flow and Heat

Transfer," Oxford University Press, 1977.
7. Carver, J.R., C R . Kakarala and J.S. Slotnik, "Heat Transfer

in Coiled Tubes with Two-Phase Flow," Atomic Energy Commission
Document T1D20983, 1964.
8. Campolunghi, F., et al., "Full-Scale Tests and Thermal Design

Correlation for Coiled Once-Through Steam Generators," AICHE
Symposium Series, Solar and Nuclear Heat Transfer, 73(164),
215-222.
9. Chen, J . C , "Correlation for Boiling Heat Transfer to Saturated

Fluids," I&EC Process Design and Development, 5(3), 322-329,
1966.
10. Collier, J.G., "Convective Boiling and Condensation," McGraw-

Hill, London, 1972.
11. Crain, B., Jr. and K.J. Bell, "Forced Convection Heat Transfer
to a Two-Phase Mixture of Water and Steam in a Helical Coil,"
AICHE Symposium Series, 69(131), 30-36, 1973.
12. Crain, B., Jr., "Forced Convection Heat Transfer toâ Two-
Phase Mixture of Water and Steam in a Helical Coil," Ph.D.
Thesis, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, 1973.
127
128
13. Davidson, W.F., et al., "Studies of Heat Transmission Through

Boiler Tubing at Pressures From 500 to 3300 Pounds," Trans.
ASME, 65, 553-591, 1943.
14. Gartner, D., K. Johannsen and H. Ramm, "Turbulent Heat Transfer

in a Circular Tube with Circumferentially Varying Thermal Boundary
Conditions," Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 17, 1003-1018, 1974.
15. Hsu, Y.Y. and R.W. Graham, "Transport Processes in Boiling and
Two-Phase Systems," McGraw-Hill, 1976.
16. Ito, H., "Friction Factor for Turbulent Flow in Curved Pipes,"
J. Basic Engr., Trans. ASME, D, 81, 123-134, 1959.
17. Kline, S.J. and F.A. McClintock, "Describing Uncertainties in

Single-Sample Experiments," Mech. Engr., 3, January 1953.
18. Lockhart, R.W, and R.C. Martinelli, "Proposed Correlation of

Data for Isothermal Two-Phase, Two-Component Flow in Pipes,"
Chem. Engr. Prog., 45, 39-48, 1949.
19. Martinelli, R . C , D.B. Nelson and N.Y. Schenectady, "Prediction

of Pressure Drop During Forced Circulation Boiling of Water,"
Trans. ASME, 70, 795-702, 1948.
20. Meyers, C.A., R.B. McClintock, G.J. Silvestri and R.C. Spencer,
Jr., "Thermodynamic and Transport Properties of Steam," Pre-
pared for the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1967.
21. Mishra, P. and N. Gupta, "Momentum Transfer in Curved Pipes.

1-Newtonian Fluids," Ind. Engr. Chem. Process Des. Dev., 18
(1), 130-137, 1979.
22. Mori, Y. and W. Nakayama, "Study on Forced Convection Heat

Transfer in Curved Pipes, 1st Report, Laminar Region," Int.
J. Heat Mass Transfer, 8, 67-82, 1965.
23. Mori, Y. and W. Nakayama, "Study on Forced Convective Heat

Transfer in Curved Pipes, 2nd Report, Turbulent Region," Int.
24. Mori, Y. and W. Nakayama, "Study on Forced Convective Heat

Transfer in Curved Pipes, 3rd Report, Theoretical Analysis
Under the Condition of Uniform Wall Temperature and Practical
Formula," Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 10, 681-695, 1967.
25. Owhadi, A. and K.J. Bell, "Forced Convection Boiling Inside

Helically Coiled Tubes," Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 10, 397-
401, 1967.
129
26. Owhadi, A., K.J. Bell and B. Crain, Jr., "Forced Convection
Boiling Inside Helically Coiled Tubes," Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer, 11, 1779-1792, 1968.
27. Owhadi, A., "Boiling in Self-Induced Radial Acceleration

Fields," Ph.D. Thesis, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater,
1966.
28. Reynolds, W . C , "Turbulent Heat Transfer in a Circular Tube

with Variable Circumferential Heat Flux," Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer, 6, 445-454, 1963.
29. Rippel, G.R., C M . Edit, Jr. and H.B. Jordan, Jr., "Two-Phase
Flow in a Coiled Tube," I&EC Process Design and Development,
5(1), 32-39, 1966.
30. Rogers, G.F.C and Y.R. Mayhew, "Heat Transfer and Pressure
Loss in Helically Coiled Tubes with Turbulent Flow," Int.
31. Schmidt, R.R. and E.M. Sparrow, "Turbulent Flow of Water in

a Tube with Circumferentially Nonuniform Heating, with or
without Buoyancy," ASME Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol. 100,
403-409, 1978.
32. Schrock, V.E. and L.M. Grossman, "Forced Convection Boiling

in Tubes," Nuclear Science and Engineering, 12, 474-481,
1962.
33. Seban, R.A. and E.F. McLaughlin, "Heat Transfer in Tube Coils
with Laminar and Turbulent Flow," Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer,
6, 387-395, 1963.
34. Shinn, K.E., "An Experimental Simulation of Asymmetric Radiant

Heating for the FMDF Receiver," M.S. Thesis, Texas Tech Univer-
sity, Lubbock, 1978.
35. Srinivasan, P.S., S.S. Nandapurkar and F.A. Holland, "Pressure

Drop and Heat Transfer in Coils," The Chemical Engineer, No.
218, 113-119, 1968.
36. Texas Tech University, "Optical-Thermal-Fluid Analysis and

Experiments," Appendix A to Technical Report of Work Accom-
plished (Phase 1), The Crosbyton Solar Power Project, February
1978.
37. Yakel, D.E., "Solar Simulator Tests of an FMDF Receiver,"

Supplementary Report F to Technical Report ETC/78TR-01, E-
Systems, Inc., Dallas, February 1978.
APPENDIX A
130
131
SAMPLE CALCULATION
All of the data taken during the experiment were reduced on a
digital computer. Different properties of water and/or steam were
calculated by using a special subroutine named WATER which is capable
of taking any two of the properties T, P, H, S, and X as the known
values and calculating the rest. If the fluid is not saturated, C

P
is calculated instead of quality.
The sample calculation presented in this section is provided as
an example to show how different quantities were calculated. These
calculations will be performed for thermocouple station 9 of run number
77.
Data For Run No. 77
Symmetrical Incident Flux
Radiation intensity =24.2 suns
Total mass flow rate = 270.2 lb /hr

m
Subcooled liquid mass flow rate = 152.9 Ib^/hr
Cooling water flow rate = 2832.2 Ib^/hr
Pressure (psia) Temperature (°F)
Pump exit 271 89.6
H.X. exit 232 548.9
Subcooled liquid 260 89.6
Test section inlet 222 391.3
Test section exit 112 335.3
Condensed fluid 14.0 94.1

132
Cooling water inlet 38.0 70.5
Cooling water exit 38.0 123.1
Tube surface temperature at station 9: T = 385.2°F

A
T^ = 371.5°F
Referring to Figure 5-6, it is seen that the inlet pressure is
measured at 11.75 inches before the start of the coil and 17.75 inches
after the location where the inlet temperature is measured.
Measured inlet temperature is 391.28°F for which the saturation
pressure is 223.64 psia. The measured inlet pressure is 222 psia.
Thus,
percent^ deviation
, . ^. = 223.64-222
j^ _ ^ percent
= 0.7
Assuming that the fluid flowing in this location is a two-phase
mixture, the pressure at the temperature measurement location is found.
G D-°-^^
f^p = 0.0791
^P
1 _ _x_ 1-x
At the measured inlet temperature of 391.28,
y^ = 0.3244 Ib^j/ft-hr
y = 0.03781 Ibnj/ft-hr
Quality at the location of temperature measurement is calculated
from an energy balance on the junction of the superheated vapor and
subcooled liquid lines. This junction is shown in Figure A-1.

133
Superheated
vapor
© Two-phase
© mixture to
test section
Subcooled
liquid
2
© inlet
©
Figure A-1 Junction of Fluid Streams at
the Test Section Inlet
2 2 2
^1 ^2 ^3
^^«i ^ Ii;) ^ ™2<»2 -^ Ii;) = *3^«3 ^ Ii;)
or
V ^ V 2
\^\ ^ Ii~^ "^ '^2^"2 + if")
H„ =
m. 2g,
^^l^JlV^_ ^ 2
m..H^ + tii-H^ m^ 3
m. 2g,
where
m m V
\ = Pl*l*l =^ 'l = ^ = -A^
m- ™2'^2
"2 = ^2*2*2 =' '2 = - ^ ° ^
•"3 '°3''3
"3 = P 3 V 3 =^ '3 ' P3A3 A3
134
In the above equations v^ and v« are known and, thus, V^ and V„

1 z 1 2
can be calculated. But, if the state at 3 is saturated, in order to
find v^, quality is needed. An iterative procedure is followed in
which, for the first iteration, changes in kinetic energy is neglected
Thus,
m,H, + m„H,
, _ 11 2 2
3=
H: m_
For the given conditions for run 77:
m. = 270.223 - 152.985 = 117.238 lb /hr

1 m
T^ = 548.96°F 1 H2 = 58.395 Btu/lbn^
P^ = 232 psia J V2 = 0.01608 ft^/lb^j
and for the first iteration:
, _ 117.238 * 1292.3274 + 152.985 * 58.39

3=
H: 270.22
= 593.744 Btu/lbm
First estimate of quality at point 3 is then;
H3 - H^
x^ =
'3 H.
fg
593.744 - 365.719
834.99
= 0.2731
First estimate of v^ is then calculated from:
V3 = Vf + X3 * v^g
= 0.018516 + 0.2731 * 2.0402
= 0.5756 ft-^/lb
m
135
The second iteration, which will take the changes in kinetic energy
into consideration can now be started.
Velocities are calculated as:
V - ""l""! - 117.238 * 2.4746 ,,-.„ , , .^

^1 - A ^ = 693257.3 ft/hr
^ ^^
1 TT ro.277^^
4 12
m„v^
V^ = —— = 5879.82 ft/hr
A2
m V
V = -^-^ = 371713.86 ft/hr
•^ ^3
Enthalpy at 3 is then:
"I'^l + •°2'^2 2
m J
Ho = H H
3 3 2g^
where H' is the first estimate of H_ calculated in the first iteration.
Thus,
117.238*(693257.3)^ + 152.985*(5879.82)^ /Q^T-,-, o oc^^

970 990 (.J/1/lJ.Ob)
H = 593.744 + £AJ^.Z£3
^ 2 * 32.174 * 778 * (3600)
= 593.744 + 0.1084 = 593.852 Btu/lbj^
• u 593.852 - 593.744 ^ ^^
percent change m H„ = CQ^ y, , =0.01 percent.
If the change in enthalpy is greater than 1 percent, the iteration
will be repeated. For the sample problem at hand, iteration will be
terminated at this point. Thus:
H3 = 593.852 Btu/lbni
X3 = 0.2732
v, = 0.5759 ft /Ibm
136
and
1 _ 0.2732 . 1 - 0.2732
yTP 0.03781 0.3244
= 9.46604 (Ibm/ft-hr)-1
-0.25
f^p = 0.0792 GD
y,TP
where
r - 270.223
A 2
645706.83 lbm /ft^-hr
T^fo.277^
H 12 J
Thus,
0.2771-0.25
= 0.0791 645706.83 * 12
TP 1/9.46604
= 0.0040813
The pressure drop between the location of measurement of tempera-
ture and pressure is then calculated by:
2 * f G LV V
AP = ^D ^[1 + X -^^]
^f
2 X 0.004813 * (645706.83) * 7.75 * 0.018516

0.277
[1 + 0.2732 * ^^;?Q2?^] *
0.018516^ 32.174 * (3600)^
= 155.08 Ibf/ft
= 1.077 Ib^/in^
Pressure at the location of temperature measurement is then:
P = 222 + 1.077 = 223.077 Ib^/in^
derivation of P^ from saturation pressure at this point is:

137
"/A • *.- 223.64 - 223.077 ^ _„

/o deviation = 223 Q77 ^ 0.25%
Thus the pressure at this point is set equal to the saturation
pressure.
Pressure at the start of heated section of the coiled tube is
then calculated from equation 5.31 as:
2.0 * 0.004813 * (645706.83)^ * 19.5 * 0.018516 ^

^ 0.277
[1.0 + 0.2732 * -rrj^^] * 9

0.018516 32 -L7^ ^ (3600)^
= 390.22 Ibf/ft^
= 2.71 Ibf/in^
Thus the pressure at the inlet to the coiled tube is:
p. = P ^) - AP
^m sat'3
= 223.64 - 2.71 = 220.93 Ib^/in^
Bulk temperature at the inlet to the coil is then taken as the
saturation temperature at P. . Thus,
T. = 390.23°F
m
«
Since inlet enthalpy is the same as H3 calculated before, the
inlet quality is calculated as:

«3-«f
Xo =
3 H^
fg
where H^ and H^ are evaluated at T as:
f fg i'^
H^
f = 365.3 Btu/lb^
m
H. = 835.36 Btu/lb
fg ^
Thus,
138
^ 593.852 - 365.3 _ ^ .y-Â

""3 835T36 °-^^^^
The same procedure is followed for the calculation of the coiled
tube exit pressure. From Figure 5-6, the locations of temperature and
pressure measurements are at 17.75 and 12.125 inches after the end of
the coiled section, respectively.
Measured exit temperature is 335.3°F for which the saturation
pressure is 110.91 psia. The measured exit pressure is 112 psia. Thus,
% deviation = '^"'"^ 112"^^'^"'" " °*^^^
Assuming that this deviation is small enough to justify the assump-
tion of the saturation state at this point, the enthalpy and the quality
at this location are calculated.
The fluid leaving the test section passes through the condenser.
The enthalpy of the fluid before entering the condenser is calculated
by an energy balance on the condenser as shown in Figure A-2.
Cooling water - out
Two-phase
mixture leaving ^
the test
section © Condensed
Fluid
©
OT©
Cooling water - in
Figure A-2 Condenser

139
Assuming that the heat loss from the insulated condenser is
negligible, one can write:
v/ V 2 V 2 ^2
»4(»4 + 2i-) + "6(«6 -^ 2r> = "4»5 + I T ^ * ê^^y + 2r>
c c °c °c
or rearranging:
2 o 9 9
"^6 ™fi ^7 - Â ^q - ^/
^ = ^ » 5 ^ /"4
< »'7 - V-^ ^ /'"(4 2.
^§c )^ 2g^ '
The state of the cooling water at both inlet and outlet to the
condenser is compressed liquid. Therefore, its specific volume and,
as a result, its velocity from inlet to the outlet of the condenser
will not change significantly. Thus with reasonable accuracy, the
second term in the above equation representing the change in kinetic
energy of the compressed liquid is neglected.
As a result,
H, = [H^ +z^(H^ - H J ] + ^ ^
4 ^ 5 m,/"7 "6^^ 2g^
where
™4^4
\ = P4\^ =" ^ = -AT
m V
*4 = P5S^5 =^ ^5 = ^
To calculate v,, quality at point 4 is needed. Again an iterative
procedure is used in which, for the first estimate of H,, the change
in kinetic energy is neglected. Thus,
1 ™fi
H4 = «5 + S7<»7 - V
4
For the given conditions:
140
m,
4 = 270.223 lb m/hr
T^ = 335.3°F
P, = 112 psia
T^ = 94.1°F ] "5 = 62.1997 Btu/lb

m
P^ = 14.0 psia J 3,,.
v^ = 0.0161105 ft^/lb
m
riig = 2832.221 Ibm/hr
T^ = 70.52°F
' H^ = 38.728 Btu/lbni
P,
6 = 38.0 psia
^ )
T = 123.08°F 1
j- H = 91.1687
P^ = 38.0 psia J
and for the first iteration
HJ = 62.1997 + ^270*223 (91.1687 - 38.728)
= 611.833 Btu/lb
m
First estimate of quality at 4 is then:
»4-»f
"^4 ~ H^
fg
^ 611.833 - 306.3838
883.26
= 0.3458
First estimate of v, is then

4
4 f 4 fg
= 0.017819 + 0.3458 * 3.8176
= 1.338 ft-^/lb
m
141
The second iteration can now be performed. Velocities are
calculated as:
'4 = ^^T^^fTTiltP = ^ ° — - / -
Enthalpy at 4 is then:
2 2
1 ^5 - ^
H, = H, + - ^ ^
4 4 2g^
= 611.833 - (^Q9955.95)^ - (4936.17)^
2*32.174*(3600)^*778
= 611.833 - 0.25 = 611.583 Btu/lb

m
percent. change
u m' V! = 611.833 - 611.583 = 0.04%
H, ^ ^,„,
Assuming that this change is small enough, the iteration will be
stopped here. Thus,
H. = 611.583 Btu/lb
4 m
X, = 0.3455
4
V, = 1.337 ft^/lb
4 m
The pressure at the location of temperature measurement is now
calculated.
1-0.25
"GD
f^„ = 0.0791
TP
^TP
where:
X 1-x
^P ^g î
and
y^ = 0.38666 lb /ft-hr
r m
142
y„ = 0.0352233 lb /ft-hr
g m
Therefore:
0.3461 _!_ 1 - .3461

y^p 0,0352233 0.38666
= 11.517 (Ibm/ft-hr)^
-0.25
0.277
f^p = 0.0791 645706.83 * 12
1/11.517
= 0.003886
The pressure drop between the location of measurement of tempera-
ture and pressure is calculated as:
. ^ 2.0 * 0.003886 * (645706.83)^ * 5.625 * 0.017819 ^

0.277
[1 + 0.3461 * _ M i Z 6 _ i * ^
0.017819^ 32.174 * (3600)^
= 211.32 Ib^/ft^
= 1.467 Ib^/in^
Pressure at the location of temperature measurement is then:
P^ = 112 - 1.467 = 110.53 Ibj/in^
deviation of P, from saturation pressure at this point is:

4
c ^ . -• 110.91 - 110.53 _ ^ ^,„
% deviation = ,-.Q ^3 = O.J4/i
The pressure at this location is thus set equal to the saturation
pressure. Pressure drop between the coiled tube end point and the
location of temperature measurement is:
_ 2.0 * 0.003886 * (645706.83)^ * 17.75 * 0.017819 ^

^^ ~~^ OTITT
[1.0 + 0.3461 * Jk^.llL] *

0.017819 32.174 * (3600)^
143
2
= 666.84 Ib^/ft
= 4.63 Ib^/in^
The coil exit pressure is thus:
P^^ = 110.91 + 4.63 = 115.54 Ib^/in^
Bulk temperature at the exit from the coil is now taken as the
saturation temperature at P . Thus:

ex
Tex = 338.43°F
and the exit quality is calculated as:
»4-^f
""4 " H^
fg
where at 338.43°F:
H^, = 309.62 Btu/lb

f m
H- = 880.13 Btu/lb
fg m
and
611.583 - 309.62 „ ., .,
^4 = 88033 ^'^""^^
The local pressure at any axial location is calculated by evalu-
ating the pressure drop between the coil inlet and the specified axial
location through appropriate equations as were given in section (5.4).
At each thermocouple station, pressure and enthalpy and, as a
result, other required properties such as bulk temperature, specific
volume and quality are calculated. At the end of this stepwise pro-
cedure the calculated and the experimentally measured test section
exit pressures are compared. If the difference between the two is
less than 1 percent of the measured value, the calculated properties
are accepted.
144
However, if the deviation of the calculated exit pressure from
the experimentally measured value is large, the local pressures, as
were calculated in previous steps, are corrected based on the assump-
tion that the pressure drop model will consistently overestimate or
underestimate the pressure drop in such a manner that the difference
between the actual and the predicted value is a linear function of the
axial position along the tube.
Therefore, if:
DP = P . - P X
ex) ex)
exp calc
Then, at thermocouple station 9:
in which P is the pressure at this thermocouple station as calcu-

U J 11 will
lated from the homogeneous model and L^ and L are the total length
i q "^
of the coiled tube and tube length up to station 9, respectively.
Once the corrected local pressure and enthalpy at each thermo-
couple station is found, other properties are evaluated.
For the example run under study, the calculated exit pressure
from the homogeneous model is found to be 132.81 psia. Thus,
DP = 115.54 - 132.81 = -17.27 Ib^/in^
Pressure at station 9, calculated in a stepwise fashion by the
homogeneous model is 171.14 psia. The corrected local pressure at
this station is then:

PQ = 171.14 + Cll'llr, * 98.58) = 161.5 Ib./in^
Enthalpy at this station is calculated by an energy balance on
the heated portion of the coil, between inlet and this axial location.
145
In this energy balance both the radiative and convective losses are
accounted for. The total heat absorbed by the fluid in this portion
of the coil as computed by the computer program is:
Qg = 1965.06 Btu/hr
Enthalpy at this station is found from:
U _ U J. £
9 in Total Flow Rate
= 593.852 + 1965.06
270.223
= 601.124 Btu/lb
m
Two independent properties at this station are calculated. Other
properties can easily be foimd.
Tg = 364.3°F
Xg = 0.307
In order to calculate the heat transfer coefficient, tube wall
temperature and heat flux should be found. The method outlined in
section (5.2) is used. The necessary boundary conditions are given
as:
T (9) = a + b cos (6)
o
where:
a= (T^+ V / 2
= (385.22 + 371.53)/2
= 378.375°F
b = (T^ - T^)/2
= (385.22 - 371.53)/2
Figure A-3
= 6.845°F Boundary Conditions
Designator
146
q^ce) = p - j l ^ l j
=0 I< 9 < f
where P is the absorbed heat per unit area and time. In calculation
of P, heat losses are also included.
Thus:
P = Incident flux - Radiative loss - Convective loss

4 4
= Incident flux - ae(T - T.-„) - h (T - T,,^)
o AMB o o AMB
where:
o = Stephen-Boltzman constant
e = emissivity of flat black paint
T = wall temperature at the specific angular position (°R)
T.>^ = ambient temperature (°R)

AMB
h = convective heat transfer coefficient for the outside
o
2
surface of the coil (Btu/hr-ft -°R)
Using these boundary conditions along with other necessary infor-
mation, the inside surface temperatures and heat fluxes at different
angular positions are found. The results for three angular positions
are given below.
T
Angular Heat Flux w
position (Btu/hr-ft^) ("F)
9 = 0 6899.53 382.36
9 = Tr/2 4374.27 376.69
9 = TT 1869.04 371.03
Once these quantities are evaluated, heat transfer coefficients
for different angular positions is calculated.

147
''e = 0 = 3 8 2 ! 3 r i i 6 4 . 3 ' ^^^.OS B t u / f t ^ - h r - ^ F
4374 27 9
''e=Tt/2 = 376.69 - 364.3 = ^53.04 B t u / f t - h r - ° F
^9 = ^ = 3 7 l ! o f : ° 3 6 4 . 3 = " 7 . 7 1 Btu/f t ^ - h r - ' F
Nusselt number i s c a l c u l a t e d by:
Nu = -r—
where d = inside diameter of the tube

k = thermal conductivity of saturated liquid
ot- A - n M 382.03 * 0.277

at 9 - 0, Nug ^ Q = 0.3896 * 12
= 22.635
Average values of heat transfer coefficient and Nusselt number
were calculated by finding a mean value for inside surface wall tem-
perature and heat flux for each thermocouple station as:
r2TT
1
T. = T(9)d9
1 ' 2TT
J 0
<2TT
1
q(9)d9
' ^ ' • " 2TT
0
Then the average heat transfer coefficient is calculated from;
F—^L_
(T^ - Tg)
and the average Nusselt number by:
Nu = ^j—
k
148
Using these relations:
h = 352.53 Btu/hr-ft^-°F
Nu = 20.89
Reynolds number at this axial location is calculated from:
?d
Re _ pvd _ A ^ Gd
where G = —mA is the mass velocity in lbm /ft2-hr.
Thus:
G = ^^^-^^^^ = 645706.8 lb /ft^-hr

TT 0.277
4 12
.0.277
_ 645706.8 * ^ 12 ^ , _._. _
^^ Osli = "^2331.7
Radial acceleration in terms of the number of g's is given by
V^
R.
A = R ^.. g
coil^
where
V m = pA
-^ = Gv ft/hr
V, the specific volume is easily calculated and can be shown to
be:
V = 0.88765 ft-^/lb
m
Thus:
^ 645706.8 * 0.88059/3600.0)^
(1.37 * 32.174/12.0)
= 6791.55 g's
Calculations shown here were repeated for all thermocouple
stations. This stepwise procedure will result in calculation of total

149
heat input into the coil which for this example run is calculated to
be 4853.65 Btu/hr.
On the other hand, total heat added to the fluid is also calcu-
lated from:
Q = m(H - H. )
^ ex in
which for this run:
Q = 270.223(611.583 - 593.852)
= 4791.65 Btu/hr
with a percent deviation of:
4853.65 - 4791.65
= 1.29%
4791.65
APPENDIX B
150
151
UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
Whenever measurements are made, errors are made. Because no
measurement is free from error, steps must be taken to evaluate the
accuracy and precision of the measurement.
Although the equipment and instruments used were selected with
care and although the measurements were made as accurately as possible,
but as in any experimental work, there is some degree of uncertainty
inherent in the final results, thus necessitating this section on
error analysis.
One of the available methods for estimating uncertainty in experi-
mental results is that of Kline and McClintock [17]. According to this
method, if R is a function of n independent variables, each of which
is normally distributed, then the relation between the uncertainty in
the variables W. and the uncertainty for the result W_ is given by:
1 1^
TT r/9R ^2 ^ M N2 . . /8R „ >»2il/2 f^ . .

\^^dz;î) -^ ^9^^2) "• '•' ^ ^-^T^n) ^ ^^-^)
1 2 n
where R = R(x-^,X2, •. . ,x^)
This method will be used to estimate the uncertainty involved in
the calculation of the heat transfer coefficient. Calculations will
be performed for the data of sample calculation of Appendix A.
Heat transfer coefficient at any position along the coiled tube
test section is calculated according to the equation:
h =^ ^ ^ (B-2)
w B
where T and T are the tube inside surface wall temperature and the
w B
fluid bulk temperature at the specified location.
152
According to the Kline-McClintoch method, the uncertainty in
calculating h is given by:
w - [f^^ TT ^2 . /9li TT x2 ^ ,8h „ N2I1/2 ,„ ^.

\ - ^^T(Q7AT ^ Q ) -^ < 9 ^ ^T^) + (-8T- ^T ) ^ <^-3)
w ^ B B
where from equation B-2,
8h 1 1
= 0.0289
9(Q/A) T^
w - T^
o = 385.22 - 350.6
9ti _
.__- Q/A _ 6388.8 ^ ._
=5.33 ._ ..
(B-4)
w (T - T^) (385.22 - 350.6)
W D
9ti _ Q/A _
and where W-^, W_ , and W_ are the uncertainties in the measurement
of heat flux, wall temperature and bulk fluid temperature, respectively.
The type of equipment used in these measurements, along with their
stated accuracy, were summarized in Table 3-1.
The uncertainty in the calculation of Q/A at the inner surface
of the tube is due to uncertainties in the measurement of variables
such as:
a - incident flux from the lamp panels upon the test section
b - temperature of the outer surface of the tube
c - ambient temperature surrounding the coil
Incident flux from the lamps were measured and mapped [31] using
a calorimeter with a stated accuracy of ± 3 percent. Both the outside
tube wall temperature and ambient temperature were measured by type
K, sheathed thermocouples with an accuracy of ± 4.0°F or 0.75 percent
of the readings, whichever is larger.

153
The amount of heat absorbed by the test section per unit area
and time is given b y :
''abs = 'Încident " "^K ' ^P^'> " '•,„„^(t„ - t ^ ) (B-5)
According to Kline-McClintock,
^Q, =^^W^\ )'^^^^T)'^<S^^T )'l'^' ^'"'^

"âbs ^înc înc ^ \ \ ^ÂMB ÂMB
where
9Q ,
âbs
9Q.m c " ^
âbs , „3
9T = -4aeTW - hconv (B-7)
w
9Q T-
abs , 3
•^ = 4aeT.-^ + h
^ÂMB ^"^ ^ ° ^ ^
or
9Q
^ — = -4.0 * 0.1714 * 10 ^ * 0.9 * (385.22 + 460)"^ - 2.0
w
= -5.7258 Btu/hr-ft^°F
^âbs -4 -^
^^ = 4.0 * 0.1714 * 10 ^ * 0.9 * (350.6 + 460)"^ + 2.0
^ÂMB
= 5.2865 Btu/hr-ft^-°F
W = 6388.8 * 0.03 = 191.664 Btu/hr-ft^
inc
The uncertainty in measurement of tube wall temperature and
ambient temperature is calculated from:
W = (—) W
T ^9E''^ EMF
where:
W = [(W )^ + (W )'^]'^^^
EMF thermocouple data logger
154
EMF corresponding to T^ = 385.22°F is 7.981 milivolts. Thus:
ÊMF = f(0-089)2 + (0.033)2]^/2 ^ ^ ^^3 ^^^^
where 0.089 and 0.033 are the values of EMF corresponding to the un-
certainty of the thermocouple wires and data logger.

9T
"BE^T ^^ ^^^ ^"^^^^ °^ ^^® "^ ^^- ^ ^ ^^^^^ f°^ type K thermocouple
at the measured wall temperature. It is found from thermocouple tables
as:
9T. ^ AT. 386 - 384
9 E ) T ^ AE>385.22 ^ 8.003 - 7.959 = ^5.454°F/M.V.
Thus for T :
w
W
= 45.459 * .095 = 4.315°F
w
Following the same procedure W is found as:
ÂMB
W^ = 4.28°F
ÂMB
From equation B-6:
1 4. f-i^ 7 9 * /. '3it;\2 1 /c OQ/- 4, /. « o v 2 , l / 2
W = [(1.0 * 191.664)^ + (-5.72 * 4.315)^ + (5.286 * 4.28)"^]
âbs
= 194.57 Btu/hr-ft (B-8)
From equation B-5:
âbs " ^388.8 - 0.1714 * lO"^ * 0.9 * [(385.22 + 460)"^ -
(350.6 + 460)^] - 2.0 * (385.22 - 350.6)
= 6198.28 Btu/hr-ft^
W as calculated above is the uncertainty involved in the

âbs
calculation of the absorbed heat flux at the exterior surface of the
tube. In calculating the temperature and heat flux at the interior
surface of the tube Q , is used. It is assumed that any additional

âbs -^
uncertainties generated as a result of these calculations are
negligible and thus W^ will also represent the uncertainties of q

âbs ^
at the inner surface of the tube.
155
In calculating bulk fluid properties at station 9 of the sample
run under consideration, since the fluid is saturated, bulk temperature
will be the saturation temperature at the local pressure which is
calculated from:
8
^sat = \ Ai[^n(10P)]^ 0.2 < P < 450 (B-9)
1=0
where:
^) = 35.15789
*i = 24.592
2.118
*2 =
*3 = -0.34144
^ = 0.1574
s =-0.0313
*6 = 0.00386
0.00025
*7 =
08 X lO"''
*8 =
According to Kline-McClintock,
9T ^
Tj =
r
rf
/ sat (B-10)
sat
where, from equation (B-9):
9T
sat
9P = ^{J/if^"<^°''î'}
8 iA. i-l
= Z -pi [£n(10P)]
i=0
substituting for P^ = 161.5, psia and A^ as given above:
9T
sat = 0.3255287 (B-11)
9P
156
Local pressure is calculated by evaluating the pressure drop
through using the homogeneous model and is corrected for the deviation
of the calculated from experimentally measured exit pressure (sample
calculation. Appendix A ) .
Thus:
- P ,
ex) ex) T
exp calc
PQ
9
= P. - AP,
in homo
+ (-
*S^
If for simplicity, it is assumed that the uncertainty in calcu-
lation of P_ is a direct consequence of the uncertainty with which
the inlet and exit pressures are measured, then:
apg 2 ^^9 ^2,1/2

W,
V = [<3P;-"P. > + ( ^ p — ex)
9 m m ex)exp exp
where:
Wp = Wp = ± 2 Ibj/in'
in ex
and
. 2 (B-12)
Wp = ^(2)2 + (îmij * 2)2]l/2 ^ 2.29 Ib^/in
9
substituting B-11 and B-12 into equation B-10:
W = 0.3255287 * 2.29 = 0.745°F (B-13)

sat
where in equation (B-3):
W = W = 0.745°F
B sat
Thus from equation (B-3), we have:
2^1/2
W = [(0.0289 * 194.57)^ + (5.33 * 4.315)^ + (5.33 * 0.745) ]
h
2 o.
= 24.0 Btu/hr-ft -°F
Converting this to the percentage of the calculated value of the

157
heat transfer coefficient at this specific location:
^ 24.0 * 100 ^
h 382.03 •^'^
That is, there is a 6.3 percent uncertainty in the calculated
results based on the stated accuracy of the equipment used.
Of course, this percentage is valid only for the sample calcula-
tion presented in previous chapters. For runs with higher incident
flux, the rate of uncertainty will be slightly higher while in some
other cases it will be lower.
Repeatability of an experiment is also a measure of the accuracy
with which the data are taken. In order for a set of data to be
valid, the experimentor must be able to reproduce his data if necessary.
During the course of this study, a few runs were selected randomly,
and it was tried to reproduce the inlet condition to the coil as close
as possible. Although the inlet condition in most cases is a function
of several variables such as pressure, temperature and quality of the
mixture, and it is almost impossible to exactly reproduce a given con-
dition at the inlet, but the final results were very close to each
other and certainly within the bounds of the error limit set above.
In Table B-1, the conditions for two such runs are reproduced.
The experimental results for the heat transfer coefficients at 9 = 0°
and 9 = 180°, as well as the bulk fluid temperature along the test
section, are shown in Figure B-1 and B-2.

158
TABLE B-1
Experimental- Conditions for Runs 51 and 71
Run #51 Run #71
Mass Velocity, Ib^/(hr-sq.ft) 459189 464592
Pressure, psia 62.6-43.2 67.0-44.5
Temperature, °F 295.5-271.95 300.0-273.7
Radial Acceleration, g's 241-9200 184-8665
Incident Heat Flux, Suns 101 101

159
650
600
400 - 550
350
300
O Heat transfer coefficient, 9 = 0 ° , Btu/hr-ft -°F

2
_ ^ Heat transfer coefficient, 9 = 180°, Btu/hr-ft -°F
250
<> Bulk fluid temperature, °F

I I •I I J.
6.62 8.38 10.14 11.9 13.66 15.42
3.1 4.86
Quality (%)
Figure B-1 Experimental Results, Run 51

160
650
600
400 550
350 -
300
O Heat transfer coefficient, 9 = 0 ° , Btu/hr-ft -°F
250 ^ ^ Heat transfer coefficient, 9 = 180°, Btu/hr-ft^-°F
<> Bulk fluid temperature, °F
2.8 4.57 6.34 8.11 9.88 11.65 13.42 15.19

Quality (%)
Figure B-2 Experimental Results, Run 71

APPENDIX C
161
162
TEST ON SOLUTION METHOD
The heat conduction equation in the form presented by equation
(5.4) is an elliptic partial differential equation in two dimensions,
which essentially requires specified boundary conditions on the closed
boundary.
If, on the other hand, the heat conduction equation is written in
terms of heat flux values, for the case of steady-state, two dimension,
this equation becomes:
^(rq,) + ^ ( q g ) = 0 (C-1)
where:
9T (C-2)
^r = - k r 9r
9T (C-3)
^9 = • r 99
presented in this form, the above equations are hyperbolic equations.
The given boundary conditions for these sets of simultaneous equations
are:
T(r = R^,9) = 0(9) (C-4)
q (r = R ,9) = ^(9) (C-5)

^r o
The procedure for solving these equations can be stated as follows:
1 - substituting (C-4) into (C-3):
k
= - -?- ^ (C-6)
^9 r=R R d9
o
o
163
2 - using (C-6) in (C-1), at r = R :

o
_9_ _^ di
IF^^^r) ^ ^ 99*^ R d9^ "
r=R o
o
or:
(C-7)
97^^\> r=R
R 99^ 9 d9''
o
o
The above equation written in finite difference form becomes
(rq^) - (rq^)
r=R R -Ar
o
Ar R 99'''^9 d9''
o
or:
R
o Ar 9 (k ^ )
\r) R (R -Ar) 99' 9 d9
R -Ar • ("ô-^ o o
o
R H'(9)
o Ar 9 d^. (C-8)
(R -Ar) R (R -Ar) 99' 9 d9
o o o
3 - Equation (C-2) at r = R - dr
_9T
= -kr 9r
R -dr R -dr
o o
or:
_9T
9r
R -dr
ir^r R -dr
o o
substituting (C-8) into the above equation:
, R ^(9)
9T = _ _L{_2—;^_^ " R_(R^-Ar) 99'"9 d9 ""' A(K t)}
9r k (R -Ar) o o
R -dr r o
o
164
or, in finite difference form:
- T
R R -Ar , R ^(8)
O ^ 1 r O Ar
Ar —(k ^)}
k^'(R^-Ar) R^(R^-Ar) 99^*^9 d9
and finally:
Ar
R -Ar —(k ^)} (C-9)
o r o Ro (Ro-Ar)
^ 99^*^9 d9
Therefore, by using the above set of equations, temperature and
heat flux at the nodal points on a ring of radius R -Ar are found. By
repeating the steps outlined above, the temperature distribution through-
out the tube wall thickness is found. The solution method as outlined
above is a non-iterative procedure, except for the fact that the material
thermal conductivity is temperature dependent.
In order to prove that the above procedure will actually result in
a unique solution, a test on the method was performed. Initially, two
arbitrary functions representing the tube wall temperature at r = R and
r = R were chosen. The functions selected for this sample problem were:
i
T +T T -T„
T^(9) = - ^ ^ + - i ^ * cos(9) (C-IO)
T +T T -T
T.(9) = ^ 2 - ^ + ^ 2 " ^ * cos(9) (C-11)
where:
T, = 281.0 °F
T^ = 266.0 °F
T^ = 255.0 °F
T, = 240.2 °F
165
The tube wall was subdivided into four divisions in the radial and
eight divisions in the circumferential directions. Nodal temperatures
as well as the heat flux at the boundary nodes were then calculated.
The results of this part of the calculations are shown in Table C-1.
Once the nodal heat flux values on the exterior surface were found,
these along with equation (C-10) were used as the boundary conditions
expressed by equations (C-4) and (C-5) and the procedure outlined pre-
viously was used to once again calculate the temperature distribution
and the nodal heat fluxes on the interior surface. The results of these
calculations are shown in Table C-2, which compares very favorably with
Table C-1.
166
TABLE C-1
TEMPERATURE D I S T R I B U T I O N INSIDE TUBE WALL THICKNESS
GIVEN BOUNDARY CONDITIONS:
TEMPEATURE D I S T R I B U T I O N ON THE OUTSIDE SURFACE
TEMPERATURE CISTRIBUTION ON THE INSIDE SURFACE
ANGLE(OEG) 0 45 90 135 180
RADIUS(IN. )
0.1875 281.00 273.80 273.50 268.20 266.CO

0.1753 275.17 273.13 268.19 263.25 261.21
0.1630 268.95 267.05 2 62.4 8 257.91 256.C2
0.1508 262.25 260.51 256.31 252.12 250.38
0.1385 255.00 253.42 2 49.6 0 245.78 244.20
f-EAT FLUX AT THE EXTERIOR SURFACE < B T U / F T * F T*HR)
53 8 0 3 . 3 6 52314.01 48730.27 45163.02 43690.25
TOTAL HEAT INPUT AT THE EXTERIOR SURFACE (BTU/HR.)= 0.239245D 04
HEAT FLUXT AT INTERIOR SURFACE (BTU/FT*FT*HR)
71215.21 69678.08 65975.99 62286.69 60762.28
TOTAL HEAT INPUT AT THE INTERIOR SURFACE (BTU/HR.) = 0.239247C 04

167
TABLE C-2
TEMPERATURE D I S T R I B U T I O N INSIDE TUBE WALL THICKNESS
GIVEN BOUNDARY CONDITIONS:
HEAT FLUX ON THE OUTSIDE SURFACE
TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION ON THE OUTSIDE SURFACE
ANGLE(DEG) 0 45 90 135 180
RAOIUSCIN.)
0.1875 281.00 278.80 2 73 . 5 0 268.20 266.CO

0.1753 275.17 273.13 2 68.19 263.25 261.21
0.1630 268.95 267.05 262.48 257.91 2 5 6 . C2
0.1508 262-25 260.51 2 56.31 2 5 2 . 12 250.38
0.1385 255.00 253.42 2 49 . 6 0 245.78 244.20
HEAT FLUX AT THE INTERIOR SURFACE (BTU/FT*FT*HR.)
71216.77 69678.67 65975.30 62284.30 60759.95
TOTAL HEAT INPUT AT THE INTERIPOR SURFACE ( B T U / H R ) = 0.239245C 04

APPENDIX D
TWO-PHASE HEAT TRANSFER DATA
168
169
522
534
exit
548
540
566
464
459
548
542
510
546
UO
441
490
485
500
464
493
496
519
0 00
~a
CN
U
r-f
JZ
^^
3 4-1
410
403
Inle
413
388
406
338
340
312
359
430
422
393
390
390
393
430
431
402
395
kiyl
OQ
4J ro so o UO ro NO r^ 0\ r^ o CO 00 NO ro l-H p^ p~ -a
/—\ •H ON ON
8«« x: CN NO UO NO ro NO O 00 NO NO o NO o O ON o CN fNl vO NO
1-H CN UO iH CN
a vO ro -a ro -a- -a NO r^ ~a ^H CN -a P^ CN
4J
iH
T—^
4J
« lU ro UO O -a- r^
3 NO • ^ 00 00 UO CM -a 00 r^ NO -a -a P^ -a -a
I-H
cr C UO 00 r>. o >a NO Ov NO o\ 00 ro _ -a CN O CM <r UO 00 NO
TH 1—1 NO CSI CN CN CO CO
•a- r^4 1-H ND NO ro 1-H NO l-H
4J ro f^ NO ro <JN <r 00 ON <JN (y-. NO 00 p~ ro NO -a ro -a- NO ^

TH l-H f-^ l-H 00 NO l-H 00 UO NO ON p^ CO CN p— CN
ro
l-H
o NO -a o
X CN ro ro f—I I-H CN CN ro CN rsi CN l-H CN ro I-H
^•v
OJ
(0
psi
N—*'
CU 4-1
lU 00 -3- 1^ ^H CJN r^ NO P^ CN UO r^ ro -a ON -a
.-H ON UO CN CN r— ON o
NO
UO O CN Pv ON
CN
UO
00
(N ON ^H r^
vO
,-^
c 1—'
ro UO UO CO CM 1-H 1-H
-a -a -a -a -a r- CN ro
^-
UO
^H
CM
•H ^
4J -a- O o c 00 •a- ro NO ro -a- UO -a UO -a ro CN 00 CJN CN 00

iH -a- -a o UO CM CN NO NO -a- -a ro ro r~ UO O 00 00 CM o ON
o
• X rsi -T l-H CNJ iH OO 00 u-1 Ol UO CN CJN -a r~ l-H ro UO NO C^N p—
o OJ UO oc r^ rvi 00 NO NO o NO ON o <r ON -a CN o ON
ON
f-H r-j l-H 1-H 1-H CN « ro -a
^ rM -H
< ^^ ""^ '"
CO
•H
T) 4-1
CO Oi •J- r~ ON ro p^ CN 00 r» -a UO ^H CM NO CM UO ro 00 ON P^
Oi >-H r^ «
o O UO X. <r o ro NC P^ NO <r ro r^ O -a ON NO
C UO ^—
O -a 00 NO p^ ro ON O o
^-
OO o UO r^ O CO UO
•H CN UO 00 CN CN ro CM -a
^- -a
^-
-a
NO
CO p^ l-H
-a
t—1
4-1 -a- NO CN NO -a 00 00 00 NO 00 ro ro r-j NO ON CSI CJN CN 00

UO UO 00 CO UO l-H ON CN
•W -a 00 O -a- ~a <T O o -a o o o
X -a- 00 O 00 ro I-H <7N o 00 •<r 00 l-H 00 r~ r» <?1 UO o
(U <r -a- ,—1 CN u-i O NO NO ^
uO NO r-> 00 o o 00 O 00 ro o UO
i-» 00 ON ON NO ro ro CN F-H
o O o CJN OO 00 ND NO r^ -a -a
(U
4J p^ i—H ^_ -a- ro ON ro CNl •a- <r ro CO 00 CN vO UO ,— UO NO 00

o r-« O ro ON o ^H
r- C7N 00 l-H UO P^ 00 CN NO -a CN NO P~ ro o r^ CJN
I-H
c
UO
I-H f-H CN •a- CO
1—I
l-H o p~ r^ ON O
^-
^H CJN 00 r~ p^ ro -a o
•H 00
<•
CJN o o r^ ro -a ro 1-H 1—1 CN O o> ON NO r- 00 -a UO
f-H - l-H
>.
4-1
TH IH
O 1 ON CO UO ON r^ o sD NO UO r- NO -a o NO rM ro ON ON .— UO
r—^ NO I-H CN CN 00 UO NO NO ON ^H ON
o CN ND ON ^ 00 o o NC
-a
4J r«^ <t CN NO o I-H UO 00 ro ON -a 00 -a o CN
f-H
00 NO 1-H
CN UO ^ UO CN CO 00 00 UO P—
> Vb- CO ro
<T^
00
NO
CO
00
r-
uo
ro
00
CN
ON
-a-
P-. O
NO
l-H O
O
O
ro
O ON ^H NC UO UO -a CN
00 ON
CO ^H CJN UO UO -a rO -a -a -a CN CM CjN ON r^ P--
f-H
^H 1-H 1-H l-H ^H ^^
rH
CO
l-H
^H ^H 1—1
^
IB
s
)H
X x:
3 1 t~-
r—1 CN o
U. 4-1
ro
4J "o.^ CN
(0 3
4-1
01
a: la
Run
ON UO NO ON CN r-
=»= -a UO NO r-. O I-H CN UO OO
CN CN CN CN r^ r^ ro ro
f—' 1-H
1-H
sun^ 3SBqd-oMi.
170
Cb 4-1 x> l-H O p~ UO (JN rH •<r NO ro UO r^ P-. ON m o NO vO 00 CN

o •H
*-" 1-H P^ UO O c^ r^ l-H
o 00 OO ~T CN ON O p^ UO -a l-H CM
X UO UO -a -a- UO -a -a ro ro <r m UO -a -a -a- Ul
CN <• •^ ^ -a
u QJ
r-f
j=
-^
3» 4-1
4-1 OJ 00 <JN 00 r^ ro f-^ CJN vO UO cn ^H O NO r^ O r-- ro r^^ ro P^
0 l-H cn ON p~ -a l-H UO O 00 NO >a ON CJN p-- -a- (n o 00 r^ UO ~T
-a CO m ro -a ro ro ro ro CN cn m c^ -a ro m ro -a
c <^ -3-
•H
4-1 UO ^H ro NO 00 CJN O NO ON ro -a NO UO 00 CN OO OO UO NO
/r-S HH
9>e X ON UO ro O CN ro cn ro
o
NO -H
o NO
in CN NO
NO UO
CN
UO
UO
r^
cn
l-H
CN
ON CN ON
rH
ro
^~' OJ -a ro vr -a- I-H
-a ^ ro l-H -a
4J
HH
1-H
-J
^
3 OJ 00 ~a nH r». ro 1^ CN UO -a r>- r»
C 1—1
o 1—1 00 CO vD CN CM P^* p^
c ON -H UO ro 00 ro r-» CO cn CN ro i-H UO o CJN fn CM O -a -a

•-H
ro UO CN CSI -a -a ro CN m ro CM ro
1
<•
^^ <—t
UO
4-1 00 O CN OO NO ro • -T OO NO UO 00 •£> UO <T XI -a P>. p^» UO
-H X -a UO -a O O 00 l-H ON -a- ^H p~ ON rr 00 NO
X rM l-H <T
NO
-
l-a
H -^
CN rH
NO
f-H CN
.^s 11
I—f
-^ ^^ f-^
^- f—1
CO
HH
7)
^^
BU i-l in
V OO UO ON CN ro ON CN P-. ON r^ 00 CN UO OO
CN 1—1 —
o
•
ON CO ON r«. r^^
r—1
NO ^- ON r— NO ON x>
I-. OO CN o
-a-
— -o <a CN o
CN o NO
rM rH 1-H
ro m CN r-{
-a-
NO ^H
^^
1-^
•rH
.J •••O rM ON C-M 00 UO o <m o ON p-» r~- <r O O ro rM

• •rH CO —1
o NO 1—1 UO -a UO r~. UO CN ro •x 30 00 <r m vO UO vO
o X •a- CO ^H P-» OO rM UO r~ -a CM UO ON 00 ON \0 ro OO NO 00
y u LlO uO r»
o
UO ro ON CN ON •XI <T cn CO rH
r^ -a rM
^ r^ o
CN ^^ CM o NO CN
< ^" "* ^^ ^^ '""' ' ' ' ' '^ ^* '"'
1
! '^
-J
' — 11 -a- -a- -H 00 CN O ON UO CM M 00 r^ ro O Ô m UO
1 ^ cn
NO
-a —
vO 00 UO UO CN ON ON ON ON O «
ro CN ^T NO O
1 ^ ^
p~- -M
00
-a- CN P~. 00 ON r^ CN CM r-» CN -a CN CN o -a CN
•rH ^ ro <r CN CSI o -a- (n 1—1 •^
-a CN ro ro CN o
^ (^
iJ ON «T p^~ ON o CJN NO 00 ro CN ON r-* CN O -T 00 CN

UO ON -a UO CN I— ro NO CN ON -a UO CN •XI
•^
X
XI CM
"J o
CO
•a'
•JS
cn r~ CM CO <r —4 sO ro o
CM UO -a UO ro UO UO o
ro
V O 3 r^ r~ <r M vO ^H UO sO -a ON UO MJ
JO
UO
UO
00 VT
CN ro ^
CN o
CN CN CN ^4 —
CM m m ro UO UO in <a <r r-»
<•
QJ
1 °^
LJ CO 00 _^ ^ -a CN UO -a CM UO 00 UO l-H O M CN •<r 00 ro <r
V 00 00 p-* rM ro 00 —4 OO UO CN uO OO p-- CN 1—1 00 CN UO CJN -a
l-H vO NO NO CN rr ON
I p^^ ro ro 00 r^ •JS -a <r ro cn O -^ m
~a -o -a OO CN I-H r-< P^ m ro UO CN ro UO CJN in
^ sD CN
cn CM CM ro ro CN CN <r
^-
-a ro vO ND —*
vD uO -T 00
-^ UO NO UO ^
>^
U
•rH u
Veloc
1 •J- L/-1 30 CJN CN <r ro ON CO -a •o ro ON UO o ^ vO O c; -a-

757031
CN UO UO ro XI X)
rM
u X> ON Ol
UO o O C^J CN ro -a -a X O X "iZ
728;
OH 1— ON ON ON
o I-H o ON CN UO ^4 •J- ON ro ON
^
-O UO P~ ô U-1 ON Ol x> CO I-H O
•J) ^~'= r~- o UO -a- -a
CN -a -a -a <• UO UO UO p^ 00 OO 00 30 o
•n J3~ UO
n l-H
X.
u
3
CN
T f-~ -a
lit l-l
o
ro vO
4-1 , f-J CN
03 3
4-1
ii ca
5 -a •o p~ ON O -o <r 00 CJN o in
-a UO
UO UO
p>.
UO
X
u-\
ON
UO X X X
vT u-1 UO
ro ro m cn <r -a' <r <r
sun-a a s B t i d - o " !
171
CJN ON r^~ ON CN CN 00 NO vO (^ rM rt r^ rH CN ^
^ CN sO CN rH ON CN O P^ 00 CN r^ ro rH ^7- rH ro
o -a -a -a CM <• -a CN ro CN cn cn ro ro ro cn ^
II
I
u
J:
3
4J 3J o CM NO UO o -a -a- 00 CN CN CN —« CN NO ON 00 CJN
CX3 i ^ 00 rH CN o UO UO v3- CN r^ rH X) 00 ro 00
c -a- cn m CN m ON
CN CN CN CN CN CN
NO
CN o
CM
CN ro ^ ro m
CJN ro O ON rH P^ —1 rr
X 00 UO -a -a -3- m ON NO UO -a CON
ro -a -a-
9) ro ro m UO rM ro CN cn rM fM NO NO
-a UO NO m UO ON
00
CN d 00
CN CN
P^
CN
m OO
-a
-a
CN
CM CN
ro
CJN
r-i
O 00 UO r— ^« CM
NO
CJN
UO
CM NO r- NO UO — r^ cn r- UO f^ NO ro
-a 00 O r-i ~a ro 30 O CN P^~ O
CM CN t-l .—1 CM
•n
V o o ON CN P^~ CN CN CM r- <JN -a CM O CN UO (JN

00 cn NO CM CM NO NO UO P^* NO -a ON O NO NO ON O
m CM CN CN ro CN ro ro m
r-. -a ro CN ON O »
CJN
O
O
X
O CM
P~ o
uO
O
CO
vO
O
OO
r^ ON ^^
UO
NO
NO
1-4
(JN -a -a- in r~ -a UO
•J O ON o CJN r-
<r ro -a 00 CM ro NO CM O CJN CM
^ x:
o
ON -a- ro
1—1
r^ <a r^ o
—N ro l-H
o •—' 00 -a UO OO ro
<
UO 3 ro -a vO CJN CJN UO r-i r-

_
r-«
-r
X
OO
UO
r~*
UO X
NO
CM <r NO CN 00 r» CJN ON -a CN ON
ON O ^
ro UO cn r^ in CN CM -a UO CN r- NO UO ON C5 CN
CM ro ro ro UO m cn CN m CM CN o UO
m CM m ON UO ON p~
o ON O
ro r-~ 30 ^ UO O 30 CM CM
X
CN
X> vO o
C7N P-.
—- ND P-. 00 CJN CN r» UO —
-a 00 UO Ol UO CM cn CN 30
•£>
NO
ON
cn o
cn uO -^
UO m X UO 1— NO 00 r^ ro
in JO <T r~ CN M « UO CN r— t-~ r^ • ^
o -a UO o o
ON p~
I ^
X X 30 m CJN ON cn O CM in NO P-- UO ^4
— ^
o
X X JO r-< CN X 00 CN r- O -^ •<T
-a CN r->
m o
cn
m
X
m
r^
rr^
CM o
ro
UO
-a
3
<r
m
ro
CN
NO
»
UO
CN
-a ^
r»-
P^~
X
UO
30
O
00
X
sO
o
30 <r -a
CJ CN UO CN ^4
X CN X X ^ _ X P-. CM O ON ON UO
O X UO UO UO X CN ro 1— r-
-a
o
ON o r-- O O o
30 r"^ ON -a- X ON -a -a- •^ ^ <r
V ro
UO
uo O o
r^ O UO (ON ON -r
-a r~ X
^ ^^
r^
UO
~a -a
ON
-a
<r
ON ON m CM -a -a UO p- X
>
CN
O
vO
-a -a sO
00
P-. p^ P— ON ON ^
c: vO X5
o o — '^ ^'
cn
cn
rj
- I -a X
— C-J X X
X ro
NO
X
-J • ^ CN
-3 "
1) -J
32
vO r-- NO r^ ON 0 CN ro X! r-* X 0 X ON
— ^^
2: XJ —~
p~ 1— P-- »
p-« P-- X -^
X X W
<T
X X X X ON —
ON ON ON
ô
sun-^ 3SBq^-ortX
172
CJN CN p^ rH NO
ON UO X X
UO -a
NO o
p~ NO NO
ô
I
u
3
4-1 >a NO cn l-H ON rH
cn X CM UO CJN P*.
OQ <r -a- ^ -a ^ -a
IX
m NO UO O CN
N.r' UO ro CN
UO -a- cn
o ON CN —1 NO ON
UO -a *a" ro CN r^
CM M r-l ro cn o
O CM UO ON ON CJN
CN CN CM CN CM CN
CO
•H
cn
3 NO O UO NO O
(3 CN CM
m
o
cn
m
ro ro •—<
m m
o X ON ^ - a r~
3 rr
m p-»
CJ
^-i
o X r—^ rH X) ^^
X
r^ UO CN X
<
-J
o -^
-o
X.
o o r-»
CON ON
X
UO
p-»
ON
o
o
o ro CM CJN
-a UO
— ON CN \0 X p^
UO ON r^ p~. ON p>.
ON X CN X rt UO
X o CM CM - a CM
ro <r -a- -a -a
u
ac:
ro vT O UO r-.
m o ro r-» -a
X UO vO rt CN
CN ro -a -a uo ro
-a -a -a- -a <T -a
rt u
0 T CM X3 X
CM
r-^ ON X
CN
rt CN C-3 ro ro ro
QJ iJ CM ro NO
<
X
r P-* -a
UO ro
-
O
a- Ol
> '-^ UO •X p^ X) X UO
•J) i UO UO UO UO UO UO
•n -D
CO -^
X —
3 I
— CM X
X
03 3
1) 4J
3: ca
O •—' CN UO
3 CD O
~a O
o
suny ssBqd-ortj.

31295002395233

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

31295002395233

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

FORCED CONVECTION HEAT TRAJISFER TO A

SINGLE AND TWO-PHASE STEAM/WATER

MIXTURE IN A HELICAL COIL WITH

FOAD N. VAFAIE, 3.S. in Farm Mach., M.S. in M.E.

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

I wish to thank and commend Dr. Jerry R. Dunn, chairman of the

advisory committee, for his kindness, patience and outstanding guidance

throughout the supervision of this work. Without his uninterrupted

I am deeply indebted to Dr. Ronald J. Pederson, Dr. Herbert J-

support during the preparation of this dissertation. I would also like

to express my appreciation to other members of my committee for their

cooperation as committee members.

Thanks are also extended to Dr. James H. Lawrence, Jr., Chairman

of the Mechanical Engineering Department, for his continuing support

during the period of my study at Texas Tech University.

Finally, I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my wife, Mehrnaz,

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS viii

II. LITERATURE SURVEY 13

III. DISCUSSION OF EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS 22

3.1 Equipment Controlling the Fluid Condition at

the Test Section Inlet 26

3.2 Heat Exchanger 28

3.3 Test Section 29

3.4 Solar Simulator 33

3.6 Supporting Instrumentation 41

3.6.1 Flow Measuring Instruments 41

3.6.2 Temperature Sensors 42

3.6.3 Pressure Sensors 42

IV. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE 46

4.2 Single-Phase Runs 51

4.3 Two-Phase Runs 52

5.1 Calculation of Total Heat Input 56

5.3 Functions Representing Heat Flux and

5.4 Calculation of Local Fluid Properties and

Heat Transfer Coefficients 71

VI. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 78

6.1 Single-Phase Heat Transfer Results 78

6.2 Two-Phase Heat Transfer Results 88

6.3 Comparison of Results 112

VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 123

A. Sample Calculation 130

B. Uncertainty Analysis 150

C. Test on Solution Method 161

The purpose of this study has been to perform an analytical and

experimental investigation into the heat transfer characteristics for

a once-through steam generator with a helical flow geometry. The

application is the receiver for a fixed hemispherical mirror solar

concentrator on the Crosbyton Solar Power Project. In this design,

the working fluid, water, goes successively through the single-phase

liquid, two-phase and super-heated vapor regimes in a once-through,

helically wrapped tube bundle subjected to nonuniform, asymmetrical

Individual segments of the radiation profile for the receiver were

centrations of up to 240 suns. A segment of the helical coil was

instrumented and mounted in the radiation field. Test section instru-

and temperature, and 42 type K thermocouples welded to the surface of

e.g., single-phase or two-phase. The range of test conditions included

of 100 to 500 Ibm/hr, an inlet pressure of 100 to 500 psia, and an

inlet quality of 0 to 70 percent.

heat transfer coefficients and fluid state based on the measurements

obtained in the test procedure discussed above. The analysis included

consideration of the externally applied radiation field, convective

and radiative heat losses, two-dimensional conduction through the tube

wall, and.convection to the internal fluid.