COMMERCIAL-IN CONFIDENCE. HTFS DR4 EVALUATION OF THERMAL DESIGN METHODS FOR CONDENSATION HEAT TRANSFER AND PRESSURE DROP Part 1: Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop During Condensation Inside Plain Tubes by JM McNaught and A F MacGillivray HTFS, NEL ABSTRACT ‘An evaluation is made of the predictions of HTFS methods for the condensate heat transfer coefficient and the pressure gradient during condensation inside plain tubes. Comparisons of HTFS predictions against data from a number of sources are presented. Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow Service ‘NEL East Kilbride Glasglow G75 OQU Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow Service Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow Service Harwell Laboratory Chalk River Laboratory ‘Oxon. OX11 ORA Ontario KOJ JO United Kingdom Canada @ (COMMERCIAL-IN CONFIDENCE May 1994 ©HTFS 1994CONTENTS Page No INTRODUCTION 1 HTFS METHOD FOR CONDENSATION HEAT TRANSFER INSIDE TUBES 1 2.1 Introduction 1 22. Region I Coefficient forthe Condensate Film 1 23. Region 2 Coefficient forthe Condensate Film 3 23.1 Shear-controlled conditions 3 232 Gravity-controlled conditions in vertical tubes 4 2.33 Combined coefficient for vertical tubes 3 24° Extent of the Two Regions 5 25 Inclined Tubes 5 HTFS METHOD FOR THE PRESSURE GRADIENT DURING CONDENSATION INSIDE TUBES 6 3.1 Introduction 6 3.2. Frictional Pressure Gradient 6 3.2.1. Introduction é 3.2.2 Morris and Gallagher correlation 6 323. Annular flow model 7 3.2.4 Lockhart and Martinelli (1949) correlation 8 33 Accelerational Pressure Gradient 9 3.4 Gravitational Pressure Gradient 9 DATA SOURCES ° COMPARISON BETWEEN DATA AND HTFS METHODS n 5.1 Introduction il 52 Pressure Gradient Data n 5.2.1. Horizontal tubes n 52.2 Vertical tubes N 53. Heat Transfer Data 12 53.1 Horizontal tubes 2 5.32 Vertical tubes - shear control 2 5.3.3. Vertical tubes - gravity contro! 2 CONCLUSIONS 13 NOTATION 14 REFERENCES 16 w © HTFS 199424 22 4d 42 Sa $2 FIGURES Ilustration of HTFS two-region model for in-tube condensation Correction factor F; for the effect of turbulence in Region 1 TABLES Horizontal tube data sources Vertical tube data sources HTFS predictions of the horizontal tube heat transfer data HTS predictions of the horizontal tube pressure drop data ii) 13 3 ©HTFS 19941 INTRODUCTION This report is intended to provide an evaluation of HTFS methods for the prediction of the condensate heat transfer coeffi- cient and pressure drop during condensation inside horizontal and vertical plain tubes. The gas-phase resistance to heat ‘transfer is dealt with in Part 3 of this report. Comparisons of the predictions of HTFS methods are made with data from a ‘number of sources. The report provides documentation for, and validation of, the HTFS standard subroutines HTCOND and PFRICT. 2. HTFS METHOD FOR CONDENSATION HEAT TRANSFER INSIDE TUBES 2.1 Introduction In the HTFS method for the condensate heat transfer coefficient the tube perimeter is considered to be divided into two regions, as shown in Figure 2.1. In Region 1 the flow in the condensate film has both axial and circumferential Components but the film thickness is mainly controlled by the circumferential drainage, In Region 2 the flow is considered to be completely axial. For vertical tubes, the angled between the regions is zero and the whole perimeter is occupied by Region 2. The method is described below in the way in which itis applied in the HTFS standard subroutine HTCOND. 22 Region 1: Coefficient for the Condensate Film In Region 1 the condensate heat transfer coefficient is expressed as (Butterworth and Pulling (1972) and Butterworth etal (1974a, 1974b)) fi 02s [Ap ah, (P,P, )8, = Fi 2 “a ert nya (T,-7,) “ ‘The factors F, and F, account respectively for averaging the coefficient over the angle and for the effect of turbulence in the film. ‘The factor F, allows for the fact that the circumferentially averaged coefficient over Region 1 varies with angle @ and is necessary because the local film thickness varies round the tube. The calculations of Chaddock (1957) can be represented to within 0.3 per cent by the following equation F, 257x107 9° 22) "p= 09086-00153 where the angled is in radians. ‘The factor F, has been calculated by Butterworth (1973). It accounts for the fact that axial vapour drag on the film can cause the film to become turbulent. Figure 2.2 shows this factor as a function of the liquid Prandtl number and a dimensionless shear parameter B, given by 47-7) epee _Ootlt 23) 1; Ah,(P,- 0,8,Region 1 film thickness controlled by circumferential drainage Region 2 ‘film thickness controlled by axial flow Figure 2.1, Illustration of HTFS two-region model for in-tube condensation F; = 1.0 FOR BS 417 + oT ge "0 re PT B Figure 2.2. Correction factor F, for the effect of turbulence in Region 1Here 1,, is the wall shear stress, which is obtained from the two phase frictional pressure gradient, i. 4% neh ‘ oo a @4) ‘The frictional pressure gradient is calculated by the HTFS methods described in Section 3 below. The curves in Figure 2.2 are represented (Butterworth (1977)) by, F, = 14 (002+00524 log, . Pr, ~ 0.0062(tog, Pr,)*) x B as x (B~ 416.66)97% ——__—____ B+ 6000-2000 0g, Pr, ‘This equation is valid for 416.7 $B < 1.0% 108 and 1 < Pr, $ 100 and reproduces the theoretical curves to an accuracy (of #10 per cent over this region, 2.3 Region 2: Coefficient for the Condensate Film 2.3.1 Shear-controlled conditions ‘The heat transfer coefficient for the condensate film in Region 2 is given by (see Butterworth etal (1974a)) as V2 ppt Hay = ep (PpE yr IT 26) where T* is a dimensionless temperature drop across the film which isa function of the liquid Prandtl number Pr, and the liquid film Reynolds number Rey). This Reynolds number is obtained from Rep = Re, x /(R-9) an ee where Re, (=x) id, Iny (2.8) ‘The dimensionless temperature drop T* is compvted using the following equations, which are similar to those of Kosky and ‘Staub (1971) except that a transition equation between the low and high Reynolds number ranges has been included: re 29) Tt = SPr,+énll+Pr,(6* /5—1)), for 5<6* $30 2.10) T* = S{Pr,tén(1+5Pr,)+05¢n(5 * /30)), for * >30 am) Here, 8* is the dimensionless film thickness given by * = 07071Re,,°5, for Rey, $50 (2.12) te 05286, 1483. 2.44) ‘This method applies when shear is the dominant mechanism controlling thinning of the condensate film.4.2. Gravity-controlled conditions in vertical tubes ‘wor Vertical tubes a specific method for the Region 2 coefficient is required when the film thickness is controlled mainly by gravity. The HTFS method for gravity-controlled conditions is that of McNaught and Walker (1987). In this method the equation used for the heat transfer coefficient depends on whether the condensate film is considered to be in the laminar, laminar-wavy, transitional or turbulent regimes. The method relies on the definition of transition points between the various flow regimes. The transition points are characterised in terms of the film Reynolds number Re. defined by 4am, Rep = = (2.15) St Rd inn y and the Kapitza number defined by 4 Ne bn Ka = 8 16) Po Laminar film flow is considered to exist for 0 < Rey S 30. Laminar-wavy flow is considered to occur between Re y = 30 and the transition Reynolds number Re,, given by Rey = 498 ka"? 217) ‘The start ofthe fully turbulent film flow region is defined by the transition Reynolds number Re, given by 011 p,-1625 Ree = 2308x105 Ka! Pre 2.18) Ifthe surface tension © is unknowa the transition Reynolds numbers are given by 065 Re, = 24600P1, 19) and -1267 Ree = 76630Pr, 2.20) ‘A minimum value of 40is placed on Re,,.and a minimum value of 50 is placed on Re,q- Itis convenient to define a dimensionless heat transfer coefficient ai~ by v3 , [Pe(P,- 9,8 2 ne 2 N For lamina flow (Re , $30) the standard Nusselt equation forthe local heat transfer coefficients used, i a? = tre; 222)For the laminar-wavy region a correction, given by Butterworth (1983), is applied to equation (2.22) to allow for the enhancement of heat transfer due to waves. The equation used is, ad = o7sene 22) For turbulent flow the equation of Chun and Seban (1971) is used, ie. at = 00038Re pr? (2.24) ¢ 7 Pe Jn the transition region between laminar-Wavy and turbulent flow the heat transfer coefficient is considered to be constant and is given by the value atthe transition from laminar-wavy behaviour. If there is no transition region, the coefficient for Rey> 30 is given by the greater of equations (2.23) and (2.24). 2.3.3 Combined coefficient for vertical tubes For vertical tubes a shear-controlled heat transfer coefficient ot .,, is calculated from the methods in Sections 2.2.1 and @ gravity-controlled coefficient o-» is obtained from Section 2.2.2. The shear and gravity effects are combined using ‘OR 2 12 a, = @, +02.) (228) 2.4 Extent of the Two Regions For horizontal tubes the angle 6 is calculated by the correlation of Rosson and Myers (1965) which is as follows o. on 05 R65 <4 107% S = 027ReG}, for Reg Rey S64x10°Ga (226) 6 _ 174x107SGa 069,05 Sn EET. tor rel’ RelS > 64x10°5Ga 27) * egnep 3, iid, 1, 2.29) 28 Inclined Tubes ‘Tubes which are inclined at a small angle from the horizontal can be handled by the method for horizontal tubes. The improved condensate drainage resulting from a slight downwards inclination should produce an increased heat transfer coefficient and use of the horizontal tube method is therefore conservative. A possible method for tube lined at largeigles is to interpolate between the methods for the horizontal and vertical orientations, but there are no data available to evaluate this suggestion, 3. HTFS METHOD FOR THE PRESSURE GRADIENT DURING CONDENSATION INSIDE TUBES 3.1 Introduction Calculation of the pressure gradient is particularly important in the context of the ‘two-region’ heat transfer model described above, since the frictional pressure gradient affects the heat transfer coefficient in both regions. 3.2 Frictional Pressure Gradient 3.2.1. Introduction HITFS research work has indicated that standard in-tube two phase frictional pressure drop correlations can give poor results when applied to condensing flows and, as a result, HTFS has developed specific methods for condensing flows. ‘ne HTFS recommendations given below are based on research reports by Flack and Owen (1984) and Brogan (198 ‘The method used depends on the vapour and liquid Reynolds numbers, defined by equations (2.8) and (2.28), First atwo phase muller 2s defined by 92 = (plas) p Mdp, Ide) en where (dp;/dz) is the pressure gradient for the liquid phase flowing along. ‘The methods are as follows: 8) Reg, > 2000, Re , > 2000: the correlation of Morris and Gallagher (1983). b) Reg > 2000, Re, $ 2000: an annular flow model wit interfacial roughness given by the Wallis (1970) correlation. ©) Reg $ 2000: the Lockhart-Martineli (1949) equation. Details ofthe methods in the form in which they are applied in the HTFS standard subroutine PFRICT are given below. 3.2.2 Morris and Gallagher correlation ‘The correlation of Morris and Gallagher (1983) is described in HTFS Handbook Sheet CM34. The frictional pressure gradient (dp/az)p is given by 2, 2 ppty épiéz), = -—TE—e G2) where yp = 0006701453086 e3) Regp = thd,/m, Ga)1, 7 G5) Pe Pp Ka-s))[ ea bt Ol, ee lt: ee R= woe) (3.7) (3.8) and (3.9) From equations (3.1) and (3.2), the two phase multiplier ? for this method is given by 2, fhe 10 L mx ye (mx, 3.2.3, Annular flow model ‘This is based on the annular flow model used in the computer code HANA. However the model is simplified by setting the entrainment to zero. The Wallis (1970) interfacial roughness correlation is employed. ‘The two phase frictional pressure gradient is given by 4 et) wn ae Jp where 4 G12) In equation (3.12) # and t gare given by x + G3) 1, = 00ssex™? G14)here X is given by x G15) 3.24. Lockhart and Martinelli (1949) correlation The two phase frictional pressure gradient is given by (2) . 16) de Jp where 2. o2 = 6.17) ‘he relevant values of C for laminar vapour flow (Reg < 2000) are = 10 for Reg, < 2000 and Re, 2 2000 c C= Sfor Reg < 2000 and Re, > 2000 ‘The above methods yield the two phase frictional pressure gradient in the absence of mass transfer (ie. condensation) Owen and Flack (1984) recommend thatthe frictional pressure gradient should be multiplied by a ‘mass transfer correction factor’ @ , given by G.18) where G19) Here rigy, is the condensation mass flux towards the interface and u, is the superficial vapour velocity. Since © depends ont, which is obtained from the calculated frictional pressure gradient, the calculations become iterative, The frictional pressure gradient (dp/d:), is now given by (dplde)p = (dp/de)p nygy® 20) where (dp /dz) p yypp i obtained from equations (3.2), (3.11) oF @.16). ‘The condensation mass flux ripy, can be obtained from 21) In all of the above methods the friction factors f, and J, for the liquid and gas phases flowing alone are obtained from 1e following smooth-tube equations.0 30000: f= 0.0014 +0,125Re™32 3.24) 3.3. Accelerational Pressure Gradient ‘The current HTFS recommendation for the accelerational component of pressure change during phase change inside tubes is the separated flow model. The accelerational pressure gradient (dp/ dz) , is given by where MF is the momentum flux. For the separate flow model MF is given by MF = ii? 3.26) with e given by the Zivi (1968) correlation e = ——— 27) 3.4 — Gravitational Pressure Gradient HTFS condenser design programs do not calculate any pressure change due to gravitational effects. This is not likely to be important in condensing flows. 4 DATA SOURCES ‘A number of data sources have been selected for the purpose of testing the HTFS methods. Where possible, preference is given to data which provide both local heat transfer and pressure gradient measurements and to data sources not used directly in the development of the methods. The data sources are summarised in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. A wider range of data is available for horizontal tubes than for vertical tubes, and no data are available for inclined tubes. ‘Most of the data have been assembled into a databank. The entries required for each point in the databank are as follows: Geometrical data: Tube inside diameter, orientation. Process data: Fluid identification, mass flux, quality, pressure gradient (if available), saturation temperature, heat flux, heat transfer coefficient, temperature difference (between inner wall and saturation temperature).Table 4.1. Horizontal tube data sources “YT Mass flux [Range of inlet ‘Number of data points Reference Fluid | Tubei.d, range pressures Heat transfer | Pressure Gradient mm. kgim2s bar HIRI (1973) n-Pentane | 19.86 | 157.70-235.25 | 7.1-8.9 36 0 Azeret al (1971) | R-12 12.70 | 81.37-372.96 | 7.9-13.5 B oO Myers (1964) Methanol 10.70 10.29-72.93 1.01 89 oO ‘Myers (1964) Acetone 10.70 13.10-46.05 1.01 45 o Travis et al (1971) | R-22 8.00 | 1883-1001.8 | 10.04-18.22 66 66 Travis et al (1971) | R-12 8.00 | 2635-15321 | 59-149 96 96 Bae et al (1970) | R-22 12.50 | 325.6-657.70 | 10.8-15.1 48 48 Bae et al (1970) | R12 12.50 | 208.8-754.4 | 69-116 134 oO Table 4.2. Vertical tube data sources ‘Mass fox | Range of inlet Reference Fiuid | Tubeid. | range pressures mm gim?s bar Goodykoontz and Dorsch (1966) | Water isse | 216-745 | 1.17-3.85 Goodykoontz and Dorsch (1967) | Water 744 | 884-4579 | 1.04271 Goodykoontz and Brown (1967) | Reftigerant-113] 7.44 | $31.3-14665 | 1,86-3.05 105 COMPARISON BETWEEN DATA AND HTFS METHODS 5.2. Introduction In order to perform the comparisons between the data and HTFS methods, the relevant HTFS standard subroutines were assembled into a package for the calculation ofthe local condensate heat transfer coefficient and pressure gradient. Fluid properties were obtained using a link tothe PPDS properties package. The data were compared with the predictions in terms of the following two quantities, where P(i) and M(i) denote the Predicted and measured values of the i-th point in the dataset. Mean Relative Error: Ne 1 = Lew (5.1) RN, isi where PO Mii Fo io and Ng is the number of points in the dataset. N EC 62) {ln deo ) R Standard Deviation: 5.2 Pressure Gradient Data 5.2.1 Horizontal mbes ‘The measured local quality was used in all of the comparisons of methods and data for pressure gradient reported below. ‘The mean errors and standard deviations for the predictions of Section 3 for the horizontal tube datasets are shown in Table 5.2. The predictions are reasonable. In addition, the report by Brogan (1985) supports the use of the Morris and Gallagher ‘method for turbulent liquid-turbulent vapour conditions. 5.22 Vertical mbes Most of the pressure drop data for horizontal tubes are for annular or semi-annular conditions, in which the flow is controlled by shear forces rather than by gravity, With an annular type of flow pattern, in shear-controlled conditions, it ccan be expected that horizontal and vertical orientations will produce similar pressure gradients. Thus the error table for horizontal flow can be approximately extended to vertical flows. ‘Owen and Flack (1984b) extracted the measured frictional pressure gradient from the vertical tube datasets in Table 4.2 and compared the measurements with the HTFS methods for frictional pressure gradient described in Section 2, rom this report the Morris and Gallagher correlation appeared to give poor agreement withthe data but, subsequently, an error was identified in the analysis. When this error was corrected, the Morris and Gallagher method was found to give the best agreement of the methods tested.gure 8 of the report by Flack and Owen (1984) shows a comparison of the measured and predicted frictional pressure gradients, where the method of Soliman etal (1968) was used instead of the Morris and Gallagher method. The data for pressure gradients greater than about 8000 Nim’ are predicted to within 430 per cent. The satisfactory agreement over the very wide range of mass velocity in the datasets supports the use of the annular flow model for low liquid Reynolds numbers. Flack and Owen also concluded that inclusion of the film theory mass transfer correction term given by equation (2.35) significantly improved the predictions. 5.3 Heat Transfer Data 5.3.1 Horizontal tubes ‘The predicted pressure gradient (on the basis of the local measured quality) was used to calculate the frictional pressure gradient, which is used to obtain the wall shear stress for insertion into equation (2.6) for the heat transfer coefficient. ‘Thus, the predicted heat transfer coefficients reflect any error in the predicted frictional pressure gradients. ‘The mean errors and standard deviations for the predictions of Section 2 for the horizontal tube datasets are shown in ‘ble 5.1, Generally, there is excellent agreement between the measured and predicted heat transfer coefficients. 5.3.2. Vertical mbes - shear contro! For sheat-controlled annular flow conditions, the accuracy of the methods when applied to vertical tubes can be expected to be similar to the results in Section 5.3.1 for horizontal tubes. Owen and Flack (1984a) compared the measured local heat transfer coefficients from the datasets in Table 4.2 with the HTFS methods described in Section 2. In order to render the heat transfer comparison independent of the method for the pressure gradient, the comparison was carried out using the measured frictional pressure gradient to obtain the wall shear stress for insertion into equation (2.6) for the heat transfer coefficient. twas found that the Kosky and Staub (1971) method for the heat transfer coefficient tended to overpredict by up to a factor ‘of two for condensation of steam at very high mass velocities. However, in these data, the pressure gradients were much larger than would occur in typical industrial practice. The data taken at lower mass velocities showed less variation amongst the possible methods for shear-controtled condensation and most were predicted to within 430 per cent. 3.3. Vertical nubes - gravity control ‘McNaught and Walker (1987) compared the method of Section 2.3.2 with the data of Blangett etal (1982) for the local condensate heat transfer coefficient under gravity-controlled conditions. There was good agreement between the predictions and the data over a wide range of film Reynolds and Prandtl numbers. Most of the data were predicted to ‘within £20 per cent‘Table 5.1. HTFS predictions of the horizontal tube heat transfer data Reference Fluid | Mean error | Standard deviation _per cent percent HTRI (1973) a-Pentane 1.94 492 Aver etal (1971) R12 730 ss Myers (1964) Methanot 170 321 ‘Myers (1964) Acetone 610 128 ‘Travis et al (1971) R22 402 3.67 ‘Travis et al (1971) R12 “5.60 4.70 Bac et al (1970) R22 18.2 a7 Bac et al (1970) RAZ 3.19 2.50 Table 5.2. HTFS predictions of the horizontal tube pressure drop data Reference Fluid | Meanerror | Standard deviation er cent per cent HTRI (1973) n-Pentane . > Azeret al (1971) RAZ : - Myers (1964) Methanol : - ‘Myers (1964) Acetone - - Travis etal (1971) R22 176 5.10 Travis et al (1971) R12 29.6 116 Bac et al (1970) R22 2213 158 Bae et al (1970) R12 z zs 6 CONCLUSIONS ‘Standard HTFS methods for condensation inside plain tubes have been described in detail, and, where possible, have been assessed against data. The choice of method, which has taken into account the conclusions of previous research reports, has been justified by the results of the comparisons with data 13OTATION ma A Dimensionless shear parameter (equation (2.3)) Parameter in Lockhart-Martinelli correlation Specific heat Tube inside diameter Mean relative error Factor in equation (2.1) Factor in equation (2.1) Friction factor Galileo number Gravitational acceleration Latent heat of vaporisation Specific enthalpy Slip ratio Kapitza number Mass flowrate ‘Mass flux ‘Momentum flux Number of tubes Prandtl number Pressure Heat flux Standard deviation Reynolds number ‘Temperature Specific volume Lockhart-Martinelli parameter Gas phase mass fraction Length Heat wansfer coefficient Film thickness ‘Thermal conductivity ‘Void fraction Dynamic viscosity ‘Mass transfer correction factor ‘Angle defining extent of Region 1 ‘Two phase pressure drop multiplier ‘Mass transfer rate factor Parameter in Morris-Gallagher method Density Shear stress Ike" Wm" Kt kgm'st radians kgm? PaSubscripts 1 Region 1 2 Region2 A Accelerational c Condensate CN Condensation e Effective F Frictional f Condensate film G Gas phase flowing alone GR Gravity-controlled 8 Gas phase Homogeneous L id phase flowing alone £ Liquid phase NMT With no mass transfer SH Shear-controlled s Condensate surface TP Twophase 14 Transition point A 1C Transition point C w Tube wall Superscripts + Dimensionless quantity> EFERENCES AZER, N.Z., ABIS, L.V. and SWEARINGEN, TB. (1971). "Local heat transfer coefficients during forced convection >¢~ condensation”. ‘Trans. ASHRAE, Volume 77, pages 182-201 BAE, S., MAULBETSCH, J.S. and ROHSENOW, WM. (1970). horizontal tubes". Engineering Projects Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Report No DSR 72591-71. cefrigerant forced-convection condensation inside BLANGETTL F, KREBS, Rand SCHLUNDER, EU. (1982), ‘Condensstion in veil tutes - experimental results and ¢/ modelling". Chemical Engineering Fundamentals, Volome 1, Number 2, pages 20-63, BROGAN, RJ. (1985). “Heat transfer and pressure drop during condensation inside a horizontal tube". HTFS Research __ ‘Symposium Paper RS 625 BUTTERWORTH, D. (1973). “An analysis of film flow for horizontal annular flow and condensation in a horizontal tube". AERE-R7575, HTFS Research Symposium Paper RS 94, BUTTERWORTH, D. (1977). "Tubeside heat transfer and pressure drop". HTFS Design Report No 11 (Revised), Part 3. — BUTTERWORTH, D. (1983). "Film condensation of pure vapour", Heat Exchanger Design Handbook, Section 262, pages 2.6.2-1 to 2.6.2-6. New York, N.Y.: Hemisphere BUTTERWORTH, D., OWEN, R.G. and PULLING, DJ. (1974a). "Condensation of propyl alcohol and propyl alcohol- __ nitrogen mixtures in a horizontal tube". AERE-R7647, HTFS Research Symposium Paper RS 103. BUTTERWORTH, D., OWEN, R.G., PULLING, DJ. and MOALEM, D. (1974b). "Condensation of n-propyl alcohol in a. — BUTTERWORTH, D. and PULLING, DH. (1972). "Condensation of propyl alcohol in a horizontal tube". AERE-M2560, HTFS Research Symposium Paper RS 62. AADDOCK, J.B. (1957). "Film condensation of vapour in a horizontal tube", Refrigeration Engineering, April, pages 36-41 and 90-95 CHUN, KR. and SEBAN, R.A. (1971). "Heat transfer to evaporating liquid films", Trans. ASME, Journal of Heat Transfer, Volume 93, Number 4, pages 391-396. FLACK. E,and OWEN, RG. 198), “Furie comparisons fo pres drop during condensation inside avert abe. 9 AERE-M3422, Harwell. GOODYKOONTZ, 1.6. and BROWN, W.F. (1967). "Local heat transfer and pressure distributions for Freon-113 ‘condensing in downward flow in a vertical tube", NASA TN D-3952, Cleveland, Ohio: National Aeronautics and Space ‘Administration, Lewis Research Center. GOODYKOONTZ, J.H. and DORSCH, R.G. (1966), “Local heat transfer coefficients for condensation of steam in vertical \waflow within a S/8-inch diameter tube". NASA TN D-3326. Cleveland, Ohio: National Aeronautics and Space -sdministration, Lewis Research Center.b GOODYKOONTZ, J.H. and DORSCH, R.G. (1967). “Local heat transfer coefficients and static pressures for condensation of high-velocity steam within a tbe". NASA TN D-3326. Cleveland, Ohio: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Lewis Research Center HTRI (1973). Unpublished data supplied to HTFS under HTFS/HTRI Agreement KOSKY, P.G. and STAUB, F.W. (1971). “Local condensing heat transfer coefficients in the annular flow regime" AICHE Journal, Volume 17, Number 5, pages 1037-1043. LOCKHART, R.W. and MARTINELLI, R.C. (1949). "Proposed correlation of data for isothermal two phase, two- ‘component flow in pipes". Chemical Engineering Progress, Volume 45, pages 39-48. ‘McNAUGHT, J.M, and WALKER, LW. (1987). "Heat transfer during gravity-controlled filmwise condensation in vertical condensers". HTFS Research Symposium Paper RS 743. MORRIS, S.D. and GALLAGHER, J.P. (1983). "A note on condensation pressure drop". HTFS Research Symposium Paper RS 517. MYERS, J.A. (1964), "Condensation inside a horizontal pipe, studied with a heat meter". PhD Thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence. Order Number 65-1563. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms OWEN, RG. and FLACK, E. (1984a). "Heat transfer during condensation in downflow in a vertical tube". HTFS Research Symposium Paper RS 563. OWEN, RG. and FLACK, E, (1984b). "Pressure drop during condensation inside a vertical tube". HTFS Research ‘Symposium Paper RS 564, ROSSON, HF. and MYERS, J.A. (1965). "Point values of condensing film coefficients inside a horizontal pipe". Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series, Volume 61, Number 49, pages 190-199. ‘SOLIMAN, M., SCHUSTER, J.R. and BERENSON, PJ. (1968). "A general heat transfer correlation for annular flow condensation’. Trans, ASME, Joumal of Heat Transfer, May, Volume 90, Number 2, pages 267-276. TRAVISS, D.P., BARON, A.B. and ROHSENOW, W.M. (1971). "Forced convection condensation inside tubes" Engineering Project Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Report No DSR 7259-74. WALLIS, GB. (1970). “Annular two phase flow: Part 2, additional effects". Journal of Basic Engineering, Volume 92, pages 73-82. ZIVI, SM. (1964). “Estimation of steady -state steam void fraction by means of the principle of minimum entropy production. Tran, ASME, Joumal of Heat Trane, Yale 86, pages 247-252. UT Gk. Paredaon © no! on We 0 "7