Two-phase flow heat transfer coefficient

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on estimating the heat transfer coefficient for a two-phase flow in a tube, specifically when water transitions from a sub-cooled state to a partially boiling state with a quality of steam around 0.15 at a constant pressure of 69 bar. The initial estimation uses the Nusselt number correlation, ##Nu = 0.023Re^{0.8}Pr^{0.3}##, for the sub-cooled region. Participants emphasize that the boiling heat transfer coefficient is significantly higher than that of sub-cooled liquid, suggesting a bounding approach for rough estimates. The conversation also touches on the complexities of calculating the hydraulic diameter and the influence of fluid properties on heat transfer.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of two-phase flow dynamics
  • Familiarity with heat transfer principles, particularly boiling heat transfer
  • Knowledge of Nusselt number correlations and Reynolds number calculations
  • Basic skills in fluid mechanics and thermodynamics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research "Boiling heat transfer coefficients in high-pressure systems"
  • Study "Nusselt number correlations for two-phase flow" in detail
  • Explore "Hydraulic diameter calculations for non-circular geometries"
  • Learn about "MATLAB libraries for thermodynamic property calculations" such as XSteam
USEFUL FOR

Engineers and researchers in thermal and fluid dynamics, particularly those involved in the design and analysis of heat exchangers and steam generators.

  • #31
Chestermiller said:
So what do you want to do next?
I'd like to know what ##h## I should use in the case that the outlet flow rate has a quality of steam of 0.2 (20%). Thanks again for your time.

For example is 1st case (##v_l = 4.5## m/s) I get ##h_l \approx 20000## and ##h_v \approx 10000## W/m^2/°C
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
Bird, Stewart, and Lightfoot give typical values for forced convection of 500-10000 for water. For gases, 50-500. Is it possible that you are using too small a diameter?

What fraction of the tube length is covered before the vapor begins forming. Also, the entire tube length after that is not going to be 20% quality.
 
  • #33
Ok so my approach has changed. The final goal is to find a suitable value for ##h##. The steam generator I am considering is one from a nuclear power plant so I looked for papers about steam generators which met the data I have in mind and I reverse-engineered the problem and I calculated ##h## from ##Q = UA \Delta T_{ml}##. I have found a value of ##h## from 9000 to 12000 (slightly changing some parameters to see how much they weight). This looks ok, I think. Only thing I don't like is that I also get a velocity for the liquid of 0.34 m/s... I have really no idea whether this could be a reasonable value or not. I was expecting something around 3 or 4 m/s but I'm not sure
 
  • #34
dRic2 said:
Ok so my approach has changed. The final goal is to find a suitable value for ##h##. The steam generator I am considering is one from a nuclear power plant so I looked for papers about steam generators which met the data I have in mind and I reverse-engineered the problem and I calculated ##h## from ##Q = UA \Delta T_{ml}##. I have found a value of ##h## from 9000 to 12000 (slightly changing some parameters to see how much they weight). This looks ok, I think. Only thing I don't like is that I also get a velocity for the liquid of 0.34 m/s... I have really no idea whether this could be a reasonable value or not. I was expecting something around 3 or 4 m/s but I'm not sure
If you are aware of the design and operating conditions in the actual plant, are you doubting your ability to back out the flow velocity? That value doesn't seem very unreasonable to me.
 
  • #35
Chestermiller said:
are you doubting your ability to back out the flow velocity?
Well... I always blunder a lot of stuff when doing calculations... so I never actually trust myself if I don't have an idea of what the result might look like.

Anyway, assuming I didn't make a mistake I found the value which seems to agree with your predictions/considerations. Thanks again for your time.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K