NASA Contractor Report 175076

Heat Transfer to Two-Phase Air/Water

Mixtures Flowing in Small Tubes

With Inlet Disequilibrium

JNASA-CB-175076) HEA1 IBANSFEB 1C TWO-PHASE 886-22892

AIB/HATEB MIXTUB1S FLOWING IN SMALL TUBES

WITH INLET DISEQUILIBEIUM Final Report

(Arizona State Uciv.) 100 p EC A05/MF A01 Unclas

CSCL 20D G3/34 05910

J.M. Janssen, L.W. Florschuetz,

and J.P. Fiszdon

Arizona State University

Tempe, Arizona

March 1986

Prepared for

Lewis Research Center

Under Grant NSG-3075

NASA

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration
CONTENTS

NOMENCLATURE ^

SUMMARY 1

1 . INTRODUCTION 3

2 . STATEMENT OF PROBLEM 7

2.1 Idealized Problem Statement 7

2.2 Experimental Probl em Statement 10

3. LITERATURE SURVEY 13

3.1 Water Augmented Gas Turbine Cooling 13

3.2 Two-phase Heat Transfer 14

3.3 Single-phase Heat Transfer 21

4 . EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE 24

4 . 1 Apparatus 24

4.1.1 Test Section 25

4.1.2 Atomizer 27

4.1.3 Instrumentation 32

4.2 Experimental Procedure 33

4.2.1 Preliminaries 34

4.2.2 Air Only Runs 35

4.2.3 Nominal 5% Water Run1* 36

4.2.4 Nominal 10% & 15% Water Runs 36

4.2.5 Shutdown 36

5. DATA REDUCTION 38

5.1 Heat Fluxes 39

5.2 Local Flow Variables 40
5.3 Data Checks 45

5.4 Uncertainty Analysis 46

6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 48

6.1 Single-phase Results vs Existing Correlation 50

6.2 Effects of Water Addition 52

6.3 Single-phase Idealized Model 54

6 . 4 Two-phase Idealized Models 57

6.5 Two-phase vs Single-phase Wall Temperatures 61

7 . CONCLUDING REMARKS 74

REFERENCES ; 77

APPENDICES

A Reduced Data Tabulation 80

B Determination of Heat Leaks 90

B.I Test Section 90

B.2 Transition Section 92

B. 3 Atomizer 93
NOMENCLATURE

Variables

a,h - coefficients oF correlation equation For tube wall

res istance

Cp - isobaric specific heat (.I/kg-K)

D - diameter (m)

G ~ mass flux (kg/s-m2)

h - heat transfer coefficient (W/m2-K)

i - specific enthalpy (J/kg)

I ~ current (A)

K ~ thermal conduct ivit y (W/m-K)

L - length of test section (m)

M - mass flow rate (kg/s)

n - variable exponent in correlation 3-9

Nu - Nusselt number (hD/K)

P ~ pressure (Pa)

Pr - Prandtl number (Cp/i/K)

Q - heat rate (W)

q - heat flux (W/m2)

R - thermal resistance (K/W)

Re - Reynolds number (GD///)

Sc - Schmidt number (kinematic viscosity/mass diffusivity)

Sh - Sherwood number (dimensionless mass transfer coefficient)

T - temperature (K)

V - voltage (V) or volumetric Flow rutc (m3/s)

W ~ molecular weigh t (kg/kmole)

1 11
X - mass fraction (based on total mass)

Z - axial coordinate (in)

c - effectiveness of wall-to-droplet heat transfer

H - viscosity (kg/m-s)

Subscripts

2-13 - refer to local ions 2 through 13 in figure 5-1

A - air property

a - atomizer

CP - constant property

E - electrical, electrode

EXP - experimentally determined quantity

G - gas phase

h - heated (test) section

T - inlet to test section

8 - ]iquid

1, - loss

M - refers to either mixed-mean or mixture

0 - outlet of test section

S - inside surface (wall) of test section

SAT - property at saturation state

t — transition section

V - water vapor

VP - variable property (calculated from eqn. 3-9)

W - Water

<«> - Ambient
SUMMARY

The cooling of gas turbine components has been the subject

of'considerable research. The problem is difficult because the

available coolant, compressor bleed air, is itself quite hot and

has relatively poor thermophysical properties for a coolant.

Injecting liquid water to evaporatively cool the air prior to its

contact with the hot components has been proposed and studied,

particularly as a method of cooling for contingency powerapplications. The subject of the present report is the injection

of cold liquid water into a relatively hot coolant air stream

such that evaporation of the liquid is still in process when the

coolant contacts the hot component.

Heat transfer in one-component two-phase flow has received

considerable attention primarily because of steam boiler

applications. Binary two-phase systems have received somewhat

less attention. Both one-component and binary two-phase pipe

flows have been studied with phases nominally in equilibrium at

the inlet and heat input at the pipe wall. Both have been

studied with phase disequilibrium at the inlet and an adiabatic

boundary condition. Apparently neither has been studied with

both a heated wall and significant phase disequilibrium (cold

liquid and hot gas) at the inlet, the case investigated here. No

method was found whereby one could confidently predict heat

transfer characteristics for such a case based solely on prior

studies. It was not clear whether (or to what extent)
disequilibrium between phases at the inlet would improve cooling

relative to that obtained where equilibrium (i.e., complete

evaporation of liquid) was established prior to contact with the

hot surface.

Tests were conducted with preheated air entering a small

diameter electically heated stainless steel tube. The test

facility incorporated an atomizer arranged to inject a water mist

into the air stream near the tube inlet. The effects of inlet

disequilibrium were observed to extend downstream, first through

what was interpreted as an annular-film flow regime, then through

a mist flow regime, followed by a transition to single-phase in

those cases for which the length of the test-section was adequate

for the conditions of the test. The test results in every case

showed that lower wall temperatures occurred with inlet

dLsequi1ibruim. In no case was heat transfer degraded by inlet

disequilibriurn, either overall or locally.
1. INTRODUCTION

Consider two scenarios involving helicopters which use gas

turbine engines. First, a large military twin engine/twin rotor

craft loses one engine in combat, over hostile territory. This

means'an immediate forced landing. Second, a craft in civilian

service must take off with a full load at high altitude on a hot

day. Power required may exceed the safe operating limits of the

engine. These scenarios would be less dangerous if a reliable

contingency power capability were available.

Extra power can be obtained from a gas turbine by injecting

more fuel into the combustor. This raises the turbine inlet

temperature; since the device is a heat engine, thermal

efficiency and power increase. However, first stage turbine

blades1 will overheat quickly. Depending on the magnitude and

duration of the temperature extreme, the result may range from

reduced stress-rupture life to immediate and catastrophic

failure. To achieve reliable contingency power one must avoid

blade overheating.

Until ceramics are sufficiently developed for turbine blade

service, designers will use high-temperature metal alloys. High

performance blades typically have internal cooling passages and

external film-cooling holes. Air is bled from the compressor and

directed to the blades to maintain reasonable surface temperatures while allowing higher turbine inlet temperature and power.

1 In this report, "blades" refers to both the rotating and

stationary airfoils in the axial flow turbine.
If water were sprayed into the cooling air and allowed to

evaporate, its temperature could be greatly reduced before the

mixture reached the blades. A study has shown this could allow

154* of design power (i.e. 54% contingency power reserve) with no

loss of blade life.2 Thus, a military pilot could choose a safe

landing site and a civilian pilot reach cruise altitude safely.

A variation on this approach would involve injecting the

water (along with the cooling air) directly into the blade.

Thermal shock failure may result if liquid contacts the blade

internal surfaces, but possibly the Leidenfrost effect (formation

of a vapor layer between a hot surface and a liquid drop) would

prevent direct contact. A more basic question is whether blade

surface temperatures might be reduced further by this technique

than by evaporatively cooling the air, or to the same level using

less water. Two-phase cooling of internal blade passages would

almost certainly be more difficult to design and use, so unless

it has some significant advantage evaporative cooling should be

used.

The purpose of this work is to experimentally compare heat

transfer in the two cases discussed. The question to be examined

is :

For given temperatures and mass flow rates of air and water,

will allowing the mixture to reach equilibrium prior to

contact with the surfaces to be cooled increase or decrease

cooling effectiveness?

2See the discussion in section 3.1 for details.
Since this was an exploratory effort, a simple geometry and

boundary condition were chosen: flow in a small diameter

circular tube with uniform wall heat flux. This simulates

conditions in a blade with through holes. Because of the complex

nature of binary two-phase flow, scaling up of the tube size was

avoided even though this would have simplified certain aspects of

the experimental measurements.

There is extensive prior work on single-phase flow in tubes

with uniform heat flux. Some two-phase work has been done on

both single-component and binary systems. However, no reports

were found on heat transfer to binary two-phase flow with inlet

disequilibrium; i.e., where the temperature of the gas phase was

significantly higher than the liquid phase at the inlet to the

heated section. The prior work on heat transfer to single

component two-phase flow is for phases initially in equilibrium.

The prior work on binary two-phase flow with initial

disequilibrium covered flow with an essentially adiabatic wall

(with heat transfer primarily between phases).

This report describes the design, construction, and testing

of the experimental apparatus, data reduction methods, and the

test results obtained. Subject to the limitations of the

apparatus, an attempt was made to approach as closely as possible

conditions which might be encountered in a turbine blade cooling

application. Results were obtained for pressures to 7 atmospheres, wall temperatures to 825K, initial air temperatures to

about 600K, and mass fractions to 15% water. However, the data
are not comprehensive and extrapolation to different conditions

must be considered speculation.
2. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

2.1 Idealized Problem Statement

Consider the idealized physical model shown below in figure

2-1. The large cylinder on the left is a perfectly insulated

mixing chamber. It is joined to the small tube, whose wall is

uniformly heated. Dry, hot air at TA and cold liquid water a.t Tw

are flowing into the mixing chamber where the velocity is low and

pressure constant at PM. The chamber is long enough to allow

equilibrium to be reached before the mixture enters the

horizontal heated tube. It is assumed that steady-state

conditions prevail.

To define case 1, let MA, TA, Mw, and Tw be values such that

at the inlet3 the mixture is all gas phase (steam + air). The

mixture at the inlet is warm, humid air (possibly saturated) at

uniform temperature.

INSULATED

M

A'TA

P

M

M

W

T

W

Figure 2-1 Physical Model with Inlet Equilibrium

3Hereafter the terms "inlet" and "outlet" will refer to the start

and end of the heated section.
For case 2, consider figure 2-2. The flow rates, temperatures, and pressures of air and water at the entrance to the

mixing chamber are identical with case 1. Due to the shorter

mixing chamber length, there is less time for the mixture to

equilibrate before reaching the inlet. The mixture at the inlet

is thus warm liquid and hot, humid air (not saturated). The

temperature is not uniform.

Figure 2-2 Physical Model with Inlet Disequilibrium

Cases 1 and 2 by definition have "identical entrance conditions"

of TA » Tw » MA » Mw an£* PM • Thus the total enthalpy and mixed-mean

fluid temperatures for the two cases are identical at the

entrance to the mixing chamber. Since the mixing chamber is

adiabatic and pressure is constant, the total enthalpies and

mixed-mean temperatures are constant up to the inlet to the

heated section. However, the entropy is greater in case 1 since

it is in equilibrium.

8
Within the heated section the same heat rate Q is applied

uniformly over the same length L, so the total (or mixed-mean

specific) enthalpies for the two cases must be identical at any

point. Neglecting any difference in total pressure, the mixedmean temperatures are also identical. This will be termed

"matching local conditions" of TM, PM, MA, Mw, and qg M . Note

that in case 1 the mass fraction of liquid (X«) at the inlet (and

downstream) is zero, but is finite at the inlet in case 2.

However, if the heated length and/or heat rate (L and Q) are

sufficient, the outlet mixture in case 2 will be all gas phase

with the same temperature profile as case 1. The outlet mixtures

must therefore have the same total enthalpy, total entropy, and

composition. The question to be addressed is which case will

result in the lowest heated section wall temperature.

Next, consider what happens if Mw is increased without

changing MA, TA, Tw or PM. If the increase is large enough, some

liquid will be present at equilibrium. For case 3, let Mw

increase until the mass fraction of liquid at equilibrium (Xj£M)

is some small value (say 2fc). All other conditions are identical

to case 1. The inlet mixture is thus warm, saturated air and

warm liquid water at uniform temperature.

Case 4 is identical to case 3 except that the shorter mixing

chamber is used. As in case 2, equilibrium is not achieved

before the mixture enters the heated section. The mixture at the

inlet is hot, humid air (not saturated), and warm liquid water.

'The temperature is not uniform.
The same comparisons can be made as in cases 1 and 2.

"Identical entrance conditions" exist by definition, and

"matching local conditions" will again be present within the

heated section. The outlet mixture will be gas-phase with

identical temperature profiles for both cases 3 and 4 (assuming

sufficient length L and heat rate Q). The four cases have

identical boundary conditions (qSM), but different inlet

conditions (X«, TG, T. ): case 1 is single-phase at equilibrium,

case 3 is two-phase at equilibrium, cases 2 and 4 are two-phase

in disequilibrium. In terms of the physical model, the problem

can now be stated as follows:

For corresponding cases of "identical entrance conditions"

(TA, Tw, MA, Mw, and PM at the mixing chamber entrance) and

specified uniform heat flux (qSM), how does the wall

temperature of the heated section vary with changes in inlet

degree of equilibrium? Specifically as formulated here,

compare the wall temperature levels and distributions for

cases 1 & 2 and for cases 3 & 4.

2.2 Experimental Problem Statement

The most direct approach would be to run tests under the

desired conditions and measure wall temperatures. That would

require "matching local conditions" (as defined in the preceding

section) for two tests, while maintaining inlet disequilibrium in

one test and equilibrium in the other. Achieving such conditions

poses many practical problems. For example, the idealization of

10
constant pressure adiabatic flow cannot be achieved in reality.

Thus it would be necessary to match pressure drop and heat loss

characteristics for mixing chambers of different lengths. These

length differences would not be small. Evaporation times of

droplets were estimated using the method of Fiszdon (1979), which

indicated a mixing chamber several meters long would be needed

for complete evaporation. A considerably shorter chamber would

be needed for the case of inlet disequilibrium.

To avoid such problems, one might run a test with inlet

disequilibrium (case 2) and measure the flow variables. Then,

using a single-phase heat transfer correlation, one could

calculate the e.xpected mixed-mean and wall temperatures for the

corresponding equilibrium case (case 1). Within the accuracy of

the correlation, the result would be a valid comparison of wall

temperatures for "identical entrance conditions" (TA, Tw, MA, Mw,

PM, qS M)i or equivalently, "matching local conditions" (TM, MA,

Mw« pn. <!SM)-

The method used here differs slightly from the above

description. Rather than use an existing single-phase

correlation directly, single-phase dry air tests were conducted

using the experimental apparatus. The data were compared to an

existing correlation, which confirmed the accuracy of the

measurements and data reduction techniques. This builds

confidence in the results. The single-phase results were then

adjusted to the "local matching conditions" present in subsequent

two-phase tests by using the correlation as an interpolation

11
formula. The effect of any bias in the apparatus or technique is

thus minimized in the comparison.

Obtaining a direct comparison of cases 3 and 4 was not

possible since equilibrium at the heated section inlet, needed

for case 3, could not be acheived with the facility utilized, nor

would a single-phase correlation apply because some liquid would

still be present at equilibrium. Cases where water mass fraction

is large enough such that the equilibrium mixture contains some

liquid were considered to be of secondary interest. However, for

completeness, results of the measurements which were obtained for

case 4 tests were, like the case 2 results, compared with

corresponding case 1 results. The basis for the corresponding

case 1 specification was measured data from the two-phase case 4

test, reduced to local values of total mass flow rate, mixed-mean

temperature, pressure, and wall heat flux (MM, TM, PM, qS M)-

Thus, for the comparison case 1 the presence of the liquid was

ignored except for its contribution to the total mass flux.

In summary, the experimental problem can be stated as

follows:

Compare wall temperatures obtained in flow situations with

"matching local conditions" of total mass flow rate,

pressure, mixed-mean temperature, and wall heat flux. Inlet

conditions to be in one case a mixture of air and liquid

water not in equilibrium, in the other air only at uniform

temperature.

12
3. LITERATURE SURVEY

. A great deal of prior work was reviewed in preparation for

the tests reported here. Some prior work has been done directly

related to this application,, and a good deal more in closely

related areas. Considerable prior work on atomization, air and

water thermophysical properties, and experimental methods was

reviewed as. part of the experimental design process. Chapters 4

and 5 include some of the details. This discussion is limited to

relevant work on water augmented gas turbine cooling, two-phase

heat transfer, and single-phase heat transfer.

3.1 Water Augmented Gas Turbine Cooling

As noted in the introduction, if liquid water directly

contacts the metal blade surface high thermal gradients and

stresses are likely, possibly leading to catastrophic failure.

Freche and Hickel (1955) studied this problem on a test engine.

Five alloys of solid first stage turbine blades were modified for

water injection at the blade root, with the water contacting the

outside surface. Cracks or catastrophic failure occurred within

20 on-off cycles on four alloys; no failures occurred with S-816.

This showed the importance of the thermal shock effect, but also

that two-phase cooling may be feasible with at least one blade

material. The authors noted that different heat-treatment

schedules might improve thermal shock resistance of other alloys.

Van Fossen (1983) investigated the potential of

evaporatively cooling compressor-bleed air for contingency power.

13
He used a standard computer code to model operation of a 4.5 MW

(6000 shp) engine. The model featured air cooling for the

compressor-drive-turbine blades in normal operation, and uncooled

(solid) powet—turbine blades. Various amounts of water injection

into the cooling air were simulated, and complete, adiabatic

evaporation assumed to calculate coolant temperature. Assuming

all water evaporated prior to contact with hot components avoided

the thermal shock problem. Temperature and stress-rupture life

for both blade types were calculated.

At the water flow rate required to saturate the cooling air,

154% of design power was possible. A 21/2 minute transient would

cause no reduction in stress-rupture life for the compressor—

drive-turbine blades, but would consume about 25% of the powerturbine blade life. Of course, cooled power-turbine blades could

eliminate this problem. Thermal barrier coatings were investigated and shown to be ineffective for reducing the transient

temperature extreme. The projected operating conditions for the

2

x/2 minute transient would require approximately 32 kg (71 Ib)

of water. Fuel consumption was not reported.

3.2 Two-phase Heat Transfer

In two-phase pipe flow, the flow regime is the most

significant variable influencing heat, mass, and momentum

transfer. The regime is typically governed by the void fraction

or quality, flow geometry (vertical-upwards, vertical-downwards,

horizontal), and phase density and viscosity. With the

14
relatively small fractions of liquid studied here, annular and

mist regimes result.

In annular flow the liquid flows as a film along the wall,

while the gas phase flows in the center. Droplets may be

entrained in the gas. In mist flow virtually all of the liquid

is present as dispersed droplets. The wall may be partially

wetted by impinging droplets, but is mostly dry.

Consider first the annular regime. If the flow regime in

case 2 (defined in section 2.1) is annular, the heated wall is in

contact with cold liquid water. In case 1 the wall is in contact

with with warm, humid air. One would naturally expect lower wall

temperatures in case 2. However, Freche and Hickel (1955) showed

direct liquid contact can cause failure of turbine blades.

Annular flow is therefore considered undesirable.

Mist flow is somewhat more complex. In a discussion of

post-dryout heat transfer in one-component (steam-water) systems

with uniform heat flux, Collier (1981, pp. 231-236) defines two

limiting cases:

• no heat transfer between droplets and vapor

• perfect equilibrium between droplets and vapor

In the first case, the vapor mixed-mean temperature rises

linearly with axial distance (the same as one would expect in

single-phase flow). Wall temperature (in the fully-developed

region) behaves in the same way. In the second case, the vapor

temperature cannot increase until all droplets have evaporated.

As evaporation proceeds, the increasing volume accelerates the

15
flow. This improves heat transfer from the wall, so wall

temperature declines slightly with axial distance. When all

droplets have evaporated, both vapor and wall temperatures rise

1inearly.

The second limiting case does not apply exactly to a binary

(two-component) system, and both cases neglect the effect of

droplets impacting the tube wall. One important conclusion can

be drawn however.

In comparing cases 1 and 2 (section 2.1), note that the case

2 gas temperature is higher and velocity lower at the inlet of

the heated section. Both factors will cause higher wall

temperature, unless offset by the droplets. The droplets can

lower wall temperature indirectly by reducing the gas-phase

temperature, or directly by impacting the wall (whether or not

wetting occurs).

Interaction between water droplets and heated flowing gas

has been studied by Ranz and Marshall (1952), Miura, et al.

(1977), and Harpole (1981). These results suggest the Ranz and

Marshall correlation (or something similar)

Nu = 2.0 + 0.6 Re1/

2 Pr1/3 3_1

would apply to the present study. This could be used along with

conservation equations and a single-phase heat transfer

correlation in a mathematical model. Rane and Yao (1981)

formulated and solved such a model for turbulent mist flow in

circular tubes. Their analysis was for a one-component system,

16
with both phases at saturation temperature at the inlet (somewhat

similar to case 3). Good agreement with experimental data of

others implied the model assumptions were reasonable. These

assumptions included one-dimensional droplet concentration, equal

diameter droplets (monodisperse), and negligible droplet/wall

interaction.

Mastanaiah and Ganic (1981) included droplet/wall

->

interaction in their model for binary two-phase pipe flow. They

treated the interaction in terms of an effectiveness (r) of heat

exchange between wall and droplet defined as the ratio of the

actual heat transferred from wall to droplet to the heat which

would be required to totally evaporate the droplet.

Effectiveness was assigned a value of 1.0 for Tg < Ts at (at total

pressure) and decreased according to:

c = exp[]-(T3/TSAT)n] , 3-2

They experimented with air/water mist in equilibrium (at room

temperature) at the inlet (similar to case 3). When the value of

n was set to 1.0 the experimental data and model showed fairly

good agreement except near the inlet.

Pedersen (1970) measured c for individual droplets impinging

normally on a pre-heated plate in the absence of airflow. He

observed two distinct regions: wetting with c of about 908», and

non-wetting with c of about 15%. A fairly sharp transition

occurred at about 530K (500F). The transition temperature was

influenced by impact velocity, as was effectiveness in the non17
wetting region. This suggests a more detailed model than 3-2

might give better agreement with experimental results.

A study similar in many respects to the current work was

performed by Mori, et al. (1982), who experimented with air-water

mixtures flowing in a small-diameter electrically heated tube.

Although turbine-blade cooling motivated their research, the air

and water were introduced at the same temperature (ambient) again

similar to case 3. In an aero-engine the air would be

considerably hotter than the water.

A stainless-steel tube of 1.8 mm I.D. and 2.0 mm O.D. was

mounted vertically between electrodes, with a mixing tank at the

upper end. Compressed air was measured and fed to this tank,

where water was injected through a needle concentric with the

tube axis. Thermocouples welded directly to the tube wall

measured temperature. No mention is made of how fluid temperatures were determined. Tests were conducted with straight tubes

150 and 300 mm long, and a tube 920 mm long coiled into a helix.

The coiled tube was used in an attempt to simulate the Coriolis

effect in a rotating gas turbine blade.

With straight tubes, wall temperatures were low and almost

constant near the inlet, followed by a region of steeply rising

temperature, and finally a region of linearly rising temperature.

These results were interpreted as indicating regions of annular

flow, mist flow, and single-phase flow. In the mist region, a

slight wall temperature fluctuation was observed. Some runs were

interpreted as having a direct transition from annular to single18
phase flow, without any mist region. The data in the singlephase region were shown to agree with a single-phase heat

transfer correlation. The results for the coiled tube tests were

similar, but with substantial temperature variations around the

tube circumference.

Film thickness 'in the annular region was estimated using a

force balance. From this the film flowrate, film surface

temperature, and interfacial heat flux were calculated. By

assuming all interface heat flux was used for evaporation, a

Sherwood 'number was calculated.' This was shown to be a function

of the cumulative heat supplied per unit mass, and was asymptotic

to!the correlation

Sh = 0.022 ReO-8 Sc°

 4. 3-3

This apparently confirms the analogy between single-phase heat

and mass transfer.

The calculated liquid film flow rate was plotted against gas

velocity, and compared'to a correlation for critical film

flowrate (Kutateladze -and Sorokin, 1969). Below the critical

flowrate, the film is stable and simply evaporates. Thus the

flow changes directly from annular to single-phase. Above the

critical value, interfacial shear forces cause instability in the

film. Considerable liquid is entrained as droplets, leaving mist

when the remaining film evaporates. The results of Mori, et al.

'were consistent"with the'trend of the correlation, but not with

the magnitude of the critical film flowrate. The authors

19
speculated that high surface-tension forces (due to the small

tube diameter) increased film stability.

Major differences between the work of Mori, et al. and the

present work are: (1) they introduced air/water mixtures in a

near equilibrium state primarily under conditions such that the

equilibrium state was saturated with liquid water present,

whereas the present work is for highly nonequi1ibrium two-phase

air/water mixtures at the inlet and includes mixtures whose

corresponding equilibrium state is an all gas mixture (similar to

case 2, section 2.1); and (2) the present tests were performed

such that tube wall temperatures measured using the two-phase

mixtures to cool the surface could be compared directly to wall

temperatures which would occur were the same mixture to reach

equilibrium before cooling the surface.

In addition to pipe flows, investigators have analyzed

and/or experimented with binary mist flow over flat plates (Heyt

and Larsen, 1971; Hishida et al., 1980 & 1982), over cylinders

(Kuwahara et al., 1982), and in jet impingement geometries

(Goodyer and Waterston, 1974; Viannay et al., 1978). All of

these have introduced the air and water at virtually ambient

conditions (TA, Tw % 295 K, PM % 100 kPa) and except for Goodyer

and Waterston used relatively cool surfaces (Ts % 375 K).

Apparently the study of binary mist flow heat transfer with

initial disequilibrium (TG » T. ) and high surface temperature is

without precedent.

20
3.3 Single-phase Heat Transfer

. , " ' * ' l

For comparison with two-phase results, data from correspondi -.,;._ . , i

ing single-phase tests were needed. As noted in section 2.2, it

was impractical to exactly match test conditions. Instead,

single-phase (air only) data over a range of Reynolds numbers,

temperatures, and wall heat fluxes were collected. This data was

adjusted to "matching local conditions" (TM, PM, MM, and qS M )

present in the two-phase tests using the form of an existing

single—phase heat- transfer correlation as an interpolation

formula. Additionally, directly comparing the existing

correlation with the single-phase results showed good agreement.

• ' ' :

This provided confidence in both the single-phase and two-phase

results, since the same apparatus and similar procedures were

used for both types of test.

Single-phase turbulent pipe flow heat transfer has been

widely studied. Both local and average (over a substantial tube

length) heat transfer correlations are available. For the

purpose of adjusting results, it was necessary to consider local

heat transfer coeffjcients. These often take the form Nu =

' ; •

f(Z/D) x g(Re,Pr), where the function g(Re,Pr) represents the

1 *. ' * - * ;

Nusselt number for the hydrodynamically and thermally fullydeveloped case. Many correlations for the fully-developed

Nusselt number exist with none clearly superior.

A number of investigators have reviewed the work of others,

4 < . *

attempting to find equations which accurately correlate most of

the reliable data. An excellent example is the study by Sleicher
and Rouse (1975). Their review covered both the constant fluid

property (small radial fluid temperature variation) and variable

A

property cases, for fully developed flow. Several schemes for

accommodating variable properties were considered; the

recommendation for use with gases was a correction factor to the

constant property Nusselt number:

(Nuv p/Nuc p) - (TS/TM)« 3-4

n - -log10(Ts/TM)i"» + .3 1 < TS/TM < 5

104 < Re < 106 0.6 < Pr < 0.9 40 < Z/D

This is as reported by Sleicher and Rouse. The equation for n is

somewhat ambiguous, with two possible interpretations:

n = -log10{(Ts/TM)i/*} + .3 3_5

n - -{log10(Ts/TM)H"« + .3 3-6

Trial calculations show that, n determined from 3-5 is positive,

^ and the correction declines with increasing temperature ratio.

One would expect a cbrrecl.ion needed because of temperature

variation would increase as the temperature ratio increased.

Equation 3-6 gives negative values for n, and the correction

increases with increasing TS/TM.

Kays and Crawford (1980, p. 281) reviewed the Sleicher and

Rouse result. They did not note the ambiguity, but presented the

result in the form of 3-6, and recommended simplified

approximations for turbulent pipe flow of a gas;

22
TS/TM > 1 n = -0.5 (heating)

TS/TM < 1 n = 0.0 (cooling)

This further confirms thai 3-6 is the correct form.

Kays and Crawford (1980, pp. 238-243) also presented a semiempirical analogy for fully-developed flow of a constant property

gas (Pr « 1.0) in a tube with uniform heat flux. Although their

equation shows excellent agreement with some exper Linen tn I data,

it is cumbersome and they suggest a simpler approximation;

Nuc p = 0.022 Pr0 -

5 Re°-s. 3-7

Thi.s is similar to the Dittus/Boelter correlation (often

utilized, although it Is for the average, not local Nusselt

number), recommended by McAdams (1954, p.219):

Nu = 0.023 Pr°-4 Re° « 3-8

In the present, study, the Kays and Crawford correlation for

a constant property gas is used, modified by the Sleicher and

Rouse correction factor for variable properties:

Nuv p = 0.022 Pr0 -

5 Re0 -8 (TS/TM)" 3-9

n = .3 - {log10(Ts/TM)}i/<; 1 < TS/TM < 5

n n 0; TS/TM < 1

104 < Re < 10s 0.6 < Pr < 0.9 40 < Z/D.

All fluid properties in 3-9 are evaluated at the mixed-mean

temperature.

23
4. EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS AND PROCEDURR

4.1 Apparatus

The experimental apparatus consisted of the seven major

systems indicated in figure 4-1 below. Air and water supply

systems provided measured air and water at controlled temperature

and pressure to an atomizer. The atomizer produced a mist at the

anlet to H test, section, which was a small stainless-steel tube

heated by AC current flowing in jts wall. The test section

discharged into an exhaust system. A power supply system

provided the air preheater and test section power. An instrumentation system measured and recorded all temperatures. Pressures,

flow rates, and power input were read and recorded manually.

Detailed descriptions of the test section and atomizer follow,

along with a brief description of the instrumentation.

AIR SUPPLY

AND —

PREHEATER

AIR BLAST

^ATOMIZE - —R

WATER

SUPPLY

TEST SECTION

*• I 6 MM ID

STAINLESS STEEL TUBE

EXHAUST

•*-

SYSTEM

AC POWER SUPPLY

INSTRUMENTATION

Figure 4-1 Apparatus Block Diagram

24
4.1.1 Test Section—The test section is shown in figure 4-2.

It was constructed of type 304 stainless-steel tubing, 1.6 mm

T.D. and 1.8 mm O.D. A section of this tubing was brazed to

copper electrodes spaced 150 mm between centers, and cut t.o fit

.into the atomizer unit. Five commercial chrome I/cons tantan

thermocouples were mounted to the tube wall using Omega CC high

temperature cement. All of these thermocouples were sheathed in

stainless-steel tubing of either 0.25 or 0.50 mm O.D., with the

measuring junction not grounded to the sheath material. The

leads were wound helically around the tube to minimiz e conduction

loss. The test section was insulated with layers of ceramic

fiber batting, fiberglass batting, and an outer jacket of

aluminum foil. Total insulation thickness was about 100 mm. A

i ee fittin g (riot shown in figure) with thermocouple WMS installe d

at the test section outlet to measure exit mixture temperature.

The electrodes were mounted on a bakelite baseplate to

isolate the test section from possible short-circuits. A

dielectric: gasket material was used between the atomixer uni t and

the test section. The test section was horizontal, wit h the wall

thermocouples mounted at the horizontal centerplane.

AC power was used to heat the tube wall for ease of control.

With AC power, thermocouples can be welded directly to the

surface, but the readout instrument ion must be able to filter out

l.he 60 Hz noisn which is imposed on the signal.11 Shielded,

"Wit h DC heating, thermocouples cannot be welded directly to the

surface without special provisions. See for example Dutton and

Lee (1959).

25
O

UJ

I-

(n

UJ

Pi

x

UJ

UJ

Q

O

<r

o

UJ

UJ

o z

i= 2

o

o

UJ

_l

Q.

^)

O

o

o

QC

Ul

O

O

QC

UJ

UJ

o

<

o

o:

o

o

Ul

CD

Ul

H

_l

UJ

^

<

CD

I

UJ

lLU

(f)

<

m

26
ungrounded thermocouples were used to allow use of an electronic

data logger.

To carry the heating current without significant, power loss,

the electrodes were large in relation to the test section tube.

Although of reduced thickness at the joint wit h the Lube, it was

felt they could be significant conductors of heat between the

test section and ambient. Therefore, two copper/constantan

thermocouples were mounted on each electrode to aid in estimating

this heat loss.

4.].2 Atomizer—The atomizer design requirements were rather

special. Typically an atomizer produces a mist with a range of

droplet sizes, and varying the pressure or flow rate will cause

this range to shift. For these tests, a size distribution

independent of flow variables was desired. Perhaps the most

severe requirement was the need to use high temperature air.

This required careful design to minimize heat transfer between

the water and air passages. Operation at high pressures (perhaps

eventually up to 1500 kPa) was anticipated. The atomizer was to

exhaust into the test section, but with the; option of interposing

a transition section of variable length. This would allow the

non-equi1ibriurn mixture to approach equilibrium prior to the

inlet, so the effect of the degree of disequilibrium could be

studied (this has not yet been done). Finally, because the test

section would be conducting a heating current, a pressure-tight,

27
dielectric joint was needed between the atomizer and test

sect i on.

Many types of atomizers are commercially available.

Dombrowski and Munday (1968) review the characteristics of

several of the most common. Four possible types were considered;

they are summarized here. The first is often referred to as a

pressure atomizer. It consists of a small orifice through which

liquid is forced at high pressure. The free jet of liquid forms

a cone shape, which of course has increasing surface area as the

jet moves downstream. Eventually the cone breaks up into

filaments and then droplets as surface tension forces grow. This

type is characterized by a rather wide droplet size distribution,

rather large droplets, and narrow range of flow rate for good

atomization. These features made it unsuitable.

The second type reviewed was the centrifugal atomizer. This

type uses a spinning disc or cup, with liquid fed to the center

and being flung from the rim. It can be designed to produce

consistent droplet sizes, but in general is for higher liquid

flow rates than needed here. Also the spray pattern tends to be

a flat disk, which could not be directed easily into the test

section.

A third type, used extensively in aerosol research, uses an

ultrasonic signal to stabilize the break-up of a liquid jet. Liu

and Lee (1977) describe the design and operation of a

commercially available atomizer of this type. It can produce a

single droplet diameter (monodisperse), with very exact control

28
over flow rates. However, the flow rate of liqui d is very small.

About 100 of these would have been required to provide sufficient

f low.

The fourth type is sometimes referred to as an air-blast or

two-fluid atomizer. This was the design used. It can be seen in

cross-section in figure 4-3. This type produces concentric jets

of water and high velocity air. Momentum transfer to the water

jet provides the mechanism for break-up into droplets. Several

papers on air—blast atomizer design were co-nsulted, including the

PhD thesis of G. Lorenzetto (1976). The final design was a

compromise between predictability of performance, flow and

mounting requirements, and simplicity of construction.

The main body consisted of a 19 mm (3/4 in.) pipe tee

fitting, with an 83 mm (31/4 in.) diameter, 12 mm (1/2 in.) thick

flange welded to the downstream end. The flange was counterbored

to accept a transition section, which contained the air nozzle.

Air entered the atomizer from the left in figure 4-3 passing

straight through to the air nozzle. A chromel/constantan

thermocouple monitored the preheated air temperature near the

atomizer inlet (see T2 in figure 5-1). Water entered from the

bottom, via a 6 mm (1/4 in.) diameter tube. The tube was bent

90° and positioned in line with the center of the air nozzle.

The end of the tube was threaded to accept a water injection

needle, which was positioned with its tip (orifice) very near the

throat of the air nozzle. The exact location of the needle tip

was adjustable by means of shims. Water temperature was measured

29
L

U_l QLJUJ

0)N

• ^EO00IS- 3

•ao

30
at the centerline of the water delivery tube immediately upstream

of the water injection needle by a copper/constantan thermocouple

(see T3 in figure 5-1). For the test results reported here the

air nozzle throat diameter was 1.5 mm and the water injection

needle orifice diameter was 0.20 mm. Estimates based on an

empirical correlation of Lorenzetto (1976) showed that these air

nozzle and water orifice diameters should produce a mist with a

droplet Sauter mean diameter of the order of 10 //m that would

remain relatively independent of air and water flow rates over

the range covered by the present tests.

The water delivery tube was mounted to the atomizer by a

tube fitting, passing through a pipe plug. All direct mechanical

contact was avoided to minimize heat transfer to the water, but

it was necessary to have a pressure seal at the tube fitting.

The tube was coated with ceramic fiber insulation in putty form

after installation. Even with these precautions, boiling within

the tube occurred in cases with high air temperature and the

lowest water flow rates.

All parts of the atomizer and transition section were of

type 304 stainless steel, with two exceptions. A transition

mounting ring and the air nozzle were constructed of MACOR, a

machinable glass-ceramic. To minimize evaporation prior to the

test section, droplet impingement on metal surfaces was to be

avoided wherever possible. The air nozzle was the only surface

where MACOR could be substituted. The MACOR transition mounting

3]
ring and gasket provided the required dielectric joint between

the atomizer and the test section.

The design of the atomizer provides for inter-changeable

water injection needles, air nozzles, and transition sections.

This allows the same basic apparatus to be used for studying a

wide range of mass flows, mass ratios, test section diameters,

and the additional variable of nominal adiabatic mixing length

prior to heated length. All tests reported here used the minimum

adiabatic length. A long transition was simulated by comparing

with single-phase air only data taken at similar conditions (see

sect ion 2.2).

4.].3 Instrumentation—All temperatures were measured by

thermocouples. Those monitoring intermediate (100 < T < 400 C)

and high temperatures (T > 400 C) were calibrated. A steam point

was used for nn absolute standard. For high temperature

calibration (to 700 C) a thermocouple furnace was used. All

junctions were inserted into a copper block and placed in the

furnace. The intermediate temperature junctions were calibrated

in the same apparatus using one of the high temperature junctions

as a standard. The low temperature junctions were not

individually calibrated. However, prior experience with

junctions made from the same rolls of wire indicated very close

agreement with standard tables below 100 C.

All thermocouples were used with reference junctions

immersed in an ice bath. Readings were made by a microprocessor-
controlled data logger capable of resolving to 1 /uV. Also

included in the circuitry was a hand-balance potentiometer for

verifying the readings. Readings were converted to temperature

using cubic-spline interpolation from tables.

Water flow was measured by a calibrated rotameter.

Volumetric air flow rates were measured using Vol-0 Flow meters

and rotameters calibrated against the Vol-0-Flow meters. The

Vol-0-F]ow meter design divide s the airflow among multiple : small

parallel channels to produce a lamina t flow pressure drop. The

manufacturer's calibratio n was used for these devices. Air

density was determined from pressure and temperature measurements

and an equation of state (Vasserman et al. 1971). A.ir pressures

were determined by calibrate d Bourdon-tube gages.

Test section voliage drop and current were measured wit h a

digita l multimeter. Since AC current was used, the effective

test section power input, was found by multiplying RMS voltag e by

RMS current. The multimeter read true RMS voltage, so no

corrections were required. The same multimeter had been used in

prior experiments with water flowing in a simila r apparatus. The

results showed good agreement between energy balances bused on

thermal vs electrical measurements.

4.2 E x p e rimental Procedure

The procedure described below was developed to minimize -

uncertaint y in the results. Any error in procedure, leak, or

loose connect ion could render the data useless. Except for
verifying reproducibi 1 j ty, l.he need ho repeal, a series of test

runs was to be avoided because of the time and effort, required to

acheive a desired steady-state condition. Thus, many steps were

taken to verify the apparatus, recalibrate some instrument, or

otherwise check for problems before proceeding.

To clarif y the following description, some definitions are

in order. A complete sel of readings from all instruments wil l

be termed a data "set." Typically three or more data sets were

recorded with no deliberate changes in controlled parameters.

This verified steady conditions were present. Such a group of

data sets will be called a test, "run." On completion of a run, a

deliberate change in a single controlled parameter (usually

either the power input level or water flow rate) was made. A

sequence of such test runs constituted a test "series."

A typical series included calibration runs with air only and

no test-section power input, single—phase runs with air only and

a heated test-sect Ion, and three two-phase runs wit h nominall y 5,

10, and 15% water by mass. The following description wil l

progress through a scries chronologically.

4.2.1 Preliminaries--The first step was to verify

thermocouple circuitry and calibration. With only ambient

temperature air flowing, no power applied to the test section,

the exhaust system condenser cooling water flowing, and the

condensate drain valve closed, the apparatus was left to

equilibrate for several hours. Then temperatures were read on

34
both the data logger and the hand balance potentiometer. If

these were all consistent at ambient levels, the procedure

continued.

The air flow rate and air preheater control were next

adjusted for the desired atomizer inlet air temperature and mass

flow rate. After several hours conditions stabilized , and the

thermocouple check was repeated to verify circuitr y and

calibration. The apparatus was then ready for the first run.

4.2.2 Air Only Runs--For the first run, the data logger was

set to automatically record at thirty minute intervals. When it

started a scan, pressure and flow readings were recorded manually

on the paper tape output. At least three data sets were recorded

before applying power to the test section. This constituted a

zero-power calibration run. From this data estimates of the raLe

of heat loss to ambient from the test section, transition

section, and atomizer were made (as described in section 5.2).

Next, power was applie d to the test section. This caused

the air flow rate to change. After readjusting the metering

valve to maintain the flow rate, several hours elapsed before

steady conditions prevailed. The data logger was again set for

thirty minute intervals, and other readings taken as before.

This run also included at least three data sets. The test

section power was then shut off, but air flow and preheater power

left on (overnight).

35
4.2.3 Nominal 5% Water Run—This run typically commenced on

the following day. Prior to applying power to the test section,

a calibration run was conducted as before. Tn addition to

verifying thermocouple circuitry and calibration, this data

established the rate of heat loss (section 5.2).

Next, the water flow was started, the exhaust section

condensate drain opened, and power applied to the test section.

Adjustments to the air metering valve, water metering valve, and

air preheater power level were required to maintain the desired

conditions. Several hours after the final adjustments, readings

commenced in the same manner. Typically, at least three data

sets were recorded, comparing them to assure steady conditions

prevailed. Following the final data set, test section power and

water flow were shut down, leaving the preheated air flowing

(again overnight).

4.2.4 Nominal 10% & 15% Water Runs—These runs were usually

taken together on the the day following the 5% water runs. The

procedure duplicated that above, except that after recording the

final data set at 10* the water flow was increased to 15%. At

this level, steady conditions were reached in about thirty

minutes. Thus, the final run at 15% required only about two

hours following completion of the 10% run.

4.2.5 Shutdown—Upon recording the final set, the water and

power to the test section were shut off. After some time, the

exhaust section condensate drain stopped discharging water and

36
was closed. Then, the air preheater power was cut, and the air

flow slowly cut to zero by closing air exhaust valve. Finally,

as the system pressure level reached a suitable value the air

inlet valve was closed. The air supply section, test section,

and exhaust section were thus sealed and pressurized. By

observing the pressure drop, it was possible to estimate the rate

of air leakage. The rate was always less than 1% of the total

air f1ow.

37
5. DATA REDUCTION

As described in the experimental problem statement, section

2.2, the objective was to measure wall temperatures for two-phase

tests with disequilibrium at the inlet. These were to be

compared with wall temperatures for single-phase tests (here aironly) at "matching local .conditions" of mixed-mean temperature5^

pressure, total mass flow rate, and wall heat flux (i.e. TM, PM,

MM, and qSM). Since obtaining precisely matching conditions for

specific test cases was impractical, air-only test results at

similar conditions were to be interpolated to match the exact

two—phase test conditions. It was also desired to determine the

local heat transfer coefficients for each test as normally

defined for a single phase internal flow; i.e.,

h(Z) = qSM(Z)/{Ts(Z) - TM(Z)} 5-1

In order to carry out the above procedures it was necessary

to determine values of Ts, TM, PM, MM, and qSM at each tube wall

thermocouple location along the test section for each test run.

These thermocouples were cemented to the outer surface of the

tube wall. The temperature drop across the wall (— 1 K) was

neglected since it was not significant in comparing surface

temperatures for local matching conditions; and for air-only

5 Temperature for the non-equilibrium state was defined as the

equilibrium temperature of a mixture of identical composition and

total enthalpy, at the same total pressure. This is the

temperature the test mixture would have attained were it allowed

to equilibrate adiabatically .
tests, which were compared with a prior correlntion, the drop was

only — 1% of Ts - Tm. Since steady-flow conditions prevailed, MM

was constant for a given test run, and was calculated as the sum

of the individuall y measured values of air and water flow rates.

Determination of q<^M , TM, and PM required more extensive

analyses. These are outlined in the following sections. With

the above noted quantities determined, local dimens i oril ess

variables Re, Pr, and Nu were evaluated. The specific method of

adjusting the aii—only data to the required matching conditions

is given later in section 6.5. The present chapter concludes by

indicating several checks which were performed to establish the

validity and consistency of the data, followed by a discussion of

experimental uncertainties associated with the reduced data.

5.1 Heat Fluxes

The local heat source (qE) was approximately uniform due to

the use of electric resistance heating. The average value was

determined by measuring the current and voltage drop across the

test, section. Two corrections were applied to determine the net

local heat flux (qSM); the first accounted for variation of

electrical resistivity With temperature (up to 20% from inlet to

outlet), the second for heat lost to ambient through the

insulation (qsoo)-

To correct for variable electrical resistivity, total tube

wall resistance was computed from the voltage drop and current

measurements for all air-only runs. This resistance was

39
correlated against average tube wall temperature, giving a linear

relation (V/I = aTs + b). The data points fell within 1.5% of

the correlation and were consistent with published values for

type 304 stainless steel. Local heat source was calculated from

measured current and local resistivity determined using the

linear relation. A small uniform adjustment was then applied so

the integrated local heat source would be consistent with the

directly measured overall, value which was considered to be known

with higher confidence than the 1 o c H 1 values:

q E ( Z ) = I2{aT s (Z)+b}/7rD L + q cor r 5-2

where qc 0 r r = f VI - (I 2/ L) J L{aT s (Z)+b } dz}/*DL

*• o >

The correction for test-section loss to ambient (qsoo) was

calculated assuming one-dimensional conduction through a thermal

resistance (Rh). The determination of the thermal resistance is

described in Appendix B. The correction varied from 3% to 6.5%

of the total electrical input for single-phase tests and from

less than 1% up to 3% for two— phase tests, and was applied at

each axial thermocouple station:

<lsoo(Z) = {Ts(Z)-T00}/{HhirDL} 5-3

qSM(Z) = qE(Z) - qSoo(Z)

5 . 2 Local Flow Variables

Local mixed— mean fluid temperatures were determined by

energy balances between the start of the heated length (labled

40
INLET in figure 5-1) and each wall thermocouple station. Given

an inlet enthalpy, the determination of which is outlined in a

later paragraph, local heat flux (qSM(Z)] was numerically

integrated to find the mixture enthalpy at the thermocouple

station. From this, the mixed-mean temperature was determined by

using the following system of equations (for two-phase tests):

Pr = P (T } V r S A T *• M '

XV M / XA - (PV/(PM-PV)} * {WV/WA} 5-4

Xw

 = XVM + X£M

'M = XA iA (TM ,PM -Pv ) + X V M i v ( T M , P v ) + XJ?MiJj (TM,Pm)

The four unknowns were Pv , XVM, XpM , and TM . Mass fractions

of water and air (Xw ft XA) were known from measurements of flow

rates, and the mixture pressure (PM) was assumed to vary linearly

between inlet and outlet measurements. Enthalpies were

calculated using equations of state for water and air (Meyer, et

al. 1977 for water; Vasserman et al. 1971 for air). Assuming a

mixture temperature (TM) allowed progressive solution to find

enthalpy (iM). A zero-finding algorithm was used to determine

the temperature from the known enthalpy.

System 5-4 applied with liquid present. With water present

only as vapor, the system simplifies to

XW/XA = (PV/(PM-PV)} x {WV/WA} 5-5

IN =

 X AI A(T

M .PM~P V) + Xwiv(TM,Pv).

41
o

COE<BaL

a,

1 >o0)I-3

•00

42
Here the only unknowns are TM and Pv. The first equation can be

solved once for Pv, then the second iteratively for TM. In practice, the first equations of each system were solved for Pv . If

5-4 resulted in the smaller value of Pv the presence of liquid

was indicated. If 5-5 resulted in the smaller value, superheated

water vapor was indicated. If the values were identical,

saturated vapor was indicated. The formulation needed to

determine temperature in air-only tests is an obvious special

case of 5-5.

The solution of the applicable system gave the mixed—mean

temperature TM. This was the total or stagnation temperature.

In high velocity flow, the adiabatic wall temperature is used

rather than stagnation temperature for defining heat transfer

coefficients. A one-dimensional flow model (Shapiro, 1953,

pp.75-85) was used to estimate the compressibility effect on

single-phase data. The estimates ranged from 0.1 to 1.0 K, so

the effect was neglected.

Knowledge of TM, Ts, and qSM permitted the determination of

h(Z) from equation 5-1. Further, Xw , Xjj M , TM , and PM fix the

therraodynamic state of an equilibrium mixture. Thus, the local

fluid properties (viscosity, specific heat, and thermal conductivity) could be determined. This was done using property

equations for dry air at TM and PM (Vasserman et al. 1971).

This approach assumes the thermophysical properties of dry

and humid air are identical. Richards and Florschuetz (1983)

have shown this is a reasonable approximation at low values of

43
humidity. For the largest mass fraction of water vapor occurring

in any single phase flow regime in the present study (about .10%),

the neglect of humidity reduces the value of h by only 5%.

At this point, all quantities were available to determine

local dimension 1 ess variables Re, Pr, and Nu:

Re = GD//iA(TM,PM) 5-6

Pr = /<A(TM,PM) x CpA(TM,PM) / KA(TM,PM). 5-7

NuE X p = hD/KA(TM,PM) 5-8

Here G is the total mass flux and h is defined by equation 5-1.

Returning to the determination of the enthalpy at the start

of the heated section, reference is again made to figure 5-1.

Fluid temperature measurements at that location (labled TNLET)

were not practical because of the small tube diameter and twophase mixture. Indeed, it was found that readings of a

thermocouple installed slightly upstream of the water injection

orifice in the air flow at station 3 were significantly affected

when water injection was initiated. Instead, the preheated air

temperature was measured at station T2 where it was found to be

unaffected when water injection was initiated. Water temperature

was measured at station T3. For two-phase tests the enthalpy at

the INLET station was then calculated from the following energy

balance:

*Mi<M A + Mw) '= Mwi£ (T3,P3) + MAiA(T2,P2)

- Q - Q - 5- 9

44
In this equation QLa and QLt are the heat losses from the two

system subsections specified in figure 5-1 as ATOMIZER and

TRANSITION SECTION. Their evaluation is detailed in Appendix B.

QLt ranged from 1 to 63> of the electrical power input. QL a

ranged from 5 to \0% for most runs, but reached about 30* in

several cases.

For single phase air-only tests it was possible to use

thermocouple T3 for a valid measure of air temperature, so that

for these tests the INLET enthalpy was computed from:

M A i M i = MAiA(T3,P3) - QLt

where QLt ranged from 3 to 10% of the electrical power input.

5.3 Data Checks

For single-phase tests the thermocouple located in the water

delivery tube (T3 in figure 5-1) could be used to measure the air

temperature at the entrance to the transition section. In

addition, a thermocouple was mounted just downstream of the

heated tube in the exit section (not shown in figure 5-1). This

thermocouple measurement was not used in the primary data

reduction procedure described in the preceding sections. An

overall energy balance carried out for each single phase test

based on these two temperatures, the air flow rate, the measured

electrical power input, and the calibrated thermal losses closed

to better than 4% in every case.

45
Two additional comparisons also provided confidence in the

reduced data. (1) For single-phase aii—only tests Nusselt

numbers were found to be consistent with an existing empirical

correlation for fully developed turbulent pipe flow. (2) For

two-phase air/water tests with inlet disequilibrium no prior

results were available for comparison. However, as liquid water

evaporated in the mixture flowing along the tube, a single-phase

flow condition was approached. For the present tests at low

water mass fraction, Nusselt numbers and tube surface

temperatures at downstream stations were found to be consistent

with single phase results at matching local conditions. These

comparisons are presented in detail in chapter 6 as part of the

results.

5.4 Uncertainty Analysis

Composite uncertainties for the reduced data were evaluated

using the basic approach recommended by Kline and McClintock

(1953). In practice the required influence coefficients for each

independent variable were calculated using as a basis the

computer program prepared for the primary data reduction process

outlined in the preceding sections. This was done by subjecting

each input variable, in turn, to a slight perturbation from its

measured value and recomputing the output. The required

influence coefficients (partial derivatives) could then be

approximated as finite differences.

it;
The uncertainty analysis was performed for five representative points at widely varying conditions. To compare singlephase air-only results with correlation 3-9, the absolute

accuracy of instrumentation was important. The uncertainty was

estimated with absolute accuracy as the criterion. However in

comparing single-phase and two-phase results at "matching local

conditions," any uniform bias in measurements was not

significant. For purposes of this comparison uncertainty was

estimated using repeatability as the criterion.

For the single-phase results, the estimated uncertainty was

±3% for the Reynolds number, i8% for the Nusselt number (absolute

basis). For the comparison of two-phase with single-phase wall

temperatures (relative basis), the uncertainty in the measured

wall temperature was ±0.5K. The uncertainty in the interpolated

single-phase wall temperatures used for comparison was ±6K for

most of the tests, up to ±15K in two cases. The higher value

arose because of a larger uncertainty associated with the water

rotameter used in those two tests.

47
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Tests were conducted in series (section 4.2), beginning with

air-only (preheated), zero-power input calibration tests, then

adding test-section power input for single-phase tests, and

finally adding various amounts of water for two-phase tests.

Within a series, the air mass flow rate and temperature entering

the atomizer were held constant. The calibration tests were used

for determination of heat leaks as described in Appendix B. The

single—phase and two-phase test results are presented and

discussed here.

The reduced data are tabulated in chronological order in

Appendix A for, a total of 26 test runs (8 air-only runs and 18

with water injection)- The data listed for a given run are based

on the final data set observed for that run. Values of Nuv p

calculated from existing correlation 3-9 for single phase fully

developed turbulent pipe flow are also listed for each run,

including the two-phase tests with water injection.

Examination of Appendix A indicates that the NuE X P values

for aii—only tests (MM = 6) appear to be quite consistent with

N uv p . These air-only results will be compared in graphical form

with correlation 3-9 and discussed further in section 6.1.

NuE X p for runs with liquid water present in the air stream

(Mw * 0) was calculated using thermal conductivity of air

evaluated at TM (equation 5-8) and h defined in terms of TM as

characteristic fluid temperature (equation 5-1), just as in the

48
case of the air-only runs. Therefore, NuEXp /Nuv p - h EXp / h v p , and

overall consistency between NuE XP and Nuvp should not be expected

for these runs. That is indeed reflected by the tabulated values

of NuExp , many of which are very large compared with the

corresponding values of Nuv p , and some of which are negative.

The negative values are a result of surface temperature (Ts)

smaller than mixed-mean temperature (TM), which is clearly

possible for the nonequi1ibrium conditions resulting from the

cold liquid water injected in the hot gas stream. However, in

some of the cases with water injection values of NuE x p do become

consisistent with Nuv p at downstream stations. This may be

interpreted as evidence that the liquid water has either all

evaporated or nearly so and no longer significantly influences

the heat transfer. This is discussed in more detail in section

6.5 where tube surface temperatures for cases with liquid water

present in the air stream as it enters the tube are compared with

single-phase cases at "matching local conditions."

A typical series of runs is presented in section 6.2 to show

the effects of water injection on both wall temperatures and

mixed-mean temperatures. To better understand the physics of the

phenomena and aid in interpretation of the results, simple

qualitative models are examined in sections 6.3 and 6.4.

Finally, in section 6.5 surface temperatures for each of the 18

two-phase test runs are compared in graphical form to singlephase surface temperatures at "matching local conditions" (i.e.,

TM, MA, Mw, PM, and qSM). This isolates the effect of injected

49
water on surface temperature from its effect on mixed-mean fluid

temperature. Three flow regimes are noted. The surface

temperature comparisons and the major features of each flow

regime are discussed in light of the qualitative models.

6.1 Single-phase Results vs Existing Correlation

Eight runs were made with air only, at various combinations

of flow rate, inlet temperature, and heat flux. The data were

reduced to the dimensionless parameters Nu, Re, Pr, Z/D. The

Nusselt numbers are shown on figure 6—1. The first wall

thermocouple location was in the developing-flow region. The

data for this location are not shown, since the relevant

correlation is valid only for fully-developed profiles.

For comparison with prior work, the central line on figure

6-1 represents correlation 3-7. As noted in section 3.3, this

was recommended for fully developed flow of gas in a tube, with

constant fluid properties. For valid comparison then, the

experimental data were adjusted to constant property conditions

using equation 3-4.6

The correlation line was calculated using the average

Prandtl number of all points shown. The experimental Prandtl

number of the data varied less than 2%. The other lines shown

are IQ% above and below the correlation. The data are consistent

with the correlation line to within the estimated uncertainty

intervals indicated at the bottom of the graph which represent

6Equations 3-7 and 3-4 were recommended by Kays and Crawford

(1980), with n in 3-4 as given by 3-6.

50
01

Ld

QQ

ILJLJ

CO

cn

80

70

60

50

4O

30

20

10

= .022Re8Pr5

- (Pr = .685)

±10%

SYMBOL Z/D

O

A

D

0

27.2

47.0

60.8

75.0

.682 < Pr < .693

UNCERTAINTY

INTERVALS

IO 20 3O

REYNOLDS NUMBER x IO3

40

Figure 6-1 Air-only Results

5]
±3% for Reynolds number and ±8% for Nusselt number. This level

of agreement is consistenl with that of other experimenters.

Sleicher and Rousse (1975) compared several existing correlations

with some 120 data points, and noted deviations up to 100%. The

maximum deviation from their recommended equation was 18%, with

an average of 4.2%. The present results are thus quite

acceptable, especially considering the difficulties associated

with heat transfer measurements for a very small diameter tube,

and promote confidence in the experimental facility,

instrumentation, and data reduction techniques.

6.2 Effects of Water Addition

Consider the measured wall temperature and calculated mixedmean fluid temperature data in figure 6-2. A typical series of

four test runs is shown, at various mass fractions of liquid.

The upper set of lines (run 166) is data from an air-only run.

Note that both wall and fluid temperatures rise linearly with

distance as would be expected for a fully-developed flow with

uniform heat flux. The fluid to wall temperature difference is

large and positive. A development-length effect appears to

influence the first wall temperature measurement.

The remaining sets of lines represent data from two-phase

tests. The temperature of the air entering the atomizer was

similar in all cases, but the mixed-mean fluid temperature is

seen to drop significantly as water flow is increased. Note the

effect is limited by saturation; the drop in inlet mixed-mean

52
UJ

o:

a:

a.

5

u

9OO

8OO

700

600

500

4OO

r i i r

WALL TEMPERATURE

166

I I I

RUN

NUMBER Xw

I I

0.0

613 0.047

178 0.101

0.149

20 40 60 80 100

AXIAL DISTANCE, DIAMETERS

Figure 6-2 Representative Series

Wall Temperature ....Solid Line with Symbols

Mixed-mean Fluid Temperature Dashed Line
temperature is almost negligible as the mass fraction of water

injected is increased from ]0% to 15%. Note also thai the slope

of the mixed-mean temperature line is similar for all runs except

at 15%. This indicates that the 5% and 10% mixtures would be all

gas-phase if allowed to equilibrate adiabatically.

Now consider the wall temperature data. Near the outlet,

wall temperatures in runs 613 and 178 behave similarly to the

aii—only run 166. This suggests the mixture is gas-phase, at

least near the wall. At the inlet, the wall temperature behavior

is quite different. In runs 613 and 178 the temperature is below

the mixed-mean fluid temperature for some length. The uniform

wall temperature behavior which first clearly appears near the

inlet for run 178 at 10% water mass fraction extends all the way

to the outlet for run 711 for which the mass fraction is 15%.

These phenomena can be better understood by considering

qualitatively in more detail the relevant idealized physical

models from chapter 2.

6.3 Single-phase Idealized Model

Recall the models defined in section 2.1. Case ] featured

single-phase, two-component flow at the inlet to the heated

section. Trends of temperature and liquid mass fraction

variation are shown in figure 6-3. Average gas-phase (air +

water vapor) temperature (TG ) , average liquid temperature (Tjj ) ,

mixed-mean fluid temperature (TM), and liquid mass fraction

54
MA

MW

AIR + VAPOR

TEMPERATURE

'W

LIQUID TEMPERATURE

to

£< ^0

,rt -I

ACTUAL Xp

EQUILIBRIUM X,M

O L

AXIAL COORDINATE Z

Figure 6-3 Idealized Model Case 1

Single-phase, Equilibrium

55
(X.)are shown as solid lines. Wall temperature (Ts) is shown as

a dashed line.

With specified values of TA, Tw, MA, Mw, and PM, the mixedmean fluid temperature can be determined from the system of

equations 5-5. TM must be constant in the adiabatic mixing

chamber. As the mixture traverses the uniformly heated section,

its enthalpy increases linearly with distance. Assuming constant

properties, the temperature (TM) must also increase linearly.

Since the mixture is all gas, this is also the average gas

temperature (TG). The main features of the model are the

linearly increasing wall temperature and the relatively large,

constant temperature difference beyond the developing-flow

regi on.

Note the figure indicates that the gas in the mixing chamber

cools rapidly while the liquid temperature increases only

slightly. The last of the liquid evaporates well below the gas

temperature. Assuming local equilibrium at the interface, the

liquid will evaporate at the saturation temperature corresponding

to the local vapor pressure. Heat transfer is usually limited by

w

the gas-side resistance, so the liquid temperature is nearly

uniform. Temperature and concentration gradients present in the

gas mean its average temperature is above the interface

temperature.

56
6.4 Two-phase Idealized Models

Consider the idealized physical models of two-phase, nonequilibrium flow presented in section 2.1 (cases 2 and 4). These

are shown in figures 6-4 and 6-5, respectively, using the same

format and symbols as in figure 6-3. Consider first figure 6-4.

Recall that case 2 has identical conditions at the entrance to

the mixing chamber as case 1. Thus, the behaviors of TG, TM, T« ,

and X. are identical for Z £ 0. Since the heat flux and heated

section length in cases ] and 2 are identical, TM is also

identical for 0 < Z < L. The differences are in TG, Ts, Tj , and

Xp in the region 0 < Z < L. Two limiting case models of their

behavior are shown in figure 6-4 similar to the two limiting

cases defined in section 3.2, corresponding to annular and mist

regimes.

First, if the flow is annular at Z = 0, heat transfer can

occur only from the wall to liquid or from gas to liquid

(neglecting radiation). But the evaporating water tends to

prevent significant heat transfer from the gas to liquid. Thus,

the gas is cooled only by mixing with the lower temperature

vapor. This effect is small compared to the evaporative cooling

which occurs in the mixing chamber, so the gas temperature is

approximately constant. The liquid temperature may rise

slightly, but most wall heat goes to vapor generation. The wall

temperature is determined by the liquid properties, causing the

temperature difference to be relatively small. The wall

temperature is approximated by the dashed line labeled "liquid

57
M

I I I 1 i I * I * I

t t t t t t t t t t t t t

,T(LIQUID DOMINATED)

AXIAL COORDINATE Z

Figure 6-4 Idealized Model Case 2

Two Phase, Disequilibrium

58
dominated." This line ends when all liquid has evaporated, at

which point the gas contacts the wall. Temperature then rises

through some undefined transition to the line labeled "singlephase . "

Second, if the liquid is in mist form at Z = 0, a different

limiting case model might apply. Droplets in the main stream are

subject to turbulent eddies and one might expect effective heat

exchange with the gas.7 Assuming perfect equilibrium between

droplets and main-stream gas, one finds the specific heat of the

mixture is very large. Thus, the average gas temperature remains

almost constant until all the liquid evaporates, at which point

the mixture becomes single-phase. Any droplets in the boundary

layer would be exposed to less turbulence than droplets in the

main stream, and slower heat exchange with the gas might be

expected. Thus, the mixture in the boundary layer would tend to

have a specific heat nearer that of the gas phase. If one

neglects droplets impacting the wall (i.e. c - 0), the wall

temperature is determined by gas properties. These result in a

relatively large temperature difference, per the dashed line

labeled "gas dominated." Note this meets the "single-phase"

behavior as the liquid evaporates.

Case 4 behavior (figure 6-5) is virtually identical to case

2, except that the transition to "single-phase" behavior is

delayed by the additional water.

7Rane and Yao (1981) treated dispersed droplets as distributed

heat sinks in similar fashion.

59
I I I I I I ; I I I

t t t t t t t t t t t t t t

(LIQUID DOMINATED)

O

(O

CO o •L

-

ACTUAL X,

EQUILIBRIUM X|M

AXIAL COORDINATE Z

Figure 6-5 Idealized Model Case 4

Two Phase, Disequilibrium

60
The main features of the two-phase, non-equilibrium model

behavior are:

• Low wall temperature in the "liquid dominated" region

(possibly below TM)

• High wall temperature in the "gas-dominated" region

(overshoots "single-phase" Ts)

• Wall temperature eventually reaches "single-phase" after

liquid evaporates

• Linear increase of wall temperature in "single-phase"

region

• Undetermined behavior in the transition between "liquid

dominated" and either "gas dominated" or "single-phase"

regions.

Consider now the two-phase behavior on figure 6-2 in light

of these models. Note the low wall temperature near the inlet

suggested by the "liquid dominated" model is consistent with all

two-phase runs. Also, the high temperature difference near the

outlet in runs 613 and 178 is consistent with "single-phase"

behavior. Clearly runs 613 and 178 show a transition between

"liquid dominated" and "single-phase." Whether this transition

follows the pattern suggested by the "gas-dominated" model is

unclear. Key to this determination is whether the wall

temperature ever overshoots the "single-phase" wall temperature

which would occur at "matching local conditions."

6.5 Two-phase vs Single-phase Wall Temperatures

To compare with two-phase wall temperatures at "matching

local conditions," single-phase wall temperatures computed using

correlation 3-9 would be reasonably accurate. However,

61
figure 6-1 indicates that on average correlation 3-9 slightly

overpredicts the single-phase data oobtained with the present

test facility. Therefore, in order to make the comparison one

which minimizes possible bias (however small) unique to the

particular test facility, single-phase wall temperatures for the

comparison at matching conditions were determined as follows.

For each two-phase test, a single-phase air-only test with

similar temperature levels was selected. The air-only test wall

temperatures were then adjusted to conditions matching the twophase conditions by assuming proportionality in the form of

correlation 3-9; i.e., ignoring the particular value of the

leading constant. This leads to

USM/[(Ts-TM)K]}a {Pr * Re-8(Ts/TM)n}1

(qSM/[(Ts-TM)K]}2 {Pr-s Re- «( Ts /TM ) « } 2

n = .3 - {log10(T3/TM)}i/4

where subscript 1 refers to the conditions for the two-phase test

it is desired to match and subscript 2 refers to the selected

air—only test at similar temperature levels. This equation was

solved iteratively for Ts1.

The calculations were made at each wall thermoucouple

station, using local heat flux and fluid properties evaluated at

the local pressure and mixed-mean temperature. The mixed-mean

temperatures for the two-phase tests were determined from the

systems of equations 5-4 or 5-5. Fluid properties for the

equilibrium air/water mixture at the mixed-mean temperature were
evaluated neglecting the presence of the water component as

discussed near the end of section 5.2.

Measured wall temperatures for the six series of two-phase

test runs are plotted in figures 6-6 through 6-11, with each

value compared to a single-phase wall temperature at "matching

local conditions." Each figure includes three graphs with

progressively increasing water mass fraction. Since the air flow

rate was nominally constant, the total mass flow and Reynolds

number changed. A solid line joins the circular symbols which

represent the wall temperature measured for the two-phase test at

the conditions listed. The relevant run number is listed first,

followed by the number of the selected run on which the singlephase wall temperatures are based. A solid line also joins the

triangular symbols which represent the single-phase wall

temperatures. The remaining solid line represents the mixed-mean

fluid temperature at. which the wall temperatures are compared.

Note that in all cases the two-phase wall temperatures are

well below the single-phase wall temperature near the inlet.

Apparently all tests included an inlet region with annular flow.

In cases with large mass fractions of water wall temperatures

remained low and uniform, implying the annular flow region

extended to the outlet. In cases with small mass fractions of

water, downstream wall temperatures increased considerably. This

implies a transition to mist or single-phase flow. In some cases

the two-phase and single-phase wall temperatures merge to a

common value, but within experimental uncertainty the two-phase

63
temperature never exceeds the single-phase value. The

uncertainties in wall temperatures (section 5.4) were such that

in most cases the uncertainty interval is approximately

equivalent to or less than the data point symbol size used in the

figures. Where the uncertainties exceed the symbol size, the

intervals are indicated by a vertical bar attached to the data

point symbol.

Three additional points should be made regarding these

results. First, since there is no clear evidence of the wall

temperature from any two-phase test overshooting the wall

temperature for the single-phase case, it appears that the "gasdominated" behavior as discussed in section 6.4 did not occur.

(Only run 29 in figure 6-9 shows any tendency for the wall

temperature from the two-phase test to exceed the value for the

single phase case, but even there when experimental uncertainty

is considered it can at most be concluded that the points merge.)

Recall that the limiting case "gas-dominated" model neglected

droplet/wall interaction effects and in the boundary layer

neglected droplet/gas interaction. As Pedersen showed (1970),

the droplet/wall interaction can be significant if the droplets

wet the wall. The wall temperatures in the region being

considered here were below the threshold value above which

wetting does not occur (the Leidenfrost temperature). A model

including some direct droplet/wall heat transfer contribution

(along the lines of that used by Mastaniah and Ganic in 1981) may

be more appropriate for these conditions.

64
C o *~- O <f

>

°Sz-

s°

_ ct cc x i- o

m o

o • — 2 to /-j 2 IP "

Do.*

CC CC X

COCt ui HUl LUO2<COQ

•H en

3 CO CO -P CO T3 CX C B O 0 ObO 01 C •P -H

Cfl 43

cu uCO

cu s: mOJ r-t 43 CO (X U I O O >-5 EH "-u {H CO o<H CO CO 3 0) ,-H CO V IM OJ 0) CO

ac S cu a> i 9-, a)

(—t

it too

rH C CO -H * 00 COICD

bfl • H

Cx<

0)aOat0)to0}I 0

)

o> i*

p-< 3

bo-t->

Q CO

•H Si CO V

-f1

 a

<1 s0) T3•H

•P 3 a ^H 4) fa*C OJ CO eo v co 5

CXT3 I CO O X uo<H0)IN3

•»JCOu0)(Xs0) HCO O

oin

oo^-

om

oo(O

otnm

Oo

OO

65
o

ffi \=

 o

- o W ^ o -. 2 to 5 Z 0^ *-. CO — io ^ <p o Z n ^ii — D <» 5 <r " CC CC X P^O o0) XNo . — z ^

? ss

S

H<

1

_ ce cc x K^O

$00O)

COct LJUJo•CO5

-4-> (0

•H C 3 O•H

-O -P

0) -H

IH -O a c a o e o oo w>c

tfl -rt

-U _C

M O 0) -P H 03 M >-H eo a JS U (X O I 1-1 o -CO UO CO (H 0)3 03 f-t (U CO U > 3•P 0) CO 01 U CO (U -C

O.O.

S I 0) CU

tH ^HW

)

il C c-I CO

•00 • rt

0) IM3

-!->COLCOae<acacc XaI <

D

<o u

.-( 3 U) -P C CO

•H U W CO <1

 D<

^J eCO H -P 3 01 -<

(1) b H C CO CO CO 0) S3 B A I

CXTJ

I V 0 X O<HCOIH4) (UEH00 O*

o10

Oo

Oin

8u>

o10in

OOin

Oin

Oooinro

'3yniV«3dlAI31

66
o\ZZ > W' "

° c *i ff °>>

O a, $ tl "

cr cc x \- o

oo ^ * °. 2 00 S owo o <£ (\i

 7 * o

a V n —

O d, 5 < a

cr a x h- o

Z,vtot o O ^ in *n ^ tfT /-\ N w ° ^r 5 z " "*" 7

_ i? CK x v^o

8

oto

oo(C

to»

ooto

oin

8

o

If)to

o

oo10

COa: LJHLJLUOZX<

•H M J CO T> -H 0) 4-> U -H CO T3 a c B O 0 o o

too

CO C

•P -H

0) £

0} O H -M(0 0) S to

ffl --H

A 00

Cu o

1 O o ^ S = H

4->

^ aCD0) n 3 0) ^H U 0 3 > *Jeg cu IH U 0) n B Ou 9) I H 0) tH C

ffl -H

00I(0

too •HU.

COuV0

. 50)001na

JSo,

too -i->

c m

•H U 00 (U

-t-> 3 CO ^H H) Ex H C 0) CO CO 0) CO E -C I I 0) O X 0) 00uOJ exB0) CO 3: O

67
I

OCMv. " O N * o'r-^s

Do. 5

a: cc x

ro

(M

<T> NT

_ CC CC X

10

(M

CD K>

O - O

_ CC

01

Ct X

^ >.

- >® 10 <f O n - < »^

O10OOo(O<o

oo(0otom

ooto

O10*

oo

00

QC. ULU- H UJ o00Q •H M 2 CO -a -H a> -4-> IH -rl O T3 a, c e o o o oM X 0) U EH ^->CO <U S COCO r-< J3 CB ix o I O O -J U CO o<H «)0) W 3

tt) ^-1

b CO

3 >

4->CO <

U

U 0)

0} ffi E a. 0) I H 0) on i CD0) I*

(UUa0}as0) EHCOaI 0

)

CU U

.-i 3 C CO

•H SH

00 (U <

 aCQ EHT3•H

+J 3 M -H CU b<C 0) CO ca v CO E ~C I CX t! O X 0)U3

4->COi-0)aeCD 6HCO 2O

68
C

D

in

_ CC CC X

com

CO

*°

Da, > < ii

cc or x i- o

co

ino

 m o o

s

z en o J o

Zo " n — o« f a " CC CC X K^O

CO

CC

O U)

00 (_LJ O QLJOCOQ O < CM _X

•H CO

2 CO

-a -H

0) -P

U -H

co -o

ex c B O 0 o o bo 0} C

•+•> -r* co .c 0) U H -P(0 oj s: (A

ffl -<

JZ CO

a, o 1 o o 1-3 3 = I- CO O

<tn M(U

ffl 3 OJ rH Ll CO 3 =>

4-)

00 OJ

(H CO

(U CO

O.J3

s a.

(U I

El CUI— I

rH W) rH C CO -H Ico01t,3

COU(Ua

.

s(UencoI 0

)

tu u

<-H 3

bOP C CO •H U 00 CU < g-OJ -P 3 M I-H (U b H C oj ca M OJ ca g A I

Q«"O

I OJ

O X * -H OJU3•PCOUOJ CUsOJ CO Xo

oo

om

oo

oinin

o

If)

oo

oIOto

810

69
•xen o en o c

o-

, .

3 <» 5

CC CC X

OPJ

\N O

<T> O <O

U> 0>

D <«

CC CC X

CVJ S N in t o, C

M

.<"

V)

a:

UJHLU

S QUJ OCOX<

•H 0)

2 CO

*X3 "H

CD 4J U -H CO T) 0, C a o 0 0 o

too

(A C

•P -H

cn A 0) O EH *JCO <U S cnCO I-H f, CO a, o 1 O O h-l 3 =

0)0

,

a0) EH

1—4 i— I CO 3C0) cnCO

,£30

,

1 0)

CU 1-

rH 3

too <P

C CO

•H i-

00 0)

< SD

U CO

0

<(H en0)

Efl 3 CO -M U CO 3 > -pCO 0) !- CO 0) CO ex x; S 0- a) i EH CD rH toO rH C CO -rt 36 CO 1— 1 f^1 co4)u3

too

T•r

-p : CO r- 0) b EH C CD a in a CO E £.

O.T

1 0 o > S "• EH 2 UO«HCJ (H3^Jau4)a, a4)

- HCO XO

o

If)

oo

o

IT) CO

oo(Oomin

ooin

oin

oo

oft10

70
Another possibility would be to allow for droplet influence

on gas-phase temperature in the boundary layer. The "gasdominated" model neglected any droplet influence (direct or

indirect) on the wall heat transfer. If one assumes rapid heat

transfer between droplets and gas, the specific heat increases

about an order of magnitude. The resulting decrease in

temperature difference relative to the "gas dominated" model may

also be an explanation for the lack of any observation of

"overshoot." The relative importance of the droplet/wall contact

and droplet/gas interaction is not clear.

Second, note the contrast in the abrupt transition of run 13

in figure 6-7 with the more moderate change of run 317 in the

same figure. Transitions on the remaining figures are all of the

more moderate type, with the possible exception of run 87 on

figure 6-11. Recall that Mori, et al. (1982) speculated some

transitions occurred from annular directly to single-phase flow

while others went through an intermediate mist regime. If the

liquid film in figures 6-4 or 6-5 were to evaporate without any

droplets present, a step change in wall temperature might be

expected (neglecting axial conduction and boundary layer growth).

Run 13 (figure 6-7) appears to approximate such behavior. With

mist present, the droplets randomly impacting the wall might tend

to smooth the transition as in run 317 and a number of others.

The results suggest both types of transition occurred.

Finally, consider the direct transition from annular to

single-phase regime. One would expect wall temperatures to

71
abruptly change from "liquid-dominated" to "single-phase," with

some smoothing due to axial conduction and boundary layer growth.

However, reconsidering the conditions just prior to the singlephase region suggests this might not be the case. If the liquid

film is stable with no mist in the gas core, velocity and

temperature near the wall are very low. The evaporating liquid

will tend to carry its momentum and internal energy into the core

flow, modifying the gas velocity and temperature profiles. The

situation would be similar to flow in a porous-walled tube with

blowing at the wall. Velocity and temperature would tend more to

the parabolic laminar profile than the relatively flat turbulent

profile. Immediately downstream of the dryout point, slow

moving, relatively cool vapor would flow adjacent to the wall,

acting like a very thick boundary layer (as opposed to the very

thin wall region present in fully developed turbulent flow or

immediately downstream of an entrance with a uniform profile).

The turbulence in the gas core would rapidly thin the layer, but

it is conceivable the wall temperature might overshoot the fullydeveloped, single-phase value for a short distance. Eventually

the behavior would be asymptotic to the "single-phase" line.

As noted, run 13 suggests a direct transition to singlephase, with no mist region. However, the single-phase wall

temperature is not exceeded. If the overshoot phenomena

occurred, it may have decayed between thermocouple locations.

Another possibility is that the point of liquid disappearance is

unsteady. Rapid fluctuations of the dryout point would tend to

72
smooth out the transition, but would not cause any response in

the thermocouples and therefore go undetected.

73
7. CONCLUDING REMARKS

This research demonstrates a mixture of hot, dry air and

cold liquid water cools a hot surface more effectively than the

same mixture introduced to the same surface after the liquid has

evaporated completely and cooled the hot air. This is shown for

turbulent flow in a small diameter tube, with uniform heat flux

boundary condition, in both annular and mist flow regimes. The

physical phenomena may be better understood by considering the

flow regimes individually.

In the annular regime, liquid flows adjacent to the tube

wall. The lower temperature, higher specific heat and thermal

conductivity of the liquid, and the enthalpy of vaporization

associated with the phase change would lead one to expect low

wall temperatures. This was found to be the case.

In mist flow, the gas is in contact with the heated wall.

This gas is hotter than it would be with initial equilibrium

since all of the liquid has not yet evaporated, so one might

expect higher wall temperatures. Also, the presence of the

condensed phase in effect reduces the gas velocity relative to

the initial equilibrium situation. Cold droplets impacting the

wall would tend to offset these effects, whether or not wetting

occurs. Further, the effective specific heat of the binary twophase mixture is an order of magnitude greater than the gas

alone. Therefore, whether the surface temperature which could be

acheived by cooling with mist flow would be smaller than that

74
which could be acheived by cooling with the gas stream after

complete evaporation of the liquid was not clear a priori.

The present results demonstrate the superior cooling

effectiveness of the two-phase non-equilibrium mixture. However,

for use in design/feasibility studies of contingency cooling of

gas turbine blades a wider range of variables would have to be

investigated. Of particular interest would be total pressure and

wall temperature levels. The present tests were limited by the

pressure level available from the laboratory compressor. Tests

at higher wall temperature levels were planned, but not completed

because of faster than anticipated deterioration of parts of the

apparatus at the temperatures achieved.

Tt appears that the mist flow regime would be most desirable

for gas turbine cooling. With sufficiently high wall

temperatures wetting of hot components by the mist particles

would not occur. This could prevent thermal shock failure. A

number of the present tests appear to include regions of mist

flow, but always following a region of annular flow. This may be

unavoidable with internal flow and the uniform heat flux boundary

condition used here. Goodyer and Waterston (1974) used a jet

impingement geometry and observed heat transfer during what they

interpreted as dry wall mist flow at surface temperatures of

about 900K. However, in their tests both the air and the liquid

water were introduced at nominally room temperature levels.

Further investigation using this geometry may hold some promise.

75
As applied to contingency cooling of gas turbine blades,

direct liquid injection could provide a given level of transient

power operation with less water than required for evaporative

cooling. The demonstrated benefits of improved heat transfer are

not obtainable without difficulty. Clearly there is a danger of

thermal shock failure if wetting occurs. Also, delivery of cold

liquid to the blade cooling passages is not a simple matter. In

an engine the water delivery passages would be at elevated

temperatures when water flow started. The liquid may begin

boa.ling on contact with the passages. Delivery of liqui d to the

critical blade surfaces would be delayed until the passages

cooled sufficiently. Thus, additional cooling capability

required for contingency power operation would not be immediately

ava i1ab Le.

In summary, the technique which motivated the present

investigation shows promise, but is fraught with hazards.

Further investigation is needed to determine if the hazards can

be avoided and the benefits realized. Research is also needed to

understand the relative importance of droplet/walI Interaction

and droplet/gas interaction in reducing wall temperatures or

providing higher heat rates at a given wall temperature for

cooling with air/water mist flows where the gas temperature is

substantially above the liquid temperature.

76
REFERENCES

Collier, J.G. (1980): Convective Boiling and Condensation, McGraw

Hill Book Company, London.

Dombrowski, N., and G. Munday (1968): "Spray Drying," Biochemical

and Biological Engineering Science, vol. 2, ed. N.

Blakehrough, Academic Press, London, pp. 211-320.

Button, R., and B.C. Lee (1959): "Surface Temperature Measurement

of Current-Carrying Objects," Instrument Society of America

Journal, vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 49-51.

Fiszdon, J.K. (1979): "Melting of Powder Grains in a Plasma Flame

," International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 22,

no. 5, pp.749-761.

Freche, J.C., and R.O. Hickel, (1955): "Turbojet Engine

Investigation of Effect of Thermal Shock Induced by External

Water-Spray Cooling on Turbine Blades of Five

High-Temperature Alloys," NACA RM E55J17.

Goodyer, M.J., and R.M. Waterston (1974): "Mist Cooled Turbines,"

Heat and Fluid Flow in Steam and Gas Turbine Power Plants,

Conference Publication 3, Institution of Mechanical

Engineers, London.

Harpole, G.M. (1981): "Droplet Evaporation in High Temperature

Environments," ASME Journal of Heat Transfer, vol. 103, no.

1, pp. 86-91. ~

Heyt, J.W., and P.S. Larsen (1971): "Heat Transfer to Binary Mist

Flow," International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol.

14, no. 9, pp. 1395-1405.

Hishida, K., M. Maeda, and S. Ikai (1980): "Heat Transfer from a

Flat Plate in Two-Component Mist Flow," ASME Journal of Heat

Transfer, vol. 102, no. 7, pp. 513-518.

, , and (1982): "Experimental Study on Heat

Transfer in Binary Mist Flow (Effect of Incidence Angles of

a Plate)," Heat Transfer - Japanese Research, vol. 10,

no. 4, Trans, ed. G.A. Greene, pp. 71-87. Translated from

Transactions of the J.S.M.E., 48; 428, pp. 758-766 (1982-4).

Kays, W.M., and M.E. Crawford (1980): Convective Heat and Mass

Transfer, 2nd edition, McGraw Hill Book Company, New York.

77
Kline, S.J., and F.A. McKlintock (1953): "Describing

Uncertainties in Single Sample Experiments," Mechanical

Engineering, vol. 75, no.l, pp. 3-8.

Kutateladze, S.S., and Y.L. Sorokin (1969): "Hydrodynamic

Stability of Vapor-Liquid Systems," Problems of Heat

Transfer and Hydraulics of Two-Phase Media, Trans, ed. J.G.

Collier, Pergamon Press, London, pp. 385-395.

Kuwahara, H., W. Nakayama, and Y. Mori (1982): "Heat. Transfer

from the Heated Cylinders with Various Surfaces in Air/Water

Mist Flows," Heat Transfer -Japanese Research, vol. 10, no.

2, Trans, ed. G.A. Greene, pp. 1-19. Translated from

Transactions of the J.S.M.E., 47; 414, pp. 326-335 (1981).

Liu, B.Y.H., and K.W. Lee (1977): "An Aerosol Generator of High

Stability," Journal of the American Industrial Hygiene

Association, vol. 36, no. 12, pp. 861-865.

Lorenzetto, G.E. (1976): Influence of Liquid Properties on

Plain-Jet Airblast Atomization, PhD dissertation, Cranfield

Institute of Technology.

Mastanaiah, K., and E.N. Ganic (1981): "Heat Transfer in TwoComponent Dispersed Flow," ASME Journal of Heat Transfer,

vol. 103, no. 2 pp. 300-306T

Meyer, C.A., R.B. McClintock, G.J. Silvestri, and R.C. Spencer

(1977): ASME Steam Tables, 3rd edition, American Society of

Mechanical Engineers , New York.

Miura, K., T. Miura, and S. Ohtani (1977): "Heat and Mass

Transfer to and from Droplets," American Institute of

Chemical Engineers Symposium Series, vol. 73, no. 163, pp.

95-102, AIChE, New York.

Mori, Y., K. Hijikata, and T. Yasunaga (1982): "Mist Cooling of

Very Hot Tubules with Reference to Through- Hole Cooling of

Gas Turbine Blades," International Journal of Heat and Mass

Transfer, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 1271-1278.

Peckner, D., and I.M. Bernstein (1977): Handbook of Stainless

Steel, McGraw Hill Book Company, New York.

Pedersen, C.O. (1970): "An Experimental Study of the Dynamic

Behavior and Heat Transfer Characteristics of Water Droplets

Impinging upon a Heated Surface," International Journal of

Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 13, r\o~. 2~, pp~.369-381.

78
Rane, A.G., and S.C. Yao (1981): "Convective Heat Transfer to

Turbulent Droplet Flow in Circular Tubes," ASME Journal of

Heat Transfer, vol. 103, no. 4, pp. 679-684"!

Ranz, W.E., and W.R. Marshall,Jr. (1952): "Evaporation from Drops

," Chemical Engineering Progress, vol. 48, no.3, pp. 141-

146, no. 4, pp. 173-180.

Reynolds, W.C., and H.C. Perkins (1977): Engineering

Thermodynamics, McGraw Hill Book Company, New York.

Richards, D.R. and L.W. Florschuetz (1983): Forced Convection

Heat Transfer to Air/Water Vapor Mixtures,NASAContractor

Report 3769, Arizona State University, Terape.

Rohsenow, W.M., and H. Choi (196.1): Heat, Mass, and Momentum

Transfer, Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCli ffs, New Jersey.

Shapiro, A.H. (1953): Compressible Fluid Flow, vol. 1, Ronald

Press Company, New York.

Sleicher, C.A., and M.W. Rouse (1975): "A Convenient Correlation

for Heat Transfer to Constant and Variable Property Fluids

in Turbulent Pipe Flow," International Journal of Heat and

Mass Transfer, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 677-683.

Van Fossen, G.J. (1983): "The Feasibility of Water Injection into

the Turbine Coolant to Permit Gas Turbine Contingency Power

for Helicopter Application," NASA report TM-83043,

presented at 28th International Gas Turbine Conference,

ASME, Phoenix, AZ.

Vasserman, A.A., Ya.Z. Kazavchinskii, and V.A. Rabinovich (1971):

Thermophysical Properties of Air and Air Components, ed.

A.M. Zhuravlev,Trans.Ch.Nishenbaum,Trans.ed.D~.

Slutzkin, Israel Program for Scientific Translations,

Jerusalem.

Viannay, S., J. Joseph, and G. Dayan (1978): "Echanges Thermiques

Entre une Surface Portee a Haute Temperature et un Melange

d'Air et d'Eau Pulverisee Impactant Normalement"

Proceedings 6th International Heat Transfer Conference,

Toronto, vol. 4, pp. 97-100.

79
Appendix A—Reduced Data Tabulation

The following tables list the significant heat transfer

related data from the final data set of each run. The runs are

presented in chronological order. The nomenclature in the tables

is consistent with that of the text. The values of air and water

temperature, flow rate, and mixture pressure listed at the top of

each table correspond to measured values within the atomizer.

The values within the table are those measured or calculated at

the stations where tube wall thermocouples were installed (see

figure 5-1).

80
Run 23

PM : 704 kPa TA : 484.7 K MA :

Tw : N/A

Z (mm)

Z (dia)

TM (K)

Ts (K)

Pr

Re

N uv p

N U E XP

^ S M V ' f

PM : 704 kPa

Z (mm)

Z (dia)

m / rr \

IM *• *;

X «M (%)

T

s (K)

Pr

Re

Nuv p

NuE X P

qSM (kW/m2)

PM : 704 kPa

Z (mm)

Z (dia)

TM (K)

x«M (&)

Tl ( tf \ s \l\ )

Pr

Re

Nuv p

N U E XP

q.,M (kW/ra2)

T5

15

9.4

478.0

540.6

0.685

29,500

66.6

79.5

121.7

T5

15

9.4

357.3

0. 1

369.4

0.695

36,700

77.8

561. 1

130. 1

T5

15

9.4

354.7

5.7

363.2

0.695

40,200

84.4

765.4

124.3

T6

43

27.2

495.5

572.5

0.684

28,800

65.4

63.7

123.3

TA: 481

Tw: 361

T6

43

27.2

374.0

0.0

406.6

0.693

35,500

75.9

203.4

132.5

TA : 479

Tw: 327

T6

43

27.2

356.9

5.1

366.2

0.695

40,000

84.1

694.0

124.5

T7

75

47.0

515.1

590.9

0.683

28,000

64. 1

63.2

124.3

Run 29

.2 K

.5 K

T7

75

47.0

394.5

0.0

481 .2

0.691

34,100

73.7

75.8

137.4

Run 37

.5 K

.6 K

T7

75

47.0

358.9

4.4

368.5

0.695

39,900

83.9

670.0

124.7

Mw:

T8

97

60.8

528.8

603.7

0.683

27,600

63.2

63.0

125.0

0.964 g/sec

0 . 0 rag/sec

T9

120

75.0

543.0

618.2

0.683

27, 100

62.4

61.8

125.7

Avg

75

46.9

515.5

585.0

0.683

28,000

64. 1

68.8

124.0

MA : 0. 924 g/sec

Mw:

T8

97

60.8

409.1

0.0

505.4

0.690

33,300

72.3

67.0

138.9

51.2 rag/sec

T9

120

75.0

424.3

0.0

528.5

0.689

32,400

70.9

60.8

140.4

Avg

75

46.9

395.7

0.0

463.5

0.691

34, 100

73.6

136.2

MA : 0.955 g/sec

Mw :

T8

97

60.8

360.1

3.9

369.8

0.695

39,800

83.7

664.7

124.8

107.2 mg/sec

T9

120

75.0

361.2

3.3

370.9

0.695

39,700

83.6

662.1

124.8

Avg

75

46.9

358.9

4.4

367.5

0.695

39,900

83.9

124.6

81
Run 311

PM : 686 kPa

Z (ram)

Z (dia)

X ( ty \

V M \ /

Ts (K)

Pr

Re

N uv p

N U EXP

qqM (kW/m2)

PM : 707 kPa

Z (ram)

Z (dia)

XjjM (X)

Pr

Re

Nuvp

N U EXP

q,,M (kW/m2)

PM : 690 kPa

Z (mm)

Z (dia)

V I «; \

X

M

T3 (K)

Pr

Re

Nuv p

N UEXP

T5

15

9.4

352.4

11.9

358.4

0.696

42,600

88. 1

1174.9

134.3

T5

15

9.4

356.7

0.05

377.9

0.695

38,400

74.6

604.0

245.8

T5

15

9.4

354.8

5. 1

372.2

0.695

43,400

82.8

775.6

258.5

TA: 482

Tw: 317

T6

43

27.2

354.8

11.3

363.5

0.695

42,400

87.8

802.4

134.7

TA : 471

Tw : 348

T6

43

27.2

388.2

0.0

404.2

0.692

36, 100

72.0

755. 1

249.4

TA : 471

Tw : 329

T6

43

27.2

359.2

3.9

378.1

0.695

43,000

82.4

706.8

259.4

.9 K

.6 K

T7

75

47.0

356.9

10.6

366.4

0.695

42,200

87.6

741. 1

134.9

Run 87

.4 K

.6 K

T7

75

47.0

426. 1

0.0

571.7

0.689

33,800

68.4

84. 1

272.6

Run 97

.9 K

.2 K

T7

75

47.0

363. 1

2.6

381.6

0.695

42,700

82.0

720.2

259.9

MA:

Mw:

T8

97

60.8

358.2

10. 1

367.6

0.695

42,100

87.4

747.2

135.0

Mw :

T8

97

60.8

453.8

0.0

617.2

0.686

32,300

66.5

72.9

278.9

Mw :

T8

97

60.8

365.3

1.6

382.8

0.694

42,500

81.8

757.0

260.0

0.944 g/sec

176.4 mg/sec

T9

120

75.0

359.3

9.6

368.7

0.695

42,000

87.3

743.5

135.1

Avg

75

46.9

356.9

10.6

364.9

0.695

42,200

87.6

134.8

0.967 g/sec

52.3 mg/sec

T9

120

75.0

483.0

0.0

653.4

0.685

31,000

64.7

67.6

283.9

Avg

75

46.9

430.9

0.0

533.2

0.688

33,500

68.3

267.3

1.036 g/sec

110.6 mg/sec

T9

120

75.0

367.2

0.52

384.4

0.694

42,300

81.6

770. 1

260.3

Avg

75

46.9

363. 1

2.6

379.2

0.695

42,700

82.0

259.5

82
Run 99

PM: 617 kPa

Z (mm)

Z (dia)

m / |r \

i

M {*'

Y f fc "^ 1 M "• '

Ts (K)

Pr

Re

Nuv p

N U EXP

q3M (kW/m2)

T5

15

9.4

350.4

10.7

363.8

0.696

46,000

86.7

1054.6

267.3

TA: 470

Tw: 321

T6

43

27.2

354.6

9.6

371.3

0.696

45,600

86.2

841 .0

268.4

.2 K

.3 K

T7

75

47.0

358.0

8.3

375. 1

0.695

45,300

85.9

820.3

269.0

MA :

Mw:

T8

97

60.8

359.8

7.3

376.3

0.695

45, 100

85.7

848.7

269.2

1.027 g/sec

177. 8 mg/sec

T9 Avg

120 75

75.0 46.9

361.3 358.0

6.2 8.3

377.7 372.4

0.695 0.695

45,000 45,300

85.6 85.9

844.0

269.5 268.6

Run 109

PM : 617 kPa

Z ( mm )

Z (dia)

TM (K)

T3 (K)

Pr

Re

Nuvp

N U E XP

q^ (kW/m2)

T5

15

9.4

486.9

627.5

0.684

28,800

61.7

71.4

249.0

TA : 483

Tw: N/A

T6

43

27.2

523.4

695.2

0.683

27,400

59.7

57.0

257. 1

.7 K

T7

75

47.0

564.9

741.2

0.682

26,000

57.7

53.5

262.7

MA:

MW:

T8

97

60.8

594.0

769.7

0.683

25,200

56.5

52.3

266. 1

0.951 g/sec

0 . 0 mg/sec

T9 Avg

120 75

75.0 46.9

624.3 567.4

795.4 725.2

0.683 0.682

24,400 26,000

55.3 57.7

52.4 59.1

269.2 260.8

Run 410

PM : 618 kPa

Z (mm)

Z (dia)

TM (K)

Ts (K)

Pr

Re

Nuv p

N U E XP

9s M (kW/m2)

T5

15

9.4

470.7

560.3

0.685

20,400

48.7

56.5

122.2

TA : 476

Tw: N/A

T6

43

27.2

496.4

605.0

0.684

19,700

47.5

45.5

124.5

.5 K

T7

75

47.0

525.3

635.1

0.683

19,000

46.2

43.6

126.1

MA:

Mw :

T8

97

60.8

545.5

655.0

0.683

18,500

45.3

42.8

127.2

0.661 g/sec

0 . 0 rag/sec

T9 Avg

120 75

75.0 46.9

566.6 526.3

672.9 625.5

0.682 0.683

18,000 19,000

44.5 46.1

43.] 48.0

128.1 125.6
Run 413

PM: 617 kPa

Z (mm)

Z (dia)

TM (K)

x«M (%)

Ts (K)

Pr

Re

Nuv p

N U E XP

qfiM (kW/m2)

T5

15

9.4

353.2

0.01

368.2

0.696

26,400

58.5

435. 1

124.6

TA: 470.

Tw: 362.

T6

43

27.2

377. 1

0.0

392.0

0.693

25,200

56.6

418.9

126. 1

2 K

1 K

T7

75

47.0

404.5

0.0

450.6

0.691

23,900

54.5

132.1

129.8

MA : 0.661 g/sec

Mw:

T8

97

60.8

424.0

0.0

515.5

0.689

23,200

53.2

66.0

133.8

34.7 mg/sec

T9

120

75.0

444.6

0.0

545.3

0.687

22,400

51.9

58.5

135.7

Avg

75

46.9

406.5

0.0

461.7

0.690

23,900

54.4

130.5

Run 156

PM : 618 kPa

Z (mm)

Z (dia)

T

/ rr \

M \ ** /

x .M (%)

TS (R)

Pr

Re

Nuv p

N U EXP

qSM (kW/m2 )

T5

15

9.4

349.6

11.5

359.3

0.696

29,400

63.9

705. 8

129.4

TA : 471.

Tw: 325.

T6

43

27.2

353.5

10.7

366.0

0.696

29,200

63.6

547.8

129.9

7 K

2 K

T7

75

47.0

357.2

9.7

369.7

0.695

29,000

63.2

542.5

130. 1

M A:

Mw:

T8

97

60.8

359.5

9.1

371.6

0.695

28,800

63.0

554.6

130.2

0.651 g/sec

117.5 mg/sec

T9

120

75.0

361.5

8.3

373.3

0.695

28,700

62.9

569.1

130.4

Avg

75

46.9

357.2

9.7

367.8

0.695

29,000

63.2

130.0

Run 166

PM : 618 kPa

Z (mm)

Z (dia)

TM (K)

Ts (K)

Pr

Re

Nuv p

N U EXP

T5

15

9.4

650.0

723.6

0.684

16,600

42.2

52.2

119.3

TA: 689.

Tw : N/A

T6

43

27.2

674.2

770.4

0.685

16,200

41.5

39.7

121.6

5 K

T7

75

47.0

701.4

793.1

0.686

15,800

40.7

40.8

122.6

MA:

Mw:

T8

97

60.8

720.3

813.0

0.687

15,500

40.2

39.9

123.6

.665 g/sec

0.0 mg/sec

T9

120

75.0

740.0

825.9

0.688

15,300

39.8

42.4

124.2

Avg

75

46.9

702. 1

785.1

0.686

15,800

40.7

44.9

122.3

84
Run 613

PM : 618 kPa

Z (ram)

Z (dia)

TM (R

)

X«M (%)

Ts (K)

Pr

Re

Nuv p

N U EXP

qsjt (kW/m2)

PM : 618 kPa

Z (mm)

Z (dia)

TM (K)

*£„ (X)

Ts (^ )

Pr

Re

Nuv p

N U EXP

qSM (kW/m2)

PM : 617 kPa

Z (mm)

Z (dia)

TM (K)

V ( *\

PM "• /

Ts (K)

Pr

Re

Nuv p

N U E XP

qSM (kW/m2)

T5

15

9.4

535.0

0.0

436.7

0.683

20,400

49.4

-46.2

121.3

T5

15

9.4

394.0

0.0

386.5

0.692

25,900

58.3

-823.6

127.6

T5

15

9.4

372.6

4.6

382.8

0.694

28,000

61.5

662.4

135.1

TA: 674.3 K

Tw: 435.9 K

T6 T7

43 75

27.2 47.0

557.8 584.5

0.0 0.0

590.0 676.3

0.682 0.683

19,900 19,300

48.2 47.1

146.5 51.4

130.1 135.0

Run 178

TA : 668.4 K

Tw: 380.8 K

T6 T7

43 75

27.2 47.0

416.0 - 440.6

0.0 0.0

384.8 415.9

0.689 0.687

24,900 23,900

56.8 55.2

-187.8 -229.0

127.5 129.5

Run 711

TA : 676.3 K

Tw : 357.8 K

T6 T7

43 75

27.2 47.0

374.1 375.5

3.5 2.4

382.1 384.2

0.694 0.693

27,900 27,800

61.4 61.3

843.8 775.0

135.1 135.2

MA :

Mw :

T8

97

60.8

603.4

0.0

704.4

0.683

18,900

46.4

46. 1

136.6

MA:

Mw :

T8

97

60.8

458.2

0.0

518.8

0.686

23,300

53.9

95 . 3

136.2

MA:

Mw:

T8

97

60.8

376.3

1.5

384.5

0.693

27,800

61.2

829.4

135.3

0.687 g/sec

33.7 mg/sec

T9 Avg

120 75

75.0 46.9

623.0 586.5

0.0 0.0

719.5 630.2

0.683 0.683

18,500 19,200

45.7 47.1

47.5

137.5 132.4

0.664 g/sec

74 . 5 mg/sec

T9 Avg

120 75

75.0 46.9

477.1 442.6

0.0 0.0

560.4 464.5

0.685 0.687

22,700 23,900

52.8 54.9

68.4

139.0 132.7

0.652 g/sec

114.0 mg/sec

T9 Avg

120 75

75.0 46.9

377.1 375.5

0.7 2.4

385.2 383.4

0.693 0.693

27,700 27,800

61.1 61.3

835.3

135.3 135.2

85
Run 110

PM : 617 kPa

Z (mm)

Z (dia)

TM (K)

X * (&)

Ts (K

)

Pr

Re

Nuv p

N U EXP

qSM (kW/m2)

T5

15

9.4

350.7

6.2

362.5

0.696

27,800

60.7

596.6

132.9

TA : 467

Tw: 346

T6

43

27.2

354.7

5.2

368.1

0.696

27,600

60.4

521.9

133.3

.7 K

.4 K

T7

75

47.0

358.5

4.2

371.7

0.695

27,400

60.0

523.4

133.5

MA :

Mw:

T8

97

60.8

360.8

3.4

373.4

0.695

27,300

59.9

546.9

133.6

0.654 g/sec

75.6 mg/sec

T9 Avg

120 75

75.0 46.9

362.9 358.5

2.6 4.2

374.8 369.8

0.695 0.695

27,100 27,400

59.7 60.0

574.6

133.7 133.4

Run 910

PM : 686 kPa

Z (mm)

Z (dia)

TM (K)

TS (K)

Pr

Re

Nuvp

N U EXP

qgM (kW/m2)

PM : 687 kPa

Z (mm)

Z (dia)

TM (K)

X . (5£)

T

s (R)

Pr

Re

Nuvp

N U EXP

qqM (kW/m2)

T5

15

9.4

657.4

722.4

0.684

21,600

52.5

63.8

129.6

T5

15

9.4

539.7

0.0

487.4

0.683

26,200

60.9

-84.1

118.2

TA : 696

Tw : N/A

T6

43

27.2

677.4

763.7

0.685

21,200

51.7

47.8

131.9

TA : 686

Tw: 435

T6

43

27.2

556.9

0.0

640.9

0.682

25,700

59.8

54.9

127.2

.5 K

T7

75

47.0

699.8

780.7

0.686

20,800

51.0

50.2

132.9

Run 13

.3 K

.5 K

T7

75

47.0

576.8

0.0

658.7

0.682

25, 100

58.7

55.3

128.2

MA:

Mw:

T8

97

60.8

715.5

798.2

0.687

20,500

50.4

48.6

133.9

MA:

M«:

T8

97

60.8

590.7

0.0

673.0

0.683

24,700

58.1

54.3

129.0

0.874 g/sec

0 . 0 mg/sec

T9 Avg

120 75

75.0 46.9

731.7 700.3

808.8 774.4

0.688 0.686

20,200 20,800

49.9 50.9

51.6 54.6

134.5 132.6

0.884 g/sec

45.5 mg/sec

T9 Avg

120 75

75.0 46.9

605.1 577.7

0.0 0.0

684.2 629.9

0.683 0.682

24,300 25,100

57.4 58.7

55.8

129.7 126.5

86
Run 317

PM

;

Z (

Z (

TM

x «M

TS

Pr

Re

Nuv

NuE

<!SM

687 kPa

ram)

dia)

(K)

(%)

(K)

p

X P

(kW/m2)

T5

15

9.4

392.6

0.0

388.2

0.692

36,000

77.4

-1434.5

129.9

TA : 687

Tw : 354

T6

43

27.2

408.6

0.0

383.5

0.690

35,000

75.8

-239.9

129.6

.2 K

.8 K

T7

75

47.0

426.5

0.0

391.4

0.688

34,000

74.1

-166.5

130. 1

MA : 0. 918 g/sec

Mw:

T8

97

60.8

439.0

0.0

429.0

0.687

33,300

72.9

-581.3

132.9

107.2 mg/sec

T9

120

75.0

452.3

0.0

497.5

0.687

32,600

71.7

130.7

137.8

Avg

75

46.9

427.4

0.0

432.9

0.688

33,900

73.9

133. 1

Run 111

PM'

Z (

Z (

TM

XJ?M

TS

Pr

Re

Nuv

NuE

<1SM

PM:

Z (

Z (

TM

Ts

Pr

Re

Nuv

NuE

*J<iM

686 kPa

mm)

dia)

(K)

(*)

(K)

p

X P

(kW/m2 )

614 kPa

mm)

dia)

(K)

(K)

p

X P

(kW/m2)

T5

15

9.4

375. 1

3.9

382.4

0.693

39,000

82.4

914.7

133.4

T5

15

9.4

353.1

447.2

0.696

26,600

58.8

68.3

122.4

TA : 686

Tw: 337

T6

43

27.2

375.7

3. 1

381.9

0.693

39,000

82.3

1067.3

133.4

TA : 343

Tw : N/A

T6

43

27.2

377.9

488.2

0.693

25,300

56.8

56.1

124.8

.4 K

.5 K

T7

75

47.0

376.2

2.3

383.6

0.693

39,000

82.3

900.3

133.5

Run 47

.6 K

T7

75

47.0

405.9

519.2

0.690

24,000

54.8

52.2

126.5

MA:

Mw:

T8

97

60.8

376.4

1.7

383.5

0.693

39,000

82.3

942. 1

133.5

0.923 g/sec

152.4 mg/sec

T9

120

75.0

376.5

1. 1

383.7

0.693

39,000

82.3

923.9

133.5

Avg

75

46.9

376.2

2.3

382.7

0.693

39,000

82.3

133.5

MA : . 699 g/sec

Mw :

T8

97

60.8

425.5

538.7

0.689

23,200

53.5

50.7

127.6

0.0 rag/sec

T9

120

75.0

445.8

557.3

0.687

22,500

52.3

50.0

128.6

Avg

75

46.9

407.0

509.9

0.690

23,900

54.8

57.1

126.0

87
Run 58

PM : 704 kPa

Z (mm)

Z (dia)

TM (R

)

Ts (K)

Pr

Re

Nuvp

N U EXP

q<.M (kW/m2)

T5

15

9.4

472.2

539.3

0.685

31,400

70.0

77. 1

125.2

TA: 481

Tw: N/A

T6

43

27.2

489.3

571.7

0.684

30,600

68.7

61.9

127.1

.6 K

T7

75

47.0

508.5

591.7

0.684

29,800

67.3

60.0

128.3

MA : 1.017 g/sec

Mw:

T8

97

60.8

521.9

606.7

0.683

29,300

66.5

58. 1

129.2

0 . 0 mg/sec

T9

120

75.0

535.8

619.0

0.683

28,800

65.6

58.3

129.9

Avg

75

46.9

509.0

585.4

0.683

29,800

67.3

65. 1

127.9

Run 69

704 kPa TA : 480.1 K

L

w • 336.5 K

MA : 0.982 g/sec

Mw: 60.1 rag/sec

Z (mm)

Z (dia)

TM (R

n )

TS"(K)

Pr

Re

Nuv p

N

UE x P

q5M (kW/n.2)

PM : 701 kPa

Z (mm)

Z (dia)

TM (K)

X. (%)

T3 (K)

Pr

Re

Nuvp

N U EXP

qSM (kW/m2)

T5

15

9.4

355.6

0.97

365.0

0.695

39,400

82.7

714.9

128.3

T5

15

9.4

353.1

4.1

360.8

0.696

41,600

86.4

902.2

132.0

T6

43

27.2

357.8

0.31

367.6

0.695

39,200

82.5

684.6

128.5

TA: 47

Tw: 32

T6

43

27.2

355.5

3.5

365.0

0.695

41,400

86.1

723.9

132.3

T7

75

47.0

369.7

0.0

388.7

0.694

38,300

81.0

345.0

130.0

Run 78

1.9 K

1.2 K

T7

75

47.0

357.7

2.7

367.7

0.695

41,200

85.9

684.2

132.5

T8

97

60.8

382.6

0.0

415.2

0.693

37,300

79.5

198.8

131.9

MA:

Mw :

T8

97

60.8

358.9

2.2

368.8

0.695

41,100

85.7

696.3

132.6

T9

120

75.0

396.2

0.0

467.7

0.691

36,400

77.9

90.5

135.6

Avg

75

46.9

370.6

0.0

412.0

0.694

38,200

80.8

131.7

1.004 g/sec

91.1 mg/sec

T9

120

75.0

360.1

1.7

369.8

0.695

41,000

85.5

707.4

132.7

Avg

75

46.9

357.6

2.7

366.2

0.695

41,200

85.9

132.4

88
Run 712

PM : 662 kPa

Z (mm)

Z (dia)

TM (K)

X «M (%)

Ts (K)

Pr

Re

Nuvp

N UEXP

qgM (kW/n.2)

T5

15

9.4

348.5

11.8

352.0

0.696

46,000

94. 1

2021.7

133.4

TA: 473

Tw : 307

T6

43

27.2

350.8

11.2

359.4

0.696

45,800

93.7

818.7

133.9

.4 K

.0 K

T7

75

47.0

352.8

10.6

362.3

0.696

45,600

93.4

743.7

134. 1

MA : 1.017 g/sec

Mw:

T8

97

60.8

354.0

10.1

363.4

0.696

45,500

93.3

746.6

134.2

182.2 rag/sec

T9

120

75.0

355.0

9.6

364.4

0.696

45,400

93.1

748.4

134.3

Avg

75

46.9

352.8

10.6

360.4

0.696

45,600

93.4

134.0

Run 118

PM : 686 kPa

Z (mm)

Z (dia)

TM (K)

T3 (K)

Pr

Re

Nuv p

N U EXP

qSM (kW/n.2)

T5

15

9.4

533.9

599.2

0.683

25,900

60. 1

70.6

123.0

TA : 552

Tw : N/A

T6

43

27.2

552.4

633.4

0.683

25,300

59.1

56.3

124.9

.7 K

T7

75

47.0

573.2

652.3

0.682

24,700

58.1

56.5

126.0

MA : .912 g/sec

Mw:

T8

97

60.8

587.7

668.5

0.683

24,300

57.3

54.7

126.9

0 . 0 rag/sec

T9

120

75.0

602.8

680.3

0.683

23,900

56.7

56.3

127.6

Avg

75

46.9

573.8

646.5

0.682

24,700

58.0

61.3

125.7

89
Appendix B--Determination of Heat Leaks

In this appendix the methods used for the determination of

the heat leaks from the heated test section, the transition

section, and the atomizer section as specified in figure 5.1 are

presented.

B.1 Test Section

Losses in this section were found by conducting calibration

tests with only preheated air flowing and no wall power applied.

A control volume was defined along the inside surface of the tube

between the centers of the inlet and outlet electrodes (INLET &

OUTLET on figure 5-1). The mass flow rate of air entering and

leaving was MA. The temperatures of air at the "INLET" and

"OUTLET" locations and the heat loss to ambient were to be

determined.

Assuming constant fluid properties, fully developed flow,

and uniform heat flux, the wall temperature varies linearly with

axial location (Z) and may be expressed as:

Ts(Z) = TAI + (4qSM/GDCp)Z + qSM/h B-l

The first two terms on the right are equivalent to the mixed-mean

fluid temperature at any axial location, and the last term

equivalent to the difference between the wall and mixed-mean

temperatures. With no wall power applied, qSM was only the loss

to ambient (qsoo) . If q3oo were small, the wall and fluid

90
temperatures were nearly equal. This was the case for the

calibration tests.

This linear model was found to closely approximate the

measured wall temperature data. Accordingly, a linear relation

(from a least-squares routine) was used to model measured wall

temperatures, and extrapolated to the "INLET" and "OUTLET"

locations. These were assumed to approximate the corresponding

air temperatures, TAj and TA Q. The test section loss was then

calculated as

QLH = MA (iA(TAI,Pt) - iA(TAO,P0)} B-2

qSM (here equivalent to ~qsoo) was assumed uniform, and calculated

from Q L h - Inlet and outlet temperatures were then recalculated

from equation B-l, using correlation 3-9 to determine h. The

process was repeated until the solution converged.

QLh was found for a range of wall temperatures, and was

correlated against the average wall to ambient temperature

difference. This resulted in an approximately constant thermal

resistance defined as:

»h = {(T3I+Tso)/2) - T.O} / QLh B-3

The results of this analysis were determinations of the

effective thermal resistance of the tube wall to ambient surrounds (including conduction, natural convection, and radiation

effects), and inlet and outlet temperatures for specific test

conditions. The thermal resistance was used in equation 5-3 to

91
correct the local heat flux for losses to ambient. The

temperatures were used to calibrate losses in the transition and

exit sections, as described below.

B.2 Transition Section

As in the heated test section, losses in the transition

section were determined using calibration test results with only

preheated air flowing and no test section tube wall power

applied. A control volume was defined along the inside surfaces

of the atomizer, transition section, and test section tube

between the measuring location T3 and the center of the inlet

electrode (INLET). The mass flow rate of air entering and

leaving was MA . The temperature of air leaving was TA , (found as

described in section B.I). The heat loss to ambient was to be

determi ned .

With only air flowing, T3 measured the air temperature

entering the transition section. Thus, the net loss to ambient

was determined by

where P3 is assumed equal l.o the measured value P2 . The copper

electrode was considered the most significant path of heat loss

from this control volume. This heat leak was calucalated

according to

92
using the measured values of Tx0 and T l l t with RE} based on the

assumption of one-dimensional conduction along the copper

electrode. QLt and QL E l were calculated for a number of cases

and cor-related. The results indicated a proportionality.

In single-phase tests with power input to the test section,

TA, could not be determined by the method of section B.I.

Further, in two-phase tests the T3 thermocouple measured not air

temperature but water temperature. But QL E j could be found for

these tests using B-5, so Qlt was estimated based on the

proportionality:

"utcurren t ~ ^LEIcurren t

 X ^Ltprior'^LEIprio r B — O

In single-phase tests iAI was calculated from B-4 , while in twophase tests 5-9 was used. This required knowledge of the

atomizer loss QL a •

B.3 Atomizer

For tests with only air flowing, T3 was in equi]ibrium with

the air. Thus, the loss through the atomizer walls and

insulation to ambient could be calculated directly:

QLa = MA {iA(TA2,P2) - iA(TA3,P3)}. B-7

From this, an overall thermal resistance (Ra) was determined as

defined by:

93
Since the insulation was thick, Ra was nearly independent of

MA and T2. Thus, a single-phase air-only test was first run to

calculate Ra from B-7 and B-8. Then a two-phase test was run

with minimal changes in MA and T2. Ra was assumed unchanged and

QUa calculated from B-8. This value of QUa was then used in 5-9.

In two-phase tests, heat loss could also occur through the

water injection tube to water flowing in it. This was estimated

based on measured water temperatures and flow rates, and found to

be insignificant.

94
1 Report No

NASA CR-175076

2 Government Accession No. 3 Recipient's Catalog No

4 Title and Subtitle

Heat Transfer to Two-Phase Air/Water Mixtures Flowing

1n Small Tubes With Inlet Disequilibrium

5 Report Date

March 1986

6 Performing Organization Code

7 Authorfs)

J.M. Janssen, L.W. Florschuetz, and J.P. Flszdon

8 Performing Organization Report No

CR-R-86001

10 Work Unit No

9 Performing Organization Name and Address

Arizona State University

Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

Tempe, Arizona 85287

11 Contract or Grant No

NSG-3075

12 Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, D.C. 20546

13 Type of Report and Period Covered

Contractor Report

14 Sponsoring Agency Code

505-69

15 Supplementary Notes

Final report. Project Manager, James W. Gauntner, NASA Lewis Research Center,

Cleveland, Ohio 44135.

16 Abstract

The cooling of gas turbine components has been the subject of considerable research. The problem

is difficult because the available coolant, compressor bleed air, is itself quite hot and has relatively poor thermophysical properties for a coolant. Injecting liquid water to evaporatively cool

the air prior to its contact with the hot components has been proposed and studied, particularly as

a method of cooling for contingency power applications. The subject of the present report is the

injection of a small quantity of cold liquid water into a relatively hot coolant air stream such that

evaporation of the liquid is still in process when the coolant contacts the hot component. No

approach was found whereby one could confidently predict heat transfer characteristics for such a

case based solely on prior studies. It was not clear whether (or to what extent) disequilibrium

between phases (hot coolant air, cold liquid water) at the inlet to the hot component section would

improve cooling relative to that obtained where equilibrium (i.e., complete evaporation of liquid)

was established prior to contact with the hot surface. Tests were conducted with preheated air

entering a small diameter electrically heated stainless steel tube. The test facility incorporated

an atomizer arranged to inject a water mist into the air stream near the tube inlet. The effects of

inlet disequilibrium were observed to extend downstream, first through what was interpreted as an

annular-film flow regime, then through a mist flow regime, followed by a transition to single-phase

in those cases for which the length of the test-section was adequate for the conditions of the test.

The test results in every case showed that lower wall temperatures occurred with inlet disequilibrium. In no case was heat transfer degraded by inlet disequilibrium, either overall or locally.

17 Key Words (Suggested by Author(s))

Heat transfer; Gas turbine; Turbine

cooling; Two-phase; Water Injection;

Mixture; Air-water

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

18. Distribution Statement

Unclassified

STAR Category

20 Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

- unlimited

34

21 No of pages

99

22 Price*

A05

*For sale by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Lewis Research Center

Cleveland. Ohio 44135

Offldal Business

Penally tor Private Use $300

SECOND CLASS MAIL

ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED

Postage and Fees Paid

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

NASA-451

NASA