International Journal of Fluid Mechanics Research, Vol. 33, No.

4, 2006

Pressure Drop in Laminar and Turbulent Flows in Circular Pipe

with Baffles – An Experimental and Analytical Study †

Mushtak T. Al-Atabi and S. B Chin

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sheffield
Sheffield, UK
Sulaiman Al-Zuhair
School of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
The University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus
Semenyih, Malaysia

Xiao Yu Luo
Department of Mathematics, University of Glasgow
Glasgow, UK

Flow in a circular pipe fitted with segmental baffles may be treated as a shell-
without-tube system. Its pressure drop has been calculated by adapting the Kern
correlation [1] for pressure drop in the shell side of shell-and-tube heat exchang-
ers. The Kern correlation is essentially based on the Hagen – Poiseuille equation
for laminar flow, but flow visualization results presented here show that enhanced
mixing and turbulence-like flow may be present at Reynolds numbers (based on
the pipe diameter) as low as 50. A mathematical model, accounting for the ef-
fects of geometry of the baffle configurations, has been developed to predict the
pressure drop in circular pipe fitted with segmental baffles. The model was solved
algebraically for flow in pipe with three baffle arrangements and the results were
validated by experimental data. The pressure drops thus calculated showed better
agreement with experimental results than those predicted by the modified Kern
model for Reynolds number in the range of 50 – 600.

* * *

Nomenclature

a baffle thickness, [m];

Ab projected area of baffle, [m2 ];
Ac clearance area at baffle section, [m2 ];
AD unobstructed area of pipe, [m2 ];
b baffle spacing, [m];

† Received 30.03.2006

303
ISSN 1064-2277
°c
2006 Begell House, Inc.
c maximum clearance of baffle, [m];
Cp Euler number, (∆P )/(ρU 2 /2);
D pipe or shell diameter, [m];
Dh hydraulic diameter, [m];
fh friction factor based on hydraulic diameter;
f friction factor based on pipe diameter;
Lf flow path length, [m];
Ls length of the test section, [m];
N number of baffles;
n exponent in Eq. (12);
pc wetted perimeter at the baffle section, [m];
pD circular pipe circumference, [m];
Q volume flow rate, [m3 /s];
ReD Reynolds number based on pipe diameter = ρU D/µ;
Reh Reynolds number based on hydraulic diameter = ρUc Dh /µ;
U average velocity, [m/s];
Uc average velocity based on clearance area at the baffle, [m/s];
Y constant in Eq. (3).

Greek Symbols

α laminar flow coefficient defined in Eq. (14);

β turbulent flow coefficient defined in Eq. (16);
∆P pressure drop across the test section, [Pa];
γ ratio of wetted perimeter to circular pipe circumference;
µ dynamic viscosity, [Pa · s];
ρ density, [kg/m3 ];
χ parameter defined in Eq. (10);
ξ ratio of the clearance area to the circular pipe area.

Introduction

One of the most widely used heat exchangers in industry is the shell-and-tube type due to its
relatively simple construction and multi-purpose applications for gaseous and liquid media over
large temperature and pressure ranges. Many types of baffles have been used in shell-and-tube heat
exchangers over the years to increase the rate of heat transfer and to provide structural support. The
most commonly used baffles, the segmental baffles, cause the shell side fluid to flow across the tube
bundle, thus improving heat transfer by enhancing local mixing on the shell side of the exchanger,
but at the cost of an increase in pressure drop [1–4].
Besides heat exchangers, circular pipes fitted with segmental baffles also find varied applica-
tions such as in chemical reactors, labyrinth seals [5], filtration [6] and desalination [7]. Pipe with
segmental baffles also has been used as an idealized model of the human cystic duct to simulate the
flow of bile from human gallbladder to the common bile duct [8, 9].
Flow visualization and pressure drop measurements have been involved to study the effects of
baffle configuration on the flow [2, 4, 6, 8, 10–15] and on heat transfer [14]. However, as far as the
present authors are aware, no analytical modeling has been attempted to predict such phenomena.
Kern correlation [1] has been used frequently to estimate the pressure drop across the shell

304
side in shell-and-tube heat exchangers. The pressure drop, P , is dependent on the distance across
the tube bundle, the internal diameter of the shell, D, and the number of baffles, N . Coulson and
Richardson [16] converted the correlation into SI units as:
D
∆P = f (N + 1) ρU 2 , (1)
Dh
where f is the friction factor ρ is the density; Dh is the hydraulic diameter, and U is the average
velocity. Most of the empirical correlations for the pressure drop in pipes with baffles also were
based on Eq. (1) [17, 18].
In the Kern correlation, the pressure drop in the shell side of a shell-and-tube heat exchanger is a
function of the hydraulic diameter which is dependent on the tube diameter, the spacing between the
tubes and the type of array. However, for a shell without tube (referred to as a pipe with baffles here),
the hydraulic diameter, Dh is identical to the shell diameter, D. For pipe with non-overlapping
baffles (i. e., baffle clearance to diameter ratio, c/D > 0.5), the friction factor, f , in Eq. (1) may be
estimated from the Hagen – Poiseuille equation:

f = 64ReD , ReD < 2100. (2)

For pipes with baffles that overlap (i. e., c/D < 0.5) Coulson and Richardson [16] modified Hagen –
Poiseuille equation such that f = 80ReD for c/D = 0.3. Hence the Kern correlation, Eq. (1), for
pipe with baffles may thus be written as:

Y (N + 1) µ 2  64, c/D > 0.5,
∆p = Re D , Y = (3)
ρD 2  80, c/D = 0.3,

where µ is dynamic viscosity of the fluid.

Since Eq. (3) assumes that the friction factor is derived from the Hagen – Poiseuille equa-
tion, then it is strictly applicable to laminar flow only. Flow visualization, on the other hand, has
suggested that turbulence-like flow is present in 2D flow at ReD = 600 [2] and in 3D flow at
ReD = 50 [12]. Therefore, it is unlikely that Eq. (3) is able to describe such flow adequately at
Reynolds numbers above 50 due to the appearance of turbulence-like flow.
Clearly, there is still a need to further understand the nature of flow in shell-and tube and in
pipes with baffles. In this paper, an analytical rather than an empirical correction is developed to
calculate the pressure drop in pipe with baffles system in the nominally lamianr flow regime.

1. Experimental Procedure

1.1. Experimental Setup. Experiments were carried out to investigate the effects of the
baffles on pressure drop and flow structure in circular pipe. Fig. 1 shows a schematic diagram of
the experimental apparatus and Fig. 2 – the cross-section of the pipe with uniformly spaced baffles.
Water from a supply tank flows through a pipe of length 35 times the pipe diameter (development
length) before entering the section of the pipe with baffles (the test section). A downstream pipe
of length 20 pipe diameters minimized the influence of exit conditions on flow in the test section.
A needle valve placed near the exit provided fine control on the flow. Flow rate was measured by
weighing the flow over a time period by using a graduated cylinder and a stopwatch. The pressure
drop was measured with an inclined water manometer with pressure tappings sited 1.5D upstream
and 1.5D downstream of the baffle section of the rig. Three models were tested with different baffle

305
 Water Supply
Tank
Dye
Injection Burette

Light Source

Valve

Digital
Camera
Slot for Light
Sheet
Flow
Direction
Black Box

Test Section

Valve

Fig. 1. Schematic of the experimental apparatus.

b A
c a
D Flow

35 D Development Test Section 'xs

20 D Outlet A
Length Section Side view

Fig. 2. Schematic of the circular pipe with segmental baffles.

306
 10

Experimental Results
Hagen-Poiseuille Equation

Friction Factor, f
1

0.1

0.01
10 100 1000 10000
ReynoldsRe
Number,
D
Re

Fig. 3. Experimental and theoretical friction factor in a straight circular pipe without baffles.

height to pipe diameter ratios c/D = 0.7, 0.5, and 0.3. All the models contained 8 baffles with
baffle spacing to pipe diameter ratio, b/D = 1.5.
1.2. Experimental Rig Validation. To validate the experimental rig, laminar flow friction
factor in a straight circular pipe without baffles was calculated from measured pressure drop and
flow rates and compared with those given by the Hagen – Poiseuille equation. The comparison,
shown in Fig. 3, reveals a good agreement between experimental and theoretical results.
1.3. Flow Visualization. A fluorescent dye, Fluorescen [19], was used to visualize the flow.
The dye was injected upstream of the development length at the geometric center of the pipe. The
test section was enclosed in a black cardboard box to minimize reflection. Sheet lighting was intro-
duced through a slit on the upper side of the black box by a fluorescent lamp (National ST 296) to
illuminate the test section. Flow structures were captured using a digital camera (Sony DSC-S75)
with a 3.2 Megapixel resolution.
Flow visualization was carried out for three baffle configurations at Reynolds numbers, ReD ,
from 50 to 600. Samples of flow visualizations are given in Figs 4 – 6 for ReD = 50; 100, and
250, respectively. In Fig. 4, with c/D = 0.7, the laminar flow appears able to negotiate the large
clearance without losing its characteristic structure at the three Reynolds number considered here.
In Fig. 5, with a smaller clearance (c/D = 0.5), laminar flow structure was still visible up to
ReD = 100 in Fig. 5b. However in Fig. 5c where ReD = 250, it can be seen that the streamlines
were no longer distinguishable after the fourth baffle; and the flow downstream appears non-laminar.
With clearance further reduced, Fig. 6b shows that this non-laminar structure first appear after the
third baffle at ReD = 100.
Flow visualization carried out here show that baffles in the pipe change laminar flow to non-
laminar, turbulence-like flow at Reynolds number where laminar flow in circular pipe would be
expected to persist throughout. These results also agree with those of previous workers [10, 12].
Generally the smaller the c/D (larger obstruction to flow), the lower the Reynolds number and the
further upstream at which the change to non-laminar flow occurs.

307
 (a) ReD = 50

(b) ReD = 100

(c) ReD = 250

Fig. 4. Flow visualization in pipe with baffles, c/D = 0.3 (the flow is from left to right).

(a) ReD = 50

(b) ReD = 100

(c) ReD = 250

Fig. 5. Flow visualization in pipe with baffles, c/D = 0.5 (the flow is from left to right).

308
 (a) ReD = 50

(b) ReD = 100

(c) ReD = 250

Fig. 6. Flow visualization in pipe with baffles, c/D = 0.7 (the flow is from left to right).

2. Mathematical Model

The pressure drop across a circular pipe with baffles depends on wall friction, which is influ-
enced by its geometric configuration and flow structure. However, Luo and Pedley [20] showed
that for flow through a collapsed channel, energy dissipation caused by viscous effect in the thin
boundary layer of the narrowest cross-section can be much greater than that of flow separation
downstream. Therefore, the model being developed here will mainly take into account the pre-
vailing geometric effects as the dominant factor in predicting pressure drop in a circular pipe with
baffles.
The hydraulic diameter of the pipe with baffles is given in Eq. (4) (see Appendix D for its
derivation):
ξ
Dh = D . (4)
γ
Here,
 µ ¶r ³ c ´2 1 µ ¶

 2 2c c −1 2c D

 1 + − 1 − − cos − 1 , c> ,

 π D D D π D 2



 D
ξ= 0.5, c= , (5a)

 2




 · µ ¶¸ µ ¶r ³ c ´2

 1 π −1 2c 2 2c c D
 1− + sin 1− − 1− − , c< ,
π 2 D π D D D 2

309
  r ³ c ´2 1 µ ¶

 2 c −1 2c D

 1 + − − cos − 1 , c> ,

 π D D π D 2



 D
γ= 0.82, c= , (5b)

 2



 r ³ c ´2 1 µ ¶

 2 c 2c D

 0.5 + − − sin −1
1− , c< ,
π D D π D 2
where ξ is the ratio of the clearance area to the circular pipe area, and γ the ratio of the wetted
perimeter to the circumference of the circular pipe.
From continuity, the average velocity at the baffle clearance, Uc , is related to that upstream of
the test section:
U
Uc = , (6)
ξ
where U is the average flow velocity upstream of the test section.
The relationship between Reynolds number based on the pipe diameter and its hydraulic diam-
eter, Reh , is
ReD
Reh = . (7)
γ
At the test section, the baffles necessitate the flow to travel a length greater than that of the test
section. The flow path length, Lf , is related to the test section length, Ls , in Eq. (8) by assuming
the worse case:
Lf = Ls + 2(D − c)N. (8)
The pressure gradient across the test section thus becomes
µ ¶ µ ¶
dP 1 dP
= , (9)
dLf χ dLs
where
2N D(1 − c/D)
χ=1+ . (10)
Ls
Since Figs 4 – 6 suggest that two flow regimes may co-exist in the pipe with baffles, expressions
need to be found to relate the pressure gradient in Eq. (9) to the two flow regimes. When the flow is
laminar, the well-known Poiseuille equation (2) may be used and for the non-laminar, turbulence-
like flow, the Blasius expression [21], Eq. (11), is used.
0.316
f= 1/4
. (11)
ReD
The general expression developed by Churchill and Usagi [22] to correlate asymptotic solutions for
large and small values of the independent variables are adopted here to derive an expression relating
the pressure drops for the tow co-existing flow regimes in a manner similar to that described by
Teertstra et al. [23]. Hence, the friction factor based on hydraulic diameter for the pipe with baffles
becomes "µ ¶n à !n #1/n
64α 0.316β
fh = + 1/4
. (12)
Reh Reh
The coefficients, α and β in Eq. (12) are related to the geometry of the pipe with baffles while
the index n may be evaluated by comparison to available experimental data. By assuming that

310
the non-laminar, turbulence-like flow behaves like a turbulent flow, analytical determinations of
the relationships for the coefficients are presented for the two asymptotic flows, i. e., laminar and
turbulent flow, in the following section.
2.1. Laminar Flow Coefficient α and Turbulent Flow Coefficient β. The coefficient for
laminar flow, α, in Eq. (12) may now be derived from Poiseuille equation, Churchill and Usagi’s
equation [22] and Darcy’s equation (13):

(dP/dLs )D
fh = − (13)
ρU 2

and from Eqs (4) – (7), (9) to give:

χγ 2
α= . (14)
ξ3
Similarly, the coefficient for turbulent flow in Eq. (12) may also be derived for smooth pipes from
and Blausius equation [21], Churchill and Usagi’s equation [22] and Darcy’s equation (13):

0.316 (dP/dLs )Dh

0.25 = − ρUc2
(15)
Reh

and from Eqs (4) – (7), (9) to give

χγ 5/4
β= . (16)
ξ3
2.2. Optimization of the Value of n. The model, comprising Eqs (12), (14), (16) can now
be completed by experimentally determining the value of n in Eq. (12). Circular pipes fitted with
eight equi-spaced staggered baffles with c/D = 0.7, 0.5 and 0.3 were employed in the experiment.
Pressure drop across the baffle section was measured over a range of Reynolds number. The mea-
sured pressure coefficient, i. e., the Euler number, Cp , was then used to optimize the value of n in
the present model. The comparisons are shown in Fig. 7a and Fig. 7b for the baffle geometries of
c/D = 0.3 and 0.7, respectively. It can be seen that the present model is insensitive to values of
n larger than three, and that the experimental data are best fitted with n = 3 for the range of c/D
considered here. Therefore, n = 3 is deemed to be the optimized value for the present model.

3. Discussion

The capability of the model in Eqs (12), (14), and (16) is compared to that of Kern’s [1] in
predicting the measured pressure drop. Figs 8a – c show the comparison of the Euler number vs
Reynolds number for the three pipe with baffles configurations. The Kern model under-predicted
the measured Euler number by about two orders of magnitude for all the three pipe with baffle
systems. As discussed earlier, the Kern model [1] was based purely on Poiseuille equation and
applicable to laminar flow only. Flow visualization, Figs 4 – 6, of the flow structure in the baffle
system suggested that turbulence-like flow is present at Reynolds numbers much lower than the
critical value of 2100. It is noticeable that the Euler’s number predicted by the Kern model was
closer to the experimental value at large clearance ratio, when the flow is more laminar-like as it
was less disrupted by the baffles. Hence the Kern model becomes more applicable. However, the
present analytical model still predicted the experimental results better than that of the Kern model
for these conditions.

311
a) Experimental Data
n=0.5
n=1.0
n>=3.0
1000
CP

10
100 1000
Re D

1000
b) Experimental Data
n=0.5
n=1.0
n>=3.0
100
CP

10

1
10 100 1000
Re D

Fig. 7. Optimization of the value of n: a) c/D = 0.3, b) c/D = 0.7.

312
 1000
a) Experimental Data b) Experimental Data
The present model (n=3) The present model (n=3)
1000 Kern model (1950) Kern model (1950)
100

CP
10

CP
10

0.1
0.1
100 1000
100 1000
Re D
Re D

1000
c) Experimental Data

313
The presnt model (n=3)
Kern model (1950)

100

CP
10

1
10 100 1000
Re D

Fig. 8. Comparison between experimental, the Kern’s model and the present model, Euler number vs Reynolds number:
a) c/D = 0.3, b) c/D = 0.5, c) c/D = 0.7.
 Conclusions

An analytical model has been developed to predict the pressure drop across pipe with baffles
system in nominally laminar flow condition. Flow visualization suggested that the baffles induce
turbulence-like flow structure at Reynolds number much lower than the critical value where flow
transition is expected to occur. The model accounted for the geometry of the baffles and used well-
known correlations to combine the effects of turbulent and laminar flows. In addition, the model
equations were solved algebraically, which makes it very convenient to use. The capability of the
present model in predicting pressure drop in pipe with baffles system has been compared to that
of the commonly used Kern model [1]. The present model shows much better agreement with the
experimental data when compared to that of Kern [1] at various clearance to diameter ratios for
Reynolds number between 50 and 600.

Appendix A. Geometric relationships for D/2 < c

A1. Wetted Perimeter.

From Fig. A1 we have
Length ko = c − D/2,

Length io = |mo| = D/2,

Length ik = L.
For the triangle iko
µ ¶2
2 D D2
L + c− = . (A1)
2 4
Rearranging Eq. (A1), we obtain that
s µ ¶2 r 2
D2 D D D2 p
L= − c− = − + cD − c2 = cD − c2 . (A2)
4 2 4 4
The length of the arc ij in Fig. A1, S, is given by
µ ¶
D D c − D/2
S= θ= cos−1 . (A3)
2 2 D/2
j
S
Ab
L
k m
i T
o D
c

Fig. A1.

314
Then the length of the wetted perimeter can be derived as
µ ¶ p
c − D/2
pc = πD − 2S + 2L = πD − D cos−1 + 2 cD − C 2
D/2
à r µ ¶! (A4)
2 c ³ c ´2 1 2c
−1
= πD 1 + − − cos −1 .
π D D π D

The ratio of the wetted perimeter (at the baffle section) to the pipe circumference, γ, is given by
r ³ c ´2 1 µ ¶
2 c 2c
γ =1+ − − cos−1 −1 . (A5)
π D D π D

A2. Clearance Area.

From Fig. A1, the sum of area of the baffle Ab and that of the triangle imo is given by
µ ¶
D2 D2 2c
Ab + Area imo = 2θ = cos−1 −1 . (A6)
4 4 D

Since the area of the triangle imo is

µ ¶ p µ ¶ µ ¶r ³ c ´2
D D 2 c 1 c
Area imo =L c− = cD − c2 c − =D − − . (A7)
2 2 D 2 D D

The baffle area, Ab , is

µ ¶ µ ¶r ³ c ´2
D2 2c c 1 c
Ab = cos−1 −1 −D 2
− − . (A8)
4 D D 2 D D

Hence the clearance area of the baffle, Ac , is

µ ¶ µ ¶r ³ c ´2
πD2 πD2 D2 −1 2c 2 c 1 c
Ac = − Ab = − cos −1 +D − −
4 4 4 D D 2 D D
" µ ¶ r µ ¶ # (A9)
πD2 2 2c c ³ c ´2 1 2c
= 1+ −1 − − cos−1 −1 .
4 π D D D π D

Let AD be the area of the pipe based on the pipe diameter, the ratio of the clearance area to the pipe
area, ξ, is
µ ¶r ³ c ´2 1 µ ¶
Ac 2 2c c −1 2c
ξ= =1+ −1 − − cos −1 . (A10)
AD π D D D π D

Appendix B. Geometric Relationships for D/2 > c

B1. Wetted Perimeter.

From Fig. B1 we have
Length ok = D/2 − c.
For the triangle iok:
µ ¶2
D D2
L2 + −c = . (B1)
2 4

315
 A’
L
I o
j
T D
i
k h
c

Fig. B1.

Rearranging Eq. (B1),

s µ ¶2 r 2
D2 D D D2 p
L= − −c = − + cD − c2 = cD − c2 . (B2)
4 2 4 4

The length of the arc ij, S, in Fig. B1 is

µ ¶
D D D/2 − c
S= θ= sin−1 . (B3)
2 2 D/2
Hence the length of the wetted perimeter is
µ ¶ p
πD πD −1 D/2 − c
pc = − 2S + 2L = − D sin + 2 cD − c2
2 2 D/2
" r µ ¶# (B4)
2 c ³ c ´2 1 2c
= πD 0.5 + − − sin−1 1 − .
π D D π D

The ratio of the wetted perimeter (at the baffle section) to the pipe circumference, γ, is given by
r ³ c ´2 1 µ ¶
2 c 2c
γ = 0.5 + − − sin−1 1 − . (B5)
π D D π D

B2. Clearance Area.

From Fig. B1 we have
· µ ¶¸
0 D2 D2 π −1 2c
A = (2φ) = + sin 1− . (B6)
8 4 2 D
The area of the triangle ioh is
µ ¶ p µ ¶ ³ r
D 2
D 2 c´ c ³ c ´2
Area ioh = L − c = cD − c − c = D 0.5 − − . (B7)
2 2 D D D
The area of the baffle, Ab , can then be derived as
· µ ¶¸ ³ r
D2 π 2c c´ c ³ c ´2
Ab = A0 + Area ioh = + sin−1 1 − + D2 0.5 − − . (B8)
4 2 D D D D

316
Hence the area of the clearance, Ac , is

πD2
Ac =
− Ab
4
· µ ¶¸ ³ r
πD2 D2 π −1 2c 2 c´ c ³ c ´2
= − + sin 1− − D 0.5 − − (B9)
4 4 2 D D D D
à · µ ¶¸ µ ¶ r !
πD2 1 π 2c 2 2c c ³ c ´2
−1
= 1− + sin 1− − 1− − .
4 π 2 D π D D D

The ratio of the clearance area to the pipe area, ξ, is

· µ ¶¸ µ ¶r ³ c ´2
Ac 1 π −1 2c 2 2c c
ξ= =1− + sin 1− − 1− − . (B10)
AD π 2 D π D D D

Appendix C. Geometric Relationships for D/2 = c

C1. Wetted Perimeter.

µ ¶
πD 1
pc = − D = πD 0.5 + . (C1)
2 π
The ratio of the wetted perimeter (at the baffle section) to the to the pipe circumference, γ, is

γ = 0.82. (C2)

C2. Clearance Area.

The clearance area, Ac , is
πD2
Ac = . (C3)
8
Taking AD to be the area of the unobstructed pipe, the ratio of the clearance area to the pipe area,
ξ, is given by
Ac
ξ= = 0.5. (C4)
AD

D
c

Fig. C1.

317
 Appendix D. Hydraulic Diameter Derivation

The hydraulic diameter is defined by Eq. (D1):

4Ac 4ξAD ξ
Dh = = = D. (D1)
pc γpD γ

REFERENCES

1. Kern, D. Q., Process Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1950.

2. Berner, C., Durst, F., and McEligot, D. M., Flow Around Baffles, Trans. ASME J. Heat Transfer,
1984, 106, pp. 743–751.
3. Lia, H. and Kottkeb, V., Analysis of Local Shell Side Heat and Mass Transfer in the Shell-and-
Tube Heat Exchanger with Disc-and-Doughnut Baffles, Int. J. Heat and Mass Transfer, 1999,
42, pp. 3509–3521.
4. Kakac, S. and Liu, H., Heat Exchangers Selection, Rating, and Thermal Design, CRC Press
LLC, Florida, 2002.
5. Benim, A. C. and Arnal, M., A Numerical Analysis of the Labyrinth Seal Flow, Comp. Fluid
Dyn., 1994, 2, pp. 839–848.
6. Johansen, S. T. and Anderson, N. M., A Mathematical Model for Large Scale Filtration of Alu-
minium, In: EDP Congress’90, D. R. Gaskell, Ed., The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society,
1990, pp. 441–445.
7. Rahman, H., Hawlader, M. N. A., and Malek, A., An Experiment with a Single-Effect
Submerged Vertical Tube Evaporator in Multi-Effect Desalination, Desalination, 2003, 156,
pp. 91–100.
8. Al-Atabi, M. T., Chin, S. B., and Luo, X. Y., An Experimental Study of the Flow in an Idealized
Human Cystic Duct, In: First Asian Pacific Biomechanics Conference, Osaka, Japan, 2004,
pp. 33–34.
9. Ooi, R. C., Luo, X. Y., Chin, S. B., Johnson, A. G., and Bird, N., Fluid-Structure Interaction
(FSI) Simulation of the Human Cystic Duct, In: Summer Bioengng Conf.,Florida, USA, 2003.
10. Al-Atabi, M. T., Chin, S. B., and Luo, X. Y., Visualization of the Flow in Circular Tube with
Segmental Baffles at Low Reynolds Numbers, In: 11th Int. Sympos. on Flow Visualization,
Notre Dame, USA, 2004.
11. Al-Atabi, M. T., Chin, S. B., and Luo, X. Y., Visualization of Mixing of Flow in Circular Tubes
with Segmental Baffles, J. Visualiz., 2005, 8, N 2, p. 89.
12. Al-Atabi, M. T., Chin, S. B., and Luo, X. Y., Flow Structure in Circular Tubes with Segmental
Baffles, J. Flow Visualiz. Image Process., 2005, 12, pp. 301–311.
13. Gunter, A. Y., Sennestrom, H. R., and Kopp, S., A Study of Flow Patterns in Baffled Heat
Exchangers, ASME Preprint, 1947, No. 47-A-103.
14. Gupta, R. K. and Katz, D. L., Flow Patterns for Predicting Shell-Side Heat Transfer Coefficients
for Baffled Shell and Tube Exchangers, Ind. Engng Chem., 1957, 49, pp. 998–1004.
15. Hele-Shaw, H. J. S., Flow of Water, Nature, 1898, 58, pp. 34–36.
16. Coulson, J. M. and Richardson, J. F., Chemical Engineering, vol. 1, Butterworth Heinemann,
Oxford, 1999.
17. Tinker, T., Shell-Side Characteristics of Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers, In: General Discus-
sion on Heat Transfer, Inst. Mech. Engng, 1951, pp. 89–116.
18. Palen, J. W. and Katz, D. L., Solution of Shell Side Flow Pressure Drop and Heat Transfer by
Stream Analysis Method, Chem. Engng Prog. Sympos. Ser., 1969, 65, pp. 53–63.

318
19. Merzkirch, W., Flow Visualization, Academic Press, Florida, 1987.
20. Luo, X. Y. and Pedley, T. J., A Numerical Solution of Unsteady Flow in a Two-Dimensional
Collapsible Channel, J. Fluid Mech., 1996, 314, pp. 191–225.
21. Streeter, V., Wylie, E., and Bedford, K., Fluid Mechanics, McGraw-Hill, Singapore, 1998.
22. Churchill, S. W. and Usagi, R., A General Expression for the Correlation of Rates of Transfer
and Other Phenomenon, AIChE, 1972, 18, pp. 1121–1128.
23. Teertstra, P., Yovanovich, M. M., and Culham, J. R., Pressure Loss Modelling for Surface
Mounted Cuboid-Shaped Packages in Channel Flow, IEEE Trans. Components, Pt A, 1997,
20, N 4, pp. 463–469.

319