Inr J. Hror Mos.5 Transfer. Vol 40. No IX, pp. 43454357.

1997
Q 1997 Elsevier Saence Ltd. All rights reserved
Pergamon Pmted in Great Rrltain
0017-9310’9751700+0.00

PI1 : soo17-9310(97)00078-1

Single-phase heat transfer in micro-fin tubes

L. J. BROGNAUX, RALPH L. WEBBt and LOUAY M. CHAMRA
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
PA 16802, U.S.A.

and

BAIK YOUNG CHUNG

LG Electronics Inc, Changwon, Korea

(Received 31 July 1996 and inJinal,form 20 February 1997)

Abstract-Micro-fin tubes are typically used for tube-side condensation and evaporation. This study
provides heat transfer and friction characteristics for single-phase flow in single-grooved and cross-grooved
micro-fin tubes. Data were taken for turbulent flow with 0.70 < Pr < 7.85 for three single-grooved and
three cross-grooved geometries. The cross-grooved tube provides higher performance than the best single-
grooved tube. A key element of this work was to determine the Prandtl number dependency and the effect
of surface geometry on the Prandtl number dependence. The heat transfer characteristics were determined
as functions of the ‘roughness Reynolds number’ using the heat-momentum transfer analogy proposed by
Dipprey and Sabersky. The observed Prandtl number exponent (n = 0.564.57) agrees well with reported
work on different two-dimensional roughness geometries. The present single-phase correlations should be
useful in developing correlations to predict the heat transfer coefficient for forced convection condensation
in single-grooved and cross-grooved micro-fin tubes. 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

Heat transfer enhancement has been an important

factor in obtaining energy efficiency improvements in
refrigeration and air-conditioning applications.
Micro-fin tubes are routinely used to provide enhance-
ment for tube-side refrigerant condensation and evap-
oration. This tube, illustrated in Fig. l(a), has tri-
angular cross-section fins 0.24.35 mm high at helix
angles between 8 and 30” (measured from the tube
center line). Although the tube is routinely used,
rationally based predictive methods are not available.
Correlations for condensation and evaporation in
smooth tubes are typically related to the single-phase
heat transfer performance. Hence, single-phase
characteristics are needed as a ‘building block’ for the
development of the needed two-phase heat transfer Fig. 1. (a) Photo of typical single-helix micro-fin tube ; (b)
correlations. The potential for using micro-fin tubes photo of the Wolverine Turbo-B tube.
for single-phase flow has not been well-established.
Part of the reason for this is that the Prandtl number
dependence for single-phase flow in micro-fin tubes is tubes. The Fig. 1 geometry shows a typical current
not available. production ‘single-grooved’ micro-fin tube. Two-
The micro-fin tube was first developed by Fuji et al. phase performance in 12.7 mm micro-fin tubes with
[l] of Hitachi Cable Ltd and is described by Tatsumi R-22 were reported by Schlager et al. [5]. The enhance-
et al. [2]. Later design variants are described by Shi- ment ratios obtained were as high as 2.2. Evaporating
nohara and Tobe [3]. Its historical development, refrigerant in similar tubes, Khanpara et al. [6] related
modifications and performance for condensation and similar enhancement levels. They also noted a decrease
evaporation are described by Webb [4]. A number of of these levels with increasing mass velocity. Later,
international manufacturers now provide micro-fin Chamra and Webb [7, 81 analyzed condensation and
evaporation heat transfer mechanisms in micro-fin
t Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. tubes. Yang and Webb [9], analyzing condensation of

4345
4346 L. J. BROGNAUX et crl

NOMENCLATURE

4 cross-sectional flow area based on D, Re,, Reynolds number, based on equivalent

WI diameter
‘& frontal area at the inlet and outlet of St Stanton number, iVu/(Pr Re)
the tube [m’] t tube thickness [m]
-4,” inside tube nominal surface area, t, equivalent tube thickness with fins
based on D, [m’] melted down [m]
A,, inside tube total surface area [m’] T temperature [K]
A<, outside tube surface area [m’] u flow velocity [m s-‘1
B(e+) friction similarity function u* frictional shear velocity (rw/p)‘!’
[B(E+) = (2/f)“.5+2.5 [ms ‘I
In(2e/D,) + 3.751 u+ dimensionless velocity, u/u*
CP specific heat [J kg-’ K -‘] u overall heat transfer coefficient
D, equivalent diameter with fins melted [Wm-‘Km’]
down [m] W width of the flat copper strip during
Dh hydraulic diameter of flow passages, the fabrication process of the tube [m]
4MIA,, [ml y+ dimensionless coordinate distance
D, tube inside diameter or diameter to the normal to the tube wall, pyu*/p.
base of internal fins [m]
D, tube outside diameter [m] Greek symbols
fin height [m] LY helix angle relative to tube axis
:+ roughness Reynolds number, eu*jv [degrees]
E hdhp,,,, at constant Re, Es (single- B fin included angle [degrees]
phase), E, (condensation) At,, logarithmic mean temperature
.f Fanning friction factor difference [K]
friction factor based on D, AP pressure drop, AP, (friction), AP,
,; friction factor based on D, (entrance), AP, (exit) [Pa]
G mass velocity based on A, [kg m-* s-‘1 vl efficiency index, (h,,/hp)/(J;,ifb)
h heat transfer coefficient [w mm2 K -‘I p dynamic viscosity [kg mm ’s- ‘1
h I” tube side heat transfer coefficient based V kinematic viscosity [m’ s-‘1
on A,, and D, [w mm2 K-‘1 P density [kg mm’]
k thermal conductivity [W m-’ K-‘1 C contraction ratio, AC/A,
K, inlet friction loss constant used in rw wall shear stress based on pressure
defined by Kays and London [ 19841 drop, AP*A,/L*n*D, [N mm’].
KC exit friction loss constant used in
defined by Kays and London [1984] Subscripts
L flow length [m] a annulus side
m mass flow rate [kg SC’] ave average
n a constant in equation (22) c.p. constant properties
nr number of fins I designates inner surface of tube
Nu,, Nusselt number based on D,, hi,, DC/k in tube inlet
P fin pitch (= 7cDi/nJ [m] 0 designates outer surface of tube
P wetted total perimeter [m] out tube outlet
Pr Prandtl number P plain tube
Q heat transfer rate [W] t tube side
R thermal resistance [K W --‘I wall at tube wall.

R-12 in small hydraulic diameter extruded aluminum
tubes with axial 0.2 mm height micro-fins, were able
to correlate reasonably well their single-phase heat
transfer data with the Petukhov equation. They
reported a direct correlation between the heat transfer
and the surface area increase when using the hydraulic
diameter and also compared, for the first time, the
single-phase with the two-phase performance.
The subject of interest in this work is the single-
phase performance of micro-fin tubes. The micro-fin
tube may be classified as an ‘internally finned’ tube.
The dimensionless geometric variables of an internally
finned tube are the dimensionless fin height (e/D,),
the dimensionless fin pitch (p/e), the fin shape and
included angle (p) and the helix angle. The fin pitch
(normal to the tube axis) is given byp = xD,/n, where
n, is the number of fins around the circumference. The
micro-fin tube typically has 0.02 < e/D, < 0.04,
 Single-phase heat transfer in micro-fin
1.5 <p/e < 2.5 and 13 B a < 30”. Performance of vari-
ous internally finned tubes are reported in the litera-
ture for both single- and two-phase flow. Carnavos
[lo] reported data and empirical correlations for heat
transfer and friction in tubes with internally finned
tubes having 0.03 < e/D, < 0.24, 1.5 < p/e d 2.5 and
13 Q a < 30”. Thus, the geometries studied by Carnavos
have much higher fin heights and more widely spaced
fins than those of the typical micro-fin tube. Carnavos
[IO] found the Nusselt number depends on Prandtl
number to the power 0.4. Using the Carnavos data,
Kim and Webb [1 I] developed an analytical pre-
diction method of friction and heat transfer for tur-
bulent flow in axial internal fin tubes. Their model
predicted the experimental data within 10% for fric-
tion and 15% for heat transfer. Testing micro-fin
tubes with refrigerants R-22 and R- 113, Khanpara et
~1.[6] reported enhancement ratio (hA-ratio) of 1.5-
2.5 for single-phase heat transfer over a smooth tube.
Wolverine [ 121 developed an internally finned tube
for enhancement of water flow inside the tubes of
commercial water chiller evaporators. This tube (Fig.
1(b)) has a fin geometry similar to the micro-fin tube
having e/D, = 0.028 and p/e = 1.94. They report that
the tube provides an hA-enhancement ratio 2.3 times
that of a plain tube in the turbulent flow regime.
Webb [4] notes a distinction between internally
finned and internally rough tubes. Typically, one con-
siders an internally finned tube to provide enhance-
ment because of the surface area increase provided by
the fins. However, an internally rough tube causes
enhancement because of flow separation at the rough-
ness elements. A helical micro-fin tube probably pro-
vides both effects. Modeling methods for rough tubes
were proposed by Dipprey and Sabersky [3]. They
proposed a ‘heat-momentum’ transfer analogy for
three-dimensional roughness inside tubes, which is an
extension of the friction similarity law for rough tubes
proposed by Nikuradse [13]. This model defines a
‘heat transfer similarity function,’ g(e+), where e+ is
the ‘roughness Reynolds number’. Dipprey and
Sabersky showed that the Prandtl number dependence
may be correlated by the function g(e+)Pv-” vs p+.
They showed that the Prandtl number exponent is
0.44 for their three-dimensional roughness. Webb et
al. [ 141 extended the heat-momentum analogy to cor-
relate their friction data for a transverse-rib rough-
ness. Webb found that n = 0.57 for his roughness.
Table 9.8 of Webb [4] shows that all investigators of
roughness, except Dipprey and Sabersky [15], have
shown that 0.50 < n < 0.58.
Considerable data has been published for con-
densation and evaporation in micro-fin tubes.
However, very little work has been done to explain
the single-phase heat transfer mechanisms. The key
objectives of the present work are to present data
on single-grooved and cross-grooved micro-fin tubes,
and to determine the Prandtl number dependency. We
will also determine if the Prandtl number dependency
is dependent on the specific roughness geometry. The
tubes 4341
authors believe that the single-phase data will be very
useful in building correlations to predict the con-
densation coefficient.
EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS
A schematic drawing of the apparatus used for
water flow in the test section is shown in Fig. 2. The
test rig consists of a city water loop and a closed water
loop with counter current city water flow in the test
section. In order to determine the inside heat transfer
coefficient with a high accuracy, the controlling ther-
mal resistance was on the inside of the tube. Because
of the surface enhancement on the inside, a high water
velocity in the annulus was required. However. this
velocity was also limited by the minimum temperature
difference that can be accurately measured (1.5 K).
The annulus was a 20.2 mm inside diameter tube,
completely insulated to allow good heat balance data.
The instrumentation included a digital thermistor
readout and a data acquisition system connected to
a personal computer. This system was also used to
record the differential pressure drop measurements
from the pressure transducer.
The closed water-air loop was connected to the
tube side. It consisted of a receiver tank with its own
heating system, a 1.1 kW centrifugal pump, and an
area flow meter. The large tank capacity allowed a
good control of the water temperature stability before
entering the test section. Using the 8 kW heater, inlet
water temperatures as high as 5YC were attained.
The city water loop was connected to the annulus
side of the test section. This simple loop required only
a flow meter. The city water temperature and flow
rate were very stable. Both water flow meters were
calibrated using a dead-weight balance and a stop
watch. The flow rate was checked by recording the
quantity of water received in a tank over a fixed period
of time. A long time period was chosen to reduce the
error due to the stopwatch manipulation.
The heat transfer data for air flow in the test section
were taken using different flow meters. The air flow
rate was measured with an aqua-matic flow cell pro-
vided with a calibration curve provided by the manu-
facturer. Static pressure at the flow meter was mea-
sured to correct the flow meter reading to the actual
air conditions. The static pressure was also measured
at the tube entrance to determine the air conditions in
the tube.
Pressure drop was measured using the test section
shown in Fig. 3. The temperatures were measured by
four thermistors placed at the inlet and outlet of the
tube and annulus sides. The thermistors, calibrated
with two mercury thermometers. had an accuracy of
O.l’C. For the air experiments, a special mixing sec-
tion was designed and placed between the tube and the
thermistor to insure the correct outlet air temperature
measurement.
The pressure drop was measured by a differential
pressure transducer with an error less than 0.2%. It
4348 L. J. BROGNAUX et al.

Connection to City

Closed Water Loop

Flow Meter

ReceiverTank
with intcmal heating system PressurizedAir
Connection

@ Thermister

m Differential PressureTransducer
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of test facility

3.2 cm
-
2.66 m
__-_-_
3.2 cm
I I
f”
c grooved tube with 17.5” helix angle is MX 17.5. Table
AP
Fig. 3. Pressure drop measurement apparatus.
was calibrated using a mercury manometer and com-
pressed air. However, special connections at each end
of the test section were used for the experiments. These
connections were made with pieces of smooth tubes of
same internal diameter as the tested tube. The pressure
taps were 1.0 mm (deburred), the instrument lines
were purged of air and the pressure drop data were
taken for adiabatic flow conditions.
embossing a flat strip of copper to form the desired
geometry. The strip was then rolled into a round tube
I
and seam welded. Next, they are designated by the
codes MX for single-grooved and MCG for cross-
grooved geometries. The designation for a single
1 shows that three MX tubes were made, having helix
angles of 17.5,20 and 27”. The three MCG tubes were
all made with a first groove angle of 17.5”. The second
groove angle is - 17.5”, but of a smaller groove depth.
The three MCG tubes have second groove depths 40,
60 and 80% that of the first grooves. A tube desig-
nation of MCG 17.5 @ 60% means the helix angles
are 17.5 and - 17.5” with a second groove depth 60%
that of the first grooves. Table 1 summarizes all the
dimensions of the tested tubes. All the tested tubes
have an outside diameter of 15.875 mm (5/8 in).

TUBE DESIGNATION GEOMETRICAL PARAMETERS

Two basic tube geometries were tested : single- and
cross-grooved tubes. These geometries are shown in
Fig. 4(a, b). The cross-grooved tubes were made by
first forming a set of grooves and then by forming a
second set of grooves (at the same opposite angle),
cutting across the first groove set. The depth of the
second grooves is less than that of the first set. These
drawings were provided by Stacks [ 161 and were used
to precisely calculate the geometrical parameters of
the surfaces.
The tubes were produced by Olin Brass Corp. by
Special attention was given to the exact deter-
mination of some geometrical parameters. Precise
definition of the inside diameter of the tube and accu-
rate measurement of the cross-sectional area are
necessary. The common definition of the inside
diameter D, to the base of the fins is suspected to
be less representative of the real conditions than the
equivalent inside diameter D, which would exist if the
fins were melted down and the material returned to
the tube wall. This concept of the equivalent diameter
was used by Webb and Scott [17] in their analysis of
 Single-phase heat transfer in micro-fin tubes 4349

(a>

DofR

I L 0.51 mm Wall Fin apex angle = 30 deg.

0.35 mm Fin (transverse to fin axis)

(b) Fin tip 0.15 mm

DofR

I.‘4 mm 0.60 mm
w Pitch

-tl0.51 mm Wall
\ Cross groove typically
50% of primary fin height
0.35 mm Fin Fin apex angle = 30 deg.
(transverse to fin axis)
Fig. 4. (a) Geometry of the MX tube ; (b) geometry of the MCG tube.

internally finned tubes. It can be easily calculated with yielded the same results for both the MX and MCG
the metal conservation principle. Measurements of the surfaces. Then, using the initial strip thickness
copper strip during the fabrication process gave the (t = 0.89 mm) and material volume conservation we
actual elongation of the strip during the embossing may calculate an equivalent wall thickness t, with the
process. It was determined that the length I. of the flat fins melted down :
strip increased by 39.5% and the width W was not
affected. Hence : CLWt)tnitial
= CLW)findte. (2)
L after W after
~ = 1.395 - = 1. (1) Thus
L before W before

These measurements, done for each type of tube, t, = 0.654mm. (3)

4350 L. J. BROGNAUX et al

Table 1. Tested tubes geometries

MCG MCG MCG

Tube 17.5 17.5 17.5
designation MX 17.5 MX 20 MX 27 @ 40% (a 60% @ 80% Plain

x [degrees] 17.5 20 21 17.5

e [mm1 0.35
e 2nd groove 0.14 0.21 0.28
number of fins 78
P [mm1 0.6
DC[mm1 14.57
DC,[mm1 15.875
& [mm1 7.46 6.41 14.10
f [mm1 0.51 0.89
A, [mm’] 166.65 156.1
A,,iL [mm1 87.65 100.93 44.29
A,,!& 1.915 2.205 1
CiQ 0.0236
Pi’<> 1.66

The equivalent diameter (D,) of 14.57 mm is obtained lation. The measured adiabatic pressure drop AP
by the equation : includes the friction APf, entrance AP, and exit AP,
components :
D, = DO-2t,. (4)
AP = APf+AP,-AP, (7)
The cross-sectional area A, is given by :
The entrance and exit components can be calculated
(5) by the equations

The hydraulic diameter is based on the total internal AP, = $1 -o’+K,)

surface area and the cross-sectional flow area (A,) and
is given by :
4A,L
D, =--
A,, .
The ratio A,,/L was calculated precisely by Stacks
[ 161, with the aid of the surface representations given
in Figs. 3 and 4. Table 1 shows the ratio AJA,,, which
is the actual area increase provided by the roughness,
compared to a plain tube of diameter D,. The increase
in inside surface area compared to a plain tube of
same inside diameter D, is found to be 1.915 for the
MX and 2.205 for the MCG tubes, respectively. These
ratios are independent of the helix angle. Thus, the
total inside surface area is independent of the helix
angle.
AP, =~(I-o’+K,)
where Q is the ratio of the tested tube cross-sectional
area to the frontal area of the inlet and exit connec-
tions. For 0 = 1, the coefficients Kc and K, are zero,
and both entrance and exit components no longer
affect the pressure drop. For this reason, we chose
connections of identical diameters to the tested tubes.
The measured pressure drop was then directly related
to the frictional pressure drop.
The Fanning friction factor is given by equation
(9) :
AP, =fgg

DATA REDUCTION where L is the tube length, D the hydraulic or equi-

The measured temperatures, flow rate, and pressure valent diameter. Solving equation (9) for the friction
drop were analyzed to calculate tube side heat transfer factor using D = D, and D = D, gives :
coefficient and friction factor using a computer data
reduction program. All the fluid properties are cal- ,f, = A,$% (10)
culated at the mean temperature along the test section.

Pressure drop ,fDh = AP$ z. (11)

The data reduction accounted for the additional
plain tube connections between each pressure tap and
tube end. The pressure drops occurring in these 64 Heat transfer
mm lengths were deducted from the total measured The heat transfer rates in the tube and annulus are
pressure drop before performing any further calcu- given by :
 Single-phase heat transfer in micro-fin tubes 4351

Qa = W&V’um - Tam) The above definitions forfand h allow direct com-

parison with plain tube performance for the same
Qt = (~~,)t(Tc,,n- Tt,oud. (12) internal diameter as D,,.
The heat balance defined by :
Plain tube data
H.B. = 1OOy The experimental apparatus was qualified by run-
(13)
t ning heat transfer and pressure drop experiments with
a smooth tube. Performance of plain tubes have been
was used to check the validity of the data. The mini-
extensively reported and actual correlations predict
mum requirement was a heat balance within f5%.
very accurately heat transfer coefficient and friction
Generally, the heat balance obtained was around
factor. The Filenenko equation, recommended by
- 1%
Incropera and De Witt [21], and the Blasius equation
The overall thermal resistance is given by :
(0.079 Rem” “) were used as the comparison basis for
1 AT,, the plain tube friction. Figure 5 shows the plain tube
(14)
u,A, Qcwe data compared with both equations. The experimental
results agree with both equations within f 4%.
where AT,,,, is the log-mean temperature difference and The plain tube heat transfer data for Pr = 6.8 are
compared with the Petukhov equation, as given by
Q, = Qa+Qt
‘l\,e (15) Incropera and De Witt [21]. The comparison of our
2
data with the predicted values is shown on Fig. 6. The
The modified Wilson plot technique, described by experimental data show near perfect agreement with
Farrell et al. [ 181 and Briggs and Young [19] was used the prediction.
to obtain the annulus side heat transfer coefficient. Plain tube data were also taken with air to qualify
The resulting correlation is : the apparatus for gases. Typically, the air friction data
agree as well as the water data with the Filenenko
k
h 0 = 0.0232Rek!Pr”3 - (16) equation. For the heat transfer data, the measured
D, water temperature increase, approximately 0.3 C, was
Assuming no fouling resistance, the tube side heat too small to trust the heat balance. The reduction was
transfer coefficient (based on A,,) is determined from : then done, using the heat transfer rate based on the air
temperature measurements, for which the temperature
4 rise was approximately 10 K. The data agreed within
(17)
1 1 3% of the Petukhov equation. The plain tube friction
R wall Am
uo ho > and heat transfer data serve to validate the exper-
imental method and instrumentation.
with

(18) Figures 7 and 8 present the friction pressure drop

measured in the MX and MCG tubes. The plain tube
is also shown for comparison. These data are for water
The uncertainties of the measured and calculated par-
flow. For Re > 15 000, the pressure drop in the MX
ameters are estimated by following the procedure by
17.5 and MX 20 tubes are 35% higher than for the
Moffat [20]. The experimental uncertainties are listed
in Table 4.
I

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Pr=68

Heat transfer and pressure drop experiments were

conducted separately, in both plain and micro fin
tubes. The pressure drop experiments were performed
for adiabatic conditions. Therefore, the calculated
friction factors do not require any property correc-
tion. The following definitions are used in pres-
entation of the data :

(1) The Fanning friction factor is used and calculated

in terms of equivalent diameter D,.
(2) The heat transfer coefficient (h,,) is defined in
I
terms of the nominal area defined as A,,/L = ~0,.
The corresponding Nusselt number is defined as le+4 1e+5
h,,D,lk. R%
(3) The Reynolds number is defined as Re,, = D,G/p. Fig. 5. Plain tube friction factor comparison.
4352 L. J. BROGNAUX et al.

Pr=68
I

---_____?
0 Mx27 ‘---
a Data A ~~20
0 Mx175
- Petukhov equation I ~- plain tube
(Filenenko equation) /
.L I_.i~i_‘
le+4 le+5 1e+4 le+5

R%h R%
Fig. 6. Plain tube heat transfer comparison. Fig. 9. Friction factor for the MX tubes.

plain tube. The similarity between these two measured

pressures can be attributed to the small helix angle
difference. The pressure drop for the MX 27 tube is
55% higher than for the smooth tube. The MCG tubes
(17.5”primary helix angle) show significantly higher
pressure drop than for the MX-17.5 tube. At the same
Re,,, the MCG 17.5 ((1 40% yields 45% higher
pressure drop than the plain tube. The pressure drop
increases in the MCG tubes as the secondary groove
depth is increased. The pressure drop increase of the
MCG 17.5 (p 80%. is 1.8 times that of the plain tube.
The friction factor, defined by equation (10). are
shown in Figs. 9 and IO for the MX and MCG tubes.
0.1 Ih’S They show f‘vs Re,, over both laminar and turbulent
1 e+4 le+5 regions. The solid line represents the plain tube data
Re, as predicted by the Filenenko equation. The data span
Fig. 7. Friction pressure drop vs Reynolds number in MX 2500 < Re,,, < 50000.
tubes.
Heat tramfcr dutu based on A,,,
All the tubes tested with water had an average
Prandtl number of 6.8. All the heat transfer data were

100 I I’,“,

Water at 22 “C

1 Pr=6.8

c
0 MCG 17.5@60%
I 6 0 MCG 17.5@40% ? ? MCG 17.5@60%
0 MCG 17.5@40%
---- plain tube
0.1 (Filenenko equation)
le+4 le+5 1 I_
le+4 le+5
Re,
Fig. 8. Friction pressure drop vs Reynolds number in MCG Re,
tubes. Fig. 10. Friction factor for the MCG tubes
 Single-phase heat transfer in micro-fin tubes 4353

corrected to the constant property conditions, using Prandtl number dependency

the correction factor for liquids recommended by This investigation was done with Prandtl numbers
Kays and London [22] : between 0.7 and 7.85. Two tubes, MX 17.5 and MCG
17.5 @ 80%, were tested at Prandtl numbers 0.7, 4,
= O” 6.8 and 7.85. The heat-momentum transfer analogy
St, p
st

(>
&II
P
However, the correction never amounted to more than
1.5%. Figures 11 and 12 show the experimental heat
transfer coefficient for Pr = 6.8 based on A,, =
nD,,/L. The solid line represents the plain tube as
predicted by the Petukhov equation. A superposition
of these two graphs would show approximately
performances for the MX 17.5, MCG 17.5 @ 40%
and MCG 17.5 (4 60%. Their heat transfer coefficient
is typically 65% higher than for a plain tube. The
MX 20 and MX 27 tubes perform slightly better with
approximately 80% heat transfer coefficient increase.
Then the MCG 17.5 @ 80% performs the best with
enhancement factors up to 95%.
Pr= 6.8
(19) method was used to define the Prandtl number depen-
dency. A ‘friction similarity law’ was developed by
Nikuradse [ 131 for closely packed sand-grain rough-
ness and is discussed by Schlicting [23]. As discussed
in Chapter 9 of Webb [4], the concept has been shown
to apply to arbitrary, geometrically similar roughness.
Dipprey and Sabersky [15], correlated their data for
a sand-grain surface with the equation :
equal
g(e+, Pr) =fl(2St)-1 +B(e”) (20)
JD
where B(e+) is the friction similarity function for
rough tube. The function g(e’, Pr) is calculated using
equation (20) and the heat transfer data of each tube.
Then a cross-plot of g(e’, Pr) vs Pr for the different
Prandtl numbers allow one to find the Prandtl number
exponent n. As for water, the air heat transfer data
were corrected to the constant properties condition
with the correction factor given by Kays and London
[22] for gases :

st,,=st+
( i
0 36

This correction amounted to less than 2.5%.

Figure 13 presents the function B(e’) vs the rough-
MX27

,ooo/
/yy;~~_:j,j
i A ness Reynolds number e+. Also drawn on this figure
is the line corresponding to the hydraulically smooth
region, B(e+) = 2.5 In (e’) + 5.5. The experimental
data do not show a completely rough region, char-
acterized by B(e’) constant for high values of e+.
Figure 13 shows also a transition region for the smaller
1e+4 1e+5
values of e+, with the data approaching the smooth
%k tube function at the lowest e+.
Fig. 11. MX tubes’ heat transfer coefficient. The heat transfer data presented as g(e +_ Pr) are

I I

I Pr=6.8 A J

12

+i 10

A MCG 17.5@8Ph
0 MCG 17.5@,6O?h 8
0 MCG 17.5@O?h

i ,ooo/ ‘-““.,,‘~,~
1e+4 le+5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

R*, d
Fig. 12. MCG tubes’ heat transfer coefficient Fig. 13. Velocity function vs roughness Reynolds number.
 4354 I>.J. BKOC;NAUX (‘I r/i.
--
Prandtl number dependency
I
$
1 ----T -- - -
WIG 17 5@80%
1 ---TTr-

0 Pr=6.8
0

A Pr-785
3 Pr=6R
0 Pr-4
c: PI-:07

10 100
Kg. II. (I function \\ roughness Kejnolds nutnber for both
tubes. e
Fig. Ih. FInal heat lranslix corrrlntlon for MC‘L i-.S ,/:
80”/0 including Prandtl number dcpcndenc!

number exponent of II! - 0.81 for the MX 17.5 and

111= 0.84 for MC‘G 17.5 ‘i, SO% -rk!se slopes clo\cl)
agree with the 111= 0.X due for ;I plain tub,.%. His
cross-plots of In :\‘I/,,, LS In /+ showed that ,, 0.55
for the MX 17.5 and ,I = 0.57 Ihr the MCG 17.5 (l
80”&. These values arc \‘erh close to the euponcnt\
found for the y(c, ) I’? formulation. Detail5 of this
analysis are found in the Rropnaux [74] thesis.

DISCUSSION

10 100 As shown in Figs. 0 and IO. the liriction factors do

e’
Fig. 15. Final heat transfer correlation for the MX
including Prandtl number dependency.
given on Fig. 14 for both tubes at four Prandtl
numbers. Due to the similarity of the curves for the
MX 17.5 and the MCG 17.5 r~, 80%. we can expect
nearly equal Prandtl number dependency for these
two tubes. A cross-plot of In [g(e ’. PY)] vs In (Pr)
at various values of (1’ yields the Prandtl number
exponent. We find 12= 0.57 for MX 17.5 and II = 0.56
for MCG 17.5 ((1 80%. Figures 15 and 16 show the
correlated data for the two tubes. These resulting cor-
relating equations ~1110~us to solve equation (20) for
Sf, yielding :
Brognaux [24] also investigated the Prandtl number
exponent for the conventional power law equation of
the form
n/U = uRe”DeP,“.
For a plain tube. the Sieder Tate equation showss
that m = 0.8 and II = 1.3. Brognaux found a Reynolds
not attain a constant value at high Reynolds number.
17 S as is observed for many rough tubes. Webb (‘I ~1. [I 41
and Nikuradse [ 131 observed a constant friction factor
at high Rc for repeated-rib roughness and for sand-
grain roughened tubes. rehpectivel) For many of the
rough surfaces. the friction factor attains a constant
value in a fully rough region. as compared to the MX
tubes which she\\ ;I high Reynolds number slope that
is nearly parallel to that of the plain tube. Although
the slope of the MCG tubes is lower than that of the
MX tubes, it is not constant. The plain tube Blaslu~
friction factor equation is I = 0.079 Rc,,,:’ ‘*. Abocc
20000, the friction factor of the MX tubes i\ pro-
portional to RP,,:’ ‘. Chiou r’/ tri. [75] tested micro-tin
tubes of similar shape to the one used m this work
and obtained near identical results. As shown bv tht’
data of enhanced tube data of Webb rt trl. 1141 and
Nikuradse [ 131.their H(c ) function is constant u hen
the friction factor attains a constant caluc. /\s shown
by Figs t 3 and 16. the B(<j ) function does not attain
a constant value at high (’
Prandtl rmdw tlc~/lc~flclrwc
C’
(23,
The Petukhov equation. which is also baaed on
the heat-momentum transfer analogy, correlates the
smooth tube Stanton number in the form :
 Single-phase heat transfer in micro-tin tubes 4355

Table 2. Prandtl number exponents for rough and smooth surfaces

Reference II Pi- Roughness type

Dipprey and Sabersky [15] 0.44 1.2-5.94 sand-grain

Webb et al. [14] 0.57 0.7-37.6 ribs (10 < p/e -c 40)
Sethumadhavan and Raja Rao [26] 0.55 5.2-32 corrugated
Sethumadhavan and Raja Rao [27] 0.55 5.2-32 wire coil inserts
Dawson and Trass [28] 0.58 3204500 ribs (pie < 3.7)
Withers [29] 0.5 2.5.. 10 corrugated
Withers [30] 0.5 4.779.3 helical ribs

“62 surface geometries, can then be extended to the micro-

(24) fin single and cross-grove geometries.
St = l+12,7\~[Pr" -I]‘
Note that the 0.57 Prandtl number dependency
Equation (24) shows that the smooth tube Prandtl observed for many rough surfaces is different from the
number exponent is 2:‘3. Table 2 from Chapter 9 of n = 0.67 value for plain surfaces [cf. equation (24)]. In
Webb [4] summarizes the Prandtl numbers exponents general, this means that the ratio h;h, will increase
which have been reported in the literature, for tur- with increasing Prandtl number for operation at fixed
bulent flow in rough tubes. Note that Table 2 contains Reynolds number. This is beneficial for higher Prandtl
a variety of roughness types. The table shows that number fluids, because ,f,i.rbis independent of Prandtl
most of the tested surfaces have a dependency in the number.
range of 0.5550.58. The major exception is the sand-
grain roughness tested by Dipprey and Sabersky [ 151,
which shows n = 0.44. The MCG 17.5 @ 80% surface An increase in heat transfer enhancement is always
is quite similar to the sand-grain geometry used by accomplished with an increase in pressure drop. It is
Dipprey and Sabersky [15]. The Prandtl number of value to compare the heat transfer and friction
exponent found for the MCG 17.5 (a: SO%, is ratios. The parameter used for this evaluation is the
II = 0.56. This is very close to the value found for the ‘efficiency index’ (q), which is defined by :
other roughness types shown in Table 2. Note that
Dipprey and Sabersky obtained data over a quite
(25)
small Prandtl number range (1.2-5.94). It is possible
that this small range resulted in inaccuracy. Therefore,
This parameter gives the ratio of the increase in
it appears that the Prandtl number dependency of
heat transfer divided by the increase in friction factor.
rough surfaces is not significantly dependent on the
Figure 17 shows the efficiency index for all the tested
specific surface geometry. The n = 0.57 Prandtl num-
tubes, at Pu = 6.8. The qualities that we expect from
ber dependency, which has been observed for many
an enhanced tube are a high heat transfer coefficient
increase and a high efficiency index. Therefore. Table
Table 3. Performances of the tested tubes for water at 3 shows h,,,‘lz, and q for the tested geometries at two
Pr = 6.8 Reynolds numbers. The data are ordered by the mag-
nitude of h,,/h,.
20 000 40 000
R+, h,,,h, v lI,,,:h, 11
1.5 _b 1 /
MX 27 1.87 0.98 1.80 0.96 ?? Mx20
MCG 17.5 ((1 80% 1.80 1.06 1.95 1.04 1 Pr=6.8
?j 1.4 : 0 MX 17.5
MX 20 1.71 1.09 1.78 1.05 A Mx27
MCG 17.5 (a’ 60% 1.70 0.99 1.69 0.89 r.”
2 1.3: A MCG 17.5@80% -1
MCG 17.5 (tz 40% I .66 1.07 I .63 0.95 0 MCG 17.5@40% I
MX 17.5 1.63 1.04 1.67 I .02 B
Q 1.2 : 0 MCG175@6O?h
--- Z

e
II 1.1 :
F
:$aB*geI~:
Table 4. Experimental uncertainties d 1.0 _
.r: A
s bX Qo
Sensor5 5 0.9 r "OUIQQ:
Temperature +o.o5’c 'G
Water flow rate i_ I .5% of full scale B 0.8 F
Pressure k 2.5 kPa
Parameters 0.7 I 'I"' * ’ ”
Friction factor i_4.9% 20000 40000 60000
Heat rate * 8.25%
Heat transfer coefficient +9.65% be
Fig. 17. Efficiency index of the tested tubes.
4356 L. J. BROGNAUX et ~1.

The heat transfer enhancement ratio of the MX
tubes increases with the helix angle. The h,,/h, for the
MCG tubes increases as the second groove depth is
increased. At Re,, = 20 000, the MX 27 tube provides
the best heat transfer enhancement. Its relatively low
4 index is compensated by its level of heat transfer
enhancement. The MCG 17.5 (u, 80% also gives very
good performances, with high values for both h,,//~,,,~,~
and q. At Re,, = 40000, the MCG 17.5 (ti 80% is
clearly the best performer with a heat transfer
enhancement of 95% and an q-value above I .O. The
MX 20 provides nearly the same enhancement than
the MX 27 with a 9.4% higher q-value. It appears that
the MCG 17.5 @ 80% is the tube giving the best
overall results. For Pr = 6.8, heat transfer enhance-
ment between 80 and 95% over the range 20000
< Re,, < 40 000 can be expected with efficiency index
above 1.0.
The influence of the Prandtl number on the
efficiency index was also investigated. Figure 18 shows
how the Prandtl number influences the q-index. For
both the MX 17.5 and MCG 17.5 ~a; 80%, the figure
clearly shows that higher q is obtained at the higher
Prandtl numbers. For Pr = 6.8, the index q is 12%
higher than for air (Pr = 0.7). We also note that q > I
for Pr = 6.8. Thus, the increase in heat transfer is then
greater than the increase in pressure drop. Because
the friction factor, at a given Reynolds number, is
independent of Pr, the heat transfer performance
increases with increasing Pr. Webb et al. [14, 41
reported the same tendency for a repeated-rib rough-
ness. With a Prandtl number range much larger, they
showed that the ratio 4 attains a maximum at c+ v 14,
which corresponds to low Reynolds number. The q-
value for Pr = 80 is almost 100% higher than for
Pr = 0.7. Thus, the higher the Prandtl number. the
better the surface performs.
CONCLUSIONS
Single-phase heat transfer and friction were mea-
sured for single and cross-grooved micro-fin tubes.
Two of the tested tubes were used to determine the
Prandtl number dependence, based on data for
0.7 < Pr < 7.85. The Prandtl number dependency was
determined using the heat-momentum transfer anal-
ogy. The Prandtl number exponent (0.56-0.57) is in
good agreement with most of the research done on
rough tubes of various roughness types. The depen-
dency found by Dipprey and Sabersky [15] for sand-
grain roughness does not agree well with that
measured for the MCG 17.5 ‘((8 80% tube. which
closely approximates the sand-grain roughness.
The Prandtl number exponent was also determined
for the power law formulation, Nu r* Re”’ Pr”. The
result found was n = 0.55~.-0.57. This exponent is
essentially the same as that found from the heat-
momentum transfer analogy formulation. The global
performance of each surface were then compared
using both the heat transfer enhancement ratio and
the efficiency index. This comparison show-ed that the
cross-grooved MCG 17.5 (a 80% tube provides
higher performance than the best single-grooved MX
tube. The MCG 17.5 ‘U 80% tube provided an
enhancement ratio as high as 95% and an efficiency
index 46% better than that of a plain tube.
It appears that an optimal helix angle exists for
single-grooved MX tubes. The MX 20 tube provided
significantly higher efficiency index than the MX 27
tube and yielded only slightly lower enhancement
ratio. The effect of Prandtl number on the efficienq
index was investigated for two tubes tested at different
Prandtl numbers. This ratio increases with increasing
Prandtl number and can be greater than 1.0. These
results show that rough surfaces will be more efficient
than plain tubes for use of higher Prandtl number
fluids. It is believed that the present single-phase heat
transfer and friction correlations will be useful in
developing correlations to predict the condensing
coefficient III single and cross-grooved tubes.
Ackriouk~~~er,~rrlr The authors would hke to express thclr
thanks to Olin Brass Corporation for supportmg this proJect
and providing the tubes.

d 0.8 t_
Fig. 18. Influence of Prandtl number
REFERENCES
1. Fuji, K.. itoh. N., Innanu. T., Kimura. H.. Nakaqama.
N. and Yanugldi. T.. Heat transfer pipe. U.S. Patent
4044797. assigned to Hitachi Ltd. 1977.
2. Tatsumi. A.. Oirumi. K.. Hayashi. M. and Ito. M..
Application of mner grooved tubes to air conditioners.
Hitachi Rrricn’. 1982. 32(l). 55 60.
3. Shinohara, Y. and Tobe. M.. Development OJ an
Improved thermoiin tube. tfltachi Cable RrrGen. 1985.
(4), 47- 50.
4. Webb. R. L.. Princplr,c of Ethunwd Hear 7’runric~r.
Chapters 13 and 14. Wiley, New York. 1994.
5. Schlager. L. M.. Pate. M. B. and Bergles. A. E.. trap-
oration and condensation heat transfer and pressure
drop in horizontal. 12.7-mm micro-fin tubes with
refrigerant 22. Journnl offfrtrl Twnsfw. 1990. 112, 1041~
1047.
6. Khanpara. J. C., Pate, M. B. and Bergles, A. E.. Local
evaporation heat transfer in a smooth tube and a micro-
on efficiency index fin tube using refrigerants 22 and 113. In Boi/ing7 md
 Single-phase heat transfer in micro-fin tubes 4351

Condensntion in Heat Transfer Equipment, ASME Sym- 19. Briggs, D. E. and Young, E. H., Modified Wilson plot
posium, Vol. HTD- Vol. 85, ed. E. G. Ragi. ASME, New techniques for obtaining heat transfer correlations for
York, 1987, pp. 31-39. shell and tube heat exchangers. Chemical Engineering
7. Chamra, L. M. and Webb, R. L., Condensation and Progress Symposium Series, 1969, 65, 35545.
evaporation in micro-fin tubes at equal saturation tem- 20. Moffat, R. J., Describing the uncertainties in exper-
peratures JournalofEnhancedHeat Transfer, 1995,2(3). imental results. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science,
8. Chamra, L. M., Webb,, R. L. and Randlett, M. R., 1988, 1, 3-17.
Advanced micro-fin tubes for condensation and advanced 21. Incropera, F. P. and De Witt, D. P., Fundamentals oj
micro-fin tubes for evaporation. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transjer, 3rd edn. Wiley. New York,
Heat and Mass Transfer. 1996.39, 1839-1846. 1990.
9. Yang, C.-Y. and Webb,‘R. L., Condensation of R-12 in 22. Kays, W. M. and London, A. L., Compact Heat
small hydraulic diameter extruded aluminum tubes with Exchangers, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New Y ark, 1984.
and without micro-fins. International Journal of Heat 23. Schlicting, H., Boundary-Layer Theor),. 7th edn.
and Mass Transfer, 1996, 39, 801-809. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1979, pp. 60&620.
10. Carnavos, T. C., Heat transfer performance ofinternally 24. Brognaux, L. J., Single-phase heat transfer in micro-
finned tubes in turbulent flow. Heat Transfer Engin- fin tubes. M. S. thesis in Mechanical Engineering, The
eering, 1980, l(4), 32-37. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
11. Kim, N.-H. and Webb, R. L., Analytic prediction of the 16802.
friction and heat transfer for turbulent flow in axial
25. Chiou, C. B., Wang, C. C. and Lu, D. C., Single phase
internal fin tubes. Journal of Heat Transfer, 1993, 115,
heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics of micro-
553-559.
fin tubes. A report from the Industrial Technology
12. Wolverine, Engineering Data Book II, eds K. J. Bell
Research Institute and the National Chiao Tung Uni-
and A. C. Mueller. Wolverine Tube Corp, Decatur, AL,
versity, Hsinchu, Taiwan, 1995.
1984.
26. Sethumadhavan, R. and Raja Rao, M., Turbulent flow
13. Nikuradse, J., Law of flow in rough pipes. VDI-For-
friction and heat transfer characteristics of single- and
schungsheft. 1933, p. 361 (English translation, NACA
multi-start spirally enhanced tubes. Journal of Heat
TM-1292, 1965).
Transfer, 1986, 108,55561.
14. Webb, R. L.. Eckert, E. R. G. and Goldstein, R. J..
Heat transfer and friction in tubes with repeated-rib 27. Sethumadhavan, R. and Raja Rao, M., Turbulent flow
roughness. International Journal of Heat and Mass heat transfer and fluid friction in helical wire coil inserted
Transfer, 1971, 14,601-617. tubes. International Journal of Heat und Mars Trcmsfer,
15. Dipprey, D. F. and Sabersky, R. H., Heat and momen- 1983,26, 1883-1845.
tum transfer in smooth and rough tubes at various 28. Dawson, D. A. and Trass, O., Mass transfer at rough
Prandtl numbers. International Journal of Heat and Mass surfaces. International Journal qf Heat Mass Trcmsfer.
Transfer, 1963, 6, 329-353. 1972, 15, 1317-1336.
16. Stacks, B. C., Private communication, Olin Corporation, 29. Withers, J. G., Tube-side heat transfer and presa,ure drop
East Alton. IL, 27 March 1995. for tubes having helical internal ridging with turbulent!
17. Webb, R. L. and Scott, M. J., A parametric analysis transitional flow single-phase fluid, part II, multiple-
of the performance of internally finned tubes for heat helix ridging. Heat Transfer Engineering, 1980. 2(2). 43%
exchanger application. Journal qf Heat Transfer. 1980, 50.
102,38-43. 30. Withers, J. G., Tube-side heat transfer and pressure drop
18. Farrel, P., Wert, K. and Webb, R. L., Heat transfer and for tubes having helical internal ridging with turbulent/
friction characteristics of turbulator radiator tubes, SAE transitional flow single-phase fluid, part I, single-helix
199 I Transactions, 199 1,100, Section 5,2188230. ridging. Heat Transfer Engineering, 1980, 2(l). 48-58.