J. E.

K R O L L Heat Transfer in an LTV Falling

Postgraduate Research Engineer/
Department of Engineering.
Film Evaporator: A Theoretical
J. W . M c C U T C H A N
Associate Professor of Engineering,
Department of Engineering. Mem. A S M E and Experimental Analysis
University of California, Los Angeles, Calif.
Two slightly differing mathematical models were developed to describe the heat transfer
in the long tube vertical falling film process. The process was investigated experi-
mentally with a 3/i in. dia tube for various lengths up to 13 ft, for flow rate Reynold's
numbers from 1000 to 13000, for temperature differences of the order of 20 deg F, and
for vacuum conditions down to 160 deg F. A comparison of theoretical and experi-
mental results was made and was found to be in good agreement; that is, within 10 per-
cent.

Introduction 2 The pressure level (P L ) (or temperature level T L ) at which

THE long tube vertical (LTV) falling film evaporator
is one design for the multiple effect distillation process that holds
promise for the economical conversion of sea water to fresh
water. The purpose of this investigation was to study heat
transfer characteristics of the LTV evaporator both experi-
mentally and theoretically. We believe that new insight was
gained by the application of theoretical analysis in determining
the significant design parameters and possible areas of improve-
ment of performance.
From the literature, [1-8] 1 it is evident that the major inde-
pendent parameters affecting heat transfer are:
1 The temperature difference between the condensing steam
and the evaporating film (AT L ).
1 N u m b e r s in brackets designate References at end of paper.
C o n t r i b u t e d b y the H e a t T r a n s f e r Division of THE AMERICAN
SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS a n d presented at the A S M E -
A I C h E H e a t T r a n s f e r Conference and Exhibit, Seattle, W a s h . ,
A u g u s t 6 - 9 , 1967. M a n u s c r i p t received b y H e a t T r a n s f e r D i v i s i o n ,
S e p t e m b e r 23, 1966. P a p e r N o . 6 7 — H T - 3 0 .
evaporation is taking place.
3 The inlet flow rate of the liquid feed (j1/0 or Re0).
4 The temperature of the inlet feed (7',).
5 The salinity of the water.
6 The length of the tube (L).
7 The diameter of the tube (D).
8 The tube characteristics: type of metal, thickness, and
type of treatment applied to tube.
Not all of these parameters were investigated, however.
Experimentally, only the variation of heat transfer with tem-
perature difference, temperature level, inlet flow rate, and tube
length were investigated. These same parameters plus the
variation with diameter were investigated theoretically. The
experimental equipment was such that a variation with diameter
could not easily be made, so that only a tube with an inside
diameter of 0.61 in. was used. Tap water was used rather than
sea water for convenience and to minimize the scale deposition
problem. The tube material, Admiralty brass, was not varied
nor was the treatment on the tube. The tube was sandblasted
on both sides to promote film stability. A film was desired on

-Nomenclature-
"film side" refers to the inside of H = heat of vaporization of kt = thermal conductivity of
the tube with the fall- film side (Btu/lb m ) = the tube (Btu/ft-sec-
ing film H(Tl) deg F)
Hs = heat of vaporization of L = length of tube (ft)
"steam side" = refers to the outside of steam side (Btu/lb m ) M = mass flow rate of the
the tube where steam = H,(T,) liquid on film side
is condensing (lb,„/sec) = Mix)
h = local heat transfer coef-
the mean slope of the ficient on film side = .!/„ = mass flow rate of vapor
curve relating vapor h(x) (Btu/ft 2 -sec-deg on film side (lb„,/sec)
temperature to vapor F) = M.(x)
pressure = lis = local heat transfer coef- M D = measured distillate rate
Ts - T l ficient on steam side (lbm/sec)
= h,(x) (Btu/ft 2 -sec- M Da = apparent distillate rate
P(TS) P{TL,)'
deg F) = M,CHJH
deg F-ft 2 M K = actual steam conden-
hc = actual combined heat
lbr transfer coefficient = sate rate
hc(x) (Btu/ft 2 -sec-deg Pr = Prandtl number of liq-
D = diameter of the inside of F) uid on film side =
the tube (ft) Pr (Tl)
h' = dimensionless heat
<7 = acceleration of gravity transfer coefficient = P = pressure of vapor on film
= 32.2 ft/sec 2 h(x)\p side (lbt/ft 2 ) = P(x)
k = thermal conductivity of A P = pressure difference =
gc = conversion factor = liquid on film side P(0) - P(x)
32.2 ft-lb m /lbf-sec 2 (Btu/ft-sec-deg F) (Continued on next page)

journal of Heat Transfer MAY 1 9 6 8 / 201

Copyright © 1968 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 the condensing side so that the same theoretical principles ap-
plied to both sides. The inlet water temperature (!',-) was T = F[ P + ^ ) + bpr (1)

maintained at the same value as T L and was not varied inde-

pendent!}'.
Theoretical Background
Tlie heat transfer mechanism on the condensing side is well
understood. Unless the outside of the tube is treated to promote
dropwise condensation, the steam condensate will flow as a con-
tinuous film down the outer surface of the tube. Heat is re-
leased as the steam condenses on the film surface. This heat
flows through the film and the tube wall to the evaporating film
on the inside of the tube.
The heat transfer mechanism on the evaporating side is not
so well understood. There are three possible mechanisms dis-
cussed by Dukler, et al. [9].
1 Vapor-liquid interface boiling. This is condensation in
reverse.
2 Nucleate boiling. Vapor is evolved from bubbles produced
at the tube surface.
3 Vapor film boiling. Vapor is evolved in a film adjacent to
the tube wall.
The experimental results from all sources (including this
study) virtually eliminate mechanism 3 as a possibility. If
vapor film boiling took place, the heat transfer data would be
an order of magnitude lower. It was observed at the Freeport
Demonstration Plant that liquid was discharged at the bottom
of the tubes in a continuous sheet. Based on this observation,
Dukler, et al. [9] eliminated nucleate boiling as a possibility.
Sinek and Young [5], however, postulate that the film does con-
tain bubbles but not enough to destroy the essential liquid tex-
ture of the film. They believe that these bubbles will affect the
vapor temperature, proposing the following relation:
where F is the known functional relationship between vapor
pressure and vapor temperature, and bpr represents the boiling
point rise which is zero if no salt is present.
There can be no doubt that interface boiling plays the major
role, if not the sole role, in the heat transfer. This mechanism
was assumed in the development of Dukler [10]. He used the
eddy viscosity treatment of Deissler [11] and assumed that defi-
nite transition points between laminar and turbulent flow did
not exist in a thin film. With the aid of a computer, he calculated
the dimensionless heat transfer coefficient (h') for a flowing
liquid film as a function of Reynolds number (Re), dimensionless
shear coefficient (/3) and Prandtl number (Pr). For values of
Pr equal to 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, and 10.0, he plotted h' versus
Re ranging from 100 to 100,000 with /3 as a parameter, ranging
from 0 to 4000. This is probably the most important work done
in the analysis of the heat transfer to a liquid film. He also calcu-
lated the dimensionless film thickness (8') as a function of Re
and (3. These graphs are found in the appendix of reference [10].
Development of Mathematical Models
Since the exact evaporation mechanism is uncertain, two
slightly differing heat, transfer mechanisms will be considered.
First, the interface boiling mechanism will be considered (Theory
I). Then a type of nucleate boiling mechanism will be considered
(Theory II). We will assume that the bubbles do not destroy
the liquid texture as postulated by Sinek and Young [5].
It has been shown by Broker [2] that the rate of increase of the
distillate flow rate with length of tube decreases with increased
length. Dukler, et al. [9] developed a model considering a con-
stant length and diameter. As in that model, we will assume
that this observed phenomenon is due entirely to the pressure
drop within the tube. As the tube is made longer, the frictional

=Nomenclature-
U„ = apparent overall heat He viscosity of vapor on
= pressure gradient inside
dx transfer coefficient = film side (lbm/ft-sec)
3600
tube (lbt/ft 3 ) =~(x) M,CH, or
dx ATrirDL " ' viscosity of steam con-
r = inside radius of tube (ft) Hp. densate = fiK(Tt)
= 900 ARe£ density of liquid on film
rs = outside radius of tube LATL P
f = average radius = (r + Btu side (lb m /ft 3 ) = p(TL)
''J/2 (hr-ft2-degF, Pr density of vapor on film
Re = Reynold's number of variable instance down side (lb m /ft, 3 ) =
film side liquid = the tube (ft) with x PV(Tl)

2 M(x) = 0 at top surface tension of liq-

= Re(:t)
uid-vapor interface on
•Kfxr a = film side (lbt/ft)
ARe = Re 0 - Re AT2 interfacial shear be-
Re,. = Reynold's number of P dimensionless shear co- tween liquid film and
film side vapor = efficient = P(x) =
vapor (lbt/ft 2 )
Ti gc
^ = Re,, Or)
+
irjv p'/s^Va g-, M2 V" = i
=
Re sc = Reynold's number of p'-gk*) k\
s = film thickness on film
liquid on steam side (ft) = 5(x) = t(TL)
2 Msc the value of ip for the
side = = Resc(.-c) 5' = dimensionless film, thick- &c =
ness = 6(x)\ steam condensate =
t = tube thickness (ft) 2a = / ^ V M W 7
' 4>sc(.Ts)
T = vapor temperature on

L
Krf \gM/\ P J
ARe d{ARe)
film side (deg F) = I =

f.
(gjg"-/3)
T(x) R =
T, = temperature of con- 2p1'V/j
densing steam (con- _4 4k /p^V/> 7 d(ARe)
stant) Hp.\p ~ H \ M6 / o
AT = temperature difference (PVM2)1/3 = \(TL)
= T. - T(x) viscosity of liquid on Subscripts

T { = temperature of inlet film side (lb m /ft-sec) L — refers to x = L

liquid = KTl) 0 — refers to x = 0

202 / MA Y 1968 Transactions of the A S M E

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 drag will cause an increased pressure level within the tube to STEAM SIDE
drive vapor out the bottom. With increasing pressure the tem-
perature on the film surface will increase, causing a decrease in
the temperature difference across the tube. This, in turn, will
cause a decrease in heat transfer.
From a simple mass balance, the following is obtained for the
mass flow rate of the vapor:

Mv = Mo - M = — ARe (2)

From a heat balance through the tube wall as shown in Fig. Fig. 1 Heat flow through the tube cross section
1, considering a differential amount of heat flux (dq):

dq = hcAT(2xr)dx = dMvH = dM,cH, (3) assuming film thickness is negligible compared to the tube radius.
The dimensionless shear coefficient (/?) from Dukler [10] can
where hc is the actual combined heat transfer coefficient between then be expressed in terms of the pressure gradient:
the steam side temperature (J1,) and the film side temperature
(T), defined arbitrarily over the area 27rr dx. Differentiating Ti <Jc —
(11)
equation (2) with respect to x and combining with equation (3), p ' V A q"1'' dx
using the definition for the dimensionless heat transfer coefficient
where
4A T 1 d{ ARe)
(4) 1 0c
Hut dx ?= 2 p( V3„V3
'/y, g
Using equations (2) and (3) and the definition of Reynolds num-
ber for the steam condensate flow: It is desirable to obtain equations in terms of j3, since /3 must be
considered in using Dukler's calculations for the local heat trans-
„ H r a . fer coefficient.
Re«c = 77 — — A R e (5)
Hs r, nsc Using equation (11) in equation (4), the dx can be eliminated.
Then equation (9) can be substituted for AT in equation (4)
As shown in Fig. 1, the heat flow from the steam side to the which upon integration becomes:
film side will encounter three thermal resistances: the condens-
ing film outside, the tube wall, and the falling film inside. Sum-
ming these resistances, using the dimensionless heat transfer
coefficient, and cancelling common factors:
{ (7. - b)PL -Pi} - (T. - b)P +
H
•' AReL
AReL g
2
1 1
' h' tp + k—
rip
(6) /' ARe
h + rji- t
p, d(ARe') (12)
It can be shown that the above may be simplified
A; to obtain:

-h"*' - J - - sL v
If an expression for (3 in terms of ARe is known, then h' and
h,' can be evaluated for various values of ARe from the calcu-
lation of Dukler [10].
r ar,, 1 2a f A R e i 13
tZ(ARe') (13)
If the pressure drop in the tube is negligible, then the tempera-
ture difference is constant down the tube. Letting AT = ATu In order to simplifj' notation the following quantities are
equation (4) can be integrated to give: defined:

-r /.
ARe/.
h
L = (7) - ci(ARe')
KA TL

where k and I L are defined as follows: 2a = /aH\/

(14)
/• AReL d(ARe) K>i Vffcfo'/V P
IT. = (S)
Hrf' Jo h' Then equation (13) becomes:

If the pressure drop is significant, then AT cannot be assumed AT2 = A ? V e(JL - J) (15)
constant and must be expressed in terms of the vapor pressure
Now substituting equation (15) into equation (4) for AT and
(P). This can be clone easily using steam tables and assuming
setting limits of integration over the length of the tube:
a linear relation between vapor pressure and temperature. This
assumption is very good for the magnitude of temperature differ- CL 1 f A R e i d( ARe)
a
ence of primary interest, namely, from 0 to about 20 deg F. I dx — L — — I , (16)
Jo K Jo h/VAT. - e (Jl ~ J)
AT = (T, - b) - aP, (9)
Equation (16) is the basic equation to be solved. However,
T. T,. it cannot lie integrated until an expression for the two-phase
where a = evaluated from steam tables, and b
P{T,) - P{Tl)

can be found also, but is not needed.

annular pressure gradient
(f) 1 is found in terms of ARe.

is needed to determine /3. To date, the only method of evalua-

This

Using a force balance, it can be shown that, if acceleration and tion is by empirical means. Lockhart and Martinelli [12] intro-
gravitational effects on the vapor flow are negligible, then the duced two groupings to correlate data. Dukler [10] used these
interfacial shear can be expressed in terms of the two-phase groupings and his own data at atmospheric conditions to obtain
annular pressure gradient: the following:
r (d-P\ dP
(10) — = -10.9 dP\o-ls Aj^Y-2 (17)
Ti = - ¥ dx dx/v \dx,

Journal of Heat Transfer MAY 1 968 / 203

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 where (dA
\dx /„
i the pressure gradient if vapor were flowing alone
is

dP\
Now let us assume that /3 and .7 are related as follows:

P = eJ» (24)
in the tube and ( — ) is the pressure gradient if liquid were
\dx/1
where e and n may depend on Re0, D, and TL, but not ARe.
flowing alone in the tube. Using the Fanning and Blasius equa- It can be shown that this equation is exactly /3 = ej"ll+" when
tions [13]: ARe .
h j is constant and is approaching zero. In our equipment
Re 0
dP
= - A Re 0 - 3 9 R e „ " (18) hc' does not vary radically because of the interaction of h' and
dx
h,', and is small in most cases in our range of interest.
where Reo
Therefore equation (24) is a good approximation. Substituting
1.712 ^ . ' - y - "
equation (24) into equation (23):

f
A =
8) .3 pi.nptM
- T " . (25)
Equation (18) is inadequate for temperature levels less than eJ"V(ATL• - eJL) + eJ
212 deg F at which the pressure gradient increases considerably. Jo
There is no known correlation for vacuum conditions. There- This integral may be solved by applying integration by parts
fore only the form of equation (18) was assumed to be applicable. continuously to form an infinite series starting with u = [(AT L2
From equation (2) - eJL) + and dv = J~"dJ. The result is:

Jl1-' l/2q
//ARe KL = 1 +
Re„ = (19) eATL(l - n) (2 - »)
fJ-v
(1/2X3/2)
Then the form of the pressure gradient equation is assumed to + (2 - n)(3 - n)
a2 + (26)
be:

dP <f> where
— = — Re2ARe" (20)
dx r3

Since the pressure gradient is not measured directly in the

a = A3V
falling film evaporator, the parameters y, z, and <j> must be
It can be shown that this series converges for a < 1. It is
evaluated using data for the pressure drop (AP L ). This was
seen that a = 1 is a limiting condition implying that there is a
done by first assuming that the variation of ARe with x was
maximum value of ARe;, corresponding to
approximately linear,
A 7V
JL = for any given condition.
ARe (21) e
If AT is invariant down the tube, a = 0 and equations (26)
and (7) must be identical.
This is a good assumption for conditions where ARe/, is not too Then:
large. Then Re z = (Re0 — ARe) 2 was expanded, using the
1
binomial expansion, and equation (20) could then be integrated. (27)
The pressure drop may be written: e A T L (1 - «) A TL'

4>L and equation (26) becomes:

A P , ~ Reo* A R e , (22)
(y + i)r3 (l/2)(3/2)
'l L , 1/2
L = 1 + a + (28)
kAT, (2 - n) (2 - ,0(3 - »)
if the data used are such that is much smaller than 1.
Reo This is the best form of the equation to use to accurately calcu-
Pressure drop data were obtained for the 3 / j in. tube (r = late numerical results. An equation for evaluating the parameter
0.305 in.) at temperature levels of 212 deg F, ISO deg F, and 160 n can be derived from equation (27), using = eJL":
deg F. The data were found to fit the form of equation (22)
fairly well. The following values for the parameters y, z, and </> JL
1 - n = (29)
were determined: PJl

r L V z Equations (2S) and (29) constitute Theory I and can be used to

212 deg F 2.0 0.5 0.369 X 10" 11 calculate specific values of L for various values of ARe L , Re,,,
180 deg F 2.33 0.5 0.277 X 1 0 - " TL, and ATL (e.g., variation of ARe L with L, Re0, TL, and ATL
160 deg F 2.04 0.5 3.55 X 10" 11 can be found Implicitly), The variation with diameter (D)
can also be calculated since we assumed in equation (20) that
With a knowledge of the variation of the pressure gradient the pressure gradient varied inversely with the cube of the
with ARe, /3 can also be expressed in terms of ARe from equation radius.
(11). Then, conceptually, equation (16) can be solved, but a To calculate specific values, a table such as Table 1 was made
computer or a tedious graphical method must be used to solve for every desired combination of Reo, T L , and D. Table 1 is
the integral as it stands. However, it was found that the in- for a 3 / 4 in. tube for T L = ISO deg F and Re0 = 1000. For
tegral could be expressed in an infinite series in the following incremental value of ARe, |3 is calculated. Then W and hi,',
manner: the values of h' and h,' for Pr = 2 are found from Dukler's
First we change the variable of integration of equation (16) calculations. These values are corrected for the actual value
from ARe to J. Then: of Pr at T L . Then l//? e ' is calculated using equation (6). I and
J are then found by graphical integration. Knowing I and J,
kL =

J 'Jl
0 /?V(AJV
dJ

- *Jl) + tJ
(23) L can be found for various values of ARe L using equations (28)
and (29).

204 / MAY 196 8 Transactions of the A S M E

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 1 Theoretical calculations for D = 0 . 6 1 i n . , Tl = 1 8 0 d e g F, a n d Reo = 1000

„ 0- 5 2. 33 -
Re ARe Re (ARe) 10 " 4 P 1/h' 0/h'
"V
1 • io-3 J • io"3
H 4 s c c
1000 0 0 0. 210 CO 5. 033 0 0 0
975 25 31. 22 0. 1808 0 . 0257 0. 211 0. 40 6. 946 0. 179 0. 160 -
950 50 30. 82 0. 910 0. 128 0. 214 0. 320 7. 366 0. 942 0. 340
900 100 30. 00 4. 57 0. 625 0. 226 0. 258 7. 708 4. 82 0. 719 0. 155 0. 345
800 200 28. 28 22. 95 2. 96 0. 266 0. 230 7. 431 22. 00 1. 48 1. 43 0.326
700 300 26. 46 59. 00 7. 12 0. 315 0. 219 7. 035 50.08 o 20 4. 93 0. 315
600 400 24. 49 115. 5 12. 90 0. 375 0. 211 6. 679 8 6 . 15 2. 89 11. 69 0.314
500 500 22. 36 194. 3 19. 61 0. 432 0. 210 6. 358 125. 96 3. 54 22. 32 0.318
400 600 20. 00 297. 0 27. 09 0. 530 0. 210 5. 945 161. 09 4. 16 36. 71 0. 325
300 700 17. 32 425. 0 33. 57 0. 635 0. 210 5. 644 189. 47 4. 74 54. 56 0. 343
200 800 14. 14 581. 1 3 7 . 60 0. 750 0. 210 5. 411 203.45 5. 30 74. 21 0. 3 7 2
100 900 10. 00 764. 5 3 4 . 80 0. 905 0. 210 5. 190 180.61 5. 83 93. 40 0. 460
25 975 5. 00 921. 2 21.0 1. 100 0. 210 5. 001 105. 0 2 6. 21 104.10 0. 600
0 1000 0 0 w 0. 210 4. 124 0 6. 80 105. 30

The variation of J /I(i is a measure of validity of the approxi-
mation of equation (24). If the equation were exact, this
quantity would be invariant with a variation of ARe, since n
is assumed to be constant. Table 1 shows that this variation is
great only as ARe/Reo approaches 1 which is consistant with
our initial constraint. From this table, it appears that the ap-
proximation is good for values of AI?e/Re 0 approaching 0.8.
Since, under most practical conditions, this ratio is not nearly
0.8, the approximation would seem to be justified.
It was found while calculating the tabulated values that the
value of n varied little from the value of y/l + y. Therefore
n can be assumed to be y/l + y and equation (29) becomes:
1
Jl = (30)
l + y
This equation simplifies calculation significantly because now
only I L needs to be calculated by graphical integration.
If there are bubbles present in the falling film then Theoiy I
will not accurately describe the system. However, if the number
of bubbles is not great enough to alter the essential liquid texture
of the film, as postulated by Sinek and Young [5], we can assume
that Dukler's calculations for the heat transfer coefficient are
applicable. Then Theoiy I can be modified to account for these
bubbles. Using equation (1), assuming the function F is linear
as was done previously:
+
A?" = T, T' = T,
"(P 7)
The development of both these theories is unique in two ways.
1 The actual pressure drop data of the evaporator were used
to develop expressions for the pressure gradient at all temperature
levels investigated. Dukler, et al. [9] did not have an expression
for the pressure gradient at vacuum conditions so one was
assumed.
2 The development was sufficiently simple so that a computer
was not necessary to calculate numerical values as was done by
Dukler [9]. However, a computer is desirable if a number of
values is to be calculated.
Experimental Analysis
The experimental equipment is shown schematically in Fig. 2.
Water from the citj' line is heated to the boiling point and intro-
duced into the water inlet chamber. Here it is distributed in a
film on the inside wall of the tube by a vortex feed mechanism.
Saturated steam is introduced into the steam chamber outside
the tube at a temperature {Te) which is ATL greater than the
temperature level { T L ) of the evaporator. Heat flows from the
steam on the outside to the falling film on the inside. Vaporiza-
tion takes place on the inside, condensation on the outside. The
vapor flows out the bottom of the tube, turns 90 deg and flows
to a condenser where the condensate yield is obtained. The
unvaporized portion falls straight to the bottom of the vapor
chamber where it is pumped out of system. The steam con-
densate flows in a film down the outside of the tube and is pumped
from the bottom of the steam chamber.
(31)
PRESSURE

where T' is the effective vapor temperature due to bubble super-

heat in this new model.
Proceeding in a manner similar to that used in the previous
HEAT
development, an expression for AT' similar to equation (15) for EXCHANGER -
AT can be obtained. However, the expression is veiy compli-
WATER I N L E T
cated due to the variation of the film thickness (8) with x. For- CHAMBER
tunately the assumption of an average value of 8 (designated as
8) allowed the development of a series solution similar to equation
(28).

1/2 d/2)(3/2)
L = 1 + a' + a" +
kAT, (2 - n ) (2 - re)(3 - n)

(32)
TO V A C U U M
PUMP
where
COOLING WATER
4c —, .m 4a . eJ,,
AT,' = AT, - a; AT' = ATL r- a; a' = ==£.
SL 8 AT - DEMISTER
CONDENSATE

CONDENSER
A T l represents the measured temperature difference while ATL' VAPOR
COOLING WATER CHAMBER
represents the effective temperature difference at x — L. AT'
represents a mean effective temperature difference. Arbitrarily, Md
YIELD
it was decided to let 8 be the value of 8 at ARe/2. The variation
of 8 was not found to be veiy critical in our range of interest.
Dukler's calculations for the film thickness were used to deter- T-TEMPERATURE PROBE X - VALVE

mine 8l and 8. As before, equation (29) is used to evaluate n. « - F L 0 A T L E V E L SWITCH

( P > PRESSURE PROBE
Equation (32) and equation (29) constitute Theoiy II.
Fig. 2 Experimental LTV unit

journal of Heat Transfer MAY 1 968 / 205

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 L= 2.8 FT
D=.6I IN
T L =I60°F
D = .6I IN
TL=2I2°F AT L =20°F
ATL'20F° EXPERIMENTAL DATA
EXP DATA THEORY I
THEORY I THEORY H
THEORY U I I
J I 0 2 4 6 8 10
8 10 12 INLET FLOWRATE (M 0 )x 10* ,LB m /SEC
INLET FL0WRATE (M^XIO , L B ^ S E C
Fig. 5 C o m p a r i s o n of theory a n d data for Mrta versus Mo, Tl = 160 deg
Fig. 3 C o m p a r i s o n of theory a n d data for M c a versus M0, TL = 2 ! 2 d e g F

1 ATl: 10 deg F and 20 deg F

2 TL: 212 deg F, ISO deg F, and 160 deg F

3 Mo: 0.096, 0.074, 0.052, 0.030 and ~ 0.01 —

sec
(1000 < Re 0 < 13,000)
4 L: 2.8 ft, 6.65 ft, S.8 ft, and 13.1ft

The tubes were 3 /i in. O.D. (0.61 in. inside dia), Admiralty brass.
Not all possible combinations of the above values were investi-
gated. Special runs were made to measure pressure drop to de-
termine the relations for the pressure gradient used hi the theo-
retical analysis. Also special runs were made for L = 13.1 ft at
atmospheric conditions to measure entramment.

Discussion of Theoretical and Experimental Results

INLET FLOWRATE ( M 0 ) x l 0 2 , LB m /SEC
Fig. 4 C o m p a r i s o n of theory and data for Mz>a versus MO, TL — 180 deg
The heat flux through the tube is determined from the net
condensate flow rate (the total condensate rate minus condensate
rate due to heat losses). In theory the distillate flow rate is also
a direct measure of the heat flux since the liquid is introduced at
the boiling point. However, in practice there is some heat loss
before the vapor reaches the condenser. The data show this
heat loss to be quite small.
Heat transfer data were obtained for the following variation of
Let lis compare the apparent heat transfer coefficient and the
apparent distillate rate as predicted by the two theories with our
experimental values.2 We will consider the variation of five
major parameters, inlet flow rate (Mo), length (L), temperature
difference (AT L ), temperature level (T L ), and diameter (D).
1 Variation With Inlet Flow Rate (M 0 ). The experimental data
show that distillate rate for a given length will generally decrease
with values of Mo until a minimum is reached somewhere between
Mo = 0.02 lbm/sec and 0.04 lb m /sec. Then the distillate rate
increases with decreasing Mo for M0 < 0.02 lbm/sec.
Theory I follows the same mode as described previously, but
it does not reach a minimum until Mo < 0.01 lb m /sec (Re<j —
1000). Theory I predicts that the distillate rate will increase
with decreasing values of il/o for Mo < 0.007 lbm/sec.
Theory II follows the same mode as the experimental data for
the range where Mo > 0.01 lb„,/sec. However, it predicts that
the distillate rate will not reach a minimum, but continue to
decrease with decreasing values of Mo• (See Figs. 3, 4, and 5).
II Variation With Length (L). F i g . 6 s h o w s h o w r a t e of i n c r e a s e
of the distillate rate falls off with length. Both theories predict
that as the length is made longer, the distillate rate will approach
asymptotically a maximum distillate rate. The data seem to
indicate this trend. The data indicate that the distillate rate
2 A c o m p l e t e tabulation of experimental and theoretical results m a y

parameters: be f o u n d in reference [14].

206 / M A Y 19 6 8 Transactions of the A S M E

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 _ \
/ / T, = 2 I 2 ° F \

/ \
\
/ O1 \
•"TL=I80 F \
\

\
\
\
\ \
D = .61 IN

\
D =.61 IN Tl=I80°F
M0= . 0 7 4 L B m / S E C ATl= 20°F
AT l = 2 0 F °
M 0 = .074 LBm/SEC
EXP DATA
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
X-TL=2I2°F
A-Tl= I80°F THEORY I
THEORY E
• -Tl= I60°F
THEORY 1
THEORY n
J I
I I _L_ 0 4 8 12
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 LENGTH ( L ) , FT.

LENGTH | L ) , FT Fig. 8 C o m p a r i s o n of theory a n d data for UA v e r s u s L, TL = 180 deg F

Fig. 6 C o m p a r i s o n of theory a n d data for Mdo v e r s u s L

900

5 700

EXPERIMENTAL DATA X
THEORY I
D = . 6 I IN
THEORY H
Tl=I60°F

600 I I I I ATl = 20°F

4 8 M = 0 7 4 LB /SEC
o m
L E N G T H ( L ) , FT. E X P E R I M E N T A L DATA x
THEORY I
Fig, 7 C o m p a r i s o n of theory a n d data for UA v e r s u s L, TL = 2 1 2 deg F
THEORYD

for Tl = 2 1 2 deg F falls off faster than predicted by either theory. 4 50 _L I I L J I

Figs. 7, 8, and 9 show how the apparent heat transfer coefficient
decreases with increasing length. For the longer lengths, the
comparison is more favorable for T h = 180 deg F and 160 deg
F than for TH = 212 deg F.
III V a r i a t i o n W i t h Temperature Difference ( A T L ) . The
cate that the apparent heat transfer coefficient (U a ) does not
change very much with a variation of A T L in the 10 F to 20 deg
F range. Both theories indicate that generally the apparent
heat transfer coefficient will be greater for AJ"L = 10 deg F than
for A T l = 20 deg F for shorter lengths and the opposite for
longer lengths. The data generally verify this. However, since
this variation is small, it would be difficult to draw a definite
conclusion.
IV Variation With Temperature Level (TjJ. T h e data show a defi-
nite decrease in MDA and TJA with decreasing TL for lengths greater
LENGTH ( L ) , FT.
Fig. 9 C o m p a r i s o n of theory a n d data for UA v e r s u s L, TL = 160deg F
data indi- than 2.8 ft. For L = 2.8 ft and a constant flow rate (Mo),
M D a and UA hardly vary with T h . This is predicted by both
theories. This indicates that, when comparing data for one
value of TL with data for another value of TL, the data should
be compared at equal values of Mo rather than Re 0 . If Re 0 were
held constant, M D a (or ARe^) would increase with decreasing
TL for L = 2.8 ft. Re 0 varies with TL because the viscosity IN)
increases with a decrease in temperature. This seems to indi-
cate that viscosity changes do not affect the heat transfer in any
significant way, though there may be changes in other fluid
properties which counteract the change in viscosity (see Fig. 10).

Journal of Heat Transfer MAY 196 8 / 207

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 II. Theory I is quite similar at these conditions. Theoretically,
the heat transfer for a smaller diameter tube will be higher than
for a large diameter with shorter lengths. This figure shows
that the heat transfer for D = 0.40 in. will be greater than that
for D = 0.61 in. for lengths less than about 6.5 ft and greater
than that for D = 1.94 in. for lengths less than about 8.5 ft.
The reason the smaller diameter tubes give larger heat transfer
coefficients is because of the increased pressure gradient caused
by this smaller diameter. However, this same increase in pres-
L=I3. f
sure gradient increases the pressure in the tube which decreases
the effective temperature difference (AT), tending to decrease
the total heat transfer. In the larger diameter tubes the pressure
1=8.8'
level within the tube does not increase with length at the rate
x
that it does in the smaller diameter tube, and the heat transfer,
therefore, does not decrease as rapidly with length.
Fig. 12 shows a comparison of Theory II, taking into considera-
tion the boiling point elevation for sea water, with data from
Wrightsville Beach [1], This comparison is very good, though
if all the data from Wrightsville Beach were considered, it would
probably not be quite this good. .Since it is time consuming to
calculate points from the theory, only two points were used in
D = . 6 I IN
ATL=20°F comparison.
M0=.074 LBm/SEC The comparison of theoretical and experimental results is
EXPERIMENTAL DATA x
THEORY I
very favorable as can be seen in the figures. The average
THEORY H absolute difference between theory and experiment for all data
points is 11.5 percent for Theory I and 8.1 percent for Theory
_L _L J I
150 170 190 210
II. This verifies the accuracy of Dukler's development. In
TEMPERATURE LEVEL (T. } , °F our range of interest, Theory II predicts the performance better
than Theory I. However, we were not able to observe directly
Fig. TO C o m p a r i s o n of t h e o r y a n d d a t a for M/)„ v e r s u s Tt.
inside the tube to verify the presence of bubbles. Therefore,
900 r since Theory II is a modification of Theory I tending to de-
crease the magnitude of predicted results, some phenomena other
than bubble superheat may explain the greater accuracy. Theory
II is not applicable for small values of Re 0 (<500) because the
theory predicts a decrease in heat transfer as Reo decreases into
the laminar range. In this range results from many sources
(including our own) show an increase in heat transfer as pre-
dicted by Theory I.
In defense of Theoiy II, it should be noted that the bubble
density in the inlet feed water with the temperature set at the
boiling point was observed to increase with an increase in Reo.
Unterberg [7] analyzed results from many sources and believes
that inlet conditions are a major factor in explaining why some
investigators have observed bubbles while others have not.
Bubbles in the feed may promote bubble formation inside the
tube. This suggests the following equation for ATL':

A7Y = ATl - --/(Re) (33)

OL

where/(Re 0 ) increases from 0 to 1 as Re0 increases from 0;/(Reo)

500
6 8
LENGTH ( L ) ,
F i g . 11 Theoretical v a r i a t i o n of U„ w i t h L for v a r i o u s
V Variation With Diameter. Though experimental data for the
variation of the heat transfer with diameter were not obtained,
this variation as predicted by theory can be discussed, and a
comparison can be made with some points of the data for the
2 in. tubes at Wrightsville Beach [1]. Fig. 11 shows the
variation of U a with length for various diameters. (T L = 180
deg F, Reo = 8000, and TL = 10 deg F) as predicted by Theory
would have to be determined empirically. A similar equation
would be used for AT'. These equations would enable Theory
II to cover all values of Re0.
The greatest difference between theory and experiment occurs
for an inlet flow rate of about 0.03 lb„,/sec (3000 < Re 0 < 4000).
The reason for this is unknown. There may be some film insta-
bility at this flow rate. We observed that film stability was
greatly dependent on the vapor flow. With little or no vapor
flowing through the tube, the film broke from the walls before
reaching the bottom, even for the 2.8 ft length. However, with
FT a significant amount of vapor flowing, the film left, the tube in
values of D a conical sheet which indicated that the film was not breaking
away from the wall.
The entrainment was not found to be significant at atmospheric
conditions. The entrainment rate was less than 7 percent of
the inlet flow rate for a length of 13.1. It is probably somewhat
larger at vacuum conditions, but it would seem that entrain-
ment is not an important factor. Entrainment was found to be
much more significant at Wrightsville Beach [9]. Our vortex
feed mechanism may explain the difference.

208 / M AY 19 6 8 Transactions of the A S M E

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 600
200
2000
Fig. 12 C o m p a r i s o n of theory a n d data for 2 in. tube
Broker [2] observed that the distillate rate actually decreased
with increasing length at lengths greater than a critical value for
a 'A in. dia tube at atmospheric conditions. We did not observe
this for our 3 / , in. tube even at vacuum conditions. Moreover,
the theory predicts that the distillate will asymptotically ap-
proach a maximum and the phenomena observed by Broker
should not occur. However, there may be effects of a diameter
change not taken into account in the theory.
Theoretical calculations show that the heat transfer coefficient
on the inside of the tube is generally greater than that of the
steam side. Typically h is twice ha. This indicates that im-
provement in heat transfer can be made most readily by increas-
ing the steam side coefficient. This can be done by increasing
the vapor shear on the outside of the tube or treating the tube
to promote dropwise condensation.
The same diameter and length should probably not be used
for all effects (value of TL) in a multieffect plant. Theory indi-
cates that the apparent overall heat transfer coefficient (U a )
will approach a maximum as length and diameter both approach
zero; the experimental data substantiate this for length. Con-
sidering heat transfer onlj', the optimum evaporator would have
lubes with diameters and lengths approaching zero, which is
absurd. Therefore economic factors must be considered to ob-
tain unique optimal values for length and diameter at each value
of TL.
The practical range of Re 0 for our evaporator was 1000 <
Re0 < 13,000. Both experiment and theory indicate that higher
heat transfer for T L = 212 deg F and all lengths can be obtained
with Re 0 as large as is practical. This practical limit is the point
where the vapor flow cross section becomes significantly de-
creased. As Tl is decreased, the situat'on gradually reverses
until the lowest practical flow rate (Re ~ 1000) is best. This
lower limit is determined by our ability to distribute the film
evenly to prevent local dry spots. Dry spots occur when the
film is completely evaporated at some particular area on the
tube.
Conclusions
1 The comparison of theory with experimental data was
quite favorable. The average absolute difference was 11.5 per-
cent for Theory I and 8.1 percent for Theory II.
2 Dukler's development for the heat transfer to a liquid film
is quite accurate.
3 Theoretically, the distillate rate (M D a ) should asymptoti-
cally approach a maximum with increasing length.
4 The heat transfer coefficient on the falling film side (h) is,
in general, substantially greater than the coefficient on the steam
side (hs).
Journal of Heat Transfer
Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
D= 1.84 IN
L = 2 4 FT
0.0. = 2"
Tl»"I80oF
ATLc|0°F
THEORY
nflTA - W R I G H T S V I L L E
U B BEACH
4000 6000 8000
5 The apparent overall heat transfer coefficients (U a ) should
be used in comparing the performance of various evaporators
rather than the actual heat transfer coefficient (hc). This is
because the value of lie may be very high, but the actual heat
flux through the tube may be low due to the decrease of AT.
6 The two-phase annular pressure gradient is a significant
factor. To predict the heat transfer over a wide range of tem-
perature levels, data must be obtained for the pressure gradient
over this range. The parameter (3 which is directly related to
the pressure gradient is more significant than the value of the
Reynolds number (Re).
7 The same diameter and length should probably not be
used for all effects (values of T L ) in a multieffect plant.
8 For higher rates of heat transfer in the practical range of
operation, the inlet flow rate should be made as high as possible
at. most temperature levels. However, this situation graduallj'
reverses as the temperature level is decreased to a low value.
Acknowledgment
This paper is the result of research work done at the Depart-
ment of Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles.
Funds for Saline Water Conversion Research are granted as a
special item in the University of California budget by the Cali-
fornia State Legislature.
References
1 " O p e r a t i o n of P i f o t Plant L T V E v a p o r a t o r at Wrightsville
B e a c h , N o r t h C a r o l i n a , " W . L. Badger and Associates, Inc., Office of
Saline W a t e r , D e p a r t m e n t of Interior, Research and D e v e l o p m e n t
Progress R e p o r t N o . 26, D e c . 1959.
2 Broker, B., and M c C u t c h a n , J. W . , Heat Transfer in a Single
Tube Falling Film Evaporator With Dropwise Condensation, The
L . M . K . Boelter Anniversary V o l u m e , M c G r a w - H i l l , N e w Y o r k ,
1964, pp. 8 - 3 4 .
3 D y k s t r a , D . I., " S e a W a t e r Desalination b y the Palling Film
P r o c e s s , " Chemical Engineering Progress, V o l . 61, July 1965, p p .
80-88.
4 N o r m a n , W . S., and M c l n t y r e , V . , " H e a t Transfer to a Liquid
F i l m 011 a Vertical S u r f a c e , " Transactions of the Institution of Chemical
Engineers, L o n d o n , Vol. 38, N o . 6, 3 0 1 - 3 0 7 , D e c . 1960, discussion pp.
317-323.
5 Sinek, J. R . , and Y o u n g , E . H . , " H e a t Transfer in Falling Film
L o n g T u b e Vertical E v a p o r a t o r s , " Chemical Engineering Progress,
Vol. 58, D e c . 1962, pp. 7 4 - 8 0 .
6 Unterberg, W . , " S t u d i e s of L i q u i d Film F l o w and E v a p o r a t i o n
W i t h R e f e r e n c e to Saline W a t e r Distillation," D e p a r t m e n t of E n g i -
neering, University of California, L o s Angeles, R e p o r t N o . 61-26,
O c t . 1961.
7 Unterberg, W . , " E v a p o r a t i o n F r o m Falling and W i p e d F i l m s
of Pure and Saline W a t e r , " P h D in Engineering, University of Cali-
fornia, L o s Angeles, Jan. 1964, pp. 1 5 - 2 2 and 191.
8 W e b b , R . , " A C o m p a r i s o n of Falling and W i p e d Film E v a p o r a -
tion in a Saline W a t e r Still," M S in Engineering, University of Cali-
MAY 1 96 8 / 209
 lomb, Los Angeles, Sept. 1063.
9 "Heat Trau ler in the LTV Evaporator: An Aualysis 01 Pilot
Plant Dntn anel Predictive Techniques for Plant Operation and De-
sign, " Prengle, Dllider and Cmmp, IIIC., Office of Saline 'Valer, De-
partment 01 Interior, Research a nd Development Progress Report,
No . 74, June 1963.
10 Duk ler, A. E., "Fluid Mechrtnics aud Heat Tran sfer in Vertical
Falling-Film Systems," Chemical Enoineerino Prooress Symposi1l11t
Series. Heat Tralls/er. Vol. 56, No. 30. II lay 1060. pp. 1- 10.
11 Deissler. R. G .• "Analysis of Turbulent Heat Transfer, A'f a ss
Tra nsfer. ami Friction in Smooth Tubes at High Prandtl and Schmidt
Numbers ." Nationa l Advisory Com mittee for Aeronautics. Techni ca l
1 otes, 2138 (July 1950) and 3145 (llIay 1954).
12 Lockhart, R. W .• and Martinelli. R. C . • "Proposed Correlation
of Data for I sothermal. Two Phase Two-Component Flow in Pipes,"
Chemical Enoineerino Prooress. Vol. 45. J a n. 1949 . pp. 39-48.
13 Bird, R. B .• Stewart. W . E.. and Lightfoot. E. N .• Transport
Phenomena. Wiley. New York, 2nd ed .• 1960. pp. 182- 187.
14 Kroll. J. E .• "Variation of the Heat Transfer With Length.
Pressure F low Rate and Temperature Dilference in an LTV Falling
Film Evapor::ttor," MS in Engineering, University of California. Los
A ngeles, June 1966.

210 I MA Y 1968 Transactions of the AS ME

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use