Progress in Nuclear Energy 112 (2019) 185–190

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Progress in Nuclear Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pnucene

Experimental and CFD estimation of single-phase heat transfer in helically T

coiled tubes
Minglu Wanga,b, Mingguang Zhenga,b,∗, Mengke Chaob, Jianhui Yub, Xingliang Zhangb, Lin Tianb
a
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Nuclear Science and Engineering, No.800 Dong Chuan Road, Shanghai, 200240, China
b
Shanghai Nuclear Engineering Research & Design Institute, No.29, Hongcao Road, Shanghai, 200233, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Numerical simulation of helically coiled tubes has been reported by many researchers, while few researchers
Helically coiled tubes have taken buoyancy into account and their detailed numerical results have not been compared with experi-
Single-phase heat transfer mental data. In this article, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations are carried out for single-phase
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) flow in vertically oriented helically coiled tubes applying Reynolds Stress Model with gravity in consideration.
Reynolds stress model (RSM)
The simulation results reveal that flow and heat transfer inside helically coiled tubes are influenced by both
centrifugal force and buoyancy. Circumferential wall temperature distribution can be predicted well, and the
peak value moves in anti-clockwise direction from the top to the inner side of the coil with centrifugal force
increased. The Nusselt number along the periphery at cross section is also presented at various boundary con-
ditions. The deviations of heat transfer coefficient between CFD values and experimental results are within ±
25%. Hence, the numerical method stated in this article can be used to predict single-phase heat transfer in
helically coiled tubes.

1. Introduction fully developed turbulent forced convective heat transfer in a helically

Helically coiled tubes heat exchangers are widely used in food in-
dustry, nuclear industry, waste heat recovery, refrigeration, aerospace
and many other industrial scenarios because of their compact structure,
easy manufacturing technique and high heat transfer efficiency (Gou
et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2017; Bersano et al., 2018). Many researchers
have identified the existence of complex flow pattern inside a helically
coiled tube (Hardik et al., 2015; Mori and Nakayama, 1967; Seban and
Mclaughlin, 1963), and the curvature of the coil governs the centrifugal
force triggering the generation of secondary flow. The difference in
velocity resulting from secondary flows, whose pattern changes under
different flow conditions, enhances the heat transfer in helically coiled
tubes (Xiao et al., 2018a, 2018b, 2018c). Due to the experiment lim-
itation in describing the detailed flow field and heat transfer char-
acteristic in helically coiled tubes, the numerical method becomes an
effective complement.
Numerous studies have been carried out for investigating the heat
transfer characteristics in helically coiled tubes applied numerical
method. Among them, the standard k−ε model and realizable k-ε
model are most widely used.
Yang and Ebadian (1996) solved the standard k-ε model with the
constants recommended by Launder and Spalding (1972) to analyze the
coiled tube with finite pitch without the consideration of physical
property variation. The researching data illustrated that the tempera-
ture distribution in the cross-section was asymmetrical when the pitch
increased.
Lin and Ebadian (1997) did a similar work using standard k-ε model
to investigate the developing turbulent heat transfer in a helically
coiled tube of definite pitch for a constant wall temperature. The
temperature fields, local and average Nusselt numbers were discussed
by varying pitch, curvature ratio and Reynolds number. Subsequently,
Lin and Ebadian (1999) used the same numerical solver to study effect
of intensity of inlet turbulence on heat transfer rates.
The realizable k-ε model was applied by J.S.Jayakumar (Jayakumar
et al., 2010) who brings out clearly the variation of local Nusselt
number along the length and circumference at the wall of a helically
coiled tube. The influence on heat transfer of helically coiled tubes
parameters was studied and the correlations for prediction of Nusselt
number were demonstrated.
It was observed that local temperature and Nusselt number in the
circumferential direction were not thoroughly studied nor verified ex-
perimentally. Also, the published literature lacks discussion and ana-
lysis about buoyancy effect on flow field and heat transfer character-
istics inside the helically coiled tubes. In this paper, performances of

∗
Corresponding author. Shanghai Nuclear Engineering Research & Design Institute, No.29, Hongcao Road, Shanghai, 200233, China.
E-mail address: 236640187@qq.com (M. Zheng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2018.12.015
Received 16 November 2018; Received in revised form 25 November 2018; Accepted 20 December 2018
0149-1970/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Wang et al. Progress in Nuclear Energy 112 (2019) 185–190

Fig. 1. Helically coiled tube used for analysis.

Fig. 2. Grid at cross section of helically coiled tube.

Table 1
Boundary conditions.
CASE Inlet Temperature Inlet Velocity Wall Heat Flux Pressure

2
(K) m/s W/m Pa

1 348.65 0.15540 74539.3 2018559

2 346.75 0.25444 153200.8 4039790
3 344.35 0.35821 151386.4 2005482
4 383.25 0.74234 147893.1 2018559
5 384.85 1.05294 245435.1 2011187

fluid flow and heat transfer in a helically coiled tube are presented
considering the effect of buoyancy. Variation of temperature around the
periphery at a given pipe cross-section is compared with experimental
output. And Nusselt number in the circumferential direction is ex-
tracted and average Nusselt number shows good agreement with ex-
perimental results.

2. CFD modeling

CFD package FLUENT version 14.0 is used to simulate heat transfer

of water inside a helically coiled tube with the diameter of 15.26 mm.
Coil diameter 350 mm and coil pitch of 194 mm is presented for dis-
cussion as Fig. 1 shows. The mesh was created with ICEM software and Fig. 3. Velocity vectors and temperature contours at cross section of helically
boundary layer mesh was generated for the fluid volume. After the coiled tubes.
independency studies, the optimized grid which Fig. 2 shows was

186
M. Wang et al. Progress in Nuclear Energy 112 (2019) 185–190

Fig. 4. Circumferential wall temperature distribution.

187
M. Wang et al. Progress in Nuclear Energy 112 (2019) 185–190

Fig. 5. The ratio of Local Nusselt number to average Nusselt number.

188
M. Wang et al.
Fig. 6. Local heat transfer coefficient.
Fig. 7. Comparison between experimental and CFD heat transfer coefficient.
applied for this study. 2241 nodes were calculated at the cross section
of the helically coil tube, and the Reynolds Stress model with Low-Re
Stress-Omega model was employed to simulate the turbulence.
Conservation equations have been spatially discretized on the
computational grid adopting the second order upwind scheme for mo-
mentum, turbulence, pressure, dissipation rate, Reynolds stresses and
energy. Pressure velocity coupling was completed through the coupled
scheme. And a convergence criterion of 10−8 was applied for con-
tinuity, energy, omega and stress.
Constant inlet velocities and temperature, outlet pressure, and
constant wall heat flux boundary conditions were allocated at the inlet,
outlet and wall boundary sections (shown as Table 1). Different values
of inlet temperature, inlet velocity, wall heat flux and outlet pressure
were chosen as the same experimental conditions of Wang et al. (2019),
for each case to verify the robustness of this simulation. Since Jaya-
kumar's (Jayakumar et al., 2008) research revealed that the use of
constant values for the thermal and transport properties of heat trans-
port medium resulted in prediction of inaccurate heat transfer coeffi-
cients. Subsequent analyses were carried out with incorporation of
variable properties and in consideration of buoyancy.
Since the fluid properties are temperature dependent, the bulk fluid
temperature at a cross-section is calculated as
189
Progress in Nuclear Energy 112 (2019) 185–190
∫ uρCp TdA
Tb =
∫ uρCp dA (1)
The local circumferential Nusselt number is calculated as
di ⎛ q ⎞
Nu x = ⎜ ⎟
k ⎝ Tw (θ) − Tb ⎠ (2)
The local average Nusselt number is evaluated as
di ⎛ q ⎞
Nu = ⎜ ⎟
k ⎝ Tw − Tb ⎠ (3)
θ2
1
Where Tw = (θ2 − θ1)
∫ Tw (θ)dθ.
θ1
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Velocity and temperature distribution
Fig. 3 shows an overview of velocity vectors and temperature con-
tours at cross section of the coil. In case 1, thermal stratification at cross
section of coil indicates that the buoyancy force dominates over cen-
trifugal force. With the inlet velocity increasing, displayed as case 1 to
case 5, the low temperature fluid is driven to the outer side of the coil
gradually as well as the domination of the centrifugal force, and the
temperature difference of the fluid at the cross section is drastic.
The variation of the flow field is coupled with temperature dis-
tribution. The secondary flow induced by centrifugal force is weak
when the velocity of fluid is low (shown as Fig. 3 (a)). Following the
increasing of the velocity, the secondary flow's symmetry line turns
from oblique to lateral under the combined effects of centrifugal force
and buoyancy.
Circumferential wall temperature distribution for the different cases
presented in Table 1 was compared with experimental results using the
same helically coiled tubes (shown in Fig. 4) (Wang et al., 2019). In the
experiment, the wall temperature is measured by N-type thermocouple
with confidence probability P = 0.95, contains factor k = 2, and the
expanded uncertainty is 1.3 K.
In Fig. 4, the x axis coordinates angle (in degrees) is measured in
clockwise direction, starting from the top of the cross section, which
means that 90° corresponds to outer side of the pipe, and 270° corre-
sponds to inner side of the pipe. It can be observed that there is sig-
nificant non-uniformity in the temperature distribution at different
boundary conditions. During the experiment, the circumferential wall
temperature is measured by eight thermocouples at cross section. And
each of the cases in Fig. 4 illustrates that the experimental and simu-
lation results are in good agreement.
In Fig. 4 (a), bottom side wall temperature remains almost uniform
in comparison with upper side. While with the fluid velocity increasing,
centrifugal force drives cold fluid towards the outer side of the helically
coiled tubes along with more rapid shift fluid at outer side, progres-
sively, outer side wall temperature remains almost uniform in com-
parison with inner side (shown as Fig. 4 (a) to (e)). Besides, Fig. 4 shows
that in the region with large temperature gradient, the wall tempera-
ture error between experiment and numerical calculation is the largest.
The overall circumferential temperature distribution changes from
symmetric about the centerline of the top-bottom at low fluid velocity
to symmetric about the centerline of the inner-outer at high fluid ve-
locity. Corresponding, as Fig. 4 (f) shows, the peak value of the cir-
cumferential wall temperature moves in anti-clockwise direction from
the top to the inner side of the coil with centrifugal force increased.
3.2. Variation of local Nusselt number
Fig. 5 gives the variation of local Nusselt number to the average
Nusselt number around the periphery at cross sections (indicated by the
angle) for the different cases presented in Table 1. The local Nusselt
M. Wang et al.
number is obtained using Eq (2) and average Nusselt number is given
by Eq (3). The red area painted on the tube cross section indicates the
high Nusselt number zone.
Shown as Fig. 4, the circumferential wall temperature distribution is
not uniform and the Nusselt number cannot be uniform along the
periphery at any given cross-section of the helically coiled tubes. Fig. 5
(a) shows that when the buoyancy effect is dominant, the highest
Nusselt number remains almost uniform at the bottom side of the cross
section. As centrifugal force increasing, the high Nusselt number region
moves to the outer side of the coil as Fig. 5 (a) to (e) shows.
The heat transfer coefficients of all the cases are comparatively
displayed in Fig. 6. Even though the circumferential heat transfer
coefficient distribution is different under different boundary conditions,
the highest heat transfer coefficient is three to four times than the
lowest heat transfer coefficient in all cases. The lowest heat transfer
coefficient point moves in anti-clockwise direction from the top to the
inner side of the coil as centrifugal force increases in the helically coiled
tubes.
3.3. Comparison of Nusselt number
The CFD results of local average heat transfer coefficient comparing
with experimental heat transfer coefficients (Wang et al., 2019) are
shown as Fig. 7. The distinction between CFD values and experimental
results is within ± 25%, illustrating that the CFD results agree well with
those of experiments. Based on the confidence gained in the CFD pre-
dictions, the results generated under different conditions may be
adapted further to various coil configurations.
4. Conclusion
Numerical simulation has been carried out for single-phase heat
transfer in helically coiled tubes with constant wall heat flux boundary
conditions. Characteristics of flow and temperature distributions are
presented in the article which reflects the combination effects of cen-
trifugal force and buoyancy. Furthermore, the comparison of cir-
cumferential wall temperature between CFD and experimental results
indicates the CFD simulation is credible. The peak value of the cir-
cumferential wall temperature moves in anti-clockwise direction from
the top of the coil to the inner side of the coil with centrifugal force
increased.
The ratio between local Nusselt number and average Nusselt
number around the periphery at cross sections was estimated. The
lowest heat transfer coefficient point moves in anti-clockwise direction
from the top to the inner side of the coil as the centrifugal force in-
creases in the helically coiled tubes.
The heat transfer coefficient which CFD predicted matches reason-
ably well with the experimental results within experimental error
limits. The numerical method stated in this article can be used to pre-
dict single-phase heat transfer in helically coiled tubes.
Nomenclature
A area, m2
Cp constant pressure specific heat, J/kg⋅K
di inner diameter, m
190
Progress in Nuclear Energy 112 (2019) 185–190
G mass flux, kg/m2⋅s
k thermal conductivity, W/(m⋅K)
Nu Nusselt number, dimensionless
Nux local circumferential Nusselt number, dimensionless
P pressure, MPa
q heat flux, kW/m2
T temperature, K
Tb bulk temperature, K
Tw inner wall temperature, K
u velocity, m/s
x equilibrium thermodynamic quality
Greek symbols
θ circumferential angle, o
μ dynamic viscosity, Pa⋅s
ρ density, kg/m3
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2018.12.015.
References
Bersano, A., Falcone, N., Bertani, C., et al., 2018. Conceptual design of a bayonet tube
steam generator with heat transfer enhancement using a helical coiled downcomer.
2018/09/01. Prog. Nucl. Energy 108 243-252.
Gou, J., Ma, H., Yang, Z., et al., 2017. An assessment of heat transfer models of water flow
in helically coiled tubes based on selected experimental datasets. 2017/12/01. Ann.
Nucl. Energy 110 648-667.
Hardik, B.K., Baburajan, P.K., Prabhu, S.V., 2015. Local heat transfer coefficient in helical
coils with single phase flow. Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 89, 522–538.
Jayakumar, J.S., Mahajani, S.M., Mandal, J.C., et al., 2008. Experimental and CFD esti-
mation of heat transfer in helically coiled heat exchangers. 2008/03/01. Chem. Eng.
Res. Des. 86 (3), 221–232.
Jayakumar, J.S., Mahajani, S.M., Mandal, J.C., et al., 2010. CFD analysis of single-phase
flows inside helically coiled tubes. Comput. Chem. Eng. 34 (4), 430–446.
Launder, B.E., Spalding, D.B., 1972. Mathematical models of turbulence. Karman Inst.
Fluid Dyn.
Lin, C.X., Ebadian, M.A., 1997. Developing turbulent convective heat transfer in helical
pipes. Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 40 (16), 3861–3873.
Lin, C.X., Ebadian, M.A., 1999. The effects of inlet turbulence on the development of fluid
flow and heat transfer in a helically coiled pipe. Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 42 (4),
739–751.
Mori, Y., Nakayama, W., 1967. Study of forced convective heat transfer in curved pipes
(2nd report, turbulent region). Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 10 (1), 37–59.
Seban, R.A., Mclaughlin, E.F., 1963. Heat transfer in tube coils with laminar and turbu-
lent flow. Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 6 (5), 387–395.
Wang, M., Zheng, M., Wang, R., et al., 2019. Experimental studies on local and average
heat transfer characteristics in helical pipes with single phase flow. Ann. Nucl. Energy
123, 78–85 2019/01/01.
Xiao, Y., Hu, Z., Chen, S., et al., 2018a. Experimental investigation and prediction of post-
dryout heat transfer for steam-water flow in helical coils. 2018/12/01. Int. J. Heat
Mass Tran 127 515-525.
Xiao, Y., Hu, Z., Chen, S., et al., 2018b. Experimental study on dryout characteristics of
steam-water flow in vertical helical coils with small coil diameters. 2018/08/15.
Nucl. Eng. Des 335 303-313.
Xiao, Y., Hu, Z., Chen, S., et al., 2018c. Experimental investigation of boiling heat transfer
in helically coiled tubes at high pressure. 2018/03/01. Ann. Nucl. Energy 113,
409–419.
Yang, G., Ebadian, M.A., 1996. Turbulent forced convection in a helicoidal pipe with
substantial pitch. Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 39 (39), 2015–2022.
Zhang, Y., Wang, D., Lin, J., et al., 2017. Development of a computer code for ther-
mal–hydraulic design and analysis of helically coiled tube once-through steam gen-
erator. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 49 (7), 1388–1395 2017/10/01.