International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 71 (2014) 361–375

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

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

A comparative analysis of a CO2 evaporator model using experimental

heat transfer correlations and a flow pattern map
J. Patiño a, R. Llopis a,⇑, D. Sánchez a, C. Sanz-Kock a, R. Cabello a, E. Torrella b
a
Jaume I University, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Construction, Campus de Riu Sec s/n, E-12071 Castellón, Spain
b
Polytechnic University of Valencia, Department of Applied Thermodynamics, Camino de Vera, 14, E-46022 Valencia, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This work analyses and compares two approaches to evaluate the boiling heat transfer of CO2 in a real
Received 24 September 2013 evaporation process: classical empirical correlations and flow pattern maps. We develop a finite-volume
Received in revised form 22 November 2013 mathematical model of an evaporator to contrast both approaches and simulate it with four empirical
Accepted 5 December 2013
correlations, not developed for CO2 but tested successfully with it, and a flow pattern map specific for
CO2. We contrast the results of the simulation with 73 experimental steady-states performed with a
transcritical CO2 refrigeration plant that incorporates a concentric counter current evaporator. We
Keywords:
observe that both approaches can predict the evaporation process of CO2, nonetheless, in spite of the
R744
Flow pattern map
more complex mathematical formulation, the considered flow pattern map allows to obtain more
Empirical correlation precision.
Evaporator model Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Uncertainty

1. Introduction use empirical correlations obtained from experimentation, the

Perform an optimal design of refrigerating equipment is a
requirement to improve the performance and efficiency of the
refrigerating systems. Component modelling, either with physical
or empirical methods, allows predicting the performance of each
element and the whole behaviour of the refrigerating system, thus
reducing experimentation time and its associated cost. About it,
the heat exchanger design plays an important role to improve
the coefficient of performance (COP) of the refrigerating systems,
since its design conditions the working pressures, the needed
charge of refrigerant and obviously the COP and the provided cool-
ing capacity.
The key issue in the modelling of heat exchangers is the correct
prediction of the heat transfer coefficients on the refrigerant and
on the secondary fluid. Those values depend on the thermophysical
properties, the flow rates and the geometric dimensions of the con-
sidered heat exchangers. Additionally, the prediction of these heat
transfer coefficients is more difficult when considering two-phase
heat exchangers, such as evaporators or condenser. And further-
more, the prediction of these coefficients becomes more difficult
when the considered fluid presents important variations of the
thermophysical properties during the two-phase flow, such as car-
bon dioxide. In bibliography, the most widespread method to eval-
uate the heat transfer coefficients of CO2 during evaporation is to
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 964 728136; fax: +34 964 728106.
E-mail address: rllopis@uji.es (R. Llopis).
most used ones being of Yoon et al. [1,2], Jung et al. [3], Kandlikar
[4] and Gungor and Winterton [5]. Those correlations were con-
trasted with experimental data by Hwang et al. [6], Oh et al. [7],
Park and Hrnjak [8] and Wattelet [9]. All of them concluded they
were able to predict the CO2 heat transfer characteristics during
the evaporation process with enough accuracy. However, during
the last decades a new approach to evaluate the heat transfer coef-
ficients attracts more attention, the flow pattern maps, which were
first introduced by Baker [10], who defined the flow transitions for
oil and gas experimentally. This approach differ from the classical
empirical correlations because it incorporates mathematical rela-
tions that describe several phenomenon during the evaporation
process of the refrigerant. These mathematical relations allow to
characterize flow pattern maps during the two-phase flow. Cheng’s
flow pattern map [11,12], obtained from a modification of Wojtan’s
map [13], was developed specifically for CO2 evaporation, however,
it has not been contrasted in real applications yet.
Accordingly, the objective of this work is to contrast both ap-
proaches for calculating the CO2 heat transfer coefficients during
the evaporation process: the classical empirical heat transfer corre-
lations and the flow pattern maps. To allow this, we develop a fi-
nite-volume steady-state mathematical model of a concentric
counter-current evaporator prepared to evaluate the CO2 heat
transfer coefficients with both approaches. We consider the exper-
imental correlations of Yoon et al. [1,2], Jung et al. [3], Kandlikar
[4], Gungor and Winterton [5], and contrast them with the flow
pattern map of Cheng [11,12]. We contrast the results of both

0017-9310/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2013.12.027
362 J. Patiño et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 71 (2014) 361–375

Nomenclature

A heat transfer surface area Greek symbols

Bd boiling number q density
Bo bond number r surface tension
cp isobaric heat capacity £2 two phase multiplier
D, d diameter DP pressure drop
fh hydraulic factor C2 dimensionless physical property coefficient
fi inertia factor e uncertainty
Frv,Mori vapor Froude number
g gravitational acceleration Subscripts
G total vapor and liquid two-phase mass flux bal obtained from the energy balance
h convection heat transfer coefficient crit critical
i enthalpy di dryout inception
m_ mass flow rate gc gas-cooler of the plant
P pressure in inlet
q heat flux l liquid
Q_ heat transfer rate lo liquid flow
o evaporator
Re Reynolds number
out outlet
SH superheating degree in evaporator r refrigerant
T temperature re relative
Wev vapor Weber number sf secondary fluid
x vapor quality tub tube
v vapour

approaches with a large set of experimental data of an evaporator
placed in a transcritical refrigeration plant.
2. Evaporator model
This section describes the mathematical model of the evapora-
tor used in the work to predict the heat transfer characteristics
during the boiling process of CO2. The model has been developed
to evaluate the CO2 heat transfer characteristics using the classical
empirical correlations or the flow pattern maps of the fluid, which
are also discussed in this section. The results of the model with the
different approaches are discussed in Section 5.
2.1. Mathematical model of the evaporator
We model a concentric counter current evaporator using a fi-
nite-volume formulation (Fig. 1) to better characterize the evolu-
tion of the refrigerant along the heat exchanger and to obtain the
best possible accuracy in the heat transfer characteristics. In this
model, the evaporator is divided into 60 volumes, all of them of
the same length. Nonetheless, the corresponding volume is divided
into two independent and smaller volumes when a flow patter
change occurs or when the refrigerant ends the two-phase region
to better characterize its behaviour.
The input variables to the evaporator model correspond to the
inlet properties of the fluids at the evaporator, which are the CO2
mass flow rate, inlet pressure and inlet vapour quality for the
refrigerant and mass flow rate and inlet temperature of the second-
ary fluid. These properties are the ones used for the 0-volume and
n-volume, whereas for the others the input properties are the out-
let properties of the adjacent volumes according to the scheme of
Fig. 1.
The heat transfer and pressure loss characteristics are analysed
separately for each volume considering the following assumptions:
the thermophysical properties of the fluids are evaluated at the
average temperature in the volume, the effect of the lubricant oil
is omitted, the heat losses to the environment are neglected, it is
considered that the heat transfer of the refrigerant is absorbed
entirely by the secondary fluid and that no temperature gradient
exists in the tubes which separate the fluids in each control
volume.

Flow pattern change End of two-phase

Tsf , out sf Tsf , in
(0) ( i-1 ) (i) ( i+1 ) (n) Sec. Fluid

Refrigerant
r X r , in Pr , in Tr , out Pr , out

(Tsf ,out )i (Tsf ,out )i +1 = (Tsf ,in )i (Tsf ,in )i +1

(i) ( i+1 )

(X r ,in )i (Ttub )i (X r ,out )i = (X r ,in )i +1 (Ttub )i +1 (X r ,out )i +1

(Pr ,in )i (Pr ,out )i = (Pr ,in )i +1 (Pr ,out )i +1
Fig. 1. Scheme of the evaporator model.
 J. Patiño et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 71 (2014) 361–375
According to the assumptions the heat transfer in the fluids is
evaluated using the following relations:
The heat transferred from the tubes which separate the fluids to
the refrigerant is evaluated with relation (1), where hr corresponds
to the convection heat transfer coefficient of the refrigerant with
the tubes, which is detailed in Section 4.2, Ar is the heat transfer
surface area of the refrigerant and the tubes, T tub is the average
tube temperature and T r the refrigerant temperature.
Q_ r ¼ hr  Ar  ðT tub  T r Þ
The heat transfer from the secondary fluid to the tubes is computed
with relation (2), where hsf is the convection heat transfer coeffi-
cient of the secondary fluid with the tube, Asf the heat transfer sur-
face area of the secondary fluid with the tubes and T sf the average
temperature of the fluid in the volume.
Q_ sf ¼ hsf  Asf  ðT sf  T tub Þ
Considering an equality of the heat transfer rates of Eqs. (1) and (2),
we calculate the tube temperature. This equality corresponds to the
first convergence criterion used in the model, in which the
Fig. 2. Calculation scheme in a control volume.
363
temperatures and the heat transfer coefficients vary until the equal-
ity is achieved. This process is detailed below.
When the heat transfer between the fluids is calculated, we use
it to evaluate the change in the stored energy of the fluids, which
results are used to re-evaluate the heat transfer characteristics.
The temperature change of the secondary fluid in the volume is
evaluated using Eq. (3) and the enthalpy change of the refrigerant
with relation (4).
ð1Þ Q_ sf ¼ m
_ sf  cp;sf  ðT sf ;in  T sf ;out Þ ð3Þ
Q_ r ¼ m
_ r  ðir;out  ir;in Þ ð4Þ
Finally, the pressure loss of the refrigerant along the volume is eval-
uated using the calculating procedure detailed in Section 2.2. For
the calculation of pressure loss, we use a third convergence crite-
ð2Þ rion: the properties of the refrigerant are updated until the enthalpy
of the refrigerant at the exit of the evaporator is equal to that ob-
tained with expression (4).
We evaluate the thermophysical properties of CO2 with Refprop
database [14] and of the secondary fluid (ethylene–glycol/water
364 J. Patiño et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 71 (2014) 361–375
Fig. 3. Relation scheme among control volumes.
mixture) with interpolated polynomials from the Ashrae Hand-
book [15].
The calculation scheme of the model for each control volume is
presented in Fig. 2 and the relation scheme between the control
volumes in Fig. 3.
Finally, we used the following experimental data to validate the
model: secondary fluid outlet temperature, CO2 outlet tempera-
ture, heat transfer rates in refrigerant and secondary fluid, and out-
let pressure of the refrigerant at the exit of the evaporator. The
validation of the model is discussed in Section 5.
2.2. Heat transfer and pressure drop models
One of the most important difficulties to model evaporators is
to predict the heat transfer processes of the fluids accuracy enough.
Generally, the highest refrigerant heat transfer coefficients occur in
regions with low vapour proportion at high saturation tempera-
tures, since in this condition the nucleation mechanism is predom-
inant. Cooper [16] proposed the heat transfer correlations to be a
function of the reduced pressure (Pev/Pcrit) in the nucleation region,
being the reduced pressure increased as increased the saturation
temperature. Furthermore, Cooper [16] noticed that the behaviour
of CO2 in regions with low vapour proportion is different to that of
HFC fluids in similar conditions, since the liquid film breaks at val-
ues of vapour proportion of 0.3–0.7 for the CO2 whereas for HFC
fluids is situated around 0.9 [17]. This difference is induced by
the low viscosity and surface tension values of the CO2 in contrast
with the HFC ones, causing the breaking of the liquid film for smal-
ler vapour proportions in the case of CO2. These differences lead to
distinct flow pattern maps between CO2 and HFC fluids.
In literature two approaches to predict the heat transfer coeffi-
cient and pressure drop for CO2 are found, using empirical correla-
tions or flow pattern maps. This work considers both approaches
for the evaporator model in order to find out which methodology
provides the highest accuracy.
2.2.1. Empirical CO2 heat transfer correlations
Empirical correlations or correlation models are based on
adjusting experimental data to establish a function dependent on
the dimensional numbers that govern the phenomenon.
Several authors have proposed empirical correlations to predict
the heat transfer coefficient during the evaporation of CO2. Hwang
et al. [6] studied the applicability of six broadly used empirical cor-
relations and proposed a new empirical model based on the mod-
 J. Patiño et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 71 (2014) 361–375 365

ification of the Bennett-Chen’s correlation for CO2 during the evap- Table 1
oration in smooth horizontal tubes. Oh et al. [7] measured the boil- Empirical correlations for CO2 used in the evaporator model.
  0:25  0:27 
ing heat transfer coefficients of CO2 and concluded that the Yoon et al. [1,2] q q
0:520:236We0:17
V Fr 0:17 V
V;Mori  qL 
correlations of Jung et al. [3] and Kandlikar [4] provided good pre- xdi ¼ 0:58  e
qcrit

dictions. And Park and Hrnjak [8] also measured the evaporation if x < xdi
heat transfer of CO2 and stated that Gungor and Winterton [5]
and Wattelet [9] correlations were able to estimate its heat trans- 8
> 2 2 0:5
>
> hTP ¼ ½ðS  hnb Þ þ ðE  hl Þ 
fer coefficients. Notwithstanding, neither of the previous investiga- >
>
>
> 0:12 0:55
> hnb ¼ 55  Pr ðlog10  PrÞ
>  M 0:5  q0:67
tions considers the evolution of the dryout in the region near to the <
hl ¼ 0:023  Re0:8  Pr 0:4
 k L =Deq
critical point of CO2. For this reason, Yoon et al. [1,2] proposed a >
>
l
> S ¼ ½1 þ 1:62  106  E0:69  Re1:11 1
>
new correlation that is capable of predicting the vapour title when >
>
>
> h  l i
>
: E ¼ 1 þ 9:36  103  Pr l  ql  1
the dryout occurs. This last correlation uses Liu and Winterton’s q v
correlation [18] for vapour titles higher than that of the dryout
point, Gungor and Winterton’s [5] for vapour titles lower than that if x > xdi
of the dryout point and Dittus and Boelter’s [19] for the vapour
phase. 8 h h þð2ph Þh
Considering the results of the works described previously, this >
> h ¼ dry v 2p dry wet
> TP
>
>
> h ¼ E  hl
work has selected those who present the best approximations. Spe- >
> wet
>
<  x 0:75  q 0:41
cifically, the correlations for the two-phase region used to analyse E ¼ 1 þ 3000  Bo0:86 þ 1:12  1x  ql
v
>
>
the evaporator model are Yoon et al. [1,2], Jung et al. [3], Kandlikar >
> 0:8 0:4
hv ¼ 0:023  Rev  Pr  k=Deq
>
>
>
>  
[4] and Gungor and Winterton [5], which expressions are detailed >
: hdry ¼ 36:23  Re3:47  Bo4:84  Bd0:27  1 2:6
2p xtt
in Table 1. In Table 2 we summarize the experimental evaluation
range for which those expressions were obtained.
Notwithstanding, we observed that expression of Yoon et al. Jung et al. [3] hTP ¼ N  hSA þ F p  hL
[1,2] proposed to evaluate the vapour title when the liquid film  0:745  0:581
q
hSA ¼ 207  b kd
L
 kqb d
L T sat
 qv  Pr 0:533
l
breaks (5) offer inconsistent results with the model. Consequently, d

e
0:5
l

2r
we replaced this last expression in the model by the correlation of bd ¼ 0:0146  gðq q Þ
l v

Cheng et al. [11,12] (6). hl ¼ 0:023  Re0:8

l  Pr0:4  DkeqL
 0:85
xcr;t ¼ 0:0012  Re2:79  ð1000  BoÞ0:06  Bd
4:76
ð5Þ F P ¼ 2:37  0:29 þ x1tt
l
if xtt < 1

½0:520:236We0:17 Fr 0:17 ðqV =qL Þ0:25 ðq=qcrit Þ0:27 

N ¼ 4048  x1:22
tt  Bo1:13
xdi ¼ 0:58  e V V;Mori ð6Þ if 1 < xtt < 5
0:28
N ¼ 2  0:1  xtt  Bo0:33
Furthermore, the model uses Gnielinski’s [20] correlation to evalu-
Kandlikar [4] hTP
¼ C 1  COC 2  ð25  Fr l ÞC 5 þ C 3  BoC 4  F fl
ate the heat transfer coefficient in the superheated vapour region of hl

the evaporator. hl ¼ 0:023  Re0:8

l  Pr0:4 kL
L  Deq
2
G
Fr l ¼ q2 gD
l eq

2.2.2. CO2 flow pattern maps q

Bo ¼ Gilv
Besides empirical correlations, there is another mechanism to  0:8 qv 0:5
CO ¼ 1x x  q
evaluate the heat transfer coefficient during the two phase flow. l

F fl ¼ 1:75
That mechanism, the flow pattern maps, differ from the classical
empirical correlations because they incorporate mathematical Gungor and Winterton hTP ¼ E2  hl þ S2  hpool
[5] hl ¼ 0:023  Re0:8  Pr0:4 kL
relations to describe several phenomenon during the evaporation l L  Deq
0:55
process of the refrigerant. hpool ¼ 55  Pr 0:12  ðlog10  PrÞ  M  q0:67
One of the first flow pattern maps was proposed by Baker [10], E2 ¼ E  Frð0:12frÞ
 0:86
who defined the flow transitions for oil and gas experimentally. La- E ¼ 1 þ 24000  Bo1:16 þ 1:37  1
xtt
ter, Taitel and Dukler [21] presented a flow map based on Martinel- 1
S2 ¼ S  Fr2
li’s parameter, which was afterwards modified with adiabatic S¼ 1
1þ1:15106 E2 Re1:17
considerations by Steiner [22] to adapt it to the refrigerants R12 l

and R22. Kattan et al. [23] developed a diabatic flow map based
on Steiner’s results, where the heat flux effect on the flow transi-
tions was considered, additionally they introduced a particular
method to predict the dryout point. Thome and Hajal [24] tackled
the iterative methods needed to solve Kattan’s flow map, they
introduced mechanisms to evaluate the geometric parameters di-
rectly. Later, Wojtan [13] updated Kattan and Thome and Hajal
flow maps, dividing the stratified-wavy region into three zones
and defining new curves to determine the transition between
annular-dryout and dryout-mist regions. Due to special properties
of CO2, Wotjan’s map was modified by Cheng [11,12] to be used
with this fluid.
At present, the most precise methods to predict flow regimes in
two-phase flow are: Wojtan’s map [13] for the R22 and R410A,
Cheng’s [11,12] for CO2, Barbieri’s [25] for R134a and Canière’s
[26] for the R410A and R134a. Accordingly, the unique flow pattern
map to be used in the evaporator model is Cheng’s, which will be
contrasted with the previous experimental correlations, being the
main equations of Cheng’s map those presented in Table 3.
2.2.3. Secondary fluid heat transfer correlations
The secondary fluid used to provide the heat load to the evapo-
rator was an ethylene–glycol/water mixture. The used heat trans-
fer correlations are extracted from Hewitt [27] and are given in
Table 4.
2.2.4. CO2 pressure drop correlations
The CO2 pressure drop in the evaporator during the two-phase
region is evaluated with the phase multiplier presented by Eq. (7).
This was presented by Yoon [1] specifically for CO2 and is based on
Chisholm B-method [28].
366 J. Patiño et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 71 (2014) 361–375

Table 2
Experimental evaluation range of used correlations.

Experimental conditions Yoon et al. [1,2] Kandlikar [4] Gungor and Winterton [5] Jung et al. [3] Cheng [11,12]
2 1
Mass flux (kg m s ) 200 to 530 80 to 867 91 to 2863 250 to 720 50 to 1500
Saturation temperature (°C) 4 to 20 5 to 11 1 to 42.7 2 to 9 28 to 25
Heat flux (kW m2) 12 to 20 2 to 70.6 1.1 to 70.8 10 to 45 1.8 to 46

Table 3
3. Experimental set up
Cheng’s flow pattern map for CO2 [11,12].
  To validate the evaporator model and to test the experimental
Mist zone hMist ¼ 2  108  Re1:97  Pr1:06 1:83 kv
H v Y  Deq heat transfer correlations and the flow pattern maps, we used an
Dryout zone hdry hv þð2phdry Þhwet experimental transcritical CO2 refrigeration plant [32–34] to obtain
hTP ¼ 2p
0:8 0:4 a wide range of operating conditions of the evaporator.
hv ¼ 0:023  Rev  Prv  Dkeqv
1
The experimental plant, whose scheme is depicted in Fig. 4, is
3 3 3
hwet ¼ ½ðS  hnb Þ þ hcb  driven by a semihermetic compressor, two counter current heat
hdryout ¼ hTP ðxdi Þ  xxx di
 ½hTP ðxdi Þ  hMist ðxde Þ
de xdi exchangers operate as gas-cooler and evaporator, and incorporates
Other regions hTP ¼
hdry hv þð2phdry Þhwet a two-stage expansion system (with a back-pressure to regulate
2p
3 3 1=3 the high-pressure, an accumulation tank and an electronic expan-
hwet ¼ ½ðS  hnb Þ þ hcb  
sion valve to control the degree of superheat at the evaporator
hv ¼ 0:023  Re0:8 v  Pr 04 kv
v  Deq
exit). The plant is regulated with a water secondary loop to control
hcb ¼ 0:023  Red0:8  Pr 0:4 kL
L  d
0:55
the heat rejection process in the gas-cooler and another loop with
hnb ¼ 131  Pr0:0063  ðlog10  PrÞ  M 0:5  q0:58
an ethylene-glycol/water mixture (43/57% by vol. respectively) to
provide the load to the evaporator.
The plant instrumented to measure the thermodynamic proper-
Table 4 ties of the fluids at the inlet and outlet of each element of the plant.
Heat transfer correlations for secondary fluid. The number of sensors and their accuracy is presented in Table 6. It
 0:8 needs to be highlighted that in the evaporator the fluid flow of the
If Re < 2000   1=2  RePrDH
0:19 LCV
Nu ¼ Nu1 þ 1 þ 0:14  ddTc   0:467  ; refrigerant and the secondary fluid are measured using Coriolis
RePrDH
1þ0:117 LCV mass flow meters to reduce the uncertainty of the data. With the
 0:8
Nu1 ¼ 3:66 þ 1:2  dT measurements the properties of the refrigerant are evaluated using
dC
v qD0H the Refprop database [14] and interpolated polynomials from the
Re ¼ l
C
C l
Ashrae Handbook [15] for the secondary fluids.
Pr ¼ pk C
 m Regarding the evaporator considered in this work, it corre-
l
; ¼ lC sponds to a concentric counter current evaporator, whose cross-
w

If 2000 < Re < 8000 Nu ¼ NuL þ ð1  eÞ  NuT section is depicted in Fig. 5. It is composed of four 5/1600 cooper
Re
e ¼ 1:33  6000 tubes (a) placed concentrically inside a 100 carbon steel pipe (b).
If Re > 8000
h  i
RePrð8nÞ
This external pipe is externally insulated (c) from the environment.
Nu ¼ 0:86  ddTc  ;
1:07þ12:7ð8nÞ
0:5 0:5
ðPr2=3 1Þ The total length of the evaporator is of 6 m.
2
n ¼ ½0:79  lnðReÞ  1:64

4. Experimental tests and uncertainty analysis

 
2 B
;f ;lo ¼ 1 þ a  ðC2  1Þ   x0:875  ð1  xÞ0:875 þ x1:75 ð7Þ This section describes the experimental test carried out with
WeD
the plant previously described to perform the analysis of the evap-
In Eq. (7), ‘a’ coefficient is 4.2 and ‘B’ parameter corresponds to Chis- orator model that is described in Section 2 and the uncertainty
holm B-method coefficient. Accordingly, pressure drop for two- analysis of the experimental data.
phase flow is evaluated as presented by Eq. (8). Where DPf,lo is
the pressure drop considering all the fluid as liquid, this last being
evaluated with relations (9)–(11) considering the inertia factor (fi) 4.1. Experimental tests
equal to zero. Friction factor (f) is determined by Blasius [29] or Fil-
onenko [30] relations depending on the fluid regime. The hydraulic To carry out the widest possible validation of the evaporator
factor (fh) of Eq. (10) was defined by Petrov and Popov [31]. model, we performed 73 steady-states of the refrigeration plant.
Each experimental point corresponds to a steady-state with a min-
2
DPtp ¼ ;f ;lo  DPf ;lo ð8Þ imum duration of 15 min with a maximum deviation of the exper-
imental measurements of 1%. The range of variation of the

G2 L experimental variables that influence the behaviour of the evapo-
DP ¼  fh  þ n ð9Þ rator is summarized in Table 5, furthermore the values of each
2q D
parameter for each steady-state are detailed in Appendix 1.
fh ¼ f þ fi ð10Þ As mentioned in Section 3 the heat transfer rates in the evapo-
rator are contrasted independently, i.e., the cooling capacity in the
   refrigerant is measured and it is compared with the heat transfer
8  qr 1 dq
fi ¼    ð11Þ rate measured in the secondary fluid. The comparison of both heat
G  cp q dT P
transfer rates in the evaporator is shown in Fig. 6. There is good
For CO2 in the superheated phase the pressure drop is evaluated agreement between both heat transfer rates, being the average
using Eqs. (9)–(11). deviation of 7.29% with a standard deviation of 0.84%. The devia-
 J. Patiño et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 71 (2014) 361–375 367

Fig. 4. Scheme of the CO2 transcritical refrigeration plant.

measurement error of temperature and pressure, which are illus-

Table 5
Experimental range of the parameters of the evaporator. trated in Fig. 7, condition the calculus of the cooling capacity pro-
vided by the plant.
Variable Max Min
The uncertainty associated to the cooling capacity on the refrig-
X 0.83 0.21 erant, derived from the uncertainties of pressure, temperature and
Po,in (bar) 35.91 22.74 refrigerant mass flow rate, can be determined from expression (4)
Po,out (bar) 35.30 22.11
m_ r (kg s1) 0.062 0.025
using the partial derivative method, as expressed by Eq. (12), and
Tsf,in (°C) 15.16 1.06 the relative error in percentage by Eq. (13).
Tsf,out (°C) 9.97 5.35

SH (°C) 27.84 0.08

@ Q_

@ Q_

@ Q_

_
o;r

o;r

o;r

V_ (m3 h1) 1.03 0.98 eðQ o;r Þ ¼

_  eðm_ r Þ
þ
 eðio;out Þ
þ
 eðio;in Þ
ð12Þ
sf
@ mr

@io;out

@io;in

Q_ o (kW) 9.55 4.11

tion of the heat transfer rates is discussed in the uncertainty
analysis.
4.2. Uncertainty analysis
Although not mentioned commonly, the experimentation with
CO2 as refrigerant in supercritical refrigeration plants requires spe-
cial attention due to the uncertainty associated to measurements
at the exit of the gas-cooler, which must be added to the uncertain-
ties at the exit of the evaporator for any refrigeration plant. Those
thermodynamic points, which uncertainty is caused by the
eðQ_ Þ
ere ðQ_ o;r Þ ¼ _ o;r  100 ð13Þ
Q o;r
The uncertainty associated to the mass flow meter is that provided
by the manufacturer, whereas the uncertainty related to the enthal-
pies is evaluated using the method proposed by Moffat [35], which
is used specifically for refrigeration plants in the work of Aprea et al.
[36].
On the other side, the uncertainty associated to the cooling
capacity on the secondary fluid, due to the error in temperature
and mass flow rate, can be determined from expression (3), and
again the uncertainty propagation can be obtained with relation
(14), and its relative error with expression (15).

Table 6
Sensors and accuracies.

Sensors Measured variable Measurement device Calibration range Calibrated accuracy

12 Temperature T-type thermocouple 40.0 to 145.0 °C ±0.5 °C
6 Pressure Pressure gauge 0.0 to 16.0 MPa ±0.096 MPa
4 Pressure Pressure gauge 0.0 to 8.0 MPa ±0.048 MPa
1 Refrigerant mass flow rate Coriolis mass flow meter 0.00 to 1.38 kg s1 ±0.1% of reading
1 Secondary fluid mass flow rate in evaporator Coriolis mass flow meter 0.00 to 13.88 kg s1 ±0.1% of reading
1 Secondary fluid density in evaporator Coriolis mass flow meter 300 to 2000 kg m3 ±1.5 kg m3
1 Secondary fluid volume rate in gas-cooler Magnetic flow meter 0 to 4 m3 h1 ±0.25% of reading
1 Power consumption Digital wattmeter 0 to 6 kW ±0.5% of reading
1 Compressor speed Analogical signal from the inverter drive 0 to 1750 rpm ±1.3% of reading
368 J. Patiño et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 71 (2014) 361–375

5
16

Fig. 5. Concentric counter current evaporator scheme.

Fig. 6. Refrigerant vs. secondary fluid measured cooling capacities.

Fig. 7. Schematic representation of the CO2 transcritical cycle and uncertainty regions.

@ Q_

@ Q_
eðQ_ Þ
_
o;sf

o;sf
ere ðQ_ o;sf Þ ¼ _ o;sf  100
eðQ o;sf Þ ¼
_  eðmsf Þ
þ

_  eðcp;sf Þ
ð15Þ

@ msf

@cp;sf
Q o;sf

@ Q_

@ Q_

o;sf

o;sf

þ
 eðT sf ;in Þ
þ
 eðT sf ;out Þ
ð14Þ Using the analysis described above, the average uncertainty in the

@T sf ;in

@T sf ;out

cooling capacity evaluated on the secondary fluid is of 3.04%,

 J. Patiño et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 71 (2014) 361–375 369

Fig. 8. Refrigerant cooling capacity uncertainty vs. proximity to the pseudocritical temperature.

whereas for the cooling capacity on the refrigerant of 9.35%. Accord-
ingly, the lowest uncertainty for the cooling capacity is that mea-
sured on the secondary fluid, although it requires further
explanation.
A detailed analysis of the uncertainty of each steady-state point
detailed in Appendix 1 reveals that large uncertainty may result
when evaluating the cooling capacity on the refrigerant side when
one of the following situations meets: in transcritical conditions
when the outlet temperature of the gas-cooler is near the pseudo-
critical temperature [37], for outlet conditions of the gas-cooler
next to the critical point and in subcritical conditions when the
subcooling degree is close to cero. For these situations the main
uncertainty is associated to the inlet enthalpy of the refrigerant
to the evaporator, since this enthalpy is considered to be equal to
that at the exit of the gas-cooler. In the first case, when in transcrit-
ical conditions the outlet condition of the gas-cooler is near the
pseudocritical temperature a the pressure measurement uncer-
tainty causes large uncertainties in the enthalpy at the exit of the
gas-cooler, and thus in the enthalpy at the inlet of the evaporator.
In Fig. 8, we present the three contributions to the error of the cool-
ing capacity measured in the refrigerant side (12) versus de prox-
imity to the pseudocritical temperature, for the tests performed in
transcritical conditions. We observe that the tests which outlet
condition of the gas-cooler are near the pseudocritical temperature
(about ± 1 °C) the uncertainty of the cooling capacity measured on
the refrigerant side can reach values up to 70%. For tests with out-
let temperature of the gas-cooler near the critical point (tests 15
and 52, Appendix 1) the measurement uncertainty of the cooling
capacity on the refrigerant is large too, and it is associated to the
uncertainty of the temperature measurement. Finally, for tests in
subcritical conditions with subcooling degree in the gas-cooler
(in this situation it behaves as a condenser, tests: 21, 42, 43, 47–
51, 56 and 58, Appendix 1) below the measurement uncertainty
of the thermocouple, the uncertainty is also high, and it is also
associated to the uncertainty of the temperature sensor.
Accordingly, to avoid these large uncertainties, we measured
the cooling capacity in both fluids, the secondary fluid and the
refrigerant, and considered both for the validation of the model.

Fig. 9. Secondary fluid cooling capacity validation.

370 J. Patiño et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 71 (2014) 361–375

+5%
+2%
-2% -5%

Fig. 10. Refrigerant cooling capacity validation.

5. Analyis of empirical and flow pattern correlations
The objective of this work is to contrast two approaches to eval-
uate the CO2 heat transfer characteristics in the evaporator: the
experimental correlations and the flow pattern maps. Accordingly,
we simulate the evaporator model presented in Section 2.1 consid-
ering both approaches: the experimental heat transfer correlations
detailed in Section 2.2.1 and the flow pattern maps described in
Section 2.2.2. We compare the results of the simulations with both
approaches with 73 steady-state conditions of the evaporator,
which are detailed in Appendix 1. To contrast the precision of
the model with both approaches we selected the following operat-
ing variables of the evaporator: cooling capacity measured on the
secondary fluid and on the refrigerant, outlet temperatures of the
evaporator of the secondary fluid and of the refrigerant and outlet
pressure of the refrigerant of the evaporator, which are all pre-
sented and discussed below.
The validation of the cooling capacity exchanged in the evapo-
rator is presented in Fig. 9 for the secondary fluid side and in
Fig. 10 for the refrigerant side. As can be observed, the model pre-
diction regarding the cooling capacity measured on the secondary
fluid (Fig. 9) presents lower deviations than that predicted on the
refrigerant side (Fig. 10). In the first case, the prediction errors
are about 5%, whereas for the refrigerant are higher than 5% in
some cases. This last deviation can be caused by the uncertainty
associated to the measurement procedure, as analysed in Sec-
tion 4.2. Nonetheless, as main part of this work, we can state that
with both approaches to evaluate the heat transfer characteristics
of the CO2 the prediction errors are similar, although we notice that
Cheng’s flow pattern map [12] can predict better than the experi-
mental heat transfer correlations.
The validation of the fluids outlet properties of the evaporator is
presented in Fig. 11 for the secondary fluid and in Fig. 12 for the
refrigerant. Again the agreement of the simulated properties com-
pared to the experimental measurements is higher for the second-
ary fluid than for the refrigerant. In the case of the secondary fluid
the model is able to predict the outlet temperature with errors be-
low 1 °C, whereas for the refrigerant the errors reach up to 10 °C.
Again, this last deviation can be caused by the uncertainty
associated with the measurements on the refrigerant. Nonetheless,

Fig. 11. Secondary fluid outlet temperature validation.

 J. Patiño et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 71 (2014) 361–375 371

+5ºC
+2ºC

-2ºC
-5ºC

Fig. 12. Refrigerant outlet temperature validation.

+2%

-2%

Fig. 13. Refrigerant outlet pressure validation.

Table 7
Mean and RMS deviation of the simulated results vs. experimental data.

Secondary fluid Refrigerant

Mean deviation (%) RMS deviation (%) Mean deviation (%) RMS deviation (%)
Tsf,out Qo,sf Tsf,out Qo,sf To,r,out Qo,r Po,r,out To,r,out Qo,r Po,r,out
Cheng [11,12] 0.055 1.617 0.008 0.194 2.090 8.398 0.446 0.241 1.519 0.122
Yoon [1,2] 0.127 2.164 0.050 0.267 3.553 10.562 0.579 0.386 1.479 0.164
Jung [3] 0.728 3.264 0.086 0.392 4.206 11.882 0.552 0.452 1.629 0.167
Kandlikar [4] 0.628 2.840 0.074 0.343 3.945 11.385 0.586 0.425 1.589 0.167
Gungor and Winterton [5] 0.610 2.750 0.072 0.335 3.891 11.273 0.605 0.420 1.573 0.168

Bold values emphasize the best approximations.

an error up to 10 °C does not involve large deviations in the outlet
enthalpy of the refrigerant, accordingly, the prediction of the
cooling capacity on the refrigerant side presents allowable errors,
as seen in Fig. 10. Regarding the approaches for evaluating the
CO2 heat transfer characteristics we can affirm that both are useful,
however, we highlight from the results of Fig. 12 that Cheng’s flow
pattern map provides higher accuracy than the experimental heat
transfer correlations.
Finally, Fig. 13 presents the experimental versus modelled out-
let pressure of the refrigerant of the evaporator. The proposed cor-
relations for estimating the pressure drop together with the
different approaches to evaluate the heat transfer characteristics
 372
Appendix 1. Experimental data

Steady- Po,in Tgc,out Pgc,out m

_r Tsf,in Tsf,out SH V_ sf TO (°C) Heat flux Mass flux e(Qo,r) e(Qo,sf) CYCLEa Mean deviation of Qo,r from experimental data (%)
state (bar) (°C) (bar) (kg s1) (°C) (°C) (°C) (m3 h1) (kW m2) (kg m2 s1) (%) (%)
Cheng Yoon Jung Kandlikar Gungor and
[11,12] et al. et al. [4] Winterton [5]
[1,2] [3]
1 33.44 38.26 94.94 0.054 15.12 7.94 1.27 1.013 1.55 13.58 425.40 6.34 2.79 trans 9.85 12.31 14.33 13.92 13.58
2 29.73 24.38 74.81 0.050 14.93 5.58 1.04 0.997 5.88 17.86 396.67 4.40 2.45 trans 7.56 10.40 11.75 11.18 11.11
3 26.52 37.37 89.96 0.038 4.98 0.07 0.81 1.010 9.95 9.55 301.73 8.28 3.40 trans 11.22 14.10 14.67 14.42 14.51
4 24.21 22.41 75.05 0.036 5.15 1.99 2.99 1.004 13.12 13.65 287.40 5.11 2.82 trans 5.03 8.25 9.11 8.85 8.79
5 25.76 30.67 99.11 0.034 5.03 1.01 2.85 1.023 10.97 11.56 271.60 5.55 3.07 trans 5.11 7.79 8.62 8.21 8.09

J. Patiño et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 71 (2014) 361–375
6 25.08 29.54 75.10 0.038 5.01 1.22 2.01 0.997 11.91 11.70 299.86 6.57 2.99 trans 7.88 10.42 11.14 10.77 10.62
7 25.25 25.73 99.36 0.034 4.94 1.53 2.77 1.014 11.67 12.41 265.63 5.38 2.96 trans 5.12 7.48 8.36 7.83 7.73
8 23.60 16.53 74.74 0.035 4.98 2.64 3.33 0.993 13.99 14.58 278.80 4.97 2.73 trans 4.00 7.62 8.50 8.13 8.10
9 31.79 30.92 101.81 0.046 14.80 6.77 4.12 1.011 3.44 15.42 367.67 4.70 2.64 trans 3.32 5.88 7.92 7.27 6.94
10 31.72 32.86 89.11 0.050 14.97 7.02 2.64 1.018 3.51 14.98 394.48 5.16 2.65 trans 7.23 9.33 11.24 10.79 10.78
11 33.79 34.42 79.64 0.057 14.93 8.12 6.64 1.023 1.16 11.01 453.14 29.17 3.11 trans 11.02 13.18 14.50 14.38 14.25
12 31.45 25.61 104.17 0.046 14.95 6.25 2.17 1.006 3.83 16.87 363.35 4.44 2.54 trans 4.35 7.27 9.67 8.91 8.61
13 31.10 26.99 89.17 0.049 15.07 6.25 1.06 1.010 4.24 17.08 386.97 4.45 2.53 trans 6.71 9.04 11.33 10.51 10.47
14 31.68 31.04 74.42 0.054 15.08 7.07 8.81 1.016 3.57 14.12 424.86 16.60 2.65 trans 11.23 13.15 14.65 14.28 14.16
15 34.59 30.87 73.72 0.062 15.03 8.01 2.17 1.010 0.29 15.40 487.72 59.54 2.82 critical 46.97 47.42 49.32 49.10 48.83
16 32.64 36.83 104.90 0.050 15.08 7.48 1.10 1.005 2.45 14.53 396.39 5.01 2.71 trans 8.19 10.48 12.54 11.89 11.75
17 34.54 38.58 90.02 0.057 15.15 8.49 2.95 1.014 0.33 12.40 448.80 10.01 2.90 trans 9.16 12.06 14.15 13.75 13.76
18 35.26 21.28 89.62 0.036 14.98 8.37 1.32 1.020 0.44 13.71 284.51 5.35 2.95 trans 2.92 11.22 13.81 12.11 12.53
19 35.28 21.30 84.81 0.036 15.09 8.43 1.70 1.020 0.46 13.77 287.91 5.34 2.93 trans 2.77 5.55 8.27 6.56 6.97
20 34.91 22.21 74.76 0.038 14.97 8.19 0.85 1.020 0.06 13.90 300.23 5.32 2.87 trans 0.31 6.36 9.15 7.52 7.77
21 35.91 28.61 68.46 0.041 15.07 9.13 0.73 1.027 1.13 12.17 323.93 68.96 3.08 subcrit 5.84 9.51 11.84 10.87 10.79
22 26.23 36.08 100.41 0.035 5.00 0.35 2.28 1.004 10.34 10.40 278.09 5.99 3.29 trans 5.96 9.73 10.34 9.97 10.09
23 25.90 30.79 104.79 0.034 5.08 0.96 2.97 1.022 10.78 11.57 268.60 5.53 3.07 trans 4.05 8.07 8.39 8.11 8.02
24 25.61 31.74 89.75 0.036 4.98 1.03 2.34 1.023 11.18 11.57 287.98 5.68 3.08 trans 6.01 9.19 9.93 9.52 9.66
25 26.04 33.29 79.93 0.040 5.12 0.31 0.88 1.031 10.60 10.47 314.50 11.18 3.26 trans 12.96 15.68 15.88 15.75 15.58
26 24.99 25.89 89.82 0.035 5.02 1.66 2.89 1.012 12.03 12.78 278.80 5.27 2.91 trans 4.34 7.81 8.78 8.36 8.25
27 24.83 27.53 79.94 0.037 5.06 1.60 2.63 1.015 12.24 12.64 293.59 5.40 2.92 trans 5.84 8.86 9.75 9.45 9.34
28 23.60 16.53 75.22 0.035 4.98 2.64 3.33 0.993 13.99 14.59 278.80 4.97 2.73 trans 3.85 7.65 8.54 8.17 8.14
29 22.91 35.80 99.04 0.028 0.94 5.35 2.24 0.996 15.00 8.45 223.94 6.85 3.70 trans 5.90 8.60 9.01 8.78 8.72
30 22.86 36.92 88.69 0.030 1.06 5.18 2.41 1.000 15.07 7.67 239.46 9.30 3.86 trans 8.61 11.13 11.35 11.34 11.21
31 22.94 31.44 88.32 0.031 0.23 4.84 3.16 1.017 14.96 9.80 242.43 6.32 3.40 trans 5.64 8.11 8.51 8.25 8.13
32 22.86 32.85 80.38 0.032 0.03 4.76 2.68 1.017 15.08 8.97 254.17 8.87 3.54 trans 8.82 10.88 11.16 11.06 10.99
33 30.44 36.78 99.91 0.046 11.80 4.78 0.95 0.999 5.02 13.13 364.65 5.39 2.83 trans 9.05 11.92 12.77 12.29 12.15
34 30.42 38.13 89.71 0.048 10.11 4.04 0.99 0.984 5.05 11.13 381.84 9.38 3.05 trans 11.92 14.37 15.64 15.38 15.36
35 30.34 33.21 90.11 0.048 12.58 5.07 1.08 1.003 5.14 14.28 376.17 5.24 2.73 trans 8.55 10.91 12.64 12.19 12.06
36 30.46 34.30 83.73 0.049 12.13 5.07 1.01 1.003 5.00 13.10 389.98 7.53 2.82 trans 10.91 13.23 14.65 14.34 14.12
37 30.45 28.09 85.80 0.049 13.97 5.40 0.96 1.028 5.01 16.58 387.59 4.57 2.57 trans 7.23 9.44 11.63 10.82 10.68
38 30.46 31.11 75.74 0.050 12.64 5.24 0.89 1.022 5.00 14.00 398.12 9.71 2.75 trans 11.50 14.27 15.20 14.92 14.70
 39 22.93 28.39 75.44 0.033 1.20 4.34 3.15 1.021 14.96 10.73 260.97 6.29 3.23 trans 6.14 8.57 9.12 8.82 8.80
40 30.43 24.44 74.99 0.051 15.08 5.89 1.13 1.033 5.04 18.11 403.37 4.38 2.48 trans 6.93 9.07 11.48 10.69 10.55
41 22.82 21.84 75.42 0.033 1.81 4.55 3.40 1.003 15.13 12.51 259.84 5.44 2.99 trans 4.85 7.43 8.17 7.83 7.53
42 24.24 25.24 65.06 0.038 5.06 1.71 2.80 1.007 13.07 12.90 304.06 81.39 2.89 subcrit 8.53 10.91 11.61 11.22 11.11
43 27.98 22.18 61.26 0.027 5.04 0.16 2.55 1.012 8.06 9.64 212.50 88.02 3.47 subcrit 2.01 6.93 7.67 7.20 6.91
44 25.05 20.98 105.08 0.032 5.01 1.65 2.58 0.999 11.94 12.84 254.11 5.40 2.92 trans 3.85 7.52 8.36 7.80 7.74
45 24.63 21.14 94.97 0.034 5.12 1.83 2.78 0.997 12.53 13.32 266.75 5.22 2.85 trans 4.52 8.21 8.60 8.21 8.17
46 24.42 21.21 85.04 0.035 5.09 1.94 2.80 1.002 12.83 13.60 275.80 5.13 2.84 trans 3.94 7.58 8.47 8.14 8.10
47 24.91 28.41 69.51 0.039 5.07 1.20 1.84 1.013 12.14 11.71 308.14 10.47 3.01 subcrit 8.68 10.94 11.61 11.29 11.43
48 26.13 28.10 69.06 0.035 5.10 0.72 0.96 1.011 10.48 10.68 278.66 10.23 3.19 subcrit 7.97 11.60 12.28 12.07 11.95

J. Patiño et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 71 (2014) 361–375
49 27.00 27.14 67.78 0.032 5.15 0.08 2.24 1.012 9.32 10.00 251.40 78.09 3.33 subcrit 7.02 10.01 10.71 10.46 10.35
50 28.56 26.34 66.70 0.027 5.02 0.66 2.50 1.013 7.33 8.67 212.96 81.03 3.71 subcrit 2.40 8.24 8.97 8.60 8.28
51 28.40 25.29 65.31 0.026 5.04 0.59 2.01 1.009 7.52 8.80 209.38 83.14 3.67 subcrit 3.41 7.90 8.54 8.18 7.90
52 25.54 30.95 73.62 0.040 5.09 0.66 0.83 1.003 11.27 6.56 317.57 76.11 3.16 critical 41.44 43.33 45.62 44.90 45.12
53 30.33 37.07 82.90 0.049 5.07 0.99 1.39 1.017 5.15 7.66 388.11 23.06 3.87 trans 10.75 14.67 15.16 16.34 15.75
54 28.47 20.80 89.82 0.025 4.91 0.19 1.60 1.017 7.43 9.83 198.39 6.77 3.55 trans 3.39 6.23 7.27 6.52 6.23
55 27.92 21.27 74.86 0.027 4.92 0.04 2.32 1.018 8.13 10.28 213.71 6.49 3.48 trans 0.09 6.29 7.36 6.50 6.39
56 35.91 28.61 68.66 0.041 15.07 9.13 0.08 1.027 1.13 12.11 323.93 66.98 3.08 subcrit 6.21 9.49 11.92 11.06 10.98
57 34.91 22.21 74.97 0.038 14.97 8.19 0.28 1.020 0.06 13.91 300.23 5.31 2.87 trans 1.03 7.10 9.87 8.24 8.49
58 31.16 29.53 71.35 0.054 15.04 6.81 0.36 1.003 4.16 7.07 429.96 30.47 2.61 subcrit 27.58 24.70 22.17 22.89 23.17
59 22.74 35.61 96.43 0.027 5.03 0.43 20.22 1.022 15.25 8.09 216.72 7.13 3.64 trans 3.56 2.77 2.61 2.69 2.73
60 24.52 36.36 96.78 0.031 5.02 0.05 16.40 1.014 12.68 8.86 243.62 6.78 3.46 trans 4.09 2.82 2.57 2.68 2.80
61 24.98 36.16 96.80 0.033 5.05 0.23 13.94 1.013 12.05 9.43 257.55 6.50 3.32 trans 1.50 0.14 0.52 0.36 0.39
62 26.37 36.37 96.47 0.036 4.93 0.49 0.83 1.007 10.16 10.34 286.22 6.21 3.27 trans 3.99 7.58 8.39 8.16 7.95
63 24.92 36.01 96.39 0.031 15.16 9.97 27.84 1.023 12.12 8.93 243.38 6.75 3.33 trans 3.22 2.84 2.62 2.77 2.70
64 27.29 36.40 96.69 0.036 14.94 9.05 24.27 1.017 8.95 10.13 281.17 6.31 3.10 trans 3.95 2.95 2.65 2.79 2.69
65 30.21 37.22 96.67 0.043 15.03 8.26 18.54 1.012 5.30 11.68 337.36 6.03 2.88 trans 3.72 2.30 1.63 1.84 1.80
66 32.78 37.43 95.90 0.052 15.01 7.67 0.92 1.006 2.30 13.88 411.94 5.77 2.76 trans 6.82 9.22 11.16 10.81 10.65
67 30.32 35.07 96.86 0.041 15.00 8.05 17.99 1.019 5.16 12.19 326.52 5.61 2.86 trans 3.18 1.93 1.15 1.47 1.40
68 31.08 35.05 96.46 0.044 14.98 7.79 14.74 1.015 4.27 12.84 345.42 5.48 2.79 trans 2.19 0.69 0.35 0.08 0.06
69 31.93 35.02 96.39 0.046 14.95 7.60 9.34 1.013 3.27 13.41 361.76 5.38 2.76 trans 0.00 1.97 3.32 2.89 2.68
70 32.59 35.01 96.66 0.048 14.95 7.51 1.00 1.011 2.52 14.17 382.59 5.22 2.74 trans 5.42 7.97 9.81 9.08 9.04
71 24.30 33.19 96.05 0.030 5.10 0.11 17.12 1.022 13.00 9.38 235.32 6.43 3.35 trans 4.45 3.19 2.84 2.95 3.06
72 25.90 32.71 96.13 0.033 5.04 0.62 3.95 1.018 10.79 10.63 264.12 5.92 2.88 trans 1.41 4.56 5.22 4.85 4.76
73 26.45 32.43 96.19 0.035 5.08 0.84 0.85 1.015 10.05 11.24 277.76 5.70 2.76 trans 0.89 6.09 7.08 6.78 6.56
a
CYCLE: trans: cycle in transcritical conditions (Pgc > Pcrit), critical: cycle with gas-cooler refrigerant conditions in the critical point, subcrit: subcritical cycle (Pgc < Pcrit).

373
374 J. Patiño et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 71 (2014) 361–375
provide good predictions. They are in most cases below 2% of error
compared to the experimental measurements.
To conclude, using the experimental results and the simulated
values of the outlet properties, we evaluate the mean-deviation
and the root-mean-square-deviation of the discrepancies to verify
which approach provides the lower deviations. The results are de-
tailed in Table 7 for the considered main outlet properties of the
model. We can observe that the approach which presents the low-
est deviations from the experimental data corresponds to Cheng’s
[11,12] flow pattern map. Nonetheless, experimental heat transfer
correlations also allow to obtain low deviations.
6. Conclusions
In this work we develop and validate a finite-volume mathe-
matical model of a concentric counter-current evaporator for
CO2. We use the model to compare the predictions of the CO2 heat
transfer characteristics using two approaches: the classical exper-
imental heat transfer correlations and the newest flow pattern
maps. Although some of the used empirical heat transfer correla-
tion were not developed for CO2, we use them to check their valid-
ity for this refrigerant in comparison with the flow pattern map,
which was developed specifically for CO2.
The results of the model, run with five correlations for evaluat-
ing the CO2 heat transfer characteristics, are compared to a set of
73 steady-states of an evaporator placed on a transcritical CO2
refrigeration plant covering a wide range of operating conditions.
A loop working with an ethylene-glycol/water mixture provided
the heat load to the evaporator. We also present the uncertainty
analysis of the experimental data, which reveals that measuring
the cooling capacity on the plant on the refrigerant side results
in large uncertainties when the refrigerant at the exit of the gas-
cooler is near the pseudocritical temperature, nonetheless, the
uncertainty of the cooling capacity on the secondary fluid is low.
We contrast the results of the model with the experimental
cooling capacity on the refrigerant and on the secondary fluid,
the outlet temperatures of the fluids and the outlet pressure of
the refrigerant of the evaporator. From the analysis, we verify that
both approaches to estimate the CO2 heat transfer characteristics
predict with reasonable accuracy the process in the evaporator,
although some experimental correlations were not developed for
CO2. The results of the evaporator model with the classical heat
transfer correlations present mean deviations from experimental
data of 10.6–11.9% for the cooling capacity measured on the refrig-
erant side, of 2.2–3.3% for the cooling capacity measured on the
secondary fluid side, of 2.1–4.2% for the refrigerant outlet temper-
ature and of 0.4% for the refrigerant outlet pressure. On the other
side, the mean deviations of the model using Cheng’s flow pattern
map are of 8.4% for the cooling capacity on the refrigerant, of 1.6%
for the cooling capacity on the secondary fluid, of 0.2% for the
refrigerant outlet temperature and of 0.4% for the refrigerant outlet
pressure. We observe that the approach with lowest deviation
from the experimental data is Cheng’s flow pattern map, however,
we highlight that the uncertainty of some experimental tests is of
the same order of the model uncertainty. Nonetheless, we high-
light that the implementation of the flow pattern map to character-
ize the evaporating process is more complex than the classical
empirical heat transfer correlations.
Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to the Spanish Ministry of Education
and Science (CTM2008-06468-C02-02/TECNO) for the economic
support given to the present work.
References
[1] S.H. Yoon, E.S. Cho, Y.W. Hwang, M.S. Kim, K. Min, Y. Kim, Characteristics of
evaporative heat transfer and pressure drop of carbon dioxide and correlation
development, Int. J. Refrig. 27 (2004) 111–119.
[2] S.H. Yoon, E.S. Cho, Y.W. Hwang, M.S. Kim, K. Min, Y. Kim, Errata to
‘‘Characteristics of evaporative heat transfer and pressure drop of carbon
dioxide and correlation development [Int J Refrig 27 (2004) 111–117]’’, Int. J.
Refrig. 27 (2004) 1008.
[3] D.S. Jung, M. McLinden, R. Radermacher, D. Didion, A study of flow boiling heat
transfer with refrigerant mixtures, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 32 (1989) 1751–
1764.
[4] S.G. Kandlikar, A general correlation for saturated two-phase flow boiling heat
transfer inside horizontal and vertical tubes, J. Heat Transfer – Trans. ASME
112 (1990) 219.
[5] K.E. Gungor, R.H.S. Winterton, A general correlation for flow boiling in tubes
and annuli, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 29 (1986) 351–358.
[6] Y. Hwang, B. Kim, R. Radermacher, Boiling Heat Transfer Correlation for Carbon
Dioxide, Technical report, IIF-IIR – Commission B1, College Park, USA, 1997.
[7] H.K. Oh, H.G. Ku, G.S. Roh, C.H. Son, S.J. Park, Flow boiling heat transfer
characteristics of carbon dioxide in a horizontal tube, Appl. Therm. Eng. 28
(2008) 1022–1030.
[8] C.Y. Park, P.S. Hrnjak, CO2 and R410A flow boiling heat transfer, pressure drop,
and flow pattern at low temperatures in a horizontal smooth tube, Int. J. Refrig.
30 (2007) 166–178.
[9] J.P. Wattelet, Heat transfer flow regimes of refrigerants in a horizontal-tube
evaporator, Ph.D. thesis, in: Mechanical Science and Engineering, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1994.
[10] O. Baker, Design of pipe lines for simultaneous flow of oil and gas, Oil Gas J. 53
(1954) 185–190.
[11] L. Cheng, G. Ribatski, J. Moreno Quibén, J.R. Thome, New prediction methods
for CO2 evaporation inside tubes: Part I – A two-phase flow pattern map and a
flow pattern based phenomenological model for two-phase flow frictional
pressure drops, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 51 (2008) 111–124.
[12] L. Cheng, G. Ribatski, J.R. Thome, New prediction methods for CO2 evaporation
inside tubes: Part II – An updated general flow boiling heat transfer model
based on flow patterns, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 51 (2008) 125–135.
[13] L. Wojtan, T. Ursenbacher, J.R. Thome, Investigation of flow boiling in
horizontal tubes: Part I – A new diabatic two-phase flow pattern map, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transfer 48 (2005) 2955–2969.
[14] E.W. Lemmon, M.L. Huber, M.O. McLinden, REFPROP, NIST Standard Reference
Database 23, vol. 9, National Institute of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD, USA,
2010.
[15] ASHRAE, ASHRAE Handbook-Fundamentals, Atlanta: American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Inc, 2005.
[16] M.G. Cooper, Heat flow rates in saturated nucleate pool boiling – a wide-
ranging examination using reduced properties, in: P.H. James, F.I. Thomas
(Eds.), Advances in Heat Transfer, Elsevier, 1984, pp. 157–239.
[17] N. Kattan, J.R. Thome, D. Favrat, Flow boiling in horizontal tubes: Part 1 –
Development of a diabatic two-phase flow pattern map, J. Heat Transfer –
Trans. ASME 120 (1998) 140–146.
[18] Z. Liu, R.H.S. Winterton, A general correlation for saturated and subcooled flow
boiling in tubes and annuli, based on a nucleate pool boiling equation, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transfer 34 (1991) 2759–2766.
[19] F.W. Dittus, L.M.K. Boelter, Heat transfer in automobile radiators of the tubular
type, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 12 (1985) 3–22.
[20] V. Gnielinski, New equations for heat and mass transfer in turbulent pipe and
channel flow, Int. Chem. Eng 16 (1976) 359–368.
[21] Y. Taitel, A.E. Dukler, A model for predicting flow regime transitions in
horizontal and near horizontal gas-liquid flow, AIChE J. 22 (1976) 47–55.
[22] D. Steiner, Heat transfer to boiling saturated liquids, VDI-Wārmeatlas (VDI
Heat Atlas), Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, VDI-Gesellschaft Verfahrenstechnik
und Chemieingenieurwesen (GCV), Düsseldorf, Chapter Hbb, 1993.
[23] N. Kattan, J.R. Thome, D. Favrat, Flow boiling in horizontal tubes: Part 1 –
Development of a diabatic two-phase flow pattern map, J. Heat Transfer –
Trans. ASME 120 (1998) 140–147.
[24] J.R. Thome, J.E. Hajal, Two-phase flow pattern map for evaporation in
horizontal tubes: latest version, Heat Transfer Eng. 24 (2003) 3–10.
[25] P. Barbieri, J. Jabardo, E. Bandarra Filho, Flow patterns in convective boiling of
refrigerant R-134a in smooth tubes of several diameters, in: Proceedings of the
5th European Thermal-Sciences Conference, Eindhoven, The Netherlands,
2008.
[26] H. Canière, B. Bauwens, C. T’Joen, M. De Paepe, Mapping of horizontal
refrigerant two-phase flow patterns based on clustering of capacitive sensor
signals, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 5298–5307.
[27] G.F. Hewitt, in: Heat Exchanger Design Handbook 2002, Begell House Inc,
2002.
[28] D. Chisholm, Two-phase flow in pipelines and heat exchangers, G. Godwin in
association with Institution of Chemical Engineers (1983).
[29] H. Blasius, Das Aehnlichkeitsgesetz bei Reibungsvorgängen in Flüssigkeiten,
Mitteilungen über Forschungsarbeiten auf dem Gebiete des Ingenieurwesens,
VDI-Verlag, Berlin, 1913, p. 131.
[30] G.K. Filonenko, Hydraulic drag in pipes, Teploenergetika 1 (1954) 40–44.
[31] N.E. Petrov, V.N. Popov, Heat transfer and resistance of carbon dioxide being
cooled in the supercritical region, Appl. Therm. Eng. 32 (1985).
 J. Patiño et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 71 (2014) 361–375 375

[32] R. Cabello, D. Sánchez, R. Llopis, E. Torrella, Experimental evaluation of the
energy efficiency of a CO2 refrigerating plant working in transcritical
conditions, Appl. Therm. Eng. 28 (2008) 1596–1604.
[33] D. Sánchez, E. Torrella, R. Cabello, R. Llopis, Influence of the superheat
associated to a semihermetic compressor of a transcritical CO2 refrigeration
plant, Appl. Therm. Eng. 30 (2010) 302–309.
[34] E. Torrella, D. Sánchez, R. Llopis, R. Cabello, Energetic evaluation of an internal
heat exchanger in a CO2 transcritical refrigeration plant using experimental
data, Int. J. Refrig. 34 (2011) 40–49.
[35] R.J. Moffat, Using uncertainty analysis in the planning of an experiment, J.
Fluids Eng. 107 (1985) 173–178.
[36] C. Aprea, F. de Rossi, R. Mastrullo, The uncertainties in measuring vapour
compression plant performances, Measurement 21 (1997) 65–70.
[37] S.M. Liao, T.S. Zhao, Measurements of heat transfer coefficients from
supercritical carbon dioxide flowing in horizontal mini/micro channels, J.
Heat Transfer – Trans. ASME 124 (2002) 413–420.