energies
Article
CFD Analysis of Falling Film Hydrodynamics for a
Lithium Bromide (LiBr) Solution over a
Horizontal Tube
Furqan Tahir 1, * , Abdelnasser Mabrouk 1,2 and Muammer Koç 1
1
2
*
Division of Sustainable Development (DSD), College of Science & Engineering (CSE), Hamad Bin Khalifa
University (HBKU), Education City, Doha 34110, Qatar; aaboukhlewa@hbku.edu.qa (A.M.);
mkoc@hbku.edu.qa (M.K.)
Qatar Environment and Energy Research Institute (QEERI), Hamad Bin Khalifa University (HBKU),
Education City, Doha 34110, Qatar
Correspondence: ftahir@mail.hbku.edu.qa; Tel.: +974-30074879
Received: 30 November 2019; Accepted: 6 January 2020; Published: 8 January 2020
Abstract: Falling film evaporators are used in applications where high heat transfer coefficients are
required for low liquid load and temperature difference. One such application is the lithium bromide
(LiBr)-based absorber and generator. The concentration of the aqueous LiBr solution changes within the
absorber and generator because of evaporation and vapor absorption. This causes the thermophysical
properties to differ and affects the film distribution, heat, and mass transfer mechanisms. For thermal
performance improvement of LiBr-based falling film evaporators, in-depth analysis at the micro
level is required for film distribution and hydrodynamics. In this work, a 2D numerical model was
constructed using the commercial CFD software Ansys Fluent v18.0. The influence of the liquid load
corresponding to droplet and jet mode, and the concentration, on film hydrodynamics was examined.
It was found that the jet mode was more stable at a higher concentration of 0.65 with ±0.5% variation
compared to lower concentrations. The recirculation was stronger at a low concentration of 0.45
and existed until the angular position (θ) = 10◦ , whereas at 0.65 concentration it diminished after
θ = 5◦ . The improved heat transfer is expected at lower concentrations due to lower film thickness
and thermal resistance, more recirculation, and a higher velocity field.
Keywords: falling film; film thickness; CFD; horizontal tube; lithium bromide; LiBr; transient
analysis; VOF
1. Introduction
Falling film exchangers are commonly employed in ammonia (NH3 )- and lithium bromide
(LiBr)-based absorption refrigeration systems [1–6]. In falling film exchangers, a thin layer of liquid film
is formed around the tube and heat is transferred to/from the fluid flowing inside the tube. The heat
and mass transfer coefficients strongly depend on the film hydrodynamics. Extensive experimental,
analytical, and numerical works were performed to describe the falling film flow on bare and enhanced
tubes [7,8]. The falling film characterization comprises of (a) film thickness, (b) wave formation,
(c) wettability, (d) flow development regions, such as stagnation, (e) impingement, (f) developing,
developed detachment, and necking zones, (g) flow modes, such as droplet, jet, and sheet, and (h) flow
regimes, which include laminar, wavy laminar, and turbulent [7,9–13].
The falling film modes were experimentally distinguished: droplet, droplet-jet, jet, jet-sheet, and
sheet modes. Researchers have developed empirical correlations based on films’ Reynolds number Ref
and modified Galileo number Ga for flow mode recognition and transition [14–17]. The correlations
developed by Roques et al. [16] are as follows:
Energies 2020, 13, 307; doi:10.3390/en13020307
www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2020, 13, 307
2 of 15
Droplet to droplet-jet mode:
Re f = 0.0417Ga0.3278 .
(1)
Re f = 0.0683Ga0.3204 .
(2)
Re f = 0.8553Ga0.2483 .
(3)
Re f = 1.068Ga0.2563 .
(4)
Droplet-jet to jet mode:
Jet to jet-sheet mode:
Jet-sheet to sheet mode:
Ref and Ga are defined as:
Re f =
Ga =
4Γ1/2
µ
ρσ3
µ4 g
,
(5)
(6)
where Γ1/2 represents the liquid load on one side of the tube, µ is the viscosity, g is the acceleration due
to gravity, ρ is the density, and σ is the surface tension. In 1916, Nusselt established the film thickness δ
correlation as a function of angular position θ, liquid load Γ1/2 , and thermophysical properties [18].
The Nusselt solution, as shown in Equation (7), is widely used for thickness estimation and comparison
purposes [9,19–21]:
s
3µl Γ1/2
δ= 3
.
(7)
ρl ρl − ρ g gsinθ
Rogers and Goindi [22] measured the film thickness on an aluminum tube of 132 mm outer tube
diameter D at three different angular positions, θ = 45◦ , 90◦ , and 135◦ . They found a 30% deviation on
averaged when compared with Equation (7). Gstoehl et al. [23] applied the laser method to analyze the
film thickness around the tube. The film thicknesses θ = 22◦ –62◦ and 112◦ –152◦ on a 19.05-mm copper
tube were recorded for different intertube spacing s. They concluded that Equation (7) predicts the
film thickness well for the upper region (θ = 0◦ –90◦ ), but overestimates the thickness for the lower
region (θ > 90◦ ). Hou et al. [24] conducted experiments to measure film thickness using a displacement
micrometer from θ = 15◦ –165◦ for D = 20–32 mm, s = 10–40 mm, and Ref = 150–800. They reached
a similar conclusion, that Equation (7) overestimates the film thickness in the lower portion, and
proposed a modified version of Equation (7) by incorporating intertube spacing in the tube diameter
ratio (s/D). In addition, it was observed that the minimum film thickness lies in the range of 90◦ –110◦
instead of at a fixed location, i.e., θ = 90◦ as per Equation (7). Chen et al. [25] used the laser technique
to capture film thickness in the longitudinal and circumferential directions. In their findings, the
maximum film thickness was found to be at the crest location, where it was twice the minimum film
thickness in the axial direction. Furthermore, higher film thickness for seawater was recorded as
compared to water.
Since there are limitations in experimental procedures covering the entire parameters and
capturing other details such as operating conditions, velocity, and temperature profiles within the film,
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has become an important tool for in-depth analysis to design
optimal conditions for various applications. Tahir et al. [11] analyzed the liquid load distribution for
each column and concluded that the triangular pitch configuration exhibits more maldistribution than
a square pitch arrangement. Ji et al. [19] performed CFD simulations by implementing a volume of
fluid (VOF) model to track the liquid/gas interface, with LiBr solution as the working fluid. They found
the minimum thickness near 120◦ , so adjusted Equation (7) by replacing sin(θ) with sin(3/4 θ), such
that it predicts the minimum thickness at 120◦ . Lin et al. [26] performed experiments and numerical
calculations for a three-dimensional geometry, to examine the film distribution. They validated their
VOF model with the experimental data and observed the minimum thickness to lie in the valley area,
Energies 2020, 13, 307
3 of 15
in which the heat transfer performance was found to poor. Wang et al. [27] also studied film thickness
numerically, with a three-dimensional geometry of two 25.4-mm diameter tubes. They found that the
minimum film thickness location depends on both the angular position and the axial displacement.
Based on their CFD results, they proposed a film thickness correlation similar to Hou et al. [24], but
with different parameters for three sections, namely impingement, transition, and departure regions.
Hosseinnia et al. [20] carried out a numerical analysis for mass transfer mechanism in the LiBr-based
absorber. The VOF model and h-refinement (a mesh adaptation technique) were implemented in order
to solve conservation of mass, momentum, and energy equations. Their analysis showed that the mass
transfer mechanism is greatly affected by the flow mode, as the absorption rate was decreased more
than 10-fold when the flow mode was changed from droplet to jet. For this reason, most of the absorber
operates under droplet, droplet-jet, and modes or low liquid load [9,20].
The film distribution around the tube can be divided into stagnation, impingement, developing,
developed, detachment, and necking regions. The majority of the heat and mass transfer takes place in
the first three regions [9], thus the film distribution affects the heat and mass transfer mechanisms. In
– modeled,
this study, a 2D CFD model for an aqueous LiBr solution falling over a horizontal tube was
which is used in the refrigeration and multi-effect desalination industries [28–31].The LiBr concentration
changes in an absorber and generator due to vapor absorption and evaporation. As the concentration
varies, the thermophysical properties differ and alter the magnitude of forces and hence the film
hydrodynamics. The influence of LiBr concentration on the film hydrodynamics and conduction
thermal resistance (which is often neglected) is lacking in the literature. Therefore, the effects of LiBr
concentration, with corresponding liquid loads for droplet and jet mode, on film distribution were
analyzed. First, the CFD model was validated using experimental data from the literature. Then, the
transient behavior of falling film, film thickness distribution, average film thickness, and residence
time were quantified and discussed. Afterwards, the tangential and normal velocities distribution for
impingement and developing regions for low and high LiBr concentrations C were examined.
2. Problem Statement
In order to characterize the film distribution, one 25.4-mm tube was selected with an impingement
height hi of 5 mm, as shown in Figure 1. The domain was equipped with a 2-mm orifice at the top of
the tube. The width of the domain was 33 mm; since the nature of the problem is symmetric, only
half of the domain is selected for CFD calculations. The aqueous LiBr solution is in the liquid phase
and water vapors are considered as the gaseous phase. Two LiBr concentrations are chosen as per
the common working range, i.e., low concentration C = 0.45 and high concentration C = 0.65. The
thermophysical properties of the liquid and gaseous phases were evaluated as per [32] at 30 ◦ C (the
lower working temperature of the absorber [33]), as shown in Table 1.
Mass inlet Velocity inlet
(1 mm orifice) (0 m/s)
Symmetry
D = 25.4 mm
tube wall
y
35.4 mm
16.5 mm
x
Pressure outlet
Figure 1. 2D geometry with boundary conditions.
Energies 2020, 13, 307
4 of 15
Table 1. Thermophysical properties of LiBr solution and water vapors.
Fluid
Density (kg/m3 )
Viscosity (Pa-s)
Surface Tension (N/m)
1453
1814
0.0304
0.002274
0.01102
0.0000101
0.08
0.085
C = 0.45
C = 0.65
Water Vapors
LiBr solution
3. CFD Model
For numerical model simplification, it is assumed that the flow is laminar for all cases. There is
no fluid spreading in the z-direction. The thermophysical properties are constant throughout the
distribution. There is no heat and mass transfer (adiabatic condition). The flow is symmetric along the
y-axis. There is no vapor flow, and the wall adhesion contact angle θw is 0◦ (purely hydrophilic) to
ensure the complete wetting of the tube [34].
3.1. Conservation Equations
The mass and momentum balances can be found by continuity and Navier-Stokes equations, as
shown below:
⇀
∂ρ
+ ∇· ρV = 0
(8)
∂t
⇀
⇀⇀
∂ ρV
=
⇀
⇀
+ ∇· ρV V = −∇P + ∇· τ + ρ g + F vol ,
(9)
∂t
where V is the velocity, t is time, P is the pressure, τ is the tensor, and Fvol is the volumetric force.
3.2. Volume of Fluid Model (VOF) Model
In falling film evaporators, the liquid and gaseous phases are separated by distinct boundaries.
Hirt and Nichols developed a multiphase model named the volume of fluid (VOF) model to accurately
capture the liquid phase interface [35]. The VOF model has been widely implemented in many
applications such as bubble dynamics, reactors, falling films, capillary flows, flashing, and splashing in
tanks to numerically distinguish the liquid/gas interface [36–40]. They modified the continuity equation
as in Equation (8) by introducing void fraction α to solve the mass balance for both phase separately.
⇀
∂(αi ρi )
+ ∇· αi ρi Vi = 0 (i = g or l)
∂t
(10)
The subscripts g and l represent gaseous and liquid phases, respectively. The density and viscosity
are evaluated on the basis of the void fraction.
ρ = αl ρl + (1 − αl )ρ g
(11)
µ = αl µl + (1 − αl )µ g ,
(12)
where α is the void/volume fraction representing how much liquid is present in a liquid-gas mixture.
The liquid void fractions αg and αl are defined as follows:
α g = 1 − αl .
(13)
3.3. Continuum Surface Force (CSF) Model
Brackbill et al. [41] developed a continuum surface force (CSF) model as shown in Equation (14)
to calculate the volumetric force Fvol . The CSF model improves the characterization of the liquid-gas
interface by accommodating surface tension σ effects:
⇀
F vol
ρ
].
= σK∇αl [
1
ρ
+
ρ
g
l
2
(14)
Energies 2020, 13, 307
5 of 15
𝑛̂
The surface curvature K is computed by 𝐾
gradient
= −𝛻. 𝑛̂of surface unit normal vector n̂:
K = −∇·n̂.
(15)
3.4. Operating and Boundary Conditions
For the boundary conditions, (a) a mass inlet for liquid entrance is selected at the top, (b) a velocity
inlet with 0 m/s is provided for water vapors, (c) a wall is selected for a tube with a zero contact angle,
(d) a pressure outlet is for the outlet at the bottom, and (e) a symmetric boundary condition is chosen
for the rest, as shown in Figure 1. The mass flow inlet varied from 0.01 to 0.5 kg/(m·s), with 0.02 kg/(m·s)
intervals for both C = 0.45 and 0.65 concentrations, corresponding to droplet, droplet-jet, and jet mode.
The films Reynolds number Ref and flow modes for each case are listed in Table 2. The gravity is acting
in the negative y-direction with a value of 9.81 m/s2 .
Table 2. Films Reynolds number Ref and flow modes for all cases.
Γ
C
Γ 1/2
(kg/(m·s))
Ref
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.05
17.6
52.8
87.9
3.6
10.9
18.2
0.45
0.65
Ga
Transitional Ref [16]
Droplet to Droplet-Jet
Droplet-Jet to Jet
2.84 × 109
52.3
73
7.7 × 106
7.5
11
Mode
Droplet
Droplet-Jet
Jet
Droplet
Droplet-Jet
Jet
3.5. Methodology
The domain is meshed quadrilateral dominant elements, and fine boundary layers are provided
along the y-axis and tube wall in order to accurately capture the film distribution, as shown in Figure 2.
The minimum thickness of the boundary layer is 0.02 mm adjacent to the wall. The conservation of
mass and momentum are discretized across each cell in a commercial CFD code, i.e., Ansys Fluent v18.0
(Ansys Inc., Canonsburg, [Pa], United States). A second-order upwind scheme is used for Equation (9),
semi-implicit method for pressure linked equations (SIMPLE) algorithm is applied for pressure-velocity
coupling and pressure staggering option (PRESTO) is employed for pressure approximation. For
void fraction gradient, a piecewise linear interpolation method known as geo-reconstruct scheme is
‒
implemented. The gradients are evaluated at the center of cell using a Green-Gauss cell-based approach.
The deduced equations are solved for each cell in a first-order implicit routine for an unsteady solution.
0.02 mm
Figure 2. Mesh with fine boundary layers for CFD analysis.
Energies 2020, 13, 307
6 of 15
3.6. Mesh Dependency Test
To obtain better results with the least computational effort, a mesh dependency test was
performed.
Three different meshes with 21,800, 29,400, and 36,100 elements were chosen and
Γ
Γ
solved for Γ1/2 = 0.01 kg/(m·s) and C = 0.65. Figure 3 shows the film thickness distribution when the
film completely covers the tube surface, i.e., t = 2.79 s. As is evident from the film distribution, when
the mesh size increased from 21,800 to 29,400 elements, the distribution changed. However, a further
increase in the mesh size led to minimal deviation. Hence, to save computational time,ofa mesh
10 μs with
29,400 elements was selected for the numerical calculations. In addition, a time step of
of 10
10 μs
µs was
selected after the time dependency test.
Film Thickness, δ (mm)
δ
0.36
21,800
29,400
0.32
36,100
0.28
0.24
0.2
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
θ
Angular Position, θ ( )
160
Γ
Figure 3. Film thickness distribution for ΓΓ1/2 = 0.01 kg/(m·s) and C = 0.65 at t = 2.79 s.
3.7. Validation
The CFD model was compared with the experimental data by Hou et al. [24] for a 25.4-mm tube
with 10 mm intertube spacing under Ref = 574, as shown in Figure 4a. The CFD model predicts well the
θ
–◦
film thickness distribution, with a maximum error of 16.9% in the range of θ = θ
30◦ –160
– and 25.6% for
θ
Γ
θ =θ20◦ near the impingement. In Figure 4b, the time-averaged film thickness for ΓΓ1/2 = 0.01 kg/(m·s)
and C = 0.65 is equated with the Nusselt film thickness and found to be in good agreement, with a
θ
maximum error of 13.3% at θ
θ = 20◦ .
0.75
0.36
0.65
δ δ (mm)
Film Thickness,
δ δ (mm)
Film Thickness,
CFD
Hou et al.
0.55
0.45
0.35
0.25
0.28
0.24
0.2
20
(a)
Nusslet
CFD
0.32
40
60
80
100
120
Angular Position, θ ( )
θ
140
160
20
(b)
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Angular Position, θ ( )
θ
Figure 4. CFD model comparison of (a) experimental data by Hou et al. [24] and (b) Nusselt solution
as in Equation (7).
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Transient Analysis
Figure 5 shows the volume fraction contours of the LiBr solution (blue region) with a liquid load
of Γ1/2 = 0.01 kg/(m·s) and concentration of C = 0.65. At t = 0.4 s, the liquid falls freely with gravity as
Energies 2020, 13, 307
7 of 15
Γ
the driving force and is opposed by the surface tension, which attempts to form a droplet shape, as
shown at t = 0.8 s. At t = 1.2 s, the liquid hits the top of the tube and starts spreading around the tube
wall. The impact region is known as the stagnation point; as the liquid spreads it enters stagnation and
then the developing region. At t = 1.6 s, the liquid continues to spread, forming a thin layer of LiBr
solution. At this stage, the liquid film is in the developing region, as the velocity profiles within the
film are not fully developed. From t = 2 s to 2.4 s, the tube surface is mostly covered by liquid film and
the flow is fully developed. At t = 2.8 s, the tube is entirely covered with a thin layer of LiBr solution
and the liquid starts gathering underneath the tube. The adhesion and surface tension forces hold the
liquid at the bottom and prevent it from falling. The liquid keeps on gathering until the inertial force
dominates and the liquid separates from the tube surface and falls freely.
t = 0.4 s
t = 0.8 s
t = 1.2 s
t = 1.6 s
t = 2.0 s
t = 2.4 s
t = 2.8 s
t = 3.2 s
Figure 5. Volume fraction contours for Γ1/2 = 0.01 kg/(m·s) and C = 0.65 w.r.t. time.
Γ
Figure 6a,b shows the film thicknesses δins at an angular position ranging from 5◦ to 175◦ for
different time instants under the operating conditions
of Γ1/2 = 0.01 kg/(m·s) and C = 0.45/0.65. It is clear
δ
that the film thickness pattern is not fixed, but changes withΓrespect to time. Therefore, for comparison
and analysis, the time-averaged film thickness δ is considered in this work. The time-averaged film
thickness profile is represented by the solid line in Figure 6a,b.
The jet mode is usually considered
δ
steady with weak perturbations. Figure 7 displays the transient behavior of film thickness at θ = 90◦
for a liquid load corresponding to the jet mode with C = 0.45 and 0.65. For C = 0.45, the instantaneous
film
θ thickness varies over time after the tube is completely wet and becomes stable with an average
thickness of 0.245 mm. However, there remain some fluctuations, with a maximum deviation of 14.1%.
At C = 0.65, the density and viscosity are 24.8% and 384% higher than at C = 0.45. The dense, viscous
fluid rapidly becomes stable, with very low fluctuations of +0.5%. The perturbations positively affect
the heat and mass transfer, and are present for a low-density and viscous fluid such as C = 0.45.
Energies 2020, 13, 307
δ
tavg
t1
t2
t3
t4
t5
t6
t7
t8
t9
t10
t11
t12
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
(a)
30
60
90
120θ
150
1.8
δ
1
Ins. Film Thickness, δ ins (mm)
Ins. Film Thickness, δ ins (mm)
8 of 15
t2
t3
1.2
t4
t5
0.9
t6
t7
0.6
t8
t9
0.3
t10
0
180
0
(b)
Angular Position, θ (°)
t1
1.5
30
60
90
120
Angular Position, θ (°)
θ
tavg
150
180
Figure 6. Film thickness at different times after the tube is completely covered and time-averaged film
Γ
thickness profiles for Γ1/2 = 0.01 kg/(m·s) and (a) C = 0.45, and (b) C = 0.65.
Γ
Ins. Film Thickness,δ δ ins (mm)
0.4
0.35
C = 0.45
C = 0.65
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Time from Tube is Completely Covered, t (s)
Figure 7. Instantaneous film thickness atθθ = 90◦ for
Γ Γ1/2 = 0.05 kg/(m·s).
θ
Γ
4.2. Film Thickness and Residence Time
The effect of liquid load on film thickness distribution is shown in Figure 8a,b. The film thickness
decreases as the fluid moves from top to bottom, until it reaches to a minimum value, which is around
θ = 90◦ . After that, the film thickness again begins to rise, sharply near the bottom of the tube, which is
θ
◦ due to the accumulation of liquid. As the liquid load is increased from 0.01 kg/(m·s) to
after
θ = 150
θ
θ
0.03 kg/(m·s),
the film distribution shifts upwards for both C = 0.45 and C = 0.65. However, when the
θ
liquid load is raised from 0.03 kg/(m·s) to 0.05 kg/(m·s), the growth in film thickness is smaller than
that of 0.01 kg/(m·s) to 0.03 kg/(m·s). This is because it follows the same trend as in Equation (7), which
implies that the film thickness is directly proportional to the cubic root of liquid load, keeping the other
parameters constant:
p
(16)
α 3√3𝛤Γ1/2 .
𝛿δ 𝛼
1/2
3
With the same liquid load value, the film
thickness
𝛿𝛼
√𝛤1/2 of C = 0.65 is higher than that of C = 0.45
because the density and viscosity vary with concentration. Figure 9a represents the time required for
the tube surface to be completely covered by the liquid film. The higher film thickness for C = 0.65 with
the same mass flux indicates a smaller fluid velocity field, which means a dense, viscous fluid needs
more time for tube surface coverage. This indicates that the residence time for a higher concentration
is more than that for a lower concentration, which means that more heat transfer is possible due to the
higher residence time. On the other hand, the higher thickness results in increased thermal resistance,
which is undesirable for heat transfer. At Γ1/2 = 0.01 kg/(m·s), the time needed for C = 0.65 and
C = 0.45 is 2.79 s and 1.52 s, respectively. With the increase in liquid load, the fluid moves faster with a
higher velocity field. Thus, the coverage time decreases to 0.88 s and 0.5 s for C = 0.65 and C = 0.45,
Γ
Γ
Energies 2020, 13, 307
9 of 15
respectively. The film thickness in the impingement and detachment zones, as shown in Figure 6a,
θ
–
◦
◦
is much
greater
the average film thickness δavg
–
thickness
δ than the in-between
θ zone,
– i.e., θ = 20 –160 .θTherefore,
◦
is evaluated
in Figure 9b, with liquid load and concentration variation.
thicknessfor
δ θ = 20–160 and isθpresented
–
The average thickness for C = 0.65 is 43.3% at 0.01 kg/(m·s) and 44% at 0.05 kg/(m·s), higher than
that for C = 0.45. The higher average film thickness is due to a change in thermophysical properties
with concentration.
0.45
0.65
0.4
Film Thickness, δ (mm)
δ
Film Thickness, δ (mm)
δ
0.01 kg/(m-s)
0.03 kg/(m-s)
0.35
0.05 kg/(m-s)
0.3
0.03 kg/(m-s)
0.5
0.05 kg/(m-s)
0.4
0.35
0.2
0.15
0.3
0.25
0.1
(a)
0.55
0.45
0.25
20
0.01 kg/(m-s)
0.6
40
θ120
Angular Position, θ ( )
60
80
100
0.2
140
160
20
40
(b)
60
80
100
θ120
140
160
Angular Position, θ ( )
δ δavg (mm)
Average Film Thickness,
Figure 8. Film thickness distribution w.r.t. liquid load for (a) C = 0.45 and (b) C = 0.65.
Time to cover tube, t (s)
3
C=0.45
2.5
C=0.65
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.45
C=0.45
0.4
C=0.65
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Liquid Load, Γ1/2 (kg/(m∙s))
Liquid Load, Γ1/2 (kg/(m∙s))
(b)
Γ
∙
Γ
∙
Figure 9. (a) Time required for the complete wetting of tube and (b) average film thickness for different
liquid loads and concentrations.
(a)
4.3. Velocity Distribution
Figure 10a,b show velocity vectors at 0.05 kg/(m·s) for low and high concentrations. As the fluid
falls and hits the tube, recirculation within the film begins. These recirculation formations enhance the
fluid mixing and convection effects in the impingement and developing zones. Higher recirculation
results in improved thermal performance [42]. The velocity vectors for C = 0.45 exhibit stronger
recirculation than is seen for C = 0.65. The higher density and viscosity result in higher inertial
force, which opposes recirculation. The film thickness has been normalized to dimensionless film
thickness, as shown in Figure 10c, for comparison purposes. Figure 11a,b shows the normal Vn and
tangential velocity Vt components for C = 0.45 and angular position ranging from 5◦ to 60◦ . The normal
velocity profile at 5◦ displays fluid flow in the positive, normal direction. Moreover, it is clear from
the tangential velocity profile that the fluid near the wall is moving downward, while some part is
flowing in the opposite direction. This behavior shows recirculation phenomena in the film. The
maximum normal and tangential velocity opposite to the mainstream flow at 5◦ were found to be
0.024 m/s and 0.06 m/s, respectively. The recirculation can be seen up to 10◦ , which is evident in the
normal and tangential velocity components. From 20◦ , the flow in the film starts developing, the
tangential component keeps rising because of the gravitational and inertial force, and the tangential
component profile gets fully developed from 40◦ . The maximum tangential velocity at 60◦ is found
Energies 2020, 13, 307
10 of 15
–
to be 0.189 m/s. The normal velocity magnitude
decreases as the flow develops, which is apparent
from the normal velocity profiles for 20–60◦ . Figure 11c,d shows the normal and tangential velocity
components for C = 0.65. In this case, the velocity profiles reflect the weak recirculation. The maximum
tangential velocity opposite to the flow is 0.0021 m/s, which is 96.5% lower than for C = 0.45. Here,
the flow enters the developing region from 10◦ and the tangential velocity component increases. The
flow is developed at 40◦ , with tangential velocity increasing 30◦ onwards. The maximum tangential
velocity at 60◦ is 0.108 m/s, which is 42.8% less than for C = 0.45. Hence, the less dense and viscous
flow (C = 0.45) possesses strong recirculation and higher velocity, which may enhance the heat and
mass transfer process when matched with a fluid of high density and viscosity (C = 0.65).
Recirculation region
δ
(b)
(a)
n
η = n/δ
(c)
Figure 10. Velocity vector for Γ1/2 = 0.05 kg/(m·s) and (a) C = 0.45 (b) C = 0.65 and (c) dimensionless
film thickness η schematic. Γ
thickness η schematic
0.2
0.03
5 deg
10 deg
20 deg
30 deg
40 deg
50 deg
60 deg
0
-0.01
-0.02
5 deg
10 deg
20 deg
30 deg
40 deg
50 deg
60 deg
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
-0.06
0
Normal velocity, Vn (m/s)
(a)
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
(b)
Dimensionless film thickness, η
0.12
0
0.1
-0.005
-0.01
-0.015
5 deg
10 deg
20 deg
30 deg
40 deg
50 deg
60 deg
-0.02
-0.025
-0.035
0
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.8
1
Dimensionless film thickness, η
0.005
-0.03
(c)
Tangential velocity, Vt (m/s)
0.01
Tangential velocity, Vt (m/s)
Normal velocity, Vn (m/s)
0.02
5 deg
10 deg
20 deg
30 deg
40 deg
50 deg
60 deg
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
-0.02
0.4
0.6
Dimensionless film thickness, η
0.8
1
0
(d)
0.2
0.4
0.6
Dimensionless film thickness, η
Figure 11. Velocity profile for ΓΓ1/2 = 0.05 kg/(m·s) and C = 0.45 (a) normal component and (b) tangential
component; and for Γ1/2Γ= 0.05 kg/(m·s) and C = 0.65 (c) normal component and (d) tangential component.
𝑅𝑡𝑜𝑡 = 𝑅𝑖𝑛𝑡 +𝑅𝑤 +𝑅𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 + 𝑅𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑝
Energies 2020, 13, 307
11 of 15
4.4. Thermal Resistance
The thermal performance of falling film evaporators depends on the overall heat transfer coefficient
or total thermal resistance, which is the reciprocal of the first. The total thermal resistance Rtot is the
sum of all thermal resistances in the falling film network, which can be mathematically described as:
Rtot = Rint + Rw + Rcond + Revap ,
(17)
where Rint is the thermal resistance of internal flow, Rw is the tube wall thermal resistance, Rcond is the
conduction thermal resistance of liquid film, and Revap is the thermal resistance by evaporation. From a
hydrodynamics study, Rcond can be computed by the following equation:
Rcond =
δ
.
k
(18)
Conduction Thermal Resistance
Rcond, (x10 -3 m2·K/W)
Figure 12 shows the average conduction thermal resistance variation with liquid load and
concentration for θ = 20◦ –160◦ . The average thermal resistance at 0.01 kg/(m·s) and C = 0.45 is
0.361 × 10−3 m2 ·K/W, whereas the thermal resistance is 0.621 × 10−3 m2 ·K/W for C = 0.65, which is
72% higher. Furthermore, the thermal resistance increases with the liquid load for both concentrations.
The main factors are the film thickness, which is higher for C = 0.65, and the thermal conductivity,
which decreases with an increasing LiBr concentration. At 0.05 kg/(m·s), the thermal resistance for C
= 0.65 is 72.9% higher than that of C = 0.45. It can be deduced that, with increasing liquid load and
concentration, the heat transfer rate may decrease because of the higher thermal resistance.
1.25
C=0.45
C=0.65
1
0.75
0.5
0.25
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Liquid Load, Γ1/2 (kg/(m∙s))
Figure 12. Average conduction thermal resistance variation w.r.t. liquid load.
5. Conclusions
The CFD model of an aqueous LiBr solution falling over a horizontal tube was developed in this
work. The effects of LiBr concentration and liquid load on falling film distribution were analyzed. It
was found that jet mode, corresponding to 0.05 kg/(m·s), was more stable at a higher concentration,
i.e., C = 0.65, with small fluctuations of +0.5%. In contrast, low concentration (C = 0.45) flow with
0.05 kg/(m·s) had maximum fluctuations of 14.1%. The film thickness increased with concentration
and liquid load, and the residence time increased with higher concentration and lower liquid loads.
The average film thickness and residence time at 0.05 kg/(m·s) and C = 0.65 were found to be 44% and
76% higher than for C = 0.45, respectively. Weak recirculation was observed for higher concentration;
the recirculation exists until 5◦ for C = 0.65 and 10◦ for C = 0.45. In addition, the maximum tangential
velocity when the flow was developed was 0.108 m/s for C = 0.65, vs. 0.189 m/s for C = 0.45. The flow
θ
Γ
Energies 2020, 13, 307
12 of 15
was fully developed at θ = 40◦ for both concentrations. The thermal resistance analysis demonstrated
that the thermal resistance rises with the concentration and liquid load. For Γ1/2 = 0.05 kg/(m·s), the
thermal resistance for C = 0.65 was 72.9% higher than that of C = 0.45. It may be deduced from this
hydrodynamics study that the heat transfer performance is expected to be better at lower concentrations
because of the lower film thickness, more recirculation, higher velocity, and lower thermal resistance.
In practical applications, such as refrigeration and desalination, this implies that regions in falling
film evaporators with low concentration would have better thermal performance as compared to high
concentration regions.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.M. and M.K.; methodology, F.T.; software, F.T.; validation, F.T.;
formal analysis, M.K.; investigation, F.T. and A.M.; resources, A.M. and M.K.; data curation, A.M.; writing—original
draft preparation, F.T.; writing—review and editing, A.M. and M.K.; visualization, F.T.; supervision, A.M. and
M.K.; project administration, A.M. and M.K.; funding acquisition, F.T. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The publication of this article was funded by the Qatar National Library (QNL).
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the resources and support provided by the College
of Science and Engineering (CSE) and the Qatar Environment and Energy Research Institute (QEERI) of Hamad
Bin Khalifa University (HBKU). The publication of this article was funded by the Qatar National Library.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Nomenclature
C
CFD
CSF
D
F
g
Ga
hi
k
K
LiBr
PRESTO
R
Ref
s
SIMPLE
t
V
VOF
Greek
letters
α
σ
µ
Γ1/2
ρ
δ
θ
θw
η
LiBr mass concentration (%)
computational fluid dynamics
continuum surface force
tube diameter (m)
force (N)
acceleration due to gravity (m/s2 )
modified Galileo number
impingement height (m)
thermal conductivity (W·m/K)
curvature
lithium bromide
pressure staggering option
thermal resistance (m2 ·K/W)
film Reynolds number
intertube spacing (m)
semi-implicit method for pressure linked equations
time (s)
velocity (m/s)
volume of fluid
void fraction
surface tension (N/m)
viscosity (Pa·s)
liquid load, on one side of tube (kg/(m·s))
density (kg/m3 )
film thickness (m)
angular position (◦ )
wall adhesion contact angle (◦ )
dimensionless film thickness
Energies 2020, 13, 307
Subscripts
avg
cond
evap
g
int
ins
l
n
t
tot
w
vol
13 of 15
time averaged from θ = 20–160◦
conduction
evaporation
gaseous phase
internal
instantaneous
liquid phase
normal
tangential
total
wall
volumetric
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Danilova, G.N.; Burkin, V.G.; Dyundin, V.A. Heat transfer in spray-type refrigerator evaporators. Heat Transf.
Res. 1976, 8, 105–113.
Lorenz, J.J.; Yung, D. Film Breakdown and Bundle-Depth Effects in Horizontal-Tube, Falling-Film Evaporators.
J. Heat Transf. 1982, 104, 569–571. [CrossRef]
Gonzalez, G.J.M.; Jabardo, J.M.S.; Stoecker, W.F. Falling Film Ammonia Evaporators; University of Illinois:
Champaign, IL, USA, 1992.
Zeng, X.; Chyu, M.-C.; Ayub, D.Z.H. Evaporation heat transfer performance of nozzle-sprayed ammonia on
a horizontal tube. ASHRAE Trans. 1995, 101, 136–149.
Hoffmann, L.; Greiter, I.; Wagner, A.; Weiss, V.; Alefeld, G. Experimental investigation of heat transfer
in a horizontal tube falling film absorber with aqueous solutions of LiBr with and without surfactants.
Int. J. Refrig. 1996, 19, 331–341. [CrossRef]
Kwon, K.; Jeong, S. Effect of vapor flow on the falling-film heat and mass transfer of the ammonia/water
absorber. Int. J. Refrig. 2004, 27, 955–964. [CrossRef]
Ribatski, G.; Jacobi, A.M. Falling-film evaporation on horizontal tubes—A critical review. Int. J. Refrig. 2005,
28, 635–653. [CrossRef]
Fernández-Seara, J.; Pardiñas, Á.Á. Refrigerant falling film evaporation review: Description, fluid dynamics
and heat transfer. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2014, 64, 155–171. [CrossRef]
Tahir, F.; Mabrouk, A.; Koc, M. Review on CFD analysis of horizontal falling film evaporators in multi effect
desalination plants. Desalin. Water Treat. 2019, 166, 296–320. [CrossRef]
Tahir, F.; Mabrouk, A.; Koc, M. CFD Analysis of Falling Film Wettability in MED Desalination plants.
In Proceedings of the Qatar Foundation Annual Research Conference Proceedings, Ar-Rayyan, Qatar,
19–20 March 2018; Volume 2018, p. EEPD650.
Tahir, F.; Mabrouk, A.A.; Koc, M. CFD analysis of spray nozzle arrangements for multi effect desalination
evaporator. In Proceedings of the 3rd Thermal Fluids Engineering Conference, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA,
4–7 March 2018; pp. 935–941.
Mabrouk, A.A.; Bourouni, K.; Abdulrahim, H.K.; Darwish, M.; Sharif, A.O. Impacts of tube bundle
arrangement and feed flow pattern on the scale formation in large capacity MED desalination plants.
Desalination 2015, 357, 275–285. [CrossRef]
Mitrovic, J. Flow structures of a liquid film falling on horizontal tubes. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2005, 28, 684–694.
[CrossRef]
Hu, X.; Jacobi, A.M. The Intertube Falling Film: Part 1—Flow Characteristics, Mode Transitions, and
Hysteresis. J. Heat Transf. 1996, 118, 616–625. [CrossRef]
Hu, X.; Jacobi, A.M. Flow characteristics of liquid droplets and jets falling between horizontal circular tubes.
In Experimental Heat Transfer, FLuid Mechanics and Thermodynamics; PISA, Edizioni ETS: Paris, France, 1997;
pp. 1295–1302.
Roques, J.F.; Dupont, V.; Thome, J.R. Falling Film Transitions on Plain and Enhanced Tubes. J. Heat Transf.
2002, 124, 491–499. [CrossRef]
Energies 2020, 13, 307
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
14 of 15
Roques, J.-F.; Thome, J.R. Falling Film Transitions Between Droplet, Column, and Sheet Flow Modes on
a Vertical Array of Horizontal 19 FPI and 40 FPI Low-Finned Tubes. Heat Transf. Eng. 2003, 24, 40–45.
[CrossRef]
Nusselt, W. Die oberflachenkondensation des wasserdamphes. VDI-Zs 1916, 60, 541–546.
Ji, G.; Wu, J.; Chen, Y.; Ji, G. Asymmetric distribution of falling film solution flowing on hydrophilic horizontal
round tube. Int. J. Refrig. 2017, 78, 83–92. [CrossRef]
Hosseinnia, S.M.; Naghashzadegan, M.; Kouhikamali, R. CFD simulation of water vapor absorption in
laminar falling film solution of water-LiBr—Drop and jet modes. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 115, 860–873.
[CrossRef]
Ding, H.; Xie, P.; Ingham, D.; Ma, L.; Pourkashanian, M. Flow behaviour of drop and jet modes of a laminar
falling film on horizontal tubes. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2018, 124, 929–942. [CrossRef]
Rogers, J.T.; Goindi, S.S. Experimental laminar falling film heat transfer coefficients on a large diameter
horizontal tube. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 1989, 67, 560–568. [CrossRef]
Gstoehl, D.; Roques, J.F.; Crisnel, P.; Thome, J.R. Measurement of Falling Film Thickness Around a Horizontal
Tube Using a Laser Measurement Technique. Heat Transf. Eng. 2004, 25, 28–34. [CrossRef]
Hou, H.; Bi, Q.; Ma, H.; Wu, G. Distribution characteristics of falling film thickness around a horizontal tube.
Desalination 2012, 285, 393–398. [CrossRef]
Chen, X.; Shen, S.; Wang, Y.; Chen, J.; Zhang, J. Measurement on falling film thickness distribution around
horizontal tube with laser-induced fluorescence technology. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2015, 89, 707–713.
[CrossRef]
Lin, S.; Liu, X.; Li, X. The spatial distribution of liquid film thickness outside the horizontal falling film tube.
Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2019, 143, 118577. [CrossRef]
Wang, J.; Chen, X.; Lu, T.; Chen, X.; Shen, S.; Liu, B. Three-dimensional film thickness distribution of
horizontal tube falling film with column flow. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2019, 154, 140–149. [CrossRef]
Tahir, F.; Baloch, A.A.B.; Ali, H. Resilience of Desalination Plants for Sustainable Water Supply in Middle
East. In Sustainability Perspectives: Science, Policy and Practice, Strategies for Sustainability; Khaiter, P.A.,
Erechtchoukova, M.G., Eds.; Springer Nature Switzerland AG: Basel, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 303–329. ISBN
978-3-030-19550-2.
Tahir, F.; Mabrouk, A.; Koc, M. Energy and exergy analysis of thermal vapor compression (TVC) and
absorption vapor compression (AVC) for multi effect desalination (MED) plants. In Proceedings of the 8th
Global Conference on Global Warming (GCGW), Doha, Qatar, 22–25 April 2019; p. 25.
Mabrouk, A.; Abotaleb, A.; Abdelrehim, H.; Tahir, F.; Koc, M.; Abdelrashid, A.; Nasralla, A. High Performance
MED Desalination Plants, Part II: Novel Integration MED-Absorption Vapor Compression. In Proceedings
of the IDA 2017 World Congress on Water Reuse and Desalination, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 15–20 October 2017.
Narváez-Romo, B.; Chhay, M.; Zavaleta-Aguilar, E.W.; Simões-Moreira, J.R. A critical review of heat and
mass transfer correlations for LiBr-H2 O and NH3 -H2 O absorption refrigeration machines using falling liquid
film technology. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 123, 1079–1095. [CrossRef]
Pátek, J.; Klomfar, J. A computationally effective formulation of the thermodynamic properties of LiBr–H2 O
solutions from 273 to 500K over full composition range. Int. J. Refrig. 2006, 29, 566–578.
Kaushik, S.C.; Arora, A. Energy and exergy analysis of single effect and series flow double effect water–lithium
bromide absorption refrigeration systems. Int. J. Refrig. 2009, 32, 1247–1258. [CrossRef]
Khan, S.A.; Tahir, F.; Baloch, A.A.B.; Koc, M. Review of Micro–Nanoscale Surface Coatings Application for
Sustaining Dropwise Condensation. Coatings 2019, 9, 117. [CrossRef]
Hirt, C.; Nichols, B. Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free boundaries. J. Comput. Phys.
1981, 39, 201–225. [CrossRef]
Baloch, A.; Ali, H.; Tahir, F. Transient Analysis of Air Bubble Rise in Stagnant Water Column Using CFD. In
Proceedings of the ICTEA: International Conference on Thermal Engineering, Doha, Qatar, 25–28 February
2018; Volume 2018.
Nigim, T.H.; Eaton, J.A. CFD prediction of the flashing processes in a MSF desalination chamber. Desalination
2017, 420, 258–272. [CrossRef]
Ozmen-Cagatay, H.; Kocaman, S. Dam-Break Flow in the Presence of Obstacle: Experiment and CFD
Simulation. Eng. Appl. Comput. Fluid Mech. 2011, 5, 541–552. [CrossRef]
Energies 2020, 13, 307
39.
40.
41.
42.
15 of 15
Lopes, R.J.G.; Quinta-Ferreira, R.M. Assessment of CFD−VOF Method for Trickle-Bed Reactor Modeling in
the Catalytic Wet Oxidation of Phenolic Wastewaters. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2010, 49, 2638–2648. [CrossRef]
Gupta, R.; Fletcher, D.F.; Haynes, B.S. On the CFD modelling of Taylor flow in microchannels. Chem. Eng.
Sci. 2009, 64, 2941–2950. [CrossRef]
Brackbill, J.; Kothe, D.; Zemach, C. A continuum method for modeling surface tension. J. Comput. Phys. 1992,
100, 335–354. [CrossRef]
Yang, L.; Liu, Y.; Yang, Y.; Shen, S. Microscopic mechanisms of heat transfer in horizontal-tube falling film
evaporation. Desalination 2016, 394, 64–71. [CrossRef]
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).