Water Evaporation and Condensation in Air with Radiation: The Self-Similar Spalding Model

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Several simple ways of improving the accuracy of Spalding model predictions over common textbook conventions for air/water evaporation/condensation problems are illustrated using open-literature examples. First is the choice of thermodynamic reference state for enthalpy evaluation. The common practice of choosing the steam table reference point (0.01 °C) with water-vapor enthalpy of hfg (2501 kJ/kg) and air enthalpy of zero introduces an enthalpy mismatch between air and water vapor that unnecessarily compromises accuracy. Choosing the air/water interface temperature as the reference point and setting both air and water-vapor enthalpies at this point to the same numerical value gives the most accurate results of several methods tried. Second is judicious choice of the blowing factor in high-rate mass transfer situations. The laminar boundary layer blowing factor is more accurate than the common stagnant-film (Couette flow) blowing factor for flat-plate flow and may be more accurate for a cylinder in crossflow under laminar conditions, as illustrated by the example of air leak effect on steam condenser tube performance. Third is radiation modeling, often a problematic or ignored feature in this type of problem. Two common, but opposite, assumptions about radiation participation in water - transparent interface and opaque interface - are shown to be equivalent for most purposes. A methodology is introduced for modeling true interfacial absorption/emission associated with phase change if/when the amount of this effect becomes known well enough to justify its inclusion. The importance of including radiation is illustrated by several examples: cloud droplet evaporation-condensation, sweat cooling, and the wet-bulb psychrometer. Fourth is inaccuracy introduced by unnecessarily setting Lewis number to unity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number081501
JournalJournal of Heat Transfer
Volume139
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2017

Fingerprint

Condensation
Evaporation
condensation
Steam
evaporation
Enthalpy
Radiation
enthalpy
Water
blowing
air
radiation
Blow molding
Air
Water vapor
water
water vapor
steam
psychrometers
Psychrometers

Keywords

  • Spalding formulation
  • air-water
  • condensation
  • evaporation
  • radiation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Materials Science(all)
  • Condensed Matter Physics
  • Mechanics of Materials
  • Mechanical Engineering

Cite this

Water Evaporation and Condensation in Air with Radiation : The Self-Similar Spalding Model. / Brewster, M Quinn.

In: Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol. 139, No. 8, 081501, 01.08.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0f317a0df9f340218783b9d24bde60c5,
title = "Water Evaporation and Condensation in Air with Radiation: The Self-Similar Spalding Model",
abstract = "Several simple ways of improving the accuracy of Spalding model predictions over common textbook conventions for air/water evaporation/condensation problems are illustrated using open-literature examples. First is the choice of thermodynamic reference state for enthalpy evaluation. The common practice of choosing the steam table reference point (0.01 °C) with water-vapor enthalpy of hfg (2501 kJ/kg) and air enthalpy of zero introduces an enthalpy mismatch between air and water vapor that unnecessarily compromises accuracy. Choosing the air/water interface temperature as the reference point and setting both air and water-vapor enthalpies at this point to the same numerical value gives the most accurate results of several methods tried. Second is judicious choice of the blowing factor in high-rate mass transfer situations. The laminar boundary layer blowing factor is more accurate than the common stagnant-film (Couette flow) blowing factor for flat-plate flow and may be more accurate for a cylinder in crossflow under laminar conditions, as illustrated by the example of air leak effect on steam condenser tube performance. Third is radiation modeling, often a problematic or ignored feature in this type of problem. Two common, but opposite, assumptions about radiation participation in water - transparent interface and opaque interface - are shown to be equivalent for most purposes. A methodology is introduced for modeling true interfacial absorption/emission associated with phase change if/when the amount of this effect becomes known well enough to justify its inclusion. The importance of including radiation is illustrated by several examples: cloud droplet evaporation-condensation, sweat cooling, and the wet-bulb psychrometer. Fourth is inaccuracy introduced by unnecessarily setting Lewis number to unity.",
keywords = "Spalding formulation, air-water, condensation, evaporation, radiation",
author = "Brewster, {M Quinn}",
year = "2017",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1115/1.4036075",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "139",
journal = "Journal of Heat Transfer",
issn = "0022-1481",
publisher = "American Society of Mechanical Engineers(ASME)",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Water Evaporation and Condensation in Air with Radiation

T2 - The Self-Similar Spalding Model

AU - Brewster, M Quinn

PY - 2017/8/1

Y1 - 2017/8/1

N2 - Several simple ways of improving the accuracy of Spalding model predictions over common textbook conventions for air/water evaporation/condensation problems are illustrated using open-literature examples. First is the choice of thermodynamic reference state for enthalpy evaluation. The common practice of choosing the steam table reference point (0.01 °C) with water-vapor enthalpy of hfg (2501 kJ/kg) and air enthalpy of zero introduces an enthalpy mismatch between air and water vapor that unnecessarily compromises accuracy. Choosing the air/water interface temperature as the reference point and setting both air and water-vapor enthalpies at this point to the same numerical value gives the most accurate results of several methods tried. Second is judicious choice of the blowing factor in high-rate mass transfer situations. The laminar boundary layer blowing factor is more accurate than the common stagnant-film (Couette flow) blowing factor for flat-plate flow and may be more accurate for a cylinder in crossflow under laminar conditions, as illustrated by the example of air leak effect on steam condenser tube performance. Third is radiation modeling, often a problematic or ignored feature in this type of problem. Two common, but opposite, assumptions about radiation participation in water - transparent interface and opaque interface - are shown to be equivalent for most purposes. A methodology is introduced for modeling true interfacial absorption/emission associated with phase change if/when the amount of this effect becomes known well enough to justify its inclusion. The importance of including radiation is illustrated by several examples: cloud droplet evaporation-condensation, sweat cooling, and the wet-bulb psychrometer. Fourth is inaccuracy introduced by unnecessarily setting Lewis number to unity.

AB - Several simple ways of improving the accuracy of Spalding model predictions over common textbook conventions for air/water evaporation/condensation problems are illustrated using open-literature examples. First is the choice of thermodynamic reference state for enthalpy evaluation. The common practice of choosing the steam table reference point (0.01 °C) with water-vapor enthalpy of hfg (2501 kJ/kg) and air enthalpy of zero introduces an enthalpy mismatch between air and water vapor that unnecessarily compromises accuracy. Choosing the air/water interface temperature as the reference point and setting both air and water-vapor enthalpies at this point to the same numerical value gives the most accurate results of several methods tried. Second is judicious choice of the blowing factor in high-rate mass transfer situations. The laminar boundary layer blowing factor is more accurate than the common stagnant-film (Couette flow) blowing factor for flat-plate flow and may be more accurate for a cylinder in crossflow under laminar conditions, as illustrated by the example of air leak effect on steam condenser tube performance. Third is radiation modeling, often a problematic or ignored feature in this type of problem. Two common, but opposite, assumptions about radiation participation in water - transparent interface and opaque interface - are shown to be equivalent for most purposes. A methodology is introduced for modeling true interfacial absorption/emission associated with phase change if/when the amount of this effect becomes known well enough to justify its inclusion. The importance of including radiation is illustrated by several examples: cloud droplet evaporation-condensation, sweat cooling, and the wet-bulb psychrometer. Fourth is inaccuracy introduced by unnecessarily setting Lewis number to unity.

KW - Spalding formulation

KW - air-water

KW - condensation

KW - evaporation

KW - radiation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85022081939&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85022081939&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1115/1.4036075

DO - 10.1115/1.4036075

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85022081939

VL - 139

JO - Journal of Heat Transfer

JF - Journal of Heat Transfer

SN - 0022-1481

IS - 8

M1 - 081501

ER -