International Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 985991

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrefrig

Mathematical modeling of falling liquid

lm evaporation process
M. El Haj Assad*, Markku J. Lampinen
Laboratory of Applied Thermodynamics, Helsinki University of Technology, PO Box 4400, FIN-02015, Finland
Received 21 December 2000; received in revised form 13 July 2001; accepted 16 July 2001

Abstract
A mathematical model of evaporation process from a laminar falling liquid lm on a vertical plate of constant
temperature is presented. The model is developed with and without interfacial shear stress due to the vapor ow at the
liquid lm surface. The vapor pressure drop, vapor exit velocity and cooling rate are calculated for dierent liquid mass
ow values. It is shown that lower liquid mass ow produces higher cooling rate. The results also show that the interfacial shear stress has a considerable negative eect on the cooling rate. It is proved that there exists an optimum distance between the plates, which gives the maximum volumetric cooling rate. # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd and IIR. All
rights reserved.
Keywords: Liquid; Falling lm; Evaporation; Modelling

Modelisation mathematique du processus devaporation dans

un lm tombant
Mots cles : Liquide ; Film tombant ; Evaporation ; Modelisation

1. Introduction
Falling lm evaporation is quite similar to falling
liquid lm condensation from mathematical point of
view. However, both evaporation and condensation
processes are not the same from performance behavior
point of view.
Falling liquid lm ow has been given great attention
due to its wide applications in industrial processes
involving heat and mass transfer [14]. Heat exchangers,

lm condensers, lm evaporators and absorption towers

are common process equipments utilizing lm ow.
The liquid lm (water) ows downward along a vertical plate in x direction as shown in Fig. 1. As the lm
ows down, its thickness and mass ow rate decrease
due to evaporation which occurs at the liquidvapor
interface. It is assumed that evaporation occurs at
saturation temperature T, which is smaller than the wall
temperature TP . Due to this temperature dierence,
there is a heat transfer from the wall to the liquid lm.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: melhajas@cc.hut. (M. El Haj Assad), markku.lampinen@hut. (M.J. Lampinen).
0140-7007/02/$22.00 # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.
PII: S0140-7007(01)00064-0

986

M.E.H. Assad, M.J. Lampinen / International Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 985991

Nomenclature
A
d
dh
f
g
H
hfg
:
m
q
qv
q00s
P
p
R
Re
T
Tp

vapor cross-sectional area (m2)

distance between plates (m)
hydraulic diameter (m)
friction coecient
gravity acceleration (m/s2)
height (m)
heat of evaporation (J/kg)
mass ow (kg/s)
cooling rate (W)
volumetric cooling rate (W/m3)
heat ux (W/m2)
perimeter (m)
pressure (Pa)
vapor constant (J/kgK)
Reynolds number
temperature (K)
plate temperature (K)

Evaporation occurs from uniformly distributed liquid

lm on two vertical plates. The vapor generated between
the plates ows upward in an opposite direction to the
liquid lm ow. This vapor motion causes a shear stress
between the vapor and liquid lm at the interface, which
will be referred to as interfacial shear stress. It has been
proved that there exists a nite shear stress at the liquid
vapor interface, resulting from a normal velocity gradient in the vapor, as well as in the lm [3,4]. In this
study, the case where interfacial shear stress is neglected
and the case where interfacial shear stress has negative
eect on the liquid lm evaporation will be considered.
In all of the above mentioned references the vapor
pressure drop and vapor velocity were not considered in
the mathematical formulation. The evaporator which is
studied in this work is a part of cooling absorption
refrigeration system.
The objective of this work is to study the performance
characteristics of a lm evaporator and try to nd an
optimum evaporator performance from size point of
view, in other words, to nd an optimum volumetric
cooling rate for a certain distance between the vertical
plates. Moreover this paper presents an attempt to
improve upon the models described earlier and eliminate some of their limitations.

2. Mathematical formulation
There are dierent types of ow [5,6] depending on
the directions of the gas ow and the liquid ow. In this
study a countercurrent ow model is considered in
which the gas and liquid ow in opposite directions.

U
u
V
W
x
y

lm mean velocity (m/s)

lm velocity (m/s)
vapor velocity (m/s)
width (m)
coordinate in direction of lm ow
coordinate in direction perpendicular to
ow

Greek letters

lm thickness (m)
l
thermal conductivity (W/mK)

dynamic viscosity (Ns/m2)

kinematic viscosity (m2/s)

density (kg/m3)
interfacial shear stress (N/m2)
i
Subscripts
v
vapor
w
liquid (water)

Fig. 1. Falling liquid lm.

Fig. 1.

In this model we assume that the lm ow is steady

and laminar, the liquid temperature distribution is linear, advective eects in the lm are neglected, the liquid
lm properties are constant and the gas is pure vapor.
Two cases will be considered, the rst case will not
consider the interfacial shear stress, however the second
one will take it into consideration. In order to formulate
the problem, momentum, continuity, Bernoulli and
Clapeyron equations must be obtained and solved
simultaneously.

M.E.H. Assad, M.J. Lampinen / International Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 985991

2.1. Case a: without interfacial shear stress

We consider rst the case where the shear stress at the
liquidvapor surface is neglected. Then the force balance equation for the liquid lm can be expressed as
du
w
w gy
dy

where u is the liquid lm velocity, w is the dynamic

viscosity of water, w is the density of water and g is the
gravity acceleration. Note that y starts from the liquid
vapor interface.
Integrating Eq. (1) and applying the boundary condition u 0 at y , the velocity prole becomes
u

w gy2 w g2

2w
2w

987

where hfg is the heat of evaporation, q00s the heat ux and

lw the thermal conductivity of water.
Using Eqs. (7) and (8), the variation of the liquid lm
thickness is obtained by
d
lw w TP  T

dx
w hfg g3

The variation of the mean velocity of the liquid lm is

obtained by dierentiating Eq. (3) as
dU 2g d

dx 3w dx

10

The pressure variation of the vapor as it ows in d 

2 passage can be expressed by
dp
f v V 2

dx dh 2

11

The average liquid lm velocity can be obtained from

1
U




1
w gy3 w g2
g 2
u dy 

y


3
6w
2w
w
0
0

where w is the kinematic viscosity of water.

The liquid lm volumetric ow rate per unit width is
dened as
V0 U

g 3

3w

Eq. (4) is the key for calculating U and  at the inlet

when the volumetric ow rate is known. The lm mass
ow can be obtained from
:
mw Ww V0

4 Aarea
Pwet perimeter

2d  2 and assuming laminar vapor

96
v
ow for which f [7] is expressed by f Re
96
Vdh
48v
d2V ,

then the pressure drop is obtained as

:
dp
v mv
12
dx
d  23 W

12

:
where mv v VWd  2 is the vapor mass ow across
the duct, d the distance between the two plates and v
the vapor density.
The temperature is related to the pressure at the
liquidvapor surface by Clapeyron equation which gives
dT RT2 dp

dx hfg p dx

where W is the plate width.

Substituting Eq. (2) into Eq. (5) gives
Ww g 3
:
mw

3w

where f is the friction coecient, dh the hydraulic diameter and V the vapor velocity.
Using the denition of the hydraulic diameter dh

13

where R is the vapor constant.

The vapor ow in the duct is generated when the
vapor ows from both sides, therefore we can write

Dierentiating Eq. (6), we obtain

:
dmw Ww g 2 d


w
dx
dx

The rate of heat transfer to the liquid lm must be

equal to the energy release by evaporation at the interface, in other words the energy balance of the control
volume shown in Fig. 2 can be obtained as
lw TP  T W
:
hfg dmw q00s Wdx
dx


Fig. 2. Control volume.

Fig. 2.

988

M.E.H. Assad, M.J. Lampinen / International Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 985991

:
:
dmv
dmw
2
dx
dx

14

Substituting Eq. (18) into Eq. (5) and performing the

integration, we obtain

2.2. Case b: with interfacial shear stress

Ww g 3
:
mw

12w

If the same procedure including the interfacial shear

stress is followed as described in the previous section,
the force balance equation for the liquid lm can be
written as

:
dmw Ww g 2 d


dx
4w
dx

w

du
w gy  i
dy

15

where i is the interfacial shear stress.

Integrating Eq. (15) and applying the boundary condition u 0 at y , the lm velocity distribution in y
direction is obtained as
u

w gy2 i y w g2 i 


w
w
2w
2w

16

Flooding is the most negative eect that the interfacial shear stress has on the falling liquid lm. However, a case where the shear stress has a signicant eect
on the falling liquid lm will be considered. This eect
prevents the lm from owing at the interface, in other
words, u 0 at y 0, then from Eq. (16) i can be
obtained as
i

w g
2

17

Eq. (17) was also obtained in Ref. [2]. Eq. (17) will
not cause any ooding because the shear stress which
causes ooding [2] is higher than that given by Eq. (17).
Substituting Eq. (17) into Eq. (16), yields
u

w gy2 w gy

2w
2w

1



udy
0



1
w gy3 w gy2
g 2



6w
4w 0 12w


g 3

12w

The mass ow is
:
mw Ww V0

22

The energy balance of the control volume shown in

Fig. 2 is expressed by


lw Tp  T W
:
00
dx
hfg dmw qs Wdx

Using Eqs. (22) and (8), the variation of the lm
thickness is obtained as


4lw w Tp  T
d

23
w hfg g3
dx
Dierentiating Eq. (19) gives the variation of the
mean velocity as
dU
g d

dx 6w dx

24

The pressure, temperature and ow rate variations of

the vapor ow are, respectively
:
dp
v mv
12
dx
d  23 W
dT RT2 dp

dx hfg p dx
:
:
dmv
dmw
2
dx
dx

19

Multiplying Eq. (19) by , we obtain the volumetric

ow rate per unit width as
V0 U

Dierentiating Eq. (21) with respect to x, gives

18

The average lm velocity can be obtained by

U

21

The cooling rate is achieved due to the evaporation of

water from both walls, hence
:
:
q 2mw 0  mw Hhfg

25

The cooling rate per unit volume is simply expressed as

20
qv

:
:
q
2mw 0  mw Hhfg

H W d 0:004
Volume

26

where H is the height of the plate. The number 0.004 in

Eq. (26) includes the thickness of the plate, thickness of
the circulating water on the outer side of the plate and

M.E.H. Assad, M.J. Lampinen / International Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 985991

the thickness of the outer wall adjacent to the circulating water.

The vapor velocity at the vapor exit (x 0) can be
calculated from
V

:
mv 0
v Wd  20

27

3. Numerical solution
From the total volumetric ow rate that enters the
evaporator, the number of plates in the evaporator and
the plate width, the volumetric ow rate per unit width,
V0 , at x 0 can be obtained. The number of plates is
160, the plate width is 0.3 m and the plate height is 0.3
m. Two dierent total liquid mass ows which enter the
evaporator are chosen to be 0.31 and 0.96 kg s1 to be
able to see the eect of liquid mass ow on the evaporator performance.
Knowing V0 , the initial lm thickness o can be calculated from Eq. (4), then the lm initial mean velocity
Uo can be calculated from Eq. (3) for case (a). Eqs.
(20) and (19) give o and Uo , respectively, for case (b).
The leaving vapor pressure is taken to be p0
1365 Pa and its corresponding to the saturation temperature T0 284:75 K, which are chosen from

989

experimental work. The plate temperature is Tp

:
287:15 K. The vapor mass ow mv 0 is chosen by
iteration to satisfy that all vapor is leaving from one
end, i.e. at x 0. The design of the cooling absorption
refrigeration system in which an absorber is installed
above the evaporator, requires that all the vapor ows
upward in order to be absorbed by the absorber.
These boundary conditions were used to solve
numerically the dierential Eqs. (7), (9)(10) and (12)
(14) for case (a), and Eqs (12)(14) and (22)(24) for
case (b). Fourth order Runge-Kutta method was used to
solve simultaneously the dierential equations with the
given boundary conditions. Then the solution at x H
was used to calculate the cooling rate, volumetric cooling rate and vapor exit velocity from Eqs. (25), (26) and
(27), respectively.

4. Results and discussion

The variation of cooling rate with d is presented in
Fig. 3. The gure shows that increasing the liquid mass
ow results in a decrease in the cooling rate. However,
the cooling rate increases monotonically with d. Fig. 3
also shows that the interfacial shear stress has signicant
negative eect on the cooling rate.
The variation of volumetric cooling rate with d is
presented in Fig. 4. The gure shows that the volumetric

Fig. 3. Cooling rate variation with d.

Fig. 4. Volumetric cooling rate variation with d.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4..

990

M.E.H. Assad, M.J. Lampinen / International Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 985991

Fig. 5. Exit vapor velocity variation with d.

Fig. 6. Pressure drop variation with d.

cooling rate has an optimum value. This optimum

occurs at d values between 3.5 and 4 mm depending on
the liquid mass ow. This is due to the fact that the
cooling rate is sharply increasing for d < 4 mm and is
slightly increasing for d > 4 mm.
The variation of vapor exit velocity with d is presented in Fig. 5. As is expected, the interfacial shear
stress decreases the vapor velocity.
In Fig. 6, the variation of pressure drop of vapor is
presented. This pressure drop corresponds to px H
px 0, hence the vapor pressure decreases in the
vapor ow direction. The pressure drop is monotonically decreasing with d. The pressure drop is higher
for case (a) than that of case (b). For higher liquid mass
ow, this decrease in pressure drop is more signicant as
shown in Fig. 6.
The inlet liquid mass ows which are used in obtaining the results assure that there is no possibility of liquid
dry-out. This was tested during the calculation.

5. Conclusions
A mathematical model of laminar falling lm in evaporation process has been presented. The ow described
in this paper is a countercurrent ow. In addition to
case (a) examining the ow with the absence of interfacial shear stress, the model also considers case (b)
with the existence of interfacial shear stress. The interfacial shear stress has a negative eect on the eva-

porator performance only for countercurrent ow. The

increase in distance between the plates increases the
cooling rate and decreases the pressure drop of vapor.
However, the evaporator operates at maximum volumetric cooling rate when the distance between the plates
is about 3.54 mm. Moreover the lower the liquid mass
ow the higher the cooling rate and volumetric cooling
rate.
The model presented in this paper provides a reasonable criterion for prediction of the evaporator performance.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank ABB company for
the nancial support of this research which is a part of
absorption heat pump project.

References
[1] Incropera FP, De Witt DP. Fundamentals of heat and
mass transfer. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1996. p.
55660.
[2] Whalley PB. Boiling, condensation and gas-liquid ow.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987. p. 21316.
[3] Sparrow EM, Gregg JL. A boundary layer treatment of
laminar lm condensation. J Heat Transfer 81 1959:1318.

M.E.H. Assad, M.J. Lampinen / International Journal of Refrigeration 25 (2002) 985991

[4] Koh JCY, Sparrow EM, Hartnett JP. The two-phase
boundary layer in laminar lm condensation. Int J Heat
Mass Transfer 2 1961:6982.
[5] Feind F. Falling lms with countercurrent air ow in vertical tubes. VDI Forschungsh, 1960, 481, p. 26.

991

[6] Suzuki S, Ueda T. Behavior of liquid lms and ooding in

countercurrent two phase ow, part 1: ow in circular
tubes. Int J Multiphase Flow 3 1977:51732.
[7] White FM. Viscous uid ow. New York: Mc-Graw Hill,
1991. p. 425.