Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1998. 30:365–401 Copyright c 1998 by Annual Reviews Inc.
All rights reserved
BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
V. K. Dhir
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1998.30:365-401. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. For personal use only.
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095-1597; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
KEY WORDS: nucleate boiling, maximum heat ﬂux, transition boiling, ﬁlm boiling, minimum heat ﬂux, pool boiling, ﬂow boiling
This review examines recent advances made in predicting boiling heat ﬂuxes, including some key results from the past. The topics covered are nucleate boiling, maximum heat ﬂux, transition boiling, and ﬁlm boiling. The review focuses on pool boiling of pure liquids, but ﬂow boiling is also discussed brieﬂy.
Boiling is a phase change process in which vapor bubbles are formed either on a heated surface or in a superheated liquid layer adjacent to the heated surface. It differs from evaporation at predetermined vapor/gas-liquid interfaces because it also involves creation of these interfaces at discrete sites on the heated surface. Nucleate boiling is a very efﬁcient mode of heat transfer. It is used in various energy conversion and heat exchange systems and in cooling of high-energy– density electronic components. Pool boiling refers to boiling under natural convection conditions, whereas in forced ﬂow boiling, liquid ﬂow over the heater surface is imposed by external means. Forced ﬂow boiling includes external and internal ﬂow boiling. In external boiling, liquid ﬂow occurs over unconﬁned heated surfaces, whereas internal ﬂow boiling refers to ﬂow inside tubes. This review is a follow-up to Rohsenow’s (1971) similar review in this series. Reviews covering different aspects of boiling have appeared elsewhere (e.g. Kenning 1977, Dhir 1991, Fujita 1992). This review focuses on pool boiling of pure liquids. Flow boiling is described only brieﬂy. Boiling is a complex and elusive process. As such, we often rely on dimensionless groups and empirical constants when correlating data. Concurrent with the development of correlations useful for engineering applications, progress 365 0066-4189/98/0115-0365$08.00
continues to be made in understanding the physics of the boiling process. Because the process is so complex and because so many heater and ﬂuid variables interact, completely theoretical models have not been developed to predict the boiling heat ﬂuxes as a function of heater surface superheat. In many cases, a consensus is lacking in the technical community with respect to the dominant mechanisms of heat transfer (in nucleate and transition boiling) and the degree to which the contribution of various mechanisms to total heat ﬂux changes with wall superheat and heater geometry. Figure 1 shows, qualitatively, the boiling curve (i.e. dependence of the wall heat ﬂux, q, on the wall superheat on a surface submerged in a pool of saturated liquid). The wall superheat, T, is deﬁned as the difference between the wall temperature and the saturation temperature of the liquid at the system pressure. The plotted curve is for a ﬂat plate or a horizontal wire to which the heat input rate is controlled. As the rate of heat input to the surface is increased, natural convection is the ﬁrst mode of heat transfer to appear in a gravitational ﬁeld. At a certain value of the wall superheat (Point A), vapor bubbles appear on the heater surface. This is the onset of nucleate boiling. The bubbles form on cavities or scratches on the surface that contain preexisting gas/vapor nuclei. In liquids that wet the surface well, the onset of nucleation may be delayed. For these liquids, a sudden inception of a large number of cavities at a certain wall superheat causes a reduction in the surface temperature, while the heat ﬂux remains constant. This behavior is not observed when the boiling curve is obtained by reducing the heat ﬂux, and hysteresis results. After inception, a dramatic increase in the slope of the boiling curve is observed. In partial nucleate boiling, corresponding to region II (curve AB) in Figure 1, discrete bubbles are released from randomly located active sites on the heater surface. The density of active sites and the frequency of bubble release increases with wall superheat. The transition from isolated bubbles to fully developed nucleate boiling (region III) occurs when bubbles at a given site begin to merge in the vertical direction. Vapor appears to leave the heater in the form of jets. The condition of jet formation also approximately coincides with the merger of vapor bubbles at the neighboring sites. After lateral merger, vapor structures appear that look like mushrooms with several stems (Gaertner 1965). Figure 2 shows a photograph of a large vapor structure supported by several smaller bubbles (stems). A small change in the slope of the boiling curve can occur upon transition from partial to fully developed nucleate boiling. The heat ﬂux on polished surfaces varies with wall superheat roughly as q∼ T m, (1)
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1998.30:365-401. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. For personal use only.
where m has a value between 3 and 4.
BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1998.30:365-401. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. For personal use only.
Figure 1 Typical boiling curve, showing qualitatively the dependence of the wall heat ﬂux, q, on the wall superheat, T, deﬁned as the difference between the wall temperature, Tw, and the saturation temperature, Tsat, of the liquid. Schematic drawings show the boiling process in regions I–V. These regions and the transition points A–E are discussed in the text.
The maximum or critical heat ﬂux, qmax, sets the upper limit of fully developed nucleate boiling for safe operation of equipment. After maximum heat ﬂux is reached, most of the surface is rapidly covered with vapor. The surface is nearly insulated, and the surface temperature rises very rapidly. When the rate of heat input is controlled, the heater surface passes quickly through regions IV and V (see Figure 1) and stabilizes at point E. If the temperature at E exceeds the melting temperature of the heater material, the heater will fail (burn out). The curve ED (region V) represents stable ﬁlm boiling, and the system can be made to follow this curve by reducing the heat ﬂux. In stable ﬁlm boiling, the surface is covered with vapor ﬁlm, and liquid does not contact the solid. On a horizontal surface the vapor release pattern is
falling between nucleate and ﬁlm boiling. Upon collapse of the vapor ﬁlm. Transient transition boiling data can be obtained either by quenching or by accessing from the nucleate boiling side when heat input to the heater is controlled. 1998. Transition boiling is very unstable.annualreviews. it is difﬁcult to obtain steadystate data in transition boiling. is called transition boiling.368
Figure 2 Photographic observation of vapor phase structure. respectively. since it is accompanied by a reduction in the heat ﬂux with an increase in the wall superheat. III.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10.30:365-401. Region IV.
governed by Taylor instability of the vapor-liquid interface. Downloaded from arjournals.
NUCLEATE BOILING Preexisting Nuclei
Vapor/gas trapped in imperfections such as cavities and scratches on the heated surface serve as nuclei for bubbles. a condition is reached when a stable vapor ﬁlm on the heater can no longer be sustained. except when the heater surface temperature is controlled. As a result. and the minimum wall superheat Tmin. and II very rapidly and settles in nucleate boiling. which is a mixed mode of boiling that has features of both nucleate and ﬁlm boiling. For personal use only. Rev. With reduction of heat ﬂux in ﬁlm boiling. the surface goes through regions IV. Heat ﬂux and wall superheat corresponding to the condition at which vapor ﬁlm collapse occurs are referred to as the minimum heat ﬂux qmin. Bankoff (1958) was the ﬁrst to provide
. Fluid Mech.
φ . while analyzing the relation between platelet adhesion and roughness of a synthetic material. was used in this work. Mizukami 1977. as measured from the heater surface. obtained the same criterion for stability of a vapor/gas nucleus in a long narrow ﬁssure.
Several approaches have been proposed for determining the incipient wall superheat for boiling from preexisting nuclei.
. 1998. For personal use only. For the spherical and conical cavities. ρv h f g Dc (3)
1 A distinction must be made between an advancing and a receding contact angle. of a nucleating cavity: T = 4σ Tsat K max . The interface is considered to be stable or quasi-stable if the curvature of the interface increases with an increase in vapor volume (see e. Hsu’s criterion requires that the embryo should be surrounded everywhere by superheated liquid. conical. Nishio 1985). ψ m.
Annu. According to this criterion. a wedge-shaped imperfection on a surface will trap vapor/gas as long as the contact angle1 is greater than the wedge angle. Equation 2 provides a sufﬁcient condition.BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
a criterion for entrapment of gas in a wedge by an advancing liquid front. This review discusses two of the most commonly used approaches.
where ψ min is the minimum cavity-side angle of a spherical.g. Because of the large uncertainties associated with determination of advancing and receding contact angles. a cavity will trap vapor/gas if φ > ψmin . the advancing contact angle is greater than the receding contact angle. In the ﬁrst approach. In the second approach. Ward & Forest (1976). Wang & Dhir (1993a) developed a vapor/gas entrapment criterion by minimizing the Helmholtz free energy of a system involving a liquid-gas interface in a cavity. or sinusoidal cavity. an embryo will become a bubble if the temperature of the liquid at the tip of the embryo (the farthest point from the heated wall) is at least equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to vapor pressure in the bubble. boiling incipience is proposed to correspond to a critical point of instability of the vapor-liquid interface. Forest 1982. Dc. a static contact angle. Downloaded from arjournals. Generally. ψ min occurs at the mouth of the cavity and is equal to the cavity-mouth angle. They obtained the following relation between wall superheat and diameter. Although Bankoff’s criterion provides a necessary condition for vapor/gas entrapment in a wedge. Fluid Mech. Thus.30:365-401. Wang & Dhir (1993a) studied the instability of the vapor-liquid interface in a spherical cavity and showed that nucleation occurs when nondimensional curvature of the interface attains a maximum value. as originally proposed by Hsu (1962). Rev. According to this criterion.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10.annualreviews.
a knowledge of nucleation site density as a function of wall superheat is needed in order to develop a credible model for prediction of nucleate-boiling heat ﬂux. In general.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. Through carefully conducted experiments. Because addition of new nucleation sites inﬂuences the rate of heat transfer from the surface. According to Equation 3. The observed inception superheats for these liquids. σ is the interfacial tension. Kocamustafaogullari & Ishii (1983) correlated the cumulative nucleation site density reported by various investigators for water boiling on a variety of surfaces at pressures of 1–198 atm. the observed superheat is smaller than that corresponding to homogeneous nucleation. Cornwell & Brown (1978) found that the proportionality constant in Equation 4 increased with surface roughness.370 where
K max = 1 = sin φ
for φ ≤ 90◦ for φ > 90◦
Annu. Fluid Mech. (4)
where m1 varies between 4 and 6.annualreviews. heater surface characteristics were not considered. Bier et al (1978) obtained
. For personal use only. Several other parameters also affect the site density. surface ﬁnish. but the exponent was independent of surface roughness. few preexisting vapor/gas nuclei are found for well wetting liquids such as R-113 and FC-72. including the procedure used in preparing the heater surface. little attention had been given to the effect of these parameters on the density of active sites. surface wettability. 1998.
Nucleation Site Density
The number density of sites that become active increases as wall heat ﬂux or superheat increases. and heater thickness. The implicit assumption made in arriving at Equation 3 is that the interface temperature is the same as the wall temperature. For these liquids. and as a result. Downloaded from arjournals. ρv is the density of vapor. and Dc is the cavity-mouth diameter. hfg is the latent heat of vaporization.
In Equation 3. although much higher than those observed for partially wetting liquids. Until recently. active site density is correlated as Na ∼ T m1 . In many instances gas is added by external means to the wetting liquids to reduce the inception temperature and to minimize the hysteresis. Rev. heater material thermophysical properties. In developing the correlation. Gases dissolved in these liquids may initiate the nucleation. are much smaller than those corresponding to homogeneous nucleation temperature (see Barthau 1992).30:365-401. the expected wall superheat at nucleation should approach the homogeneous nucleation temperature ( 90% of critical temperature). Tsat is the saturation temperature. Wang (1992) validated Equation 3.
This discrepancy resulted because in neither case were the observations tied to the shape and size distribution of cavities.
.b) provided a mechanistic approach for relating the cavities present on the surface to those that actually nucleate. Most of the cavities that could trap vapor/gas were of reservoir type. Their approach also includes the effect of surface wettability. shape. consistent with their model. They noted that for separation distances between nucleation sites less than one bubble diameter at departure. They found that elapsed time between the start of bubble growth at two neighboring active sites increased as the distance separating the two sites increased. The data. For separation distances between one and three bubble diameters at departure. Wang & Dhir (1993a. Rev.BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
distinctly different values of m1 during boiling on an etched copper surface and on a turned surface. nucleation at one location is not inﬂuenced by activation at another site. Downloaded from arjournals. Although Wang & Dhir showed how the developed criterion could be used to determine theoretically the number density of active sites. They ﬁrst determined the size.annualreviews. the procedure used in determining the size.30:365-401. Sultan & Judd (1983) studied the bubble growth pattern at neighboring sites during nucleate pool boiling of water on a copper surface. shape. and mouth angle of activities present on a polished copper surface and then used Equation 2 to determine the fraction of those cavities that will trap vapor/gas. Kenning’s and Judd’s studies indicate that thermal interference and site seeding or deactivation can alter the local active-site density and distribution at low heat ﬂuxes or in partial nucleate boiling. the signiﬁcance of these processes with respect to heat transfer during well-established nucleate boiling on thick heaters is expected to be small.
Annu. Kenning (1989) noted that thermal and ﬂow conditions in the vicinity of a heated surface can lead to activation of inactive sites and deactivation of active sites. Judd & Chopra (1993) reported results of interactions between neighboring sites that lead to activation of inactive sites and deactivation of active sites. showed a 20-fold reduction in number density of active sites as the contact angle was decreased from 90◦ to 18◦ . They proposed that thermal diffusion in the substrate in the immediate vicinity of the boiling surface may be responsible for this behavior. formation of a bubble at the initiating site inhibits the formation of bubbles at the adjacent site (deactivation of sites). the formation of a bubble at the initiating site promotes the formation of bubbles at the adjacent sites (site seeding). Their work suggests that some relation may exist between distribution of active nucleation sites and bubble nucleation phenomenon. However. Fluid Mech. Wang & Dhir did not consider the thermal interference between sites or the seeding and deactivation of sites in the neighborhood of an active cavity. For distances greater than three bubble diameters at departure. For personal use only. and mouth angle of cavities is tedious and time consuming and cannot be used readily in a practical application. 1998.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10.
Fluid Mech. After departure. a new bubble starts to form at the same nucleation site.annualreviews. The energy for evaporation is supplied from the superheated liquid layer that surrounds the bubble after its inception.
BUBBLE GROWTH The literature highlights two points of view with respect to bubble growth on a heated surface. is more complex because the bubble shape changes continuously during the growth process. 1998. Bubble dynamics include the processes of bubble growth. Snyder & Edwards (1956) were the ﬁrst to propose this mechanism for evaporation. and the bubble growth process repeats. The bubble growth process on a heater surface. When the required superheat is attained at the tip of the vapor bubble embryo or the interface instability criterion is met. the model shows the dependence of bubble growth rate on waiting time. and bubble release frequency.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. The second point of view is that most of the evaporation occurs at the base of the bubble in that the microlayer between the vapor-liquid interface and the heater surface plays an important role. Rev. bubble departure. One group of investigators has proposed that the growth of a vapor bubble occurs as a result of evaporation all around the bubble interface. Moore & Mesler (1961) deduced the existence of a microlayer under the bubble from the oscillations in the temperature measured at the bubble release site.30:365-401. Some bubble growth models are similar to that proposed for growth of a vapor bubble in a sea of superheated liquid (see Plesset & Zwick 1954). They noted that an expression for local thickness. cooler liquid from the bulk ﬁlls the space vacated by the bubble. Cooper & Lloyd (1969) not only conﬁrmed the existence of a microlayer underneath isolated bubbles formed on glass or ceramic surfaces but also deduced the thickness of the microlayer from the observed response of the heater surface thermocouple. however. Since the initial energy content of the superheated liquid layer surrounding the bubble depends on the waiting time. For personal use only. a bubble continues to grow (in a saturated liquid) until forces causing it to detach from the surface exceed those pushing the bubble against the wall. and superheated liquid is conﬁned to a thin region around the bubble. and the thermal layer at and around the nucleation site reforms (transient conduction). which includes time for reformation of the thermal layer (waiting period).
. δ . Wall heat transfer in nucleate boiling results from natural convection on the heater surface areas not occupied by bubbles and from transient conduction and evaporation at and around nucleation sites. of the microlayer could be
After inception. The following sections describe each of these processes. Mikic et al (1970) obtained an analytical solution for the bubble growth rate by using a geometric factor to relate the shape of a bubble growing on the heater surface to a perfect sphere and accounting for the thermal energy stored in the superheated liquid layer prior to bubble inception. Downloaded from arjournals.
surface tension tends to push the bubble against the wall and thus inhibits bubble departure. Cole & Rohsenow (1969) correlated bubble diameter at departure with ﬂuid properties but found it to be independent of wall superheat. his correlation did provide a correct length scale for the boiling process. they used Cooper & Lloyd’s formulation. These expressions (see e. These forces are associated with the inertia of the liquid and vapor. Fritz (1935) correlated the bubble departure diameter by balancing. Gorenﬂow et al (1986) proposed an expression for bubble diameter at departure that indicates the bubble diameter increases weakly with wall superheat. on a static bubble. They came to the same conclusion as Cooper & Lloyd. Hsu & Graham 1976). buoyancy. their work was limited in scope. Plesset & Prosperetti (1977) concluded that in subcooled boiling. and tg is the bubble growth time.g.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. After more than three decades of research. Although signiﬁcant deviations of the bubble diameter at departure with respect to Fritz’s expression have been reported in the literature. Rev. Issues regarding the forces that act on a growing bubble can be put to rest only through complete numerical
. Some investigators disagree about the role of surface tension. Cooper et al (1978) found that in some cases surface tension assisted bubble departure by making the bubble spherical. For microlayer thickness.annualreviews. that microlayer evaporation is a signiﬁcant contibutor to the heat transfer during bubble growth. the buoyancy with surface tension force. are not always consistent with each other.30:365-401. consistent model for bubble growth on a heated surface that appropriately includes the microlayer contribution and time-varying temperature and ﬂow ﬁeld around the bubble. we still do not have an effective. However.BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
written as δ∼ νl tg . the liquid drag on the bubble. obtained either empirically or analytically by involving various forces acting on a bubble. Several other expressions have been reported for bubble diameter at departure. Generally. Lee & Nydahl (1989) calculated the growth of spherical bubbles with a microlayer. However. Downloaded from arjournals. Although Cooper & Lloyd’s work proved the importance of microlayer evaporation at low pressures. and the surface tension.
where ν l is the kinematic viscosity of the liquid. however. (5)
Annu. especially at high system pressures.
BUBBLE DEPARTURE The diameter to which a bubble grows before departing is dictated by the balance of forces that act on the bubble. Buyevich & Webber (1996) also made the same argument. evaporation at the microlayer accounts for only 20% of the total heat ﬂux. It was further demonstrated that bubble growth was mostly due to evaporation from the microlayer. Fluid Mech. 1998. For personal use only.
Mikic & Rohsenow (1969) justiﬁed
. however. Fluid Mech. for density. the proportionality constant. or in the isolated bubble regime. The bubble acts like a pump in removing hot liquid from the surface and replacing it with cold liquid. Predictions of bubble release frequency based on waiting and growth times. and natural convection on inactive areas of the heater. correlations have been reported in the literature that include both the bubble diameter at departure and bubble release frequency. After bubble inception. respectively. and average heat transfer coefﬁcients. For Equation 6 to serve as a predictive tool. Using empirical correlations for several of these parameters.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. of active sites. K.
Annu. number ¯ nc and h ¯ ev .374
simulation of both bubble growth and departure while properly accounting for the adhesion forces and interfacial tension. bubble release frequency. The evaporation at the bubble boundary is included in the ﬁrst term that represents the transient conduction in the liquid. Judd & Hwang (1976) suggested the addition of the last term on the right-hand side of Equation 6. f.30:365-401. one can write an expression for partial nucleate-boiling heat ﬂux as q= K2 2
2 π(kρ c p )l f Dd Na T + 1 −
K2 2 ¯ nc T h N a π Dd 2 (6)
¯ ev T Na +h
π 2 D . This term accounts for the microlayer evaporation at the base of bubbles. do not match well with the data because many simpliﬁcations are made in obtaining tw and tg. 4 d
In the above equation kl is the thermal conductivity of liquid. the superheated liquid layer is pushed outward and mixes with the bulk liquid. Only the ﬁrst two terms in Equation 6 were included in Mikic & Rohsenow’s (1969) original model. Combining the contribution of transient conduction on and around nucleation sites.
Heat Transfer Mechanisms
In partial nucleate boiling.annualreviews. 1998. ρ l is the density of liquid. Thus. transient conduction into liquid adjacent to the wall is an important mechanism for heat transfer from an upward-facing horizontal surface (Forster & Greif 1959). Na. For personal use only.
BUBBLE RELEASE FREQUENCY A theoretical evaluation of the bubble release frequency f can be made from the expressions for the waiting time tw and the growth time tg. Downloaded from arjournals. microlayer evaporation underneath the bubbles. Dd. Rev. and cρ l is the speciﬁc heat of liquid. several variables must be known: the bubble diameter at departure. One of the most comprehensive correlations of this type is given by Malenkov (1971). for the bubble diameter of inﬂuence. h natural convection and microlayer evaporation. The waiting time corresponds to the time it takes for the thermal layer to redevelop to allow nucleation of a bubble.
For personal use only. qME. At the total measured heat ﬂux of 6 w/cm2. qM. Figure 3 shows Judd & Hwang’s data and predictions. qNC.8. natural convection heat ﬂux. microlayer evaporation heat ﬂux. Experimentally thickness to evaluate h measured values of active nucleation site density and bubble release frequency were used in the model. Fluid Mech. Downloaded from arjournals.BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. The data plotted in Figure 3
Figure 3 Relative contribution of various mechanisms to nucleate-boiling heat ﬂux (Judd & Hwang 1976). 1998. predicted heat ﬂux. about one third of the energy is dissipated through evaporation at the bubble base. Judd & Hwang (1976) matched the heat ﬂuxes predicted from Equation 6 with those observed in the experiments in which dichloromethane was boiled on a glass surface.
the validity of Equation 6 when the third term on the right-hand side of the equation was not included. they relied on the measured values of microlayer ¯ ev and on the assumption that K2 was 1. In doing so. measured heat ﬂux.annualreviews. qP.30:365-401. Rev.
org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. By assuming that the duration for which vapor stems exist on the heater is much larger than the time needed to form the stems. In fully developed nucleate boiling. 1998. the boiling heat ﬂux can be calculated if the fractional area occupied by the vapor stems and the thickness of the thermal layer are known. the downward-facing surfaces accommodate heat ﬂuxes that are higher than those on an upward-facing horizontal surface or a vertical surface.annualreviews. During the movement of the bubbles along the heater surface. For personal use only. Rev. the orientation of the plate has little effect on dependence of heat ﬂux on wall superheat. However.54 × 108 W/m2 could exist at a wall superheat of 20 degrees K for water at 1 atmospheric pressure. This observation is in general agreement with Gaertner’s (1965) ﬁnding that after the ﬁrst transition (partial to fully developed nucleate boiling).376
show that at high heat ﬂuxes or in fully developed nucleate boiling. mushroom-type bubbles supported by several vapor stems attached to the heater may be observed (Gaertner 1965. Lay & Dhir (1995a) carried out a quasi-static analysis to determine the maximum diameter of vapor stems as a function of wall superheat. see also Figure 2). At low heat ﬂuxes. Lay & Dhir’s analysis also showed that locally. Fluid Mech. Lay & Dhir (1994) used the latter approach to predict fully developed nucleate-boiling heat ﬂux. on a downward-facing surface. evaporation is the dominant mode of heat transfer. most of the energy from the heater is removed by evaporation. the relative contribution of various mechanisms depends on the geometry of the heater. at high heat ﬂuxes or in fully developed nucleate boiling. the heat ﬂux can be calculated if the vaporization rate per stem and number density of active sites are known. For example. Figure 4 shows the nucleate boiling data obtained by Nishikawa et al (1974) for water on ﬂat plates inclined at different angles with the horizontal.30:365-401. Energy for the phase change is supplied by the superheated liquid layer in which the stems are implanted. This observation indicates that when evaporation is the dominant mode of heat transfer. The shape of the vapor stem depends on the value chosen for the Hamaker constant. The heater area fraction occupied by the vapor stems is equal to the product of the number density of stems and the wall area occupied by one stem. the details of the heat transfer mechanisms may be altered as heater geometry or the angular position of the surface with respect to the direction of gravitational acceleration is varied. the data for all of the surfaces fall on a single line. Most evaporation occurs at the periphery of these stems (smaller bubbles supporting large vapor masses). Alternatively. the bubbles may slide along the heater surface for some distance after leaving the nucleation site but before moving away from the heater surface. Downloaded from arjournals. In fact.
. This observation is worthy of further
Annu. In partial nucleate boiling. will result in a higher heat transfer rate. in turn. heat ﬂuxes as high as 1. or in partial nucleate boiling. cyclic disruption and reformation of the thermal layer will occur and. Thus. in the ultra-thin ﬁlm.
Fluid Mech. Rev. Downloaded from arjournals.Annu.30:365-401.
BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
Figure 4 Nucleate boiling data of Nishikawa et al (1974) on plates oriented at different angles to the horizontal.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. For personal use only.annualreviews.
T is measured in degrees K. cannot be readily used to predict the dependence of nucleate-boiling heat ﬂux on wall superheat. His correlation uses reduced pressure. molecular weight.12−0. Fluid Mech. Rp. Dd. Most often.50 . In fact. Downloaded from arjournals. These correlations should be used with caution. p is the system pressure. presumably obtained on mechanistic arguments.378
exploration in our pursuit to accommodate very high heat ﬂuxes at relatively low wall superheats. M is the molecular weight. the heat ﬂux in fully developed nucleate boiling was calculated from q = Na m ˙ sh f g.
Heat Transfer Correlations
Because mechanistic models are lacking for several parameters (e. Rohsenow’s (1952) correlation has been used widely. correlations reported in the literature have been used for this purpose. the vaporization rate. Rev. prediction of heat ﬂux from Equation 6 requires adjustment of several f. For example.
Annu.g. as large deviations between actual data and predictions can occur when the conditions under which the correlation was developed are not duplicated. 1998. As a result. Na. even though it is not based on correct physics.0 T pc
0. and q is given in W/m2.
Heat ﬂuxes predicted from Equation 7 agreed well with the data. but no consideration is given to heater geometry. ¯ ev ). Cooper suggested that for application of the correlation to horizontal cylinders. the roughness. Cooper (1984a.
In Equation 8. From the analysis.
.annualreviews. pc is the critical pressure.b) model for density of active sites. is measured in microns. Equation 8 accounts for roughness but does not account for variations in degree of surface wettability. Their correlation is based on both ﬂuid and solid properties.55
· M −0. These correlations generally are valid for both partial and fully developed nucleate boiling.b) proposed a simple correlation for saturated nucleate pool boiling. This approach needs to be veriﬁed further with data from other sources. and surface roughness as the correlating parameters. the lead constant on the right-hand side should be increased to 95. Using Wang & Dhir’s (1993a. h empirical constants embedded in these parameters.21 log10 R p
· − log10
−0.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. His correlation for a ﬂat plate can be written as p (q )1/3 = 55. For personal use only.30:365-401. per stem can be calculated as a function of wall superheat. Stephan & Abdelsalam (1980) developed a comprehensive correlation for saturated nucleate pool boiling of different liquids. Equation 6. good agreement with Gaertner & Westwater’s (1960) data was also seen when number density of active sites reported by Gaertner & Westwater was used. m ˙ s .
Downloaded from arjournals.30:365-401. The boiling curve can be affected by the manner in which the heat ﬂux is imposed on the surface—steady state or transient. gravity plays an important role in this mode of boiling. liquid subcooling. but in fully developed nucleate boiling the surface orientation has little effect. 1998. For personal use only. As a result. Thus. As noted from Figure 4. slow chemical reaction of the surface with the gases dissolved in the liquid or with the vapor. surface roughness pushes the boiling curve to the left. Generally.b) experiments on platinum wires submerged in a pool of saturated water showed that for exponential heating periods
Annu. On the wall heat ﬂux vs wall superheat plots. The magnitude and direction of gravitational acceleration with respect to the heater surface inﬂuences the hydrodynamic and thermal boundary layers and bubble trajectory. heater geometry. the effect of surface contamination is to enhance the wettability and thereby reduce the nucleate-boiling heat ﬂux for a given wall superheat. ﬂow velocity enhances convective and partial nucleate-boiling heat ﬂuxes but has little effect on fully developed nucleate boiling.BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
Effect of System Variables
Several system variables such as surface ﬁnish. shifts the boiling curve to the right. Rev. The rate of convective heat transfer increases with liquid subcooling. Similarly. However. However. For example.annualreviews. at high nucleate-boiling heat ﬂuxes. system pressure. convective and partial nucleate-boiling heat ﬂuxes for subcooled liquids lie higher than those for saturated boiling. Thus. and strong chemical reaction of the metal with the concentrated solutions of electrolytes. surface contamination. With an increase in system pressure. heat transfer by convection represents a major fraction of the total heat transfer rate. as a result. surface wettability.
. thermal properties of the solid.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. liquid subcooling inﬂuences the inception and partial nucleate boiling regions of the boiling curve. partial nucleate-boiling heat ﬂuxes generally are higher on a downward-facing surface. the subcooled and saturated boiling curves almost overlap. Physicochemical changes on the surface can take place because of deposition of inert matter contained in the host liquid. ﬂow velocity. Sakurai & Shiotsu’s (1977a. Improved wettability suppresses nucleation and. Fluid Mech. the geometry of the surface can have an effect on partial nucleate-boiling heat ﬂuxes. The nucleate-boiling heat transfer data collected by Stephan & Abdelsalam (1980) suggested that thermophysical properties of the solid can have a weak effect on nucleate-boiling heat ﬂuxes. gravity. and the mode in which the tests are performed inﬂuence the dependence of nucleate-boiling heat ﬂux on wall superheat. Merte’s (1988) centrifuge data and Zell et al’s (1989) low-gravity data showed that the magnitude of gravity has little effect on fully developed nucleate boiling. In partial nucleate boiling. the incipience superheat decreases and the nucleate boiling curve shifts to the left.
The size of equipment needed for a given heat load can be reduced if already high nucleate-boiling heat ﬂuxes can be further enhanced. However. Downloaded from arjournals. However.30:365-401. (b) Thermal excel-E surface. but this ratio can be as low as 0. The ﬁlm results from the liquid that is pushed into the cavity after a bubble leaves.380
varying from 5 ms to 1 s.
Heat Transfer Enhancement
. The ratio of transient and steady-state heat ﬂuxes depends on the magnitude of the heat ﬂux. Many research efforts have been made in this direction. the incipient heat ﬂux increases as the exponential time decreases. Several experimental and theoretical studies have been reported that delineate the physics of onset of the critical heat ﬂux condition in pool boiling. Rev.annualreviews. (c) Gewa-T surface. enhancement is much less at high wall superheats or near the maximum heat ﬂux condition. the transient heat transfer coefﬁcients generally are lower than those obtained under steady-state conditions.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. The cavities on these surfaces nucleate at very low superheats. The enhanced surfaces have led to an order of magnitude increase in already high nucleate-boiling heat transfer coefﬁcients. Recent advances in enhancing nucleateboiling heat ﬂux have included the development of heater surfaces with highdensity interconnected artiﬁcial cavities of the re-entrant type. Fluid Mech.
Figure 5 Reentrant cavity and commercially available enhanced surfaces. no clear consensus exists in the technical community as to the actual mechanism of critical heat ﬂux. 1998. Figure 5 shows a reentrant-type cavity and the structures of two of the commercially available surfaces.
MAXIMUM HEAT FLUX
The maximum or critical heat ﬂux represents the upper limit of nucleate-boiling heat ﬂux and marks the termination of efﬁcient cooling conditions on the surface. The nucleate-boiling heat ﬂuxes are enhanced not only by the high density of active nucleation sites at low superheats but also by the evaporation of a thin liquid ﬁlm formed on the cavity walls.5. In nucleate boiling. (a) Cross-section of reentrant-type cavity. For personal use only.
15.30:365-401. The critical velocity is the velocity at which vapor jets become Kelvin-Helmholtz unstable. of the heater. (10)
where f (l ) is a function of dimensionless characteristics width. Lienhard & Dhir (1973) obtained data with a variety of ﬂuids at different accelerations normal to the heaters and concluded that for large horizontal plates constant. For heaters of other geometries. the exact value of f (l ) depends on the heater geometry. The value obtained by Zuber for constant C was π /24. in contrast. Equation 9 and the expression obtained by Kutateladze are nearly identical. proposed that the maximum heat ﬂux occurs when velocity in the vapor jets issuing from the surface reaches a critical velocity.annualreviews. and presumably the underlying assumption in these models was that liquids wetted the heater surface well. For inviscid liquids.BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
Kutateladze (1948) and Zuber (1959) proposed two early models for prediction of maximum heat ﬂux on large horizontal surfaces. Both models are based on the hydrodynamics of vapor outﬂow. which is deﬁned as l = l
σ g (ρl −ρv )
. whereas Kutateladze correlated the data available at that time and found the constant C to have a value of 0. For large heaters. Downloaded from arjournals. Neither model accounted for the surface wettability. l . For personal use only. size. the function f (l ) increases as l decreases. and orientation (Lienhard & Dhir 1973). the function f (l ) becomes independent of l and attains a value slightly less than unity. C should have a value of 0. Zuber also assumed that the jet diameter was half of the jet spacing that was bounded by the “critical” and the “most dangerous” two-dimensional Taylor wavelengths.168.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. the maximum heat ﬂux is written as qmax = f (l )qmax F . Rev. Zuber obtained an expression for the maximum heat ﬂux on inﬁnite ﬂat plates as qmax F = Cρv h f g
Annu. Fluid Mech. ρl (16 − π ) + ρv π
At low system pressures. Equation 9 has also been extended to predict maximum heat ﬂux on heaters of different geometry. l < 1. The prediction of maximum heat ﬂux on heaters of different geometries requires a knowledge of the ratio of vapor jet to heater area and of
. However. Zuber. 1998. Subsequently. From the data they also deduced that for a plate to be called a large plate it should at least accommodate three Taylor wavelengths. Kutateladze developed dimensionless groups from the equations governing the ﬂow of vapor and liquid.
σ g (ρl − ρv ) 2 ρv
ρl + ρv ρl
ρl (16 − π ) .
For small heaters.
whereas Hahne & Disselhorst (1978) used horizontal cylinders of different materials. Maximum heat ﬂux is proposed to occur when the liquid ﬁlm trapped between the base of the mushroom-type bubble and the wall dries out prior to departure of the bubble (hovering period). Lienhard & Dhir (1973) summarized the methodology for evaluating f (l ) for various heater geometries. the vapor stems supporting mushroom-type bubbles become Helmholtz unstable.annualreviews. This questioning is based on the fact that visual observations show the presence of large vapor mushroom-type bubbles on the heater surface rather than tall vapor jets. unambiguously. Maracy & Winterton (1988) obtained similar data on a horizontal plate.382
critical velocity of vapor in the jets. For personal use only. and the static contact angle was used as the measure of the degree of wettability. the predicted magnitude of the area ratio is not borne out by experiments. Haramura & Katto (1983) have questioned the validity of the assumption of instability of large vapor jets used in the hydrodynamic theory as originally proposed by Zuber and its subsequent augmentation by Lienhard & Dhir (1973). Haramura & Katto (1983) suggested an alternative hydrodynamic model for prediction of maximum heat ﬂux under pool boiling conditions. However. the data of Hahne & Disselhorst obtained on cylinders showed a much stronger dependence of maximum heat ﬂux on contact angle. Only recently have several studies documented. several investigators have extended the Haramura & Katto model to ﬂow boiling and to jet impingement cooling.
. In their model. Liaw & Dhir (1986) studied boiling of saturated water at 1 atm on a vertical surface. The observed maximum heat ﬂuxes on partially wetted surfaces are lower than those predicted by the hydrodynamic theory. Haramura & Katto found the ratio of vapor stem to heater area to be a function of vapor to liquid density ratio only. the hydrodynamic theory was well accepted as a model of the maximum heat ﬂux mechanism under pool boiling conditions. Nevertheless. in comparison to the data of Liaw & Dhir and Maracy & Winterton.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. 1998. the effect of surface wettability. From the early 1960s to the late 1970s. questions persisted regarding the theory’s ability to predict maximum heat ﬂuxes on surfaces that were not well wetted. and the model is unable to describe the observed effect of surface wettability on the maximum heat ﬂux.
Annu.30:365-401. Predictions from Equation 10 agree with a large set of maximum heat ﬂux data obtained with different liquids and heater geometries. By comparing the maximum heat ﬂux predicted from their model with the prediction from Equation 9 with C = π /24. These investigators showed that the maximum heat ﬂux decreases with increase in contact angle. The thickness of the liquid ﬁlm is assumed to be one fourth of the Helmholtz unstable wavelength. during that time period. Downloaded from arjournals. However. However. Fluid Mech. A prescribed procedure was followed for oxidation of the surface. Rev.
Saturated water at 1 atm pressure was the test liquid.
Figure 6 Dependence of peak heat ﬂux on contact angle. The dotted lines in Figure 6 show the predictions obtained from Equation 9 using the value of C suggested by Zuber (for an inﬁnite horizontal plate) and that suggested by Lienhard & Dhir for a vertical plate.3-cm wide and 10. which wets the polished copper surface well. However. Also plotted are the data obtained with R-113. The reduction of maximum heat ﬂux noted by Costello & Frea (1965) when distilled water was used instead of tap water can thus be attributed to the reduced wettability. water data covering a range of contact angles from 27◦ to 107◦ are much lower. the observed maximum heat ﬂux is only about 55% of that given by Lienhard & Dhir (1973). Since the available buoyancy
. Rev. For personal use only. distilled water). The data obtained with R-113 and with water at a contact angle of 18◦ are within a few percent of the prediction based on hydrodynamic theory.annualreviews.
Figure 6 shows the steady-state peak heat ﬂux data obtained by Liaw & Dhir (1986). Lienhard & Dhir explained these data by considering the number of vapor jets that the heater accommodated.3-cm high copper plate.BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
Annu.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. 1998. The data are plotted as a function of contact angle and were taken on a 6. Fluid Mech. Downloaded from arjournals. For a contact angle of 90◦ (polished copper.30:365-401.
the void fraction away from the wall reaches a value of unity. the vapor stems merge at the wall when the wall void fraction attains a value of π /4. Fluid Mech. At a void fraction equal to unity. because the maximum heat ﬂux data appear to be correlated with the surface wettability (surface property). this condition appears to be analogous to what has been assumed in the past with respect to the hydrodynamically controlled boiling crisis in pool boiling. For a contact angle of 90◦ . In some respects. After merger. The void fraction on partially wetted surfaces at maximum heat ﬂux is less than unity everywhere normal to the surface. whereas for well-wetted surfaces the mechanism depends on the vapor removal rate or
Annu. or the maximum rate of evaporation at the stems sets the upper limit of nucleate-boiling heat ﬂux.
. which leads to coalescence of isolated bubbles at the heater surface. Since in steady state the vapor production rate must equal the vapor removal rate.30:365-401. the merger occurs away from the wall. For partially wetted surfaces the mechanism depends on the evaporation rate at the surface. the hydrodynamics of the vapor outﬂow cannot determine the maximum heat ﬂux on partially wetted surfaces. For personal use only. this mechanism for maximum heat ﬂux is similar to Rohsenow & Grifﬁth’s (1956) proposal that onset of the maximum heat ﬂux condition is due to packing of bubbles. At maximum heat ﬂux on well-wetted surfaces (maximum heat ﬂuxes approaching those predicted from the hydrodynamic theory). a maximum in the interfacial area corresponds to onset of the maximum heat ﬂux condition. For surfaces with contact angles less than 90◦ . the merger of vapor stems signals a degradation in heat removal rate or onset of transition boiling. A void fraction of unity slightly away from the heater is an alternative form of the same criterion. maximum void fraction occurs slightly away from the wall. ﬂow paths are available for the liquid to reach the heater surface. the higher the heat ﬂux (Dhir & Liaw 1989). The hydrodynamic theory proposed by Zuber (1959) assumed that the maximum heat ﬂux occurs when vapor escape velocity and vapor ﬂow area fraction reach their critical values. Downloaded from arjournals.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. Further evidence that hydrodynamics does not control the maximum heat ﬂux on partially wetted surfaces is obtained from the void fraction proﬁles. For contact angles less than 90◦ . thus. For partially wetted surfaces. In contrast. Rev. Thus.annualreviews. the stem circumference in contact with liquid decreases rapidly. 1998. The higher the interface area available for evaporation at a given superheat. the upper limit of heat removal is likely set by the surface. Dhir & Liaw (1989) have proposed different mechanisms for maximum heat ﬂux on partially wetted and well-wetted surfaces. Thus.384
force can sustain a vapor removal rate corresponding to the maximum heat ﬂux for an 18◦ contact angle. Dhir & Liaw (1989) explained the occurrence of maximum heat ﬂux on partially wetted surfaces on the basis of evaporation area available at the stem interface. an obstruction to the ﬂow of liquid to the wall can develop.
Dhir & Liaw (1989) calculated h removal rate by evaporation at the periphery of vapor stems. the wall void fraction can be determined. on the dry region. Rev. nucleate boiling. In evaluating the heat ﬂux ¯ l by knowing the energy from Equation 12. Similarly.annualreviews.b) and Lay & Dhir (1995a) provided a theoretical basis for prediction of number density of active sites and the diameters of the vapor stems. one needs to have models for wall void fraction and the shape of the interface near the heater surface. h data for ﬁlm boiling on a vertical surface. the temperature over the dry and wet areas is assumed to be the same. and ﬁlm boiling). well-wetted surfaces). (12)
Annu. Wang & Dhir (1993a. q ¯v transfer coefﬁcient.e.and area-averaged heat ﬂux and heat transfer coefﬁcient.
¯ l are the time. 1998. implementation of the model requires knowledge of the variation in wall void fraction with wall superheat after the vapor removal limit has been reached.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. respectively. To have a totally predictive model for post– critical heat ﬂux. a signiﬁcant difference in temperature between dry and wet areas may exist.g. transition boiling.30:365-401. If the number density and the dry area underneath a vapor stem are known. Since heat removal on both the wet and dry areas contributes to the overall heat transfer from the surface. and experimentally measured values of wall void fraction were used. For personal use only.BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
occurrence of the void fraction of unity (hydrodynamic limit) slightly away from the wall. The heat transfer ¯ v .and area-averaged heat ﬂux and heat ¯ l and h In Equation 12. Downloaded from arjournals.and area-averaged heat ﬂux may be written as follows: ¯v α ¯ l (1 − α ¯ w) + q ¯w q=q ¯ l (1 − α ¯ vα ≡h ¯ w) T + h ¯w T. the approach can be applied to surfaces on which maximum heat ﬂux is determined by the vapor removal limit (e. As discussed earlier. over the liquid-occupied region. an expression for the time. respectively. q ¯ v are the time. In Equation 12. Such an assumption is true for thick copper plates. In their model the maximum heat ﬂux condition was not considered as a disjoint process but rather as a transition point in the continuously evolving q − T curve encompassing the three modes of boiling (i. However. Although Dhir & Liaw used the uniﬁed model to predict nucleate and transition boiling on partially wetted surfaces. Fluid Mech. over the dry region was obtained from Bui & Dhir’s (1985a) coefﬁcient. for thin heaters made out of low-conductivity materials. and h respectively.
Dhir & Liaw also provided a framework for a uniﬁed model for nucleate and transition pool boiling on partially wetted surfaces. However.
Tachibana et al 1967). size.386
Effect of System Variables
Several system variables affect the maximum heat ﬂux: surface wettability. molecular effusion limit) and not by the rate at which energy could be removed by natural convection from the outer edge of the bubble boundary layer. the maximum heat ﬂux was independent of liquid subcooling and was limited by the evaporation rate at the heater surface (i. speciﬁc heat. For thick heaters. the maximum heat ﬂux was correlated with the product of density. the maximum heat ﬂux should scale as 4 g . Questions also remain about the stability of boiling. They identiﬁed three subcooling regimes. the maximum heat ﬂux varied slightly nonlinearly with liquid subcooling and was determined by natural convection from the outer edge of the bubble boundary layer. √ According to Equation 9. At high subcoolings. liquid subcooling. For personal use only. bubbles surrounded the heater without detaching. From such a correlation of the data. The reasons for weaker dependence of maximum heat ﬂux on gravity under microgravity conditions are not clearly understood.
. and thickness of the heater material (Houchin & Lienhard 1966. gravity. Elkassabgi & Lienhard (1988) investigated maximum heat ﬂuxes during subcooled pool boiling on horizontal cylinders. The maximum heat ﬂux increases with liquid subcooling. ﬂow velocity. the critical heat ﬂux appeared to asymptotically approach the hydrodynamic limit. 1998. and thickness. and density of the heater material). Carvalho & Bergles (1992). heater geometry. system pressure. The ﬂow velocity enhances the maximum heat ﬂux and is discussed later. They correlated the critical heat ﬂux with conpacitance (the product of the heater thickness and of the square root of the product of the thermal conductivity.e. and size of the heater on the maximum heat ﬂux was discussed earlier. the maximum heat ﬂux is lower than that predicted from the hydrodynamic theory (well-wetted surface). For these subcoolings. speciﬁc heat. the functional dependence of maximum heat ﬂux on gravity is weaker than that obtained from Zuber’s hydrodynamic analysis. Bar-Cohen & McNeil (1992). and the mode in which the surface is heated. Merte (1994) reported that subcooled boiling
Annu. material. geometry.30:365-401. Ample evidence supports the conclusion that for thin heaters made of low-conductivity materials such as steel or inconel. the maximum heat ﬂux varies linearly with subcooling in a manner similar to that observed by Zuber et al.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. Zuber et al (1961) extended Equation 9 to a subcooled liquid by accounting for heat lost to the liquid in a transient manner during growth of a bubble. At moderate subcoolings. and Golobic & Bergles (1992) analyzed a large body of critical heat ﬂux data on heaters of different materials and thickness. Carvalho & Bergles found the thickness of the heater material required to achieve at least 90% of the asymptotic value of the critical heat ﬂux. The effect of wettability. In the earlier studies.annualreviews. Fluid Mech. However. For low subcoolings. Downloaded from arjournals. for very low gravities (µg). Rev.
As a result. By carrying out quenching experiments on copper discs in liquid nitrogen. the process is inherently unstable.e. If the time to traverse the top 10% of the boiling curve is greater than 1 s.35. the maximum heat ﬂux is independent of thickness. Conditions similar to nucleate boiling and ﬁlm boiling prevail during wet and dry periods respectively.BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
Annu. For personal use only. The variation in heat ﬂux with wall superheat is a result of change in the fraction of time each boiling mode is present on a given area.30:365-401. The effect of system pressure on maximum heat ﬂux is built into the hydrodynamic model (Equation 9).
Transition boiling is characterized by a reduction in surface heat ﬂux with an increase in wall superheat. Bui & Dhir (1985b) and Liaw & Dhir
. including maximum heat ﬂux obtained during quenching. Rev. The DNB heat ﬂux is deﬁned as the highest nucleate-boiling heat ﬂux at which a linear relationship between ln q and ln T ceases to exist. Dhir 1991. the nucleate boiling side or the ﬁlm boiling side). Since Witte & Lienhard (1982) asserted that Berenson’s (1962) transition boiling data showed hysteresis. However. and major points from these reviews and some recent results are included here.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. the heater thickness and thermophysical properties of the heater have some inﬂuence on the boiling curve. In transition boiling. Lin & Westwater (1982) showed that similar to steady-state experiments. periods of liquid-solid and vapor-solid contact occur alternatively at a given location on the heated surface.
during long periods of microgravity is unstable and that the surface alternately wets and dries out prior to occurrence of critical heat ﬂux.b) found that for exponential heating periods less than 100 ms. Reviews on transition boiling have been presented (e. Peyayopanakul & Westwater (1978) showed that transient maximum heat ﬂuxes decrease as disc thickness decreases. Sakurai & Shiotsu (1977a. several studies on the issue have appeared in the literature. 1998. Fluid Mech. Bui & Dhir (1985b) showed from their experiments on a vertical surface that different transition boiling curves were obtained depending on the side of the curve from which the boiling was accessed (i. the transient maximum and DNB heat ﬂuxes increase as the exponential time decreases. The magnitude of the maximum heat ﬂux is affected if the heat input to the heater is increased rapidly. the boiling process can be called quasi-steady. Pasamehmetaglou et al 1987). the critical heat ﬂux attains a maximum value near a reduced pressure of about 0. With increase in system pressure.5 cm. for discs thicker than 2. Expressions for transient maximum heat ﬂuxes using a steady-state critical heat ﬂux model as the starting point have been developed (Serizawa 1983. Maximum heat ﬂuxes observed during quenching of solids are generally lower than their steady-state values. Auracher 1992).g.annualreviews. Downloaded from arjournals.
30:365-401. Equation 12 has been used to correlate the dependence of wall heat ﬂux on wall superheat in transition boiling. For personal use only.
. showed that for R-113. The issue is far from being resolved since Auracher did not provide any steadystate transition boiling data with liquids having contact angles vastly different from zero. Auracher (1992) developed a feedback system so that in electrically heated systems. Although these models agree with the data reasonably well.g. Auracher concluded that hysteresis observed in transition boiling was due to the transient nature of the data obtained in previous studies and that no hysteresis existed when the data were obtained under steady-state conditions. Rajab & Winterton (1990) claim that in their experiments on a horizontal surface. not all points in transition boiling were accessible. although thermal resistance of the copper heater was reduced. and α ¯l . Rev. Ramilison & Lienhard conjectured that the shift from ﬁlm-transition boiling to nucleate-transition boiling was a result of the change from an advancing contact angle to a receding contact angle. some hysteresis existed even though the data were obtained under steady-state conditions. the larger the hysteresis.annualreviews. Thus. no hysteresis was observed when transition boiling was accessed either from the ﬁlm boiling side or from the nucleate boiling side. hysteresis persisted even when liquid wetted the surface well (i. In fact.
Annu. From this observation. Generally. empirical expressions for ¯ v . and a majority of the transition boiling data showing hysteresis were obtained by other investigators only under relatively slow transient conditions. Downloaded from arjournals. which wets the surface well. In this experiment. they implied that hysteresis was a result of differences in advancing and receding contact angles. several experimental studies have measured the wet area fraction during nucleate boiling (see Dhir 1991) and heat transfer associated with liquid contacts (see Chen & Hsu 1995). steady-state transition boiling data could be obtained. To facilitate mechanistic modeling of transition boiling. nearly zero contact angle). However. q ¯ w on T are used so that predicted heat ﬂuxes match dependence of q the transition boiling data and the maximum and minimum heat ﬂuxes at the upper and lower end of the transition boiling data. Fluid Mech. He found that no hysteresis existed during transition boiling of R-113 when data were obtained under steady-state conditions under either increasing or decreasing temperature conditions. independent veriﬁcation of different submodels that contribute to the overall model is lacking. also obtained on an apparatus similar to that of Berenson. The larger the static contact angle. Shoji 1992) have been proposed for prediction of transition boiling heat ﬂuxes. A few semi-mechanistic approaches (e. for R-113. Haramura’s (1991) data. Ramilison & Lienhard (1987) recreated Berenson’s apparatus in which steam was condensed on the underside of a copper disc while boiling occurred on the top of the disc. 1998.388
(1986) showed that the magnitude of hysteresis in transition boiling curves depends on the static contact angle.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10.e.
. initially dry. the minimum ﬁlm boiling temperature increased with pressure and asymptotically approached the homogeneous nucleation temperature. During contact periods the droplets that initially had a subcooling of 80◦ C yielded average heat ﬂuxes as high as 107 W/m2 at high wall superheats. As a result. liquid subcooling.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. By measuring the size of the bubble departing a heater under saturated ﬁlm boiling conditions and bubble release frequency. the functional form of the correlations was obtained by solving the conservation equations for a two-layered conﬁguration of subcooled ﬁlm boiling. however. they showed that Lienhard & Wong’s (1964) semi-mechanistic correlation tends to overpredict the effect of system pressure.and time-dependent temperature and wall void fractions and with visual observations of the structure of the vapor-liquid interface. Sakurai et al also developed a database that covered a large range of system variables such as heater diameter. and pressure.
Using a microthermocouple probe. and that the collapse of vapor ﬁlm is inﬂuenced by the heater surface temperature rather than the heat ﬂux. These studies need to be supplemented with measurement of position. wall superheat. Rev.
Film boiling is amenable to straightforward analysis. More systematic studies similar to that of Chen & Hsu (1995) are needed to understand the physics of heat transfer during transient liquid-solid contacts before credible models for transition boiling can be developed. which include the effect of radiation. Sakurai & Shiotsu also developed an expression for minimum heat ﬂux on horizontal cylinders.
Sakurai et al (1990a. In addition. in carrying out the analysis. For personal use only.annualreviews. Downloaded from arjournals. empirical constants must be used to match predictions with the data. In developing the correlations. Chen & Hsu (1995) measured the transient surface heat ﬂuxes when a liquid droplet lands on a hot. In correlating the minimum ﬁlm boiling temperature. Sakurai & Shiotsu (1992) accounted for the reduction in the heater surface temperature that occurs upon spontaneous contact of the liquid with the surface.b) developed comprehensive correlations for saturated and subcooled ﬁlm boiling on horizontal cylinders. They noted that the process of heat transfer during a short period of liquid contact is very complex but found that the average heat ﬂux increases with wall superheat.30:365-401. including that obtained for cryogenic liquids. For saturated ﬁlm boiling. Sakurai & Shiotsu (1992) extended their correlations to include a vertical surface and a sphere. many simpliﬁcations with respect to the matching of interfacial conditions and the shape of the interface are made. Fluid Mech. The correlations agreed well with the data.BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
the velocity proﬁle in the liquid shows a steep gradient.annualreviews. At the top of the ﬁrst wave peak downstream of the leading edge. respectively. The amplitude of the long waves controls the interface velocity. threedimensional waves exist on the interface. persists. The liquid boundary layer thins. In a study of subcooled ﬁlm boiling on a vertical surface. As a result.390
Studies have also focused on understanding the structure of the vapor-liquid interface in ﬁlm boiling. the interface behavior in subcooled ﬁlm boiling was divided into two regimes. The ﬂuid in the merged region is entrained by the moving interface. respectively. Bui & Dhir (1985a) investigated saturated ﬁlm boiling on a vertical surface. In the valley behind the ﬁrst peak. The long waves evolve into large bulges. In the low subcooling regime.
Annu. and higher average heat transfer rates occur than those predicted for a continuous ﬂow path. Figure 7 shows photographs of the frontal view of ﬁlm boiling on a vertical surface. ﬂow expands and velocities decrease in the boundary layer. the heat ﬂux increases gradually. For personal use only. Using a holographic technique.
. Vijaykumar & Dhir (1992b) also obtained temperature proﬁles and heat ﬂuxes in the liquid layer adjacent to the vapor ﬁlm. wave structure degenerates into two-dimensional waves. 1998. two types of waves (termed ripples and large waves) exist on the interface. Vijaykumar & Dhir (1992a) noted that. as in saturated ﬁlm boiling. At the frontal region of the ﬁrst peak. They also noted that a signiﬁcant variation in local heat transfer coefﬁcient occurs with time as large bulges and thin-ﬁlm regions sweep over the heated surface. The waves tend to form at a short distance downstream of the leading edge. A relatively large heat ﬂux exists at the frontal region of the leading-edge layer (location a). Figure 8 shows proﬁles of axial velocity in the liquid boundary layer when water had a subcooling of 6. reaching a maximum at the top of the peak before decreasing again. Flow contracted and expanded at the succeeding wave peaks and valleys. Figure 9 shows the interface shape and the heat ﬂux into the liquid at the interface for water subcooling of 1. Fluid Mech. but the phenomenon of expansion and contraction of the ﬂow in the valleys and at the peaks. the ﬂow path length is shortened.30:365-401.6 K. The rate of heat transfer decreases to a minimum value (location f) and thereafter remains fairly constant in the valley region. They noted that both long and short waves exist on the interface. At higher subcoolings. A local minimum and a maximum in velocity proﬁle can be noted in the boundary layer. and vapor from the intervening thin-ﬁlm region feeds the large bulges.7 K. Based on the amplitude-to-wavelength ratio.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. The ﬂows that result from the developing liquid boundary layer and from the rapid acceleration of the interface merge downstream of the leading-edge vapor layer. Downloaded from arjournals. Rev.
For personal use only. The average liquid-side heat transfer is enhanced both by the cyclic behavior and by the increased interfacial area.
Figure 7 Photographs of frontal view of ﬁlm boiling on a vertical surface. Invariably.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. 1998. Thus. Vijaykumar & Dhir were able to explain that the underprediction of subcooled ﬁlm boiling heat transfer by the two-layer models that assume a plane interface is largely the result of the underprediction in the liquid-side heat ﬂux.
. the highest heat ﬂux exceeds the heat ﬂux by conduction through the vapor bulge.annualreviews. Rev. Vijaykumar & Dhir (1992b) concluded that liquid-side heat transfer over each wavelength shows a cyclic behavior with the highest heat ﬂux occurring at the peaks and the minimum occurring in the wave valleys.BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
Annu.30:365-401. Fluid Mech. High local liquid-side heat ﬂux at the peaks suggests the possibility of local condensation. Downloaded from arjournals. Evaporation in the valleys and condensation at the peaks results in little increase in the substrate ﬁlm thickness in the vapor ﬂow direction.
From information such as that shown in Figure 9.
org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. Rev.7 K) along
Complete Numerical Simulation
Son & Dhir (1996) carried out a complete numerical simulation of the evolution of the liquid-vapor interface during saturated ﬁlm boiling on a horizontal plate. the vertical plate. They invoked the assumption of axi-symmetry and considered the circular regions around the nodes and anti-nodes of the Taylor wave.
Figure 8 Velocity proﬁles of the component of the velocity ( T = 207 K. For personal use only.392
Annu.30:365-401. Figure 10a shows at 1-atm pressure the calculated shapes of the evolving interface for a β (≡ c pv T / h f g ) value of 0. 1998. Fluid Mech.
Tsub = 6.
. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.09. which corresponds to a wall superheat of 100 K for water. Each of the circular regions was assumed to have an area equal to half the square of the twodimensional “most dangerous” Taylor wavelength.
annualreviews. The magnitude of the highest heat transfer coefﬁcient increases with time.BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
Annu.30:365-401.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. Fluid Mech. 1998.
Figure 9 Liquid-side heat transfer as a function of distance along the vertical plate for K. Since the ﬁlm is the thinnest where the heat transfer rate is the
. For personal use only. Tsub = 1.
T = 160
Figure 10b shows the dependence of Nusselt number on dimensionless time and dimensionless radial position for β = 0. Downloaded from arjournals. Most of the heat is transferred in the thin-ﬁlm region and in the bubble region in the vicinity of the point of the minimum ﬁlm thickness. Little heat transfer takes place under the bubble core. The magnitude of the highest heat transfer coefﬁcient increases as the wall superheat or β decreases. Rev. These observations run counter to Berenson’s (1961) assumption of a uniform heat transfer rate in the thin-ﬁlm region connecting neighboring bubbles. and the location at which the ﬁlm is the thinnest moves radially inward as the interface evolves into a bubble.09.6 K.
org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. (a) Evolution of the interface.394
Annu. For personal use only. 1998. Downloaded from arjournals. Fluid Mech.
. (c) Nusselt number based on area-averaged heat transfer coefﬁcient.
Figure 10 Prediction of ﬁlm boiling on a horizontal surface. Rev.30:365-401. (b) Heat transfer coefﬁcient as a function of position and time.annualreviews.
Also. the numerically calculated time. the magnitude of the minimum thickness decreases as wall superheat decreases. but it is much less than that seen in the local heat transfer coefﬁcient. At a certain superheat.and time-averaged heat transfer coefﬁcients obtained by integrating the area under the curves (see Figure 10c) are about 30 to 35% lower than those obtained from Berenson’s (1961) correlation. One possible reason for the underprediction of the heat transfer rate from the numerical simulation is the use of axi-symmetric analysis instead of three-dimensional analysis. With increase in wall superheat. The average Nusselt number also shows some dependence on time. Figure 10c shows the Nusselt numbers based on the heat transfer coefﬁcient averaged over the cell area. Rev.annualreviews.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. vapor ﬁlm thickness in the thin-ﬁlm region increases. which is more appropriate for the low-pressure ﬁlm boiling on a horizontal surface. the ﬁlm may become so thin that it ruptures. The Nusselt numbers based on the area. Fluid Mech.30:365-401. the heat transfer coefﬁcient decreases. cause the stable ﬁlm boiling to cease.and area-averaged heat transfer coefﬁcients are closer to the lower bound of Hosler & Westwater’s (1962) data. 1998. the exact nature of these contacts and the spreading behavior can be determined only if a conjugate problem involving conduction in the solid is solved simultaneously.
. This was not done in Son & Dhir’s study (1996). For personal use only.
Figure 10 (Continued )
highest.BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
Annu. Film rupture can lead to local liquid-solid contacts and can. in turn. and as a result. Downloaded from arjournals. Any perturbations near the interface can accelerate the rupture process. However.
Lienhard (1988) reviewed the area of prediction of maximum heat ﬂux on cylinders.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. nucleate-boiling heat transfer coefﬁcients are inﬂuenced by the location of the tube in the bundle. Fully developed nucleate boiling data obtained under forced ﬂow conditions represent an extension of the pool boiling curve. Numerical simulation of phase change processes is expected to be used much more in the future.
External Flow Boiling
Two of the most often studied geometries under external ﬂow conditions are those of a liquid jet impinging on a horizontal surface and of ﬂow normal to a horizontal cylinder. In these two cases. the ﬂow can be along the direction of gravity. which help retain the liquid on the surface. against the direction of gravity.annualreviews.
.or micro-modiﬁcation of the surface can enhance twofold to threefold the maximum or critical heat ﬂux during jet impingement cooling.
Annu. 1998. A liquid ﬁlm with vapor core is observed on tubes far away from the inlet. The numerical analysis such as that used by Son & Dhir can be a useful experimental tool for investigating the effect of various system variables on the ﬁlm boiling process. During jet impingement cooling. Because of an accumulation of vapor along the ﬂow direction.30:365-401. Thus. including the thermal properties of the heater material. However. Jensen & Hsu (1988) showed that for upﬂowing cross-ﬂow over tube bundles. The micro-modiﬁcations. in partial nucleate boiling.396
Nevertheless. He also gave correlations applicable to gravity-inﬂuenced and gravity-free data. substantially higher maximum heat ﬂuxes are obtained at relatively low jet velocities. ﬂow regimes change. For personal use only. the analysis provides a better physical description of the ﬁlm boiling process on a horizontal surface. Jensen (1988) reviewed cross-ﬂow boiling on horizontal tube bundles. provide a high density of active nucleation sites at low wall superheats. or normal to gravity. The macro-modiﬁcation is in the form of radial channels. the maximum heat ﬂux occurs when the rate at which kinetic energy added to the coolant (as a result of evaporation) exceeds the rate at which energy is consumed in the formation of new droplets. Downloaded from arjournals. whereas Sharan & Lienhard (1985) used the mechanical energy stability criterion initially proposed by Lienhard & Eichhorn (1979). Rev. According to this criterion. Monde (1987) extended Haramura & Katto’s (1983) critical liquid-layer model. Lay & Dhir (1995b) showed that macro. different types of critical heat ﬂux mechanisms can prevail in the lower and upper parts of a tube bundle. Several investigators have developed semi-theoretical correlations for the maximum heat ﬂux obtained with impinging jets. the functional dependence of the boiling heat ﬂux on wall superheat is weaker under forced ﬂow condition. Fluid Mech. in contrast.
the correlations developed for pool boiling are applicable. tube diameter. a distinction must be made between critical heat ﬂux under low-ﬂow and high-ﬂow conditions. Under low-ﬂow conditions. the long bubbles merge to give rise to annular ﬂow. suggested a correlation for partial nucleate boiling based on interpolation of the data for forced convection and fully developed nucleate boiling. and eventually to entrained ﬂow. the tube surface temperature rises rapidly to a very high value. correlations for single phase forced ﬂow are applicable. Under high-ﬂow conditions. these correlations must be corrected for the presence of droplets in the core ﬂow. With an increase in the vapor ﬂow rate.30:365-401. which in turn gives way to saturated or bulk boiling. although correlations speciﬁc to ﬂow boiling in tubes have also been reported. among others. liquid is conﬁned to the thin region adjacent to the wall. However. the addition of vapor along the tube axis causes ﬂow regimes to change from bubbly ﬂow. and the tube can fail if the temperature exceeds the melting temperature of the heater material. At a still higher vapor ﬂow rate. Several correlations for dryout and critical heat ﬂux covering different ﬂuids. liquid droplets are entrained in the vapor phase. Rev. ﬂow rates. For fully developed nucleate boiling in forced ﬂow. Fluid Mech. to annular ﬂow. to slug ﬂow. Chen (1963) developed a correlation that accounts for nucleate boiling in the liquid ﬁlm and forced convection cooling of the wall by the ﬁlm. which is now continuous.
Annu. forced convection is followed by subcooled boiling at the wall. In entrained ﬂow.BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
Internal Flow Boiling
Extensive studies of boiling in tubes have been reported in the literature because of the need for researchers to understand the cooling limits of nuclear reactor cores and steam generators. and system pressure have been reported. In annular ﬂow.annualreviews. the enthalpy of the liquid entering the tube increases as it ﬂows through the tube. a liquid ﬁlm covers the heated surface. Downloaded from arjournals. Upon occurrence of the critical heat ﬂux condition. These bubbles occupy almost the entire cross-section of the tube. For ﬂow in tubes. In bubbly ﬂows. The droplets generally enhance the wall heat transfer. the exponent m in Equation 1 varies between 2 and 4. discrete vapor bubbles exist in the continuous phase (liquid). whereas vapor occupies the core of the tube. local quality. As the vapor ﬂow rate increases further. These correlations are valid for both bubbly and slug ﬂows.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10.
. Bergles & Rohsenow (1964). According to these correlations. 1998. After initiation of bulk boiling. small bubbles merge to form long bubbles separated by liquid ﬁlaments. As a result of the addition of heat along the axis of the tube. the critical heat ﬂux condition corresponds to local dryout of the tube surface even though the tube core is full of liquid. For personal use only. In annular ﬂow. When a subcooled liquid enters the tube. the liquid ﬁlm can dry out and lead to a rise in wall temperature as the heat removal rate degrades.
Heat Transfer 86:365–72 Bier K. Heat Mass Transfer 5:985–99 Bergles AE. Thermal-Sciences Conf. Heat Transfer 107:764–71 Bui TD. For personal use only. Parametric effects on pool boiling critical heat ﬂux in dielectric liquids. Downloaded from arjournals. 1958. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author appreciates the support from the NASA Microgravity Fluid Physics Program. Several competing mechanisms for critical heat ﬂux have been proposed. however. use empirical constants to match the predictions with the data. Transition boiling heat transfer on a vertical surface.. Presented at Eur. pp. Two of the most commonly proposed mechanisms for critical heat ﬂux are (a) the inability of the core ﬂow to remove vapor generated at the wall.annualreviews. 1992. Rome. 4:24–26 Bar-Cohen A. Int. The author is also grateful to Ms. Film boiling heat transfer on an isothermal vertical surface. Katto (1994) and Celata et al (1994) provided comprehensive reviews of correlations and models for critical heat ﬂux. Heat Transfer 107:756–63 Buyevich YA. Rohsenow WM.g. 171– 76 Barthau G. 1992.AnnualReviews. Mechanistic models for critical heat ﬂux in tubes have also been developed. pp. 1992. pp. 1:151–56 Bui TD. McNeil A. J. 1962. Webber BW.398
Annu. Tanes Y. Heat Transfer 83:351–58 Berenson PJ.
“Look-up” tables (see e. 1985b. Efforts similar to those described earlier for ﬁlm boiling are currently being made to predict critical heat ﬂux by carrying out complete numerical simulation of the process (see e. The effects of heater thermal conductance/capacitance on the pool boiling critical heat ﬂux.g. Experiments on pool boiling heat transfer. Salem M. Film boiling heat transfer form a horizontal surface. 1998.
Literature Cited Auracher A. 1996. Towards a new theory of nucleate pool boiling. Italy Carvalho RDM. 1978. Entrapment of gas in the spreading of liquid over a rough surface. David Chao as Project Scientist. Gorenﬂow D.30:365-401. Bergles AE. Int. Pool boiling heat transfer and size of active nucleation centers for horizontal plates with different surface roughness. The determination of forced convection surface boiling heat transfer. Transition boiling in natural convection systems. These models. AIChE J. with Dr. Fluid Mech. Int. 6th. Groenveld & Lueng 1989) have been developed that require less computing time and that can be updated easily as new data become available. Dhir VK. J. J.org. 1961. 219–24
. Cindy Gilbert for skillfully typing the manuscript. Rev. Active nucleation site density and pool boiling heat transfer—an experimental study.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. 1985a. J. Heat Mass Transfer 33:271–78 Berenson PJ. Proc. Heat Transfer Conf. Lahey 1996). 1992. 1964. Toronto. J. 219–36 Bankoff SG. and (b) the formation of a persistent dry patch underneath a bubble attached to the wall or resulting from dryout of the thin liquid ﬁlm between the wall and a large bubble. See Dhir & Bergles.
Visit the Annual Reviews home page at http://www. Dhir VK. J. See Dhir & Bergles. See Dhir & Bergles..
Int. Eng. 66-WA/HT-40 Hsu YY. 1992. Topical Meet. 1935. A new hydrodynamic model of critical heat ﬂux applicable widely to both pool and forced convection boiling on submerged bodies in saturated liquids. Adv. Int. Pool Extern. Frea WJ. Karlsruhe. A salient nonhydrodynamic effect in pool boiling burnout of small semi-cylinder heaters. 36:379–84 Fujita Y. Proc.30:365-401. Heat Transfer 117:693–97 Cole R. 1959. For personal use only. J... See Dhir & Bergles. Prog. See Dhir & Bergles. Heat Transfer 84:207–16 Hsu YY. Leung LKH. Westwater JW. 1976. Proc. Brown RD. Int. Eng.. 61:258–68 Dhir VK. DC: Hemisphere Jensen MK. 1993. Toronto. 1978.
. Saturation nucleate boiling—a simple correlation. ed. Hwang KS. ASME Pap. J. In Two Phase Heat Exchangers. J. 1973. Proc. Conf. 65:211– 13 Cooper MG. Flow Boil. Int. Prog. The stability of gaseous nuclei at liquid-solid interfaces. 1992. Proc. Maximum volume of vapor bubbles. 1:157–161 Costello CP. Nuclear Reactor Thermal-Hydraulics. 1995. Hsu JT. NV. Washington. Prog. 6th. Toronto. ASME Pub. Heat Mass Transfer 26:389–99 Hosler ER. Lienhard JH. Bergles AE. Physik Zeitschr. Pike RA. 213–18 Gorenﬂow D. Chopra A. Chem. Heat Transfer Conf. J.. Rev. Appl. 1976. 1991. On the size range of active nucleation sites on a heating surface. Film boiling on a horizontal plate. pp. A parametric study of boiling heat transfer in a horizontal tube bundle. Eng. Heat Mass Transfer 33:237–55 Chen JC. Nucleate and transition boiling heat transfer under pool and external ﬂow conditions. Int. 1969. 707–46. 2:59–64 Haramura Y. 1988. Heat Transfer 87:17–29 Gaertner RF. Boiling burnout in low thermal capacity heaters. Heat Transfer 111:739–45 Elkassabgi Y. 1960.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. Ser. IChemE Symp. Symp. J. Engr. Knabe V. Int. Mariani A. Bieling V. Lienhard JH. Diesselhorst T.annualreviews. 1988. 32:553–58 Houchin WR. ARS J. Heat Transfer 98:623–29 Katto Y. Interaction of the nucleation process occurring at adjacent nucleation sites. Katto YA. Int. J. ASME J. 1:115–20 Cooper MG. Multiphase Flow 20:53–90
Annu. Heat Transfer 16:155–239 Cooper MG. Transport Processing in Boiling and Two Phase Systems. Int. Judd AM. Heat transfer during liquid contact on superheated surfaces. Boston: Kluwer Jensen MK. Westwater JW. Fluid Mech. Shape and departure of single bubbles growing at a wall. 1989. 1962. pp. Population of active sites in nucleate boiling heat transfer. San Francisco 4:1995–2000 Groenveld DC. 6th. 1994.. Photographic study of nu-
cleate pool boiling on a horizontal surface. 1998. Ser. J. 1969. Toronto. 63-HT-34 Chen JC. pp. Reno. Downloaded from arjournals. A comprehensive model for nucleate boiling heat transfer including microlayer evaporation. 1:109–114 Hahne E. 8th. Steady state pool transition boiling heat with the condensing steam. eds. 1:209–19 Haramura Y. Ser. 1965. J. Found. Cumo M. Proc. 1966. 53:6191–201 Forster DE. Heat Transfer Conf. Bubble density on surfaces with nucleate boiling—its inﬂuence on heat transfer and burnout heat ﬂux at elevated saturation processes. 86:786–93 Cooper MG. Phys. Joint Conf. 1963. Heat Mass Transfer 12:895–913 Cornwell K. Heat Fluid Flow 12(4): 290–314 Dhir VK. Critical heat ﬂux. Heat ﬂow rates in saturated nucleate pool boiling—a wide-ranging examination using reduced properties. Heat transfer to a boiling liquid—mechanism and correlation. 1992. 1982. Heat Transfer 115:955–62 Judd RL. Boiling on the shellside of horizontal tube boilers. 83–98 Gaertner RF. Heat Transfer 110:479– 86 Forest TW. 1984a. Effects of thermal properties and thickness of horizontal vertically oriented ribbon heaters on the pool boiling critical heat ﬂux. 1978. Framework for a uniﬁed model for nucleate and transition pool boiling. Liaw SP. J.BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
Celata GP. ASME/JSME Thermal Eng. A correlation for boiling heat transfer to saturated ﬂuids in convective ﬂow. 1986. 1984b. Tabular approach for predicting critical heat ﬂux and post dryout heat transfer. 6th. Heat Transfer 81:43–53 Fritz W. 1988. 1962. Heat Transfer 110:976–81 Judd RL. Proc. 1994. S Kakac. The peak pool boiling heat ﬂux from horizontal cylinders in subcooled liquids. 4th. Correlations of bubble departure diameters for boiling of saturated liquids. Symp. J. J. 56:39–48 Golobic I. Bergles AE. Rohsenow W. Proc. Int. Heat Transfer Conf. Dhir VK. J. Chem. Hsu KK. 1991. 1978. Heat Transfer Conf. Chem. Hydrodynamic and surface effects on the peak heat ﬂux in pool boiling. Int. J. The microlayer in nucleate pool boiling. Lloyd AJP. 1965. ASME Pap. 1989. Boiling surface topography. Assessment of correlations and models for the prediction of CHF in water subcooled ﬂow boiling. The state of the art—nucleate boiling mechanism. Graham RW. Greif R. J.
1994. Zwick SA. Int. Proc. Dhir VK. Evaluation of the unsteady state quenching method for determining boiling curves. Kotloturbostoenie 3:10 Lahey RT Jr. Trans. Int. 1989. 8th. Winterton RHS. Fluid Mech. Trans. Film boiling on a horizontal plate—new correlation. Fluid Mech. 1989. Int. A nearly theoretical model for fully developed nucleate boiling of saturated liquids. Pool boiling. The dominant unstable wavelength and minimum heat ﬂux during ﬁlm boiling on a horizontal cylinder. NASA CR–2270 Lienhard JH. 1978. Press Kenning DBR. Interfacial area and nucleation site density in boiling systems. Conf. ed. 78(3):433– 44 Plesset MS. Heat Transfer 111:731–38 Lienhard JH.
. AIChE J. Proc. Shape of a vapor stem during nucleate boiling of saturated liquids. 1970. Dhir VK. 1979. Heat Mass Transfer 13:647–66 Mizukami K. 8th. Burnout on cylinders. Nydahl JE. Symp. Proc. 5th. Munich. In Process Enhanced and Multiphase Heat Transfer—A Festschrift for AE Bergles.400
by the quenching method. 1985. Semin. 7th. pp. The two transition boiling curves and solid-liquid contact on a horizontal surface. Adv. Int. New York: Begell Lay JH. 128–52. pp. D.30:365-401. 1983. In Two Phase Flow and Heat Transfer. 4:155–60 Malenkov IG. Nucleate pool boiling: high gravity to reduced gravity. San Francisco. 1981. Appl. Gunnersonn F. Int. 25:493–500 Rajab I. 1987. Heat Transfer 117:394–401 Lay JH. Heat Transfer 86:220–26 Lin DYT. Butterworth. Dhir VK. Presented at Micrograv. 1969. 1974. Rohsenow WM. Paderborn. 7:620–24 Nishikawa K. Heat Transfer 109:991–96 Moore FD. NM. 1994. 431–42. Heat Mass Transfer 22:774–76 Lienhard JH. Int. Heat Mass Transfer. Heat Transfer 110:1271–86 Lienhard JH. 1982. Cleveland. J. J. Heat Mass Transfer 24:69–79 Kocamustafaogullari G. Heat Transfer Conf. The measurement of rapid surface temperature ﬂuctuations during nucleate boiling of water. Wall temperatures in nucleate boiling. Int. Detachment frequency as a function of size of vapor bubbles (translated). Effect of surface wettability on transition boiling heat transfer from a vertical surface. 1989. J. 1–9 Klimenko VV. 1964. 1961. 5:105–10 Lay JH.. 1986. 33.. Prosperetti A. J. Eurotherm.. Westwater JW. Entrapment of vapor in reentrant cavities. Mesler RB. Westwater JW. OH Mikic BB. A CFD analysis of multidimensional two phase ﬂow and heat transfer phenomena. Phys. Stability of pre-existing vapor nucleus in uniform temperature ﬁeld. 1988. Heat Mass Transfer 27:1559– 71 Nishio S. 437–42 Merte H. Heat Transfer Conf. 1988. J. 20:99 Maracy M. 1948. 1977. Inzh. B) 54-503:1802–7 Pasamehmetoglu KO. Pool Boiling Heat Transfer. 1973. Lett. Fluid Phys. J. Rev. Heat Mass Transfer 21:1437–45 Plesset MS.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. 1987. Dhir VK.. Ohta H. Fujita Y. Int. Albuquerque. A theoretical prediction of critical heat ﬂux in saturated pool boiling during power transients. J. Proc. Void fraction measurements during saturated pool boiling of water on partially wetted vertical surface. On the transition to ﬁlm boiling under natural convection. Wong PTY. J. 2nd. A new correlation of pool boiling data including the effect of heating surface characteristics. Eichhorn R. Numerical calculation of bubble growth in nucleate boiling from inception through departure. GF Hewitt. J. J. Int. 1996. Enhanced Heat Transfer 2:177–88 Lee RC. 1954. J. Winterton RHS. Growth of vapor bubbles in superheated liquids. liquid metals to cryogenics. Flow of vapor in liquid enclosure. Critical heat ﬂux in saturated forced convection boiling on a heated disk with an impinging jet. Pap. On bubble growth rates. Int. Oxford: Oxford Univ. 1977.annualreviews. Heat Mass Transfer 31:1443–49 Merte H. Effect of surface conﬁguration on nucleate boiling heat transfer. 1990. 10th. Space Nuclear Power Systems. 1988. J. 1971. J. Fiz. pp. Zhur. England. Brighton. Pool and ﬂow boiling in variable and microgravity. 1998. Hysteresis and contact angle effects in transition pool boiling of water. Dhir VK. J. Int. JSME (Ser. For personal use only. Nelson RA. Heat Transfer 111:474–79 Liaw SP. Effect of metal thermal properties on boiling curves obtained
Annu. J. Heat Transfer 9:245–50 Mikic BB. On predicting boiling burnout for heaters cooled by liquid jets. 4:2031– 36 Liaw SP. Downloaded from arjournals. Heat Mass Transfer 26:1377– 87 Kutateladze SS. J. J. Grifﬁth P. ASME HTD 77:57–64 Peyayopanakul W. Extended hydrodynamic theory of the peak and minimum pool boiling heat ﬂuxes. Dhir VK. Heat Transfer Conf. Nucleate boiling heat ﬂux enhancement on macro/micro structured surfaces cooled by an impinging jet. Heat Fluid Flow 11:144–53
Kenning DBR. 2:279–84 Monde M. 1995a.. 1977. Germany. Ishii M. 1995b. Rohsenow WM. J. pp.
1982. 1956. Annu. Hydrodynamic aspects of boiling heat transfer. pp. 4:121–30 Vijaykumar R.BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
Ramilison JM. Proc. Proc. Hata K. Hata K. Lienhard JH. Tribus M. 1977b. Pool Boiling Heat Transfer. Two Phase Flow Dynamics.org by University of Nottingham on 08/04/10. 1993b.
. Summary of conference on bubble dynamics and boiling heat transfer. Trans. Int. Experimental and analytical study of the effects of wettability on nucleation site density during pool boiling. Heat Transfer 107:398–401 Shoji M. J. 237–42 Snyder NR. Boiling. Shiotsu M. Heat Mass Transfer 23:78–87 Sultan M. Theoretical prediction of maximum heat ﬂux in power transients. Heat Transfer 114:169–78 Wang CH. Edwards DK. Int. Eng. Lienhard JH. J. Tech.annualreviews. 1990b. 1977a. Heat Transfer 109:746–52 Rohsenow WM. Experimental veriﬁcation of macrolayer evaporation model. 14–15. Vogel B. 1983. 1983. 3:211–36 Rohsenow WM. An experimental study of subcooled ﬁlm boiling on a vertical surface—hydrodynamic aspects. Nonlinear Taylor in-
stability with application to ﬁlm boiling and wetting. 1959. Los Angeles (also USAEC Rep. J. Shiotsu M. 4:184–207 Witte LC.30:365-401. 1980. J. A general correlation for pool ﬁlm boiling heat transfer from a horizontal cylinder to subcooled liquid. Kawamura H. 8th. 1990a. 1992. Effect of surface wettability on active nucleation site density during pool boiling of saturated water. Non-hydrodynamic aspects of pool boiling burnout. Calif. Semin.. 1993a. 1971. 1992. Proc. Pool ﬁlm boiling heat transfer and minimum ﬁlm boiling temperature. J. Heat Transfer 114:161–68 Vijaykumar R. Westwater JW. Shiotsu M. Grifﬁth P. 1992a.. J. Japan-U. Heat Transfer Conf. Part 2: experimental data for various liquids and its correlation. Transient pool boiling heat transfer. J. 1961. Fluid Mech. Heat Transfer 99:554–60 Sakurai A. Int. Eurotherm. Sci. J. Interaction of the nucleation phenomena at adjacent sites in nucleate boiling.. Dhir VK. Univ. 52:47–49 Sakurai A. 2nd. See Dhir & Bergles. Transient pool boiling heat transfer. Prog. On the relation between platelet adhesion and the roughness of a synthetic biomaterial. 70–74 Zuber N. Heat Transfer 115:670–79 Wang CH. Part 1: a theoretical pool ﬁlm boiling heat transfer model including radiation contribution and its analytical solution. 1967. PhD thesis. Rev. Judd RL. Ann. Abdelsalem M. The hydrodynamic crisis in pool boiling of saturated and subcooled liquids. pp. Heat Transfer 105:3–9 Tachibana F. 1989. Semin. Rev. Correlation of maximum heat ﬂux data for boiling of saturated liquids. J. Forest TW. See Dhir & Bergles 1992. Pasadena.S. Germany. 1992. Symp. Heat Mass Transfer 26:921–32 Sharan A. J. 1987. ASME 74:969–76 Rohsenow WM. 1992b. Heat Transfer 115:659–69 Ward CA. Dhir VK. 1956. 1952. Heat Transfer 112:441–50 Sakurai A. Paderborn. Los Angeles Wang CH. On predicting burnout in the jet conﬁguration. Part 2: boiling heat transfer and burnout. Memo 20-137. Univ. 277–301 Serizawa A. Transition boiling heat transfer and the ﬁlm transition regime. Chem. 27
Annu. Dhir VK. On the gas entrapment and nucleation site density during pool boiling of saturated water. J. pp. Pap. Straub J. For personal use only. Heat Transfer 99:547– 53 Sakurai A. 1996. On the existence of two transition boiling curves. Fluid Mech. pp. Lienhard JH. Heat transfer correlations for natural convection boiling. Dhir VK. Pool boiling under microgravity. Nucl. J. J. Shiotsu M. 1979. pp. Dhir VK. Shiotsu M. Eng.. A method of correlating heat transfer data for surface boiling of liquids. Akiyama M. Denver. Heat Mass Transfer 25:771–79 Zell M. J. PhD thesis. J. Downloaded from arjournals. Biomed. Heat Transfer 112:430–40 Sakurai A. Part 1: incipience boiling superheat. An experimental study of subcooled ﬁlm boiling on a vertical surface—thermal aspects. Calif. 1976. Adv. 1998. 301–9 Stephan K. Ser. A general correlation for pool ﬁlm boiling heat transfer from a horizontal cylinder to subcooled liquid. CA Son G. Jet Propulsion Lab. AECU-4439) Zuber N. Int.