15

THERMODYNAMICS AND FLUID MECHANICS GROUP

ACCELERATION AND THE CRITICAL HEAT FLUX IN POOL

BOILING HEAT TRANSFER

By H. J. Ivey, B.Sc., PhD. (Student)*

Many theories predicting the critical (or burnout) heat flux in saturation pool boiling have been proposed
during the past decade. Although most are able to correlate existing experimental data, it is evident that the
theoretical models upon which they are based are widelp different in concept. Moreover, owing to lack of
experimental evidence it is not clear which, if any, are based upon the more correct models. Certain of the
theories implicitly contain the acceleration due to gravity raised to a different power; by performing a
relatively simple experiment it may be possible to accept or reject certain of the theories. An experiment of
this type is described in the present paper. On the basis of the results of this experiment it is possible to reject
several of the above theories.
The extent to which the acceleration of the boiling system is important as a parameter in determining the
critical heat flux was ascertained experimentally. A simple centrifugal apparatus is described which was used
for determining the critical heat flux in pool boiling to water at atmospheric pressure and accelerations in
the range 1 < (alg) < 160. A two-variable non-linear correlation involving a logarithmic transformation
was made upon the experimental results after allowing for the possible effect of pressure and potential sub-
cooling by extrapolation to zero subcooling. The resulting equation is of the form:
qcr, (aig) 0.27

THEORETICAL ASPECTS O F CRITICAL
HEAT F L U X IN SATURATION POOL
BOILING
Introduction
WITH THE ADVENT of many systems (nuclear reactors,
rockets) requiring heat removal with high heat fluxes,
considerable effort has been spent on boiling heat transfer
in general, and on the critical heat flux in particular. As the
boiling mechanism is complex, much ingenuity and analysis
have been directed towards solution of the simplest boiling
heat transfer condition : that of saturation pool boiling.
Many different theories and analytical models have been
proposed to predict the critical heat flux in saturation pool
boiling; many of these invoke specific configurations of the
liquid-vapour phase boundaries as functions of space and
The M S . of this paper was first received at the Institution on 9th
January 1962, and in its revised form, as accepted by the Council
for publication, on 27th April 1962.
* Reactor Development Division, Atomic Energy Establishment,
Winfrith.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs
1
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016
time. most are able to correlate existing sets of experimental
data, but their predictions for other conditions (for example,
accelerations greater than that of local gravity) are in many
cases dissimilar, while the models upon which they are
based are often incompatible. It is the purpose of thc first
part of the present paper to attempt a rationalization of the
numerous theories proposed and to inspect critically the
initial assumptions of several of these theories. The extent
to which the acceleration of the boiling system is important
as a parameter in determining critical heat flux is also
indicated, this will be of use in the second part.
Notation
Ar Dimcnsionless parameter = gZo3(pL- po)/v2p0.
a Area fraction of surface covered by vapour
bubbles.
a Acceleration, fi/sec2.
ak Dimensionless acceleration.
c Constant.
Val 177 AT0 I 1963
 H. J. IVEY

Drag coefficient, CD = 4 g ( ~ ~ - p , ) D b / 3 p ~ u , ~ . Description of the two-phase fluid in saturation

Specific heat at constant pressure, Btu/lb mass pool boring
OF.
Critical heat flux-system parameter relatiods may be
Ratio of total heat transfer to the heat transferred conveniently divided into two main groups :
by the production of vapour in bubbles
= qtotal/qbubble- (1) those derived by correlation of experimental
Vapour binding coefficient = n Db2. . results using dimensional analysis,
Diameter of vapour bubble at departure, ft. (2) those derived by analytical considerations.
Diameter of vapour bubble the instant it breaks The analytical group may be further divided into three
through the free liquid surface, ft. subsections depending upon the particular physical model
Frequency of bubble formation at a nucleating which is used. The use of physical models is necessitated
site, sec-1. by the inability in general to describe the liquid-vapour
Acceleration due to gravity, ft/sec2. interface as a function of time and space. The subsections
Conversion factor in Newton's law of motion, of the analytical group arise from three basic variants of the
lb mass ft/lb force sec2. model used to describe the system conditions occurring at
Enthalpy, Btu/lb mass. the critical heat flux with respect to the disposition of the
Dimensionless parameter = X/C,T,. liquid and vapour phases. The three basic variants of
Thermal conductivity, Btu/ftz sec "F/ft. the analytical group are:
Characteristic vapour length, proportional to
diameter of bubble on departure, (2a) vapour as the discontinuous phase, liquid as the
continuous phase;
lo" [gc&GL- P v F (2b) both vapour and liquid as discrete phases;
Number of bubbles per unit area, ft-2. (2c) vapour as the continuous phase, liquid as the
Absolute pressure, lb force/ftz. discontinuous phase.
Absolute critical pressure, lb force/ft2.
Heat flux, Btu/sec ft2. In variants (2a) and (2c) planar cross-sections of the two-
Critical heat flux, Btu/sec ft2. phase system would show the liquid and vapour phases
Radius, ft. respectively to be multiple-connected domains topologic-
Radial velocity, ft/sec. ally. In some examples of variant (2b) a planar cross-section
Radial acceleration, ft/sec2. whose normal is parallel to the accelerative field would
Reynolds number based on superficial vapour show that each packet of both the liquid and the vapour
velocity = qlo/Ap,v. phases are simply connected domains.
Absolute temperature of saturation, "R. The majority of relations determining the critical heat
Velocity of bubble, ft/sec. flux as a function of system variables in pool boiling heat
Average bubble growth rate, ft/sec. transfer implicitly contain the acceleration due to gravity.
Relative velocity of two fluids in parallel streams, In order to clarify the origin of the accelerative term for
ft/sec. each particular theory, a brief systematic survey of the
Velocity of vapour normal to heater surface, critical heat flux relations for saturation pool boiling is
ft/sec. made. Several of these theories have been derived using
Contact angle, radians. initial assumptions which subsequently have been shown
Degrees subcooling, "F, = saturation tempera- to be inaccurate according to latest experiments. Note is
ture-liquid bulk temperature. made of these cases where appropriate.
Angle, radians.
Angular velocity, radisec. Theories of critical heat j u x for saturation pool boiling
Angular acceleration, rad/sec2. (1) Correlation of experimental results using dimensional
Latent heat of vaporization, Btu/lb mass. analysis :
Absolute viscosity, lbjsec ft.
Kinematic viscosity = p/p, ft2/sec. Addoms (I)* derived a correlation by dimensional
Mass density, lb mass/ft3. analysis in which the average volumetric vapour dis-
Surface tension, lb force/ft. engaging rate per unit area of heater surface is a function
of a buoyancy term and of the product of the liquid
thermal diffusivity and acceleration due to gravity. It
may be expressed as :
Subscripts
L Liquid.
V Vapour.
cr Critical. Kutateladze (2) considered the hydrodynamic motion
sat Saturation. of a non-viscous two-phase fluid in terms of the equations
sub Subcooled. References are given ia the Appendix.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Val 177 No I 1963

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016

 CRITICAL HEAT FLUX I N POOL BOILING HEAT TRANSFER 17

of motion for the two phases, a condition for equality of wrote an expression for the fraction a of the surface
turbulent tangential forces at the phase boundary, and a covered by bubbles :
condition for equality of pressures at the phase boundary.
A system of criteria was determined through dimensional 4
. . , 77
a = - Dbzn(8) .
analysis to give :
and assumed that the critical heat A ux condition occurred
4cr = Chpv’ [ ~ ~ ~ ~ P L - P J I ’ (2) - when successive bubbles leaving the surface touched and
Sterman (3) described the heat transfer between the coalesced :
heater surface and the boiling fluid with the equations of
motion for the fluid, heat transfer from the laminar sub-
ub=fDb . . . (9) . .
layer to the boiling bulk of the liquid by turbulent heat Equations (7)-(9) give :
transfer and molecular mass (thus heat) transfer, the qcr = hp,ub(+a) . . (10) .
equation of heat transfer at the solid-liquid interface for T o determine the bubble velocity 24, an expression
no change in phase, and the convective heat transfer equating buoyancy force to drag force on a freely rising
equation with an internal heat source. Dimensionless vapour bubble was used:
groups were obtained and compared with the experimental
data of Cichelli and Bonilla (4)to give:
(‘QevaJcr = 0.0365Ar@57KS-f . . (3)
g(pL-h)
.TI 17
5 Ob3 = cD 4D b 2 ( b o u b 2 ) - (11)

When the criterion K, is neglected and the above rela-
tion re-evaluated with the experimental data the following
is obtained:
(‘ZQevap)cr
= 0.168ArO.5 . . (4)
This may be written as :
4cr = 0.168+2 [glO(PL-Pa)lk * * (5)
which is the Kutateladze retation (equation (2)).
Borishanskii (5) considered the stability of a liquid jet
surrounded coaxially by the moving vapour phase. The
effect of viscosity was not neglected and two similarity
criteria were derived by dimensional analysis. On com-
parison with experimental data the effect of viscosity
was found to be small; when it is neglccted the criterion
involving viscosity is removed and the Kutateladze
relation results (equation (2)).
(2u) Vapour discontinuous, liquid continuous analytical
model :
Jakob and Linke (6) attempt to derive a dimensionless
representation for the boiling heat transfer mechanism
by means of physical reasoning. The heat transfer is
postulated to be promoted by vapour bubble growth and
quantities influencing this motion were introduced.
They write the total volume of vapour formed per unit
time due to heat energy taken from unit area of heating
surface as:
It should be noted that this expression was not derived
for the condition of critical heat flux; however, their
work is mentioned as the above expression is similar to
the starting point for most other theories employing a
vapour discontinuous type of model for the critical heat
flux.
Deissler (7) (S), starting with the Jakob and Linke
expression:
(7)
Proc Instn Mech Engrs
It is stated that the vapour density is used in the expression
for drag on the vapour bubble, as the fluid near the wall
is mostly vapour when film boiling begins. The Fritz
formula for bubble breakaway diameter was used to
complete the above expression (9), that is :
Equations (lo)-( 12) give:
4cr = const- a ($1 f
.hPv+[ggc4%-f,)l* (13)
It was assumed that a is a constant; the above expression
then reduces to that reported by Cole (IO), although the
additional term (pJpL)* multiplying the right-hand side
is obtained when using the information supplied by
Cole. This is due to non-statement of the assumption
made by Deissler of the use of vapour density rather than
liquid density in equation (1 I), which assumption is
suspect.
Rohsenow and Griffith (11) (12)(13) first quote the
correlation of Addoms (equation (1)) and then state
‘since it was observed (14) that bubbles shoot away
perpendicularly from vertical surfaces it appears that
gravity should perhaps not have a significant effect on
the peak heat flux values’. A model for the critical heat
flux for saturation conditions is then proposed which
does not contain an accelerative term. The Jakob and
Linke expression (equation (6)) is written:
7T
‘?total = Cqqbubble = cq.hpv 6 Db3.fn (14)
where the heat transfer to a single bubble was assumed
to be proportional to the total heat transfer. The critical
heat flux condition was assumed to be given by a ‘vapour-
binding’ condition at which bubbles on the surface just
touch and coalesce:
n = cvb/Db2 . . . . (15)
This is similar to the assumption made in the analysis of
Deissler, equation (8).
Vol 177 No I 1963

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016

18 H. J. IVEY

Equations (14), (15) give :
4cr = CqCvbboCfDd -
(16) *
The final correlation, assuming (fD6)
is a constant, was
obtained by comparison with experimental data:
The above observation made by the authors concerning
the insignificance of gravity effect due to the 'shooting'
away of bubbles is not surprising; they quote results
concerned solely with forced convection, highly sub-
cooled, boiling experiments of McAdams et al. (15)
whereas equation (17) should apply for saturation pool
boiling.
Griffith (16)starts with equation (16) and the assump-
tion (fDb) cc Vgrowthto give:
4cr = hpuVgrowth * -
An expression for Vgrowthat saturation conditions was
determined by assuming the bubbles obey Stokes law:
- (l9)
ub = g ( f L - f ~ ) ~ b ~ / 1 8 ~ . L
for the rise velocity to give:
vapour bubbles are in a square array on the heater surface
- (Fig. I). 'The maximum number of bubbles from each
site follow the principle that when one bubble detaches
from one site a new bubble just starts to form in the
neighbouring site.' Using this same model for the
distribution of the two phases the peak heat flux is
estimated from two points of view. The first considers
the equation of motion of the bubbles :the mass-accelera-
tion of the bubble is equated to its buoyancy, friction and
induced mass effects are neglected, and this equation is
integrated to determine the time ( t 2 )for a bubble to rise
a distance of 2Db from the heater surface. With the
Deissler-type relation (equations (7) and (8)) :
5T 1
4cr = (6 Db3) . . (22)
the Fritz formula (equation (12)) and published data for
contact angles, the critical heat flux is given by:
(18)
4cr = (0.17 +-+ 0'23)h~~lgg,a(~L--p,>I~ (23)
The second Chang and Snyder (17) interpretation
considers the capillary wave which is postulated to occur
3
at the interface of the bubble owing to relative motion
of the bubble. For two non-viscous fluids flowing in
parallel vertical streams the interface becomes unstable
when their relative velocity is :

Doubt is cast upon the use of Stokes law to obtain an

expression for the rise velocity at saturation conditions The maximum relative velocity is computed from the
since Cole (10) has shown that for saturation pool geometry of Fig. 1 and continuity: this gives vr = 1 . 8 ~ ~ .
boiling at the critical heat flux the buoyancy may be From equations (22) and (12), and the time ( t 2 )taken by a
equated to the drag force to give the following rise bubble to rise a distance of 2 0 , the following is obtained:
velocity : v
4cr = hJ% - - * (25)
Equations (24) and (25) give:
Chang and Snyder (17) postulate a model where the

Since this model is implicitly dependent upon the

postulated geometry of the vapour bubbles (Fig. l), and
since all existing evidence (photographic and otherwise)
indicates the chaotic behaviour of the two phases near
the critical heat flux, equations (23) and (26) bascd upon
the geometry of Fig. 1 are of dubious validity.
(2b) Both vapour and liquid as discrete phases :
Zuber has published a number of papers (18)-(24)in
which the following expression is derived for the critical
heat flux in saturation pool boiling:

It is extremely difficult to obtain a clear picture of the

model postulated in order to arrive at the above expres-
sion. The physical model has changed since the above
J equation was first presented. An outline is given:
\\\\\\' i\\i\\\\\\\\~\\\.,\\\\
Reference (18). Considered stability of capillary waves
Fig. I . Proposed model for mitical heatjux of Chang occurringin vapour flowaround perimeter of horizontal
and Snyder (17) tube (an illustrative diagram is given to this effect).
-
Proc Inrtn Mech Enzrs Vol I77 No 1 1963

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016

 CRITICAL HEAT FLUX I N POOL BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
Reference (19). No clear statement of the model is made
except ‘if the thickness of the film is small compared
with the diameter of the tube we can use the plane
approximation’.
Reference (20). The model for the analysis is a hori-
zontal liquid-vapour interface.
References (21)(22). A slightly different model is pre-
sented which adds the consideration of the stability of
a fluid jet surrounded by another fluid.
Reference (23). The following statement appears, ‘The
system analysedinreferences (19)(21)contains regularly
spaced vertical jets of vapour rising from a horizontal
heated surface in pool boiling. These jets are postulated
to be on a square array whose dimensions are deter-
mined by the wave lengths of waves which are unstable
under Taylor instability.’
Reference (24). It is assumed that the vapour rises in
continuous circular columns through the liquid (i.e.
as opposed to discrete bubbles of vapour as in the first
two references (IS)(IS). The result is unchanged.
It should be pointed out that the entire analysis is based
upon consideration of Taylor instability of a liquid-
vapour interface. This was made possible (though not
necessarily permissible) by assuming no liquid-solid
contact in transition boiling. It has been shown (25)
that when an electric current was passed in series through
a bubbly spheroid and the heating surface, the circuit
was closed briefly at the instant the vapour bubble broke
through. It has also been shown that liquid-solid contact
exists by a different method (26) for transition boiling
through the necessary existence of a triple interface.
This conclusion invalidates a major assumption made by
Zuber in his analysis of the peak heat flux as the upper
limit of transition boiling, that liquid-solid contact does
not exist. The assumed non-existence of liquid-solid
contact allowed the application of Taylor instability to
the liquid-vapour interface which in turn determined
the geometrical spacing of the liquid and vapour columns
through the critical wavelength.
Berenson (27).The experimental work of Borishanskii
(25) and Berenson (26) conclusively demonstrate that
liquid-solid contact exists in transition boiling. Pre-
sumably because the assumption of Taylor instability is
invalidated by this, Berenson postulates a different two-
dimensional model of contra-flowing planes of vapour
and liquid. This is shown in Fig. 2. The following
expression is obtained (which still requires a constant) by
minimizing the kinetic energy per unit time at any one
horizontal plane for the assumed model:
4cr = Cbu’[ggc~(~L-~v>I‘x
The comments made concerning the analytical model of
Chang and Snyder (17)apply here also.
(2c) Vapour continuous, liquid discontinuous analytical
model.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016
19
Fig. 2. Proposed model for critical heat flux of Berenson (27)
No analytical model exists to date using this configura-
tion. It is, however, important to note that Wallis (28)
(29)has shown that the ‘fluidization’ point in a general
fluid-fluid system (the transition from gas jet to dropwise
flow) is predicted by an equation similar to that of
Kutataladze, that is :
-
v v , cr = K~u-+[ggco(~~-~u)I’ (29)
This transition point may be regarded either as the
upper limit of the gas jet regime or as the lower limit of
the suspended drop regime (the ‘fluidization point’).
Below this point the liquid drops rest on one another and,
depending upon surface properties, may join to form
liquid jets.
EXPERIMENTAL DETERMINATION OF THE
EFFECT OF ACCELERATION ON CRITICAL
HEAT FLUX IN POOL BOILING
Introduction
Many theories and correlations for the determination of the
critical heat flux in saturation pool boiling have been pro-
posed in the last decade. Many predict an increase in
critical heat flux with increase in acceleration (2) (3) (5) (7)
(17)(19) (27); several predict an even greater effect of
acceleration (I) (16); and one predicts no effect of accelera-
tion (12).The principal objectives of the second part of the
present paper are the experimental determination of the
effect of acceleration upon the critical heat flux in saturation
pool boiling at atmospheric pressure, and the examination
of the predictions of the above correlations and theories in
the light of experimental results.
Although a theoretically derived prediction that critical
heat flux for saturation pool boiling as a monotonically
increasing function of acceleration has been available for
over a decade (2),the first suggestion to test this conclusion
experimentally has been made only recently (19).Present
experimental information on the effect of acceleration on
boiling heat transfer is extremely limited. Qualitative
evidence for the importance of buoyancy forces in saturation
pool boiling under zero-gravity conditions has been
demonstrated (30); some information on zero-gravity
boiling and condensing is available (31); and the effect of
accelerations to (a/g) = 21 on the natural convection-
nucleate boiling region has been determined (32).
The only data available concerning the effect of accelera-
tion on the critical heat flux in pool boiling are those of
Usiskin and Siege1 (33) and Costello and Adams (34). In
the former paper the results were obtained for accelerations
in the range 0 < (u/g) < 1, and are subject to the error of
being obtained not under steady-state but under transient
conditions owing to the limited time of fall of the experi-
mental apparatus. In the latter paper the results indicate a
Vol177 No 1 1963
20
general increase of critical heat flux with increase of accelera-
tion, but the nature of this increase is at variance both with
theoretical predictions and with the results of the present
investigation. This is discussed further in a later section,
and in the discussion to the paper of Costello and Adams
(35).
Experimental method
Concept of design
To produce a steady-state acceleration greater than
(a/g) = 1, it is necessary to produce either a uniform rate of
change of velocity under rectilinear motion or a uniform
rate of change of direction at constant speed. The former
method, though producing the simplest accelerative field,
must of necessity be limited to transient or unsteady-state
experiments. Thus the latter method was chosen, although
the acceleration produced is complex. In general, the
acceleration of a particle in plane polar co-ordinates about
the instantaneous centre of rotation consists of the terms
r and r82 acting parallel to the instantaneous radius, and
rb’ and 2i8 acting normal to the instantaneous radius. The
boiling test section was rotated in the horizontal plane at
constant angular velocity 8 and constant radius r to produce
an accelerative field to (alg) = 160. The only acceleration to
which the test section was subjected was centrifugal
(r82); the bubbles leaving the test section had a radial
velocity component and were subjected in addition to
CorioIis acceleration (2iB).
Apparatus
The test section was placed tangential to the circle swept by
the radius arm, so that the acceleration was effectively
uniform along its length. The test vessel was not freely
pivoted as the acceleration due to gravity could be neglected
for all but the lowest centrifugal acceleration, The majority
(142) of the experimental determinations of the critical heat
flux were carried out with 18/8/Ti stainless steel tubes of
0.049 in. outside diameter, 0.040 in. nominal inside dia-
meter and l$ in. in length. The remainder (18) were identical
except that the nominal inside diameter was 0.042 in. The
ends of the tubes were soft-soldered to stainless steel blocks
and voltage taps were taken from the solder near the test
section ends so that the voltage drop across the tube could
be accurately determined. The ends of the electrically heated
test section were clamped to two stainless steel conductors
which led into the stainless steel vessel through Tufnol
seals. The radius at which the central axis of the test section
was placed in the present series of experiments was 2553 in.
Owing to the large radial distance compared with the size of
the test section, a total variation of 4 per cent in centrifugal
acceleration occurred between the points on the test section
nearest and farthest from the axis of rotation. This appears
favourable when compared with the experiments of
Costello and Adams (34), in which this variation amounts to
almost 10 per cent. Details of the test vessel arc shown in
Fig. 3.
The temperature of the water was measured with two
Proc Insrn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016
H. J. IVEY
\
n
CONDUCTORS
STAINLESS STEEL
TEST VESSEL
I
--------
,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , p U X I L I A R Y HEATER
Fig. 3. Schematic v i m of centrifugal test vzssel
36 S.W.G. chrome1alurnel thermocouples immersed in the
vessel at different levels. The counterbalance served as an
insulated temperature-reference vessel for the test vessel
thermocouples; this enabled the resultant thermocouple
e.m.f. to be obtained from the rotating assembly using only
material-junctions of low thermal e.m.f.’s. The equivalent
thermocouple circuit is shown in Fig. 4. The test section
voltage and thermocouple e.m.f.’s were obtained fiom the
rotating vessel through an instrument slip ring assembly
consisting of eight electro-deposited silver rings and
85 per cent silver-I5 per cent graphite brushes on beryllium
copper springs.
Power was supplied by d.c. generator with 2 per cent a.c.
ripple at 1 volt and less than 1 per cent a.c. ripple over
3 volts. The power was controlled by varying field excitation
with two variacs placed in series to enable small step incre-
ments to be made at any particular operating condition.
The d.c. current was measured with a shunt. The d.c.
currents for test section and auxiliary heater were carried
to the test tank through a large silver slip ring assembly.
It was possible to carry out a number of burnout runs on
one specimen with the use of a burnout detector. The test
section formed one arm of a Wheatstone bridge, one of the
electrical conductors entering the test vessel formed another.
Two variable external bridge arms were incorporated into
the detector to enable a continuous balance to be made
over a wide range of conditions. When the bridge became
Vo1177 No 1 1963
 CRITICAL HEAT FLUX I N POOL BOILING HEAT TRANSFEK
ROTATING
a-
CH ROM EL
/------
t‘,%Y%L----
MEASURING
THERMOCOUPLE
JUNCTION
f
INSULATED REFERENCE
THERMOCOUPLE JUNCTION
SILVER SLIP
RINGS
Fig. 4. Equivalent thermocouple Circuit
unbalanced, the following sequence of events occurred: an
internal high-speed relay was tripped, releasing two other
relays in series, which in turn released a spring-loaded
circuit breaker. Total time of operation from first out-of-
balance signal to open circuit varied between 25 to 30 msec.
This was sufficiently fast to prevent physical burnout of the
test section at all values of acceleration.
The rotational speed was obtained with a photo-transistor
which generated six pulses per revolution. A digital
electronic counter recorded the number of pulses over a
time interval determined by a clockwork clock and actuated
by an electronic timing unit. A continuously variable d.c.
motor was used to drive the main shaft supporting the test
vessel and counterbalance.
Experimental procedure
Experiments were carried out in two different apparatus,
The first series employed a static stainless steel pool
boiler to determine the effect of liquid subcooling an the
critical heat flux in boiling to water. The second series
employed the previously described centrifugal test vessel to
determine the critical heat flux as a function of acceleration.
The experimental procedures for the two series of experi-
ments are identical except for the additional factor of
determination of the angular velocity of the centrifuge in the
second series of experiments.
A brief description of a typical critical heat flux test
carried out on the centrifugal apparatus is now given. The
test section was produced in a special jig and the dimensions
measured; it was then attached between the electrical
conductors, the voltage tappings connected and the speci-
men cleaned with acetone. The test vessel was weighed with
a specific amount of demineralized water to provide a
balanced rotating assembly. The amount added was varied
for different tests to allow the production of different
induced subcoolings at the test section level through
differing heights of liquid above the test section. The
assembly was set in rotation and a moderate current
passed through the test section for approximately an hour to
de-gas the test section surface. The speed of rotation was
Proc Insrn Mech E t p s
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016
21
NON - ROTATING
!
I
COPPER
I
LSI
LVER-ORAPH ITE
COPPER
COPPER
TERMINAL
POSTS
BRUSHES
then set accurately to the desired value, the burnout
detector bridge balanced and switched into circuit, and the
power raised slowly to provide ample time for the boiling
to be considered as steady-state. During this time the
detector bridge circuit was manually balanced as the rate of
change of resistance of the test section was low.
When a burnout was initiated in the test section the rate
of change of resistance became too great to allow manual
rebalancing; the detector then tripped the d.c. circuit
breaker, saving the test section from physical burnout. The
rotating assembly was shut down. The reference vessel
temperature was measured with a mercury-in-glass ther-
mometer, the quantity of water in the test vessel checked,
the assembly was reset spinning, and a further test
commenced.
The centrifugal acceleration of the test section was cal-
culated from the radius of the section and the angular
velocity. The hydrostatic pressure at the test section level,
resulting from the high acceleration, was computed from
the depth of water and the system acceleration making an
allowance for the radial variation of acceleration. The
depth of water was changed within the limits of 1 in. and
3+ in. and its initial conductivity varied between 2 and
10 pmhos/cm.
Discussion of results
I t is well known (36) (37) that a pool boiling experiment
carried out with relatively small diameter or thin-walled
test sections may lead to reduced values of critical heat flux
if the diameter is too small or the wall too thin. Ideally the
characteristic length of the boiling element should be large
and the wall thick. In the present experiment the slip ring
was limited to a maximum current of 120 amp; a compro-
mise was therefore made between test section diameter and
wall thickness. The test sections chosen were 18/8/Ti
steel tubes 0.049 in. diameter and approximately 0.004 in.
and 0.005 in. wall thicknesses. The above considerations led
to a series of control experiments; these were carried out
upon stainless steel specimens of different diameters and
wall thicknesses in a separate static pool boiling apparatus
Vol177 No I 1963
22 H. J. IVEY

160

120

80
0.010 0.100
HEATER DIAMETER-in

Fig. 5. Effect of heater diameter on critical heat flux in water

containing demineralized water at saturation conditions and
atmospheric pressure. The variation of critical heat flux
with test section diameter is shown in Fig. 5, where the
results of the present investigation are compared with the
faired curve developed by Bernath (36) from a number of
experimental investigations. It may be seen that the par-
ticular diameter chosen for the main series of experiments
in the centrifugal apparatus provides a reasonable repre-
sentation of the critical heat flux when compared with test
sections of larger size. As this size of heater allows some
critical bubble or vapour packing condition to develop on
the heater surface (corresponding to the critical heat flux)
at normal gravity condition, it is reasonable to assume this
condition develops at higher accelerations. This may be
inferred from the Fritz relation (equation (12)); according
to this an increase in acceleration reduces the size of the
bubble at departure and this occurs for constant heater size
in the present experiments. The variation of critical heat
flux with test section wall thickness is shown in Fig. 6. In
addition a faired curve developed by Bernath (36) from the
results of Bender (38) is given for comparison. As before it
is apparent that the particular nominal wall thickness chosen
for the centrifugal experiments provides reasonable repre-
sentation of the critical heat flux when compared with much
greater thicknesses. The variations of critical heat flux with
heater diameter and wall thickness are interdependent.
The object of presenting Figs 5 and 6 is to demonstrate that
both the diameter and the thickness chosen for the present
experiments were satisfactory.
In the centrifugal apparatus, owing to the height of
liquid above the test section and the high accelerative field
to which it was subjected, pressure was produced at the
test section level which also induced a potential subcooling.
Thus the variation of critical heat flux with liquid subcool-
ing was determined under conditions of normal gravity in
the static pool boiling apparatus. The results of the experi-
ments for stainless steel tubes of various sizes are shown in
Fig. 7; for comparison the curves obtained by Ellion (39),

195

150
X

\
E,
3 125
I
s
-1
LL
kw 100 !-
i
I

s
F
ti 75
CURVE DUE TO EERNATH (36)
1.
u

50

25
I

HEATER WALL THICKNESS- in.

Fig. 6. Effect of heater wall thickness on critical heat flux in water

Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol I77 No I I963
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016
 CRITICAL HEAT FLUX I N POOL BOILING HEAT TRANSFER 23

800
UNCORRECTED CURVES DUE TO ELLION (39)

HEATER DIAMETERS
SUBCOOLED RESULTS : 0.105 in.- A
0064in.- +
0.0481n.- 0
(0.040 in. I D 1
0.048in.- 0
(0.042in I D )
-SATURATION RESULTS 0.105in- -.A
0.064in.- X
0~048in.- e
~ (0.040in. I.D.)
0.048in- I
(0.042 in. I.D.)

b 80 1 0
LlOUlO SUBCOOLING -*C

Fig. 7. Critical heat $ux in pool boiling as a function of liquid subcooling. Results for water

using a 0.0043-in. thick stainless steel strip boiling from one
side only, are also shown. The uncorrected curves of Ellion
were obtained by defining the liquid subcooling to be the
temperature difference between the saturation temperature
of the liquid and the temperature of a thermocouple placed
half an inch directly above the boiling section. The corrected
curves of Ellion were obtained by correcting the tempera-
tures obtained directly above the boiling section to the
temperatures of the bulk liquid away from the section. The
total gas content of the water in the present series of
experiments was in the range 10-14 cm3/litre; the results
fall between Ellion’s experimental curves. The critical heat
flux values in boiling to both aerated and degassed water
become similar at fmite subcoolings lower than approxi-
mately 30°C. This permitted the use of partially degassed
water as the induced subcoolings in the centrifugal experi-
ments did not exceed 20°C.
The results of the present series of experiments with the
centrifugal apparatus to accelerations of (a/g) = 160 are
shown in Fig. 8. Also shown are the results of Costello and
Adams (34) for accelerations from (a/g) = 1 to 44 and
Usiskin and Siege1 (33) for accelerations from (u/g) = 0 to 1.
For qualitative comparison the function
deduced by theoretical considerations& alio shown- in
the same figure where the exponent n is both f and 4.It
Proc Instn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016
is clear from the figure that the results of Costello and
Adams are at variance with the present results and with
the theoretical predictions. A possible explanation has
been proposed in which, owing to the large diameter
of cylindrical heater used, the vapour forming at the surface
farthest away from the axis of rotation was unable to rise
freely at the lower accelerations (34) (35). It is apparent
that the results of the present experiments are in qualitative
agreement with the theoretical prediction in which the
exponent of (a/g) is equal to 2 since the increase in critical
heat flux due to the increased acceleration alone is certainly
lower than that shown in Fig. 8, in which the uncorrected
experimental values include the possible effect of subcool-
ing upon the values of critical heat flux. One point of
similarity between the present results and those of Costello
and Adams is the similarity of the scatter limit of values
of critical heat flux about their means of approximately
f 1 2 per cent.
Four correlations were made upon the experimental
results :
No. 1. Correlation of the uncorrected data.
No. 2. Correlation of the corrected data to allow for
the calculated effects of pressure and subcooling assuming
the variation of dimensionless critical heat flux with pres-
sure and subcooling for normal gravity to apply to higher
accelerations.
Voll77 No 1 1963
24 €1. J. IVEY
ILI
60 -
DIMENSIONLESS CENTRIFUGAL ACCELERATION AT TEST SECTION RADIUS ( a / g l
Fig. 8. Comparison of uncorrected critical heat flux-acceleration variation with the results of Costello and Adams (34) ; Usiskin
and Siege1 (33). Results for water
No. 3. Correlation of the corrected data to allow for the
calculated effects of pressure and subcooling assuming
the variation of absolute critical heat flux with pressure
and subcooling for normal gravity to apply to higher
accelerations.
No. 4. Correlation of the corrected data to allow for
the possible effects of pressure and subcooling by
extrapolation of the experimental results to conditions of
atmospheric pressure and zero subcooling.
All four correlations were of the two-variable non-linear
type in which use was made of a logarithmic transformation.
The data were first divided into a number of groups
according to the independent variable (acceleration) and
the mean values of critical heat flux and acceleration
calculated for each group. These mean values were then
weighted according to the number of experimental deter-
minations of critical heat flux for each group, and this was
followed by the correlation procedure.
Correlation No. 1
Correlation of uncorrected values of critical heat flux as a
function of acceleration is shown in Fig. 9. The equation is:
This over-estimates the effect of acceleration as the effects
of pressure and liquid subcooling are neglected.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016
x COSTELLO AND ADAMS ( 3 4 ) 1 - d a / g ) < 44
USISKIN AND SIEGEL (33) 0 <(a/g)<
80 100 120 140 3
Correlation No. 2
The increase in critical heat flux with increase in accelera-
tion is accompanied by an increase in pressure at the test
section level; this in turn induces a potential subcooling.
The effects of pressure and subcooling may be allowed
for by calculation of their known effect on critical heat flux
under normal gravity conditions, followed by their deduc-
tion from the experimental values at high accelerations.
The method of calculating the effect of pressure and sub-
cooling upon the critical heat flux under normal gravity
is now presented. The effect of pressure on the critical heat
flux for water at saturation conditions was calculated by
equation ( 2 ) ;this is shown in Fig. 10. The effect of liquid
subcooling on the critical heat flux was complicated by the
effect of pressure on the variation of critical heat flux with
liquid subcooling. Use was made of the experimental results
of Kutateladze and Schneiderman (40), who obtained values
of the critical flux as a function of subcooling for water at
two pressures: 0 and 27 lb/in2 gauge. Their results are
shown in Fig. 11. In order to obtain the critical heat flux
variation with subcooling between these two pressures,
interpolation was made using the Kutateladze relation for
the effect of not heating the liquid up to saturation
temperature. That is (2):
VoI I77 No 1 I963
 CRITICAL HEAT FLUX I N POOL BOILING HEAT TRANSFER 25

MEAN C R l T l
AND MEAN

1oo 10' 10' 103

DIMENSIONLESS ACCELERATION ( a / g )

Fig.9. Non-linear correlation of the uncorrected data: correlation No. 1

The coefficient of recirculation (1 -n) was determined from
the experimental curves and then used to predict curves for
the intermediate pressures. Correlation No. 2 assumes the
variation of dimensionless critical heat flux with pressure
and subcooling under normal gravity to apply to higher
accelerations ; this postulated variation is illustrated in
Fig. 12. The second correlation (shown in Fig. 13) is:
Correlation No. 3
This assumes the variation of absolute critical heat flux with
pressure and subcooling under normal gravity to apply to
higher accelerations ;this postulated variation is illustrated
in Fig. 12. The third coi-relation (shown in Fig. 14) is:
variation of critical heat flux with actual subcooling under
normal gravity conditions in a static pool boiler is also
shown. A linear mean-squares curve was fitted to the data
points for (a/g) values of both 72 and 126, these being the
only two accelerations with sufficient data points and a large
enough dispersion on the horizontal axis to afford a reason-
able variation of critical heat flux with potential subcool-
ing. A further value of the variation of critical heat flux
with actual subcooling was obtained at (a/g) = 1 in the
static boiler for low subcoolings. The variations are:
(a/g) = 1, gradient 12: 5.5 w/cm* "C
(alg) = 72, gradient 1: 4-1 w/cm2 "C
(a/g) = 126, gradient N 5.7 w/cm2 "C

(33)
Correlation No. 4
The variation of critical heat flux with potential induced THE COEFFICIENT-OF
RECIRCULATION
subcooling (with acceleration as parameter) is shown in (1-n) IS DETERMINED FROM THE
Fig. 15. No allowance is made for the slight variations in
accelerations of individual data points in each group. The
r

Fig. 10. Calculated variation of critical heat JEux with Fig. 11. Critical heat flux as a function of subcooling at
pressure for water at saturation conditions various pressures for water
Proc Znstn Mech Engrs Vol 177 No I I963
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016
26 H.J. IVEY

:::k
4

qcr, x lb/in2 gauge1.3 3

~ C P ,sub

qCr, 0 Ib/in2gaugo 1.2 9cr, sot

2
l.oo
1.1 5 10 15
1
0 20 40 60
PRESSURE -lb/in2 gaugo A TSub -‘C
CORRECTED CORRELATION No. 2 : ASSUMES VARIATION OF DIMENSIONLESS
CRITICAL HEAT FLUX WITH PRESSURE AND SUBCOOLING AT ( o / g ) = l TO OPERATE AT OTHER
ACCELERATIONS

1000

looo!
800

q c r , sub
-W/cm2 400

200
- 0
0 5 10 15 0 20 40 60
PRESSURE -lb/in2 gaugo AT,,b -‘C
CORRECTED CORRELATION No.3: ASSUMES VARIATION OF CRITICAL HEAT
FLUX WITH PRESSURE AND SUBCOOLING A T ( o / g ) = l TO OPERATE AT OTHER ACCELERATIONS

Fig. 12. Assumptions made in corrected correlations Nos 2 and 3

DIMENSIONLESS ACCELERATION b / g )

Fig. 13. Non-linear correlation of the corrected data: correlation No. 2

3 400
I

Y
9I 200

q
t
MEAN CRITICAL HEAT FLUX (CORRECTED FOR EFFECTS
OF PRESSURE AND SUBCOOLING) AND MEAN ACCELERATION

5 100 I
100 10’ 102 lo3
DIMENSIONLESS ACCELERATION -( o/g)

Fig. 14. Non-linear correlation of the corrected data: correlation No. 3

Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vvl177 N o I I963
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016
 CRITICAL HEAT FLUX IN POOL BOILING HEAT TRANSFER 27

0
0

800

600

.
N

5
k
I
X
2
VARIATION OF CRITICAL HEAT
LL
-1 ,/---FLUX WITH LIQUID SUBCOOLING
AT ACCELERATION ( 0 f . g ) = 1

2I 4 0 C
-I

uk
u
/ 1 ACCELERATION AT TEST SECTION

/
/ RADIUS
b/g)

/
20c

c __ 1 - 1 . 1 40

LIQUID SUBCOOLING - OC
60 80

Fig. 15. Variation of critical heat flux with potential liquid subcooling, with accelerationas third parameter. Results for water

As these variations are similar, the mean value was towards the increase in critical heat flux as it predicts a
determined and used to predict the corrected values of variation with acceleration much less than that of correla-
critical heat flux for zero subcooling. The fourth correlation tion No. 4, in which the variation is derived directly from
(shown in Fig. 16) is: the experimental results. Correlation No. 3 predicts a
0-27 variation which is very close to that of correlation No. 4;
qcn ( a k > clearly this hypothesis is more correct.
qco (aid = 1 = *
(34)
- The exponent of (a/g)was found to be 0.25 according to
From the above four methods of correlation it is apparent correlation No. 3, although this agrees extremely well with
that correlation No. 2 is the least correct. This over- the majority of theories which predict 0.25; it is the themy,
estimates the contribution of pressure and subcooling not the hypothesis in this particular correlation, which is to

j
. T I
1
I

3
I
x 400
3
LL
I

P-
\

1 '
-1
qcr, ( a h )
__
0.273

'4-41
k-

I
200 ,
MEAN CRITICAL HEAT FLUX (CORRECTED BY EXTRAPOLATION
1 'cr' i
k
LL TO A T s u b = O ) AND MEAN ACCELERATION

100
100 10' 102
DIMENSIONLESS ACCELERATION ( a / g )

Fig. 16. Non-linear correlation of the corrected data: correlation No. 4

Proc Instn Mech Ergvc 1/01 177 N o 1 1963

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016

28 H. J. IVEY

be tested for validity. However, this does not preclude the APPENDIX
conclusion that this evidence does support the hypothesis REFERENCES
governing correlation No. 3. (I) ADDOMS, J. N. ‘Heat transfer at high rates to water boiling
With the above comments in mind, the exponent (0.27) outside cylinders’, Sc.D. thesis Chem. Eng. Mass.
determined by direct inspection of the experimental results Inst. Tcch. 1948; also MCADAMS, W. H. Heat trans-
mission 3rd ed. 1954, 384.
(correlation No. 4) may be used to confirm or reject the (2) KUTATELADZE, S. S. ‘Hydrodynamic theory of changes in
predictions of the existing theories. the boiling process under free convection conditions’, Isv.
Akad. Nauk. SSSR, Otd. Tekh. Nauk. 1951 (NO.4), 529.
CONCLUSIONS (3) STERMAN, L. S. ‘On the theory of the heat transfer from a
An appraisal of the numerous theories for critical heat flux boiling fluid’, Zhurnal Tekh. Fiziki 1953 23 (No. 2), 341 ;
D.S.I.R. Translation C.T.S. No. 62.
in saturation pool boiling has shown that a basic parameter (4)CICHELLI,M. and BONILLA,C. F. Trans. Amer. Inst.
(equation (2)) which occurs in the majority of the predic- Chem. Engrs 1945 41,755.
tions may be derived from any of three different types of (5) BORISHANSKII, V. M, Zhurnal Tekh. Fiziki 1956 26, 452.
model for the analysis. These are: dimensional analysis, (6) JAKOB,M. and LINKE,W. Physik. Zeitschr. 1935 36, 267;
vapour discontinuous/liquidcontinuous, and the liquid and also JAKOB, M. Heat transfer 1949 1, 642.
(7) DEISSLER,R. G. Columbia University Heat Transfer
vapour as discrete phases. Symposium, New York, N.Y. 1954 (see reference (10)).
The extent to which the acceleration of the boiling (8) DEISSLER,R. G. Private communication from R. Cole in
system is important as a parameter in determining the respect of reference (7).
critical heat flux in water was ascertained experimentally (9) JAKOB,M. Heat transfer 1949 1, 630 (Chapman and Hall,
with a centrifuge. A two-variable non-linear correlation London).
(10) COLE, R. ‘Photographic study of pool boiling in the region
involving a logarithmic transformation was made upon the of the critical heat flux’, J. dmer. Insf. chm. E9zgrs 1960
results after allowing for the possible effects of pressure 6 (No. a), 533.
and subcooling by extrapolation to zero subcooling. The (11) ROHSENOW, W. TID 7529 1956 (pt. 1, bk. 2), 603.
correlation is : (12)ROHSENOW, W.and GRIFFITH,P. ‘Correlation of maximum-
heat-flux data for boiling of saturated liquids’, C.E.P.
qcr, (49 = (30.27 Symp. Series 1956 52 (NO. 18), 47.
4cry (./a =1 (13) ROHSENOW, W. ‘Heat transfer with boiling’, Medd. Var-
mestromsgruppen 1956 2 (NO.4), 2.
Although the results of Costello and Adams (34) indicate (14)ROHSENOW, W. and CLARKE,J. A. ‘Study of thc mech-
an increase of critical heat flux with increase of acceleration, anism of boiling heat transfer’, Truns. Amer. SOC.mech.
the character of this increase is at variance with the Engrs 1951 (July), 609.
theoretical predictions and the present experimental results. (15) MCADAMS, W. H., KENNEL, W. E., MINDEN, G. S., RUDOLF, C.,
This is shown clearly in Fig. 8 and is discussed elsewhere PICORNELL, P. M. and DEW, J. E. ‘Heat transfer at
high rates to water with surface boiling’, Ind. Engg
(35). Chem. 1949 41, 1945.
The present experimental results are approximately in (16) GRIFFITH,P. ‘Correlation of nucleate boiling burnout data’,
accord with the theoretically predicted variation of critical Amer. Soc. mech. Engrs 1957 paper no. 57-HT-21.
heat flux with acceleration at saturation conditions in pool (17) CHANG, Y. P. and SNYDER, N. W. ‘Heat transfer in saturated
boiling as derived by Kutateladze (z), Sterman (3), boiling’, C.E.P. Symp. Series 1960 56 (No. 30), 25.
(IS] ZUBER,N. Reactor Heat Transfer Conference U.S.A.E.C.
Borishanskii (s), Deissler (7), Chang and Snyder (17)~ TID-7529 1956 (pt. 1, bk. 2), 586.
Zuber (IS), and Berenson (27), which state the exponent (IF)ZUBER,N. ‘On the stability of boiling heat transfer’, Trans.
of (u/g) to be 0.25. The results are not in accord with Amer. SOC.mech. Engrs 1958 80, 711.
the theoretical variation predicted by Addoms (I) and (20) ZUBER, N. Author’s closure Trans. Amer. SOC.mech. Engrs
1958 80,719.
Griffith (16) which state the exponent of (alg) to be 0.33. (21) ZUBER, N. and TRIBUS, M. ‘Further remarks on the stability
The results are directly at variance with the theory of of boiling heat transfer’, Dept. of Engng U.C.L.A. 1958
Rohsenow and Griffith (12) which predicts no effect at all Report no. 58-5.
of acceleration upon the critical heat flux. (22) ZIJBER, N. ‘Hydrodynamic aspects of boiling heat transfer’,
Together with experimental results of the second part A.E.C. U . 4 4 3 9 1959.
(23) ZIJBER,N., and TRIBUS, M. Written discussion C.E.P.
of the present paper, and observations (made in the f i s t Symp. Series 1960 56 (NO. 30), 35.
part) concerning limitations of several of the anzlytical (24) ZUBER,N. TRIBUS, M. and WESTWATER, J. W. ‘Hydro-
theories, it is possible to question the validity of all theories dynamic crisis in pool boiling of saturated and subcooled
predicting the critical heat flux in saturation pool boiling liquids’, Int. Heat Transfer Conf., Boulder 1961 paper no.
27, 230.
other than those due to Kutateladze (2), Sterman (3), and (25) BORISHANSKII, V. M. ‘Heat transfer to a liquid freely flowing
Borishanskii (5). over a surface heated to a temperature above the boiling
point’, Problems of Heat Transfer during a Change of
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS State: A.E.C.-tr-3405 1953 109.
The author wishes to acknowledge gratefully the assistance (26) BERENSON, .’1 J. ‘Transition boiling heat transfer’, Amer.
given by Mr D. J. Morris and Mr R. Wright. This work SOC.mech. EngrsJ. Heat Trumfer Series C, 1961 83 (No.
3, August), 351.
has been entirely supported by the United Kingdom Atomic (27) BERENSON, P. J. ‘Transition boiling heat transfer from a
Energy Authority, with whose permission it is being horizontal surface’, Mass. Inst. Tech. 1960 Heat Transfer
published. Lab. Tech. Report 17.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 177 hi’o 1 1963

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016

 CRITICAL HEAI‘ FLUX I N POOL BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
(28) WALLIS,G. B. ‘Two-phase flow aspects of pool boiling
from a horizontal surface’, U.K.A.E.A. 1961 Report
A.E.E.W.-R103.
(29) WALLIS,G. B. ‘Flooding velocities for air and water in
vertical tubes’, U.K.A.E.A. 1961 Report A.E.E.W.-
K123.
(30) SIEGEL,R. and USISKIN,C. M. ‘Photographic study of
boiling in the absence of gravity’, Trans. Amer. SOC.
mech. Engrs 1959 series C 81, 230.
(31) HEDGEPATH, L.M. ‘Zero gravity boiling and condensation’,
A R S NO.1322-60 N.Y. 1960.
(32) MERTE, H.and CLARK,J. A. ‘Pool boiling in an accelerating
system’, Trans. Amer. SOC.mech. Engrs 1960 paper no.
60-HT-22.
(33) USISKIN, C. M. and SIEGEL,R. ‘Experimental study of
boiling in reduced and zero gravity fields’, Trans. Amer.
Soc. mech. Engrs 1960 paper no. 60-HT-10.
(34) COSTELLO, C. P. and ADAMS,J. M. ‘Burnout heat fluxes in
pool boiling at high accelerations’, Inr. Heat Transfer
Conf., Boulder 1961 paper no. 30, 255.
Communications
Dr J. M. Adams (Sacramento, California)-The effect of
heater length on the critical heat flux has not been discussed
by the author although Bernath (36) has shown there is a
definite effect on the crisis for heaters less than 2 in. in
length. For the experimental apparatus described with a
1%in. heater the critical heat flux measured could be 10 per
cent higher (36) if the voltage measurements are taken at
the ends. This, of course, is due to the high relative thermal
loss through the ends of a short heater. This loss could be
accounted for by temperature measurements across the
heater or some mathematical approximation, neither of
which is mentioned by the author. It would seem that
because of the large relative loss of energy, and the use of
absolute values of heat flux, such discussion would be
pertinent.
It cannot be determined from the paper how the effects
of heater diameter and wall thickness were incorporated.
Apparently, from Figs 5 and 6, and the data presented by
Bernath (36), such effects cannot be ignored. In addition,
it has been observed by the present writer that the critical
heat flux in thin-wall heaters is affected by previous high-
temperature excursions at the burnout condition. The 25
to 30 msec indicated by the author to pass before power
cut-off would not prevent these high-temperature excur-
sions. This could be the reason for the wide scatter
(f35 per cent) in data taken with the 0-005 in. heater wall
at u/g = 1 (Fig. 6). Usiskin and Siege1 (33) noted that after
each ‘burnout’ condition, a waiting period during nucleate
boiling was necessary to insure against premature burnout.
This effect, due to the loss of nucleating sites on the heater
Proc Znstn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016
29
(35) IVEY,H.J. Communication to paper no. 30, ‘Burnout heat
fluxes in pool boiling at high accelerations’, (34); to be
submitted, 1961 Int. Heat Transfer Conf. Discussion,
Boulder.
(36) BERNATH,L. ‘Theory of local boiling burnout and its
application to existing data’, Chem. Engng Progr. Symp.
Series 1960 56 (NO.30), 95.
(37) MCADAMS, W.H., ADDOMS,J. N., RINALDO,P. M. and
DAY,R. S. ‘Heat transfer from single horizontal wires
to boiling water’, C.E.P. 1948 44 (No. 8),639.
(38) BENDLER,A. J. Columbia University Task I X Reports
U.S.A.E.C. contract 1957, 1958, 1959.
(39) ELLION,M. E. ‘Study of the mechanism of boiling heat
transfer’, JPL-Memo-20-88 1954.
(40) KUTATELADZE, S. S. and SCHNEIDERMAN, L. L. ‘Experi-
mental study of the influence of the temperature of a
liquid on a change in the rate of boiling’, Translation
AEC-t~-3405 1953, 95.
surface, has been observed by the present writer”. A
discussion by the author on his treatment of the above
effects was omitted in the paper and would be most helpful
in judging the credibility of his data.
The definite effects on the critical heat flux of an ex-
tremely short, thin-walled, small-diameter heater, coupled
with the uncertain effects of subcooling and pressure
render the comparison of the data presented to any analytical
treatment rather tenuous.
Mr R. D. Bundy (Oak Ridge, Tennessee)-This paper
presents a thorough and enlightening review of previous
theories of saturated pool-boiling burnout as well as the
results of a careful study of one mechanism affecting it.
Experimental studies of the effect of acceleration using
round tubes appear to be open to the criticism that the
acceleration vector is not oriented the same relative to all
areas of the heater surface. Burnout might be expected to
occur on the reverse side of the tube where the negative
acceleration flattens bubbles against the heater rather than
carrying them away. While this may not be a serious criti-
cism of experiments determining the effects of other quan-
tities on burnout, a study of the effect of acceleration in such
a system might be quite misleading. However, Adams“ has
found that such is not the case (using half cylinders and flat
surfaces of varying orientation). Apparently, bubbles are
swept around the reverse sides of cylinders, and burnout
* ADAMS, J. M. ‘A study of the critical heat flux in an accelerating
pool boiling system’, 1962 NSF G-19697 (University of
Washington).
Vol 177 No 1 1963
30
occurs where bubbles are accelerated away from the heater.
If this is true, the use of tubular heaters can be criticized
only if bubbles swept around from the reverse side compli-
cate the bubble dynamics ‘above’ the heater.
Scatter in the data of Fig. 15 for high accelerations is
sufficiently great that its use to correct for the effect of
pressure and subcooling does not appear to be justified.
Variation in the data is only of the same order as experi-
mental scatter evident in all the data (see Figs 5 to 8).
Similarly, the third significant figure in the exponent of
the relative acceleration terms in correlations 1 to 4 is not
meaningful (even the second is doubtful). The principal
conclusion of the study appears to be rhat qc,(u[g)/
q,,(cz/g = 1) I(u/g)’/4rather than (u/g)@2’.
Mr J. C. Chicken (Associate Member)-I would first
like to congratulate Dr Ivey on the ingenious design of his
experiment and the amount of information he was able to
derive from it.
Next I would like to comment on three aspects of the
paper, first certain features of the experimental procedure,
secondly a number of factors that should perhaps be allowed
for in the analysis and lastly some considerations in the
practical application of the work. In other relative work (41)
(42) it has been shown that the heat transfer is signi-
ficantly affected by the surface roughness and the cleanliness
of the heat transfer surface. From this it seems logical to
expect surface conditions to have some effect on the critical
heat flux. Was any measurement of surface roughness made ?
Further it does seem from the information in the paper that
there was no cleaning of the test specimen surface between
tests. If this is the case, the scatter of the results shown in
Figs 5, 6 and 7 may be partly accounted for by changes to
the specimen surface that took place during the tests.
Another contributory factor to the scatter of the results
may well have been the changes that took place in the
coolant owing to boiling off the coolant in the region of the
specimen. The ratio of coolant volume to specimen volume
was relatively small so the effect of local boiling on the gas
content of the liquid might have been of some importance.
This brings me to the last point I wish to make about the
experimental procedures, that is, was complete analysis of
the water used in the tests made ? My reason for asking this
is that it is easier to relate the experimental data to other
work if the precise composition of the coolant used in the
experiment is known.
Looking at the analysis that has been carried out on the
results it is clear that an important part of the problem is
to find a completely satisfactory method of determining the
critical heat flux; this particular question has been reviewed
in several places, in particular (43) (44)and (45).For any
method of determining critical heat flux to be satisfactory
for a wide range of conditions the following factors should
be taken into account:
(1) The physical properties of the coolant including
surface tension, enthalpy, temperature, pressure velocity,
and gaseous and solid contaminants.
I’roc Instn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016
COMMUNICATIONS
(2) Curvature of the heated surface.
( 3 ) Dimensions of the heated surface.
(4) The condition of the heated surface.
(5) The number, if any, of the heated surfaces bound-
ing the coolant channel.
(6) Vibration of the heated element.
( 7 ) The number of heated elements.
(8) The shape of the heat flux distribution on the
element.
(9) The time-heat flux relation.
(10) Local variation of coolant flow across the element.
None of the equations mentioned in the paper considers
all the factors relevant to critical heat determination.
Perhaps the most significant factor that has been neglected
is the detail geometry of the heater surface. This means that
a considerable amount of caution must be exercised if the
results are applied to conditions other than those of the
original experiment.
The last feature I would like to comment on is the
practical implication of burnout having been determined for
the steady state conditions. In a number of possible applica-
tions of the work such as in marine reactors or nuclear
rockets both the limiting acceleration and heat flux may be
only transient in duration. For this reason it is worth
speculating on the possible effect of transient conditions.
Cole (46)showed that for power transients of the order of
30 msec duration a metal ribbon can withstand transient
heat fluxes approximately twice the steady state burnout
flux. Taking this result as indicative of the behaviour
expected in a short duration transient it seems reasonable
to suggest that for short transients when u/g < 1 but > 0
the expected reduction in the burnout flux due to the low
u/g condition may be offset by the increase of the burnout
flux due to the transient nature of the phenomenon.
REFERENCES
(41) CORTY, A, and FOUST,A. S. ‘Surface variables in nucleate
boiling’, Chsm. Engng Symp. Series 1955,51 (No. 17).
(42) JAKOB, M. Heat transfer vol. 1, 1956 (Wiley, New York).
(43) COLLIER, J. G. ‘The problem of burnout in liquid-cooled
reactors’, A.E.R.E. Report R.3698.
(44) CHICKEN,
J. C. ‘Burnout in liquid-cooled systems’, 2nd
edition 1961, A.H.S.B. Memo. (S)M.29.
(45) PEXTON, A. F. ‘A review of data on burnout heat flux for
steam-water mixtures in uniformly heated channels’,
Report 203(R)1961.
(46) COLE,R. ‘Investigation of transient pool boiling due to
sudden large power surges’, Tech. Notes nat. adv. Comm.
Aero., Wash. 3885, December 1956.
Professor R. Cole (Potsdam, New York)-The author
is to be congratulated on his fine experimental work and
analysis of the experimental results. On the basis of these
results and the author’s observations concerning limitations
of the analytical theories, it is pointed out that all theories
predicting the critical heat flux in saturation pool boiling
other than those obtained by means of dimensional analysis
are of questionable validity.
Considering the chaotic situation which exists in the
region of the critical heat flux, it seems extremely unlikely
Vol177 No I I963
 CRITICAL HEAT FLUX IN POOL BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
that any physical model could adequately simulate such a
condition. On this basis alone, all analyses which rely on
some physical model of the boiling action may be considered
questionable. Yet the models of Deissler (7), Chang and
Snyder (17)~Zuber (18)-(24), and Berenson (27) do yield
results which are essentially identical to those obtained by
Kutateladze (2).
It would appear that any physical model which satisfies
the following criteria will successfully correlate saturated
critical heat flux data under normal gravity conditions :
(1) The greater portion of the heat taken from the
heating surface is utilized in producing vapour. (Hence
the use of a form of the Jakob-Linke expression (6).)
(2) As observed from the nucleate side of the boiling
curve, the critical heat flux is a result of vapour binding
or coalcscence. (Hence the variety of bubble configura-
tions.)
(3) As observed from the transition side of the boiling
curve, the critical heat flux is a result of the breakdown
of vapour binding. (Hence the various stability models.)
Whether or not a model will correctly predict the varia-
tion with gravity seems to be dependent upon the correct-
ness of the expressions chosen to represent such quantities
as bubble velocities and diameters. Thus while the models
themselves may be of questionable validity the criteria
upon which they are based appear to be valid.
An interesting feature of the Deissler analysis is that the
condition necessary to obtain an equation similar to that of
Kutateladze is that the vapour density be used in the
expression for the drag force on a freely rising vapour
bubble. In reality, the force balance (Ivey’s equation (11))
is that for a liquid droplet falling through a vapour medium.
Does this imply that the vapour should be treated as the
continuous phase? As the author points out, no analytical
model exists to date using this configuration.
Professor C. P. Costello, Ph.D. (Seattle, Washington)
-The following comments are offered ty furnish more
information on the variation of the critical heat flux with
acceleration in pool boiling as well as to correct some false
impressions given by the author’s work.
Variation of qcr with. a/g
The significance of the data of reference (34) has been
obscured by the coarse scale used in Fig. 8. In Fig. 17, the
data are replotted to a more reasonable scale along with
those of Usiskin and Siegel (33) and data recently obtained
by the writer (47) (48). The scatter and sparseness of the
data obtained by the author for the range 1 Q u/g Q 10
are so severe as to prevent fair comparison.
The data of (33) were obtained with a platinum wire in
drop tests. Those from references (34), (47) and (48) were
obtained with graphite and carbon cylinders, ranging from
# in. to 6’3 in. diameter, installed in a centrifuge so that
centripetal accelerations were directed normally with
respect to their axes. The data points from references (34),
Proc Instn Mech Engrs
2 Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016
31
(Data for a/g > 1 corrected to standard vapour density by multi-
plying by pv/p0 at a/g = 1. Correction is no greater than 9 per cent,
however.)
(1 Data of Usiskin and Siegel (33).
A Data of Costello and Adams (34).
Data from photographic study Costello, Adams and Clinton (47).
+ Data of Costello and Adams (48).
Fig. 17. Critical heat jlux versus dimensionless
accelerationfor cylindrical heaters
(47) and (48) are averages of over 200 burnout tests in
which the scatter was less than plus or minus 10 per cent.
(In fact, 95 per cent ofthe data from (48), about 144 points,
agreed within 6 per cent.) It was found (48) that no appreci-
able effect of heater diameter on the critical heat flux existed
and, as shown in Fig. 17, that the data agreed very well with
those of Usiskin and Siegel (33).
Gambill (49) has compared data from reference (34)
with results of studies of the critical heat flux in flow
channels. His extensive work shows that the data of (34)
agree extremely well with those obtained in comparable
experiments in which accelerations were induced by swirl
flow.
Fig. 18 shows a comparison of data from reference (34)
with those of Choi (50). Choi’s data were obtained by
inducing accelerations magnetically in Freon- 113. The
ordinate and abscissa of Fig. 18 are plotted to eliminate the
effects of fluid properties; however, even if all fluid property
effects are not correctly appraised, the comparison would
be fairly valid in view of the fact that the properties them-
selves do not vary with acceleration. It is noteworthy that
two distinct variations of qcr with a/g are observable,
depending on the range of a/g, and that the slopes of the
data of (34) and (50) agree quite well.
All of the data taken by the writer (34) (47) (48) and the
data of (33), (49) and (51) indicate that the exponent on
a/g in equation (34) varies with the range of a/g. For u/g
values from somewhat less than one to about 10, the peak
heat flux is proportional to a/g to about the 0.15 power,
while for a/g greater than 10, the proportionality indicated
by equation (34) is about right. This is discussed further
below.
Geometry efsects
The writer has presented an analysis based on approxima-
tion theory to attempt to explain the different variations of
qcr with a/g (48). Although the geometry of the system was
once thought to be the cause (34), as the author notes, later
Vol I77 No 1 I963
32 COMMUNICATIONS

It is not surprising that data for flat plate and cylindrical

theory
evidence indicates that this is definitely not true. Data in
Fig. 19 were obtained with flat-plate graphite heaters
positioned as shown in the figure. With a flat plate at a given
radius, there will be virtually no variation of acceleration
effect over the active portion of the heater. Note that the
two slopes of qcr versus aig are again clearly detectable.
I 1
heaters agree so well in view of the fact, reported by the
writer (47), that the critical heat flux is reached on the
detaching side of a cylindrical heater (that is, the side from
which the bubbles depart from the heater). Surprisingly,
the half of a cylindrical heater towards which acceleration
is directed (and upon which bubbles are therefore momen-
tarily held) has a higher critical heat flux than the detaching
side at the same a/g (47).
Since the detaching side of a cylindrical heater is in
virtually the same hydrodynamic position as a flat plate
oriented as shown in Fig. 19, it is clear that the data should
agree. Note that this argument also invalidates the author's
contention that the heater size caused lower critical heat
flux values in (34).
Fig. 19 also shows the theoretical predictions of Zuber
(24) and Borishanskii (5). The predictions have been
corrected for the density variations caused by the centri-
fugal acceleration employed in (48). The slopes of the cor-
rected curves representing the theoretical equations show
that qcr is proportional to (a/g)0.30,very nearly. Note that
the data are parallel to the theoretical curves for a/g above
10, but show a lower slope at lower a/g. The slopes of curves
of qcr versus a/g are given in Table 1 along with the 95
per cent uncertainty interval and average deviation of data
points. The uncertainties and deviations appear highly
favourable compared to the data of the author.
Fig. 20 shows the various orientations of flat-plate heaters
used in collecting data for (48). No appreciable differences
in behaviour could be noted in data from configurations IV

BUBBLES
and VII nor in those from configurations I1 and 111. This
1'0 shows clearly that Coriolis acceleration does not exert an
important effect on critical heat flux, Coriolis accelerations
were oriented in an entirely different manner with respect
to the heaters in the cases cited above, yet there was no
effect of the reorientation on critical heat flux (see Fig. 21).
Some results of the flat-plate tests are shown in Fig. 21.

Table 1
Fig. 1 Slope of curve
with 95 per cent
j confidence
I interval*
1 1 Q aig Q 10
each heater,
per cent
19 0.156f0.043 0,308f0.031 5.2
21a 0.156&0.043 0.308f0.031 5.2
b 0.148 f0.046 0.329 +0.022 4.4
C 0.157f0.047 0.30910.017 3.3
d 0.155f0.041 0.284*0.018 3.7
Fluid distilled water. Data is compared with Kutateladze and -0.100 f0,034 4.7
Zuber theories, for which correction has been made for variation 0.308*0.031 5.2
of fluid properties with a/g. (See Table 1 for slopes and uncer- 0.34010.016 2.9
tainties.) 0.355 A0.016 3.2
0.424 f0.037 7.1
o Runs with heater No. 1 .
! I Runs with heater No. 2.
A Runs with heater No. 3. * All points contributing to curves uncorrected for density varia-
Fig. 19. Data for three graphite flat plate heaters with tion. Effect of variation is to make individual data points fall
higher than curves by 9 per cent maximum, but effect is
acceleration normally away from surfaces negligible for most of a/g range.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol177 No I 1963
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016
 CRITICAL HEAT FLUX IN POOL BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
DIRECTION
OF ROTATION
CONFIGURATION I: CONFIGURATION P:
ROTATION HEATER
CONFIGURATION II: CONFIGURATION Yl :
CONFIGURATION J
D: CONFIGURATION PII.
CONFlGURATfON IT.
Graphite heaters employed in each case.
Fig. 20. Flat plate orientations employed in centrifuge (48)
Again, the data shown are averages; some 50 tests were
taken with each conjiiguration shown in Fig. 20 and 95 per
cent of the data were within 6 per cent of the lines shown
(see Table 1 for slopes and uncertainty limits). Note that if
any component of the acceleration was directed normally
towards the flat-plate heater, the critical heat flux was re-
duced (curves (d) and (e), Fig. 21). This was not the case
with circular heaters, on which the bubbles had a relatively
easy path of escape. In fact, with semi-cylindrical heaters
qcr was considerably higher if accelerations were directed
normally towards the heater rather than normally away
from it (47).
The results shown are part of the more than 2000 tests
of critical heat flux in accelerating systems conducted at the
University of Washington. In all of the tests using flat
plates facing the axis of rotation or cylindrical heaters we
have observed that with a/g < 10, the critical heat flux
varies with a/g to about the 0.15 power; while at higher a/g,
equation (34) holds approximately (34) (47) (48). The latter
fact is clearly illustrated by Fig. 8 which shows that the
author’s data and those of (34) are parallel at high values
of a/g. This might well have been noted by the author in
view of the fact that the statement to the effect that an
equation such as (34) held at high a/g was made by the
writer a year and a half ago (34).
Possible sources of disagreement
It is clear that the experimental data of the writer and those
of the author have parallel slopes at higher values of a/g.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016
33
Data uncorrected for density variation. (See Table 1 for slopes and
uncertainties.)
Curve Configuration (Fig. 20)
I
Fig. 2J. Critical heat Jux versus dimensionless acceleration
for g a t plate heaters shown in Fig, 20
The higher values of (qc,/q,, at a/g = 1) obtained by the
author are entirely attributable to a more rapid increase of
this quantity in the range 1 Q u/g Q 10. It remains to
establish why in this range the author’s data fell higher than
those of (34), (47) and (48) and seem to disagree with those
of (33) and (51).
First, the container size effects and secondary flows might
be a problem. Note the favourable comparison between
(34), (47) and (48) and tests where centrifuges were not
employed (33) (51). Moreover, tests are reported in (48)
wherein baffles were used to eliminate any potential sec-
ondary flows with no effect on the data. Thus, unaccounted
flows are not factors in the tests conducted by the present
writer. The author does not assure us on this point, however.
Secondly, operating with as large a radius of rotation as
the author employed presents problems. The pressure at the
heater radius, r, above that at the free surface, rfryis pro-
portional to (r2-rfs2). Assuming a one inch depth of cover-
age in both the author’s apparatus and that used in (48),
the pressure buildup in the author’s apparatus is 23 per
cent more than that of (48) at any a/g*. The buildup in the
devices used to obtain data for (34) and (47) was even less
than that of (48) at any a/g. The author contends he has
corrected for the pressure buildup assuming that the effect
of subcooling is the same as that at a/g = 1. This cannot be
reconciled with the findings of Gambill et al. that subcooling
exerts different effects on qcr in different ranges of alg (51).
Moreover, the interrelated effects of subcooling and pres-
sure in pool boiling have not been established and since the
variation of these quantities in the author’s system is
* The pressure buildup is even more severe by comparison with (48)
ifgreater depths of coverage are used, If the depth of coverage were
2 in., the author’s pressure buildup would be 61 per cent higher
than that experienced in (48) at any value of ale.
Voll77 No I 1963
34
possibly substantial any correction to account for these
parameters is a guess, at best.
Carrying the water at different levels to alter subcooling
is not in itself an absolute test of subcooling effects because
while this changes the potential subcooling in the system, it
does not establish how the subcooling at the heater location
is changed. I n reference (34) it is stated that pool water
temperature as a function of r was determined by thermo-
couple measurements. It was found that since the water to
supply the heater flows countercurrent to the vapour stream,
the liquid is warmed to the saturation temperature at the
heater location, very nearly. (The use of large heaters which
produced substantial vapour was helpful in this respect.)
Thus, in the devices used in (34) (47) (48) no appreciable
effects of subcooling and pressure were present. This is
also demonstrated by Fig. 17; because the heaters employed
in (34) (47) and (48) were all at different radii, the potential
subcooling at a/g = 44 was 3.78"F for data from (34),
6.2"F for data from (48)*. If these subcoolings actually ex-
isted at the heater, data obtained in the different containers
should be quite different. Yet, note the good agreement
of data from (34), (47) and (48) shown in Fig. 17; the slight
departures can be attributed to use of heaters with slightly
different surface conditions.
It is not certain whether the pressure and subcooling
effects in the author's system can be as easily dismissed,
and it is probable that they cannot be corrected for in the
manner he suggests. However, it is not the purpose of the
writer to disparage the author's work. Indeed, the author
has cast enough disparagement in this paper to last most
readers a lifetime. Possibly the points already raised can be
answered and we must look for a third possible reason that
<
the data disagree in the range 1 a/g 10. < (present author) (34) (47) (48).
The heater surface offers a possible source of disagree-
ment. Experiments conducted at the University of Washing-
ton indicate that the surface is a most important factor in
determining critical heat flux, contrary to some analytic
studies. The surface effect might actually be enhanced by
increasing a/g, at least for the low range of a/g, since the
nature of the surface will dictate in large part the number of
bubble sites. The fact that platinum heaters (33), (50) yield
data which fall in line with those of carbon and graphite
heaters (34), (47) and (48) rather refutes this argument,
but does not do so completely. The disagreement between
the author's data and those of the references cited in the
previous sentence might be due to a surface effect.
In this connection, the use of acetone, as used by the
author to clean the test section, is a possible factor; it is
indicated in (48) and below that fluids tending to reduce
the local surface tension have the effect of making the
exponents on a/g, equation (34), higher than those obtained
with pure water.
Evidence on inadequacy of analytic correlations
To supplement the arguments presented by the author
* These potential subcoolings were obtained with the CentrifUge full so
that the free surface was about at the axis of rotation.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016
COMMUNICATIONS
which indicate that the analytic correlations do not ade-
quately represent the critical heat flux problem, the follow-
ing data are provided. Fig. 22 shows data obtained on a
flat-plate heater facing the axis of rotation as shown sche-
matically in Fig. 19. The surface tension was varied by
adding no more than 0.1 per cent by weight of a wetting
agent to distilled water (48). Fluid properties (vapour and
liquid densities, latent heat) were found to be unchanged
within 1 per cent by the addition of the wetting agent.
There is a great change in the exponent of a/g in the
equation qcrOc.(a/g)ndue to the change in surface tension.
Analytic correlations predict neither this effect nor the
pronounced effect of surface tension on qcr at a/g = 1. (It
was found that the latter effect was a function of the nature
of the heater surface.)
Conclusions
(1) In the range 0.06 a/g < <
10 it appears that
q c r ~ ( a / g ) @ 1(33)
5 (34) (47) (48) for cylindrical or flat-plate
heaters in distilled water with acceleration vectors directed
nearly normally away from them. It is possible that the
nature of the surface may alter the exponent somewhat.
(2) For a/g > 10, equation (34) holds approximately
(present author) (34) (47) (48).
(3) The opinion that qcr is differently affected by a/g
in different ranges of a/g has been substantiated by choi
(50) in a system using Freon-I 13. Steady-state accelerations
were obtained magnetically.
(4) Analytic correlations do not correctly represent the
behaviour of qcr as it is affected by a/g or by surface tension
Graphite heater, oriented as shown in Fig. 19. Data uncorrected
for density variations (see Table I for slopes and uncertainties).
Surface tension, dynelcm
71.45
65.02
51.55
44.08
39.21
32.08
27.55
-
Fig. 22. Critical heat flux versus a/g with surface tension
as parameter
Vol177 No I 1963
 CRITICAL HEAT FLUX IN POOL BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
REFERENCES
C. P.,ADAMS,J. M. and CLINTON,
(47) COSTELLO, W. W. ‘Im-
provement of burnout heat fluxes by orientation of semi-
circular heaters’, J . Amer. Znst. chem. Engrs 1962 8
(No. 4, September), 569.
(48) COSTELLO, C. P. and ADAMS,J. M. ‘Interrelation of geo-
metry, orientation and acceleration in the peak heat flux
problem’ (submitted to Amer. Znst. cketn. Engrs, August,
1962).
(49) GAMBILL, W. R. and BUNDY,R. D. ‘Evaluation of the pre-
sent status of swirl-flow heat transfer’, Amer. Soc. mech.
Engrs paper no. 62-HT42, Fifth Nut. Heat Transfer
Conf., Houston, Texas, August, 1962.
(50) CHOI, N. Y. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 1962.
(51) GAMBILL, W. R., BUNDY,R. D. and WANSBOROUGH, R. W.
‘Heat transfer, burnout and pressure drop for water in
swirl flow through tubes with internal twisted tapes’,
Oak Ridge Nut. Lab. Report 2911, 28th March 1960;
also Chem. Engng Progr. Symp., Series no. 32 1961 57,
€27.
Mr W. R. Gambill (Oak Ridge, Tennessee)-The
variation of the critical heat flux in boiling heat transfer
with system acceleration is of considerable importance not
only in a fundamental sense but also in space-vehicle
nuclear reactors operating in a reduced-gravity environ-
ment. This interesting paper describes a carefully con-
ducted experimental study whereby the fourth-root depen-
dence predicted by the Kutateladze-Zuber equations is
substantially confirmed, and thereby makes a considerable
contribution.
I should like first to mention briefly several uncited
studies which are pertinent to the author’s description of
present theories of critical heat flux for saturated pool
boiling. Addoms’s correlation (equation (1)) has been re-
cently modified by Noyes (52) so as to correlate his low-
pressure critical-heat-flux data for sodium with other data
for water and four organic liquids. Noyes introduces both
surface tension and viscosity into Addoms’s equation and
changes the exponent of the group containing g from 3 to a.
Deissler’s criterion for the critical-flux condition (follow-
ing equation (8) of the paper) has been used more recently
by Bragg and Smith (53), who obtained equation (2).
It may also be mentioned that at the critical heat flux, the
fraction a of the surface covered by bubbles appears to be
-0.5, as indicated by the experimental studies of both
Ellion (39) and of Markels and co-workers (54).
Equation (17) of the paper has since been modified by
Rohsenow and Choi (55) by the essentially empirical
introduction of the term (a/g)U4.Finally, the extensivestudy
by Stock (56) substantiates the conclusion of Borishanskii
and of Berenson that liquid-solid contact exists in transition
boiling, which presumably invalidates, as mentioned by the
author, the assumption of Taylor instability.
The author states that use of a burnout detector made it
possible to carry out a number of burnout runs on one test
specimen. Would he state the largest number of tests
conducted with a single specimen and indicate whether
any non-random change of critical flux with number of
tests ever occurred ? In similar tests which we are running
Proc Znstn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016
35
in an effort to determine the scatter inherent in saturated
pool boiling burnout, we have sometimes observed a
directed upward or downward trend of the critical fluxes,
apparently related to slight changes in the surface condition
of the heater tube, which in turn indicates, of course, that
the burnout phenomenon is not determined by solely
hydrodynamic criteria.
I n Fig. 7, the dependence of qcr on ATsubis not linear
as in most other studies, or as predicted by the subcooling-
factor correlation of Ivey and Morris (57). Would the author
care to comment on this rather marked non-linearity of his
subcooled burnout data ?
Finally I wish to point out that there are several un-
certainties involved in the development of the author’s
correlation No. 4 (mainly assessment of the qcr-dTsub
gradients) and that the dependence of qcr on the fourth
root of a/g is probably as valid as the author’s exponent of
0.27, especially in view of semi-theoretical basis.
REFERENCES
(52) NOYES,R. C. Experimental study of sodium pool boiling heat
transfer NAA-SR-6769, 30th March 1962.
(53) BRAGG,S. L. and SMITH, I. E. ‘Dimensional analysis of
burnout heat transfer’, Znt. J. Heat Mass Transfer 1961
3 (No. 3, October), 252.
(54) MARKELS, M. jun. et al. U.S.A.E.C. Report NYO-9500,
30th September 1960.
(55)ROHSENOW, W. M.and CHOI, H. Y. Heat, mass and rnomen-
tum transfer 1961, chapter 9, 228 (Prentice-Hall).
(56) STOCK, B. J. Observations on transition boiling heat transfer
phenomena ANL-6175, June 1960.
(57) IVEY,H.J. and MORRIS, D. J. On the relevance of the vapour-
liquid exchange mechanismfor subcooled boiling heat transfer
at high pressure AEEW-R 137, January 1962.
Mr R. W. Graham and Mr Y. Y. Hsu (Cleveland,
Ohio)-The author is to be congratulated for his efforts in
assembling in one paper the principle contributions to the
critical heat flux problem. He has done a good job in point-
ing out the salient features of each analysis and likewise for
the experimental work in the literature, the limitations of
the experimental approaches.
However, it is difficult to understand how the author
gained enough confidence through his own experiments to
be so conclusive in estimating the value of the contributions
appearing in the literature. In order to be truly conclusive,
the author would have to develop an experiment which was
more definite in terms of the analytical models he is
criticizing. Actually, with the exception of two of the refer-
ences, the acceleration effect on burnout flux is predicted
to be essentially the same. This, despite the differences in
the models, is a remarkable result. If the objective of Dr
Ivey’s experiment was to evaluate these models in terms of
their mechanisms and assumption, the test section would
have to correspond more closely to the flat-plate geometry
assumed in most of the analyses. Starting with a geometry
that is more consonant with the analytical models, he could
devise his experiment such that particular assumptions
included in the analyses could be tested. He did a good job
of summarizing the analyses appearing in the literature but
Vol I77 No I I963
36 COMMUNICATIONS
he failed to develop an experiment which tested these
models in a definitive fashion.
The test section geometry he selected can also be criticized
for certain undesirable characteristics that exist at high
accelerations. With a tube geometry, the magnitude and
direction of the acceleration vector is a function of the cir-
cumferential location. In fact, sections of the tube surface
experience an acceleration vector that points towards the
surface, while other sections experience a vector that points
away from the surface. These extreme conditions greatly
influence the ebullition phenomenon.
It should be observed also that there will be an appreci-
able convection flow in the tank as a result of the pressure
gradient induced by the acceleration. This flow would pro-
ceed over and around the test section and mix with the
vapour coming off the tube. This effect might be envisioned
as a ‘chimney’ that sweeps the vapour towards the centre
of rotation of the centrifuge. Undoubtedly this convection
also influences the ebullition process.
These two aforementioned effects also make it difficult
to reconcile Dr Ivey’s experimental results with the analy-
tical models of the literature.
The author’s use of Fig. 15 is to be questioned. He arrives
at the conclusion that the slope of critical heat flux with
liquid subcooling for various accelerations is similar.
The scatter of the data make a slope estimation
very difficult. The data he ignores for accelerations other
than 126 and 72 g could be interpreted as showing that
acceleration greatly affects the slope. The effect of accelera-
tion on the burnout at various subcoolings warrants further
study. What is more, the author used his conclusion from
Fig. 15 to judge the correlation approaches.
Perhaps the whole question of subcooling could have
been obviated by controlling the bulk temperature or
pressure in the tank to compensate for the ‘head’ effects at
the test section surface. In this way, regardless of the
acceleration, saturation or near saturation, conditions at
the heater surface could have been maintained for all the
tests.
On p. 27, there is a sentence that reads, ‘CorrelationNo. 3
predicts a variation which is very close to that of correlation
No. 4; clearly, this hypothesis is more correct.’ What is
the antecedent of ‘this hypothesis’ ?
In the abstract and conclusions, it should be made clear
that the data refer to water. It might be well to indicate
this on all of the figures. Some of the figures do indicate
the fluid.
Professor P. Griffith (Cambridge, Massachusetts)-
I think this is a fine paper and the author is to be commended
on the care and thoughtfulness that went into the experi-
ments that he reports. I should, however, like to comment
on the comparison of these experiments with existing burn-
out correlations.
All the burnout theories which have a tangible physical
basis, (z), (24) and (2a), treat the case of a plane surface in
pool boiling. The burnout process is a manifestation of
Proc Znstn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016
two-phase flow regime transition and as such one would
expect geometry to play a role so that one should not expect
the burnout heat flux or the power on gravity to be well
predicted from a plane theory for a ‘horizontal’tube.
As the author mentions, the very high gravity fields give
rise to other effects too. One of these is the direct conduc-
tion into body of the fluid arising from the strong variation
in hydrostatic pressure over a small distance. All the
burnout correlations are based on replacing the heat flux
by two counter-current streams of liquid in and vapour out.
The assumption implicit in this is, the heat goes entirely
into the formation of vapour in the immediate vicinity of
the surface. If the hydrostatic equilibrium temperature
gradient is sufficiently large, this direct conduction into the
body of fluid can be substantial. The same factor is ap-
parently important with boiling liquid metals too at one
gravity, as their conductivity is so high.
Mr P. M. C. Lacey (Harwel1)-The author’s survey of
the variables affecting burnout under high acceleration does
not appear to take account of the probably large influence
of u/g on the flow pattern at low values of subcooling. At
high values of u/g there must be severe stratification of the
liquid, with the hottest at the ‘top’, nearer the axis; this
will be disturbed by the high convection effects above and
around the heater. But when the subcooling near the heater
becomes small or zero, the pressure gradient in theliquid
will lead to a reversal of the temperature gradienr, since the
temperature will tend towards the local saturation value, at
any rate in the vicinity of the ascending bubbles. Three
inches of water at a/g = 160 represents a pressure difference
of the order of 15 lb/inZ, and a temperature difference of
over 20°C. Such a condition will be completely unstable
and lead to much more severe convection effects which
must influence burnout in a way that is not matched in pool
boiling at low values of a/g, and it must be highly dependent
on the depth of the water and the general geometry of the
system.
Perhaps, therefore, one might in part attribute to such
an effect the excess of the experimental exponent of a/g
above the theoretical value of 0-25, especially in the fourth
correlation which depends upon extrapolation to zero
subcooling. It would be interesting to learn whether the
burnout figures were sensitive to liquid depth at low sub-
cooling. It would be valuable, though obviously very
difficult, to obtain flow pattern data in future experimenta-
tion of this kind.
Professor I?. W. McFadden, Ph.D. (Lafayette,
Indiana)-I would like to make a comment on the vapour
discontinuous, liquid continuous analytical models
discussed in this paper. Recent measurements and analysis*
have indicated f2Db is proportional to the acceleration
* MCFADDEN P. W. and GRASSMANN, P. ‘Relation between bubble
frequency and diameter during nucleate pool boiling’, Int. J .
Heat Mass Transfer 5, 169; and COLE,R. ‘A photographic
study of pool boiling in the region of the critical heat flux’,
Preprint 21, Fourth Nat. Heat Transfer Conf., Bufalo, New
York, 1960.
Val 177 No 1 1963
 CRITICAL HEAT FLUX IN POOL BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
acting on the individual bubbles at the instant of departure
from the heating surface, and therefore that (using equation
(12)) f o b is proportional to g* under standard gravity.
Thus fDa is not a constant if the gravity (i.e. body force)
field is changed. This allows one to-start with the equation
q = Xp, Db3fn
and show that p g * (or in general qccat)
without the necessity of introducing a terminal velocity
(ub)to describe what is happening to the bubbles at the
surface, a doubtful growth velocity (Vgrowth), or some
dubious model.
Dr T.D. Patten (Associate Member)-The first part of
this paper presents a good summary of major existing
theories on critical heat flux in saturated pool boiling. The
new experimental information is welcome and presented in
this way it proves very useful for examining a particular
aspect of these theories.
I have considerable dficulty in assessing the relative
merits of correlation No. 3 and correlation No. 4. The
validity of the correction to zero subcooling for correlation
No. 4 presumably results from an experimental condition
(not stated) of constant bulk liquid temperature in all
acceleration tests. If this is confirmed, will the author
please state if the value of 5-5 w/cm2 “C for the variation of
critical heat flux with subcooling at u/g = I was also derived
from tests at constant bulk liquid temperature and varying
liquid level above the heating surface ? The assumption of
a mean value, for all values of aig, of the variation of critical
heat flux with subcooling appears to be open to question,
and if this assumption lacks experimental support then
correlation No. 4 has no obvious advantage over correlation
No. 3.
In agreeing with Dr Ivey that it is possible to question
the validity of most models used in predicting critical heat
flux, I nevertheless remember the important part played
by many of the resulting theories in helping us towards an
understanding of the complex processes of nucleate boiling.
The author’s contribution is a farther step forward.
Mr R. I?. Stein (Argonne, Illinois)-I have read Dr
Ivey’s paper with enjoyment, and commend him for pre-
senting an interesting research effort. The first part of the
paper, which compares and evaluates the bases for the
development of various saturated pool boiling critical heat
flux equations, represents a kind of effort badly needed in
this field. The second part of the paper, which describes
carefully performed experiments aimed specifically at
determining the effect of uniform acceleration on the
critical heat flux for comparison with predictions of the
equations, contributes a useful set of experimental data. I
have comments concerning what is perhaps only my own
personal preference of a method of approach towards the
substance of the first part of the paper, as well as some
comments on data interpretation for the second part.
Proc Insrn Much Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016
37
I note first that the derivations of Addoms (I), Deisler
(7), Rohsenow (11), Rohsenow and Griffith (12) and
Griffith (16)were done apparently without awareness of
the existence of Kutateladze’s very successful empirical
equation. The end results are relations significantly dif-
ferent from Kutateladze’s equation and from each other
and therefore easily tested for how well they fit the existing
experimental data. The work of Chang and Snyder (17),
Zuber (18)-(24), and Berenson (27)are attempts to arrive
at Kutateladze’s equation analytically and thereby develop
a theory. The end results are relations which are not,
of course, significantly different from Kutateladze’s
equation qr from each other-except in regions near the
critical pressure for the fluid where extensive experimental
data are lacking. Tests of the theories by experiment must:
then focus on areas where the equations differ significantly
or concentrate on measurements of specific details of the
theories.
Tests of this latter type are reported by Hosler and West-
water* as well as Berenson (26), and suggest that current
theories are not consistently accurate with respect to many
details. Such findings are in accord with Dr Ivey’s inter-
pretations of his critical examination of these current
theories. Most of these interpretations are based, for
example, on noting that the neat geometrical physical
models postulated as bases for theory are not in accord with
the chaotic behaviour actually observed experimentally. Un-
fortunately, such critical interpretation cannot be definitive.
The very chaotic behaviour of boiling allows for alternate
interpretations that regular patterns of bubble formation,
lack of liquid-heated surface contact, mostly vapour at
heated surface, etc., are abstractions of the essential
mechanisms which actually control behaviour, but are
difficult or even impossible to observe experimentally.
There is, however, another area which requires examina-
tion and is capable of more definitive criticism. We can
accept, at least momentarily, any reasonable physical
model, recognizing that because of the complicated nature
of boiling in general a great deal of idealization will be
necessary. We then must satisfy ourselves that well-founded
applicable physical principles have been applied to the
physical model correctly and consistently. It is in this area
of critical examination that I should have preferred the
author to delve into in more detail, for I believe that there
are several incorrect applications in the analyses of refer-
ences (17)-(24) and (27) that make arguments about the
reasonableness of the physical models upon which they are
based of secondary importance at this time.
As an illustration I mention a particular result of an
analysis of a problem described in the literature of classical
hydrodynamics which I believe has been incorrectly applied
in all of the above references, although in each somewhat
differently. The problem of classical hydrodynamics to
which I refer concerns the infinitesimal sinusoidal oscilla-
tions of a horizontal interface between two inviscid im-
miscible fluids of different density, each fluid having a
* HOSLER,A. E. R. and WESTWATER, J. W. Film boiling on a
horizontal plate, ARS 3. 1962 32 (No.4), 553.
V o l I77 No I 1963
38
parallel uniform and horizontal steady velocity*. I n refer-
ence (17)~ a result of the classical solution to this problem
is first cited for predicting the relative velocities of the two
streams at which the interface becomes unstable (see
equation (31) of reference (17)). The fact that the equation
cited is specifically for the case of the heavier fluid under-
neath the lighter one is not mentioned in reference (17).
The equation is then applied to fluids flowing vertically by
dividing by 1 / 2 without explanation or reference thereby
obtaining equation (24) of Dr Ivey’s paper. I n references
(22) and (27) the same result of the classical solution to
the problem is used, but application to vertical flow is
made by simply equating the acceleration due to gravity in
the classical result to zero. Not only do I suggest that some
demonstration of the validity of these manipulations is
required, but I also believe that the relations obtained as a
result of their use incorrectly represent the idealized physical
model described.
I am concerned about Dr Ivey’s interpretation of induced
subcooling for his experimental data. He notes that at high
accelerationsthe effectivelylarger specificweight of the liquid
causes a significantlyhigher local pressure at the test-section
* LAMB,B. H. Hydrodynamics 1932 sixth edition (Art. 268), 461
(Dover, New York).
Author’s Reply
Dr H.J. Ivey-I wish to thank sincerely all the contribu-
tors to the discussion. Their comments have all been most
helpful, stimulating and informative. It is clear that many
aspects of boiling heat transfer are still controversial, and
that the particular case of pool boiling heat transfer is no
less controversial than others. As the principal objective
of the paper was an attempt to appraise critically and
experimentally current analytical theories and corrclations
for the critical heat flux in saturation pool boiling, the
theoretical aspects will be dealt with first, followed by the
experimental aspects.
Mr Gambill has added the studies of Noyes (52)and of
Bragg and Smith (53) to the list of theories for critical
heat flux in saturation pool boiling. The disposition in
space of vapour bubbles in the analytical model of Bragg
and Smith is remarkable in that the bubbles have to
satisfy simultaneously a horizontal critical bubble packing
configuration similar to that of Rohsenow and Griffith (12)
and a vertical critical bubble touching configuration
similar to that of Deissler (7). The plausibility of such an
exact model is open to doubt when applied to the chaotic
behaviour of steam and water at the critical heat flux.
There are some indications of specific behaviour at the
critical heat flux; Mr Gambill has mentioned that the
fraction a of the surface covered by bubbles appears to
Proc Instn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016
COMMUNICATIONS
heated surface than at the surface of the pool. As I under-
stand the calculation procedure used, induced subcooling
was computed by subtracting the normal boiling tempera-
ture from the boiling temperature based on the local pres-
sure at the test-section heated surface. This does not seem
to me to be a valid measure of subcooling for comparison
with subcooled pool boiling experiments at normal gravity.
With the latter, vapour bubbles that rise into subcooled
regions will tend to condense by exchanging heat with sur-
roundings at temperatures significantly below the local
boiling point. Also, the pressure within a vapour bubble
will not be too different from that of the surroundings.
With the high-acceleration saturated pool boiling experi-
ments described in this paper and the resulting large pressure
gradients within the liquid, the situation would seem to be
significantly different.
I also suggest that further explanation is needed of how
it was decided which of the four attempted correlations of
the effect of acceleration was best. Incidentally, I note from
Fig. 15 of the paper that the effect of acceleration on the
critical heat flux could possibly be accounted for solely as a
function of the calculated induced subcooling, and that such
a correlation could be well within the normal scatter of the
experimental data.
be 0.5 according to Ellion (39) for forced convection
N
boiling and also to Markels (54). A similar figure has been
determined experimentally by Donald and Haslam (58)
for pool boiling at the critical heat flux.
I agree with Mr Stein’s comments concerning the
question of the application of well-founded physical
principles to the various physical models of the critical
heat flux. There does seem to be little value in proposing
a specific model of the critical heat flux condition if well-
founded physical principles have to be incorrectly applied
in order to obtain a ‘reasonable’ answer. I have not dealt
with this aspect of the theories, as an excellent example
of this type of criticism has already been published
(59).
The ‘remarkable result’ noted by Mr Graham and Mr
Hsu that the acceleration effect on qcr is predicted to be
the same for most theories, in spite of wide differences
in the analytical models, is partially explained in the
contribution of Professor Cole. Professor Cole has made
the interesting observation that provided ‘valid’ bubble
velocities and diameters are chosen, any given model will
probably predict the quarter-power law variation of qCr
with acceleration. This suggests that the role of exact
physical model is of questionable importance in the
predictions of qcr. From this, it is a short step to ask
Vol177 No I 1963
 CRITICAL HEAT FLUX IN POOL BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
whether there is any merit in developing the exact
physical model (7)(12)(17) (19)(27), as opposed to a less
rigorous general physical picture of boiling at qcr (2)(3)
( 5 ) (48).
Professor McFadden has found in nucleate pool boiling
(60)thatf2D, cc g, and by using equation (12) has derived
the result that fDbcc g*. By using equation (7) he has
also shown that q oc g*. However, it should be noted that
a term (pV/pl): additional to the Kutateladze expression
(equation (2)) is obtained when using this procedure. Care
must be taken in extrapolating to the critical heat flux a
correlation obtained under nucleate boiling conditions
where individual bubbles are distinguishable, compared
with the chaotic mixture of vapour and water which
occurred at the critical heat flux.
Dr Adams, Mr Graham and Mr Hsu, and Professor
Griffith have all raised the question of experimental design
in relation to the analytical models. In particular they
state that to simulate basic assumptions of the theories
more accurately a flat-plate heater geometry should be
used in the experiments, I agree with the vicw that ideally
the test section should correspond as closely as possible
with the assumptions made in the theories, and for this
reason feel that the entirely new experimental results
derived from flat-plate heaters presented by Professor
Costello in the communication represent a step forward
in this direction. Other advantages as well are obtained
using flat-plate heaters, for example Professor Costello
has managed to isolate the potential effect of Coriolis
acceleration (which effect appears to be negligible) by
different orientations of the flat surface with respect to
the axis of rotation. I n my own experiments a ‘horizontal’
tube had been chosen primarily for the sake of experimental
simplicity. Several flat strip heaters have been tested with
the underneath and sides insulated by silicone rubber and
araldite, but have been rejected. The adhesive expanded
slightly on being overheated in a qcrtemperature excursion
which left a small gap between metal and adhesive. This
acted as a preferential nucleation site, rendering the heater
unusable. The size of the present cylindrical heater is
limited by the current carrying capacity of the silver slip
ring unit. However, as Mr Bundy points out, qcTappears
to occur on that side of the cylinder where bubbles are
accelerated away from the heater. In this respect cylinders
behave as flat plates. This is not too surprising a result, as
this has been known for some time at alg = 1. Under
normal gravity conditions the majority of qcr experiments
in boiling from horizontal wires and cylinders give values
of the constant in the Kutateladze equation (2) very close
to the values of the constant obtained in boiling from %at
plates and discs. This applies for heaters boiling both to
water and to organic liquids; tables of comparative values
of this constant for various systems are available (61)(62).
The above comments with regard to horizontal wires are
subject, of course, to the size limitations noted by Bernath
(36). The use of the present size of cylinder minimized
the effect of variation of acceleration from inner to outer
surfaces, compared with larger cylinders. Mr Graham and
R o c Instn Mech Engrs
3
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016
39
Mr Hsu mentioned the possibility of designing experiments
which could test the particular assumptions in each separate
analysis. While some useful information may be derived
from studies of this type, it would appear to be more
rewarding to investigate thc effects of various parameters
(acceleration, surface tension, liquid, etc.) on qcn and
compare these results with the predictions of the
theories.
Several contributors have mentioned other factors
which may or may not have an effect on qcn and which
should therefore be taken into consideration in any analyti-
cal description. Mr Chicken has kindly listed many of
these factors; others have been given by Bernath (36),
Hawkins (63) and Mueller (64). Most of the points in
Mr Chicken’s list are relevant to natural convection pool
boiling, but several could only apply to the case of forced
convection boiling in channels. The references (41)(42)
which Mr Chicken quoted dealt with surface roughness
effects on nucleate boiling, not qcr as in the present paper.
Surface roughness has an effect on nucleate boiling for
pentane (26) and for water (41) (42) (65). However,
references (26)(65) dealt with qcrin addition (for pentane
and water) and no effect of surface roughness on qcr was
evident. Because of this no measurement of surface
roughness is made in the present experiments. It must be
mentioned that both Professor Costello and Mr Gambill
in their communications have noted some effect of surface
condition on qcr, but do not state to what extent. Possibly
the effects noted are of small magnitude.
Many contributors have raised queries concerning
various aspects of the present experiments.
Dr Adams states that a heater of 1: in. length could
give a measured qcr which is 10 per cent higher than that
for ‘long’ heaters, according to the data presented by
Bernath (36) for vertical heaters. However, the present
experiments refer to horizontal heaters which are tan-
gential to and in the same plane as the circle swept by the
rotating heater. Perhaps Dr Adams should have applied
this correction to the experiments described by Professor
Costello in which vertical heaters were used (34) (48).
Since Bernath has shown that long vertical heaters give a
qcr which is only 0.76 that of an equivalent horizontal
heater, this may be a far greater source of inaccuracy in
Dr Adams’s experiments. The purpose of Figs 5 and 6
was to demonstrate that the heater diameter and wall
thickness chosen gave qcr values at a/g = 1 which were
satisfactory when compared with heaters of larger diameter
and wall thickness. Thus no allowance has been made for
effects due to heater diameter and wall thiskness in the
present experiments.
Mr Gambill has inquired into the number of burnout
runs attained on one test specimen using a burnout
detector in the centrifugal experiments. The largest
number of tests conducted with one specimen was 21,
while the average was lower at 5.5 per specimen. Each
specimen was used for several different values of accelera-
tion, thus it was not possible to furnish any conclusive
evidence on the effect observed by Mr Gambill of the
Vol177 No I 1963
40
slight variation of qcl with number of tests on one speci-
men. Before each burnout test a waiting period of approxi-
mately 15 minutes was allowed during which the specimen
was vigorously boiled. As mentioned by Dr Adams,
this allowed re-establishment of any loss of nucleating
sites due to a previous burnout excursion. Mr Chicken
mentions the scatter of the results shown in Figs 5, 6 and
7, and notes that this may be accounted for partly by
changes in the specimen surface during the tests. The
results shown in these figures were obtained in a separate
static pool, and from a number of test specimens. Although
each specimen had been cleaned carefully once before the
experiments, no subsequent cleaning was thought necessary
in the light of the results of Averin (65) and Berenson (26).
This is partially substantiated in that the scatter of results
for any one specimen is less than the scatter for all speci-
mens. As previously noted by Mr Gambill, however, small
effects of surface condition on qcr may exist. I n reply to
Mr Chicken, no complete chemical analysis of the water
was made. It was supplied as demineralized water, the
electrical conductivity and gas content of which were
checked before use.
Almost all the contributors have raised queries concern-
ing the interpretation of the results and the four suggested
different methods of correlation. It should be emphasized
that for the present experiments correlation no. 1 (the
uncorrected data) may be considered as an upper limit of
qcr as a function of a/g. Similarly correlation no. 4 (data
corrected by extrapolation to zero potential s ubcooling)
may be considered as a possible lower limit of qcr as a
function of a/g. The two other correlations nos 2 and 3
were included merely as demonstrations of possible
methods of calculating secondary effects of subcooling
and pressure on qcr. Thus correlations nos 2 and 3 were
added as possible guides for future studies of the interrela-
tion of subcooling, pressure and acceleration on qcr, and
should not be used as strict interpretations of the present
results. I agree with Mr Bundy and Mr Gambill that the
third significant figure on the exponent of relative accelera-
tion terms in the correlations has little meaning, and it has
therefore been dropped.
Mr Bundy, Mr Graham and Mr Hsu have queried the
use of Fig. 15 in which a correction for the possible effect
of potential subcooling on qcr is obtained. The values of
potential subcooling plotted in Fig. 15 were calculated by
subtracting the normal boiling temperature at the free
liquid surface from the boiling temperature derived from
the local pressure at the heater surface. I would agree with
Dr Patten and Mr Stein that the situation in the large
pressure gradients of the centrifugal experiment described
here are probably significantly different from the situation
arising in a static (a/g = 1) subcooled pool boiling experi-
ment. Thus correlation no. 1 assumes that at any given
acceleration qcl is a constant for increasing subcooling.
Correlation no. 4 assumes that at any given acceleration
qcrincreases linearly with increase in subcooling, and owing
to lack of experimental information of the variation of qc,.
with subcooling for any acceleration other than a/g = 1
Proc Instn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016
AUTHOR’S REPLY
(for a pool boiling system), this has been assumed to be
similar to that for a/g = 1. In reply to Dr Patten’s query,
the qcr variation with subcooling at a/g = 1 was obtained
in a separate static pool with constant liquid level above
the heating surface and different bulk liquid temperatures
to obtain different bulk subcoolings at the heating
surface level. As Professor Costello has pointed out, dif-
ferent water levels above the test section in the centrifuge
may alter the potential subcooling at the heater surface
level, but will not necessarily alter the actual subcooling
at that level. I n view of the above remarks I agree with
Mr Graham and Mr Hsu that the effect of subcooling on
qcrat various accelerations warrants further detailed study.
On p. 33 Professor Costello has stated that Gambill et al.
(51)have found that subcooling exerts different effects on
qcr in different ranges of a/g. I would not disagree with
this, but it should be pointed out that Gambill found ‘the
influence of pressure and subcooling on qcr is negligible’
in the range 750 < at/g < 11 500; but for at/g = 35 ‘the
subcooling effect begins to appear’. The a, denotes tan-
gential acceleration in the swirl flow.
Professor Costello asserts that the interrelated effects
of subcooling and pressure in pool boiling have not been
established. I would suggest consulting the excellent
paper by Kutateladze and Schneiderman (4Q), which gives
the variations of qcr with subcooling for three different
liquids at five different pressures for the case of a/g = 1.
Mr Gambill has noted that in Fig. 7 the dependence of
qcr on AT,,, is not linear as in ‘most other studies’. For
the case of static subcooled pool boiling the qcr on AT,,,
curve is linear according to results of Kutateladze and
Schneiderman (40) and Bendler (36) (38) (upon which
the correlation of reference (57) was based), and of
Mirshak (66). The first work used horizontal graphite
heaters of unstated diameter, the second used vertical
nickel heaters 0-187 in. diameter, and the third used
vertical stainless steel heaters 0-75in. and 1.00in. diameter.
Contrary to this, it would appear that when the heater is
comparatively small the qcr on AT,,, curve is not linear
but concave upwards. This is demonstrated by the results
on small heaters of Ellion (39), Gunther and Kreith (67)>
Kutateladze (61, p. ZOS), and the present results shown in
Fig. 7. Since the potential induced subcooling did not
exceed 20°C at the heater level in the present experiments,
the qcr on d Tsubcurve for a/g = 1 in Fig. 7 was approxi-
mated by a straight line to 20°C subcooling.
Mr Stein is correct in his statement that according to
Fig. 15 the effect of acceleration on qcr could possibly be
accounted for solely as a function of calculated potential
subcooling, in the sense that the Calculated value was a
monotonic function of acceleration for a given liquid
depth and radius of rotation. Fig. 15 shows that the re-
corded values of qcrfor a/g > 1lie above the curve obtained
for a/g = 1. Therefore the difference at least may be
attributable to an effect produced by the increased accelera-
tion in this particular system, and not the calculated
potential subcooling.
Several other factors which may be of importance have
Vo1177 No 1 1963
 CRITICAL HEAT FLUX I N POOL BOILING HEAT TRANSFER
been mentioned by the contributors. Mr Chicken com-
ments that short duration power transients may produce
results different from those obtained in the steady state
conditions of the present experiments. Evidence of
Johnson et al. (68) has demonstrated marked non-linear
behaviour, which suggests that the relation between steady
state and transient conditions is not too clear. It has already
been noted that Mr Stein believes that the large pressure
gradients in the high acceleration experiments would
produce a significantly different situation than under
normal gravity conditions. This has been expanded upon
from different aspects by Mr Graham and Mr Hsu,
Professor Griffith, and Mr Lacey. Professor Griffith is
concerned about the direct conduction of heat into the
body of the fluid (the non-boiling component of heat
transfer). This was not considered in the present qcr
experiments for accelerations to a/g = 160 for the follow-
ing reason. From the natural convection-nucleate pool
boiling work of Merte and Clark (32) for accelerations
<
1 Q ajg 21, the heat flux at transition from natural
convection to nucleate boiling may be approximately
estimated to vary as (aig)".". This is not too dissimilar from
the variation of qcr with acceleration, and as the natural
convection component at qcr for a/g = 1 is of the order
0.1 qcr or less, the natural convection component is con-
sidered as small. It would seem that at higher accelerations
the natural convection component would become more
important. I agree with Mr Lacey that the obtaining of
flow pattern data in any future experiments of this kind
would be of value. Unfortunately the flow patterns in
pool boiling are not entirely understood even for normal
gravity conditions, although recently much high-speed
cine-camera work on boiling bubbles has been completed.
In reply to the query of Professor Costello, no check was
made in the present experiment of the flow pattern or the
possible influences of a container size effect or of secondary
flows. In this respect I agree with the view expressed by
Mr Chicken, that caution must be exercised in applying
the present results (or indeed experimental results from
any other single boiling system) to conditions other than
those of the original experiment.
I wish to thank Professor Costello for his valuable and
interesting contribution, in which are presented a large
quantity of entirely new data for several different test
sections. The work amplifies in much greater detail the
present results obtained from a simple apparatus.
Kutateladze and Styrikovich (61, p. 193) have noted
that an investigation by Styrikovich and Polyakov 'con-
firmed the conclusion arrived at theoretically that a
horizontal plate with its heating surface turned upward
should be used as a standard for comparison'. Because of
this, it may be considered that the recent flat-plate
experiments conducted by Professor Costello (48) are
probably a distinct improvement on the present experi-
ments, as the flat-plate geometry corresponds closely to
theoretical idealizations, also there is less likelihood of
secondary flows influencing the boiling action on the heater
surface. For example, the comparatively small size of test
Proe Instn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016
41
section and container used in the present simple experi-
ments may have been insufficiently sensitive to detect a
possible change in mechanism at a/g = 10. Use of the
flat-plate geometry also enabled isolation of the effect of
Coriolis acceleration in the rotating system, and it was
shown to have no effect on qcr. Their results with varying
surface tension are of value in checking the experimental
dependency of qcr on surface tension, as compared with
theoretical predictions. At a/g = 1 it was found (48) that
qcr cc U, as opposed to theoretical predictions which give
qcr K d. This would seem to indicate limitations in
present theories of far greater extent than the acceleration
effect. Why was the Kutateladze equation (2) able to
correlate qcr sufficiently accurately at a/g = 1 for many
different liquids (and thus different u), but unable to
correlate qer at all for a given liquid with different small
amounts of surface active agent (and thus different u)?
I myself believe the difference could be caused by the
hydrodynamic behaviour of a foam in the latter case,
compared with the normal bubble sizes and behaviour
associated with the former case. Probably the hydrodyna-
mic factors of importance in a foam are much different
from those in a simple boiling liquid with no additives.
There are, however, a number of points which may be
raised concerning the data presented by Professor
Costello. It should be noted that the experiments (shown
in Fig. 19) at a/g = 1 were made in a separate pool (48);
spurious effects may have arisen owing to a difference
between the tests for a/g = 1 and a/g > 1. This is noted
because some weight is placed upon the a/g = 1 results
to demonstrate the discontinuity in the qcr on a/g curve.
I n addition, the flat plate used was a flat strip 2 in. long
x 0.30 in. wide.
On p. 31 the data of reference (34) are stated to agree
extremely well with those obtained in comparable experi-
ments in forced convection swirl flow inside tubes (49).
Inspection of Fig. 7 of reference (49) shows that in swirl
flow no additional effect on qcr due to the acceleration is
discernible until a/g > 100. Two data points from
reference (34) are shown in Fig. 7 of reference (49), at
a/g = 10; one point is shown as having zero incremental
heat flux over that at a/g = 1, while at a/g = 44 the other
point is shown as having an incremental heat flux only
0.8 per cent of the maximum swirl flow incremental heat
flux. This is so although the qcrat a/g = 44 represents an
increase of 100 per cent over the qcr at a/g = 1 for the
results of reference (34). From this it does not appear
feasible on the basis of the above directly to compare
results of centrifugal pool boiling with those of swirl
flow, unless one is attempting to demonstrate from Fig. 7
that qcr is not affected by acceleration until a/g > 100 for
pool boiling
The comparison shown in Fig. 18 between the data of
reference (34) and those of Choi ( 5 0 ) may be misleading.
Choi obtained only two values of qcr at two different
values of electric field, and one value ofqcr with no electric
field (normal gravity), all using a 0.020 in. diameter
platinum wire. The equivalent accelerations (induced
Vol 177 No I 1963
42
electrically) at the heater surface in Choi’s experiments
were 110 times and 440 times normal gravity respectively.
In the two experiments the electric field was non-uniform
and directed radially away from the cylindrical heater.
This is a very different situation to the single experiment
with no electric field, in which the gravitational field was
uniform and directed vertically. Yet the justification for
showing two distinct gradients for Choi’s three values of
qct depends upon the one value of per obtained at normal
gravity, which was obtained in conditions much different
from the two values of 4cr obtained with acceleration
induced electrically. Two quotations from Choi’s work
suffice to illustrate this point (so) : ‘Actually, this transition
in Fig. 18 may be more apparent than real‘, and the con-
clusion that ‘the electrical field increases the peak heat
flux, the increase being approximately linear with E,’
(electric field at wall surface). In Fig. 18 it should be
recollected that although the upper curve may give
exactly the prediction of the Zuber theory, the Kutateladze
theory contains a constant which is determined by experi-
ment. The Kutateladze theory may only be examined
from the gradients of the experimental curves in Fig. 18,
whereas the Zuber theory must also be examined for
absolute values.
On p. 33 Professor Costello has stated that pressure
build-up in the present apparatus was 23 per cent more
than that of reference (48) at any a/g (for 1 in. liquid
depth). The pressure build-up is greater for a given liquid
depth and acceleration, because the change in acceleration
with respect to radius is considerably smaller for the
present apparatus with 25.53 in. radius of rotation, than
for that of reference (48) with 2.5 in. radius of rotation.
The acceleration change with radius in the latter case
was more than 10 times that in the former. In view of this,
and the observation by Jakob (9, p. 623) and Cole (10)
that steam bubbles achieved terminal rise velocity within
one bubble diameter, has Professor Costello considered
the rapid deceleration of the vapour with decreasing radius,
and the vapour build-up, in his apparatus? On p. 34
Professor Costello has stated that ‘good agreement’
between data from references (34) and (48) showed
no effect due to a difference in potential subcooling. I n
fact the difference in 4cTbetween the two sets of data at
a/g = 44 due to potential subcoolings (3~78°Fand 6~2°F
respectively) would be 3 per cent according to equation
(31). Inspection of Fig. 17 at a/g = 44 shows an experi-
mental difference of 20 per cent between the data of
references (34) and (48), the former lower than the latter;
this is in the same direction as would be expected from the
relative subcooling magnitudes. In addition Fig. 17 shows
that all data of reference (34) fall systematically below
those of (48). Therefore some difference is evident be-
tween the two sets of data. Consideration of the data
obtained under transient conditions of Usiskin and Siege1
Proc Instn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on June 5, 2016
AUTHOR’S REPLY
(33) in Fig. 17 as more than a general indication of the
behaviour in steady state experiments may be misleading.
As the tests were transient the values of qcr obtained were
probably higher than would be obtained under steady
state conditions, as noted previously by Mr Chicken.
Finally, I wish to emphasize the need for more accurate
statements of boiling problems in the various system
conditions encountered. Kutateladze has given what must
be the simplest and clearest plausible statement of the
pool boiling critical heat flux condition (2) (61). As the
ranges of important variables are increased (acceleration,
surface tension, etc.) so new factors and mechanisms may
become of importance. Thus a re-defining of the problem
is required, as the early definitions of a boiling problem
may not always be sufficiently flexible or general to account
for effects obtained under new ranges of variables. An
example of this is the work of Breen and Westwater (69)
on film boiling performance in natural convection as a
function of diameter of horizontal cylinders, where
‘classical’ film boiling theory is demonstrated to apply
only over a limited range of cylinder diameters.
REFERENCES
(58) DONALD,M. B. and HASLAM, F. ‘The mechanism of the
transition from nucleate to film boiling’, Chem. Engng Sci.
1958 8,287.
(59) STEIN, R. P. ‘Critical review of the Zuber and Zuber-
Tribus theories of transition boiling’, Columbia Univ.
Dept. Chem. Engng Tech. Note IX-TN-3-58 1958.
(60) MCFADDEN, P.W. and GRASSMAN, P. ‘The relation between
bubble frequency and diameter during nucleate pool
boiling’, Int. J . Heat Mass Transfer 1962 5, 169.
(61) KUTATELADZE, S. S. and STYRIKOVICH, M. A. ‘Hydraulics
of gas-liquid systems’ (Moscow 1958). Translation,
September 1960: Technical Information Center, Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, U.S.A. F-TS-9814/V.
(62) KAZAKOVA, E. A. ‘Influence of pressure on the production
of the first crisis in the boiling of water on a horizontal
plate’, AEC-tr-3405, 86 (1953).
(63) HAWKINS, G. A. ‘A brief review of the literature on boiling
heat transfer’, U.C.L.A. Bept. Engng Rep., June 1950.
(64) MUELLER, G. 0. ‘A review and assessment of boiling heat
transfer and the departure from nucleate boiling’,
KAPL-M-GOM-2 (1958).
(65) AVERIN,E. K. ‘Effect of material and machining of surface
on heat transfer to boiling water’, Isv. Akad. Nauk.
S.S.S.R., Odel. Teckli. Nauk. 1954 (no. 3), 116;
U.K.A.E.A., A.E.R.E. LIB/TRANS 562.
(66) MIRSHAK,S. ‘Heat flux at burnout in stagnant water’,
DP-262 (1957).
(67) GUNTHER,F. C. and KREITH,F. ‘Photographic study of
bubble formation in heat transfer to subcooled water’,
Ht. Trans. and Fluid Mech. Irist. 1949, 113.
(68) JOHNSON, H.A., SCHROCK, V. E., SELPH,F. B., LIENHARD,
J. H. and ROSZTOCZY, Z. R. ‘Transient pool boiling of
water at atmospheric pressure’, Proc. Int. Ht. Trans.
Conf.,Boulder 1961 (pt. 2), 244.
(69) BREEN,B. P. and WESTWATER, J. W. ‘Effect of diameter of
horizontal tubes on film boiling heat transfer’, Chem.
Engng Prog. 1962 58 (no. 7), 67.
Vo1177 No I 1963