Applied Thermal Engineering 169 (2020) 114928

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Effects of water temperature on the spray cooling rate of aluminum alloy T

plate
⁎
Cheng Zhua, Ruifeng Doua,b, , Zhi Wena,b, Xunliang Liua,b, Yongbang Miaoa
a
University of Science and Technology Beijing, School of Energy and Environmental Engineering, Beijing, China
b
Beijing Key Laboratory of Energy Saving and Emission Reduction of Metallurgical Industry, Beijing, China

H I GH L IG H T S

• Experiments for full cone water spray cooling of high temperature aluminum plate are carried out.
• 2D inverse heat conduction model is employed to obtain the local heat flux.
• The increasing of water spray temperature enhances the boiling heat transfer.

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A series of experiments was carried out to investigate the effects of water temperature on spray cooling heat flux.
Water spray The specimen is made of 7075 aluminum alloy, and the spray is water. Water temperature Tw changes from
Water temperature 7.9 °C to 51.6 °C. Local water flux Mw shifts from 0.377 to 1.036 mg·s−1·mm−2. The one-dimensional (1D)
Inverse heat conduction inverse heat conduction model fails to reflect the distribution of heat flux in spray cooling heat transfer, whereas
Boiling
the two-dimensional (2D) model reveals the effect of local water flux Mw on the distribution of heat flux q. When
Evaporation
nozzle height H is 4.3 cm, heat flux q is twice as great, whereas H is 12.3 cm. Hence, a larger local water flux Mw
benefits the boiling heat transfer of the specimen. Whether H = 12.3 cm or H = 4.3 cm, heat flux q rises with
increasing water temperature Tw when cooling surface temperature Ts is between 100 °C and 250 °C.

1. Introduction water temperatures. Water temperature Tw is 17 °C, 26 °C, and 35 °C,

The control of cooling temperature and rate is a representative
method of increasing the mechanical properties of metals with the same
chemical composition. Spray cooling allows for the precise control of
cooling rate. It is one of the most advanced cooling techniques used in
high heat flux [1]. Spray cooling enables numerous tasks, such as ob-
taining fine grain size, controlling microstructures and strength and
yield ratio, and improving plate toughness [2–6].
Various factors influence the boiling and evaporation of spray, in-
cluding type of nozzle, nozzle height H, surface character, water flux
Mw, total, droplet velocity, spray type, plate orientation, and cooling
medium [7].
Many scholars [8–10] have focused on water flux Mw, total, but few
has paid attention to water temperature Tw.
Liu et al. [11] used distilled water as a working medium and a
16 mm diameter copper cylinder as an specimen to study the re-
lationship between heat transfer coefficient and pressure at different
and copper cylinder temperature is below 100 °C. They found that in-
creasing water temperature Tw can increase spray cooling heat flux q,
but surface temperature Ts also increased accordingly.
Liu [12] studied the effect of spray water temperature Tw on heat
transfer in an experiment on spray cooling heat transfer characteristics.
Changes in water temperature Tw were 19 °C, 28 °C, and 39 °C. The
specimen is made of 304 stainless steel. The surface temperature of
specimen Ts is below 60 °C. When water temperature Tw decreased from
39 °C to 19 °C, heat flux q decreased by 4.3% at most. They concluded
that the difference in inlet water temperature Tw minimally affected the
convective heat transfer coefficient of spray cooling, which was mainly
reflected in the change of wall temperature Ts.
Wang et al. [13] designed an experiment on distilled water spray
cooling over four permanent magnet synchronous motors (PMSM).
Environment pressure Pg is below 0.1 MPa, and water temperature Tw is
set to 50 °C, 40 °C, and 25 °C. The lower water temperature Tw is, the
faster PMSM cools down.

⁎
Corresponding author at: University of Science and Technology Beijing, School of Energy and Environmental Engineering, Beijing, China.
E-mail address: douruifeng@ustb.edu.cn (R. Dou).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.114928
Received 11 June 2019; Received in revised form 28 September 2019; Accepted 9 January 2020
Available online 11 January 2020
1359-4311/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Zhu, et al.
Nomenclature
Tw Water temperature (measured at the nozzle exit) °C
Mw Local water flux (spray flux per unit time per unit area)
mg·s−1·mm−2
Mw, total Water flux (spray flux per unit time) mg·s−1
H Nozzle height (the distance between nozzle exit and spe-
cimen) cm
Ts Cooling surface temperature °C
q Heat flux (heat flux of the cooling surface of the specimen)
W·m−2
Pg Environment pressure MPa
Tg Environment temperature °C
Some scholars have different opinions on the effect of water tem-
perature Tw on spray cooling. Hence, this paper mainly discusses the
influence of water temperature Tw on cooling rate and elaborates on
Mw. In this article, the main method to change local water flux Mw is to
alter nozzle height H as Fig. 1 shows.
In Fig. 1, although water flux Mw, total remains the same, local water
flux Mw increases as nozzle height H decreases. When nozzle height H is
12.3 cm, the spray covers all the upper surface of specimen. When
nozzle height H is 4.3 cm, the spray covers only the center area of the
specimen.
Nozzle height H has a crucial influence on the heat transfer per-
formance and wall temperature distribution Ts of spray cooling. Gao
et al. [14] used silicon wafers as samples to study the effect of spray
height and nozzle inclination on the heat transfer characteristics of
spray cooling. They found that the optimum spray height H for the most
efficient cooling is less than the height required to cover the entire
heater area. Hou et al. [15] numerically simulated cooling heat transfer
at varying spray heights H using the CFD (Computational Fluid Dy-
namics) method. As spray height H increases, heat flux q first increases
and then decreases. Chen et al. [16] studied the effects of nozzle outlet
diameter, total water flux Mw, total, and spray height H on surface
temperature distribution Ts and heat flux q. Zhou et al. [17] found that
for the same nozzle, the best heat transfer performance appears under
critical height H. Experiments by Mudawar et al. [18] indicated that
optimum nozzle height is achieved when the spray area covers the
cooling wall. Tao et al. [19] conducted the non-boiling spray cooling
experiment with two nozzles. They found that increasing water flux Mw,
total or lowering the liquid inlet temperature Tw significantly increased
the heat transfer coefficient. An optimum nozzle to surface distance H
maximizes the heat transfer coefficient.
From the review of literatures [11–13], there are different conclu-
sions about the effect of water temperature on spray cooling heat
transfer. Therefore, the core of this paper is to figure out the correlation
between heat flux q and spray temperature Tw under certain conditions
by experimental means. Nozzle height H and local water flux Mw are
taken into consideration as well. In order to obtain heat flux q of cooling
surface, a 2D inverse heat conduction problem is solved and the result is
compared with that of the 1D model.
2. Experiment setup and principle
The experiment apparatus is shown in Fig. 2, and it includes a
constant temperature water tank, water pump, pressure gauge, and
valve, as well as a spray nozzle, a target aluminum alloy cylinder, an
electric heating furnace, a controller for tank and furnace, and a tem-
perature acquisition computer.
The heating component is connected by dashed lines. The compo-
nent consists of a target aluminum alloy cylinder, an electric heating
furnace, a controller for tank and furnace, and a temperature acquisi-
tion computer. While furnace temperature could be precisely set to
2
Applied Thermal Engineering 169 (2020) 114928
λ Thermal conductivity W·m−1·°C−1
Cp Specific heat capacity J·kg−1·°C−1
z Axial coordinate m
r Radial coordinate m
τ Time s
Tfluid Temperature of heat exchange medium °C
ks Heat conduction coefficient W·m−1·K−1
ρs Density kg·m−3
T Work piece temperature °C
hequ Heat convection coefficient W·m−2·K−1
A Cooling surface area m−2
Ts,ave Average cooling surface temperature °C
qave Average heat flux W·m−2
375 °C, after waiting for two hours or more, temperature of aluminum
specimen will stabilize at around 315 °C. In the experiment, it is basis
for determining the temperature stability that the amount of tempera-
ture change within half an hour is no more than 0.3 °C. Five K-type
thermocouples (TJC36-CASS-020E-12, made by Omega, USA) are used
to measure the temperature of the specimen. These sensors are inserted
in holes and are evenly arranged in the radial direction of the work
piece.
Fig. 3 shows the size of the specimen and the depth that the ther-
mocouples could reach. The 1 mm-high rib on cylinder top was spe-
cially manufactured to be fixed easily on the furnace. The temperature
acquisition computer (NI PXIe-1078 with NI TB-4353 card) accurately
recorded subtle temperature variations for each thermocouple 80 times
per second.
The specimen shown in Fig. 3 was made of 7075 aluminum alloy.
Tables 1–3 show the elemental composition, thermal conductivity, and
specific heat capacity via temperature, respectively.
The water supply system is connected by solid lines. The system
includes a constant temperature water tank, a water pump, pressure
gauge, and valve, and a spray nozzle.
The temperature of the spray is controlled by an insulated water
tank. A nozzle with a 0.3 mm hole is used in the experiment to provide
a water spray with a radius of 24 mm and a cone angle of 32.6°. Fig. 1
shows that the nozzle height H decreased from 12.3 to 4.3 cm. Local
water flux Mw changed from 0.409 to 1.020 mg·s−1·mm−2.
The water tank provided a certain water temperature. In the present
work, there are six water temperatures: 5, 15, 25, 35, 55, 75 °C. Due to
the heat dissipation problem of the external pipe, exact water tem-
perature measured at spray nozzle outlet is lied in Table 4. Water
temperature data are measured by a thermometer (TESTO 104-IR)
within an error range of ± 1 °C.
Table 4 shows water temperature Tw, local water flux Mw, and en-
vironment temperature Tg. Each experiment is repeated three or four
times, and the data indicated minimal differences. This phenomenon is
normal for many experiments and not caused by the instrument. For
example, Experiment A5, which is a set of quenching experiments, is
Fig. 1. Influence of nozzle height H on local water flux Mw.
C. Zhu, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 169 (2020) 114928

Fig. 2. Water spray system apparatus for the experiment.

repeated thrice. Water temperature is recorded at 38.1 °C, 38.7 °C, and Table 1
38.8 °C each time. The average is 38.5 °C and variation range is 0.4 °C, Elemental composition of 7075 aluminum alloy.
and is written as 38.5 ± 0.4 °C. Si Fe Cu Mn Mg Cr Zn Ti else Al
The data on environment temperature Tg for A4, A5, and A6 is lost
and replaced by estimated value. 0.40 0.50 1.2–2.0 0.3 2.1–2.9 0.18–0.28 5.1–6.1 0.20 0.15 last

3. Mathematical models
Table 2
Thermal conductivity λ of 7075 aluminum alloy vary with temperature.
As shown in Fig. 3, the specimen has five temperature measurement
points. Here, the 2D inverse heat conduction method is employed for T(°C) 25 50 100 125 150 200

data analysis. The solution of the 2D inverse heat conduction problem λ(W·m −1
·K −1
) 124 128 142 147 157 170
involves the calculation of the 2D positive heat conduction problem.
For the 2D heat conduction problem, the control equation is as shown
in Eq. (1). Table 3
Specific heat capacity Cp of 7075 aluminum alloy vary with temperature.
1 ∂ ⎛ ∂T ⎞ ∂ ⎛ ∂T ⎞ ∂T
rk s + ks = ρs Cp . T(°C) 25 50 100 150 175 200
r ∂r ⎝ ∂r ⎠ ∂z ⎝ ∂z ⎠ ∂τ (1)

The initial conditions are shown in Eq (2) and boundary conditions Cp (J·kg−1·K−1) 796 879 921 963 994 1005

in Eqs. (3)–(5).
T = f (r , z ). (2)

While r = 0, 0 ≤ z ≤ Dp; r = Rp, 0 ≤ z ≤ Dp:

Fig. 3. Specimen and thermocouple position.

3
C. Zhu, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 169 (2020) 114928

Table 4
Water temperature Tw, local water flux Mw, and environment temperature Tg.
(a) H = 12.3 cm

Number Water temperature Tw °C Local water flux Mw mg·s−1·mm−2 Environment temperature Tg °C

A1 8.3 ± 0.4 0.421 ± 0.012 17.6 ± 2.3

A2 14.1 ± 0.2 0.411 ± 0.001 16.2 ± 1.1
A3 20.7 ± 0.3 0.397 ± 0.001 15.0 ± 0.2
A4 26.8 ± 0.2 0.395 ± 0.006 17.4 ± 1.3 (estimated value)
A5 38.5 ± 0.4 0.388 ± 0.005 16.8 ± 1.1 (estimated value)
A6 50.9 ± 0.7 0.387 ± 0.010 17.2 ± 0.9 (estimated value)

(b) H = 4.3 cm
Number Water temperature Tw °C Local water flux Mw mg·s−1·mm−2 Environment temperature Tg °C

B1 8.6 ± 0.2 1.011 ± 0.025 16.8 ± 1.2

B2 14.5 ± 0.7 0.903 ± 0.054 16.1 ± 0.8
B3 21.3 ± 0.3 0.865 ± 0.011 17.8 ± 1.1
B4 36.8 ± 0.4 0.836 ± 0.011 17.2 ± 0.2
B5 46.8 ± 0.4 0.807 ± 0.023 17.0 ± 0.4

∂T measurement points of r = 4 mm and r = 8 mm are covered by the

= 0.
∂r (3) spray. The heat flux is large in the place covered by the spray (S1 and
S2) and small in the place not covered by the spray (S3, S4, and S5).
While z = 0, 0 ≤ r ≤ Rp:
The 1D inverse heat conduction model fails to reflect the distribu-
∂T
= 0. tion of heat flux in spray cooling heat transfer, whereas the 2D inverse
∂z (4) heat conduction model reflects the effect of local water flux Mw on the
distribution of heat flux q. While there is water spray, heat flux is high;
While z = Dp, 0 ≤ r ≤ Rp:
while there is no water spray, heat flux is low. Thereby, the result of the
∂T 2D inverse heat conduction model is more reliable. It is because, due to
− ks = hequ (T − Tfluid ).
∂z (5) uneven cooling, there is a temperature difference inside the specimen in
the lateral direction. So there exists not only heat flux perpendicular to
Based on the abovementioned equations, the 2D inverse heat con-
the cooling surface of the specimen, but also inside the specimen, there
duction problem can be constructed to solve the temperature and heat
is heat flux (lateral heat flux) parallel to the cooling surface. While 1D
flux of the cooling surface by the method described by Ozisik and
inverse problem does not take lateral heat flux into account.
Orlande [20].
The results discussed in the following Section 4 are based on the
A 1D inverse heat conduction model [21] is built simultaneously to
solution of 2D inverse heat conduction problem.
analyze data. This model can also obtain the distribution of heat flux q
at each measuring point. Hence, this paper analyzes the same working
condition in 1D and 2D measures methods. 4. Analysis of results
The cooling surface is divided into several parts according to the
position of measurement points shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 7 shows the measured temperature at various radiuses in the
Fig. 4 divides the cooling surface temperature into five parts, each first experiment of A4. Nozzle height is 12.3 cm and water temperature
contains a measurement point. The calculated cooling surface tem- is 27.0 °C. According to Figs. 1 and 4, the spray covers the range of S1 to
perature Ts and heat flux q of r = 4 mm are considered suitable for the S5, which contain all five measurement points. The temperature dif-
range of S1. S1 is a circular surface with a radius of 6 mm. The calcu- ference is not more than 10 °C. Temperature slightly rose when radial
lated cooling surface temperature Ts and heat flux q of r = 8 mm are coordinate increases. Macroscopically, temperature is basically un-
considered suitable for the range of S2. S2 is a ring with an inner dia- changed until the 5 s when the spray starts production. Temperature
meter of 6 mm and an outer diameter of 10 mm. When nozzle height H then sharply decreased when boiling heat transfer occurs, which lasts
is 4.3 mm, the spray can cover S1 and S2, which contain the mea- for 26 s. When the specimen continues to cool down, the spray water
surement points of r = 4 mm and r = 8 mm, respectively. When nozzle
height H is 12.3 mm, the spray can cover S1 to S5, which all have the
five measurement points.
Experiment B1 is repeated four times. Four heat flux curves ob-
tained by four experiments, and there are small differences between
these curves. Here for brief, only the fourth experiment is chosen to
compare the results of 1D and 2D inverse heat conduction problems.
Water temperature Tw is 8.7 °C, local water flux Mw is 0.9867 mg·s−1
mm−2, and nozzle height H is 4.3 cm. The spray can covers S1 and S2,
which contain the measurement points of r = 4 mm and r = 8 mm. This
condition has a lower nozzle height which is helpful to distinguish the
distribution of heat flux.
Figs. 5 and 6 show the heat flux curve obtained by the 1D and 2D
inverse heat conduction problems.
Fig. 5 shows slight differences in heat flux q across the five mea-
surement points. However, in Fig. 6, the heat flux q of the two mea-
surement points (r = 4 mm and r = 8 mm) increased. The maximum
heat flux q is nearly 800000 W·m−2. As previously discussed, only the Fig. 4. Cooling surface sketch.

4
C. Zhu, et al.
Fig. 5. Heat flux q obtained by solving the 1D inverse problem.
Fig. 6. Heat flux q obtained by solving the 2D inverse problem.
Fig. 7. Measured temperature T of specimen at different radiuses.
accumulates and gradually occupies the cooling surface. The tempera-
ture drop slows down as natural convection replaces boiling. Given that
this paper focused on boiling heat transfer, data points after 35 sec are
neglected.
Then temperature of cooling surface can be obtained by solving 2D
5
Applied Thermal Engineering 169 (2020) 114928
inverse heat conduction problems, as Fig. 8 shows. The maximum
temperature difference between the five measuring points does not
exceed 6 °C. The closer to the measurement point of r = 4 mm, the
lower the cooling surface temperature Ts is except for the measurement
point of r = 20 mm.
Simultaneously, heat flux q of specimen is obtained in Fig. 9. The
whole quenching progress can be divided into natural convection
(0–5 s), film boiling and transition boiling (5–24 s) and nuclear boiling
(after 24 s). It should be emphasized that this is only a roughly division.
The curves of Heat flux q vs. surface temperature Ts at different
radiuses are shown in Fig. 10.
In Fig. 10, during the boiling heat transfer, when cooling surface
temperature is between 105 °C and 300 °C, the closer to the stagnation
point, the larger the heat flux q is. The maximum heat flux is nearly
5.1 × 105 W·m−2, when cooling surface temperature Ts is around
115 °C. Heat flux q drops rapidly when the temperature is below 100 °C
because natural convection replaces boiling heat transfer.
To express the cooling effect of the entire cooling surface, area
weighted average cooling surface temperature Ts,ave and area weighted
average heat flux qave are used. The calculation method is shown in
equations (6) and (7).
∫ Ts dA
Ts,ave = .
A (6)
∫ qdA
qave = .
A (7)
Fig. 11 shows the average heat flux qave with average cooling sur-
face temperature Ts,ave.
The experiment was repeated thrice under the same working con-
dition, and multiple results are shown in Fig. 12. The curves fit the
natural convection well, but some fluctuations exist in the boiling heat
transfer.
After making an average of three sets of curves, a new curve is
obtained to describe the entire heat exchange on the cooling surface of
the specimen, which is shown in Fig. 13. This is the average result of the
curves in Fig. 12.
The average heat flux qave under different conditions (refer to
Table 4) could be obtained according to the foregoing method. Fig. 14
shows experimental results of A1–A6, and Fig. 15 presents experimental
results of B1–B5.
In Figs. 14 and 15, regardless of nozzle height H and local water flux
Mw, when the average cooling surface temperature Ts,ave of the spe-
cimen is between 100 °C and 250 °C, average heat flux qave increases as
Fig. 8. Cooling surface temperature Ts at different radiuses.
C. Zhu, et al.
Fig. 9. Heat flux q of specimen at different radiuses.
Fig. 10. Heat flux q with cooling surface temperature Ts at different radiuses.
Fig. 11. Average heat flux qave for once experiment.
water temperature Tw increases. Hence, the higher the temperature of
the quenching medium, the better the cooling effect. When the cooling
surface temperature is below 100 °C, natural convection replaces the
boiling heat transfer and the distribution of average heat flux qave be-
comes messy.
In Figs. 14 and 15, the higher the spray temperature is, the better
6
Applied Thermal Engineering 169 (2020) 114928
Fig. 12. Thrice results of average heat flux qave under same condition.
Fig. 13. Average heat flux qave under same contdition.
the quenching is, which contradicts common sense. However, this effect
could be explained by the Hertz-Knudsen-Langmuir Equation [22].
1
M 2 ⎛ Pg P ⎞
jnet = ⎛ ⎞ − l ⎟,
⎝ 2πR ⎠ ⎜⎝ Tg Tl
⎠ (8)
where jnet is net evaporation molecular mass flow rate; M is molar mass
and R is gas constant; Pg is gas pressure and Tg is gas temperature; Pl is
liquid saturation pressure and Tl is liquid temperature. When jnet. > 0,
condensation occurs and when jnet. < 0, evaporation occurs. Boiling is
evidently a category of evaporation.
Fig. 16 shows the net evaporation molecular mass flow rate calcu-
lated by Eq. (8). In Eq. (8), when jnet. is a negative value, evaporation
occurs. The absolute value of jnet increases as water temperature Ts
increases. Thus, higher water temperature provides greater evaporation
and heat flux q as well.
To visually compare the heat flux of Figs. 14 and 15, the average
heat flux qave is expressed at the same average temperature of Ts,ave
cooling surface in the same experimental condition.
As water starts to boil at 105 °C [23] under standard atmospheric
pressure, the curves of the average heat flux vs. spray temperature at
average temperature of cooling surface 105 °C is shown in Fig. 17.
In Fig. 17, the average heat flux increases as water temperature
rises, and this trends does not change when the local water flux
changed. And these two curves also indicates that: when nozzle height
C. Zhu, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 169 (2020) 114928

Fig. 14. Average heat flux qave under different conditions (A1 to A6).

H is 4.3 cm, heat flux q becomes twice as big as H is 12.3 cm, which
suggests that larger local water flux Mw benefits the boiling heat
transfer of the specimen.

5. Conclusion

A series of spray cooling experiments were carried out to obtain the

temperature Ts and heat flux q of the specimen’s cooling surface by
solving the 1D and 2D inverse heat conduction problem. The conclu-
sions from the foregoing analysis are summarized as follows:

(1) The 1D inverse heat conduction model fails to reflect the distribu-
tion of heat flux in spray cooling heat transfer because lateral heat
flux is ignored. The 2D model reflects the effect of local water flux
Mw on the heat flux q distribution.
(2) The increasing of local water flux Mw enhances the boiling heat
transfer.
(3) Under present experimental conditions, the heat flux q rises with
increasing water temperature Tw, when the cooling surface tem- Fig. 16. Net evaporation molecular mass flow rate under different spray tem-
perature Ts is between 100 °C and 250 °C. perature.
(4) In particular, regardless of how local water flux Mw changes, the
average heat flux of 105 °C and water temperature are positively
related.
(5) The 2D model accurately predicts the effect of local water flux on
heat flux distribution, while 1D model fails to do so, because the

Fig. 15. Average heat flux qave under different conditions (B1 to B5).

7
C. Zhu, et al.
Fig. 17. Average heat flux vs. spray temperature at average cooling surface
temperature of 105 °C.
lateral heat flux was neglected in 1D model.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The project is supported by Beijing Municipal Natural Science
Foundation (Grant No. 3192023).
References
[1] Azzam S. Salman, Nabeel M. Abdulrazzaq, Saad K. Oudah, Amitav Tikadar,
Noble Anumbe, Titan C. Paul, Jamil A. Khan, Experimental investigation of the
impact of geometrical surface modification on spray cooling heat transfer perfor-
mance in the non-boiling regime, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 133 (2019) 330–340
ISSN 0017-9310.
[2] X. Kong, L. Lan, Z. Hu, B. Li, T. Sui, Optimization of mechanical properties of high
strength bainitic steel using thermo-mechanical control and accelerated cooling
process, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 217 (2015) 202–210.
Applied Thermal Engineering 169 (2020) 114928
[3] S. Tang, Z. Liu, G. Wang, R. Misra, Microstructural evolution and mechanical
properties of high strength microalloyed steels: Ultra Fast Cooling (UFC) versus
Accelerated Cooling (ACC), Mater. Sci. Eng., A 580 (2013) 257–265.
[4] S. Endo, N. Nakata, Development of thermo-mechanical control process (TMCP)
and high performance steel in JFE steel, JFE Techn. Rep. 20 (2015) 1–7.
[5] Y. Serizawa, S. Nakagawa, Y.K.R. Yamamoto, H. Ueno, Y. Haraguchi, H.T.T. Iwaki,
T. Oda, Plate Cooling Technology for the Thermo Mechanical Control Process
(TMCP) in Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation.
[6] I. Robinson, M. Hulley, Control of plate thermomechanical properties using
MULPIC plate cooling technology, AIS Tech, 2013.
[7] Lily, A.R. Pati, A. Panda, B. Munshi, S.S. Mohapatra, A. Saha, B. Behera, High mass
flux spray quenching on an inclined surface: A novel methodology for the attain-
ment of enhanced uniform cooling with unaltered surface morphology in transition
boiling regime, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 131 (2019) 11–30 ISSN 0017-9310.
[8] J. Wendelstorf, K.-H. Spitzer, R. Wendelstorf, Spray water cooling heat transfer at
high temperatures and liquid mass fluxes, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 51 (19–20)
(2008) 4902–4910 ISSN 0017-9310.
[9] Samarshi Chakraborty, Ishita Sarkar, Asmit Roshan, Surjya K. Pal,
Sudipto Chakraborty, Spray cooling of hot steel plate using aqueous solution of
surfactant and polymer, Therm. Sci. Eng. Progress 10 (2019) 217–231 ISSN 2451-
9049.
[10] Wen-Long Cheng, Wei-Wei Zhang, Li-Jia Jiang, Shuang-Long Yang, Hu Lei,
Hua Chen, Experimental investigation of large area spray cooling with compact
chamber in the non-boiling regime, Appl. Therm. Eng. 80 (2015) 160–167 ISSN
1359-4311.
[11] Ni Liu, Taijie Zhan, Chunfang Hong, Influence of pressure parameters on heat
transfer performance of spray cooling, Electron. Compon. Mater. 315 (05) (2018)
106–111 v.37.
[12] Qinie Liu, Experimental study on heat transfer and system simulation of spray
cooling, University of Science and Technology of China, 2009.
[13] Ji-Xiang Wang, Yun-Ze Li, Yu Xi-Kui, Guang-Chao Li, Xin-Yan Ji, Investigation of
heat transfer mechanism of low environmental pressure large-space spray cooling
for near-space flight systems, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 119 (2018) 496–507 ISSN
0017-9310.
[14] Xuan Gao, Ri Li, Effects of nozzle positioning on single-phase spray cooling, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transf. 115 (2017).
[15] Y. Hou, Y. Tao, X. Huai, et al., Numerical simulation of multi-nozzle spray cooling
heat transfer, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 125 (2018) 81–88.
[16] Hua Chen, Wen-long Cheng, Yu-hang Peng, Wei-wei Zhang, Li-jia Jiang,
Experimental study on optimal spray parameters of piezoelectric atomizer based
spray cooling, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 103 (2016) 57–65 ISSN 0017-9310.
[17] Nianyong Zhou, Fujiang Chen, Yuchun Cao, Mengmeng Chen, Yu Wang,
Experimental investigation on the performance of a water spray cooling system,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 112 (2017) 1117–1128 ISSN 1359-4311.
[18] K. Mudawar, Estes Optimizing and predicting CHF in spray cooling of a square
surface ASME, J. Heat Transf. 118 (1996) 672–679.
[19] Yujia Tao, Xiulan Huai, Lei Wang, Zhixiong Guo, Experimental characterization of
heat transfer in non-boiling spray cooling with two nozzles, Appl. Therm. Eng. 31
(10) (2011) 1790–1797 ISSN 1359-4311.
[20] M. Necati Ozisik, Helcio R.B. Orlande, Inverse heat transfer: fundamentals and
applications, Taylor & Francis, 2000.
[21] Ruifeng Dou, Huijie Yang, Tianran Ge, et al. Analysis of calculation accuracy of
measurement error for inverse heat conduction problem (in Chinese), 2015.
[22] Zunjing Wang, Molecular dynamics research and experiment of evaporation and
condensation, Tsinghua University, 2002.
[23] Y.A. Cengel, Heat Transfer—A Practical Approach, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2010.