International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 133 (2019) 548–560

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

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

Pool boiling of HFE-7200 on nanoparticle-coating surfaces: Experiments

and heat transfer analysis
Zhen Cao a, Zan Wu a, Anh-Duc Pham a,b, Yanjie Yang a,c, Sahar Abbood a, Peter Falkman b,
Tautgirdas Ruzgas b, Cathrine Albèr b, Bengt Sundén a,⇑
a
Department of Energy Sciences, Lund University, Box 118, SE-22100 Lund, Sweden
b
Department of Biomedical Science, Malmö University, SE-205 06 Malmö, Sweden
c
College of Aerospace Science and Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha 410073, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the present study, an electrophoretic deposition method was employed to modify copper surfaces with
Received 4 June 2018 Cu-Zn (
100 nm) nanoparticles. Pool boiling heat transfer of HFE-7200 on the modified surfaces was
Received in revised form 18 December 2018 experimentally studied. The results showed that the heat transfer coefficient on the modified surfaces
Accepted 21 December 2018
was significantly enhanced compared with that on a smooth surface, e.g., a maximum 100% enhance-
Available online 29 December 2018
ment, while the maximum superheat on the modified surfaces was around 20 K lower than that on
the smooth surface. However, the critical heat flux (CHF) was not improved considerably, and supple-
Keywords:
mentary tests indicated that the wickability of HFE-7200 was almost the same on the modified surfaces
Pool boiling
Heat transfer
and the smooth surface. The departure diameters of bubbles were recorded by a high speed camera,
Nanoparticle which were compared with several models in literature. Active nucleation site sizes were evaluated by
Bubble dynamics the Hsu nucleation theory and active nucleation site densities were estimated by appropriate correla-
tions. In addition, a heat transfer model, considering natural convection, re-formation of thermal bound-
ary layer and microlayer evaporation, was formulated to predict the heat transfer on the modified
surfaces and the smooth surface. A relatively good prediction was achieved.
Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction machining [12], laser machining [13–15], electrodeposition

High-heat-flux surfaces widely exist in many applications, e.g.,
power plants, electronics and refrigeration systems [1]. Accord-
ingly, cooling is of great importance for these applications to oper-
ate normally. Up to date, many cooling approaches have been
developed, like single-phase cooling, jet impingement cooling,
spray cooling, heat pipes, indirect cooling with phase change mate-
rials, and flow and pool boiling [2]. Pool boiling is one of the
promising methods, which can dissipate high heat fluxes with
low superheats. The performance of pool boiling is associated with
the interactions between surfaces and liquids, e.g., roughness and
wettability. Therefore, many efforts have been paid to surface
modifications for pool boiling enhancement. Numerous micro
structures have been processed on boiling surfaces, e.g., micro
pin fins [3,4], micro pillars [5], micro channels [6], copper foams
[7,8] and microporous coatings [9,10], while various techniques
have been applied, e.g., sintering [11], wire electrical discharge
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bengt.sunden@energy.lth.se (B. Sundén).
[9,10,16,17] and composite methods [18]. In these studies, differ-
ent liquids were tested, including water [3,5–9,12,13,16–18], etha-
nol [3], n-pentane [7,15], acetone [11] and dielectric liquids, e.g.,
FC-72 [3,14] and PF-5060 [10]. All these studies indicated that both
the heat transfer coefficient and critical heat flux were augmented.
The mechanisms could be summarized as: i) the increase of heat
transfer area, ii) the increase of active nucleation sites, iii) surface
wettability and iv) bubble dynamics modulation, e.g., large bubble
departure frequency.
With the progress in nano technologies, surface modifications
with nano structures have caught the attention all over the world.
According to the Hsu nucleation theory [19], the conditions that
cavities can be activated depend on the wettability and the sizes
of the cavities. Nano structures, on one hand, change the wettabil-
ity, especially for water, e.g., smaller static contact angle of
water on nanotextured surfaces [20,21]; On the other hand,
nanostructures create more cavities that can be activated [2,22].
At present, various nano technologies have been used, e.g., electro-
spraying [2,20,23], electroplating [24,25], electrostatic deposition
[26], chemical vapor deposition [27,28] and electron beam physical
vapor deposition [29,30], layer-by-layer deposition [31]. Sinha-Ray

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2018.12.140
0017-9310/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Z. Cao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 133 (2019) 548–560
Nomenclature
Ac cross section area of the microcapillary tube, (m2)
CHF critical heat flux, (W/cm2)
Cpl specific heat of liquid, (J/kgK)
D diameter of the test surfaces, (m)
Dd bubble departure diameter, (m)
Di diameter of bubble influenced area, (m) Di = 2Dd
EPD electrophoretic deposition
f bubble departure frequency, (s1)
g acceleration of gravity, (m/s2)
hnc heat transfer coefficient in natural convection, (W/m2K)
Dh liquid height drop, (m)
HTC heat transfer coefficient, (W/cm2K)
ifg latent heat, (J/kg)
Ja⁄ modified Jacob number, ql Cpl(Tw - Tf)/(qvifg),
Na active nucleation site density, (sites/m2)
P liquid pressure, (N/m2)
Pr Prandtl number
q heat flux, (W/m2)
R radii of nucleation cavities, (m)
Ra roughness, (m)
SS smooth surface
t time, (s)
td bubble departure time, (s)
T temperature, (K)
Tw temperature of the boiling surface, (K)
Tsat saturated temperature, (K)
et al. [2] compared pool boiling of water and HFE-7300 on copper
surfaces with nano fibers. The results indicated that the experi-
ments with water did not show as strong enhancement of the heat
transfer coefficient as the experiments with HFE-7300, because the
size of HFE-7300 bubbles is smaller and thus affected by the nano
structures. The heat transfer enhancement was due to the increase
of active nucleation sites. Sahu et al. [25] analyzed pool boiling of
HFE-7300 and self-rewetting fluid on surfaces with nanofibers, and
the pool boiling performance i.e., heat transfer coefficient and crit-
ical heat flux, were improved considerably. Jo et al. [23,24], Cao
et al. [26], Jaikumar et al. [27] and Dharmendra et al. [28] studied
pool boiling of water on nano-structured surfaces, in which both
the heat transfer coefficient and critical heat flux were enhanced,
while Das et al. [29,30] reported an enhancement of heat transfer
in water without reaching the critical heat flux. In these studies,
generally, the mechanism about heat transfer enhancement was
contributed to more active nucleation sites and faster bubble
departure due to the nanostructures. However, a quantitative anal-
ysis about the active nucleation site density of nano-structured
surfaces is still lacking, even though a few studies are already avail-
able [20,32]. Regarding the critical heat flux enhancement, the
mechanisms were classified as (i) the small contact angle and cap-
illarity [23,24,26], (ii) large contact angle hysteresis [27] and (iii)
the increase in the effective surface area for heat transfer [28].
Especially, Jaikumar et al. [27] compared the mechanisms of
enhanced pool boiling performance on microscale and nanoscale
coated surfaces, which indicated that larger critical heat fluxes
were due to contact angle hysteresis, roughness and enhanced
microlayer evaporation on microscale coated surfaces, and contact
angle hysteresis on nanoscale coating surfaces. Although, numer-
ous studies about pool boiling on nano-structured surfaces have
been carried out, quantitative analyses to illustrate the mecha-
nisms of the enhanced pool boiling performance are still few. In
addition, water is the most common working liquid in the above
reviewed studies, but in many applications, e.g., electronics, water
is not a suitable option.
549
Vme volume of microlayer, (m3)
V’ absorbed flow rates, (m3/s)
w boiling surface
Greek symbols
a thermal diffusivity of liquid, (m2/s)
b thermal expansion coefficient, (K1)
d thickness of thermal layer, (m)
h static contact angle
k thermal conductivity, (W/mK)
m kinematic viscosity, (m2/s)
q density, kg/m3
r surface tension, N/m
Subscript
c copper
cond conduction
f fluid
l liquid
me microlayer evaporation
nc natural convection
sat saturated
v vapor
w wall or waiting
In the present study, copper surfaces were modified by an elec-
trophoretic deposition method, depositing Cu-Zn alloy nanoparti-
cles (
100 nm, Sigma-Aldrich) on the copper surfaces. Four
modified surfaces were prepared with the nanoparticles of
0.3 mg (EPD-1), 0.6 mg (EPD-2), 0.9 mg (EPD-3) and 1.2 mg (EPD-
4), respectively. Pool boiling of HFE-7200 was experimentally stud-
ied, because this liquid has not been studied widely and it has a
lower global warming potential than many other dielectric liquids,
such as FC-72, HFE-7000, HFE-7100, HFE-7300 and PF5060. This
study tries to give a quantitative analysis of the mechanisms of
enhanced heat transfer on the nanoparticle-coated surfaces, i.e.,
active nucleation site density, bubble departure diameter and bub-
ble departure frequency, and formulate a heat transfer model, con-
sidering natural convection, re-formation of the thermal boundary
layer and microlayer evaporation, in order to predict the heat
transfer on the nanoparticle-coated surfaces based on the previous
quantitative analysis.
2. Experimental method and setup
2.1. Preparations of surfaces
Smooth surfaces were prepared by successive polishing with
sandpapers of grit P220, P600, P1000, P1500 and P2000. Then,
the surfaces were cleaned by an ultrasonic bath with acetone (20
min) and ethanol (5 min), then flushed with DI water and dried
at the end. Cu-Zn nanoparticles were dispersed in water by the
ultrasonic bath for two hours, with a concentration of 20 mg/ml.
Then the desired amount of solution was dropped in ethanol where
an electric field was applied. The nanoparticles could then be
deposited on smooth surfaces due to the electric field. By zetapo-
tential analysis, the Cu-Zn nanoparticle is positively charged and
the nanoparticles move to the cathode which is the smooth copper
surface. In the present study, the electrophoretic deposition was
implemented for 30 min on each surface with a voltage of 9.5 V.
550 Z. Cao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 133 (2019) 548–560
Table 1
Test surfaces.
Surface Weight of nanoparticles (mg) Estimated thickness of nano-coating (nm)
SS * *
EPD-1 0.3 443
EPD-2 0.6 886
EPD-3 0.9 1329
EPD-4 1.2 1772
Four modified surfaces were prepared with 0.3 mg, 0.6 mg, 0.9 mg
and 1.2 mg nanoparticles, namely EPD-1, EPD-2, EPD-3 and EPD-4,
respectively. Table 1 summarizes the information of the test sur-
faces, e.g., the thickness of the nanoparticle-coating, roughness
and contact angle. The thickness was estimated assuming a hexag-
onal packing of nanoparticles. The roughness was measured by a
3D optical profiler (Dektak 6 M). Because the coating is not exactly
uniform, the roughness was averaged with 10 measured values for
every surface. The contact angle was measured by an in-house
developed setup with an uncertainty of around ± 10%.
Fig. 1 provides SEM images of the smooth surface (SS) and the
nanoparticle-coated surface (EPD-2). Because the morphology of
the four modified surfaces is quite similar, only EPD-2 is shown
here. Additionally, EDX analysis was conducted to compare the
chemical elements before and after the experiments. As shown in
Fig. 1(a), some cavities and scratches exist on the smooth surface,
which are preferable locations for nucleation. However, many of
them are around several tens of nanometers, which probably are
too small for nucleation according to the Laplace equation and
the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. However, on the modified sur-
face as shown in Fig. 1(b), numerous porous structures appear. A
Fig. 1. Surface characterization including SEM and EDX: (a) smooth surface before experiments, (b) EPD-2 before experiments, (c) EPD-2 after experiments.
Roughness Ra (nm) Contact angle (h)
108.6
540.5
549.8
1276.4
1434.9
large number of cavities from several hundreds of nanometers to
several micrometers can been seen. This size range is preferable
for nucleation. Considering EDX, oxygen was detected on the
smooth surface besides copper (see Fig. 1(a)). This is because cop-
per easily oxidizes. The EDX before and after the experiments is
compared in Fig. 1(b) and Fig. 1(c), from which no apparent differ-
ences can be detected.
2.2. Experimental apparatus and test section
Fig. 2(a) provides the components of the setup, including a
heating system, a temperature control system and a data acquisi-
tion system. The heating system has a transformer (KIEA 8, Tufvas-
sons Transformator), two digital meters, five cartridge heaters
(CIR-10121, OMEGA) and a copper rod. The cooling system
involves a temperature controller (MAXVU16), an auxiliary heater
and a cooler to provide a saturated state. The data acquisition sys-
tem consists of a data acquisition board (Agilent 34970A), a high
speed camera (Phantom v611) and a computer. Additionally, a ves-
sel made of optic glass works as the boiling chamber. The size of
the vessel is 100 mm  100 mm  300 mm in length, width and
 Z. Cao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 133 (2019) 548–560
Fig. 2. Schematics of (a) pool boiling facility, (b) heating system and (c) wickability measurement.
height, respectively. The copper rod is covered with PTFE to mini-
mize the heat loss. The heat loss can be neglected in the present
study, which is discussed in details in the supplementary docu-
ment. A relief valve is mounted to provide atmospheric surround-
ings during the experiments. Fig. 2(b) shows details of the copper
rod, i.e., the distribution of the thermocouples and cartridge hea-
ters. The copper rod is a cylinder with a bottom diameter of
60 mm and a top diameter of 12 mm. At the height of 60 mm,
the diameter of the rod transits smoothly from 60 mm to 12 mm
with an angle of 135°. To evaluate the heat flux (q) and the boiling
surface temperature (Tw), four K-type thermocouples are mounted
on the rod vertically with 15 mm intervals and a K-type thermo-
couple is embedded in the test substrate at 8 mm from the boiling
surface. The test substrate has a height of 10 mm and a diameter of
Table 2
Properties of HFE-7200 at the saturated state, T = 349.15 K.
ql (kg/m3) qv (kg/m3) r (mN/m) ifg (kJ/kg)
1303 10.3 9.2 119
551
12 mm. A tin paste (BERA-FIX soldering paste) is used to solder the
test substrate on the copper rod. Five cartridge heaters (CIR-10121
from OMEGA) are inserted into the bottom of the rod to heat it up.
The distribution of the heaters is also shown in Fig. 2(b), with one
in the center surrounded by the other four symmetrically. The dis-
tance between the central one and the others is 17 mm.
2.3. Experimental procedure
Saturated pool boiling of HFE-7200 was studied. About 1 L HFE-
7200 was poured in the boiling vessel and vigorously boiled for
half an hour to degas non-condensable gases. The properties of
HFE-7200 at the saturated state are shown in Table 2. During the
experiments, the voltage was increased by 3 V in each case until
kl (W/mK) Cpl (J/kgK) m (mm2/s) b (K1)
0.0555 1220 0.26688 0.0016
552 Z. Cao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 133 (2019) 548–560
the critical heat flux (CHF) was reached, i.e., when an abrupt
increase of the temperatures appeared. All data were collected at
a steady state when the recorded temperatures deviated within
±0.2 °C during 5 min. For each run, it took around 40 min to reach
steady state and the temperatures recorded during 2 min were
averaged as the final results. The experiments were repeated three
times with an interval of 24 h between two experiments. Consis-
tent with [33], the nanoparticle-coated surfaces performed the
best in the experiments of the first time. However, after the exper-
iments of the first time for typically 8–10 h, the nanoparticle coat-
ing becomes conditioned and the boiling curves are reproducible.
Therefore, only the results of the second time are shown in the fol-
lowing analysis. More details about the repeatability and durability
of the test surfaces are available in the supplementary document.
2.4. Data reduction and uncertainty analysis
The one-dimensional Fourier law is employed to calculate the
heat flux (q). According to the recorded temperatures, T1, T2, T3
and T4, the heat flux can be expressed as
T4  T1
q ¼ kc
3y1
where y1 = 15 mm is the distance between two neighboring thermo-
couples and kc = 400 W/mK is the thermal conductivity of copper.
Accordingly, the boiling surface temperature Tw is estimated as
follow
q  y2
Tw ¼ T5 
kc
where y2 = 8 mm is the distance between the thermocouple T5 and
the boiling surface.
The liquid temperature Tf is measured by the thermocouple T6,
then the heat transfer coefficient (HTC) is calculated as
q Obviously, the boiling curves of the nanoparticle-coated surfaces
HTC ¼
Tw  Tf
Here, the uncertainties of heat flux (q) and heat transfer coefficient
(HTC) mainly come from the uncertainty of temperature measure-
ment and tolerances of manufacturing. The uncertainty of the K-
type thermocouples is ±0.2 °C, while the tolerance of the space
between thermocouples is estimated as ±0.2 mm. Then the uncer-
tainties of q and HTC were estimated using the uncertainty analysis
method in [34]. The uncertainty in the result F is a function of the
independent variables Xi and written as
F ¼ FðX i Þ
The uncertainty of F is expressed as
"  2 #1=2
X
n
@F
dF ¼ dX i
@X i
i¼1
where dF=@X i and dX i are the sensitivity coefficient and uncertainty
level associated with the variable Xi. dX i was obtained by a root-
mean square combination of the precision uncertainty of the instru-
ments and the unsteadiness uncertainty. dF=@X i represents the
measurement resolution, instrumentation variance, geometric
uncertainty, substrate conduction loss and calibration error. The
variable Xi to be included in the calculation of the total uncertainty
level of F depends on the purpose of the analysis. The uncertainties
in the present study are calculated as follows:
The uncertainties of the heat flux (q) and heat transfer coeffi-
cient (HTC) are formulated as:
"
2  2  2 #1=2
dq dT 4 dT 1 dy1
¼ þ þ ð6Þ
q T4  T1 T4  T1 y1
"  2  2 #1=2
y2 q
dT w ¼ ðdT 5 Þ2 þ dq þ dy2 ð7Þ
kc kc
"   2  2 #1=2
dHTC dq
2
dT w dT f
¼ þ þ ð8Þ
HTC q Tw  Tf Tw  Tf
Therefore, the maximum uncertainties of q and HTC are assumed to
occur when (T4 –T1) and (Tw –Tf) are minimum. Because the present
study focuses on boiling heat transfer and the minima of (T4 –T1)
and (Tw –Tf) represent the measured minimum heat flux. Accord-
ingly, the maximum uncertainties of q and HTC are calculated at
the minimum heat flux measured in the nucleate boiling region.
However, it should be noted that the minimum heat flux here does
not mean the incipient heat flux and it is only the first test case
when the nucleate boiling occurs in the experiments. In fact, the
minimum heat flux varies on the smooth surface (SS) and the mod-
ified surfaces (EPDs). The minimum heat fluxes on the SS, EPD-1,
EPD-2, EPD-3 and EPD-4 are 5.33 W/cm2, 3.29 W/cm2,
3.02 W/cm2, 5.60 W/cm2 and 3.56 W/cm2, respectively. Correspond-
ingly, the maximum uncertainties of q on the SS, EPD-1, EPD-2,
ð1Þ
EPD-3 and EPD-4 are 4.9%, 7.8%, 8.4%, 4.7% and 7.2%, respectively,
while the maximum uncertainties of HTC on the SS, EPD-1, EPD-2,
EPD-3 and EPD-4 are 5.1%, 8.1%, 8.8%, 5.2% and 7.5%, respectively.
3. Results and discussion
ð2Þ 3.1. Pool boiling on the nanoparticle-coated surfaces and the smooth
surface
To analyze the effect of nanoparticle coating on nucleate pool
boiling, the boiling curves and heat transfer coefficients of satu-
rated HFE-7200 are illustrated in Fig. 3(a) and (b), respectively.
ð3Þ shift to the left very much compared with the boiling curve of
the smooth surface. The maximum superheats of EPD-1, EPD-2,
EPD-3 and EPD-4 are 18.1 K, 15.4 K, 16.8 K and 18.9 K, respectively,
while the maximum superheat of the smooth surface (SS) is 39.8 K.
However, the CHFs of EPD-1, EPD-2, EPD-3 and EPD-4 are
19.1 W/cm2, 18.6 W/cm2, 19.6 W/cm2 and 18.5 W/cm2, respec-
tively, while the CHF of the SS is 19.2 W/cm2. This indicates that
the CHF of HFE-7200 is not enhanced by the nanoparticle coatings,
probably because HFE-7200 is already superhydrophilic on the
smooth surface with a contact angle of around 24.4° ± 2°. The wet-
ð4Þ tability is not enhanced very much by the nanoparticle coatings.
More discussion about CHF will be provided in the later section.
To provide a more informative and clear picture, the boiling
curves have been redrawn as the heat transfer coefficient (HTC)
ð5Þ versus the heat flux (q), as shown in Fig. 3(b). Evidently, the heat
transfer coefficient of EPD-1, EPD-2, EPD-3 and EPD-4 is much
higher than that of SS at a given heat flux. For example, at
q = 14.2 W/cm2 the heat transfer coefficients of SS, EPD-1, EPD-2,
EPD-3 and EPD-4 are 0.46 W/cm2K, 0.92 W/cm2K, 1.0 W/cm2K,
0.93 W/cm2K and 0.90 W/cm2K, respectively. Thus, the maximum
enhancement of heat transfer is over 100%. This is probably
because of more active nucleation sites and larger effective heat
transfer area on the nanoparticle-coated surfaces. Interestingly,
the performances of EPD-1, EPD-2, EPD-3 and EPD-4 are quite
close, which means the thickness does not affect the heat transfer
remarkably at least on the present test surfaces. However, a larger
thickness has better performance in the studies [29,30], while a
larger thickness induces a larger thermal resistance and degrada-
tion of heat transfer in the study [35]. More discussion about the
mechanisms of heat transfer enhancement will be provided in
the following sections.
 Z. Cao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 133 (2019) 548–560 553

20 3.2.2. Bubble departure diameter

SS To quantitatively compare bubble departure diameters, the
EPD-1
EPD-2
bubble diameters were measured at the isolated-bubble regime.
15 EPD-3 As bubble grows, the buoyancy force eventually overcomes the
EPD-4 other forces, i.e., interfacial tension and viscous drag. With the high
speed visualization, at least five bubbles were detected among 200
q (W/cm )
2

10 images. The bubble diameters were measured by averaging these

bubbles. In the image processing, the diameter of the surface
worked as the calibrated length L = 12 mm which includes various
5 pixels (x) on the various surfaces, depending on the size of view
during the visualization, e.g., the pixels  are 207 pixels and 180
pixels on the SS and EPD-1, respectively. Then, the bubble depar-
0 ture diameter (Dd) can be measured by counting the pixels of the
0 10 20 30 40 bubble (y), which is Dd = (L/x)y. With the method of uncertainty
Tw-Tf(K) analysis in Section 2.4, the uncertainty of Dd can be expressed as
(a)
"   2  2 #1=2
2
dDd dL dx dy
1.5 ¼ þ þ ð9Þ
Dd L x y
SS
EPD-1
1.2 EPD-2 The uncertainties dx and dL were evaluated as ±4 pixels and
EPD-3 ±0.2 mm, respectively. The counted pixels of the bubbles range 3–
HTC (W/cm K)

EPD-4 10 pixels with a maximum uncertainty dy of ±1 pixels. Then the

2

0.9 uncertainty of the bubble departure diameter dDd / Dd can be eval-

0.6
0.3
0.0
0 5 10 15 20
q (W/cm )
2
(b)
Fig. 3. Saturated pool boiling heat transfer of HFE-7200 on the teste surfaces: (a)
boiling curves, and (b) heat transfer coefficients.
3.2. Bubble dynamics
3.2.1. Bubble visualization
Bubble dynamics was visualized by a high speed camera (Phan-
tom v611) with 1280  800 maximum resolution and 1000 Hz fre-
quency. Fig. 4(a–e) shows the bubble visualization on SS, EPD-1,
EPD-2, EPD-3 and EPD-4, respectively, at low, moderate and high
heat fluxes. It is evident that the onset of nucleation on the
nanoparticle-coated surfaces is earlier than on the smooth surface.
As shown in Fig. 4(a) bubble nucleation does not occur on the
smooth surface at q = 3.2 W/cm2, but it occurs on the other four
nanoparticle-coated surfaces at nearly the same heat flux as seen
in Fig. 4(b–e). However, the exact superheat condition when the
incipient boiling appears is not especially detected in the experi-
ments. At a moderate heat flux, the test surfaces are all covered
with bubbles, like q = 8.7 W/cm2 on SS (Fig. 4(a)), q = 7.6 W/cm2
on EPD-1 (Fig. 4(b)), q = 7.8 W/cm2 on EPD-2 (Fig. 4(c)),
q = 7.4 W/cm2 on EPD-3 (Fig. 4(d)) and q = 7.1 W/cm2 on EPD-4
(Fig. 4(e)). For these conditions, most of the bubbles are still iso-
lated and the bubble coalescence is not intensive. In general, the
bubbles on SS have larger departure diameters and lower depar-
ture frequencies than those on the nanoparticle-coated surfaces.
As the heat fluxes increase, bubbles begin to collide and coalesce,
e.g., q = 14.2 W/cm2 on SS (Fig. 4(a)), EPD-1 (Fig. 4(b)) and
EPD-2 (Fig. 4(c)), q = 13.5 W/cm2 on EPD-3 (Fig. 4(d)) and
q = 14.0 W/cm2 on EPD-4 (Fig. 4(e)). The coalesced bubbles depart
from the surfaces almost periodically.
uated with Eq. (9). Based on the uncertainty analysis, the maximum
and minimum uncertainties of the bubble departure diameters are
36.9% and 6.8%, respectively. Fig. 5 compares the bubble departure
diameters on the nanoparticle-coated surfaces and the smooth sur-
face. Apparently, the nanoparticle-coated surfaces have smaller
bubble departure diameters than the smooth surface at a given heat
flux, e.g., the bubble departure diameter on EPD-1 is around 291 mm
at q = 5.0 W/cm2 while the bubble departure diameter on SS is
around 727 mm at q = 5.3 W/cm2.
Up to date, many models have been proposed to predict the
bubble departure diameter in pool boiling. These were reviewed
in [36]. Fritz proposed a bubble departure diameter correlation
for pure liquids and liquid mixtures [37], considering the force bal-
ance between buoyancy force and surface tension force. It is fre-
quently and widely used by researchers with or without surface
modifications. The formula reads
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
r
Dd ¼ 0:0208h ð10Þ
g ðql  qv Þ
where h, ql, qv, r and g are the contact angle (degree), liquid den-
sity, vapor density, surface tension and acceleration of gravity,
respectively.
Cole [38] modified the Fritz model by involving the superheat
and replacing the contact angle with a new constant. The model
was validated by numerous liquids, e.g., water, acetone, methanol
and n-pentane. It is expressed as follows
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
r
Dd ¼ 0:04Ja ð11Þ
g ðql  qv Þ
where Ja⁄ = ql Cpl(Tw  Tf)/(qvifg), and Cpl and ifg are the specific
heat and latent heat of the liquid, respectively.
Phan et al. [39] modified the Fritz model by considering the
energy factor as the contribution of the wetting effect. The energy
factor is simply the volume ratio between a truncated sphere of
which the contact angle is h and a full sphere which has the same
diameter. The model is validated by water and it is given as
  rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 þ 3 cos h  cos3 h r
Dd ¼ 0:626977  ð12Þ
4 g ðql  qv Þ
Kim et al. [40] performed pool boiling experiments of R 113 for sub-
cooled, saturated and superheated pool conditions. A dimensionless
554 Z. Cao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 133 (2019) 548–560

Fig. 4. Bubble visualizations at low, moderate and high heat fluxes on the test surfaces.

"
rffiffiffiffiffiffi rffiffiffiffiffi#2
analysis of bubble growth and departure was carried out, based on 27 ql

which, a new model was proposed. For the saturated pool boiling, Dd ¼ 25  c  Ja  a ð13Þ
2 r
the model is formulated as
 Z. Cao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 133 (2019) 548–560 555

2.0
SS
EPD-1
EPD-2
EPD-3
1.5 EPD-4
Fritz (1935)
Dd (mm) Cole (1967) 2mm
1.0
Phan et al. (2009) q = 5.3 W/cm2
Kim et al. γ =0.7 (2006)
Kim et al. γ =0.9 (2006)

0.5
2mm
q = 5.0 W/cm2
0.0
5 10 15 20 25 30
Tw-Tf (K)

Fig. 5. Average bubble departure diameter on the test surfaces, with comparisons to several models.

where c is a constant, ranging from 0 to 1, and a is the thermal dif-
fusivity of the liquid.
Fig. 5 compares the measured departure diameters and several
models. It is seen that the model proposed by Kim et al. [40] can
predict the present results quite well with c = 0.7 for the smooth
surface and c = 0.9 for the nanoparticle-coated surfaces. Accord-
ingly, the bubble departure frequency can be predicted with the
model proposed by Kim et al. [40] as well, even though the bubble
departure frequency cannot be measured well in the present
experiments due to the large number of bubbles on the surfaces
and the resolution of the visualization. The model proposed by
Kim et al. [40] to predict the bubble departure frequency is
expressed as
1 2r
f ¼ ¼ ð14Þ
td 135c  a  Ja  ql  Dd
where td is the departure time. From Eq. (14), it can be deduced that
smaller departure diameters represent higher departure frequen-
cies. As discussed previously, the nanoparticle-coated surfaces have
smaller bubble departure diameters than the smooth surface at a
given heat flux. Therefore, the nanoparticle-coated surfaces have
higher bubble departure frequencies. This is one reason why the
heat transfer is enhanced on the nanoparticle-coated surfaces.
3.3. Heat transfer analysis
sient heat conduction to the liquid during the waiting time, but
with different boundary conditions and initial conditions. Both
derived a size range of active nucleation sites. In the present study,
the size range of active nucleation sites is estimated by the Hsu
model [19], as shown below
" sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi#
d 4C 2 2rT sat
Rmin=max ¼ 1 1  ð15Þ
2C 1 dðT w  T f Þ ifg qv
where d is the thermal layer thickness which can be estimated as
kf/hnc. C1 and C2 are constants as 2 and 1.6, respectively. In saturated
boiling, Tf = Tsat. Fig. 6 compares the size range of active nucleation
sites on the nanoparticle-coated surfaces and the smooth surface.
Based on the superheats in the experiments, the solid lines repre-
sent the nucleate boiling regime, while the dashed lines represent
the natural convection region (no nucleation) or the region reaching
CHF. The results show that the maximum size is around 10 mm to
15 mm which is much larger than the cavities observed in the SEM
images. However, the minimum size is between 100 nm and
500 nm for all surfaces, depending on the superheat, which means
that the nucleation site with a size smaller than 100 nm is ineffec-
tive. The previous analysis on the SEM images of the smooth surface
and the nanoparticle-coated surfaces shows that the nanoparticle-
coated surfaces have much more sites larger than 100 nm than
the smooth surface. This is to say that the number of active nucle-

3.3.1. Size of active nucleation sites 16

Here, the heterogeneous boiling is studied, which means that No nucleation
some nucleation sites, e.g., cavities should exist on the surfaces. 14 on SS
However, the conditions for which the nucleation sites can be acti-
vated or not depend on many factors, e.g., the size and geometry of 12
the nucleation sites and superheat. Accordingly, it is necessary to
study when and how the bubble nucleation occurs. Nowadays, Rmax
R (μm)

bubble nucleation has been studied extensively, but only some 10

0.9
pioneering works are focused on in this part. Courty and Foust
[41] were the first ones to formulate a simple model of bubble 0.5 Rmin CHF arrives on EPDs SS
nucleation by considering an idealized conical cavity under EPD-1
EPD-2
isothermal conditions. Similarly, Griffith and Wallis [42] analyzed
EPD-3
bubble nucleation in a conical cavity, involving the contact angle. EPD-4
Combining the Laplace equation and the Clausius-Clapeyron equa-
0.1
tion, the conditions for bubble nucleation were derived. It is well 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
known that a bubble period includes waiting time and growth Tw-Tsat(K)
time. The waiting time can be interpreted as the time to be ready
for nucleation. Hsu [19] and Han & Griffith [43] both studied the Fig. 6. Evaluation of the range of sizes of active nucleation sites based on Hsu
bubble nucleation, assuming a problem of one dimensional tran- nucleation model [19].
556 Z. Cao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 133 (2019) 548–560

Z Di =2
ation sites on the nanoparticle-coated surfaces is much larger than p 2 
on the smooth surface. Therefore, heat transfer is enhanced.
qcond ¼ Na  f  2pdrdr þ Di  D2d dd
R 4
Z 1
3.3.2. Heat transfer model  ðT  T sat Þql  C pl dx
0
Currently, numerous models have been developed to predict " #
nucleate boiling heat transfer. In general, the models can be D2i D2d
¼ Na  f  2ql  C pl ðT w  T sat Þ dd  ðdd  dc Þ ð19Þ
divided into three types, i.e., analogy models by Foster and Zuber 4 12
[44], and Rohsenow [45], hydrodynamic models by Tien [46] and
where R is the radius of the cavity. dd and dc are the thickness of the
Zuber [47] and mechanistic models [48–52]. In the present study,
thermal layer at the departure time and the waiting time, which are
a mechanistic model is formulated to predict the heat transfer on
defined as (ptda)1/2 and (ptwa)1/2, respectively.
nanoparticle-coated surfaces and the smooth surface. It is worth
Mikic and Rohsenow [49] modified the model of Han and Grif-
pointing that the mechanistic model does not consider the interac-
fith, assuming only pure conduction to the liquid occurred in the
tions between bubbles, e.g., bubble coalescence. It has been gener-
influenced area. The qcond over the area of influence in a unit area
ally accepted that the heat flux in nucleate boiling is attributed to
is modeled as
three heat transfer mechanisms, as shown in Fig. 7 including:
Z 1
kl ðT w  T sat Þ
f

(1) The heat transferred by microlayer evaporation qme. qcond ¼ Na  pD2d  f pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi dt
0 pat
(2) The heat transferred by re-formation of thermal boundary pffiffiffiffiqffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffi
ffi
layer qcond. ¼ 2 p kl  ql  C pl f D2d ðT w  T sat Þ  Na ð20Þ
(3) The heat transferred by natural convection from the heating
surface not influenced by the bubbles qnc. Later, Benjamin and Balakrishnan [51] assumed that only pure con-
duction to the liquid occurred in the influenced area during the
Heat flux due to natural convection (qnc) can be defined as [48] waiting time, then Eq. (20) was modified as
Z
1 kl ðT w  T sat Þ
tw
Laminar range105 < Ra < 2  107 : qcond ¼ Na  pD2d  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi dt
" #1=4 tw 0 pat
bg ðT w  T sat Þ5 a3 sffiffiffiffiffi
qnc ¼ 0:54  ql  C pl ð16Þ pffiffiffiffiqffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1 2
mD ¼ 2 p kl  ql  C pl D ðT w  T sat Þ  Na ð21Þ
tw d

Turbulent range2  107 < Ra < 3  1010 : However, Moghaddam and Kiger [53] studied the physical mecha-
" #1=3 nisms of heat transfer during single bubble nucleate boiling of FC-
bg ðT w  T sat Þ4 a2 72 under saturation conditions, indicating that the transient heat
qnc ¼ 0:14  ql  C pl ð17Þ
m conduction to the liquid happens not only during the waiting time,
but also throughout the whole period of bubbles. In addition, Thia-
where Ra, b, m and D is the Rayleigh number, thermal expansion garajan et al. [54] studied bubble dynamics and nucleation pool
coefficient, kinematic viscosity and diameter of the test surfaces, boiling of HFE-7100, finding that the growth time in HFE-7100 is
respectively. In the present study, nucleate boiling is in the turbu- much longer than the waiting time. This finding is different from
lent range, Thus Eq. (17) is used to estimate qnc. The qnc over the the observation during pool boiling of water where the waiting time
uninfluenced area in a unit area is calculated as is much longer than the growth time [55]. Because the properties of
" #1=3 "  2 # HFE-7200 is quite similar to those of HFE-7100, Eq. (20) is used to
bg ðT w  T sat Þ4 a2 Di calculate qcond while the bubble frequency is provided by Eq. (14)
qnc ¼ 0:14  ql  C pl 1  Na  p ð18Þ
m 2 in the present study.

where Di is the diameter of the influenced area, defined as 2Dd. Na is  Heat flux by microlayer evaporation (qme)
the active nucleation site density. Voutsinos and Judd [56] studied the microlayer evaporation
phenomenon using laser interferometry and high speed photogra-
 Heat flux due to the re-formation of thermal boundary layer phy. They derived an equation to estimate the volume of liquid
(qcond) evaporated from the microlayer. This equation reads
Han and Griffith [48] considered qcond equal to the rate of the Z Dd =2
increased internal energy in the influenced area of bubbles while V me ¼ 2p ½dðr; 0Þ  dðr; t Þ rdr
assuming that the thickness of thermal layer was linear in r. Then 0
" rffiffiffiffi #
the qcond over the area of influence in a unit area reads 2p 3 qv 3 ql  C pl ðT sat  T f Þ
¼ ðDd =2Þ 1þ ð22Þ
3 ql p 60qv ifg

If it is at saturated condition, then Tsat = Tf. Therefore, Eq. (22) can be

Di simplified as
2p q
V me ¼ ðDd =2Þ3 v ð23Þ
Dd 3 ql
x Eq. (23) tells that the liquid mass of the microlayer is only 50% that
r of the bubble, which means that the latent heat from the microlayer
qnc qcond+qme qnc evaporation is around 50% of the required heat for bubble growth.
This is consistent with the results in [40]. Then, the qme in a unit
Fig. 7. Schematic of heat transfer mechanisms. area is expressed as
 Z. Cao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 133 (2019) 548–560 557

2p is reasonable to consider this model to predict the active nucle-

qme ¼ Na  ql  V me  ifg  f ¼ Na  ðDd =2Þ3 qv  ifg  f ð24Þ
3 ation site density on nanoparticle-coated surfaces in the present
Benjamin and Balakrishnan [51] also proposed an equation to calcu- study. The model is defined as
late the volume of liquid evaporated from the microlayer, but this is ( !)
h2 k0
not discussed here. Na ¼ N 1  exp  02
exp f ðqþ Þ 1
8h L
Combining Eq. (18), Eq. (20) and Eq. (24), the composed heat
flux can be modeled as
" #13 2r½1 þ ðqv =ql Þ P
L¼  ð27Þ
bg ðT w  T sat Þ4 a2 h i
exp ifg ðT w  T sat Þ=ðRT w T sat Þ  1
q ¼ qnc þ qcond þ qme ¼ 0:14  ql  C pl 1  Na  p D2d
m
pffiffiffiffiqffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffipffiffiffi f ðqþ Þ ¼ 0:01064 þ 0:48246qþ  0:22712ðqþ Þ þ 0:05468ðqþ Þ
2 3
þ 2 p kl  ql  C pl f D2d ðT w  T sat Þ  Na
2p  
þ Na  ðDd =2Þ3 qv  ifg  f ð25Þ ql  qv
3 qþ ¼ log
qv
As indicated in Eq. (25), Na, Dd and f are essential to predict the heat
transfer. In Section 3.2.2, Eq. (13) has been validated by the exper- where, hˈ is a static parameter, 0.722 rad, kˈ is also a static param-
imental results to evaluate the bubble departure diameter Dd. eter, 2.50  106 m and R is the gas constant based on a molecular
Accordingly, Eq. (14) works to estimate the bubble departure fre- weight, 31.48 J/kgK. N is the average site density, suggested as
quency f. Now, the problem is how to calculate the active nucleation 4.72  105 sites/m2 on the smooth surface in [59], but as
site density Na. Due to the large number of bubbles on the test sur- 3  4.72  105 here, because the size of the bubbles on the
faces, it is difficult to get the active nucleation site density from the nanoparticle-coated surfaces is smaller than that on the smooth
high speed photography. However, many correlations for the active surface, meaning a larger average site density. N is also adjusted
nucleation site density are available in literature [36]. It is worth in [54] to predict the active nucleation site density on the microp-
noting that some correlations are based on water only, e.g., Wang orous surfaces. At the moment, the active nucleation sites on the
and Dhir [57], while some correlations are considering different liq- nanoparticle-coated surfaces are predicted by Eq. (27) and the heat
uids, e.g., water, carbon tetrachloride, n-hexane, and acetone in flux as modeled by Eq. (25) can be calculated. The results in Table 3
[58]. Because the HFE-7200 in the present study is totally different indicate that the present modeled heat fluxes agree with the exper-
from water, Benjamin and Balakrishnan’s model [58] is firstly used imental heat fluxes on the nanoparticle-coated surfaces. Therefore,
to estimate Na as Eq. (26) and Eq. (27) are suitable to predict the active nucleation site
  density on the smooth surface and the nanoparticle-coating surface,
kl  ql  C pl
Na ¼ 218Pr1:63 W0:4 ðT w  T sat Þ3 ; respectively, in the present study.
kc  qc  C pc
   2 Based on the previous analysis, Fig. 8 compares the predicted
RP RP active nucleation site density on the smooth surface and the
W ¼ 14:4  4:5 a þ 0:4 a ð26Þ
r r
where, qc, kc and Cpc are the density, thermal conductivity and 7
specific heat of copper; P is the liquid pressure.
10 Nucleate
center
With the active nucleation sites predicted by Eq. (26), the heat Namax Di
1 1
flux modeled by Eq. (25) can be predicted. Table 3 compares the Namax =
2 3( Di / 2) 2
=
2 3( Dd ) 2
modeled heat flux and the experimental heat flux on SS, EPD-1
6
and EPD-2, showing that the modeled heat fluxes agree with the 10 Namax
Na (sites/m )
2

experimental heat fluxes on SS, but disagree with the experimental

heat fluxes on the nanoparticle-coated surfaces. This is probably
because Benjamin and Balakrishnan’s model is validated for speci-
fic conditions, e.g., 2.2 < w < 14. The smooth surface can almost sat- 5
isfy these conditions, but the nanoparticle-coated surfacse are far 10 SS
away from the condition 2.2 < w < 14 due to the larger roughness. EPD-1
EPD-2
Therefore, other models should be considered to estimate Na on
EPD-3
the nanoparticle-coated surfaces. Thiagarajan et al. [54] investi- EPD-4
gated the active nucleation density of HFE-7100 on copper sur- 4
10
faces. It is found that the model proposed by Hibiki and Ishii [59] 5 15 25 35
can predict Na of HFE-7100 well by adjusting the coefficient in Tw-Tsat(K)
the equation. Because the properties of HFE-7200 is similar to
those of HFE-7100, e.g., surface tension, viscosity and density, it Fig. 8. Comparison of active nucleation site density on the test surfaces.

Table 3
Validation of the selected models about active nucleation site density.

DT (K) Dd (mm) (exp.) f (s1) (Eq.14) Na (m2) (Eq.26) qmodel (W/cm2) Na (m2) (Eq.27) qmodel (W/cm2) qexperiment (W/cm2)
SS 22.2 727 204.2 214,634 4.7 5.3
25.6 810 159.5 326,028 8.4 8.7
28.4 919 126.4 448,498 12.1 11.4
EPD-1 12.7 291 626.2 78,475 0.5 1,287,939 4.7 5.0
13.4 366 472.1 91,854 0.7 1,587,979 8.3 7.6
EPD-2 11.4 271 748.5 56,252 0.4 925,822 3.0 3.0
12 331 581.1 65,942 0.5 1,116,482 4.9 5.4
558 Z. Cao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 133 (2019) 548–560

25 Fig. 9. It is seen that at low and moderate heat fluxes, i.e.,

EPD-1 (experiment) EPD-2 (experiment)
EPD-1 (model) EPD-2 (model) q < 12.0 W/cm2, the modeled curves agree with the experimental
curves well. However, at high heat fluxes (q > 12.0 W/cm2), an
20 obvious deviation appears between the experimental results and
the modeled results, e.g., over prediction on SS. This is because
15 the formulated model does not consider the interactions between
q (W/cm )

the bubbles, e.g., bubble coalescence. In reality, the bubble coales-

2

cence probably delay bubble departure, which decreases the heat

10 transfer. In future studies, on one hand, the heat transfer at low
SS (experiment)
and moderate heat fluxes (partial nucleate boiling) will be further
SS (model) studied. On the other hand, the heat transfer at high heat fluxes
5
(fully nucleate boiling) will consider bubble interactions, e.g., bub-
ble coalescence.
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 3.4. CHF analysis
Tw-Tsat(K)
As is shown previously, CHF of HFE-7200 is not enhanced effec-
Fig. 9. Comparison of boiling curves between experiments and models. tively on the nanoparticle-coated surfaces. This part intends to
explore why CHF is not enhanced. Fig. 10 shows the bubble behav-
ior at CHF. The behavior actually is quite similar on the smooth
surface and the nanoparticle-coated surfaces. The bubble revolu-
nanoparticle-coated surfaces. It is evident that the active nucle- tion process on SS and EPD-1 is provided in Fig. 10(a) and (b),
ation site density becomes large with increasing superheat. How- respectively. In general, at CHF, bubbles coalesce quite intensively
ever, there should exist a maximum value (Namax) beyond which and a vapor blanket (red arrow) can be recognized on the surfaces.
the active nucleation site density is assume to be constant even Then a vapor column stems from the vapor blanket and grows up,
the superheat is increased. Han and Griffith [48] suggested the e.g., from t = 0 ms to t = 30 ms in Fig. 10(a) and from t = 0 ms to
pffiffiffi
maximum Na as 1=ð2 3D2d Þ, assuming that the influenced area is t = 40 ms in Fig. 10(b). At the end, the column gets rid of the vapor
hexagonally close-packed. Fig. 8 provides a quantitative evidence blanket and departs from the surface, e.g., t = 40 ms on SS, and
that the nanoparticle coatings increase the number of the active t = 50 ms on EPD-1. This process is almost periodic.
nucleation sites, which enhances heat transfer. In addition, with Kwark et al. [21] and Im et al. [60] investigated pool boiling heat
the predicted Na, Dd and f, the modeled boiling curves (Eq. (25)) transfer on nanocoated surfaces, and claimed that CHF enhance-
are compared with the experimental boiling curves, as shown in ment was primarily due to the capillary wicking. In the present

Fig. 10. Bubble visualizations on the test surfaces at CHF.

 Z. Cao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 133 (2019) 548–560 559

"   2 #1=2
2
dDh dx dy
¼ þ ð30Þ
Dh x y

With Eq. (29) and Eq. (30), the uncertainty of the liquid absorbed
volume V can be estimated. The maximum and minimum uncer-
tainties of V are 30.3% and 6.8%, respectively, depending on the
number of pixels.
Fig. 11(a) records the process of liquid absorption on SS and
Fig. 11(b) shows the liquid absorbed flow rate. Evidently, the wick-
ability of HFE-7200 is not enhanced effectively by the nanoparticle
coatings. This is probably because the surface tension of HFE-7200
is quite small and it already has quite good wetting on the smooth
surface. In future studies, the configuration of nanoparticle deposi-
tion must be considered and then CHF may show an enhancement
from the perspective of reducing the hydrodynamic instability.

4. Conclusions

In the present study, pool boiling heat transfer of HFE-7200 was

experimentally studied on a smooth surface (SS) and several
nanoparticle-coated surfaces. The nanoparticle-coated surfaces
were prepared by an electrophoretic deposition method with dif-
ferent weight of nanoparticles, i.e., 0.3 mg (EPD-1), 0.6 mg (EPD-
2), 0.9 mg (EPD-3) and 1.2 mg (EPD-4). A quantitative analysis
about the active nucleation site density, bubble departure diameter
and bubble departure frequency was conducted. Accordingly, a
heat transfer model was formulated to predict the heat transfer.
In addition, supplementary tests were carried out to explore why
CHF was not enhanced effectively in the present study. The conclu-
sions are summarized as follows:

 The maximum superheat is significantly decreased on the

nanoparticle-coated surfaces, around 20 K lower than that on
the smooth surface.
Fig. 11. Experimental characterization of wickability, (a) high-speed imaging of
capillary wicking from a micro-capillary tube onto SS, (b) absorbed volume as a  Heat transfer on the nanoparticle-coated surfaces is enhanced
function of time for the test surfaces. by around 100% compared with the smooth surface. For exam-
ple, at q = 14.2 W/cm2 the heat transfer coefficient of SS, EPD-1,
EPD-2, EPD-3 and EPD-4 is 0.46 W/cm2K, 0.92 W/cm2K, 1.0 W/
study, the wickability of HFE-7200 on the tested surfaces was mea- cm2K, 0.93 W/cm2K and 0.90 W/cm2K, respectively. However,
sured with the method introduced by Rahman et al. [61]. However, CHF is not enhanced effectively.
a glass microcapillary tube with an inner diameter of 340 mm was  The number of active nucleation sites is considerably increased
used in this study. The wickability is characterized by the absorbed by the nanoparticle coatings. The bubble departure diameter
flow rate defined as and frequency on the nanoparticle-coating surfaces is smaller
      and faster than that on the smooth surface, respectively, at a
dV DV A c Dh
V0 ¼ ¼ lim ¼ lim ð28Þ given heat flux.
dt t¼0 Dt!0 Dt t¼0 Dt!0 Dt t¼0
 A heat transfer model was formulated to predict the heat trans-
where Ac is the cross section area of the microcapillary tube and Dh fer, and it predicted the experimental results well, especially for
is the liquid height drop in time Dt. V is the liquid absorbed volume low and moderate heat fluxes.
by the surface.  The wickability of HFE-7200 is not enhanced effectively by the
In terms of the uncertainty of the liquid absorbed volume V, it nanoparticle coating, which is the reason why CHF is not
can be estimated as enhanced.
" 2 #1=2
dV d Dh d Dh
¼ ¼ ð29Þ Conflicts of interest
V Dh Dh
None.
Here, only the uncertainty due to the liquid height measurement
was considered. In the measurement of the liquid height in the
microcapillary tube, a ruler was used as the calibrated scale, which Acknowledgments
had 110 pixels (x) in 5 mm, with an uncertainty of ±4 pixels. Then
the liquid height could be measured by counting the number of pix- The work is supported by a STINT-NSFC joint project and the
els, and the liquid height drop Dh could be calculated, considering Swedish Scientific Council (VR). Also the China Scholarship Council
the difference of the number of pixels (y) at two time points which (CSC) is acknowledged. Special thanks to Mr. Martin Carlsson and
varied from 4 pixels to 18 pixels with an uncertainty of ±1 pixels. Mr. Mats Bengtsson for the help on the experimental rig and mate-
The uncertainty of Dh could be estimated as rial preparation.
560 Z. Cao et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 133 (2019) 548–560
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.
2018.12.140.
References
[1] D.E. Kim, D.I. Yu, D.W. Jerng, M.H. Kim, H.S. Ahn, Review of boiling heat transfer
enhancement on micro/nanostructured surfaces, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 66
(2015) 173–196.
[2] S. Sinha-Ray, W. Zhang, R.P. Sahu, S. Sinha-Ray, A.L. Yarin, Pool boiling of Novec
7300 and DI water on nano-textured heater covered with supersonically-
blown or electrospun polymer nanofibers, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 106 (2017)
482–490.
[3] R. Pastuszko, Pool boiling heat transfer on micro-fins with wire mesh -
Experiments and heat flux prediction, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 125 (2018) 197–209.
[4] Z. Cao, B. Liu, C. Preger, Z. Wu, Y.H. Zhang, X.L. Wang, M.E. Messing, K. Deppert,
J.J. Wei, B. Sundén, Pool boiling heat transfer of FC-72 on pin-fin silicon
surfaces with nanoparticle deposition, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 126 (2018)
1019–1033.
[5] K.H. Chu, R. Enright, E.N. Wang, Structured surfaces for enhanced pool boiling
heat transfer, Appl. Phys. Lett. 100 (2012) 241603.
[6] A. Walunj, A. Sathyabhama, Comparative study of pool boiling heat transfer
from various microchannel geometries, Appl. Therm. Eng. 128 (2018) 672–683.
[7] L. Zhou, W. Li, T. Ma, X. Du, Experimental study on boiling heat transfer of a
self-rewetting fluid on copper foams with pore-density gradient structures,
Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 124 (2018) 210–219.
[8] Y.P. Yang, X.B. Ji, J.L. Xu, Pool boiling heat transfer on copper foam covers with
water as working fluid, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 49 (2010) 1227–1237.
[9] A.M. Gheitaghy, H. Saffari, D. Ghasimi, A. Ghasemi, Effect of electrolyte
temperature on porous electrodeposited copper for pool boiling enhancement,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 113 (2017) 1097–1106.
[10] M.S. El-Genk, A.F. Ali, Enhanced nucleate boiling on copper micro-porous
surfaces, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 36 (2010) 780–792.
[11] X.B. Ji, J.L. Xu, Z.W. Zhao, W.L. Yang, Pool boiling heat transfer on uniform and
non-uniform porous coating surfaces, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 48 (2013) 198–
212.
[12] Y. Tang, J. Zeng, S. Zhang, C. Chen, J. Chen, Effect of structural parameters on
pool boiling heat transfer for porous interconnected microchannel nets, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transfer 93 (2016) 906–917.
[13] C.M. Kruse, T. Anderson, C. Wilson, C. Zuhlke, D. Alexander, G. Gogos, S. Ndao,
Enhanced pool-boiling heat transfer and critical heat flux on femtosecond
laser processed stainless steel surfaces, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 82 (2015)
109–116.
[14] J.Y. Ho, K.K. Wong, K.C. Leong, Saturated pool boiling of FC-72 from enhanced
surfaces produced by Selective Laser Melting, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 99
(2016) 107–121.
[15] B. Liu, Z. Cao, Y.H. Zhang, Z. Wu, A.D. Pham, W.J. Wang, Z.X. Yan, J.J. Wei, B.
Sundén, Pool boiling heat transfer of N-pentane on micro/nanostructured
surfaces, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 130 (2018) 386–394.
[16] Y.Q. Wang, J.L. Luo, Y. Heng, D.C. Mo, S.S. Lyu, Wettability modification to
further enhance the pool boiling performance of the micro nano bi-porous
copper surface structure, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 119 (2018) 333–342.
[17] P. Xu, Q. Li, Y.M. Xuan, Enhanced boiling heat transfer on composite porous
surface, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 80 (2015) 107–114.
[18] D. Deng, J. Feng, Q. Huang, Y. Tang, Y. Lian, Pool boiling heat transfer of porous
structures with reentrant cavities, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 99 (2016) 556–568.
[19] Y.Y. Hsu, On the size range of active nucleation cavities on a heating surface, J.
Heat Transf. 84 (1962) 207–213.
[20] H.S. Jo, T.G. Kim, J.G. Lee, M.W. Kim, H.G. Park, S.C. James, J. Choi, S.S. Yoon,
Supersonically sprayed nanotextured surfaces with silver nanowires for
enhanced pool boiling, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 123 (2018) 397–406.
[21] S.M. Kwark, G. Moreno, R. Kumar, H. Moon, S.M. You, Nanocoating
characterization in pool boiling heat transfer of pure water, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf. 53 (2010) 4579–4587.
[22] S. Das, D.S. Kumar, S. Bhaumik, Experimental study of nucleate pool boiling
heat transfer of water on silicon oxide nanoparticle coated copper heating
surface, Appl. Therm. Eng. 96 (2016) 555–567.
[23] H.S. Jo, M.W. Kim, K. Kim, S. An, Y.I. Kim, S.C. James, J. Choi, S.S. Yoon, Effects of
capillarity on pool boiling using nano-textured surfaces through
electrosprayed BiVO4 nano-pillars, Chem. Eng. Sci. 171 (2017) 360–367.
[24] H.S. Jo, S. An, H.G. Park, M.W. Kim, S.S. Al-Deyab, S.C. James, J. Choi, S.S. Yoon,
Enhancement of critical heat flux and superheat through controlled
wettability of cuprous-oxide fractal-like nanotextured surfaces in pool
boiling, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 107 (2017) 105–111.
[25] R.P. Sahu, S. Sinha-Ray, S. Sinha-Ray, A.L. Yarin, Pool boiling of Novec 7300 and
self-rewetting fluids on electrically-assisted supersonically solution-blown,
copper-plated nanofibers, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 95 (2016) 83–93.
[26] Z. Cao, C. Preger, Z. Wu, S. Abbood, M.E. Messing, K. Deppert, B. Sundén, Pool
boiling heat transfer of water on copper surfaces with nanoparticles coating,
ASME IMECE (2017), V008T10A065-V008T10A065.
[27] A. Jaikumar, A. Gupta, S.G. Kandlikar, C.Y. Yang, C.Y. Su, Scale effects of
graphene and graphene oxide coatings on pool boiling enhancement
mechanisms, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 109 (2017) 357–366.
[28] M. Dharmendra, S. Suresh, C.S. Sujith Kumar, Q. Yang, Pool boiling heat
transfer enhancement using vertically aligned carbon nanotube coatings on a
copper substrate, Appl. Therm. Eng. 99 (2016) 61–71.
[29] S. Das, B. Saha, S. Bhaumik, Experimental study of nucleate pool boiling heat
transfer of water by surface functionalization with crystalline TiO2
nanostructure, Appl. Therm. Eng. 113 (2017) 1345–1357.
[30] S. Das, B. Saha, S. Bhaumik, Experimental study of nucleate pool boiling heat
transfer of water by surface functionalization with SiO2 nanostructure, Exp.
Therm. Fluid Sci. 81 (2017) 454–465.
[31] M. Tetreault-Friend, R. Azizian, M. Bucci, T. McKrell, J. Buongiorno, M. Rubner,
R. Cohen, Critical heat flux maxima resulting from the controlled morphology
of nanoporous hydrophilic surface layers, Appl. Phys. Lett. 108 (2016) 243102.
[32] Y.Y. Li, Z.H. Liu, B.C. Zheng, Experimental study on the saturated pool boiling
heat transfer on nano-scale modification surface, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 84
(2015) 550–561.
[33] M.S. El-Genk, A.F. Ali, Enhancement of saturation BOILING of PF-5060 on
microporous copper dendrite surfaces, J. Heat Transf. 132 (2010) 071501.
[34] Z. Cao, An Experimental Study on Liquid-Liquid Flow in Microchannels and
Pool Boiling Heat Transfer on Nanostructured Surfaces, Licentiate thesis, Lund
University, 2018.
[35] I.S. Kiyomura, L.L. Manetti, A.P. da Cunha, G. Ribatski, E.M. Cardoso, An analysis of
the effects of nanoparticles deposition on characteristics of the heating surface
and ON pool boiling of water, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 106 (2017) 666–674.
[36] R.L. Mohanty, M.K. Das, A critical review on bubble dynamics parameters
influencing boiling heat transfer, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 78 (2017) 466–494.
[37] J.G. Collier, J.R. Thome, Convective Boiling and Condensation, Oxford
University Press, 1994.
[38] R. Cole, Bubble frequencies and departure volumes at subatmospheric
pressures, AIChE J. 13 (1967) 779–783.
[39] H.T. Phan, N. Caney, P. Marty, S. Colasson, J. Gavillet, How does surface
wettability influence nucleate boiling?, Comptes Rendus Mécanique 337
(2009) 251–259
[40] J. Kim, B.D. Oh, M.H. Kim, Experimental study of pool temperature effects on
nucleate pool boiling, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 32 (2006) 208–231.
[41] G. Courty, A. Foust, Surface variables in nucleate boiling, Che. Engr. Progr.
Symposium 51 (1955) 1.
[42] P. Griffith, J.D. Wallis, The role of surface conditions in nucleate boiling, Tech.
Rept. MIT 14 (1958).
[43] C.Y. Han, P. Griffith, The mechanism of heat trasnfer in nucleate pool boiling-
Part I, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 8 (1965) 887–904.
[44] H.K. Forster, N. Zuber, Dynamics of vapor bubbles and boiling heat transfer,
AIChE J. 1 (1955) 531–535.
[45] W.M. Rohsenow, A method of correlating heat transfer data for surface boiling
of liquids, Tech. Rept. MIT 5 (1951).
[46] C.L. Tien, A hydrodynamic model for nucleate pool boiling, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf. 5 (1962) 533–540.
[47] N. Zuber, Nucleate boiling. The region of isolated bubbles and the similarity
with natural convection, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 6 (1963) 53–78.
[48] C.Y. Han, P. Griffith, The mechanism of heat trasnfer in nucleate pool boiling-
Part II, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 8 (1965) 905–914.
[49] B.B. Mikic, W.M. Rohsenow, A new correlation of pool boiling data including
the effect of heating surface characteristics, J. Heat Transf. 91 (1969) 245–250.
[50] R.L. Judd, K.S. Hwang, A comprehensive model for nucleate pool boiling heat
transfer including microlayer evaporation, J. Heat Transf. 98 (1976) 623–629.
[51] R.J. Benjamin, A.R. Balakrishnan, Nucleate pool boiling heat transfer of pure
liquids at low to moderate heat fluxes, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 39 (1996)
2495–2504.
[52] Y.Y. Li, Z.H. Liu, G.S. Wang, A predictive model of nucleate pool boiling on
heated hydrophilic surfaces, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 65 (2013) 789–797.
[53] S. Moghaddam, K. Kiger, Physical mechanisms of heat transfer during single
bubble nucleate boiling of FC-72 under saturation conditions. II: theoretical
analysis, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 52 (2009) 1295–1303.
[54] S.J. Thiagarajan, R. Yang, C. King, S. Narumanchi, Bubble dynamics and nucleate
pool boiling heat transfer on microporous copper surfaces, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf. 89 (2015) 1297–1315.
[55] C. Gerardi, J. Buongiorno, L.W. Hu, T. McKrell, Study of bubble growth in water
pool boiling through synchronized, infrared thermometry and high-speed
video, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 53 (2010) 4185–4192.
[56] C.M. Voutsinos, R.L. Judd, Laser interferometric investigation of the microlayer
evaporation phenomenon, 97 (1975) 88 – 92.
[57] C.H. Wang, V.K. Dhir, Effect of surface wettability on active nucleation site
density during pool boiling of water on a vertical surface, J. Heat Transf. 115
(1993) 659–669.
[58] R.J. Benjamin, A.R. Balakrishnan, Nucleation site density in pool boiling of
saturated pure liquids: effect of surface microroughness and surface and liquid
physical properties, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 15 (1997) 32–42.
[59] T. Hibiki, M. Ishii, Active nucleation site density in boiling systems, Int. J. Heat
Mass Transf. 46 (2003) 2587–2601.
[60] Y. Im, C. Dietz, S.S. Lee, Y. Joshi, Flower-like CuO nanostructures for enhanced
boiling, Nanosc. Microsc.e Thermo. 16 (2012) 145–153.
[61] M.M. Rahman, E. Olceroglu, M. McCarthy, Role of wickability on the critical heat
flux of structured superhydrophilic surfaces, Langmuir 30 (2014) 11225–11234.