1993-Vapor Bubble Dynamics in Microgravity PDF

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UM I

films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality o f the

copy subm itted. B roken or indistinct print, colored o r p o o r quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and im proper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction.
In the unlikely event th a t th e author did n o t send U M I a com plete

m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright m aterial had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
O versize m aterials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are rep ro d u ced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the u pper left-hand corn er and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also p h o to g ra p h e d in one exposure a n d is in clu d ed in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. H igher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs o r illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact U M I directly
to order.
U n iversity M icrofilm s International

A B ell & H ow ell Inform ation C o m p a n y
3 0 0 N orth Z e e b R o a d , A nn Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1 3 4 6 U S A
3 1 3 /7 6 1 - 4 7 0 0 8 0 0 /5 2 1 - 0 6 0 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
O rd e r N u m b e r 9409744
Vapor bubble dynam ics in m icrogravity
Lee, Ho Sung, Ph.D .

The University of Michigan, 1993
UMI
300 N. Zeeb Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
VAPOR BUBBLE DYNAMICS IN MICROGRAVITY
by
Ho Sung Lee
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
(Mechanical Engineering)
in The University of Michigan
1993
Doctoral Committee:
Professor Herman Merte,Jr., Chairman
Professor Luis P. Bernal
Professor Ross L. Judd, McMaster University
Professor Robert B. Keller
Professor Gretar Tryggvason
To God
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It is indeed a pleasure to express my deep appreciation to Professor Herman
Merte, Jr. who, as the Chairman of my committee, provided his profound guidance
and encouragement during my study at The University of Michigan. Thanks are
extended to Professors R. B. Keller, R. L. Judd, L. P. Bernal and G. Tryggvason for
serving on the committee, and for their constructive comments and suggestions.
I would like to thank the fellow doctoral candidates and friends while at the
University of Michigan, who were all a source of great encouragement: Kevin Kirk,
Jamie Ervin, Matthew Brusstar, Jeff Hood, Andrey Vinarov, and Longhu Li.
Significant help and encouragement of Kent Pruss in the design and assembly of the
experimental apparatus is gratefully acknowledged. Especial recognition is also
given to Dr. Youngil Kim for his faithful support during the qualifying exam.
I would like to extend my special thanks to the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), including the paticular group at the Lewis Research
Center in Cleveland, Ohio for funding the research and providing facilities for the
experiments. I also wish to thank the University of Michigan library staff for their
help in obtaining literature, which made it possible to complete my work efficiendy.
Thanks are extended to the Mechanical Engineering Department of the University of
Michigan for considering my industrial experience in admitting me to the program.
Finally, I sincerely thank my beloved wife, Young-Ae for her extreme self-
sacrifice and support, and our beautiful daughter, Yu-Jin, for her patience, support
and the joy she brought me during my research.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...........................................................................iii
LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................ vii
LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................... xvi
LIST OF APPENDICES............................................... xvii
LIST OF SYMBOLS................................................. xviii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................1
2. SPHERICAL BUBBLE GROWTH IN INITIAL UNIFORM SUPERHEAT
................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Literature Survey............................................................................................. 6
2.2 Previous Analytical Solutions..........................................................................9
2.3 Formulation of Governing Equations.............................................................. 16
2.4 Numerical Solution............................................................................................19
2.5 Comparisons with Previous W orks................................................................. 24
2.5.1 Sodium.............................................................................................. 25
2.5.2 W ater.................................................................................................26
2.5.3 R-113.................................................................................................29
2.6 Discussion......................................................................................................... 30
iv
2.6.1 Water 31
2.6.2 R-113................................................................................................ 35
2.6.3 Sodium.............................................................................................. 38
2.6.4 Comparisons between Water, R-113 and Sodium.......................... 39
3. VAPOR BUBBLE DYNAMICS IN NON-UNIFORM TEMPERATURE

FIELDS..................................................................................................................90
3.1 Literature Survey............................................................................................. 91
3.1.1 Inertia Controlled Bubble Growth and Collapse............................ 95
3.1.2 Heat Transfer Controlled Bubble Growth and Collapse................ 96
3.1.3 Vapor Bubble Collapse.................................................................... 98
3.1.3.1 Liquid inertia controlled collapse.....................................99
3.1.3.2 Heat transfer controlled collapse...................................... 100
3.1.4 Vapor Bubble Growth on a Heater Surface.................................... 101
3.2 Modeling........................................................................................................... 103
3.2.1 Initial Uniform Superheat Model for Spherical Bubble Growth 104
3.2.2 Initial Non-uniform Superheat Model..............................................104
3.2.2.1 Spherical Bubble Model................................................... 104
32.2.2 Hemispherical Bubble Model............................................105
3.3 Governing Equations........................................................................................ 106
3.4 Numerical Solution........................................................................................... 109
3.5 Vapor Bubble Dynamics in Subcooled Liquids...............................................109
3.5.1 Bubble Collapse.................................................................................109
3.5.2 Bubble Growth and Collapse............................................................ 110
3.5.3 Bubble departure mechanism............................................................ 112
3.6 Experiments in Microgravity with Saturated and Subcooled R-l 13..............112
3.6.1 Experimental Apparatus................................................................... 112
3.6.2 Experimental Results and Discussions............................................ 114
3.6.2.1 Energy Input to the Liquid................................................114
3.6.2.2 Initial Temperature Distribution....................................... 115
3.6.2.3 Bubble Dynamics...............................................................117
4. ROLE OF INSTABILITIES IN POOL BOILING BUBBLE GROWTH IN

MICROGRAVITY...............................................................................................140
4.1 Literature Survey............................................................................................141
4.2 Experimental Results...................................................................................... 144
4.3 Instability Considerations................................................................................151
4.3.1 Rayleigh-Taylor Instability...............................................................152
4.3.2 Landau Instability............................................................................. 154
4.3.3 Instability Growth in Terms of Heat Conduction........................... 156
4.4 Increased Evaporation Surface Area...............................................................158
5. CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................178
5.1 Initial Uniform Superheat M odel................................................................... 178
5.2 Initial Non-uniform Superheat M odel........................................................... 179
5.3 Role of Instability in Pool Boiling..................................................................180
APPENDICES............................................................................................................... 182
BIBLIOGRAPHY.........................................................................................................216
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
2.1. Photographs by Bohrer (1973) for vapor bubble growth in R-l 13, demonstrating the
sphericity of the bubble............................................................................................. 42
2.2. (a) Vapor bubble at the critical size radius, (b) Bubble growth in a uniformly
superheated liquid...................................................................................................... 43
2.3. Schematic diagram of coordinate transformation...................................................... 44
2.4. Grid point and control volume notation.....................................................................44
2.5. Comparison of present results with the numerical work of Dalle Donne and Ferranti
(1975). Radius versus time for sodium.....................................................................45
(1975). Liquid-vapor interface velocity versus time for sodium............................46
(1975). Liquid-vapor interface temperature versus time for sodium..................... 47
(1975). Effect of magnitude of temperature disturbance on bubble growth for
sodium....................................................................................................................... 48
2.9. Comparison of computations with the measurements of Dergarabedian (1953).
Bubble radius versus time for water......................................................................... 49
2.10. Comparison of computations with the measurements of Kosky (1968). Bubble
radius versus time for water......................................................................................50
2.11. Comparison of computations with the measurements of Dergarabedian (1960).
Bubble radius versus time for water with low initial liquid superheats................... 51
vii
2.12. Comparison of computations with the measurements of Florschuetz (1969).
Bubble radius versus time for water. An arbitrary shift of 6.5 ms is made in the time
scale............................................................................................................................ 52
2.13. Comparison of present numerical calculations with measurements of Lien (1969)
over a wide range of pressure. Bubble radius versus time for water...................... 53
2.14. Comparison of computations with measurements of Bohrer (1973) for R -l 13 at
low pressures and large liquid superheats................................................................. 54
2.15. Influence of magnitude of initial temperature disturbance on the early vapor bubble
growth for water at atmospheric pressure. Radius and liquid-vapor interface
velocity.......................................................................................................................55
growth for water at atmospheric pressure. Radius and liquid-vapor interface
temperature................................................................................................................ 56
growth for water at atmospheric pressure. Liquid-vapor interface acceleration, for a
low initial superheat of 3.1 C....................................................................................57
growth for water at atmospheric pressure. Liquid-vapor interface acceleration, for a
high initial superheat of 36 C................................................................................... 58
2.19. Example of characterization of the three domains of vapor bubble growth. Bubble
radius and liquid-vapor interface acceleration vs. time, for water at atmospheric
pressure and uniform initial superheat of 3.1 C ...................................................... 59
2.20. Comparison of present numerical calculations with various analytical solutions.
Water at atmospheric pressure uniformly superheated to 36 C, Ja=l 10.21..........60
Water at atmospheric pressure uniformly superheated to 36 C, Ja=l 10.21. Vapor

*
bubble radius versus time........................................................................................... 61
VIII
2.22. Comparison of the present numerical calculations with various analytical solutions
and the measurements of Lien (1969) for very low system pressure (P=1.26 kPa)
with water. Vapor bubble radius and liquid-vapor interface temperature.............. 62
2.23. Liquid-vapor interface velocity and acceleration from the present numerical
calculations for conditions of Figure 2.22................................................................. 63
2.24. Comparison of the present numerical calculations with various analytical solutions
for relatively high pressure (P=l atm.=101.325 kPa) with water. Vapor bubble
radius and liquid-vapor interface temperature.......................................................... 64
2.25. Liquid-vapor interface velocity and acceleration from the present numerical
calculations for conditions of Figure 2.24.................................................................65
Water at atmospheric pressure uniformly superheated to 0.8 C, Ja=2.38. Vapor
bubble radius versus time...........................................................................................66
growth for R -l 13 at atmospheric pressure. Radius and liquid-vapor interface
velocity.......................................................................................................................67
2.28 (a) & (b). a) Amplification of the embryo bubble radius and velocity in Figure 2.27
for the early period of growth, b) Comparison of the time varying surfacetension
and pressure terms in Equation (2.22) with the liquid-vapor interface velocity..... 68
growth for R -l 13 at atmospheric pressure. Radius and liquid-vapor interface
temperature................................................................................................................ 69
growth for R-l 13 at atmospheric pressure. Radius and liquid-vapor interface
acceleration for a low initial superheat of 3.1 C ....................................................70
IX
growth for R-l 13 at atmospheric pressure. Radius and liquid-vapor interface
acceleration for a high initial superheat of 36 C .....................................................71
2.32. Sensitivity of early R-113 vapor bubble growth rates to bulk liquid superheat at low
levels of superheat..................................................................................................... 72
2.33. Comparison of present numerical calculations with various analytical solutions and
one set of measurements. R-l 13 at low pressure of 8.5 kPa (1.23 psia) with initially
uniform superheat of 34 C. Ja = 396....................................................................... 73
2.34. Comparison of present numerical calculations with various analytical solutions. R-
113 at atmospheric pressure with initially uniform superheat of 36 C .................. 74
growth for sodium at atmospheric pressure. Radius and liquid-vapor interface
velocity...................................................................................................................... 75
temperature................................................................................................................76
acceleration for a low initial superheat of 3.1 C .....................................................77
acceleration for a high initial superheat of 36 C .....................................................78
Sodium at atmospheric pressure uniformly superheated to 36 C, Ja=32.28..........79
2.40. Comparison of present numerical caculation with analytical solution of Mikic at al
(1970). Vapor bubble radius versus time for sodium............................................ 80
2.41. Comparisons of bubble radius and liquid-vapor interface velocity vs. time for water,
R-113 and sodium all at atmospheric pressure and a low superheat of 3.1 C 81
2.42. Comparisons of bubble radius and liquid-vapor interface velocity vs. time for water,
R-113 and sodium all at atmospheric pressure and a high superheat of 36 C 82
2.43. Comparisons of bubble radius and liquid-vapor interface acceleration vs. time for
water, R-113 and sodium all at atmospheric pressure and a low superheat of 3.1 C
....................................................................................................................................83
2.44. Comparisons of bubble radius and liquid-vapor interface acceleration vs. time for
water, R-113 and sodium all at atmospheric pressure and a high superheat of 36 C
...................................................................................................................................84
2.45. Critical radius versus superheat (Thulk - Tsat) for sodium, R-l 13 and water,
computed by the present model, as a function of pressure..................................... 85

2.46. Delay time versus superheat (Tbulk - Tsat) for sodium, R-113 and water, computed
by the present model, as a function of pressure...................................................... 86

2.47. Maximum liquid-vapor interface velocity versus superheat (Tbulk - Tsal) for sodium,
R-113 and water, computed by the present model, as a function of pressure 87

2.48. Maximum liquid-vapor interface acceleration versus superheat (Thulk - Tsal) for
sodium, R-113 and water, computed by the present model, as a function of pressure
88
2.49. Bubble radius at an arbitrary time of 0.01 seconds versus superheat (Tbulk - Tsat) for
sodium, R-l 13 and water, computed by the present model, as a function of pressure
...................................................................................................................................89
3.1. Illustration of variability of bubble dynamics in pool boiling during a given

experiment. Water, ATsub =42.8C , ATwsap =32.7C , Ellion(1953)............... 118
3.2. Illustration of variability of bubble dynamics in pool boiling during a given

experiment. Water, ATsub =74.5C , AJwsup =34.4C , Ellion(1953)............... 119
xi
3.3. Comparison of Equations (3.4) and (3.9) with normalized data of Figure 3.1.
ATsub = 42.8C, ATwsup = 32.7C, Ellion (1953)................................................... 120
3.4. Comparison of Equations (3.4) and (3.9) with normalized data of Figure 3.2.
ATsub = 74.5 C, Arwsup = 34.4 C, Ellion (1953)................................................... 120
3.5. Numerical solutions of Florschuetz and Chao (1965) for vapor bubble collapse given
by Equations (3.11) and (3.12), for three different values of the dimensionless
parameter B, together with the inertia controlled collapse.......................................121
3.6. Numerical solutions of Florschuetz and Chao (1965) for vapor bubble collapse given
by Equations (3.13) and (3.14)..................................................................................122
3.7. Initial uniform superheat model................................................................................... 123
3.8. Initial non-uniform superheat model........................................................................... 123
3.9. Schematic diagram of a realistic hemispherical vapor bubble growing on a heater
surface..........................................................................................................................124
3.10. Schematic diagram of an ideal hemispherical bubble growing on a heater surface for
the initial non-uniform superheat m odel....................................................................124
3.11. Schematic diagram of an ideal hemispherical bubble growing on a heater surface for
the initial uniform superheat m odel........................................................................... 125
3.12. Temperature field around a downward-facing R-113 vapor bubble by means of
holographic interferometery (Straub et al. (1990)).................................................. 125
3.13. Comparison of experimental data of Florschuetz and Chao (1965) for water with
computations using a heat transfer controlled collapse and the present numerical
method........................................................................................................................ 126
3.14. Vapor bubble growth and collapse with water at atmospheric pressure. Comparison
between measurements and numerical computations carried out using estimated
parameters................................................................................................................... 127
3.15. Computed temperature distributions around a growing bubble at various times, for
the estimated parameters of Figure 3.14....................................................................128
xii
3.16. Early bubble growth behavior under microgravity with different levels of heat flux
and subcooling........................................................................................................... 129
3.17. Measured mean heater surface temperature and system pressure for Test
PBMT1129.820, Figure 3.16 (b ).............................................................................. 130
3.18. Comparisons of several parameters influencing growth dynamics for the
experiments in Figure 3.16......................................................................................... 131
3.19. Transient liquid temperature distribution surrounding a spherical vapor bubble
growing from the critical size, with an initial non-uniform liquid temperature
distribution..................................................................................................................132
growing from the critical size with an initial uniform liquid temperature distribution
.................................................................................................................................... 133
3.21. Comparisons of measured bubble growth data with the initially uniform and non-
uniform superheat spherical vapor bubble growth models (Figure 3.16 (a)).......... 134
uniform superheat spherical vapor bubble growth models (Figure 3.16 (b)).......... 135
uniform superheat spherical vapor bubble growth models (Figure 3.16 (c)).......... 136
3.24. Comparison of the liquid-vapor interface velocity between the initially uniform and
nonuniform superheat models....................................................................................137
3.25. Comparison of the liquid-vapor interface acceleration between the initially uniform
and nonuniform superheat models............................................................................. 138
3.26. Comparison of the liquid-vapor interface temperature between the initially uniform
and nonuniform superheat models............................................................................. 139
4.1. Dynamic vapor bubble growth of R -113 in microgravity at NASALewis Research
Center 5 second drop tower. Experimental Data Code PBMT1102.800................162
4.2. Enlargement of Figure 4.1 (E) for Experimental Data Code PBMT1102.800........ 164
xiii
4.3. Measured mean heater surface temperature and system pressure for Figure 4.1 (A)-
(H).............................................................................................................................. 165
4.4. Comparisons of early vapor bubble growth behavior under microgravity with
different levels of heat flux and subcooling............................................................... 166
4.5. Comparisons of experimental bubble growth data with several spherical vapor
bubble growth models. Experimental conditions correspond to Figure 4.4 (a).... 167
4.6. Comparisons of experimental bubble growth data with several spherical vapor
bubble growth models. Experimental conditions correspond to Figure 4.4 (c).... 168
growing from the critical size with an initially non-uniform liquid temperature
distribution..................................................................................................................169
4.8. Photographs of n-butane nucleating at the superheat limit. (Shepherd and
Sturtevant, 1982)........................................................................................................170
4.9. Comparisons between extremely dynamic bubble growth experiments, a momentum
controlled model, and approximate and numerical solutions of the energy and
momentum equations for n-butane............................................................................171
4.10. Liquid-vapor interface velocity and acceleration vs. time for n-butane. Numerical
computations. Physical conditions identical to Figure 4.9....................................... 172
4.11. Effect of system pressure on Landau instability criteria for n-butane. The density
ratio ( a ) is assumed constant at bulk temperature of 105 C.................................. 173
4.12. Velocity potential simulation of a temperature field in the liquid at the liquid-vapor
interface. The velocity potential was superimposed on x-y ax is............................ 174
4.13. Modeling of a perturbed liquid-vapor interface...................................................... 174
4.14. Ratio of perturbed to smooth surface area of a spherical bubble as a function of the
perturbation amplitude to wave length ratio............................................................. 175
xiv
4.15. Comparison of experimental data for n-butane with the modified prediction of
Mikic et al. (1970), Equation (4.23), which includes the effect of the increased area
due to the perturbation.............................................................................................. 176
4.16. Comparison of experimental data for R-113 with the modified prediction of Mikic
et al.(1970), Equation (4.23).....................................................................................177

B -l Control Volume at liquid-vapor interface and velocity at a distance (r).................. 187
B-2 Force balance at Liquid-vapor interface.....................................................................187
xv
LIST OF TABLES
Table
2.1 Parameters corresponding to Figure 2.14...............................................
2.2 Thermophysical properties of saturated liquids at atmospheric pressure
xvi
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A Diffusion Controlled Vapor Bubble Growth..........................................................183
B Momentum Equation for Spherical Bubble G row th............................................. 185
C Sonic Velocity of Water Vapor..............................................................................188
D Homogeneous Nucleation Temperature................................................................. 189
E A Fortran Program for Spherical Vapor Bubble Growth and Collapse...............190
xvii
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Symbol
c specific heat
g gravity
hfs latent heat
c
Ja Jakob number Ja =
V P vtyg j
Jac condensing Jakob number (= -J a above), Ja - IjslL
k thermal conductivity
n spherical harmonic index

P., system pressure
Pv vapor pressure
PR liquid pressure adjacent the bubble wall

q, heat flux to liquid
qT total heat flux imposed
r radial coordinate
R(t) bubble radius
Rc critical radius
t time
t* time at nucleation following onset of heating

Tt liquid-vapor interface temperature
xvui
T' wall temperature at nucleation
Tv vapor temperature
T fluid temperature far from the liquid-vapor interface

Tbulk fluid temperature far from the liquid-vapor interface
Tsal saturation temperature corresponding to system pressure
A T !ub ( Tsa, ~ T~ )> bulk liquid subcooling
ATsuP (Tm- Tsat), bulk liquid superheat
A7;sup (7; - Tsal), heater surface sperheat
A r;sup ( r j - Tsat), heater surface superheat at nucleation
AT {Tx - Tsat), bulk liquid superheat
AP Pv -P
Subscripts
i liquid-vapor interface
I liquid inertia controlled
H heat transfer controlled
I liquid
m maximum
w wall
V vapor
00 infinite or far field
sub subcooling
sup superheat
xix
Superscripts
at nucleation
Greek letters
a thermal diffusivity
a density ratio =
Pi
8 thermal boundary layer
O velocity potential
r ratio of perturbed to smooth area

v'V
r| a dimensionless coordinate
X wavelength
(X dynamic viscosity
p density
c surface tension
v kinematic viscosity of liquid
x dimensionless time
vapor density ratio ( = -

P
Eu
^ p,(R ef)J
Q, nondimensional growth rate
C, amplitude of perturbation
xx
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Vapor bubble dynamics plays an important role in the design of nuclear reactor
coolers and future space power plants, and also in various fields such as cavitation, vapor
explosions, and ultrasonics, and thermal and cryogenic propellant management in space
applications. Bubble dynamics incorporates the bubble growth and/or collapse in initial
uniform or non-uniform temperature fields. The driving force for the bubble growth or
collapse results not only from the phase change, vaporization or condensation, taking
place at liquid-vapor interface, but also from the effect of liquid inertia surrounding the
bubble. The mechanisms of the bubble dynamics are considerably complex such that no
appropriate prediction covering the entire range of conditions to be encountered has yet
been found. In order to study the problem of bubble growth and collapse in some detail, a
Fortran program was written to model the spherical vapor bubble dynamics with a
minimum of assumptions.
The present work deals with three basic related phenomena: bubble growth in
initially uniformly superheated liquids, bubble growth and/or collapse in initially non-
uniform temperature fields, and the role of instabilities in pool boiling bubble growth as
became manifested in microgravity. These three problems are discussed in detail in
Chapters 2, 3 and 4 respectively. The first problem is relatively simple to solve
analytically and to deal with experimentally, since it considers the bubble growth only in
initially uniformly superheated liquids. However, the second problem is more complicated
due to the non-uniform temperature fields surrounding the growing bubble, in which not
2
only bubble growth but collapse can take place. The third problem explores the origins of
the explosive bubble growth observed during pool boiling experiments in microgravity,
ascribed to interfacial instabilities whose origins lie in the very early period of growth.
Vapor bubble growth in an initially uniformly superheated liquid is dealt with in
Chapter 2, and can be considered to be a foundation for Chapters 3 and 4. A vapor
bubble begins its growth from the critical size, whose formation is based on homogeneous
nucleation theory. The nucleus is highly unstable and fluctuates. Mechanically, the vapor
pressure in the nucleus is much higher than the adjacent liquid pressure and is balanced by
the surface tension. A small disturbance is required to initiate the growth from the critical
size when making numerical computations. The effects of the disturbance on the
computations will be discussed below. It is to be noted that the critical radius, frequently
considered to be a theoretical calculation, was demonstrated to be an experimental reality
by Dergarabedian (1960). In order to assess the validity of the computational model
developed here, it is evaluated in light of both previous experiments and numerical works,
and then tested by comparison with available experimental data for two fluids, water and
R-113, and by varying properties over a wide range of liquid superheat and system
pressures. The testing was extended to the previous numerical work of Dalle Donne and
Ferranti (1975) for sodium. As a result, the good agreement between the present and
previous works confirms the validity of the present numerical model. The present initially
uniformly superheated liquid model will be referred to here as the uniform model.
In earth gravity, measurements of vapor bubble growth and collapse as a result of
heat transfer are quite non-reproducible. One of the reasons for this non-reproducibility is
the randomness of the temperature distribution in the vicinity of the growing vapor bubble.
The randomness results from the turbulence associated with the natural and/or forced
convection, and from the liquid agitation produced by adjacent or prior bubbles. In order
to eliminate the randomness arising from natural convection, transient pool boiling
experiments were conducted under microgravity conditions as part of the present research
3
using the 132 m drop tower at the NASA Lewis Research Center, with transient
measurements of the mean heater surface temperature and far-field pressure along with
photographs of the vapor bubbles taken at 400 fps. Results and associated analysis from
these experiments are presented here in Chapters 3 and 4. The absence of natural
convection and agitation from adjacent bubbles permits the determination of the precise
initial temperature distribution at nucleation. The present experiments reveal two
categories of bubble growth: one with bubbles having a smooth surface, which produces
moderate growth rates, is discussed in Chapter 3; the other with bubbles having a
roughened surface, which produces extremely large growth rates which might be classified
as violent, is discussed in Chapter 4.
Vapor bubble growth and/or collapse in initially non-uniform liquid temperature
fields is dealt with in Chapter 3. The model is identical to the uniform model except for
the initial condition, in which the initial superheat surrounding the initial vapor bubble is
non-uniform, and will be referred to as the non-uniform model here. The non-uniform
model not only predicts the bubble growth but also the transient temperature distributions
surrounding the growing bubble, such that the bubble rebound after the first collapse and
the bubble spring-off phenomena observed near a heater surface can be interpreted
quantitatively. Bubble dynamics in pool boiling taking place on a flat heater surface is
modeled using both the uniform and non-uniform models by mathematically considering
half of the spherical bubble model, and is called a hemispherical bubble model. As
presently posed, this model is not yet able to provide an accurate prediction of the bubble
growth for transient pool boiling on a flat heater surface, but rather gives upper and lower
bounds on the growth. The model is tested by comparing computed results with transient
bubble growth measurements obtained from the pool boiling experiments conducted in
microgravity, which provides a known initial temperature distribution at nucleation, in the
absence of any liquid disturbances. It was demonstrated that the concept of upper and
lower bounds for the bubble growth has merit.
4
The role of instabilities observed in pool boiling bubble growth taking place in
microgravity is dealt with in Chapter 4. Extremely large vapor bubble growths at
superheats far below the homogeneous nucleation superheat limit were measured in pool
boiling experiments taking place in microgravity. Photographic evidence revealed a
roughening of the bubble liquid-vapor interface as growth took place, which is believed to
be a consequence of an interface instability. The growth of the instability is explained in
terms of heat conduction, where the heat transfer to the liquid-vapor interface increases at
the trough of the interface perturbation while decreasing at the crest. This can give rise to
a differential vapor recoil at the interface, which further increases the liquid-vapor
interfacial surface area, increasing the evaporating surface area and the bubble growth
rate. The rapid bubble growth is modeled by introducing a simple expression in terms of a
circular function to account for the increase in surface evaporating area. The resulting
factor is found to be a function of the ratio of the amplitude to the wave length. The onset
of the interface roughening can be considered to originate from either a Rayleigh-Taylor
or Landau instability; however, neither of these current instability models provide the
correct quantitative physical descriptions.
The conclusions obtained in Chapters 2, 3 and 4 will be summarized in Chapter 5.
These three Chapters are, of course, closely related to one another, but each also has its
own unique characteristic independence. The present study can be described as having
two basic objectives: the dynamic behavior of vapor bubble growth during the very early
stages, when such bubbles usually are beyond the visible or measurable size, and the
dynamics of vapor bubbles in initially non-uniform temperature fields. The numerical
study of the bubble dynamics in the early stages is particularly helpful in interpreting the
instability taking place on the vapor bubble surface in pool boiling in microgravity, while
the transient temperature distributions around a growing bubble provided by the numerical
model is essential for describing the bubble dynamics in initially non-uniform temperature
fields.
CHAPTER 2
SPHERICAL BUBBLE GROWTH IN INITIAL UNIFORM
SUPERHEAT
The problem of spherical vapor bubble growth in an initially uniformly superheated
liquid is considered. A review of earlier analytical and numerical models is made, followed
by the development of a model whose growth is initiated from a critical size vapor bubble
by providing a small temperature disturbance at the liquid-vapor interface. Momentum,
energy, and surface tension are incorporated simultaneously. The momentum equation is
solved by the Runge-Kutta method to determine the locus of the bubble interface, which
provides the boundary condition for the energy equation. The Landau coordinate
transformation is adopted to immobilize the moving boundary. After the transformation,
the energy equation is solved using the Thomas algorithm (TDMA).
The solution with the present method is compared with various experimental,
numerical, and analytical results. Excellent comparison is demonstrated with the one
existing experimental work with water in which the measurements were initiated from the
thermodynamic critical size. Good comparisons also exist with measurements made
during the growth phase for R-l 13, and for water over a wide range of system pressure.
The results of the present model conform well with physical reality, and demonstrate clear
distinctions between the vapor-bubble growth domains governed by surface tension, liquid
momentum, and thermal diffusion. Although the computed liquid-vapor interface
acceleration appears to be of significance for only a very short period of time, it serves to
clearly delineate these three domains.
6
2.1 Literature Survey
Bubble growth in superheated liquids has been investigated since early in the
twentieth century because it plays an important role in submarine explosions, the design of
nuclear reactor coolers, rocket engines, and space power plants, and in understanding
vapor explosions associated with the transportation of liquefied natural gas. Lord
Rayleigh (1917) first formulated the equation of motion for a growing spherical bubble,
later referred to as the inertia controlled bubble growth. In contrast to this, Bosnjakovic
(1930) proposed a model for thermally controlled bubble growth, which found
experimental support in the work of Jakob (1932). Plesset and Zwick (1952) and (1954)
suggested an asymptotic analytic solution, with an assumption of a thin thermal boundary
layer, which was in good agreement with the data of Dergarabedian (1953) for moderate
superheats, but compared poorly with the data of Dergarabedian (1960) for low
superheats. The results presented in this latter work demonstrated that the vapor bubble
growth was initiated from an observed critical size, which is established by the initial liquid
superheat. The asymptotic solution of Plesset and Zwick (1952) and (1954) considers that
momentum no longer plays an important role after the early stage of bubble growth, and
that thermal diffusion dominates the later stage of growth.
The analyses of Forster and Zuber (1954), Birkhoff et al. (1958), and Scriven
(1959) were basically in agreement with that of Plesset and Zwick (1954), and with the
experiments of Dergarabedian (1953). Florschuetz et al. (1969) reported experiments for
moderate superheats that were in good agreement with Scriven (1959). Hooper and
Abdelmessih (1966) were the first to conduct experiments with high superheats, and their
data did not correspond to the asymptotic solution of Plesset and Zwick (1954). Kosky
(1968), citing the possibility for misinterpretation in the measurement of the system
pressure in the work of Hooper and Abdelmessih (1966), subsequently performed a similar
7
experiment with high superheats. These results were in good agreement with the analysis
of Plesset and Zwick (1954). Lien (1969) performed experiments at low pressures and
demonstrated that liquid inertia dominates the bubble growth process at low pressures, on
the order of 1.26kPa (0.18 psia) for water. Mikic et al. (1970) formulated a single
approximate equation for the bubble growth dynamics, covering both inertia and diffusion
controlled limits, which provided good agreement with the measurements o f Lien and
Griffith (1969).
Dalle Donne and Ferranti (1975) were the first to solve both the momentum and
the energy equations numerically for the spherical bubble growth problem with sodium .
Their computations with water are in good agreement with the experiments o f Kosky
(1968), but not with those of Hooper and Abdelmessih (1966). Prosperetti and Plesset
(1978) solved the same type of bubble growth problem exactly, but the solution could not
be expressed in closed form. Their results compared well with those of Dalle Donne and
Ferranti (1975), except at low levels of liquid superheat. Shepherd and Sturtevant (1982)
conducted experiments at high superheats for Butane near the computed homogeneous
nucleation superheat, referred to as the superheat limit, and compared the results with the
analysis of Mikic et al. (1970). A discrepancy existed in this case between the measured
growth rates and the prediction of the classical diffusion limited theory, and was attributed
to the observed surface instability which produces significant increases in the liquid-vapor
surface area of the bubble.
The literature cited above covers liquid superheat levels from low to the
homogeneous nucleation superheat limit. It should be noted that the majority of the
asymptotic analytic solutions predict neither the early stages of bubble growth for any
superheat, nor the complete stages of bubble growth for low superheats. In order to
examine the early stages of vapor bubble growth, along with the complete vapor bubble
growth for all levels of liquid superheat, the governing equations for spherical vapor
bubble growth in initially uniformly superheated liquids were solved, using a computer
8
program written with highly accurate numerical schemes. This will be described below.
Numerical computations for sodium are compared here with the works of Dalle Donne
and Ferranti (1975), with good agreement between them. Further comparisons are made
with available experimental data through the entire range of liquid superheats. This work
is in good agreement with the measurements of Dergarabedian (1960) for low superheats
of 0.8 ~ 1.0 C; in fair agreement with that of Florschuertz (1969) and Dergarabedian
(1953) for moderate superheats of 2.0 ~ 5.0 C; in good agreement with the
measurements of Kosky (1968) for a high superheat of 36 C; and in good agreement with
the measurements of Lien (1969) for low pressures with moderate and high superheats.
As a result, it is believed that the model to be described below follows physical reality to
an extent not attained heretofore.
Comparisons will also be presented here between the numerical results obtained
here and the asymptotic analytic solutions cited above. As will be demonstrated, the
analyses of Mikic et al. (1970), Scriven (1959) and Plesset and Zwick (1954) provide
good agreement for moderate and high superheats, while the results of Prosperetti and
Plesset (1978) are in disagreement with the model here. None of the analytical solutions
available are in agreement with the numerical solutions for the cases of both low
superheats and early stages of bubble growth.
The model here considers that a vapor bubble begins its growth from the critical
size, whose formation is based on homogeneous nucleation theory. A vapor nucleus
forms in a superheated liquid as a result of molecular interactions. The size and time
required for its formation are functions of the liquid temperature and other properties,
Kwak and Lee (1991). The nucleus is highly unstable and fluctuates. Mechanically, the
vapor pressure in the nucleus is much higher than the adjacent liquid pressure and is
balanced by the surface tension. For analytical purposes the nucleus is assumed to be in a
state of metastable thermodynamic equilibrium, and a small disturbance is required to
initiate the growth from the critical size when making numerical computations. The
9
disturbance may be interpreted as a fluctuation in the state of the nucleus similar to that
required for its formation. The effects of the disturbance on the computations will be
discussed below. The nonequilibrium at the boundary of a growing vapor bubble has
been matter of considerable disagreement. Thermodynamic equilibrium at the liquid-vapor
interface is assumed in the present model. The resulting good predictions obtained
demonstrate that the effect of nonequilibrium is negligible, for the range of liquid
superheat and system pressure used here.
The bubble growth dynamics can be characterized by three domains: surface
tension dominated, momentum dominated, and thermal diffusion dominated growth. It
was predicted that the interface acceleration in the early stages of growth can reach
extremely high values, up to 4 x 107 m/s2 for the case of a high superheat of 36 C with
water, which suggests the possibility that surface instabilities can arise, which in turn can
lead to vapor explosions. This happens so rapidly, within on the order of one millisecond,
that it has been considered to this point that the interface acceleration does not
significantly affect the subsequent growth for moderate superheats. However, this may be
an important parameter for describing the transition in the pattern of growth from
moderate growth rates to the vapor explosions observed with very high liquid superheats.
2.2 Previous Analytical Solutions
Lord Rayleigh (1917) first formulated the equation of motion in terms of the
bubble radius and pressure difference as:
R R + -R 2= (2.1)
2 p,
where AP = PV-P
10
The effects of surface tension and viscosity were neglected here. Equation (2.1)
can be solved directly for R(t) for the special case where AP is constant. With the initial
condition R(0)=0, the solution is:
t ( 2 .2)
Equation (2..2) is referred to as the inertia controlled bubble growth, since the
growth is governed solely by the momentum equation, and does not consider the source of
the AP. It is to be noted that R is a linear function of t for this case.
Bosnjakovic (1930) was the first to propose what is now referred to as the
thermally controlled bubble growth, stating that the vaporization process at the bubble
interface is maintained by an energy transfer from the superheated liquid to the interface.
Accordingly, equating the heat transfer in the liquid at the liquid-vapor interface to the
work and internal energy change in a spherical bubble, from the first law of
thermodynamics:
(2.3)
By assuming a one dimensional semi-infinite solid transient conduction process for

the LHS of Equation (2.3), and taking Tv = Tinleiface(= Tt) = Tsat , Equation (2.3) is solved
for R(t) as:
* (0 = 4 aMo *),/2 (2.4)

K
where Ja = ''iZkzZil
Pv*/
Jakob (1932) demonstrated the validity of Equation (2.4) by experiment under
certain conditions, indicating that the inertia of the liquid at a distance far from the bubble
wall is asymptotically negligible.
11
Plesset and Zwick (1952) solved the one-dimensional energy equation in spherical
coordinates with the initial condition T(r, 0) = T and the boundary condition ,
and suggested a formulation for the temperature at a bubble wall by assuming a thin
thermal boundary layer near the bubble wall with moderate or high liquid superheats. The
energy equation used is:
dT dT f d2T 2dT
+ = a |^ r r + I (2-5)
d t + r 3 r " a dr2 + rdr
where ur is the radial component of the local liquid velocity.
An approximate expression for the temperature at the moving spherical boundary
was given as:
3: = 3' - - ( f ] 1 ,, (2-6)
The temperature at the bubble wall (7]) is thus given in terms of R and R. Plesset
and Zwick (1954) later addeda surface tension term to the Rayleigh Equation (2.1) as:
R R + -R 2 (2.7)
2 p, p,R
Equations (2.6) and (2.7) were related by assuming the equilibrium vapor pressure
to be a linear function of the interface temperature (7J), and an asymptotic solution for
R(t) was obtained as:
R(0 = ( ^ ) Ja{at)in (2.8)
This equation is in good agreement with the experiments of Dergarabedian (1953).
However, it should be emphasized here that since Equation (2.8) is an asymptotic
solution, it is valid only for times large enough for the growth velocity to be much smaller
12
than the inertia-controlled velocity and for moderate or high superheats. In order to
ascertain how the temperature (7]) at the moving boundary varies as the bubble grows, the
asymptotic solution Equation (2.8) was substituted into Equation (2.6). The result
showed that the temperature at the moving boundary is independent of time and exactly
equals the saturation temperature (Tsal) corresponding to the system pressure. This is not
unexpected, since Equation (2.8) is the same form as Equation (2.4), where inertia effects
are neglected. The detailed derivation is given in Appendix A. If the solution given by
Equation (2.8) is used for early times as well as for the asymptotic times, it would imply
that the momentum in the early stage of bubble growth is negligible, so that only diffusion
controlled growth takes place, although both the momentum and diffusion equations were
initially considered by Plesset & Zwick (1954). As a result of this, the asymptotic solution
Equation (2.8) is hereafter regarded as a solution for the thermal diffusion controlled
growth.
Birkhoff et al. (1958) produced a result similar to Equation (2.8) by solving the
energy Equation (2.5) without assuming the thin thermal boundary layer, and concluded
that in ordinary boiling water, inertial effects are negligible whenever the bubble is large
enough that the effect of surface tension is negligible. Forster and Zuber (1954) solved
the problem using a method similar to that of Plesset and Zwick (1954). They combined
Equations (2.5) and (2.7) by using the thermodynamic equilibrium vapor pressure
relationship, the Clausius-Clapeyron relation as:
AP = p i T (2.9)
r ra,(vv- v ;)
where vv and v, are the specific volumes of vapor and liquid, respectively.
Forster and Zuber (1954) demonstrated that the coefficients of the inertia terms in
the momentum equation are relatively small (of the order of lO9) and therefore negligible.
Under these assumptions, an asymptotic approximation for R(t) resulted as:
13
/?(r)=|Xj ja(aif'2
( 2 . 10)
This is also in fair agreement with Plesset and Zwick (1954) and with the
experiments of Dergarabedian (1953). Scriven (1959) solved the bubble growth problem
exactly without assuming a thin thermal boundary layer, but neglected inertia, surface
tension, and viscous terms. For bubbles over the entire range of superheats (AT), the
solution was of the form:

R(t) = 2$Ja(at)in ( 2 . 11)
where P is determined by the following relation:
<t>(e,P) = /a E=1 = 2 p 3exp(p2 + 2 ep 2)jp ;t"2ex p (-* 2- 2 e p 3x~')dx (2.11a)
where
The result of Scriven (1959) is in substantial agreement not only with Plesset and
Zwick (1954), but also with the experiments of Dergarabedian (1953), particularly in the
case for moderate or high superheats. Scriven (1959) postulated that the growth of the
vapor nucleus initially depends very strongly on the surface tension and the inertia of
surrounding fluid, but quickly becomes limited by the rate at which the latent heat of
vaporization can be supplied to the vapor bubble interface.
Mikic et al. (1970) developed a relation applicable over the entire range of the
growth, including both inertia controlled and diffusion controlled, using the Clausius-
Clapeyron relation (2.9) to evaluate dP/dT at the saturation temperature (Tsal). The result
is:
( 2 . 12)
t
where R+= ^----
B2 / A B2 / A 2
14
'2AThApvV * no V'2
A= ; B = { Ja2a.
3rra(p, ) V
Vn 'J
Equation (2.12) simplifies to the Rayleigh solution Equation (2.2) for t+ 1 and
to the Plesset and Zwick solution Equation (2.8) for t+ 1, and is in good agreement
with the experiments of Lien and Griffith (1969) made at conditions of low pressure,
where the vapor specific volume is large. Mikic et al. (1970) noted that Equation (2.12)
does not predict the early stage of the bubble growth well when the bubble is near the
critical radius (Rc), because the assumption that thermodynamic equilibrium persists in the
vapor is not justified near the critical size. The critical size is based on thermodynamic
equilibrium, and a simplified form may be derived by combining the Clausius-Clapeyron

Equation (2.9) with the static equilibrium relation for a spherical bubble: AP = 2 a / Rc.
The resulting expression for the radius is:
R = 2aT < (2.13)

hfspvAT
The work of Mikic et al. (1970) was examined carefully here, since it is referred to
frequently by various researchers. As a result of this, a question has arisen about a
relation used by Mikic, taken from the work of Plesset & Zwick (1954):
d R _ 1 B T -T v ^ l ( 1 2 ) m plcl{T'0- T v) ( a A U2
dt 2 tm AT 2\ k J hfgpv U J
Solving Equation (2.14) for R(TV) by integration yields, for R(0)=0:
R(T) = f I" 2 P/C/f c ~ Tv- (a,t)u2 (2.15)

\K J h/gPv
Mikic stated that Equation (2.14), or equivalently Equation (2.15), was taken from
the work of Plesset and Zwick (1954), which is Equation (2.8) here. When comparing
Equations (2.15) and (2.8), however, it is found that Tv was used in Equation (2.15)
instead of Tsat in Equation (2.8). However, it seems that the substitution does not make
15
the problem different, but rather more accurate, since Tv takes into account the
temperature variation in the early stage of bubble growth as a result of surface tension
effects, while Tsat is constant.
Prosperetti and Plesset (1978) re-examined the works of Plesset and Zwick (1954)
and Mikic et al. (1970). They demonstrated that the assumptions used in Plesset and
Zwick (1954), the thin thermal boundary layer with moderate or high liquid superheats,
produce valid results. Prosperetti and Plesset (1978) first solved Equations (2.6) and (2.7)
exactly for sodium by combining the momentum and the energy equation, although the
solution was not given explicitly in closed form. Their results were compared with the
numerical work of Dalle Donne (1975). Good agreement was found for moderate and
high superheats, while a substantial disagreement was found for low superheats. This was
to be expected since the assumption of a high superheat was required in deriving Equation
(2.6). Prosperetti and Plesset (1978) improved the single equation provided by Mikic et
al. (1970) slightly, now given as:
(2.16)
where R+= (i2 ; t+= Pp2f (2.17)

Rr
Equation (2.16) covers the entire range of superheats, but is valid only for bubbles
that have grown by about an order of magnitude beyond the critical radius, so that surface
tension effects have become unimportant.
Dalle Donne and Ferranti (1975) were the first to solve Equations (2.5) and (2.7)
numerically without the assumption of a thin thermal boundary layer, and considered the
16
influence of viscosity as well as surface tension. Equation (2.16) incorporates the
influence of surface tension only, although as stated above it becomes insignificant in the
domain of validity for the solution. When the results of Dalle Donne and Ferranti (1975)
were compared with Equation (2.16), good agreement was found, and for the conditions
used demonstrate that the liquid viscosity has little effect.
The works described above consider bubble growth to take place in uniformly
superheated liquids, without considering the wall effects, and indicate that inertia does not
play an important role beyond the very early stage of bubble growth. The asymptotic
solutions discussed above can not accurately describe the early stages of bubble growth,
and some discrepancies exist in the various solutions for bubble growth with low
superheats. In view of potential applications at that time, the early stages of bubble
growth were considered to be unimportant. However, it develops that the behavior during
the early stages of growth may be quite important when transient pool boiling taking place
in microgravity is considered, particularly for the non-isothermal wall-heating cases.
2.3 Formulation of Governing Equations
A series of the photographs of the spherical vapor bubble growth in a superheated
liquid in Figure 2.1, which was taken by Bohrer (1973), demonstrates the sphericity of the
bubble. Schematic diagrams of the spherical bubble growth problem in a superheated
liquid are illustrated in Figures 2.2 (a) and (b). The bulk liquid and the critical size bubble
are initially isothermal. It is assumed that the bubble growth is initiated from the critical
size bubble. The bubble wall temperature decreases as the bubble grows at the saturation
temperature corresponding to the internal pressure of the bubble. Other assumptions are
necessary in order to solve the problem, and are summarized below.
17
The major assumptions made in this work are:
a) Bubble remains spherical
b) A uniform pressure and temperature exist inside the vapor bubble
c) The vapor temperature inside the bubble is equal to the liquid-vapor interface
temperature, Tv = Tt
d) The liquid is incompressible
The momentum equation in spherical coordinates is given by:
3u 3u l3 P u 1 3
u = + r \ r l (2.18)
31 dr p dr p ^ r dr v dr J r
The continuity equation with assumption (d) is given by:
^ - ( r 2) = 0 (2.19)
3r
Using the continuity equation (2.19) and integrating Equation (2.18) from the
bubble surface (R) to infinity (), the momentum equation can be written in terms of the
bubble radius as (details of the derivation are in Appendix B):

r r + 1 r 2 = I jl ~
2 EP/ (2.20)
For a spherical bubble, viscosity affects only the boundary condition, so that the
balance of pressure across the liquid-vapor interface gives:
Pv( T ) - P r = ^ +4 ^ (2.21)
K K
where PR is the liquid pressure adjacent the bubble wall.
Inserting Equation (2.21) into Equation (2.20) yields
g+lp.SiZLS,.-**!
2 ep, ep,/?
1 -4 -A
ep,R
(2.22)
The initial conditions are:

7?(0) = Rc and i?(0) = 0 at t = 0 (2.23)
18
The driving force for the bubble growth in Equation (2.22) is the pressure
difference between the vapor bubble and the liquid adjacent the bubble, which is
constrained by the surface tension. Equation (2.22) implies that static equilibrium will
exist when the first and second derivatives are zero. For the initial vapor bubble of critical
size, this gives, since Tv = initially:
Rc = 2 [ T) (2.24)
c PV(T)~P
The energy equation in spherical coordinates is given by Equation (2.5) and listed
here again as:
dT dT d 2T 2 dT
(2.25)
dt +Ur dr ~ a vv3r2 r dr
R} R
where ur = and e = ' i - * ' (2.26)
r~ P /.
The initial condition is: T(r,0) = Tm (2.27)
The boundary conditions are: jT(,0) =
< 2 -2 8 )
Equation (2.28) is the heat balance at the liquid-vapor interface of the bubble. The
term in the RHS of the equation represents the latent heat rate for evaporation of the
liquid to produce the vapor required in the bubble, while the term in the LHS represents
the conduction heat transfer rate from the liquid adjacent to the vapor bubble wall.
According to assumption (b), the conduction heat transfer from the bubble wall to the
interior of the vapor bubble is neglected. The bubble growth problem in a superheated
liquid can be solved by coupling Equation (2.22) and Equation (2.25) with the initial and
boundary conditions given in Equations (2.23) and (2.28).
19
2.4 Numerical Solution
A Fortran program was written to solve the transient spherical bubble growth
problem in superheated liquids. The program couples the momentum and the energy
equations and marches stepwise in time, taking into account the variations of properties
with temperature. For the infinitesimal time steps, the momentum equation is solved by
means of the Runge-Kutta method to determine the locus of the bubble interface, which
provides the boundary condition for the energy equation. The complexity of the problem
is simplified by adopting the Landau coordinate transformation in order to immobilize the
moving boundary. After the transformation, the energy equation is solved by using the
Thomas algorithm, which is called the TriDiagonal Matrix Algorithm.
The solution method uses the implicit finite difference method for the energy
equation, with the explicit boundary condition given by Equation (2.28). An irregular grid
is adopted for the liquid to minimize the computation time, with the grid spacing
decreasing as the bubble interface is approached. 100 nodes are used for about 2 mm of
the thermal boundary layer in this program. The positions of the control volume faces are
determined according to the relation:
n (2.29)
where n is total number of control volume faces and p is an exponent suited to the
problem, usually taken to be between 1.5 and 2.5. If p = 1, a regular grid results; if p > 1,
an irregular grid results. It is critically important that the time step be arranged to increase
as the computational time passes in order to reduce the computation time. The time step
initially starts from on the order of 10-9 seconds and eventually increases to about 10'3
seconds, depending on the computational time limit.
20
A small disturbance is necessary in order to initiate the bubble growth from the
critical size, which is in metastable equilibrium. In this work, a small temperature
disturbance is given once at the liquid-vapor interface, and thereafter the program runs
without further disturbances. The effect of the magnitude of the disturbances will be
discussed in section 2.5. Dalle Donne and Ferranti (1975) added a volumetric energy
source term to the energy equation to provide the disturbance necessary to make bubble
grow from its critical size, claiming that the energy source term will not affect the
subsequent growth rate of the bubble unless extremely high or unrealistic values are
assumed. Two major differences exist between the present work and that of Dalle Donne
and Ferranti (1975): (1) the former uses the Landau transformation while the latter uses
the Lagrange transformation to immobilize the moving boundary, (2) the former uses a
temperature disturbance for one time step at the liquid-vapor interface at the beginning of
the computational process, while the latter uses a constant energy source during the entire
computation in order to initiate the bubble growth from the condition of metastable
equilibrium.
To immobilize the moving boundary, a dimensionless coordinate (rj) is introduced
as shown in Figure 2.3, given by Sparrow et al. (1978) and referred to as the Landau
coordinate:
0 < r| < 1 , fl(f)<r </?(?) + 8 (2.30)
where 8 is an arbitrary distance which can be considered to correspond to a
thermal boundary layer. The conservative forms of the continuity and the energy equation
are used to begin the coordinate transformation.
(2.31)
(2.32)
21
The transformation of the governing equations is facilitated by the following
relations, also given by Sparrow et al. (1978):
3 _ 1 8 r' 3
(2.33)
dr 8 9r| dt dt 8 3tj
, d r , s. dd dR
(2.34)
r = a7 ( v ) = ^ + *
The continuity and energy Equations (2.31) and (2.32) can be transformed to the
immobilized equations by using Equations (2.30), (2.33), and (2.34), as was done by Kim
and Kaviany (1990) based on the work of Sparrow et al. (1978). This has the significant
effect of eliminating the convection term in Equation (2.32), with the result:
df 3 ^ dF n
(2.35)
dt ^ 3 t | J 3rj
3 / .3 1 ^ 37 .
(2.36)
dt . ) 3n
dv_
where F(r|,r) = p r2u - (2.37)
dt
1( v . r2k d T
7(ti,/) = F(x\,t)h (2.38)
1
V(tl,f) = - r 3 (2.39)
r(rj, t) = tj8 + R(t) (2.40)
The term F(Tj,r) and the term J(r\,t) represent the mass flux and the energy flux,
respectively, across the face of the control volume, as shown in Figure 2.4.
Now, the transformed conservation equations (2.35) and (2.36) are discretized by
using the numerical scheme of Patankar (1980). For a typical control volume as shown in
Figure 2.4, the integration of Equation (2.36) with the aid of Equation (2.35) gives:
22
a PTP = a eTe + a WTW+b (2.41)
where a p = a E + a w + a , (2.42)
+ max{-cFe,0} (2.43)
(2.44)
(2.45)
(2.46)
(2.47)
(2.48)
The various numerical schemes developed and used in recent years have been
formulated as different choices of the function A(IPI) in Equations (2.43) and (2.44), as
developed by Patankar(1980), which amount to different means for expressing the
derivatives between nodal points. The power law scheme suggested by Patankar(1980) is
used here:
a (|^|) = m a x {o ,(l-0 .l|n |)S} (2.49)
A(|i;,|) = nm {o,(l-0.l|P .|)s} (2.50)
The max {B, C} denotes the greater of B and C.
The previous value at time t is known and is denoted by using the superscript "o",
while the new value at time t + At is unknown and is denoted by using no superscript.
The discretized Equation (2.41) can be solved efficiently by using TDMA (TriDiagonal
Matrix Algorithm) with the two aforementioned boundary conditions Equation (2.28),
which can be discretized considering the finite volume at boundary.
23
(2.51)
T t~ 2 F nQxk
(2.52)
1+ 2 K 1+ 2 F0
where F0 =
Equation (2.52) is used as the discretized boundary condition for the energy
equation, since dR/dt can be obtained from a time step solution of the momentum
Equation (2.22) by using the Runge-Kutta method.
Solution Methods
To begin the computation of bubble growth from the critical radius it is first
necessary to determine the critical radius ( Rc) for the given initial values of the bulk
temperature(7^,) and the system pressure(PJ, and is given by Equation(2.24)
In the actual computational process a vapor temperature slightly higher than the
initial bulk temperature is imposed for the initial time step in order to provide the
disturbance necessary for growth from the critical size, and is expressed as:
TV= T+ ATddisturb. (2.53)
The small disturbance does not affect the subsequent bubble growth except during
the very early stages of bubble growth (to be demonstrated in section 2.5). This small
disturbance could be interpreted as a small statistical fluctuation of the local liquid
temperature in the vicinity of the critical size vapor bubble. Once this disturbance is given,
the computer solves Equation (2.22) by means of the Runge-Kutta method assuming that
the pressure is constant for the short period of the time step, so that R, R, and R are
produced. TheR is used to solve Equation (2.52), which is a boundary condition at the
24
liquid-vapor interface. The discretization Equation (2.41) then can be solved by means of
the TDMA so that a new interface temperature(TJ) is determined, which then is used to
obtain the vapor pressure corresponding to the interface temperature with assumption (c).
This process is iterated to update the temperature variation until the velocity difference
between the time steps (i - 1) and (i) converges to a certain value, here taken as 10-6 m/s
for the convergence limit. The convergence is so fast that only 2 - 3 iterations are usually
required to satisfy the convergence limit. The computation time required was
approximately 1 0 - 3 0 minutes for a personal computer with a 486/66 processor in order
to run the program up to the time limit of 1 second, using an initial time step of 10'8
seconds. The actual time required is dependent upon how the time step variation is
arranged.
2.5 Comparisons with Previous Works
Among the many studies dealing with bubble dynamics, few numerical works have
been reported to date. Most analyses used some form of an analytical approximation in
order to describe the bubble growth in superheated liquids, as discussed in Section II.
Dalle Donne and Ferranti (1975) were the first to solve the problem numerically, taking
into account the variation of properties with temperature. In order to eliminate the
complexity of the convection term in the energy Equation (2.25), a Lagrange coordinate
transformation was performed. For the finite difference method, the Babuska method
(1966) was adopted.
In the work presented here, the Landau coordinate transformation is used for the
immobilization of the moving coordinate and the Patankar (1980) procedure for the finite
difference method. Thus, it can be said that Dalle Donne and Ferrenti (1975) and the
present work use quite different solution methods, although both basically use the same
25
governing equations. Both works use the Runge-Kutta method to solve the equation of
motion, Equation (2.22).
2.5.1 Sodium
Computations performed here will first be compared with the results of Dalle
Donne and Ferrenti (1975) for a liquid metal. Sodium was used with three different
superheats, and the comparisons are given in Figures 2.5 ~ 2.8. The solid lines represent
the computations conducted here, while the symbols represent the discrete computations
of Dalle Donne. It is to be noted that since the data of Dalle Donne (1975) used in these
figures were taken from the original logarithmic scaled plots, an error of about 4% may
be present in the values shown. Furthermore, the property equations used for sodium in
the present work may not be identical to those used by Dalle Donne. In spite of these
differences, this work is in a good agreement with the results of Dalle Donne and Ferrenti
(1975), as shown in Figures 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7.
In Figure 2.5, the onset of the bubble growth from each corresponding critical size
radius begins earlier as the superheat increases. It seems that the surface tension
dominates the onset of bubble growth. It is noteworthy that the bubble grows to a radius
of about 1 meter in 0.1 seconds. In Figure 2.6, it is noted that for a superheat of 42 K,
the interface velocity increased from 0.001 m/s to 5 m/s, while for a high superheat of 362
K the maximum velocity encountered was on the order of 25 m/s, which can be considered
as an explosively fast growth.
Figure 2.7 represents the interface temperature vs. time. The variation of the
interface temperature during the early stages of the bubble growth has not been
determined in previous analytical works because of computational difficulties. It begins at
the initial liquid temperature and converges to the saturation temperature corresponding to
26
the system pressure. The convergence is slow, in case of sodium, so that the saturation
temperature is not attained even in one second, as noted in Figure 2.7. This is due to its
high thermal conductivity, and is to be contrasted with the case of both water and R -l 13,
where convergence occurs within one millisecond. A discrepancy of about 10 K out of
1100 K exists between the two works for a superheat of 42 K. This is attributed to using
a different vapor-pressure curve, since the discrepancy remained consistent. Also, a slight
discrepancy is present in the computation of the saturation temperature, as shown by the
symbols at 1 second on the time scale being about 10 K above the computed values. The
radius vs. time curve in Figure 2.5 is less sensitive to this error than the interface
temperature curve in Figure 2.7.
Figure 2.8 shows, for sodium, the effect of using various small initial temperature
disturbances. The symbols are the numerical data of Dalle Donne and Ferrenti (1975) and
the solid lines represent the present work. It is interesting that the best fit corresponds to
the use of 10" C as a disturbance in this work, while Dalle Donne used the equivalent of
102 C as a heat source. Dalle Donne and Ferrenti (1975) did not use the terminology of
"disturbance" for the distributed energy or heat source in the liquid. Additionally, it is to
be recalled that the disturbance used here is characterized differently from that of Dalle
Donne. The disturbance here is applied to the vapor temperature initially at one time step
only, while the heat source term is applied continuously to the liquid surrounding the
bubble. The effect of the disturbance will be discussed in detail in section 2.6.
2.5.2 Water
Dergarabedian (1953) was among the first to conduct experiments measuring the
bubble growth in uniformly superheated water at atmospheric pressure. Superheats of up
to 6 C were obtained by heating the liquid in a glass beaker using an infrared lamp.
27
Transient bubble sizes were measured with a 16 mm high speed camera having a framing
rate of 1000 fps. It was claimed that the growth rates were so rapid that the translational
motion due to buoyancy could be neglected. It was necessary to facilitate the
homogeneous nucleation by addition of powdered chalk or sand to the water to produce
the nucleation at the desired degree of superheat. Strictly speaking, the nucleation in these
experiments occurred at a solid surface of the particles, with bubble growth then
following. The measurement accuracy of superheat was assumed to be within 0.2 C,
and a shifting of the data along the time scale is permissible because of the uncertainty of
the appearance of the first bubble within the framing interval of 1 millisecond. Figure 2.9
presents a comparison of the data with computations performed here. The data was
arranged to provide the best fit within the uncertainty allowance. The data for superheats
of 2.1C and 3.1 C are in good agreement with the computations, while the data for
superheat 4.5 C fell about 10 % below the computed data. One possible reason may be
the variable air content in the water, although Dergarabedian boiled the distilled water for
about 1 hour to remove the air.
The measurements of Kosky (1968) for a high superheat of 36 C with water are
compared in Figure 2.10 with computations made here. Experiments with such high
superheats are quite difficult to perform because the boiling usually is initiated earlier at
some point on the wall surface of the test vessel before a high superheat can be reached.
The high superheat was reached in this case by the use of a diaphragm rupture technique
to decrease the system pressure rapidly, with a glass tube as the test vessel to eliminate
premature nucleation at the wall, using a 10,000 fps high speed camera for photography.
The data of Kosky (1968) are in good agreement with the computations.
Figure 2.11 shows additional measurements of Dergarabedian (1960) with low
bulk liquid superheats of 0.8 C and 1.0 C for water. This data is unique in that it
included measurements of vapor bubble sizes in the thermodynamic critical size range.
Bubble growth rates measured with such low bulk liquid superheats were not in good
28
agreement with certain earlier analytical solutions because the assumption of moderate or
high bulk liquid superheats was necessary in the analytical development of the asymptotic
solutions. Thus, solutions for low bulk liquid temperatures were not possible until
numerical computations to the fine degree necessary became practical. Although Dalle
Donne and Ferrenti (1975) solved the coupled equations for spherical growth, they
apparently were unaware of the earlier measurements of Dergarabedian (1960).
Comparisons of these are made with present computations in Figure 2.11, where the vapor
bubble growth is initiated from the thermodynamic critical size corresponding to the initial
bulk liquid superheat, given by Equation (2.24). The temperature disturbances here were
selected as 10-4 C and 10'9 C to provide the best fit along the time axis. For the low
superheats used here the critical vapor bubble radius of 0.04 mm was measurable with
appropriate optical magnification, whereas this is not possible for high levels of initial
superheat. It is to be noted that the critical radius, frequently considered to be a
theoretical calculation, was demonstrated to be an experimental reality.
Florschuetz et al. (1969) used a rapid depressurization technique to obtain a
moderate superheat 3.61 C of water, considerably lower than that used by Kosky (1968).
The specification of the system pressure was complicated by its variation during the
experiments being on the order of 5% of the mean value. The liquid was boiled for at
least 30 minutes at atmospheric pressure to remove the air. A high speed camera with a
framing rate of 1200 fps was used, and the measurement accuracy of liquid temperature
was within 0.2 C. It was noted that the initial bubble grew very slowly at first and then
grew rapidly, and compared well with the analytical work of Scriven (1959) when the data
were shifted 6.5 milliseconds to obtain the best fit. The data of Florschuetz et al. (1969)
are compared in Figure 2.12 with computations made here, with an arbitrary shift of 6.5
ms in the time origin. As may be noted in Figure 2.12, the bubble has a radius of 0.12
mm at the very early times. This was originally thought to be the critical size, but actually
is an order of magnitude larger than the critical radius of about 0.01 mm corresponding to
29
the superheat of 3.61 C. The possibility exists that the initial bubble formed is much
larger than the computed critical radius because of the presence of air.
Figure 2.13 shows comparisons between the present numerical calculations and
the measurements of Lien (1969) for water over a pressure range of 1.26 to 38.66 kPa,
with good agreement. Figure 2.13 demonstrates the applicability of the computational
procedure for a wide range of reduced pressures. Lien (1969) basically adopted the
method of Derarabedian (1953), with the additional control of the bubble formation, by
energizing a chromel electrode of 0.00127 mm (0.005 inch) in diameter with a 0.00254
mm ( 0.001 inch) gap between the electrodes. A Pyrex glass beaker was used as a test
container, and superheats as high as 16 C were attained with two infrared lamps. A layer
of silicon oil 3.175 mm (1/8 inch) in thickness was used to prevent the evaporation of
water, and the low system pressure was maintained by means of vacuum pump. A streak
camera with strobe flash provided the high framing speed of 2000 fps. The uncertainty in
temperature is estimated to be 0.5 C and the uncertainty in pressure to be 0.2 mmHg.
2.5.3 R-113
Measurements of spherical bubble growth in initially uniformly superheated R-113
were made by Bohrer (1973). A Pyrex flask was used as a test vessel with a layer of
glycerin floating on the fluid to prevent surface evaporation. A touching probe technique,
in which the desired nucleation is achieved by quickly touching and separating two wires
suspended in the superheated liquid, was used to initiate the vapor bubble growth. Two
sizes of probe, 0.01 and 0.02 inch in diameter, were used in the experiments of Bohrer
(1973). Figure 2.14 presents data obtained with the small size probe of 0.01 inch, using a
camera framing rate of 5000 fps, together with computations obtained with the model
described here.
30
Table 2.1 below shows the parameters for Figure 2.14. The initial temperature
was uniform at 22.78 C, and the system pressure was reduced carefully to 8.46 kPa (1.23
psia) such that the liquid became uniformly superheated at 34.12 C, and to 3.66 kPa
(0.53 psia) such that the liquid superheat was 48.21 C. The higher uniform initial
superheat, resulting from dropping the initial pressure to a lower value, produces a more
rapid growth rate, as anticipated. The experiments correspond to saturation temperatures
of -11.33 C and -25.99 C, respectively. It is to be noted that large bubbles are
associated with such low pressures, and the growth rates are not unusually high in spite of
the large initial liquid superheats. It is expected that circumstances will be quite different
with large superheats at higher pressures.
Table 2.1 Parameters corresponding to Figure 2.14.
Superheat P(system) Tsat Jacob No.
kPa/psia
34.12 C 8.462/1.227 -11.33 C 418
48.21 C 3.66/0.53 -25.99 C 1321
2.6 Discussion
It has been demonstrated that fair agreement exists between measurements and
computations over a wide range of superheat and pressure, although some difficulties have
been experienced in the conduct of experiments. The effect of varying the disturbance
parameter imposed to begin the bubble growth will now be examined, particularly during
the early stages of growth, since the magnitude of the disturbance used will be quite
arbitrary. The effect of this parameter on the transient vapor bubble radius, interface
temperature, velocity and acceleration will be presented, for H 2 O, R-113, and sodium. In
31
addition, the computations with the model presented here will be compared with the
various analytical models described earlier, also for H2 O, R-113, and sodium, for high/low
superheats and high/low pressures. The effect of superheat and pressure on the maximum
bubble growth rate, the delay time, and the maximum interface acceleration also will be
presented.
2.6.1 Water
Figure 2.15 shows the bubble radius and liquid-vapor interface velocity versus time
curves on the log-log scale axis for high and low superheats of 36 C and 3.1 C, from the
numerical computations, with time beginning when the disturbance is imposed. It is noted
that the bubble initially grows very slowly. After a certain time lag, the bubble then
suddenly grows rapidly due to the reduction in surface tension and the accompanying
increase in the internal vapor pressure difference. This rapid growth is referred to as the
onset of bubble growth. The time lag increases as the superheat decreases. Three
interface temperature disturbances are introduced at t=0: lCH C, lO 5 C and 10'9 C.
The onset of the bubble growth is delayed as the magnitude of the disturbance decreases.
It is noted that the bubble growth converges asymptotically no matter what the magnitude
of the disturbance, indicating that the disturbance does not affect the subsequent growth.
The critical radius for a superheat of 3.1 C is 0.01 mm, to be compared with a radius of
0.0005 mm for a superheat of 36 C. The radius of 0.01 mm is difficult to measure, while
the radius of 0.0005 mm is almost impossible to measure even with modem technology. It
was noted in connection with Figure 2.11 that the corresponding measurements of the
critical size vapor bubble indeed have been made, but this was possible only because of
low level of bulk liquid superheat used. It is to be noted in Figure 2.15 that the onset of
32
growth does not change significantly as the magnitude of the disturbance changes,
although it appears markedly different due to the log scale axis used here.
Figure 2.15 also shows the variation of the interface velocity of the bubble for both
superheats. The maximum interface velocities are seen to be about 10 m/s for a superheat
of 36 C and 0.5 m/s for 3 C, and are independent of the magnitude of the disturbances.
This implies that the magnitude of the disturbance should have a negligible effect on the
vapor bubble size once the initial acceleration is completed. The interface velocity of 10
m/s for the high superheat is much smaller than both the sound speed of 500 m/s
calculated for water vapor and the root mean square molecular speed o f 752 m/s for water
vapor (refer to Appendix C), so that it may reasonably be assumed to be incompressible
flow. It is noted that a small dip appears on each of the interface velocity curves for the
superheat of 3.1 C at about 10'5 sec. Although its effect appears to be negligible, this dip
becomes greater in case of R113, and is related to the relative effects of surface tension
and pressure difference between the bubble vapor and bulk liquid. A more elaborate
discussion of this phenomena will be presented in section 2 below. It is noted that the
seemingly large differences in the initial interface velocities due to the different initial
temperature disturbances have relatively little effect on the bubble radii in the measurable
domains.
Figure 2.16 presents the variation of the liquid-vapor interface temperature along
with the duplication of the radius-time curves from Figure 2.15, for both superheats of 3.1
C and 36 C for water. The temperature begins to decrease rapidly from the initial liquid
temperature at the onset of the bubble growth, and eventually converges asymptotically to
the saturation temperature corresponding to the system pressure. It is noted that the rapid
descent of temperature occurs within about 1 millisecond at atmospheric pressure. This
decrease will be much slower at low pressures, as will be discussed later. It can be
deduced that the internal vapor pressure will respond in a manner similar to that of the
interface temperature.
33
Figures 2.17 and 2.18 show the interface acceleration vs. time for moderate and
high superheats, respectively. The radius-time curves are again duplicated from Figure
2.15 for purposes of convenience. A rapid acceleration occurs at 5x105 seconds for the
largest temperature disturbance and moderate superheat of 3.1 C, in Figure 2.17, due to
the reduction of pressure difference associated with the surface tension. It rises quickly to
10,000 m/s2, then becomes negative due to the inertia of the liquid and eventually
converges to zero, which indicates that momentum no longer plays a role. The thermal
diffusion controlled growth then becomes the primary acting mechanism. Thus, bubble
growth can be characterized by three mechanisms: surface tension dominated growth,
momentum dominated growth, and thermal diffusion dominated growth, with the divisions
between these mechanisms separated by the acceleration peaks as illustrated in Figure
2.19. It is noted that the maximum of the interface acceleration is quite sensitive to the
initial bulk liquid superheat, but not to the magnitude of the initial temperature disturbance
necessary to initiate the growth. For the high superheat of 36 C in Figure 2.18, the
enormous acceleration of 4xl07 m/s2 might provide the surface instability to produce a
roughened liquid-vapor interface if the superheat were increased further, as was observed
by Ervin et al (1992) with R-l 13. On other hand, it may be considered that even though
the magnitude of this acceleration is so large, the relative shortness of its effective action
combined with the small size of the vapor bubble at this time could produce a negligible
effect on the subsequent growth.
Computations resulting from the model of the present work will now be compared
with analytical solutions available to date, for water at atmospheric and low pressures,
with both high and low bulk liquid superheats. Five solutions are selected here for the
comparison purposes consisting of Equation (2.2) for Rayleigh (1917), Equation (2.8) for
Plesset and Zwick (1952), Equation (2.11) for Scriven (1959), Equation (2.12) for Mikic
et al. (1970), and Equation (2.16) for Prosperetti and Plesset (1978). Constant properties
are used in all the plots except in the present work.
34
Figure 2.20 shows the comparison of the work with the five analytical solutions for
a high superheat of 36 C at atmospheric pressure, using linear scale. The Rayleigh curve
denotes the momentum controlled growth, with the corresponding fastest growth. Plesset
and Zwick (1954) and Scriven (1959) are in fair agreement with the present work here.
Prosperetti and Plesset (1978) is in poor agreement, while Mikic et al. (1970) is in
excellent agreement.
The very early stages of the bubble growth for the identical case of Figure 2.20 are
amplified in Figure 2.21 by the use of log-log scales. It is noted that none of the analytic
solutions follow the numerical solution of the present work. This is to be expected, since
both surface tension and momentum were generally assumed to be negligible in the
derivation of the analytical solutions.
Figure 2.22 shows the comparison between the present work, measurement, and
four analytical solutions for water for a superheat of 15.74 C at a low pressure of 1.26
kPa. Plesset and Zwick (1954) and Scriven (1959) overestimate the bubble growth
markedly , while Rayleigh (1917) and Mikic et al. (1970) are in fair agreement if the delay
periods are considered. The present work is in excellent agreement with the
measurements of Lien (1969). The comparisons between the predicted bubble growths at
the low pressure in Figure 2.22 are distinctly different from that at the higher pressure in
Figure 2.20. On examining the computed liquid-vapor interface temperature in Figure
2.22, it is noted that a temperature of 23.6 C is reached at 0.01 sec., which is still
considerably above the saturation temperature of 10.41 C and is to be contrasted with the
behavior at a high pressure in Figure 2.16 where the computed liquid-vapor interface
temperature reaches saturation in about 1(H sec. This implies that the vapor pressure is
considerably greater than the system pressure, so that liquid inertia still governs the
growth process. These comparisons between high and low pressures with water for the
same superheat are given explicitly in Figures 2.22 ~ 2.25.
35
Figure 2.26 presents a comparison of the present numerical results with the
analytical solutions for a low liquid superheat of 0.8 C, and it is obvious that none of the
analytical solutions corresponds to the present numerical results. This is also to be
expected, since moderate or high superheats were assumed in deriving the analytical
solutions. A long time lag exists before the onset of the bubble growth for such a low
superheat. As the experimental work of Dergarabedian (1960) demonstrated, some
degree of time shift may be required when making comparisons with measurements due
both to the uncertainty in measurement of the true onset of bubble growth, associated with
a finite framing speed, and to the inherent randomness associated with homogeneous
nucleation.
2.6.2 R-113
The effect of the initial temperature disturbance necessary to initiate the vapor
bubble growth are presented below for R-113 at atmospheric pressure. Figures 2.27,
2.29, 2.30, and 2.31 for R-113 correspond to Figures 2.15-2.18 above for water,
respectively, with the same system pressure and initial liquid superheat. It is to be noted
that the influences of both the disturbance temperatures and the initial liquid superheat
levels on the vapor bubble growth parameters of radius, interface temperature, interface
velocity, and interface acceleration are quite similar for the two fluids, even though their
respective saturation temperature and other properties are quite different.
Figure 2.27 indicates that variation of the initial temperature disturbance has little
effect on the subsequent bubble growth for R-113. The discontinuity in the velocity
curves for the superheat of 3.1 C is a consequence of the use of a log-log scale, which
can not represent negative values. As discussed earlier, the same circumstance occurs
with water in Figure 2.15 except that negative values do not arise in the interface velocity.
36
Although the radius curves for the delay time period ranging from 10'8 to 10'5 seconds
appears to be constant for the scale in Figure 2.27, microscale motions of the embryo
bubble interface are in fact present, as shown in Figure 2.28. In order to examine this
behavior in some detail, the time domain where this small dip appears is amplified in
Figure 2.28. The first, second, and third terms on the right hand side of Equation (2.22),
repeated below for convenience, are hereafter referred to as the pressure, surface tension,
and viscous terms, respectively. It is noted that the pressure is a function of the interface
temperature, while the surface tension term is a function of both the temperature and
radius. The sum of the terms on the right hand side of Equation (2.22) act as the driving
force for the bubble growth rate, which may be positive or negative.
J8gt3iP. f.m-&_2ge2 -4j ! i ( 2 .2 2 )

2 ep, ep ,R ep,R
Figure 2.28 (a) shows the radius and velocity versus time for the delay period up
to 10*5 sec., and Figure 2.28 (b) presents the pressure and surface tension terms versus
time. The surface tension term is always positive, while the viscous term may be neglected
since its magnitude is smaller than the other two terms by a fifth order. Since the bubble is
at the critical size at zero time, the right hand side of Equation (2.22) is mathematically
balanced at zero. Upon applying the initial required temperature disturbance, this balance
is disturbed, and which term will be initially greater is unknown, since it is dependent upon
the superheat level. However, it has been determined that for the case of the low
superheat of 3.1 C, the disturbance produces a large initial surface tension term, while the
opposite is the case for the high superheat of 36 C. For the latter case the sum of the two
terms is positive, and the velocity grows gradually, but for the former case the velocity
decreases, since the sum becomes negative. As the microsize bubble grows, the pressure
and surface tension terms decrease due to the decrease of the interface temperature and
increase in bubble size, respectively. As seen in Figure 2.28, the velocity decreases rapidly
but still remains positive, which means the radius growth slows down. This leads in turn
37
to a halt in the decrease of the liquid-vapor interface temperature. Since the interface
temperature corresponds to the vapor pressure, the pressure term begins to increase, due
to liquid momentum effects as the radius growth continues to slow down. Meanwhile, the
interface velocity becomes negative so that the radius decreases momentarily, and the
pressure term then rises above the surface tension term. This leads to a radius increase
again, and continues until the observed so-called nucleation occurs. The sequence of
events described above may be considered to be the dynamic growth process for a typical
microsize bubble during the delay period, leading to the onset of boiling. It is to be
emphasized that the negative velocity in Figure 2.28 (b) is not due to interface acceleration
effects associated with liquid momentum, as can be confirmed by examining the
acceleration plot in Figure 2.30, for the identical case with the large disturbance of 0.1 C.
Figure 2.32 presents computed vapor bubble radii for R-113 as a function of time
for two very low and slightly different superheat levels of 0.8 and 1.0 C, and illustrates
the extreme sensitivity of the bubble growth to small changes in superheat at this level.
Computation from the model in the present work are compared with several analytical
models in Figures 2.33 and 2.34 for R-113 at low and high pressures, respectively, and
demonstrate rather severe discrepancies at the low pressure levels.
Figure 2.33 shows the comparison between the present numerical calculations and
the various analytical solutions and the measurements of Bohrer (1973), for a high
superheat of 34.11 C and low system pressure of 8.46 kPa. Rayleigh (1917) and Plesset
and Zwick (1954) are in poor agreement with the measurements of Bohrer (1973), while
Mikic et al. (1970) and the present computed work are in fair agreement. This infers that
the liquid inertia and thermal diffusion are equally important. The solution of Mikic et al.
(1970) works reasonably for R-113 as well as water, within 10 % error.
Figure 2.34 presents the comparisons between the present numerical calculations
and the various analytical solutions for a high superheat of 36 C and atmospheric pressure
of 101.325 kPa. It is noted that the pressure changed from 8.46 kPa to 101.325 kPa
38
between Figure 2.33 and Figure 2.34, while the superheat is virtually the same. All
analytic works are in fair agreement with the present computation, which infers that the
bubble growth at higher pressures is governed not by liquid inertia, but rather by thermal
diffusion.
2.6.3 Sodium
The effect of the initial temperature disturbance necessary to initiate the vapor
bubble growth are presented below for liquid sodium at atmospheric pressure. Figures
2.35-2.38 for liquid sodium correspond respectively to Figures 2.15 - 2.18 above for
water, with the same system pressure and initial liquid superheat. The influence of the
initial temperature disturbance is similar to that with water.
Figure 2.36 presents the liquid-vapor interface temperature versus time for liquid
sodium at atmospheric pressure for superheats of 3.1 C and 36 C. It is noted that the
decrease of the interface temperature for the relatively high superheat of 36 C is quite
slow compared to water in Figure 2.16 or R-l 13 in Figure 2.29, and is a consequence of
the high thermal conductivity typical of liquid metals. This results in large growth rates,
seen in Figure 2.39, and is similar to that for R-l 13 at a low pressure, in Figure 2.33.
The analytic solution of Mikic et al. (1970) has been in good agreement thus far
with the various measurements and the present computation for three different fluids, and
it was desired to test it for sodium over a wider range of pressure and superheat. Figure
2.40 provides the comparisons between the numerical calculations and the analytic
solution of Mikic et al. (1970) for liquid sodium with superheats of 36 C and 200 C and
system pressures of 0.2 atm and 6 atm. The discrepancies between the computation and
Mikic's solution, still relatively small, become greater as the system pressure decreases or
as the superheat increases. The predictions of Mikic et al. (1970) underestimate the
39
bubble growth with a maximum discrepancy of 33 % for the pressure of 0.2 atm and
superheat of 200 C. Nevertheless, the analytic solution of Mikic et al. (1970) can be used
with considerable accuracy for moderate superheats and pressures for a wide range of
fluids. The solution is given by Equation (2.12).
2.6.4 Comparisons between Water, R-113 and Sodium
Comparisons between the bubble growth parameters are presented directly here
for water, R-113 and sodium with the same superheats and pressures. The thermodynamic
properties for these three are given in Table 2.2 below for purposes of comparison.
Liquid properties Liquid sodium Water R-113
Saturation temperature (C) 850 100 47.5
Critical temperature (C) 2460 374 214
Superheat limit (C)* 2159 302 160
Critical pressure (MPa) 41.36 22.1 3.41
Prandtl number (Pr) 0.004 1.76 7.2
Conductivity (W/m.K) 47.43 0.68 0.07
Liquid density (kg/m3) 736.7 957.85 1507.3
Heat capacity (kJ/kg.K) 1.286 4.217 0.984
Thermal diffusivity (m2/s) 500 x 10-7 1.684 x 10-7 0.4753 x 10-7
Heat of vaporization (kJ/kg) 3874.5 2257 143.8
Surface tension (N/m) 0.113 0.059 0.016

* Refer to Appendix D.
It is noted that the Prandtl number and thermal diffusivity for sodium are distinctly
different than those for water and R-l 13, which are relatively close. These three fluids are
40
selected for use here since these are representative of most fluids. Figures 2.41 ~ 2.44
present computations of bubble radius, interface velocity and interface acceleration at
atmospheric pressure with superheats of 3.1 C and 36 C for the three different fluids to
facilitate comparisons between these bubble dynamic parameters. The critical radius,
delay time, maximum liquid-vapor interface velocity, maximum acceleration, and bubble
radius at a specific time are presented in Figures 2.45 - 2.49 in order to determine how
these parameters are effected by superheat and pressure. The initial temperature
disturbance was maintained constant at 10 5 C for these computations. Superheats up to
100 C are used, and system pressure varied from 0.1 to 4 atmospheres.
Figure 2.45 (a) ~ (c) present the critical radius versus superheat with the variation
of the system pressure for the three different fluids. The critical radius is determined from
Equation (2.24). Figure 2.45 (d) shows the comparison of the critical radius for the three
different fluids at atmospheric pressure. It is noted that sodium has a critical radius
considerably larger than that of water and R-113, and that the critical radius decreases as
both superheat and pressure increase. This implies that the probability for nucleation
increases as both superheat and pressure increase.
Figure 2.46 (a) ~ (d) present the delay time versus superheat with the pressure
variation for the three different fluids. The delay time here is defined as the period from
the imposition of the initial temperature disturbance to the time at which a significant
increase in the growth rate takes place, as seen, for example, with the lower curves in
Figures 2.41 ~ 2.44. The delay time decreases as both superheat and pressure increase.
The differences in delay times between water and R -l 13 are insignificant.
Figure 2.47 (a) ~ (d) show the maximum liquid-vapor interface velocity versus
superheat with variation of the system pressure for the three different fluids. The
maximum velocity increases as both the superheat and pressure increase. Water shows the
highest velocity among the three fluids in Figure 2.47 (c), with velocity of 36 m/s for a
41
superheat of 100 C at a pressure of 4 atm, while sodium shows the lowest velocity of 15
m/s in Figure 2.47 (a).
Figure 2.48 (a) ~ (d) presents the maximum liquid-vapor interface acceleration
versus superheat for the three fluids and for the various pressure levels. The maximum
acceleration increases as both the superheat and pressure increase. Sodium shows the
lowest acceleration, while water and R-113 are close together in Figure 2.48 (d). One
cause could be that sodium has the largest critical radius as seen in Figure 2.45. This leads
to a reduction in the interface velocity as well as acceleration.
Figure 2.49 (a) ~ (d) presents the bubble radius at an arbitrary time of 0.01 sec
versus superheat, and indicates that the early bubble growth rates are very sensitive to the
system pressure. It is noted that the radius of a water vapor bubble is about 200 % larger
than a R-l 13 bubble, while the sodium bubble is about 600 % larger than a R-l 13 bubble.
The sodium vapor bubble grows to a radius of 6 cm in the short period of 0.01 seconds
with a superheat of 100 C at atmospheric pressure.
Unfortunately, the behavior of vapor bubble dynamics during the early stages of
growth has not been supported extensively by measurements because of the great
experimental difficulties. Dergarabedian (1960) uniquely obtained photographs of a
typical bubble growth from the critical size bubble, as was shown in Figure 2.11.
However, the present numerical results demonstrated here provide reasonable predictions,
and Figures 2.45 - 2.49 can be useful indicators when it becomes necessary to quickly
estimate the early vapor bubble growth stages.
42
Bubble number: 29-G20

System pressure: 3.119 kPa (0.452 psia)
Bulk temperature: 22.22 C
Liquid superheat: 50.83 C
Saturation temperature: 28.61 C
Electrode diameter: 0.508 mm
Framing rate: 5000 fps
Picture 17: radius=approx. 1 cm and t=4 ms
Figure 2.1. Photographs by Bohrer (1973) for vapor bubble growth in R -l 13,
demonstrating the sphericity of the bubble.
43
Tbulk
Superheated Liquid
Tsat
Critical Radius at t=0
(a)
T
Tbulk
Bubble Tsat
Thermal boundary layer
Bubble grown large enough that surface tension may b e n eglected .
(b)
Figure 2.2 (a) Vapor bubble at the critical size radius, (b) Bubble growth in a uniformly
superheated liquid.
44
Figure 2.3 Schematic diagram of coordinate transformation.
^ m i
Figure 2.4 Grid point and control volume notation.
45
le+02
:Bubble Radius vs. Time for Sodium, Psys=50 kPa, Tsat=1066 K
le+01
Symbols : Dalle Donne's numerical work (1975)
le+00 Solid Lines : This work (computed)
le-01
Radius, meter
le-02
le-03 Superheat=362 K
le-04
Superheat=42 K
le-05
le-06 Superheat=201 K
le-07
le-08 le-07 le-06 le-05 le-04 le-03 le-02 le-01 le+00
Time, sec
Figure 2.5. Comparison of present results with the numerical work of Dalle Donne and
Ferranti (1975). Radius versus time for sodium.
46
10000
: Vapor Bubble Growth rate for Sodium, Psys=50 kPa, Tsat=1066 K
Symbols : Dalle Donne's Numerical work (1975)

1000
Solid Lines : This work (computed)
Superheat=362 K
100
Supbrheat=201 K
1
;>
O Superheat=42 K
Iu
0.01
0.001
0.0001
Time, sec
Ferranti (1975). Liquid-vapor interface velocity versus time for sodium.
47
1600
Bubble Surface Temperature vs. Time for Sodium, Psys=50 kPa, Tsat=106(> K
1500 - Symbols : Dalle Donne's numerical work (1975)

Solid Lines : This work (computed)
1400
Superheat=362 K
2 1300
Superheat=201 K
1200
1100
Superheat=42 K
1000
Time, sec
Ferranti (1975). Liquid-vapor interface temperature versus time for sodium.
48
Bubble Radius vs. Time for Sodium

le+02
Superheat=201 K
le+01 Psys=50 kPa
Tsat=1066 K
le+00
Symbols : Dalle Donne's numerical work (1975)
le-01
le-02
le-03
Disturb.=le-0
le-04 isturb.=le-4
le-05
le-06
Disturb.=le-8
le-07
Time, sec
Ferranti (1975). Effect of magnitude of temperature disturbance on bubble growth for
sodium.
49
0.002
Radius vs. Time for water, Psys=l atm, Tsat=100 C
0.0018
0.0016
Symbols: Dergarabedian (1953)
0.0014 Solid lines: computations
0.0012
Radius, meter
4.5 C
0.001
0.0008
3.1 C
0.0006
0.0004 2.1 C
0.0002
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016

Time, sec
Figure 2.9. Comparison of computations with the measurements of Dergarabedian

(1953). Bubble radius versus time for water.
50
1
I Bubble radius vs. Time for water, Psys=0.488 atm
Computed,
superheat=36 oC
0.1
Kosky's Exp. Data
(1968), 36 oC
Radius, meter
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.0001 0.001 0.01
Time, sec
Figure 2.10. Comparison of computations with the measurements of Kosky (1968).

Bubble radius versus time for water.
51
0.0003
Bubble Radius vs. Time for Water, Psys=l atm
0.00025
Computed,
superheat=0.8 C,
0.0002 Disturb.=le-4 C
Computed,
Radius, meter
superheat=1.0 C,
Disturb.=le-9 C
0.00015
Dergarabedian's Exp.
Data (1960), 0.8 C
Dergarabedian's Exp.
0.0001 Data (1960), 1.0 C
0.00005 x.'
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03

Time, sec
Figure 2.11. Comparison of computations with the measurements of Dergarabedian

(1960). Bubble radius versus time for water with low initial liquid superheats.
52
0.0018
' Bubble radius vs. time for water, Psys=l atm, to=6.5 ms
0.0016
Computed,
superheat=3.61 oC
0.0014 Florschuetz's Exp.
Data (1969)
0.0012
U
0 0.001
d3
e
GO
3
1 0.0008
os
0.0006
0.0004
0.0002

-0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04

Time, sec
Figure 2.12. Comparison of computations with the measurements of Florschuetz (1969).

Bubble radius versus time for water. An arbitrary shift of 6.5 ms is made in the time scale.
53
0.016
Bubble Radius vs. Time for Water
0.014 Computed
Lien's Exp. Data

(1969)
0.012
' Psys= 12.59 kPa

Superheat= 10.67 C
0.01 ~ Tbulk=61.06 C
Radius, meter
0.008 Psys=1.26 kPa

s Superheat= 15.74 C
Tbulk=26.15 C
0.006
0.004
Psys=38.66 kPa
0.002 Superheat=9.0 C
Tbulk=84.08 C
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016
Time, sec
Figure 2.13. Comparison of present numerical calculations with measurements of Lien

(1969) over a wide range of pressure. Bubble radius versus time for water.
54
Bubble Radius vs. Time for R-l 13

0.025
This work (1993)
This work (1993)

0.02
Bohrer's Data
(1973)
Bohrer's Data
(1973)
0.015
U Superheat=48.21 C
u Tbulk=22.22 C, Psys=3.66 kPa
E
0.01
0.005
/Superheat=34.12 C
Tbulk=22.78 C, Psys=8.46 kl'a
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007

Time, sec
Figure 2.14. Comparison of computations with measurements of Bohrer (1973) for R-

113 at low pressures and large liquid superheats.
55
le+02
rBubble radius and velocity vs. time for water, Psys=l atm le+02
le+01
le+00
le+00 le-02
Dist. le-1
(Srheat=3.1,0C le-04
le-01
Interface velocity, m/s

le-06
le-02 Dist. le-5
le-08
le-03 le-10
Dist. le-9
le-04 Sup] it=3.1 oC le-12
le-14
le-05
Disturb.=le-1 le-16
le-06 Disturb.= le-5

le-18
Superheat=36 oC
le-07 le-20
le-08 le-07 le-06 le-05 le-04 le-03 le-02
Time, sec
Figure 2.15. Influence of magnitude of initial temperature disturbance on the early vapor
bubble growth for water at atmospheric pressure. Radius and liquid-vapor interface
velocity.
56
le+02 160
iBubble radius and temperature vs. time for water, Psys=l atm
le+01 Superheat=36 C 140

)ist. le-1
-Dist. le-5
le+00
' Dist. le-9 120
le-01
Superheat=3.1 C 100
Interface temperature,
le-02
le-03
le-04 SUDJ it=3.1 C
le-05
-Disturb.=le-1
le-06 Disturb.= le-5
Superheat=36 C >isturb.= le-9

le-07
le-08 le-07 le-06 le-05 le-04 le-03 le-02
Time, sec
bubble growth for water at atmospheric pressure. Radius and liquid-vapor interface
temperature.
57
le+02 2e+04
jBubble radius and acceleration vs. time for water, Psys=l atm
-Superheat=3.1 oC
le+01 r Dist. le-5
le+00
le+04
le-01 Dist. le-1 DisU.le-9
oe
QJ
4u.>
cd
E
le-02 13
CJ
o oCO
CO
OS <
OL>
le-03 <D
0e+00
le-04
Disturb.= le-
le-05
le-06 -le+04
le-07 le-06 le-05 le-04 le-03 le-02
Time, sec
bubble growth for water at atmospheric pressure. Liquid-vapor interface acceleration, for
a low initial superheat of 3.1 C.
58
le+02 6e+07
:Bubble radius and acceleration vs. time for water, Psys=l atm
Superheat=36 oC
le+01 5e+07
le+00 Dist. le-5 4e+07
le-01 3e+07
Interface acceleration, m/sA2

Dist. le- Djst. le-9
le-02 2e+07
le-03 le+07
le-04 0e+00
le-05 Disturb.=le-1 -le+07

-Disturb.= le-5
le-06 iisturb.= le-9 -2e+07
le-07 -3e+07
le-08 le-07 le-06 le-05 le-04 le-03
Time, sec
bubble growth for water at atmospheric pressure. Liquid-vapor interface acceleration, for
a high initial superheat of 36 C.
59
le+04 2e+04
iBubble radius and acceleration vs. time for water, Psys=l atm
Superheat=3.1 C
le+03
Acceleration
le+02
le+01
le+04
le+00 co
a
03
Surface tension <lominated growth Uu*
3 le-01 U

' 3
2. Momentum dominated growth U
cd
CB <u
PS
le-02 3. Thermal diffusion dominated growth
0e+00
le-03
le-04
le-05 Radius
le-06 -le+04
le-05 le-04 le-03 le-02
Time, sec
Figure 2.19. Example of characterization of the three domains of vapor bubble growth.
Bubble radius and liquid-vapor interface acceleration vs. time, for water at atmospheric
pressure and uniform initial superheat of 3.1 C. Initial temperature disturbance of 0.1 C
used here.
60
0.03
Bubble radius vs. time for water, Psys=l atm, superheat=36 C
0.025
Rayleigh (1917)
0.02
Prosperetti & Plesset (1978)

Radius, meter
0.015
Plesset & Zwick (1954)
0.01
Scriven (1959)
0.005
!ikicetal.(1970)
This work (1993)
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.01
Time, sec
Figure 2.20. Comparison of present numerical calculations with various analytical

solutions. Water at atmospheric pressure uniformly superheated to 36 C, Ja=l 10.21.
61
le+01
; Bubble radius vs. time for water, Psys=l atm, superheat=36 C
le+00
le-01 Rayreigh (1917)
le-02 Plesset & Zwick (1954)
Scriven .(1959)
le-03
le-04
Prosperetti & Plesset (1978)

le-05
ikic et al.(1970)
le-06
lis work (1993)
le-07
le-07 le-06 le-05 le-04 le-03 le-02
Time, sec

solutions. Water at atmospheric pressure uniformly superheated to 36 C, Ja=l 10.21.
Vapor bubble radius versus time. The early period of Figure 2.20 is amplified with the use
of logarithmic axis.
62
0.02 30
Radius and Interface Temperature vs. Time for Water
0.018 28
Superheat=15.74 C
Psys=1.26kPa
0.016 Tbulk=26.15 C 26
0.014 24
Liquid-vapor interface temperature oU
u 0.012 22 23
0> Plessetand Zwick (1954) C 3
0) dQ.>
t->

3 0.01
20 E
Rayleigh (1917) o
o
0.008 Scriven (1959) 18 1o
sH
H
0.006 Mikic et aL (1970) 16
Lien's Data (1969)

0.004 14
0.002 12
This work (computed)
10
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.01
Time, sec
Figure 2.22. Comparison of the present numerical calculations with various analytical
solutions and the measurements of Lien (1969) for very low system pressure (P=1.26 kPa)
with water. Vapor bubble radius and liquid-vapor interface temperature.
63
le+04 5e+03
Interface Velocity and Acceleration vs. Time for Water
le+02 Superheat= 15.74 C, Acceleration

Psys= 1.262 kPa, 4e+03
Tbulk=26.15 C
le+00
3e+03
Interface Acceleration, m/s2

le-02
2e+03
le-04
le+03
le-06
0e+00
le-08
le-10 -le+03
le-06 le-05 le-04 le-03 le-02
Time, sec
Figure 2.23. Liquid-vapor interface velocity and acceleration from the present numerical
calculations for conditions of Figure 2.22.
64
0.006 120
Radius and Interface Temperature vs. Time for Water
Superheat=15.74 C
Rayleigh (1917) Psys=101.325 kPa 110
0.005 Tbulk=l 15.75 C
Tsat=100 C
100
0.004 Liquid-vapor interface temperature
Plesset and Zwick (1954)
s 0.003 Scriven (1959)
Mikic et al. (1970)

0.002
This work (computed)
0.001
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.01
Time, sec
Figure 2.24. Comparison of the present numerical calculations with various analytical
solutions for relatively high pressure (P=l atm.=101.325 kPa) with water. Vapor bubble
radius and liquid-vapor interface temperature.
65
le+04 5e+06
Interface Velocity and Acceleration vs. Time for Water
Superheat= 15.74 C,
le+02 Psys=101.325 kPa, 4e+06
Tbulk=l 15.75 C
le+00 3e+06
Interface Acceleration, m/s2

Velocity
le-02 2e+06
le-04 Acceleration le+06
le-06 0e+00
le-08 -le+06
le-08 le-07 le-06 le-05 le-04 le-03 le-02
Time, sec
Figure 2.25. Liquid-vapor interface velocity and acceleration from the present numerical
calculations for conditions of Figure 2.24.
66
0.001
Bubble radius vs. time for water, Psys=l atm, superheat=0.8 C
0.0009
x: Dergarabedian (1960)
0.0008
0.0007 ayleigh (1917)
0.0006 Prosperetti & Plesset (1978)
s 0.0005
Scriven (195!
0.0004
0.0003
0.0002 [ikic et al.(1970)

Plesset & Zwick (1954)
0.0001
x x x x x- This work (1993)
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Time, sec

solutions. Water at atmospheric pressure uniformly superheated to 0.8 C, Ja=2.38.
Vapor bubble radius versus time.
67
le+01 le+02
Bubble radius and velocity vs. time for R113, Psys=l atm, Tsat=47.55 oC
le+00
le+00
le-02
le-01 Disturb, le-1

le-04
le-02 le-06

Disturb, le-5
le-08
le-03
le-10
le-04 - Disturb, le-9

le-12
le-14
le-05 Dist. le-1
Dist. le-5 le-16

Superheat=3.1 C list, le-9
le-06
le-18
le-07 le-20
le-08 le-07 le-06 le-05 le-04 le-03 le-02
Time, sec
bubble growth for R -l 13 at atmospheric pressure. Radius and liquid-vapor interface
velocity
68
12 2.70665E-06
Interface velocity vs. time forR-I I3,Psys=l atm,
10 superheat=3.1 C, Disturb.=le-1 C
8 Velocr
2.70655E-06
2.70645E-06
2 Radius
2 2.70635E-06
IE-08 IE-07 IE-06 IE-05
Time, sec
(a)
12 7 .2 6 6 1 S
Interface velocity and pressure and surface tension term in Equation
Psys=l atm, superheat=3.1 C, disturb.=le-l C
10
Surface tension term 7 .2 6 6 0 5
8
7 .2 6 5 9 5
Velocity
I a p*
r>> 6
i 7 .2 6 5 8 5 e e
wC
> 4 Pressure term s
o
7 .2 6 5 7 5
2
Icu
0 7 .2 6 5 6 5
2 7 .2 6 5 5 5
IE -0 7 IE -0 6
Time, sec
(b)
Figure 2.28 (a) & (b). a) Amplification of the embryo bubble radius and velocity in Figure
2.27 for the early period of growth, b) Comparison of the time varying surface tension
and pressure terms in Equation (2.22) with the liquid-vapor interface velocity.
69
le+01 100
Bubble radius and temperature vs. time for R113, Psys=l atm, Tsat=47.55 C
le+00 Superheat=36 C
Disturb.le-1
le-01 Disturb, le-5
Disturb, le-9
Interface temperature, oC
le-02
le-03
le-04
le-05 Dist. le-1

)ist. le-5
Superheat=3.1 C ist. le-9
le-06
le-07
le-08 le-07 le-06 le-05 le-04 le-03 le-02
Time, sec
bubble growth for R -l 13 at atmospheric pressure. Radius and liquid-vapor interface
temperature.
70
le+01 2e+04
Bubble radius and acceleration vs. time for R113,
- Psys=l atm, Tsat=47.55 oC, superheat=3.1 C
le+00
le-01
le+04
Interface acceleration, m/s2

Disturb, le-1
le-02
a>
cj
S
cso le-03
co
OS
le-04
0e+00
le-05 Dist. le-1

Dist. le-5
Dist. le-9
le-06
le-07 -le+04
le-08 le-07 le-06 le-05 le-04 le-03 le-02
Time, sec
bubble growth for R-l 13 at atmospheric pressure. Radius and liquid-vapor interface
acceleration for a low initial superheat of 3.1 C.
71
le+01 6e+07
iBubble radius and Acceleration vs. time for R113, Psys=l atm,
I Tsat=47.55 C, superheat=36 C
Disturb..le-5 5e+07
le+00
4e+07
le-01 Disturb, le-1
3e+07

le-02
2e+07
le-03
le+07
le-04
0e+00
le-05
-le+07
le-06 Dist. le-1

-2e+07
Dist. le-5
Dist. le-9
le-07 -3e+07
le-08 le-07 le-06 le-05 le-04 le-03
Time, sec
bubble growth for R-l 13 at atmospheric pressure. Radius and liquid-vapor interface
acceleration for a high initial superheat of 36 C.
72
2.0e-04 0.007
Radius and Interface velocity vs. Time for R-l 13, Psys=l atm
1.8e-04 0.006
1.6e-04 0.005
1.4e-04 0.004

Ui 1.2e-04 0.003
O 1.0 C
OJ
E
'0.8 C
vsT 0.002
0.001
6.0e-05 1.0 C
4.0e-05 - 0.001
0.8 C
2.0e-05 - 0.002
0.0e+00 -0.003
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Time, sec
Figure 2.32. Sensitivity of early R-l 13 vapor bubble growth rates to bulk liquid superheat
at low levels of superheat. An initial temperature disturbance of le-2 C was used for
both superheats of 0.8 C and 1.0 C.
73
0.025
Bubble Radius vs. Time for R-l 13
- Psys=8.46 kPa, Superheat=34.11 C, Tbulk=22.78 C
0.02
Rayleigh (117)
0.015
-Plesset & Zwick (1954) Bohrer's Experimental Data (1973)

0.01
This work
0.005
Mikic et al (1970)
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Time, sec

solutions and one set of measurements. R -l 13 at low pressure of 8.5 kPa (1.23 psia) with
initially uniform superheat of 34 C. Ja = 396.
74
0.005
Bubble radius vs. time for R113, Psys=l atm,

0.0045 Tsat=47.55 C, superheat=36 C
0.004
0.0035
0.003
Radius, meter
Scriven,(1959)
0.0025
Plesset & Z|wick (1954)
0.002
This work (1993)
0.0015
Mikic et al. (1970)
0.001
0.0005
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01

Time, sec

solutions. R-l 13 at atmospheric pressure with initially uniform superheat of 36 C.
75
le+02
Bubble radius and velocity vs. time for sodium, le+02
Psys=l atm,Tsat=873.85 oC
le+01 le+00
le-02
le+00
le-04
Disturb, le-1
le-01

le-06
le-08
le-02 Disturb, le-5
le-10
le-03
le-12
Disturb, le-9
le-04 le-14
Dist. le-1 le-16

Dist. le-5
le-05
^ ^ D is t. le-9 le-18
Superheat=36 oC
le-06 le-20
le-08 le-07 le-06 le-05 le-04 le-03 le-02
Time, sec
bubble growth for sodium at atmospheric pressure. Radius and liquid-vapor interface
velocity.
76
le+02 940
Bubble radius and temperature vs. time for sodium,
Psys=l atm,Tsat=873.85 C 930
le+01 Disturb., le-1 920
Disturb, le-5
isturb. le-9 910
le+00 Superheat=36 C
900
890
le-01
880
le-02 Superheat=3.1 C 870
860
le-03
850
840
le-04
830
Dist. le-1
Dist. le-5 820
le-05
~~Dist. le-9 810
le-06 800
le-08 le-07 le-06 le-05 le-04 le-03 le-02
Time, sec
temperature.
77
le+02 5e+03
Bubble radius and acceleration vs. time for sodium,
Psys=l atm,Tsat=873.85 C
4e+03
le+01
Disturb. le.-9
Disturb, le-5 3e+03
le+00
Disturb, le-1

2e+03
fe le-01
U
s
{/T le+03
1 le-02
0e+00
le-03 Dist. le-1

Dist. le-5 -le+03
Dist. le-9
le-04
-2e+03
le-05 -3e+03
le-07 le-06 le-05 le-04 le-03 le-02
Time, sec
acceleration for a low initial superheat of 3,1 C.
78
le+02
Bubble radius and acceleration vs. time for sodium,
le+06
Psys=l atm,Tsat=873.85 C
le+01
Disturb, le-5
9e+05
le+00 Disturb., le-9

Disturb. 7e+05

le-01
5e+05
s le-02
a 3e+05
le-03
le+05
le-04 - Superheat=36 C
-le+05
Dist. le-1
- Dist le-5
le-05 -3e+05
list, le-9
: Superheat=36 C
le-06 -5e+05
le-08 le-07 le-06 le-05 le-04 le-03
Time, sec
acceleration for a high initial superheat of 36 C.
79
0.06
Bubble Radius vs. Time for sodium, Psys=l atm, Superheat=36 C
0.05 Rayleigh 1917)
0.04
Pleset & Zwick (1954)
Scriven (1959)
e 0.03 This work (computed)
0.02
Mikic at al. (1970)
0.01
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Time, sec

solutions. Sodium at atmospheric pressure uniformly superheated to 36 C, Ja=32.28.
80
- Bubble radius vs. time for sodium

0.09
o: Mikic et al. (1970)
: Present work (1993)
0.08
=0.2 atm
0.07 Superheat=200
0.06
s 0.05
0.04 \ P = 6 atm (607.95 k Pa)

yS'Superheat=200 C
0.03 P=0.2 atm (20.26 kPa)

Superheat=36 C
0.02
0.01 P=6 atm (607.95 k 3a)

Superheat=36 C
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014

Time, sec
Figure 2.40. Comparison of present numerical caculation with analytical solution of Mikic
at al (1970). Vapor bubble radius versus time for sodium.
81
le+02
: Bubble radius and velocity vs. time, le+02
- Psys=l atm (101.325 kPa), superheat=3.1 C
le+01 = Water___ le+00
' Tsat=100 C (water) le-02

le+00 Freon 113
[ Tsat=47 C (R-l 13)
j Tsat=873 C (sodium) le-04

le-01 Sodium
le-06
le-08
le-02
le-10
le-03
le-12
le-04 le-14
le-16
le-05 -Water.
le-18
Freon-14-^
le-06 le-20
le-08 le-07 le-06 le-05 le-04 le-03 le-02
Time, sec
Figure 2.41. Comparisons of bubble radius and liquid-vapor interface velocity vs. time for
water, R-l 13 and sodium all at atmospheric pressure and a low superheat of 3.1 C.
82
le+02
Bubble radius and velocity vs. time, le+02
Psys=l atm (101.325 kPal. superheat=36 C
le+01 le+00
Freon 113
le+00 le-02
le-04
le-01

Superheat=36 C le-06
le-02
le-08
Sodium
I le-03 le-10
le-12
le-04
Sodiui le-14
le-05
le-16
le-06 Water. le-18

Freon 113
le-07 le-20
le-08 le-07 le-06 le-05 le-04 le-03 le-02

Time, sec
Figure 2.42. Comparisons of bubble radius and liquid-vapor interface velocity vs. time for
water, R -l 13 and sodium all at atmospheric pressure and a high superheat of 36 C.
83
le+02 2e+04
Bubble radius and acceleration vs. time,
Psys=l atm (101.325 kPa), superheat=3.1 C
le+01
le+00 le+04

le-01 Sodium
Freon 113 Water
0>

0e+00
a le-02
'B
cd
OS
le-03
le-04 -le+04
le-05 Water.
Freon 113
le-06 -2e+04
le-06 le-05 le-04 le-03 le-02
Time, sec
Figure 2.43. Comparisons of bubble radius and liquid-vapor interface acceleration vs.
time for water, R -l 13 and sodium all at atmospheric pressure and a low superheat of 3.1
C.
84
le+02 6e+07
Bubble radius and acceleration vs. time,
Psys=l atm (101.325 kPa), superheat=36 5e+07
le+01
4e+07
le+00
Freon 113 Water 3e+07
le-01

2e+07
U
2B le-02 Sodium le+07
6
C fl
.2
106 le-03 0e+00
-le+07
le-04
I Sodii -2e+07
le-05
-3e+07
le-06 Water. -4e+07

Freon 113
le-07 -5e+07
le-08 le-07 le-06 le-05 le-04 le-03 le-02
Time, sec
Figure 2.44. Comparisons of bubble radius and liquid-vapor interface acceleration vs.
time for water, R-l 13 and sodium all at atmospheric pressure and a high superheat of 36
C.
85
Critical radius vs. superheat Critical radius vs. superheat

for sodium for R-l 13
le-04
3
'5
g le-05 S
c
u
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Superheat, C Superheat, C
(a) (b)
Critical radius vs. superheat Critical radius vs. superheat

for water at atmospheric pressure
le-04 le-04
g le-05 1 le-05 Sodium
Water
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

(C) (d)
Figure 2.45. Critical radius versus superheat {Tbulk - TSttl) for sodium, R -l 13 and water,
computed by the present model, as a function of pressure.
86
le-02 le-02
Delay time vs. superheat Delay time vs. superheat
le-03 Vs. for sodium le-03 forR -l13
O 0D le-04
0M> le-04 0.1 atm Vi
| le-05 1 le-05
J le-06 i le-06
!.1 atm
P=4 atm Q le-07
le-07
itm
le-08 le-08
le-09 le-09
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
(a) (b)
le-02 le-02
Delay time vs. superheat i Delay time vs. superheat
le-03 \ for water le-03 P\at atmospheric pressure
O le-04 o0> le-04

Vi
Sodium
tf le-05 | le-05
.s
jjj* le-06 atm i* le-06 .Water
"3
le-07 atm le-07
le-08 P=4 le-08

R-l 13
le-09 le-09
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
(C) (d)
Figure 2.46. Delay time versus superheat (Tbulk ~Tsal) for sodium, R-l 13 and water,
computed by the present model, as a function of pressure.
87
40 40
Maximum velocity vs. superheat Maximum velocity vs. superheat
35 for sodium 35 for R-l 13
Max. interface velocity, m/s

30 30
25 1"o 25
>
20 0) 20 P=4aj
iM
nu 15
15
10 10
(rfatm
5 5
0.1 atm
0 0
20 40 60 80 100 120 20 40 60 80 100 120
(a) (b)
40
Maximum velocity vs. supedjeat Maximum velocity vs. superheat
for water 35
Max. interface velocity, m/s
1 at atmospheric pressure
P=4atm 30
1 25
T>B
D 20
<t:D 15
0.1 atm 10
iodium
5
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
(c) (d)
Figure 2.47. Maximum liquid-vapor interface velocity versus superheat (Thulk - Tsat) for
sodium, R -l 13 and water, computed by the present model, as a function of pressure.
88
le+12 le+12
Acceleration vs. superheat Acceleration vs. superheat
for sodium forR-113
le+10 | le+10 P=4;
an
o
B
a le+08 P=4atrrLa le+08
E 0.1 atm
/ y.-'T'atm O
U
le+06 / X" le+06
uu
/ /P atm
ts / / / *ts
p le+04 1 le+04
Y
le+02 le+02
20 40 60 80 100 120 20 40 60 80 100 120
(a) (b)
le+12 le+12
Acceleration vs. superheat Acceleration vs. superheat
for wat at atmospheric pressure
| le+10 3* le+10 Water
a 0c R-l 13
| le+08 1o le+08
C
UJ
C3 le+06 le+06 Sodium
* le+04 ~ le+04
le+02 le+02
20 40 60 80 100 120 20 40 60 80 100 120
(C) (d)
Figure 2.48. Maximum liquid-vapor interface acceleration versus superheat (Tbtllk Tmt)
for sodium, R-l 13 and water, computed by the present model, as a function of pressure.
89
0.08 0.08
Radius at time of 0.01 sec vs. Radius at time of 0.01 sec vs.
superheat for sodium s superheat for R113
0.06 0.06
O o
o
0.04 0.1 atm / / 2 0-04
6
/x
CO
/ 4 a tm /^ 4 a tm CB (U alnto
0.02 1 0.02
CO
'IB3 1 atpi.
& OS
____ v at m
lEI, , , , . , _ , _ ff , -fl , .
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
(a) (b)
0.08 Radius at time of 0.01 sec vs. 0.08

Radius at time of 0.01 sec vs
superheat for water . 0.07 superheat at atmospheric press lire
ou
0.06 cfl 0.06 yP
O o 0.05 Soditun
o
o 0.04 o i^ tn r0 "o 0.04
o U
E E
a 0.03
cs
3 0.02 V
aI 0.02 / ^ W a te r*
CO / '3
cs 0.01
/ P=4yitm OS
0 0 . . . '
20 40 60 80 100 120 20 40 60 80 100 120
(C) (d)
Figure 2.49. Bubble radius at an arbitrary time of 0.01 seconds versus superheat
(Tbulk - Tsat) for sodium, R-l 13 and water, computed by the present model, as a function
of pressure.
CHAPTER 3
VAPOR BUBBLE DYNAMICS IN NON-UNIFORM

TEMPERATURE FIELDS
Vapor bubble growth and collapse in non-uniform temperature fields are modeled
and solved numerically. The models are considered in two parts: a spherical bubble
model and a hemispherical model. The former is applicable to bubble dynamic processes
such as in cavitation or ultrasonic cleaning devices, while the latter is particularly
applicable to pool boiling. The experimental observation of vapor bubble rebounds
following successive collapses are predicted by the present spherical numerical model,
which also provides the transient vapor pressure in the bubble and the transient
temperature distributions surrounding the bubble. The hemispherical bubble model cannot
give a precise prediction of the bubble growth for pool boiling, but rather provides upper
and lower bounds. The model was tested by comparison of the computed results with
pool boiling experiments conducted as part of the present research in microgravity, which
provides a known initial temperature distribution at nucleation in the absence of any liquid
disturbances. It was demonstrated that the concept of upper and lower bounds for bubble
growth has merit.
90
91
Vapor bubble dynamics in non-uniform temperature fields have extensive
applications in various diverse fields: pool boiling, forced convection boiling, cavitation,
ultrasonic cleaning devices, bubble jet printer industries and acoustics. A considerable
number of publications related to vapor bubble growth on a heater surface may be found
since the early work of Nukiyama (1934), while relatively few publications include both
vapor bubble growth and collapse. Gunther (1950) and Ellion (1953) observed vapor
bubbles growing and collapsing on a heater surface in subcooled nucleate boiling of water,
by means of high speed photography. The data of Ellion (1953) show considerable
divergence due to the inherent ramdomness of the temperature distributions in the liquid in
the vicinity of the heater surface. Bankoff and Mikesell(1958) derived a convenient
normalized formula for the bubble growth and collapse from the equation of motion
formulated by Lord Rayleigh (1917), applicable only to highly subcooled nucleate boiling.
Zuber (1961) also proposed a normalized formula for the vapor bubble growth and
collapse, considering only the energy balance at the liquid-vapor interface. The heat
transfer at the liquid-vapor interface to the bulk liquid, qb, was introduced as an unknown
quantity, and the bubble growth or collapse can not be predicted unless qb is given. Both
Bankoff and Mikesell (1958) and Zuber (1961) attempted to fit their respective formulas
to the experimental data of Ellion (1953), using the experimental maximum radius. It was
noted as a result that as the subcooling increased, the bubble growth and collapse were
governed more by the liquid inertia than by the heat transfer process at the liquid-vapor
interface.
Florschuetz and Chao (1965), considering only the vapor bubble collapse,
normalized the equation of motion derived by Lord Rayleigh (1917) and the zero order
solution for liquid-vapor interface temperature derived by Plesset and Zwick (1952), and
92
solved these numerically by combining the two equations. A closed-form expression for
each was suggested for the inertia controlled and the heat transfer controlled collapses,
classifying the vapor bubble collapse mode by means of a dimensionless parameter.
Bubble collapse experiments were conducted with water in a vessel under free fall
conditions in order to eliminate distortions due to buoyancy. The experimental results
were compared with the approximate prediction for the heat transfer controlled collapse,
with fair agreement.
Han and Griffith (1965) derived a closed-form expression for the bubble growth,
with quasi steady pool boiling in earth gravity, considering one-dimensional heat
conduction surrounding the bubble, with the bubble beginning to grow from an arbitrary-
sized cavity. Mikic et al (1970) predicted the bubble growth in a non-uniform temperature
field by correcting an initial uniform superheat model, considering only heat diffusion. It is
assumed again that the liquid at a uniform temperature comes into contact with the heater
surface at a given temperature, and after a waiting time the vapor bubble forms and grows
in the non-uniform temperature field resulting during this waiting time.
The vapor bubble dynamics with nucleation in non-uniformly superheated liquids is
more complicated than that in uniformly superheated liquids since the bubble dynamics is
not only controlled by the initial temperature distribution, but is also governed by the
dynamics of the process itself. Bubble dynamics has been of special interest in the field of
vapor cavitation and ultrasonics, where the concern is more with dynamic effects rather
than thermal effects. Lauterbom and Hentschel (1985) used a laser beam to heat water
locally by focusing at a desired location near a solid wall. This produced homogeneous
nucleation and permitted the study of the vapor bubble collapse near a solid wall. The
photographs reveal that the laser-produced bubble grows and collapses, with a rebound
occurring during the first collapse and producing a long jet directed toward the solid wall.
This jet provides the mechanism for the so-called cavitation damage. In the field of
ultrasonic cleaning, on the other hand, the jet directed toward the solid wall is utilized to
93
clean the surface. Shima et al. (1988) measured collapsing vapor bubble pressures in the
vicinity of atmospheric pressure by means of a pressure transducer installed on a solid
wall, with the bubble generated by means of an electric spark near the solid wall. The
impulsive pressures measured during collapse covered a wide range of 1 ~ 20 MPa,
depending on the bulk temperature and the distance of the spark from the solid wall.
In general, measurements of vapor bubble growth and collapse as a result of heat
transfer are quite non-reproducible. One of the reasons for this non-reproducibility is the
randomness of the temperature distribution in the vicinity of the growing vapor bubble.
The randomness results from the turbulence associated with the natural and/or forced
convection, and from the liquid agitation produced by adjacent or prior bubbles. In order
to eliminate the randomness arising from natural convection, transient pool boiling
experiments were conducted under microgravity conditions using the 132 m drop tower at
the NASA Lewis Research Center, with transient measurements of the mean heater
surface temperature and far-field pressure along with photographs of the vapor bubbles
taken at 400 fps. Results and associated analysis from these experiments are presented
here. The absence of natural convection and agitation from adjacent bubbles permits the
determination of the precise initial temperature distribution at nucleation. The present
experiments reveal two categories of bubble growth: one with bubbles having a smooth
surface, which produces moderate growth rates; the other with bubbles having a
roughened surface, which produces extremely large growth rates, which might be
classified as violent. The present work focuses on the dynamics of growing/collapsing
vapor bubbles with a smooth surface, arising from non-uniform initial temperatures
surrounding the bubbles.
To understand the mechanisms associated with the vapor bubble dynamics more
fully, a one-dimensional numerical model was formulated incorporating momentum,
energy, surface tension and viscosity simultaneously. The treatment for an initially
uniformly superheated bulk liquid is presented in Chapter 2. The model can also take into
94
account the vapor bubble growth and collapse arising from initially non-uniform
temperature fields, and predicts the dynamics following homogeneous nucleation. The
model can not predict the dynamics of vapor bubble growth with pool boiling from plane
heater surfaces since the dynamics of this configuration inherently involves two or three
dimensional considerations. However, as will be demonstrated, the combination of the
initially uniform and non-uniform superheated liquid models provide the upper and lower
bounds for predicting the vapor bubble growth and collapse dynamic processes. The
alternative available at present is to solve the three-dimensional case incorporating
momentum, energy, surface tension and viscosity simultaneously, with the three-
dimensional interface becoming a part of the solution process. Computational possibilities
for such are not yet available. Computations with the present model, on the other hand, is
fast even with currently available P.C.'s, and provides reasonable approximations to
observed behaviors.
Previous analytical solutions and experiments for vapor bubble dynamics in initially
non-uniform temperature fields have been surveyed. A considerable number of
publications for vapor bubble growth on a heater surface has been found for the period
following the work of Nukiyama (1934), but relatively few incorporated both bubble
growth and collapse. Gunther (1950) and Ellion (1953) observed bubbles growing and
collapsing on a heater surface in highly subcooled water, by means of high speed
photography. Typical experimental results of Ellion (1953) in Figures 3.1 and 3.2 show
the variability in the bubble dynamics arising from the inherent ramdomness of the
temperature distribution on the heater surface, which causes some difficulty when
attempting to model and hence understand the mechanisms involved. Nevertheless,
several representative analytical models associated with such data will be presented here.
95
3.1.1 Inertia Controlled Bubble Growth and Collapse
Lord Rayleigh (1917) first formulated the equation of motion for a spherical
bubble in terms of the bubble radius and pressure difference as:
3 , P -P2
r r +- r 2 =^> (3.1)
2 p,
This applies to both bubble growth and collapse processes, depending on the sign
of Pv -P. A solution to Equation (3.1) was provided by Bankoff and Mikesell (1958),
with dRI dt = 0 when R = Rm and t = tm, where tm is the time at which the bubble reaches
its maximum radius (Rm), given by Equations (3.2) and (3.3). Effective values of Pv - Pm
were used for purposes of comparison with the data of Gunther(1950) and Ellion (1953).
However, it is not clear as to how these effective constant pressures were determined. It
is of course obvious that different values are necessary for the growth and collapse phases.
(3.2)
. t { 2 P -P \2 , , R
where \i/ = ------ *---- and c = (3.3)
Rm\. 3 p, o, , Rm
Zuber (1961) also gave a solution for Equation (3.1), for the collapse mode only,
with initial conditions of R(0) = Rm and R(0) = 0, as:
(3.4)
where tc is the time needed for the total collapse.
If only the collapse phase of the problem described by Equations (3.2) and (3.3) is
considered, with the same initial conditions used by Zuber (1961), it can be shown that
96
Equations (3.2) and (3.3) are identical to Equation (3.4), provided the lower limit of the
integral in Equation (3.2) is replaced by unity.
Equations (3.2) and (3.4) provide the descriptions of the bubble dynamics for the
so-called inertia controlled bubble collapse. As stated by Bankoff and Mikesell (1958),
Rm and tm in Equations (3.2) and (3.3) are empirical values, obtaining with highly
subcooled nucleate boiling. The solutions can give predictions only if Rm and tm are
known. Nevertheless, these indicate trends of the bubble growth and collapse as to
whether the collapse mode is controlled by heat transfer or liquid inertia.
3.1.2 Heat Transfer Controlled Bubble Growth and Collapse
Zuber (1961) proposed an approximate expression for the heat transfer controlled
growth and collapse in subcooled boiling, utilizing the energy balance at the liquid-vapor
interface in terms of qb, the heat transfer from the vapor interface to the bulk liquid, as:
( 3 ' 5 )
where b is the curvature correction factor, usually l< b < y [3 , and qh is an
unknown quantity.
Integrating Equation (3.5) assuming that qh remains constant yields:
, 2 A7c,p, , f, OlVtcoF
R =b yhzou 1---- 7^-------- r (3.6)
71 V v . 2k[Tw Tsat)
The maximum radius is reached when dR/dt=0 in Equation (3.5), resulting in:
k{Tw- T saI)
(3.7)
<lb
Substituting Equation (3.7) into Equation (3.6), the maximum radius is then:
97
(3.8)
Equation (3.6) can now be rewritten in terms of the maximum radius and time
using Equations (3.7) and (3.8) as:
(3.9)
Equation (3.9) accounts only for the heat transfer controlled growth and collapse
because only heat transfer is considered in its derivation. Equation (3.9) itself can not give
a prediction for the growth and collapse unless qbis given. Zuber (1961) later postulated
the use of experimental values of Rm and tm in Equation (3.9). This has been somewhat
confusing for readers because Equations (3.7) and (3.8) were previously recommended for
Rm and tm. If Rm and tm as evaluated by Equations (3.7) and (3.8) are used in Equation
(3.9), it was found that the life time for the bubble growth and collapse is about an order
smaller, and the maximum radius several times smaller, than the experimental data of
Ellion (1953).
The individual vapor bubble growth/collapse data of Ellion (1953) in Figures 3.1
and 3.2 were normalized relative to Rm and tm, producing the data in Figures 3.3 and 3.4,
respectively. These are compared with the inertia controlled collapse of Equation (3.4)
and the heat transfer controlled growth and collapse of Equation (3.9), respectively. The
bubble growths in Figures 3.3 and 3.4 would seem to be controlled by the heat transfer
because of the reasonably good comparison with Equation (3.9). For the bubble collapse
phase, on the other hand, Figure 3.3 shows the measurements falling between the inertia
and the heat transfer controlled collapse models, while Figure 3.4 shows an obviously
inertia controlled collapse. It can thus be deduced that the higher the subcooling, the
greater the tendency for the collapse to be governed by liquid inertia effects.
98
3.1.3 Vapor Bubble Collapse
The specific process of vapor bubble collapse was considered by Florschuetz and
Chao (1965). Distinctions between the inertia and heat transfer controlled modes, as well
as the intermediate case, were classified in terms of a dimensionless parameter which will
be described here. Vapor bubble collapse occurring in an initially uniformly subcooled
liquid is conceptually similar to the bubble growth in an initially uniformly superheated
liquid, so the equations derived for the uniform superheat case can be used directly by
simply changing the sign of the temperature difference or the pressure difference. Plesset
and Zwick (1952) formulated the zero order solution for the temperature at the moving
interface of a spherical bubble by assuming a thin thermal layer near the bubble, with the
result:
(3.10)
Florschuetz and Chao (1965) expressed Equations (3.1) and (3.10) in terms of a
dimensionless time (x,) and radius (y) to normalize the problem, as:
(3.11)
99
and in terms of a dimensionless time (xH) as:
B!( n + | f )= ( f J(n,(e J - nw(T)) (3.13)
n (T \ 2 p , T2(2)Y(e)e(z) .
(3.14)
The nondimensional values are defined as:
( , 1/2
B = Jar P/ (3.15)
^ y ^sys K i^ b u tk )
at R Tl i - T bulk
*/ = xH= Jac r , Y = 0 = (3.16)
3 P/ , H K c % 1 R, T
l sat
Tbulk
j-j- _ Pys(t) Pyi^bulk) _ P/C/ ( ^ a, P/mlk) (3.17)

n Ja =
Psys ~ P v { P b u l k ) Pvi^bulk) /
Equation (3.12) becomes negligible when the dimensionless parameter B is

sufficiently large such that Qw becomes small and the vapor pressure remains constant, so
that the collapse will be essentially controlled by liquid inertia, hence the use of the symbol
x, for the dimensionless time in this case. Conversely, when the dimensionless parameter
B is sufficiently small, the left-hand side of Equation (3.13) becomes negligible such that
the heat transfer controls the collapse, hence the use of the symbol xH for the
dimensionless time in this case. The properties in the dimensionless parameter B are
evaluated at the saturation temperature.
3.1.3.1 Liquid inertia controlled collapse
100
With Qw in Equation (3.12) negligibly small and assuming the pressure difference
in Equation (3.11) to be constant, solving Equation (3.11) provides an equation for the
inertia controlled collapse as:
(3.18)
where x, is defined in Equation (3.16). This is identical to the result of Zuber
(1961) given by Equation (3.4).
3.1.3.2 Heat transfer controlled collapse
If a heat transfer controlled collapse is considered, the inertia term in Equation
(3.13) becomes negligible. Substituting Equation (3.14) into the right-hand side of
Equation (3.13) with 11^ = 1, following the transformation of variables, yields finally:
(3.19)
where xH and y are defined in Equation (3.16).
It is to be emphasized here that Equation (3.19) is an approximate solution and
takes account for the heat transfer controlled collapse. The complete neglect of liquid
inertia effects hence renders the solution physically inapplicable at the very beginning of
the collapse process.
Equations (3.11) and (3.12) are applicable only for bubble collapse, and thus the
bubble growth and collapse can not both be described simultaneously here, since Equation
(3.12) was derived assuming a thin thermal boundary layer. This means that non-uniform
temperature fields inherently can not be taken into account by this solution. Equations
101
(3.11) and (3.12) were solved numerically by Florschuetz and Chao (1965) for bubble
collapse only, and are plotted in Figure 3.5 together with the result of the inertia
controlled collapse given by Equation (3.18), for three different values of the
dimensionless parameter B. It is seen that at B=0.3 the numerical result of Equations
(3.11) and (3.12) are in good agreement with the analytical approximation of Equation
(3.18) for the inertia controlled collapse, while heat transfer effects become significant
later in the collapse period for smaller values of B. Numerical solutions of Equations
(3.13) and (3.14) are plotted in Figure 3.6 together with the analytical approximation for
the heat transfer controlled collapse given by Equation (3.19). It is noted that the bubble
collapse curves converge to the heat transfer controlled collapse approximation of
Equation (3.19) as the dimensionless parameter B decreases. At B=0.02 the bubble
collapse curve almost coincides with Equation (3.19), which supports the approximation
for the heat transfer controlled collapse. It is noted that the curve in Figure 3.6 for B=0.1
shows an oscillation as the bubble collapses. Similar oscillations were observed in the
experiments conducted by Florschuetz and Chao (1965).
3.1.4 Vapor Bubble Growth on a Heater Surface
Han and Griffith (1965) studied vapor bubble growth at a low heat flux on a heater
surface, considering one-dimensional transient heat conduction surrounding the bubble,
including a contact angle at the three phase line on the heater surface. The approximate
solution proposed appears to provide the solution for the bubble dynamics for the three
different cases: superheated, saturated and subcooled liquids. The normalized form of the
solution is:
1/2
r - r
, <P<W, T
e <Pv P A e. 4<PvPvV*
(3.20)
102
where r = , x (3.21)
rc 8
/zv=heat transfer coefficient from heating surface to the vapor bubble.
8 = jK atw , (p=contact angle
(pc=curvature factor where 1 < (pc < 3I/2,
f _ sin2 (p^
cpx=surface factor .^ + (^0S(Pj , <pfr=base factor
2 + cos(p(2 + sin2cp)
(pv=volume factor
s ~ Tsat , 0CTbulk Tm
Thu[k)Tsalo
1 1 - (3.22)
(TW- Tsa ,f5PVhfS
Equation (3.22) provides the minimum and maximum cavity radii, and any cavity
radius between these can qualify as a potentially active nucleation site. Han and Griffith
(1965) also conducted pool boiling experiments at low levels of heat flux, and
demonstrated that Equation (3.20) approximately predicts the bubble growth. Equation
(3.20) does not include the liquid inertia effects, since the equation of motion was not
incorporated in the analysis, so that Equation (3.20) is valid only for heat transfer
controlled growth and collapse.
Mikic et al. (1970) considered the problem of bubble growth in non-uniform
temperature fields on a heater surface. Corrections were applied to the initial uniform
superheat model, which consists basically of the following two steps: (i) liquid at a
uniform temperature (Tbulk) comes into contact with a surface at wall temperature (Tw) and
103
(ii) after a waiting time (tw) the bubble forms and grows in the non-uniform temperature
field produced during the waiting time ( tw). The result is:
T Tbulk fc
i (3.23)
T ~Tsat I M r _
) U+
where R+= -rJ-r t+= (3.24)

B2 / A B2 / A 2
, 1/2
1/2
_ Tmt)hfgPv
A= ; B = \ Ja2a,
3Tsa,Pi K
Equation (3.23) thus would appear to describe the vapor bubble growth and
collapse on a heater surface, including heat diffusion effects, although no comparisons
with experiments for the growth and collapse were given. The dimensional version of
Equation (3.23) was given earlier by Mikic and Rohsenow (1969).
3.2 Modeling
A number of analytical approximations for vapor bubble growth in uniformly
superheated liquids have been proposed, while a relatively small number of approximation
models exist for non-uniform temperature fields because of its complexity. In order to
study bubble dynamics in non-uniform temperature fields, a Fortran program was written
to model the one-dimensional spherical vapor bubble dynamics in non-uniform
temperature fields, identical to the initial uniform superheat model except for the initial
condition. The model is divided into two parts according to the initial temperature
distribution, which may be initially uniform or non-uniform,: initial uniform superheat
model and initial non-uniform superheat model, respectively.
104
3.2.1 Initial Uniform Superheat Model for Spherical Bubble Growth
The initial uniform superheat model is relatively easier to solve than the initial non-
uniform superheat model. The analytical approximations for the initial uniform superheat
model have performed remarkably well, while this has not been the case for the analytical
approximation for the initial non-uniform superheat model. The schematic diagram for
the initial uniform superheat model is shown in Figure 3.7. The uniform model
incorporates two possible cases: Tbulk > Tsat and Tbulk < Tsat. The former is referred to
as a superheated liquid, in which the bubble grows continuously, and is discussed in
Chapter 2; the latter is referred to as a subcooled liquid, and will be discussed in section
3.5.1 below in connection with vapor bubble collapse.
3.2.2 Initial Non-uniform Superheat Model
Vapor bubble dynamics in non-uniform temperature fields may be heat transfer
controlled, liquid inertia controlled, or a combination of both. As will be demonstrated,
the mode acting is quite sensitive to the initial temperature distribution present around the
vapor bubble. Initial attempts at modeling the non-uniform superheat vapor bubble
dynamics will be divided into two parts in order to make the problem tractable: a spherical
bubble model and a hemispherical bubble model, described below.
3.2.2.1 Spherical Bubble Model
The initial non-uniform superheat model for a spherical bubble is shown
schematically in Figures 3.8 (a) and (b). Figure 3.8 (a) shows the initial temperature
105
distribution, where the highest temperature is the heater surface temperature (Tw), the
lowest temperature is the bulk temperature ( Thulk), and the saturation temperature (Tmt)
corresponds to the system pressure. Although the saturation temperature may take on any
value, only the case with Thulk < Tml < Tw is considered here since this range is of more
practical significance. Figure 3.8 (b) depicts the non-uniform temperature distribution
around the vapor bubble as it is in the process of growth. This is quite difficult to
estimate by any analytical approximation, since the bubble dynamics is governed not only
by heat transfer but also by liquid inertia.
3.2.2.2 Hemispherical Bubble Model
This model is particularly applicable to pool boiling circumstances, in which the
mechanisms are extremely complex. No appropriate predictive models have been found
for high subcooled pool boiling, in particular. What follows is an attempt to provide
upper and lower predictive bounds of the vapor bubble growth on a solid surface in pool
boiling. Figure 3.9 depicts a realistic hemispherical vapor bubble in contact with a heater
surface, where the top of the bubble has a non-uniform temperature distribution in the
liquid with the least thermal energy in the liquid boundary layer near the liquid-vapor
interface, while the lower part of the bubble is assumed to have a uniform temperature
distribution at the heater surface temperature, which is the highest possible temperature.
Considering half of a one-dimensional spherical model mathematically results in a
hemispherical vapor bubble model. If the initial non-uniform superheat model is taken
with radially symmetry corresponding to the temperature distribution at the top of the
bubble in Figure 3.9, as shown in Figure 3.10, the bubble growth taking place should be at
a minimum, and will be called the "lower bound" of the bubble growth here. If the initial
uniform superheat model is taken as shown in Figure 3.11, with the temperature
corresponding to the maximum possible level, the heater surface temperature at the lower
106
part of the bubble in Figure 3.9, the bubble growth should be at a maximum, and will be
called the "upper bound" of the bubble growth here. This type of behavior will be
demonstrated later by comparison with recent experiments. The temperature distribution
around a real bubble on a flat heater surface is shown in Figure 3.12, from Straub et al
(1990), using holographic interferometery. The heater is facing downward in order to
minimize convection due to buoyancy. It is noted that the thermal boundary layer formed
on the heater surface supports the schematic diagram given in Figure 3.9.
3.3 Governing Equations
The temperature distribution corresponding to the spherical vapor bubble growth
problem in a non-uniformly superheated liquid is shown in Figure 3.8. The bulk liquid and
the critical size bubble are initially isothermal. It is assumed that the bubble growth is
initiated from the critical size bubble. The bubble wall temperature decreases, as the
bubble grows, to the saturation temperature corresponding to the internal pressure of the
bubble. Other assumptions necessary to solve the problem are summarized below:
a) Bubble remains spherical
b) A uniform pressure and temperature exist inside the vapor bubble
c) The vapor temperature inside the bubble is equal to the liquid-vapor interface
temperature, Tv = Tt
d) The liquid is incompressible
(3.25)
107
(r2w) = 0 (3.26)
or
Using the continuity equation (3.26) and integrating Equation (3.25) from the
bubble surface (R) to infinity (>), the momentum equation can be written in terms of the
bubble radius as:

3 -2 Pp - P
RR+R = ^ ~
2 ep, (3.27)
For a spherical bubble, viscosity affects only the boundary condition, so that the
balance of pressure across the liquid-vapor interface gives:
PvW - P K= ^ p - + 4 ^ (3.28)
A A
Inserting Equation (3.28) into Equation (3.27) yields:
RR+R2 = (3.29)
2 ep, ep ,R ep,R
The initial conditions are:

R(0) = Rc and R(0) = 0 att = 0 (3.30)
The driving force for the bubble growth in Equation (3.29) is the pressure
difference between the vapor within the bubble and the liquid adjacent the bubble, which is
constrained by the surface tension and the bulk liquid inertia. Equation (3.29) implies that
static equilibrium will exist when the first and second derivatives are zero. For the initial
vapor bubble of critical size, this gives, since TV=T initially:
/? (3.31)
PV(T)~P
The energy equation in spherical coordinates is given as:
If the initial temperature distribution is produced by a constant imposed heat flux,
the initial condition will be:
I ' M ) = T_ + exp (-ry 4oa' ) - Z f e t f c (3.33)

/Ci AC/
If the initial temperature distribution is produced, on the other hand, by a constant
surface temperature, the initial condition will be:
(3.34)
The boundary conditions are: r(,0) = T,
(3.35)
Equation (3.35) is the energy balance at the liquid-vapor interface of the bubble.
The term in the RHS of the equation represents the latent heat rate for evaporation of the
liquid to produce the vapor required in the bubble, while the term in the LHS represents
the conduction heat transfer rate from the liquid adjacent to the vapor bubble wall.
According to assumption (b), the conduction heat transfer from the bubble wall to the
interior of the vapor bubble is neglected. The vapor bubble growth problem in a
superheated liquid can be solved by coupling Equation (3.29) and Equation (3.32) with
109
the initial and boundary conditions given in Equations (3.30) and (3.35), together with the
initial temperature distribution of either Equation (3.33) or (3.34).
3.4 Numerical Solution
A Fortran program was written to solve the transient one-dimensional spherical
bubble growth problem in non-uniform superheated liquids, where the initial non
uniformity is spherically symmetric around a critical size vapor bubble. The program
couples the momentum and energy equations and marches stepwise in time, taking into
account the variations of properties with temperature. For the infinitesimal time steps, the
momentum equation is solved by the Runge-Kutta method to determine the locus of the
bubble interface, which provides the boundary condition for the energy equation, which is
then solved by means of the finite difference method. The complexity of the problem is
simplified by adopting the Landau coordinate transformation to immobilize the moving
boundary. After the transformation, the energy equation is solved by using the Thomas
algorithm, also called the TriDiagonal Matrix Algorithm. Further details of the solution
are presented in Chapter 2.
3.5 Vapor Bubble Dynamics in Subcooled Liquids
3.5.1 Bubble Collapse
In connection with the analytical work described earlier, Florschuetz and Chao
(1965) conducted vapor bubble collapse experiments with water under free fall conditions,
in order to eliminate gravity effects and produce a spherical bubble. The test vessel was
110
dropped from a height of 1.83 m, giving a free fall time of 0.6 sec. The liquid in the vessel
was initially heated to its boiling point at subatmospheric pressure. Immediately after the
delivery of a bubble into the vessel, the vessel was released. A small electromagnet
controlled the opening of a cover on the top of the vessel to expose the system to
atmospheric pressure. The photographic data show that in spite of the free fall condition,
the bubble experienced small translational velocities of about 4 cm/s or less. The
measured bubble collapse is plotted in Figure 3.13 with both the heat transfer controlled
collapse of Equation (3.19) and computations using the present numerical method. It is
seen that the experimental curve generally follows the trend of the predictions. The
discrepancy between the experimental data and both predictions is attributed to the
residual translational motion mentioned above. The physical properties in Equation (3.19)
are evaluated at the saturation temperature corresponding to the system pressure. It is
also noted that the heat transfer controlled model of Equation (3.19) is in fair agreement
with the present numerical calculation for the present operating conditions, where the
dimensionless parameter B is 0.0087. This is below the upper limit of B=0.02 specified as
the heat transfer controlled criterion .
3.5.2 Bubble Growth and Collapse
A model for the bubble dynamics with initial non-uniform superheat for a spherical
bubble was described in section 3.2.2.1. An experiment corresponding to this
circumstance was conducted by Lauterborn and Hentschel (1985) in connection with
cavitation research, using water at atmospheric pressure and high speed photography at
75000 fps. Homogeneous nucleation was effectively produced by focusing a laser beam at
a desired location near a sold wall. However, details as to the intensity, concentration and
duration of the laser beam were not given, which would be necessary to derive the initial
Ill
temperature field around an embryo bubble. Interest at that time was focused on bubble
collapse rather than bubble growth. It was observed in the experiments that the vapor
bubble rebounded after the first collapse and rebounded again following a second collapse.
Data from the series of photographs are plotted, together with the present numerical
computations, in Figure 3.14. It is noteworthy that the results of the computations predict
the two rebounds in an approximate fashion, in spite of the uncertainties in the initial
conditions, which are estimated. The computed vapor pressure within the bubble is
included in Figure 3.14, and it is noted that the vapor pressure falls below the system
pressure when the bubble is near its maximum radius. This may be interpreted to be a
consequence of the liquid inertia, where the liquid is still moving outward while the
thermal boundary layer no longer supplies evaporation, and followed by collapse so that
the vapor pressure increases, as expected.
Figure 3.15 provides the computed temperature distributions around the growing
bubble at various times for the estimated parameters of Figure 3.14. The abscissa
represents the distance from the moving liquid-vapor interface. The initial temperature
distribution at time zero is obtained from a one-dimensional transient conduction model
for a constant surface temperature, given by Equation (3.34), with an arbitrary waiting
time of 0.21 sec imposed in order to attain a surface temperature of 302 C, expected to
be required for homogeneous nucleation. The temperatures in region 1 and region 2 in
Figure 3.15 do not necessarily follow a chronological order for the elapsed times owing to
the use of a moving coordinate origin on the vapor bubble interface. However, it is noted
that the temperature curves at t4 and t5 are higher than at t3, which may appear to be an
anomaly. This could be interpreted as a manifestation of the liquid kinetic energy
conversion during the bubble collapse to the equivalent thermal energy, which then
possesses the potential for rebound since the liquid at the interface then becomes
superheated, as seen in Figure 3.15. The rebound of the bubble occurs only when the
bubble collapse is controlled by liquid inertia.
112
3.5.3 Bubble departure mechanism
In normal gravitational fields the vapor bubbles found in normal pool boiling
depart as a result of buoyancy. On examining the computed internal vapor pressure of a
hemispherical vapor bubble growing and collapsing adjacent to a wall, as in Figure 3.14, it
is noted that it drops below the system pressure at times and may constitute an additional
mechanism for departure from a heating surface and may be particularly effective in
microgravity.
3.6 Experiments in Microgravity with Saturated and Subcooled R-113
One of the difficulties associated with conducting well-defined experiments of pool
boiling in earth gravity is the randomness of the initial thermal boundary conditions
occurring at nucleation. This is demonstrated in Figures 3.1 and 3.2 by the scatter of the
data. A significant advantage of the present experimental measurements with transient
pool boiling in microgravity is that the initial conditions at nucleation are known: the
surface temperature, thermal boundary layer, and system pressure.
3.6.1 Experimental Apparatus
Pool boiling experiments with R-113 were conducted in microgravity in the 132 m
evacuated drop tower facility at the NASA Lewis Research Center, which provided 5.18
seconds of free fall with effective body forces on the order of 10'5 g. Photographs of the
boiling process were obtained with a D.B. Milliken camera operating at 400 pictures per
second. The drop vehicle, vessel and associated electronics were designed to withstand
113
the vacuum conditions and the 50 g impact at the bottom of the drop tower. The test
vessel has internal dimensions of approximately 12.5 cm by 14 cm by 27.9 cm, and
consists of thick aluminum plates to assist in providing initially uniform internal
temperatures. Two heater surfaces are installed in one wall of the test vessel; each
consists of a 400 A thick semi-transparent gold film sputtered on a highly polished quartz
substrate, and serves simultaneously as a heater, with an uncertainty of 4 % in the
measurement of the heat flux, and a resistance thermometer, with an overall uncertainty of
1.0 C. The heater is rectangular in shape, 1.91 cm by 3.81 cm. Degassed commercial
grade R-113 (trichlorotrifluoroethane, CC12FCCIF2) was used because of its low normal
boiling point (47.6 C), which minimized problems associated with heat loss to the
surroundings, and because of its electrical nonconductivity, which made it compatible for
direct contact with the thin gold film heater. A pressure transducer was employed to
measure the system pressure, with an uncertainty of 0.172 kPa. Chromel-constantan
Teflon sheathed thermocouples with ice reference junctions were used to measure the
liquid and vapor temperatures, with a total uncertainty of 0.05 C. The desired
subcooling was obtained by increasing the system pressure above the saturation pressure
corresponding to the initial liquid temperature. In the absence of buoyancy, an initially
motionless liquid remains stagnant upon heating until the onset of boiling, and the
temperature distribution at the moment of incipient boiling can be determined from a
conduction heat transfer analysis.

The heat transfer to the liquid (q") is calculated by a transient one-dimensional
conduction analysis with the measured total heat flux (g"). The ratio of the heat flux
transferred to the liquid for the R-l 13/quartz combination is constant as:
-% = 0.175 (3.36)
Equation (3.36) is in good agreement with the short time experiments on the order
of 5 seconds, when comparing the one-dimensional transient predicted heater surface
114
temperatures with the measurements. The ratio of the heat flux for water corresponding
to Equation (3.36) is 0.49. Detailed descriptions of the experimental apparatus and
procedures used for obtaining present experimental results are given in Ervin et al. (1992).
3.6.2 Experimental Results and Discussions
Nucleation with pool boiling on a heated surface is considerably more complex
than homogeneous nucleation. The nucleation not only occurs on a foreign material, but
also takes place in a non-uniformly superheated liquid, while homogeneous nucleation is
generally regarded as being initiated in a uniformly superheated media. Figure 3.16
depicts three typical early bubble growths in microgravity with different levels of heat flux
and subcooling. Figure 3.17, corresponding to Figure 3.16 (b), shows the measurement of
the transient mean heater surface temperature and system pressure for the entire test. The
heater power is turned on at zero time so that a thermal boundary layer develops on the
heater until nucleation takes place at 1.55 sec. The decrease of the surface temperature
following nucleation is attributed to the boiling taking place on the heater surface. The
one-dimensional transient conduction prediction curve in Figure 3.17 coincides fairly well
with the measured surface temperature, and demonstrates the validity of the one
dimensional prediction for a short period experiment. This coincidence renders Equation
(3.36) and the corresponding temperature distribution in the liquid applicable to the
computation of the vapor bubble dynamics for the initial non-uniform superheat model.
3.6.2.1 Energy Input to the Liquid
The experiments presented in Figures 3.16 (a), (b) and (c) have respective
subcoolings of 2.63 C, 11.13 C and 0.81 C - almost saturated. Although the heat flux
115
itself does not directly influence the vapor bubble dynamics, the energy input (J/cm2) to
the liquid, defined as the product of the heat flux (q",) and the waiting time (t*), does
influence the growth dynamics. The energy input to the liquid up to the nucleation time,
together with the subcooling, heater surface superheat at nucleation, and bubble radius at
0.025s are plotted in Figure 3.18. The direct correspondence between the largest energy
input and growth rate in case (a) is noted, together with the largest heater surface
superheat at nucleation. Cases (b) and (c), however, are somewhat different. Although
case (b) has a larger energy input and superheat than case (c), the growth rate is smaller,
which is attributed to the fact that case (b) has a much higher subcooling than case (c).
The validity for the use of the upper and lower bounds in vapor bubble growths, as
determined from the initially uniform and non-uniform superheat models for the
computation of the vapor bubble dynamics on heated surfaces, can be determined by
comparing the numerical computations with the measurements for the three different cases
presented in Figure 3.16. The growing vapor bubble sizes were measured approximately,
assuming an oblate bubble, by an effective radius of (ab2)1/3/2 where "a" is a horizontal
length of the oblate and "b" is a height of the oblate. The numerical computations for both
the initially uniform and non-uniform superheat models provide the following data: bubble
size, liquid-vapor interface velocity, liquid-vapor interface acceleration, liquid-vapor
interface temperature, and temperature distributions in the liquid surrounding the growing
bubble, all as functions of time.
3.6.2.2 Initial Temperature Distribution
Figures 3.19 and 3.20 present the liquid temperature distributions surrounding the
growing vapor bubble for the initial non-uniform and the uniform superheat models,
respectively. Figure 3.19 shows that the initial temperature distribution collapses as time
passes, which results from both the evaporation at the liquid-vapor interface and the liquid
116
divergence around the growing bubble. The heat conduction into the subcooled bulk
liquid is negligible for the short period involved. It is quite noteworthy that the initial
thermal boundary layer is completely dissipated within 6 ms, which implies that the liquid-
vapor interface at the top of the vapor bubble in Figure 3.16 (b)-B is already conditioned
for condensation to take place at this location. Comparing Figure 3.19 with Figure 3.20,
up to a time of 2.6x1 O'6 sec., no difference in the temperature gradients at the liquid-vapor
interface can be detected between the models. From the time of 1.6x1 O'3 sec. onward, the
difference becomes considerable. Finally, at a time of 6xl0-3sec., the temperature gradient
in the non-uniform model of Figure 3.19 begins to change sign, and condensation at the
liquid-vapor interface can take place, accompanied by the collapse of a spherical bubble.
The gradient in the initially uniform superheat model of Figure 3.20 remains positive, with
continuous evaporation producing continuous bubble growth.
Measurements of the growing vapor bubbles from Figure 3.16 (a), (b) and (c) are
compared with computation from the initial uniform and the non-uniform superheat
models in Figures 3.21, 3.22 and 3.23, respectively. All measurements fall between the
resulting curves for the initially uniform and non-uniform models, which supports the
definition of the models as described in section 3.2.2. According to the models in section
3.2.2, the initially uniform superheat temperature provides the maximum possible bubble
growth, which is called the upper bound since the bulk liquid temperature was taken to be
uniformly at the highest temperature in the thermal boundary layer, while the initially non-
uniform superheat temperature provides the minimum bubble growth, which is called the
lower bound since the initial temperature distribution on the top of the critical bubble is
taken as the initial thermal boundary layer around a spherical bubble. Since the
photographs in the experiments were taken at 400 frame per second, the corresponding
uncertainty in the onset of nucleation is 2.5 milliseconds, which implies that the time scale
may be shifted up to 2.5 msec. The concept of the upper and lower bounds is useful in
that the first data point of the measured bubble radii can be conveniently be placed to fall
117
between the range of the upper and lower bounds, as may be seen in Figure 3.21 where
the data were shifted to the left by 0.002 seconds. By comparing Figures 3.21, 3.22 and
3.23, it is noted that as the subcooling increases, the bubble growth has a tendency to
follow the curve for the initially non-uniform superheat model, as is seen in Figure 3.22.
3.6.2.3 Bubble Dynamics
In order to explore the bubble dynamics during the early stages of growth for both
the initially uniform and non-uniform superheat models, the experiment corresponding to
Figure 3.16 (b), which has the highest subcooling among the three, was chosen. The
initially uniform and non-uniform superheat models with conditions given in Figure 3.16
(b) provided the numerical data of the bubble radius, interface velocity, interface
acceleration and interface temperature as shown in Figures 3.24, 3.25 and 3.26,
respectively. It is found, in general, that the differences in behavior between these two
models are negligible during the early stages, for times less than about, say, 10'5 seconds.
In particular, no differences between the interface accelerations can be detected in Figure
3.25. It may then be deduced that the bubble dynamics during the very early stages are
not affected by the thermal boundary layer, but rather by the initial bubble wall superheat
temperature. Further details of the bubble dynamics relative to the liquid-vapor interface
velocity, acceleration and temperature for the initially uniform superheated liquid case are
given in Chapter 2.
118
0.8
- Bubble Radius vs. Time for Water
0.7 Psys=l atm, Tbulk=57.2 C, Tw=132.7 C, q"=363 W/cm2
0.6
0.5
Bubble Radius, mm
Avei ageRn ax_
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time, (as
Figure 3.1. Illustration of variability of bubble dynamics in pool boiling during a given
experiment. Water, =42.8C , ATwsup =32.7C , Ellion (1953).
119
0.5
Bubble Radius vs. Time for water
Psys=l atm, Tbulk=25.5 C, Tw=134.4 C,q"=490 W/cm2
0.4 . ________________
Average llm ax
Bubble Radius, mm
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Time, us
Figure 3.2. Illustration of variability of bubble dynamics in pool boiling during a given
experiment. Water, ATsub =74.5C, ATwsap = 3 4 .4 C , Ellion (1953).
120
q"= 363 W/cm2
Heat transfer controlled growth and

collapse, Equation (3.9)
0.8
0.6
0.4
Inertia controlled collapse.
Equation (3.4)
0.2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

t/tmax
Figure 3.3. Comparison of Equations (3.4) and (3.9) with normalized data of Figure 3.1.
Arjufc=42.8 C , Arwsup=32.7C, Ellion (1953).
0.8 Heat transfer controlled growth and

collapse, Equation (3.9)
0.6
0.4 Inertia controlled cojlj

Equation (3.4)
0.2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

t/tmax
Figure 3.4. Comparison of Equations (3.4) and (3.9) with normalized data of Figure 3.2.
A^6 =74.5C , ATwsup = 34.4 C, Ellion (1953).
121
3
Dimensionless radius and liquid-vapor interface temperature for water
o
o-.. . Psys=101.325 kPa, Tsat=100 C
A I A
Qj f \ 2.5
1 - K co -cA 0 0 -0-0 0 0 -
O-o-O'
O I I\ O B=0.02, Dimensionless
/ 0 !A Temperature 2
Oo-O O B=0.1
A b =0.3
o B=0.02, Dimensionless 1.5 y

Radius
0------ B=0.1
Heat transfer controlled collapse

A B=0.3 1
-1 OOO-O-OO O -O O o O O O 0 -0
'O-,
0.5
Tnertin controlled collapse

Equation (3.18)
-2 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Figure 3.5. Numerical solutions of Florschuetz and Chao (1965) for vapor bubble
collapse given by Equations (3.11) and (3.12), for three different values of the
dimensionless parameter B, together with the inertia controlled collapse.
122
0.9
B=0.1, numerical
solution by Florschuetz
0.8 and Chao (1965)
B=0.02, numerical
0.7 solution by Florschuetz
and Chao (1965)
0.6 Heat transfer controlled

collapse, Equation
(3.19)
Y 0.5
O".
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2
XH
Figure 3.6. Numerical solutions of Florschuetz and Chao (1965) for vapor bubble
collapse given by Equations (3.13) and (3.14), for two different values of the
dimensionless parameter B, together with the heat transfer controlled collapse of Equation
(3.19).
123
T
Tbulk
Tbulk
R(t).
Tsat
Tsat
(a) (b)
Figure 3.7. Initial uniform superheat model, (a) Initial temperature profile surrounding a
critical size vapor bubble, (b) Liquid temperature profile surrounding a growing vapor
bubble.
Tsat
Tbulk
Tbulk
(a) (b)
Figure 3.8. Initial non-uniform superheat model, (a) Initial temperature profile
surrounding a critical size vapor bubble, (b) Liquid temperature profile surrounding a
growing vapor bubble.
124
Figure 3.9. Schematic diagram of a realistic hemispherical vapor bubble growing on a

heater surface.
Figure 3.10. Schematic diagram of an ideal hemispherical bubble growing on a heater

surface for the initial non-uniform superheat model.
125
l-c
A
Figure 3.11. Schematic diagram of an ideal hemispherical bubble growing on a heater

surface for the initial uniform superheat model.
Figure 3.12. Temperature field around a downward-facing R-113 vapor bubble by means
of holographic interferometery (Straub et al. (1990)).
126
0.005
Bubble radius vs. time for water,

0.0045
Psys=101.325 kPa, Tbulk=87.8 C,
Tsat=100 C, Subcool=12.2 C
0.004
B=0.0087
oooo
0.0035
_ 0.003
0>
o3
E Heat transfer controlled collapse,
" 0.0025 Equation (3.19)
.2
'ca5
OS
0.002 h
0.0015 Numerical computation
0.001
Experiments by
0.0005 Florschuetz and Chao (1965)
O O o o
0 I '
_ ______ 1_______ I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L . _l I 1 I I I L.
-0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

Time, sec
Figure 3.13. Comparison of experimental data of Florschuetz and Chao (1965) for water
with computations using a heat transfer controlled collapse and the present numerical
method.
127
5 0.6
Vapor bubble radius and vapor pressure vs. time for water
0.5
4.5
Conditions for computation: 0.4
Psys=0.101MPa, Tbulk=23 C,
4
Tw=302 C, t*=0.21 sec 0.3
3.5 0.2
Vapor pressure, MPa

3 0.1
2.5 Radius computed
Experiments by Lauterbom - 0.1

and Hentschel (1985)
2 - 0.2
Vapor pressure, MPa
.5 System pressure -0.3
-0.4
1
-0.5
0.5
- 0.6
0 -0.7
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time, ps
Figure 3.14. Vapor bubble growth and collapse with water at atmospheric pressure.
Comparison between measurements and numerical computations carried out using
estimated parameters. Times t3, t4 and t5 correspond to those in Figure 3.15.
128
500 time elapsed

_Liquid temperature distribution for water tl= 0.0 ps
450
Conditions for computation: t2= 1.574 ps
Psys=0.101MPa, Tbulk=23 C,
400 Tw=302 C, t*=0.21 sec t3= 126.7 ps
t4= 400.4 ps
350
t5= 700.2 ps
U 300
Temperature,
250
200
150
Region 2
100
50 Region 1
0
le-09 le-08 le-07 le-06 le-05 le-04 le-03
Distance from the liquid-vapor interface, m
Figure 3.15. Computed temperature distributions around a growing bubble at various

times, for the estimated parameters of Figure 3.14.
PBMT1115.605 PBMT1129.820 PBMT0207.600
q"x =5.75 W/cm2 q"T=7.87 W/cm2 q"T=6.33 W/cm2
t*=3.083 sec. t*=1.550 sec. t*=1.685 sec.
Psys=108.88 kPa Psys=142.34 kPa Psys=103.32 kPa
Tbulk=47.11 C Tbulk=47.06 C Tbulk=47.33 C
Tsat=49.74 C Tsat=58.19 C Tsat=48.14 C
r> 1 1 2 C 7^=110 C rJ=ioo.o C
A C p =62.26 C A C p=51.81 C A C p =51.86 C
&Tsub=2.63 C A7fui=11.13C A T ^O .81 C
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 3.16. Early bubble growth behavior under microgravity with different levels of
heat flux and subcooling.
130
14U 150
Experiment, PBMT1129.820
q"T=7.87 W/cm2, 149
120 Tbulk=47.06 C, Tsat=58.19
Psys= 142.34 kPa
148
100
U 147
Pressure, kPa
80
V 1-D transient
I* 146
a conduction prediction
uu 60
Measured surface
temperature 145
40 Measured pressure
144
20 143
142
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time, sec
Figure 3.17. Measured mean heater surface temperature and system pressure for Test
PBMT1129.820, Figure 3.16 (b).
131
PBMT1115.605 (a)
IH PBMT1129.820 (b)
M PBMT0207.600 (c)
_ l l l
q"(total) x Subcooling Heater Bubble

t* Energy (C) Surface radius
input Superheat (mm) at
(J/cm2) xlO (C) t=0.025 s
Figure 3.18. Comparisons of several parameters influencing growth dynamics for the
experiments in Figure 3.16.
132
180
Liquid temperature distribution Time from onset of growth
- for non-uniform model
0.0 sec
160 R-l 13 (PBMT1129.820)
2.60E-06
Psys= 142.34 kPa, Tbulk=47.06 C,
Tsat=58.19 C, Tw*=l 10 C 2.00E-04
140
1.60E-03
6.00E-03
. 120
a,
100
le-09 le-08 le-07 le-06 le-05 le-04 le-03 le-02

Distance from liquid-vapor interface, meter
Figure 3.19. Transient liquid temperature distribution surrounding a spherical vapor

bubble growing from the critical size, with an initial non-uniform liquid temperature
distribution. The conditions correspond to Figure 3.16 (b). q"T=7.87 W/cm2,
ATJsup =51.8C, Artuft = 11.13C.
133
180
- for uniform model
-----------0.0 sec
160 R-113 (PBMT1129.820)
-----------2.60E-06
Psys=142.34 kPa, Tbulk=l 10 C,
Tsat=58.19 C 2.00E-04
140
- 1.60E-03
U ----------- 6.00E-03
. 120
uV-l
w a
C
U
Q
m
Q J
I
E-
a.
100 /
/
/
80 /
/
60
40 J I ' m i l l : i i i l n i l ______ I I I I m i l _ _ _ _ _ _ I_ _ _ I i i m i l ______I I I I M i l l _ _ _ _ _ _ I_ _ _ I I I I I I I ! _ _ _ _ _ _ I I I I 1 1 III

Figure 3.20. Transient liquid temperature distribution surrounding a spherical vapor

bubble growing from the critical size with an initial uniform liquid temperature
distribution. The conditions correspond to Figure 3.16 (b). A7^p = 51.8C
134
0.012
Radius vs. Time for R113, Psys=108.88 kPa, Tsat=49.74 C
0.01 Initial uniform superheat

model, Superheat=62.26
C, Tbulk=112.0 C
Initial non-unifoim
superheat model,
0.008 Tw*=ll2.0C,
Tbulk=47.11 C
EXPERIMENT,
PBMT1115.605
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Time, sec
Figure 3.21. Comparisons of measured bubble growth data with the initially uniform and
non-uniform superheat spherical vapor bubble growth models. Computational and
experimental conditions correspond to Figure 3.16 (a).
135
0.012
0.01
Initial uniform superheat
C,Tbulk=lI0.0 C
Initial non-uniform
0.008 superheat model,
Tw*=l 10.0 "C,
Tbulk=47.06 C
EXPERIMENT,
PBMT1129.820
0.006
0.004
0.002
.XL.
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
Time, sec
experimental conditions correspond to Figure 3.16 (b).
136
0.012
0.01
C, Tbulk= 100.0 C
. . . . . . . initio non-uniform
0.008 superheat model,
Tw*=100.0 C,
Tbulk=47.33 C
0) EXPERIMENT,
E PBMT0207.600
t/j
a 0.006
'ca3
OS
\
\
I
0.004
\

..
\
"
0.002
i

3 \
a

1
;
!

1
0 ' - -1............1 ---- 1- ' ------ 1---------'--------- 1--------- 1---------
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03

Time, sec
experimental conditions correspond to Figure 3.16 (c).
137
le+05 le+02
Bubble radius and interface velocity vs. time for R-l 13
le+04 Psys=143 kPa, Tsat=58.19 CExperimental data PBMT1129.820
le+01
le+03
le+02 le+00
le+01
le-01

Uniform Model, Radius
le+00
Non-unifomi Model, Radius
le-02
S.
1A le-01 Uniform Model, Velocity
.2
le-02 le-03
Q
S Non-uniform Model,
Velocity
le-03
le-04
le-04
le-05 le-05
le-06
le-06
le-07
le-08 le-07
le-10 le-09 le-08 le-07 le-06 le-05 le-04 le-03 le-02 le-01
Time, sec
Figure 3.24. Comparison of the liquid-vapor interface velocity between the initially
uniform and nonuniform superheat models. Conditions correspond to the experiment in
Figure 3.16 (b).
138
le+03 5e+08
Bubble radius and interface acceleration vs. time for R-l 13
le+02 Psys=143 kPa, Tsat=58.19 (Experimental data PBMT1129.820
le+01 4e+08
Unifonn Model, Radius
Non-uniform Model, Radius

le+00
Uniform Model, 3e+08
le-01 Acceleration
Non-uniform model, ao
le-02 acceleration
2e+08 O
T3
CO
le-03 uC3
Pi O
o
l_
le-04 3a
le+08
le-05
le-06 0e+00
le-07
mill t i tin
le-08 itiim l i itimtl t i i imil i i t I i i i Mi n i i i n mil _ i _i.iuiul.
-le+08
Time, sec
Figure 3.25, Comparison of the liquid-vapor interface acceleration between the initially
Figure 3.16 (b).
139
le+03 140
Bubble radius and interface temperature vs. time for R-113
le+02 Psys=143 kPa, Tsat=58.19 C Experimental data PBMT1129.820
120
le+01
100
le+00
le-01
le-02
le-03
le-04
le-05
Uniform Model, Radius
le-06 Non-uniform Model, Radius
Uniform Model, Ti
-20
le-07
Non-uniform model, Ti
m il
le-08 -40
Time, sec
Figure 3.26. Comparison of the liquid-vapor interface temperature between the initially
Figure 3.16 (b).
CHAPTER 4
ROLE OF INSTABILITIES IN POOL BOILING BUBBLE

GROWTH IN MICROGRAVITY
Rapid vapor bubble growths at superheats far below the homogeneous nucleation
superheat limit were observed in pool boiling experiment in microgravity. The
experiments, using R-113 as a fluid, were conducted in an evacuated 132 m drop tower
providing 5.18 seconds at a/g-lO-5. Photographic evidence revealed a roughening of the
bubble liquid-vapor interface as growth took place, which is believed to be a consequence
of an interface instability. The growth of the instability is explained in terms of heat
conduction, where the heat transfer to the liquid-vapor interface increases at the trough of
the interface perturbation while decreasing at the crest. This can give rise to a differential
vapor recoil at the interface, which further increases the liquid-vapor interfacial surface
area, increasing the evaporating surface area and the bubble growth rate. In addition, it is
possible that distortion of the crests can produce entrainment of liquid particles, which can
increase the evaporation rate further. The rapid bubble growth is modeled by introducing
a simple expression in terms of a circular function to account for the increase in surface
evaporating area. The resulting factor is found to be a function of the ratio of the
amplitude to the wave length. The onset of the interface roughening can be considered to
originate from either a Rayleigh-Taylor or Landau instability; however, neither of the
present models successfully provide the necessary quantitative physical descriptions.
140
141
Rapid evaporation at superheats much lower than the homogeneous nucleation
superheat limit was observed in transient boiling experiments conducted in short term
microgravity. A number of vapor bubble growth experiments conducted at the superheat
limit have been reported recently. The rapid evaporation rates observed have been
described by various terms such as vapor explosion, explosive boiling, thermal explosion,
rapid phase transitions (RPTs), and have been discussed by Reid (1983). In general, it has
been presumed that potential high pressure water cooled nuclear reactor explosions, LNG
spill explosions and high pressure boiler accidents are related to vapor explosions, so that
answers are being sought to a number of questions: what are the mechanisms involved in
vapor explosions; what are the conditions under which such can occur; and what can be
done to prevent its occurrence? The present work is intended to assist in providing a
better understanding of the mechanisms involved.
The vapor explosion type of behavior is assumed to result from an increase in the
liquid-vapor interface area arising from the instability of this interface. It is considered, in
general, that an interface becomes unstable if the growth rate of the amplitude of
perturbations is greater than that of the surface itself. The interface instability was first
reported by Taylor (1950), deducing that when two superposed fluids of different densities
are accelerated in a direction perpendicular to a plane interface, the interface is unstable
for the acceleration directed from the lighter to the heavier fluid. This has become termed
as the Rayleigh-Taylor instability. Later, Plesset (1954), Birkhoff (1956) and Plesset and
Prosperetti (1977) developed the corresponding Rayleigh-Taylor instability analysis for the
spherical case, suggesting a closed form of instability criteria which included surface
tension, viscosity and acceleration. Shepherd and Sturtevant (1982) and Frost and
Sturtevant (1986) compared the instability criteria with measurements, using a classical
142
bubble growth model. The results predicted the bubble growth to be stable, while the
experiments demonstrated obviously unstable behavior.
The hydrodynamic instability with rapid evaporation at a plane interface was
approached from a different perspective by Miller (1973) and Palmer (1975). The former
reported that a vaporizing plane interface can be unstable due to large density difference
between phases, with the stability analysis showing the perturbation growth rate to be
positive depending on the surface tension, density difference and heat transfer at the
interface. The latter introduced a differential vapor recoil mechanism to explain the plane
instability, which is described as local surface depressions being produced by the resultant
force exerted on the liquid surface by the vapor.
The roughening of a growing vapor bubble surface was first observed by Shepherd
and Sturtevant (1982) with n-butane, with the measured average bubble growth rate of
approximately 14.3 m/s being much greater than the classical bubble growth prediction.
Rather than apply the Rayleigh-Taylor instability to their bubble growth problem, it was
suggested rather that the instability theory of Landau (1944) be applied, which was
originally developed for plane combustion flame propagation under the assumption of a
thin flame. Istratov and Librovich (1969) developed the Landau theory for the spherical
case, obtaining a closed form of instability criteria. Testing this criteria using the classical
bubble growth model of Prosperetti and Plesset (1978) resulted in disagreement with the
experiments of Shepherd and Sturtevant (1982). Photographs of the early bubble diameter
of 0.15 mm at 10 ps clearly shows a roughening of the liquid-vapor interface. The
calculated evaporative mass flux, according to the measurements of Shepherd and
Sturtevant (1982), is approximately 400 g/cm2-s, which is extremely higher than the value
calculated by the classical bubble growth model. McCann et al. (1989) repeated the
experiments for the same conditions but with a higher camera speed, and confirmed the
results of Shepherd and Sturtevant (1982), with an average bubble growth rate of 23.8 m/s
at 10 ps slowing down to 13.9 m/s at a later time.
143
A linearized instability analysis of the rapid evaporation for the superheat limit with
a plane surface was carried out by Prosperetti and Plesset (1984) and Higuera (1987).
The former asserted that the equivalent to the thin flame assumption of Landau (1944)
was not appropriate for the problem of evaporation and consequently was not made. The
analysis, however, depends on the undisturbed temperature distribution, which is
unknown, and therefore could not be evaluated by comparison with experiments. Using
several different temperature distributions, it was demonstrated that the surface of a
rapidly evaporating liquid can become unstable for a range of wave numbers, and at a
mass flux sufficiently large the growth resulting from the instability can be quite violent,
with characteristic growth times of a millisecond or less. Higuera (1987) included the
effect of viscosity, which is stabilizing, and vapor motion, which reinforces the instability,
and demonstrated that interfacial instabilities can occur, in agreement with Prosperetti and
Plesset (1984).
Grolmes and Fauske (1974) observed violent free plane flashing at a liquid-vapor
interface due to rapid depressurization of water to a low pressure of 0.004 atm. The
flashing consisted of vapor and entrained liquid, and these observations contributed to an
understanding of the phenomena of rapid evaporation. The effect of pressure on the
bubble growth at the superheat limit was studied by Avedisian (1982), with the result that
the violent bubble growth is suppressed by increasing the pressure. Frost and Sturtevant
(1986) and Frost (1988) examined the relationship between the explosive bubble growth
and the interface instability by means of the sensitive measurement of the far-field
pressure, The onset of the instability during the smooth bubble growth was clearly
demonstrated photographically by varying the ambient pressure, which supports the
pressure effects observed by Avedisian (1982). Direct evidence was obtained, by Frost
(1988) that fine liquid particles are tom from the liquid-vapor interface during the violently
unstable boiling, generating a vapor mass flux orders of magnitude greater than that
characteristic of ordinary boiling.
144
Although a considerable improvement in the understanding o f rapid evaporation
has been established in terms of interface instability, a definitive demonstration of the
theory for the spherical case, with experimental confirmation, is not yet available.
Experimental results have been obtained which reveal that rapid evaporation can occur at
superheats lower than the homogeneous nucleation superheat limit. These results are
described and presented in the works of Ervin (1991) and Ervin at el.(1992). As will be
described in some detail below, both the Rayleigh-Taylor and the Landau instabilities
criteria were tested, using a numerical model introduced in Chapter 2, with the result that
stable conditions are predicted by both criteria, regardless of the spherical harmonic index,
in disagreement with experimental observations. The mechanism for the rapid evaporation
observed is interpreted here in terms of heat conduction. Any number of sources of
perturbations or instability could be present, but once a perturbation occurs, the heat
conduction in the liquid at the interface can be a principal mechanism for the subsequent
growth of this perturbation. Finally, a model for the rapid bubble growth will be presented
using the work of Mikic et al. (1970), which includes both inertia and diffusion controlled
bubble growth effects. The effect of the increased area due to the interface roughening
will also be included.
4.2 Experimental Results
Nucleation with pool boiling on a heated surface, described as heterogeneous
nucleation, is considerably more complex than homogeneous nucleation. The nucleation
not only occurs on an alien material, but takes place in a non-uniformly superheated liquid,
while homogeneous nucleation is generally regarded as being initiated in a uniformly
superheated media. Furthermore, only the latter case produces subsequent spherically
symmetric vapor bubble growth. Figures 4.1 (A)-(H) are photographs showing bubble
145
growths of R-113 on a flat heater surface with a step change in power imposed on the
gold film deposited on the quartz substrate. The upper part of each photograph shows the
view from the side of the heater surface, while the lower part is the view from beneath the
heater surface. As will be amplified below, the former occurs in a spacewise variable
temperature field, while the latter takes place more or less in an isothermal environment.
From such photographs it is possible to obtain both vapor bubble growth rates
perpendicular to the heater surface and liquid-vapor interface motion at and parallel to the
heater surface. Figure 4.2 is an enlargement of the side view of the frame in Figure 4.1
(E), while Figure 4.3 is the plot of the measurement of the transient mean heater surface
temperature and system pressure for the entire test of Figure 4.1.
Since the pictures were taken at 400 frames per second, the corresponding
uncertainty of the onset of nucleation is 2.5 milliseconds, which implies that the time scale
may be shifted up to 2.5 msec. The first hemispherical bubble is observed in Figure 4.1
(A) at 2.264 seconds after the heater power is initiated with a heat flux of 7.7 W/cm2. The
zero time in Figure 4.3 indicates the beginning of the heater power. The heater surface
was sufficiently smooth so that nucleation did not occur until the surface temperature
reached 122 C, as shown in Figure 4.3, the bulk temperature was 47.2 C to produce a
subcooling of 1.08 C, while the heater surface superheat at nucleation was 73.7 C. It is
noted that the system pressure jumps abruptly at nucleation from 103.6 kPa to 105.5 kPa
in about 0.04 seconds. The pressure jump could be considerably larger and destructive if
the heater surface were sufficiently large. The roughening of the bubble interface is readily
seen in Figures 4.1 (C),(D) and (E), and the measured bubble growth rate is much higher
than that predicted by the classical smooth bubble growth theory. The hemispherical
bubble in the Figure 4.2 has a radius of approximately 15 mm, and the length scale of the
roughness pattern have diameters on the order of approximately 0.5 ~ 2 mm. Due to the
large refraction effects with the lighting used, it was not possible to view the bubble
interface clearly from the underside. A hemispherical bubble forms, as shown in Figures
146
4.1 (A)-(C), while the lower interface of the bubble begins to spread to the right, forming
a highly rippled and relatively plane interface, and finally reaches the edge of the heater so
that vapor covers the entire heater. The evaporation which produces the bubble growth
can be considered as having two sources: the hemispherical cap of the bubble and the
lower edge of the bubble at the heater surface, both originating from the original thermal
boundary layer adjacent to the heater. The latter would include the thin liquid layer on the
heater surface itself. As will be confirmed elsewhere, the former source of evaporation is
influenced partially by the quick dissipation of the top of the hemispherical cap within 6
msec. Furthermore, as a result of physical constraints of the heater size, the latter source
of evaporation is no longer available as the interface spreads over the entire heater. The
liquid still has inertia and continues to move away from the heater, producing a so-called
overshoot so that the pressure of the vapor bubble becomes lower than the system
pressure, causing the vapor bubble growth rate to reach a maximum, which eventually lifts
the bubble slightly off the heater surface, as seen in figures 4.1 (G) and 4.1 (H). After the
bubble reaches a maximum size, it begins to collapse, which then is repeated to form an
oscillation. This oscillation results in an increase and decrease in the dry spot area of the
heater, causing rewetting with the aid of surface tension. The mean heater surface
temperature thus maintains a relatively low value for a short period of time, as may be
noted in Figure 4.3.
The liquid thermocouple 0.5 mm in diameter is located 1.65 mm above the heater
surface, and can be seen in Figure 4.1 (A). The measurements were converted to the
corresponding saturation pressures in order to determine the dynamic effects associated
with the pressure difference between the system and the vapor in the bubble. The
thermocouple measures the liquid temperature at the mean location 1.65 mm from the
heater surface until nucleation occurs, and thereafter measures the vapor temperature.
According to Figure 4.1 (B), the thermocouple is in contact with the growing vapor
bubble at about 5 ms and then begins to measure the vapor temperature in the bubble.
147
During the interval from nucleation at 2.264 seconds to 4.3 seconds, in Figure 4.3, the
system pressure is larger than the bubble vapor pressure by a maximum 1.2 kPa,
equivalent to about 0.4 C saturation temperature difference, and these two pressures
eventually converge at 4.3 seconds, which implies that the vapor bubble has reached
thermodynamic equilibrium.
It is to be noted in Figure 4.3 that the one-dimensional transient conduction
prediction for the heater surface temperature is in good agreement with the measured
temperature until the onset of boiling. The mean heater surface temperature then drops
rapidly, but not instantaneously, following nucleation as the vapor bubble front sweeps
across the heater surface. This may be interpreted as providing evidence for the formation
and evaporation of a thin liquid layer under the growing bubble. The time required for this
temperature decrease is estimated to be about 190 ms, and the time required for the abrupt
pressure rise from (A) to (F) in Figures 4.1 and 4.3 is estimated at 40 ms. However, it is
seen in Figure 4.3 that the mean heater surface temperature does not begin to drop until
the time corresponding to (F), or 40 ms after the last frame with no vapor bubble present.
The time in Figure 4.1 (A) corresponds to the nucleation delay time t*=2.264 seconds,
defined from the onset of the heating process. It can be also be seen in Figure 4.1 (F) that
the vapor bubble now virtually covers the entire heater surface, and the surface could be
presumed to be dry. If so, the temperature decrease as a result of evaporation of any
liquid film on the surface ought to have occurred prior to this time. That the temperature
decrease followed the covering of the heater surface by the bubble implies the formation
and measurable evaporation time of a thin liquid layer under the growing vapor bubble.
The mechanism of the rippled plane-like interface spreading out over the heater, is
interpreted to be a consequence of a Rayleigh-Taylor instability, where the plane liquid-
vapor interface is unstable for the case with the light fluid accelerated toward the heavy
fluid. However, the source of the roughening with a hemispherical bubble is still uncertain,
since the parameters with a spherical shape now include the density ratio of vapor to
148
liquid, surface tension, interface mass flux, divergence of the liquid adjacent to the bubble,
as well as the interface acceleration. This will be addressed in the discussion below.
The side views of the vapor bubble growth in Figures 4.1 (A)-(F) are compared in
Figure 4.4 with two tests having a lower level of heat flux and two significantly different
levels of subcooling. Figure 4.4 (b) is repeated from Figure 4.1, while Figures 4.4 (a) and
4.4 (c) have the same heat flux but subcoolings of 1.6 C and 11.2 C, respectively. For
the same heat flux, the heater surface superheat on nucleation is lower in Figure 4.4 (c),
with the higher subcooling, than in Figure 4.4 (a). However, the emphasis here is placed
rather on the character or appearance and growth rate of the vapor bubbles. At 2.5 msec,
the bubbles in both Figures 4.4 (a)-A and 4.4 (c)-A have the same smooth equivalent size.
However, at 5 msec, Figure 4.1 (a)-B shows a roughening of the bubble surface while
Figure 4.1 (c)-B still shows a smooth surface. The onset of an apparent interface
instability occurs between Figures 4.4 (a)-A and 4.4 (a)-B. This implies that either or both
surface tension and system pressure act to inhibit the onset of the instability, especially
when the bubble is quite small. Figure 4.4 (b) depicts the most violent or explosive bubble
growth, and has the highest heater surface superheat of 73.7 C at nucleation. It may be
concluded that as the heater surface superheat at nucleation is increased, the bubble
growth rate is increased significantly.
The growing bubble radii in the direction normal to the heater surface in Figures
4.4 (a) and (c) were measured approximately and compared with several spherical vapor
bubble growth models which assume a smooth interface, and are shown in Figures 4.5 and
4.6, respectively. The initial uniform and non-uniform superheat models were introduced
in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 and consist of numerical solutions of the combined energy and
momentum equations. For the initial uniform superheat model, the entire bulk liquid is
assumed superheated at the level corresponding to the heater surface at nucleation; for the
initial non-uniform superheat model, the radial superheat distribution surrounding the
critical size vapor bubble is taken to be that normal to the heater surface at nucleation.
149
The former ought to produce much greater vapor bubble growth rates than actually occur,
while the latter ought to be lower than actually occur. For the analytical inertia dominated
model of Rayleigh (1917), the pressure producing the bubble growth is assumed constant
at the vapor pressure corresponding to the heater surface superheat at nucleation, an
upper bound on the growth rate. The measured growth rate in Figure 4.5 appears to be
linear, with a mean velocity of approximate 1.2 m/s, and is much higher than that of both
the uniform and non-uniform model predictions owing to the enhanced evaporation rate
associated with the increased surface area of the roughened interface. Since the uniform
superheat model assumes that the liquid temperature surrounding the hemispherical bubble
is equivalent to the heater surface temperature at nucleation, which is the highest
temperature in the actual thermal boundary layer, it can be regarded as the upper limit of
the bubble growth rate, while the non-uniform model assumes that the temperature profile
surrounding the hemispherical bubble is equivalent to the initial thermal boundary layer
profile on the plane heater, which may be regarded as the actual temperature profile on top
of the actual bubble, and provides the lower limit of the bubble growth rate. Figure 4.6
corresponds to the experimental conditions of Figure 4.4 (c), and depicts that the actual
bubble growth is slightly lower than that of the uniform superheat model, since the bubble
interface is smooth. This supports the concept that the roughening of the bubble interface
as a result of a surface instability leads to an increase in the evaporation rate. Also
included in Figures 4.5 and 4.6, for reference purposes, are the maximum liquid-vapor
interface motions at and parallel to the heater surface, referred to as "spreading" here. It is
to be noted that these motions are considerably more rapid than those normal to the
heating surface, producing a velocity of about 3.0 m/s in the case of Figure 4.5. These
large values are believed to occur because of the reduced liquid inertia effects when
compared to spherical bubbles, which must move all of the liquid in the same direction as
the liquid-vapor interface itself. This phenomena is quite complex in itself, and will not be
considered further here.
150
A recurring question of bubble growth in nucleate boiling on flat heater surfaces is
how rapidly the energy in the superheated liquid boundary layer, formed during transient
heating on the heater surface, is converted to latent heat by evaporation as the boundary
layer is displaced away from the surface by the bubble growth. This will govern the
magnitude and duration of the evaporation and/or condensation taking place at the top of
the bubble away from the heater surface, sometimes referred to as the "bubble cap", which
in turn also influences the dynamics of the growth process. The answer requires the
simultaneous solution of the energy and momentum equations for the liquid as the bubble
growth takes place. To make the problem tractable at this time, the interfacial behavior at
the hemispherical bubble cap will be assumed to be reasonably represented by a spherically
symmetric smooth bubble growth. This model was solved numerically as shown in
Chapter 3. A typical result showing the transient temperature distribution in the liquid is
given in Figure 4.7 for R-113 using the experimental parameters indicated. The initial
temperature distribution is that given by transient conduction at the imposed heat flux for
the nucleation delay time period of t*=2.264 seconds. It is seen that the thermal boundary
layer surrounding the bubble, initially about 1.5 mm in thickness, is virtually eliminated in
approximately 6 ms. This results from both evaporation at the interface and the liquid
divergence surrounding the bubble. Since the actual bubble grows faster than that
predicted by the smooth bubble calculation, it is anticipated that the real time for the
energy dissipation in the boundary layer will be considerably shorter than 6 msec. This
means that for the vapor bubbles shown in Figures 4.4 (a)-B and 4.4 (c)-B the temperature
distribution in the liquid at the liquid-vapor interface on the top of the bubble has become
nearly completely diffused. In the case of Figure 4.4 (a)-B, the evaporation at the bubble
cap ceases to provide additional vapor since the bulk liquid is almost saturated, while in
the case of Figure 4.4 (c)-B condensation takes place on the top of the bubble since the
bulk liquid is subcooled at about 11 C. This eliminates a source of evaporation on the
cap of the bubble, although a source continues to act over the lower part of the bubble.
151
The overall evaporation rate over the entire bubble surface is reduced, which would tend
to suppress the interface instability, as observed in Figure 4.4 (c).
4.3 Instability Considerations
Rapid evaporation is not prevalent in normal pool boiling processes, but has been
observed when special steps are taken to maximize the degree of liquid superheat, which is
termed the superheat limit. As described above, rapid evaporation of R -l 13 occurred at
superheats much lower than the superheat limit, on the order of 70 C, whereas the limit
of superheat is about 160 C. Analytical studies of a particular feature of the rapid
evaporation at the superheat limit have been conducted, attempting to quantify the source
of the instability which gives rise to the intense evaporation.
Shepherd and Sturtevant (1982) conducted experiments to achieve homogeneous
nucleation by injecting a droplet of highly volatile n-butane into the bottom of a cylindrical
vessel filled with hot immiscible ethylene glycol so that the droplet temperature reaches
the superheat limit as it rises due to buoyancy. Figure 4.8 shows the roughening of a n-
butane vapor bubble at 12 ps following nucleation, which took place at a bulk temperature
of 104.5 C and atmospheric pressure. Figure 4.8 (a) depicts a n-butane droplet 1 mm in
diameter which contains a growing vapor bubble, and Figure 4.8 (b) is a photographic
enlargement of the 150 pm diameter bubble. The resulting measured effective radius of a
spherical bubble is plotted in Figure 4.9, as a function of time, together with measurements
of McCann et al. (1989), the momentum governed growth predicted by Lord Rayleigh
(1917), the approximate solution of Mikic et al. (1970), and the numerical solution
introduced in Chapter 2. It is remarkable that the measured growth rates appear to be
linear, with a mean velocity of approximate 14.3 m/s, with good agreement between the
two sets of experiments. The growth rate is less than the momentum controlled growth of
152
Rayleigh (1917), to be expected, but larger than the predictions of Mikic et al. (1970) and
the numerical calculations. The numerical computations provide the velocity and
acceleration in the early stages of growth, shown in Figure 4.10 for n-butane under the
same conditions as in Figure 4.9. The maximum interface acceleration is of the order of
2 x l0 10 m/s2, although for an exceedingly short time. The interface velocity reaches 32 m/s
early and then decreases to 3 m/s at 1 msec. It is instructive to compare the measured
velocity of 14.3 m/s cited above from Figure 4.9 with the predicted velocity at, say, 100
ps in Figure 4.10, giving about 6 m/s. It is smaller because the model presumes a smooth
interface. Using the information in Figure 4.10, both the Rayleigh-Taylor and Landau
instability criteria can be examined on a time basis, determining the range of the index of
spherical harmonics (n) necessary for instability. As indicated earlier, two closed form
descriptions of these instability criteria are available and will be summarized below.
4.3.1 Rayleigh-Taylor Instability
The Rayleigh-Taylor instability for a spherical interface has been established by
considering whether a small amplitude disturbance on the interface grows or diminishes.
It is understandable that as soon as spherical symmetry is excluded, the analysis of the
various aspects of bubble dynamics becomes exceedingly complex, both from a theoretical
and an experimental standpoint. An obvious possibility for circumventing this complexity

is the use of an expansion in terms of spherical harmonics Yn. The equation of the bubble
surface may be expressed as:
rs = R(t) + anYn (4.1)
153
where R(t) is the instantaneous average radius, an is the amplitude of the spherical
harmonic of degree n. Equation (4.1) may be substituted into the governing equations and
the basic equations subtracted so that only the disturbance equations remain. The detailed
derivations may be obtained by reference to Plesset (1954), Birkhoff (1956) and Plesset
and Prosperetti (1977). After some manipulations, the differential equation for an, from
which the stability conditions can be deduced, is obtained as:
+ 3- + 2(/i + 2)(2 + 1)-^- an Aan = 0 (4.2)

A A
The general stability criteria show that oscillating bubbles are unstable when:
A > 0 , or (4.3)
, _ , d(R6A) .
A < 0 and ----- - > 0 (4.4)
dt
V,R
where A = (n - 1) 3
(4.5)
The criterion in Equation (4.4) is especially interesting because it predicts the
instability for the spherical case under circumstances for which a plane interface would be
stable. In this case the surface perturbation oscillates in time with algebraically increasing
amplitude. It is to be noted that the acceleration and surface tension are dominate
parameters in Equation (4.5).
Using the numerical calculations discussed in Chapter 2 for the operating
conditions of n-butane in Figure 4.9, the Rayleigh-Taylor instability criteria of Equations
(4.3) and (4.4) predict that the vapor bubble should be stable throughout the growth
period, contrary to the observation of interface instability shown in Figure 4.8. This
comparison was extended to the recent experiments with R-113 for the operating
conditions in Figure 4.4. Unconditional stable circumstances were predicted regardless of
the spherical harmonic index, again contrary to the unstable observations in Figures 4.4 (a)
154
and 4.4 (b). Shepherd and Sturtevant (1982) also tested the criteria in the same manner
except that the classical bubble growth model of Prosperetti and Plesset (1978) was used,
again with disagreement with the experimental observations. This implies that the
Rayleigh-Taylor instability criteria for spherical bubbles should be reconsidered.
4.3.2 Landau Instability
The instability of Landau (1944) was originally derived for a plane combustion
flame propagation under the assumption of a thin flame. Istratov and Librovich (1969)
later developed the Landau theory for a spherical flame, suggesting a closed form of the
instability criteria. The flame is considered to be unstable if the growth rate of the
disturbance amplitude is greater than that of the radius of the flame sphere. Frost and
Sturtevant (1986) extended and applied the Landau stability, and expressed the
perturbation amplitude as:

(4.6)
where Q. is the nondimensional algebraic growth rate.
The resulting dispersion relation is:
f l 2 + bl + c = 0 (4.7)
where a (4.8)
P,
b = 3 + -n-(1+2an) (4.9)
(n + l ) a + n
Nw
a(ocn + l)(n2 -1 ) - cm2(n -1 )
(n + l ) a + n [(n + l)a+n]A^,
155
n is the spherical harmonic index. Positive values of Q mean that the perturbation
amplitude grows more rapidly than the radius, leading to instability. It is to be noted here
that the density ratio (a)in Equation (4.10) is a dominant parameter, as stated by Istratov
and Librovich (1969).
The Landau instability criteria for spherical vapor bubble growth, expressed by
Equation (4.7), was tested for the same conditions as that for the Rayleigh-Taylor
instability above, using n-butane with the parameters given in Figure 4.9, along with the
results of the numerical calculations from the solution procedure discussed in Chapter 2.
It was noted above that the results of the instability test depend on the density ratio (a);
this is presumed to be a function of the interface temperature which can now be evaluated
during the bubble growth process. The result of the computation is that the growing
bubble is unconditionally stable regardless of the index of spherical harmonics for a density
ratio of 0.004, evaluated at the saturation temperature of -0.5 C, corresponding to
atmospheric pressure, but is quite unstable for the density ratio of 0.077, evaluated at the
bulk temperature of 105 C, which corresponds to a saturation pressure of 17.3 atm. The
density ratio of 0.004 at the atmospheric pressure saturation temperature of -0.5 C, may
appear to be a more pragmatic value than that of 0.077 for the bulk temperature
corresponding to the superheat limit of 105 C since upon nucleation and early bubble
growth the vapor produced will be close to the bulk temperature and corresponding
saturation pressure. However, if an incipient instability is present early in the vapor bubble
growth period, just beyond the critical size, it is possible that the vapor pressure will be
close to the saturation value of the bulk liquid temperature because of liquid inertia, and
the associated interface roughness produced here will be retained during further growth.
The issue of temperature dependent properties on instabilities has not been addressed to
date. Nevertheless, in order to examine the characteristics of the stability in more detail
here, particularly with regard to the effect of the system pressure, the n-butane bubble
growth was numerically computed, again with the solution procedure discussed in Chapter
156
2, for three different pressures with the initial temperature at the superheat limit of 105 C.
The density ratio (a) was taken to be constant at the initial bulk temperature of 105 C,
neglecting whether such might be valid in the Landau instability theory. The stability
results are plotted in Figure 4.11, and indicate that the stability area reduces as the
pressure increases, which is consistent with the experimental results for R-113 presented
in Figure 4.4 (a) and 4.4 (c). It is to be noted in Figure 4.11 that the onset of instability
occurs at a time of about 2x1 O'7 sec, while the maximum acceleration in Figure 4.10
occurs at a time of 5xl0'9 sec, which would imply that this enormous acceleration ought
not to effect the instability at all. The computed liquid-vapor interface temperature is also
included in Figure 4.11. Frost and Sturtevant (1986) applied the Landau criteria at the
superheat limit with the result that a growing n-butane bubble should be stable, which was
in disagreement with their experiments. The Landau stability test was extended here to
the experiments with R-113 shown in Figure 4.4 (a), (b) and (c), predicting stability for all
three cases regardless of the density ratio. It can be concluded from the above that the
analytical basis for the Landau instability criteria should be reconsidered for liquid-vapor
phase changes, for the spherical cases.
4.3.3 Instability Growth in Terms of Heat Conduction
Thus far the source of the disturbance producing a "rough" evaporating liquid-
vapor interface has been considered to be an instability, acting as a trigger, as it were.
Other sources of the disturbance are possible; for example, a differential vapor recoil
mechanism for a plane interface was discussed by Palmer (1976), and is defined as the
depression of the liquid-vapor interface by the momentum of the vapor departing the
interface. However, this does not ensure that the disturbance will grow. Another possible
mechanism might be the fluctuation or constriction of thermal diffusion in the liquid at the
liquid-vapor interface. By considering only the heat conduction in the liquid adjacent the
157
bubble wall, it is hypothesized that any small disturbances could make the interface more
rough or wavy, as will be demonstrated below using velocity potential theory.
Neglecting the curvature at the liquid-vapor interface of a vapor bubble relative to
that of a disturbance on the interface, the two-dimensional Cartesian Laplace equation for
an inviscid fluid with irrotational motion is taken to represent the perturbed motion in the
liquid in the immediate domain of the liquid-vapor interface:
32<e
2 + T T =0 (4.11)
dx2 dy
A small disturbance, expressed by Equation (4.12), is imposed on the liquid-vapor
interface. It is assumed that the far field fluid is not effected by the disturbance at the
interface. Since no mass transfer occurs at x=0 and x=A/2 due to symmetry, the boundary
conditions can be written as:
B.C. | ( x , 0 ) = -C/0c o s p H ) (4.12)
? r ( x ,h ) = 0 (4.13)
dy
3d>
^ (0 ,j) = 0 (4.14)
" ^ l - O (4.15)
dx
where X indicates the wavelength and h is an arbitrary depth of the liquid, taken to
be large relative to the wavelength. Using the separation of variables method, the
solution for the velocity potential is obtained as:
(x >y) = ~ (cosh(ey)-tanh(e/i)sinh(ey))cos(ex) (4.16)

tan(e/i)
where e = 2 n / X
158
A representation of the velocity potential is plotted in Figure 4.12. As a result of
the transient heating of a liquid, a one-dimensional temperature gradient can be considered
initially to exist normal to the originally undisturbed liquid-vapor interface immediately
following the formation of the liquid-vapor interface. Once the small disturbances in the
velocity field in the liquid resulting from Equation (4.12) have taken place, the
temperature field in the liquid can be taken as indicated in Figure 4.12 since velocity
potentials are analogous to isotherms in a static medium. It can then be deduced that the
conduction heat transfer will be increased at the so-called troughs and decreased at crests,
which would cause the disturbances to grow. The disturbance would also tend to grow
because of the vapor pressure depression at the interface troughs. Parts of the crest can
become distorted such that detachment of particles liquid from the interface take place and
become entrained with the vapor. Such a mechanism can play an important role in
increasing the interfacial evaporative flux, as was described by Grolmes and Fauske (1974)
and experimentally confirmed by Frost (1988).
The growth of any disturbance at an interface depends on the net balance between
the stabilizing and the destabilizing factors. The stabilizing factors are the surface tension
and the divergence of the streamlines as the spherical bubble grows, while the destabilizing
elements are the differential vapor recoil and the heat transfer enhancement at the troughs.
4.4 Increased Evaporation Surface Area
In order to estimate the effect of the increased evaporation surface area due to the
interface roughness, the small perturbations are modeled by two-dimensional sinusoidal
functions of amplitude and wavelength A,, as shown in Figure 4.13, by the mathematical
formulation:
159
(4.17)
The perturbed area(Ap) and smooth area (As) on a spherical bubble of radius R
can be calculated using double integration assuming a small perturbation compared to the
radius, A, R. It is determined that the ratio of the perturbed to the smooth area is a
function of only the ratio of the amplitude to the wavelength, and is plotted in Figure 4.14.
For example, the ratio of the perturbed to the smooth area is approximately 4 for a unity
ratio of amplitude to wavelength regardless of the wavelength or amplitude.
To determine how the increased area affects the subsequent bubble growth, a
simple analysis is performed with several assumptions: The wavelength of the
perturbation is much smaller than the radius of the spherical bubble; one-dimensional
transient heat conduction only takes place at the perturbed liquid-vapor interface. The
energy balance at the interface is written as:
(4.18)
where Ap is the perturbed area on a spherical bubble and As is the smooth area for
the spherical bubble. One-dimensional transient heat conduction gives:
(4.19)
where-\/3 is the curvature correction.
Combining Equations (4.18) and (4.19), after some arrangements, yields:
(4.20)
where T = is defined as the ratio of the perturbed area to the smooth area.
160
Integrating Equation (4.20), assuming that Tis constant, gives Equation (4.21),
which is the well known solution for the thermal diffusion controlled bubble growth.
(1 2 V/2
rt(f) = r l j Ja( a t)'12 (4.21)
where Ja = P,C,(T~ T^ (4 22)

PA
Equation (4.21), with T=l , was first formulated by Plesset and Zwick (1954).
Equation (4.20) with T=constant is now used here to extend the work of Mikic et al.
(1970), which includes both inertia and diffusion effects. The result is:
2
R+= -[(r+r 2+ i)3/2- (?-r2)3/2- i] (4.23)
3T
where R* = ; t += 1 (4.24)
B /A B2 / A 2
A=
3TsatPl J
B JU ^ a ')T (4.25)
Bubble growths for n-butane are plotted in Figure 4.15, using Equation (4.23), for
various values of T, the ratio of the perturbed to the smooth area, along with the
experiments of Shepherd and Sturtevant (1982) and McCann et al. (1989). T=1 indicates
perfect smoothness for the spherical bubble. The experimental data fall between a range
of r =3-5, which corresponds to the range of C, / A,=0.6-1 in Figure 4.14. This indicates
that the amplitude of the perturbation is 60-100 % of the wavelength, so when viewing
the photograph of Figure 4.8 (b), the sizes of the pattern appear reasonable, although it is
difficult to speculate about the magnitude of the amplitude.
Similar calculations were carried out for the R-113 experiment PBMT1026.600
and are plotted in Figure 4.16. The results provide T ~ 2 roughly, which from Figure 4.14
161
gives ^/A,=0.3. When comparing the present experiment with the work of Shepherd and
Sturtevant (1982), the relative wavelength is shorter in the present experiment than in that
of Shepherd and Sturtevant (1982), which can be expressed in terms of the spherical
harmonic index (n = 2nR/ X). By measuring the diameter and the patterns of the
perturbation, the spherical harmonic index for the present experiment and that of Shepherd
and Sturtevant (1982) are calculated to be in the range of approximate 20-60 and 8-12,
respectively. The latter values fall marginally on the stable/unstable boundary in Figure
4.11.
Figure 4.1. Dynamic vapor bubble growth of R-l 13 in microgravity at NASA Lewis
Research Center 5 second drop tower. Experimental Data Code PBMT1102.800.
Nucleation delay time t*=2.264 seconds.
Test conditions: = 10"5; qT = 1.1W / cm2\ ATsubC00l = 1.08C; = 103.8kPa;

&
A7;*sup= 73.70C; Tbulk=A1.2C\ ria, =48.28C; rJ = 122C
163
(E). t=17.5 msec (F). t=40 msec
(H). t=275 msec

(G). t=100 msec
Figure 4.1. Continued.
164
t=17.5 msec
Figure 4.2. Enlargement of Figure 4.1 (E) for Experimental Data Code PBMT1102.800
165
140 - Experimental Data Code PBMT1102.800

. Tbulk=47.2 C, Tsat=48.28 C
120 _ Psys=103.8 kPa

108
uO 100 107
u>
S 106
Pressure, kPa
*-*
2u
a,
E 105

ou
Measured surface 104
t!3 temperature
Vi
1-D transient conduction 103
prediction
102
Measured pressure
Photographs 101
Measured liquid
temperature converted to 100
saturation pressure
0 0.5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Time, sec
Figure 4.3. Measured mean heater surface temperature and system pressure for Figure
4.1 (A)-(H). A thermocouple employed to measure the liquid/vapor temperature is
located 1.65 mm above the heater surface.
166
PBMT1026.600 PBMT1102.800 PBMT1108.620

?t
, - ' $S
t=2.5 msec t=2.5 msec A

' </: .... t=2.5 msec A
,y r
t=5 msec t=5 msec

t=5 msec B
t=7.5 msec t=7.5 msec

t=7.5 msec C
t=10 msec D t= 10 msec

t=15 msec
t=12.5 msec E t=37.5 msec E

t=17.5 msec p f ' -i
t=20 msec t=40 msec =65 msec
qH-p$.3 W/cm2, q"X=7.7 W/cm2, q"Ts54 W/cm2

t*=3.923 sec, t*=2.264 sec, t*=4.325 sec,
Psys=103.85 kPa, Psys=103.8 kPa, Psys=142.2 kPa,
Tbulk=46.72 C, Tbulk=47.2 C, Tbulk=47.0 C,
Tsat=48.34 C, Tsat=48.28 C, Tsat=58.2 C,
rw
*=114 C 7;*=122 C rJ=116C
Aritt6=1.62C A 7 > 1 .0 8 C ATsub=ll.2C
A C p =65.66 C A^Csup=73-72 C A C P=57.8C
(a) (b) (C)
Figure 4.4. Comparisons of early vapor bubble growth behavior under microgravity
with different levels of heat flux and subcooling.
167
0.024
Radius vs. Time for R113, Psys=103.85 kPa, Tsat=48.34 oC
0.02
Bubble growth
0.016 PBMT1026.600
Radius, meter
0.012
Spreading, PBMT1026.600
0.008 Initial Uniform Superheat Moc el,

Superheat=65.66 vC, Tbulk=ll 1C
0.004 hfaTNon-uniform Superheat Model,

Twall=ll4 C, Tbulk=46.72 C,
y^uperheat=65.7 C
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014
Time, sec
Figure 4.5. Comparisons of experimental bubble growth data with several spherical vapor
bubble growth models. Experimental conditions correspond to Figure 4.4 (a).
168

0.006
0.005 Rayleigh (1917)
Initial Uniform Superheat Model

Superheat=57.79 C, Tbulk=116 C
0.004
Radius, meter
0.003 Spreading, PBMT1108.620
Bubble growth, PBMT1108.620

0.002
0.001
Initial Non-uniform Superheat Model

Twall=l 16 C, Tbulk=47 C, Superheat=57.8 C
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016
Time, sec
Figure 4.6. Comparisons of experimental bubble growth data with several spherical vapor
bubble growth models. Experimental conditions correspond to Figure 4.4 (c).
169
180
-for Non-uniform model
0.0 sec
160 R-113 (PBMT1102.800)
2.50E-06
Psys=103.75 kPa, Tbulk=47.2 C,
Twall=122 C, Tsat=48.28 C 2.00E-04
140 q"T=7.7 W/cmA2, t*=2.264 s
1.50E-03
Superheat=73.7 C, Subcooling=0.8 C
u 6.00E-03
120
3
U
a.
I 100
E-

Figure 4.7. Transient liquid temperature distribution surrounding a spherical vapor bubble
growing from the critical size with an initially non-uniform liquid temperature distribution.
ATJsup = 73.7 C, ArjH6=0.8C
170
Figure 4.8. Photographs of n-butane nucleating at the superheat limit. (Shepherd and
Sturtevant, 1982) (a) depicts a n-butane droplet containing a vapor bubble, (b) an
image-enhanced photograph of a vapor bubble at t=12 ps following nucleation.
171
Radius vs. Time for n-Butane

1.4
Psys=l atm, Superheat limit=105 C, x
Tbulk=104.5 C, Tsat= -0.5 C
1.2
Rayleigh (1917) '
Shepherd and Sturtevant (1982)
The present work

0.8 / McCann et al (1989) x x (uniform model)
\ nX
0.6
0.4 Mikic et al (1970)
0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time, psec
Figure 4.9. Comparisons between extremely dynamic bubble growth experiments, a

momentum controlled model, and approximate and numerical solutions of the energy and
momentum equations for n-butane.
172
40 3.0e+10
-Interface Velocity and Acceleration vs. Time for n-Butane
35 - Psys= 1 atm, Superheat Limit=105 C
2.5e+10
- Tbulk= 104.5 CLTsat=-0.5 C
30
Velocity
2.0e+10

25 Acceleration
Interface Velocity, m/s
20 1.5e+10
15
1.0e+10
10
5.0e+09
5
0.0e+00
0
5 -5.0e+09
Time, sec
Figure 4.10. Liquid-vapor interface velocity and acceleration vs. time for n-butane.
Numerical computations. Physical conditions identical to Figure 4.9.
173
500 150
Spherical Harmonic Index vs. Time for n-Butane
450
100
400 Bulk temperature
350
e
Interface temperature
300
o
'5
o
| 250 -50
Stable
X Stable
| 200
oj -100
150
atm -150
100
-200
Unstable
-250
Time following onset of bubble growth, sec
Figure 4.11. Effect of system pressure on Landau instability criteria for n-butane. The
density ratio ( a ) is assumed constant at bulk temperature of 105 C.
174
1.5
Velocity Potential
1
Liquid
0.5
Trough
0 Vapor
Crest
-0.5
0 1 2 3 4
x
Figure 4.12. Velocity potential simulation of a temperature field in the liquid at the liquid-
vapor interface. The velocity potential was superimposed on x-y axis.
S
Figure 4.13. Modeling of a perturbed liquid-vapor interface.
175
n
*
/
/
/
fr
/
/
Ap/As
/
/
T-------
0.01 0.1 1 10 100

yx
Figure 4.14. Ratio of perturbed to smooth surface area of a spherical bubble as a function
of the perturbation amplitude to wave length ratio.
176
- Bubble radius vs. time for n-butane

1.6
=7
1.4 Shepherd and Sturtevant (1982) =5
1.2
r= 3
I 1
t/T
.2
1 0.8
qg McCann et al. (1989)
r= 1
0.4
0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time, ps
Figure 4.15. Comparison of experimental data for n-butane with the modified prediction
of Mikic et al. (1970), Equation (4.23), which includes the effect of the increased area due
to the perturbation. T is the ratio of rough to smooth area.
177
0.014
Radius vs. time for R-l 13
0.012
r=3
0.01
Radius, meter
0.008
r =2
0.006
0.004
r =i
0.002
Experiment PBMT1026.600
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014
Time, sec
Figure 4.16. Comparison of experimental data for R -l 13 with the modified prediction of
Mikic et al.(1970), Equation (4.23).
CHAPTERS
CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Initial Uniform Superheat Model
As a result of the comparison of the results of the present numerical work with
previous numerical, experimental and analytical works, it has been demonstrated that the
present work conforms well to physical reality. The initial temperature disturbance
defined in this work and used to initiate the vapor bubble growth from the initial critical
size in thermodynamic equilibrium with the superheated liquid has a significant physical
meaning, and its use enables the accurate prediction of vapor bubble growth with water
liquid superheats as low as 0.8 ~ 1.0 C, measurements for which have not heretofore
been in agreement with analytical solutions. The variation of the disturbance does not
effect the subsequent bubble growth.
The bubble dynamics from nucleation to thermal diffusion controlled growth are
described by the present numerical simulation for initially uniformly superheated liquids.
Nucleation takes place in the uniformly superheated liquid to form a critical size bubble.
The time lag or delay time for the onset of the bubble growth increases as both the
superheat and the pressure decrease. This is defined as the time at which the bubble
grows rapidly, following the surface tension dominated growth. The liquid-vapor
interface velocity then reaches a maximum, which increases as both the superheat and the
pressure increase. The bubble growth rate is then limited by the surrounding liquid inertia,
and is defined as the momentum dominated growth. Finally, the acceleration of the bubble
178
179
interface reduces to zero, following which the growth is defined as thermal diffusion
dominated.
For moderate or high superheats, the analytic solution of Mikic et al. (1970) is in
excellent agreement with the present work, while those of Plesset and Zwick (1954) and
Scriven (1959) are in good agreement For low superheat and low pressure none of the
analytic solutions are in agreement with present work during the early stages of the vapor
bubble growth.
5.2 Initial Non-uniform Superheat Model
Spherical vapor bubble growth and collapse in non-uniform temperature fields can
be effectively predicted by the initial non-uniform superheat model developed, which also
provides the transient vapor pressure in the vapor bubble and the surrounding liquid
temperature distribution. Vapor bubble rebound during the collapse of a bubble has been
observed and predicted, and the numerical results indicate that the conversion of kinetic
energy to thermal energy during the collapse provides the energy for the rebound to take
place.
Transient pool boiling in microgravity can take place with a known initial
temperature field, to be contrasted with the randomness of the initial temperature field in
earth gravity experiments. The amount of energy input stored, defined as the product of
the heat flux to the liquid and the waiting time, is a significant parameter for estimating the
bubble growth, along with the bulk liquid subcooling.
A hemispherical bubble model developed here provides the upper and lower
effective bounds for the bubble growth and collapse.
Upon comparison of the numerical results between the initially uniform and non-
uniform superheat models, it is deduced that the bubble dynamics in the very early stages
180
of growth are affected negligibly by the thermal boundary layer, but rather by the initial
bubble wall temperature level.
5.3 Role of Instability in Pool Boiling
The possibility for the occurrence of extremely rapid evaporation at a vapor bubble
interface has been demonstrated with liquid superheats far below the superheat limit. This
took place with pool boiling in a microgravity environment, and is attributed to the growth
o f an interface instability. Such a process can cause an abrupt pressure rise and could be
destructive if it occurred over a large scale of surface area.
For spherical bubble growth taking place in the presence of an initially non-uniform
superheat, arising for example from thermal energy accumulated in the boundary layer on
a flat plate heater, it was found by numerical calculation that this thermal energy can
dissipate quickly, on the order of several milliseconds. This time period is significant since
it determines whether evaporation or condensation take place at the cap of a vapor bubble
growing on a flat heater surface.
Sources of perturbation growth other than instability can arise at the liquid-vapor
interface of a bubble. One mechanism for the growth of a perturbation can result from
heat conduction at the perturbed interface, where the heat transfer increases at a trough
while it decreases at the crest, which can produce differential vapor recoil. This can lead
to distortion of the crests such that liquid particles become entrained with the vapor,
departing the interface, which can serve to increase the evaporative flux further.
Using a simple circular function in a model to describe the liquid-vapor interfacial
area with roughness present, it is determined that the ratio of the perturbed to the smooth
area (T) for a spherical bubble is a function only of the ratio of the amplitude to the
wavelength ( / X).
181
The rapid bubble growth can be approximated by modifying existing solutions with
a parameter which takes into account the increase in the evaporative surface area. Recent
experiments provide estimates of a factor of two for the increase in the evaporating
surface area, which conforms to the ratio of amplitude to wavelength of 0.3 for the model.
APPENDICES
182
183
APPENDIX A
Diffusion Controlled Vapor Bubble Growth
The bubble growth equation of Plesset & Zwick (1952) is reconsidered. In order
to see how the temperature in a moving boundary varies as a bubble grows, Equations
(2.3), (2.6), and (2.8) are rewritten here:
( 2 -3 )
f a \ m f'
T - T I I
'Mf') V r Jr=R(x) dx ( 2 .6)
' ~ U J n f', . r
\X
/?(r) = ^ j Ja(at)112 = C / ' 2 (2.8)
Equations (2.3) and (2.8) are inserted into Equation (2.6).

After some manipulation, Equation (2.6) can be written as:
3 p Ji
T, = T -C . ---- -dx (2.6a)
' 1 2k
The integral term above can be analytically simplified, substituting with x = ty and
7C
successively y3 = z2. After some manipulation, the term yields the exact value of ,
which means that Tt is independent of time. Successively, substituting C, with the defined
Equation (2.8) yields precisely that Tt = Tsat. Hence, it is demonstrated that the
temperature (7!) at the moving boundary does not vary as the bubble grows when
184
Equation (2.8) is used for the bubble growth problem in a uniformly superheated liquid.
Plesset & Zwick state that Equation (2.8) will be valid for time large enough to neglect
inertia, and that the growth is thus controlled by diffusion when Equation (2.8) is used.
This coincides conceptually with the result obtained that 21 = Tsat . It is noted that the
reality is that 71 drops in a very short time to the saturation temperature Tmt from the
superheated liquid temperature (7^), and thereafter maintains the saturation temperature
as the bubble grows.
185
APPENDIX B
Momentum Equation for Spherical Bubble Growth
du du 1 dP l l f 1 9 ( id u } 2u
(2.18)
r 2 dr dr
d ( 2\ n <*u _u
[r u) = 0 or = - 2 (2.19)
dr dr r
It is readily demonstrated that the second term in Equation (2.18) is zero by
inserting Equation (2.19) into the term. This is to be expected, since no tangential stresses
are present due to spherical symmetry. Considering the control volume at the liquid-vapor
interface as shown in Figure B -l, continuity is:

Pi{ ur - r ) = Pv( uv - r ) (B-l)
let e = 1 - A (B-2)
. P I.
Then, ur = eR + ( 1 - e ) uv (B-3)
Since uv = 0 according to assumption (b), Equation (B-3) can be written as:
ur = eR (B-4)
Using Equation (2.19), continuity is written as:
R 2R
Mr = = e 2- (B-5)
r
Taking derivative of Equation (B-5) with respect to time (t) yields:
du ( RR2 + 2RR2'
= (B-6)
dt
Substituting Equations (2.19), (B-5), and (B-6) into Equation (2.18) yields:
186
(R R 2+2RR2} _R*R2_ __J_3P

-e - (B-7)
p dr
Integrating Equation (B-7) from the bubble surface (R) to infinity (<*}, the
momentum equation can be written in terms of the bubble radius as:
(2.20)
2 ep,
Considering the force balance at the liquid-vapor interface as shown in Figure B-2,
one obtain:
(B-8)
/>* + T + T "* = Pv +T ,, v
The normal stress at the liquid interface can be written as:
(B-9)
Since V 7 = 0 for incompressible flow, Equation (B-9) can be written as follows,
using Equation (2.19):
'E l (B-10)
and x rn = 0 because uv = Owith Assumption (b).
Therefore, Equation (B-8) becomes
p>(T)_ p=MZ2+4M (2 .21 )

R R
Inserting Equation (2.21) into Equation (2.20) yields
2C(D a R
-4 - (2 .22 )
2 ep, ep ,R ep ,R
187
iiR Liquid
PV
Vapor bubble
Control Volume
a t liquid-vapor interface
Figure B-l Control Volume at liquid-vapor interface and velocity at a distance (r)
rrRj
Liquid
rrv.
Vapor bubble
Figure B-2 Force balance at Liquid-vapor interface
188
APPENDIX C
Sonic Velocity of Water Vapor
The root mean square molecular speed of water vapor is:

v 1/2
3R T V/2 _ f 3 x 8.3145 x 103 x 409
= 752 m /s (C-l)
M ) 18.015
The sonic velocity in water vapor is:

c = ( m O 1'2 = (1.327 x 461 x 409)1'2 = 500 m / s (C-2)
189
APPENDIX D
Homogeneous Nucleation Temperature
A generalized equation for estimating the superheat limit or homogeneous
nucleation temperature is given by Reid (1983) as:

rrf= r e[(0.11Pr)+0.89] (D-l)
where
Tc : critical temperature, K
Pc : critical pressure, bar
Ts, : superheat limit, K
190
APPENDIX E
A Fortran Program for Sperical Vapor Bubble Growth and
Collapse
c *MAINPROGRAM
c
c ON JUNE 2,1992, PROGRAMMING BY HO SUNG LEE
c
c THIS PROGRAM SOLVES A 1-D TRANSIENT SPHERICAL BUBBLE GROWTH PROBLEM
c IN INITIAL UNFORM OR NON-UNIFORM SUPERHEATS, WHICH INCLUDES THE EQN
c OF MOTION AND A ENERGY EQUATION WITH VISCOSITY AND SURFACE TENSION.
c THIS PROGRAM ALLOWS TO IMPLY THE INITIAL THERMAL BOUNDARY LAYER BY
c GIVING THE HEAT FLUX (Q) AND WAITING TIME.
c THIS PROGRAM MUST BE COMPILED TOGETHER WITH TWO MORE SUBPROGRAMS,
c A FUNCTION PROGRAM(WATFUNC.FOR) AND A SUBROUTINE PROGRAM(SBDSUB5.FOR)
c THIS PROGRAM PRODUCED TWO OUTPUT FILES: ONE FOR GROWTH DATA AND OTHER
c FOR TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTIONS.
c THIS PROGRAM ALSO REQUIRES INPUT FILE AS FOLLOWS:
c
C***INPUT FILE (WAT.IN) Hr***********************
c
c l.D-1 3. 100 3.D-3 FALSE FALSE 10 10.DO 300
c 0 .DO 1.550 103 .5 l.D-3 500 1000 5000 8000
c 112.DO l.D-1 l.D-10 10000 3.0 l.D-4 l.D-10
c TMAX P IL DELTA PRINTl PRINT2 NSKIP AX BX
c Q TSTAR PA(KPA) EXCITE NSPl NSP2 NSP3 NSP4
c TBULK(C) ESP ESPP NTIME PT COF1 COF2
(1
c, ,,,.NOTES FOR INPUT FILE.
L.
c DT=COFl* (KOUNT/NTIME) ''PT + COF2: : A EQUATION FOR TIME STEP (DT)
C WHICH CAN BE CONTROLLED BY PARAMETERS:C O E F 1 ,C O E F 2 ,PT AND N T I M E .
c PT: EXPONENT FOR THE EQN TO DETERMINE TIME STEP.
c NTIME: A FIXED INTERGER NUNBER TO BE 10000 FOR THE EQN.
c AX: LOW BOUND TEMP.(C) FOR HALF INTERVAL METHOD FOR SAT.TEMP.
c BX: HIGH BOUND TEMP.(C) FOR HALF INTERVAL METHOD FOR SAT.TEMP.
c ESP: ERROR TEST FOR CONVERGANCE OF INTERFACE VELOCITY.
c ESPP: ERROR TEST FOR RUNGE KUTTA TIME DETERMINATION.
c EXCITE: TEMPERATURE DISTURBANCE TO MAKE A CRITICAL SIZE BUBBLE GROW
c TMAX: MAXIMUM TIME TO COMPLETE THE PROGRAM
c P: EXPONENT FOR IRREGULAR GRID SPACE
c IL: GRID NUMBER
c DELTA: ARBITRARY PENETRATING DEPTH
c (THERMAL BOUNDARY LAYER THICKNESS)
c PRINTl: TRUE/FALSE FOR PRINTING ON SCREEN DURING RUNNING PROGRAM
c PRINT2: TRUE/FALSE FOR FINDING ERROR IN OUTPUT FILE(*.OUl)
c N S K I P : A NUMBER TO SKIP ROWS OF PRINTING DATA IN OUTPUT FILE(*.OU2)
c Q: HEAT FLUX FOR INITIAL THERMAL BOUNDARY LAYER
c TSTAR: A WAITING TIME FOR INITIAL THERMAL BOUNDARY LAYER
c PA: SYSTEM PRESSURE(KPA)
c NSP1-NSP4:TIME INTERVALS FOR PRINTING TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTIONS
c IN OUTPUT F I L E (W A T 2 .O U 1 )
191
C TBULK: BULK TEMPERATURE(OR EQUIVALENTLY TINF)
C
C
PROGRAM MAIN
IMPLICIT REAL*8(A-H,O-Z)
REAL*8 K
LOGICAL PRINTl,PRINT2
PARAMETER (PI=3.1415926D0,Ml=500)
DIMENSION R (Ml) ,TO(Ml) ,AP(M1) ,AE(M1) ,AW(M1) ,B(M1) ,SOLN(Ml)
DIMENSION DY (2) ,Y (2) ,F (14) ,TEMPO (Ml) ,TPRT (Ml,5), RPRT (Ml) ,TIME (5)
COMMON /AA/AP,AE,AW,B,SOLN
COMMON /BB/TO,R
C
O P E N {5,F I L E = 1w a t .i n ')
O P E N (6,F I L E = 'w a t .o u l )
O P E N (7,F I L E = 'w a t .o u 2 ')
C
R E A D (5,*)T M A X ,P ,I L ,DELTA,PRINTl,PRINT2,N S K I P ,A X ,BX
R E A D (5,*)Q,TSTAR,PA,EXCITE,NSP1,NSP2 ,N S P 3 ,NSP4
READ (5, *)T B U L K ,E S P ,ESPP,NTIME,P T ,C O F 1 ,COF2
C
N=2
T=0.DO
Y(2)= 0 .DO
C
C THE SATURATION TEMPERATURE IS OBTAINED BY USING
C THE HALF INTERVAL METHOD.
C
FA=PPSAT(AX)-PA*1000.DO
FB=PPSAT(BX)-PA*1 0 0 0 .DO
C
IX=0
3 IX=IX+1
X=(AX+BX)/2.D0
FX=PPSAT(X)-PA*1000.DO
C
I F (P R INT2)W R I T E (*,*)IX,X,FX
C
IF(DABS(FX).LE.1 .D-6) GO TO 88
IF(FX*FA) 85,88,86
85 BX=X
FB=FX
GO TO 3
86 AX=X
FA=FX
GO TO 3
88 IF(PRINT2)WRITE(*,*)'A IS TRUE VALUE'
TSAT=X
C
TINF=TBULK
C
C DETERMINE THE WALL TEMPERATURE AND INITIAL TEMPERATURE PROFILE
C BY USING 1-D TRANSIENT CONDUCTION SOLUTION.
C
K=COND(TINF)
ALPHA=DIFFUL(TINF)
TWAL=TINF + 2.D0*Q*DSQRT(ALPHA*TSTAR/PI)/K
TF=(TWAL + TINF)/2.DO
192
TWAL=TINF + 2.D0*Q*DSQRT(DIFFUL(TF)*TSTAR/PI)/COND(TF)
TF=(TWAL + TINF) 1 2 .DO
K=COND(TF)
ALPHA=DIFFUL(TF)
n o n
DETERMINE THE CRITICAL RADIUS (RC)
SIGMA=SIGMAL(TWAL)
RC = 2 .DO *SIG M A / (PPSAT(TWAL)-PA*10 0 0.D O )
FIRST TIME STEP

o o
CALL INITIAL(P ,DEL T A ,I L ,Q ,A L P H A ,T S T A R ,K ,T I N F ,R C )

n
o n
TWAL=TO(1)
UPDATE THE CRITICAL RADIUS
SIGMA=SIGMAL(TWAL)
RC=2.DO*SIGMA/(PPSAT(TWAL)-PA*1000.D0)
Y (1)=RC
o
W R I T E (7 ,9 7 0) Q ,TST A R ,T I N F ,P A ,T W A L ,R C ,TSAT
1 ,T M A X ,P ,I L ,DELTA,N S K I P ,E S P ,EXCITE,P T ,C O F 1 ,COF2
W R I T E (6,115 0)Q ,T S T A R ,T I N F ,P A ,T W A L ,R C ,TSAT
1 ,TMAX,P,IL,DELTA,NSKIP,ESP,EXCITE
n
DO 9 1=1,IL
T P R T (1,1)= T O (I )
R P R T {I )= R (I )- R (1)
9 CONTINUE
WRITE INITIAL CONDITIONS

o n o o o o o
W R I T E (7,1100)T,Y(1),Y(2),DY(2),TO(l)
GIVE A SLIGHT HIGHER TEMP THAN TWAL TO BREAK METASTABLE NUCLEATION
TS=TWAL+EXCITE
NCOUNT=0
KOUNT=0
JCOUNT=l
RDOT=0.DO
T I M E (1)=0.DO
ooo
ITERATION BEGINS FOR A NEW INTERFACE TEMPERATURE WITH A N E W TIME STEP
1 NCOUNT=NCOUNT+1
KOUNT=KOUNT +1
C
DO 14 1=1,IL
14 T E M P O (I )= T O (I )
C
DT=COFl*(DBLE(KOUNT)/DBLE(NTIME))**PT+COF2
TLMT=T
C
RBO = Y (1)
RDOTO=Y(2)
EPSL=1.DO-ROHV(TS)/ROHL(TS)
C
ICOUNT=0
193
2 IC0UNT=IC0UNT+1
C
RD0T1=RD0T
n n o n
RUNGE KUTTA IS EMPLOYED TO COMPUTE A NEW LOCUS

OF THE LIQUID-VAPOR INTERFACE OF THE BUBBLE
10 L=3
M=0
50 CALL RUNGE (T,DT,N,Y,DY,F,L,M,J, IG)
IF(M.EQ.1)G0 TO 10
75 GO TO (100,200,999),L
100 D Y (1)= Y (2)
ROL=ROHL(TS)
TERM1=(PPSAT(TS)-PA*1000.DO)/ (ROL*Y(l)*EPSL)
T E R M 2 = 2 .*SIGMAL(TS)/ (ROL*Y(l)**2*EPSL)
TERM 3 = 1 .5D0*Y(2)*Y(2)/Y (1)
TERM4=4.DO*VISCOL(TS)*Y(2)/ (ROL*EPSL*Y(1)*Y(1))
D Y (2)=TERM1-TERM2-TERM3-TERM4
GO TO 50
n
200 I F (PRINT2)THEN
WRITE(6,1020)T,Y(1),Y (2)
ENDIF
non
TEST FOR TERMINATION
ERR=DABS(T-(TLMT+DT))
250 IF(T.GE.TLMT+DT.OR.ERR.LE.ESPP) GO TO 999
260 GO TO 50
999 R B = Y (1)
R D O T = Y (2)
HEAT FLUX IS CALCULATED BY USING ENERGY BALANCE AT THE LIQUID-VAPOR

n o n n n
INTERFACE
QB=-ROHV(TS) *XLATENT (TS)*RDOT/COND (TS)
IF(PRINTl)THEN
W R I T E (*,*)1#, ITER.# TS, QB, DRDOT, D T ',KOUNT,ICOUNT,TS
1 ,Q B ,RDOT1-RDOT,DT
ENDIF
noon
ENERGY EQUATION IS EMPLOYED TO COMPUTE THE TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION

WI T H THE HEAT FLUX COMPUTED AS A BOUNDARY CONDITION.
CALL FMTDIG(P ,I L ,DEL T A ,R B ,R D O T ,R B O ,D T ,Q B ,F 1 C ,F 2 C )

C
I F (PRINT2)THEN
DO 23 1=1,IL
W R I T E (6,980)R(I),AP(I),AE(I),AW(I),B(I)
23 CONTINUE
ENDIF
C
N5=IL-2
CALL TDIG(N5)
C
DO 30 1=1,IL-2
T O (1+1)=SOLN(I)
194
30 CONTINUE
T O (1)= T O (2)* F1C+F2C
C
C DEFINE N E W VAPOR TEMPERATURE OR INTERFACE TEMPERATURE
C
T S = T O (1)
C
C CHECK CONVERSENCE FOR INTERFACE VELOCITY
C
I F (I C O U N T .G T .10 0)THEN
W R I T E (*,965)
965 FORMAT ( I I ' ** ITERATION FOR CONVERGENCE IS OVER 100, YOU M A Y REDUCE
1 THE TIME STEP***'//)
GO TO 9999
ENDIF
C
IF (DABS(RDOT1-RDOT) .GT.ESP)THEN
Y (1)=RBO
Y (2)=RDOTO
T=TLMT
DO 17 1=1,IL
17 T O (I )=TEMPO(I )
GO TO 2
ENDIF
C
C PRINT OUT THE RESULTS
C
I F(NCOUNT.E Q .NSKIP)THEN
W R I T E (7,1100)T,RB,RDOT,DY(2),TS
NCOUNT=0
ENDIF
C
C TEST FOR TERMINATION
C
IF(T.GT.TMAX) GO TO 9999
C
I F(K O U N T .E Q .N S P 1 .O R .KOUN T .E Q .NSP2)THEN
JCOUNT=JCOUNT+l
T I M E (JCO U N T )=T
DO 40 1=1,IL
T P R T (I ,JCOUNT)= T O (I )
40 CONTINUE
ELSEIF (K O U N T .E Q .NSP3 .O R .K O U N T .E Q .N S P 4 )THEN
JCOUNT=JCOUNT+l
TIME(JCOUNT)=T
DO 60 1=1,IL
T P R T (I ,JCOUNT)= T O (I )
60 CONTINUE
ENDIF
C
G O TO 1
C
9999 W R I T E (6,1160) (TIME(J) ,J = 1 ,JCOUNT)
DO 70 1=1,IL
W R I T E (6,1200)R P R T (I ) , (TPRT(I,J),J=1,JCOUNT)
70 CONTINUE
C
970 F O R M A T (/'#',2 X , 'SPHERICAL BUBBLE G R O W T H '
1 /'#',2X,,Q=',F7.1,1X,,Twait=',
1 F 6 .4,I X , 'Tinf= 1,F 8 .3, IX, 'k P a = 1,F 7 .3,I X , 'T w a l l = ',F 8 .3
195
1 /'#',2X,'R c = ',
1 DIO.4,I X , 1Tsa t = ' ,F 8 .3,2X,"Tinax=',DIO.4,IX,'P=' ,
1 F 3 .1,I X , 'I L = ,14,I X , 'D E L T A = ',F 6 .4
1 / # ' ,2X,'N S K I P = ',13,2 x , 'E S P = ',d8.2,2X,'E X C I T E = ',D8.2
1 /'#',2 X , 'P T = ',F 3 .1,2 X , 'C 0 F 1 = ',D 8 .2,2 X , 'C O F 2 = ',D 8 .2
1 /'#',5X, "I" ,12X, 'RB',10X, 'RDOT',10X, 'ACCEL',10X, 'Tv')
980 FORMAT(IX,5 (DIO.5))
1000 FORMAT(/2 X , 'T I M E = ',D12.6/8X,'R',12X,'TEMP')
1010 FORMAT(2X,D12.6,2X,D 1 2 .6,2X,D12.6)
1020 FORMAT(2X,D12.6,2(2X,D12.6))
1100 FORMAT(2X,Dll.4,2X,D 1 5 .8,2(2X,D12.5),2X,F12.7)
1150 F ORM A T (/'#',2 X , 'TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION'
1 /'#',2X,'Q=',F7.1,1X,'Twait=',
1 F 6 .4,I X , 'Tinf=',F 8 .3,I X , 'k P a = ',F 7 .3,I X , 'T w a l l = ',F 8 .3
1 /'#',2X,'Rc=',
1 D10.4,IX,'Tsat=',F 8 .3/'#',2X,'Tmax=',DIO.4,I X , 'P = ',
1 F 3 .1,I X , 'I L = ',14,I X , 'D E L T A = ',F6.4
1 /'#',2X,'NSKIP=',13,2 x , 'E S P = ',d8.2,2X,'E X C I T E = ,D8.2)
C
1160 FORMAT(/'#',4X,'x',10x,'T l = ',D I O .4,IX,'T2=',D10.4,
1 IX,'T3=',D I O .4,l x , 'T 4 = ',DIO.4,IX,'T5=',D10.4/)
1200 FORMAT(2X,6 (2X,D12.6))
C
STOP
END
196
Q * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
C GENERAL SUBROUTINES (FOR ANY PROPERTIES)
C
SUBROUTINE INI T I A L (P ,DELTA,IL,Q ,ALPHA,TSTAR,K ,T I N F ,R C )
o n o o
THIS PROGRAM DETERMINES THE INITIAL TEMPERATURE

DISTRIBUTION
REAL*8 K
DIMENSION TO(500),R(500)
COMMON /BB/TO,R
P I = 3 .141592645D0
C
DO 10 1=1,IL
X=DELTA*(DBLE{I 1) /DBLE(IL-l))**P
R (I )=X+RC
A l = 2 .*Q*DSQRT(ALPHA*TSTAR/PI)/K
A2=-X * X / (4.*ALPHA*TSTAR)
A3 =Q*X/K
A 4 = X / 2 ./DSQRT(ALPHA*TSTAR)
T O (I )=A1*DEXP(A 2 )-A3 *ER F C (A 4 )+TINF
10 CONTINUE
RETURN
END
SUBROUTINE RUNGE(T,DT,N,Y,DY,F,L,M,J,IG)
IMPLICIT REAL*8 (A-H,O-Z)
DIMENSION DY(2),Y(2),F(14)
GO TO (100,110,300),L
100 GO TO (101,110),IG
101 J=1
L=2
DO 106 K=1,N
K1=K+3*N
K2=K1+N
K3=N+K
F(K1)=Y(K)
F(K3)=F(K1)
106 F(K2)=DY(K)
GO TO 406
110 DO 140 K=1,N
K1=K
K2=K+5*N
K3=K2+N
K4=K+N
GO TO (111,112,113,114), J
111 F(Kl)=DY(K)*DT
Y(K)=F(K4)+.5D0*F(K1)
GO TO 140
112 F(K2)=DY(K)*DT
GO TO 124
113 F(K3)=DY(K)*DT
GO TO 134
114 Y(K)=F(K4)+ (F(Kl)+2.DO*(F(K2)+F(K3))+DY(K)*DT)/6.D0
GO TO 140
124 Y(K)=.5D0*F(K2)
197
Y(K)=Y(K)+F(K4)
GO TO 140
134 Y(K)=F(K4)+F(K3)
140 CONTINUE
GO TO (170,180,170,130),J
170 T = T + .5D0*DT
180 J=J+1
I F (J - 4 )404,404,299
299 M=1
GO TO 406
300 IG=1
GO TO 405
404 IG=2
405 L=1
406 RETURN
END
SUBROUTINE FMTDIG(P ,I L ,D E L T A ,R B ,R D O T ,R B O ,D T ,Q B ,F 1 C ,F 2 C )
o o n n n n o o
THIS SUBROUTINE FORMS THE TRIDIAGONAL MATRIX

FOR THE CRANK NICOLSON METHOD.
A*T(I) = B * T (1+1) + C * T (1-1) + D
IT IS NOTED THAT A=AP, B=AE, C=AW, D=B.
REAL*8 KP,KE,KW,KSE,KSW
DIMENSION TO(500),AP(500),AE(500),AW(500),B(500),R(500),
1 RO(500),SOLN(500),XN(500)
COMMON /AA/AP,AE,AW,B,SOLN
COMMON /BB/TO,R
C
DO 10 1=1,IL
XN(I)= (DBLE(I-l)/DBLE(IL-1))**P
R (I )= X N (I )*DELTA+RB
R O (I )= X N (I )*DELTA+RBO
10 CONTINUE
C
RVL=ROHV(TO(1))/ROHL(TO(1))
C
DO 20 1=2,IL-1
RE=(R(I)+R(I+1))/2.D0
RW=(R(I-l)+R(I))/2 .DO
R E O = ( R O (1+1)+RO(I))/2.D0
R W O = ( R O (1-1)+ R O (I ))/2.D0
V E = 1 .DO/3.D0*RE**3
VW=1.D0/3.D0*RW**3
V E O = l .D O /3.DO *REO* *3
WO=1.DO/3.DO*RWO**3
KP=COND(TO(I ) )
KE=COND(TO(1+1))
KW=COND(TO(1-1))
KSE=2.D0*KP*KE/(KP+KE)
KSW=2.D0*KP*KW/(KP+KW)
R O L P = R O H L (T O (I ))
ROLE=ROHL(TO(1+1))
R O L W = R O H L (T O (I-1) )
198
R0LSE=2 .DO*ROLP*ROLE/ (ROLP+ROLE)
ROLSW=2 .DO*ROLP*ROLW/ (ROLP+ROLW)
C P = H C A P L (T O (I ))
C E = H C A P L (T O (I+1))
C W = H C A P L (T O (I-1))
CSE=2.D0*CP*CE/(CP+CE)
C S W = 2 .D0*CP*CW/(CP+CW)
RRD=RB * * 2 *RDOT * (l.dO-RVL)
FE=ROLSE*(RRD-(VE-VEO) /DT)
FW=ROLSW* (RRD- (VW-VWO) /DT)
IP (X .E Q .2 )ALPHAL=KSW/ (ROLSW*CSW)
C
D X N E = X N (1+1)- X N (I )
D X N W = X N (I )- X N (1-1)
DVPO=VEO-VWO
A P O = R O H L ( T O (I ))*CP*DVPO/DT
B (1-1)=APO*TO(I)
DE=RE**2*KSE/DELTA/DXNE
DW=RW* * 2 *KSW/DELTA/DXNW
PE=FE/DE*CSE
PW=FW/DW*CSW
C F P E = D M A X 1 (0.D O , (1.DO- O .1D0*DABS(PE)) * * 5 )
C F P W = D M A X 1 (0.D O , (1.DO-O.1D0*DABS(PW)) * * 5 )
AE (1-1)=DE*CFPE+DMAX1(-CSE*FE, 0.D O )
AW(I-l)=DW*CFPW+DMAX1 (CSW*FW, 0 .DO)
A P (1-1)= A E (1-1)+ A W (1-1) +APO
20 CONTINUE
C
D R W = R (2)- R (1)
QXK=QB*DRW
F 0=ALPHAL*D T /DRW**2
F 1 C = 2 .D 0 * F 0 / (1.D O + 2 .D0*F0)
F 2 C = ( T O (1)+2.D0*F0*QXK)/ (1.D0+2.D0*F0)
A P (1)= A P (1)- A W (1)*F1C
B (1)= B (1)+ A W (1)*F2C
AW(1)= 0 -DO
B (I L - 2 )= B (IL-2)+ A E (IL-2)* T O (IL)
A E ( I L - 2 )=0.DO
C
RETURN
END
SUBROUTINE TDIG(N)
n n n n
THIS SUBROUTINE INVERTS A TRIDIAGONAL MATRIX BY THOMAS

ALGORITHM.
IMPLICIT REAL*8(A-H.O-Z)
DIMENSION AP (500),AE(500),A W (500),B(500),P(500),
1 Q (5 0 0),SOL N (500)
COMMON /AA/AP,A E ,AW, B ,SOLN
P (1)=AE (1)/A P (1)

Q ( 1 ) = B ( 1 ) / A P (1)
DO 10 1 = 2 , N
p(i)=AE(i)/ (AP(i)-AW(i)*p(i-l))
199
q(i)=(AW(i)*q(i-l)+B(i)) / (AP(i)-AW(i)*p(i-l))
10 continue
soln(n)=q(n)
do 20 i = n-1,1,-1
soln(i)=p(i)*soln(i+l)+q(i)
20 continue
return
end
200
C THIS FUNCTIONS WERE WRITTEN FOR WATER PROPERTIES RANGE 273-600K

C * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
c --------------------------------------------------------------------------
real*8 function erfc(x)
c --------------------------------------------------------------------------
erfc=l.-erf(x)
return
end
c --------------------------------------------------------------------------
real*8 function erf(x)
c --------------------------------------------------------------------------
dimension a (0:10)
c --------------------------------------------------------------------------
a(0)=0.D0
a (1)=0.5204998778130500D0
a (2)=0.8427007929497271D0
a (3)=0.9661051464753030D0
a (4)=0.9953222650189663D0
a (5)=0.9995930479825686D0
a (6)=0.9999779095030078D0
a (7)=0.9999992569016313D0
a (8)=0.9999999845827402D0
a (9)=0.9999999998033906D0
a (10)=0.999999999998460D0
erf = l .
if(x.gt.5.49) return
p i = 3 .141592645d0
n=int(x/0.5)
xa=float(n)*0.5
erf=a(n)+simpsn(l,xa,x)*2./Dsqrt(pi)
if (erf.gt.l.) erf=l.
return
end
c ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
real*8 function simpsn(nsimp,a,b)
C ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c integration by Simpson rule
c step size is less than dx<0.001,
c number of step is greater than 100
c
c nsimp equation number for f(x)
c a lower bound
c b upper bound
c
c definition of function
simpf(nsimp,x)=Dexp(-x*x)
c
c simpson integration
simpsn=0.
if(a.eq.b)return
ni=100
1 dx=(b-a)/(2.* float(ni))
if(dx.gt.0.001)then
201
ni=ni+10
goto 1
endif
c
d x 2 = 2 .*dx
s=a+dx
f2=simpf(nsimp,s-dx)
do 10 i=l,ni
f0=f2
fl=simpf(nsimp,s)
f2=simpf(nsimp,s+dx)
c
simpsn=simpsn+f0+4.*fl+f2
s=s+dx2
10 continue
simpsn=simpsn*dx/3.
c
return
end
C
REAL*8 FUNCTION PPSAT(Tl)

C
C INPUT TEMP=(C), PPSAT(Pa), RANGE(273-600K) FOR WATER
T=Tl + 2 7 3 .15D0
P PSAT=1.354980D-12*T**5-3.465876D-9*T**4+3.632606D-6*T**3
1 -1.984735D-3*T**2+5.883791D-l*T-6.762496D1
P PSAT=DEXP(PPSAT)*100.DO
RETURN
END
Q * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
REAL*8 FUNCTION ROHV(T)

C VAPOR ROH, TEMP.(C),RANGE(273-600K) FOR W A T E R .....
IMPLICIT REAL*8(A-H, O-Z)
C
Tl=T + 2 7 3 .15d0
R O H V = l .759194d-12*Tl**5-4.293708D-9*Tl**4+4.313782D-6*T1**3
1 -2.258077D-3*Tl**2+6.383280D-l*Tl-7.099724D1
ROHV=DEXP(ROHV)/1000.D0
RETURN
END
q* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
R EA L * 8 FUNCTION ROHL(T)
C --- LIQUID ROHL, T E M P . (C),R A N G E (273-600K)FOR WATER ......
Tl=T + 2 7 3 .15D0
ROHL=-l.336940D-13*Tl**5+2.337246D-10*T1**4-1.582645D-7*T1**3
1 +4.854679D-5*Tl**2-6.496841D-3*Tl+7.188601D0
ROHL=DEXP(ROHL)
RETURN
END
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
R EA L * 8 FUNCTION COND(T2)
C T(oC) FOR LIQUID(W/m.K) , TEMP.RANGE(273-600K) FOR WATER
T=T2 + 2 7 3 .15D0
COND=9.878536D-ll*T**5-2.183427D-7*T**4+1.933439D-4*T**3
1 -9.137936D-2*T**2+2.3 65709D1*T-1.950454D3
COND=COND*l.D-3
202
RETURN
END
C
REAL*8 FUNCTION XLA T E N T (T 3 )

C T(oC) FOR LATENT(J/KG), T E M P .R A N G E (273-600K) FOR WATER
T = T 3 + 2 7 3 .15D0
XLATE N T = - 3 .320494D-10*T**5+6.487444D-7*T**4-5.184260D-4*T**3
1 +2.068768D-l*T**2-4.313656Dl*T+6.308721D3
XLATENT=XLATENT*1000.DO
RETURN
END
C
Q * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
REAL*8 FUNCTION DIFFUL(T4)

C TEMP.RANGE(273-500K), DIFFUSIVITY(m2/s) FOR WATER
T=T4
DIFFUL=COND(T)/ROHL(T)/HCAPL(T)
RETURN
END
C
REAL*8 FUNCTION VISCOL(T8)

C TRANSFER DATA FROM TEMPERATURE(o C ) TO VISCOSITY(N. s/m/'2)
C RANGE TEMP(270-600K) FOR WATER
T = T 8 + 2 7 3 .15D0
V I S C O = - l .885948D-12*T**5+4.473683D-9*T**4-4.273123D-6*T**3
1 +2.070945D-3 *T**2-5.179370D-l*T+5.947036D1
VISCOL=DEXP(VISCO)*l.D-6
RETURN
END
Q * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
REAL*8 FUNCTION S I G M A L (T9)

C TRANSFER DATA FROM TEMPERATURE (o C ) TO
C SURFACE TENSION (N/m) FOR WATER
T = T 9 + 2 7 3 .15D0
S I G M = 3 .804613D-7*T**3-6.447664D-4*T**2+1.285080D-l*T+8.093310D1
SIGMAL=SIGM*1.d-3
RETURN
END
R E A L *8 FUNCTION HCAPL(TIO)
C TRANSFER DATA FROM TEMPERATURE(o C ) TO HEAT CAPACITY, J/KG.K
C FOR WATER
T = T 1 0 + 2 7 3 .15D0
C P F = 6 .258269D-12*T**5-1.232528D-8*T**4+9.620796D-6*T**3
1 -3.704042D-3*T**2+7.019596D-l*T-4.816255D1
HCAPL=CPF*1000.DO
RETURN
END
203
C FUNCTIONS FOR R-113

Q * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
C -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
erfc=l.-erf(x)
return
end
c ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
dimension a (0:10)
c ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
a(0)=0.D0
a (1)=0.5204998778130500D0
a(2)=0.8427007929497271D0
a (3)=0.966105146475303ODO
a(4)=0.9953222650189663D0
a (5)=0.9995930479825686D0
a (6)=0.9999779095030078D0
a (7)=0.9999992569016313D0
a (8)=0.9999999845827402D0
a (9)=0.9999999998033906D0
a (10)=0.99999999999846ODO
erf=1.
p i = 3 .141592645d0
n=int(x/0.5)
xa=float(n)*0.5
return
end
c ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
c ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
c
c a lower bound
c b upper bound
c
simpf(nsimp,x ) = D e x p (-x*x)
c
simpsn=0.
if(a.eq.b)return
ni=100
1 dx=(b-a)/(2.*float(ni))
if(dx.gt.0.001)then
204
ni=ni+10
goto 1
endif
c
dx2 = 2 .*dx
s=a+dx
f2=simpf (nsimp, s-dx)
do 10 i=l,ni
f0=f2
fl=simpf(nsimp,s)
c
s=s+dx2
10 continue
simpsn=simpsn*dx/3.
c
return
end
C

C
C INPUT TEMP=(C), PPSAT(Pa), RANGE(240-480K)
T=Tl+273.15D0
PPSAT=2.957142318d3-5.317878720dl*T+3.716948190d-l*T**2
1 -1.235475106d-3*T**3+1.860059877d-6*T**4-8.710006423d-10*T**5
PPSAT=PPSAT*10 0 0.DO
RETURN
END
Q * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
REAL*8 FUNCTION ROHV(Tl)

C --- VAPOR ROH, TEMP.(C),R A N G E (240-400 K) .....
C
T=Tl+273.15d0
R OHV=-2.996373102D2+4.974715994D0*T-3.322820191D-2*T**2
1 +1.134072022D-4*T**3-2.031981824D-7*T**4+1.585972295D-10*T**5
RETURN
END
Q * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
REAL*8 FUNCTION ROHL(T)

C --- LIQUID ROHL, T E M P . (C),R A N G E (-30 - 210 C) .....
R OHL=16.17677365058042D0-0.021409787008367DO*T
1 +0.000003666728067DO*T**2-0.000001210948343DO*T**3
1 +0.000000011848044D0*T**4-0.000000000037748D0*T**5
ROHL=ROHL *10 0.DO
RETURN
END
REAL*8 FUNCTION COND(T2)

C T(oC) FOR LIQUID(W/m.K), T E M P .R A N G E (240-480)
T=T2+273.15D0
COND=572.672566562039D0-7.220703521017116D0*T
1 +0.044478466185909D0*T**2-0.000139306769359D0*T**3
1 +0.000000215863959D0*T**4-0.000000000132549D0*T**5
COND=COND/1000.DO
205
RETURN
END
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
o
REAL*8 FUNCTION XLATENT(T3)

o
IMPLICIT REAL*8 {A-H,O-Z)

o
T (oC) FOR LATENT (J/KG) , T E M P .RANGE (240-480K)

T=T3+ 2 7 3 .15D0
XLATENT=2 737.488491466112D0-39.30036427470726D0*T
1 +0.239810862940233D0*T**2-0.000727033297258D0*T**3
1 +0.000001089453393D0*T**4-0.000000000647894D0*T**5
XLATENT=XLATENT*1000 .DO
RETURN
END
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
n
REAL*8 FUNCTION DIFFUV(T4)

o
n
T E M P . R A N G E (300-43OK), DIFFUSIVITY(m2/s)
T = T 4 + 2 7 3 .15D0
DIFFUV=303923.6357589624D0 - 3904.362680547735D0*T
1 +20.11858607644752D0*T**2-0.051927435282147DO*T**3
1 +0.000067087359484D0*T**4-0.000000034688727D0*T**5
DIFFUV=DIFFUV*1.D-8
RETURN
END
oo
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

C TEMP.RANGE(300-430K), DIFFUSIVITY(m2/s*E-8)
T = T 5 + 2 7 3 .15D0
D I F F U L = 4 .798119328554736d3 -4.693879076560403dl*T
1 +2.04257142145589d-l*T**2-4.36619015926d-4*T**3
1 +4.47451584d-7*T**4-l.79222d-10*T**5
DIFFUL=DIFFUL*1.D-10
RETURN
END
Q * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
REAL*8 FUNCTION T E N T H A (E N T H )
C TO TRANSFER DATA FROM LIQUID ENTHALPY TO TEMPERATURE (oC)
C RANGE OF ENTHALPY(10 - 270 kJ/ K ) , T E M P . (240 - 470 k)
ETP=ENTH*1.D-3
T T = 2 3 4 .4244709882D0+1.1228950385D0 *ETP-0.0002653983D0*ETP**2
1 -0.0000014715DO*ETP**3
TENTHA=TT-27 3.15D0
RETURN
END
Q * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
**
REAI,*8 FUNCTION ENTHAL (T 7 )

C TO TRANSFER DATA FROM T EMP E R A T U R E (o C ) TO LIQUID ENTHALPY
TEMP=T7+273.15D0
E T L = - 2 7 4 .4657037001D0+1.5944746489D0*TEMP-
1 0.0025719666D0*TEMP**2+0.0000032310D0*TEMP**3
ENTHAL=ETL*1.D+3
RETURN
END
206
RE A L *8 FUNCTION VISCOL(T8)
C TRANSFER DATA FROM TEMPERATURE (o C ) TO VISCOSITY(N.s/mA2 )
C RANGE TEMP(300K - 480K)
T= T 8 + 2 7 3 .15D0
V I S = 9 1 4 2 .7080404291D0-50.7337760352*T+0.0689662825D0*T*T
1 +0.0000616571DO*T**3-0.0000001400*T**4
V I SCOL=VIS*l.D-6
RETURN
END
REAL*8 FUNCTION SIGMAL(T9)

C TRANSFER DATA FROM PRESS(kPa) & T E M P E R A T U R E (O C ) TO
C SURFACE TENSION (N/m)
T= T 9 + 2 7 3 .15D0
P 9 = P P S A T (T9)*1.D-3
TC=487.5D0
P C = 3 .4 1 1 D 0 / .101325D0
T B = 3 2 0 .7d0
TBR=TB/TC
TR=T/TC
Q = 0 .1 3 0 7 D 0 * (1.D0+TBR*DLOG(PC)/ (1.D0-TBR))-0.281D0
SI G M = P C * * (2.DO/3 .DO)*TC**(1.D O / 3 .D O ) * Q * (1.D0-TR)**(11.D O / 9 .D O )
SIGMAL=SIGM*1.D-3
RETURN
END
* * * * * ie * * * it * * * *
REAL*8 FUNCTION HCAPL(TIO)

C TRANSFER DATA FROM TEMPERATURE (o C ) TO HEAT CAPACITY, J / K G .K
T= T 1 0+273.15D0
HCAPL=-2687.2937711853D0+32.1760788219D0*T-0.0967652227D0*T**2
1 +0.0001001237DO*T**3
RETURN
END
207
ooooo
a * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
THIS FUNCTIONS WERE WRITTEN FOR A MAIN PROGRAM S B D 2 .FOR (SODIUM)

*******************************************************************
c ----------------------------------------------
c ----------------------------------------------
erfc=l.-erf(x)
return
end
c ----------------------------------------------
c ----------------------------------------------
dimension a (0:10)
c ----------------------------------------------
a(0)=0.D0
a (1)=0.520499877813050ODO
a (2)=0.8427007929497271D0
a (3)=0.966105146475303ODO
a (4)=0.9953222650189663D0
a (5)=0.9995930479825686D0
a (6)=0.9999779095030078D0
a (7)=0.9999992569016313D0
a (8)=0.9999999845827402D0
a (9)=0.9999999998033906D0
a (10)=0.99999999999846ODO
erf=l.
pi = 3 .141592645d0
n=int(x/0.5)
xa=dble(n)*0.5
return
end
c----------------------------------------------
c ----------------------------------------------
c
c a lower bound
c b upper bound
c
simpf(nsimp,x ) = D e x p (-x*x)
c
simpsn=0.
if(a.eq.b)return
ni=100
1 dx=(b-a)/(2.*dble(ni))
208
if(dx.gt.O.OOl)then
ni=ni+10
goto 1
endif
c
dx2=2.*dx
s=a+dx
f2=simpf(nsimp, s-dx)
do 10 i=l,ni
f 0=f 2
fl=simpf(nsimp,s)
c
s=s+dx2
10 continue
simpsn=simpsn*dx/3.
c
return
end
C

C
C INPUT TEMP=(C), PPSAT(Pa), RANGE(1000-1800K) FOR SODIUM
T=Tl+273.15D0
PPSAT=-9103.5297143197D0+25.7651166667D0*T
1 -0.024643661D0*T**2+O.0000080011D0*T**3
PPSAT=PPSAT*1000.DO
RETURN
END
REAL*8 FUNCTION ROHV(T)

C VAPOR ROH, TEMP. (C),R A N G E (1000-1800K) FOR S O D I U M .....
C
T l=T+273.15d0
ROHV=-17202.336704949D0+48.5939579878D0*Tl-0.046665605D0*T1**2
1 +0.0000153294DO*T1**3
ROHV=ROHV/1000.DO
RETURN
END
Q * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
REAL*8 FUNCTION ROHL(T)

C .... LIQUID ROHL, T E M P . (C),R A N G E (1000-1800K)FOR SODIUM ......
Tl=T+273.15D0
ROHL=l.0086d0-2.134D-4*T1-1.75D-8*T1**2
ROHL=ROHL*1000.DO
RETURN
END
C * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

IMPLICIT REAL* 8 (A-H,O - Z )
C T(oC) FOR LIQUID(W/m.K), T E M P .R A N G E (1000-1800) FOR SODIUM
T=T2+273.15D0
COND = 0 .2482D0-1.16D-4*T
COND=COND*418.68D0
RETURN
209
END
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
n

o
n
T(oC) FOR LATENT(J/KG), TEMP.RANGE(1000-1800K) FOR SODIUM

T = T 3 + 2 7 3 .15D0
XLATENT=4511.6285714DO-0.1 4 9 D 0 * T - 0 .0003429D0*T**2
RETURN
END
o n n

TEMP.RANGE(1000-1800K), DIFFUSIVITY(m2/s) FOR SODIUM
T=T4
DIFFUL=COND(T)/ROHL(T)/H C A P L (T )
RETURN
END
no
A T * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
REA L * 8 FUNCTION VISCOL(T8)

C TRANSFER DATA FROM TEMPERATURE (o C ) TO VISCOSITY (N. s/m/'2)
C RANGE T E M P (800-160OK) FOR SODIUM
T = T 8 + 2 7 3 .15D0
V I S C O = 5 0 1 .706490170722DO-0.377334049007D0*T+0.00005979232DO*T**2
VISCOL=VISCO*l.D-6
RETURN
END
Q * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
REAL*8 FUNCTION SIG M A L (T9)

C TRANSFER DATA FROM TEMPERATURE (o C ) TO
C SURFACE TENSION (N/ltl) FOR SODIUM
T = T 9 + 2 7 3 .15D0
S I G M = 2 2 9 .3D0-0.1D0*T
SIGMAL=SIGM*1.d-3
RETURN
END
REAL*8 FUNCTION HCAPL(T10)

C TRANSFER DATA FROM TEMPERATURE (o C ) TO HEAT CAPACITY, J/KG.K
C FOR SODIUM
T=T1 0 + 2 7 3 .15D0
C P F = 2 .00431746032D0-1.82562830688D-3*T+1.32708333333D-6*T**2
1 -2.47685185185D-10*T**3
HCAPL=CPF*1000.DO
RETURN
END
210
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
C THIS FUNCTIONS WERE WRITTEN FOR BUTANE PROPERTIES
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
erf c = l .-erf(x)
return
end
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
dimension a(0:10)
c ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a(0)=O.DO
a (1)=0.520499877813050ODO
a (2)=0.8427007929497271D0
a (3)=0.966105146475303ODO
a (4)=0.9953222650189663DO
a (5)=0.9995930479825686D0
a (6)=0.9999779095030078D0
a(7)=0.9999992569016313D0
a (8)=0.9999999845827402D0
a (9)=0.9999999998033906D0
a (10)=0.99999999999846ODO
erf=1.
p i = 3 .141592645d0
n=int(x/0.5)
xa=float(n)*0.5
return
end
c ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c
c nsimp equation number for f (x)
c a lower bound
c b upper bound
c
c
simpsn=0.
if(a.eq.b)return
ni=100
1 dx=(b-a)/(2.*float(ni))
if(dx.gt.O.OOl)then
ni=ni+10
211
goto 1
endif
c
6 x 2 = 2 .*dx
s=a+dx
f2=simpf(nsimp, s-dx)
do 10 i=l,ni
f0=2
fl=simpf(nsimp,s)
c
s=s+dx2
10 continue
simpsn=simpsn*dx/3.
c
return
end
C
Q * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

C
C INPUT TEMP=(C), PPSAT(Pa), RANGE(230-400K) FOR BUTANE
T=Tl+273.15D0
PPSAT=6.95668D-9*T**4-3.822772D-6*T**3 + 6 .014244D-4*T**2
1 -7.0909lD-4*T-4.465552D0
PPSAT=PPSAT*101325.DO
RETURN
END
q* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
REAL*8 FUNCTION ROHV(T5)

C VAPOR ROH, TEMP. (C),RANGE(230-400K) FOR B U T A N E ......
C
Tl=T5+273.15d0
ROHV=6.387127D-7*Tl**3-4.073028D-4*T1**2+1.079184D-1*T1
1 -1.042319D1
ROHV=ROHV* *2
RETURN
END
Q * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
REAL*8 FUNCTION ROHL ( T 6 )

C --- LIQUID ROHL, TEMP.(C),RANGE(230-400K)FOR BUTANE ......
Tl=T6+273.15D0
ROHL=1.407261D-12*T1**4-1.573344D-9*T1**3+6.651187D-7*T1**2
1 -1.228186D-4*Tl+9.821806D-3
ROHL=l.DO/ROHL
RETURN
END
Q * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

C T(oC) FOR LIQUID(W/m.K), TEMP.RANGE(230-400K) FOR BUTANE
T =T2+273.15D0
COND=-l.433322D-9*T**3+1.328689D-6*T**2-7.952385D-4*T
1 +2.740857D-1
RETURN
END
C T(oC) FOR L A T E N T (J/KG), T E M P .RANGE(230-400K) FOR BUTANE
T=T3+273.15D0
XLATENT=-1.688303D-7*T**4+1.781551D-4*T**3-7.151602D-2*T**2
1 +1.205770Dl*T-2.648612D2
RETURN
END
o o

n
T E M P . R A N G E (230-400K) , DIFFUSIVITY(m2/s) FOR BUTANE

T=T4
DIFFUL=COND(T)/ROHL(T)/HCAPL(T)
RETURN
END
on

C TRANSFER DATA FROM TEMPERATURE (o C ) TO VISCOSITY (N.s/m/s2 )
C RANGE TEMP(230-400K) FOR BUTANE
T=T8+273.15D0
V I S C O = 4 .318534D-9*T**4-5.753387D-6*T**3+2.898539D-3*T**2
1 -6.664525D-l*T+6.103799D1
VISCOL=VISCO *1.D-4
RETURN
END

C TRANSFER DATA FROM TEMPERATURE(o C ) TO
C SURFACE TENSION (N/m) FOR BUTANE
T=T9
A = 1 4 .87D0
B = 0 .1206D0
THI=20.DO
TC=152.DO
TR=(T+273.15D0) / (TC+273.15D0)
THIR=(THI+273.15D0)/ (TC+273.1 5 D 0 )
E=B*(TC-THI)/ (A-B*THI)
D=(A-B*THI)/ (1.D0-THIR)**E
SIGMAL=D*(1.D0-TR)**E
SIGMAL=SIGMAL/1000.DO
RETURN
END

C TRANSFER DATA FROM TEMPERA T U RE (o C ) TO HEAT CAPACITY,J/KG.K
C FOR BUTANE
T=T7+273.15D0
C P F = 1 .114838D-7*T**3-6.744840D-5*T**2+1.656721D-2*T+5.259061D-1
HCAPL=CPF*1000.DO
RETURN
END
213
Q 'k'k'kit'k'k'k'kle'k'k'k'k'kii'k'kir'kicirlcie'kitieic'kieic'k'k'kirit'k'kit'k'kitielric'k'kie'k'kit'k'kit-kicic'k'k'k'kic'kir'k'k'k'k
C FUNCTIONS FOR METHANOL

C * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
c ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
c ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e r f c = l .-erf(x)
return
end
c ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
c ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
dimension a (0:10)
c ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
a (0)=0.DO
a (1)=0.520499877813050ODO
a (2)=0.8427007929497271D0
a (3)=0.966105146475303ODO
a (4)=0.9953222650189663D0
a (5)=0.9995930479825686D0
a (6)=0.9999779095030078D0
a (7)=0.9999992569016313D0
a ( 8 ) = 0 .9999999845827402D0
a(9)=0.9999999998033906D0
a (10)=0.999999999998460D0
erf=l.
if(x . g t .5.49) return
p i = 3 .141592645d0
n=int(x/0.5)
xa=float(n)*0.5
return
end
c ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
c ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
c
c a lower bound
c b upper bound
c
c
simpsn=0.
if(a.eq.b)return
ni=100
1 dx=(b-a)/ (2.*float(ni))
if(dx.gt.0.001)then
ni=ni+10
214
goto 1
endif
c
6 x 2 = 2 .*dx
s=a+dx
f2=simpf(nsimp,s-dx)
do 10 i=l,ni
f0=f2
fl=simpf(nsimp,s)
c
s=s+dx2
10 continue
simpsn=simpsn*dx/3.
c
return
end
C
Q * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

C
C INPUT TEMP=(C), PPSAT(Pa), RANGE(250-450K)
T=Tl+273.15D0
PPSAT=2.602528D-12*T**5-5.689175D-9*T**4+5.137114D-6*T**3
1 -2.442997D-3*T**2+6.389363D-l*T-6.552792D1
PPSAT=DEXP(PPSAT)*10 0.DO
RETURN
END
Q * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
REAL*8 FUNCTION ROHV(Tl)

C ___ VAPOR ROH, TEMP.(C),R A N G E (250-450 K) ......
C
T =Tl+273.15d0
ROHV=6.560962D-12*T**5-1.211598D-8*T**4+9.264145D-6*T**3
1 -3.741939D-3*T**2+8.351774D-l*T-7.621540D1
ROHV=DEXP(ROHV)/1000.D0
RETURN
END
Q * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
REAL*8 FUNCTION ROHL(Tl)

C ___ LIQUID ROHL, T E M P .(C),RANGE(250-450K) ......
T =Tl+273.15D0
R OHL=-l.049737D-9*T* *5+1.820122D-6*T**4-1.258585D-3 *T* *3
1 +4.320083D-l*T**2-7.436394Dl*T+6.003278D3
RETURN
END
Q * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

C T(oC) FOR LIQUID(W/m.K), TE M P .R A N G E (250-450)
T=T2+273.15D0
CON D = 0 .3225 D 0 - 4 .785D-4*T+1.168D-7*T**2
RETURN
END
C
C T(oC) FOR LATENT(J/KG), T E M P .RANGE(250-450K)
T=T3+273.15D0
XLATENT=-3.499864D-9*T**5+6.003288D-6*T**4-4.094137D-3*T**3
1 +1.38057D0*T**2-2.310179D2*T+1.664205D4
RETURN
END
n n
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

TEMP.RANGE(250-450K), DIFFUSIVITY(m2/s)
n
DIFFUL=COND(T4)/ROHL(T4)/HCAPL(T4)
RETURN
END
no

C TRANSFER DATA FROM TEMPERAT U R E (o C ) TO VISCOSITY(N.s/m ~ 2 )
C RANGE TEMP(250K - 450K)
T=T8+273.15D0
A = - 3 .935D1
B=4.826D3
C = 1 .091D-1
D = - l .127D-4
VIS=A+B/T+C*T+D*T**2
VISCOL=DEXP(V I S )*1.D-3
RETURN
END
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

C TRANSFER DATA FROM PRESS(kPa) & TEMPERATURE(o C ) TO
C SURFACE TENSION (N/m)
T=T9+273.15D0
P9=PPSAT(T9)*l.D-3
TC=512.6D0
PC=80.9/1.01325D0
TB=337.7d0
TBR=TB/TC
TR=T/TC
Q = 0 .1196D0*(1.DO+TBR*DLOG(PC)/ (1.D0-TBR))-0.279D0
SIGM=PC**(2.D0/3.D0)*TC**(1.D0/3.D0)*Q*(1.D0-TR)* * ( 1 1 .DO/9.DO)
SIGMAL=SIGM*1.D-3
RETURN
END

C TRANSFER DATA FROM TEMPERA T U R E (o C ) TO HEAT CAPACITY,J/KG.K
T=T10+273.15D0
HCAPL=-3.13177D-ll*T**5+5.726075D-8*T**4-4.109695D-5*T**3
1 +1.452645D-2*T**2-2.528083DO*T+1.754952D2
HCAPL=HCAPL*10 0 0.DO
RETURN
END
BIBLIOGRAPHY
216
217
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abdelmessih, A. H., Hooper, F. C. and Nangia, S., 1972, "Flow Effects on Bubble
Growth and Collapse in Surface Boiling", Int. J. Heat Transfer, Vol. 15, pp. 115-125.
Asai, A., 1991, "Bubble Dynamics in Boiling under High Flux Pulse Heating", Journal of
Heat Transfer, Vol. 113, pp.973-979.
Avedisian, C. T., 1985, "The Homogeneous Nucleation Limits of Liquids", J. Phys.
Chem. Ref. Data, Vol. 14, No.3, pp.695-729.
Babuska, I., Prager, M., and Vitasek, E., 1966, "Numerical Processes in Differential
Equations", Chapter 6.1 SNTL, Prague
Birkhoff, G., 1956, "Stability of Spherical Bubble, Q. Appl. Math, Vol.13, pp.451.
Bankoff, S. G. and Mikesell, R.D., 1958, "Bubble Growth Rates in Highly Subcooled
Nucleate Boiling", A.I.Ch.E., Preprint No.2, A.S.M.E.-A.I.Ch.E. Heat Transfer
Conference, Chicago (1958).
Birkhoff, G . , Margulies, R.S. and Horning, W. A., 1958, "Spherical Bubble Growth",
Phys. Fluid, V ol.l, 201
B oard, S. J . and Duffey, R. B., 1971, "Spherical Vapor Bubble Growth in Superheated
Liquids", Chem. Engng. Sci., Vol.26, pp.263-274
B ohrer, T. H., 1973, "Bubble Growth in Highly Superheated Liquids", M.S. Thesis in
Chemical Engineering, Purdue University
Bosnjakovic, F., 1930, Tech.Mech. Thermodynam. 1, 358,
Dalle Donne, M. and Ferranti, M.P., 1975, "The growth of Vapor Bubble in
Superheated Sodium", Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, Vol. 18, pp.477-493
D ergarabedian, P., 1953, "The Rate of Growth of Vapor Bubbles in Superheated
Water", J. Appl. Mech., Vol.20, pp.537-545
218
Dergarabedian, P., 1960, "Observations on Bubble Growth in Various Superheated
Liquids", J. Fluid Mech., Vol.9, pp.39-48
Dimic, M., 1977, "Collapse of One-component Vapor Bubble with Translatory Motion",
Int. J. Heat Transfer, Vol.20, pp.1325-1332.
Ellion, M. E., 1953, "A Study of the Mechanism of Boiling Heat Transfer", Ph.D. Thesis,
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California.
Ervin, J. S., 1990, "Incipient Boiling in Microgravity", Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Ervin, J. S., M erte, H., Keller, R.B., Kirk, K., 1992, "Transient Pool Boiling in
Microgravity", Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, Vol.35, pp.659-674
Florschuetz, L.W. and Chao, B.T., 1965, "On the Mechanics of Vapor Bubble
Collapse", Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol.87, pp.209-220.
Florschuetz, L. W ., H enry, C. L. and Khan, A. R ashid , 1969, "Growth Rates of Free
Vapor Bubbles in Liquids at Uniform Superheats under Normal and Zero Gravity
Conditions", Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, Vol. 12, pp. 1465-1489
Forster, H. K. and Zuber, N., 1954, "Growth of a Vapor Bubble in a Superheated
Liquid", J. Appl. Phys., Vol.25,474
Frost, D. L., 1988, "Dynamics of Explosive Boiling of a Droplet", Phys. Fluids, Vol.31,
pp.2554-2561.
Frost, D. and Sturtevant, B., 1986, "Effects of Ambient Pressure on the Instability of a
Liquid Boiling Explosively at the Superheat Limit", J. Heat Transfer, Vol. 108, pp.418-
424.
Grolmes, M. A. and Fauske, H. K., 1974, "Axial Propagation of Free Surface Boiling
into Superheated Liquids in vertical Tubes", In Proceeding of the Fifth International Heat
Transfer Conference, Tokyo, Vol.4, pp.30-34.
G unther, F. C. and K reith F., 1949, "Photographic Study of Bubble Formation in Heat
Transfer to Subcooled Liquids", Heat Fluid Mech. Inst. Berkeley, pp. 113.
219
G unther, F. C., 1950, Jet Prop. Lab. Prog. Rept. 4-75, Calif. Inst. Technol. Pasadena.
G unther, F. C., 1951, "Photographic Study of Surface Boiling Heat Transfer to Water
with Forced Convection", Trans. Amer. Soc. Mech. Engrs,vol.73, pp. 115.
H an, C. Y. and Griffith, P., 1965, "The Mechanism of Heat Transfer in Nucleate Pool
Boiling-Part I ", Int. J. Heat Transfer, Vol.8, pp.887-904.
Hewitt, H. C. and Parker, J . D., 1968, "Bubble Growth and Collapse in Liquid
Nitrogen", Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol., pp.22-26.
Higuera, F. J., 1987, "The Hydrodynamic stability of an evaporating liquid", Phys. Fluids,
Vol.30, pp.679-686.
Hooper, F. C. and Abdelmessih, A. H., 1966, "The Flashing of Liquids at Higher
Superheats", Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Heat Transfer, Chicago,, IV.44, Aug7-12
Jakob, Z, 1932, Tech. Mech. Thermodynam., 1, 358
Istratov, A. G. and Librovich, V. B., 1969, "On the Stability of Gasdynamic
Discontinuities Associated with Chemical Reactions. The Case of a Spherical Flame",
Astronautica Acta, Vol. 14, pp.453-467.
Kim, C harn-Jung and Kaviany, M asso u d , 1990, "A Numerical Method for Phase-
Change Problems", Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, Vol.33, pp.2721-2734
Kosky, P. G ., 1968, "Bubble Growth Measurements in Uniformly Superheated Liquids",
Numerical Engineering Science, Vol.23, pp.695-706
Kwak, Ho-Young and Lee, S angbu m , 1991, "Homogeneous Bubble Nucleation
Predicted by a Molecular Interaction Model", J. Heat Transfer, Vol.l 13, pp.714-712
Landau, L., 1944, "On the Theory of Slow Combustion", Acta Physicochemica U.S.S.R.,
Vol. 19, pp.76-85.
Landau, L. and Lifshitz, E. M., 1959, "Fluid Mechanics", Pergamon, problem No.2,
pp.479.
Lauterborn, W. and Hentschel, W., 1985, "Cavitation Bubble Dynamics Studied by
High Speed Photography and Holography: part one", Ultrasonics, Vol.23, pp.260-268.
220
Lien, Y. C., 1969, "Bubble Growth Rates at Reduced Pressure", D. Sci. Thesis, MIT
Lien, Y. C. and Griffith, P., 1969, "The Bubble Growth at Reduced Pressure", Int. J.
Heat Mass Transfer, Jan. 1969
L ord Rayleigh, 1917, Phil. Mag. 34, 94,
M cCann, H., Clarke, L. J. and A. P. M asters, 1989, "An experimental study of vapour
growth at the superheat limit temperature", Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, Vol.32, pp. 1077-
1093.
M eister, G., 1979, "Vapor Bubble Growth and Recondensation in Subcooled Boiling
Flow", Nuclear Engineering and Design, vol.54, pp.97-114.
M ikic, B. B. and Rohsenow, W. M., 1969, "Bubble Growth Rates in Non-uniform
Temperature Field", Progress in Heat and Mass Transfer n , pp.283-293
M ikic, B. B ., Rohsenow, W. M. and G riffith, P . , 1970, "On Bubble Growth Rate",
Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, Vol. 13, pp.657-666
M iller, C. A., 1973, "Stability of Moving Surface in Fluid Systems with Heat and Mass
Transport", AIChE Journal, Vol.19, No.5, pp.909-915.
Nukiyama, S., 1934, J.Soc. Mech. Engrs, Japan, Vol.37, pp.367.
Palm er, H. J., 1976, "The hydrodynamic stability of rapidly evaporating liquids at
reduced pressure", J. Fluid Mech., Vol.75, pp.487-511.
Palm er, H. J . and Maheshri, J. C., 1981, "Enhenced Interfacial Heat Transfer by
Differential vapor recoil instabilities", Int. J. Heat Transfer, Vol.4, pp. 117-123.
P atan k ar, S. V ., 1980, "Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow", Hemisphere
Washington,DC,
Plesset, M. S., 1954, "On the Stability of Fluid Flows with Spherical symmetry", J. Appl.
Phys., Vol.25, pp.96-98.
Plesset, M . S. and Prosperetti, A., 1977, "Bubble dynamics and Cavitation", Ann. Rev.
Fluid Mech., Vol.9, pp.145-185.
221
Plesset, M.S. and Zwick, S. A ., 1952, "A Nonsteady Heat Diffusion Problem with
Spherical Symmetry", J. Appl. Phys., Vol.23,95
Plesset, M.S. and Zwick, S. A ., 1954, "The Growth of Vapor Bubble in Superheated
Liquid", J. Appl. Phys., Vol.25,493
Prosperetti, A. and Plesset, M ., 1978, "Vapor-bubble Growth in a Superheated
Liquid", J. Fluid Mech., Vol.85, pp.349-368
Prosperetti, A. and Plesset, M. S., 1984, "The Stability of an evaporating liquid surface",
Phys. Fluids, Vol.27, pp.1590-1602.
Reid, R. C., 1983, "Rapid Phase Transitions from Liquid to Vapor", Advanced in
Chemical Engineering, Vol. 12, pp. 105-208
Scriven, L. E . , 1959, "On the Dynamics of Phase Growth", Chemical Engineering
Science, vol.l, pp. 1-13
Shepherd, J . E. and Sturtevant, B., 1982, "Rapid Evaporation at the Superheat Limits",
J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 121, pp.379-402
Shima. M ., Tomita, Y. and Ohno, T., 1988, "Temperature effects on Single Bubble
Collapse and Induced Impulsive Pressure", Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol.l 10,
pp. 194-199.
Sparrow , E. M . and Chuck, W ., 1984, "An Implicit/Explicit Numerical Solution
Scheme for Phase-change Problems", Numerical heat transfer, Vol.7, pp.1-15
Sparrow , E. M ., Ramadhyani, S. and Patanka, S .V ., 1978, "Effect of Subcooling on
Cylinderical Melting", J. Heat Transfer, Vol. 100, pp.395-402
S traub, J., Zell, M. and Vogel, B., 1990, "Pool Boiling in a Reduced Gravity Field",
Heat Transfer 1990, Proceedings of The Ninth International Heat Transfer Conference,
Jerusalem, Israel, Vol.l, pp.91-112.
S turtevant, B. and Shepherd, J. E., 1982, "Evaporative Instability at the Superheat
Limit", Appl. Sci. Res., Vol.38, pp.85-97.
222
Taylor, G. I., 1949, "The Stability of Liquid surfaces when accelerated in a direction
perpendicular to their planes. I, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A201, pp. 192.
Theofanous, T., Biasi, L. and Isbin, H. S., 1969, "A Theoretical Study on Bubble
Growth in Constant and Time-dependent Pressure Fields", Chem. Engng. Sci. Vol. 26,
pp.263-274
Theofanous, T. G. and Patel, P. D., 1976, "Universal Relations for Bubble Growth", Int.
J. Heat Mass Transfer", Vol. 19, pp.425-429
W ittke, D. D. and Chao, B. T., 1967, "Collapse of Vapor Bubbles with Translatory
Motion", Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol., pp. 17-24.
Zuber, N., 1961, "The Dynamics of Vapor Bubbles in Non-uniform Temperature fields",
Int. J. Heat Transfer, Vol.2, pp.83-98.

1993-Vapor Bubble Dynamics in Microgravity PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1993-Vapor Bubble Dynamics in Microgravity PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UM I

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality o f the

In the unlikely event th a t th e author did n o t send U M I a com plete

O versize m aterials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are rep ro d u ced by

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

U n iversity M icrofilm s International

Vapor bubble dynam ics in m icrogravity

Lee, Ho Sung, Ph.D .

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

It is indeed a pleasure to express my deep appreciation to Professor Herman

and encouragement during my study at The University of Michigan. Thanks are

extended to Professors R. B. Keller, R. L. Judd, L. P. Bernal and G. Tryggvason for

experimental apparatus is gratefully acknowledged. Especial recognition is also

I would like to extend my special thanks to the National Aeronautics and

help in obtaining literature, which made it possible to complete my work efficiendy.

Thanks are extended to the Mechanical Engineering Department of the University of

Michigan for considering my industrial experience in admitting me to the program.

and the joy she brought me during my research.

2.1 Literature Survey............................................................................................. 6

2.2 Previous Analytical Solutions..........................................................................9

2.3 Formulation of Governing Equations.............................................................. 16

2.4 Numerical Solution............................................................................................19

2.5 Comparisons with Previous W orks................................................................. 24

2.6.4 Comparisons between Water, R-113 and Sodium.......................... 39

3. VAPOR BUBBLE DYNAMICS IN NON-UNIFORM TEMPERATURE

3.1.1 Inertia Controlled Bubble Growth and Collapse............................ 95

3.1.2 Heat Transfer Controlled Bubble Growth and Collapse................ 96

3.1.3 Vapor Bubble Collapse.................................................................... 98

3.1.3.1 Liquid inertia controlled collapse.....................................99

3.1.3.2 Heat transfer controlled collapse...................................... 100

3.1.4 Vapor Bubble Growth on a Heater Surface.................................... 101

3.2 Modeling........................................................................................................... 103

3.2.2 Initial Non-uniform Superheat Model..............................................104

3.2.2.1 Spherical Bubble Model................................................... 104

32.2.2 Hemispherical Bubble Model............................................105

3.3 Governing Equations........................................................................................ 106

3.4 Numerical Solution........................................................................................... 109

3.5 Vapor Bubble Dynamics in Subcooled Liquids...............................................109

3.5.1 Bubble Collapse.................................................................................109

3.5.2 Bubble Growth and Collapse............................................................ 110

3.5.3 Bubble departure mechanism............................................................ 112

3.6 Experiments in Microgravity with Saturated and Subcooled R-l 13..............112

3.6.2 Experimental Results and Discussions............................................ 114

3.6.2.1 Energy Input to the Liquid................................................114

3.6.2.2 Initial Temperature Distribution....................................... 115

3.6.2.3 Bubble Dynamics...............................................................117

4. ROLE OF INSTABILITIES IN POOL BOILING BUBBLE GROWTH IN

4.2 Experimental Results...................................................................................... 144

4.3 Instability Considerations................................................................................151

4.3.1 Rayleigh-Taylor Instability...............................................................152

4.3.2 Landau Instability............................................................................. 154

4.3.3 Instability Growth in Terms of Heat Conduction........................... 156

4.4 Increased Evaporation Surface Area...............................................................158

5.2 Initial Non-uniform Superheat M odel........................................................... 179

5.3 Role of Instability in Pool Boiling..................................................................180

sphericity of the bubble............................................................................................. 42

2.3. Schematic diagram of coordinate transformation...................................................... 44

2.4. Grid point and control volume notation.....................................................................44

(1975). Radius versus time for sodium.....................................................................45

(1975). Liquid-vapor interface velocity versus time for sodium............................46

(1975). Liquid-vapor interface temperature versus time for sodium..................... 47

(1975). Effect of magnitude of temperature disturbance on bubble growth for