0
TECHNICAL PAPERS: Evaporation, Boiling, and Condensation

Modeling and Numerical Prediction of Flow Boiling in a Thin Geometry

[+] Author and Article Information
Ranganathan Kumar

University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816

Charles C. Maneri, T. Darton Strayer

Lockheed Martin Corporation, Schenectady, NY 12301

J. Heat Transfer 126(1), 22-33 (Mar 10, 2004) (12 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1643754 History: Received November 20, 2002; Revised October 16, 2003; Online March 10, 2004
Copyright © 2004 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Flow geometry and heat partitioning representation at the wall (figure not drawn to scale)
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison plots for Case 1: 266 kg/hr; 2.4 MPa; 6.03 kW; 33.2°C subcooling: (a) Comparison of predicted cross section average void fraction with GDS measurement; (b) Comparison of predicted line-average void distribution in narrow dimension with GDS measurement at different x/l; and (c) Comparison of predicted and measured incremental pressure drop. Solid lines and symbols represent predictions and measurements, respectively. Boxed numbers represent x/l.
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison plots for Case 2: 106 kg/hr; 1.4 MPa; 1.082 kW; 25.8°C subcooling: (a) Comparison of predicted cross section average void with GDS measurement; (b) Predicted line-average void distribution in narrow dimension at different x/l (no GDS data available); (c) Comparison of predicted and local void in narrow dimension with HFA measurement at different x/l; and (d) Comparison of predicted and measured incremental pressure. Note that solid lines and symbols represent predictions and measurements, respectively. Boxed numbers represent x/l.
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison plots for Case 3: 532 kg/hr; 1.4 MPa; 2.647 kW; 3.6°C subcooling: (a) Comparison of predicted cross section average void fraction with GDS measurements; (b), (c) Comparison of predicted line-averaged void in y with GDS measurements; (d) Comparison of predicted local void distribution in y with HFA measurements; and (e) Comparison of predicted and measured incremental pressure drop. Solid lines and symbols represent predictions and measurements respectively. Boxed numbers represent x/l.
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison plots for Case 4: 532 kg/hr; 1.4 MPa; 5.062 kW; 3.6°C subcooling: (a) Comparison of predicted cross section average void fraction with GDS measurements; (b) and (c) Comparison of predicted line-averaged void in y with GDS measurements; and (d) Comparison of predicted and measured local void fraction using HFA. Solid lines and symbols represent predictions and measurement respectively. Boxed numbers represent x/l.
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison plots for Case 5: 266 kg/hr; 2.4 MPa; 2.964 kW; 7.0°C subcooling: (a) Comparison of predicted cross section average void fraction with GDS measurement; (b) and (c) Comparison of predicted average void distribution in narrow dimension with GDS measurement. Solid lines and symbols represent predictions and measurements respectively. Boxed numbers represent x/l.
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison plots for case 6: 532 kg/hr; 2.4 MPa; 5.722 kW; 2.1°C subcooling: (a) Comparison of predicted cross section average void fraction with GDS measurement; (b) and (c) Comparison of predicted average void distribution in narrow dimension with GDS measurement. Solid lines and symbols represent predictions and measurements respectively. Boxed numbers represent x/l.
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison Plots for case 7: 2128 kg/hr; 2.0 MPa; 20.034 kW; 5.4°C subcooling: (a) Comparison of predicted cross section average void with GDS measurement; (b) and (c) Comparison of predicted line-averaged void fraction with GDS measurement. Solid lines and symbols represent predictions and measurements respectively. Boxed numbers represent x/l.
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison plots for case 8: 1064 kg/hr; 1.7 MPa; 9.951 kW; 15.0°C subcooling: (a) Comparison of predicted cross section average void with GDS measurement; Plots (b) and (c) Comparison of predicted line-averaged void fraction with GDS measurement in y (thickness); (d) and (e) Comparison of predicted line-averaged void fraction with GDS measurements in width dimension; and (f ) Comparison of predicted and incremental pressure drop. Solid lines and symbols represent predictions and measurements, respectively. Boxed numbers represent x/l.
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison plots for case 9: 318 kg/hr; 2.4 MPa; 3.382 kW; 8.3°C subcooling: (a) Comparison of predicted cross section average void with GDS measurement; (b) Comparison of predicted line-averaged void fraction with GDS measurement in y (thickness); (c) and (d) Comparison of predicted line-averaged void fraction with GDS measurements in z (width); and (e) Comparison of predicted and incremental pressure drop. Solid lines and symbols represent predictions and measurements respectively. Boxed numbers represent x/l.
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison plots for case 10: 366 kg/hr; 2.4 MPa; 6.601 kW; 26.3°C subcooling: (a) Comparison of predicted cross section average void with GDS measurement; (b) and (c) Comparison of predicted line-averaged void fraction with GDS measurement in y (thickness); (d) and (e) Comparison of predicted line-averaged void fraction with GDS measurements in z (width); and (f ) Comparison of predicted and incremental pressure drop. Solid lines and symbols represent predictions and measurements respectively. Boxed numbers represent x/l.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In