Evaporation, Boiling, and Condensation

Pool Boiling Heat Transfer on the International Space Station: Experimental Results and Model Verification

[+] Author and Article Information
Rishi Raj1

Department of Mechanical Engineering,  University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

Jungho Kim2

Department of Mechanical Engineering,  University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742kimjh@umd.edu

John McQuillen

 NASA Glenn Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, Cleveland, OH 44135

The thermophysical properties of FC-72 are very similar to those of n-perfluorohexane. Detailed compositions of both fluids are given in Ref. [15].


Present address: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139.


Corresponding author.

J. Heat Transfer 134(10), 101504 (Aug 07, 2012) (14 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4006846 History: Received December 22, 2011; Revised April 30, 2012; Published August 06, 2012; Online August 07, 2012

The relatively poor understanding of gravity effects on pool boiling heat transfer can be attributed to the lack of long duration high-quality microgravity data, g-jitter associated with ground-based low gravity facilities, little data at intermediate gravity levels, and a poor understanding of the effect of important parameters even at earth gravity conditions. The results of over 200 pool boiling experiments with n-perfluorohexane as the test fluid performed aboard the International Space Station (ISS) are presented in this paper. A flat, transparent, constant temperature microheater array was used to perform experiments over a wide range of temperatures (55 °C < Tw  < 107.5 °C), pressures (0.58 atm < P < 1.86 atm), subcoolings (1 °C ≤ ΔTsub ≤ 26 °C), and heater sizes (4.2 mm ≤ Lh ≤ 7.0 mm). The boiling process was visualized from the side and bottom. Based on this high quality microgravity data (a/g<10−6 ), the recently reported gravity scaling parameter for heat flux, which was primarily based on parabolic flight experiments, was modified to account for these new results. The updated model accurately predicts the experimental microgravity data to within ±20%. The robustness of this framework in predicting low gravity heat transfer is further demonstrated by predicting many of the trends in the pool boiling literature that cannot be explained by any single model.

Copyright © 2012 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Heat flux versus acceleration at a given temperature T* using log–log coordinates

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

The dependence of jump on (a) Marangoni number, (b) heater size, and (c) subcooling heat

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

BXF mounted in MSG with transparent CV (inset: view inside the boiling chamber housing the two microheater arrays)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

BXF flow schematic [10]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Image of the 7.0 mm microheater array

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

The MABE feedback circuit

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

The raw heat flux (left) and the actual boiling heat flux (right) after data reduction for a single heater (# 32, top) and area averaged of 96 heaters (bottom) during a sample earth gravity experiment

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Microgravity acceleration values in MSG over a 40 h period

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Experimental earth gravity and microgravity pool boiling curves along with the microgravity predictions assuming mSDB  = 0 (test no 1–4, test fluid is n-perfluorohexane)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Experimental earth gravity and microgravity pool boiling curves along with the microgravity predictions assuming mSDB  = 0 (test no 5–7, test fluid is n-perfluorohexane)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Comparison of the experimental data and predicted heat flux values in the SDB regime using (a) Eq. 6 and (b) Eq. 11

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Comparison of the numerical simulation [19] and the current scaling law in predicting microgravity heat transfer of Qui [20]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Normalized CHF versus acceleration for different fluids and microgravity levels [21-22]

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

CHF for finite bodies (a) Lienhard and Dhir [23], (b) Ded and Lienhard [25], and (c) the current study




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