Objectives

Experimentally obtain the critical heat flux for pool boiling (water) at various bulk temperatures and
compare the results with the predictions from an analytical correlation (Zuber’s correlation for
critical heat flux) for the same.

Theory
Boiling constitutes a phase transition from liquid to vapor and takes place at the interface of a solid
and liquid when the liquid comes into contact with a surface kept at a temperature, , notably
higher than the liquid's saturation temperature, . The significance of boiling lies in its efficacy in
transferring heat from a heated surface to a liquid. Nonetheless, the heat transfer dynamics, relative
to the temperature difference between the heating element and the liquid, exhibit a highly nonlinear
nature, influenced by the dynamics of the liquid-vapor interface formed at the surface of the heater.
Figure 3.1 depicts a general pool boiling curve, originally introduced by Shiro Nukiyama in 1934,
based on experiments similar to those conducted here. The X-axis represents the logarithmic scale of
the temperature difference between the liquid and the heater, while the Y-axis represents the heat
flux. Additionally, the flow boiling curve, where a relative flow velocity is maintained between the
liquid and the heater, is included for comparison.

As the heater temperature rises, the heat flux undergoes a sharp increase with a slight rise in ∆T,
reaching a peak, followed by a decline to a minimum heat flux. Beyond this, the heat flux steadily
increases in the ∆T range of approximately 100-1000 K. Notably, a ∆T of 1000 K is generally high
enough for most metals to melt, rendering further increases in ∆T practically irrelevant for
typical
2|Page
2|Page
liquid-heater combinations. The boiling curve is segmented into four key regimes, determined by the
heat flux and the dynamics of the bubble/liquid-vapor interface. These regimes, based on the boiling
curve, are natural convection, nucleate boiling, transitional boiling, and film boiling. At lower ∆T
values, natural convection dominates, where the liquid near the heater becomes superheated,
leading to bubble formation. Nucleate boiling takes over between points A and C on the boiling
diagram, marked by vapor bubbles forming at nucleation sites on the heater surface.

As ∆T increases, more nucleation sites become active, vapor bubbles grow, and they ascend to the
liquid surface. Beyond point B, vapor merges into larger pockets, reaching a peak at point C—the
critical heat flux (CHF) point. At this point, vapor cannot escape freely, inhibiting heat transfer.
Further ∆T increase leads to transitional boiling, where reduced heat transfer causes a rapid heater
temperature rise. Once the CHF point is surpassed, the system enters the film boiling regime,
characterized by a stable vapor layer covering the heater. Heat transfer diminishes significantly as
heat must traverse the vapor film rather than the liquid. In this regime, ∆T is around 1000 K,
causing
most metals, including Nichrome, to melt. The minimum heat flux point, point D, is typically achieved
in the reverse direction, starting at point E on the boiling diagram and gradually reducing the
temperature.

The peak heat flux at the Critical Heat Flux (CHF) point holds significant technical relevance. Despite
the considerable heat flux at this juncture, operating equipment in close proximity is perilous.
Exceeding this point in heat input can result in a sudden and detrimental temperature surge. Zuber
has proposed correlations for forecasting both the peak and minimum heat flux.. The correlation
for
peak heat flux ( ′′ , point C) and minimum heat flux ( ′′ , point D) in saturated pool boiling are
given as:

Where,
𝑞′′ = heat flux per unit volume
𝐶 = coefficient estimated 𝜋/24 by Zuber and adjusted to 0.131 for 𝑞̇𝑚𝑎𝑥 and 0.09 for 𝑞̇𝑚𝑖𝑛 based
on
experiments by Kutateladze and Berenson, respectively
𝜌𝑣 = density of vapor phase calculated at 𝑇𝑠𝑎𝑡 and 1 bar (0.6 𝑘𝑔 𝑚−3)
𝜌𝑙 = density of liquid phase calculated at 𝑇𝑠𝑎𝑡 and 1 bar (957.9 𝑘𝑔 𝑚−3)
𝜆 = latent heat of vaporization at 1 bar (2.257 𝑘𝐽 𝑘𝑔−1)
𝜎 = surface tension at 𝑇𝑠𝑎𝑡 (0.0589 𝑁 𝑚−1)

Experimental Set-Up And Specifications

Figure 3.2 depicts the schematic of the pool boiling arrangement, featuring a glass vessel (diameter:
200 mm, height: 100 mm) designed to contain distilled water. Positioned on an elevated platform, it
facilitates the imaging of the boiling process using a high-speed camera with forward-scatter
illumination from an LED panel. A thermocouple monitors the temperature of the water pool. The
Nichrome test wire is submerged adequately below the water surface to ensure clear visualization
of
3|Page
3|Page
vapor bubbles. Fig. 3.3 presents an image of the assembled setup, including the heater,
temperature control panel, and camera.

The setup incorporates two heaters: a 1 kW Nichrome coil heater (R1) for regulating the bulk water
temperature and the test Nichrome wire (R2). The test wire, measuring 0.2 mm in diameter and 100
mm in length, has its heat input controlled by adjusting the voltage across the wire. In contrast,
heater R1 maintains a constant power setting. The corresponding variation in the current flowing
through the wires is also monitored. The heat input to the wires adjusted for the efficiency provided
by the manufacturer (0.86) for a given voltage, and current is:

Procedure
This experimental setup is devised to investigate the pool boiling phenomenon up to the critical heat
flux point. The visualization of pool boiling over the Nichrome wire allows observation of different
regimes until reaching the critical heat flux point, beyond which the wire undergoes melting. The
heat input to the wire is systematically elevated by increasing the applied voltage, facilitating the
observation of the transition from convection to nucleate boiling during the experiments.

The visualization captures the formation and growth of bubbles, their increasing size and number,
followed by vigorous bubble formation, immediate ascent to the surface, and eventual wire
breakage, signifying the critical heat flux point. The experimentation is conducted at various water
temperatures within the container, up to the saturation temperature. The procedural steps for
the experiments are as follows:

1. Fill the glass container with approximately 3–4 liters of distilled water.

2. Submerge both the pool temperature control heater (R1, 1kW Nichrome coil) and the test
Nichrome wire heater, ensuring complete immersion and sufficient depth for observing bubble
formation and rising.

3. Establish the necessary electrical connections for the heaters.

4. Attain the desired pool water temperature (40–100°C) using the temperature control heater, R1.

5. Disconnect the temperature control heater (R1) and activate the test heater (R2).

6. Gradually increase the voltage of the test heater, documenting images of various boiling
regimes as the voltage rises.

7. Observe the temperature difference between the wire and the pool temperature increasing with
the gradual voltage increase. Beyond a critical temperature difference, the Nichrome wire melts.
Document the corresponding voltage setting for each investigated pool temperature and slowly
return the voltage to 0.

8. Repeat the experiment for different pool temperatures.

4 || P a g e
4
Experimental Data
Condition for test wire R2 to melt Calculated values
S No. Bulk Temp. of Ammeter Voltmeter

water (0C) Reading (A) Reading (V)

1. 40 22.4 24 7.35
2. 50 20.2 22 6.08
3. 60 12.7 13 2.25
4. 80 13.3 14 2.54

5. 100 14 15 2.87

Calculations
The heater setting for which the wire breaks is a condition beyond point C in the boiling curve, Fig.
3.1. The heat input per unit area to the Nichrome calculated as

Where, is the efficiency of the test heater setup provided by the manufacturer (0.86), and (=
0.2 ), (= 100 ) are the dimensions of the wire.

1. = 0 .86 × 22.4×24 = 7.35

π×0.2×100

2. = 0 .86 × 20.2 × 22 = 6.08

π×0.2×100

3. = 0 .86 × 12.7x13 = 2.25

π×0.2×100

4. = 0 .86 × 13.3 × 14 = 2.54

π×0.2×100

5. = 0 .86 × 14×15 = 2.87

π×0.2×100

Predicted Critical Heat Flux using Zuber’s correlation,

→ 𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥′′= 0.131 × 0.6 1/2 × 2.257 × (0.0589 × 9.8 × (957.9 − 0.6))1/4 = 1.11

5|Page
5|Page
Conclusions And Results
If the heat input exceeds the critical heat flux, ′′ , even by a slight margin, the heat transfer to the
water diminishes, causing an immediate rise in the heater temperature until the point at which
Nichrome melts. Consequently, the heater setting (and the corresponding ′′ ) at the moment the
heater wire breaks corresponds to ′′ . This value is then compared to the predicted critical heat
flux using Zuber’s correlation, which is 1.11 MW.

This value is much lesser than expected value, because the Zuber relation is for flat plate
heater, whereas cylindrical wire heater is being used here.

Regarding the pool temperature, the critical heat flux decreases as the water pool temperature
approaches , as illustrated in the graph.

We predict the heat flux at temperatures where reading was not taken, namely 70 and 90
degrees. From the graph(attached), we get the following trendline equation.

= 13.236 − 0.098x

Hence for 70 degrees Celsius, 5.376MW.

For 90 degrees Celsius, 3.416MW.

Precautions
1. Before commencing experiments, verify that the voltage controls for the heaters are set to zero.

2. Ensure the water container is filled with an ample amount of distilled water to adequately
immerse the heaters.

3. Securely connect the test heater wire across the studs.

4. Operate the variac with gentle increments, allowing sufficient time between steps.

5. Once the electrical connections are established and the heater is switched on, avoid touching
water or terminal points.

6. After reaching the critical heat flux condition, gradually decrease the voltage and return it to zero.

6
6 || P
P aa gg ee