International Journal of Thermal Sciences 192 (2023) 108413

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Thermal Sciences

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

Experimental analysis of heat transfer characteristics of static water pool

under low pressure vaporization
Sarvjeet Singh, Prodyut R. Chakraborty, Hardik B. Kothadia ∗
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Jodhpur, 342030, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Low pressure vaporization (LPV) is considered a promising method for rapid cooling and a significant rate
Evaporation of water vaporization. This article presents an experimental investigation for the detailed heat and mass
Superheat characterization of a static water pool exposed to low pressure conditions. An LPV experimental setup has
Low pressure
been fabricated in the lab to investigate the effect of process parameters like initial temperature (𝑇𝑤,0 ), initial
Desalination
vacuum tank pressure (𝑃𝑣,0 ), and the water pool height (𝐻𝑤,0 ) on the non-equilibrium fraction (NEF) and heat
Volumetric heat transfer
transfer coefficient (ℎ𝑣 ). Results shows that NEF initially increased to a high value and then tediously dropped.
The final value of NEF decreased with decreasing the initial vacuum tank pressure and initial water pool height
inside the flash chamber. A maximum value of the ℎ𝑣 existed with the rise of the degree of superheat (𝛥𝑇 ) of
liquid. It is found that with an increase of the degree of superheat by 13.44 ◦ C, the value of ℎ𝑣 is enhanced
by 67%, and the NEF decreased by 46.7%, respectively.

1. Introduction reactors may experience flash evaporation, which could result in a

reactor’s core cooling system failing [16]. Cai et al. [17] studied the
Techniques for high heat transfer are increasingly required in the flash evaporation related to pipe leakage by performing experiments.
research sector as well as in non-conventional industrial applications High pressure and high temperature conditions were used during the
such as refrigeration and freezing, solar energy concentration, nuclear experiment, along with a slow spray rate. Higher Jakob number and
power plants, temperature monitoring in spaceflight and aviation, and Weber number leads to higher evaporation rates. The design of steam
all kinds of energy conversion systems [1–4]. Some of these methods
generators, containment of liquefied gases, desalination equipment,
are based on the phenomenon of liquid to vapour phase change [5,6].
boilers, refrigeration, and heat exchangers benefit from a detailed
The low pressure vaporization (LPV) is a phenomenon of fast phase
knowledge of physics underlying phase change [18–20].
change due to a sudden pressure drop inside an airtight enclosure. It
includes both boiling and evaporation phenomena [7,8]. Low pressure Many researchers have extensively investigated the LPV of pool
vaporization produces high vaporization rates as well as an immediate and film. Miyatake et al. [21,22] studied the physics behind the phe-
cooling impact as it progresses continuously and reaches the boiling nomenon of low pressure vaporization. They called the LPV with the
point. It is regarded as the optimal thermal management solution when name flash evaporation. They introduced two important parameters
quick cooling is required at the cost of loss of coolant mass due to the to characterize the LPV phenomenon, which was a non-equilibrium
evaporation process. During LPV, the surplus energy cannot be stored temperature difference (NETD) and NEF. Two different forms of phase
in the liquid itself, and sensible energy is transformed into the heat of transition processes brought on by a decrease in pressure at the vapour–
vaporization. liquid interface are surface evaporation and flashing. A highly hetero-
The LPV is suitable for a wide range of applications due to its signifi- geneous temperature profile of subcooled, saturated, and superheated
cant performance on heat and mass transfer, industrial applications like liquid is created by the liquid as a result of the flashing phenomena,
fast cooling of hot parts [9,10], steam generation, desalination [11], which is initially more violent at the surface [23].
ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) [12], wine manufacturing
Saury et al. [24] studied the effect of depressurization on the water
industries for cooling of grapes [13], separation and paper sheet dry-
film with initial temperature ranges of 30 to 75 ◦ C and an initial
ing [14]. This rapid phenomenon has many useful uses in our daily
water film height of 15 mm. They proposed a relation between the
lives, but it has equally some drawbacks, like in a nuclear reactor,
superheat and evaporated mass from the energy balance. Gopalakrishna
where it may be a source of nuclear mishaps [15]. Nuclear power

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Singh), [email protected] (P.R. Chakraborty), [email protected] (H.B. Kothadia).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2023.108413
Received 21 December 2022; Received in revised form 7 April 2023; Accepted 5 May 2023
Available online 31 May 2023
1290-0729/© 2023 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
S. Singh et al. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 192 (2023) 108413

systems/applications like desalination, boilers, and heat exchangers.

Nomenclature Moreover, there is a scarcity of literature related to the combined
investigation of NEF and heat transfer coefficient to assess the phase
Variables change and heat transfer characteristics of low pressure vaporization
𝑞̇ 𝑤,𝑣 Evaporated mass flow rate, g∕s phenomenon [32–34]. To achieve precise control over both the tran-
sient heat/mass transfer characteristics of water pool flashing, a deeper
𝐴 Area of flash chamber, m2
understanding of their transient coupling relationship is necessary.
𝑐𝑝 , 𝑐𝑣 Specific heat of liquid, J∕kgK
This work presents a description of the low pressure vapourization
𝐷 Diameter of flash chamber, m system, experimental parameters, and characterization procedures. The
𝐻 Height of the liquid pool, m work specifically investigates the heat transfer characteristics of the
ℎ𝑓 𝑔 Latent heat of vaporization, J∕kg LPV of a static water pool. Furthermore, the evolution of NEF, water
ℎ𝑣 Volumetric heat transfer coefficient, bulk temperature, and mass vaporized for different initial conditions
kW∕m3 K are experimentally explored. The results cover a broad range of perfor-
𝑚 Mass of liquid, g mance parameters, including the volumetric heat transfer coefficient
𝑇 Temperature of liquid, ◦ C and the non-equilibrium fraction. Understanding the transient coolant
𝑡 time, s (as water) heat and mass transfer rates could help with the design and
𝑡𝑓 Flashing time, s ensure the accuracy of several computational models.
𝑡ℎ Thickness of flash chamber, m
2. Experimental work
𝑉 Volume of liquid, m3
𝑚𝑓𝑤,𝑣 Final evaporated mass, g 2.1. Experimental apparatus
𝑚𝑤,𝑣 Evaporated mass of liquid, g
𝑚𝑤,𝑣 (𝑡) Mass evaporated with time, g An experimental system is designed to perform the pool flashing
𝑃𝑓 Pressure of flash chamber, kPa experiments with water levels of 150 mm and 250 mm, an initial
𝑃𝑣 Pressure of vacuum tank(Back pressure), vacuum tank pressure ranging from 11.3 to 41.3 kPa, and an initial
kPa water temperature between 70 to 95 ◦ C. Water is chosen as the working
liquid in the current investigation. The experimental setup is presented
Greek symbols
in Fig. 1. It consists of a mild steel cylindrical flash chamber having a
𝛥𝑇 Degree of superheat, ◦ C 0.22 m internal diameter and 1 m height. The top face of the flash
𝜌𝑙 Density of liquid, kg∕m3 chamber is covered with a 0.03 m thick acrylic material plate for
𝜌𝑣 Density of vapour, kg∕m3 visualization purposes. An insulation cover is wrapped outside the flash
chamber to prevent thermal losses to the ambient. The flash chamber’s
Subscripts top is connected to a 500 L sealed vacuum tank by means of a well-
insulated 3 m pipe. A 2" brass ball valve is placed between the flash
0 initial condition
chamber and the vacuum tank to control the depressurization in the
𝑎 ambient
flash chamber. Two heating elements of each 3 kW are installed to
𝑒 equilibrium obtain the desired temperature. A gap of 0.1 m is provided between
𝑖 inner both the heating elements to obtain the temperature inside the chamber
𝑜 outer uniformly. A thermocouple comb is used inside the chamber to obtain
𝑠 saturation condition the water and vapour temperature variation. Analog pressure gauges
𝑣 vapour and digital transmitters are placed on the flash chamber and vacuum
𝑤 water tank to measure the absolute pressure change. Depressurization is
achieved inside the vacuum tank by using a liquid ring-type vacuum
Abbreviation pump, which has a capacity of 335 litres per minute (LPM) of free air
𝐿𝑃 𝑉 Low pressure vaporization displacement. A digital weighing machine with 1 g accuracy is used to
obtain the final evaporated mass after the completion of the process.
𝑁𝐸𝐹 non-equilibrium fraction
𝑁𝐸𝑇 𝐷 non-equilibrium temperature difference
2.2. Experimental instrumentation and procedure

All the measuring instruments are checked and calibrated before

use. Fig. 2 shows the dimensions of the flash chamber and thermocou-
et al. [25] examined the effect of NaCl concentration on the mass evap-
ple’s position. The transient temperature of the liquid is measured by
orated during the flashing. They performed experiments with aqueous
a ‘‘thermocouple comb’’. It is composed of a vertical hollow pipe on
NaCl having a concentration lies in the range from 0 to 0.035 (mass
which 14 unequally spaced thermocouples are placed. The stainless-
fraction). On the basis of experimental results, an empirical correlation steel sheathed thermocouple has a measuring range of 0 to 150 ◦ C and
has been proposed. Kim and Lior [26] studied the flashing phenomenon a diameter of 0.25 mm. One end of the thermocouple comb is fixed with
on static film having superheat between 2 and 7 K. They considered the top face of the flash chamber. All the thermocouples are mounted
pure water as a liquid medium for the experimental investigation and with close spacing to capture the temperature gradient of each layer
found some variation in the values of NEF evolution. The evaporation of the liquid. The pressure variation within the flash tank and vacuum
of liquid pool exposed at low pressure conditions has been investigated tank is quantified by a pressure transmitter, having range lies between
by other authors [27,28] and proposed relation between the different −50 and 120 kPa. Keithley/DAQ6510 data acquisition system (DAQ) is
parameters to obtain optimum link for industrial perspective. used to record the pressure and temperature during the experiment.
Literature addressing the heat transfer characteristics of the static Initially, the flash chamber is filled with a certain amount of water
pool during low pressure vaporization is very limited [29–31]. The to reach the desired height, i.e. 𝐻𝑤,0 = 150 mm and 250 mm. Then
available work is reported only on rectangular shape flash chambers. the water is heated up to the desired temperature with the help of
However, cylindrical shape equipment is mostly used in industrial installed heating elements. At the same time vacuum is obtained in

2
S. Singh et al. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 192 (2023) 108413

Fig. 1. Experimental system for low pressure vaporization.

the vacuum tank (𝑃𝑣,0 ) with the help of a vacuum pump. At this manner. The flashing process remains to continue until both tanks
moment, the pressure inside the flash chamber remains equal to the achieve equilibrium pressure. Liquid temperature is taken as the bulk
atmospheric pressure (𝑃𝑣,0 =101.3 kPa). After the preparation of all fluid temperature for the analysis. DAQ system record the variation of
the initial requirements, the valve is instantly opened and flashing temperature and pressure. Each experiment has been performed at least
starts. Due to this flash chamber pressure dropped in a very quick two times.

3
S. Singh et al. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 192 (2023) 108413

Fig. 2. Schematic of the flash chamber and thermocouples comb.

Table 1
Experimental ranges of main parameters and uncertainty analysis.
Parameter Symbol/units Instruments Experimental range Relative uncertainty (%)
Temperature 𝑇𝑤,0 (◦ C) K-type 70–95 0.5
Vacuum tank pressure 𝑃𝑣,0 (kPa)(𝑎𝑏𝑠.) Rosemount 3051C 11.3–41.3 0.12
Volumetric heat transfer coefficient ℎ𝑣 (kWm−3 K −1 ) – – 0.13
NEF – – – 1.08

2.3. Experimental uncertainty 3.2. Degree of superheat

The uncertainty analysis for all parameters that are measured di- Superheat is defined as the difference between the initial liquid
rectly and indirectly and the experimental ranges for the key parame-
temperature and the equilibrium temperature. It is the driving force for
ters are provided in Table 1. Moffat’s approach is used to evaluate the
the LPV phenomenon. The equilibrium temperature is the saturation
uncertainty [35].
temperature corresponding to the equilibrium pressure in the flash
3. Performance characteristics chamber when both tanks come into equilibrium with each other.

𝛥𝑇 = 𝑇𝑤,0 − 𝑇𝑤,𝑒 (2)

The performance parameters investigated in this work are summa-
rized briefly below. Where, 𝑇𝑤,𝑒 = 𝑇𝑤,𝑠 (𝑃𝑒 )
3.1. Determination of water vaporized
3.3. Non-equilibrium fraction (NEF)
The amount of water vaporized at each instant is simply evaluated
by using energy balance and further verified by measuring the differ- NEF is a non-dimensional parameter. It was proposed by Miyatake
ence between the initial and the final amount of liquid bulk in the et al. [21,22] as Eq. (3). It is used to measure the completion of the
flash chamber after the process. The flashing chamber wall is assumed LPV process. NEF value shows how well liquid excess thermal energy
to be fully adiabatic thus there are deemed negligible heat exchanges has transformed into latent heat of evaporation after the low pressure
taken with the outside environment. The total energy released due to
vaporization process has finished. A low value of NEF indicates that
the rapid temperature drop is fully utilized to vaporize the water. The
more water vapour has been created and more energy has been trans-
physical properties of the liquid like 𝑐𝑝 , 𝜌𝑤 , and ℎ𝑓 𝑔 are taken on the
ferred to the latent heat of evaporation. This number also characterized
basis of the function of pressure and liquid temperature respectively.
On the basis of all the assumptions, the mass of water vaporized at one the temperature change during the flashing/LPV phenomenon.
moment 𝑡, we can write the energy balance equation as 𝑇𝑤 (𝑡) − 𝑇𝑤,𝑒 𝑇𝑤 (𝑡) − 𝑇𝑤,𝑒
𝑁𝐸𝐹 (𝑡) = = (3)
𝑚𝑤 (𝑡)𝑐𝑝 ( ) 𝑇𝑤,0 − 𝑇𝑤,𝑒 𝛥𝑇
𝑚𝑤,𝑣 (𝑡) = 𝑇𝑤 (𝑡 − 𝛿𝑡) − 𝑇𝑤 (𝑡) + 𝑚𝑤,𝑣 (𝑡 − 𝛿𝑡) (1)
ℎ𝑓 𝑔
Here 𝑚𝑤,𝑣 (𝑡) = 𝑉𝑤,0 𝜌𝑤 3.4. Volumetric heat transfer coefficient
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) [36]
data is used as the source of the thermophysical properties utilized in Since there is a heat and phase change taking place during the
this investigation. flashing, the volumetric heat transfer coefficient can be expressed

4
S. Singh et al. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 192 (2023) 108413

as [37]:
𝑚𝑤,𝑣 ℎ𝑓 𝑔
ℎ𝑣 = (4)
𝛥𝑇 × 𝑡𝑓
Further, the equation is simplified as Eq. (5), suggesting that ℎ𝑣 is a
transient function.
1 − 𝑁𝐸𝐹 (𝑡)
ℎ𝑣 = 𝜌𝑐𝑃 (5)
𝑡𝑓

4. Results and discussion

This work presents an experimental investigation of the LPV of the

static water pool. Experiments were carried out for a water pool’s initial
heights (𝐻𝑤,0 ) = 150 mm, and 250 mm, with initial temperatures of
the water pool ranging between 70 and 95 ◦ C. The initial pressures
of the vacuum tank are taken as 11.3, 21.3 31.3 and 41.3 kPa, which
corresponds to superheat from 8 to 48 ◦ C. The primary objective of
this work is to analyse the heat transfer characteristics and temperature
variation during LPV of a static water pool. This work also explored
the effects of various experimental parameters, namely initial pool
temperature (𝑇𝑤,0 ), initial back pressure (𝑃𝑣,0 ), degree of superheat
(𝛥𝑇 ), and initial pool height (𝐻𝑤,0 ) on characteristics of LPV.

4.1. Repeatability and key parameters

This section includes the repeatability and introduction to the key

parameters of low pressure vaporization. Fig. 3(a) shows the two
temperature curves under low pressure conditions at an initial water
temperature of 85 ◦ C and water height of 150 mm with a vacuum tank
initial pressure of 11.3 kPa. These two curves were selected randomly
and perfectly suited to the whole time zone. Results demonstrate that
this experiment system data has good repeatability and is authentic.
Further, the evolution of liquid temperature and the saturation temper-
ature corresponding to the flash chamber pressure with time is shown
in Fig. 3(b) for the cases with a pool initial temperature is 85 ◦ C and
initial back pressure of 21.3 kPa. Miyatake et al. [21] defined superheat
(𝛥𝑇 ) as the temperature difference of the initial water pool (𝑇𝑤,0 ) and
the saturation (𝑇𝑠 ) under the flash chamber’s final equilibrium pressure
(𝑃𝑓 ). Superheat represented the total unstable energy contained in the
water pool phenomenon. NETD (non-equilibrium temperature differ-
ence) shown in Fig. 3(b) represents the difference in temperature of
the water pool and the saturation temperature of the flash chamber.
NETD can be estimated using the given equation:

NETD = 𝑇𝑤 (𝑡) − 𝑇𝑠 (𝑃𝑓 ) (6)

Non-equilibrium fraction (NEF) is calculated using Eq. (3). Fig. 3(c)

demonstrates a NEF curve that changes over time. In the initial stages of
depressurization, NEF decreases exponentially with time. Afterwards,
it remains constant. An extremely steep slope is shown in the graph,
proceeded by a more gradual one. ‘‘Flash time’’ results from the meet-
ing of these two slopes. In this time duration maximum of the heat
and mass transfer is anticipated to be accomplished. There are two
stages of the static pool flash process: rapid evaporation stage and the
gradual evaporation stage, which are divided on the basis of this flash
time [34].

4.2. Evolution of experimental parameters Fig. 3. Repeatability and variation of the process key parameters.

Low pressure vaporization/flashing is an unstable evaporation pro-

cess in which both flash chamber pressure (𝑃𝑓 ) and water pool tem-
liquid in the chamber. The pressure inside the vacuum tank is si-
perature (𝑇𝑤 ) quickly decay with time. Fig. 4 portrays the change of
multaneously disrupted as the air extracted from the flash chamber
different experimental parameters, i.e. pressure and superheat during
the LPV process. Fig. 4(a–c) illustrates that when the connection be- moves towards the vacuum tank(Fig. 4(b)). After some time of flash-
tween both tanks is suddenly established, the pressure in the flash ing process, both the tanks shifted towards the pressure equilibrium
chamber immediately drops (Fig. 4(a)). The pressure inside the flash zone, and the process ceased (Fig. 4(c)). At a lower value of initial
chamber achieved a new state below than saturation state of the back pressure (𝑃𝑣,0 =11.3 kPa), a higher depressurization occurs in the

5
S. Singh et al. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 192 (2023) 108413

Fig. 4. Variation of experimental parameters during LPV.

flash chamber [38]. Large depressurization promotes vaporization and initial water height results in an increase in the volume of water. Thus
temperature drop. at the same condition, the same degree of superheat takes place for
The evolution of the degree of the superheat (𝛥𝑇 ) of the liquid both cases, and less volume of water easily gets vaporized and results
with time is drawn in Fig. 4(d) at a different initial temperature of in a rapid temperature drop. This effect becomes more significant as
the water pool. In the flash process, the liquid’s superheat degree is the initial temperature of the water rises. It can be explained on the
approximately stated as Eq. (2). The pressure variation in the flashing basis of Fig. 5(a). It is seen from the graph that at a constant initial
chamber serves as a control for the degree of superheat. The larger back pressure of 11.3 kPa and an initial water pool height of 150 mm,
drop in pressure boosts the superheat value, which promotes the rapid the drop of liquid temperature is 20 ◦ C with an initial temperature
temperature drop and evaporation of water. As the LPV proceeds, the of 95 ◦ C. In contrast, the temperature drop is 17.8 ◦ C and 16.5 ◦ C
pressure differential in between the tanks gradually reduces and, to obtained with an initial temperature of 85 ◦ C and 70 ◦ C, respectively.
some extent, an equilibrium pressure is reached. Superheat reduces This is because a higher value of the initial water pool temperature
with time while flashing and then stabilizes. It can be concluded here and higher depressurization results in high liquid superheats. It induces
that low initial back pressure and higher initial water pool temperature more intense motion of the liquid molecules. The evaporation process
are favourable conditions for improved flashing. in this period takes away a large amount of latent heat, leading to a
more rapid temperature drop. The same sequence of temperature drop
4.3. Evolution of water pool temperature is also obtained in other cases Fig. 5(b, c, & d). For other experiments
with different initial back pressure (𝑃𝑣,0 =21.3, 31.3, and 41.3 kPa),
For an initial water height (𝐻𝑤,0 ) of 150 mm and 250 mm, Fig. 5 the same fashion of temperature curves is obtained. Also, Fig. 5(c)
depicts the temperature distributions of bulk fluid in the flash chamber indicates, at the same initial back pressure of 31.3 kPa and initial
using a thermocouple comb. In Fig. 5(a–d), the impact of initial param- liquid temperature of 95 ◦ C, the temperature decline of the liquid is
eters on the water pool temperature is discussed. As Fig. 5(a) indicates, 20.5 ◦ C with an initial water pool height of 150 mm, while the decline
the variation of the water pool temperature with two different initial is 16 ◦ C with an initial water pool height of 250 mm. Although the
water pool heights and three different initial water pool temperatures final equilibrium temperatures are nearly comparable, the equilibrium
at constant initial back pressure (𝑃𝑣,0 = 11.3 kPa). It can be noticed that temperature is reached in a different period of time. Thus, as Augusto
the lesser the initial height of the water pool, the faster the temperature et al. [8] also state, lesser water pool height and higher water pool
drop takes place. It is attributed to the fact that with an increase in temperature lead to a sharp temperature drop.

6
S. Singh et al. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 192 (2023) 108413

Fig. 5. Water temperature evolution for several initial vacuum tank pressures and two different initial water heights 𝐻𝑤,𝑜 = 150 mm and 250 mm.

From Fig. 5(b & d), Under the same initial water pool temperature 𝑇𝑤,0 and 𝑃𝑣,0 on flash evaporation to understand flash evaporation
of 85 ◦ C and same initial water pool height of 150 mm but different better and develop flashing control technologies. Fig. 6 shows the
initial back pressure. The temperature drop of 17.4 ◦ C takes place with evaporated mass and evaporated mass flow rate of the vapours at three
an initial vacuum tank pressure of 21.3 kPa while the drop is 11.2 ◦ C different initial water temperatures and 𝑃𝑣,0 = 31.3 kPa. The variation
is obtained with an initial vacuum tank pressure of 41.3 kPa. This is of evaporated mass with time in Fig. 6 is calculated by the relation
because a lesser value of initial back pressure induces a larger vacuum proposed by Saury et al. [32].
inside the flash chamber. This depressurization results in a higher ( )
⎡ 𝑐𝑝 ⎤
superheat degree which results in an intense vaporization phenomenon. ⎢ 1 + 𝑇 ⎥
ℎ𝑓 𝑔
In addition, the vaporization process absorbs more latent heat, and ⎢
𝑚𝑤,𝑣 (𝑡) = 𝜌𝑙 𝐴𝐻𝑤,0 1 − ( ) ⎥ (7)
the temperature of water drops sharply. This is due to the fact that ⎢ 𝑐𝑝 ⎥
⎢ 1+ ℎ 𝑇𝑤,0 ⎥
flash chamber pressure quickly drops at the rapid evaporation stage, ⎣ 𝑓𝑔 ⎦
which causes violent phase change on the water’s surface that hastens
the evaporation. The abrupt drop in the liquid’s surface temperature From Fig. 6(a & b), it is evident that the mass evaporated by the
creates a significant internal disruption that drives a strong heat trans- flashing increased rapidly with time and become almost linear after
fer process. Because of this disruption, the internal temperature of the a while. It is also seen in Fig. 6(a) when other conditions are fixed,
water also drops rapidly. When the pressure of both the tanks has come a higher water pool temperature induces a larger evaporated mass as
to equilibrium at this time, the water surface and interior temperature compared to other temperatures. It is due to the larger superheat in
progressively inclines to ambient temperature as a result of convective the water. The same trend of the mass evaporated is observed for other
heat transfer with the surrounding environment. The characteristics of initial vacuum tank pressures 𝑃𝑣,0 = 11.3, 21.3 & 41.3 kPa. In order to
temperature drop during depressurization becomes more emphasized as check the impact of height on the mass evaporated, experiments with
the degree of superheat (𝛥𝑇 ) and initial temperature (𝑇𝑤,0 ) increases. the same conditions as for Fig. 6(a) at 𝑇𝑤,0 = 95 ◦ C compared with the
results of Fig. 6(b) at 𝑇𝑤,0 = 95 ◦ C. The result indicated that at a higher
4.4. Mass evaporated and mass flow rate initial height of the water pool larger value of the final mass of vapours
was obtained. It is clear from Fig. 6(a & b) with the increase of initial
The mass evaporation of water and the mass flow rate can vary height of the water pool by 100 mm, the evaporated mass of the vapour
depending on the demand. It is crucial to investigate the effects of enhanced by 26.3%. The final evaporated mass (𝑚𝑓𝑤,𝑣 ) is found to be a

7
S. Singh et al. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 192 (2023) 108413

Fig. 6. Evolution of evaporated mas and mass flow rate for several initial temperatures of the pool at 𝑃𝑣,0 = 31.3 kPa and two different initial water heights 𝐻𝑤,𝑜 = 150 and
250 mm.

rising function of the height of the water pool within the flash chamber. seen in the figure that a lesser initial pool temperature and a large value
Saury et al. [24] also noted the influence of initial water pool height of back pressure results in a small amount of vapour production. From
ranging between (25 mm and 250 mm) at 𝑃𝑣,0 = 50 mbar and stated that the figure, it is concluded that the final evaporated mass is a decreasing
final evaporated mass is an increasing function of initial water level. function of the initial back pressure and an increasing function of the
This is due to the fact that rising water pool height results in a rise initial pool temperature. The value of final evaporated mass at data
in the initial mass of water inside the flash chamber. Thus the energy point (𝑇𝑤,0 =70 ◦ C & 𝑃𝑣,0 =41.3 kPa), is nearly zero. It is due to operating
stored in the water pool in the form of sensible also gets increased. On conditions are quite less which result into a negligible evaporated mass
depressurization, this energy will get converted into the latent heat and and tends to remain unchanged.
consequently, the growth of vapours takes place. ‘‘𝑞̇ 𝑤,𝑣 ’’ is the mass flow In order to further explore the influence of experimental parameters,
rate of vapours obtained by adopting the relation proposed by Saury the evolution of 𝑃𝑓 , 𝑚𝑤,𝑣 , and 𝑇 (𝑡) are compared in Fig. 8. The evolution
et al. [32]. of parameters is shown for two different values of initial water pool
[ ] height and initial back pressure with constant initial water pool temper-
𝑑𝑚𝑤,𝑣 (𝑐𝑝 ∕ℎ𝑓 𝑔 ) 𝑑𝑇
𝑞̇ 𝑤,𝑣 = = −𝜌𝑙 𝐴𝐻𝑤,0 (8) ature. Fig. 8(a–d). shows that during low pressure exposure of a static
𝑑𝑡 1 + (𝑐𝑝 ∕ℎ𝑓 𝑔 )𝑇𝑤,0 𝑑𝑡
water pool, the rapid pressure drop takes place in the flash chamber and
Fig. 6(c & d) portrays the variation of the evaporated mass flow rate increases both the rate of vapour generation and superheat of liquid. As
at two different initial pool heights and constant initial vacuum tank time passes, the pressure inside the flash tank attains the equilibrium
pressure. A huge number of vapours are produced in the rapid evapo- state which results in decreases of superheat of the liquid and slows
ration stage. This is due to the fact that with the period the pressure the rate of vapour generation. Fig. 8(a & b)indicates the impact of
gap decreases between the vacuum tank and flash chamber, resulting in the initial condition of water pool height on the variation of 𝑃𝑓 , 𝑚𝑤,𝑣 ,
a decrement in the liquid superheat degree which is the primary cause and 𝑇 (𝑡) with time. The initial mass of water increases as the water
of this rapid phase change process. From Fig. 6(c & d), it is clear that a pool height rises and consequently increases the energy supplied as
high mass flow rate takes place in the case of higher initial pool height sensible energy. Thus higher energy conversion takes more flash time,
and high initial pool temperature. Fig. 7(a & b) plots the relationship and higher vapour generation takes place. Fig. 8(a & b) also shows that
between the final evaporated mass with initial back pressure (𝑃𝑣,0 ) and a high temperature drops and higher vapour generation takes place in
initial water pool temperature (𝑇𝑤,0 ). The water mass evaporated for a the case of lower water pool height. This is because the pressure drop in
period of 600 s is taken as the final evaporated mass in this study. It is the flash chamber regulates the amount of superheat that is accessible

8
S. Singh et al. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 192 (2023) 108413

Fig. 7. Evolution of final evaporated mass vs initial pressure and initial temperature.

Fig. 8. Evolution of temperatures, mass evaporated and flash chamber pressure, when the initial temperature 𝑇𝑤,0 is 95 ◦ C and two different initial water heights 𝐻𝑤,𝑜 = 150 and
250 mm.

and accelerates the production of steam. Fig. 8(a & c) also considers the because the driving potential of the flashing phenomena is the pressure
effect of initial back pressure with other fixed conditions of temperature difference between the vacuum tank and the flash chamber. A lesser
and water pool height. It is clear from the figures that at the lesser value of vacuum tank/back pressure (absolute 𝑃𝑣,0 =21.3 kPa) creates
value of initial back pressure, the pressure inside the flash chamber more pressure difference between the tank and the chamber. This
decreases dramatically. This drop in pressure results in an increase in results in a dramatical drop in the flash chamber pressure. Lesser initial
the superheat which results in a severe and violent phenomenon. This is back pressure indicates more depressurization. Thus, more will be the

9
S. Singh et al. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 192 (2023) 108413

Fig. 9. Variation of NEF with time for different pressures and different water initial pool heights.

pressure drop in the flash chamber and faster the equilibrium will quickly in an exponential manner and reaches a lower equilibrium
achieve [27,34,38]. The rate of evaporation increases which induces value at last. As shown in Fig. 9(a & c), when the degree of superheat
the rate of vapour generation and faster temperature drop. is low, as in a static water pool, high temperature water exits the flash
chamber as less sensible energy is converted into latent energy. But
4.5. Non-equilibrium fraction (NEF) evolution With rising superheat, the rapid flash evaporation duration is extended,
and NEF falls to a low equilibrium value. Thus the degree of static flash
NEF is taken as a dimensionless parameter to evaluate the com- evaporation’s completeness can be enhanced by increased superheat.
pletion degree of flash evaporation [21] and defined as the ratio of Fig. 9(a & b) indicates the evolution of NEF vs. time at different
residual theoretical temperature drop of water pool at any given time initial water pool heights. Here, it is evident that the rapid evaporation
to its superheat (Eq. (3)). NEF represents the change in temperature stage would last longer as height increases. NEF gradually diminishes
during the flashing phenomenon. In other words, the value of NEF until it achieves a high equilibrium value. It is attributed to the fact
shows how well liquid extra thermal energy is changed into latent that an increase in initial water pool height can increase hydrostatic
energy of evaporation after the flash evaporation process has ended. head which suppresses the flash evaporation and weakens the liquid
Comparison of NEF evolution under different superheats (𝛥T), initial superheat. Fig. 9(b & d) portrays the effect of back pressure on the
water pool heights (𝐻𝑤,0 ), initial water pool temperature (𝑇𝑤,0 ), and evolution of NEF; it is reported that with the increase in the value
initial back pressure (𝑃𝑣,0 ) are presented in Fig. 9(a–d). The NEF curves of initial back pressure of the vacuum tank a higher value of NEF is
in Fig. 9 shows the variation of NEF with time and in all the cases obtained which results in incomplete flashing. It is concluded from the
exponential decay of NEF with time obtained. NEF significantly varies results of Fig. 9(a–d) that higher (𝛥T), lower (𝐻𝑤,0 ) and lower (𝑃𝑣,0 )
for smaller superheats, and negative values are sometimes attained. can make the flashing process faster and more thoroughly.
This is because, after a significant period of time, the liquid temperature
begins to fluctuate gradually around its equilibrium value (𝑇𝑒 ). This is 4.6. Variation of heat transfer coefficient
described by the process of boiling, which influences the flash cham-
ber’s temperature values significantly. Fig. 9(a) illustrates the variation Low pressure vaporization is considered as the volumetric heat
of NEF vs time at different degrees of superheat. NEF decays more transfer process. Volumetric heat transfer coefficient (ℎ𝑣 ) is expressed

10
S. Singh et al. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 192 (2023) 108413

Fig. 10. Evolution of ℎ𝑣 versus time for different pressures and different initial water pool heights.

as Eq. (4) and is defined as the average heat flux released from the height of 250 mm. Thus with the increase of initial water pool height
unit volume of the water pool under unit superheat [37]. The equation by 66.6%, the heat transfer coefficient is reduced by 43.8%. Graphs
is further simplified to obtain the heat transfer coefficient as time- in Fig. 10(a & c) shows the variation of ℎ𝑣 vs time at different initial
dependent function in the form of NEF as Eq. (5). In the equation, back pressures. It is clear that the heat transfer coefficient is high with
𝑡𝑓 is the flashing time, i.e. 100 s, and according to it, ℎ𝑣 may be a small value of initial back pressure. This can be explained on the
computed using the experimental results. By using this relation, the
basis of superheat; less value of pressure creates a high depressurization
intensity of volumetric heat transfer for low pressure vaporization
inside the flash chamber. So the water became more turbulent and
can be measured. Variations of ℎ𝑣 vs time at different experimental
more violent resulting in a more amount of energy in the sensible form
parameters are presented in Fig. 10(a–d). The graphs suggest that ℎ𝑣
immediately increases to a peak value as the flashing time increases changed to the latent heat of vaporization and high heat transfer was
and afterwards drops gradually. ℎ𝑣 increases when 𝛥T is increased. As obtained. Regarding Fig. 10(a & c), it is shown that at the same initial
shown in Fig. 10(a), under the same 𝐻𝑤,0 , ℎ𝑣 rise with the increase of water pool height of 150 mm, the volumetric heat transfer coefficient
𝛥T. This is due to the fact that as superheat is large, corresponding to a obtained after 100 s is 25.79 kWm−3 K −1 with the degree of superheat
static water pool, the presence of vortexes extends the hot water’s time of 37.32 ◦ C, while the coefficient is 15.40 kWm−3 K −1 with the degree
in the flash chamber. Thus, flash evaporation is intensified further, and of superheat of 23.88 ◦ C. Thus with the rise of the degree of superheat
greater heat transfer occurs. by 56.28%, the heat transfer coefficient is enhanced by 67%. Fig. 10(b
Variations of ℎ𝑣 vs. time at different water pool heights are pre- & d) portrays the comparison of the effect of initial back pressure on
sented in Fig. 10(a & b) at the same conditions of initial back pressure
the heat transfer during constant water pool height (𝐻𝑤,0 = 250 mm),
and liquid superheat. The heat transfer coefficient increases with de-
and it is seen that heat transfer is improved at a low value of back
creasing water pool height. It is due to the reason that a high water
pressure which means a high vacuum created in the flash chamber. It
pool height conquers the superheat of the water at the bottom of the
flash chamber. This hinders flash evaporation and alters the value is attributed to the fact that at high depressurization, a higher value
of ℎ𝑣 . As Fig. 10(a & b) portrays, at the same initial pressure of of superheats existed, which promotes the flashing process. For the
11.3 kPa, the volumetric heat transfer coefficient obtained after 100 s experiments with (𝑃𝑣,0 =31.3 kPa and 41.3 kPa), NEF and volumetric
is 40.16 kWm−3 K −1 with the water pool initial height of 150 mm, heat transfer coefficient profiles are similar to those presented in Figs. 9
while the coefficient is 22.55 kWm−3 K −1 with the initial water pool and 10.

11
S. Singh et al. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 192 (2023) 108413

5. Conclusion References

[1] M.S. El-Genk, J.-M.P. Tournier, Analyses of static energy conversion systems for
This paper presents an experimental investigation of the heat trans-
small nuclear power plants, Prog. Nucl. Energy 42 (3) (2003) 283–310.
fer characteristics of static water pools under low pressure condi- [2] J. Pacio, C. Singer, T. Wetzel, R. Uhlig, Thermodynamic evaluation of liquid
tions. The experiments are performed under different initial water pool metals as heat transfer fluids in concentrated solar power plants, Appl. Therm.
heights (𝐻𝑤,0 ), the initial temperature of the water pool (𝑇𝑤,0 ) and Eng. 60 (1–2) (2013) 295–302.
[3] P. Patel, A. Sharma, A.D. Monde, M. Sharma, B. Mondal, H.B. Kothadia,
the initial back pressure (𝑃𝑣,0 ). The conclusions associated with this
Performance analysis of melting phenomena in an ice-freezing type direct-contact
investigation are as follows: heat exchanger, J. Energy Storage 50 (2022) 104575.
[4] G. Guo, C. Zhu, A modified lumped heat capacity model for droplet flash cooling,
1. The smaller the initial vacuum tank pressure and initial height Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 127 (2021) 105557.
of the water pool, the faster the temperature drop takes place. [5] Y.A. Cengel, A. Ghajar, Heat and Mass Transfer (A Practical Approach, si
2. Vapours are produced as a result of liquid superheat, which Version), 671, McGraw-670 Hill Education, 2011, p. 52.
[6] S. Singh, M. Singhal, R.K. Singla, Inverse problem to retrieve heat flux and
is controlled by pressure drop inside the flash chamber. Lesser
heat transfer coefficient for a solid pin fin, in: Proceedings of the 25th
value of initial back pressure induces a large pressure drop. National and 3rd International ISHMT-ASTFE Heat and Mass Transfer Conference
3. The amount of vapours generated by low pressure vapourization (IHMTC-2019), Begel House Inc., 2019.
phenomenon is found to be an increasing function of initial [7] C. Augusto, J. Ribeiro, A. Gaspar, J. Costa, Experimental study of the low-
pressure-vaporization of water in different porous media, Int. J. Heat Mass
water pool temperature (𝑇𝑤,0 ) and initial water pool height
Transfer 65 (2013) 561–571.
(𝐻𝑤,0 ). [8] C. Augusto, J. Ribeiro, A. Gaspar, J. Costa, Low-pressure-vaporization of free
4. NEF is utilized to assess the level of completion of the flashing water–characterization of the boiling regimes, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 77 (2014)
phenomenon. In the beginning, NEF reached a higher value, 19–26.
[9] I. Aoki, Water flash evaporation under low pressure conditions, in: Previews of
after which it fell as the flashing time passed. Result suggests Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol. 6, (21) 1995, p. 518.
that NEF decreases when the degree of superheats increases. The [10] I. Aoki, Analysis of characteristics of water flash evaporation under low-pressure
value of NEF rises when the initial back pressure and initial conditions, in: Heat Transfer—Asian Research: Co-Sponsored By the Society of
water pool height are elevated. Chemical Engineers of Japan and the Heat Transfer Division of ASME, Vol. 29,
(1) Wiley Online Library, 2000, pp. 22–33.
5. Volumetric heat transfer coefficient (ℎ𝑣 ) has been introduced [11] S.-H. Choi, Thermal type seawater desalination with barometric vacuum and
to assess the heat transfer characteristics during low pressure solar energy, Energy 141 (2017) 1332–1349.
vaporization. Result suggests that as the initial water pool height [12] U. Desideri, G. Bidini, Study of possible optimisation criteria for geothermal
and initial vacuum tank pressure increase, ℎ𝑣 drops. It also shows power plants, Energy Convers. Manage. 38 (15–17) (1997) 1681–1691.
[13] P. Sebastian, J.P. Nadeau, Experiments and modeling of falling jet flash
a larger descending trend at higher superheat values. The value evaporators for vintage treatment, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 41 (3) (2002) 269–280.
heat transfer coefficient is reduced by 17.61 kWm−3 K −1 with the [14] A. Woods, F. Bloom, D. Orloff, Modeling of flash evaporation I: Formulation of
increase of initial water pool height by 100 mm. the mathematical model, Math. Comput. Modelling 32 (10) (2000) 1153–1169.
The contribution of current experimental work will be useful for [15] A. Mansour, N. Müller, A review of flash evaporation phenomena and resulting
shock waves, Exp. Therm Fluid Sci. 107 (2019) 146–168.
optimizing heat and mass transfer characteristics in commercial [16] A.K. El-Fiqi, N. Ali, H. El-Dessouky, H. Fath, M. El-Hefni, Flash evaporation in
pressure based systems like desalination, nuclear power plants, a superheated water liquid jet, Desalination 206 (1–3) (2007) 311–321.
and other processes. [17] B. Cai, Q. Zhang, Y. Weng, H. Gu, H. Wang, Experimental investigation on flash
evaporation related to pipe leakage, J. Nucl. Eng. Radiat. Sci. 6 (1) (2020).
[18] G. Polanco, A.E. Holdø, G. Munday, General review of flashing jet studies, J.
CRediT authorship contribution statement Hard Mater. 173 (1–3) (2010) 2–18.
[19] W.-L. Cheng, W.-W. Zhang, H. Chen, L. Hu, Spray cooling and flash evaporation
cooling: The current development and application, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
Sarvjeet Singh: Data curation, Validation, Investigation, Writing – 55 (2016) 614–628.
original draft, Writing – review & editing, Experimentation. Prodyut [20] H.M. Ozturk, H.K. Ozturk, G. Kocar, Comparison of vacuum cooling with
R. Chakraborty: Conceptualization, Resources, Methodology, Writing conventional cooling for purslane, Int. J. Food Eng. 7 (6) (2011).
– review & editing, Supervision. Hardik B. Kothadia: Methodology, [21] O. Miyatake, K. Murakami, Y. Kawata, T. Fujii, Fundamental experiments with
flash evaporation, Heat Transf.-Jpn. Res. 2 (4) (1973) 89–100.
Conceptualization, Resources, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. [22] O. Miyatake, T. Fujii, T. Hashimoto, An experimental study of multi-stage flash
evaporation phenomena, Heat Transf. Jpn. Res. 6 (2) (1977) 25–35.
Declaration of competing interest [23] R. Peterson, S. Grewal, M. El-Wakil, Investigations of liquid flashing and
evaporation due to sudden depressurization, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 27 (2)
(1984) 301–310.
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan- [24] D. Saury, S. Harmand, M. Siroux, Flash evaporation from a water pool: influence
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to of the liquid height and of the depressurization rate, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 44 (10)
(2005) 953–965.
influence the work reported in this paper.
[25] S. Gopalakrishna, V. Purushothaman, N. Lior, An experimental study of flash
evaporation from liquid pools, Desalination 65 (1987) 139–151.
Data availability [26] J.-I. Kim, N. Lior, Some critical transitions in pool flash evaporation, Int. J. Heat
Mass Transfer 40 (10) (1997) 2363–2372.
[27] P. Ni, Z. Wen, F. Su, Research on the feasibility and mechanism of the
Data will be made available on request. intermittent flash evaporation, Phys. Fluids 34 (1) (2022) 013314.
[28] C. Wang, R. Xu, X. Chen, P. Jiang, B. Liu, Study on water flash evaporation
under reduced pressure, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 131 (2019) 31–40.
Acknowledgements [29] D. Zhang, D. Chong, J. Yan, B. Zhao, Experimental study on static flash
evaporation of aqueous NaCl solution at different flash speed: heat transfer
characteristics, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 65 (2013) 584–591.
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support pro-
[30] D. Zhang, X. Han, H. Wang, Q. Yang, J. Yan, Experimental study on transient
vided by the Department Of Science and Technology, India under heat/mass transfer characteristics during static flash of aqueous NaCl solution,
project no. S/DST/HBK/20230005.The authors would like to express Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 152 (2020) 119543.
their gratitude to Mr Vikram Singh and Mr Bharat Bhati for their [31] Q. Yang, B. Zhao, D. Zhang, Y. Wang, J. Yan, Experimental study on heat transfer
characteristics in static flash evaporation of aqueous NaCl solution, Int. J. Heat
assistance in building the experimental setup. Mr Jaydip Basak (MTech
Mass Transfer 102 (2016) 1093–1099.
Student) and Mr Amit Singhal (MTech Student) are appreciated for [32] D. Saury, S. Harmand, M. Siroux, Experimental study of flash evaporation of a
their support in conducting experiments. water film, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 45 (16) (2002) 3447–3457.

12
S. Singh et al. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 192 (2023) 108413

[33] Q. Zhang, J. Cao, Q. Bi, Z. Yang, J. Yan, Transient heat transfer characteristics [36] Thermophysical Properties of Fluid Systems, URL https://webbook.nist.gov/
of supercritical fluid during rapid depressurization process, Appl. Therm. Eng. chemistry/fluid/.
145 (2018) 435–443. [37] Y. Junjie, Z. Dan, C. Daotong, W. Guifang, L. Luning, Experimental study on
[34] S. Singh, P.R. Chakraborty, H.B. Kothadia, Experimental study on energy static/circulatory flash evaporation, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 53 (23–24) (2010)
transformation of static liquid pool during flash evaporation, Appl. Therm. Eng. 5528–5535.
(2022) 119712. [38] D. Zhang, D. Chong, J. Yan, Y. Zhang, Study on steam-carrying effect in static
[35] R.J. Moffat, Describing the uncertainties in experimental results, Exp. Therm flash evaporation, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 55 (17–18) (2012) 4487–4497.
Fluid Sci. 1 (1) (1988) 3–17.

13