Contents lists available at ScienceDisect Chemical Engineering Science ELSEVIER journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ces A mathematical model for predicting bubble growth for low Bond and Jakob number nucleate boiling Frédéric J. Lesage “®*, Samuel Siedel ‘, James S. Cotton, Anthony J. Robinson ‘carp de tose 321 bal dea de Jeans Gatos, Cae 8 4 Deparment of Mechanical and Manwacturng Engineering Parsons Building. Dnt College Dublin, Kreland HIGHLIGHTS "Vapour babe modeling ina non-uniform temperature Rel + Validation of modes bubble growth characteristics, + Validation of mode's bubble detachment characteristics. + Model accounts for moving interface in mass-energy balance ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT ected in red forma 24 anuary 2004 Ian effon to beter understand the physical mechanisms responsible for pool boing heat wansfe an analytical model is developed that describes the changing shape and size of growing vapour bubble 4 non-uniform temperatue field Indeed, any analysis of thermal transport due to nucleate pos! baling equies bubble frequency predictions which ae intimately linked to bubble growth characteristics such 43: volume and time of detachment from the nucleation ste, The model i ceveloped and validated for (quasi-static bubble grovah due to vaporization within the heat-transfer controlled growth repime Keyword Te highlights the need co include the asymmetric nature of growing bubbles when modeling bubble Nazar bute een growth and it accounts for the movement ofthe thermal boundary layer ithe bubble's viii ‘Analysis of previously published numerical treatments of bubble shape evolation leads to smiling bubble geometry for low Bond number applications. The geometric model accounts Tor bubble shape transformation thoughout the bubble growth cycle, Kis idealized as a segmented sphere atop 3 ‘indica neck An analytical model of quast-statedabatie bubble growth i accordingly developed and {is coupled with a geometic detachment relation and a force balance detachment criterion that are sependent on the Boné number ‘The resultant low Bond number bubble evolution model i validaced with images of n-pentane vapour bubble formations suing fons an arial cai. In order to seve the mass-energy balance st te vapour bubble interface, a spherical surface area is commonly assumed This lads to the nee fr correction factors nd provides lle insight into the physical mecnaniem responsibie for bubble shape. In this stay. the transitioning shape of 3 vapour bubble f considered in the integral analyse ofthe interfacial mast-energy balance. The mocel predicts the folowing bubble growth and detachment characteristics: profile, volume, center of gravity. bubble height Aspect Ratio and moment of detachment ‘2 2014 Elsevier Le Alights reserve. ‘Vapour bubble detachnent, 1. Introduction understanding of boiling is almost entirely empirically based, Correlations which are developed to predict important features of bubble dynamics such as growth rate and departure volume show a wide variation in their predictive capability and generally become inaccurate when used outside of the parameter range within which they were developed. Analytic mathematical models have also been developed though oversimplify the geometric Nucleate poo! boiling is used in many industrial applications ranging from thermal management to distillation. At present. our ponding aor a: Chgep de YOutanis 283 boul de aCe Jeunes, agen. Canada Jo¥ 6h Te + 18197704012 fax: 18197708357. Erma adresses: redercLevageWcereputa00n ec (0009-2508)¢ 2014 Elsevier Ii All rights reserved aspects ofthe problem and are often paradoxical, such as modeling heterogeneous bubble growth as perfect spheres atop 2 surface% Fd Leage tl Chemical nginering Science 12 (2014) 35-48 ‘hile at the same time assuming the bubbles are attached to the wall with a triple contact line (eg, Chesters, 1978; Van Helen eal, 1995; Duhar and Colin, 2005), Also, these models are often validated against measurements with either an incomplete set of measured parameters, ike the cavity radius. or without adequate experimental control, Numerical models are beginning to appear in the open literature that accurately predict bubble growth from submerged orifices (Buwa et al, 2007: Gerlach et al, 2007; Ma et al, 2012; Albadawi et al, 2013a, 2013b; Di Bari et al, 2013) ‘though they are still computationally expensive and only adiabatic {g25 injected bubble growth models have been adequately vali dated against correctly controlled experiments, which ate difficult to achieve for diabatic bubble growth where phase change occurs and multiple bubbles influence the local low and thermal envir- fonment. With regard to diabatic bubble grovth, numerical inves- tigations have been performed and validated against well controlled experiments for spherically symmetric homogeneous bubble growth (Robinson and judd, 2004) as wel as hemispherical bubble growth in microgravity (Robinson and Jud, 2001). The simplified bubble geometries of Robinson and Judd (2001, 2004) limit the applicability of these studies with regard to terrestrial sravity applications, As such, real time predictive models for industrial monitoring and control are not adequately robust or accurate when empirical models are used and are not adequately at the state of the art with regard to computational power and Sophistication f CFD models were to be considered, In the context of industrial contiol and monitoring what would be useful isa mathematical model of nucleate boiling that was sulficiently accurate whilst being uncomplicated enough that it could be Solved in real ime. An appropriate model would have to include aspects ofthe sub-phenomena of bubble dynamics such as bubble nucleation, growth and departure, along with other boiling para- meters sich as muicleation site size distribution and density and the heat transfer assactated with each bubble event. This work provides an intial model for nucleate boiling bubble growth and eparture dynamics that is based on a model from a recent study by the same authors (Lesage et al, 20135), The model is valid for low Bond number bubbles ina low Jakob number thermal environment in which the bulk fluid temperature is at saturation. ‘The efficacy of the model has been shown by comparison with carefully controlled experiments of single bubble growth from an artificial nucleation site of known size (Siede!, 2012), 2. Previous vapour bubble growth models. Many studies have brought insight to bubble formation ‘mechanisms by investigating the idealized case of spherical bubble ‘growth in an extensive pool of uniformly superheated liquid. In particular Forster and Zuber (1954), Plesset and Zwick (1954), and Scriven (1959) provided extended versions of Rayleigh’s equation (Rayleigh, 1917) in describing the momentum balance driving bubble growth during the inertia-controlled growth regime. Plesset and Zwick (1954) and Scriven (1959), with an energy balance analysis, provide analytical solutions to spherical bubble growth within the heat-transfer controlled growth regime, Bubble growsh may transition from one regime to another, and for this reason, Mikic et al. (1970) developed a relation that is applicable for a regime transitioning grovith eycle and Riznic tal. (1999) examined the influence of the curved vapous-liguid inter- face on the temperature fleld during heat-induced bubble growth. ln these studies, it was globally shown that during the inertia- controlled growth regime, the bubble radius groweh curve is approximately linear relative to time, while in the heat-transfer owt regime, the ras growth curve is an approximate oot Prosperetti and Plesset (1978) showed that large superheats are required for inertia-controlled bubble growth and that otherwise, the heat-transfer controlled regime dominated bubble growth In order to better identify these regimes in terms of the Jakob number. which represents the ratio of sensible to latent energy absorbed ducing the phase change and which is defined as cpl = Tos) Jn a Pali Robinson and Judd (2004) quantified the working parameters for ‘which bubble growth would be inertia controlled oF heat-iransfer controlled for spherical bubble growth sich that 1 be(2 y (#1 = Inertiacontrolted ‘Spi (Safa) { m1 Heat — transfer controlled ° Ta, In Eg, (2. acts a6 an indicator of the inertial force influencing bubble growth relative to the latent energy responsible for any inertial forces. It effectively quantifies the inertia controlled regime for which Jy is less than unity and the heat-ransfer controlled regime for which Jy is greater than unity. In che heat-transfer controlled regime liquid hydrodynamic forces on the bubble are negligible in the sense that the growth is quasi-static in nature, Tn application industrial heat exchange devices that rely on the ‘thermal andjor phase transport due to the boiling phenomenon ‘generally favor nucleate pool boiling issuing trom cavities on hheated planes rather than spherical bubble growth in an extended pool of superheated liquid. Despite this, these previously men- tioned studies are useful in investigating bubble growth from a hheated surface since, despite noteworthy differences, bubble growth in an infinite pool of supecheated liquid exhibits similar growth regimes as to that of bubble growth from a heated plane (Carey, 1952) In the particular case of bubble growth froma heated surface in & non-uniform temperature field, Mikic and Rohsenow (1969) developed a model based on a one-dimensional analysis of the heat equation for the waiting period and then again forthe growth Period in assuming that the bubble's interface is at saturation Temperature. Their resulting model contains a shape factor, accounting for the moving and curved interface, which is solved for by considering the limiting case of a spherical bubble in an extended pool of superheated liquid put forth by Plesset and ‘2wick (1954). In the treatment of the problem, the calculation of the waiting time is necessary and is done so by Han and Griffith (1965) in considering a thin isothermal layer adjacent to the bubble interface that acts as a conduction layer for the bubble. ‘A common feature of these studies is restrictive bubble geo- metry, which in the case of bubble growth on a heated plane, tunrealstcally simplifies bubble growth to spherical. The resulting models often compensate for this by including empirical correc tion terms in order to match validating data thereby impeding our understanding of the mechanisms responsible for bubble growth, In single bubble growth dynamics, iis the bubble volume and ‘waiting time which dictate the mass transport and detachment frequency thereby dictating its heat and mass transfer rates Carey (1992). Modeling bubble growth evolution is therefore critical to predicting its associated transport phenomena. In order to simplify ‘this task, it was common practice in early models to make the two following assumptions ‘Bubble growth was assumed to be spherical from inception to departure. In this way, all bubble characteristics, such as volume, surface area, center of gravity, center of curvature, etc, could be deduced from a single parameter: the bubble radius ‘A bubble growth parameter was introduced such that the bubble radius growth curve be the following root function: spt 8Fy Leage a / heal Engineering Since 12 (2014) 35-46 » ‘The most commonly used bubble growth models would incor porate (3) withthe parameter proposed by Fitz and Ende [1936) p= (4 a/a)""Ja: of the parameter proposed by Plesset and Dock (1956) p= ahaa raga that of Cole xo Shulroan (1966) 6 = 5(a)"!(Ja)*? in which the Jakob number Ja represents the ratio of sensible to latent energy injected int the bubble from its surroundings. These different fi factors were empirically. developed and would fll of rapidly once ousice the range in which the correlations were developed thereby providing litle insight ito the plvsial mechanisms at work during bubble srowth The growl factor assumption has been alleviated for inertia driven spherical bubble growth in a superheated pool through the development ofthe Rayleigh equation Rayleigh. 1917; Plsset and Zwick 1954) Scriven, 195% Plsset and Prosperet, 1977 Prosperett 1982), The Rayleigh equation provides 4 governing equation for ai-symmeti bubble radius evolution by applying the conservation of mass principe fr steady state incompressible flow such that ) “ @R_3/aR)? 1 2 EA) “RP in which Kis the radius of aspherical bubble, «is the vapou— liquid surface tension and pp, represents the vapour-hquid interfacial pressure diference “The Rayleigh equation can be solved numerically for simplified cases with given inital and boundary conditions within the heat- transfer controled bubble growth regime and can be solved snalyticlly within the inertia controlled bubble growth regime In the heat-ransfer controlled bubble growth regime (often refered to as the thermally controled regime or again the dfn contalled regime) the vapour bubble pressure is near the bulk fd pressure minimizing inertia effects on bubble growth (Carey, 1992: Brennen, 2005). In the inertia contoted bubble grovth regime, the temperate is considered uniform and thermal effects on growth fate ate negligible In ths regime, bubble growth is governed by its momentum's ability to dave adjacent uid outwards and the Clapeyron equation - which assumes thermodynamic equlsium for the pressure. enuiop temperature and volume of 2 liguid Vapour interface (Faghrt and Zhang, 2006) ~ can be applied t0 the Rayleigh equation. More specifically by assuring the liquid specific ‘volume to be negligible relative tothe vapour specifi volime and by Soplying the working conditions of aspherical vapour bubble in a superheated liquid, the Clapeyron equation can be expressed as, Babi To) DP o Ta in which hy is the latent heat of vaporization and 7. isthe bulk fuid temperature. Combining Eqs. (4) and (5) with the condition that the initial bubble radius be zero yields the bubble radius growth curve for inertia driven spherical vapour bubble growth in a superheated liquid ins —Tead Spin G 1 @ However, for bubble growth from a nucleation site on a heated plate, it is necessary to incorporate the local temperature profile and the waiting time between cavitations in order to accurately ‘model transport phenomena, To this end, lat and Guilt (1965) ‘observed that the rapid early stage of bubble growth is such that a large portion of the thermal layer is translated vertically upwards thereby supporting a one-dimensional temperature profile. Based fon this observation, WMikic and Rohsenow (1969) presented an analytical madel for vapour bubble growth from a heated plane by considering 2 two part one-dimensional transient conduction temperature profile such that TY =To To ar( ter (1-er(2-)) oe—Twad( 101 (Fe) ) o in which yi the perpendicular distance fom the heated plate The temperature profile of Mile and Rohsenow (1859) is considered a two part model since it combines the Slutions fo the one dimensional heat equation for the wating peiod with that forthe growth perio. assumes tat once a vapour bubble detaches fom a nucleation sie vapour pockets entapped in the cavity from which the bubble grows ahd that a supesheated layer forms adjacent tothe surface die to the no sip coneiion This superheated layer then provides the energy needed 10 zenerate bubble growth due to vaporization. During the bubble zrowth period, the temperature within the superbeated layer decreases in a nonuniform manner since the bubble draws heat from is suroundings through vaporization; and as departs, i Causes an influx of eooler fd near the heated plane. in the model, the temperate feldfactates de f0 vapor ization in the vicinity of the bubble, however the thermal boundary layer postion is unchanged. This is to say. in the Galefation of the temperature fel. the interface at which the energy transfer is occutring i assumed level with the plane weve asin realty is moving away from the plane as the Dubble grows Ina alten to account forthe moving vapourguid bound ary Mica Raisenow (1868) propose shape factor value of to assuming the bubble tobe spiel throughout its gow they solved the interacial mass-energy balance inacgea hf) v-Tan ®) in which A is a surface atea and S is the bubble’s vapour-liquid surface area. Mikic and Rohsenow (1969) solved for Eg. (8) by sng the temperature profile of Fg (7) and ineling an nlenown Constant, noted G into the sition a hc 4 (Foal ° nine (ase Taste) ° The constant C was solved to be v3 by equating Eq. (9) to the limiting case solution of a spherical bubble growing in an infinite uniformly supetheated liquid provided by Plesset and Zwick (1954) ino a0) for which the bubble vapour temperat liquid saturation temperature. ‘A similar development, yielding a similar result, uses the spherical bubble growth in 2 uniformly superheated pool analysis of Forster and Zuber (1954) to deduce 2 as the value of the constant C, In the Mikic and Rohsenow (1969) analysis, the bubble volume is caleulated by assuming the bubble tobe a perfect sphere and by integrating Eq, (9) yielding the following radius growth curve: ay Teale Role(s feck (\h inhi the thermal si In a similar study, Han and Grifith (1965) linearized the temperature profile and assumed the bubble to grow spherically as set fo equal the ayFl Lesage tl Chemical ngineringSclence 12 (2014) 35-48 fn the heated plane resulting in a bubble radius growth curve ‘which includes many correction factors Rab PB PT @ Pr Ts eae Ae”) To OF Tree In Eg. (12) gs a curvature factor such that 1 < @_-< V3 and hy is an empirically deduced heat transfer coetficient. Also, @ @y and gy ate surface, base and volume factors respectively and ate dependent on the contact angle. (Other results inclade that of Van Stralen and Slayter (1959) who developed a spherical equivalent radius growth model for a heat- ‘transfer controlled vapour bubble growing on a heatet plane. tn their study, it was assumed that a thin thermal layer providing. the necessary latent heat of vaporization was driven outwards by the ‘rowing bubble. The resulting equivalent radius growth curve was found to be ee ene VTC = 03) Ip Fg, (13), B is an empirical growth parameter with a ‘maximum value of 1 and fq is the time of bubble detachment More recently, Zha0 eta, (2002) solved for the bubble radius of an individual growing bubble on a heated plane by considering ‘the bubble to be a hemisphere siting on a microlayer situated between it and the heaved plane, The energy-mass balance is assumed to fake place at the bubble-microlayer interface resulting in the following bubble radius growth curve: = 2 Tat To) 2 as Poin roan R ‘The presence of 0.64 in the root denominator of Eq, (14) is the result of an empirical estimation of the microlayer thickness ‘when compared with the experimental results of Cooper et al (1978), ‘A recurring theme in all of the above mentioned studies is oversimplified bubble geometry compensated with corrective empitical shape factors. In this study, a bubble geometry transi- tioning in shape and size is adopted providing a model of bubble growth on a heated plane that more accurately describes the ‘tends of bubble growth characteristics during its evolution and at detachment. In the present study, a geometric model, developed in Lesage et al. (2013b) iealizing the bubble shape evolution as a truncated sphere atop a cylindrical neck is used in the develop- ment of volume, center of gravity, bubble height and Aspect Ratio {growth curves for heat inckiced quasi-static vapour bubble forma- tions. Indeed, this geometry was shown in Lesage et al, (20133) and Lesage and Marois (2013) to approximate low Bond number bubble growth within the heat-transfer regime. The model pre- dicts shape and size characteristics and departure time, It is compared to single bubble growth experimental results for heat- induced low saturation temperature n-pentane vapour bubbles ‘rowing from an artificial nucleation cavity of 90 um on a heated plane: the wall superheat is between 2K and 6 K since outside of this range the nucleation sice deactivates or bubble coalescence jcc; the heat flux is low (ranging from 6 to 9 kW/m") in order to minimize microlayer vaporization and to maintain bubble growth within the heat-transfer controlled regime. 3, Mathematical mode! 3.1. Temperature profile The particular case of bubble growth due to vaporization in which the bulk fuid is at saturation temperature is investigate, ‘The starting point of the present model development is the heat ‘transfer rate at the bubble interface and the temperature profile adjacent to a heated plane given in Eq, (7), The waiting time can be Felated to the boundary layer thickness by approximating it as the distance from the heated plane in which the temperature profile reaches bulk uid temperature (H12n and Griffith, 1965). The initial Dboundary layer thickness, noted 6,, is solved for by setting the temperature in the thermal profile during the waiting period to the bulk uid temperature at time zero. Specifically, at the end of the waiting period corresponding to time ¢=0 at the upper threshold location of the thermal boundary, the temperature T is equal to the bulk fluid temperature. Furthermore, the wall tem- perature has reached saturation since time t=0 corresponds to the onset of nucleate vapour formations. The temperature profile expressed in Eq, (7) therefore reduces to 8 18s0)-t.=ta-T~(1=e1 (see) -0 as In using the linearized ef function and isolating 5,, the following approximate thermal boundary layer at the end of the ‘waiting time is found to be: 5.5 Vie a) Its important to note that ty represents the end of the waiting period and as such the begianing of the bubble growth cycle ‘making 8, the initial thermal boundary layer providing energy for heat induced vaporization, From Eq, (7) the temperature profile adjacent to the heated plane therefore reduces to wo fer(a)-er(—_» ( aa! tear +82 (aa), a7 Ty.0-Tx = Tot 2.2, Moving interface Eq. (17) is the temperature profile forthe liquid adjacent to the heated plane for a constant wall temperature of Ty Ibis carefully noted that the bubble interface and the heated plane positions coincide in the modeling of the temperature field. This classic approach to the temperature profile is modified in the present document in order to account forthe fact that the bubble interface is moving away from the heated plane. ‘The temperature profile assumes the boundary condition T(0.t) = Tax uting the growth period which is located at position y=0 corresponding to the bubble interface location, Since the ‘bubble is growing, is curved and is expanding. the boundary is ‘moving, This phenomenon has an influence on bubble growth rate since the mass balance at the bubble interface requires that the mass flow rate of vapour be proportional to the heat transfer rate at the bubble interface as expressed in Eq. (8) ‘Accounting for the variable interfacial aea in the temperature profile indeed has an effect on the temperature gradient. As previously discussed, in an attempt to account for this moving boundary, Mikic and Rohsenow (1969) proposed a shape factor value of V3. In the present work, this shape factor is attributed to the fact that the thickness ofthe thermal boundary layer above and near the bubble is altered by the presence of the bubble. Ths has aLeap ea hei Engineering Since 12 (2014) 35-46 direct consequence on the temperature gradient effectively scaling ddown the vertical position by the shape factor. This increases the temperature gradient as ifthe meditum were rediced in thickness. I is postulated here that this reduction in thickness is due to a ‘movement upwards of the thermal boundary layer initiated by the bubble itself making thev/3 shape factor of Mikic and Rohsenow (1959) a simple ratio ofthe calculated thermal boundary thickness 8 andthe thermal boundary thickness afecte by the bubble interface, Feffered to in this text as the effective thermal boundary layer thickness and noted dy. Indeed, Han and Grifth (1965) observed that during the rapid’ expansion of early bubble growth, 2 large portion ofthe thermal layer is translated vertically upwards 1 are the present work's proposed geometry of a growing low Bond number bubble, the thermal boundary layer thickness as conceptualized by the temperature field model and the effective thermal layer that is reduced in thickness due to bubble formation. The position term y is the perpendicular distance from the heated plane and the position term ¢ is the perpendicular distance from the bubble interface. ‘The shape factor V3 is therefore the ratio S/6yy and is incorporated into the temperature profile with the following change of variable: yageta VK as) ‘The temperatute profile can therefore be expressed in terms of such that c (_¢ £ TG,0—Ta= Coat Tr | -ey{ —_¢ a (tlc 5) ay 33. Radius growth curve ‘The temperature profile of Fa. (19) is applied to the energy- ‘mass balance of Fa, (5), Due to the symmetry ofa growing bubble in the absence of any cross flow, the temperature profile is treated as one dimensional. Furthermore, in light of the numerical study on bubble degree of truncated sphericity detailed in Lesage etal (20138), truncated spherical bubble geometry is adopted and it is also assumed that the temperature gradient at the interface is ‘uniform over the interface. With these conditions, Eq (8) reduces to the following energy-mass balance is obtained hap dVogp fg (aeae [ot 20) in which R is the truncated sphere's radius, 6 is the nucleation site's radius and ¢ is the growth time. ‘The importance in Eq. 20) les in that the evolving shape of the bubble is considered in the integration of the interfacial mass= energy balance equation, Typically, the bubble shape is fixed to spherical and the bubble only changes in size. However, the Interfacial mass-energy balance is greatly affected by the shape of the bubble and therefore requites evolving bubble geometry for an accurate account of interfacial mass and energy transfer. For a truncated spherical segment of radius and base radius b, the integrand of the left hand side of Eq, (20) is calculated to be woa(1 Combining Eqs. (19)-(21) and considering the intial condition that the incipient bubble is hemispherical with its radius equal to that of the cavity radius yields an equation which implicitly solves for the bubble radius during the growth cycle as a function of time agasta (a. ia ) was @2) Which conveniently reduces to the following expression using ‘non-dimensional terms pee ie a Ly. 8 0 vy Ra VRFR1-1=V5VE- i443.) 23) ln Eq, (25) KY represents the radius of the wuncated spherical bubble normalized by the cavity radius b, Furthermore, the time length is normalized with the use of the Jakob number relative to the wall superheat naa) fe Pali 4 (by? n-£(4) 24 Fy Lesage tl Chemical nginering Science 12 (2014) 35-48 ‘The normalized time scale is therefore ¢=¢/tj. Similarly, the normalized initial thermal boundary layer thickness is such that 6 Bq, (23) is the governing equation for nucleate bubble growth ina non-uniform temperature field with a bubble foot that is fixed ta the perimeter of the nucleation cavity. It is dependent on the fluid properties, the initial thermal boundary layer thickness the ‘wall supetheat and the nucleation site radius. In what follows: Fa. (23) is used to calculate bubble evolution of volume, center of| _gavity, bubble height and Aspect Ratio and to calculate the time of detachment. The results are compared with experimentally mea- sured values of n-pentane vapout bubble formations. 26) 4. Validating data 41. Experiments ‘The present model is tested using data acquisitioned from the experimental apparatus described in Siede e: al, (2008, 2011), In these experiments, n-pentane heat induced vapour bubble growth is recorded issuing from an artificial nucleation site of cavity radius 80 pim. The working fluid n-pentane is chosen for its low satura- tion temperature at 1 bar of 35.7 °C. ‘These experiments are particularly well adapted to the present model since the ratio of heat flux transmitted diecly from the hheated plane to the bubble is very low (approximately 1% as detailed in Siedel etal. (2008) making any microlayer vaporization contribution negligible. The wall temperature can then be assumed to be kept constant allowing ito be used as a reference. ‘This s a key component inthe testing ofthe present model since a constant surface temperature has been assumed, With this and the heat fx measurements, a range of initial thermal boundary layer thickness is generated from the uncertainties in the measure ments, Despite the non-uniform temperature field, the n-pentane experiments provide a heat-transfer controlled environment. This is due to the low wall superheat (2.1K and 4.7K), a low imposed heat flux. a moderate contact angle (33° which is a result of the ‘wetting properties of n-pentane) and a high latent heat of evaporation 25.9 kl/mole, Such conditions result in relatively slow Dubble growth minimizing the effects of inertia and consequen- tially eis heat and mass transfer at the bubble interface which dictates its evolution, Furthermore, mass transfer due to micto- layer vaporization is considered negligible. This is due to several factors: the low Bond number value of 0.00332 implies a more spherical shape as detailed in Lesage etal. (20132) thus minimiz~ ing the microlayer. The Bond number is evaluated in terms of the fluid properties and the cavity radius such that Aosb* Boy = en, Indeed, microlayer contribution to vapour bubble growth is shown by kil and Hwang (1976) to be negligible in the heat- transfer controled regime for low heat fluxes. Shape and size of bubbles are recorded with a Photon Fastcam 1024 PCI high speed camera. The images are processed using Matlab software such that the bubble contour coordinates are identified. 42. Mirage effet ‘The volume ofthe bubble is measured from recorded images by cylinder integration. However, a refracted light path distorts the image from its true profile due to optical index gradients of the liguid pentane. These index gradients are caused by and are proportional to thermal gradients. In the given non-uniform temperature field, the thermal gradients are the highest at the immediate vicinity of the heated surface ¢o which the bubble is attached. This phenomenon is known as the mirage effect (eg. Cooper. 1983) and is most present near the base of the bubble. Due to this refraction of the optical path, the recorded image of ‘the triple contact line isin fact an image of the lower part ofthe Dubble above the triple contact line. The distorted image of the Dubble presents thus a larger base than in reality, a contact angle closer fo 90° than the bubble's true contact angle, and a base ‘which appears elongated in the vertical direction. In order to adjust the data to more accurately evaluate the shape characteristics of the base of the bubble, its volume equivalent profile is numerically generated from the Capillary equation in the manner detailed in Lesage et al. (20132) and Lesage and Marois, (2013) For illustrative purposes, Hig 2 compares the measured profile of a captured bubble image to its volume equivalent hhumerical simulation. Its shown that the mirage effect manifests itself near the base of the bubble. It therefore has a more negligible effect on the volume measurement than on other shape character- istic measurements such as the center of gravity 5S. Results and discussion 5.1. Bubble volume evolution 511, Volume growth curve ‘The model's bulble volume is calculated assuming that the Dubble grows as a truncated spherical segment rising due to an elongating cylindrical neck. This geometric configuration is shown. to De valid for quasi-static vapour bubble formations with Bond numbers less than 0.07 thfoughout its evolution until detachment, as detailed in Lesage and Marois (2013). Furthermore. the foot of the bubble is assumed to be fixed to the perimeter of the nucleation site. For this geometric constraint illustrated in Fig. 1 the volume is related geometrically to the bubble radius and -02 = E § 1 £ 06 E 3 08 5 => simulation dala experimental data a al radial cistance [mm] Fg 2 raion ofa meacured profile compared veh i volume equivalentLeap heal Engineering Since 12 (2014) 35-48 4 bubble neck height such hat vafReston-ssat?h 2 ‘which is conveniently presented in its normalized form: Ley VLD Rs Sne PR VRPT ROR VRS a9) v In Eq, (28) His the neck height normalized by the cavity radius and the volume is normalized by the incipient hemispherical bubble volume such that ve” a 30 Cpa o S12. Neck height growth curve In order to evaluate the complete bubble size and shape evolu- tion it is necessary to include its cylindrical neck growth curve By evaluating the bubble degree of truncated sphericity results detailed in Lesage et al. (20132) a deviation from a truncated spherical shape is observed to be more pronounced and manifests itself earlier inthe growth cyce fr larger Bond numbers. Since the deviation from truncated sphericity in Lesage et al, (20132) is attributed to the neck formation. this suggests that the bubble neck growth trends have a monomial function dependence on time in which larger Bond numbers yield a more linear growth curve, Symbolically with the arbitrary constants C, and Co, this implies that hm ayer en in which he and ¢* are the height and time respectively normal- ized by their respective values at detachment, The constant Cy i= simply 1 since h* and r unity coincide. Als, since the degree of sphericity results presented in Lesage et al, (2013) show that a distinguishing feature of the bubble neck growth curve is that the slope of h~ at detachment increases as the Bond number decreases and since the normalized radius Rj exhibits the same trends while being in a one-to-one functional relation with Boy — as shown in the forthcoming Eq. (35) ~ itis postulated that the Instantaneous rate of change of the neck growth curve equates the normalized radius value of the spherical segment. With this, che neck growth curve is found (0 be von(®) e 5.13, Detachment conditions “The detachment neck height is a result of the assumption that a detaching bubble leaves 2 hemispherical bubble atthe nucleation site, This is also an extension ofthe incipient hemispherical bubble assumption and requires that the detachment neck height be ‘geometrically related to the truncated spherical portion’s radius at detachment if itis assumed that the bubble grows as a truncated sphere sitting atop a cylindrical neck. This geometry is deemed appropriate for quasi-static bubble formations for which the Bond ‘number with characteristic Tength equal to the cavity radius i less than 0.97. For the n-pentane vapour bubble formations growing from the 90 jm radius cavity considered in the present study, the Bond number is evaluated at 0.00332. Such geometry combined with the hemispherical inception assumption results in the following geometric constraint relating the cylindrical neck height at detach- Tent with the radius of the truncated segment at detachment, 33 detailed in Lesage et al. (20135) (Ri —y RAR; RFD ny i+ VRE 3) ‘The detachment ratius Rj is calculated by evaluating the force instability on the bubble since at detachment, the sum of the forces acting on the bubble transitions from a net downward sum toa net upward sum and a transition forthe quasi-static regime to a dynamie pinch-off regime manifests itself (eg, Fritz, 1935). In ‘order to evaluate Rj, the sum of the forces acting on a quasistatic bubble is m2abo sin a4 280%" e4 in which F, fp and f, are the force due to capillary action, contact pressute, and buoyancy respectively. It is important to note that the force due to drag is not included due to the quas-static nature of the bubble growth, Eq, (34) dissolves to the following expression in terms of the Bond number solving for the detachment radius sin aR} aD Ik ts duly noted that detachment is commonly predicted by calculating the volume necessary for the buoyancy force to equal the surface tension at the triple contact line (eg. Fritz and Ende, 1936; Plesset and Prosperetti, 1977; Chester, 1978; Van Helden etal, 1995; Van der Geld, 1995) and is often refered to asthe Tate ‘volume (Tse, 854) The Tate volume however assumes the bubble to be spherical for the buoyancy force calculation yet in contact With the cavity perimeter with a contact angle of 90° for the surface tension calculation. Although physically paradoxical, the ‘Tate volume force instability calculation between the capillary action and the buoyancy provide a practical detachment condition that can also be expressed in terms of the Bond number 2, 205 65) 1 2, 5 280, 66) Eq, (35) therefore is simply an adaptation ofthe Tate volume in which the contradictory physical assumptions ae alleviated, S14, Experimental comparison The models ability to accurately predict bubble volume during bubble evolution and at detachment for the n-pentane vapour bubble experimental conditions is illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4 for wall superheats 2.1K and 4.7 K respectively. From Eq. (2), bubble growth is deemed within the heat-transter controlled regime for Working conditions in which the following inequality is satished: 2 [ie sae? en ‘The inequality of Eq, (37) is easily satisfied for the low wall superheats of the presented working conditions, The bubble growth Is therefore deemed entirely within the heat-transfer Controlled regime due to the low Jakob numbers which are 2.83 and 6.32 corresponding to wall supesheats of 2.1K and 4.7K Fespectively. The model is also compared with those of Han and Gaiffith (1965), Van Stralen and sluyter (1969), Mikic and Robsenow (1868) and Zh2o et al. (2002) “The results show that the present model best simulates the experimentally measured vapour bubble volume evolution. It is important to note that the Mikic and Rohsenow (1969) growth curves generate similar trends to that of the present model but do Jos.2 Fy Lesage tl Chemical nginering Science 12 (2014) 35-48 ee i Sa wel S pematgeet Fg 5. Fetcted versus mesure buble volime owth Noes The wall ‘icleation cavity rads iz 90 yn. The wall sperhest Jakob number is 2:83 and Fig. 4 Preeced versus measured bubble velume zrowth histories. The wall the fond number i 00332, : not accurately predict the magnitude of the bubble volume. This is attributed to the fact that their model uses a similar thermal energy profile but does not account for the evolving shape of the growing bubble formation The initial thermal boundary layer is a required input para- meter for the present model, the Mikic and Rohsenow (1969) model and the Han and Griffith (1965) model. From the validating data, the maximum inital thermal boundary layer possible is calculated from the heat flax measurements for the wall superheat of 21K and the wall superheat of 4.7 K detailed in Siedel etal (2011), The most appropriate initial thermal boundary layer within the limit is inputted into the models. Table 1 details the initial thermal boundary layers used in generating the growth curves for the respective models tis normalized by the bubble foot radius such that 42=8,/b. It is duley noted tha ‘boundary layer thickness forthe lan and Grifth (1965) and Mikic and Kohsenow (1968) models is the maximum possible resulting fiom the Siede! et al, (2071) heat Mux measurements. 52. Center of gravity growth curve ‘The rise of the center of gravity provides insight into the elongation of the bubble. The model predicted bubble center of gravity, noted Zs deduced from the proposed bubble geometry for resent del wos Ne ab Rsenow (1959) which che bubble is idealized as a segmented sphere atop a growing cylindrical neck. The center of gravity is easily shown to be geometrically related tothe vertical position ofthe bubble neck height and the bubble radius such that pe RI SURYESIIAHE ERY 4 DHE - aon 8) in which s* ‘The mode!’ ability to accurately predict the bubble center of ‘gravity during bubble evolution and detachment is illustrated in Figs. 5 and 6 for wall supesheats of 21 K and 4.7K respectively. The results show that the best predicted curve is obtaining using the present model. It corzectly predicts a steep increase in center of gravity position during early growth. The model then predicts 2 more gradual increase in the center of gravity followed by a sharp increase near detachment. This is attributed to an increase in neck formation as the bubble prepares to detach, Furthermore, the moment of detachment of the vapour bubbles induced by a 21K wall superheat and 4.7 wall superheat are predicted to within 2.6% of the measured detach- ment time. . 5. Bubble height evolution ‘The bubble height increases during the growth of the bubble Aue to both a size and shape transformation. In assuming a bubble to be spherical throughout its growth cycle generates an erroneous result with respect to its height since the observed hemispherical shape during eavly growth and the elongated shape due to neck formation in late growth are not accounted for The present model's abilty to predict the bubble's height noted 4H, throughout its growth cycle and at detachment is illustrated in Figs. 7 and 8 for wall supetheats of 21 K and 4.7 K respectively. ‘The results presented in Figs. 7 and 8 ilustrate that the apex position evolution of the bubble is in agreement with the present model's predicted growth trends. In particular, the oscillatory behavior of the height acceleration resulting in a sharp increase during early growth and again near detachment is experimentally measured and predicted by the present model In contrast, the models based on spherical bubble geometry predict more homo- ‘geneous evolutions which are not representative of the experi- mentally measured values 54, Aspect rato evolution ‘The rise of the center of gravity in this document is attributed ‘to the asymmetric growth of the bubble which is responsible for its changing shape. The bubble is assumed to transition from hemispherical to spherical with its bulk rising due to the necking phenomenon, The combination of the rise and transforming shape of the bubble can be described in a simple term as bubble elongation. A common method of quantifying bubble elongation is the bubble Aspect Ratio (AR) which is defined as the ratio of bubble height to bubble width (eg. Nieuland et al, 1995; lacona ‘et al, 2006; Chen et al, 2007)Leap a / Cheial Engineering Since 12 (2016) 35-46 2 Fig. 5. Prediced versus measured bubble center of gravity growth tones ‘The wall superea 21 Khe Bulk iui Saturated pentane andthe ial Fe. 6.Prediced versus messred bubble center of gravity growth hires ceton cay rads i 30, Fig 7 Predicted vers measure bobble height roth histories. The wall ape hea 1s 21K the bull saluted mepestane and the ail nudeaton cava ass 90m. For the given geometric model, the AR is effectively calculated Rasta 2 “The mode's ability to accurately predict the bubble AR during bubble formation is illustrated in Figs. 9 and 10 for superheats 21K and 47K respectively. Tae predictive capabilites of the a 89) Hg 8. Predicted verse measured buble height roth hiteres. The wall pe coy rads 5 904m Spa md Fig. 8. Petced versus measured bubbie Arpect Fate (AR) som its “The wall supereat 21 he Bulk iu saturated pentane andthe at ruceaton cay rads i 30 ym, Han and Griffith (1965), Van Straten and Sluyter (1969), Mikic and Rohsenow (1969) and Zhao et al. (2002) models are represented by an AR of unity due to the spherical assumption of these models. ‘The results show that the model correctly predicts the AR trend of sharply increasing during early growth to a stabilized value that is close to unity (corresponding to a more spherical bubble during mid-growth) and finishing with a sharp increase in AR near the end stage. The sharp increase in early growth is attributed to the bubble's transition from hemispherical to spherical while the increase near detachment is attributed to neck formation prior to detachment. The model however does tunder predict the degree of Aspect Ratio during the mid-growth stage of the bubble's evolution. This is attributed to the cylind= tical neck model which estimates the neck volume and neck height to a higher degree of accuracy than the actual shape of the neck, A future study is planned in which the present model is adapted to a neck formation which more accurately predicts neck shape evolution, 55. Bubble profiles ‘The above observed shape and size trends of a growing and detaching bubble are best illustrated with comparative measure- ments of the bubble profiles during its growth evolution. The simplified geometry of the present model accounts for the“4 Fy Lesage tl Chemical nginering Science 12 (2014) 35-48 bubble's spherical curvature near its apex in which its curvature of rai are equal and it accounts for the necking phenomenon which ‘elongates the bubble near the end ofits growth cycle The results comparing the predicted profiles generated by the model ang the measured contours are presented in Figs. 11 and 12 for wall supecheats of 2.1 K and 4.7 K respectively. Is shown that Spek mae Prana oh Fig 10. Freie versus measured bubsle Aspect Ratio (AR) growth histories. ‘ye wl soperieat is 7K the buh iui Slurated pentane andthe tie reason Coviy asi 20m, the accuracy of the shape and size characteristics is dependent on the model's ability to predict the bubble's profile at a given time ‘during its growth cycle, Figs, 11 and 12 show the extent to which the present analytic solution to the proposed phase growth problem is in agreement ‘with the experimentally measured bubble contours. There are some discrepancies near late growth due to an idealized geometric Dubble shape. However the improvement relative to previous analytic models, which greatly oversimplify the bubble geometry by assuming a perfect sphere with no truncation or neck, is significant. ‘The importance of the results of the present analytical model lie in the fact that the computational time for describing the physical characteristics of a bubble’ shape and size evolution is virtually instantaneous. With respect to numerical simulations, recent publications (Albadavi et al, 20123, 2013; Di far etal 2013) illustrate the importance in reducing the computational cost of numerical treatments of the bubble growth problem. ‘These studies detail that numerical simulations using multicore computing facilities of even the simplified case of adiabatic injected bubale growth, yield computational times in excess of several days to a week. Furthermore, these studies illustrate that, ‘due to the inclusion of the energy equation and phase change phenomenon. the predictive capability of CFD models for dia Datic bubble growth is less accurate than that of the present analytic solution Predicted © Measured 7.6 116.8 EM, Predicted versus measured bubble contours growth istries.The wall superbeat is 21K the bulk gud is strated pentane andthe arial uceaton cavityLeap heialEginering Since 12 (2014) 35-46 1s 15.7 #= 503 of Predicted . Measured 5 0 os s 0S “SoS 15 75 10 5 0 oS 5 seas 15 722578 10 y ° os oS ar Fadi i 90, 6. Conclusion This work shows that the present model provides volume, center of gravity, Aspect Ratio, and bubble height growth curves and bubble profiles that follow the observed bubble growth trends for n-pentane vapour bubbles forming on a heated plane from an artificial nucleation site within the heat-transfer regime in a non- tuniform temperature field. In contrast, these experimentally measured growth trends are not produced in previous analytical ‘models that are limited by spherical geometric assumption. Furthermore, the present model predicts the time of detachment of a heat induced vapour bubble and its associated detachment characteristics “The novelty of the presented model lies in that it assumes the bubble to change in size as well as in shape while maintaining a fixed bubble foot to the nucleation cavity. The interfacial mass energy balance is solved for considering the shape transitioning bubble rather than an untealistic fixed spherical shape and considering the moving vapout-liguid interface. Indeed, the inter- facial mass-energy balance is sensitive to the adopted geomettic form when integrating over the vapour-liguid surface; as such, spherical assumptions lead to erroneous growth trends. Further more, no empirical correction factors are used in the present model thereby providing insight into the physical mechanisms responsible for bubble growth ‘The presented model applies to low Bond number low Jakob ‘numberd bubble growth in which inertial effects from accelerating fluids are negligible and in which the hydrostatic pressure is less than the Laplace pressure drop at all points along the bubble interface. The model is restricted to working conditions yield vapour bubble formations within the heat-transfer controlled regime of Bond numbers less than 0.07 and in which the bubble foot remains fixed to the nucleation cavity. The input parameters are the fluid properties, the wall superheat, and the cavity radius, Nomenclature A surface area m?) Boy Bond number with characteristic length & cavity radius (m) & specific heat ke~* K"?) FP force (N) £ gravitational constant (ms?) hk ——_ubble nec height fy latent heat of vaporization (J kg~") Hubble apex height (o) Ie growth regime inicator k thermal conductivity (W m=? K=?) Jakob numberco FE esge eal fCheial Engineering Srence 112 (204) 35-46 pressure (Nm?) R radius of bubble spherical segment (m) 5S bubble liquid-vapour interface surface area (m?) T temperature (K) T. bulk uid temperature (X) . time (5) fw ——_ waiting time (5) Vo volume (m*) ¥ perpendicular distance from plane (m) Z center of gravity (im) 8 cowth parameter (dimensionless) ‘thermal diffusivity (m!s~") 8 thermal boundary layer (em) p— fuid density (kg m=?) ‘© surface tension (N m=) perpendicular distance from vapour-liuid interface (m) detachment ef effective 1 liquid © initial condition » vapour sat saturation truncated Superserpts normalized by detachment value, iy normalized length, normalized time normalized volume, V((2/3)ab*) normalized length, 6//@m 73 EOS ‘Acknowledgnents ‘The authors gratefully thank Dr. Ross L. Judd for his guidance ‘nyoughout this project and acknowledge the generous support of the Fondation du Cégep de !Outaouais. References [Abad A, Donoghve, DI, Kabinvan, A, Muay, DM, Dea, YMC, 20138 ‘tnt of asd t o apsaue [Abadan.A, Donoghe DB. Rabnson Al. May, DM. Delaue, ¥REC. 20128 Tue ef sulace temsian ipiemeriaton in volume a id abd couped ‘ole of fui wit evel vet thogs for bubble growth and detaches. Inf ips Fw 5311-28. awa VM Ceuch, D, Dust F. Sle, E. 2007. Numeskal snaltions of ‘pubble formation om subneged once, pevedl and period? Dubbing egies: Chem Eng. 62, 7967132 rene CE, 2005 Fundanentals of Nulihase Hew. Cambridge Univesity Pres, "New Yori USA ‘care VP 882, Uqué-Vapor Phasechange Phenomena: An ineductio the “Turmaphyie st Vaparsston snd Cancensvon Processes in Hest Tanser Equipment Taylor ané Panes, Heb. USA ‘chen Feng ¥. Song 1.2 Chen M. 2007 ED behaviour of irogen buble in ic tected Bep Ther i Ser 2, 14-18, ‘cperters le 1978. Mader of Bubble growth inthe viowformaton rege of kleate pool aig. ne} Maligh lw 4278-302 cote Shulman HL, 136 Babbledeparire darters and setmerphere Dresses. chem Eig Frag. yp. Set ACHE 62,6. Cooper M1983 The mirage in boing nt.) Heat Mas Trans 26, 1088-1080, Cooper MG. Judd, AN Pike RA. 1976 shage and depatre of single bubbles ‘roving ata wall In Proceedings of the ot international Heat Tanser Gontecence. ol 2, p.15-120- Darts. Lakehal 0, sobinen. AJ, 2015.4 numerical sudy of quasitane gas Tijectea buble growth sare aspects of gray In. | Heat Mss Tans. DubatG Cohn. C. 2005 Dynami ef buble growth and detachsent in a wscous ‘She aw ys Hid 1, O77101-1-077101-1. Foster tk. Zibec 8, 1954 Growth ofa vapor buble superheated gus ‘kop fis 25, 408 fag 2h. 206 spot Phenoen fn Mapes Hh si 18. Being ex Masnaleoanens vor Damen Py Fer Ws Ende W106 Verdampfangworgang knemstogephisehen afpahmen “and dampen J App. rs 25.38, eric Meborn NBs, Dar 2007, Nami saatn of perage bbl frmavon sta sbmereee ane smth constant ga flowrate Cher. Eng se, 92 2109-212, Man. Cie P1985. The mechanism of heat transfer in cate pol boing Hat Heat Taster 8 887~508 lacona, A Hernan C. Cha. SLM, Z, 2006. elcid effect on bubbie icine ele iy evoaest a. es PS aE ag KS. Acne ade nade po eine Lesage FJ. colton 15, kobinson. A a0iba Analysis of uate vapocs bubble “Shape dung growth and cepetoe Pr fsnes 25 (6 067105--067203.21 Lesage tJ Cowon Robinson Al. 20118 Nadeling of qusiiaie abate bbe formation srowth and descent or lowe Sone mmbers. Chet Eng Se 104 7194 Lesage. Fl. Matos, F201, Experimental and numeri anahsis of quasesatie DubbE size and shape characters a detachment I Heat Mas Tras aD, 20, ¥ tang C, 2012, 1we-imensinal volume fi simulation sts op sige bubbe foi aad dynamics in bubble clus Cer vos bakes WHE 158 Be goth aes sou ec Dik i Roheenow, Why Cif P1970. bubble grow rates ot J. eat Mass rane 1, 057-065, NN, Veenendaa, MAL. Rupes. JA, Vanowaa, WPM. 1886, Sable “ormation att single arc in ravttseree beer Chem. Eng Se sovreaioa, esses MS. Zick SA 1954 The growth fa T.ADDL his 25.495 esse, Prspeety A, 197. bubble names and ation An, Kv Hud ‘Med ©, Ha, rrosptet A, Plesst, MS. 1978. Vapourbubbegzowch ie 2 superbeaed qui The J Fd Mech 85.348-308. Prospeitt Ax 962, A generalization ofthe Ryleigh-Plesset equation of bubbie varies Py is 25, 40900, Raleigh, L, 197, On the pressure developed in a quid during colape of Spheieity. Ps. Nag 34 9496 ni oy Ze 8 Oe he pay smi phe dee abinsos Al joes RI- 2001 buble ohn ifort and spatial steoated Temperate el ne} Hea Mase Trans 42590-9780. Rabinron AJ jose Ri 2004 The damier 9 sper bubble growth Int} Hest Mar rane 4 5101-303, Serve, LE. 1858.00 the dnamis of pase growth Chem, Eng S61. 1-1, Siegel’ 2612 baie Dynamic snd Yang Hest Trane A Sty in he Aree and in the Presence of Elec Pes (PD. hess) Insa de Iyer. ance Siedel 8. Clouaenan.S. Srfou. |. 2008, Experimental analy of bubble ‘ovr, deparareavéiteractons during pel baling ep aria muceaton Sites 9. Tern ud Se 32 1504-151, Sede. Culacifan 5. Robs Aj Zonou, 201 ElecocBelé eects ‘uring acess being tem an arc nucestion ste. xp. Therm. Fd Se Tat, IA On he maga a 4 op of I ened ade: ‘apour bubble detachment frm 2 heating var’ In} est Mart Tans 3651-657, an Helen, Wc, Van der Gel, CW, Bao, 1995. Frcs on bubbles rowing ‘abd detaching in fow along 4 vercal wall tn. J Heat Mass Teast 38 dorsctoes, Yan Salen 8). Sayer. WM. 1969. acl temperature lceuatons in saturated pel boiling of pute ligus ané binary minutes Int Mea Mass Tats 12 ‘ao, YL, Masuoks, T, Tout, T, 2002, Unie theretalpeedcion of fay Veveoped nucleate bling snd cel eat ux sed ots eure ite layer mode! Int} Het Macs at 5, SAS=1187, 5x ubles in superbeated lus