Microgravity Sci. Technol.
(2012) 24:203–213
DOI 10.1007/s12217-012-9298-5
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Gravity Influence on Heat Transfer Rate in Flow Boiling
Coen Baltis · Gian Piero Celata · Maurizio Cumo ·
Luca Saraceno · Giuseppe Zummo
Received: 5 August 2011 / Accepted: 16 January 2012 / Published online: 29 January 2012
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract The aim of the present paper is to describe
the results of flow boiling heat transfer at low gravity
and compare them with those obtained at earth grav-
ity, evaluating possible differences. The experimental
campaigns at low gravity have been performed with
parabolic flights. The paper will show the analysis of
differences between the heat transfer coefficients at
normal and at zero gravity, and the study of the effects
of mass flux, heat flux, and tube diameter on boiling
phenomena at microgravity. Three tube diameters are
tested: 6.0, 4.0, and 2.0 mm. With respect to terrestrial
gravity, both heat transfer rate enhancement (up to
15–20%) and deterioration (up to 35%) have been
observed. Heat transfer differences for the two gravity
conditions may be related to the different bubble size
in each of them. The size of a bubble in flow boiling
is generally affected by the gravity level, being larger
at low gravity, unless inertial forces are largely pre-
dominant over buoyancy and other forces acting on the
bubble itself when detaching from a heating wall. Heat
transfer enhancements at low gravity, are observed in
those conditions where the flow pattern is bubbly flow
at normal gravity and intermittent flow at low gravity.
C. Baltis
Eindhoven University, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
G. P. Celata (B) · L. Saraceno · G. Zummo
ENEA, Division of Advanced Technologies for Energy
and Industry, Rome, Italy
e-mail: celata@enea.it
G. Zummo
e-mail: zummo@enea.it
M. Cumo
Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
The results are presented in a flow boiling gravity
influence map, which can be considered a useful tool
for designing boiling systems for space applications.
Keywords Flow boiling · Heat transfer coefficient ·
Flow pattern · Parabolic flight
Introduction
Flow boiling heat transfer is widely used in many
engineering fields and industrial applications (energy
conversion, environmental applications, food, chemi-
cal and other process industries, etc.) and can be on
demand for use in space applications. In the coming
years, expectations for space-based systems such as
communication satellites and manned space-platforms
or missions will grow rapidly. Due to the increasing size
and capabilities of these systems, their power require-
ments will also greatly increase. More sophisticated
thermal management systems capable of dealing with
larger heat loads will have to be designed. Flow boiling
heat transfer could be the right solution for increasing
heat transfer rates under future and challenging space
conditions, at least under certain conditions and/or
certain areas of the system. High performance boiling
heat transfer systems, which take advantage of latent
heat transportation, are therefore important to reduce
the size and weight of space platforms and satellites.
Nonetheless, knowledge of boiling phenomena is also
very important for the safe operation of existing single-
phase liquid systems that may enter this mode of oper-
ation in case of accidental increase in the heat genera-
tion rate. An accurate understanding of the off-design
204
situations is therefore essential for properly managing
accidental situations.
Although the interest for flow boiling systems in
microgravity is high, the experimental research is still
quite fragmentary and the knowledge of the physi-
cal phenomena involved is far from being complete.
Most of phase change two-phase flow experiments per-
formed were not responding to a phenomenological
study purpose but to a more urgent need for engineer-
ing data such as the evaluation of International Space
Station hardware, the stability of two-phase loops, flow
regime evaluation and pressure drop measurements.
While these experiments were relatively successful in
providing a basic and partial understanding of those
behaviours, the instrumentation has not yet reached
the sophistication achieved in the environment of a
typical terrestrial laboratory. The poor knowledge of
basic flow boiling phenomena at low gravity reflects the
lack of engineering design tools for space applications
and components. Future space applications with their
high heat load will need reliable predictive tools to
properly design the components for the microgravity
environment.
Among the available platforms for microgravity
experiments, such as parabolic flight (gravity level
10−2 g, duration 22 s, repeated for about 30 times in
a day), sounding rocket (gravity level 10−5 g, duration
2–15 min), orbital flight (gravity level 10−2 –10−5 g, du-
ration unlimited), drop tower (gravity level 10−5 g, du-
ration 2–10 s), the parabolic flight is the most widely
used microgravity platform for flow boiling because of
the operating complexity of an experimental loop for
flow boiling heat transfer tests.
Although the available experimental data are lim-
ited, some highlights of findings obtained from ex-
periments may be described here: i) results on heat
transfer are contradictory, spanning form increase to
decrease with respect to terrestrial gravity, and include
no effect of gravity level; ii) the effect of gravity level
on heat transfer strongly depends on the flow pattern;
therefore, its knowledge is crucial and systematic visu-
alisation tests are required; iii) forced convection flow
(inertial effects) plays a fundamental role in micro-
gravity flow boiling heat transfer, competing with the
buoyancy force to affect the bubble size; the thresholds
beyond which inertial effects are dominant over buoy-
ancy effects has to be carefully determined (if inertial
force is largely dominant over buoyancy force the effect
of gravity level on bubble size can be neglected); iv) a
systematic study of flow boiling heat transfer is neces-
sary in order to create a consistent data set for design
purposes and to better establish the flow boiling heat
transfer knowledge in microgravity.
Microgravity Sci. Technol. (2012) 24:203–213
The few data available shows small coherence,
maybe due to severe restrictions in the test apparatus
specifications, strict prescriptions of experimental con-
ditions and not enough chance to repeat experiments
for repeatability—few chances to run experiments in
parabolic flight—, short lasting of low gravity condi-
tions, etc. A complete overview of available results
(including pool boiling and bubble dynamics) can be
found in Straub (2001), Ohta et al. (2002), Ohta (2002),
Di Marco (2003), Kim (2003), Ohta (2003), and recently
Celata and Zummo (2009).
Among the very few previous works, it is worth
mentioning the work of Luciani et al. (2009), who per-
form flow boiling heat transfer experiments at normal
and low gravity conditions, analyzing the influence of
gravity level on the heat transfer rate. The experiment
is carried out onboard the A300 Zero-G in a series
of parabolic flights organized by the European Space
Agency (ESA). The fluid used in the tests is HFE-
7100 for its low boiling temperature. The test section
is rectangular (6 mm × 0.254 mm) with a hydraulic
diameter of 0.487 mm and 50 mm in length. The local
heat transfer coefficient is measured at different gravity
levels and authors find that: i) the local heat transfer
is higher at the inlet of the minichannel; ii) the gravity
level has an influence of the flow; iii) in microgravity,
the heat transfer is generally higher (this is explained
with a higher turbulence level in microgravity due to
the larger size of the bubble in comparison with ter-
restrial gravity); iv) there are no differences between
hyper (about 1.8 g, first and last part of each parabola)
and normal gravity. For low vapour quality, gravity
influence is not negligible, and for vapour quality larger
than 30%, the observed influence of the gravity level is
independent of the fluid velocity.
The aim of the present paper is to present the results
of thermal behaviour of flow boiling at low gravity con-
ditions during parabolic flight campaigns. In particular,
the paper will show the analysis of differences between
the heat transfer coefficients at normal and at zero
gravity, and the study of the effects of mass flow rate,
heat flux, and tube diameter on flow boiling at zero
gravity.
Experimental Loop
The experiments at reduced gravity are conducted on-
board of ZERO-G, a modified Airbus A-300 main-
tained by Novespace, based at the Bordeaux-Mérignac
airport. The Zero-G Airbus (see Fig. 1) is used
by ESA for parabolic flight campaigns that pro-
vide the simplest manned environment for short term
Microgravity Sci. Technol. (2012) 24:203–213 205

Fig. 1 Airbus A300 Zero-G during a parabola (courtesy of

Novespace)

microgravity researches. Detailed description of the

aircraft characteristics can be found at the Novespace
web site (www.novespace.com).
Experiments of flow boiling are carried out both at
normal gravity and at reduced gravity with the same
experimental facility. The experimental facility used Fig. 2 Schematic of the experimental facility
for the experiments is designed in order to fulfil the
requirements imposed by Novespace (and by CEV, the
French safety company for flight) for the experimen- before the 30 planned parabolas one test parabola is
tal facilities to be hosted aboard the Zero-G Airbus. performed).
Special attention is devoted to the test protocol of the The experimental facility, schematically reported in
facility in order to obtain steady flow boiling conditions Fig. 2, and named MICROBO (MICROgravity BOil-
at the beginning of each parabola. Therefore, all the ing), consists of a gear pump (Qmax = 500 ml/min),
regulations of the experimental loop, electrical power a filter, a flow-meter, an electric pre-heater, the test
steps, mass flow-rate, inlet pressure, and inlet tempera- section (where boiling phenomena occur), a condenser,
ture, are regulated to successfully perform flow boiling a bellows, and a tank for the storage of the process fluid
experiments in such critical conditions. Three parabolic (FC-72). The test section, shown in Fig. 3, is made of a
flight campaigns have been carried out in October 2004 Pyrex tube, and three different tube diameters are used
(ESA PF38), March 2005 (ESA PF39), and March 2006 (6.0 mm, 4.0 mm, and 2.0 mm). A metallic tape is coiled
(ESA PF42) with three different diameters of the test on the outer surface of the Pyrex tubes in order to
section: 6.0 mm, 4.0 mm, and 2.0 mm. During each
parabolic flight campaign, 93 scheduled experiments
were performed during 93 parabolas according the test
matrices reported in Table 1 (in each campaign day,

Table 1 Test matrix of the three parabolic flight campaigns

ESA PF38 ESA PF39 ESA PF42
October 2004 March 2005 March 2006
D [mm] 6.0 4.0 2.0
G [kg/m2 s] 47.5–440.0 93.0–520.0 185.0–570.0
xout [−] < 0.4 < 0.22 < 0.17
q [W/m2 ] < 48, 000 < 100, 000 < 80, 500
Tsub,in [K] −9 − −25 −20 − −30 −20 − −30
p [bar] 1.6–1.8 1.8 1.2–1.4 Fig. 3 Test section in the special confinement box
206 Microgravity Sci. Technol. (2012) 24:203–213

Fig. 4 Schematisation of the test section and tube wall

obtain the tube heating (Joule effect through the metal-
lic tape) along with flow boiling visualization. Figure 4
shows the schematic of the metallic tape and the posi-
tion of thermocouples attached to the outer surface of
the tube. Flow pattern visualisation is performed with a
digital video camera. The wall temperature is measured
by a set of ten thermocouples flushed to the outer
tube wall. The working fluid is FC-72, perfluorohexane
C6 F14 , a fluorinert liquid manufactured by 3M, used in
electronic cooling and widely used for experiments of
boiling on parabolic flights. The fluid properties are
reported in Table 2. The experimental uncertainties
are reported in Table 3. The MICROBO experimental
facility in flight configuration inside the cabin of the
A300 Zero-G is shown in Fig. 5. The test section is
confined in a special box made of ERTACEL® to
avoid any leakage in the cabin in case of its break. For
the same reason all the piping of the facility is under a
double confinement made of Polycarbonate.
During each parabola video sequences of the flow
structure are recorded with an ultra rapid shutter video
camera (PCO FlashCam) on a digital video recorder
with a frequency of 50 fps. The movie is taken near
the exit section of the flow channel. The resolution of
the video camera is 756 × 580 pixels. Video images
obtained provide with information on the flow pattern
at the exit of the heated tube and can be analysed
to determine the vapour bubble size and velocity for
different values of the gravity level. From movies it
is possible to compare flow structures at micrograv-
ity and at normal gravity under the same operational
conditions (mass flow-rate, inlet fluid temperature, sys-
tem pressure, and electrical power). For these tests
the test section is vertically oriented with fluid flowing
upward.
Data Reduction
For each test, the heat flux from the tube wall to the
fluid is calculated with the the following equation:
Qel − Qloss
q = (1)
A
where q is the heat flux, Qel = I V, I is the electric
current, V is the voltage, Qloss is the heat loss to the
ambient, A is the heat exchange surface, A = π DLh ,
and D is the inner tube diameter.
Qloss is calculated with a series of specific tests in or-
der to correlate heat losses with the difference between
the wall and the ambient temperatures.

Table 2 FC-72 properties at 1 Table 3 Analysis of experimental uncertainty

Tsat [◦ C] 56.6
bar, 3M (2000)
ρl [kg/m3 ] 1680a Partameter Field Uncertainty
μl [N-s/m2 ] 0.672 × 10−3a P [MPa] 0.1–0.6 [MPa] ±1.04% FS
cp [J/kg-K] 1046a Q [ml/min] 0–500 [ml/min] ±0.93% FS
hlv [kJ/kg] 87.864 T [◦ C] 20–300 [◦ C] ±0.625% FS
Kl [W/m-K] 0.057a Wel [W] 0–500 [W] ±2.9% FS
a evaluated at 25◦ C σ [N/m] 12 × 10−3a Z [m] 0–0.2 [m] ±0.5% FS
Microgravity Sci. Technol. (2012) 24:203–213 207

90 2
D = 6.0 mm Micro-g
89
88 1.6
87
86 1.2

a /g [-]
z
85

w
T
84 0.8
83 T
w1
82 T 0.4
w6 az/g
81 T
w10
80 0
60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180
t [s]

Fig. 6 Evolution of wall temperature and gravity level versus

time (D = 6.0 mm, G = 50 kg/m2 s, p = 1.8 bar, xout = −0.05,
Fig. 5 The MICROBO facility in flight configuration flow pattern: bubbly flow)

In order to evaluate the heat transfer coefficient for
the inner tube surface, the following equation is used.
q = n (Tw − Tb ) (2)
where, Tb is the bulk temperature, Tw is the wall tem-
perature and z is the position along the axis of the tube.
The calculations of heat transfer coefficients are
refined with the temperature gradient in the thickness
of the pyrex tube. Heat transfer coefficients of low
gravity tests are compared with those obtained at the
same flow conditions (inlet temperature, mass flow
rate, pressure, heat flux) at normal gravity with the test
section vertically oriented and fluid flowing upwardly.
The results of heat transfer coefficients are discussed
in the following section and are reported as the ratio
between low gravity and normal gravity heat transfer.
The thermodynamic vapour quality x, is calculated
with the following equation:
4q Lh c p (Tsat − Tin )
x= − (3)
GDhlv hlv
where G is the mass flux, Lh is the heated length of the
test section, hlv is the latent heat of vaporisation, cp is
the specific heat, and Tsat is the saturation temperature.
Experimental Results
Figures 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 show typical results of the
experiments performed onboard of the ZeroG aircraft.
The graphs plotted in Figs. 6, 8 and 10 show the wall
temperature traces measured by the thermocouples
flushed on the outer surface of the test section (Tw , on
the left vertical axis), the ratio of vertical acceleration
on g (az /g, on the right vertical axis), and the time on
horizontal axis. The graphs show the effects of vertical
acceleration on wall temperature at two mass fluxes,
50 kg/m2 s, Fig. 6, and 440 kg/ m2 s, Fig. 8. Figure 6
shows the temperature traces for low mass flux (G =
50 kg/m2 s) and low exit vapour quality (xout = −0.05).
Under these conditions the observed flow pattern is of
the bubbly flow type, as shown in the picture of Fig. 7,
with a significant increase in the bubble diameter at
low gravity. Test is evidently in a region where the
influence of the gravity level on bubble size is clear
and a consequent effect on the heat transfer rate is
therefore expected. The graph in Fig. 6 shows a sig-
nificant decrease in the wall temperature during the
microgravity phase at the tube inlet, Tw01 , being this
associated with an increase in the heat transfer rate, in
agreement with Luciani et al. (2009). In the middle of
the channel, Tw06 the wall temperature is independent
of the gravity level, with no difference in the heat
transfer rate in comparison with the terrestrial gravity,
while at the exit of the tube, Tw10 , the wall temperature
exhibits an increase during the low gravity level thus
testifying a consistent reduction in the corresponding
heat transfer coefficient.
The heat transfer increase in the first part of the
tube can be qualitatively explained as follows. Let us
consider that the flow regime is typically laminar at the
inlet (both at terrestrial gravity and at microgravity).
Bubble generation can indeed increase the mixture
velocity and then the turbulence level. With respect to
terrestrial gravity in microgravity we have much larger
bubbles, and may therefore have a higher turbulence.
Going upwards both at terrestrial gravity and under mi-
crogravity conditions we have larger bubbles and larger
bubble population due to heat flux from the wall. We
may therefore expect that the increase in the turbulence
208 Microgravity Sci. Technol. (2012) 24:203–213

Fig. 7 Flow patterns

observed at the exit of the test
section at earth gravity (top)
and low gravity (bottom) (D
= 6.0 mm, G = 50 kg/m2 s, p = 1-g Bubbly Flow
1.8 bar, xout = −0.05, flow
pattern: bubbly flow)

0-g bubbly flow

level can be similar independent of the gravity level.
This could mean an equivalent heat transfer rate at
both gravity levels. Less clear is why towards the exit of
the tube we experience a decrease in the heat transfer
coefficient. Provided we have similar turbulence levels
at different gravity values, we might expect that quite
larger size of the bubbles at microgravity may affect nu-
cleation cavities which can be covered by large bubbles
and be no longer active. A more quantitative approach
to possibly explain this behaviour is described in the
forthcoming paragraphs.
Figure 8 shows the results of wall temperatures for
the highest mass flux (G = 440 kg/m2 s). For these
conditions the observed flow pattern is bubbly flow,
as reported in Fig. 9, without any significant variation
of bubbles diameters between earth gravity and micro-
gravity. The graph in Fig. 8 shows that the influence of
the gravity level on wall temperature traces is quite low.
126
Figure 10 shows the thermal behaviour of the test
section at low mass flux (G = 50 kg/m2 s) and high
exit vapour quality (xout = 0.33). In these conditions
the observed flow pattern is intermittent/annular flow
and wall temperature traces, in the graph, are almost
flat at different vertical accelerations. This behaviour
indicates that gravity acceleration, at high vapour qual-
ities, does not have any influence on flow boiling heat
transfer even at low mass flux. These results show that
the mass flux and exit quality play a crucial role on
thermal behaviour of flow boiling at microgravity. In
order to understand the role of these two parameters it
is interesting to observe the relative variation of wall
temperatures for the different vertical accelerations,
as shown in Figs. 11, 12, 13 and 14. Each point in
the graphs in these Figures shows the ratio (Tw0g –
Tw1g )/Tw1g as provided by the last three thermocouples
towards the exit of the heated tube, i.e., thermocouples
Tw08 , Tw09 and Tw10 . Besides, the standard deviation of
temperature measurements around their mean values
is indicated. The graphs also show two horizontal lines
2

124 Micro-g
1.5
122
1-g
az/g [-]

120 1
T
Tw

w1
118 T az/g
w6 0.5
T
116 w10

0-g
114 0
60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165
t [s]

Fig. 8 Evolution of wall temperature and gravity level versus Fig. 9 Flow patterns observed at the exit of the test section at
time (D = 6.0 mm, G = 440 kg/m2 s, p = 1.6 bar, xout = −0.088, earth gravity (top) and low gravity (bottom) (D = 6.0 mm, G =
flow pattern: dispersed bubbly flow) 440 kg/m2 s, p = 1.6 bar, xout = −0.088, flow pattern: bubbly flow)
Microgravity Sci. Technol. (2012) 24:203–213 209

110 2 3
D = 6.0 mm Micro-g
109 T
T w10
w1 T
108 1.6 2 w9
T
w6 T
107 w8

(Tw0g - T w1g)/Tw1g [%]

T
w10
106 1.2 1

a /g [-]
z
105
w
T

104 0.8 0
103
102 0.4 -1
101 az/g 2
G = 200 kg/m -s
100 0
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 -2
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
t [s]
Xout [-]
Fig. 10 Evolution of wall temperature and gravity level versus
time (D = 6.0 mm, G = 50 kg/m2 s, p = 1.8 bar, xout = 0.33, flow Fig. 12 Wall temperature ratio versus vapour quality for D =
pattern: slug/annular flow) 6.0 mm and G = 200 kg/m2 s

that identify a region where the mean value of the crease of the standard deviation at low gravity due to
temperature ratio is small and close to zero, and there- large temperature fluctuations. When the mass flux is
fore the influence of gravity on boiling phenomena is increased, the region where the gravity has a significant
very small. When the influence of gravity on boiling effect on boiling moves towards lower values of vapour
is significant, the mean ratio of the wall temperatures qualities (towards the left part of the graphs) as shown
is higher than a certain value and characterised by in Figs. 12, 13, and 14. The last figure (Fig. 14) shows
higher values of the standard deviation. The graphs in that for mass flux higher than 400 kg/m2 s, the effect of
the figures show the combined effects of mass flux and gravity on flow boiling is quite small.
vapour quality on boiling at low gravity. In Fig. 11, Figure 15 shows the flow boiling gravity influence
showing data for low mass flux (G = 50 kg/m2 -s), map for the 6.0 mm tube, with the flow pattern ob-
the region with exit qualities lower than 0.25, shows served for each experimental data. The horizontal axis
a remarkable gravity influence on wall temperatures indicates the exit vapour quality, while the vertical axis
and therefore on heat transfer performance. In this show the mass flux. The graph also shows a boundary
region, the increase in the wall temperature (higher line between two regions: the region where the flow
average values) indicates a lower thermal performance boiling is affected by the gravity level, and the region
at reduced gravity. The largest temperature deviations where the influence of gravity on boiling phenomena
are for subcooled tests. These tests show also an in- is negligible. The boundary between these two regions

3 3
T T
w10 w10
T T
w9
2 Tw8
2 w9
T
w8
(Tw0g - T w1g)/Tw1g [%]

(Tw0g - T w1g)/Tw1g [%]

1 1

0 0

-1 -1
2 2
G = 50 kg/m -s G = 330 kg/m -s

-2 -2
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Xout [-] Xout [-]

Fig. 11 Wall temperature ratio versus vapour quality for D = Fig. 13 Wall temperature ratio versus vapour quality for D =
6.0 mm and G = 50 kg/m2 s 6.0 mm and G = 330 kg/m2 s
210 Microgravity Sci. Technol. (2012) 24:203–213

3 1.5
2
T 1.4 G = 50 kg/m -s
w10
2
T G = 100 kg/m -s
2 w9 1.3
2
T G = 150 kg/m -s
1.2
(Tw0g - T w1g)/Tw1g [%]

w8
2
G = 210 kg/m -s
1.1 2

[-]
1 G = 300 kg/m -s

1-g
2
1 G = 350 kg/m -s

h /h
o-g
2
0.9 G = 400 kg/m -s
0
0.8
0.7 G q"
-1 D = 6 mm
2 0.6 T
G = 450 kg/m -s wall-10
0.5
-2 -0.3 -0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
X [-]
Xout [-] out

Fig. 14 Wall temperature ratio versus vapour quality for D = Fig. 16 Influence of gravity on the heat transfer coefficients
6.0 mm and G = 450 kg/m2 s versus the vapor quality for various mass flux for 6.0 mm tube
at thermocouple Tw10

is obtained from the analysis of wall temperature be-

haviour as reported in Figs. 11, 12, 13 and 14. The re-
The region of the graph where no influence of gravity
gion where gravity affects boiling phenomena is mainly
on boiling phenomena is observed is placed for mass
placed in the subcooled flow boiling region, with the
flux lower than 425 kg/m2 s, in the saturated flow boil-
exception of a small area for mass flux lower than
ing region. For mass flux higher than 425 kg/m2 s, the
150 kg/m2 s and vapour quality less than 0.275. In this
gravity has no influence on boiling phenomena for sub-
region the flow boiling heat transfer performance is
cooled and saturated regions. In this region the classical
reduced in comparison to that at normal gravity (for
design tools, developed for terrestrial applications of
vertical orientation and upward fluid flow). In fact, the
flow boiling heat transfer, can be used for the space
graphs in Figs. 11, 12, 13 and 14 show an increase in
conditions.
wall temperatures at low gravity. Flow pattern is mainly
Figure 16 shows the results of heat transfer rate for
bubbly in the subcooled area, while at low mass flux (G
the D = 6.0 mm tube, calculated as described in the
< 150 kg/m2 s) the flow pattern is intermittent. For the
Section “Data Reduction” The graph shows on the
flow conditions of data points included in this region,
horizontal axis the exit vapour quality calculated at
the classical design tools (heat transfer coefficient mod-
the position of the thermocouple Tw10 (i.e., the one
els/correlations) for flow boiling systems should not be
placed closed to the channel exit section), while the
considered valid.
vertical axis refers to the ratio between the heat transfer
coefficients evaluated at low gravity and at terrestrial
gravity, respectively. Experimental data are grouped
500 by mass flux to reveal the effect of flow velocity on
D = 6.0 mm
Bubbly Flow the boiling phenomena. The graph also shows two ar-
Bubbly-Plug Flow
400 Plug Flow rows indicating the increasing mass flux and heat flux,
Intermittent Flow while reported results are obtained for subcooled flow
boiling.
G [kg/m -s]

300
Flow Boiling
2

Not Influenced
As anticipated by the graphs in Figs. 11, 12, 13
by Gravity and 14, the effect of gravity on flow boiling is de-
200
pending on mass flux and heat flux. The lower the
fluid mass flux the larger the effects of gravity on
100 heat transfer coefficients. Low gravity tests for the
Flow Boiling
Influenced by Gravity lowest G (50 kg/m2 s), show a reduction of heat transfer
0
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
coefficient down to 40% for the lowest values of the
X [-] heat flux. For increasing values of heat flux differences
out
in the heat transfer rate for the two gravity conditions
Fig. 15 Flow boiling gravity Influence map for 6.0 mm tube become smaller.
Microgravity Sci. Technol. (2012) 24:203–213 211

1.5 1.5
1.4 D = 6.0 mm 1.4 G = 90 kg/m -s
2
G = 280 kg/m2-s
G = 136 kg/m22-s G = 355 kg/m22-s
T 1.3 G = 140 kg/m2-s G = 400 kg/m2-s
1.3 wall-1
G = 188 kg/m -s G = 520 kg/m -s
1.2 1.2 G = 240 kg/m2-s

ho-g/h1-g [-]
1.1 1.1
[-]
1-g

1 1
h /h
o-g

0.9 0.9
0.8 2 2
G = 300 kg/m -s 0.8
G = 50 kg/m -s
0.7 G = 100 kg/m2-s G = 350 kg/m2-s 0.7 D = 4.0 mm
G = 150 kg/m2-s G = 400 kg/m2-s
0.6 0.6 T
G = 210 kg/m2-s wall-10

0.5 0.5
-0.4 -0.35 -0.3 -0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 -0.3 -0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05
X [-] X [-]
out out

Fig. 17 Influence of gravity on the heat transfer coefficients Fig. 18 Influence of gravity on the heat transfer coefficients
versus the vapor quality for various mass flux for 6.0 mm tube versus the vapor quality for various mass flux for 4.0 mm tube
at thermocouple Tw1 at thermocouple Tw10

sites and longer waiting time between two contiguous

nucleations.
The graph in Fig. 16 shows a small group of data
For the higher mass flux, inertial forces acting on
points that show an increase in the heat transfer
the growing bubble become predominant in the forces
coefficient at low gravity (about 20%). These tests show
balance and differences in bubble size and flow pattern
a transition of the flow pattern from bubbly flow, at
at the two gravity levels tend to disappear, as well as the
terrestrial gravity, to intermittent flow, at low gravity,
differences in the heat transfer rate.
being this latter characterised by higher heat transfer
Figure 18 shows the results for the D = 4.0 mm tube.
rates, which could be the reason for higher heat transfer
For all values of exit vapour quality (i.e., all values of
rates showed by this small group of experimental data.
mass flux and heat flux) the heat transfer rate does not
Figure 17 shows heat transfer results at the inlet of
exhibit any difference (all data within ±8%) between
the test section (Tw1 ). A number of experimental data
low and terrestrial gravity.
having G < 150 kg/m2 s shows and increase in the heat
Figure 19 shows the results obtained with the D =
transfer coefficient at low gravity. As already stated,
2.0 mm tube. Apart from some data scatter, at low mass
the effect of gravity on heat transfer rate reduction at
flux the reduction in gravity level causes a reduction
low mass flux and low heat flux can be explained by the
in the heat transfer coefficient down to about 30%.
difference in bubble dimensions between the two grav-
ity levels, which can be associated with and increase in
the turbulence level thus eventually increasing the heat 1.5
transfer rate. As explained in a paper published in 2007 1.4
D = 2.0 mm
T
by Celata et al., at low gravity vapour bubbles are larger 1.3
wall-10

than those at normal gravity, other conditions being

1.2
equal, these differences being affected by the mass flux
1.1
ho-g/h1-g [-]

(the lower the mass flux, the larger the difference in

bubble diameters). Larger bubbles at low gravity are 1

caused by the absence of the buoyancy force, among the 0.9

forces acting on a bubble during the nucleation, growth 0.8
G = 270 kg/m2-s
CHF CHF
and detachment phases on the heated wall. Lack of 0.7 G = 370 kg/m2-s
G = 470 kg/m2-s
CHF
buoyancy force causes a longer period of growth and, 0.6 CHF
G = 550 kg/m2-s
therefore, a larger diameter (needed to allow the drag 0.5
-0.3 -0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05
force to detach the bubble) at the detachment.
X [-]
At low gravity, heat transfer rate in flow boil- out

ing, when bubble population is high enough (end of Fig. 19 Influence of gravity on the heat transfer coefficients
channel) can be reduced by the presence of larger versus the vapor quality for various mass flux for 2.0 mm tube
bubbles due to the reduction of active nucleation at thermocouple Tw10
212 Microgravity Sci. Technol. (2012) 24:203–213

220 2.0
PF46P20D1 Hyper-g Micro-g Hyper-g 2.0 mm, using FC-72 as test fluid, and the Novespace
210
D = 2.0 mm Airbus A300 ZeroG running the parabolic flights.
200 2
190 G = 270 kg/m s 1.6 Flow boiling heat transfer rate at low gravity can be
P = 1.2 bar
180 either increased (up to 20%) or reduced (down to 35%)
Tw1
170
160
Tw2 1.2 in subcooled flow boiling when the flow pattern is of
Tw3

a /g [-]
the bubbly flow type, depending on local conditions

z
150 Tw4
w

140 Tw5 of turbulence or vapour clot size. The increase in the

T

Tw6
130
Tw7
120
110
Tw8
Tw9
100 Tw10
90 a /g [-]
z
80
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
t [s]
Fig. 20 Wall temperatures graph over time for 2.0 mm tube with
the thermal crisis at low gravity
There are few exceptions at higher mass flux showing
a significant increase in the heat transfer coefficient.
Other interesting characteristics of the smallest di-
ameter (D = 2.0 mm) are that many flow boiling tests
are affected by the presence of thermal crisis and flow
instabilities during the microgravity time. Figure 20
shows a typical graph of wall temperature traces versus
time, together with the value of the vertical gravita-
tional acceleration. All temperatures, at low gravity,
show an initial decrease revealing and increase in the
heat transfer rate. This could be due to the incipience
of slug from the earlier bubbly flow regime. After few
seconds, maybe due to instability of the liquid film
between the elongated bubble and the heated wall,
vapour comes into contact with the wall thus causing
the occurrence of the critical heat flux, as testified by
the typical increasing curve of the wall temperatures.
After the microgravity phase, and during the hyper-
gravity time, some temperature traces (clearly thermo-
couples 1 to 7 in the test reported in the Figure) exhibit
the typical rewetting shape demonstrating the critical
heat flux reaching during the microgravity time. The
last two thermocouples are still increasing during this
time creating stability problems before the running of
the test in the following parabola. The tests affected
by the thermal crisis occurrence are those, reported in
Fig. 19, with the lowest heat transfer coefficients ratio.
Conclusions
The paper presents the results of flow boiling experi-
ments carried out at low gravity obtained with parabolic
flight and compared with tests performed at terrestrial
gravity. Experiments have been carried out in transpar-
ent tubes with three different inner diameters: 6.0, 4.0,
0.8
heat transfer rate is thought to be associated with local
turbulence increase due to larger bubble size in low
0.4
gravity and to the different flow patterns observed at
the two different gravity levels: bubbly flow at 1-g and
0.0
120 intermittent flow at 0-g. The heat transfer rate decrease
at low gravity is more difficult to be explained.
As the vapour quality is increased differences in heat
transfer rate between the two gravity levels tend to
disappear. For exit qualities higher than 0.275, there
are no differences in heat transfer rate passing from
terrestrial to low gravity. Mass flux plays an important
role in flow boiling at low gravity. For the largest tube
tested (D = 6.0 mm), experimental tests show that the
gravity affects heat transfer rate for mass flux lower
than 425 kg/m2 s. As the tube diameter is reduced,
the region where the gravity influences flow boiling is
reduced as well. The smallest tube (D = 2.0 mm) shows
a lot of instabilities and thermal crisis in many tests at
low gravity.
Experimental results are also presented in a flow
boiling gravity influence map, which can be considered
a useful tool for designing boiling systems for space
applications. This map (shown for the D = 6.0 mm pipe)
shows the region where the gravity has a significant
influence on flow boiling and where the classical design
tools could show poor prediction capabilities.
Nomenclature
A area [m2 ]
cp specific heat at constant pressure [J/kg-K]
D tube diameter [m]
g gravitational acceleration [m/s2 ]
G mass flux [kg/m2 -s]
h heat transfer coefficient [W/m2 -K]
L length [m]
p pressure [MPa]
q heat flux [W/m2 ]
Q volumetric flow-rate [ml/min]
t time [s]
T temperature [◦ C]
x vapour quality [-]
W power [W]
z axial position [m]
Microgravity Sci. Technol. (2012) 24:203–213 213

Subscripts Celata, G.P., Cumo, M., Gervasi, M., Zummo, G.: Flow pattern
analysis of flow boiling in microgravity. Multiph. Sci. Tech-
nol. 19(2), 183–210 (2007)
b pertains to the bulk conditions
Di Marco, P.: Review of reduced gravity boiling heat transfer:
el electric european research. J. Jpn. Soc. Microgr. Appl. 20, 252–263
in pertains to the inlet conditions (2003)
out pertains to the outlet conditions Kim, J.H.: Review of reduced gravity boiling heat transfer:
US research. J. Jpn. Soc. Microgr. Appl. 20, 264–271
sub pertaining to subcooled conditions
(2003)
w wall Luciani, S., Brutin, D., Le Niliot, C., Tadrist, L., Rahli, O.: Boil-
ing heat transfer in a vertical microchannel: local estimation
Acknowledgements We thank the ESA (MAP Boiling) for during flow boiling with a non intrusive method. Multiph.
their financial support and for parabolic flights onboard A300 Sci. Technol. 21(4), 297–328 (2009)
Zero-G. We also express our gratitude to Novespace and more Ohta, H.: Heat transfer mechanisms in microgravity flow boiling.
especially to C. Mora and F. Gai for their technical assistance future experiments on the international space station. Ann.
during the ESA campaigns PF38, PF39 and PF42. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 974, 463–480 (2002)
Ohta, H.: Review of reduced gravity boiling heat transfer:
Japanese research. J. Jpn. Soc. Microgr. Appl. 20, 272–285
(2003)
References Ohta, H., Baba, A., Gabriel, K.: Review of existing research on
microgravity boiling and two-phase flow. future experiments
3M: Fluorinert electronic liquid Fc-72. 3M Specialty Materials on the international space station. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 974,
(2000) 410–427 (2002)
Celata, G.P., Zummo, G.: Flow boiling heat transfer in micro- Straub, J.: Boiling heat transfer and bubble dynamics in micro-
gravity: recent progress. Multiph. Sci. Technol. 21(3), 187– gravity. In: Advances in Heat Transfer, vol. 35, pp. 57–172.
212 (2009) Academic Press (2001)