Proceedings of IMECE2002

ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition

November 17-22, 2002, New Orleans, Louisiana

IMECE2002-33876
A NUMERICAL STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF CONTACT ANGLE ON THE DYNAMICS OF A
SINGLE BUBBLE DURING POOL BOILING

H.S.Abarajith and V.K.Dhir!

University of California, Los Angeles, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, Los Angeles, CA
90095, U.S.A, email: vdhir@seas.ucla.edu
ABSTRACT
The effect of contact angle on the growth and departure of a
single bubble on a horizontal heated surface during pool boiling
under normal gravity conditions has been investigated using
numerical simulations. The contact angle is varied by changing
the Hamaker constant that defines the long-range forces. A
finite difference scheme is used to solve the equations
governing mass, momentum and energy in the vapor and liquid
phases. The vapor-liquid interface is captured by the Level Set
method, which is modified to include the influence of phase
change at the liquid-vapor interface. The contact angle is varied
from 1 to 90 and its effect on the bubble departure diameter
and the bubble growth period are studied. Both water and
PF5060 are used as test liquids. The contact angle is kept
constant throughout the bubble growth and departure process.
The effect of contact angle on the parameters like thermal
boundary layer thickness, wall heat flux and heat flux from the
microlayer under various conditions of superheats and
subcoolings is also studied.
INTRODUCTION
Boiling, being the most efficient mode of heat transfer is
employed in various energy conversion systems and component
cooling devices. In order to have a good understanding of the
process, a number of analytical, experimental and numerical
studies have been carried out in the past through the modeling
of bubble dynamics including the growth and departure of the
vapor bubbles. In this work complete numerical simulations of
bubble dynamics in pool boiling are carried out to qualify the
effect of contact angle.
Fritz (1935) was the first to develop an equation for the
bubble departure diameter involving contact angle by balancing
buoyancy with surface tension forces acting on a static bubble.
His empirical expression for bubble departure diameter
involving contact angle is given as
!

D d = 0.02008 /[ g ( l v )]

(1)

where is the contact angle in degrees.

Stainszewski (1959) suggested a correlation including the
effect of bubble growing velocity as
D d = 0.0071

where

2 /[ g ( l v )](1 + .435 *

dD
dt

(2)

dD
is given in inches per second just prior to
dt

departure.
Lee and Nydahl (1989) calculated the bubble growth rate
by solving the flow and temperature fields numerically from the
momentum and energy equations. They used the formulation of
Cooper and Llyod (1969) for micro layer thickness. However
they assumed a hemispherical bubble and wedge shaped
microlayer and thus they neither accounted for nor evaluated
the radial variation of the microlayer thickness during the
growth of the bubble.
Zeng et al. (1993) used a force balance approach to
predict the bubble diameter at departure. They included the
surface tension, inertial force, buoyancy and the lift force
created by the wake of the previous departed bubble. But there
was empiricism involved in computing the inertial and drag
forces. The study assumed a power law profile for growth rate
and the coefficients were determined from the experiments.
Mei et al. (1995) derived results for the bubble growth and
departure time assuming a wedge shaped microlayer. They also
assumed that the heat transfer to the bubble was only through
the microlayer, which is not correct. The study did not consider
the hydrodynamics of the liquid motion induced by the growing
bubble and introduced empiricism through the assumed shape
of the growing bubble. Welch (1998) has used a finite volume

author for correspondance

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright 2002 by ASME

method and an interface tracking method to model bubble

dynamics. The conduction in the solid wall was also taken into
account. However, the microlayer was not modeled explicitely.
Lay and Dhir (1995) carried out complete analysis of the
microlayer including disjoining pressure term, vapor recoil
pressure and interfacial heat transfer resistance to determine the
shape of the microlayer for various contact angles. They used
balance between forces due to curvature of interface, disjoining
pressure, hydrostatic head and liquid drag, which in turn
determined the shape of the vapor-liquid interface.
Qiu and Dhir (2001) performed experiments for the
determination of the bubble departure diameter and time period
of growth with water as well as PF5060 as test liquids. They
observed smaller departure diameters and growth periods in the
case of PF5060 than those for water and they attributed this to
the difference in the contact angles of the two liquids. Smaller
contact angle causes smaller departure diameters and shorter
growth periods.
Son et al. (1999) numerically simulated the bubble growth
during the nucleate boiling by using the Level Set method. This
method has been applied to adiabatic incompressible two-phase
flow by Sussman et al. (1994) and to film boiling near critical
pressures by Son and Dhir (1998). The computational domain
was divided into two regions viz. micro and macro regions. The
interface shape, position and velocity and temperature fields
were obtained from the macro region by solving the
conservation equations. The micro region equations, which
include the disjoining pressure in the thin liquid film, were
solved by employing the lubrication theory. The solutions of
the micro region and macro region were matched at the outer
edge of the micro layer.
The purpose of the present study is to evaluate and
analyze the effect of contact angle on the bubble growth and
heat transfer associated with it. The work of Son et al. (1999) is
extended here to find the variations of bubble departure
diameters, growth period and heat transfer associated with it for
various contact angles.
NOMENCLATURE
A0 = dispersion constant, J
c p = specific heat at constant pressure, kJ/(kg K)
D = Lift-off diameter of the bubble, m
ge = gravitational acceleration at earth level, m/s2
g
= gravitational acceleration at any level, m/s2
H = step function
h = grid spacing for the macro region
hev = evaporative heat transfer coefficient, W/(m2 K)
C
*+Tw
Ja* = Jackob number, p l
h fg
h fg = latent heat of evaporation, J/Kg
K

l0
M

G
m
p
q

R
R

= interfacial curvature, 1/m

= characteristic length, m
= molecular weight
= evaporative mass rate vector at interface, kg/(m2 s)
= pressure, Pa
= heat flux, W/m2
= radius of computational domain, m
= universal gas constant, -

R0

= radius of dry region beneath a bubble, m

R1

= radial location of the interface at y=h/2, m

r = radial coordinate, m
T = temperature, K
t = time, s
t0 = characteristic time, l0 / u0 , s
u = velocity in r direction, m/s
G
uint = interfacial velocity vector, m/s
u0 = characteristic velocity,
m micro = evaporative mass rate from micro layer, kg/s
Vc = volume of a control volume in the micro region, m3
v = velocity in y direction, m/s
Z
z

= height of computational domain, m

= vertical coordinate normal to the heating wall, m
= thermal diffusivity, m2/s

t = coefficient of thermal expansion, 1/K

= liquid thin film thickness, m
T = thermal layer thickness, m
( ) = smoothed delta function, = apparent contact angle, deg
= level set function
= dimensionless temperature,

(T-Ts)/(Twall- Ts)
= thermal conductivity, W/mK
= viscosity, Pa s
= kinematic viscosity, m2/s
= density, kg/m3
= surface tension, N/m
= mass flow rate in the micro layer, kg/s
Ts = heating wall superheat, K

Subscripts
l , v = liquid and vapor phase

r , z , t = / r , / y, / t
s, wall = saturation, wall
int = interface

= infinite
MATHEMATICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL
ASSUMPTIONS
The assumptions made in the model are:
1) The process is two dimensional and axisymmetric.
2) The flows are laminar.
3) The wall temperature remains constant throughout the
process.
4) Pure water and PF5060 at atmospheric pressure are used
as the test fluids.

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright 2002 by ASME

5) The thermodynamic properties of the individual phases

are assumed to be
insensitive to the small changes in temperature and pressure.
The assumption of constant property is reasonable as the
computations are performed for low wall superheat range.
6) Variations of contact angle during advancing and receding
phases of the interface are not included.
ANALYSIS
The model of Son et al. (1999) is extended to study single
bubble growth in nucleate boiling for various contact angles.
The computational domain is divided in to two regions viz.
micro region and macro region as shown in Fig.1. The micro
region is a thin film that lies underneath the bubble whereas the
macro region consists of the bubble and its surrounding. Both
the regions are coupled and are solved for simultaneously. The
calculated shapes of the interface in the micro region and macro
region are matched at the outer edge of the micro layer.

According to the lubrication theory, the momentum

equation in the micro region is written as,

pl
2u
= 2
r
z

(4)

where pl is the pressure in the liquid. Heat conducted through

the thin film must match that due to evaporation from the
vapor-liquid interface. By using modified Clausius-Clapeyron
equation, the energy conservation equation for the micro region
yields,
k l (Twall Tint )

= hev Tint Tv +

( pl pv )Tv

l h fg

(5)

The evaporative heat transfer coefficient is obtained from

kinetic theory as,

M
hev = 2

2 RTv

1/ 2

v h 2fg
(6)

Tv

and Tv = Ts ( pv )
The pressure of the vapor and liquid phases at the interface are
related by,

pl = pv K

A0

q2

(7)

2 v h 2fg

where A0 is the dispersion constant or Hamaker constant. The

second term on the right-hand side of equation (7) accounts for
the capillary pressure caused by the curvature of the interface,
the third term is for the disjoining pressure, and the last term
originates from the recoil pressure. The curvature of the
interface is defined
as,

MICRO REGION
The equation of mass conservation in micro region is
written as,

q
h fg

1
r r

l .rudz

(3)

where q is the conductive heat flux from the interface, defined

as

kl (Twall Tint )

with

as the thickness of the thin film.

Lubrication theory and one dimensional heat transfer in

the thin film have been assumed in a manner similar to that in
the earlier works by Stephan and Hammer (1994) and Lay and
Dhir (1995).

2
1

r
K=
/ 1+

r r r
r

(8)

The combination of the mass conservation, equation (3),

momentum conservation equation .(4), energy conservation,
equation (5) and pressure balance equation, (7) along with
equation (8) for the curvature for the micro-region yields a set
of three nonlinear first order ordinary differential equations
(7),(8) and (9)

r
r

r (1 + r2 )

l h fg

Tv

(1 + r2 )3 / 2

q A0
q2

+
T
T

int v

hev 3 v h 2fg

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

(9)

Copyright 2002 by ASME

Tint

r
[]
r

q r

l + hev

3Tv hev
( l + hev ) h fg r
2
l

(10)

T = Ts ( pv ) for H = 0

The fluid density, viscosity and thermal conductivity of water

are defined in terms of the step function H as,

rq

(11)

h fg

= v + ( l v ) H
1 = v1 + ( l1 v1 ) H
1 = l1 H

The above three differential equations (9)-(11) can be

simultaneously integrated by using a Runge-Kutta method,
when initial conditions at r = R0 are given. In present case,
the radial location R1 the interface shape obtained from micro
and macro solutions are matched. As much this is the end point
for the integration of the above set of equations. The radius of
dry region beneath a bubble, R0 , is related to R1 from the
definition
of
the
apparent
contact
angle,
tan = 0.5h /( R1 R0 ) .
The boundary conditions for film thickness at the end points
are:

= 0 , r = 0, = 0

at r = R0

= h / 2, rr = 0

at r = R1

(12)

where, 0 is the interline film thickness at the tip of microlayer, which is calculated by combining Eqs. (3) and (4) and
requiring that Tint = Twall at r = R0 and h is the spacing of
the two dimensional grid for the macro-region. For a given
Tint,0 at r = R0 , a unique shape of the vapor-liquid interface is
obtained.

For numerically analyzing the macro region, the level set

formulation developed by Son et al. (1999) for nucleate boiling
of pure liquid is used. The interface separating the two phases is
captured by which is defined as a signed distance from the
interface. The negative sign is chosen for the vapor phase and
the positive sign for the liquid phase. The discontinuous
pressure drop across vapor and liquid caused by surface tension
force is smoothed into a numerically continuous function with a
- function formulation (refer to Sussman et al., 1994, for
detail). The continuity, momentum and energy, conservation
equations for the vapor and liquid in the macro region are
written as,

t + ( u ) = 0
G

(18)
(19)

where, H is the Heviside function, which is smoothed over

three grid spaces as described below,

1 if 1.5h

H =
0 if 1.5h

2
0.5 + + sin
3h /(2 ) if | | 1.5h

3h

(20)

The mass conservation equation (13) can be rewritten as,

G
G
u = ( t + u ) /

(21)

The term on right hand side of equation (19) is the volume

expansion due to liquid-vapor phase change. From the
conditions of the mass continuity and energy balance at the
vapor-liquid interface, the following equations are obtained,

G
G
+ g T (T Ts ) g (t ) K H

c p ( Tt + u T ) = T for H > 0

(22)

G
m = T / h fg

(23)

where m is the water evaporation rate vector, and uint is

interface velocity. If the interface is assumed to advect in the
same way as the level set function, the advection equation for
density at the interface can be written as,

t + uint = 0

(24)

Using equations (18), (20) and (21), the continuity equation,

(19) for macro region is rewritten as,

G
G m
u = 2

(13)

(25)

GT

( ut + u u ) = p + u + u

(17)

G
G
G
G
G
m = ( uint u ) = l ( uint ul )
G
G
= v ( uint uv )

MACRO REGION

(16)

(14)

The vapor produced as a result of evaporation from the micro

region is added to the vapor space through the cells adjacent to
the heated wall, and is expressed as,

(15)

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright 2002 by ASME

 1 dV
m mic
( )

=
Vc dt mic Vc v

(26)

 mic is the
where, Vc is the volume of a control volume, m
evaporation rate from the micro-layer and is expressed as,
m mic =

R1

R0

l (Tw Tint )
rdr
h fg

(27)

The volume expansion contributed by micro layer is smoothed

at the vapor-liquid interface by the smoothed delta function

( ) = H /

(28)

In level set formulation, the level set function is used to keep

track of the vapor-liquid interface location as the set of points
where = 0 , and it is advanced by the interfacial velocity
while solving the following equation,

t = uint
To keep the values of
function | |= 1,

(29)

SOLUTION
The governing equations are numerically integrated by
following the procedure of Son et al. (1999).
The computational domain is chosen to be
( R / l0 , Z / l0 ) = (1, 4) , so that the bubble growth process is
not affected by the boundaries of the computational domain.
The initial velocity is assumed to be zero everywhere in the
domain. The initial fluid temperature profile is taken to be
linear in the natural convection thermal boundary layer and the
thermal boundary layer thickness, T , is evaluated using the
correlation for the turbulent natural convection on a horizontal
plate as,

T = 7.14( l l / g T T )1/ 3
The calculations are carried out over several cycles of
bubble growth and departure until no cycle-to-cycle change in
the bubble growth pattern or in the temperature profile is
observed.. The mesh size for all calculations is chosen as
98 298. It represents the best trade-off in calculation accuracy
and computing time, has been shown by Son et al. (1999).
The procedure given by Son et al. (1999) to match the solutions
for the micro and macro regions is adopted here to vary the
contact angle.
1) The value of A0 , the Hamaker constant is guessed for
a given contact angle.
2) The macrolayer equations are solved to determine the
value of R1 (radial location of the vapor-liquid
interface at = h / 2. )
3) The microlayer equations are solved with the guessed
value of A0 , the Hamaker constant to determine the
value of R0 (radial location of the vapor-liquid
interface at = 0. )
4) The apparent contact angle is calculated using
equation tan = 0.5h /( R1 R0 ) and repeat steps 1-4

close to that of a signed distance

is reinitialized after every time step,

(1 | |)
=
t
02 + h 2

(30)

where, 0 is a solution of equation (27).

The boundary conditions for velocity, temperature,
concentration, and level set function for the governing
equations, (11)-(14) are:

for a different value of A0 , the Hamaker constant, if

the values of the given and the calculated apparent
contact angles are different.

u = v = 0, T = Twall ,

z = cos

at z = 0

u z = vz = 0, T = Ts ,

(31)

z = 0

at z = Z

u = vr = Tr = r = 0

at r = 0, R

For the numerical calculations, the governing equations for

micro and macro regions are non-dimensionalized by defining
the characteristic length, l0 , the characteristic velocity, u0 , and
the characteristic time, t0 as

l0 = /[ g ( l v )]; u0 =
t0 = l0 / u0

gl0 ;
(32)

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright 2002 by ASME

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

BUBBLE DEPARTURE DIAMETER AND GROWTH
PERIOD
Fig. 2(a) shows the variation of bubble departure diameter with
contact angle for various wall superheats in saturated water.
The bubble diameter increases slightly nonlinearly with contact
angle for a given wall superheat. This is due to the increase in
the base area in contact with the wall, which increases the
contribution of downward force due to surface tension.
The force due to surface tension increases with the increase in
the contact angle which in turn increases the vapor volume
required for bubble departure.

higher contact angles. The bubble shapes for various contact

angles are given in Fig. 3 at time, which is half of the bubble
growth period. For a contact angle of 90, the bubble is
hemispherical and approaches nearly a spherical shape for a
contact angle of 10.

Fig. 2(a). The Variation of Equivalent Bubble Diameter with

Contact angle for various wall superheats, Tsub = 0 C at 1 atm
pressure for water.

Fig. 3 Comparison of Bubble shapes for various Contact angle

at Tw=8 K and Tsub =0 K at 1 atm pressure at a time instant
of t = tg/2 (i.e., the half growth) for water.
DISPERSION CONSTANT
The value of A0 , the Hamaker constant or the
dispersion constant is found out by iteration so as to match the
bubble shape at the outer edge of the microlayer with that of the
macrolayer. Fig. 4 shows the variation of the dispersion
constant, A0 with contact angle for water and PF5060. The
Fig. 2(b). The Variation of Time period of Growth of bubble
with Contact angle for various wall superheats, Tsub = 0 C at
1 atm pressure for water.
The growth period of the bubble also increases
nonlinearly with the increase in the contact angle. Fig. 2(b)
shows the variation of bubble growth period with contact angle
for various wall superheats in saturated water. This is due to the
increased contribution of the surface tension force in the case of

dispersion constant A0 goes from negative to positive value at

around 18 indicating the change to attractive nature between
the liquid and wall. The value of the dispersion constant A0
doesnt vary much between water and PF5060 for the same
contact angle and a wall superheat of 8 C.

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright 2002 by ASME

that of experimental values of Qiu et al (2001). Again

agreement between the shapes is reasonable.

Fig.
4. The Variation of Hamakers Constant, A0 with Contact angle
for Tw = 8 C, Tsub =0 C at 1 atm pressure for water and
PF5060.

Fig. 5 (a) The Variation of Heat Transfer Rate with Time from
Microlayer for various Contact angles at Tw = 8 C, Tsub =0
C at 1 atm pressure for water.

HEAT TRANSFER RATES

Fig. 5(a) shows the heat transfer rate corresponds to
evaporation from the microlayer and in to the bubble for
various contact angles and a wall superheat of 8 C in saturated
water. The heat transfer rates increase with the increase in
contact angle because of the increase in bubble base area as
shown earlier in the fig. 3. Fig. 5(b) shows the heat transfer rate
corresponding to evaporation from the macrolayer surrounding
the bubble. The macrolayer contribution also increases
substantially with the increase in contact angle because of a
substantial increase in the bubble diameter and bubble growth
period with contact angle. The total heat transfer rates i.e., the
sum of the heat transfer rates form microlayer and macrolayer
was found match well with the heat transfer rate obtained from
vapor volume growth rate
dV
Q to ta l = v h fg d t

(33)

where V is volume of the bubble at any time instant which

provides a validation for the numerical code.
EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION
Fig. 6 shows the comparison of the time dependence
of equivalent bubble diameter for PF5060 with contact angle,
=10, obtained numerically with the data of Qiu et al (2001)
for a wall superheat of 19C and a liquid subcooling of 0.6C.
The equivalent bubble diameter is the diameter of the sphere
having the same volume as the bubble. The numerical results
match well with the experimental data. The value of the
dispersion constant, A0 calculated for PF5060 is about 2*10-21
J, which indicates the attractive nature between the wall and the
liquid and wetting nature of the liquid resulting in the lower
bubble departure diameters and smaller growth periods.
Predicted bubble base diameter is also found to be in agreement
with that obtained in the experiments. Fig. 7 shows qualititative
comparison of the bubble shapes generated numerically with

Fig. 5 (b) The Variation of Heat Transfer Rate from Macrolayer

with Time for various Contact angles at Tw = 8 C, Tsub =0
C at 1 atm pressure for water.
COMPARISON OF WATER AND PF5060
Fig. 8 (a) shows the comparison of predicted bubble
departure diameters with contact angle at a wall superheat of
8C in saturated water and PF5060 whereas Fig. 8(b) shows
such a comparison when the bubble diameters are nondimensionalized with l0. The Non-dimensional bubble
departure diameter of PF5060 is higher than that of water at all
contact angles whereas the actual departure diameters of water
are always greater than that of PF5060. This is due to the large
value of Jackob number, Ja* for PF5060 (Ja*=0.106) in
comparison to that for water (Ja*=0.015). This mainly reflects
on the increase in liquid inertia as a result of faster growth of
the bubble.

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright 2002 by ASME

Fig. 6 The Variation of Equivalent Bubble Diameter with Time

for Tw = 19 C, Tsub =0.6 C at 1 atm pressure for PF5060
with contact angle, =10.

Fig. 8(a). The Variation of Bubble Departure Diameter with

Contact angle for water and PF5060 at Tw = 8 C , Tsub = 0
C at 1 atm pressure

Fig. 8(b) The Variation of Non-dimensional Bubble Departure

Diameter with Contact Angle at Tw = 8 C, Tsub = 0 C at 1
atm pressure for PF5060 and water.

Fig. 7 Comparison of numerical and experimental growthdeparture cycles for PF5060 at earth normal gravity and
atmospheric pressure, Tsub = 0. 6C, Tw =19.0C.

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright 2002 by ASME

CONCLUSIONS
1) The bubble departure diameter increases with the increase
in the contact angle. The contact angle is related to the
magnitude of the Hamaker constant, which is found to change
with the surface wettability.
2) The dispersion constant, A0 goes from negative to positive
value at around 18 indicating the change in the repulsive to
attractive nature between the wall and the liquid.
3) The magnitude of dispersion constant A0 does not differ
much between water and PF5060 for the same contact angle for
same superheat.
4) The Non-dimensional departure diameters of PF5060 are
greater than those for water due to the higher values of the
Jackob number.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work received support from NASA under the
Microgravity Fluid Physics program.
REFERENCES
1. Frtiz, W., 1935, Maximum Volume of Vapor Bubbles,
Physik Zeitschr., Vol.36, pp. 379-384.
2. Stainszewski, B. E., 1959, Nucleate Boiling Bubble
Growth and Departure, Technical Report, No. 16, Division of
Sponsored Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA.
3. Lee, R.C and Nyadhl, J.E., Numerical Calculation of
Bubble Growth in Nucleate Boiling from inception to
departure, Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol. 111, pp.474-479.
4. Zeng, L.Z., Klausner, J.F. and Mei, R., 1993, A unified
Model for the prediction of Bubble Detachment Diameters in

Boiling Systems-1.Pool Boiling, International Journal of Heat

and Mass Transfer, Vol. 36, pp 2261-2270.
5. Mei, R., Chen, W. and Klausner, J. F., 1995, Vapor
Bubble Growth in Heterogeneus Boiling-1.Growth Rate and
Thermal Fileds, International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer, Vol. 38 pp 921-934.
6. Qiu, D., and Dhir, V.K., 2001, Interacting Effects of
Gravity, Wall superheat, Liquid Subcooling and Fluid
Properties on Dynamics of a Single Bubble. In press. Submitted
to Journal of Heat Transfer.
7. Welch, S. W. J., 1998, Direct Simulation of Vapor Bubble
Growth, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer,
Vol. 41,pp. 1655-1666.
8. Son, G., Dhir, V.K., and Ramanujapu, N., 1999,
"Dynamics and Heat Transfer Associated With a Single Bubble
During Nucleate Boiling on a Horizontal Surface", Journal of
Heat Transfer, Vol.121, pp.623-632.
9. Son, G., Dhir, V.K.,1998, "Numerical Analysis of Film
Boiling Near Critical Pressure with Level Set Method", Journal
of Heat Transfer, Vol.120, pp.183-192.
10. Lay, J. H., and Dhir, V. K., 1995, Numerical Calculation
of Bubble Growth in Nucleate Boiling of Saturated Liquids,
Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol. 117, pp.394-401.
11. Stephan, P., and Hammer, J., 1994, A New Model for
Nucleate Boiling Heat Transfer, Heat and Mass Transfer,
Vol.30, pp. 119-125.
12. Sussman, M., Smereka, P and Osher, S., 1994, A Level
Set Approach for Computings Slutions to Incompressible Twophase flow, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 114, pp.
146-159.

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright 2002 by ASME