Corrigendum to article “A kinetics-based universal model for single bubble growth and departure in nucleate pool boiling” International Journal of Multiphase Flow 105 (2018): 15-31 (International Journal of Multiphase Flow (2018) 105 (15–31), (S0301932217308091), (10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2018.02.022))

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Abstract

Crucial corrections: 1 On p.19 right column, top – in a discussion on the correct bubble rise velocity, the incorrect one was applied. It currently reads:“In addition, observing that for departure ud≥ dR/dt, we consider values used in previous analysis: Turton (1965) took its lower limit, ud= dR/dt – equivalent to a hovering sphere at departure, while Saini et al. (1975) and Roll & Myers (1964) took its upper limit – the normal velocity of the bubble tip, ud=2(dR/dt). Conversely, Zeng et al. (1993) used an intermediate value of ud=√3(dR/dt) based on inviscid flow analysis of a hemi-sphere, as also taken here. For the added mass drag coefficient there seems to be more agreement and values around ½ are typical, as in Saini et al.,1975, with 11/16 used by Roll & Myers, 1964 and √3/4≈0.433 by Zeng et al. (1993). Taking CMr=1/2 and assuming R(t)=Ktn leads to the reduced force balance, Eq. (2) - differing from Zeng et al. (1993) only by the value of the added mass coefficient and the retention of the density ratio term, ρvl, as at the high pressures examined here vapour density isn't always negligible: [Figure presented] It should be: “In addition, observing that for departure ud≥ dR/dt, we consider values used in previous analysis: Turton (1965) took its lower limit, ud= dR/dt – equivalent to a hovering sphere at departure. Conversely, Zeng et al. (1993) used an intermediate value of ud=√3(dR/dt) based on inviscid flow analysis of a hemi-sphere, whereas Saini et al. (1975) and Roll & Myers (1964) took its upper limit – the normal velocity of the bubble tip, ud=2(dR/dt), as also used here. For the added mass drag coefficient there seems to be more agreement and values around ½ are typical, as in Saini et al.,1975, with 11/16 used by Roll & Myers, 1964 and √3/4≈0.433 by Zeng et al. (1993). Taking CMr=1/2 and assuming R(t)=Ktn leads to the reduced force balance, Eq. (2) - differing from Zeng et al. (1993) only by the value of the coefficients and the retention of the density ratio term, ρvl, as at the high pressures examined here vapour density isn't always negligible: [Figure presented] 1 This error carries over to Eq. 22 & 23 (accidentally are already missing the original value), which are currently: [Figure presented] But should be: [Figure presented] And currently [Figure presented] Should be: [Figure presented] Typos: 1 Three other typos have been found: a) On page 17, left column[Formula presented] Should be g−1/2 b) On page 23, right column [Formula presented] Should be g−1/3 c) On p. 24 left column the present form is disrupted: [Formula presented] Should be 1/p0.81The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Original languageEnglish
Article number103583
JournalInternational Journal of Multiphase Flow
Volume141
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2021

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Mechanical Engineering
  • Fluid Flow and Transfer Processes
  • General Physics and Astronomy

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Corrigendum to article “A kinetics-based universal model for single bubble growth and departure in nucleate pool boiling” International Journal of Multiphase Flow 105 (2018): 15-31 (International Journal of Multiphase Flow (2018) 105 (15–31), (S0301932217308091), (10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2018.02.022))'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this