TY - JOUR
T1 - 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)
T2 - 15-31 (International Journal of Multiphase Flow (2018) 105 (15–31), (S0301932217308091), (10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2018.02.022))
AU - Haustein, Herman D.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2021/8
Y1 - 2021/8
N2 - 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, ρv/ρl, 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, ρv/ρl, 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.
AB - 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, ρv/ρl, 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, ρv/ρl, 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85112023242&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2021.103583
DO - 10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2021.103583
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.comment???
AN - SCOPUS:85112023242
SN - 0301-9322
VL - 141
JO - International Journal of Multiphase Flow
JF - International Journal of Multiphase Flow
M1 - 103583
ER -