3.

2 Cryogenic Convection Heat Transfer

Involves process of heat transfer between

solid material and adjacent cryogenic fluid
Classic heat transfer problem (Newtons law)
q(kW/m2) = h (Ts Tf)
Configurations of interest

q
T f = Tmean

m& f

Internal forced flow (single phase, T f = Tmean)

Free convection (single phase, T f = T )
Internal two phase flow
Pool boiling (two phase)

Understanding is primarily empirical leading to

correlations based on dimensionless numbers
Issue is relevant to the design of:

Heat exchangers
Cryogenic fluid storage
Superconducting magnets
Low temperature instrumentation

USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

Ts

Liquid
Tf

Single phase internal flow heat transfer

Forced
Convection

Ts
Q

Classical fluid correlations

The heat transfer coefficient in a classical fluid system is generally

correlated in the form where the Nusselt number,
where, Nu D hD k
and D is the characteristic length
f
For laminar flow, NuD = constant ~ 4 (depending on b.c.)
For turbulent flow (ReD > 2000)

Nu D = f (Re D , Pr) = C Re Pr
n
D

& Tf
m,

and

Pr

f Cp
kf

(Prandtl number)

Dittus-Boelter Correlation for classical fluids (+/- 15%)

4

Nu D = 0.023 Re Pr
5

Note that fluid properties should be

computed at Tf (the film temperature):
USPAS Short Course

Tf

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

Ts + T f
2
2

Johannes Correlation (1972)

Improved correlation
specifically for helium
(+/- 8.3%)

Ts
Nu D = 0.0259 Re Pr
T
f
4

5
D

0.716

Last factor takes care of

temperature dependent
properties
Note that one often does
not know Tf, so iteration
may be necessary.

Example
USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

Application: Cryogenic heat exchangers

Common types of heat exchangers used

in cryogenic systems
P1, T1

Forced flow single phase fluid-fluid

E.g. counterflow heat exchanger in

refrigerator/liquefier

Forced single phase flow - boiling liquid

(Tube in shell HX)

P2, T2

E.g. LN2 precooler in a cooling circuit

Static boiling liquid-liquid

E.g. Liquid subcooler in a magnet system

USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

Simple 1-D heat exchanger

Ts

Differential equation describing the temperature of the fluid in

the tube:

m& C

& Tf
m,

dT f
dx

+ hP (T f TS ) = 0

For constant Ts, the solution of this equation is an exponential

hP
Ts T f = (Ts T f ) 0 exp
x
m& C

Ts - Tf

Increasing m

x
USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

Liquid nitrogen precooler

Ts

He (Tf = 80 K)

& Tf
m,

Assumptions & givens

He (Ti = 300 K)

LN2 (Ts = 77 K)
Ts is a constant @ 77 K (NBP of LN2)
Helium gas (Cp = 5.2 kJ/kg K; = 15 x 10-6 Pa s; = 0.3 kg/m3, k = 0.1
W/m K)
Allowed pressure drop, p = 10 kPa
Properties are average values
Helium mass flow rate = 1 g/s
between 300 K and 80 K

Find the length and diameter of the HX (copper tubing)

Total heat transfer:
Q = m& C p Tin Tout = 1 g/s x 5.2 J/g K x 220 K
= 1144 W
Log mean T:
T f (x = 0 ) T f (x = L )
(300-77) (80-77) K
Tlm =
=
T ( x = 0 )

ln f

ln [(300-77)/(80-77)]
(
)

=
T
x
L
f

= 51 K

USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

Liquid nitrogen precooler (continued)

UA = hDL = Q

Tlm

= 1144 W/51 K = 22.4 W/K

The heat transfer coefficient is a function of ReD and Pr = 0.67

Assuming the flow is turbulent and fully developed, use the Dittus Boelter
correlation

hD
Nu D =
= 0.023 Re 0D.8 Pr 0.3
kf

and

Substituting the ReD and solving for h

k f 4 m&

h = 0.023
D D

0 .8

Pr

0 .3

4m&
Re D =
D

0.0247 x 0.1 W/m K x (10-3 kg/s)0.8

(15 x 10-6 Pa s)0.8 x D1.8

= 0.07/D(m)1.8

hDL

USPAS Short Course

= 0.224 x (L/D0.8) = 22.4 W/K

or L/D0.8 = 100 m0.2

1 equation for two unknowns

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

Liquid nitrogen precooler (continued)

Pressure drop equation provides the other equation for L & D

L m&
p = f
2 D A flow

; Aflow = D2/4 and f ~ 0.02 (guess)

Re D =

4 x 0.001 kg/s
x 0.0062 m x 15 x 10-6 Pa s

Substituting for ReD and f

m& 2 L
p 0.016
D5
Substitute:
Eq. 1: L = 100 D0.8

4m&
D

L
0.016 x
5
=
3
D
0.3 kg/m
L
-8
p= 5.33 x 10 5
D
(10-3

kg/s)2

p= 5.33 x 10-6/D4.2

with

~ 13,700

2nd equation for

two unknowns

p = 10,000 Pa

D = [5.33 x 10-6/p]1/4.2 = 6.2 mm and L = 100 x (0.0062 m)0.8 = 1.7 m

USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

Single phase free convection heat transfer

g
Q

or

Q
D

Compressible fluid effect: Heat transfer warms the fluid near the
heated surface, reducing density and generating convective flow.
Free convection heat transfer is correlated in terms of the
Rayleigh number,

Nu L = f (Gr , Pr ) ~ CRa Ln

where

gTL3
RaL Gr Pr =
Dth

where g is the acceleration of gravity, is the bulk expansivity, is

the kinematic viscosity (/) and Dth is the thermal diffusivity (k/C).
L (or D) are the scale length of the problem (in the direction of g)
USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

Free convection correlations

For very low Rayleigh

number, Nu = 1
corresponding to pure
conduction heat transfer
For Ra < 109, the
boundary layer flow is
laminar (conv. fluids)

Free convection correlation for low

temperature helium

Nu L 0.59 RaL0.25

For Ra > 109, the

boundary layer is
turbulent

Nu L 0.1RaL0.33
Example
USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

10

Pool Boiling Heat Transfer (e.g. Helium)

Liquid

Factors affecting heat

transfer curve

Surface condition
(roughness, insulators,
oxidation)

Orientation

Channels (circulation)

Time to develop steady

state (transient heating)

Heated
Surface

Q
USPAS Short Course

Note: Other cryogenic fluids have basically

the same behavior, although the numerical
values of q and T are different.
Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

11

Nucleate Boiling Heat Transfer

Nucleate boiling is the principal heat transfer mechanism for

static liquids below the peak heat flux (q* ~ 10 kW/m2 for helium)
Requirements for nucleate boiling

Must have a thermal boundary layer of superheated liquid near the

surface

th =

k f T
q

~ 1 to 10 m for helium

Must have surface imperfections that act as nucleation sites for

formation of vapor bubbles.

USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

12

Critical Radius of Vapor Bubble

Pv

PL

Pv = PL +

2
r

is the surface tension

Critical radius: For a given T, p, the bubble radius that determines

whether the bubble grows of collapses

r > rc and the bubble will grow

r < rc and the bubble will collapse

Estimate the critical radius of a bubble using thermodynamics

Clausius Clapeyron relation defines the slope of the vapor pressure line
in terms of fundamental properties

h fg
h fg p
s
dp
=

=
dT sat v T (vv vL ) RT 2
USPAS Short Course

If the gas can be approximated as ideal

and vv >> vL

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

13

Critical radius calculation

Integrating the Clausius Clapeyron relation between

ps and ps + 2/r

2 h fg T
rc =
e
ps

2RTs2

h fg ps T

Example: helium at 4.2 K (NBP)

RT 2

Empirical evidence indicates that T ~ 0.3 K

This corresponds to rc ~ 17 nm
Number of helium molecules in bubble ~ 10,000
Bubble has sufficient number of molecules to be treated as
a thermodynamic system

Actual nucleate boiling heat transfer involves

heterogeneous nucleation of bubbles on a surface. This is
more efficient than homogeneous nucleation and occurs
for smaller T.

USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

14

Nucleate Boiling Heat Transfer He I

Note that hnb is not constant because Q ~ T2.5

USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

15

Nucleate Boiling Heat Transfer Correlations

The mechanism for bubble formation and detachment is very complex

and difficult to model
Engineering correlations are used for analysis

Kutateladse correlation

h
kl

1/ 2

qC pl l
4
= 3 .25 10
h fg v k l

1/ 2

0 .6

g l
l

g l

3/ 2

0 .125

(g )1 / 2
l

0 .7

Rearranging into a somewhat simpler form,

9
q = 1.90 10 g l
l

0.3125

1.75

1.5

l C p

v h fg

1.5

kl

2.5
(Ts Tb )

1/ 2

where
g l
USPAS Short Course

q (W / cm 2 ) = 5.8T 2.5
Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

For helium at 4.2 K

16

Peak Heat Flux (theory)

Understanding the peak nucleate boiling heat flux is based on
empirical arguments due to instability in the vapor/liquid flow

Instability in the vapor-liquid boundary

vL

vv

vL

vv
vv

vL

vv

vL

Instability due to balance between surface energy and kinetic energy

c2 =

L v
2
2
(
)

v
v
L
( L + v ) ( L + v )2

Transition to unstable condition when c2 = 0

USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

17

Peak Heat Flux Correlations

Zuber correlation:

( l v )g l
q Khfg v

+
v
v
l

Empirical based on Zuber Correlation

q 0.16h fg v 2 [g ( l v )]
1

~ 8.5 kW/m2 for He I at 4.2 K

Limits:

Tc; q*

0; q* ~ v1/2 (decreases)

q*max near 3.6 K for LHe

USPAS Short Course

0 since hfg 0 and

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

18

Film Boiling

Film boiling is the stable condition when the surface is blanketed

by a layer of vapor

Film boiling heat transfer coefficient is generally much less that that
in nucleate boiling
Minimum film boiling heat flux, qmfb is related to the stability of the
less dense vapor film under the more dense liquid
liquid
vapor

~ 10 m

Q
Taylor Instability governs the collapse of the vapor layer
USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

19

Film Boiling Heat Transfer Correlations

Factors affecting the process

Fluid properties: Cp, hfg, , l, v

Fluid state: saturated or pressurized (subcooled)
Heater geometry (flat plate, cylinder, etc.)

Breen-Westwater correlation
1/ 8

h fb
g ( l v )

v (Ts Tb )

3
kv v (l v )g '

1/ 4

1/ 2

= 0.37 + 0.28
2
gD ( l v )
Where,

[h
' =

Simplified form for large diameter

g ( l v )
h fb = 0.37

1/ 8

USPAS Short Course

k v ( l v )g '

v (Ts Tb )
3
v

1/ 4

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

fg

+ 0.34C pv (Ts Tb )

h fg

q (Ts T f )

20

Minimum film boiling heat flux

qmfb

g ( l v )
= 0.16h fg v
2
(l + v )

Dimensionless ratio:

qmfb
q*

v
=

v
l

USPAS Short Course

0.9

LHe @ 4.2 K
Film boiling

Q/S, W/cm2

Transition boiling

Minimum film boiling heat

flux is less than the peak
heat flux
Recovery to nucleate
boiling state is associated
with Taylor Instability.

Nucleate boiling

0.3

qmfb

(Ts-Tb), K

~ 0.36 for LHe @ 4.2 K

~ 0.1 @ 2.2 K
~ 1 @ Tc = 5.2 K
~ 0.09 for LN2 @ 80 K where q* ~ 200 kW/m2
Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

21

Prediction of Nucleate/Film Boiling for Helium

USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

22

Experimental Heat Transfer (Helium)

USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

23

Prediction of Nucleate/Film Boiling for Nitrogen

USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

24

Experimental Heat Transfer (Nitrogen)

USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

25

Internal two phase flow

Heat transfer depends on

various factors

Ts

Mass flow rate

Orientation w/r/t gravity
Flow regime
Quality ()
Void fraction ()

Q
m&

,T

Total heat transfer rate

QT = Q fc + Qb
where: Qfc is convective and
gravity enhanced boiling.

m&

Qb is

Ts
Q

Depending on factors above, either

contribution may dominate
USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

26

,T

Horizontal flow two phase heat transfer

,T

Q
Consider the case where gravitational effects are negligible

m&

Ts

Horizontal flow at moderate Re so that inertial forces dominate

Correlation based on enhanced Nusselt number

Nu 2
Nu L

= f ( tt )

where tt = 1 x
x

and Nu L = 0.023 Re

0.8
L

0.4
L

Pr

0.9

L

v

Re L =

0.1

v

L

0.5

m& (1 x )
L A flow

Typical correlation (de la Harpe):

Nu 2
Nu L

A tt m

1 for tt large

with m ~ 0.385 and A ~ 5.4

USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

27

Vertical channel heat transfer

Main difference between

this problem and pool boiling
is that the fluid is confined
within channel
At low mass flow rate and
self driven flows (natural
circulation) the heat
transfer is governed by
buoyancy effects
Process is correlated against
classical boiling heat
transfer models
In the limit of large D the
correlation is similar to pool
boiling heat transfer
(vertical surface)
USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

m&

,T

D
Ts
Q

28

Vertical channel maximum heat flux

Critical flow in an evaporator

Empirical observations

q* ~ w for small w
q* ~ z-1/2 for w/z < 0.1
q* ~ constant for w/z
>> 1

USPAS Short Course

w h fg v
q =
z 2
*

and

g c ln[1 + c ( 1)]
1

c ( 1)
1

c = mv m&
&

l
v

Critical quality

max ~ 0.3 for helium

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

29

Example: Cryogenic Stability of Composite

Superconductors (LTS in LHe @ 4.2 K)

Used in large magnets where flux jumping and other small disturbances
are possible and must be arrested
General idea: in steady state ensure that cooling rate exceeds heat
generation rate (Q > G)
Achieved by manufacturing conductor with large copper (or aluminum)
fraction and cooling surface
Lower overall current density
G/S
I2R/S
Potentially high AC loss (eddy currents)
Current
Sharing

Composite Conductor
Copper/Aluminum stabilizer
Insulating spacer (G-10)
NbTi/Nb3Sn

Tb (K) Tcs (K)

Fully
normal

Tc (K)

T (K)

Icu
Isc
V=IcuRcu

USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

30

Cryogenic Stability (LHe @ 4.2 K)

Case 1: Unconditional stability, recovery to fully superconducting state
occurs uniformly over length of normal zone
Case 2: Cold End recovery (Equal area criterion): Excess cooling capacity
(area A) > Excess heat generation (area B)

Q/S
or
G/S

Tb (K)

Tcs (K)

USPAS Short Course

Tc (K)

Q/S is the LHe boiling heat

transfer curve for bath cooling
normalized per surface area
G/S is the two part heat generation
Curve for a composite superconductor
Tcs is the temperature at which Top = Tc

Tx (K)

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

31

Transient Heat Transfer

Heat transfer processes that occur on time scale short compared to

boundary layer thermal diffusion. Why is this important in cryogenics?
(Dth (copper) ~ 10-4 m2/s @ 300 K; ~ 1 m2/s @ 4 K)
Normal liquid helium has a low thermal conductivity and large heat
capacity

Df=

q
T(x)

th

th =

kf

Lumped capacitance condition: Bi =

~ 3 x 10-8 m2/s (LHe @ 4.2 K)

(D t )

~ 3 x 10-4 t1/2 [m] for LHe @ 4.2 K

~ 1.5 t1/2 [m] for copper @ 4.2 K

hL
<< 1 ~ 10L [m]
k

Note that this subject is particularly relevant to cooling

superconducting magnets, with associated transient thermal processes
Important parameters to determine

E = q t* (critical energy)

T surface temperature during heat transfer

USPAS Shorts Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

32

Transient Heat Transfer to LHe @ 4.2 K

Time evolution of the temperature difference following a step heat input:
Steady state is reached after ~ 0.1 s

USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

33

Critical Energy for Transition to Film Boiling

Hypothesis: The critical energy is determined by the amount of
energy that must be applied to vaporize a layer of liquid adjacent
to the heated surface.

Energy required

E = l h fg th

Layer thickness determined by diffusion

th =

(D t )
f

Critical flux based on heat diffusion:

kl

q = l h fg
*
2
l Ct
*

q*

LHe

th

~ 0.09 t-1/2 [W/cm2] @ 4.2 K

USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

34

Surface Temperature (Transient HT)

During transient heat transfer, the surface temperature will be higher

than the surrounding fluid due to two contributions:

Fluid layer diffusion: transient conduction in the fluid layer will result in a
finite temperature difference
Kapitza conductance: At low temperatures, there can be a significant
temperature difference, Tk, due to thermal impedance mismatch (more on
this subject later). This process is dominant at very low temperatures, but
is small above ~ 4 K, so is normally only important for helium systems.

Fluid layer diffusion equation:

2 T f
x 2

k
1 T f
=
; Df =
D f t
C p

Boundary conditions:

Tf (x,0) = 0; initial condition

Tf (infinity, t) = 0; isothermal bath
q = -kf dTf/dt)x=0 ; heat flux condition
Solid is isothermal (Bi = hL/k << 1)

USPAS Short Course

Solution is a standard second order

differential equation with two
spatial and one time boundary
condition.

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

35

Transient diffusion solution

Integrating the diffusion equation:

12

x2
x
q Df t

xerfc
exp
2
T f =
1
2

2(D t )
kf
f
4D f t

Evaluating at x = 0 (surface of heater)

12

2q t
T f ( x = 0 ) =
C p k f

Tf

The transient heat transfer coefficient can then be defined

C p k f

h=

=
2
T f

0.1
t

12

; kW/m2K for helium near 4 K

At t = 10 s; h ~ 30 kW/m2 K and for q = 10 kW/m2; Tf ~ 0.3 K

Note: this value of h >> hnb (nucleate boiling HT coefficient)

USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

36

Summary Cryogenic Heat Transfer

Single phase heat transfer correlations for classical fluids are

generally suitable for cryogenic fluids

Two phase heat transfer also based on classical correlations

Free convection
Forced convection
Nucleate boiling
Peak heat flux
Film boiling

Transient heat transfer is governed by diffusive process for T

and onset of film boiling

USPAS Short Course

Boston, MA 6/14 to 6/18/2010

37