Jonathan Van Noord 

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

A Heat Transfer Investigation of Liquid 

and Two-Phase Methane

NASA/TM—2010-216918

November 2010
NASA STI Program . . . in Profi le

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scientifi c and Technical Information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices 

of the Agency Chief Information Offi cer. It collects, 

organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates 

NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access 

to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and 

its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports 

Server, thus providing one of the largest collections 

of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

Results are published in both non-NASA channels 

and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which 

includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major signifi cant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of signifi cant 

scientifi c and technical data and information 

deemed to be of continuing reference value. 

NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and extent of 

graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientifi c 

and technical fi ndings that are preliminary or 

of specialized interest, e.g., quick release 

reports, working papers, and bibliographies that 

contain minimal annotation. Does not contain 

extensive analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientifi c and 

technical fi ndings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientifi c and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientifi c, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientifi c and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include creating custom 

thesauri, building customized databases, organizing 

and publishing research results.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question via the Internet to help@

sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk 

at 443–757–5803

• Telephone the NASA STI Help Desk at

 443–757–5802

• Write to:

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI)

 7115 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076–1320
Jonathan Van Noord 

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

A Heat Transfer Investigation of Liquid 

and Two-Phase Methane

NASA/TM—2010-216918

November 2010

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Prepared for the

57th Joint Army-Navy-NASA-Air Force (JANNAF) Propulsion Meeting 

sponsored by the JANNAF Interagency Propulsion Committee

Colorado Springs, Colorado, May 3–7, 2010
Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge the PCAD project for its support of this work. The author would also 

like to acknowledge Pratt & Whitney—Rocketdyne and Mr. Ben Stiegemeier of ASRC 

for their interactions and discussions about the data and testing.

Available from

NASA Center for Aerospace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076–1320

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Road

Alexandria, VA 22312

Available electronically at http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov

Trade names and trademarks are used in this report for identifi cation 

only. Their usage does not constitute an offi cial endorsement, 

either expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration.

Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by technical management. 
NASA/TM—2010-216918 1

A Heat Transfer Investigation of Liquid and Two-Phase Methane

Jonathan Van Noord 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Abstract

A heat transfer investigation was conducted for liquid and two-phase methane. The tests were 

conducted at the NASA Glenn Research Center Heated Tube Facility (HTF) using resistively heated tube 

sections to simulate conditions encountered in regeneratively cooled rocket engines. This testing is part of 

NASA’s Propulsion and Cryogenics Advanced Development (PCAD) project. Nontoxic propellants, such 

as liquid oxygen/liquid methane (LO2/LCH4), offer potential benefits in both performance and safety over 

equivalently sized hypergolic propulsion systems in spacecraft applications. Regeneratively cooled thrust 

chambers are one solution for high performance, robust LO2/LCH4 engines, but cooling data on methane 

is limited. Several test runs were conducted using three different diameter Inconel 600 tubes, with 

nominal inner diameters of 0.0225-, 0.054-, and 0.075-in. The mass flow rate was varied from 0.005 to

0.07 lbm/sec. As the current focus of the PCAD project is on pressure fed engines for LO2/LCH4, the 

average test section outlet pressures were targeted to be 200 psia or 500 psia. The heat flux was 

incrementally increased for each test condition while the test section wall temperatures were monitored. A 

maximum average heat flux of 6.2 Btu/in.

2 • sec was achieved and, at times, the temperatures of the test 

sections reached in excess of 1800 °R. The primary objective of the tests was to produce heat transfer 

correlations for methane in the liquid and two-phase regime. For two-phase flow testing, the critical heat 

flux values were determined where the fluid transitions from nucleate boiling to film boiling. A secondary 

goal of the testing was to measure system pressure drops in the two-phase regime.

Introduction

Developing new propulsion capabilities is imperative for the future of NASA’s missions. These 

advances require performance improvements that would enable a lower system mass. Propellants that 

would allow for a lower system mass would result in a lower cost of vehicle development or allow for 

larger payloads. Propellants, such as liquid oxygen/liquid methane (LO2/LCH4), offer potential benefits in 

both performance and safety over equivalently sized hypergolic propulsion systems in spacecraft 

applications such as ascent stage engines or service module engines.

NASA’s Propulsion and Cryogenic Advanced Development (PCAD) project is supporting 

experimental and analytical work into propulsion systems that use nontoxic propellants. The PCAD 

project is specifically developing LO2/LCH4 reaction control system thrusters, LO2/LCH4 ascent engines,

and LO2/LH2 descent main engine development. One solution for high performance, robust LO2/LCH4

engines would be to use a regeneratively cooled thrust chamber, but cooling data on methane is very

limited. This data is essential to properly design regenerative engines.

The primary objective for the investigation presented here was to produce heat transfer correlations 

for methane in the liquid and two-phase regime below critical pressure and appropriate for application to 

pressure-fed engines. For two-phase flow testing, critical heat flux values were determined where 

nucleate boiling transitions to film boiling. A secondary goal of the testing was to measure system 

pressure drops in the two-phase regime. To acquire this data, electrically heated tube tests were conducted 

for flow velocities from 8.1 to 157 ft/sec, outlet pressures ranging from 212 to 565 psia, inlet pressures 

ranging from 227 to 801 psia, and methane subcooling from 188 to 255 °R.
NASA/TM—2010-216918 2

Test Facility, Hardware, and Procedure

Tests were conducted in the NASA Glenn Research Center Heated Tube Facility. This facility was 

developed for simulating the heat flux conditions of a regeneratively cooled liquid rocket engine 

combustion chamber and is described in Reference 1. The facility has been adapted to use liquid methane 

as the working fluid and the components used for this present investigation are summarized here.

Facility

A simplified schematic of the test setup is shown in Figure 1. The test section was mounted vertically 

inside a vacuum chamber with a maximum pressure of 0.01 psi (69 Pa). The vacuum environment 

prevented heat loss through convection and provided improved safety and containment if a test sample 

failed and resulted in a fuel leak. The test section was heated electrically by passing a current through the 

tube using a 1500 A, 100 V DC power supply. The methane was stored in a 16 gal insulated storage tank 

where the supply pressure was varied up to 1530 psia. For this test, the flow was controlled through the 

use of two cavitating venturis and a variation of supply pressures. It was observed that the venturis 

become partially obstructed during the testing, so while they controlled the flow, they proved to be 

inaccurate for calculating the flowrate. Therefore, the flow was measured using a turbine flow meter and 

recorded to an accuracy of ±0.001 lbm/sec. The flow meter was calibrated for flows up to 1.5 gpm

(~0.09 lbm/sec methane). The fluid temperature and pressure were measured at the inlet and exit of the 

test section to an accuracy of ±4 °R and ±0.4 percent, respectively. The heat input was determined by 

recording the voltage and current applied to the test section to an accuracy of ±1 percent. The facility and 

research instrumentation were recorded on the facility’s data system at a rate of one complete cycle per 

second.

Figure 1.—Simplified test setup for Heated Tube Facility cryogen operation.
NASA/TM—2010-216918 3

Test Hardware

There were four test sections fabricated out of Inconel 600 tubes with three different diameters. All of 

the test samples had wall thicknesses of 0.020 ± 0.002 in. The inner diameter of two of the samples was 

0.083 in., one was 0.056 in., and one was 0.026 in. The varying diameters allowed for a variety of fluid 

velocities for a small number of mass flow rates. The test section with the smallest inner diameter of 

0.026 in. had test section pressure drops up to 1000 psi and the data were not included in this paper. The 

total test section lengths were 14.5 in. and were connected to 0.25 in. tubing at the inlet. Each test section 

had 5 in. that was electrically heated. A length of 6.0 in. (L/D >100) was provided before the start of the 

heated section to allow for flow development. Rectangular copper bus bars (1- by 3- by 0.25-in.) were 

brazed to the tube to provide electrical coupling to the power supplies. 

The test sections were instrumented with type K thermocouples spot welded directly to surface of the 

tube. There were a total of 15 thermocouples on each test section with 11 on the heated section and two 

on the entrance and exit portions. The thermocouples were typically placed at 0.5 in. intervals in the 

heated section and 0.1 in. from each side of the bus bars. Figure 2 shows the typical arrangement of 

thermocouples. For the analysis presented in this paper, the wall thermocouples were primarily used to 

determine when the transition to film boiling occurred, also known as the critical heat flux. 

Procedure

A typical test run started by cooling the 16 gal supply tank with liquid nitrogen flowing through 

tubing attached between the supply tank and insulation surrounding the tank. Once the supply tank was 

cooled to 260 °R, methane at 205 to 220 °R was transferred into the tank. The methane was then allowed 

to cool using LN2 over a few hours to ≤190 °R. The boiling point of methane at atmospheric pressure is 

201 °R. Once the methane was at the desired temperature, the supply tank was pressurized to 700 to 

1500 psia with helium. At this point, the back pressure controller was set and the methane would flow

until the sample reached a steady state temperature. The flow rate was adjusted by varying the supply tank 

pressure and allowing flow through one or both of the cavitating venturis. The test setup allows for 

parallel flow through two venturis for gross flowrate adjustments. The power supplies were then enabled 

and the power was incrementally increased with a pause to evaluate the response of the test section.

Initially, there were many smaller incremental increases, but as the data was collected and confidence 

grew in the approximate value of the critical heat flux, the initial power steps were increased.

On most runs, the first objective was to determine the critical heat flux for a given condition. When 

the critical heat flux is reached, the temperature at one thermocouple (usually at the end of the heated 

section of the tube) shows a dramatic increase. Once the critical heat flux is reached, the power is 

immediately reduced to avoid damaging the sample. If it is not obvious that the critical heat flux is 

reached, as was typical with pressures >450 psia, the power was increased until test section temperatures 

reached 1400 to 1800 °R. Once the critical heat flux was exceeded in this testing, the test section wall 

temperature typically increased on the order of 200 to 300 °F per second. Figure 3 shows the temperature 

of the furthest downstream thermocouple of the heated section, the average applied heat flux, and the 

outlet temperature that demonstrates this type of response. In some tests, the temperature achieved a 

steady state temperature below the material limits and power could continue to be added as shown in 

Figure 4. This slower response allowed for ample time to protect the test article from temperatures that 

could compromise its integrity, and there were no tube failures in this testing. Figure 5 is a typical plot 

showing the outer wall temperature at the end of the heated portion of the test section versus the applied 

heat flux. Initially during nucleate boiling, the temperature changes minimally for increasing heat flux, 

until film boiling is triggered and there is a rapid increase in wall temperature for a small amount of heat 

flux applied. Figure 6 shows what the test sample looked like when the critical heat flux is encountered.
NASA/TM—2010-216918 4

Figure 2.—Schematic and photograph of test section hardware and instrumentation. Figure 

not to scale.

Figure 3.—Temperatures and heat flux profile demonstrating critical heat flux.

0.1 in.

0.1 in.

0.1 in.

0.25 in.

0.5 in.

0.4 in.

0.5 in.

0.5 in.

0.5 in.

0.5 in.

0.5 in.

0.5 in.

0.5 in.

0.5 in.

0.4 in.

0.1 in.

0.5 in.

5.0 in.

3.0 in.

6.0 in.

14.5 in.

0.25 in.

Flow 

Direction

Thermocouple
NASA/TM—2010-216918 5

Figure 4.—Test case showing temperatures and heat flux prior to and after 

encountering the critical heat flux.

Figure 5.—Typical heat flux versus wall temperature showing the different 

modes of heat transfer with increasing heat flux.
NASA/TM—2010-216918 6

Figure 6.—An image of the test sample after the critical heat flux is encountered. Typically, the 

exit end of the test sample rapidly increased in temperature when the critical heat flux was 

encountered.

Results and Discussion

A summary of test conditions is given in Table 1. These test points represent either critical heat fluxes 

or the maximum heating for a given flow rate and pressure. Table 2 describes the test section diameters 

for the various test runs. The maximum heating occurred after transitioning through the critical heat flux 

or when the temperature on the test section wall exceeded 1400 °R when the critical heat flux was not 

obvious. During test runs 41 to 45, the flow meter failed, but the flow rates were estimated based on the 

pressure drops for that test sample. The pressure drop-flow rate relationship is shown in Figure 7.

Test Section

Electrical 

Connection

Onset of Film 

Boiling Location

Fuel Flow
NASA/TM—2010-216918 7

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF TEST CONDITIONS AND RESULTS

[Shaded cells are for test points with pressures at end of heated section < 300 psia.

Test points correspond to critical heat flux or maximum heating achieved for a test run.]

Test 

run

Flow 

rate,

lbm/s

Inlet Outlet ∆P,

psi

Calculated at transition Vel.,

ft/s

V∆Tsub,

°F-ft/sec

Applied 

heat,

Btu/in.2 sec

CHF point 

or

outlet 

state†

Temp.,

°R

Press.,

psia

Temp.,

°R

Press.,

psia

Press.,

psia

Bulk 

temp.,

°R

Tsat

°R

1 0.047 216 270 259 236 34 249 259 291 47.2 1610 1.31 CHF

2 0.047 216 254 258 224 30 236 256 289 48.1 1690 1.23 CHF

3 0.044 214 257 268 231 26 44.4 1.49 L

4 0.016 228 234 274 225 8 16.4 0.95 2-phs

5 0.016 229 397 275 391 5 16.4 1.17 2-phs

6 0.013 244 522 316 518 4 12.7 1.16 2-phs

7 0.011 234 524 314 520 4 10.9 0.78 2-phs

8 0.051 211 272 259 273 -1 278 254 297 50.9 2280 1.39 CHF

9 0.050 211 271 263 273 -2 49.9 1.64 L

10 0.050 211 270 264 271 -1 49.9 1.65 L

11 0.049 208 568 253 571 -2 576 248 335 49.0 4320 1.23 CHF

12 0.046 208 565 306 570 -5 46.2 3.09 L

13 0.044 205 565 255 573 -7 575 252 335 43.4 3670 1.31 CHF

14 0.043 207 559 297 568 -7 43.4 2.56 L

15 0.044 207 276 254 281 -5 284 254 298 44.4 2030 1.36 CHF

16 0.043 206 272 259 278 -5 43.4 1.46 L

17 0.009 254 266 273 255 10 19.8 0.97 2-phs

18 0.068 200 779 259 290 497 455 258 322 148.6 9350 3.67 CHF

19 0.072 198 762 271 290 483 156.7 4.84 L

20 0.025 210 314 262 282 33 296 265 300 54.5 2030^ 1.25 CHF

21 0.024 210 307 263 281 26 52.5 1.40 L/ 2-phs

22 0.024 212 312 263 280 32 293 268 299 52.5 1900^ 1.24 CHF

23 0.023 212 309 265 280 30 40.4 1.34 L/2-phs

24 0.047 200 801 309 566 242 101.5 6.19 L/2-phs

25 0.037 207 697 262 577 121 619 273 339 79.1 6040^ 2.25 CHF

26 0.036 200 699 299 585 118 77.0 3.96 L/2-phs

27 0.036 197 670 298 569 105 77.0 4.08 2-phs

28 0.038 196 709 318 542 172 81.1 5.11 L/2-phs

29 0.038 195 712 319 545 172 83.1 5.21 L/2-phs

30 0.021 200 601 315 543 59 44.3 2.62 L/2-phs

31 0.020 201 598 324 538 61 42.2 2.93 2-phs

32 0.025 201 318 264 240 79 264 268 294 54.5 1640^ 1.54 CHF

33 0.042 191 466 255 243 227 314 262 302 91.3 4280^ 2.73 CHF

34 0.041 192 461 255 241 222 89.3 2.79 L/2-phs

35 0.040 192 464 250 240 226 87.2 2.53 L/2-phs

36 0.040 192 461 256 238 227 307 265 301 87.2 3960^ 2.73 CHF

37 0.040 191 453 256 240 215 87.2 2.83 L/2-phs

38 0.024 215 610 315 519 93 52.5 2.94 L/2-phs

39 0.042 199 478 256 222 259 300 262 300 91.3 4050^ 2.46 CHF

40 0.040 199 474 257 217 259 293 268 299 87.2 3670^ 2.61 CHF

41 0.030* 223 668 285 512 156 548 285 332 66.1* 3950^ 2.52 CHF

42 0.025* 202 317 255 214 103 238 255 289 54.7* 1960^ 1.60 CHF

43 0.025* 199 314 257 213 100 237 257 289 54.0* 1820^ 1.63 CHF

44 0.028* 195 349 255 217 133 247 255 291 61.2* 2360^ 1.90 CHF

45 0.022* 201 575 260 507 68 523 260 329 47.0* 3430^ 1.47 CHF

46 0.046 197 276 248 217 60 235 261 289 45.3 1830^ 1.89 CHF

47 0.035 198 255 250 215 40 227 266 287 34.1 1280^ 1.49 CHF

48 0.035 198 545 248 510 35 518 329 329 34.1 2750^ 1.40 CHF

49 0.054 194 591 298 515 78 538 324 331 52.7 1720^ 5.02 CHF

50 0.052 195 575 300 501 76 50.9 5.20 2-phs

51 0.008 223 229 273 255 -26 8.1 0.89 2-phs

52 0.050 188 379 233 265 114 297 277 300 49.0 3260^ 2.84 CHF

53 0.049 188 366 247 260 107 49.0 3.82 2-phs

54 0.041 191 330 234 262 68 282 282 297 40.6 2580^ 2.41 CHF

56 0.041 191 345 249 279 66 41.6 3.19 2-phs

* Flows and velocities estimated based on the test section pressure drop

^When bulk temperature at transition exceeds outlet bulk, bulk temperature of outlet used to calculate V∆Tsub.

†CHF= Critical Heat Flux; L=Liquid; L/2-phs= Either Liquid or Two-Phase; 2-phs= Two-Phase

.
NASA/TM—2010-216918 8

TABLE 2.—TEST SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS

Test sample 

number

Inner diameter, 

in.

Outer diameter, 

in.

Test runs 

1 0.083 0.127 1-19,51-56

2 0.056 0.0945 17-45

3 0.083 0.0127 46-50

Figure 7.—Test section pressure drop compared to flow rate for Test 

Sample Number 2. Fit used to estimate flow for Runs 44 to 48 when 

flow meter failed.

Critical Heat Flux

The critical heat flux was determined for various velocities up to 149 ft/s. The change from nucleate 

to film boiling was quite pronounced for test section pressures less than 300 psia and Figure 3 to Figure 5

are representative of these behaviors. Figure 8 is a plot of the product of the flow velocity and subcooling 

[Vx(Tsat – Tbulk)] versus the critical heat fluxes for test sections less than 300 psia at the point of transition.

These parameters have been successfully used to correlate other fuels as well as water (Refs. 2, 3,and 4).

The saturation temperature used in the V∆Tsub calculation is based on the pressure predicted at the 

transition point. The test section pressure is based on the measured inlet and outlet pressures and is 

determined by assuming a linear pressure decrease along the test section and with a pressure change as 

the fluid changes velocities from the larger 1⁄4 in. fuel inlet line to the smaller diameter test section.

The fluid bulk temperature was determined using the average heat flux and flow rate to determine the 

amount the enthalpy increases from the measured inlet condition. The calculated pressure and enthalpy at 

a given location was then used to determine the fluid bulk temperature. The NIST standard reference 

database 23, version 7 was used to correlate temperature, pressure and enthalpy. Figure 9 shows the bulk 

temperature prediction based on this technique for one of the runs. In this case the bulk temperatures 

agree well. However, there were cases where the bulk temperatures predicted when heating began agreed 

well, but as the heating continued they substantially deviated. Figure 10 shows an example of this case.

The model assumes that all of the heat flux added increases the fluid temperature until saturation 

temperature is reached and then two-phase flow occurs. This is also indicated by the prediction of quality 

that rises above zero corresponding to two-phase flow after 500 sec in Figure 10. The quality is calculated 

based on the outlet pressure and the calculated enthalpy.

However, it is speculated that the methane is vaporized into a gas hotter than the saturation 

temperature and does not condense back into the fluid by the time it passes the outlet pressure and 
NASA/TM—2010-216918 9

temperature instruments. This could result in a cooler fluid measurement than expected as shown in 

Figure 10. It should also be noted that for the case shown in Figure 10, it was with the largest diameter 

test section and the bulk temperature at the inlet is 25 to 30 °R cooler than the case shown in Figure 9. It 

is thought that these conditions have reduced the mixing effectiveness and resulted in this two-phase flow 

at fluid temperatures below saturation temperature. In the cases where the bulk temperature was predicted 

to be higher than the measured outlet temperature, the measured outlet temperature was used for the bulk 

temperature in the V∆Tsub calculation. Figure 8 also includes the critical heat fluxes for runs where the 

flow was determined by the pressure drop. In those cases, the outlet bulk temperature was also used as the 

bulk temperature in the V∆Tsub calculation.

Figure 8.—Methane critical heat flux data for pressures from 235 to 300 psia.

Flow rate for data represented by open squares determined by relationship 

shown in Figure 7.

Figure 9.—Predicted bulk fluid temperature at the outlet along with fuel 

quality predicted based on enthalpy.
NASA/TM—2010-216918 10

Figure 10.—Predicted bulk fluid temperature at the outlet along with fuel 

quality predicted based on enthalpy. A test run is shown with a larger 

difference between the predicted and measure bulk fluid temperature.

Figure 11.—Typical test section response for increasing heat flux with 

pressures higher than 450 psia. Critical heat flux is less obvious.

For test section pressures above 450 psia, the critical heat flux was less obvious. A plot of the test 

section outer wall temperature versus the heat flux is shown in Figure 11. At the higher pressures, the 

change in slope of the test section outer wall temperature versus the heat flux is gradual and does not have 

the same kind of “knee” as seen in Figure 5. The critical heat flux in this case is defined as the point when 

the slope changes. As seen in Figure 11, this is not a large change in slope, and almost double the heat 

flux was still able to be applied after the critical heat flux and before the test sample outer wall 

temperature reached 1100 °R. Figure 12 shows the critical heat flux correlation for the higher pressures.
NASA/TM—2010-216918 11

As seen with other fluids, the higher pressure shifts the critical heat flux to higher V∆Tsub (Ref. 2). The 

larger scatter in the data at higher pressure is largely due to the uncertainty of determining the transition 

from nucleate to film boiling as demonstrated in Figure 11. There were a comparable number of runs 

above 450 psia as there were from 235 to 300 psia, but fewer resulted in discernable critical heat flux 

points. 

Pressure Drop

One way to evaluate the effect of two-phase flow on the pressure drop is to observe the change in 

pressure drop as heat flux is increased. Figure 13 shows representative pressure drop variations for two 

different flow rates, 0.041 and 0.051 lbm/s, as the heat flux is increased. Typically, for any test condition 

with a particular flowrate and pressure, the total pressure drop variation was on the order of 10 to 15 psi 

for all of the test runs. Figure 13 also shows the prediction of outlet quality as a function of heat flux for 

two test conditions. This is determined by the outlet pressure and the calculated outlet enthalpy. When the 

quality is above zero, it is predicted that there is two-phase flow with corresponding fraction equal to the 

amount of gas present. For example, 0.1 would mean that there is 10 percent gas phase present. A 

negative value corresponds to liquid only being present. It can be seen from Figure 13 that there is no 

significant change in pressure drop as two-phase flow develops. The slight decrease in the pressure drop 

for the 110 psi case shown when the quality is above 0.0 is not representative of other runs and is not a 

trend associated with two-phase flow. It is not clear at this point what contributed to the slight drop. 

Based on all the runs, two-phase flow does not appear to have a significant effect on the test section 

pressure drop.

Figure 12.—Methane critical heat flux for various pressures. Flow rate for data 

represented by open squares determined by relationship shown in Figure 7.
NASA/TM—2010-216918 12

Figure 13.—Representative pressure drops as heat flux is increased represented by

two different testing conditions. Test runs shown are for a 0.127 in. outer diameter 

sample with calculated transition pressures between 280 to 300 psia. The flowrate 

for the 65 psi pressure drop was 0.041 lbm/sec and the flowrate for the 110 psi 

pressure drop was 0.050 lbm/sec.

Summary and Conclusions

Testing with subcooled methane in electrically heated tubes was conducted. Fifty-six test points are 

presented comprised of flow velocities from 8.1 to 157 ft/sec, outlet pressures ranging from 212 to 

565 psia, inlet pressures ranging from 227 to 801 psia, methane subcooling from 188 to 255 °R, and 

average heat fluxes up to 6.2 Btu/in.

2 • sec. Critical heat fluxes were determined and plotted as a function 

of V∆Tsub from 1000 to 4000 °F ft/s for pressures from 235 to 300 psia. The change from nucleate to film 

boiling was quite pronounced for test section pressures less than 300 psia. Critical heat fluxes were also 

determined for pressures above 450 psia. The change from nucleate to film boiling was much more subtle 

for test section pressures above 450 psia. Instead of a sharp increase in wall temperature for a small 

amount of increased heat flux, as much as double the critical heat flux was applied before the test sample 

outer wall temperature reached 1100 °R. The total pressure drop variation for any test condition with a 

particular flowrate and pressure was on the order of 10 to 15 psi for the ranges of heat fluxes for any 

given test run. This indicates that two-phase flow did not appear to have a significant effect on the test 

section pressure drop, although predicted fluid quality did not exceed ~10 percent vapor.

References

1. Green, J.M., Pease, G.M., and Meyer, M.L., “A Heated Tube Facility for Rocket Coolant Channel 

Research,” AIAA–95–2936, 1995.

2. Meyer, M.L., Linne, D.L., “Forced Convection Boiling and Critical Heat Flux of Ethanol in 

Electrically Heated Tube Tests,” AIAA–98–1055, 1998.

3. Rousar, D.C., “Correlation of Burnout Heat Flux for Fluids at High velocity and High Subcooling 

Conditions,” MS Thesis, University of California, Davis, 1966.

4. Greisen, D.A., and Rousar, D.C., “Critical Heat Flux Limits for High velocity, High Subcooling 

Water Flows,” AIAA–97–2912, 1997.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01-11-2010 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Memorandum 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

A Heat Transfer Investigation of Liquid and Two-Phase Methane 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Van Noord, Jonathan 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

WBS 253225.04.03.09.02.03 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

E-17494 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

10. SPONSORING/MONITOR'S

 ACRONYM(S)

NASA 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 REPORT NUMBER

NASA/TM-2010-216918 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified-Unlimited 

Subject Category: 20 

Available electronically at http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov 

This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 443-757-5802

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

A heat transfer investigation was conducted for liquid and two-phase methane. The tests were conducted at the NASA Glenn Research 

Center Heated Tube Facility (HTF) using resistively heated tube sections to simulate conditions encountered in regeneratively cooled rocket 

engines. This testing is part of NASA’s Propulsion and Cryogenics Advanced Development (PCAD) project. Nontoxic propellants, such as 

liquid oxygen/liquid methane (LO2/LCH4), offer potential benefits in both performance and safety over equivalently sized hypergolic 

propulsion systems in spacecraft applications. Regeneratively cooled thrust chambers are one solution for high performance, robust 

LO2/LCH4 engines, but cooling data on methane is limited. Several test runs were conducted using three different diameter Inconel 600 

tubes, with nominal inner diameters of 0.0225-, 0.054-, and 0.075-in. The mass flow rate was varied from 0.005 to 0.07 lbm/sec. As the 

current focus of the PCAD project is on pressure fed engines for LO2/LCH4, the average test section outlet pressures were targeted to be 200 

psia or 500 psia. The heat flux was incrementally increased for each test condition while the test section wall temperatures were monitored. 

A maximum average heat flux of 6.2 Btu/in.2 • sec was achieved and, at times, the temperatures of the test sections reached in excess of 

1800 °R. The primary objective of the tests was to produce heat transfer correlations for methane in the liquid and two-phase regime. For 

two-phase flow testing, the critical heat flux values were determined where the fluid transitions from nucleate boiling to film boiling. A 

secondary goal of the testing was to measure system pressure drops in the two-phase regime.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Cryogenic rocket propellants; Liquid propellant; Heat transfer; Methane 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF

 ABSTRACT

UU 

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

18 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email:help@sti.nasa.gov) 

a. REPORT

U 

b. ABSTRACT

U 

c. THIS 

PAGE

U 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

443-757-5802 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18