The experimental data accessible in the open literature related to pool boiling of liquid hydrogen (LH2), liquid methane (LCH4), and liquid oxygen (LO2) were compiled. Pool nucleate boiling of LH2 data were compiled from 17 sources, and pool film boiling of LH2 data were compiled from six sources. Pool nucleate boiling of LCH4 data were collected from eight sources, and useful data for pool film boiling of LCH4 were found from only three sources, all representing boiling on the outside surface of horizontal cylinders. For LO2, pool nucleate boiling data from 11 sources were compiled, and useful pool film boiling data could be found from only four sources, three for horizontal cylinders and one for vertical cylinders. The predictions of 19 pool nucleate and 10 pool film boiling correlations were compared with experimental data for the three cryogens. The film boiling data were only compared with appropriate models and correlations based on surface geometry and orientation.

Overall, pool nucleate boiling data for all three fluids display considerable scatter, and existing correlations are unable to effectively narrow the scatter to better than an order of magnitude. The correlations of Stephan and Abdelsalam (1980) and Forster and Zuber (1955) perform best for LH2, and can predict the bulk of the existing heat flux data within an order of magnitude. They can predict respectively, 38% and 27% of the data within a factor of two. The correlations of Bier and Lambert (1990) and Forster and Zuber (1955) perform best for nucleate boiling of LCH4 and can predict the bulk of the existing heat flux data within an order of magnitude. They can predict respectively, 58% and 49% of the data within a factor of two. For LO2, the correlations of Forster and Zuber (1955) and Bier and Lambert (1990) provide the best agreement with experimental data for nucleate pool boiling, and can predict the heat flux data within an order of magnitude. They could predict respectively, 50% and 47% of the data within a factor of two.

The film boiling data show smaller scatter in comparison with nucleate boiling, and can be predicted by existing correlations with reasonable accuracy.

汇编了公开文献中与液态氢（LH2），液态甲烷（LCH4）和液态氧（LO2）的池沸腾有关的实验数据。LH2数据的池核沸腾数据来自17个来源，LH2数据的池膜沸腾数据来自六个数据源。LCH4的池核沸腾数据来自八个来源，而LCH4的池膜沸腾有用数据仅来自三个来源，所有数据均代表水平圆柱体的外表面沸腾。对于LO2，汇编了来自11个来源的池核沸腾数据，并且仅从四个来源中可以找到有用的池膜沸腾数据，其中三个用于水平圆柱体，一个用于垂直圆柱体。将19个池核和10个池膜沸腾相关性的预测与三种冷冻剂的实验数据进行了比较。仅根据表面几何形状和方向，将膜沸腾数据与适当的模型和相关性进行比较。

总体而言，所有三种流体的池核沸腾数据都显示出相当大的分散性，并且现有的相关性无法有效地将分散性缩小到一个数量级以上。Stephan和Abdelsalam（1980）以及Forster和Zuber（1955）的相关性对于LH2表现最佳，并且可以在一个数量级内预测大量现有热通量数据。他们可以分别在两倍的范围内预测38％和27％的数据。Bier和Lambert（1990）以及Forster和Zuber（1955）的相关性对于LCH4的核沸腾表现最佳，并且可以在一个数量级内预测大量现有热通量数据。他们可以在两倍的范围内分别预测58％和49％的数据。对于LO2，Forster和Zuber（1955）以及Bier和Lambert（1990）的相关性与核池沸腾的实验数据提供了最好的一致性，并且可以在一个数量级内预测热通量数据。他们可以在两倍的范围内分别预测50％和47％的数据。

与核沸腾相比，膜沸腾数据显示出较小的散射，并且可以通过现有的相关关系以合理的准确性进行预测。